Harrison Genealogy Repository

Notes

Grandpa was a lovable man, who had no ambition in life at all. His sister Elsie, said he was always like that, even as a child. A bright man, he taught himself mechanical skills and radio repairing in the early years of TV and radio. He also worked in the Newport News S

Always wore a hat, even indoors. ^[S331]

Notes

Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists Who Came to New England between

1623 and 1650 by rederick Lewis Weis, Sixth Edition with additions and

corrections by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., Gen. Pub. Co., Baltimore,

1988 Line 132c.

Lord Mortimer of Wigmore, co. Hereford. See notes RIN 11547 for his

antecedents.

A note on the Internet soc.gen.medieval by Jim Stevens dated SUn, 31

Dec 1995:

'I have finally found the time to go over this posting on the

Mortimers with a fine tooth comb. I was hoping to confirm the

correctness of my own database and possibly add to it. Instead, I am

in a state of confusion. There are several major differences between

what is stated here and what appears in Cokayne and in Weis (Weis

accepts Cokayne as a trustworthy source). I am really hoping someone

out there can clear these discrepancies up - or are the origins of

this powerful family really clouded in such a thick mist? :-)

The following material is excerpted from Homer Beers James Genealogy,

Vol. 2

`MORTIMER (MORTEMER) The family of Mortemer derives its name from

Mortemer (Mortuo-Mari) in Pays-de-Caux at the source of the Eaulne

River. The castle of St. Victor-en-Caux was the chief barony of the

family, which is said to have sprung from a marriage of Walter de St.

Martin and a niece of the Duchess Gonnor.

(some omitted) For this reason Roger was banished by Duke William and

his estates confiscated. He was later pardoned and his possessions

returned with the exception of the castle of Mortemer, which the Duke

had given to Roger's brother, William de Warren I. He contributed

sixty vassals to the fleet of Duke William and it is generally

conceded that he was too old to have been present at Senlac, although

he made a donation to the abbey of St. Ouen in 1074 and died prior to

the compilation of the General Survey. Wace mentions 'Hue de Mortemer'

as having taken part in the battle. Many commentators believe this to

be an error, contending that Wace should have chronicled Roger or his

son, Ralph, or both, because the only recorded Hugh was the son of

Ralph and therefore too young to have participated in this event.

There is no proof, however, that if not of this branch of the family,

a Hugh could not have sprung from another. Eyton says, 'There is

evidence that Roger had two sons in addition to Ralph, namely, Hugh

and William.' Nevertheless, Ralph was certainly Roger's heir.

(more ommitted) Roger de Mortimer, the first of this name upon record

is deemed by some to have been the son of William de Warren, and by

others, of Walter de St. Martin, brother of that William.

(more ommitted) It is further observable of this Roger, that he was by

consanguity allied to the Norman duke Afterwards Kin, by the name of

William the Conqueror, his mother being niece to Gunnora, wife of

Richard, Duke of Normandy, great grandmother to the Conqueror.' The

presumed son of this Roger, was Ralph de Mortimer.'

An `Appendix A' entitled `A note on the relationships between the

families of Mortimer and Warenne' appears in Cokayne (sorry I didn't

note which volume). The last sentence expresses the conclusion: `To

sum up: that some relationship existed between the families Warrene

and Mortemer seems probable, if not certain, but its exact nature has

not at present been discovered'. Has it since been discovered? The

appendix seems to prove that the likelihood of William Warrene and

Roger being brothers is very remote indeed. The appendix also proves

that the Hugh and William sometimes given as sons of Roger in addition

to this heir, Ralph, were almost certainly the sons of another Roger

who has been confused with Mortemer.

`2. Ralph de Mortimer, accompanying the Duke of Normandy in his

expedition against England, was one of his principal commanders at the

decisive battle of Hasting'

(some ommitted) He married Millicent _____. by whom he had issue: 1.

Hugh de Mortimer, his successor. See below 2. William de Mortimer,

Lord of Chelmersh, and afterwards of Netherby 3. Robert de

Mortimer, ancestor of the Mortimers, of Richard's Castle, (presumed

son of or brother of the 1st Hugh de Mortimer, shown as a brother

above), married Margery Ferrers, only daughter and heiress of Hugh de

Ferrers, and grand-daughter of Hugh de Say, Lord of Richard's Castle,

co. Hereford, by which alliance he acquired that, and other

considerable manors, and in the 12th year of Henry II. he certified

his knight's fees of his honor to be in number twenty-three. In

the 17th year of King John he had a grant from the king of all

the lands in Berwick, in Sussex, which had belonged to Mabel de

Say, mother of Margery, his wife, and then in the possession of

Robert Marmion, the younger. He died about the year 1219, and

was succeeded by his son, Hugh. 4. Hawise Mortimer, married

Stephen Earl of Albemarle.'

Cokayne mentions only one child for Ralph - his heir, Hugh, who d. in

1148-50. The Hugh listed as #1 above, as stated below, is said to have

died in 1189. Cokayne gives two children for Hugh (d. 1148/50_ - Roger

and Hugh (d. 1180/1), who married Maud dau. of William Meschin, the

brother of Ranulf I, Earl of Chester. Cokayne makes this younger Hugh

the heir of the elder. The younger Hugh and his wife, Maud, were

parents of two children - a third generation Hugh and Roger. Roger d.

before 19 Aug. 1214 and m. Isabel, dau. of Walkelin de Ferriers.

This is where the Homer Beers James Genealogy (HBJG) and Cokayne come

into the most serious conflict. As outlined below, HBJG has the elder

Hugh's son, Roger (d. 1215) as the heir and progenitor of the later

generations leading to the Earls of March. Cokayne, however, leaves

this Roger completely out of the line of succession and had Roger's

brother, the middle Hugh (d. 1180/1), and then Hugh's son, Roger (d.

bef. 19 Aug. 1214), as the porgenitors. There appears to be the

possibility of two Rogers - one the uncle of the other -who are being

confused. There is also a discrepancy regarding the identity of

Roger's wife - the Ferriers girl. HBJG identifies her as Millicent,

dau. of Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby whereas Cokayne identifies her

as Isabel, dau. of Walkelin de Ferriers. I can't help but suspect that

HBJG is confusing his Millicent with Grandpa (or Great Grandpa)

Ralph's wife of the same name - after all the name is not that common.

He was succeeded by his son, Hugh.

`3. Hugh de Mortimer, being a person of a proud and turbulent spirit,

opposed strenuously the accession of King Henry II.

(some ommitted) He married and had issue as follows: 1. Roger de

Mortimer, his successor. See below 2. Hugh de Mortimer, married

Felicia de Sancto Sydonio, and had, by gift of his father, the

manors of Sudbury and Chelmers. 3. Ralph de Mortimer. 4.

William de Mortimer

He died in 1189, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Roger.

4. Roger de Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore, like his predecessors, was in

constant strife with the Welsh.

(some ommitted) This Roger married (1) Millicent Ferrers, dau. of

Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby, and had issue as follows: 1. Hugh

de Mortimer, the eldest son was his successor.

(some ommitted) He married Annora Braose, daughter of William de

Braose (which one?), and had 100 shillings in land with her. But

having been severely wounded in a tournament, died in November, 1227,

leaving no issue, when he was succeeded by his half brother, Ralph. 2.

Daughter #1 ______, Mortimer, married Stephen le Gross. 3. Joane

Mortimer, married Walceline de Beauchamp. See continuation for

Beauchamp Line.

He married (2) Isabel Ferrers, sister and heir of Hugh de Ferrers, of

Oakham, in Rutlandshire, and of Lechelade and Lagebiry in

Gloucestershire. All which lands he inherited upon the death of the

said Hugh Ferrers. Roger and Isabel had three sons as follows: 1.

Ralph de Mortimer. See below 2. Robert de Mortimer 3.

Philip de Mortimer'

As alluded to in my previous comment, Cokayne gives only one wife for

Roger - Isabel, dau. of Walkelin de Feriers. Cokayne lists their

children as Ralph, Hugh, Robert, and Philip. This makes Hugh and Ralph

full (not half) brothers as claimed by HBJG immediately below. `He

died in 1215, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Hugh.

5. Ralph de Mortimer, half-brother to Hugh, succeeded him at his

death.

(some ommitted) ....so that Prince Llewellyn, seeing that he could not

successfully cope with him, gave him his daughter Gladys (Gladuse)

Dhu, daughter of Llewellyn the Great, and widow of Reginald de Braose,

in marriage, and by this lady he had issue as follows: 1. Roger

de Mortimer, his successor. See below. 2. Peter John de

Mortimer, a grey friar at Shrewsbury. 3. Hugh de Mortimer, of

Chelmersh 4. Isolda Mortimer, married (1) Walter Balem, and (2)

Hugh Audley, Lord Audley.' I can't find my source for this

(not Cokayne), but I have Isolda as the dau of Edmund of the next

generation. My info says she died in 1336. If she were, as I have her,

the sister of Roger, Earl of march (d. 1330), this would seem logical.

The only thing that makes me a little skeptical of my own info is that

the death date I have for Isolda's husband, Hugh, Lord Audley is 1272

- which would make Isolda a widow for 64 years!

`He died in 1246, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Roger.

6. Roger de Mortimer, in the 31st year of King Henry III.,' From here

on HBJG seems to agree with Cokayne.'