Genealogist, the lands he had held might still be assigned to "the Count of Meulan," till his fiefs were divided among his sons, who were boys at the time of his death. On the whole we may safely assign the survey to 1115-1118, and in any case it cannot possibly be later than the close of II20. As, according to Stapleton, the best authority, it is in this survey that the name of Marmion first appears in England, it may not be inopportune to examine here the accepted pedigree of that house. In the Roger Marmion of our survey we have its undoubted ancestor, but of Robert Marmion, who appears on its opening folio as a tenant of Walter de Gant at Winteringham, one cannot speak so positively. In Domesday Winteringham, as 12 carucates, was held of Gilbert de Gant by "Robertus homo Gilberti" (3546): in our Survey eleven" of these carucates were held of Gilbert's son Walter by Robert Marmion, and the twelfth in capite by Roger Marmion. Mr. Waters (p. 17) identifies the former with the Domesday under-tenant, which is a tempting solution, were not the Domesday Robert also under-tenant at Risby (which was held in our survey not by Marmion, but by Walter de St. Paul). It seems to me more probable that Robert, the under-tenant in our survey, was, as Mr. Waters, contradicting himself, elsewhere observes (p. 14), the son and heir of Roger. Yet of Roger Marmion's estate at Fulstow, Mr. Waters writes (p. 27): "Roger's father, Robert Marmion, was tenant there in Domesday of Robert Dispenser." This would give us an interesting clue. But on turning to Domesday (3636), we find that it is only one more mistake of Mr. Waters, its "Robertus" being no other than Robert Dispenser himself.28 28 Mr. Waters, in error, states two. 23 It is an illustration of the ignorance prevalent on early genealogy that even Mr. Freeman could write of "Mr. Chester Waters, than whom no man better deserves to be listened to on any point of genealogy, Pedigree of Marmion 191 Stapleton, who worked out the descent, held that Roger's son Robert, who had succeeded by 1130, and who was slain in 1143, was father of the Robert who died in 1218. I would rather interpolate another Robcrt between the two: The pedigree really turns on the charter of Henry III. in 1249, to Philip Marmion, confirming the royal charters to his ancestor. Mr. Stapleton declares that Henry inspected and confirmed especially of the Norman genealogy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries" (Eng. Hist. Review, iii. 690). The charter which King Henry, his great-great-grandfather, had made to Robert Marmyon, great-grandfather of Philip Marmyon, of having warren in all his land in the county of Warwick, and especially at Tamworth; and likewise of the charter of King Henry, his uncle ["Avunculus noster" is the reading transcribed on the rolls, obviously in error for "atavus noster"], which he had made to the said Robert of having warren in all his land of Lindesay (Rot. Scacc. Norm., II. cvi.). This abstract is strangely inaccurate, considering that Stapleton had, clearly, examined the Inspeximus" for himself. Henry VI. inspected and confirmed (1) The charter of Henry I., granting Robert Marmion freewarren in Warwickshire (specially at Tamworth) as his father had. (2) The charter of Henry II. (confirming the above charter), "T. Tom. Canc. apud Brugiam," and therefore granted in 1155. (3) The charter of Henry III., who had inspected— (a) "Cartam quam Henr' rex avus [sic] noster [i.e. Henry II.] fecit Roberto Marmyon proavo Philippi Marmyun"; (b) "Cartam Henrici regis avunculi nostri quam fecit Roberto"; and confirmed them as the charters, "H. Regis avi nostri et H. regis avunculi nostri," to Philip Marmion. It is clear then that Henry III. inspected the charter of his grandfather ("avus") Henry II. (not as Mr. Stapleton wrote, his "great-great-grandfather"), in 1155, to Robert Marmion, "proavus" of Philip. This, it will be seen, could only be the Robert whom I have inserted in the pedigree. Nor can Mr. Stapleton's "atavus" assumption be accepted in view of the facts. The "avunculus" and namesake of Henry III. would duly have been the "young king" Henry (crowned 1170). If "avunculus" is a clerical error, the word to substitute is "avus"; but the careful way in which the charter distinguishes the King's 24 Rot. Pat. 27 Hen. VI., part 1, m 30 The Name of Marmion 193 two predecessors is quite opposed to the idea that they were in both cases his grandfather. As against the evidence afforded us by the charter of Henry III., we have the statements and documents relating to Barbery Abbey, a daughter of Savigny. It is alleged that the house was first founded in 11405 by that Robert Marmion who was slain at Coventry in 1143.26 Stapleton accepted this without question. Yet, so far as documents are concerned, we have only the charter of Robert Marmion (1181), in which he speaks of his father Robert as beginning the foundation." If that father were indeed the Robert who was slain in 1143, Stapleton's pedigree is duly proved as against that which I derive from Henry the Third's charter. But for this identification we have only, it would seem, the obiter dictum of the "Gallia Christiana" editors, while the fact that the first Abbot was appointed about 1177,28 combined with the fact that Robert Marmion, in 1181, was avowedly completing that foundation which his father's death had arrested, certainly seems to point to his father's benefaction being then recent, and little previous to the said appointment of the first Abbot. In that case his father would be not the Robert who died in 1143, but a Robert who, as I suggest, came between the two.29 Leaving now this question of pedigree, there is a theory as to the name of Marmion which one cannot pass over in silence, because it has received the sanction even of Stapleton. Writing on the date of the Lindsey Survey, that eminent authority observes : Neustria Pia, 683. 26 Gallia Christiana (1874), xi. 452. Neustria Pia, 881; Gall. Christ., xi., Instr. 86. 28 Gall. Christ., xi. 452. 29 Since this was written I have found that Mr. C. F. R. Palmer, in his admirable little treatise on the Marmion family (1875), duly inserts this intermediate Robert. Mr. Palmer has shown himself by far the best authority on the subject, and has printed a valuable charter of Stephen to Robert Marmion. B.H. Robert Le Despenser [Dispensator] was brother of Urso de Abbetot, whose other surname, Marmion, is equivalent in Norman French to the Latin word Dispensator; and as Robert Marmion died in 1107, it was probably in the following year that this catalogue was written.80 His meaning, though clumsily expressed, as was some- They hailed him Lord of Fontenaye, Of Tamworth tower and town had nothing to do with "Dispensator," but meant either a scullion or a monkey, and was one of those nicknames that the Normans loved to inexorably bestow on one another. What was the actual relation of the Marmions to Robert "Dispensator" is a problem as yet unsolved. Mr. Waters wrote: 81 It is generally believed that Scrivelsby and the rest of the Honour of Dispenser came to the Marmions through the marriage of Roger Marmion's grandson, Robert Marmion, who was the husband of Matilda de Beauchamp, the grand-daughter of Urso de Abitot, and grand-niece of Robert Dispenser. But the Roll proves that Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert Dispenser (p. 14). I know of no such general belief. Stapleton, to whom one would naturally turn, had pointed out long before, in his 30 Paper on "Holy Trinity Priory, York,” p. 208 note. This identification is accepted by no less an authority than Mr. A. S. Ellis (Domesday Tenants of Gloucestershire, p. 69). 31 i.e. according to Stapleton's pedigree. |