IT

THE ORIGIN OF THe nevilLES

T is difficult to believe that so interesting a genealogical question as the origin of this famous house should have remained as yet undetermined. I have shewn above (p. 166) that we can identify in Domesday Gilbert and Ralph de Neville, the earliest bearers of the name in England, as knightly tenants of the Abbot of Peterborough; but the existing house, as is well known, descends from them only through a female. It is at its origin in the male line that I here glance. The innumerable quarters in which, unfortunately, information of this kind has been published makes it impossible for me to say whether I have been forestalled. So far, however, as I can find at present, two different versions are in the field.

First, there is Dugdale's view that Robert fitz Maldred, their founder, was "son of Dolfin, son of Earl Gospatric, son of Maldred fitz Crinan by Algitha daughter of Uchtred, Earl of Northumberland, who was son-in-law to King Æthelred." This was, apparently, Mr. Shirley's view, for, in his Noble and Gentle Men of England he derives the Nevilles from "Gospatric, the Saxon Earl of Northumberland," though he makes Robert fitz Maldred his greatgrandson, as Rowland had done in his work on the House of Nevill (1830), by placing Maldred between Dolfin and Robert fitz Maldred. Even that sceptical genealogist, Mr. Foster, admitted in his peerage their descent from this Earl Gospatric. The immediate ancestry, however, of their founder, Robert fitz Maldred, can be proved, and is as follows:

Drummond's Noble British Familes (1842) set out a new origin for the family without any hesitation, and this was adopted by the Duchess of Cleveland, whose elaborate work on the Battle Abbey Roll has much excellent genealogy. Their patriarch Dolfin was now made the son of that Uchtred, who was a grandson and namesake of Dugdale's Earl Uchtred, temp. King Æthelred. A chart pedigree is required to show the descent of the earls:

No authority, unfortunately, is given for the identity of

this Uchtred with Uchtred, father of Dolfin, and the assumption of that identity involves the conclusion that Eadwulf "Rus," who took the lead in the murder of Bishop Walcher (1080), was brother to Dolfin who received Staindrop in 1131, and uncle to a man who died in 1195 or 1196! We cannot therefore accept this descent as it stands, or carry the pedigree at present beyond Dolfin fitz Uchtred (1131). But as this Dolfin, when doing homage to the Prior of Durham for Staindrop, reserved his homage to the kings of England and of Scotland, as well as the Bishop of Durham, he was, no doubt, a man of consequence, and was probably of High Northumbrian birth. It may be worth throwing out, as a hint, the suggestion that his father Uchtred might have been identical with Uchtred, son of Ligulf, that great Northumbrian thegn who was slain at Durham in 1080. But this is only a guess. One cannot, in fact, be too careful, as I have shown in my two papers on "Odard of Carlisle" and "Odard the Sheriff," in identifying two individuals of the same Christian names, when, in these northern districts, the names in question were so widely borne. The Whitby cartularly, for instance, proves that Thomas de Hastings was (maternal) grandson of Alan, son of Thorphin "de Alverstain," son of Uchtred (son of Cospatric), which Uchtred gave the Church of Crosby Ravensworth to the abbey in the time, it would seem, of William Ruffus. But who Cospatric, his father, was has not been clearly ascertained. The skilled genealogists of the north may be able to decide these points, and to tell us the true-descent of " Dolfin, the son of Uchtred."

1 Genealogist, N. S., v. 25-8; viii. 200.

1

Movements of Young Henry

491

THE ALLeged inVASION OF

ENGLAND IN 1147

HEN Mr. Richard Howlett, in the preface to his

W edition of the Gesta Stephani for the Rolls series,

announced that we were indebted to its "careful author" for the knowledge of an invasion of England by Henry Fitz Empress in 1147, "unrecorded by any other chronicler," and endeavoured at considerable length to establish this proposition, it was received, from all that I can learn, with general incredulity. As however, in the volume which he has since edited, he reiterates his belief in this alleged invasion, it becomes necessary to examine in detail the evidence for a discovery so authoritatively announced in the pages of the Rolls series.

The accepted view of Henry's movements has hitherto been that, by his father's permission, in the autumn of 1142 he accompanied the Earl of Gloucester to England; that he remained there about four years; that, by his father's wish, at the end of 1146 or beginning of 1147 he returned from England; that he then spent two years and four months over sea; that in the spring of 1149 he again came to England, and was knighted at Carlisle by the king of Scots on 22nd May. As to the above long visit, commencing in 1142, Gervase of Canterbury is our chief authority, but the other chroniclers (omitting for the present the Gesta Stephani) harmonise well with his account.

1 Chronicles, Stephen, Henry II., Richard I., vol. iii. pp. xvi.-x.x, 130. 2 Ib., vol. iv. pp. xxi-xxii.

Gervase and Robert of Torigni alike mention but one arrival of Henry (1142) and one departure (1146 or 1147), thus distinctly implying there was then only one visitnamely, that visit which Gervase tells us lasted four years. The only slight discrepancy between Gervase and Robert is found in the date of Henry's departure. Robert places that event under 1147, and mentions that Henry visited Bec 29th May in that year. There is also, Mr. Howlett has pointed out, charter evidence implying that Henry was back in Normandy in March or April. Now Gervase says distinctly that he was away from England two years and four months. The chroniclers, Gervase included, say that he returned to England in the middle of May, 1149. Counting back the two years and four months, this would bring us to January, 1147, as the date of his departure from England. But there is a charter of his to Salisbury Cathedral, tested, as Mr. Howlett observes, at Devizes, 13th April, 1149. If this evidence be trustworthy, it would take us back to December, 1146, instead of January, 1147. It is easy to see how Gervase may have included in 1146, and Robert in 1147, an event which appears to have taken place about the end of the one or the beginning of the year.

Much has been made of the alleged circumstance that Gervase assigned the Earl of Gloucester's death to 1146, whereas he is known to have died in 1147. But reference to his text will show that he does nothing of the kind. Writing of Henry's departure at the close of 1146, he tells us that the earl was destined never to see him again, for he died in November [i.e. November, 1147]. He is here obviously anticipating.

Such being the evidence on which is based the accepted view of Henry's movements, let us now turn to the Gesta Stephani. Though Mr. Howlett's knowledge of the period is great and quite exceptional, I cannot but think that he has been led astray by his admiration for this fascinating chronicle. Miss Norgate sensibly observes that "there