General Notes

I have added this Richard because Turton states that Richard Camville who m. Millicent was son of Richard, son of Gerald.  Many reliable people, including Dave Utzinger (based on other sources), have the same pedigree.  I did not originally have this Richard, but had the Richard who m. Millicent as son of Gerald, with his (now) brother Gerald being his son.  The dates seemed to work out much better before, but I guess one must follow the sources.

The fact that Millicent had a son "b. bef. 1133" by her first marriage to Roger Marmion, pretty much locks her into a 1116/18 birth year, which implies an 1116/20 birth year for Richard her 2nd husband.  Since Gerald is an elder brother of Richard, he has to be born by 1118 at the latest, and he didn't die until 1214 (now at the ripe old age of 96!), with most of his children being born late in his life.  For example Gerald's daughter Nichole m. Oliver Deincourt, who was born about 1196 (marriage & date according to CP).  This would mean that Nichole was born, say 1198, when her father was 80 years old.   Not likely.

--------------------

The following post to SGM, 31 May 2000, by Christopher Nash, seems to support the way that I have the pedigree, with Gerald - husband of Nichola de la Haye, being son of Richard - husband of Millicent, rather than being an elder brother.  Gerald - husband of Nichola de la Haye, was elder brother of another Richard living 1196/8, who was previously unkown:

From: Cristopher Nash (c@@windsong.u-net.com)
Subject: Re: Which Richard de Camville married Millicent?
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2000/05/31

dekester@@mindspring.com wrote on 31 May --

Dexter, thanks a lot for your extremely gracious response to my last, which I feared you might take as 'lecturely' (which I've certainly no right to be)!  I'd just like to weigh in on your side here against my own asperity (these are especially late nights for me).  There's no question about it - even the same texts give conflicting information.  I've had a quick look at the VCH (Berks) articles I suggested might help affecting this line - viz. vol IV, the articles on Benham and Avington, and they do appear to disagree. Here's what I mean - and what I think may be happening:

First of all, VCH (Oxon), VI, 244, has Gerard who m. Nicolaa de la Haye as the s. of Richard who d. 1176-77. Now VCH (Berks, Behnham article), IV, 104, seems to say the same - calling Gerard the elder bro of Richard who (d. 1191).

But in the VCH (Berks) _Avington_ article (IV, 158), the same Gerard (who m. Nicolaa de la Haye) is given as s. of Richard who d. 1191 at the seige of Acre (though this Richard is perhaps problematically described as the Richard holding Avington in 1166-7, when we might speculate that the Richard referred to here may be Richard who d. 1176-77).

What I think is telling are the phrasing and details of the _Benham_ article:  Richard (d. 1191) is "succeeded by his son John....The lands [of Benham] still appear, however, in his [Richard's] name in 1196-7 and 1198, and no inquisition was held as to his death until the reign of Henry III.  John died without issue, and the manor was seized by his uncle Gerard, Richard's elder brother."

This apparent anomaly, pointed up by VCH - that is, that the lands of 'Richard' 'still appear' in his name 5-7 years after his death (which does happen) - combined with the fact that the matter is not legally articulated  until at least 25 years after his death (Hen. III begins 1216) - suggests to me the equal possibility that another Richard, perhaps s. of Richard (d. 1191) was actually in possession after 1191, and is the Richard referred to in the I.p.m., and is the younger bro of Gerard. This would make Gerard the s. and not the brother of Richard (d. 1191). As you can see, I'm playing devil's advocate here (giving the counter-argument a chance, as in It's a rotten job but s/body's gotta do it).

This would coincide with part (and conflict with none) of the account I mentioned in my last. It would suit Ivor West's sequence - though I'm less worried than he is about the suggestion that Richard II [d. 1191] at 70ish would still seem to be too old for the governorship of Cyprus. (John of Brienne when 'a penniless knight and younger son' (as Runciman says) was made King of Jerusalem at over 60, and regent of the Empire of Constantinople, though long-since ejected from Jerusalem and out of a job, at nearly 80.)

We need to notice, though, that one apparent candidate for this 'later Richard de Camville' -- viz. Richard who d. soon after February 1217 (according to JFW Hill, _Medieval Lincoln_ [1948], 89) and married Eustachia Basset (of whom more is known) -- is not a son of a Richard but of Gerard and Nicolaa de Camville. And there seems no way of treating their son Richard as the Richard of 1196-8 indicated above, since in this line his father Gerard would presumably be the individual taking possession of Benham (as he indeed did of Middleton Stoney and Godington) on the death of Richard who d. 1191.

Unfortunately it's very difficult to determine sequence/parentage here by means of chronology (i.e. via speculations as to undocumented birthdates, particularly where - as is most common - it's only when careers are established that individuals enter documentary history) and certainly without closer study than I've given it. Gerard is sheriff of Lincs by 1189 and thus could be son of either Richard de Camville who d. 1176-7 or Richard who d. 1191.

To me a key document needing examination, then, is the inquiry post mortem of Henry III.  This is given in the Benham article (IV, 104) as: Chan. Inq. p. m. Incert. temp. Hen. III no. 57.  Does it positively state that Richard who d. (at Acre) in 1191 is the Richard in whose name Benham still appears in 1196-8?  Or does it simply say that Benham was held by an unspecified Richard de Camville during those years? (E.g. merely -- as is common (and unhelpful here) -- 'Richard de Camville was seised of Benham' etc.)?  I'll try to get a squint at it the next time I'm in the Bodleian, though this'll have to be after the current univ. exam throes.

On balance - largely because of not only the general shift of weight among the various readings we've been looking at but because of the earliness of the heavy activity of e.g. Gerard and Nicolaa (an extraordinary figure) - I feel that the Richard (d. 1176-7)->Richard (d.1191) sequence I quoted in my last may prove most reliable, that Gerard's going to come out as s. of Richard (d. 1176-7), and you're going to be left with the post-1191 Richard issue to play with as you like.

I think, by the way, that Doug Richardson's suggestions are right, here, and helpful. As is his query about the date for Isabel.

I've the strong feeling that, not being in the swing of this problem, I'm leaving out considerations you've prowled through at some length, so forgive me for jumping in.  But you've got uz really interested now - and I do feel that the need to look at the records draws nigh (!)  Meantime, do give us a sense of what you feel in scanning these off-the-top thoughts!  And thanks again for listening with such an open spirit.  Are you _sure_ you're a <relative newcomer>?

Cheers,

Cris