General Notes

Alice, daughter of Hugh Maminot and widow of Ralph de Cahaines.  [Burke's Peerage]

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

He [Geoffrey de Say] married, 1stly, Alice, widow of Ralph DE CAHAINES, and daughter of Hugh MAMINOT (n).   [Complete Peerage XI:465-8, XIV:570, (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

(n) Confirmation of grant in 1168 by Walkelin Maminot to Bermondsey Abbey of the advowson of the church of Birling and of a similar grant by Geoffrey de Say, by "Galfridus de Say filius Galfridi de Say et Alicie de Cheinnei uxoris sue"; followed by confirmation by William de Say, son of Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey.  Grant by Geoffrey de Say son of Alice de Chetnay of land in Edmonton, temp. Richard I.  After about 1200 the Say barony consisted almost wholly of fees formerly held by Alice's nephew, Walkelin Maminot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following copied from a paper by John S Moore, University of Bristol
in "Prosopon, Newsletter of the Unit for Prosopographical Research",
Oxford University website: www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/posop/Prosopon11.doc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gilbert de Maminot's barony of West Greenwich (Kent) passed on his death in 1101 to his son Hugh and on Hugh's death before 1131 to Hugh's son Walkeline I, and to the latter's son Walkeline II by 1157. When Walkeline II died childless c. 1190, his heir was his aunt Alice, daughter of Hugh de Maminot.

Source indicated: Sanders, "English Baronies", pp. 97-8 and references cited, p. 97, nn. 9-10. The Emma who temporarily controlled the Maminot barony in 1129-30 (P.R. 31Hen. I, p. 67) was presumably Hugh's widow.

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

Note: I believe that the Hugh, who I have as father of Alice was too old; that Alice was probably daughter of a  Hugh II, probably Hugh I's son.  I believe that "Walkelin(e) I" had a brother "Hugh II" (who was either younger or dvp because he did not succeed to West Greenwich).  It was Hugh II that was father of Alice, which would make her a 1st cousin, instead of aunt, of Walkelin(e) II.  Alice, as a 1st cousin, could still have inherited West Greenwich when "Walkelin(e) II" died without issue. Hugh and Emma are a bit too old to have been parents of Alice, who married Geoffrey de Say "b. bef. 1135".  I have adjusted Emma's birth date (now 1073, originally 1069) to as late as possible, given her father's death in 1072--and adjusted Alice's birth year to 1123 so that Emma would not be older than 50 at her birth--and Alice is still about 12 years older than Geoffrey, her 2nd husband.  Yet there is no evidence to indicate a second Hugh, except common sense.