From Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Untitled English Nobility D-K Dover, Mr. Cawley quotes Pipe Roll 31 Henry I (1129/30) p. 158: "Wills fil Ric" returning in Devonshire for "uxore Fulbti de Doura cum dote et maritagio suo". Would this suggest that Adelaide was probably a daughter of Richard de Reviers/Redvers and brother of William de Vernon, Earl of Devonshire?

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 4:34:58 AM UTC-8, Peter Kuhlmann wrote:
> From Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Untitled English Nobility D-K Dover, Mr. Cawley quotes Pipe Roll 31 Henry I (1129/30) p. 158: "Wills fil Ric" returning in Devonshire for "uxore Fulbti de Doura cum dote et maritagio suo". Would this suggest that Adelaide was probably a daughter of Richard de Reviers/Redvers and brother of William de Vernon, Earl of Devonshire?

This is found in the return for Cornwall, not for Devon. The volume this is taken from attempted to reproduce the text as it appeared in the original manuscript, with abbreviation marks that are hard to represent using a standard character set:

Wiłłs fił Rič.redđ Compoŧ.de.lij.łi.7.xj..š.7.viij.đ.ᵱ.uxore Fulᵬti de Duara cû Dote 7 Maritaḡ suo. In tħauro.xj.łi.7.xiij.š.7.iiij.đ.
Et deᵬ xl.łi.7.xviij.š.7.iiij.đ.

https://archive.org/details/magnumrotulumsc00huntgoog/page/n192/mode/1up

In the 2012 edition:
William son of Richard renders account of £52 11 s. 8 d. for the wife of Fulbert of Dover with her dower and marriage portion. In the treasury £11 13 s. 4 d.
And he owes £40 18 s. 4 d.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JMbmpvczLIsC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=fulbert

William Fitz Richard owed the king for his acquisition of the 'guardianship' of a rich widow and her property, which need not (and usually did not) imply a familial relationship. As widow of a tenant in chief, she essentially became ward of the king and could not remarry without royal permission, something the kings commodized, selling it on for money. Some widows (via proxies who could be kin) would buy their own freedom, but it was more common for the rights to be sold to a third party, who might be purchasing it in order to marry the widow himself or to wed her to a kinsman, but who also may have been doing so simply as a business transaction to profit from control of her properties and resale of the marriage right.

Further, the nobleman here was not Earl William, who appears elsewhere in the 1130 Pipe Roll as "Willo de Vernun", but the substantial Cornish landowner with whom he is often erroneously conflated, William filius Richard of Cardinham, son of Richard filius Turold. He is known to have had a wife Aanor, but the timing is unclear so we cannot exclude Adelaide being another wife, or perhaps intended for his son Robert.

On Saturday, 3 December 2022 at 15:29:00 UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 4:34:58 AM UTC-8, Peter Kuhlmann wrote:
> > From Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Untitled English Nobility D-K Dover, Mr. Cawley quotes Pipe Roll 31 Henry I (1129/30) p. 158: "Wills fil Ric" returning in Devonshire for "uxore Fulbti de Doura cum dote et maritagio suo". Would this suggest that Adelaide was probably a daughter of Richard de Reviers/Redvers and brother of William de Vernon, Earl of Devonshire?
> This is found in the return for Cornwall, not for Devon. The volume this is taken from attempted to reproduce the text as it appeared in the original manuscript, with abbreviation marks that are hard to represent using a standard character set:
>
> Wiłłs fił Rič.redđ Compoŧ.de.lij.łi.7.xj.š.7.viij.đ.ᵱ.uxore Fulᵬti de Duara cû Dote 7 Maritaḡ suo. In tħauro.xj.łi.7.xiij.š.7.iiij.đ.
> Et deᵬ xl.łi.7.xviij.š.7.iiij.đ.
>
> https://archive.org/details/magnumrotulumsc00huntgoog/page/n192/mode/1up
>
> In the 2012 edition:
> William son of Richard renders account of £52 11 s. 8 d. for the wife of Fulbert of Dover with her dower and marriage portion. In the treasury £11 13 s. 4 d.
> And he owes £40 18 s. 4 d.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=JMbmpvczLIsC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=fulbert
>
> William Fitz Richard owed the king for his acquisition of the 'guardianship' of a rich widow and her property, which need not (and usually did not) imply a familial relationship. As widow of a tenant in chief, she essentially became ward of the king and could not remarry without royal permission, something the kings commodized, selling it on for money. Some widows (via proxies who could be kin) would buy their own freedom, but it was more common for the rights to be sold to a third party, who might be purchasing it in order to marry the widow himself or to wed her to a kinsman, but who also may have been doing so simply as a business transaction to profit from control of her properties and resale of the marriage right.
>
> Further, the nobleman here was not Earl William, who appears elsewhere in the 1130 Pipe Roll as "Willo de Vernun", but the substantial Cornish landowner with whom he is often erroneously conflated, William filius Richard of Cardinham, son of Richard filius Turold. He is known to have had a wife Aanor, but the timing is unclear so we cannot exclude Adelaide being another wife, or perhaps intended for his son Robert.

Thanks a lot, Mr. Farmerie. I was on the verge of making a series of very incorrect assumptions, based on my lack of understanding of this piece of medieval data, and my educational shortcomings - I never studied latin so I use translate.com, which I have learned is "not too bad" at best when trying to understand medieval writings. ...Pete