Matilda

• **PLEASE NOTE: This Maud, wife of Piers de Lutegareshale, is the "person usually known as Maud de Mandeville" although well-researched scholarship has concluded that her family name was NOT indeed "de Mandeville"--for this reason, PLEASE do not change her name back to De Mandeville or "Lady of Costow" but leave it with the NN in the surname field. However, you are encouraged to suggest merges with other profiles of Maud de Mandeville married to Piers de Lutegareshale. Thank you!! (Pam Wilson, Geni Curator Team, 9/1/2010)***

Maud is very often reported to have been Maud de Mandeville, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rohese de Vere, but sources for this claim are not clear. Some trees give her title as "Lady of Costow" but these sources are not clear, either. The FMG Medieval Lands database by Crawley says that her parentage is unknown. To support this, the scholars on GEN-MEDIEVAL have concluded similarly.

The following post-em by Curt Hofemann, curt_hofemann@yahoo.com (shared by Pamela Johnson at http://amjancestry.com/I08154.html) clears up the reason why Maud is often mistaken for a daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville:

Maud. Widow of Piers de Lutegareshale. Mother of Geoffrey fitz Piers earl of Essex [Ref: CP V:116 Table]

Maud was not a de Mandeville. This error has been discussed several times on Gen-Medieval:

Maud was not intended by this to be represented as Geoffrey's daughter, but this appears to be the genesis of this mistaken affiliation. As has been pointed out, it is clear that Geoffrey Fitz Piers came to hold Mandeville land, as well as the Earldom of Essex, through his wife, who was granddaughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville's sister. This is best seen by the fact that the land and titles descended to Bohun, to the exclusion of Geoffrey's son and male heir, John Fitz Geoffrey, son by a second wife. So, no Mandeville land can be shown to have been held by Piers, or by Geoffrey prior to his marriage; no Mandeville land descended to Geoffrey's (and hence Maud's) heir male; no document has been brought forward which claims Maud, wife of Piers, was a Mandeville; no daughter or sister of an Earl of Essex would have been allowed to marry such a lowly knight as Piers. No, Maud was not a Mandeville. [Ref: TAF 3 Apr 1998]

Maud de Mandeville was not daughter of Geoffrey and Rohese. This comes from a misreading of the chart of Essex in CP. She is placed at the same level as Geoffrey's children, but there is no line connecting her with Geoffrey. Likewise, Piers was a local forester, and never would have been given the daughter of someone of Geoffrey's status. Even if it were true, her children would have been immediately elevated in status, but instead, Geoffrey Fitz Piers had to work his way up through the king's household service. He was a "new man", and not the grandson of an Earl. [Ref: TAF 19 Apr 1998]

TAF = Todd A. Farmerie

Also, Bill Marshall , someone I respect as a very thorough reseacher, lists on WorldConnect at:

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=SRCH&... surname=A

The mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers was Maud, wife of Piers de Lutegareshale. As far as I have been able to determine, there was never any Maud de Mandeville at this point in the Mandeville pedigree until someone misread CP. I followed back the references cited by Weis/Sheppard Magna Carta Sureties (later repeated in AR7) and they all either say nothing of the sort, or else lead right to the CP Essex article. Nowhere in the text does it mention a Maud other than simply as wife of Piers, and there it does not call her Maud de Mandeville nor provide any evidence of a connection. In the associated chart, (and here's the rub) Piers, Maud, and her second husband are placed under the horizontal line which unites the children of Geoffrey de Mandeville. This would, at first glance, appear to show Maud as Geoffrey's daughter (this applies to Maud, but not Piers or his successor, because Maud is not given a surname). However, a closer look reveals that there is no vertical line dropping down from the horizontal to connect her with Geoffrey: Geoffrey de Mandeville.

Regards,

Curt

Note: I have now seen the chart on CP V:116, and it certainly looks at first glance as if Maud is implied to be daughter of Geofrey de Mandeville, but on closer inspection there is no vertical line.

Sources:

  1. Title: Magna Charta Sureties 1215, Frederick Lewis Weis, additions by Walter Lee Sheppard Jr, 5th Edition, 1999

Page: 159-2
Text: Maud de Mandeville (in error)
2. Title: Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists, 7th Edition, by Frederick Lewis Weis, additions by Walter Lee Sheppard Jr., 1999
Page: 246b-27
Text: Maud, Lady of Costow, co. Wiltshire.
3. Title: Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom, by G. E Cokayne, Sutton Publishing Ltd, 2000
Page: V:116 chart
4. Title: Magna Charta Sureties 1215, Frederick Lewis Weis, additions by Walter Lee Sheppard Jr, 5th Edition, 1999
Page: 159-2
Text: no date given