Google+ Badge

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

3.a.2 Hugh de Kevelioc m Bertrade of Montfort d.Beatrix of Chester m Lord William Malpas s David de Malpas

Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester (1147 – 30 June 1181) was the son of Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester and Maud of Gloucester, daughter of Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester

He is thought to have been born in Kevelioc in Monmouth. But he may have taken the name of the cwmwd of Cyfeiliog (in modern Powys) in the southern part of the Kingdom of Powys, Wales.

Hugh Kevelioc
He was underage when his father's death in 1153 made him heir to his family's estates on both sides of the Channel. He joined the baronial Revolt of 1173–1174 against King Henry II of England, and was influential in convincing the Bretons to revolt.

After being captured and imprisoned after the Battle of Alnwick, he finally got his estates restored in 1177, and served in King Henry's Irish campaigns.





In 1169 he married Bertrade de Montfort of Evreux, daughter of Simon III de Montfort. She was the cousin of King Henry, who gave her away in marriage. Their children were:
  1. Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester
  2. Matilda de Blondeville, aka Matilda (Maud) of Chester (1171–1233), married David of Scotland, 8th Earl of Huntingdon
  3. Mabel of Chester, married William d'Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel
  4. Agnes of Chester (died 2 November 1247), married William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby
  5. Hawise of Chester (1180–1242), married Robert II de Quincy
  6. Beatrix of Chester, married Lord William Belward of Malpas   Our lineage
Hugh also had another daughter, Amice of Chester, who married Ralph de Mainwaring and was the ancestress of that family. There is no record of Amice's mother or whether she was Hugh's wife or mistress. The question of Amice's legitimacy has been subject to a longstanding dispute.

One letter from the Pope suggests that Llywelyn Fawr may have been married to an unnamed sister of Earl Ranulph of Chester in about 1192, but there appears to be no confirmation of this. If this was the case it could have been either Mabel or Hawise, or perhaps Amice, and the marriage would have had to have been annulled before any subsequent marriages.

Hugh of Kevelioc died 30 June 1181 at Leek, Staffordshire, England. He was succeeded by his son, Ranulf.



He married Bertrade de Evereux de Montfort in 1169.  She was 14 years of age.

Bertrade was the descendant of he De Montfort family, including Simon de Montfort one of the major players in King Henry's battles, and her mother was Mathilde d'Evux, Comptesse de Evrux.

The original Bertrade de Evereaux was a Queen of France, but trying to link this one and the Queen has not been possible.  The King was her cousin.

Perhaps she was a granddaughter, given that names followed the lines.


Their daughter  Beatrix Kevelioc she was born in 1170 and died in 1247  married Lord William Belward of Malpas  Lord of the Moiety he was the Sheriff of Chester.


Unavelling William de Belward reveals family connections already in our line!  Lord William was descended from Hugh d'Avranches, the brother of Maud d' Avranches who is a great grandmother married Ranulph de Meschines.

Through his lineage every generation had a Lord William!  His mother was Leticia Fitz Mchugh.  She was an heiress and as all marriages concentrated on building a real estate empire, his was no different!

Lord William was born 1152. They had 3 sons David, Philip and Peter, the children took the name of Le Clerc, as was their position.




William de Belward, was born, whom, at his father's death succeeded to the moiety of the Barony of Malpas, including the town of Egerton. He married Tanglust*, a natural daughter of Hugh Kevelioc*, Palatine Earl of Chester, or according to some authorities, Beatrix*, daughter of Randle*, Earl of Chester.

Some notes to confuse you!

Robert Fitz Hugh, Baron of Malpas, where he had a castle, did not have sons. During the reign of Richard I, the barony passed in right of his coheiresses by moieties, to Robert Patrick and David Belward, or le Clerk. The daughter and eventually sole heiress of the Patricks, brought this moiety into the Sutton family

. On the death of William de Malpas, son of David le Clerk, without lawful issue, his illegitimate son David, possessed himself of his father's moiety, which was inherited by the posterity of his two daughters. Beatrice, one of these daughters brought a fourt part of the barony in marriage, to the Suttons, in which nearly the whole appears to have been vested during the reign of Henry VII.

Robert Fitz Hugh, Baron of Malapas, one of the barons of Hugh Lupus, Earl Palatine of Chester, and generally believed to be his illegitimate son. He was among on of the most powerful of "the cruel potentates that spilt the Welshmen's blood," along with the other Lords-Marchers, in their battles with along the border.

Robert's castle of Malpas commanded the important and difficult pass that formed one of the gates of Wale. In his descendants, and probably in him, was vested the office of Serjeant of the Peace for all Cheshire, except the hundreds of Wirrall and Macclesfield.


Robert had two daughters, Letitia the wife of Richard Patric; and Mabilia, the wife of William Belward. William Belward is the Cheshire knight mentioned by Camden, "each of whose sons took different surnames, while their sons, in turn, also took different surnames from their fathers.


Robert Fitz-Hugh, whose name appears as a witness to the foundation charter of St. Werburgh's Abbey at Chester in 1093, had two daughters, Letitia and Mabilla*, who in course of time, became his heirs, and the latter of whom afterwards married William le Belward, of Malpas, son of John le Belward, who was living in the time of William Rufus, and is believed to have been one of the five knights mentioned in the Domesday as holding their lands of the Norman baron. To this, the Lady Mabilla* conveyed her moiety of the Malpas barony, and from this marriage sprang the house of Egerton.
 They altered their names in respect to habitation, to Egerton, Cotgrave and Overton ; in respect to color, to Gough, which is red ; in respect to learning, to Ken-clarke (a knowing clerk or learned man) : in respect to quality, to Goodman ; in respect to stature, to Little : and in respect to the Christian name of one of them, to Richardson, though all were descended from William Belwards." [Remaines, p. 141] "Who would conceived, without good proof," asks Sir Edward Dering, "that Malpas, Gough, Golborne, Egerton, Goodman, Cotgrave, Weston, Little, Kenclerke, and Richardson, were all in short time issue of William Belward?" [Lower's Curiosities of Heraldry, App. p. 305] Yet there is one name left off this list, that of Cholmondeley.

Malpas is a large village which used to be a market town, and it is also a civil parish in the unitary authority of Cheshire West and Chester and the ceremonial county of Cheshire, England. The parish lies on the border with Shropshire and Wales. The name is from Old French and means bad/poor (mal) and passage/way (pas).

After the Norman conquest of 1066 Malpas is recorded as being called Depenbech[citation needed] and is mentioned in the Domesday book of 1086 as belonging to Robert FitzHugh, Baron of Malpas. Malpas and other holdings were given to his family for defensive services along the Welsh border. The Cholmondeley family who still live locally at Cholmondeley Castle are reputed to be descended from Robert FitzHugh.

A concentrated line of castles protected Cheshire's western border from the Welsh; these included motte-and-bailey castles at Shotwick, Dodleston, Aldford, Pulford, Shocklach, Oldcastle and Malpas. The earthworks of Malpas Castle are still to be found to the north of St. Oswald's Church.

Moiety is a Middle English word for one of two equal parts under the feudal system.[4] Thus on the death of a feudal baron with only two daughters as heiresses, a moiety of his fiefdom would generally pass to each daughter, to be held by her husband. 

This would involve the division of the barony, generally consisting of several manors, into two groups of manors, which division would presumably be effected by negotiation between the two parties concerned. Such was the case in the barony of Newmarch, the caput or chief manor of which was at North Cadbury, Somerset, when James de Newmarch died in 1216.

 Such a division into moieties was unnecessary when a noble died with surviving male issue (including grandsons or great-grandsons via the male-only line), with instead the applicable default principle being that of primogeniture.


Certainly a most confusing family to try to unravel!  Hopefully my "tree" is now correct!


    No comments:

    Post a Comment