William de Camville - Need help with this line

No no no no no no no! The Sir Richard Camville who married Millicent de Rethel had *only one son* - another Richard. This is BLATANT from studying the descent of Stanton Harcourt: it went from Sir Richard *inlo the hands of King Henry II* on the grounds that young Richard was but a minor - and young Richard had to retrieve it from Richard I Coeur-de-Lion, probably be agreeing to go on Crusade with him. But he never returned, and the manor passed into the hands *OF HIS SISTER*, who was married to Sir Richard Harcourt.

None of this could *ever* have happened if there were any other sons to claim the manor; ergo, there weren't.

*Please*, Melissa. The Normans were a patriarchal bunch who not so very long ago had forcibly ousted their King's only surviving legitimate child, his daughter Matilda, in favor of her cousin Stephen, primarily because Stephen was male and they *did not want* a female ruler. (It didn't help that Matilda was arrogant and overbearing, and made enemies where she should have been making allies.)

There is simply *no way* that a sister would be allowed to inherit (or pass her inheritance through her husband to their children) if there were any other possible male heirs.

Even the most "expert" people can have blind spots, and there has been a *major* one with respect to the Sir Richards (plural) Camville. Cawley got caught in it. Apparently so did Mr. Roberts. (Some less expert and more credulous people have mashed three/four of him into just one.)

An argument can be made that Sir Richards I and II of Oxford were the same person (the data work just as well either way), but it goes to pieces when you try to add in Sir Richard Camville of Warwick, the man who granted land for the founding of Coombe Abbey. *That* Sir Richard's son and heir Gerard not only witnessed that charter, but Gerard vetted other charters that show he had three brothers (Walter, William and Richard) and a sister Matilda (who was NOT the Camville daughter who married Sir Robert Harcourt - no, Matilda married William de Ros).

There *might* be an argument for Richard Camville of Warwick being a younger half-brother, but the hanky-panky around the manor of Benham blows holes in that. The chronology just doesn't work. Richard of Oxford, holder of the manor of Stanton, went on Crusade with Richard I and died at the siege of Acre (1189-91). King Richard was there himself and must have known about it. When he (finally) got back to England, in 1194, King Richard leased the manor of Benham, in Berkshire, to Richard Camville of Warwick, and it *stayed* in his name until 1198 (probably when Richard of Warwick died). Richard's older brother Gerard laid claim to Benham (Richard's son John having died without heirs about that time or earlier), but King Richard wouldn't have it, ousted Gerard, and re-gifted the manor to Hugh Wake. (Didn't do Hugh a lot of good, as both he *and* the King died before the year 1200 - but that's another story.)

Well, here we see the biggest and worst problem with early medieval genealogy. Two people - including "experts" - can look at the same data and come to dramatically different conclusions.

*YOU* explain how the same person can have died at the Siege of Acre and been alive three or so years later to be granted a(nother) ,manor.

We definitely have records of William de Canville, castellan of Llansteffan, married to an Albreda "daughter and heir of Geoffrey Marmion" during the late 12th and early 13th century (1194; 1204-1206).

The Marmion ancestry, especially this early, is quite fragmentary and does nothing to clarify the situation.

I think there must have been two Auberee/Alberedas. It was quite a popular name back then. Wanna bet they turn out to have been aunt and niece, or cousins?

Remember that Wikitree citation you waved at me? Go up one link https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Camville-5 and it's a stuffed-up joke. That's *at least* two Richard de Camvilles jammed together, and probably three.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/oxon/vol12/pp274-281#p2
In 1066 STANTON, including land in South Leigh, was held by Alnod, and in 1086 by Odo of Bayeux: it was reckoned at 26 hides, (fn. 7) of which one lay in Hanborough and was given to Oseney abbey c. 1138. (fn. 8) Another 1 ½ hide in 'Pereio', probably in South Leigh, and held under Odo by Wadard, was apparently absorbed into the main Stanton estate before the late 12th century. (fn. 9) Following Odo's forfeiture the estate was held possibly by Ranulf Flambard, and in 1101 by Rualon d'Avranches, perhaps in custody. (fn. 10) Before 1130 Henry I gave it to his second wife Queen Adela, (fn. 11) who alienated it piecemeal, mostly after 1135.

Before 1141 Adela gave to her kinswoman Millicent, wife of Robert Marmion, land in Stanton Harcourt and South Leigh worth £40, four fifths of the value in 1086. When Robert died c. 1144 the estate, later called STANTON HARCOURT, passed to Millicent's second husband Richard de Camville, on whose death in 1176 it was seized by Henry II. (fn. 12) It was held in custody by Richard Rufus until 1190, (fn. 13) when Richard I restored it to Richard de Camville's son Richard, who died on crusade in 1191; it then passed to Robert de Harcourt of Bosworth (Leics.), who had married the elder Richard de Camville's daughter Isabel. (fn. 14) Thereafter, apart from a brief period in the early 17th century, Stanton Harcourt descended in the main line of the English Harcourts, who made it their principal seat until the early 18th century.
(Footnotes)
8. Oseney Cart. i, p. 3; iv, pp. 16-17, 21, 84, 107.
9. V.C.H. Oxon. i. 405; above, Intro.; below.
10. Hist. Mon. Abingdon (Rolls Ser.), ii. 84-5; Royal Writs Eng. (Selden Soc. lxxvii), p. 485.
11. Reading Cart. i, no. 536a; Pipe R. 1130 (H.M.S.O. facsimile), 6.
12. Reading Cart. i, pp. 402-3, 405-6; Eynsham Cart. i, pp. 398-9; Reg. Regum Anglo-Norm. iii, no. 140; Complete Peerage, viii. 506-7; Pipe R. 1191 & 92 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), xxv-xxvi.
13. Pipe R. 1182 (P.R.S. xxxi), 124; 1190 (P.R.S. N.S. i), 11; 1191 & 92 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), 100; cf. Eynsham Cart. i, pp.398-9.
14. Sir C. Hatton's Bk. Seals (Northants. Rec. Soc. xv), no. 42; Pipe R. 1191 & 92 (P.R.S. N.S. ii), 251.
(From A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 12, Wootton Hundred (South) Including Woodstock. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1990.)

That second paragraph tells us a few things:
1) The Richard de Camville who married Melisende died in 1176, so was *certainly not* involved with the Third Crusade in any way;
2) He and Melisende had only one son, another Richard, plus a daughter (name given as Isabel from later sources, inc. Hatton);
3) Son Richard was not yet of age when his father died (or the King couldn't have pulled off his grabby act);
4) Isabel was *probably* older than Richard, as she was already married by 1191;
5) There were no other available male heirs (no other brothers, no paternal first cousins, etc.), or Robert Harcourt would not have been allowed to inherit, "jure uxoris" or not. (The English inheritance rules remained *very* strict well into the 20th century - see the sad case of Vita Sackville-West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Sackville-West, who had to see her beloved family home go to her male cousin instead of to her.)

We are also clearly and explicitly told, through various charters, that the Richard de Camville who founded Coombe Abbey (in Warwickshire) had at least *four* sons: Gerald, oldest and heir, Walter, William and Richard (probably, but not necessarily, in that order).

The authors of the History of the County of Berkshire (Volume 4. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1924; pp. 97-110) made the careless assumption that Richard de Camville of Warwick = Richard de Camville of Stanton, and just gloss over the problem that Richard de Camville of Stanton had died heirless in 1191, while Richard de Camville of Warwick had a son John (at least until the later 1190s) and held title to the manor of Benham from 1194 to 1198. A simpler explanation is that they were *not* the same person - and we know that the Richard who held Benham was of the Warwick family because *his older brother Gerald* tried to horn in on the manor in 1198.

As for William de Camville of Llansteffan, he's *probably* Gerald's younger brother, but he's somewhat under-documented until he starts showing up in land records around Clifton Campville in the late 12th- early 13th century.

As usual, they've got the wrong Richard de Camville - or rather they've got that mashup that some careless researcher threw together and passed off as valid.

"Plac. temp. Ric. 1 & Joh. rot. 4; Cart. l Joh. m 5" = 1199/1200. (I think I saw references to William & Albreda as early as 1194, and as late as 1206?)

Albreda's birth date becomes questionable when you consider that she had at least five children (by two different husbands) after the year 1200.

I think we can rule out "Governor of Cyprus" - that was very much a Third Crusade thing.

We can also rule out YOUNG Richard marrying HIS MOTHER.

Found the complete text of the Jumieges charter - situation not quite as clear as Cawley makes it out to be:

CI

1170 (du 5 avril au 27 mars 1171). — Arques.

Donation par Richard de Canville de la troisième partie des dîmes de sa terre de Hautot [-l'Auvray] à l'abbaye de Jumièges qui avait déjà reçu de ses prédécesseurs les deux autres parts,

A. Original scellé de cire rouge sur double queue de parchemin (1) (Arch. de la Seine-Inférieure, fonds de Jumièges, série H non classée). — B. Copie du commencement du xiiie s., dans le Cartulaire A, p. 198, no 336 (Ibidem).

Mentionné dans : Histoire de l'abbaye royale de Saint-Pierre de Jumièges (éiit. abbé J. Loth), I, 278.

Sciant présentes et posterî quod ego Ricardus de Camvilla, assensu heredum meorum, dedi Deo et sanctae Mariae sanctoque Petro et monachis Gemmeticensibus in elemosinam terciam partem decimarum quQ sunt in terra mea apud Hottoth (2) et in finibus ejusdem ville, pro salute anime mee et uxoris mee Adelicie et sequentis uxoris mee Milesente, patris et matris mee et Rogeri fratris mei et aliorum predecessorum meorum, perpetuo possidendam. Quam donationem cum duabus partibus ejusdem decime quas ab antiquo ex largitione predecessorum meorum predicta ecclesia cum ecclesia ejusdem ville possederat, sigilli mei impressione munivi et subscriptorum virorum testimonio corroboravî : Rogeri, capellani mei ; Hunfredi, clerici mei ; Ricardî, filii mei ; Gisleberti de Cantelu ; Roberiî de Coldreto ; Hugonis de Barrevilia ; Osberni
de Odemara; Ricardi Hachet; Willelmi de Barrevilia; Stephani de Chevremont. Actum apud Archas (3), anno ab incarnatione Domini. Mo. Co. septuagesimo. Amen.

Au dos, d'une écriture du XII^ siècle : De Hotot ;
— ' et d'une écriture postérieure : Ricardus de Camvilla.

(i) Sceau décrit par G. Demay, Inventaire des sceaux de Normandie (Paris, 1881, iii-40), p. 20, no 160.

(2) Hautot-l'Auvray, dép. Seine-Inférieure, arr. Yvetot, cant. Ourville.

(3) Arques-la-Bataille dép. Seine-Inférieure, arr. Dieppe, cant. Offranville.

The text as such doesn't fully explicate who was living and who was not (deceased: first wife certainly, parents certainly, second wife maybe, brother Roger maybe). Also, no distinction between subscribing (cosigning) and witnessing is made.

There it is in black and white, though: this particular Richard Camville had two wives, the first one named Adelicie (Alice), the second named Millicent (almost certainly Melisende de Rethel). And one son, Richard, who was his heir - *not* a younger son.