Back in Time

This week I decided to follow one branch of the family tree as far back as I could take it. That landed me in Normandy in the 11th century, which means if you go far enough back, I sort of have some French ancestry.

Sort of you ask? Well, at the time Normandy was independent of its southern neighbor. Its whole history is sort of complicated, and I won't go into it all here. I would point out that by all accounts the region ultimately derived is modern name in the medieval period when it came under the reign of the Nortmanni, or northmen, a bunch of invaders we refer to nowadays as the Vikings. 

If you watched the TV series about Vikings, you know that Viking rulers were called "jarls," but at some point the leading Northmen leaders began to be called "dukes." Normandy at this time is referred to as the Duchy of Normandy, and it had sufficient relations to the Kingdom of France that these leaders swore loyalty to the king.

The region would in time become an official part of France.

Remember that William the Conqueror was a Norman. His conquest of England made him king of both England and Normandy and would begin a long association between the two areas -- again a long story best told elsewhere. 

My reputed ancestor at this time was John, Count de Tancerville, of Tancerville Castle, and according to the only source I found that provided much of any kind of information about him, he participated in William's campaign against England. 

While in England, he bore a son, also known as John, who remained in the country after John the elder returned to Normandy sometime after the Battle of Hastings in 1066. When he returned, I don't know, but if he left relatively soon after the battle, John the son would have been a young boy. I have no information on John the younger's mother, and I suppose daddy John could have fathered the child and abandoned him. 

Whatever happened the younger John grew up to become the lord chamberlain to King Henry I. Again I have no details exactly as to how that might have happened. He is listed in my genealogy as Earl John Tankerville, which implies that he had attained peerage rank, but after checking around, another person is listed as being the first Earl of Tankerville, a couple of hundred years later -- and no relation to me. 

The lord chamberlain is the person charged with administering the king's household -- hiring the servants, seeing to supplies, making sure the household runs well. At times lord chamberlains have also served at the king's spokesperson. And in the time of Shakespeare, the chamberlain also oversaw theaters in the country. 

In the 1700s the lord chamberlain gained the legal authority to veto the production of any play, and changes to plays in production had to be approved by the chamberlain. 

King William had two sons, Robert Curthose and Henry Beauclerc, who fought each other for control of their father's realm, with Henry coming out on top. Story is that Henry threw Robert in prison. Robert later attempted escape and was recaptured, and Henry had his brother's eyes burned out to prevent future attempts. 

Henry would die without a male heir, despite fathering a couple of "legitimate" heirs to the throne and a raft of other children without a legally recognized claim to the throne. Henry had convinced the peerage to accept his daughter from his first marriage as his heir, but after his death, she went off and married into the house of a Norman enemy. Her cousin, Stephen, then claimed the throne, kicking off  a civil war, which he won. Stephen did appoint his cousins son, another Henry, to be his heir. This Henry would be the first of the Plantagent kings.

Though the records don't indicate how, John the younger's son Richard became Stephen's lord chamberlain. Last names were becoming the vogue in England at the time, and Richard chose the name of his job for his last name as well -- Richard Chamberlain. What the chances are that he is a descendant of King Stephen's chamberlain are not part of my research. 

That may not stop me from claiming a distant relationship, though, I say with a wink.

One other person I'll mention quickly is one of Richard's descendants a couple of hundred years later, Robert. He may well be the Robert Chamberlain listed on an official list of prisoners executed at the Tower of London for plotting against Henry VII.

Image: River Thames Tower of London

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Road not Taken

Image
I mentioned last week that I would check to see if I was related to Robert Frost or Robert Burns. I meant it as a joke, but as the week progressed, I decided I would follow up on the idea, including another couple of famous poets, W.B. Yeats and John Keats while I was at it.  As I've said before, if you broaden your search beyond direct ancestors -- your great and great-to-the-X grandparents, the chances you are related to someone famous multiply greatly, and some of the genealogy sites make the search pretty easy. Give them enough information to pinpoint the person you're looking for, click an icon, and voila, the information pops up.  The program I use won't identify relations beyond 15 generations, but you can still go back pretty far. I ran the four men I cited above and found that our family is related to two of them -- Yeats, who married a 10th cousin, three times removed, and Frost, a 6th cousin, three times removed. I'll skip which side of the family is related ...
Read more

TJ and the Liberties: That infamous letter

Image
A letter such as the one sent by the Danbury Baptist Association to a sitting president needed to be answered. When I first read it, I was a little confused because the letter doesn't seem to indicate that the writers knew anything about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, which were ratified a decade before they contacted President Jefferson.  Now I wonder if they were testing the President. How committed was he to religious freedom? After all, his politics trended to a "states' rights" perspective. Now that he held the president, would he commit to defending religious rights for everyone as part of the duties of his office, or might he side with states that had enacted establishment legislation and defer to them in the hopes that they, like his home state, might see the light and disestablish their Christian denominations? I've not read widely enough to settle these questions. But keep them in mind when you consider the contents of the letter. Take a min...
Read more

TJ and the Liberties: Who were those pesky Baptists

Image
I neglected to mention last time the outcome of the "Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" -- it failed. Perhaps you already guessed that.  I should also point out Patrick Henry's reasoning on the bill. Simply put people who follow religion -- and yes, I know that whole argument about how "Christianity's not a religion, etc." -- and who regularly attend churches for religious instruction tend to be the kind of citizens we want to foster: prone to follow rules (laws), not given as much to being quarrelsome, more generous than the average unchurced person, regular nice people. And government should want to prop up an institution that creates these law-abiding, somewhat passive citizens. I see this reasoning quoted in an annual ad by a commercial business that used to appear in the papers I read. Ben Franklin -- hardly a Christian icon -- and George Washington -- pretty much your standard Anglican churchgoer -- believed the same ...
Read more