112
NOTES AND QUERIES. [n s. x. AUG. s, 1914.
LESCELINE DE VERDON (11 S. viii. 371 ;
ix. 130. 255, 330, 391 ; x. 54). MB. GOD-
DARD H. ORPEN has again made me his
debtor by kindly giving, in his communica-
tion at the last of the above references,
some further interesting details in reply to
the inquiries I ventured to address to him
at 11 S. ix. 391.
1. With reference to Hugh, Earl of Ulster, having been Justiciar of Ireland in 1189-90, I have never yet discovered the authority for the statement. Certainly Gil- bert in his ' Viceroys of Ireland ' (pp. 55, 59, 65) speaks of him as Viceroy of Ireland in those years, and again in 1203 and 1205, and "Viceroy" may be deemed synonymous with Justiciar of Ireland ; but the writer of the article on Hugh in ' D.N.B.,' xxxi. 377, asserts that Gilbert was mistaken, because ths records show that John de Courci and Meiler Fitz-Henry held office uninterruptedly. In the absence, therefore, of any other reli- able authority, MR. GODDARD H. ORPEN'S rejection of the statement would appear to be fully justified.
As regards the Gilbert de Laci who was Governor of Winchester Castle being iden- tical with the Gilbert de Laci, presumably a half-brother to Walter and Hugh (for that the said Gilbert was not the issue of Hugh the elder by his first wife, Rohesia or Rose de Momonia, is clearly shown in the pedigree as submitted to the House of Lords in 1835, on the claim to the Irish barony of Slane, where Walter and Hugh are the only issue assigned of this marriage [Banks, ' Baronies in Fee,' i. 221 ; cf. also Banks, ' Dormant and Extinct Baronage,' i. 104 ; and Burke, ' Extinct Peerage,' 1840 ed., p. 300]), I much regret that I am not in a position to offer any evidence, but I hope MR. ST. GLAIR BADDELEY may reply to MR. GODDARD H. ORPEN'S inquiry.
2 and 3. The latest possible date for the marriage of Hugh de Laci and Lesceline de Verdon is assigned by MR. ORPEN (US. ix. 330) as 1199, and therefore one wondered for the moment, in reading par. 2, ante, p. 55, why the date of Maud's birth was put so late as " c. 1210 or later." But on reaching par. 3 we find MR. ORPEN stating that " there is no reason to doubt that all Hugh's legitimate offspring, including Maud, were by Lesceline." According to MR. ST. CLAIR BADDELEY (11 S. viii. 172), four children, exclusive of Maud, are assigned to Hugh as his legitimate issue, viz. : Walter and Roger, who, according to Sweetman (i. 1372), were alive in 1226 ; Rose (may she have been the
daughter of Hugh who married Alan of
Galloway [' D.X.B.,' xxxi. 379], and there-
fore the missing mother of Helen, Alan's
eldest daughter, who became, before 1234,
first wife of Roger de Quincy, 2nd Earl of
Winchester ? [Doyle, ' Official Baronage of
England,' iii. 695]) ; and a daughter, un-
named, who married, according to ' The
Four Masters,' iii. 349, Miles Mac Costelloe.
Under these circumstances it is quite feasible
that Maud was the youngest child, and born
c. 1210. L T nless, however, one can assign a
son killed in 1238 (' The Four Masters,' iii.
239 n.) and a daughter called Roysya
(Carew MSS., v. 412) possibly, however,
identical with Rose as Hugh's legitimate
issue, I am doubtful whether c. 1210 may
not be taken as the latest probable date for
Maud's birth.
The statement (' Cal. Docs., Irel.,' ii. 1523) that Maud was alive on 15 Jan., 1279, would be, had such been needed, further evidence that she was not the wife of Walter de Burgh ; whilst that quoted by MR. ORPEN, that Maud " was clearly dead in 1302 perhaps for many years " (' Justiciary Rolls,' i. 434), is particularly interesting, because I had hitherto accepted the actual year of her death as 1303 (11 S. viii. 371). As MB. ORPEN justly observes, had any of Hugh's issue been by Emeline, there would doubtless have been claims made by such issue to the Ridelesford lands, whereas of any such laims one has heard nothing.
4. I am very grateful to your corre- spondent for his reasons for the assignment of 1217-23 as the probable years between which Emeline and Ela de Ridelesford were born, which suggested dates I venture to consider may be accepted as approximately correct, judging by the evidence he has now put forward. As regards the date of the death of their father, Walter de Ridelesford^ Archdall's edition of Lodge's ' Peerage of Ireland,' i. 120, states that he died 1243. With reference to the name of his wife, may we not assume that Annora is synonymous with Alianor, and that she was Alianor de Vitre, as recorded in Gilbert's ' Viceroys of Ireland,' p. 105 ?
At 11 S. ix. 130 MR. ORPEN gave his reasons for thinking that there were two Walters de Ridelesford. I have been making some investigations, the result of which I append in tabular form. It will be seen from this table that Amabilis Fitz-Henry was clearly wife of Walter (1) de Ridelesford, and therefore, doubtless, the mother of Walter (2) who married Alianor de Vitre, first cousin to Ela, Countess of Salisbury,
