Who is william baldwin dating

The Red Book of the Exchequer, in 1166, records that "Manasseri de Danmartin" held one knights fee in Suffolk [maybe referring to Mendlesham, although this is not specified] after his father died, during the reign of King Henry I, which he had in tempore guerr (i.e.during the civil war) granted to "Galtero de Gornaco" and which was now (in 1166) held by Willelmus filius suus.[This links with the undated charter under which "Aubri comes Dommartini" granted Norton, Suffolk to William de Donomart, witnessed by Manasss de Dammartin, Bartholomew de Dammartin, Hamo de Dammartin and William his brother, Alan de Dammartin, Walter de Dammartin, Matthew de Dammartin, William the bastard, Gilbert de Dammartin and Roger his brother, and Philip de Dammartin.

who is william baldwin dating-68

His succession to the lands of his father (who is assumed to have been Eudes [II], although this is not specified in the document) is confirmed by the Red Book of the Exchequer which, in 1166, records that "Odonis de Danmartino" certified that pater meus had held one knights fee in Norfolk [unspecified] from avo vestro [King Henry I] et de vobis [King Henry II], which Odonis currently held from King Henry II.Odo de Dan Martin son of Odo de Dan Martin donated land in Chertehamme which is of my fee of Tunrugge and..Chepstede...[and] of Mecheleham to Lewes St.Silvanectensis episcopus" confirmed the donation of usum...totius forest Espioni de Bealci made to Charlieu by Albericus camerarius et filius eius Albericus comes de Dammartin, with the consent of Johanne scancione regis et uxore sua Helisendi et Petro filio suo Given the English connection, the obvious suggestion is that Comte Aubry was the son of the English Aubry [I] de Dammartin.However, the chronology is not ideal for the latter to have been the chambrier who was named between 11.The original of this charter has not been seen, but Evans indicated that the document could not be [dated] later than 1135. If it is correct, all the named individuals could not have been descended from Eudes [I], which would indicate that other Dammartin individuals accompanied him to England.

However, the document would make more sense if dated to the 1170s, in which case it would be chronologically feasible for Eudes [I] to have been the ancestor of all the witnesses.It is more likely that Odoni de Danmartin in this document was Eudes [I] than Eudes [II] as the property in question passed to descendants of Manasses, son of Eudes [I], not to Eudes [II] and his descendants.] .There is no proof that she was the mother of all the children of Eudes [I].The daughter of Eudes [I]s son Stephen was named Basilia, which suggests that she was the mother at least of some of Eudess younger children. As Eudes held the property in his own name, it is unlikely that he was born later than [1110].He is the only one of the sons of Eudes [I] who is recorded in this Pipe Roll, which suggests that he was his fathers oldest son.The English properties held by Aubry [II] Comte de Dammartin suggest a close relationship with the Dammartin families in England who are recorded holding the same lands.