Robert Fitzhugh

I fully agree that this profile and area of tree is all wrong at the moment. Clare Hurley is right in asserting that this person did not die on the White Ship &/or he certainly was not the son of Hugh Lupus.

I intend to disconnect him from Hugh Lupus but if someone knows where he really belongs then I can help connect him to the correct area of tree.

I'm going out on a limb here because I don't have any good sources at hand, but -- I have two sons of Hugh Lupus named Robert. The legitimate heir Robert (who died on the White Ship), and an illegitimate Robert who was Lord of Malpas.

Hmmm... we have conflict here Justin Durand Medlands FMG says that Hugh Lupus had one legitimate son, Richard who died on the White Ship and 3 Illgt children: OTTIWELL [Otuel], Robert (Abbot of Bury St Edmunds) and Geva

Because Richard died on White Ship a cousin, Ranulf, through Hugh Lupus's sister inherited title of Lord of Malpas.

The notes on Hugh Lupus's profile however tell a different story.

I am in the process of writing to curators of profiles in the area to try to get a concensus.

@robertfitzhugh,baron of malpas
I did try to reply before but cannot see it. There was a first base born son of Hugh Lupus called Robert (Robert of Malpas) and a legitimate son called Richard. Richard died on The White Ship with another half brother. Robert inherits certainly some if not all lands etc. He is recorded in The Domesday Book as holding Malpas , formerly held by an Anglo-Saxon ( Ormerod). He has two daughters and no sons and the line divides leading to confusion on the web as one daughter marries into the Le Belward family who all hold different and changing surnames
email: hurleyclare43@hotmail.com
Thanks, Clare Hurley

@robertfitzhugh
try googling him!
Clare Hurley

We also have confusion in the offspring of Robert fitzHugh. Letitia FitzRobert of Malpas is listed as his granddaughter and his daughter Unknown Profile
and William Belward Unknown Profile married Letitia (dau/grandau), and Robert's other daughter Mabillia FitzRobert of Malpas Also a William Belward seems to be married to Robert fitzHugh's neice, Mabel d'Avranches dau of Hugh the younger.
These can't all be correct. Clare you seem to be on top of this what do you think?

@ robert Fitz Hugh
Terry, Do not disconnect Robert Fitzhugh. There is substantial documentary evidence that he is Hugh's first born ( illegitimate) son and he inherits... It cannot be disputed. Robert has a wife; Mabel and two daughters; Mabilla ( name unsure and named for her mother by those online) and Leticia. He has no sons and therefore, the girls inherit a moiety ( half each) of his estates on his death. This is documented many times. Problems arise in that families today confuse the sisters . At one point, one half buys out the other which means my side looses the moiety
Where are you looking and finding such confusions?
Richard Le Belward marries Mabilla not Leticia. Leticia marries Nigel Fitz Hugh.
This is my interpretation and could be wrong, but the generations fit. Mabilla and Richard Le Belward have William Le Belward.

All my research comes from the web.

Clare Hurley I am still trying to ascertain what is correct here. The conflicts are that other profiles on Geni and information on FMG medlands don't corroborate all you are saying. For instance if you check this profile
Sir William "le Belward" ap William, II, Lord of Malpas
you will see that it is a Master Profile and in the Overview it states that he is the son of William I le Belward and Letitia whereas you state that William le Belward married Mabilla (Mabel)
Another profile on Geni agrees that William I le Belward married Mabel d'Avranches however NOT Mabel daughter of Robert Fitzhugh but Mabel daughter of Hugh "Lupus" (i.e. sister of Robert and Richard) I have read elsewhere that the inheritance of the title on the death of Hugh "Lupus" went to a cousin through Hugh's sister Mabel.

You'll see from the overview of the profile of Hugh "Lupus" that according to FMG Medlands Robert fitzHugh was Illgt son of Hugh but that he went on to become a monk - Abbot of Bury St Edmonds so the likelihood that he had any children, male or female, is minimal.

I haven't discounted what you've told me, I'm simply laying before you the conflicts as I see them in the hope that if I take any action on this profile and its connections that I do so in a collaborative manner.

@ Robert Fitz Hugh,
I think that this will be impossible to solve. There are so many historical contradictions before the internet came into serious use which can magnify and perpetuate errors.
I was intent upon pinning down an elusive Beatrix and stumbled across the inheritance arguments.
The moiety is key and possibly the only way to solve the confusions. In terms of generations, my solution fits to find the correct timing for my Beatrix who is De Montalt and Eustace De Monte Alto's grand daughter. Also known as The Norman Hunter, he is a friend of Hugh Lupus'.

My purpose in corresponding was the earlier family history and in particular Turstein.

Incidentally, becoming a monk does not mean no children and he became one later rathe than earlier. He is documented as having children.

Anyway, please don't alter your records on my account. Best it stays in the air and does not enter the web to further confuse.

best wishes,

Clare Hurley

A lively discussion here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medi...

Hugh had a legitimate son Robert who died at the sinking of the White Ship, but was he also the father of an illegitimate son Robert de Malpas. Hugh (Earl Hugh) held Malpas, then Robert de Malpas (son of Hugh), then Gilbert de Malpas (younger brother of the St. Saveur heir), but not sure if that Hugh was Earl Hugh or if the Hugh who was father of Robert de Malpas was Earl Hugh. But if not Earl Hugh, then how did Malpas get from Hugh to Robert de Malpas to the St. Saveur family?

I don't see that they ever came up with an answer. One side seems to be arguing that Earl Hugh had two sons named Robert, one legitimate who succeeded to the earldom and the other illegitimate who held Malpas. The other side is arguing that Robert de Malpas was son of a different, unknown Hugh.

I think it is important NOT to rely on everything coming from Geni profiles. This is a recipe for potential error. It is important to look at information on the wider internet and historical documents.
if you look at a list of those who died on The White Ship, you will see Richard D'Avrances who is the legitimate son of Hugh Lupus. There is no son Robert on this list. If Robert died, his two daughters could not have inherited a moiety of Malpas each. This is well documented in historic English documents.
Hugh did not have two sons called Robert. It is very simple.
Geni can allow and then perpetuate inaccuracies and the longer they last and are viewed, the more concrete these errors become. It is SO important and possible to check against outside documents.
clare

Clare, it's not so much a case of 'depending on' what's on Geni profiles but trying to reconcile and get the best end result. People have put these profiles where they have because THEY think that's what the relationship was. If I move them I have to be able to defend my actions and record what I've done and why. If you had entered a profile for x gt grandparent and then someone came along and cut the connection and just moved it without explanation I'm sure you'd be upset and I'm trying to get the tree right without causing such upset. I do agree that checking outside documents is essential. FMG Medlands is quite reliable and a favourite source of mine although I accept that as with all sources it has limitations.

I understand Terry. I am not suggesting that any profile is changed although the error stating that Robert died on The White Ship is wrong and can be checked very easily. I joined the discussion to see if anyone knew more about Turstein!
Clare