Tanglust illegitimate daughter of Hugh (d'Avranches) - Birth Dates

Started by Diane Driscoll on Saturday, August 22, 2015


Profiles Mentioned:

Showing 1-30 of 140 posts
8/22/2015 at 4:21 PM

The birth date of Tanglust is listed as 1170. Her father is listed as Hugues (Hugh) "Vras" "Le Gros" "Lupus" d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester....who died 27 Jul 1101. This is 69 years before Tanglust's listed birth. Can anyone source these dates, as these don't make sense. Thanks!

Private User
8/22/2015 at 5:06 PM

The dates look wrong to me you will have to check with Curated by Pam Wilson

Private User
12/25/2015 at 9:17 PM

1) Ancestry.co.uk has the mother of David "le Clerc" de Malpas, born 1185, being "Tanglust Beatrix "le Meschin" DeKeveliock De Meschines (1166-1241)" . Who is the father of Tanglust: Hugh D'Averanches or Hugh Keveliock?

2) Why have 40 managers of this page approved Tanglust being born almost 70 years after the death of Hugh D'Averanches? That is sloppy management.

12/26/2015 at 7:33 AM

The problem here is not just with the web trees that give varying information, but that the scholarly sources also contradict each other.

I'll get on this; thanks for pointing it out (because Tangwystl has been spelled Tanglust, I might not have found it for a while!).

In the meantime -- Pam Wilson, Curator-on-hiatus Private User Terry Jackson (Switzer) Erica Howton -- you've all been in on curating or discussing this line; what is your take on this?

12/26/2015 at 8:00 AM

... So far ...

... Profile notes are not matching data elements

* Born: Abt 1125, Chester, Cheshire, England

Marriage Information:

Tanghurst married William "Le Belward" DE MALPAS, son of William "Le Belward" DE MALPAS and Mabel D' AVRANCHES. (William "Le Belward" DE MALPAS was born in 1129 in Malpas, Cheshire, England.)


I think she is not supposed to be the daughter of Hugh Kevellock.

On the other hand, there is no reference to her in the notes for the 1st Earl of Chester

12/26/2015 at 8:18 AM

Hugh Kevelioc didn't, as far as the sources say, have lots of mistresses, whereas Hugh d'Avranches did, AND it's clear that he married one of his illegitimate daughters off into the de Malpas family -- some sources say William, some say Phillip.

The oldest sources don't give dates; those are extrapolated from the genealogies and the charters.

Darrell Wolcott, naturally, has attempted to untangle things, and we might well go along with his interpretation --


12/26/2015 at 8:38 AM

This tree gets confused all too easily and is difficult to understand some of the ins and outs....Pam Wilson, Curator-on-hiatus seems to know what she's doing here better than me!

12/26/2015 at 8:42 AM

I was just reading those notes as extracted into the husband's profile:


in 1071 Hugh the Fat, aka Hugh Lupus [d'Avranches], was made the Earl of Chester. Sir William of Malpas was then about 40 years old and had 3 sons yet minors; we suggest he continued to serve his new Norman lord just as he had served the Saxon Earls and now held Malpas as a tenant of Earl Hugh. About 1085, Earl Hugh settled the Lordship of Malpas (mostly a landlord's income stream, not actual possession of land) on his base son Robert-fitz-Hugh. To mitigate this intrusion on the Baron of Malpas, '''Hugh gave one of his base daughters (Tanglust) as wife to William II, the eldest son of Sir William of Malpas'''.


So the profile dates need adjustment.

Private User
12/26/2015 at 8:50 AM

FWIW, I have David le Clerk de Malpas as son of William le Belward de Malpas and his wife Beatrice de Kevlioc, natural daughter of Hugh de Kevlioc by an unknown mistress.

It looks like the original source for this was Collins Peerage except there seems to be some dispute somewhere about whether Beatrice can have been legitimate.


12/26/2015 at 8:56 AM

Further notes & a question before addressing dating.

From the notes for Sir William "le Belward" of Malpas :

The wife of William is not known. He likely had a son William de Malpas II. As to his children, there is also great confusion. Clearly, several significant lineages sprang from this line--Egertons, Cholmondeleys--but the listings of his sons are different in each account. Whether David de Malpas, Robert de Malpas, and Richard de Malpas were sons of William de Malpas I or II is debatable. We have positioned them as sons of William II.

The wife of William II has long been named as a daughter of a Hugh, associated with either Hugh de Kevelioc of Chester or Hugh "Lupus" d'Avranches. While some name a supposed daughter of Hugh de Kevelioc (Beatrix) as his wife, Wolcott argues convincingly that she was more likely Tanglust (aka Tanghurst), illegitimate daughter of Hugh "Lupus: d'Avranches.


Therefore -

- Wolcott's interpretation seems to be the "best known" ?

- it seems William l needs an NN wife & to become the father of William ll?

12/26/2015 at 8:58 AM

Good one Justin I think Dan David "le Clerk" de Malpas, Justice of Chester is time traveling

12/26/2015 at 7:05 PM

I can try and work on this if we are agreed http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id152.html

Is the best guide? Pam Wilson had suggested it to me, if I remember correctly. And of course I'd raise questions (or panics more likely) on this discussion.

12/26/2015 at 7:45 PM

I am fond of Wolcotts work myself. He's working with the old genealogies and making sense of where they can be put together and where they can't, and he's got a solid notion of geography and history. So I'm for it. And looking at Tanglust, his is the only version I've seen that makes any sense at all.

So go ahead if you are interested! But I certainly don't mind to do the untangling.

Private User
12/26/2015 at 7:58 PM

Just don't get stuck on Collins ;)

12/26/2015 at 8:00 PM

If you can help check i got the names right .... For instance, i don't think Tanglust would have carried a d'Avranches name at all?

And I'd rather go down tree.

I'm pretty sure William l's ancestry is incorrect. I don't know all the alternate names here, but I read Wolcott as having:

Iago ap Idwal Foel
Owain ap Iago
Gruffudd ap Owain
William l
William ll
William lll

12/26/2015 at 8:43 PM

Time travelers disconnected to be re homed

Letitia FitzRobert of Malpas & John or Richard le Belward

12/26/2015 at 8:46 PM

I will look at the Wolcotts list tomorrow. And be helpful with names.

Tanglust/Tangwystl shows up with both spellings, but the Tangwystl makes most sense; clearly the mistress who was her mother was Welsh. The other spelling is an attempt to spell the name the way it sounds to non Welsh ears.

I would call her Tangwystl of Chester, with "of Chester" in the suffix field. And Tanglust in the nickname field.

But h real name is Tangwystl verch Hugh. It doesn't appear in the records so far as I've seen though, so there's no real point in putting "verch Hugh" in the last name field,in that no one will be searching for her by that name.

Wouldn't hurt anything, though.

12/26/2015 at 8:57 PM

I should be clearer. What I meant by her "real name," when there isn't written evidence that I know of, is that is what her mother would have thought of her as.

And Hugh recognized her; hence her use as a connection with the de Malpas crew. But no, she's not a d'Avranche.

12/26/2015 at 9:06 PM

So then I thought, I better check I am not just making all this stuff up. I had checked the name "Tanglust" this afternoon. It appears only in reference to this person. It's not a name that makes any sense.

And no I'm not making this up. I checked "Tanghurst" and it also only appears as a name in reference to this person. It's an heraldic term, but it's not a name.

"Tangwystl" is a name.

12/26/2015 at 9:13 PM

I like adding "verch Hugh," that makes it clearer. I sent you "add yourself as manager" requests to the new father of William l because that's getting into very ancient Wales. And I'll have time travelers of Chomeley to re home. We're missing generations as is, Wollcott helps solve it.

12/26/2015 at 9:22 PM

When I've been working on the Welsh, I've been going about as recent as 1400, though I'm not fanatic about that. It's around 1500 that the use of the English style of surnames gets codified, but before that, especially as you move past 1350 or so, there is a lot of interplay between English and Welsh style, in the families that intermarried.

So you see mixed name styles, within the same generation. Bleddyn de Acton, of A Welsh family but living among the Anglo Normans, has a brother Richard Le Waleys -- Richard the Welshman -- and a son called, in the Welsh custom, Madog ap Bleddyn.

So the mixing makes sense.

12/27/2015 at 10:34 AM

This "history of Malpas" looks like a fun read


12/27/2015 at 10:54 AM

Oh, cool. And you are working on the Cholmondeleys?

12/27/2015 at 11:32 AM

Not yet. Go for it if interested! I fell into the Sutton mess & now am back to the 2nd & 3rd sons of Sir William.

Would they all have been born at Malpas, or in Wales?

12/27/2015 at 12:13 PM

The Anglo Normans are probably born at Malpas. But there would be a lot of back and forth, here on the border.

I will mess with this all probably tomorrow ! At the moment there are more festivities. My Dad has a near Christmas birthday today and we had a blizzard. Big times.

12/27/2015 at 9:49 PM

Needs to join the rest of his family: Rhodri ap Gruffudd

12/28/2015 at 12:15 AM

Detached Lady Anglarad Clerke as daughter of David de Malpas & Constance verch Owain, of Powys

Age is wrong to be of this generation. I do not see her in Ormerod


12/28/2015 at 12:18 AM

A question not addressed by Wollcott

Was Constance verch Owain, of Powys the wife of David de Malpas

Who was not "the bastard" and who was the father of the co heirs Idonea de Malpas & Beatrice de Malpas

12/28/2015 at 10:10 AM

Detached John or Richard le Belward as husband of Letitia FitzRobert of Malpas

Looks like she married Richard Patrick

12/28/2015 at 10:28 AM

This is such a complicated piece of the tree.

Going to try to help out here without getting in the way....

(You seem to be on a roll!)

Showing 1-30 of 140 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion