Powys-Lybbe Forbears - Person Sheet
Powys-Lybbe Forbears - Person Sheet
NameMaud le Vavasour 
[60, Butler art, Vol II, p. 446 seq.], [54, Husband, Theobald Walter's article], [60, Butler, vol XIV, p. 128], [54, The FitzWarin article], [60, FitzWarin article, Vol V, p. 495, note (c)], [119, Grandfather, Willelm Vavassor, p. 1134], [100, John Ravilious, 2 Jan 2004, "The Lords FitzWarin"], [100, Louise Staley, "Blancminsters", 12 Feb 2005]
[60, Butler art, Vol II, p. 446 seq.], [54, Husband, Theobald Walter's article], [60, Butler, vol XIV, p. 128], [54, The FitzWarin article], [60, FitzWarin article, Vol V, p. 495, note (c)], [119, Grandfather, Willelm Vavassor, p. 1134], [100, John Ravilious, 2 Jan 2004, "The Lords FitzWarin"], [100, Louise Staley, "Blancminsters", 12 Feb 2005]Deathbef 1226
Generalm. (2) Fulk Fitzwarin, grandfather of 1st baron.
FatherRobert Vavasour (-<1327)
MotherN. N.
Spouses
Marriageca 1200 [60, Butler article Vol II, p. 448]
ChildrenTheobald le (ca1200-1230)
2Fulk (III) FitzWarin [54, The Fulk FitzWarine article], [74, No 21310, p. 205], [60, Tregoz article, Vol XII/2, p. 21], [60, FitzWarin article, Vol V, p. 495, note (c)], [100, John Ravilous, "CP Correction: Fulk III Fitzwarin", 4 May 2003], [100, John Ravilious, 2 Jan 2004, "The Lords FitzWarin"], [100, Louise Staley, "Blancminsters", 12 Feb 2005]
[54, The Fulk FitzWarine article], [74, No 21310, p. 205], [60, Tregoz article, Vol XII/2, p. 21], [60, FitzWarin article, Vol V, p. 495, note (c)], [100, John Ravilous, "CP Correction: Fulk III Fitzwarin", 4 May 2003], [100, John Ravilious, 2 Jan 2004, "The Lords FitzWarin"], [100, Louise Staley, "Blancminsters", 12 Feb 2005]FatherFulk (II) FitzWarin (-1197)
MotherHawise de Dinan
Marriagebef 1 Oct 1207 [54, The Fulk FitzWarine article], [100, John Ravilious, 2 Jan 2004, "The Lords FitzWarin"]
Notes for Maud le Vavasour
CP says in the Butler article that she was dau. and heir of her father, possibly (ambiguously, even) receiving the manors of Edlington, Newborough, etc in Yorks.
However in CP XII/2, 231, note (i), it says that Maud was merely a daughter of her father’s first marriage. Further on p. 232, it clearly says he had a son John by his second marriage so that Maud could NOT have been an heir to Robert. But I did not discover the detail of this until 2011, solely through a reference on the site of
CP XIV, 128, in fact makes this correction that she was NOT heir.
______________
However in CP XII/2, 231, note (i), it says that Maud was merely a daughter of her father’s first marriage. Further on p. 232, it clearly says he had a son John by his second marriage so that Maud could NOT have been an heir to Robert. But I did not discover the detail of this until 2011, solely through a reference on the site of
CP XIV, 128, in fact makes this correction that she was NOT heir.
______________