





























By John Watson-Taylor. 307 
also gave to Montebourg the advowson of the Church at the same 
place to be held free and undisturbed as Roger the priest held it 
“of the gift of Stephen my father.”! Among the witnesses to this 
last charter are “Ralph Patric and Roger, my uncles,” who also 
appear (as “Roger de Mandeville and Ralph Patric, my uncles ”’) 
in the testing clause of the Montacute charter. 
The family of Patric had considerable possessions in the neigh- 
bourhood of Caen, where the parish and chateau of Le Mesnil 
Patry? still bear witness to their importance. The cartulary of 
St. Vincent de Caen also supplies a short pedigree of the family of 
William Patric the brother of a Ralph Patric,* and perhaps the 
“uncle of Mabilia Patric, who also married into the Erlestoke family. 
We now come to Roger de Mandeville (III.), who succeeded his 
father, Stephen, in his possessions in England and Normandy, and 
is the first recorded tenant of the manor of Erlestoke. Whether 
he succeeded his father in this possession also is uncertain but 
highly probable. 
Seend seems to have been granted as a separate manor for the 
first time by Henry IIL.,3 but from the contents of a Curia Regis 
Roll of the same King’s time it appears that Erlestoke had been 
granted away by Henry L° 
q The roll referred to is the record of a suit for the manor against 
the tenant of that time, made by the King on the ground that it 
was ancient demesne of the crown, of which Henry I. had seisin 
and which had been wrongfully alienated in that King’s time. It 
as been shown above that Roger de Mandeville held the manor 
of the King in chief in 1155, so that it may be presumed that the 
lea of wrongful alienation was merely a legal form, and that the 
1MS., Latin, 10087, No. 263. 
2 MS., Latin, 5445, p. 95. 
3 MS., Latin, 5444, p. 649. 
4MS., Latin, 5445, p. 97. 
5 Aubrey and J ackson, Wiltshire, p. 302, n. 
6 No. 151, 37 and 88 Hen. III., m. 16. 
a) 
bo 
