Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Dear chums
Today my continuing on-going and purposeful research has uncovered a
truly catastrophic error in CP.
In CP X 170 it has:
"[Philip de Orreby II] m. Leucha da. of Roger de Mohaut (s. of Robert
de Mohaut by Leucha his wife -- see MOHAUT) and d.v.p leaving a da.
Agnes who in or before 1227 was her mother's heir."
Philip's father was b. c. 1260 and died in 1230 so it looks like Philip
II d. bef. 1227. Philip II was born c. 1190.
Now go to the Mohaut article in IX, pp. 11 to 12 and we have:
Roger de Mohaut, who m. Leuca, defeated the Welsh in battle in 1146 and
d. c. 1162. He had two sons Ralph (d. c. 1200) and Robert (d. c. 1210)
who m. Nichole.
Following Robert there is Roger de Mohaut who died in 1232 and of whom
CP says:
"Roger de Mohaut, presumably son of Robert."
This Roger attested a charter not later than 1211, possess his lands
in 1212 and was generally active in the records from then until 1231.
So it looks like he was Roger son of Robert son of Robert. Further he
had a son Roger who m. Cecily d'Albini.
From Ormerod's History of Cheshire Vol II, p. 85 we find that Philip de
Orreby and Leuca de Mohaut's daughter Agnes married a Walkelyn de
Arderne who looks like he inherited from his father in 1237 or so and
died c. 1265.
Putting all this together in a tree gives: (Please set your news reader
to a non-proportional font such as Courier to read this table OK)
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
____________________________|_______
| | |
Ralph Robert Leuca = Philip de Orreby
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210 d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
____| ________|
| |
Roger = Nichole Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1232 | d. c. 1265
|
|
Roger = Cecily d'Albini
d.1260 d. aft 1260
Just to confuse matters, Ormerod makes Leuca who m. Roger de Orreby to
be the daughter of Roger de Mohaut and Cecily d'Albini This is obviously
wrong.
The more serious problem is the above number of years between the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his grand-daughter's
husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a generation and cannot be
right. The manifest conclusion is that the father of Leuca de Mohaut
who m. Philip de Orreby was Robert de Mohaut who d. in c. 1210, giving:
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________
| |
Ralph Robert
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210
________________|_____
| |
Roger = Nichole Leuca = Philip de Orreby
d.1232 | d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
___| |
| |
Roger = Cecily d'Albini Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1260 d. aft 1260 d. c. 1265
Obviously this earth-shattering discovery must affect millions of
people. Perhaps like Charlemagne, everyone now is descended from Agnes
de Orreby. Accordingly I cannot list all the people who were alive in
England before 1700 and who might be descend from them and who might
also be the ancestors of all these millions. But for those that feel
that way inclined, they can just get out a telephone directory and
start reading it.
Finally I will of course be publishing this in my new encyclopaedia of
genealogy. Those who are privileged to read this can also share in the
privilege of having their name in the list of subscribers to the first
edition. All you have to do is to send me £100 in gold and I will
guarantee you a copy of this first edition.
This magnificent offer can never be repeated.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Today my continuing on-going and purposeful research has uncovered a
truly catastrophic error in CP.
In CP X 170 it has:
"[Philip de Orreby II] m. Leucha da. of Roger de Mohaut (s. of Robert
de Mohaut by Leucha his wife -- see MOHAUT) and d.v.p leaving a da.
Agnes who in or before 1227 was her mother's heir."
Philip's father was b. c. 1260 and died in 1230 so it looks like Philip
II d. bef. 1227. Philip II was born c. 1190.
Now go to the Mohaut article in IX, pp. 11 to 12 and we have:
Roger de Mohaut, who m. Leuca, defeated the Welsh in battle in 1146 and
d. c. 1162. He had two sons Ralph (d. c. 1200) and Robert (d. c. 1210)
who m. Nichole.
Following Robert there is Roger de Mohaut who died in 1232 and of whom
CP says:
"Roger de Mohaut, presumably son of Robert."
This Roger attested a charter not later than 1211, possess his lands
in 1212 and was generally active in the records from then until 1231.
So it looks like he was Roger son of Robert son of Robert. Further he
had a son Roger who m. Cecily d'Albini.
From Ormerod's History of Cheshire Vol II, p. 85 we find that Philip de
Orreby and Leuca de Mohaut's daughter Agnes married a Walkelyn de
Arderne who looks like he inherited from his father in 1237 or so and
died c. 1265.
Putting all this together in a tree gives: (Please set your news reader
to a non-proportional font such as Courier to read this table OK)
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
____________________________|_______
| | |
Ralph Robert Leuca = Philip de Orreby
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210 d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
____| ________|
| |
Roger = Nichole Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1232 | d. c. 1265
|
|
Roger = Cecily d'Albini
d.1260 d. aft 1260
Just to confuse matters, Ormerod makes Leuca who m. Roger de Orreby to
be the daughter of Roger de Mohaut and Cecily d'Albini This is obviously
wrong.
The more serious problem is the above number of years between the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his grand-daughter's
husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a generation and cannot be
right. The manifest conclusion is that the father of Leuca de Mohaut
who m. Philip de Orreby was Robert de Mohaut who d. in c. 1210, giving:
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________
| |
Ralph Robert
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210
________________|_____
| |
Roger = Nichole Leuca = Philip de Orreby
d.1232 | d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
___| |
| |
Roger = Cecily d'Albini Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1260 d. aft 1260 d. c. 1265
Obviously this earth-shattering discovery must affect millions of
people. Perhaps like Charlemagne, everyone now is descended from Agnes
de Orreby. Accordingly I cannot list all the people who were alive in
England before 1700 and who might be descend from them and who might
also be the ancestors of all these millions. But for those that feel
that way inclined, they can just get out a telephone directory and
start reading it.
Finally I will of course be publishing this in my new encyclopaedia of
genealogy. Those who are privileged to read this can also share in the
privilege of having their name in the list of subscribers to the first
edition. All you have to do is to send me £100 in gold and I will
guarantee you a copy of this first edition.
This magnificent offer can never be repeated.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Tim wrote;
Well, perhaps it can be repeated in 12 months time!
Adrian
Finally I will of course be publishing this in my new encyclopaedia of
genealogy. Those who are privileged to read this can also share in the
privilege of having their name in the list of subscribers to the first
edition. All you have to do is to send me £100 in gold and I will
guarantee you a copy of this first edition.
This magnificent offer can never be repeated.
Well, perhaps it can be repeated in 12 months time!
Adrian
-
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
RE: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Marvelous News, Well Done,
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe [mailto:tim@powys.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 17:12
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Dear chums
Today my continuing on-going and purposeful research has uncovered a
truly catastrophic error in CP.
In CP X 170 it has:
"[Philip de Orreby II] m. Leucha da. of Roger de Mohaut (s.
of Robert
de Mohaut by Leucha his wife -- see MOHAUT) and d.v.p leaving a da.
Agnes who in or before 1227 was her mother's heir."
Philip's father was b. c. 1260 and died in 1230 so it looks
like Philip
II d. bef. 1227. Philip II was born c. 1190.
Now go to the Mohaut article in IX, pp. 11 to 12 and we have:
Roger de Mohaut, who m. Leuca, defeated the Welsh in battle
in 1146 and
d. c. 1162. He had two sons Ralph (d. c. 1200) and Robert
(d. c. 1210)
who m. Nichole.
Following Robert there is Roger de Mohaut who died in 1232 and of whom
CP says:
"Roger de Mohaut, presumably son of Robert."
This Roger attested a charter not later than 1211, possess his lands
in 1212 and was generally active in the records from then until 1231.
So it looks like he was Roger son of Robert son of Robert. Further he
had a son Roger who m. Cecily d'Albini.
From Ormerod's History of Cheshire Vol II, p. 85 we find that
Philip de
Orreby and Leuca de Mohaut's daughter Agnes married a Walkelyn de
Arderne who looks like he inherited from his father in 1237 or so and
died c. 1265.
Putting all this together in a tree gives: (Please set your
news reader
to a non-proportional font such as Courier to read this table OK)
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
____________________________|_______
| | |
Ralph Robert Leuca = Philip de Orreby
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210 d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
____| ________|
| |
Roger = Nichole Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1232 | d. c. 1265
|
|
Roger = Cecily d'Albini
d.1260 d. aft 1260
Just to confuse matters, Ormerod makes Leuca who m. Roger de Orreby to
be the daughter of Roger de Mohaut and Cecily d'Albini This
is obviously
wrong.
The more serious problem is the above number of years between
the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his grand-daughter's
husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a generation and cannot be
right. The manifest conclusion is that the father of Leuca de Mohaut
who m. Philip de Orreby was Robert de Mohaut who d. in c.
1210, giving:
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________
| |
Ralph Robert
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210
________________|_____
| |
Roger = Nichole Leuca = Philip de Orreby
d.1232 | d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
___| |
| |
Roger = Cecily d'Albini Agnes = Walkelyn
de Arderne
d.1260 d. aft 1260 d. c. 1265
Obviously this earth-shattering discovery must affect millions of
people. Perhaps like Charlemagne, everyone now is descended
from Agnes
de Orreby. Accordingly I cannot list all the people who were alive in
England before 1700 and who might be descend from them and who might
also be the ancestors of all these millions. But for those that feel
that way inclined, they can just get out a telephone directory and
start reading it.
Finally I will of course be publishing this in my new encyclopaedia of
genealogy. Those who are privileged to read this can also
share in the
privilege of having their name in the list of subscribers to the first
edition. All you have to do is to send me £100 in gold and I will
guarantee you a copy of this first edition.
This magnificent offer can never be repeated.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In a message dated 02/04/05 04:03:22 GMT Daylight Time, brownrc@anet-dfw.com
writes:
Not so, my mother-in-laws grandfather was born in 1819 and died in 1897.
His grandaughter is STILL ALIVE 186 years after his birth and 108 years after
his death.
Although I do agree that your findings are correct in this case. Thank you
for spotting CPs error.
Rose
writes:
more serious problem is the above number of years between
the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his grand-daughter's
husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a generation and cannot be
right
Not so, my mother-in-laws grandfather was born in 1819 and died in 1897.
His grandaughter is STILL ALIVE 186 years after his birth and 108 years after
his death.
Although I do agree that your findings are correct in this case. Thank you
for spotting CPs error.
Rose
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 2 Apr, Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
And my father died 116 years after the death of his paternal
grandfather.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In a message dated 02/04/05 04:03:22 GMT Daylight Time,
brownrc@anet-dfw.com writes:
more serious problem is the above number of years between
the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his
grand-daughter's husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a
generation and cannot be right
Not so, my mother-in-laws grandfather was born in 1819 and died in
1897. His grandaughter is STILL ALIVE 186 years after his birth and
108 years after his death.
And my father died 116 years after the death of his paternal
grandfather.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
HI Tim
The way I understand it is more complicated. I think there were two
Roger's in question here - father and uncle as Weis explained in Magna
Charta Sureties line 129.
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca filia William
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________ _______________
| | |
Ralph Robert Eustace de Arden,
Seneschal
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210 |
________________| Roger = Cecily d'Albini
| d.1260 d. aft 1260
|
Roger = Nichole
d.1232 |
___|
|
________________________________________
| |
Leuca = Philip de Orreby Beatrix=(c)Wm. de
Malpas
d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
|
|
Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
CP IX: 10-11, X-168-170, Wm. Salt Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89. CP I: 237. As
well as Weis on Ancestral Roots 6 and MC 5.
Doug Smith
The way I understand it is more complicated. I think there were two
Roger's in question here - father and uncle as Weis explained in Magna
Charta Sureties line 129.
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca filia William
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________ _______________
| | |
Ralph Robert Eustace de Arden,
Seneschal
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210 |
________________| Roger = Cecily d'Albini
| d.1260 d. aft 1260
|
Roger = Nichole
d.1232 |
___|
|
________________________________________
| |
Leuca = Philip de Orreby Beatrix=(c)Wm. de
Malpas
d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
|
|
Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
CP IX: 10-11, X-168-170, Wm. Salt Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89. CP I: 237. As
well as Weis on Ancestral Roots 6 and MC 5.
Doug Smith
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 2 Apr, alden@mindspring.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
Weis refers explicitly both to the CP references I gave and to "Wm. Salt
Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89". His methodology seem to be that of referring
to the classic authors and not to the evidence behind them. Can anyone
say what is to be found in the William Salt Society publication?
Unfortunately the above is not very clear in a non-proportional font and
I do not know what proportions to add for the proportional font it
probably started in!
What comes from CP IX pages 10 and 11 is that the Roger de Mohaut who
m. Cecily d'Aubigny was the _son_ of Roger and Nichole. This conflicts
with what I think I see in the diagram above. So where is the evidence
that Roger who m. Cecily d'Aubigny was not the son of Roger and Nichole?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
HI Tim
Hi everybody,
The way I understand it is more complicated. I think there were two
Roger's in question here - father and uncle as Weis explained in Magna
Charta Sureties line 129.
Weis refers explicitly both to the CP references I gave and to "Wm. Salt
Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89". His methodology seem to be that of referring
to the classic authors and not to the evidence behind them. Can anyone
say what is to be found in the William Salt Society publication?
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca filia William
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________ _______________
| | |
Ralph Robert Eustace de Arden,
Seneschal
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210 |
________________| Roger = Cecily d'Albini
| d.1260 d. aft 1260
|
Roger = Nichole
d.1232 |
___|
|
________________________________________
| |
Leuca = Philip de Orreby Beatrix=(c)Wm. de
Malpas
d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
|
|
Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
Unfortunately the above is not very clear in a non-proportional font and
I do not know what proportions to add for the proportional font it
probably started in!
What comes from CP IX pages 10 and 11 is that the Roger de Mohaut who
m. Cecily d'Aubigny was the _son_ of Roger and Nichole. This conflicts
with what I think I see in the diagram above. So where is the evidence
that Roger who m. Cecily d'Aubigny was not the son of Roger and Nichole?
CP IX: 10-11, X-168-170, Wm. Salt Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89. CP I: 237. As
well as Weis on Ancestral Roots 6 and MC 5.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Hi Tim
Sorry I don't have access to Wm Salt here in Raleigh. Will look next
time I am at Library of Congress.
Based on Weis and Sheppard "breaking" line 129 presumably on the basis
of what they saw in the Wm. Salt references, it would be very
interesting to have that text.
Doug Smith
Sorry I don't have access to Wm Salt here in Raleigh. Will look next
time I am at Library of Congress.
Based on Weis and Sheppard "breaking" line 129 presumably on the basis
of what they saw in the Wm. Salt references, it would be very
interesting to have that text.
Doug Smith
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 2 Apr, alden@mindspring.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
My understanding is that the duff line was broken at CP's hands and that
the original wrong descent came from, amongst other places, Ormerod's
Cheshire. It was through padding around the quicksands of Ormerod
that I came across the gross problem and found that CP had its own
little confusion.
I will be very interested to hear (from anyone) what Salt says.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Hi Tim
Hi everyone,
Sorry I don't have access to Wm Salt here in Raleigh. Will look next
time I am at Library of Congress.
Based on Weis and Sheppard "breaking" line 129 presumably on the basis
of what they saw in the Wm. Salt references, it would be very
interesting to have that text.
My understanding is that the duff line was broken at CP's hands and that
the original wrong descent came from, amongst other places, Ormerod's
Cheshire. It was through padding around the quicksands of Ormerod
that I came across the gross problem and found that CP had its own
little confusion.
I will be very interested to hear (from anyone) what Salt says.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Here are pages 46-7. I don't have page 24.
William Salt IV pp 46-7.
Plea Rolls of the Reign of Henry III. Roll No. 27
Headed "P_lacita apud Westm: anno R.R. Henrici, filii Regis
Johannis, undecimo a die Paschae in XV dies." [25th April 1227]
m. 9 "Placita de octabis Sanctae Trinitatis, anno undecimo."
[13th June, 1227]
Staff. An assize of last presentation to the Church of Elleford, the
advowson of which Roger de monhaut (Montealto) claimed against Philip
de Oregy; who came by his attorney, and stted an assize ought not to be
taken, because Ralph de Monhaut presented William de Haya, who last
died parson of the Church; but after that presentation the said Ralph
gave the manor to Roger de Monhaut his brother, who held the manor all
his life; and after his death the manor descended to leuca, his
daughter, and from Leuca to Agnes, daughter of Leuca, who is in ward to
the said Philip by gift of Roger de Monhaut the capital lord; and he
produced the deed of the said Roger, which showed he had give 100 marks
to the said Roger for the wardship of Agnes, daugthter of Leuca, and of
her inheritance, which descended to her from Roger, her father, in
Elleford, and in Cassingland; and inasmuch as Ralph gave the land
without excepting the advowson of the Church, and the Church had not
since been vacant, he asked for judgment of the Court if the said Roger
had any claim to the advowdon, inasmuch as the advowdon pertains to the
manor.
And Roger by his attorney appeared and pleaded the Ralph, his ancestor,
had made the last presentation, and that Roger had never been in seisin
of the advowson, neither had Leuca his daughter, nor Agnes; and as
Philip admitted the seisin of Ralph, he asked for siesin; and being
questioned if Ralph had given the manor, cum pertinentiis, answered he
did not know; but acknowledged the deed which he made to the said
Philip of the land with its appurtenances.
And because both parties acknowledge that Ralph, after the last
presentation, had given the manor with appurtenances to the siad Roger,
and Roger could not show that the advowson had been excepted, nor
produced any evidence, nor any charter, and had besides acknowledged
that Roger died seised of the manor with appurtenances, and Leuca
likewise in the same manner, "it is considered that Philip should
recover seisin by reason of his custody of the said agnes, saving the
right of Roger, if he should wish to inde loqui." And Roger is in
misericordia. [Footnote 1 This suit shows the pedigree of Montalt in
Ormerod's "Cheshire" to be incrrect in some particulars.] m. 9
In message of 2 Apr, alden@mindspring.com wrote:
I will be very interested to hear (from anyone) what Salt says.
Here are pages 46-7. I don't have page 24.
William Salt IV pp 46-7.
Plea Rolls of the Reign of Henry III. Roll No. 27
Headed "P_lacita apud Westm: anno R.R. Henrici, filii Regis
Johannis, undecimo a die Paschae in XV dies." [25th April 1227]
m. 9 "Placita de octabis Sanctae Trinitatis, anno undecimo."
[13th June, 1227]
Staff. An assize of last presentation to the Church of Elleford, the
advowson of which Roger de monhaut (Montealto) claimed against Philip
de Oregy; who came by his attorney, and stted an assize ought not to be
taken, because Ralph de Monhaut presented William de Haya, who last
died parson of the Church; but after that presentation the said Ralph
gave the manor to Roger de Monhaut his brother, who held the manor all
his life; and after his death the manor descended to leuca, his
daughter, and from Leuca to Agnes, daughter of Leuca, who is in ward to
the said Philip by gift of Roger de Monhaut the capital lord; and he
produced the deed of the said Roger, which showed he had give 100 marks
to the said Roger for the wardship of Agnes, daugthter of Leuca, and of
her inheritance, which descended to her from Roger, her father, in
Elleford, and in Cassingland; and inasmuch as Ralph gave the land
without excepting the advowson of the Church, and the Church had not
since been vacant, he asked for judgment of the Court if the said Roger
had any claim to the advowdon, inasmuch as the advowdon pertains to the
manor.
And Roger by his attorney appeared and pleaded the Ralph, his ancestor,
had made the last presentation, and that Roger had never been in seisin
of the advowson, neither had Leuca his daughter, nor Agnes; and as
Philip admitted the seisin of Ralph, he asked for siesin; and being
questioned if Ralph had given the manor, cum pertinentiis, answered he
did not know; but acknowledged the deed which he made to the said
Philip of the land with its appurtenances.
And because both parties acknowledge that Ralph, after the last
presentation, had given the manor with appurtenances to the siad Roger,
and Roger could not show that the advowson had been excepted, nor
produced any evidence, nor any charter, and had besides acknowledged
that Roger died seised of the manor with appurtenances, and Leuca
likewise in the same manner, "it is considered that Philip should
recover seisin by reason of his custody of the said agnes, saving the
right of Roger, if he should wish to inde loqui." And Roger is in
misericordia. [Footnote 1 This suit shows the pedigree of Montalt in
Ormerod's "Cheshire" to be incrrect in some particulars.] m. 9
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 2 Apr, mardicar@yahoo.com wrote:
Superb, what more could I have asked for! And many thanks, of course.
I think this says that the relationships were:
(Please set your news reader to a proportional font such as Courier in
order to read this table.)
NN de Mohaut
___________|_____________
| |
Ralph, now dead Roger, now dead
: |
: Leuca, probably now dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive, ward of Philip de Orreby
I don't think either of the previous two paragraphs contradict the tree
I proposed above.
Now for what I proposed earlier:
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________
| |
Ralph Robert
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210
________________|_____
| |
Roger = Nichole Leuca = Philip de Orreby
d.1232 | d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
___| |
| |
Roger = Cecily d'Albini Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1260 d. aft 1260 d. c. 1265
It looks like this is wrecked! Ralph did not dsp and Robert II de
Mohaut was not Agnes' ancestor. But various points are worth asking:
1. When Roger the plaintiff said that Ralph was his ancestor, did this
mean what we now mean by "ancestor" or could it have included uncles
and great-uncles?
2. Was the Philip de Orreby who held Agnes in ward in fact her
grandfather?
3. Which Roger de Mohaut was the plaintiff in this case, the Roger who
m. Nichole or the Roger who m. Cecily?
Interestingly CP appears to refer to this case in Vol X, p. 170, note
(c) where it says:
"In Easter term of that year [1227] Sir Philip, the Justiciar, who had
bought from Roger de Mohaut, the seneschal, the wardship and marriage
of the said Agnes, successfully defended an action by the seneschal
with regard to her property (Ormerod, loc. cit., from Grosvenor MS xvi
5, p. 100; Curia Regis Roll 97, m. 9)"
Earlier Sir Philip de Orreby the justiciar is stated to be the
grandfather of Agnes [de Orreby].
Is is not clear to me which of the Roger de Mohauts can be described as
"the seneschal".
A final pointer towards a better elucidation is in CP IX, 11, note (g)
where it says of Robert de Mohaut, father of the above Ralph and Roger:
"By his wife Leucha he had sons Ralph, Robert, William, Ranulph and
Roger of Elford (Bracton's Note Book, No 260)"
Additionally in the Orreby article it has, vol X p. 170:
"As Leuca de Elleford, with consent of Philip de Orreby her husband,
she made a certain grant."
This indicates that this Leuca was the daughter of Roger de Mohaut of
Elford, giving this for today's version, as of 1227:
Robert de Mohaut = Leucha Philip de
___________________|_______________________ Orreby
| | | | | justiciar
Ralph, now dead Robert William Ranulph Roger, now dead |
: | |
: Leuca, = Philip de Orreby
: probably now dead probably dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive,
ward of Philip I de Orreby
Any better information, anyone?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 2 Apr, alden@mindspring.com wrote:
I will be very interested to hear (from anyone) what Salt says.
Here are pages 46-7. I don't have page 24.
Superb, what more could I have asked for! And many thanks, of course.
William Salt IV pp 46-7.
Plea Rolls of the Reign of Henry III. Roll No. 27
Headed "P_lacita apud Westm: anno R.R. Henrici, filii Regis
Johannis, undecimo a die Paschae in XV dies." [25th April 1227]
m. 9 "Placita de octabis Sanctae Trinitatis, anno undecimo."
[13th June, 1227]
Staff. An assize of last presentation to the Church of Elleford, the
advowson of which Roger de monhaut (Montealto) claimed against Philip
de Oregy; who came by his attorney, and stted an assize ought not to be
taken, because Ralph de Monhaut presented William de Haya, who last
died parson of the Church; but after that presentation the said Ralph
gave the manor to Roger de Monhaut his brother, who held the manor all
his life; and after his death the manor descended to leuca, his
daughter, and from Leuca to Agnes, daughter of Leuca, who is in ward to
the said Philip by gift of Roger de Monhaut the capital lord; and he
produced the deed of the said Roger, which showed he had give 100 marks
to the said Roger for the wardship of Agnes, daugthter of Leuca, and of
her inheritance, which descended to her from Roger, her father, in
Elleford, and in Cassingland; and inasmuch as Ralph gave the land
without excepting the advowson of the Church, and the Church had not
since been vacant, he asked for judgment of the Court if the said Roger
had any claim to the advowdon, inasmuch as the advowdon pertains to the
manor.
I think this says that the relationships were:
(Please set your news reader to a proportional font such as Courier in
order to read this table.)
NN de Mohaut
___________|_____________
| |
Ralph, now dead Roger, now dead
: |
: Leuca, probably now dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive, ward of Philip de Orreby
And Roger by his attorney appeared and pleaded the Ralph, his ancestor,
had made the last presentation, and that Roger had never been in seisin
of the advowson, neither had Leuca his daughter, nor Agnes; and as
Philip admitted the seisin of Ralph, he asked for siesin; and being
questioned if Ralph had given the manor, cum pertinentiis, answered he
did not know; but acknowledged the deed which he made to the said
Philip of the land with its appurtenances.
And because both parties acknowledge that Ralph, after the last
presentation, had given the manor with appurtenances to the siad Roger,
and Roger could not show that the advowson had been excepted, nor
produced any evidence, nor any charter, and had besides acknowledged
that Roger died seised of the manor with appurtenances, and Leuca
likewise in the same manner, "it is considered that Philip should
recover seisin by reason of his custody of the said agnes, saving the
right of Roger, if he should wish to inde loqui." And Roger is in
misericordia. [Footnote 1 This suit shows the pedigree of Montalt in
Ormerod's "Cheshire" to be incrrect in some particulars.] m. 9
I don't think either of the previous two paragraphs contradict the tree
I proposed above.
Now for what I proposed earlier:
Robert de Mohaut = Leuca
(d.c.1162) |
|
__________________|________
| |
Ralph Robert
dsp.c.1200 d.c.1210
________________|_____
| |
Roger = Nichole Leuca = Philip de Orreby
d.1232 | d.c.1227 | d.c.1225
___| |
| |
Roger = Cecily d'Albini Agnes = Walkelyn de Arderne
d.1260 d. aft 1260 d. c. 1265
It looks like this is wrecked! Ralph did not dsp and Robert II de
Mohaut was not Agnes' ancestor. But various points are worth asking:
1. When Roger the plaintiff said that Ralph was his ancestor, did this
mean what we now mean by "ancestor" or could it have included uncles
and great-uncles?
2. Was the Philip de Orreby who held Agnes in ward in fact her
grandfather?
3. Which Roger de Mohaut was the plaintiff in this case, the Roger who
m. Nichole or the Roger who m. Cecily?
Interestingly CP appears to refer to this case in Vol X, p. 170, note
(c) where it says:
"In Easter term of that year [1227] Sir Philip, the Justiciar, who had
bought from Roger de Mohaut, the seneschal, the wardship and marriage
of the said Agnes, successfully defended an action by the seneschal
with regard to her property (Ormerod, loc. cit., from Grosvenor MS xvi
5, p. 100; Curia Regis Roll 97, m. 9)"
Earlier Sir Philip de Orreby the justiciar is stated to be the
grandfather of Agnes [de Orreby].
Is is not clear to me which of the Roger de Mohauts can be described as
"the seneschal".
A final pointer towards a better elucidation is in CP IX, 11, note (g)
where it says of Robert de Mohaut, father of the above Ralph and Roger:
"By his wife Leucha he had sons Ralph, Robert, William, Ranulph and
Roger of Elford (Bracton's Note Book, No 260)"
Additionally in the Orreby article it has, vol X p. 170:
"As Leuca de Elleford, with consent of Philip de Orreby her husband,
she made a certain grant."
This indicates that this Leuca was the daughter of Roger de Mohaut of
Elford, giving this for today's version, as of 1227:
Robert de Mohaut = Leucha Philip de
___________________|_______________________ Orreby
| | | | | justiciar
Ralph, now dead Robert William Ranulph Roger, now dead |
: | |
: Leuca, = Philip de Orreby
: probably now dead probably dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive,
ward of Philip I de Orreby
Any better information, anyone?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Weis in AR7 line 150 notes (gen. 27) that "This Roger de Mohaut [of
Elford d. 1230/1 when his heir was Agnes de Orreby] was misidentified
in the early editions and in von Redlich. He did not marry Cecily de
Aubigny. That Roger de Mohaut was his nephew." He gives no source.
Mardi
Elford d. 1230/1 when his heir was Agnes de Orreby] was misidentified
in the early editions and in von Redlich. He did not marry Cecily de
Aubigny. That Roger de Mohaut was his nephew." He gives no source.
Mardi
-
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
RE: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Actually, it was Tim that wrote that, I just congratulated him.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Maytree4@aol.com [mailto:Maytree4@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 02:28
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In a message dated 02/04/05 04:03:22 GMT Daylight Time,
brownrc@anet-dfw.com
writes:
more serious problem is the above number of years between
the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his
grand-daughter's
husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a generation
and cannot be
right
Not so, my mother-in-laws grandfather was born in 1819 and
died in 1897.
His grandaughter is STILL ALIVE 186 years after his birth and
108 years after
his death.
Although I do agree that your findings are correct in this
case. Thank you
for spotting CPs error.
Rose
-
CE Wood
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
What happened to Eustace?? Magna Carta Sureties, Line 129 between No.2
(Cecily d'Aubigny) & No. 3 (Leauca de Mohaut), has Eustace de Arden as
father of the Roger who married Cecily:
"The parents of Leuca (No.3) were another Roger de Mohaut of Hawarden,
d. 1232 (when his h. was Agnes de Orreby), and his wife Nichole. This
Roger was bro. of Eustace who was father of the Roger (No.2), and yr.
son of Robert de Mohaut of Hawarden, constable of Cheshire. (CP IX,
10-11; XI 168-170; Wm. Salt Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89)."
Thus:
1. Robert de Mohaut
2a. Eustace de Arden, Baron of Hawarden
3. Roger de Mohaut (d 18 Jun 1260) m Cecily d'Aubigny
2b. Roger de Mohaut (d 1232) m Nicole
3. Leuca de Mohaut m Philip de Orreby
CE Wood
mardicar@yahoo.com wrote:
(Cecily d'Aubigny) & No. 3 (Leauca de Mohaut), has Eustace de Arden as
father of the Roger who married Cecily:
"The parents of Leuca (No.3) were another Roger de Mohaut of Hawarden,
d. 1232 (when his h. was Agnes de Orreby), and his wife Nichole. This
Roger was bro. of Eustace who was father of the Roger (No.2), and yr.
son of Robert de Mohaut of Hawarden, constable of Cheshire. (CP IX,
10-11; XI 168-170; Wm. Salt Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89)."
Thus:
1. Robert de Mohaut
2a. Eustace de Arden, Baron of Hawarden
3. Roger de Mohaut (d 18 Jun 1260) m Cecily d'Aubigny
2b. Roger de Mohaut (d 1232) m Nicole
3. Leuca de Mohaut m Philip de Orreby
CE Wood
mardicar@yahoo.com wrote:
Weis in AR7 line 150 notes (gen. 27) that "This Roger de Mohaut [of
Elford d. 1230/1 when his heir was Agnes de Orreby] was misidentified
in the early editions and in von Redlich. He did not marry Cecily de
Aubigny. That Roger de Mohaut was his nephew." He gives no source.
Mardi
-
Renia
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
Well, my mother is still alive 123 years after the death of her
grandfather, and 175 years after his birth. (She was born when her
father was 52, and he was born when his father was 49.)
Renia
In a message dated 02/04/05 04:03:22 GMT Daylight Time, brownrc@anet-dfw.com
writes:
more serious problem is the above number of years between
the death
of the first Roger de Mohaut in 1162 and that of his grand-daughter's
husband in 1265, this is, crudely, 50 years a generation and cannot be
right
Not so, my mother-in-laws grandfather was born in 1819 and died in 1897.
His grandaughter is STILL ALIVE 186 years after his birth and 108 years after
his death.
Well, my mother is still alive 123 years after the death of her
grandfather, and 175 years after his birth. (She was born when her
father was 52, and he was born when his father was 49.)
Renia
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 2 Apr, "CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote:
But unless Wm Salt Soc. IV 24 or II 89 has Eustace in it, we have yet
to find any evidence of Eustace.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
What happened to Eustace?? Magna Carta Sureties, Line 129 between No.2
(Cecily d'Aubigny) & No. 3 (Leauca de Mohaut), has Eustace de Arden as
father of the Roger who married Cecily:
"The parents of Leuca (No.3) were another Roger de Mohaut of Hawarden,
d. 1232 (when his h. was Agnes de Orreby), and his wife Nichole. This
Roger was bro. of Eustace who was father of the Roger (No.2), and yr.
son of Robert de Mohaut of Hawarden, constable of Cheshire. (CP IX,
10-11; XI 168-170; Wm. Salt Soc. IV 24, 46; II 89)."
But unless Wm Salt Soc. IV 24 or II 89 has Eustace in it, we have yet
to find any evidence of Eustace.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Slightly off the edge of this discussion, I find in DP p 234 that the
Mohaut family were descendants of Gospatric (Yorkshire Domesday tenant)
through his grandson Simon, son of Gospatric. Does anyone know what
this descent is? I have been unsuccessful in finding further
information in DD, although is may be hidden in there somewhere. The
Domesday tenant Gospatric is also ancestral to Allerston, Hebden and
Thoresby.
Mohaut family were descendants of Gospatric (Yorkshire Domesday tenant)
through his grandson Simon, son of Gospatric. Does anyone know what
this descent is? I have been unsuccessful in finding further
information in DD, although is may be hidden in there somewhere. The
Domesday tenant Gospatric is also ancestral to Allerston, Hebden and
Thoresby.
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
I agree with Tim,
As we can document so far:
Robert de Mohaut = Leucha Philip de
___________________|_______________________ Orreby
| | | | | justiciar
Ralph, now dead Robert William Ranulph Roger, now dead |
: | |
: Leuca, = Philip de Orreby
: probably now dead probably dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive,
ward of Philip I de Orreby
However, if we assume that Weis and Sheppard saw something we have not
yet seen for discussion purposes, then we get something like:
Robert de Mohaut = Leucha Philip de
___________________|_______________________ Orreby
| | | | | justiciar
Ralph, now dead Robert William Ranulph Roger, now dead |
: |
Robert
______________|______________ |
| | |
Eustace Ralph Roger |
dsp |
: Leuca, = Philip de
Orreby
: probably now dead probably dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive,
m. Cecily d 1260 ward of Philip I de
Orreby
This makes the chronology easier (and adds a generation) but has as yet
no documentation (unless it is at Wm Salt Soc. IV 24 or II 89).
I hope the font works better this time. The DD ref was for Mardi. Not
clear it is the same Mohaut family.
Doug
As we can document so far:
Robert de Mohaut = Leucha Philip de
___________________|_______________________ Orreby
| | | | | justiciar
Ralph, now dead Robert William Ranulph Roger, now dead |
: | |
: Leuca, = Philip de Orreby
: probably now dead probably dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive,
ward of Philip I de Orreby
However, if we assume that Weis and Sheppard saw something we have not
yet seen for discussion purposes, then we get something like:
Robert de Mohaut = Leucha Philip de
___________________|_______________________ Orreby
| | | | | justiciar
Ralph, now dead Robert William Ranulph Roger, now dead |
: |
Robert
______________|______________ |
| | |
Eustace Ralph Roger |
dsp |
: Leuca, = Philip de
Orreby
: probably now dead probably dead
: |
Roger, the plaintiff Agnes, alive,
m. Cecily d 1260 ward of Philip I de
Orreby
This makes the chronology easier (and adds a generation) but has as yet
no documentation (unless it is at Wm Salt Soc. IV 24 or II 89).
I hope the font works better this time. The DD ref was for Mardi. Not
clear it is the same Mohaut family.
Doug
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 2 Apr, mardicar@yahoo.com wrote:
If you want a Domesday ancestry, try this one:
(1) Norman [1, His son, Hugo filius Normanni, p. 269],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58]
(2) Hugo FitzNorman [1, Hugo filius Normanni, p. 269],
[3, Mohaut article. Vol IX, p. 10],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58] ( - <1130)
(2) Ralph FitzNorman [3, Mohaut article, Vol IX, p. 10],
[4, Radulf dapifer frater Hugonis, p. 259],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58]
(3) Robert de Mohaut [3, Mohaut article, Vol IX, p. 10-11],
[4, His father, Radulf dapifer frater Hugonis, p. 259],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58] ( - c.1162)]
1. "I: Domesday People," K S B Keats-Rohan, Boydell Press, 1999.
2. "History of Cheshire," George Ormerod (1st edn) & Thomas Helsby
(2nd edn), Routledge & Sons, 1882, 2nd edition.
3. "Complete Peerage," G E C, 2nd Edn, 1910 n.
4. "II: Domesday Descendants," K S B Keats-Rohan, Boydell Press, 2002.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Slightly off the edge of this discussion, I find in DP p 234 that the
Mohaut family were descendants of Gospatric (Yorkshire Domesday tenant)
through his grandson Simon, son of Gospatric. Does anyone know what
this descent is? I have been unsuccessful in finding further
information in DD, although is may be hidden in there somewhere. The
Domesday tenant Gospatric is also ancestral to Allerston, Hebden and
Thoresby.
If you want a Domesday ancestry, try this one:
(1) Norman [1, His son, Hugo filius Normanni, p. 269],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58]
(2) Hugo FitzNorman [1, Hugo filius Normanni, p. 269],
[3, Mohaut article. Vol IX, p. 10],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58] ( - <1130)
(2) Ralph FitzNorman [3, Mohaut article, Vol IX, p. 10],
[4, Radulf dapifer frater Hugonis, p. 259],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58]
(3) Robert de Mohaut [3, Mohaut article, Vol IX, p. 10-11],
[4, His father, Radulf dapifer frater Hugonis, p. 259],
[2, Montalt pedigree, Vol I, p. 58] ( - c.1162)]
1. "I: Domesday People," K S B Keats-Rohan, Boydell Press, 1999.
2. "History of Cheshire," George Ormerod (1st edn) & Thomas Helsby
(2nd edn), Routledge & Sons, 1882, 2nd edition.
3. "Complete Peerage," G E C, 2nd Edn, 1910 n.
4. "II: Domesday Descendants," K S B Keats-Rohan, Boydell Press, 2002.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Also, to add to the mix:
Agnes de Orreby was married to Walkelin d' Arderne who (according to
Ormerod, vol 2, p 85) was the son of John d'Arderne and grandson of
Eustache d'Arderne who in turn son of another Eustache d'Arderne.
A possible source of confusion. Not clear what the relationship (if
any) between Eustace d'Arden, Eustache d'Arderne or Eustace de Mohaut
might be.
Doug
Agnes de Orreby was married to Walkelin d' Arderne who (according to
Ormerod, vol 2, p 85) was the son of John d'Arderne and grandson of
Eustache d'Arderne who in turn son of another Eustache d'Arderne.
A possible source of confusion. Not clear what the relationship (if
any) between Eustace d'Arden, Eustache d'Arderne or Eustace de Mohaut
might be.
Doug
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Interesting subject: attenuated generations.
My friend Irina, born 1929.
Her father, born 1885,
his mother, 1840,
her father, Prince Dmitri Khilkov, born 1789. Fought at Borodino in
1812.
So, Irina is alive in 2005, 216 years after her great grandfather's
birth. Certainly a statistical outlier, but nonetheless true.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
My friend Irina, born 1929.
Her father, born 1885,
his mother, 1840,
her father, Prince Dmitri Khilkov, born 1789. Fought at Borodino in
1812.
So, Irina is alive in 2005, 216 years after her great grandfather's
birth. Certainly a statistical outlier, but nonetheless true.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Thank you. How silly - I just looked at the other 500 spellings of the
name!
name!
-
Gjest
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Thanks. Now there are two lines. I was interested in the Gospatric
connection which I got into with the Hebden family, and stumbled on
that item about a Mohaut descent.
connection which I got into with the Hebden family, and stumbled on
that item about a Mohaut descent.
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
I'm just trying to get to grips with the posts on this, and I'm not sure if
anyone else has responded to this, but if Ralph was referred to as Roger's
"antecessor", I think it could just be read as "predecessor", and therefore
could mean an uncle or great uncle.
I think the Roger of the plea has to be the current head of the family, so
if CP vol. 10 has clear enough evidence for its succession Robert (d. c.
1162), then his son Ralph (d. c. 1200), then Ralph's brother Robert (d. c.
1210), the Robert's son Ralph and so on, "ancestor" must be read in this
way.
Chris Phillips
1. When Roger the plaintiff said that Ralph was his ancestor, did this
mean what we now mean by "ancestor" or could it have included uncles
and great-uncles?
I'm just trying to get to grips with the posts on this, and I'm not sure if
anyone else has responded to this, but if Ralph was referred to as Roger's
"antecessor", I think it could just be read as "predecessor", and therefore
could mean an uncle or great uncle.
I think the Roger of the plea has to be the current head of the family, so
if CP vol. 10 has clear enough evidence for its succession Robert (d. c.
1162), then his son Ralph (d. c. 1200), then Ralph's brother Robert (d. c.
1210), the Robert's son Ralph and so on, "ancestor" must be read in this
way.
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
In message of 3 Apr, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks for the explanation.
I'm with you so far.
Or do you mean Roger? Vol IX seems to suggest that Roger was the next
head of the family after the Robert who d. in 1210. And my guess is
that this Roger, d. 1232, is the Roger of the plea and is also known as
Roger the Seneschal; I reckon (with no clear evidence) that it was his
son, another Roger, who m. Cecile d'Aubigny and that the latter Roger
was neither the plaintiff in the 1227 case nor the "seneschal".
It certainly makes more sense.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
1. When Roger the plaintiff said that Ralph was his ancestor, did this
mean what we now mean by "ancestor" or could it have included uncles
and great-uncles?
I'm just trying to get to grips with the posts on this, and I'm not sure if
anyone else has responded to this, but if Ralph was referred to as Roger's
"antecessor", I think it could just be read as "predecessor", and therefore
could mean an uncle or great uncle.
Thanks for the explanation.
I think the Roger of the plea has to be the current head of the family, so
if CP vol. 10 has clear enough evidence for its succession Robert (d. c.
1162), then his son Ralph (d. c. 1200), then Ralph's brother Robert (d. c.
1210),
I'm with you so far.
the[n] Robert's son Ralph
Or do you mean Roger? Vol IX seems to suggest that Roger was the next
head of the family after the Robert who d. in 1210. And my guess is
that this Roger, d. 1232, is the Roger of the plea and is also known as
Roger the Seneschal; I reckon (with no clear evidence) that it was his
son, another Roger, who m. Cecile d'Aubigny and that the latter Roger
was neither the plaintiff in the 1227 case nor the "seneschal".
and so on, "ancestor" must be read in this way.
It certainly makes more sense.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
I wrote:
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Yes, sorry I meant "then Robert's son Roger".
Chris Phillips
the[n] Robert's son Ralph
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Or do you mean Roger?
Yes, sorry I meant "then Robert's son Roger".
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Ghastly and Gross CP Error
The word "antecessor" in this period meant a blood related predecessor.
It usually refers to an ancestor as we know the word, but can also
refer to a blood uncle. I don't think I've ever seen it used for a
first cousin.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
It usually refers to an ancestor as we know the word, but can also
refer to a blood uncle. I don't think I've ever seen it used for a
first cousin.
Best always, Douglas Richardson