_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Sir John Stanley K.G._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1119140470)
Leo~
Last month you posted a request on identifying which John Stanley was a K.G.
In case you haven't found this entry before George Frederick Beltz in
Memorials of the Order of the Garter From Its Foundation to the Present Time with
Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns of Edward III. and Richard
II. (1841) states that Sir John Stanley was elected as the 110th member
replacing Sir Lewis Clifford (ob. 1404). On the following page is shown that
Thomas Montacute 4th earl of Salisbury was elected as the 122nd member replacing
Sir John Stanley (ob. 8 Jan. 1413/4). I just came across this today and
wanted to share it.
Todd Whitesides
Sir John Stanley K.G.
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Sir John Stanley K.G.
In message of 15 Jul, ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:
It seems that the numbering system has changed over the years as Grace
Holmes gives him as Number 109 (in her "The Order of the Garter" pub
1984).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Sir John Stanley K.G._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1119140470)
Leo~
Last month you posted a request on identifying which John Stanley was
a K.G.
In case you haven't found this entry before George Frederick Beltz
in Memorials of the Order of the Garter From Its Foundation to the
Present Time with Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns
of Edward III. and Richard II. (1841) states that Sir John Stanley
was elected as the 110th member replacing Sir Lewis Clifford (ob.
1404). On the following page is shown that Thomas Montacute 4th
earl of Salisbury was elected as the 122nd member replacing Sir
John Stanley (ob. 8 Jan. 1413/4). I just came across this today and
wanted to share it.
It seems that the numbering system has changed over the years as Grace
Holmes gives him as Number 109 (in her "The Order of the Garter" pub
1984).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Leo
Re: Sir John Stanley K.G.
Many thanks. Much appreciated.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <ToddWhitesides@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: Sir John Stanley K.G.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <ToddWhitesides@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: Sir John Stanley K.G.
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Sir John Stanley K.G._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1119140470)
Leo~
Last month you posted a request on identifying which John Stanley was a
K.G.
In case you haven't found this entry before George Frederick Beltz in
Memorials of the Order of the Garter From Its Foundation to the Present
Time with
Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns of Edward III. and
Richard
II. (1841) states that Sir John Stanley was elected as the 110th member
replacing Sir Lewis Clifford (ob. 1404). On the following page is shown
that
Thomas Montacute 4th earl of Salisbury was elected as the 122nd member
replacing
Sir John Stanley (ob. 8 Jan. 1413/4). I just came across this today and
wanted to share it.
Todd Whitesides
-
Gjest
Re: Sir John Stanley K.G.
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Sir John Stanley K.G._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1121384097)
Tim~
I noticed the membership number was different than the one you provided but
I copied it as it was printed in the source I was using.
Todd
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1121384097)
Tim~
I noticed the membership number was different than the one you provided but
I copied it as it was printed in the source I was using.
Todd
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Sir John Stanley K.G.
In message of 15 Jul, ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:
So which numbering system should we be using? I have done some spot
checks on Grace Holmes' numbering (published in 1984) and it is
identical to that in Complete Peerage (Vol II, Appx B) which was
published in 1912 and to which she refers on page 12 of her book. The
CP author, A B Beaven, explains that one of the principal differences
with Beltz' numbering is whether Edward III is given the number 1 or
not. Modern practice is to exclude Edward III.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Sir John Stanley K.G._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1121384097)
I noticed the membership number was different than the one you
provided but I copied it as it was printed in the source I was
using.
So which numbering system should we be using? I have done some spot
checks on Grace Holmes' numbering (published in 1984) and it is
identical to that in Complete Peerage (Vol II, Appx B) which was
published in 1912 and to which she refers on page 12 of her book. The
CP author, A B Beaven, explains that one of the principal differences
with Beltz' numbering is whether Edward III is given the number 1 or
not. Modern practice is to exclude Edward III.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Sir John Stanley K.G.
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Sir John Stanley K.G._
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1121409176)
Tim~
Using the modern system of numbering seems appropriate. What I appreciated
about Beltz's book was that it stated who each knight was replacing when
invested, but I have not used the book that you are referencing. It very well
might do the same.
Todd Whitesides
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1121409176)
Tim~
Using the modern system of numbering seems appropriate. What I appreciated
about Beltz's book was that it stated who each knight was replacing when
invested, but I have not used the book that you are referencing. It very well
might do the same.
Todd Whitesides