C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle and

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle and

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 aug 2005 16:03:03

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) has a good account of the
life history of Warin de Lisle (died 1296), of Campton, Bedfordshire,
Rampton, Cambridgeshire, etc. Regarding his wife, Alice de Montfort,
the following information is provided:

"He married Alice, daughter of Sir Piers de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
co. Warwick. He [Warin] died shortly before 7 December 1296. His
widow had dower assigned to her 18 Feb. 1296/7. She married (grant of
her marriage 10 May 1308), as his 3rd wife, Robert (FitzWalter), Lord
FitzWalter. In 1315 she was going on a pilgrimage to Santiago, and in
1317 she went abroad with her husband. He died 18 January 1325/6."

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 474 (sub Fitzwalter) adds the following
information regarding Alice de Montfort and her 2nd husband, Sir Robert
Fitz Walter, Lord Fitz Walter:

"On 1 Sept. 1312 he had license to convey the manor of Little Dunmow to
himself and Alice, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
remainder to his right heirs, and, 6 Oct. 1315, license to convey the
manor of Wimbish in the same terms."

The published Feet of Fines for Essex, Volume II (published 1913-1928)
have four fines which mention Robert Fitz Walter and his wife, Alice,
which items were overlooked by Complete Peerage:

pg. 127. Date: Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310]. Robert son of Walter
and Alice his wife, pl. by John Dyen in her place. William de
Thrandeston, def. 1 messuage, 38 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 3
acres of wood, 18 acres of pasture and 2s. of rent in Woodham Water,
which William de Creye and Margery his wife hold for her life of the
inheritance of def. Pl. and the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice
to hold the reversion of the chief lords, with remainder to the right
heirs of Robert. This agreement was made in the presence of William
and Margery, who acknowledged that they had no claim in the tenements
except for life of Margery, and quitclaimed to pl. and their said
heirs. Endorsed: Amicia late the wife of Hugh le Parker puts in her
claim.

pg. 146. Date: Trinity term, 6 Edward II [1312]. Robert son of Walter
and Alice his wife, pl. by Henry Moun in her place. John de Leukenore
and Alice his wife, def. 120 acres of land, 2 acres of meadow, 2 acres
of wood and a fifth part of 1 messuage and 60s. rent in Suthemenstre,
Alethorn and Burnham. Robert acknowledged the tenements to be the
right of Alice wife of John, and for this def. granted them to pl. and
the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice his wife to hold of the chief
lords, with remainder to his right heirs.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319]. Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Little Dunmagh [Little Dunmow]. Robert acknowledged the manor to be
the right of def. as that which def. has of his gift, and for this def.
granted it to pl. and the heirs of their bodies to hold of the King and
his heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of Robert. This agreement
was made by precept of the King.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319]. Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Wymbyssh. Settlement as in the previous fine.

The above fines prove that Alice de Montfort, widow of Warin de Lisle,
married (2nd) before Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310] to Robert Fitz
Walter, Lord Fitz Walter, and that she was still living as late as
Trinity term, 12 Edward II 1319]. Alice clearly seems to have child
bearing age at the time of the marriage, as all four fines above
specifically settle property on Alice and her 2nd husband, with
remainder to their issue. As such, Alice would presumably have been
born no earlier than circa 1270.

Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) fails to identify which
Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, was the father of Alice
(de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter. However, in the addenda and
corrigenda volume, C.P. 14 (1998): 443 (sub Lisle), it is stated that
Alice was the daughter of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of
Beaudesert, Warwickshire, "by Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew de
la Mare [see vol. ix, p. 127, sub Montfort]." While the correct Sir
Peter de Montfort is identified there as Alice's father, the
identification of her mother is partly in error. Alice's mother was
Maud, daughter and heiress of Henry de la Mare, Knt., of Ashtead,
Surrey, not Matthew de la Mare. For a lengthy discussion of Maud de la
Mare's correct parentage, please refer to my book, Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pg. 513.

Lastly, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) states that Alice de
Montfort's son and heir, Robert de Lisle, was born 20 January 1287/8,
which date is based on his proof of age. However, in three
inquisitions taken in Dec. 1296 and Jan. 1297 immediately following his
father's death, Robert is stated to then be aged 6 years and more, or
age 6 on the feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian next [20 January 1297]
[Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 (1912): 331-332].
This would place Robert de Lisle's birth as being circa 20 January
1291. Complete Peerage sub Lisle comments in passing on the
discrepancy in birthdates between the inquisitions and proof of age in
footnote "l" on page 71. However, no attempt is made to explain how or
why Robert's age could have been mistaken when taken by jurors in three
different counties, especially when the king was depending on them to
provide him accurate information on this very detail. The jurors
surely should have been able to distinguish between a 5 or 6 year old
child, and one that was aged 9.

For interest's sake, the following is the list of colonial New World
immigrants who descend from Alice (de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter:

1. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av CED » 09 aug 2005 19:15:35

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Comments below, as appropritate.
CED

Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) has a good account of the
life history of Warin de Lisle (died 1296), of Campton, Bedfordshire,
Rampton, Cambridgeshire, etc. Regarding his wife, Alice de Montfort,
the following information is provided:

"He married Alice, daughter of Sir Piers de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
co. Warwick. He [Warin] died shortly before 7 December 1296. His
widow had dower assigned to her 18 Feb. 1296/7. She married (grant of
her marriage 10 May 1308), as his 3rd wife, Robert (FitzWalter), Lord
FitzWalter. In 1315 she was going on a pilgrimage to Santiago, and in
1317 she went abroad with her husband. He died 18 January 1325/6."

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 474 (sub Fitzwalter) adds the following
information regarding Alice de Montfort and her 2nd husband, Sir Robert
Fitz Walter, Lord Fitz Walter:

"On 1 Sept. 1312 he had license to convey the manor of Little Dunmow to
himself and Alice, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
remainder to his right heirs, and, 6 Oct. 1315, license to convey the
manor of Wimbish in the same terms."

The published Feet of Fines for Essex, Volume II (published 1913-1928)
have four fines which mention Robert Fitz Walter and his wife, Alice,
which items were overlooked by Complete Peerage:


Did CP have a policy of including all references and citations to the
subject of an article? If so, there are many omissions. I think not.
For so far as I have observed, only those which lend proof of matters
asserted in the article are cited. In this case, rather than
"overlooked" as DR has said, it might be more apporpiate to say "not
included." The term DR has chosen has the connotation, if not the
implication, of error. In order to justify his use of the term
"overlooked," he should--
(1) determine, and demostrate to the newsgroup, that CP editors had a
policy of including every reference to the subject of an article; or
(2) a material point of fact was omitted by failure to include a
reference.

Otherwise, the reference and citation are mere suplussage the inclusion
of which is unnecessary and, if included, would be useless padding of
references.

The four fines mentioned by DR do not add any information to that which
was included in the CP article. DR seems to think that a conveyance to
heirs of the body of a person (heirs of Robert of the body of Alice )is
evidence that Alice was of child bearing age at the time of the
conveyance. Any of us who have studied real property law knows that
such language is "boiler plate," permitting no such construction or
implication.

Had DR made a systematic study of terms used on such occasion as those
cited, he would have known better than to draw such a conclusion or to
attempt to create a presumption based upon it.

The omitted references would, if included, been useless surplussage.
So, DR has no correction or addition to CP for which he can take
credit.



pg. 127. Date: Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310]. Robert son of Walter
snip> William de Creye and Margery his wife hold for her life of the
inheritance of def. Pl. and the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice
to hold the reversion of the chief lords, with remainder to the right
heirs of Robert. This agreement was made in the presence of William
and Margery, who acknowledged that they had no claim in the tenements
except for life of Margery, and quitclaimed to pl. and their said
heirs. Endorsed: Amicia late the wife of Hugh le Parker puts in her
claim.

pg. 146. Date: Trinity term, 6 Edward II [1312]. Robert son of Walter
snip


Robert acknowledged the tenements to be the
right of Alice wife of John, and for this def. granted them to pl. and
the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice his wife to hold of the chief
lords, with remainder to his right heirs.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319].



Actually the license for this conveyance is cited by CP.



Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Little Dunmagh [Little Dunmow]. <snip> to pl. and the heirs of their bodies to hold of the King and
his heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of Robert. This agreement
was made by precept of the King.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319]. Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Wymbyssh. Settlement as in the previous fine.



Again the license for this conveyance is cited by CP.



The above fines prove that Alice de Montfort, widow of Warin de Lisle,
married (2nd) before Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310] to Robert Fitz
Walter, Lord Fitz Walter, and that she was still living as late as
Trinity term, 12 Edward II 1319]. Alice clearly seems to have child
bearing age at the time of the marriage, as all four fines above
specifically settle property on Alice and her 2nd husband, with
remainder to their issue. As such, Alice would presumably have been
born no earlier than circa 1270.


No such presumption arises from the terms of the conveyances. Those
terms add nothing factual to the CP article on Robert FitzWalter.

Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) fails to identify which
Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, was the father of Alice
(de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter.

DR uses the term "fails" to describe a CP omission which was, as he
admits, corrected in a subsequent volume. Why the pejorative? A
self-corrected omission need not be mentioned at all, except to draw
attention to the location of the correction.


However, in the addenda and
corrigenda volume, C.P. 14 (1998): 443 (sub Lisle), it is stated that
Alice was the daughter of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of
Beaudesert, Warwickshire, "by Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew de
la Mare [see vol. ix, p. 127, sub Montfort]." While the correct Sir
Peter de Montfort is identified there as Alice's father, the
identification of her mother is partly in error. Alice's mother was
Maud, daughter and heiress of Henry de la Mare, Knt., of Ashtead,
Surrey, not Matthew de la Mare.

Aha! Now, we have the motive as to why this posting: DR found another
opportunity to advertise his books. For those who are interested in
how often DR takes or creates and then takes the opportunity to mention
his book, search the archive for the words "my book."

For a lengthy discussion of Maud de la
Mare's correct parentage, please refer to my book, Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pg. 513.

Lastly, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) states that Alice de
Montfort's son and heir, Robert de Lisle, was born 20 January 1287/8,
which date is based on his proof of age. However, in three
inquisitions taken in Dec. 1296 and Jan. 1297 immediately following his
father's death, Robert is stated to then be aged 6 years and more, or
age 6 on the feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian next [20 January 1297]
[Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 (1912): 331-332].
This would place Robert de Lisle's birth as being circa 20 January
1291. Complete Peerage sub Lisle comments in passing on the
discrepancy in birthdates between the inquisitions and proof of age in
footnote "l" on page 71. However, no attempt is made to explain how or
why Robert's age could have been mistaken when taken by jurors in three
different counties, especially when the king was depending on them to
provide him accurate information on this very detail. The jurors
surely should have been able to distinguish between a 5 or 6 year old
child, and one that was aged 9.

DR seems not to have read, or understood the taking of, many IPMs.
Such discrepancies are not rare. This is something akin to
discrepancies in age in the US Census.

I would suggest that he take a good course on medieval documents,
especially IPMs and land conveyances.

He seems to want to argue against his own evidence.


For interest's sake, the following is the list of colonial New World
immigrants who descend from Alice (de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter:

1. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av John Brandon » 09 aug 2005 19:37:07

Do you really not have anything better to do than to write these
trifling, hair-splitting responses to Douglas' postings?

I don't believe we've ever had any genealogical discussion of substance
from you.



CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Comments below, as appropritate.
CED

Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) has a good account of the
life history of Warin de Lisle (died 1296), of Campton, Bedfordshire,
Rampton, Cambridgeshire, etc. Regarding his wife, Alice de Montfort,
the following information is provided:

"He married Alice, daughter of Sir Piers de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
co. Warwick. He [Warin] died shortly before 7 December 1296. His
widow had dower assigned to her 18 Feb. 1296/7. She married (grant of
her marriage 10 May 1308), as his 3rd wife, Robert (FitzWalter), Lord
FitzWalter. In 1315 she was going on a pilgrimage to Santiago, and in
1317 she went abroad with her husband. He died 18 January 1325/6."

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 474 (sub Fitzwalter) adds the following
information regarding Alice de Montfort and her 2nd husband, Sir Robert
Fitz Walter, Lord Fitz Walter:

"On 1 Sept. 1312 he had license to convey the manor of Little Dunmow to
himself and Alice, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
remainder to his right heirs, and, 6 Oct. 1315, license to convey the
manor of Wimbish in the same terms."

The published Feet of Fines for Essex, Volume II (published 1913-1928)
have four fines which mention Robert Fitz Walter and his wife, Alice,
which items were overlooked by Complete Peerage:


Did CP have a policy of including all references and citations to the
subject of an article? If so, there are many omissions. I think not.
For so far as I have observed, only those which lend proof of matters
asserted in the article are cited. In this case, rather than
"overlooked" as DR has said, it might be more apporpiate to say "not
included." The term DR has chosen has the connotation, if not the
implication, of error. In order to justify his use of the term
"overlooked," he should--
(1) determine, and demostrate to the newsgroup, that CP editors had a
policy of including every reference to the subject of an article; or
(2) a material point of fact was omitted by failure to include a
reference.

Otherwise, the reference and citation are mere suplussage the inclusion
of which is unnecessary and, if included, would be useless padding of
references.

The four fines mentioned by DR do not add any information to that which
was included in the CP article. DR seems to think that a conveyance to
heirs of the body of a person (heirs of Robert of the body of Alice )is
evidence that Alice was of child bearing age at the time of the
conveyance. Any of us who have studied real property law knows that
such language is "boiler plate," permitting no such construction or
implication.

Had DR made a systematic study of terms used on such occasion as those
cited, he would have known better than to draw such a conclusion or to
attempt to create a presumption based upon it.

The omitted references would, if included, been useless surplussage.
So, DR has no correction or addition to CP for which he can take
credit.



pg. 127. Date: Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310]. Robert son of Walter
snip> William de Creye and Margery his wife hold for her life of the
inheritance of def. Pl. and the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice
to hold the reversion of the chief lords, with remainder to the right
heirs of Robert. This agreement was made in the presence of William
and Margery, who acknowledged that they had no claim in the tenements
except for life of Margery, and quitclaimed to pl. and their said
heirs. Endorsed: Amicia late the wife of Hugh le Parker puts in her
claim.

pg. 146. Date: Trinity term, 6 Edward II [1312]. Robert son of Walter
snip

Robert acknowledged the tenements to be the
right of Alice wife of John, and for this def. granted them to pl. and
the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice his wife to hold of the chief
lords, with remainder to his right heirs.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319].



Actually the license for this conveyance is cited by CP.



Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Little Dunmagh [Little Dunmow]. <snip> to pl. and the heirs of their bodies to hold of the King and
his heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of Robert. This agreement
was made by precept of the King.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319]. Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Wymbyssh. Settlement as in the previous fine.



Again the license for this conveyance is cited by CP.




The above fines prove that Alice de Montfort, widow of Warin de Lisle,
married (2nd) before Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310] to Robert Fitz
Walter, Lord Fitz Walter, and that she was still living as late as
Trinity term, 12 Edward II 1319]. Alice clearly seems to have child
bearing age at the time of the marriage, as all four fines above
specifically settle property on Alice and her 2nd husband, with
remainder to their issue. As such, Alice would presumably have been
born no earlier than circa 1270.


No such presumption arises from the terms of the conveyances. Those
terms add nothing factual to the CP article on Robert FitzWalter.


Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) fails to identify which
Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, was the father of Alice
(de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter.

DR uses the term "fails" to describe a CP omission which was, as he
admits, corrected in a subsequent volume. Why the pejorative? A
self-corrected omission need not be mentioned at all, except to draw
attention to the location of the correction.


However, in the addenda and
corrigenda volume, C.P. 14 (1998): 443 (sub Lisle), it is stated that
Alice was the daughter of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of
Beaudesert, Warwickshire, "by Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew de
la Mare [see vol. ix, p. 127, sub Montfort]." While the correct Sir
Peter de Montfort is identified there as Alice's father, the
identification of her mother is partly in error. Alice's mother was
Maud, daughter and heiress of Henry de la Mare, Knt., of Ashtead,
Surrey, not Matthew de la Mare.

Aha! Now, we have the motive as to why this posting: DR found another
opportunity to advertise his books. For those who are interested in
how often DR takes or creates and then takes the opportunity to mention
his book, search the archive for the words "my book."

For a lengthy discussion of Maud de la
Mare's correct parentage, please refer to my book, Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pg. 513.

Lastly, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) states that Alice de
Montfort's son and heir, Robert de Lisle, was born 20 January 1287/8,
which date is based on his proof of age. However, in three
inquisitions taken in Dec. 1296 and Jan. 1297 immediately following his
father's death, Robert is stated to then be aged 6 years and more, or
age 6 on the feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian next [20 January 1297]
[Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 (1912): 331-332].
This would place Robert de Lisle's birth as being circa 20 January
1291. Complete Peerage sub Lisle comments in passing on the
discrepancy in birthdates between the inquisitions and proof of age in
footnote "l" on page 71. However, no attempt is made to explain how or
why Robert's age could have been mistaken when taken by jurors in three
different counties, especially when the king was depending on them to
provide him accurate information on this very detail. The jurors
surely should have been able to distinguish between a 5 or 6 year old
child, and one that was aged 9.

DR seems not to have read, or understood the taking of, many IPMs.
Such discrepancies are not rare. This is something akin to
discrepancies in age in the US Census.

I would suggest that he take a good course on medieval documents,
especially IPMs and land conveyances.

He seems to want to argue against his own evidence.



For interest's sake, the following is the list of colonial New World
immigrants who descend from Alice (de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter:

1. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av CED » 09 aug 2005 19:50:31

John Brandon wrote:
Brandon:

You have finally convinced me that you do not know good from bad
genealogy.

When DR tries to create evidence of age from thin air, is it triffling
to point that out?

When DR shows ignorance of usual evidence based on IPMs, is it
triffling to point that out?

When DR's understanding of medieval (and not so medieval) land
conveyance documents is found wanting, is that a triffle?

When it is apparent that the purpose of DRs posting is to advertise his
book, is it triffling to point that out?

From some of your earlier posts, I had come to believe that you had
some grasp of the subject and the importance of medieval documents.

Now, if you think such matters to be a triffle, you have given all who
observe this thread good reason to question.

CED

Do you really not have anything better to do than to write these
trifling, hair-splitting responses to Douglas' postings?

I don't believe we've ever had any genealogical discussion of substance
from you.



CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Comments below, as appropritate.
CED

Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) has a good account of the
life history of Warin de Lisle (died 1296), of Campton, Bedfordshire,
Rampton, Cambridgeshire, etc. Regarding his wife, Alice de Montfort,
the following information is provided:

"He married Alice, daughter of Sir Piers de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
co. Warwick. He [Warin] died shortly before 7 December 1296. His
widow had dower assigned to her 18 Feb. 1296/7. She married (grant of
her marriage 10 May 1308), as his 3rd wife, Robert (FitzWalter), Lord
FitzWalter. In 1315 she was going on a pilgrimage to Santiago, and in
1317 she went abroad with her husband. He died 18 January 1325/6."

Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 474 (sub Fitzwalter) adds the following
information regarding Alice de Montfort and her 2nd husband, Sir Robert
Fitz Walter, Lord Fitz Walter:

"On 1 Sept. 1312 he had license to convey the manor of Little Dunmow to
himself and Alice, his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, with
remainder to his right heirs, and, 6 Oct. 1315, license to convey the
manor of Wimbish in the same terms."

The published Feet of Fines for Essex, Volume II (published 1913-1928)
have four fines which mention Robert Fitz Walter and his wife, Alice,
which items were overlooked by Complete Peerage:


Did CP have a policy of including all references and citations to the
subject of an article? If so, there are many omissions. I think not.
For so far as I have observed, only those which lend proof of matters
asserted in the article are cited. In this case, rather than
"overlooked" as DR has said, it might be more apporpiate to say "not
included." The term DR has chosen has the connotation, if not the
implication, of error. In order to justify his use of the term
"overlooked," he should--
(1) determine, and demostrate to the newsgroup, that CP editors had a
policy of including every reference to the subject of an article; or
(2) a material point of fact was omitted by failure to include a
reference.

Otherwise, the reference and citation are mere suplussage the inclusion
of which is unnecessary and, if included, would be useless padding of
references.

The four fines mentioned by DR do not add any information to that which
was included in the CP article. DR seems to think that a conveyance to
heirs of the body of a person (heirs of Robert of the body of Alice )is
evidence that Alice was of child bearing age at the time of the
conveyance. Any of us who have studied real property law knows that
such language is "boiler plate," permitting no such construction or
implication.

Had DR made a systematic study of terms used on such occasion as those
cited, he would have known better than to draw such a conclusion or to
attempt to create a presumption based upon it.

The omitted references would, if included, been useless surplussage.
So, DR has no correction or addition to CP for which he can take
credit.



pg. 127. Date: Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310]. Robert son of Walter
snip> William de Creye and Margery his wife hold for her life of the
inheritance of def. Pl. and the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice
to hold the reversion of the chief lords, with remainder to the right
heirs of Robert. This agreement was made in the presence of William
and Margery, who acknowledged that they had no claim in the tenements
except for life of Margery, and quitclaimed to pl. and their said
heirs. Endorsed: Amicia late the wife of Hugh le Parker puts in her
claim.

pg. 146. Date: Trinity term, 6 Edward II [1312]. Robert son of Walter
snip

Robert acknowledged the tenements to be the
right of Alice wife of John, and for this def. granted them to pl. and
the heirs of Robert of the body of Alice his wife to hold of the chief
lords, with remainder to his right heirs.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319].



Actually the license for this conveyance is cited by CP.



Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Little Dunmagh [Little Dunmow]. <snip> to pl. and the heirs of their bodies to hold of the King and
his heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of Robert. This agreement
was made by precept of the King.

pg. 189. Date: Trinity term, 12 Edward II [1319]. Robert son of
Walter and Alice his wife, pl. Thomas de Coulyng, def. The manor of
Wymbyssh. Settlement as in the previous fine.



Again the license for this conveyance is cited by CP.




The above fines prove that Alice de Montfort, widow of Warin de Lisle,
married (2nd) before Hilary term, 3 Edward II [1310] to Robert Fitz
Walter, Lord Fitz Walter, and that she was still living as late as
Trinity term, 12 Edward II 1319]. Alice clearly seems to have child
bearing age at the time of the marriage, as all four fines above
specifically settle property on Alice and her 2nd husband, with
remainder to their issue. As such, Alice would presumably have been
born no earlier than circa 1270.


No such presumption arises from the terms of the conveyances. Those
terms add nothing factual to the CP article on Robert FitzWalter.


Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) fails to identify which
Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, was the father of Alice
(de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter.

DR uses the term "fails" to describe a CP omission which was, as he
admits, corrected in a subsequent volume. Why the pejorative? A
self-corrected omission need not be mentioned at all, except to draw
attention to the location of the correction.


However, in the addenda and
corrigenda volume, C.P. 14 (1998): 443 (sub Lisle), it is stated that
Alice was the daughter of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of
Beaudesert, Warwickshire, "by Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew de
la Mare [see vol. ix, p. 127, sub Montfort]." While the correct Sir
Peter de Montfort is identified there as Alice's father, the
identification of her mother is partly in error. Alice's mother was
Maud, daughter and heiress of Henry de la Mare, Knt., of Ashtead,
Surrey, not Matthew de la Mare.

Aha! Now, we have the motive as to why this posting: DR found another
opportunity to advertise his books. For those who are interested in
how often DR takes or creates and then takes the opportunity to mention
his book, search the archive for the words "my book."

For a lengthy discussion of Maud de la
Mare's correct parentage, please refer to my book, Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pg. 513.

Lastly, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) states that Alice de
Montfort's son and heir, Robert de Lisle, was born 20 January 1287/8,
which date is based on his proof of age. However, in three
inquisitions taken in Dec. 1296 and Jan. 1297 immediately following his
father's death, Robert is stated to then be aged 6 years and more, or
age 6 on the feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian next [20 January 1297]
[Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 (1912): 331-332].
This would place Robert de Lisle's birth as being circa 20 January
1291. Complete Peerage sub Lisle comments in passing on the
discrepancy in birthdates between the inquisitions and proof of age in
footnote "l" on page 71. However, no attempt is made to explain how or
why Robert's age could have been mistaken when taken by jurors in three
different counties, especially when the king was depending on them to
provide him accurate information on this very detail. The jurors
surely should have been able to distinguish between a 5 or 6 year old
child, and one that was aged 9.

DR seems not to have read, or understood the taking of, many IPMs.
Such discrepancies are not rare. This is something akin to
discrepancies in age in the US Census.

I would suggest that he take a good course on medieval documents,
especially IPMs and land conveyances.

He seems to want to argue against his own evidence.



For interest's sake, the following is the list of colonial New World
immigrants who descend from Alice (de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter:

1. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av John Brandon » 09 aug 2005 20:34:02

<ignoring some poorly-spellt blather>

I repeat: I don't believe we've ever had any genealogical discussion
of any substance from you.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 aug 2005 20:42:39

CED wrote:

Aha! Now, we have the motive as to why this posting: DR found another
opportunity to advertise his books. For those who are interested in
how often DR takes or creates and then takes the opportunity to mention
his book, search the archive for the words "my book."

Thanks for the free advertisement for my book, Magna Carta Ancestry.
Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net













For a lengthy discussion of Maud de la
Mare's correct parentage, please refer to my book, Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pg. 513.

Lastly, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) states that Alice de
Montfort's son and heir, Robert de Lisle, was born 20 January 1287/8,
which date is based on his proof of age. However, in three
inquisitions taken in Dec. 1296 and Jan. 1297 immediately following his
father's death, Robert is stated to then be aged 6 years and more, or
age 6 on the feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian next [20 January 1297]
[Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 (1912): 331-332].
This would place Robert de Lisle's birth as being circa 20 January
1291. Complete Peerage sub Lisle comments in passing on the
discrepancy in birthdates between the inquisitions and proof of age in
footnote "l" on page 71. However, no attempt is made to explain how or
why Robert's age could have been mistaken when taken by jurors in three
different counties, especially when the king was depending on them to
provide him accurate information on this very detail. The jurors
surely should have been able to distinguish between a 5 or 6 year old
child, and one that was aged 9.

DR seems not to have read, or understood the taking of, many IPMs.
Such discrepancies are not rare. This is something akin to
discrepancies in age in the US Census.

I would suggest that he take a good course on medieval documents,
especially IPMs and land conveyances.

He seems to want to argue against his own evidence.



For interest's sake, the following is the list of colonial New World
immigrants who descend from Alice (de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter:

1. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av CED » 09 aug 2005 21:10:49

John Brandon wrote:
ignoring some poorly-spellt blather

Brandon:
Last month I posted the message set out below. Following up on that
promise to this group will be doing good genealogy.

CED
Note the following excerpt of my message of 18 July 2005:


"Evidence from the archives indicates that you twist arguments to avoid
being caught in error; hammer those with whom you disagree without
qualm, conscience, or mercy, using abusive and humiliating language;
and tend toward megalomania (note the number of times you refer to "my
book" and otherwise advertise your work).
"All of us, at some time, must face our nemesis. Yours has arrived!

"I am not a genealogist; but I have a fairly good knowledge of medieval
history (and a respectable library to back it up) and was educated at
one of those last bastions offering a liberal education. Logic and
sound argumentation were at the center of that offering. Together with
your inability to handle languages, your weak, almost nonexistent,
logic and your twisted, unethical approach to argumentation will find
you wanting.

"I shall not challenge you on your attempts at genealogy. The archives
contain charges that you steal the work of others without attribution,
publish false connections in order to find "new discoveries," and that
your material is so shoddy that a better equipped editor is necesary to
give it a gloss of scholarly respect. These matters I shall leave to
the well prepared and respected genealogist members of this group. I am
certain that they will.

"I have seen the suggestions respecting your mental condition; of this
I have no knowledge. I shall refrain from entering upon that matter.

"Be assured of this: as you hammer others with abuse, you will, most
assuredly, find at your ankles and heals an incessant nipping, with
dogged insistancy, concerning your use of language, your lack of logic,
and your method of argument."


I repeat: I don't believe we've ever had any genealogical discussion
of any substance from you.

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av CED » 09 aug 2005 21:18:15

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:


To the Newsgroup:

Note the following from the definition of netiquette [from "network
etiquette"] :

"*** refraining from commercial pluggery outside the business forums."

CED


CED wrote:

Aha! Now, we have the motive as to why this posting: DR found another
opportunity to advertise his books. For those who are interested in
how often DR takes or creates and then takes the opportunity to mention
his book, search the archive for the words "my book."

Thanks for the free advertisement for my book, Magna Carta Ancestry.
Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net














For a lengthy discussion of Maud de la
Mare's correct parentage, please refer to my book, Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pg. 513.

Lastly, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 71 (sub Lisle) states that Alice de
Montfort's son and heir, Robert de Lisle, was born 20 January 1287/8,
which date is based on his proof of age. However, in three
inquisitions taken in Dec. 1296 and Jan. 1297 immediately following his
father's death, Robert is stated to then be aged 6 years and more, or
age 6 on the feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian next [20 January 1297]
[Reference: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 3 (1912): 331-332].
This would place Robert de Lisle's birth as being circa 20 January
1291. Complete Peerage sub Lisle comments in passing on the
discrepancy in birthdates between the inquisitions and proof of age in
footnote "l" on page 71. However, no attempt is made to explain how or
why Robert's age could have been mistaken when taken by jurors in three
different counties, especially when the king was depending on them to
provide him accurate information on this very detail. The jurors
surely should have been able to distinguish between a 5 or 6 year old
child, and one that was aged 9.

DR seems not to have read, or understood the taking of, many IPMs.
Such discrepancies are not rare. This is something akin to
discrepancies in age in the US Census.

I would suggest that he take a good course on medieval documents,
especially IPMs and land conveyances.

He seems to want to argue against his own evidence.



For interest's sake, the following is the list of colonial New World
immigrants who descend from Alice (de Montfort) (de Lisle) Fitz Walter:

1. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Montfort, wife of Warin de Lisle

Legg inn av John Brandon » 09 aug 2005 21:39:49

CED wrote:

Brandon:
Last month I posted the message set out below. Following up on that
promise to this group will be doing good genealogy.

If you do say so yourself ...

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»