Fw: Update to genealogics : Thomas Poynings, Lord of St John

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Higgins

Fw: Update to genealogics : Thomas Poynings, Lord of St John

Legg inn av John Higgins » 15 sep 2005 17:52:02

I agree with Chris that the language on CP 10:667-8 is somewhat unclear.
But compare it with CP 11:329-30 which seems to make clear that the three
heirs to the barony are via daughters of Hugh, not Thomas Poynings. In
addition, notes on CP 11:329 list at least some of the other children of
Thomas besides Hugh and thus make clear that there are [at least] two family
groups involved here.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics : Thomas Poynings, Lord of St John d 1429


Leo van de Pas wrote:
What is the correct situation?
Thomas married (1) Joan (2) Philippe Mortimer (3) Maud widow of John
Halsham
By Joan he has a daughter married to a Bonville and this daughter has a
son
John Bonville, one of the heirs mentioned. By Joan he also had a son
Hugh
who died before him.

Then by Philippe he has two daughters, Constance then married to John
Paulet (and later to Henry Greene) and Alice who married (1) John Orvell
2)
Sir Thomas Kyngeston.

The text in CP (vol. 10, p. 668) is a bit ambiguous, and I can see how it
could be read that way. it says any barony "went into abeyance (according
to
modern doctrine) among the coheirs of his [Thomas's] son Hugh - viz. John
Bonvill (said to be aged 16 in 1429), s. and h. of his da. (by the 1st
wife)
Joan; and his 2 daughters (by the 2nd wife), Constance, wife of John
Paulet,
and Alice, then wife of John Orrell and afterwards of Sir Thomas
Kyngeston,
Kt."

But the two remaining occurrences of "his" must refer to Hugh, not Thomas,
so these three coheirs are the granddaughters of Thomas by the two
marriages
of Hugh. This must be so if John was 16 in 1329 and was a son of the first
wife, because Thomas's first wife was dead by 1399. Also from p. 667, note
l, it seems that Thomas's younger sons are mentioned in his will.

Chris Phillips



Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»