We see on Leo's fabulous website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO
the outline of this person
He was the son of Joan Neville, and he married Lady Margaret Percy
Leo shows no birthyear. I shall now endeavor to convince you all that the
received ancestry or descent is flawed.
We must first hearken back to William's ancestry.
His mother Joan was the dau of John de Neville, Sheriff of Lincoln in 1439.
This John died 17 Mar 1481/2 [called "of Althorpe"]
John in turn was the son of Sir Ralph de Neville who d 26 Feb 1457/8 by his
wife Mary de Ferrers called "Lady of Oversley"
Sir Ralph is called "second son" of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland
by his wife Joan (Jane) Beaufort.
Now we have finally arrived at something to which we can put an absolute date.
Ralph Nevilla and Joan Beaufort were married 29 Nov 1396.
Their eldest son Richard Neville, 1st Earl of Salisbury thus could be born as
early as 1397 while Ralph as second son has to wait until at least 1398.
For an ultimate date we have Ralph the father dying 21 Oct 1425.
Now on to the second step.
Leo shows as one child of this William, another William b 1468 who had a son
William b bef 1495. That puts a pretty tight boundary on the descent.
So allowing William de Gascoigne who d 12 Mar 1486/7 to be at least 17 at the
birth of his own son we get that he was b BEF 1452. Then his mother Joan de
Neville, allowing her to be at least 13 we get born BEF 1439
This then forces her own father to be b BEF 1423, and then finally his
father, Sir Ralph de Neville d 26 Feb 1457/8 had to have been b BEF 1407
Now we already know (see far above) that this same Ralph is the second son of
his father and thus b aft 1397.
So Sir Ralph de Neville who d 26 Feb 1457/8 has to be born 1398/1406
His son John de Neville then b 1415/22
This John de Neville's daughter Joan de Neville then b 1432/8
Joan's son William de Gascoigne then b 1445/51
Hopefully, provided all of this is correct, these tight ranges can provide
more useful fodder for the horses.
Will Johnson
Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
In a message dated 10/14/05 11:43:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
<< Leo shows no birthyear. I shall now endeavor to convince you all that the
received ancestry or descent is flawed. >>
Of course I should have added to this line. "is flawed OR we can provide
some rather TIGHT birthranges for a number of persons."
Will Johnson
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
<< Leo shows no birthyear. I shall now endeavor to convince you all that the
received ancestry or descent is flawed. >>
Of course I should have added to this line. "is flawed OR we can provide
some rather TIGHT birthranges for a number of persons."
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
With the new knowledge that Sir Ralph de Neville (d 26 Feb 1457/8) was son
not of Joan Beaufort, but rather of her predecessor Margaret Stafford, the dates
have to be adjusted, but the chronology is still relatively tight.
Sir Ralph de Neville must have been born 1388/1396 as his elder brother is
given as b abt 1387
Then his son John de Neville , Sheriff of Lincoln in 1439 and d 17 Mar 1481/2
would have to be born 1406/21
His daughter Jane de Neville who married Sir William Gascogine, would have to
be born 1423/38
And finally their son Sir William Gascoigne would have to be born 1437/51 in
order to himself have a son b 1468 per Leo's database.
At least this gives dates to some of these people who had no dates and now
other things can be hung on the right person knowing when they lived.
Will
not of Joan Beaufort, but rather of her predecessor Margaret Stafford, the dates
have to be adjusted, but the chronology is still relatively tight.
Sir Ralph de Neville must have been born 1388/1396 as his elder brother is
given as b abt 1387
Then his son John de Neville , Sheriff of Lincoln in 1439 and d 17 Mar 1481/2
would have to be born 1406/21
His daughter Jane de Neville who married Sir William Gascogine, would have to
be born 1423/38
And finally their son Sir William Gascoigne would have to be born 1437/51 in
order to himself have a son b 1468 per Leo's database.
At least this gives dates to some of these people who had no dates and now
other things can be hung on the right person knowing when they lived.
Will
-
Ginny Wagner
Christina of Markyate's father
From Domesday Descendants, page 523:
"de Huntendon, Autin
Autin of Huntingdon, occurs in Ramsay charters of the early
twelfth century. Apparently son of Domesday Burred. Father
of Baldwin, and of Christina of Markyate. See The Life of
Christina of Markyate, ed. and trs. C. H. Talbot (Oxford,
1959).
Hart, Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, nos. LIX-LX
"de Huntendon, Buered
Occurs in the Ramsay Cartulary as son of Autin of
Huntingdon, brother of Baldwin and Ailward abbas.
Hart, Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, nos. LX, LXVI,
CXCVII"
I think that there might be a mistake in that Christina
wasn't the daughter of Autin (Auti) but the daughter-in-law
of Auti. She married (under protest and it was annulled)
Buered/Burred/Burhred -- would she have married her brother?
Or would there have been a coincidence of her husband having
the name of a brother she never mentions in Talbot or the
calendar in her psalter?
More likely a misreading of the Latin father-in-law for
father. Would anyone who has access to the cartulary of
Ramsey by Hart or access to the untranslated cartularies
check to see if perhaps a faulty translation occurred.
I've been stumped that a wealthy merchant's daughter would
be referred to as Lady Christina ... they were quite
particular back then about class and titles.
At any rate, it would all make so much more sense ...
Christina being forced to marry beneath herself as a
punishment for turning down the overtures of Bishop Ralph
Flambard. And, in that case, it being the parents of the
lower class willing to do anything to Christina in order to
get her to succumb and raise them to nobility.
Ginny Wagner
"de Huntendon, Autin
Autin of Huntingdon, occurs in Ramsay charters of the early
twelfth century. Apparently son of Domesday Burred. Father
of Baldwin, and of Christina of Markyate. See The Life of
Christina of Markyate, ed. and trs. C. H. Talbot (Oxford,
1959).
Hart, Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, nos. LIX-LX
"de Huntendon, Buered
Occurs in the Ramsay Cartulary as son of Autin of
Huntingdon, brother of Baldwin and Ailward abbas.
Hart, Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, nos. LX, LXVI,
CXCVII"
I think that there might be a mistake in that Christina
wasn't the daughter of Autin (Auti) but the daughter-in-law
of Auti. She married (under protest and it was annulled)
Buered/Burred/Burhred -- would she have married her brother?
Or would there have been a coincidence of her husband having
the name of a brother she never mentions in Talbot or the
calendar in her psalter?
More likely a misreading of the Latin father-in-law for
father. Would anyone who has access to the cartulary of
Ramsey by Hart or access to the untranslated cartularies
check to see if perhaps a faulty translation occurred.
I've been stumped that a wealthy merchant's daughter would
be referred to as Lady Christina ... they were quite
particular back then about class and titles.
At any rate, it would all make so much more sense ...
Christina being forced to marry beneath herself as a
punishment for turning down the overtures of Bishop Ralph
Flambard. And, in that case, it being the parents of the
lower class willing to do anything to Christina in order to
get her to succumb and raise them to nobility.
Ginny Wagner
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Christina of Markyate's father
Ginny Wagner wrote:
Fortunately this is one of the works that - courtesy of the Bibliothèque
Nationale de France - everyone has access to, at its gallica site -
http://gallica.bnf.fr/
If you click "Recherche" and enter the three numbers N050351-N050353 in the
"Recherche libre" field, that should get you the three volumes, in PDF
format.
Chris Phillips
More likely a misreading of the Latin father-in-law for
father. Would anyone who has access to the cartulary of
Ramsey by Hart or access to the untranslated cartularies
check to see if perhaps a faulty translation occurred.
Fortunately this is one of the works that - courtesy of the Bibliothèque
Nationale de France - everyone has access to, at its gallica site -
http://gallica.bnf.fr/
If you click "Recherche" and enter the three numbers N050351-N050353 in the
"Recherche libre" field, that should get you the three volumes, in PDF
format.
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
In message of 15 Oct, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I can confirm this 'new' knowledge from my copy of "The House of
Nevill", p. 136, by Henry J Swallow, published comparatively recently in
1885!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
With the new knowledge that Sir Ralph de Neville (d 26 Feb 1457/8)
was son not of Joan Beaufort, but rather of her predecessor Margaret
Stafford
I can confirm this 'new' knowledge from my copy of "The House of
Nevill", p. 136, by Henry J Swallow, published comparatively recently in
1885!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
In a message dated 10/15/2005 7:15:30 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:
I can confirm this 'new' knowledge from my copy of "The House of
Nevill", p. 136, by Henry J Swallow, published comparatively recently in
1885!
Very funny
I meant new "to me". Not new "to the world".
Will Johnson
tim@powys.org writes:
I can confirm this 'new' knowledge from my copy of "The House of
Nevill", p. 136, by Henry J Swallow, published comparatively recently in
1885!
Very funny
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
CO confusion? Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
With apologies for being so slow to react, my excuse I am getting over a
rather nasty virus.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
====Will, what makes you say "new knowledge" ascribing Ralph to Margaret
Stafford as mother instead of Joan Beaufort?
In 1866 Burke's Extinct Peerage says this.
In 1964 Count d'Angerville in his "Living Descendants of Blood Royal (in
America)" Volume III has it wrong.
In 1979 Cahiers de Saint Louis, page 921, has also the correct mother.
In 1999 Burke's Peerage page 15 also gives Margaret Stafford.
daughter of Joan Beaufort by her first husband. BP 1999 gives that this Mary
Ferrers, born circa 1379, was daughter of the 1st Baron, not the 2nd as I
had it.
Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866 also has this wrong
Cahiers de Saint Louis page 921 also has it wrong and makes Mary Ferrers
born in 1394 and died 25 January 1458. This creates for me a new question:
Did Joan Beaufort and her first husband have one or two daughters?
CP II page 233 muddies the waters even further. Elizabeth de jure Baroness
Botiler, mother-in-law of Joan Beaufort died before 16 June 1411 and her
heirs are the two daughters of her son Robert and Joan Beaufort: (footnote
a) Elizabeth aged 18 in 1411, and Mary aged 17 and so born in 1394.
1394 sounds a more acceptable year of birth for the wife of Ralph Neville
born 1388/1396 as ca. 1379 makes his wife a lot older.
Blood Royal by Charles Mosley page 179 doesn't help as it is vague about the
children of Joan Beaufort, it only gives Elizabeth Ferrers, but it might
give a clue that BP 1999 has it wrong and all the other sources correct_
Joan Beaufort born ca.1379_
Leo van de Pas
Canbedrra, Australia
rather nasty virus.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Update: William Gascoigne d 12 Mar 1486/7
With the new knowledge that Sir Ralph de Neville (d 26 Feb 1457/8) was son
not of Joan Beaufort, but rather of her predecessor Margaret Stafford, the
dates
have to be adjusted, but the chronology is still relatively tight.
====Will, what makes you say "new knowledge" ascribing Ralph to Margaret
Stafford as mother instead of Joan Beaufort?
In 1866 Burke's Extinct Peerage says this.
In 1964 Count d'Angerville in his "Living Descendants of Blood Royal (in
America)" Volume III has it wrong.
In 1979 Cahiers de Saint Louis, page 921, has also the correct mother.
In 1999 Burke's Peerage page 15 also gives Margaret Stafford.
Sir Ralph de Neville must have been born 1388/1396 as his elder brother is
given as b abt 1387
====Here, thanks to you, I found an error of mine. I had Ralph's wife as
daughter of Joan Beaufort by her first husband. BP 1999 gives that this Mary
Ferrers, born circa 1379, was daughter of the 1st Baron, not the 2nd as I
had it.
Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866 also has this wrong
Cahiers de Saint Louis page 921 also has it wrong and makes Mary Ferrers
born in 1394 and died 25 January 1458. This creates for me a new question:
Did Joan Beaufort and her first husband have one or two daughters?
CP II page 233 muddies the waters even further. Elizabeth de jure Baroness
Botiler, mother-in-law of Joan Beaufort died before 16 June 1411 and her
heirs are the two daughters of her son Robert and Joan Beaufort: (footnote
a) Elizabeth aged 18 in 1411, and Mary aged 17 and so born in 1394.
1394 sounds a more acceptable year of birth for the wife of Ralph Neville
born 1388/1396 as ca. 1379 makes his wife a lot older.
Blood Royal by Charles Mosley page 179 doesn't help as it is vague about the
children of Joan Beaufort, it only gives Elizabeth Ferrers, but it might
give a clue that BP 1999 has it wrong and all the other sources correct_
Joan Beaufort born ca.1379_
Leo van de Pas
Canbedrra, Australia
Then his son John de Neville , Sheriff of Lincoln in 1439 and d 17 Mar
1481/2
would have to be born 1406/21
His daughter Jane de Neville who married Sir William Gascogine, would have
to
be born 1423/38
And finally their son Sir William Gascoigne would have to be born 1437/51
in
order to himself have a son b 1468 per Leo's database.
At least this gives dates to some of these people who had no dates and now
other things can be hung on the right person knowing when they lived.
Will