William de Ros d 1316 to John de Mohun mar ct 1305 has a pro

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

William de Ros d 1316 to John de Mohun mar ct 1305 has a pro

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 des 2005 03:51:01

As I was mousing around adding things from Leo's site, etc. I found a
chronological problem and wonder if anyone has a useful comment to assist in
correcting it.


Leo has this line :

A) William de Ros, 1st Baron de Ros of Helmsley b bef 27 Jun 1255 d 15 Aug
1316
married Matilda de Vaux (b abt 1261) abt 1287

B) daughter of (A) Agnes de Ros d bef 25 Nov 1328
married Pain Tybotot, 1st Baron Tybotot b 11 Nov 1279 or 24 June 1281
married about 25 Apr 1298

C) daughter of (B) Ada de Tybotot
married John de Mohun, 1st Baron Mohun abt 1299

D) son of (C) John de Mohun
marriage contract with Christian de Segrave May 1305

Obviously a daughter of a union (B) in 1298 cannot have a child old enough
to have a marriage contract (D) in 1305

Can someone offer som useful insight?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: William de Ros d 1316 to John de Mohun mar ct 1305 has a

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 des 2005 15:34:18

In message of 26 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

As I was mousing around adding things from Leo's site, etc. I found
a chronological problem and wonder if anyone has a useful comment to
assist in correcting it.


Leo has this line :

A) William de Ros, 1st Baron de Ros of Helmsley b bef 27 Jun 1255 d
15 Aug 1316 married Matilda de Vaux (b abt 1261) abt 1287

B) daughter of (A) Agnes de Ros d bef 25 Nov 1328 married Pain
Tybotot, 1st Baron Tybotot b 11 Nov 1279 or 24 June 1281 married
about 25 Apr 1298

CP XII/2, 95 says the marr. was bef 3 Sep 1311. No correction in XIV or
Chris Phillips' site.
C) daughter of (B) Ada de Tybotot
married John de Mohun, 1st Baron Mohun abt 1299

CP IX, 22 says Ada was probably dau. of Robert de Tybotot, father of
Payn, which Robert had bought the marriage of John de Mohun. Again no
correction.

D) son of (C) John de Mohun
marriage contract with Christian de Segrave May 1305

Obviously a daughter of a union (B) in 1298 cannot have a child old
enough to have a marriage contract (D) in 1305

Can someone offer som useful insight?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»