Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Rex Hotchkiss

Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Rex Hotchkiss » 16 jan 2006 14:28:13

I have recently discovered that my maternal grandmother's descent was
from the Aylesbury line which has been discussed so much on this list.
I came to this conclusion after finding virtually the entire line laid
out on ancestry.com, and at http://www.juch.org/. However, those
lines, as currently listed, become impossible beginning at Roger being
born at 1359, 10 years before his father Thomas' birth in 1369.
Clearly, something is amiss. In this list, Colin Bevan on Dec 12 2000,
at 4:46 pm wrote regarding Thomas,

"From previous discussions on this list, it was deemed not necessary to
be of full age to become a knight, so assuming he was about 18 when
this occurred, this would put his date of birth at about 1360."

From this it would appear that Thomas could actually have been
considerably older than 18 when he was knighted, and if this is what we

are basing his age on, then I would suggest that if Thomas' birthdate
were assumed to be 1341, then it would work out that both he and his
son could have been born when their fathers were 18, which is much more
possible.


Sir John Aylesbury=Isabell le Strange Lawrence Pebenham = Elizabeth
Engaine
May 1334 - 1410 abt 1350 abt 1334/1343-1399
abt 1345-?
(was b:1345) | |
| |
| |
Thomas Aylesbury = Katherine Pebenham
became bef 1361-1418 abt 1372-1436
(was b:1369) |
suggest (abt 1341-1418) |
Roger Aylesbury
1359-?
|
|
Robert Aylesbury
1386-?

This being the case, I am wondering what basis we have for the
following birthdates being as listed, rather than values that would
work better with the facts which I know so far:

Name Listed Better
Sir John Aylesbury 1345 May 1334
Thomas Aylesbury 1369 1341
Isabell le Strange abt 1350 abt 1334
Katherine Pebenham abt 1372 abt 1341
Lawrence Pebenham abt 1334/1343 abt 1320
Elizabeth Engaine abt 1345 abt 1322

Perhaps this might have some impact on the discussion regarding Eubolo
as well? We apparently know an Eubolo was alive and killed a man in
1411, yet he is listed as living abt 1286-1335 and being a possible
parent of Isabell le Strange, (previously listed as born abt 1350). If
she were born in 1334, then his original dates might just become
possible as well.

I guess I should mention that in the older records there are quite a
few more impossibilites, which need to be discussed as well.

Rex Hotchkiss

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Rex Hotchkiss » 16 jan 2006 15:57:36

Oops. 1341 was too early, as it left Thomas parents at only 7. I guess
to split the difference his father and he would have each needed to be
about 13 when their son was born. This is at least possible. Here's
another try.

Name Listed Better
Sir John Aylesbury 1345 May 1334
Thomas Aylesbury 1369 1347
Roger Aylesbury 1359 1359 (no change)
Isabell le Strange abt 1350 abt 1334
Katherine Pebenham abt 1372 abt 1346
Lawrence Pebenham abt 1334/1343 abt 1320
Elizabeth Engaine abt 1345 abt 1325

Douglas Richardson

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 16 jan 2006 18:39:53

Dear Rex ~

I know of no contemporary evidence that Sir John de Aylesbury's wife,
Isabel, was a le Strange. If you know any such evidence, please post
it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Rex Hotchkiss wrote:
I have recently discovered that my maternal grandmother's descent was
from the Aylesbury line which has been discussed so much on this list.
I came to this conclusion after finding virtually the entire line laid
out on ancestry.com, and at http://www.juch.org/. However, those
lines, as currently listed, become impossible beginning at Roger being
born at 1359, 10 years before his father Thomas' birth in 1369.
Clearly, something is amiss. In this list, Colin Bevan on Dec 12 2000,
at 4:46 pm wrote regarding Thomas,

"From previous discussions on this list, it was deemed not necessary to
be of full age to become a knight, so assuming he was about 18 when
this occurred, this would put his date of birth at about 1360."

From this it would appear that Thomas could actually have been
considerably older than 18 when he was knighted, and if this is what we
are basing his age on, then I would suggest that if Thomas' birthdate
were assumed to be 1341, then it would work out that both he and his
son could have been born when their fathers were 18, which is much more
possible.


Sir John Aylesbury=Isabell le Strange Lawrence Pebenham = Elizabeth
Engaine
May 1334 - 1410 abt 1350 abt 1334/1343-1399
abt 1345-?
(was b:1345) | |
| |
| |
Thomas Aylesbury = Katherine Pebenham
became bef 1361-1418 abt 1372-1436
(was b:1369) |
suggest (abt 1341-1418) |
Roger Aylesbury
1359-?
|
|
Robert Aylesbury
1386-?

This being the case, I am wondering what basis we have for the
following birthdates being as listed, rather than values that would
work better with the facts which I know so far:

Name Listed Better
Sir John Aylesbury 1345 May 1334
Thomas Aylesbury 1369 1341
Isabell le Strange abt 1350 abt 1334
Katherine Pebenham abt 1372 abt 1341
Lawrence Pebenham abt 1334/1343 abt 1320
Elizabeth Engaine abt 1345 abt 1322

Perhaps this might have some impact on the discussion regarding Eubolo
as well? We apparently know an Eubolo was alive and killed a man in
1411, yet he is listed as living abt 1286-1335 and being a possible
parent of Isabell le Strange, (previously listed as born abt 1350). If
she were born in 1334, then his original dates might just become
possible as well.

I guess I should mention that in the older records there are quite a
few more impossibilites, which need to be discussed as well.

Gjest

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 23:40:21

Rex Hotchkiss schrieb:

I have recently discovered that my maternal grandmother's descent was
from the Aylesbury line which has been discussed so much on this list.
I came to this conclusion after finding virtually the entire line laid
out on ancestry.com, and at http://www.juch.org/. However, those
lines, as currently listed, become impossible beginning at Roger being
born at 1359, 10 years before his father Thomas' birth in 1369.
Clearly, something is amiss. In this list, Colin Bevan on Dec 12 2000,
at 4:46 pm wrote regarding Thomas,

"From previous discussions on this list, it was deemed not necessary to
be of full age to become a knight, so assuming he was about 18 when
this occurred, this would put his date of birth at about 1360."

From this it would appear that Thomas could actually have been
considerably older than 18 when he was knighted, and if this is what we
are basing his age on, then I would suggest that if Thomas' birthdate
were assumed to be 1341, then it would work out that both he and his
son could have been born when their fathers were 18, which is much more
possible.


Sir John Aylesbury=Isabell le Strange Lawrence Pebenham = Elizabeth
Engaine
May 1334 - 1410 abt 1350 abt 1334/1343-1399
abt 1345-?
(was b:1345) | |
| |
| |
Thomas Aylesbury = Katherine Pebenham
became bef 1361-1418 abt 1372-1436
(was b:1369) |
suggest (abt 1341-1418) |
Roger Aylesbury
1359-?
|
|
Robert Aylesbury
1386-?

This being the case, I am wondering what basis we have for the
following birthdates being as listed, rather than values that would
work better with the facts which I know so far:

Name Listed Better
Sir John Aylesbury 1345 May 1334
Thomas Aylesbury 1369 1341
Isabell le Strange abt 1350 abt 1334
Katherine Pebenham abt 1372 abt 1341
Lawrence Pebenham abt 1334/1343 abt 1320

Roskell's History of Parliament 1386-1422 Vol II sub Aylesbury notes
the following:

(1) Sir John Aylesbury was born 6 May 1334, according to his Proof of
Age (Cal IPMs x 262)

(2) the surname of his first wife, Isabel, is apparently unknown

(3) Sir Thomas Aylesbury was knighted in 1378, at which time he was
"serving at sea in the retinue of Thomas of Woodstock in [a] naval
force"; his first marriage was to Isabel d'Oddingseles, between 1380
and February 1384; his second marriage, to Katherine Pabenham, took
place before December 1399 - her first husband, Sir William Cheyne,
having died circa 1397. Clearly she could not have borne a son by
Aylesbury in 1359, regardless of how the chronology is rejigged.
Roskell states that Katherine was born circa 1372 [I haven't got my
papers, including Chris Phillips's wonderful research, with me at
present, but I presume as an heiress, this date is also based on IPMs].

MAR

Rex Hotchkiss

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Rex Hotchkiss » 19 jan 2006 06:18:50

Thank you to those who have replied so far. The actual source
references from mjcar@btinternet.com were particularly helpful, and
thank you Will Johnson for getting me to go through every one of those
hundreds of tree entries looking for source references. From what
you've said, and what I have seen so far, it appears that Roger
Aylesbury, King's Minstrel (abt 1359)'s parents cannot possibly be
Thomas Aylesbury (abt 1369) and Katherine De Pabenham (abt 1372), as
they were not born early enough to be his parents.

Since Roger's is the line I appear to be following, I am now wondering
if anyone has access to materials which might contain information about
him, beyond what has already been discussed in this thread? I have
actually ordered a copy of the "Ancestral Roots..." book which was
listed as a source on most of the ancestry.com entries for him, but
otherwise I am not sure where he is actually referenced. I am also
going to try to contact the couple of folks who posted trees with
information about him that wasn't just duplicates of the same wrong
information. Maybe they might be able to tell me more.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»