The following PROCAT document appears to give an insight into an
earlier ancestry of the de Kemesek family of Fordham, Cambs:
E 326/3630 (undated): "Confirmation by Wimar de Torington of the
release which Edmund de Kemesek made to John de Eston of all customs
which he was wont to pay for the land which he holds of the marriage of
Matilda, Wimar's daughter, in Frodham (sic; ie Fordham), for 6
shillings 9 pence paid in by the said John yearly to the said Edmund;
witnesses: Walter de Isleham, Robert de Fordham and others".
We know that the wife of Edmund de Kemesek (died circa 1253) was named
Maud, and it seems we can therefore identify her as the daughter of
Wimar de Thornton, whose family is further detailed in VCH Cambs, sub
Wicken.
Wimar de Thornton held the manor of Wicken, dying between 1240 and 1243
(he left a son and heir, Matthew, whose daughter and heir Mary married
into the Bassingbourne family). Wimar was himself the kinsman and heir
of Beatrice (d c1233), widow of Hugh Malebisse and daughter and heir of
Wimar (d c1203), son of Warner the Steward (ff 1160s); according to VCH
Cambs, Wimar de Thornton was the male-line great grandson of Roger,
younger brother of Warner the Steward.
Both Warner and Roger were the sons of Wimar, steward of Count Alan of
Brittany in respect of the Honour of Richmond, who held at Fordham of
Count Alan in 1086 and who received Wicken as a grant from Alan; he was
living as late as circa 1125.
The Kemeseks were in turn ancestral to the Coggeshall family.
MA-R
De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:
In support of my identification of "Wimar de Torington" in the PROCAT
reference with Wimar de Thornton, I note that Wimar's forebear,
Wimar/Wihomarc the Steward, held estates at both Fordham and Exning of
Count Alan at the time of Domesday.
MA-R
The following PROCAT document appears to give an insight into an
earlier ancestry of the de Kemesek family of Fordham, Cambs:
E 326/3630 (undated): "Confirmation by Wimar de Torington of the
release which Edmund de Kemesek made to John de Eston of all customs
which he was wont to pay for the land which he holds of the marriage of
Matilda, Wimar's daughter, in Frodham (sic; ie Fordham), for 6
shillings 9 pence paid in by the said John yearly to the said Edmund;
witnesses: Walter de Isleham, Robert de Fordham and others".
We know that the wife of Edmund de Kemesek (died circa 1253) was named
Maud, and it seems we can therefore identify her as the daughter of
Wimar de Thornton, whose family is further detailed in VCH Cambs, sub
Wicken.
In support of my identification of "Wimar de Torington" in the PROCAT
reference with Wimar de Thornton, I note that Wimar's forebear,
Wimar/Wihomarc the Steward, held estates at both Fordham and Exning of
Count Alan at the time of Domesday.
MA-R
-
John Brandon
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
Isn't this thread 'Exhibit A' in the quest to determine who's doing all
the dim-witted, arbitrary rating of postings? Apparently it doesn't
strike MAR as the least bit self-serving to give his own postings the
highest possible rating ... Bizarre creature!
the dim-witted, arbitrary rating of postings? Apparently it doesn't
strike MAR as the least bit self-serving to give his own postings the
highest possible rating ... Bizarre creature!
-
Gjest
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
John Brandon wrote:
I had a quick look at Google Help:
"Can I rate my own posts?
No, you can't rate your own posts."
How typical. Another stupid and ill-informed allegation. You can't
rate your own posts, fool.
If you are getting low ratings and it upsets your fragile ego, try
raising your low game instead of thrashing around like a two-year old
having a tantrum. I'd ask for an apology if I thought you were man
enough to give one.
I come to this group for one reason: to share my genealogical research.
I could take up the offers I have to publish it in scholarly journals
if I wished, but I prefer to make it available for free. I am not
interested in personal feuds or ad hominem arguments. I don't
understand why you feel so threatened by my contributions that you need
to attack me without cause or provocation, just as I don't understand
why you are so immature that you are happy with any attention,
regardless of whether it is positive or negative, or why you find it
necessary to google other posters to snoop into their extra-group
activities. You must lead a very sad, shallow life. You can carry on
like a cranky old woman all you like; I shall just continue posting
on-topic material, and shan't lose any sleep worrying about a gnat like
you.
Michael Andrews-Reading
Isn't this thread 'Exhibit A' in the quest to determine who's doing all
the dim-witted, arbitrary rating of postings? Apparently it doesn't
strike MAR as the least bit self-serving to give his own postings the
highest possible rating ... Bizarre creature!
I had a quick look at Google Help:
"Can I rate my own posts?
No, you can't rate your own posts."
How typical. Another stupid and ill-informed allegation. You can't
rate your own posts, fool.
If you are getting low ratings and it upsets your fragile ego, try
raising your low game instead of thrashing around like a two-year old
having a tantrum. I'd ask for an apology if I thought you were man
enough to give one.
I come to this group for one reason: to share my genealogical research.
I could take up the offers I have to publish it in scholarly journals
if I wished, but I prefer to make it available for free. I am not
interested in personal feuds or ad hominem arguments. I don't
understand why you feel so threatened by my contributions that you need
to attack me without cause or provocation, just as I don't understand
why you are so immature that you are happy with any attention,
regardless of whether it is positive or negative, or why you find it
necessary to google other posters to snoop into their extra-group
activities. You must lead a very sad, shallow life. You can carry on
like a cranky old woman all you like; I shall just continue posting
on-topic material, and shan't lose any sleep worrying about a gnat like
you.
Michael Andrews-Reading
-
Gjest
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
John Brandon wrote:
PS Having looked via Google at those of your posts which have attracted
low marks, it is clear that there's nothing "arbitrary" about the
ratings: the problem is that you post rubbish.
MA-R
Isn't this thread 'Exhibit A' in the quest to determine who's doing all
the dim-witted, arbitrary rating of postings? Apparently it doesn't
strike MAR as the least bit self-serving to give his own postings the
highest possible rating ... Bizarre creature!
PS Having looked via Google at those of your posts which have attracted
low marks, it is clear that there's nothing "arbitrary" about the
ratings: the problem is that you post rubbish.
MA-R
-
John Brandon
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
"Can I rate my own posts?
No, you can't rate your own posts."
How typical. Another stupid and ill-informed allegation. You can't
rate your own posts, fool.
And any fool is aware you can creat another persona to rate the posts
of the first one ...
If you are getting low ratings and it upsets your fragile ego, try
raising your low game instead of thrashing around like a two-year old
having a tantrum. I'd ask for an apology if I thought you were man
enough to give one.
I come to this group for one reason: to share my genealogical research.
I could take up the offers I have to publish it in scholarly journals
if I wished, but I prefer to make it available for free. I am not
interested in personal feuds or ad hominem arguments. I don't
understand why you feel so threatened by my contributions that you need
to attack me without cause or provocation, just as I don't understand
why you are so immature that you are happy with any attention,
regardless of whether it is positive or negative, or why you find it
necessary to google other posters to snoop into their extra-group
activities. You must lead a very sad, shallow life. You can carry on
like a cranky old woman all you like; I shall just continue posting
on-topic material, and shan't lose any sleep worrying about a gnat like
you.
Lawsy me, such a temper on you ...
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
In message of 20 Nov, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
It has to be remembered that this rating business is all a game invented
by Google, it is not part of this shared newsgroup-mailing list. Those
who access this group directly through a newsgroup or the Rootsweb
mailing list will see none of this rubbish.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
John Brandon wrote:
Isn't this thread 'Exhibit A' in the quest to determine who's doing all
the dim-witted, arbitrary rating of postings? Apparently it doesn't
strike MAR as the least bit self-serving to give his own postings the
highest possible rating ... Bizarre creature!
PS Having looked via Google at those of your posts which have attracted
low marks, it is clear that there's nothing "arbitrary" about the
ratings: the problem is that you post rubbish.
It has to be remembered that this rating business is all a game invented
by Google, it is not part of this shared newsgroup-mailing list. Those
who access this group directly through a newsgroup or the Rootsweb
mailing list will see none of this rubbish.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: De Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry
mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:
Tim Powys-Lybbe has very kindly pointed out that in DD Keats-Rohan
states Wimar the Steward's wife was named Gilla.
MA-R
According to a post by Rosie Bevan on 18 August 2004, Wimar de
Thornton's ancestry back to Wimar the Steward, his great-grandfather,
based on Clay's EYC, is as follows:
1. Wimar the Steward, dead by 1130
2. Roger, d c1145
3. Ralph the Steward, dead by 1195
4. Roger de Thornton, dead by 1206
5. Wimar de Thornton
6. Matilda de Thornton, married Edmund de Kemesek
Tim Powys-Lybbe has very kindly pointed out that in DD Keats-Rohan
states Wimar the Steward's wife was named Gilla.
MA-R