Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
I agree that 1491 reference indicates something negative but what is not
clear. I'm wondering what the first absolutely clear meaning is... something like
"He was a crokeback that is, his back was crooked..."
In other words, the first time the word is used in a clear meaningful way,
where it's definition is obvious from the context.
Will
clear. I'm wondering what the first absolutely clear meaning is... something like
"He was a crokeback that is, his back was crooked..."
In other words, the first time the word is used in a clear meaningful way,
where it's definition is obvious from the context.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Crouchback
In a message dated 1/17/07 2:46:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pisces@slices.com writes:
<< The OED records the spelling "cros" since the tenth century, "crosse"
since the twelfth. It's hard to imagine that being pronounced in any
other way than our "cross", and it survived its co-existence with the
form "croix" that came with the French. >>
What about Crouchmas ? I have lost your argument somewhere.
pisces@slices.com writes:
<< The OED records the spelling "cros" since the tenth century, "crosse"
since the twelfth. It's hard to imagine that being pronounced in any
other way than our "cross", and it survived its co-existence with the
form "croix" that came with the French. >>
What about Crouchmas ? I have lost your argument somewhere.
-
Gjest
Re: Peter Lacy
In a message dated 1/11/07 9:51:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:
<< Examine the historical records of Peter and it is
obvious that he was born 1215-1220.Thus John Lacy has
to be discounted as the father. >>
This isn't obvious.
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:
<< Examine the historical records of Peter and it is
obvious that he was born 1215-1220.Thus John Lacy has
to be discounted as the father. >>
This isn't obvious.
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Eudes la Zouche of Harringworth: Was he a son of Ell
In a message dated 1/11/07 11:34:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
<< on the death of her father, William. In the Visitation of Cheshire, John
de Montealto is to have married Elena, relic of Robert Stockport before he
married Milicent. However, this seems incorrect since there exists a deed from
John de Monte Alto and Elena de Stokep?t in 1287, long after it is assumed
Milicent married the ?younger? Eudes la Zouche.
In 1265 Eudo la Zouche with Sir William la Zouche, chaplain are among those
rewarded after the Battle of Evesham.
There is however, enough time between 1254 and 1287 for this John Monte Alto
to be a son of the first John Monte Alto.
Will Johnson
pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
<< on the death of her father, William. In the Visitation of Cheshire, John
de Montealto is to have married Elena, relic of Robert Stockport before he
married Milicent. However, this seems incorrect since there exists a deed from
John de Monte Alto and Elena de Stokep?t in 1287, long after it is assumed
Milicent married the ?younger? Eudes la Zouche.
In 1265 Eudo la Zouche with Sir William la Zouche, chaplain are among those
rewarded after the Battle of Evesham.
There is however, enough time between 1254 and 1287 for this John Monte Alto
to be a son of the first John Monte Alto.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth and Maud
In a message dated 1/17/07 4:09:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:
<< The widow of Sir Thomas of Fulleshurst, father of Thomas,
was named Joan. Possibly Acheson was wrong and it
was Thomas of Leicestershire's mother, rather than his
wife, who was the Fitzpiers heiress? >>
I like that better, esp as Acheson does not note the IPM at all
writes:
<< The widow of Sir Thomas of Fulleshurst, father of Thomas,
was named Joan. Possibly Acheson was wrong and it
was Thomas of Leicestershire's mother, rather than his
wife, who was the Fitzpiers heiress? >>
I like that better, esp as Acheson does not note the IPM at all
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1623.1169069686.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What Skeat says, under "crouch", is that this word (defined as 'bend low
with general compression of the body') comes from the late Middle English
"cruche, crouche", possibly from the Old French "crochir".
If you look under "cross" you will find 'O[ld] F[rench] "croix" was adapted
in M[iddle] E[nglish] as "cr(e)oiz", later "crois", "croice" (XIII-XV
[centuries]). The L[atin] word was adapted (with lengthened vowel) in
Germ[an] as O[ld E[nglish] "cruc", M[iddle] E[nglish] "crouch" (whence
"crouched" adj[ective] wearing a cross, esp[ecially] in "Crouched", later
"Crutched", Friars'.
That is what I have been saying.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1623.1169069686.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
c.1394, probably from O.Fr. crochir "become bent, crooked," from
croche
"hook."
You have evidently missed or forgotten a post of mine: the dating
"c.1394"
is due to the confused chronology of the earliest source, in Latin,
referring to this matter and placing it in the parliament of January
1394.
The OED connected this to "crouchback", from conflating it with another
source written in English, but actually the author referred to a broken
back
("dorsum...fractum").
Peter Stewart
It is not that I did not remember the posting from which you have quoted.
What you are responding to is a quotation from the Online Etymological
Dictionary, which does not list the OED among its sources. I find the
same derivation of the English word "crouch" from the Old French
"crochir" in Walter W. Skeat's "Etymological Dictionary", together with
the suggestion that the latter derives from the Late Latin "croccum, acc.
of croccus, a hook."
What Skeat says, under "crouch", is that this word (defined as 'bend low
with general compression of the body') comes from the late Middle English
"cruche, crouche", possibly from the Old French "crochir".
If you look under "cross" you will find 'O[ld] F[rench] "croix" was adapted
in M[iddle] E[nglish] as "cr(e)oiz", later "crois", "croice" (XIII-XV
[centuries]). The L[atin] word was adapted (with lengthened vowel) in
Germ[an] as O[ld E[nglish] "cruc", M[iddle] E[nglish] "crouch" (whence
"crouched" adj[ective] wearing a cross, esp[ecially] in "Crouched", later
"Crutched", Friars'.
That is what I have been saying.
Peter Stewart
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y
Gentlemen:
Is this "contest" necessary? It is certinaly not edifying. Take it
outdoors.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Is this "contest" necessary? It is certinaly not edifying. Take it
outdoors.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:7b7tq29jf6kjn114vu2c1d58m6o57e36n6@4ax.com...
[I wrote:]
I was making a point about the economy of vocabulary in Middle English,
where doublet terms were not common. Quoting a batch of these from early
modern English, where they were common, is not to the purpose.
Yes we do - the ultimate source for both "crook" and "crouch" was the Latin
"crux".
Peter Stewart
news:7b7tq29jf6kjn114vu2c1d58m6o57e36n6@4ax.com...
[I wrote:]
You are misrepsenting my point again - my suggesting was that two forms so
similar as "crouchback" and "crookback" would not have co-existed for the
same condition.
A suggestion which I find unwarranted. I cited the co-existence in
Early Modern English of five rather similar forms for the same
condition, huck-backed, huckle-backed, hulch-backed, hump-backed,
hutch-backed. Why could the language not have accommodated two similar
forms a few centuries earlier? English has always been a rich
language, full of synonyms and dialectal variants.
I was making a point about the economy of vocabulary in Middle English,
where doublet terms were not common. Quoting a batch of these from early
modern English, where they were common, is not to the purpose.
A whole lot of quite different words with the same meaning has nothing to
do
with this. Nor have orthographic variants - "crook" and "crouch" were
different but similar words from te same ultimate source.
Or from two separate sources. We don't really know enough to make such
a categorical statement.
Yes we do - the ultimate source for both "crook" and "crouch" was the Latin
"crux".
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:9l6tq298d07ld9o8jn8liuufp1lap5b9jp@4ax.com...
See the quotation from Skeat in another post - the progression is traced
from "croix" through "cr(e)oiz" to the later "crois", "croice". He noted the
late Old English "cros", related to Old Norse "kross" and Old Irish "cros
(correlated to Gaelic "crois", Welsh "croes" - but the transmission of the
word into Middle English usage came from the French, and so presumably did
the pronunciation.
Peter Stewart
news:9l6tq298d07ld9o8jn8liuufp1lap5b9jp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:54:24 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:it9sq21qo75666rgn4depq9ujmb9brmpfj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:02:23 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
The
co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as
deliberate
neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary in
early
English.
I wonder. When it comes to insulting words, the languages I know tend
to be anything but economical. Anyway, the co-existence of "crookback"
along with "crouchback" could be a dialectal thing, as Matt says.
You wrote earlier that "In English locution a deformed spine has
always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back", yet both of these are
attested much later in the OED than "crouchback". And the lack of
early records of "crouchback" was one of your objections to my
argument.
Would you still say that your categorical use of the word "always" in
that statement was justified?
No I wouldn't, this was a misstatement on my part.
Good. It was the categorical quality of that statement that made me
join this discussion.
We know that "crookback" was the natural term when Hardyng wrote, using
this
to gloss the byname, and that "crouch" occurred both alone and in
compound
terms meaning "Cross" from before his time although it had become
obsolete
in this sense by ca 1400.
Note the co-existence of the synonyms "cross" and "crouch" in Middle
English. Two words for the same thing. So much for "the economy of
vocabulary in early English".
I'm not sure about this "co-existence" - my understanding is that the
pronunciation "cross" developed later, from the French "croix" rather than
directly from the Latin "crux".
The OED records the spelling "cros" since the tenth century, "crosse"
since the twelfth. It's hard to imagine that being pronounced in any
other way than our "cross", and it survived its co-existence with the
form "croix" that came with the French.
See the quotation from Skeat in another post - the progression is traced
from "croix" through "cr(e)oiz" to the later "crois", "croice". He noted the
late Old English "cros", related to Old Norse "kross" and Old Irish "cros
(correlated to Gaelic "crois", Welsh "croes" - but the transmission of the
word into Middle English usage came from the French, and so presumably did
the pronunciation.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: CP and Paget error?
In a message dated 1/16/07 2:00:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Sir Edward Croft's father's ODNB entry has a marriage date of about
1461, the bride's previous husband having died April-June 1460;
assuming Edward's wife was not significantly older than him, and given
Margaret Beauchamp's death in the mid-1450s, Joyce Skull's mother (who
may or may not have been called Frances) was presumably Walter Skull's
subsequent wife. >>
Can you specify who the previous husband of Eleanor Cornwall of Burford was ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Sir Edward Croft's father's ODNB entry has a marriage date of about
1461, the bride's previous husband having died April-June 1460;
assuming Edward's wife was not significantly older than him, and given
Margaret Beauchamp's death in the mid-1450s, Joyce Skull's mother (who
may or may not have been called Frances) was presumably Walter Skull's
subsequent wife. >>
Can you specify who the previous husband of Eleanor Cornwall of Burford was ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Dora Smith
Redihalgh or Readyhough of Lancashire: medieval village, lo
I came across some statement in the genealogy library in the city wehre I
used to live, that Redihalgh was a coastal village in Lancashire in about
the 14th century. One of those coats of arms web sites says that this name
and its variants come from a family who were medieval Lord of the Manor in
Lancashire.
I found mentions of people with this name working their way across
Lancashire over time, in the capacity of guildsmen of various crafts like
may be shoemaking. Which would be strange if they'd been lords of a manor.
Can anyone shed light on this? If Redihalgh was a coastal village in
Lancashire, where was it, and who had settled there? Britons, or the
Norse?
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM
used to live, that Redihalgh was a coastal village in Lancashire in about
the 14th century. One of those coats of arms web sites says that this name
and its variants come from a family who were medieval Lord of the Manor in
Lancashire.
I found mentions of people with this name working their way across
Lancashire over time, in the capacity of guildsmen of various crafts like
may be shoemaking. Which would be strange if they'd been lords of a manor.
Can anyone shed light on this? If Redihalgh was a coastal village in
Lancashire, where was it, and who had settled there? Britons, or the
Norse?
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/608 - Release Date: 12/29/2006 8:22 AM
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:io7tq2pp9qdf5u4r04cqususqq0esnkhhe@4ax.com...
Yes, this is a weakness in the argument but it applies somewhat on both
sides - obviously English sources from Edmund's time are rare, and none that
has survived relates to him, but this doesn't provide a case to say that
"crouch" could not mean "cross" when compounded with "back" in his period or
that it must have meant "crook" because that is how it is presented to us by
the first source to use it in this context.
We do however have contemporary proof of Edmund's high reputation for
faithfulness to his crusading vow. This can be found in several sources,
notably in two letters from John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury - on 10
September 1280 to Pope Nicholas III and on 2 April 1281 to Pope Martin IV.
The terms are almost the same, praising Edmund for his loyalty and courage
in dedication to crusade ("in ipsius crucis negotia assumenda fideliter ac
viriliter prosequenda").
That is enough to convince me that he wore the cross on his shoulder, as was
conventional for men who had taken the vow, symbolic of Christ bearing the
cross on his back on the Via Dolorosa. That in turn is enough to suggest
that "crouchback", the elements of which we know for certain could mean
"cross-aback", was probably used to describe him (perhaps even with some
sarcasm by those who found his keenness old-fashioned and eccentric), with
no perjorative meaning or implication of "hunchbacked" at all. Then, when
someone later tried to distort this into a lie about his physical form, the
apparently doublet term "crook-back" had to be used to gloss the original
byname.
This may have more of opinion in it than would be allowable if more evidence
existed, but it seems cogent enough to me as well as consistent with what
little plausible evidence we have from Hardyng and a few others.
Peter Stewart
news:io7tq2pp9qdf5u4r04cqususqq0esnkhhe@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:35:50 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Mewrh.2465$u8.827@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
snip"
The use of "crouch" for "cross" was old in the 13th century, obsolete by
the start of the 15th. That is why it needed to be explained by the
single
source transmitting this controversy - and that is why it is absurd to
suppose it was made up for Edmund's alleged deformity at that time.
Let me clarify & emphasise this: the single source transmitting the
"Crouchback"/"croukeback" controversy was John Hardyng, in a prose
addition
in a manuscript of his verse chronicle, claiming to have heard about it on
several occasions from his former patron Henry Percy, 1st earl of
Northumberland, who was dead by then. It is scarcely credible that the
account of its invention byJohn of Gaunt could be true, given that there
is
no record in any parliamentary source and that if Percy had blathered
about
it to such a man as Hardyng than secrecy was clearly not maintained
outside
parliament.
The only other sources relating anything like this make no mention of a
"crookback" or of the byname "Crouchback". One speaks of a broken back,
while the other (and the most reliable) pins the alleged problem to
Edmund's
supposed mental weakness.
John of Gaunt was the doyen of the royal family by 1394, and of course
there
was an interest later in ascribing to him a story that he (as the former
husband of the great-granddaughter and eventual heiress of Edmund) would
have known the truth about. Hardyng's claim that John had planted false
information in monasteries to be incorporated into their chronicles is not
substantiated - indeed the only independent source for anything remotely
like this simply tells that Henry IV later ordered the monasteries to
bring
their records on the matter forward to settle it.
I don't dispute any of this. It seems to be a good summary of the
evidence.
But the interpretation of Crouchback as "wearing a cross on the back"
is not based on any contemporary source and is not supported by any
known parallel. It's an etymological hypothesis, not an implausible
one but still only a hypothesis. I don't think it should be stated as
an undisputed fact.
Yes, this is a weakness in the argument but it applies somewhat on both
sides - obviously English sources from Edmund's time are rare, and none that
has survived relates to him, but this doesn't provide a case to say that
"crouch" could not mean "cross" when compounded with "back" in his period or
that it must have meant "crook" because that is how it is presented to us by
the first source to use it in this context.
We do however have contemporary proof of Edmund's high reputation for
faithfulness to his crusading vow. This can be found in several sources,
notably in two letters from John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury - on 10
September 1280 to Pope Nicholas III and on 2 April 1281 to Pope Martin IV.
The terms are almost the same, praising Edmund for his loyalty and courage
in dedication to crusade ("in ipsius crucis negotia assumenda fideliter ac
viriliter prosequenda").
That is enough to convince me that he wore the cross on his shoulder, as was
conventional for men who had taken the vow, symbolic of Christ bearing the
cross on his back on the Via Dolorosa. That in turn is enough to suggest
that "crouchback", the elements of which we know for certain could mean
"cross-aback", was probably used to describe him (perhaps even with some
sarcasm by those who found his keenness old-fashioned and eccentric), with
no perjorative meaning or implication of "hunchbacked" at all. Then, when
someone later tried to distort this into a lie about his physical form, the
apparently doublet term "crook-back" had to be used to gloss the original
byname.
This may have more of opinion in it than would be allowable if more evidence
existed, but it seems cogent enough to me as well as consistent with what
little plausible evidence we have from Hardyng and a few others.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
In a message dated 1/17/07 1:16:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< William and Alina, after that lord, that
is between the 38th year of the reign of the now lord king and the 40th
following [1253/4 – 1255/6] they came before the justices of the lord
King’s Bench and acknowledged it to be the right of the same Richard by >>
So you're stating that Giles de Braose (of Buckingham) was also a son of this
Aline who by the above was yet living in 1253 when we know that Giles had to
be already born ?
See this doesn't really fix it, it makes it worse
Will
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< William and Alina, after that lord, that
is between the 38th year of the reign of the now lord king and the 40th
following [1253/4 – 1255/6] they came before the justices of the lord
King’s Bench and acknowledged it to be the right of the same Richard by >>
So you're stating that Giles de Braose (of Buckingham) was also a son of this
Aline who by the above was yet living in 1253 when we know that Giles had to
be already born ?
See this doesn't really fix it, it makes it worse
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5JArh.2628$u8.685@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
I should add to this:
It seems obvious to me that whoever invented the "Crouchback = crookback"
lie did not know much about Edmund's life, and certainly less than John of
Gaunt would have known. The idea that Edmund was the elder brother probably
came about from not understanding why he was a king before his elder
brother - he had this rank as titular king of Sicily & Apulia from January
1254, shortly before his ninth birthday, until 1263. Gold coins were issued
in England showing him with an orb and sceptre.
However, John of Gaunt of all people would have known the details, not only
as his successor in Lancaster as husband of his great-granddaughter, but
also from the similar circumstance in his own case: he was titled king of
Castile and Leon at court from 1372, four years before the death of his
elder brother whom he then outranked for a few years.
Also, as I have said before, the ease and speed with which Adam Usk related
that the question was dismissed when it came up in September 1399 strongly
suggest that it is most unlikely to have survived from an earlier airing for
a second go-round. If it had been raised in 1394, or indeed in 1376/7, it is
hardly conceivable that no hint of this would have come down to us in any
source earlier and more reliable than the two mid-15th century ones that we
have.
Peter Stewart
news:5JArh.2628$u8.685@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
We do however have contemporary proof of Edmund's high reputation for
faithfulness to his crusading vow. This can be found in several sources,
notably in two letters from John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury - on 10
September 1280 to Pope Nicholas III and on 2 April 1281 to Pope Martin IV.
The terms are almost the same, praising Edmund for his loyalty and courage
in dedication to crusade ("in ipsius crucis negotia assumenda fideliter ac
viriliter prosequenda").
That is enough to convince me that he wore the cross on his shoulder, as
was conventional for men who had taken the vow, symbolic of Christ bearing
the cross on his back on the Via Dolorosa. That in turn is enough to
suggest that "crouchback", the elements of which we know for certain could
mean "cross-aback", was probably used to describe him (perhaps even with
some sarcasm by those who found his keenness old-fashioned and eccentric),
with no perjorative meaning or implication of "hunchbacked" at all. Then,
when someone later tried to distort this into a lie about his physical
form, the apparently doublet term "crook-back" had to be used to gloss the
original byname.
This may have more of opinion in it than would be allowable if more
evidence existed, but it seems cogent enough to me as well as consistent
with what little plausible evidence we have from Hardyng and a few others.
I should add to this:
It seems obvious to me that whoever invented the "Crouchback = crookback"
lie did not know much about Edmund's life, and certainly less than John of
Gaunt would have known. The idea that Edmund was the elder brother probably
came about from not understanding why he was a king before his elder
brother - he had this rank as titular king of Sicily & Apulia from January
1254, shortly before his ninth birthday, until 1263. Gold coins were issued
in England showing him with an orb and sceptre.
However, John of Gaunt of all people would have known the details, not only
as his successor in Lancaster as husband of his great-granddaughter, but
also from the similar circumstance in his own case: he was titled king of
Castile and Leon at court from 1372, four years before the death of his
elder brother whom he then outranked for a few years.
Also, as I have said before, the ease and speed with which Adam Usk related
that the question was dismissed when it came up in September 1399 strongly
suggest that it is most unlikely to have survived from an earlier airing for
a second go-round. If it had been raised in 1394, or indeed in 1376/7, it is
hardly conceivable that no hint of this would have come down to us in any
source earlier and more reliable than the two mid-15th century ones that we
have.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prime Minister Winston Churchill -- Just After Pearl Har
Indeed it is.
Cousin Winston was a remarkable man -- indeed a Great Man -- we shall not
see his like again.
He is the cousin of tens of millions of us.
Like Theodore Roosevelt (a Real New Yorker by the way) before him, he was a
both a SCHOLAR and a MAN OF ACTION -- a vanishing species today.
The Poguenoscenti don't want Leaders like that anymore -- so they won't
elect them.
They particularly will have no truck with Great Men such as Theodore
Roosevelt and Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill -- TODAY.
Keep in mind that Theodore Roosevelt is the only man in History to win both
the Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Churchill:
"He Was Out Of Power"
"He Stood Alone"
"And He Was Right"
"An Intriguing Story of Political Strife and Personal Courage" _Winston
Churchill, The Wilderness Years 1929-1939_
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"David Starr" <dstarrboston@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:DIednWK0WOi1NzPYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@adelphia.com...
Excellent Bargain. -- DSH
Yes, it's still very much worth reading.
What did you learn that was particularly Novel or Enlightening to you about
Mediaeval History and other things?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Cousin Winston was a remarkable man -- indeed a Great Man -- we shall not
see his like again.
He is the cousin of tens of millions of us.
Like Theodore Roosevelt (a Real New Yorker by the way) before him, he was a
both a SCHOLAR and a MAN OF ACTION -- a vanishing species today.
The Poguenoscenti don't want Leaders like that anymore -- so they won't
elect them.
They particularly will have no truck with Great Men such as Theodore
Roosevelt and Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill -- TODAY.
Keep in mind that Theodore Roosevelt is the only man in History to win both
the Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Churchill:
"He Was Out Of Power"
"He Stood Alone"
"And He Was Right"
"An Intriguing Story of Political Strife and Personal Courage" _Winston
Churchill, The Wilderness Years 1929-1939_
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"David Starr" <dstarrboston@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:DIednWK0WOi1NzPYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@adelphia.com...
Recently finished rereading Churchill's "History of the English Speaking
People". I had visited the local public library book sale, and there it
was all four volumes, in hardback, in lovely condition, with dust jackets
no less. For $1 a volume. I bought the lot and took them home.
Excellent Bargain. -- DSH
"The Birth of Britain" (Volume 1) is a fine coverage of medieval
England, which is surprizingly up to date, for being better than 50 years
old. Churchill naturally is intensely interested in the origin of English
goivernment and Parliament since he had relevent experience with the 20th
century version. Churchill writes extremely well, and I came away from
the book with a clearer understanding of just when various institutions
were instituted, and what all the English kings between John Lackland and
Henry VIII did for a living. A fine read.
David Starr
--------------------------------------------
Yes, it's still very much worth reading.
What did you learn that was particularly Novel or Enlightening to you about
Mediaeval History and other things?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
What Skeat says, under "crouch", is that this word (defined as 'bend low
with general compression of the body') comes from the late Middle English
"cruche, crouche", possibly from the Old French "crochir".
Skeat:
Crouch. (F-Latef L.) M.E. crouchen, to stoop, bend. -- O.F. crochir, to grow crooked (Godefroy). -- O.F. croche, a crook; also croc. Late L. croccum, acc. of croccus, a hook.
If you look under "cross" you will find 'O[ld] F[rench] "croix" was adapted
in M[iddle] E[nglish] as "cr(e)oiz", later "crois", "croice" (XIII-XV
[centuries]). The L[atin] word was adapted (with lengthened vowel) in
Germ[an] as O[ld E[nglish] "cruc", M[iddle] E[nglish] "crouch" (whence
"crouched" adj[ective] wearing a cross, esp[ecially] in "Crouched", later
"Crutched", Friars'.
That is what I have been saying.
Peter Stewart
Skeat:
Cross. (L.) M.E. cros; from Icel. kross, adopted from O. Irish cros. -- L. cruc-em, acc. of crux, a cross. Der. a-cross.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
You are right - by mistake I took down the next book from the shelf, and my
quotations were actually from _The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology_
(1966) instead.
Apologies for this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1647.1169089230.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Skeat:
Crouch. (F-Latef L.) M.E. crouchen, to stoop, bend. -- O.F. crochir, to grow
crooked (Godefroy). -- O.F. croche, a crook; also croc. Late L. croccum,
acc. of croccus, a hook.
Skeat:
Cross. (L.) M.E. cros; from Icel. kross, adopted from O. Irish cros. -- L.
cruc-em, acc. of crux, a cross. Der. a-cross.
quotations were actually from _The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology_
(1966) instead.
Apologies for this.
Peter Stewart
"Richard Smyth at UNC-CH" <smyth@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.1647.1169089230.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What Skeat says, under "crouch", is that this word (defined as 'bend low
with general compression of the body') comes from the late Middle English
"cruche, crouche", possibly from the Old French "crochir".
Skeat:
Crouch. (F-Latef L.) M.E. crouchen, to stoop, bend. -- O.F. crochir, to grow
crooked (Godefroy). -- O.F. croche, a crook; also croc. Late L. croccum,
acc. of croccus, a hook.
If you look under "cross" you will find 'O[ld] F[rench] "croix" was
adapted
in M[iddle] E[nglish] as "cr(e)oiz", later "crois", "croice" (XIII-XV
[centuries]). The L[atin] word was adapted (with lengthened vowel) in
Germ[an] as O[ld E[nglish] "cruc", M[iddle] E[nglish] "crouch" (whence
"crouched" adj[ective] wearing a cross, esp[ecially] in "Crouched", later
"Crutched", Friars'.
That is what I have been saying.
Peter Stewart
Skeat:
Cross. (L.) M.E. cros; from Icel. kross, adopted from O. Irish cros. -- L.
cruc-em, acc. of crux, a cross. Der. a-cross.
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: Crouchback
. . . We don't really know enough to make such
a categorical statement.
Yes we do - the ultimate source for both "crook" and "crouch" was the Latin
"crux".
Peter Stewart
Skeat:
Crook. a hook, bend. (Scand.) M. E. crok (Ancren Riwle).--Icel. krokr, Swed. krok. Dan. krog, hook, bend, angle.
Crouch. . . . Late L. croccum, acc. of croccus, a hook.
-
Gjest
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
In a message dated 1/17/2007 9:27:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pisces@slices.com writes:
I still think that my interpretation (3) is simpler and does not
conflict with what we know about the meaning of the verb "crouch" (to
stoop or bend low).
But Peter also has the Encyclopedia Brittanica on his side, and I don't
think he wrote that entry. So other experts, even-in, the presence of the
counter-evidence has found for the meaning that Peter supports.
That can't be ignored as if we're debating this for the first time ever.
Will
pisces@slices.com writes:
I still think that my interpretation (3) is simpler and does not
conflict with what we know about the meaning of the verb "crouch" (to
stoop or bend low).
But Peter also has the Encyclopedia Brittanica on his side, and I don't
think he wrote that entry. So other experts, even-in, the presence of the
counter-evidence has found for the meaning that Peter supports.
That can't be ignored as if we're debating this for the first time ever.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
Yes that's exactly my point, the two wives appear to be overlapping and in
such an odd way too.
It makes me wonder whether ...this isn't rather twisted about. If I had the
time I'd lay out all the evidence and see if maybe there is a case for two
quite different William's here mixed together.
Will
such an odd way too.
It makes me wonder whether ...this isn't rather twisted about. If I had the
time I'd lay out all the evidence and see if maybe there is a case for two
quite different William's here mixed together.
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1651.1169090420.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Quite right - I was absent-minded twice over.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1651.1169090420.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
. . . We don't really know enough to make such
a categorical statement.
Yes we do - the ultimate source for both "crook" and "crouch" was the
Latin
"crux".
Peter Stewart
Skeat:
Crook. a hook, bend. (Scand.) M. E. crok (Ancren Riwle).--Icel. krokr,
Swed. krok.
Dan. krog, hook, bend, angle.
Crouch. . . . Late L. croccum, acc. of croccus, a hook.
Quite right - I was absent-minded twice over.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1657.1169100879.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
The matter can't be decided once & for all unless some new evidence comes to
light. Most historians & commentators have taken a view more like mine than
the opposed position, but with notable exceptions like the OED contributor.
Walter Rhodes published a study of Edmund in the _English Historical Review_
10 (1895), concluding judiciously in between the alternatives: "Of his
personal characteristics we know little. It is scarcely possible that the
epithet 'Crouchback', which is not given to him by any contemporary
chronicler, can have arisen from any deformity of his...[Some reflections
about John of Gaunt's involvement in the lie, disagreeing with my view]. The
explanation which attributes it to his having been on the crusade is much
more probable, if even the name be anything more than a survival of half the
Lancastrian fiction which its absence in contemporary authorities seems to
point at its being."
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1657.1169100879.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 1/17/2007 9:27:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pisces@slices.com writes:
I still think that my interpretation (3) is simpler and does not
conflict with what we know about the meaning of the verb "crouch" (to
stoop or bend low).
But Peter also has the Encyclopedia Brittanica on his side, and I don't
think he wrote that entry. So other experts, even-in, the presence of the
counter-evidence has found for the meaning that Peter supports.
That can't be ignored as if we're debating this for the first time ever.
The matter can't be decided once & for all unless some new evidence comes to
light. Most historians & commentators have taken a view more like mine than
the opposed position, but with notable exceptions like the OED contributor.
Walter Rhodes published a study of Edmund in the _English Historical Review_
10 (1895), concluding judiciously in between the alternatives: "Of his
personal characteristics we know little. It is scarcely possible that the
epithet 'Crouchback', which is not given to him by any contemporary
chronicler, can have arisen from any deformity of his...[Some reflections
about John of Gaunt's involvement in the lie, disagreeing with my view]. The
explanation which attributes it to his having been on the crusade is much
more probable, if even the name be anything more than a survival of half the
Lancastrian fiction which its absence in contemporary authorities seems to
point at its being."
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prime Minister Winston Churchill -- Just After Pearl Har
Recte:
Indeed it is.
Cousin Winston was a remarkable man -- indeed a Great Man -- we shall not
see his like again.
He is the cousin of tens of millions of us.
Like Theodore Roosevelt (a Real New Yorker by the way) before him, he was
both a SCHOLAR and a MAN OF ACTION -- a vanishing species today.
The Poguenoscenti don't want Leaders like that anymore -- so they won't
elect them.
They particularly will have no truck with Great Men such as Theodore
Roosevelt and Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill -- TODAY.
Keep in mind that Theodore Roosevelt is the only man in History to win both
the Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Churchill:
"He Was Out Of Power"
"He Stood Alone"
"And He Was Right"
"An Intriguing Story of Political Strife and Personal Courage" _Winston
Churchill, The Wilderness Years 1929-1939_
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"David Starr" <dstarrboston@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:DIednWK0WOi1NzPYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@adelphia.com...
Excellent Bargain. -- DSH
Yes, it's still very much worth reading.
What did you learn that was particularly Novel or Enlightening to you about
Mediaeval History and other things?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Indeed it is.
Cousin Winston was a remarkable man -- indeed a Great Man -- we shall not
see his like again.
He is the cousin of tens of millions of us.
Like Theodore Roosevelt (a Real New Yorker by the way) before him, he was
both a SCHOLAR and a MAN OF ACTION -- a vanishing species today.
The Poguenoscenti don't want Leaders like that anymore -- so they won't
elect them.
They particularly will have no truck with Great Men such as Theodore
Roosevelt and Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill -- TODAY.
Keep in mind that Theodore Roosevelt is the only man in History to win both
the Medal of Honor and the Nobel Peace Prize.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Churchill:
"He Was Out Of Power"
"He Stood Alone"
"And He Was Right"
"An Intriguing Story of Political Strife and Personal Courage" _Winston
Churchill, The Wilderness Years 1929-1939_
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
"David Starr" <dstarrboston@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:DIednWK0WOi1NzPYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@adelphia.com...
Recently finished rereading Churchill's "History of the English Speaking
People". I had visited the local public library book sale, and there it
was all four volumes, in hardback, in lovely condition, with dust jackets
no less. For $1 a volume. I bought the lot and took them home.
Excellent Bargain. -- DSH
"The Birth of Britain" (Volume 1) is a fine coverage of medieval
England, which is surprizingly up to date, for being better than 50 years
old. Churchill naturally is intensely interested in the origin of English
goivernment and Parliament since he had relevent experience with the 20th
century version. Churchill writes extremely well, and I came away from
the book with a clearer understanding of just when various institutions
were instituted, and what all the English kings between John Lackland and
Henry VIII did for a living. A fine read.
David Starr
--------------------------------------------
Yes, it's still very much worth reading.
What did you learn that was particularly Novel or Enlightening to you about
Mediaeval History and other things?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
gbh
Re: Crouchback
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:13:21 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
The above is a cogent, convincing and learned presentation of the
argument. Well done! And I'm not being sarcastic. I really find it
plausible.
It shows that there are sufficiently good arguments for the hypothesis
without using statements that are liable to raise the hackles of a
linguist. There is no need to claim that English has only ever had one
term for hunchback, no need to claim that Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or
synonymy, no need to hypothesize that all the "crouch" words derive
from Latin "crux". Such arguments only make the case seem weaker than
it is.
And with that I think I have said (more than?) enough about
Crouchback. Thanks for the debate, Peter
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:io7tq2pp9qdf5u4r04cqususqq0esnkhhe@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:35:50 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Mewrh.2465$u8.827@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
snip"
The use of "crouch" for "cross" was old in the 13th century, obsolete by
the start of the 15th. That is why it needed to be explained by the
single
source transmitting this controversy - and that is why it is absurd to
suppose it was made up for Edmund's alleged deformity at that time.
Let me clarify & emphasise this: the single source transmitting the
"Crouchback"/"croukeback" controversy was John Hardyng, in a prose
addition
in a manuscript of his verse chronicle, claiming to have heard about it on
several occasions from his former patron Henry Percy, 1st earl of
Northumberland, who was dead by then. It is scarcely credible that the
account of its invention byJohn of Gaunt could be true, given that there
is
no record in any parliamentary source and that if Percy had blathered
about
it to such a man as Hardyng than secrecy was clearly not maintained
outside
parliament.
The only other sources relating anything like this make no mention of a
"crookback" or of the byname "Crouchback". One speaks of a broken back,
while the other (and the most reliable) pins the alleged problem to
Edmund's
supposed mental weakness.
John of Gaunt was the doyen of the royal family by 1394, and of course
there
was an interest later in ascribing to him a story that he (as the former
husband of the great-granddaughter and eventual heiress of Edmund) would
have known the truth about. Hardyng's claim that John had planted false
information in monasteries to be incorporated into their chronicles is not
substantiated - indeed the only independent source for anything remotely
like this simply tells that Henry IV later ordered the monasteries to
bring
their records on the matter forward to settle it.
I don't dispute any of this. It seems to be a good summary of the
evidence.
But the interpretation of Crouchback as "wearing a cross on the back"
is not based on any contemporary source and is not supported by any
known parallel. It's an etymological hypothesis, not an implausible
one but still only a hypothesis. I don't think it should be stated as
an undisputed fact.
Yes, this is a weakness in the argument but it applies somewhat on both
sides - obviously English sources from Edmund's time are rare, and none that
has survived relates to him, but this doesn't provide a case to say that
"crouch" could not mean "cross" when compounded with "back" in his period or
that it must have meant "crook" because that is how it is presented to us by
the first source to use it in this context.
We do however have contemporary proof of Edmund's high reputation for
faithfulness to his crusading vow. This can be found in several sources,
notably in two letters from John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury - on 10
September 1280 to Pope Nicholas III and on 2 April 1281 to Pope Martin IV.
The terms are almost the same, praising Edmund for his loyalty and courage
in dedication to crusade ("in ipsius crucis negotia assumenda fideliter ac
viriliter prosequenda").
That is enough to convince me that he wore the cross on his shoulder, as was
conventional for men who had taken the vow, symbolic of Christ bearing the
cross on his back on the Via Dolorosa. That in turn is enough to suggest
that "crouchback", the elements of which we know for certain could mean
"cross-aback", was probably used to describe him (perhaps even with some
sarcasm by those who found his keenness old-fashioned and eccentric), with
no perjorative meaning or implication of "hunchbacked" at all. Then, when
someone later tried to distort this into a lie about his physical form, the
apparently doublet term "crook-back" had to be used to gloss the original
byname.
This may have more of opinion in it than would be allowable if more evidence
existed, but it seems cogent enough to me as well as consistent with what
little plausible evidence we have from Hardyng and a few others.
The above is a cogent, convincing and learned presentation of the
argument. Well done! And I'm not being sarcastic. I really find it
plausible.
It shows that there are sufficiently good arguments for the hypothesis
without using statements that are liable to raise the hackles of a
linguist. There is no need to claim that English has only ever had one
term for hunchback, no need to claim that Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or
synonymy, no need to hypothesize that all the "crouch" words derive
from Latin "crux". Such arguments only make the case seem weaker than
it is.
And with that I think I have said (more than?) enough about
Crouchback. Thanks for the debate, Peter
gbh
-
gbh
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:07:01 EST, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That of course is the excerpist's dream, or what readers are looking
for when collecting, that is, bringing together, material for a
dictionary, or, if you prefer, a book describing the meanings of
words.
gbh
I agree that 1491 reference indicates something negative but what is not
clear. I'm wondering what the first absolutely clear meaning is... something like
"He was a crokeback that is, his back was crooked..."
In other words, the first time the word is used in a clear meaningful way,
where it's definition is obvious from the context.
That of course is the excerpist's dream, or what readers are looking
for when collecting, that is, bringing together, material for a
dictionary, or, if you prefer, a book describing the meanings of
words.
gbh
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:1mauq2hbemtmvrs06trrr59pntdedtslmt@4ax.com...
<snip>
What I actually wrote in the first place (on 15 January) was: 'In English
locution a deformed spine has always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back,
or at a stretch "crook-back"...'
Does this really say to you "English has only ever had one term for
hunchback"?
What I actually wrote was: 'The co-existence of "crookback" along with
"crouchback" (except as deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of
the economy of vocabulary in early English.' Nothing about not tolerating
variation etc. Doublet terms were not common in the era I was referring to -
either "crookback" or "crouchback" would have predominated and the other
have left virtually no trace if these had meant the same thing, and I was
patently writing of a time well before Hardyng conflated the meanings in the
mid-15th century. The increase & elaboration of English vocabulary around
his time (and somewhat before, as the cultural & linguistic separation of
the conquered from the conquerors finally broke down) and from then onwards
with the deliberate introduction of Latinity are another matter.
I am not convinced that there was more than one etymology for "crouch" in
English, that is ultimately "crux". (At one stage I absent-mindedly confused
"crook" with "cross" and gave a wrong source for that word.) The OED says
'there is no assignable reason for the palatalization of the "-k" in
"crouk"..."crouch" is palatalized in all Eng[lish] dialects.' That is
sufficient reason in my view for the hypothesis that 'all the "crouch" words
derive from the Latin "crux".
Thank you too for putting such determined objections, and especially for
correcting my mistakes.
Peter Stewart
news:1mauq2hbemtmvrs06trrr59pntdedtslmt@4ax.com...
<snip>
It shows that there are sufficiently good arguments for the hypothesis
without using statements that are liable to raise the hackles of a
linguist. There is no need to claim that English has only ever had one
term for hunchback,
What I actually wrote in the first place (on 15 January) was: 'In English
locution a deformed spine has always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back,
or at a stretch "crook-back"...'
Does this really say to you "English has only ever had one term for
hunchback"?
no need to claim that Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or
synonymy,
What I actually wrote was: 'The co-existence of "crookback" along with
"crouchback" (except as deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of
the economy of vocabulary in early English.' Nothing about not tolerating
variation etc. Doublet terms were not common in the era I was referring to -
either "crookback" or "crouchback" would have predominated and the other
have left virtually no trace if these had meant the same thing, and I was
patently writing of a time well before Hardyng conflated the meanings in the
mid-15th century. The increase & elaboration of English vocabulary around
his time (and somewhat before, as the cultural & linguistic separation of
the conquered from the conquerors finally broke down) and from then onwards
with the deliberate introduction of Latinity are another matter.
no need to hypothesize that all the "crouch" words derive
from Latin "crux". Such arguments only make the case seem weaker than
it is.
I am not convinced that there was more than one etymology for "crouch" in
English, that is ultimately "crux". (At one stage I absent-mindedly confused
"crook" with "cross" and gave a wrong source for that word.) The OED says
'there is no assignable reason for the palatalization of the "-k" in
"crouk"..."crouch" is palatalized in all Eng[lish] dialects.' That is
sufficient reason in my view for the hypothesis that 'all the "crouch" words
derive from the Latin "crux".
And with that I think I have said (more than?) enough about
Crouchback. Thanks for the debate, Peter
Thank you too for putting such determined objections, and especially for
correcting my mistakes.
Peter Stewart
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Crouchback
Peter Stewart wrote:
Endlessly repeating this, or your errors on any of the other linguistic
points which gbh and I have been trying to explain to you, will not
make them correct. It is probably pointless to hope that you will
concede this, since your preferred response to contradiction is to keep
repeating your assertions until eventually you get the last word. So I
propose to allow you to have it - but in parting I will suggest that
afterwards you might read up a little on the history of the English
language. Any decent book should cover the points we have been
discussing, but a standard entry-level textbook like Baugh and
Cable's 'A History of the English Language' would be a good
choice.
Matt Tompkins
no need to claim that Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or
synonymy,
What I actually wrote was: 'The co-existence of "crookback" along with
"crouchback" (except as deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of
the economy of vocabulary in early English.' Nothing about not tolerating
variation etc. Doublet terms were not common in the era I was referring to -
either "crookback" or "crouchback" would have predominated and the other
have left virtually no trace if these had meant the same thing
Endlessly repeating this, or your errors on any of the other linguistic
points which gbh and I have been trying to explain to you, will not
make them correct. It is probably pointless to hope that you will
concede this, since your preferred response to contradiction is to keep
repeating your assertions until eventually you get the last word. So I
propose to allow you to have it - but in parting I will suggest that
afterwards you might read up a little on the history of the English
language. Any decent book should cover the points we have been
discussing, but a standard entry-level textbook like Baugh and
Cable's 'A History of the English Language' would be a good
choice.
Matt Tompkins
-
Gjest
Re: CP and Paget error?
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Sure- it was Sir Hugh Mortimer of Kyre, Worcs., according to the same
biog; there is also a mention of Sir Richard Croft's stepson John
Mortimer fighting for Henry Tudor at Bosworth. Eleanor's death date is
given as 1519.
In a message dated 1/16/07 2:00:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:
Sir Edward Croft's father's ODNB entry has a marriage date of about
1461, the bride's previous husband having died April-June 1460;
assuming Edward's wife was not significantly older than him, and given
Margaret Beauchamp's death in the mid-1450s, Joyce Skull's mother (who
may or may not have been called Frances) was presumably Walter Skull's
subsequent wife.
Can you specify who the previous husband of Eleanor Cornwall of Burford was ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Sure- it was Sir Hugh Mortimer of Kyre, Worcs., according to the same
biog; there is also a mention of Sir Richard Croft's stepson John
Mortimer fighting for Henry Tudor at Bosworth. Eleanor's death date is
given as 1519.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1169118106.613419.71890@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Then quote from them to your purpose.
I don't get this blather at all, apart from the obvious reflection of your
pained & apparently painful character - my point above is just to clarify
what had been misstated: I clearly never said that "Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or synonymy" as
had been represented. I am surely entitle to do this.
I assume you can understand the plain fact of my original statement, without
agreeing with it as is your perfect right, and so that my opinion is not
open to misunderstanding or further argument I quoted my actual words - that
is all.
If you still want to maintain that synomys like "hide/skin/pelt" and
"boat/ship/vessel" have something to prove about doublet terms such as
"crouchback" and "crookback" in early English usage, then who is being
obtuse and repetitive? Your point misfired the first time and it doesn't get
any more accurate or telling by insistence.
English vocabulary went through a few phases of rapid expansion, and in
between these was relatively settled as well as economical with doublets. It
is not until Sir John Fortescue in 1475 that we can definitely say
"crookback" and "crouchback" were considered synonyms, meaning
"hunchbacked".
Your effort to be patronising is so pretentious and absurd as to need no
further comment.
Peter Stewart
news:1169118106.613419.71890@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
no need to claim that Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or
synonymy,
What I actually wrote was: 'The co-existence of "crookback" along with
"crouchback" (except as deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical
of
the economy of vocabulary in early English.' Nothing about not tolerating
variation etc. Doublet terms were not common in the era I was referring
to -
either "crookback" or "crouchback" would have predominated and the other
have left virtually no trace if these had meant the same thing
Endlessly repeating this, or your errors on any of the other linguistic
points which gbh and I have been trying to explain to you, will not
make them correct. It is probably pointless to hope that you will
concede this, since your preferred response to contradiction is to keep
repeating your assertions until eventually you get the last word. So I
propose to allow you to have it - but in parting I will suggest that
afterwards you might read up a little on the history of the English
language. Any decent book should cover the points we have been
discussing, but a standard entry-level textbook like Baugh and
Cable's 'A History of the English Language' would be a good
choice.
Then quote from them to your purpose.
I don't get this blather at all, apart from the obvious reflection of your
pained & apparently painful character - my point above is just to clarify
what had been misstated: I clearly never said that "Middle English was
economical in its vocabulary and did not tolerate variation or synonymy" as
had been represented. I am surely entitle to do this.
I assume you can understand the plain fact of my original statement, without
agreeing with it as is your perfect right, and so that my opinion is not
open to misunderstanding or further argument I quoted my actual words - that
is all.
If you still want to maintain that synomys like "hide/skin/pelt" and
"boat/ship/vessel" have something to prove about doublet terms such as
"crouchback" and "crookback" in early English usage, then who is being
obtuse and repetitive? Your point misfired the first time and it doesn't get
any more accurate or telling by insistence.
English vocabulary went through a few phases of rapid expansion, and in
between these was relatively settled as well as economical with doublets. It
is not until Sir John Fortescue in 1475 that we can definitely say
"crookback" and "crouchback" were considered synonyms, meaning
"hunchbacked".
Your effort to be patronising is so pretentious and absurd as to need no
further comment.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Facts not fiction: John de Sudeley's wife, Grace de Trac
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
(obviously later) visitation pedigree remains suspect- it's also
impossible for him to have been a grandson of Norman Washbourne, for
instance. Perhaps he did have some Tracy descent, but equally it could
just be a mistake or a fabrication; no way of knowing without more to
go on.
And I should note that it is not chronologically possible for the line to be
this short to John Vampage the Attorney General from 1429 to 1452
From looking at the Vampage chronology here six months ago, it is all
fine from the Attorney General down, but everything before him in the
(obviously later) visitation pedigree remains suspect- it's also
impossible for him to have been a grandson of Norman Washbourne, for
instance. Perhaps he did have some Tracy descent, but equally it could
just be a mistake or a fabrication; no way of knowing without more to
go on.
-
Brad Verity
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No, Le Neve provides a very brief pedigree with several gaps, which
indicates he wasn't particularly well-informed. Once knighted, a
gentleman was supposed to provide his pedigree to the heralds at the
College of Arms, but as fees were involved, this wasn't always done, so
the heralds sometimes had to determine the pedigrees from other
sources.
The full pedigree is:
".... Tate of De la Pree Com. North'ton" married ".... dr of Sr Gyles
Allington of Horseth by .... his 2d wife dr of .... Dalton", and they
had three sons:
1) "William Tate of De la pree esqr 1 son"
2) "2. Sr John Tate of the .... Temple Kted as above [at Whitehall 12
May 1687] Recorder of London he dyed vnmaried .. day of ... AD'ni 169..
buried at ...."
3) "Zouch Tate gent. dyed at Tangeir" married " .... dau'r of ....",
and had "2 drs".
Cheers, -----Brad
Thanks Brad for your helpful contribution. Any guess on when John Tate,
Recorder of London might have been born?
No, Le Neve provides a very brief pedigree with several gaps, which
indicates he wasn't particularly well-informed. Once knighted, a
gentleman was supposed to provide his pedigree to the heralds at the
College of Arms, but as fees were involved, this wasn't always done, so
the heralds sometimes had to determine the pedigrees from other
sources.
Sir William Tate of Delapre and his wife Elizabeth Zouche were husband and
wife for just shy of 20 years so I presume they may have had several sons. I
don't have a date for when Zouche Tate of Delapre married Catherine Allington
but this couple has a grandson born in 1666 named Bartholomew.
I would presume that if a Tate of Delapre was the father of John Tate that
that Tate must be a brother to Zouche, and not Zouche himself.
The full pedigree is:
".... Tate of De la Pree Com. North'ton" married ".... dr of Sr Gyles
Allington of Horseth by .... his 2d wife dr of .... Dalton", and they
had three sons:
1) "William Tate of De la pree esqr 1 son"
2) "2. Sr John Tate of the .... Temple Kted as above [at Whitehall 12
May 1687] Recorder of London he dyed vnmaried .. day of ... AD'ni 169..
buried at ...."
3) "Zouch Tate gent. dyed at Tangeir" married " .... dau'r of ....",
and had "2 drs".
Cheers, -----Brad
-
Le Bateman
Re: Farquhar Earl of Ross
Looking for information on Farquhar Earl of Ross. His daughter was said to
be Catherine of Ross. who married a MacLeod. Was he actually an Earl? Was a
Mandeville the Earl of Essex in the reign of Elizabeth I?
be Catherine of Ross. who married a MacLeod. Was he actually an Earl? Was a
Mandeville the Earl of Essex in the reign of Elizabeth I?
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
So the first Darcy quartering (FitzLangley) comes from the marriage of
Robert D to Alice F; the second (Harleston) comes from the marriage of
his grandson Thomas D to Margaret H, and the final (Kitson) from the
latter's great-great grandson Thomas D's marriage to Mary K. The
intervening quarters (Lovell, Wanton, Weston and Bardwell) must
therefore relate to earlier marriages in the Harleston line (I believe
"Wanton" is probably "Wauton", given that an early Harleston married a
Wauton heiress; is there a blazon?). Unless, as Tim says, the heraldry
is wrong, which is not unknown - but so far, so good.
MA-R
In a message dated 1/16/07 7:58:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
Darcy, FitzLangley, Harleston and Bardewell all come together in the marriage
of
Thomas /Darcy/ of Danbury , Esquire of the Body to Henry VI (d 22 Sep 1485)
to
Margaret /Harleston/
This couple then descends to penelope darcy in five generations.
So the first Darcy quartering (FitzLangley) comes from the marriage of
Robert D to Alice F; the second (Harleston) comes from the marriage of
his grandson Thomas D to Margaret H, and the final (Kitson) from the
latter's great-great grandson Thomas D's marriage to Mary K. The
intervening quarters (Lovell, Wanton, Weston and Bardwell) must
therefore relate to earlier marriages in the Harleston line (I believe
"Wanton" is probably "Wauton", given that an early Harleston married a
Wauton heiress; is there a blazon?). Unless, as Tim says, the heraldry
is wrong, which is not unknown - but so far, so good.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/18/07 1:21:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< The
intervening quarters (Lovell, Wanton, Weston and Bardwell) must >>
I think you're suggesting the marriage of
Roger Harleston to Margaret de Wauton
But I don't have the details to connect this marriage forward to the John
Harleston who married Margery Bardewell, perhaps someone else does.
Will
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< The
intervening quarters (Lovell, Wanton, Weston and Bardwell) must >>
I think you're suggesting the marriage of
Roger Harleston to Margaret de Wauton
But I don't have the details to connect this marriage forward to the John
Harleston who married Margery Bardewell, perhaps someone else does.
Will
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Farquhar Earl of Ross
In message of 18 Jan, "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net> wrote:
There was a Ferquhard first earl of Ross, created after June 1226; this
is in SP VII, 232 but the only daughters mentioned are Euphemia and
Christina
No. The earls of Essex in that century were Devereux. The last
Mandeville earl died in 1216.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Looking for information on Farquhar Earl of Ross. His daughter was said to
be Catherine of Ross. who married a MacLeod. Was he actually an Earl?
There was a Ferquhard first earl of Ross, created after June 1226; this
is in SP VII, 232 but the only daughters mentioned are Euphemia and
Christina
Was a Mandeville the Earl of Essex in the reign of Elizabeth I?
No. The earls of Essex in that century were Devereux. The last
Mandeville earl died in 1216.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Giles de Braose
Hello Will, Paul and others
The evidence is all there for a solution.
In 1307, William de Braose (d 1326) gave evidence at the investigations into
the possible canonisation of Thomas de Cantilupe. These were formal
proceedings where ages of all witnesses were recorded. William de Braose
gave his age as 46. So he was born in 1261.
Giles was his younger halfbrother.
So the older William's marriage with Agnes de Moels and the birth pf Giles
both took place after 1261.
The consequence of this is that the Kent fine of 1271 concerns a different
Giles de Braose. There is at least one known candidate for this - William's
uncle, the younger brother of John (d 1232).
It could never have been the Giles you have been discussing or Wickham and
Lukedale would have descended to his heirs, rather than appearing back in
the possession of William.
Hence the Giles mentioned in the fine died without heirs.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 18/1/07 06:16, in article
mailman.1658.1169101028.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
The evidence is all there for a solution.
In 1307, William de Braose (d 1326) gave evidence at the investigations into
the possible canonisation of Thomas de Cantilupe. These were formal
proceedings where ages of all witnesses were recorded. William de Braose
gave his age as 46. So he was born in 1261.
Giles was his younger halfbrother.
So the older William's marriage with Agnes de Moels and the birth pf Giles
both took place after 1261.
The consequence of this is that the Kent fine of 1271 concerns a different
Giles de Braose. There is at least one known candidate for this - William's
uncle, the younger brother of John (d 1232).
It could never have been the Giles you have been discussing or Wickham and
Lukedale would have descended to his heirs, rather than appearing back in
the possession of William.
Hence the Giles mentioned in the fine died without heirs.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 18/1/07 06:16, in article
mailman.1658.1169101028.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
Yes that's exactly my point, the two wives appear to be overlapping and in
such an odd way too.
It makes me wonder whether ...this isn't rather twisted about. If I had the
time I'd lay out all the evidence and see if maybe there is a case for two
quite different William's here mixed together.
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2BJrh.2854$u8.82@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Two things have just occurred to me:
As well as failing to appreciate the difference in meaning between
"economical" and "intolerant", perhaps someone claiming expertise in
linguistics also doesn't realise the distinction between "sysnonym" and
"doublet".
Synonyms are differnt words that have precisely or roughly the same meaning.
English is profuse in synonyms, and in the written record this is at least
partly due to the influence of rhyme & metre, since poetry has been one of
the chief glories of the language - synonyms are most useful tools for
versifiers, as well as ordinary speakers.
Doublets on the other hand are pairs of words or phrases, duplicates with
exactly the same meaning and all but identical sound & orthography. The idea
was put forward that "crookback" and "crouchback" only ever had the same
meaning, and consequently were doublet terms. In my view this would have led
quickly to the disappearance, probably wiothout trace, of one or other form,
more likely of "crouchback". As the OED could not explain the palatalisation
of the -k, I maintain that this is not the case, and the terms had a
different meaning originally - "crookback as "hunchback", and "crouchback"
as "cross-aback".
Another important point that hasn't been made in this thread, or as far as I
can tell in the literature at all:
When the succession to the throne was decided in favour of the Mortimers,
John of Gaunt's argument against this was that it could not pass through a
female and he was the heir male of Edward III. If he had then switched to an
argument on his son's behalf for inheritance through Blanche of Lancaster
from Edmund, he would have been trying to trup the Mortimer claim by another
one through a femal - in other words, conceding the single point that could
be & had been urged in his own favour just for a mess of potage that could
readily be - as eventually it was - dismissed out of hand.
I do not believe there is any ground to conclude that John of Gaunt was
stupid enough to snooker himself and his son in this way.
Peter Stewart
news:2BJrh.2854$u8.82@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
English vocabulary went through a few phases of rapid expansion, and in
between these was relatively settled as well as economical with doublets.
It is not until Sir John Fortescue in 1475 that we can definitely say
"crookback" and "crouchback" were considered synonyms, meaning
"hunchbacked".
Two things have just occurred to me:
As well as failing to appreciate the difference in meaning between
"economical" and "intolerant", perhaps someone claiming expertise in
linguistics also doesn't realise the distinction between "sysnonym" and
"doublet".
Synonyms are differnt words that have precisely or roughly the same meaning.
English is profuse in synonyms, and in the written record this is at least
partly due to the influence of rhyme & metre, since poetry has been one of
the chief glories of the language - synonyms are most useful tools for
versifiers, as well as ordinary speakers.
Doublets on the other hand are pairs of words or phrases, duplicates with
exactly the same meaning and all but identical sound & orthography. The idea
was put forward that "crookback" and "crouchback" only ever had the same
meaning, and consequently were doublet terms. In my view this would have led
quickly to the disappearance, probably wiothout trace, of one or other form,
more likely of "crouchback". As the OED could not explain the palatalisation
of the -k, I maintain that this is not the case, and the terms had a
different meaning originally - "crookback as "hunchback", and "crouchback"
as "cross-aback".
Another important point that hasn't been made in this thread, or as far as I
can tell in the literature at all:
When the succession to the throne was decided in favour of the Mortimers,
John of Gaunt's argument against this was that it could not pass through a
female and he was the heir male of Edward III. If he had then switched to an
argument on his son's behalf for inheritance through Blanche of Lancaster
from Edmund, he would have been trying to trup the Mortimer claim by another
one through a femal - in other words, conceding the single point that could
be & had been urged in his own favour just for a mess of potage that could
readily be - as eventually it was - dismissed out of hand.
I do not believe there is any ground to conclude that John of Gaunt was
stupid enough to snooker himself and his son in this way.
Peter Stewart
-
CE Wood
Re: Farquhar Earl of Ross
What about William FitzPiers de Mandeville who died in 1227? Your site
has him as the 5th earl; some called him the 2nd earl of the 2nd
creation.
CE Wood
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
has him as the 5th earl; some called him the 2nd earl of the 2nd
creation.
CE Wood
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 18 Jan, "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net> wrote:
Looking for information on Farquhar Earl of Ross. His daughter was said to
be Catherine of Ross. who married a MacLeod. Was he actually an Earl?
There was a Ferquhard first earl of Ross, created after June 1226; this
is in SP VII, 232 but the only daughters mentioned are Euphemia and
Christina
Was a Mandeville the Earl of Essex in the reign of Elizabeth I?
No. The earls of Essex in that century were Devereux. The last
Mandeville earl died in 1216.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prime Minister Winston Churchill -- Just After Pearl Har
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans has confused and conflated King Arthur and Robin Hood.
And he calls himself a "MEDIEVALIST".
How Sweet It Is!
DSH
---------------------------------------------
"David Starr" <dstarrboston@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:K7qdnQcBQc9BcDLYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Pogue Gans has confused and conflated King Arthur and Robin Hood.
And he calls himself a "MEDIEVALIST".
How Sweet It Is!
DSH
---------------------------------------------
"David Starr" <dstarrboston@adelpha.net> wrote in message
news:K7qdnQcBQc9BcDLYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Paul J Gans wrote:
Yes he is a fine read, in anything he wrote.
And the book you refer to is, in my opinion, a wonderful
introduction to the history of the period. But of course
the more detailed history is filled with nuance and more
subtle events.
By the way, isn't that the book where Churchill, in writing
of Robin Hood, notes that if the stories aren't true, they
ought to be?
Churchill writes of Arthur thusly
"In this account we prefer to beleive that the story with which Geoffrey
delighted the fiction loving Europe of the twelth century is not all
fancy. If we could see exactly what happended we should find outselves in
the presense of a theme as well founded, as inspired, and as inalienable
from the inheiritance of mankind as the Odyssey or the Old Testament. It
is all true, or it ought to be; and more and better besides." page 60.
Birth of Britain.
Churchill doesn't write of Robin Hood at all. In the index he lists
"Robin of Redesdale" in connection with Edward IV, but not Robin Hood.
And I'll grant that there are much deeper and detailed nuances and subtile
events that can be learned. But Churchill gives the broad outlines of the
period which one needs to know before the nuances and subtile events
become meaningful.
David Starr
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: Plantagenet Cousins, by Ian Fettes and Leo van de Pas
I too, have found a lot of interest in Leo's & Ian's wonderful book. One
snippet which was of particular interest, is that one of my oldest friends
in Adelaide whom I've known since we started school together is the first
cousin of one of Leo's "end people", Susan Cullen-Ward, who married King
Leka of Albania. I had always felt quite chuffed that I had a friend whose
first cousin was a Queen!
Well done Leo & Ian.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: Therav3@aol.com
Date: 01/19/07 00:36:49
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Plantagenet Cousins, by Ian Fettes and Leo van de Pas
Thursday, 18 January, 2007
Hello All,
I received my copy of Plantagenet Cousins [1] in the mail
yesterday, and have had limited time to read this fine book.
However, I have found already this a very useful, and
enjoyable, addition to the library.
Plantagenet Cousins is different from other publications I've
read on the subject to date. Obviously the descents are given
from Geoffrey 'Plantagenet' on down, but the biographical details
are concerning each 'end' descendant. Leo had mentioned to me
that there were several scoundrels involved therein, of which
likely Hermann Göring is the best (rather, worst) example:
however, while it is true that you cannot choose your relatives,
I was in general pleased to see the company being kept.
I certainly have no ill feelings over Baron Manfred von
Richtofen's inclusion, and finding individuals like Jan Masaryk
and Albert Schweitzer (not to mention Lady Diana Spencer and
Eleanor Roosevelt, re: whose ancestries I had some prior
knowledge) among 'the family' would likely overcome any feelings
of aggravation or concern anyway. It was also interesting to
learn more of the ancestry, and biographies, of those SGM list
members who were also the subject of this work.
Of particular interest, I found that Eleanor de Montagu
(first wife of Sir John de Dinham, d. 1428) had found her way
into the work, and was pleased to see that she provides a common
link with the noted composer Ralph Vaughan Williams. I expect
that further interesting 'finds' await me as I continue reading.
I have already thanked Ian and Leo directly, but wanted to
express my thanks to them both for a job very well done.
Cheers,
John *
[1] Ian Fettes and Leo van de Pas, Plantagenet Cousins: Selected
Descendants of Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou in Australia,
America, Africa, Europe and Asia (Canberra, 2007).
* John P. Ravilious
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
snippet which was of particular interest, is that one of my oldest friends
in Adelaide whom I've known since we started school together is the first
cousin of one of Leo's "end people", Susan Cullen-Ward, who married King
Leka of Albania. I had always felt quite chuffed that I had a friend whose
first cousin was a Queen!
Well done Leo & Ian.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: Therav3@aol.com
Date: 01/19/07 00:36:49
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Plantagenet Cousins, by Ian Fettes and Leo van de Pas
Thursday, 18 January, 2007
Hello All,
I received my copy of Plantagenet Cousins [1] in the mail
yesterday, and have had limited time to read this fine book.
However, I have found already this a very useful, and
enjoyable, addition to the library.
Plantagenet Cousins is different from other publications I've
read on the subject to date. Obviously the descents are given
from Geoffrey 'Plantagenet' on down, but the biographical details
are concerning each 'end' descendant. Leo had mentioned to me
that there were several scoundrels involved therein, of which
likely Hermann Göring is the best (rather, worst) example:
however, while it is true that you cannot choose your relatives,
I was in general pleased to see the company being kept.
I certainly have no ill feelings over Baron Manfred von
Richtofen's inclusion, and finding individuals like Jan Masaryk
and Albert Schweitzer (not to mention Lady Diana Spencer and
Eleanor Roosevelt, re: whose ancestries I had some prior
knowledge) among 'the family' would likely overcome any feelings
of aggravation or concern anyway. It was also interesting to
learn more of the ancestry, and biographies, of those SGM list
members who were also the subject of this work.
Of particular interest, I found that Eleanor de Montagu
(first wife of Sir John de Dinham, d. 1428) had found her way
into the work, and was pleased to see that she provides a common
link with the noted composer Ralph Vaughan Williams. I expect
that further interesting 'finds' await me as I continue reading.
I have already thanked Ian and Leo directly, but wanted to
express my thanks to them both for a job very well done.
Cheers,
John *
[1] Ian Fettes and Leo van de Pas, Plantagenet Cousins: Selected
Descendants of Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou in Australia,
America, Africa, Europe and Asia (Canberra, 2007).
* John P. Ravilious
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
John Higgins
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
The Harleston family is well covered in an article by Paul Reed in vol. 9 of
"The Genealogist" (1988), which should be easily available in libraries with
any significant genealogy collection. Starting from that article and
extending with some other sources, here are some ancestors of the Margaret
Halrseton who appears in the ancestry of Penelope Darcy.
NOTE: No Lovell or Weston appears here - probably a mistake in the
heraldry.
33. Margaret Harleston (b. ca. 1458, d. 18.IX.1489)
66. John Harleston [III] of Bardwell, Suffolk (b. ca. 1430, d. before
31.VII.1458)
67. Margery Bardwell (d. X.1459, will dated 26.IX.1458, proved 6.XI.1459)
132. John Harleston [II] (d. 8.III.1456); m. (1) [he mar. (2) Elizabeth
Hethe below]
133. Alice Clopton (d. VI.1440)
134. William Berdewell [or Bardwell]; m. (1)
135. Elizabeth Hethe [or Heath] (d. shortly before 17.X.1454) [she m. (2)
John
Harleston (II) above]
264. Ivo Harleston (b. 11.IV.1378, d. 10.XI.1403); m. ca. 1400 (her 1st)
265. Eleanor NN (d. III.1415/6) [she mar. (2) (his 3rd) John Wynter of
Barningham, Norfolk]
266. [Sir?] William Clopton of Melford, Suffolk (d. 4.VIII.1446); m. (1)
267. Margery [or Margaret] Drury (d. 19.VI.1420) [dau. of Sir Roger of
Rougham]
268.
269.
270. Thomas Hethe [or Heath] (will dated 30.X.1439, proved 22.XII.1439)
271. Anne Stapleton [dau. of Sir Brian S. of Bedale]
528. Roger de Harleston (living 15.I.1387/8, d. by 3.XII.1390); m.
probably 1376 or 1377
529. Margaret de Wauton (d. by 25.XII.1391)
530.
531.
532. Sir Thomas Clopton of Kentwell Hall, Long Melford, Suffolk (will dated
8.X.1382, proved 12.X.1383); m. (2) (her 1st)
533. Katherine Milde [or Mylde] (d. [vp] 1403) [dau. of William, of Clare,
Suffolk] [she mar. (2) Sir William Tendring]
534. Sir Roger Drury of Rougham, Suffolk (will proved 24.X.1420); m. (1)
535. Margaret Naunton (d. 1405) [dau. of Sir Thomas of Chauvents,
Rougham]
536-541. [unknown]
542. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham, Norfolk, and Bedale, Yorkshire, de jure
4th Lord Ingham (aged 40 in 1419, d. VIII.1438 probably before 6.VIII)
543. Cecily Bardolf (d. 29.IX.1432) [dau. of Thomas, 4th L. Bardolf]
Paul Reed's article includes a footnote saying that the Berdewell/Bardwell
and Hethe connections of the Harlestons would "be treated in detail in the
following issue of this journal; much of what is in print needs to be
corrected and amplified." AFAIK, however, a follow-up article was never
published.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
"The Genealogist" (1988), which should be easily available in libraries with
any significant genealogy collection. Starting from that article and
extending with some other sources, here are some ancestors of the Margaret
Halrseton who appears in the ancestry of Penelope Darcy.
NOTE: No Lovell or Weston appears here - probably a mistake in the
heraldry.
33. Margaret Harleston (b. ca. 1458, d. 18.IX.1489)
66. John Harleston [III] of Bardwell, Suffolk (b. ca. 1430, d. before
31.VII.1458)
67. Margery Bardwell (d. X.1459, will dated 26.IX.1458, proved 6.XI.1459)
132. John Harleston [II] (d. 8.III.1456); m. (1) [he mar. (2) Elizabeth
Hethe below]
133. Alice Clopton (d. VI.1440)
134. William Berdewell [or Bardwell]; m. (1)
135. Elizabeth Hethe [or Heath] (d. shortly before 17.X.1454) [she m. (2)
John
Harleston (II) above]
264. Ivo Harleston (b. 11.IV.1378, d. 10.XI.1403); m. ca. 1400 (her 1st)
265. Eleanor NN (d. III.1415/6) [she mar. (2) (his 3rd) John Wynter of
Barningham, Norfolk]
266. [Sir?] William Clopton of Melford, Suffolk (d. 4.VIII.1446); m. (1)
267. Margery [or Margaret] Drury (d. 19.VI.1420) [dau. of Sir Roger of
Rougham]
268.
269.
270. Thomas Hethe [or Heath] (will dated 30.X.1439, proved 22.XII.1439)
271. Anne Stapleton [dau. of Sir Brian S. of Bedale]
528. Roger de Harleston (living 15.I.1387/8, d. by 3.XII.1390); m.
probably 1376 or 1377
529. Margaret de Wauton (d. by 25.XII.1391)
530.
531.
532. Sir Thomas Clopton of Kentwell Hall, Long Melford, Suffolk (will dated
8.X.1382, proved 12.X.1383); m. (2) (her 1st)
533. Katherine Milde [or Mylde] (d. [vp] 1403) [dau. of William, of Clare,
Suffolk] [she mar. (2) Sir William Tendring]
534. Sir Roger Drury of Rougham, Suffolk (will proved 24.X.1420); m. (1)
535. Margaret Naunton (d. 1405) [dau. of Sir Thomas of Chauvents,
Rougham]
536-541. [unknown]
542. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham, Norfolk, and Bedale, Yorkshire, de jure
4th Lord Ingham (aged 40 in 1419, d. VIII.1438 probably before 6.VIII)
543. Cecily Bardolf (d. 29.IX.1432) [dau. of Thomas, 4th L. Bardolf]
Paul Reed's article includes a footnote saying that the Berdewell/Bardwell
and Hethe connections of the Harlestons would "be treated in detail in the
following issue of this journal; much of what is in print needs to be
corrected and amplified." AFAIK, however, a follow-up article was never
published.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/18/07 1:21:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
The
intervening quarters (Lovell, Wanton, Weston and Bardwell) must
I think you're suggesting the marriage of
Roger Harleston to Margaret de Wauton
But I don't have the details to connect this marriage forward to the John
Harleston who married Margery Bardewell, perhaps someone else does.
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Farquhar Earl of Ross
In message of 18 Jan, "CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote:
Dead right. I had not scrolled down my query far enough. (My excuse is
that I was concerned only to remove all suggestion to a Mandeville
survival to the 16th century.)
CP calls him the 5th earl. His father Geoffrey fitz Piers is the third
earl and it is not clear whether this was a new creation or not; it is
just as reasonable to say that he was earl de jure uxor. But if
Geoffrey had been the first of a new creation, then William would be the
third, succeeding his brother another Geoffrey.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
What about William FitzPiers de Mandeville who died in 1227?
Dead right. I had not scrolled down my query far enough. (My excuse is
that I was concerned only to remove all suggestion to a Mandeville
survival to the 16th century.)
Your site has him as the 5th earl; some called him the 2nd earl of the
2nd creation.
CP calls him the 5th earl. His father Geoffrey fitz Piers is the third
earl and it is not clear whether this was a new creation or not; it is
just as reasonable to say that he was earl de jure uxor. But if
Geoffrey had been the first of a new creation, then William would be the
third, succeeding his brother another Geoffrey.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
Thank you John for your excellent post connecting the two seperate Harleston
groups I had had. This also helps me connect the Stapleton family, but on
this I note a caution.
Assuming that Brian Stapleton of Ingham and Cecily Bardolf are the parents of
Brian Stapleton of Bedale who had a daughter Anne Stapleton who married
Thomas Hethe and had a daughter Elizabeth Heath who married William Bardewell and
had a daughter Margery Bardewell who married John Harleston having at least two
daughters Alice and Margaret, before her (Margery Bardewell Harleston)'s
death Oct 1459.
Then we have a potential chronologic problem.
As you're no doubt aware I very liberal with allowing mothers to be at least
13 when they have their first child, and fathers to be only 17. I'm sure
there are cases of that, but whenever we get several in a row, red flags should go
up.
In the above case we have this timeline
Sir Miles Stapleton, Lord Ingham was born "abt 23 Jun 1357" which accords
well enough with his son Brian being "aged 40 in 1419" (so born 1378/9). In this
case Miles would have been 21 or 22 when his son was born.
In order to allow the above descent we need
Brian Stapleton of Bedale born 1392/1400
Anne Stapleton born 1409/1417
Elizabeth Hethe born 1422/30
Margery Bardewell born 1435/43
Whenever I have that many very tight generations without any documentation it
makes me suspicious. In general, the further away from documentation I get,
the more wide the ranges become. In this case however we can pinpoint the
families with extreme accuracy sans documentation. I don't like that.
Will Johnson
groups I had had. This also helps me connect the Stapleton family, but on
this I note a caution.
Assuming that Brian Stapleton of Ingham and Cecily Bardolf are the parents of
Brian Stapleton of Bedale who had a daughter Anne Stapleton who married
Thomas Hethe and had a daughter Elizabeth Heath who married William Bardewell and
had a daughter Margery Bardewell who married John Harleston having at least two
daughters Alice and Margaret, before her (Margery Bardewell Harleston)'s
death Oct 1459.
Then we have a potential chronologic problem.
As you're no doubt aware I very liberal with allowing mothers to be at least
13 when they have their first child, and fathers to be only 17. I'm sure
there are cases of that, but whenever we get several in a row, red flags should go
up.
In the above case we have this timeline
Sir Miles Stapleton, Lord Ingham was born "abt 23 Jun 1357" which accords
well enough with his son Brian being "aged 40 in 1419" (so born 1378/9). In this
case Miles would have been 21 or 22 when his son was born.
In order to allow the above descent we need
Brian Stapleton of Bedale born 1392/1400
Anne Stapleton born 1409/1417
Elizabeth Hethe born 1422/30
Margery Bardewell born 1435/43
Whenever I have that many very tight generations without any documentation it
makes me suspicious. In general, the further away from documentation I get,
the more wide the ranges become. In this case however we can pinpoint the
families with extreme accuracy sans documentation. I don't like that.
Will Johnson
-
henry neagle
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
From the list of Blazons of the Quarterings I have noted the following from
it, also I have noted the references of the MSS. that are at the side of
each blazon .
Darcy (E. Rivers) argent, three cinquefoyles gules
H. 1041, f. 67
FitzLangley argent, a fess bwtween six (oak?) leaves slipped
gules H. 807, f. 48 (b) H. 1426, f. 67
Harleston argent, a fess ermines cotised sable
H. 1426, f. 67
Lovell barry of six nebulee or and gules
H. 1426, f. 67
Wanton argent, a chevron sable, an annulet of the last
H. 807, f. 59 H. 1426, f. 67
Weston argent, on a chevron sable three leopard's faces or
H. 2094, f. 101
Berdwell gules, a goat sailent argent horns or
H. 2094, f. 101
Kitson sable, three fish hauriant argent a chief or
H. 2094, f. 101
It does not state the place of the source of the reference numbers of the
Blazons but I assume it could be from the College of Arms. Would anyone
have any knowledge as to the source of the reference numbers?
Jamie
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1169155039.196212.173610@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
it, also I have noted the references of the MSS. that are at the side of
each blazon .
Darcy (E. Rivers) argent, three cinquefoyles gules
H. 1041, f. 67
FitzLangley argent, a fess bwtween six (oak?) leaves slipped
gules H. 807, f. 48 (b) H. 1426, f. 67
Harleston argent, a fess ermines cotised sable
H. 1426, f. 67
Lovell barry of six nebulee or and gules
H. 1426, f. 67
Wanton argent, a chevron sable, an annulet of the last
H. 807, f. 59 H. 1426, f. 67
Weston argent, on a chevron sable three leopard's faces or
H. 2094, f. 101
Berdwell gules, a goat sailent argent horns or
H. 2094, f. 101
Kitson sable, three fish hauriant argent a chief or
H. 2094, f. 101
It does not state the place of the source of the reference numbers of the
Blazons but I assume it could be from the College of Arms. Would anyone
have any knowledge as to the source of the reference numbers?
Jamie
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1169155039.196212.173610@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/07 7:58:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell,
no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for
Kitson
Darcy, FitzLangley, Harleston and Bardewell all come together in the
marriage
of
Thomas /Darcy/ of Danbury , Esquire of the Body to Henry VI (d 22 Sep
1485)
to
Margaret /Harleston/
This couple then descends to penelope darcy in five generations.
So the first Darcy quartering (FitzLangley) comes from the marriage of
Robert D to Alice F; the second (Harleston) comes from the marriage of
his grandson Thomas D to Margaret H, and the final (Kitson) from the
latter's great-great grandson Thomas D's marriage to Mary K. The
intervening quarters (Lovell, Wanton, Weston and Bardwell) must
therefore relate to earlier marriages in the Harleston line (I believe
"Wanton" is probably "Wauton", given that an early Harleston married a
Wauton heiress; is there a blazon?). Unless, as Tim says, the heraldry
is wrong, which is not unknown - but so far, so good.
MA-R
-
Sarah Krans
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
I agree - and that means getting rid of the current legislative, judical,
and executive bodies of the Federal Government. ALL of it! Make people
actually READ the Constitution rather than interpreting other people's
interpretations (nowhere does it say 'separation of church and state' nor is
it implied as interpreted today). Students are not allowed to study real
history and teachers really aren't allowed to teach it - because they have
to teach for the standardized tests.
I digress and will get off my soapbox!
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 16:53, "J Antero" <JAntero45@map.com> wrote:
and executive bodies of the Federal Government. ALL of it! Make people
actually READ the Constitution rather than interpreting other people's
interpretations (nowhere does it say 'separation of church and state' nor is
it implied as interpreted today). Students are not allowed to study real
history and teachers really aren't allowed to teach it - because they have
to teach for the standardized tests.
I digress and will get off my soapbox!
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 16:53, "J Antero" <JAntero45@map.com> wrote:
Here's the wake-up: get rid of this incompetent corrupt regime. Nothing good
has come from it, and nothing good WILL come from it.
Jail the people who have been engaging in corruption and violating the
Constitution.
The sooner, the better.
The longer the prison sentences, the better
del
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In message of 18 Jan, "henry neagle" <henry.neagle@ntlworld.com> wrote:
No, not the College of Arms but without doubt Harleian manuscripts, to
be found in the Manuscripts department of the British Library. There is
a printed index of them all there but, the last time I checked, it still
was not on line. The 'H' is the manuscript number, the 'f' is the folio
number within that manuscript. Harley was surname of the earl of Oxford
who originally formed the collection.
I have found the Kitsons in the Visitation of Suffolk of 1561; this is a
modern reissue of that visitation and, instead of being done from a copy
of the visitations among the Harleian manuscripts, it is done from the
surviving documents in the College of Arms. The arms given on p. 60 for
the Kitsons are from a grant in 1527:
Sable three lucies hauriant argent on a chief or a lion rampant sable
charged with gutties or between two roundels sable the first charged
with a martlet and the second with an anchor or.
If this really was the 1527 grant, those are the arms that were Sir
Thomas Kitson's, father of Mary who was wife of Thomas Darcy earl
Rivers, and so those also are the arms that should have gone on the
achievement.
While Mary Kitson was indeed an heir, so her father's arms could indeed
have been quartered, CP IV, 79 implies that she was sole heir while this
issue of the Suffolk visitation gives her a sister Margaret who m. Sir
Charles Cavendish and was thus a co-heir; but if Margaret died without
children Mary would then have become the sole heir.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
From the list of Blazons of the Quarterings I have noted the following from
it, also I have noted the references of the MSS. that are at the side of
each blazon .
Darcy (E. Rivers) argent, three cinquefoyles gules
H. 1041, f. 67
FitzLangley argent, a fess bwtween six (oak?) leaves slipped
gules H. 807, f. 48 (b) H. 1426, f. 67
Harleston argent, a fess ermines cotised sable
H. 1426, f. 67
Lovell barry of six nebulee or and gules
H. 1426, f. 67
Wanton argent, a chevron sable, an annulet of the last
H. 807, f. 59 H. 1426, f. 67
Weston argent, on a chevron sable three leopard's faces or
H. 2094, f. 101
Berdwell gules, a goat sailent argent horns or
H. 2094, f. 101
Kitson sable, three fish hauriant argent a chief or
H. 2094, f. 101
It does not state the place of the source of the reference numbers of the
Blazons but I assume it could be from the College of Arms. Would anyone
have any knowledge as to the source of the reference numbers?
No, not the College of Arms but without doubt Harleian manuscripts, to
be found in the Manuscripts department of the British Library. There is
a printed index of them all there but, the last time I checked, it still
was not on line. The 'H' is the manuscript number, the 'f' is the folio
number within that manuscript. Harley was surname of the earl of Oxford
who originally formed the collection.
I have found the Kitsons in the Visitation of Suffolk of 1561; this is a
modern reissue of that visitation and, instead of being done from a copy
of the visitations among the Harleian manuscripts, it is done from the
surviving documents in the College of Arms. The arms given on p. 60 for
the Kitsons are from a grant in 1527:
Sable three lucies hauriant argent on a chief or a lion rampant sable
charged with gutties or between two roundels sable the first charged
with a martlet and the second with an anchor or.
If this really was the 1527 grant, those are the arms that were Sir
Thomas Kitson's, father of Mary who was wife of Thomas Darcy earl
Rivers, and so those also are the arms that should have gone on the
achievement.
While Mary Kitson was indeed an heir, so her father's arms could indeed
have been quartered, CP IV, 79 implies that she was sole heir while this
issue of the Suffolk visitation gives her a sister Margaret who m. Sir
Charles Cavendish and was thus a co-heir; but if Margaret died without
children Mary would then have become the sole heir.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Extending the Eastwick/ Estwick and Brooke ancestry of C
Christopher Estwick married Frances Bond
13 Feb 1693
Saint Michael, Barbados, Caribbean
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - Caribbean Islands - Batch M513951
"Extracted Parish Register of Barbados (Anglican)"
Will Johnson
13 Feb 1693
Saint Michael, Barbados, Caribbean
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - Caribbean Islands - Batch M513951
"Extracted Parish Register of Barbados (Anglican)"
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1697.1169166090.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Too late, you have fallen off it already.
Have you never heard of the 1st Amendment:- "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..."
If you are lucky enough to live under this wise provision, you could at
least try to recognise & remember what it says.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1697.1169166090.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I agree - and that means getting rid of the current legislative, judical,
and executive bodies of the Federal Government. ALL of it! Make people
actually READ the Constitution rather than interpreting other people's
interpretations (nowhere does it say 'separation of church and state' nor
is
it implied as interpreted today). Students are not allowed to study real
history and teachers really aren't allowed to teach it - because they have
to teach for the standardized tests.
I digress and will get off my soapbox!
Too late, you have fallen off it already.
Have you never heard of the 1st Amendment:- "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..."
If you are lucky enough to live under this wise provision, you could at
least try to recognise & remember what it says.
Peter Stewart
-
Sarah Krans
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
HUH?! Establishing a state religion (as we see in England) and allowing
absolutely no mention of anything religious ('r' not 'R') in anything have
to do with government is NOT the same thing. The present interpretation of
'separation of church and state' (which, as a side note, those words are NOT
used as a phrase in the Constitution) actually VIOLATES the First Amendment!
Think about that one!
I'll also remember that the Federal Government CANNOT make any laws but
those expressly stated in the Constitution. Oh wait, the federal government
doesn't! They just use coersion to get what they want!
Oh, and what about the little thing that no body other than the federal
government (ie US Treasury) is allowed to print money. Take a look at the
bills in your wallet. They state "Federal Reserve Bank" on them which is a
PRIVATE bank - owned actually by MANY foreign governments.
Try actually reading the Constitution and then looking at our government's
actions. They really aren't all that in line with each other!
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 20:38, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
absolutely no mention of anything religious ('r' not 'R') in anything have
to do with government is NOT the same thing. The present interpretation of
'separation of church and state' (which, as a side note, those words are NOT
used as a phrase in the Constitution) actually VIOLATES the First Amendment!
Think about that one!
I'll also remember that the Federal Government CANNOT make any laws but
those expressly stated in the Constitution. Oh wait, the federal government
doesn't! They just use coersion to get what they want!
Oh, and what about the little thing that no body other than the federal
government (ie US Treasury) is allowed to print money. Take a look at the
bills in your wallet. They state "Federal Reserve Bank" on them which is a
PRIVATE bank - owned actually by MANY foreign governments.
Try actually reading the Constitution and then looking at our government's
actions. They really aren't all that in line with each other!
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 20:38, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1697.1169166090.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I agree - and that means getting rid of the current legislative, judical,
and executive bodies of the Federal Government. ALL of it! Make people
actually READ the Constitution rather than interpreting other people's
interpretations (nowhere does it say 'separation of church and state' nor
is
it implied as interpreted today). Students are not allowed to study real
history and teachers really aren't allowed to teach it - because they have
to teach for the standardized tests.
I digress and will get off my soapbox!
Too late, you have fallen off it already.
Have you never heard of the 1st Amendment:- "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..."
If you are lucky enough to live under this wise provision, you could at
least try to recognise & remember what it says.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Brad Verity
Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
John Higgins wrote:
Dear John,
Many thanks for the line above! The Anne Stapleton/Thomas Hethe line
had long been on my To Do List to try and track down, but I had no
information to go on other than her mention in the will of her father
Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438). I'll re-read Paul Reed's article on the
Harlestons. Is there any other source you have on these Hethes that I
can follow-up on? Do you know where they were seated?
By the way, this Anne Hethe, daughter of Cecily Bardolf, Dame Stapleton
is a descendant of Edward I and completely overlooked in Richardson's
PA3, so this is an additional line of royal descent for gateway
immigrant John Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738).
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
33. Margaret Harleston (b. ca. 1458, d. 18.IX.1489)
66. John Harleston [III] of Bardwell, Suffolk (b. ca. 1430, d. before
31.VII.1458)
67. Margery Bardwell (d. X.1459, will dated 26.IX.1458, proved 6.XI.1459)
132. John Harleston [II] (d. 8.III.1456); m. (1) [he mar. (2) Elizabeth
Hethe below]
134. William Berdewell [or Bardwell]; m. (1)
135. Elizabeth Hethe [or Heath] (d. shortly before 17.X.1454) [she m. (2)
John
Harleston (II) above]
270. Thomas Hethe [or Heath] (will dated 30.X.1439, proved 22.XII.1439)
271. Anne Stapleton [dau. of Sir Brian S. of Bedale]
542. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham, Norfolk, and Bedale, Yorkshire, de jure
4th Lord Ingham (aged 40 in 1419, d. VIII.1438 probably before 6.VIII)
543. Cecily Bardolf (d. 29.IX.1432) [dau. of Thomas, 4th L. Bardolf]
Paul Reed's article includes a footnote saying that the Berdewell/Bardwell
and Hethe connections of the Harlestons would "be treated in detail in the
following issue of this journal; much of what is in print needs to be
corrected and amplified." AFAIK, however, a follow-up article was never
published.
Dear John,
Many thanks for the line above! The Anne Stapleton/Thomas Hethe line
had long been on my To Do List to try and track down, but I had no
information to go on other than her mention in the will of her father
Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438). I'll re-read Paul Reed's article on the
Harlestons. Is there any other source you have on these Hethes that I
can follow-up on? Do you know where they were seated?
By the way, this Anne Hethe, daughter of Cecily Bardolf, Dame Stapleton
is a descendant of Edward I and completely overlooked in Richardson's
PA3, so this is an additional line of royal descent for gateway
immigrant John Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738).
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
-
taf
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
And what does the Constitution have to say about medieval genealogy?
. . . . I thought not.
Sarah Krans wrote:
. . . . I thought not.
Sarah Krans wrote:
HUH?! Establishing a state religion (as we see in England) and allowing
absolutely no mention of anything religious ('r' not 'R') in anything have
to do with government is NOT the same thing. The present interpretation of
'separation of church and state' (which, as a side note, those words are NOT
used as a phrase in the Constitution) actually VIOLATES the First Amendment!
Think about that one!
I'll also remember that the Federal Government CANNOT make any laws but
those expressly stated in the Constitution. Oh wait, the federal government
doesn't! They just use coersion to get what they want!
Oh, and what about the little thing that no body other than the federal
government (ie US Treasury) is allowed to print money. Take a look at the
bills in your wallet. They state "Federal Reserve Bank" on them which is a
PRIVATE bank - owned actually by MANY foreign governments.
Try actually reading the Constitution and then looking at our government's
actions. They really aren't all that in line with each other!
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
In a message dated 1/17/07 1:02:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< Sir Giles married his 2nd wife, who was his niece, Dorothy Dalton, on 2
December 1630, when he was age 58 and she age 24 (per CP Vol. 1, p. 107
n. a). They were ordered not to cohabit in January 1634. >>
Another piece of the puzzle fell in today as a complete surprise. Let me
start at the beginning.
Leo has added Thomas Hatton, 1st Bart of Long Stanton to his database based
on my research into Giles Allington and his first wife Dorothy Cecil. Their
daughter Mary Allington married this Thomas Hatton.
Stirnet has the Hatton family descents here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... atton2.htm
where we learn that there was a Thomas Hatton, 2nd Bart of Long Stanton who
married Bridget Goring dau of William Goring, 1st Bart of Burton.
Poking around I find that William Goring of Burton has a burial 25 Feb 1657/8
Burton, Sussex, which information was provided by the Medieval Families Unit.
Having a cut-off date for him I did find a possible Bridget Goring bap 30 jan
1633 Coates cum Burton, Sussex she was yet living 19 Apr 1682 (Medieval
Families Unit)
Going forward I was trying to see how far I could come forward with these
Cecil descents.
Bridget Goring and Thomas Hatton are given six children by stirnet, two boys
died evidently young without heirs. Stirnet gives all the husbands. One of
these, the husband of Dorothy Hatton has the rather odd name "Tyrell Dalton"
My ears perked up as this is possible a *unique* name (only one ever) and
thus easy to trace.
Tyrell Dalton and Dorothy Hatton were m 1 Jan 1687 Swavesey, Cambridge
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M130391
"Extracted Parish Registers of Swavesey"
They had a son Michael bap 2 Sep 1697 Saint Vigor, Fulbourn, Cambridge
Now it just so happens Tyrell is called "Of Fulborne, Cambs."
Investigating the Parish Register of Saint Vigor we find the family
Tyrell bap 6 Mar 1669 Saint Vigor, Fulbourn, Cambridge
For baptism see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGi - British Isles - Batch J138151
his parents Tyrell and Elizabeth
Tyrell Dalton and Elizabeth Goring were married 3 Jan 1661 date of license at
St Edward's, Cambridge
(for license see
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... 1%2c+&year
=&yearend=&sbo=0&prox=1&db=&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_
it=21416&rank=0&srchb=r)
This older Tyrell was bap 8 Apr 1640 Saint Vigor, Fulbourn, Cambridge
For baptism see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGi - British Isles - Batch J138151
his parents were Michael Dalton and Susan
Susan Dalton was executrix on the estate of her mother (?) Joan Tyrell see
http://content.ancestry.com/browse/book ... ocHist0127
62-00748-1&desc=Tyrrell+Dalton
The index does not specify the relationship, so *mother* is my working
assumption only, at this point, but note that Joan is called widow of Thomas Tyrell
of Fulborne, so we know there was a close relationship of some kind. And we
know Susan was a Tyrell
Susan Tyrell of Fulborne to Michael /Dalton/ , of West Wratting
28 May 1639 date of license at St Edward's, Cambridge
(for license see
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... 1%2c+&year
=&yearend=&sbo=0&prox=1&db=&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_
it=21416&rank=0&srchb=r)
Now finally comes the big surprise.
I was wading through mud trying to figure out if I could take this Michael
Dalton of West Wratting back further, when I found a DNB entry for *some*
Michael Dalton, not sure if this is the same guy or not at this point. He is
supposed to have died 1648 ? but the old DNB entry says the death date is in
question.
What is *not* in question is their claim here
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=6892&path=Craik+-+Drake.Dictionary+Of+National+Biography.DAL.53&fn=michael&ln=dalton&st=d&pid=
2552&rc=883,1832,1056,1863;1070,1830,1258,1863&zp=75">DNB, "Michael Dalton"
</a>
saying "in 1631 he was fined 2000 pounds for having permitted his daughter
Dorothy to marry her maternal uncle, Sir Giles Allington of Horseheath"
So the whole game comes round-robin and now I've identified the father of
Giles Allington's second wife.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< Sir Giles married his 2nd wife, who was his niece, Dorothy Dalton, on 2
December 1630, when he was age 58 and she age 24 (per CP Vol. 1, p. 107
n. a). They were ordered not to cohabit in January 1634. >>
Another piece of the puzzle fell in today as a complete surprise. Let me
start at the beginning.
Leo has added Thomas Hatton, 1st Bart of Long Stanton to his database based
on my research into Giles Allington and his first wife Dorothy Cecil. Their
daughter Mary Allington married this Thomas Hatton.
Stirnet has the Hatton family descents here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... atton2.htm
where we learn that there was a Thomas Hatton, 2nd Bart of Long Stanton who
married Bridget Goring dau of William Goring, 1st Bart of Burton.
Poking around I find that William Goring of Burton has a burial 25 Feb 1657/8
Burton, Sussex, which information was provided by the Medieval Families Unit.
Having a cut-off date for him I did find a possible Bridget Goring bap 30 jan
1633 Coates cum Burton, Sussex she was yet living 19 Apr 1682 (Medieval
Families Unit)
Going forward I was trying to see how far I could come forward with these
Cecil descents.
Bridget Goring and Thomas Hatton are given six children by stirnet, two boys
died evidently young without heirs. Stirnet gives all the husbands. One of
these, the husband of Dorothy Hatton has the rather odd name "Tyrell Dalton"
My ears perked up as this is possible a *unique* name (only one ever) and
thus easy to trace.
Tyrell Dalton and Dorothy Hatton were m 1 Jan 1687 Swavesey, Cambridge
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M130391
"Extracted Parish Registers of Swavesey"
They had a son Michael bap 2 Sep 1697 Saint Vigor, Fulbourn, Cambridge
Now it just so happens Tyrell is called "Of Fulborne, Cambs."
Investigating the Parish Register of Saint Vigor we find the family
Tyrell bap 6 Mar 1669 Saint Vigor, Fulbourn, Cambridge
For baptism see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGi - British Isles - Batch J138151
his parents Tyrell and Elizabeth
Tyrell Dalton and Elizabeth Goring were married 3 Jan 1661 date of license at
St Edward's, Cambridge
(for license see
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... 1%2c+&year
=&yearend=&sbo=0&prox=1&db=&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_
it=21416&rank=0&srchb=r)
This older Tyrell was bap 8 Apr 1640 Saint Vigor, Fulbourn, Cambridge
For baptism see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGi - British Isles - Batch J138151
his parents were Michael Dalton and Susan
Susan Dalton was executrix on the estate of her mother (?) Joan Tyrell see
http://content.ancestry.com/browse/book ... ocHist0127
62-00748-1&desc=Tyrrell+Dalton
The index does not specify the relationship, so *mother* is my working
assumption only, at this point, but note that Joan is called widow of Thomas Tyrell
of Fulborne, so we know there was a close relationship of some kind. And we
know Susan was a Tyrell
Susan Tyrell of Fulborne to Michael /Dalton/ , of West Wratting
28 May 1639 date of license at St Edward's, Cambridge
(for license see
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... 1%2c+&year
=&yearend=&sbo=0&prox=1&db=&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_
it=21416&rank=0&srchb=r)
Now finally comes the big surprise.
I was wading through mud trying to figure out if I could take this Michael
Dalton of West Wratting back further, when I found a DNB entry for *some*
Michael Dalton, not sure if this is the same guy or not at this point. He is
supposed to have died 1648 ? but the old DNB entry says the death date is in
question.
What is *not* in question is their claim here
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=6892&path=Craik+-+Drake.Dictionary+Of+National+Biography.DAL.53&fn=michael&ln=dalton&st=d&pid=
2552&rc=883,1832,1056,1863;1070,1830,1258,1863&zp=75">DNB, "Michael Dalton"
</a>
saying "in 1631 he was fined 2000 pounds for having permitted his daughter
Dorothy to marry her maternal uncle, Sir Giles Allington of Horseheath"
So the whole game comes round-robin and now I've identified the father of
Giles Allington's second wife.
Will Johnson
-
John Higgins
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
My sources on the Stapletons are admittedly not the greatest, and I would be
grateful for better information. I have not pursued the Heath/Hethe
connection at all, except to note that Marshall and Whitaker include
references for the family (under both variations of the name as well as De
Hethe), and I will add these to my research list. However, Paul Reed's
caveat on previously published information on this family is worth noting
again.
For the Stapleton connection to Heath/Hethe, aside from the very brief
reference in Paul Reed's article, this marriage is mentioned in pedigrees in
both of the following works:
1) H. E. Chetwynd-Stapylton, "The Stapeltons of Yorkshire" [1897]
2) H. B. McCall, "The Early History of Bedale" [1907]
The first of these says Thomas Heath [sic] was "of Hengrave" while the
second doesn't mention a locality for him. I have separately seen
references to a Heath family of Mildenhall, Suffolk, including a Thomas -
possibly the same or a related family?
It's curious that both RPA/PA3 and MCA omit Anne Stapleton [Heath] as a
daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton and Cecily Bardolf, espicially since you
note that she is mentioned in her father's will [with her husband's name??].
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
grateful for better information. I have not pursued the Heath/Hethe
connection at all, except to note that Marshall and Whitaker include
references for the family (under both variations of the name as well as De
Hethe), and I will add these to my research list. However, Paul Reed's
caveat on previously published information on this family is worth noting
again.
For the Stapleton connection to Heath/Hethe, aside from the very brief
reference in Paul Reed's article, this marriage is mentioned in pedigrees in
both of the following works:
1) H. E. Chetwynd-Stapylton, "The Stapeltons of Yorkshire" [1897]
2) H. B. McCall, "The Early History of Bedale" [1907]
The first of these says Thomas Heath [sic] was "of Hengrave" while the
second doesn't mention a locality for him. I have separately seen
references to a Heath family of Mildenhall, Suffolk, including a Thomas -
possibly the same or a related family?
It's curious that both RPA/PA3 and MCA omit Anne Stapleton [Heath] as a
daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton and Cecily Bardolf, espicially since you
note that she is mentioned in her father's will [with her husband's name??].
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
John Higgins wrote:
33. Margaret Harleston (b. ca. 1458, d. 18.IX.1489)
66. John Harleston [III] of Bardwell, Suffolk (b. ca. 1430, d. before
31.VII.1458)
67. Margery Bardwell (d. X.1459, will dated 26.IX.1458, proved
6.XI.1459)
132. John Harleston [II] (d. 8.III.1456); m. (1) [he mar. (2)
Elizabeth
Hethe below]
134. William Berdewell [or Bardwell]; m. (1)
135. Elizabeth Hethe [or Heath] (d. shortly before 17.X.1454) [she m.
(2)
John
Harleston (II) above]
270. Thomas Hethe [or Heath] (will dated 30.X.1439, proved 22.XII.1439)
271. Anne Stapleton [dau. of Sir Brian S. of Bedale]
542. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham, Norfolk, and Bedale, Yorkshire, de
jure
4th Lord Ingham (aged 40 in 1419, d. VIII.1438 probably before 6.VIII)
543. Cecily Bardolf (d. 29.IX.1432) [dau. of Thomas, 4th L. Bardolf]
Paul Reed's article includes a footnote saying that the
Berdewell/Bardwell
and Hethe connections of the Harlestons would "be treated in detail in
the
following issue of this journal; much of what is in print needs to be
corrected and amplified." AFAIK, however, a follow-up article was never
published.
Dear John,
Many thanks for the line above! The Anne Stapleton/Thomas Hethe line
had long been on my To Do List to try and track down, but I had no
information to go on other than her mention in the will of her father
Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438). I'll re-read Paul Reed's article on the
Harlestons. Is there any other source you have on these Hethes that I
can follow-up on? Do you know where they were seated?
By the way, this Anne Hethe, daughter of Cecily Bardolf, Dame Stapleton
is a descendant of Edward I and completely overlooked in Richardson's
PA3, so this is an additional line of royal descent for gateway
immigrant John Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738).
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
In a message dated 1/18/07 8:47:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< Susan Tyrell of Fulborne to Michael /Dalton/ , of West Wratting
28 May 1639 date of license at St Edward's, Cambridge
(for license see
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... 1%2c+&year
=&yearend=&sbo=0&prox=1&db=&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_
it=21416&rank=0&srchb=r) >>
This naughty reference can now be replaced by this much cleaner reference to
this same marriage
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M130341
Will
writes:
<< Susan Tyrell of Fulborne to Michael /Dalton/ , of West Wratting
28 May 1639 date of license at St Edward's, Cambridge
(for license see
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse. ... 1%2c+&year
=&yearend=&sbo=0&prox=1&db=&ti=0&ti.si=0&gss=angs-b&o_iid=21416&o_lid=21416&o_
it=21416&rank=0&srchb=r) >>
This naughty reference can now be replaced by this much cleaner reference to
this same marriage
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M130341
Will
-
John Higgins
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
I'm confused by your chronological concern in this case, since you seem to
have proposed two conflicting birth years for Brian Stapleton. You first
say that he was born ca. 1378/9 (following CP, which says he was aged 40 at
his father's death in 1419), and then in your descent from him you say he
was born 1392/1400 , apparently based on a known date 5 generations later.
If you use CP's date of his birth (which is certainly more reliable), you
gain 13 more years to spread over the several generations, which should ease
the problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
have proposed two conflicting birth years for Brian Stapleton. You first
say that he was born ca. 1378/9 (following CP, which says he was aged 40 at
his father's death in 1419), and then in your descent from him you say he
was born 1392/1400 , apparently based on a known date 5 generations later.
If you use CP's date of his birth (which is certainly more reliable), you
gain 13 more years to spread over the several generations, which should ease
the problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
Thank you John for your excellent post connecting the two seperate
Harleston
groups I had had. This also helps me connect the Stapleton family, but on
this I note a caution.
Assuming that Brian Stapleton of Ingham and Cecily Bardolf are the parents
of
Brian Stapleton of Bedale who had a daughter Anne Stapleton who married
Thomas Hethe and had a daughter Elizabeth Heath who married William
Bardewell and
had a daughter Margery Bardewell who married John Harleston having at
least two
daughters Alice and Margaret, before her (Margery Bardewell Harleston)'s
death Oct 1459.
Then we have a potential chronologic problem.
As you're no doubt aware I very liberal with allowing mothers to be at
least
13 when they have their first child, and fathers to be only 17. I'm sure
there are cases of that, but whenever we get several in a row, red flags
should go
up.
In the above case we have this timeline
Sir Miles Stapleton, Lord Ingham was born "abt 23 Jun 1357" which accords
well enough with his son Brian being "aged 40 in 1419" (so born 1378/9).
In this
case Miles would have been 21 or 22 when his son was born.
In order to allow the above descent we need
Brian Stapleton of Bedale born 1392/1400
Anne Stapleton born 1409/1417
Elizabeth Hethe born 1422/30
Margery Bardewell born 1435/43
Whenever I have that many very tight generations without any documentation
it
makes me suspicious. In general, the further away from documentation I
get,
the more wide the ranges become. In this case however we can pinpoint the
families with extreme accuracy sans documentation. I don't like that.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
In a message dated 1/18/07 7:21:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< By the way, this Anne Hethe, daughter of Cecily Bardolf, Dame Stapleton
is a descendant of Edward I and completely overlooked in Richardson's
PA3, so this is an additional line of royal descent for gateway
immigrant John Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738). >>
I also show her as an ancestress to the
"John or Thomas Mapes" 1613-82 died in Suffolk Co, New York
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< By the way, this Anne Hethe, daughter of Cecily Bardolf, Dame Stapleton
is a descendant of Edward I and completely overlooked in Richardson's
PA3, so this is an additional line of royal descent for gateway
immigrant John Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738). >>
I also show her as an ancestress to the
"John or Thomas Mapes" 1613-82 died in Suffolk Co, New York
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Giles de Braose
Doug Thompson wrote:
Hi All
The document I originally referenced is sourced from the records of the
Easter Parliament of 1291. It concerns the proceedings on the dower
claim of Mary, the widow of William de Braose d1290, to half of the
manor of Wickhambreux against William, the son of William de Braose.
The document [1] clearly states that William de Brewes the elder
enfeoffed Giles his SON not his uncle.
I agree that Williams marriage with Agnes de Moels and the birth of
Giles both took place after 1261.
The manor of Wickham etc was subject to much ligitation as other parties
alleged William de Brewes the elder had dispossessed them. Perhaps the
original parties repossesed the manor and as such did not pass to the
heirs of Giles.
Meanwhile, I will draw up a timeline and post it latter on.
Regards
Paul
[1] "..... Mary, the widow of William de Braose, claimed before the lord
king and his council against William, the son of William de Braose, half
the manor of Wickhambreux with its appurtenances in the county of Kent
as her dower, as her share of the free tenement late of William de
Braose, her late husband etc. And on this matter she says that the
aforesaid William, formerly her husband, died seised of the aforesaid
manor with its appurtenances in his demesne as of fee etc. [The
original document states Wycham]
And the aforesaid William appears through a certain Nicholas Seliman,
his attorney. He says that the aforesaid manor did at one time belong to
the aforesaid William, formerly the husband of the aforesaid Mary; which
William, a long time before he married the aforesaid Mary, enfeoffed a
certain Giles, his son, of the aforesaid manor with its appurtenances,
and put him in full seisin of it: so that afterwards, in the court of
the lord king Henry, the father of the present lord king, before master
Roger of Seaton and his colleagues, the same lord king Henry's justices
of the Bench, in the fifty-fifth year of his reign, a certain fine was
levied on this matter between the aforesaid William and Giles, through
which fine the same William acknowledged the aforesaid tenements with
appurtenances, together with other tenements, to be the right of the
same Giles, as things which the same Giles had of the gift of the
aforesaid William. .....SDE Parliament Rolls"
Hello Will, Paul and others
The evidence is all there for a solution.
In 1307, William de Braose (d 1326) gave evidence at the investigations into
the possible canonisation of Thomas de Cantilupe. These were formal
proceedings where ages of all witnesses were recorded. William de Braose
gave his age as 46. So he was born in 1261.
Giles was his younger halfbrother.
So the older William's marriage with Agnes de Moels and the birth pf Giles
both took place after 1261.
The consequence of this is that the Kent fine of 1271 concerns a different
Giles de Braose. There is at least one known candidate for this - William's
uncle, the younger brother of John (d 1232).
It could never have been the Giles you have been discussing or Wickham and
Lukedale would have descended to his heirs, rather than appearing back in
the possession of William.
Hence the Giles mentioned in the fine died without heirs.
Doug Thompson
Hi All
The document I originally referenced is sourced from the records of the
Easter Parliament of 1291. It concerns the proceedings on the dower
claim of Mary, the widow of William de Braose d1290, to half of the
manor of Wickhambreux against William, the son of William de Braose.
The document [1] clearly states that William de Brewes the elder
enfeoffed Giles his SON not his uncle.
I agree that Williams marriage with Agnes de Moels and the birth of
Giles both took place after 1261.
The manor of Wickham etc was subject to much ligitation as other parties
alleged William de Brewes the elder had dispossessed them. Perhaps the
original parties repossesed the manor and as such did not pass to the
heirs of Giles.
Meanwhile, I will draw up a timeline and post it latter on.
Regards
Paul
[1] "..... Mary, the widow of William de Braose, claimed before the lord
king and his council against William, the son of William de Braose, half
the manor of Wickhambreux with its appurtenances in the county of Kent
as her dower, as her share of the free tenement late of William de
Braose, her late husband etc. And on this matter she says that the
aforesaid William, formerly her husband, died seised of the aforesaid
manor with its appurtenances in his demesne as of fee etc. [The
original document states Wycham]
And the aforesaid William appears through a certain Nicholas Seliman,
his attorney. He says that the aforesaid manor did at one time belong to
the aforesaid William, formerly the husband of the aforesaid Mary; which
William, a long time before he married the aforesaid Mary, enfeoffed a
certain Giles, his son, of the aforesaid manor with its appurtenances,
and put him in full seisin of it: so that afterwards, in the court of
the lord king Henry, the father of the present lord king, before master
Roger of Seaton and his colleagues, the same lord king Henry's justices
of the Bench, in the fifty-fifth year of his reign, a certain fine was
levied on this matter between the aforesaid William and Giles, through
which fine the same William acknowledged the aforesaid tenements with
appurtenances, together with other tenements, to be the right of the
same Giles, as things which the same Giles had of the gift of the
aforesaid William. .....SDE Parliament Rolls"
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/18/07 9:24:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< ca. 1378/9 (following CP, which says he was aged 40 at
his father's death in 1419), and then in your descent from him you say he
was born 1392/1400 , >>
This is Brian son of Brian. Not Brian himself.
Will
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< ca. 1378/9 (following CP, which says he was aged 40 at
his father's death in 1419), and then in your descent from him you say he
was born 1392/1400 , >>
This is Brian son of Brian. Not Brian himself.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
In a message dated 1/18/07 1:59:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
<< The consequence of this is that the Kent fine of 1271 concerns a different
Giles de Braose. There is at least one known candidate for this - William's
uncle, the younger brother of John (d 1232). >>
This would be a good solution except the document itself states that Giles
was "William's son"
Will Johnson
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
<< The consequence of this is that the Kent fine of 1271 concerns a different
Giles de Braose. There is at least one known candidate for this - William's
uncle, the younger brother of John (d 1232). >>
This would be a good solution except the document itself states that Giles
was "William's son"
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
Don't you understand the plainest statement in your own language? Try
reading
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
and note particularly Article 11. NB This treaty was drafted under the
presidency of Washington.
Whether or not your government's actions, historically or in the present,
comply fully with the Constitution doesn't affect the simple facts that the
1st Amendment is part of it and that this unequivocally separates the state
from religion. That is the fundamental law of the USA.
The declaration "As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" was in a text ratified
unanimously by the Senate in 1797, and proves the intention. If the state is
bound to respect freedom of religion, and the legislature is precluded from
making laws establishing a religion, then Church and State are
constitutionally separated, like it or not.
Peter Stewart
"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1700.1169175544.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
reading
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
and note particularly Article 11. NB This treaty was drafted under the
presidency of Washington.
Whether or not your government's actions, historically or in the present,
comply fully with the Constitution doesn't affect the simple facts that the
1st Amendment is part of it and that this unequivocally separates the state
from religion. That is the fundamental law of the USA.
The declaration "As the Government of the United States of America is not,
in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" was in a text ratified
unanimously by the Senate in 1797, and proves the intention. If the state is
bound to respect freedom of religion, and the legislature is precluded from
making laws establishing a religion, then Church and State are
constitutionally separated, like it or not.
Peter Stewart
"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1700.1169175544.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
HUH?! Establishing a state religion (as we see in England) and allowing
absolutely no mention of anything religious ('r' not 'R') in anything have
to do with government is NOT the same thing. The present interpretation
of
'separation of church and state' (which, as a side note, those words are
NOT
used as a phrase in the Constitution) actually VIOLATES the First
Amendment!
Think about that one!
I'll also remember that the Federal Government CANNOT make any laws but
those expressly stated in the Constitution. Oh wait, the federal
government
doesn't! They just use coersion to get what they want!
Oh, and what about the little thing that no body other than the federal
government (ie US Treasury) is allowed to print money. Take a look at the
bills in your wallet. They state "Federal Reserve Bank" on them which is
a
PRIVATE bank - owned actually by MANY foreign governments.
Try actually reading the Constitution and then looking at our government's
actions. They really aren't all that in line with each other!
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 20:38, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Sarah Krans" <sarah.krans@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1697.1169166090.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I agree - and that means getting rid of the current legislative,
judical,
and executive bodies of the Federal Government. ALL of it! Make people
actually READ the Constitution rather than interpreting other people's
interpretations (nowhere does it say 'separation of church and state'
nor
is
it implied as interpreted today). Students are not allowed to study
real
history and teachers really aren't allowed to teach it - because they
have
to teach for the standardized tests.
I digress and will get off my soapbox!
Too late, you have fallen off it already.
Have you never heard of the 1st Amendment:- "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..."
If you are lucky enough to live under this wise provision, you could at
least try to recognise & remember what it says.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
That leaves us Giles born exactly from 1262 to 1270 since William is supposed
to marry Mary of Ros "in or before 1271"
Interesting choice of words "LONG before he married Mary he enfeoffed his
son...."
I wonder what they thought Long meant?
Will
to marry Mary of Ros "in or before 1271"
Interesting choice of words "LONG before he married Mary he enfeoffed his
son...."
I wonder what they thought Long meant?
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1169177080.255743.6770@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Nothing directly, of course, any more than the wills and other records of
Colonial immigrants have to say about it that are constantly under
discussion here.
But without the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom from the 1st
Amendment some of those immigrants would never have arrived, and for that
matter the Mormons would never have flourished, so that there would be many
less people in the USA researching medieval genealogy, with less resources
to help them.
The underpinnings of American national life are not exactly irrelevant to
this newsgroup, although the current understanding of this subject may be
stretching things. So sue me.
Peter Stewart
news:1169177080.255743.6770@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
And what does the Constitution have to say about medieval genealogy?
Nothing directly, of course, any more than the wills and other records of
Colonial immigrants have to say about it that are constantly under
discussion here.
But without the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom from the 1st
Amendment some of those immigrants would never have arrived, and for that
matter the Mormons would never have flourished, so that there would be many
less people in the USA researching medieval genealogy, with less resources
to help them.
The underpinnings of American national life are not exactly irrelevant to
this newsgroup, although the current understanding of this subject may be
stretching things. So sue me.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Sir Edward Belknap d 1520, Privy Councillor
Dear Will,
It is not surprising his sister was his heir, as the daughter I record was
illegitimate.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Sir Edward Belknap d 1520, Privy Councillor
It is not surprising his sister was his heir, as the daughter I record was
illegitimate.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Sir Edward Belknap d 1520, Privy Councillor
I was climbing one of Leo's trees and hit a dead-end at Sir Edward Belknap
who was a Privy Councillor to Henry VII and VIII. I see a request by Leo
here,
eight years ago but not clear resolution on Who Was this person? Some
people
suggested he might be the same one who is usually given as "D.s.p." since
his
heir(s) was his sister(s).
From this website http://www.telefonica.net/web2/kenello/belknap.htm
which seems to be pretty good, we get an answer
BEGIN QUOTE
Sir Edward Belknap, kt., of Weston-under-Weatherley, son of Henry, was
married to Alice Burnby, who secondly married John Brygges (C 1/739/49 + C
1/474/48). He had, however, an illigitimate daughter Elizabeth with the
widow of
Walter Scott of Staplefield Tany in Essex, who married Thomas Bushop of
Hendfield
in Sussex. Their son Thomas, kt., born 1555, became the first Baronet
Bisshop
of Torham and Viscount of Sussex and died in 1626. (Visitation. of
Sussex).
He was also a member of Parliament and sheriff of Surrey and Sussex. Sir
Thomas married firstly a daughter of William Cromer of Kent and his wife
Katherine, da. of Sir Thomas Kemp, kt.; and secondly Jane, da. of Sir
Wichard Weston
and Jane Dister (ThePeerage.com).
Edward made his will in in 1520 (ER 101/38) and died in 1521. (Inq. p.m.
of
1521-2, C 142/37/83). After Edward's death several court cases are
registered
concerning his former manors.
Edward was Chief Butler (E 122/00/13), and in 1478 he was appointed
constable
of the Castle and steward of the town of Warwick (VCH, Vol.. At the
division of Ralph de Boteler's lands in 1496 Edward was assigned the manor
of
Sheriff's Lench and held lands in Horseley and Castelhouses (C 1/342/4) as
well as
the manors of Darsett and Northend in Warwickshire.(CRO457/6/1) in 1505.
He was
also lord of Worthies in Essex (VCH Vol. 4). 1501 created sheriff of
Warwickshire and Leicestershire (CFR). In 1513 he accompanied Henry VII
to war in
France where he was knighted in Tournai. Sampson Norton and Edward were
masters
of the Ordonance in 1514/5 (E 36/236). Shortly before his death he and
other
commissioners were responsible for preparing "The Field of Cloth" for King
Henry in France and see to it that the archbishop's tent stood on dry
ground.
(VCH). He had been member of the Privy Council both of Henry VII and VIII.
END QUOTE
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:D0Srh.2971$u8.2686@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
This was wrong - Peter McNiven discsussed the aspect below (where I have
corrected my sloppy typing, but not the ghastly mixed metaphor), though in
relation not to John of Gaunt but to Henry IV's statement of claim before
the assembly of 30 September 1399, in 'Legitimacy and Consent: Henry IV and
the Lancastrian Title, 1399-1406', _Mediaeval Studies_ 44 (1982) 470-488 at
p. 481.
Peter Stewart
news:D0Srh.2971$u8.2686@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
Another important point that hasn't been made in this thread, or as far as
I can tell in the literature at all:
This was wrong - Peter McNiven discsussed the aspect below (where I have
corrected my sloppy typing, but not the ghastly mixed metaphor), though in
relation not to John of Gaunt but to Henry IV's statement of claim before
the assembly of 30 September 1399, in 'Legitimacy and Consent: Henry IV and
the Lancastrian Title, 1399-1406', _Mediaeval Studies_ 44 (1982) 470-488 at
p. 481.
Peter Stewart
When the succession to the throne was decided in favour of the Mortimers,
John of Gaunt's argument against this was that it could not pass through a
female and he was the heir male of Edward III. If he had then switched to
an argument on his son's behalf for inheritance through Blanche of
Lancaster from Edmund, he would have been trying to trump the Mortimer
claim by another one through a female - in other words, conceding the
single point that could be & had been urged in his own favour just for a
mess of potage that could readily be - as eventually it was - dismissed
out of hand.
I do not believe there is any ground to conclude that John of Gaunt was
stupid enough to snooker himself and his son in this way.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
re: Giles de Braose
Friday, 19 January, 2007
Dear Doug, Paul, Will, et al.,
A timeline of all the events (incl. suits, etc.) would be
most valuable, but I believe virtually all the evidence in hand
works with the 'present' understanding of the Breuse/Braose
family. The exception appears to be the record of Richard de
Braose's testimony in the plea of 52 Hen. III (Assize Roll no.
1050, m. 60), transcribed and translated by Paul (Mackenzie) and
M. L. Tompkins. The relevant Latin portion is given below (see
Paul's post of 17 Jan for the complete text and translation):
JUST 1/1050
52-53 Hen III
Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas
' Post venit pred[ic]tus Ric[ard]us et reliquit except[i]onem
istam et dicit q[uo]d quitquid habet in pred[ic]to man[er]io
tenet ip[s]e de dono Willi de Breus et cuiusdam Aline quondam
ux[or] ip[s]ius Will[elm]i cuius jus et maritag[u]m illud fuit
et dicit q[uo]d ijdem Will[elm]us et Alina post do[m]ini illud
scil[ice]t int[er] annu[m] regni d[om]ini regis nunc
tricesimu[m] octauu[m] et
quadrage-simu[m]] s[e]c[un]d[e]mven[er]unt coram justic[iariis]
d[omi]ni reg[is] de Banco et recogn[er]unt illud esse jus
ip[s]ius Ric[ard]i p[er] fine[m] ibidem inde int[er] eis
f[ac]t[u]m. '
All evidence (excepting this) indicates that William de
Braose and Aline de Multon (whose maritagium Thorganby was) had
married and had a son and heir William (d. bef 1 May 1326); that
Aline had died, and William had married Agnes de Moels ca. 1250
or shortly before, by whom he had a son Giles de Braose
(d. 1305), who was of full age in 1271; and that William, his
wife Aline de Multon, and his brother Richard de Braose had
entered into an exchange of manors, including the transfer of
Thorganby to Richard.
The traditional (CP) date of 1271 as a terminus for the
death of Aline de Multon, and the marriage of William to
Agnes de Moels, is clearly wrong. Certainly the manors had
been exchanged before that date: Richard de Braose presented
Master Roger de Merkegate to the church of Thorganby [Thurhamby
in the text] on 6 kal. Feb. ][27 Jan.] 1267/8 [Reg. Walter
Giffard, p. 50]. The evidence of the birth of Giles de Braose
ca. 1261 clearly pushes the date back to 1261, at the
very latest. The question appears to be, is 'ca. 1261' correct
for the birth of Giles, or 'ca. 1250' [re: his status in 1271] ?
If Giles de Braose was of full age in 1271, then the
Latin text of the above assize roll should be reexamined; if the
translation and transliteration are correct, I would submit that
either Richard de Braose erred in his statement, or the dates
were recorded in such a way as to place his dealings with his
brother William and Aline de Multon well after they occurred.
If on the other hand, Giles was in fact only born ca. 1261,
the testimony of the abovementioned assize roll would fit with
that 'fact'.
Cheers,
John
Dear Doug, Paul, Will, et al.,
A timeline of all the events (incl. suits, etc.) would be
most valuable, but I believe virtually all the evidence in hand
works with the 'present' understanding of the Breuse/Braose
family. The exception appears to be the record of Richard de
Braose's testimony in the plea of 52 Hen. III (Assize Roll no.
1050, m. 60), transcribed and translated by Paul (Mackenzie) and
M. L. Tompkins. The relevant Latin portion is given below (see
Paul's post of 17 Jan for the complete text and translation):
JUST 1/1050
52-53 Hen III
Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas
' Post venit pred[ic]tus Ric[ard]us et reliquit except[i]onem
istam et dicit q[uo]d quitquid habet in pred[ic]to man[er]io
tenet ip[s]e de dono Willi de Breus et cuiusdam Aline quondam
ux[or] ip[s]ius Will[elm]i cuius jus et maritag[u]m illud fuit
et dicit q[uo]d ijdem Will[elm]us et Alina post do[m]ini illud
scil[ice]t int[er] annu[m] regni d[om]ini regis nunc
tricesimu[m] octauu[m] et
quadrage-simu[m]] s[e]c[un]d[e]mven[er]unt coram justic[iariis]
d[omi]ni reg[is] de Banco et recogn[er]unt illud esse jus
ip[s]ius Ric[ard]i p[er] fine[m] ibidem inde int[er] eis
f[ac]t[u]m. '
All evidence (excepting this) indicates that William de
Braose and Aline de Multon (whose maritagium Thorganby was) had
married and had a son and heir William (d. bef 1 May 1326); that
Aline had died, and William had married Agnes de Moels ca. 1250
or shortly before, by whom he had a son Giles de Braose
(d. 1305), who was of full age in 1271; and that William, his
wife Aline de Multon, and his brother Richard de Braose had
entered into an exchange of manors, including the transfer of
Thorganby to Richard.
The traditional (CP) date of 1271 as a terminus for the
death of Aline de Multon, and the marriage of William to
Agnes de Moels, is clearly wrong. Certainly the manors had
been exchanged before that date: Richard de Braose presented
Master Roger de Merkegate to the church of Thorganby [Thurhamby
in the text] on 6 kal. Feb. ][27 Jan.] 1267/8 [Reg. Walter
Giffard, p. 50]. The evidence of the birth of Giles de Braose
ca. 1261 clearly pushes the date back to 1261, at the
very latest. The question appears to be, is 'ca. 1261' correct
for the birth of Giles, or 'ca. 1250' [re: his status in 1271] ?
If Giles de Braose was of full age in 1271, then the
Latin text of the above assize roll should be reexamined; if the
translation and transliteration are correct, I would submit that
either Richard de Braose erred in his statement, or the dates
were recorded in such a way as to place his dealings with his
brother William and Aline de Multon well after they occurred.
If on the other hand, Giles was in fact only born ca. 1261,
the testimony of the abovementioned assize roll would fit with
that 'fact'.
Cheers,
John
-
Sarah Krans
Re: Americans Need Another Wake-Up Call
My apologies to the list for allowing this off-topic thread to continue. I
am new to the list (recently started the pre-US genealogy searches - though
I have studied medieval history for years.) and did not understand some of
the personalities on the list. I do now.
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 21:24, "taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
am new to the list (recently started the pre-US genealogy searches - though
I have studied medieval history for years.) and did not understand some of
the personalities on the list. I do now.
Sarah
On 18/01/2007 21:24, "taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
And what does the Constitution have to say about medieval genealogy?
. . . . I thought not.
-
John Higgins
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
Correction: "Whitaker" in the first paragraph below should obviously be
Whitmore - as in J. B. Whitmore, compiler of "A Genealogical Guide".
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Whitmore - as in J. B. Whitmore, compiler of "A Genealogical Guide".
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
My sources on the Stapletons are admittedly not the greatest, and I would
be
grateful for better information. I have not pursued the Heath/Hethe
connection at all, except to note that Marshall and Whitaker include
references for the family (under both variations of the name as well as De
Hethe), and I will add these to my research list. However, Paul Reed's
caveat on previously published information on this family is worth noting
again.
For the Stapleton connection to Heath/Hethe, aside from the very brief
reference in Paul Reed's article, this marriage is mentioned in pedigrees
in
both of the following works:
1) H. E. Chetwynd-Stapylton, "The Stapeltons of Yorkshire" [1897]
2) H. B. McCall, "The Early History of Bedale" [1907]
The first of these says Thomas Heath [sic] was "of Hengrave" while the
second doesn't mention a locality for him. I have separately seen
references to a Heath family of Mildenhall, Suffolk, including a Thomas -
possibly the same or a related family?
It's curious that both RPA/PA3 and MCA omit Anne Stapleton [Heath] as a
daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton and Cecily Bardolf, espicially since you
note that she is mentioned in her father's will [with her husband's
name??].
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
John Higgins wrote:
33. Margaret Harleston (b. ca. 1458, d. 18.IX.1489)
66. John Harleston [III] of Bardwell, Suffolk (b. ca. 1430, d. before
31.VII.1458)
67. Margery Bardwell (d. X.1459, will dated 26.IX.1458, proved
6.XI.1459)
132. John Harleston [II] (d. 8.III.1456); m. (1) [he mar. (2)
Elizabeth
Hethe below]
134. William Berdewell [or Bardwell]; m. (1)
135. Elizabeth Hethe [or Heath] (d. shortly before 17.X.1454) [she
m.
(2)
John
Harleston (II) above]
270. Thomas Hethe [or Heath] (will dated 30.X.1439, proved
22.XII.1439)
271. Anne Stapleton [dau. of Sir Brian S. of Bedale]
542. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham, Norfolk, and Bedale, Yorkshire,
de
jure
4th Lord Ingham (aged 40 in 1419, d. VIII.1438 probably before 6.VIII)
543. Cecily Bardolf (d. 29.IX.1432) [dau. of Thomas, 4th L.
Bardolf]
Paul Reed's article includes a footnote saying that the
Berdewell/Bardwell
and Hethe connections of the Harlestons would "be treated in detail in
the
following issue of this journal; much of what is in print needs to be
corrected and amplified." AFAIK, however, a follow-up article was
never
published.
Dear John,
Many thanks for the line above! The Anne Stapleton/Thomas Hethe line
had long been on my To Do List to try and track down, but I had no
information to go on other than her mention in the will of her father
Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438). I'll re-read Paul Reed's article on the
Harlestons. Is there any other source you have on these Hethes that I
can follow-up on? Do you know where they were seated?
By the way, this Anne Hethe, daughter of Cecily Bardolf, Dame Stapleton
is a descendant of Edward I and completely overlooked in Richardson's
PA3, so this is an additional line of royal descent for gateway
immigrant John Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738).
Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
John Higgins
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
If that's the case, then you've got one generation too many in your descent.
The Stapleton sequence here should be Miles -> Brian -> Anne.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
The Stapleton sequence here should be Miles -> Brian -> Anne.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/18/07 9:24:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
ca. 1378/9 (following CP, which says he was aged 40 at
his father's death in 1419), and then in your descent from him you say he
was born 1392/1400 ,
This is Brian son of Brian. Not Brian himself.
Will
-
Don McArthur
RE: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
Brad,
Is this John TATE, recorder of London related to the John TATE who m 1687
Kath CRANE, widow of Edmund BACON - and dau of Susan ALINGTON b 1605, 3rd
dau of Giles?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity [mailto:royaldescent@hotmail.com]
Sent: 17 January 2007 10:58 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil
ofHorseheath
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Interestingly, in Le Neve's pedigree for Sir John Tate, Recorder of
London, knighted at Whitehall 12 May 1687 (H.S.P. 8 (1873), p. 411),
Sir John's father ".... Tate of De la Pree Com. North'ton." is said to
have married ".... dr of Sr Gyles Allington of Horseth by .... his 2d
wife dr of .... Dalton".
Sir Giles married his 2nd wife, who was his niece, Dorothy Dalton, on 2
December 1630, when he was age 58 and she age 24 (per CP Vol. 1, p. 107
n. a). They were ordered not to cohabit in January 1634. It's
interesting that in the 1690s, Le Neve would hear that Sir John Tate
was descended from this incestuous marriage, rather than the more
prestigious Cecil first marriage. But Le Neve indicates Sir John Tate
died unmarried, and so the knight himself was clearly not the source of
the information.
As Zouche Tate was buried on 8 January 1651, the chronology seems too
tight for him to have married a daughter of Sir Giles Alington's second
marriage and fathered at least three sons with her.
Cheers, --------Brad
Is this John TATE, recorder of London related to the John TATE who m 1687
Kath CRANE, widow of Edmund BACON - and dau of Susan ALINGTON b 1605, 3rd
dau of Giles?
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity [mailto:royaldescent@hotmail.com]
Sent: 17 January 2007 10:58 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil
ofHorseheath
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I have noticed in various online databases, that the number, dates and
names
of the various children of Giles Alington (1572-1638) by his wife Dorothy
Cecil (d 1613) are all over the map. All the way from 1570 (which is
downright
silly) up to 1639 (I suppose based on when Giles died).
Elizabeth 25 Apr 1598
Thomas 2 Jan 1599/1600
Giles 14 Jul 1601
James 6 Sep 1602
Dorothy 9 Jan 1603/1604
Susan 30 Sep 1605
Anna 13 Apr 1607
Catherine 5 Dec 1608
William 14 Mar 1610
Mary 19 Oct 1612
It is also said that Catherine married Zouche Tate of Delapre
and that Mary married Thomas Hatton
but I have not found those marriages as yet.
Interestingly, in Le Neve's pedigree for Sir John Tate, Recorder of
London, knighted at Whitehall 12 May 1687 (H.S.P. 8 (1873), p. 411),
Sir John's father ".... Tate of De la Pree Com. North'ton." is said to
have married ".... dr of Sr Gyles Allington of Horseth by .... his 2d
wife dr of .... Dalton".
Sir Giles married his 2nd wife, who was his niece, Dorothy Dalton, on 2
December 1630, when he was age 58 and she age 24 (per CP Vol. 1, p. 107
n. a). They were ordered not to cohabit in January 1634. It's
interesting that in the 1690s, Le Neve would hear that Sir John Tate
was descended from this incestuous marriage, rather than the more
prestigious Cecil first marriage. But Le Neve indicates Sir John Tate
died unmarried, and so the knight himself was clearly not the source of
the information.
As Zouche Tate was buried on 8 January 1651, the chronology seems too
tight for him to have married a daughter of Sir Giles Alington's second
marriage and fathered at least three sons with her.
Cheers, --------Brad
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
In a message dated 1/19/2007 5:03:32 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Therav3
writes:
All evidence (excepting this)
You're leaving out the testimony on his age much later. So two pieces don't
fit.
writes:
All evidence (excepting this)
You're leaving out the testimony on his age much later. So two pieces don't
fit.
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
So you're suggesting that Brian Stapleton of Ingham who married Cecily
Bardolf is the same person as Brian Stapleton of Bedale father of Anne ? See part
of my original message below:
"Assuming that Brian Stapleton of Ingham and Cecily Bardolf are the parents
of Brian Stapleton of Bedale who had a daughter Anne Stapleton who married
Thomas Hethe and had a daughter Elizabeth Heath who married William Bardewell
and had a daughter Margery Bardewell who married John Harleston having at least
two daughters Alice and Margaret, before her (Margery Bardewell Harleston)'s
death Oct 1459."
Will
Bardolf is the same person as Brian Stapleton of Bedale father of Anne ? See part
of my original message below:
"Assuming that Brian Stapleton of Ingham and Cecily Bardolf are the parents
of Brian Stapleton of Bedale who had a daughter Anne Stapleton who married
Thomas Hethe and had a daughter Elizabeth Heath who married William Bardewell
and had a daughter Margery Bardewell who married John Harleston having at least
two daughters Alice and Margaret, before her (Margery Bardewell Harleston)'s
death Oct 1459."
Will
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Giles de Braose
In a message dated 1/18/07 1:59:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net wrote:
The consequence of this is that the Kent fine of 1271 concerns a different
Giles de Braose. There is at least one known candidate for this - William's
uncle, the younger brother of John (d 1232).
Sorry about my error there. I had forgotten that it said Giles was William's
son.
That only leaves the conclusion that Giles was NOT of full age when the fine
was made.
Note that Elwes account also mentions a fine made between William and
Matilda (Longspee) when she was underage.
The "full seisin" mentioned is not in the fine but the other document so
that may have happened later. The fine only gave the "right" to the manors.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
-
Brad Verity
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
Dear John,
Comments interspersed.
John Higgins wrote:
I'll contact Paul and see if he ever wrote his follow-up article on the
Hethes and Beredewells. Hopefully, he can at least point us to some
sources for them. From his article, which I've now had a chance to
examine again, the following wills & IPMs would be very helpful:
1) Will of Thomas Hethe (d. 1439) - will (Consistory Court of Norwich
173 Doke) dated 30 Oct. 1439, pr. 22 Dec. 1439.
2) IPM for John Harleston II of Shimpling, Suffolk (born 1 November
1403; died 8 March 1457). Writs of diem clausit extremum were issued
for him on 27 March 1457, per Paul's article.
3) IPM for Elizabeth Hethe Berdewell Harleston (died (by 17 October)
1464), widow of the above.
4) Will of John Harleston III of Shimpling (born c.1430; died 1458) -
will (PCC 26 Stokton) dated 31 March 1458; pr. 25 Oct. 1458).
5) IPM of John Harleston III of Shimpling
6) Will of Margery Beredewell Harleston (died October 1459), widow of
above - will (Consistory Court of Norwich 168 Brosyard) dated 26 Sept.
1459, pr. 6 Nov. 1459.
7) IPM of John Harleston IV (born c.1455; died late 1459), son of
above.
Will of Thomas Darcy, esquire, of Danbury, Essex (died 25 Sept.
1485) - will (PCC 24 Logge) dated 6 Mar. 1483, pr. 16 Jan. 1486.
9) IPM of Thomas Darcy of Danbury - published in CIPM Henry VII, Vol. 1
10) Will of Margaret Harleston Darcy (born c.1458; died 18 Sept. 1489),
widow of above - will (PCC 20 Milles) dated 9 July 1489, pr. Jan. 1490.
11) IPM of Margaret Harleston Darcy - published in CIPM Henry VII, Vol.
1
I have this article.
Thanks - I'll track this one down.
It's a start, but *sigh* of course it has to be Suffolk, with no VCH
series. I guess start with Copinger.
It's not so curious. I was incorrect in my post last night - Anne
Stapleton Hethe is not an ancestress of gateway immigrant John
Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738). He is descended instead from
Robert Harleston, younger brother of John Harleston III who married
Margery Beredewell, as Paul Reed's article makes clear. So that
explains why the Stapleton/Hethe/Berdewell/Harleston line doesn't
appear in PA3.
But Douglas also omits the daughter Anne Stapleton Hethe from his
potted biography of Cecily Bardolf and Sir Brian Stapleton (PA3, p.
57). A look at the sources he used explains why:
1) 'Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-4' (H.S.P. 16, 1881) - this is the
less authentic verrsion I've discussed in an earlier post.
2) 'Visitation of Norfolk 1563 & 1613' (H.S.P. 32, 1891)
3) 'Complete Peerage' vol. 5 (chart, sub Fitzalan) & vol. 7 (sub
Ingham)
4) 'Baronage of England' by G. Paget vol. 24 (1957, sub Bardolf)
5) 'Register of Robert Hallum Bishop of Salisbury 1407-17' (1982)
6) 'NEHGR' Vol. 148 (1994)
So for a man who lately has been chiding everyone on the newsgroup
about relying on secondary sources, he relies on Visitation pedigrees
from the mid-16th century (for a couple who lived at the beginning of
the 15th), modern peerage works, and a 1994 article (which I haven't
seen) all of which are secondary. The only primary source he cites is
the bishop's register (I haven't seen it and don't know what
information it provides).
The will of Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438) was transcribed by Henry
Harrod in his article 'Extracts From Early Wills in the Norwich
Registries' in 'Norfolk Archaelogy' Vol. 4 (1875), pp. 327-329. It's
curious Douglas never bothered to track it down, since he mentions in
his potted biography that Sir Brian "died testate". The relevant
extract regarding Sir Brian's daughter is:
"...and evmor upon condycyon yt if those sumes of mony wheche be to pay
unto Thoms Heth for the maryage sylver of Anne, my doghter, that now is
hys wyff".
Harrod doesn't identify Thomas Hethe any further, but Rev. James
Lee-Warner in his article 'The Stapletons of Ingham' in 'Norfolk
Archaeology' vol. 8 (1879), pp. 183-221, identifies him further as
"Thomas Heath of Hengrave", and there I was stuck, until your post
yesterday.
Thanks again and Cheers, ----------Brad
Comments interspersed.
John Higgins wrote:
My sources on the Stapletons are admittedly not the greatest, and I would be
grateful for better information. I have not pursued the Heath/Hethe
connection at all, except to note that Marshall and Whitaker include
references for the family (under both variations of the name as well as De
Hethe), and I will add these to my research list. However, Paul Reed's
caveat on previously published information on this family is worth noting
again.
I'll contact Paul and see if he ever wrote his follow-up article on the
Hethes and Beredewells. Hopefully, he can at least point us to some
sources for them. From his article, which I've now had a chance to
examine again, the following wills & IPMs would be very helpful:
1) Will of Thomas Hethe (d. 1439) - will (Consistory Court of Norwich
173 Doke) dated 30 Oct. 1439, pr. 22 Dec. 1439.
2) IPM for John Harleston II of Shimpling, Suffolk (born 1 November
1403; died 8 March 1457). Writs of diem clausit extremum were issued
for him on 27 March 1457, per Paul's article.
3) IPM for Elizabeth Hethe Berdewell Harleston (died (by 17 October)
1464), widow of the above.
4) Will of John Harleston III of Shimpling (born c.1430; died 1458) -
will (PCC 26 Stokton) dated 31 March 1458; pr. 25 Oct. 1458).
5) IPM of John Harleston III of Shimpling
6) Will of Margery Beredewell Harleston (died October 1459), widow of
above - will (Consistory Court of Norwich 168 Brosyard) dated 26 Sept.
1459, pr. 6 Nov. 1459.
7) IPM of John Harleston IV (born c.1455; died late 1459), son of
above.
1485) - will (PCC 24 Logge) dated 6 Mar. 1483, pr. 16 Jan. 1486.
9) IPM of Thomas Darcy of Danbury - published in CIPM Henry VII, Vol. 1
10) Will of Margaret Harleston Darcy (born c.1458; died 18 Sept. 1489),
widow of above - will (PCC 20 Milles) dated 9 July 1489, pr. Jan. 1490.
11) IPM of Margaret Harleston Darcy - published in CIPM Henry VII, Vol.
1
For the Stapleton connection to Heath/Hethe, aside from the very brief
reference in Paul Reed's article, this marriage is mentioned in pedigrees in
both of the following works:
1) H. E. Chetwynd-Stapylton, "The Stapeltons of Yorkshire" [1897]
I have this article.
2) H. B. McCall, "The Early History of Bedale" [1907]
Thanks - I'll track this one down.
The first of these says Thomas Heath [sic] was "of Hengrave" while the
second doesn't mention a locality for him. I have separately seen
references to a Heath family of Mildenhall, Suffolk, including a Thomas -
possibly the same or a related family?
It's a start, but *sigh* of course it has to be Suffolk, with no VCH
series. I guess start with Copinger.
It's curious that both RPA/PA3 and MCA omit Anne Stapleton [Heath] as a
daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton and Cecily Bardolf, espicially since you
note that she is mentioned in her father's will [with her husband's name??].
It's not so curious. I was incorrect in my post last night - Anne
Stapleton Hethe is not an ancestress of gateway immigrant John
Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738). He is descended instead from
Robert Harleston, younger brother of John Harleston III who married
Margery Beredewell, as Paul Reed's article makes clear. So that
explains why the Stapleton/Hethe/Berdewell/Harleston line doesn't
appear in PA3.
But Douglas also omits the daughter Anne Stapleton Hethe from his
potted biography of Cecily Bardolf and Sir Brian Stapleton (PA3, p.
57). A look at the sources he used explains why:
1) 'Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-4' (H.S.P. 16, 1881) - this is the
less authentic verrsion I've discussed in an earlier post.
2) 'Visitation of Norfolk 1563 & 1613' (H.S.P. 32, 1891)
3) 'Complete Peerage' vol. 5 (chart, sub Fitzalan) & vol. 7 (sub
Ingham)
4) 'Baronage of England' by G. Paget vol. 24 (1957, sub Bardolf)
5) 'Register of Robert Hallum Bishop of Salisbury 1407-17' (1982)
6) 'NEHGR' Vol. 148 (1994)
So for a man who lately has been chiding everyone on the newsgroup
about relying on secondary sources, he relies on Visitation pedigrees
from the mid-16th century (for a couple who lived at the beginning of
the 15th), modern peerage works, and a 1994 article (which I haven't
seen) all of which are secondary. The only primary source he cites is
the bishop's register (I haven't seen it and don't know what
information it provides).
The will of Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438) was transcribed by Henry
Harrod in his article 'Extracts From Early Wills in the Norwich
Registries' in 'Norfolk Archaelogy' Vol. 4 (1875), pp. 327-329. It's
curious Douglas never bothered to track it down, since he mentions in
his potted biography that Sir Brian "died testate". The relevant
extract regarding Sir Brian's daughter is:
"...and evmor upon condycyon yt if those sumes of mony wheche be to pay
unto Thoms Heth for the maryage sylver of Anne, my doghter, that now is
hys wyff".
Harrod doesn't identify Thomas Hethe any further, but Rev. James
Lee-Warner in his article 'The Stapletons of Ingham' in 'Norfolk
Archaeology' vol. 8 (1879), pp. 183-221, identifies him further as
"Thomas Heath of Hengrave", and there I was stuck, until your post
yesterday.
Thanks again and Cheers, ----------Brad
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
In a message dated 1/19/2007 10:24:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
That only leaves the conclusion that Giles was NOT of full age when the fine
was made.
I can think of at least one other possibility.
Will
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
That only leaves the conclusion that Giles was NOT of full age when the fine
was made.
I can think of at least one other possibility.
Will
-
Brad Verity
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will,
Yes. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham (d. 1438) and his wife Cecily
Bardolf (d. 1432) were the parents of Anne Stapleton who married Thomas
Hethe (d. 1439).
You have an extra Brian Stapleton in there - remove "Brian Stapleton of
Bedale".
This rest above is correct.
Cheers, ----------Brad
So you're suggesting that Brian Stapleton of Ingham who married Cecily
Bardolf is the same person as Brian Stapleton of Bedale father of Anne ?
Dear Will,
Yes. Sir Brian Stapleton of Ingham (d. 1438) and his wife Cecily
Bardolf (d. 1432) were the parents of Anne Stapleton who married Thomas
Hethe (d. 1439).
See part
of my original message below:
"Assuming that Brian Stapleton of Ingham and Cecily Bardolf are the parents
of Brian Stapleton of Bedale who had a daughter Anne Stapleton who married
Thomas Hethe
You have an extra Brian Stapleton in there - remove "Brian Stapleton of
Bedale".
and had a daughter Elizabeth Heath who married William Bardewell
and had a daughter Margery Bardewell who married John Harleston having at least
two daughters Alice and Margaret, before her (Margery Bardewell Harleston)'s
death Oct 1459."
This rest above is correct.
Cheers, ----------Brad
-
Gjest
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
In a message dated 1/19/07 10:36:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 5) 'Register of Robert Hallum Bishop of Salisbury 1407-17' (1982)
6) 'NEHGR' Vol. 148 (1994)
[snipped] The only primary source he cites is
the bishop's register (I haven't seen it and don't know what
information it provides). >>
Seems like it would probably provide their marriage ??
Will
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 5) 'Register of Robert Hallum Bishop of Salisbury 1407-17' (1982)
6) 'NEHGR' Vol. 148 (1994)
[snipped] The only primary source he cites is
the bishop's register (I haven't seen it and don't know what
information it provides). >>
Seems like it would probably provide their marriage ??
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
In a message dated 1/19/07 10:36:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< The relevant
extract regarding Sir Brian's daughter is:
"...and evmor upon condycyon yt if those sumes of mony wheche be to pay
unto Thoms Heth for the maryage sylver of Anne, my doghter, that now is
hys wyff". >>
Would this imply that Anne and Thomas are *recently* married ?
It certainly implies she is yet living. Was the will signed in 1438 ?
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< The relevant
extract regarding Sir Brian's daughter is:
"...and evmor upon condycyon yt if those sumes of mony wheche be to pay
unto Thoms Heth for the maryage sylver of Anne, my doghter, that now is
hys wyff". >>
Would this imply that Anne and Thomas are *recently* married ?
It certainly implies she is yet living. Was the will signed in 1438 ?
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
In a message dated 1/19/07 9:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< Is this John TATE, recorder of London related to the John TATE who m 1687
Kath CRANE, widow of Edmund BACON - and dau of Susan ALINGTON b 1605, 3rd
dau of Giles? >>
I don't have such a daughter for Susan. Can you tell us what your source is?
Thanks
Will
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< Is this John TATE, recorder of London related to the John TATE who m 1687
Kath CRANE, widow of Edmund BACON - and dau of Susan ALINGTON b 1605, 3rd
dau of Giles? >>
I don't have such a daughter for Susan. Can you tell us what your source is?
Thanks
Will
-
Don McArthur
RE: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
CB II, p. 15, sub CRANE, Barts., of Chilton, co. Suffolk
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 19 January 2007 09:24 PM
To: donmac@netactive.co.za; royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil
ofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 9:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< Is this John TATE, recorder of London related to the John TATE who m 1687
Kath CRANE, widow of Edmund BACON - and dau of Susan ALINGTON b 1605, 3rd
dau of Giles? >>
I don't have such a daughter for Susan. Can you tell us what your source
is?
Thanks
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 19 January 2007 09:24 PM
To: donmac@netactive.co.za; royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil
ofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 9:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< Is this John TATE, recorder of London related to the John TATE who m 1687
Kath CRANE, widow of Edmund BACON - and dau of Susan ALINGTON b 1605, 3rd
dau of Giles? >>
I don't have such a daughter for Susan. Can you tell us what your source
is?
Thanks
Will
-
Bob Turcott
RE: MI5 Persecution: Website Index (2211)
this forum is for medieval research, forum administrator be advised
of this non-medieval subject matter
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
of this non-medieval subject matter
From: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Website Index (2211)
Date: 18 Jan 2007 23:56:07 GMT
Persecuted by the Security Service
Since June 1990 the British security service MI5 has waged a campaign of
harassment against a UK citizen,
through the broadcast and print media, verbal abuse at work, and
molestation in public and during travel.
Despite widespread knowledge of the campaign in the UK and discussion of
its characteristics on Usenet for
over three years, it continues today both in Britain and North America. Its
cause and basis is xenophobia
on the basis of the genetic accident of mental illness, coupled with
discrimination against an inferior
"foreigner" whom they condemn as "not up to British Standards".
If this is your first visit to this site, please read the FAQ first. Feel
free to contact the author with
any questions.
Frequently Asked Questions article outlines the parameters of the
persecution. Who is involved, and why?
What technical and social means do they employ? What response have I made,
and why has their campaign yet
to be exposed?
The UK Security Services which are believed to be behind it all. Domestic
security is the province of MI5
while the secret intelligence service MI6 combats foes (and its former
employees) on foreign shores.
Usenet archive chronicling the (sometimes very enthusiastic) exchanges
which have taken place on UK-local
newsgroups since May 1995. Make your mark on the continuing discussion!
Believe it or not, a few items of evidence have been recorded. Although
none of them is particularly
conclusive, by presenting them I hope to explain what I understand from
some television and radio programmes.
Most of the "clinching" material was aired in 1990-92, and no recordings
exist now, which is quite unfortunate.
My complaints to the BBC and MI5 (via the Security Service Tribunal and
Interception of Communications Tribunal),
and their response to my challenges, are recorded here. Basically they deny
everything, they have put their
denials (mostly - Buerk and Lewis refused) in writing, and I don't believe
them. Part of the website also
documents media coverage of my campaign to expose the persecution.
Faxed articles to, and responses from British organisations including
Parliament and UK media. Over 24,259 faxes
in all were sent from 1998 to 2000. Their aim was to boot discussion of the
persecution into the public domain,
and that aim was not accomplished.
2211
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
-
dinska@myway.com
RE: MI5 Persecution: Website Index (2211)
Thanks for putting that FULL EMAIL in my mailbox again, after I had just blocked that addy. Which is what I would suggest you do.
--- On Fri 01/19, Bob Turcott < bobturcott@msn.com > wrote:
From: Bob Turcott [mailto: bobturcott@msn.com]
To: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:11:34 +0000
Subject: RE: MI5 Persecution: Website Index (2211)
this forum is for medieval research, forum administrator be advised<br>of this non-medieval subject matter ... blah ... blah
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
--- On Fri 01/19, Bob Turcott < bobturcott@msn.com > wrote:
From: Bob Turcott [mailto: bobturcott@msn.com]
To: MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:11:34 +0000
Subject: RE: MI5 Persecution: Website Index (2211)
this forum is for medieval research, forum administrator be advised<br>of this non-medieval subject matter ... blah ... blah
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Giles de Braose
Just to add some more information to the thread.
I have a reference which shows that Agnes, daughter of Nicholas de Moels was
still unmarried in March 1253.
Cal Pat Rolls Hen III Vol 4 p184
March 18
Grant to Nicholas de Molis that when a competent marriage falls to the king
to the use of Maud and Agnes, daughters of the said Nicholas, that the king
will marry them.
So we can forget the idea that Giles, her son, was born in 1250!
He was underage when the 1271 fine was made.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
I have a reference which shows that Agnes, daughter of Nicholas de Moels was
still unmarried in March 1253.
Cal Pat Rolls Hen III Vol 4 p184
March 18
Grant to Nicholas de Molis that when a competent marriage falls to the king
to the use of Maud and Agnes, daughters of the said Nicholas, that the king
will marry them.
So we can forget the idea that Giles, her son, was born in 1250!
He was underage when the 1271 fine was made.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
I can now report an authority who implies that Katherine (Crane) who married
Edmund Bacon and John Tate was *not* the daughter of that Robert Crane, Bart
of Chilton (in 1627) who married Susan Alington (on 21 Sep 1624)
The four co-heiresses are all accounted for
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00022-1">Crane Family in England, page 37</a>
Will Johnson
Edmund Bacon and John Tate was *not* the daughter of that Robert Crane, Bart
of Chilton (in 1627) who married Susan Alington (on 21 Sep 1624)
The four co-heiresses are all accounted for
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00022-1">Crane Family in England, page 37</a>
Will Johnson
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
RE: MI5 Persecution: Website Index (2211)
In message of 19 Jan, "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com> wrote:
This is not a forum, it is a newsgroup and has no administrator.
But I agree on the topic of the group.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
this forum is for medieval research, forum administrator be advised
of this non-medieval subject matter
This is not a forum, it is a newsgroup and has no administrator.
But I agree on the topic of the group.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
In a message dated 1/19/07 1:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< CB II, p. 15, sub CRANE, Barts., of Chilton, co. Suffolk >>
I can't find Complete Baronetage in my ancestry subscriptions and also I
don't find it in google books, so I can't see what your looking at.
Is it possible that what you read doesn't give the daughter a first name, but
only states that she married firstly Edmund Bacon and secondly John Tate?
Elizabeth Crane is said to have married Edmund Bacon, 4th Bart of Redgrave.
He died 12 Sep 1685 and she did not die until 6 Dec 1690 buried at Redgrave.
So it's possible that Elizabeth might have married secondly between 1685 and
1690 to this John Tate.
Will Johnson
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< CB II, p. 15, sub CRANE, Barts., of Chilton, co. Suffolk >>
I can't find Complete Baronetage in my ancestry subscriptions and also I
don't find it in google books, so I can't see what your looking at.
Is it possible that what you read doesn't give the daughter a first name, but
only states that she married firstly Edmund Bacon and secondly John Tate?
Elizabeth Crane is said to have married Edmund Bacon, 4th Bart of Redgrave.
He died 12 Sep 1685 and she did not die until 6 Dec 1690 buried at Redgrave.
So it's possible that Elizabeth might have married secondly between 1685 and
1690 to this John Tate.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
In a message dated 1/19/07 2:15:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
<< He was underage when the 1271 fine was made. >>
More than that, he was practically still in swaddling clothes. He could not
have been older than eight under this scenario. Were eight year olds allowed
to make fines and be enfeoffed, in seizen and then grant back ? Remembering
that all of this took place prior to the marriage to Mary de Ros which had to
occur by 1270.
That's interesting.... a 1271 fine and a pre 1271 marriage ? So... she
should have known that this fine occured? And yet she's sueing.
Doesn't sound right.
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
<< He was underage when the 1271 fine was made. >>
More than that, he was practically still in swaddling clothes. He could not
have been older than eight under this scenario. Were eight year olds allowed
to make fines and be enfeoffed, in seizen and then grant back ? Remembering
that all of this took place prior to the marriage to Mary de Ros which had to
occur by 1270.
That's interesting.... a 1271 fine and a pre 1271 marriage ? So... she
should have known that this fine occured? And yet she's sueing.
Doesn't sound right.
-
John Higgins
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
I can't access the URL you give below, but Don McArthur correctly cites CB
2:15 as listing Katherine (by name) as one of the 4 daughters and co-heirs
of Sir Robert Crane and Susan Alington. The confusion may arise because the
footnote in CB 2:15 lists only Katherine's first husband (perhaps the source
for your citation below), but this is corrected in CB 1:2 in the bio of her
1st husband Sir Edmund Bacon, and here her 2nd husband John Tate is clearly
mentioned.
[It's unfortunate that that your online facilities such as Google and
Ancestry don't have such standard references as CB, but there are still
institutions called "libraries" which do have these works - perhaps even one
in your area?
]
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <WJhonson@aol.com>; <donmac@netactive.co.za>; <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
001264-00022-1">Crane Family in England, page 37</a>
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
2:15 as listing Katherine (by name) as one of the 4 daughters and co-heirs
of Sir Robert Crane and Susan Alington. The confusion may arise because the
footnote in CB 2:15 lists only Katherine's first husband (perhaps the source
for your citation below), but this is corrected in CB 1:2 in the bio of her
1st husband Sir Edmund Bacon, and here her 2nd husband John Tate is clearly
mentioned.
[It's unfortunate that that your online facilities such as Google and
Ancestry don't have such standard references as CB, but there are still
institutions called "libraries" which do have these works - perhaps even one
in your area?
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <WJhonson@aol.com>; <donmac@netactive.co.za>; <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
I can now report an authority who implies that Katherine (Crane) who
married
Edmund Bacon and John Tate was *not* the daughter of that Robert Crane,
Bart
of Chilton (in 1627) who married Susan Alington (on 21 Sep 1624)
The four co-heiresses are all accounted for
a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono
001264-00022-1">Crane Family in England, page 37</a>
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
Dear Will
Complete Baronetage Volume II page 15
Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk, son of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn. quite a few details (but not when born) are given, and
then : he married 1stly 19 January 1606/7 at St.Anne's Blackfriars, London,
Dorothy 1st daughter of Sir Henry Hobart, 1st Baronet, Lord Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, by Dorothy, daughter of Sir Robert Bell. She, who was born
14 March 1591/2 died 11 and was buried 13 April 1624 at Chilton. He married
secondly 21 September 1624 at Chilton Susan, daughter of Sir Giles Alington,
of Horseheath, co. Cambridge, by Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl
of Exeter. He d.s.p.m. (a) in London, 17 February 1642/3 and was buried at
Chilton, aged 58, when the Baronetcy b ecame extinct. His widow married
Isaac Appleton,of Waldingfield Parva, co. Suffiolk. She was buried 14
September 1681 at Chilton. Her will dated 18 August 1676, pr. in Arch. Court
of Sudbury.
Footnote (a) Of his four daughters and co-heirs etc. here is not indicated
which wife was their mother.
Here the second daughter is called Jane who married first William Airmyne,
2nd Bart, and secondly John Belasyse, 1st Baron Belasyse of Worlaby. In
Genealogics Jane is recorded as Anne, daughter by Susan Alington, my source
is Complete Baronetage Volume I page 130 and partially CP II 89. I have the
first husband as Armyne and Jane/Anne has at least two daughters by her
first husband.
Daughter 3. Susan married to Sir Edward Walpole, and daughter 4.Katherine
married to Sir Edmund Baron, 4th Bart I presume are also by the second wife.
Daughter 1. is according to Genealogics also by the second wife, she is Mary
married Sir Ralph Hare, 1st Bart.
Then I spotted a weird anomaly. The fourth daughter in CB is called
Katherine, but I have her as Elizabeth (CB Volume I page 2; Burke's Peerage
1938 page 103), born 18 August 1634, died 6 December 1690 married (2ndly)
licence 10 January 1687 John Tate. I have found four daughters by the first
husband but none by John Tate.
Hope this helps a little.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <donmac@netactive.co.za>; <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
Complete Baronetage Volume II page 15
Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk, son of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn. quite a few details (but not when born) are given, and
then : he married 1stly 19 January 1606/7 at St.Anne's Blackfriars, London,
Dorothy 1st daughter of Sir Henry Hobart, 1st Baronet, Lord Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, by Dorothy, daughter of Sir Robert Bell. She, who was born
14 March 1591/2 died 11 and was buried 13 April 1624 at Chilton. He married
secondly 21 September 1624 at Chilton Susan, daughter of Sir Giles Alington,
of Horseheath, co. Cambridge, by Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl
of Exeter. He d.s.p.m. (a) in London, 17 February 1642/3 and was buried at
Chilton, aged 58, when the Baronetcy b ecame extinct. His widow married
Isaac Appleton,of Waldingfield Parva, co. Suffiolk. She was buried 14
September 1681 at Chilton. Her will dated 18 August 1676, pr. in Arch. Court
of Sudbury.
Footnote (a) Of his four daughters and co-heirs etc. here is not indicated
which wife was their mother.
Here the second daughter is called Jane who married first William Airmyne,
2nd Bart, and secondly John Belasyse, 1st Baron Belasyse of Worlaby. In
Genealogics Jane is recorded as Anne, daughter by Susan Alington, my source
is Complete Baronetage Volume I page 130 and partially CP II 89. I have the
first husband as Armyne and Jane/Anne has at least two daughters by her
first husband.
Daughter 3. Susan married to Sir Edward Walpole, and daughter 4.Katherine
married to Sir Edmund Baron, 4th Bart I presume are also by the second wife.
Daughter 1. is according to Genealogics also by the second wife, she is Mary
married Sir Ralph Hare, 1st Bart.
Then I spotted a weird anomaly. The fourth daughter in CB is called
Katherine, but I have her as Elizabeth (CB Volume I page 2; Burke's Peerage
1938 page 103), born 18 August 1634, died 6 December 1690 married (2ndly)
licence 10 January 1687 John Tate. I have found four daughters by the first
husband but none by John Tate.
Hope this helps a little.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <donmac@netactive.co.za>; <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 1:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
CB II, p. 15, sub CRANE, Barts., of Chilton, co. Suffolk
I can't find Complete Baronetage in my ancestry subscriptions and also I
don't find it in google books, so I can't see what your looking at.
Is it possible that what you read doesn't give the daughter a first name,
but
only states that she married firstly Edmund Bacon and secondly John Tate?
Elizabeth Crane is said to have married Edmund Bacon, 4th Bart of
Redgrave.
He died 12 Sep 1685 and she did not die until 6 Dec 1690 buried at
Redgrave.
So it's possible that Elizabeth might have married secondly between 1685
and
1690 to this John Tate.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
John Higgins
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
Leo quickly noted that CB 2 calls the wife of Sir Edmund Bacon Katherine
Crane, while CB 1 calls her Elizabeth. I can't explain this discrepancy,
since the references are almost certainly to the same woman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Crane, while CB 1 calls her Elizabeth. I can't explain this discrepancy,
since the references are almost certainly to the same woman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
I can't access the URL you give below, but Don McArthur correctly cites CB
2:15 as listing Katherine (by name) as one of the 4 daughters and co-heirs
of Sir Robert Crane and Susan Alington. The confusion may arise because
the
footnote in CB 2:15 lists only Katherine's first husband (perhaps the
source
for your citation below), but this is corrected in CB 1:2 in the bio of
her
1st husband Sir Edmund Bacon, and here her 2nd husband John Tate is
clearly
mentioned.
[It's unfortunate that that your online facilities such as Google and
Ancestry don't have such standard references as CB, but there are still
institutions called "libraries" which do have these works - perhaps even
one
in your area?]
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <WJhonson@aol.com>; <donmac@netactive.co.za>;
royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
I can now report an authority who implies that Katherine (Crane) who
married
Edmund Bacon and John Tate was *not* the daughter of that Robert Crane,
Bart
of Chilton (in 1627) who married Susan Alington (on 21 Sep 1624)
The four co-heiresses are all accounted for
a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono
001264-00022-1">Crane Family in England, page 37</a
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Don McArthur
RE: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
Will,
CB I, p. 2, sub BACON states Edmund, 4th Bt. m Elizabeth, 4th dau & coh of
Sir Robt CRANE, adding that she was b 18 Aug 1634.
However CB II, p. 15, note (a) sub CRANE has the 4th dau & coh as Katherine,
the others being Mary, Jane & Susan.
I'm assuming that the later Volume will be more likely to be correct.
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 01:48 AM
To: donmac@netactive.co.za; royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil
ofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 1:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< CB II, p. 15, sub CRANE, Barts., of Chilton, co. Suffolk >>
I can't find Complete Baronetage in my ancestry subscriptions and also I
don't find it in google books, so I can't see what your looking at.
Is it possible that what you read doesn't give the daughter a first name,
but
only states that she married firstly Edmund Bacon and secondly John Tate?
Elizabeth Crane is said to have married Edmund Bacon, 4th Bart of Redgrave.
He died 12 Sep 1685 and she did not die until 6 Dec 1690 buried at Redgrave.
So it's possible that Elizabeth might have married secondly between 1685 and
1690 to this John Tate.
Will Johnson
CB I, p. 2, sub BACON states Edmund, 4th Bt. m Elizabeth, 4th dau & coh of
Sir Robt CRANE, adding that she was b 18 Aug 1634.
However CB II, p. 15, note (a) sub CRANE has the 4th dau & coh as Katherine,
the others being Mary, Jane & Susan.
I'm assuming that the later Volume will be more likely to be correct.
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 01:48 AM
To: donmac@netactive.co.za; royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil
ofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 1:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< CB II, p. 15, sub CRANE, Barts., of Chilton, co. Suffolk >>
I can't find Complete Baronetage in my ancestry subscriptions and also I
don't find it in google books, so I can't see what your looking at.
Is it possible that what you read doesn't give the daughter a first name,
but
only states that she married firstly Edmund Bacon and secondly John Tate?
Elizabeth Crane is said to have married Edmund Bacon, 4th Bart of Redgrave.
He died 12 Sep 1685 and she did not die until 6 Dec 1690 buried at Redgrave.
So it's possible that Elizabeth might have married secondly between 1685 and
1690 to this John Tate.
Will Johnson
-
John Higgins
Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
See notes below....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
FWIW, Marshall cites Gage's "History of Hengrave", p. 85; Page's "History of
Suffolk", p. 842, and Gage's "History of Thingoe Hundred", p. 126, among the
most likely of many citations for Heath or Hethe or De Hethe.
[snip]
Whitmore cites Copinger 3:213, 5:345, and 7:99 for Hethe.
Although this daughter doesn't lead to gateway ancestors, Richardson made a
point of expanding beyond Faris by attempting to including all children of
the couples for whom he provides biographies, not just those who lead to
gateways. So the omission is still curious - a lapse in research.
And, although he cites at least one of the Stapleton sources I mentioned
(Chetwynd-Stapylton) in the bibliographies of both RPA and MCA, he chose to
omit the daughter Anne who is clearly mentioned there.
Thanks for this further citation - every little bit helps....
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)
Dear John,
Comments interspersed.
John Higgins wrote:
My sources on the Stapletons are admittedly not the greatest, and I
would be
grateful for better information. I have not pursued the Heath/Hethe
connection at all, except to note that Marshall and Whitaker include
references for the family (under both variations of the name as well as
De
Hethe), and I will add these to my research list. However, Paul Reed's
caveat on previously published information on this family is worth
noting
again.
I'll contact Paul and see if he ever wrote his follow-up article on the
Hethes and Beredewells. Hopefully, he can at least point us to some
sources for them.
FWIW, Marshall cites Gage's "History of Hengrave", p. 85; Page's "History of
Suffolk", p. 842, and Gage's "History of Thingoe Hundred", p. 126, among the
most likely of many citations for Heath or Hethe or De Hethe.
[snip]
The first of these says Thomas Heath [sic] was "of Hengrave" while the
second doesn't mention a locality for him. I have separately seen
references to a Heath family of Mildenhall, Suffolk, including a
Thomas -
possibly the same or a related family?
It's a start, but *sigh* of course it has to be Suffolk, with no VCH
series. I guess start with Copinger.
Whitmore cites Copinger 3:213, 5:345, and 7:99 for Hethe.
It's curious that both RPA/PA3 and MCA omit Anne Stapleton [Heath] as a
daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton and Cecily Bardolf, espicially since you
note that she is mentioned in her father's will [with her husband's
name??].
It's not so curious. I was incorrect in my post last night - Anne
Stapleton Hethe is not an ancestress of gateway immigrant John
Harleston of South Carolina (d. 1738). He is descended instead from
Robert Harleston, younger brother of John Harleston III who married
Margery Beredewell, as Paul Reed's article makes clear. So that
explains why the Stapleton/Hethe/Berdewell/Harleston line doesn't
appear in PA3.
Although this daughter doesn't lead to gateway ancestors, Richardson made a
point of expanding beyond Faris by attempting to including all children of
the couples for whom he provides biographies, not just those who lead to
gateways. So the omission is still curious - a lapse in research.
But Douglas also omits the daughter Anne Stapleton Hethe from his
potted biography of Cecily Bardolf and Sir Brian Stapleton (PA3, p.
57). A look at the sources he used explains why:
1) 'Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-4' (H.S.P. 16, 1881) - this is the
less authentic verrsion I've discussed in an earlier post.
2) 'Visitation of Norfolk 1563 & 1613' (H.S.P. 32, 1891)
3) 'Complete Peerage' vol. 5 (chart, sub Fitzalan) & vol. 7 (sub
Ingham)
4) 'Baronage of England' by G. Paget vol. 24 (1957, sub Bardolf)
5) 'Register of Robert Hallum Bishop of Salisbury 1407-17' (1982)
6) 'NEHGR' Vol. 148 (1994)
So for a man who lately has been chiding everyone on the newsgroup
about relying on secondary sources, he relies on Visitation pedigrees
from the mid-16th century (for a couple who lived at the beginning of
the 15th), modern peerage works, and a 1994 article (which I haven't
seen) all of which are secondary. The only primary source he cites is
the bishop's register (I haven't seen it and don't know what
information it provides).
And, although he cites at least one of the Stapleton sources I mentioned
(Chetwynd-Stapylton) in the bibliographies of both RPA and MCA, he chose to
omit the daughter Anne who is clearly mentioned there.
The will of Sir Brian Stapleton (d. 1438) was transcribed by Henry
Harrod in his article 'Extracts From Early Wills in the Norwich
Registries' in 'Norfolk Archaelogy' Vol. 4 (1875), pp. 327-329. It's
curious Douglas never bothered to track it down, since he mentions in
his potted biography that Sir Brian "died testate". The relevant
extract regarding Sir Brian's daughter is:
"...and evmor upon condycyon yt if those sumes of mony wheche be to pay
unto Thoms Heth for the maryage sylver of Anne, my doghter, that now is
hys wyff".
Harrod doesn't identify Thomas Hethe any further, but Rev. James
Lee-Warner in his article 'The Stapletons of Ingham' in 'Norfolk
Archaeology' vol. 8 (1879), pp. 183-221, identifies him further as
"Thomas Heath of Hengrave", and there I was stuck, until your post
yesterday.
Thanks for this further citation - every little bit helps....
Thanks again and Cheers, ----------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
In a message dated 1/19/07 4:17:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< but this is corrected in CB 1:2 in the bio of her
1st husband Sir Edmund Bacon, and here her 2nd husband John Tate is clearly
mentioned. >>
Thank you John for looking that up.
John Tate who was the Recorder of London died unmarried according to Le Neve,
so it seems like that above John and this John are two seperate persons.
Will
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< but this is corrected in CB 1:2 in the bio of her
1st husband Sir Edmund Bacon, and here her 2nd husband John Tate is clearly
mentioned. >>
Thank you John for looking that up.
John Tate who was the Recorder of London died unmarried according to Le Neve,
so it seems like that above John and this John are two seperate persons.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
In a message dated 1/19/07 4:23:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk, son
of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn. >>
That's odd, evidently they didn't read the will of this elder Robert who
states very clearly that his *son* Henry has died and his estate is bequethed to
his *grandson* Robert Crane "then aged about 3". Furthermore he mentions the
widow Catherine of his son Henry. He then goes into details about which of his
manors will be held by which of his daughters *in trust* for their nephew
Robert who will eventually inherit it all when he comes of age.
Henry Crane married Catherine Jerningham called "third daughter" of Thomas
Jerningham of Somerleyton. I haven't looked into this further but it would nice
to place this Thomas within that family in a specific way.
I do not know if Henry Crane and Catherine had more children than Robert the
heir. This Robert married first to Dorothy Hobart on 19 Jan 1606/7, she was
the daughter of Henry "Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas" and secondly
Robert married to Susan Alington on 21 Sep 1624
With his first wife they were without issue, but with his second they had
"ten children alltogether"
By the way Catherine Jerningham is called the "widow of Sir Wymond Carew" of
Snettisham, Norfolk. He was knighted in 1546. He is another one I'd like to
figure out where he fits in the Carew (or perhaps Crewe) family.
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk, son
of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn. >>
That's odd, evidently they didn't read the will of this elder Robert who
states very clearly that his *son* Henry has died and his estate is bequethed to
his *grandson* Robert Crane "then aged about 3". Furthermore he mentions the
widow Catherine of his son Henry. He then goes into details about which of his
manors will be held by which of his daughters *in trust* for their nephew
Robert who will eventually inherit it all when he comes of age.
Henry Crane married Catherine Jerningham called "third daughter" of Thomas
Jerningham of Somerleyton. I haven't looked into this further but it would nice
to place this Thomas within that family in a specific way.
I do not know if Henry Crane and Catherine had more children than Robert the
heir. This Robert married first to Dorothy Hobart on 19 Jan 1606/7, she was
the daughter of Henry "Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas" and secondly
Robert married to Susan Alington on 21 Sep 1624
With his first wife they were without issue, but with his second they had
"ten children alltogether"
By the way Catherine Jerningham is called the "widow of Sir Wymond Carew" of
Snettisham, Norfolk. He was knighted in 1546. He is another one I'd like to
figure out where he fits in the Carew (or perhaps Crewe) family.
Will
-
John Higgins
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
CB appears to be wrong in saying that Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet, was son
rather than grandson of Robert Crane and Bridget Jermyn. The 1561
Visitation of Suffolk, in an excellent 1981 edition edited by Joan Corder,
also cites the elder Robert's will with its references to Henry the son,
Robert the grandson, and Catherine Jernegan the mother of Robert the
younger. Corder adds an interesting but cryptic note that Henry's son may
have been either illegitimate or posthumous - which may explain the error in
CB of overlooking Henry.
FYI, the Corder edition of the 1561 visitation also gives a good account of
the family of Jernegan/Jerningham.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>; <donmac@netactive.co.za>;
<royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
rather than grandson of Robert Crane and Bridget Jermyn. The 1561
Visitation of Suffolk, in an excellent 1981 edition edited by Joan Corder,
also cites the elder Robert's will with its references to Henry the son,
Robert the grandson, and Catherine Jernegan the mother of Robert the
younger. Corder adds an interesting but cryptic note that Henry's son may
have been either illegitimate or posthumous - which may explain the error in
CB of overlooking Henry.
FYI, the Corder edition of the 1561 visitation also gives a good account of
the family of Jernegan/Jerningham.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>; <donmac@netactive.co.za>;
<royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Cc: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 4:23:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk,
son
of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget
daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn.
That's odd, evidently they didn't read the will of this elder Robert who
states very clearly that his *son* Henry has died and his estate is
bequethed to
his *grandson* Robert Crane "then aged about 3". Furthermore he mentions
the
widow Catherine of his son Henry. He then goes into details about which
of his
manors will be held by which of his daughters *in trust* for their nephew
Robert who will eventually inherit it all when he comes of age.
Henry Crane married Catherine Jerningham called "third daughter" of Thomas
Jerningham of Somerleyton. I haven't looked into this further but it
would nice
to place this Thomas within that family in a specific way.
I do not know if Henry Crane and Catherine had more children than Robert
the
heir. This Robert married first to Dorothy Hobart on 19 Jan 1606/7, she
was
the daughter of Henry "Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas" and
secondly
Robert married to Susan Alington on 21 Sep 1624
With his first wife they were without issue, but with his second they had
"ten children alltogether"
By the way Catherine Jerningham is called the "widow of Sir Wymond Carew"
of
Snettisham, Norfolk. He was knighted in 1546. He is another one I'd like
to
figure out where he fits in the Carew (or perhaps Crewe) family.
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
In a message dated 1/19/07 6:32:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< Corder adds an interesting but cryptic note that Henry's son may
have been either illegitimate or posthumous - which may explain the error in
CB of overlooking Henry. >>
Ha!
No doubt with a *nephew* only 3 years old, the *aunts* and their families had
a number of years to enjoy the manors in trust. After 18 years, they
probably didn't want to give up what they had. I'm sure there were a few vested
interests in trying to have him declared illegitimate
Will
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< Corder adds an interesting but cryptic note that Henry's son may
have been either illegitimate or posthumous - which may explain the error in
CB of overlooking Henry. >>
Ha!
No doubt with a *nephew* only 3 years old, the *aunts* and their families had
a number of years to enjoy the manors in trust. After 18 years, they
probably didn't want to give up what they had. I'm sure there were a few vested
interests in trying to have him declared illegitimate
Will
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Giles de Braose
Dear Doug,
Thanks for your note, and that find. This makes for a reasonable
solution to the apparent problem [resolving the medieval rights of
minors aside], and should save you a bit of time on the timeline
issue.....!
I had record of the daughter Maud from before: she was the wife
of Richard de Urtiaco [Sanders, English Baronies], and though I had no
marriage date previously, the fine you cite obviously provides a
terminus on one end at least.
Cheers,
John
Doug Thompson wrote:
Thanks for your note, and that find. This makes for a reasonable
solution to the apparent problem [resolving the medieval rights of
minors aside], and should save you a bit of time on the timeline
issue.....!
I had record of the daughter Maud from before: she was the wife
of Richard de Urtiaco [Sanders, English Baronies], and though I had no
marriage date previously, the fine you cite obviously provides a
terminus on one end at least.
Cheers,
John
Doug Thompson wrote:
Just to add some more information to the thread.
I have a reference which shows that Agnes, daughter of Nicholas de Moels was
still unmarried in March 1253.
Cal Pat Rolls Hen III Vol 4 p184
March 18
Grant to Nicholas de Molis that when a competent marriage falls to the king
to the use of Maud and Agnes, daughters of the said Nicholas, that the king
will marry them.
So we can forget the idea that Giles, her son, was born in 1250!
He was underage when the 1271 fine was made.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Braose
In a message dated 1/19/07 5:03:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:
<< Thorganby was) had
married and had a son and heir William (d. bef 1 May 1326); that
Aline had died, and William had married Agnes de Moels ca. 1250
or shortly before, by whom he had a son Giles de Braose
(d. 1305), who was of full age in 1271; >>
William de Braose was "aged 46 in 1307"
Alice de Multon was yet living 1253/4- 1254/5 when she warranted, the proof
of the date being that the Treasurer sent the "transcript of the aforesaid
foot...with the seal" etc
Agnes de Moels was not yet married Mar 1253 when she appears unmarried in CPR
This all would imply that Aline died 1261/70, that Agnes married William
1262/70 and also died 1262/70
So that Giles was born also 1262/70. All has to occur prior to the marriage
to Mary de Ros "bef 1271"
Will Johnson
<< Thorganby was) had
married and had a son and heir William (d. bef 1 May 1326); that
Aline had died, and William had married Agnes de Moels ca. 1250
or shortly before, by whom he had a son Giles de Braose
(d. 1305), who was of full age in 1271; >>
William de Braose was "aged 46 in 1307"
Alice de Multon was yet living 1253/4- 1254/5 when she warranted, the proof
of the date being that the Treasurer sent the "transcript of the aforesaid
foot...with the seal" etc
Agnes de Moels was not yet married Mar 1253 when she appears unmarried in CPR
This all would imply that Aline died 1261/70, that Agnes married William
1262/70 and also died 1262/70
So that Giles was born also 1262/70. All has to occur prior to the marriage
to Mary de Ros "bef 1271"
Will Johnson
-
Don McArthur
RE: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
What date was the will?
Where does the info for Henry's wife come from? It seems odd that the
mother of someone b 1585 would be the widow of somebody else knighted in
1546 - sounds like a generation gone missing again!
Re JERNINGHAM, you will find the family in the Visitations for 1561 &
1664-6. Also in Copinger's Manors Vol IV, and there's something in Davy's
manuscripts in the British Library, to name a few. I do not know if they
appear in Muskett's work - very likely though.
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 03:52 AM
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au; donmac@netactive.co.za;
royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 4:23:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk, son
of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn. >>
That's odd, evidently they didn't read the will of this elder Robert who
states very clearly that his *son* Henry has died and his estate is
bequethed to
his *grandson* Robert Crane "then aged about 3". Furthermore he mentions
the
widow Catherine of his son Henry. He then goes into details about which of
his
manors will be held by which of his daughters *in trust* for their nephew
Robert who will eventually inherit it all when he comes of age.
Henry Crane married Catherine Jerningham called "third daughter" of Thomas
Jerningham of Somerleyton. I haven't looked into this further but it would
nice
to place this Thomas within that family in a specific way.
I do not know if Henry Crane and Catherine had more children than Robert the
heir. This Robert married first to Dorothy Hobart on 19 Jan 1606/7, she was
the daughter of Henry "Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas" and secondly
Robert married to Susan Alington on 21 Sep 1624
With his first wife they were without issue, but with his second they had
"ten children alltogether"
By the way Catherine Jerningham is called the "widow of Sir Wymond Carew" of
Snettisham, Norfolk. He was knighted in 1546. He is another one I'd like
to
figure out where he fits in the Carew (or perhaps Crewe) family.
Will
Where does the info for Henry's wife come from? It seems odd that the
mother of someone b 1585 would be the widow of somebody else knighted in
1546 - sounds like a generation gone missing again!
Re JERNINGHAM, you will find the family in the Visitations for 1561 &
1664-6. Also in Copinger's Manors Vol IV, and there's something in Davy's
manuscripts in the British Library, to name a few. I do not know if they
appear in Muskett's work - very likely though.
Regards,
Don McArthur.
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 20 January 2007 03:52 AM
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au; donmac@netactive.co.za;
royaldescent@hotmail.com
Cc: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy
CecilofHorseheath
In a message dated 1/19/07 4:23:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Sir Robert Crane, 1st Baronet (and only one) of Chilton, co. Suffolk, son
of
Robert Crane, of the same (who died 12 September 1591), by Bridget daughter
of Sir Thomas Jermyn. >>
That's odd, evidently they didn't read the will of this elder Robert who
states very clearly that his *son* Henry has died and his estate is
bequethed to
his *grandson* Robert Crane "then aged about 3". Furthermore he mentions
the
widow Catherine of his son Henry. He then goes into details about which of
his
manors will be held by which of his daughters *in trust* for their nephew
Robert who will eventually inherit it all when he comes of age.
Henry Crane married Catherine Jerningham called "third daughter" of Thomas
Jerningham of Somerleyton. I haven't looked into this further but it would
nice
to place this Thomas within that family in a specific way.
I do not know if Henry Crane and Catherine had more children than Robert the
heir. This Robert married first to Dorothy Hobart on 19 Jan 1606/7, she was
the daughter of Henry "Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas" and secondly
Robert married to Susan Alington on 21 Sep 1624
With his first wife they were without issue, but with his second they had
"ten children alltogether"
By the way Catherine Jerningham is called the "widow of Sir Wymond Carew" of
Snettisham, Norfolk. He was knighted in 1546. He is another one I'd like
to
figure out where he fits in the Carew (or perhaps Crewe) family.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
In a message dated 1/19/07 9:52:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< What date was the will? >>
I'll answer this one now, then I have to go home and eat
The will "was executed 7 Oct 1590" is how it's phrased.
You can look here for more details
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/browse/bookview.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00015-1">Crane Family in England, page 22</a>
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00020-0">Crane Family in England, page 32</a> where it states
"... by his will ... we learn he was born about 1508, the the death of his
wife Bridget had only recently occurred, as well as that of Henry, his only
son..."
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
<< What date was the will? >>
I'll answer this one now, then I have to go home and eat
The will "was executed 7 Oct 1590" is how it's phrased.
You can look here for more details
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/browse/bookview.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00015-1">Crane Family in England, page 22</a>
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00020-0">Crane Family in England, page 32</a> where it states
"... by his will ... we learn he was born about 1508, the the death of his
wife Bridget had only recently occurred, as well as that of Henry, his only
son..."
-
wjhonson
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof
For some reasons part of the URLs are folded
I'm posting this time from Google Groups so we'll see if it comes
through any better
The book is Crane, Ellery Bicknell,. Genealogy of the Crane family.
Worcester, Mass.: unknown, 1900.
For those of use who are able to find it in a library.
You can also check out worldcat
The URL to the Table of Contents is
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/Book ... dbid=11751
I believe this is the same book as this OCLC entry
http://worldcat.org/oclc/8892386
Be sure to enter your POSTAL CODE on this page, to see where the book
lives near you.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I'm posting this time from Google Groups so we'll see if it comes
through any better
The book is Crane, Ellery Bicknell,. Genealogy of the Crane family.
Worcester, Mass.: unknown, 1900.
For those of use who are able to find it in a library.
You can also check out worldcat
The URL to the Table of Contents is
http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/Book ... dbid=11751
I believe this is the same book as this OCLC entry
http://worldcat.org/oclc/8892386
Be sure to enter your POSTAL CODE on this page, to see where the book
lives near you.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/19/07 9:52:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
donmac@netactive.co.za writes:
What date was the will?
I'll answer this one now, then I have to go home and eat
The will "was executed 7 Oct 1590" is how it's phrased.
You can look here for more details
a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/browse/bookview.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00015-1">Crane Family in England, page 22</a
a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=11751&iid=dvm_GenMono001264-00020-0">Crane Family in England, page 32</a> where it states
"... by his will ... we learn he was born about 1508, the the death of his
wife Bridget had only recently occurred, as well as that of Henry, his only
son..."