Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jan 2007 10:40:27

In message of 20 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

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

Likewise her sister Maud was not yet married. But in CP X, 183 it says
that Maud's son Henry was born about 1252 as (note (f) on that page) he
was still a minor in ward to the king in Aug 1272 and was of age in
1275. So Maud was married c. 1251. So what about that entry in CPR? (CP
in IX, p. 4, note (g) gives only 1247-58 as the dates for that CPR.)

And if Maud was married c. 1251, what was Agnes? Wierd.

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"

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

Doug Thompson

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Doug Thompson » 20 jan 2007 12:09:52

On 20/1/07 09:40, in article 704c16a84e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk, "Tim
Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote:

But in CP X, 183 it says
that Maud's son Henry was born about 1252 as (note (f) on that page) he
was still a minor in ward to the king in Aug 1272 and was of age in
1275. So Maud was married c. 1251.

Sorry Tim, but your logic has gone wrong there. "still a minor in 1272"
implies born AFTER 1251 not before. "of age in 1275" implies born about
1254.

Both are consistent with the Patent Roll statement that Maud was unmarried
in 1253. (and looking for a marriage!)


Doug Thompson

--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecilof

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jan 2007 12:23:03

In message of 20 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

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.

For a starter of one, the 1620 Cornish visitation (edited by Vivian,
whose work is not above reproach) has two Wymonds (a) the son of John
Carew and Thomazin Holland of Antony and (b), his gt-grandson, the fifth
son of Richard Carew also of Antony, Cornwall. The former m. Martha
Dennis. Though there is no sign that either of these are the Wymond you
are looking for.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jan 2007 12:48:17

In message of 20 Jan, Doug Thompson <doug.thompson@virgin.net> wrote:

On 20/1/07 09:40, in article 704c16a84e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk, "Tim
Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote:

But in CP X, 183 it says
that Maud's son Henry was born about 1252 as (note (f) on that page)
he was still a minor in ward to the king in Aug 1272 and was of age
in 1275. So Maud was married c. 1251.

Sorry Tim, but your logic has gone wrong there. "still a minor in
1272" implies born AFTER 1251 not before. "of age in 1275" implies
born about 1254.

Not my logic: I was quoting CP who added about the 1275 that 'when he
had leave to pay his debts'; it does not say that he was actually of age
in 1275, only that he must have been of age by 1275. I included the
extra footnoted information as I could not fathom how CP had arrived at
Henry's birth of 'about 1252' and hence Maud's marriage of 1251.

Both are consistent with the Patent Roll statement that Maud was
unmarried in 1253. (and looking for a marriage!)

If we believe CP, Henry was born between 1251 and 1254. Assuming he was
the first born, and he certainly appears to be the first son, and the
usual interval for pregnancy this indicates that Maud was married
between 1250 and 1253. In the light of this I still think the reported
CPR entry about Maud and Agnes marriages looks weird, though I did
quote from CP that the range of dates for this CPR entry was 1247-58.

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

Doug Thompson

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Doug Thompson » 20 jan 2007 14:45:20

On 20/1/07 11:48, in article b00022a84e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk, "Tim
Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote:

Not my logic: I was quoting CP who added about the 1275 that 'when he
had leave to pay his debts'; it does not say that he was actually of age
in 1275, only that he must have been of age by 1275. I included the
extra footnoted information as I could not fathom how CP had arrived at
Henry's birth of 'about 1252' and hence Maud's marriage of 1251.

Both are consistent with the Patent Roll statement that Maud was
unmarried in 1253. (and looking for a marriage!)

If we believe CP, Henry was born between 1251 and 1254. Assuming he was
the first born, and he certainly appears to be the first son, and the
usual interval for pregnancy this indicates that Maud was married
between 1250 and 1253. In the light of this I still think the reported
CPR entry about Maud and Agnes marriages looks weird, though I did
quote from CP that the range of dates for this CPR entry was 1247-58.

CP's statements are OK. They use the words "about 1252" for the birth and
"about 1251" for the marriage. They were using the facts available.

If you include the evidence from the patent roll, the statements should now
read "born about 1254" and marriage "after 18 March 1253".

The individual items are dated in the roll. The date she was unmarried was
March 18 1253.

That leaves quite a lot of 1254 available for the birth of Henry.


Doug Thompson

--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jan 2007 15:34:45

In message of 20 Jan, Doug Thompson <doug.thompson@virgin.net> wrote:

On 20/1/07 11:48, in article b00022a84e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk, "Tim
Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote:

Not my logic: I was quoting CP who added about the 1275 that 'when he
had leave to pay his debts'; it does not say that he was actually of age
in 1275, only that he must have been of age by 1275. I included the
extra footnoted information as I could not fathom how CP had arrived at
Henry's birth of 'about 1252' and hence Maud's marriage of 1251.

Both are consistent with the Patent Roll statement that Maud was
unmarried in 1253. (and looking for a marriage!)

If we believe CP, Henry was born between 1251 and 1254. Assuming he was
the first born, and he certainly appears to be the first son, and the
usual interval for pregnancy this indicates that Maud was married
between 1250 and 1253. In the light of this I still think the reported
CPR entry about Maud and Agnes marriages looks weird, though I did
quote from CP that the range of dates for this CPR entry was 1247-58.

CP's statements are OK. They use the words "about 1252" for the birth and
"about 1251" for the marriage. They were using the facts available.

If you include the evidence from the patent roll, the statements should now
read "born about 1254" and marriage "after 18 March 1253".

The individual items are dated in the roll. The date she was unmarried was
March 18 1253.

That leaves quite a lot of 1254 available for the birth of Henry.

Thanks: that establishes that a report needs to be made to Chris
Phillips for his CP Corrections site.

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

Gjest

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jan 2007 18:16:02

In a message dated 1/20/2007 1:46:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

Agnes de Moels was not yet married Mar 1253 when she appears unmarried
in CPR

Likewise her sister Maud was not yet married. But in CP X, 183 it says
that Maud's son Henry was born about 1252 as (note (f) on that page) he
was still a minor in ward to the king in Aug 1272 and was of age in
1275. So Maud was married c. 1251. So what about that entry in CPR? (CP
in IX, p. 4, note (g) gives only 1247-58 as the dates for that CPR.)


Well could we say that Maud was married "shortly after Mar 1253". (Is that
1253/4 or 1252/3 ?) And then Henry came "rapidly" thereafter. So CP is off
just a bit.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Agnes Sorel mysteries

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 20 jan 2007 18:25:16

Hello Leo,

I've observed other such variations in French surnames. My view is that
"Sorel" is likely merely a variant of "Soreau" (or even vice versa,
depending on your point of reference.) This looseness about precision in
surname orthography is of course not limited to medieval France. One
observes it in other venues - 17th century French Canada, not to mention
medieval and early modern Britain, etc.

I wonder if Agnes Sorel's fame might have prompted a certain "poetic
pronunciation", as well. To my ear, "Sorel" is more euphonious than
"Soreau". Just my opinion!

Best wishes,

Tony


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

Brad Verity

Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 20 jan 2007 18:28:09

Don McArthur wrote:


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?

Dear Don,

I don't know. Unfortunately, I don't have any further information on
the Tates. Chronologically, however, Sir John Tate, recorder of
London, could have been the John Tate who married Katherine Crane,
though it would be a case of first cousins marrying.

Le Neve does not seem to have been well-informed on the Tate pedigree,
but the fact that there were three Tate brothers with an Alington
mother comes through. So though Le Neve states that Sir John Tate died
unmarried, he may have been incorrect, especially if Sir John married
shortly before his and his wife's deaths, and they had no issue.

Cheers, ------Brad

conaught2

What is modern spelling of town of Lytle Kyrkyll and Brecky

Legg inn av conaught2 » 20 jan 2007 18:33:39

I have documents from a 1558 court case regarding George Dowdall Archbishop
of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. Possibly the town of Breckyll could
be the modern name for Breckles. In a list for English towns it has
Breckles and next to it Attleborough but Breckles is in Norfolk County.

Also mentioned in the document is Lytle Kyrkyll. I would imagine this would
be Little Kirkle or something similar but I can't find anything close to it.

Does anybody have a suggestion for the modern names. A man by the name of
Thomas Comerland had an inn in Breckyll.

Thank you,
Margaret Kristich

Brad Verity

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 20 jan 2007 18:52:20

Peter Stewart wrote:


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.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the reference above - I will track down that article.

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.

Yes, understood. Though I suppose one could argue that if Edmund were
elder than Edward I, Edmund's line takes precedence, whether through
male or female, over that of Edward I, whether through male or female.
Henry, earl of Derby, was the undisputed heir general of Edmund.
Mortimer was the rather-disputed heir general of Edward I, after King
Richard II. Henry was the undisputed heir male of Edward I, after King
Richard II and Gaunt, and also the undisputed heir male of Edmund,
after King Richard II and Gaunt, since the Lancaster male line failed
in 1361, and (if Edmund had been elder), the heir male then follows the
male line of the younger brother (Edward I).

The only way Henry wins over Mortimer, if heir general is allowed over
heir male, is to make Edmund older than Edward I.

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.

I agree completely that there is insufficient evidence to pin Gaunt as
the one behind the Crouchback legend, planting forged chronicles in
monasteries throughout the land. Gaunt, Derby and even Northumberland
(whose mother was a Lancaster, granddaughter of Edmund) were in a
position to know well enough that the myth that Edmund was older than
Edward I would never survive close or learned scrutiny.

But the legend did spring up, and it would have been the creation of
extremists among Lancaster circles, and have spread out into public
enough by late 1399 that Henry felt compelled to call a commission to
address it. No doubt the whole point was to get it out there as a
rumor, because as all good propaganda, once it's in circulation, it's
hard to kill it, no matter how much reason and hard evidence is
presented.

And I can see all three (Gaunt, Derby and Northumberland) not
personally using it, but not doing anything to stop it getting out into
circulation, either.

Cheers, ------Brad

Brad Verity

Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 20 jan 2007 19:05:08

John Higgins wrote:

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.

Whitmore cites Copinger 3:213, 5:345, and 7:99 for Hethe.

Dear John,

Thanks for the above references - I've added them to my list to track
down.

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.

I'd forgotten about that. Having looked at several lines in PA3 now in
some detail, it doesn't appear that Douglas spent much time at all on
the ones that were carryovers from Faris. Which is why I still refer
to the work as PA3 and not RPA, since there is still much that is Faris
throughout.

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.

Another example (as if we needed more) of him not reading carefully (if
at all) the sources he cites.

Thanks for this further citation - every little bit helps....

No problem. The will of Sir Miles Stapleton (d. 1419) is also
transcribed (in English) by Harrod in his 1875 article, while the will
of Sir Miles Stapleton (d. 1466) is transcribed in Latin by Lee-Warner
in the 1879 article.

Cheers, ------Brad

Brad Verity

Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 20 jan 2007 19:13:22

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

"...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 ?

I seem to vaguely recall a previous discussion on the newsgroup that we
can't put weight on the phrase "that now is" in medieval legal
documents to mean "recent", since that phrase in legal terms meant only
"currently".

It certainly implies she is yet living.

Yes, and that Thomas Hethe is living as well.

Was the will signed in 1438 ?

It's dated 4 May 16 Henry VI [1438].

Cheers, ---------Brad

Peter Stewart

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jan 2007 22:58:32

"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169315540.478600.113860@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:


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.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the reference above - I will track down that article.

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.

Yes, understood. Though I suppose one could argue that if Edmund were
elder than Edward I, Edmund's line takes precedence, whether through
male or female, over that of Edward I, whether through male or female.
Henry, earl of Derby, was the undisputed heir general of Edmund.
Mortimer was the rather-disputed heir general of Edward I, after King
Richard II. Henry was the undisputed heir male of Edward I, after King
Richard II and Gaunt, and also the undisputed heir male of Edmund,
after King Richard II and Gaunt, since the Lancaster male line failed
in 1361, and (if Edmund had been elder), the heir male then follows the
male line of the younger brother (Edward I).

The only way Henry wins over Mortimer, if heir general is allowed over
heir male, is to make Edmund older than Edward I.

Yes, but since there was no way to establish this very silly falsehood
against the record - certainly not by planting phoney records into some
monastic chronicles, even if we believe such a preposterous attempt was
made - the exchange of a principle of male inheritance, that might be
vindicated in time, for a cheap illusion, that would clearly not stand up to
the inevitable scrutiny & that necessitated abandoning the Lancastrians only
moral ground, could only be the ploy of a fool or a desperate man. John of
Gaunt shows no signs of having reached desperation - there is a great deal
else & far more sensible that he could have tried, but didn't, from his
position of power before sinking to this.

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.

I agree completely that there is insufficient evidence to pin Gaunt as
the one behind the Crouchback legend, planting forged chronicles in
monasteries throughout the land. Gaunt, Derby and even Northumberland
(whose mother was a Lancaster, granddaughter of Edmund) were in a
position to know well enough that the myth that Edmund was older than
Edward I would never survive close or learned scrutiny.

But the legend did spring up, and it would have been the creation of
extremists among Lancaster circles, and have spread out into public
enough by late 1399 that Henry felt compelled to call a commission to
address it. No doubt the whole point was to get it out there as a
rumor, because as all good propaganda, once it's in circulation, it's
hard to kill it, no matter how much reason and hard evidence is
presented.

And I can see all three (Gaunt, Derby and Northumberland) not
personally using it, but not doing anything to stop it getting out into
circulation, either.

It is certainly possible to interpret Henry IV's statement of claim to the
throne from being the rightful heir of Henry III as an appeal to the
Crouchback fiction. To me this has all the marks of an ad hoc argument from
Lancastrian zealots that took his fancy in September 1399, and that should
never have done so if his father had been alive to tell him the truth &
disuade him from relying on a counter-productive lie. The absence of any
trace of effort from the Mortimer side to discredit this nonsense suggests
that it had not lingered in official circles over years and was probably not
even widespread as a public rumour when it did come to notice.

By the way, Henry (aka Bolingbroke, Derby) did not call the commission of
September 1399 just to look into the Crouchback matter, that was incidental
in Adam of Usk's account: their chief business was to investigate the
apparent vacancy of the throne and the legitimate means to remedy this.

Peter Stewart

pj.evans

Re: Agnes Sorel mysteries

Legg inn av pj.evans » 20 jan 2007 23:05:31

My thought was that it was parallel to 'beau' and 'bel'. It's close
enough.


Tony Hoskins wrote:
Hello Leo,

I've observed other such variations in French surnames. My view is that
"Sorel" is likely merely a variant of "Soreau" (or even vice versa,
depending on your point of reference.) This looseness about precision in
surname orthography is of course not limited to medieval France. One
observes it in other venues - 17th century French Canada, not to mention
medieval and early modern Britain, etc.

I wonder if Agnes Sorel's fame might have prompted a certain "poetic
pronunciation", as well. To my ear, "Sorel" is more euphonious than
"Soreau". Just my opinion!

Best wishes,

Tony


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

Gjest

Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 01:31:02

Don't know if this ties up the above, but is perhaps of interest:



The Irish Genealogist
Vol 05 No 03 Nov 1976 p 312
3. Thomasine, [ac: 3rd dau of Robert Cusack (-1510x1530 of Co Meath by his
m1 to Alison d of Sir William Wellesley of Dangan, co Meath] who married
Christopher Dowdall and was mother of James, a favourite nephew of Sir Thomas
Cusack, [ac: Sir; Ld Chancellor; died 1571] who left him one of his best horses
and a silver cup in his will. Christopher is described as of Arolstown (recte
Arodstown), Co. Meath, which was Barnewall property, but he might have had a
lease of it, or of part of it. James Dowdall, the son, finished a
distin&shy;guished career with the post of Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and a
knighthood. {fn 56} In his will dated 12 March 1584 and proved 26 June
following, he specifically names his father as Christopher Dowdall. {fn 57} A
pedigree in T.C.D. also gives the marriage of Christopher and Thomasine and their
son.
{ fn 57 Elrington Ball, The Judges in Ireland, i, 210}; {fn 57 Betharn
Abstracts, Prerog. Wills, vol. 16} [ac: not sure what TCD is]
Adrian

Gjest

Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown (amended)

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 01:41:02

In a message dated 21/01/2007 00:29:00 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com writes: ...

Sorry, this continues on page 313



The Irish Genealogist
Vol 05 No 03 Nov 1976 p 312
3. Thomasine, [ac: 3rd dau of Robert Cusack (-1510x1530 of Co Meath by his
m1 to Alison d of Sir William Wellesley of Dangan, co Meath] who married
Christopher Dowdall and was mother of James, a favourite nephew of Sir
Thomas
Cusack, [ac: Sir; Ld Chancellor; died 1571] who left him one of his best
horses
and a silver cup in his will. Christopher is described as of Arolstown
(recte
Arodstown), Co. Meath, which was Barnewall property, but he might have had
a
lease of it, or of part of it. James Dowdall, the son, finished a
distin&shy;guished career with the post of Chief Justice of the Queen's
Bench and a
knighthood. {fn 56} In his will dated 12 March 1584 and proved 26 June
following, he specifically names his father as Christopher Dowdall. {fn 57}
A
pedigree in T.C.D. also gives the marriage of Christopher and Thomasine and
their
son James and his wife.{fn 58} The two wills and this pedigree effectively
dispose of the theory that James was an illegitimate son of George Dowdall,
Archbishop of Armagh; {fn 59} but he may have been a nephew, since his
grandfather and the Archbishop's father were named Edward and could well be the
same person.


{ fn 57 Elrington Ball, The Judges in Ireland, i, 210}; {fn 57 Betharn
Abstracts, Prerog. Wills, vol. 16} [ac: not sure what TCD is]
{fn 58 .C.D. MS. F4.18, f. 32.}
{fn 59 See Dowdall Deeds, p. xx, footnote 27 for this theory, but the editor
fails to take the two wills into consideration, draws untenable conclusions
from Deed 575, and ignores G.O. 45, the Visitation of Dublin, p. 24.}


Adrian

Gjest

Re: Hethe/Stapleton (Was Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661)

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 02:06:02

In a message dated 1/20/2007 10:16:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

"...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 ?

I seem to vaguely recall a previous discussion on the newsgroup that we
can't put weight on the phrase "that now is" in medieval legal
documents to mean "recent", since that phrase in legal terms meant only
"currently".


Thanks Brad but that wasn't quite my drift. What I was wondering is, can we
imply that she was recently married because her father is giving the
"marriage silver" in his will. A dowry? Would Thomas Hethe be expected to wait 10
or 20 years for that "marriage silver" ?

That was what I was noticing.
Thanks
Will

Tony Hoskins

Re: Agnes Sorel mysteries

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 21 jan 2007 02:13:56

"My thought was that it was parallel to 'beau' and 'bel'. It's close
enough."

Yes. But I think these variations are non-gender in origin. There is of
course the case of Queen Isabeau of France (nee of Bavaria-Ingolstadt) -
Isabeau being a variant of Isabelle.

Tony


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

Gjest

Re: What is modern spelling of town of Lytle Kyrkyll and Bre

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 02:18:16

conaught2 wrote:
I have documents from a 1558 court case regarding George Dowdall Archbishop
of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. Possibly the town of Breckyll could
be the modern name for Breckles. In a list for English towns it has
Breckles and next to it Attleborough but Breckles is in Norfolk County.

Also mentioned in the document is Lytle Kyrkyll. I would imagine this would
be Little Kirkle or something similar but I can't find anything close to it.

Does anybody have a suggestion for the modern names. A man by the name of
Thomas Comerland had an inn in Breckyll.

Brickhill? There are three towns/villages of this name on the
Bucks/Beds border. I don't know of any Kirkhills nearby, however.
Could you post the text of the documents, or provide a reference? It
is unusual for legal documents not to name the county. Is there a
reason to think that Attleborough is relevant?

Regards, Michael

conaught2

Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown (amended)

Legg inn av conaught2 » 21 jan 2007 09:33:04

Dear Adrian,

This particular Dowdall family you speak of is not related at this point to Captain John Dowdall's daughter. Captain Dowdall's daughter Honora in the 1600s marries Lawrence Dowdall of Monkstown, County Meath. The Monkstown Dowdalls were cousins of James Dowdall, Chief Justice of Ireland and Archbishop George Dowdall his uncle.

Thank you for your post. James Dowdall, Chief Justice of Ireland was definitely not the son of Archbishop George Dowdall. As you pointed out the editors of the Dowdall Deeds did not see the will you quoted. Also in CLAHJ (County Louth Archaeological Historical Journal) 1972, Vol XVII, No 4, Historian K.W. Nicholls points out that "Professor J. Otway-Ruthven had followed a corrupt pedigree in R.C.D. MS. F.4.18; in fact this was derived from a misreading of the rather illegible 16th century pedigree in T.C.D. MS. E.3.2 (p.145), which shows he is the son of the Primate's brother, Christopher." The Dowdall Deeds thought the pedigree stating that James Dowdall married Elizabeth Thunder and had one daughter Ellen who married John Barnewall of Brimore was incorrect. Several years ago I verified this information to be correct in the Tudor Fiants.

Tudor Irish FIANTS #230 under Mary and Philip
"Pardon to Oliver Mysset, of Athboye, County Meath, merchant, outlawed in a
suit for the recovery of £30 brought by John Kerdyff of Dublin,gent,. James
Dowdall of Cnocke, gent, Elizabeth Thonder, his wife, Patrick Lynce and
Christopher Lynce, executors of the will of Peter Lynce. 14 June, 1558"

While researching in Ireland this past summer I found that James Dowdall, Chief Justice of Ireland was Elizbaeth Thunder's second husband. James Dowdall was referred to as James Dowall of the Knoke (Knoc). The Knoc was the castle of Elizabeth Thunder's first husband, Peter Lynch. Many historians thought that the Knoc referred to in conncection with James Dowdall was in County Louth. I was quite pleased when I found the correct Knoc this past summer aka Summerhill or Lynch's Knoc, County Meath. I had hoped to locate the position of the Knoc, but unexpectedly found the remains of the castle as well as an ancient abbey next to the castle.

Unfortunately Archbishop George Dowdall's memory was blackened by the incorrect assumption that James Dowdall of the Knoc, Chief Justice of Ireland was his son. But then Professor J. Otway-Ruthven and Charles McNeill undertook a massive project in translating several hundred Dowdall family deeds dating from the mid 13th century to just prior to the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 (where England's ascendency war took place between James II and his son-in-law William of Orange.) They restricted the pedigrees to the County Louth Dowdall family and ignored the County Meath Dowdalls which were all one family and would have revealed the information about Christopher Dowdall. Christopher and Thomasina had a third son, Patrick who was an Alderman in Dublin. I recently found ship records from Dublin to Bristol in 1576 and the merchant was Patrick Dowdall of Dublin, this could be the same Patrick and brother to James Dowdall, Chief Justice and another nephew of Archbishop George Dowdall.

What is significant about he Dowdall Deeds is that in 1922 when the Four Courts was blown up during the Irish Civil War most of the records for Ireland were destroyed. The Irish government asked families if they had any personal papers to donate to help recreate missing parts of Irish history. Descendents of the Dowdalls and Peppards in England, generously donated their deeds. The Dowdall Deeds and the Peppard Deeds(not published in book form as the Dowdall Deeds) are the only two such collections in existence in Ireland.

Adrian, thank you for answering a question I have had for sometime, regarding the reference which told of Sir Thomas Cusack's "favorite nephew". It is not known for sure who Sir Thomas Cusack's father was. Sir Thomas Cusack was a cousin to Archbishop George Dowdall who was also James of the Knoc's uncle. SinceThomasina Cusack Dowdall, wife of Christopher Dowdall was the daughter of John Cusack of County Meath it looks as though he has to be Sir Thomas's father.

Thank you again for your excellent material, it has been very helpful.

Margaret



----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown (amended)


In a message dated 21/01/2007 00:29:00 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING02@aol.com writes: ...

Sorry, this continues on page 313



The Irish Genealogist
Vol 05 No 03 Nov 1976 p 312
3. Thomasine, [ac: 3rd dau of Robert Cusack (-1510x1530 of Co Meath by his
m1 to Alison d of Sir William Wellesley of Dangan, co Meath] who married
Christopher Dowdall and was mother of James, a favourite nephew of Sir
Thomas
Cusack, [ac: Sir; Ld Chancellor; died 1571] who left him one of his best
horses
and a silver cup in his will. Christopher is described as of Arolstown
(recte
Arodstown), Co. Meath, which was Barnewall property, but he might have had
a
lease of it, or of part of it. James Dowdall, the son, finished a
distin&shy;guished career with the post of Chief Justice of the Queen's
Bench and a
knighthood. {fn 56} In his will dated 12 March 1584 and proved 26 June
following, he specifically names his father as Christopher Dowdall. {fn 57}
A
pedigree in T.C.D. also gives the marriage of Christopher and Thomasine and
their
son James and his wife.{fn 58} The two wills and this pedigree effectively
dispose of the theory that James was an illegitimate son of George Dowdall,
Archbishop of Armagh; {fn 59} but he may have been a nephew, since his
grandfather and the Archbishop's father were named Edward and could well be the
same person.


{ fn 57 Elrington Ball, The Judges in Ireland, i, 210}; {fn 57 Betharn
Abstracts, Prerog. Wills, vol. 16} [ac: not sure what TCD is]
{fn 58 .C.D. MS. F4.18, f. 32.}
{fn 59 See Dowdall Deeds, p. xx, footnote 27 for this theory, but the editor
fails to take the two wills into consideration, draws untenable conclusions
from Deed 575, and ignores G.O. 45, the Visitation of Dublin, p. 24.}


Adrian






-------------------------------
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

Carl H. Jones

RE: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Carl H. Jones » 21 jan 2007 14:31:14

Peter,
I am I long way from fluent in Latin, but I was under the impression that
"Dominus" meant "Lord", and "Miles" meant "Knight". If this is correct, a
man could easily be both. In fact, I doubt very many medieval Lords lacked
knighthoods.
Am I totally off base on this???

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:46 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Dominus/miles


I can't recall if these questions have been asked before:

Could Douglas Richardson explain how he accounts for the occurrence in
English records of styles such as "Dominus N de N miles"?

Does this mean that N de N had been knighted twice over? Or that he was both
a knight and a priest, perhaps?

And should he always be referred to nowadays as Sir Sir N de N?

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: Crouchback

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 15:27:02

Dear Peter,
Wasn`t Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March the heir general
of King Edward III of England rather than King Edward I as his mother was
Philippa, Countess of UIster, only surviving child of Lionel, Duke of Clarence who
was Edward III`s 2nd eldest surviving son ?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

re: Richard de Brewes

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 15:31:03

Sunday, 21 January, 2007


Dear Paul, Doug, et al.,

Thanks for your post of 20 Jan, and to you and Doug for
making your article available via the Braose Web site.

While there are some elements of uncertainty as you note in
your post, and more extensively in the said article, I think you
are on firm ground for maintaining that Sir Richard de
Braose/Brewes, of Bramley, Surrey (later of Akenham, etc.) was
in fact the younger son of John de Braose (d. 1232) and Margaret
ferch Llywelyn, and younger brother of Sir William de Braose of
Bramber and Gower (d. bef 6 Jan 1290/1).

One particular uncertainty I noted of late: it appears it
could have been either the latter Sir William, or his son
William, who obtained custody of the lands of Roger de Colville
(husband of his niece Margaret de Braose). The grant dated at
Westminster, 8 May 1288 states (as transcribed):

' Grant, for a fine of 100l., to William de Breus of the
custody, during minority of the heirs, of the lands of Roger
de Colevile, tenant in chief as of the honor of Albemarle,
in Bytham, Estbytham, Westbytham and Careby, co. Lincoln,
saving dowers and inheritances, if any fall in during that
time, and the said William rendering to the Exchequer
83l. 16s. 3 1/4d., at which the said lands are extended.
By the earl and treasurer. By p.s.
Mandate in pursuance to the escheator. ' [1]

On this issue, you wrote (in part) that

' it is more probable than any other possible scenario
that the king granted to William de Brewosa the
guardianship of Edmund Coleville, who in turn granted
the guardianship to Richar de Brewosa, his brother,
and grandfather of Edmund Coleville. ' [2]

The possibility occurred to me that Sir Richard de Braose,
usually shown as d. before 1292, may in fact have already died
before this: as grandfather of the young heir, it seems most
unusual that his elder brother Sir William (let along possibly
Sir William's son and heir, William) would have 'stepped
in' in 1288, unless Richard were (1) dead, (2) incapacitated or
(3) financial unable to perform. As you noted, Margery (de
Braose) de Coleville sought a command in 1290 vs. Richard de
Brewes, guardian of Edmund de Coleville, so that she could
obtain her dower. This could conceivably have been her brother,
the younger Sir Richard de Braose (of Stradbrooke &c.)

While this would, if correct, modify the details somewhat,
it does not change the essence of the relationships as you
describe. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

Again, many thanks for an excellent treatment of a
complicated family (with, or without feud).

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] CPR 16 Edw I (1281-1292), mem. 13, p. 295.

[1] P. W. Mackenzie, Review of the Ancestry of Sir Richard
de Brewes, husband of Alice le Rus.


* John P. Ravilious

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jan 2007 18:22:47

Brad Verity a écrit :
Peter Stewart wrote:

As to evidence that it was not even considered understandable in the early
15th century, I have several times pointed out that Hardyng, the ONLY source
for this in English, felt the need to gloss "crouchback" as "croukeback" to
convey the misinterpretation.

This whole issue of the Crouchback legend and Henry IV vaguely claiming
the throne as 'the right line of the blood coming from the good Lord
Henry III', has been much discussed recently by historians. Nigel
Saul, 'Richard II' (Yale English Monarchs, 1997), pp. 419-420; as Peter
mentioned previously, Paul Strohm, 'England's Empty Throne: Usurpation
and the Language of Legitimation 1399-1422' (Yale, 1998), pp. 3-4; and
even more recently, John Ashdown-Hill, 'The Lancastrian Claim to the
Throne' in 'The Ricardian' Vol. XIII (2003), pp. 27-38, and T.P.J.
Edlin, 'The Crouchback Legend Revisited' in 'The Ricardian' Vol. XIV
(2004), pp. 95-105.

Edlin: "It would be interesting to know when the claim that Edmund
Crouchback was in fact the elder son of Henry III was first made. It
appears that this was considerably before the 1394 contention in
parliament, prior to which John Ashdown-Hill finds no trace of it.
Certainly K.B. McFarlane states that John of Gaunt was believed to have
circulated the story as early as 1377, and refers to it as the 'old
Lancastrian myth' without defining precisely how old [footnote: K.B.
McFarlane, 'Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights', Oxford 1972, pp.
34, 54.]."

As to the issue of whether 'Crouchback' was a nickname completely
invented for Edmund of Lancaster in the late 14th-century by John of
Gaunt's circle to complement their propaganda that he was passed over
because of infirmity, or that they corrupted an already-existing
nickname for Edmund, I agree with Peter in favor of the latter. If it
was a complete invention on the part of the Lancastrian circle in the
late 14th-century, certainly they could've come up with a much more
explicit and clever nickname like Edmund Smallmind, especially, as
Edlin points out (p. 97): "...Adam of Usk's account of the story states
that the claim was that Edmund was set aside on account of his
'imbecility' [footnote: See A. Tuck, 'Crown and Nobility: England
1272-1461', 2nd edn., Oxford 1999, pp. 192-93.]."

The myth was not taken seriously by the commission created in 1399
(Adam of Usk was on it), and Ashdown-Hill adds (p. 32), "and it does
indeed appear to have been without foundation, for in his chronicle
William de Rishanger, a contemporary of Edmund Crouchback, refers to
him as 'Dominus Edmundus, filius regis junior' [footnote: 'Lord Edmund,
the king's younger son', J.O. Halliwell, ed., 'The Chronicle of William
de Rishanger', London 1840, p. 118.]."

As to Douglas Richardson's new crusade to rehabilitate the reputation
of Edmund by insisting he not be called 'Crouchback' anymore, it is
another of his ploys to try and impress everyone with how familiar he
is with primary records. This, though, is the man who insists
'dominus' should be translated as 'sir' not 'lord'. The above
Rishanger quote nicely shows that Richardson having access to primary
sources does not make him an expert, and any posture he takes as an
authority is as much propaganda as the Crouchback legend itself.

Concerning the 1399 commision, did it deal with the English claim to
the French crown and, if it did, how did it managed to have it gone on
the same head that the English crown?

Pierre

Gjest

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 20:19:04

Peter Stewart asked how Douglas Richardson accounts for the occurrence in
English records of styles such as "Dominus N de N miles".
I suggest that Douglas (or Peter, or any other interested people) might
consult the Calendar of Patent Rolls for the answer. For instance CPR for 28 Hen
III. membrane 5d on page 443, available online in English translation by
courtesy of the University of Iowa, of which the original was I suppose written
in Latin, refers to:-
"Sir Philip Basset, knight, Sir Robert de Shotindon, Sirs Hubert de
Ruill[y], Robert de Leyham, knights".
Even if, as I imagine may turn out to be the case, the original Latin has
"dominus P.B. miles" etc, then I see no need to conclude that Sir Philip or his
fellows had been knighted twice.
As a matter of interest I searched for "dominus" on the Iowa CPR site, and
found only 493 references for all the reigns from Henry III to Henry VI. Of
these the overwhelming majority were referring to the king himself, or one of
his ancestors, in their capacity of Lords of Ireland. The others included
references to six popes, sundry archbishops, several bishops and a pair of
abbots. No peer however grand, let alone any mere knight, was ever referred to as
"dominus" , with the exception of one Frenchman. The only Chancellor so
described was also the bishop of Chichester. There are numerous references to
"miles", but very few of them are used in the sense of "knight", and none of the
people described as "miles" are also referred to as "dominus".
I thought to look for occurrences of "chivaler", which I take to be the
Norman French equivalent of "knight" but did not find that any of of the people
so described in 3293 entries were referred to otherwise than as "N de M,
chivaler".
More promising are the Rylands charters (Manchester University, John Rylands
Library (online reference RYCH). This archive refers to enormous numbers of
"milites" whose names are almost always, if not always, introduced by
"dominus".
Next I thought to check the Ingilby records in the West Yorkshire archives,
reference WYL 230. Many of these date back to the 14th century and beyond.
Here, as in many other archives of comparable antiquity, the references to
"Sir N de N, knight" are very frequent.
I suppose the archivists have (in my view rightly) translated these from the
original references to "Dominus N de N, miles"

So I think that the answers to Mr Stewart's further questions as to whether
such people had been twice knighted and whether they should be referred to
nowadays as " Sir Sir N de N" is, in both cases, NO. They should be referred
to as "Sir N de N, knight", as indeed they are today in the case of Knights
Bachelor.
MM- hoping I have beaten Douglas Richardson to the tape

Gjest

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 22:16:02

Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point. If Henry IV of England claimed
the English crown under Salic law, why did He maintain claim to the French
throne through the female line ? It makes no sense, yet if King Edward III of
England claimed the French crown by right of conquest ; King Jean II of Frence
was captured at the Battle of Poitiers (I think) and spent the remainder of
his days as the " honoured guest" of the English king, evidently having quite a
nice time. I wonder if They referred to him as " Your Majesty" or was "Your
Highness" or even " Your Grace" still in vogue for kingly address ? That had to
be strange for the heralds introducing " His Royal Majesty, Edward, King of
England and of France, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Count of Poitou, Anjou,
and Maine" immediately followed by" His Royal Majesty, Jean, King of France"
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jan 2007 22:22:21

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1935.1169407060.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Peter Stewart asked how Douglas Richardson accounts for the occurrence in
English records of styles such as "Dominus N de N miles".
I suggest that Douglas (or Peter, or any other interested people) might
consult the Calendar of Patent Rolls for the answer. For instance CPR for
28 Hen
III. membrane 5d on page 443, available online in English translation by
courtesy of the University of Iowa, of which the original was I suppose
written
in Latin, refers to:-
"Sir Philip Basset, knight, Sir Robert de Shotindon, Sirs Hubert de
Ruill[y], Robert de Leyham, knights".
Even if, as I imagine may turn out to be the case, the original Latin has
"dominus P.B. miles" etc, then I see no need to conclude that Sir Philip
or his
fellows had been knighted twice.
As a matter of interest I searched for "dominus" on the Iowa CPR site, and
found only 493 references for all the reigns from Henry III to Henry VI.
Of
these the overwhelming majority were referring to the king himself, or one
of
his ancestors, in their capacity of Lords of Ireland. The others included
references to six popes, sundry archbishops, several bishops and a pair of
abbots. No peer however grand, let alone any mere knight, was ever
referred to as
"dominus" , with the exception of one Frenchman. The only Chancellor so
described was also the bishop of Chichester. There are numerous references
to
"miles", but very few of them are used in the sense of "knight", and none
of the
people described as "miles" are also referred to as "dominus".
I thought to look for occurrences of "chivaler", which I take to be the
Norman French equivalent of "knight" but did not find that any of of the
people
so described in 3293 entries were referred to otherwise than as "N de M,
chivaler".
More promising are the Rylands charters (Manchester University, John
Rylands
Library (online reference RYCH). This archive refers to enormous numbers
of
"milites" whose names are almost always, if not always, introduced by
"dominus".
Next I thought to check the Ingilby records in the West Yorkshire
archives,
reference WYL 230. Many of these date back to the 14th century and beyond.
Here, as in many other archives of comparable antiquity, the references
to
"Sir N de N, knight" are very frequent.
I suppose the archivists have (in my view rightly) translated these from
the
original references to "Dominus N de N, miles"

So I think that the answers to Mr Stewart's further questions as to
whether
such people had been twice knighted and whether they should be referred
to
nowadays as " Sir Sir N de N" is, in both cases, NO. They should be
referred
to as "Sir N de N, knight", as indeed they are today in the case of
Knights
Bachelor.
MM- hoping I have beaten Douglas Richardson to the tape

Far from it, since you are not agreeing with him - according to Richardson,
"dominus" meant "Sir" indicating knighthood. By his view, in the form
"dominus N de N miles" either "cominus" or "miles" must be redundant IN THE
ORIGINAL text, no matter how archivists have chosen to translate this. Why
Sir N de N knight" rather than "N de N knighty knight", for instance?

NB For any who miss the point, that question is also not entirely servious.

Peter Stewart

In case you hadn't noticed, my questions were not serious.

Gjest

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jan 2007 22:25:03

In a message dated 1/20/07 5:51:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:

<< The individual items are dated in the roll. The date she was unmarried was
March 18 1253. >>

Is this March 18 1252/3 ?
Or is it March 18 1253/4 ?

Thanks
Will

Peter Stewart

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jan 2007 22:33:42

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1898.1169389537.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Peter,
Wasn`t Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March the heir general
of King Edward III of England rather than King Edward I as his mother was
Philippa, Countess of UIster, only surviving child of Lionel, Duke of
Clarence who
was Edward III`s 2nd eldest surviving son ?

I don't know where Edward I comes into this, but rather the issue revolved
around the appropriate line of descent for the crown from his father Henry
III or his grandson Edward III.

Henry IV announced himself to the elective assembly in 1399 as the "right"
heir of Henry III: this has been interpreted as relying on the Crouchback
legend, the obvious implication, or alternatively as simply reminding them
of the last king named Henry, that seems a weak & strained explanation to
me. Maybe other motives have also been suggested, I am going only by memory
about this and can't think of any.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jan 2007 22:37:17

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1940.1169414042.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point. If Henry IV of England
claimed
the English crown under Salic law, why did He maintain claim to the French
throne through the female line ? It makes no sense, yet if King Edward III
of
England claimed the French crown by right of conquest ; King Jean II of
Frence
was captured at the Battle of Poitiers (I think) and spent the remainder
of
his days as the " honoured guest" of the English king, evidently having
quite a
nice time. I wonder if They referred to him as " Your Majesty" or was
"Your
Highness" or even " Your Grace" still in vogue for kingly address ? That
had to
be strange for the heralds introducing " His Royal Majesty, Edward, King
of
England and of France, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Count of Poitou,
Anjou,
and Maine" immediately followed by" His Royal Majesty, Jean, King of
France"

Well, apart from the anachronistic styles here, James II maintained this
claim to the French crown while he was a refugee in France and guest of
Louis XIV.

Peter Stewart

Doug Thompson

Re: Giles de Braose

Legg inn av Doug Thompson » 21 jan 2007 22:50:20

It's March 18 1252/3. The calendars are written using modern dating.

Doug

On 21/1/07 21:23, "WJhonson@aol.com" <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 1/20/07 5:51:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:

The individual items are dated in the roll. The date she was unmarried was
March 18 1253.

Is this March 18 1252/3 ?
Or is it March 18 1253/4 ?

Thanks
Will

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 21 jan 2007 23:04:14

In my experience in looking at original charters and at transcriptions,
a "miles" does not have to be a "dominus" nor does a "dominus" have to
be a "miles". The two statuses are quite distinct. "Dominus" means a
Lord, ie it is a land, wealth and social status, while "miles" refers
to one who has been dubbed a knight, a chivalric status. Of course
there is an overwhelming crossover between the two, but they are
nevertheless distinct.

Also, of course, priests were known as Dom, as indeed they still are in
the Catholic Church, but this was an ecclesiastical title and so not
comparable.

Peter Stewart

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jan 2007 23:41:31

Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
In my experience in looking at original charters and at transcriptions,
a "miles" does not have to be a "dominus" nor does a "dominus" have to
be a "miles". The two statuses are quite distinct. "Dominus" means a
Lord, ie it is a land, wealth and social status, while "miles" refers
to one who has been dubbed a knight, a chivalric status. Of course
there is an overwhelming crossover between the two, but they are
nevertheless distinct.

Also, of course, priests were known as Dom, as indeed they still are in
the Catholic Church, but this was an ecclesiastical title and so not
comparable.

This is very sensible, Alex.

Richardson doesn't agree, since he considers that "dominus" indicates
knighthood except in the case of priests (at least I assume he doesn't
think that a pope called "dominus" might have been an English knight).

The translation "Sir N de N knight" is only a rough approximation to
the meaning of "dominus N de N miles", to avoid using "Lord N de N
knight" when the individual may not have been a lord as such. A better
idea of the original meaning for non-lords would be given, at the cost
of more ink, by something like "the honourable Sir N de N".

Peter Stewart

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jan 2007 23:41:56

Jwc1870@aol.com a écrit :
Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point. If Henry IV of England claimed
the English crown under Salic law, why did He maintain claim to the French
throne through the female line ? It makes no sense, yet if King Edward III of
England claimed the French crown by right of conquest ; King Jean II of Frence
was captured at the Battle of Poitiers (I think) and spent the remainder of
his days as the " honoured guest" of the English king,

No, he did not: he was freed, then came back.

evidently having quite a
nice time. I wonder if They referred to him as " Your Majesty" or was "Your
Highness" or even " Your Grace" still in vogue for kingly address ? That had to
be strange for the heralds introducing " His Royal Majesty, Edward, King of
England and of France,

of France and England you mean!

Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine

Normandy is a complex case but was no more part of the standard royal
style although Edward III used it erratically for specific purposes. He
had definitely dropped "duke of Aquitaine" when assuming the style of
King of France, which was logical. He assumed "lord of Aquitaine" only
when he renounced his claim to the French crown (since, by the treaty
concluded then, the King of France was supposed to have renounced his
sovereignty on Aquitaine, as Edward was supposed to have renounced his
claim to France).

, Count of Poitou, Anjou,
and Maine"

Titles never claimed or used by Edward or his successors (all had been
renounced by Henry III).

immediately followed by" His Royal Majesty, Jean, King of France"

Of course all that in French and not in English. :)

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jan 2007 23:49:20

Peter Stewart a écrit :
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1940.1169414042.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point. If Henry IV of England
claimed
the English crown under Salic law, why did He maintain claim to the French
throne through the female line ? It makes no sense, yet if King Edward III
of
England claimed the French crown by right of conquest ; King Jean II of
Frence
was captured at the Battle of Poitiers (I think) and spent the remainder
of
his days as the " honoured guest" of the English king, evidently having
quite a
nice time. I wonder if They referred to him as " Your Majesty" or was
"Your
Highness" or even " Your Grace" still in vogue for kingly address ? That
had to
be strange for the heralds introducing " His Royal Majesty, Edward, King
of
England and of France, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, Count of Poitou,
Anjou,
and Maine" immediately followed by" His Royal Majesty, Jean, King of
France"

Well, apart from the anachronistic styles here, James II maintained this
claim to the French crown while he was a refugee in France and guest of
Louis XIV.


Who was probably more amused than worried.

There was some problems however for receptions of ambassadors or in
other occasions when leter patent had to be read publicly: the parts
with the potentially offensive titles were omitted. The same was true
for the relation with Spain, including when the own grandson of Louis
XIV had become its king: his official style contained claims to some
French fiefs whose the Sun King considered to have merged in the crown
(including the title of Duke of Burgundy, whose actual holder in France
was the own brother of the new King of Spain).

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jan 2007 23:54:23

Jwc1870@aol.com a écrit :

Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point.

Actually, I didn't want to make a point but was asking a real question.
Edward III's claim to the French crown supposes a rather acrobatic set
of rules of succession governing that crown, and the chaotic English
dynastic history in the following centuries makes even more
hypothetical a jointed succession to both crowns. So I often wondered
if any of his successors even bothered about that when pushing his
claim to the throne of France, or if it was made empirically, without
looking for a logical justification.

Pierre

Douglas Richardson

The many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 jan 2007 00:44:28

Dear Michael ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

As a followup to your erudite comments, I find that the Latin word
"dominus" meant different things in the medieval period, depending on
the context it was used: (1) Lord (as in king or archbishop), (2) Sir
(as in a knight), (3) Sir (as in a priest), and (4) lord of a manor.
It could also be used in connection with a peerage title such as Lord
Neville. In later periods, it was customary to address a knight as
"Sir John Stafford knight," to differentiate him from "Sir John
Stafford priest." If knighthood or priesthood are not indicated in the
document, it is impossible to know if a individual addressed as "Sir"
was a knight or a priest. However, the context of the document usually
yields the desired answer. For example, if we see "Sir [Dominus]
Boniface de Saluciis" is being appointed to a church position, it's
obvious that he was a priest, not a knight. Also, if one studies other
contemporary records in which the same individual appears, it usually
becomes apparent if the person involved in the records was a knight or
a priest. The combinations of "Sir" followed by the designation
"knight" and "Sir" followed by the designation "priest" (or clerk) are
commonplace in English medieval records.

As far as it goes, I find that modern historians and archivists are
quite familiar with the different usages of the Latin word "dominus."
As a general rule, I find that they correctly translate the word
"dominus" based on the context in which the word "dominus" is employed.
That's the good news. However, they are not always consistent, and
they sometimes get it wrong. Last week, for instance, I found a
historian who left the word "dominus" untranslated, presumably because
he was unsure if "lord" or "sir" was intended. In that case, all the
men were specifically identified as knights in the documents in
question, so "Sir" would have been the appropriate rendering of
"dominus."

Lastly, I remain open to Peter's suggestion that royal princes were
addressed as "Lord Edward" rather than "Sir Edward." Historians and
archivists actually seem to be split on how "dominus" should be
rendered when a royal prince is involved. I find that they sometimes
they go with "Sir Edward," sometimes with "Lord Edward." To get a
definitive answer, one would have to study various medieval documents
written in English over a period of time and see how a royal prince was
addressed under what circumstances. My guess is that we would find
that English royal princes were addressed both ways in the records.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: The many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jan 2007 03:01:24

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169423068.559400.210430@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Michael ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

As a followup to your erudite comments, I find that the Latin word
"dominus" meant different things in the medieval period, depending on
the context it was used: (1) Lord (as in king or archbishop), (2) Sir
(as in a knight), (3) Sir (as in a priest), and (4) lord of a manor.
It could also be used in connection with a peerage title such as Lord
Neville. In later periods, it was customary to address a knight as
"Sir John Stafford knight," to differentiate him from "Sir John
Stafford priest." If knighthood or priesthood are not indicated in the
document, it is impossible to know if a individual addressed as "Sir"
was a knight or a priest. However, the context of the document usually
yields the desired answer. For example, if we see "Sir [Dominus]
Boniface de Saluciis" is being appointed to a church position, it's
obvious that he was a priest, not a knight. Also, if one studies other
contemporary records in which the same individual appears, it usually
becomes apparent if the person involved in the records was a knight or
a priest. The combinations of "Sir" followed by the designation
"knight" and "Sir" followed by the designation "priest" (or clerk) are
commonplace in English medieval records.

As far as it goes, I find that modern historians and archivists are
quite familiar with the different usages of the Latin word "dominus."
As a general rule, I find that they correctly translate the word
"dominus" based on the context in which the word "dominus" is employed.
That's the good news. However, they are not always consistent, and
they sometimes get it wrong. Last week, for instance, I found a
historian who left the word "dominus" untranslated, presumably because
he was unsure if "lord" or "sir" was intended. In that case, all the
men were specifically identified as knights in the documents in
question, so "Sir" would have been the appropriate rendering of
"dominus."

Lastly, I remain open to Peter's suggestion that royal princes were
addressed as "Lord Edward" rather than "Sir Edward." Historians and
archivists actually seem to be split on how "dominus" should be
rendered when a royal prince is involved. I find that they sometimes
they go with "Sir Edward," sometimes with "Lord Edward." To get a
definitive answer, one would have to study various medieval documents
written in English over a period of time and see how a royal prince was
addressed under what circumstances. My guess is that we would find
that English royal princes were addressed both ways in the records.

Thank you for your good post - for the record, this is quite a long way from
your last message on the subject, on 17 January, where in response to this
same suggestion of mine ("The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would
normally be translated as "Lord N", not "Sir N"') you replied:

I'm sorry, Pierre. You're quite incorrect.

As far as it goes, I've seen many, many instances of English royal
princes being address as "Sir" in the medieval records. In fact, royal
princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir." And the word in
Latin for "Sir" is dominus.

But better late than never.

Peter Stewart

Denis Beauregard

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 22 jan 2007 04:48:34

On 21 Jan 2007 14:54:23 -0800, "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Jwc1870@aol.com a écrit :

Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point.

Actually, I didn't want to make a point but was asking a real question.
Edward III's claim to the French crown supposes a rather acrobatic set
of rules of succession governing that crown, and the chaotic English
dynastic history in the following centuries makes even more
hypothetical a jointed succession to both crowns. So I often wondered
if any of his successors even bothered about that when pushing his
claim to the throne of France, or if it was made empirically, without
looking for a logical justification.

I don't see what is acrobatic.

Philippe IV had 4 children.

Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV all died before 1328 with no issue.
So, who is the next king ? If we forget the salic law, it is the 4th
child of Philippe IV, i.e. Isabelle, wife of Edward II and mother of
Edward III. Seen like that, Philippe VI is only the 2nd candidate.

But the more important point is that Edward was a foreigner king and
this was probably what made him not a successor more than the
succession rules. Even seen like that, Henri IV, king of Navarre
became the king of France too.

So, only the salic law applied here.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 22 jan 2007 09:04:32

Denis Beauregard a écrit :
On 21 Jan 2007 14:54:23 -0800, "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:


Jwc1870@aol.com a écrit :

Dear Pierre,
You make an excellent point.

Actually, I didn't want to make a point but was asking a real question.
Edward III's claim to the French crown supposes a rather acrobatic set
of rules of succession governing that crown, and the chaotic English
dynastic history in the following centuries makes even more
hypothetical a jointed succession to both crowns. So I often wondered
if any of his successors even bothered about that when pushing his
claim to the throne of France, or if it was made empirically, without
looking for a logical justification.

I don't see what is acrobatic.

Philippe IV had 4 children.

Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV all died before 1328 with no issue.

WHAT????????

So, who is the next king ? If we forget the salic law, it is the 4th
child of Philippe IV, i.e. Isabelle, wife of Edward II and mother of
Edward III. Seen like that, Philippe VI is only the 2nd candidate.

Really? Have you ever looked to a genealogical tree of the Capetians?

If you forget the salic law, the heiress was Jeanne, Louis X's
daughter.

If you imagine a law of succession which excludes female but not
female's son, what about the male grandson of Philip V by his daughter
then? He was already born in 1328 and obviously the closer male
relative in female line of Charles IV at his death!

To make Edward the heir you need a complex rule of succession which
excludes females, but not sons of females, and which also prefers
closeness by degree to closeness by line, so that a nephew by a sister
will be preferred to a grandson of a King! Obviously tha was not the
set of rules used in the English succession, so there is a
contradiction between the two.

Pierre

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Richard de Brewes

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 22 jan 2007 09:23:17

Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Sunday, 21 January, 2007


Dear Paul, Doug, et al.,

Thanks for your post of 20 Jan, and to you and Doug for
making your article available via the Braose Web site.

While there are some elements of uncertainty as you note in
your post, and more extensively in the said article, I think you
are on firm ground for maintaining that Sir Richard de
Braose/Brewes, of Bramley, Surrey (later of Akenham, etc.) was
in fact the younger son of John de Braose (d. 1232) and Margaret
ferch Llywelyn, and younger brother of Sir William de Braose of
Bramber and Gower (d. bef 6 Jan 1290/1).

One particular uncertainty I noted of late: it appears it
could have been either the latter Sir William, or his son
William, who obtained custody of the lands of Roger de Colville
(husband of his niece Margaret de Braose). The grant dated at
Westminster, 8 May 1288 states (as transcribed):

' Grant, for a fine of 100l., to William de Breus of the
custody, during minority of the heirs, of the lands of Roger
de Colevile, tenant in chief as of the honor of Albemarle,
in Bytham, Estbytham, Westbytham and Careby, co. Lincoln,
saving dowers and inheritances, if any fall in during that
time, and the said William rendering to the Exchequer
83l. 16s. 3 1/4d., at which the said lands are extended.
By the earl and treasurer. By p.s.
Mandate in pursuance to the escheator. ' [1]

On this issue, you wrote (in part) that

' it is more probable than any other possible scenario
that the king granted to William de Brewosa the
guardianship of Edmund Coleville, who in turn granted
the guardianship to Richar de Brewosa, his brother,
and grandfather of Edmund Coleville. ' [2]

The possibility occurred to me that Sir Richard de Braose,
usually shown as d. before 1292, may in fact have already died
before this: as grandfather of the young heir, it seems most
unusual that his elder brother Sir William (let along possibly
Sir William's son and heir, William) would have 'stepped
in' in 1288, unless Richard were (1) dead, (2) incapacitated or
(3) financial unable to perform. As you noted, Margery (de
Braose) de Coleville sought a command in 1290 vs. Richard de
Brewes, guardian of Edmund de Coleville, so that she could
obtain her dower. This could conceivably have been her brother,
the younger Sir Richard de Braose (of Stradbrooke &c.)

While this would, if correct, modify the details somewhat,
it does not change the essence of the relationships as you
describe. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

Again, many thanks for an excellent treatment of a
complicated family (with, or without feud).

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] CPR 16 Edw I (1281-1292), mem. 13, p. 295.

[1] P. W. Mackenzie, Review of the Ancestry of Sir Richard
de Brewes, husband of Alice le Rus.


* John P. Ravilious






Hi John:

Many thanks for your query.

The history of the grant of custody of Edmond Coleville is set out in
more detail in reference 54 in my article [see [1] below], which in
summary states that William de Brewes baron of said king, and husband of
Mary was granted around 1287/88 the custody of the lands of Edmond of
Colevile. The said William then delivered these lands to Richard his
brother to hold at his pleasure and to pay the farm. Richard failed to
pay the farm, because of which the manor came into the hands of the
King. After which Mary brought the matter to court.

From this I concluded that William de Brewes c1290 the father was
granted the custody. Particularly, as William is said to have been a
Baron and be dead prior to Feb 1316 and his widow's name is stated as
Mary. Moreover, the said Richard mentioned is said to be the
aforementioned William's brother and thus this excludes Richard de
Brewes of Stradebroke [Williams' nephew].


Kind Regards

Paul Mackenzie

P.S. I recently uncovered a lot of material on Richard de Brewes of
Stradebroke which I will let you know in coming months.


[1]The Lincoln parliament of January - February 1316
...........
“On behalf of Mary the widow of William de Braose.
59 (32). To our lord the king and his council Mary the widow of William
de Braose shows that whereas the said William, her late husband
(sic)/[formerly his baron], took from our lord the late king the manor
of Bitham with its appurtenances, that is to say East Bitham, West
Bitham, and Careby, until the majority of Edmund of Coleville, the son
and heir of Roger of Coleville, through a fine of £100, nevertheless
paying annually at the exchequer during the wardship £83 16s. 3d.
farthing, at which the manor was valued in the sixteenth year of the
reign of our lord the late king [1287-88]. And then the said William
delivered the said manor to Richard his brother, to hold at his
pleasure, to pay the farm, and the said Richard did not pay the king's
farm at the exchequer for the time when the said manor was in his hand:
because of which the goods and chattels of the said William were taken
into the hand of the late king immediately after his death, until the
said Mary came to court, with the consent of Master John of Morley and
his companions, the executors of the testament of the said William, and
made satisfaction, and found surety that she would make good the
arrears, and pay the farm fully for the time which followed. And in the
seventeenth year Margaret, who was the wife of Roger of Coleville,
impleaded Sir William of St Quentin concerning her third of Harpham,
Burton Agnes, and Chirrum, which the said William of St Quentin had
acquired from the said Roger, her late husband. And the said William of
St Quentin vouched the aforesaid heir, whose person was in the hand of
our lord the king, to warranty, and his guardians also, as is known from
the process which the said Mary sued in the seventeenth year [1288-89],
in the time of Thomas of Weyland, formerly justice of the Bench, of
which the said Margaret recovered, from the part which was in the hand
of the said Richard, of the lease of William his brother, through the
warranty of the said William of St Quentin 70s. 6d. halfpence, through
the warranty of Henry of Coleville 8s., through the warranty of Robert
of Coleville 10s. and through the warranty of lord Roger, the vicar of
the church of Aubourn, 7s., annually, after the giving of the commission
to the said William de Braose. And because the record is not fully
obtained from the treasury of our lord the king, the said Mary prays,
for God's sake, that the treasurer and chamberlains might be ordered
that the said record be entirely released, and fully allowed to the said
Mary, in accordance with law and reason.
Answer.
This petition is to be sent under the foot of the seal to the treasurer
and barons of the exchequer, together with the record and process of the
plea which was held before Thomas of Weyland and his colleagues,
formerly justices of the Bench, between Margaret who was the wife of
Roger of Coleville, claimant, and William of St Quentin, deforciant,
concerning her dower in Harpham, Chirrum, Gransmoor, and Burton Agnes,
in the county of York, and likewise Henry of Coleville, and Robert of
Coleville, and Roger the vicar of the church of Aubourn, concerning the
aforesaid Margaret's dower in Aubourn in the county of Lincoln, in which
pleas both the aforesaid William and the aforesaid Henry and Robert and
Roger vouched to warranty Edmund of Coleville, the son and heir of the
aforesaid Roger, then in the king's wardship, and the other guardians of
the lands and tenements of the same heir, who warranted them, as is
said. And the same treasurer and barons are to be ordered by writ, that
if by an examination of the aforesaid record and process, and of the
remainder of the process of the same plea, which remains in the
treasury, they can legitimately establish that the aforementioned
Margaret recovered from the part of the aforesaid lands and tenements
then in the hand of Richard de Braose, from the grant of William de
Braose, to whom the king granted that part until the majority of the
aforesaid heir, to have for a certain farm to be paid to the king
annually, £4 15s. 6d. halfpenny annually, by virtue of the aforesaid
warranty, and also if they can establish that Mary, who was the wife of
the aforesaid William de Braose, in default of the aforesaid Richard de
Braose found surety at the same exchequer that she would pay the
aforesaid farm during that wardship, and the arrears which were owed
from the time of the death of the same W. de Braose, then they are to
have due recompense made at the aforementioned exchequer to the same
Mary during the aforesaid wardship in that farm and arrears, for the
aforesaid £4 15s. 6d. halfpenny annually, from the time of the aforesaid
recovery.”
The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England by Scholarly Digital Editions
Edited by C. Given-Wilson (General Editor), P.Brand, A.Curry, R.E.
Horrox, G. Martin, W.M. Ormond, J.R.S. Philips, SC9/19 m. 7 59(32).

John P. Ravilious

Re: Richard de Brewes

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 22 jan 2007 12:09:47

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your reply, and posting the text of the 1316 petition.
That this involved William and his brother Richard, and not the next
generation (in either line) is certain.

I look forward to the additional details to come re: Richard de
Brewes.

Cheers,

John



Paul Mackenzie wrote:
Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Sunday, 21 January, 2007


Dear Paul, Doug, et al.,

Thanks for your post of 20 Jan, and to you and Doug for
making your article available via the Braose Web site.

While there are some elements of uncertainty as you note in
your post, and more extensively in the said article, I think you
are on firm ground for maintaining that Sir Richard de
Braose/Brewes, of Bramley, Surrey (later of Akenham, etc.) was
in fact the younger son of John de Braose (d. 1232) and Margaret
ferch Llywelyn, and younger brother of Sir William de Braose of
Bramber and Gower (d. bef 6 Jan 1290/1).

One particular uncertainty I noted of late: it appears it
could have been either the latter Sir William, or his son
William, who obtained custody of the lands of Roger de Colville
(husband of his niece Margaret de Braose). The grant dated at
Westminster, 8 May 1288 states (as transcribed):

' Grant, for a fine of 100l., to William de Breus of the
custody, during minority of the heirs, of the lands of Roger
de Colevile, tenant in chief as of the honor of Albemarle,
in Bytham, Estbytham, Westbytham and Careby, co. Lincoln,
saving dowers and inheritances, if any fall in during that
time, and the said William rendering to the Exchequer
83l. 16s. 3 1/4d., at which the said lands are extended.
By the earl and treasurer. By p.s.
Mandate in pursuance to the escheator. ' [1]

On this issue, you wrote (in part) that

' it is more probable than any other possible scenario
that the king granted to William de Brewosa the
guardianship of Edmund Coleville, who in turn granted
the guardianship to Richar de Brewosa, his brother,
and grandfather of Edmund Coleville. ' [2]

The possibility occurred to me that Sir Richard de Braose,
usually shown as d. before 1292, may in fact have already died
before this: as grandfather of the young heir, it seems most
unusual that his elder brother Sir William (let along possibly
Sir William's son and heir, William) would have 'stepped
in' in 1288, unless Richard were (1) dead, (2) incapacitated or
(3) financial unable to perform. As you noted, Margery (de
Braose) de Coleville sought a command in 1290 vs. Richard de
Brewes, guardian of Edmund de Coleville, so that she could
obtain her dower. This could conceivably have been her brother,
the younger Sir Richard de Braose (of Stradbrooke &c.)

While this would, if correct, modify the details somewhat,
it does not change the essence of the relationships as you
describe. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

Again, many thanks for an excellent treatment of a
complicated family (with, or without feud).

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] CPR 16 Edw I (1281-1292), mem. 13, p. 295.

[1] P. W. Mackenzie, Review of the Ancestry of Sir Richard
de Brewes, husband of Alice le Rus.


* John P. Ravilious






Hi John:

Many thanks for your query.

The history of the grant of custody of Edmond Coleville is set out in
more detail in reference 54 in my article [see [1] below], which in
summary states that William de Brewes baron of said king, and husband of
Mary was granted around 1287/88 the custody of the lands of Edmond of
Colevile. The said William then delivered these lands to Richard his
brother to hold at his pleasure and to pay the farm. Richard failed to
pay the farm, because of which the manor came into the hands of the
King. After which Mary brought the matter to court.

From this I concluded that William de Brewes c1290 the father was
granted the custody. Particularly, as William is said to have been a
Baron and be dead prior to Feb 1316 and his widow's name is stated as
Mary. Moreover, the said Richard mentioned is said to be the
aforementioned William's brother and thus this excludes Richard de
Brewes of Stradebroke [Williams' nephew].


Kind Regards

Paul Mackenzie

P.S. I recently uncovered a lot of material on Richard de Brewes of
Stradebroke which I will let you know in coming months.


[1]The Lincoln parliament of January - February 1316
..........
"On behalf of Mary the widow of William de Braose.
59 (32). To our lord the king and his council Mary the widow of William
de Braose shows that whereas the said William, her late husband
(sic)/[formerly his baron], took from our lord the late king the manor
of Bitham with its appurtenances, that is to say East Bitham, West
Bitham, and Careby, until the majority of Edmund of Coleville, the son
and heir of Roger of Coleville, through a fine of £100, nevertheless
paying annually at the exchequer during the wardship £83 16s. 3d.
farthing, at which the manor was valued in the sixteenth year of the
reign of our lord the late king [1287-88]. And then the said William
delivered the said manor to Richard his brother, to hold at his
pleasure, to pay the farm, and the said Richard did not pay the king's
farm at the exchequer for the time when the said manor was in his hand:
because of which the goods and chattels of the said William were taken
into the hand of the late king immediately after his death, until the
said Mary came to court, with the consent of Master John of Morley and
his companions, the executors of the testament of the said William, and
made satisfaction, and found surety that she would make good the
arrears, and pay the farm fully for the time which followed. And in the
seventeenth year Margaret, who was the wife of Roger of Coleville,
impleaded Sir William of St Quentin concerning her third of Harpham,
Burton Agnes, and Chirrum, which the said William of St Quentin had
acquired from the said Roger, her late husband. And the said William of
St Quentin vouched the aforesaid heir, whose person was in the hand of
our lord the king, to warranty, and his guardians also, as is known from
the process which the said Mary sued in the seventeenth year [1288-89],
in the time of Thomas of Weyland, formerly justice of the Bench, of
which the said Margaret recovered, from the part which was in the hand
of the said Richard, of the lease of William his brother, through the
warranty of the said William of St Quentin 70s. 6d. halfpence, through
the warranty of Henry of Coleville 8s., through the warranty of Robert
of Coleville 10s. and through the warranty of lord Roger, the vicar of
the church of Aubourn, 7s., annually, after the giving of the commission
to the said William de Braose. And because the record is not fully
obtained from the treasury of our lord the king, the said Mary prays,
for God's sake, that the treasurer and chamberlains might be ordered
that the said record be entirely released, and fully allowed to the said
Mary, in accordance with law and reason.
Answer.
This petition is to be sent under the foot of the seal to the treasurer
and barons of the exchequer, together with the record and process of the
plea which was held before Thomas of Weyland and his colleagues,
formerly justices of the Bench, between Margaret who was the wife of
Roger of Coleville, claimant, and William of St Quentin, deforciant,
concerning her dower in Harpham, Chirrum, Gransmoor, and Burton Agnes,
in the county of York, and likewise Henry of Coleville, and Robert of
Coleville, and Roger the vicar of the church of Aubourn, concerning the
aforesaid Margaret's dower in Aubourn in the county of Lincoln, in which
pleas both the aforesaid William and the aforesaid Henry and Robert and
Roger vouched to warranty Edmund of Coleville, the son and heir of the
aforesaid Roger, then in the king's wardship, and the other guardians of
the lands and tenements of the same heir, who warranted them, as is
said. And the same treasurer and barons are to be ordered by writ, that
if by an examination of the aforesaid record and process, and of the
remainder of the process of the same plea, which remains in the
treasury, they can legitimately establish that the aforementioned
Margaret recovered from the part of the aforesaid lands and tenements
then in the hand of Richard de Braose, from the grant of William de
Braose, to whom the king granted that part until the majority of the
aforesaid heir, to have for a certain farm to be paid to the king
annually, £4 15s. 6d. halfpenny annually, by virtue of the aforesaid
warranty, and also if they can establish that Mary, who was the wife of
the aforesaid William de Braose, in default of the aforesaid Richard de
Braose found surety at the same exchequer that she would pay the
aforesaid farm during that wardship, and the arrears which were owed
from the time of the death of the same W. de Braose, then they are to
have due recompense made at the aforementioned exchequer to the same
Mary during the aforesaid wardship in that farm and arrears, for the
aforesaid £4 15s. 6d. halfpenny annually, from the time of the aforesaid
recovery."
The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England by Scholarly Digital Editions
Edited by C. Given-Wilson (General Editor), P.Brand, A.Curry, R.E.
Horrox, G. Martin, W.M. Ormond, J.R.S. Philips, SC9/19 m. 7 59(32).

Gordon Johnson

Re: The many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Gordon Johnson » 22 jan 2007 17:43:50

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169423068.559400.210430@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Dear Michael ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

As a followup to your erudite comments, I find that the Latin word
"dominus" meant different things in the medieval period, depending on
the context it was used: (1) Lord (as in king or archbishop), (2) Sir
(as in a knight), (3) Sir (as in a priest), and (4) lord of a manor.
It could also be used in connection with a peerage title such as Lord
Neville. In later periods, it was customary to address a knight as
"Sir John Stafford knight," to differentiate him from "Sir John
Stafford priest." If knighthood or priesthood are not indicated in the
document, it is impossible to know if a individual addressed as "Sir"
was a knight or a priest. However, the context of the document usually
yields the desired answer. For example, if we see "Sir [Dominus]
Boniface de Saluciis" is being appointed to a church position, it's
obvious that he was a priest, not a knight. Also, if one studies other
contemporary records in which the same individual appears, it usually
becomes apparent if the person involved in the records was a knight or
a priest. The combinations of "Sir" followed by the designation
"knight" and "Sir" followed by the designation "priest" (or clerk) are
commonplace in English medieval records.

As far as it goes, I find that modern historians and archivists are
quite familiar with the different usages of the Latin word "dominus."
As a general rule, I find that they correctly translate the word
"dominus" based on the context in which the word "dominus" is employed.
That's the good news. However, they are not always consistent, and
they sometimes get it wrong. Last week, for instance, I found a
historian who left the word "dominus" untranslated, presumably because
he was unsure if "lord" or "sir" was intended. In that case, all the
men were specifically identified as knights in the documents in
question, so "Sir" would have been the appropriate rendering of
"dominus."

Lastly, I remain open to Peter's suggestion that royal princes were
addressed as "Lord Edward" rather than "Sir Edward." Historians and
archivists actually seem to be split on how "dominus" should be
rendered when a royal prince is involved. I find that they sometimes
they go with "Sir Edward," sometimes with "Lord Edward." To get a
definitive answer, one would have to study various medieval documents
written in English over a period of time and see how a royal prince was
addressed under what circumstances. My guess is that we would find
that English royal princes were addressed both ways in the records.


Thank you for your good post - for the record, this is quite a long way from
your last message on the subject, on 17 January, where in response to this
same suggestion of mine ("The style of a king's son called "dominus N" would
normally be translated as "Lord N", not "Sir N"') you replied:


I'm sorry, Pierre. You're quite incorrect.

As far as it goes, I've seen many, many instances of English royal
princes being address as "Sir" in the medieval records. In fact, royal
princes then and now are properly addressed as "Sir." And the word in
Latin for "Sir" is dominus.


But better late than never.

Peter Stewart


** And in Scotland, the word Sir was used to indicate any graduate of a

university - most often a priest, who was also often a notary; The word
dominus was used both as Master and Sir, which is where we get the Scots
word "Dominie" for schoolmaster.
Gordon.

Douglas Richardson

Re: The many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 jan 2007 19:03:49

Dear Newsgroup ~

As I pointed out, historians and archivists seem to be divided on
whether the word "dominus" applied to a prince should be rendered "Sir"
or "Lord." Regardless, I'm confident that when a knight or priest is
addressed as "dominus," the correct rendering in English is "Sir."

When I have a chance, I'll bring up the issue of how princes were
customarily addressed in medieval times with several historians and
archivists who are associated with the Public Record Office. This
technical point has doubtless arisen many times over the years when
medieval documents in Latin have been translated into English.

For what it is worth, my impression is that when a prince is addressed
without his titles, the correct rendering of "dominus" would be "Sir."
I am less sure that the same applies when a prince is more formally
addressed with his titles. I suspect in that context that the prince
would be correctly addressed as "Lord Edmund," much as the king and
archbishop are addressed as "lord."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: The many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jan 2007 22:29:49

"Gordon Johnson" <gordon@kinhelp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qPCdnQwOQZRbdCnYRVnyigA@eclipse.net.uk...

** And in Scotland, the word Sir was used to indicate any graduate of a
university - most often a priest, who was also often a notary; The word
dominus was used both as Master and Sir, which is where we get the Scots
word "Dominie" for schoolmaster.

Was "dominus" used in Scotland for both "laird" and "master" when the latter
was son & heir of the former?

In classical Latin "dominus" could mean "owner", "householder",
"proprietor", etc as well as conveying mastery through rank or power as
"ruler", "commander", "lord" etc.

An obvious way to render the idea behind "dominus N" for a priest in modern
English would be "the reverend N", since that is the style that developed
anyway. "Dominie" for schoolmaster was common in England too, and of course
the usual form of address for them was (still in my time, if not today)
"sir". However, this is quite different from calling a person "Sir N" - in
other words, "sir" also has a wide range of applications, from everyday
courtesy to a title of rank.

Peter Stewart

Clagett, Brice

RE: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Clagett, Brice » 22 jan 2007 23:19:11

I may be misremembering -- I can't find it in the archives -- but I
thought that some time ago Peter Stewart asserted that it is wrong
to say, e.g., "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick," on the ground
that the higher dignity (earl) subsumes the lesser (knight). I would
have thought, as Peter seems to be saying below in agreeing with
Alex, that the two are different tracks (and certainly not all earls
are knights, or vice versa). Which is right?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:42 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Dominus/miles


Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
In my experience in looking at original charters and at
transcriptions, a "miles" does not have to be a "dominus" nor does a
"dominus" have to be a "miles". The two statuses are quite distinct.

"Dominus" means a Lord, ie it is a land, wealth and social status,
while "miles" refers to one who has been dubbed a knight, a chivalric
status. Of course there is an overwhelming crossover between the two,

but they are nevertheless distinct.

Also, of course, priests were known as Dom, as indeed they still are
in the Catholic Church, but this was an ecclesiastical title and so
not comparable.

This is very sensible, Alex.

Richardson doesn't agree, since he considers that "dominus" indicates
knighthood except in the case of priests (at least I assume he doesn't
think that a pope called "dominus" might have been an English knight).

The translation "Sir N de N knight" is only a rough approximation to the
meaning of "dominus N de N miles", to avoid using "Lord N de N knight"
when the individual may not have been a lord as such. A better idea of
the original meaning for non-lords would be given, at the cost of more
ink, by something like "the honourable Sir N de N".

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 jan 2007 00:09:49

Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
In my experience in looking at original charters and at transcriptions,
a "miles" does not have to be a "dominus" nor does a "dominus" have to
be a "miles". The two statuses are quite distinct. "Dominus" means a
Lord, ie it is a land, wealth and social status, while "miles" refers
to one who has been dubbed a knight, a chivalric status.

Dear Alex ~

I'm speaking of "dominus" when it precedes a man's given name. With
the exception of the king and Archbishop, it refers to a knight or
priest, and is correctly translated as "Sir." Knights or priests were
not always styled "dominus," but they usually were, especially knights.
On the other hand, priests could sometimes be called "Master," rather
than "Sir." A priest called "Master" would be someone who was a
Professor of Canon Law, or of similar rank.

None of this has anything to do with someone who was "dominus" (lord)
of property. A knight could be styled "dominus" meaning "Sir," and
also be "dominus" (lord) of property. It is the context of the word
that determines the meaning of the word. The same is true in our
language today. Nothing has changed.

The corresponding words in French are Sieur and seigneur, and in
English they are Sir and lord. They are all "dominus" in Latin.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jan 2007 00:33:19

Clagett, Brice wrote:
I may be misremembering -- I can't find it in the archives -- but I
thought that some time ago Peter Stewart asserted that it is wrong
to say, e.g., "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick," on the ground
that the higher dignity (earl) subsumes the lesser (knight). I would
have thought, as Peter seems to be saying below in agreeing with
Alex, that the two are different tracks (and certainly not all earls
are knights, or vice versa). Which is right?

Both I think, Brice, as I don't see these as incompatible. There would
be no way to tell from non-specific references to an earl whether or
not he had been knighted.

As a more-or-less parallel instance, if an earl happened to inherit a
baronial title he did not then become known in most contexts as, for
instance, "Henry, earl of Warwick, lord Burghersh". The lower title,
even if this had been older and more famous than the higher one, was
simply subsumed for ordinary purposes in addressing or referring to the
peer in question. If not, some men would have been known by a long
string of independent dignities, to the point of absurdity.

In this case, the barony of Burghersh might have been (I haven't
checked) senior to any other baronial title that may have belonged to
the earls of Warwick, and if so Earl Henry's son & heir (though he
didn't have one) might have used it as his courtesy title during his
father's lifetime.

A modern example is Miles Fitzalan-Howard, duke of Norfolk, who died a
few years ago. He became Lord Beaumont when his mother died, then
officially also Lord Howard of Glossop shortly afterwards when his
father died - however, Beaumont was the senior of these titles and was
the only one he used while he held just these two. (He could have
chosen to be known as "Lord Beaumont and Howard of Glossop", I suppose,
but not the other way round, on the same principle of seniority). Then
a few years later he became duke of Norfolk with a string of lesser
dignities attached that were never used for himself. His son & heir
Edward used "earl of Arundel & Surrey" as a courtesy title, not "Lord
Beaumont", using only the next-highest dignity after the dukedom.

Kighthood was not conferred as a courtesy in a similar way, although
the eldest sons of baronets later claimed the right to it. Still the
principle of subsuming a lesser style applies, no matter that the
titles come by different tracks. Equally, when a peer inherits also a
baronetcy, as often happens, you would never know this from the way he
is named and styled in any normal circumstances. The form "Miles, Lord
Beaumont, Bart" is unheard of, as is "Sir Miles, Lord Beaumont"
(hypothetically, since Miles Howard was not a baronet as far as I know,
though he is bound to have received a knighthood at some stage, as duke
if not before).

Peter Stewart


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:42 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Dominus/miles


Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
In my experience in looking at original charters and at
transcriptions, a "miles" does not have to be a "dominus" nor does a
"dominus" have to be a "miles". The two statuses are quite distinct.

"Dominus" means a Lord, ie it is a land, wealth and social status,
while "miles" refers to one who has been dubbed a knight, a chivalric
status. Of course there is an overwhelming crossover between the two,

but they are nevertheless distinct.

Also, of course, priests were known as Dom, as indeed they still are
in the Catholic Church, but this was an ecclesiastical title and so
not comparable.

This is very sensible, Alex.

Richardson doesn't agree, since he considers that "dominus" indicates
knighthood except in the case of priests (at least I assume he doesn't
think that a pope called "dominus" might have been an English knight).

The translation "Sir N de N knight" is only a rough approximation to the
meaning of "dominus N de N miles", to avoid using "Lord N de N knight"
when the individual may not have been a lord as such. A better idea of
the original meaning for non-lords would be given, at the cost of more
ink, by something like "the honourable Sir N de N".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jan 2007 05:16:02

Dear Denis,
Henry III, King of Navarre in addition to being selected as
King of France, once He had agreed to convert from the Protestant religion to
Catholicism was not only the senior Salic candidate but was also the senior
representative of the direct line from King Philippe IV, whose daughter Jeanne
married Philip, Count of Evereux in the year following her uncle Charles IV
of France`s death and became mother of King Charles I of Navarre, his
grandaughter Queen Blanche II married John II (I), King of Aragon and their daughter
Eleanor was married to Gaston IV, Count of Foix, then their grandaughter
Catherine married John II d`Albret,whose son Henry II , King of Navarre married
Margaret of Angouleme, their daughter Jeanne III married Anthony de Bourbon, Henry
III`s father.
(source Louda & MacLagan`s Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe
Table 44 ( Navarre) Tables 65-68 (France, Succession of the House of Valois,
The Hundred Years War, Houses of Valois-Orleans and Angouleme & House of
Bourbon)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

Denis Beauregard

Re: Crouchback

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 23 jan 2007 06:34:00

Le 22 Jan 2007 00:04:32 -0800, "pierre_aronax@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

I don't see what is acrobatic.

Philippe IV had 4 children.

Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV all died before 1328 with no issue.

WHAT????????

D'accord, j'ai oublié Jeanne.

So, who is the next king ? If we forget the salic law, it is the 4th
child of Philippe IV, i.e. Isabelle, wife of Edward II and mother of
Edward III. Seen like that, Philippe VI is only the 2nd candidate.

Really? Have you ever looked to a genealogical tree of the Capetians?

If you forget the salic law, the heiress was Jeanne, Louis X's
daughter.

If you imagine a law of succession which excludes female but not
female's son, what about the male grandson of Philip V by his daughter
then? He was already born in 1328 and obviously the closer male
relative in female line of Charles IV at his death!

Indeed.

To make Edward the heir you need a complex rule of succession which
excludes females, but not sons of females, and which also prefers
closeness by degree to closeness by line, so that a nephew by a sister
will be preferred to a grandson of a King! Obviously tha was not the
set of rules used in the English succession, so there is a
contradiction between the two.

Or you change the law in the meanwhile !


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

Gjest

Re: John, Lord of Mawddwy/Mouthwy, son in law of Sir Fulke C

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jan 2007 18:05:03

In a post made on 9th December last I set out the descent of numerous
Shropshire manors which had belonged to Sir Fulke Corbet, down to the four
daughters and co-heiresses of Sir John Burgh. This Sir John's inheritance also
included the hereditary lordship of Mawddwy, (his IPM dated 17th Aug 1471 showed
him to be "seised of the lordship of Moutho in Powisland"). This he must have
acquired as heir of his mother Elizabeth, sister and heiress of her brother
Fulke Mouth (d.1414- I set out a lot of his IPM in my December post)

The purpose of this post is to show how the lordship of Mawddwy had
descended to Elizabeth Burgh nee "Mouthe", as to which we have the authority of
Camden in his "Britannia", as follows:-

"Eastward where Dovy runneth standeth Mouthwy a Commot very well knowne,
which fell for "a childes part of inheritance to William alias Wilcock of
Mouthwy, a younger sonne of "Gruffith Ap Gwenwynwin Lord of Powis, and by his sons
daughter it came unto Sir Hugh "Burgh, and by his sons daughters likewise
unto the familes of Newport, Leighton, Lingein, "and Mitton, of especiall
respect in these parts."
Interestingly, the 1623 Visitation of Shropshire, prepared under Camden's
supervision as Clarenceux King of Arms, sets out the same descent at page 104.

However (though not without trepidation) I suggest, on the evidence set out
below, that the august Camden erred in one minor detail: he should I believe
have said "and by his grandson's daughter".

Here is my reconstruction of the true descent.

..
1. Owain Cyfeiliog, Prince of Southern Powys 1160-1195 (abdicated), d. 1197
=Gwenllian verch Owain Gwynedd, Prince of N.Wales. See Welsh DNB
Owain's biog. in the Welsh DNB


2.Gwenwynwyn ap Owain Cyfeiliog, Prince of Southern Powys 1195-1216 (see the
Welsh DNB) = Margaret
[1623 Vis of Salop says she was Margaret verch Rhys ap Theodor, Prince of
South Wales]

3.Gruffyd ap Gwenwynwyn/ Wenunwyn, Lord of Arwystli, Cyfeiliog and Mawddwy:
suit with Llewelyn, Prince of Wales C47/27/2/19 May 19 1280. Biography
available on line at the National Library of Wales and the DNB. His complex
involvement with Prince Llewelyn is described in Llewelyn's biography in the Welsh
DNB.
d. 21 Feb 1286/7 = Hawise Le Strange, sister of Roger Le Strange SC8/74/3694
Note Edw I granted Church Stretton to Hawise in 1276 SC8/197/9836. In 1299
she was to be tried for trespass committed by her and her sons William, John
and Griffin against Roger Trumwyne and his wife Joan. There is more about this
dispute, which concerned the castle of la Pole, in CPR 1299, p464. CPR 1322
shows that this Joan was the former wife of Owen de la Pole, and held land in
Powys as dower

In 1309 Hawise was given licence to exchange her interest in Stretton with
the Earl of Arundel for a life interest in his manors of Wroxeter and Upton,
Salop: CPR 26th October

4. Owen ap Gruffyd, Prince of Powys Gwenwynwyn [IPM 21 Edw I, C133/64/16]
=Joanna Corbet, d. of Robert Corbet and Eliz le Strange [some sources say
she was named Margaret, but at any rate his widow was named Joan- see below
under 1295].
In 1294 custody of his castle of Welshpool ("la Pole") was given to Roger
Le Strange by reason of the minority of the heir- presumably Griffith ap Owen
de la Pole- see below: CPR Sept 28th.
In 1295 a commission issued to John de Havering, Bogo de Knovill and William
de Mortuo Mari [Mortimer], on complaint by Joan, late the wife of Owen de la
Pole, that William son of Griffin de la Pole, John and David his brothers,
Madoc ab Mayler and Owen le Say deforce her of her reasonable dower in the
lands of her late husband in Mayrdekerist in Mancho,
sc Mawddwy] Creynon [sc Caereneon] , Bynweythan, Lestynwonnan [part of
John's portion, v. inf],Tlilangadeuen, Blanto, Cortaloc, Pennarth, Ruthyrgarth,
Estredaluedan and Trevelyk in Wales;..... and the sheriff of Salop, the king's
bailiffs of Monte Gomeri, the bailiffs
of Edmund de Mortuo Mari in Kery and Keclewynk, the bailiffs of Richard son
of Alan, earl of Arundell, in Clonne, and the bailiffs of the bishop of
Hereford in the town of Bishop's Castle are commanded to provide a jury.


Younger sons of Gruffyd were Llewelyn of Rhayadr and Mochain, John of
Caereneon, William of Mawddwy, Gruffyd of Stradmarchel and David of Caereneon.
Presumably William, John and David were the subject of Joan's complaint, made in
1295- v. supra.

Owen carved up the ancient principality of Southern Powys, dividing it
between himself and his younger brothers, apparently giving effect to a
disposition previously made by his father. His brother William's share was "the land of
Mouthoe", subject to homage, fealty, war service, tallage and castle repair
costs: I have set out all that I can find about the carve-up in the footnote
to this post, which I have derived, with due acknowledgments to Professor
Boynton of the University of Iowa, from a later exemplification at CPR 1342 pp.
496 et seq. The exemplification dates the enrolment of the relevant documents
to 1300 (18 Edw I), so clearly they were not enrolled for several years
after Owen's death.

Owen's son and heir Griffith ap Owen de la Pole prayed for his lands, with
reference to Powis Castle,
Welshpool SC 8/280/13997. He d. 1309 (CPR 6th Aug 1309, dealing with the
marriage of his widow Ela)
Said to have married Ela de Audley of Brimpsfield- dsp, since his sister
Hawise "Gadarn"- "the Hardy" became Owen ap Gruffyd's sole heir, marrying John
Cherleton in 1309, carrying to him the lordship of Powis: see her entry in
the Welsh DNB

5.. Owen's younger brother Sir William "Wilcox" de la Pole, Lord Mawddwy d..
<1302

6. His son Griffin de la Pole did homage and fealty, seemingly while still
under age, on 20th July 1302: CPR 5th March 1344, a subsequent
exemplification, which also records that on 11 March 33 Edw I the Lady Wladusa, late the
wife of Sir William de la Pole, who was dowered out of her husband's lands in
Powys and held two other thirds in her custody during the nonage of the heir,
made oath of fealty and was enjoined not to remarry without the Prince's
licence on pain of forfeiture. I know nothing more of this lady. but she must I
think have been the second wife of Sir William, since most sources give Sir
William's wife, mother of his son Griffin, as Elynor, sister of Owain
Glendower's mother Elen.

Griffin, son of William, petitioned for the land of Mawddwy/Mouthe, alleging
that his father William held Mawddwy as one of the parceners of Powys SC
8/258/12897 (circa 1316 according to the National Archives, but it was probably
much earlier, since he had done fealty and homage in 1302- v.sup)
Pardoned November 6th 1313 for besieging la Pole, then held by John Cherleton
Disseised of Deuddyr and Mechain le Coed by John Cherleton in 1328 SC
8/261/13027 and see CPR for 1331. He seems to have recovered the commote of
Deuddyr, for in 1332 he had royal licence to settle it on himself, remainder to
Richard, Earl of Arundel.
In 1343 John Cherleton the elder was detaining Griffin's wife Matilda at la
Pole castle: a commission was appointed to secure her release on 6th November
[CPR]. I do not know who this Matilda was.

7. John, Lord Mawddwy, disseised of Shropshire manors by Isolde, widow of
Sir John de More (petition SC8/221/11030, date 1390) and d.3 Nov 1403. Married
Elizabeth, daughter and sole heiress of Sir Fulke Corbet, King's Knight to
Ric II. I have seen no record of his having been the son of Griffin ap William
ap Griffin, but clearly he must have been heir in tail of Mawddwy, since
William was heir in tail of the Mawddwy lordship, and not the son but rather the
grandson of William.

8. John's son and heir Fulke Mouthe, ward of Joan Queen of England 1st Dec
1403 SC8/229/11446, CPR 1401-5,332. Proved his age 13 H IV

9. John's daughter, Fulke's sister Elizabeth, wife of Hugh Burgh, aged 24 in
1414

It seems that Camden nodded in placing the unnamed father in law of Hugh
Burgh as the son of William: if he were, he would have been aged 100 or so at
his death in 1403. Instead I believe him to have been the son of William's son
Griffin.


FOOTNOTE as to the division of Southern Powys between the six sons of
Griffin ap Gwenwynwyn
From CPR 1342, p496-7 July 10 Tower of London.
Exemplification for Owen son of Griffin Wenunwyn of enrolments on

the rolls of the Chancery of Edward I, as follows; —
(1) Composition] between Sir Owen son of Griffin ab Wenonwyn and
Griffin his brother to settle a contention touching lands assigned
by the father, with the assent and licence of the said king, to
the said Griffin. Owen grants that Griffin shall hold the land
of Mecheyn Iscoyt for the life of Hawisia their mother, and
then the land of Deudour which she holds in dower shall remain
to him in tail. The land in each instance to> be held by specified
services. Done at Westminster, 17 May, 18 Edward I, before
R. Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells, the chancellor, H. de
Lascy, earl of Lincoln, 0. de Grandisono, W. his brother, Robert
de Tibotot, P. Corbet, H. de Turbervill, G. de Picheford, Roger
de Springhose, Thomas de Pyuelesdon, and others.
(2) The like between the said Owen and John son of Griffin, his
brother, to settle a like contention. Owen grants to John for
life five towns in Kereynon, to wit, Brynwayen, Lestynwormau,
Langadevan, Blaute and Coythalauc, by specified services, and
after the demise of Hawisia a moiety of the said land of
Mecheynhiscot, Enrolled with, these witnesses; R. bishop of
Bath and Wells, H. de Lascy, earl of Lincoln, Otto do
Grandisone, William his brother, Robert Tibotot, Peter Corbet,
Hugh de Turbervill, Geoffrey de Pioheford, knights, Malcolm de
Harlegh, Thomas de Pyuelesdon and others.
(3) The like between the said Owen and David his brother, touching
a like contention. Owen grants to David for life two towns
in Kereynon, to wit Penarth and Rewyreth, by specified services,
and after the demise of Hawisia, a moiety of the said land
of Mecheyn Hyscot. Done at Westminster, 16 May, 18 Edward I.
Enrolled as above.
(4) Charter of the said Owen, lord of la Pole, granting in tail
for his homage and service to William de la Pole his brother, the
land of Maudoe [sic], three articles excepted, to wit, going forth to
war, common tallage and' works of castles, which William and
his tenants owe to the grantor, with reversion to the latter.
Witnesses; Robert, bishop of Bath and Wells, Humphrey de
Bohun, earl of Hereford, Edmund de Mortuo Mari, Peter Corbet,
Robert Tibbetot, Roger Lestraunge, Walter de Hopton and
others.
(5) Grant in tail by the same Owen to Lewelin son of Griffin, his
brother, of the lands of Mochnant Huchraydre and Mechen
Huchkoyt [sic, but read Yscoed], with the towns of Lanmethad, Lanhurvil,
Leshyn and
Kevvinyl, with the pasture and chace of Kevenedron. Witnesses
as above.
(6) Release by John son of Griffin son of Wenonwyn to the same
Owen of all right in the lands of his father, saving such as
Owen and his heirs are bound to warrant to him for life. Dated
at Westminster, 16 May, 18 Edward I
(7) Release by the said Lewelin as above.
(8) The like by the said David.
(9) The like by the said William son of Griffin son of Wenonwyn.
Dated at Westminster, 16 May, 18 Edward I [1300]

All criticisms, corrections and amplifications are, as ever, welcome
MM

Hal Bradley

RE: _English Origins of Virginia Tidewater Families_ publish

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 23 jan 2007 18:44:12

Dear John,

I ran into Paul in late November (IIRC) and he told me that John Brayton had
moved some other projects ahead of "Tidewater Families" and that it would
probably be another year before we see any progress along those lines. I did
not ask what those other projects were, but it will probably be a long while
before we see the Tidewater project in print.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:58 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: _English Origins of Virginia Tidewater Families_ published
yet??


Last year, folks were saying that Paul Reed and John Brayton
would have
a book out later in 2006 entitled _English Origins of Virginia
Tidewater Families_.

Checking OCLC, I still don't see it.

Maybe "later in 2016" was the true target date ...? (Paul has been
known to spend the better part of two decades issuing the standard
claim of "later this year ... or by next summer at the latest." So
summer revolves to subsequent summer, etc. Ho hum.)


-------------------------------
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

Clagett, Brice

RE: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Clagett, Brice » 23 jan 2007 22:20:28

Yes, I knew most of this. (I was at a weekend house party years ago
where
another guest was Edward, the present Duke of Norfolk. He was introduced
as "Teddy Arrrrndle" (no Surrey). His infant son, who was also there,
was
introduced as "Maltr'vers" -- a suitably aged courtesy title.)

Peter analogizes using Sir with Earl to using Baron with Earl. But the
difference, as previously noted, is that earl outranks baron on the same

track (peerage) while earl does not outrank knight on the chivalric
track.

What I am trying to learn is whether it is better form to write "Richard
Neville, Earl of Warwick" or "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick" in a
genealogical or historical article or book. Burke's Peerage (103d
edition)
is wildly inconsistent on this and so is no help.

I'd much appreciate the input of others, especially Brits.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:33 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Dominus/miles

Clagett, Brice wrote:
I may be misremembering -- I can't find it in the archives -- but I
thought that some time ago Peter Stewart asserted that it is wrong to
say, e.g., "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick," on the ground that
the higher dignity (earl) subsumes the lesser (knight). I would have
thought, as Peter seems to be saying below in agreeing with Alex, that

the two are different tracks (and certainly not all earls are knights,

or vice versa). Which is right?

Both I think, Brice, as I don't see these as incompatible. There would
be no way to tell from non-specific references to an earl whether or not
he had been knighted.

As a more-or-less parallel instance, if an earl happened to inherit a
baronial title he did not then become known in most contexts as, for
instance, "Henry, earl of Warwick, lord Burghersh". The lower title,
even if this had been older and more famous than the higher one, was
simply subsumed for ordinary purposes in addressing or referring to the
peer in question. If not, some men would have been known by a long
string of independent dignities, to the point of absurdity.

In this case, the barony of Burghersh might have been (I haven't
checked) senior to any other baronial title that may have belonged to
the earls of Warwick, and if so Earl Henry's son & heir (though he
didn't have one) might have used it as his courtesy title during his
father's lifetime.

A modern example is Miles Fitzalan-Howard, duke of Norfolk, who died a
few years ago. He became Lord Beaumont when his mother died, then
officially also Lord Howard of Glossop shortly afterwards when his
father died - however, Beaumont was the senior of these titles and was
the only one he used while he held just these two. (He could have chosen
to be known as "Lord Beaumont and Howard of Glossop", I suppose, but not
the other way round, on the same principle of seniority). Then a few
years later he became duke of Norfolk with a string of lesser dignities
attached that were never used for himself. His son & heir Edward used
"earl of Arundel & Surrey" as a courtesy title, not "Lord Beaumont",
using only the next-highest dignity after the dukedom.

Kighthood was not conferred as a courtesy in a similar way, although the
eldest sons of baronets later claimed the right to it. Still the
principle of subsuming a lesser style applies, no matter that the titles
come by different tracks. Equally, when a peer inherits also a
baronetcy, as often happens, you would never know this from the way he
is named and styled in any normal circumstances. The form "Miles, Lord
Beaumont, Bart" is unheard of, as is "Sir Miles, Lord Beaumont"
(hypothetically, since Miles Howard was not a baronet as far as I know,
though he is bound to have received a knighthood at some stage, as duke
if not before).

Peter Stewart


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:42 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Dominus/miles


Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
In my experience in looking at original charters and at
transcriptions, a "miles" does not have to be a "dominus" nor does a

"dominus" have to be a "miles". The two statuses are quite
distinct.

"Dominus" means a Lord, ie it is a land, wealth and social status,
while "miles" refers to one who has been dubbed a knight, a
chivalric status. Of course there is an overwhelming crossover
between the two,

but they are nevertheless distinct.

Also, of course, priests were known as Dom, as indeed they still are

in the Catholic Church, but this was an ecclesiastical title and so
not comparable.

This is very sensible, Alex.

Richardson doesn't agree, since he considers that "dominus" indicates
knighthood except in the case of priests (at least I assume he doesn't

think that a pope called "dominus" might have been an English knight).

The translation "Sir N de N knight" is only a rough approximation to
the meaning of "dominus N de N miles", to avoid using "Lord N de N
knight"
when the individual may not have been a lord as such. A better idea of

the original meaning for non-lords would be given, at the cost of more

ink, by something like "the honourable Sir N de N".

Peter Stewart

Tony Hoskins

RE: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 23 jan 2007 22:44:04

My observation (albeit as a mere American) is that British usage
*usually* would favor "Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick" [who was also,
besides a baron, a knight]. I don't recall seeing instances in 19th
century peerages [chiefly, Collins-Brydges, _Peerage_ (1812); but see
also _CP_) or histories where peers who were also knights were referred
to as "Sir Richard Blank, Earl of Blankshire". That seems to me to be a
usage rather more typically adopted by Americans ; suggesting to me
perhaps a sort of unconscious (Sir Walter Scott-ian?) archaism. But, I'm
referring to usage in the Early Modern and Modern periods - the Middle
Ages would be quite another matter, I think.

Tony

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

Gjest

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jan 2007 22:52:02

In a message dated 1/23/07 1:24:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:

<< What I am trying to learn is whether it is better form to write "Richard
Neville, Earl of Warwick" or "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick" in a
genealogical or historical article or book. >>

My own habit, (unasked for) is to use Sir only when there is no more
*interesting* title. So no Sir Earl. If he's an Earl than Sir just sounds a bit
silly to my ear.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Morley and Hastings lines for the Reymeses and Brewsters

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jan 2007 23:33:02

In a message dated 1/22/07 8:36:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< The Norfolk Visitation allows us to see that the grandparents of
William Reymes (who married Mary Payne) were "Roger Reymes of
Overstrond" and "Ann da. of Edmund Hastings" ...


http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... 2-PA233,M1 >>


I can identify the Rose Knyvett who in the above link appears as the
sister-in-law of this Roger Reymes. She is the great-granddaughter of John Howard,
1st Duke of Norfolk 1483-5 who died at Bosworth Field.

Her eight great-grandparents were
Sir William /Knyvett/ d 1515
Alice /Grey/ d 1474
Sir William /Tyrrell/ , Knt. of Gipping, Suffolk
Margaret /Darcy/
Sir Humphrey /Bourchier/ d 1471 at Barnet Field
Elizabeth /Tilney/ (parents of the 2nd Baron Berners
John Howard (above)
Margaret Chetwode

So this gives perhaps some background in what social circles these Reymes
moved.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Morley and Hastings lines for the Reymeses and Brewsters

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 00:33:02

In a message dated 1/22/07 8:36:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<<
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0SjL1 ... s#PPA90,M1 >>


That Anne Hastings daughter of Sir Brian Hastings, Knt of Fenwick by his wife
Anne or Agnes Portington; married Thomas Wentworth of North Elmsall (d abt
Aug 1544) and had issue [which continues at least 200 more years]

see


The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, by Henry Fritz-Gilbert
Waters <a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0U0dwQYWFU7XUo1OYr&id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA132&dq=%22john+lawson%22+priscilla">page 126</a>

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jan 2007 00:34:57

On Jan 24, 8:20 am, "Clagett, Brice" <bclag...@cov.com> wrote:
Yes, I knew most of this. (I was at a weekend house party years ago
where another guest was Edward, the present Duke of Norfolk. He
was introduced as "Teddy Arrrrndle" (no Surrey). His infant son, who
was also there, was introduced as "Maltr'vers" -- a suitably aged
courtesy title.)

Peter analogizes using Sir with Earl to using Baron with Earl. But the
difference, as previously noted, is that earl outranks baron on the same
track (peerage) while earl does not outrank knight on the chivalric
track.

What I am trying to learn is whether it is better form to write "Richard
Neville, Earl of Warwick" or "Sir Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick" in a
genealogical or historical article or book. Burke's Peerage (103d
edition) is wildly inconsistent on this and so is no help.

I'd much appreciate the input of others, especially Brits.

On the whole it would be wise not to categorise your sources of
information according to nationality - this is somewhat like preferring
to have Catholics tell you about Roman theology, when a Protestant who
has studied it with a purpose may well know far more about the subject.
My experience in these matters comes from official practice, in
England, not from books that are available everywhere.

The essential point you are missing is that the monarch is the fount of
honour - so the idea that a title of knighthood and one from a peerage
come from "different tracks" is misleading: the source is the same.

Titles, including foreign ones, may only used by British subjects in
the British Isles with the monarch's permission. The same principles of
rank and seniority apply to correct usage, whether the title happens to
be "Sir" or "Lord" or "Duke".

"Sir Forename Surname" is a style of the late medieval gentry that
became established as a convenient means of distinguishing knights from
esquires, when there was no other nomenclature in English to designate
their relative rank, not amongst the nobility to distinguish knighted
peers from others.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Morley and Hastings lines for the Reymeses and Brewsters

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 01:07:02

This source
<a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0SjL18MuOhGuMukJ-5&id=gkAJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22robert+reymes#PPA90,M1">Norfolk Archaeology</a>

mentions Martyn Hastings son of Thomas Hastings, Esq of Hindringham by his
wife Frances Tyrell

who married Elizabeth Browne dau of Thomas Browne of Elsing

I do find the marriage of Martin Hasting to Elizabeth Brown
on 30 Oct 1628 at Weasenham All Saints, Norfolk

For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M040851

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 01:39:02

In a message dated 1/22/07 11:31:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< A6) Maud Percy (c.1485/89-c.1521/27), possibly illeg. >>

What is the source for her death limits?
I show that she was alive in the will of her stepson Thomas in 1527

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 01:57:02

In a message dated 1/22/07 11:31:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< A12) Elizabeth Acclam, heiress of Moreby, m. Mark Milbanke, 1st Bt. of
Halnaby, Yorks. (d. 1680), and had
A13) Mark Milbanke, 2nd Bt. of Halnaby (d. 1698) m. Jane Carr (d.
1704), and had >>

The marriage date of the parents of Mark Milbanke 1st Bart is known
Leo cites CB here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
giving 14 Jul 1629
without specifying the place

The place is found here
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M004351
which confirms the date and gives the place as the confusing
"Saint Nicholas Parish Reg and Nonconf, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland"
[as found]

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 02:09:02

In a message dated 1/22/07 11:31:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< A12) Elizabeth Acclam, heiress of Moreby, m. Mark Milbanke, 1st Bt. of
Halnaby, Yorks. (d. 1680), and had
A13) Mark Milbanke, 2nd Bt. of Halnaby (d. 1698) m. Jane Carr (d.
1704), and had >>


Although the birthdate for Mark the 1st Bart is sometimes given as "abt 1630"
the extant registers of All Saints, Newcastle show the family structure,
which I've extracted here

http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/ind ... othy_Cooke

which allows us to pinpoint Marke better as bap 1 Jul 1638, thus, hopefully
allowing us to pinpoint his wife
Elizabeth Acclam a bit better as well

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 02:16:01

In a message dated 1/22/07 11:31:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< A12) Elizabeth Acclam, heiress of Moreby, m. Mark Milbanke, 1st Bt. of
Halnaby, Yorks. (d. 1680), and had
A13) Mark Milbanke, 2nd Bt. of Halnaby (d. 1698) m. Jane Carr (d.
1704), and had >>

Likewise the marriage date for Mark to Elizabeth "Acklom" [as found] is known
and given here
For marriage see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M105573

as 6 Sep 1660 at Stillingfleet, Yorkshire

which is a bit surprising as, if Mark 2nd Bart was *her* son then his own
marriage
3 Feb 1680 at Houghton-le-Spring
would have occurred when he was no *more than* 18 years old

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 03:17:02

In a message dated 1/22/07 11:31:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< D4) Joan Greystoke (c.1410-aft. 1472) m. Sir John Darcy of Temple
Hurst, Yorks. (1404-1458), and they had >>

Although genealogics says "aft 1472", tudorplace.com.ar says 1456

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 24 jan 2007 03:38:12

Dear Will

In his Plantagenet Ancestry (page 441) Douglas Richardson gives Joan
Greystoke contracted marriage to William Stoke on 27 April 1458.
Joan and her second husband "they were living 1471/1472"

Now the question is: who is correct Richardson or tudorplace? My bet is
Richardson
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <royaldescent@hotmail.com>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke,Governor of
Newfoundland 1789...


In a message dated 1/22/07 11:31:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

D4) Joan Greystoke (c.1410-aft. 1472) m. Sir John Darcy of Temple
Hurst, Yorks. (1404-1458), and they had

Although genealogics says "aft 1472", tudorplace.com.ar says 1456

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

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 24 jan 2007 04:32:48

On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

royaldesc...@hotmail.com writes:<< A6) Maud Percy (c.1485/89-c.1521/27), possibly illeg.

What is the source for her death limits?
I show that she was alive in the will of her stepson Thomas in 1527

I had originally thought that, going from an extract of the will
transcribed on a website. But after I obtained the full transcriptions
of the wills of Sir Ralph Ryther (1510) and Thomas Ryther (1527), I
realized Maud had died by 1527, as the two Lincolnshire manors Sir
Ralph had granted to her in jointure were then in Thomas's hands.

She may even have predeceased Sir Ralph, as he makes no bequest to her
at all in his will, nor is she among his executors. Neither does he
make any provision for prayers for her soul. But he makes no provision
for prayers for the soul of his first wife either. There is no mention
of either wife in his will at all. He does make the 5th Earl of
Northumberland supervisor of his will. He refers to him as "the right
honorable and singler good lord, My Lord of Northumbreland ... besekyng
his lordship to gif his good assistaunce to the performing of the same;
to whos good lordship I bequeath a stage [stag] horse..." not as "my
brother".

That doesn't necessarily mean that Sir Ralph's wife Maud hadn't been a
sister of the 5th Earl of Northumberland. For in the 1522 will of Sir
Thomas Strangways, who had been married to a sister (who predeceased
him) of Thomas, 2nd Lord Dacre, he refers to him not as "my brother"
but as "my Lord of Dacre shall have the oversight of James my sone and
of his wif ... I will that my Lord of Dacre be supervisour of this my
last will".

So it seems that in the early 16th century if your brother-in-law was
a peer, and thus above you in class, you referred to him as "my Lord"
and not with the familial relationship of "brother".

Likewise the marriage date for Mark to Elizabeth "Acklom" [as found] is known
and given here
For marriage seewww.familysearch.org- IGI - British Isles - Batch M105573

as 6 Sep 1660 at Stillingfleet, Yorkshire

Many thanks for digging this up, Will. And for the baptismal dates of
the 1st Baronet and his siblings.

which is a bit surprising as, if Mark 2nd Bart was *her* son then his own
marriage
3 Feb 1680 at Houghton-le-Spring
would have occurred when he was no *more than* 18 years old

Not so unusual for an heir to be married in his late teens, especially
the heir of a man who had been raised to a baronetcy in 1661, greatly
enhancing the family's status.

Cheers, --------Brad

pj.evans

Re: Google Group's New Format

Legg inn av pj.evans » 24 jan 2007 04:45:05

On the other hand, *I'm* no longer getting message text running across
the right-hand column and becoming unreadable.


On Jan 23, 7:38 pm, "Brad Verity" <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I just want to vent on record that I think the new format of Google
Groups stinks!! There are too many frames, and they are so narrow that
it makes it difficult to see what you're typing when responding to a
post.

And what happened to the preview screen before you send a post?

A great big BLECCCHHHH! to this new format!

----Brad

Gjest

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 05:15:03

In a message dated 1/23/07 7:36:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< But after I obtained the full transcriptions
of the wills of Sir Ralph Ryther (1510) >>

You had said earlier "...Elizabeth Ryther, who was also under age when Sir
Ralph wrote his will on 26 March 1520."

So I assigned her dates right up to 1520. Should the will be redated to
1510? Or was that a mistake?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: John, Lord of Mawddwy/Mouthwy, son in law of Sir Fulke C

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 05:16:01

In a message dated 1/23/07 9:07:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< Composition] between Sir Owen son of Griffin ab Wenonwyn and
Griffin his brother to settle a contention touching lands assigned
by the father, with the assent and licence of the said king, to
the said Griffin. Owen grants that Griffin shall hold the land
of Mecheyn Iscoyt for the life of Hawisia their mother, and
then the land of Deudour which she holds in dower shall remain
to him in tail. The land in each instance to> be held by specified
services. Done at Westminster, 17 May, 18 Edward I, before >>

Is not this Sir Owen who is here "granting" in 1300, that same Owen (ap
Gruffydd ap Wenonwyn) who is supposed to be dead by 28 Sep 1294 when custody of his
minor heir and castle are being granted ?

Gjest

Re: John, Lord of Mawddwy/Mouthwy, son in law of Sir Fulke C

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 05:17:02

In a message dated 1/23/07 9:07:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< Said to have married Ela de Audley of Brimpsfield- dsp, since his sister
Hawise "Gadarn"- "the Hardy" became Owen ap Gruffyd's sole heir, marrying
John
Cherleton in 1309, carrying to him the lordship of Powis: see her entry in
the Welsh DNB >>

I wonder if this shouldn't be "bef 6 Aug 1309"
It's a bit suspicious that she marries in the same year that her brother dies
and adding to that we have Isabella's son (presumably) John, 2nd Lord
Cherleton marrying Maud de Mortimer "bef 13 Apr 1319" and a daughter from that union
Isabella Cherleton having a son John de Sutton, Lord Dudley by at the latest
1338

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Re: John, Lord of Mawddwy/Mouthwy, son in law of Sir Ful

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 06:14:02

Apologies to the group. I made a stupid mistake yesterday in giving the date
of the "carve-up" of Southern Powis as 1300. It was instead made in the year
18 Edw I, as appears from the exemplification which I copied as a footnote
to my post.
Thanks to Will Jhonson for his private mail drawing my attention to the
mistake
MM

Brad Verity

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 24 jan 2007 06:30:24

From: WJhonson@aol.com

You had said earlier "...Elizabeth Ryther, who was also under age when Sir
Ralph wrote his will on 26 March 1520."

So I assigned her dates right up to 1520. Should the will be redated to
1510? Or was that a mistake?

Mistake. The will is dated 26 March 1520, proved 26 April 1520.

Cheers, ------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on your
Live.com page.
http://www.live.com/?addTemplate=Valent ... MSN30A0701

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Descents From Edward III for Mark Milbanke, Governor of

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 24 jan 2007 08:51:34

In message of 24 Jan, "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

So it seems that in the early 16th century if your brother-in-law was
a peer, and thus above you in class, you referred to him as "my Lord"
and not with the familial relationship of "brother".

But it depends on who wrote the will, does it not? If some flunky wrote
it, he might well have added in additional extra tones of respect that
the testator himself would never have bothered with.

And on a related topic, was it not at about that time that the vast
amount of lard in the term 'His Majestie' was invented for the local
sovereign? If so, who caused this change of practice?

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

Matt Tompkins

Re: Many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 24 jan 2007 14:48:14

I posted this a while ago, but I don't think it has gone through, so
I'm trying again.

Douglas Richardson wrote:
As a followup to your erudite comments, I find that the Latin word
"dominus" meant different things in the medieval period, depending on
the context it was used: (1) Lord (as in king or archbishop), (2) Sir
(as in a knight), (3) Sir (as in a priest), and (4) lord of a manor.
It could also be used in connection with a peerage title such as Lord
Neville. In later periods, it was customary to address a knight as
"Sir John Stafford knight," to differentiate him from "Sir John
Stafford priest." If knighthood or priesthood are not indicated in the
document, it is impossible to know if a individual addressed as "Sir"
was a knight or a priest. However, the context of the document usually
yields the desired answer. For example, if we see "Sir [Dominus]
Boniface de Saluciis" is being appointed to a church position, it's
obvious that he was a priest, not a knight. Also, if one studies other
contemporary records in which the same individual appears, it usually
becomes apparent if the person involved in the records was a knight or
a priest. The combinations of "Sir" followed by the designation
"knight" and "Sir" followed by the designation "priest" (or clerk) are
commonplace in English medieval records.

This is not a bad summary of the various meanings of "dominus" when
used as an honorific in high and late medieval English records. I
don't think many historians would find much to quibble with in it.

None of this has anything to do with someone who was "dominus" (lord)
of property. A knight could be styled "dominus" meaning "Sir," and
also be "dominus" (lord) of property. It is the context of the word
that determines the meaning of the word.

Quite right. And even people of low social status who would not be
styled "dominus" could nevertheless be the "dominus" of
property. There are even cases of peasants who had sublet their land
being described as their subtenant's "dominus", though that was
not a normal practice.

Matt Tompkins

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Queen Emma Of England (b. circa 986- d. 1052) -- Wife Of

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 jan 2007 20:55:45

Gans, of course, remains as quiet and intimidated in this thread on
MEDIAEVAL HISTORY and GENEALOGY as a Muslim
mouse living in a synagogue, during a Bar Mitzvah ceremony...

Because He Has Been EMBARRASSED by the frank EXPOSURE of his abysmal
IGNORANCE.

Gans is a self-proclaimed "MEDIEVALIST" -- he's supposed to KNOW these
things.

But he does not -- and has once again bared his ignorance to the masses --
like unto a naughty small boy pulling down his pants on the playground at PS
169, in Manhattan, in order to show his arse and make the girls shriek. He
gets a Great Kick out of that.

[Gans attended PS 169 elementary school in Manhattan.]

How Sweet It Is!

Veronique, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Gans is even more ignorant about this subject in MEDIAEVAL HISTORY and
GENEALOGY than he is about the Science & Politics of Global
Warming.

Gans The Unready...

Always Good Entertainment.

Enjoy!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Exitus Acta Probat

Vaughan Sanders <vjs@jamie-san.demon.co.uk> wrote:

You have never read the EER have you Paul?

Correct ---- Gans has not read the _Encomium Emmae Reginae [EER]_, just one
of the relevant historical sources on Emma, and is now doing his Standard
Uproarious Gansian Backpedaling Act (SUGBA) [pronounced "SUGBA"] -- The
Famed & Amusing Gansian Shuffle ---- after having posted this Errant Gansian
Twaddle [pronounced "EGAT"]:

------Cordon Sanitaire----------------------------------------------------

Emma of Normandy is such an example. Almost nothing is known
about her.
--
--- Paul J. Gans

-----Cordon Sanitaire-----------------------------------------------------

Pauline Stafford obviously knows a Great Deal about Emma of Normandy.

Folks Who Know say she has written a first-rate example of the New Feminist
History, a burgeoning field that was long neglected.

What Gans MEANT to say is that HE knows almost nothing about Emma of
Normandy -- which is totally irrelevant to the OP's query.

Gans often forgets that essential qualifier.

He frequently thinks that if HE is ignorant about given Historical Facts
then everyone ELSE must be as ignorant as he is.

No Sale....

Par For The Course.

Gans is NOW trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

We know lots about Emma of Normandy -- including some very interesting
Prosopography.

Quite obviously, Gans has not read Pauline Stafford's _Queen Emma & Queen
Edith_ either, the book previously mentioned by Vaughan Sanders.

The Self-Proclaimed "MEDIEVALIST" has been caught with no clothes and his
bum on public display, as is his wont.

ZAAAAAAAAAPPPP!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Peter Stewart

Re: Many meanings of dominus

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jan 2007 22:34:51

"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1169646494.797384.133660@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I posted this a while ago, but I don't think it has gone through, so
I'm trying again.

Douglas Richardson wrote:
As a followup to your erudite comments, I find that the Latin word
"dominus" meant different things in the medieval period, depending on
the context it was used: (1) Lord (as in king or archbishop), (2) Sir
(as in a knight), (3) Sir (as in a priest), and (4) lord of a manor.
It could also be used in connection with a peerage title such as Lord
Neville. In later periods, it was customary to address a knight as
"Sir John Stafford knight," to differentiate him from "Sir John
Stafford priest." If knighthood or priesthood are not indicated in the
document, it is impossible to know if a individual addressed as "Sir"
was a knight or a priest. However, the context of the document usually
yields the desired answer. For example, if we see "Sir [Dominus]
Boniface de Saluciis" is being appointed to a church position, it's
obvious that he was a priest, not a knight. Also, if one studies other
contemporary records in which the same individual appears, it usually
becomes apparent if the person involved in the records was a knight or
a priest. The combinations of "Sir" followed by the designation
"knight" and "Sir" followed by the designation "priest" (or clerk) are
commonplace in English medieval records.

This is not a bad summary of the various meanings of "dominus" when
used as an honorific in high and late medieval English records. I
don't think many historians would find much to quibble with in it.

None of this has anything to do with someone who was "dominus" (lord)
of property. A knight could be styled "dominus" meaning "Sir," and
also be "dominus" (lord) of property. It is the context of the word
that determines the meaning of the word.

Quite right. And even people of low social status who would not be
styled "dominus" could nevertheless be the "dominus" of
property. There are even cases of peasants who had sublet their land
being described as their subtenant's "dominus", though that was
not a normal practice.

It probably wouldn't be normal practice today, I suppose - although
"landlord" is used for the owner who leases property, I think the term
"sub-lessor" would be more usual than "sub-landlord" in a hierarchy of
tenancies. But the idea survives - from ancient Rome - in the use of "lord"
in the context of ordinary proprietorship, quite distinct from rank except
in this material sense. A commoner can be land"lord" to a duke.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Fw: Claimants to the English throne

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2007 23:41:02

There are quite a lot of living descendents from Henry VII
Surely they would get first dibs at any new claim over anyone centuries
earlier.

Gjest

re: family structure of Robert Hatley / Dorothy Hampden

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2007 00:27:02

Last month, there was an thread where Douglas Richardson and John Brandon
both brought forth details about this couple. The Vis London 1635 gives four
children. I've found two in the extracted IGI so we can now know a few extra
things. See

http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/ind ... thy_Hampde
n

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Elizabeth Bowes / Nicholas Heveningham

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2007 01:05:02

Will,

Yes, I appear to have made a mistake here, for which I apologise. 18 Dec
1580 was the date of Elizabeth Bowes' birth and she was baptised at Elford on
24 Dec. 1580 (Elford parish registers). Elizabeth died in 1639 (I have a
transcript of her will). She married Nicholas Heveningham at Elford on 18th
January 1607/8 (Elford parish registers).

Hope this clarifies.

Kind Regards,

Rose
Epsom Downs/ UK


Researching in England : HEVENINGHAM

Hal Bradley

RE: family structure of Robert Hatley / Dorothy Hampden

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 25 jan 2007 01:07:18

The christening dates for Constance & Mary can be found in the parish
registers for Maulden in 1608 & 1611 respectively.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:25 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: re: family structure of Robert Hatley / Dorothy Hampden


Last month, there was an thread where Douglas Richardson and
John Brandon
both brought forth details about this couple. The Vis London
1635 gives four
children. I've found two in the extracted IGI so we can now
know a few extra
things. See

http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/ind ... _Hatley_an
d_Dorothy_Hampde

n

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 Brandon

Re: family structure of Robert Hatley / Dorothy Hampden

Legg inn av John Brandon » 25 jan 2007 01:18:25

Thanks, very interesting. (This link works better for me ...

http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/ind ... hy_Hampden

John Brandon

Re: family structure of Robert Hatley / Dorothy Hampden

Legg inn av John Brandon » 25 jan 2007 01:29:55

Remember the daughters ...

Maulden, co. Bedford
--Constance Hatley, dau. of Robert, bapt. 8 Aug. 1608
--Mary Hatley, dau. of Robert, bapt. 3 April 1611

Maulden was another haunt of some of the descendants of Constance Hawes
-- i.e., the Sheppards and Bressies.


Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Matilda of Apulia: the dukes of Naples

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2007 02:55:03

In a message dated 1/24/07 5:06:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< 1.1.1.1.1 Gemma of Naples
----------------------------------------
Death: 0961[2]

' ..bishop-duke Athanasius' daughter Gemma was married to Landolf, son
of Atenulf of Capua-Benevento in 897.' [Skinner, p. 49[1], cites
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 120]

Spouse: Landolf I, prince of Benevento
Death: 0943[3]
Father: Atenolf I of Benevento (-0910)
Mother: Sigelgaita
Marr: 0897[1] >>


We have too many Sigelgaita's running around. Who would have thought this
name was so popular?

Sure it's reaching forward a generation or two but.... could this Sigelgaita,
here seen messing around in Capua, Benevento be .... related to that
"Gatelgaima" of Capua who married Guaimar (Waimar) III of /Salerno/ (d 1027)

Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Matilda of Apulia: the dukes of Naples

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2007 02:57:02

In a message dated 1/24/07 5:06:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Gaitelgrima de Capua
----------------------------------------

regent for her son Guaimar IV, 1027 >>

Never Mind !!!
Mea culpa !

Will

Gjest

Re: Ordeal by Water? What was that?

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2007 05:26:02

In a message dated 1/24/07 8:20:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< his son underwent the ordeal by water for him. >>

Was that the one where they threw you into a lake? If you sank (and drowned)
you were innocent but if you floated you were guilty :)

Will

Douglas Richardson

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jan 2007 06:50:05

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is no mystery here at all here. It was customary in the medieval
period in England to address an Earl as "Sir." If you look closely,
you can easily find such references in published sources such as the
Patent Rolls. I've listed a few such references below for various well
known individuals such "Sir John de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln", "Sir
William Marshal sometime Earl of Pembroke," Sir Hubert de Burgh Earl of
Kent, "Sir Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland," "Sir Hugh le Despenser
earl of Winchester," "Sir Richard Earl of Arundel," etc. The
references below run from the early 1200's to 1400.

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0126.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0324.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0125.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0067.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0291.pdf
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0401.pdf

The word in Latin for "Sir" in the earlier records would be "dominus."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Brandon

Re: MI5 Persecution: A doubting Thomas is heard 9/5/95 (1315

Legg inn av John Brandon » 25 jan 2007 23:33:25

Stop posting this bullshit!!

True, Britain has no 'privacy' laws as such, but isn't that
a good thing? As of this moment, the govt. are considering
a privacy law, but it is unlikely to succeed. Why? Because any
such law would benefit the priviledged and those in power.
Privacy laws, while supposedly protecting the individual, help
those in power hide their mistakes/scandals. They stop the press
etc. investigating. Privacy laws are undemocratic - they prevent
the people from keeping an eye on govt.Agreed again.

Douglas.I am slightly confused here as to who is writing what. this just seems to
be an amalgam of posts and replies posted to here to keep the thread going.

Confession time - the victim is/was me (except my name isn't
Corley, but that's irrelevant). What happened was not threats;
just invasion of privacy, in a partiicularly flagrant and
shocking way, in a way which most people would consider to
constitute harassment.
You know there's a particular category of person with mental
illness to whom TV and radio "talk", ie they feel the broadcast
is directed at them in particular? This happpened to me,You mean the category where they think that everyone is after them ? that
one ? So lets get this straight you know you are paranoid and you think
that they are out to get you ? Uh huh, try putting the two together and
see what you come up with.

quite some time ago in the UK (I'm originally from London
so I've seen plenty of British media print and other).
They invaded my home with their bugs, they repeated what I
was saying in the privacy of my home, and they laughed that it
was "so funny", that I was impotent and could not even communicate
what was going on. Who did this? Our friends on BBC television,
our friends in ITN, last but not least our friends in Capital
Radio in London and on Radio 1.Oh yeah, I can see it now. All of them banding together, in a united
effort against one man. So ITN, the BBC, and Capital all decide to sit
round the table and they come up with idea of breaking into someones
house, putting bugs everywhere, listening in to his conversation, and
shoving it out on the news everyday. This someone has nothing to do with
politics, or business, or entertainment, just an ordinary Joe Bloggs who
seems to be extremely paranoid.

Have some sense, grow up and smell reality. What you are talking about
would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots of
people involved in the planning, execution and maintenance of it. You
must have a very high opinion of yourself to think you are worth it.

How did they do this? I'll give you an example. About a year ago,
I was listening to Chris Tarrant (Capital Radio DJ among other
pursuits) on his radio morning show, when he said, talking about
someone he didn't identify, "you know this bloke? he says we're
trying to kill him. We should be done for attempted manslaughter"
which mirrored something I had said a day or two before
(I'm not paranoid, honest!). Now that got broadcast to the whole
of London - if any recordings are kept of the shows then it'll be
there.Of course you are not paranoid, just slightly mad. Did you ever look for
the bugs in your house ? If not, why not ? I mean if I thought that was
happening to me, I'd search the place from top to bottom, I mean I live
there I would know if anything was out of place. If I was really
paranoid, whoops I mean suspicious, I would call in one of those bug
detection teams which have those machines that pick up the transmitted
radio waves. This reminds me of BUGS, that new programme on BBC1 on
saturdays which is all about this kind of stuff, but, shown as a drama /
thriller. I suppose thats based on you as well is it ?

is that there is a conspiracy in Britain, that it encompasses the
broadcast media, and there is no way of breaking the conspiracy.
The people who are involved in it will not open up.What a load of jolly hollyhocks, I would say something else but,
apparently students are not allowed to swear on newsgroups in case it
damages the reputation of the university or some such jolly hollyhocks.

This guy is extremely paranoid to suggest that the entire British media
is after him in such a big way. He gives no real reason as to why they
are after him, just that he suffers/suffered from a slight mental
disorder, could it be paranoia perhaps ?? No surely not.

I put it to the house that he has never recovered from this mental
disorder, lets come out with it and call it paranoia, and thinks everyone
is after him. Remember just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean
they aren't after you.

This guy has a serious problem to suggest that the media would go to such
lengths just to single out and ridicule one person. I mean apart from
anything else, we ( the listening masses) wouldn't be interested unless
it concerned the royal family, politicians or showbiz personalities. e.g.
the camillagate tapes. I would think that almost everyone, no matter how
much they went on about infringements of privacy read the transcripts with
interest. I really don't think that Joe Bloggs ordinary guy or paranoid
nutter would have the same appeal. Well actually I dunno. :)

Regards,

Paul.

--
Paul Orrock, Websurfer wannabe,http://www.idiscover.co.uk/paul/home.html
PC Consultant and HTML freelance Writer,http://www.idiscover.co.uk/paul/
===========================================================================
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

1315

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Gjest

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2007 23:45:50

Hi all,

I recently made an impulse purchase off ebay. It was "The Lady in
Medieval England 1000 - 1500" by Peter Coss who holds/held the chair of
medieval history and is/was director of the Centre for the Study of
Medieval Society and Culture at the University of Wales, Cardiff.

Coss deals with this same dilemma in presenting the evolution of "the
Lady" so named in the book's title, particularly on pp. 6-13:

"These phrases can be explained in part by the lack of terminology to
cover such situations. But the word lady, 'domina' in Latin or
'flaefdige' in Anglo-Saxon, is merely the female equivalent of lord
'dominus' or 'hlaefdig',and its more normal use in that sense. This,
for example, is the sense in which it is used in Domesday Book..." (p.
9)

Coss thus traces the use of Lord/Lady to the owner of a manor worth at
least 5 hides in the Domesday Book era after having previously related
the term to landowning and concepts of nobility. He goes on to say
that by the 11th & 12th centuries, the term became tied to royal
service even if s/he lacked nobility but had a leasehold that was seen
as a 'burh-geat,' or fortified manor house, later modified still to
include such residences as had their own parish church.

He goes on to state that the term 'dominus' in France, previously
largely restricted to very wealthy landowners, by the 13th century had
begun to be used by lesser landowners, in particular, those who had
been dubbed knights:

"By the 1230s and 1240s it was becoming the norm to separate off
knights from other witnesses to charters, only the knights and the
greater lords, who were also knights, carrying the designation 'domin
us' or sir. This was paralleled by the dissemination of the words
'domina' and dame." (p. 12).

Anyway, so, if I correctly read Professor Coss, he seems to suggest
that the terminology was in a state of flux which may well account for
the confusing usage in both original medieval documents as well as by
those who transcribe and translate them.

HTH,

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com

On Jan 21, 1:22 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Millerfairfi...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:mailman.1935.1169407060.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



Peter Stewart asked how Douglas Richardson accounts for the occurrence in
English records of styles such as "Dominus N de N miles".
I suggest that Douglas (or Peter, or any other interested people) might
consult the Calendar of Patent Rolls for the answer. For instance CPR for
28 Hen
III. membrane 5d on page 443, available online in English translation by
courtesy of the University of Iowa, of which the original was I suppose
written
in Latin, refers to:-
"Sir Philip Basset, knight, Sir Robert de Shotindon, Sirs Hubert de
Ruill[y], Robert de Leyham, knights".
Even if, as I imagine may turn out to be the case, the original Latin has
"dominus P.B. miles" etc, then I see no need to conclude that Sir Philip
or his
fellows had been knighted twice.
As a matter of interest I searched for "dominus" on the Iowa CPR site, and
found only 493 references for all the reigns from Henry III to Henry VI.
Of
these the overwhelming majority were referring to the king himself, or one
of
his ancestors, in their capacity of Lords of Ireland. The others included
references to six popes, sundry archbishops, several bishops and a pair of
abbots. No peer however grand, let alone any mere knight, was ever
referred to as
"dominus" , with the exception of one Frenchman. The only Chancellor so
described was also the bishop of Chichester. There are numerous references
to
"miles", but very few of them are used in the sense of "knight", and none
of the
people described as "miles" are also referred to as "dominus".
I thought to look for occurrences of "chivaler", which I take to be the
Norman French equivalent of "knight" but did not find that any of of the
people
so described in 3293 entries were referred to otherwise than as "N de M,
chivaler".
More promising are the Rylands charters (Manchester University, John
Rylands
Library (online reference RYCH). This archive refers to enormous numbers
of
"milites" whose names are almost always, if not always, introduced by
"dominus".
Next I thought to check the Ingilby records in the West Yorkshire
archives,
reference WYL 230. Many of these date back to the 14th century and beyond.
Here, as in many other archives of comparable antiquity, the references
to
"Sir N de N, knight" are very frequent.
I suppose the archivists have (in my view rightly) translated these from
the
original references to "Dominus N de N, miles"

So I think that the answers to Mr Stewart's further questions as to
whether
such people had been twice knighted and whether they should be referred
to
nowadays as " Sir Sir N de N" is, in both cases, NO. They should be
referred
to as "Sir N de N, knight", as indeed they are today in the case of
Knights
Bachelor.
MM- hoping I have beaten Douglas Richardson to the tapeFar from it, since you are not agreeing with him - according to Richardson,
"dominus" meant "Sir" indicating knighthood. By his view, in the form
"dominus N de N miles" either "cominus" or "miles" must be redundant IN THE
ORIGINAL text, no matter how archivists have chosen to translate this. Why
Sir N de N knight" rather than "N de N knighty knight", for instance?

NB For any who miss the point, that question is also not entirely servious.

Peter Stewart

In case you hadn't noticed, my questions were not serious.

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Ordeal by Water? What was that?

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 26 jan 2007 00:46:02

I think it was vice versa. But I don't think they just threw you in the
lake, otherwise you could swim away. I believe they held you under. What a
way to go, poor things!
Merilyn




-------Original Message-------

From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 01/25/07 14:54:20
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ordeal by Water? What was that?

In a message dated 1/24/07 8:20:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< his son underwent the ordeal by water for him. >>

Was that the one where they threw you into a lake? If you sank (and drowned)
you were innocent but if you floated you were guilty :)

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

Peter Stewart

Re: Dominus/miles

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 jan 2007 00:59:38

On Jan 25, 4:50 pm, "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

There is no mystery here at all here. It was customary in the medieval
period in England to address an Earl as "Sir." If you look closely,
you can easily find such references in published sources such as the
Patent Rolls. I've listed a few such references below for various well
known individuals such "Sir John de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln", "Sir
William Marshal sometime Earl of Pembroke," Sir Hubert de Burgh Earl of
Kent, "Sir Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland," "Sir Hugh le Despenser
earl of Winchester," "Sir Richard Earl of Arundel," etc. The
references below run from the early 1200's to 1400.

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0401.pdf

The word in Latin for "Sir" in the earlier records would be "dominus."

The pages offered as proof of your contention about the customary style
of earls actually tend to muddy the question if not to disprove it -
perhaps it would be worth your while to take a closer look.

On the first page, from 1235, the first paragraph has four earls
listed as "Sir" with forename or initial, and as you say this is the
translator's rendering of "dominus". However, the last paragraph refers
to "G. Marshal, earl of Pembroke" without the honorofic "Sir",
presumably in the original without "dominus". Was he not a knight, or
was this alleged "custom" honoured in the breach as well as the
observance?

On the second page, from 1323, in contrast to "Sir William Marshal,
sometime Earl of Pembroke" that you quote above, the second paragraph
refers to "Henry de Lacy, sometime earl of Lincoln" with no "Sir",
again presumably no "dominus". Same questions...The list of witnesses
following has the translator committing what would be a gross solecism
in modern usage, "Sirs Hugh, his son, Ralph Basset of Drayton, Philip
Darcy, and John his brother, John de Barton of Friton, knights". No
doubt "Sirs...knights" is the convenient rendering for
"domini...milites" - bit "Sir" as the correct style for a knight is
specific to the individual, not generic, and using this in the plural
for a group of knighted men is not customary, indeed not acceptable.
Again, the translator has opted for a facile but false analogy of
"dominus" with the modern "Sir" rather than for a closer equivalence of
meaning that might have been achieved simply by using a lower case "s",
for "sirs", leaving "knights" to designate their particular rank. This
would have looked odd to English readers, but it would be more accurate
unless "dominus" had been written with a capital "D" (that is
virtuyally never the case, of course).

The third page, going back to 1235, like the first page above has
several earls styled "Sir", but at the head of the same paragraph
appears the principal in the transaction, named only as "Gilbert
Marshal, earl of Pembroke" with no "Sir" before his name.

On the fourth page, from 1331, occurs "Aymer de Valencia, earl of
Pembroke" without "Sir", above others including "Sir Walter
Marescallus, sometime earl of Pembroke", and "Sir William de Valencia,
sometime earl of Pembroke, the father of Aymer". Can you establish that
Aymer himself was not a knight? He was clearly an earl, and yet you
maintain that "Sir" was customary for this rank regardless of
knighthood. Amongst the witnesses appear "Sir William de Caunvile,
knight, Sir Philip Abbot, Sir Richard Simund, John Scurlagh..." So why
does the first of these men rate a "Sir...knight" while the two
following him are just plain "Sir" without any mention after their
names of knightly status?

On the fifth page, from 1297, the witnesses in the first paragraph are
listed as "Sir Richard, earl of Arundel; Sir John de Wyttone, abbot of
Wygemor; Sir Caducanus ab Yeva, abbot of Cumhir; Sir Richard de
Baskervilla; Sir Hugh de Power..." Does not the identical style of a
capitalised "Sir" attached to the abbots suggest to you some rather
wide latitude in this usage? In other words, that the translator is
simply opting again for the standard rather than for the precise? In
the last paragraph occurs "Grant to Richard Burnell, who is going with
the king beyond seas, at the service of a fourth part of a knight's
fee". So was Burnell a knight, and if so why was he not called "Sir
Richard"?

The sixth and last of your pages, from 1400, has "Henry de Percy, earl
of Northumberland and constable of England", with no "Sir" before his
name - do you suppose he could have been constable of the kingdom
without being knighted? His name is followed by that of "Sir Ralph
Neville, earl of Westmoreland and marshal of England". If you want to
make an argument that the latter style was customary for earls, how do
you explain the former, a blatant discrepancy in the same text?

The examples only illustrate the sensible points made by Judy from the
book she quoted by Peter Coss: there was obviously flux in terminology
throughout the period up to 1400 - and the fact that some modern
editors/translators take the line of least resistance by misapplying
the capitalised "Sir" for every instance of "dominus" proves nothing
about medieval usage.

Peter Stewart

The Thill Group, Inc

Re: Ordeal by Water? What was that?

Legg inn av The Thill Group, Inc » 26 jan 2007 01:26:27

No they didn't swim away, most couldn't swim and most were tied.

Simple google search came up with:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ordeal

Ordeal, ancient legal custom whereby an accused person was required to
perform a test, the outcome of which decided the person's guilt or
innocence. By an ordeal, appeal was made to divine authority to decide the
guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime or to choose between
disputants. This custom was known to ancient peoples as well as to those of
fairly advanced material culture. Until recent times the ordeal was
practiced in many parts of Asia and Africa. In the early Middle Ages it was
widely used to settle legal questions in Western Europe. In England it was
a regular form of trial and persisted until trial by jury became common.
Forms of the ordeal varied with the locality and with the nature of the
crime. The ordeal by fire-walking through fire or putting the hand into a
flame-was common, and there were other fiery ordeals, such as walking on
hot plowshares or plunging the hand into molten metal. Usually it was
believed that if the accused were innocent God would spare him. Commonly
there was a lapse of several days before the injuries were inspected; then
someone considered a competent judge decided from the severity of the
injuries as to innocence or guilt. One form of ordeal, the trial by water,
was that used to determine whether or not an accused woman was a witch. The
woman was bound and cast into water that had been blessed. If the water
rejected her-i.e., if she floated-she was considered guilty. If the water
received her, she was considered innocent. A common form of ordeal in
contentions between two parties was the submission to some trial of chance,
e.g., casting lots. Allied to this in spirit was the duel, which supposedly
worked on the principle that God would favor the cause of the righteous in
the battle. The trial by battle or by combat (sometimes called a judicial
duel or wager of battle) was a recognized procedure in the Middle Ages. It
was introduced from France to England after the Norman Conquest. In this
trial, one of the contending parties issued a wager of battle, or
challenge. Both parties under oath declared their assertions truthful; a
duel was fought, and the victor was awarded the decision. In case one of
the parties was a woman, a child, or a feeble man, he or she could be
represented by a champion, i.e., a knight who was a relative or who had
agreed to fight. As time went on a class of professional champions arose.
The Roman Catholic Church from early times disapproved of the ordeal
despite its apparently religious aspect, and in 1215 it categorically
forbade the clergy to take part in such ceremonies.


http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/torture/water.html

Ordeal By Water
In this type of ordeal, the water was symbolic of the flood of the Old
Testament, washing sin from the face of the earth, allowing only the
righteous minority to survive. As in the ordeal by fire, a three-day
religious rite was held beforehand. "Afterwards, if the ordeal was carried
out by the book, the accused faced plunging their hand into boiling water,
to the depth of the wrist. More serious offences demanded that the arm was
submerged up to the elbow." Once again, the burn was bandaged for three
days before the fateful examination.

There also existed an ordeal by cold water. In this, the accused was tied
at feet and hands and was lowered into cold water by a rope. This rope was
tied around the defendant's waist and had a knot a particular distance from
the torso. If both knot and accused dipped beneath the surface of the
water, the accused was proven innocent. If the knot was dry, the defendant
was guilty.
Since it was common knowledge that ordeal results could be fixed, Papal
authorities banned them in 1215. "The ban was slowly enforced throughout
Europe in the 13th century" (Farrington 22).

OR:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthre ... 2055038933

OR
http://secure.britannica.com/eb/topic-4 ... l-by-water

Ordeal by water (trial process)
Encyclopædia Britannica : Related Articles
A selection of articles discussing this topic.
use on witches
The ordeal by physical test, particularly by fire or water, is the most
common. In Hindu codes a wife may be required to pass through fire to prove
her fidelity to a jealous husband; traces of burning would be regarded as
proof of guilt. The practice of dunking suspected witches was based on the
notion that water, as the medium of baptism, would "accept," or receive,
the innocent...

OR

[bless him, dunk his hand in boiling water, wrap immediately, in three days
if not hurt, is innocent, if hurt guilty. BNT]

Medieval Sourcebook: Ordeal of Boiling Water, 12th or 13th Century

FORMULA FOR CONDUCTING THE ORDEAL OF BOILING WATER
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/water-ordeal.html
Let the priest go to the church with the prosecutors and with him who is
about to be tried.
...at, if thou art guilty of this matter charged against thee, ...Then he
shall designate a spot in the vestibule where the fire is to be made for
the water, .."chatter chatter".. give aid if he shall plunge his hand into
the boiling water, being innocent, .."more chatter"...O Lord, bring forth
his hand safe and unharmed from this water. But if he be guilty and presume
to plunge in his hand, the devil hardening his heart, let Thy holy justice
deign to declare it, that Thy virtue may be manifest in his body and his
soul be saved by penitence and confession. And if the guilty man shall try
to hide his sins by the use of herbs or any magic, let Thy right hand deign
to bring it to no account. ..."more Chatter"...Then let the hand that is to
be placed in water be washed with soap and let it be carefully examined
whether it be sound; .."more chatter"
After this let the man who is to be tried plunge in his hand and afterwards
let it be immediately sealed up. After the ordeal let him take a drink of
holy water. Up to the time of the decision regarding the ordeal [a period
of three days was allowed to elapse before the hand was examined] it is
good thing to mix salt and holy water with all his food and drink
From The Breviary of Eberhard of Bamberg ed. Zeumer in MG.LL. Sec V,
Formulae, p. 650. translated in University of Pennsylvania Translations and

Reprints , (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1898), Vol 4:,
no, 4, pp. 7-9


This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a
collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval
and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is
copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in
print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate
the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial
use.
(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996
halsall@murray.fordham.edu


Becky
ttg-inc@tx.rr.com
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>;
<WJhonson@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Ordeal by Water? What was that?


I think it was vice versa. But I don't think they just threw you in the
lake, otherwise you could swim away. I believe they held you under.
What a
way to go, poor things!
Merilyn

Gjest

Re: Who was Matthew Craddock's servant John Jolliffe?

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 04:01:02

In a message dated 1/25/07 7:57:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< --John of Gillingham son of Morgan Cave & Dorothy daughter of John
Joyliffe married 24-Aug 1630 >>

It seems... maybe.. chronologically possible that this is that same Morgan
Cave, who married Maud Davies. He is called "of Bagley, co Dorset" so at least
we have the right county. Also his brother-in-law was John BISSE another name
in your list above

<a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04885724&id=VpnC3wgof6gC&pg=RA7-PA79&lpg=RA7-PA79&dq=cave+of+gillingham">Leicestershire Pedigrees, page 79
</a>


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 06:56:02

And as against these three uses of "Nept..." meaning only "kinspersons" are
there also instances where the word is used in such a way that the
relationship is made clear *in context* ?

Without context that clarifies the relationship exactly, its hard to know
what the word meant simply from a few examples.

It's similar to the situation with Crokeback, that there is no context that
makes the meaning excrutiatingly clear.

In the case of a conflict, that is where one side thinks it means nephew and
the other thinks it means something more vague, any number of examples does
not go to show what the word *meant* but only what it did *not* mean.
Perhaps before 1300 it means "the relative of my horse handler", we just really
can't pin it down without a clear context. The *use* of the word alone, is not
clear.

Will

Gjest

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 12:36:02

DD interprets the relationship between Walter of Gloucester and William de
Mara as nephew in two different entries on page 572

Adrian

In a message dated 26/01/2007 04:25:41 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Dear John ~

After 1300 the Latin word nepos usually meant nephew or grandson.
However, before 1300, it frequently meant kinsman (ditto neptis for
kinswoman). As such, unless you have better documentation, Round
withstanding, it would be incorrect to call William de la Mare the
nephew of Walter of Gloucester. Rather, it would be best to simply
call William de la Mare Walter's kinsman, and leave it at that.

Here are three typical examples of nepos/neptis meaning
kinsman/kinswoman in records before 1300:

1. Sibyl de Falaise was styled “neptisâ€

Gjest

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 13:41:02

Friday, 26th January, 2007

John,

Thanks for your interesting post.

From DD there are two distinct Robert de Mare. The one who was dead in
1129/30 when his brother Henry had succeeded both to his brother's holding in

Oxfordshire and to their father's, the other Robert son of William de Mara ( a
nephew of Walter of Gloucester) and Mabel. Occures with his father c. 1139.
Held ten fees of William, earl of Gloicester, in 1166...

Clearly, if these two entries are correct, they cannot be the same Robert,
but that they are seems to be implied by J. H. Round's argument on page 20
quoted in your post?


King regards,
Adrian


In a message dated 25/01/2007 17:56:47 GMT Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

Thursday, 25 January, 2007


Dear Adrian, et al.,

Way back in 2002, you had posted information accumulated concerning the de
la Mare
family (or families), with an eye toward sorting out what relationship
existed between
these individuals. I have noted a few pieces concerning one particular
group, some of
whom were included in your research, which may help in constructing one
pedigree and
removing these individuals from contention for membership elsewhere (e.g.,
de la Mare
of Ashtead).



....

Gjest

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 15:46:01

The following interesting pedigree from Mich 1 Edw III
gives a descent from Elias Giffard, derived from IPMs
of his great-grandson John Giffard of Brimsfield, who
had died sp. I have reorganised the material given in
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica at p. 126, so
as to avoid using the vertical lines which often cause
difficulties in pedigrees posted to the list, and have
also tried to use conventional spellings for people's
names, and translated the original latin.

1. Elias Giffard (no wife given)
1.1 Elias Giffard
+ (1) Isabel Musard
1.1.1 Isabel, wife of Thomas Tabler
1.1.1.1 Guy Tabler
1.1.1.1.1 Edith, w. of Richard of Grinstead
1.1.1.1.1.1 Thomas de Grinstead, aged 15
1.1.2 Maud, wife of Godfrey Scudamore
1.1.2.1 Peter Scudamore
1.1.2.1.1 Alice, wife of Adam de Bavent
1.1.2.1.1.1 Roger Bavent, aged 40
1.1.3 Mabel, wife of Richard Dansey
1.1.3.1 Richard Dansey
1.1.3.1.1 Richard Dansey, aged 40
+ (2) Alice Maltravers
1.1.4 John Giffard of Brimsfield
+ (1) Maud de Longespee
1.1.4.1 Eleanor, wife of Fulk Le Strange
1.1.4.1.1 John le Strange, aged 21
1.1.4.2 Katherine, wife of Nicholas Audley
1.1.4.2.1 James Audley
1.1.4.2.1.1 James Audley, aged 14
+ (2) Margaret Knoville
1.1.4.3 John Giffard (subject of the IPMs)

1.2 Bertha, wife of Elias de Keilewey
1.2.1 Elias de Keilewey
1.2.1.1 John de Keilewey
1.2.1.1.1 John Keilewey, claimed to be heir

In the result the jurors found that this latter John was the
heir of the whole blood of the deceased- "compertum
est quod Johannes de Keilewey est heres de integro
sanguine".

There were however numerous other claimants, all of
(in my opinion) had better claims to succeed as heir.
The nearest relations of the deceased were John Le
Strange and James Audley, grandson and great
-grandson respectively of the deceased's father,
issue of his marriage to Maud de Longespee.
Next nearest, in my opinion, came the heirs of the
three coheiresses of the deceased's grandfather
Elias Giffard the younger by his marriage to Isabel
Musard, namely Isabel Tabler, Maud Scudamore and
Mabel Dansey. The heirs in question, at the date of
the IPM, were Thomas de Grinstead, Roger de Bavent
and Richard Dansey.

It has never, in my opinion, been any part of the
law of England that a person might claim to be the
heir at law of a deceased person, by virtue of descent
from a remote ancestor of the deceased, in priority
to the claim of persons descended from a less remote
ancestor: instead heirship belongs to those whose
claim is derived from their descent from the most
recent ancestor of the descent (being seised of the
property in question) to have left living
descendants: reference can be made to the exhaustive
discussion of the subject by Sir Matthew Hale in his
History of the Common Law of England. He states that
the law had been the same for the last four hundred
years: he died in 1676.

MM

Douglas Richardson

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 jan 2007 16:04:15

Dear Newsgroup ~

For interest's sake, I've posted below some pre-1300 examples of the
use of word nepos. The examples below iinvolve King Henry II of
England's well known son-in-law, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and
Bavaria (died 1195).

As we can see indicated by the examples below, the Latin words nepos,
consanguineus, and cognatus were used interchangeably to describe the
kinship which existed between Duke Henry and his first cousin, Emperor
Frederick I Barbarossa. Elsewhere, I find that Duke Henry also
addressed Count Otto VI of Wittelsbach [after Duke of Bavaria] as
"nepos noster." The two men were neither uncle and nephew or
grandfather and grandson. Rather, they shared the same
great-grandmother, Zofia of Hungary, and thus were 2nd cousins.

These examples highlight the difficulties in identifying any "nepos" in
the pre-1300 period as nephew or grandson, solely on the basis of one
document. As is demonstrated below, nepos can also mean first or
second cousin.

Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
EXAMPLES OF THE WORD, NEPOS

1. Heinrich, Duke of Saxony, styled "kinsman" [nepos] of Emperor
Friedrich I. Barbarossa [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, 27
(1925): 110 (Ex Gestis Henrici II. et Ricardi I)].

2. Otto VI, Count Palatine of Wittelsbach, afterwards Duke of Bavaria,
styled "our kinsman" [nepos noster] by Heinrich, Duke of Saxony and
Bavaria [Reference: Die Urkunden Heinrichs des Löwen Herzogs von
Sachsen und Bayern (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 500-1500) (1941):
107-108].

3. Monumenta Germaniæ Historica: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum
Germaniæ 10(1) (1975): 18-19, 231-233, 347-349 (instances of
Heinrich, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, styled "our kinsman"
["cognate nostro"/"cognate nostri"] by Emperor Friedrich I.
Barbarossa), 259-260, 332-335 (instances of Heinrich, Duke of
Saxony and Bavaria, styled "kinsman" ["nepotem
nostrum"/"nepos noster"] by Emperor Friedrich I. Barbarossa),
364-365 (Heinrich, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, styled "our
kinsman" ["consanguineum nostrum"] by Emperor Friedrich I.
Barbarossa).

4. Heinrich of Braunschweig styled "kinsman" [consanguineo] in
letter from Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa dated 1185-1188) [Reference:
Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Die Briefe Der Deutschen Kaiserzeit 7)
(1995): 102-103].

Douglas Richardson

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 jan 2007 16:13:43

Dear Will ~

In the pre-1300 period, nepos basically referred to any near male
kinsman. The word was used interchangeably with consanguineus and
cognatus.

It did not mean "the relative of my horse handler." I love your sense
of humor, though.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 25, 10:53 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Perhaps before 1300 it means "the relative of my horse handler", we
just really
can't pin it down without a clear context.
Will

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»