Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 jan 2007 16:28:46

Dear Adrian ~

If you would be so kind, since you have your copy of Keats-Rohan's
Domesday Descendants handy, I'd appreciate it greatly if you would post
the evidence that she cites that William de la Mare was Walter of
Gloucester's nephew, other than the charter published by Round cited by
John Ravilious.

Thank you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 26, 4:34 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
DD interprets the relationship between Walter of Gloucester and William de
Mara as nephew in two different entries on page 572

Adrian

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 jan 2007 16:50:25

In message of 26 Jan, Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

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,

Can you say which volume this was? (I have a CD of vols 1 to 8.)

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

John P. Ravilious

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 26 jan 2007 17:00:54

Dear Adrian,

I agree they cannot be the same Robert (de la Mare). Perhaps
Round was confused on this matter: given all the Mares running about
the field in the 12th century, it seems a bit more effort is needed to
corral them properly.

It's also interesting re: the indication in DD that Robert, son of
Walter (and Mabel) was recorded as a tenant in 1166; DD571 (per your
note of 2002) shows Oliver de la Mare as 'lord of Little Hereford' at
that date. Assuming he was son/nephew of a prior lord of same,
presumably a son of the <nepos> William de la Mare, there is a
reconciliaton of this issue needed as well. Unfortunately, I have no
copy of DD to hand - are there any other 'Little Hereford' Mares
therein that you might note?

Cheers,

John

On Jan 26, 7:35 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Friday, 26th January, 2007

John,

Thanks for your interesting post.

From DD there are two distinct Robert de Mare.  The one who was dead  in1129/30 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, ther...@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).

...

Douglas Richardson

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 jan 2007 17:41:48

Great post, Michael. Thank you for sharing this information.

I have a couple of small quibbles.

The surname Longespee is not preceded by a "de."

But, in this time period, the surnames Audley and Knoville should be
preceded by a "de."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 26, 7:42 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
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

Gjest

Re: Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent for Tim Powys-Lybbe

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 18:00:03

Dear TP-L
You ask which volume of Collectanea contains the plea roll extract which I
cited, but alas I can't help with that. I found the passage by a proxified
google search of Collectanea, and google does not identify the volume number.
However I can say that is the volume in which the index appears at page 411,
which may I hope help you, since in other volumes the index appears on
different pages
Best regards
MM

Gjest

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 18:21:02

For TP-L
Ijust revisited Collectanea, and after some effort discovered that the text
I cited is from Vol.1, page 129, of the Stanford University library copy,
published by Bowyer Nichols in 1834
mm

For Douglas Richardson
Thanks for your kind words Douglas: you are right about Audley (given in the
text as "de Audley) and Knoville (given as "de Nova Villa"), but perhaps not
right about Longespee (given in the Collectanea transcript, rightly or
wrongly, as "de Longespey")
MM

Gjest

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 18:26:02

Sorry- "de Audeley". And "de Brimesfeld" (once) and "de Brimesfeild" (also
once)
MM

Douglas Richardson

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 jan 2007 18:44:54

Dear Michael ~

Neither Longespee or, for that matter, Botetourt are preceded by a
"de," although on rare occasions, you sometimes see a "de" included
with both names in contemporary records.

Simply put, inconsistency, then and now, is a human trait. Regardless,
it's interesting to watch these occasional blips in the records drive
the purists here on the newsgroup batty.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 26, 10:19 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
For TP-L
Ijust revisited Collectanea, and after some effort discovered that the text
I cited is from Vol.1, page 129, of the Stanford University library copy,
published by Bowyer Nichols in 1834
mm

For Douglas Richardson
Thanks for your kind words Douglas: you are right about Audley (given in the
text as "de Audley) and Knoville (given as "de Nova Villa"), but perhaps not
right about Longespee (given in the Collectanea transcript, rightly or
wrongly, as "de Longespey")
MM

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 26 jan 2007 18:50:30

So, is Orson Welles your relative or not, Douglas?

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

Where does Orson Welles fit into this, Douglas?

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169708744.520850.76450@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Those descended from any of the numerous Wells/Welles families in
America and the British Isles will doubtless be interested in the
posted results of the large Wells Family DNA Project at the following
weblink:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/dnapr ... proje.html

The results of the project are analyzed in what is termed "BaseLine DNA
Patterns" at the following weblink:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/dnapr ... eline.html

The DNA results of the two Wells families in my own ancestry can be
found in the posted BaseLine results. The first Wells immigrant in my
ancestry is Governor Thomas Welles, of Connecticut (Family W015 in the
project). The other Wells immigrant in my ancestry (in this case a
Wells widow) is Widow Frances (Albright) Wells, of Massachusetts
(Family W001 in the project). The Wells DNA Project reports that the
two families have similar DNA and both are R1B Haplotype.

It has been known for many years that Governor Thomas Welles hails from
Warwickshire in England, whereas my own research has proven that Thomas
Wells, the non-immigrating husband of Frances Albright, derives from
nearby Evesham, Worcestershire (see my article in the New England Hist.
Gen. Register, Vol. 146, published in 1992 for details). Normally a
match within 5 values of a baseline family or between baseline families
indicates there is a relationship between the two families or between
an individual and the family. In the case of these two families, their
respective DNA is off by a total of 8 values over 37 markers.

Perhaps someone familiar with modern DNA test results can comment on
the meaning of a difference of 8 values between two families of the
same surname, both of whom have origins in the same part of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 19:11:02

Orson Welles, "Welles" line peters out quickly
*but* he does have some links that go a ways further

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 1&tree=LEO

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 19:16:02

I'll start researching here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... son_Welles

Perhaps others would like to come contribute what they know or find.
It's a wiki anyone can edit the entry.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Harlien Manuscripts Help please British Libary

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 19:46:02

In a message dated 1/26/07 10:12:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

<< Anything from one to a hundred pages
(presumably of the same volume or logically sequential items) costs a
flat £25 or 27. Pricey, but can be very handy. >>

Actually a hundred pages (of the same volume) for only 27 bucks is quite a
steal.

I paid 25 bucks to that scottish ancestry site whatever it is or was called,
where they have all the baptisms, marriages, etc going way back to ... some
time.

At any rate, I found my ancestors marriage and three other sons born to them
other than my immigrant, so it was worth it even at that price. This also
extends Drouin's note on the family (McCutcheon) married Marie Thecle /Charon/
dit Laferriere dit Terriers (1763) by another generation.

Sadly he came to Quebec *after* Jette's cutoff date of 1730 so didnt make
that work which is otherwise so useful as its so comprehensive. My very first
introduction to a work that attempts to collect *every* document into family
groups.

Will we see Quebecois in Douglas' next work?

I'm rambling. Don't hijack threads *beats self*.

Will

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Harlien Manuscripts Help please British Libary

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 26 jan 2007 19:51:24

In article <mailman.2216.1169836942.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 1/26/07 10:12:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

Anything from one to a hundred pages
(presumably of the same volume or logically sequential items) costs a
flat £25 or 27. Pricey, but can be very handy.

Actually a hundred pages (of the same volume) for only 27 bucks is quite a
steal.

Quid. The times I've got photocopies from the BL it has usually been
for two or three pages at a time, which yields a rather higher cost per
page. But still worth it for, say, (from the Harley MSS) the original
of a Visitation pedigree with the herald's sketch of arms & the
informant's signature.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 20:11:05

For those interested in the Giffards of Brimsfield, I cannot too highly
commend the following website
_http://www.callawayfamily.org/document/Public%20Record%20Office%202003.doc_
(http://www.callawayfamily.org/document/ ... 202003.doc)

It contains very numerous citations from primary sources, and from reputable
historians, and from these materials one can reconstruct the entire history
of the family from 1086 to 1322.
There are included:-
-a possible descent from Osbert de Bolebec, and relationship with Richard,
Duke of Normandy
-Detailed accounts of the relations of these Giffards, over generations,
with the family of Cailly/Kaylii/Calwe/Kelway/Kailleway
-their involvement in the Welsh wars, at Bannockburn and (on both sides) in
Simon de Montfort's wars of 1264-6
-the elopemnt of Maud, wife of Richard de Acton
-the forcible capture and marriage of Maud Longespee (wrong, but romantic)
-the inheritance of the last John Giffard's estates after his capture at
Boroughbridge and his subsequent execution by hanging and
quartering at Gloucester in 1322
-the later devolution of his estates
-fairly full biographies of successive Giffards, including a lot of Eliases
-the inter-relations of the family with families such as Le Strange,
Longespee, Maltravers, Audley, Musard, Neville, Berkeley, FitzHarding and Clifford
-their barony, its descent and its ultimate abeyance
-the ultimate fate of Brimsfield castle.

The pedigree which I gave yesterday from Collectanea can be confirmed in
large measure. And there is an explanation as to how the Brimsfield came to the
"Keilewey" family by the inquisition which I cited in my original post: it was
a scam! In particular, the Keileweys never inherited the barony, which would
have been their right, if they were the true heirs of the last John, baron
Giffard of Brimsfield.
MM

Gjest

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 21:51:02

John,

No, only Oliver as follows


[DD.571: de Mara, Oliver
Held two fees of Harscoit Musard in 1166. Lord of Little Hereford,
Herefordshire EEA [English Episcopal Acta] vii, 73).
Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall ( 1897), p. 342; Walker, Charters of the
Earldom of Hereford (1964), nos 39, 72, 84]

However there seems to have been Delamere's there until 16c, eg the
following from A2A

Reference: DR 37/2/Box 73/43
Creation dates: [before 1536]

Scope and Content
Page from a mss calendar on which have been noted the birthdates of various
members of the Archer family:
Ann Archer, eldest child of Richard & his wife Mathilda, only daughter &
heir of Nicholas Delamere of Little Hereford. Born at Reading, 9 May 1526
Humphrey, 3 May 1527
William, 20 June 1530
Fulke, 14 April 1531
Edward, 13 July 1532
Frances, 21 Sept 1534
Winifred, 25 April 1535


Regards,
Adrian

In a message dated 26/01/2007 16:06:26 GMT Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
Dear Adrian,

I agree they cannot be the same Robert (de la Mare). Perhaps
Round was confused on this matter: given all the Mares running about
the field in the 12th century, it seems a bit more effort is needed to
corral them properly.

It's also interesting re: the indication in DD that Robert, son of
Walter (and Mabel) was recorded as a tenant in 1166; DD571 (per your
note of 2002) shows Oliver de la Mare as 'lord of Little Hereford' at
that date. Assuming he was son/nephew of a prior lord of same,
presumably a son of the <nepos> William de la Mare, there is a
reconciliaton of this issue needed as well. Unfortunately, I have no
copy of DD to hand - are there any other 'Little Hereford' Mares
therein that you might note?

Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: De la Mare of Little Hereford

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 jan 2007 21:52:02

Doug,

[DD.572: de Mara, Robert
Son of William de Mara (a nephew of Walter of Gloucester) and Mabel. Occurs
with his father c.1139. Held ten fees of William, earl of Gloucester, in
1166. In 1242/43 William de Mara held of the earl at Hanley, Doddenham and
Redmarley, Worcestershire (Fees., 961).
Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, II, p. 71, no- XLII; Red Book of the
Exchequer, cd Hall ( 1897), pp. 288-92]

and

[DD.572: de Mara Nepos Walteri, Willelm
Nephew of Walter of Gloucester. About 1139 William and his wife Mabel, with
the assent of their son Robert, made a grant of land at Strensham to Pershore
abbey.
Dugdale, Monasticon ,Anglicanum, II, p. 71, no. XLII; Round, Ancient
Charters (1888), no 11; Round, Ancient Charters (1888), no.13; Walker, Charters of
the Earldom of Hereford (1964 ), nos 1, 5, 11, 69]

Adrian

In a message dated 26/01/2007 15:31:11 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Dear Adrian ~

If you would be so kind, since you have your copy of Keats-Rohan's
Domesday Descendants handy, I'd appreciate it greatly if you would post
the evidence that she cites that William de la Mare was Walter of
Gloucester's nephew, other than the charter published by Round cited by
John Ravilious.

Thank you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 jan 2007 00:22:39

In message of 26 Jan, Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

For TP-L
Ijust revisited Collectanea, and after some effort discovered that the text
I cited is from Vol.1, page 129, of the Stanford University library copy,
published by Bowyer Nichols in 1834
mm

Agreed and thanks. I had gone through every volume and simply could not
find it but this is indeed there on the above page and the volume is
published in 1834 so must be exactly what you have.

I can add from the CP article (vol V, p. 639 note (c) and pp. 649-650)
on the Giffards that the Elis at the top of the tree m. Maud dau. of
Maurice fits Robert fitz Harding, lord of Berkeley. This marriage is
also given in Smith's Lives of the berkeleys, vol I, p. 76.

CP and CTG are slightly adrift on the marriages of John Giffard, your
1.1.4. CP states (vol V, pp. 643-4) that his first wife was indeed Maud
but that she was the widow of Sir Wm Lungspee and that her lineage was
dau, and hr of Sir Walter de Clifford. His second wife is given by CP
as Margaret, again a widow but of Sir John de Neville who was father of
Hugh 1st lord Neville of Essex, and whose parentage is unknown.

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

Gjest

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 01:31:02

For some reason I have "Maud Longespee" in my database as
"Maud de Clifford" dau of Walter de Clifford lord of Corfham by his wife
Margaret verch Llewellyn. And widow of
William Longespee, III, titular Earl of /Salisbury/
who (William) died between 23 Dec 1256 and 3 Jan 1257

Did I do something wrong?

Will

Gjest

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 01:41:01

In a message dated 1/26/07 3:29:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< His second wife is given by CP
as Margaret, again a widow but of Sir John de Neville who was father of
Hugh 1st lord Neville of Essex, and whose parentage is unknown.

I wonder if this is the same Margaret Knoville who then went on to marry
Thomas de Verdon ?

Gjest

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 01:42:02

In a message dated 1/26/07 3:29:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< CP states (vol V, pp. 643-4) that his first wife was indeed Maud
but that she was the widow of Sir Wm Lungspee and that her lineage was
dau, and hr of Sir Walter de Clifford. >>

Tim does it say something implying that at the time of her father's death
"abt 1263/4" that she was already married to John Giffard? I don't have a firm
date on when they married. Thanks
Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Harlien Manuscripts Help please British Libary

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 jan 2007 01:45:15

In message of 26 Jan, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

The times I've got photocopies from the BL it has usually been
for two or three pages at a time, which yields a rather higher cost per
page. But still worth it for, say, (from the Harley MSS) the original
of a Visitation pedigree with the herald's sketch of arms & the
informant's signature.

Agreed that there are a few originals of the visitations amongst the
Harleian papers but mostly they are copies, sometimes significantly
edited copies, and the originals reside in the College of Arms. It is
only in the last thirty or so years that the College has allowed these
originals to be used as the sources for the published visitation
volumes.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 jan 2007 01:54:52

In message of 27 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 1/26/07 3:29:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

CP states (vol V, pp. 643-4) that his first wife was indeed Maud
but that she was the widow of Sir Wm Lungspee and that her lineage
was dau, and hr of Sir Walter de Clifford.

Tim does it say something implying that at the time of her father's
death "abt 1263/4" that she was already married to John Giffard? I
don't have a firm date on when they married.

It says that Wm de L d. bet. 12 Dec 1256 and 3 Jan 1256/7 citing Patent
Roll 41 Hen III, m 15. The indicates that Maud m. John in 1257 or
after. There is nothing about her matrimonial status at/or the time of
her father's death in the Giffard article.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 27 jan 2007 02:05:03

In message of 27 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 1/26/07 3:29:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

His second wife is given by CP as Margaret, again a widow but of
Sir John de Neville who was father of Hugh 1st lord Neville of Essex,
and whose parentage is unknown.


I wonder if this is the same Margaret Knoville who then went on to marry
Thomas de Verdon ?

Let's start again!

Margaret's parentage is unknown. Coll. Top et Gen. refers to her as
Margaret Nova Vila which is a common medieval way of writing Neville but
which has been rendered wrongly as Margaret Knoville. If you can find a
copy of the C.T.G. you will see how this has happened. I suppose I
could even put the page on my site somewhere if anyone is that curious
- ask!

Margaret had merely married a Neville then a Giffard.

There was a Margaret de Knovill, dau. of Bevis de ditto but I think this
was a very different person.

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

Gjest

Re: Giffardf of Brimsfield for Tim Powys Lybbe

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 02:16:02

In a message dated 1/26/07 5:11:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Margaret had merely married a Neville then a Giffard. >>

Got it!
So she is only called Knoville (Neville) by virtue of her first marriage.
We don't know what her original "surname" (or designation) might have been.
Thanks
Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jan 2007 02:26:17

Irrelevant.

Douglas can well be related to Orson Welles through other than the Welles
line -- many of us are.

See _American Ancestors and Cousins of the Princess of Wales_, Roberts and
Reitwiesner.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2214.1169834868.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Orson Welles, "Welles" line peters out quickly
*but* he does have some links that go a ways further

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 1&tree=LEO

Will Johnson

So, is Orson Welles your relative or not, Douglas?

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

Where does Orson Welles fit into this, Douglas?

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169708744.520850.76450@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Those descended from any of the numerous Wells/Welles families in
America and the British Isles will doubtless be interested in the
posted results of the large Wells Family DNA Project at the following
weblink:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/dnapr ... proje.html

The results of the project are analyzed in what is termed "BaseLine DNA
Patterns" at the following weblink:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/dnapr ... eline.html

The DNA results of the two Wells families in my own ancestry can be
found in the posted BaseLine results. The first Wells immigrant in my
ancestry is Governor Thomas Welles, of Connecticut (Family W015 in the
project). The other Wells immigrant in my ancestry (in this case a
Wells widow) is Widow Frances (Albright) Wells, of Massachusetts
(Family W001 in the project). The Wells DNA Project reports that the
two families have similar DNA and both are R1B Haplotype.

It has been known for many years that Governor Thomas Welles hails from
Warwickshire in England, whereas my own research has proven that Thomas
Wells, the non-immigrating husband of Frances Albright, derives from
nearby Evesham, Worcestershire (see my article in the New England Hist.
Gen. Register, Vol. 146, published in 1992 for details). Normally a
match within 5 values of a baseline family or between baseline families
indicates there is a relationship between the two families or between
an individual and the family. In the case of these two families, their
respective DNA is off by a total of 8 values over 37 markers.

Perhaps someone familiar with modern DNA test results can comment on
the meaning of a difference of 8 values between two families of the
same surname, both of whom have origins in the same part of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Harlien Manuscripts Help please British Libary

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 27 jan 2007 02:52:21

In article <ec2680ab4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote:

In message of 26 Jan, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:

The times I've got photocopies from the BL it has usually been
for two or three pages at a time, which yields a rather higher cost per
page. But still worth it for, say, (from the Harley MSS) the original
of a Visitation pedigree with the herald's sketch of arms & the
informant's signature.

Agreed that there are a few originals of the visitations amongst the
Harleian papers but mostly they are copies, sometimes significantly
edited copies, and the originals reside in the College of Arms. It is
only in the last thirty or so years that the College has allowed these
originals to be used as the sources for the published visitation
volumes.

True. But there are exceptions--e.g. the original of much of the 1620
Visitation of Cornwall, now MS Harley 1162.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 03:01:02

In a message dated 1/26/07 5:31:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
poguemidden@hotmail.com writes:

<< See _American Ancestors and Cousins of the Princess of Wales_, Roberts and
Reitwiesner. >>

Interesting you bring this up, because the book is online through an ancestry
subscription. I've cited it on the page I created for Orson Welles and
extracted the relevant portion showing how Orson Welles is related the Princess
Diana.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jan 2007 05:01:43

And then there are:

Sumner Welles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Welles

And:

H. G. Wells.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Harlien Manuscripts Help please British Libary

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 06:26:32

Kindest thanks for the copious information!

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


On Jan 26, 5:52 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
In article <ec2680ab4e....@south-frm.demon.co.uk>,
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:

In message of 26 Jan, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote:

The times I've got photocopies from the BL it has usually been
for two or three pages at a time, which yields a rather higher cost per
page. But still worth it for, say, (from the Harley MSS) the original
of a Visitation pedigree with the herald's sketch of arms & the
informant's signature.

Agreed that there are a few originals of the visitations amongst the
Harleian papers but mostly they are copies, sometimes significantly
edited copies, and the originals reside in the College of Arms. It is
only in the last thirty or so years that the College has allowed these
originals to be used as the sources for the published visitation
volumes.True. But there are exceptions--e.g. the original of much of the 1620
Visitation of Cornwall, now MS Harley 1162.

Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Dorothy (Brereton) FitzWilliam

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 08:51:02

In a message dated 1/26/07 11:26:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
katheryn.swynford@gmail.com writes:

<<
I'm confused. Are these FitzHerberts or FitzWilliams? (your text
states FitzHerbert but the RE states FitzWilliam). >>

The text is accurate :)
Will

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Dorothy (Brereton) FitzWilliam

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 09:01:03

The Heveningham family is *in* the ancestry of Dorothy (Brereton) FitzWilliam

Dorothy Brereton married Oliver 2nd Viscount FitzWilliam (in the Peerage of
Ireland)

She was dau to Richard Brereton of Malpas, Cheshire
by Mary /Heveningham/ who was holding Ipstones Hall in jointure


Mary was dau to
Walter /Heveningham/ , Knt 1619 of Pipe Hall, Stafford (d 1636)
by Ann /FitzHerbert/ (living 1591)

Walter was son of
Christopher /Heveningham/ , Esq of Stone (d 1573/4)
by Dorothy /Stanley/ living 1586

This Dorothy Stanley is dau of
Margaret /Comberford/ dau of
Dorothy /Fitzherbert/ dau of
Ralph /FitzHerbert/ of Norbury (d 2 Mar 1483/4)

Will

Gjest

Re: Giffard of Brimsfield descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 11:16:03

Will Jhonson asked whether Maud, widow of William Longespee, was already
married to John Giffard in about 1263/4.
The answer is "no": CPR for March 10 1271 (55 Hen V), pages 520-1, records
the king's handling of Maud's complaint that John had forcibly abducted her.
John asserted that he had not abducted her against her will, and fined for 300
marks for the king's rights concerning her marriage (she being a "king's
widow"). Two knights were to be sent to Maud, who was too ill to come before the
king, to find out whether she wished to marry John.
MM

Bryn

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Bryn » 27 jan 2007 11:49:45

In message <T8Auh.303$EP4.694@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> writes
And then there are:

Sumner Welles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Welles

And:

H. G. Wells.


Prince of Wells ?


William Wellace ?

--
Spider, are you
crying--- or
the autumn wind.

Bashõ

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2007 15:06:58

Dear Spencer ~

Checking online databases, it appears that Orson Welles' male line
ancestry goes back to his 3rd great-grandfather, Richard Welles, who
was born in 1734, in Hull, Yorkshire. The following two weblinks may
be helpful to you:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... e&id=I6820
http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca/people/Dobs ... elles.html

While I don't believe I'm any relation to Orson Welles' male line
ancestry, I'm definitely related to Orson Welles through his
grandmother Welles' descent from the prominent Sherman family of New
England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jan 2007 18:25:29

Excellent, Douglas.

So you are descended from the same Sherman Family that produced Roger
Sherman, of Connecticut, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution?

["He is notable for being one of just two people to sign all three of the
following major documents, the United States Declaration of Independence,
the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution. The
other was Robert Morris (merchant).]

He was also first Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut and a Professor of
Religion at Yale College. He was also a United States Senator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Sherman

The same family that produced General William Tecumseh Sherman, who was an
important Union general in our Civil
War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169906818.462824.51240@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer ~

Checking online databases, it appears that Orson Welles' male line
ancestry goes back to his 3rd great-grandfather, Richard Welles, who
was born in 1734, in Hull, Yorkshire. The following two weblinks may
be helpful to you:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... e&id=I6820
http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca/people/Dobs ... elles.html

While I don't believe I'm any relation to Orson Welles' male line
ancestry, I'm definitely related to Orson Welles through his
grandmother Welles' descent from the prominent Sherman family of New
England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jan 2007 18:29:51

Recte:

Excellent, Douglas.

So you are descended from the same Sherman Family that produced Roger
Sherman, of Connecticut, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution?

["He is notable for being one of just two people to sign all three of the
following major documents, the United States Declaration of Independence,
the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution. The
other was Robert Morris (merchant)."]

He was also first Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut and a Professor of
Religion at Yale College. He was also a United States Senator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Sherman

The same family that produced General William Tecumseh Sherman, who was an
important Union general in our Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169906818.462824.51240@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer ~

Checking online databases, it appears that Orson Welles' male line
ancestry goes back to his 3rd great-grandfather, Richard Welles, who
was born in 1734, in Hull, Yorkshire. The following two weblinks may
be helpful to you:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... e&id=I6820
http://cybrary.uwinnipeg.ca/people/Dobs ... elles.html

While I don't believe I'm any relation to Orson Welles' male line
ancestry, I'm definitely related to Orson Welles through his
grandmother Welles' descent from the prominent Sherman family of New
England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2007 18:44:29

On Jan 27, 10:29 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
< Recte:
<
< Excellent, Douglas.
<
< So you are descended from the same Sherman Family that produced
Roger
< Sherman, of Connecticut, who signed both the Declaration of
Independence <and the Constitution?

Yes, sir. I am indeed. My six children actually have a second
Sherman descent through their mother's side of the family. The double
Sherman descent must explain their spirit of "independence." I'm sure
old Roger Sherman would heartily approve.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 19:06:02

In a message dated 1/27/2007 6:15:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I'm puzzled about one thing, though. A friend of mine has told me
that he deviates 5 markers from his cousin with whom he shares a
common 3rd great-grandfather. He had the tests done twice to confirm
the results.

If there is 5 markers difference in only six generations


Non-paternal event. Great-aunts are horrified.
Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jan 2007 19:15:01

Good Show, Douglas!

You and the children's mother both descend from Roger Sherman himself?

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169919869.720567.104910@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 27, 10:29 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Recte:

Excellent, Douglas.

So you are descended from the same Sherman Family that produced
Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, who signed both the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?

Yes, sir. I am indeed. My six children actually have a second
Sherman descent through their mother's side of the family. The double
Sherman descent must explain their spirit of "independence." I'm sure
old Roger Sherman would heartily approve.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Orson Welles

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 jan 2007 19:21:02

I'm not convinced that this research is accurate. I would note that although
_http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=glencoe&id=I6820_
(http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... e&id=I6820)

does show Orson Welles, Welles line going back to Deleware and then to Hull,
this contention is supported by a very very weak link.

That there is a Richard Jones Welles who must have married and died young.
His name is cited on a database, itself citing only "Family Forest 2002"
which is a horrible citation (in my opinion).

If a Richard Jones Welles existed and it can be shown that he was the son of
some Henry Hill Welles that's one thing. If it can be shown that he is the
same person who married Mary Head that's another thing.

I can't find any credible sources so far to connect the line in the way it's
been shown on ONE database (and then copied), so I wouldn't be too hasty to
jump to the conclusion that's it's well known how the Welles ascent goes from
Orson.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2007 19:47:40

A difference of 5 markers isn't much, Will. And, although the parties
tested twice, it's still possible the lab made an error.

I differ from a distant Richardson cousin by one value over 12
markers. I was told by a friend that that particular marker is a
"fast moving" marker. Perhaps Doug McDonald can explain that. Are
there markers which change rapidly, and others that change slowly?
I'd like to know. And, how does that affect the probabilities of
kinship that Doug has discussed? If fast or slow moving markers are
involved, it seems to me that they would skew any probability
estimates. It wouldn't negate them, but it would mean there would
need to be a much wider range allowed for deviations between two
people, both shorter and longer.

DR

On Jan 27, 11:03 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/27/2007 6:15:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

royalances...@msn.com writes:I'm puzzled about one thing, though. A friend of mine has told me
that he deviates 5 markers from his cousin with whom he shares a
common 3rd great-grandfather. He had the tests done twice to confirm
the results.

If there is 5 markers difference in only six generations

Non-paternal event. Great-aunts are horrified.
Will

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 jan 2007 21:47:17

Dear Spencer ~

My children's mother and I descend from different cousins of Roger
Sherman, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. We do not descend
from Roger Sherman himself.

The Shermans are an old New England family, like the Richardson
family. Good stock.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 27, 11:15 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Good Show, Douglas!

You and the children's mother both descend from Roger Sherman himself?

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1169919869.720567.104910@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 27, 10:29 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Recte:

Excellent, Douglas.

So you are descended from the same Sherman Family that produced
Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, who signed both the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?

Yes, sir. I am indeed. My six children actually have a second
Sherman descent through their mother's side of the family. The double
Sherman descent must explain their spirit of "independence." I'm sure
old Roger Sherman would heartily approve.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27 jan 2007 22:13:09

Good Stock Indeed.

Mostly Stalwarts.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169930837.661368.211160@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer ~

My children's mother and I descend from different cousins of Roger
Sherman, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. We do not descend
from Roger Sherman himself.

The Shermans are an old New England family, like the Richardson
family. Good stock.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Jan 27, 11:15 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Good Show, Douglas!

You and the children's mother both descend from Roger Sherman himself?

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in
messagenews:1169919869.720567.104910@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 27, 10:29 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Recte:

Excellent, Douglas.

So you are descended from the same Sherman Family that produced
Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, who signed both the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?

Yes, sir. I am indeed. My six children actually have a second
Sherman descent through their mother's side of the family. The double
Sherman descent must explain their spirit of "independence." I'm sure
old Roger Sherman would heartily approve.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Doug McDonald

Re: Wells Family DNA Project: Posted Results

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 27 jan 2007 23:13:27

Douglas Richardson wrote:

I differ from a distant Richardson cousin by one value over 12
markers. I was told by a friend that that particular marker is a
"fast moving" marker. Perhaps Doug McDonald can explain that. Are
there markers which change rapidly, and others that change slowly?
I'd like to know.

yes, indeed

The slowest markers have a probability of changing only once
in 2000 births, the fastest, perhaps once in 50 births.


And, how does that affect the probabilities of
kinship that Doug has discussed? If fast or slow moving markers are
involved, it seems to me that they would skew any probability
estimates. It wouldn't negate them, but it would mean there would
need to be a much wider range allowed for deviations between two
people, both shorter and longer.



It depends on the question you ask. If you ask "I have two men
and have no idea when their common ancestor lived, what does the DNA
say" then only the average rate and number of differences matters.

If you have 9 men tested, four known to be descendants
of man A who lived 500 years ago, and four known to
be descendants of man B who lived at the same time, then
the mutation rate of the markers which are different
DOES matter. You simply add up the mutation rates of the markers
which differ between the 9th person and each of the 4 descendants
of man A, and do the same for the 9th person and the descendants
for man B. The ratio of the two numbers is the ratio
of probabilities. This works even if you ask about three people "what is
the probability that man C is more closely related to man
A or man B" but the reliability is much smaller.

Doug McDonald





DR

On Jan 27, 11:03 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/27/2007 6:15:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

royalances...@msn.com writes:I'm puzzled about one thing, though. A friend of mine has told me
that he deviates 5 markers from his cousin with whom he shares a
common 3rd great-grandfather. He had the tests done twice to confirm
the results.

If there is 5 markers difference in only six generations

Non-paternal event. Great-aunts are horrified.
Will


Gjest

Re: Fw: Claimants to the English throne

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jan 2007 07:44:30

On Jan 24, 2:38 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
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.


What are the job benefits? Maybe it's worth a crack. Bronwen.

Gjest

Re: Peter Lacy

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jan 2007 19:36:03

In a message dated 1/29/2007 8:54:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

This document is a letter addressed to the king
requesting that bailiffs of Dover be instructed to
allow them (certain named individuals) to cross the
sea as the bailiffs had been instructed not to permit
this.


What is the date?

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jan 2007 20:31:01

Three points:-
1. As Douglas Richardson pointed out back in 1999, fortified by Chris
Philipps and many other contributors since, it is clear that Robert Muscegros's
daughter Hawise cannot have been the daughter of Robert's wife Agnes de Ferrers-
the consanguinity argument is conclusive.
2. We have Robert's IPM: in the PRO at C 133/28/8
3. We know that Robert was the son and heir of John de Muscegros and his
wife Cicely Avenal. John died in May 1275, (IPM May 23) when his son Robert was
aged 23,
" holding Manors of Northon, Brywham as one-half fee, Cherleton 1 fee, and
Stavill
one-half fee, Somerset, Berton Regis and lands at Kenemerton, Boyton, Little
Cumpton, Hatherle, and Langeford, co. Gloucester, and leaving son and heir,
Robert. His widow, Cecily has livery of her own lands, viz., Manors of
Bykenore, Teynton, Langford, Cumpton, and Britfarton, Worcester, and
Gloucester,
She was dead August 11, 1301, leaving granddaughter as heiress,
Hawise, 25, daughter of her son, Robert and widow of John de Ferrariis."

So the question is, as Douglas and many other contributors have pointed out,
who was Hawise's mother?
I suggest that the answer may lie in a comparison of Robert's IPM with that
of his father John- I have not seen John's IPM of 1275. Any estates shown in
Robert's IPM which do not appear in the IPM of his father John would likely
have been acquired from his first marriage.

It is noteworthy that when Robert died the custody of his heir was awarded
to John de Vescy- see CPR 26 Feb 1280 and Jul 8 1281. If Robert had been the
father of a Chaworth descendant, as suggested by Douglas, then I would think
that the Chaworths would not likely have sat back while the wardship of a
granddaughter of the family was awarded to a de Vescy
MM

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jan 2007 21:21:53

Douglas and All,
I find the mention of Bures most interesting since I have been trying to work out the reason why in 15 Edw. III the Abbot of Pippewell v. William la Zouche of Haryngsworth of the advowson of Wykhambroke ( Suff.) (Andrew de Bures chevalier, and Jacob de Bures app clam).........HD 1538/13 Vol.13/fol.164 Letters patent (licence to alienate) [no ref.] - date: 26 May 1281
King Edward I gives licence to Andrew de Bures to grant to Master William de Bures for life, his manor of Nether Attylton and advowson of moiety of Wykhambrok church, which he holds of king in chief; with reversion to Andrew. Given at York, 26 May 9 Edw.I.
The inheritance of Chynnore was divided between Oliver la Zouche (1/3-remianing in Zouche hands 1455) and Agnes Musgeros, daughter of Margaret de Quincy and William de Ferrers (2/3).
How had William la Zouche received his right to advowqson?
Thank you in advance.
Pat


From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
Date: 2007/01/28 Sun PM 11:18:06 EST
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Dear Newsgroup ~

Hawise de Muscegros (living 1340), wife successively of William de
Mortimer, John de Ferrers, Knt., 1st Lord Ferrers of Chartley, and
John de Bures, Knt., is identified in most secondary sources as the
daughter of Robert de Muscegros, Knt. (died 1280), of Stowell, Norton,
and Charlton Musgrove, Somerset, by his surviving wife, Agnes de
Ferrers. Hawise was certainly the daughter and heiress of Sir Robert
de Muscegros. However, had Hawise been Agnes de Ferrers' daughter,
Hawise would have been a first cousin to her second husband, John de
Ferrers, which kinship would surely have barred marriage between the
parties due to church laws governing consanguinity. Significantly,
Hawise and John did obtain a papal dispensation for their marriage,
but only because John de Ferrers was related in the third degree
(i.e., 2nd cousin) to Hawise's first husband, William de Mortimer. No
mention was made of any kinship between Hawise and John in the
dispensation, presumably because none existed. As further evidence
that Hawise was not Agnes' daughter, it may be noted that late in
life, Agnes de Ferrers alienated her maritagium at Chinnor,
Oxfordshire to an unrelated party, which action is typical of a
childless widow in this period (see Hatton, Book of Seals (1950):
64). If Agnes had issue, under normal circumstances, she would have
retained Chinnor and passed it on her death to her descendants.

So who then was Hawise de Muscegros' mother? My belief is that Hawise
was the daughter of Robert de Muscegros, Knt., by an unknown 1st wife,
either Emme or Agnes, two untraced daughters of Patrick de Chaworth,
of Kempsford, Gloucestershire, by his wife, Hawise de London. The
reason I suggest this affiliation is because I've noticed on more than
one occasion that Sir Robert de Muscegros appears in various records
with members of the Chaworth family, including Robert de Tibetot,
husband of Eve de Chaworth, the third daughter of Patrick de Chaworth
and Hawise de London.

For interest's sake, I've copied below an abstract of an ancient
petition found in the National Archives catalogue (http://
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp). The petition is
dated c.1321, but it refers back to a charter granted much earlier by
Thomas de Clare to Robert de Muscegros dated 13 May 1276. The charter
was granted just prior to the birth of Hawise de Muscegros which took
place on 21 Dec. 1276.

The charter appears to have been witnessed by Pain de Chaworth (son of
Patrick and Hawise) and Robert de Tibetot (son-in-law of Patrick and
Hawise). If Robert de Muscegros' wife was also a Chaworth, the
appearance of these two men as witnesses to this grant would make good
sense.

Until firm conclusions can be reached in this matter, further research
is needed. For now, I simply wish to point out the speculative
possibility that Hawise de Muscegros' mother may have been a
Chaworth. If correct, then Hawise de Muscegros would have been named
for her maternal grandmother, Hawise de London.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake Cty, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
SC 8/181/9024

Scope and content

Petitioners: Edmund de Keynes and Joan [de Keynes], his wife.

Addressees: King.

Places mentioned: Alvescot, [Oxfordshire]; Hampstead Norris,
[Berkshire]; Aldworth, [Berkshire]; Compton, [Berkshire]; Coddesmore
(Cottesmore), [Oxfordshire]; Bonreth (Bunratty) Castle, [County Clare,
Ireland]; Tredory (Tradery) cantred, [County Clare, Ireland]; Ocoromok
(Ui-Corbmaig), [County Clare, Ireland].

Other people mentioned: William de Bereford; John de Bures; Hawise [de
Bures], wife of John de Bures; Edward [I], King of England; Robert
Mussegros (Musgros), father of Hawise de Bures; William de Mershton,
attorney; Thomas de Clare; [Robert Burnell], Bishop of Bath and Wells,
chancellor; [Walter of Merton], Bishop of Rochester; William de
Valence, [Earl of Pembroke]; Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and
Essex; Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln; William de Bello Campo
(Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick; Pagano (Payn) de Cadurco (Chaworth);
Robert de Tybetot.

Nature of request: [This document is badly stained, faded and damaged
in places, and large sections are now illegible.]

The petitioners seek remedy regarding a court case between them and
John and Hawise de Bures, seemingly over the manor of Alvescot.
Following a writ of cosinage, Hawise appeared and showed the charter
of the gift of various manors and lands in England and Ireland to her
father, Robert de Musgros, by Thomas de Clare (transcribed). Further
details of the case follow, taken from the plea roll, and another,
fuller copy of the royal charter relating to the agreement between
Clare and Musgros (witnesses named).

Endorsement: Have a writ of chancery to the justices [...] and do
right to the parties according to law and custom [...] the said
allegation or the said charter.

Covering dates [c. 1321]

Note: The petition clearly dates to the reign of Edward II, since the
charter transcribed in the lower portion of the document, referred to
earlier as having been made by the king's father, is dated 13 May
1276. The legal proceedings are taken from the roll for Hilary term
in what appears to be the king's fourteenth year (the number is
damaged, and may possibly be fifteenth), and since this is also
presumably Edward II, this would seem to date the petition to the
period around 1321. Unfortunately large sections of the petition are
now partially or totally illegible.


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

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 29 jan 2007 21:46:36

On Jan 29, 2:22 pm, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
If Robert had been the father of a Chaworth descendant, as suggested
by Douglas, then I would think that the Chaworths would not likely
have sat back while the wardship of a granddaughter of the family was
awarded to a de Vescy.

Is there a chance Hawise's mother was a de Vescy instead of a
Chaworth?

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 29 jan 2007 22:40:39

Since the question of the maternity for Hawise Muscregos has come up,
I'm resurrecting this post of Sun, 21 Oct 2001 by Dennis J. Cunniff:

There seem to be at least 2 postulated Agnes de Ferrers involved here.

CP has a table (vol IV, p. 199) showing the 7 daughters of William de
Ferrers, 5th Earl of Derby and his first wife, Sybil Marshal,
including a daughter Agnes who married William de Vescy. The table was
prepared from the IPM's, Escheators' Accounts, Escheators' Enrolled
Accounts, and obituaries.

(designate the wife of William de Vescy as Agnes [I])

Weis (line 189-#4) says that William de Ferrers and his second wife
Margaret de Quincy had a daughter Agnes who married Robert de
Muscegros, citing "Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals in Northants
Rec. Soc. (1950), No. 98, p. 64; CP, V 308 and notes a,b,c,e, chart
between pp. 320-321, especially notes a and b; Hatton (cit), appears
to answer note c completely)." Note (c) states that "according to the
usual account," Agnes, wife of Robert de Muscegros "was daughter of
William, Earl of Derby, by his 2nd wife, Margaret de Quency. This is
obviously impossible, for it would make John and Hawise first
cousins." (The chart cited, titled "Ferrers of Chartley", appears
before p. 335 in volume V of the reduced image CP, does not include a
daughter Agnes for William de Ferrers by Margaret de Quency, and gives
no filiation for the wife of Sir Robert de Muscegros)

(designate the wife of Robert de Muscegros as Agnes [II])

It was previously noted by Douglas Richardson (in a message titled
"Re: Lygon to Henry I", posted to soc.genealogy.medieval dated 13 Nov
1999) that Agnes de Ferrers "conveyed her maritagium in Chinnor, co.
Oxford to the Sapy family, which action is typical in this period of
an aging widow who was childless," and concluded thereby that she was
probably not the mother of Hawise de Muscegros.

If both CP and Weis are correct, William de Ferrers simultaneously had
two daughters named Agnes (by different wives) who were alive at the
same time... not perhaps unheard of but certainly suspicious. Perhaps
the filiation of one of these Agneses is wrong? The next place to look
would be Hatton, to see what argument is made there regarding the
issue of John and Hawise being first cousins.

If anyone has access to Hatton, perhaps they could summarize the
statement made there? On what basis does Hatton assert that Agnes [II]
was daughter of William de Ferrers & Margaret de Quincy?

Gjest

Re: Lucy (de Ros ?) de Audley, wife of Sir William de Ryther

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jan 2007 23:01:02

In a message dated 1/27/07 7:45:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< The above Sir John de Roos and his wife, Margaret, whose fine you
posted can be readily identified as Sir John de Roos, Lord Roos of
Watton (died shortly before 16 Nov. 1338), of Watton, Norfolk, Ilkley
and Thornton, Yorkshire, Steward of the Royal Household, Admiral of
the Fleet north of Thames' mouth, and his wife, Margaret de Goushill.
For further particulars of this couple, see Douglas Richardson, Magna
Carta Ancestry (2005). >>

Leo does not show this second match for this Margaret but it is shown by
stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... misc03.htm

citing only "TCP" [the complete peerage] [evidently CAMOYS]

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 jan 2007 23:37:38

Dear Michael, Steve and Pat ~

Thank you for all of your comments. Much appreciated.

The only "stray" property that I've found so far in the possession of
Sir Robert de Muscegros (died 1280) is land he held at Gotowre super
Mare [in Studland] and in the nearby warren of Corfe, Dorset. This
property was acquired from Sir Robert de Muscegros sometime before
October 1283, by Richard de Bois, custodian of Corfe Castle, Dorset
for the king's uses. This might have been Sir Robert's wife's
maritagium, or he might well have inherited it from his ancestor,
William Malet, the Magna Carta baron. The Malet connection explains
why Sir Robert de Muscegros dealt at one point with Great Finborough,
Suffolk, this property was earlier held by William Malet; the Magna
Carta baron. The manor was settled in marriage on Sir Robert de
Muscegros' aunt, Mabel de Muscegros, wife successively of Hervey de
Stafford and Robert de Lisle.

As per my earlier post, it appears that in 1276, Sir Thomas de Clare
granted Sir Robert de Muscegros the manors of Aldworth, Compton, and
Hampstead Norris, Berkshire, and Alvescot and Cottesmore, Oxfordshire,
all in England, and Bunratty Castle, Tradree cantred, and Ui-Corbmaig,
all in County Clare, in Ireland. This grant may simply have been a re-
enfeoffment of lands Sir Robert de Muscegros already owned.

I don't know the history of the Berkshire manors. Alvescot,
Oxfordshire, however, had earlier been held by the de la Mare family,
but it had escheated to the king due to a felony; it subsequently was
the source of some litigation for Sir Robert de Muscegros' daughter,
Hawise. As for the Irish properties, they were originally granted by
the king in 1248 to Sir Robert's grandfather, an earlier Sir Robert de
Muscegros, the Queen's Seneschal, who died in 1254. In October 1275
Sir Robert handed over his castle of Bunratty in Ireland to the king,
on condition that as soon as the contention between the king and his
subjects in Ireland was settled, and the said Robert paid all expences
for its repair, munition, upkeep, and custody while in the king's
hand, that it be restored to him or his heirs; in March 1276, however,
the king granted the castle to Thomas de Clare. Clare in turn granted
the Irish properties back to Muscegros.

Perhaps the Dorset or the Berkshire properties, or Cottesmore,
Oxfordshire would prove a fruitful avenue of research.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 00:16:02

In a message dated 1/29/07 11:29:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< She was dead August 11, 1301, leaving granddaughter as heiress,
Hawise, 25, daughter of her son, Robert and widow of John de Ferrariis." >>

Ack! Robert, 3rd Lord Ferrers of Chartley has a birthdate given as 25 Mar
1309, but if Hawise was already widow by 1301 then obviously something is amiss
in placing him as her son.

Will

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 00:31:02

There is certainly chronologic room for Agnes de Ferrers, daughter of William
the 5th Earl of Derby (by either of his wives) to have been both the wife
first of William de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick and secondly by Sir Robert Muscegros
of Stowell, etc (d 1280)

However William de Vesci died "bef 7 Oct 1253" and if we consent that Agnes
is not the mother of a girl born in 1276 then either
A) Agnes had a second unknown husband between William and Robert OR
B) she remained a widow for *over* 20 years and then suddenly decided to
marry a man at least 10 if not 15 years her junior.

Neither A nor B is particularly appealing.

Will Johnson

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 30 jan 2007 00:34:00

On Jan 29, 6:10 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/29/07 11:29:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Millerfairfi...@aol.com writes:<< She was dead August 11, 1301, leaving granddaughter as heiress,
Hawise, 25, daughter of her son, Robert and widow of John de Ferrariis."

Ack! Robert, 3rd Lord Ferrers of Chartley has a birthdate given as 25 Mar
1309, but if Hawise was already widow by 1301 then obviously something is amiss
in placing him as her son.

Will

Will:

I think you might have mis-read the post:

"We know that Robert was the son and heir of John de Muscegros and
his
wife Cicely Avenal. ... His widow, Cecily (has livery of her own
lands, viz., Manors of
Bykenore, Teynton, Langford, Cumpton, and Britfarton, Worcester, and
Gloucester, She was dead August 11, 1301, leaving granddaughter as
heiress,
Hawise, 25, daughter of her son, Robert and widow of John de
Ferrariis."

Hope that helps. Regards.

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 00:46:02

In a message dated 1/29/07 3:36:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< Hawise, 25, daughter of her son, Robert and widow of John de
Ferrariis." >>

Hawise "widow" of John de Ferrers.
What did I misread?

Gjest

Re: Barony of Everingham.

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 01:26:02

In a message dated 1/29/07 7:54:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jgnl-dempsey@att.net writes:

<< B. Katherine de Everingham, married Sir John de Etton, 4 daughters
co-heirs:
(1) Isabel de Etton, Lady of Egmanton and Laxton
(2) Elizabeth de Etton, married John Northwode/Northwood/Norwood
(3) Margaret de Etton of North Leverton, Kirkburn, Kipling Cotes, etc.
d.1482 m
(4) Anne Etton, dau and coheir of Miles de Etton >>

Something is amiss here.
Number 4, Anne cannot be both
A) one of the "4 daughters co-heirs" of John de Etton and also
B) "dau and coheir of Miles de Etton"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 01:41:02

In a message dated 1/29/07 12:58:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bclagett@cov.com writes:

<< The ipm of Bernard Fitzpiers of Glen-
field shows that his daughter and heiress, Joan, >>

Just to make sure I'm clear, you are here also correcting

Eric Acheson, 'A Gentry Community...' (2003)
who on p. 231 states: "Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire,
arrived in Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
BALDWIN Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315)." [emphasis mine]

Thanks
Will

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 30 jan 2007 01:49:47

These are the sources for John & Robert Ferrers that I have as
references:

John Ferrers (b. 1271):

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist.

SC 1/25/176: Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, to
W[illiam] de Hamelton: requests for writs de scutagio habendo for
John de Ferrars for two scutages [c. April 1306] in List of Ancient
Correspondence of the Chancery and the Exchequer, Preserved in the
Public Record Office (London: PRO List and Indexes 15; New York: Kraus
Reprint Corporation, 1963), 388.

SC 1/35/103: John de Ferrers to Walter [Reynolds], bishop of
Worcester, chancellor: request for letters of protection for men
serving in Scotland [c. 1310-12] in List of Ancient Correspondence of
the Chancery and the Exchequer, Preserved in the Public Record Office
(London: PRO List and Indexes 15; New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation,
1963), 536.

SC 7/12/14: Request to John de Ferrariis, seneschal of Gascony, to
refrain from attacking Amanevus lord de Lebreto, whom the pope will
cause to make satisfaction to the said seneschal for any offence he
may have committed. Turbationis ingrate ... Groseau priory. 4 Id.
Aug., 7 Clement V. 10 August 1312

Calendar of the Fine Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 22
vols. (London: H.M.S.O., 1912; Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint,
1971), 2:148. Called John de Ferariis, deceased, 12 October 1312.

Pierre Chaplais, ed., Treaty Rolls Preserved in the Public Record
Office, 2 vols. (London: H.M.S.O., 1955), 1:202, Treaty Roll 9,
Membrane 3, no. 508: "recently" appointed Seneschal of Gascony, 1
April 1312.

Robert Ferrers (b 1309):

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 6:366, no. 584. Age 15 at the feast of the
Annunciation last (25 March), 10 kalends of August, 18 Edward II.

Gjest

Re: Phony Hearst Website

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 02:06:02

Leo was merely forwarding someone else's message to him. But the message
basically went like this :

"so and so's site is a fraud because I just talked to so-and-so and he said
he's not related to X and Y"

That's not really genealogy. It's more like gossip or scandal or something.

Will

DaHoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av DaHoorn » 30 jan 2007 02:06:05

She was dead August 11, 1301, leaving granddaughter as heiress,
Hawise, 25, daughter of her son, Robert and widow of John de
Ferrariis."

Untrue. Hawise was not a widow of John Ferrariis in 1301...

Pierre Chaplais, ed., Treaty Rolls Preserved in the Public Record
Office, 2 vols. (London: H.M.S.O., 1955), 1:202, Treaty Roll 9,
Membrane 3, no. 508: "recently" appointed Seneschal of Gascony, 1
April 1312.

SC 7/12/14: Request to John de Ferrariis, seneschal of Gascony, to
refrain from attacking Amanevus lord de Lebreto, whom the pope will
cause to make satisfaction to the said seneschal for any offence he
may have committed. Turbationis ingrate ... Groseau priory. 4 Id.
Aug., 7 Clement V. 10 August 1312.

Calendar of the Fine Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 22
vols. (London: H.M.S.O., 1912; Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint,
1971), 2:148. Called John de Ferariis, deceased, 12 October 1312.

Clearly, I have no idea where the poster (Millerfairfi...@aol.com) got
the idea that John de Ferrariis was deceased in 1301 where these
documents clearly prove he was very much alive up to 1312.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Phony Hearst Website

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 jan 2007 02:51:36

BINGO!

Leo should have added a note of his own.

DSH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2404.1170118999.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Leo was merely forwarding someone else's message to him. But the message
basically went like this :

"so and so's site is a fraud because I just talked to so-and-so and he
said
he's not related to X and Y"

That's not really genealogy. It's more like gossip or scandal or
something.

Will

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 03:01:03

In a message dated 1/29/07 5:12:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< t John de Ferrariis was deceased in 1301 where these
documents clearly prove he was very much alive up to 1312. >>

Yes, that *some* John de Ferrers was :)

Douglas Richardson

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2007 03:17:14

Dear Patricia ~

In answer to your good mquestion, Sir William la Zouche (died 1352),
of 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, appears to have inherited the
advowson of Wickhambrook, Suffolk from his mother, Milicent de
Cantelowe. I find that William's parents, Eudes and Milicent la
Zouche, were dealing with the advowson of Wickhambrook in 1277/1278 [6
Edward I.] [Reference: Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900):
79].

For the specific record in question, see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2 ... cC&pg=RA4-
PA11&lpg=RA4-PA11&dq=Feet+of+Fines+for+Suffolk#PRA4-PA79,M1

For an example of another advowson held in Shropshire by Eudes and
Milicent la Zouche, see Reg. Thome de Cantilupo, Episcopi
Herefordensis (Canterbury & York Soc. 1) (1906): xxi, 16, 28, 185,
235.

See the following weblink to view these records:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2 ... J&pg=RA10-
PA97&lpg=RA10-PA97&dq=Muscegros+Robert#PRA10-PA16,M1

The editor of this work has correctly translated "dominus Eudo la
Zouche" on page 16 and "domini Eudonis la Zouche" on page 28 to read
"Sir Eudo la Zouche."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 30 jan 2007 03:29:01

To all:

per Extrait de : Annuaire des cinq départements de
l'ancienne Normandie, 19e année, 1853, pp. 124-308

Jehan de Grosparmy and Jacqueline de Sillans are likely to
be the same as the parents of our Anne de Grosparmy
married in 1506. Therefore Anne de GROSPARMY is the grandaughter
of Nicolas de Grosparmy the well known alchemist. My suspicions were
correct.

Websource:

http://www.normannia.info/document/congres1853.html

[p. 139]

Mathilde, qui accordait à l'abbaye de St-Etienne le
droit d'avoir un cellier à Rouen.

Cette famille paraît s'être éteinte vers la fin
du XIVe siècle. En 1360, le chapitre de Séez possédait
la baronnie d'Aunou-sur-Orne. Je ne puis préciser
comment la seigneurie de Flers passa de la famille
d'Aunou dans celle de Grosparmy ; mais je puis
conjecturer que ce fut à la fin du XIIe ou dans le
commencement du XIIIe siècle ; car une vieille
chronique, en parlant du cardinal Raoul de Grosparmy,
mort en 1270, nous dit qu'il était issu des seigneurs
de Beuzeville et de Flers. L'historien des cardinaux
français confirme cette assertion : « Celui-ci,
dit-il, s'appelait Raoul de Grosparmy, issu des
seigneurs de Beuzeville et de Flers. »

L'espace et le temps me manquent pour vous parler
de Raoul de Grosparmy, successivement doyen de
Saint-Martin de Tours, garde-des-sceaux de France,
évêque d'Evreux en 1259, et au sacre duquel St Louis
assista. En 1261, le pape Urbain IV le créa cardinal.

En 1414, je trouve Raoul de Grosparmy seigneur de
Flers et de Beuzeville.

En 1496, dans le contrat de mariage de
Guillemette de Grosparmy et de Germain de Grimouville,
seigneur de Larchamp, est il fait mention de feu
Nicolas de Grosparmy, baron de Flers [8], et de Jehan
de Grosparmy, son fils aîné, seigneur et baron de
Flers à cette même date.

Jehan de Grosparmy eut pour fils et héritier
Nicolas de Grosparmy, mort en 1541, laissant de
Jacqueline de Sillans, sa femme, deux filles :
l'aînée, Anne de Grosparmy,

[p. 140]

âgée de 5 ou 6 ans ; et la seconde, Jeanne de
Grosparmy, âgée de 8 jours [9].






From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:35:32 +0000





-ANNE DE GROSPARMY who was from the family of the Cardinal Raoul de
Grosparmy , bishop of Evreux (+ 1270), an important French councillor,
and of his nephew Raoul de Grosparmy, bishop of Orleans (+ 1311). The
Grosparmy were seigneurs de Beuville, Benneville, barons de Flers,
etc. Anne has a good chance of being a descendant of Raoul de
Grosparmy, seigneur de Beuville married in 1404 with Denise de
Tournebu, dame de Flers, daughter of Guillaume de Tournebu, seigneur
de Marbeuf and (m.1369) of Marie Paynel de Moyon, dame de Milly (with
mother Harcourt-Beaumesnil). According to "Quartiers genealogiques
d'Olivier Laurent" (in RGN # 66, p. 205), Anne de Grosparmy was
daughter of Jean, seigneur de Benneville and Jacqueline de Sillans.

To all: I know for a fact Nicolas de GROSPARMY, was a son of Raoul. The
wife of Nicolas
appears to be Marie de ROEUX. In fact Nicolas was a very well known
alchemist according to some very reliable sources. I have a strong
suspicion that Anne de GROSPARMY could be a grandaughter
of Nicolas de Grosparmy.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/


_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo – buy and sell with people
you know
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex001 ... line_12/06

John Higgins

Fouleshurst [was: Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of

Legg inn av John Higgins » 30 jan 2007 06:54:32

Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud StanleyI agree that the chronology described below indicates that Joan Fitzpiers was married to the elder Thomas Foulehurst, not the younger Thomas F. [his son] who married Cecily Mainwaring. Combined with previous posts on the subject, this indicates that Eric Acheson's work previously cited apparently combined the two Thomases in trying to guess at the father of Elizabeth Fouleshurst who mar. William Turville. It seems clear that Elizabeth was likely the dau. of the younger Thomas, and thus not of Joan Fitzpiers as Acheson stated.

Although Joan Fitzpiers was clearly mar. to the elder Thomas, there still is the question of Ormerod's reference to the wife of this Thomas as Eva, dau. of Hugh Venables [whom I cannot find in any Venables pedigree]. Was the elder Thomas perhaps married twice? If so, it does seem likely (although not certain) that Joan was the mother of his son Sir Thomas, if for no other reason than Ormerod's reference to the younger Thomas being born in Glenfield, the home of Joan's family. Does any other evidence that I've missed help to resolve this question?

Does Farnham (or any other source) give information (and ancestry) on the Fitzpiers family?
----- Original Message -----
From: Clagett, Brice
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Cc: suthen@redshift.com ; jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud Stanley


Chronology confirms that Joan Fitzpiers, heiress of property at
Glenfield, Leicestershire, was the mother, not the wife, of Thomas
Fouleshurst (1396-1437). The ipm of Bernard Fitzpiers of Glen-
field shows that his daughter and heiress, Joan, was born March
12, 1369/70. CIPM 14:27; Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval
Village Notes 2:315.

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 08:01:02

In a message dated 1/29/07 4:52:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist. >>

Why is this IPM happening so long after Margaret's death?

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 08:06:02

In a message dated 1/29/07 4:52:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< Robert Ferrers (b 1309):

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 6:366, no. 584. Age 15 at the feast of the
Annunciation last (25 March), 10 kalends of August, 18 Edward II. >>

What's the purpose of this document? It was created evidently in 1324 or
1325, either way at least 12 years after any mention of his father?

Sutliff

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

Legg inn av Sutliff » 30 jan 2007 08:26:58

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2017.1169571817.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
<snip>
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.


<snip>

What source makes Joan Corbet, daughter of Robert Corbet and Elizabeth le
Strange? They did indeed have a daughter Joan, but I believe she married Sir
Robert Harley d. 1370 and John Darras d. 1408 and was of a later generation
than the Joan who married Owen ap Gruffudd.

Henry Sutliff

Sources: HOP 1386-1421 IV:64
"Another Look at Joan de Harley: WIll Her Real Descendants Please Rise", by
Paul C. Reed, FASG, The Genealogist published by the Association for the
Promotion of Scholarship in Genealogy, Ltd. (editor: Neil D. Thompson),
Volume X, No. 1, Spring 1989

DaHoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av DaHoorn » 30 jan 2007 09:50:22

Why is this IPM happening so long after Margaret's death?

Answer: Robert was an heir to his older brother John's estate.

DaHoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av DaHoorn » 30 jan 2007 09:51:30

Yes, that *some* John de Ferrers was :)

Nice try. Please refer to Douglas Richardson's work Plantagenet
Ancestry (pages 307-308) for more information.


Gjest

Re: Sir John de Etton heirs

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 15:41:41

Thanks Will,

B. should read:

B. Katherine de Everingham, married Sir John de Etton, their 4 grand-daughters
(daughters of Miles de Etton) are co-heirs:

In a message dated 1/29/07 7:54:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jgnl-dempsey@att.net writes:

<< B. Katherine de Everingham, married Sir John de Etton, 4 daughters
co-heirs:
(1) Isabel de Etton, Lady of Egmanton and Laxton
(2) Elizabeth de Etton, married John Northwode/Northwood/Norwood
(3) Margaret de Etton of North Leverton, Kirkburn, Kipling Cotes, etc.
d.1482 m
(4) Anne Etton, dau and coheir of Miles de Etton >>

Something is amiss here.
Number 4, Anne cannot be both
A) one of the "4 daughters co-heirs" of John de Etton and also
B) "dau and coheir of Miles de Etton"

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2007 15:51:17

Dear Michael, Steve, and Patricia ~

As a followup to my earlier post regarding the "stray" land holdings
of Sir Robert de Muscegros, the petition below dated c.1276 indicates
that Sir Robert had Cottesmore, Rutland (not Oxfordshire as earlier
reported) by "exchange" with Thomas de Clare.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp

SC 8/32/1576

Scope and content

Petitioners: William de Beuchamp (Beauchamp), Earl of Warwick

Addressees: King's council

Places mentioned: Forest of Dean, [Gloucestershire]; Lydney,
[Gloucestershire]; St Briavels, [Gloucestershire]; Cottesmore,
(Rutland)

Other people mentioned: The King's constable of St Briavels; Thomas de
Clare; Robert de Mucegros; Ralph de Sandwic (Sandwich), Steward [of
the King's demesnes north of the Trent]

Nature of request: William de Beuchamp, Earl of Warwick makes two
requests:

1) He states that although he has his wood in the Forest of Dean, and
his land in Lydney, the King's constable of St Briavels has taken his
iron mine, to the destruction of his wood and to his prejudice. He
requests that amends be made to him as justice demands.

2) Although he holds Cottesmore in Rutland in chief of the king,
Thomas de Clare has given him to understand that he holds it, and has
exchanged it with Robert de Mucegros, who has done homage to the king
for it. He requests justice.

Endorsement: [The responses are written on the face, under each to the
requests. To the first:]Ralph de Sandwic, the Steward, is to be
written to, to inquire into this; and the king is to be informed.[To
the second:]Thomas de Clare is to be called on a certain day, the
arguments of the Earl and of Thomas are to be heard, and what is
rightly to be done is then to be done.

Covering dates [c. 1276]

Note: Cal. Fine Rolls, 1272-1307 p.66 is dated at Lyddington, 2 March
1276. This petition must date from shortly afterwards.

Gjest

Re: Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 17:50:03

Will wrote
<Ack! Robert, 3rd Lord Ferrers of Chartley has a birthdate given as 25 Mar
<1309, but if Hawise was already widow by 1301 then obviously something is
amiss
<in placing him as her son.


I think the way to clear this up would be to have a look at Hawise's
grandmother Cecily's IPM C133/99/2 dated 29 Edw I. The statement that Cecily's heir
Hawise was John Ferrers' widow may not have been accurately read, or may
have been mistranslated
MM

Gjest

Re: The estates of Walter Marshal, Marshal of England, 5th E

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 19:26:04

I have found an amazing resource in CPR:-
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v13/body/Edward3vol13page0263.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0263.pdf)
It is the record of an exemplification, made in 1366 at the request of John,
son of Laurence de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, of numerous then already
ancient deeds and records concerning the inheritance of the various heirs of
Walter Marshal, the last but one of the Marshal Earls of Pembroke.
The exemplified documents include many which I had not previously seen
recorded, and give very full details of the estates in England, Wales and Ireland,
often with the names of the tenants, knights' fees, and values, and
particularly the allocation of the estates among the very numerous coparceners: the
inheritance by the Bohuns of the marshalship is explained, as also the
division of the estates of William de Braose/Breusa between his three daughters.
Altogether a lifetime's work impends!
MM

Gjest

Re: Lucy (de Ros ?) de Audley, wife of Sir William de Ryther

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 20:30:15

Tuesday, 30 January, 2007



Dear Doug, Tim, Will, et al.,

Following on this recent thread, Rosie Bevan kindly provided
the following two items that bear on the matter of Lucy's
identification.

A. Fine dated 1280:

' 54. York. Morrow of Cand. Before the same. Between William
de Ryther, quer., and John de Ros, deforc., of the manors
of Ryther, Scarthecroft and Gildehus' with the advowson of
Ryther church. Covenant. John's right. William and Lucy
his wife and the heirs of Lucy's body to hold of the chief
lords with remainder to William and reversion after William's
death to John and the heirs of his body with remainders to
Alexander, John's brother, and the heirs of his body and to
William's next heirs. ' [1]


B. IPM of Sir Robert Ryther, 3 Aug 6 Hen. VII (1491), which
states in part:

' He also died seised in tail male of the under-mentioned manor
and advowson of Ryther, by virtue of the gift thereof made by
John son of Robert Roos, by way of fine and with the King's
licence, to one William Ryther and Lucy his wife in tail
male, with remainder to the right heirs of the said William,
he being cousin and heir male of the said William and Lucy,
viz. son of William, son of William, son of William, son of
Robert, son of Robert, son of Robert their son. ' [2]

The statement in the IPM of 1491 identifying John de Ros as
'son of Robert Roos' appears to be in error. In a prior post, I
noted that John de Ros may well have been the brother, not the son
of Sir Robert de Ros (d. 1285). Two reasons support that
suggestion:

1. The fine dated 1280 above provides for reversion of the
manors to John de Ros, 'with remainders to Alexander,
John's brother,...' Sir Robert de Ros (d. 1285) had no
known son Alexander; however, he did have younger brothers
John and Alexander, the latter of whom was identified in
a charter of Sir Robert, enfeoffing Thomas de Werke,
chaplain, in certain lands in Helmsley, dated 1264x1285.
This charter was witnessed by his brothers Sir Peter,
Sir William, Sir Alexander and Sir Herbert [ " Hiis
testibus: Dominis Petro de Ros, Willelmo de Ros,
Alexandro de Ros, Herberto de Ros, militibus et
fratribus,.." ]. [3]

2. The chronology of the generations does not readily support
the filiation in the 1491 IPM (and in CP XI:8). Sir William
de Ros, eldest son and heir of Sir Robert, was born 1255 or
before (he was aged 30 and more at his father's death), and
his mother Isabel de Aubigny was born ca. 1233. It is not
reasonable to place Lucy de Ros, widow of Henry de Audley
(b. 1251, d. 1276 or before) and married 2ndly in 1280 or
before to William de Ryther, as the daughter of a man (son
of Sir Robert de Ros and Isabel de Aubigny) who
would himself likely have been born 1255 or later, and very
possibly after 1260.

If in fact Lucy was the daughter of John de Ros, he was therefore
certainly the brother, not son, of Sir Robert. Lucy his daughter
would therefore have been the namesake of her paternal grandmother,
Lucy (daughter of Piers fitz Herbert of Blaen Llyfni).

The identification of Lucy, wife of (1) Henry de Audley and (2)
Sir William de Ryther as daughter of John de Ros is not proven, but
is probable based on the evidence in hand. The entail of Gildehusdale
and the other lands on 'the heirs of Lucy's body', with reversion to
John de Ros and remainder to his brother Alexander, is indicative of
a family transaction.

Cheers,

John *


NOTES

[1] F.H. Slingsby (ed.). Feet of Fines for the County of York from
1272-1300. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1956. (Y.A.S.
Record Series, vol. CXXI), p.36.

[2] CIPM Hen VII, vol. 1, p. 252, no. 614.

[3] Hist. Man. Comm., Rutland MSS.IV:84, no. (21).


* John P. Ravilious












________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Estates Of Walter Marshal, Marshal of England, 5th E

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 jan 2007 20:37:25

Walter was actually the EIGHTH Earl of Pembroke and the FOURTH -- MARSHAL --
Earl of Pembroke.

DSH

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2450.1170181379.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I have found an amazing resource in CPR:-
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v13/body/Edward3vol13page0263.pdf_

<
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0263.pdf)>

It is the record of an exemplification, made in 1366 at the request of
John,
son of Laurence de Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, of numerous then already
ancient deeds and records concerning the inheritance of the various heirs
of
Walter Marshal, the last but one of the Marshal Earls of Pembroke.
The exemplified documents include many which I had not previously seen
recorded, and give very full details of the estates in England, Wales and
Ireland,
often with the names of the tenants, knights' fees, and values, and
particularly the allocation of the estates among the very numerous
coparceners: the
inheritance by the Bohuns of the marshalship is explained, as also the
division of the estates of William de Braose/Breusa between his three
daughters.
Altogether a lifetime's work impends!
MM

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 21:01:03

In a message dated 1/30/07 12:55:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< Answer: Robert was an heir to his older brother John's estate. >>

Thanks. Is there something that gives us a good age for John?

DaHoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av DaHoorn » 30 jan 2007 22:00:24

On Jan 30, 2:57 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/07 12:55:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,

sbarnho...@mail.com writes:

Answer: Robert was an heir to his older brother John's estate.

Thanks. Is there something that gives us a good age for John?

The answer can be found in the following:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist.

Hope this works.

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 22:13:03

In a message dated 1/30/07 1:37:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< http://www.geneajourney.com/ferrers.html#LINE%20A1 >>

This section of this site is confusing.
They state

Sir Robert de Ferrers b 1309 d 1350 married twice.
By his first wife Margaret married 21 Nov 1324 he has three children, among
whom is
-- Robert b 31 Oct 1357 or 1359 who m Margaret le Despenser
By his second wife John de la Mote who he married IN 1345 (!) he has
--Robert b abt 1347 who m Elizabeth le Boteler abt 1369 AND
--Robert b 1373 who m Joan Beaufort bef 1390

these wifes and dates and things are certainly mixed up.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 22:41:02

In a message dated 1/30/07 1:06:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist. >>

He lived to be 22. But when did he start living?
I don't see a year for when this IPM or Analogous Document was created so
it's hard to tell what year he was born.
Thanks
Will

CE Wood

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av CE Wood » 30 jan 2007 23:23:36

A more careful reading shows that the site actually states:

"Child or Sir John de Ferrers and Elizabeth de Stafford was:

Sir Robert de Ferrers [k], Lord of Chartley, Knight, b 31 Oct 1357 or
1359, prob Staffordshire, England, d abt 12 Mar 1413/14. He md
Margaret le Despenser abt 1390, daughter of Sir Edward le Despenser
and Elizabeth de Burghersh."

And further states:

"Child of Robert de Ferrers and Elizabeth le Botiler was:

Sir Robert de Ferrers, Lord Ferrers, Knight, b 1373, of Wem,
Shropshire, England, d bef 29 Nov 1396. He md Joan Beaufort bef 30 Sep
1390, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and Katherine
Roet."

CE Wood


On Jan 30, 12:27 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/07 1:37:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,

sbarnho...@mail.com writes:

http://www.geneajourney.com/ferrers.html#LINE%20A1

This section of this site is confusing.
They state

Sir Robert de Ferrers b 1309 d 1350 married twice.
By his first wife Margaret married 21 Nov 1324 he has three children, among
whom is
-- Robert b 31 Oct 1357 or 1359 who m Margaret le Despenser
By his second wife John de la Mote who he married IN 1345 (!) he has
--Robert b abt 1347 who m Elizabeth le Boteler abt 1369 AND
--Robert b 1373 who m Joan Beaufort bef 1390

these wifes and dates and things are certainly mixed up.
Will Johnson

DaHoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av DaHoorn » 30 jan 2007 23:31:04

On Jan 30, 4:34 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/07 1:06:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,

sbarnho...@mail.com writes:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist.

He lived to be 22. But when did he start living?
I don't see a year for when this IPM or Analogous Document was created so
it's hard to tell what year he was born.
Thanks
Will

Actually he was 22, 4 days before the birthday of St. John the Baptist
which was on June 24, 1299. Hence, John was b 20 Jun 1271. You can
find this document in CIPM Edward I (1299) or Vol. 3. He gave his
prooof of age in this document.

Hope this helps.

http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpub ... ovpub2.htm

http://www.catholicculture.org/lit/cale ... cfm?id=242

DaHoorn

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av DaHoorn » 30 jan 2007 23:35:09

On Jan 30, 5:31 pm, "DaHoorn" <sbarnho...@mail.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:34 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:





In a message dated 1/30/07 1:06:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,

sbarnho...@mail.com writes:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist.

He lived to be 22. But when did he start living?
I don't see a year for when this IPM or Analogous Document was created so
it's hard to tell what year he was born.
Thanks
Will

Actually he was 22, 4 days before the birthday of St. John the Baptist
which was on June 24, 1299. Hence, John was b 20 Jun 1271. You can
find this document in CIPM Edward I (1299) or Vol. 3. He gave his
prooof of age in this document.

Hope this helps.

http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpub ... ovpub2.htm

http://www.catholicculture.org/lit/cale ... fm?id=242- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

CORRECTION: Actually he was 22, 4 days before the birthday of St. John
the Baptist
which was on June 24, 1293. My goof and my apologies.

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 23:46:02

You're right, that answers one issue.

How can Robert b 1309 have a brother John ?
If Robert is supposed to be a son of Hawise then why does she have a son
Robert b 1303 (not 1309) and no second son Robert? And why doesn't she also have
a son named John ?

CE Wood

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av CE Wood » 30 jan 2007 23:54:09

As for Robert's birthdate, I think that 1303 is another site typo. CP
gives 25 March 1309.

Re John, I again trust CP more than the referenced site. Perhaps the
site discriminates against childless sons, who knows.

CE Wood

On Jan 30, 2:41 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
You're right, that answers one issue.

How can Robert b 1309 have a brother John ?
If Robert is supposed to be a son of Hawise then why does she have a son
Robert b 1303 (not 1309) and no second son Robert? And why doesn't she also have
a son named John ?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Lucy (de Ros ?) de Audley, wife of Sir William de Ryther

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 jan 2007 23:55:49

Dear John ~

According to C.P.11 (1949): 8 (sub Ryther), Sir William de Ryther's
wife, Lucy, was the "daughter of John de Ros, son of Robert, 1st Lord
Ros of Helmsley." The source for this statement is nothing
contemporary, so already we're on shaky ground. Rather, it comes
solely from Gen Plantagenet Harrison's Notes, which cites "De Banco
Rolls, 21 Hen VI, m. 128 d, where her portion is said to have been the
manor of Gildhusdale, which was of the fee of Ros in 1284 (Book of
Fees, vol vi,. p. 50)."

We see in your post today that the manors of "Gildehus'" along with
Ryther and Scarthecroft, Yorkshire were settled on William de Ryther,
and his wife, Lucy, in 1280, by John de Ros.

Yet, Gildhusdale can hardly have been Lucy's maritagium as claimed by
Harrison, for the 1280 settlement stipulates that these manors were to
revert after William de Ryther's death to John de Ros and the heirs of
his body with remainders to Alexander, John's brother, and the heirs
of his body and to William's next heirs."

Unless there has been a misprint in your transcript of the 1280
settlement, this is unlike any maritagium I have ever seen before.

Given the wording of this settlement, I suspect that John de Roos was
likely Lucy's brother, not her father, especially since the manor of
Ryther was William de Ryther's own property, not a maritagium
belonging to his wife. If so, then it seems possible that Lucy, wife
of Sir William de Ryther, might be the same person as Lucy de Roos,
wife of Sir William de Kyme, who is thought to have been the sister of
this John de Roos.

Lucy, wife of Sir William de Kyme, was evidently a young widow in
1259, and is known to have still been living in Easter Term, 1275,
when she was summoned to answer Ralph de Normanville in a plea. She
was buried at Grey Friars, York, the same church as her alleged
brother, William de Roos, of Ingmanthorpe. Lucy de Kyme's maiden
name, Roos, is recovered from the Kyme pedigree found in a document at
Kyme in 1640 [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 5 (1825):
291].

At the very least, the lives of the two Lucy's overlapped each other.
Still, if Complete Peerage is right, that Henry de Audley, the first
husband of Lucy de Ryther, was born about 1251, then Henry would be
somewhat younger in age than Lucy, wife of Sir William de Kyme. Also,
Sir William de Ryther and his wife, Lucy, are known to have had five
sons. If they married in 1277, the year following Henry de Audley's
death, that would mean Lucy de Ryther had her last child perhaps as
early as 1287, which would place her birth no earlier than 1242.
While it is pushing the chronology for Lucy de Ryther to be the same
person as Lucy de Kyme, it would still be possible.

My suggestion would be to see if William and Lucy de Ryther, or Lucy's
earlier husband, Henry de Audley, were in possession of any the known
Kyme family properties which Lucy might have held in dower as a Kyme
widow. Since women in this period usually remarried quickly when they
were young widows, it seems a good bet that Lucy de Kyme remarried
someone, if not Henry de Audley and William de Ryther. Since Lucy de
Ryther lived until 1303, there should be some record of her holding
Kyme properties, if she was the widow of Sir William de Kyme. My
files notes indicate that Sir William de Kyme held the following
properties: Sotby, Newton Kyme, Bullington, Faldingworth, Hardwick,
Ingham, Rand, Spridlington, Toft, Wragby, etc., Lincolnshire, and
Thornton in Craven, Yorkshire.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
..

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2007 23:56:02

No I'm confused. I want the age of Robert's *brother* John
Not his *father* John

Gjest

Re: Lucy (de Ros ?) de Audley, wife of Sir William de Ryther

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 00:11:02

In a message dated 1/30/07 11:30:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< by way of fine and with the King's
licence, to one William Ryther and Lucy his wife in tail
male, with remainder to the right heirs of the said William,
he being cousin and heir male of the said William and Lucy,
viz. son of William, son of William, son of William, son of
Robert, son of Robert, son of Robert their son. ' [2] >>

Excellent this Sir Robert who d 1491 I already had as the son of William
Ryther by his wife Eleanor FitzWilliam, so now I can give him a pedigree going
back several hundred years.

Gjest

Re: 1556 marriage record of Allen Clarke, ancestor of Barret

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 03:41:02

John I'm not sure if this is what you're asking but I'm fairly sure that all
"M" batches mean "Marriages extracted from the parish register"

I'm not sure what an "E" batch is. But I think the "E" designates that it's
some other type of record. Maybe banns or license or patron sheets, not sure.

Will

Gjest

Re: Mother of Hawise de Muscegros

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 03:56:02

Will Jhonson wrote

<In a message dated 1/29/07 4:52:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<sbarnhoorn@mail.com writes:

<< Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other Analogous Documents
Preserved in the Public Record Office [1236-1427], 22 vols. (London:
H.M.S.O., 1904-2003), 3:96-97, no. 154. John de Ferrariis, kinsman
and heir of Margaret de Ferrariis, sometime countess of Derby. Proof
of age, John was 22 on the fourth day before the feast of St. John the
Baptist. >>

<Why is this IPM happening so long after Margaret's death?

I have not found the proof of age of John de Ferrariis/Ferrers referred to
by sbarnhoorn. John's grandmother Margaret's IPM is at C 133/28/17, she being
I think Margaret de Quincy, who seems to have died in or before 9 Edw I.
MM

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 31 jan 2007 16:58:17

To all: I am researching Marguerite de Sausdret /Sandret
wife of Guillaume IV de Meherenc, sgr de La Conseillere.

Its quite possible that Marguerite de Sausdret /Sandret could be connected
to

Sandret (de) et Saudret Jean, écuyer et Jean, écuyer, sieur de Bellevue or
Hélie de Sandret, écuyer, sieur de Trianon. both of the families noted are
from normandie,
there also seems to be a connection to François de Grieu, rider, sior of
Saint-Gilles that married another Marguerite de Sandret EN1618. See note#1.

it is also noted that the La famille de Grieu is connected to Guillaume de
Malherbe, écuyer, seigneur de Bouillon , see note#2

web referance:
http://st.benoit.free.fr/histoire/grieu.html#c

Guillaume IV de Meherenc, sgr de La Conseillere
m. 1545, Marguerite de Sausdret /Sandret

Hélie de Sandret, écuyer, sieur de Trianon.
François de Grieu, rider, sior of Saint-Gilles, marries Marguerite de
Sandret EN1618

Note#1
Nous n'avons pas retrouvé l'acte de décès de Charles de Grieu, mais il
semble être décédé peu après la naissance de ses deux enfants. En effet, il
est fait mention d'une curatelle pour la demoiselle de Grieu, exercée par
Charles Gabriel Adrien François de Sandret [3]. La famille de Sandret est
très liée à celle des de Grieu puisqu'en 1618, François de Grieu, écuyer,
sieur de Saint-Gilles, épouse Marguerite de Sandret, fille de Hélie de
Sandret, écuyer, sieur de Trianon. Louis Charles de Grieu descend de cette
union et possède la terre de Grieu à Saint-Benoit d'Hébertôt détachée de
celle de Trianon lors du mariage de 1618. Lors du baptême d'Antoine de
Grieu, l'oncle paternel de Louis Charles, la demoiselle Catherine Françoise
de Sandret est choisie pour être la marraine de l'enfant.


Note#2
La famille de Grieu est établie depuis longtemps en Normandie; en effet, en
1484 devant le tabellion (voir la définition) de Bernay est passé un contrat
de mariage entre Guillaume de Malherbe, écuyer, seigneur de Bouillon et
d'Ecorcheboeuf, et une demoiselle de Grieu, fille de Gabriel de Grieu,
écuyer , seigneur de Saint-Aubin-le-Vertueux et de dame Catherine Bellanger.
Au XVIème siècle, Pierre de Grieu est lieutenant général (voir la
définition)de l'élection (voir la définition) de Pont-Audemer. La famille de
Grieu se divise au XVIIème siècle en plusieurs branches dont celle des
sieurs de Launay, à laquelle appartient Louis Charles de Grieu, qui
s'installe au Theil-Nollent [1] en 1634.

It is certain that the Sandret family is a noble one.

_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme002 ... =hmtagline

Brad Verity

Re: Aldborough/Mauleverer/Goldesborough

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 31 jan 2007 18:24:12

John Higgins wrote:

Your note provides a good deal of useful information, particularly dates, on
the Aldeburgh/Aldborough family.

Dear John,

Below are some more Aldborough dates, from Robert H. Skaife (ed.),
'The Register of the Guild of Corpus Christi in the City of
York' (Surtees Soc. 57, 1872), p. 185.

A6. Richard A., m. Joan Fairfax [no dates for either]

He died in October 1514.

A7. Richard A. (d. shortly after 1530), m. ca. 1524 (2) Jane Mauleverer (b.
ca. 1511, living 1551)

He died 19 July 1536. He was admitted to the Guild of Corpus Christi,
along with first wife Katherine Mauleverer of Allerton, in 1515. His
widow Jane Mauleverer of Wothersome, must have remarried shortly after
his death, as she and her second husband Peter Slingsby, were
defendants in a lawsuit dated by the National Archives '1532-1538'.

A8. Richard A. (?b. shortly after 1530, bur. 6 Sep 1613 [per notes in
1563/4 Vis.]), m. Eleanor Goldesborough

He was born 1532/33, as he was found to be age three years and more at
the death of his father. This of course explains why he was left out
of Tonge's 1530 Visitation pedigree of the family. A rare example of
a man living to age 80 in the 16th century.

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 20:41:03

Henry Sutliff wrote:-
<What source makes Joan Corbet, daughter of Robert Corbet and Elizabeth le
<Strange? They did indeed have a daughter Joan, but I believe she married
Sir
<Robert Harley d. 1370 and John Darras d. 1408 and was of a later generation
<than the Joan who married Owen ap Gruffudd.
I agree that Joan, the wife of Sir Robert Harley, was almost certainly a
Corbet, and very likely a daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Morton, whose IPM
C135/243/7) is dated 49 Edw III. She is shown as such in the 1623 Visitation of
Shropshire (pages 134-5), and as sister of Sir Roger and Sir Fulk Corbet, the
father of Katherina Elizabeth, wife of John, Lord of Mowddwy.
The fact that she and her husband made repeated settlements of their
interest in the old Corbet manors of Yockleton and Shelve in Shropshire, in favour
of Fulke Corbet and his (older) brother Roger, suggests that Joan may have
acquired these manors as a marriage portion.

(The two manors had been found in 1322 to have belonged to Peter Corbet and
his wife Beatrice, and to have descended to his brother John (b.1298), son of
Peter Corbet, father of the deceased. The 1322 IPM of Peter is conveniently
available on a2a at Shropshire, More papers, 1037/2/6).

Sir Robert Harley and Joan had only one legitimate child, so far as I can
tell, namely Alice/Alesia, the wife of Hamon de Peshale. Though her legitimacy
had been disputed, it was ultimately confirmed after enquiry by the local
bishop, as Paul Reed showed some years ago on SGM. Alice's daughter and heiress
Elizabeth Peshale is shown in the visitation as marrying (i) John Grendon and
(ii) Sir Richard Lacon. It was by this marriage that the manor of Willey (a
Harley inheritance) came into the Lacon family.
I do not think that Sir Robert Corbet's wife was Elizabeth le Strange.
Instead I believe that Sir Robert, the father of Sir Roger and Sir Fulk, married
Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Giles de Erdington, lord of Shawbury (see PRO,
C143/332/5), who brought Shawbury into the Corbet family as the result of her
marriage. C 143/369/9 is the record of a licence to Sir Robert and his wife
Elizabeth to settle Shawbury on themselves for life, remainder to their son Fulk
and his heirs male, remainder to Roger their son and the heirs of his body.
Sir Robert Corbet's IPM is at C 143/243/7. dated 49 Edw III.
The Joan ?Corbet, who I suggested may have been the wife of Owain ap
Griffith/Gruffyd de la Pole, was certainly of an earlier generation, as Henry
Sutliff points out. The idea is that she was a daughter of the Sir Robert Corbet of
Morton whose IPM is dated 28 Edw III (C133/98/30). He was of the household of
Hamo Le Strange in 1271: See CPR for 20th March in that year, so a Corbet/Le
Strange marriage at that period is very possible.
However the secondary sources abstracted in Stirnet
(_http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/cc4aq/corbet01.htm#linklo_
(http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... htm#linklo) )
are inconclusive.
The Shropshire visitation does show a Sir Robert Corbet of Morton as
marrying:-
(i) Katherine, daughter of John Lord Strange of "Knokinge et Midle", and
(ii) Matilda of Tideshall (whose IPM is in the PRO.
But it does not show any daughter of this Sir Robert.
In a separate post I will give details of the descent of Sir John de Burgh
and of the Lords of Mowddwy, as appearing from the Shropshire visitation
MM

Gjest

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 21:42:03

In a message dated 1/31/07 8:01:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

<< To all: I am researching Marguerite de Sausdret /Sandret
wife of Guillaume IV de Meherenc, sgr de La Conseillere.

Its quite possible that Marguerite de Sausdret /Sandret could be connected
to >>

This all depends on whether you can actually connect the two names Sausdret
and Sandret.
It seems like that would be the first step. To establish the
interchangeability of these two forms.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 21:45:03

By the way this line evidently has a Royal connection descending from Hugh,
King of France. Does anyone have a closer royal connection for this line?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Aldborough/Mauleverer/Goldesborough

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 21:56:03

In a message dated 1/31/07 9:25:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< He died 19 July 1536. He was admitted to the Guild of Corpus Christi,
along with first wife Katherine Mauleverer of Allerton, in 1515. His >>

Was she perhaps a daughter of that Sir Thomas Mauleverer of Allerton who
(Thomas) had a daughter Jane (Joan) who m Robert, 6th Lord Ogle (Robert dsp 1 Aug
1562) ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Aldborough/Mauleverer/Goldesborough

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 22:01:02

Richard Aldeburgh, son of Jane Mauleverer of Wothersome
married Eleanor Goldesborough daughter of Thomas

Thomas also had a son William Goldesborough who
m Anne Slingsby dau of this same Jane Mauleverer of Wothersome

Cozy family.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2007 22:06:07

The two referenced Joans' one the wife of
Owen ap Gruffyd, Lord of La Pole, Prince of /Powys/

the other Joan, the wife of
Sir Robert /Harley/ , Knt

were at least one if not up to three generations apart.

If Joan, the wife of Sir Robert Harley is also the daughter of
Sir Robert /Corbet/ of Moreton Corbet by
Elizabeth le /Strange/
then this Joan was born between 1322 and 1350

The other Joan, known to be the wife of Owain, was born by 1278 and already
his widow in 1295

So the person who queried the connection should realize this is referring to
two seperate woman, both known to be named Joan, but whose parentage is in
conflict.

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»