Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Alan Grey

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 19 jul 2007 01:44:23

Vickie Elam White wrote:
But, it turns out I *may* have to eat my words and admit that Joan Burdyck
was right that Jane Presley might have married at age 12 or even 11.
Supposedly, one of the attorneys in Mary Hathaway's case -- William
FitzHugh -- married 10-yr. old Sarah Tucker in 1674. And she had 5 children
by 1684, so they may have consummated their marriage right away.

Possibly, but five children by aged 20 years can be arrived at in other
ways (e.g., a set of twins when she was aged 20, and one child in each
in the preceding three years, so consummation at aged 16, which is not
outside the bounds of normality). Children in consecutive years is not
unusual and I know of cases of two children being born in the same
year. Besides, Sarah may have turned 11 a week after the marriage,
making her possibly 21 in 1684.

Alan R Grey

Alan Grey

Marriage ages and motherhood

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 19 jul 2007 01:58:34

Yvonne Purdy wrote:
It makes strange reading, in our time, that 9 year olds were being married
off.

I have a direct ancestress, baptised 25 December 1610, married on 8 March
1622/23, so 12 years old. Her husband was slightly older at not quite 15,
but at least their first recorded child was not baptised until 14 March
1626/27. I think that Will is quite correct that they weren't allowed to
live together as man and wife until they were older, although I do wonder
whether all parents/guardians took such care if great wealth or good
connections were at stake.


Under the subject "RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record" there
has been much discussion over the last two days about young brides and
mothers. The whole question of age at marriage is an interesting one,
and important in genealogical studies. I am aware of research that has
relevance to any interpretation of the issue and likelihood of the
production of children at a very young age, and thought perhaps to share
pertinent information. (The issue of a young marriage is less
consequential than age at parenthood, as early marriages clearly
happened, though the incidence was probably decreasing by the late 1600s.)

Laslett made a study of over 1,000 marriages in the diocese of
Canterbury between 1619 and 1660 where the individuals were married for
the first time. Only 17 women (or girls, as the case may be) were aged
16 years or under. The youngest was aged 13 years, and she was the only
one (she was "one-in-a-thousand"). None were 14, four were 15 and
twelve were 16 years old. The most common age was 22 and the mean was
24. [Laslett, P., The World we have lost, Methuen & co, 1965,
pp.81-89]. The sample size is significant, and shows how rare a
marriage would have been for the girl to be aged 12, let alone 11 (or
even possibly 10 if a child was born at age 11). Granted the data is
not from VA, but socially we are talking about a similar group (the one
stemmed from the other).

A rather important factor which comes into play is the age of menarch
(sexual maturity, and thus the possibility of having children). No
doubt this is a slightly fraught area if we are thinking of
understanding the subject in the 1600s, as hard data are lacking.
Nevertheless, all indications are that prior to the widespread
urbanisation of the 20th century, the age of menarch in women across the
world was considerably higher (by several years) than it is today.
Tanner showed that in Sweden between 1905 and 1949 the average age fell
from 15.7 to 14.1 years; in the US, between 1904 and 1951 it fell from
14.1 to 12.9; in Norway (the longest record) it fell from 17.1 to 13.5
between 1851 and 1951 [Tanner, M.J., Growth at Adolescence, Oxford, 2nd
edition, 1962, with the Norwegian figures confirmed in: Rosenberg M.,
Menarcheal age for Norwegian women born 1830-1960, Ann. Hum Biol. 1991
May-Jun;18(3):207-19.] This is a confirmed trend in many diverse
countries across the world, such as China, UK, France, Netherlands,
Spain, Brazil, Poland, Japan, Haiti etc. [refs. available if needed].

A study in Japan showed that as well as a decline in average age, there
was a lowering of the earliest onset of menarch. In 1958, research
conducted in Japan showed a mean menarchial age of 13.27 years (range:
10.83 to 16.92 years), whereas by 1980 the mean was 12.40 years (range:
9.63 to 15.44 years). It is notable that the lower limit declined
significantly, and the the range gap stayed more-or-less constant. This
is on top of a decline from an average of 15.0 years in the 1920s (and,
by interpolation, a range at that time of approx. 12+ to 18+ years).
Interestingly, a decline in the 1920s and 30s was reversed through the
40s, primarily, it seems, as a result of social and economic stress
associated with WWII. [Hoshi, H; Kouchi, M., Secular trend at the age
at menarche of Japanese girls with special regard to the secular
acceleration of the age at peak height velocity. Human Biology. 1981
Dec;53(4):593-8].

In general, the decreasing trend seems to be associated with both
urbanisation and increasing standards of living (e.g., nutrition). The
necessity for physical work, the possibility of poor (or patchy)
nutrition, and other physical and social stresses seem to act to
increase the age of menarch onset. As modern sportswomen will attest,
onset can be significantly delayed (by many years) because of intense
physical activity. It is likely, therefore, (though not certain) that
the age of onset was relatively stable back into the time in question
(the late 1600s), and probably quite high in the colonial environment.

Anyway, I just wanted to highlight some interesting information, and
show that there are various social and biological factors that make
having children at aged 11 extraordinarily unlikely in previous times
(more unlikely then than now). Firstly, hard data on ages at marriage
indicate a very low probability of marriage that young. Secondly, it is
highly unlikely that a girl as young as 11 would be sexually mature at
that time and thus be physically able to have children. Ironically,
while modern sensibilities might tend to be affronted by such a young
mother, it is our time when it is more possible physically than in
previous years.

All this is not to say that it did not happen as theorised over the last
few days, that young Jane was a mother at an early age. It is just that
it is so unlikely that there is, I believe, a high burden of proof
required ... documentary evidence that shows "this" person (born at
"this" time) is the legal and lawful child of "this" mother. We cannot
rely on the seemingly obvious interpretation. (Mind you, this is the
standard for which we aim in genealogical research anyway!)

Alan R Grey

Vickie Elam White

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 19 jul 2007 02:03:15

Will,

That's why I wrote " I don't want to go by just one book, so I'll keep looking." :-)



Vickie Elam White
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Vickie Elam White ; Yvonne Purdy
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!


Vickie keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Just because someone *says* that a certain *mother* had five children before she was say 16 doesn't make it true. I know you can slice that hair.

And remember as well that we already know that marriages were contracted and the bride and groom were even referred to as married and as mr and mrs and so-on at early ages.

I seem to recall something like that in the case of Mary Queen of Scots. You do remember that she was sent to be brought up *in* the court of France. That's one reason why she was looked upon with a bit of suspicion when she returned after her young husband died... and the fact that she was firmly Catholic.

And as well the issue in THIS Jane Presley case isn't that she was married at 12
It's that she was impregnated just after her 11th birthday.
That is so far beyond reason that it requires the strictest form of proof, which we haven't seen as of yet.

Will Johnson

Vickie Elam White

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 19 jul 2007 02:03:55

Alan,

That's why I wrote -- " I don't want to go by just one book, so I'll keep
looking." :-)


Vickie Elam White



----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Grey" <a.grey@niwa.co.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!


Vickie Elam White wrote:
But, it turns out I *may* have to eat my words and admit that Joan
Burdyck
was right that Jane Presley might have married at age 12 or even 11.
Supposedly, one of the attorneys in Mary Hathaway's case -- William
FitzHugh -- married 10-yr. old Sarah Tucker in 1674. And she had 5
children
by 1684, so they may have consummated their marriage right away.

Possibly, but five children by aged 20 years can be arrived at in other
ways (e.g., a set of twins when she was aged 20, and one child in each
in the preceding three years, so consummation at aged 16, which is not
outside the bounds of normality). Children in consecutive years is not
unusual and I know of cases of two children being born in the same
year. Besides, Sarah may have turned 11 a week after the marriage,
making her possibly 21 in 1684.

Alan R Grey



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

WJhonson

Re: Giving poor Margaret Hungerford, wife of Robert Sutton,

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jul 2007 02:14:43

Will thank you for your excellent post.
Might I be so bold as to point out that "Grace Holte" herself has interest
Please be so kind as to peruse her immediate ancestry here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... holt01.htm

Will Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------


In a message dated 07/18/07 17:39:30 Pacific Standard Time, wjhonson writes:
Going by the usual sources
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... 3.htm#dau1
http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101026805/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sut ... n_Lexinton
http://www.thepeerage.com/p18429.htm#i184283
http://www.sutton.org/newsletter/issue22/ancient.htm
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO

we see over and over that somebody named Margaret Hungerford was the wife of that Robert Sutton, 2nd Lord Lexinton of Aram (not LexINGton as ODNB .... )

Robert has dates 1662-1723
Poor Margaret when she is mentioned at ALL is given only the sketchiest data.
I shall now correct that, giving her a pedigree that thinly stretches back four generations, and a slew of cousins to look into.

I still however do not know exactly how her father Giles fits into the other Hungerfords. (Be careful as there as about six Giles Hungerfords runnning about).

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5oBAA ... 1-PA226,M1
Debrett's Baronetage, "Hampson of Taplow, Bucks."
"Robert Hampson, alderman of London, and sheriff in 1598, was knighted on King James' entry into London. He d. May 2, 1607, aged 70. By Katherine, daughter of Sir John Good, (who was re-married to Sir John Rotherham,) he had 2 sons, 1. Nicholas, who d. unm Oct. 6, 1637, aged 59; 2. Thomas; and 2 daughters : 1. Elizabeth, first the wife of John Hewett, etc 2ndly, of Sir Gilbert Wakering, knt. and 3rdly, of Sir Robert Beville, K.B.; 2. Rebecca, wife of Sir Anthony Forrest, knt. She d. Sept 4, 1635.
"1. Sir Thomas, the 2nd son, heir to his brother, Nicholas, in 1637, was created a baronet. By Anne, eldest daughter and co-heiress of William Duncombe, of London, esq. (by Anne, eldest daughter of Sir Thomas Bennet, knt. alderman of London,) who d. Feb. 2, 1643, aged 47, he had 4 sons, 1. Thomas; 2. Robert, barrister at law, who left 2 daughters, Elizabeth, wife of Charles Bill, esq. in 1703, and Mary, unm.; 3 Ambrose, d without issue; 4 George, M.D., d before Nov 1677. By Grace, daughter of Edward, and sister of Sir Robert Holte, bart, living a widow in 1677, he had one son, George, of whom hereafter, and two daughters, Anne and Elizabeth. The daughters of Sir Thomas were, 1 Katherine, d unm. June 22, 1678; 2. Mary, wife of Sir John Laurence, bart. she d. Aug 18, 1677; 3 Elizabeth, b in 1624, d unm in 1647; 4 Rebecca wife of Ambrose Bennet, esq. she d May 1, 1695; 5 Margaret, wife of Sir Giles Hungerford, knt. she d Dec 4, 1711. They left an only daughter, Margaret, wife o!
f Robert Sutton, lord Lexington; he d. Sep 9, 1723, leaving an only daughter and heiress, Bridget, wife of John Manners, 3rd Duke of Rutland...."


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jul 2007 02:45:09

I am not certain why there is continuing conjecture that Jane Presly was married at 11-12. As Will points out she would have been bedded at age 11. The documents I have seen support the fact that Jane was the second wife of Richard Rogers.
We do rely heavily on parish registers and yet must recognize that they have been copied over several times. The Middlesex VA registers were copied in 1800.
I'll try a timeline.
Ursula Bysshe was born 22 April 1621. She died about 1660. By Richard Thompson whom she married in 1641 she had: Sarah, Elizabeth and Richard, Jr.
Her daughter Elizabeth:
Northumberland County Order Bk 1652-65 p. 348: 20 Apr. 1663: Elizabeth Thompson, the daughter of Mr. Richard Thompson decd, by her peticon tis day made choice of Lt. Coll. Samll Smyth to bee her guardian which accordingly is granted by this Court. Between this action and 29 June 1664 when her
daughter Jane was born she married Peter Presly. It appears that Jane was the oldest.
Elizabeth was most probably the second daughter who m. ca. 1682 Ebenezer Saunders and in 1694 John Cockrill. Mary b. ca. 1674 was the next daughter and she married Charnock Cox b. 1660. Mary apparently survived her husband and was alive in 1751. Ursula was the next daughter who married ca. 1695 Daniel Neale. She m. 2) Wharton Ransdall. A son, Peter died s. p. in 1718.
There is no evidence that any of these children married at 12.
In fact, it might be well to sort out the William Rogers, since I find no evidence that Richard had a brother William.
Pat
From: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
Date: 2007/07/18 Wed PM 08:11:05 EDT
To: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk>,
"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
CC: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Yvonne,

Well, I was looking into the Mary Hathaway-William Williams annulment
proceedings today. I got so involved that I actually ordered a book that
included this case, and it looks fascinating -- __ By Birth or Consent:
Children, Law and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority __ by Holly
Brewer. I'm easily sidetracked! This book says that Mary's annulment
petition was based on her being underage (and coerced by her mother and
others). It further states that the marriage wasn't consummated, and that,
if it had been consummated, it would have been an abomination or abhorrent
or something similar (can't remember the exact phrase used). And the fact
that it hadn't been consummated and that she could afford to hire a good
lawyer is why the annulment was granted.

But, it turns out I *may* have to eat my words and admit that Joan Burdyck
was right that Jane Presley might have married at age 12 or even 11.
Supposedly, one of the attorneys in Mary Hathaway's case -- William
FitzHugh -- married 10-yr. old Sarah Tucker in 1674. And she had 5 children
by 1684, so they may have consummated their marriage right away. And, in
1692, William FitzHugh's 15 yr. old son William married Ann Lee who was only
about 9! I haven't had time to check out when William and Ann's children
were born, so I don't know yet if they waited until she was 12. 12 seemed
to be the magic age for consummation because the court records called it the
"age of reason" but maybe if you were wealthy enough you got away with
consummating it? The book says that Mary Hathaway's request for annulment
was rare enough that she had to go to great legal lengths to obtain it but
that her young age at marriage didn't seem to be all that unusual. I don't
want to go by just one book, so I'll keep looking.


Vickie Elam White



----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Vickie,

Very many thanks for taking the time and trouble to reply, with such
interesting details.
I would be delighted to hear if you do manage to find a specific age at
marriage mention.

It makes strange reading, in our time, that 9 year olds were being married
off.

I have a direct ancestress, baptised 25 December 1610, married on 8 March
1622/23, so 12 years old. Her husband was slightly older at not quite 15,
but at least their first recorded child was not baptised until 14 March
1626/27. I think that Will is quite correct that they weren't allowed to
live together as man and wife until they were older, although I do wonder
whether all parents/guardians took such care if great wealth or good
connections were at stake.

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy

From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 15:04
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

I have never said that the marriage of a 12 yr. old would not be allowed,
I
said that it would have been unusual, if not downright rare, in VA in the
1680s. Since I believe that Richard Rogers married before 1675 (based on
my
belief that his son Richard was older than his son John, who was b. in
December 1676) -- when Jane Presley would have just turned 11 -- I think
he
must have married someone else first. What I mean by not comparing
different eras and countries is that, while something may technically be
allowed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is common practice.

I do know that, in 1688 in Stafford Co. VA, Rev. John Waugh was brought
before the court for marrying underage girls - Mary Hathaway was only 9
yrs
old when he performed her marriage to William Williams. So, 9 was not
allowed. Age 12 was probably the minimum age allowed, and I'll keep
checking to see if I can find specific mention.

Anyway, I checked Hening's Statutes at Large to see what the VA laws were
at
that time. Interestingly, actual ages at marriage weren't mentioned until
Volume 3:151-152 (1684-1710), so it doesn't cover the period when Richard
Rogers first married. The previous 2 volumes mentioned only that licenses
and publishment of banns were required, not any ages. Vol. 3 says -

" And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That if the clerk of any county court doe grant any certificate or
certificates to any person or persons for any lycence or lycences for any
marriage or marriages without the personall consent of the parent or
guardian or signified under the hands and seales of the said guardian or
parent and attested by two witnesses or if any person or persons doe grant
any lycence or lycenses for any marriage or marriages without such
certificate or certificates, he or they soe offending shall for every such
offence forfeit and pay the sume of five hundred pounds current money, to
be
recovered and divided as aforesaid, and be imprisoned the space of one
whole
yeare, without bayle or mainprise.

And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted,
That
if any woeman child or maiden being above the age of twelve and under the
age of sixteen years doe att any time consent or agree to such person,
that
so shall make any contract of matrimony without the consent of the parent
or
guardian or without the publication of the banes as aforesaid, that then
the
next of kin to the said woman, child or maid to whome the inheritance
should
descend, fall or come after the death of the said woman, child or maiden,
shall from the time of such agreement and assent hold, have and enjoy all
such lands, tenements and hereditaments as the said woman, child or maiden
had in possession, reversion or remainder att the time of such assent and
agreement and dureing such coverture and after the decease of the husband
of
the said woman, child or maiden haveing so contracted matrimony that then
the said lands, tenements and hereditaments shall descend revert and
remain
to such woman, child or maiden, or such person or persons as they should
have done in case this act had never been made."


Vickie Elam White

From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>; "WJhonson"
wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


Vickie,

Thank you for your reply. I should have explained that Antonia Fraser's
book, "The Weaker Vessel" is a study of "Woman's Lot in
Seventeenth-century
England", and is very interesting in the details she provides of all
aspects
of a woman's life then.

What was the law relating to age of marriage in colonial America through
the
1600s? I thought it might have been similar to English law, but maybe
not?

Regards,
Yvonne Purdy

From: Vickie Elam White [mailto:VEWhite@nycap.rr.com]
Sent: 18 July 2007 00:37
To: Yvonne Purdy; WJhonson
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Exact wording of Rogers children record

Yvonne,

Well, the study I cited used mean ages, so by definition half of the
girls
were younger and half were older. How much younger and older it doesn't
say. But marrying at age 11, in the 1680s, I think was extreme.

Also, it can be misleading to compare colonial America to England and to
compare different eras, too. So, while the book you mentioned sounds
fascinating, I'm not sure it helps in this case.

Vickie Elam White

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
To: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Exact wording of Rogers children record


In a message dated 07/16/07 12:08:23 Pacific Standard Time,
von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk writes:
Whether these were actually 'marriages' or pre-contracts,
I'm not sure. Whether any of the girls involved became mothers at an
early
age because of these 'marriages' would also be interesting to study.


We all agree that "marriages" between a minor girl and even a minor
boy
did
occur. But they were not allowed to sleep together. That's the
point.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I was really responding to Vickie's posting where she said:


I agree that 12-yr. old mothers happened, but it wasn't the norm then,
even in an area where young brides were common. According to __
Albion's Seed __ by David Hackett Fischer, p. 285, in VA during the
1660s and 1670s, the mean age of brides in the elite class was 18
almost
19 and the grooms were about 27. In the 1680s, the mean age for
brides
was just above 20 and for grooms was slightly over 25. Fischer used
many
sources, and I'll gladly cite them if you're interested.


I'm curious as I've just been reading "The Weaker Vessel" by Antonia
Fraser.
She says on page 12:

"So, in an age before the English had properly discovered the
rumbustious
sport of fox-hunting, heiresses were hunted as though they were
animals
of
prey. But these vulnerable creatures, unlike foxes were neither wily
nor
predatory. For the most part they were very young. The age of
consent
for
a girl was twelve (fourteen for a boy), but the exciting whiff of a
glittering match, particularly if the girl was an orphan, was often
scented
long before that; then the chase was on. The mention of 'unripe
years'
might mean the postponement of such routine accompaniments to the
marriage
as consummation; but the contract itself was made, even though a bride
was
theoretically entitled to her own choice of husband at the age of
consent,
without a previous betrothal to inhibit her.

The peculiarly confused state of the laws of England concerning valid
marriages and the marriage ceremony before the Hardwicke Act of 1753,
helped
to make the chase still more exciting when much was at stake.
Throughout
the seventeenth century a girl might well haven been forced into a
marriage
against her will, by parental pressure, or even outright violence from
a
stranger, and have found herself thereby robbed of her freedom and her
money."

Where the age of 12 was the age of consent for a girl, are you totally
sure
that some would not have become mothers within several months of that
date,
to confirm marriage to possibly an undesired husband?

Kind regards,
Yvonne Purdy







-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message






-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

WJhonson

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 jul 2007 03:02:27

Can you touch on the age of Elizabeth (Thompson) Presly ?
For her to petition the court to choose her own guardian and for the court to accept that, would speak to me that she was at least 14 but not yet 20.

What is your opinion.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Giving poor Margaret Hungerford, wife of Robert Sutton,

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 jul 2007 06:14:19

A few notes: (don't know if this is a reply to Will or to the Will who
replied to Will...!!)

1) The Tudorplace website says that this Sir Giles Hungerford, of Coulston
or Corsham, Wiltshire, was the son of the Sir Anthony Hungerford who d. 27
June 1627, by his 2nd wife Sarah Crouch. This is supported (tentatively) by
a pedigree of the Hungerfords in vol. 105-6 of the Harleian Society
("Wiltshire Visitation Pedigrees") which gives this couple a son who was
baptized [as "Egidius"] on 25 Sept 1614 at Great Bedwyn, is noted as having
been knighted, and died 7 March 1684/5, with a monument in Salisbury
Cathedral. I believe I've also seen this elsewhere, but I can't immediately
cite another source. However the Tudorplace website says that Margaret was
the daughter of Sir Giles by a first wife Frances Croke - which appears to
be contradicted by the CP article on Lexinton of Aram.

[If you're bewildered by too many Giles Hungerfords, you'll be overwhelmed
by the Anthony Hungerfords!! Recent editions of BP include this note on the
family: "The Hungerfords have often given the same forename to more than
one member of a single generation. This makes the task of differentiating
between them especially hard, particularly in the 17th century."]

2) Several generations of [sketchy] ancestry for Anne Bennet, wife of
William Duncombe can be found in the Tankerville article in recent editions
of Burke's Peerage, although BP appears to erroneously place Anne as sister
rather than daughter of Sir Thomas, alderman and Lord Mayor of London.

3) Although the Debrett's entry doesn't makes this very clear, the ancestry
of Grace Holte is not pertinent to the ancestry of Margaret Hungerford.
Grace was the wife of George Hampson, MD, a younger son of Sir Thomas
Hampson, 1st Baronet, and thus a brother of the Margaret Hampson who mar.
Sir Giles Hungerford. This is made clearer in the Hampson article in
"Complete Baronetage". (This family was also in BP through the 1970 edition)

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Giving poor Margaret Hungerford, wife of Robert Sutton,2nd Lord
Lexinton, some family


Will thank you for your excellent post.
Might I be so bold as to point out that "Grace Holte" herself has interest
Please be so kind as to peruse her immediate ancestry here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... holt01.htm

Will Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------


In a message dated 07/18/07 17:39:30 Pacific Standard Time, wjhonson
writes:
Going by the usual sources
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... 3.htm#dau1
http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101026805/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sut ... n_Lexinton
http://www.thepeerage.com/p18429.htm#i184283
http://www.sutton.org/newsletter/issue22/ancient.htm
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO

we see over and over that somebody named Margaret Hungerford was the wife
of that Robert Sutton, 2nd Lord Lexinton of Aram (not LexINGton as ODNB

..... )
Robert has dates 1662-1723
Poor Margaret when she is mentioned at ALL is given only the sketchiest
data.
I shall now correct that, giving her a pedigree that thinly stretches back
four generations, and a slew of cousins to look into.

I still however do not know exactly how her father Giles fits into the
other Hungerfords. (Be careful as there as about six Giles Hungerfords

runnning about).

rford%22+sutton#PRA1-PA226,M1
Debrett's Baronetage, "Hampson of Taplow, Bucks."
"Robert Hampson, alderman of London, and sheriff in 1598, was knighted on
King James' entry into London. He d. May 2, 1607, aged 70. By Katherine,

daughter of Sir John Good, (who was re-married to Sir John Rotherham,) he
had 2 sons, 1. Nicholas, who d. unm Oct. 6, 1637, aged 59; 2. Thomas; and 2
daughters : 1. Elizabeth, first the wife of John Hewett, etc 2ndly, of Sir
Gilbert Wakering, knt. and 3rdly, of Sir Robert Beville, K.B.; 2. Rebecca,
wife of Sir Anthony Forrest, knt. She d. Sept 4, 1635.
"1. Sir Thomas, the 2nd son, heir to his brother, Nicholas, in 1637, was
created a baronet. By Anne, eldest daughter and co-heiress of William

Duncombe, of London, esq. (by Anne, eldest daughter of Sir Thomas Bennet,
knt. alderman of London,) who d. Feb. 2, 1643, aged 47, he had 4 sons, 1.
Thomas; 2. Robert, barrister at law, who left 2 daughters, Elizabeth, wife
of Charles Bill, esq. in 1703, and Mary, unm.; 3 Ambrose, d without issue; 4
George, M.D., d before Nov 1677. By Grace, daughter of Edward, and sister of
Sir Robert Holte, bart, living a widow in 1677, he had one son, George, of
whom hereafter, and two daughters, Anne and Elizabeth. The daughters of Sir
Thomas were, 1 Katherine, d unm. June 22, 1678; 2. Mary, wife of Sir John
Laurence, bart. she d. Aug 18, 1677; 3 Elizabeth, b in 1624, d unm in 1647;
4 Rebecca wife of Ambrose Bennet, esq. she d May 1, 1695; 5 Margaret, wife
of Sir Giles Hungerford, knt. she d Dec 4, 1711. They left an only daughter,
Margaret, wife o!
f Robert Sutton, lord Lexington; he d. Sep 9, 1723, leaving an only
daughter and heiress, Bridget, wife of John Manners, 3rd Duke of

Rutland...."

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Matthew Hovius

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 709

Legg inn av Matthew Hovius » 19 jul 2007 12:48:32

This is the second time I've tried to post this, so my apologies for
any duplication.

Rafael Sánchez Saus' 1991 work 'Linajes Sevillanos Medievales' may be
of interest. He devotes most of page I:251 to analysing the
contradictory information regarding this couple. He does not resolve
the matter, but feels that either there were two contemporary Juan
Arias de Quadros' in the area, or else one who married twice, but in
that case is at a loss to explain how the children of the first
marriage were entirely passed over in the distribution of their
father's estate, which seems to have gone solely to issue of the
(second?) later marriage.

On Jul 13, 1:37 pm, maria emma escobar <memaesco...@yahoo.es> wrote:
> Another later de Lara

Gjest

Re: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jul 2007 16:26:40

Will,
Yes. Based on the documents we have Elizabeth was the second daughter of Richard Thompson and Ursula Bysshe. Their eldest, Sarah was born ca. 1642 and married Thomas Willoughby by 1662. Her sister Elizabeth was born ca. 1645-7 and would have been between 14 and 16 when she chose Smyth.Their brother, Peter, died 1718 s. p.
Pat
From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/07/18 Wed PM 10:02:27 EDT
To: pajunkin@bellsouth.net, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>,
"Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
CC: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Can you touch on the age of Elizabeth (Thompson) Presly ?
For her to petition the court to choose her own guardian and for the court to accept that, would speak to me that she was at least 14 but not yet 20.

What is your opinion.

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jul 2007 16:29:53

Oops! Their brother, Richard died without issue and not in 1718.
Humble apology.
Pat
From: <pajunkin@bellsouth.net
Date: 2007/07/19 Thu AM 11:26:40 EDT
To: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com
CC: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Will,
Yes. Based on the documents we have Elizabeth was the second daughter of Richard Thompson and Ursula Bysshe. Their eldest, Sarah was born ca. 1642 and married Thomas Willoughby by 1662. Her sister Elizabeth was born ca. 1645-7 and would have been between 14 and 16 when she chose Smyth.Their brother, Peter, died 1718 s. p.
Pat

From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: 2007/07/18 Wed PM 10:02:27 EDT
To: pajunkin@bellsouth.net, "Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com>,
"Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk
CC: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Can you touch on the age of Elizabeth (Thompson) Presly ?
For her to petition the court to choose her own guardian and for the court to accept that, would speak to me that she was at least 14 but not yet 20.

What is your opinion.

Will Johnson




-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

wjhonson

Re: Giving poor Margaret Hungerford, wife of Robert Sutton,

Legg inn av wjhonson » 19 jul 2007 23:00:49

Here is another reference to this particular Giles being that
particular Giles

http://books.google.com/books?id=0cbdwp ... hungerford
Collectanea Topographica Et Genealogica

where they are quoting some things from the
Parish Register of Bedwyn Magna
and then adding modern notes to explain them.

Will Johnson

Christopher Ingham

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 709

Legg inn av Christopher Ingham » 20 jul 2007 18:49:54

On Jul 13, 7:37 am, maria emma escobar <memaesco...@yahoo.es> wrote:
Another later de Lara

I haven´t heard about any Leonor de Lara as a granddaughter of Nuño Gonzalez de Lara "el bueno" or his son Juan Núñez de Lara, and a I can´t find any reference to this person. I am sorry

In relation with Mayor (cognomento Gontrodo) Rodríguez, second wife of Pedro Froilaz de Traba, she was a daughter of Rodrigo Muñoz, conde of Asturias, and his wife Teresa:

Monasterio de Jubia, año 1.113:
"Ego domina Gontrode Roderiquiz, una cum consilio de viro meo nomine comite Petrus prolix Froilazi."........"comitissa domina Maior nomine Gontrode confirmat..."

Tumbo nuevo de Lugo:
"Comitissa domna Maior, comitis roderici Munionis filia, cum consenso viri mei comitis Petri"

Monasterio de Sahagún, 1.125:
"Ego Maior Ruderici, comitissa, comite Ruderici et comitisse Tharasie filia..."

Sahagún, 1.126
"Ego, comitissa Maior Roderici...ofero pro anima mariti mei comitis Petri de Gallecia.....una cum filis et filiabus meis Roderico Petriz, Velasco Petriz, García Petriz...."

If she would be a daughter of Armengol de Urgel, her name would be Mayor Armengol, like the real daughter of ArmengoL V: Estefanía Armengol

María Emma Escobar Uribe

Are our iberoaficionados on hiatus (Francisco Antonio Doria, Maria
Emma Escobar, taf)? A recent query of mine concerning the identity of
Leonor de Lara remains unanswered. She married a Juan Arias de
Quadros and was the mother of Elvira Arias, who married Gonzalo
Rodriguez de Cornado (d. 1341), senor de Azuaga, alcalde mayor of
Cordoba, and ayo of infante Pedro of Castile. The sources I have
(citing J.S. Crespo, "Blasones y Linajes de Galicia," and Federico
Mata Herera of the Academia Costarricense in a posting to the Genforum
Coronado family forum website) say Leonor was the granddaughter of
Juan Nunez de Lara (d. 1294). This claim seems a bit vague to me.
Can her parentage be more precisely ascertained?

In a similar vein, is it now the consensus that the father of Mayor,
the second wife of Pedro Froilaz de Traba, was Rodrigo Munoz rather
than Armengol V de Urgel?

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

LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.http://es.voice..yahoo.com

Thank you for the document citations. I have duly transcribed them
for my notes.

Chris.

Doug McDonald

Re: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 20 jul 2007 21:24:27

Vickie Elam White wrote:

But, it turns out I *may* have to eat my words and admit that Joan Burdyck
was right that Jane Presley might have married at age 12 or even 11.
Supposedly, one of the attorneys in Mary Hathaway's case -- William
FitzHugh -- married 10-yr. old Sarah Tucker in 1674.

Are these people (Fitzhugh) in Bedfordshire? If so, I am their descendant.

Doug McDonald

tallbloke

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av tallbloke » 20 jul 2007 23:45:53

"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in
news:1166012650.319121.174110@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

Wednesday, 13 December, 2006


Dear Will, Clive, CE, et al.,


' A careful examination of the chronological details relating
to Emma, Joan and Isabel and their issue strongly supports
the suggestion that they were daughters and not sisters of
Robert de Tateshal, 1st Lord Tateshal, who d. in 1298. '

This then appears to show the VCH version concerning the death
of the last Robert de Tateshal and his heirs as flawed. Given the
overall tight chronology concerning the succession ca. 1298-1306
and an excess number of Joans in the pedigree, this is
understandable.

' Grant to Hugh Bardolf of the marriage of Robert son
and heir of Robert de Tateshale, tenant in chief. By p.s.
Mandate to the wife of the said Robert to deliver the
body of the said Robert to Hugh to be married. '
[CPR 31 Edw I (1301-07), p. 152, mem. 17]

It appears that Joan, wife of the last Robert de Tateshal,
died sometime before 18 Apr 1308, when a fourth of the market at
Buckenham, Norfolk (part of her dower) was delivered to Thomas de
Caylly, one of the Tateshal coheirs. I would suggest further,
while evidence is wanting, that she was most likely a previously
unknown daughter of Hugh Bardolf, Lord Bardolf, of Wormegay,
Norfolk (d. bef 20 Aug 1304) to whom the marriage was granted in
1303.

Interestingley, Hugh Bardolf's great grandson Thomas married Avice de
Cromwell, another Tatteshal descendant and daughter of the main heirs Maud
Bernake and Ralph VI de Cromwell

(c) In the inquisition of 1306 the jurors stated that Emma, Joan and
Isabel were the sisters of Robert his grandfather (d. 1298). There are
grounds for supposing that the statements were inaccurate, and that
they were the latter's daughters by Joan his wife. Reasons to this
effect have been given in "Early Yorks Charters", dealing with lands of
the Honour of Richmond held by Joan, wife of Robert de Tateshal, and
her two sisters, expecially Joan's tenure of the manor of Hethersett,
Norfolk, where a statement is cited from Blomefield that Joan de
Tateshall settled it on Sir William Bernak and Alice his wife, Alice's
mother being described as Joan "one of the three daughters and
heiresses" of the abovenamed Joan de Tateshall. A careful examination
of the chronological details relating to Emma, Joan and Isabel and
their issue strongly supports the suggestion that they were daughters
and not sisters of Robert de Tateshal, 1st Lord Tateshal, who d. in
1298. If so, the barony supposed to have been created by the writ of
1295 would have fallen into abeyance, according to modern doctrine, in
1306 between them and their representatives."

CE Wood

The Jurors were probably correct, if so, it was a fraud.
Note that it's the jurors who make these statements, not witnesses with an
axe to grind.

Joan Fitzranulph was born around 1248 Her older sister Mary was born
around 1244. Their mother Anastasia de Percy was born around 1216.
Admittedly this makes her unusual in having children 10 years or so later
than most.

How then can Joan fitzRanulph be the mother of Emma, Joan and Isobel who
were born in 1251, 1255, and 1260 respectively?

They were married in 1271, 1275 and 1279 respectively.

Joan de Driby died 8/10/1339 at the ripe old age of 88
Isobel Orreby died between 1307 and 1312 between the ages of 47 and 52

John Orreby was born in 1258

Unless all the dates I've picked up off the net have been cooked to make
it look fishy?

--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

WJhonson

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 jul 2007 00:01:17

<<In a message dated 07/20/07 15:50:45 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
Joan Fitzranulph was born around 1248 Her older sister Mary was born
around 1244. Their mother Anastasia de Percy was born around 1216.
Admittedly this makes her unusual in having children 10 years or so later
than most. >>

I don't think we know it to this degree of accuracy, and so if we discard these years, then your problem vanishes. If you know a source for these years, what is it?

WJhonson

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 jul 2007 00:02:40

<<In a message dated 07/20/07 15:50:45 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
Unless all the dates I've picked up off the net have been cooked to make
it look fishy? >>
Now we're getting somewhere.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Fitzhugh ages - was: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 jul 2007 00:56:01

<<In a message dated 07/20/07 16:42:07 Pacific Standard Time, kleigh1@cox.net writes:
Regardless, the children appear to have been b. 1677 (died in infancy), 1679, 1680, Jan 1686/7, 1690, and 1692, as far as the evidence shows. (The portion of the family tree included on page 173). >>

What is the *underlying* source for these years?
And what proof is given that this young bride was the mother.

As I've stated we know there were minor marriages.
Mary Queen of Scots was married when she was what six ?
Also we have to be careful about "contract" and "marriage".

Alison Weir in the "Princes in the Tower" states that many people used a contract and never actually had a marriage ceremony. The contract to them was enough. So if a contract is the source for the early marriage, we have tons... of contracts for underage girls and boys as well.

In fact I posted one a bit ago (last month?) where the boy just when he reached *his* age of consent, was married off quickly to someone *else* by his temporary guardians, against a prior contract and then they all had a nice fight about it. So even boys were "married" before the age of consent-To-Marry.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 jul 2007 01:50:15

Certain posters have not seen the exact wording from the Curia Regis roll which was posted to this group previously but I shall post it again.

"Curia Regis Roll 180. Hilary, 51 Henry III, 1267, m. 14 d. Leyc. Isolda, who was the wife of Walter de Tateshale, demands v. Robert de Tateshale a third part of a messuage,...."

It's fairly clear that Isolda is that same person "who was the wife of Walter" not Robert and her demand is against some Robert, now living, as she herself is now living, *in* 51H3 and her demand is for a third part, i.e. her right as widow, etc.

I'm not sure how you can interpret this any other way. Maybe someone can suggest another way now that you've seen, again, the wording.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Another C. P. Correction: Death date of Iseult Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 jul 2007 04:57:40

Or it could be that just as her son had livery of some of her lands during her life...

That just maybe this is a bad interpretation of what occurred.

Margaret Bauer

Re: Which Richard Sackville was married to a Margery/Margeri

Legg inn av Margaret Bauer » 21 jul 2007 06:29:05

Hi all,

Can any of you knowledgeable folk out there help please.
One of my ancient ancestors (Henry Fortescue) has a court case and some of
the beginning of it is below for you to get the idea.
(It is written phonetically)
What I would like to know is if anyone knows which RICHARD SACKVILLE is it
that has this wife MARGERY ? and if anyone might know what her surname
might have been ...
I know that could be a tall order, but one never knows until one asks the
question.

( Richard Sackville and Margery his Wife v. Henry Fortescue, late Justice
of Ireland.
To recover possessions of land and housing in Nethercombe, Devonshire, of
which the Defendant has wrongfully dispossessed them.
To the Chancellor of England our gracious Lords:
Beseecheth you mekly gracious Lorde your pore oratours Richard Sackville,
and Margerie his wyf, that where the said Richard and Margery, their
auncestore and tho whose astate they hadden, sithe the tyme of King Edward,
the xxiii year of his reigne, have hadde and conteined possession, and other
persones by their graunte of a ferthying of londe, with howsynge thereuppon,
in Nethercombe, in Devenschire ) etc. etc.

Thankyou
Margaret Bauer

******************************
Margaret Bauer
Queensland, Australia
bauerm@tpg.com.au
******************************

Gjest

Re: Which Richard Sackville was married to a Margery/Margeri

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2007 08:39:10

On 21 Jul., 06:29, "Margaret Bauer" <bau...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
Hi all,

Can any of you knowledgeable folk out there help please.
One of my ancient ancestors (Henry Fortescue) has a court case and some of
the beginning of it is below for you to get the idea.
(It is written phonetically)
What I would like to know is if anyone knows which RICHARD SACKVILLE is it
that has this wife MARGERY ? and if anyone might know what her surname
might have been ...
I know that could be a tall order, but one never knows until one asks the
question.

( Richard Sackville and Margery his Wife v. Henry Fortescue, late Justice
of Ireland.
To recover possessions of land and housing in Nethercombe, Devonshire, of
which the Defendant has wrongfully dispossessed them.
To the Chancellor of England our gracious Lords:
Beseecheth you mekly gracious Lorde your pore oratours Richard Sackville,
and Margerie his wyf, that where the said Richard and Margery, their
auncestore and tho whose astate they hadden, sithe the tyme of King Edward,
the xxiii year of his reigne, have hadde and conteined possession, and other
persones by their graunte of a ferthying of londe, with howsynge thereuppon,
in Nethercombe, in Devenschire ) etc. etc.

Dear Margaret

The plaintiff in the case you cite was MP for Tavistock in Devon five
times between 1411 and 1433, and thus has an entry in the History of
Parliament, 1386-1421 (Vol IV, p 329); the editors call him "Richard
Secheville", noting that a variant for his surname was Sacheville.

He was probably the son of John Secheville of Tavistock, and likely
descended from Ralph Secheville, MP for that town in 1295. His action
against Henry Fortesque is noted: it was alleged that the Nethercombe
property had been occupied by his wife's family since 1349 for an
annual rent to the descendants of one Hugh Cumba - HF was one of these
descendants. Amongst Sechevilles claims were that Fortesque "with
Irysshemen, Scottys and other" had broken into his house and with
"orrible governance, crying and shotte... caste out [his] children, al
naked, sore wepinge and cryinge, [his wife] beynge grete and quyeke
with childe, her moder and here son, and lefte hem for dede, which was
the cause of the saide childe's deth." Secheville was apparently
imprisoned by them for over three years, in Exeter and London.

According to HoP, Richard Secheville's wife was Margery, daughter of
John Carswill by Isabel, grand-daughter of Richard Mothercombe.

Regards, Michael

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 21 jul 2007 09:21:37

Thanks. This exact text I think we can agree makes it even more clear that it says nothing about Isolde being dead by this date.

What it *does* say that is new (to me) is that Robert was called to arms by the King.
Does this mean Robert must be in his majority by this time?
And if so does that mean he was say 18? 21? 25?
At what age did the king order you to go to war with arms ?

Will

tallbloke

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av tallbloke » 21 jul 2007 10:16:37

WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in
news:mailman.505.1184972516.5496.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:

In a message dated 07/20/07 15:50:45 Pacific Standard Time,
spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes: Joan Fitzranulph was born around 1248 Her
older sister Mary was born around 1244. Their mother Anastasia de Percy
was born around 1216. Admittedly this makes her unusual in having
children 10 years or so later than most.

I don't think we know it to this degree of accuracy, and so if we
discard these years, then your problem vanishes. If you know a source
for these years, what is it?

Hi Will, If we discard those years we are left with a very young mother
having children to a considerably older man. Not a unique situation
certainly, but one which obviously wasn't believed by the jurors in the case.
Who were actually there.

I'd be interested to know more about what was at stake. If the Barony had
fallen into abeyance, what would the consequences have been? Wasn't Ralph de
Cromwell known as First Lord Tattersall afterwards? Could 'people in high
places' have influenced the outcome of the case?

--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

tom

Re: Dame Margaret, w/o Sir John Hawkins

Legg inn av tom » 21 jul 2007 15:59:55

On Jul 21, 3:55 pm, tom <td...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
OOPS
MP for Radnorshire in 1553 was married 1st to Elizabeth Baskerville and 2nd to Margaret Vaughan.
Regards
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland

Paul K Davis

RE: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 21 jul 2007 17:25:29

[Original Message]
From: Chuck Owens <cancertech7@yahoo.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: 7/20/2007 9:30:39 AM
Subject: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

According to FMG's Bulgaria web site:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BULGARIA.htm, Nikola Kumet's wife was
Ripsimia, an Armenian princess, daughter of Ashot II Bagratuni, King
of Armenia. I don't see where they listed a source for this
statement.

According to Adontz's "Samuel l'Armenien, roi des Bulgares" (1938),
she was Armenian but he doesn't mention that she was an Armenian
princess.

I'm skeptical that she was an Armenian princess on the basis that I've
been unable to find a source that confirms it and that if she was
Ashot II's daughter, we would have a Mamikonid connection to some
Western European royalty. Is there any evidence to indicate she was
the daughter of Ashot II, King of Armenia?

Chuck Owens


In January of 2005 I entered the following commentary into my on-line
database at WorldConnect:

"Ripsimija" is an exclusively Armenian name. It was the name of an early
Armenian Christian martyr. It is curious that an Armenian pops up as the
mother of a Bulgarian ruler. I believe the explanation can be found in the
fact that, in about the year 900, an illegitimate son of the prince of
Taron, in Armenia, was sent to Constantinople, and became the founder of a
noble Byzantine family which used the surname "Taronites". The occasional
domination of Bulgaria by the Byzantine empire would have afforded an
opportunity for intermarriage of this family with the Bulgarian nobility.
Support for this can be found in the year 996 when a member of the
Taronites family was captured by Samuel of Bulgaria, son of Ripsimija. He
was made governor of Dyrrhachium, and married to Samuel's daughter. Such
treatment of a captive Byzantine nobleman makes sense if they were related.

-- Paul K Davis [pkd-gm@earthlink.net]

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jul 2007 18:22:45

On 21 juil, 18:25, "Paul K Davis" <pkd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[Original Message]
From: Chuck Owens <cancerte...@yahoo.com
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Date: 7/20/2007 9:30:39 AM
Subject: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

According to FMG's Bulgaria web site:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BULGARIA.htm, Nikola Kumet's wife was
Ripsimia, an Armenian princess, daughter of Ashot II Bagratuni, King
of Armenia. I don't see where they listed a source for this
statement.

According to Adontz's "Samuel l'Armenien, roi des Bulgares" (1938),
she was Armenian but he doesn't mention that she was an Armenian
princess.

I'm skeptical that she was an Armenian princess on the basis that I've
been unable to find a source that confirms it and that if she was
Ashot II's daughter, we would have a Mamikonid connection to some
Western European royalty. Is there any evidence to indicate she was
the daughter of Ashot II, King of Armenia?

Chuck Owens

In January of 2005 I entered the following commentary into my on-line
database at WorldConnect:

"Ripsimija" is an exclusively Armenian name. It was the name of an early
Armenian Christian martyr. It is curious that an Armenian pops up as the
mother of a Bulgarian ruler. I believe the explanation can be found in the
fact that, in about the year 900, an illegitimate son of the prince of
Taron, in Armenia, was sent to Constantinople, and became the founder of a
noble Byzantine family which used the surname "Taronites". The occasional
domination of Bulgaria by the Byzantine empire would have afforded an
opportunity for intermarriage of this family with the Bulgarian nobility.
Support for this can be found in the year 996 when a member of the
Taronites family was captured by Samuel of Bulgaria, son of Ripsimija. He
was made governor of Dyrrhachium, and married to Samuel's daughter. Such
treatment of a captive Byzantine nobleman makes sense if they were related.

Except that there were many Armenians who entered the Byzantine
aristocracy and army, and not just the Taronitai. And, for what is of
the Komètopouloi, their ethnical "Bulgarianness" is less than
demonstrated (their names have nothing of Bulgarian): they were
perhaps themselves of Armenian origin, and certainly part of the
Byzantine elite network.

Pierre Aronax

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 21 jul 2007 18:39:30

On 21 juil, 19:22, "pierre_aro...@hotmail.com"
<pierre_aro...@hotmail.fr> wrote:
On 21 juil, 18:25, "Paul K Davis" <pkd...@earthlink.net> wrote:





[Original Message]
From: Chuck Owens <cancerte...@yahoo.com
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Date: 7/20/2007 9:30:39 AM
Subject: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

According to FMG's Bulgaria web site:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BULGARIA.htm, Nikola Kumet's wife was
Ripsimia, an Armenian princess, daughter of Ashot II Bagratuni, King
of Armenia. I don't see where they listed a source for this
statement.

According to Adontz's "Samuel l'Armenien, roi des Bulgares" (1938),
she was Armenian but he doesn't mention that she was an Armenian
princess.

I'm skeptical that she was an Armenian princess on the basis that I've
been unable to find a source that confirms it and that if she was
Ashot II's daughter, we would have a Mamikonid connection to some
Western European royalty. Is there any evidence to indicate she was
the daughter of Ashot II, King of Armenia?

Chuck Owens

In January of 2005 I entered the following commentary into my on-line
database at WorldConnect:

"Ripsimija" is an exclusively Armenian name. It was the name of an early
Armenian Christian martyr. It is curious that an Armenian pops up as the
mother of a Bulgarian ruler. I believe the explanation can be found in the
fact that, in about the year 900, an illegitimate son of the prince of
Taron, in Armenia, was sent to Constantinople, and became the founder of a
noble Byzantine family which used the surname "Taronites". The occasional
domination of Bulgaria by the Byzantine empire would have afforded an
opportunity for intermarriage of this family with the Bulgarian nobility.
Support for this can be found in the year 996 when a member of the
Taronites family was captured by Samuel of Bulgaria, son of Ripsimija. He
was made governor of Dyrrhachium, and married to Samuel's daughter. Such
treatment of a captive Byzantine nobleman makes sense if they were related.

Except that there were many Armenians who entered the Byzantine
aristocracy and army, and not just the Taronitai. And, for what is of
the Komètopouloi, their ethnical "Bulgarianness" is less than
demonstrated (their names have nothing of Bulgarian): they were
perhaps themselves of Armenian origin, and certainly part of the
Byzantine elite network.

Moreover, when in 996 Samuel captured Ashot Tarônitès, he gave him his
own daughter as his wife: he could not have done that if a blood
relationship had existed between them.

Pierre

Gjest

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2007 21:45:03

In a message dated 7/21/2007 4:05:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

For what it
is worth, the grandmothers of John de Grey's daughters were named
Iseult and Nicole.>>
Nice convolutionist.
"the grandmothers of his daughters"

so we can read "...his mother..." or we can read "... his mother-in-law..."
?

Will "the great-uncle of my great-nephew's brother" Johnson



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2007 22:40:04

In a message dated 7/21/2007 2:20:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:

Hi Will, If we discard those years we are left with a very young mother
having children to a considerably older man. Not a unique situation
certainly, but one which obviously wasn't believed by the jurors in the
case.
Who were actually there.>>
I don't understand what you mean.
How do we know she was young? How do we know he was old?
If you could quote and cite what sources you're using for that, it would
help the argument.



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gjest

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2007 23:09:56

On 21 Jul., 20:43, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/21/2007 4:05:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

mj...@btinternet.com writes:

For what it
is worth, the grandmothers of John de Grey's daughters were named
Iseult and Nicole.
Nice convolutionist.
"the grandmothers of his daughters"

so we can read "...his mother..." or we can read "... his mother-in-law..."
?

Will "the great-uncle of my great-nephew's brother" Johnson

My point exactly. John de Grey's mother was named Iseult; his wife's
mother was named Nicole. His daughters therefore had, like most
people, two grandmothers, and these were named Iseult and Nicole.
Given that the grand-daughters are the subject of my post, I wanted to
highlight this point from their perspective, i.e. it would not be
surprising to find the names Nicole and Iseult amongst John de Grey's
daughters.

Cheers, Michael

Greg Vaut

Re: ancestry.com

Legg inn av Greg Vaut » 21 jul 2007 23:10:47

So, will. A year+ later - was it worth it?

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I have finally taken the plunge.
For years I've been adding bits and pieces of ancestry subscriptions,
starting at the easy $50 range, and gradually upgrading.

Now I've renewed for the full boat, "World Deluxe" which is every record they
have, everywhere, everything, everyone :) Of course the price is about $300
a year.

Ask me in a month if it's worth it.

Will Johnson



Chuck Owens

Re: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

Legg inn av Chuck Owens » 21 jul 2007 23:11:25

Except that there were many Armenians who entered the Byzantine
aristocracy and army, and not just the Taronitai. And, for what is of
the Komètopouloi, their ethnical "Bulgarianness" is less than
demonstrated (their names have nothing of Bulgarian): they were
perhaps themselves of Armenian origin, and certainly part of the
Byzantine elite network.

Pierre Aronax

Adontz also believed that the Komètopouloi were Armenian. See
"Samuel l'Armenien, roi des Bulgares" (1938). He used an onomastic
argument to make his case. One example he uses is that of an Armenian
named Artakas who used the name Nicolas and Adontz believed that
Nicolas (Nikola) may have been the surname of the father of Samuel,
Aaron, David, and Moses.

Chuck

Gjest

Re: ancestry.com

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2007 05:10:04

In a message dated 7/21/2007 3:11:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gregv.ma@rcn.com writes:

So, will. A year+ later - was it worth it?>>
Yes quite. If you've been perusing my site _http://www.countyhistorian.com_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com)
there's been a very useful enhancement in being able to read, quote and cite
actual newspaper articles on certain people from historical newspapers. I'd
never be able to prove that Wallis Warfield was an heir to a $5 million
fortune without that. That she was may come as a bit of a surprise to those who
try to insist that she rose from rags.

At any rate, other than Wallis, I was also able to last year prove that
Matthew Rockefeller was not a Rockefeller.

I find one of the most useful additions has been the numerous books they've
scanned. While it's true that Google books has a ton of books online, if you
look at my Sources page, you'll find a number that I can read through
ancestry that Google doesn't have. In some cases it's probably a copyright issue,
in others it's unclear. There are snippet views on Google Books that have
full views through ancestry.

So all in all, yes it was worth it.

Will Johnson



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Ripsimia of Bulgaria, an Armenian Princess?

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 22 jul 2007 12:09:07

On 22 juil, 00:11, Chuck Owens <cancerte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Except that there were many Armenians who entered the Byzantine
aristocracy and army, and not just the Taronitai. And, for what is of
the Komètopouloi, their ethnical "Bulgarianness" is less than
demonstrated (their names have nothing of Bulgarian): they were
perhaps themselves of Armenian origin, and certainly part of the
Byzantine elite network.

Pierre Aronax

Adontz also believed that the Komètopouloi were Armenian. See
"Samuel l'Armenien, roi des Bulgares" (1938). He used an onomastic
argument to make his case. One example he uses is that of an Armenian
named Artakas who used the name Nicolas and Adontz believed that
Nicolas (Nikola) may have been the surname of the father of Samuel,
Aaron, David, and Moses.


Yes. However, Adontz had a much starker argument than just
anthroponymy: the Armenian historian Asolik states frankly that Samuel
and his brother were of Armenian origin, originating from the region
of Derdjan, and were part of a company of Byzantine mercenaries in
Bulgaria. They would have changed size to pass to the service of the
Bulgarian eunuch king.

From Samuel's commemoratory inscription whose text is preserved, it is
clear that Nikolaos was the name of his father and not his surname.


Pierre

Kelly Leighton

Re: Fitzhugh ages - was: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 22 jul 2007 16:09:24

All,

I just noticed that Henry has a boy listed b. 1682 (who died in infancy).

This fits with the information in Fitzhugh's 1686 letter to his family in England where he speaks of the five: "pledges of our conjugall affection" who had already been born, a boy and girl remaining alive, and one who "is preparing to come into the world". The boy was eldest son William. (Page 171, letter to his brother dated April 22nd, 1686).

So, the children appear to have been b. 1677 (died in infancy), 1679, 1680, 1682 (died in infancy), Jan 1686/7, 1690, and 1692, as far as the evidence shows.

Of note, this source too, the letterbook produced by the VHS, cited below (page 12), states that if she did go back to England, it was not for much beyond the two years passed down to posterity.

Take care,

Kelly in RI
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Leighton
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject: Fitzhugh ages - was: Well, maybe Jane Presley *was* an 11-yr. old mother!


Researchers,

Although a bit outside the range of this newsgroup, since Willaim Fitzhugh, his young wife, and their children were discussed here (and since they're my ancestors), I'd like to add some data to correct things.

William did marry Sarah Tucker on 1 May 1674. Her birth was 2 Aug 1663. So, she was 11. "A well established family tradition says that he sent her to England for two years education before the marriage was consummated." Source: Henry A. Fitzhugh's work "The History of Our Fitzhugh Family", privately printed, my copy produced on 8 Sept 2004, pg 37.

It should be noted that Henry expresses some doubt as to the validity of this tradition by pointing out that Sarah does not seem to appear in any family correspondence during the time. This William Fitzhugh is the source of the volume of letters maintained by the Virginia Historical Society and previously published for them under the title of William Fitzhugh and His Chesapeake World, 1676-1701, The Fitzhugh Letters and Other Documents, published in 1963 by the University of North Carolina Press for the VHS.

Regardless, the children appear to have been b. 1677 (died in infancy), 1679, 1680, Jan 1686/7, 1690, and 1692, as far as the evidence shows. (The portion of the family tree included on page 173).

In response to another poster's question, yes, they were of Bedfordshire, England and Henry has done some good work tracing these Fitzhughs (no relation to Marmion group) back to approx 1223. I have more info if anyone is interested.

Take care,

Kelly in RI

tallbloke

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av tallbloke » 22 jul 2007 19:51:30

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
news:mailman.551.1185050204.5496.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:

In a message dated 7/21/2007 2:20:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:

Hi Will, If we discard those years we are left with a very young mother
having children to a considerably older man. Not a unique situation
certainly, but one which obviously wasn't believed by the jurors in the
case.
Who were actually there.
I don't understand what you mean.
How do we know she was young? How do we know he was old?
If you could quote and cite what sources you're using for that, it would
help the argument.

From Stirnet:


Ralph FitzRandolph of Middleham (b c1206, d 1270)
m. Anastasia de Percy (b c1216, dau of William de Percy of
Topcliffe)
(1) Mary FitzRandolph (b c1244, d 11.03.1320)
Y
m. (c1260) Robert de Nevill, younger of Raby (b c1240, d 1271)
Y
(2) Joan FitzRandolph (d c03.1310)
m. Robert de Tatteshall, 1st Lord (b 05.12.1248, d c07.1298)

Given the exact death date of Joan's elder sister, who was about 76 when
she died, I think we should agree that the birthdate given for her younger
sister Joan is probably about 1246-48. Robert de Tateshal her husband was
born 1248 and Robert their son was born 1268 when Joan was 20-22ish.

So if Joan Tateshal realy was his sister and not his aunt, the earlist she
can have been born is 1266 when Robert the father (b1248) was 18.

But Joan Tateshal's eldest son Simon de Driby was born in 1275. That his
mother was only 9 years old when he was born is pushing credulity too far
I think.

Emma Tateshal if she was Robert's sister not his aunt can't have been born
before 1269. She was married to Adam de Cailly in 1271, Her son Thomas
was born 1275. surely she was older than the age of 5 or 6 when this
happened?

Even if the dates are slightly awry, something doesn't add up.


--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2007 00:30:05

The problem of course in citing Stirnet for this particular family is
drum roll please

_http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ff/fzmisc03.htm_
(http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... misc03.htm)

looking at the bottom of the page we see
Main sources:
(1) For FitzRandolph of Middleham (uploaded 24.10.03) : various web sites

Which inspires in me, absolutely no confidence.
"Various web sites" is not an appropriate source for something of this
import.


So this page should be treated at that level as well since it sits on such
an illustrious underlying house o' cards.

Will Johnson



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

tallbloke

Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Parentage of Emme, Joan, &

Legg inn av tallbloke » 23 jul 2007 09:37:17

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in news:mailman.37.1166560899.30800.gen-
medieval@rootsweb.com:

In a message dated 12/17/06 9:16:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
furrowed_one@yahoo.com writes:

2. Robert 1st Baron de Tateshal , Kt. (b.1248;d.1298)
sp: Joan FitzRandolph (b.1248;m.1265;d.1310)

Robert was born 1248/9 and I don't believe his exact death year is known.
Could you provide the source?

I don't believe Joan's exact birth year is known and I question this death
year as she is also said to be "still living in 1335".

Will Johnson


That's interesting. What's the source for the 1335 date? Given that her
mother Anastasia de Percy is thought to have been born around 1216 and her
elder sister Mary's definite death date in 1320 that would make Joan an old
lady od around 86-90 when she died.

--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

tallbloke

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av tallbloke » 23 jul 2007 10:11:26

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
news:mailman.606.1185143303.5496.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:

The problem of course in citing Stirnet for this particular family is
drum roll please

_http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ff/fzmisc03.htm_
(http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... misc03.htm)

looking at the bottom of the page we see
Main sources:
(1) For FitzRandolph of Middleham (uploaded 24.10.03) : various web
sites

Which inspires in me, absolutely no confidence.
"Various web sites" is not an appropriate source for something of this
import.


So this page should be treated at that level as well since it sits on
such an illustrious underlying house o' cards.

Will Johnson


Hi Will, what sources might these various websites have used, if more than
guesswork? :-) Do any of the records of the northern cistercian
monasteries survive? Fountains?


--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 jul 2007 22:02:40

<<In a message dated 07/23/07 10:55:53 Pacific Standard Time, rog@tallbloke.net writes:
Maybe the determination to get her
dower kept her alive beyond her allotted lifespan. I have a
speculative birthdate of 1277 for her,>>

Of course you mean 1177, but this sort of exactitude is what gets up into trouble once stirnet and its ilk pick it up and cite is as a fact.

I have a birth *range* for her of 1170 to 1191. This is based on her son Robert de Tateshall being a minor in 1214, and yet old enough by 7H3 to be bearing arms and horses at the order of the King and delivered to him lands once held by his mother, seized into the King's hand because of her debt to him (the King).

So I speculate that Robert could not have been born any later than 1205, nor any earlier than 1193.

And contrary to CP and a certain poster's idle speculation, I see nothing to show that Isolde "widow of Walter de Tateshall" who is suing Robert for her third is anyone other than in fact his own paternal grandmother.

I don't see the reasonableness in speculating that some Isolde-Walter-Robert combination would appear fully-formed out-of-thin-air as it were. However I'm prepared to be proven wrong if for example Robert, in fact had an elder brother let's say named Walter who *also* married some Isolde.

It could even be the case that Robert de Tateshall b 1222/3 himself had a brother Walter who married some Isolde, but we should let the documents speak.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 23 jul 2007 22:17:32

<<In a message dated 07/23/07 01:50:37 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
1257 date in the
visible snippet of the book. It's interesting for another reason though,
because it gives a Death date of 1335 for the last Robert's widow joan
(Bardolf?) which may be where will got his 1335 death date for Joan
Fitzranulph who I have as dying in 1310. >>
I do not have a death date of 1335 for *this* Joan filia Ranulph
I have *her* as dying in 1310 as you state.

On another note, re the death date of Joan [Bardolf] wife of the last Robert who is called variously "3rd Lord Tateshall" (died 30 Jan 1305/6 "aged 18" as his IPM states)

I have *her* as dying between 22 Nov 1306 and 18 Apr 1308 contrary to that snippet, and based on a post by John Ravilous here on 12/13/06 stating essentially that her share in a market was divided again to the heirs of her deceased husband by the later date, and so presumably she herself was dead.

Will Johnson

Alan Grey

FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 24 jul 2007 00:23:04

tallbloke wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
news:mailman.606.1185143303.5496.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:


The problem of course in citing Stirnet for this particular family is drum roll please

_http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ff/fzmisc03.htm_
(http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... misc03.htm)

looking at the bottom of the page we see
Main sources:
(1) For FitzRandolph of Middleham (uploaded 24.10.03) : various web sites

Which inspires in me, absolutely no confidence.
"Various web sites" is not an appropriate source for something of this import.

So this page should be treated at that level as well since it sits on such an illustrious underlying house o' cards.

Will Johnson


Hi Will, what sources might these various websites have used, if more than guesswork? :-) Do any of the records of the northern cistercian
monasteries survive? Fountains?




The above is from the thread "Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir
Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe", but we are moving off this topic by now.

No doubt the sources of the "various web sites" are a mixture of printed
pedigrees (e.g., Burke's, Dugdale etc). These are in turn (perhaps)
based on the Visitation of Yorkshire of 1563-64, which gives the
Glanville, Middleham and Neville pedigrees all together [see Norcliffe,
ed., Visitations of Yorkshire in the years 1563 and 1564, London, 1881,
pp.221-22].

There is, however, a medieval stemma within the records of Coverham
abbey (though some might argue that such stemma are, in part, the
medieval equivalent of unreferenced websites). This is found in Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, Vol. VI, Part 2, pp.920-21. A core pedigree is
identified, with only some spouses. The "Historia Fundationis" [Num. I.]
and "Stemma Dominorum de Midleham Fundatorum Prioratus de Coverham"
[Num. III.] yield the following information:

Helewise, daughter and heir of Randulf de Glanville, baron and chief
justice of England, temp. Henry II and Richard I. She founded a monastry
of canons of the Premonstratensian order at Swainby (Coverham Abbey),
apparently in 1190 (though earlier gifts were confirmed, probably before
1176, by Henry II, who died 1189). She died 11 March 1195 and was buried
at Coverham. She married Robert, lord of Middleham, son of Randulf the
son of Ribald. The father of Ribald is unknown, but he (Ribald) is
alleged to have been born across the seas. By her husband Robert,
Helewise had a son and heir, Waleran, who confirmed his mother’s
foundation gifts to Coverham, but apparently died s.p. as he was
succeeded by,

Randulf, son and eventual heir of Robert, lord of Middleham, and
Helewise. He was brother and heir of Waleran. He died 1251 and had a son,

Randulf, son of Randulf son of Robert. His inheritance was divided among
two daughters:
[i] Mary, eldest daughter and lady of Middleham. She married Robert de
Neville junior, by whom she had three sons.
[ii] Joanna, the younger daughter, she married Robert de Tatershall.

(Note that the record tends to use the names Ranulf and Radulf
interchangeably, so I favour Randulf as the name, rather than Ralph,
though I realise that most tertiary material favours Ralph).

Regards


Alan R Grey


By the way, the relevant latin text, for those interested, is:

[NUM. I]
"Helewisia filia et haeres Ranulphi de Glanvilla, baronis et justiciarii
capitalis Angliae, temporibus regum Henrici secundi, et Ricardi primi,
assensu Walranni filii et haeredis sui, tune viventis, fundavit
monasterium canonicorum ordinis Praemonstratensis apud Swayneby ; et
obiit xi die Martii, anno gratiae MCXCV ...

"Radulphus filius Roberti , domini de Midelham, et frater ejus et haeres
Walranni, ... Et obiit anno gratiae MCCLI."

[NUM. III]
"... Maria primogenita est domina de Midelham, quondam uxor Roberti de
Novavilla junioris ; quarum pater vocabatur Radulfus filius Ranulfi ;
pater Ranulfi fuit este Robertus filius Radulfi, cujus est ultima haec
charta praecedens. Hic Robertus fundavit domum de Midleham. Pater hujus
Roberti vocabatur Radulfus filius Ribaldi, cujus est carta penultima
praecedens. Quis fuit pater Ribaldi ignoratur. Dicitur, quod ille natus
fuit in partibus transmarinis. Et sic patet breviter de antecessoribus
Radulfi filii Ranulfi, cujus haereditas dividebatur inter duas filias
suas (scilicet), Mariam primogenitam, dominam de Midleham, quae ex viro
suo praefato habet tres filios, ... Soror Mariae junior, uxor Roberti de
Tatershall, vocatur Joanna."

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 jul 2007 03:39:24

<<In a message dated 07/23/07 15:26:28 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolfs first husband, Hugh de
Munpincun, was an adult in or before 1172. According to one
historian, he allegedly died in 1180. Complete Peerage suggests he
died c. 1186>>

I know who your historian is, but parroting what CP considers possible isnt' the same as laying an established fact to bed.

Clemence daughter of William Munpincum "appears to have been a ward of the king" in 1186 and then using that to state that Hugh was dead by then, seems to be a stretch. He "May have been dead" by 1186. But then again he may have lived until as late as 1198 for all we now know.

The Munpincum family needs more work before we can establish a chronology so tightly.

The records of this Isolde are a bit contradictory in how she is named, who she is the widow of, and who is suing her for what. I find it a bit odd for example that a woman who is already the widow of a Baskerville, is calling herself Biset after a prior husband and for no good reason apparently.

And then the actual primary records should be quoted, so we can see exactly what they say and how and not how some historian has chosen to interpret them.

Will

Alan Grey

Stemma: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 24 jul 2007 03:50:42

A post I sent earlier today does not seem to have appeared, so must be
lost in space. I have re-sent it below.

Alan


tallbloke wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
news:mailman.606.1185143303.5496.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:


The problem of course in citing Stirnet for this particular family is
drum roll please

_http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ff/fzmisc03.htm_
(http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... misc03.htm)

looking at the bottom of the page we see
Main sources:
(1) For FitzRandolph of Middleham (uploaded 24.10.03) : various web
sites

Which inspires in me, absolutely no confidence.
"Various web sites" is not an appropriate source for something of this
import.


So this page should be treated at that level as well since it sits on
such an illustrious underlying house o' cards.

Will Johnson



Hi Will, what sources might these various websites have used, if more than
guesswork? :-) Do any of the records of the northern cistercian
monasteries survive? Fountains?




The above is from the thread "Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir
Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe", but we are moving off this topic by now.

No doubt the sources of the "various web sites" are a mixture of printed
pedigrees (e.g., Burke's, Dugdale etc). These are in turn (perhaps)
based on the Visitation of Yorkshire of 1563-64, which gives the
Glanville, Middleham and Neville pedigrees all together [see Norcliffe,
ed., Visitations of Yorkshire in the years 1563 and 1564, London, 1881,
pp.221-22].

There is, however, a medieval stemma within the records of Coverham
abbey (though some might argue that such stemma are, in part, the
medieval equivalent of unreferenced websites). This is found in Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, Vol. VI, Part 2, pp.920-21. A core pedigree is
identified, with only some spouses. The "Historia Fundationis" [Num. I.]
and "Stemma Dominorum de Midleham Fundatorum Prioratus de Coverham"
[Num. III.] yield the following information:

Helewise, daughter and heir of Randulf de Glanville, baron and chief
justice of England, temp. Henry II and Richard I. She founded a monastry
of canons of the Premonstratensian order at Swainby (Coverham Abbey),
apparently in 1190 (though earlier gifts were confirmed, probably before
1176, by Henry II, who died 1189). She died 11 March 1195 and was buried
at Coverham. She married Robert, lord of Middleham, son of Randulf the
son of Ribald. The father of Ribald is unknown, but he (Ribald) is
alleged to have been born across the seas. By her husband Robert,
Helewise had a son and heir, Waleran, who confirmed his mother’s
foundation gifts to Coverham, but apparently died s.p. as he was
succeeded by,

Randulf, son and eventual heir of Robert, lord of Middleham, and
Helewise. He was brother and heir of Waleran. He died 1251 and had a son,

Randulf, son of Randulf son of Robert. His inheritance was divided among
two daughters:
[i] Mary, eldest daughter and lady of Middleham. She married Robert de
Neville junior, by whom she had three sons.
[ii] Joanna, the younger daughter, who married Robert de Tatershall.

(Note that the record tends to use the names Ranulf and Radulf
interchangeably, so I favour Randulf as the name, rather than Ralph,
though I realise that most tertiary material favours Ralph).

Regards


Alan R Grey


By the way, the relevant latin text, for those interested, is:

[NUM. I]
"Helewisia filia et haeres Ranulphi de Glanvilla, baronis et justiciarii
capitalis Angliae, temporibus regum Henrici secundi, et Ricardi primi,
assensu Walranni filii et haeredis sui, tune viventis, fundavit
monasterium canonicorum ordinis Praemonstratensis apud Swayneby ; et
obiit xi die Martii, anno gratiae MCXCV ...

"Radulphus filius Roberti , domini de Midelham, et frater ejus et haeres
Walranni, ... Et obiit anno gratiae MCCLI."

[NUM. III]
"... Maria primogenita est domina de Midelham, quondam uxor Roberti de
Novavilla junioris ; quarum pater vocabatur Radulfus filius Ranulfi ;
pater Ranulfi fuit este Robertus filius Radulfi, cujus est ultima haec
charta praecedens. Hic Robertus fundavit domum de Midleham. Pater hujus
Roberti vocabatur Radulfus filius Ribaldi, cujus est carta penultima
praecedens. Quis fuit pater Ribaldi ignoratur. Dicitur, quod ille natus
fuit in partibus transmarinis. Et sic patet breviter de antecessoribus
Radulfi filii Ranulfi, cujus haereditas dividebatur inter duas filias
suas (scilicet), Mariam primogenitam, dominam de Midleham, quae ex viro
suo praefato habet tres filios, ... Soror Mariae junior, uxor Roberti de
Tatershall, vocatur Joanna."

tallbloke

Re: Stemma: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av tallbloke » 24 jul 2007 09:30:01

Alan Grey <a.grey@niwa.co.nz> wrote in
news:mailman.647.1185256505.5496.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:


tallbloke wrote:


Hi Will, what sources might these various websites have used, if more
than guesswork? :-) Do any of the records of the northern cistercian
monasteries survive? Fountains?


There is, however, a medieval stemma within the records of Coverham
abbey (though some might argue that such stemma are, in part, the
medieval equivalent of unreferenced websites).


Alan, very interesting, thankyou.

'A number of websites' have Ribald as the illegitimate son of Eudes of
Brittany. See my breton links to early tattersall thread to see how that
plugs back into the Tattersall family at various junctures.


--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

Tim Cartmell

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 24 jul 2007 20:51:03

Dear Will and SGM Listers,


WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
<<In a message dated 07/21/07 08:43:39 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
Hubert de Multon was the son of Sir Thomas II Multon, baron of Gilsland. He inherited Isell in Cumberland, which passed through to his granddaughter Margaret de Multon, and then onto her son Sir William Leigh Knt. >>

What's your source on who Hubert's parents were ?
I note that thepeerage.com doesn't have any parents listed for him

Regarding your question about my sources:

1). T.H.B. Graham, F.S.A., wrote in his article, 'The Multons of Gilsland', "Thomas de Multon, surnamed of Moulton Lincolnshire, was patriarch of the family; he was the father of Lambert de Multon of the Egremont branch; father of Alan de Multon (de Lucy) of the Cockermouth branch, and by a later marriage father of Thomas de Multon who founded the Gilsland branch, .......etc. He died in 1240. At this time his youngest son Thomas had already married Matilda de Vallibus [Maud de Vaux], daughter of Hubert de Vallibus, and sole heiress of the barony Gilsland. (Cal. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, pg. 188). In 1241, Thomas had livery of his father's lands (Pipe Roll, Cumberland)......ect. He predeceased his wife Matilda. The writ for the inquisition of his lands in Cumberland was issued on January 14th, 1270-71. His lands passed to his son Thomas who was of full age (Cal. inq. p. m. 55 Hen. III, pg. 246). Matilda his mother however, held Gilsland in sole possession of that
barony. Matilda de Multon was summomed to Parliament on April 16th, 1291, together with Thomas de Multon senior, and junior (Report on the dignity of a peer, Appendix no. i, pg. 54). Thomas senior was Thomas of the barony Egremont, while Thomas junior was, Matilda's son, of the barony Burgh. Thomas junior died in his mother's lifetime, and subsequently held no interest in Gilsland. The writ for inquisition is dated March 1st, 1292-1293. His son and heir was found to be Thomas de Multon, aged 26 and more. (Cal. inq. p. m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 69), but later in the same year a Suffolk jury declared that the same Thomas was 30 years or more. The death of Matilda occurred some three months after that of her son Thomas. Writs directing inquisitiones post mortem were issued on May 28th, 1293, and they were accordingly made concerning her manors of Sevenhampton (Seavington) and Ayshule (Ashill) Somerset, held of her son James for life; her manor of Surlingham, Norfolk, held of
her son Hubert for life; and her manor of Denham, Suffolk, held of dominus Roger Bygod, Earl of Norfolk. In the last instance, Thomas aged 30 years or more, was found to be her heir (Cal. inq. p.m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 64)." Source: Transactions, CWAAS, New Series, Vol. 1928, pgs. 157-166.

See also the attached web-links for other published works, including the 'Knights of King Edward I', which specifically names Thomas fil Thomas de Multon's sons, Edmund and Hubert regarding Isell & Blendcrake.

2). http://books.google.com/books?id=3kouAA ... #PPA467,M1

3). http://books.google.com/books?id=mhMNAA ... ton&pgis=1


Regards,

Timothy J. Cartmell


---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

WJhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av WJhonson » 24 jul 2007 23:51:57

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
He died in 1240. At this time his youngest son Thomas had already married Matilda de Vallibus [Maud de Vaux], daughter of Hubert de Vallibus, and sole heiress of the barony Gilsland. (Cal. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, pg. 188). >>

This would be interesting to quote exactly as
"A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton family in England and the United States", by C Wickliffe Throckmorton. Old Dominion Press, Richmond VA. 1930

makes a line connecting Vaux of Bottisham back to Vaux of Harrowden then back to
Oliver de Vaux "living in the time of John"; "Accompanied John to Ireland in 1203", died after 1244 and then back three more steps to a certain Robert de /Vaux/ , Lord of Gillesland who died "in the time of Henry II"

This same Robert de Vaux is supposed to be that same Robert de Vaux who m Ada d'Engaine, Heiress of Burgh-on-Sand (or by Sands), Cumberland

However I cannot see how, if there is a male-line, that Maux would be "sole heiress of the barony Gilsland" unless one of these males is illegitimate, which I did not note, but which may be the case.

At any rate, a quote from the Close Rolls would illuminate the topic.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 00:00:44

Speaking of the Close Rolls, I've just done a new search and found two of these on Google Books covering 1296-1302 and 1313-1318. Hopefully some industrious scanner is busy at work on the rest of them ?

I've put the links to these two up on my site
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... es#England

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 00:26:06

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
Matilda his mother however, held Gilsland in sole possession of that barony. Matilda de Multon was summomed to Parliament on April 16th, 1291, together with Thomas de Multon senior, and junior (Report on the dignity of a peer, Appendix no. i, pg. 54). Thomas senior was Thomas of the barony Egremont, while Thomas junior was, Matilda's son, of the barony Burgh. Thomas junior died in his mother's lifetime, and subsequently held no interest in Gilsland. The writ for inquisition is dated March 1st, 1292-1293. His son and heir was found to be Thomas de Multon, aged 26 and more. (Cal. inq. p. m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 69), but later in the same year a Suffolk jury declared that the same Thomas was 30 years or more. >>

Why could not "Thomas Junior" be in fact Thomas Sr's son, i.e. Matilda's grandson ? He was aged 26 or 30 in 1292 and so old enough to be summoned.

WJhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 00:55:20

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
2). http://books.google.com/books?id=3kouAA ... #PPA467,M1>>
---------------
I don't whether this first site is very careful with its sources but there are a few things it says and doesn't say which are important in this context.

The Manor of Surlingham, Suffolk is the subject partly of an earlier post here with header as follows
Subj: Richard de Breuse aka de Braose
Date: 11/17/05 8:53:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au (Paul Mackenzie)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
----------------
*Within* this posting Paul states, contrary to the above Google Book that CP shows that Maud's father was named Hubert, not John and that Hubert d.v.p. while his father Robert had died 1234. So it could not be that "John her father" endowed her with the Manor *in or about* 1250.

Rather what seems to be the case most likely, after the squabbling between Maud's mother Aline and herself and new husband *whom she had married BY 1240* not *in* 1250 as your source, but see CP stating 1240 citing Assize Roll 818, m 19d.

In that year, 1240 as Paul states, Maud AND her husband Thomas Multon claimed the manor of Denham against Maud's mother Aline and Aline's second husband Geoffrey de Say. Paul also cites Curia Regis Rolls, etc.

It seems to me that *if* a certain John de Vaux did lay the Manor on her in 1250 it must have been after Alice or Geoffrey or both had died and this was some sort of after effect, or it was the result of the lawsuits with which they were involved.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 01:21:28

<<In a message dated 07/23/07 22:55:43 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
Helewise, daughter and heir of Randulf de Glanville, baron and chief
justice of England, temp. Henry II and Richard I. She founded a monastry
of canons of the Premonstratensian order at Swainby (Coverham Abbey),
apparently in 1190 (though earlier gifts were confirmed, probably before
1176, by Henry II, who died 1189).>>

I'd like to know the argument as to why it's supposed that some of Helewise's girls were confirmed by 1176. This early dating of Helewise, who was not the eldest daughter of her father, would squeeze the dating of her elder sister Maud and so is important to note.

Will

WJhonson

Re: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 01:29:27

<<In a message dated 07/23/07 22:55:43 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
She died 11 March 1195 and was buried
at Coverham. She married Robert, lord of Middleham, son of Randulf the
son of Ribald. >>
-----------------------
I just want to add here, for those trying the chronology, that Ralph son of Ribald, was his eldest son, succeeded his father by 1130 and was yet living in 1167/8. His son did not succeed him in the barony until 1177.

These facts were pointed out by MichaelAnne here on Dec 5, 2005 in the thread
Subj: Re: Parentage of Beatrice, wife of Ribald of Brittany
-0--------------------
DR then responded that Ralph was an adult by 1116 at the latest and perhaps earlier based on a Charter of Count Stephen's.

That should help add a framework to the family a bit.

Will

WJhonson

Re: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 01:35:44

<<In a message dated 07/23/07 22:55:43 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
Randulf, son of Randulf son of Robert. His inheritance was divided among
two daughters:
[i] Mary, eldest daughter and lady of Middleham. She married Robert de
Neville junior, by whom she had three sons.
[ii] Joanna, the younger daughter, she married Robert de Tatershall.>>

This statement can be re-examined as "eventally divided".
DR pointed out here that Mary was co-heiress to "her sister Anastasia Hansard" before 28 Apr 1272.

How much before would then be the issue. Were the Middleham estates divided three ways, with Anastasia only living for another year? Or did the portion Mary inherited from her sister Anastasia, constitute something Anastasia had held prior to her father's death?

Will

WJhonson

Re: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 01:49:45

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 17:22:47 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
I'd like to know the argument as to why it's supposed that some of Helewise's girls were confirmed by 1176. This early dating of Helewise, who was not the eldest daughter of her father, would squeeze the dating of her elder sister Maud and so is important to note.>>


My typos are getting worse. Of course "girls" should read "GIFTS"
A very different thing.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 03:44:46

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 19:27:06 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
What are the primary source/sources for this publication you quote, regarding the Oliver Vaux line relating to Gilsland? >>

--------------
Sorry Tim, I don't know. I extracted just this line they were claiming, as I wasn't so much interested in the Vaux at the time. The book I cited, may be available in snippet form or even full view for all I know, on Google Books.

I'm fairly sure, baring that, that the LDS has filmed it.

Will

wjhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av wjhonson » 25 jul 2007 04:15:11

I want to say something more about this Vaux line.

After playing with the years and names a bit, I may have solved my own
dilemna.

I had asked how Maud could be sole heiress to Gilsland if there were
another male line. I had partly traced a Vaux line, and then picked
up a connection that is most likely wrong, at least it has no source.

After manipulating the line a bit, I think that it's entirely possible
that this could occur in the following way.

Robert de Vaux, Lord of Gilsland "in the time of Henry II" is said to
have married Ada d'Engaine, Heiress of Burgh-on-Sands and widow of
Simon de Morville.

The work I cited on the Family of Throckmorton claims a line from this
couple that then goes:
Robert de Vaux of Gilsland died temp Henry II
his son William de Vaux "temp Henry II" [thus sometime in the range
1154/89]
his son Robert de Vaux also temp Henry II
his son Sir Oliver de Vaux "accompanied John to Ireland in 1203"

and so on.

To squeeze such a line into the known life of Robert de Vaux who m Ada
d'Engaine would necessitate that Sir Oliver de Vaux was a minor
perhaps ward to John when they went to Ireland. The chronology would
be
Sir Oliver de Vaux born 1191/1200
his father Robert de Vaux born 1173/82
his father William de Vaux born 1155/64
his father Robert de Vaux, Lord of Gilsland died sometime between 1154
and 1189

However, we know that Simon de Morville did not die until 1167 as
MichaelAnne Guido posting here on Dec 8, 2005 citing Pipe Roll 13H2 p
177

If this is the same Simon, then the above William de Vaux cannot be
the son of Ada d'Engaine. If we allow Robert de Vaux, Lord of
Gilsland to have a prior wife, then we can make Robert Vaux of
Gilsland his son born as the eldest son as early as 1154 and as late
as 1163.

We would then get a descent as
Robert de Vaux, Lord of Gilsland
his son Robert Vaux of Gilsland born 1154/63
his son Hubert Vaux, Baron of Gilsland born 1172/88 married Aline
two children:
1. John de Vaux who gave his sister the Manor of Surlingham in 1250
and who married unknown wife, but d.s.p.
2. Maud de Vaux, eventual heir of all her parents and brothers
properties; married Thomas de Multon

So in this way, all sources may be correct, just disjoint, and there
may be more details to find, currently unknown.

One main point would be to show that such a John de Vaux *did* or *did
not* exist.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 04:29:14

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 20:20:13 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
If the father Thomas secundas was alive on April 16th, 1291, and the senior representative of that family branch, wouldn't he be the required one summoned to Parliament representing the barony. The grandson Thomas tertius didn't actually have possession of the barony of Burgh until March 27th, 1293. What was the Medieval protocol at that time? >>

Father and son can both be in Parliament if they are there under different claims. If the son had married, for example an heiress himself, he could be summoned as well.

Since he lived to at least 30, who did he marry?

Tim Cartmell

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 25 jul 2007 05:25:04

Dear Will and SGM Listers,

WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: <<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
Matilda his mother however, held Gilsland in sole possession of that barony. Matilda de Multon was summomed to Parliament on April 16th, 1291, together with Thomas de Multon senior, and junior (Report on the dignity of a peer, Appendix no. i, pg. 54). Thomas senior was Thomas of the barony Egremont, while Thomas junior was, Matilda's son, of the barony Burgh. Thomas junior died in his mother's lifetime, and subsequently held no interest in Gilsland. The writ for inquisition is dated March 1st, 1292-1293. His son and heir was found to be Thomas de Multon, aged 26 and more. (Cal. inq. p. m. 21 Edw. I, pg. 69), but later in the same year a Suffolk jury declared that the same Thomas was 30 years or more. >>
Why could not "Thomas Junior" be in fact Thomas Sr's son, i.e. Matilda's grandson ? He was aged 26 or 30 in 1292 and so old enough to be summoned.

I'm attaching the web-link for the de Multon family pedigree chart so as to avoid confusion, located at the British History online website.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image. ... &pubid=399

I don't know what the primary sources quoted in the article state, as I don't have publications for the said records.

However, Mr. Graham's article & pedigree states/shows: Thomas secundus of Holbeach in Lincolnshire, died Feb. 12, 1292-3. And the article states, "The writ for the inquistion concerning his manor of Holbeach is dated March, 1, 1292-3. The inquistion relating to his barony of Burgh is missing, but on March 27th, 1293, the escheator was ordered to deliver to Thomas tertius, his father's lands (Cal. Fine Rolls, 21 Ed. I, pg. 320)."

If the father Thomas secundas was alive on April 16th, 1291, and the senior representative of that family branch, wouldn't he be the required one summoned to Parliament representing the barony. The grandson Thomas tertius didn't actually have possession of the barony of Burgh until March 27th, 1293. What was the Medieval protocol at that time?

In the published book, CWAAS, 'Cumberland Families and Heraldry', "Vaux of Gilsland, states that Hubert was succeeded by his daughter and heir Maud, who married Thomas de Multon (d. before 12 Jan. 1270-1)." Their source, 'The Complete Peerage,' 1910-1959. See, CWAAS, Cumberland Families and Heraldry, by Roy Hudleston, and R.S. Boumphrey and J. Hughes, published 1978, pg. 351.

Thanks for pointing out the mistakes in the one Google Books publication.


Regards,

Timothy J. Cartmell



---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

Tim Cartmell

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av Tim Cartmell » 25 jul 2007 05:26:33

What are the primary source/sources for this publication you quote, regarding the Oliver Vaux line relating to Gilsland?

Thanks,

Tim Cartmell

WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
<<In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
He died in 1240. At this time his youngest son Thomas had already married Matilda de Vallibus [Maud de Vaux], daughter of Hubert de Vallibus, and sole heiress of the barony Gilsland. (Cal. Close Rolls, 24 Henry III, pg. 188). >>

This would be interesting to quote exactly as
"A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton family in England and the United States", by C Wickliffe Throckmorton. Old Dominion Press, Richmond VA. 1930

makes a line connecting Vaux of Bottisham back to Vaux of Harrowden then back to
Oliver de Vaux "living in the time of John"; "Accompanied John to Ireland in 1203", died after 1244 and then back three more steps to a certain Robert de /Vaux/ , Lord of Gillesland who died "in the time of Henry II"

This same Robert de Vaux is supposed to be that same Robert de Vaux who m Ada d'Engaine, Heiress of Burgh-on-Sand (or by Sands), Cumberland

However I cannot see how, if there is a male-line, that Maux would be "sole heiress of the barony Gilsland" unless one of these males is illegitimate, which I did not note, but which may be the case.

At any rate, a quote from the Close Rolls would illuminate the topic.

Will Johnson




---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 06:42:54

I can try to get to the CPR citations in my spare time. I've been devoting a bit of extra time to a project I'm on for a client.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 06:45:23

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 10:20:53 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Complete Peerage did not make a stretch. I've shown that Hugh de
Munpincun was living in 1772 [Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some
Anglo-Norman Families (1975): 69]. At his death, Hugh's heir was
evidently Clemence, daughter of William de Munpincun, which Clemence
was a ward of the king in 1186. For Clemence to be a ward of the king
means that Hugh was almost certainly already dead. Complete Peerage
evidently deduced that Clemence daughter of William was Hugh's heir,
on the basis that she is surely the same Clemence de Munpincun who
with her husband, Ralph Tyrrell, was sued for dower at Annington (in
Botolphs), Sussex by Iseult Pantolf [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 7
(1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland,
ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3 (1887): 316-317]. I understand Complete
Peerage's logic.

Complete Peerage is entirely correct to state that Hugh de Munpincun
"may have been dead in 1186." He almost certainly was. >>

That's quite a bit of round-robin logic.
If you look carefully through it, you'll see several holes only partly plugged. Still leaves a lot of room for interpretation and mis-interpretation.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 06:50:51

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 10:20:53 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
I quoted Rosemary Horrox and Mark Ormrod, eds., A Social History of
England (2006): 197-198, who stated that Iseult Pantolf "outlived all
five of her husbands between 1180 and 1223." Parts of this work are
available online through Google.

I assume this means that Iseult Pantolf's first husband, Hugh de
Munpincun, died in 1180. Alternatively, it could mean that she was
married to him by 1180. Both editors of this book are distinguished
historians. >>

I think we can see as well, that it may mean neither.
When I say "she was born between 1160 and 1175" it doesn't mean that either end-point is the exact year, it means "we don't know the exact year but it must have been in This range". So I think the most we can say is that her first husband did not die *before* 1180. I don't think you can, from this quote, assume they were married *by* 1180.

I submit this is what the book is saying.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 07:06:42

<<In a message dated 07/24/07 10:20:53 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Given his mother's birthdate and Walter's birth order,
I would place Walter's birth as circa 1165. That's right about the
time Iseult Pantolf would have had to be born if she was married or
widowed to her first husband, Hugh de Munpincun, by 1180, as stated by
Horrox and Ormrod. >>

They do not state that she was "widowed to her first husband by 1180", so we can set that aside.

As to Walter's birth, his mother being "aged 50" in 1185, which I'm sure you can see is a round number, does not inspire confidence in its extreme accuracy. We've just seen an example of a man aged both 26 and 30 in the same year.

So if we allow Isabel to be born from say 1128 to 1138 then Walter as "third surviving son", if that statement can be held up, could be born anywhere from 1146 to perhaps 1178.

We know he was an adult by 1199 when he is being sued. None of the details of his marriage to Isolde nor the birth of their known son Robert help in narrowing Walter's age.

With what's been presented so far, we cannot get more exact than that.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 jul 2007 18:14:08

On Jul 25, 10:59 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:

< What sort of a word is "Enkelinus" anyway? Is this some kind of
Linus ?
< I typed this into Google and *nothing* came up at all.
< That's very rare and odd, all sorts of misspellings are on google.
<
< Will

Enkelinus is a Latin form of Ayquelm (or Aquelin).

DR

Gjest

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jul 2007 19:00:03

Looking at this situation again, and the very fragmentary nature of the
primary sources *actually cited and quoted* in it, I don't wonder if perhaps we
have a case here of two different women, both named Isolde or Iseult, marrying
different men.

Not that I don't think it's certainly possible that a woman could live to 80
or so and be married to five men in that time. But, I also think it's
certainly possible that two different women could between them, have five husbands
and be conflated into one simply by repetition and lack of in-depth review.

That won't be fixed by citing more secondary sources. We need to see the
primaries.

Will Johnson



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King's John's kinsman, Enkelinus Willel

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jul 2007 19:06:02

<<In a message dated 7/25/2007 9:55:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

"Presumably Enkelinus Willelmi de la Sparre senior or his son of the
same name is the person as Aquelmo Guillelmi de la Sparre".>>
What sort of a word is "Enkelinus" anyway? Is this some kind of Linus ?
I typed this into Google and *nothing* came up at all.
That's very rare and odd, all sorts of misspellings are on google.

Enkelinus? Peter?


Will





************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

WJhonson

Re: Genealogics update: Ancestry of Margeret (Locke) Taylor

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 21:15:37

There's another something interesting here.
This article starts off, at least in a detailed way, with that
Sir William Locke who died 24 Aug 1550 at Cheapside.

In the discussion of his four wives, they state that all *twenty* (not nineteen) children were by the first two wives, and they clarify that his second wife died "in childbed with her ELEVENTH child"

So that clarifies that the first wife had nine children before her death which they say was in 1522.

The third and fourth wives they clarify were not originally named Eleanor Marsh and Elizabeth Meredith, but rather were both widows. Eleanor was the widow of Walter Marsh buried 20 Jan 1539/40 at St Lawrence Jewry, who then married William Locke on 13 May 1540 at that same place.

Elizabeth, and this is the odd one, was the widow of "Robert Meredith...mercer of London...her husband Meredith having been buried at St Lawrence Jewry 9 Jan 1546/7".

But do we not already know that Sir William Locke by his first wife had a daughter Jane Locke who m Robert Meredith, having at least four children and that her husband died in 1548.

Were there really two Robert Merediths attached to this family? Was Robert the prior husband of Elizabeth, the father of that Robert who married Jane Locke? And if so which marriage came first?

OR a bizarre possibility, did Jane Locke die early on, her husband Robert marry some Elizabeth and then after Robert's death that wife Elizabeth turn and marry Robert's ex-father-in-law William Locke??

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Genealogics update: Ancestry of Margeret (Locke) Taylor

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 22:24:37

Yes Will you insufferable dunderhead.
If you'd just read a bit further in that same work you linked to, you'd see they state as well that his fourth wife was the widow of his son-in-law.

Weird.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Breton links to early Tattersalls

Legg inn av WJhonson » 25 jul 2007 23:14:50

<<In a message dated 07/25/07 15:11:25 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
Spereuui is clearly a 'family' name which was passed down through
generations. That leads me to guess it probably wasn't a 'common' name. >>

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

The logic here is backwards.
It should read something like : *Since* Spereuui is clearly a very unusual name, it seems likely that it was a family name passed down through generations.

The otherway round as originally stated is circular reasoning, because it's not "clear" that it was a family name *unless* you can also state that it was quite rare and odd.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jul 2007 01:39:02

<<In a message dated 07/25/07 11:25:54 Pacific Standard Time, alden@mindspring.com writes:
4. m. abt 1120 Geoffrey de Clinton b, abt 1090 >>

It's Lescelina madness, come on down and get your Lesceline's at half-price!

This one should probably be adjusted backward at least 12 or maybe 30 years, in order to account for the descent

Geoffrey de Clinton m Lesceline
Lesceline de Clinton m Norman de Verdon
Alice de Verdon m Ivo Pantulf
William Pantulf m Berga de Stuteville
William Pantulf of Breedon appears in a charter dated to perhaps 1166 with his parents.

It's a bit of a stretch to have a boy...man... living in 1166 if his great-great-grandparents were only married *in* 1120


Don't you agree. Yes of course you agree.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jul 2007 01:47:05

<<In a message dated 07/25/07 16:00:43 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
He was the son of Alice de Verdun, who is said to
have been the mother of William Pantulf, husband of Burga de
Stuteville by c1150. It seems unlikely (although not impossible) that
a twelve-year old should see his nephew married. >>

I'm not following.
I have William and Bertram as brothers (or half-brothers), not uncle-nephew.

That is Alice de Verdon born 1095 to 1123 had at least two sons
William Pantulf married Berga de Stuteville by 1150 and
Bertram de Verdon, Senschal of Ireland b 1137/8, died 1192 in the Holy Land

Interesting, Bertram also has a daughter Lesceline doesn't he?
She married Hugh de Lacy, 1st Earl of Ulster

Will Johnson

Alan Grey

Re: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 26 jul 2007 02:12:23

WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 07/23/07 22:55:43 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
Helewise, daughter and heir of Randulf de Glanville, baron and chief
justice of England, temp. Henry II and Richard I. She founded a monastry
of canons of the Premonstratensian order at Swainby (Coverham Abbey),
apparently in 1190 (though earlier gifts were confirmed, probably before
1176, by Henry II, who died 1189).

I'd like to know the argument as to why it's supposed that some of Helewise's girls were confirmed by 1176. This early dating of Helewise, who was not the eldest daughter of her father, would squeeze the dating of her elder sister Maud and so is important to note.

Will


Thanks for identifying the issue here.

The date of 1176 was an (incorrect) interpretation based on one witness
to a confirmation charter from Henry II to the gifts to Coverham abbey.
The chief secular witness was William, earl of Arundel. Since the
William known by that title died in 1176 (his son being titled earl of
Sussex), I rashly concluded that the charter pre-dates 1176. I had
given the date no real thought, but your question caused me to look into
the dating in more detail, and the conclusion is that it was made in
1189. Rev. Eyton, in his work "Court, Household, and Itinerary of King
Henry II" (1878) identifies it as one of the last two charters of Henry
II, dating it (p.297) to 5 July 1189, the day before Henry II's death.
He probably did this on the basis of the named witnesses, together with
the fact that the charter was signed at Chinon, where the king had been
carried in a dying state. For fuller information, I have included the
list of witnesses, in order, together with their occurrences in charters
etc of Henry II (excluding the Coverham confirmation charter), based on
Eyton's information.

Will. decano Moretoniae [occurs 1181]
Radulpho archidiae Colcestriae [occurs 1186-89]
Will. comite Arondelliae [occurs 1154-76] [William earl of Sussex occurs
until 1189]
Ranulpho de Glanvilla [occurs 1166-89], he was the father of Helewise,
and grandfather of the petitioner.
Gilleberto filio Remfridi dapifero [occurs 1180-87]
Radulfo filio Staphani [occurs 1175, chamberlain]
Theod. Walteri [occurs 1182]
Stephano de Turneham [occurs 1188]
Gilleberto de Aumari [occurs -]
Henrico de Cornhulle [occurs 1183-87]

The confirmation was made on the petition of Walleranni filii Roberti
[i.e., the eldest son of Helewise]. Presumably, therefore, he was an
adult or near to it, which places his birth sometime before 1170 or
thereabouts.

Alan R Grey

Alan Grey

Re: FitzRandulf of Middleham

Legg inn av Alan Grey » 26 jul 2007 02:23:24

WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 07/23/07 22:55:43 Pacific Standard Time, a.grey@niwa.co.nz writes:
Randulf, son of Randulf son of Robert. His inheritance was divided among
two daughters:
[i] Mary, eldest daughter and lady of Middleham. She married Robert de
Neville junior, by whom she had three sons.
[ii] Joanna, the younger daughter, she married Robert de Tatershall.

This statement can be re-examined as "eventally divided".
DR pointed out here that Mary was co-heiress to "her sister Anastasia Hansard" before 28 Apr 1272.

How much before would then be the issue. Were the Middleham estates divided three ways, with Anastasia only living for another year? Or did the portion Mary inherited from her sister Anastasia, constitute something Anastasia had held prior to her father's death?


The stemma given in my earlier post was not meant to be comprehensive.
It was simply a summary of what the Coverham monks had recorded at a
later date, which from their perspective was the end result of birth and
inheritance. Thus, a daughter named Anastasia is indeed likely. With
regard to your last two (rhetorical?) questions: "possibly", and "possibly".

Alan R Grey

Paul Mackenzie

Re: Hubert de Multon of Isell in Cumberland, and his first w

Legg inn av Paul Mackenzie » 26 jul 2007 07:04:22

WJhonson wrote:
In a message dated 07/24/07 11:22:11 Pacific Standard Time, inver1000@yahoo.ca writes:
2). http://books.google.com/books?id=3kouAA ... #PPA467,M1
---------------
I don't whether this first site is very careful with its sources but there are a few things it says and doesn't say which are important in this context.

The Manor of Surlingham, Suffolk is the subject partly of an earlier post here with header as follows
Subj: Richard de Breuse aka de Braose
Date: 11/17/05 8:53:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au (Paul Mackenzie)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
----------------
*Within* this posting Paul states, contrary to the above Google Book that CP shows that Maud's father was named Hubert, not John and that Hubert d.v.p. while his father Robert had died 1234. So it could not be that "John her father" endowed her with the Manor *in or about* 1250.

Rather what seems to be the case most likely, after the squabbling between Maud's mother Aline and herself and new husband *whom she had married BY 1240* not *in* 1250 as your source, but see CP stating 1240 citing Assize Roll 818, m 19d.

In that year, 1240 as Paul states, Maud AND her husband Thomas Multon claimed the manor of Denham against Maud's mother Aline and Aline's second husband Geoffrey de Say. Paul also cites Curia Regis Rolls, etc.

It seems to me that *if* a certain John de Vaux did lay the Manor on her in 1250 it must have been after Alice or Geoffrey or both had died and this was some sort of after effect, or it was the result of the lawsuits with which they were involved.

Will Johnson




See also references 45 to 50 of my article entitled

"Review of the Ancestry of
Richard de Brewes, husband of
Alice le Rus"

on Doug Thompson De Braose Web Site
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... chard.html.

These may be of some help.

Regards

Paul.

Ken Ozanne

Re: Lesceline: what's in a name?

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 26 jul 2007 08:38:12

Doug, Michael,
I can connect a few Lescelines.

Geoffrey de Clinton married a Lesceline (I have her as Lescelina) abt 1125.
Their daughter Lesceline married Norman de Verdun abt 1140
Their son, Bertram married Maud de Ferreres and they had a daughter
Lesceline who married Hugh de Lacy 1st Earl of Ulster about 1193.

That's as I have them, corrections gladly accepted.

Best,
Ken



On 26/7/07 8:16, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:22:04 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Interesting:

I know of the following Lesceline's or possible variants:

1. m abt 1077 Wm Pantulf b abt 1042
2. m. abt 1085 Geoffrey de Mandeville b. abt 1053
3. m. est 1070 Otuel fitz Hugh D'Avranches b. est 1070
4. m. abt 1120 Geoffrey de Clinton b, abt 1090
5. m. est 1170 Roger fitz Alured b. est 1150

6. Lescila m. abt 1092 Goderic of Norfolk b. abt 1040
7. Lesca m. Robert le Despencer b abt 1051.

There may have been more of course and I do not know the parentage of
any of them, although some may been related.

Sorry I couldn't add more.

Doug Smith

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Lesceline: what's in a name?

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 26 jul 2007 23:38:25

On Jul 26, 3:38 am, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Doug, Michael,
I can connect a few Lescelines.

Geoffrey de Clinton married a Lesceline (I have her as Lescelina) abt 1125.
Their daughter Lesceline married Norman de Verdun abt 1140
Their son, Bertram married Maud de Ferreres and they had a daughter
Lesceline who married Hugh de Lacy 1st Earl of Ulster about 1193.

That's as I have them, corrections gladly accepted.

Best,
Ken

On 26/7/07 8:16, "gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com"

gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: "al...@mindspring.com" <al...@mindspring.com
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:22:04 -0700
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Interesting:

I know of the following Lesceline's or possible variants:

1. m abt 1077 Wm Pantulf b abt 1042
2. m. abt 1085 Geoffrey de Mandeville b. abt 1053
3. m. est 1070 Otuel fitz Hugh D'Avranches b. est 1070
4. m. abt 1120 Geoffrey de Clinton b, abt 1090
5. m. est 1170 Roger fitz Alured b. est 1150

6. Lescila m. abt 1092 Goderic of Norfolk b. abt 1040
7. Lesca m. Robert le Despencer b abt 1051.

There may have been more of course and I do not know the parentage of
any of them, although some may been related.

Sorry I couldn't add more.

Doug Smith

Yes, those two we know of, the list of "unknown" Lescelines was posted
to see if anyone had any evidence as to how they might be related.

Doug

WJhonson

Re: Lesceline: what's in a name?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jul 2007 23:41:14

<<In a message dated 07/26/07 00:38:06 Pacific Standard Time, kenozanne@bordernet.com.au writes:
Geoffrey de Clinton married a Lesceline (I have her as Lescelina) abt 1125.
Their daughter Lesceline married Norman de Verdun abt 1140
Their son, Bertram married Maud de Ferreres and they had a daughter
Lesceline who married Hugh de Lacy 1st Earl of Ulster about 1193. >>

Ken IMHO, the dates 1125 and 1140 are wild guesses based on... nothing.
Yes that's right, nothing.

I would point out that Geoffrey de Clinton "the king's chamberlain" and son to this Geoffrey and Lesceline was "a minor in 1135"

So it's likely someone has made a wild guess that his parents were married ten years earlier.
You should toss the date out, and just state "sometime between 1000 and 1400" ... that's a joke

Will

WJhonson

Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 26 jul 2007 23:57:34

<<In a message dated 07/26/07 05:35:46 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
According to this page:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... p27838.htm

He was the father of Emma who married Adam de Brusse. Their child according
to Collins Peerage was Robert III de Brus who was born at Skelton N. Yorks,
however John Ravillious isn't sure of this. >>

Let's examine her underlying sources shall we?
In her citations list she has six, very good.
1) points to a page which has moved to a completely different person and so is useless
2) cites Medieval-L ? what kind of citation is that? useless
3) Magna Carta Signers online... ok where ? author unknown... nice touch
4) Dr Suzanne Doig, Rootsweb.. Useless citation again, no way to follow up on that
5) points to a page which is gone
6) points to a page which is gone

So a seemingly well-documented page is... not at all well documented.

Within the body of her notes she mentions Collins Peerage 1959 "which Weber has followed", without underlying primary citation. She then mentions Turton, and John Ravilous.

The entire page should be chucked and started anew.
You should not rely on the contents for anything.
They are no better, and several shades worse that the average page on AWT because at first it appears to be documented.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Breton links to early Tattersalls

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 jul 2007 00:00:08

<<In a message dated 07/26/07 04:20:56 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
The Catholic church has some surprisingly
old records relating to land ownership and tenure not to be found on Google. >>



Kinda of an odd statement isn't it.
Read it over a few times and then explain why the church would have records on "land ownership" that have evidently so far defied all inquiry by all historians... ever.

And if they do have them, in the Secret Vatican Vault buried deep under Mount Olympus or something, I'm sure we'll never see them.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 jul 2007 00:06:05

In that 1166 charter where William Pantulf "appears with his parents", I have a few questions:
1) How was it dated to 1166 ?
2) Is it clear that the "parents" William and Burga are both still living?
3) Any indication of the order of the three sons William, Roger and Philip?
4) Any indication that any of the three sons are adults, or alternatively still minors?

Aside from that, do we have any information that could place Burga in a chronological framework, other than the fact that she was a mother of at least three by 1166 ?

Will Johnson

Lancaster-Boon

The Middleham Tailboys

Legg inn av Lancaster-Boon » 27 jul 2007 08:39:26

It appears that Beatrice Tailboys, daughter of Ivo, and her husband Ribald
of Middleham had not one (Ralf or Randolph) but several sons, all of whom
used the name Tailboys? They were Hervey, Rainald, and William.

As pointed out to me by Susan Johanson to me, the source for this assertion
of Keats-Rohan seems to be...

Rev, H. C. Fitz Herbert, "An Original Pedigree of Tailbois and Neville" The
Genealogist, ns iii (1886), 31.

Has anyone seen this article or have access to it, in order to determine
what the evidence for these sons is?

Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Arlene

Re: Free Genealogy Guide

Legg inn av Arlene » 27 jul 2007 21:27:35

Re: Free Genealogy Guide


http://aofra.com/genealogy-guide.html


Hope it helps. Arlene








































----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms at!
----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 jul 2007 23:18:53

In a message dated 07/27/07 14:46:46 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
I'm going to anticipate that he is a grandson of that first William (who m Mary Giffard), *and* furthermore that he d.s.p. leaving *his brother* John (m Elizabeth Norris) as *his* heir.

All of this is idle speculation, but it does provide a framework for futher work.
See document below >>>

----------------
And as usual I appear to be *half-right* by the authority (as it were) of Burkes(1865). A poor resource, but useful for the received structure.

Burke's Peerage and Baronetage (1865), "Norreys", pg 827
which is online at ancestry ($$$) for those with the British records subscription here
http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... c=&pid=183
tells us that Mary Giffard was the *second* wife of William Jephson who received Froyle from H8 at the Dissolution.

His first wife, they say, was an unnamed daughter of John Goriage Esq of Burton, Sussex, by whom he had his *heir* William Jephson who they go to on say was High Sheriff of Hampshire in 1571.

Now by his second wife Mary Giffard, the original William Jephson had three daughters
Christiana m Richard Whitehede Esq of Thetherley
Eleanor m "G Burley", Esq of Potternese, Wiltshire
and
*Editha* (as they state) who married "Walter" Hickman, Esq "ancestor of the Earls of Plymouth"

Which only adds another voice to the confusion over exactly what the Hickman ascent truly is.

But at least it gives you another authority for this marriage, as it were.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 jul 2007 23:22:02

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 15:15:58 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
William; Norris; John; Thomas; Elizabeth [my
note adds she married Sir John Gifford of Castle Jordan, Meath, d
1657]; Frances; Mary, and Theodosia. >>
Fantastic. Because an hour ago I had added to my database the disconnected couple
Elizabeth Jephson and John Gifford
Both of Froyle.

They, you see, have an
Allegations for Marriage Licences in Dampshire, in the Registry of the Bishop of Winchester.
1636
County: Hampshire Country: England
Sir Jno Jefford of Froyle knight & Eliz Jephson of the s sp, at F, 07 Oct 1636.

I think "of the s" means of the *same*
but what does "sp at F" mean ?

Now at least we can connect this couple to their parents.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 27 jul 2007 23:38:26

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 15:27:53 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
This is probably John *Goring* of Burton; his daughter Constance was
the wife of Sir John Kingsmill of Basingstoke, CJ (CP), according to
Berry. Sir John Kingsmill was the son of "Jane, daughter of Sir John
Gifford of Erhill, Hants" - rather a tangled web of relationships! >>

-----------------
Yes, I agree, now that you've kindly pointed it out.
It makes perfect sense as *Bridget* Kingsmill would then be the daughter of *Bridget* Raleigh

I now have 15 of the 16 great-great-grandparents of Elizabeth Norris who m Sir John Jephson. I'm only missing position 31 the wife of Judge Humphrey Coningsby who d 2 Jun 1535.

This date must not be stated as fact, I only picked it up off OWT and haven't verified it yet.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 jul 2007 00:19:58

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 16:00:42 Pacific Standard Time, sueburne writes:
That makes me wonder about Alice now! Is she really Editha? >>

If we can find a William who married Alice *and* a Walter who married Editha, then we're good to go.

There's enough slack in the known dates to allow Anthony to be either son *or* grandson to the Walter who has a will in 1540. We just don't have enough firm pegs to hang it on yet.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Nicole de Noyelles & Gary Boyd Roberts

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 jul 2007 02:02:51

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 15:15:59 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
3.Marie of Brittany
/
4.Isabel de Chatillon
-x-Guillaume de Coucy >>

There is an extant marriage contract dated 1311 where that Isabel who m Guillaume de Coucy is there called daughter of Gui Count of St Pol. See
http://books.google.com/books?id=m0EDAA ... ucy+isabel

where she is called "fille de Gui"

This is obviously Guy (Guido) III de Chatillon, Count of St Pol who I have as born in 1265, married in 1292, died in 1317.

Checking Leo's excellent database I do not see a daughter Isabel for this Guy, nor any daughter who m Guillaume de Coucy

However I do find here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO

this she has been attached to other parents citing ES VII 82

Fixing or arguing this, might be a good place to start.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Pantulf chronology (or Lesceline: what's in a name?)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 jul 2007 02:58:42

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 02:50:45 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:
Her Brother Adam, lord of Skelton, married Joanna de Meschines daughter
of Runulph, 2nd earl of Chester. >>

--------------------
That her brother Adam is the same Adam who m Joanna de Meschines, is not so clear as we'd like. It is also possible that that husband of Joanna's was a nephew of Agatha's , not a brother.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Breton links to early Tattersalls

Legg inn av WJhonson » 28 jul 2007 02:59:38

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 02:55:43 Pacific Standard Time, spamtrap@tallbloke.net writes:

I'll reply to that when I'm back from Rennes. ;-) >>



----------------
There is no treasure there, it was all made up.

Peter Stewart

Re: Nicole de Noyelles & Gary Boyd Roberts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 jul 2007 06:14:29

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.15.1185584590.14018.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 07/27/07 15:15:59 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
3.Marie of Brittany
/
4.Isabel de Chatillon
-x-Guillaume de Coucy

There is an extant marriage contract dated 1311 where that Isabel who m
Guillaume de Coucy is there called daughter of Gui Count of St Pol. See
http://books.google.com/books?id=m0EDAA ... ucy+isabel

where she is called "fille de Gui"

This is obviously Guy (Guido) III de Chatillon, Count of St Pol who I have
as born in 1265, married in 1292, died in 1317.

Checking Leo's excellent database I do not see a daughter Isabel for this
Guy, nor any daughter who m Guillaume de Coucy

However I do find here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO

this she has been attached to other parents citing ES VII 82

Fixing or arguing this, might be a good place to start.

There is no doubt that Isabelle was daughter of Guy de Châtillon, count of
Saint-Pol (died 6 April 1317). The confusion over this in ES probably arises
from André Duchesne, who gave correct details of her parentage and marriage
contract in _Histoire généalogique des maisons de Guines, d'Ardres, de Gand,
et de Coucy_ (Paris, 1631), but omitted her from the family in his earlier
_Histoire de la maison de Chastillon sur Marne_ (Paris, 1621).

However, a late 19th-century cataloguer's description of Isabelle as
daughter of Guy is not a very satisfactory source in itself - note that in
the same list Pedro I, king of Castile is described as "Pierre le Cruel", an
epithet he is hardly likely to have given himself in his marriage contract.

Peter Stewart

Rosie Bevan

Re: The Middleham Tailboys

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 28 jul 2007 08:27:03

The Middleham fee and descendants of Ribald of Middleham and are
authoritatively covered in Charles Clay (ed.), Early Yorkshire
Charters, vol. 5 (Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1936) pp.298-315.

Ribald's four sons appear in a charter of gift to St Mary's York dated
between 1121 and 1130, which was made with the concession of his son
and heir, Ralph Taillebois, and witnessed by his sons Hervi, Rainald
and William [Clay, p.306]. Only Ralph is referred to as 'Taillebois'
in the charter.

Cheers

Rosie


On Jul 27, 7:39 pm, "Lancaster-Boon" <andrew.lancas...@skynet.be>
wrote:
It appears that Beatrice Tailboys, daughter of Ivo, and her husband Ribald
of Middleham had not one (Ralf or Randolph) but several sons, all of whom
used the name Tailboys? They were Hervey, Rainald, and William.

As pointed out to me by Susan Johanson to me, the source for this assertion
of Keats-Rohan seems to be...

Rev, H. C. Fitz Herbert, "An Original Pedigree of Tailbois and Neville" The
Genealogist, ns iii (1886), 31.

Has anyone seen this article or have access to it, in order to determine
what the evidence for these sons is?

Regards
Andrew Lancaster

tallbloke

Re: The Middleham Tailboys

Legg inn av tallbloke » 28 jul 2007 10:37:28

"Lancaster-Boon" <andrew.lancaster@skynet.be> wrote in
news:mailman.13.1185581474.14018.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com:

It appears that Beatrice Tailboys, daughter of Ivo, and her husband Ribald
of Middleham had not one (Ralf or Randolph) but several sons, all of whom
used the name Tailboys? They were Hervey, Rainald, and William.

As pointed out to me by Susan Johanson to me, the source for this assertion
of Keats-Rohan seems to be...

Rev, H. C. Fitz Herbert, "An Original Pedigree of Tailbois and Neville" The
Genealogist, ns iii (1886), 31.

Has anyone seen this article or have access to it, in order to determine
what the evidence for these sons is?

Regards
Andrew Lancaster


http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTAN ... oyFougeres

Has couple of Ribalds and Ralphs sons listed.

--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Swedish question

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 28 jul 2007 13:53:12

Leo, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... ture2.html. Not much, but a (very) litttle.
Ford

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 5:13 AM
Subject: Swedish question


: Anund Sture, died about 1360/1361
: married Katharina Naskonungsdotter
: parents of
:
: Magnus Sture, died 1391
: married Karin Algotsdotter
: parents of
:
: Algot Magnusson, Lord of Rafsnas, died 1426
: married Marta Bosdotter (Natt och Dag)
:
: This last couple appears in Gerald Paget's book on the ancestors of Prince Charles under Q 92617 and Q 92618
:
: For these three generations I can find only the years the males died, would anyone know roughly when they were born?
:
: With many thanks
: Leo van de Pas,
: Canberra, Australia
:
: -------------------------------
: 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

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Citations

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 28 jul 2007 14:26:30

Leo, and any others interested, (since it IS w/in our time-range),

The Aztec material which I sent you comes from Susan D. Gillespie, _The Aztec Kings: the construction of rulership in Mexica history_, (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1989). This is a misnomer; it is more about the Aztec queens.

The pre-Aztec material comes from Nigel Davies, _The Toltec Heritage: from the fall of Tula to the rise of Tenochtitlán_, (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1980).

All the best,
Ford

'War does not determine who is right, only who is left.'
-- The Rt. Hon. Prof. Bertrand, 3rd Earl Russell

John Higgins

Re: Nicole de Noyelles & Gary Boyd Roberts

Legg inn av John Higgins » 28 jul 2007 18:14:56

FWIW (and as an added source for Leo), Père Anselme's work (6:106) also
shows Isabeau the wife of Guillaume de Coucy as daughter of Guy II de
Châtillon, Comte de Saint-Pol. Interestingly, ESNF got her parentage right
in its Coucy table (7:82) but wrong in its Châtillon table (7:18). On the
latter table, Isabeau's sister Béatrix also is shown with incorrect parents,
but this one seems to have been caught and corrected in Leo's database.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Nicole de Noyelles & Gary Boyd Roberts


"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.15.1185584590.14018.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In a message dated 07/27/07 15:15:59 Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
3.Marie of Brittany
/
4.Isabel de Chatillon
-x-Guillaume de Coucy

There is an extant marriage contract dated 1311 where that Isabel who m
Guillaume de Coucy is there called daughter of Gui Count of St Pol. See

http://books.google.com/books?id=m0EDAA ... e+de+coucy

+isabel
where she is called "fille de Gui"

This is obviously Guy (Guido) III de Chatillon, Count of St Pol who I
have
as born in 1265, married in 1292, died in 1317.

Checking Leo's excellent database I do not see a daughter Isabel for
this
Guy, nor any daughter who m Guillaume de Coucy

However I do find here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO

this she has been attached to other parents citing ES VII 82

Fixing or arguing this, might be a good place to start.

There is no doubt that Isabelle was daughter of Guy de Châtillon, count of
Saint-Pol (died 6 April 1317). The confusion over this in ES probably
arises
from André Duchesne, who gave correct details of her parentage and
marriage
contract in _Histoire généalogique des maisons de Guines, d'Ardres, de
Gand,
et de Coucy_ (Paris, 1631), but omitted her from the family in his earlier
_Histoire de la maison de Chastillon sur Marne_ (Paris, 1621).

However, a late 19th-century cataloguer's description of Isabelle as
daughter of Guy is not a very satisfactory source in itself - note that in
the same list Pedro I, king of Castile is described as "Pierre le Cruel",
an
epithet he is hardly likely to have given himself in his marriage
contract.

Peter Stewart





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


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

SomersetSue

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 28 jul 2007 19:16:32

Having looked carefully through the various bits of Hickman
information I've now got and rereading all our discussions, I am now
fairly certain that the stirnet site has the right number of
generations but has called a second Walter Hickman by the name of
William by mistake.
I compared it generation for generation with the information from

Johnson, R. (Richard). The baronetage of England: containing a
genealogical and historical account of all the English baronets now
existing: with their descents, ... London, 1771. 600pp. Vol. 1 of 3 (3
vols. available).History and Geography

This is what I think is now the right line of Hickman generations as
far as we can tell at the moment. The above document is a bit
confusing to read at first glance.

John (alive in 1377)
Henry (alive in 1409)
William of Woodford Hall in Essex d.1458
William d.1487
Walter
Walter married Alice/Editha Jephson
Anthony married Rose Locke

I'm not certain which Walter Hickman is the one who died in 1540.
I have just checked and Rose Locke was born in 1532 (I made a mistake
in calculating earlier!). Assuming Anthony was about the same age we
still have the puzzle of why his mother Alice (or Editha) is of Froyle
when William Jephson (her probable father) didn't acquire Froyle until
around 1541.
I am now thinking the Jephsons must have lived in Froyle before
gaining the manor. Or perhaps later historians recorded called Alice
"of Froyle" to clarify which branch of Jephsons she came from.

Sue

SomersetSue

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 28 jul 2007 19:33:10

The archivist of Froyle has just sent me a word document a few minutes
ago with further information about the Jephsons of Froyle.

It doesn't clarify about Alice/Editha but there are references and
transcriptions of documents relating to William Jephson and his wife
Mary and some generations after.
It's 6 pages long so I can't include it here but if anyone would like
a copy contact me.

Sue

Gjest

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 jul 2007 19:35:04

<<In a message dated 7/27/2007 9:23:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

The thrice-married Mary was daughter of Sir Henry Duke of Castle Jordan,
apparently by his 1st wife Anne Moore, of the family of Moore of Mellifont.
Can anyone provide any information on the ancestry of Sir Henry Duke?>>
---------------------
Ugh. I don't envy anyone the task of looking for a family named "Duke". I
wonder if someone has traced the paternal ancestry of the famous American
Duke family.

Will





************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

SomersetSue

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 29 jul 2007 00:59:04

I've just bought and downloaded the will of Walter Hickman of Woodford
dated 1540 from National Archives.

He is definitely the father of Anthony Hickman.

I've skimmed over it but can't see a reference to a wife Alice/Editha
but it needs careful transcribing so I will have a go at that
tomorrow. At least it's in English.

Sue

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»