Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
CE Wood

Re: Citations

Legg inn av CE Wood » 29 jul 2007 07:17:01

Forgive me if it escapes me why you change this thread about a
"Swedish question" to something concerning the Aztecs. Does an Aztec
question or comment not deserve its own posting?

CE Wood



On Jul 28, 6:26 am, "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommae...@cox.net>
wrote:
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

SomersetSue

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 29 jul 2007 19:00:11

There seems to be very little space in the chronology of the Hickman/
Jephson line. The more I look at it the less space there seems to be.

Yesterday I misread a bit of the document I had about Rose Locke's
memoirs and muddled her year of birth with that of her brother. I have
been looking through my various files of notes and see that she was
indeed born in 1526 then married to Anthony Hickman in 1543. Anthony
died in 1573 while Rose lived on to a ripe old age until 1613.

I have been looking at the will of Walter the father of Anthony (dated
1540) and it does not appear that Anthony is a minor. Timings are very
tight even if we assume him to be born around the same time as Rose
and not earlier.

Anthony is recorded as either the third or fourth son of his father.
Even if his mother is Alice Jephson of Froyle and if she were not the
mother of Walter's earlier sons then she'd need to be born by about
1505 I think.

This adds to the puzzle about how she can be of Froyle when her own
father didn't come by that manor until around 1540.

It also doesn't leave much room for Alice to be the daughter of
William Jephson and Mary (Giffard) and the granddaughter of William
Giffard/Gifford and Eleanor Paulet.

Tudor Place has Eleanor Paulet born in 1479 and Mary Giffard about
1505.

Has anyone any evidence of well sourced material for dates for these
people please? Those just don't work.

Getting confused.

Sue

Gjest

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jul 2007 22:16:56

On 29 Jul., 19:00, SomersetSue <SueBu...@aol.com> wrote:
Has anyone any evidence of well sourced material for dates for these
people please? Those just don't work.

Getting confused.

Sue

Sue

I am not sure whether it will help you, but I wonder if the William
Jephson who acquired Froyle was possibly the one of that name who was
one of the Clerks of Chancery. He was appointed in 1518, and was
permitted to marry under a special Act of 1523 (suggesting he was not
married before that date) [The Domesday of Inclosures, R.Hist.Soc.,
1987, p 77]. According to PROCAT (C 1/830/11-12) he held property in
Sussex in the 1530s.

A William Jefson, gentleman of Hardham, Sussex, had his will proved at
the PCC 6 May 1542.

Also, for what it is worth, according to VCH Middlesex Vol 5, the
manor of Pymmes at Edmonton was acquired by Anthony Hickman, mercer of
London, in 1562 as feofee; in 1568 it was transferred to William
Jephson.

Cheers, Michael

SomersetSue

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av SomersetSue » 29 jul 2007 23:42:33

Thank you for those ideas and links. It all helps.

The various little bits of evidence are building up but at the moment
it's proving difficult to work out what is fact and what is simply
copied information which is being assumed.

Best wishes
Sue

Gjest

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jul 2007 23:45:04

In a message dated 7/29/2007 11:00:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
SueBurne@aol.com writes:

Tudor Place has Eleanor Paulet born in 1479 and Mary Giffard about
1505.>>
------------------
I think you have to realize that Tudorplace (which almost never cites any
sources whatsoever) in many cases, just picks up or *makes up* dates to suit the
supposed connections, rather than the other way round.

So quite possibly there is some visitation with names undated that they've
used, without citation, and just threw in dates like "20 years earlier than
birth of first child" or something else of that sort of silliness, imho.

I quote their date, cite them, and then say why it must be wrong :)
Meanwhile, juggle the remaining line and see what year-range *could* work.
And keep hunting for better sources for the line, *or* sources which can
disprove it.

Will





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

Gjest

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jul 2007 23:50:04

In a message dated 7/29/2007 11:00:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
SueBurne@aol.com writes:

This adds to the puzzle about how she can be of Froyle when her own
father didn't come by that manor until around 1540.>>
-------
I think you're reading too much into this. The source which calls her this,
isn't really interested in *her* and so most likely didn't dig too deeply to
prove or disprove what could very well be a much later label.

The label may not even attach to *her* exactly, but rather to her *line* or
lineage, i.e. as you alluded to earlier to only show which line she was from,
so as not to confuse her with some other family of the same name.

Also "of x" doesn't always mean "born at x", it can mean simply "resident at
sometime at x" or even as you suggested "of the family of the Manor of x"

Will





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

Gjest

Re: Adam de Monte Alto

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jul 2007 17:42:55

I, too, am curious as to which line this Adam belongs. This is especially true since the John de Montealto who Milicent Cantilupe first married was not the son of Roger and Cecily Montealto since that John married a Stokeport and was living in the latter part of the 1200's.
Pat
From: Tony Ingham <nugget@bordernet.com.au
Date: 2007/07/30 Mon AM 03:50:12 EDT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Adam de Monte Alto

Does anyone have info. on this person re. parentage and children. He
flourished during the period 1240-1280, probably in Lancashire. Henry
III gave him the castle of Lancaster in 1261.

Hopefully,

Tony Ingham

-------------------------------
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: Adam de Monte Alto

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 jul 2007 22:46:20

<<In a message dated 07/30/07 09:43:47 Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@bellsouth.net writes:
This is especially true since the John de Montealto who Milicent Cantilupe first married was not the son of Roger and Cecily Montealto since that John married a Stokeport and was living in the latter part of the 1200's.>>
-------------------------------------------
Although this *may* be true, I'm not sure we can assert that it's certainly true.
So far we've seen a Vis Ches 1580 which is *not a reliable source* for people of the 13th century, so we should discard it as useful for this discussion.

We've also seen a deed from 1287 (DDS/20) stating "John de Monte Alto and Elena de Stokep't his wife"

In 1299 we know that somebody named Millicent de Monte Alto died and her son William age 22 is found to be her heir

We know in 1280 that somebody named Millicent de Cantilupe, widow of Eudes la Zouche claimed dower at Syston

This is the same problem we saw recently.
Stating that these Millicent's are the same person, even in the face of evidence that perhaps they are not, and in fact may represent two distinct generations. The evidence to-date is not clear.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Nicole de Noyelles & Gary Boyd Roberts

Legg inn av John Higgins » 30 jul 2007 22:59:22

Here are some answers to the questions posed by Leo and his correspondent in
Holland regarding the Mailly-Noyelles-Villers-Carpentier-Jaquet line
included in RD500 and RD600. This is based on a review of the 1928 book by
Edwin Jaquett Sellers (cited by RD600/RD500) on the Carpentier ancestry, as
well as the related earlier (1909) book by the same author on the same
family.

First off, the 1909 book can be dismissed quickly, as it documents solely
the male-line ancestry of the Carpentier family and lists only the parents
of the various wives - no further maternal-line ancestry is given. In
particular, the Noyelles family is not mentioned in the book, and thus the
omission of Nicole de Noyelles is not significant. The 1928 book is much
broader in scope, providing at least some ancestry for most of the families
in the full Carpentier ancestry, not just the direct male-line ancestry.
(However, there are more recent and better sources for virtually all the
families covered in the book.)

As to the Villers family, Leo's correspondent appears to be correct that GBR
in RD500 and RD600 has inadvertently omitted a generation. Jean de Villers
and Nicole de Noyelles had two sons named Jean, called the elder and the
younger. Isabelle de Villers, the wife of Jean de Carpentier, was
definitely (per the 1928 book) the daughter of Jean de Villers the younger
and his wife Marie van Myseele, and thus granddaughter of Jean de Villers
and Nicole de Noyelles.

As to the Noyelles family, Nicole is said to be a daughter of Philippe de
Noyelles and Antoinette de Mailly, although it's noted that she is omtted in
family pedigree compiled in 1619 and published in 1658. However, it's also
noted that a genealogy of the Carpentier family published in 1664 by her
descendant Jan de Carpentier (who mar. Sophie van Culemborg) in his
"Histoire de Cambray et du Cambresis" places Nicolle with these parents,
based at least partially on her stated relationships with other individuals
at the time. No mention is made of any possibility that Nicole was
illegitimate. Perhaps it's not the best support for her parentage, but it's
something... There may well be other reasons why no properties from the
Mailly or Noyelles families came to the Villers family and thus to the
Carpentiers.

As to the marriage of Antoinette de Mailly and Philippe de Noyelles, the
contract date of 30 Dec 1452 is given as such in Pére Anselme, 8:633.

Even if the descent from Henry III of England is considered to be invalid
because of the possible illegitmacy of Nicole de Noyelles, there may be
other royal descents (from earlier monarchs) for the Jaquet immigrant.
Sophie van Culemborg, wife of Jan de Carpentier mentioned above, is traced
by the 1928 book (and a 1915 book by the same author) to an illegitmate son
(not noted in ESNF) of Gerrit II van Culemborg (d. 1480). A quick look at
the Roglo database indicates a descent for Gerrit from Louis VII, King of
France, as well as David I, King of Scotland.

Hope this helps....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: Nicole de Noyelles & Gary Boyd Roberts


1.Henry III
/
2.Beatrix
/
3.Marie of Brittany
/
4.Isabel de Chatillon
-x-Guillaume de Coucy
/
5.Aubert de Coucy
-x-Jeanne de Ville-Savoir
/
6.Marie de Coucy
-x-Gilles VI de Mailly
/
7.Colart de Mailly
-x-Marie de Mailly
/
8.Jean II de Mailly
-x-Catherine de Mamez
/
9.Antoinette de Mailly
-x-Philippe de Noyelles
/
10.Nicole de Noyelles
-x-Jean de Villers
/
11.Isabella de Villers
-x-Jean de Carpentier
/
12.Roelant de Carpentier
-x-Josina van Hecke


This line (with two more later generations) appears in GBR's 500 and 600
Immigrants. As sources he gives ES for Coucy, Chatillon-St.Pol and Brittany;

and Edwin Jacquett Sellers "De Carpentier Allied Ancestry: Ancestry of Maria
de Carpentier, Wife of Jean Paul Jaquet, published in 1928.
From The Netherlands I received a message which doubt that Nicole de
Noyelles was a daughter of Antoinette de Mailly, and perhaps was an

illegitimate daughter of Philippe de Noyelles.
Two reasons are given, in 1909 Edwin Jacquett Sellers published a book
about the Carpentiers of Philadelphia and in this book nothing is given

about the parents of Nicole de Noyelles. He owns a copy of this publication
and he has not seen the 1928 publication. The second reason given is that in
the families Vilers and De Carpentier no properties are owned which
originated from the de Noyelles or Mailly families.
Also according to this person, a generation is missing in the above
lineage. As GBR does not supply dates, this is not apparent.

He admits that he has seen several sources which give that Philippe de
Noyelles, baron de Tercy and chambellan du Duc de Bourgogne and Antoinette

de Mailly, dame de Ploich et de La Cliqueterie, contracted their marriage on
30 December 1452. (Can anyone quote a source for this marriage?). He guesses
that Nicole de Noyelles was born between 1453 and 1460 and may have been
married prior to marrying Jan de Vilers. They had two sons Jan the Old and
Jan the Young, the latter was born about 1480. This Jan married Maria
Philipsdr. van Mijseele and they had five children: Grietje, Antonia,
Antoni, Maria and Isabella.
Isabella mentioned in GBR's lineage was born about 1512 in Mesen and died
15 May 1584 in Middelburg. She married Pieter de Carpentier, whose father as

a widower had married Maria Philipsdr. van Mijseele. This made Maria
Philipsdr. van Mijseele the step-mother and mother-in-law of Pieter de
Carpentier.
What is asked, can anyone confirm that Nicole de Noyelles is a daughter of
Philippe de Noyelles and Antoinette de Mailly; as well is there a source for

the latter's marriage?
With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

WJhonson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av WJhonson » 30 jul 2007 23:11:29

Tony, if you wish to send me the full transcriptions of the source material, I will post them to my website.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: The Middleham Tailboys

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 jul 2007 02:37:06

On Jul 27, 5:39 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?

The pedigree printed by Fitz Herbert in 1886 was of unknown date "well
written in the hand of the reign of Henry VI". It belonged to a Major
William Martin, inherited by him from the Beresford family of Bentley,
Derbyshire. Dugdale apparently quoted from this manuscript or "more
likely a tricked copy of it" that was part of the collections of the
Somerset herald Glover, sold to Lord Burghley.

The pedigree begins with Ribald, brother of Count Alan Rufus, and his
wife Beatrix, giving their younger sons with the surname Tailboys as
follows:

"I. Radulphum
II. Heruey, filium Ribaldi, dictum Tailboys.
III. Raynaldum, filium Ribaldi, dictum Taylboys.
IIII. Willelmum, filium Ribaldi, dictum Tailboys."

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 03:40:43

I'm more inclined to think that the Special Act of 1523 relates to William Jephson who was a *son* to that William who acquired Froyle in 1536.

If we can find some more dates on this Jephsons of Froyle, we may be able to pin the issue down better. Certainly my suggested William had a wife Mary Darrell who so far I have born *sometime* between 1490 and 1530, a marriage date of 1523+ for her is more likely than the same for her father-in-law to unnamed wife Goring dau of John Goring of Burton.

It certainly doesn't help when there are three John Goring of Burton's in a row and so far no way to determine which one is the father-in-law of the first William Jephson.

Will Johnson



In a message dated 07/29/07 14:20:42 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
On 29 Jul., 19:00, SomersetSue <SueBu...@aol.com> wrote:
Has anyone any evidence of well sourced material for dates for these
people please? Those just don't work.

Getting confused.

Sue

Sue

I am not sure whether it will help you, but I wonder if the William
Jephson who acquired Froyle was possibly the one of that name who was
one of the Clerks of Chancery. He was appointed in 1518, and was
permitted to marry under a special Act of 1523 (suggesting he was not
married before that date) [The Domesday of Inclosures, R.Hist.Soc.,
1987, p 77]. According to PROCAT (C 1/830/11-12) he held property in
Sussex in the 1530s.

A William Jefson, gentleman of Hardham, Sussex, had his will proved at
the PCC 6 May 1542.

Also, for what it is worth, according to VCH Middlesex Vol 5, the
manor of Pymmes at Edmonton was acquired by Anthony Hickman, mercer of
London, in 1562 as feofee; in 1568 it was transferred to William
Jephson.

Cheers, Michael



-------------------------------
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: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 04:47:19

Will thank you for that excellent post.

As *remarkable* as it might seem, these Jephsons have descents into New York City

Please see
http://content.ancestry.com/browse/book ... 297%2c1080

Otherwise known as Burke's Commoners, Vol IV, page 241
"Taylor of Pennington"

Where this discussion leads into connections to the Van Courtlandt's of New York and New Jersey (after whom Courtlandt County is named I suppose)

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 05:05:13

This response is OT for this group, but it's rather exciting to uncover something evidently not noticed by any AWT, OWT, of AF recorder.

That is, it is known that the marriage of Lt Col William Jephson of Mallow Castle to Eliza Appy occurred on 18 Mar 1777 at Trinity Church Parish, New York City.

It is also known that he married his second wife Louisa Kensington on 31 Jan 1799 (some sources say third wife)

So any children he had by Eliza must have been born between 1777 and 1799

Burke's calls William Jephson "of New York City" the "only child" by this union.

It is further known that this William's grandson William Jephson Taylor was born on 15 Sep 1829, so we can push him back a few more years to perhaps 1777 to 1797.

In New York City census we find a certain "William H Jephson" who might be him.

Now comes a will
http://books.google.com/books?id=dlMOAA ... #PPA210,M1

where a Martha Mortier, widow of Abraham Mortier "late of New York, Esq" leaves four *thousand* pounds (quite a nice chunk) in trust, paying the interest to "my granddaughter Elizabeth Jephson, wife of William Jephson for her support and education of her son WILLIAM HENRY JEPHSON, until he is *of age*..."

I suggest, prehaps prematurely that this is that same William Jephson. Therefore Eliza is Elizabeth, and either her maternal or paternal grandparents are Abraham and Martha Mortier.

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



In a message dated 07/30/07 20:49:13 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
Will thank you for that excellent post.

As *remarkable* as it might seem, these Jephsons have descents into New York City

Please see
http://content.ancestry.com/browse/book ... 297%2c1080

Otherwise known as Burke's Commoners, Vol IV, page 241
"Taylor of Pennington"

Where this discussion leads into connections to the Van Courtlandt's of New York and New Jersey (after whom Courtlandt County is named I suppose)

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: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 05:21:49

Will excellent although off-topic post.
And might I point out that the page you cited states, at the end of the will that Mrs Martha Mortier, the widow of Abraham, had a daughter who married John Appy.

This John is quite an interesting fellow himself. The family escaped from France to Amsterdam where he was born on 12 Feb 1725, they were Walloons.

By 1757, he is in New York City where on 11 Dec 1757 at Trinity Parish he marries Elizabeth NADEN. You see Abraham Mortier is not her father, he is her step-father.

Her mother Martha had been married previously to a Mr Naden.

John Appy's parents are given as Peter Appy (likely Piers) and Marianne Giguer.

A few more steps and you might make it back to the Medieval period....

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 06:17:38

<<In a message dated 07/30/07 21:22:27 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
By 1757, he is in New York City where on 11 Dec 1757 at Trinity Parish he marries Elizabeth NADEN. You see Abraham Mortier is not her father, he is her step-father.

Her mother Martha had been married previously to a Mr Naden. >>

-----------------
Will on this point, although I cannot help you *leap* back, I can help you step back slightly.
Although we know that Elizabeth Naden was by 1757 in New York City, checking her mother Martha's details we can see that *she* was married to [Major] Abraham Mortier on 5 Jan 1754 at Saint Benet, Pauls Wharf, London.

This makes it quite more likely that Elizabeth was born in England and possibly in London

By the way, Abraham Mortier was Deputy Paymaster of His Majesty's Troops, which could explain why the family is throwing thousands of pounds around in their wills.

Although Abraham *may* not have had any children (as he bequests to his wife and her previous daughter), he does mention his *brother* David Mortier of London who he makes an executor. There *is* a David who around 1700 ish is evidently some sort of book maker or printer of some kind.

Checking for any child surnamed Naden born to any mother named Martha we find in the baptisms of St Martin in the Fields (For baptism see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C001457) one for Elizabeth Naden on 23 May 1740 which accords nicely to other now-known details of her life. I.E. that she was married firstly 11 Dec 1757 to John Appy who died shortly before 25 Aug 1764 on which date an affidavit by a witness to his will; and that she married secondly 5 Feb 1767 to Goldsborough Banyar (a name suggestive of his ancestry) and had at least one more child by him.

Provided we can accept this Elizabeth as that Elizabeth, then the father's name is given in the baptism as John Naden. and he and Martha had three more children also at St Martin in the Fields, Westminster, London.

Perhaps knowing these details can help connect the family backwards.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av John Higgins » 31 jul 2007 06:28:30

Moving this thread even more off-topic, I'm sure you noticed the Jephson
connection (via marriage) noted in BC to Clement Clark Moore, who wrote "A
Visit from St. Nicholas", also known as "Twas the Night before Christmas".

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Jephsons of Froyle


Will thank you for that excellent post.

As *remarkable* as it might seem, these Jephsons have descents into New
York City

Please see

http://content.ancestry.com/browse/book ... mmGBIrelan

dIV-007593-241&desc=Cortlandt+Taylor&rc=174%2c1039%2c258%2c1057%3b181%2c1062
%2c297%2c1080
Otherwise known as Burke's Commoners, Vol IV, page 241
"Taylor of Pennington"

Where this discussion leads into connections to the Van Courtlandt's of
New York and New Jersey (after whom Courtlandt County is named I suppose)

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: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 06:39:05

Finally. After all this rigamorale, I've actually found something that extends our knowledge pre-1600.

We already knew, in this thread, from Burke's Peerage and Baronetage (1865) "Norreys", pg 827.. that William Jephson of Froyle by his *second* wife Mary Giffard, left exactly three daughters.

We are told that one named either Alice or Editha married William Hickman, a second daughter Christiana married Richard Whitehede, Esq of Thetherley and a third daughter Eleanor married G Burley, esq of Potternese, Wiltshire.

We know all three daughters were born sometime in the first half of the 16th century.

I can now cite a document which should tie up loose ends very nicely

Will Johnson
------
Hampshire Record Office: Daly (Southwick and Norman Court Estates) [5M50/2001 - 5M50/2776]
Daly (Southwick and Norman Court Estates)
Catalogue Ref. 5M50
Creator(s): White family of Southwick, Hampshire
Norton family of Hampshire
Thistlethwayte family of Southwick Park, Hampshire

NORMAN COURT ESTATE
DESCENT OF ESTATE
FILE - Redemise for 21 years from William Jephson, Robert Aston, esquires, and George Burley of Potterne (Wilts.), gent., to Richard Whithedd of West Tytherley, esquire, of the manors of Estrop, Lickpit, East Dean, Tytherley or West Tytherley, Weston Braybefe, Hill and Shirley which Whithed demised to them by deed of 27 April 1576. - ref. 5M50/2004 - date: 8 May 1576

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle (mentioning Bulkeley)

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 07:12:05

Knowing that we have a Bulkeley expert on the list I present this document with the hope that he can interpret for us who the persons named are


Will Johnson
------------------------------
Hampshire Record Office: Daly (Southwick and Norman Court Estates) [5M50/2001 - 5M50/2776]


The contents of this catalogue are the copyright of Hampshire Record Office
Rights in the Access to Archives database are the property of the Crown, © 2001-2007

To find out more about the archives described below, contact Hampshire Record Office

Daly (Southwick and Norman Court Estates)
Catalogue Ref. 5M50
Creator(s):
White family of Southwick, Hampshire
Norton family of Hampshire
Thistlethwayte family of Southwick Park, Hampshire


NORMAN COURT ESTATE
[from Scope and Content] This section of the Daly MSS includes all the documents relating to the Norman Court Estate and the other properties forming the inheritance of the Whithed family and which descended in 1733, together with Southwick, to Francis Thistlethwayte, and thereafter to the Thistlethwayte family and their successors in title, down to the end of the 19th century. The Norman Court Estate in this context comprises the manors of Norman Court, West Tytherley and East Dean, the advowson of West Tytherley, the bailiwick of Buckholt Forest, the manors of Hill and Shirley, near Southampton, and the manors of Eastrop and Lickpit in Basingstoke, to which has been added the manor and advowson of Broughton purchased in 1733.

DESCENT OF ESTATE



Deeds of settlement upon the marriage of Henry Whithed and Sarah Norton

FILE - Conveyance, by lease and release, from Richard Whithed and Lucy his wife to Daniel Norton, John Bulkeley, Edward Norton, Henry Dawley, John Wolveridge and William Thomas; Richard Norton, Sarah Norton and Henry Whithed being third parties - ref. 5M50/2019, 2020 - date: 3/4 September 1652
[from Scope and Content] of the manors of Estrop and Lickpit, advowson of Eastrop, one messuage in Basingstoke in possession of John Miles, and lands of Richard or Lucy in Basing, Basingstoke, Eastrop, Lickpit and Chineham. In trust to the use of Richard Whithed and Lucy for their lives and then to Henry Whithed his heirs and assigns, subject to the charge of £1000 which Richard may appoint to be paid after his death and the death of Lucy.. Consideration of marriage, and payment of marriage portion of £3000 by Richard Norton. Schedule of the leases excepted is attached.

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 31 jul 2007 07:41:13

Continuing in this line, there is a Patron-submitted sheet in the IGI regarding that Richard Whithed of Titherlie who married Christiana Jephson.

On that sheet, they make the bold claim that he was born 1542 and died 1593, and that he had three children: Henry, Eleanor and Elizabeth.

The last entry I can find tonight for this Richard is a lease he made Michaelmas 1592 to a William Whithed of Winchester (perhaps his brother) and a Richard Burleighe of Longparish, gents.

He was leasing them the manor and farm of Lickpit. After I saw that name, I realized that it would be easy to search on it.

After this, there is a settlement *after* the marriage of Sir Henry Whithed "of Normans Court" after his marriage with Constance, sister of Sir Daniel Norton. This settlement is dated 10 June 1604 and includes the Manor of Lickpit. It also mentions "George Whithed, Gent, *uncle* of Sir Henry"

It includes an interesting clause to Richard Whithed, *son* of Sir Henry *to enter bond upon attaining 21 years of age* not to disturb the title of Dame Constance.

So either Richard is illegitimate or Sir Henry was married previously.

Checking the extracted IGI we do find the marriage
of Henry Whitehead to Constance Norton (http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M146631)

Will Johnson

Tony Ingham

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 31 jul 2007 14:14:18

Thanks very much Will for your kind offer. I'll get back to you in the
near future.

Regards,

Tony


WJhonson wrote:
Tony, if you wish to send me the full transcriptions of the source material, I will post them to my website.

Will Johnson

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



John Brandon

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av John Brandon » 31 jul 2007 14:51:33

Michael,

Many thanks for your mail and your kind offer of lookups.

Past Breedon-on-the-Hill then on to Bakewell sounds like a drive I'd
very much enjoy making.
I spent many months of Shaa research ending up in a dead-end at Great
Longstone, not far from Bakewell.

I'll contact you off list as we would'nt like to have John Brandon
fearing we are conspiring against him. Such a sensitive little devil.

That's big devil to you. ...

Richardson is obviously extremely miffed about the whole situation.

Don't know why you'd think this. You're a fairly low-level annoyance
compared to some Doug has put up with.

P.S. Michael is only half paying attention to you. He's thinking
about where the next tart's coming from to stuff his face.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 31 jul 2007 17:06:12

< Richardson is obviously extremely miffed about the whole situation.

He is? That's news to me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Froilaz de trava-Frojaz de Trava

Legg inn av taf » 01 aug 2007 04:11:35

On Jul 30, 12:47 am, maria emma escobar <memaesco...@yahoo.es> wrote:
¿What was the correct name of Vermudo "Manidi"? ¿ Menendiz? ¿Was Manidi an Alias? I don´t know. His son: Froyla Vermudiz, is enough documented int the monastery of Jubia. He death 1.091-92. There is not the name of his wife, but it appears his sons and daughters with wifes and husbands: PEDRO FROILAZ(married first Urraca Froilaz, and second Gontrodo Ruderiquiz), Rodrigo (married Guncina Gundisalviz), Munia (nun), Visclavara (nun) and Hermesenda (married Cresconio Nonniz).



I note that Barton calls him Vermudo Manidez, apparently indicating
that he thinks it is a patronymic. That doesn't mean that the
paternal form must be a given name - for example, Betotez derives from
the byname of Alfonso Betote. Likewise, I recall Maceratiz, which
looks like a patronymic but is in fact a Basque nickname. This is a
long way of indicating that I don't know.

Barton does cite Fletcher's "God's Catapult" for the career of Fruela
Bermudez.

taf

WJhonson

Re: Anthony Reve of Brede

Legg inn av WJhonson » 01 aug 2007 04:41:50

<<In a message dated 07/31/07 20:16:52 Pacific Standard Time, nasdaqj@tiscali.co.uk writes:
Do his grandparent's names ( Thomas and Elizabeth ) give a clue to his links
to the Reve of Bury St. Edmonds? >>
----------------------------
Elizabeth is the second most-common female name in English cultures, the first being Mary which by far is the most common.

Thomas is one of the top five most-common male names in English cultures.

So I'd say no, those two names are unhelpful.

Aside from the issue that some Elizabeth's were undoubtedly named after the Queen as a form of flattery.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Jephsons of Froyle

Legg inn av WJhonson » 01 aug 2007 05:22:09

<<In a message dated 07/27/07 21:23:27 Pacific Standard 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?

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

Unless there was more than one Henry Duke of Castle Jordan, he must also have had a daughter Anne (Duke) Loftus as this

http://books.google.com/books?id=jvg1AA ... an%22+duke

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 aug 2007 01:20:55

Although you missed the point that Carew claimed he was merely copying details from the earlier work. :)

I did some half-hearted googling to see if I could find a date for that earlier work, but gave up after a bit.

WJhonson

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 aug 2007 01:35:27

<<In a message dated 08/01/07 17:30:36 Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson writes:
Does the tomb indicate his exact death date and/or age at death?
Thanks
Will Johnson >>

--------------
Ask and ye shall receive Will.
Go here
http://www.wimpole.info/chapel.htm

look for the special bonus guest star....

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 aug 2007 01:42:24

Well, no, actually...

I didn't miss it but was well aware of the unbuttressed claim...

So I ignored it, quite deliberately.

Further, it too was irrelevant because not a scintilla of evidence was
produced -- and, once again, it was completely off the point made by Vicary
Gibbs.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.68.1186014100.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Although you missed the point that Carew claimed he was merely copying
details from the earlier work. :)

I did some half-hearted googling to see if I could find a date for that
earlier work, but gave up after a bit.

Kay Allen

Re: Agatha of . . . . . .

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 02 aug 2007 02:55:03

Dear Todd etal.,

I believe it is on film through the LDS system.

K
--- taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

When Rene Jette published his theory of the origins
of Agatha, wife of
Edward the Exile, it sent shock waves through the
complacent community
of pedigree copiers. Much has been made of this new
theory, with
arguments flying back and forth, and a few
expressions of amazement
over how something so 'obvious' could have escaped
notice for so
long. Well, as has been said, "there is nothing new
under the sun."
I was recently looking for something else when I
came across an entry
in the journal Coat of Arms no. 41, at Google Books.
Being in Snippet
View, it is tedious to work out, but it appears to
be a review of the
Agatha issue, and it includes the following:

"To confuse the issue a little more, on p. 404 of
Anderson's Royal
Genealogies we find that Agatha, daughter of
Jaroslaus, "The Halt",
Czar of Russia, and sister of Anastasia (wife of
Andrew I, King of
Hungary) and Anne (wife of Henry I, King of France),
was the wife of
Prince Edward, . . ."


http://books.google.com/books?id=T8QRAA ... ile&pgis=1

If accurate, given that Anderson's _Royal
genealogies_ was published
in 1732, clearly the 'Jette theory' is much, much
older than might
appear.

If anyone with access to Anderson's could confirm
this, it would be
appreciated.

taf


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

Gjest

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2007 19:53:03

In a message dated 8/2/2007 1:34:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

This is
consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.>>




----------------
If its "widely documented" then it should be very simple for you to post
some documentation on it.

Will Johnson



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

WJhonson

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 aug 2007 21:55:16

<<In a message dated 08/02/07 00:20:29 Pacific Standard Time, mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
http://www.wimpole.info/baptisms_1560.htm >>
--------------
Thank you for that, it does help and I'll probably be scouring this list a few times to see what I can.

Dorothy Kempe the wife of that Sir Thomas Chicheley, Knt of Wimpole (not Whimple), herself has a Cecil number of 5, so I'm interested in the details of the Chicheley's of Wimpole now.

I presume that the parents of Thomas, although not stated here, must be that Clement Chicheley of Wimpole and his wife Mary Hynd who I had had, with rather vague dates in my database already.

I can see the names Clement and Mrs Mary Chicheley often appear in the baptismal register as godparents, but this 1578 is their first child listed there.

If we presume that all the instances of "Mrs Mary Chicheley" apply to the same woman then Clement must have married her BY 1560. It's a little difficult to believe that it took them 18 years of marriage to have their first child.

Clement's mother's name is given variously as Elizabeth or Frances so she's out (it would seem), and his Chicheley grandmother as Alice (Bruges).

I assume that perhaps that Francis Hynd godfather must be this Sir Thomas' uncle as his mother is given as Mary Hynd.

I also note that Clement vanishes as a godparent, with his last such entry in 1572 and Mr Thomas Chicheley appears, so it's quite possible that this Mr Thomas is a son of Clement and Mary and the one baptised in 1578 is the *son* of Mr Thomas, therefore a grandson of Mary Hynde.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av WJhonson » 02 aug 2007 23:28:24

I'm eating figs and I almost choked on one just now.

I was gleaning data from the kindly provided link to the Parish Registers of Wimpole when I happened to note that I had another Hind, Hinde, Hynd in my database already, and that is Sir William Hinde of Maddingly, Cambridgeshire who himself has a Cecil number of 8, being the second husband of Elizabeth Lawrence whose third and last husband was Arthur Capell, Cecil number 6.

At any rate, Maddingly struck my foggy banks as familiar for some reason so I turned back to the Chicheley's and ask the IGI to just show my anyone named Mary Hind married about 1548

Wham. up comes (For marriage see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M130491)

Mary Hind to Clemens (sic) Chichly on 25 Jan 1549
where? at Maddingley of course

So idly poking at this batch who do I find?

oh nobody.... just Ursula the first wife of John Machell of Hatfield, Herts.

John Machell 29 Jun 1579 Maddingley to Ursly (sic) Hinde

Isn't that a hoot.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 00:14:12

What are you babbling about?...

I.E., The CONCLUSION you reach....

Learn To Write Coherent English.

YOU are the "HOOT" here.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.106.1186093765.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I'm eating figs and I almost choked on one just now.

Sadly, the almost...

I was gleaning data from the kindly provided link to the Parish Registers
of Wimpole when I happened to note that I had another Hind, Hinde, Hynd in
my database already, and that is Sir William Hinde of Maddingly,
Cambridgeshire who himself has a Cecil number of 8, being the second
husband of Elizabeth Lawrence whose third and last husband was Arthur
Capell, Cecil number 6.

At any rate, Maddingly struck my foggy banks as familiar for some reason
so I turned back to the Chicheley's and ask the IGI to just show my anyone
named Mary Hind married about 1548

Wham. up comes (For marriage see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British
Isles - Batch M130491)

Mary Hind to Clemens (sic) Chichly on 25 Jan 1549
where? at Maddingley of course

So idly poking at this batch who do I find?

oh nobody.... just Ursula the first wife of John Machell of Hatfield,
Herts.

John Machell 29 Jun 1579 Maddingley to Ursly (sic) Hinde

Isn't that a hoot. [sic]

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 03 aug 2007 01:04:21

"Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was
not
Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing."

Another instance of "black helicopter" historiography, I fear.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 01:10:14

Others have ALREADY written "on the other side" of this issue _ad nauseam_.

The titles below were written purely to make money -- sort of like some
trial lawyers -- including John Edwards.

Elvis is still alive in an underground hideout near Memphis too.

He's on life support equipment, but still sensate and only 72 years old.

<Groak!>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------------

"Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.108.1186098666.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was not

killed at Berkeley Castle but survived for many years thereafter. See
The Greatest Traitor (2003); "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley
Castle,"

HER 120:1175 (2005); The Perfect King (2006). He is not alone in this
view. See Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
(2003).

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Cotton of Lanwade

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 01:12:00

Shades of Cotton Mather.

DSH
----------------------------------------

"WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.109.1186099519.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In the church of Lanwade there is an inscription for Sir John Cotton, Knt
of Lanwade, co Cambrige (not Landward as stirnet).

From this we learn that he died 21 Apr 1593 in his 81st year, while his
wife Isabel Spencer died 2 Nov 1578 in her 63rd year.

We also learn that of his five daughters, three outlived him and were
Alice Cotton wife of Sir Thomas Revett (about whom I know nothing but wish
to); Anne Cotton who married Anthony Roper, Esq (would he be of Eltham and
Well Hall ?); and Frances Cotton who married Thomas Andrewe (or Andrews or
Andros), Esq

We know this Thomas Andrewe, he was heir of his father, he was Esq by
1566, he was of Charwelton, Northants, he was yet living in 1581, he has a
Wall Tablet at Charwelton, he was the son of Sir Thomas Andrewe by his
wife Catharine Cave.

Frances Cotton was his first wife and she d.s.p. ob 12 Jan 1567; whereupon
he married secondly Mary Isham, dau of Gregory Isham, Esq of Braunston,
Northants and had at least or exactly two sons Eusebius and Thomas. Mary
Isham ob 4 Apr 1589; Eusebius married Anne Knightley and had a number of
children between 1608 and 1613 at least, untraced.

This linked reference states that "round the cornice are the following
shields", the interesting one is shield I quarterly of six giving Cotton,
Abbott, Sharpe, Calverley, FitzSymon and Bagot in that order

I had known that this Sir John Cotton's paternal grandmother was Joan
Sharpe but had not known until today that the Sharpe family had arms.
Similarly I had known that Joan's mother-in-law was Alice Abbott but had
not known that the Abbott family had arms.

I cannot account for the Calverly, FitzSymon or Bagot entries, but perhaps
they could relate to the ancestry of John's mother Dorothy Clere.

Can anyone fill in the missing data?

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 01:13:48

BINGO!

DSH
-----------------------------

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.110.1186099531.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

"Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was
not

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing."

Another instance of "black helicopter" historiography, I fear.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Leo van de Pas

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 aug 2007 01:26:01

Dear Brice,

On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the biography
of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least should be
acknowledged.
I do not have access to Paul Doherty's work
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Death of Edward II


Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was not

killed at Berkeley Castle but survived for many years thereafter. See
The Greatest Traitor (2003); "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley
Castle,"
HER 120:1175 (2005); The Perfect King (2006). He is not alone in this
view. See Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
(2003).

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing.

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 01:33:30

Does Ian Mortimer trace his ancestry to Roger de Mortimer, 1st Earl of
March?

Is he trying to get said ancestor off the hook for the murder of Edward II?

Those are the operative questions to ask.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1186100791.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Brice,

On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the biography
of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least should be
acknowledged.

I do not have access to Paul Doherty's work
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Death of Edward II

Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was not

killed at Berkeley Castle but survived for many years thereafter. See
The Greatest Traitor (2003); "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley
Castle,"

HER 120:1175 (2005); The Perfect King (2006). He is not alone in this
view. See Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
(2003).

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 03 aug 2007 01:38:19

Ian Mortimer's interesting recent biography of the Earl of March (of the
day, of infamous repute) bespeaks a unique slant. Though Mortimer
disclaims descent from March, I have wondered a little about his
objectivity.

Tony


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Leo van de Pas

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 aug 2007 01:42:58

Before I communicated with Dr. Ian Mortimer I suspected the same, but no he
told me he is not a dsescendant. It seems accepted that _those_ Mortimers in
the male line are extinct anyway. For him it is perhaps an unfortunate
situation to have the same surname.

I don't think he sees it as letting someone off the hook, I think he is
trying to let facts, as he reports them, speak for themselves.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Death of Edward II


Does Ian Mortimer trace his ancestry to Roger de Mortimer, 1st Earl of
March?

Is he trying to get said ancestor off the hook for the murder of Edward
II?

Those are the operative questions to ask.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1186100791.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Brice,

On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the
biography
of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least should be
acknowledged.

I do not have access to Paul Doherty's work
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Death of Edward II

Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was not

killed at Berkeley Castle but survived for many years thereafter. See
The Greatest Traitor (2003); "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley
Castle,"

HER 120:1175 (2005); The Perfect King (2006). He is not alone in this
view. See Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
(2003).

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing.



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 01:54:40

Is this Santa Rosa, California library of yours the same building, or at
least at the same location, as we see in Alfred Hitchcock's classic film,
_Shadow of A Doubt_, with the superb scene of Teresa Wright's running to and
startling discovery in said library, Tony?

One of Hitch's Great Scenes...

Teresa was a beut in Hollywood. She stuck to her standards

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

"She was immediately [1941] signed to a five-year Hollywood contract but
asserted her seriousness as an actress. Her contract was unique by
Hollywood standards because it contained the following clause:

“ The aforementioned Teresa Wright shall not be required to pose for
photographs in a bathing suit unless she is in the water. Neither may she
be photographed running on the beach with her hair flying in the wind. Nor
may she pose in any of the following situations: In shorts, playing with a
cocker spaniel; digging in a garden; whipping up a meal; attired in
firecrackers and holding skyrockets for the Fourth of July; looking
insinuatingly at a turkey for Thanksgiving; wearing a bunny cap with long
ears for Easter; twinkling on prop snow in a skiing outfit while a fan blows
her scarf; assuming an athletic stance while pretending to hit something
with a bow and arrow."

<G>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.112.1186101568.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Ian Mortimer's interesting recent biography of the Earl of March (of the
day, of infamous repute) bespeaks a unique slant. Though Mortimer
disclaims descent from March, I have wondered a little about his
objectivity.

Tony

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 01:57:58

Thanks, Leo.

Aloha,

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.113.1186101808.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Before I communicated with Dr. Ian Mortimer I suspected the same, but no
he told me he is not a dsescendant. It seems accepted that _those_
Mortimers in the male line are extinct anyway. For him it is perhaps an
unfortunate situation to have the same surname.

I don't think he sees it as letting someone off the hook, I think he is
trying to let facts, as he reports them, speak for themselves.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Death of Edward II


Does Ian Mortimer trace his ancestry to Roger de Mortimer, 1st Earl of
March?

Is he trying to get said ancestor off the hook for the murder of Edward
II?

Those are the operative questions to ask.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1186100791.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Brice,

On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the
biography
of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least should be
acknowledged.

I do not have access to Paul Doherty's work
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Death of Edward II

Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was
not

killed at Berkeley Castle but survived for many years thereafter. See
The Greatest Traitor (2003); "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley
Castle,"

HER 120:1175 (2005); The Perfect King (2006). He is not alone in this
view. See Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
(2003).

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 02:08:13

Of course he could be descended from a different line and therefore be a
RELATIVE of Roger Mortimer.

Some folks, erroneously, call that a "COLLATERAL DESCENDENT" of Roger.

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...

Thanks, Leo.

Aloha,

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.113.1186101808.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Before I communicated with Dr. Ian Mortimer I suspected the same, but no
he told me he is not a dsescendant. It seems accepted that _those_
Mortimers in the male line are extinct anyway. For him it is perhaps an
unfortunate situation to have the same surname.

I don't think he sees it as letting someone off the hook, I think he is
trying to let facts, as he reports them, speak for themselves.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Death of Edward II


Does Ian Mortimer trace his ancestry to Roger de Mortimer, 1st Earl of
March?

Is he trying to get said ancestor off the hook for the murder of Edward
II?

Those are the operative questions to ask.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1186100791.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Brice,

On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the
biography of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least
should be acknowledged.

I do not have access to Paul Doherty's work
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Death of Edward II

Ian Mortimer continues to elaborate his view that King Edward II was
not

killed at Berkeley Castle but survived for many years thereafter. See
The Greatest Traitor (2003); "The Death of Edward II in Berkeley
Castle,"

HER 120:1175 (2005); The Perfect King (2006). He is not alone in this
view. See Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II
(2003).

Is any one writing on the other side? I have seen nothing.

Peter Stewart

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 aug 2007 02:09:45

On Aug 3, 10:42 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Before I communicated with Dr. Ian Mortimer I suspected the same, but no he
told me he is not a dsescendant. It seems accepted that _those_ Mortimers in
the male line are extinct anyway. For him it is perhaps an unfortunate
situation to have the same surname.

This looks like a furphy to me: there may be no genealogical
connection, and the co-incidence of surname may be unfortunate for him
now, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily unconnected with his
crackpot theory in the first place.

People grow up with their surnames and often take a protective
attitude to namesakes before they know or even question whether or not
they are related.

Merely disclaiming any ulterior motive from kinship now doesn't cut
much mustard - this could just as well work the other way, with the
historian trying to make out that a famous ancestor was more colourful
and wicked than the evidence sustains.

Peter Stewart

Tony Hoskins

Re: Death of Edward II - OT: Santa Rosa Library

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 03 aug 2007 02:13:25

"Is this Santa Rosa, California library of yours the same building, or
at
least at the same location, as we see in Alfred Hitchcock's classic
film,
_Shadow of A Doubt_?"

The old Carnegie library here in Santa Rosa was torn down in the 60's
(a bad decade across the board.) The Sonoma County History and Genealogy
Library I head is in a separate building near the "new" (1968)Central
Library, all of us occupying the same lot on which stood the library
used by Hitchcock; also used in the Bette Davis film "Storm Center":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049800/

Tony Hoskins


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

WJhonson

Re: Death of Edward II - OT: Santa Rosa Library

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 aug 2007 02:19:16

<<In a message dated 08/02/07 18:14:26 Pacific Standard Time, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
The Sonoma County History and Genealogy
Library I head is in a separate building near the "new" (1968)>>

------------
A very nice building too. One of the more impressive history and genealogy collections I've seen. And a place where I've spent many hours scanning the first tax records of Sonoma County trying to find details on one of my more evasive ancestors, who happens to be only the 7the probate done in Sonoma.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 aug 2007 02:26:56

Yes Marilyn, that's right.
Thanks for the note on Nicholas, it helps pin the family down to a loose chronology.
Anything else you can find out about this branch would help. I'm not yet quite sure which Hinde father was Ursula's until I can find something more definitive about her own age.

Will
---------------------



In a message dated 08/02/07 17:51:22 Pacific Standard Time, pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
Dear Will
I think I have that John Machell. My database tells me that he is my first cousin 12 times removed! He is the only John Machell with a wife Ursula that I can find. He is the son of Sir John Machell, Alderman of London and his wife Jane Luddington. Same chap? John and Ursula Machell had three children, Nicholas, linen draper of London 1633, William, and Judith who married William Baker of Lincolns Inn, London.
The note I have for John Machell of Hatfield, Herts., is "Master of the Horse to Queen Elizabeth. Captain of the Horse at Tedbury Fort. Was also of Woodbury in Cambridge and Hackney in Middlesex"
John Machell of Hatfield, Herts., was also married to Frances Cotton of Wyde Hall, Edmonton. Their child was John Machell who married a Catherine Leafe.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick




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

From: WJhonson
Date: 08/03/07 07:59:34
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

I'm eating figs and I almost choked on one just now.

I was gleaning data from the kindly provided link to the Parish Registers of Wimpole when I happened to note that I had another Hind, Hinde, Hynd in my database already, and that is Sir William Hinde of Maddingly, Cambridgeshire who himself has a Cecil number of 8, being the second husband of Elizabeth Lawrence whose third and last husband was Arthur Capell, Cecil number 6.

At any rate, Maddingly struck my foggy banks as familiar for some reason so I turned back to the Chicheley's and ask the IGI to just show my anyone named Mary Hind married about 1548

Wham. up comes (For marriage see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch M130491)

Mary Hind to Clemens (sic) Chichly on 25 Jan 1549
where? at Maddingley of course

So idly poking at this batch who do I find?

oh nobody.... just Ursula the first wife of John Machell of Hatfield, Herts.

John Machell 29 Jun 1579 Maddingley to Ursly (sic) Hinde

Isn't that a hoot.

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: Cotton of Lanwade

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 aug 2007 02:34:13

<<In a message dated 08/02/07 18:20:42 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Dear Will,

You say he had three daughters that outlived him. Do you know whether a
possible daughter was Etheldrada/Audrey who married Richard Gardiner and is
an ancestor of Prince Charles? Somehow I think Etheldrada and her father
John are earlier in time, but as I do not have dates I should not guess.
Leo
PS Gerald Paget called it Lenwade >>

-------------------------------
Regarding Ethelreda (aka Audrey) Cotton, who married first Sir Richard Gardiner having a daughter Mary; and then also supposedly married Sir Gilbert Talbot, KG of Grafton having at least two children by him -- I have that she is the daughter of Sir William Cotton of Lanwade who is called by some strange error both "Vice Chamberlain to Henry VII" and also "died 1453 at the Battle of St Alban's" both of which cannot be simultaneously true

by his wife Alice Abbott.

So this Ethelreda is the sister to Thomas Cotton m1 Margaret Wentworth and m2 Joan Sharpe; and also the sister to Catherine Cotton m Thomas Higham; and also the sister to Edmond Cotton "fourth son" of Redgrave m Ellen Conyers.

Will Johnson

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 03 aug 2007 02:56:02

Dear Will
I think I have that John Machell. My database tells me that he is my first
cousin 12 times removed! He is the only John Machell with a wife Ursula
that I can find. He is the son of Sir John Machell, Alderman of London and
his wife Jane Luddington. Same chap? John and Ursula Machell had three
children, Nicholas, linen draper of London 1633, William, and Judith who
married William Baker of Lincolns Inn, London.
The note I have for John Machell of Hatfield, Herts., is "Master of the
Horse to Queen Elizabeth. Captain of the Horse at Tedbury Fort. Was also of
Woodbury in Cambridge and Hackney in Middlesex"
John Machell of Hatfield, Herts., was also married to Frances Cotton of Wyde
Hall, Edmonton. Their child was John Machell who married a Catherine Leafe.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick




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

From: WJhonson
Date: 08/03/07 07:59:34
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

I'm eating figs and I almost choked on one just now.

I was gleaning data from the kindly provided link to the Parish Registers of
Wimpole when I happened to note that I had another Hind, Hinde, Hynd in my
database already, and that is Sir William Hinde of Maddingly, Cambridgeshire
who himself has a Cecil number of 8, being the second husband of Elizabeth
Lawrence whose third and last husband was Arthur Capell, Cecil number 6.

At any rate, Maddingly struck my foggy banks as familiar for some reason so
I turned back to the Chicheley's and ask the IGI to just show my anyone
named Mary Hind married about 1548

Wham. up comes (For marriage see http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles
- Batch M130491)

Mary Hind to Clemens (sic) Chichly on 25 Jan 1549
where? at Maddingley of course

So idly poking at this batch who do I find?

oh nobody.... just Ursula the first wife of John Machell of Hatfield, Herts.

John Machell 29 Jun 1579 Maddingley to Ursly (sic) Hinde

Isn't that a hoot.

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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 03:44:47

Bingo!

In order to sell books...

DSH
---------------------------

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186103385.432363.37300@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 3, 10:42 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

Before I communicated with Dr. Ian Mortimer I suspected the same, but no
he told me he is not a descendant. It seems accepted that
_those_ Mortimers in the male line are extinct anyway. For him it is
perhaps an unfortunate situation to have the same surname.

This looks like a furphy to me: there may be no genealogical
connection, and the co-incidence of surname may be unfortunate for him
now, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily unconnected with his
crackpot theory in the first place.

People grow up with their surnames and often take a protective
attitude to namesakes before they know or even question whether or not
they are related.

Merely disclaiming any ulterior motive from kinship now doesn't cut
much mustard - this could just as well work the other way, with the
historian trying to make out that a famous ancestor was more colourful
and wicked than the evidence sustains.

Peter Stewart

WJhonson

Re: Fw: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 aug 2007 05:49:15

<<In a message dated 08/02/07 20:58:06 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
In what he wrote for me there is a mention of a papal notary's
narrative of Edward II's life up till 1336,>>

-------------
It's called the Fieschi letter because it was writen to Edward III by the papal notary Manuele Fieschi sometime in the 1330s

This same man would later become Bishop of Vercelli.

Gjest

RE: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2007 06:13:28

j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

This is consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a
single ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines

are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.>>

----------------
If its "widely documented" then it should be very simple for you to post
some documentation on it.

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

I would also be interested in this documentation. I know there is an "urban
legend" around about this sort of thing, but such a high level of new male
lines is not in my experience normal at all. I administer several DNA
surname projects and am in contact with quite a few more.

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Gjest

Re: Cotton of Lanwade

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2007 07:32:37

On 3 Aug., 02:34, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

PS Gerald Paget called it Lenwade

It is actually *Landwade".

WJhonson

Re: Chicheleys of Wimpole Hall, Cambs

Legg inn av WJhonson » 03 aug 2007 08:12:48

Thanks Michael.
Using the register I pulled nine children out for Thomas Chicheley, Esq and his wife Anne Bourne. The first one Thomas on 12 Apr 1578 and the last Anne on 28 Feb 1592

The father Thomas is buried there on 20 Oct 1592 and his wife Anne is buried on 29 Jun 1594

Is that correct?

Any information on who the ancestors of Anne Bourne were?

Also for these nine children I only have a marriage for Thomas 1578 and for his sister Dorothy 1582 (to William Harrington of Witham-on-the-Hill, Lincs.)

Do you have any other marriages for the other children?

Thanks
Will

John Plant

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av John Plant » 03 aug 2007 09:16:38

andrew.en.inge@skynet.be wrote:
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

This is consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a
single ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines

are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
DNA-genealogy literature.

----------------
If its "widely documented" then it should be very simple for you to post
some documentation on it.

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

I would also be interested in this documentation. I know there is an "urban
legend" around about this sort of thing, but such a high level of new male
lines is not in my experience normal at all. I administer several DNA
surname projects and am in contact with quite a few more.

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Will/Andrew,

Perhaps not surprisingly, the documentation that comes first to my mind
is the PDF of my Nomina 28 paper at:

http://cogprints.org/5462/

The page numbering in this PDF is different from that in the Journal
itself; but, if you look at page 1 of the PDF, you will see that it says:

"When half or more of those with a single surname match, the name is
said to be `modal' or `single-ancestor' ... "

This rule of thumb of "half or more" can be found in the Pomery book
that is footnote 1 of the PDF (actually footnote 2 of the final Nomina
paper).

In fact the calculation is not hard to make. The average rate of FPEs
has been estimated to be once every 50 generations. If there have been
about 25 generations since a surname began, there is about a 50% chance
that each line of descent will have experienced an FPE.

If I remember correctly, there is some discussion of FPE rates in the
GENEALOGY-DNA-L archives at:

http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/D ... Y-DNA.html

Hope this helps,

John

Gjest

Re: Monte Alto Queries

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2007 17:16:51

Tony,
I have just sent you another message and hopefully it will arrive. In the meantime I will speak with Bellsouth again and repost to this list, if necessary, my message concerning Millicent Cantilupe and the Monte Altos.
Sorry,
Pat
From: Tony Ingham <nugget@bordernet.com.au
Date: 2007/08/03 Fri AM 12:51:54 EDT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Monte Alto Queries

For Pat Junkin,

Have had two successive replies to your email returned saying your
server was busy!

Tony Ingham.

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

Reeves

Re: Anthony Reve of Brede

Legg inn av Reeves » 03 aug 2007 18:08:36

On 1 Aug, 04:41, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 07/31/07 20:16:52 Pacific Standard Time, nasd...@tiscali.co.uk writes:
Do his grandparent's names ( Thomas and Elizabeth ) give a clue to his links
to the Reve of Bury St. Edmonds?
----------------------------
Elizabeth is the second most-common female name in English cultures, the first being Mary which by far is the most common.

Thomas is one of the top five most-common male names in English cultures.

So I'd say no, those two names are unhelpful.

Aside from the issue that some Elizabeth's were undoubtedly named after the Queen as a form of flattery.

Will Johnson

Thanks, but I was hoping that someone with specific knowledge of the
Reve of Bury St. Edmonds could find a Thomas of the right age. Anthony
is, supposedly, descended from them and although I've uncovered
details of his family in Sussex I can't prove the link to Bury.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Floods Cause More Misery Across Britain

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 18:22:29

Sam Rayburn, Great Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was a
Taliaferro. Democrat, Texas.

Samuel Taliaferro (pronounced "Tolliver") Rayburn (January 6, 1882 –
November 16, 1961)

Speaker:

1940-1947, 1949-1953, 1955-1961.

"To get along, go along." [Attributed]

"I like to make running water walk."

"The one thing besides people that I claim to know is land."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Rayburn>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:46b35ece$0$4726$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Bryn" <bryn@finhall.gremlinsdemon.co.uk> wrote ...
Paul J. Adam
news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes
Cory Bhreckan
coryvreckan@NO_SPAM.verizon.net> writes
Very tricky, these *nglish.

"Quite so", says Rupert Caius Cholmondeley
Woolfhardisworthy-Featherstonehaugh - before daring you to pronounce
his name with a bottle of good port riding on the result :)

Woolfhardisworthy has me stumped. The others are simple enough %-]

I once had a cat called Cholmondeley...


Any number of quaint names made it to the Former Colonies...I've neighbors
named Taliaferro (which shows up in the US South most often as the
variant, "Toliver", which first appears after the War of Fraternal
Displeasure among African Americans). Of course, the various
"respellings" as practiced at Ellis Island, etc., fill genealogy books.

TMO

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Floods Cause More Misery Across Britain

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 18:28:24

Yep...

Woolsey-Fanshaw.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Anthony Reve of Brede

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2007 19:30:03

In a message dated 8/3/2007 10:10:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nasdaqi@tiscali.co.uk writes:

Thanks, but I was hoping that someone with specific knowledge of the
Reve of Bury St. Edmonds could find a Thomas of the right age. Anthony
is, supposedly, descended from them and although I've uncovered
details of his family in Sussex I can't prove the link to Bury.>>
-----------------------
Don't you think that's a bit of a dangerous way to proceed?
Many false pedigrees are made by simply slapping together two people of the
same name and *approximate* age.






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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 aug 2007 23:10:59

Hilarious!

This wins the prize as the dumbest and most indefensible assertion of the
month to date.

It's from "Hippo", AKA "The Troll" [self-labeled].

Vide infra pro risibus.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"hippo" <south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:46b15615$0$16374$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...

Everyone here with an undergraduate education already knows everything in
your post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


My Post Follows:

"Plantagenet." This matter comes up regularly in a number of pogueish
newsgroups.

We usually hit it a glancing blow, questions are asked -- some tentative,
partial, answers are given. Some stock quotations from the _Complete
Peerage_ are trotted out. Misimpressions are created and locked in and we
move on. Typical newsgroup behaviour. Similar to a singles bar, with hard
rock drowning out any serious conversations -- as the body exchange rolls
on.

Gentle Readers and Serious Scholars deserve a more complete explanation.

So, in the spirit of Henry V [1387-1422] at Harfleur, "Once more unto the
breach, dear friends, once more; Or close up the wall with our English
dead!" [Henry V, III, i, 1-2.] I humbly provide the following explanation
of the History of 'Plantagenet' as a sobriquet transformed into a surrogate
surname. [N.B. Henry V is the 7th great-grandson of Geoffroi V 'le Bel',
comte d'Anjou et Maine.]

Geoffrey V 'The Fair' [1113-1151] Count of Anjou and Maine was Duke of
Normandy 1144-1150. Plantagenet, used as a surname, is commonly applied to
members of the Royal House of England between 1154 and 1485. Members of
that house were descended from the union between Geoffrey, Count of Anjou
and Maine, and The Empress Matilda, [1102-1167] daughter of the English
King, Henry I 'Beauclerc' [1068-1135] ---- he who supposedly died from a
"surfeit of lampreys" ---- and his first wife, Matilda of Scotland.

Although the practice is well-established, it has little historical
justification. The name Plantagenet seems to have originated as a sobriquet
or nickname for Count Geoffrey. It has variously been explained as
referring to his practice of wearing a sprig or branch of yellow broom
(Latin: [planta] genista; Old French: plante genêt) in his helm, or more
probably to his habit of planting brooms to improve his hunting cover.

[N.B. Birds will nest under the small broom bushes or shrubs and hunters may
hide behind them.] Both explanations may well be true ---- as they are by
no means mutually exclusive.

"Plantagenet" was not, by any means, a hereditary surname and Geoffrey's
progeny remained without one for more than 300 years, although surnames
became common outside the Royal Family.

Henry II 'Curtmantle' FitzEmpress [1133-1189] [son of Geoffrey and Matilda
The Empress] and his own sons, Richard I and John I, are now generally
styled by historians as the Angevin (from Anjou) kings. For want of a
better name, their successors, notably Henry III, Edward I, Edward II,
Edward III, and Richard II are still described as Plantagenets.

Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI may properly be called the House of
Lancaster; while Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III constitute the monarchs
of the House of York. Edward V, of course, is a quite special case who
hardly "reigned" as king and reportedly died in the Tower of London at 12,
one of the two 'Princes in the Tower.'

The first official use of the surname Plantagenet by any descendant of Count
Geoffrey was in 1460, when Richard, 3rd Duke of York [1411-1460], claimed
the throne in the name of "Richard Plantaginet." [N.B. Yes, there was no
standard spelling of English in 1460.]

Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was Protector of England, Earl of March and
Ulster, and Earl of Cambridge. His attempts to gain power for his House of
York, coupled with many other personal, dynastic and historical factors,
precipitated the Wars of the Roses (1455-1485). The House of York was later
identified with the White Rose and the House of Lancaster with the Red Rose.
As noted above, Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was the first to adopt the
surname of Plantagenet.

The legitimate male issue, in the agnatic line, of Count Geoffrey
'Plantagenet' and Matilda The Empress became extinct with the death, in
1499, of Edward, [1475-1499] 18th Earl of Warwick, grandson of Richard, 3rd
Duke of York.

He was the son of George [1449-1478], Duke of Clarence, who allegedly met
his end in the Tower of London as did his son, but George was supposedly
drowned in the famous butt of Malmsey. The Madeira Wine, "Duke of Clarence"
is named after this event. It is quite palatable, with good body and a bit
of a nose.

Henry VII resented Edward, 18th Earl of Warwick's proximity to the throne
and he was executed at the Tower of London on 28 Nov 1499. Edward was
imprisoned for many years and not allowed to have a tutor, according to some
accounts. Therefore, Henry VII allegedly kept him ignorant and
uneducated -- by design. Clever fellow -- and Machiavellian Prince
indeed -- was that rogue Henry Tudor.

Vide the second edition of George Edward Cokayne's [1825-1911] _The Complete
Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom,
Extant, Extinct or Dormant_; Microprint Edition (half-size in 6 volumes,
condensed from 13); 26 cm; LOC CS421 .C7 1982; Dewey # 929.7/2 19; ISBN
(set) 0904387828; Nobility -- British Isles [First Edition: (1887-1898);
Second Edition (1910-1959). New York, Saint Martin's Press, 1984,
[Reprinted from the British (Alan Sutton Publishing, Ltd.) version] 13
volumes in 6; also, previously, Gloucester: A. Sutton, 1982 (also 13 v. in
6; 26 cm)

[The Sutton version is a reprint of the Second Edition], Volume I
(originally published in 1910), p. 183, note (c):

"It is much to be wished that the surname "Plantagenet," which, since the
time of Charles II, has been freely given to all the descendants of Geoffrey
of Anjou, had some historical basis which would justify its use, for it
forms a most convenient method of referring to the Edwardian kings and their
numerous descendants. The fact is, however, as has been pointed out by Sir
James Ramsay and other writers of our day, that the name, although a
personal emblem [N. B. Latin *planta genista* = broom --- DSH] of the
aforesaid Geoffrey, was never borne by any of his descendants before Richard
Plantagenet, Duke of York (father of Edward IV), [N.B. and also of Richard
III --- DSH] who assumed it, apparently about 1448. V.G."

"V.G." is Vicary Gibbs, one of the Editors of the Second Edition of the
Complete Peerage.

This is obviously a quite complex and multi-faceted account ---- subject to
differing interpretations and shadings. Corrections, additions and
clarifications are most welcome and should be posted to the newsgroup
soc.genealogy.medieval.

Copyright © 2000-2007 by D. Spencer Hines, All Rights Reserved

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth.... This
is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond itself."
Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles" [c.1258-1264]

Illegitimis Non Carborundum.

"For by diligent perusing the actes of great men, by considering all the
circumstances of them, by composing Counseiles and Meanes with events, a man
may seem to have lived in all ages, to have been present at all enterprises,
to be more strongly confirmed in Judgement, to have attained a greater
experience than the longest life can possibly afford."

John Hayward, __The Lives of the III Norman Kings of England, William the
First, William the Second and Henry I__, London, 1612, Preface

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Fortem Posce Animum

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Pax Vobiscum

Sholem Aleichem

Allahu Akbar

Copyright © 2000-2007 by D. Spencer Hines, All Rights Reserved

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 aug 2007 04:20:38

Mortimers do not need to be descendants of Roger Mortimer [1287-1330], 1st
Earl of March to be RELATED to him... OR just have the Mortimer surname and
not be ABLE to prove or disprove a given connection.

....But perhaps still have an ax to grind.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.126.1186113687.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

You were talking about _related_ Mortimer lines-----and I presume you
meant Mortimers related to Roger Mortimer in any way----except male line
connections. I did not say it had to be Ian Mortimer's family. I too
implied Roger had many descendants and I even mentioned a few.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

WJhonson

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av WJhonson » 04 aug 2007 04:40:27

<<In a message dated 08/03/07 17:59:15 Pacific Standard Time, j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
In one
case, the finding that a Plant did not match the main Plant family
reinforced the idea that his surname traced back to an IGI record for an
unmarried mother. >>

------------------
Circular reasoning.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 aug 2007 06:09:21

Yes, Leo, you certainly prove that axiom in your post, infra.

You are still reading what you WANT to believe -- NOT what is written.

All flatulence and zero substance.

Why don't you trot out, CITE and QUOTE from this Papal Legate's Document
which you lamely OPINED about if you think you can PROVE something about the
Death of King Edward II of England.

Otherwise you are just bloviating, posturing...

....And clearly hoist with your own petar.

Vide Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ for your further edification.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult
------------------------------------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.156.1186202338.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
----- Original Message -----

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Death of Edward II

Mortimers do not need to be descendants of Roger Mortimer [1287-1330],
1st Earl of March to be RELATED to him... OR just have the Mortimer
surname and not be ABLE to prove or disprove a given connection.

...But perhaps still have an ax to grind.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

I don't think people need to have the surname Mortimer to have an axe to
grind. It seems some keep on grinding and grinding, saying very little and
achieve [sic] even less.

norenxaq

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av norenxaq » 04 aug 2007 06:11:05

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

And I'm sure you know, of course, that this "lineage" for Rolf the Ganger,
is not agreed upon by all authorities, or many even any authorities....

Which is why documentation is always the best route.

Will Johnson






it probably originated with the sagas, or later

norenxaq

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av norenxaq » 04 aug 2007 06:16:33

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/3/2007 10:14:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
norenxaq@san.rr.com writes:

it probably originated with the sagas, or later

------------------
And we know that interpreting them takes an expert. We've already
gone over the false pedigree of Herod the great on the Ancient list
which should be a warning to anyone attempting to make two Eystein's
into one person.



indeed...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 aug 2007 06:27:37

Why don't you trot out, CITE and QUOTE from this Papal Legate's Document
which you lamely OPINED about if you think you can PROVE something about the
Death of King Edward II of England.

Otherwise you are just bloviating, posturing...

....And clearly hoist with your own petar.

Vide Shakespeare's _Hamlet_ for your further edification.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.162.1186205060.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<baldersnip>

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 aug 2007 07:22:18

Leo backs off concerning his idle, totally unsupported opining re the Death
of King Edward II of England...

Then retreats in confusion, bile and wrath.

Hilarious!

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.163.1186206618.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<baldersnip>

Ken Ozanne

Re: Second christian names.

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 04 aug 2007 07:54:21

Rob,
I don't know much about other counties, but in Cornwall one fairly
frequently sees what look like second christian names, mostly in the first
half of the sixteenth century. In my experience, and as stated by T.L.
Stoate, these are surviving patronymics.

Apart from those, I don't think I have any second christian names until
late in the eighteenth century. There was some discussion on another list
about the earliest of those a year or two back which I could probably dig
out of the archives if anyone is really interested.

Best,
Ken


On 4/8/07 15:20, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: Rob.Curedale@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:15:51 -0000
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gospatric of Samlesbury

Paul,

* snip *

I am interested in the practice of oldest son name that you mentioned
as our family has a practice of giving a second name "Ward " to the
oldest son that dates to at least the 1600s. Were second christian
names used before that period. My research before 1700s always give
only one christian name.

Rob Curedale

Gjest

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2007 08:09:38

And I'm sure you know, of course, that this "lineage" for Rolf the Ganger,
is not agreed upon by all authorities, or many even any authorities....

Which is why documentation is always the best route.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2007 08:16:10

In a message dated 8/3/2007 10:14:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
norenxaq@san.rr.com writes:

it probably originated with the sagas, or later>
------------------
And we know that interpreting them takes an expert. We've already gone over
the false pedigree of Herod the great on the Ancient list which should be a
warning to anyone attempting to make two Eystein's into one person.





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

Gjest

Re: Plantagenet Ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2007 08:19:51

Here is one place to start
_http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORWEGIAN%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc128624209_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORWEGI ... c128624209)

Please NOTE that this site is not an authority and you should pay very very
close attention to what he cites as his underlying sources, and also to those
places where he sites *NO* sources at all.

That will tell you something about what is and isn't known.

Will Johnson



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

Gjest

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2007 09:19:46

In a message dated 8/3/2007 10:30:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panther@excelsior.com writes:

Why don't you trot out, CITE and QUOTE from this Papal Legate's Document
which you lamely OPINED about if you think you can PROVE something about the
Death of King Edward II of England.>>
----------------
The text is here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtdirl/Archive_15#Fieschi_Letter_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... chi_Letter)

Which I quote

In the name of the Lord, amen Those things that I have heard from the
confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I have
taken care to be known to Your Highness.
First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the
threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the
Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he
boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of Arundel
and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the coast. There
he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock,
and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led him to
Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places. And there, many
people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you were crowned at
the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent him to the castle of
Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him, after some little
time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Barford,
knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases you, I shall
give you my clothes that you may better be able to escape.' Then, wearing the
said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison. And when he had reached
the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found
the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed. And, having got the keys out of
the door, he opened it and went out, with his keeper. The said knights who had
come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, and fearing the indignation
of the Queen, for fear of their lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in
a chest, his heart having been extracted and maliciously presented to the
Queen, as if they were the heart and body of your father; and, as the body of
the King, the said porter was buried at Gloucester. Afer he had escaped from
the prison of the aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together
with his companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the
castellan of the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of
the said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half.
Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was
alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the
consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland,
where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised
there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and
proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to
Sluys.
Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do,
crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a
Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope
summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen days.
Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been considered, and
after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and from Paris to
Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of devotion, he might see the
[shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving Cologne, he crossed over Germany and
headed for Milan in Lombardy.
In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo],
in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war
overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of
the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last hermitage for
two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or praying God
for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be
affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.
Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant.





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

Ian Wallace

Re: Second christian names.

Legg inn av Ian Wallace » 04 aug 2007 11:15:43

Here is an example from Kent.

On the 16th September 1576 George Killingworth Eglisfield was baptised
at Holy Trinity, Dartford. The registers are available online and the
entry can be seen here:

http://cityark.medway.gov.uk/query/resu ... 000011.jpg

it is the second to last entry near the bottom right hand corner.

He appears to have used Killingworth as part of his name during his
life. He died in 1628 and when his will was proved at PCC he was
described as "George Killingworth Eglesfield, Gentleman of Sutton-at-
Hone, Kent" (2 July 1628, Barrington Quire Numbers: 64 - 115).

In line with Ken's suggestion, Killingworth was a surname, being the
maiden name of George Killingworth Eglisfield's mother, Elizabeth, the
daughter of George Killingworth. (See also Visitation of Kent 1574).

Ian.

On 4 Aug, 07:54, Ken Ozanne <kenoza...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Rob,
I don't know much about other counties, but in Cornwall one fairly
frequently sees what look like second christian names, mostly in the first
half of the sixteenth century. In my experience, and as stated by T.L.
Stoate, these are surviving patronymics.

Apart from those, I don't think I have any second christian names until
late in the eighteenth century. There was some discussion on another list
about the earliest of those a year or two back which I could probably dig
out of the archives if anyone is really interested.

Best,
Ken

Gjest

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2007 11:47:13

In a message dated 08/03/07 17:59:15 Pacific Standard Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
In one
case, the finding that a Plant did not match the main Plant family
reinforced the idea that his surname traced back to an IGI record for an
unmarried mother.

------------------
Circular reasoning.

Will Johnson


What can I say? Y-DNA testing isn't logically perfect. Einstein hated the
non-determinism of quantum mechanics but it won through. What individuals
prefer depends partly on whether they are experimentalists or theoretical
logicians or hold to some other philosophical tradition. Accumulating
evidence from various techniques is fairly standard.

John

Mcs

Re: Second christian names.

Legg inn av Mcs » 04 aug 2007 14:17:48

Bonjour à tous,

Ian Wallace a écrit :
Here is an example from Kent.

On the 16th September 1576 George Killingworth Eglisfield was baptised
at Holy Trinity, Dartford. The registers are available online and the
entry can be seen here:

http://cityark.medway.gov.uk/query/resu ... 000011.jpg

it is the second to last entry near the bottom right hand corner.


I take this opportunity to ask for a question:
What is the term "c[yx]istened" in place of baptized ?

Obviously, i think about "christened", but i can't recognize "chr" ...
(although the "r" may be the end of [yx])

(Thanks for accepting my poor english !)

Cordialement,
--
|Claude Safon, Amateur d'Histoire et de Généalogie(mcsmntpl@wanadoo.fr)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 aug 2007 15:11:07

Leo backs off concerning his idle, totally unsupported opining re the Death
of King Edward II of England...

Then retreats in confusion, bile, silly-buggers but vastly amusing hissy fit
and righteous wrath.

Hilarious!

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.163.1186206618.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

<baldersnip>

Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing.

Leo can't even see that Manuele de Fieschi's, notary of the Pope's,
purported epistle is singularly unconvincing and certainly does not prove
anything.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtdirl/Archive_15#Fieschi_Letter>

"In the name of the Lord, amen Those things that I have heard from the
confession of your father I have written with my own hand, and afterwards I
have taken care to be known to Your Highness.

First, he has said that, feeling England in subversion against him after the
threat from your mother, he departed from his followers in the castle of the
Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Later, driven by fear, he
boarded a barque together with Lord Hugh Ie Despenser and the Earl of
Arundel and several others, and made his way by sea to Glamorgan on the
coast. There he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master
Robert Baldock, and they were taken by Lord Henry of Lancaster. And they led
him to Kenilworth Castle, and the others were taken to various other places.
And there, many people demanding it, he lost the crown. Subsequently, you
were crowned at the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally, they sent
him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards, the servant who was guarding him,
after some little time, said to your father, 'Sire, Lord Thomas Gurney and
Lord Simon Barford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If
it pleases you, I shall give you my clothes that you may better be able to
escape.' Then, wearing the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the
prison. And when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he
was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed.
And, having got the keys out of the door, he opened it and went out, with
his keeper. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had
thus fled, and fearing the indignation of the Queen, for fear of their
lives, thought to put that aforesaid porter in a chest, his heart having
been extracted and maliciously presented to the Queen, as if they were the
heart and body of your father; and, as the body of the King, the said porter
was buried at Gloucester. After he had escaped from the prison of the
aforesaid castle, he was received at Corte Castle together with his
companion, who had guarded him in prison, by Lord Thomas, the castellan of
the said castle, without the knowledge of Lord John Maltravers, lord of the
said Thomas, in which castle he remained secretly for a year and a half.
Afterwards, hearing that the Earl of Kent, for maintaining that he was
alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and, with the
consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into
Ireland, where he remained for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be
recognised there, and having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to
England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed
the sea to Sluys.

Afterwards, he turned his steps in Normandy, and from Normandy, as many do,
crossing through Languedoc, he came to Avignon, where he gave a florin to a
Papal servant and sent, by the same servant, a note to Pope John. The Pope
summoned him and kept him secretly and honourably for more than fifteen
days. Finally, after various deliberations, all things having been
considered, and after receiving permission to depart, he went to Paris, and
from Paris to Brabant, and from Brabant to Cologne, so that, out of
devotion, he might see the [shrine of] the Three Kings. And, leaving
Cologne, he crossed over Germany and headed for Milan in Lombardy.

In Milan, he entered a certain hermitage in the castle of Milasci [Melazzo],
in which hermitage he remained for two and a half years; and because war
overran the said castle, he moved to the castle of Cecima in another
hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy. And he remained in this last
hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance or
praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused
my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness.

Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the Lord Pope, your devoted servant."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As throughout this exchange, if Leo wants to defend Manuele de Fieschi's
letter which was ostensibly written to curry the favor of Edward III, then
the Burden of Proof is on him.

But he demurs from doing that -- and runs for the tall grass.

No Surprises There...

Leo is a mere cataloguer and compiler of names and "biographies" of
historical figures with scant knowledge of how to parse, analyze and
critique said lists of names and factoids into a coherent historical
account.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

John Higgins

Re: Eberstein problem and Leo Lindemans

Legg inn av John Higgins » 04 aug 2007 19:32:03

Leo:

What does your "someone" give as the basis for this conclusion?

["Someone" may very well be right, but hopefully there's some support for
his/her conclusion]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:40 PM
Subject: Fw: Eberstein problem and Leo Lindemans


Many thanks Henry. In the meantime someone who has been in touch with
Detlev
Schwennicke, told me that Philipp _was_ married twice and only has one
illegitimate daughter. The four sisters _are_ daughters of his brother
Otto.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Soszynski" <zzhsoszy@uqconnect.net
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Eberstein problem and Leo Lindemans


On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:24:16 +1000, "Leo van de Pas"
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

ES (Isenburg) Volume IV Tafel 133
Here is shown how Philipp Graf von Eberstein married (1) Jeanne de
Bailleul (2) 20-1-1564 Katharina von Stolberg. Four daughters but no
direct indication which one is the mother. However the marriage dates of
the daughters (1596, 1601, 1600) implies the second wife.
Philipp has a younger brother Otto married to Felicitas Colonna von Vols
who has no children recorded.

in the same volume Tafel 55 Katharina von Stolberg married 2-9-1566 to
Philipp von Eberstein
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ES Schwennicke Volume XVII Tafel 100 (published in 1998)
Here Katharina von Stolberg marries (Kontrakt Wertheim 12) before 20
January 1566 Philipp Graf von Eberstein who died 11-9-1589

ES Schwennicke Volume XII Tafel 29 (published in 1992) covers the Counts
von Eberstein and here
Philipp dies 11-9-1589 (so it must be the same Philipp) but he is
married
only once, to Johanna de Bailleul------and he has no (legitimate)
children
but his brother Otto is now the father of the four daughters Isenburg
had
as daughters of Philipp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Lindemans in his book on the ancestors of King Baudouin of Belgium
(published in 1991) gives
nr.9318 Philipp Graf von Eberstein
nr.9319 Katharina zu Stolberg

nr 4658 Christoph von Wolkenstein
nr.4659 Marie von Eberstein

In his book on the ancestors of King Albert II (published 1998) he
repeats
the same details.

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

The question is very much : Who are the parents of those four sisters?
Philipp and Katharina von Stolberg------- or Otto and Felicitas Colonna?

Does anyone know?

With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Thanks for highlighting this Leo. I can't help as my database gives
the same four daughters to both brothers!? I note that Sibylla, had a
son named Otto and a daughter named Felicitas. Hopefully someone
might have better info (though I doubt it).
Cheers,
Henry Soszynski

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

Gjest

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2007 19:53:51

In a message dated 8/4/2007 1:47:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

What can I say? Y-DNA testing isn't logically perfect. Einstein hated the
non-determinism of quantum mechanics but it won through. >>
--------------------
You can say that Y-DNA has nothing to do with your argument.
You were proposing that a non-match to your core group, and an IGI entry,
"supports the idea" that the ancestor was an unwed mother.

Y-DNA has nothing to do with the circular reasoning of using unsourced data
to support uncited theory.

Will





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

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 aug 2007 03:42:02

In a message dated 8/4/2007 1:06:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

The fact remains that finding that 50% or more of those with an English
surname match is a reasonable basis for describing the surname as `modal'
or `single ancestor'. This experimental result requires quite a low FPE
rate and a `single family' name.>>
--------------------------------
No it isn't reasonable at all.
Mainly because you have not surveyed the entire population of people named
Plant (and Variants). What you have is some sort of voluntary or targeted
group who has submitted their DNA. Unless the full details of the results and
full details of the claimed lineages are published ALONGSIDE the full details
of the population-set of Plants now living, you cannot make this sort of claim.

Will





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

Gjest

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 aug 2007 03:47:02

In a message dated 8/4/2007 2:44:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

I do not wish to get hung up too much with this one particular case.
Suffice it to say that the testee was satisfied with the outcome.>>
----------------
Grand.
That level of hand-waving doesn't pass muster here however.





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

Gjest

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 aug 2007 03:48:02

Mr Plant, *statements* even by authorities *not* backed up by raw data
are... wait for it.. .here it comes... meaningless.

Yes that's right, they are meaningless.
Do you have any raw data?

I note a Swedish study you claim shows less than 1% which could mean zero
percent for all we know. At any rate, until you can present a *scientific*
study, not a statement by some supposed-authority, than there's no point to keep
beating on the dead horse. Is there.



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

Gjest

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 aug 2007 05:16:02

In a message dated 8/4/2007 2:52:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/dna.html>>
-------------------------
Why do you give space *at all* to the debunked theories of Pierre Plantard
on the Plantevelu name?
Don't you think this brings the whole conversation down a notch or twelve?

And we have no documentary link between any Plantards of the 8th century and
today, as you should know.

Voluntary samples should never be used to state what the general population
characteristics are.
That's the main flaw.





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

Peter Stewart

Re: Death of Edward II

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 aug 2007 08:42:38

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.111.1186100791.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Brice,

On genealogics I have included Dr. Ian Mortimer's opinion in the biography
of Edward II. I don't think it is frivolous and at least should be
acknowledged.

Quite right, Leo - I think Mortimer is wrong, but it is certainly proper to
acknowledge the theory that used to be dismissed but which he & some others
have been arguing for over the past 30 years.

It is also worth noting that unlike most supporters of the revisionist idea
he does not rely on the Fieschi letter: in his _English Historical Review_
article of 2005 (cited by Brice at the start of this thread) Mortimer states
"In determining whether Edward died in 1327 or not, the Fieschi letter is a
distraction".

That is practically the only point in his analysis on which I can agree with
him.

It should also be noted that Mortimer dedicated his 2003 biography of his
most famous namesake to his father "who took me to Wigmore Castle as a
child...and always encouraged me to explore my fascination with the past".
He doesn't say when he learned - maybe not on the same childhood visit -
that there was no family connection.

Over the years he has clearly learned to identify emotionally, if not
genealogically, with the 1st earl of March, for instance asserting "one has
to say that Roger's greatest crime was that he was not a member of the royal
family" and "There is no reason to doubt that Roger did love Isabella
deeply". Even more oddly, in Mills & Boone mode, he suggests that Isabella's
burial in her wedding dress "does not necessarily indicate she turned from
Roger's memory, for he may well have been in Edward's company at the royal
wedding in Boulogne, and thus would first have seen her in this dress". He
fails to note that she was also buried with Edward II's heart, that
presumably Roger dearest had never seen her with. Rum.

Peter Stewart

Mcs

Re: Second christian names.

Legg inn av Mcs » 05 aug 2007 19:02:59

Ian Wallace a écrit :
The first letter is 'c'. The second letter is 'h', this includes the
downward loop, compare this to the second letter in the next word,
'the'.

The third letter looks like an 'x' but is I think 'r'. Sometimes 'r'
can be written in a way that looks very much like an 'x'. There is
some other examples of this towards the top of the page. So the word
is 'christened'.

Thanks. I did not known this old form of "h".


Cordialement,
--
|Claude Safon, Amateur d'Histoire et de Généalogie(mcsmntpl@wanadoo.fr)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Gjest

Re: Re: Adam de Monte Alto

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 aug 2007 23:08:30

Tony,
I spoke with Bellsouth at length yesterday and the problem should have been corrected within 24 hours. I have little faith in AT&T so think it best to communicate on the list. Have you received my post regarding the Monte Altos?
Pat
From: Tony Ingham <nugget@bordernet.com.au
Date: 2007/08/04 Sat AM 11:25:04 EDT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Adam de Monte Alto

Pat,
Another failure notice due to your busy service provider.

Tony

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

Tony Ingham

John de Monte Alto/Montalt/Mohaute

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 06 aug 2007 08:13:07

For Pat Junkin,

On checking which lands were given to Millicent and John de Monte Alto
by her father William de Cantilupe the younger I found that William's
wife Eva was assigned her dower on 24 June 1255.

She was awarded, in part,
1/3 of Lubbestorp' [Lubbesthorpe] co. Leicester
1/3 of Oselburg' co. Warwick
1/3 of Ayton' [Eaton] co. Bedford.

These manors were, at that time, in the hands of Millicent, daughter of
William de Cantelupe, and her husband John de Monte Alto. (Ref:
Calendar of Close Rolls 39 Henry III. p.105)

Ex. 'Knights of Edward I.'

ZOUCHE, Sir William la, Kt.
He is overlord of Lobesthorp Manor, Leic., 28 Aug. 1303, etc. (Inq.)

The above indicates to me that John de Monte Alto had control of
Lubbesthorpe in 1255. In lieu of any proof to the contrary we must
assume that there was no heir of the bodies of John and Millicent alive
when Millicent died, else Lubbesthorp would have gone to him/her, rather
than the named heir of Millicent, who was William son of Eudo la Zouche
holder of Lubbesthorpe in 1303.

That's it, plain and simple. No matter what may arise, as a matter of
conjecture, from the 1270/90's, as to who was who's father, uncle, etc. etc.

Thus we have Millicent married to (1) John de Monte Alto, who assumedly
died s.p., (2) Eudo la Zouche, father of Millicent's heir William la
Zouche. This William was born Dec 1276 after Eudo and Millicent, his
wife, had livery of the moiety of the lands of her brother George de
Cantilupe on 30 May 1274.

If you read between the lines, Millicent could not have granted
Lubbesthorpe to Roger la Zouche in 52 Henry III (1267/8) if she was
still married to John de Monte Alto.
Therefore we must assume that (a) John was dead or (b) that he and
Millicent had been legally separated.
The likelihood is that Millicent and Eudo la Zouche were married at the
time of the grant. This would bring their marriage date forward about 6
years.

All the best,

Tony Ingham

John Plant

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av John Plant » 06 aug 2007 09:56:47

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/4/2007 2:52:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:

http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/dna.html

-------------------------
Why do you give space *at all* to the debunked theories of Pierre
Plantard on the Plantevelu name?
Don't you think this brings the whole conversation down a notch or twelve?

And we have no documentary link between any Plantards of the 8th century
and today, as you should know.

Voluntary samples should never be used to state what the general
population characteristics are.
That's the main flaw.

OK, points all taken. However, my main problem here is getting anyone
interested enough to volunteer to be Y-DNA tested (at some expense to
themselves).

Btw, I did know. To some extent I am challenging the Plantards (and the
Somersets) to be Y-DNA tested (with no success so far).

It had occurred to me that those prepared to volunteer might be from a
different income group than the general population and that they might
accordingly tend to have a different (lower?) FPE rate. However, there
is not (as yet) enough evidence (that I know of) to be certain of that.
Every new approach has to start somewhere. It is not unusual in
experimental science to start with a crude model which is later refined
or modified as more data becomes available. That's just the way it
works. The scientific rule of parsimony (rather like Occam's razor) is
very relevant here.

I have not ventured to change any published medieval genealogies (which
I accept is more the usual business of this discussion list). I have
just ventured to start a reexamination of some suppositions about the
general nature of some names where there has been very little to go on
and every bit of new evidence is at least an advance.

John

John Brandon

Re: Second christian names.

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 aug 2007 16:26:25

There's my ancestress, Mildred-Fortune Manning, born a little before
the gent. you mentioned ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=xTIEAA ... fortune%22

I assume the middle name was a commentary on the circumstances of her
birth, as her M.I. mentions she was "strangely afflicted" all her
life.

John Brandon

Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 aug 2007 16:29:19

Apparently, I just checked online, my library doesn't have this -
surprising since the NYPL 42nd St. is rather large....! Thanks for
posting all those tidbits I wouldn't have seen them otherwise.

I'm sure some library in NYC has the series (Columbia?).

WJhonson

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 19:15:56

<<In a message dated 08/06/07 01:59:10 Pacific Standard Time, j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk writes:
It had occurred to me that those prepared to volunteer might be from a
different income group than the general population and that they might
accordingly tend to have a different (lower?) FPE rate.>>

--------------
Right, a study of this sort falls more into Sociology, rather than History and thus perhaps more importantly than the theories and conjectures, you have to discuss the aspects and possible skewing of your data set from that point-of-view.

So, are people interested in genealogy more wealthy than the norm? Are they more isolated from their original family group? Are they more suspicious of their origin?

You can, certainly make statements based on the results *as they apply to the volunteer group* but always with a slant that the group itself must be analyzed from the point-of-view of how they *do* or *might* differ from :
A) the general population of humans;
B) the specific population of people named Plant.

We cannot assume that people who volunteer their DNA for a genealogy project represent the median characteristics of the imaginary control group. In these sorts of studies there is really no control group, we can only image the volunteer group against what the control group *might* look like since we have no control group to really study side-by-side. I.E. we do not have a pool of DNA randomly sampled from the general population, or if we do that should be stated and summarized, and we do not have a randomly sampled DNA pool from people named Plant-X.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Eve

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 19:17:57

<<In a message dated 08/06/07 02:15:08 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
containing all living Somersets
descending from the Plantagenets? With Burke's Peerage and at least one
other book we should be able to find addresses for a number. You then make
one covering letter, and change the heading for each one and see what
reaction you will get. You only need to get a few yesses I suppose? >>


If such a thing actually occurred, and you actually get positive responses which lead to actual laboratory results, I think it could be a paper.

It certainly seems as if a number of people would be interested in such a project.

WJhonson

Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 19:24:22

<<In a message dated 08/06/07 10:45:21 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Tell them they are the 'control'. >>

----------------------------------
Always count on Todd for a good chuckle.

Hello is this Gandolf, 4th Earl of Nottingham ?
We'd like to sample your DNA to compare to other people named Nottingham to see if perhaps they are your long-lost cousins.... (who might then sue you to recover Nottingham to themselves you know).

You know I would really appreciate knowing that instead of being number 842,312 in line for the throne of Moravia, I'm only number 265. It would mean a lot fewer people to kill

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 39 (Chancery Proc., Bridg

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 19:34:10

To find obscure material, its much easiest to search http://www.worldcat.org
Rather than each library's separate system.

In this particular case, look at this search I just did, relevant to my own zip code

http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=lists- ... sults_page

wjhonson

Re: Adam de Monte Alto

Legg inn av wjhonson » 06 aug 2007 21:21:54

To help with the issue of the two John de Monte Alto's, I've found and
copy entire the index entry from A2A re the 1287 transaction below.

Will Johnson
----------
Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service: The Downes
Deeds
Reference Code: DDS
THE DOWNES DEEDS
Creation dates: 1233-1866
Creator(s): Downes family of Shrigley Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire
Held at: Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service
<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archon/searches/
locresult_details.asp?LR=17>
Immediate Source of Acquisition
DEPOSITED IN CHESHIRE R.O. 1977
Reference: DDS/20
Deed.
Creation dates: 11 July 1287

Physical characteristics: Parchment 1 membrane 8" wide by 3". Seals 2,
pendant on labels. (1) green, round, 23mm diam Legend; + S....... ..E
ALTO. Device; a shield and a lion rampant. (2) white, vesica of which
only upper part remains, 20mm by 25mm. Legend; illegible. Device; a
human figure erect holding a shield in each hand.

Scope and Content
Die veneris prox. post translacionem Sci.Thomas martiris anno Gracie
dni. m.co.octoginta septimo, coram pluribus in Capella de Poninton'.
Parties 1. John de Monte Alto and Elena de Stokep't his wife.
2. Thomas son and heir of Richard de Wrth and Margery his wife.
Witnesses, Sir Geoffrey de Chedele, Sir Richard de Stokep't, Kts.,
Henry de Trafford, Robert de Dounis, Henry de Honford, Henry son of
Henry de Trafford, Sir Robert de Maclisfeld chaplain.
Covenant; Quitclaim in consideration of 5 marks, of all party 1's
right and claim in all the lands and tenements etc., of which Richard
de Wrth' died seised in fee in the manor of Poninton', and to sixty
shillings which the said Richard de Wrth' was under bond to pay to
them annually for term of life of Elena.
Mark. A: K: 10 Poynton'

WJhonson

Re: Adam de Monte Alto

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 21:27:23

I want to note also, re this John de Monte Alto, there are several transactions in this collection naming him, not just this one.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 21:52:45

Thank you Spencer for the reference to CP III, pg 290 "Clifford"
The part relevant to the querent's original query appears there in footnote c, part of which I quote:

"...This last named Roger's wife is described on the Fine Rolls as "Comitissa de Lerett", and as "Countess of Lauretania" by Dugdale, who quote's Glover's Collections to the effect that he had married her at "St George in France in 1 Edw 1" VG

Now 1E1 would be 1272/3 and yet this Roger is given there as the *grandfather* of that Robert who is said to have been born abt Easter 1274.

So this should tell all that either:
A) this account of Roger marrying the Countess of L... something is wrong OR
B) that this woman was a later wife to Robert's grandfather, thus was not Robert's grandmother.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 aug 2007 22:20:11

You MAY find this page useful too.

Google is your friend.

<http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal26590>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»