Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Paul J Gans

Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?

Legg inn av Paul J Gans » 16 sep 2007 18:55:03

In alt.history.british a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fchr3j$8j6$2@reader1.panix.com...
In alt.history.british campofonensis@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:20 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:fXCGi.96$H_5.352@eagle.america.net...> Thoughtful.

But citation?

DSH

campofonen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189804724.863887.127460@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Sunlight is necessary for the synthesis of Vitamin D. As Homo
sapiens
migrated into northern localities with less sunshine scientists
believe they evolved (through natural selection) paler skin with
less
pigment, allowing more of the sun's rays to penetrate.

So why do Inuit etc. tend to be dark skinned?

Surreyman

One good possibility is that the Inuit had plenty of fish (and fish-
oil) in their diet. Fish-oil is one of the few natural foods that has
a good supply of Vitamin D. (Most other modern foods, such as milk,
are artificially supplemented with Vitamin D).

Another possibility is genetic drift. The gene for reduced skin
pigment (slc24a5) is most common among northern Europeans and their
descendants. Scientists estimate that the original mutation occurred
around 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. Possibly through generations of
natural selection it became well-established in that population.

The climate of northern Europe is overcast and cloudy, and the
original land was mostly forested allowing less sunlight to penetrate.
The Inuit live in the Arctic far north of the Equator where the days
of sunlight are also reduced. But the Artic is mostly open
(unforested) and perhaps a fair amount of sunlight is to penetrate.

A perhaps equally if not better possibility is that the Inuit
and other Arctic peoples are newcomers. Inuit seem to derive
from groups in Siberia whose skin is about the same shade.

It is entirely possible that the Inuit have only been living in
the far north for a very few thousand years. Evolution would not
have had much time to work in that case.

Further, conditions of sunlight are very different for the Inuit
than they are for the peoples north of the Sahara. Very different.

Agreed re Siberia etc., obviously, but why therefore are the local Siberians
also dark skinned?
It wasn't really a serious question, but it seems to be becoming so! :-))

I don't really know. But it would be interesting to know
how long they'd been in northern Siberia.

My guess is that all these peoples arrived *after* the last
ice age. There have been humans down in warmer areas for
far longer than that.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Gjest

RE: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 sep 2007 19:10:26

All,

I look for corrections and comments. Some of my dates seem to be in conflict.

I need to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, in search of Ivo de Vipont’s wife, Isabella de Lancaster.
I have given Ivo a birth window of between 1150-60, therefore I assume that his wife would have been born about that time and died before 1226. Isabella was heiress to Blencarn, Ainstable and Waverton. My question becomes how did a Lancaster become heiress of lands that were held by Gospatric son of Archil son of Ecgfrid?


A. Hugh de Morville, Contstable of Scotland, d. 1162 by Beatrice Beauchamp had:
\
1. Richard de Morville b.c. 1120’s married Avice de Lancaster.(Lancashire Inquests, Extents, and Feudal Aids (Farrer) states that William de Lancaster II, son of William de Lancaster I (who is supposed to have been the first baron of Kendal), living, 1170-1184 gave three townships of Great Eccleston, Little Eccleston and Larbrick, in Amounderness (Lancashire), to Richard de Morvill in marriage with his daughter, Avice de Lancaster."
2.Maude de Morville who married William de Veteriponte
\
2a. Ivo de Vipont who married Isabella de Lancaster, heiress to Blencarn, Ainstable and Waverton who died before 1226.

B. Simon de Moreville=Ada Engaine
\
1. Hugh de Moreville=Helewise de Stuteville, relict of William de Lancaster


Looking to the Reinfrid descent, it appears that we come to:
1.Reinfrid
\
Roger
\
Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid m. Hawise de Lancaster
\
1.William de Lancaster III
“The great baronies of Westmoreland and Kendal belonged to Gilbert son of Roger son of Reinfried. Gilbert son of Roger son of Reinfred (usually known as Gilbert Fitz Reinfred) was father of William de Lancaster III, Baron of Kendal who held land in Barton in Wapentake of Gilling East.” (VCH Cumberland, The Yorkshire Archaelogical Society Record Series.)
2. Roger
(According to Medieval Scotland; Crown, Lordship and Community, “Periphery and Core: Alan of Galloway” in 1217, notable among their absence as signatories on Alan of Galloway’s charter to John of Newbiggin is Roger of Lancaster, Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid’s illegitimate son.”

Andrew brought to my attention an earlier post of mone:
In Dugdale's Monasticon. Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell
A charter of Roberti filii Bernardi [including lands in Preston, Hotone super Ribill ]:
......; et pro salute regis Johannis Angliae , et sponsae, et pro salute Willielmi de Lancastria senioris, et junioris, et sponsarum suarum, et pro salute Gilberti filii Rogeri, et sponsae suaem et puerorum suorum; et pro salute Hugonis de Morvilla, et Helewisiae sponsae suae, et puerorum suorum...Witnessed by among others Roberto de Lancaster and Gilberto filio Rogeri, filio Rainfridi.............

Now to Ketel/Chetell who, please correct me, had:
\
1.William Fitz Ketel
2.Orm Fitz Ketel
a.Gospatric ((Nicholson and Burn: The History and Antiquities of the Counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland. A History of Cumberland [Sciant omnes tam presentes quam futuri quod ego Willelmus de Lancastra cum consilio consensus et concessione Willelmi fili et heredis me dedi et concessi et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Cospatricio filio Orme......."CWAAS.) Lord of Workingdon who exchanged lordship of Middleton, Westm. with his COUSIN, William de Lancaster (active 1153-60, live 1212.
1. Gilbert Fitz Ketel-Godith
\
4.William de Lancaster I=Gundred
\
4a. William de Lancaster II=Hawise de Stuteville b. ca. c. 1169—m2)Hugh de Morville
4b. Isabella de Lancasterb.c.1150=Ivo de Vipont????

Thank you in advance,
Pat


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Andrew Inge Lancaster" <andrew.en.inge@skynet.be>

A new note on this. I notice on Google Books that The annals of Kendal By
Cornelia Nicholson mentions "the Kerden's MSS" preserved in Manchester as
another document calling Gilbert "de Furnesio". I guess this might however
be a "tertiary" source. Anyone know this MSS?

The same MSS spelt Kuerden is also discussed on Google Books in History of
the county palatine ... of Lancaster. The biographical department ... By
Edward Baines, William Robert Whatton, which draw the family tree to make
Gilbert look more like a brother-in-law of Ketel, and adds another snippet
I'd never heard when it describes Netherwyresdale, held by William de
Lancaster, as "belonging likewise to the lords of Furness".

Which lords of Furness? There were not many people who could ever lay title
to Furness.

Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Lancaster-Boon [mailto:andrew.lancaster@skynet.be] On Behalf Of Andrew
Inge Lancaster
Sent: 14 September 2007 20:51
To: 'paul bulkley'; 'gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com'
Subject: RE: Gilbert of Lancaster


Concerning a, b and c, well, I've not heard that anyone has had success yet.
I presume you realize that Ayloffe wrote some centuries ago. It is therefore
possible he saw records which no longer exist.


-----Original Message-----
From: paul bulkley [mailto:designeconomic@yahoo.com]
Sent: 14 September 2007 18:29
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gilbert of Lancaster


(a) Gilbert Baron of Kendal appointed Receiver for the
County of Lancaster.
(b) Gilbert being also known as Gilbert de Furnesso.
It would seem very likely because of the Kendal
interests in Furness and adjoining areas.
(c) William 1 as Baron of Lancaster being constituted
"Seneschallus Hospitii Regis", and obtaining the
consent of Parliament to call himself Gilbert of
Lancaster.



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

Lancaster-Boon

RE: Gilbert of Lancaster

Legg inn av Lancaster-Boon » 16 sep 2007 20:36:52

Hi Pat

To remarks which I guess you'll expect from me given past correspondence...

1. Isn't the simplest theory to suggest that Isabella might have been the
daughter of a Thurseby? Given the coincidence of the three possession she
brought to her marriage (it seems) with those same three which were often
debated between members of that family both before and after her time? I
feel quite confident that William de Lancaster II had children in the
timeframe you mention by the way, long before his marriage to Hawise de
Stuteville and indeed they must have been her age. I speak of his frequently
mentioned sons Gilbert, who founded the Sockbridge Lancasters, and Jordan,
who was Constable of Cnaresburgh.

2. Do we have any primary source which names Gospatric a "COUSIN" of William
de Lancaster?

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster



-----Original Message-----
From: pajunkin@bellsouth.net [mailto:pajunkin@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 16 September 2007 20:10
To: Andrew Inge Lancaster; 'paul bulkley'; gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Gilbert of Lancaster

All,

I look for corrections and comments. Some of my dates seem to be in
conflict.

I need to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, in search of Ivo de
Vipont's wife, Isabella de Lancaster.
I have given Ivo a birth window of between 1150-60, therefore I assume that
his wife would have been born about that time and died before 1226. Isabella
was heiress to Blencarn, Ainstable and Waverton. My question becomes how did
a Lancaster become heiress of lands that were held by Gospatric son of
Archil son of Ecgfrid?


A. Hugh de Morville, Contstable of Scotland, d. 1162 by Beatrice Beauchamp
had:
\
1. Richard de Morville b.c. 1120's married Avice de Lancaster.(Lancashire
Inquests, Extents, and Feudal Aids (Farrer) states that William de
Lancaster II, son of William de Lancaster I (who is supposed to have been
the first baron of Kendal), living, 1170-1184 gave three townships of Great
Eccleston, Little Eccleston and Larbrick, in Amounderness (Lancashire), to
Richard de Morvill in marriage with his daughter, Avice de Lancaster."
2.Maude de Morville who married William de Veteriponte
\
2a. Ivo de Vipont who married Isabella de Lancaster, heiress to Blencarn,
Ainstable and Waverton who died before 1226.

B. Simon de Moreville=Ada Engaine
\
1. Hugh de Moreville=Helewise de Stuteville, relict of William de Lancaster


Looking to the Reinfrid descent, it appears that we come to:
1.Reinfrid
\
Roger
\
Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid m. Hawise de Lancaster
\
1.William de Lancaster III
"The great baronies of Westmoreland and Kendal belonged to Gilbert son of
Roger son of Reinfried. Gilbert son of Roger son of Reinfred (usually known
as Gilbert Fitz Reinfred) was father of William de Lancaster III, Baron of
Kendal who held land in Barton in Wapentake of Gilling East." (VCH
Cumberland, The Yorkshire Archaelogical Society Record Series.)
2. Roger
(According to Medieval Scotland; Crown, Lordship and Community, "Periphery
and Core: Alan of Galloway" in 1217, notable among their absence as
signatories on Alan of Galloway's charter to John of Newbiggin is Roger of
Lancaster, Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid's illegitimate son."

Andrew brought to my attention an earlier post of mone:
In Dugdale's Monasticon. Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell
A charter of Roberti filii Bernardi [including lands in Preston, Hotone
super Ribill ]:
......; et pro salute regis Johannis Angliae , et sponsae, et pro salute
Willielmi de Lancastria senioris, et junioris, et sponsarum suarum, et pro
salute Gilberti filii Rogeri, et sponsae suaem et puerorum suorum; et pro
salute Hugonis de Morvilla, et Helewisiae sponsae suae, et puerorum
suorum...Witnessed by among others Roberto de Lancaster and Gilberto filio
Rogeri, filio Rainfridi.............

Now to Ketel/Chetell who, please correct me, had:
\
1.William Fitz Ketel
2.Orm Fitz Ketel
a.Gospatric ((Nicholson and Burn: The History and Antiquities of the
Counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland. A History of Cumberland [Sciant
omnes tam presentes quam futuri quod ego Willelmus de Lancastra cum consilio
consensus et concessione Willelmi fili et heredis me dedi et concessi et hac
presenti carta mea confirmavi Cospatricio filio Orme......."CWAAS.) Lord of
Workingdon who exchanged lordship of Middleton, Westm. with his COUSIN,
William de Lancaster (active 1153-60, live 1212.
1. Gilbert Fitz Ketel-Godith
\
4.William de Lancaster I=Gundred
\
4a. William de Lancaster II=Hawise de Stuteville b. ca. c. 1169-m2)Hugh de
Morville
4b. Isabella de Lancasterb.c.1150=Ivo de Vipont????

Thank you in advance,
Pat

taf

Merovingian descent (was Re: Sinclairs in England before con

Legg inn av taf » 16 sep 2007 21:35:31

On Sep 16, 10:22 am, Tim <A.Windem...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Wikipedia article that lists Bertrada as the daughter of Theuderic
III is entitled "Bertrada of Prum". It lists "Royal Ancestry of Bible
Royal Ancestors of 300 Colonial American Families" by Michel L. Call
as a reference.

I do wish people would go to the trouble of citing the real source
rather than a compilation that simply copied the hypothesis from
somewhere else. I seriously doubt that Mr. Call did anything but the
most rudimentary evaluation of this hypothesis, and that probably at
second hand. Somewhere in the process, Chaume's dotted line has become
a solid one.

A more appropriate cite would be:

Maurice Chaume, "Études carolingiennes I: La famille de saint
Guillaume de Gellone", in _Annales de Bourgogne_, vol. I (1929),
27-56.

The argument is complex, suggesting that Rolent, progenitor of William
of Gellone, is sister of Bertrada, then that Bertrada is sister of
Clotaire IV, then that Chlotaire IV is son of Thierri III. In the
end, he used a solid line to link Clotaire IV, Childebert IV and
Clovis IV to Thierri, but only a dotted line to link Rolint and
Bertrada to him or even to each other. Clearly he never thought of it
as fact, but these are the kinds of distinctions that frequently fall
by the way side.

(Note that the Hugobert article gives her sisters, but unlike Chaume,
Werner concludes that Rolint was daughter of Bertrada, not sister.
Also, the Bertrada article says her husband is unknown, while the
Theuderic II one names her husband as Martin of Laon.)

The article that lists Bertrada as the daughter of
Hugobert is entitled "Hugobert".

I don't recall where this first appeared. I know I have seen it
several places, but I can't put my finger on it. Hopefully someone
else can pinpoint it.

And as if this weren't enough, Settipani, in his addendum (http://
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/addcharlENG.pdf) has suggested that
Bertrada was daughter-IN-LAW of Irmina, who was in turn not wife but
daughter of Hugobert. (He indicates that a discussion of Irmina is to
appear in an article, "L'ascendance carolingienne: A propos d'ouvrages
recent", to appear in 1990, but the chart showing this descent as
outlines above is in an addendum to the addenda, dated 2000, and was
to be followed by a new addition of the original work, where
presumably this would be discussed. I have not seen either of these,
so I cannot confirm what appeared there. I do note that in his work
on Capetian origins, he tentatively shows Bertrada as daughter of
Thierri (perhaps he is making her daughter of one and granddaughter-in-
law of the other).

This is really not the kind of situation that is best suited for the
encyclopedia format. These people are known from a handful of
documents at most, and the discussion of all of the different
hypotheses of how they fit together would take pages. (Were they not
found back the pedigree from Charlemage, would anyone consider
creating a page for an obscure 8th century abbess and her son?)

taf

Gjest

Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 01:07:10

On Sep 15, 8:45 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/15/2007 7:35:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

lostcoo...@yahoo.com writes:

Lizards?

------------
Yes google for David Icke.
You're out-of-the-loop if you don't already know that all positions of power
in the world are, and always have been controlled by shape-shifting lizards.

The Bush's are lizards also. Icke never really explains how the lizards can
be related to non-lizards through all the elaborate genealogy we've built
up, but then again HBHG never explained why Pierre Plantard should be singled
out among the millions of Merovingian descendents for special attention, or
why the rest of us weren't invited to join the Piory.

Will

************************************** See what's new athttp://www.aol.com

Devastating news...I love lizards. They're my favorite animals. They
run all over my property, up and down my walls inside & out, do threat
display pushups when they see me - fabulous little things. And this
guy says they're related to Bush!?

Tim

Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?

Legg inn av Tim » 17 sep 2007 01:11:43

On Sep 16, 1:12 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
G

DSH

"Normandy" <aab...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

news:46ed62ef$0$25933$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...



Mr Gans have you ever seen the aboriginals of Taiwan? They look
remarkable [sic] like the Inuit peoples.

Normandy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Athapascans, who live in western North America, were one of the
last Amerind groups to cross over the Bering Strait from Siberia into
Alaska. Some modern Athapascans (such as Apaches and Navajos) closely
resemble some Asiatic peoples, such as the Tibetans and Mongols. And
some individual members of Algonkin Amerindian groups in west central
U.S.A. also closely resemble them physically. A genetic study would be
interesting.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 02:16:52

Dear James ~

Because records in the medieval time period feature various and sundry
errors of omission and commission, it's impossible to get everything
entirely accurate in our present day accounts. Not only that, but
medieval records occasionally present two different versions of the
same event. All the same, accuracy IS important.

Unless, of course, it your own records. Then it is only as accurate
as you demand that it be.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 02:25:06

Dear Douglas,
Much Ado about very little.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 03:55:57

Dear Newsgroup ~

Here is the weblink to abstracts of several more feet of fine
involving other members of the baronial Botetourt family:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCi ... #PPA152,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCi ... #PPA154,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=h7DrCi ... Trulove%22

In the first fine cited above, the receiving parties are Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, and his wife, Maud. The fine is dated
1322-1323.
In the second fine cited above, the conveying parties are Sir John
Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, and his wife. Maud. It is dated
1323-1324.

In both of these fines, the surname Botetourt (actually Boutecourte or
Botecourt) is spelled without a "de." No surprise there.

The third fine is dated 1355-1356. The receiving party in this fine
is John Botetourt, of Mendlesham, Suffolk, who died in 1377. He was
the son of Otto Botetourt, younger son of John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt named above. The grantors are Sir Richard Trulove (or
Trewelove) and his wife, Sibyl, which Sibyl is doubtless John's re-
married mother, Sibyl. And, yes, the fine spells the name Botetourt
(actually Butecourt) without a "de." Again, no surprise.

For another fine involving the same parties in the same year, see the
following source:

Turner, Cal. of the Feet of Fines rel. to the County of Huntingdon
(1913): 77.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 08:35:05

In a message dated 9/16/2007 8:27:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

William means " Will protect".


===============
William from Vil-Helm is supposed to mean "Strong Protector"

I suppose Will is the same word as "will", i.e. your power to get your way ?
And Helm is the same word as the front of a ship, i.e that parts which
protects it ?

Not too clear on the etymology.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

John Briggs

Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 sep 2007 17:58:46

a.spencer3 wrote:
"Tim" <A.Windemere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189987903.239705.279740@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 1:12 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
G

DSH

"Normandy" <aab...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message

news:46ed62ef$0$25933$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...



Mr Gans have you ever seen the aboriginals of Taiwan? They look
remarkable [sic] like the Inuit peoples.

Normandy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Athapascans, who live in western North America, were one of the
last Amerind groups to cross over the Bering Strait from Siberia into
Alaska. Some modern Athapascans (such as Apaches and Navajos) closely
resemble some Asiatic peoples, such as the Tibetans and Mongols. And
some individual members of Algonkin Amerindian groups in west central
U.S.A. also closely resemble them physically. A genetic study would
be interesting.


These movements are well known, aren't they?
The original question was why these northern people are darker
skinned, re the original post regarding skin protection against the
sun.

Because the original statement was not actually correct.
--
John Briggs

Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 sep 2007 18:05:12

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Sep 17, 9:35 am, Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
< A message for Douglas Richardson
< Dear Douglas
< I'm sure you know how much I (usually) value your contributions to
SGM, and
< also the private help you have often given me.
< But :-
< (1) Why do you continue to flood the list with examples of Botetourt
and
< variants with no "de", and never cite a single counter-example from
the Calendar
< of Patent Rolls or elsewhere?

Actually I did post an example of Botetourt with a "de" from the
National Archives catalogue. Did you miss it?

I also posted two examples of John, 2nd Lord Botetourt, being called
"John de Botetourt" in passing references by his contemporaries in
legal proceedings. Did you miss this?

I also posted a possible seal in which John, 2nd Lord Botetourt, is
alleged to have used "de" on his seal. Did you miss it?

< 2) Why do you assert that the seals of members of the family are the
best
< evidence of the correct usage, when the seals use different
spellings of the
< name?

The seals were created at the request of the person whose seal it was
and bore their name as they wanted it to appear. So far in every
instance I can find, none of the Botetourt seals used a "de." The
exception is the one seal I found mentioned in the A2A Catalogue,
which for reasons that I have explained, I feel is in error.

< 3) On what authority do you assert that a mis-spelling of the name
would
< have invalidated a legal proceeding?

I've rummaged around in the Selden Society series and the Rolls series
for many years. There are discussions of legal proceedings in these
works in which people claimed that a writ was invalid because it got
their name wrong. As best I understand it, if the initial writ was
invalid, it would stop the whole proceedings, and the legal process
had to start all over. The same is true today, is it not? If you are
addressed as Michael Meyers in a writ when your name is Michael
Miller, the writ is invalid. Right?

In one medieval case I found, William la Zouche Mortimer (the well
known husband of Alice de Tony and Eleanor de Clare) claimed that a
writ addressed to him was invalid because it called him William la
Zouche de Mortimer, rather than William la Zouche Mortimer (with no
"de") which he claimed was his correct name. So I went back and check
other contemporary records. Sure enough, I found that William was in
fact called William la Zouche Mortimer (with no de) on several
occasions in other contemporary records. This evidently was his
choice of style for his unusual doubled name. However, you can also
find him in contemporary records being called William la Zouche de
Mortimer. Confused yet?

If we accept William's own statement about the style of his name, this
would be a correction to Complete Peerage. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 957,
footnote f (sub Zouche) alleges that William changed his name from
William de Mortimer to William la Zouche. There is NO mention of his
name being William la Zouche Mortimer. Curiously, I see he was
summoned to Parliament initially as William la Zouche, but later some
summons were addressed to him as William la Zouche de Mortimer (with
the "de"). My guess is that William confounded all of his
contemporaries with his unusual doubled name.

Ellis, by the way, cites two seals for William la Zouche Mortimer, but
the legends are not readable on either of them.

< On the last point I wonder how any member of the Sprenchose or
Blanchminster
< or Whittington or Botetourt families could ever have brought a
successful
< lawsuit.

In the case of Botetourt, I've seen sufficient evidence to indicate
that they were informally known by their contemporaries as both
"Botetourt" and "de Botetourt," but they themselves called themselves
"Botetourt" without the "de." This would explain the confusion
regarding this surname exhibited by Complete Peerage, Dugdale, Bull,
and other authorities. My guess is that they would have answered a
writ directed to them either as "Botetourt" or "de Botetourt," as well
as a writ under any variant spelling of Botetourt.

< with best regards
< MM

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Briggs

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av John Briggs » 17 sep 2007 18:12:49

Douglas Richardson wrote:
In one medieval case I found, William la Zouche Mortimer (the well
known husband of Alice de Tony and Eleanor de Clare) claimed that a
writ addressed to him was invalid because it called him William la
Zouche de Mortimer, rather than William la Zouche Mortimer (with no
"de") which he claimed was his correct name.

I would imagine that his claim met with as much derision then as it would
now.
--
John Briggs

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 18:35:25

A message for Douglas Richardson
Dear Douglas
I'm sure you know how much I (usually) value your contributions to SGM, and
also the private help you have often given me.
But :-
(1) Why do you continue to flood the list with examples of Botetourt and
variants with no "de", and never cite a single counter-example from the Calendar
of Patent Rolls or elsewhere?
2) Why do you assert that the seals of members of the family are the best
evidence of the correct usage, when the seals use different spellings of the
name?
3) On what authority do you assert that a mis-spelling of the name would
have invalidated a legal proceeding?
On the last point I wonder how any member of the Sprenchose or Blanchminster
or Whittington or Botetourt families could ever have brought a successful
lawsuit.
with best regards
MM

Volucris

Re: Fictive British history set in real Welsh past?

Legg inn av Volucris » 17 sep 2007 18:40:18

Thanks Paul, for this illuminating reference to a clear cut answer on
the internet. I've added the remarks of the author to the text of my
book as a clear warning that if it looks interesting and reads
interesting, it still can be suggestively misleading concerning to the
actual facts and knowledge.

Hans Vogels

On 16 sep, 18:49, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

'The Keys to Avalon' made made the most impression.

"... The authors need to locate all the geographical names of the Brut
in Wales, so they actively seek candidates, based partly on the
similarity of modern names and partly on the hints given in the Middle
Welsh sources. They state that there is only one possibility for
identifying a Temys in Wales: the River Teme, a tributary of the
Severn. Whilst the modern name certainly contains the element *tam-
that would produce Tem- in Middle Welsh, the ­-ys ending of Temys
requires some sort of suffix in Brittonic, either *- s or *- ss . In
fact, the River Thames contains such an element, as it derives from
Brittonic *Tam ss , and there are Old English forms of the name with
the spellings Temis and Temes that parallel the Middle Welsh form
Temys precisely.

Their search for Llundain takes them back to Geoffrey of Monmouth,
where the name Kairlud is translated Londinium in Latin, but they
argue that the name is preserved in Ludlow, on the River Teme.
However, Ludlow is recorded in the twelfth century as Ludelaw, a name
containing Old English -hlæw ('hill') and a prefix that appears to be
Old English hl d ('loud'), probably a reference to the River Teme.

Kairlud is apparently an invention of Geoffrey, as it is not found in
earlier writers. Llundain, however, has a clear derivation that,
despite the most superficial of similarities, cannot be connected with
Ludlow. Llundain occurs as Cair Lundein in Old Welsh (the Harleian MS
of the Historia Brittonum Chapter 66a has Lundem in error, which has
made its way into the printed editions, while others have Lunden).
This Old Welsh form gives Old English Lunden and itself derives from a
Brittonic *L ndonion, attested as the Late Latin form Lundinium in
Ammianus Marcellinus's Res Gestae (xxvii.8, xxviii.3 and xx.1), the
earlier Londinium, London. ..."

http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/arthuriana/ ... valon.html

Volucris

Re: Fictive British history set in real Welsh past?

Legg inn av Volucris » 17 sep 2007 18:45:03

Thanks Paul,

I think that the co-author disagrees but the name Adrian Gilbert is
more associated with sensasional then with serious scientific
authorship.

Hans Vogels

On 16 sep, 18:42, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

the subject I had bought 'The Holy Kingdom. The quest for the real
king Arthur '(Alan Wilson, Baram Blackett, Adrian Gilbert)

"... With this point proved the rest of their argument falls to bits.
I could go on for pages, but this is not the place. The rest of the
book contains inaccuracies and leaps of faith based on the works of
South Wales antiquarians from the 19th century. These works where some
of the earliest attempts to look at welsh history, but are woefully
inadequate by today's standards. The Holy Kingdom may appear a good
story to those not familiar with Welsh manuscripts, but by ignoring
most of the modern academic works on Welsh history the authors have
achieved very little. ..."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custom ... ref=cm_c...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Trained Seals

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 sep 2007 18:49:52

Indeed.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-5E33C9.10295117092007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

The examples you give above are all genitives, but they are titles not
names (duke of X, queen of y). It is worthwhile to look systematically
at how bynames without titles are used on seals too.

But I think I'm stepping in rather late to another of those silly
arguments.

Volucris

Re: Fictive British history set in real Welsh past?

Legg inn av Volucris » 17 sep 2007 18:57:31

Paul,

Thanks for the informative reference. At the time it looked like a
nice book for a interested outstander. In the English speaking
countries there seems to be so much more interesting books published
then in Holland. When abroad I ocasionly tend to indulge my historic
curiousity.

Hans Vogels

On 16 sep, 18:34, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

'King
Arthur. The truth behind the legend' (Rodney Castleden).

"... Current scholarship on the early Welsh sources is virtually
ignored. The dating of early Welsh texts is often ill founded and the
descriptions are confusing, misleading or simply wrong. These
criticisms are not quibbles over details, for these texts are among
the Arthurian documents cited and used as sources for the arguments
put forward. For example, had the author been in closer touch with
modern Welsh scholarship, he would have known better than to venture
to use the impossible "translation" of the poem, Marwnad Uthr Ben
(here Marwnad Uthyr Pendragon), still less to base any conclusion upon
it. The lack of knowledge of Welsh scholarship and thus of the status
of certain texts becomes particularly important in the closing section
of the book, when the "truth" behind Arthur's death is to be revealed.
The basis for the proposal that Arthur died at Whithorn is a triad in
one of the bogus documents forged in the eighteenth century by the
remarkable Iolo Morganwg. His so-called Third Series of triads has
been shown to be spurious since the early years of the last century
(it was suspect even to his contemporaries) and the text, together
with Iolo's "translation," has been discussed and annotated by Dr
Rachel Bromwich. Without this triad and the assumptions made, there is
no justification for associating Whithorn with Arthur or with the
location of his grave, and the elaborate scenario proposed here
collapses. ..."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_79548489

Volucris

Re: Fictive British history set in real Welsh past?

Legg inn av Volucris » 17 sep 2007 19:33:03

On 16 sep, 14:01, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:43 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:





On 16 sep, 04:12, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

On Sep 15, 5:36 pm, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

Steve Blake, Scott Lloyd work as historical consultants for the North
Wales tourist board.
John Baldock is a teacher, art historian and pubished author.

Some of the catching phrases from the back cover:

. . .

The Keys to Avalon is the first work to unlock the doors to a past
that has been swathed in myth and legend, revealing a landscap which
is as real as it is hauntingly magical.

This would all be more believable if the same claim wasn't made
several times a year on the jacket of every new book on Arthur, and
each one giving a different "key" to the past.

taf

Hi Todd,

True. A book title can make the difference between taking it in the
hand or looking further. The cover text makes you decide to open it or
put it back. Many a book is of the category HBHG and DVC. Even then it
can be amusing to read how authors can spin a story out of nothing.

The 'claims with detailed references to original Welsh textual
sources, maps and genealogical charts, goes beyond well-known
Arthurian texts to their roots in ancient
Welsh manuscripts ande the history of the land' made me curious enough
to browse through.
Hello Todd,


You're right on that score. Is the one on your bookshelve of the ' The
Age of Arthur ' quality? As that book is from 1973 I can imagine that
since then there must undoubtly be a more recent updated scholarly
publication available?

Hans Vogels

Yeah, but I have a different one on my bookshelf that also goes beyond
the well-known texts into the other manuscript sources and also
presents a convincing argument, but reaches a completely different
conclusion. And there are many others besides yours and mine. About
once a year, some legitimate, serious scholar or scholars come out
with a revolutionary new insight that solves the problem, and they all
reach different solutions. I am sure yours and mine won't be the last,
either.

taf- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 19:37:58

In a message dated 9/17/2007 8:35:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Johanni Botetourt,
whereby he may be held to have become Lord Botetourt."


=====================

Douglas can you tell us what language "Johanni Botetourt" is in ?
And then can you tell us if that language has the expression "de Botetourt"
in it?

Thanks
Will Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of S

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 19:43:02

In a message dated 9/17/2007 9:20:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

1. draw conclusion
2. look for data that agrees with conclusion
3. figure out how to deny any data that disagrees

The conclusion should flow from the data, not be used to filter or
evaluate the data.


=================
You get an "F" in the DR school of history. Now get out.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 20:01:58

They are darker skinned because they are newer. They haven't yet had the
time to bleach out.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

WJhonson

Re: Wingfield ancestry for Col. Thomas Neel (d. 1779)?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 sep 2007 20:08:16

<<In a message dated 09/17/07 09:30:39 Pacific Standard Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
Looking through WorldConnect, I find the following page for Col.
Thomas Neel of New Acquisition District [ie, now York County], SC:

http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? ... th&id=I996 >>

====================
Not to distract from the current from the current campaign to rid all Botetourt's of "de", but since we (I use the Royal We) this week are being so exact, I should point out that Thomas Neel was not born in "1731 in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina" as Ms Ann Walker would here have us believe.

The primary reason for my caustic assertion is that Mecklenburg did not exist until 1763, when it was formed from Anson County. Anson itself did not exist in 1731.

In fact, although one might scoffingly assert that he was born "in that area which *would later become* Mecklenburg" and that I'm being hyper critical, I assert on a perhaps loose authority, that there were no whites living in that area in 1731. Or at least none who left record.

And so, gentle reader, one must regard with a heightened scrutiny any assertion of Ms Ann Walker's page to connect the son to the father.

Will Johnson

John Brandon

Re: Wingfield ancestry for Col. Thomas Neel (d. 1779)?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 sep 2007 20:22:20

And so, gentle reader, one must regard with a heightened scrutiny any assertion of Ms Ann Walker's page to connect the son to the father.

Will Johnson

Well, no, there's no real reason to doubt the connection of the father
to the son, as Walter B. Edgar, ed., _Biographical Directory of the
South Carolina House of Representatives_ states Col. Thomas Neel was
son of Thomas and Sarah Neel. There might be slightly greater doubt
as to whether the first Thomas was son of Henry, but I don't find it
terribly unbelievable, as families on the Outer Banks often moved far
inland (the Outer Banks have always been a hurricane magnet).

Col. Thomas Neel was apparently more literate than the average,
serving three or four times in the SC House of Representatives (or
Provincial Congress, or whatever it was called then), and acting as
trustee of Queen's College, Charlotte.

But you're right, there is some anachronistic place-naming going on in
that webpage.

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 20:23:03

In a message dated 9/17/2007 10:10:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, royalanc
estry@msn.com writes:

In the case of Botetourt, I've seen sufficient evidence to indicate
that they were informally known by their contemporaries as both
"Botetourt" and "de Botetourt," but they themselves called themselves
"Botetourt" without the "de."


==================
You cannot claim that CPR is both formal and informal. It uses both, and so
the best you can say is that they were called both but had a preference. Or
rather the clerks who actually wrote out the stuff did.

But then again almost everything you've cited, is a translation and you
haven't cited the underlying language in the first place so how are we ever going
to know in this particular case what it says or doesn't say.

Will



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

taf

Re: Further comment on Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel d

Legg inn av taf » 17 sep 2007 21:09:14

On Sep 17, 12:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:


While it is true that Isabel de Stafford's nephew, Richard de Vernon,
would have had legal recourse once he came of age to reclaim the
Camville inheritance, . . . .


On what basis? It was granted by the then-current landholder to the
recipient of her choice. Is anyone listed as putting forward an
interest?



A few take-home lessons:

The 'rules' of heraldry are more modern constructs than medieval ones,
and one must be careful in extrapolating what a quartering "should"
mean.

Inheritance is not the only means by which property can pass.

It is good to evaluate the evidence without already having made up
your mind.

Having people challenge your interpretation need not be a bad thing -
it can lead to further illumination. This group functions best when
an issue is debated, rather than the answer simply proclaimed as the
inviolable truth.

Things here can become contentious enough without inviting in
discussions of Inuit skin color or the invention of gunpowder by
crossposting.

taf

WJhonson

Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 sep 2007 21:14:05

Yes I agree that it seems reasonable that the Brut by Tysilio manuscripts in Welsh are not in fact translations from Geoffrey's Latin, but rather are, copies of the work which he translated into Latin.

The idea isn't new, I think we had a good row about it on Wikipedia a few years ago, based on a paper some decades old claiming the same thing (I don't recall the details).

Google Books purports to have this Brut, but the work they link is merely Geoffrey again. It's possible the Brut has never been translated independently into English. It would certainly be useful were the surviving manuscripts all collated and a scholarly edition published.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 sep 2007 21:17:25

<<In a message dated 09/16/07 03:00:25 Pacific Standard Time, paulvheath@gmail.com writes:
Geoffrey didn't use chronology. You cannot apply dates to his fiction. >>

=============
Geoffrey used dates in his work in a few places. He also named people who we know are real such as Claudius. He mentions in several places things like "this occurred at the same time as Christ was born", or "this occurred when Solomon was king" or other things like that. So it is possible to apply dates to his work, sometimes firm dates such as when Claudius invaded Britain, sometimes squishy dates like when Moses was crossing the Red Sea.

I'm not the first person to try, there is an edition of his work on Google Books which purports to date the reigns of each king. Of course, just like trying to apply dates to all the events in the Bible, you run into problems which do not have simple solutions.

Will

taf

Re: Fictive British history set in real Welsh past?

Legg inn av taf » 17 sep 2007 21:17:57

On Sep 17, 11:33 am, Volucris <voluc...@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

You're right on that score. Is the one on your bookshelve of the ' The
Age of Arthur ' quality?

No, it is of the "We have finally discovered the fascinating and
previously unsuspected truth behind the mystery" variety.

As that book is from 1973 I can imagine that
since then there must undoubtly be a more recent updated scholarly
publication available?

I don't know that there is. A historical Arthur has lost favor in the
academic press, while the popular press needs a hook - mystery
sources, startling conclusions, conspiracies by the main stream.

Along these lines, has anyone seen a scholarly review of Tolstoy's
work on Merlin. It started fairly convincing, but seemed to grow
much less so as it went along.

taf

Matthew Connolly

Re: Further comment on Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel d

Legg inn av Matthew Connolly » 17 sep 2007 21:24:57

Thank you Douglas, I am glad to have been of service; but feel myself
particularly indebted to Todd and Rosie, who know a good deal more
than I do I think. There is obviously more to discover about this case
and I hope there are still extant records, yet to come to our
attention, which will help to build up the picture.

We can only guess at motivations, but Richard Stafford was evidently a
forceful character, as indicated by his securing the Pype inheritance;
the ODNB mentions that at a 1359 assize concerning the manor of Pipe,
the sheriff attended wearing Stafford's livery. It could be that the
Vernons had the promise of Stafford influence ahead, but tended to die
too young to enjoy it, at least until the time of Sir Richard, the
Speaker, who was granted some lands by the earl of Stafford according
to HoP (and at the end of his life was steward of Llanstephan- among
other posts- perhaps coincidentally).

-Matthew

John Brandon

Re: Wingfield ancestry for Col. Thomas Neel (d. 1779)?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 sep 2007 21:27:35

Not to distract from the current from the current campaign to rid all Botetourt's of "de", but since we (I use the Royal We) this week are being so exact, I should point out that Thomas Neel was not born in "1731 in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina" as Ms Ann Walker would here have us believe.

She's wrong about the date anyway if his tombstone says "40 years old"
at death in 1779. There were starting to be small settlements in the
middle part of North Carolina by 1740, I believe (people would have
traveled through there going from Georgia and South Carolina to
Virginia).

WJhonson

Re: Anna of Arimathea - who is HER husband?

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 sep 2007 21:41:55

<<In a message dated 09/16/07 03:00:25 Pacific Standard Time, paulvheath@gmail.com writes:
Claudius did not have a genuine daughter called Genuissa. His children
were: Claudius Drusus (died young), Claudia (not recognized), Antonia,
Octavia, and Britannicus. >>
==================
By his first wife, Plautia Urgulanilla, Claudius had:
*Claudius Drusus choked to death on a pear, sometime between 22 and 28
*Claudia Antonia, who was repudiated by her father.

Claudius divorced Plautia on the grounds of Adultery abt 24. Very convenient that Drusus died isn't it.

Claudius married his second wife Aelia Paetina in 28 and they divorced in 31
By this second wife he had:
*Claudia Antonia who married firstly Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 43 but him dying between 45 and 50 allowed her to marry secondly Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix "consul in 52"

Sources disagree as to *why* Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus died, but they agree he was murdered or executed (as you will).

Felix was exiled in 59 and murdered in 62 by order of Nero. Claudia managed to survive until 66 when she was executed by order of Nero. They had a son Cornelius who died at age 2.

Claudius married his third wife Valeria Messalina who was also related to him in the following way :

Claudius' mother's mother's father was Gaius Octavius, Governor of Macedonia who died in 58 BC. Gaius married Atia Balba Caesoria daughter of Marcus Atius Balbus a Senator.

Messalina's father's mother's mother's father was this same couple Gaius Octavius and Atia Balba Caesoria.

Claudius and Messalina had two children:
*Claudia Octavia March 40 who married Nero and was executed 8 Jun 62 on his order
*Tiberius Claudius Caesar Brittanicus born 12 Feb 41 poisoned in 55

Claudius married fourthly in 49 to Julia Vipsania Agrippina Minor, his cousin, and the mother of Nero his successor.

Claudius and his fourth wife were even more closely related, both being descendents of Marc Antony by Octavia and also the "wicked" Livia Drusilla by her first husband Tiberius Claudius Nero. Julia was Claudius' niece....

They had no children.

Claudius died 13 Oct 54 "perhaps poisoned by his fourth wife, his niece Agrippina". That fourth wife, mother of Nero was executed on his order Mar 59,

Nero died without children and thus ended the Julio-Claudian house. They all wiped each other out.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Trained Seals

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 sep 2007 22:19:26

Dear Nat,
One person came to me direct and that person had recognised that I was only
having some fun. Surely you realised I was having a gentle dig at someone
(trained seals, well who would that be?). My reasoning is that seals are
usually not large items and they may have left off "de" in Botetourt.

Both CP and Burke's Extinct peerage made a disctinction. The family name was
displayed with "de" but the title not, and so how valid are those seals? In
my opinion Richardson was too dogmatic in his approach.

I have been quiet on Gen-Med lately, simply because I am disgusted and I am
seriously considering pulling the plug.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: Trained Seals


In article <mailman.2410.1190014035.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

"Zegels en Genealogische Gegevens van de Graven en Hertogen van Gelre,
Graven
van Zutphen", is a book by Mr. A. P. van Schilfgaarde, published in 1967
in
Arnhem.

Some 142 seals are described, and additional information is added to each
one.

For example,
Gerard, graaf van Gelre, (1182) en Boulogne (1181)
on the seal : SIGILLYM GE(rar)DI CO(mit)IS.BOLONIE

Otto I, graaf van Gelre en Zutphen
on the seal OTTO DEI GRACIA GELRENSIS ET SVTFANIAE/COMES

Alianora van Engeland, gravin van Gelre en Zutphen
on the seal
S(igillvm).ALIANORE;FILIE;REGIS;ANGLIE;CO/MI(t)ISSE;GHELRTEN(sis);ET.ZYTPHANIE
N(sis)

Maria van Gelre, koningin van Schotland
on the seal S(igillvm).MARIE;REGINE;(S)COTIE;FILIE/DVCIS;GELR(ie) ET
IVLIERS

Of the 142 there are 25 which do give of/van/de but most of those were
women.

If we allow seals to be the deciding factor, I would say we only have
Count
Gelre and Dukes Gelre , as of the 142 there are 117 who do not give
of/van/de................................

Seal inscriptions usually bear the Latin genitive rendering of a place
name. Charters contemporary to those seals often use the genitive
interchangeably with "de" plus the ablative; I don't think it is known
when toponyms began to lose the 'de' in everyday speech, but for
England, looking at a large-ish random sample of deeds in French rather
than Latin would be a good way to approach the question.

The examples you give above are all genitives, but they are titles not
names (duke of X, queen of y). It is worthwhile to look systematically
at how bynames without titles are used on seals too.

But I think I'm stepping in rather late to another of those silly
arguments.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

-------------------------------
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: Further comment on Maud de Camville's daughter, Isabel d

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 22:51:27

On 17 Sep., 20:30, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(irritating cross-postings trimmed)

Dear Newsgroup ~

Reviewing all of the evidence presented to date regarding Maud de
Camville's family, I'm struck by the fact that there were two separate
and competing claims among her later descendants who claimed to be her
heirs. These would be her Stanley descendants who were the
representatives of her known daughter, Isabel de Vernon, wife of Sir
Richard de Stafford. The Stanley family displayed the Camville arms,
but not the Vernon arms, on their tombs. And, then we have the male
line descendants of William de Vernon whose descendants displayed both
the Vernon and Camville arms on their tombs. Under normal
circumstances, both wings of the Vernon family would not be considered
to be the heir to Maud de Camville. Either one set of descendants
would be Maud's heirs, or the other. But not both.

In this case, for reasons which I do not fully understand, it appears
that BOTH sets of claimants were heirs to Maud de Camville. The
reasons for this are a bit technical, but I think I understand the
process involved.

I am not sure you do. "Technically", what you allege is not so:
unless a coheirship exists (ie females with equal shares) there can be
only one heir under the legal system in question. An heir is normally
defined as he who succeeds *by right of blood* to the real property of
an ancestor or other relation.

Those who acquire property as the result of a grant or purchase are
successors, not heirs. The fact that the grant in this case was to
relatives is irrelevant: they did not thereby also become heirs.

The use of the Camville arms by both lines of descendants, male and
female, is misleading: it does not represent blood heirship in the way
that modern heraldry normally would, but - as Todd has repeatedly
pointed out - in mediaeval times could represent a descent that was
considered important, or even a succession to property without a blood
link [this same is still effected heraldically, for instance in "name-
and-arms" clauses in wills, Royal licences etc]. Or it could
represent a faulty memory or an audacious false claim - the
Visitations are absolutely littered with early heraldry of this kind.

Both branches may have claimed to be heirs, and may have exhibited the
trappings of heirship (although we cannot say that in this case that
is what the display was arms was intended to do) but their mere claim
would not magically alter the legal concept of heirship.

Here are some examples to assist:

(1) When Sir John Freville died in 1372, he seems have had left no
surviving legitimate issue. His widow, Ellen, retained an interest in
some of his properties, and on her death in 1380 these passed to her
brother-in-law Robert Freville. It is worth noting that her IPM (Cal.
IPMs, Vol XV, 1-7 Richard II, p 141) states that Robert is Sir John's
heir; her heir is unknown to the jury - i.e. Robert is not her heir,
merely her successor in title.

In a curious parallel, Sir John appears to have left a daughter, who
married a Burgoyne and possibly took to him some property at Caxton,
Cambs [presumably by grant or bequest]. The Burgoynes consequently
quartered the Freville arms. It is difficult to assess what this
means. Perhaps Sir John's daughter was illegitimate, and they
quartered the arms simply to show the familial connection or the
descent of real property.

(2) When Elizabeth Wolverston nee Fitzralph died in 1418, the property
which was the subject of her IPM (Cal IPMs, vol XXI, #264 p 76) passed
to Thomas Wolverston, the only other person named in the IPM. She was
an heiress, and she left three daughters as her coheirs, as a
commission several years afterwards shows (Cal. Inquisitions
Miscellaneous, vol VIII 1422-1485, p 15). Thomas was not her son; he
was her brother-in-law. Accordingly, we see the IPM uses different
language in describing this situation: he is not called her heir, but
it is said that the properties pass to him by remainder (ie under an
entail or other settlement).

MAR

WJhonson

Re: Sinclairs in England before conquest

Legg inn av WJhonson » 17 sep 2007 22:55:12

<<In a message dated 09/16/07 10:25:18 Pacific Standard Time, A.Windemere@gmail.com writes:
The Wikipedia article that lists Bertrada as the daughter of Theuderic
III is entitled "Bertrada of Prum". It lists "Royal Ancestry of Bible
Royal Ancestors of 300 Colonial American Families" by Michel L. Call
as a reference. The article that lists Bertrada as the daughter of
Hugobert is entitled "Hugobert". >>

===============
I've edited Bertha's article to make it more clear hopefully.

Note on Hugobert, there are no references at all. In that case, it's appropriate to add to the top of the article the tag {{sources}} which puts up a banner requesting that the article *as a whole* needs a source. The alternative *small* request would be to tag a particular line with {{fact}} which only requests a source for the one statement.

It's likely that someone does have sources on the life of Hugobert, so we'll see

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

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 sep 2007 23:33:28

On 17 Sep., 18:05, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(pointless cross-posting removed)

I've rummaged around in the Selden Society series and the Rolls series
for many years. There are discussions of legal proceedings in these
works in which people claimed that a writ was invalid because it got
their name wrong. As best I understand it, if the initial writ was
invalid, it would stop the whole proceedings, and the legal process
had to start all over. The same is true today, is it not? If you are
addressed as Michael Meyers in a writ when your name is Michael
Miller, the writ is invalid. Right?

Perhaps Utah still operates under a form of mediaeval law, but England
mercifully does not (in fact, writs have now been largely superceded
by "claims forms"). The question is more likely to be whether any mis-
statement of the name is likely to be materially misleading or
confusing. If the party can be clearly identified, then the
accidental omission of the third of a series of Christian names is
unlikely to save the defendent from having to respond.

The whole question here, now drowning in the unnecessary deluge of
posts purporting to show that "Botetourt" was frequently used sans
"de", even though no-one is disputing that fact, is whether "de
Botetourt" is an acceptable, contemporary alternative to "Botetourt".
Quoting 20th century transcripts or abstracts is not really very
helpful in this, because they could represent the bias or preconceived
notion of the transcriber/redactor/editor etc.

As always, primary material is best [have you ever read an actual
mediaeval century document, by the way?]. That is why the seals are
actually very powerful evidence. But so are the IPMs and anything
else of a contemporary nature that shows what was used at the time,
whether by the family or those dealing with them. And it is not
necessarily compelling to look only at what the family called
themselves: I may call myself Mike, though the rest of the formal
world considers me Michael Andrews-Reading; in this case, what I am
known as to the rest of the world is not "incorrect" or irrelevant.

From the material presented thus far, it seems that the usual form of
the name was "Botetourt", but that "de Botetourt" was also sometimes

used. Thus, while it would be incorrect to talk about "de
Plantagenets" or "de Tudors", I cannot see why it is wrong to use a
form that has been the norm in referring to the family for centuries
and represents one of the documented contemporary alternatives.

If you don't want to use it, that's fine.

MAR

Leo van de Pas

Re: Trained Seals

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 sep 2007 23:38:40

When decent people are willing to communicate with "Dear Spencer", I feel
sick. The only way the word dear applies to Hines is the cost to gen-med.
In the process after my operation I am expected to go to remedial gym four
times a week. I have a backlog of some 1200 great emails in reference to
Scandinavia. My website requires daily attention, I just have to access how
to use my time, are pipsqueaks really worth dealing with?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Trained Seals


On 17 Sep., 22:19, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Nat,
One person came to me direct and that person had recognised that I was
only
having some fun. Surely you realised I was having a gentle dig at someone
(trained seals, well who would that be?). My reasoning is that seals are
usually not large items and they may have left off "de" in Botetourt.

Both CP and Burke's Extinct peerage made a disctinction. The family name
was
displayed with "de" but the title not, and so how valid are those seals?
In
my opinion Richardson was too dogmatic in his approach.

I have been quiet on Gen-Med lately, simply because I am disgusted and I
am
seriously considering pulling the plug.


Dear Leo

The idea is too horrible - take a bit of a well-earned rest by all
means, but the decent folks here (and those with a real interest in
mediaeval genealogy) couldn't do without you.

I feel the same at times, but then I think - why allow the trolls to
win?

It's annoying to have to hit them on the head so often, like moles
springing up on a nice clean lawn, but it has to be done, and
hopefully we can all encourage each other in the process.

Best wishes, Michael

PS I appreciated the Trained Seals reference.


Douglas Richardson

Re: Another Complete Peerage Correction: Botetourt not de Bo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 18 sep 2007 00:12:41

Dear Will ~

What I said was that there existed sufficient evidence to indicate
thar the Botetourt family was known informally to their contemporaries
as both "Botetourt" (without the de) and as "de Botetourt" (with the
de). However, it appears that the family formally chose to known
known as Botetourt (without the de).

The best evidence I think which indicates the family preferred to go
without the "de" are the various armorial seals which have survived,
the various Parliamentary writs directed to John Botetourt, 1st Lord
Botetourt, and the various fines I cited.

I believe that Complete Peerage exclusively uses the formal address of
people, rather than informal. As such, it would be correct for
Complete Peerage to style the 1st Lord Botetourt as John Botetourt,
rather than John de Botetourt. That's all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 17, 11:23 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 9/17/2007 10:10:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royalanc
<
< es...@msn.com writes:
<
< In the case of Botetourt, I've seen sufficient evidence to indicate
< that they were informally known by their contemporaries as both
< "Botetourt" and "de Botetourt," but they themselves called
themselves
< "Botetourt" without the "de."

< You cannot claim that CPR is both formal and informal. It uses
both, and so
< the best you can say is that they were called both but had a
preference. Or
< rather the clerks who actually wrote out the stuff did.
<
< But then again almost everything you've cited, is a translation and
you
< haven't cited the underlying language in the first place so how are
we ever going
< to know in this particular case what it says or doesn't say.
<
< Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Trained Seals

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 sep 2007 00:18:44

Leo needs a Hot Toddy and a LOOOOOONING NAP....

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Deus Vult

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2442.1190068741.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

When decent people are willing to communicate with "Dear Spencer", I feel
sick. The only way the word dear applies to Hines is the cost to gen-med.
In the process after my operation I am expected to go to remedial gym four
times a week. I have a backlog of some 1200 great emails in reference to
Scandinavia. My website requires daily attention, I just have to access
how to use my time, are pipsqueaks really worth dealing with?
Leo

Leo van de Pas

Re: About wife of Otto III

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18 sep 2007 01:23:17

As far as I know he did not marry. He was only a bit over 21 years of age
when he died.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <sanbajramovic@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:21 AM
Subject: About wife of Otto III


Is anybody can answer me,did Otto III,Holy Roman Emperor ever been
married? Thank you.


-------------------------------
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: Aylesbury/Somery marriage

Legg inn av WJhonson » 18 sep 2007 02:43:08

You will recall a thread here called
Subj: Complete Peerage Addition: The Much Married Iseult (__) (de Bodrugan) (de Pomeroy) de Aylesbury - Part I

In which Douglas detailed three marriages for Iseult
1) Sir Roger de Bodrugan, Knt living 1271, dead by 1277
2) Henry V de Pomeroy did Jul 1281, shortly before the 12th
3) Sir Walter de Aylesbury, Knt living in 1309

The known dates give enough leeway to allow this Iseult to not only be this wife, but also that mother you are seeking. I had previously had her with a wide birthrange of 1220 to 1280, recently narrowed per DR's latest posting re Somery which I assume you are also looking at.

And now narrowed further by your finding of the grant while the heir of Walter was evidently still a minor. Additionally placing Iseult as this Somery female allows an even FURTHER constriction of her dates, as it is known that Amabilia de Chaucombe could not have married Roger de Somery Lord of Dudley any earlier than 1254 and also no later than 1256.

So now Iseult must have been born quite exactly between 1254 and 1262. See if those dates work.

Will

Rosie Bevan

Re: Aylesbury/Somery marriage

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 18 sep 2007 03:11:13

On Sep 18, 12:16 pm, "Hal Bradley" <hw.brad...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 15 Dec. 2000, Rosie Bevan kindly posted a "Manuscript Pedigree of the
Aylesbury Family" by William Flower, Norroy of Arms, 1581. The pedigree is
headed by Walter de Aylesbury who is followed by his son Philip, grandson
Thomas, and great-grandson John. John de Aylesbury was born 6 May 1334.
John's father Thomas would then be born say 1310 and Thomas' father Philip
born say 1285. However, Walter de Aylesbury's heir appears to still be a
minor on 6 June 1306.

"6 June 1306
Westminster

Licence for the alienation in frank almoin by Walter de Aylesbury of 2 ½
virgates of land and 33s. 4d. rent in the manor of Roulesham, co. Oxford,
held in chief, to the chaplain celebrating divine service... the king's only
loss would be the custody thereof if Walter died leaving his heir a minor,
or the escheat thereof, if it fell in as an escheat..." [CPR Edw. I.
(1301-1307) 4:441].

This record would place Philip de Aylesbury's birth no earlier than 1286.
Based on the birth date of Philip's grandson, John de Aylesbury in 1334,
Philip was probably nearing his majority in 1306, placing his birth circa
1286/1288, though it could have been a little later.

Flower's "Visitations of Nottingham" (HSP, 1871) indicates that Walter de
Aylesbury's wife was "Daugh. to the lord Somery." There is no indication as
to the identity of this "lord Somery." This intriguing clue can be
supplemented with the following:

F.W. Bull's "A History of Newport Pagnell" (Kettering, 1900), p. 40:

"Joan Bottourt died before February of 12 Edward III., for in that month, at
an Inquisition held at Newport, it was found "that Joan, who was late the
wife of Thomas Bottourt, held on the day of her death in her Lordship as of
fee the Manor of Newport Paynel of the Lord King in capite by the services
of one knight's fee." ... The inquisition refers to a rent resolute of L6,
13s. 4d. then due out of the Manor to Philip de Ayllesbury.

As regards this rent it is stated in the Dodsworth MS. (cxxvi. 41) that
Roger de Somery, Knight, formerly seized of the Manor of Newport Paynell,
gave an annual rent of 10 marks issuing out of the aforesaid Manor to Walter
de Aylesbury and his heirs. He was apparently the father of Philip de
Aylesbury, just referred to."

Joan Botetourt was the daughter of Roger de Somery (d. 1291) and
granddaughter of Roger de Somery (d. 1273). Joan and her sister, Margaret,
were sole heirs to their brother John de Somery (d. 1322). Their father
Roger (d. 1291) could not have been the father of another legitimate
daughter who was the wife of Walter de Aylesbury. Roger de Somery (d. 1273)
is probably the same individual alluded to in the Dodsworth MS. (Though it
could also be that Roger (d. 1291) granted an interest in Newport Pagnell to
a younger sister of the whole blood.) Based on the apparent birth range of
Philip de Aylesbury, if Roger de Somery's (d. 1273) daughter was the wife of
Walter de Aylesbury, she would most likely be the daughter of Roger's second
wife, Amabil de Chaucombe.

Roger and Amabil de Somery's son Roger (d. 1291) was born in 1255. If they
also had a daughter born circa 1257 to say 1260, she would be of an
appropriate age to be the mother of Walter's heir Philip. This would also
explain the Aylesbury interest in Newport Pagnell. If this possible
connection could be substantiated, it would extend the Aylesbury pedigree
giving Philip de Aylesbury a descent from Hugh Capet, among others.

If anyone has additional evidence or comments, they would be most welcome.
Thank you.

Hal Bradley

Dear Hal

Thanks for posting this interesting find. Walter would appear to have
had a son called Roger, as given by the following abstract from A2A

Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Archer of Tanworth [DR
37/1/1 - DR 37/2/Box 97]
Reference: DR 37/2/Box 73/21

Grant by Walter de Aylesbury to Roger his son of the manor of Wydenhay
in Solihull and lands in Tanworth, 'le Shalle' and Birmingham. T: John
de Lutbrokes, Poncenable de Somery, knights, Henry de Sydenhale, Simon
de Manecestre, John de Clynton. Dated at Wydenhay, 25 June 1304.

However, I'm afraid that you have misunderstood the nature of the
patent roll entry and taken it out of context. The full entry reads

"Licence for the alienation in frank almoin by Walter de Aylesbury of
2 ½ virgates of land and 33s. 4d. rent in the manor of Roulesham, co.
Oxford, held in chief, to the chaplain celebrating divine service in
the parish church there for the soul of the said Walter and of the
faithful dead; as it appears by inquisition quod damnum made by the
sheriff of Oxford, that the king's only loss would be the custody
thereof if Walter died leaving his heir a minor, or the escheat
thereof, if it fell in as an escheat; on condition, however, that the
manor remain charged with the whole of the accustomed services."..."

In other words Walter de Aylesbury was given a license to alienate the
small parcel of land held from the king to the church of Rollesham'
because an inquisition made by the sheriff to discover how it would
disadvantage the king showed that the only loss to the king would be
the custody of the land IF Walter died with a minor heir, or it's
escheat if Walter died without heirs. These last situations are
theoretical and don't mean that Walter's son was a minor.

Cheers

Rosie

Ray O'Hara

Re: Elliot Lee Richardson [1920-1999]

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 18 sep 2007 03:11:16

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:6NFHi.182$H_5.942@eagle.america.net...
Interesting...

Richardson was a Stalwart.

He was SECDEF when I was working in the Pentagon.

A Good Man & True...

Broad Shoulders & Integrity...

when F.X Belotti was running against john volpe for governor of
Massachusetts richardson, who was state attorney general and also running
for lt governor, leaked to the papers that wiretaps of mafioso conversations
had mentioned belotti's name.
this ruined bellotti's bid and got us the extrmely incompetent volpe for
governor.

years later the truth came out. yes the mafiahad mentioned belotti. they
were complaining that attourney general bellotti was completely
uncorruptable
and causing them problems.
richardson conveniently left that out. so screw richardson may he rot in
hell.

Nancy L. Allen

Alan Sylvester/Silvester, Master-Forrester of Wirral

Legg inn av Nancy L. Allen » 18 sep 2007 03:55:58

In researching the Sylvester/Silvester family of Cheshire, I found the following.

Edward W. Cox, "The Antiquities of Storeton in Wirral," Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, For the Year 1897 - Volume XLIX, New Series - Volume XIII (Liverpool: printed for the Society, 1898), p. 62:
The Sylvester family "held the office of Foresters of the Royal Forest of Wirral under the Earls of Chester, and from their office most likely derived their family name." On-line dictionaries define sylvan, the noun, as "one that frequents groves or woods" and silva as "forest." The French word for sylvan, the adjective, is sylvestre.

That seems to explain the origin of the family name. But the following two sources mention an alias for Alan Sylvester/Silvester.

William Williams Mortimer, The History of the Hundred of Wirral, With a Sketch of the City and County of Chester, Compiled from the Earliest Authentic Records, (London : Whittaker & Co., 1847), p. 192:
About the year 1120 Storeton "was presented, together with Puddington and the bailiwick of the Forest of Wirral, by Randal de Meschines, Earl of Chester, to his steward, Alan Sylvester, or Savage, whom in the deed of gift he describes as meo homini et ministro."

Edward Wilson, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Stanley Family of Stanley, Storeton, and Hooton," The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 119 (Aug., 1979), p. 308:
Annabella was the "sole surviving descendant of Alan Silvester, alias Savage (Salvagius), who, probably in the 1130s, had been created hereditary master-forester of Wirral."

I haven't found any additional information about Alan being a Savage. I did find the name Salvagius associated with Robert le Sauvage of Normandy and county Sussex who was one of William de Braose's men. Does anyone know the name of Alan's father?

Nancy

Volucris

Re: Elliot Lee Richardson [1920-1999]

Legg inn av Volucris » 18 sep 2007 07:21:56

Thought that the scope of this newsgroup was c 500 - c 1600
and that the topics were only on medieval genealogy?
As you're the largest polluter around
you should wake up David.

Hans Vogels


On 18 sep, 03:23, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Interesting...

Richardson was a Stalwart.

He was SECDEF when I was working in the Pentagon.

A Good Man & True...

Broad Shoulders & Integrity...

However, the issue here is whether he was a descendant of John Winthrop The
Elder or not.

What Say Ye, Douglas & Other Gentle Readers?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Jwc1...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:mailman.2443.1190072048.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



Dear Spencer and other interested parties,
Attorney General [and SECDEF -- DSH] Elliott Lee Richardson was the 2nd
son of Dr Edward Pierson and Clara Lee Richardson (nee Shattuck) of
Boston, MA. Descendant of Samuel, son of Thomas and Katherine
Richardson (nee Duxford), as well as William Shattuck, Joseph
Bolles and the Cabot family (See Larry Overmire`s The Ancestry of
Overmire, Tefft, Richardson, Bradford, Reed` rootsweb website for
details of his Richardson descent. It seems He (Elliott) was also a
Bolles descendant.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Gjest

Re: Sibyl, wife of Sir Otes Botetourt, alleged to be a Deinc

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 sep 2007 08:06:54

On 18 Sep., 00:49, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

(cross-posting snipped)

The author of the Knyvet pedigree appears to have been trying to
justify all the family quarterings which the family claimed as of
1651. That is why Sybil Botetourt's maiden name is given and why she
is specifically called an heiress of the Deincourt family.

For all I know, it is probably correct.

Why "probably"? For all you know, it could also be probably
incorrect. This kind of faulty reasoning is poor research, just like
"it's a guess but probably a correct one". Thus are unreliable
genealogies born.

MAR

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 sep 2007 18:01:41

Dear John Ravilous et Alii,

One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of King John
at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so less well
known than many others.

Here are some additional reported details on Piers:

Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
Hampshire.

Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King John".

John certainly favored him with many commissions.

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de Vere,
"Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety John
Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

John Briggs

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av John Briggs » 18 sep 2007 18:10:05

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

"op. cit ."?
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: about myself

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 sep 2007 21:06:05

Actually, it seems to have been an SUV.

DSH

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hJVHi.66159$1G1.33890@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

Sybilla wrote:

Some people have enquired about who I am, what group I'm allied with
and what I mean by Senecheal. so, here it is. Sybilla of Blackwater is
a 12th Century disenfranchised noble woman, who's inheirited lands,
properties and chattles were stolen during a coupe when she was 11
years old.

Are you sure it wasn't a sedan?
--
John Briggs

John P. Ravilious

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 18 sep 2007 21:48:58

Dear Spencer, et al.,

Thanks for that post re: Piers fitz Herbert. He certainly is
less well known than many in whose company (e.g. Hubert de Burgh and
the four Earls William) we find him at Runnymede, but we do know some
interesting things.

As to his earliest patrilineal ancestor I can identify, that was
the Herbert 'camerarius' who had a grant from the Archbishop of York
of lands in Londesbrough, Wiverthorpe and elsewhere in Yorkshire which
are still found in Sir Reynold fitz Piers' hands at his death in
1285. He was the father of, among others, Herbert fitz Herbert of
Leckhampstead, co. Bucks., Londesborough and Wiverthorpe, co. Yorks.,
and of William (later St. William), Archbishop of York. He was also
the brother-in-law of King Stephen (if by marriage to his illegitimate
half-sister).

A question comes up which will result in one of us correcting a
standing error. You show below that Alice, wife of Piers, was the
daughter of Roger fitz Richard and Alice de Vere, and the widow of
John fitz Richard the Constable (d. 1190). I show Pier's wife as the
niece of this Alice, and daughter of Robert fitz Roger of Warkworth by
Margaret de Chesney. This is also as given in Leo's website,
Genealogics.org - Alice (wife of Piers, daughter of Robert fitz Roger)
is given ID #I00284745.

I'd be most interested in resolving the question - any evidence
you might have that directly bears on this would be of interest, and
of course any documentation others of the list might have would be
welcome as well.

Cheers,

John


On Sep 18, 1:01?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Dear John Ravilous et Alii,

One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of King John
at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so less well
known than many others.

Here are some additional reported details on Piers:

Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
Hampshire.

Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King John".

John certainly favored him with many commissions.

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de Vere,
"Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety John
Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Leo van de Pas

Re: Genealogics, giving a father to Margaret Purdon

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 18 sep 2007 22:32:59

Dear Will,

What have you done to me? Adam Purdon, with one daughter, was as an ancestor
bad enough!! But two !!
The combined "efforts" of these two daughters produce quite a huge and
fascinating descendancy.

These descendants bring together, amongst many others, Arthur Wellesley,
Duke of Wellington, the Late Queen-Mother, Princess Alice of Gloucester,
Princess Desiree of Sweden, William Addams Reitwiesner, Pakisatani cricketer
Imran Khan, Sarah Ferguson, David Cameron Britain's opposition leader,
author Nancy Mitford, Camilla Parker-Bowles, the disappeared Lord Lucan

The Dukes of Beaufort, Devonshire, Marlborough, Montrose, Westminster,
Buccleuch, as well as a considerable number of continental aristocratic
families like Princes of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg and
Bentheim-Tecklenburg and quite a few more.

I have made a rather large file, but if anyone is interested I gladly
forward it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:09 AM
Subject: Genealogics, giving a father to Margaret Purdon


In my mousing around I happened to notice that here

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... y=standard

Leo gives no parents to that Margaret Purdon who married Thomas Jones,
later Archbishop of Dublin and then also Lord Chancellor.

However here
http://books.google.com/books?id=TissAA ... #PPA296,M1

we are told that her father was that same Adam Purdon of Lurgan Race, co
Louth
who was *also* father of that Jane Purdon of Lurgan Race who married his
direct predecessor in Dublin
Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin until he died in 1604 or 5.

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: Genealogics, giving a father to Margaret Purdon

Legg inn av WJhonson » 18 sep 2007 22:41:29

<<In a message dated 09/18/07 14:33:32 Pacific Standard Time, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
What have you done to me? Adam Purdon, with one daughter, was as an ancestor
bad enough!! But two !! The combined "efforts" of these two daughters produce quite a huge and fascinating descendancy. >>
===================
I don't know why people sometimes get the false impression that I'm helpful.

I am Evil ! Pure Evil.

My greatest pleasure comes from destroying lines that people have relied upon for hundreds of years. Also it gives me great pleasure to broadcast to the world very carefully concealed facts, like the maiden name of Kristy McNichol's mother and stuff. And that Anne Nicole Smith's mother had a baby with her future step-brother (their parents married each other afterward.) Ok well I was bored.

Will

WJhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 18 sep 2007 23:02:35

We are especially interested in the fact that this line is said there, to connect forward to both the "later Earls of Crawford" and also by another son to the "Earls of Dundonald"

This should create dozens of new links for Leo, myself, and others.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 sep 2007 23:09:05

Dear John et Alii,

My source for this is Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186. He doesn't cite
his source with chapter and verse and may be in error.

I gave the full citation upthread.

Cheers,

DSH

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

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de Vere,
"Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety John
Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190148538.256568.284730@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer, et al.,

Thanks for that post re: Piers fitz Herbert. He certainly is
less well known than many in whose company (e.g. Hubert de Burgh and
the four Earls William) we find him at Runnymede, but we do know some
interesting things.

As to his earliest patrilineal ancestor I can identify, that was
the Herbert 'camerarius' who had a grant from the Archbishop of York
of lands in Londesbrough, Wiverthorpe and elsewhere in Yorkshire which
are still found in Sir Reynold fitz Piers' hands at his death in
1285. He was the father of, among others, Herbert fitz Herbert of
Leckhampstead, co. Bucks., Londesborough and Wiverthorpe, co. Yorks.,
and of William (later St. William), Archbishop of York. He was also
the brother-in-law of King Stephen (if by marriage to his illegitimate
half-sister).

A question comes up which will result in one of us correcting a
standing error. You show below that Alice, wife of Piers, was the
daughter of Roger fitz Richard and Alice de Vere, and the widow of
John fitz Richard the Constable (d. 1190). I show Pier's wife as the
niece of this Alice, and daughter of Robert fitz Roger of Warkworth by
Margaret de Chesney. This is also as given in Leo's website,
Genealogics.org - Alice (wife of Piers, daughter of Robert fitz Roger)
is given ID #I00284745.

I'd be most interested in resolving the question - any evidence
you might have that directly bears on this would be of interest, and
of course any documentation others of the list might have would be
welcome as well.

Cheers,

John

On Sep 18, 1:01?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Dear John Ravilous et Alii,

One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of King
John at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so
less well known than many others.

Here are some additional reported details on Piers:

Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
Hampshire.

Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King John".

John certainly favored him with many commissions.

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de
Vere, "Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the
Surety John Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Bryn

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av Bryn » 18 sep 2007 23:25:20

In article <S0YHi.197$H_5.1315@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
<panther@excelsior.com> writes
Dear John et Alii,

My source for this is Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186. He doesn't cite
his source with chapter and verse and may be in error.

That's not really good enough you know...
I gave the full citation upthread.

Nonsense...
Cheers,

DSH

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

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de Vere,
"Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety John
Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190148538.256568.284730@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer, et al.,

Thanks for that post re: Piers fitz Herbert. He certainly is
less well known than many in whose company (e.g. Hubert de Burgh and
the four Earls William) we find him at Runnymede, but we do know some
interesting things.

As to his earliest patrilineal ancestor I can identify, that was
the Herbert 'camerarius' who had a grant from the Archbishop of York
of lands in Londesbrough, Wiverthorpe and elsewhere in Yorkshire which
are still found in Sir Reynold fitz Piers' hands at his death in
1285. He was the father of, among others, Herbert fitz Herbert of
Leckhampstead, co. Bucks., Londesborough and Wiverthorpe, co. Yorks.,
and of William (later St. William), Archbishop of York. He was also
the brother-in-law of King Stephen (if by marriage to his illegitimate
half-sister).

A question comes up which will result in one of us correcting a
standing error. You show below that Alice, wife of Piers, was the
daughter of Roger fitz Richard and Alice de Vere, and the widow of
John fitz Richard the Constable (d. 1190). I show Pier's wife as the
niece of this Alice, and daughter of Robert fitz Roger of Warkworth by
Margaret de Chesney. This is also as given in Leo's website,
Genealogics.org - Alice (wife of Piers, daughter of Robert fitz Roger)
is given ID #I00284745.

I'd be most interested in resolving the question - any evidence
you might have that directly bears on this would be of interest, and
of course any documentation others of the list might have would be
welcome as well.

Cheers,

John

On Sep 18, 1:01?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Dear John Ravilous et Alii,

One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of King
John at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so
less well known than many others.

Here are some additional reported details on Piers:

Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
Hampshire.

Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King John".

John certainly favored him with many commissions.

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de
Vere, "Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the
Surety John Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat



--
Bryn

Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.

John Briggs

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av John Briggs » 18 sep 2007 23:57:35

Bryn wrote:
In article <S0YHi.197$H_5.1315@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
panther@excelsior.com> writes
Dear John et Alii,

My source for this is Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186. He
doesn't cite his source with chapter and verse and may be in error.

That's not really good enough you know...

I gave the full citation upthread.

Nonsense...

Actually, he did - but in a different thread, in a different newsgroup!
The work in question appears to be a bizarre vanity publication of
presumably less than no value.
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Genealogics, Giving A Father To Margaret Purdon

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 00:01:23

Cheers, Leo.

It's Good To Have You Back.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2478.1190151201.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Will,

What have you done to me? Adam Purdon, with one daughter, was as an
ancestor bad enough!! But two !!

The combined "efforts" of these two daughters produce quite a huge and
fascinating descendancy.

These descendants bring together, amongst many others, Arthur Wellesley,
Duke of Wellington, the Late Queen-Mother, Princess Alice of Gloucester,
Princess Desiree of Sweden, William Addams Reitwiesner, Pakisatani
cricketer Imran Khan, Sarah Ferguson, David Cameron Britain's opposition
leader, author Nancy Mitford, Camilla Parker-Bowles, the disappeared Lord
Lucan

The Dukes of Beaufort, Devonshire, Marlborough, Montrose, Westminster,
Buccleuch, as well as a considerable number of continental aristocratic
families like Princes of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg and
Bentheim-Tecklenburg and quite a few more.

I have made a rather large file, but if anyone is interested I gladly
forward it.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

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

From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:09 AM
Subject: Genealogics, giving a father to Margaret Purdon

In my mousing around I happened to notice that here

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... y=standard

Leo gives no parents to that Margaret Purdon who married Thomas Jones,
later Archbishop of Dublin and then also Lord Chancellor.

However here
http://books.google.com/books?id=TissAA ... #PPA296,M1

we are told that her father was that same Adam Purdon of Lurgan Race, co
Louth who was *also* father of that Jane Purdon of Lurgan Race who
married his direct predecessor in Dublin Adam Loftus, Archbishop of
Dublin
until he died in 1604 or 5.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 00:13:55

The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

Eric Stevens

As accomplished by Hatchback The Executioner -- in many cases.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:dij0f35h3fccp4mmed00rfv2mqfh0a9una@4ax.com...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:32:29 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Sybilla wrote:

Some people have enquired about who I am, what group I'm allied with
and what I mean by Senecheal. so, here it is. Sybilla of Blackwater is
a 12th Century disenfranchised noble woman, who's inheirited [sic]
lands,
properties and chattels [sic] were stolen during a coupe [sic] when she
was 11 years old.

Are you sure it wasn't a sedan?

No.

The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

Eric Stevens

WJhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 00:21:18

In a message dated 09/18/07 16:10:35 Pacific Standard Time, nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
Would this be an entirely new colonial gateway with medieval descents,
or simply additional lines beyond what is currently in print for the
immigrant?
----------------------------
Nat the typical course is that I mouse around picking up ascents and descents and then when I find something really interesting, I try to *prove* the connections.

So in my going about proving, I check to see what Leo has. He has the ascent, and a part of the descent but not connected. I think he is doing that right now. There is an issue we're working out about who exactly this Grizel is as he says SP gives her life somewhat differently.

So it's quite possible we have a correction here, but I need the SP quote about that Grizel who is daughter of Robert 3rd Lord Semphill to see. I don't have SP and I don't know what it exactly says.

Will

John P. Ravilious

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 sep 2007 00:33:56

Dear Will,

Thanks for bringing this up. Paterson is a great resource, but
as you would imagine he provides details you will not find elsewhere
(Vol. II pp. 248-249, re: Cunyngham of Ashinyards) but also provides
confusion in other areas (Vol. I p. 237, Auchinleck of that Ilk).

A relevant aside: I show the Hamilton of Stenhouse descent as
being via a Mowat marriage (or liaison), and not via Grizel Sempill,
whose marriage to Hamilton (her 2nd) ended in divorce. Hopefully the
relevant documentation will support the Sempill connection, certainly
the more interesting one give the descents from Colin Campbell, 1st
Earl of Argyll and Hugh Montgomery, 1st Earl of Eglinton.

Cheers,

John



On Sep 18, 6:02 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
We are especially interested in the fact that this line is said there, to connect forward to both the "later Earls of Crawford" and also by another son to the "Earls of Dundonald"

This should create dozens of new links for Leo, myself, and others.

Will Johnson

WJhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 00:40:31

Here is a more full extract of this source
http://books.google.com/books?id=BvEHAA ... John+Blair
"History of the County of Ayr with a Genealogical Account of the Families of Ayrshire", by James Paterson. John Dick, Ayr. T. G. Stevenson, Historical and Antiquarian Bookseller. (1847)
Vol I, Page 414 "Parish of Dalby"
XIV John Blair of that Ilk. "...He married Grizel, daughter of Robert, third Lord Semple; and got a charter -- 8 Feb 1573 -- "Johanni Blair de eodem, et Grizeldae Semple ejus spousae, terrarum Thornlie-Wallace,"

As you can see, there can be no dispute that John Blair had a wife named Grizel Semple as Paterson quotes the charter stating it exactly. The dispute would then come in as to exactly who this Grizel Semple was. Was she the same daughter of the third lord Semple, her life in SP is apparently abruptly stated; OR was she some other relation entirely?

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 sep 2007 00:58:14

Dear Will, Nat, et al.,

I don't have the SP account for Sempill, Lord Sempill to
hand, but from some excess familiarity with the family find
that the Stirnet version is rather well founded on
SP VII:538 et seq. See the following for reference
(hopefully someone of the list can confirm this as
SP-based):

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... .htm#link2

That being said, given there's already the Grizel Sempill I
mentioned already being accounted for, the 2nd Grizel (wife of Blair)
is not too comfortable a fit, and the marital and extramarital career
of Robert, 3rd Lord Sempill has already given me a few grey hairs.
One particular item: the Janet Sempill shown was married to William
Fleming of Barrochan, but she was evidently the sister (not daughter)
of Robert Sempill.

Caveat scriptor.

John



On Sep 18, 6:02?pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
We are especially interested in the fact that this line is said there, to connect forward to both the "later Earls of Crawford" and also by another son to the "Earls of Dundonald"

This should create dozens of new links for Leo, myself, and others.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 01:17:55

And one of his ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?

DSH

"Tim" <A.Windemere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190160030.090738.127750@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 18, 2:59 am, "radu.bogdan" <radu_z...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

On Sep 18, 4:01 am, François R. Velde <ve...@heraldicanospam.invalid
wrote:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit dominique.charen...@wanadoo.fr os
suum:

In Europaïsche Stammtafeln Neue Folge Band XVIII, 1998

Question is, what are the sources?

A certain French genealogist wrote me a couple of years ago on this
subject : « La question de la parenté entre les Riquetti [de Mirabeau]
et les Riquet [de Caraman] qui prétendent en descendre n'a jamais pu
être tranchée définitivement, faute de documents faisant force de
preuve. Philippe de Montjouvent dans son ouvrage très intéressant "Les
Riquet de Caraman" paru en 2003 étudie le problème et, sans pouvoir
donner une réponse officielle, penche pluôt pour l'affirmative car il
existe un faisceau d'éléments concordants. »

Prince Michel Poniatowski (1922-2002) was French Minister of the
Interior in the 1970's. His parents were Prince Charles Casimir
Poniatowski and Princess Anne Caraman-Chimay (Anne Gabrielle de
Riquet).

Ray O'Hara

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 19 sep 2007 01:24:52

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:5VZHi.200$H_5.1249@eagle.america.net...
And one of his ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?


i know a guy named poniatowski.

when i asked him if he was a member of the polish royal family he hadn't a
clue about what i talking about.
i told him he should research his family's roots.

WJhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 01:45:53

This link is highly highly germane to this thread.

http://books.google.com/books?id=f7AEAA ... John+Blair

They refer to that very document which may state that Grizel was indeed daughter of Robert Lord Semple. I.E. the marriage contract between Elizabeth Cochrane and Alexander Blair, contracted 24 July 1600.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 sep 2007 02:22:36

At a quick glance, the Stirnet account of the Sempills appears to accurately
reflect the SP account of the family - as it should since Stirnet cites SP
as its primary source in this case. In particular, SP shows the two Grizell
Sempills, nominally both daughters of Robert, 3rd Lord Sempill. The first
Grizell, dau. of his wife Isabel Hamilton, has several pages devoted to her
and her convoluted marital history. The second Grizell, wife of John Blair,
is covered much more briefly, with a note that (based on the date of her
marriage contract) she was probably a daughter of Elizabeth Carlile,
although she's not mentioned in the precept of legitimation of [three of]
the other children of Elizabeth Carlile. Aside from the issue of two
daughters both named Grizell, I don't see what the issue is with placing
Grizell the wife of John Blair here.

It's the second Grizell that is of course the key to Will's [yet
unspecified] descent to New Kent County, Virginia. Although Leo's database
has the first Grizell, the second is indeed missing - no great surprise,
since Leo has never claimed to be totally comprehensive or all-inclusive.

BTW, both Grizells appear to be ancestors of Princes William and Harry,
among others....although there is some uncertainty about the possible
descent from the first Grizell.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphill


Dear Will, Nat, et al.,

I don't have the SP account for Sempill, Lord Sempill to
hand, but from some excess familiarity with the family find
that the Stirnet version is rather well founded on
SP VII:538 et seq. See the following for reference
(hopefully someone of the list can confirm this as
SP-based):

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... .htm#link2

That being said, given there's already the Grizel Sempill I
mentioned already being accounted for, the 2nd Grizel (wife of Blair)
is not too comfortable a fit, and the marital and extramarital career
of Robert, 3rd Lord Sempill has already given me a few grey hairs.
One particular item: the Janet Sempill shown was married to William
Fleming of Barrochan, but she was evidently the sister (not daughter)
of Robert Sempill.

Caveat scriptor.

John



On Sep 18, 6:02?pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
We are especially interested in the fact that this line is said there,
to connect forward to both the "later Earls of Crawford" and also by another

son to the "Earls of Dundonald"
This should create dozens of new links for Leo, myself, and others.

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: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 02:52:27

Thanks John, Leo has also just informed me that there were evidently two Grizzel's half-sisters per SP, although their authority for so-saying appears to be a bit light.

At any rate, I'm willing to accept it as-is for my purposes, it certainly goes far beyond what I was *attempting* to show, i.e. that some John Blair married some Grizzel Semphill.

At some point I'll get back to the main line that I was working ... I tend to get distracted.

It still does seem like a possibility that the two Grizzel's are one and the same. After being so-and-sos mistress, she then marries John Blair and has a few more legitimate children. Maybe that's too far out of the norm, or maybe there's some reason for knowing that this isn't possible for this mistress Grizzel.

WJhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 03:02:15

Continuing forward, John Blair is called "eldest son" and I've added "of his father" just to make clear to myself that there is still a question in my mind about his mother Grizzel Semphill.

This John Blair d.v.p. Jan 1604, after marrying Isabel Boyd daughter of Thomas Lord Boyd and I'm presuming this is by his wife Margaret Campbell of Loudoun.

At any rate, John Blair and Isabel Boyd had only daughters and so the "Barony of Blair" or the male inheritence whatever it was called at that time, is supposed to have then devolved upon John's next brother Bryce. who married Annabell Wallace, and had about seven or more children.

Back to John Blair, his wife Isabel survived him and their daughters are named Margaret, Grizel and Agnes.

This last called "Anne or Agnes" is supposed to have married some Lord of Porterfield. This Lord whoever he is, would have been born sometime in the 1570/1610 period. But I have no idea who he is.

Her sister Grizel is supposed to have married John Maxwell of Pollock and d.s.p., but again, there is given *another* Grizel Blair her aunt who also married (secondly) Sir John Maxwell of Pollock and so one of these may be an error for the other.

Her sister Margaret is given as married to John Crawford of Kilbirnie (Ayrshire) and this must be that one who is son of Malcom Crawford d 1592, son of Hugh Crawford d 1576 and Margaret Colquhoun.

We have now arrived at that point where some David Crawford is plopped down as a son to this last couple John Crawford of Kilbirnie and Margaret Blair. I do not yet know what source states this, but that is my next task. This David is given as that same David Crawford who died in or about 1710 in New Kent County, Virginia

The source for most of the above, except the last key paragraph is still

http://books.google.com/books?id=BvEHAA ... John+Blair
"History of the County of Ayr with a Genealogical Account of the Families of Ayrshire", by James Paterson. John Dick, Ayr. T. G. Stevenson, Historical and Antiquarian Bookseller. (1847)
Vol I, Page 414 "Parish of Dalby"

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 sep 2007 03:31:02

Dear Will,

Pity the Dorothea Sempill connection does nothing to Blair your
trumpet....

I hope the Crawford link is successfully resolved. My most
recent Crawford line currently hands in limbo somewhere between
Northern Ireland and New Brunswick - I'd give a pound of haggis to
straighten that one to Scotland.

By the bye, if you've not traced that Campbell of Loudoun
connection back a bit, I think you'll be rather pleased (or more
anxious to resolve the Crawford conundrum). I believe you'll find a
descent from James II, K of Scots lurking there.

Cheers,

John



On Sep 18, 10:02 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Continuing forward, John Blair is called "eldest son" and I've added "of his father" just to make clear to myself that there is still a question in my mind about his mother Grizzel Semphill.

This John Blair d.v.p. Jan 1604, after marrying Isabel Boyd daughter of Thomas Lord Boyd and I'm presuming this is by his wife Margaret Campbell of Loudoun.

At any rate, John Blair and Isabel Boyd had only daughters and so the "Barony of Blair" or the male inheritence whatever it was called at that time, is supposed to have then devolved upon John's next brother Bryce. who married Annabell Wallace, and had about seven or more children.

Back to John Blair, his wife Isabel survived him and their daughters are named Margaret, Grizel and Agnes.

This last called "Anne or Agnes" is supposed to have married some Lord of Porterfield. This Lord whoever he is, would have been born sometime in the 1570/1610 period. But I have no idea who he is.

Her sister Grizel is supposed to have married John Maxwell of Pollock and d.s.p., but again, there is given *another* Grizel Blair her aunt who also married (secondly) Sir John Maxwell of Pollock and so one of these may be an error for the other.

Her sister Margaret is given as married to John Crawford of Kilbirnie (Ayrshire) and this must be that one who is son of Malcom Crawford d 1592, son of Hugh Crawford d 1576 and Margaret Colquhoun.

We have now arrived at that point where some David Crawford is plopped down as a son to this last couple John Crawford of Kilbirnie and Margaret Blair. I do not yet know what source states this, but that is my next task. This David is given as that same David Crawford who died in or about 1710 in New Kent County, Virginia

The source for most of the above, except the last key paragraph is still

http://books.google.com/books?id=BvEHAA ... zel+Semp...
"History of the County of Ayr with a Genealogical Account of the Families of Ayrshire", by James Paterson. John Dick, Ayr. T. G. Stevenson, Historical and Antiquarian Bookseller. (1847)
Vol I, Page 414 "Parish of Dalby"

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 sep 2007 03:45:05

If it's your database where David Crawford is "plopped down" as son to John
Crawford of Kilbirnie and Margaret Blair, you might want to "plop" him
someplace else quickly. If David did die in or about 1710, he would have
been quite old to be this couple's son, as John Crawford is reported (at
least in Stirnet) to have died in 1622. One of the established sons of John
and Margaret Blair d. in 1629, making even less likely that another son died
in 1710.

The family of Craufurd [sic] of Kilbirnie is covered on pages 114-6 in vol.
2 of Paterson's Ayr, available on Google Books. John and Margaret are said
there to have had 3 sons and 2 daughters, but only the succeeding son John
is named. There is more detail in Stirnet and also apparently in Burke's
Commoners and in BLG until 1894. Might be some clues there....

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphill


Continuing forward, John Blair is called "eldest son" and I've added "of
his father" just to make clear to myself that there is still a question in

my mind about his mother Grizzel Semphill.
This John Blair d.v.p. Jan 1604, after marrying Isabel Boyd daughter of
Thomas Lord Boyd and I'm presuming this is by his wife Margaret Campbell of

Loudoun.
At any rate, John Blair and Isabel Boyd had only daughters and so the
"Barony of Blair" or the male inheritence whatever it was called at that

time, is supposed to have then devolved upon John's next brother Bryce. who
married Annabell Wallace, and had about seven or more children.
Back to John Blair, his wife Isabel survived him and their daughters are
named Margaret, Grizel and Agnes.

This last called "Anne or Agnes" is supposed to have married some Lord of
Porterfield. This Lord whoever he is, would have been born sometime in the

1570/1610 period. But I have no idea who he is.
Her sister Grizel is supposed to have married John Maxwell of Pollock and
d.s.p., but again, there is given *another* Grizel Blair her aunt who also

married (secondly) Sir John Maxwell of Pollock and so one of these may be an
error for the other.
Her sister Margaret is given as married to John Crawford of Kilbirnie
(Ayrshire) and this must be that one who is son of Malcom Crawford d 1592,

son of Hugh Crawford d 1576 and Margaret Colquhoun.
We have now arrived at that point where some David Crawford is plopped
down as a son to this last couple John Crawford of Kilbirnie and Margaret

Blair. I do not yet know what source states this, but that is my next task.
This David is given as that same David Crawford who died in or about 1710 in
New Kent County, Virginia
The source for most of the above, except the last key paragraph is still


http://books.google.com/books?id=BvEHAA ... emple+John

+Blair
"History of the County of Ayr with a Genealogical Account of the Families
of Ayrshire", by James Paterson. John Dick, Ayr. T. G. Stevenson, Historical

and Antiquarian Bookseller. (1847)
Vol I, Page 414 "Parish of Dalby"

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: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 03:48:49

Thanks John, yes the John Crawford to Margaret Blair marriage has five steps back to James IV, King of Scotland 1488-1513

It appears likely that the alleged David Crawford link to New Kent County, VA will be shown to be false. I've only just finished adding the stated children of this union, which stirnet has. Now I'm going to see what source is connecting David here.....

WJhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 03:51:40

This is not a good sign.

Google for
"David Crawford" New Kent Kilburnie
80 hits
Apparently the idea that he belongs here has been spreading.

Google books.... Zero

John Higgins

Re: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 sep 2007 04:55:39

Leo:

I think you may have slightly mis-read SP - although the wording is
admittedly not very clear. According to another pedigree of this Hamilton
branch, in "The Heraldry of the Hamiltons", by G. Harvey Johnston, Margaret
Mowat was the first wife (not the mother) of the James Hamilton [originally
of Raploch} who (with his son James) was killed in 1548 and was married 2nd
to Grizell Sempill. According to this pedigree, James acquired Stenhouse
[or Stonehouse] via his marriage to Margaret and then gave up his rights to
Raploch to his younger brothers.

OTOH, this pedigree also (incorrectly, I think) attributes all of James'
sons (no daughters mentioned) to his 2nd wife Grizell Sempill. But SP 7:547
says "James Hamilton, her [Grizell's] husband, by his first wife, had five
sons, James John, Robert, Archibald, and Thomas. By her husband, the said
James Hamilton, Grisel Sempill had two sons, Robert and John. .... She
certainly had two daughters by her husband, Elizabeth and Grisel." [END
QUOTE] This seems to support that James Hamilton, originally of Raploch and
then of Stonhouse, was married twice.

One interesting note: the pedigree in Johnston's work above mentions that
the younger James Hamilton, who died with his father, mar. Margatet or
Elizabeth Tours and had a daughter. I had assumed that the Hamilton
daughter who mar. Mungo Lockhart of Cleghorn was a dau. of the elder James
Hamilton, who was as BLG says the Captain of Edinburgh Castle, but it's at
least possible that the daughter of the younger James was Mungo's wife.
OTOH, if the Lockhart wife was a daughter of the elder James, I now am not
sure that there's any evidence as to which wife was her mother.

Yet another unsolved problem.....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse


I do not know where to look up this specific family, but there are details
to be found in a variety of places.
Also it is confusing that some people are written up with _Sir_ and in
other places without.

IN the Scottish Peerage under the Sempill family amongst the details of
Grizel Sempill you can find :

James Hamilton of Raploch and his first wife Margaret Mowat
are parents of
James Hamilton, of Stonhouse (was he a Sir?)
he was Provost of Edinburgh and Captain of the Castle.
in 1548 he was slain together with his eldest son (also a James)
he married (1)..............(?)........................
they had five sons (no daughters ?)
James, John, Robert, Archibald and Thomas.
Then he marries "before 10 March 1539/1540 and divorces 21-2-1545/46
Grizel Sempill
they had Robert. John, Elizabeth (married and divorced by Roger
Kirkpatrick) and Grizel
=========================

In Burke's Landed Gentry, 1937, page 1399 we find
Mungo Lockhart, 3rd of Cleghorn, he married NN Hamilton, daughter of Sir
James Hamilton, of Stonehouse, Captain of the Castle of Edinburgh.
Mungo, in 1572, was "dilitat" for the murder of Henry Darnley, husband of
Mary Queen of Scots. This makes me believe that his father-in-law was the

James Hamilton Sr. killed in 1548. But who was NN Hamilton and she was
daughter by which wife? Was her mother perhaps Grizel daughter of the 2nd
marriage of James Hamilton of Stonehouse?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

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

quotes in the subject and the body of the message

wjhonson

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av wjhonson » 19 sep 2007 05:21:11

The line from Thomas Sorrell known husband of Elizabeth Occany up to
that John Crawford who d 1676 "during Bacon's Rebellion" in James
City, Virginia and whom (John) is erroneously given as a son of
Malcolm Crawford by his wife Margaret Cunningham, is given as follows

Thomas Sorrell m Elizabeth Occany
John Sorrell m Anne Brechin
James Brechin m Sarah Crawford born 12 May 1666 Amherst, Virginia
David Crawford d 1689 New Kent Co, VA m Jane b 1633 VA
John Crawford d 1676 during Bacon's Rebellion
Malcolm Crawford m Margaret Cunningham

It is perhaps not too much to state at the front that John is NOT a
son of Malcolm. The John who is the real son of Malcolm, married
Margaret Blair and had many reasons to stay right in Ayrshire, which
he did, dying in or about 1622 and his progeny is represented in SP,
etc as there.

Another thing I must mention is that previously I had stated that
David Crawford d 1710 and viewing the Google-World it appears that his
death date is given all over the place. I now prefer 1689 but
currently without a firm citation.

My purpose in this post will be solely to destroy this line further,
not to try to fix what's wrong.

In the Will of Daniel Occany, writen 27 Feb 1715 and proved 30 Jan
1716 in Westmoreland County, Virginia he refers to his son-in-law
Thomas Sorrell so this couple were already then married.

This source
http://books.google.com/books?id=BkI2AA ... %22&pgis=1
"The Blakemore Family and Allied Lines", by Maurice Neville Blakemore
(1963)
"She was the daughter of Samuel Earle, Jr and his first wife, Ann
Sorrell, whom he married in 1726, the daughter of Thomas Sorrell and
his wife, Elizabeth Occany, the daughter of Daniel Occany."

allows us to know that Thomas and Elizebeth's daughter Anne, who by
the way, is named in her father Thomas' own will dated 12 Jan 1725 and
proved 22 Feb 1726 was already herself of married age by 1726

Thomas himself therefore cannot be born any later than 1696.

His supposed grandmother however is given as Sarah Crawford born 12
May 1666 and it is this line that is supposed to take us up to the
Scottish royal connection (which we know is false anyway).

In my opinion, it is simply not plausible that 29 years (or 30 if you
will) would seperate a grandmother from her grandson, even through the
female line. Possible perhaps, but not plausible.

I expect more research will be able to pin more dates on these people,
but I think this should be enough to destroy this connection, for want
of credible evidence.

Unfortunately it removes a few hundred nice ancestors from my line :)

Will Johnson

edespalais@yahoo.fr

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av edespalais@yahoo.fr » 19 sep 2007 06:28:38

On 19 sep, 02:24, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:5VZHi.200$H_5.1249@eagle.america.net...> And one of his ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?

i know a guy named poniatowski.
when i asked him if he was a member of the polish royal family he hadn't a
clue about what i talking about.
i told him he should research his family's roots.

guy Ray... better leave the the none royal Ponia... in peace, they are
extinct. The present are bastards. That is already too much for a
cowboys brain to catch

Gjest

Re: Dernell was her name, Hoo was her spouse, but who was he

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 sep 2007 08:11:03

In a message dated 9/18/2007 1:20:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dav4is@yahoo.com writes:
In a message dated 09/13/07 16:05:15 Pacific Standard Time,
dav...@yahoo.com writes:
Sources mention that Alexander Hoo (d. 8 Mar 1241/42 Isle of Rhodes)
was married to one Dernell or Darvogilda of Scotland, daughter of
(Alexander) the King of Scotland.


Stirnet, among others:
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... z/hoo1.htm
Other published sources listed here:
_http://www.gencircles.com/users/dav4is/300/data/12_ (http://www.gencircles.com/users/dav4is/300/data/12)



======================
Firstly note that Stirnet states its source as Visitation and they state
they doubt it.
Secondly the sources cited at gen circles are possibilities but note that
they are quoted and the quotes provide NO authority for the alleged connection.
They merely state it, on no authority.

Most likely the underlying authority for all these sources, would then be
that same Visitation, which would be a faulty source for something occurring
three or four centuries previously.

Since there is no apparent mention of this relationship in a contemporary
source, it should be discarded entirely.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Rosie Bevan

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 19 sep 2007 08:23:33

On Sep 19, 8:48 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Spencer, et al.,

Thanks for that post re: Piers fitz Herbert. He certainly is
less well known than many in whose company (e.g. Hubert de Burgh and
the four Earls William) we find him at Runnymede, but we do know some
interesting things.

As to his earliest patrilineal ancestor I can identify, that was
the Herbert 'camerarius' who had a grant from the Archbishop of York
of lands in Londesbrough, Wiverthorpe and elsewhere in Yorkshire which
are still found in Sir Reynold fitz Piers' hands at his death in
1285. He was the father of, among others, Herbert fitz Herbert of
Leckhampstead, co. Bucks., Londesborough and Wiverthorpe, co. Yorks.,
and of William (later St. William), Archbishop of York. He was also
the brother-in-law of King Stephen (if by marriage to his illegitimate
half-sister).

A question comes up which will result in one of us correcting a
standing error. You show below that Alice, wife of Piers, was the
daughter of Roger fitz Richard and Alice de Vere, and the widow of
John fitz Richard the Constable (d. 1190). I show Pier's wife as the
niece of this Alice, and daughter of Robert fitz Roger of Warkworth by
Margaret de Chesney. This is also as given in Leo's website,
Genealogics.org - Alice (wife of Piers, daughter of Robert fitz Roger)
is given ID #I00284745.

I'd be most interested in resolving the question - any evidence
you might have that directly bears on this would be of interest, and
of course any documentation others of the list might have would be
welcome as well.

Cheers,

John

On Sep 18, 1:01?pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:



Dear John Ravilous et Alii,

One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of King John
at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so less well
known than many others.

Here are some additional reported details on Piers:

Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
Hampshire.

Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King John".

John certainly favored him with many commissions.

Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz Richard,
Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de Vere,
"Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety John
Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.

Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
Ferrers.

He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.

Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who carried on
the family line.

Source:

Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alice was most certainly the daughter of Robert fitz Roger, the
evidence of which is given in a 1203 agreement for dower in the curia
regis rolls.

CRR 3 p. 6

"Euerwikesir' .Sciant presentes et futuri quod ita convenit inter
Herebertum filium Hereberti et Petrum filium ejus de maritagio Alicie
filie Roberti filii Rogeri, quam idem Petrus duxit in uxorem, quod
predictus Herebertus dedit et concessit Petro filio suo ad dotandum
Aliciam predictam uxorem suam totum tenementum suum de
Euerwikesir'...."

Nice to see you posting medieval content, Spencer.

Rosie

Bryn

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av Bryn » 19 sep 2007 08:41:23

In article <zJYHi.37415$mZ5.17458@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes
Bryn wrote:
In article <S0YHi.197$H_5.1315@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
panther@excelsior.com> writes
Dear John et Alii,

My source for this is Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186. He
doesn't cite his source with chapter and verse and may be in error.

That's not really good enough you know...

I gave the full citation upthread.

Nonsense...

Actually, he did - but in a different thread, in a different newsgroup!
The work in question appears to be a bizarre vanity publication of
presumably less than no value.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity...

--
Bryn

Here's to you Jonathan Briley, not falling but flying.

edespalais@yahoo.fr

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av edespalais@yahoo.fr » 19 sep 2007 09:54:06

On 19 sep, 02:24, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:5VZHi.200$H_5.1249@eagle.america.net...> And one of his ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?

i know a guy named poniatowski.
when i asked him if he was a member of the polish royal family he hadn't a
clue about what i talking about.
i told him he should research his family's roots.

The guy poster should know a little bit of a Polish nobility. A well
known name does not mean noble name. You have to have a name with the
coat of arms of ..., and there may exist persons of same name but of
different coat of arms. If somebody is a not royal prince he also may
also have sibblings, who are just of simple nobility. That can be here
the case; furthermore there are always also bastards.

John Briggs

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av John Briggs » 19 sep 2007 12:43:37

edespalais@yahoo.fr wrote:
On 19 sep, 02:24, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:5VZHi.200$H_5.1249@eagle.america.net...> And one of his
ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?

i know a guy named poniatowski.
when i asked him if he was a member of the polish royal family he
hadn't a
clue about what i talking about.
i told him he should research his family's roots.

The guy poster should know a little bit of a Polish nobility. A well
known name does not mean noble name. You have to have a name with the
coat of arms of ..., and there may exist persons of same name but of
different coat of arms. If somebody is a not royal prince he also may
also have sibblings, who are just of simple nobility. That can be here
the case; furthermore there are always also bastards.

Jewish servants/retainers of Polish noble families often took that family's
name.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: Magna Carta Sureties, Et Alii ... Was Hastings

Legg inn av John Briggs » 19 sep 2007 12:43:38

Bryn wrote:
In article <zJYHi.37415$mZ5.17458@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, John Briggs
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes
Bryn wrote:
In article <S0YHi.197$H_5.1315@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
panther@excelsior.com> writes
Dear John et Alii,

My source for this is Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186. He
doesn't cite his source with chapter and verse and may be in error.

That's not really good enough you know...

I gave the full citation upthread.

Nonsense...

Actually, he did - but in a different thread, in a different
newsgroup! The work in question appears to be a bizarre vanity
publication of presumably less than no value.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity...

Certainly vexation of spirit...
--
John Briggs

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Settipani's book: Mihran, King of Iberia

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 19 sep 2007 13:05:35

Now i have my copy on the new Settipnai's book

i have a question. can someone give us an ascendancy of Mihran king 337/361
in iberia

Settipani tells he was surely a mihranid and not a sassanid (unlike in Mr
Mommaerts' stemma)

what do you think

many thanks

JL


The Mihranids were named for their descent from St. Mihran III, K. Iberia. He inherited the Iberian throne in right of his first wife. His children were by his second wife. He was son of Shapr I, Sassanid Shah of Persia. This is rather well established, and can be verified in Toumanoff's books, as well as Justi.

Ford MMB

edespalais@yahoo.fr

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av edespalais@yahoo.fr » 19 sep 2007 15:17:30

On 19 sep, 13:43, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Jewish servants/retainers of Polish noble families often took that family's
name.
--
An other solution; practized in Germany

Janet

Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av Janet » 19 sep 2007 16:50:06

Thomas Sorrell known husband of Elizabeth Occany up to
That John Crawford who d 1676 "during Bacon's Rebellion" in James
City, Virginia and whom (John) is erroneously given as a son of
Malcolm Crawford by his wife Margaret Cunningham, is given as follows

Thomas Sorrell m Elizabeth Occany

Thomas Sorrell
Westmoreland County, Virginia Wills, 1654-1800

Sorrell, Thomas Decedent 12/1/1725 22/2/1726 Sorrell, Thomas, 12 Jan. 1725;
22 Feb. 1726, of Cople. Son James land; to son John land devised me by my
father in law Daniel Occany and land on Nominy where I formerly lived; son
James land in James City County bequeathed me by my father John Sorrell
deceased; nephew Thomas Sorrell land; my bro. John Sorrell of James City
County deceased; said nephew and his sisters Elizabeth and Frances a ring
each; daus. Anna and Winifred; wife Elizabeth her horse, saddle, bridle,
rings, clothing, 3 slaves and use of my plantation for life; friends Capt.
George Turbeville and Mr. William Sturman exrs.

Daniel Occany is his will. Westmoreland County, Virginia Wills, 1654-1800
Sorrell, Thomas Executor
27/2/1715 30/1/1716
Ocanny, Daniel, planter, 27 Feb. 1715; 30 Jan. 1716. Grandson Daniel Crabb
130 acres of land; to John Crabb 250 acres of land; grandson John Crabb and
my son in law Thomas Sorrell; friends William Allerton and Henry Lee to be
exxs; grandson Daniel Crabb to inherit my land if John Crabb dies without
issue.

In the name of God Amen. I Daniel Ocany of the county of Westmoreland in the
colony of Virginia planter being now in perfect health and in sound &
perfect mind & memory thanks be to almighty God for the same doe make this
my last will and testament ... I give bequeath & devise the tract of land
whereon I now live containing one hundred & thirty acres be it more or less
to my grand son Daniel Crabb and to his heirs forever and in case he dies
before he comes of age or without issue of his body lawfully begotten then I
give the said land to John Crabb & to his heirs forever. Item. I give
bequeath & devise my land in the forrest whereon John Moon now lives
containing by estimacon two hundred & fifty acres or there about to my
grandson John Crabb and my son in law Thomas Sorrell and to their heirs
forever to be equally divided between them the moyety of the said land which
I hereby give to John Crabb I will should be his & his heirs forever and in
case he die without issue of his body lawfully begotten or before he comes
of age the said moyety of the land I give to DANIEL CRABB & to his heirs
forever. Item. I give and bequeath to my said grand sons Daniel Crabb & John
Crabb all my personal estate of what kind or sort the same be moveable or
immovable to be equally divided between them. Item. I give & bequeath to
Daniel Crabb my negroe woman called Jane to him, the said Daniel & his heirs
forever-and lastly I make constitute ordain & appoint my good friends
Willoughby Allerton and Mr. Henry Lee to be my executors of this my last
will and testament and in witness that this is my last will & testament I
have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of February A.D. 1715-
Daniel Occany mark (seal) sealed and published in the presence of This.
Newton, Henry Wetherton, Jno. Footman, Orlando Payne.


John/James Sorrell m Anne Brechin

James, Anna (mother or sister) Thomas
James Sorrell Heir 19/10/1721 Breechin, James, 19 Oct. 1721; 6 April 1722.
My late wife Ann; sons William and James land at falls of Potomac; to Mr.
John Rele 50 acres; to Dennis Lynsey 100 acres of land; to Thomas Poindexter

300 acres of land; dau. Anna and Jane land; to James and Anna Sorrell 1
Hogshead tobacco each; kinsman Thomas Sorrell a mourning ring; wife and
Capt. George Turberville exrs., the latter to have a mourning ring; wife
Sarah personal estate.
Anna Breechin
Thomas Poindexter Heir 19/10/1721
Breechin, James, 19 Oct
.. 1721; 6 April
1722. My late wife Ann; sons William and James land at falls of Potomac; to
Mr. John Rele 50 acres; to Dennis Lynsey 100 acres of land; to Thomas
Poindexter 300 acres of land; dau. Anna and Jane land; to James and Anna
Sorrell 1 hogshead tobacco each; kinsman Thomas Sorrell a mourning ring;
Wife and Capt. George Turberville exrs., the latter to have a mourning ring;

Wife Sarah personal estate.


James Brechin m Sarah Crawford born 12 May 1666 Amherst, Virginia
Scottish Emigration to Colonial America, 1607-1785 By Dobson, David
"James Brechin in St Paul's Parish, Virginia. Scots Episcopal clergyman."

Scottish Notes and Queries edited by John Bulloch, John Alexander Henderson
"Rev. James Brechin or Breghin, a Scotchman; support Comissary Blair and WA
sin Virginia, 1705-1719, being noted as asbent from Convention in the latter
year."

Rev. James Breechin, Priest of Caple Parish in Westmoreland Co., VA
Sarah Crawford, also shown as Crafford or Crofford

She was a daughter of David Crawford as proven by a lawsuit filedl in
Hanover Co., VA, in 1731 by John Poindexter to establish his right to land
willed him in 1721 by his stepfather, Rev. James ZBreechin, Priestof Caple
Parish in Westmoreland Co., VA. Evidence stated that "David Crawford, late
of the Parish of St. Peter's in the County of New Kent, was in hi slifetime
seized in fee simple, or and in one neck of land, lying and being in the
Parish of St. Paul's in the County of Hanover, containing about five hundred
acres, and so being seized, by his certain poll, bearing the date of May 21,
1691, for the natural love and affection which he bore his daughter, Sarah,
did give the said land unto his faughter and the heirs of her body, as by
said deed more fully may appear, and the said Sarah entered and by virtue of
said deed was seized, and intermarried with one Thomas Poindexter, deceased,
and by him had issue, John Poindexter, and has since intermarried with one
James Breechin, likewise deceased..." It appears it was probably Sarah's
dowry land that Rev. Breechin had willed his stepsons John and Thomas
Poindexter prior to the Minister's death in 1721.
John Poindexter brought suit in Hanover County to establish his right to
land left him in the 1721 will of his stepfather, Rev. James Breechin,
Priest of Cople Parish in Westmoreland County. "David Crawford, late of the
Parish of St. Peter's in the County of New Kent, was in his lifetime seized
in fee simple, for and in one neck of land, lying and being in the Parish of
St. Paul's in the County of Hanover, containing about five hundred acres,
and so being seized, by his certain poll, bearing the date of May 21, 1691,
for the natural love and affection which he bore his daughter, Sarah, did
give the said land unto his daughter and the heirs of her body, as by said
deed more fully may appear, and the said Sarah entered and by vitue of said
deed was seized, and intermarried with one Thomas Poindexter, deceased, and
by him had issue, John Poindexter, and has since intermarried with one James
Breechin, likewise deceased ..."

David Crawford d 1689 New Kent Co, VA m Jane B 1633 VA
"Our Ancestors' quotes Fred E. Crawford in "The Early Ancestors of the
Crawfords" as authority for the statement that, "This John was one of the
early patentees of land in Donegal in Ireland, but did not stay there and
the grant was given to one of his friend, John Stewart." If his estates in
Scotland were in danger of being confiscated by Cromwell because of his
support of Charles I, this may have been reason enough for him to get out of
the country and leave his estates to his wife and children born to the
peerage. If he had an illegitimate son in Ireland he probably would have
taken him with him to America. The facts of this intriguing mystery await
some future researcher who can then supply the "missing link" between the
descendants of this first Crawford in America and the multitudinous
Crawfords in THE LIVES OF THE LINDSAYS and supplementary genealogical
records of pre-pre-American Crawfords in Scotland.
This first John Crawford to come to America must have been a typical
restless Scot. Whether he was in fact, as alleged by Mrs. Julian Lane in her
"Historical Collection", "a hero of the battle of Gratzha" it is well
authenticated that at the age of 76 he was killed in Bacon's Rebellion which
he helped to organize.
It is written of his son David, the second Crawford in America, that when he
was killed by the Indians in 1710, at age 85, "He owned extensive lands in
the countries of New Kent (Hanover) and James City; also, many slaves. The
land on which Richmond was built belonged to him", and probably had its name
suggested from Riginald de Richmond, "The Good", sometimes referred to as
the extreme ancestor of the Crawfords". Riginald de Richmond was the
great-grandfather of Margaret Crawford, the mother of Sir William Wallace,
the immortal hero of Scotland. Kilbirnie Castle and Kirk were ancient
possessions of the Crawford family.
Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of David, the second Crawford in America, was
born in 1656 and married Nicholas Meriwether in 1673, "who was owner of
great tracts of land in Hanover and Albermarle counties in Virginia. One of
the patents of 17,952 acres was granted by King George II". The second
daughter, born 1668, married Robert Lewis. It is interesting to speculate on
the possible connection between these family alliances and the Meriwether
Lewis who over a century later was the dashing young officer who came out of
the South to lead the famous Lewis and Clark Exploration of the Louisiana
Purchase for President Thomas Jefferson


John Crawford d 1676 during Bacon's Rebellion
In 1600 received charter under the great seal, of lands and baronies of
Kilbirnie , Eastern Greenock,

John left his family in Scotland and emigrated to America abt 1643. Bring
with him his youngest son David.

John son John was his Heir.

John is said to died in the Bacon's Rebellion.

Bacon's Rebellion was probably one of the most confusing yet intriguing
chapters in Jamestown's history. For many years, historians considered the
Virginia Rebellion of 1676 to be the first stirring of revolutionary
sentiment in America, which culminated in the American Revolution almost
exactly one hundred years later.

The central figures in Bacon's Rebellion were opposites. Governor Sir
William Berkeley, seventy when the crisis began, was a veteran of the
English Civil Wars, a frontier Indian fighter, a King's favorite in his
first term as Governor in the 1640's, and a playwright and scholar. His name
and reputation as Governor of Virginia were well respected. Berkeley's
antagonist, young Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., was actually Berkeley's cousin by
marriage. Lady Berkeley, Frances Culpeper, was Bacon's cousin. Bacon was a
troublemaker and schemer whose father sent him to Virginia in the hope that
he would mature. Although disdainful of labor, Bacon was intelligent and
eloquent. Upon Bacon's arrival, Berkeley treated his young cousin with
respect and friendship, giving him both a substantial land grant and a seat
on the council in 1675.




Malcolm Crawford m Margaret Cunningham




Janet

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

From: wjhonson
Date: 9/18/2007 11:25:15 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphill

The line from Thomas Sorrell known husband of Elizabeth Occany up to
that John Crawford who d 1676 "during Bacon's Rebellion" in James
City, Virginia and whom (John) is erroneously given as a son of
Malcolm Crawford by his wife Margaret Cunningham, is given as follows

Thomas Sorrell m Elizabeth Occany
John Sorrell m Anne Brechin
James Brechin m Sarah Crawford born 12 May 1666 Amherst, Virginia
David Crawford d 1689 New Kent Co, VA m Jane b 1633 VA
John Crawford d 1676 during Bacon's Rebellion
Malcolm Crawford m Margaret Cunningham

It is perhaps not too much to state at the front that John is NOT a
son of Malcolm. The John who is the real son of Malcolm, married
Margaret Blair and had many reasons to stay right in Ayrshire, which
he did, dying in or about 1622 and his progeny is represented in SP,
etc as there.

Another thing I must mention is that previously I had stated that
David Crawford d 1710 and viewing the Google-World it appears that his
death date is given all over the place. I now prefer 1689 but
currently without a firm citation.

My purpose in this post will be solely to destroy this line further,
not to try to fix what's wrong.

In the Will of Daniel Occany, writen 27 Feb 1715 and proved 30 Jan
1716 in Westmoreland County, Virginia he refers to his son-in-law
Thomas Sorrell so this couple were already then married.

This source
http://books.google
com/books?id=BkI2AAAAMAAJ&q=%22Elizabeth+Occany%22&dq=%22Elizabeth+Occany%22&
gis=1
"The Blakemore Family and Allied Lines", by Maurice Neville Blakemore
(1963)
"She was the daughter of Samuel Earle, Jr and his first wife, Ann
Sorrell, whom he married in 1726, the daughter of Thomas Sorrell and
his wife, Elizabeth Occany, the daughter of Daniel Occany."

allows us to know that Thomas and Elizebeth's daughter Anne, who by
the way, is named in her father Thomas' own will dated 12 Jan 1725 and
proved 22 Feb 1726 was already herself of married age by 1726

Thomas himself therefore cannot be born any later than 1696.

His supposed grandmother however is given as Sarah Crawford born 12
May 1666 and it is this line that is supposed to take us up to the
Scottish royal connection (which we know is false anyway).

In my opinion, it is simply not plausible that 29 years (or 30 if you
will) would seperate a grandmother from her grandson, even through the
female line. Possible perhaps, but not plausible.

I expect more research will be able to pin more dates on these people,
but I think this should be enough to destroy this connection, for want
of credible evidence.

Unfortunately it removes a few hundred nice ancestors from my line :)

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



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1013 - Release Date: 9/17/2007
1:29 PM

..

John Higgins

Re: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 sep 2007 17:07:20

An additional note on Hamilton of Stonehouse:

One of the sources cited by SP in its account of Grizell Sempill and James
Hamilton of Stonehouse is "Memoirs of the House of Hamilton", by James
Anderson [1825]. As it turns out, this source confirms the two marriages of
James, but is at variance with SP regarding the distribution of children
between the two wives. Anderson says that all the sons were by the 2nd wife
Grizell Sempill, while by the first wife Margaret Mowat James had only
daughters. He is somewhat uncertain about the daughters, listing only two
by name (Margaret and Janet) and questioning the placement of even those
two. He adds a footnote saying than an MS pedigree indicates that James is
said to have had five daughters, married to Kirkpatrick of Closeburn,
Lockhart of Cleghorn, Cuninghame of Robertland, Crawfurd of Ferm, and
Hamilton of Silvertonhill. This note at least gives some support for the
Hamilton connection noted in the Lockhart of Cleghorn family, although it
doesn't help with the maternity of that daughter.


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse


Leo:

I think you may have slightly mis-read SP - although the wording is
admittedly not very clear. According to another pedigree of this Hamilton
branch, in "The Heraldry of the Hamiltons", by G. Harvey Johnston,
Margaret
Mowat was the first wife (not the mother) of the James Hamilton
[originally
of Raploch} who (with his son James) was killed in 1548 and was married
2nd
to Grizell Sempill. According to this pedigree, James acquired Stenhouse
[or Stonehouse] via his marriage to Margaret and then gave up his rights
to
Raploch to his younger brothers.

OTOH, this pedigree also (incorrectly, I think) attributes all of James'
sons (no daughters mentioned) to his 2nd wife Grizell Sempill. But SP
7:547
says "James Hamilton, her [Grizell's] husband, by his first wife, had five
sons, James John, Robert, Archibald, and Thomas. By her husband, the said
James Hamilton, Grisel Sempill had two sons, Robert and John. .... She
certainly had two daughters by her husband, Elizabeth and Grisel." [END
QUOTE] This seems to support that James Hamilton, originally of Raploch
and
then of Stonhouse, was married twice.

One interesting note: the pedigree in Johnston's work above mentions that
the younger James Hamilton, who died with his father, mar. Margatet or
Elizabeth Tours and had a daughter. I had assumed that the Hamilton
daughter who mar. Mungo Lockhart of Cleghorn was a dau. of the elder James
Hamilton, who was as BLG says the Captain of Edinburgh Castle, but it's at
least possible that the daughter of the younger James was Mungo's wife.
OTOH, if the Lockhart wife was a daughter of the elder James, I now am not
sure that there's any evidence as to which wife was her mother.

Yet another unsolved problem.....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse


I do not know where to look up this specific family, but there are
details
to be found in a variety of places.
Also it is confusing that some people are written up with _Sir_ and in
other places without.

IN the Scottish Peerage under the Sempill family amongst the details of
Grizel Sempill you can find :

James Hamilton of Raploch and his first wife Margaret Mowat
are parents of
James Hamilton, of Stonhouse (was he a Sir?)
he was Provost of Edinburgh and Captain of the Castle.
in 1548 he was slain together with his eldest son (also a James)
he married (1)..............(?)........................
they had five sons (no daughters ?)
James, John, Robert, Archibald and Thomas.
Then he marries "before 10 March 1539/1540 and divorces 21-2-1545/46
Grizel Sempill
they had Robert. John, Elizabeth (married and divorced by Roger
Kirkpatrick) and Grizel
=========================

In Burke's Landed Gentry, 1937, page 1399 we find
Mungo Lockhart, 3rd of Cleghorn, he married NN Hamilton, daughter of Sir
James Hamilton, of Stonehouse, Captain of the Castle of Edinburgh.
Mungo, in 1572, was "dilitat" for the murder of Henry Darnley, husband
of
Mary Queen of Scots. This makes me believe that his father-in-law was the
James Hamilton Sr. killed in 1548. But who was NN Hamilton and she was
daughter by which wife? Was her mother perhaps Grizel daughter of the
2nd
marriage of James Hamilton of Stonehouse?

Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

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


-------------------------------
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: A new line of living progeny off Robert, 3rd Lord Semphi

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 sep 2007 17:15:08

Right. All of which confirms what I said and shows how the alternative view
is suspect.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Ray O'Hara

Re: Prince Poniatowski & Catherine The Great

Legg inn av Ray O'Hara » 19 sep 2007 17:39:17

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JX7Ii.2890$X%4.1666@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
edespalais@yahoo.fr wrote:
On 19 sep, 02:24, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:5VZHi.200$H_5.1249@eagle.america.net...> And one of his
ancestors was a favorite lover of Catherine The Great?

i know a guy named poniatowski.
when i asked him if he was a member of the polish royal family he
hadn't a
clue about what i talking about.
i told him he should research his family's roots.

The guy poster should know a little bit of a Polish nobility. A well
known name does not mean noble name. You have to have a name with the
coat of arms of ..., and there may exist persons of same name but of
different coat of arms. If somebody is a not royal prince he also may
also have sibblings, who are just of simple nobility. That can be here
the case; furthermore there are always also bastards.

Jewish servants/retainers of Polish noble families often took that
family's
name.
--
John Briggs



He's not jewish

Douglas Richardson

Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robert F

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 sep 2007 18:20:09

Dear Spencer ~

You can find an interesting article, albeit quite dated and with
numerous errors, on the baronial Fitz Herbert family in Archaeologia
Cambrensis, 3rd series, 4 (1858): 16-30. This article can be found at
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=P741AA ... 2#PPA25,M1

Peter Fitz Herbert (died 1235) is discussed on pages 23 through 25 of
this article. The marriage settlement of Peter and his first wife,
Alice, daughter of Robert Fitz Roger, is given in Latin on the bottom
of page 23 of this article. It reads as follows:

Euerwyksir'. Convenco' int' Herb'tum filium Herb'ti & Petrum filium
ejus de maritagio Alic' filie Rob'ti filii Rog'i quam idem Peter duxit
in uxorem q'd pdictus Herb't dedit & concessit Petro filio suo ad
dotandum Aliciam pdictam uxorem ejus totum tenementum suum de
Euerwiesir' de quo eum seisivit coram D'no H. Cantuar archie'po G. fil
Petri justic' D'ni Regis ...."

Besides the above mentioned property in Yorkshire granted by Peter's
father, Herbert Fitz Herbert, to the couple, I find that the bride
also had property in marriage in Moor, Norfolk granted to them by her
family [see Maitland, Bracton's Note Book].

Lastly, I might mention that modern historians no longer employs
"Piers" for this man's given name. They have standardized and
modernized it to be Peter. Thus it is no longer correct to refer to
"Piers Fitz Herbert." Rather, the correct form would be "Peter Fitz
Herbert." Indeed in the above mentioned article he is called "Peter
Fitz-Herbert."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
< Dear John Ravilous et Alii,
<
< One of the most interesting of these Guarantors & Counsellors of
King John
< at Runnemede is Piers Fitz Herbert, because he is generally so less
well
< known than many others.
<
< Here are some additional reported details on Piers:
<
< Piers Fitz Herbert was knight of 15 knights' fees in Berkshire and
< Hampshire.
<
< Matthew Paris says he was one of "the evil counsellors of King
John".
<
< John certainly favored him with many commissions.
<
< Piers married twice, first in 1204 to Alice, widow of John Fitz
Richard,
< Constable of Chester, and daughter of Roger Fitz Richard by Alice de
Vere,
< "Alice of Essex", which made him an uncle by marriage to the Surety
John
< Fitz Robert and stepgrandfather of the Surety John de Lacy.
<
< Piers de Herbert's second marriage was to Isabel, sister to Henry de
< Ferrers.
<
< He died in 1235 and was buried in Reading Abbey.
<
< Among other children, Piers had a son, Reynold Fitz Piers, who
carried on
< the family line.
<
< Source:
<
< Arthur Edwin Bye, op. cit., p. 186
<
< DSH
<
< Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<
< Exitus Acta Probat

Douglas Richardson

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robe

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 sep 2007 19:21:16

In my previous post, I made two unfortunate errors.

For "I find that the bride also had property in marriage in Moor,
Norfolk granted to them by her
family," read "I find that Peter and Alice also had property in Moor,
Norfolk granted to them by her
family."

For "modern historians no longer employs," read "modern historians no
longer employ"

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

WJhonson

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 19:49:43

<<In a message dated 09/19/07 11:05:32 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Please note there
is no "de" used with the surname, Botetourt. This is the sixth such
fine I have found in contemporary records where the surname Botetourt
is found without a "de." >>

================

Which is not surprising as the extract is a hodge podge of English, French and Latin ?
"Hervey de Stanton parson of the ch. of Estderham v. Master Roger fil' Guy Botetourte in Cantabrigia"

Who is to say that "Guy Botetourte" is now in French versus English versus whatever ?

When something is extracted it should be first extracted *in its original language* and only then translated. They have failed above in this fundamantal rule, so we can't count this for anything until the original text is seen.

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 19:55:32

Here's a little Requisite Culture 101 lesson for taf -- and other members of
the Great Poguenoscenti.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

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

Let a thousand flowers bloom

Meaning

Encourage many ideas from many sources.

Origin

Let a thousand flowers bloom is a common misquotation of Chairman Mao
Zedong's "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought
contend". This slogan was used during the period of approximately six weeks
in the summer of 1957 when the Chinese intelligentsia were invited to
criticize the political system then obtaining in Communist China.

It is sometimes suggested that the initiative was a deliberate attempt to
flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of
the regime. Whether or not it was a deliberate trap isn't clear but it is
the case that many of those who put forward views that were unwelcome to Mao
were executed.

<http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/226950.html>
---------------------------------------------------------

Indeed...

Precisely.

Let a thousand flowers bloom...

And smoke out those dissidents. <g>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1190226585.592264.167160@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Thank you, Spencer.

The topic of the current discussion concerns a historical figure found
in the new Oxford DNB. He is alleged to have been a bastard son of
King Edward I of England, which point is not clarified entirely by the
new ODNB. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that messages on this
topic be crossposted to groups interested in British history, medieval
history, royalty, and medieval genealogy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 19, 12:18 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:

Horsefeathers.

The three groups relevant to the discussion have been restored.

Douglas was quite correct in including them.

DSH

WJhonson

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robe

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 19:58:13

<<In a message dated 09/19/07 10:25:16 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Lastly, I might mention that modern historians no longer employs
"Piers" for this man's given name. They have standardized and
modernized it to be Peter. Thus it is no longer correct to refer to
"Piers Fitz Herbert." >>

=============================
This must have just occurred, as DR himself uses Piers many times over the past few years and in his books. Or perhaps he's insisting that certain Peters are Piers while their contemporary Peters are just Peters. It must be a very confusing world, there "modern historians" occupy.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robe

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 20:01:57

And what about the error where you tell us what "modern historians" do and don't do in naming conventions and proceed to tell us this great pearl from your mountaintop as if you'd done a survey of modern historians.

You find one source calling him Peter and suddenly "modern historians" call him Peter.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert And His Wife, Alice, Daughter of Robe

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 20:07:03

And then we have...

Guillaume, duc de Normandie

AND:

William The Conqueror.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

WJhonson

Re: Sir James Hamilton of Stonehouse

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 20:08:07

<<In a message dated 09/18/07 20:58:03 Pacific Standard Time, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
According to another pedigree of this Hamilton
branch, in "The Heraldry of the Hamiltons", by G. Harvey Johnston, Margaret
Mowat was the first wife (not the mother) of the James Hamilton [originally
of Raploch} who (with his son James) was killed in 1548 and was married 2nd
to Grizell Sempill. >>

----------------------------
Just to clarify this, you are quoting this source as stating that the "son James" who was killed in 1548 and the step-son of Grizzell ? That he was the son of Margaret Mowat ?

Is that what you're saying ? Perhaps we need to determine what is the source for the transmission, as, if there was a son, old enough to be in battle (or whatever) that would greatly narrow the birthrange for the father.

Will

WJhonson

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robe

Legg inn av WJhonson » 19 sep 2007 21:10:42

<<In a message dated 09/19/07 12:50:35 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
If you didn't know about this change, you can't have been doing much
reading in history books. The standardization and modernization of
given names has been going on a long time. >>
------------------
Could you please explain for our readers, why you use "Piers" so many times in your own work, Magna Carta Ancestry published not in the hoary past, but in 2005, if the above self-serving bit of snippery is accurate ?

Please count for us the number of Piers in your book and in PA as well while you're at it, and then explain yourself.

Thanks. Have a great day !

Will

John Briggs

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robe

Legg inn av John Briggs » 19 sep 2007 21:24:05

Douglas Richardson wrote:
The change from Piers to Peter is the trend by modern historians.
Today you seldom see a Piers, except for Piers de Gavaston and an
occasional reference to Geoffrey Fitz Piers. And,.in the latter case,
it is usually Geoffrey Fitz Peter now.

Do you mean Piers Gaveston? Ou Pierre de Gabaston, peut-être?

I don't think I believe a word of it...
--
John Briggs

Sybilla

Re: About Myself

Legg inn av Sybilla » 19 sep 2007 21:46:40

On Sep 18, 4:13 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

Eric Stevens

As accomplished by Hatchback The Executioner -- in many cases.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message

news:dij0f35h3fccp4mmed00rfv2mqfh0a9una@4ax.com...



On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:32:29 GMT, "John Briggs"
john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Sybilla wrote:
Some people have enquired about who I am, what group I'm allied with
and what I mean by Senecheal. so, here it is. Sybilla of Blackwater is
a 12th Century disenfranchised noble woman, who's inheirited [sic]
lands,
properties and chattels [sic] were stolen during a coupe [sic] when she
was 11 years old.

Are you sure it wasn't a sedan?

No.

The old regime was swept out with a new brougham.

Eric Stevens- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well actually it was a 64 Ford station wagon, which explains why my
spelling sucks

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Shrum In Blighty -- He Does Far Better In Britain Than I

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 sep 2007 22:25:34

A Wise Uncle Indeed...

DSH

"S Viemeister" <firstname.lastname@which.net> wrote in message
news:5lddqqF7operU1@mid.individual.net...

When I lived in Edinburgh, I knew a dentist who always wore the kilt -
even in his surgery.

And an Edinburgh doctor, too.

Many years ago, an uncle of mine worked for the BBC - he had to dress
properly for whatever event he was covering, and found that a kilt worked
perfectly, with just a change of footwear and tops. Much less stuff to
carry around.

Gjest

Re: Peter Fitz Herbert and his wife, Alice, daughter of Robe

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 sep 2007 22:26:03

Douglas ,
If next Week all modern Historians wrote only in Latin,
would all youe books then of necessity be translated into Latin ? \
Fashion has little to do with history and Peter Fitz Herbert and Piers Fitz
herbert and even Petrus filius Herbatus (or some such) would still be the same
individual , would He not ?
James W Cimmings



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»