Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
WJhonson
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
<<In a message dated 10/17/07 20:18:24 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father of Margery,
and
father-in-law of HENRY,
who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles. >>
--------------------
The above is awfully confusing. Since two authors of secondary works are in conflict about the ascent, we really need to quote and cite specific documents showing how it went. Showing each relationship.
Will
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father of Margery,
and
father-in-law of HENRY,
who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles. >>
--------------------
The above is awfully confusing. Since two authors of secondary works are in conflict about the ascent, we really need to quote and cite specific documents showing how it went. Showing each relationship.
Will
-
WJhonson
Re: Stanhope-Walker Marriage
Ursula Stanhope has a Monument at the church of Kirk Deighton, Yorkshire. Perhaps it has something writen on it? Here is the reference that merely says she has one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LHQ9AA ... =PA210-IA2
She apparently died on 17 May 1654 at Wighill. John P Dulong a sometime contributor here sent me back in Jan 2006 a private email detailing some of these Walkers slightly. In that he states that George Walker *became* Chancellor of Armagh in 1662, so this was under the Restoration.
Here's some other sources
http://books.google.com/books?id=fzsTZY ... %22&pgis=1
"Notes and Queries"
http://books.google.com/books?id=PLALAA ... Chancellor
"[Rev George Walker D.D.]'s father the Rev George Walker was some time vicar of Wighill (ca 1644-54), in the patronage of the Stapletons. At the Restoration he was made Chancellor of Armagh, and died at Kilmore, co Armagh in 1677."
http://books.google.com/books?id=LHQ9AA ... =PA210-IA2
She apparently died on 17 May 1654 at Wighill. John P Dulong a sometime contributor here sent me back in Jan 2006 a private email detailing some of these Walkers slightly. In that he states that George Walker *became* Chancellor of Armagh in 1662, so this was under the Restoration.
Here's some other sources
http://books.google.com/books?id=fzsTZY ... %22&pgis=1
"Notes and Queries"
http://books.google.com/books?id=PLALAA ... Chancellor
"[Rev George Walker D.D.]'s father the Rev George Walker was some time vicar of Wighill (ca 1644-54), in the patronage of the Stapletons. At the Restoration he was made Chancellor of Armagh, and died at Kilmore, co Armagh in 1677."
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Lynne Cheney: Vice President Dick Cheney & Senator Barak
Make it Henry II 
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Lynne Cheney: Vice President Dick Cheney & Senator Barak
ObamaAre Eighth Cousins
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Lynne Cheney: Vice President Dick Cheney & Senator Barak
ObamaAre Eighth Cousins
Thanks John, I've now corrected that to show Barack's [next] shortest
ascent to Henry I, King of England.
Thanks for the catch.
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
WJhonson
Re: Lynne Cheney: Vice President Dick Cheney & Senator Barak
Leo sent me details which show that Martha Eltonhead, actually has a shorter path to Henry II, King of England. So now I've gone ahead and updated Barack's page to show this as his shortest royal ascent.
Will
Will
-
allan connochie
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:sDxRi.589$6q5.2139@eagle.america.net...
Sorry but I didn't mention lineage and didn't mean to imply that. All I was
saying was that I 'thought' only wealthy people became Presidents. It was
quite an eye opener to see that it isn't so.
Allan
news:sDxRi.589$6q5.2139@eagle.america.net...
You are WAY off.
The CURRENT salary of the POTUS is $400,000 per year.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm
DSH
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.107.1192661117.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Allan,
Lineage doesn`t necessarily mean wealth
Sorry but I didn't mention lineage and didn't mean to imply that. All I was
saying was that I 'thought' only wealthy people became Presidents. It was
quite an eye opener to see that it isn't so.
Allan
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
No.
You said "tend to come from quite wealthy backgrounds".
You still don't realize what you wrote, do you?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:tGCRi.13887$8c4.5564@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
You said "tend to come from quite wealthy backgrounds".
You still don't realize what you wrote, do you?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:tGCRi.13887$8c4.5564@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.107.1192661117.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Allan,
Lineage doesn`t necessarily mean wealth
Sorry but I didn't mention lineage and didn't mean to imply that. All I
was saying was that I 'thought' only wealthy people became Presidents. It
was quite an eye opener to see that it isn't so.
Allan
-
Citizen Jimserac
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
On Oct 17, 8:10 pm, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
D Spencer Hines wrote that, not I!!
Citizen Jimserac
In article <1192657683.776574.242...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Citizen
Jimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
And why do you think so many of you can't find a DENTIST in England who
will take an NHS patient?
Is that meant to be a problem here? I registered last month with no problem.
--
John Cartmell j...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
D Spencer Hines wrote that, not I!!
Citizen Jimserac
-
John Cartmell
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
In article <1192708103.076026.40340@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Citizen
Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry. I have him kill-filed and I forgot to amend the blame-line. Insult
*not* intended.
--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 8:10 pm, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In article <1192657683.776574.242...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Citizen
Jimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
And why do you think so many of you can't find a DENTIST in England
who will take an NHS patient?
Is that meant to be a problem here? I registered last month with no
problem.
D Spencer Hines wrote that, not I!!
Sorry. I have him kill-filed and I forgot to amend the blame-line. Insult
*not* intended.
--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
--- steven perkins <scperkins@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your interest, Steven, and other Pecks, and
gen-medieval scholars, et al.
Here is fuller proposed pedigree, re Medieval period:
EIGHTH GENERATION: 5/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
215 214
Ruth Skinner_______________________Abiel Peck
b.bef.1727,Attleboro/Norton,MA. b.19 May 1730,b.Boston,MA.
m. 11 Jul, 1751,Attleboro,Bristol,MA.
d.?,d.Hopewell,NB. d.16 Dec 1802,d.Hopewell,NB.
__________________________________________________________________
NINTH GENERATION: 6/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
429 428
Rebecca(Rebekah) Richardson________John Peck
b.28 Feb,1697,Medfield,Norfolk,MA. b.13 oct 1700,Attleboro,MA.
m. 26 May 1724,Attleborough/Rehoboth, MA.
d.?,d.Attleboro,Ma. d.22 Mar 1730,Attleboro,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
TENTH GENERATION: 7/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
857 856
Deborah Cooper_____________________Hezekiah Peck
b.21 Sep 1664,Attleboro,MA. b.1 Apr 1662,Attleboro,MA.
m. 1686,Rehoboth/Attleboro, Bristol, MA.
d.5 Mar 1730,Attleboro, MA. d.2 Sep 1723
__________________________________________________________________
11TH GENERATION: 8/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
1713 1712
Rebecca Bosworth___________________Nicholas Peck
b.Feb 1641,Seakonk,MA. b.9Apr 1630,Hingham,Norfolk,GB.
m. 1658/1659,Rehoboth/Attleboro,Bristol, MA.
d.2 Nov 1704,Rehoboth/Attle.,MA. d.27 May 1710,Seakonk,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
17TH GENERATION: 14/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
109570 109571
Sir Peter Middleton________________Anne(Catherine), dau. of
b.Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. Sir Henry Vavasour of Hazelwood
d.c.1499 d.?
married:?
__________________________________________________________________
18TH GENERATION: 15/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
219140 219141
Sir John Middleton_________________Maud(Matilda), dau. of
b.Hamerton,Yorkshire,GB. Sir John Thwaites of Lofthouse
d.? d.Yorkshire, GB.
married:?
__________________________________________________________________
19TH GENERATION: 16/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
______________________________________________
438280 438281
William Middleton__________________Margaret, dau. of Sir Stephen
b.Yorkshire, GB. Hamerton of Wigglesworth
d.1474,GB. d.Hamerton,Yorkshire,GB.
married:c.1473
__________________________________________________________________
20TH GENERATION: 17/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
______________________________________________
876560 876561
Sir John Middleton_________________Alice, dau. of Sir Peter
b.Yorkshire, GB. Maulereverer of Beamsley
m.
d.? d.?
__________________________________________________________________
21ST GENERATION: 18/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
1753120 1753121
Sir Nicholas Middleton_____________Avice, dau. of Sir Gilbert
b.Yorkshire,GB. Stapleton
m.
d.? d.?
__________________________________________________________________
22ND GENERATION: 19/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3506241 3506240
Sir Thomas Middleton_______________Eliza, dau. of Sir Henry
b.1321, Plumpton, GB. Gramary
m.
d.bef.March,1393,GB. d.,Yorkshire,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
23RD GENERATION: 20/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
7012481 7012480
Sir Peter Middleton________________Eustacia, dau. of Sir Robert
b.1290/95,Plumpton,Yorkshire,GB. de Plumpton
m.
d.aft.1338 d.?
__________________________________________________________________
***********************************************************
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Bill:
Which Henry Peck and Joseph Peck are you referring to? I descend from
Henry Peck and Deacon William Peck of New Haven.
Thanks,
Steven
************************************************************
Thanks for your interest, Steven, and other Pecks, and
gen-medieval scholars, et al.
Here is fuller proposed pedigree, re Medieval period:
EIGHTH GENERATION: 5/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
215 214
Ruth Skinner_______________________Abiel Peck
b.bef.1727,Attleboro/Norton,MA. b.19 May 1730,b.Boston,MA.
m. 11 Jul, 1751,Attleboro,Bristol,MA.
d.?,d.Hopewell,NB. d.16 Dec 1802,d.Hopewell,NB.
__________________________________________________________________
NINTH GENERATION: 6/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
429 428
Rebecca(Rebekah) Richardson________John Peck
b.28 Feb,1697,Medfield,Norfolk,MA. b.13 oct 1700,Attleboro,MA.
m. 26 May 1724,Attleborough/Rehoboth, MA.
d.?,d.Attleboro,Ma. d.22 Mar 1730,Attleboro,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
TENTH GENERATION: 7/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
857 856
Deborah Cooper_____________________Hezekiah Peck
b.21 Sep 1664,Attleboro,MA. b.1 Apr 1662,Attleboro,MA.
m. 1686,Rehoboth/Attleboro, Bristol, MA.
d.5 Mar 1730,Attleboro, MA. d.2 Sep 1723
__________________________________________________________________
11TH GENERATION: 8/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
1713 1712
Rebecca Bosworth___________________Nicholas Peck
b.Feb 1641,Seakonk,MA. b.9Apr 1630,Hingham,Norfolk,GB.
m. 1658/1659,Rehoboth/Attleboro,Bristol, MA.
d.2 Nov 1704,Rehoboth/Attle.,MA. d.27 May 1710,Seakonk,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
17TH GENERATION: 14/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
109570 109571
Sir Peter Middleton________________Anne(Catherine), dau. of
b.Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. Sir Henry Vavasour of Hazelwood
d.c.1499 d.?
married:?
__________________________________________________________________
18TH GENERATION: 15/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
219140 219141
Sir John Middleton_________________Maud(Matilda), dau. of
b.Hamerton,Yorkshire,GB. Sir John Thwaites of Lofthouse
d.? d.Yorkshire, GB.
married:?
__________________________________________________________________
19TH GENERATION: 16/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
______________________________________________
438280 438281
William Middleton__________________Margaret, dau. of Sir Stephen
b.Yorkshire, GB. Hamerton of Wigglesworth
d.1474,GB. d.Hamerton,Yorkshire,GB.
married:c.1473
__________________________________________________________________
20TH GENERATION: 17/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
______________________________________________
876560 876561
Sir John Middleton_________________Alice, dau. of Sir Peter
b.Yorkshire, GB. Maulereverer of Beamsley
m.
d.? d.?
__________________________________________________________________
21ST GENERATION: 18/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
1753120 1753121
Sir Nicholas Middleton_____________Avice, dau. of Sir Gilbert
b.Yorkshire,GB. Stapleton
m.
d.? d.?
__________________________________________________________________
22ND GENERATION: 19/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3506241 3506240
Sir Thomas Middleton_______________Eliza, dau. of Sir Henry
b.1321, Plumpton, GB. Gramary
m.
d.bef.March,1393,GB. d.,Yorkshire,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
23RD GENERATION: 20/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
7012481 7012480
Sir Peter Middleton________________Eustacia, dau. of Sir Robert
b.1290/95,Plumpton,Yorkshire,GB. de Plumpton
m.
d.aft.1338 d.?
__________________________________________________________________
***********************************************************
On 10/15/07, Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
Re: remarks by John Higgins below, to this thread:
Has anyone got a Visitation which covers Sir John Leeke,
whose daughter married Henry Peck, and whose son Robert
he called his grandson in his will? I would appreciate any input
about the next two descendants which are the possible problem
alluded to by John in the proposed pedigree of my ancestors?
I agree with John that the Middleton segment appears not to
be the problem. I also am not interested in the alleged problem
of the Peck pedigree of the ancestors of Richard Peck who married
Alice Middleton, at this time. I wish to restrict the discussion to
the possible problem alluded to by John Higgins.
Bill
****************************************************
--- John Higgins <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Higgins wrote, "There may in fact be a problem in the proposed
pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
Isabel Plumpton is not the problem."
The Middleton segment expands into descendants of Leeke and Peck.
_____________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton
_____________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, Sr.(Elder=Joan Water
d.20 Nov 1556
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, Jr.=Ellen(Helen)Babbs
_____________________________________
Joseph Peck, Gateway=Rebecca Clark
ancestor to America,arrived 1638
b.30 Apr 1587
_____________________________________
I'm as bewildered as Bill Arnold by Will Johnson's mention of Isabel
Plumpton, dau. of Sir William Plumpton and his 1st wife Elizabeth
Stapleton - especially since I can find no reference to Alice Plumpton in
any of Bill Arnold's posts. The only Plumpton that Bill mentioned is
Eustacia, several generations earlier. There may in fact be a problem in
the proposed pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
Isabel Plumpton is not the problem.
As I underestand it, Bill is trying to place Alice Middleton, wife of
Richard Peck. She is in fact mentioned in Clay's edition [with additions]
of Dugdale's 1664-5 Visitation of Yorkshire. The Middleton of Stockeld
pedigree going back from her is, per Clay:
Sir Peter Middleton (d. ca. 1499), m. Anne, dau. of Sir Henry Vavasour of
Hazlewood
Sir John Middleton, m. Matilda, dau. of Sir John Thwaites of Lofthouse
William Middleton (will 1474), m. Margaret, dau. of Sir Stephen Hamerton of
Wigglesworth
Sir John Middleton, m. Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Mauleverer of Beamsley
Sir Nicholas Middleton; m. (2 of 3) Avice, dau. of Sir Gilbert Stapleton
Sir Thomas Middleton (prob. d. before March 1393), m. Eliza, dau. of Sir
Henry Gramary
Sir Peter Middleton, m. Eustacia, dau. of Sir Robert Plumpton
[and five more generations before this]
Alice Plumpton gets into this through the Hamerton marriage. Margaret
Hamerton who mar. William Middleton (d. 1474) is identified in Dugdale's
Middleton pedigree as daughter of Sir Steven Hamerton. In pedigrees of the
Hamerton family in visitations and other sources (e.g., Thomas Dunham
Whitaker's "Deanery of Craven"), Margaret is said to be a dau. of Sir
Stephen by his wife Isabel Plumpton - yes, THAT Isabel. The problem is that
Sir Stephen is said to have died 1500/1 per his IPM. Although this likely
presents no problems with the Plumpton chronology that Will mentions below,
it is problematic to give Sir Stephen a son-in-law who died 27 years before
him, as the pedigrees indicate. It seems possible that Margaret Hamerton
was in fact a sister, rather than daughter, of Sir Stephen Hamerton - but
this is only a guess.
Since Will has introduced Isabel Plumpton into the picture, does this help
to clarify things a bit and put her in a proper context?
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Alice Middleton, died aft.1491
Bill the full line, as presented, is not possible.
In particular its highly unlikely that Isabel Plumpton, daughter of Sir
William Plumpton "eldest son" by his wife Elizabeth Stapleton figures in the
line in the way you have described.
For Alice to be married and active on deeds in the 1490s, she has to be
too old to be in this descent. Sir William Plumpton is known to have been
born on 7 Oct 1404 and died on 15 Oct 1480, his Stapleton wife was dead by
1450.
If you calculate approximate years backward yourself you will see that
there is a problem.
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
-------------------------------
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers
- Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
-------------------------------
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
--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
Steven C. Perkins' Genealogy Page
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Thanks, Will, for the interest.
I just sent in response to a Peck descendant a FULLER proposed
pedigree:
from me: without details, they are NOT Medieval facts:
Pecks:
Leeke:
Middleton:
Plumpton:
I am open to full discussion of what I propose:
As to *confusion* I must agree. I find life confusing, too.
But I do believe we can resolve this: the series of articles in
NEHGSREGISTER I have and have to painstakingly SELECT
and TYPE ONLINE and that is all consuming: but that is
why I requested a Leeke pedigree. I note in the gen-medieval
archives that Leek/Leake/Leeke has a couple dozen posts and
I have printed and saved them. I am looking them over: it appears
that there were Leekes intermarried with all these named families,
including the Foljambes.
Does anyone know if THOSE Leekes, re: Simon aka John, are
related to John Leeke, of Beccles, co. Suffolk, father of Margery?
Bear with me: I am rereading the Peck articles in the NEHGSREGISTER
from the 1930s and will post soon.
Bill
****************************************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I just sent in response to a Peck descendant a FULLER proposed
pedigree:
from me: without details, they are NOT Medieval facts:
Pecks:
Leeke:
Middleton:
Plumpton:
I am open to full discussion of what I propose:
As to *confusion* I must agree. I find life confusing, too.
But I do believe we can resolve this: the series of articles in
NEHGSREGISTER I have and have to painstakingly SELECT
and TYPE ONLINE and that is all consuming: but that is
why I requested a Leeke pedigree. I note in the gen-medieval
archives that Leek/Leake/Leeke has a couple dozen posts and
I have printed and saved them. I am looking them over: it appears
that there were Leekes intermarried with all these named families,
including the Foljambes.
Does anyone know if THOSE Leekes, re: Simon aka John, are
related to John Leeke, of Beccles, co. Suffolk, father of Margery?
Bear with me: I am rereading the Peck articles in the NEHGSREGISTER
from the 1930s and will post soon.
Bill
****************************************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/17/07 20:18:24 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father of Margery,
and
father-in-law of HENRY,
who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles.
--------------------
The above is awfully confusing. Since two authors of secondary works are in conflict about the
ascent, we really need to quote and cite specific documents showing how it went. Showing each
relationship.
Will
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
allan connochie
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:YSCRi.594$6q5.2114@eagle.america.net...
You need to seriously get a life! If you insist on pulling teeth then
continue to do it yourself - after all you've seemingly got a good dentist..
Christ I've already conceded that I had the wrong impression several times.
I'll say it again will I? I was wrong. You know it doesn't hurt!
Allan
news:YSCRi.594$6q5.2114@eagle.america.net...
No.
You said "tend to come from quite wealthy backgrounds".
You still don't realize what you wrote, do you?
You need to seriously get a life! If you insist on pulling teeth then
continue to do it yourself - after all you've seemingly got a good dentist..
Christ I've already conceded that I had the wrong impression several times.
I'll say it again will I? I was wrong. You know it doesn't hurt!
Allan
-
Cory Bhreckan
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
allan connochie wrote:
That's one reason I killfiled Hines.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:YSCRi.594$6q5.2114@eagle.america.net...
No.
You said "tend to come from quite wealthy backgrounds".
You still don't realize what you wrote, do you?
You need to seriously get a life! If you insist on pulling teeth then
continue to do it yourself - after all you've seemingly got a good dentist..
Christ I've already conceded that I had the wrong impression several times.
I'll say it again will I? I was wrong. You know it doesn't hurt!
Allan
That's one reason I killfiled Hines.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
-
WJhonson
Re: Possible CP addition: Ralph Cromwell IV (d c1349)?
<<In a message dated 10/13/07 10:35:29 Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com writes:
Tim Powys-Lybbe has the date of death for Ralph IV (b. abt 1291), as 1335.
His site does not specify which of his two sources was the one for
that date, but if it was not CP III:551, then it must be the other -
"The Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz," Ronny O Bodine & Brother Thomas W
Spalding Jr, Bodine & Spalding, 1999, No 16230, p. 176.
It was his son, Ralph V, who married Anice de Bellars and his
grandson, Ralph VI who married Maud de Bernacke. >>
------------------------
Since CP cannot evidently even tell us the name of the wife of Ralph Cromwell who d 1298/9, I'm not very inclined to believe other things they say. Richardson, posted here in Jan 2005 that she was Joan de Somerville and they were married 21E1.
ALL new discussions of the descent should start by trying to fit that into the descent-line. If it doesn't fit, then the descent must be reformed. Ralph 1st Lord Cromwell who d 27 Aug 1398 was certainly an adult by at least 1337 for example. His father, unnamed, has a very narrow range of dates to fit into.
Will Johnson
Tim Powys-Lybbe has the date of death for Ralph IV (b. abt 1291), as 1335.
His site does not specify which of his two sources was the one for
that date, but if it was not CP III:551, then it must be the other -
"The Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz," Ronny O Bodine & Brother Thomas W
Spalding Jr, Bodine & Spalding, 1999, No 16230, p. 176.
It was his son, Ralph V, who married Anice de Bellars and his
grandson, Ralph VI who married Maud de Bernacke. >>
------------------------
Since CP cannot evidently even tell us the name of the wife of Ralph Cromwell who d 1298/9, I'm not very inclined to believe other things they say. Richardson, posted here in Jan 2005 that she was Joan de Somerville and they were married 21E1.
ALL new discussions of the descent should start by trying to fit that into the descent-line. If it doesn't fit, then the descent must be reformed. Ralph 1st Lord Cromwell who d 27 Aug 1398 was certainly an adult by at least 1337 for example. His father, unnamed, has a very narrow range of dates to fit into.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Northern Wills & Inventories
<<In a message dated 10/11/07 10:05:21 Pacific Daylight Time, renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:
None of the Mydeltons in this extensive genealogy is stated to have
married a Mauleverer. The earliest Myddleton mentioned, is Thomas. A
Peter Middleton (etc) is not mentioned. By the same token, the
Mauleverer pedigree does not show any marriage to a Myddleton.
* Edward probably died young as he was not the heir. >>
============================
Thanks to Renia for extracting the above. In response Rosie Bevan posting here 16 Oct 2006 shows the Middleton / Maulever marriage quoting Clay, "Early Yorkshire Families" (see below)
Will Johnson
--------
Subj: Re: Mauleverer 1100-1300
Date: 10/16/06 1:58:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
The Mauleverer family descended from Richard Mauleverer of Allerton Mauleverer, tenant of the Brus fee in Yorkshire, who was living early in the 12th century. The main branch of this family died out as given in John's pedigree and was continued by junior lines. The early history of this family is treated in EYC II pp.75-78.
Clay in 'Early Yorkshire Families', pp.58-59 has this to say:
"MAULEVERER
Not later than 1105 Richard Malus Leporarius gave to Holy Trinity, York, and the monks of Marmoutier the church of Allerton and a carucate there, with tithes in other places; and later to increase the endowments of the priory at Allerton, he gave 7 1/2 carucates in Grafton, Allerton being made a mother church by the confirmation of Archbishop Thurstan, 1109-14; among the witnesses to another of his charters were his brothers Serlo, Helto, Roger, Fulk and Ralph [Cal. Docs. France, no.1233; EYC II no. 729]. From Richard descended the Mauleverers of Allerton who continued in the male line to the first quarter of the 18th century [Glover's Visitation pp.66-68; Complete Baronage II, 117-8. Farrer noted errors to Glover's pedigree...]
The Mauleverers of Beamsley (about 5 miles west of Skipton), who were closely connected with the Allerton line, descended from Helto Mauleverer, who died between 1155 and 1166; it is not impossible chronologically that he was Helto brother of Richard Mauleverer mentioned above, but he may have been of a younger generation. With the consent of his wife and his son William he gave land in Beamsley to Embsay priory, not later than 1131-1140, and with the consent of Bilioth his wife 12 bovates in Malham. Beamsley itself was part of the honour of Skipton and partly of the Percy fee. In 1166 William Mauleverer held a knight's fee of the old feoffment in of Skipton in Hellifield, Malham and elsewhere in Craven. From him the descent was in the male line to Richard Mauleverer of Beamsley, living in 1399, who died without issue, his eventual heirs being his sisters Alice, wife of John Middleton of Stockeld, and Thomasine, wife of William Moore of Otterburn, whose daughter and coheir E!
lizabeth married Thomas Clapham, ancestor of the Claphams of Beamsley.
None of the Mydeltons in this extensive genealogy is stated to have
married a Mauleverer. The earliest Myddleton mentioned, is Thomas. A
Peter Middleton (etc) is not mentioned. By the same token, the
Mauleverer pedigree does not show any marriage to a Myddleton.
* Edward probably died young as he was not the heir. >>
============================
Thanks to Renia for extracting the above. In response Rosie Bevan posting here 16 Oct 2006 shows the Middleton / Maulever marriage quoting Clay, "Early Yorkshire Families" (see below)
Will Johnson
--------
Subj: Re: Mauleverer 1100-1300
Date: 10/16/06 1:58:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
The Mauleverer family descended from Richard Mauleverer of Allerton Mauleverer, tenant of the Brus fee in Yorkshire, who was living early in the 12th century. The main branch of this family died out as given in John's pedigree and was continued by junior lines. The early history of this family is treated in EYC II pp.75-78.
Clay in 'Early Yorkshire Families', pp.58-59 has this to say:
"MAULEVERER
Not later than 1105 Richard Malus Leporarius gave to Holy Trinity, York, and the monks of Marmoutier the church of Allerton and a carucate there, with tithes in other places; and later to increase the endowments of the priory at Allerton, he gave 7 1/2 carucates in Grafton, Allerton being made a mother church by the confirmation of Archbishop Thurstan, 1109-14; among the witnesses to another of his charters were his brothers Serlo, Helto, Roger, Fulk and Ralph [Cal. Docs. France, no.1233; EYC II no. 729]. From Richard descended the Mauleverers of Allerton who continued in the male line to the first quarter of the 18th century [Glover's Visitation pp.66-68; Complete Baronage II, 117-8. Farrer noted errors to Glover's pedigree...]
The Mauleverers of Beamsley (about 5 miles west of Skipton), who were closely connected with the Allerton line, descended from Helto Mauleverer, who died between 1155 and 1166; it is not impossible chronologically that he was Helto brother of Richard Mauleverer mentioned above, but he may have been of a younger generation. With the consent of his wife and his son William he gave land in Beamsley to Embsay priory, not later than 1131-1140, and with the consent of Bilioth his wife 12 bovates in Malham. Beamsley itself was part of the honour of Skipton and partly of the Percy fee. In 1166 William Mauleverer held a knight's fee of the old feoffment in of Skipton in Hellifield, Malham and elsewhere in Craven. From him the descent was in the male line to Richard Mauleverer of Beamsley, living in 1399, who died without issue, his eventual heirs being his sisters Alice, wife of John Middleton of Stockeld, and Thomasine, wife of William Moore of Otterburn, whose daughter and coheir E!
lizabeth married Thomas Clapham, ancestor of the Claphams of Beamsley.
-
WJhonson
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
<<In a message dated 10/18/07 07:23:09 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB >>
--------------------------------
But what is the basis for saying that Robert was son of Henry instead of son of John Peck of Wakefield by his wife Joan Anne ?
Will Johnson
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB >>
--------------------------------
But what is the basis for saying that Robert was son of Henry instead of son of John Peck of Wakefield by his wife Joan Anne ?
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
<<In a message dated 10/18/07 07:23:09 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB. >>
---------------------
The idea that Alice was b c 1458, that she was born in Wakefield, and that she m 1490 should all be discarded. Exact statements like these need exact citations, stated and quoted in the text.
In fact 1462 is about the minimus date on which Alice could be born, and we have nothing, so far, to my knowledge, that gives her any maximus, excepting that her husband has an IPM 28 Aug 10H8 and they evidently had six children as a couple.
That's not enough to pin her to such an exact date as 1458. Her father Peter was "of Stokeld" so I see no reason to expect her to be born at Wakefield
Will Johnson
Will Johnson
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB. >>
---------------------
The idea that Alice was b c 1458, that she was born in Wakefield, and that she m 1490 should all be discarded. Exact statements like these need exact citations, stated and quoted in the text.
In fact 1462 is about the minimus date on which Alice could be born, and we have nothing, so far, to my knowledge, that gives her any maximus, excepting that her husband has an IPM 28 Aug 10H8 and they evidently had six children as a couple.
That's not enough to pin her to such an exact date as 1458. Her father Peter was "of Stokeld" so I see no reason to expect her to be born at Wakefield
Will Johnson
Will Johnson
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Will, I plan to alter my Alice Middleton, accordingly:
Alice Middleton
b.Yorkshire, GB.
d.aft.1491
I believe I have already posted that there were documents
citing her alive in 1488 and 1491 in legal matters with her
husband Richard Peck.
Bill
*****************************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Alice Middleton
b.Yorkshire, GB.
d.aft.1491
I believe I have already posted that there were documents
citing her alive in 1488 and 1491 in legal matters with her
husband Richard Peck.
Bill
*****************************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/07 07:23:09 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB.
---------------------
The idea that Alice was b c 1458, that she was born in Wakefield, and that she m 1490 should all
be discarded. Exact statements like these need exact citations, stated and quoted in the text.
In fact 1462 is about the minimus date on which Alice could be born, and we have nothing, so
far, to my knowledge, that gives her any maximus, excepting that her husband has an IPM 28 Aug
10H8 and they evidently had six children as a couple.
That's not enough to pin her to such an exact date as 1458. Her father Peter was "of Stokeld"
so I see no reason to expect her to be born at Wakefield
Will Johnson
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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Thanks again, Will. Obviously, as John Higgins, I believe,
if I recall correctly, pointed out, that "b.c.1458" date for
Alice Middleton came via *AF* and it took me awhile to
solve the conundrum he presented. I am a naif when it
comes to stepping into the comfort zone of medieval
scholars and placed too much trust in the *AF* dates!
So: agreed. What I am learning from citations and dating
and placing on *gen-medieval* is that wills and chancery-
type record dates are quite reliable: I will attempt to
extract those from the NEHGSR articles. Sorry about
the faux pas. I leave it for others to clean up the *AF*
dating mess: despite their disclaimers.
Bill
********************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
if I recall correctly, pointed out, that "b.c.1458" date for
Alice Middleton came via *AF* and it took me awhile to
solve the conundrum he presented. I am a naif when it
comes to stepping into the comfort zone of medieval
scholars and placed too much trust in the *AF* dates!
So: agreed. What I am learning from citations and dating
and placing on *gen-medieval* is that wills and chancery-
type record dates are quite reliable: I will attempt to
extract those from the NEHGSR articles. Sorry about
the faux pas. I leave it for others to clean up the *AF*
dating mess: despite their disclaimers.
Bill
********************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/07 07:23:09 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB.
---------------------
The idea that Alice was b c 1458, that she was born in Wakefield, and that she m 1490 should all
be discarded. Exact statements like these need exact citations, stated and quoted in the text.
In fact 1462 is about the minimus date on which Alice could be born, and we have nothing, so
far, to my knowledge, that gives her any maximus, excepting that her husband has an IPM 28 Aug
10H8 and they evidently had six children as a couple.
That's not enough to pin her to such an exact date as 1458. Her father Peter was "of Stokeld"
so I see no reason to expect her to be born at Wakefield
Will Johnson
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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Thanks much, Will, again, for interest in this proposed pedigree.
Simply put: as you can see: Henry married Margery Leeke, and
wills of these participants clearly identify Robert Peck, of Beccles,
as *grandson* of John Leeke, father of Margery. The wills are in
the series of articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Society Register, 1930s. I am working on extracting the essential
quotes. I also believe that there was NO alleged son of John Peck
and Joan Anne named Robert. As I read the wills, and other documents,
the *same* land owned by John Leeke which went to Robert Peck,
of Beccles, his *grandson* was entrusted to Robert Peck, of Beccles,
who was to care for women members of the Leeke family until their
deaths, thereafter the deed holdings would remain with Robert Peck,
of Beccles. We are referring to Robert Peck, the Elder, here. The wills
are English translations, and I assume the originals were in Latin. It
would be possible for those so interested to check the primary
documents, if they were so inclined.
Bill
*********************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Simply put: as you can see: Henry married Margery Leeke, and
wills of these participants clearly identify Robert Peck, of Beccles,
as *grandson* of John Leeke, father of Margery. The wills are in
the series of articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Society Register, 1930s. I am working on extracting the essential
quotes. I also believe that there was NO alleged son of John Peck
and Joan Anne named Robert. As I read the wills, and other documents,
the *same* land owned by John Leeke which went to Robert Peck,
of Beccles, his *grandson* was entrusted to Robert Peck, of Beccles,
who was to care for women members of the Leeke family until their
deaths, thereafter the deed holdings would remain with Robert Peck,
of Beccles. We are referring to Robert Peck, the Elder, here. The wills
are English translations, and I assume the originals were in Latin. It
would be possible for those so interested to check the primary
documents, if they were so inclined.
Bill
*********************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/07 07:23:09 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
--------------------------------
But what is the basis for saying that Robert was son of Henry instead of son of John Peck of
Wakefield by his wife Joan Anne ?
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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Gjest
Re: Northern Wills & Inventories
<<<In a message dated 10/11/2007 4:30:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
goddai01@hotmail.co.uk writes:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
could be usefully added to "Abstracts and Extracts of primary
documents". Note that the PDFs appear to contain both images and OCRs
but the latter are raw with frequent misreadings but nontheless useful.>>>
-------------------------
Thanks Ian, I've added the Vis to my sources pages, the Wills I think I'll
put on my Other Sources page, as this page is just getting too big! I may
have to break it into separate pages.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
goddai01@hotmail.co.uk writes:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/choosefamily.html
could be usefully added to "Abstracts and Extracts of primary
documents". Note that the PDFs appear to contain both images and OCRs
but the latter are raw with frequent misreadings but nontheless useful.>>>
-------------------------
Thanks Ian, I've added the Vis to my sources pages, the Wills I think I'll
put on my Other Sources page, as this page is just getting too big! I may
have to break it into separate pages.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
<<In a message dated 10/18/2007 8:25:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Sorry about the faux pas. I leave it for others to clean up the *AF*
dating mess: despite their disclaimers.>>
-----------------------------------
It's very unlikely the Ancestral File at _www.familysearch.org_
(http://www.familysearch.org) will ever be cleaned up. They simply do not have the
methodology in place to do that.
OneWorldTree at _www.ancestry.com_ (http://www.ancestry.com) is an attempt
toward a clean-up but I'm still not quite sure if it's going to pass muster.
The way OneWorldTree is supposed to work is that the computer *attempts* to
put families together, and then humans and supposed-to, over time, slowly
correct it's errors and gradually get a "best-of-class" due to the thousands of
eyes watching and fixing it.
Unfortunately I don't have a lot of confidence that that will happen in the
way it was supposed. What is more likely to happen is that the errors will
multiply far faster than the correct details, and people will then have yet
another on-line database to cite as their foundational source, when it's really
a house-of-cards.
The Henry Project is probably the best-of-class in terms of its intent, but
it builds very slowly. Every fact however is backed with very firm sources
and good scholarship. It's doubtful there are many people who have the kind
of time that requires to mimic it.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Sorry about the faux pas. I leave it for others to clean up the *AF*
dating mess: despite their disclaimers.>>
-----------------------------------
It's very unlikely the Ancestral File at _www.familysearch.org_
(http://www.familysearch.org) will ever be cleaned up. They simply do not have the
methodology in place to do that.
OneWorldTree at _www.ancestry.com_ (http://www.ancestry.com) is an attempt
toward a clean-up but I'm still not quite sure if it's going to pass muster.
The way OneWorldTree is supposed to work is that the computer *attempts* to
put families together, and then humans and supposed-to, over time, slowly
correct it's errors and gradually get a "best-of-class" due to the thousands of
eyes watching and fixing it.
Unfortunately I don't have a lot of confidence that that will happen in the
way it was supposed. What is more likely to happen is that the errors will
multiply far faster than the correct details, and people will then have yet
another on-line database to cite as their foundational source, when it's really
a house-of-cards.
The Henry Project is probably the best-of-class in terms of its intent, but
it builds very slowly. Every fact however is backed with very firm sources
and good scholarship. It's doubtful there are many people who have the kind
of time that requires to mimic it.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Derek Howard
Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
On Oct 18, 11:58 pm, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the island.
There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the main families
are known of.
The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography and
period. There is a revised edition, 1975).
Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459.
and in
R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.
There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York, 1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.
Derek Howard
I'm not able to find any in formations about the nobility of the Greek
Island of NEGROPONTE (ancient Euboea). My focus is on the Italian noble
families forced to leave the island after the island fell into the
hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Does anyone knows if exist a book about the nobility of this place?
Thanks in advance for any help
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the island.
There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the main families
are known of.
The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography and
period. There is a revised edition, 1975).
Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459.
and in
R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.
There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York, 1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.
Derek Howard
-
Gjest
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
Dear Fellow Listers,
Apologies for that bit of misinformation but
I`m fairly sure that 1,000,000 dollars did in fact get proposed as the
Presidential salary at some point. obviously I overestimated their greed and it didn`t
go through.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Wasn`t it 250.000 dollars before the Clintonian increase ?
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Apologies for that bit of misinformation but
I`m fairly sure that 1,000,000 dollars did in fact get proposed as the
Presidential salary at some point. obviously I overestimated their greed and it didn`t
go through.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Wasn`t it 250.000 dollars before the Clintonian increase ?
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Derek Howard
Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
On Oct 19, 9:32 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.
Derek Howard
On Oct 18, 11:58 pm, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not able to find any in formations about the nobility of the Greek
Island of NEGROPONTE (ancient Euboea). My focus is on the Italian noble
families forced to leave the island after the island fell into the
hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Does anyone knows if exist a book about the nobility of this place?
Thanks in advance for any help
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the island.
There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the main families
are known of.
The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography and
period. There is a revised edition, 1975).
Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459.
and in
R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.
There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York, 1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.
Derek Howard
I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.
Derek Howard
-
Gjest
Re: PML Search Result matching philbrick OR philbrook
Dear Jack,
No. His Ancestor is Edward Garland a son of Peter and NN (?
someone other than Elizabeth.) Edward was of the southern branch , John who
married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth (Knapp) Philbrick is one of
my ancestors as is George who married Lucretia (Williams) Hitchcock were
Peter`s children of the northern branch. He was a mariner and perhaps had both
branches going at the same time.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
No. His Ancestor is Edward Garland a son of Peter and NN (?
someone other than Elizabeth.) Edward was of the southern branch , John who
married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth (Knapp) Philbrick is one of
my ancestors as is George who married Lucretia (Williams) Hitchcock were
Peter`s children of the northern branch. He was a mariner and perhaps had both
branches going at the same time.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
Thanks you very much, Derek, I'll try to find and check those books,
even if I understood - I'm afraid - that there are no specific text
about the italian nobility in the Eubea-Negroponte Island, correct?
Thanks once again
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Derek Howard
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:41 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
On Oct 19, 9:32 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.
Derek Howard
even if I understood - I'm afraid - that there are no specific text
about the italian nobility in the Eubea-Negroponte Island, correct?
Thanks once again
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Derek Howard
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:41 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
On Oct 19, 9:32 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:58 pm, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not able to find any in formations about the nobility of the
Greek Island of NEGROPONTE (ancient Euboea). My focus is on the
Italian noble families forced to leave the island after the island
fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Does anyone knows if exist a book about the nobility of this place?
Thanks in advance for any help
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the island.
There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the main families
are known of.
The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography and
period. There is a revised edition, 1975).
Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459. and
in R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.
There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York, 1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.
Derek Howard
I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.
Derek Howard
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
No...
$200,000...
And the increase did not affect President Clinton. It did not become
effective until 2001.
President Harry Truman was the first POTUS to have a salary of $100,000 and
President Ulysses S. Grant was the first to have a salary of $50,000.
CEO's of major corporations make FAR more -- as do many attorneys and
physicians.
So our Presidents are by no means "greedy".
Other Federal salaries are pegged to come in below that of the President.
This is all information readily available in the Public Domain.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.202.1192800096.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
$200,000...
And the increase did not affect President Clinton. It did not become
effective until 2001.
President Harry Truman was the first POTUS to have a salary of $100,000 and
President Ulysses S. Grant was the first to have a salary of $50,000.
CEO's of major corporations make FAR more -- as do many attorneys and
physicians.
So our Presidents are by no means "greedy".
Other Federal salaries are pegged to come in below that of the President.
This is all information readily available in the Public Domain.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.202.1192800096.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Fellow Listers,
Apologies for that bit of misinformation but
I`m fairly sure that 1,000,000 dollars did in fact get proposed as the
Presidential salary at some point. obviously I overestimated their greed
and it didn`t go through.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Wasn`t it 250.000 dollars before the Clintonian increase ?
-
Vince
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
from the list of stories so good it doesn't matter if they are true
"IN NINETEEN-THIRTY, RUTH EARNED EIGHTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS. THIS WAS MORE
MONEY THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HERBERT HOOVER, EARNED
THAT YEAR. REPORTERS ASKED RUTH WHY HE SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN
PRESIDENT HOOVER. RUTH REPORTEDLY SAID, "WHY NOT? I HAD A BETTER YEAR
THAN HE DID."
http://www.manythings.org/reading/011007pia_t.htm
Vince
No...
$200,000...
And the increase did not affect President Clinton. It did not become
effective until 2001.
President Harry Truman was the first POTUS to have a salary of $100,000 and
President Ulysses S. Grant was the first to have a salary of $50,000.
CEO's of major corporations make FAR more -- as do many attorneys and
physicians.
So our Presidents are by no means "greedy".
Other Federal salaries are pegged to come in below that of the President.
This is all information readily available in the Public Domain.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.202.1192800096.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Fellow Listers,
Apologies for that bit of misinformation but
I`m fairly sure that 1,000,000 dollars did in fact get proposed as the
Presidential salary at some point. obviously I overestimated their greed
and it didn`t go through.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Wasn`t it 250.000 dollars before the Clintonian increase ?
from the list of stories so good it doesn't matter if they are true
"IN NINETEEN-THIRTY, RUTH EARNED EIGHTY-THOUSAND DOLLARS. THIS WAS MORE
MONEY THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HERBERT HOOVER, EARNED
THAT YEAR. REPORTERS ASKED RUTH WHY HE SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN
PRESIDENT HOOVER. RUTH REPORTEDLY SAID, "WHY NOT? I HAD A BETTER YEAR
THAN HE DID."
http://www.manythings.org/reading/011007pia_t.htm
Vince
-
Gjest
Re: a biography of Helena Snakenborg, marchioness of Northam
Dear Will,
Anne of Cleves was Henry VIII`s fourth wife. the third wife
was Jane Seymour mother of the short lived King Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553)
who was possibly the first puritan and did his utmost to deprive Queen Mary I
(reigned 1553-1558) of her succession. It`s suprising He didn`t marry Lady Jane
Grey whom He desired to succeed him himself.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Anne of Cleves was Henry VIII`s fourth wife. the third wife
was Jane Seymour mother of the short lived King Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553)
who was possibly the first puritan and did his utmost to deprive Queen Mary I
(reigned 1553-1558) of her succession. It`s suprising He didn`t marry Lady Jane
Grey whom He desired to succeed him himself.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Thanks, again, Will, and I do enjoy your candor.
To begin with, I organized all for less confusion:
GEN-MEDIEVAL can access the *THE ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF JOSEPH PECK,
OF HINGHAM, MASS., IN 1638* Compiled by S. ALLYN PECK, B.A.,
of New York City, and contributed by FREDERICK STANHOPE PECK,
LL.D., of Barrington, R.I.* at:
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publ ... /Register/
Be aware that one must become a member in order to access the archives.
Sort of like Stirnet, and elsewhere?
But: if you bear with me, I will post as a scholar my *selections* in the interest
of the scholarship of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton pedigree, from Gateway ancestor
Joseph Peck, b.1587, co. Suffolk, immigration 1638, back to Sir Peter Middleton, c.1290/1338,
who married Eustacia Plumpton, sister of Sir William Plumpton, Yorkshire, England.
The articles are found in 1935, 1936, 1937, lesser extent in 1938, and 1939.
The website is *searchable* and I will post my extracts, forthwith.
Bill
*******************************
--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
To begin with, I organized all for less confusion:
GEN-MEDIEVAL can access the *THE ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF JOSEPH PECK,
OF HINGHAM, MASS., IN 1638* Compiled by S. ALLYN PECK, B.A.,
of New York City, and contributed by FREDERICK STANHOPE PECK,
LL.D., of Barrington, R.I.* at:
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publ ... /Register/
Be aware that one must become a member in order to access the archives.
Sort of like Stirnet, and elsewhere?
But: if you bear with me, I will post as a scholar my *selections* in the interest
of the scholarship of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton pedigree, from Gateway ancestor
Joseph Peck, b.1587, co. Suffolk, immigration 1638, back to Sir Peter Middleton, c.1290/1338,
who married Eustacia Plumpton, sister of Sir William Plumpton, Yorkshire, England.
The articles are found in 1935, 1936, 1937, lesser extent in 1938, and 1939.
The website is *searchable* and I will post my extracts, forthwith.
Bill
*******************************
--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/2007 8:37:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
Henry married Margery Leeke, and
wills of these participants clearly identify Robert Peck, of Beccles,
as *grandson* of John Leeke, father of Margery. The wills are in
the series of articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Society Register, 1930s.
----------
Okay bill put up. Stop talk about doing the extracts
Let's see some results!
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
mhollick@mac.com
Re: a biography of Helena Snakenborg, marchioness of Northam
On Oct 17, 11:20 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
I believe that Henry annulled his marriage with Anne of Cleves and
they never consummated their marriage. Perhaps the annulment or the
fact he was a King (as opposed to a mere noble) that allowed him to
quickly remarry.
There's a schoolboy pneumonic device for the wives of Henry VIII:
divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
In a message dated 10/14/07 17:24:41 Pacific Daylight Time, q...@yahoo.com writes:
Lord Northampton hoped to marry Helena but was
prevented from so doing because his first, though
divorced, wife Anne Bourchier, heiress of the Essex
family, yet lived. They had divorced in 1551, but
English church was not permissible of new marriages of
divorced persons until the divorced spouse was dead.
-------------------------
M Sjostrom has presented us with a very useful biography of Helena Snakenborg. But this section is not exactly true. After all Henry the King himself, had as his third wife Anne of Cleves, a women he divorced who yet lived through his next two (and last) marriages. So something else must be going on in the above.
Will Johnson
I believe that Henry annulled his marriage with Anne of Cleves and
they never consummated their marriage. Perhaps the annulment or the
fact he was a King (as opposed to a mere noble) that allowed him to
quickly remarry.
There's a schoolboy pneumonic device for the wives of Henry VIII:
divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.
-
Don Stone
Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia of Is
Don Stone wrote:
My thanks to those who checked for Zaida in the new Encyclopaedia of
Islam and found that she was not covered there.
However, here are two tid-bits about her background:
From a 1998 post by Paul Reed:
-- Don Stone
Is Zaida by any chance covered or mentioned in the new Encyclopaedia of
Islam, e.g., in vol. 11 (V-Z), published in 2002? If so, is there any
information there about her background?
-- Don Stone
My thanks to those who checked for Zaida in the new Encyclopaedia of
Islam and found that she was not covered there.
However, here are two tid-bits about her background:
From a 1998 post by Paul Reed:
ES ii 57 shows Alfonso VI as marrying (4) 1098/9 Isabel, d. 12 Sep.
1107,
widow of Prince Al Mamun of Seville, daughter of (Abn-Alhaje, King of
Denia
[which is in brackets as being questionable]) . Alfonso VI married
Beatrix of
Aquitaine in 1108, making Isabel's death by 1107 certain. [The third
wife,
Bertha, died 19 May 1097/8.]
ES cites as its authorities for this line Ricardo Mateos y Sainz de
Medrano
(of Barcelona) and Jaime de Salazar y Acha (of Madrid).
From a 2001 post by Todd Farmerie:
That [Zaida is from Denia] represents a separate theory, proposed by
Menendez Pidal, that Zaida was niece of "Aven Alfage", who he
interpreted to be al-Hajib of Denia. However, this
identification is far from certain, and even were it correct,
that does not mean that she herself hailed from the Kingdom of
her uncle.
-- Don Stone
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
Re Harry...
Does the casting for the Royal Family always include a juicy part for a
Prime Idiot?
Before Harry it was Andrew and before Andrew it was the Duke of Windsor...
Others?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:VZ3Si.12034$WX3.7448@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Does the casting for the Royal Family always include a juicy part for a
Prime Idiot?
Before Harry it was Andrew and before Andrew it was the Duke of Windsor...
Others?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:VZ3Si.12034$WX3.7448@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Harry seems to be a bit of an idiot to tell you the truth. Everyone
suggests William is the perfect royal but it is still early days. He let
Harry make a fool of himself dresed up as a nazi when really he should
have known better...
-
Gjest
Re: Was Sir John Middleton married to Christian de Strivelyn
Dear Will,
John Strivelyn`s 1st wife was named Barnaba rather than
Barbara de Swinburne.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
John Strivelyn`s 1st wife was named Barnaba rather than
Barbara de Swinburne.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
Yep...
Except you are referring to Queen Victoria's GRANDSON, Albert Victor
Christian [1864-1892], Duke of Clarence and Avondale ---- not her son,
"Bertie", later Edward VII, who was Albert's father.
Herewith Some Of The Scoop:
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------------------
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to Mary
of Teck, who later married George V.
He proposed to her at Luton Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were
engaged from that date. The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892.
"Prince Eddy" --- as he was known within the family --- became ill in early
January and died on 14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is
only reputed, not confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually Jack
the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the notorious
murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or near,
Whitechapel --- in London's East End --- from 7 August to 10 November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the Royal
Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of Wales
at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books.
The story of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has
been proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual killer, a
combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and alleged lover)
James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the involvement of his
father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last victim. Take your
pick! They're all nonsense.
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the dates
of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are drawn,
quoting from published court circulars.
Mention is also made of these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these
dates in Michael Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin
Howells and Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald
Rumbelow, and in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo
Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow involved.
The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed not
only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his illegal
marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that he died
imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that he was sent
there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were then promised that
one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into the Royal Family, and
even that George V was the product of an illicit affair between Alexandra
and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
| the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
| papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son
| of
| a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
| gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
| While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
| showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the
| Whitechapel murders.
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London was
| raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of
| an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the time
| that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual love life as
| did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified at the mere
| thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her grandson was up
| to, and elaborate strategies were developed to conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another, at
| one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to his
| cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught influenza while
| hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia. (Princess May in 1893
| married his younger brother George, duke of York, who became
| George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a more
| social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet been found.
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.213.1192813792.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Except you are referring to Queen Victoria's GRANDSON, Albert Victor
Christian [1864-1892], Duke of Clarence and Avondale ---- not her son,
"Bertie", later Edward VII, who was Albert's father.
Herewith Some Of The Scoop:
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------------------
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to Mary
of Teck, who later married George V.
He proposed to her at Luton Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were
engaged from that date. The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892.
"Prince Eddy" --- as he was known within the family --- became ill in early
January and died on 14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is
only reputed, not confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually Jack
the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the notorious
murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or near,
Whitechapel --- in London's East End --- from 7 August to 10 November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the Royal
Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of Wales
at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books.
The story of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has
been proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual killer, a
combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and alleged lover)
James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the involvement of his
father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last victim. Take your
pick! They're all nonsense.
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the dates
of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are drawn,
quoting from published court circulars.
Mention is also made of these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these
dates in Michael Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin
Howells and Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald
Rumbelow, and in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo
Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow involved.
The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed not
only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his illegal
marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that he died
imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that he was sent
there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were then promised that
one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into the Royal Family, and
even that George V was the product of an illicit affair between Alexandra
and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
| the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
| papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son
| of
| a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
| gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
| While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
| showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the
| Whitechapel murders.
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London was
| raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of
| an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the time
| that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual love life as
| did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified at the mere
| thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her grandson was up
| to, and elaborate strategies were developed to conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another, at
| one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to his
| cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught influenza while
| hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia. (Princess May in 1893
| married his younger brother George, duke of York, who became
| George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a more
| social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet been found.
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.213.1192813792.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,
Well there was Queen Victoria`s son Albert who acted
oddly enough that He`s been considered as a candidate (I believe He has a
alibi)
as Jack the Ripper.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
Dear Spencer,
Well there was Queen Victoria`s son Albert who acted
oddly enough that He`s been considered as a candidate (I believe He has a alibi)
as Jack the Ripper.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Well there was Queen Victoria`s son Albert who acted
oddly enough that He`s been considered as a candidate (I believe He has a alibi)
as Jack the Ripper.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o
On Oct 19, 12:47 pm, Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com> wrote:
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.
Christopher Ingham
Don Stone wrote:
Is Zaida by any chance covered or mentioned in the new Encyclopaedia of
Islam, e.g., in vol. 11 (V-Z), published in 2002? If so, is there any
information there about her background?
-- Don Stone
My thanks to those who checked for Zaida in the new Encyclopaedia of
Islam and found that she was not covered there.
However, here are two tid-bits about her background:
From a 1998 post by Paul Reed:> ES ii 57 shows Alfonso VI as marrying (4) 1098/9 Isabel, d. 12 Sep.
1107,
widow of Prince Al Mamun of Seville, daughter of (Abn-Alhaje, King of
Denia
[which is in brackets as being questionable]) . Alfonso VI married
Beatrix of
Aquitaine in 1108, making Isabel's death by 1107 certain. [The third
wife,
Bertha, died 19 May 1097/8.]
ES cites as its authorities for this line Ricardo Mateos y Sainz de
Medrano
(of Barcelona) and Jaime de Salazar y Acha (of Madrid).
From a 2001 post by Todd Farmerie:
That [Zaida is from Denia] represents a separate theory, proposed by
Menendez Pidal, that Zaida was niece of "Aven Alfage", who he
interpreted to be al-Hajib of Denia. However, this
identification is far from certain, and even were it correct,
that does not mean that she herself hailed from the Kingdom of
her uncle.
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.
Christopher Ingham
-
jonathan kirton
Re: Genealogics: Connecting the Machells to the Barons Aungi
To Will Johnson & Group: Specifically concerning the Manor of Thorpe
Manderville, Northants.
Will,
I want to thank you very much indeed for informing me of the
existence of the Google Book Search for Bernard Burke's "A Visitation
of the Seats and Arms of the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Great Britain
and Ireland" , particularly the Second Series, Volume 2, pages 89-90,
regarding the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville.
I believe that the information so provided, read in conjunction with
some other data which follows, proves pretty conclusively that Burke
did indeed make a couple of small errors in his statement on the
above mentioned pages, but that which is correct in his statements
explains for me a very long standing puzzle, an answer for which I
have been seeking for several years.
In discussing the ownership of the Manor he made the following
statement:-
"In 2 Hen VI (1423) Elizabeth, successively the wife of 1) William
Frebody & 2) Gerard Waldeyne died possessed of Thorpe Mandeville
which she left to her grandson William Frebody, Esq.. In his family
it remained until 1531 when it passed into the hands of William
Kirton, Esq, Alderman of London, by his marriage with Anne, dau. of
Hugh Frebody, Esq.. Mr. Kirton purchased the reversion of Thorpe
Mandeville after the death of Mrs. Alice Gifford & it continued in
the Kirton family until 1685 when Edmund Kirton, Esq., sold it to
Thomas Gostelowe of Wadrington, Oxfordshire."
I believe that Burke confused William Kirton, who was a prominent man
in London, with his grandson Stephen Kirton, who was indeed an
Alderman of the City of London, and that the "Mr. Kirton" who
purchased the reversion was in fact the grandson, Mr. Stephen Kirton.
I believe that the given date of 1531 is either in error, or more
likely actually refers to the date when Stephen Kirton purchased the
reversion, shortly after his father, John's death in 1529.
"Thorpe Mandeville, Northamptonshire - History of the Parish" by
Maurice Cole (1996) which has, on page 8, in Chapter 4, "The
Manorial Rights", states:-
"Alice (Freebody) married William Gifford who died in 1553. Gifford
had sold the manor house to Stephen Kirton, citizen and Alderman of
London, subject to the life interest of his widow, Alice Gifford.
Stephen Kirton died in 1553 and therefore did not enjoy the purchase.
His son, Thomas, was only aged sixteen at the time of his
inheritance." (He quotes as sources "The History of
Northamptonshire" by John Bridges (1719-24), and "History and
Antiquities of the County of Northamptonshire" by George T. Baker
(1822-30) and 51 other sources, including the County Record
Office, and the Local History Department of the Northampton County
Library.)
From the two statements I conclude that William Kirton of London
married Anne Frebody, coheir with her sister to Thorpe Mandeville
Manor, and as a result came into possession of a moiety of
the said manor. At some later time Mr. William Gifford married the
other sister, Alice, and thus also came into possession of the
other half share of the manor. At some later date, possibly in 1531,
soon after the death of John Kirton at Edmonton, Middlesex in 1529,
(the only son of William Kirton of London, and the father of Stephen
Kirton, the Alderman) Stephen and his brother must have inherited
their grandfather's moiety of the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville, and
Stephen then purchased the moiety owned by William Gifford, (the
reversion), subject to the life interest of his wife, Alice
Gifford. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gifford had died by 1553, as had
Stephen himself, so that he never obtained possession of the manor
during his lifetime, and the manor passed to his son Thomas Kirton, a
minor under the care of his mother, Margaret (nee Offley), as
executor of her husband's will.
It is apparent that Anne was most likely the elder sister, and that
she was probably very young when she married William; also that the
evidently younger sister, Alice was probably several years younger
than her sister, since she succeeded in living on until 1553.
Let us then look at Mr. William Kirton of Southwark, co. Surrey, on
the south bank of the Thames facing the City of London. Eldest son of
John Kirton of Somerset, and grandson of Alan Kirton, escheator, of
Biddenham, Bedfordshire. (ref.: Harleian MS 1551, p. 73-4 and
"Middlesex Pedigrees", p.106) Born. circa 1403 (Wedgwood says 1415,
but this must be in error), Probably nephew of William Kirton of
Southwark, MP (Burgess) of the Borough of Southwark , 1414 - 25.
(J. S. Roskell, "History of Parliament 1386 - 1421" Vol. III, members
E - O)
William's blazon: Argent, a fesse and a chevron in chief, gules, was
the same as that of Alan, his
grandfather (Harleian MS 245, folio 27, page 2 from a declaration
made at Biddenham in 1399) and his crest was also probably the same
as his grandfather's: "A hawk close, or, hooded gules, belled of the
first". (ref.: "The Hundred of Willey, Bedfordshire" Harvey (1872-8),
Biddenham, p.9 (see note))
We first hear of William in 1428 when he was elected as one of the
four coroners for Surrey to replace William Kirton, deceased (who was
probably his uncle)(this is why he must have been born earlier that
Wedgewood's estimate of 1415). It is probable that he was a lawyer,
although no record of this has so far been found. Member of
Parliament (Burgess) for the Borough of Southwark 1442, 1449-50,
1450-51, 1460-61 (ref.: "History of Parliament 1439-1509" (1936)
by Wedgewood, p. 518); Commission of William Kirketon of Southwark,
co. Surrey, gentleman, 1450 (CPR 1450, 28 Hen. VI, Vol.5, p.346)
and again Commissioner of Justice, William Kirton of Southwark, 1451
(CPR 1451, Volume 5, p. 532); Commissioner of Sewers, Surrey 1443-1453;
Elector, Surrey, 1449 & 1450; Pardoned for being "Out with Cade",
July, 1450; by October, 1451
a King's Sergeant at Arms; survived the troubles and pardoned,
February, 1462.
Married firstly: Margery Milborne, dau. & heir of William Milborne
(sometimes as Sir William ?)
who bore his two children John and Margaret, but died (after 1443),
circa 1450, & buried in the
Chapel of the Virgin Mary, within the Church of St. George the
Martyr, Southwark, co. Surrey.
Probably married secondly: Anne Frebody (ffrebody, freebody), dau. &
co-heiress of Hugh Frebody, Esq., c. 1455, thus acquiring a moiety of
the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville, Northants.
However Anne evidently died quite soon, and was buried beside
William's first wife in the same chapel of St. George the Martyr at
Southwark. (I have been seeking her name for a long time; I also
believe that it is likely that the first witness to William's will,
a "Thomas Ffrebody", must be a close relative of Anne's, and thus
offers further confirmation of his marriage to Anne Frebody.)
Married thirdly: an Agnes, who outlived William, but who he evidently
trusted implicitly because his will made her his sole executor,
tasked to look after and raise his children.
William's Will (P.C.C. 15 Godyn) was written on 19 August, 1464 at
Paulscray, which was the in the County of Kent, a few miles east of
Southwark, to where he had perhaps retired. He died, evidently, in
1465-6, and was buried beside his first two wives in the same Chapel,
Southwark.
His will was proved 22 November, 1466 at Lambeth. "A Survey of
London" (1603) by John Stow, page 160, concerning the Church of St.
George the Martyr at Southwark , has: "..there lie buried William
Kirton and his wives."
Subsequently, probably in 1531, but certainly before 1553, William's
grandson, Stephen Kirton,
Alderman and Freeman of the City of London, Merchant of the English
Wool Staple at Calais, purchased the other moiety of the inheritance
of the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville directly from William Gifford, the
husband of Alice Gifford (nee Frebody), the sister and co-heir of his
grand- father's second wife, Anne. However, she was in residence at
the Manor until her death, and, respecting her life interest in the
property, Stephen died before he ever took possession of it; so
after 1553 it passed into the hands of his eldest son, Thomas Kirton,
who subsequently also became an attorney in London, and who, by 1582
had been appointed the "Common Serjeant of the City of London", a
position which gave him legal precedence above the Doctors of Civil
Law, and the Barristers-at-Law.
The other two points you raised were the dates of birth and marriage
of Stephen and Margaret's children. The source which I had used was
Percival Boyd's "Inhabitants of London" (this work was originally
known as "Citizens of London", and appears under that title in older
reference works.) The first index volume for this work was in "The
Genealogist" magazine, Vol. 8 in March, 1939 (p. 280).
Boyd's page for Stephen Kirton and his wife (marked "Steven" (sic)) #
11923, shows their children as:-
Thomas.....................................married
1559...................................... to Mary Sadler #11424
Jane..........................................married 1546
1)........................to Richard Whethill # 22519
2)........................to ______ Dutton
Grissel...................................... .
...........................Sir Nicholas Woodroff # 8499
Anne.........................................
1)................... Sir Thomas White
2)..........................Thomas Dutton
Ellen......................................... married
1557..........................Sir Richard White # 40835
John..................................................died
Margaret.......?........................................................
............................... Thomas Sutton
(Note that he shows a large question mark beside Margaret's name)
(An article on this work was prepared by Sue Gibbons, Librarian of
the Society of Genealogists
in 2006)
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kirton
Manderville, Northants.
Will,
I want to thank you very much indeed for informing me of the
existence of the Google Book Search for Bernard Burke's "A Visitation
of the Seats and Arms of the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Great Britain
and Ireland" , particularly the Second Series, Volume 2, pages 89-90,
regarding the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville.
I believe that the information so provided, read in conjunction with
some other data which follows, proves pretty conclusively that Burke
did indeed make a couple of small errors in his statement on the
above mentioned pages, but that which is correct in his statements
explains for me a very long standing puzzle, an answer for which I
have been seeking for several years.
In discussing the ownership of the Manor he made the following
statement:-
"In 2 Hen VI (1423) Elizabeth, successively the wife of 1) William
Frebody & 2) Gerard Waldeyne died possessed of Thorpe Mandeville
which she left to her grandson William Frebody, Esq.. In his family
it remained until 1531 when it passed into the hands of William
Kirton, Esq, Alderman of London, by his marriage with Anne, dau. of
Hugh Frebody, Esq.. Mr. Kirton purchased the reversion of Thorpe
Mandeville after the death of Mrs. Alice Gifford & it continued in
the Kirton family until 1685 when Edmund Kirton, Esq., sold it to
Thomas Gostelowe of Wadrington, Oxfordshire."
I believe that Burke confused William Kirton, who was a prominent man
in London, with his grandson Stephen Kirton, who was indeed an
Alderman of the City of London, and that the "Mr. Kirton" who
purchased the reversion was in fact the grandson, Mr. Stephen Kirton.
I believe that the given date of 1531 is either in error, or more
likely actually refers to the date when Stephen Kirton purchased the
reversion, shortly after his father, John's death in 1529.
"Thorpe Mandeville, Northamptonshire - History of the Parish" by
Maurice Cole (1996) which has, on page 8, in Chapter 4, "The
Manorial Rights", states:-
"Alice (Freebody) married William Gifford who died in 1553. Gifford
had sold the manor house to Stephen Kirton, citizen and Alderman of
London, subject to the life interest of his widow, Alice Gifford.
Stephen Kirton died in 1553 and therefore did not enjoy the purchase.
His son, Thomas, was only aged sixteen at the time of his
inheritance." (He quotes as sources "The History of
Northamptonshire" by John Bridges (1719-24), and "History and
Antiquities of the County of Northamptonshire" by George T. Baker
(1822-30) and 51 other sources, including the County Record
Office, and the Local History Department of the Northampton County
Library.)
From the two statements I conclude that William Kirton of London
married Anne Frebody, coheir with her sister to Thorpe Mandeville
Manor, and as a result came into possession of a moiety of
the said manor. At some later time Mr. William Gifford married the
other sister, Alice, and thus also came into possession of the
other half share of the manor. At some later date, possibly in 1531,
soon after the death of John Kirton at Edmonton, Middlesex in 1529,
(the only son of William Kirton of London, and the father of Stephen
Kirton, the Alderman) Stephen and his brother must have inherited
their grandfather's moiety of the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville, and
Stephen then purchased the moiety owned by William Gifford, (the
reversion), subject to the life interest of his wife, Alice
Gifford. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gifford had died by 1553, as had
Stephen himself, so that he never obtained possession of the manor
during his lifetime, and the manor passed to his son Thomas Kirton, a
minor under the care of his mother, Margaret (nee Offley), as
executor of her husband's will.
It is apparent that Anne was most likely the elder sister, and that
she was probably very young when she married William; also that the
evidently younger sister, Alice was probably several years younger
than her sister, since she succeeded in living on until 1553.
Let us then look at Mr. William Kirton of Southwark, co. Surrey, on
the south bank of the Thames facing the City of London. Eldest son of
John Kirton of Somerset, and grandson of Alan Kirton, escheator, of
Biddenham, Bedfordshire. (ref.: Harleian MS 1551, p. 73-4 and
"Middlesex Pedigrees", p.106) Born. circa 1403 (Wedgwood says 1415,
but this must be in error), Probably nephew of William Kirton of
Southwark, MP (Burgess) of the Borough of Southwark , 1414 - 25.
(J. S. Roskell, "History of Parliament 1386 - 1421" Vol. III, members
E - O)
William's blazon: Argent, a fesse and a chevron in chief, gules, was
the same as that of Alan, his
grandfather (Harleian MS 245, folio 27, page 2 from a declaration
made at Biddenham in 1399) and his crest was also probably the same
as his grandfather's: "A hawk close, or, hooded gules, belled of the
first". (ref.: "The Hundred of Willey, Bedfordshire" Harvey (1872-8),
Biddenham, p.9 (see note))
We first hear of William in 1428 when he was elected as one of the
four coroners for Surrey to replace William Kirton, deceased (who was
probably his uncle)(this is why he must have been born earlier that
Wedgewood's estimate of 1415). It is probable that he was a lawyer,
although no record of this has so far been found. Member of
Parliament (Burgess) for the Borough of Southwark 1442, 1449-50,
1450-51, 1460-61 (ref.: "History of Parliament 1439-1509" (1936)
by Wedgewood, p. 518); Commission of William Kirketon of Southwark,
co. Surrey, gentleman, 1450 (CPR 1450, 28 Hen. VI, Vol.5, p.346)
and again Commissioner of Justice, William Kirton of Southwark, 1451
(CPR 1451, Volume 5, p. 532); Commissioner of Sewers, Surrey 1443-1453;
Elector, Surrey, 1449 & 1450; Pardoned for being "Out with Cade",
July, 1450; by October, 1451
a King's Sergeant at Arms; survived the troubles and pardoned,
February, 1462.
Married firstly: Margery Milborne, dau. & heir of William Milborne
(sometimes as Sir William ?)
who bore his two children John and Margaret, but died (after 1443),
circa 1450, & buried in the
Chapel of the Virgin Mary, within the Church of St. George the
Martyr, Southwark, co. Surrey.
Probably married secondly: Anne Frebody (ffrebody, freebody), dau. &
co-heiress of Hugh Frebody, Esq., c. 1455, thus acquiring a moiety of
the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville, Northants.
However Anne evidently died quite soon, and was buried beside
William's first wife in the same chapel of St. George the Martyr at
Southwark. (I have been seeking her name for a long time; I also
believe that it is likely that the first witness to William's will,
a "Thomas Ffrebody", must be a close relative of Anne's, and thus
offers further confirmation of his marriage to Anne Frebody.)
Married thirdly: an Agnes, who outlived William, but who he evidently
trusted implicitly because his will made her his sole executor,
tasked to look after and raise his children.
William's Will (P.C.C. 15 Godyn) was written on 19 August, 1464 at
Paulscray, which was the in the County of Kent, a few miles east of
Southwark, to where he had perhaps retired. He died, evidently, in
1465-6, and was buried beside his first two wives in the same Chapel,
Southwark.
His will was proved 22 November, 1466 at Lambeth. "A Survey of
London" (1603) by John Stow, page 160, concerning the Church of St.
George the Martyr at Southwark , has: "..there lie buried William
Kirton and his wives."
Subsequently, probably in 1531, but certainly before 1553, William's
grandson, Stephen Kirton,
Alderman and Freeman of the City of London, Merchant of the English
Wool Staple at Calais, purchased the other moiety of the inheritance
of the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville directly from William Gifford, the
husband of Alice Gifford (nee Frebody), the sister and co-heir of his
grand- father's second wife, Anne. However, she was in residence at
the Manor until her death, and, respecting her life interest in the
property, Stephen died before he ever took possession of it; so
after 1553 it passed into the hands of his eldest son, Thomas Kirton,
who subsequently also became an attorney in London, and who, by 1582
had been appointed the "Common Serjeant of the City of London", a
position which gave him legal precedence above the Doctors of Civil
Law, and the Barristers-at-Law.
The other two points you raised were the dates of birth and marriage
of Stephen and Margaret's children. The source which I had used was
Percival Boyd's "Inhabitants of London" (this work was originally
known as "Citizens of London", and appears under that title in older
reference works.) The first index volume for this work was in "The
Genealogist" magazine, Vol. 8 in March, 1939 (p. 280).
Boyd's page for Stephen Kirton and his wife (marked "Steven" (sic)) #
11923, shows their children as:-
Thomas.....................................married
1559...................................... to Mary Sadler #11424
Jane..........................................married 1546
1)........................to Richard Whethill # 22519
2)........................to ______ Dutton
Grissel...................................... .
...........................Sir Nicholas Woodroff # 8499
Anne.........................................
1)................... Sir Thomas White
2)..........................Thomas Dutton
Ellen......................................... married
1557..........................Sir Richard White # 40835
John..................................................died
Margaret.......?........................................................
............................... Thomas Sutton
(Note that he shows a large question mark beside Margaret's name)
(An article on this work was prepared by Sue Gibbons, Librarian of
the Society of Genealogists
in 2006)
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kirton
-
Gjest
Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o
On Oct 19, 11:15 am, Christopher Ingham
<christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
That Alfonso married Zaida in 1106 is the theory first put forward by
Reilly in his _Alfonso VI_. There is a document in 1106 that refers to
Alfonso and Queen Isabel, formerly his mistress but recently married
to him. The question is how recent is recent? Does this mean that
Alfonso had just married her, and hence he had two Queens Isabel in
succession, or could recently be as far back as 1100 (or whenever it
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and
hence his only wife of this name? Salazar y Acha prefers a one-Isabel
solution, Barton, as you report, a two. The recently uncovered
document in which Queen Isabel is called Sancho's mother does not
distinguish, as it dates from after the time of this supposed new
marriage. We are left with hashing out whether Bishop Pelayo was more
likely to leave out a Queen Isabel, or to name the same Isabel as
mistress and queen without indicating that they are the same; and
whether Queen Urraca would have left out one step-mother in a document
that names the others.
As to Sancho's birthdate, there is no direct testimony. This date is
based on the hypothesis that had he been born in adultery, he would
have been viewed less favorably than had be been born simply in
fornication. In other words, if Alfonso was not married at the time,
then his son could later be legitimated and made heir, but if Sancho
was born while Alfonso was married to Bertha, this would have been
impermissible. Thus 1093 places his conception after Constance died
and before Alfonso married Bertha. As should be evident, this
interpretation places a lot of emphasis on what would and would not
have been permitted. Also note that this puts his birth at a point
where it is reasonable he would have been in arms at the time of his
death, while some hypotheses place his birth a handful of years later,
which is unreasonable.
taf
<christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.
That Alfonso married Zaida in 1106 is the theory first put forward by
Reilly in his _Alfonso VI_. There is a document in 1106 that refers to
Alfonso and Queen Isabel, formerly his mistress but recently married
to him. The question is how recent is recent? Does this mean that
Alfonso had just married her, and hence he had two Queens Isabel in
succession, or could recently be as far back as 1100 (or whenever it
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and
hence his only wife of this name? Salazar y Acha prefers a one-Isabel
solution, Barton, as you report, a two. The recently uncovered
document in which Queen Isabel is called Sancho's mother does not
distinguish, as it dates from after the time of this supposed new
marriage. We are left with hashing out whether Bishop Pelayo was more
likely to leave out a Queen Isabel, or to name the same Isabel as
mistress and queen without indicating that they are the same; and
whether Queen Urraca would have left out one step-mother in a document
that names the others.
As to Sancho's birthdate, there is no direct testimony. This date is
based on the hypothesis that had he been born in adultery, he would
have been viewed less favorably than had be been born simply in
fornication. In other words, if Alfonso was not married at the time,
then his son could later be legitimated and made heir, but if Sancho
was born while Alfonso was married to Bertha, this would have been
impermissible. Thus 1093 places his conception after Constance died
and before Alfonso married Bertha. As should be evident, this
interpretation places a lot of emphasis on what would and would not
have been permitted. Also note that this puts his birth at a point
where it is reasonable he would have been in arms at the time of his
death, while some hypotheses place his birth a handful of years later,
which is unreasonable.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Zaida's background
In article <1192826720.463742.210970@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
Just to clarify, the document of 27 March 1106 on which Reilly based the
two-Isabel theory does not state explicitly that Isabel was formerly
Alfonso's mistress. It is a charter confirmed by king Alfonso
"eiusdemque Helisabeth regina sub maritali copula legaliter aderente",
which simply is an elaborate way of saying that Elizabeth (Isabel), who
also confirmed the deed, was his legitimately wedded wife--which *might*
imply both that they were recently married, and that her earlier status
in relation to Alfonso was irregular.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:15 am, Christopher Ingham
christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.
That Alfonso married Zaida in 1106 is the theory first put forward by
Reilly in his _Alfonso VI_. There is a document in 1106 that refers to
Alfonso and Queen Isabel, formerly his mistress but recently married
to him. The question is how recent is recent? Does this mean that
Alfonso had just married her, and hence he had two Queens Isabel in
succession, or could recently be as far back as 1100 (or whenever it
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and
hence his only wife of this name? Salazar y Acha prefers a one-Isabel
solution, Barton, as you report, a two. The recently uncovered
document in which Queen Isabel is called Sancho's mother does not
distinguish, as it dates from after the time of this supposed new
marriage. We are left with hashing out whether Bishop Pelayo was more
likely to leave out a Queen Isabel, or to name the same Isabel as
mistress and queen without indicating that they are the same; and
whether Queen Urraca would have left out one step-mother in a document
that names the others.
Just to clarify, the document of 27 March 1106 on which Reilly based the
two-Isabel theory does not state explicitly that Isabel was formerly
Alfonso's mistress. It is a charter confirmed by king Alfonso
"eiusdemque Helisabeth regina sub maritali copula legaliter aderente",
which simply is an elaborate way of saying that Elizabeth (Isabel), who
also confirmed the deed, was his legitimately wedded wife--which *might*
imply both that they were recently married, and that her earlier status
in relation to Alfonso was irregular.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: Zaida's background
On Oct 19, 2:36 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Yes, I should have been more precise. This is the only document from
the period of which I am aware that specifies that the queen is the
king's legally married wife. Makes you wonder what the priest was
thinking (both in terms of what he was referring to, and why he would
choose to make reference to whatever it was).
taf
wrote:
In article <1192826720.463742.210...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:15 am, Christopher Ingham
christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.
That Alfonso married Zaida in 1106 is the theory first put forward by
Reilly in his _Alfonso VI_. There is a document in 1106 that refers to
Alfonso and Queen Isabel, formerly his mistress but recently married
to him. The question is how recent is recent? Does this mean that
Alfonso had just married her, and hence he had two Queens Isabel in
succession, or could recently be as far back as 1100 (or whenever it
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and
hence his only wife of this name? Salazar y Acha prefers a one-Isabel
solution, Barton, as you report, a two. The recently uncovered
document in which Queen Isabel is called Sancho's mother does not
distinguish, as it dates from after the time of this supposed new
marriage. We are left with hashing out whether Bishop Pelayo was more
likely to leave out a Queen Isabel, or to name the same Isabel as
mistress and queen without indicating that they are the same; and
whether Queen Urraca would have left out one step-mother in a document
that names the others.
Just to clarify, the document of 27 March 1106 on which Reilly based the
two-Isabel theory does not state explicitly that Isabel was formerly
Alfonso's mistress. It is a charter confirmed by king Alfonso
"eiusdemque Helisabeth regina sub maritali copula legaliter aderente",
which simply is an elaborate way of saying that Elizabeth (Isabel), who
also confirmed the deed, was his legitimately wedded wife--which *might*
imply both that they were recently married, and that her earlier status
in relation to Alfonso was irregular.
Yes, I should have been more precise. This is the only document from
the period of which I am aware that specifies that the queen is the
king's legally married wife. Makes you wonder what the priest was
thinking (both in terms of what he was referring to, and why he would
choose to make reference to whatever it was).
taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Zaida's Background
No...
You should have been SMARTER.
But sadly, you are not.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1192832802.880241.244340@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You should have been SMARTER.
But sadly, you are not.
DSH
<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1192832802.880241.244340@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I should have been more precise.
taf
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
See GEN-MEDIEVAL archives for previous posts to this thread:
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 2: "Beccles, the home of two Robert Pecks, the grandfather and
the father of Rev. Robert Peck and of Joseph Peck of Hingham and
Rehoboth in New England, is an important parish in the northeastern
part of Suffolk, 41 miles northeast from Ipswich. It is situated on the
River Waveney, which winds in a general northeasterly direction towards
the North Sea and separates Suffolk from Norfolk...
The earliest mention in the records here presented of a Robert
Peck who can be *proved* to be the first Robert Peck of Beccles of the
Peck pedigree is found in the will of John Leeke of Beccles, dated 6 Sept.
1529 (*vide infra*). The testator calls Robert Peck his "neve"
[scholars since the original now translate its meaning as *grandson*
which was general usage in the 16th century: later in the series, see
comment by G. Andrews Moriarty, A.M., LL.B., F.S.A., of Bristol, R.I.,
Chairman of the Committee on English and Foreign Research
(the *vetting* panel of the NEHGSociety REGISTER publication cited)
Jan 1937, page 7]
without naming his residence; but in the records in the Chancery suit
Drawer v. Pek (*vide infra*) [already posted to gen-medieval as Note 1]
his residence is given as Beccles, co. Suffolk. Below are given, in
chronological order, abstracts of (1) the will of John Leeke of Beccles,
dated, it seems likely, on the Thursday before Michaelmas, 1504,
who was *probably* the father of the testator of 6 Sept. 1529, (2) the
will of Thomas Leke, Parson, of Beccles, dated 12 Dec 1504, who was
brother of the testator of the Michaelmas season, 1504, (3) the will
of Henry Peke of Carlton Colville, co. Suffolk, dated 16 Apr. 1525, who
*may have been* the father of the Robert Peck named in the will of the
testator of 6 Sept. 1529. Then follow abstracts of (5) the proceedings
in the Chancery suit of Drawer v. Pek, *circa* 1530, (6) the will of Alyce
Leeke of Beccles, dated 14 June 1537, widow of the testator of 6 Sept.
1529, and (7) the will of Robert Pecke of Beccles, dated 31 Oct 1556
[*grandson*] of the testator of 6 Sept. 1529 and grandfather of the
emigrants to New England" [Oct 1935, page 333].
COMMENT: I will end this post at this point. In the interest of scholarship,
I open the door to query as to what members believe would be crucial
in any of the above reference documents. Understanding, I will select
what I consider substantial proof of the proposed pedigree of Peck-
Leeke-Middleton, if others differ: please correct the pedigree or query
for information sought from the above record. There are considerably
more documents referenced as we go along. We, knowingly, are
REVISITING the work left undone in the NEHGSREGISTER circa 1939.
We acknowledge up-front that significant *probable* and *probably*
qualifiers must be inserted at appropriate places, and if I omit them
in my zeal to prove the proposed pedigree, by all means remind me.
No doubt, members may find proof found lacking in the series as
completed circa 6 decades ago. I attest I have a vested interest in
the proposed pedigree inasmuch as Joseph Peck was my gateway
ancestor of this lineage to England and make no apologies for my
unmitigated zeal in seeking truth and certainty where possible.
Bill
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 2: "Beccles, the home of two Robert Pecks, the grandfather and
the father of Rev. Robert Peck and of Joseph Peck of Hingham and
Rehoboth in New England, is an important parish in the northeastern
part of Suffolk, 41 miles northeast from Ipswich. It is situated on the
River Waveney, which winds in a general northeasterly direction towards
the North Sea and separates Suffolk from Norfolk...
The earliest mention in the records here presented of a Robert
Peck who can be *proved* to be the first Robert Peck of Beccles of the
Peck pedigree is found in the will of John Leeke of Beccles, dated 6 Sept.
1529 (*vide infra*). The testator calls Robert Peck his "neve"
[scholars since the original now translate its meaning as *grandson*
which was general usage in the 16th century: later in the series, see
comment by G. Andrews Moriarty, A.M., LL.B., F.S.A., of Bristol, R.I.,
Chairman of the Committee on English and Foreign Research
(the *vetting* panel of the NEHGSociety REGISTER publication cited)
Jan 1937, page 7]
without naming his residence; but in the records in the Chancery suit
Drawer v. Pek (*vide infra*) [already posted to gen-medieval as Note 1]
his residence is given as Beccles, co. Suffolk. Below are given, in
chronological order, abstracts of (1) the will of John Leeke of Beccles,
dated, it seems likely, on the Thursday before Michaelmas, 1504,
who was *probably* the father of the testator of 6 Sept. 1529, (2) the
will of Thomas Leke, Parson, of Beccles, dated 12 Dec 1504, who was
brother of the testator of the Michaelmas season, 1504, (3) the will
of Henry Peke of Carlton Colville, co. Suffolk, dated 16 Apr. 1525, who
*may have been* the father of the Robert Peck named in the will of the
testator of 6 Sept. 1529. Then follow abstracts of (5) the proceedings
in the Chancery suit of Drawer v. Pek, *circa* 1530, (6) the will of Alyce
Leeke of Beccles, dated 14 June 1537, widow of the testator of 6 Sept.
1529, and (7) the will of Robert Pecke of Beccles, dated 31 Oct 1556
[*grandson*] of the testator of 6 Sept. 1529 and grandfather of the
emigrants to New England" [Oct 1935, page 333].
COMMENT: I will end this post at this point. In the interest of scholarship,
I open the door to query as to what members believe would be crucial
in any of the above reference documents. Understanding, I will select
what I consider substantial proof of the proposed pedigree of Peck-
Leeke-Middleton, if others differ: please correct the pedigree or query
for information sought from the above record. There are considerably
more documents referenced as we go along. We, knowingly, are
REVISITING the work left undone in the NEHGSREGISTER circa 1939.
We acknowledge up-front that significant *probable* and *probably*
qualifiers must be inserted at appropriate places, and if I omit them
in my zeal to prove the proposed pedigree, by all means remind me.
No doubt, members may find proof found lacking in the series as
completed circa 6 decades ago. I attest I have a vested interest in
the proposed pedigree inasmuch as Joseph Peck was my gateway
ancestor of this lineage to England and make no apologies for my
unmitigated zeal in seeking truth and certainty where possible.
Bill
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Zaida's background
In article <1192832802.880241.244340@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
Exactly: it is a very unusual phrase, commenting on something that
usually is left unsaid, suggesting the scribe may have been emphasizing
the point.
Back to the Denia theory: it has been mentioned a couple of times on
this thread, and it appears in a garbled and unidentifiable reference in
Schwennicke. No one can state where it comes from, and since
Schwennicke cribbed his Iberian material from some unpublished (and
apparently obscure) charts--partly attributed to Dr. Salazar Acha
himself. Perhaps (as Don suggested) someone should contact him to see
where any other pointers to Zaida's provenance may be found--if any
exist.
For what it's worth, here is an interview with (and photo of) Mr.
Salazar Acha, in his role as talking head, opining on the 2004 wedding
of the Principe de Asturias:
http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/especiales ... jsp?TEXTO=
100000040866
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:36 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net
wrote:
In article <1192826720.463742.210...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:15 am, Christopher Ingham
christophering...@comcast.net> wrote:
FWIW, Simon Barton makes a brief mention of Zaida in
"Spain in the Eleventh Century" (_The New Cambridge
Medieval History_, vol. 4, pt. 2 [2004], 188-9).
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male
heirs, he married his mistress Zaida, the former daughter-
in-law of al-Mu'tamid of Seville, in 1106, thereby legitimizing
the heir apparent, Sancho, who was born in 1093.
That Alfonso married Zaida in 1106 is the theory first put forward by
Reilly in his _Alfonso VI_. There is a document in 1106 that refers to
Alfonso and Queen Isabel, formerly his mistress but recently married
to him. The question is how recent is recent? Does this mean that
Alfonso had just married her, and hence he had two Queens Isabel in
succession, or could recently be as far back as 1100 (or whenever it
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and
hence his only wife of this name? Salazar y Acha prefers a one-Isabel
solution, Barton, as you report, a two. The recently uncovered
document in which Queen Isabel is called Sancho's mother does not
distinguish, as it dates from after the time of this supposed new
marriage. We are left with hashing out whether Bishop Pelayo was more
likely to leave out a Queen Isabel, or to name the same Isabel as
mistress and queen without indicating that they are the same; and
whether Queen Urraca would have left out one step-mother in a document
that names the others.
Just to clarify, the document of 27 March 1106 on which Reilly based the
two-Isabel theory does not state explicitly that Isabel was formerly
Alfonso's mistress. It is a charter confirmed by king Alfonso
"eiusdemque Helisabeth regina sub maritali copula legaliter aderente",
which simply is an elaborate way of saying that Elizabeth (Isabel), who
also confirmed the deed, was his legitimately wedded wife--which *might*
imply both that they were recently married, and that her earlier status
in relation to Alfonso was irregular.
Yes, I should have been more precise. This is the only document from
the period of which I am aware that specifies that the queen is the
king's legally married wife. Makes you wonder what the priest was
thinking (both in terms of what he was referring to, and why he would
choose to make reference to whatever it was).
Exactly: it is a very unusual phrase, commenting on something that
usually is left unsaid, suggesting the scribe may have been emphasizing
the point.
Back to the Denia theory: it has been mentioned a couple of times on
this thread, and it appears in a garbled and unidentifiable reference in
Schwennicke. No one can state where it comes from, and since
Schwennicke cribbed his Iberian material from some unpublished (and
apparently obscure) charts--partly attributed to Dr. Salazar Acha
himself. Perhaps (as Don suggested) someone should contact him to see
where any other pointers to Zaida's provenance may be found--if any
exist.
For what it's worth, here is an interview with (and photo of) Mr.
Salazar Acha, in his role as talking head, opining on the 2004 wedding
of the Principe de Asturias:
http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/especiales ... jsp?TEXTO=
100000040866
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
WJhonson
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
As to whether "neve" means consistently "grandson" I am suspicious. We have several instances on this list where a word which is supposed to mean one thing turns out to mean quite something else. We should leave the door open to "nephew" as well unless someone more knowledgeable can comment on that.
There are many maybes in this presentation, hopefully those can be firmed. For instance, does this article mention the previous affiliation of Robert Peck of Beccles as son of John Peck of Wakefield by Joan Anne. If they don't mention it, they should have. You always have to destroy older theories whilst building new ones, if only to show that you're aware of them and their flaws.
So I'd be looking for that for one thing. John Peck is said to have had eight sons and eight daughters. It's certainly possible one of them could have lived at Beccles.
Will Johnson
There are many maybes in this presentation, hopefully those can be firmed. For instance, does this article mention the previous affiliation of Robert Peck of Beccles as son of John Peck of Wakefield by Joan Anne. If they don't mention it, they should have. You always have to destroy older theories whilst building new ones, if only to show that you're aware of them and their flaws.
So I'd be looking for that for one thing. John Peck is said to have had eight sons and eight daughters. It's certainly possible one of them could have lived at Beccles.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Genealogics: Connecting the Machells to the Barons Aungi
<<In a message dated 10/19/07 13:05:50 Pacific Daylight Time, jonathankirton@sympatico.ca writes:
Probably married secondly: Anne Frebody (ffrebody, freebody), dau. &
co-heiress of Hugh Frebody, Esq., c. 1455, thus acquiring a moiety of
the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville, Northants.
However Anne evidently died quite soon, and was buried beside
William's first wife in the same chapel of St. George the Martyr at
Southwark. (I have been seeking her name for a long time; I also
believe that it is likely that the first witness to William's will, >>
---------------------
Could you explain a bit more your statement that "I have been seeking her name for a long time". For example you might be implying that there is a monument to "my two wives, Margery and the other one..." or something, but I'd rather have you say what.
Will Johnson
Probably married secondly: Anne Frebody (ffrebody, freebody), dau. &
co-heiress of Hugh Frebody, Esq., c. 1455, thus acquiring a moiety of
the Manor of Thorpe Mandeville, Northants.
However Anne evidently died quite soon, and was buried beside
William's first wife in the same chapel of St. George the Martyr at
Southwark. (I have been seeking her name for a long time; I also
believe that it is likely that the first witness to William's will, >>
---------------------
Could you explain a bit more your statement that "I have been seeking her name for a long time". For example you might be implying that there is a monument to "my two wives, Margery and the other one..." or something, but I'd rather have you say what.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o
Sancho is showing in my database as died May 1108 in battle at Ucles.
If he was born in 1093 he'd be only 14 or 15. Seems a bit young to die in battle.
I wonder if any contemporary writer mentioned that? As is it possible that he wasn't actually born in 1093?
Thanks
Will Johnson
If he was born in 1093 he'd be only 14 or 15. Seems a bit young to die in battle.
I wonder if any contemporary writer mentioned that? As is it possible that he wasn't actually born in 1093?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Again Bill your arguments achieve a hundred-times-their weight when you quote your sources. So if you could quote that portion of the will that you think supports these assertions that would be quite helpful.
-
WJhonson
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
<<In a message dated 10/19/07 08:31:12 Pacific Daylight Time, billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:
GEN-MEDIEVAL can access the *THE ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF JOSEPH PECK,
OF HINGHAM, MASS., IN 1638* Compiled by S. ALLYN PECK, B.A.,
of New York City, and contributed by FREDERICK STANHOPE PECK,
LL.D., of Barrington, R.I.* at:
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publ ... /Register/ >>
------------------------
You can also access this work here
http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... dbid=14109
at Ancestry, with the appropriate subscription.
Will Johnson
GEN-MEDIEVAL can access the *THE ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF JOSEPH PECK,
OF HINGHAM, MASS., IN 1638* Compiled by S. ALLYN PECK, B.A.,
of New York City, and contributed by FREDERICK STANHOPE PECK,
LL.D., of Barrington, R.I.* at:
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publ ... /Register/ >>
------------------------
You can also access this work here
http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... dbid=14109
at Ancestry, with the appropriate subscription.
Will Johnson
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Again, thanks for your response, Will.
Re: point one, well taken. But then, as a well-respected genealogist told me, as the authors
of the series were launched into their several years of their thread, it was Andrew Moriarty who
made the observation of a translation error from the Latin. I am quite confident there are enough
Medieval Latin scholars in the world who can confirm Moriarty or not. Remember Occam's Razor,
however, and looking at the will in question, the relationships only make sense if *grandson*
is the translation. I am sure Medieval scholars can attest to that: as I am far from an expert
on ancient primogeniture law, in the case of giving all of one's land to one's wife in surety to
one's grandson born of one's daughter makes most sense to me. It appears John Leeke had two
wives and the gentleman had to handle a difficult situation without a male heir. But, I have
speculated
enough and there is ample more data to be digested from these authors before we rush to
judgement: and *probably* we will have to rest with *probable* anyway, when we come to
the ultimate test of a proposed pedigree: *identity*!
Re: point two, well taken. I can assure you the authors did not have to set up the *son-of-John*
straw man because the Pedigree of Pecks beyond this point in the pedigree has been alleged
to be fraudulent. That is not my concern. Although, being a descendant of Pecks, it would be
nice to know how far back they can be *identified*? However, they amply dealt with the *John*
question and I am convinced in my read of the many pages over many years that Robert of Beccles
was NOT the son of John and the dau. of the Anne family.
Bill
*******************************************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: point one, well taken. But then, as a well-respected genealogist told me, as the authors
of the series were launched into their several years of their thread, it was Andrew Moriarty who
made the observation of a translation error from the Latin. I am quite confident there are enough
Medieval Latin scholars in the world who can confirm Moriarty or not. Remember Occam's Razor,
however, and looking at the will in question, the relationships only make sense if *grandson*
is the translation. I am sure Medieval scholars can attest to that: as I am far from an expert
on ancient primogeniture law, in the case of giving all of one's land to one's wife in surety to
one's grandson born of one's daughter makes most sense to me. It appears John Leeke had two
wives and the gentleman had to handle a difficult situation without a male heir. But, I have
speculated
enough and there is ample more data to be digested from these authors before we rush to
judgement: and *probably* we will have to rest with *probable* anyway, when we come to
the ultimate test of a proposed pedigree: *identity*!
Re: point two, well taken. I can assure you the authors did not have to set up the *son-of-John*
straw man because the Pedigree of Pecks beyond this point in the pedigree has been alleged
to be fraudulent. That is not my concern. Although, being a descendant of Pecks, it would be
nice to know how far back they can be *identified*? However, they amply dealt with the *John*
question and I am convinced in my read of the many pages over many years that Robert of Beccles
was NOT the son of John and the dau. of the Anne family.
Bill
*******************************************
--- WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
As to whether "neve" means consistently "grandson" I am suspicious. We have several instances
on this list where a word which is supposed to mean one thing turns out to mean quite something
else. We should leave the door open to "nephew" as well unless someone more knowledgeable can
comment on that.
There are many maybes in this presentation, hopefully those can be firmed. For instance, does
this article mention the previous affiliation of Robert Peck of Beccles as son of John Peck of
Wakefield by Joan Anne. If they don't mention it, they should have. You always have to destroy
older theories whilst building new ones, if only to show that you're aware of them and their
flaws.
So I'd be looking for that for one thing. John Peck is said to have had eight sons and eight
daughters. It's certainly possible one of them could have lived at Beccles.
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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
See GEN-MEDIEVAL archives for previous posts to this thread:
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.Carlton Colville, Suf.,GB. b.Carlton Colville,Suffolk,GB.
m.c.1520
d.? d.c.Nov 1525, Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 4: "The Will of John Leeke of Beccles, co. Suffolk, England, Diocese of
Norwich, dated 6 September 1529. To be buried in the Church of St. Michael
the Archangel in Beccles...To Kateryn, my daughter [be it noted: that Henry
Peck who married Margery Leeke named a daughter Kateryn, obviously after
Margery's sister, establishing another confirming link between these families],
and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and tenements in Gelingham, Wyndell,
Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere with the county of Norfolk. I will
that Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and dwelling within the house of
Robert Pecke, my 'neve' [*grandson*], that is to say, in the 'parlour' next the
'mease' [messuage] of Richard Craske, with sufficient meat, etc., during her
lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then [she shall have] an annuity for
life of 20s., and the said Robert Pecke is to supply her with...To my said daughter
40 Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage. To my said wife my land that
I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her decease to the aforesaid Robert
Pecke and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter and Robert Pecke all the
residue of the household goods, equally...To the said Robert Peck [sic: noting
variant spelling throughout] my 'mease' [messuage] that I dwell in and all my
other 'measey', lands, and tenements in Beccles, co. Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he pay unto Robert Leeke,
John Leeke, and Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to Alys Leeke and Elyn
Leeke 30 marks apiece, and to Margaret Leke 40s., to be paid at the age of
discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my sons in Beccles church yearly
by Robert Pecke, if he is able. To John Waters, my godson [note: his
great-grandchildren were of the Waters family inasmuch as Robert Peck,
the Younger, married Johan(Joan) Waters: the contents of this will further
establishing links between these families] 20s., and to each other of my
godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Pecke all my pen cattle, moveables, and
apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors, namely, my well-beloved in Christ,
the aforesaid Robert Peck, my 'neve' [*grandson'], and Kateryn, my daughter.
Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne, Richard Robards, William Robards,
Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William Hastings, Thomas Drurye, and others.
Proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of Norwich [Norwich Probate
Registry], Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65)" [Oct 1935, pages 334-35].
[note: Hastings pedigrees, which are extensive, may have had family
members who married into Leekes: members might know, and such may shed
light on this proposed pedigree: as already noted, my supply of these Visitations
and resultant pedigrees is limited.]
THE AUTHORS SPEAK:
"[As has been already stated, it is in this will of John Leeke of beccles, co. Suffolk,
that the earliest *certain* reference to Robert Peck, grandfather of Rev. Robert Peck
and his brother Joseph, has been found. Although John Leeke in his will does not
mention the residence of this Robert peck, the Chancery proceedings in the suit of
Drawer v. Pek (Peck) (*infra,* No. 5) show that he was of Beccles, co Suffolk."
"The provisions of this will should be studied carefully, especially those referring to
Alice, the testator's wife, and to Robert peck, whom he calls his 'neve,' that is,
*grandson.* That this *grandson* of John Leeke is IDENTICAL [the KEY point, in
genealogy, by the way: MY CAPS] WITH ROBERT PECK OF BECCLES, CO. SUFFOLK,
THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT. 1556 (*INFRA,* NO. 7), IS INDICATED BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL BY WHICH JOHN LEEKE LEAVES TO HIS WIFE ALICE, FOR HER LIFE, THE
LAND THAT HE BOUGHT OF 'MARSSHE,' AND DIRECTS THAT AFTER HER DECEASE
THIS LAND SHALL GO TO ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, AND BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL OF THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT 1556 BY WHICH THIS LATER TESTATOR
LEAVES TO HIS SON, JOHN PECKE, THREE ACRES OF LAND, 'LATE WILLIAM MARSHES.'
John Leeke leaves his lands in county Norfolk to his daughter Katherine and her heirs
AND HIS LANDS IN BECCLES TO HIS *GRANDSON* ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, on
condition that Robert peck pay certain legacies, and after stating what shall be done
with his household goods and other moveables, he leave all the residue of his estate
to his executors, anely, THE AFORESAID ROBERT PECK, HIS *GRANDSON,* and Katherine,
his (the testator's) daughter" [Oct 1935, page 335].
I leave the authors direct statements for SUMMARY: they then sum up that John Leeke
was married twice, that Katherine was the daughter of his second wife, and although
the second wife was disenfranchised from challenging his Will, the daughter became
a party to the aforementioned suit in Chancery known as the Drawer case. The authors
note that John Leeke entrusted his *grandson* Robert Peck with the perpetual care of
his wife, Alice. In the resultant suit *circa* 1530 the *grandson* is referred to as
"Rbt Pek (Peck) of Beccles in the County of Suff [olk]" [Oct 1935, page 336].
COMMENT: The fact that John Leeke mentions not only his third generation of Robert
Peck, the Elder, but the allied Waters family of Robert's wife Johan Waters, via his
*godson* John Waters, probably the brother-in-law of Robert Peck, the Elder, and the
recipient of the largess of John Leeke, and had AS WITNESS TO HIS WILL that same
"John Waters" should NOT escape linkage in this pedigree from the Pecks through to
the Leekes, both of Beccles, to the Waters family who married into the Peck family
circa 1540 [See 14th GENERATION of proposed pedigree, above]. All of this only makes
sense in that the daughter of John Leeke, Margery, married the father of Robert, the
Elder, Henry Peck, testator of Nov, 1525.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.Carlton Colville, Suf.,GB. b.Carlton Colville,Suffolk,GB.
m.c.1520
d.? d.c.Nov 1525, Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 4: "The Will of John Leeke of Beccles, co. Suffolk, England, Diocese of
Norwich, dated 6 September 1529. To be buried in the Church of St. Michael
the Archangel in Beccles...To Kateryn, my daughter [be it noted: that Henry
Peck who married Margery Leeke named a daughter Kateryn, obviously after
Margery's sister, establishing another confirming link between these families],
and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and tenements in Gelingham, Wyndell,
Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere with the county of Norfolk. I will
that Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and dwelling within the house of
Robert Pecke, my 'neve' [*grandson*], that is to say, in the 'parlour' next the
'mease' [messuage] of Richard Craske, with sufficient meat, etc., during her
lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then [she shall have] an annuity for
life of 20s., and the said Robert Pecke is to supply her with...To my said daughter
40 Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage. To my said wife my land that
I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her decease to the aforesaid Robert
Pecke and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter and Robert Pecke all the
residue of the household goods, equally...To the said Robert Peck [sic: noting
variant spelling throughout] my 'mease' [messuage] that I dwell in and all my
other 'measey', lands, and tenements in Beccles, co. Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he pay unto Robert Leeke,
John Leeke, and Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to Alys Leeke and Elyn
Leeke 30 marks apiece, and to Margaret Leke 40s., to be paid at the age of
discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my sons in Beccles church yearly
by Robert Pecke, if he is able. To John Waters, my godson [note: his
great-grandchildren were of the Waters family inasmuch as Robert Peck,
the Younger, married Johan(Joan) Waters: the contents of this will further
establishing links between these families] 20s., and to each other of my
godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Pecke all my pen cattle, moveables, and
apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors, namely, my well-beloved in Christ,
the aforesaid Robert Peck, my 'neve' [*grandson'], and Kateryn, my daughter.
Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne, Richard Robards, William Robards,
Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William Hastings, Thomas Drurye, and others.
Proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of Norwich [Norwich Probate
Registry], Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65)" [Oct 1935, pages 334-35].
[note: Hastings pedigrees, which are extensive, may have had family
members who married into Leekes: members might know, and such may shed
light on this proposed pedigree: as already noted, my supply of these Visitations
and resultant pedigrees is limited.]
THE AUTHORS SPEAK:
"[As has been already stated, it is in this will of John Leeke of beccles, co. Suffolk,
that the earliest *certain* reference to Robert Peck, grandfather of Rev. Robert Peck
and his brother Joseph, has been found. Although John Leeke in his will does not
mention the residence of this Robert peck, the Chancery proceedings in the suit of
Drawer v. Pek (Peck) (*infra,* No. 5) show that he was of Beccles, co Suffolk."
"The provisions of this will should be studied carefully, especially those referring to
Alice, the testator's wife, and to Robert peck, whom he calls his 'neve,' that is,
*grandson.* That this *grandson* of John Leeke is IDENTICAL [the KEY point, in
genealogy, by the way: MY CAPS] WITH ROBERT PECK OF BECCLES, CO. SUFFOLK,
THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT. 1556 (*INFRA,* NO. 7), IS INDICATED BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL BY WHICH JOHN LEEKE LEAVES TO HIS WIFE ALICE, FOR HER LIFE, THE
LAND THAT HE BOUGHT OF 'MARSSHE,' AND DIRECTS THAT AFTER HER DECEASE
THIS LAND SHALL GO TO ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, AND BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL OF THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT 1556 BY WHICH THIS LATER TESTATOR
LEAVES TO HIS SON, JOHN PECKE, THREE ACRES OF LAND, 'LATE WILLIAM MARSHES.'
John Leeke leaves his lands in county Norfolk to his daughter Katherine and her heirs
AND HIS LANDS IN BECCLES TO HIS *GRANDSON* ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, on
condition that Robert peck pay certain legacies, and after stating what shall be done
with his household goods and other moveables, he leave all the residue of his estate
to his executors, anely, THE AFORESAID ROBERT PECK, HIS *GRANDSON,* and Katherine,
his (the testator's) daughter" [Oct 1935, page 335].
I leave the authors direct statements for SUMMARY: they then sum up that John Leeke
was married twice, that Katherine was the daughter of his second wife, and although
the second wife was disenfranchised from challenging his Will, the daughter became
a party to the aforementioned suit in Chancery known as the Drawer case. The authors
note that John Leeke entrusted his *grandson* Robert Peck with the perpetual care of
his wife, Alice. In the resultant suit *circa* 1530 the *grandson* is referred to as
"Rbt Pek (Peck) of Beccles in the County of Suff [olk]" [Oct 1935, page 336].
COMMENT: The fact that John Leeke mentions not only his third generation of Robert
Peck, the Elder, but the allied Waters family of Robert's wife Johan Waters, via his
*godson* John Waters, probably the brother-in-law of Robert Peck, the Elder, and the
recipient of the largess of John Leeke, and had AS WITNESS TO HIS WILL that same
"John Waters" should NOT escape linkage in this pedigree from the Pecks through to
the Leekes, both of Beccles, to the Waters family who married into the Peck family
circa 1540 [See 14th GENERATION of proposed pedigree, above]. All of this only makes
sense in that the daughter of John Leeke, Margery, married the father of Robert, the
Elder, Henry Peck, testator of Nov, 1525.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
jonathan kirton
Re: Genealogics: Connecting the Machells to the Barons Aungi
To Will Johnson & the Group. Re William Kirton, MP for Southwark in
the 15th. century.
Will,
In answer to your question yesterday: William Kirton's Will,
written in 1464, requested that he
should be buried beside his two previous wives in the Chapel of the
Virgin Mary of the Church
of St. George the Martyr at Southwark. His first wife, and the
mother of his children, Margery
Milborne's name was well recorded, but the name of his second wife
was previously, until now,
completely unrecorded, and for several years I had been able to find
no record of her.
From John Stow's 1603 "Survey of London" it is evident that at that
time a memorial to William
and his wives (probably all three wives) was still in existence.
The church in question was the second on the site, having been
originally rebuilt at the end of
the 14th. century. It was again rebuilt on the same site in
1736. There is probably not much
hope that the memorial itself has survived, but there may still be
a record of it, and I have sent
an inquiry on the subject to the Southwark Local History Study Group.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kirton
the 15th. century.
Will,
In answer to your question yesterday: William Kirton's Will,
written in 1464, requested that he
should be buried beside his two previous wives in the Chapel of the
Virgin Mary of the Church
of St. George the Martyr at Southwark. His first wife, and the
mother of his children, Margery
Milborne's name was well recorded, but the name of his second wife
was previously, until now,
completely unrecorded, and for several years I had been able to find
no record of her.
From John Stow's 1603 "Survey of London" it is evident that at that
time a memorial to William
and his wives (probably all three wives) was still in existence.
The church in question was the second on the site, having been
originally rebuilt at the end of
the 14th. century. It was again rebuilt on the same site in
1736. There is probably not much
hope that the memorial itself has survived, but there may still be
a record of it, and I have sent
an inquiry on the subject to the Southwark Local History Study Group.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Kirton
-
Gjest
Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
For a great deal of information, please see :
Grandes familles de Grece, d'Albanie et de Constantinople,dictionnaire
historique et genealogique, by Mihail Dimitri Sturdza
Jean Bunot
On 19 oct, 11:06, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Grandes familles de Grece, d'Albanie et de Constantinople,dictionnaire
historique et genealogique, by Mihail Dimitri Sturdza
Jean Bunot
On 19 oct, 11:06, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks you very much, Derek, I'll try to find and check those books,
even if I understood - I'm afraid - that there are no specific text
about the italian nobility in the Eubea-Negroponte Island, correct?
Thanks once again
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Derek Howard
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:41 PM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
On Oct 19, 9:32 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:58 pm, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not able to find any in formations about the nobility of the
Greek Island of NEGROPONTE (ancient Euboea). My focus is on the
Italian noble families forced to leave the island after the island
fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Does anyone knows if exist a book about the nobility of this place?
Thanks in advance for any help
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the island.
There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the main families
are known of.
The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography and
period. There is a revised edition, 1975).
Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459. and
in R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.
There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York, 1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.
Derek Howard
I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.
Derek Howard
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
Yes Jean, I know.... But unfortunately is a VERY expensive book.
Does you (or someone other) got a copy and can be so kind to check if
there are some informations about those two families that should have
moved from the Island of Eubea/Negroponte to the italian town of Cotrone
now Crotone in Calabria?
Falilies are: SCULCO and CRISAFI (or Grisafi or Grisafo or Crisafo)
Thanks in advance
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
magnusrufus@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:46 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
For a great deal of information, please see :
Grandes familles de Grece, d'Albanie et de Constantinople,dictionnaire
historique et genealogique, by Mihail Dimitri Sturdza
Jean Bunot
On 19 oct, 11:06, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Does you (or someone other) got a copy and can be so kind to check if
there are some informations about those two families that should have
moved from the Island of Eubea/Negroponte to the italian town of Cotrone
now Crotone in Calabria?
Falilies are: SCULCO and CRISAFI (or Grisafi or Grisafo or Crisafo)
Thanks in advance
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
magnusrufus@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 7:46 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
For a great deal of information, please see :
Grandes familles de Grece, d'Albanie et de Constantinople,dictionnaire
historique et genealogique, by Mihail Dimitri Sturdza
Jean Bunot
On 19 oct, 11:06, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks you very much, Derek, I'll try to find and check those books,
even if I understood - I'm afraid - that there are no specific text
about the italian nobility in the Eubea-Negroponte Island, correct?
Thanks once again
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Derek Howard
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:41 PM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
On Oct 19, 9:32 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:58 pm, "M. de la Fayette" <Faye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not able to find any in formations about the nobility of the
Greek Island of NEGROPONTE (ancient Euboea). My focus is on the
Italian noble families forced to leave the island after the
island fell into the hands of the Ottoman Turks.
Does anyone knows if exist a book about the nobility of this
place?
Thanks in advance for any help
I do not know of any book specifically on the nobility of the
island. There is not a lot of detail available. Nevertheless the
main families
are known of.
The best volume on the history is
Kenneth M Setton: The Catalan domination of Athens, 1311-1388, 1948
(despite its name and emphasis, the coverage is wider in geography
and
period. There is a revised edition, 1975).
Little snippets are found in
William Miller: The Latins in the Levant, London, 1908, eg p 459.
and in R Grousset: L'empire du levant, Paris, 1949, pp 545-551.
There is very little of any use for this in such modern works as
Peter
Lock: The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York,
1995,
and Lock gives no information on the nobles in his article on 'The
Towers of Euboea' in: The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford,
1996.
Derek Howard
I should perhaps also have included a mention of a chapter on the '
Seigneurs (tierciers) de Négrepont ou d'Eubée ' in G Schlumberger:
Numismatique de l'orient latin, Paris 1878, reprinted Graz 1954, pp
352-357.
Derek Howard
-
norenxaq
Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
M. de la Fayette wrote:
the closest Sturdza has is information on Crispo, at least according to
the index
Yes Jean, I know.... But unfortunately is a VERY expensive book.
Does you (or someone other) got a copy and can be so kind to check if
there are some informations about those two families that should have
moved from the Island of Eubea/Negroponte to the italian town of Cotrone
now Crotone in Calabria?
Falilies are: SCULCO and CRISAFI (or Grisafi or Grisafo or Crisafo)
Thanks in advance
the closest Sturdza has is information on Crispo, at least according to
the index
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
ThankS!
Could you post here those informations about Crispo's family (if is
possible?)
Thanks once again
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of norenxaq
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:44 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
M. de la Fayette wrote:
the closest Sturdza has is information on Crispo, at least according to
the index
-------------------------------
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
Could you post here those informations about Crispo's family (if is
possible?)
Thanks once again
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of norenxaq
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:44 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
M. de la Fayette wrote:
Yes Jean, I know.... But unfortunately is a VERY expensive book. Does
you (or someone other) got a copy and can be so kind to check if there
are some informations about those two families that should have moved
from the Island of Eubea/Negroponte to the italian town of Cotrone now
Crotone in Calabria?
Falilies are: SCULCO and CRISAFI (or Grisafi or Grisafo or Crisafo)
Thanks in advance
the closest Sturdza has is information on Crispo, at least according to
the index
-------------------------------
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
-
M. de la Fayette
RE: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
Jean, Thank you very much for your offer to send me the pdf's. Thanks
for you kindness and cooperation as it saves me a lot of time!
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of norenxaq
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:44 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
M. de la Fayette wrote:
the closest Sturdza has is information on Crispo, at least according to
the index
-------------------------------
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
for you kindness and cooperation as it saves me a lot of time!
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of norenxaq
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:44 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nobility of the Greek Island of NEGROPONTE
M. de la Fayette wrote:
Yes Jean, I know.... But unfortunately is a VERY expensive book. Does
you (or someone other) got a copy and can be so kind to check if there
are some informations about those two families that should have moved
from the Island of Eubea/Negroponte to the italian town of Cotrone now
Crotone in Calabria?
Falilies are: SCULCO and CRISAFI (or Grisafi or Grisafo or Crisafo)
Thanks in advance
the closest Sturdza has is information on Crispo, at least according to
the index
-------------------------------
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: Braose - De Brewes - de Briwere
Leo,
I understand the many spelling, however, I did think that Braose and Briwere were two different families. Am I incorrect?
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
I understand the many spelling, however, I did think that Braose and Briwere were two different families. Am I incorrect?
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Douglas Richardson has put his finger on the inconsistency of medieval spelling.
For some names there are many variations, and which one should be used?
If you look in CP Volume I page 281. here we find Braose see Brewes.
Then CP Volume I pages 302 to 310 has several entries
Page 302 begins with BREWES, Breus see Brewes, Breuse, Brewes or Breworse, a
Barony of 1290
Page 304 had an entry for Breuse or Brewes, Sir Richard de Breuse first summoned
in 1276
Page 308 has an entry for Brewes, Brewose, Breouse, or Brewes, Barony of 1348
Volumne XIV pages 110 to 112 has the heading Brewes
--------
Burke's extinct Peerage, 1866, pages 72 and 73 uses de Braose. Here the
mentioned Grace, wife of Reginald, is recorded as Groecia, daughter of William
de Bruere
-------
Turton in his Plantagenet Ancestry, page 78, uses de Braose for the main family
and Grace is here as Grace de Briwere.
--------
Gary Boyd Roberts in his Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants (see index page 624)
uses de Braose
------
Weiss in Ancestral Roots, 7th edition, adds yet another spelling, Braose (see
Braiose) Brewer (see Briwere)
------
I am sure this family can be found in many more publications (secondary sources)
and so the question arises what do primary sources say?
But then "tradition" several times uses names or spellings not used by the
people concerned themselves. I suppose we should use the name/spelling
recognised by most. My vote goes to de Braose.
With best wishes
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
-
M.Sjostrom
Re: a biography of Helena Snakenborg, marchioness of Northam
A fact repeated in several sources is that after his
divorce from the alleged adulteress Anne Bourchier,
the Marquess of Northampton married, secondly,
Elizabeth Brooke, daughter of George Brooke, 4th Baron
Cobham. That specific marriage is recorded as an
ongoing legal mess of its era, having been "declared
valid in 1548, invalid in 1553, and valid again in
1558". Elizabeth died well before Anne Bourchier's
death. Some sources indicate that the church did not
approve that marriage.
There were so many problems with the second marriage
that it seems the Marquess learned from that, and it
influenced the date of his third marriage, with Helena
Snakenborg.
Possibly, the clergy had refused to perform the office
of actual matrimony, before also Anne Bourchier were
dead.
The matter may have something to do with the nature of
the dissolution of the Bourchier marriage, and with
the reason of that divorce. The reason was adultery,
apparently. Which was, afaik, regarded usually as
grounds for separation and compensations, but not an
annulment ground.
The civil law and ecclesiastical practice were often
at odds in those formative years.
Henry the king got it easier in many ways, being king
and practically above law. However, IIRC his Cleves
marriage got a formal annulment due to
non-consummation.
The Anglican church may have regarded the Marquess'
divorce as not having made his first marriage null and
void.
Only ecclesiastically affirmed annulment would have
sufficed for that.
Most readers here probably know the inexistence of any
civil marriage in English law of 1500s. The church
seems to have been the only way to have a valid
marriage in Anglican England.
Be all that as it may, several secondary sources
specifically explain that the Marquess and Helena had
to wait to Anne Bourchier's death before they were
able to marry.
------------
"After all Henry the King himself, had as his third
wife Anne of Cleves, a women he divorced who yet lived
through his next two (and last) marriages."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
divorce from the alleged adulteress Anne Bourchier,
the Marquess of Northampton married, secondly,
Elizabeth Brooke, daughter of George Brooke, 4th Baron
Cobham. That specific marriage is recorded as an
ongoing legal mess of its era, having been "declared
valid in 1548, invalid in 1553, and valid again in
1558". Elizabeth died well before Anne Bourchier's
death. Some sources indicate that the church did not
approve that marriage.
There were so many problems with the second marriage
that it seems the Marquess learned from that, and it
influenced the date of his third marriage, with Helena
Snakenborg.
Possibly, the clergy had refused to perform the office
of actual matrimony, before also Anne Bourchier were
dead.
The matter may have something to do with the nature of
the dissolution of the Bourchier marriage, and with
the reason of that divorce. The reason was adultery,
apparently. Which was, afaik, regarded usually as
grounds for separation and compensations, but not an
annulment ground.
The civil law and ecclesiastical practice were often
at odds in those formative years.
Henry the king got it easier in many ways, being king
and practically above law. However, IIRC his Cleves
marriage got a formal annulment due to
non-consummation.
The Anglican church may have regarded the Marquess'
divorce as not having made his first marriage null and
void.
Only ecclesiastically affirmed annulment would have
sufficed for that.
Most readers here probably know the inexistence of any
civil marriage in English law of 1500s. The church
seems to have been the only way to have a valid
marriage in Anglican England.
Be all that as it may, several secondary sources
specifically explain that the Marquess and Helena had
to wait to Anne Bourchier's death before they were
able to marry.
------------
"After all Henry the King himself, had as his third
wife Anne of Cleves, a women he divorced who yet lived
through his next two (and last) marriages."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
rainbow.
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate families.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*Lord William Gilsland de Briwere born 1145? in Stoke,
Devonshire, England
m/d
*"Lady Beatrice de Valle de Vaux, 1175? in Stoke,
Devonshire, England
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
*Lord Bramber / W'm de Braose born 1050? in Brieuze,
Normandie, France
SEVERAL GENEARTIONS OF MALE HEIRS / DESCENDANTS TO
*Sir Peter de Braose
A daughter
*Beatrix de Braose B 1385? m/d *Sir Hugh Shirley
A son
*Sir Ralph Shirley m/d *Joan Bassett, 1405?
A son
**Ralph Shirley born 1406 in Burnham, Suffolk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate families.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*Lord William Gilsland de Briwere born 1145? in Stoke,
Devonshire, England
m/d
*"Lady Beatrice de Valle de Vaux, 1175? in Stoke,
Devonshire, England
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
*Lord Bramber / W'm de Braose born 1050? in Brieuze,
Normandie, France
SEVERAL GENEARTIONS OF MALE HEIRS / DESCENDANTS TO
*Sir Peter de Braose
A daughter
*Beatrix de Braose B 1385? m/d *Sir Hugh Shirley
A son
*Sir Ralph Shirley m/d *Joan Bassett, 1405?
A son
**Ralph Shirley born 1406 in Burnham, Suffolk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*Beatrix de Braose B 1385? m/d *Sir Hugh Shirley
A son
*Sir Ralph Shirley m/d *Joan Bassett, 1405?
A son
**Ralph Shirley born 1406 in Burnham, Suffolk
---------------
Isn't it remarkable how your ancestor managed to live 300
years before he had his daughter ?
**************************************
See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
-------------------------------
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: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
<<<In a message dated 10/20/2007 10:05:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:
---------------
Isn't it remarkable how your ancestor managed to live 300 years before he had
his daughter ?
**************************************
See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:
*Lord Bramber / W'm de Braose born 1050? in Brieuze,
Normandie, France
A daughter
*Beatrix de Braose B 1385? m/d *Sir Hugh Shirley
A son
*Sir Ralph Shirley m/d *Joan Bassett, 1405?
A son
**Ralph Shirley born 1406 in Burnham, Suffolk
---------------
Isn't it remarkable how your ancestor managed to live 300 years before he had
his daughter ?
**************************************
See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
Dear Rainbow,
With Will Johnson you have to be aware that his tongue is firmly in his
cheek. Cheeky devil he is, but it was meant in fun, not seriously.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
With Will Johnson you have to be aware that his tongue is firmly in his
cheek. Cheeky devil he is, but it was meant in fun, not seriously.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate families.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*Lord William Gilsland de Briwere born 1145? in Stoke,
Devonshire, England
m/d
*"Lady Beatrice de Valle de Vaux, 1175? in Stoke,
Devonshire, England
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
*Lord Bramber / W'm de Braose born 1050? in Brieuze,
Normandie, France
SEVERAL GENEARTIONS OF MALE HEIRS / DESCENDANTS TO
*Sir Peter de Braose
A daughter
*Beatrix de Braose B 1385? m/d *Sir Hugh Shirley
A son
*Sir Ralph Shirley m/d *Joan Bassett, 1405?
A son
**Ralph Shirley born 1406 in Burnham, Suffolk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*Beatrix de Braose B 1385? m/d *Sir Hugh Shirley
A son
*Sir Ralph Shirley m/d *Joan Bassett, 1405?
A son
**Ralph Shirley born 1406 in Burnham, Suffolk
---------------
Isn't it remarkable how your ancestor managed to live 300
years before he had his daughter ?
**************************************
See what's new at
http://www.aol.com
-------------------------------
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: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
And isn't it swarmy how some contributors, when their mistakes are pointed
out, immediately turn and blame the person doing the pointing out instead of
saying "Oops I made a mistake, let me correct it..."
Yes. Thanks.
Admit your mistakes, that's the first step to recovery.
**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com
out, immediately turn and blame the person doing the pointing out instead of
saying "Oops I made a mistake, let me correct it..."
Yes. Thanks.
Admit your mistakes, that's the first step to recovery.
**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Braose - De Brewes - de Briwere
There was a long discussion on this newsgroup around March 2002 on the topic
of the various spellings of Braose and which might be the preferred usage.
You can find it in the archive by searching for "spelling braose".
Briwer, Bruere, Brewer is a totally different family.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 21/10/07 03:20, in article
mailman.274.1192933269.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com,
"pajunkin@bellsouth.net" <pajunkin@bellsouth.net> wrote:
of the various spellings of Braose and which might be the preferred usage.
You can find it in the archive by searching for "spelling braose".
Briwer, Bruere, Brewer is a totally different family.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 21/10/07 03:20, in article
mailman.274.1192933269.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com,
"pajunkin@bellsouth.net" <pajunkin@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Leo,
I understand the many spelling, however, I did think that Braose and Briwere
were two different families. Am I incorrect?
Pat
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Douglas Richardson has put his finger on the inconsistency of medieval
spelling.
For some names there are many variations, and which one should be used?
If you look in CP Volume I page 281. here we find Braose see Brewes.
Then CP Volume I pages 302 to 310 has several entries
Page 302 begins with BREWES, Breus see Brewes, Breuse, Brewes or Breworse, a
Barony of 1290
Page 304 had an entry for Breuse or Brewes, Sir Richard de Breuse first
summoned
in 1276
Page 308 has an entry for Brewes, Brewose, Breouse, or Brewes, Barony of 1348
Volumne XIV pages 110 to 112 has the heading Brewes
--------
Burke's extinct Peerage, 1866, pages 72 and 73 uses de Braose. Here the
mentioned Grace, wife of Reginald, is recorded as Groecia, daughter of
William
de Bruere
-------
Turton in his Plantagenet Ancestry, page 78, uses de Braose for the main
family
and Grace is here as Grace de Briwere.
--------
Gary Boyd Roberts in his Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants (see index page 624)
uses de Braose
------
Weiss in Ancestral Roots, 7th edition, adds yet another spelling, Braose (see
Braiose) Brewer (see Briwere)
------
I am sure this family can be found in many more publications (secondary
sources)
and so the question arises what do primary sources say?
But then "tradition" several times uses names or spellings not used by the
people concerned themselves. I suppose we should use the name/spelling
recognised by most. My vote goes to de Braose.
With best wishes
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
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:mailman.279.1192947215.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:mailman.279.1192947215.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant [sic] from the forebears of these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate families.
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of grandparents).
Also, "descendent" is the rare (i.e., nearly obsolete) form
of "descendant."
Christopher Ingham
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of grandparents).
Also, "descendent" is the rare (i.e., nearly obsolete) form
of "descendant."
Christopher Ingham
-
Gjest
Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske
Dear John Watson,
How`s this hypothetical (based on charter
evidence)
1 Eudes , Count of Brittany and an
unknown mistress
2 Ribold married Beatrice de
Taillebois
3 Bardolf
4 NN (unknown daughter) married
Wymar , Steward of Richmond
5 Roger de Aske married Whitemal de
Dalton, daughter of Roger de Dalton
6 Conan de Aske married Sybil de
Anlasby
7 Roger de Aske married Alice de
Cauton
8 Roger de Aske married Margaret NN
9 Hugh de Aske married Cecily NN
10 Roger de Aske married Christina NN
11 Conan de Aske married Eleanor
Widdrington
12 Richard de Aske married NN (?)
13 Roger (? Richard) de Aske married
Elizabeth Pert
14 Conan de Aske married (? Alice)
Saville
15 Roger de Aske married Isabel
Conyers
by this Conan IV and Conan Aske would be 2nd cousins twice removed (not
close enough)
Stephen I`s daughter Maud married Walter de Gant with daughters Agnes
married to William de Mohun, Alice married Roger de Mowbray, NN married
William de Welle and a son Robert. daughter Eleanor /Agnorie married Alan de Dinan,
Olive married Henry, Sire de Fougeres and Conan IV`s father Alan V, Count /
Duke of Brittany., ideally if the charter had either a Mowbray or a Mohun among
the witnesses or A Tateshall (Welle`s daughter married Robert de Tateshall)
We might get closer to the truth.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Do You know the Aske of Aske pedigree well enough to tell me where this
is wrong ?
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
How`s this hypothetical (based on charter
evidence)
1 Eudes , Count of Brittany and an
unknown mistress
2 Ribold married Beatrice de
Taillebois
3 Bardolf
4 NN (unknown daughter) married
Wymar , Steward of Richmond
5 Roger de Aske married Whitemal de
Dalton, daughter of Roger de Dalton
6 Conan de Aske married Sybil de
Anlasby
7 Roger de Aske married Alice de
Cauton
8 Roger de Aske married Margaret NN
9 Hugh de Aske married Cecily NN
10 Roger de Aske married Christina NN
11 Conan de Aske married Eleanor
Widdrington
12 Richard de Aske married NN (?)
13 Roger (? Richard) de Aske married
Elizabeth Pert
14 Conan de Aske married (? Alice)
Saville
15 Roger de Aske married Isabel
Conyers
by this Conan IV and Conan Aske would be 2nd cousins twice removed (not
close enough)
Stephen I`s daughter Maud married Walter de Gant with daughters Agnes
married to William de Mohun, Alice married Roger de Mowbray, NN married
William de Welle and a son Robert. daughter Eleanor /Agnorie married Alan de Dinan,
Olive married Henry, Sire de Fougeres and Conan IV`s father Alan V, Count /
Duke of Brittany., ideally if the charter had either a Mowbray or a Mohun among
the witnesses or A Tateshall (Welle`s daughter married Robert de Tateshall)
We might get closer to the truth.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Do You know the Aske of Aske pedigree well enough to tell me where this
is wrong ?
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Bill Arnold
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
GEN-MEDIEVAL members:
Lacking further critique, for the record I offer the following summary
of the focal points posted to the gen-medieval archives re: this thread:
see attached proposed pedigree:
Re-cap of the conclusion based on the evidence presented:
that the proposed pedigree of Middleton, allied with Waters
and Leeke, to Peck, 1100-1600 in Yorkshire records
is probably valid:
__________________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton confirmed via her relatives
William Middleton and William Thwaites
as participants to wills and lands
__________________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke confirmed via John Leeke
as maker of will to grandson Robert Peck, the Elder,
compelling identity of land descended three generations,
and compelling identity of Waters particpants
as allied family members of Leekes and Pecks
__________________________________________
Robert Peck, the Younger=Joan(Johan) Waters
firmly established and rest of lineage proved
wills and other records in Beccles, et al.
__________________________________________
Bill
***************************************************
See GEN-MEDIEVAL archives for previous posts to this thread:
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.Carlton Colville, Suf.,GB. b.Carlton Colville,Suffolk,GB.
m.c.1520
d.? d.c.Nov 1525, Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 4: "The Will of John Leeke of Beccles, co. Suffolk, England, Diocese of
Norwich, dated 6 September 1529. To be buried in the Church of St. Michael
the Archangel in Beccles...To Kateryn, my daughter [be it noted: that Henry
Peck who married Margery Leeke named a daughter Kateryn, obviously after
Margery's sister, establishing another confirming link between these families],
and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and tenements in Gelingham, Wyndell,
Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere with the county of Norfolk. I will
that Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and dwelling within the house of
Robert Pecke, my 'neve' [*grandson*], that is to say, in the 'parlour' next the
'mease' [messuage] of Richard Craske, with sufficient meat, etc., during her
lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then [she shall have] an annuity for
life of 20s., and the said Robert Pecke is to supply her with...To my said daughter
40 Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage. To my said wife my land that
I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her decease to the aforesaid Robert
Pecke and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter and Robert Pecke all the
residue of the household goods, equally...To the said Robert Peck [sic: noting
variant spelling throughout] my 'mease' [messuage] that I dwell in and all my
other 'measey', lands, and tenements in Beccles, co. Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he pay unto Robert Leeke,
John Leeke, and Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to Alys Leeke and Elyn
Leeke 30 marks apiece, and to Margaret Leke 40s., to be paid at the age of
discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my sons in Beccles church yearly
by Robert Pecke, if he is able. To John Waters, my godson [note: his
great-grandchildren were of the Waters family inasmuch as Robert Peck,
the Younger, married Johan(Joan) Waters: the contents of this will further
establishing links between these families] 20s., and to each other of my
godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Pecke all my pen cattle, moveables, and
apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors, namely, my well-beloved in Christ,
the aforesaid Robert Peck, my 'neve' [*grandson'], and Kateryn, my daughter.
Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne, Richard Robards, William Robards,
Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William Hastings, Thomas Drurye, and others.
Proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of Norwich [Norwich Probate
Registry], Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65)" [Oct 1935, pages 334-35].
[note: Hastings pedigrees, which are extensive, may have had family
members who married into Leekes: members might know, and such may shed
light on this proposed pedigree: as already noted, my supply of these Visitations
and resultant pedigrees is limited.]
THE AUTHORS SPEAK:
"[As has been already stated, it is in this will of John Leeke of beccles, co. Suffolk,
that the earliest *certain* reference to Robert Peck, grandfather of Rev. Robert Peck
and his brother Joseph, has been found. Although John Leeke in his will does not
mention the residence of this Robert peck, the Chancery proceedings in the suit of
Drawer v. Pek (Peck) (*infra,* No. 5) show that he was of Beccles, co Suffolk."
"The provisions of this will should be studied carefully, especially those referring to
Alice, the testator's wife, and to Robert peck, whom he calls his 'neve,' that is,
*grandson.* That this *grandson* of John Leeke is IDENTICAL [the KEY point, in
genealogy, by the way: MY CAPS] WITH ROBERT PECK OF BECCLES, CO. SUFFOLK,
THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT. 1556 (*INFRA,* NO. 7), IS INDICATED BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL BY WHICH JOHN LEEKE LEAVES TO HIS WIFE ALICE, FOR HER LIFE, THE
LAND THAT HE BOUGHT OF 'MARSSHE,' AND DIRECTS THAT AFTER HER DECEASE
THIS LAND SHALL GO TO ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, AND BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL OF THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT 1556 BY WHICH THIS LATER TESTATOR
LEAVES TO HIS SON, JOHN PECKE, THREE ACRES OF LAND, 'LATE WILLIAM MARSHES.'
John Leeke leaves his lands in county Norfolk to his daughter Katherine and her heirs
AND HIS LANDS IN BECCLES TO HIS *GRANDSON* ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, on
condition that Robert peck pay certain legacies, and after stating what shall be done
with his household goods and other moveables, he leave all the residue of his estate
to his executors, anely, THE AFORESAID ROBERT PECK, HIS *GRANDSON,* and Katherine,
his (the testator's) daughter" [Oct 1935, page 335].
I leave the authors direct statements for SUMMARY: they then sum up that John Leeke
was married twice, that Katherine was the daughter of his second wife, and although
the second wife was disenfranchised from challenging his Will, the daughter became
a party to the aforementioned suit in Chancery known as the Drawer case. The authors
note that John Leeke entrusted his *grandson* Robert Peck with the perpetual care of
his wife, Alice. In the resultant suit *circa* 1530 the *grandson* is referred to as
"Rbt Pek (Peck) of Beccles in the County of Suff [olk]" [Oct 1935, page 336].
COMMENT: The fact that John Leeke mentions not only his third generation of Robert
Peck, the Elder, but the allied Waters family of Robert's wife Johan Waters, via his
*godson* John Waters, probably the brother-in-law of Robert Peck, the Elder, and the
recipient of the largess of John Leeke, and had AS WITNESS TO HIS WILL that same
"John Waters" should NOT escape linkage in this pedigree from the Pecks through to
the Leekes, both of Beccles, to the Waters family who married into the Peck family
circa 1540 [See 14th GENERATION of proposed pedigree, above]. All of this only makes
sense in that the daughter of John Leeke, Margery, married the father of Robert, the
Elder, Henry Peck, testator of Nov, 1525.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Lacking further critique, for the record I offer the following summary
of the focal points posted to the gen-medieval archives re: this thread:
see attached proposed pedigree:
Re-cap of the conclusion based on the evidence presented:
that the proposed pedigree of Middleton, allied with Waters
and Leeke, to Peck, 1100-1600 in Yorkshire records
is probably valid:
__________________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton confirmed via her relatives
William Middleton and William Thwaites
as participants to wills and lands
__________________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke confirmed via John Leeke
as maker of will to grandson Robert Peck, the Elder,
compelling identity of land descended three generations,
and compelling identity of Waters particpants
as allied family members of Leekes and Pecks
__________________________________________
Robert Peck, the Younger=Joan(Johan) Waters
firmly established and rest of lineage proved
wills and other records in Beccles, et al.
__________________________________________
Bill
***************************************************
See GEN-MEDIEVAL archives for previous posts to this thread:
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.Carlton Colville, Suf.,GB. b.Carlton Colville,Suffolk,GB.
m.c.1520
d.? d.c.Nov 1525, Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 4: "The Will of John Leeke of Beccles, co. Suffolk, England, Diocese of
Norwich, dated 6 September 1529. To be buried in the Church of St. Michael
the Archangel in Beccles...To Kateryn, my daughter [be it noted: that Henry
Peck who married Margery Leeke named a daughter Kateryn, obviously after
Margery's sister, establishing another confirming link between these families],
and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and tenements in Gelingham, Wyndell,
Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere with the county of Norfolk. I will
that Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and dwelling within the house of
Robert Pecke, my 'neve' [*grandson*], that is to say, in the 'parlour' next the
'mease' [messuage] of Richard Craske, with sufficient meat, etc., during her
lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then [she shall have] an annuity for
life of 20s., and the said Robert Pecke is to supply her with...To my said daughter
40 Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage. To my said wife my land that
I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her decease to the aforesaid Robert
Pecke and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter and Robert Pecke all the
residue of the household goods, equally...To the said Robert Peck [sic: noting
variant spelling throughout] my 'mease' [messuage] that I dwell in and all my
other 'measey', lands, and tenements in Beccles, co. Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he pay unto Robert Leeke,
John Leeke, and Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to Alys Leeke and Elyn
Leeke 30 marks apiece, and to Margaret Leke 40s., to be paid at the age of
discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my sons in Beccles church yearly
by Robert Pecke, if he is able. To John Waters, my godson [note: his
great-grandchildren were of the Waters family inasmuch as Robert Peck,
the Younger, married Johan(Joan) Waters: the contents of this will further
establishing links between these families] 20s., and to each other of my
godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Pecke all my pen cattle, moveables, and
apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors, namely, my well-beloved in Christ,
the aforesaid Robert Peck, my 'neve' [*grandson'], and Kateryn, my daughter.
Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne, Richard Robards, William Robards,
Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William Hastings, Thomas Drurye, and others.
Proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of Norwich [Norwich Probate
Registry], Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65)" [Oct 1935, pages 334-35].
[note: Hastings pedigrees, which are extensive, may have had family
members who married into Leekes: members might know, and such may shed
light on this proposed pedigree: as already noted, my supply of these Visitations
and resultant pedigrees is limited.]
THE AUTHORS SPEAK:
"[As has been already stated, it is in this will of John Leeke of beccles, co. Suffolk,
that the earliest *certain* reference to Robert Peck, grandfather of Rev. Robert Peck
and his brother Joseph, has been found. Although John Leeke in his will does not
mention the residence of this Robert peck, the Chancery proceedings in the suit of
Drawer v. Pek (Peck) (*infra,* No. 5) show that he was of Beccles, co Suffolk."
"The provisions of this will should be studied carefully, especially those referring to
Alice, the testator's wife, and to Robert peck, whom he calls his 'neve,' that is,
*grandson.* That this *grandson* of John Leeke is IDENTICAL [the KEY point, in
genealogy, by the way: MY CAPS] WITH ROBERT PECK OF BECCLES, CO. SUFFOLK,
THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT. 1556 (*INFRA,* NO. 7), IS INDICATED BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL BY WHICH JOHN LEEKE LEAVES TO HIS WIFE ALICE, FOR HER LIFE, THE
LAND THAT HE BOUGHT OF 'MARSSHE,' AND DIRECTS THAT AFTER HER DECEASE
THIS LAND SHALL GO TO ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, AND BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL OF THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT 1556 BY WHICH THIS LATER TESTATOR
LEAVES TO HIS SON, JOHN PECKE, THREE ACRES OF LAND, 'LATE WILLIAM MARSHES.'
John Leeke leaves his lands in county Norfolk to his daughter Katherine and her heirs
AND HIS LANDS IN BECCLES TO HIS *GRANDSON* ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, on
condition that Robert peck pay certain legacies, and after stating what shall be done
with his household goods and other moveables, he leave all the residue of his estate
to his executors, anely, THE AFORESAID ROBERT PECK, HIS *GRANDSON,* and Katherine,
his (the testator's) daughter" [Oct 1935, page 335].
I leave the authors direct statements for SUMMARY: they then sum up that John Leeke
was married twice, that Katherine was the daughter of his second wife, and although
the second wife was disenfranchised from challenging his Will, the daughter became
a party to the aforementioned suit in Chancery known as the Drawer case. The authors
note that John Leeke entrusted his *grandson* Robert Peck with the perpetual care of
his wife, Alice. In the resultant suit *circa* 1530 the *grandson* is referred to as
"Rbt Pek (Peck) of Beccles in the County of Suff [olk]" [Oct 1935, page 336].
COMMENT: The fact that John Leeke mentions not only his third generation of Robert
Peck, the Elder, but the allied Waters family of Robert's wife Johan Waters, via his
*godson* John Waters, probably the brother-in-law of Robert Peck, the Elder, and the
recipient of the largess of John Leeke, and had AS WITNESS TO HIS WILL that same
"John Waters" should NOT escape linkage in this pedigree from the Pecks through to
the Leekes, both of Beccles, to the Waters family who married into the Peck family
circa 1540 [See 14th GENERATION of proposed pedigree, above]. All of this only makes
sense in that the daughter of John Leeke, Margery, married the father of Robert, the
Elder, Henry Peck, testator of Nov, 1525.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Gjest
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 6:53 am, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
oh god here we go again...
wrote:
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of grandparents).
Also, "descendent" is the rare (i.e., nearly obsolete) form
of "descendant."
Christopher Ingham
oh god here we go again...
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
Nonsense....
All true DESCENDANTS/DESCENDENTS are DIRECTLY descended from the ANCESTOR.
Therefore coupling the word DESCENDENT/DESCENDANT to the word DIRECT is
Idiotic, Oxymoronic and Redundant.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1192974793.367741.202560@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
All true DESCENDANTS/DESCENDENTS are DIRECTLY descended from the ANCESTOR.
Therefore coupling the word DESCENDENT/DESCENDANT to the word DIRECT is
Idiotic, Oxymoronic and Redundant.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1192974793.367741.202560@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of grandparents)....
D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:mailman.279.1192947215.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate families.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing Mindless Celebrity
Yep...
Except you are referring to Queen Victoria's GRANDSON, Albert Victor
Christian [1864-1892], Duke of Clarence and Avondale ---- not her son,
"Bertie", later Edward VII, who was Albert's father.
Herewith Some Of The Scoop:
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------------------
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to Mary
of Teck, who later married George V.
He proposed to her at Luton Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were
engaged from that date. The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892.
"Prince Eddy" --- as he was known within the family --- became ill in early
January and died on 14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is
only reputed, not confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually Jack
the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the notorious
murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or near,
Whitechapel --- in London's East End --- from 7 August to 10 November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the Royal
Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of Wales
at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books.
The story of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has
been proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual killer, a
combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and alleged lover)
James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the involvement of his
father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last victim. Take your
pick! They're all nonsense.
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the dates
of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are drawn,
quoting from published court circulars.
Mention is also made of these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these
dates in Michael Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin
Howells and Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald
Rumbelow, and in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo
Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow involved.
The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed not
only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his illegal
marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that he died
imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that he was sent
there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were then promised that
one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into the Royal Family, and
even that George V was the product of an illicit affair between Alexandra
and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
| the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
| papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son
| of
| a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
| gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
| While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
| showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the
| Whitechapel murders.
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London was
| raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of
| an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the time
| that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual love life as
| did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified at the mere
| thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her grandson was up
| to, and elaborate strategies were developed to conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another, at
| one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to his
| cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught influenza while
| hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia. (Princess May in 1893
| married his younger brother George, duke of York, who became
| George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a more
| social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet been found.
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.213.1192813792.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Except you are referring to Queen Victoria's GRANDSON, Albert Victor
Christian [1864-1892], Duke of Clarence and Avondale ---- not her son,
"Bertie", later Edward VII, who was Albert's father.
Herewith Some Of The Scoop:
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------------------
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Betrothed to Mary
of Teck, who later married George V.
He proposed to her at Luton Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and she accepted; they were
engaged from that date. The wedding was to have been on 27 Feb 1892.
"Prince Eddy" --- as he was known within the family --- became ill in early
January and died on 14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia. Marriage to Annie Crook is
only reputed, not confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of Clarence was actually Jack
the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator, committed the notorious
murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes, in, or near,
Whitechapel --- in London's East End --- from 7 August to 10 November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the Royal
Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of Wales
at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books.
The story of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has
been proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual killer, a
combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and alleged lover)
James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the involvement of his
father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last victim. Take your
pick! They're all nonsense.
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the dates
of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are drawn,
quoting from published court circulars.
Mention is also made of these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these
dates in Michael Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin
Howells and Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald
Rumbelow, and in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo
Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow involved.
The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed not
only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his illegal
marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that he died
imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that he was sent
there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were then promised that
one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into the Royal Family, and
even that George V was the product of an illicit affair between Alexandra
and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper surfaced in the 1970s after
| the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s came to light. These
| papers described the real "Jack," among the doctor's patients, as the son
| of
| a noble English family, a man whose parents were renowned for their social
| gifts and who had done much to enhance British prestige around the world.
| While the account in no way pointed directly to the royal family, the
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed an ancient Court Circular
| showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time of one of the
| Whitechapel murders.
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual brothel in London was
| raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the Victorian equivalent of
| an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and left quite disappointed.
| No certain conclusions about his private life can be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries and letters of the time
| that the duke carried on every bit as active a heterosexual love life as
| did his father. In fact royal secretaries were petrified at the mere
| thought that Queen Victoria might find out what her grandson was up
| to, and elaborate strategies were developed to conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love affair to another, at
| one point falling desperately in love with a daughter of the Count
| of Paris, precipitating a minor crisis as public opinion would have
| opposed his marriage to a Roman Catholic, and the republican French
| government would not have wished the stature of the exiled Orleans
| family to be enhanced by such a marriage.
| The attractive but mentally inert Albert Victor was engaged in 1891 to his
| cousin Princess "May" of Teck, but the next January caught influenza while
| hunting at Sandringham and died of pneumonia. (Princess May in 1893
| married his younger brother George, duke of York, who became
| George V in 1910.)
| Rumor continues to insist that Albert Victor died of something of a more
| social nature than pneumonia, but no proof of this has yet been found.
Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.213.1192813792.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Spencer,
Well there was Queen Victoria`s son Albert who acted
oddly enough that He`s been considered as a candidate (I believe He has a
alibi)
as Jack the Ripper.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o
On Oct 19, 7:57 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes, they do. They don't specify the age, though. Some reconstructions
place his birth as late as 1098. There is not much leeway the other
way, as it is thought Zaida came north no earlier than 1091, and so he
could hardly have been born before 1092.
As to 15 being too early to be killed in battle, I don't know that
this is the case given the context. Alfonso as indisposed (whether by
wound or illness is unclear,but he was in his 70s) and Sancho was sent
south to be the royal presence in Toledo. He wasn't sent alone, being
accompanied by the kingdom's foremost political and military leaders
(Garcia Ordonez and Alvar Fanez). Also present were handful of other
counts (including Martin Lainez ancestor of the Osorio), representing
perhaps a fifth of the total military. In other words, Sancho was in
Toledo as a political and military figurehead, but figurehead or not,
he would be expected to march out with the army, and marching out with
the army was all it took to get himself killed, as this battle proved
a near-annihilation. The Castillian army was completely enveloped and
killed or captured, all of the captured then being executed in fury
over the death of a popular imam, and their 3000 heads stacked in a
pile. There were only two successful breakouts, one led by Alvar
Fanez, the only named survivor. The other involved just a handful of
knights including Sancho. They took refuge in a nearby town, but the
town fathers had them killed and surrendered the town to the invaders.
taf
Sancho is showing in my database as died May 1108 in battle at Ucles.
If he was born in 1093 he'd be only 14 or 15. Seems a bit young to die in battle.
I wonder if any contemporary writer mentioned that? As is it possible that he wasn't actually born in 1093?
Yes, they do. They don't specify the age, though. Some reconstructions
place his birth as late as 1098. There is not much leeway the other
way, as it is thought Zaida came north no earlier than 1091, and so he
could hardly have been born before 1092.
As to 15 being too early to be killed in battle, I don't know that
this is the case given the context. Alfonso as indisposed (whether by
wound or illness is unclear,but he was in his 70s) and Sancho was sent
south to be the royal presence in Toledo. He wasn't sent alone, being
accompanied by the kingdom's foremost political and military leaders
(Garcia Ordonez and Alvar Fanez). Also present were handful of other
counts (including Martin Lainez ancestor of the Osorio), representing
perhaps a fifth of the total military. In other words, Sancho was in
Toledo as a political and military figurehead, but figurehead or not,
he would be expected to march out with the army, and marching out with
the army was all it took to get himself killed, as this battle proved
a near-annihilation. The Castillian army was completely enveloped and
killed or captured, all of the captured then being executed in fury
over the death of a popular imam, and their 3000 heads stacked in a
pile. There were only two successful breakouts, one led by Alvar
Fanez, the only named survivor. The other involved just a handful of
knights including Sancho. They took refuge in a nearby town, but the
town fathers had them killed and surrendered the town to the invaders.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 10:31 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Language is a alive, even if some people attempt to fossilize it
according to the particular way in which they were taught. While it
may be technically or factually incorrect to refer to "collateral
descent", it is a term in everyday use that is well understood. Even
you understood what was meant. It would be more constructive to
address the genealogical issue. By the way, is there a hyphen between
*anal* & *retentive*?
Nonsense....
All true DESCENDANTS/DESCENDENTS are DIRECTLY descended from the ANCESTOR.
Therefore coupling the word DESCENDENT/DESCENDANT to the word DIRECT is
Idiotic, Oxymoronic and Redundant.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Christopher Ingham" <christophering...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1192974793.367741.202560@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of grandparents)....
D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:mailman.279.1192947215.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate families.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Language is a alive, even if some people attempt to fossilize it
according to the particular way in which they were taught. While it
may be technically or factually incorrect to refer to "collateral
descent", it is a term in everyday use that is well understood. Even
you understood what was meant. It would be more constructive to
address the genealogical issue. By the way, is there a hyphen between
*anal* & *retentive*?
-
M.Sjostrom
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE - "collateral descendants"
As long as there exists literature or sources which
use the term "descendant" as to the subject, about
descendants of the subject's collateral relatives, the
justification for term "direct descendant" exists.
Sorry if it feels bad to those who hold the belief
that the terminology is corrupted by redundancy. But,
the corruption has already been made by those who have
written with the term descendant about collaterals. We
cannot do much to that, as I cannot see any effective
potential even if some crazies start burning those
sources and literature which, in their opinion, used
terminology incorrectly.
This also points out that terminology is much much
more easily corrupted than "repaired".
And all sorts of attempts for "reparation therapy"
(like seen here) generally are in vain and go amiss.
All in all, those who feel a need to specify a
relationship by using the term "direct descendant", as
distinction to the possibly conceptually incorrect
"collateral descendant", are welcome to do their that
specific use, as far as it concerns me.
It is not a usage to get rabid over.
M.Sjöström
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
use the term "descendant" as to the subject, about
descendants of the subject's collateral relatives, the
justification for term "direct descendant" exists.
Sorry if it feels bad to those who hold the belief
that the terminology is corrupted by redundancy. But,
the corruption has already been made by those who have
written with the term descendant about collaterals. We
cannot do much to that, as I cannot see any effective
potential even if some crazies start burning those
sources and literature which, in their opinion, used
terminology incorrectly.
This also points out that terminology is much much
more easily corrupted than "repaired".
And all sorts of attempts for "reparation therapy"
(like seen here) generally are in vain and go amiss.
All in all, those who feel a need to specify a
relationship by using the term "direct descendant", as
distinction to the possibly conceptually incorrect
"collateral descendant", are welcome to do their that
specific use, as far as it concerns me.
It is not a usage to get rabid over.
M.Sjöström
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE families.
Dear Rainbow,
On Gen-Med you have to have a thick skin. Over the years I have said several
times that "there are pearls amongst the swines".You will learn to ignore
"contributions" of some. Exposing your information is a very positive thing
to do, as this allows others to add or correct to what you have.
Sometimes the specialised knowledge of some will come to the fore---only
because you displayed some information. Without publicly exposing it, how
could they? As they do not know what you have. Especially as you seem to
have a line going into families that many people are interested in.
I do not know if you are aware of my website http://www.genealogics.org this
generates reactions almost on a daily basis and this has improved the
information incredibly.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:01 AM
Subject: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE families.
On Gen-Med you have to have a thick skin. Over the years I have said several
times that "there are pearls amongst the swines".You will learn to ignore
"contributions" of some. Exposing your information is a very positive thing
to do, as this allows others to add or correct to what you have.
Sometimes the specialised knowledge of some will come to the fore---only
because you displayed some information. Without publicly exposing it, how
could they? As they do not know what you have. Especially as you seem to
have a line going into families that many people are interested in.
I do not know if you are aware of my website http://www.genealogics.org this
generates reactions almost on a daily basis and this has improved the
information incredibly.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 6:01 AM
Subject: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE families.
Hello Leo
Thanks for your most kind comment re my descent from the
de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE families.
Are some of the listers a tad "envious" of someone elses
ancestry??
I do feel rather tempted to ditch the idea of contributing
when this rubbish is thrown back at listers??
Nobody can help it if they come from such a lineage, it's
just a fact of my life!!
Thanks again Leo for your support - wish there were a few
more out there like youself.....
May I wish you a Rainbow every day
P.S.
I am about to spend a decent dollop of N.Z. dollars on
purchasing
copies of RIVERSHALL MANOR Court book Essex - in order to
verify some minor details regarding my de RYVERS ancestral
doings back in the years covering 1383-1467.
Just hope it proves fruitful!!!
==========================================================
-------------------------------
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: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o
Dear Will,
I don`t doubt that Sancho could have been killed in battle at
fifteen years. Consider that Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke killed
his only son in his mid teens for attempting to flee a battle to say nothing of
twelve year old drummer boys and sixteen year olds enlisting to fight in the
USA`s early wars. When the Scots decided to replace King James III with his son
King James IV , He was not more than sixteen...and He would not have wanted
to be a puppet, He fought. His father fled and was subsequently murdered after
the battle.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
I don`t doubt that Sancho could have been killed in battle at
fifteen years. Consider that Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke killed
his only son in his mid teens for attempting to flee a battle to say nothing of
twelve year old drummer boys and sixteen year olds enlisting to fight in the
USA`s early wars. When the Scots decided to replace King James III with his son
King James IV , He was not more than sixteen...and He would not have wanted
to be a puppet, He fought. His father fled and was subsequently murdered after
the battle.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE families.
Dear Spencer,
I disagree. there is no such thing as a "small potato"
descent. It is very common among British descended persons to have several
such descents.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
I disagree. there is no such thing as a "small potato"
descent. It is very common among British descended persons to have several
such descents.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Doug Thompson
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
DSH
Actually Hines, you are wrong here! It is a redundancy but NOT an
oxymoron. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two
normally contradictory terms. (Like - "A useful comment from Hines" )
Doug
-
charlotte smith
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1441
unsubcribe
--- gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com wrote:
charlotte c smith
--- gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com wrote:
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and
Peck and Waters
(Bill Arnold)
2. Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
(lostcooper@yahoo.com)
3. Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE (D. Spencer Hines)
4. Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing
Mindless Celebrity
Worship (D. Spencer Hines)
5. Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new
Encyclopaedia of
Islam?] (taf@clearwire.net)
6. Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
(lostcooper@yahoo.com)
From: Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke
and Peck and Waters
GEN-MEDIEVAL members:
Lacking further critique, for the record I offer the
following summary
of the focal points posted to the gen-medieval
archives re: this thread:
see attached proposed pedigree:
Re-cap of the conclusion based on the evidence
presented:
that the proposed pedigree of Middleton, allied with
Waters
and Leeke, to Peck, 1100-1600 in Yorkshire records
is probably valid:
__________________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton confirmed via her
relatives
William Middleton and William Thwaites
as participants to wills and lands
__________________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke confirmed via John Leeke
as maker of will to grandson Robert Peck, the Elder,
compelling identity of land descended three
generations,
and compelling identity of Waters particpants
as allied family members of Leekes and Pecks
__________________________________________
Robert Peck, the Younger=Joan(Johan) Waters
firmly established and rest of lineage proved
wills and other records in Beccles, et al.
__________________________________________
Bill
***************************************************
See GEN-MEDIEVAL archives for previous posts to this
thread:
Re: the following segment of the proposed
Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the
Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and
evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of
abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for
fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept
responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify
omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB.
b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec
1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov
1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar
1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov
1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393
27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.Carlton Colville, Suf.,GB.
b.Carlton Colville,Suffolk,GB.
m.c.1520
d.?
d.c.Nov 1525, Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785
54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB.
b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491
d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 4: "The Will of John Leeke of Beccles, co.
Suffolk, England, Diocese of
Norwich, dated 6 September 1529. To be buried in
the Church of St. Michael
the Archangel in Beccles...To Kateryn, my daughter
[be it noted: that Henry
Peck who married Margery Leeke named a daughter
Kateryn, obviously after
Margery's sister, establishing another confirming
link between these families],
and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and
tenements in Gelingham, Wyndell,
Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere with the
county of Norfolk. I will
that Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and
dwelling within the house of
Robert Pecke, my 'neve' [*grandson*], that is to
say, in the 'parlour' next the
'mease' [messuage] of Richard Craske, with
sufficient meat, etc., during her
lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then
[she shall have] an annuity for
life of 20s., and the said Robert Pecke is to supply
her with...To my said daughter
40 Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage.
To my said wife my land that
I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her
decease to the aforesaid Robert
Pecke and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter
and Robert Pecke all the
residue of the household goods, equally...To the
said Robert Peck [sic: noting
variant spelling throughout] my 'mease' [messuage]
that I dwell in and all my
other 'measey', lands, and tenements in Beccles, co.
Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he
pay unto Robert Leeke,
John Leeke, and Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to
Alys Leeke and Elyn
Leeke 30 marks apiece, and to Margaret Leke 40s., to
be paid at the age of
discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my
sons in Beccles church yearly
by Robert Pecke, if he is able. To John Waters, my
godson [note: his
great-grandchildren were of the Waters family
inasmuch as Robert Peck,
the Younger, married Johan(Joan) Waters: the
contents of this will further
establishing links between these families] 20s., and
to each other of my
godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Pecke all my
pen cattle, moveables, and
apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my
executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors,
namely, my well-beloved in Christ,
the aforesaid Robert Peck, my 'neve' [*grandson'],
and Kateryn, my daughter.
Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne, Richard
Robards, William Robards,
Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William Hastings, Thomas
Drurye, and others.
Proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of
Norwich [Norwich Probate
Registry], Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65)"
[Oct 1935, pages 334-35].
[note: Hastings pedigrees, which are extensive, may
have had family
members who married into Leekes: members might know,
and such may shed
light on this proposed pedigree: as already noted,
my supply of these Visitations
and resultant pedigrees is limited.]
THE AUTHORS SPEAK:
"[As has been already stated, it is in this will of
John Leeke of beccles, co. Suffolk,
that the earliest *certain* reference to Robert
Peck, grandfather of Rev. Robert Peck
and his brother Joseph, has been found. Although
John Leeke in his will does not
mention the residence of this Robert peck, the
Chancery proceedings in the suit of
Drawer v. Pek (Peck) (*infra,* No. 5) show that he
was of Beccles, co Suffolk."
=== message truncated ===> From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 10:20:47 -0700
Subject: Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 6:53 am, Christopher Ingham
christophering...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines"
pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well
as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no
"indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal
ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent
from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of
grandparents).
Also, "descendent" is the rare (i.e., nearly
obsolete) form
of "descendant."
Christopher Ingham
oh god here we go again...
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:31:51 +0100
Subject: Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
Nonsense....
All true DESCENDANTS/DESCENDENTS are DIRECTLY
descended from the ANCESTOR.
Therefore coupling the word DESCENDENT/DESCENDANT to
the word DIRECT is
Idiotic, Oxymoronic and Redundant.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Christopher Ingham" <christopheringham@comcast.net
wrote in message
news:1192974793.367741.202560@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines"
pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well
as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no
"indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal
ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent
from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of
grandparents)....
D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in
message news:...
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well
as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no
"indirect" descendents.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote in
message
news:mailman.279.1192947215.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to
accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of
these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate
families.
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:25:52 +0100
Subject: Re: Diana, Princess Of Wales & Continuing
Mindless Celebrity Worship
Yep...
Except you are referring to Queen Victoria's
GRANDSON, Albert Victor
Christian [1864-1892], Duke of Clarence and Avondale
---- not her son,
"Bertie", later Edward VII, who was Albert's father.
Herewith Some Of The Scoop:
Enjoy!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
---------------------------------------------------------
Acceded: 24 May 1890. Duke of Avondale, Earl of
Athlone, Betrothed to Mary
of Teck, who later married George V.
He proposed to her at Luton Hoo on 3 Dec 1891 and
she accepted; they were
engaged from that date. The wedding was to have
been on 27 Feb 1892.
"Prince Eddy" --- as he was known within the family
--- became ill in early
January and died on 14 Jan 1892 of pneumonia.
Marriage to Annie Crook is
only reputed, not confirmed.
One theory, by Knight, has it that the Duke of
Clarence was actually Jack
the Ripper. Jack, the pseudonymous perpetrator,
committed the notorious
murders of at least seven women, all prostitutes,
in, or near,
Whitechapel --- in London's East End --- from 7
August to 10 November 1888.
"Regarding HRH The Duke of Clarence and the Jack the
Ripper controversy:
1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the
Ripper:
A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September,
1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.
During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the
following locations:
29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount
Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.
7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks
in York with his
regiment.
27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland
staying with the Royal
Family at Balmoral.
2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the
Prince and Princess of Wales
at Sandringham.
Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent
Ripper books.
The story of his marriage and fathering a bastard
child with Annie Crook has
been proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to
feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull
as the actual killer, a
combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor
(and alleged lover)
James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide
the involvement of his
father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim. Take your
pick! They're all nonsense.
My sources for Ripper information are varied. The
best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper
A-Z" from which the dates
of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn
of 1888 are drawn,
quoting from published court circulars.
Mention is also made of these locations and the
Duke's whereabouts on these
dates in Michael Harrison's "Clarence," in "The
Ripper Legacy" by Martin
Howells and Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the
Ripper" by Donald
Rumbelow, and in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual
Underworld" by Theo
Aronsen.
The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the
last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family
were somehow involved.
The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in
which it is claimed not
only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard
child through his illegal
marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was
faked, that he died
imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the
1930s, that he was sent
there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who
were then promised that
one of their daughters would be allowed to marry
into the Royal Family, and
even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra
and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."
Greg King 8 Nov 1997
From: ""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Jack the Ripper (was: The
British/English Constitution)
| It was her grandson Albert Victor, duke of
Clarence and Avondale
| (1864-1892) who, had he lived, would have been
King and Emperor
| after his father, Edward VII.
| Allegations that the duke was Jack the Ripper
surfaced in the 1970s after
| the papers of a London psychiatrist in the 1890s
came to light. These
| papers described the real "Jack," among the
doctor's patients, as the son
| of
| a noble English family, a man whose parents were
renowned for their social
| gifts and who had done much to enhance British
prestige around the world.
| While the account in no way pointed directly to
the royal family, the
| British media of the day drew the conclusion that
the duke of Clarence was
| meant.
| Within a short time, Buckingham Palace unearthed
an ancient Court Circular
| showing that the duke was at Balmoral at the time
of one of the
| Whitechapel murders.
| For many, Albert Victor's participation in the
Whitechapel murders was
| later made more unlikely when declassified police
records showed that
| he was among those present when a homosexual
brothel in London was
| raided. Allegedly he had gone there expecting the
Victorian equivalent of
| an evening of strip teases by pretty girls, and
left quite disappointed.
| No certain conclusions about his private life can
be based on this one
| incident, and it is abundantly clear from diaries
and letters of the time
| that the duke carried on every bit as active a
heterosexual love life as
| did his father. In fact royal secretaries were
petrified at the mere
| thought that Queen Victoria might find out what
her grandson was up
| to, and elaborate strategies were developed to
conceal the truth from her.
| Albert Victor lurched from one unsatisfactory love
affair to another, at
| one point falling desperately in love with a
daughter of the Count
=== message truncated ===> From: taf@clearwire.net
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:49:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in
new Encyclopaedia of Islam?]
On Oct 19, 7:57 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com
wrote:
Sancho is showing in my database as died May 1108
in battle at Ucles.
If he was born in 1093 he'd be only 14 or 15.
Seems a bit young to die in battle.
I wonder if any contemporary writer mentioned
that? As is it possible that he wasn't actually
born in 1093?
Yes, they do. They don't specify the age, though.
Some reconstructions
place his birth as late as 1098. There is not much
leeway the other
way, as it is thought Zaida came north no earlier
than 1091, and so he
could hardly have been born before 1092.
As to 15 being too early to be killed in battle, I
don't know that
this is the case given the context. Alfonso as
indisposed (whether by
wound or illness is unclear,but he was in his 70s)
and Sancho was sent
south to be the royal presence in Toledo. He wasn't
sent alone, being
accompanied by the kingdom's foremost political and
military leaders
(Garcia Ordonez and Alvar Fanez). Also present were
handful of other
counts (including Martin Lainez ancestor of the
Osorio), representing
perhaps a fifth of the total military. In other
words, Sancho was in
Toledo as a political and military figurehead, but
figurehead or not,
he would be expected to march out with the army, and
marching out with
the army was all it took to get himself killed, as
this battle proved
a near-annihilation. The Castillian army was
completely enveloped and
killed or captured, all of the captured then being
executed in fury
over the death of a popular imam, and their 3000
heads stacked in a
pile. There were only two successful breakouts, one
led by Alvar
Fanez, the only named survivor. The other involved
just a handful of
knights including Sancho. They took refuge in a
nearby town, but the
town fathers had them killed and surrendered the
town to the invaders.
taf
From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:56:28 -0700
Subject: Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 10:31 am, "D. Spencer Hines"
pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Nonsense....
All true DESCENDANTS/DESCENDENTS are DIRECTLY
descended from the ANCESTOR.
Therefore coupling the word DESCENDENT/DESCENDANT
to the word DIRECT is
Idiotic, Oxymoronic and Redundant.
'Nuff Said.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Christopher Ingham"
christophering...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1192974793.367741.202560@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 6:51 am, "D. Spencer Hines"
pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as
well as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no
"indirect" descendents.
In regard to predecessors within a common group
or
stock, one has direct descent from lineal
ancestors
(grandparents), as opposed to indirect descent
from
collateral ancestors (sibs and cousins of
grandparents)....
D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
message news:...
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well
as being an Oxymoron and
Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no
"indirect" descendents.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"rainbow." <"rainbow."@clear.net.nz> wrote in
message
news:mailman.279.1192947215.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I am sorry that certain listers are unable to
accept
mistakes and typos from contributors.
As a direct descendant from the forebears of
these people -
I can assure you they are indeed two separate
families.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Language is a alive, even if some people attempt to
fossilize it
according to the particular way in which they were
taught. While it
may be technically or factually incorrect to refer
to "collateral
descent", it is a term in everyday use that is well
understood. Even
you understood what was meant. It would be more
constructive to
address the genealogical issue. By the way, is there
a hyphen between
*anal* & *retentive*?
charlotte c smith
-
Gjest
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE families.
In a message dated 10/21/2007 1:01:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:
Are some of the listers a tad "envious" of someone elses
ancestry??
I do feel rather tempted to ditch the idea of contributing
when this rubbish is thrown back at listers??
-----------------
And are you perhaps unaware that almost *everyone* on this list descends
from this same family ? Your specific descent doesn't give you any particular
claim to know how they spelled their name or who was related to them, any more
than anyone else.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:
Are some of the listers a tad "envious" of someone elses
ancestry??
I do feel rather tempted to ditch the idea of contributing
when this rubbish is thrown back at listers??
-----------------
And are you perhaps unaware that almost *everyone* on this list descends
from this same family ? Your specific descent doesn't give you any particular
claim to know how they spelled their name or who was related to them, any more
than anyone else.
Will
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
But Bill you've failed to quote your sources except in a few points. The
other points are left uncited.
I feel that perhaps the articles you're reading don't actually address those
points, and you're hoping we won't notice the omission. But I can't
overlook it.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
other points are left uncited.
I feel that perhaps the articles you're reading don't actually address those
points, and you're hoping we won't notice the omission. But I can't
overlook it.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
John Watson
Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske
On Oct 21, 9:55 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Hi James,
It would seem I still have a lot of research to do on the Aske
pedigree. There isn't much in the records to confirm the names of most
of the early Aske spouses. It would seem also that there is one Hugh
de Aske missing, son of the first one.
Regards,
John
Dear John Watson,
How`s this hypothetical (based on charter
evidence)
1 Eudes , Count of Brittany and an
unknown mistress
2 Ribold married Beatrice de
Taillebois
3 Bardolf
4 NN (unknown daughter) married
Wymar , Steward of Richmond
5 Roger de Aske married Whitemal de
Dalton, daughter of Roger de Dalton
6 Conan de Aske married Sybil de
Anlasby
7 Roger de Aske married Alice de
Cauton
8 Roger de Aske married Margaret NN
9 Hugh de Aske married Cecily NN
10 Roger de Aske married Christina NN
11 Conan de Aske married Eleanor
Widdrington
12 Richard de Aske married NN (?)
13 Roger (? Richard) de Aske married
Elizabeth Pert
14 Conan de Aske married (? Alice)
Saville
15 Roger de Aske married Isabel
Conyers
by this Conan IV and Conan Aske would be 2nd cousins twice removed (not
close enough)
Stephen I`s daughter Maud married Walter de Gant with daughters Agnes
married to William de Mohun, Alice married Roger de Mowbray, NN married
William de Welle and a son Robert. daughter Eleanor /Agnorie married Alan de Dinan,
Olive married Henry, Sire de Fougeres and Conan IV`s father Alan V, Count /
Duke of Brittany., ideally if the charter had either a Mowbray or a Mohun among
the witnesses or A Tateshall (Welle`s daughter married Robert de Tateshall)
We might get closer to the truth.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS Do You know the Aske of Aske pedigree well enough to tell me where this
is wrong ?
************************************** See what's new athttp://www.aol.com
Hi James,
It would seem I still have a lot of research to do on the Aske
pedigree. There isn't much in the records to confirm the names of most
of the early Aske spouses. It would seem also that there is one Hugh
de Aske missing, son of the first one.
Regards,
John
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 1:31 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
Many genealogical societies, for starters, would be surprised
to learn that there are no collateral descendants. Do a Google
search.
Christopher Ingham
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
Many genealogical societies, for starters, would be surprised
to learn that there are no collateral descendants. Do a Google
search.
Christopher Ingham
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 2:56 pm, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
While it may be technically or factually incorrect to
refer to "collateral descent", it is a term in everyday
use that is well understood.
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 2:56 pm, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
While it may be technically or factually incorrect to
refer to "collateral descent", it is a term in everyday
use that is well understood.
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 2:56 pm, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
While it may be technically or factually incorrect to
refer to "collateral descent", it is a term in everyday
use that is well understood.
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 2:56 pm, lostcoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
While it may be technically or factually incorrect to
refer to "collateral descent", it is a term in everyday
use that is well understood.
"Collateral descent" is a technically correct term in the field
of genealogy. Although the grammatically correct sense of
the word "descent" is somewhat contradicted here, the
genealogical term has a singular and precise meaning above
and beyond the meanings of its constituent word units
(think of the noun and the adjective, the noun phrase, as
if it were a single word, as in the German language).
Christopher Ingham
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE Families.
Bingo!
He/She seems to be fundamentally ignorant about those truisms.
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.321.1193008165.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
He/She seems to be fundamentally ignorant about those truisms.
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.321.1193008165.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 10/21/2007 1:01:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:
Are some of the listers a tad "envious" of someone elses
ancestry??
I do feel rather tempted to ditch the idea of contributing
when this rubbish is thrown back at listers??
-----------------
And are you perhaps unaware that almost *everyone* on this list descends
from this same family ? Your specific descent doesn't give you any
particular claim to know how they spelled their name or who was related
to them, any more than anyone else.
Will
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE - "collateral descendants"
The term "COLLATERAL DESCENDANT" is often grossly misused as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
Twaddle...
An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.
Pogue Thompson goes down for the count.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas=
"Doug Thompson" <doug.thompson@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1193008099.122408.122890@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.
Pogue Thompson goes down for the count.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas=
"Doug Thompson" <doug.thompson@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1193008099.122408.122890@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:...
The term "DIRECT DESCENDENT" is Idiotic, as well as being an Oxymoron
and Redundant.
ALL Descendents are DIRECT -- there are no "indirect" descendents.
DSH
Actually Hines, you are wrong here! It is a redundancy but NOT an
oxymoron. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two
normally contradictory terms....
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 21, 9:32 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
"Direct descendant" is not redundant when used for
clarification, such as when applied in contradistinction
to "collateral descendant," or when indicating a specific
category of descent within the broader category of
lineal and collateral descent.
Christopher Ingham
The question remains whether "direct descendent" is redundant.
That is, are the two categories "direct descendent" and "collateral
descendent" or are they
"descendent" and "collateral descendent" ?
"Direct descendant" is not redundant when used for
clarification, such as when applied in contradistinction
to "collateral descendant," or when indicating a specific
category of descent within the broader category of
lineal and collateral descent.
Christopher Ingham
-
Gjest
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
The question remains whether "direct descendent" is redundant.
That is, are the two categories "direct descendent" and "collateral
descendent" or are they
"descendent" and "collateral descendent" ?
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
That is, are the two categories "direct descendent" and "collateral
descendent" or are they
"descendent" and "collateral descendent" ?
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
Gjest
Re: Conan IV Duke of Brittany and Conan de Aske
Dear John,
A 2nd Hugh de Aske between Hugh and Cecily NN and Roger and
Christina NN. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
ps The Only source I have for the Aske of Aske pedigree is a
Rootsweb.com Ancestry tree , several Gen Medieval Posts dealing chiefly with Roger
Aske of Aske who married Isabel Conyers and an On-line article on the Saville
family by Chris Phillips and David Hepworth that says ? Alice , wife of his
father Conan de Aske was born abt 1404. was a daughter of Thomas Saville and his
wife Margaret Pilkington whose first husband Nicholas Griffin died in October
1436. Thomas died in 1449. Conan de Aske is stated to have fathered Roger in
1439 - died about 1505 on the rootsweb Ancestry tree and Conan to have died
1440 so either 1) Alice was not their daughter 2 Roger de Aske was born and his
father died much later.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
A 2nd Hugh de Aske between Hugh and Cecily NN and Roger and
Christina NN. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
ps The Only source I have for the Aske of Aske pedigree is a
Rootsweb.com Ancestry tree , several Gen Medieval Posts dealing chiefly with Roger
Aske of Aske who married Isabel Conyers and an On-line article on the Saville
family by Chris Phillips and David Hepworth that says ? Alice , wife of his
father Conan de Aske was born abt 1404. was a daughter of Thomas Saville and his
wife Margaret Pilkington whose first husband Nicholas Griffin died in October
1436. Thomas died in 1449. Conan de Aske is stated to have fathered Roger in
1439 - died about 1505 on the rootsweb Ancestry tree and Conan to have died
1440 so either 1) Alice was not their daughter 2 Roger de Aske was born and his
father died much later.
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
That's the spelling I use for my de BRAIOSE ancestors.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.335.1193021474.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.335.1193021474.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Paul,
Someone told me that in primary sources Braiose was used, yet another
version of this name.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
Leo van de Pas is amusing.
He's now RELAYING anonymous messages from Pogue Peter Stewart., who wants to
keep sucking his thumb and sulking in his hissy fit.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
He's now RELAYING anonymous messages from Pogue Peter Stewart., who wants to
keep sucking his thumb and sulking in his hissy fit.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
Leo van de Pas is amusing.
He's now RELAYING anonymous messages from Pogue Peter Stewart, who wants to
keep sitting in the dark corner, rubbing his head from that impact with the
cobblestone, sucking his thumb and sulking in his little hissy fit.
Deeeeeelightful!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
He's now RELAYING anonymous messages from Pogue Peter Stewart, who wants to
keep sitting in the dark corner, rubbing his head from that impact with the
cobblestone, sucking his thumb and sulking in his little hissy fit.
Deeeeeelightful!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-
Doug Thompson
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Oct 22, 2:56 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
HILARIOUS!!
Hines now has to write his own dictionary! Give up Spencer and do some
proper research.
Hines - Non Lux sed Luscitia, Non Veritas sed Stultitas
(If you haven't got a Latin dictionary either I'm sure someone will
help you!)
Doug
Twaddle...
An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.
Pogue Thompson goes down for the count.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas=
HILARIOUS!!
Hines now has to write his own dictionary! Give up Spencer and do some
proper research.
Hines - Non Lux sed Luscitia, Non Veritas sed Stultitas
(If you haven't got a Latin dictionary either I'm sure someone will
help you!)
Doug
-
Leticia Cluff
Re: de BRAOSE / de BRIWERE
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:56:44 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
Any pronouncement about the English language can be safely ignored if
it comes from a "man" who thinks that it is necessary to coin a
feminine form for "expatriate" and thereby produces the horror
"expatriatrix".
A person who equates an agent noun with a past participle is
demonstrably incapable of rational thought. The former is the subject
performing an action (e.g. a duplicator), the latter is the object
resulting from or experiencing the action (e.g. a duplicate).
One wonders what DSH will come up with next: "illegitimatrix" for a
female born out of wedlock? Will a female "subordinate" reverse the
roles to become a "subordinatrix"?
I contemplate with horror the prospect of Hillary Clinton as
"president electrix", if only for purely linguistic reasons.
Tish
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
Twaddle...
An OXYMORON can also involve two MUTUALLY INCONGRUOUS elements -- not just
CONTRADICTORY elements.
Any pronouncement about the English language can be safely ignored if
it comes from a "man" who thinks that it is necessary to coin a
feminine form for "expatriate" and thereby produces the horror
"expatriatrix".
A person who equates an agent noun with a past participle is
demonstrably incapable of rational thought. The former is the subject
performing an action (e.g. a duplicator), the latter is the object
resulting from or experiencing the action (e.g. a duplicate).
One wonders what DSH will come up with next: "illegitimatrix" for a
female born out of wedlock? Will a female "subordinate" reverse the
roles to become a "subordinatrix"?
I contemplate with horror the prospect of Hillary Clinton as
"president electrix", if only for purely linguistic reasons.
Tish
-
John Brandon
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
As a descendant of Rev. Robert Peck, I felt it my duty at one point to
read through all installments of the article (which was in every
quarterly issue of the _Register_ across two or three whole years, if
I'm remembering correctly). The article was deadly dull, but I think
it convincingly showed that the Beccles Pecks could not have been
descended from the Yorkshire Pecks (a higher-status family). I think
it is probably pointless to try to work in some exalted descent by a
detour to a proposed Leeke line. I'm fairly certain all these people
(ancestors of Rev. Robert and Joseph) were "in humble life," as the
expression goes.
read through all installments of the article (which was in every
quarterly issue of the _Register_ across two or three whole years, if
I'm remembering correctly). The article was deadly dull, but I think
it convincingly showed that the Beccles Pecks could not have been
descended from the Yorkshire Pecks (a higher-status family). I think
it is probably pointless to try to work in some exalted descent by a
detour to a proposed Leeke line. I'm fairly certain all these people
(ancestors of Rev. Robert and Joseph) were "in humble life," as the
expression goes.
-
John Brandon
Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
On Oct 22, 11:26 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately your postings do not make much sense. I'm certain I
remember that the whole gist of the extended article was that these
Pecks were yeomen with no connection to Yorkshire (or anywhere in the
north) at all. It is only logical to assume that a Leeke connection
(if any) would be of a similar-status, local (Suffolk, Norfolk, or
Essex) family of that name.
Much thanks for your interest, John.
I am surprised you found the article(s) "deadly dull" when you claim
you are a descendant.
On the contrary, you are wrong on the *conclusions* of the article(s).
The article(s) had as a PREMISE the desire to challenge the British Museum
*Pedigree of Pecks* which alleged it was fraudulent. I would rather term
the British Museum *Pedigree of Pecks* mistaken. What you did was not
read the article(s) thoroughly enough: you stated you found them "deadly
dull." So, I challenge you to reread them and note this time that the authors
in fact did challenge the Pedigree of Pecks. And I also would remind you
that I wrote here at gen-medieval that I was NOT interested in the Pecks
beyond Richard Peck=Alice Middleton unless someone working with the
primary documents in Yorkshire could work out the Peck lineage, I was
not about to attempt it.
But let us get to the crux of the matter: the lineage I have proposed based
on the conclusions of the authors of the REGISTER in which the proposed
pedigree shifts maternally from Richard Peck into the Middletons via
Alice Middleton is worthy of further investigation. You must have noted
that the top of that lineage, as far as I have stated, are two prominent
knights of early Yorkshire history. The Pecks are descendants, if the
proposed pedigree is valid, of something very interesting historical
personages. I will leave it at that: and rest my case on the FACTS I have
presented and others have brought to the gen-medieval table.
In other words: I will entertain challenges to the FACTS presented: I really
cannot address someone's "deadly dull" reading view of their own ancestry.
Bill
Unfortunately your postings do not make much sense. I'm certain I
remember that the whole gist of the extended article was that these
Pecks were yeomen with no connection to Yorkshire (or anywhere in the
north) at all. It is only logical to assume that a Leeke connection
(if any) would be of a similar-status, local (Suffolk, Norfolk, or
Essex) family of that name.