Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
"Charlie Anderson" <charlesefa@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:PIeHe.74962$%K2.24534@pd7tw1no...
| We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love, because he
| had a son.
Right!
Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in _King
John_.
I'd bet on more than once -- Richard's making love to a woman. <g>
| Is there any evidence, any at all, that he had homosexual love?
No.
| It seems to be a case of if you can't disprove it, then it might well
| be true. That doesn't seem solid ground to rest any thesis on.
|
| Charlie Anderson, Vancouver.
Bingo!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
news:PIeHe.74962$%K2.24534@pd7tw1no...
| We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love, because he
| had a son.
Right!
Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in _King
John_.
I'd bet on more than once -- Richard's making love to a woman. <g>
| Is there any evidence, any at all, that he had homosexual love?
No.
| It seems to be a case of if you can't disprove it, then it might well
| be true. That doesn't seem solid ground to rest any thesis on.
|
| Charlie Anderson, Vancouver.
Bingo!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Sheila J
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
| We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love, because he
| had a son.
Right!
Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in _King
John_.
Not that Mr. Hines is even vaguely interesting, but does anyone know
what has become of Philip of Cognac's line?
-
Mors Hostibus
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
I cannot bear another snotty canadian
Those leftist rubes are such a bore. They are self-important, culture-lite
apologists who have turned their silly land over to the french, muslims,
asians and jamaicans.
Mors Hostibus
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
Those leftist rubes are such a bore. They are self-important, culture-lite
apologists who have turned their silly land over to the french, muslims,
asians and jamaicans.
Mors Hostibus
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love, because he
| had a son.
Right!
Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in _King
John_.
Not that Mr. Hines is even vaguely interesting, but does anyone know
what has become of Philip of Cognac's line?
-
Sheila J
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
Mors Hostibus wrote:
What does any of the above have to do with Phillip of Cognac?
I cannot bear another snotty canadian
Those leftist rubes are such a bore. They are self-important, culture-lite
apologists who have turned their silly land over to the french, muslims,
asians and jamaicans.
Mors Hostibus
What does any of the above have to do with Phillip of Cognac?
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love, because he
| had a son.
Right!
Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in _King
John_.
Not that Mr. Hines is even vaguely interesting, but does anyone know
what has become of Philip of Cognac's line?
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
It died out with Philip of Cognac.
No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
DSH
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | because he had a son.
| >
| > Right!
| >
| > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| >
| > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in
| >_King John_.
| >
| ...does anyone know what has become of
| Philip of Cognac's line?
No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
DSH
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | because he had a son.
| >
| > Right!
| >
| > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| >
| > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in
| >_King John_.
| >
| ...does anyone know what has become of
| Philip of Cognac's line?
-
Sheila J
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were not
thought to have been of importance.
It died out with Philip of Cognac.
No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were not
thought to have been of importance.
DSH
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | because he had a son.
|
| > Right!
|
| > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
|
| > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge in
| >_King John_.
|
| ...does anyone know what has become of
| Philip of Cognac's line?
-
Luke Potter
Re: Redvers/Vernon Connection [Was Re: William Fitz Osbern's
Hi Matthew,
The issue of the tombs at Vernon is a puzzling one. As you will know
from Stapleton's work, besides the reputed tomb of William de Vernon
the founder of the church, he says that Ducarel saw a tomb of William
de Vernon of Haddon in Vernon church. [_Anglo Norman Antiquities_].
The drawing he gives of the Haddon Vernon's tomb is identical in every
way to his still surviving tomb in Tong Church, Shropshire. What are
your thoughts on this?
My initial suspicion is that some confusion has crept in and I would
like to see the original reference that Ducarel made. Have you seen
this? Did he really state that he saw William of Haddons tomb in
Vernon, or was he just making reference to another tomb of a William
Vernon which he had seen? If the statement is true it is remarkable
that William de Vernon would have a copy of his tomb made for his
ancestral town, particularly as by the 1460s Vernon was back in the
hands of the French again. It would show an interesting insight into
the way in which the medieval Vernons in England viewed their ancestry
and Norman origins.
Incidentally, a copy of a drawing of the reputed tomb of the eleventh
century William de Vernon is in the BN and accesible online. Go to
http://gallica.bnf.fr/, click on 'recherche' and search for Vernon
under images. It should be the fourth item down on the returned
results. As you say it certainly looks like a later tomb than one
supposibly designed in the eleventh century! Does anyone else know of
examples of tombs being redesigned in the later middle ages? The arms
on the left I believe were used by the Vernons of Normandy in the 13th
century, and those on the right were used by George Vernon of Haddon
in the sixteenth century. I think he was the first to use a fret
rather than earlier Haddon Vernons who had used a fretty, but I may be
wrong on this.
Nonetheless, I believe that the fact it is a later tomb does not
detract from the identification of William as the founder of the
church; knowledge such as this would have been well known within the
local community. What probably is more open to error is the
inscription which stated that William died in on the 18 February 1060.
Luke
The issue of the tombs at Vernon is a puzzling one. As you will know
from Stapleton's work, besides the reputed tomb of William de Vernon
the founder of the church, he says that Ducarel saw a tomb of William
de Vernon of Haddon in Vernon church. [_Anglo Norman Antiquities_].
The drawing he gives of the Haddon Vernon's tomb is identical in every
way to his still surviving tomb in Tong Church, Shropshire. What are
your thoughts on this?
My initial suspicion is that some confusion has crept in and I would
like to see the original reference that Ducarel made. Have you seen
this? Did he really state that he saw William of Haddons tomb in
Vernon, or was he just making reference to another tomb of a William
Vernon which he had seen? If the statement is true it is remarkable
that William de Vernon would have a copy of his tomb made for his
ancestral town, particularly as by the 1460s Vernon was back in the
hands of the French again. It would show an interesting insight into
the way in which the medieval Vernons in England viewed their ancestry
and Norman origins.
Incidentally, a copy of a drawing of the reputed tomb of the eleventh
century William de Vernon is in the BN and accesible online. Go to
http://gallica.bnf.fr/, click on 'recherche' and search for Vernon
under images. It should be the fourth item down on the returned
results. As you say it certainly looks like a later tomb than one
supposibly designed in the eleventh century! Does anyone else know of
examples of tombs being redesigned in the later middle ages? The arms
on the left I believe were used by the Vernons of Normandy in the 13th
century, and those on the right were used by George Vernon of Haddon
in the sixteenth century. I think he was the first to use a fret
rather than earlier Haddon Vernons who had used a fretty, but I may be
wrong on this.
Nonetheless, I believe that the fact it is a later tomb does not
detract from the identification of William as the founder of the
church; knowledge such as this would have been well known within the
local community. What probably is more open to error is the
inscription which stated that William died in on the 18 February 1060.
Luke
-
Gjest
Re: Redvers/Vernon Connection [Was Re: William Fitz Osbern's
Hi Luke, thanks for that link- the picture looks a little more
authentic than mine, which was probably a copy-of-a-copy several times
over. I see it gives a definite single fret whereas my version is more
fretty, although 'zoomed-in' so that there is really only one fret
showing. There were no consistent rules on this, as with the canton
that was sometimes used. I wonder if it's possible that Sir William
might have had the founder's tomb erected while the town was under
English rule? But if Stapleton is right, it must date from the next
century. There must be other such effigies installed at a later date
(especially if it's a founder). I think King Athelstan has such a tomb
at Malmesbury, for instance. Interesting, too, that the arms of the
Normandy Vernons were so different from the Redvers arms (let alone the
various other Vernon families).
It certainly is strange about the alleged tomb of Sir William.
Stapleton says of the word 'hereditar.' in the inscription that
Hereditaria is from the French 'heretiere', that there is no other
instance of it in English, so it is "more than probable that the
brasses were of French manufacture". But the inscription, as with every
other detail, is identical on the tomb at Tong.
The possibilities seem to be:
1. He had two totally identical tombs in different countries
2. He had his tomb in Vernon, but it was removed to Tong before the
Revolution
3. He had his tomb in Tong all the time but someone got their reports
confused at some point
This last one does seem to be the least unlikely. As you say, it may
even be possible to locate the exact genesis of the error; I haven't
seen Ducarel, but I've got the reference for the future. (It would be
strange for him to refer to the tomb at all though, if it wasn't at
Vernon.)
Matthew
Luke Potter wrote:
authentic than mine, which was probably a copy-of-a-copy several times
over. I see it gives a definite single fret whereas my version is more
fretty, although 'zoomed-in' so that there is really only one fret
showing. There were no consistent rules on this, as with the canton
that was sometimes used. I wonder if it's possible that Sir William
might have had the founder's tomb erected while the town was under
English rule? But if Stapleton is right, it must date from the next
century. There must be other such effigies installed at a later date
(especially if it's a founder). I think King Athelstan has such a tomb
at Malmesbury, for instance. Interesting, too, that the arms of the
Normandy Vernons were so different from the Redvers arms (let alone the
various other Vernon families).
It certainly is strange about the alleged tomb of Sir William.
Stapleton says of the word 'hereditar.' in the inscription that
Hereditaria is from the French 'heretiere', that there is no other
instance of it in English, so it is "more than probable that the
brasses were of French manufacture". But the inscription, as with every
other detail, is identical on the tomb at Tong.
The possibilities seem to be:
1. He had two totally identical tombs in different countries
2. He had his tomb in Vernon, but it was removed to Tong before the
Revolution
3. He had his tomb in Tong all the time but someone got their reports
confused at some point
This last one does seem to be the least unlikely. As you say, it may
even be possible to locate the exact genesis of the error; I haven't
seen Ducarel, but I've got the reference for the future. (It would be
strange for him to refer to the tomb at all though, if it wasn't at
Vernon.)
Matthew
Luke Potter wrote:
Hi Matthew,
The issue of the tombs at Vernon is a puzzling one. As you will know
from Stapleton's work, besides the reputed tomb of William de Vernon
the founder of the church, he says that Ducarel saw a tomb of William
de Vernon of Haddon in Vernon church. [_Anglo Norman Antiquities_].
The drawing he gives of the Haddon Vernon's tomb is identical in every
way to his still surviving tomb in Tong Church, Shropshire. What are
your thoughts on this?
My initial suspicion is that some confusion has crept in and I would
like to see the original reference that Ducarel made. Have you seen
this? Did he really state that he saw William of Haddons tomb in
Vernon, or was he just making reference to another tomb of a William
Vernon which he had seen? If the statement is true it is remarkable
that William de Vernon would have a copy of his tomb made for his
ancestral town, particularly as by the 1460s Vernon was back in the
hands of the French again. It would show an interesting insight into
the way in which the medieval Vernons in England viewed their ancestry
and Norman origins.
Incidentally, a copy of a drawing of the reputed tomb of the eleventh
century William de Vernon is in the BN and accesible online. Go to
http://gallica.bnf.fr/, click on 'recherche' and search for Vernon
under images. It should be the fourth item down on the returned
results. As you say it certainly looks like a later tomb than one
supposibly designed in the eleventh century! Does anyone else know of
examples of tombs being redesigned in the later middle ages? The arms
on the left I believe were used by the Vernons of Normandy in the 13th
century, and those on the right were used by George Vernon of Haddon
in the sixteenth century. I think he was the first to use a fret
rather than earlier Haddon Vernons who had used a fretty, but I may be
wrong on this.
Nonetheless, I believe that the fact it is a later tomb does not
detract from the identification of William as the founder of the
church; knowledge such as this would have been well known within the
local community. What probably is more open to error is the
inscription which stated that William died in on the 18 February 1060.
Luke
-
Luke Potter
RE: William Fitz Osbern's alleged sons according to regioste
Ginny,
Thanks for posting these. One charter you cited is the famous one
which Round mistranslated stating William and his son Hugh rather than
William son of Hugh.
Thanks especially for the 1060 charter; this I found I no longer had
on file and was planning to dig this out again! It is very interesting
as it seems that there are two Williams. The first is the brother of
Richard and Baldwin de Redvers who are all brothers in law to Nigel.
The William de Vernon who is a witness with Raher however seems to be
a distinct person from the other William.
My have a vague theory as to this second William. Keats-Rohan in the
DP entry for Huard de Vernon mentioned that an Odard had confirmed the
grant of his son Peter, daughter in law Grisca, and other sons
Geoffrey, Walter, Payn and Hugh to St Coulombs in 1052. Peter son of
Odard and Hugh his brother both witnessed William de Vernon 1077
charter to Bec. In 1097 an Odard de Vernon granted land from his
maternal inheritance in Longueville to Jumieges with the assent of his
brother Richard. Keats-Rohan suggests that this Odard is perhaps the
same as the Domesday Huard de Vernon in Suffolk.
I am wondering whether Peter son of Odard could perhaps be identified
with Peter de Blaru who it is said founded the Priory of St Hilaire in
the 1050s. According to the Life of St Adjutor, Peter was father of a
William who was father to Rosamund de Blaru who married John de
Vernon. Their children included Matthew de Vernon and Adjutor. We can
identify Matthew from charters of the 1130s and he was lord of land in
Longueville (now St Pierre d'Autils, Pressagny, and Tourny) and also
had siblings Richard and Eustachia. His father John is elusive, but
perhaps he was not a blood member of the Vernon family and the lands
which we find in Matthew's hands in the 1130s had come down to him
through his mother Rosamund? Part of the difficulty in accepting the
family background as it is given of St Adjutor has been connecting
John de Vernon into what we already know about the Vernons in
Normandy. It could however have been through the lands that Rosamund
brought to the marriage that John was described as a Vernon with their
children subsequently taking the Vernon name. As the Life of St
Adjutor states that Rosamund's father was a William it could be him
who was mentioned in 1060 and of whom not much further is know,
perhaps due to a young death. Certainly Peter son of Odard who was
active from 1052 to 1077 was a man with the right name and in the
right place at the right time to be identified with Peter de Blaru,
the founder of a local priory.
It is just a tentative working theory at present but it is an
interesting way of making sense of the story of St Adjutor's family
and also the known lords of Vernon from the Vernon/Redvers branch.
What I would like to know is the background of the names of Peter and
Raher/Raber. They are both quite rare names in eleventh century
Normandy. Does anyone know their origin? Could they even be variants
of the same name?
In the meantime I am trying to find a researcher in France who can dig
out the material that Keats-Rohan refers to in DP to see if anything
further is said about this line of Peters and Odards. A further
interesting line of speculation is whether Richard, the brother of
Odard mentioned in 1097, could be the Richard de Vernon of Domesday
Cheshire. Keats-Rohan does not go into this. Also what happens to the
Richard de Vernon who is described as brother of Matthew de Vernon in
Matthews charters of the 1130s? It is worth a thought that a Matthew
de Vernon appears in the Pipe Rolls in Oxfordshire in 1130.
Furthermore the names of Matthew and Eustachia both crop up at the end
of the twelfth century and thirteenth centuries in the lines of the
Vernons of Shipbrook and also that of the Vernons of Haddon. Richard
de Vernon of Shipbrook has traditionally been described as a son of
William de Vernon, lord of Vernon, but this is only really an
antiquarian tradition and there is no real evidence as far as I can
see to support this. I think investigation into the line of Peter son
of Odard might perhaps provide a few answers (and no doubt, just as
many questions!)
Luke Potter
Thanks for posting these. One charter you cited is the famous one
which Round mistranslated stating William and his son Hugh rather than
William son of Hugh.
Thanks especially for the 1060 charter; this I found I no longer had
on file and was planning to dig this out again! It is very interesting
as it seems that there are two Williams. The first is the brother of
Richard and Baldwin de Redvers who are all brothers in law to Nigel.
The William de Vernon who is a witness with Raher however seems to be
a distinct person from the other William.
My have a vague theory as to this second William. Keats-Rohan in the
DP entry for Huard de Vernon mentioned that an Odard had confirmed the
grant of his son Peter, daughter in law Grisca, and other sons
Geoffrey, Walter, Payn and Hugh to St Coulombs in 1052. Peter son of
Odard and Hugh his brother both witnessed William de Vernon 1077
charter to Bec. In 1097 an Odard de Vernon granted land from his
maternal inheritance in Longueville to Jumieges with the assent of his
brother Richard. Keats-Rohan suggests that this Odard is perhaps the
same as the Domesday Huard de Vernon in Suffolk.
I am wondering whether Peter son of Odard could perhaps be identified
with Peter de Blaru who it is said founded the Priory of St Hilaire in
the 1050s. According to the Life of St Adjutor, Peter was father of a
William who was father to Rosamund de Blaru who married John de
Vernon. Their children included Matthew de Vernon and Adjutor. We can
identify Matthew from charters of the 1130s and he was lord of land in
Longueville (now St Pierre d'Autils, Pressagny, and Tourny) and also
had siblings Richard and Eustachia. His father John is elusive, but
perhaps he was not a blood member of the Vernon family and the lands
which we find in Matthew's hands in the 1130s had come down to him
through his mother Rosamund? Part of the difficulty in accepting the
family background as it is given of St Adjutor has been connecting
John de Vernon into what we already know about the Vernons in
Normandy. It could however have been through the lands that Rosamund
brought to the marriage that John was described as a Vernon with their
children subsequently taking the Vernon name. As the Life of St
Adjutor states that Rosamund's father was a William it could be him
who was mentioned in 1060 and of whom not much further is know,
perhaps due to a young death. Certainly Peter son of Odard who was
active from 1052 to 1077 was a man with the right name and in the
right place at the right time to be identified with Peter de Blaru,
the founder of a local priory.
It is just a tentative working theory at present but it is an
interesting way of making sense of the story of St Adjutor's family
and also the known lords of Vernon from the Vernon/Redvers branch.
What I would like to know is the background of the names of Peter and
Raher/Raber. They are both quite rare names in eleventh century
Normandy. Does anyone know their origin? Could they even be variants
of the same name?
In the meantime I am trying to find a researcher in France who can dig
out the material that Keats-Rohan refers to in DP to see if anything
further is said about this line of Peters and Odards. A further
interesting line of speculation is whether Richard, the brother of
Odard mentioned in 1097, could be the Richard de Vernon of Domesday
Cheshire. Keats-Rohan does not go into this. Also what happens to the
Richard de Vernon who is described as brother of Matthew de Vernon in
Matthews charters of the 1130s? It is worth a thought that a Matthew
de Vernon appears in the Pipe Rolls in Oxfordshire in 1130.
Furthermore the names of Matthew and Eustachia both crop up at the end
of the twelfth century and thirteenth centuries in the lines of the
Vernons of Shipbrook and also that of the Vernons of Haddon. Richard
de Vernon of Shipbrook has traditionally been described as a son of
William de Vernon, lord of Vernon, but this is only really an
antiquarian tradition and there is no real evidence as far as I can
see to support this. I think investigation into the line of Peter son
of Odard might perhaps provide a few answers (and no doubt, just as
many questions!)
Luke Potter
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: William Fitz Osbern's alleged sons according to regioste
Luke,
I'm glad the posting was helpful. Your explanation is helping me to
understand what all this means. Yes, there was one Vernon that did
seem to be distinct from the others but I included him just in case it
might give a clue. I've looked up Raher and found nothing further --
if I were to speculate I'd say that raher and raber were certainly
candidates for being the same -- from what I've seen of those old
documents it is a miracle any of the names have come through with any
consistency. But, as a mere novice and without doing any further
research, I'd hesitate to make that judgement.
I've looked up Odard and there are two more charters with his name,
one on page 65 under the abbey of Foucarmont wherein William Marshal
with the assent of his wife, Isabel, grants the gift [specified] which
Odard the physician has made to the abbey of Foucarmont and the monks
there with signators that are unfamiliar to me. The date of the
charter is 1198. Let me know if you want a copy of it. The other is
on page 217, a charter of Henry II confirming to Hugh de Laci and his
heirs the donation fo Robert count of Mellent, to be held as Robert de
Pinu and Odard and Walter held. It is ca. 1166-1181. Both of these
are much too late for the mid 11c you mention for Odard, nor do they
mention a son or father Peter so I haven't bothered to type them in
although I'd be happy to send you a scanned copy, etc.
Found nothing under Blaru but one entry under Longavilla, pg. 146
under the Abbey of the Holy Trinity, Caen, a charter of Thomas Bardul,
giving the abbey 30 shilllings sterling of annual rent, in England
from his mill of Elwadeston[e] on the Derwent with his daughter
Mathildis, made a nun there by consent of his wife Rohais, mother of
Mathildis, of whose inheritances was the mill ... testibus Balduino de
Toeny; Willelmo de Longavilla; Osberto capellano; Ansquetillo clerico,
etc. ca. 1170-1187.
Your reasoning seems sound to me re your theory -- sounds like you are
getting help from the area that would have the information. Let me
know if I can help you further. I've done virtually nothing after
about 1166 except copy some existing information from Keats-Rohan and
CTG on my own stuff so am totally unfamiliar with the 13c. Am writing
a novel that takes place in the first half of the 12c so have
purposely tried to avoid learning anything that would contaminate my
story's characters with knowledge they shouldn't have.
Ginny
I'm glad the posting was helpful. Your explanation is helping me to
understand what all this means. Yes, there was one Vernon that did
seem to be distinct from the others but I included him just in case it
might give a clue. I've looked up Raher and found nothing further --
if I were to speculate I'd say that raher and raber were certainly
candidates for being the same -- from what I've seen of those old
documents it is a miracle any of the names have come through with any
consistency. But, as a mere novice and without doing any further
research, I'd hesitate to make that judgement.
I've looked up Odard and there are two more charters with his name,
one on page 65 under the abbey of Foucarmont wherein William Marshal
with the assent of his wife, Isabel, grants the gift [specified] which
Odard the physician has made to the abbey of Foucarmont and the monks
there with signators that are unfamiliar to me. The date of the
charter is 1198. Let me know if you want a copy of it. The other is
on page 217, a charter of Henry II confirming to Hugh de Laci and his
heirs the donation fo Robert count of Mellent, to be held as Robert de
Pinu and Odard and Walter held. It is ca. 1166-1181. Both of these
are much too late for the mid 11c you mention for Odard, nor do they
mention a son or father Peter so I haven't bothered to type them in
although I'd be happy to send you a scanned copy, etc.
Found nothing under Blaru but one entry under Longavilla, pg. 146
under the Abbey of the Holy Trinity, Caen, a charter of Thomas Bardul,
giving the abbey 30 shilllings sterling of annual rent, in England
from his mill of Elwadeston[e] on the Derwent with his daughter
Mathildis, made a nun there by consent of his wife Rohais, mother of
Mathildis, of whose inheritances was the mill ... testibus Balduino de
Toeny; Willelmo de Longavilla; Osberto capellano; Ansquetillo clerico,
etc. ca. 1170-1187.
Your reasoning seems sound to me re your theory -- sounds like you are
getting help from the area that would have the information. Let me
know if I can help you further. I've done virtually nothing after
about 1166 except copy some existing information from Keats-Rohan and
CTG on my own stuff so am totally unfamiliar with the 13c. Am writing
a novel that takes place in the first half of the 12c so have
purposely tried to avoid learning anything that would contaminate my
story's characters with knowledge they shouldn't have.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #500
In message of 1 Aug, charlotsmith@prodigy.net (charlotte Smith) wrote:
Surely that went to the heir? Hence land is never (rarely?) mentioned
in medieval wills.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I have the will myself in the Suckling article from the Genealogist.
Here is the translation of it. as abstract The problem is that
the distribution of the land and estate is evidently lost so we don't
know who got what.
Surely that went to the heir? Hence land is never (rarely?) mentioned
in medieval wills.
Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight
In the name of God Amen, I thomas Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind
this 20th day ofAugust 1444 make this will. Firstly I bdqueath my
soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the Holy ghost, my body to be
buried in the Echyngham vault near to my mother Joan. A niumber of
religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my godson, 50 marks, The
residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth
Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham, Henry the Prior
ofCanberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and John Ashurnham
who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John Fortescue and Sir
roger Fiennes lmy supervisors.....probated Oct 1444
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
charlotte Smith
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #500
I have the will myself in the Suckling article from the Genealogist. Here is the translation of it.
as abstract The problem is that the distribution of the land and estate is evidently lost so we don't know who got what.
Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight
In the name of God Amen, I thomas Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this 20th day ofAugust 1444 make this will. Firstly I bdqueath my soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the Holy ghost, my body to be buried in the Echyngham vault near to my mother Joan. A niumber of religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my godson, 50 marks, The residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham, Henry the Prior ofCanberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John Fortescue and Sir roger Fiennes lmy supervisors.....probated Oct 1444
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
as abstract The problem is that the distribution of the land and estate is evidently lost so we don't know who got what.
Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight
In the name of God Amen, I thomas Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this 20th day ofAugust 1444 make this will. Firstly I bdqueath my soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the Holy ghost, my body to be buried in the Echyngham vault near to my mother Joan. A niumber of religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my godson, 50 marks, The residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham, Henry the Prior ofCanberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John Fortescue and Sir roger Fiennes lmy supervisors.....probated Oct 1444
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
-
charlotte Smith
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #500
I have the will myself in the Suckling article from the Genealogist. Here is the translation of it.
as abstract The problem is that the distribution of the land and estate is evidently lost so we don't know who got what.
Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight
In the name of God Amen, I thomas Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this 20th day ofAugust 1444 make this will. Firstly I bdqueath my soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the Holy ghost, my body to be buried in the Echyngham vault near to my mother Joan. A niumber of religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my godson, 50 marks, The residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham, Henry the Prior ofCanberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John Fortescue and Sir roger Fiennes lmy supervisors.....probated Oct 1444
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
as abstract The problem is that the distribution of the land and estate is evidently lost so we don't know who got what.
Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight
In the name of God Amen, I thomas Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this 20th day ofAugust 1444 make this will. Firstly I bdqueath my soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the Holy ghost, my body to be buried in the Echyngham vault near to my mother Joan. A niumber of religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my godson, 50 marks, The residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham, Henry the Prior ofCanberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John Fortescue and Sir roger Fiennes lmy supervisors.....probated Oct 1444
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
-
Sheila J
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest genealogy
project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond
belief that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because
only one child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have
fathered others and that a genetists could not prove the claim.
You don't read at an adult level.
No other bastards of Richard I 'The Lion-Hearted' are known to have
existed.
Richard I had no legitimate children.
Philip of Cognac had no known progeny. So Richard's line died out with
Philip.
Therefore, as I stated previously, no one today can claim to be a
descendant of Richard I -- and expect to be believed.
..
Genealogy hinges on evidence of descent -- not just some airy-fairy
hunch that he "might have had additional bastards that were not
thought to have been of importance."
Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest genealogy
project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond
belief that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because
only one child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have
fathered others and that a genetists could not prove the claim.
I answered your question. Be grateful.
'Nuff Said.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a3kHe.80268$5V4.51745@pd7tw3no...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > It died out with Philip of Cognac.
|
| > No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
| > Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
|
| Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were not
| thought to have been of importance.
|
|
| > DSH
|
| > "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
|
| > | > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | > | because he had a son.
| > |
| > | > Right!
| > |
| > | > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| > |
| > | > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge
| > | > in _King John_.
| > |
| > | ...does anyone know what has become of
| > | Philip of Cognac's line?
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
You don't read at an adult level.
No other bastards of Richard I 'The Lion-Hearted' are known to have
existed.
Richard I had no legitimate children.
Philip of Cognac had no known progeny. So Richard's line died out with
Philip.
Therefore, as I stated previously, no one today can claim to be a
descendant of Richard I -- and expect to be believed.
Now, go back to your origami and/or your new boyfriend while "hubby" is
away.
Genealogy hinges on evidence of descent -- not just some airy-fairy
hunch that he "might have had additional bastards that were not
thought to have been of importance."
I answered your question. Be grateful.
'Nuff Said.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a3kHe.80268$5V4.51745@pd7tw3no...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > It died out with Philip of Cognac.
| >
| > No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
| > Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
|
| Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were not
| thought to have been of importance.
|
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| >
| > | > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | > | because he had a son.
| > | >
| > | > Right!
| > | >
| > | > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| > | >
| > | > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge
| > | > in _King John_.
| > | >
| > | ...does anyone know what has become of
| > | Philip of Cognac's line?
No other bastards of Richard I 'The Lion-Hearted' are known to have
existed.
Richard I had no legitimate children.
Philip of Cognac had no known progeny. So Richard's line died out with
Philip.
Therefore, as I stated previously, no one today can claim to be a
descendant of Richard I -- and expect to be believed.
Now, go back to your origami and/or your new boyfriend while "hubby" is
away.
Genealogy hinges on evidence of descent -- not just some airy-fairy
hunch that he "might have had additional bastards that were not
thought to have been of importance."
I answered your question. Be grateful.
'Nuff Said.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a3kHe.80268$5V4.51745@pd7tw3no...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > It died out with Philip of Cognac.
| >
| > No one today can claim to be a descendant of Richard I 'The
| > Lionhearted', whereas King John has tens of millions of descendants.
|
| Not necessarily. He might have had additional bastards that were not
| thought to have been of importance.
|
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > "Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| > news:lggHe.76068$5V4.19579@pd7tw3no...
| >
| > | > | We know that, at least once, Richard had heterosexual love,
| > | > | because he had a son.
| > | >
| > | > Right!
| > | >
| > | > Philip of Cognac who died about 1221.
| > | >
| > | > Shakespeare styles him as the bastard Philip of Faulconbridge
| > | > in _King John_.
| > | >
| > | ...does anyone know what has become of
| > | Philip of Cognac's line?
-
SJ Doc
Re: (RSPW Recruiting) D. Spencer Hines
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 06:54:59 -0500, Grey Satterfield
<grey.satterfield@oscn.net> wrote:
I don't know about "too far," but what the hell does it gain? Insult
(when it's done with some wit) is quite entertaining, and can rise to
the level of art if it's literate and reasonably original. I mark it
apart from attack on an intimate personal basis, which is not only
off-topic (and thereby leads truly to the fallacy of *argumentum
ad hominem*, or "disbelieve this asshole because he's an asshole,
not because his position is bullshit") but also anti-intellectual.
Let's say we had ourselves a dispute with a reasonably articulate
adolescent - some barely pubescent teen weenie with little or no
"street cred" whatsoever; no life experience, no academic credits
other than the abysmal crap taught in the local Government Indoc-
trination Centers putatively offering "public education." Let's say
that this kid were capable of putting forth lucid and reasonably
well-articulated arguments on a topic of interest in any of the
various Usenet groups to which we're cross-posting right now.
And let's say that - contravening the old "On the Internet, nobody
knows you're a dog" practice - the kid is honest enough to admit
his age and education right up front. We *know* that he's a kid,
working from a kid's general fund of knowledge. (Or a police
officer, "trolling the 'Net" in an air-conditioned office instead of
getting out there in the community and pretending to protect
people's lives and property, in which case we'd have to cut the
stupid bastard even more slack.)
Would we automatically dismiss that kid's arguments simply
because the *source* is a person whom we might otherwise
consider contemptible?
So with Mr. Hines. He is beyond doubt irritating most of the
time, and I hold his purblind Republicrat political sentiments
perfectly representative of much that is reprehensible about
the whole "conservative" movement in these United States,
but I read his posts with regularity, and there is much to be
found (particularly in his cut-and-paste posts) that is either
interesting, amusing, or both. I'm rather grateful for his time
and effort, and I wish the best for him.
------------------------
[T]hroughout its long, dismal history, the Republican Party has,
time after time, promised to support individual liberty, and
promptly betrayed it. There wouldn't be a Libertarian Party if
that wasn't true. On that account, if no other, we're not buddies,
friends, allies, or fellow travelers. We're enemies, as surely as
we're enemies to Democrats. We've always been enemies, but
it was on an almost friendly basis until ...
Until when, exactly?
For me, it may have been until then-Senator Robert Dole, with no
discernible motivation except his longstanding and utterly Nixonian
loathing of freedom, helped the Clinton Administration ram the Brady
Bill through, and with it (just as it was becoming clear that armed
individuals were reducing crime by double digits) an unconstitutional
prohibition on efficient personal weaponry and magazines of adequate
capacity.
Or it might have been until "revolutionary" Republicans tucked their
tails between their legs and slunk away, instead of seeking truth and
justice in the matters of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
Or it may have been until the same "revolutionaries" failed, like the
Eisenhower and Reagan Administrations before them, to stamp out every
remnant of the New Deal and run government on a constitutional basis.
Or it might have been ... to hell with that. The Republican Party was
born for no other purpose than to oppress Americans. It has done
nothing but that since the War between the States. The GOP is the
party of conscription, the income tax, the loyalty oath, fiat money
inflation, political censorship, and the midnight knock on the door.
The only reason they got away with it is that Democrats were so
much worse.
That's all over now. Doing exactly opposite of what's really needed to
ensure "homeland security", Republicans have turned this country's
airports into rape zones where, if you protest at what they do to you,
you're guaranteed a thorough anal probing as punishment for exercising
your First Amendment rights. In the past year, Republicans have
trampled the Bill of Rights at home until it's unrecognizable, while
bombing, shooting, and otherwise terrorizing helpless peasants all
over the planet in a bald attempt to corner the world supply of
petroleum.
As hard as it may once have been to conceive, from the standpoint of
individual liberty, Republicans are vastly worse than Democrats.
George Junior has managed to make Bill Clinton look like a statesman.
The only strategy libertarians ought to follow -- the only one that
works for us, apparently -- is to prevent the election of as many of
these goose-stepping imbeciles as possible. If it were up to me, I'd
dedicate all of the Libertarian Party's resources to that and nothing
else.
The truly silly thing is that all the Republicans have to do to
eliminate the terrible threat that we libertarians represent is to be
better than we are on the issues that count. Put a stop to the current
War on Everything. Call the troops home for good. End the evil War on
Drugs. Outlaw "civil forfeiture". Repeal 25,000 gun laws. Seriously
reconsider taxation -- extortion and theft -- as a means of funding
government.
The ball is in their court and always has been.
-- L. Neil Smith,
"Why Michael Medved Needs Glasses"
(http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2002/libe199 ... 18-02.html)
<grey.satterfield@oscn.net> wrote:
On 7/29/05 5:49 PM, "James Toupin" <jtoupin@telus.net> wrote:
Hey! Come on now guys. I disagree with Hines too, but this is
simply unnecessary cruelty. We all have episodes and failures in our
lives that we would rather not have splashed all over the internet.
Disagree with him, argue with him, point out the flaws in his reasoning,
and express your own point of view but the personal attacks just
makes everyone in any newsgroup look like petty, childish fools. Let
us have discourse and debate, not insults and debasing.
I agree. It's possible to go too far, even on Usenet, and this is one of
those times.
I don't know about "too far," but what the hell does it gain? Insult
(when it's done with some wit) is quite entertaining, and can rise to
the level of art if it's literate and reasonably original. I mark it
apart from attack on an intimate personal basis, which is not only
off-topic (and thereby leads truly to the fallacy of *argumentum
ad hominem*, or "disbelieve this asshole because he's an asshole,
not because his position is bullshit") but also anti-intellectual.
Let's say we had ourselves a dispute with a reasonably articulate
adolescent - some barely pubescent teen weenie with little or no
"street cred" whatsoever; no life experience, no academic credits
other than the abysmal crap taught in the local Government Indoc-
trination Centers putatively offering "public education." Let's say
that this kid were capable of putting forth lucid and reasonably
well-articulated arguments on a topic of interest in any of the
various Usenet groups to which we're cross-posting right now.
And let's say that - contravening the old "On the Internet, nobody
knows you're a dog" practice - the kid is honest enough to admit
his age and education right up front. We *know* that he's a kid,
working from a kid's general fund of knowledge. (Or a police
officer, "trolling the 'Net" in an air-conditioned office instead of
getting out there in the community and pretending to protect
people's lives and property, in which case we'd have to cut the
stupid bastard even more slack.)
Would we automatically dismiss that kid's arguments simply
because the *source* is a person whom we might otherwise
consider contemptible?
So with Mr. Hines. He is beyond doubt irritating most of the
time, and I hold his purblind Republicrat political sentiments
perfectly representative of much that is reprehensible about
the whole "conservative" movement in these United States,
but I read his posts with regularity, and there is much to be
found (particularly in his cut-and-paste posts) that is either
interesting, amusing, or both. I'm rather grateful for his time
and effort, and I wish the best for him.
------------------------
[T]hroughout its long, dismal history, the Republican Party has,
time after time, promised to support individual liberty, and
promptly betrayed it. There wouldn't be a Libertarian Party if
that wasn't true. On that account, if no other, we're not buddies,
friends, allies, or fellow travelers. We're enemies, as surely as
we're enemies to Democrats. We've always been enemies, but
it was on an almost friendly basis until ...
Until when, exactly?
For me, it may have been until then-Senator Robert Dole, with no
discernible motivation except his longstanding and utterly Nixonian
loathing of freedom, helped the Clinton Administration ram the Brady
Bill through, and with it (just as it was becoming clear that armed
individuals were reducing crime by double digits) an unconstitutional
prohibition on efficient personal weaponry and magazines of adequate
capacity.
Or it might have been until "revolutionary" Republicans tucked their
tails between their legs and slunk away, instead of seeking truth and
justice in the matters of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
Or it may have been until the same "revolutionaries" failed, like the
Eisenhower and Reagan Administrations before them, to stamp out every
remnant of the New Deal and run government on a constitutional basis.
Or it might have been ... to hell with that. The Republican Party was
born for no other purpose than to oppress Americans. It has done
nothing but that since the War between the States. The GOP is the
party of conscription, the income tax, the loyalty oath, fiat money
inflation, political censorship, and the midnight knock on the door.
The only reason they got away with it is that Democrats were so
much worse.
That's all over now. Doing exactly opposite of what's really needed to
ensure "homeland security", Republicans have turned this country's
airports into rape zones where, if you protest at what they do to you,
you're guaranteed a thorough anal probing as punishment for exercising
your First Amendment rights. In the past year, Republicans have
trampled the Bill of Rights at home until it's unrecognizable, while
bombing, shooting, and otherwise terrorizing helpless peasants all
over the planet in a bald attempt to corner the world supply of
petroleum.
As hard as it may once have been to conceive, from the standpoint of
individual liberty, Republicans are vastly worse than Democrats.
George Junior has managed to make Bill Clinton look like a statesman.
The only strategy libertarians ought to follow -- the only one that
works for us, apparently -- is to prevent the election of as many of
these goose-stepping imbeciles as possible. If it were up to me, I'd
dedicate all of the Libertarian Party's resources to that and nothing
else.
The truly silly thing is that all the Republicans have to do to
eliminate the terrible threat that we libertarians represent is to be
better than we are on the issues that count. Put a stop to the current
War on Everything. Call the troops home for good. End the evil War on
Drugs. Outlaw "civil forfeiture". Repeal 25,000 gun laws. Seriously
reconsider taxation -- extortion and theft -- as a means of funding
government.
The ball is in their court and always has been.
-- L. Neil Smith,
"Why Michael Medved Needs Glasses"
(http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2002/libe199 ... 18-02.html)
-
Vince Brannigan
Re: (RSPW Recruiting) D. Spencer Hines
SJ Doc wrote:
All true but it rarely adds to the quality of the discussion
I mark it
you are I believe conflating two or even three different types of argument.
in Usenet most reasonable argument fall into one or more of several
categories.
1) argument from "experience" Those who have "been there done that" have
a special experience to add which we may not accept as gospel but
should respect as evidence.
2) Arguments from "authority" attempt to cite or present a person as
some type of expert whose conclusions can be believed because of some
special training or insight.
3) Arguments from "position" are based on unique access to information
or that a person who holds such a position must have unique knowledge.
4) arguments from "logic" attempt to state premises and logically
develop the conclusions form those premises.
any person who claims that their own personal position, authority or
experience is critical to the acceptance of their argument is open to
"disparaging" (often insulting analysis) of their personal understanding.
When one claims for example to be a "combat veteran" a legitimate
question is "what kind of combat and what did you see and do?
logical arguments are essentially impersonal. personal attacks simply
play no role whatever. similarly, while arguments from authority
position or experience of others may be useful, abuse aimed at the
person presenting such an argument is a waste.
Vince
>
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 06:54:59 -0500, Grey Satterfield
grey.satterfield@oscn.net> wrote:
On 7/29/05 5:49 PM, "James Toupin" <jtoupin@telus.net> wrote:
Hey! Come on now guys. I disagree with Hines too, but this is
simply unnecessary cruelty. We all have episodes and failures in our
lives that we would rather not have splashed all over the internet.
Disagree with him, argue with him, point out the flaws in his
reasoning,
and express your own point of view but the personal attacks just
makes everyone in any newsgroup look like petty, childish fools. Let
us have discourse and debate, not insults and debasing.
I agree. It's possible to go too far, even on Usenet, and this is one of
those times.
I don't know about "too far," but what the hell does it gain? Insult
(when it's done with some wit) is quite entertaining, and can rise to
the level of art if it's literate and reasonably original.
All true but it rarely adds to the quality of the discussion
I mark it
apart from attack on an intimate personal basis, which is not only
off-topic (and thereby leads truly to the fallacy of *argumentum
ad hominem*, or "disbelieve this asshole because he's an asshole,
not because his position is bullshit") but also anti-intellectual.
Let's say we had ourselves a dispute with a reasonably articulate
adolescent - some barely pubescent teen weenie with little or no
"street cred" whatsoever; no life experience, no academic credits
other than the abysmal crap taught in the local Government Indoc-
trination Centers putatively offering "public education." Let's say
that this kid were capable of putting forth lucid and reasonably
well-articulated arguments on a topic of interest in any of the
various Usenet groups to which we're cross-posting right now.
And let's say that - contravening the old "On the Internet, nobody
knows you're a dog" practice - the kid is honest enough to admit
his age and education right up front. We *know* that he's a kid,
working from a kid's general fund of knowledge. (Or a police
officer, "trolling the 'Net" in an air-conditioned office instead of
getting out there in the community and pretending to protect
people's lives and property, in which case we'd have to cut the
stupid bastard even more slack.)
Would we automatically dismiss that kid's arguments simply
because the *source* is a person whom we might otherwise
consider contemptible?
So with Mr. Hines. He is beyond doubt irritating most of the
time, and I hold his purblind Republicrat political sentiments
perfectly representative of much that is reprehensible about
the whole "conservative" movement in these United States,
but I read his posts with regularity, and there is much to be
found (particularly in his cut-and-paste posts) that is either
interesting, amusing, or both. I'm rather grateful for his time
and effort, and I wish the best for him.
you are I believe conflating two or even three different types of argument.
in Usenet most reasonable argument fall into one or more of several
categories.
1) argument from "experience" Those who have "been there done that" have
a special experience to add which we may not accept as gospel but
should respect as evidence.
2) Arguments from "authority" attempt to cite or present a person as
some type of expert whose conclusions can be believed because of some
special training or insight.
3) Arguments from "position" are based on unique access to information
or that a person who holds such a position must have unique knowledge.
4) arguments from "logic" attempt to state premises and logically
develop the conclusions form those premises.
any person who claims that their own personal position, authority or
experience is critical to the acceptance of their argument is open to
"disparaging" (often insulting analysis) of their personal understanding.
When one claims for example to be a "combat veteran" a legitimate
question is "what kind of combat and what did you see and do?
logical arguments are essentially impersonal. personal attacks simply
play no role whatever. similarly, while arguments from authority
position or experience of others may be useful, abuse aimed at the
person presenting such an argument is a waste.
Vince
>
-
Gordon Banks
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 17:39 +0000, Sheila J wrote:
No one can say what could be impossible in the future, if Richard's
actual DNA would become available, but these projects you speak of
analyze Y DNA (passed through the male line only) or mitochondrial DNA
through the female line. None of these methods can specifically prove
descent from a single individual. For example, King Richard and King
John would have had the same Y DNA, since they both got their Y from
Henry II. They would both have gotten their mitochondrial DNA from
Eleanor, so current genetic methods could not distinguish descendants of
John from those of Richard. Since DNA from other chromosomes gets
thoroughly mixed with each generation, I see no way to use genetics to
distinguish Richard's from John's descendants at this point in time.
Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest genealogy
project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond
belief that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because
only one child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have
fathered others and that a genetists could not prove the claim.
No one can say what could be impossible in the future, if Richard's
actual DNA would become available, but these projects you speak of
analyze Y DNA (passed through the male line only) or mitochondrial DNA
through the female line. None of these methods can specifically prove
descent from a single individual. For example, King Richard and King
John would have had the same Y DNA, since they both got their Y from
Henry II. They would both have gotten their mitochondrial DNA from
Eleanor, so current genetic methods could not distinguish descendants of
John from those of Richard. Since DNA from other chromosomes gets
thoroughly mixed with each generation, I see no way to use genetics to
distinguish Richard's from John's descendants at this point in time.
-
SJ Doc
Re: (RSPW Recruiting) D. Spencer Hines
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:34:18 -0400, Vince Brannigan wrote:
I see your point. I suppose I'm yet again the victim of Usenet in-
experience. In both professional discussion and in hobby-related
intercourse (wargaming, science fiction fanac), the value of empirical
knowledge is extremely limited, and therefore categories (1) and
(3) do not represent solid bases for assertions. One can use them
as explanations of *why* one had sought other information to confirm
or rule out a particular concept (personal experience in diagnosing
and treating lung cancer, for example, once led me to misdiagnose
a migrant farm worker as having this condition when bronchoscopy
demonstrated - surprise! - that the man had cavitary pulmonary
tuberculosis, a condition commonly seen by the generation of doctors
preceding mine, but rare as all hell in our era of effective antimyco-
bacterial chemotherapy) but without supporting citations from the
literature - in medicine, from the most current available peer-
reviewed sources if at all possible - conclusions based on one's
personal experience just aren't going to cut it.
Has Mr. Hines been using such claims of personal experience as
his sole supporting sources? I know he likes to drop names about
the various government thugs, poltroons, and megalomaniacs he
has met, but I mark that as a relatively harmless and fairly common
failing. He can talk about JFK all he goddam pleases; *I* once
shook hands with Robert A. Heinlein, and that's an encounter with
a former naval officer *worth* boasting about.
But I don't reckon myself much of an authority (people with such
tendencies don't generally go into general practice to begin with),
and my personal experience is both limited and not truly represen-
tative of anything except (chiefly) the practice of primary care
medicine in suburban and rural South Jersey. And I wouldn't
expect anybody to take my word on assertions I might advance
even in that area without some sort of supporting citations to
put the subject in context and confirm those assertions' validity.
----------------------------
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the
immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy;
it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not
merely for one group but for all groups.
-- Henry Hazlitt
you are I believe conflating two or even three different types of
argument.
in Usenet most reasonable argument fall into one or more of
several categories.
1) argument from "experience" Those who have "been there done
that" have a special experience to add which we may not accept
as gospel but should respect as evidence.
2) Arguments from "authority" attempt to cite or present a person
as some type of expert whose conclusions can be believed because
of some special training or insight.
3) Arguments from "position" are based on unique access to
information or that a person who holds such a position must have
unique knowledge.
4) arguments from "logic" attempt to state premises and logically
develop the conclusions form those premises.
any person who claims that their own personal position, authority
or experience is critical to the acceptance of their argument is open
to "disparaging" (often insulting analysis) of their personal under-
standing.
When one claims for example to be a "combat veteran" a legitimate
question is "what kind of combat and what did you see and do?
logical arguments are essentially impersonal. personal attacks simply
play no role whatever. similarly, while arguments from authority
position or experience of others may be useful, abuse aimed at the
person presenting such an argument is a waste.
I see your point. I suppose I'm yet again the victim of Usenet in-
experience. In both professional discussion and in hobby-related
intercourse (wargaming, science fiction fanac), the value of empirical
knowledge is extremely limited, and therefore categories (1) and
(3) do not represent solid bases for assertions. One can use them
as explanations of *why* one had sought other information to confirm
or rule out a particular concept (personal experience in diagnosing
and treating lung cancer, for example, once led me to misdiagnose
a migrant farm worker as having this condition when bronchoscopy
demonstrated - surprise! - that the man had cavitary pulmonary
tuberculosis, a condition commonly seen by the generation of doctors
preceding mine, but rare as all hell in our era of effective antimyco-
bacterial chemotherapy) but without supporting citations from the
literature - in medicine, from the most current available peer-
reviewed sources if at all possible - conclusions based on one's
personal experience just aren't going to cut it.
Has Mr. Hines been using such claims of personal experience as
his sole supporting sources? I know he likes to drop names about
the various government thugs, poltroons, and megalomaniacs he
has met, but I mark that as a relatively harmless and fairly common
failing. He can talk about JFK all he goddam pleases; *I* once
shook hands with Robert A. Heinlein, and that's an encounter with
a former naval officer *worth* boasting about.
But I don't reckon myself much of an authority (people with such
tendencies don't generally go into general practice to begin with),
and my personal experience is both limited and not truly represen-
tative of anything except (chiefly) the practice of primary care
medicine in suburban and rural South Jersey. And I wouldn't
expect anybody to take my word on assertions I might advance
even in that area without some sort of supporting citations to
put the subject in context and confirm those assertions' validity.
----------------------------
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the
immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy;
it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not
merely for one group but for all groups.
-- Henry Hazlitt
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
Gordon Banks wrote:
Given DNA of a parent, one can determine with statistical "certainty"
that he is father of a child (it is done all the time in modern
paternity tests), to the exclusion of all others (only for identical
twins is this not an option). Richard and John would have shared half
of their DNA sequences, the other half being different. Thus, of the
DNA they passed to their children, half would be common and half unique
to each father. (These markers are located all over the genome, not
just on the Y and mtDNA.) If we had good DNA for Richard and John, we
could tell them apart, and tell apart the children of each. The problem
is that with each successive generation, the amount coming from a
specific ancestor is cut in half, such that within a short period of
time, the probability of inheriting any particular marker from a
specific ancestor comes to approximate the probability of finding that
marker in the general population, and becomes useless. Only of a unique
mutation could be found to occur in Richard that could then be traced
down in time could such a connection be made over more than a handful of
generations.
taf
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 17:39 +0000, Sheila J wrote:
Ridiculous. Genetists are today putting together the largest genealogy
project in motion as we speak. At some point, it would not be beyond
belief that a line of Richard's ancestors might exist. Just because
only one child was acknowledged doesn't mean that he couldn't have
fathered others and that a genetists could not prove the claim.
No one can say what could be impossible in the future, if Richard's
actual DNA would become available, but these projects you speak of
analyze Y DNA (passed through the male line only) or mitochondrial DNA
through the female line. None of these methods can specifically prove
descent from a single individual. For example, King Richard and King
John would have had the same Y DNA, since they both got their Y from
Henry II. They would both have gotten their mitochondrial DNA from
Eleanor, so current genetic methods could not distinguish descendants of
John from those of Richard. Since DNA from other chromosomes gets
thoroughly mixed with each generation, I see no way to use genetics to
distinguish Richard's from John's descendants at this point in time.
Given DNA of a parent, one can determine with statistical "certainty"
that he is father of a child (it is done all the time in modern
paternity tests), to the exclusion of all others (only for identical
twins is this not an option). Richard and John would have shared half
of their DNA sequences, the other half being different. Thus, of the
DNA they passed to their children, half would be common and half unique
to each father. (These markers are located all over the genome, not
just on the Y and mtDNA.) If we had good DNA for Richard and John, we
could tell them apart, and tell apart the children of each. The problem
is that with each successive generation, the amount coming from a
specific ancestor is cut in half, such that within a short period of
time, the probability of inheriting any particular marker from a
specific ancestor comes to approximate the probability of finding that
marker in the general population, and becomes useless. Only of a unique
mutation could be found to occur in Richard that could then be traced
down in time could such a connection be made over more than a handful of
generations.
taf
-
Vince Brannigan
Re: (RSPW Recruiting) D. Spencer Hines
SJ Doc wrote:
Actually in all of my medical legal work I'm often stunned by the
ability of highly experienced MDs to make incredibly effective diagnoses
from a handshake and a fast conversation (or even less. Once at a
meeting I was with a very senior German "frau and Kinder artz" (a kind
of combination prenatal care and pediatrician) when my wife (also a
physician) came zipping along said Hi and went on (she was chairing the
meeting) My friend turned to me and said "i didn't know Ruth was
pregnant' and she was, exactly one month, and we had told nobody, even
our parents. He was absolutely confident in his diagnosis.
Ive always found this ability to read people fascinating. (I dont have
it) My Judge could spot an expert who was exaggerating his confidence
in his results a mile away and would send me to the library to dig out
the facts. 99% percent of the time he would dismantle the expert the
next day
Im stuck with trying logical argument from premises. Its kind of
tedious, but at the National Cancer institute, it certianly helps.
Vince
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:34:18 -0400, Vince Brannigan wrote:
you are I believe conflating two or even three different types of
argument.
in Usenet most reasonable argument fall into one or more of
several categories.
1) argument from "experience" Those who have "been there done
that" have a special experience to add which we may not accept
as gospel but should respect as evidence.
2) Arguments from "authority" attempt to cite or present a person
as some type of expert whose conclusions can be believed because
of some special training or insight.
3) Arguments from "position" are based on unique access to
information or that a person who holds such a position must have
unique knowledge.
4) arguments from "logic" attempt to state premises and logically
develop the conclusions form those premises.
any person who claims that their own personal position, authority
or experience is critical to the acceptance of their argument is open
to "disparaging" (often insulting analysis) of their personal under-
standing.
When one claims for example to be a "combat veteran" a legitimate
question is "what kind of combat and what did you see and do?
logical arguments are essentially impersonal. personal attacks simply
play no role whatever. similarly, while arguments from authority
position or experience of others may be useful, abuse aimed at the
person presenting such an argument is a waste.
I see your point. I suppose I'm yet again the victim of Usenet in-
experience. In both professional discussion and in hobby-related
intercourse (wargaming, science fiction fanac), the value of empirical
knowledge is extremely limited, and therefore categories (1) and
(3) do not represent solid bases for assertions. One can use them
as explanations of *why* one had sought other information to confirm
or rule out a particular concept (personal experience in diagnosing
and treating lung cancer, for example, once led me to misdiagnose
a migrant farm worker as having this condition when bronchoscopy
demonstrated - surprise! - that the man had cavitary pulmonary
tuberculosis, a condition commonly seen by the generation of doctors
preceding mine, but rare as all hell in our era of effective antimyco-
bacterial chemotherapy) but without supporting citations from the
literature - in medicine, from the most current available peer-
reviewed sources if at all possible - conclusions based on one's
personal experience just aren't going to cut it.
Actually in all of my medical legal work I'm often stunned by the
ability of highly experienced MDs to make incredibly effective diagnoses
from a handshake and a fast conversation (or even less. Once at a
meeting I was with a very senior German "frau and Kinder artz" (a kind
of combination prenatal care and pediatrician) when my wife (also a
physician) came zipping along said Hi and went on (she was chairing the
meeting) My friend turned to me and said "i didn't know Ruth was
pregnant' and she was, exactly one month, and we had told nobody, even
our parents. He was absolutely confident in his diagnosis.
Ive always found this ability to read people fascinating. (I dont have
it) My Judge could spot an expert who was exaggerating his confidence
in his results a mile away and would send me to the library to dig out
the facts. 99% percent of the time he would dismantle the expert the
next day
Im stuck with trying logical argument from premises. Its kind of
tedious, but at the National Cancer institute, it certianly helps.
Vince
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #500
Dear Charlotte,
You have no idea how much I appreciate this message of yours.
Sir Thomas Echingham is an ancestor of Gateway Ancestors Roger Ludlow,
Gabriel Ludlow, Rev. John Oxembridge and Hon. Robert Monckton, no doubt I
missed a few.
But also of Tim Powys-Lybbe
And also of Prince William of Wales, Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall, Sarah
Ferguson, the Aga Khan, Albert of Monaco, Albert II King of Belgium,
Cayetana Duchess of Alba and actors Hugh Grant and Rachel Ward.
Interesting collection I think.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "charlotte Smith" <charlotsmith@prodigy.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #500
You have no idea how much I appreciate this message of yours.
Sir Thomas Echingham is an ancestor of Gateway Ancestors Roger Ludlow,
Gabriel Ludlow, Rev. John Oxembridge and Hon. Robert Monckton, no doubt I
missed a few.
But also of Tim Powys-Lybbe
And also of Prince William of Wales, Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall, Sarah
Ferguson, the Aga Khan, Albert of Monaco, Albert II King of Belgium,
Cayetana Duchess of Alba and actors Hugh Grant and Rachel Ward.
Interesting collection I think.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "charlotte Smith" <charlotsmith@prodigy.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #500
I have the will myself in the Suckling article from the Genealogist. Here
is the translation of it.
as abstract The problem is that the distribution of the land and
estate is evidently lost so we don't know who got what.
Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight
In the name of God Amen, I thomas Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this
20th day ofAugust 1444 make this will. Firstly I bdqueath my soul to
almightly god, Blessed Mary and the Holy ghost, my body to be buried in
the Echyngham vault near to my mother Joan. A niumber of religious
bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my godson, 50 marks, The residual to my
wife Margaret , Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my
son Thomas Echyngham, Henry the Prior ofCanberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard
Wakehurst, Jr and John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt
Sir John Fortescue and Sir roger Fiennes lmy supervisors.....probated Oct
1444
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
<snip>
Richard's & John's differences wouldn't have actually been that clear-cut.
They could have inherited anything on the spectrum from the same chromosomes
from each parent, i.e., the same genetic make-up, (highly unlikely), to
completely different chromosomes from each parent, i.e. completely different
genetic make-up, (equally highly unlikely). The mix is usually somewhere in
the middle of this spectrum, but seldom the exact middle. Nevertheless, the
end is the same as stated, 'Only if a unique mutation could be found to
occur in Richard that could then be traced
down in time could such a connection be made over more than a handful of
generations.'
Ford
Richard and John would have shared half
of their DNA sequences, the other half being different. Thus, of the
DNA they passed to their children, half would be common and half unique
to each father. (These markers are located all over the genome, not
just on the Y and mtDNA.) If we had good DNA for Richard and John, we
could tell them apart, and tell apart the children of each. The problem
is that with each successive generation, the amount coming from a
specific ancestor is cut in half, such that within a short period of
time, the probability of inheriting any particular marker from a
specific ancestor comes to approximate the probability of finding that
marker in the general population, and becomes useless. Only of a unique
mutation could be found to occur in Richard that could then be traced
down in time could such a connection be made over more than a handful of
generations.
taf
Richard's & John's differences wouldn't have actually been that clear-cut.
They could have inherited anything on the spectrum from the same chromosomes
from each parent, i.e., the same genetic make-up, (highly unlikely), to
completely different chromosomes from each parent, i.e. completely different
genetic make-up, (equally highly unlikely). The mix is usually somewhere in
the middle of this spectrum, but seldom the exact middle. Nevertheless, the
end is the same as stated, 'Only if a unique mutation could be found to
occur in Richard that could then be traced
down in time could such a connection be made over more than a handful of
generations.'
Ford
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: England's/Britain's Homosexual Kings
Ford Mommaerts-Browne wrote:
With the emphasis on the "highly": the likelihood of what you suggest is
something like one in a bazzillion.
Just to clarify, uses of the word "half" in my description are
qualitatively different - a person gets _exactly_ half of their
autosomal DNA from each parent, and likewise _exactly_ half of each
parent's autosomal DNA, while brothers share _statistically_ half of
their autosomal DNA, and each subsequent generation reduces that number
by _statistically_ half. This could be further elaborated with the bell
curves, standard deviations, etc., but I hardly see the point. (Even
then, there are some qualifiers that go unsaid, like the effects of
possible partial or whole-chromosome trisomies, or of intermarriages.)
It's a good thing I didn't suggest that a flipped coin will come up
heads half the time.
taf
snip
Richard and John would have shared half
of their DNA sequences, the other half being different. Thus, of the
DNA they passed to their children, half would be common and half unique
to each father. (These markers are located all over the genome, not
just on the Y and mtDNA.) If we had good DNA for Richard and John, we
could tell them apart, and tell apart the children of each. The problem
is that with each successive generation, the amount coming from a
specific ancestor is cut in half, such that within a short period of
time, the probability of inheriting any particular marker from a
specific ancestor comes to approximate the probability of finding that
marker in the general population, and becomes useless. Only of a unique
mutation could be found to occur in Richard that could then be traced
down in time could such a connection be made over more than a handful of
generations.
Richard's & John's differences wouldn't have actually been that clear-cut.
They could have inherited anything on the spectrum from the same chromosomes
from each parent, i.e., the same genetic make-up, (highly unlikely),
With the emphasis on the "highly": the likelihood of what you suggest is
something like one in a bazzillion.
Just to clarify, uses of the word "half" in my description are
qualitatively different - a person gets _exactly_ half of their
autosomal DNA from each parent, and likewise _exactly_ half of each
parent's autosomal DNA, while brothers share _statistically_ half of
their autosomal DNA, and each subsequent generation reduces that number
by _statistically_ half. This could be further elaborated with the bell
curves, standard deviations, etc., but I hardly see the point. (Even
then, there are some qualifiers that go unsaid, like the effects of
possible partial or whole-chromosome trisomies, or of intermarriages.)
It's a good thing I didn't suggest that a flipped coin will come up
heads half the time.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Lucy Charters Across the Sea
In a message dated 8/3/05 9:17:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Pg. 63 of Calendar:
"Abbey of St. John, Foucarmont, Diocese of Rouen:
"[1140-1148] (Cartulary, fo. 87d.)
"183. Charter of Richard, son of earl Gilbert [of Pembroke]. He
grants to the abbey of Foucarmont what he has acquired, or may
acquire, by purchase or at ferm, in the fief of Garinipratum or
Fraisnellum free of multure, of corvees(corveiis) and all other dues,
save only the service of the vavassors, etc.[2] >>
This Richard must be the same person as Richard, Earl of Pembroke who d 20
Apr 1176 at Dublin
Other than this grant, are there are documents which give an idea of when
Richard was born ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Pg. 63 of Calendar:
"Abbey of St. John, Foucarmont, Diocese of Rouen:
"[1140-1148] (Cartulary, fo. 87d.)
"183. Charter of Richard, son of earl Gilbert [of Pembroke]. He
grants to the abbey of Foucarmont what he has acquired, or may
acquire, by purchase or at ferm, in the fief of Garinipratum or
Fraisnellum free of multure, of corvees(corveiis) and all other dues,
save only the service of the vavassors, etc.[2] >>
This Richard must be the same person as Richard, Earl of Pembroke who d 20
Apr 1176 at Dublin
Other than this grant, are there are documents which give an idea of when
Richard was born ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways
In a message dated 8/3/05 6:09:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@removethis.bigpond.com.au writes:
<< I have been contacted off list by a couple of people confused/annoyed by
my way of presenting the data. For the benefit of anyone who would
rather have the data presented as lines instead of an ahnentafel, here
they are. >>
But I do think your way of presenting it as an ahnentafel was helpful in
citing the sources and giving other biographic details.
Thanks!
Will Johnson
caramut@removethis.bigpond.com.au writes:
<< I have been contacted off list by a couple of people confused/annoyed by
my way of presenting the data. For the benefit of anyone who would
rather have the data presented as lines instead of an ahnentafel, here
they are. >>
But I do think your way of presenting it as an ahnentafel was helpful in
citing the sources and giving other biographic details.
Thanks!
Will Johnson
-
Ginny Wagner
CALENDAR OF FRENCH DOCUMENTS TOC
Just for clarity's sake I'll put the TOC here so you can track the
various establishments by page number -- as well, I found the TOC
itself rather illuminating.
UPPER NORMANDY ..................................................
1-140
......,SEINE INFERIEURE ...........................................
1-96
......,.....,ROUEN CATHEDRAL ......................................
1-19
......,.....,HOLY TRINITY PRIORY, ROUEN ...........................
20-24
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. AMAND, ROUEN ............................
25-28
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. OUEN, ROUEN .............................
29-31
......,.....,TOWN OF ROUEN ........................................
32-36
......,.....,ABBEY OF FECAMP ......................................
37-53
......,.....,ABBEY OF JUMIEGES ....................................
54-57, 526
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. WANDRILLE ...............................
58-62, 526
......,.....,ABBEY OF FOUCARMONT ..................................
63-65
......,.....,ABBEY OF BOCHERVILLE .................................
66-71
......,.....,ABBEY OF BONDEVILLE ..................................
72-73
......,.....,PRIORY OF LONGUEVILLE ................................
74-79
......,.....,ABBEY OF TREPORT .....................................
80-82
......,.....,HOSPITAL OF PONT-AUDEMER .............................
83-87
......,.....,ABBEY OF LE VALASSE .................................. 88
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
89-96
......,EURE .......................................................
94-140
......,.....,EVEREAUX CATHEDRAL ...................................
97-104
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. TAURIN, EVREUX ..........................
105-107
......,.....,ABBEY OF PREAUX ......................................
108-119
......,.....,ABBEY OF BEC-HELLOUIN ................................
120-131
......,.....,PRIORY OF ENVERMEU ...................................
132-133
......,.....,PRIORY OF ST. MARTIN DU BOSC ......................... 134
......,.....,ABBEY OF LIRE ........................................
135-136
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
137-140
LOWER NORMANDY ...................................................
141-351
......,CALVADOS ...................................................
141-217
......,.....,ABBEY OF HOLY TRINITY, CAEN ..........................
141-153
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. STEPHEN, CAEN ...........................
154-163
......,.....,ABBEY OF TROARN ......................................
164-181
......,.....,ABBEY OF ARDENNES ....................................
182-183
......,.....,ABBEY OF AUNAY .......................................
184-189
......,.....,PRIORY OF PLESSIS-GRIMOULD ...........................
190-196
......,.....,PRIORY OF STE. BARBE-EN-AUGE .........................
197-200
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. DESIR ................................... 201
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. PIERRE-SUR-DIVES ........................
202-206
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. ANDRE-EN-GOUFFERN .......................
207-212
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. JEAN DE FALAISE .........................
213-215
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
216-217
......,ORNE .......................................................
218-248
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. EVROUL ..................................
218-231
......,.....,ABBEY OF SEES ........................................
232-240
......,.....,ABBEY OF SILLY .......................................
241-244
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA TRAPPE ................................... 245
......,.....,ABBEY OF ALMENESCHES ................................. 246
......,.....,ABBEY OF LONLAY ......................................
247-248
......,LA MANCHE ..................................................
249-351
......,.....,ABBEY OF MONT ST. MICHEL .............................
249-280
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA LUZERNE ..................................
281-283
......,.....,ABBEY OF MONTMOREL ................................... 284
......,.....,ABBEY "DES BLANCES," MORTAIN .........................
285-286
......,.....,ABBEY OF SAVIGNY .....................................
287-308
......,.....,ABBEY OF BLANCHELANDE ................................
309-312
......,.....,ABBEY OF MONTEBOURG ..................................
313-322
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. LO, COUTANCES ...........................
323-324
......,.....,ABBEY OF HAMBYE ......................................
325-326
......,.....,ABBEY OF LESSAY ......................................
327-333
......,.....,ABBEY "DE VOTO," CHERBOURG ...........................
334-340
......,.....,COUTANCES CATHEDRAL ..................................
341-344
......,.....,PRIORY OF ST. FROMOND ................................ 345
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. SAVEUR-LE-VICOMTE .......................
346-351
......,PERCHE:
......,.....,ABBEY OF TIRON .......................................
352-358, 527
......,MAINE ......................................................
359-371
......,.....,LE MANS CATHEDRAL ....................................
359-361
......,.....,ABBEY OF PERSEIGNE ...................................
362-363
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA COUTURE, LE MANS .........................
364-366
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. VINCENT, LE MANS ........................
367-369
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
370-371
......,ANJOU ......................................................
372-420
......,.....,ABBEY OF FONTEVRAULT .................................
372-394
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. FLORENT-DE-SAUMUR .......................
395-416
......,.....,.....,NORMAN PRIORIES ................................
395-402
......,.....,.....,ENGLISH PRIORIES ...............................
402-404
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF SELE .................................
405-406
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF MONMOUTH .............................
406-414
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF SPORLE ............................... 414
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ANDOVER .............................. 415
......,.....,HOSPITAL OF ST. JEAN, ANGERS .........................
417-418
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
419-420
......,TOURAINE:
......,.....,ABBEY OF MARMOUTIER ..................................
421-445
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF VIEUX BELESME ........................
429-430
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ST. VIGOR-EN-PERRIERES ...............
430-433
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF MORTAIN ..............................
433-437
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ST. GEORGES DE BOHON .................
437-440
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF LEHON ................................
440-441
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ST. MARY, YORK .......................
442-444
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF NEWPORT PAGNEL .......................
444-445
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ALLERTON ............................. 445
......,AQUITAINE ..................................................
446-454
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA SAUVE MAJEURE ............................
446-449
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF BURWELL ..............................
448-449
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. CROIX, BORDEAUX .........................
450-451
......,.....,PRIORY OF LA REOLE ................................... 452
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
453-454
......,VENDOME AND CHARTRES .......................................
455-458
......,.....,ABBEY OF VENDOME ..................................... 455
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. PERE, CHARTRES ..........................
456-458
......,PARIS ......................................................
459-478
......,.....,PRIORY OF ST. MARTIN DES CHAMPS ......................
459-463
......,.....,ROYAL CHARTERS, ETC. .................................
464-478
......,PICARDY ....................................................
479-480
......,.....,ABBEY OF ARROUAISE ...................................
479-480
......,.....,TOWN OF CALAIS ....................................... 480
......,FLANDERS ...................................................
481-505
......,.....,PRIORY OF HESDIN .....................................
481-482
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. BERTIN ..................................
483-491
......,.....,TOWN OF ST. OMER ..................................... 491
......,.....,ABBEY OF CLAIRMARAIS .................................
492-493
......,.....,DOCUMENTS AT LILLE ...................................
494-496
......,.....,ABBEY DES DUNES ......................................
497-499
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. PETER, GHENT ............................
500-505
......,BURGUNDY:
......,.....,ABBEY OF CLUNY .......................................
506-517
......,APPENDIX I. ................................................
518-528
......,.....,ABBEY OF MORTEMER ....................................
518-519
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. STEPHEN, CAEN ...........................
520-522
......,.....,ABBEY OF BON REPOS ................................... 523
......,.....,ABBEY OF D'EU ........................................
524-525
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
526-528
......,APPENDIX II. ...............................................
529-538
......,APPENDIX III. ..............................................
539-540
various establishments by page number -- as well, I found the TOC
itself rather illuminating.
UPPER NORMANDY ..................................................
1-140
......,SEINE INFERIEURE ...........................................
1-96
......,.....,ROUEN CATHEDRAL ......................................
1-19
......,.....,HOLY TRINITY PRIORY, ROUEN ...........................
20-24
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. AMAND, ROUEN ............................
25-28
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. OUEN, ROUEN .............................
29-31
......,.....,TOWN OF ROUEN ........................................
32-36
......,.....,ABBEY OF FECAMP ......................................
37-53
......,.....,ABBEY OF JUMIEGES ....................................
54-57, 526
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. WANDRILLE ...............................
58-62, 526
......,.....,ABBEY OF FOUCARMONT ..................................
63-65
......,.....,ABBEY OF BOCHERVILLE .................................
66-71
......,.....,ABBEY OF BONDEVILLE ..................................
72-73
......,.....,PRIORY OF LONGUEVILLE ................................
74-79
......,.....,ABBEY OF TREPORT .....................................
80-82
......,.....,HOSPITAL OF PONT-AUDEMER .............................
83-87
......,.....,ABBEY OF LE VALASSE .................................. 88
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
89-96
......,EURE .......................................................
94-140
......,.....,EVEREAUX CATHEDRAL ...................................
97-104
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. TAURIN, EVREUX ..........................
105-107
......,.....,ABBEY OF PREAUX ......................................
108-119
......,.....,ABBEY OF BEC-HELLOUIN ................................
120-131
......,.....,PRIORY OF ENVERMEU ...................................
132-133
......,.....,PRIORY OF ST. MARTIN DU BOSC ......................... 134
......,.....,ABBEY OF LIRE ........................................
135-136
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
137-140
LOWER NORMANDY ...................................................
141-351
......,CALVADOS ...................................................
141-217
......,.....,ABBEY OF HOLY TRINITY, CAEN ..........................
141-153
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. STEPHEN, CAEN ...........................
154-163
......,.....,ABBEY OF TROARN ......................................
164-181
......,.....,ABBEY OF ARDENNES ....................................
182-183
......,.....,ABBEY OF AUNAY .......................................
184-189
......,.....,PRIORY OF PLESSIS-GRIMOULD ...........................
190-196
......,.....,PRIORY OF STE. BARBE-EN-AUGE .........................
197-200
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. DESIR ................................... 201
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. PIERRE-SUR-DIVES ........................
202-206
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. ANDRE-EN-GOUFFERN .......................
207-212
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. JEAN DE FALAISE .........................
213-215
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
216-217
......,ORNE .......................................................
218-248
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. EVROUL ..................................
218-231
......,.....,ABBEY OF SEES ........................................
232-240
......,.....,ABBEY OF SILLY .......................................
241-244
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA TRAPPE ................................... 245
......,.....,ABBEY OF ALMENESCHES ................................. 246
......,.....,ABBEY OF LONLAY ......................................
247-248
......,LA MANCHE ..................................................
249-351
......,.....,ABBEY OF MONT ST. MICHEL .............................
249-280
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA LUZERNE ..................................
281-283
......,.....,ABBEY OF MONTMOREL ................................... 284
......,.....,ABBEY "DES BLANCES," MORTAIN .........................
285-286
......,.....,ABBEY OF SAVIGNY .....................................
287-308
......,.....,ABBEY OF BLANCHELANDE ................................
309-312
......,.....,ABBEY OF MONTEBOURG ..................................
313-322
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. LO, COUTANCES ...........................
323-324
......,.....,ABBEY OF HAMBYE ......................................
325-326
......,.....,ABBEY OF LESSAY ......................................
327-333
......,.....,ABBEY "DE VOTO," CHERBOURG ...........................
334-340
......,.....,COUTANCES CATHEDRAL ..................................
341-344
......,.....,PRIORY OF ST. FROMOND ................................ 345
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. SAVEUR-LE-VICOMTE .......................
346-351
......,PERCHE:
......,.....,ABBEY OF TIRON .......................................
352-358, 527
......,MAINE ......................................................
359-371
......,.....,LE MANS CATHEDRAL ....................................
359-361
......,.....,ABBEY OF PERSEIGNE ...................................
362-363
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA COUTURE, LE MANS .........................
364-366
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. VINCENT, LE MANS ........................
367-369
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
370-371
......,ANJOU ......................................................
372-420
......,.....,ABBEY OF FONTEVRAULT .................................
372-394
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. FLORENT-DE-SAUMUR .......................
395-416
......,.....,.....,NORMAN PRIORIES ................................
395-402
......,.....,.....,ENGLISH PRIORIES ...............................
402-404
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF SELE .................................
405-406
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF MONMOUTH .............................
406-414
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF SPORLE ............................... 414
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ANDOVER .............................. 415
......,.....,HOSPITAL OF ST. JEAN, ANGERS .........................
417-418
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
419-420
......,TOURAINE:
......,.....,ABBEY OF MARMOUTIER ..................................
421-445
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF VIEUX BELESME ........................
429-430
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ST. VIGOR-EN-PERRIERES ...............
430-433
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF MORTAIN ..............................
433-437
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ST. GEORGES DE BOHON .................
437-440
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF LEHON ................................
440-441
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ST. MARY, YORK .......................
442-444
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF NEWPORT PAGNEL .......................
444-445
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF ALLERTON ............................. 445
......,AQUITAINE ..................................................
446-454
......,.....,ABBEY OF LA SAUVE MAJEURE ............................
446-449
......,.....,.....,PRIORY OF BURWELL ..............................
448-449
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. CROIX, BORDEAUX .........................
450-451
......,.....,PRIORY OF LA REOLE ................................... 452
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
453-454
......,VENDOME AND CHARTRES .......................................
455-458
......,.....,ABBEY OF VENDOME ..................................... 455
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. PERE, CHARTRES ..........................
456-458
......,PARIS ......................................................
459-478
......,.....,PRIORY OF ST. MARTIN DES CHAMPS ......................
459-463
......,.....,ROYAL CHARTERS, ETC. .................................
464-478
......,PICARDY ....................................................
479-480
......,.....,ABBEY OF ARROUAISE ...................................
479-480
......,.....,TOWN OF CALAIS ....................................... 480
......,FLANDERS ...................................................
481-505
......,.....,PRIORY OF HESDIN .....................................
481-482
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. BERTIN ..................................
483-491
......,.....,TOWN OF ST. OMER ..................................... 491
......,.....,ABBEY OF CLAIRMARAIS .................................
492-493
......,.....,DOCUMENTS AT LILLE ...................................
494-496
......,.....,ABBEY DES DUNES ......................................
497-499
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. PETER, GHENT ............................
500-505
......,BURGUNDY:
......,.....,ABBEY OF CLUNY .......................................
506-517
......,APPENDIX I. ................................................
518-528
......,.....,ABBEY OF MORTEMER ....................................
518-519
......,.....,ABBEY OF ST. STEPHEN, CAEN ...........................
520-522
......,.....,ABBEY OF BON REPOS ................................... 523
......,.....,ABBEY OF D'EU ........................................
524-525
......,.....,MISCELLANEOUS ........................................
526-528
......,APPENDIX II. ...............................................
529-538
......,APPENDIX III. ..............................................
539-540
-
Ginny Wagner
More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Hi Will,
<Other than this grant, are there are documents which give an idea of
when
Richard was born ?>
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service .. it
tended to take them ten years to get properly educated if they did all
seven parts of the curriculam .. if he came in knowing Abbot Geoffrey
de Gorham as the Battle Abbey says he and his family did, then he
could have been quite young when he began his service ... often
knowing someone will take the place of a decade of hard work in the
beginning ... so he could have been born ca. 1115 would be my guess,
give or take 5 years. That would make him about 65 when he signed the
last charter. Of course, other considerations would have to be made
as to the birth of children, etc. I am guesstimating purely on the
document dates herein.
My previous post of Lucy documents which got the tabs all messed up
dealt with almost all but Richard. I've put the charter # and dates
with each of these page numbers for the various Lucys so anybody that
is interested can refer back and forth to get page, no., hierarchy,
date, and, using the TOC, the establishment. Richard is dealt with
below.
AND THE INDEX ENTRY FOR LUCY: page-number(document#, year)
Lucy, Luci, Richard de, 6, 7, 45, 116, 138, 171, 175, 186, 208, 215,
242, 247, 273, 275, 291, .....,299, 324, 355, 377(#1064, 1164), 492,
493, 504 n, 505, 515, 516
......,.....,charter of, 504[#1380, 1161-1168].
......,Godfrey de, 365(#1037, 1180-82), 525(#1419 - starts on pg. 524 -
1182-4)
......,.....,archdeacon of Derby, 380(#1078, 1182), 381(#1079, 1182)
......,.....,bishop of Winchester, 14(#53, 1189), 91(#271, 1189),
103(#307, Godefrido electo, .....,.....,1189), 188(#535, 1190),
362(#1028, 1198), 363(#1029, 1198), 385(#1085, 1189),
......,.....,387(#1090, 1192-1193)
......,.....,.....,charter of, 278(#768, 1197)
......,Geoffrey de, 209(#600, 1169-1175), 417(#1157, 1180-81 fn says
archdeacon of Derby - .....,.....,"Godefrido" in Angers text),
534(#1448, ca. 1180)
......,Hugh de, chaplain, 377(#1064, 1164)
......,John de, 278(#768, 1197)
......,Philip de, clerk, 278(#768, 1197)
......,Ralf de, 63(#183, 1140-1148)
pg.6, #23, Henry II, 1165-6, Ricardo de Lucy apud Westmonasterium.
pg. 7, #30, Henry II, 1174, Ricardo de Luci apud Stokes(Scokes) juxta
mare.
pg. 45, #133, Henry II, 1156-62, Ricardo de Luci apud Lexovium.
pg. 116, #343, Henry II, 1165, Ricardo de Luci apud Albummonasterium
in Valliis.
pg. 137/138, #413, Henry II, 1156-1157, Ricardo de Luci, apud Argentan
(sic).
pg. 170/171, #480, Henry II, 1155, Ricardo de Lucy apud Wirecestriam.
pg. 175, #492, Henry II writ, 1156-1175, Ricardo de Lucy, apud
Pictav[um].
pg. 186, #528, 1158-1164, "Charter of William Derlie, chamberlain and
Ascira his wife granting to Robert de Jovigneio and his heirs all the
land that belonged to Ralf de Insula which they had or ought to have
in England and Normandy. For making this grant king Henry has given
him, with Ascira 120 pounds sterling and 100 shillings of his own
money. For this sum, he and his wife have abjured that land in favor
of Robert de Jovigneio and his heirs. Testibus his: Rogero Eboracensi
archiepiscopo; Rotrou Ebroicensi,[[3][fn3]"Eburon"], Arnulfo
Lexoviensi episcopis; Willelmo Arondel, Hugone comitibus; Ricardo de
Luci; Henrico camerario; Hugone de Gonnevilla; Willelmo de Bellocampo;
Hugone de Piris; Willelmo Malet; Willelmo de Breosa. Per manum
Stephani capellani. Apud Pedestram."
pg. 208, #594, Henry II, 1158-1162, Richardo de Lucy apud Argentonum.
pg. 214/215, #613, 1157, Henry II, Ricardo de Luceio apud Falesiam.
(mentions Hugh de Merlaio and William de Grentmesnil, Roger de
Monbraio and Philip de Basochiis and Fulk his brother, Ernesius Aries
and William his son, and William Broldus, "fratris nostri," and his
wife at Falaise and Condeum, and the land given them by William de
Maigneio -- about yearly fair at Michaelmas, feast of St. Gervase at
Falaise).
pg. 242, #682, Henry II, 1158-1160, confirms the empress' charter.
Richardo de Luci apud Argentonum.
pg. 247, #697, 1156-1159, "Writ of Henry II, as king etc., and count
of Mortain[2], addressed to his barons, officers, and foesters. They
are to allow the abbey of Lonlay to enjoy all its privileges in his
dominions, and especially in his[2] forest of la-Lande-Pourrie (Landa
Putrida) as in the time of king Henry his grandfather. No one is to
wrong the abbey, or exact fresh dues from it, or diminah its rights.
Teste Ricardo de Lucy apud Lyons." [fn2] The writ changes here to the
plural style, and, as the forest in question seems to have belonged to
the count of Mortain, it would appear that the king here associated
the count with himself. In that case the writ must be previous to the
death of count William [1159]. [Lonlay is, I believe, where Walter de
Lucy, abbot of Battle Abbey, came from as monk (Lonle).
pg. 272/273, #748, Henry II, ?1170, Ricardo de Luci apud Rading[es][5]
[fn5] Trans.: "Kadun."
pg. 275 #756, 1175-1177[[5][fn5] proved by presence of William son of
Ralph (Glanvilla).], "Charter of Henry II. confirming to Mont St.
Michel Wat, with all its appurtenances, given by the predecessors of
Conan count of Britanny and confirmed by Conan's own charter.
Testibus: R[icardo] archiepiscopo Cantuariensi; G[aufrido] Eliensi,
Johanne Norwicensi, Reginaldo Bathoniensi, B[artolomeo] Exoniensi,
episcopis; Gaufrido filio regis comite Britannie; Ricardo de Luci;
Unfredo de Bohun constabulario; Willelmo filio Ald[elini[6]] dapifero;
Willelmo de Sancto Johanne; Randulfo de Glanvilla[7]; Willelmo filio
Radulfi. Apud Wintoniam. [fn6] "Audel[ini] in Cartulary. [fn7]
Trans.: "Ranulfo de Glainvilla."
pg. 291, #802, ca. 1140, "Charter of Stephen, R[icardo] de Luci[f],
[fn1] Trans.: "Luceio.", apud London[iam].
pg. 299, #824, 1157 (Cartulary, fo. 138d.), "Charter of Henry II,
granting to the abbey (ecclesie) of Savigny and abbot Richard and the
monks all lands, endowments, priveleges, etc. that had been given or
granted them, etc. ... namely ... a vineyard near Avranches, of the
gift of king Henry, etc. gifts of his own in the forest of Passeium
etc. ... the land of Veniuns, with the mill, muture, etc. given by
Robert son of Martin and Matildis his wife, by permission (concessine)
of Richard earl of Chester and Stephen count of Mortain; a sixth part
of Taon with all its appurtenances, secular and ecclesiastical, and
the land of Vilers with the church etc. ... by gift of William de
Sancto Claro and Hamo[f] his brother, with consent (concessione) of
Stephen count of Mortain and Richard bishop of Bayeux; the mill of
Brencia, etc., by gift of Geoffrey the chamberlain de Clintona and
Geoffrey his son, the land of Basenvilla by gift of Robert son of
Ernesius with consent (concessione) of Robert earl of Gloucester, etc.
.... the endowments at "terra Guasta" by gift of Ralf de Vireio and his
sons-in-law William and Oliver and their men, with consent
(concessione) of Jordan son of Alan and Alan his son, etc. ... the
land of Barbery (Barbereium) and Jorkes etc. by gift of Robert Marmion
with consent (concessione) of Galeran count of Mellent and of Richard
bishop of Bayeux, etc. ... the land of St. Mary le Most by gift of
Ralf de Rourecestria with consent (Concessione) of Richard bishop of
Bayeux, etc. ... the land of Petri in Norhantonesire by gift of Robert
earl de Ferreriis; etc. ... General confirmation of privileges. Hec
autem nostra donatio facta est anno ab incarnatione domini MCLVII anno
scilicet regni mei Anglie iij., ducatus vero Normannie viij. etc. ...
Test[ibus] Nigello episcopo Elyensi, et Hilario episcopo Cicestrensi,
et Henrico Abrincensi, et Ernulfo Luxoviensi episcopis, et Thoma
cancellario, et Gaufrido et Guillelmo fratribus regis, et comite
Reginaldo, et Roberto de Novo Burgo tunc dapifero Normannie, et
Ricardo de Humez constabulario, et Ricardo de Luceio, et Jordano
Taxone; Manasser[o] Biset dapifero, et Garino filio Giroldi camerario,
et Guillelmo filio Hamonis, et Petro de Sancto Hylario, et Hasculfo de
Soligneio et Fulcone Paganello, et Guillelmo Avenello, et Hugone Rufo,
et Rogero de Milleio, et Henrico de Domno fronte, et Guillelmo Rufo,
et Fulc[one] cambiatore. Apud Danfrontem. [fn1] See Rot. Pip. 31 Hen.
I." (Record Commision), passim.
pg. 324, #912, 1184-1187, Charter of Henry II, Richard de Lucy St.
Croix "de Vasto." Apud Valonias. ==text in previous post==
pg. 355, #1002, 1156-1163, Henry II, addressed to Robert earl of
Leicester and the barons of the exchequer. ... Testibus: Matildi
imperatrice, et Roberto (sic) episcopo Ebroicensi, et Ricardo de Luci.
Apud Rothomagum.
pg. 377(#1064, 1164), "Charter of Henry II. giving 60 librates of land
: in Hudefortsire (sic)[5], his manor of Lectona; in Buckinghamsire
4l., from the manor of Radenai. Testibus: Nigello episcopo Eliensi;
Roberto comite Legrecestrie; comite Gaufrido; Richardo de Luci; Hugone
de Gundevilla; Hugone de Luc[i] capellano; Simone filio Petri; Alano
de Nevilla[6]; Johanne Mald[uith]; Petro de la Mara. Apud
Westmonasterium. [fn5] Rectius: "Bedefortsire." [fn6] Trans.:
"Neuull"
pg. 492, #1355, 1148, "Mathildis queen of the English and countess of
Boulogne addressed to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and barons of
England, Normandy, and Boulogne. With her son Eustace, she grants to
Gunfrid abbot of Clairmarais (ut infra). Testibus: Willelmo de Ypra;
Willelmo de Monsterolio; Arnulfo advocato Taruaniae; Richardo de Luci;
Eustachio de Furnis; Thoma capellano; Richardo Boloniae[4]; Petro
clerico; Odone clerico. Apud Boloniam. [fn4] See Geoffrey de
mandeville, p. 120."
pg. 493, #1356, 1148, Charter of Stephen, addressed tot he bishop of
Therouanne, and his officers of the comte of Boulogne. For the
redemption of his soul, and those of queen Mathildis his wife and
Eustace his son, andhis other boys, he grants to Gunfrid abbot of
Clairmarais and his successors for ever, a carucate of land which
Mathildis his wife had given them for the construction of an abbey.
Attestatione. ... Willelmi de Ypra, et Roberti de Ver constabularii,
et Willelmi Marter,[1], et Richardi de Luci. Apud Londoniam. {fn1}
Rectius: "Martel."
same page, #1357, not dated, Charter of Mathildis, humble queen of the
Englishj, and devout servant (famula) of Christ, addressed to the
abbot and convent of Clairmarais. ... Testibus: Thoma capellano;
Eustachio; Richardo de Bolonia[2]; Willelmo de Ypra; Richardo de LUci;
Willelmo Martel; Waltero de Lusor,[3], et aliis pluribus cuum abbate
de Boxleia domno Lamberto. Apud Roffam. [fn2] See Geoffrey de
Mandeville, p. 120. [fn3] Rectius: "Warnerio de Lisoriis."
same page, #1358. ND, Charter of Stephen, confirming above charter of
his queen. Testibus: Baldrico; Eustachio; Thoma capellano; Richardo
de Bolonia[2],; Willelmo de Ypra; Richardo de Luci; Willelmo Martel;
Waltero de Lusor[3]; et aliis pluribus cum domno abbate de Boxleia
Lamberto. Apud Bergas."
pg. 504/505 n, #1380, 1161-1168, Charter of Richard de Luci (comes de
Luci) addressed to earls, barons, and others, French and English. He
notifies that Gervase de Corn[h]illa has quitclaimed to the abbot and
convent of ST. Peter, Ghent, for himself and his heirs for ever his
claim on the vills of Lieuesham and Gronewic, for the love of God and
the weal of his soul, because he has ascertained (inquisivit) that he
had no right therein. This quitcliam he has made before him
[Richard]. His testibus: Roberto priore de Sancto Fridewiter[1] de
Oxon'; A. priore Car'; Willelmo comite Golore[2]; Ernaldo comite de
Ghisnes; Richardo de Luci; Hugone de Gunnevil[3]; Henrico filio
Geroldi, et Rad[ulfo] fratre ejus; Hugone de Dovra; Walchelino
Maminot; Willelmo Cade; Roberto Lebel; Johanne filio Radulfi; Ogone[4]
dapifero; Roberto capellano; Roberto clerico."
[fn1] St. Frideswide's. [fn2] Gloucester. [fn3] "Gundeville." [fn4]
Rectius: "Ogero" (Liber Rubeus de Scaccario, p. 352)."
pg. 514/515, #1396, 1153-1154, Henry, by the grace of God, duke of the
Normans and of Aquitaine, and count of the Angevins, addressed
generally. Ricardus de Luci; Apud Westmonasterium.
pg. 516, #1400, 1176, Henry II, Willelmo Arundell'; comite Willelmo de
Maundevill'; Ricardo de Lucy; Bertramo de Verdon. Apud Norhamptonam.
Ginny
<Other than this grant, are there are documents which give an idea of
when
Richard was born ?>
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service .. it
tended to take them ten years to get properly educated if they did all
seven parts of the curriculam .. if he came in knowing Abbot Geoffrey
de Gorham as the Battle Abbey says he and his family did, then he
could have been quite young when he began his service ... often
knowing someone will take the place of a decade of hard work in the
beginning ... so he could have been born ca. 1115 would be my guess,
give or take 5 years. That would make him about 65 when he signed the
last charter. Of course, other considerations would have to be made
as to the birth of children, etc. I am guesstimating purely on the
document dates herein.
My previous post of Lucy documents which got the tabs all messed up
dealt with almost all but Richard. I've put the charter # and dates
with each of these page numbers for the various Lucys so anybody that
is interested can refer back and forth to get page, no., hierarchy,
date, and, using the TOC, the establishment. Richard is dealt with
below.
AND THE INDEX ENTRY FOR LUCY: page-number(document#, year)
Lucy, Luci, Richard de, 6, 7, 45, 116, 138, 171, 175, 186, 208, 215,
242, 247, 273, 275, 291, .....,299, 324, 355, 377(#1064, 1164), 492,
493, 504 n, 505, 515, 516
......,.....,charter of, 504[#1380, 1161-1168].
......,Godfrey de, 365(#1037, 1180-82), 525(#1419 - starts on pg. 524 -
1182-4)
......,.....,archdeacon of Derby, 380(#1078, 1182), 381(#1079, 1182)
......,.....,bishop of Winchester, 14(#53, 1189), 91(#271, 1189),
103(#307, Godefrido electo, .....,.....,1189), 188(#535, 1190),
362(#1028, 1198), 363(#1029, 1198), 385(#1085, 1189),
......,.....,387(#1090, 1192-1193)
......,.....,.....,charter of, 278(#768, 1197)
......,Geoffrey de, 209(#600, 1169-1175), 417(#1157, 1180-81 fn says
archdeacon of Derby - .....,.....,"Godefrido" in Angers text),
534(#1448, ca. 1180)
......,Hugh de, chaplain, 377(#1064, 1164)
......,John de, 278(#768, 1197)
......,Philip de, clerk, 278(#768, 1197)
......,Ralf de, 63(#183, 1140-1148)
pg.6, #23, Henry II, 1165-6, Ricardo de Lucy apud Westmonasterium.
pg. 7, #30, Henry II, 1174, Ricardo de Luci apud Stokes(Scokes) juxta
mare.
pg. 45, #133, Henry II, 1156-62, Ricardo de Luci apud Lexovium.
pg. 116, #343, Henry II, 1165, Ricardo de Luci apud Albummonasterium
in Valliis.
pg. 137/138, #413, Henry II, 1156-1157, Ricardo de Luci, apud Argentan
(sic).
pg. 170/171, #480, Henry II, 1155, Ricardo de Lucy apud Wirecestriam.
pg. 175, #492, Henry II writ, 1156-1175, Ricardo de Lucy, apud
Pictav[um].
pg. 186, #528, 1158-1164, "Charter of William Derlie, chamberlain and
Ascira his wife granting to Robert de Jovigneio and his heirs all the
land that belonged to Ralf de Insula which they had or ought to have
in England and Normandy. For making this grant king Henry has given
him, with Ascira 120 pounds sterling and 100 shillings of his own
money. For this sum, he and his wife have abjured that land in favor
of Robert de Jovigneio and his heirs. Testibus his: Rogero Eboracensi
archiepiscopo; Rotrou Ebroicensi,[[3][fn3]"Eburon"], Arnulfo
Lexoviensi episcopis; Willelmo Arondel, Hugone comitibus; Ricardo de
Luci; Henrico camerario; Hugone de Gonnevilla; Willelmo de Bellocampo;
Hugone de Piris; Willelmo Malet; Willelmo de Breosa. Per manum
Stephani capellani. Apud Pedestram."
pg. 208, #594, Henry II, 1158-1162, Richardo de Lucy apud Argentonum.
pg. 214/215, #613, 1157, Henry II, Ricardo de Luceio apud Falesiam.
(mentions Hugh de Merlaio and William de Grentmesnil, Roger de
Monbraio and Philip de Basochiis and Fulk his brother, Ernesius Aries
and William his son, and William Broldus, "fratris nostri," and his
wife at Falaise and Condeum, and the land given them by William de
Maigneio -- about yearly fair at Michaelmas, feast of St. Gervase at
Falaise).
pg. 242, #682, Henry II, 1158-1160, confirms the empress' charter.
Richardo de Luci apud Argentonum.
pg. 247, #697, 1156-1159, "Writ of Henry II, as king etc., and count
of Mortain[2], addressed to his barons, officers, and foesters. They
are to allow the abbey of Lonlay to enjoy all its privileges in his
dominions, and especially in his[2] forest of la-Lande-Pourrie (Landa
Putrida) as in the time of king Henry his grandfather. No one is to
wrong the abbey, or exact fresh dues from it, or diminah its rights.
Teste Ricardo de Lucy apud Lyons." [fn2] The writ changes here to the
plural style, and, as the forest in question seems to have belonged to
the count of Mortain, it would appear that the king here associated
the count with himself. In that case the writ must be previous to the
death of count William [1159]. [Lonlay is, I believe, where Walter de
Lucy, abbot of Battle Abbey, came from as monk (Lonle).
pg. 272/273, #748, Henry II, ?1170, Ricardo de Luci apud Rading[es][5]
[fn5] Trans.: "Kadun."
pg. 275 #756, 1175-1177[[5][fn5] proved by presence of William son of
Ralph (Glanvilla).], "Charter of Henry II. confirming to Mont St.
Michel Wat, with all its appurtenances, given by the predecessors of
Conan count of Britanny and confirmed by Conan's own charter.
Testibus: R[icardo] archiepiscopo Cantuariensi; G[aufrido] Eliensi,
Johanne Norwicensi, Reginaldo Bathoniensi, B[artolomeo] Exoniensi,
episcopis; Gaufrido filio regis comite Britannie; Ricardo de Luci;
Unfredo de Bohun constabulario; Willelmo filio Ald[elini[6]] dapifero;
Willelmo de Sancto Johanne; Randulfo de Glanvilla[7]; Willelmo filio
Radulfi. Apud Wintoniam. [fn6] "Audel[ini] in Cartulary. [fn7]
Trans.: "Ranulfo de Glainvilla."
pg. 291, #802, ca. 1140, "Charter of Stephen, R[icardo] de Luci[f],
[fn1] Trans.: "Luceio.", apud London[iam].
pg. 299, #824, 1157 (Cartulary, fo. 138d.), "Charter of Henry II,
granting to the abbey (ecclesie) of Savigny and abbot Richard and the
monks all lands, endowments, priveleges, etc. that had been given or
granted them, etc. ... namely ... a vineyard near Avranches, of the
gift of king Henry, etc. gifts of his own in the forest of Passeium
etc. ... the land of Veniuns, with the mill, muture, etc. given by
Robert son of Martin and Matildis his wife, by permission (concessine)
of Richard earl of Chester and Stephen count of Mortain; a sixth part
of Taon with all its appurtenances, secular and ecclesiastical, and
the land of Vilers with the church etc. ... by gift of William de
Sancto Claro and Hamo[f] his brother, with consent (concessione) of
Stephen count of Mortain and Richard bishop of Bayeux; the mill of
Brencia, etc., by gift of Geoffrey the chamberlain de Clintona and
Geoffrey his son, the land of Basenvilla by gift of Robert son of
Ernesius with consent (concessione) of Robert earl of Gloucester, etc.
.... the endowments at "terra Guasta" by gift of Ralf de Vireio and his
sons-in-law William and Oliver and their men, with consent
(concessione) of Jordan son of Alan and Alan his son, etc. ... the
land of Barbery (Barbereium) and Jorkes etc. by gift of Robert Marmion
with consent (concessione) of Galeran count of Mellent and of Richard
bishop of Bayeux, etc. ... the land of St. Mary le Most by gift of
Ralf de Rourecestria with consent (Concessione) of Richard bishop of
Bayeux, etc. ... the land of Petri in Norhantonesire by gift of Robert
earl de Ferreriis; etc. ... General confirmation of privileges. Hec
autem nostra donatio facta est anno ab incarnatione domini MCLVII anno
scilicet regni mei Anglie iij., ducatus vero Normannie viij. etc. ...
Test[ibus] Nigello episcopo Elyensi, et Hilario episcopo Cicestrensi,
et Henrico Abrincensi, et Ernulfo Luxoviensi episcopis, et Thoma
cancellario, et Gaufrido et Guillelmo fratribus regis, et comite
Reginaldo, et Roberto de Novo Burgo tunc dapifero Normannie, et
Ricardo de Humez constabulario, et Ricardo de Luceio, et Jordano
Taxone; Manasser[o] Biset dapifero, et Garino filio Giroldi camerario,
et Guillelmo filio Hamonis, et Petro de Sancto Hylario, et Hasculfo de
Soligneio et Fulcone Paganello, et Guillelmo Avenello, et Hugone Rufo,
et Rogero de Milleio, et Henrico de Domno fronte, et Guillelmo Rufo,
et Fulc[one] cambiatore. Apud Danfrontem. [fn1] See Rot. Pip. 31 Hen.
I." (Record Commision), passim.
pg. 324, #912, 1184-1187, Charter of Henry II, Richard de Lucy St.
Croix "de Vasto." Apud Valonias. ==text in previous post==
pg. 355, #1002, 1156-1163, Henry II, addressed to Robert earl of
Leicester and the barons of the exchequer. ... Testibus: Matildi
imperatrice, et Roberto (sic) episcopo Ebroicensi, et Ricardo de Luci.
Apud Rothomagum.
pg. 377(#1064, 1164), "Charter of Henry II. giving 60 librates of land
: in Hudefortsire (sic)[5], his manor of Lectona; in Buckinghamsire
4l., from the manor of Radenai. Testibus: Nigello episcopo Eliensi;
Roberto comite Legrecestrie; comite Gaufrido; Richardo de Luci; Hugone
de Gundevilla; Hugone de Luc[i] capellano; Simone filio Petri; Alano
de Nevilla[6]; Johanne Mald[uith]; Petro de la Mara. Apud
Westmonasterium. [fn5] Rectius: "Bedefortsire." [fn6] Trans.:
"Neuull"
pg. 492, #1355, 1148, "Mathildis queen of the English and countess of
Boulogne addressed to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and barons of
England, Normandy, and Boulogne. With her son Eustace, she grants to
Gunfrid abbot of Clairmarais (ut infra). Testibus: Willelmo de Ypra;
Willelmo de Monsterolio; Arnulfo advocato Taruaniae; Richardo de Luci;
Eustachio de Furnis; Thoma capellano; Richardo Boloniae[4]; Petro
clerico; Odone clerico. Apud Boloniam. [fn4] See Geoffrey de
mandeville, p. 120."
pg. 493, #1356, 1148, Charter of Stephen, addressed tot he bishop of
Therouanne, and his officers of the comte of Boulogne. For the
redemption of his soul, and those of queen Mathildis his wife and
Eustace his son, andhis other boys, he grants to Gunfrid abbot of
Clairmarais and his successors for ever, a carucate of land which
Mathildis his wife had given them for the construction of an abbey.
Attestatione. ... Willelmi de Ypra, et Roberti de Ver constabularii,
et Willelmi Marter,[1], et Richardi de Luci. Apud Londoniam. {fn1}
Rectius: "Martel."
same page, #1357, not dated, Charter of Mathildis, humble queen of the
Englishj, and devout servant (famula) of Christ, addressed to the
abbot and convent of Clairmarais. ... Testibus: Thoma capellano;
Eustachio; Richardo de Bolonia[2]; Willelmo de Ypra; Richardo de LUci;
Willelmo Martel; Waltero de Lusor,[3], et aliis pluribus cuum abbate
de Boxleia domno Lamberto. Apud Roffam. [fn2] See Geoffrey de
Mandeville, p. 120. [fn3] Rectius: "Warnerio de Lisoriis."
same page, #1358. ND, Charter of Stephen, confirming above charter of
his queen. Testibus: Baldrico; Eustachio; Thoma capellano; Richardo
de Bolonia[2],; Willelmo de Ypra; Richardo de Luci; Willelmo Martel;
Waltero de Lusor[3]; et aliis pluribus cum domno abbate de Boxleia
Lamberto. Apud Bergas."
pg. 504/505 n, #1380, 1161-1168, Charter of Richard de Luci (comes de
Luci) addressed to earls, barons, and others, French and English. He
notifies that Gervase de Corn[h]illa has quitclaimed to the abbot and
convent of ST. Peter, Ghent, for himself and his heirs for ever his
claim on the vills of Lieuesham and Gronewic, for the love of God and
the weal of his soul, because he has ascertained (inquisivit) that he
had no right therein. This quitcliam he has made before him
[Richard]. His testibus: Roberto priore de Sancto Fridewiter[1] de
Oxon'; A. priore Car'; Willelmo comite Golore[2]; Ernaldo comite de
Ghisnes; Richardo de Luci; Hugone de Gunnevil[3]; Henrico filio
Geroldi, et Rad[ulfo] fratre ejus; Hugone de Dovra; Walchelino
Maminot; Willelmo Cade; Roberto Lebel; Johanne filio Radulfi; Ogone[4]
dapifero; Roberto capellano; Roberto clerico."
[fn1] St. Frideswide's. [fn2] Gloucester. [fn3] "Gundeville." [fn4]
Rectius: "Ogero" (Liber Rubeus de Scaccario, p. 352)."
pg. 514/515, #1396, 1153-1154, Henry, by the grace of God, duke of the
Normans and of Aquitaine, and count of the Angevins, addressed
generally. Ricardus de Luci; Apud Westmonasterium.
pg. 516, #1400, 1176, Henry II, Willelmo Arundell'; comite Willelmo de
Maundevill'; Ricardo de Lucy; Bertramo de Verdon. Apud Norhamptonam.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Thanks, Ginny, for posting all these great records regarding Sir
Richard de Lucy and his family. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Richard de Lucy and his family. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
<Thanks, Ginny, for posting all these great records>
You are most welcome. I've learned a lot as I typed and thought about
what I was reading and writing. And, of course, I've learned so very
much from all that others have posted here and the discussions they've
had about various families; procedures and methods of genealogy.
In fact, thanks to the close reading I've done in trying to find links
for others, I think I've found new links and names for my Junguene of
Dol group that I wouldn't have otherwise found. I've family coming to
visit tomorrow for several days so I'll just be reading the list (lots
of prep work to do for their visit, today) -- and not taking the time
from them to post or work on my genealogy or my novel so if anyone has
questions or wants clarification, or a specific document scanned and
sent to their email, I'll be back on Monday, August 8.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've the Calendar of Documents France
918-1206, J. Horace Round, until 31 of August then it's back to ILL.
I'm scanning in some of the foundations that mention a lot of my
possibilities so that if I find a name in the future, I can check it
without having to order the book again. It is very old and fragile --
I feel very blessed that I was able to have it for a while and wonder
how much longer they will allow it to circulate so don't feel certain
that I'll ever be able to check it out again.
Ginny
You are most welcome. I've learned a lot as I typed and thought about
what I was reading and writing. And, of course, I've learned so very
much from all that others have posted here and the discussions they've
had about various families; procedures and methods of genealogy.
In fact, thanks to the close reading I've done in trying to find links
for others, I think I've found new links and names for my Junguene of
Dol group that I wouldn't have otherwise found. I've family coming to
visit tomorrow for several days so I'll just be reading the list (lots
of prep work to do for their visit, today) -- and not taking the time
from them to post or work on my genealogy or my novel so if anyone has
questions or wants clarification, or a specific document scanned and
sent to their email, I'll be back on Monday, August 8.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've the Calendar of Documents France
918-1206, J. Horace Round, until 31 of August then it's back to ILL.
I'm scanning in some of the foundations that mention a lot of my
possibilities so that if I find a name in the future, I can check it
without having to order the book again. It is very old and fragile --
I feel very blessed that I was able to have it for a while and wonder
how much longer they will allow it to circulate so don't feel certain
that I'll ever be able to check it out again.
-
Gjest
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
In a message dated 8/4/05 9:14:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geb@gordonbanks.com writes:
<< Chris's CP correction pages have been wonderful. It would be good to
also have those available for Doug's books, since they are quite
extensive in their coverage and will get more so when he finishes the
other two projected ones. >>
I'm sure Doug is overwhelmed with work, however I would be willing to host
the correction's pages in an area of my site. I have not been keeping track of
corrections, so if anyone wants to send those to me, I'll post them up.
Otherwise corrections to this newsgroup are archived, but not as easy to
search.
Will Johnson
geb@gordonbanks.com writes:
<< Chris's CP correction pages have been wonderful. It would be good to
also have those available for Doug's books, since they are quite
extensive in their coverage and will get more so when he finishes the
other two projected ones. >>
I'm sure Doug is overwhelmed with work, however I would be willing to host
the correction's pages in an area of my site. I have not been keeping track of
corrections, so if anyone wants to send those to me, I'll post them up.
Otherwise corrections to this newsgroup are archived, but not as easy to
search.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
I was skimming through the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", edited by G N Garmonsway,
Charles Tuttle Pub, 1992. And in the Laud Chronicle for 1127 the writer has
some extremely nasty things to say about this Henry of Poitou, there called
"kinsman of the King" [Henry I, King of England 1100-35]
Can someone help me in tracing exactly how Henry of Poitou is related to King
Henry I ?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
Charles Tuttle Pub, 1992. And in the Laud Chronicle for 1127 the writer has
some extremely nasty things to say about this Henry of Poitou, there called
"kinsman of the King" [Henry I, King of England 1100-35]
Can someone help me in tracing exactly how Henry of Poitou is related to King
Henry I ?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
In a message dated 8/4/05 12:00:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< often
knowing someone will take the place of a decade of hard work in the
beginning ... so he could have been born ca. 1115 would be my guess,
give or take 5 years. >>
Thank you Ginny for these references. On the possibility of Richard of Lucy
being born as late as 1120 I present this, posted a few day ago by Doug
Richardson
"charter of King Henry I of England: Date: Feb. 1131. Rouen.
"Notification by Henry I, 'by the grace of God King of the English and Duke
of the Normans' to the Archbishop of Rouen and all of Normandy: That he has
given to SS. Gervase and Protase of Sées, for the use of the bishop, the fee of
Laleu (Alodii) [Orne] which William Goth held and the King bought from his
niece Aveline and her son Richard de Lucy (Luceio),....." {snipped by me Will
Johnson]
If Richard were born so late, I don't know why Henry would feel compelled to
mention an 11-year old child as being a party to buying a fee. Personally I
feel that Richard had to be at least 20 or so at this time.
Anyone have a comment on why the fee was bough "from Aveline AND her son" and
not just one or the other?
I'm not familiar with how these sorts of transactions were supposed to have
gone. Does this imply they were co-heirs? Or perhaps part of the fee was
given to one of them at one time and the other one at another time?
Or what. I'm fairly ignorant on this, but it just struck me as odd.
Thanks
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< often
knowing someone will take the place of a decade of hard work in the
beginning ... so he could have been born ca. 1115 would be my guess,
give or take 5 years. >>
Thank you Ginny for these references. On the possibility of Richard of Lucy
being born as late as 1120 I present this, posted a few day ago by Doug
Richardson
"charter of King Henry I of England: Date: Feb. 1131. Rouen.
"Notification by Henry I, 'by the grace of God King of the English and Duke
of the Normans' to the Archbishop of Rouen and all of Normandy: That he has
given to SS. Gervase and Protase of Sées, for the use of the bishop, the fee of
Laleu (Alodii) [Orne] which William Goth held and the King bought from his
niece Aveline and her son Richard de Lucy (Luceio),....." {snipped by me Will
Johnson]
If Richard were born so late, I don't know why Henry would feel compelled to
mention an 11-year old child as being a party to buying a fee. Personally I
feel that Richard had to be at least 20 or so at this time.
Anyone have a comment on why the fee was bough "from Aveline AND her son" and
not just one or the other?
I'm not familiar with how these sorts of transactions were supposed to have
gone. Does this imply they were co-heirs? Or perhaps part of the fee was
given to one of them at one time and the other one at another time?
Or what. I'm fairly ignorant on this, but it just struck me as odd.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
In a message dated 8/4/05 12:00:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Richard was born ?>
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service >>
Oh another point is that Richard of Lucy died 14 Jul 1179
Per his biography on Wikipedia and I believe that date was repeated here in
this thread a while back.
So those items in 1184/7 could not be his right? Or were they posthumous?
Thanks
Will
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Richard was born ?>
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service >>
Oh another point is that Richard of Lucy died 14 Jul 1179
Per his biography on Wikipedia and I believe that date was repeated here in
this thread a while back.
So those items in 1184/7 could not be his right? Or were they posthumous?
Thanks
Will
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
<So those items in 1184/7 could not be his right? Or were they
posthumous?>
Good catch, Will. His name was only mentioned in 1184-87 in a charter
of Henry II which listed items given to St. Lo of Coutances. Richard
de Lucy definitely wasn't signing this one so it could very well be
after his death.
Ginny
posthumous?>
Good catch, Will. His name was only mentioned in 1184-87 in a charter
of Henry II which listed items given to St. Lo of Coutances. Richard
de Lucy definitely wasn't signing this one so it could very well be
after his death.
-
John Brandon
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
Leo, you sour old fool ....
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
Great Idea.
I am sure there are already quite a few on record.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
I am sure there are already quite a few on record.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
In a message dated 8/4/05 9:14:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geb@gordonbanks.com writes:
Chris's CP correction pages have been wonderful. It would be good to
also have those available for Doug's books, since they are quite
extensive in their coverage and will get more so when he finishes the
other two projected ones.
I'm sure Doug is overwhelmed with work, however I would be willing to host
the correction's pages in an area of my site. I have not been keeping
track of
corrections, so if anyone wants to send those to me, I'll post them up.
Otherwise corrections to this newsgroup are archived, but not as easy to
search.
Will Johnson
-
Randy Jones
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Or was his burial date 14 Apr 1179?
-- Randy Jones
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/4/05 12:00:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Richard was born ?>
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service >>
Oh another point is that Richard of Lucy died 14 Jul 1179
Per his biography on Wikipedia and I believe that date was repeated here in
this thread a while back.
So those items in 1184/7 could not be his right? Or were they posthumous?
Thanks
Will
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
-- Randy Jones
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/4/05 12:00:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Richard was born ?>
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service >>
Oh another point is that Richard of Lucy died 14 Jul 1179
Per his biography on Wikipedia and I believe that date was repeated here in
this thread a while back.
So those items in 1184/7 could not be his right? Or were they posthumous?
Thanks
Will
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Dear Will, Ginny, Randy, Emmett, etc.
Good posts from all of you.
The following is taken from an ancient chronicle of the reign of King
Henry II of England. It concerns Sir Richard de Lucy's retirement in
1179 as Chief Justiciar of England, at which time he became a regular
canon at Lesnes Abbey in Kent.
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Good posts from all of you.
The following is taken from an ancient chronicle of the reign of King
Henry II of England. It concerns Sir Richard de Lucy's retirement in
1179 as Chief Justiciar of England, at which time he became a regular
canon at Lesnes Abbey in Kent.
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/4/05 12:00:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
Richard was born ?
I'm going into a bit more detail, etc. re the Lucys and, as I work my
way through them, maybe we can figure something out if there is
anything to be found. I will say, for the huge number of documents
herein and the long period of time that Lucy was associated with the
monarchs, it is amazing to me how few of these he is a signator of.
1140, under Stephen, is the earliest I saw although there were a
couple of not-dated ones about that time ... 1184-7 was the latest I
found for him which would give him at least 45 years of service
Oh another point is that Richard of Lucy died 14 Jul 1179
Per his biography on Wikipedia and I believe that date was repeated here in
this thread a while back.
So those items in 1184/7 could not be his right? Or were they posthumous?
Thanks
Will
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Dear Leo ~
You're absolutely correct. I don't approve of John Brandon calling you
a fool. But, I don't approve of you calling me a fool either. Being
friendly is what works for me.
Having said that, I encourage you and Spencer Hines to make peace
between yourselves. It's time for all of us to heal our differences.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
I hope you realise you are way off beam by calling me a fool, Richardson
would not approve of that.
Leo van de Pas
Dear Leo ~
You're absolutely correct. I don't approve of John Brandon calling you
a fool. But, I don't approve of you calling me a fool either. Being
friendly is what works for me.
Having said that, I encourage you and Spencer Hines to make peace
between yourselves. It's time for all of us to heal our differences.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
Leo, you sour old fool ....
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123192859.707967.119000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
How exactly do you make out that this concerns Richard de Lucy's retirement,
rather than just a formal tonsuring on his death-bed?
Peter Stewart
news:1123192859.707967.119000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Will, Ginny, Randy, Emmett, etc.
Good posts from all of you.
The following is taken from an ancient chronicle of the reign of King
Henry II of England. It concerns Sir Richard de Lucy's retirement in
1179 as Chief Justiciar of England, at which time he became a regular
canon at Lesnes Abbey in Kent.
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
How exactly do you make out that this concerns Richard de Lucy's retirement,
rather than just a formal tonsuring on his death-bed?
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
My killfiler is not working properly and so I saw this gracious message.
John what are you referring to? You think it stupid that I try to help
Richardson by pointing out descrepancies? Or am I fool not to call them
_bloopers_?
I think it is the collegial thing to do to point out errors. I get them all
the time and am very grateful, and so should Richardson be. I always
acknowledge them, does Richardson?
I think the production of Richardson's book is superb and it deserves a
reprint as long as corrections and additions are incorporated.
I hope you realise you are way off beam by calling me a fool, Richardson
would not approve of that. But then I suppose I am foolish for trying to
take Richardson serious, of course, I don't take you or Hines serious and
both are killfiled.
The best----as always.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
John what are you referring to? You think it stupid that I try to help
Richardson by pointing out descrepancies? Or am I fool not to call them
_bloopers_?
I think it is the collegial thing to do to point out errors. I get them all
the time and am very grateful, and so should Richardson be. I always
acknowledge them, does Richardson?
I think the production of Richardson's book is superb and it deserves a
reprint as long as corrections and additions are incorporated.
I hope you realise you are way off beam by calling me a fool, Richardson
would not approve of that. But then I suppose I am foolish for trying to
take Richardson serious, of course, I don't take you or Hines serious and
both are killfiled.
The best----as always.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
Leo, you sour old fool ....
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Peter Stewart wrote:
Dear Peter ~
When you have a moment, can you provide us with an axact translation of
the Latin? I know everyone would appreciate it, especially me. We're
here to learn and make friends.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1123192859.707967.119000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Will, Ginny, Randy, Emmett, etc.
Good posts from all of you.
The following is taken from an ancient chronicle of the reign of King
Henry II of England. It concerns Sir Richard de Lucy's retirement in
1179 as Chief Justiciar of England, at which time he became a regular
canon at Lesnes Abbey in Kent.
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
How exactly do you make out that this concerns Richard de Lucy's retirement,
rather than just a formal tonsuring on his death-bed?
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
When you have a moment, can you provide us with an axact translation of
the Latin? I know everyone would appreciate it, especially me. We're
here to learn and make friends.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Dear Will ~
There is an online version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the
following website:
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/1124-27.html
The online transcript indicates that Henry of Poitou was kinsman to
both King Henry I of England and to Guillaume, Count of Poitou:
Year: 1127
"He [Henry of Poitou] was in his clerical state Bishop of Soissons;
afterwards monk of Clugny; and then prior in the same monastery.
Afterwards he became prior of Sevigny; and then, because he was a
relation of the King of
England, and of the Earl of Poitou, the earl gave him the abbacy
of St. John's minster of Angeli."
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from the
Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of Poitou
shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify Henry of
Poitou's parentage?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is an online version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the
following website:
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/1124-27.html
The online transcript indicates that Henry of Poitou was kinsman to
both King Henry I of England and to Guillaume, Count of Poitou:
Year: 1127
"He [Henry of Poitou] was in his clerical state Bishop of Soissons;
afterwards monk of Clugny; and then prior in the same monastery.
Afterwards he became prior of Sevigny; and then, because he was a
relation of the King of
England, and of the Earl of Poitou, the earl gave him the abbacy
of St. John's minster of Angeli."
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from the
Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of Poitou
shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify Henry of
Poitou's parentage?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I was skimming through the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", edited by G N Garmonsway,
Charles Tuttle Pub, 1992. And in the Laud Chronicle for 1127 the writer has
some extremely nasty things to say about this Henry of Poitou, there called
"kinsman of the King" [Henry I, King of England 1100-35]
Can someone help me in tracing exactly how Henry of Poitou is related to King
Henry I ?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Richardson wrote:
<snip>
No dice - if you post Latin claiming it means something you ought first
to know what that is and how it is construed. This is a very simple
passage, and you have represented yourself as highly practiced in
reading and understanding such narratives.
I am not here to make friends with you, and anyway by your own account
you are deeply learned already.
Anyone who bandies arguments about Latin as written in England in the
12th century, for instance with "cognatus", and who purports to call
another sgm poster a "charlatan and fraud" over this matter can do his
own work, unaided.
That includes the hard and unavailing work of posing as a peacemaker
here, as well as an expert.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
When you have a moment, can you provide us with an axact translation
of the Latin? I know everyone would appreciate it, especially me. We're
here to learn and make friends.
No dice - if you post Latin claiming it means something you ought first
to know what that is and how it is construed. This is a very simple
passage, and you have represented yourself as highly practiced in
reading and understanding such narratives.
I am not here to make friends with you, and anyway by your own account
you are deeply learned already.
Anyone who bandies arguments about Latin as written in England in the
12th century, for instance with "cognatus", and who purports to call
another sgm poster a "charlatan and fraud" over this matter can do his
own work, unaided.
That includes the hard and unavailing work of posing as a peacemaker
here, as well as an expert.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham executed 1483
Dear Will ~
If you have a correction, I recommend you submit it to the appropriate
record office. I do this several times a year. I usually have a
prompt response with a nice thank you, accompanied by a statement that
the catalog has been corrected after a careful review.
One correction I submitted in recent time to the PRO concerned the date
of the dispensation of King Henry VIII and one of his wives. I felt
sure the catalog had the wrong date for the document. The PRO checked
the original and found that it had in fact been misdated. They thanked
me and made the necessary change.
Collegiality is a great thing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
If you have a correction, I recommend you submit it to the appropriate
record office. I do this several times a year. I usually have a
prompt response with a nice thank you, accompanied by a statement that
the catalog has been corrected after a careful review.
One correction I submitted in recent time to the PRO concerned the date
of the dispensation of King Henry VIII and one of his wives. I felt
sure the catalog had the wrong date for the document. The PRO checked
the original and found that it had in fact been misdated. They thanked
me and made the necessary change.
Collegiality is a great thing.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Maybe we need pages showing corrections to the misc. A2A notes people have
scribbled in margins ...
See this
Thornbury Estate
Catalogue Ref. D108
Creator(s): Stafford family of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire
Howard family of Gloucestershire
THE MANOR OF THORNBURY
Stewards' Papers
Custumals
FILE [no title] - ref. D108/M138 - date: [18th cent.]
[from Scope and Content] [18th century] copy of custumal of 1486
enacted by Henry VII during the tenure of Jaspar Tudor, Earl of Pembroke and
confirmed by Henry VIII [Jaspar Tudor married Lady Katherine, widow of Henry,
2nd Duke of Buckingham (beheaded by Richard III in 1463). The estates were
restored to Edward, 3rd Duke of Buckingham by Henry VII in 1486
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My corrections :
1) Richard III was not king in 1463. Richard III was king from 1483-5,
evidently what is mean here is that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was executed
in 1483 instead of 1463.
2) It is doubtful that Edward was actually styled "Duke of Buckingham" IN
1486 as here stated, since Edward was only 7 or 8 at that time
3) It is doubtful that Henry actually restored the estates TO Edward but
perhaps to Jasper Tudor as ward of Edward or something like that.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Richardson wrote:
<snip>
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
Peter Stewart
<snip>
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
Henry of Poitou's parentage?
From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham executed 1483
Maybe we need pages showing corrections to the misc. A2A notes people have
scribbled in margins ...
See this
Thornbury Estate
Catalogue Ref. D108
Creator(s): Stafford family of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire
Howard family of Gloucestershire
THE MANOR OF THORNBURY
Stewards' Papers
Custumals
FILE [no title] - ref. D108/M138 - date: [18th cent.]
[from Scope and Content] [18th century] copy of custumal of 1486
enacted by Henry VII during the tenure of Jaspar Tudor, Earl of Pembroke and
confirmed by Henry VIII [Jaspar Tudor married Lady Katherine, widow of Henry,
2nd Duke of Buckingham (beheaded by Richard III in 1463). The estates were
restored to Edward, 3rd Duke of Buckingham by Henry VII in 1486
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My corrections :
1) Richard III was not king in 1463. Richard III was king from 1483-5,
evidently what is mean here is that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was executed
in 1483 instead of 1463.
2) It is doubtful that Edward was actually styled "Duke of Buckingham" IN
1486 as here stated, since Edward was only 7 or 8 at that time
3) It is doubtful that Henry actually restored the estates TO Edward but
perhaps to Jasper Tudor as ward of Edward or something like that.
Will Johnson
scribbled in margins ...
See this
Thornbury Estate
Catalogue Ref. D108
Creator(s): Stafford family of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire
Howard family of Gloucestershire
THE MANOR OF THORNBURY
Stewards' Papers
Custumals
FILE [no title] - ref. D108/M138 - date: [18th cent.]
[from Scope and Content] [18th century] copy of custumal of 1486
enacted by Henry VII during the tenure of Jaspar Tudor, Earl of Pembroke and
confirmed by Henry VIII [Jaspar Tudor married Lady Katherine, widow of Henry,
2nd Duke of Buckingham (beheaded by Richard III in 1463). The estates were
restored to Edward, 3rd Duke of Buckingham by Henry VII in 1486
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My corrections :
1) Richard III was not king in 1463. Richard III was king from 1483-5,
evidently what is mean here is that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was executed
in 1483 instead of 1463.
2) It is doubtful that Edward was actually styled "Duke of Buckingham" IN
1486 as here stated, since Edward was only 7 or 8 at that time
3) It is doubtful that Henry actually restored the estates TO Edward but
perhaps to Jasper Tudor as ward of Edward or something like that.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfiel
In a message dated 8/4/05 12:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson writes:
<< Perhaps their marriages were allowed to Richard [Wingfield], since Edward
Stafford did not marry until 1500 and his sister Anne Stafford in Dec 1509
to the apparently much younger George of Hastings, 1st Earl of Huntingdon. >>
To answer my own implied question on who got the wardship of Edward Stafford
later 3rd Duke of Buckingham.
Records of the Bagot Family of Blithfield, Barons Bagot
Catalogue Ref. D(W)1721/2-3, 986 D3259-3260, D3943, D4038. 4381 and D5121
Creator(s): Bagot family of Blithfield, Staffordshire
Bagot Collection -- Stafford Manuscripts
FILE - Register of Edward, Lord Stafford. - ref. D(W)1721/1/11 [n.d.]
item: Creations, Royal Grants of Land, Pedigrees etc. - ref.
D(W)1721/1/11/210 - date: [1485]
[from Scope and Content] Grant of wardship of Edward, son of Duke of
Buckingham, to Margaret, Duchess of Richmond, his great aunt
<< Perhaps their marriages were allowed to Richard [Wingfield], since Edward
Stafford did not marry until 1500 and his sister Anne Stafford in Dec 1509
to the apparently much younger George of Hastings, 1st Earl of Huntingdon. >>
To answer my own implied question on who got the wardship of Edward Stafford
later 3rd Duke of Buckingham.
Records of the Bagot Family of Blithfield, Barons Bagot
Catalogue Ref. D(W)1721/2-3, 986 D3259-3260, D3943, D4038. 4381 and D5121
Creator(s): Bagot family of Blithfield, Staffordshire
Bagot Collection -- Stafford Manuscripts
FILE - Register of Edward, Lord Stafford. - ref. D(W)1721/1/11 [n.d.]
item: Creations, Royal Grants of Land, Pedigrees etc. - ref.
D(W)1721/1/11/210 - date: [1485]
[from Scope and Content] Grant of wardship of Edward, son of Duke of
Buckingham, to Margaret, Duchess of Richmond, his great aunt
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfiel
In a message dated 8/4/05 5:18:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< [from Scope and Content] Grant of wardship of Edward, son of Duke
of
Buckingham, to Margaret, Duchess of Richmond, his great aunt >>
I should further identify this person for those who would be lost by this
distant relation.
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond was the widow of Edmund Tudor, 1st
Duke of Richmond who d 1 Nov 1456. Margaret herself not dying until 29 Jun 1509.
They were the parents of King Henry VII of England.
But I'm a little confused on her being identified as his "great-aunt"
Can I identify the exact manner in which she is his great-aunt?
In order to be a great-aunt, you must be the sister of one of my four
grandparents.
Edward's four grandparents were:
Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford d abt 1459 vp
Margaret Beaufort d 1474
Richard Widville, 1st Earl Rivers d 12 Aug 1469
Jacquetta of Luxembourg [of St Pol] d 30 May 1472
Since Margaret was a Beaufort, she must be a relation to the Margaret who d
1474.
But how can she be her sister?
Comments?
Will Johnson
writes:
<< [from Scope and Content] Grant of wardship of Edward, son of Duke
of
Buckingham, to Margaret, Duchess of Richmond, his great aunt >>
I should further identify this person for those who would be lost by this
distant relation.
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond was the widow of Edmund Tudor, 1st
Duke of Richmond who d 1 Nov 1456. Margaret herself not dying until 29 Jun 1509.
They were the parents of King Henry VII of England.
But I'm a little confused on her being identified as his "great-aunt"
Can I identify the exact manner in which she is his great-aunt?
In order to be a great-aunt, you must be the sister of one of my four
grandparents.
Edward's four grandparents were:
Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford d abt 1459 vp
Margaret Beaufort d 1474
Richard Widville, 1st Earl Rivers d 12 Aug 1469
Jacquetta of Luxembourg [of St Pol] d 30 May 1472
Since Margaret was a Beaufort, she must be a relation to the Margaret who d
1474.
But how can she be her sister?
Comments?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
In a message dated 8/4/05 5:24:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< >From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor). >>
How fascinating.
I had Dangereuse in my database twice, never realizing that the wife of
Aumary was the mistress of Guillaume.
Eleanor child of Dangereuse and Aumary, married William Duke of Aquitaine 1121
her mother's lover's son ....
Seems a bit on the unusual side.
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< >From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor). >>
How fascinating.
I had Dangereuse in my database twice, never realizing that the wife of
Aumary was the mistress of Guillaume.
Eleanor child of Dangereuse and Aumary, married William Duke of Aquitaine 1121
her mother's lover's son ....
Seems a bit on the unusual side.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfiel
You must not forget that this Margaret Beaufort also was married to Lord
Henry Stafford a younger son of the 1st Duke of Buckingham which makes her a
great-aunt (by marriage) of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
Hope this helps.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfield
lineage
Henry Stafford a younger son of the 1st Duke of Buckingham which makes her a
great-aunt (by marriage) of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
Hope this helps.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfield
lineage
In a message dated 8/4/05 5:18:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
[from Scope and Content] Grant of wardship of Edward, son of
Duke
of
Buckingham, to Margaret, Duchess of Richmond, his great aunt
I should further identify this person for those who would be lost by this
distant relation.
Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond was the widow of Edmund Tudor, 1st
Duke of Richmond who d 1 Nov 1456. Margaret herself not dying until 29
Jun 1509.
They were the parents of King Henry VII of England.
But I'm a little confused on her being identified as his "great-aunt"
Can I identify the exact manner in which she is his great-aunt?
In order to be a great-aunt, you must be the sister of one of my four
grandparents.
Edward's four grandparents were:
Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford d abt 1459 vp
Margaret Beaufort d 1474
Richard Widville, 1st Earl Rivers d 12 Aug 1469
Jacquetta of Luxembourg [of St Pol] d 30 May 1472
Since Margaret was a Beaufort, she must be a relation to the Margaret who
d
1474.
But how can she be her sister?
Comments?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfiel
Here is another entry, bearing on the disposition of Edward (and his
inheritence) after his father's execution
FETHERSTON-DILKE OF MAXSTOKE
Catalogue Ref. CR 2981
Creator(s): Fetherston-Dilke family of Maxstoke, Warwickshire
Dilke, Fetherston-, family of Maxstoke, Warwickshire
Dining Room
Cabinet under left-hand window
Drawer 6
FILE - Maxstoke, Tysoe, Wootton Wawen and Lawford: accounts of the following
ministers: William Trussell, bailiff of Maxstoke, for one year ending at
Michaelmas, 1487, for the castle and manor of Maxstoke (William Trussell, esq., was
appointed by letters patent dated 15 Feb. 1486); Henry Clerke, bailiff and
reeve of Tysoe, for one year ending at Michaelmas 1487 (fees include that of
William Harpour, appointed steward by letters patent dated 14 Nov. 1485 of all
lands late of Henry Duke of Buckingham during minority of Edward his heir);
Richard Botiller, bailiff and rent gatherer of Wootton Wawen, for one year ending
Mich. 1487; John Mervyn, bailiff and farmer of Lawford, for one year ending
Mich. 1487 (the farm of the site of the manor of Church Lawford is included). -
ref. CR 2981/Dining Room/Cabinet/Drawer 6/12 - date: 1487
Will Johnson
inheritence) after his father's execution
FETHERSTON-DILKE OF MAXSTOKE
Catalogue Ref. CR 2981
Creator(s): Fetherston-Dilke family of Maxstoke, Warwickshire
Dilke, Fetherston-, family of Maxstoke, Warwickshire
Dining Room
Cabinet under left-hand window
Drawer 6
FILE - Maxstoke, Tysoe, Wootton Wawen and Lawford: accounts of the following
ministers: William Trussell, bailiff of Maxstoke, for one year ending at
Michaelmas, 1487, for the castle and manor of Maxstoke (William Trussell, esq., was
appointed by letters patent dated 15 Feb. 1486); Henry Clerke, bailiff and
reeve of Tysoe, for one year ending at Michaelmas 1487 (fees include that of
William Harpour, appointed steward by letters patent dated 14 Nov. 1485 of all
lands late of Henry Duke of Buckingham during minority of Edward his heir);
Richard Botiller, bailiff and rent gatherer of Wootton Wawen, for one year ending
Mich. 1487; John Mervyn, bailiff and farmer of Lawford, for one year ending
Mich. 1487 (the farm of the site of the manor of Church Lawford is included). -
ref. CR 2981/Dining Room/Cabinet/Drawer 6/12 - date: 1487
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and the Wingfiel
In a message dated 8/4/05 5:49:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< You must not forget that this Margaret Beaufort also was married to Lord
Henry Stafford a younger son of the 1st Duke of Buckingham which makes her a
great-aunt (by marriage) of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham. >>
There it is... thank you Leo.
I had not thought about the possibility of being a great-aunt-by-marriage.
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< You must not forget that this Margaret Beaufort also was married to Lord
Henry Stafford a younger son of the 1st Duke of Buckingham which makes her a
great-aunt (by marriage) of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham. >>
There it is... thank you Leo.
I had not thought about the possibility of being a great-aunt-by-marriage.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Dear Peter, Douglas, Will and others,
Henry of Poitou
appears to have been a second cousin once removed to King Henry I of England due
to mutual descents from King Robert II of France, who was father of Adele, wife
of Count Baldwin V of Flanders and of Duke Robert I of Burgundy, grandfather
of Maud of Flanders, wife of King William I of England and of Hildegarde of
Burgundy, wife of Guilhem VIII and VI, Duke of Aquaitaine and Count of Poitou,
Great grandfather of King Henry I of England and of Guilhem IX and VII ,
Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Poitou and Great Great Grandfather of Henry of
Poitou, Abbot of Petersborough
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Henry of Poitou
appears to have been a second cousin once removed to King Henry I of England due
to mutual descents from King Robert II of France, who was father of Adele, wife
of Count Baldwin V of Flanders and of Duke Robert I of Burgundy, grandfather
of Maud of Flanders, wife of King William I of England and of Hildegarde of
Burgundy, wife of Guilhem VIII and VI, Duke of Aquaitaine and Count of Poitou,
Great grandfather of King Henry I of England and of Guilhem IX and VII ,
Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Poitou and Great Great Grandfather of Henry of
Poitou, Abbot of Petersborough
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Richard Devereux marries Dorothy Hastings settlement
Looking for documents on the disposition of Anne Stafford, sister to Edward
whom I've been talking about. I decided to search on her husband George
Hastings, probably first called Lord Hastings but later 1st Earl of Huntingdon who d
24 Mar 1544
At any rate, I happend to accidently fall upon something which is actually
more central to my main focus. That is, the marriage settlement of Sir Richard
Devereux, son of Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford (who d 17 Feb 1588)
and his wife Mary Grey (dau of Thomas, 1st Marquess of Dorset who d 20 Sep 1501)
This couple Richard Devereux and Dorothy Hastings were the parents of at least
Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex
Elizabeth Devereux who mar 1564 John Vernon of Hodnet
Here is the information from A2A
DEVEREUX PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. DE
Creator(s): Devereux family, Earls of Essex
FILE [no title] - ref. DE/VOL. III - date: 1536-1625
[from Scope and Content] 1. Settlement on the marriage of Richard Devereux,
son and heir of Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, and Dorothy,
daughter of George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon; 1 July, 28 Hen. VIII 1536. Copy. f.1.
Will Johnson
whom I've been talking about. I decided to search on her husband George
Hastings, probably first called Lord Hastings but later 1st Earl of Huntingdon who d
24 Mar 1544
At any rate, I happend to accidently fall upon something which is actually
more central to my main focus. That is, the marriage settlement of Sir Richard
Devereux, son of Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford (who d 17 Feb 1588)
and his wife Mary Grey (dau of Thomas, 1st Marquess of Dorset who d 20 Sep 1501)
This couple Richard Devereux and Dorothy Hastings were the parents of at least
Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex
Elizabeth Devereux who mar 1564 John Vernon of Hodnet
Here is the information from A2A
DEVEREUX PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. DE
Creator(s): Devereux family, Earls of Essex
FILE [no title] - ref. DE/VOL. III - date: 1536-1625
[from Scope and Content] 1. Settlement on the marriage of Richard Devereux,
son and heir of Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, and Dorothy,
daughter of George Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon; 1 July, 28 Hen. VIII 1536. Copy. f.1.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Richard Devereux marries Dorothy Hastings settlement
Give that lady another 20 years!
Having bad to zero dates on Dorothy Hastings, widow of Sir Richard Devereux
and daughter of George Hastings, 1st Earl of Huntingdon (who d 24 Mar 1544), I
was lucky enough to find this, who shows she was still living, unmarried
apparently in 1562/3
DEVEREUX PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. DE
Creator(s): Devereux family, Earls of Essex
FILE [no title] - ref. DE/BOX I/36 - date: 1562-1563
[from Scope and Content] Grant by William Willoughby, Lord Willoughby of
Parham [whom Margaret, widow of the 1st Viscount Hereford] to Dorothy, widow of
Sir Richard Devereux, of an annuity of £11. Dat. 1 Mar. 5 Eliz. Signed; with
seal.
Will Johnson
Having bad to zero dates on Dorothy Hastings, widow of Sir Richard Devereux
and daughter of George Hastings, 1st Earl of Huntingdon (who d 24 Mar 1544), I
was lucky enough to find this, who shows she was still living, unmarried
apparently in 1562/3
DEVEREUX PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. DE
Creator(s): Devereux family, Earls of Essex
FILE [no title] - ref. DE/BOX I/36 - date: 1562-1563
[from Scope and Content] Grant by William Willoughby, Lord Willoughby of
Parham [whom Margaret, widow of the 1st Viscount Hereford] to Dorothy, widow of
Sir Richard Devereux, of an annuity of £11. Dat. 1 Mar. 5 Eliz. Signed; with
seal.
Will Johnson
-
John Brandon
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
Leo, I am calling you exactly what you are--a very tedious, senile old
fool.
Please stop sending all those emails to my private email address.
fool.
Please stop sending all those emails to my private email address.
-
John Brandon
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
After this message you are back in the killfile, where you belong.
Thank goodness, you silly old bitch.
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Stafford , 2nd Duke of Buckingham executed 1483
What do you all make of this document?
This person is gifting all of his possessions, to in part Henry Stafford
later the 2nd Duke (son of Humphrey).
Does this imply some kind of kinship?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Copley Papers
Catalogue Ref. SY570/Z
Creator(s): Copley family of Rotherham, West Riding of Yorkshire
Title Deeds
Deeds re Staffordshire
FILE - Gift - ref. SY570/Z/3/1 - date: 27 September 1461
[from Scope and Content] By Robert Boghay to Lord Henry Stafford,
son of Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham, Hugh Eggerton, John Harecourt, John Leegh
of Bothes, Hugh Davenport, Hugh Erdeswyk and Ralph Bostok, esqs., of all his
goods and chattels, moveable and immoveable, whatsoever, in the County of
Stafford and elsewhere
This person is gifting all of his possessions, to in part Henry Stafford
later the 2nd Duke (son of Humphrey).
Does this imply some kind of kinship?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Copley Papers
Catalogue Ref. SY570/Z
Creator(s): Copley family of Rotherham, West Riding of Yorkshire
Title Deeds
Deeds re Staffordshire
FILE - Gift - ref. SY570/Z/3/1 - date: 27 September 1461
[from Scope and Content] By Robert Boghay to Lord Henry Stafford,
son of Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham, Hugh Eggerton, John Harecourt, John Leegh
of Bothes, Hugh Davenport, Hugh Erdeswyk and Ralph Bostok, esqs., of all his
goods and chattels, moveable and immoveable, whatsoever, in the County of
Stafford and elsewhere
-
Gjest
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
In a message dated 8/4/05 5:09:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< Year: 1127
"He [Henry of Poitou] was in his clerical state Bishop of Soissons;
afterwards monk of Clugny; and then prior in the same monastery.
Afterwards he became prior of Sevigny; and then, because he was a
relation of the King of
England, and of the Earl of Poitou, the earl gave him the abbacy
of St. John's minster of Angeli." >>
Doug that's an exceeding tame version of what I just read in my edition
The writer basically equates Henry of Poitou to Satan or being in league with
Satan although he does it in an oblique manner.
Tomorrow, if someone prompts me, I can type out the complete section on
1127-1130 which says very nasty things about Henry of Poitou.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< Year: 1127
"He [Henry of Poitou] was in his clerical state Bishop of Soissons;
afterwards monk of Clugny; and then prior in the same monastery.
Afterwards he became prior of Sevigny; and then, because he was a
relation of the King of
England, and of the Earl of Poitou, the earl gave him the abbacy
of St. John's minster of Angeli." >>
Doug that's an exceeding tame version of what I just read in my edition
The writer basically equates Henry of Poitou to Satan or being in league with
Satan although he does it in an oblique manner.
Tomorrow, if someone prompts me, I can type out the complete section on
1127-1130 which says very nasty things about Henry of Poitou.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
Those emails were to show you that there are many more errors in the book of
Douglas Richardson, not just the odd one. After this message you are back in
the killfile, where you belong.
..
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
Douglas Richardson, not just the odd one. After this message you are back in
the killfile, where you belong.
..
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy and
Rohese of Bou...
Leo, I am calling you exactly what you are--a very tedious, senile old
fool.
Please stop sending all those emails to my private email address.
-
Gjest
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
On Leo's great website at this specific link
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford, he was also Lord Ferrers of
Chartley. Leo's shows his death 17 Feb 1558
I had previously mentioned how one of his sons William was alive in 1551
I have now found a document which seems to imply that Walter did not die in
1558 but in fact was still alive in 1568.
And I believe the William Devereux, Knt mentioned must be still this same son
of his.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------------------
Adderley family of Hams Hall, Warwickshire (Baron Norton)
Catalogue Ref. MS 917
Creator(s): Adderley family, Barons Norton of Fillongley, Warwickshire
TITLE DEEDS TO LAND
Warwickshire
Lea Marston
Ouston Grange
FILE - Bargain and sale. Walter, Viscount Hereford, Lord Ferrers
of Chartley, to William Devereux, Knt., a farm or grange called Owreston
graunge, co. War., with lands and appurtenances in Merevale, Owreston, Shustocke,
Curdworth and Dunton, co. War. (Please order number 166) - ref. MS 917/2374 -
date: 18 November 11 Eliz I [1568]
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford, he was also Lord Ferrers of
Chartley. Leo's shows his death 17 Feb 1558
I had previously mentioned how one of his sons William was alive in 1551
I have now found a document which seems to imply that Walter did not die in
1558 but in fact was still alive in 1568.
And I believe the William Devereux, Knt mentioned must be still this same son
of his.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------------------
Adderley family of Hams Hall, Warwickshire (Baron Norton)
Catalogue Ref. MS 917
Creator(s): Adderley family, Barons Norton of Fillongley, Warwickshire
TITLE DEEDS TO LAND
Warwickshire
Lea Marston
Ouston Grange
FILE - Bargain and sale. Walter, Viscount Hereford, Lord Ferrers
of Chartley, to William Devereux, Knt., a farm or grange called Owreston
graunge, co. War., with lands and appurtenances in Merevale, Owreston, Shustocke,
Curdworth and Dunton, co. War. (Please order number 166) - ref. MS 917/2374 -
date: 18 November 11 Eliz I [1568]
-
Gjest
Re: Richardson slip? Re: Descendants of Sir Richard de Lucy
To the newsgroup
Everyone at one time or another has said some most hateful things to
each other. What needs to be done is either this apologizes or don't
apologizes. Just move on. I will use a saying I say at work. You don't
have to like every person you come in contact with but you have to try
to get along. The same goes here.
Mike Welch
Everyone at one time or another has said some most hateful things to
each other. What needs to be done is either this apologizes or don't
apologizes. Just move on. I will use a saying I say at work. You don't
have to like every person you come in contact with but you have to try
to get along. The same goes here.
Mike Welch
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
Dear Will,
Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O 28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned.
I am changing my date to 17 September.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O 28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned.
I am changing my date to 17 September.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
On Leo's great website at this specific link
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford, he was also Lord Ferrers of
Chartley. Leo's shows his death 17 Feb 1558
I had previously mentioned how one of his sons William was alive in 1551
I have now found a document which seems to imply that Walter did not die
in
1558 but in fact was still alive in 1568.
And I believe the William Devereux, Knt mentioned must be still this same
son
of his.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------------------
Adderley family of Hams Hall, Warwickshire (Baron Norton)
Catalogue Ref. MS 917
Creator(s): Adderley family, Barons Norton of Fillongley, Warwickshire
TITLE DEEDS TO LAND
Warwickshire
Lea Marston
Ouston Grange
FILE - Bargain and sale. Walter, Viscount Hereford, Lord
Ferrers
of Chartley, to William Devereux, Knt., a farm or grange called Owreston
graunge, co. War., with lands and appurtenances in Merevale, Owreston,
Shustocke,
Curdworth and Dunton, co. War. (Please order number 166) - ref. MS
917/2374 -
date: 18 November 11 Eliz I [1568]
-
Gjest
Re: Update to genealogics William Devereux, son of Walter Vi
Yes my slippery fingers were too excited and mistyped in the explation, but
the document does state son of Walter as you said
Thanks for the correction
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:35:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Oooops, you mean son of Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:24 PM
Subject: Update to genealogics William Devereux, son of William Viscount
Hereford b 1488
the document does state son of Walter as you said
Thanks for the correction
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:35:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Oooops, you mean son of Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:24 PM
Subject: Update to genealogics William Devereux, son of William Viscount
Hereford b 1488
On Leo's great website William Devereux is one of the sons of William
Devereux, Viscount Hereford who was b 1488/9
No dates are given for this William, the son. I have now found a document
which shows that he was still living in 1551
-
Gjest
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
Would the explanation then be:
1) that this document is a rewriting of the bargain and sale, ten years after
it happened?
2) Or there was an addition Walter Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers of
Chartley still living in 1468 ?
3) Or the extracter mistread 11 Eliz for 1 Eliz ?
Comments?
Thanks
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:41:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Dear Will,
Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O 28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned.
I am changing my date to 17 September.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
1) that this document is a rewriting of the bargain and sale, ten years after
it happened?
2) Or there was an addition Walter Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers of
Chartley still living in 1468 ?
3) Or the extracter mistread 11 Eliz for 1 Eliz ?
Comments?
Thanks
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:41:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Dear Will,
Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O 28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned.
I am changing my date to 17 September.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
On Leo's great website at this specific link
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford, he was also Lord Ferrers of
Chartley. Leo's shows his death 17 Feb 1558
I had previously mentioned how one of his sons William was alive in 1551
I have now found a document which seems to imply that Walter did not die
in
1558 but in fact was still alive in 1568.
And I believe the William Devereux, Knt mentioned must be still this same
son
of his.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------------------
Adderley family of Hams Hall, Warwickshire (Baron Norton)
Catalogue Ref. MS 917
Creator(s): Adderley family, Barons Norton of Fillongley, Warwickshire
TITLE DEEDS TO LAND
Warwickshire
Lea Marston
Ouston Grange
FILE - Bargain and sale. Walter, Viscount Hereford, Lord
Ferrers
of Chartley, to William Devereux, Knt., a farm or grange called Owreston
graunge, co. War., with lands and appurtenances in Merevale, Owreston,
Shustocke,
Curdworth and Dunton, co. War. (Please order number 166) - ref. MS
917/2374 -
date: 18 November 11 Eliz I [1568]
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
Another slip. You mean 2) 1568?
In 1568 we have a Walter Devereux, 2nd Viscount Hereford and later 1st Earl
of Essex, son of Sir Richard (died 1547) son of Walter Devereux, 1st
Viscount Hereford. (died 1558).
Does this change things?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
In 1568 we have a Walter Devereux, 2nd Viscount Hereford and later 1st Earl
of Essex, son of Sir Richard (died 1547) son of Walter Devereux, 1st
Viscount Hereford. (died 1558).
Does this change things?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
Would the explanation then be:
1) that this document is a rewriting of the bargain and sale, ten years
after
it happened?
2) Or there was an addition Walter Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers of
Chartley still living in 1468 ?
3) Or the extracter mistread 11 Eliz for 1 Eliz ?
Comments?
Thanks
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:41:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Dear Will,
Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O
28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned.
I am changing my date to 17 September.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
On Leo's great website at this specific link
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see Walter Devereux, 1st Viscount Hereford, he was also Lord Ferrers
of
Chartley. Leo's shows his death 17 Feb 1558
I had previously mentioned how one of his sons William was alive in 1551
I have now found a document which seems to imply that Walter did not die
in
1558 but in fact was still alive in 1568.
And I believe the William Devereux, Knt mentioned must be still this
same
son
of his.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------------------
Adderley family of Hams Hall, Warwickshire (Baron Norton)
Catalogue Ref. MS 917
Creator(s): Adderley family, Barons Norton of Fillongley, Warwickshire
TITLE DEEDS TO LAND
Warwickshire
Lea Marston
Ouston Grange
FILE - Bargain and sale. Walter, Viscount Hereford, Lord
Ferrers
of Chartley, to William Devereux, Knt., a farm or grange called Owreston
graunge, co. War., with lands and appurtenances in Merevale, Owreston,
Shustocke,
Curdworth and Dunton, co. War. (Please order number 166) - ref. MS
917/2374 -
date: 18 November 11 Eliz I [1568]
-
Gjest
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
In a message dated 8/4/2005 9:32:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Was he also in 1568 Lord Ferrers of Chartley ?
If so then maybe this document is for him.
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
In 1568 we have a Walter Devereux, 2nd Viscount Hereford and later 1st Earl
of Essex, son of Sir Richard (died 1547) son of Walter Devereux, 1st
Viscount Hereford. (died 1558).
Does this change things?
Leo
Was he also in 1568 Lord Ferrers of Chartley ?
If so then maybe this document is for him.
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68.5aedc413.3024716b@aol.com...
Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well after
Easter 1179.
He may have intended to retire as a layman, with the idea of accepting the
order on his deathbed later on. There is nothing to say he enjoyed any
particular interval between retirement and death, or that he ever
"functioned" as a canon, but only that having become one he died.
Peter Stewart
news:68.5aedc413.3024716b@aol.com...
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
(cited by Douglas Richardson)
Peter Stewart then asked how DR makes out that this concerns Richard
de Lucy's retirement, rather than just a formal tonsuring on his
death-bed?
Perhaps, if we can agree the translation, the text itself will tell us the
answer.
I venture the following:-
"And after Easter Richard de Lucy, who for a long time had continued as
"Justice in England, preferring to serve God rather than an earthly king,
"by the will of the king- who had long resisted- deposed himself from that
"high power which he had enjoyed, and after being made a canon in ordinary
in
"the Abbey of Lesnes, which he himself had founded on his own estate,
"ended his days.
If that is an acceptable translation, I would infer that Richard retired
with
the king's permission, and thereafter functioned as a canon for a while
before his death
Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well after
Easter 1179.
He may have intended to retire as a layman, with the idea of accepting the
order on his deathbed later on. There is nothing to say he enjoyed any
particular interval between retirement and death, or that he ever
"functioned" as a canon, but only that having become one he died.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re:more Lucy -- Richard mostly
Will Johnson wrote:-
<snip>
<Anyone have a comment on why the fee was bought
< "from Aveline AND her son" not just one or the other?
<snip>
One easy explanation would be that Aveline was a widow
entitled to dower out of the estate of her husband (Richard's
father) and that Richard was his father's heir. Both Richard
and Aveline would then have interests in the land, and both
would be needed to join in the sale.
MM
<snip>
<Anyone have a comment on why the fee was bought
< "from Aveline AND her son" not just one or the other?
<snip>
One easy explanation would be that Aveline was a widow
entitled to dower out of the estate of her husband (Richard's
father) and that Richard was his father's heir. Both Richard
and Aveline would then have interests in the land, and both
would be needed to join in the sale.
MM
-
Gjest
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
(cited by Douglas Richardson)
Peter Stewart then asked how DR makes out that this concerns Richard
de Lucy's retirement, rather than just a formal tonsuring on his death-bed?
Perhaps, if we can agree the translation, the text itself will tell us the
answer.
I venture the following:-
"And after Easter Richard de Lucy, who for a long time had continued as
"Justice in England, preferring to serve God rather than an earthly king,
"by the will of the king- who had long resisted- deposed himself from that
"high power which he had enjoyed, and after being made a canon in ordinary in
"the Abbey of Lesnes, which he himself had founded on his own estate,
"ended his days.
If that is an acceptable translation, I would infer that Richard retired with
the king's permission, and thereafter functioned as a canon for a while
before his death
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:15a.55f9e444.3024a9f8@aol.com...
You are mistaken, MM, I did not sent a private e-mail about this - the only
comment I made was posted to the newsgroup, as copied below my signature.
Peter Stewart
<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68.5aedc413.3024716b@aol.com...
Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well after
Easter 1179.
He may have intended to retire as a layman, with the idea of accepting the
order on his deathbed later on. There is nothing to say he enjoyed any
particular interval between retirement and death, or that he ever
"functioned" as a canon, but only that having become one he died.
Peter Stewart
news:15a.55f9e444.3024a9f8@aol.com...
Peter Stewart kindly sent me an interesting private comment on the passage
from Stubbs which I attempted to translate. Would you allow me to forward
your
comment to the list, with my response, Mr Stewart?
You are mistaken, MM, I did not sent a private e-mail about this - the only
comment I made was posted to the newsgroup, as copied below my signature.
Peter Stewart
<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68.5aedc413.3024716b@aol.com...
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
(cited by Douglas Richardson)
Peter Stewart then asked how DR makes out that this concerns Richard
de Lucy's retirement, rather than just a formal tonsuring on his
death-bed?
Perhaps, if we can agree the translation, the text itself will tell us the
answer.
I venture the following:-
"And after Easter Richard de Lucy, who for a long time had continued as
"Justice in England, preferring to serve God rather than an earthly king,
"by the will of the king- who had long resisted- deposed himself from that
"high power which he had enjoyed, and after being made a canon in ordinary
in
"the Abbey of Lesnes, which he himself had founded on his own estate,
"ended his days.
If that is an acceptable translation, I would infer that Richard retired
with
the king's permission, and thereafter functioned as a canon for a while
before his death
Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well after
Easter 1179.
He may have intended to retire as a layman, with the idea of accepting the
order on his deathbed later on. There is nothing to say he enjoyed any
particular interval between retirement and death, or that he ever
"functioned" as a canon, but only that having become one he died.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Peter Stewart kindly sent me an interesting private comment on the passage
from Stubbs which I attempted to translate. Would you allow me to forward your
comment to the list, with my response, Mr Stewart?
MM
from Stubbs which I attempted to translate. Would you allow me to forward your
comment to the list, with my response, Mr Stewart?
MM
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
My comments still stand regarding the passage, Gesta Regis Henrici
Secundi Benedicti Abbatis:
< The following is taken from an ancient chronicle of the reign of King
< Henry II of England. It concerns Sir Richard de Lucy's retirement in
< 1179 as Chief Justiciar of England, at which time he became a regular
< canon at Lesnes Abbey in Kent.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Secundi Benedicti Abbatis:
< The following is taken from an ancient chronicle of the reign of King
< Henry II of England. It concerns Sir Richard de Lucy's retirement in
< 1179 as Chief Justiciar of England, at which time he became a regular
< canon at Lesnes Abbey in Kent.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Thanks for the Latin translation, Michael. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
Date: A.D. 1179: "Et post Pascha Ricardus de Luci, qui multo tempore
justitia exstiterat in Anglia, malens Deo militare quam terreno regi,
per voluntatem regis diutissime renitentis, se ipsum de illa summa
potentia qua fungebatur deposuit, et factus canonicus regularis in
abbatia sua de Lenis, quam ipse in fundo suo fecerat, vitam finivit."
[Reference: William Stubbs ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti
Abbatis, 1 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 238]
(cited by Douglas Richardson)
Peter Stewart then asked how DR makes out that this concerns Richard
de Lucy's retirement, rather than just a formal tonsuring on his death-bed?
Perhaps, if we can agree the translation, the text itself will tell us the
answer.
I venture the following:-
"And after Easter Richard de Lucy, who for a long time had continued as
"Justice in England, preferring to serve God rather than an earthly king,
"by the will of the king- who had long resisted- deposed himself from that
"high power which he had enjoyed, and after being made a canon in ordinary in
"the Abbey of Lesnes, which he himself had founded on his own estate,
"ended his days.
If that is an acceptable translation, I would infer that Richard retired with
the king's permission, and thereafter functioned as a canon for a while
before his death
-
Gordon Banks
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
Was deathbed ordination common in medieval times. I note quite a few of
these ancestors who became canons at the end. Is there a discussion of
the custom somewhere online?
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 08:13 +0000, Peter Stewart wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
these ancestors who became canons at the end. Is there a discussion of
the custom somewhere online?
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 08:13 +0000, Peter Stewart wrote:
He may have intended to retire as a layman, with the idea of accepting the
order on his deathbed later on. There is nothing to say he enjoyed any
particular interval between retirement and death, or that he ever
"functioned" as a canon, but only that having become one he died.
Peter Stewart
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Gjest
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou.
Tomorrow, if someone prompts me, I can type out the complete section on
1127-1130 which says very nasty things about Henry of Poitou.
Will Johnson
Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Nichol_storm@yahoo.com wrote:
I second the prompt.
DR
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Tomorrow, if someone prompts me, I can type out the complete section on
1127-1130 which says very nasty things about Henry of Poitou.
Will Johnson
Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou.
I second the prompt.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
In a message dated 8/5/05 1:09:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nichol_storm@yahoo.com writes:
<< Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou. >>
First in 1123 there is an entry
"... At the same time came a certain legate from Rome, who was called Henry.
He was abbott of the abbey of St Jean d'Angely, and came about the payment of
Peter's pence. He told the king that it was unlawful that one of the secular
clergy should be set over monks; moreover they had already canonically chosen
an archbishop in their chapter; but the king would not revoke his decision
because of the love he bore the bishop of Salisbury. Soon thereafter the
archbishop went to Canterbury, and was there admitted, although it was against their
will...."
Then in 1127
"... In this same year he [King Henry] gave the abbacy of Peterborough to an
abbot named Henry of Poitou, who already held the abbacy of St Jean d'Angely.
The archbishop and all the bishops said this was uncanonical, and that he
could not have charge of two abbacies; but the same Henry gave the king to
understand that he had left his abbacy on account of the great strife in that
county, and that he had done so on the advice and with the permission of the pope of
Rome and that abbot of Cluny, and also because he was the legate sent from
Rome to collect Peter's pence. Et quia numquam quietus esse uoluit, adquisiuit
legacionem colligendorum denariorum Rome in Anglia, ut per hoc abbaciam
adquireret. This was true enough, but the reason was rather that he wished to have
charge of both abbacies --- which, in fact, he did succeed in doing as long as
it was God's will. As a secular clerk he had been bishop of Soissons;
afterwards he became a monk of Cluny, and later became prior in the same monastery,
and then prior of Savigny-le-Vieux. Thereafter, since he was a relation of the
King of England and of the count of Poitou, the count gave him the abbacy of
St Jean d'Angely. Afterwards by great intrigue he manaaged to get possession
of the archbishopric of Besancon, but only for three days, for it was only
fitting that he should forfeit what he had come by uncanonically. Thereupon he
got possession of the bishopric of Saintes, which was five miles from his
abbacy, and held it for almost a week, but the abbot of Cluny got him out, just as
he had done before from Besancon. Then it occurred to him that if he could
get firmly rooted in England, he could get all his own way, so be besought the
king, and said to him that he was a broken-down old man, who could not endure
the great injustices and disturbances which were prevalent in their land; and
begged to be given the abbacy of Peterborough through his agency and that of
all his friends whom he mentioned by name. And the king granted it to him
because he was his kinsman, and because he had been the chief witness to swear oath
and testify when the marriage of the son of the Duke of Normandy and the
daughter of the Count of Anjou was dissolved on the grounds of consanguinity.
Thus despicably was the abbacy bestowed between Christmas and Candlemas in
London; and so he accompanied the king to Winchester, and from there he came to
Peterborough, where he took up his abode just as drones do in a hive. Everything
bees gather, drones devour and carry off, and so too did he. Everything that
he could take, from within the monastery or outside it, from ecclesiatics and
laymen, he sent overseas. He did nothing for the monastery's welface and left
nothing of value untouched. Let no one be surprised at the truth of what we
are about to relate, for it was general knowledge throughout the whole country
that immediately after his arrival -- it was the Sunday [i.e. 6 February
1127, Lent began on 16 February] when they sing Exurge Quare o[bdormis], D[omine]
? -- many men both saw and heard a great number of huntsmen hunting. The
huntsmen were black, huge, and hideous, and rode on black horses and on black
he-goats, and their hounds were jet black, with eyes like saucers, and horrible.
This was seen in the very deer park of the town of Peterborough, and in all
the woods that stretch from that same town to Stamford, and in the night the
monks heard them sounding and winding their horns. Reliable witnesses who kept
watch in the night declared that there might well have been as many as twenty
or thirty of them winding their horns as near as they could tell. This was
seen and heard from the time of his arrival all through Lent and right up to
Easter. Such was his entrance: of his exit we cannot yet say. Let it be as God
ordains!"
And then in 1128 we have this:
"... In this same year the fore-mentioned abbot Henry went back to his own
monastery in Poitou, by premission of the king. He gave the king to understand
that he would entirely relinquish that monastery and leave that country to
dwell with him there in England in the monastery of Peterborough, but it was far
from being so. He acted thus because he wished, by means of his great
cunning, to stay there for perhaps twelve months of more, and then return. God
Almightly have pity on that unhappy foundation!
And then in 1130 we have this
"...This same year abbot Henry of Angely came to Peterborough after Easter,
and said he had entirely relinquished the monastery [of Angely]. After him,
with the king's permission, the abbot of Cluny, named Peter, came to this
country, and he was welcomed with great ceremony everywhere wherever he went. He
came to Peterborough, and there abbot Henry promised him that he would secure
the monastery of Peterborough for him, so that it would be subject to Cluny.
However there is a proverb which says 'Hedge abides that fields divides.' May
God Almightly frustrate evil counsels! Shortly afterwards the abbot of Cluny
went back to his own country.
....In this same year, before Easter, abbot Henry went oversea to Normandy
from Peterborough, and there spoke with the king. He told him that the abbot of
Cluny had ordered him to report and hand over the abbey of Angely; after he
had done that he said he would return to England if the king gave permission.
So he went to his own monastery [of Angely], and remained there right up to
midsummer day; but the day following St John's day [i.e. 25 June], the monks
chose and abbot from their own number, and brought him into church in solemn
procession; they sang the Te Deum, and rang the bells, and placed him in the
abbot's seat, and proferred him the unqualified obedience which monks owe to their
abbot; and the duke [of Aquitaine] and all the leading men and the monks drove
Henry, the other abbot, out of the monastery. The necessity to do this was
forced upon them, for in five and twenty years they had not enjoyed one single
happy day. Here all his boasted ingenuity failed him: now he had good cause to
creep into his capacious bag of tricks, and explore it in every corner, to
see if by chance there might be at least one shifty dodge left there by which he
could yet again deceive Christ and all Christian folk. Then he went into the
monastery at Cluny, where he was held so that he was unable to go either east
or west. The abbot of Cluny said that they had lost the monastery of St Jean
d'Angely through him, and because of his utter stupidity. Then he knew no
better way out of his predicament than to promise them, upon oaths sworn on holy
relics, that he would secure for them the monastery of Peterborough, if he
might reach England; and would install a prior from Cluny there, as well as a
sacristan, a treasurer, and a keeper of the wardrobe, to ensure that they got
complete control of both the internal and external affairs of the monastery.
Thus he went into France [Cluny being in Burgundy] and there above all the year.
May Christ provide for the wretched monks of Peterborough and for that
unhappy foundation ! Now they stand in need of the help of Christ and of all
Christian people."
Will Johnson
Nichol_storm@yahoo.com writes:
<< Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou. >>
First in 1123 there is an entry
"... At the same time came a certain legate from Rome, who was called Henry.
He was abbott of the abbey of St Jean d'Angely, and came about the payment of
Peter's pence. He told the king that it was unlawful that one of the secular
clergy should be set over monks; moreover they had already canonically chosen
an archbishop in their chapter; but the king would not revoke his decision
because of the love he bore the bishop of Salisbury. Soon thereafter the
archbishop went to Canterbury, and was there admitted, although it was against their
will...."
Then in 1127
"... In this same year he [King Henry] gave the abbacy of Peterborough to an
abbot named Henry of Poitou, who already held the abbacy of St Jean d'Angely.
The archbishop and all the bishops said this was uncanonical, and that he
could not have charge of two abbacies; but the same Henry gave the king to
understand that he had left his abbacy on account of the great strife in that
county, and that he had done so on the advice and with the permission of the pope of
Rome and that abbot of Cluny, and also because he was the legate sent from
Rome to collect Peter's pence. Et quia numquam quietus esse uoluit, adquisiuit
legacionem colligendorum denariorum Rome in Anglia, ut per hoc abbaciam
adquireret. This was true enough, but the reason was rather that he wished to have
charge of both abbacies --- which, in fact, he did succeed in doing as long as
it was God's will. As a secular clerk he had been bishop of Soissons;
afterwards he became a monk of Cluny, and later became prior in the same monastery,
and then prior of Savigny-le-Vieux. Thereafter, since he was a relation of the
King of England and of the count of Poitou, the count gave him the abbacy of
St Jean d'Angely. Afterwards by great intrigue he manaaged to get possession
of the archbishopric of Besancon, but only for three days, for it was only
fitting that he should forfeit what he had come by uncanonically. Thereupon he
got possession of the bishopric of Saintes, which was five miles from his
abbacy, and held it for almost a week, but the abbot of Cluny got him out, just as
he had done before from Besancon. Then it occurred to him that if he could
get firmly rooted in England, he could get all his own way, so be besought the
king, and said to him that he was a broken-down old man, who could not endure
the great injustices and disturbances which were prevalent in their land; and
begged to be given the abbacy of Peterborough through his agency and that of
all his friends whom he mentioned by name. And the king granted it to him
because he was his kinsman, and because he had been the chief witness to swear oath
and testify when the marriage of the son of the Duke of Normandy and the
daughter of the Count of Anjou was dissolved on the grounds of consanguinity.
Thus despicably was the abbacy bestowed between Christmas and Candlemas in
London; and so he accompanied the king to Winchester, and from there he came to
Peterborough, where he took up his abode just as drones do in a hive. Everything
bees gather, drones devour and carry off, and so too did he. Everything that
he could take, from within the monastery or outside it, from ecclesiatics and
laymen, he sent overseas. He did nothing for the monastery's welface and left
nothing of value untouched. Let no one be surprised at the truth of what we
are about to relate, for it was general knowledge throughout the whole country
that immediately after his arrival -- it was the Sunday [i.e. 6 February
1127, Lent began on 16 February] when they sing Exurge Quare o[bdormis], D[omine]
? -- many men both saw and heard a great number of huntsmen hunting. The
huntsmen were black, huge, and hideous, and rode on black horses and on black
he-goats, and their hounds were jet black, with eyes like saucers, and horrible.
This was seen in the very deer park of the town of Peterborough, and in all
the woods that stretch from that same town to Stamford, and in the night the
monks heard them sounding and winding their horns. Reliable witnesses who kept
watch in the night declared that there might well have been as many as twenty
or thirty of them winding their horns as near as they could tell. This was
seen and heard from the time of his arrival all through Lent and right up to
Easter. Such was his entrance: of his exit we cannot yet say. Let it be as God
ordains!"
And then in 1128 we have this:
"... In this same year the fore-mentioned abbot Henry went back to his own
monastery in Poitou, by premission of the king. He gave the king to understand
that he would entirely relinquish that monastery and leave that country to
dwell with him there in England in the monastery of Peterborough, but it was far
from being so. He acted thus because he wished, by means of his great
cunning, to stay there for perhaps twelve months of more, and then return. God
Almightly have pity on that unhappy foundation!
And then in 1130 we have this
"...This same year abbot Henry of Angely came to Peterborough after Easter,
and said he had entirely relinquished the monastery [of Angely]. After him,
with the king's permission, the abbot of Cluny, named Peter, came to this
country, and he was welcomed with great ceremony everywhere wherever he went. He
came to Peterborough, and there abbot Henry promised him that he would secure
the monastery of Peterborough for him, so that it would be subject to Cluny.
However there is a proverb which says 'Hedge abides that fields divides.' May
God Almightly frustrate evil counsels! Shortly afterwards the abbot of Cluny
went back to his own country.
....In this same year, before Easter, abbot Henry went oversea to Normandy
from Peterborough, and there spoke with the king. He told him that the abbot of
Cluny had ordered him to report and hand over the abbey of Angely; after he
had done that he said he would return to England if the king gave permission.
So he went to his own monastery [of Angely], and remained there right up to
midsummer day; but the day following St John's day [i.e. 25 June], the monks
chose and abbot from their own number, and brought him into church in solemn
procession; they sang the Te Deum, and rang the bells, and placed him in the
abbot's seat, and proferred him the unqualified obedience which monks owe to their
abbot; and the duke [of Aquitaine] and all the leading men and the monks drove
Henry, the other abbot, out of the monastery. The necessity to do this was
forced upon them, for in five and twenty years they had not enjoyed one single
happy day. Here all his boasted ingenuity failed him: now he had good cause to
creep into his capacious bag of tricks, and explore it in every corner, to
see if by chance there might be at least one shifty dodge left there by which he
could yet again deceive Christ and all Christian folk. Then he went into the
monastery at Cluny, where he was held so that he was unable to go either east
or west. The abbot of Cluny said that they had lost the monastery of St Jean
d'Angely through him, and because of his utter stupidity. Then he knew no
better way out of his predicament than to promise them, upon oaths sworn on holy
relics, that he would secure for them the monastery of Peterborough, if he
might reach England; and would install a prior from Cluny there, as well as a
sacristan, a treasurer, and a keeper of the wardrobe, to ensure that they got
complete control of both the internal and external affairs of the monastery.
Thus he went into France [Cluny being in Burgundy] and there above all the year.
May Christ provide for the wretched monks of Peterborough and for that
unhappy foundation ! Now they stand in need of the help of Christ and of all
Christian people."
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
In a message dated 8/5/05 1:15:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well after
Easter 1179. >>
There must be Peter, because his death is stated as 14 Jul 1179
which is well after Easter. I don't know what the source for this day is,
but there must be something. Now we just have to find it.
Will
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well after
Easter 1179. >>
There must be Peter, because his death is stated as 14 Jul 1179
which is well after Easter. I don't know what the source for this day is,
but there must be something. Now we just have to find it.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:41:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O 28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned. >>
Allright. I'm going to go ahead and move this document to his grandson
Walter, although I'd still like to make sure that Walter was also Lord Ferrers.
If he was then I'd say this document must be between him and his uncle William
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O 28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned. >>
Allright. I'm going to go ahead and move this document to his grandson
Walter, although I'd still like to make sure that Walter was also Lord Ferrers.
If he was then I'd say this document must be between him and his uncle William
Will
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Peter Stewart wrote:
I have a chart that shows him as legitimate son of William. I don't
trust this chart as far as I can throw it, but since Peter was going
from memory, can anyone confirm his account.
taf
Richardson wrote:
snip
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
Henry of Poitou's parentage?
From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
I have a chart that shows him as legitimate son of William. I don't
trust this chart as far as I can throw it, but since Peter was going
from memory, can anyone confirm his account.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Lucy -- Richard mostly
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:149.4a7e16b1.302530b6@aol.com...
That's certainly not what I would call "well after Easter" in this context.
If Richard de Lucy retired after Easter (1 April) 1179 planning to
"function" as a canon to the unknown end of his days, he would have spent
time in preparation for receiving orders. Even if he had already made
arrangements concerning his worldly affairs - unlikely considering he had
been waiting on the king's permission, that had been withheld for some
time - three months after his release from duty would be a reasonably short
interval.
In answer to Gordon's question: Yes, it was fairly common for medieval
magnates to be tonsured (as for their widows to be veiled) at the point of
death. It was much less common for them to retire into abbeys, even of their
own foundation, to live indefinitely under the rule of the house and the
authority of its abbot.
The passage quoted does not allow for a clear distinction, and the safer
presumption seems to me that Richard de Lucy (who of course may have been
ailing when the king relented about giving up his office) became a canon
without planning to "function" in that capacity, so that he could die in
orders under the rule that he had favoured in founding Lesnes.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 8/5/05 1:15:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Why? How long he died "after" becoming a canon at Lesnes is not stated
or
implied, except that the two events are dealt with together. His fate
could
have been like that of a bride going into labour at the altar for all I
know, unless there is an independent record of his date of death well
after
Easter 1179.
There must be Peter, because his death is stated as 14 Jul 1179
which is well after Easter. I don't know what the source for this day is,
but there must be something. Now we just have to find it.
That's certainly not what I would call "well after Easter" in this context.
If Richard de Lucy retired after Easter (1 April) 1179 planning to
"function" as a canon to the unknown end of his days, he would have spent
time in preparation for receiving orders. Even if he had already made
arrangements concerning his worldly affairs - unlikely considering he had
been waiting on the king's permission, that had been withheld for some
time - three months after his release from duty would be a reasonably short
interval.
In answer to Gordon's question: Yes, it was fairly common for medieval
magnates to be tonsured (as for their widows to be veiled) at the point of
death. It was much less common for them to retire into abbeys, even of their
own foundation, to live indefinitely under the rule of the house and the
authority of its abbot.
The passage quoted does not allow for a clear distinction, and the safer
presumption seems to me that Richard de Lucy (who of course may have been
ailing when the king relented about giving up his office) became a canon
without planning to "function" in that capacity, so that he could die in
orders under the rule that he had favoured in founding Lesnes.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
Dear Will,
CP Volume V pages 321-325 covers Walter Devereux 1st Lord Ferrers of
Chartley, he was slain at Bosworth in 1485
his son
John Devereux, 2nd Lord Ferrers of Chartley (CP V pages 325-326) he died in
1501
his son
Walter Devereux, 3rd Lord Ferrers of Chartley became 1st Viscount Hereford
(on 2 Feb 1549/1550) he died 17 September 1558
his son
Richard d.v.p 13 October 1547
his son
Walter Devereux Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers (as on CP V page 329)
born 1539 succeeded his grandfather both as Viscount Hereford and Lord
Ferrers in 1558.
Hope this helps?
Leo
--- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
CP Volume V pages 321-325 covers Walter Devereux 1st Lord Ferrers of
Chartley, he was slain at Bosworth in 1485
his son
John Devereux, 2nd Lord Ferrers of Chartley (CP V pages 325-326) he died in
1501
his son
Walter Devereux, 3rd Lord Ferrers of Chartley became 1st Viscount Hereford
(on 2 Feb 1549/1550) he died 17 September 1558
his son
Richard d.v.p 13 October 1547
his son
Walter Devereux Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers (as on CP V page 329)
born 1539 succeeded his grandfather both as Viscount Hereford and Lord
Ferrers in 1558.
Hope this helps?
Leo
--- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 1488/9
In a message dated 8/4/05 8:41:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Possibly we are both wrong. I have 17 February 1558 (Source Paget O
28845)
but CP has 17 September 1558 it also tells will proven in 1558. Volume XIV
has no corrections for page 479 where his death is mentioned.
Allright. I'm going to go ahead and move this document to his grandson
Walter, although I'd still like to make sure that Walter was also Lord
Ferrers.
If he was then I'd say this document must be between him and his uncle
William
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Update to genealogics William Viscount Hereford b abr 14
In a message dated 8/5/05 2:54:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Walter Devereux Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers (as on CP V page 329)
born 1539 succeeded his grandfather both as Viscount Hereford and Lord
Ferrers in 1558. >>
Thank you Leo for confirming that Walter Devereux 1539-76 was also Lord
Ferrers.
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Walter Devereux Viscount Hereford and Lord Ferrers (as on CP V page 329)
born 1539 succeeded his grandfather both as Viscount Hereford and Lord
Ferrers in 1558. >>
Thank you Leo for confirming that Walter Devereux 1539-76 was also Lord
Ferrers.
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
In article <42f3e964@news.ColoState.EDU>,
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
He's in ES, new series, II:76, as son of Guilhem IX and (non-wife)
Maubergeron / Dangereuse; there he's only called "Abbot of Cluny". It
would be nice to see a fuller list of his ecclesiastical offices with
dates.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson wrote:
snip
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
Henry of Poitou's parentage?
From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
I have a chart that shows him as legitimate son of William. I don't
trust this chart as far as I can throw it, but since Peter was going
from memory, can anyone confirm his account.
He's in ES, new series, II:76, as son of Guilhem IX and (non-wife)
Maubergeron / Dangereuse; there he's only called "Abbot of Cluny". It
would be nice to see a fuller list of his ecclesiastical offices with
dates.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42f3e964@news.ColoState.EDU...
It seems my memory can't be trusted any further than your chart - according
to Alfred Richard, the Henri (died January 1131) who as a prior of Cluny was
made abbot of Saint-Jean d'Angély was only a cousin of Duke William the
Troubadour, a nephew of his mother Audearde. I don't have time at present to
look into this but will try to check later. Audearde's father and mother
were from the royal family of France and the comital family of Anjou
respectively.
Peter Stewart
news:42f3e964@news.ColoState.EDU...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson wrote:
snip
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
Henry of Poitou's parentage?
From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
I have a chart that shows him as legitimate son of William. I don't trust
this chart as far as I can throw it, but since Peter was going from
memory, can anyone confirm his account.
It seems my memory can't be trusted any further than your chart - according
to Alfred Richard, the Henri (died January 1131) who as a prior of Cluny was
made abbot of Saint-Jean d'Angély was only a cousin of Duke William the
Troubadour, a nephew of his mother Audearde. I don't have time at present to
look into this but will try to check later. Audearde's father and mother
were from the royal family of France and the comital family of Anjou
respectively.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
Dear Leo ~
Queen Katherine late Queen of England named in this document would be
Katherine of Aragon, 1st wife of King Henry VIII.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Queen Katherine late Queen of England named in this document would be
Katherine of Aragon, 1st wife of King Henry VIII.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Could the father have held a position in the service of Katherine de Valois?
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before _before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth Dannett
to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8
Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in
this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s): Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
FAMILY PAPERS
PROBATE
FILE [no title] - ref. AR/21/12/1, 2 - date: 1545, 5th Nov; at
Exeter
[from Scope and Content] And in an agreement dated 10th Jul 1525
(17
Hen VIII) between himself and John Arundell esquire his son of one part,
and
Queen Katherine lately Queen of England, William Blunt knight Lord
Mountjoy
her chamberlain, and Master Robert Byckesall doctor of theology and her
almoner
of the other part, for a marriage between John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth
Dannett [cf. AR/19/37], he granted them to Lord Mountjoy and others
[named],
with messuages, etc., in Sprecombe, Gratton, Brampton, Ludcott, Buckland
Dynham
and Doddecott; for them to hold to the use of John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth Dannet for term of their lives, and after their deaths to the
use of John
Arundell and his heirs for ever; by act of parliament dated 4th Feb 1536
(27
Hen VIII) John Arundell the son and Elizabeth are now seised of them.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Dear Todd,
A guideline, no cast-iron proof, is Schwennicke ES Volume II Tafel 76.
Here is shown that Guillaume VII-IX le jeune had by Maubergon or Dangerose
both wife of Amaury de Chatellerault the following children
Raimond, Prince of Antiochia
Henri Abbot of Cluny
Agnes/Mathilde wife of (1) Aimery de Thouars (2) Ramiro II King of Aragon
Adelaide wife of Raoul de Fays
Agnes Abbess of Saintes
Guillaume Count of Valentinois ancestor of the family Poitiers-Valentinois
Tafel 76 gives as sources
Erich Brandenburg Nachkommen Karl's des Grossen
Siegfried Rosch Caroli Magni Progeni
Jacques Saillot Le Sang de Charlemagne
Isenburg/Freytag von Loringhoven, Volume II Tafel 28 (corrected and added to
by Schwennicke) gives Guillaume VII-IX a wrong second wife, mother of all
his children
Guillaume VIII-X, Raimond, Agnes (Agnes/Mathilde by Schwennicke) and four
daughters.
What do you think is the situation? Do you think Henri is somehow a confused
addition to this family?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
A guideline, no cast-iron proof, is Schwennicke ES Volume II Tafel 76.
Here is shown that Guillaume VII-IX le jeune had by Maubergon or Dangerose
both wife of Amaury de Chatellerault the following children
Raimond, Prince of Antiochia
Henri Abbot of Cluny
Agnes/Mathilde wife of (1) Aimery de Thouars (2) Ramiro II King of Aragon
Adelaide wife of Raoul de Fays
Agnes Abbess of Saintes
Guillaume Count of Valentinois ancestor of the family Poitiers-Valentinois
Tafel 76 gives as sources
Erich Brandenburg Nachkommen Karl's des Grossen
Siegfried Rosch Caroli Magni Progeni
Jacques Saillot Le Sang de Charlemagne
Isenburg/Freytag von Loringhoven, Volume II Tafel 28 (corrected and added to
by Schwennicke) gives Guillaume VII-IX a wrong second wife, mother of all
his children
Guillaume VIII-X, Raimond, Agnes (Agnes/Mathilde by Schwennicke) and four
daughters.
What do you think is the situation? Do you think Henri is somehow a confused
addition to this family?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Peter Stewart wrote:
Richardson wrote:
snip
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
Henry of Poitou's parentage?
From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
I have a chart that shows him as legitimate son of William. I don't trust
this chart as far as I can throw it, but since Peter was going from
memory, can anyone confirm his account.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:76.58af8451.30254f92@aol.com...
The cross-reference (AR/19/37) is to the original agreement, for which the
record is copied below - according to this, Elizabeth's father Gerard Danet,
a privy councillor to Henry VIII, was deceased at the time, so that the
king's then wife Queen Katherine and the royal officials appearing in the
document were evidently involved in the matter of the bride's guardianship &
marriage.
Peter Stewart
Reference: AR/19/37/1, 2
Creation dates: 1525, 6th Dec
Scope and Content
(17 Hen VIII)
Gift [marriage settlement]; with counterpart
John Arundell, knight = (1)
William Blount knight, Lord Mountjoye, chief chamberlain of Lady Katherine
Queen of England, Robert Dymmok knight, queen's chancellor, John Fitzjames
knight, chief baron of the king's exchequer, William Courtney knight, Robert
Bekensale, professor in holy theology and queen's almoner (elimosinarius),
Edward Darell knight, William Shelley, serjeant at law, John Danet knight,
Humphrey Arundell, John Pentyre, Gruffydd Richardes, John Skott, William
Carnesewe, John Reskeryke, Christopher Jenney, John Densell and Richard
Penrose = (2)-(18)
(1) to (2)-(18), his manors of Seynt Columbe the More alias Seynt Columbe
the Ouer, Trewenhelek alias Trenhelek, Tregaren Condorrowe and Penles, and
all messuages, etc., in Seynt Columbe the More, Trewenhelek, Penles,
Nanscawe, Trefuthkyn, Trenoyowe, Crukemeur and Trevanson; and his manors of
Sprecomb and Gratton, and all messuages, etc., in Sprecomb, Gratton,
Braunton, Luscote, Buklond Dynham and Doddecote (Devon); of all which
manors, etc., Nicholas Wadham knight, Andrew Hillersdon, John Sidenham de
Brempton, John Whityng de Wode, John Wise, Thomas Tremayne and Humphrey
Prideaux esquires are seised in their lordship as of fee to the use of (1)
and his heirs for ever; also the advowson of the church of Seynt Columbe the
More alias Seynt Columbe the Ouer.
For (2)-(18) to hold to the use of John Arundell esquire, (1)'s son and heir
apparent, and of Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Gerard Danet esquire
(deceased), for term of their lives, without accusation of waste during the
life of John Arundell esquire; after their deaths, to the use of (1) and his
heirs; [to hold] in fee for ever of the chief lords of the fees, by rents
and services previously due and accustomed. Warranty. Appointment of Walter
Borlace and Thomas Trote as attorneys to deliver seisin.
Richard Greynfeld esquire, Thomas Stradlyng esquire, John Trugyan.
Seal of (1) [on both copies; excellent]; 19th-century notes on either copy
say that Elizabeth Danet was daughter of Gerard Danet of Danet's Hall,
Leicestershire, privy councillor to King Henry VIII; mentioned in the
Visitation of Leicestershire, 1619 (Harleian MSS), fol. 36; she survived her
husband and made her will 12th Jun 1564 (proved 9th Nov 1564).
Doddecote [= Darracott, in Georgeham parish, volumes of the English
Place-Name Society Devon 43]
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth Dannett
to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8
Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in
this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
The cross-reference (AR/19/37) is to the original agreement, for which the
record is copied below - according to this, Elizabeth's father Gerard Danet,
a privy councillor to Henry VIII, was deceased at the time, so that the
king's then wife Queen Katherine and the royal officials appearing in the
document were evidently involved in the matter of the bride's guardianship &
marriage.
Peter Stewart
Reference: AR/19/37/1, 2
Creation dates: 1525, 6th Dec
Scope and Content
(17 Hen VIII)
Gift [marriage settlement]; with counterpart
John Arundell, knight = (1)
William Blount knight, Lord Mountjoye, chief chamberlain of Lady Katherine
Queen of England, Robert Dymmok knight, queen's chancellor, John Fitzjames
knight, chief baron of the king's exchequer, William Courtney knight, Robert
Bekensale, professor in holy theology and queen's almoner (elimosinarius),
Edward Darell knight, William Shelley, serjeant at law, John Danet knight,
Humphrey Arundell, John Pentyre, Gruffydd Richardes, John Skott, William
Carnesewe, John Reskeryke, Christopher Jenney, John Densell and Richard
Penrose = (2)-(18)
(1) to (2)-(18), his manors of Seynt Columbe the More alias Seynt Columbe
the Ouer, Trewenhelek alias Trenhelek, Tregaren Condorrowe and Penles, and
all messuages, etc., in Seynt Columbe the More, Trewenhelek, Penles,
Nanscawe, Trefuthkyn, Trenoyowe, Crukemeur and Trevanson; and his manors of
Sprecomb and Gratton, and all messuages, etc., in Sprecomb, Gratton,
Braunton, Luscote, Buklond Dynham and Doddecote (Devon); of all which
manors, etc., Nicholas Wadham knight, Andrew Hillersdon, John Sidenham de
Brempton, John Whityng de Wode, John Wise, Thomas Tremayne and Humphrey
Prideaux esquires are seised in their lordship as of fee to the use of (1)
and his heirs for ever; also the advowson of the church of Seynt Columbe the
More alias Seynt Columbe the Ouer.
For (2)-(18) to hold to the use of John Arundell esquire, (1)'s son and heir
apparent, and of Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Gerard Danet esquire
(deceased), for term of their lives, without accusation of waste during the
life of John Arundell esquire; after their deaths, to the use of (1) and his
heirs; [to hold] in fee for ever of the chief lords of the fees, by rents
and services previously due and accustomed. Warranty. Appointment of Walter
Borlace and Thomas Trote as attorneys to deliver seisin.
Richard Greynfeld esquire, Thomas Stradlyng esquire, John Trugyan.
Seal of (1) [on both copies; excellent]; 19th-century notes on either copy
say that Elizabeth Danet was daughter of Gerard Danet of Danet's Hall,
Leicestershire, privy councillor to King Henry VIII; mentioned in the
Visitation of Leicestershire, 1619 (Harleian MSS), fol. 36; she survived her
husband and made her will 12th Jun 1564 (proved 9th Nov 1564).
Doddecote [= Darracott, in Georgeham parish, volumes of the English
Place-Name Society Devon 43]
-
Gjest
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8 Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s): Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
FAMILY PAPERS
PROBATE
FILE [no title] - ref. AR/21/12/1, 2 - date: 1545, 5th Nov; at Exeter
[from Scope and Content] And in an agreement dated 10th Jul 1525 (17
Hen VIII) between himself and John Arundell esquire his son of one part, and
Queen Katherine lately Queen of England, William Blunt knight Lord Mountjoy
her chamberlain, and Master Robert Byckesall doctor of theology and her almoner
of the other part, for a marriage between John Arundell the son and Elizabeth
Dannett [cf. AR/19/37], he granted them to Lord Mountjoy and others [named],
with messuages, etc., in Sprecombe, Gratton, Brampton, Ludcott, Buckland Dynham
and Doddecott; for them to hold to the use of John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth Dannet for term of their lives, and after their deaths to the use of John
Arundell and his heirs for ever; by act of parliament dated 4th Feb 1536 (27
Hen VIII) John Arundell the son and Elizabeth are now seised of them.
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8 Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s): Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
FAMILY PAPERS
PROBATE
FILE [no title] - ref. AR/21/12/1, 2 - date: 1545, 5th Nov; at Exeter
[from Scope and Content] And in an agreement dated 10th Jul 1525 (17
Hen VIII) between himself and John Arundell esquire his son of one part, and
Queen Katherine lately Queen of England, William Blunt knight Lord Mountjoy
her chamberlain, and Master Robert Byckesall doctor of theology and her almoner
of the other part, for a marriage between John Arundell the son and Elizabeth
Dannett [cf. AR/19/37], he granted them to Lord Mountjoy and others [named],
with messuages, etc., in Sprecombe, Gratton, Brampton, Ludcott, Buckland Dynham
and Doddecott; for them to hold to the use of John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth Dannet for term of their lives, and after their deaths to the use of John
Arundell and his heirs for ever; by act of parliament dated 4th Feb 1536 (27
Hen VIII) John Arundell the son and Elizabeth are now seised of them.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
Could the father have held a position in the service of Katherine de Valois?
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before _before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before _before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth Dannett
to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8
Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in
this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s): Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
FAMILY PAPERS
PROBATE
FILE [no title] - ref. AR/21/12/1, 2 - date: 1545, 5th Nov; at
Exeter
[from Scope and Content] And in an agreement dated 10th Jul 1525
(17
Hen VIII) between himself and John Arundell esquire his son of one part,
and
Queen Katherine lately Queen of England, William Blunt knight Lord
Mountjoy
her chamberlain, and Master Robert Byckesall doctor of theology and her
almoner
of the other part, for a marriage between John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth
Dannett [cf. AR/19/37], he granted them to Lord Mountjoy and others
[named],
with messuages, etc., in Sprecombe, Gratton, Brampton, Ludcott, Buckland
Dynham
and Doddecott; for them to hold to the use of John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth Dannet for term of their lives, and after their deaths to the
use of John
Arundell and his heirs for ever; by act of parliament dated 4th Feb 1536
(27
Hen VIII) John Arundell the son and Elizabeth are now seised of them.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:042701c59a1e$88e4ce80$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Yes, she was called "Lady Katherine Queen of England" in the extract of the
original agreement, and only "lately Queen" etc in the recital of this dated
1545, twelve years after her divorce from Henry VIII & nine years after her
death.
Peter Stewart
news:042701c59a1e$88e4ce80$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
That makes sense. One _funny_ removed. But was Katherine _late Queen_?
The family papers probate is dated 5 November 1545 but the agreement
referred to is dated 10 July 1525. Catherine of Aragon was divorced in
1533 and died in 1536.
William Blount died in 1534 (See Will Johnson's message below) is also
mentioned.
Does this infer the statement is the one dated 10 July 1525 when Katherine
was very much Queen?
Yes, she was called "Lady Katherine Queen of England" in the extract of the
original agreement, and only "lately Queen" etc in the recital of this dated
1545, twelve years after her divorce from Henry VIII & nine years after her
death.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
The idea that the Queen Mother is involved as a *party* in every marriage of
some unknown girl to the son of some minor gentry ..... Perhaps this Elizabeth
Dannett is actually some overlooked important person
Will
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:34:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Could the father have held a position in the service of Katherine de
Valois?
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before _before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
some unknown girl to the son of some minor gentry ..... Perhaps this Elizabeth
Dannett is actually some overlooked important person
Will
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:34:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Could the father have held a position in the service of Katherine de
Valois?
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before _before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth Dannett
to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8
Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in
this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
Dear Will,
The Queen Mother in that chart is given the wrong husband and had died about
100 years before. Something is thoroughly wrong or overlooked.
Does anyone have access to History of Parliament Roskell 1509-1558 I p 335
apparently this is a place where Sir John Arundell of Lanherne is mentioned
as well as his second wife Elizabeth Dannett. I have him married first to
Catherine Edgecombe who is also mentioned.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The Queen Mother in that chart is given the wrong husband and had died about
100 years before. Something is thoroughly wrong or overlooked.
Does anyone have access to History of Parliament Roskell 1509-1558 I p 335
apparently this is a place where Sir John Arundell of Lanherne is mentioned
as well as his second wife Elizabeth Dannett. I have him married first to
Catherine Edgecombe who is also mentioned.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The idea that the Queen Mother is involved as a *party* in every marriage
of
some unknown girl to the son of some minor gentry ..... Perhaps this
Elizabeth
Dannett is actually some overlooked important person
Will
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:34:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
Could the father have held a position in the service of Katherine de
Valois?
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before _before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly
weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of
Lanherne
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth
Dannett
to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8
Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in
this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Gjest
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
In a message dated 8/5/05 4:52:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< The Queen Mother in that chart is given the wrong husband and had died
about
100 years before. Something is thoroughly wrong or overlooked.
Does anyone have access to History of Parliament Roskell 1509-1558 I p 335
apparently this is a place where Sir John Arundell of Lanherne is mentioned
as well as his second wife Elizabeth Dannett. I have him married first to
Catherine Edgecombe who is also mentioned. >>
Ack!!! Boy was I off!
Who we are seeing here is Katherine of ARAGON, first wife of Henry VIII
And the father of this girl Elizabeth Dannett is given in some 19th century
notes in the full catalog as Gerald Danet, Esq, deceased former privy
councillor to Henry VIII
So I suppose that could explain why Katherine is involved here. Was she a
guardian of this girl due to perhaps her being a guardian (even if only in a
customary way) of any unmarried girls in her court ?
I'm not sure, but maybe ?
Gerald Danet is also given "of Danet's Hall, Leicestershire" which is helpful
in trying to trace this line back further.
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< The Queen Mother in that chart is given the wrong husband and had died
about
100 years before. Something is thoroughly wrong or overlooked.
Does anyone have access to History of Parliament Roskell 1509-1558 I p 335
apparently this is a place where Sir John Arundell of Lanherne is mentioned
as well as his second wife Elizabeth Dannett. I have him married first to
Catherine Edgecombe who is also mentioned. >>
Ack!!! Boy was I off!
Who we are seeing here is Katherine of ARAGON, first wife of Henry VIII
And the father of this girl Elizabeth Dannett is given in some 19th century
notes in the full catalog as Gerald Danet, Esq, deceased former privy
councillor to Henry VIII
So I suppose that could explain why Katherine is involved here. Was she a
guardian of this girl due to perhaps her being a guardian (even if only in a
customary way) of any unmarried girls in her court ?
I'm not sure, but maybe ?
Gerald Danet is also given "of Danet's Hall, Leicestershire" which is helpful
in trying to trace this line back further.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
That makes sense. One _funny_ removed. But was Katherine _late Queen_?
The family papers probate is dated 5 November 1545 but the agreement
referred to is dated 10 July 1525. Catherine of Aragon was divorced in 1533
and died in 1536.
William Blount died in 1534 (See Will Johnson's message below) is also
mentioned.
Does this infer the statement is the one dated 10 July 1525 when Katherine
was very much Queen?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The family papers probate is dated 5 November 1545 but the agreement
referred to is dated 10 July 1525. Catherine of Aragon was divorced in 1533
and died in 1536.
William Blount died in 1534 (See Will Johnson's message below) is also
mentioned.
Does this infer the statement is the one dated 10 July 1525 when Katherine
was very much Queen?
----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
Dear Leo ~
Queen Katherine late Queen of England named in this document would be
Katherine of Aragon, 1st wife of King Henry VIII.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Could the father have held a position in the service of Katherine de
Valois?
She died in 1437 but she was the widow of Henry V, not VI. The widow of
Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou died in 1482. Still a long time before
_before
1527_ when apparently the marriage took place.Something is thoroughly
weird
here.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of
Lanherne
I have found a document which touches on the marriage of Elizabeth
Dannett
to
Sir John Arundell of Lanherne
The thing that interested me, is why William Blount, Lord Mountjoy (d 8
Nov
1534) and Katherine [of Valois] widow of Henry VI should be involved in
this
marriage ? Can anyone elucidate what they are doing here?
Thanks
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Arundell of Lanherne and Trerice
Catalogue Ref. AR
Creator(s): Arundell family of Lanherne and Trerice, Cornwall
FAMILY PAPERS
PROBATE
FILE [no title] - ref. AR/21/12/1, 2 - date: 1545, 5th Nov; at
Exeter
[from Scope and Content] And in an agreement dated 10th Jul
1525
(17
Hen VIII) between himself and John Arundell esquire his son of one
part,
and
Queen Katherine lately Queen of England, William Blunt knight Lord
Mountjoy
her chamberlain, and Master Robert Byckesall doctor of theology and her
almoner
of the other part, for a marriage between John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth
Dannett [cf. AR/19/37], he granted them to Lord Mountjoy and others
[named],
with messuages, etc., in Sprecombe, Gratton, Brampton, Ludcott,
Buckland
Dynham
and Doddecott; for them to hold to the use of John Arundell the son and
Elizabeth Dannet for term of their lives, and after their deaths to the
use of John
Arundell and his heirs for ever; by act of parliament dated 4th Feb
1536
(27
Hen VIII) John Arundell the son and Elizabeth are now seised of them.
-
Gjest
Re: marriage of Elizabeth Dannett to Sir John Arundell of La
In a message dated 8/5/05 5:34:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< That makes sense. One _funny_ removed. But was Katherine _late Queen_?
The family papers probate is dated 5 November 1545 but the agreement
referred to is dated 10 July 1525. Catherine of Aragon was divorced in 1533
and died in 1536.
William Blount died in 1534 (See Will Johnson's message below) is also
mentioned.
Does this infer the statement is the one dated 10 July 1525 when Katherine
was very much Queen? >>
I would guess that in 1525 she was called Queen but then in the probate where
the document is referred to in 1545 as you pointed out, then she was already
dead and so would be called, in the extract, the late Queen or something like
that.
After I clicked on the FULL Catalog, per Doug's earlier suggestion... wow
what a ton of detail on this family.
One interesting tidbit is that, in passing, it mentions Humphrey Stafford,
created Earl of Devon in 1469 and died three months later, "without issue". It
mentions his parents because his mother Katherine Chideock married next into
this family of Arundel.
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< That makes sense. One _funny_ removed. But was Katherine _late Queen_?
The family papers probate is dated 5 November 1545 but the agreement
referred to is dated 10 July 1525. Catherine of Aragon was divorced in 1533
and died in 1536.
William Blount died in 1534 (See Will Johnson's message below) is also
mentioned.
Does this infer the statement is the one dated 10 July 1525 when Katherine
was very much Queen? >>
I would guess that in 1525 she was called Queen but then in the probate where
the document is referred to in 1545 as you pointed out, then she was already
dead and so would be called, in the extract, the late Queen or something like
that.
After I clicked on the FULL Catalog, per Doug's earlier suggestion... wow
what a ton of detail on this family.
One interesting tidbit is that, in passing, it mentions Humphrey Stafford,
created Earl of Devon in 1469 and died three months later, "without issue". It
mentions his parents because his mother Katherine Chideock married next into
this family of Arundel.
Will Johnson
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I don't know one way or the other, but we have had two conflicting
answers here - ES showing the relationship as related, but Richard
showing it otherwise.
As usual, in failing (yet) to definitively answer one question, we have
raised another. Every source I have seen to date (and obviously, I have
not seen ES) has shown Agnes, wife of Ramiro II of Aragon as daughter of
William by Philippa/Matilda of Toulouse.
taf
Dear Todd,
A guideline, no cast-iron proof, is Schwennicke ES Volume II Tafel 76.
Here is shown that Guillaume VII-IX le jeune had by Maubergon or
Dangerose both wife of Amaury de Chatellerault the following children
Raimond, Prince of Antiochia
Henri Abbot of Cluny
Agnes/Mathilde wife of (1) Aimery de Thouars (2) Ramiro II King of Aragon
Adelaide wife of Raoul de Fays
Agnes Abbess of Saintes
Guillaume Count of Valentinois ancestor of the family Poitiers-Valentinois
Tafel 76 gives as sources
Erich Brandenburg Nachkommen Karl's des Grossen
Siegfried Rosch Caroli Magni Progeni
Jacques Saillot Le Sang de Charlemagne
Isenburg/Freytag von Loringhoven, Volume II Tafel 28 (corrected and
added to by Schwennicke) gives Guillaume VII-IX a wrong second wife,
mother of all his children
Guillaume VIII-X, Raimond, Agnes (Agnes/Mathilde by Schwennicke) and
four daughters.
What do you think is the situation? Do you think Henri is somehow a
confused addition to this family?
I don't know one way or the other, but we have had two conflicting
answers here - ES showing the relationship as related, but Richard
showing it otherwise.
As usual, in failing (yet) to definitively answer one question, we have
raised another. Every source I have seen to date (and obviously, I have
not seen ES) has shown Agnes, wife of Ramiro II of Aragon as daughter of
William by Philippa/Matilda of Toulouse.
taf