Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 aug 2005 02:49:01

Good thing you are watching :-)
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Watts" <hcwatts@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete


Leo named in the Gateways group Nuriel Gurdon. I'm sure his finger
slipped, because he clearly intended to list Muriel.

Cliff Watts


Gjest

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 03:10:02

In a message dated 8/16/05 2:50:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

<< Gilbert de Umfreville, 1st Earl of Angus m. Elizabeth Comyn
Robert de Umfreville, 2nd Earl of Angus m. Eleanor de Clare >>

Gilbert d 13 Oct 1307, his wife Elizabeth d bef 17 Feb 1328/9
Robert d 2 Apr 1325
However his wife was Alianora of Ferrers

#53. Michaelmas [Sept. 29] 1308. Northumberland.
The sheriff accounts for £10 levied from Robert de Umfraville, who holds the
lands which were William Duglas's (of a fine of £100 which William made with
the late king for licence to marry Aleanora de Ferrars), by writ returnable on
the morrow of the last Easter. [Exchequer. L.T.R. memoranda I Edw. II].

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 17 aug 2005 03:10:36

Dear Will, et al.,
The surname of Eleanor/Alianore, 2nd wife of Robert de Umfreville
(2nd Earl of Angus, d. 1325) is unknown to the best of my knowledge.
She certainly was not Eleanor de Clare: the one individual of that name
and generation was the wife (1306-1326) of Hugh le Despenser.
She also was not Eleanor/Alianore de Ferrers, or more properly
Alianore de Lovaine, dau. of Mathew de Lovaine of Little Easton, Essex
(d. ca. 1302). She was married (1st) probably as 2nd wife to Sir
William de Ferrers, of Groby, co. Leics. (d. 1287 or before). She was
given the manors of Stebbing and Woodham to hold in tenancy until her
dower was assigned, 20 January 1287/88. Her dower included the manor of
Frating, Essex [identified in Inq.p.m. 28 Nov 1308] - CP V:342, notes,
sub Ferrers (of Groby).
She was abducted by Sir William Douglas before 28 January 1288/89,
whom she married as her 2nd husband: a fine of £100 was assessed 18
February 1290/91. Sir William was arrested for failure to give
hostages in connection with a pardon in July 1297, and committed to the
Tower of London 12 Oct 1297. He evidently died there before 24 Jan
1298/99.
She married (3rd) in or before 1313, William de Bagot. He and
Alianore his wife conveyed tenements in co. Stafford by a fine (1313)
to themselves and heirs of their bodies, with remainder to Archibald
[Douglas], son of Alianore by her 2nd husband (CP V:342).
Hope this is helpful.

Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife of Sir Walter Montgomery of Cuble

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 03:41:02

In a message dated 8/16/05 12:14:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Given that Isabel Comyn's husband, Sir Thomas Clarell, occurs in the
records in the same approximate time period as Robert Comyn, it seems
apparent that Isabel Comyn, wife of Sir Thomas Clarell, was the sister
of Robert Comyn (living 1335-1340), and thus daughter of John Comyn, of
Ulceby, Lincolnshire, who occurs as an adult in the period, 1300-1310.
John Comyn in turn was a younger son of John Comyn (died 1273-8), of
Badenoch in Scotland, by his 2nd wife, Alice de Roos (died c. 1286). >>

How are you making the connection that John Comyn of Ulceby was a son of the
John Comyn who d abt 1274, husband of Alice Roos ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 17 aug 2005 06:33:41

Dear Will,

In this case, Alianore took the name of her first husband, and
was still called Alianore de Ferrers for the purpose of that document.
The document you cited was dated 1308, but the fine it referred back to
was that fine of £100 assessed 18
February 1290/91 against Sir William Douglas and his new wife, Alianore
(widow of Sir William de Ferrers).
Cheers,
John

Gjest

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 07:04:01

In a message dated 8/16/2005 7:13:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
therav3@aol.com writes:


She also was not Eleanor/Alianore de Ferrers, or more properly
Alianore de Lovaine, dau. of Mathew de Lovaine of Little Easton, Essex
(d. ca. 1302).

Can you explain why she is called Alianore de Ferrers in the document I
quoted?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Lyn Wolf

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Lyn Wolf » 17 aug 2005 08:43:01

In a message dated 8/13/05 8:05:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
UTZ@aol.com
writes:

<< 7 John ENGAINE, Sir b: 30 May 1302 d: 16 February 1357/58
.... +Joan PEVEREL >>

What is known of the ancestry of Joan Peverel? Hal Bradley's website
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... .htm#12249
has the parents of Joan as Sir Robert Peverel and Alice de Lisle, dau
of Sir Robert de Lisle and his wife Margaret Beauchamp. He sites the
following sources:
AR7 pp. 136-29
CP 8:48
Plantagenet Ancestry by Douglas Richardson p 451

I don't have AR7 or CP, but Douglas only says Joan was the 'daughter
of Sir Robert
Peverel, by Alice, his wife'. Do either of the others state who Alice
was, or that she
was the wife of Sir Robert?

regards

Lyn Wolf
Australia


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

fairthorne

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av fairthorne » 17 aug 2005 10:01:01

Hi Tony

There is in the Society of Genealogists library a manuscript of an
Umfreville family tree
(probably constructed in the last 50 years)

It starts with Andrew Umfreville who has two sons
Richard Umfreville of Farnham Royal Bucks
Roger Umfreville of Ewell Surrey then Gervase then John (as you have)

Dates only start appearing with Andrew Umfreville (***) the grandson of the
above Richard.
This Andrew was buried at Farnham Royal 15 June 1651
and left a will dated 7 June 1651 and proved PCC 19 June 1651
After him the tree is quite detailed - I've checked many of the dates with
the original registers and wills and they are accurate

The bad news
1) the tree doesn't go back before Andrew
2) I didn't take any notes of the Ewell branch - I come from the Franham
Royal branch

I also have a book "The Umfrevilles" by Edward Rowland Pickering (b 1805),
privately printed around 1855
He claims to base the pedigree on Segar + other sources
He has obtained large amounts of information of each of the Umfrevilles
except where he connects up the Earls of Angus with the Farnham Royal
family, then it is just a list of names with no dates

In my own tree I currently stop at Andrew (*** above) since I've not been
able to check anything earlier and I am quite sceptical about the descent -
especially since one his other descents, Pickering side, has been shown to
have fatal flaws in it

cheers

Simon

John Brandon

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 aug 2005 14:00:45

OK, here it be ...

1. Robert II, King of France, d. 1031 = Constance of Provence
2. Robert I, Duke of Burgundy = Helie of Semur-en-Auxois
3. Henri I, Duke of Burgundy = Sybil of Barcelona
4. Eudes I, Duke of Burgundy = Matilda of Burgundy</DIV>
5. Alice of Burgundy = William III Talvas, Count of Alencon and
Ponthieu
6. Guy II, Count of Ponthieu = Ida ...
7. John I, Count of Ponthieu = Laure de St. Valery
8. Helene of Ponthieu = William de Stoteville (Guillaume
d'Estouteville, Seigneur d'Estoutemont) of Stratfield, Hampshire
9. Alice of Stratfield = Robert de Say
10. Sir William de Say = Sybil ...
11. Robert de Say = Emma ...
12. Sir Thomas de Say = Isabel ...
13. Sybil de Say = ...
14. Elizabeth ... (only daughter and heir) = Sir Nicholas
Dabridgecourt, possible son of Sir Sanchet Dabridgecourt
(Dabrichecourt), Knight of the Garter
15. Sir John Dabridgecourt = Joan Lynde
16. John Dabridgecourt = Agnes Bekingham
17. Thomas Dabridgecourt = Beatrice ...
18. (probably) Elizabeth Dabridgecourt = Ralph Staverton
19. Elizabeth Staverton = Thomas Burgoyne
20. Christopher Burgoyne = Thomasine Freville, etc.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17 aug 2005 19:07:01

Hello Simon,

Thank you so much for the information.

As I continue to mull this over, I keep coming back to the apparent
source for the pedigree linking the Surrey and Bucks Umfrevilles to the
ancient Umfrevilles: Sir William Segar. Until proven otherwise, he
remains the sole source for this. The more one learns of Segar's career
the more this situation seems to call for a type of source analysis not
commonly employed: evaluation of character. It hardly needs to be said
that with genealogy - as in all else - character will out. The
following statements from his entry in the _DNB_ [17:1135-6] might be
both significant and interesting.

"In 1603 a bill passed under the signet for advancing Segar to the
office of Garter king-of-arms in succession to Sir William Dethick, and
upon this foundation , without te authority of the great seal, he, under
the appellation of 'Rex Armorum Ordinis.' carried the insignia of the
Garter to the king of Denmark. But Dethick soon after this disseisin,
was reinstated and on 8 Sept. he was joined in a commission by his
proper style to invest the Duke of Wurtemberg [sic]. the circumstances
of this investiture led to fresh censures of his conduct, and he was
deposed from his office. Segar, being conscious f the invalidity of his
former signet, procured a new one, and likewise a patent under the great
seal in January 1606-7 constituting him Garter king-of-arms.... In
December 1616 he was imposed upon again by Ralph Brooke, York herald,
who by artifice procured him to attest and confirm armorial bearings to
Gregory Brandon, the common hangman of London. Both Segar and Brooke
were committed to the Marshalsea, but when the iniquitous business was
unraveled Segar was restored to freedom, and on 5 April 1617 the king
granted him an annual addition of 10l. to his stipend."

One can only hope all was on the up-and-up in re: Segar's Umfreville
pedigree.







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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Douglas Richardson royala

Comyn family of Ulceby, Lincolnshire

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 17 aug 2005 19:14:00

Dear Will ~

Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.

In Robert Comyn's lawsuit dated 1335, he identified himself as the son
of John Comyn, who was the son of John Comyn, [Sr.], by Alice de Roos.
An abstract of the lawsuit is presented in Lincolnshire Notes &
Queries, 9 (1907): 249-250. You'll also want to examine another
lawsuit abstracted in Genealogist, n.s. 9 (1892): 13, which likewise
deals with Alice de Roos' manor at Ulceby, Lincolnshire, which she had
as her maritagium.

For further evidence that John Comyn, [Sr.] and his 2nd wife, Alice de
Roos, had a son named John, see Bain, Cal. of Docs. Rel. Scotland 2
(1884): 168, 963, and Scots Peerage, 1 (1904): 507 (sub Comyn). I
should mention that John Comyn, [Sr.] had an older son, John, by his
first wife, Eve [see Easson, Charters of the Abbey of Coupar Angus 1
(Scottish Hist. Soc. 3rd Ser. 40) (1947): 134-135; reference courtesy
of Andrew MacEwen]. Alice de Roos was not the mother of this older
son, as is commonly thought to be the case by genealogists. The older
John is the ancestor of the Comyn family of Badenoch. This represents
a major rearrangement in the Comyn family tree.

John Comyn, of Ulceby, Lincolnshire [son of Alice de Roos] appears in
one record in the helpful online A2A catalogue. This record shows that
he took up residence at Ulceby:

Nottinghamshire Archives: Foljambe of Osberton: Deeds and Estate
Papers, DD/FJ/1/165/2, lease dated 7 April 1302 from John Comyn of
Ulseby, Lincolnshire to the Abbot and Convent of Thorenton, for
maintenance of the poor in their hospital, the common of pasture in
Ulseby to use every other year for 20 years (abstract of document
available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

As for Alice de Roos, widow of John Comyn, my research shows that she
married (2nd) James de Byron, Knt., of Cadney, Lincolnshire, son of
Richard de Byron, Knt. In 1277 James was going to Wales on the
king's service. In 1282 he witnessed a deed of Henry de Lacy, Earl
of Lincoln. Lady Alice de Roos, noblewoman, died testate on or shortly
before 29 April 1286, and was buried in the church of the Friars Minor,
Lincoln. In 1285-6 Sir James de Byron paid to his wife's executors
£98 for the third part of her moveable goods, and also gave for the
health of his soul and that of Alice his wife to the men of Husum a
selion [or ridge] of land. In 1287 he had letters of protection, he
going to the Holy Land. In 1296 Oliver de Sutton, Bishop of Lincoln,
committed to the subdean and to Masters John le Fleming and William of
Langworth to grant probate of Alice's will. Sir James Byron died
about 1300.

Alice de Roos' 2nd marriage and her burial in Lincolnshire in 1286 has
similarly been overlooked by genealogists. That Alice is the
ancestress of the cadet branch of the Comyn family of Ulceby,
Lincolnshire is clearly proven in the records. You can find further
details on all of these people in my book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips

Re: Agnes of Ferrers who d 11 May 1290

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 aug 2005 19:17:46

Will Johnson wrote:
a line I had not previously had which links
John St John of Bletsoe back through Lord (and Baron) Beauchamp
back to Hawise of Muscegros (1276-1340) and then to her mother Agnes of
Ferrers

I had had a death date for Agnes, but no birth year
I note that her father William, 5th Earl of Derby had two wives
Sibyl Marshall who d 1245 and
Margaret of Quincy who d bef 12 Mar 1281

Which mother was Agnes' ?

Agnes, wife of Robert de Muscegros, was the daughter of Margaret de Quency,
but Robert's daughter Hawise must have been the child of an earlier wife
than Agnes.

Details can be found here:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ ... shtml#p308

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Agnes of Ferrers who d 11 May 1290

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 17 aug 2005 19:18:50

Dear Will ~

Thank you for your good post.

Hawise de Muscegros was NOT the daughter of Agnes de Ferrers. The
evidence which proves this point is discussed in my two books,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Magna Carta Ancestry (2004).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< I've just discovered in
< Living Descendents of Blood Royal, "Bluntzer", pg 98-100, Count
d'Angerville;
< World Nobility, London. 1962
<
< a line I had not previously had which links
< John St John of Bletsoe back through Lord (and Baron) Beauchamp
< back to Hawise of Muscegros (1276-1340) and then to her mother Agnes
of
< Ferrers
<
< I had had a death date for Agnes, but no birth year
< I note that her father William, 5th Earl of Derby had two wives
< Sibyl Marshall who d 1245 and
< Margaret of Quincy who d bef 12 Mar 1281
<
< Which mother was Agnes' ?
<
< Thanks
< Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 17 aug 2005 19:56:11

Dear John ~

Thanks for sharing this information from Gary Roberts's book with the
newsgroup. Much appreciated. You're dah man!

Anyone care to comment on this descent?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon wrote:
< OK, here it be ...
<
< 1. Robert II, King of France, d. 1031 = Constance of Provence
< 2. Robert I, Duke of Burgundy = Helie of Semur-en-Auxois
< 3. Henri I, Duke of Burgundy = Sybil of Barcelona
< 4. Eudes I, Duke of Burgundy = Matilda of Burgundy</DIV>
< 5. Alice of Burgundy = William III Talvas, Count of Alencon and
< Ponthieu
< 6. Guy II, Count of Ponthieu = Ida ...
< 7. John I, Count of Ponthieu = Laure de St. Valery
< 8. Helene of Ponthieu = William de Stoteville (Guillaume
< d'Estouteville, Seigneur d'Estoutemont) of Stratfield, Hampshire
< 9. Alice of Stratfield = Robert de Say
< 10. Sir William de Say = Sybil ...
< 11. Robert de Say = Emma ...
< 12. Sir Thomas de Say = Isabel ...
< 13. Sybil de Say = ...
< 14. Elizabeth ... (only daughter and heir) = Sir Nicholas
< Dabridgecourt, possible son of Sir Sanchet Dabridgecourt
< (Dabrichecourt), Knight of the Garter
< 15. Sir John Dabridgecourt = Joan Lynde
< 16. John Dabridgecourt = Agnes Bekingham
< 17. Thomas Dabridgecourt = Beatrice ...
< 18. (probably) Elizabeth Dabridgecourt = Ralph Staverton
< 19. Elizabeth Staverton = Thomas Burgoyne
< 20. Christopher Burgoyne = Thomasine Freville, etc.

Gjest

re: Agnes of Ferrers who d 11 May 1290

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 20:10:02

I've just discovered in
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, "Bluntzer", pg 98-100, Count d'Angerville;
World Nobility, London. 1962

a line I had not previously had which links
John St John of Bletsoe back through Lord (and Baron) Beauchamp
back to Hawise of Muscegros (1276-1340) and then to her mother Agnes of
Ferrers

I had had a death date for Agnes, but no birth year
I note that her father William, 5th Earl of Derby had two wives
Sibyl Marshall who d 1245 and
Margaret of Quincy who d bef 12 Mar 1281

Which mother was Agnes' ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 20:29:02

In a message dated 8/17/05 1:42:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
lynawolf@yahoo.com.au writes:

I don't have AR7 or CP, but Douglas only says Joan was the 'daughter
of Sir Robert
Peverel, by Alice, his wife'. Do either of the others state who Alice
was, or that she
was the wife of Sir Robert?

regards

Lyn Wolf
Australia



CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It does not
show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

Gjest

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 20:36:01

In a message dated 8/16/05 7:13:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< She also was not Eleanor/Alianore de Ferrers, or more properly
Alianore de Lovaine, dau. of Mathew de Lovaine of Little Easton, Essex
(d. ca. 1302). >>

Is this Eleanor of Lovaine the sister of Hawise who (Hawise) married Philip
Basset, Lord of Wycombe and then this couple had Alice Basset, Countess of
Norfolk?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Ferrers who d 11 May 1290

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 20:51:02

In a message dated 8/17/05 11:28:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

<< http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ ... shtml#p308 >>

Thanks for the help of everyone who responded. I think I have it more clear
now.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Umfreville pedigree - Ewell, Surrey and Farnham Royal, B

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 20:52:02

In a message dated 8/16/05 10:43:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< In this case, Alianore took the name of her first husband, and
was still called Alianore de Ferrers for the purpose of that document.
The document you cited was dated 1308, but the fine it referred back to
was that fine of 100 assessed 18
February 1290/91 against Sir William Douglas and his new wife, Alianore
(widow of Sir William de Ferrers). >>

At some point in the past, I had gotten these two Alianore's mixed together.
I had half the marriages of one with the other, and half the marriages of the
other with the first one! Very confusing.
Thanks John
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 21:05:02

In a message dated 8/17/05 11:28:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, UTZ@aol.com
writes:

<< I don't have AR7 or CP, but Douglas only says Joan was the 'daughter
of Sir Robert
Peverel, by Alice, his wife'. >>

I also have a note that says that Joan was still living 30 Jun 1359
and for the source I cite this newsgroup (July 2005) and the A2A catalog
but I did not quote the sources so I'm not sure what the document now was.

Will Johnson


Tony Hoskins

Re: A Lancashire/Yorkshire origin for (some) Sal{i,e,u}sbury

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17 aug 2005 23:44:01

"Another name for the modern city of Salisbury is New Sarum, Sarum being
an abbreviated form of the medieval Latin corruption
('Sarisburiensis') of the ancient Roman name Sorbiodonum. Old
Sarum, site of an Iron Age fort, cathedral, and town on a 90-m/300-ft
hill to the north, was abandoned in 1220. Old Sarum was the most famous
of the 'rotten boroughs' prior to the 1832 Reform Act."

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... 17007.html

Gjest

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 aug 2005 23:51:02

Thanks to all that replied to my posting of the purported line from Rohese
to William Leete. I have now removed Beatrice
Hasilden as a daughter of John and wife of Robert Freville to avoid passing
on obviously faulty data. Sorry if I misled anyone, but if you do not put it
out there, bad data stays in your database.

Always optimistic--Dave

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: A Lancashire/Yorkshire origin for (some) Sal{i,e,u}sbury

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 18 aug 2005 03:06:52

In article <s3034ce7.052@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

"Another name for the modern city of Salisbury is New Sarum, Sarum being
an abbreviated form of the medieval Latin corruption
('Sarisburiensis') of the ancient Roman name Sorbiodonum. Old
Sarum, site of an Iron Age fort, cathedral, and town on a 90-m/300-ft
hill to the north, was abandoned in 1220. Old Sarum was the most famous
of the 'rotten boroughs' prior to the 1832 Reform Act."

If 'Sarum' comes from 'Sorbiodonum'--which obviously cannot have been
based on Anglo-Saxon place name roots--'Salisbury' is surely a regular
Anglo-Saxon two-root place name, as is the other 'Salesbury', in
Lancashire. Do 'Salisbury' [Wilts.] and 'Salesbury' [Lancs.] have
distinct first-roots, or are they supposed to be the same word
originally? I don't have an etymological place-name resource or
Anglo-Saxon dictionary handy.

As to the name as a surname, the _Dictionary of English Surnames_
derives the surname simply from those two places, with 12th- and
13th-century attestations in local assize rolls, etc.

The noble-foreigner-from-Salzburg derivation seems like a typical
19th-century fantasy (perhaps 18th c.), though I'd be interested to see
the form in which this idea appears in a 16th-century visitation
pedigree. And at any rate, if the Welsh family is distinct from the
poster's Lancashire family, that's all the more reason to ignore the
German legend.

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

Paul K Davis

Re: Bartrum's Welsh pedigrees

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 18 aug 2005 05:38:01

The Library of Congress set is unfortunately missing some volumes,
including volume 3 of the 300-1400 set. The New York City Public Library
has a more complete set. If it were available on CD I would likely buy a
set.

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


[Original Message]
From: <alden@mindspring.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 8/17/2005 7:58:22 PM
Subject: Re: Bartrum's Welsh pedigrees

The Library of Congress has a paper copy (perhaps photocopied).

Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: George Digby of Coleshill

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 00:54:01

In a message dated 8/18/05 8:47:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bclagett@cov.com
writes:

<< 14. Katherine Vaux, m. Sir George Throckmorton.n >>

Burke's Commoners says that this couple are the parents of the Anne
Throckmorton who married John Digby, Esq of Coleshill and had, among others, George
Digby, Lord of Coleshill who married Abigail Heveningham.

One of the children of this last couple was John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol
who DNB states was born Feb 1580.

Since he had an elder brother Robert Digby, and since it's fairly
unbelievable that George Digby would have his only two children when he was in
approaching 70, I have to discard the birthyear of 1510 I had picked up somewhere for
this George.

The earliest document I have so far for this George states he is lord of
Coleshill in 1571/2.

We know (DNB "Nicholas Throckmorton") that Anne Throckmorton's father George
died 1553/4

This may call into question whether the Agnes Digby who married John Villiers
and had for a grandson Sir George of Brooksby Villiers, who (DNB "Edward
Villiers") was born 1544 could possibly be a sister to George Digby.

It rather appears that she must be an aunt.
Comments appreciated.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Househo

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 01:55:02

DNB has a biography of this person which gives a few more details than Leo's
great site at http://www.genealogics.org.

Sir Richard Guldeford died on 6 Sep 1506 in Jerusalem according to DNB.
His first wife Anne Pimpe (heiress of John Pimpe of Kent) left him several
children, however his second wife Joan Vaux, left him only one son Henry
Guldeford (1489-1532)

Due to knowing the exact dates of Henry's life we can now say that Richard
must have married Anne Pimpe before 1485 at the least and probably 1475/80

Among the children of Richard and Anne is George Guldeford whom I've already
commented on. Elizabeth Mortymer [Mortimer]'s marriage and wardship was given
to Sir Richard Guldeford and he promptly (more or less) married her off to
his son George.

George Guldeford and Elizabeth Mortimer were married 1493/6

All of the children of Richard Guldeford and Anne Pimpe must have been born
between 1472 and 1489 including Phillippa Guldeford who married John Gage, Knt
of West Firle and was the mother of Anne Gage who then married Sir Anthony
Browne.

The son of Anne Gage and Sir Anthony Browne (who d 6 May 1548 Byfleet) was
Anthony Browne, Viscount Montagu (created in 1554)


The above-mentioned Joan Vaux was the sister to Sir Nicholas Vaux, 1st Lord
Vaux of Harrowden who married Elizabeth FitzHugh dau of Henry 6th Lord
Fitzhugh by his wife Alice Neville dau of Richard 1st Earl Salisbury (beheaded 1460)

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: George Digby of Coleshill

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 aug 2005 02:20:02

FWIW, both CP and BP (1999 ed.) show the 1st Earl of Bristol as born in Feb.
1586, not 1580. The 1580 date is shown in a Digby pedigree in Hutchins'
Dorset, 4:473, presumably the source for DNB.

This same Digby pedigree does show Agnes (sometimes called Anne) Digby, the
wife of John Villiers of Brokesby, as the sister of the 1st Earl's father
Sir George Digby and thus a daughter of John Digby (d. 1558) and Anne
Throckmorton. This parentage is shown as so in Paget's ancestry of Prince
Charles. But Gary Boyd Roberts pointed out in 1980 in a review of Paget's
work in the first issue of "The Genealogist" that this cannot be correct
since John Villiers d. in 1506, fifty years or so before his supposed
father-in-law. If Agnes/Anne Digby is in fact the daughter of a John Digby,
he must be someplace else in that family - and not yet identified.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: George Digby of Coleshill


In a message dated 8/18/05 8:47:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bclagett@cov.com
writes:

14. Katherine Vaux, m. Sir George Throckmorton.n

Burke's Commoners says that this couple are the parents of the Anne
Throckmorton who married John Digby, Esq of Coleshill and had, among
others, George
Digby, Lord of Coleshill who married Abigail Heveningham.

One of the children of this last couple was John Digby, 1st Earl of
Bristol
who DNB states was born Feb 1580.

Since he had an elder brother Robert Digby, and since it's fairly
unbelievable that George Digby would have his only two children when he
was in
approaching 70, I have to discard the birthyear of 1510 I had picked up
somewhere for
this George.

The earliest document I have so far for this George states he is lord of
Coleshill in 1571/2.

We know (DNB "Nicholas Throckmorton") that Anne Throckmorton's father
George
died 1553/4

This may call into question whether the Agnes Digby who married John
Villiers
and had for a grandson Sir George of Brooksby Villiers, who (DNB "Edward
Villiers") was born 1544 could possibly be a sister to George Digby.

It rather appears that she must be an aunt.
Comments appreciated.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Househo

Legg inn av John Higgins » 19 aug 2005 02:51:02

There is an extensive discussion (about 11 pages) of Sir Richard Guildford
[sic] and his family in "The Ancestry of Mary Isaac", by the noted
genealogist Walter Goodwin Davis (1955). Davis does not attempt to guess
the marriage dates of Sir Richard, but does indicate that his sons by the
1st marriage Sir Edward and George were born ca. 1475 and ca. 1477
respectively, while Sir Henry, of the 2nd marrriage, was b. ca. 1488. No
birth dates given for the daughters, but it is noted that their birth order
is uncertain.

Davis says that the marriage of Elizabeth Mortimer was granted to Sir
Richard on 14 July 1487. When Elizabeth was sole heir to her uncle David in
1495, she was at that time 18 years old and the wife of "young Guildford".
No specifics as to their marriage date.

"Guldeford" is said to be "a reversion to the old sound of the name". For
those who may interested, Sir Richard is an ancestor of Prince William via
fourof the children of his 1st marriage.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Household


DNB has a biography of this person which gives a few more details than
Leo's
great site at http://www.genealogics.org.

Sir Richard Guldeford died on 6 Sep 1506 in Jerusalem according to DNB.
His first wife Anne Pimpe (heiress of John Pimpe of Kent) left him several
children, however his second wife Joan Vaux, left him only one son Henry
Guldeford (1489-1532)

Due to knowing the exact dates of Henry's life we can now say that Richard
must have married Anne Pimpe before 1485 at the least and probably 1475/80

Among the children of Richard and Anne is George Guldeford whom I've
already
commented on. Elizabeth Mortymer [Mortimer]'s marriage and wardship was
given
to Sir Richard Guldeford and he promptly (more or less) married her off to
his son George.

George Guldeford and Elizabeth Mortimer were married 1493/6

All of the children of Richard Guldeford and Anne Pimpe must have been
born
between 1472 and 1489 including Phillippa Guldeford who married John Gage,
Knt
of West Firle and was the mother of Anne Gage who then married Sir Anthony
Browne.

The son of Anne Gage and Sir Anthony Browne (who d 6 May 1548 Byfleet) was
Anthony Browne, Viscount Montagu (created in 1554)


The above-mentioned Joan Vaux was the sister to Sir Nicholas Vaux, 1st
Lord
Vaux of Harrowden who married Elizabeth FitzHugh dau of Henry 6th Lord
Fitzhugh by his wife Alice Neville dau of Richard 1st Earl Salisbury
(beheaded 1460)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Househo

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 03:01:02

In a message dated 8/18/05 5:49:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< Davis says that the marriage of Elizabeth Mortimer was granted to Sir
Richard on 14 July 1487. When Elizabeth was sole heir to her uncle David in
1495, she was at that time 18 years old and the wife of "young Guildford".
No specifics as to their marriage date. >>

I posted earlier on the marriage date of Elizabeth Mortimer.
Within the I.P.M. details of her father, we find testimony as to the year of
the marriage, or rather the latest possible year.

Here is the extract below.
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------
London: - Abstracts of Inquisitiones Post Mortem, City of London, 1485-1561
Burials. Inquisitions of the Reign of King Henry the Eighth. Elizabeth, Wife of
George Guldeford, and Daughter and Heir of Robert Mortymer. County: London
Country: England George Mercer says that in the 8th year of Henry 7th he was
servant to John Guldeford, knight, father of the said Sir Richard, and attended
upon him as his clerk. The said Sir John died in the said year, and was buried
in the nave of Christ's Church, Canterbury, on the feast of St. Margaret the
Virgin. The said Elizabeth was married to the said George Guldeford before the
death of the said Sir John.

steven perkins

Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Househo

Legg inn av steven perkins » 19 aug 2005 03:42:02

Will:

Here is what I have on Guildeford and Pympe from my page on the
Ancestry of Haute Wyatt,
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... hwyatt.hml

I believe the Pympe data is from Archaeologia Cant., vol 6, p 143 et
seq., where the will of the father of John Pympe is printed:

22 Sir Richard Guildford (1455-1502)

Sir Richard was born 1455. He died 6 September 1502 in Jerusalem, at
47 years of age, Chan IPM, Ser 2, xxi,18, 1506.

23 Anne Pympe ( -?)


44 Sir John Guildford (CA 1420-1493)

Sir John was born circa 1420. He died July 1493 in Rolvenden, Kent, 14
to 19 Jul, at 73 years of age. His body was interred in Christ Church,
Canterbury.

45 Alis Waller ( -?)

46 John Pympe ( -1454)

He died 8 November 1454. His body was interred in Nettlested, Kent.

47 Phillipe Thornbury ( -BEF 1486)

Phillipe died before 1486.


88 Edward Guldeford (CA 1385-1449)

Edward was born circa 1385. He died 1449 in Rolvenden, Kent?, at 64
years of age. His will was made, 16 Oct 1448, probated 21 September
1449. ????

89 Juliana Petelisden ( -)

92 John Pympe ( -1421)

John was born in Nettlested, Kent. John died 1421. His will is
printed, Arch. Cant., v.6, p.134, 1421.

93 ------ Delsey ( -?)

94 John Thornbury ( -CA 1474)

John's will was probated in PCC, 12 Wattys, 16 February 1473/4. will
made, 10 Apr 1473, He died circa 1474 in Faversham, Kent.

95 Ann ----- ( -?)

184 Reginald Pympe (BEF 1376-1438)

Reginald was born before 1376. Reginald died 1438 at 62 years of age.

185 ------ Fremingham ( -?)

188 John Thornbury ( -?)

John died in Faversham, Kent?.

189 Agnes ----- ( -?)

Please let me know if you see any obvious mistakes.

Regards,

Steven C. Perkins



On 8/18/05, WJhonson@aol.com <WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 8/18/05 5:49:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

Davis says that the marriage of Elizabeth Mortimer was granted to Sir
Richard on 14 July 1487. When Elizabeth was sole heir to her uncle David in
1495, she was at that time 18 years old and the wife of "young Guildford".
No specifics as to their marriage date.

I posted earlier on the marriage date of Elizabeth Mortimer.
Within the I.P.M. details of her father, we find testimony as to the year of
the marriage, or rather the latest possible year.

Here is the extract below.
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------
London: - Abstracts of Inquisitiones Post Mortem, City of London, 1485-1561
Burials. Inquisitions of the Reign of King Henry the Eighth. Elizabeth, Wife of
George Guldeford, and Daughter and Heir of Robert Mortymer. County: London
Country: England George Mercer says that in the 8th year of Henry 7th he was
servant to John Guldeford, knight, father of the said Sir Richard, and attended
upon him as his clerk. The said Sir John died in the said year, and was buried
in the nave of Christ's Church, Canterbury, on the feast of St. Margaret the
Virgin. The said Elizabeth was married to the said George Guldeford before the
death of the said Sir John.




--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/

Lyn Wolf

Re: Rohese de Boulogne to William Leete

Legg inn av Lyn Wolf » 19 aug 2005 03:59:03

Dear Dave and others

Thankyou Dave for your reply. Is there any more information
in the text of CP about Alice de Lisle & Robert Peverel?
Does CP have anything under Peverel? I am still confused.

From the archives, Aug 10 2004, 6:31 pm
Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, is stated
to be brother of Robert Peverel and uncle to Edmund Peverel,
who married Elizabeth de Lisle.

Therefore, if Edmund Peverel was the son of Robert and his wife
Alice de Lisle, how could he (Edmund) have married Elizabeth de
Lisle? This would have him marrying his mother's sister.

regards

Lyn Wolf


From: <UTZ@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM


CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It does
not
show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Douglas Richardson royala

C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 07:18:37

Dear Lyn ~

There is an excellent article on Bishop Walter de Langton in Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76. I recommend anyone interested in
this family read it. The article is quite detailed and well
researched. As I recall, the article shows that Bishop Walter de
Langton was a full brother to Robert Peverel.

As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as late
as 1348. Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,
Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

The following sources can be consulted for further reference to Edmund
Peverel and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 1 (1822-30): 619-620 (Lisle
pedigree); Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 398; VCH Bedford 2 (1908):
224; Copinger, Manors of Suffolk 3 (1909): 96-97; Clay, Extinct &
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (1913): 125-126 (sub De
Lisle); Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1347-1356 (1921): 65; VCH Berkshire 4
(1924): 218; VCH Huntingdon 2 (1932): 322-323; VCH Northampton 3
(1930): 143-144; VCH Cambridge 4 (1953): 136-137, 180-182; VCH
Shropshire 8 (1968): 1-18; Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 1
(Selden Soc. 97) (1983): 224-229 (abstract of a suit dated
1330-1331 involving a dam on Edmund Peverel's manor at Coldham);
Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76.

Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have a sister named Alice de
Lisle. However, surviving records show conclusively that she married
Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel. As such, if the chart in
Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, it is incorrect.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the colonial 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Edmund Peverel and his
wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

l. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Lyn Wolf" wrote:
< Dear Dave and others
<
< Thankyou Dave for your reply. Is there any more information
< in the text of CP about Alice de Lisle & Robert Peverel?
< Does CP have anything under Peverel? I am still confused.
<
< From the archives, Aug 10 2004, 6:31 pm
< > Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, is stated
< > to be brother of Robert Peverel and uncle to Edmund Peverel,
< > who married Elizabeth de Lisle.
<
< Therefore, if Edmund Peverel was the son of Robert and his wife
< Alice de Lisle, how could he (Edmund) have married Elizabeth de
< Lisle? This would have him marrying his mother's sister.
<
< regards
<
< Lyn Wolf
<
<
< From: <UTZ@aol.com>
< To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
< Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM
<
<
< CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It
does
< not show their children.
<
< Always optimistic--Dave

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 11:01:32

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Lyn ~


To the Newsgroup:

In a messagge posted on the thread "Re Rohese de Boulogne to William
Leete," DR has added a new heading "C.P. Correction Elizabeth de Lisle,
wife of Edmund Peverel" In that message :

(1)DR states inter alia "As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my
personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as late
as 1348."

This information is in 8 CP 73, note (i). Whatever DR's personal
research may be, he adds nothing new except the unsupported statement
about Edmund's dates and that Elizabeth de Lisle was living as late as
1348.

DR adds "Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,..."
and a long nonspecific (as to what is being cited) list of sources.

(2)DR states inter alia "Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have
a sister named Alice de Lisle. However, surviving records show
conclusively that she married Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel.
As such, if the chart in Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de
Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is incorrect."

This is most remarkable! CP has all the information regarding Thomas
Seymour in the first sentence (with citations). In note (i), cited
above, CP states that Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour and
appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel (citing IPM). The
chart on page 48 shows that Alice was married two times: first to
Thomas de Seymour, and second to Robert Peverel.

So, what was DR correcting? He says "if the chart in Complete Peerage
8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is
incorrect." Doesn't he know what the chart shows? Is he offering a
correction to CP without checking CP?

DR created a new heading in the thread which promises a correction to
the Complete Peerage regarding Elizabeth de Lisle. He offers no
correction, only a possible addition (without citation). Then he says,
regarding her sister, if it a chart indicates Alice married Robert
Peverel , it is wrong, without citing authority.

What was the purpose of for posting this message? No usable
information regarding Elizabeth de Lisle was offered. Why name her in
the heading? Could it be that he wanted to take unmerited credit for a
CP correction or was it an opportunity to advertise his book, contrary
to netiquette?

CED

There is an excellent article on Bishop Walter de Langton in Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76. I recommend anyone interested in
this family read it. The article is quite detailed and well
researched. As I recall, the article shows that Bishop Walter de
Langton was a full brother to Robert Peverel.

As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as late
as 1348. Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,
Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

The following sources can be consulted for further reference to Edmund
Peverel and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 1 (1822-30): 619-620 (Lisle
pedigree); Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 398; VCH Bedford 2 (1908):
224; Copinger, Manors of Suffolk 3 (1909): 96-97; Clay, Extinct &
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (1913): 125-126 (sub De
Lisle); Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1347-1356 (1921): 65; VCH Berkshire 4
(1924): 218; VCH Huntingdon 2 (1932): 322-323; VCH Northampton 3
(1930): 143-144; VCH Cambridge 4 (1953): 136-137, 180-182; VCH
Shropshire 8 (1968): 1-18; Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 1
(Selden Soc. 97) (1983): 224-229 (abstract of a suit dated
1330-1331 involving a dam on Edmund Peverel's manor at Coldham);
Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76.

Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have a sister named Alice de
Lisle. However, surviving records show conclusively that she married
Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel. As such, if the chart in
Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, it is incorrect.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the colonial 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Edmund Peverel and his
wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

l. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Lyn Wolf" wrote:
Dear Dave and others

Thankyou Dave for your reply. Is there any more information
in the text of CP about Alice de Lisle & Robert Peverel?
Does CP have anything under Peverel? I am still confused.

From the archives, Aug 10 2004, 6:31 pm
Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, is stated
to be brother of Robert Peverel and uncle to Edmund Peverel,
who married Elizabeth de Lisle.

Therefore, if Edmund Peverel was the son of Robert and his wife
Alice de Lisle, how could he (Edmund) have married Elizabeth de
Lisle? This would have him marrying his mother's sister.

regards

Lyn Wolf


From: <UTZ@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM


CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It
does
not show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 16:52:19

Dear CED ~

Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 16:55:24

Dear Lyn ~

Thank you for your good post.

Alice de Lisle did not marry Robert Peverel. She married Sir Thomas
Seymour.

Alice's sister, Elizabeth de Lisle, married Edmund Peverel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Lyn Wolf" wrote:
To CED, Douglas Richardson & others

Thankyou for your replies. If CP Vol 8, p73, note (i) is
correct in stating Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour
and appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel
(citing IPM), and the chart on page 48 shows that Alice
was married two times: first to Thomas de Seymour, and
second to Robert Peverel, wouldn't this require Edmund
Peverel to have been a son of Robert and an earlier wife?
Also, when would this second marriage of Alice de Lisle
to Robert Peverel have taken place?

What is actually known about the birth dates of both
Edmund Peverel and his sister Joan (who married John
Engaine)? Is there any date for the birth of Robert
Peverel? Are Edmund and Joan known to be full
siblings?

I will try to obtain the books cited through an inter-library
loan. This will take weeks if I can get them at all. As I'm
waiting to receive my copy of Douglas' book, I didn't mind
him telling me that there is more information in it.

As I see it, there is still something wrong here. Either Edmund
was not the son of Robert & his wife Alice (I don't know if the
chronology allows for this), or this Alice (wife of Robert) &
Elizabeth were not sisters.

regards

Lyn Wolf


----- Original Message -----
"CED" leesmyth@cox.net wrote

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Lyn ~

To the Newsgroup:

In a messagge posted on the thread "Re Rohese de Boulogne to William
Leete," DR has added a new heading "C.P. Correction Elizabeth de
Lisle,
wife of Edmund Peverel" In that message :

(1)DR states inter alia "As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my
personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as
late
as 1348."

This information is in 8 CP 73, note (i). Whatever DR's personal
research may be, he adds nothing new except the unsupported statement
about Edmund's dates and that Elizabeth de Lisle was living as late as
1348.

DR adds "Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my
book,..."
and a long nonspecific (as to what is being cited) list of sources.

(2)DR states inter alia "Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have
a sister named Alice de Lisle. However, surviving records show
conclusively that she married Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert
Peverel.
As such, if the chart in Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice
de
Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is incorrect."

This is most remarkable! CP has all the information regarding Thomas
Seymour in the first sentence (with citations). In note (i), cited
above, CP states that Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour and
appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel (citing IPM). The
chart on page 48 shows that Alice was married two times: first to
Thomas de Seymour, and second to Robert Peverel.

So, what was DR correcting? He says "if the chart in Complete Peerage
8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is
incorrect." Doesn't he know what the chart shows? Is he offering a
correction to CP without checking CP?

DR created a new heading in the thread which promises a correction to
the Complete Peerage regarding Elizabeth de Lisle. He offers no
correction, only a possible addition (without citation). Then he says,
regarding her sister, if it a chart indicates Alice married Robert
Peverel , it is wrong, without citing authority.

What was the purpose of for posting this message? No usable
information regarding Elizabeth de Lisle was offered. Why name her in
the heading? Could it be that he wanted to take unmerited credit for
a
CP correction or was it an opportunity to advertise his book, contrary
to netiquette?

CED


There is an excellent article on Bishop Walter de Langton in
Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76. I recommend anyone interested
in
this family read it. The article is quite detailed and well
researched. As I recall, the article shows that Bishop Walter de
Langton was a full brother to Robert Peverel.

As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my personal research
indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married
before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as
late
as 1348. Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,
Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

The following sources can be consulted for further reference to
Edmund
Peverel and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 1 (1822-30): 619-620 (Lisle
pedigree); Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 398; VCH Bedford 2 (1908):
224; Copinger, Manors of Suffolk 3 (1909): 96-97; Clay, Extinct &
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (1913): 125-126 (sub De
Lisle); Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1347-1356 (1921): 65; VCH Berkshire
4
(1924): 218; VCH Huntingdon 2 (1932): 322-323; VCH Northampton 3
(1930): 143-144; VCH Cambridge 4 (1953): 136-137, 180-182; VCH
Shropshire 8 (1968): 1-18; Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 1
(Selden Soc. 97) (1983): 224-229 (abstract of a suit dated
1330-1331 involving a dam on Edmund Peverel's manor at Coldham);
Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76.

Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have a sister named Alice
de
Lisle. However, surviving records show conclusively that she
married
Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel. As such, if the chart in
Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, it is incorrect.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the colonial 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Edmund Peverel and his
wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

l. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Lyn Wolf" wrote:
Dear Dave and others

Thankyou Dave for your reply. Is there any more information
in the text of CP about Alice de Lisle & Robert Peverel?
Does CP have anything under Peverel? I am still confused.

From the archives, Aug 10 2004, 6:31 pm
Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, is stated
to be brother of Robert Peverel and uncle to Edmund Peverel,
who married Elizabeth de Lisle.

Therefore, if Edmund Peverel was the son of Robert and his wife
Alice de Lisle, how could he (Edmund) have married Elizabeth de
Lisle? This would have him marrying his mother's sister.

regards

Lyn Wolf


From: <UTZ@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM


CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It
does
not show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 17:21:21

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED

Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 aug 2005 17:33:57

Ahh, poor, dreary, old CEDdie ...

Endlessly picking at nits.



CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED


Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 17:35:08

Dear CED ~

If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
the case), you should take it to private.

The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED


Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Lyn Wolf

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Lyn Wolf » 19 aug 2005 17:41:02

To CED, Douglas Richardson & others

Thankyou for your replies. If CP Vol 8, p73, note (i) is
correct in stating Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour
and appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel
(citing IPM), and the chart on page 48 shows that Alice
was married two times: first to Thomas de Seymour, and
second to Robert Peverel, wouldn't this require Edmund
Peverel to have been a son of Robert and an earlier wife?
Also, when would this second marriage of Alice de Lisle
to Robert Peverel have taken place?

What is actually known about the birth dates of both
Edmund Peverel and his sister Joan (who married John
Engaine)? Is there any date for the birth of Robert
Peverel? Are Edmund and Joan known to be full
siblings?

I will try to obtain the books cited through an inter-library
loan. This will take weeks if I can get them at all. As I'm
waiting to receive my copy of Douglas' book, I didn't mind
him telling me that there is more information in it.

As I see it, there is still something wrong here. Either Edmund
was not the son of Robert & his wife Alice (I don't know if the
chronology allows for this), or this Alice (wife of Robert) &
Elizabeth were not sisters.

regards

Lyn Wolf


----- Original Message -----
"CED" leesmyth@cox.net wrote

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Lyn ~

To the Newsgroup:

In a messagge posted on the thread "Re Rohese de Boulogne to William
Leete," DR has added a new heading "C.P. Correction Elizabeth de
Lisle,
wife of Edmund Peverel" In that message :

(1)DR states inter alia "As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my
personal research indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as
late
as 1348."

This information is in 8 CP 73, note (i). Whatever DR's personal
research may be, he adds nothing new except the unsupported statement
about Edmund's dates and that Elizabeth de Lisle was living as late as
1348.

DR adds "Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my
book,..."
and a long nonspecific (as to what is being cited) list of sources.

(2)DR states inter alia "Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have
a sister named Alice de Lisle. However, surviving records show
conclusively that she married Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert
Peverel.
As such, if the chart in Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice
de
Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is incorrect."

This is most remarkable! CP has all the information regarding Thomas
Seymour in the first sentence (with citations). In note (i), cited
above, CP states that Alice was the wife of Thomas de Seymour and
appears afterwards to have married Robert Peverel (citing IPM). The
chart on page 48 shows that Alice was married two times: first to
Thomas de Seymour, and second to Robert Peverel.

So, what was DR correcting? He says "if the chart in Complete Peerage
8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert Peverel, it is
incorrect." Doesn't he know what the chart shows? Is he offering a
correction to CP without checking CP?

DR created a new heading in the thread which promises a correction to
the Complete Peerage regarding Elizabeth de Lisle. He offers no
correction, only a possible addition (without citation). Then he says,
regarding her sister, if it a chart indicates Alice married Robert
Peverel , it is wrong, without citing authority.

What was the purpose of for posting this message? No usable
information regarding Elizabeth de Lisle was offered. Why name her in
the heading? Could it be that he wanted to take unmerited credit for
a
CP correction or was it an opportunity to advertise his book, contrary
to netiquette?

CED

There is an excellent article on Bishop Walter de Langton in
Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76. I recommend anyone interested
in
this family read it. The article is quite detailed and well
researched. As I recall, the article shows that Bishop Walter de
Langton was a full brother to Robert Peverel.

As for the Peverel-de Lisle connection, my personal research
indicates
that Robert Peverel's son, Edmund Peverel (died 1331), married
before
1330 Elizabeth de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp. Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel was living as
late
as 1348. Fuller particulars on this couple can be found in my book,
Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).

The following sources can be consulted for further reference to
Edmund
Peverel and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northampton 1 (1822-30): 619-620 (Lisle
pedigree); Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 398; VCH Bedford 2 (1908):
224; Copinger, Manors of Suffolk 3 (1909): 96-97; Clay, Extinct &
Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties (1913): 125-126 (sub De
Lisle); Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1347-1356 (1921): 65; VCH Berkshire
4
(1924): 218; VCH Huntingdon 2 (1932): 322-323; VCH Northampton 3
(1930): 143-144; VCH Cambridge 4 (1953): 136-137, 180-182; VCH
Shropshire 8 (1968): 1-18; Sutherland, Eyre of Northamptonshire 1
(Selden Soc. 97) (1983): 224-229 (abstract of a suit dated
1330-1331 involving a dam on Edmund Peverel's manor at Coldham);
Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991): 70-76.

Elizabeth (de Lisle) Peverel did in fact have a sister named Alice
de
Lisle. However, surviving records show conclusively that she
married
Thomas Seymour, Knt., not Robert Peverel. As such, if the chart in
Complete Peerage 8:48 indicates that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, it is incorrect.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the colonial 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Edmund Peverel and his
wife, Elizabeth de Lisle:

l. Henry Fleete.

2. Henry & William Randolph.

3. Hawte Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Lyn Wolf" wrote:
Dear Dave and others

Thankyou Dave for your reply. Is there any more information
in the text of CP about Alice de Lisle & Robert Peverel?
Does CP have anything under Peverel? I am still confused.

From the archives, Aug 10 2004, 6:31 pm
Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, is stated
to be brother of Robert Peverel and uncle to Edmund Peverel,
who married Elizabeth de Lisle.

Therefore, if Edmund Peverel was the son of Robert and his wife
Alice de Lisle, how could he (Edmund) have married Elizabeth de
Lisle? This would have him marrying his mother's sister.

regards

Lyn Wolf


From: <UTZ@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:27 AM


CP 8:48chart shows Alice de Lisle as wife of Robert Peverel. It
does
not show their children.

Always optimistic--Dave

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 18:30:05

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Again, as has often been the case when DR is caught in an awkward
position, DR is attempting to twist the case, shift the burden. He asks
that I prove him wrong. That is not, and was not, the question. He
says that CP, both the note (i) on page 73 of volume VIII and the chart
after page 48 of that volume, are wrong. Both the note and the chart
indicate that Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle.
If he contends that CP is wrong, according to all standards of
scholarship, the burden of proof is upon DR to prove CP wrong.

If DR cannot put forward evidence that Robert Peverel was not married
to Alice de Lisle, that the CP note and chart are wrong, he should
admit that he has no such evidence. That would end this discussion, a
discussion which he began with an inexplicable post concerning Alice's
sister, Elizabeth de Lisle.

CED
If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
the case), you should take it to private.

The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED


Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 19:30:31

Dear CED ~

It is not necessary to be abusive, or misrepresent another poster's
statements. If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do),
I recommend you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval
genealogy, and to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Again, as has often been the case when DR is caught in an awkward
position, DR is attempting to twist the case, shift the burden. He asks
that I prove him wrong. That is not, and was not, the question. He
says that CP, both the note (i) on page 73 of volume VIII and the chart
after page 48 of that volume, are wrong. Both the note and the chart
indicate that Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle.
If he contends that CP is wrong, according to all standards of
scholarship, the burden of proof is upon DR to prove CP wrong.

If DR cannot put forward evidence that Robert Peverel was not married
to Alice de Lisle, that the CP note and chart are wrong, he should
admit that he has no such evidence. That would end this discussion, a
discussion which he began with an inexplicable post concerning Alice's
sister, Elizabeth de Lisle.

CED

If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
the case), you should take it to private.

The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED


Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 19:38:25

Dear Will ~

If you know of any evidence proving that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, I'd very much like to see it. As best I can determine, Alice
de Lisle had only one marriage to Sir Thomas Seymour, of Rode,
Somerset.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/19/05 8:59:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Alice de Lisle did not marry Robert Peverel. She married Sir Thomas
Seymour.

Come now. You can't just make bald-faced statements without any proof and
expect everyone to just swallow them :)
Can you?
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thom

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 19:54:30

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 20:28:02

In a message dated 8/19/05 8:42:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lynawolf@yahoo.com.au writes:

<< What is actually known about the birth dates of both
Edmund Peverel and his sister Joan (who married John
Engaine)? Is there any date for the birth of Robert
Peverel? Are Edmund and Joan known to be full
siblings? >>

As for Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Peveral we do know that she was born
before 1318 per CP, referring to Douglas' prior post:

"Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 75-77 (sub Engaine) has a good account of the
life history of Sir John Engaine, 1st Lord Engaine, died 1358. Regarding his
wife, Joan, the following information is provided:

"He married, soon after 12 Nov. 1318, Joan, daughter of Sir Robert Peverel,
of Castle Ashby, Northants, by Alice, his wife ... On 19 March following
[1357/8] the escheator in co. Leicester was ordered to take the fealty of Joan, and
the manors which she and her husband had held jointly at his death, were
liberated to her.""

Will Johnson

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 20:29:33

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Still DR will not give us the any evidence that Alice de Lisle was not
married to Robert Peverel. That was his original contention, a
contention which, if he is to be taken seriously as a genealogist,
ought to be supported by authority. This is especially the case when
his contention contradicts the Complete Peerage.

Why does my asking for his evidence constitute an "ax to grind?"

To be sure, in the past I have pledged to this newsgroup that I would
attempt to keep DR using logical arguments, with proper use of
language, and otherwise honest in his postings. I shall continue to do
so.

Is keeping DR honest an "ax to grind?"

Somebody in the group should take up that obligation to those good
genealogists who do not have time to spare for such a project. I am
not a genealogist; but my library holds sufficient materials related to
the sources that I can check them out.

By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.

CED


It is not necessary to be abusive, or misrepresent another poster's
statements. If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do),
I recommend you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval
genealogy, and to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Again, as has often been the case when DR is caught in an awkward
position, DR is attempting to twist the case, shift the burden. He asks
that I prove him wrong. That is not, and was not, the question. He
says that CP, both the note (i) on page 73 of volume VIII and the chart
after page 48 of that volume, are wrong. Both the note and the chart
indicate that Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle.
If he contends that CP is wrong, according to all standards of
scholarship, the burden of proof is upon DR to prove CP wrong.

If DR cannot put forward evidence that Robert Peverel was not married
to Alice de Lisle, that the CP note and chart are wrong, he should
admit that he has no such evidence. That would end this discussion, a
discussion which he began with an inexplicable post concerning Alice's
sister, Elizabeth de Lisle.

CED

If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
the case), you should take it to private.

The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED


Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 20:30:02

In a message dated 8/19/05 8:59:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Alice de Lisle did not marry Robert Peverel. She married Sir Thomas
Seymour. >>

Come now. You can't just make bald-faced statements without any proof and
expect everyone to just swallow them :)
Can you?
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Househo

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 20:33:01

In a message dated 8/18/05 6:41:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scperkins@gmail.com writes:

<< Sir Richard was born 1455. He died 6 September 1502 in Jerusalem, at
47 years of age, Chan IPM, Ser 2, xxi,18, 1506. >>

The date of his death should, I believe be 6 Sep 1506, not 1502.
DNB "Guildford, Richard"

Will Johnson

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 aug 2005 20:36:45

By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.

How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"
in his genealogical research, when by your own admission you know
nothing about it (at least up 'til now).

Gjest

Re: Sir Richard Guldeford, Comptroller of the King's Househo

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 20:41:01

In a message dated 8/18/05 6:41:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scperkins@gmail.com writes:

<< Sir John was born circa 1420. He died July 1493 in Rolvenden, Kent, 14
to 19 Jul, at 73 years of age. His body was interred in Christ Church,
Canterbury. >>

What is the source for the statment that he was 73 at the time of his death?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 20:42:42

Dear Newsgroup~

The abstract of the document below was found in the helpful online
National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.g ... efault.asp). It
concerns the wardship and marriage of Edmund Peverel, minor son and
heir of Robert Peverel, which were granted by the king to Robert de
Lisle, Lord Lisle of Rougement (died 1343). Edmund Peverel was
subsequently married Lord Lisle's daughter, Elizabeth de Lisle.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + +
SC 8/32/1577

Covering dates [c. 1323]
Scope and content
Petitioners: John de Beaufou
Addressees: King and council
Places mentioned: Asshele (Ashley), [Northamptonshire]
Other people mentioned: Robert Peverel; Walter de Langton, Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield; Edmund [Peverel], heir of Robert Peverel;
Robert del Idle (l'Isle); Richard de Rodeneye, Escheator [South of the
Trent]
Nature of request: John de Beaufou states that as the king was given to
understand that Robert Peverel and Walter de Langton, formerly Bishop
of Coventry and Lichfield, held of him in chief as of his crown, the
king seized the body of Edmund, son and heir of Robert, and kinsman and
heir of Walter, being under age, into his hand, together with his lands
and tenements, and granted the keeping of the lands and the marriage of
the heir to Robert del Idle. By virtue of this commission, Robert del
Idle has seized Walter de Langton's lands in Ashley, although they are
held not of the king but of John de Beaufou - as is proved by inquest
returned in Chancery. John asks that the grant be repealed with regard
to these tenements and the marriage of the heir, and that justice be
done to him, according to the form of the inquests.
Endorsement: Coram rege.A writ is to be sent to the justices of the
High Bench, together with a transcript of the inquests returned in
Chancery on this. And the justices are to have Robert come before them,
to find out if he knows any reason why the king should not do justice
to the plaintiff; and when the arguments for the king and for the party
have been heard, the justices are further to do justice and reason.

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 20:46:04

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.

To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 20:50:02

In a message dated 8/19/05 11:44:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< If you know of any evidence proving that Alice de Lisle married Robert
Peverel, I'd very much like to see it. As best I can determine, Alice
de Lisle had only one marriage to Sir Thomas Seymour, of Rode,
Somerset. >>

But the issue is, that you said C.P. is wrong, but provided nothing in the
way of argumentation as to why. Just your own statement that it's wrong.
Based on what?

We do know that Robert Peveral had a wife named Alice from C.P. do we not?
Or are you also saying that Robert did not have a wife named Alice?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 20:51:04

Dear CED ~

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend
you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and
to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.

To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 20:54:35

John Brandon wrote:
By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.

How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"
in his genealogical research, when by your own admission you know
nothing about it (at least up 'til now).

I'm glad to hear that CED thinks he or she is learning something by
reading my posts. That's welcome news.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 20:55:17

John Brandon wrote:
By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.

How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"

Brandon:

To put quotes on that which is not quoted is dishonest.

My words were "track of DR's postings." That is not the same as
keeping DR "on track" as you posted. You should be ashamed of a
purposeful misquote.

CED


in his genealogical research, when by your own admission you know
nothing about it (at least up 'til now).

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 21:01:09

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
John Brandon wrote:
By the way, in keeping track of DR's postings, I am beginning to learn
something about genealogy. DR should be thanked for that.

How odd that that you should see it as your duty to keep DR "on track"
in his genealogical research, when by your own admission you know
nothing about it (at least up 'til now).


Brandon:

I never said that I know nothing about genealogy. I have said, and do
now say, that I am not a genealogist. There is a difference. DR
claims to be a genealogist; but he errs in ways that I see and make
note of.

Yes, I have learned from watching and checking out DR's postings. One
ought to learn from the mistakes of others.

CED
I'm glad to hear that CED thinks he or she is learning something by
reading my posts. That's welcome news.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 21:10:29

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear Newsgroup~

To the Newsgroup:

Is the abstract posted by DR an attempt to prove that Alice de Lisle
never was married to Robert Peverel, as indicated by the Complete
Peerage? CP does show that Elizabeth de Lisle married Edmund Peverel.
The abstract gives nothing new on that question. I see no evidence to
contradict CP regarding either Alice or Elizabeth in that abstract. CP
cites an IPM.

CED

The abstract of the document below was found in the helpful online
National Archives catalogue
(http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.g ... efault.asp). It
concerns the wardship and marriage of Edmund Peverel, minor son and
heir of Robert Peverel, which were granted by the king to Robert de
Lisle, Lord Lisle of Rougement (died 1343). Edmund Peverel was
subsequently married Lord Lisle's daughter, Elizabeth de Lisle.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + +
SC 8/32/1577

Covering dates [c. 1323]
Scope and content
Petitioners: John de Beaufou
Addressees: King and council
Places mentioned: Asshele (Ashley), [Northamptonshire]
Other people mentioned: Robert Peverel; Walter de Langton, Bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield; Edmund [Peverel], heir of Robert Peverel;
Robert del Idle (l'Isle); Richard de Rodeneye, Escheator [South of the
Trent]
Nature of request: John de Beaufou states that as the king was given to
understand that Robert Peverel and Walter de Langton, formerly Bishop
of Coventry and Lichfield, held of him in chief as of his crown, the
king seized the body of Edmund, son and heir of Robert, and kinsman and
heir of Walter, being under age, into his hand, together with his lands
and tenements, and granted the keeping of the lands and the marriage of
the heir to Robert del Idle. By virtue of this commission, Robert del
Idle has seized Walter de Langton's lands in Ashley, although they are
held not of the king but of John de Beaufou - as is proved by inquest
returned in Chancery. John asks that the grant be repealed with regard
to these tenements and the marriage of the heir, and that justice be
done to him, according to the form of the inquests.
Endorsement: Coram rege.A writ is to be sent to the justices of the
High Bench, together with a transcript of the inquests returned in
Chancery on this. And the justices are to have Robert come before them,
to find out if he knows any reason why the king should not do justice
to the plaintiff; and when the arguments for the king and for the party
have been heard, the justices are further to do justice and reason.

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 aug 2005 21:11:29

Yes, I have learned from watching and checking out DR's postings. One
ought to learn from the mistakes of others.

And from their successes, as well, I would think.

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 aug 2005 21:15:44

To put quotes on that which is not quoted is dishonest.

My words were "track of DR's postings." That is not the same as
keeping DR "on track" as you posted. You should be ashamed of a
purposeful misquote.

You are a silly old fool, aren't you? When I wrote "on track," I was
not quoting you at all. One sometimes puts colloquialisms--such as "on
track"--in quotes.

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 21:32:29

John Brandon wrote:
To put quotes on that which is not quoted is dishonest.

My words were "track of DR's postings." That is not the same as
keeping DR "on track" as you posted. You should be ashamed of a
purposeful misquote.

Brandon:

Even though I have not contended that I should keep DR "on track," I
accept your word that you simply used a "colloquialism." I was
surprised that you used it since, no matter what else I could think of
you, I had not doubted your honesty before that posting.

Speaking of learning from mistakes: You have taught me to go more
slowly and check my spelling. It's much better reading when care is
taken to spell correctly.

CED

You are a silly old fool, aren't you? When I wrote "on track," I was
not quoting you at all. One sometimes puts colloquialisms--such as "on
track"--in quotes.

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 21:45:15

CED

Since you are so worried about errors maybe you can go through the
newsgroup and point out everyone's error's. Or is it you have a fetish
for everytime Doug post.

Mike

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av John Brandon » 19 aug 2005 21:46:23

Even though I have not contended that I should keep DR "on track," I
accept your word that you simply used a "colloquialism." I was
surprised that you used it since, no matter what else I could think of
you, I had not doubted your honesty before that posting.

Of course you have stated very plainly that you regard it as your duty
to keep DR "on track" ... How else is a sensible person to interpret
your statement below?


To be sure, in the past I have pledged to this newsgroup that I would
attempt to keep DR using logical arguments, with proper use of
language, and otherwise honest in his postings. I shall continue to do
so.

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 19 aug 2005 21:57:54

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
CED

Since you are so worried about errors maybe you can go through the
newsgroup and point out everyone's error's. Or is it you have a fetish
for everytime Doug post.

Mike

Mike:

When any of the others in the group make a claim as being a genealogist
and post corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage, as DR does,
I shall attempt to hold that claim and those postings to the same
standard as I attempt with regard to DR.

So, Mike you have nothing to worry about. Your little lists are safe.

CED

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 22:03:46

CED

Thank You CED. As everyone know's your post are full of lies.

Mike

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert Sackvi

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 22:39:01

On Leo's great website http://www.genealogics.org we see this
Lady Margaret Howard here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO

with no birth information

Her parents were married late in 1558 and her mother died in Jan 1564
so she should have a birth range of 1559/64

Lady Margaret Howard married in Feb 1580 to
Robert Sackville, 2nd Lord Dorset

In DNB "Seymour, Edward" [Lord Beauchamp 1561-1612] it says of his children
that
"his son Edward (1586-1612) married in 1609 Anne, the THIRD [my emphasis]
daughter of Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset"

Checking Leo's site for Anne Sackville, we see no birthyear but this
additional information, combined with Margaret Howard's death on 19 Aug 1591 tells us
that Anne Sackville was born no earlier than 1582 and probably more like 1585
and no latter than 1591.

Anne Sackville married Edward, *styled* Lord Beauchamp (although never
legitimized) on he [Edward] died without issue in 1618. Leo then tells us the widow
married Edward Lewes 7 Oct 1622.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Update genealogics.org Margaret Clifford / Thomas Wentwo

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 aug 2005 22:46:03

In a message dated 8/19/05 1:37:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< What you do is greatly appreciated by me. You steered me into the
direction
of the parents of Thomas Wentworth. >>

You're certainly welcome. Your database is ten times easier to use than
other similar database I've encountered, and it's quite comprehensive, which I
like as well.

What I'm doing, is charting the distances, by blood and marriage between
every person touching on the CECIL family, out to ten steps away :) I guess I
have a lot of time on my hands.

Most programs only allow determining the relationships by blood, but really
the marriages are quite important, and a brother-in-law is sometimes more
important than a grandfather in determining your relative place in society.

I'm hoping eventually to find that all members of the ENGLISH aristocracy
(Earls, Barons, Dukes, Marquesses) from the time period of Henry VIII through to
James I were related by no more than 6 steps apart. Then perhaps I'll write a
program to actually allow determining this with any two randomly selected
persons.

For example Anne Sackville is the daughter of Margaret Howard
Margaret Howard is the sister of Thomas Howard
Thomas Howard is the husband of Mary Dacre
Mary Dacre is the sister of Anne Dacre
Anne Dacre is the wife of Philip, Earl of Arundel
Philip is the son of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk

At any rate, that's my current mission.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert Sackvi

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 aug 2005 23:03:02

Dear Will,

With messages like these I look at what I have and what needs amending. This
indication of Anne Sackville being a third daughter made me start looking
for the missing one, Cecily I already have. The Earls of Dorset title is
extinct but I could not find them (lucky ?) in Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866,
but they are in Burke's Peerage 1999 under the Barons Sackville, here they
also give only two daughters, Cecily and Anne.

Does anyone know who the missing daughter could be?
With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert Sackville,
2nd Earl Dorset


On Leo's great website http://www.genealogics.org we see this
Lady Margaret Howard here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO

with no birth information

Her parents were married late in 1558 and her mother died in Jan 1564
so she should have a birth range of 1559/64

Lady Margaret Howard married in Feb 1580 to
Robert Sackville, 2nd Lord Dorset

In DNB "Seymour, Edward" [Lord Beauchamp 1561-1612] it says of his
children
that
"his son Edward (1586-1612) married in 1609 Anne, the THIRD [my emphasis]
daughter of Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset"

Checking Leo's site for Anne Sackville, we see no birthyear but this
additional information, combined with Margaret Howard's death on 19 Aug
1591 tells us
that Anne Sackville was born no earlier than 1582 and probably more like
1585
and no latter than 1591.

Anne Sackville married Edward, *styled* Lord Beauchamp (although never
legitimized) on he [Edward] died without issue in 1618. Leo then tells us
the widow
married Edward Lewes 7 Oct 1622.

Will Johnson


Tony Hoskins

Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert Sackvi

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 19 aug 2005 23:17:02

Hello Leo,

Such as it is, this online Sackville genealogy might be of itnerest.
Obviously derivative, but there it is.

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... ille02.htm

All best,

Tony

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> 08/19/05 02:01PM
Dear Will,


With messages like these I look at what I have and what needs amending.
This
indication of Anne Sackville being a third daughter made me start
looking
for the missing one, Cecily I already have. The Earls of Dorset title
is
extinct but I could not find them (lucky ?) in Burke's Extinct Peerage
1866,
but they are in Burke's Peerage 1999 under the Barons Sackville, here
they
also give only two daughters, Cecily and Anne.

Does anyone know who the missing daughter could be?
With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert
Sackville,
2nd Earl Dorset


On Leo's great website http://www.genealogics.org we see this
Lady Margaret Howard here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO


with no birth information

Her parents were married late in 1558 and her mother died in Jan
1564
so she should have a birth range of 1559/64

Lady Margaret Howard married in Feb 1580 to
Robert Sackville, 2nd Lord Dorset

In DNB "Seymour, Edward" [Lord Beauchamp 1561-1612] it says of his
children
that
"his son Edward (1586-1612) married in 1609 Anne, the THIRD [my
emphasis]
daughter of Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset"

Checking Leo's site for Anne Sackville, we see no birthyear but this
additional information, combined with Margaret Howard's death on 19
Aug
1591 tells us
that Anne Sackville was born no earlier than 1582 and probably more
like
1585
and no latter than 1591.

Anne Sackville married Edward, *styled* Lord Beauchamp (although
never
legitimized) on he [Edward] died without issue in 1618. Leo then
tells us
the widow
married Edward Lewes 7 Oct 1622.

Will Johnson


Leo van de Pas

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 aug 2005 23:23:02

Dear Mike,

Is this the way to contribute? Messages should contain genealogy, not
accusations of lying. I understand (I haven't followed it to clearly) that
Richardson disagrees with CP and it appears that CED maintains that
Richardson did not look correctly and asked him to substantiate.

To reply that Richardson thinks CED has an axe to grind is not an answer.
CED challenged the correctness of genealogical assertions by Richardson and
Richardson owes himself and everyone else to reply to this with a
_genealogical_ answer, not with an emotional smokescreen to assist him in
avoiding coming to the point.

Dear Mike, I am disappointed in you for this message. Or am I seeing things
wrongly?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel


CED

Thank You CED. As everyone know's your post are full of lies.

Mike


Leo van de Pas

Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert Sackvi

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 19 aug 2005 23:43:02

< huge snip>
Anne Sackville married Edward, *styled* Lord Beauchamp (although never
legitimized) on he [Edward] died without issue in 1618. Leo then tells us
the widow
married Edward Lewes 7 Oct 1622.

Will Johnson

Dear Will,

I feel flattered the way you say this, but I didn't tell, the source surely
should say CP volume VI page 507.

For me it is important to record where information came from, and by doing
this steer people into that direction. I am still wondering about this third
daughter. BP 1999 is a much better version than earlier ones and also the
site mentioned by Tony Hoskins only reveals two daughters. Perhaps DNB was
wrong, perhaps (probably) the third daughter died young? Isn't it
interesting how one observation by DNB may make us find hidden genealogical
information.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 19 aug 2005 23:59:08

Dear Tony ~

If you have something concrete to add to the discussion, by all means,
please do so. Otherwise, I suggest you take your complaints to
private. We're here to discuss medieval genealogy, not Douglas
Richardson.

Thanks, Tony!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tony Ingham wrote:

BTW this is not a criticism, but merely an appraisal of the value of
your contribution to the list.

Tony Ingham

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Dear CED ~

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend
you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and
to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:


Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.


To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net






Tony Ingham

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 20 aug 2005 00:06:01

Douglas,

I wonder how many of those who read these postings joined the list
because they wanted to "make friends".

I, personally, have made quite a few friends as a result of having
mutual research aims. That was not because we shared the same families,
but that we saw quality in the presentations and findings of the other
party.

I suggest, Douglas, that if you have a driving need for friendship that
you take positive steps to achieve your aim. May I suggest a fellow
member of the "Genealogy Who's Who". You could maybe both pander to each
other, massage your egos and provide unquestioning support. Otherwise
there is that "highly respected author" John Brandon, who delights all
and sundry with his provocative witticisms.

I suggest that you do not approach, for the purpose of making friends,
anybody on the list who has a half-way decent understanding of research.
All of them can spot the purpose of your charades and your inability to
discuss your research under the glare of the Gen-Med spotlight. Fancy
suggesting that anyone querying your often rushed and unsustainable
conclusions should do so privately. Is that the only recourse which
enables you to save face over seemingly irrelevant and ambiguous
corrections, etc? I think you could be a Paper Tiger", Douglas.

BTW this is not a criticism, but merely an appraisal of the value of
your contribution to the list.

Tony Ingham

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Dear CED ~

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend
you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and
to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:


Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.


To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net






Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 00:07:38

CED wrote:
< CP cites an IPM.
CED

Dear CED ~

What does the IPM say? Please tell us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tony Hoskins

Re: Update to genealogics.org Margaret Howard/ Robert Sackvi

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 20 aug 2005 00:11:02

Hello Leo,

Regarding the daughters of Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset. Again
from the "for what it's worth department": the 1999 _Burke's Peerage_
(2:2491) only lists the two daughters, Cecily and Anne. No claim is
made, however, that they were the only daughters. If someone had access
(which I do not) to A. Collins, _Memoirs of the Noble Family of
Sackville_ (London, 1741), perhaps a more definitive account of the
family could be found.

All best,

Tony


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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics.org Tufton Earls of Thanet

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 00:27:02

Further on the linkages of the Sackville family, I looked for an hour or so
at the records that I can get on the Tufton's.

John Tufton 1608-1664, 2nd Earl of Thanet
married 1629
Margaret Sackville 1614-76, Baroness Clifford suo jure

Leo's great web site at http://www.genealogics.org tells us that this
John Tufton is the son of Nicholas, 1st Earl and his wife Frances Cecil.

This made me sit up, because it is the CECIL family that I'm most interested
in.

Already knowing that the CECIL's have a short jump to the BROWNE family, I
was very interested to find that Nicholas Tufton, 1st Earl of Thanet has as a
mother
Christian Browne.

No further information on Leo's site about this lady or her connections to
any other Brownes.

However, in a stroke of sheer luck I find
"The Marriage, Baptismal and Burial Registers of the Collegiate Church or
Abbey of St Peter, Westminster", edited by Joseph Lemuel Chester, London 1876
online at http://www.ancestry.com as part of the British subscriptions

1631 Oct 6 Mr Richard Tufton [footnote 5] in the Abbey.

Footnote 5 says this: "Fourth but surviving son of Sir John Tufton, of
Hothfield, Kent, Kt and Bart, by Christian, dau and coheir of Sir Humphrey Brown,
Kt, one of the Judges of the Common Pleas. He died 4 Oct, and his will, dated
29 Sep was proved 7 Oct 1631. It describes him as of Shorne, co Kent, Esq; but
he also had a residence in Tothill-street, and was the founder of that
street, in Westminster, which still bears his name. He married Chrisogon, youngest
dau and coheir of Herbert Morley, of Glynde, co Sussex, Esq., who as well as a
son and two daughters, survived him. See his sister's burial 11 Sep 1653,
and that of his great-grandchild 12 June 1679.

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 00:42:17

Tony Ingham wrote:
Douglas,

Lastly, I do not have anything concrete to add to the discussion. Don't tempt me though.

Tony Ingham

Dear Tony ~

If you have nothing to add to the public discussion, it's better you
should take your complaints to private. Ranting on the newsgroup may
be good therapy for you, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics.org Tufton Earls of Thanet

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 00:49:01

Cross-checking on the burial of his sister we find this additional material
on the descents of the Tufton, Earls of Thanet.

"The Marriage, Baptismal and Burial Registers of the Collegiate Church or
Abbey of St Peter, Westminster", edited by Joseph Lemuel Chester, London 1876
online at http://www.ancestry.com as part of the British subscriptions

1653 Sept 11 The Lady Cicelye, Countess of Rutland: [footnote 1] in St
Nicholas' Chapel.

Footnote 1: "Cecily, eldest dau. of Sir John Tufton, Kt, and first Bart. of
Hothfield, Kent, by his second wife, Christian, dau of Sir Humphrey Browne, Kt,
one of the Judges of the Common Pleas. She was first married to Sir Edward
Hungerford, of Farley Castle, Wilts, Kt., and afterwards to Francis Manners,
sixth Earl of Rutland, who died 17 Dec 1632, and was buried at Bottesford,
Leicester. See the burials, of her son 7 Mch 1619/20, and her brother 6 Oct 1631.
Her will, dated 10 Dec 1649, was proved 4 Sep 1654, and a codicil dated 7 June
1652, probably subsequently discovered, was proved 27 Nov 1654."

Will Johnson

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 aug 2005 00:53:24

Otherwise there is that "highly respected author" John Brandon, who delights all
and sundry with his provocative witticisms.


Glad to have delighted you in this way. I have also helped you out
"genealogically" at least once. But you haven't bothered to return the
favor, despite the fact that you work in a genealogical library.

Many of the regulars on this list are what I would call "users,"
following along avidly to spot the smallest clue of possible interest,
while rarely and stingily offering anything of their own. Tony, aren't
you just another "user" of this type?

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 01:16:33

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
CED wrote:
CP cites an IPM.

CED

Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

As you all know, some of us do not have access to the wonderful
resources available in Salt Lake City. I advised DR of the CP citation
of an IPM for Alice de Lisle, so that with his acccess to IPMs (which
he has cited than once), he could examine the CP citation and then find
the proper IPM and inform us all.

Rather than examine the IPM, he wants to one-up me by asking me what
the IPM says. I do not have access to that IPM and cannot do so.
Wouldn't it be so nice if DR could look it up there in SLC?

CED


What does the IPM say? Please tell us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 aug 2005 01:21:01

The methodology of Douglas Richardson is an import genealogical factor on
this list, and therefor seems quite relevant to this list. Also we have seen
too many messages of people complaining that you do not reply to private
messages.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas
Seymour


Dear Tony ~

If you have something concrete to add to the discussion, by all means,
please do so. Otherwise, I suggest you take your complaints to
private. We're here to discuss medieval genealogy, not Douglas
Richardson.

Thanks, Tony!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tony Ingham wrote:

BTW this is not a criticism, but merely an appraisal of the value of
your contribution to the list.

Tony Ingham

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Dear CED ~

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend
you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and
to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:


Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:


Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour)
(died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding
his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.


To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net








Tony Ingham

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 20 aug 2005 01:36:01

Douglas,

Firstly, I am not complaining.

Secondly, I'm not discussing Douglas Richardson, merely making an
informed observation of your childish reply to CED:

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend you take it to private.

The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and to make friends.


Lastly, I do not have anything concrete to add to the discussion. Don't tempt me though.

Tony Ingham





Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

Dear Tony ~

If you have something concrete to add to the discussion, by all means,
please do so. Otherwise, I suggest you take your complaints to
private. We're here to discuss medieval genealogy, not Douglas
Richardson.

Thanks, Tony!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tony Ingham wrote:



BTW this is not a criticism, but merely an appraisal of the value of
your contribution to the list.

Tony Ingham

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:



Dear CED ~

If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do), I recommend
you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and
to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:




Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:




Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 359, footnote i (sub Saint Maur) has a
good account of the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour (or Seymour) (died
1358), of Rode, Somerset, the husband of Alice de Lisle. Regarding his
marriage, Complete Peerage says only the following:

"He married Alice _____."

So, the identification of Alice de Lisle's parentage would be yet
another addition to Complete Peerage.




To the Newsgroup:

Complete Peerage, volume 8, page 73, identifies Alice de Lisle, wife of
Thomas Seymour, as the daughter of Robert de Lisle by his wife,
Margaret, daughter of Walter de Beauchamp of Alcester.

If DR considers the footnote defective in failing to tell us the name
of Alice's family, why the does he say that it is a "good account of
the history of Sir Thomas de Seymour?" Is this further evidence that
DR uses words without thinking of their meaning?





Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net












Leo van de Pas

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 aug 2005 01:49:01

Avoiding pertinent genealogical questions also does not contribute to this
list. The therapy for you is obvious, you avoid the painful self examination
of your behaviour.

----- Original Message -----
From: <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas
Seymour


Tony Ingham wrote:
Douglas,

Lastly, I do not have anything concrete to add to the discussion. Don't
tempt me though.

Tony Ingham

Dear Tony ~

If you have nothing to add to the public discussion, it's better you
should take your complaints to private. Ranting on the newsgroup may
be good therapy for you, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 02:00:56

CED wrote:

Wouldn't it be so nice if DR could look it up there in SLC?

CED

Dear CED ~

No, it wouldn't be "nice" if DR did your work for you. You need to
find the IPM. Then study and analyze it for content. Then report back
to us.

Good luck in your sleuthing!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Dolly Ziegler

heraldry search: www.briantimms.com

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 20 aug 2005 02:16:01

http://www.briantimms.com/

Interesting site, very large...

To find out who had a particular blazon, this is useful:

http://www.briantimms.com/ordinary/ordinary.htm

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 02:24:38

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
CED wrote:

Wouldn't it be so nice if DR could look it up there in SLC?

CED

Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

This is another one of DR's twists and shifts of the burden, his oft
used means avoiding responsibility. I have nothing to prove. I am
relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete Peerage, which cites
an IPM. DR disputes the Complete Peerage; therefor he must carry the
burden of proof against the accepted authority (that is the normal
scholarly pratice). If he wants to prove the Complete Peerage to be
wrong in note (i)on page 73 of volume 8, the burden is upon him. I
simply advised him as to what the CP citation was.

I have no work to do on this item. DR set out a claim (challenging CP)
without citing authority. If he cannot back it up, then he must accept
the fact that he is in error.

I once thought that DR did his twisted arguments and shifts of the
burden of proof as a means of avoiding the admission of error. Now,
since he does it consistently and so often, I am beginning to think
that he does it in ignorance of good scholarly practice. The generally
accepted rule is that the person who challenges authority must carry
the burden of proof, using argument and providing sound evidence. Is
it possible that DR is unaware of this well accepted rule of
scholarship?

CED

No, it wouldn't be "nice" if DR did your work for you. You need to
find the IPM. Then study and analyze it for content. Then report back
to us.

Good luck in your sleuthing!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 02:33:00

CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

I have nothing to prove. I am relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete > Peerage, which cites an IPM.

So what does the IPM say? You tell us. Don't buck and weave.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 02:34:48

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
So I would encourage everyone to get familiar with A2A, and perhaps we can
hit 10 thousand posts a month ..... (waits for the gasps).

Will Johnson

Gasps in Salt Lake City.

DR

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #695

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 02:37:01

unsubscribe

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 02:37:03

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

It is not necessary to be abusive, or misrepresent another poster's
statements.

To the Newsgroup:
Can anybody in the group point out how, in questioning DR's message on
Elizabeth and Alice de Lisle, I may have been abusive, or how I
misrepresented any of his statements?

CED


If you have a personal ax to grind (which you seem to do),
I recommend you take it to private. The newsgroup is for medieval
genealogy, and to make friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

Again, as has often been the case when DR is caught in an awkward
position, DR is attempting to twist the case, shift the burden. He asks
that I prove him wrong. That is not, and was not, the question. He
says that CP, both the note (i) on page 73 of volume VIII and the chart
after page 48 of that volume, are wrong. Both the note and the chart
indicate that Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle.
If he contends that CP is wrong, according to all standards of
scholarship, the burden of proof is upon DR to prove CP wrong.

If DR cannot put forward evidence that Robert Peverel was not married
to Alice de Lisle, that the CP note and chart are wrong, he should
admit that he has no such evidence. That would end this discussion, a
discussion which he began with an inexplicable post concerning Alice's
sister, Elizabeth de Lisle.

CED

If you have evidence to show that I am wrong, by all means, please post
it. Otherwise, if you only have an abusive ax to grind (as seems to be
the case), you should take it to private.

The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

To the Newsgroup:

DR seems to think that any comment on his posts other than a compliment
is abusive. Again, as in other cases, he seems not to understand a
word in the English language: "abusive."

I did ask certain questions as to why DR posted the message. The
information in his post was inconsistent with the heading which he
himself placed on the post. These are legitimate questions to be
answered.

Why should I take my comments on DR's posts, especially those of his
posts which are contrary to netiguette, up in private. Should all
criticism of his posts be taken up in private?

DR's post itself is not helpful to medieval genealogy; for it misleads
and adds no new information.

Making friends is not a stated purpose of this group.

As for the question of whether Alice de Lisle married, as her second
husband, Richard Peverel: if he has evidence that she never married
him, he should post it. So far, he has made statements without citing
evidence. That is not good medieval genealogy. Does he think that his
opinion is superior to CP? If so, he should give us evidence of his
qualification to have such superiority.

CED


Reading through your abusive post, one gets the impression you have an
ax to grind. If so, I recommend you take it up in private. The
newsgroup is for medieval genealogy, and for making friends.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 03:22:20

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

I have nothing to prove. I am relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete > Peerage, which cites an IPM.

So what does the IPM say? You tell us. Don't buck and weave.

To the Newsgroup:

DR has now shows his old self in accusing me of the "buck and weave."
This is the familiar twist the argument procedure, then shift the
burden. For those who unfamiliar with this practice, he uses it --
(1) to put distance between himself and the substance of his argument
(whether Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle); and
(2) to cast the argument in terms of procedure rather than the
substance of the question (who should put forward the evidence).
In his first message under the heading of C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de
Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel, DR made an unsupported statement that
Robert Peverel was not the husband of Alice de Lisle and that, if CP
said otherwise, it was wrong. I responded, using the CP citation, that
Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle, adding that CP
cited an IPM. Now DR says that I am to find the IPM, otherwise the
"buck and weave."

Whatever he might mean by that term, it is consistent with his
long-standing practice, when caught in error, of name-calling.

CED


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 03:31:02

In a message dated 8/19/05 4:59:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< Many of the regulars on this list are what I would call "users,"
following along avidly to spot the smallest clue of possible interest,
while rarely and stingily offering anything of their own. Tony, aren't
you just another "user" of this type? >>

Along with John :) I would like to point out to all "users" that the
A2A catalog is free to search for any and sundry.

I often come across interesting things while searching for someone completely
different. And while 99 percent of what I post is probably already known and
discussed, it's at least not known to me, and so might help out someone else.

So I would encourage everyone to get familiar with A2A, and perhaps we can
hit 10 thousand posts a month ..... (waits for the gasps).

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics.org Henry Howard of Teringhampton

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 04:09:01

On this newsgroup in April, I have a note that a post stated that Henry
Howard of Teringhampton, etc, and younger brother of Sir Robert Howard, was
murdered in 1446 by servants of Lord Scrope of Bolton.

And I believe, this Henry was identified as the son of Sir John Howard
(1366-1436) and his wife Alice Tendring (d 1426)

Leo has this marriage aft 1391, and a posting to this group also places it
bef Jun 1397.

Is there any document which can narrow down the age of the murdered Henry
Howard?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 07:04:06

Dear CED ~

It's way time you told the truth. The REAL reason why you don't want
to post the IPM cited by Complete Peerage is because you KNOW it will
show I'm correct. Well, I'm not going to save you, CED. You got
yourself in this horrible mess all by yourself. Now you need to post
the IPM and explain yourself.

We're waiting, CED.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

I have nothing to prove. I am relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete > Peerage, which cites an IPM.

So what does the IPM say? You tell us. Don't buck and weave.

To the Newsgroup:

DR has now shows his old self in accusing me of the "buck and weave."
This is the familiar twist the argument procedure, then shift the
burden. For those who unfamiliar with this practice, he uses it --
(1) to put distance between himself and the substance of his argument
(whether Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle); and
(2) to cast the argument in terms of procedure rather than the
substance of the question (who should put forward the evidence).
In his first message under the heading of C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de
Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel, DR made an unsupported statement that
Robert Peverel was not the husband of Alice de Lisle and that, if CP
said otherwise, it was wrong. I responded, using the CP citation, that
Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle, adding that CP
cited an IPM. Now DR says that I am to find the IPM, otherwise the
"buck and weave."

Whatever he might mean by that term, it is consistent with his
long-standing practice, when caught in error, of name-calling.

CED



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 08:18:43

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear CED ~

It's way time you told the truth.

To the Newsgroup:


DR claims that Alice de Lisle was not married to Robert Peverel; but
offers no evidence to back up that claim. The Complete Peerage, note
(i) on page 73 of volume VIII, states inter alia that Robert left a
daughter, Alice, wife of Thomas de Seymour, who appears afterwards to
have married Robert Peverel and to have died in 1349 (citing Cal. Inq.
p. m. etc.) After page 48 of volume VIII, there is a chart on which
Alice, daughter of Robert de Lisle, appears, showing two husbands:
(1)Thomas de Seymour, and (2) Robert Peverel. That is what CP offers.


DR says that he disagrees, but refuses to offer evidence to support his
position. What I say has nothing to do with the question. I don't care
whether Alice married twice, thrice, or a dozen times. I have no
position to defend. Any attempt to place me between DR and the CP is
either a ruse or symptomatic of incoherence.

DR should give us evidence or admit that he he has none. Either way the
question was posed and reasonable people have, by now, the answer,
contrary to DR's intention.

I am ready to move on the next project and need a bit of time to
prepare. Spending more time on DR's twist the argument and shift the
burden process is a waste of my time. However, it is almost certain
that we shall see another version of DR's "twist and shift" in the near
future.

CED

The REAL reason why you don't want
to post the IPM cited by Complete Peerage is because you KNOW it will
show I'm correct. Well, I'm not going to save you, CED. You got
yourself in this horrible mess all by yourself. Now you need to post
the IPM and explain yourself.

We're waiting, CED.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

I have nothing to prove. I am relying upon an accepted authority, the Complete > Peerage, which cites an IPM.

So what does the IPM say? You tell us. Don't buck and weave.

To the Newsgroup:

DR has now shows his old self in accusing me of the "buck and weave."
This is the familiar twist the argument procedure, then shift the
burden. For those who unfamiliar with this practice, he uses it --
(1) to put distance between himself and the substance of his argument
(whether Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle); and
(2) to cast the argument in terms of procedure rather than the
substance of the question (who should put forward the evidence).
In his first message under the heading of C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de
Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel, DR made an unsupported statement that
Robert Peverel was not the husband of Alice de Lisle and that, if CP
said otherwise, it was wrong. I responded, using the CP citation, that
Robert Peverel was the second husband of Alice de Lisle, adding that CP
cited an IPM. Now DR says that I am to find the IPM, otherwise the
"buck and weave."

Whatever he might mean by that term, it is consistent with his
long-standing practice, when caught in error, of name-calling.

CED



Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 08:25:02

I have never seen a real-life copy of the Complete Peerage, however I've just
noticed that this thing that *they* call "The Peerage of Great Britain..."
and by they, I mean http://www.ancestry.com, is actually calling itself "The Complete
Peerage".

What I mean is that ancestry frequently renames things for their own reason,
but I scan back and read the title pages, and it says "The Complete Peerage"
by somebody named Vicery Gibbs ? And says its a expanded and edited second
edition of the work by George Cokayne.

But it says the I'm seeing Volumes I through IV. And alphabetically this
seems to cover A - Dy. So is this the same thing that you all refer to as the
"Complete Peerage" ? If so I need to change my citations.

Thanks
Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 20 aug 2005 08:35:59

Will Johnson wrote:
I imagine 1-4 of CP is out-of-copyright and that's why they are here, and
the
other volumes 5-12 must have been published later and still in copyright.
That would be my *guess* as to why they only have the first four
online.


I think this has probably been discussed before. My guess is that volume 4
(published 1916) is the last one they think they can get away with. Whether
it's really out of copyright (at least in UK law) I don't know.

Chris Phillips

Leo van de Pas

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 aug 2005 08:40:02

Publisher's Note

George Edward Cokayne's " The Complete Peerage" was first published in eight
volumes between 1887-98. This was effectively replaced by a _new edition,
revised and much enlarged_ and edited between 1910 and 1959 successively by
Vicary Gibbs (Cokayne's nephew), H. A. Doubleday, Duncan Warrand, Lord
Howard de Walden, Geoffrey H. White and R. S. Lea, appearing in twelve
volumes with volume twelve being issued in two parts. Volume thirteen was
issued in 1940, not as part of the aphabetical sequence, but as a supplement
covering creations between 1907 and 1938.

As we all know Volume XIV was published recently (well a few years ago)
containing corrections. The edition I have volume IV (apologies book IV in
volume 2) does end with Dy(sart) but then continues with many pages with
lots in interesting Appendices.

Hope this helps?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage


I have never seen a real-life copy of the Complete Peerage, however I've
just
noticed that this thing that *they* call "The Peerage of Great Britain..."
and by they, I mean http://www.ancestry.com, is actually calling itself "The
Complete
Peerage".

What I mean is that ancestry frequently renames things for their own
reason,
but I scan back and read the title pages, and it says "The Complete
Peerage"
by somebody named Vicery Gibbs ? And says its a expanded and edited
second
edition of the work by George Cokayne.

But it says the I'm seeing Volumes I through IV. And alphabetically this
seems to cover A - Dy. So is this the same thing that you all refer to
as the
"Complete Peerage" ? If so I need to change my citations.

Thanks
Will Johnson


Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peve

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 20 aug 2005 08:50:41

Douglas Richardson wrote:
It's way time you told the truth. The REAL reason why you don't want
to post the IPM cited by Complete Peerage is because you KNOW it will
show I'm correct. Well, I'm not going to save you, CED. You got
yourself in this horrible mess all by yourself. Now you need to post
the IPM and explain yourself.

For the rest of us, who are just interested in knowing the truth of the
matter, it would be very helpful if you could let us know why you think CP
is wrong about this.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 08:52:02

In a message dated 8/19/2005 11:38:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:


George Edward Cokayne's " The Complete Peerage" was first published in
eight
volumes between 1887-98. This was effectively replaced by a _new edition,
revised and much enlarged_ and edited between 1910 and 1959 successively by
Vicary Gibbs (Cokayne's nephew), H. A. Doubleday, Duncan Warrand, Lord
Howard de Walden, Geoffrey H. White and R. S. Lea,

Well then yes this is it.
So now I can say "The Complete Peerage", 2nd edition, is also a part of
http://www.ancestry.com British subscription

Interestingly, I think the British subscription, in total, was only something
on the order of an extra $49 or something. So I'd say I certainly got my
monies worth, as they have not only Vol 1-4 of the Complete Peerage, but also the
DNB, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, and others things, and simply scads and
scads of parish registers, chancery records, etc.

A lot cheaper than going out to buy all those volumes myself.
I imagine 1-4 of CP is out-of-copyright and that's why they are here, and the
other volumes 5-12 must have been published later and still in copyright.
That would be my *guess* as to why they only have the first four online.

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»