Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 14:58:09

My comments are interspersed. DR

CED wrote:
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.

Please don't misrepresent DR again. DR has consistently said that CED
needs to look at the evidence that Complete Peerage cites. The answer
lies in the lack of evidence, or its misapplication.

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.

This isn't a waste of time, CED. Doing the actual work will help you
understand how the research process works and how reliable Complete
Peerage is. That in itself will be more than worth your effort.

CED

Best always, DR

CED

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

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 16:24:47

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
My comments are interspersed. DR

CED wrote:

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.

Please don't misrepresent DR again. DR has consistently said that CED
needs to look at the evidence that Complete Peerage cites. The answer
lies in the lack of evidence, or its misapplication.


To the Newsgroup:

This posting of DR is most extraordinary.

Not once to my knowledge has DR posted such a statement in this tread.
If DR has posted such a statement in this thread, he should tell us
when and where.

In fact, the following excerpts from DR's postings prove to the
contrary:

From: "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com"
<royalances...@msn.com>Date: 18 Aug 2005 23:18:37 -0700 Local: Fri, Aug
19 2005 1:18 am Subject: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of
Edmund Peverel

<snip>

"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. "
<snip>

From: "Douglas Richardson royalances...@msn.com"
<royalances...@msn.com> Date: 19 Aug 2005 08:55:24 -0700 Local: Fri,
Aug 19 2005 10:55 am Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle,
wife of Edmund Peverel

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

<snip>

DR has consistently stated that Robert Peverel was not a husband of
Alice de Lisle. Why is he changing his position now?

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.

This isn't a waste of time, CED. Doing the actual work will help you
understand how the research process works and how reliable Complete
Peerage is. That in itself will be more than worth your effort.

Before this posting he was telling me to take it up in private. Why
the change in attitude? As for how the research process works, he has
amply demonstrated that he either knows little of scholarly research
procedures or, if he does, he abuses them.

CED
CED

Best always, DR

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 16:26:51

Dear Rick ~

Sorry to hear you're in the hospital. We'll keep you in our prayers
for renewed strength and health.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Rick Eaton wrote:
P.S.

I am writing from my hospital bed, on my laptop and under the influence,
they tell me, of chemo fog. Please forgive my awful typing.

In the above message, I should have made it clear that, when I said
"directly," it referre3d to messages that are posted to the list... As
opposed to those that are e-mailed desktop-to-desktop.

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net

I have made a discovery.

It would be far more gfracedful and dignified if combatants addressed each
o0ther in the first person, rather than the third person.

Were all to do that, it would have the effect of a reasonable debate and be
less personal in appearance. Also, this simple change in language would
leave those 9who chose to be) out of the maelstrom.

May I respectfully suggest that cons address the pros directly, and vice
versa.

Maalox sales will plummet.

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net


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



CED

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

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 16:31:24

Rick Eaton wrote:
P.S.

I am writing from my hospital bed, on my laptop and under the influence,
they tell me, of chemo fog. Please forgive my awful typing.

In the above message, I should have made it clear that, when I said
"directly," it referre3d to messages that are posted to the list... As
opposed to those that are e-mailed desktop-to-desktop.

Rick:

I'm so sorry to hear of your situation. Hope you recover soon.

As for direct address: DR insists that, when I address him, I use his
given name, rather than his surname. Since he is not one of my
friends, I cannot honestly use the familiarity of a given name in
addressing him. That accounts for the indirect form of address.

CED
Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net

I have made a discovery.

It would be far more gfracedful and dignified if combatants addressed each
o0ther in the first person, rather than the third person.

Were all to do that, it would have the effect of a reasonable debate and be
less personal in appearance. Also, this simple change in language would
leave those 9who chose to be) out of the maelstrom.

May I respectfully suggest that cons address the pros directly, and vice
versa.

Maalox sales will plummet.

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net


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



John Brandon

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

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 aug 2005 16:52:41

Oops, sorry, how embarrassing--I was thinking of another Tony.

At least _that_ Tony didn't send an email last week to my private email
address with only the following content: "YOU WANKER!!!"

And this was at exactly the same time you were piously mouthing on the
newsgroup about John Brandon doing nothing but "stirring shit up." You
were doing exactly the same thing yourself.

Rick Eaton

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

Legg inn av Rick Eaton » 20 aug 2005 17:01:01

I have made a discovery.

It would be far more gfracedful and dignified if combatants addressed each
o0ther in the first person, rather than the third person.

Were all to do that, it would have the effect of a reasonable debate and be
less personal in appearance. Also, this simple change in language would
leave those 9who chose to be) out of the maelstrom.

May I respectfully suggest that cons address the pros directly, and vice
versa.

Maalox sales will plummet.

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net

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

Rick Eaton

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

Legg inn av Rick Eaton » 20 aug 2005 17:18:01

P.S.

I am writing from my hospital bed, on my laptop and under the influence,
they tell me, of chemo fog. Please forgive my awful typing.

In the above message, I should have made it clear that, when I said
"directly," it referre3d to messages that are posted to the list... As
opposed to those that are e-mailed desktop-to-desktop.

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net

I have made a discovery.

It would be far more gfracedful and dignified if combatants addressed each
o0ther in the first person, rather than the third person.

Were all to do that, it would have the effect of a reasonable debate and be
less personal in appearance. Also, this simple change in language would
leave those 9who chose to be) out of the maelstrom.

May I respectfully suggest that cons address the pros directly, and vice
versa.

Maalox sales will plummet.

Rick


"Rick Eaton" eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net


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



Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 18:40:33

Dear Chris ~

Thank you for your good post.

As noted earlier in this thread, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 73,
footnote i (sub Lisle) states that Alice de Lisle, daughter of Robert
de Lisle, Lord Lisle, married (1st) Sir Thomas Seymour and (2nd) Robert
Peverel. It further claims that Alice de Lisle died in 1349, citing as
its source the following:

Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ix, no. 179.

The inquisition in question is the IPM of Alice, widow of Robert
Peverel, of Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, and subsequently wife of
Thomas de Verdun. The writ for the inquisition is dated 5 May 1349.
Alice Peverel's heir at the time of her death was her grandson, John
Peverel, aged 19. John Peverel was the son of Alice's deceased son,
Edmund Peverel, and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle.

The IPM of Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is followed immediately in
the published calendar by that of her minor grandson, John Peverel.
The writ for his inquisition is dated 24 November 1349. John Peverel's
heir was his sister, Margaret, wife of William de la Pole, Knt., she
being aged 18. Margaret (Peverel) de la Pole has living descendants.

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun (died 1349) is a completely different
person and much older than Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas de
Seymour, of Rode, Somerset (he died without issue 1358). Conflating
the two women into one person is a serious blunder on Complete
Peerage's part.

I know of no evidence whatsoever that Alice de Lisle married (2nd)
Robert Peverel. In any event, she certainly had no issue by her
Seymour marriage and obviously no known descendants. The Lisle chart
in C.P. 8:48 is in error to claim she had "descendants." C.P. is
correct to state, however, that Alice de Lisle's sister, Elizabeth (de
Lisle) Peverel, has descendants.

Interested parties can find further details on the Lisle, Peverel, and
de la Pole families in my new book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
Please contact me offlist for information regarding price and ordering
details.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips wrote:
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

CED

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

Legg inn av CED » 20 aug 2005 19:43:46

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

Thank you for your good post.

To the Newsgroup:

Finally we get a version of the IPM. Would that DR had done this
earlier.

However, we have only DR's interpretation of the IPMs in question; and
we have only his statement that there was a conflation of two women
named Alice de Lisle. Even so, with DR's interpretation, more than one
conclusion is possible. Still too many unsupported assertions. The
proof is not there.

CED
As noted earlier in this thread, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 73,
footnote i (sub Lisle) states that Alice de Lisle, daughter of Robert
de Lisle, Lord Lisle, married (1st) Sir Thomas Seymour and (2nd) Robert
Peverel. It further claims that Alice de Lisle died in 1349, citing as
its source the following:

Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ix, no. 179.

The inquisition in question is the IPM of Alice, widow of Robert
Peverel, of Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, and subsequently wife of
Thomas de Verdun. The writ for the inquisition is dated 5 May 1349.
Alice Peverel's heir at the time of her death was her grandson, John
Peverel, aged 19. John Peverel was the son of Alice's deceased son,
Edmund Peverel, and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle.

The IPM of Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is followed immediately in
the published calendar by that of her minor grandson, John Peverel.
The writ for his inquisition is dated 24 November 1349. John Peverel's
heir was his sister, Margaret, wife of William de la Pole, Knt., she
being aged 18. Margaret (Peverel) de la Pole has living descendants.

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun (died 1349) is a completely different
person and much older than Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas de
Seymour, of Rode, Somerset (he died without issue 1358).

Where is the evidence of the conflation? Where is the evidence of the
difference in age ("much Older")?

CED

Conflating
the two women into one person is a serious blunder on Complete
Peerage's part.

I know of no evidence whatsoever that Alice de Lisle married (2nd)
Robert Peverel. In any event, she certainly had no issue by her
Seymour marriage and obviously no known descendants. The Lisle chart
in C.P. 8:48 is in error to claim she had "descendants." C.P. is
correct to state, however, that Alice de Lisle's sister, Elizabeth (de
Lisle) Peverel, has descendants.

Interested parties can find further details on the Lisle, Peverel, and
de la Pole families in my new book, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
Please contact me offlist for information regarding price and ordering
details.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips wrote:
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: Alice de Lisle's marriages

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 19:46:02

In a message dated 8/19/05 1:29:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

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.



The chart actually shows her marrying both Thomas de Seymour and Robert
Peverel.

Always optimistic--Dave

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 20:24:15

CED wrote:
Where is the evidence of the conflation? Where is the evidence of the
difference in age ("much Older")?

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun's son, Edmund Peverel, was born in
1306. Following her 1st husband, Robert Peverel's death in 1326, Alice
married (2nd) Thomas de Verdun. She died in 1349.

Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun can not possibly be the same person
as Alice de Lisle, wife of Sir Thomas de Seymour (born ca. 1312, died
1358). The two women have separate and distinct histories. Also, as
we can readily see, Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is far older than
Alice (de Lisle) de Seymour.

The link between the two women is that Edmund Peveral, son of Alice
(_____) (Peverel) de Verdun, married Elizabeth de Lisle, sister of
Alice (de Lisle) de Seymour.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancesty.net

Chris Phillips

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

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 20 aug 2005 21:12:07

CED wrote:
Finally we get a version of the IPM. Would that DR had done this
earlier.

However, we have only DR's interpretation of the IPMs in question; and
we have only his statement that there was a conflation of two women
named Alice de Lisle. Even so, with DR's interpretation, more than one
conclusion is possible. Still too many unsupported assertions. The
proof is not there.

Douglas Richardson's summary of the IPM jogged my memory and I've dug out my
old notes on Alice Peverel. It really is impossible for the Alice, widow of
Robert Peverel, who died in 1349 to be the same as the Alice de Lisle who
was the wife of Thomas de Seymour circa 1340 (CP cites Cal. Close Rolls
1339-41, p. 274).

It's clearly impossible for the Thomas Seymour who died in 1358 to be the
first of two husbands of a woman who died in 1349.

Nor can it be a different Thomas de Seymour, as Alice the widow of Robert
Peverel was already the wife of Thomas de Verdon by 1329, and he was still
alive, holding half a fee in [Castle] Ashby and Grendon, in 1346 [VCH vol.
4, p.233 - copy courtesy of Rosie Bevan].

So this is a definite blunder by CP.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 20 aug 2005 22:02:03

Dear Chris ~

I concur completely.

Best wishes, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Chris Phillips wrote:
CED wrote:
Finally we get a version of the IPM. Would that DR had done this
earlier.

However, we have only DR's interpretation of the IPMs in question; and
we have only his statement that there was a conflation of two women
named Alice de Lisle. Even so, with DR's interpretation, more than one
conclusion is possible. Still too many unsupported assertions. The
proof is not there.

Douglas Richardson's summary of the IPM jogged my memory and I've dug out my
old notes on Alice Peverel. It really is impossible for the Alice, widow of
Robert Peverel, who died in 1349 to be the same as the Alice de Lisle who
was the wife of Thomas de Seymour circa 1340 (CP cites Cal. Close Rolls
1339-41, p. 274).

It's clearly impossible for the Thomas Seymour who died in 1358 to be the
first of two husbands of a woman who died in 1349.

Nor can it be a different Thomas de Seymour, as Alice the widow of Robert
Peverel was already the wife of Thomas de Verdon by 1329, and he was still
alive, holding half a fee in [Castle] Ashby and Grendon, in 1346 [VCH vol.
4, p.233 - copy courtesy of Rosie Bevan].

So this is a definite blunder by CP.

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 20 aug 2005 22:11:55

Will Johnson wrote:
I think in the US, for a book published in 1916, it would be 75 years
after
the author's death. I would think US copyright law would apply, as
ancestry is
a US company, but I'm not sure. So I would guess they figured out when
this
Vicerey Gibbs [sp?] person died and added 75 years. Of course Cokayne
died
back in the 1890s I think. Vicerey is his nephew I think?

According to the Oxford University online library catalogue, Gibbs didn't
die until 1932, so even on that basis it wouldn't be out of copyright. But
(again in UK law), I think the copyright of a compilation like CP is
determined by the deaths of the individual authors. For example, in vol. 4,
I see an appendix by H. Arthur Doubleday, who didn't die until 1941.

And on UK versus US law, I suppose a US website selling to customers in the
UK might be a grey area. But of course Ancestry also has a co.uk domain. One
would think UK copyright law should apply to that, unless the Internet is
completely immune from copyright restrictions.

On the whole, I think they are probably just getting away with as much as
they think they can.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 aug 2005 22:58:02

In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:44:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:


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.

I think in the US, for a book published in 1916, it would be 75 years after
the author's death. I would think US copyright law would apply, as ancestry is
a US company, but I'm not sure. So I would guess they figured out when this
Vicerey Gibbs [sp?] person died and added 75 years. Of course Cokayne died
back in the 1890s I think. Vicerey is his nephew I think?

Will Johnson

Tony Ingham

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

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 21 aug 2005 00:56:02

Replies interspersed

John Brandon wrote:

Oops, sorry, how embarrassing--I was thinking of another Tony.



Embarrassed? I doubt it.

At least _that_ Tony didn't send an email last week to my private email
address with only the following content: "YOU WANKER!!!"


The content of the PRIVATE email is as follows. Just so others on the

list can see that the above Australian term of endearment was not the
ONLY content

Why dont you hold your breath and keep it held.
I should have thought the resident smart-a[r]s[e] would be on to
Peter's REAL name.

You Wanker!!!

John Brandon wrote:

Having an enjoyable lunch today with group members Peter Stewart
and Paul Mackenzie caused me to reflect on the benefits of
face-to-face communication.




Maybe you wouldn't mind giving 'Peter's' real name, then?

(Not holding breath.)




Incidentally, to anyone who may read this, I sent a private reply to

Brandon's carte blanche Tony mailing in which I clarified exactly who I
am and where I am coming from.

And this was at exactly the same time you were piously mouthing on the
newsgroup about John Brandon doing nothing but "stirring shit up." You
were doing exactly the same thing yourself.


Pious! Moi? Not stirring, just stating fact.



Any thing else I can help you with, John?

Tony Ingham

P.S. Talking about piety. Did I notice a bit of good ol' boy piety today?

Gjest

Re: Colonial connections mentioned in _Irish State Papers: A

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 aug 2005 02:23:01

Dear Newsgroup,
I would be suprised if the Winslow brothers
Edward, Gilbert, John, Josiah and Kenelm, sons of Edward and Magdalene (Oliver)
Winslow didn`t have a lot to do with Ireland as that is where the father seems
to have died.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 21 aug 2005 10:48:22

Vicary Gibbs was the third son of the first Lord Aldenham, born 12 May
1853, died unmarried 13 January 1932. George Edward Adams later
Cockayne, Clarenceux King of Arms, born 29 April 1825, died 6 August
1911, father of first Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, was indeed Gibbs'
uncle, brother of Honble Louisa Anne Cockayne, Lady Aldenham.

Chris Phillips

Re: Update to genealogics Lettice FitzGerald, Baroness Offal

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 aug 2005 15:31:43

Will Johnson wrote:
In my usual meanderings around I found a tidbit on this woman.
She is said to have been born 1588 due to her death 1 Dec 1658 AT
Coleshill
"aged about seventy, and was buried with her husband".

She married abt 1608 to Robert Digby of Coleshill, Warwickshire.
She was the mother of ten children.

These facts, have been gleaned from her entry in DNB which is here

http://images.ancestry.com/iexec?htx=vi ... 5.6.78&id=
0991&qf=qs&zl=4


I'm afraid this is an instance where the original (1888) edition of DNB has
been superseded. Complete Peerage vol, 10, p. 18, quotes "Her epitaph,
written by herself" as stating that she was married when 18 years of age and
lived 20 years wedded. The account dates her marriage from a pre-nuptial
settlement of 19 April 1598, and says that her husband died 24 May 1618,
deducing that she was born about 1580.

The new edition of DNB follows CP in these details.

Chris Phillips

John Brandon

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

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 aug 2005 16:08:30

Why dont you hold your breath and keep it held.
I should have thought the resident smart-a[r]s[e] >would be on to Peter's REAL name.

You Wanker!!!


Well, this is the first time I've seen that first part, but why you've
added it is beyond me (it doesn't seem calculated to improve anyone's
impression of you).

Incidentally, to anyone who may read this, I sent >a private reply to Brandon's carte blanche Tony >mailing in which I clarified exactly who I am and >where I am coming from.

Naturally, I blocked your emails after being called a WANKER!!!!

P.S. Talking about piety. Did I notice a bit of >good ol' boy piety today?

What does that even mean?

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 aug 2005 16:16:02

In a message dated 21/08/05 mjcar gives the following line:-

<1 Richard de Lucy & Rohese de Boulogne
<2 Maud de Lucy d: Aft. 1175
..... +Walter FitzRobert d: 1198 Burial: Dunmow Priory
<3 Maud FitzWalter
..... +William de Luvetot d: Abt. 1181
<4 Maud de Luvetot d: Aft. 23 June 1247
<.... +Gerard de Furnival
<5 Gerard de Furnival d 1241
<married Christian Ledet d 1271
<6 Gerard de Furnival
<7 Christian de Furnival
<married William de Eylesford/Eynesford
<8 Sir Gerard de Eylesford/Eynesford

Thus far I agree with him. This Gerald Eylesford brought an action of novel
disseisin in 1311- see the Year Book abstract at the Boston University site
http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/d ... hp?id=3983
in which he is identified as grandson of Gerald Furnival and son of
William de Eynesford. Gerald's IPM dated 1331 is at C143/81/13 at the PRO.
He is identified as "Dominus Gerald de Eynesforth, knight" as witness to a
document AL40/1020 in the Hereford Record Office, datable to 1306-7.

mjcar continues:-
<9 Edmund de Eylesford/Eynesford d 1331
<10 John de Eynesford

I have found no evidence for the existence of these two Eylesfords. Instead,
I venture that mjcar's second John Eylesford was probably the son of a second
William, son of Gerald E, mentioned in the VCH extract which I cite below.

mjcar continues:-
<11 Sir John de Eylesford/Eynesford
<12 Elizabeth de Eylesford/Eynesford
<married Piers Milborne
<13 John Milborne d 1436
<14 Simon Milborne c1435-1522
<who had 13 daughters and co-heirs

I agree with this part of mjcar's descent, adding only that John Milborne's
wife
was Elizabeth Devereux.
An article ''Westbury-on-Severn: Manors and other estates' is in the VCH at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
report.asp?compid=15766&strquery=westbury%20burghill
"The third portion of Henry de Mynors's estate, later called the manor of
"WESTBURY or BURGHILL, was held by his daughter Basile of Burghill
"in 1255. ............................................................... In
1334 Roger of
"Burghill settled the estate on himself and his wife Sibyl with reversion to
"William of Eyllesford, (Footnote 14) and by 1359 it was held by John of
"Eyllesford. (Footnote 15) John of Eyllesford died in 1396 (Footnote 16) and
his "widow Isabel, who remarried Richard de la Mare, held the estate until her
death
"in 1421. After Isabel's death it passed to John Milburne (Footnote 17) who
died
"in 1436 leaving an infant son Simon; (Footnote 18) the manor was held after
his "death by his wife Elizabeth. (Footnote 19) Simon Milburne was seized of
the
"estate at his death in 1522 when his heirs were the families of his 10
daughters. "(Footnote 20)".
Their dauntless mother of these (and three other) girls was Jane, daughter of
Ralph Baskerville by his wife Ann, daughter of the warrior knight Sir John
Blakett
of Icomb, Glos.

VCH does not identify Sir John's wife Isabel (named as "Elizabeth" by mjcar),
but I believe her to have been a daughter of Thomas de la Barre.
Footnote 17 is a reference to CPR for Dec 14 1422, whch I quote (with due
acknowledgments to the University of Iowa and Professor G.R.Boynton):-

"Pardon to John Melleburne son of Peter de Melleburne esquire and to
"Elizabeth wife of the said John for acquiring to them their heirs and
"assigns a third part of the manor of Westbury co Gloucester held in
"chief from John de Merbury John Brugge and John Vyntier esquires
"and for entering upon the same without licence and restitution to them
"of the said third part which by reason of the death of Isabel late the wife
"of Richard de la Mare esquire prevously the wife of John Eynseford of
"Dyllington knight and the said trespass has been taken into the king's
"hands. It appears by inquisition ...... that the said Isabel held the said
"part for her life, with reversion to the said Merbury Brugge and Vyntier
"by grant of the said John Melleburne For 60s paid into the hanaper.

This descent of the one third part of Westbury had been arranged by a
settlement made by Sir John and his wife Isabel pursuant to licence
dated 1st December 1390 (see CPR for that date).
It further appears from the CPR for 1359 (October 13), cited in VCH, that
John de E "chivalier" already held land in the manor of Westbury at that
date. It is, I suppose, possible that this Sir John is not the same man who
died in 1396: there may be room for another Sir John between William II
and the John E who died in 1396, but I am reluctant to multiply Eylesfords
"praeter necessitatem"

Btw, I would like to add another line of descent to mjcar's contribution.
The Kentchurch archive at the Hereford Record Office contains at AL40/998
a reference to Katherine, daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Eylesford:
she died before 1425 having married a Dansey of Webton and left an heir
John Dansey. These Herefordshire Danseys continued at Brinsop for
centuries, and are copiously recorded in the Herefordshire archives.

All comments and corrections are, as usual, welcome

MM

Chris Phillips

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

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 aug 2005 17:13:41

Lyn Wolf wrote:
I hesitate to ask, after the previous row, how & where
would I be able to access IPMs, such as the one quoted
here? I do not have access to the Melbourne Library,
which is the closest at over 450km away.

I think a good library is still the only real option for the main series of
these. Even the Family History Library Catalog (Salt Lake City) lists only a
few editions of collections for particular counties (and some of the latter
are also available through ancestry.com's subscription service).

Chris Phillips

Lyn Wolf

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

Legg inn av Lyn Wolf » 21 aug 2005 17:44:02

Dear Douglas and Chris

Thankyou very much for this. It is quite clear due to the
dates, that Alice Peverel was not Alice de Lisle.

The VCH Cambs Vol 4 is on-line at:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.asp?pubid=93

I hesitate to ask, after the previous row, how & where
would I be able to access IPMs, such as the one quoted
here? I do not have access to the Melbourne Library,
which is the closest at over 450km away.

Thanks again for sorting this out.

Lyn Wolf
Manangatang Vic Australia

From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>

Douglas Richardson's summary of the IPM jogged my memory and I've dug
out my
old notes on Alice Peverel. It really is impossible for the Alice,
widow of
Robert Peverel, who died in 1349 to be the same as the Alice de Lisle
who
was the wife of Thomas de Seymour circa 1340 (CP cites Cal. Close
Rolls
1339-41, p. 274).

It's clearly impossible for the Thomas Seymour who died in 1358 to be
the
first of two husbands of a woman who died in 1349.

Nor can it be a different Thomas de Seymour, as Alice the widow of
Robert
Peverel was already the wife of Thomas de Verdon by 1329, and he was
still
alive, holding half a fee in [Castle] Ashby and Grendon, in 1346 [VCH
vol.
4, p.233 - copy courtesy of Rosie Bevan].

So this is a definite blunder by CP.

Chris Phillips



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

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 aug 2005 21:56:25

Many thanks Michael.

The Eylesford/Eynesford line I posted was taken from "The Family of
Bishop", and 1877 publication in the library of the College of Arms; I
think it was by F. Baigent (I don't have all of my notes to hand).
While faulty in parts, this work at least recognised that most of the
published "Eynesford-Milborne" lines were defective, as they contained
too few generations. Instead, it posted as follows (using the original
generation numbers above):

(7) Christian, daughter of Gerard de Furnival of Munden, Herts (he ff
1281) married Sir William de Eynesford (ff 1281). Two sons:

(8)(a) Richard de Eynesford, father of
(9) Hugh de Eynesford, father of
(10) Sir John de Eynesford of Tillington, Herefordshire, died 18
February 1395/6, sine prole [I seem to recall that his IPM was quoted
in some detail here, but I have not got my extracts presently]; married
Isabella [whom, I agree, subsequently married de la Mare - her IPM 9
Henry V is PRO document C138/58/40 "Isabel de la Mare, who was the wife
of Richard de la Mare Esq and formerly of John Eynesford:
Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and the marches of Wales"]

(8)(b) Sir Gerard de Eynesford of Kings Peon, Co Hereford, ff 1310;
married Margery; parents of:
(9) Edmund de Eynesford, of Burton, Northants, died December 1331
[again there was an IPM detailed, I am pretty sure, which I have not
extracted]; father of:
(10) John de Eynesford, son & heir, aged 3 in 1331; father of:
(11) Sir John de Eynesford, of Kings Peon; kinsman and nearest heir to
Sir John Eynesford, 1396, then aged 30; inherited Tillington; married
Margaret; parents of:
(12) Elizabeth, married Piers Milborne.

Presumably there are a number of IPM records which would help to
straighten this out. There seems to have been other
Eylesford/Eynesford family members around, just to thicken the plot,
such as the William that Mr Miller refers to in his VCH extract as
being remainderman to Burghill in 1334; presumably it was the one of
this name of whom it is said in "Manor House of Herefordshire":
"William Eylesford had licence 19 Edward III [i.e. c1346] to erect a
chapel at Tillington, subsequently endowed by his nephew Sir John
Eylesford" - if this is true then the "Hugh de Eynesford" of whom
Baigent writes, as noted above, must have been a younger son of
"Richard de Eynesford".

Cheers

MAR

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 aug 2005 22:16:01

From Berkeley Castle Muniments, per A2A, which inter alia adds a
daughter, Agnes (ff 1324), to the offspring of Gerard de Eylesford::


THE BERKELEY ESTATE

BERKELEY LANDS OUTSIDE THE HUNDRED

BURGHILL (HEREFS.) - ref. BCM/A/2/53
[from Administrative History] Thomas (III) Lord Berkeley
attempted to acquire the reversion of the manors of Burghill and
Tillington through an agreement with Roger de Burghill which is
reflected in the first four charters below. By the agreement Roger
granted the manors to Thomas who regranted them to Roger and his wife
Sibyl and their issue, with reversion to Thomas if they died without
issue. Thomas was bound in £3,000 to ensure that he made the regrant,
and the Berkeley receiver's account for 1327 records that Roger
received £100 for, in effect, granting the reversion to Thomas. [BCM
SR 39 (below, BCM/A/4/2/7).] The agreement had evidently lapsed by 1336
(below, BCM/A/2/53/5 [GC 2844]), and Roger's lands passed to the
Eylesford family: in 1336 Roger granted the reversion of his manor of
Westbury on Severn (Glos.) to William de Eylesford, [PRO CP 25/1/77/61,
no. 129.] and William's son John de Eylesford died in 1396 holding
Tillington of Thomas (IV) Lord Berkeley. [PRO C 136/87, no. 22.]
References to Burghill in the account rolls for Ham manor cease after
1336; they evidently relate to small holdings temporarily in Thomas
(III)'s possession, for which accounts survive for 1332-4. That Thomas
was in an almost unassailable position as Mortimer's son-in-law at the
time of the agreement of 1327, and that he was still on trial for
complicity in the death of Edward II in 1336 when it had lapsed,
suggest the possibility that Roger's role was not entirely voluntary
and that he took the opportunity to back out.

CANNON BRIDGE (HEREFS.) - ref. BCM/A/2/54

FILE [no title] - ref. BCM/A/2/54/1 - date: [15 July 1324]
[from Scope and Content] Roger son of Roger de Bourghull
and Agnes daughter of Gerard de Eylesford. Sun. before St. Kenelm, 18
Edw. II

Gjest

Re: wife of Isaac Angelus ( a theory)

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2005 01:09:02

Dear Newsgroup,
I have a theory concerning the parentage of Irene,
wife of Isaakios II Angelos parentage, which some have considered as being
Andronikos I Komnenos of Byzantium and his lover Theodora Kalusine Komnena,
widow of King Baldwin III of Jerusalem d 1162. Theodora`s parents were the
Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos , was her mother Kata of Georgia and could this Irene
have been a younger daughter of King Baldwin III ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Don Stone

Re: wife of Isaac Angelus ( a theory)

Legg inn av Don Stone » 22 aug 2005 02:40:11

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Newsgroup,
I have a theory concerning the parentage of Irene,
wife of Isaakios II Angelos parentage, which some have considered as being
Andronikos I Komnenos of Byzantium and his lover Theodora Kalusine Komnena,
widow of King Baldwin III of Jerusalem d 1162. Theodora`s parents were the
Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos , was her mother Kata of Georgia and could this Irene
have been a younger daughter of King Baldwin III ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings

The sebastocrator Isaac who married Kata of Georgia was the father of
Andronikos I (and Kata was the mother; this is based on the research of
Rafal Prinke, discussed some years ago here on sgm).

According to Cyril Toumanoff's Les Dynasties de la Caucasie Chrétienne
(Rome, 1990), the parents of the Theodora you mention (b. 1145/6, wife
successively of Baldwin III of Jerusalem and Andronikos I) were the
sebastocrator Isaac (d. 1154/74, according to Prinke) and a Theodora, about
whom Toumanoff gives no further information. (Prinke says this
sebastocrator Izaak m. (1) 1134 Teodora Kamaterina, who d. 1144, and Izaak
m. (2) 1146 Irena Diplosinadena. I leave the names as given by Prinke,
whose article is in Polish.)

However, this doesn't preclude your hypothesis that Irene (Herina), wife of
Isaac II Angelos, was a daughter of Baldwin III and Theodora. Is it known
that Baldwin III and Theodora had a daughter Irene?

-- Don Stone

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2005 02:53:01

In two further fascinating posts mjcar introduces some more Eylesfords to the
debate. In an attempt to keep up with him, I have had a look at the CPR
again, and also at the Berkeley Castle papers concerning Bourghill, Hds, which he
has helpfully cited.
Unfortunately I do not have access at present to the work of the Rev Francis
Baigent, which mjcar also cites, nor to the E family IPMs.

In the CPR for 5th September 1356 there is a reference to "John Fitz Hugh de
Eylesford, 'chivaler' ". This Hugh, father of Sir John, did not appear in the
line adduced by mjcar on 20th August last: but the fact of his existence
certainly adds weight to mjcar's hypothesis that at least one generation is missing
from the traditional Eylesford pedigrees;perhaps also it undermines my
suggestion, based on the VCH for Westbury, Glos, that Sir John was the son of the
William E upon whom Roger Bourghill settled the reversion to his estates at
Tillington and Burghill: though there is no doubt that these estates were in the
event inherited by Simon Milborne.

I am sure that mjcar (or rather his sources) are wrong in suggesting that the
Elizabeth who married Peter Milborne was a daughter of Sir John Eylesford
"the younger" by his wife Margaret, both mentioned in CPR for 12th February 1394.
This latter Sir John E was the husband of Margaret, daughter of Roger Belers,
and they died leaving Sir Ralph Cromwell as Margaret's heir: see CPR for
1433, pages 289-293 (courtesy of Professor Boynton of the University of Iowa).
Elizabeth (nee Eylesford) Milborne cannot therefore have been the daughter of the
younger Sir John and his wife Margaret Belers, and must have been the
daughter of the Sir John who died in 1396 and his wife Isabel (?de la Barre).

Well, at least that's how it seems to me
MM

Tony Ingham

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

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 22 aug 2005 03:11:01

Brandon,

I dont make calculated attempts to improve anyone's impression of me,
nor uncalculated ones for that matter.

I suggest you consult several experts in Email transmission and ask how
you could receive a mailing of two words "You Wanker ! ! !" with both
the beginning (24 words) and the end (38 words) missing from the
transmission, which is neatly housed in the sender's SENT file.

Seeing you blocked my emails I will enclose the entire mailing.

Remember, this was in response to you sending a mail-out to all Tonys on
the list suggesting that they worked in Genealogical Libraries and are
"users" of the list info. whom you have helped out "Genealogically" in
times past .

I ask DCR to be tolerant of my including the paragraph pertaining to
him. I don't believe in selective quoting!

Email sent to John Brandon 10.45 a.m. 20 Aug 2005.

John,

You may be surprised to know that I am a retired 68 Y.O. pensioner .
My wife and I live on a 6 acre property in the Central Victorian
Goldfields. I travel some 400 kms round trip to do my research. The
research day takes from 6.30 a.m. to 11.30.p.m.

My main interest is the BARLEE or BARLEY families of Essex and Herts.
Unfortunately, there are not many on the list (or elsewhere for that
matter) who share my passion. Hopefully I can uncover all the reliable
data on the Barlees and their ancestral families that is currently
available before I leave this mortal coil. Then it is up to my brother
and his son to (hopefully) carry on the work.

If you have helped me "Genealogically" I thank you. Unfortunately a
Hard Disk crash resulted in the loss of all my saved Emails from the
last 15 years. Maybe you would care to remind me?

John, I am definitely not a user as you define it. I've assisted many
people off-list with my research material and am currently doing work
for two people on families entirely unfamiliar to me.

I apologise for bringing you into the mailing for DCR. I wasn't
attempting to denigrate you in any way, merely using DCR's quote to
poo-ha him a little.

I have no axe to grind with you. I wish, though, that you wouldn't
give DCR such unstinting support when you know his arguments are not
supportable.

As for DCR, I had hoped that RPA might, indeed, have been revised. But
not so. Three lines in which I am interested have not been changed
although I KNOW that Douglas has had access to the neccesary revisions
since 2002.

Hoping the above may give you some idea of where I'm coming from.

All the best,

Tony Ingham







John Brandon wrote:

Why dont you hold your breath and keep it held.
I should have thought the resident smart-a[r]s[e] >would be on to Peter's REAL name.

You Wanker!!!




Well, this is the first time I've seen that first part, but why you've
added it is beyond me (it doesn't seem calculated to improve anyone's
impression of you).



Incidentally, to anyone who may read this, I sent >a private reply to Brandon's carte blanche Tony >mailing in which I clarified exactly who I am and >where I am coming from.



Naturally, I blocked your emails after being called a WANKER!!!!



P.S. Talking about piety. Did I notice a bit of >good ol' boy piety today?



What does that even mean?




Peter Stewart

Re: wife of Isaac Angelus ( a theory)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2005 03:17:49

"Don Stone" <don.stone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%1aOe.1670$SW1.176@trndny09...
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Newsgroup,
I have a theory concerning the parentage of
Irene, wife of Isaakios II Angelos parentage, which some have considered
as being Andronikos I Komnenos of Byzantium and his lover Theodora
Kalusine Komnena, widow of King Baldwin III of Jerusalem d 1162.
Theodora`s parents were the Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos , was her
mother Kata of Georgia and could this Irene have been a younger daughter
of King Baldwin III ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings

The sebastocrator Isaac who married Kata of Georgia was the father of
Andronikos I (and Kata was the mother; this is based on the research of
Rafal Prinke, discussed some years ago here on sgm).

According to Cyril Toumanoff's Les Dynasties de la Caucasie Chrétienne
(Rome, 1990), the parents of the Theodora you mention (b. 1145/6, wife
successively of Baldwin III of Jerusalem and Andronikos I) were the
sebastocrator Isaac (d. 1154/74, according to Prinke) and a Theodora,
about whom Toumanoff gives no further information. (Prinke says this
sebastocrator Izaak m. (1) 1134 Teodora Kamaterina, who d. 1144, and Izaak
m. (2) 1146 Irena Diplosinadena. I leave the names as given by Prinke,
whose article is in Polish.)

However, this doesn't preclude your hypothesis that Irene (Herina), wife
of Isaac II Angelos, was a daughter of Baldwin III and Theodora. Is it
known that Baldwin III and Theodora had a daughter Irene?

On the contrary, it's known that they did not have any children at all. It's
inconceivable to me that the sources would have overlooked a daughter, much
less one who had become wife of Isaakios Angelos and mother of children to a
Byzantine emperor, when Balduin III's rights to the throne of Jerusalem had
passed uncontested to his brother Amalric I and then to the latter's son who
was a leper.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Nicholas Carew's wife a Delamare?

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 22 aug 2005 18:40:58

In message of 14 Aug, "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yes, thank you for reminding me about the Scotts. I recall looking
through the information you suggested but also didn't find anything
conclusive. Who is "Hasted" by the way?

(Just found this on my return. And could not find any reply.)

Hasted is Edward Hasted's "History and Topographical Survey of the
County of Kent" in 12 volumes, pub 1797 and obtainabl from
http://www.archivecdbooks.co.uk

The reference for the Baliol and Scott arms is Vol 8, p. 5.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Ladies of the Garter was Re: Agnes Arundel

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2005 20:44:02

In message of 21 Aug, leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

I know there is this list on the Internet which gives all those
Ladies of the Garter, but what did that mean? They were not
knighted.........

In 1999 a book was published "The Most Noble Order of the Garter 650
years" with a foreword by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. In it is a
great list of all the knights of the Garter, all 987 of them,
including Margaret Thatcher (nr.980).

This book is by Peter J. Begent and Hubert Chesshyre and, apparently,
you can get it only at Windsor Castle. Apparently, you have to go
there to get it, as they don't post it, and it is quite expensive.
Still, it is a superb production with many pictures in it .

There is a page "Appendix B" The Ladies of the Garter, there are only
9 mentioned, Queen Alexandra (in 1901) Queen Mary (in 1910), Queen
(Mother) Elizabeth (in 1936), Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands (in
1944) Queen EWlizabeth II (in 1947) Queen Juliana of The Netherlands (in
1958) Queen Margarethe II of Denmark (in 1979) Queen Beatrix of The
Netherlands (n 1989) and Princess Royal Anne (in 1994).

None of the ladies of that Internet list have a
mention.................what is the meaning of that list?.

Tim replied


Ladies of the Garter had lapsed around the time of Henry VIII and were
reintroduced by Edward VII. I do not know what their role or status
was, apart from being able to tog up in similar fancy clothes to all the
Knights of the Garter at the annual ceremonies.

The order of the Garter consists, at the core, of the Sovereign and 25
knights. Subsequently various additional categories have been added,
Sons of the Sovereign and Foreign Sovereigns; their numbers are
additional to the core 25. The Prince of Wales always used to be one of
the 25 core; not sure if the current PoW is now classed as a son of the
sovereign and thus in addition to the core 25.

But the remarkable development of the last 10 years has been the
addition of Lady Thatcher as one of the 25 core knights. Unless anyone
knows different? She does not seem to me to be in the category of
Ladies of the Garter, though in practice there is probably not much
difference.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<<<<<

I think KG's were also entitled to a stall (or seat) in St George's chapel,
Windsor - this would explain the reason why it is important to know who a new
knight replaced and why numbers could not exceed 25, but in 1805, when
foreign dignitaries, etc. were let in, lower stalls were allocated. I guess the
date of instalment mentioned in an earlier post, was the date the knight was
allocated his stall.

Adrian

Gjest

Re: Nicholas Carew's wife a Delamare?

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2005 20:44:02

Sorry, I should have replied to this, but missed it

Adrian

Yes, thank you for reminding me about the Scotts. I recall looking
through the information you suggested but also didn't find anything
conclusive. Who is "Hasted" by the way?


Tim replied


(Just found this on my return. And could not find any reply.)

Hasted is Edward Hasted's "History and Topographical Survey of the
County of Kent" in 12 volumes, pub 1797 and obtainabl from
http://www.archivecdbooks.co.uk

The reference for the Baliol and Scott arms is Vol 8, p. 5.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2005 21:05:16

Interesting stuff!

I shall try to dig out the IPM details for:

(a) Gerard de Eylesford (1331) PRO C 143/81/13
(b) "Edmund de Eynesford (1331)"
(c) John de Eylesford (1396)
(d) Isabel de la Mare (1421) PRO C 138/58/40

On the face of it, at appears that Elizabeth (Milborne) and Katherine
(Daunsey) cannot be the daughters of Sir John de Eylesford 'the
younger' by his wife Margaret Belers, but they could be his daughters
by an earlier wife - i.e. John's coheirs but not Margaret's. I note
the 1433 CPR entry which records Sir Ralph Cromwell's claim to be
Margaret's heir (and thus entitled to the Derbyshire manor of "Cruche")
refers to Sir John de E being her "sometime husband", which is often
suggestive of a second marriage.

From CPR records (e.g. 1399, 1403) it seems that the younger Sir John
de E was chiefly associated with Leicestershire - perhaps it is here

that his IPM may be found.

It is interesting to note the CPR entry for 12 Feb 1394:

"Licence for £20 paid to the king by John de Eylesford the younger,
knight, for the said John and Margaret his wife to enfeoff Simon de
Melburn, clerk, Robert de Billesdon, clerk, Peter de Melburn and Thomas
Danseye of the manors of Boneye, co Nottingham, and Cryche, co Derby,
and the hundred of Frameland, Co Leicester, held in chief, and for the
feoffees, after seisin had, to re-enfeoff the said John and Margaret of
the premises"

This links Peter de Milborne and Thomas Daunsey with Sir John de E the
younger and his wife Margaret, as well as concerning the same manor as
the 1433 proceedings.

Noting the conjunction in 1394 of Simon de Milborne, clerk, and Peter
de Milborne, in connection with property in Derbyshire, I presume that
the following A"A record is relevant:

Derbyshire Record Office: Every Family of Eggington: D5236:

"Titles deeds etc: 1382 Simon de Melburn, parson of Ceston; witnesses:
John Foucher, John Fraunceys, Peter de Melburn's [man] William Tillot,
John Warner of Melburn".

It might also be of interest to note that apparently, in addition to
his 13 daughters, the younger Simon de Milborne (c1435-1522) did have a
son, who presumably died during his father's lifetime, without issue.
This is based on the following PROCAT record (C 146/751):

"10 February 8 Edward IV (i.e. 1469) Grant by Thomas Restard of
[Wellington] to Simon Mylburne, esquire, John Mylburn his son, John
Danyell, vicar of the church of Wellington aforesaid, and William
Hoggys, of lands &c in Wellington, Bodenham, Maurdyn, Turemarshe,
Netherluyd and Burghill."

While much of this may seem like scattergun references to miscellaneous
documents, and return-fire, I think we are building up a good over-all
picture slowly but surely, with a view to correcting the exisiting
published pedigrees, which I think we would both agree are seriously
defective.

MAR

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2005 21:11:51

PS I presume that the relationship by which Ralph de Cromwell claimed
heirship to Margaret de Eylesford nee Belers stems from the following,
taken from Kay Allen's post of 28 September 2000 [saves me having to
visit the library to consult CP!]:

"Ralph Cromwell, dead by 28 October 1364, (married) Amice Bellers
[sic], of Kirby Belers, Leicestershire."

Gjest

Re: wife of Isaac Angelus ( a theory)

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2005 04:58:01

Dear Don and Peter and others,
Apologies to all for wasting
the Group`s time with such garbage.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2005 14:49:26

Victoria County History, Northamptonshire, Vol 3, p 181 details the
descent of the manor of Burton from the Reinbuedcurt (sic) family
through the Foliots to Christina Ledet, who married Gerard de Furnival.
She is stated to have given the manor to her younger son, Gerard de
Furnival who gave the manor "to his elder daughter Christina, wife of
William de Aylesford or Eylesford" [references quoted are: Assiz R 1256
m 33; De Banco R 427 m 203]. From thence it descended to Christina and
William's son, Gerard de Eylesford [Chan. IPM 17 Edward II no 37], then
Edmund [Chan. IPM Edward III No 43; Cal. Close 1327-39 p414], then John
[as per previous references] then a second John, who "granted all his
right in the manor to his overlord, William, Lord Latimer" in 1369
[Close R 46 Edward III m 28].

Additionally (p 185) the advowson is said to have been given by
Christina Ledet to her son Gerard de Furnival, who "when he went to the
Holy Land... entrusted (it) and an acre of land to the Rector, Master
John Fleming, on condition that if (he) did not return they should be
granted to Christina de Aylesford with remainder to her son Gerard de
Aylesford [De Banco R No 427 m 203].

This would appear to confirm the stemma from Mr Baigent's book, viz:

8. Gerard de Eylesford
9. Edmund de Eylesford
10. John de Eylesford
11. John de Eylesford

My only comment would be that if (11) John de Eylesford granted Burton
to Lord Latimer in 1369, it must have been by trustees as he was most
probably a minor at that date - see below.

Further confirmation comes from the Gloucestershire IPM of Sir John de
Eylesford of Tillington, 1396 [British Record Society Volume 47, p
194]:

"At Westbury, 10 April 19 Richard II: John de Eylesford of Tullynton,
chivaler, held of the King in chief one third of the manor of Westbury
and by his charter thereof enfeoffed Philip Holgot, James Naysshe, Hugh
Harper, clerk, Roger Pertrych of Snytton and Roger Warde of Tullynton
who afterwards conveyed the same to John de Eynesford otherwise John de
Eylesford and Isabel his wife, who survives, and to the heirs of the
body of the said John. [He also held the manor of Bolley]. The said
John died at Eynesford (sic) 18 February last. His kinsman and heir is
John de Eynesford, chivaler, son of John son of Edmund son of Gerard
brother of Richard father of Hugh father of John de Eynesford in the
writ named; aged 30 and more. [Chan. IPM Ser. 1, 19 Richard II No 2,
new reference File 87]"

This would appear to confirm the male stemma of the Eylesfords and show
how the two Sir Johns were related. However, it does not prove which
of the two Sir Johns was father to Elizabeth de Eynesford, said in the
Visitations to have married Peter (Piers) de Milborne - who certainly
inherited Tillington and Burghill - or Katherine de Eylesford wife of
Mr Daunsey.

I am not sufficiently experienced in such matters to pass judgment on
the significance of the 1396 IPM - i.e. whether it means that Sir John
the elder died without surviving issue, or whether Burghill could have
been held in tail male. If the former is the case, then obviously
Elizabeth and Katherine were not daughters of the elder Sir John.

Considering the position of the younger Sir John, we have seen that Sir
Ralph Cromwell claimed to be the heir of Sir John's wife Margaret in
1433, which would suggest that Elizabeth and Katherine were not her
daughters either. However, it is clear that Sir John was not Margaret
first husband, as detailed below, and therefore Margaret may not have
been Sir John's first wife. I shall keep digging.

From A2A, Nottingham University Library, Department of Manuscripts and
Special Collections, Parkyns family papers [Pa D 1-120]:


"17 March 1393 Indenture between John de Eynesford and Margaret his
wife, formerly the wife of Robert de Swillyngton, on the one part, and
Robert Grethed and his companions, executors of the testament of Robert
de Swyllington on the other part. Rbert Grethed and his companions in
accordance with Robert's will have delivered to John and Margaret
various items of silver, their values specified."

Margaret, we have seen, was nee Belers [cf PROCAT SC 6/908/29: 4 to 5
Henry V "Kirby Bellars (Lands of Lady Margaret de Swylyngton)"; as Mr
Miller has kindly advised me her IPM may be found at C 138/32/26 "6
Henry V: Aylesford, Margaret, formerly wife of Robert Swillington,
knight: Notts and Leics".

MAR

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 aug 2005 16:11:03

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 9 April 1392:

"Westminster: Licence for the king's widow Margaret, late the wife of
Robert Swilington, knight, to marry whom she will, nothwithstanding the
interest of the Crown in her marriage"

We may therefore date the marriage of Sir John de Eylesford the
younger, and Margaret Swillington nee Belers to circa 1393 [between 9
April 1392 and 17 March 1393 - although it is not clear whether the
latter should be 1393/4] - assuming that she had not married Sir John
before the licence to remarry was obtained.

MAR

John Brandon

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

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 aug 2005 16:16:49

Inkham,

I suggest you consult several experts in Email transmission and ask how
you could receive a mailing of two words "You Wanker ! ! !" with both
the beginning (24 words) and the end (38 words) missing from the
transmission, which is neatly housed in the sender's SENT file.

Well, of course I received the bottom 38 words. But you obviously
inserted the top part before posting it to the newsgroup. What is in
your SENT file is irrevelant, as this was not a forwarded email, just a
cut and paste job (easily fiddled with).

Seeing you blocked my emails I will enclose the entire mailing.

You can stop with that. It's sort of unorthodox, at least in my
understanding of nettiquette (although I guess technically not wrong,
since you were the writer of said emails).

Remember, this was in response to you sending a mail-out to all Tonys on
the list suggesting that they worked in Genealogical Libraries and are
"users" of the list info. whom you have helped out "Genealogically" in
times past .

It wasn't a mail-out to all Tonys. I just got you confused with
another guy with the same name.

Peter Marrow

Thomas Marrow and Leland

Legg inn av Peter Marrow » 23 aug 2005 17:06:01

Dear All,

Thomas Marrow, born about 1516 according to his father's IPM, was known as
Thomas of Hoxton, or 'de Hoxtown' (where he had an estate in Middlesex),
but later he is often also referred to as 'of Rudfyn' (Warwickshire). He
married Alice Young (Yonge, Younge) and they had a large family.

He acquired a LOT of property in Warwickshire including the manors of
Birmingham and Berkswell and those were to be held by the family for many
generations.

According to Putnam, he is almost certainly the subject of Leland's
eulogy: 'Ad Thomam Maronem' among 'Encomia illustrium virorum' [in
Collectanea, ed. Th. Hearne, 1770, v.143] . Leland visited Birmingham town
on his way from King's Norton to Staffordshire.

1) Why 'Thomam Maronem' ? Is that Leland putting on some sort of 'airs and
graces'?

2) Is that Leland eulogy, or Hearne's 'Collectanea', whatever that may be
(a gentleman's magazine??) available in any form that a library here in
Edinburgh might be able to get?

best regards to all
Peter

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cro

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 24 aug 2005 19:11:55

Dear Pat ~

I believe the Burdon/Burden family you asked about is a different
family than the Burton family mentioned in Maud de Bernake's charter.

DR

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
Douglas,
Could the reference below possibly be John de Burdon not Burton, given the
following?
1363 IPM of Elen Daubeneye Vipont: "manor
of Joneby was held of the heirs of Gregory de Burdon by knight's service,
to wit of Thomas, son of Thomas de Ughtred and another inq. was taken co.
York whereby it was found that Gregory de Burden held in fee a fourth part
of the manor of Clifford and that John son of Robert de Kirketon the son of
Ellen Gregory's sister, of full age was his heir; and directing the Sheriff
to warn Thomas, son of Thomas to be before the king in Chancery in the
quindene of Easter next, to show cause why the manor of Joneby should not
be delivered to this John son of Robert."
1352, 26 Feb. Westminister. License for 12l. which John de Loudham has paid
to the king for John de Kirketon to enfeoff Ralph Daubeneye, parson of the
church of Broghton.

Thank you,
Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell,
Lord Cromwell
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2005, 12:52 PM


Dear John, Gordon, etc. ~

As a followup to my original post regarding the 1370 seal of Maud de
Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell, it appears that Maud was using
the same or similar seal as late as 1396. This seal displays the arms
of Bernake impaling Cromwell, rather than in reverse order was normally
done.

I haven't yet seen the depiction of Maud's seal which is displayed in
the Archaeologia article mentioned below. If the Archaeologia article
is correct, the fourth arms on Maud de Bernake's seal were correctly
ermine, a fess for Bernake, NOT vairé, a fess for Marmion as stated by
Birch's Catalogue of Seals.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Report on the Manuscripts of Lord de L'Isle & Dudley Preserved
at Penshurst Place, 1 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 77) (1925): 171-172:

"Charter of Ralph Cromwell, knight, her husband, granting the chantry
of the chapel of St. Nicholas, to John de Burton. 11th November 1396.
Maud now makes a like grant to William de Reynes. Witnesses: William
de Cromwell, her son, and others.

Seal: in good condition showing the four shields: Barnack impaling
Cromwell; Tateshale; Dryby; and Barnack (not Marmyon as described in
British Museum Catalogue of Seals, vol. ii, 9097.) (Seal Archaeologia
lxv, Plate xxx, 9)."


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

In an earlier post, I mentioned that a heraldic seal has survived for
Maud (de Bernake) de Cromwell's grandfather, Sir William de Bernake,
which displays the Bernake arms, ermine, a fess.

I've since determined that original heraldic seals have also survived
for both Maud de Bernake and her husband, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, 1st
Lord Cromwell. Descriptions of the seals can be found in Birch's
helpful work, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. Maud's seal
shows the Bernake arms in the dexter position, rather than the sinister
position, which I suspect was done to demonstrate her importance as a
major heiress. Curiously, Birch attributes this to an error of the
engraver. Perhaps an expert on heraldic seals can weigh in on this
point. Maud's seal also includes the arms of Tattershall, Driby, and
Marmion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, volume 2 (1892):

pg. 707 (seal of Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell dated
1370 - A shield of arms: per pale, dex., ermine, a fess [BERNAKE],
sin., a chief (diapré) and baton [CROMWELL]. Within a carved and
pointed gothic quatrefoil with three shields of arms thereon: viz., 1,
chequy, a chief ermine, with a label of four points [TATTERSHALL]; 2,
three cinquefoils and a canton [DRIBY]; vairé, a fess [MARMION].
Legend between the the small shields: - Sigill' _ matildi de
cro_mwelle. Beaded border.).

pg. 708 (seal of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt. dated 1370 - A shield of
arms: a chief (diapered) and bendlet [CROMWELL]. Within a carved and
traced gothic cinquefoil, ornamented along the inner edge with small
ball-flowers. Legend: Si': Radulphi de Couwelle: Milit'. Beaded
border.).


Patricia Junkin

Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cro

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 24 aug 2005 19:29:02

Douglas,
Could the reference below possibly be John de Burdon not Burton, given the
following?
1363 IPM of Elen Daubeneye Vipont: "manor
of Joneby was held of the heirs of Gregory de Burdon by knight's service,
to wit of Thomas, son of Thomas de Ughtred and another inq. was taken co.
York whereby it was found that Gregory de Burden held in fee a fourth part
of the manor of Clifford and that John son of Robert de Kirketon the son of
Ellen Gregory's sister, of full age was his heir; and directing the Sheriff
to warn Thomas, son of Thomas to be before the king in Chancery in the
quindene of Easter next, to show cause why the manor of Joneby should not
be delivered to this John son of Robert."
1352, 26 Feb. Westminister. License for 12l. which John de Loudham has paid
to the king for John de Kirketon to enfeoff Ralph Daubeneye, parson of the
church of Broghton.

Thank you,
Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell,
Lord Cromwell
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2005, 12:52 PM


Dear John, Gordon, etc. ~

As a followup to my original post regarding the 1370 seal of Maud de
Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell, it appears that Maud was using
the same or similar seal as late as 1396. This seal displays the arms
of Bernake impaling Cromwell, rather than in reverse order was normally
done.

I haven't yet seen the depiction of Maud's seal which is displayed in
the Archaeologia article mentioned below. If the Archaeologia article
is correct, the fourth arms on Maud de Bernake's seal were correctly
ermine, a fess for Bernake, NOT vairé, a fess for Marmion as stated by
Birch's Catalogue of Seals.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Report on the Manuscripts of Lord de L'Isle & Dudley Preserved
at Penshurst Place, 1 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 77) (1925): 171-172:

"Charter of Ralph Cromwell, knight, her husband, granting the chantry
of the chapel of St. Nicholas, to John de Burton. 11th November 1396.
Maud now makes a like grant to William de Reynes. Witnesses: William
de Cromwell, her son, and others.

Seal: in good condition showing the four shields: Barnack impaling
Cromwell; Tateshale; Dryby; and Barnack (not Marmyon as described in
British Museum Catalogue of Seals, vol. ii, 9097.) (Seal Archaeologia
lxv, Plate xxx, 9)."


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

In an earlier post, I mentioned that a heraldic seal has survived for
Maud (de Bernake) de Cromwell's grandfather, Sir William de Bernake,
which displays the Bernake arms, ermine, a fess.

I've since determined that original heraldic seals have also survived
for both Maud de Bernake and her husband, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, 1st
Lord Cromwell. Descriptions of the seals can be found in Birch's
helpful work, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. Maud's seal
shows the Bernake arms in the dexter position, rather than the sinister
position, which I suspect was done to demonstrate her importance as a
major heiress. Curiously, Birch attributes this to an error of the
engraver. Perhaps an expert on heraldic seals can weigh in on this
point. Maud's seal also includes the arms of Tattershall, Driby, and
Marmion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, volume 2 (1892):

pg. 707 (seal of Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell dated
1370 - A shield of arms: per pale, dex., ermine, a fess [BERNAKE],
sin., a chief (diapré) and baton [CROMWELL]. Within a carved and
pointed gothic quatrefoil with three shields of arms thereon: viz., 1,
chequy, a chief ermine, with a label of four points [TATTERSHALL]; 2,
three cinquefoils and a canton [DRIBY]; vairé, a fess [MARMION].
Legend between the the small shields: - Sigill' _ matildi de
cro_mwelle. Beaded border.).

pg. 708 (seal of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt. dated 1370 - A shield of
arms: a chief (diapered) and bendlet [CROMWELL]. Within a carved and
traced gothic cinquefoil, ornamented along the inner edge with small
ball-flowers. Legend: Si': Radulphi de Couwelle: Milit'. Beaded
border.).


Patricia Junkin

Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cro

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 24 aug 2005 22:30:02

Thank you, Douglas.

----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell,
Lord Cromwell
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2005, 2:11 PM


Dear Pat ~

I believe the Burdon/Burden family you asked about is a different
family than the Burton family mentioned in Maud de Bernake's charter.

DR

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
Douglas,
Could the reference below possibly be John de Burdon not Burton, given the
following?
1363 IPM of Elen Daubeneye Vipont: "manor
of Joneby was held of the heirs of Gregory de Burdon by knight's service,
to wit of Thomas, son of Thomas de Ughtred and another inq. was taken co.
York whereby it was found that Gregory de Burden held in fee a fourth part
of the manor of Clifford and that John son of Robert de Kirketon the son of
Ellen Gregory's sister, of full age was his heir; and directing the Sheriff
to warn Thomas, son of Thomas to be before the king in Chancery in the
quindene of Easter next, to show cause why the manor of Joneby should not
be delivered to this John son of Robert."
1352, 26 Feb. Westminister. License for 12l. which John de Loudham has paid
to the king for John de Kirketon to enfeoff Ralph Daubeneye, parson of the
church of Broghton.

Thank you,
Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell,
Lord Cromwell
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2005, 12:52 PM


Dear John, Gordon, etc. ~

As a followup to my original post regarding the 1370 seal of Maud de
Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell, it appears that Maud was using
the same or similar seal as late as 1396. This seal displays the arms
of Bernake impaling Cromwell, rather than in reverse order was normally
done.

I haven't yet seen the depiction of Maud's seal which is displayed in
the Archaeologia article mentioned below. If the Archaeologia article
is correct, the fourth arms on Maud de Bernake's seal were correctly
ermine, a fess for Bernake, NOT vairé, a fess for Marmion as stated by
Birch's Catalogue of Seals.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Report on the Manuscripts of Lord de L'Isle & Dudley Preserved
at Penshurst Place, 1 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 77) (1925): 171-172:

"Charter of Ralph Cromwell, knight, her husband, granting the chantry
of the chapel of St. Nicholas, to John de Burton. 11th November 1396.
Maud now makes a like grant to William de Reynes. Witnesses: William
de Cromwell, her son, and others.

Seal: in good condition showing the four shields: Barnack impaling
Cromwell; Tateshale; Dryby; and Barnack (not Marmyon as described in
British Museum Catalogue of Seals, vol. ii, 9097.) (Seal Archaeologia
lxv, Plate xxx, 9)."


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

In an earlier post, I mentioned that a heraldic seal has survived for
Maud (de Bernake) de Cromwell's grandfather, Sir William de Bernake,
which displays the Bernake arms, ermine, a fess.

I've since determined that original heraldic seals have also survived
for both Maud de Bernake and her husband, Sir Ralph de Cromwell, 1st
Lord Cromwell. Descriptions of the seals can be found in Birch's
helpful work, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum. Maud's seal
shows the Bernake arms in the dexter position, rather than the sinister
position, which I suspect was done to demonstrate her importance as a
major heiress. Curiously, Birch attributes this to an error of the
engraver. Perhaps an expert on heraldic seals can weigh in on this
point. Maud's seal also includes the arms of Tattershall, Driby, and
Marmion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, volume 2 (1892):

pg. 707 (seal of Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cromwell dated
1370 - A shield of arms: per pale, dex., ermine, a fess [BERNAKE],
sin., a chief (diapré) and baton [CROMWELL]. Within a carved and
pointed gothic quatrefoil with three shields of arms thereon: viz., 1,
chequy, a chief ermine, with a label of four points [TATTERSHALL]; 2,
three cinquefoils and a canton [DRIBY]; vairé, a fess [MARMION].
Legend between the the small shields: - Sigill' _ matildi de
cro_mwelle. Beaded border.).

pg. 708 (seal of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt. dated 1370 - A shield of
arms: a chief (diapered) and bendlet [CROMWELL]. Within a carved and
traced gothic cinquefoil, ornamented along the inner edge with small
ball-flowers. Legend: Si': Radulphi de Couwelle: Milit'. Beaded
border.).




Ed Conrad

Re: Mr. Ed Conrad's petrified wooden tool handle is man-made

Legg inn av Ed Conrad » 25 aug 2005 13:57:56

<
Lin Liangtai wrote to talk.origins:
:
There is no natural plant root/trunk/stem/bark that has the same shape
and size as Mr. Conrad's petrified wooden tool handle.

===============================================
HAND-CARVED TOOL OR WEAPON (Turned to Coal)

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-001S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
================================================

It is man-made because, otherwise, it would take different forces to
target at different small spots on the handle in order to transform a
buried piece of natural wood into the exact shape of the handle. The
different spots on the small handle include:

1. The taper end of the handle: To form a top-side, bottom side taper
end, it required not only "uneven" downward force (pressure), but also
upward force, targeting at one end, not both ends or the middle section
of the handle.
2. the oval body of the handle: For a round or square wood stick to
become oval, it required "even" application of downward and upward
forces on the handle.
3. The bigger end of the handle: It required force that could cut the
handle sharply, creating a flat plane on this end.
4. The rectangle dent on the top side of the bigger end: This dent
looked like an impression of a lost name-tag. For this name-tag
impression, the needed force had to be applied right there with right
amount of force.

It's impossible to find the above contradictory forces targeted at
specific, different little spots on the little wood stick. Some say the
handle was a coalified lycopod (extinct) bark. Although the bark may
look oval on the outside, its inside is not oval , while the "handle"
looks oval both top side and bottom side.

In view of the above, the "handle" is quite impossible to be natural.

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

Thanks, Lin!

<
It's nice to know there are folks with good common sense and superior
intelligence at talk.origins (but not many).
<
The artifact was indeed handcrafted for use as a tool or weapon or
both.
<
You are welcome to examine it personally if you wish, soon as it is
returned from Berlin where it has been on exhibit with my petrified
bones, teeth and soft organs (some human).
As for your earlier question whether these specimens are casts... No,

they're not! Casts don't contain Haversian canals (in petrified bone)
and wouldn't have positive results in other state-of-the-art testing
as conducted by prestigious medical institutions such as American
Medical Laaboratories in Chantilly, Va.
<
Meanwhile, former Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center bone expert
Jeremy Dahl, M.D., wouldn't have identified one of the specimens --
the only one he tested -- as BONE if it were not bone. He put his
conclusion on Yerkes stationery and
signed the letter.
<
And, besides, other tests were performed with very favorable results
including CATscans on some of my most intriguing specimens (about 15),
ALL with favorable results.
<
One CATscan, for example, revealed the specimen that I say is a human
gall bladder contains a gall stone.
Additionally, SEM photos at 2,000X showed the inner surface of one of

the specimens I insist is bone (the tibia) is identical to that of
non-petrified bone of the surface features of cadaver bone.
<
Ed Conrad
<
P.S. Lin, this response cannot go to talk.origins because it is not
allowing my postings to appear. So it is being sent to other news
groups and I hope you see it.
<
As for my willingness to let you examine the handcrafted tool handle
and other of my key specimens, you can email me at
edconrad@verizon.net
<
==========================================
<
PETRIFIED HUMAN REMAINS DISCOVERED
BETWEEN COAL VEINS IN PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg

OTHER HUMAN FOSSILS

PETRIFIED HUMAN FINGER AND TOE
< (during Power Point presentation in Switzerland)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix2/MVC-006S.JPG

PETRIFIED HUMAN TOOL (Wooden Handle Turned to Coal)

Nearly all of the above specimens underwent state-of-the-art
scientific testing by major independent laboratories and
proved, beyond doubt, that they are bones, teeth or soft organs.
<
Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad.com
Man as Old as Coal

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

WORLD'S LARGEST NEWSPAPERS
Rank Title Country Circulation (000)
1 Yomiuri Shimbun Japan 14,067

2 The Asahi Shimbun Japan 12,121
3 Mainichi Shimbun Japan 5,587
4 Nihon Keizai Shimbun Japan 4,635
5 Chunichi Shimbun Japan 4,512
6 Bild Germany 3,867
7 Sankei Shimbun Japan 2,757
8 Canako Xiaoxi (Beijing) China 2,627
9 People's Daily China 2,509
10 Tokyo Sports Japan 2,425
11 The Sun United Kingdom 2,419
12 The Chosun Ilbo South Korea 2,378
13 USA Today USA 2,310
14 The Wall Street Journal USA 2,107
15 Daily Mail UK 2,093
16 The Joongang Ilbo S. Korea 2,084
17 The Dong-A Ilbo South Korea 2,052
18 Nikkan Sports Japan 1,965
19 Hokkaido Shimbun Japan 1,922
20 Dainik Jagran India 1,911
21 Yangtse Evening Post China 1,715
22 Sports Nippon Japan 1,711
23 The Nikkan Gendai Japan 1,686
24 Times of India India 1,680
25 Guangzhou Daily China 1,650
26 The Mirror UK 1,597
27 Yukan Fuji Japan 1,559
28 Shizuoka Shimbun Japan 1,479
29 Nanfang City News (Guangzhou) China 1,410
30 Dainik Bhaskar India 1,405
31 Sankei Sports Japan 1,368
32 Hochi Shimbun Japan 1,354
33 Yangcheng Evening News (Guangzhou) China 1,320
34 Malayala Manorama India 1,309
35 Liberty Times Taiwan 1,300
36 Thai Rath Thailand 1,200
37 New York Times USA 1,121
38 Hindustan Times India 1,108
39 Chutian Metro Daily (Wuhan) China 1,084
40 Gujarat Samachar India 1,051
41 Ananda Bazar Patrika India 1,046
42 Xinmin Evening News (Shanghai) China 1,045
43 Eenadu India 1,039
44 Nishi-Nippon Shimbun Japan 1,025
45 Kronen Zeitung Austria 1,009
46 WAZ Mediengruppe Germany 1,001
47 United Daily News Taiwan 1,000
48 China Times Taiwan 1,000
49 Daily Sports Japan 999
50 The Hindu India 989
51 Hindustan India 957
52 Beijing Evening News China 950
53 Mathrubhumi India 904
54 Los Angeles Times USA 902
55 Information Times China 900
56 Daily News Thailand 900
57 Al-Ahram Egypt 900
58 Peninsula City News China 860
59 Kom Chad Luek Thailand 850
60 Kyoto Shimbun Japan 825
61 Kobe Shimbun Japan 821
62 Punjab Kesari India 817
63 Komsomolskaya Pravda Russia 817
64 Rajasthan Patrika India 804
65 Dahe Newspaper China 796
66 Chugoku Shimbun Japan 789
67 Ouest France France 783
68 Daily Sakai India 783
69 Jang Pakistan 775
70 AJ India 759
71 De Telegraaf The Netherlands 753
72 Qianjiang Evening News China 750
73 Qilu Evening News China 750
74 Nanfang Daily China 750
75 Daily Thanthi India 750
76 Moskovskiy Komsomolets Russia 750
77 Sandesh India 743
78 Daily Express UK 720
79 New York Daily News USA 715
80 The Washington Post USA 708
81 Daily Star UK 705
82 Today Evening News China 699
83 New York Post USA 686
84 Corriere della Sera Italy 677
85 Wuhan Evening News China 660
86 Modern Express China 651
87 Yanzhao Metro Daily China 650
88 Metro Express China 650
89 Zeitungsgruppe Koln Germany 628
90 Kahoku Shimpo Japan 622
91 La Repubblica Italy 622
92 Trud Russia 613
93 Beijing Youth Daily China 606
94 Chicago Tribune USA 601
95 New Express China 600
96 Daily Sunshine China 600
97 Matichon Thailand 600
98 Khao Sod Thailand 600
99 Apple Daily Taiwan 600
100 Min Sheng Pao Taiwan 600
<
talk.origins sci.geo.geology sci.astro alt.conspiracy
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh sci.physics alt.fan-michael-moore
alt.fan.don-imus alt.fan.art-bell alt.christnet k12.chat.teacher
sci.skeptic alt.talk.creationism alt.alien.visitors alt.christnet
alt.current-events.us alt.obituaries rec.arts.sf.written sci.math
alt.fan.cecil-adams misc.actvism.progressive alt.gossip.celebrities
alt.paranet.ufo sci.logic sci.med.pathology alt.politics alt.sixtyplus
us.space.history talk.politics.misc alt.military soc.retirement
alt.agnosticism sci.archaeology alt.agnosticism alt.society.liberalism
es.ciencia.fisica alt.writing nl.religie it.discussioni.mistery
alt.clearing.technology rec.arts.sf.fandom sci.environment
soc.culture.indian de.soc.weltanschauung.christentum alt.chaos
alt.astronomy de.alt.soc.verschwoerung alt.philosophy alt.ufo
sci.physics.relativity uk.misc alt.fan.pratchett alt.underground
alt.conspiracy.new-world-order alt.alien.research sci.bio.evolution
misc.writing rec.arts.fine soc.culture.jewish japan.chat alt.chaos
alt.paranet.ufo alt.religion.raelian sci.history.ancient alt.astronomy
sci.astro.amateur soc/culture.spain soc.culture.cuba alt.pagan
soc.culture.mexico alt.catastrophism alt.philosophy alt.atheism
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic soc.culture.palestine alt.bible
sci.geology.earthquakes, alt.culture.alaska soc.culture.italian
L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO Pope Benedict XVI Vatican City
CNN ABC CBS MSNBC Fox News NBC Today Larry King Live

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cro

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 25 aug 2005 20:32:10

Dear Will ~

Gauging from the wording in the fine, it appears likely that the three
women were sisters and co-heiresses, just as you have guessed. Maud,
wife of Hugh de Bernake, is alleged to be a daughter of William de
Woodthorpe. I have not confirmed that allegation. If so, I assume
that all three women named in the 1263 fine were daughters of William
de Woodthorpe.

The following website gives an overview of the Woodthorpe family. It
indicates that the Woodthorpe family were descended from baronial
family of Craon. I believe the Craon family has Carolingian ancestry.

http://geneajourney.com/woodthorpe.html

Interestingly enough, the above website in turn cites as its source an
old post from the SGM newsgroup archives submitted by Blair Southerden,
part of which reads as follows:

<Source: A History of the villages of Aisthorpe and Thorpe in the
< Fallows by CW Foster MA, Canon of Lincoln, pub. JW Ruddock and Sons
1927.

< Page 41 C6 William of Woodthorpe, the successor and probably the son
of
< Thomas of Woodthorpe (C5) held half a knight's fee in Thoresthorpe,
< Woodthorpe, Withern, Strubby, Maltby [le Marsh] and Sloothby of
Petronilla
< de Craon (Croun) who held of the king in chief (fn6 Book of Fees ii,
1059,
< 1090) ... He was dead in 1262 for an inquisition post mortem of that
year
< states that William de Herdredeshull died seised of one knight's fee
in
< Saleby, whereof five-sixths were of the fee of the heirs of
Petronilla de
< Vaux (nee Petronilla de Croun) and one sixth of the fees of the heirs
of
< William de Wodetorp (fn5 Calendar of Inq I, no 526. Mister Dudding,
< History of Saleby p25, is right in making this William the last male
of his line,
< see also Ibid p100). He left three daughters and coheirs:
< 1. Alice ... who married Richard Marke....
< 2. Maud.....married Sir Hugh Bernake.......
< 3. Elizabeth C7 (see below)

< Page 43 The Families of Bozon or Kirton and sawley
< C7 Elizabeth of Woodthorpe, the third daughter and coheir of William
of
< Woodthorpe (C6) inherited the manor of Aisthorpe. In 1303 she is
described
< as Elizabeth, lady of Aisthorpe. .... Elizabeth married Peter Bozon
or
< Boson, of Kirton or Kirketon not later than 1272... She was
presumably dead
< in 1333, since her heir paid the subsidy for that year." END OF
QUOTE

I imagine the information supplied by Mr. Southerden is accurate.
However, the fine I cited in my own post earlier today indicates that
William de Woodthorpe's third daughter and co-heiress was named Aline,
not Alice, and that she married Richard de Marsh, not Richard Marke.

If anyone has further particulars on the Woodthorpe and Craon families,
I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post their information here on
the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Maud de Bernake, wife of Sir Ralph de Cro

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 aug 2005 21:06:02

In a message dated 8/25/05 11:01:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Source: C.W. Foster, ed., Final Concords of the County of Lincoln from
the Feet of Fines preserved in the Public Record Office, A.D. 1244-1272
(Lincoln Rec. Soc. 17) (1921): 204-205:

"No. 73. At Lincoln; from Trinity in fifteen days, 47 Henry III, [10 June,
1263].

Between Hugh de Bernack and Maud his wife, Peter de Kyrketon and Elizabeth
his wife and Richard de Marisco [Marsh] and Alina his wife, plaintiffs, and
Roger prior of Markby, tenant, of 8 acres of land in Wudethorp [Woodthorpe]. >>

Is this document implying that these three women were sisters ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net

Re: Complete Peerage

Legg inn av rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net » 26 aug 2005 04:30:44

The following quotation (after the line of ='s, since I can't indent
here) comes from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the section labeled "Works
Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978",
which stated that works published before that date are copyrighted for
28 years, and which could be renewed during the 28th year. Thus books
published before that date in the US have no dependence on the life of
the author, but rather have a maximum protection of 75 years. Thus a
book published in 1916 has no copyright protection in the United
States.

I would further like to draw everyone's attention to the sites at:
http://www.archive.org/
and
http://www.genealogy.com/heard010302.html
and
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,128 ... _tophead_3
which make it very clear that our current copyright laws are in great
need of fixing.
============================================
HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on
or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of
its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's
life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case
of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for
hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's
death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous
works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office
records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication
or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or
Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are
now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in
these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works
created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year
terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will
the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December
31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the
term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1,
1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on
the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of
registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either
case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date
it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the
copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended
the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were
subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored
under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works
eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law
105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term
of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years,
providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection
of 95 years.

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976
Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of
copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977.
Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright
Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a
renewal application and fee are received and registered in the
Copyright Office.

Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing
for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the
original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some
benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year
of the original term.

For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright
term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a,
"Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright
Terms."

Gjest

Re: Barbados

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2005 21:24:02

In a message dated 8/26/05 12:12:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< Does anyone have an ideas about how I might find him. I don't know if I
have
exhausted all ships' list resources, but it seems that way. A person by the
same name did leave London for the Azores, but the timing is late by a
couple of years. >>

No reason why he couldn't have gone back and forth a few times is there?

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Richard II's kinsman, Olaf VI, King

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 aug 2005 00:32:01

In a message dated 8/26/05 3:02:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< In answer to your question, the transcript of the letter from King
Richard II of England to King Olaf of Norway does not specify any
ordinal for Olaf. The index, however, identified Olaf as Olaf VI, King
of Norway, >>

Then the modern editor is mistaken. This person was Olaf IV, apparently a
typographical error. I checked "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe" which
agrees that his ordinal, as King of Norway was 4 not 6. As King of Denmark
he was 2.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 aug 2005 20:04:42

I have now had the opportunity to plough through some further IPMs and
the like at the British Library, which strengthen the original
Eylesford line as presented by Mr Baigent, but do not confirm the place
of Elizabeth (Milborne) and Katherine (Dansey).

(1)

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol 2 Edward I (PRO series)

#374 William de Eylesford of Burton

Inq. Monday before St Luke 8 Ed I: Christiana de Furnivall held the
manor of Burthone; her heirs are Christiana and Agnes wives of Sir
William and Sir John le Latimer who for seven years have not sent the
75 shiilings for the guard of the castle of Rokingham which was sent
from Burton during the time of Christiana de Furnivall. William de
Eyllesford now holds the manor of Burton but should not be liable for
the 75 shillings.

******************

(2)

Vol 5 Edward II

#569 p 367 IPM of John Devereus

Inq. Northampton 4 April 9 Edward II

Burton & Cranford: certain lands held for life only of the inheritance
of Gerard son of William de Eyllesford with remainder to the said
Gerard and his heirs, of the heirs of Gerard de Furnival, by service of
one ounce of silk or 12d yearly.

*******************************

(3)

Vol 6 Edward II

#482 p 282 Gerard de Eylesford alias de Ayllesford

Writ 12 May 17 Edward II

Inq. Hereford: Monday the morrow of Holy Trinity 17 Ed II:
Kings Peon: messuage, 160 acres arable, 8 acres meadow &c
Houton: messuage, 40 acres arable, 3 acres meadow
Lanelion in the marches of Wales: messuage, 80 acres arable & pasture
Moneslye & Pikesleye: lands worth £10 per annum.
Edmund his son aged 20 on Tuesday after St Barnabas 17 Edward II is his
next heir
Inq. Northants: 3 July 17 Ed II:
Burton: manor: heir as above, aged 19 at feast of St Leonard last
Lincoln: writ 2 July, Inq. 3 August 18 Edward II:
Holme Spynee: moiety of the manor, held jointly by Gerard de Eylesford
and Margery his wife, the gift of John Becke, parson of the church of
Bekeyngham, to hold of them and the heirs of the said Gerard. Heir: as
above, aged 19 at Christmas last.

[so we know that Gerard's wife was indeed Margery, and that Edmund was
born in December 1304]

*******************************

(4)

Calendar of Fine Rolls Vol 4 Edward III 1327-1337

p 293: January 21st 1332: Westminster: Order to the escheator beyond
the Trent to take into the King's hands the lands late of Edmund de
Eyllesford

[this is evidence that Edmund de Eylesford died in 1331; I could not
locate the actual IPM however]

******************************

(5)

Cal. IPMs Vol 9

#16 p 5-6: Margaret late the wife of Robert de Kendale

Inq. Herts 15 December 21 Edward III
Dynsle Furnival: certain lands held for life of the enfeoffment of
Gerard de Eylesford to the said Robert and Margaret and the heirs of
the said Robert of the heirs of Thomas de Furnival of Sheffield: Edward
de Kendale is Robert's heir, aged 30 and more, although John de Leye,
son of Margaret, is her heir, aged 40 and more.

*********************

(6)

IPMs Vol 10

#640 p 540: Roger, Earl of March

Writ 16 April 34 Edward III; Inq. for Gloucestershire, 26 June 34
Edward III:
Bolleye: one quarter of a knight's fee held by John son of John de
Eyllesforde

[if this relates to Sir John the younger, then it tells us that his
father John, son of Edmund, was dead by June 1360; however, see the
following which suggests the widow of Sir John the elder had an
interest in these lands 60 years later]

*************************************

(7)

Cal. IPMs Vol XXI 6-10 Henry V 1418-1422

#772-3 p 263: Isabel widow of Richard de la Mare, Esquire, and formerly
of John Eynesford of Tillington, knight: writ 5 December 1421.
Inq. for Gloucs at Chipping Sodbury 14 February 1422:
She held for life 1/3 manor of Westbury, reversion to John Merbury,
John Brugge and John Vyntier, esquires, by grant during her lifetime
from John Mellebourne son of Peter Mellebourne esquire; on her death it
was granted (sic) to John de Mellebourne son of Peter de Mellebourne
and his wife Elizabeth. Also a messuage and virgate at Bollow. She
died 17 (sic) September last; John, son of Thomas Barre junior, knight,
is her kinsman and next heir, aged 8 years and more.
Inq. at Hereford 28 February 1422:
She held the manor of Brimfield, manor called Muryvale in Ashton, manor
of Tyberton; also for life the manor of Howton by grant of John de
Ellesford, knight and his wife Margaret [NB see (3) above, showing
Howton belonged to Gerard & Edmund de Eylesford circa 1324], remainder
to John de Mellesbourne, kinsman of John de Mellesbourne, knight [sic -
probably an error for "John de Ellesford, knight"? MAR]. In dower
after the death of John de Ellesford, knight, she held 1/3 of the manor
of Tillington. She died on 24 (sic) September 1421. William Bourghill
is her next heir, aged 40 and more.

*******************************

(8)

Cal. IPMs Vol XXI

#74-75 p 19 Margaret Aylesford, widow of Robert Swyllyngton, knight
Writ 20 April 1418, Nottinghamshire: manor of Bunny; she died 9 April
last. Heir: Robert son of her son Roger Swillington, aged 22 on 11
June last.

*********************************

(9)

Cal. IPMs Vol XXII: 1-5 Henry VI 1422-1427

#509: Edmund, Earl of March
Gloucs: Bollow: 1/4 of a knight's fee which the son of John de
Eylesford held, 25s
Herefordshire: Munsley: 1/2 of a knight's fee, which John de Eylesford
holds (sic), 50s
Holme Lacey: 1/4 knight's fee which John de Eylesford holds, 25s
Hinton & Newcastle: 1/2 knight's fee which John de Eylesford holds, 50s

[I am unable to explain this: Margaret de Eylesford certainly seems to
have outlived Sir John the younger; the latest contemporary reference I
have found to him is a commission in the Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1403]

***************************

(10)

Cal. IPMs Vol XXIII Henry VI 1427-1432

#400: Margaret wife of John Gra, knight: she died 7 October 1429.
This IPM shows that Margaret had been the heiress of Margaret de
Eylesford formerly Swillington nee Belers; she was the daughter and
[after the deaths of her brother John and half-brother Robert] only
surviving child of Margaret's son Roger by Sir Robert Swillington.
Elizabeth Sampson was heir to her Swillington properties, but Ralph,
Lord Cromwell was heir to her Belers properties - so his action to
recover in 1433 which has been noted elsewhere was entirely proper (I
misread the extract to the effect that Lady Gray was living then , when
as the IPM makes clear she had died without issue in 1429).

MAR

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 30 aug 2005 22:43:30

Dear Will ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

In my proposed reconstruction of the Vernon family, the Richard de
Vernon who married Eleanor de Fiennes would be the father of the
Richard de Vernon who married Maud de Camville. This arrangement is
the only way that Eleanor de Fiennes could be ancestral to Bishop
Edmund Stafford. This in turn would explain how Bishop Stafford was
related to King Richard II (himself a descendant of the Fiennes
family).

We know for certain that Maud de Camville is in Bishop Stafford's
ancestry, as Edmund's own parents were given much, if not all, of Maud
de Camville's inheritance.

I might mention that at least one other historian has treated the two
Richard's as two persons. However, other than a tight chronology, I
don't think there is any reason to suppose that there are either one or
two Richard's. When you have short generations with the same names, it
is very easy to collapse two generations into one. This is the bane of
records in the medieval period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Could the Richard of Vernon who married Eleanor Fiennes be the same person as
the Richard of Vernon who then married Maud of Camville ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 aug 2005 23:07:23

Aren't these two different Maud de Camvilles?

Burke's Peerage 107th Edition (2003) - i.e. after the Vernon entry was
"sorted out" at Volume III p 3996 (Vernon of Kinderton) says that
Richard Vernon dvp 1322/3 married "Maud daughter & coheir of William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville of the 1295 creation".

Dugdale's Baronage of 1676, Volume 1, page 159 says that "Sir Richard
Stafford of Clifton, knight, which Lordship he possessed by reason of
his marriage with Maud the daughter & heir to Richard Camvile of that
place" [quoting as his reference "Ex. Col. S. Erdswike"].

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 aug 2005 23:20:02

Could the Richard of Vernon who married Eleanor Fiennes be the same person as
the Richard of Vernon who then married Maud of Camville ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 31 aug 2005 00:06:30

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Could the Richard of Vernon who married Eleanor Fiennes be the same person as
the Richard of Vernon who then married Maud of Camville ?

That was the point I was trying to get across.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 31 aug 2005 00:13:52

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

When you have short generations with the same names, it
is very easy to collapse two generations into one. This is the bane of
records in the medieval period.

.. . . or expand one generation into two. What we have are two
documented marriages (or rather, one documented engagement, and one
documented widow).

What basis is there to say there are two grooms and short chronology,
unless we start with the assumption that each person only married once,
an assumption we all know is invalid? Umm . . .


What evidence do we have that there was only one generation and normal
chronology? Well, for starters William's grandfather's widow, Isabella,
has the same name as the documented wife of Richard le Fraunceys,
William's grandfather under a one generation scenario, but
great-grandfather under your alternative. Now, you could ad hoc into
existence another Isabella, second wife of Eleanor's husband, but if you
are to now allow a single man to marry two wives in sequence, doing so
with a single Richard, married to Eleanor and Maud, would seem more
parsimonious.

taf

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 31 aug 2005 00:32:14

Dear Todd ~

Thank you for your posts. You've made some excellent points.

One immediate comment: The passage of the manor of Pitchcott,
Buckinghamshire in 1292 to Giles de Fiennes was surely a trust position
on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, Eleanor and Richard de
Vernon, both then minors. The allegation that it was back in the hands
of the Vernon family by 1302 doesn't preclude the marriage of Richard
de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes from having produced issue. I'm sure
it was intended that Giles de Fiennes only hold the manor for a short
period until his son-in-law came of age. By my arrangement, Eleanor de
Fiennes' husband, Richard de Vernon, was of age by 1302, which would
explain the end of Giles de Fiennes' trusteeship. In short, I think
this is a non-issue. I "trust" you agree.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

When you have short generations with the same names, it
is very easy to collapse two generations into one. This is the bane of
records in the medieval period.

. . . or expand one generation into two. What we have are two
documented marriages (or rather, one documented engagement, and one
documented widow).

What basis is there to say there are two grooms and short chronology,
unless we start with the assumption that each person only married once,
an assumption we all know is invalid? Umm . . .


What evidence do we have that there was only one generation and normal
chronology? Well, for starters William's grandfather's widow, Isabella,
has the same name as the documented wife of Richard le Fraunceys,
William's grandfather under a one generation scenario, but
great-grandfather under your alternative. Now, you could ad hoc into
existence another Isabella, second wife of Eleanor's husband, but if you
are to now allow a single man to marry two wives in sequence, doing so
with a single Richard, married to Eleanor and Maud, would seem more
parsimonious.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2005 00:47:45

Will Johnson wrote:

p_m_stew...@msn.com writes:

The titles given are incorrect: Jean was count of Brienne from June
1205 as regent for his nephew born posthumously, then king
(regnant, not regent) of Jerusalem by right of his first wife from 3
October 1210 until her death after 15 April 1212 when he became
regent for their daughter Iolanda (Isabelle). This regency ended with
her marriage on 9 November 1225, and Jean was elected emperor
of the Latins in Constantinople (in his own right) in 1229.

Was Louis of Brienne, Vicomte of Beaumont (who married Agnes of
Beaumont) the son of the first wife or the second wife?

He was the youngest son of Jean's third wife, Berengaria, daughter of
Alfonso IX the Slobberer, king of León & Berengaria I, queen of
Castile.

Jean's first marriage (at Tyre on 14 September 1210) was to Maria 'la
Marquise' de Montferrat, queen of Jerusalem, daughter of Margrave
Conrad of Montferrat & Isabelle d'Anjou, queen of Jerusalem. By her he
had only one child, Iolanda-Isabella, mentioned before.

His second marriage (by May 1214) was to Rita, daughter of Leon II,
king of Armenia. She died in 1219, and Jean married Berengaria at
Toledo in 1224. Louis 'of Acre', who became viscount of Beaumont by
right of his wife, was their fourth child, third son.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2005 01:31:30

Will Johnson wrote:

<snip>

I had had "Rita"'s named listed in my database for some reason as
"Stephanie Isabelle"

I'm not sure about Isabelle, but she seems to be called Stephanie as
well as Rita - I will have to check on her name/s later.

It's also nice how Isabelle of Anjou, Queen of Jerusalem 1192-1206
was already on her third husband before she was yet 26 (Leo shows
her b 1172)

Her second husband "fell out of a window". Interesting way for a King
to die.

Her first husband, to whom she was contracted in October or November
1182, was Humphrey, seigneur of Toron. They were divorced in 1190,
before 24 November when Isabelle married secondly (as his third wife)
Conrad of Montferrat. He was murdered at Ascalon on 28 April 1192, but
not by defenestration.

Isabelle's third husband, whom she married on 5 May 1192, was Henri II,
count of Cahmpagne & Brie, also king of Jerusalem by her right. He fell
from a balcony while addressing his soldiers in Jerusalem on 6
September 1197, apparently dying from an exaggerated pep-talk gesture -
nowadays he might have become a telegenic sports coach. In October
1198, when she was 26, Isabelle married her fourth husband, Amalric II
de Lusignan, king of Cyprus.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 01:36:01

In a message dated 8/30/05 4:03:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< The titles given are incorrect: Jean was count of Brienne from June 1205
as
regent for his nephew born posthumously, then king (regnant, not regent) of
Jerusalem by right of his first wife from 3 October 1210 until her death
after 15 April 1212 when he became regent for their daughter Iolanda
(Isabelle). This regency ended with her marriage on 9 November 1225, and
Jean was elected emperor of the Latins in Constantinople (in his own right)
in 1229. >>

Was Louis of Brienne, Vicomte of Beaumont (who married Agnes of Beaumont) the
son of the first wife or the second wife?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 01:40:02

In a message dated 8/30/05 4:15:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< Well, for starters William's grandfather's widow, Isabella,
has the same name as the documented wife of Richard le Fraunceys,
William's grandfather under a one generation scenario, but
great-grandfather under your alternative. >>

I think I missed that proof that William had a wife of his grandfather named
Isabella. I suppose there is some dower claim? I saw it mentioned, but I
didn't see the specific text with citation mentioned. Perhaps it was, I'll go
check again.
Will

Leo van de Pas

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 31 aug 2005 01:40:03

How about the third? Have a look in Genealogics, they are there.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4th Lord
Grey of C...


In a message dated 8/30/05 4:03:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

The titles given are incorrect: Jean was count of Brienne from June
1205
as
regent for his nephew born posthumously, then king (regnant, not regent)
of
Jerusalem by right of his first wife from 3 October 1210 until her death
after 15 April 1212 when he became regent for their daughter Iolanda
(Isabelle). This regency ended with her marriage on 9 November 1225, and
Jean was elected emperor of the Latins in Constantinople (in his own
right)
in 1229.

Was Louis of Brienne, Vicomte of Beaumont (who married Agnes of Beaumont)
the
son of the first wife or the second wife?
Thanks
Will Johnson


Todd A. Farmerie

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 31 aug 2005 01:41:07

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

Thank you for your posts. You've made some excellent points.

One immediate comment: The passage of the manor of Pitchcott,
Buckinghamshire in 1292 to Giles de Fiennes was surely a trust position
on behalf of his daughter and son-in-law, Eleanor and Richard de
Vernon, both then minors. The allegation that it was back in the hands
of the Vernon family by 1302 doesn't preclude the marriage of Richard
de Vernon and Eleanor de Fiennes from having produced issue. I'm sure
it was intended that Giles de Fiennes only hold the manor for a short
period until his son-in-law came of age. By my arrangement, Eleanor de
Fiennes' husband, Richard de Vernon, was of age by 1302, which would
explain the end of Giles de Fiennes' trusteeship.

Why, when Giles's trusteeship ended would it revert to Richard the
father, as is indicated by the quote? It would also be consistent if
Richard was younger - was engaged in early childhood, and was still a
minor in 1302, but that the trusteeship of Giles became inconvenient and
was terminated in favor of the father when his daughter died, perhaps
even before the nuptuals could be celebrated. Keep in mind we don't
have a single record in which a Richard de Vernon has wife Eleanor - not
one. Again, you can argue this either way, so why is yours the prefered
solution, seeing as it requires the short chronology and the ad hoc
creation of a second Isabella?

taf

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 02:14:02

In a message dated 8/30/05 4:48:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< His second marriage (by May 1214) was to Rita, daughter of Leon II,
king of Armenia. She died in 1219, and Jean married Berengaria at
Toledo in 1224. Louis 'of Acre', who became viscount of Beaumont by
right of his wife, was their fourth child, third son. >>

Thank you Peter !
I had had "Rita"'s named listed in my database for some reason as
"Stephanie Isabelle"

It's also nice how Isabelle of Anjou, Queen of Jerusalem 1192-1206
was already on her third husband before she was yet 26 (Leo shows her b 1172)

Her second husband "fell out of a window". Interesting way for a King to die.

Will

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

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

In a message dated 8/30/05 5:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lwrpotter@gmail.com writes:

<< we only have details of the deaths of two of them, and
no record of another third of the Vernon lands being provided for the
upkeep of any further widow beyong Isabel de Harcla, Eleanor de Frenes,
and, later in the 1330s, Joan widow of William. >>

Are you sure that there is record of a widow Eleanor (of Frenes) de Vernon?
I don't recall seeing that yet. Just the marriage betrothal stuff in
1290-ish.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 04:01:02

Dear Will.
AR 7 lines 114 and 120 give John de Brienne, King of
Jerusalem a third wife, Berengaria of Leon, daughter of King Alfonso IX of Leon by
Berengaria, daughter of King Alfonso VIII of Castile and Eleanor of England. 114
Says She was mother of Louis de Brienne, 120 give the Jean de Brienne who was
father of Blanche de Brienne, wife of William de Fiennes. Interestingly,
Edward I of England`s first wife was an own cousin to the Brienne brothers if the
source cited CP II: 59. Line 114 gives Jean de Brienne `s marriages as
1)September 15, 1210 Mary de Montferrat who died shortly after, leaving a daughter
Yolanda in whose right He reigned, 2) 1214 Stephanie, daughter of King Leo II
of Armenia who dsp 1219 and 3) 1223 Berengaria of Leon b abt 1168- d March
21, 1237.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2005 04:28:50

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message news:1d8.4428cae0.30466908@aol.com...
Dear Will.
AR 7 lines 114 and 120 give John de Brienne, King of
Jerusalem a third wife, Berengaria of Leon, daughter of King Alfonso IX of
Leon by
Berengaria, daughter of King Alfonso VIII of Castile and Eleanor of
England. 114
Says She was mother of Louis de Brienne, 120 give the Jean de Brienne who
was
father of Blanche de Brienne, wife of William de Fiennes. Interestingly,
Edward I of England`s first wife was an own cousin to the Brienne
brothers if the
source cited CP II: 59. Line 114 gives Jean de Brienne `s marriages as
1)September 15, 1210 Mary de Montferrat who died shortly after, leaving
a daughter
Yolanda in whose right He reigned, 2) 1214 Stephanie, daughter of King Leo
II
of Armenia who dsp 1219 and 3) 1223 Berengaria of Leon b abt 1168- d March
21, 1237.

I misread my own note on the Armenian wife of Jean de Brienne - according to
Weyprecht Rüdt von Collenberg in _The Rupenides, Hethumides and Lusignans:
the Structure of the Armeno-Cilician Dynasties_ (Paris, 1963) she was
Isabella (Stephanie), daughter of King Leo I by his first wife, Sybille.

She evidently died from ill-treatment at her husband's hands in 1220, not sp
in the year before, as above, but after giving birth to his son & namesake
who was heir to the throne of Armenia. This boy died in the same year as his
mother.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 31 aug 2005 05:54:11

Dear Todd ~

Under normal conditions, when a father, in this case Richard de Vernon,
Sr. (born ca. 1262), settled lands on his son and his son's wife, in
this case, Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say 1278/80, and Eleanor de
Fiennes, and to their issue, the property would NOT revert back to the
father, unless BOTH the son and his wife died without issue.

Are you telling us then that both Richard de Vernon, Jr., born say
1278/80, and his wife, Eleanor de Fiennes, died without issue before
1302?

If this is not what you are saying, then you should explain to us why
the manor of Pitchcott reverted back to the father before 1302, when
the property had been settled on the son and his wife back in 1290?

And, if the reason you are claiming that the property reverted back to
the father is because the son's marriage was childless, surely the land
would remain in the son's hands for his life, regardless of his wife's
early death without issue. A settlement is a settlement.

It seems necessary therefore that you examine the documents that you
claim show that Richard de Vernon the father re-possessed the manor of
Pitchcott before 1302. These records are:

Feudal Aids, i, 93;
De Banco R. 178, m. 218; 204, m. 103d.;
Feudal Aids, i, 113.

I think we can safely assume that Richard de Vernon, Jr., and Eleanor
de Fiennes who were married in 1290 likely consummated their marriage
in or before 1292. The fact that Richard de Vernon was a minor under
21 in 1292 does not preclude he and his wife from having a raft of
children before he became 21. Producing a large number of children was
the whole point of such early childhood marriages. Surely the
historian Farrer was aware of this. One of his versions of the Vernon
family pedigree had three Richard de Vernons in rapid succession, just
as I have done. This is nothing new.

As for the chronological issues, we know for a fact that we have one
short generation between Richard de Vernon I and Richard de Vernon II.
We also know for a fact that Richard de Vernon II was married when he
was married very young when his own father was 28. These facts are
well documented in the records. Suffice to say that this totals up to
a short chronology to me.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Why, when Giles's trusteeship ended would it revert to Richard the
father, as is indicated by the quote? It would also be consistent if
Richard was younger - was engaged in early childhood, and was still a
minor in 1302, but that the trusteeship of Giles became inconvenient and
was terminated in favor of the father when his daughter died, perhaps
even before the nuptuals could be celebrated. Keep in mind we don't
have a single record in which a Richard de Vernon has wife Eleanor - not
one. Again, you can argue this either way, so why is yours the prefered
solution, seeing as it requires the short chronology and the ad hoc
creation of a second Isabella?

taf

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 06:22:02

In a message dated 8/30/2005 7:00:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:


Berengaria of Leon, daughter of King Alfonso IX of Leon

I love his "nickname" (??) "The Slobberer"
Makes a very pretty picture.

I wonder if he got a name like this because he had a stroke which paralyzed
half of his face? That's what comes directly to mind when I think of why
someone would slobber.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 06:24:02

In a message dated 8/30/2005 8:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:


Isabella (Stephanie), daughter of King Leo I by his first wife, Sybille.


I think it was mentioned recently on this board, that Sybil is another name
for Isabel.
So this girl would then be named for her mother. Which ties into another
thread on this board about whether girls were named after their mothers.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Alfonso IX 1171-1230, King of Leon from 1188

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 06:33:02

In a message dated 8/30/2005 9:21:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:


I love his "nickname" (??) "The Slobberer"
Makes a very pretty picture.


Encyclopaedia Brittanica calls these things "bynames", so I learned something
today.
I was just looking him up and actually they give him no byname at all.
They call Alfonso VIII "He of Las Navas" and Alfonso X "The Wise"
But Alfonso IX doesn't have one in EB.

Interestingly (I paraphrase EB here), since he was determined to recover
Leonese territory lost to Castile, he allied himself with the Almohads (weren't
they Muslims?) and therefore the Pope placed Leon under interdict!

Finally he was *compelled* to marry the Castilian king's eldest daughter.
His new father-in-law insisted he join him in a crusade against the Almohads.
Alfonso with his eye on the main chance, equally insisted that the lost Leon
lands be restored to him. Neither of them budged on that. But Alfonso fought
the Almohads anyway, evidently without Castile and took Caceres, Merida and
Badajoz.

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 09:48:33

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Aren't these two different Maud de Camvilles?

Burke's Peerage 107th Edition (2003) - i.e. after the Vernon entry was
"sorted out" at Volume III p 3996 (Vernon of Kinderton) says that
Richard Vernon dvp 1322/3 married "Maud daughter & coheir of William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville of the 1295 creation".

Dugdale's Baronage of 1676, Volume 1, page 159 says that "Sir Richard
Stafford of Clifton, knight, which Lordship he possessed by reason of
his marriage with Maud the daughter & heir to Richard Camvile of that
place" [quoting as his reference "Ex. Col. S. Erdswike"].

The first is correct, the second misplaced. The early antiquaries had
trouble explaining to themselves (as it didn't in fact happen by
descent alone) how the Staffords came to hold Clifton Campville, and
you will find various different versions of the pedigree as a result
(Burke's extinct peerage and the old DNB also get in a muddle). There
is plenty of scope for confusion as Sir Richard Stafford (d.1380)
married (1) Isabel Vernon and (2) Maud, widow of Edmund Vernon and
daughter of Sir John Stafford of Bramshall. He also had an eldest
(legitimate) son called Richard, who dvpsp in 1370.

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 10:06:58

Looking at the immediate ancestry of Edmund Stafford:

1. Edmund Stafford
2. Sir Richard Stafford
3. Isabel Vernon
4. Edmund 1B Stafford
5. Margaret Basset
6. Richard Vernon
7. Maud Camvill
8. Nicholas Stafford
9. --- Langley
10. Ralph 1B Basset
11. Hawise ---
12. Richard Vernon (ne le Fraunceys)
13. Isabel de Hartcla
14. William (2B) Camvill
15. NN

Wouldn't this last lacuna be another possible route for any connection
to Richard II?

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 11:18:05

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
First an observation. Is it Camville of Canville? CP starts with Canville or Camville
but then seems to use them alternately.

By last lacuna do you mean 14 NN ?
In my system that 14 NN would have a name = Maud de Brian,
29.Eve de Tracy
59.Maud de Braose
118.William de Braose
237.Matilda/Maud de St.Valery and her brother is Thomas de St.Valery

Thomas de St.Valery
/
Aenor de St.Valery
/
Yolande de Dreux
/
Adelheid/Alix/Adelaide de Bourgogne
/
Marie of Brabant
/
Marguerite de France
/
Edmund of Kent
/
Joan 'the Fair Maid' of Kent
/
Richard II



----- Original Message -----
From: <mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord


Hello Leo,

As to the spelling, there are plenty of variations- Camvile, Camvyle,
Camvill, Camville, Canvill and so on. As so often the spelling wasn't
fixed- eg you may come across Vernon as Vernun, Varnam etc. The family
are derived from Canville-les-Deux-Eglises, nr. Yvetot, Upper Normandy
(per ODNB) so one might expect Canville to be the correct form, but
Camvill seems to be the most used version. Note also that their village
is now spelt Clifton Campville, with a p!

The lacuna I meant was the unknown wife of William- Maud de Brian was
William's mother, being first wife of Geoffrey, lord Camvill (d.1308).
William's wife was postulated to be a Pype, to explain how the
Staffords got that manor, but in fact it came by a different (and
counter-intuitive) route. William's wife is unknown in CP.

But thanks for pointing out the St Valery link-

Matthew

Looking at the immediate ancestry of Edmund Stafford:

1. Edmund Stafford
2. Sir Richard Stafford
3. Isabel Vernon
4. Edmund 1B Stafford
5. Margaret Basset
6. Richard Vernon
7. Maud Camvill
8. Nicholas Stafford
9. --- Langley
10. Ralph 1B Basset
11. Hawise ---
12. Richard Vernon (ne le Fraunceys)
13. Isabel de Hartcla
14. William (2B) Camvill
15. NN

Wouldn't this last lacuna be another possible route for any connection
to Richard II?

Leo van de Pas

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 31 aug 2005 11:41:02

First an observation. Is it Camville of Canville? CP starts with Canville or Camville
but then seems to use them alternately.

By last lacuna do you mean 14 NN ?
In my system that 14 NN would have a name = Maud de Brian,
29.Eve de Tracy
59.Maud de Braose
118.William de Braose
237.Matilda/Maud de St.Valery and her brother is Thomas de St.Valery

Thomas de St.Valery
/
Aenor de St.Valery
/
Yolande de Dreux
/
Adelheid/Alix/Adelaide de Bourgogne
/
Marie of Brabant
/
Marguerite de France
/
Edmund of Kent
/
Joan 'the Fair Maid' of Kent
/
Richard II



----- Original Message -----
From: <mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord


Looking at the immediate ancestry of Edmund Stafford:

1. Edmund Stafford
2. Sir Richard Stafford
3. Isabel Vernon
4. Edmund 1B Stafford
5. Margaret Basset
6. Richard Vernon
7. Maud Camvill
8. Nicholas Stafford
9. --- Langley
10. Ralph 1B Basset
11. Hawise ---
12. Richard Vernon (ne le Fraunceys)
13. Isabel de Hartcla
14. William (2B) Camvill
15. NN

Wouldn't this last lacuna be another possible route for any connection
to Richard II?

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 11:44:33

m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Aren't these two different Maud de Camvilles?

Burke's Peerage 107th Edition (2003) - i.e. after the Vernon entry was
"sorted out" at Volume III p 3996 (Vernon of Kinderton) says that
Richard Vernon dvp 1322/3 married "Maud daughter & coheir of William de
Camville, 2nd Lord Camville of the 1295 creation".

Dugdale's Baronage of 1676, Volume 1, page 159 says that "Sir Richard
Stafford of Clifton, knight, which Lordship he possessed by reason of
his marriage with Maud the daughter & heir to Richard Camvile of that
place" [quoting as his reference "Ex. Col. S. Erdswike"].

The first is correct, the second misplaced. The early antiquaries had
trouble explaining to themselves (as it didn't in fact happen by
descent alone) how the Staffords came to hold Clifton Campville, and
you will find various different versions of the pedigree as a result
(Burke's extinct peerage and the old DNB also get in a muddle). There
is plenty of scope for confusion as Sir Richard Stafford (d.1380)
married (1) Isabel Vernon and (2) Maud, widow of Edmund Vernon and
daughter of Sir John Stafford of Bramshall. He also had an eldest
(legitimate) son called Richard, who dvpsp in 1370.

Thanks for those details Matthew. I suspected the Stafford link, as
there is no corresponding reference by Dugdale in his Camville article
- which is rather confused and apparently contradicts this, at least
inasmuch as it doesn't show a Richard de Camville amongst the Clifton
Camvilles (it is awash with alternative Mauds as well)

Leo van de Pas

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 31 aug 2005 12:49:01

You are quite right, that throws my numbering out of kilter :-( but the
link shown remains. At least in my data base I have it correct.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
First an observation. Is it Camville of Canville? CP starts with
Canville or Camville
but then seems to use them alternately.

By last lacuna do you mean 14 NN ?
In my system that 14 NN would have a name = Maud de Brian,
29.Eve de Tracy
59.Maud de Braose
118.William de Braose
237.Matilda/Maud de St.Valery and her brother is Thomas de St.Valery

Thomas de St.Valery
/
Aenor de St.Valery
/
Yolande de Dreux
/
Adelheid/Alix/Adelaide de Bourgogne
/
Marie of Brabant
/
Marguerite de France
/
Edmund of Kent
/
Joan 'the Fair Maid' of Kent
/
Richard II



----- Original Message -----
From: <mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord


Hello Leo,

As to the spelling, there are plenty of variations- Camvile, Camvyle,
Camvill, Camville, Canvill and so on. As so often the spelling wasn't
fixed- eg you may come across Vernon as Vernun, Varnam etc. The family
are derived from Canville-les-Deux-Eglises, nr. Yvetot, Upper Normandy
(per ODNB) so one might expect Canville to be the correct form, but
Camvill seems to be the most used version. Note also that their village
is now spelt Clifton Campville, with a p!

The lacuna I meant was the unknown wife of William- Maud de Brian was
William's mother, being first wife of Geoffrey, lord Camvill (d.1308).
William's wife was postulated to be a Pype, to explain how the
Staffords got that manor, but in fact it came by a different (and
counter-intuitive) route. William's wife is unknown in CP.

But thanks for pointing out the St Valery link-

Matthew


Looking at the immediate ancestry of Edmund Stafford:

1. Edmund Stafford
2. Sir Richard Stafford
3. Isabel Vernon
4. Edmund 1B Stafford
5. Margaret Basset
6. Richard Vernon
7. Maud Camvill
8. Nicholas Stafford
9. --- Langley
10. Ralph 1B Basset
11. Hawise ---
12. Richard Vernon (ne le Fraunceys)
13. Isabel de Hartcla
14. William (2B) Camvill
15. NN

Wouldn't this last lacuna be another possible route for any connection
to Richard II?


Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 20:34:02

In a message dated 8/30/05 7:00:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< CP II: 59. Line 114 gives Jean de Brienne `s marriages as
1)September 15, 1210 Mary de Montferrat who died shortly after, leaving a
daughter
Yolanda in whose right He reigned, 2) 1214 Stephanie, daughter of King Leo
II
of Armenia who dsp 1219 and 3) 1223 Berengaria of Leon b abt 1168- d March
21, 1237. >>

Surely you mean Berengaria was b abt 1198 ?
Will

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 20:38:01

In a message dated 8/30/05 8:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< She evidently died from ill-treatment at her husband's hands in 1220, not
sp
in the year before, as above, but after giving birth to his son & namesake
who was heir to the throne of Armenia. This boy died in the same year as his
mother. >>

This means I have to disconnect John of Brienne, Butler of France who m 1251
Jeanne of Chateudun having Blanche who m William, Seigneur of Fiennes.

I had had *this* John as *that* son that Peter says died in 1220.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2005 23:51:07

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1fc.907cee6.304752b4@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/30/05 8:33:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

She evidently died from ill-treatment at her husband's hands in 1220,
not
sp
in the year before, as above, but after giving birth to his son & namesake
who was heir to the throne of Armenia. This boy died in the same year as
his
mother.

This means I have to disconnect John of Brienne, Butler of France who m
1251
Jeanne of Chateudun having Blanche who m William, Seigneur of Fiennes.

I had had *this* John as *that* son that Peter says died in 1220.

This was John of Acre, seigneur of La Loupelande (died 1297), his second
son by his third wife, Brengaria.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsman: King Henry IV's kinsman, Richard Grey, 4

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 aug 2005 23:56:02

Dear Will,
All Alfonso IX would have to do to be called the slobberer
is salivate more than was considered normal. Quite possibly He should be known
as Alfonso the drooler.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

ps You`re quite right about Berengaria`s birthdate being too early. 55 is
definitely too old for being married , apparently for the first time to say
nothing of bearing children. 1198 works far better (25 at marriage)

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 01:13:01

<< In message of 28 Aug, "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
wrote: >>
I am wondering inasmuch as the Payne Roet, father of Katherine
Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
three wheels, 2 and 1, with a pierced mullet for difference

Glancing through "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe" Jiri Louda and
Michael Maclagan, 1981
I don't see any of the descendents of Katherine adopting her three wheels or
any wheels for that matter. Maybe they didn't want to point out that they
were illegitimate :)

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 01 sep 2005 01:36:02

Will,
Which descendants are you looking at? Surely the Beaufort children received
their own coat of arms, and I think the Swynford ones also had one already.
Why should they look via a female link, legitimate or illegitimate?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?


In message of 28 Aug, "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com
wrote:
I am wondering inasmuch as the Payne Roet, father of Katherine
Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
three wheels, 2 and 1, with a pierced mullet for difference

Glancing through "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe" Jiri Louda and
Michael Maclagan, 1981
I don't see any of the descendents of Katherine adopting her three wheels
or
any wheels for that matter. Maybe they didn't want to point out that they
were illegitimate :)

Will Johnson


Tony Hoskins

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 01 sep 2005 01:46:01

"I am wondering inasmuch as the Payne Roet, father of Katherine
Swynford, does seem to have passed down to his daughter the arms of
three wheels".

But, did he really? Was he known to have used those arms, or were they
perhaps designed allusively for his daughter Katherine- "Katherine
wheels"?

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: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 02:20:02

In a message dated 8/31/05 4:35:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< Which descendants are you looking at? Surely the Beaufort children
received
their own coat of arms, and I think the Swynford ones also had one already.
Why should they look via a female link, legitimate or illegitimate? >>

Maybe I'm under the false impression that a descendent might show both his
paternal and maternal lineage ?


Anne Mortimer, dau of Roger, Earl of March and wife of Richard, Earl of
Cambridge, seems to be showing her great-grandmother Elizabeth of Burgh's red cross
on a yellow background on two quarters of her own shield.

Unless there is some other way that Anne gets those two quarters.

And Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury is showing his father's White x on a
red background along with a blue and white cross-hatched bar like thing ...
that appears to be coming possibly fom his mother's side. His uncle John
Beauford shows a blue-and-white border to differentiate his own shield.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 01 sep 2005 02:43:02

Dear Will,

For me heraldry and its rules (which differ from coutnry to country) is a
magic world I know nothing about. When I was very young I thought I would
get involved but as I cannot draw I thought it the better to stay away from
it. Also there are so many factors that come into play, siblings having
different ones, then distant descendants assuming c-o--a because they
inherit properties and so on. It is hard enough (for me) to stick to the
genealogy of these people. Yes I do have a few heraldic books, my prize
possessions in that area are

The Heraldry of the Campbells by G. Harvey Johnston, but only because of the
genealogy contained in this book.

Wilczek, Wappen und Ahnentafeln, by Ferdinand Graf Wilczek, Franz Joseph von
Haussler and Hanno von Halem. This book is not only visually a joy, it also
gives a great deal of central European genealogy hard to find elsewhere.

And a Dutch book
256 Kwartieren en Kwartierwapens van H. W, van Woelderen, by W. Wijnaendts
van Resandt. This books is also visually very beautiful but it also goes
into great detail into the ancestry of Helene Wilhelmina van Woelderen who
was only twelve (in 1939) when this book was published.

With best wishes
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?


In a message dated 8/31/05 4:35:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Which descendants are you looking at? Surely the Beaufort children
received
their own coat of arms, and I think the Swynford ones also had one
already.
Why should they look via a female link, legitimate or illegitimate?

Maybe I'm under the false impression that a descendent might show both his
paternal and maternal lineage ?


Anne Mortimer, dau of Roger, Earl of March and wife of Richard, Earl of
Cambridge, seems to be showing her great-grandmother Elizabeth of Burgh's
red cross
on a yellow background on two quarters of her own shield.

Unless there is some other way that Anne gets those two quarters.

And Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury is showing his father's White x on
a
red background along with a blue and white cross-hatched bar like thing
...
that appears to be coming possibly fom his mother's side. His uncle John
Beauford shows a blue-and-white border to differentiate his own shield.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 02:45:02

Dear William and Leo,
" Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe"
by Louda and MacLagan on Table 13 shows the following arms for Joan Beaufort,
daughter of John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset, son of John of Gaunt by
Katherine( Roet ) Swynford (see same arms by him, England Table 4) The Fleur de lis
and Leopards quartered as for the Royal Plantagenet arms surrounded by a
border of alternating argent and azure sections.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 01 sep 2005 02:49:13

Au contrair!

I recently found some reference or other for the funeral of Henry VIII
that included plans to display Katherine's arms! Unfortunately, I
didn't bookmark it :(

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Gjest

Re: Constable Connections - Sir Robert and his 'cousin' Edmu

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 02:54:02

Dear John,
Could the Flamborough Constables haave been related to the
Thwengs, Constables of Burton, etc through the family of Brus of Skelton ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 01 sep 2005 02:55:02

Dear James,

I do have this book as well. It must have been a nightmare for the authors
to make sure all was done properly. This really is a milestone book to me.

On Table 4 have you noticed the slight difference in the c-o-a of John
Beaufort 1373-1410 and that of Edmund Tudor 1430-1456? And then on Table 5
that of Edmund Tudor and that of his father?
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?


Dear William and Leo,
" Heraldry of the Royal Families of
Europe"
by Louda and MacLagan on Table 13 shows the following arms for Joan
Beaufort,
daughter of John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset, son of John of Gaunt by
Katherine( Roet ) Swynford (see same arms by him, England Table 4) The
Fleur de lis
and Leopards quartered as for the Royal Plantagenet arms surrounded by a
border of alternating argent and azure sections.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


Katheryn_Swynford

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 01 sep 2005 02:55:27

I've wondered that as well.

Weever noted that his arms were on his tomb in Old St. Paul's but
didn't bother apparently to note what they were.

The 1332-ish grant of arms by the Guyenne Herald to the brothers
Andrewe didn't name Roet but had affixed his seal, described
_textually_ having Catherine wheels with a pierced mullet. The
documented has been pronounced "a fake" but nobody ever states _why_
they consider it a fake.

Katherine herself did empale three wheels with a pierced mullet with
those of Swynford in 1377 (the notice is in Birch's Catalogue of
Seals...; kindest thanks to Douglas Richardson for sharing this
information with me!).

I'm cautiously of the opinion that the spiked wheels as opposed to
plain wheels may well have been adopted creatively in allusion to
Katherine's name (Seton tells a pretty tale on this account) but that
Payne's own arms may well have been plain wheels (one source on the
Andrewe's grant has a sketch of said arms and they were sans both
pierced mullet and spoked wheels).

Kindest thanks for your thoughts,

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 01 sep 2005 03:04:44

Apparently, the Beaufort's had one coat pre-legitimation and a
different one post legitimation:

"Before 1397, John Beaufort bore Per pale argent and azure, on a bend
gules, three lions of England ensigned with a label of France. The
colours silver and blue are those of the House of Lancaster (ironically
the livery of John of Gaunt's first wife's family), while the bend
shows England with France almost as an afterthought (in the form of a
label, rather than as the first quarter, as it was then borne by the
English king).

After legitimation, John (by then Earl of Somerset) bore the quartered
arms of France and England within a border compony - retaining the
Lancastrian silver and blue in the border"
--http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4bu6rokW1KIJ:uk.geocities.com/barensteel/famarms/bastardy.html+tudor+beaufort+arms+legitimation&hl=en&client=safari

I've seen this elsewhere, as well.

Cheers!

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 03:39:01

<< " Heraldry of the Royal Families of
Europe" by Louda and MacLagan on Table 13 shows the following arms for
Joan
Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset, son of John of
Gaunt by
Katherine( Roet ) Swynford (see same arms by him, England Table 4) The
Fleur de lis and Leopards quartered as for the Royal Plantagenet arms
surrounded by a border of alternating argent and azure sections.


They hide her under the Scotland section ...
It actually says "Joan Beaufort, d of John E of Somerset" by the way.
But you're right it does show the same shield as her father, which is shown
on Table 5. Interesting that on Table 4 it gives him the fuller name "John
Beaufort, E of Somerset, M of Dorset" as you stated.

Also note Table 10 where Margaret Beaufort, d of John D of Somerset has the
same shield

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 05:16:02

In a message dated 8/31/05 7:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com writes:

<< "Before 1397, John Beaufort bore Per pale argent and azure, on a bend
gules, three lions of England ensigned with a label of France. The
colours silver and blue are those of the House of Lancaster (ironically
the livery of John of Gaunt's first wife's family), >>

Further on this idea. Blanche's father is shown in Table 4 with the same
shield as I just described for Blanche. Again no silver (white) in his shield.
His wife Isabel of Beaumont does have silver, but only as a third or
fourth color. Her shield being a gold lion on a blue background with gold fleur de
lis surrounding the lion, and then a horizontal bar of red and silver.

That is also on Table 4.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 05:16:02

In a message dated 8/31/05 7:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com writes:

<< "Before 1397, John Beaufort bore Per pale argent and azure, on a bend
gules, three lions of England ensigned with a label of France. The
colours silver and blue are those of the House of Lancaster (ironically
the livery of John of Gaunt's first wife's family), >>

I'm not so sure about this.
John's first wife Blanche of Lancaster shows as her shield
Three gold lions on a red background with a blue bar across the top and three
short lines hanging from it (in blue) showing fleur de lis in gold again.

Sorry I'm not quite up on how to say this in heraldic terms. But the point
is there is no white in her shield.

Table 5.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 09:56:35

Looking at the Camvills again, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a
link to Richard II via Wales, given his descent from Llywelyn Fawr.
Douglas showed that Geoffrey de Camvill (i) married Leuca ferch
Gruffudd ap Rhys, and we know their grandson Geoffrey (ii) married Maud
de Brian. Both these wives were apparently descended from the Braose
family, and it seems possible that the same Marcher gene pool might
have provided a missing wife- between the two Geoffreys was William
(d.1260) whose wife was Lucy, surname unknown; and William, son of the
latter Geoffrey, had the altogether unidentified wife. Can we be sure,
for instance, that she was not herself descended from Llywelyn? The
last William dspm in 1338 so no Camvills could have been addressed as
cousins by Richard II; presumably there are no references at all to
Vernons - as they must have shared the ancestry of Edmund Stafford's
mother in any case.

On Edmund Stafford's father Sir Richard, "in 1355 he went with the
Prince of Wales to Gascony; returned with the Prince's letters in
December 1355; but rejoined his army and fought at Poictiers in
September 1356." [SHC 1917 p84]. So Edmund Stafford's and Richard II's
fathers were brothers-in-arms (not that that need make their sons
cousins); and Sir Richard, by then a baron, "was added to the Council
of State on the accession of Richard II". As a control, are there any
specific references to Richard Stafford by Richard II?

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 10:51:15

Here is a reference from the Calendar of Patent Rolls - one of the
sources in which "king's kinsman" frequently appears; this is dated 18
September 1378:

"Windsor: Licence for Richard de Stafford, knight, to enfeoff John de
Wytynton, parson of the church of Newynton de la Wolde, and Richard de
Drayton, parson of the church of Sekynton, co Warwick, of a moiety of
the manor of Caumpdene, Co Gloucester, and advowson of its chapel, and
for the feoffees, after seisin had, to grant the premises to the said
Richard and Matilda, his wife, in tail male, with remainder to the said
Richard's heirs."

The term "king's kinsman" is not used in this instance.

MAR

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 sep 2005 11:23:34

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1125568275.800427.316480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here is a reference from the Calendar of Patent Rolls - one of the
sources in which "king's kinsman" frequently appears; this is dated 18
September 1378:

"Windsor: Licence for Richard de Stafford, knight, to enfeoff John de
Wytynton, parson of the church of Newynton de la Wolde, and Richard de
Drayton, parson of the church of Sekynton, co Warwick, of a moiety of
the manor of Caumpdene, Co Gloucester, and advowson of its chapel, and
for the feoffees, after seisin had, to grant the premises to the said
Richard and Matilda, his wife, in tail male, with remainder to the said
Richard's heirs."

The term "king's kinsman" is not used in this instance.

By "frequently" do you mean that every time a kinsman of the king is
mentioned in this calendar of documents, the term "king's kinsman" was in
the original record and included in the English summary of it?

If not, I can't see the point. If so, how do you know?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 12:20:06

Peter Stewart wrote:
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1125568275.800427.316480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here is a reference from the Calendar of Patent Rolls - one of the
sources in which "king's kinsman" frequently appears; this is dated 18
September 1378:

"Windsor: Licence for Richard de Stafford, knight, to enfeoff John de
Wytynton, parson of the church of Newynton de la Wolde, and Richard de
Drayton, parson of the church of Sekynton, co Warwick, of a moiety of
the manor of Caumpdene, Co Gloucester, and advowson of its chapel, and
for the feoffees, after seisin had, to grant the premises to the said
Richard and Matilda, his wife, in tail male, with remainder to the said
Richard's heirs."

The term "king's kinsman" is not used in this instance.

By "frequently" do you mean that every time a kinsman of the king is
mentioned in this calendar of documents, the term "king's kinsman" was in
the original record and included in the English summary of it?

If not, I can't see the point. If so, how do you know?

Peter Stewart

No; I simply mean that "king's kinsman" is a term that is often used in
the printed text of the Patent Rolls Calendar. I am not in a position
to venture an opinion as to its significance (or lack thereof) as a
term.

I'm not seeking to make any point from the reference; I posted it in
response to Matthew's request in the preceding post:

"As a control, are there any specific references to Richard Stafford by
Richard II?"

This is one such reference, from a source where the term "king's
kinsman" is frequently to be found. Whether there are any inferences
to be drawn from it I leave for others more learned than I.

Michael

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 12:20:46

Peter Stewart wrote:
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1125568275.800427.316480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here is a reference from the Calendar of Patent Rolls - one of the
sources in which "king's kinsman" frequently appears; this is dated 18
September 1378:

"Windsor: Licence for Richard de Stafford, knight, to enfeoff John de
Wytynton, parson of the church of Newynton de la Wolde, and Richard de
Drayton, parson of the church of Sekynton, co Warwick, of a moiety of
the manor of Caumpdene, Co Gloucester, and advowson of its chapel, and
for the feoffees, after seisin had, to grant the premises to the said
Richard and Matilda, his wife, in tail male, with remainder to the said
Richard's heirs."

The term "king's kinsman" is not used in this instance.

By "frequently" do you mean that every time a kinsman of the king is
mentioned in this calendar of documents, the term "king's kinsman" was in
the original record and included in the English summary of it?

If not, I can't see the point. If so, how do you know?

Peter Stewart

No; I simply mean that "king's kinsman" is a term that is often used in
the printed text of the Patent Rolls Calendar. I am not in a position
to venture an opinion as to its significance (or lack thereof) as a
term.

I'm not seeking to make any point from the reference; I posted it in
response to Matthew's request in the preceding post:

"As a control, are there any specific references to Richard Stafford by
Richard II?"

This is one such reference, from a source where the term "king's
kinsman" is frequently to be found. Whether there are any inferences
to be drawn from it I leave for others more learned than I.

Michael

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Staffiord

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 13:37:24

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1125568275.800427.316480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here is a reference from the Calendar of Patent Rolls - one of the
sources in which "king's kinsman" frequently appears; this is dated 18
September 1378:

"Windsor: Licence for Richard de Stafford, knight, to enfeoff John de
Wytynton, parson of the church of Newynton de la Wolde, and Richard de
Drayton, parson of the church of Sekynton, co Warwick, of a moiety of
the manor of Caumpdene, Co Gloucester, and advowson of its chapel, and
for the feoffees, after seisin had, to grant the premises to the said
Richard and Matilda, his wife, in tail male, with remainder to the said
Richard's heirs."

The term "king's kinsman" is not used in this instance.

By "frequently" do you mean that every time a kinsman of the king is
mentioned in this calendar of documents, the term "king's kinsman" was in
the original record and included in the English summary of it?

If not, I can't see the point. If so, how do you know?

Peter Stewart

No; I simply mean that "king's kinsman" is a term that is often used in
the printed text of the Patent Rolls Calendar. I am not in a position
to venture an opinion as to its significance (or lack thereof) as a
term.

I'm not seeking to make any point from the reference; I posted it in
response to Matthew's request in the preceding post:

"As a control, are there any specific references to Richard Stafford by
Richard II?"

This is one such reference, from a source where the term "king's
kinsman" is frequently to be found. Whether there are any inferences
to be drawn from it I leave for others more learned than I.

Michael

Thanks very much for posting that, Michael. I won't make assumptions
from it either, but it helps to see what's there.

Matthew

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»