Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 sep 2005 14:21:58

<mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1125578244.737755.155810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
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.

Well, this is far better than the approach we have seen on the matter so
far, based on shaky or illogical assumptions, treating genealogy as a kind
of Rubik's cube to play with, finding one or two out of an unassertained
number of possible solutions to a puzzle that by itself has no real value,
then deciding that whatever novel outcome most takes the fancy must be THE
answer, and the trivial game must be meaningful after all because of this
fake "discovery".

There are lots of details that we simply can't know, and get no closer to
knowing through wishful rules of thumb applied to disconnected bits of
information, no matter how many loose ends the phoney process may seem to
gather up. I suggest this is a kind of thread worth dropping, as they always
start from next-to-nothing & achieve no more. If there is any hint of
evidence for a particular relationship or degree of consanguinity, fine; but
where there is just a statement that some unverifiable blood connection
existed, why not leave it at that? Richard II was related to Bishop
Stafford, but fom the available evidence we can't know how.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 01 sep 2005 15:17:56

Dear Michael ~

Thank you for posting this record. Much appreciated.

For those who wish to further examine the records of King Richard II
for references to members of the Stafford, Vernon, and Basset families,
the Patent Rolls for his reign are available online at this website:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls

Good luck in your sleuthing!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
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

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 01 sep 2005 16:11:58

Dear Michael, Luke, Todd, etc. ~

For interest's sake, I've posted below all the kinsfolk references I
have in my files for Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of Stafford
(died 1372). Earl Ralph was the paternal uncle of Bishop Edmund
Stafford, Bishop of Exeter. As you can see, there are no references
whatsoever to Earl Ralph being called "king's kinsman." Rather, all
four citations I show below are to Earl Ralph's own relatives.

1. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 421 (John de Peyto
styled "kinsman" of Ralph).

2. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 20 (Humphrey Hastang, clerk, styled
"brother[-in-law]" by Ralph), 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph
de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman"), 233 (James de Pipe, Knt., and
John de Pipe styled "brothers" [i.e., half-brothers] by Ralph).

Other than the reference I've already posted to Bishop Stafford being
called "kinsman" by King Richard II, the only other references I have
to Staffords in this period being called "king's kinsman" are for Earl
Ralph de Stafford's son, Hugh de Stafford, K.G., 2nd Earl of Stafford
as follows:

l. Rymer, Fœdera 7 (1728): 45 (Hugh styled "kinsman" by King
Edward III of England), 348 (Hugh styled "kinsman" by King Richard
II of England).

A study of Earl Hugh's pedigree shows that he was near related to these
two monarchs through his maternal grandmother, Margaret de Clare, a
granddaughter of King Edward I of England. Bishop Edmund Stafford does
not share this connection.

I don't have any references in my files to any members of the Basset
family being called "king's kinsman." I do have two references to
Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of Drayton, being styled kinsman by other
people:

1. Colls. Hist. Staffs. 15 (1894): 38 (Ralph Basset, of Drayton,
Staffordshire styled "kinsman" by Ralph Basset, of Weldon, knight
in deed dated 16 Edward II [1322-23]).

2. Chaplais, War of Saint-Sardos 1323-1325 (Camden Soc. 3rd Ser. 87)
(1954): vi, 75 & 80 (Ralph Basset of Drayton styled "cousin" by
Hugh le Despenser the younger).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Janet

question

Legg inn av Janet » 01 sep 2005 16:29:01

What is a Occupation called : "chapman" ?
Janet

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 sep 2005 17:40:21

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

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,

Well, for starters, I am certainly not telling you that he was born,
say, 1278/80. That is you telling us that.

and his wife, Eleanor de Fiennes, died without issue before
1302?

Let's see. I said "It would also be consistent if Richard was younger -
was engaged in early childhood, and was still a minor in 1302." Now
that you have had another chance to read it, what do you think? Am I
telling you that Richard Jr. died without issue before 1302? Hmmmm:
"still a minor in 1302"; "died without issue before 1302". Are these
two the same?

(You do realize that intentionally mischaracterizing another's post is
not an approach likely to "make friends", as you keep telling us is the
purpose of this group?)

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?

I asked how you justify it in light of your belief that Junior and
Eleanor survived, and rather than answer the question, you simply
pretend that you thought of it as a challenge to what I had suggested
(conveniently, in the process, ignoring that I addressed the very
issue). The old "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach to answering a
question directed at you.

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.

Yes, a settlement is a settlement, yet, in the paragraph you cited, it
states that the property was back with dear old dad by 1302. If that
devolution is hard to explain with one of the pair still living, how
much harder is it with BOTH still living, as you insist was the case?

Let's go back over it. Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter
and her (prospective ?) husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you
reported, was holding it in 1302 while Giles was still alive. Under
your hypothesis, Giles must have either transfered the trust back to
Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in protecting the rights
of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else the trusteeship
must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and then Junior
must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
couple's only documented holding. Your theory _requires_ one of these
two options. Mine requires Giles to have transfered the trusteeship to
Senior after his daughter died childless, perhaps even prior to
consumation, and his family interest was thereby nill. I trust you can
see a difference between Giles's potential interests under these two
scenarios: a living daughter and grandson vs. a daughter dead s.p.


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.

Funny how _you_ entered the claim into the discussion (via the VCH
quote), but when I point out that it conflicts with your own theory, it
miraculously becomes _my_ claim and my responsibility to confirm its
accuracy. I can't say I am surprised, just amused.

(Now tomorrow when you are at the FHL, or Sunday at UU, just stroll on
over to the appropriate shelf - you know which one just as well as I do
- and DO YOUR OWN LOOKUP rather than insisting on the necessity of me
driving several hours to do it for you.)


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.

Considering that there is not a shred of evidence that Richard and
Eleanor were married in 1290, nor that they ever consumated their
marriage, you must have a unique concept of safety. (Although I am not
sure what to make of it being safe to assume that something is likely -
a high probability estimate of the accuracy of a probability estimate?)


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.

.. . . nor does it preclude his wife from being a corpse by Christmas, 1292.


Producing a large number of children was
the whole point of such early childhood marriages.

Certainly not the whole point - otherwise, the bride would have been
selected for fecundity, independent of social status, family connections
or dowery.

Anyhow, it is much harder to produce a "raft of children" when you are
looking up at the grass - when you have relocated to the bottom of the
food chain. Death invariably results in infertility.

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.

Is the fact that you must qualify this statement with "One of his
versions" not the least bit disconcerting? "I agree with _one_ of
Farrer's versions" is an argument in support of your hypothesis, but the
implicit, "I disagree with _the other_" is incidental, not worth
mentioning? I guess there is comfort in numbers to be able to say that,
"if I'm wrong, so was he". Still, I would think "the evidence supports
my reconstruction over the alternative" would be a more preferable
argument than "Farrer couldn't agree with himself, but one of his
versions agrees with me".

Bear in mind that, as Luke pointed out, Farrer erred in supposing that
Richard I died in 1292. That would have forced the Richards who died
1330 and 1324 to be II & III respectively: his error mandated a
three-Richard reconstruction. Knowing that Richard I did not die in
1292, we are not so constrained.

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.

I guess it depends on your definition of "fact" - we know that Richard I
married by 16, that Richard II was affianced by his father in 1290 and
was not holding his land (presumably due to minority) in 1292 (when his
father was 30), and that William was born in 1314. Those are
chronological _facts_. The rest is hypothesis or spin.


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.

We know that when Richard I was 28, he and Giles agreed that their
children should marry. That is the fact. We can only speculate when
Richard II married Eleanor, if at all.

These facts are
well documented in the records.

I am still waiting for a "fact" that is actually a _fact_. You have
taken actual documented facts, interpreted them in light of your
reconstruction, and then presented these interpretations as if they were
the actual facts.

That being said, here are some actual documented facts:

1. William's father was named Richard.

2. William's grandfather was named Richard.

3. The widow of William's father in 1324 was named Maud.

4. The widow of William's grandfather in 1330 was named Isabella.

5. Immediately prior to his 1324 death, William's father was holding of
his father, and the primary holders at that time were named Richard and
Isabella.

6. Richard I married Isabella de Hartcla

7. Richard I and Giles de Fenes agreed that Richard II should marry
Eleanor de Fenes.

The problem is in how to relate the 'top-down facts', #s 6 and 7, to the
'bottom up ones' #s 1-5. Specifically, is Richard II William's father
or grandfather. One tool is chronology, which favors Richard the
grandfather being Richard I (only favors, mind you - don't twist this
into suggesting I am calling your tight chronology impossible, just less
likely). A second possible clue is more obvious - too obvious to
ignore, as you have done to date. Look at #s 4, 5 and 6. Why are these
not references to the same woman? This is not the first time you have
had this brought to your attention and been asked how you reconcile it,
yet no answer has been forthcoming.

Suffice to say that this totals up to
a short chronology to me.

I am not surprised, but the the addition of irrational numbers produces
a total that is also irrational. When you make up your mind and then
recast the evidence to fit the conclusion, it is no wonder that the
evidence looks like what you wish it to look like.

Simply put, you found a possible route for the connection in question,
based on a well-known marriage agreement. Without a shred of supporting
evidence, you threw out all other possible avenues, and advanced this
one from being possible to it being a fact, glossing over the
significant difference between possibility (including everything down to
the infinitely improbable) and certainty. Without doing a detailed
study of the Vernons, you jumped to an uninformed conclusion, claiming
that modern researchers had dismissed the possibility of issue based on
simple assumption, not the evidence of the case - an unwarrented
assumption on your part. However, once adopted, it would seem, the
position cannot be abandonned or even reconsidered in an unbiased
manner, but rather must be advocated with all of the tricks of the
trade. So we now see you dig in your heals, entrench your position and
fortify it with 'facts' while ducking legitimate shots from the other
side. Unfortunately, your 'facts' are of the nature of Quaker guns -
superficially formitable, but on close examination not facts at all, and
unable to disguise the weakness of the position.


taf

John Steele Gordon

Re: question

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 01 sep 2005 17:51:18

It meant merchant or trader of a rather down-market type. The "chap" part
has the same etymology as the word "cheap." I understand the word is still
used in British English to designate what Americans call a peddler.

""Janet"" <monkey@getgoin.net> wrote in message
news:01c901c5af01$4c810880$0371a00c@George...

What is a Occupation called : "chapman" ?
Janet

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 19:55:06

This is pertinent-

'On August 18th, 1294, the manor of Rockcliff was in the king's hand,
"on account of the gift and feoffment of Richard de Vernon the elder,"
and, by letters patent of that date, the king granted it to Richard de
Vernon the elder for life, with remainder to his son, Richard the
younger, and his wife, Eleanor, daughter of Giles de Fiennes, and their
heirs, or to the right heirs of Richard the elder (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 22
Edward I., p.84).'
[C&WAS Trans, NS xxiv p.62]

So, it looks like the marriage did take place; however, this also
proves that Richard the elder did not die in 1292. Eleanor also wins a
reprieve- but the writer (THB Graham) does then state 'Eleanor
disappears from view'.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 20:18:57

mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
This is pertinent-

'On August 18th, 1294, the manor of Rockcliff was in the king's hand,
"on account of the gift and feoffment of Richard de Vernon the elder,"
and, by letters patent of that date, the king granted it to Richard de
Vernon the elder for life, with remainder to his son, Richard the
younger, and his wife, Eleanor, daughter of Giles de Fiennes, and their
heirs, or to the right heirs of Richard the elder (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 22
Edward I., p.84).'
[C&WAS Trans, NS xxiv p.62]

So, it looks like the marriage did take place; however, this also
proves that Richard the elder did not die in 1292. Eleanor also wins a
reprieve- but the writer (THB Graham) does then state 'Eleanor
disappears from view'.

I should clarify, that although nobody here has suggested the elder
Richard died in 1292, it was only Farrer's assumption that he had that
caused the three-Richard pedigree to come into being in HKF 1. However,
as Luke has pointed out, Farrer had dropped this assumption by the time
of the second volume, and in fact he references this same 1294 charter.

R. Battle

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

Legg inn av R. Battle » 01 sep 2005 21:10:31

Though we have not yet seen evidence of Stafford's kin being referred to
in official documents without being called king's kinsmen, it should be
pointed out that such incidences would not necessarily preclude them from
being such.

Unless the custom had changed drastically by the time of Richard II, such
that every kinsman of the king was always recognized as such, I would
expect such acknowledgments to be hit-and-miss (and perhaps more often
the latter). In the one example I am familiar with several decades
earlier (Richard de Cornwall, clerk), only in a few of the references to
him was he called a kinsman of the king. For instance, out of the twelve
Patent Roll references to him I have found, only two call him a kinsman of
the king.

-Robert Battle

John Brandon

Re: Wisemans in ancestry of Thomas Bayes of Dedham and Bosto

Legg inn av John Brandon » 01 sep 2005 21:52:20

That certainly seems right, as the children intermarry with Mayhew and
Butler, families that are closely connected to my Osborn line (I have
Butler and Mayhew ancestry).

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 22:09:01

In a message dated 9/1/05 4:48:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Of course, I had forgotten about arms of an office. The earldom of
Gloucester, for instance, had its own arms, though the practice is not
totally clear. >>

I mentioned earlier that Anne Mortimer, dau of Roger Earl of March and also
wife of Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge, shows (Table 5) as her shield

In the first and fourth quarter the same shield as her grandfather Edmund
Mortimer, Earl of March which is a rather elaborate thing that I'm unable to
describe adequately but is not germane to my next point.

In the second and third quarter of her shield she is showing the same shield
as, previously I had said her great-grandmother Elizabeth de Burgh, dau of
William Earl of Ulster. This shield is a red cross on a gold background.

Now on further research I see that this shield (red cross on a gold
background) is shown (as a complete shield, not quartered) by :
1) Elizabeth de Burgh, mentioned above;
2) William de Burgh 1312-33, Earl of Ulster, father of 1)
3) Elizabeth de Burgh d 1327 , dau of Richard, Earl of Ulster and wife of
Robert, K of Scots 1306

And as second and third quarter by
Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry VII, great-granddaughter of Anne Mortimer.
This same Elizabeth by the way, shows one of the remaining quarters of Anne's
shield in her own shield as a quarter. The final quarter of Elizabeth's
shield (the first quarter) is the normal England one of three lions and the fleur
de lis.

It's interesting to me that she is apparently loudly proclaiming her descent
from the Mortimer/de Burgh's here, and ignoring other descents from Lancaster,
Neville, Rivers, Luxembourg ...

By the way what is the relationship between Richard, Earl of Ulster and
William, Earl of Ulster?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 22:27:01

In a message dated 9/1/05 9:49:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter and her (prospective ?)
husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you reported, was holding it in 1302
while Giles was still alive. Under your hypothesis, Giles must have either
transfered the trust back to Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in
protecting the rights of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else
the trusteeship must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and
then Junior must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
couple's only documented holding. >>

1) Giles' daughter died while Junior was still a minor. The trusteeship gets
transferred back to Senior.
2) Giles' daughter and Junior both died, without issue.
3) Giles' himself died.
4) Giles' as trustee being wholey incompetent, attainted, insane, unable to
properly manage, transfers or is forced to transfer control back to Senior.
5) In another agreement which we don't possess, Giles and Senior agree to the
transfer for one reason or another.

Any other possibilities?
Will

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 22:40:02

In a message dated 9/1/05 1:15:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
battle@u.washington.edu writes:

<< Unless the custom had changed drastically by the time of Richard II, such
that every kinsman of the king was always recognized as such, I would
expect such acknowledgments to be hit-and-miss >>

And looking at the Patent Rolls (thank you Douglas for the link)
Richard II, Volume 5, 1391-6, page 617
16 Jul 1395 "... king's kingman John de Bello Monte ...."

and then on the very same page we see
18 Jul 1395 "... the supplication of John de Bello Monte ...."

Nowhere in the second item does it refer to this person as king's kingman.
So this is an example of the usage of this term not being applied
consistently to one person.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Wisemans in ancestry of Thomas Bayes of Dedham and Bosto

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 22:49:02

To Any interested parties,
Bethuel Newcomb`s Newcomb Genealogy
is available at Ancestory.com`s Family and Local History Database. on pp 20-21
it lists Lt Andrew Newcomb`s children by Anna Bayes as follows:
1 Anna b 1677 m Lt Matthew Mayhew children
2 Elizabeth b1681 m Capt John Atkins no known issue
3 Joseph b 1683 m Joyce Butler
4 Emlen (also Emeline or Emblem) b1685 m Samuel Atkins children
5 Tabitha b 1688 m Peter Ray children
6 Hannah b 1694 m Thomas Dumary children
7 Zerviah b 1698/99 m Josiah Bearse children
8 Mary b 1700 m Jonathan Pease children

Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 01 sep 2005 22:54:32

Dear James ~

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.

I can't make any comment on the titles of the individuals involved, as
they are out of my usual bailiwick. Perhaps someone knowledgeable
about Continental titles can tell us which titles are correct for which
individuals.

The editor of Richard II's correspondence must also have have a
difficult time with these titles, as he left the Duke of
Wolgast-Pommern unidentified.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas,
You have :
6 Adelheid of Brunswick married Bogislaw
V, Duke of Pommern- Wolgast, but according to website ruegenwalde.com which
website concentrates on the Pommern dynasty. He is called Bogislaw V, Duke of
Pomerania- Stolp.He was brother to Barnim IV, Duke of Pommern- Wolgast. They
were sons of Duke Wartislaw IV of Pommern- Rugen by his wife Elisabeth,
identified here as a daughter of Duke Henry III of Glogau by Mechtilde of Brunswick-
Grubenhagen.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 22:56:23

I haven't checked that site, and don't profess to know anything about
these families - but according to genealogy.euweb.cz, Bogislaw V of
Pomerania was born c1317, while Henry III of Silesia-Glogau, whom your
site would, you say, make Bogislaw's grandfather, was born c1320 -
something is seriously wrong, if these dates are correct.

Perhaps there is confusion with Henry I of Silesia-Glogau, whose wife
genealogy.euweb.cz shows as Mechtilde of Brunswick-Lueneburg.

I am sorry I cannot presently offer any real soruces, other than
online, although I have found genealogy.euweb.cz to be pretty accurate
in the past, on those few occasions where I have double-checked its
contents against reference sources.

Michael

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 23:23:02

In a message dated 9/1/05 1:09:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< Now on further research I see that this shield (red cross on a gold
background) is shown (as a complete shield, not quartered) by :
1) Elizabeth de Burgh, mentioned above;
2) William de Burgh 1312-33, 3rd Earl of Ulster, father of 1)
3) Elizabeth de Burgh d 1327 , dau of Richard, Earl of Ulster and wife of
Robert, K of Scots 1306 >>

Dear Will you incompetent peon.
3) Elizabeth de Burgh ( or "of" Burgh as you insist on calling her in your
pedantic and witless manner) was the Aunt of 2) William de Burgh, 3rd Earl of
Ulster

William's parents were John de Burgh and Elizabeth de Clare, dau of Gilbert,
3rd Earl Gloucester and Joan of Acre.

If you weren't such a lazy oaf you'd have figured this out by now!

So apparently this shield of a "red cross on a gold background" as you stated
it, in your silly fashion, must have been also born by the ancestor of all
these people, namely Richard, Earl of Ulster.

Will "Evil Twin" Johnson
"I have enough friends, I'm here to make enemies!"

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 sep 2005 23:30:02

Dear Douglas,
You have :
6 Adelheid of Brunswick married Bogislaw
V, Duke of Pommern- Wolgast, but according to website ruegenwalde.com which
website concentrates on the Pommern dynasty. He is called Bogislaw V, Duke of
Pomerania- Stolp.He was brother to Barnim IV, Duke of Pommern- Wolgast. They
were sons of Duke Wartislaw IV of Pommern- Rugen by his wife Elisabeth,
identified here as a daughter of Duke Henry III of Glogau by Mechtilde of Brunswick-
Grubenhagen.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 sep 2005 23:48:39

mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
This is pertinent-

'On August 18th, 1294, the manor of Rockcliff was in the king's hand,
"on account of the gift and feoffment of Richard de Vernon the elder,"
and, by letters patent of that date, the king granted it to Richard de
Vernon the elder for life, with remainder to his son, Richard the
younger, and his wife, Eleanor, daughter of Giles de Fiennes, and their
heirs, or to the right heirs of Richard the elder (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 22
Edward I., p.84).'
[C&WAS Trans, NS xxiv p.62]

So, it looks like the marriage did take place;

Good. At least that answers one question (or a couple - it not only
proves marriage but provides a range, between 1290 and 1294).

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 01 sep 2005 23:53:37

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/1/05 9:49:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Giles was holding it in trust for his daughter and her (prospective ?)
husband in 1292. Then Richard Senior, as you reported, was holding it in 1302
while Giles was still alive. Under your hypothesis, Giles must have either
transfered the trust back to Senior in spite of him having a vested interest in
protecting the rights of his blood kin, his daughter and grandson, or else
the trusteeship must have terminated itself upon the majority of Junior, and
then Junior must have granted it back to his father in spite of it being the
couple's only documented holding.

1) Giles' daughter died while Junior was still a minor. The trusteeship gets
transferred back to Senior.
2) Giles' daughter and Junior both died, without issue.

Possible, but it would seemingly have required two sons named Richard -
not impossible, but not one's first choice when looking to reconstruct.

3) Giles' himself died.

We know this was not the case - Giles lived a decade past 1302.

4) Giles' as trustee being wholey incompetent, attainted, insane, unable to
properly manage, transfers or is forced to transfer control back to Senior.
5) In another agreement which we don't possess, Giles and Senior agree to the
transfer for one reason or another.

Possible, but sort of defeat the purpose of the original arrangement,
which was intended to protect the rights of Giles' daughter
(particularly in case Junior died). I guess there could have been an
exchange of some sort.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if VCH wasn't reading a bit more
into the 1302 entry than perhaps is warrented by the original
documentation, but I will leave that for Mr. Richardson to address after
he answers the Isabella question.

taf

Peter Stewart

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

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 sep 2005 00:00:00

"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.63a.0509011255470.157034@dante74.u.washington.edu...
Though we have not yet seen evidence of Stafford's kin being referred to
in official documents without being called king's kinsmen, it should be
pointed out that such incidences would not necessarily preclude them from
being such.

Unless the custom had changed drastically by the time of Richard II, such
that every kinsman of the king was always recognized as such, I would
expect such acknowledgments to be hit-and-miss (and perhaps more often the
latter). In the one example I am familiar with several decades earlier
(Richard de Cornwall, clerk), only in a few of the references to him was
he called a kinsman of the king. For instance, out of the twelve Patent
Roll references to him I have found, only two call him a kinsman of the
king.

This is a consideration that has been urged on Richardson again and again
since he started his ill-researched & useless posts on the subject of kings'
kin.

Even IF he had been right all along on the bogus "rules" that he has
formulated, it's still going nowhere for specific relationships - and these
are what genealogy is about.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 00:04:01

Dear Will,
According to MCA pp 152-153 William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster
was the son of Sir John de Burgh, Kt by Elizabeth, daughter of Gilbert de
Clare, Earl of Clare, Hertford and Gloucester and Joan d`Acre, daughter of King
Edward I of England by Eleanor of Castile. Sir John was heir apparent to
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster by his wife Margaret. (see MCA p 151) He dvp 1313.
William de Burgh succeeded on his grandfather`s death in 1326 and in 1327 was
married to Maud, daughter of Henry de Lancaster, 3rd Earl of Lancaster by his
wife Maud de Chaworth. They had one surviving daughter Elizabeth de Burgh born
July 6, 1332 Carrickfergus Castle, Ireland. William was murdered at Belfast,
Ireland in 1333
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 03:01:01

Dear Douglas,
I was just looking at Heraldry of the Royal Families
of Europe under Bohemia and discovered a second connection between Wartislas
and King Richard II. Elizabeth, daughter of Bogislaw V and his 1st wife
Elizabeth, daughter of King Casimir III of Poland by Anna of Lithuania married
Charles IV, King of Bohemia and German King and was mother by him of Richard
II`s beloved Anne of Bohemia. her brother, Emperor Sigismund by 2nd wife Barbara
of Cilli had a daughter Elizabeth who married Albert II, King of the Romans
and had among other children A daughter Elizabeth b 1458- 1505 who married
1454 Casimir IV, king of Poland, transmitting the blood of the Piasts to their
descendants. See also the Chapters on Poland and Austria. So Wartislaw VII was
King Richard II`s half uncle -in- law, if such term exists.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 sep 2005 05:17:04

James Cummings wrote:

<snip>

6 Adelheid of Brunswick married Bogislaw V, Duke of Pommern- Wolgast,
but according to website ruegenwalde.com which website concentrates on
the Pommern dynasty. He is called Bogislaw V, Duke of Pomerania- Stolp.
He was brother to Barnim IV, Duke of Pommern- Wolgast. They were
sons of Duke Wartislaw IV of Pommern- Rugen by his wife Elisabeth,
identified here as a daughter of Duke Henry III of Glogau by Mechtilde of
Brunswick-Grubenhagen.

This doesn't agree with the conventional genealogy, as established by
Wlodzimierz Dworzaczek in _Genealogia_ (Warsaw, 1959).

According to him, Henry III, duke of Glogau from 1273/4, also ruled
Sagan from 1304 and became duke of Poland in 1306. He died on 9
December 1309. In March 1292 he had married Mechtilde (died between 26
April & 31 August 1318), daughter of Albrecht, duke of
Brunswick-Lüneburg. They evidently had only two daughters: Beatrice
who married Ludwig IV, duke of Bavaria, and Agnes who married first
Otto III, duke of Lower Bavaria and secondly Albrecht of Hals.

Warcislaw IV, duke of Pomerania-Rügen was born ca 1290 & died 1 August
1326. He married ca 1315 Elisabeth (died 1350/6), daughter of Boleslaw,
duke of Jauer & Schweidnitz (died 9 November 1301) by Beatrice of
Brandenburg (died before 26 April 1316).

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 02 sep 2005 07:30:00

What does Europaische Stammtafeln show?

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 sep 2005 09:38:21

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125642600.230608.137100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What does Europaische Stammtafeln show?

Assuming you mean what does ES say about the wife of Wartislaw IV of Wolgast
(died 1 August 1326), she is given as Elisabeth (died between 1 February
1350 & 2 February 1356), daughter of Count Ulrich I of Lindow-Ruppin [ES
neue Folge, volume 3, table 1].

The alternative hypothesis that was found in your unstated research, that
Elisabeth was daughter of Henryk III of Glogau by Mechtilde of
Brunswick-Grubenhagen, was given with a question mark by Wilhelm Wegener in
_Genealogische Tafeln zur mitteleuropäischen Geschichte_ (Göttingen,
1962-1969), the only published source listed in ES for this family, in table
4 on p. 33. Wegener noted that the Lindow-Ruppin connection had been
recently proposed (p. 43, in a section published in 1969).

Peter Stewart


Peter G R Howarth

RE: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Peter G R Howarth » 02 sep 2005 11:27:02

WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com] wrote 01 September 2005

In a message dated 9/1/05 4:48:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

Of course, I had forgotten about arms of an office. The earldom
of Gloucester, for instance, had its own arms, though the practice is
not totally clear.

I mentioned earlier that Anne Mortimer, dau of Roger Earl of March
and also wife of Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge, shows
(Table 5) as her shield

In the first and fourth quarter the same shield as her grandfather
Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March which is a rather elaborate thing that
I'm unable to describe adequately but is not germane to my next
point.

In the second and third quarter of her shield she is showing the same
shield as, previously I had said her great-grandmother Elizabeth de
Burgh, dau of William Earl of Ulster. This shield is a red cross on
a gold background.

Now on further research I see that this shield (red cross on a gold
background) is shown (as a complete shield, not quartered) by : 1)
Elizabeth de Burgh, mentioned above; 2) William de Burgh 1312-33,
Earl of Ulster, father of 1) 3) Elizabeth de Burgh d 1327 , dau of
Richard, Earl of Ulster and wife of Robert, K of Scots 1306

And as second and third quarter by Elizabeth of York, wife of Henry
VII, great-granddaughter of Anne Mortimer. This same Elizabeth by the
way, shows one of the remaining quarters of Anne's shield in her own
shield as a quarter. The final quarter of Elizabeth's shield (the
first quarter) is the normal England one of three lions and the fleur
de lis.

It's interesting to me that she is apparently loudly proclaiming her
descent from the Mortimer/de Burgh's here, and ignoring other
descents from Lancaster, Neville, Rivers, Luxembourg ...

By the way what is the relationship between Richard, Earl of Ulster
and William, Earl of Ulster?

Thanks Will Johnson

______________________________

Anne Mortimer's political significance was as heiress to the Clarence claim
to the throne and her arms were intended to show this.

Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence and jure uxoris Earl of Ulster, was the
second surviving son of Edward III and so had a better claim to the throne
than John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was the third. Unfortunately,
his only issue was a daughter, Philippa. The dukedom ended with Lionel's
death, but Philippa became Countess of Ulster and quartered the red cross on
gold of Ulster with her father's arms (quarterly France ancient and England,
over all a silver label with a red canton on each point). Philippa married
Edmund de Mortimer, Earl of March, who also became Earl of Ulster in right
of his wife. Edmund had a seal in which he quartered his father's Mortimer
arms with his wife's Ulster arms. This later became the symbol of the
Clarence claim to the throne.

Edmund's grandson, also Edmund, was made heir to the throne by Richard II.
He was only eight when Richard abdicated, lived quietly in Ireland and died
without issue. His heir was his elder sister Anne, who married Richard of
Conisburgh of the House of York. She bore the same coat of arms as her
brother, father and grandfather, quarterly Mortimer and Ulster. Her son,
Richard, Duke of York, the first to adopt the surname of Plantagenet, had a
better right to the throne than the Lancastrian Henry VI, but through his
mother rather than his father, who was only the son of Edmund of Langley,
Duke of York and the fourth surviving son of Edward III.

Anne had no need to augment her arms with any other, less significant,
family's arms. However, her grandson, Edward IV, was the first to give
royal approval to the artificial augmentation of arms when he tried to
bolster his wife's family background by granting them quarters derived
unjustifiably from Elizabeth's mother, Jacqueline of Luxemburg.

Peter G R Howarth

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/88 - Release Date: 01/09/2005

Janet

Re: question

Legg inn av Janet » 02 sep 2005 12:14:02

Thank you, John but this does not makes since to me. Would man who is peddler have servants?

here is why I ask

This my ancestor, John Maysey. You see they say William Burge was chapman. One more thing was William ever in America. Oh yes, John is not his only servant found that William had many servants


Indentured Servants Basic Search Results

Servant Information Agent Information

Name: John Maysey Name: William Burge

Gender: male Gender: male

Occupation: Occupation: chapman

Place of Origin: Chiswick, Mddx Place of Origin: London

Age: 19

Spouse's Name: Single

Indenture Information

Date of Indenture: February 17 1730

Indenture Length: 5

Destination: Virginia or Maryland

Record Signed or Marked: signed

Janet

----- Original Message -----
From: John Steele Gordon
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: question


It meant merchant or trader of a rather down-market type. The "chap" part
has the same etymology as the word "cheap." I understand the word is still
used in British English to designate what Americans call a peddler.

""Janet"" <monkey@getgoin.net> wrote in message
news:01c901c5af01$4c810880$0371a00c@George...

What is a Occupation called : "chapman" ?
Janet






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/86 - Release Date: 8/31/2005

Sally Laine

Re: question

Legg inn av Sally Laine » 02 sep 2005 17:04:01

Janet,

Asa peddler it would be extremely unlikely a chapman had servants unless
your sources are using the word "chapman" as "merchant"

Sally


----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet" <monkey@getgoin.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: question


What is a Occupation called : "chapman" ?
Janet

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 02 sep 2005 20:20:47

Dear Will ~

VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90: "In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed
his son Richard and Eleanor daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott
Manor."

This settlement was almost certainly done at the time of Richard and
Eleanor's marriage.

Assuming Richard de Vernon, Jr., was 13 at the time of his marriage to
Eleanor de Fiennes (which is typical for the period), it suggests that
Richard, Jr., was born when his father, Richard de Vernon, Sr., was
aged 14. This is very short chronology indeed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/2/05 11:15:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290.

No, we don't. We know they were married by 1294.


VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation kindly provided to me by Matthew
Connelly:

"In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25), and in 1292 it was granted to her
father in custody during their minority (26). Richard Vernon, the father,
regained seisin of this manor, however, before 1302 (27) "

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 20:25:02

In a message dated 9/1/05 9:34:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

<< In 1310/1311 Richard de Vernon claimed next presentation to the church
of Pitchcott and gave the following pedigree [Wm Salt 1st series 9:27]

1. Matilda de Vernon
2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
2. Robert de Vernon
3. Hawise de Vernon
+ Gilbert de Franceys
4. Richard de Vernon claimant in 1310/11
<snip>
4. Richard de Vernon, snr, c.1268-c.1329
+ Isabella, survived husband
5. Richard de Vernon, jnr, d. 1323
+ Eleanor de Fiennes, dead by 1309>>

I'm not too clear on the relationship between these two things.
I was reading Rosie's post trying to figure out how you determine that
Eleanor was dead by 1309. The only thing I saw that seemed relevant was this "next
presentation". I'm not too clear on what a "next presentation" exactly is,
but maybe this is why we know Eleanor was dead by 1309 ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 20:27:02

In a message dated 9/1/05 9:34:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

<< 5. Richard de Vernon, jnr, d. 1323
+ Eleanor de Fiennes, dead by 1309
+ Maud de Camville
6. William de Vernon b. c 1313- c.1339
+ Joan fl 1346
7. Richard de Vernon, minor in 1339
6. Isabella de Vernon
+ Richard de Stafford >>

And Leo is showing that Richard and Isabella were married in 1337.
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 20:56:01

In a message dated 9/2/05 11:15:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< > Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290.

No, we don't. We know they were married by 1294. >>


VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation kindly provided to me by Matthew
Connelly:

"In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25), and in 1292 it was granted to her
father in custody during their minority (26). Richard Vernon, the father,
regained seisin of this manor, however, before 1302 (27) "

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 20:57:01

In a message dated 9/2/05 11:15:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< What about Isabel? What do you make of Isabel de Harcla and her husband
Richard de Vernon appearing through the 1220s, after the husband of Maud
was dead? >>

You mean 1320s ?
Will

Gjest

Re: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 21:17:01

In a message dated 9/2/05 2:25:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pgrhowarth@tiscali.co.uk writes:

<< Edmund's grandson, also Edmund, was made heir to the throne by Richard II.
He was only eight when Richard abdicated, lived quietly in Ireland and died
without issue. His heir was his elder sister Anne, who married Richard of
Conisburgh of the House of York. She bore the same coat of arms as her
brother, father and grandfather, quarterly Mortimer and Ulster. >>

I cannot speak of her brother or father , but the shield of her grandfather
Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March and as you say Count of Ulster jure uxoris
is shown in "Heraldry of the Royal Families" (op.cite.) as simply Mortimer
not Ulster.

I do not know how to describe this shield, it's a bit complex, but regardless
it shows no red cross on a gold background on it.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 21:48:01

In a message dated 9/2/05 12:34:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Assuming Richard de Vernon, Jr., was 13 at the time of his marriage to
Eleanor de Fiennes (which is typical for the period), it suggests that
Richard, Jr., was born when his father, Richard de Vernon, Sr., was
aged 14. This is very short chronology indeed. >>

In my database I am currently showing, after reading through this entire
thread, that I agree with the idea that Richard who m Eleanor Fiennes is the same
Richard who later married Maud Camville. I feel, after reviewing all the
evidence presented, that it's a more realistic reconstruction.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 02 sep 2005 22:12:27

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/1/05 9:34:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

In 1310/1311 Richard de Vernon claimed next presentation to the church
of Pitchcott and gave the following pedigree [Wm Salt 1st series 9:27]

1. Matilda de Vernon
2. Richard de Vernon d.s.p.
2. Robert de Vernon
3. Hawise de Vernon
+ Gilbert de Franceys
4. Richard de Vernon claimant in 1310/11
snip
4. Richard de Vernon, snr, c.1268-c.1329
+ Isabella, survived husband
5. Richard de Vernon, jnr, d. 1323
+ Eleanor de Fiennes, dead by 1309

I'm not too clear on the relationship between these two things.
I was reading Rosie's post trying to figure out how you determine that
Eleanor was dead by 1309. The only thing I saw that seemed relevant was this "next
presentation". I'm not too clear on what a "next presentation" exactly is,
but maybe this is why we know Eleanor was dead by 1309 ?

[Presentation refers to the right, originally linked to lordship of the
manor but which developed into a separately transferable entity, to
nominate (present) the candidate of one's choice to become priest of the
parish church. "Next presentation" would be the exercise of that right
the next time the parish priestship became vacant.]

This is based on the fact that Richard and Maud were married by that
date. Of course, this would only apply to this reconstruction, wherein
the same Richard is given as husband of both Eleanor and Maud, and would
not apply if the two were in successive generations (Mr. Richardson's
reconstruction), in which case Eleanor must have died by 1329, as Maud's
widowed mother-in-law was named Isabel.

Free from any extrapolation, interpretation or advocacy, the data we
have allow two unambiguous family groups to be compiled:

bef.
1278
Richard = Isabel de Harcla
b. 1263 | fl. 1321
fl. 1321 |
|
| 1290-
| 1294
Richard=Eleanor de Fenes

and


Richard=Isabel
d. 1329 fl.1342
|
|
| bef. 1309
Richard=Maud de Camville
d. 1320| fl. 1339
v.p. |
|
|
William
b.1313

(note that in the second grouping, Isabel is widow of the first Richard,
but not necessarily mother of the second)

The question is how the two of these should be combined. Either way,
Richard son of Richard and Isabel de Harcla must have married twice, and
from this flows the dates for Eleanor's death. Briefly, this is Mr.
Richardson's reconstruction spelled and filled out with all that is
implicit, and with only known dates and information taken into account:

1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Both died 1221-1229. (there is a caveat here that I will
address in another post later today)

2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. By the time
of his death in 1329, Eleanor had died and Richard had remarried Isabel,
who lived through at least 1342.

3. Richard de Vernon, m. by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died v.p., 1320,
she died some time after 1339.

4. William de Vernon, b. 1313.


The reconstruction others have been favoring is:


1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Richard died in 1329, while Isabel still lived in 1342.

2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. Eleanor died
bef. 1309, and Richard remarried by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died
v.p., 1320, she died some time after 1339.

3. William de Vernon, b. 1313.


I hope this clarifies the conflict.

taf

Douglas Richardson royala

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 02 sep 2005 22:26:22

Thank you. Todd. Much appreciated. You've presenrly a very sound
account of the two possible pedigrees of the Vernon family.

I do have two slight changes to make to the pedigree. Unless I missed
something, I believe Richard de Vernon (husband of Maud de Camville)
died died shortly before 3 February 1322/3, not 1320. Also, my
research shows that Maud de Camville was still living as late as 1348
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1345-1348 (1903): 448]. She
was apparently dead before 1351, when her daughter and son-in-law,
Isabel and Richard de Stafford, appointed attorneys to represent them
in Ireland, presumably on behalf of the Camville inheritance there.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 02 sep 2005 22:28:45

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/2/05 11:15:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

What about Isabel? What do you make of Isabel de Harcla and her husband
Richard de Vernon appearing through the 1220s, after the husband of Maud
was dead?

You mean 1320s ?

Yes - 1321 to be precise.

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 02 sep 2005 22:31:09

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/2/05 11:15:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Richard de Vernon, III, at about 1296. This date is perfectly
acceptable, as we know Richard's parents were married in 1290.

No, we don't. We know they were married by 1294.


VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90, citation kindly provided to me by Matthew
Connelly:

"In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed his son Richard and Eleanor
daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott Manor (25),

Note it doesn't say, "his wife". This is usually interpreted as an
indication of their engagement, not necessarily of their marriage (for
which they may have been too young).

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 02 sep 2005 22:40:20

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

VCH Buckingham, 4 (1927): 90: "In 1290 he [Richard de Vernon] enfeoffed
his son Richard and Eleanor daughter of Giles Fenes of Pitchcott
Manor."

This settlement was almost certainly done at the time of Richard and
Eleanor's marriage.

No basis for this near certainty.

Assuming Richard de Vernon, Jr., was 13 at the time of his marriage to
Eleanor de Fiennes (which is typical for the period), it suggests that

I suspect "typical" translates, as usual, to "I have seen this
elsewhere". And as usual, I will ask you for the statistics, and as
usual, you will not have compiled them, so as usual, the statement is of
no actual value over a population, let alone applied to a specific case
(for which statistics can be nothing more than a guide even when
actually properly compiled - 50% of all data falls above the average,
and 50% below).

Richard, Jr., was born when his father, Richard de Vernon, Sr., was
aged 14. This is very short chronology indeed.

So, we take a marriage based on invalid "near certainty" and subtract
from that an age based on untabulated statistics, and you get chronology
that is "very short indeed". Is it any wonder?

What about Isabel? Do you have any plans to address her, or are you
just hoping that the biggest downside of your reconstruction will escape
notice as long as you ignore it long enough?

taf

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 23:27:03

In a message dated 9/1/05 6:00:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< Elizabeth who married Albert II, King of the Romans
and had among other children A daughter Elizabeth b 1458- 1505 who married
1454 Casimir IV, king of Poland, >>

Heraldy (op cit) Table 134 shows Elizabeth b 1438 d 1505
married Casimir in 1454

I'm sure this was just a typo.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 23:34:02

Something is fishy in the royal household of Poland ...

Heraldry (op.cit.) Table 134 shows, in part

Wladislaw II, GD of Lithuania 1377-1401, K of Poland 1386
married as his fourth wife in 1422 Sophia d of Andrew, Prince of Holszany
She is [questionably] born 1405 and died 1461

However they then state that Wladislaw himself was [questionable] born 1351
and died 1434. It's a bit unusual perhaps for a man 71 years old to marry a
girl of 17

But then to top the matter off, they give this couple two male children
born 1424 and 1427

Is this actual fact ? If so it's the oddest pairing I've encountered and to
have a man fathering children at the age of 76 ?

I mean really.
Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 02 sep 2005 23:40:02

Dear Will,

Go to http://www.genealogics.org and look for Zofia Holszanska then read
her biographical remarks, and all will be revealed :-) well almost.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of King
Richard II o...


Something is fishy in the royal household of Poland ...

Heraldry (op.cit.) Table 134 shows, in part

Wladislaw II, GD of Lithuania 1377-1401, K of Poland 1386
married as his fourth wife in 1422 Sophia d of Andrew, Prince of Holszany
She is [questionably] born 1405 and died 1461

However they then state that Wladislaw himself was [questionable] born
1351
and died 1434. It's a bit unusual perhaps for a man 71 years old to marry
a
girl of 17

But then to top the matter off, they give this couple two male children
born 1424 and 1427

Is this actual fact ? If so it's the oddest pairing I've encountered and
to
have a man fathering children at the age of 76 ?

I mean really.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 23:53:02

In a message dated 9/2/05 2:39:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< Go to http://www.genealogics.org and look for Zofia Holszanska then read
her biographical remarks, and all will be revealed :-) well almost.
Leo >>

Thanks Leo. I see that you are showing the details that she was "accused of
infidelity because of her many pregnancies and her husband's advanced age".

"Heraldry" doesn't mention anything about this and it's really so odd.
Equally odd is that "he had no heirs except off his fourth wife". This would imply
to me that he was impotent, although you are showing a few other children for
him. And I see that you are showing him with five wifes all together. Or
perhaps Sophia of Kiev was a mistress.

Will

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 sep 2005 23:55:01

Dear Peter,
Thank You for clarifying the identity of Elizabeth, wife
of Duke Wartislaw IV. I used the parentage that ruegenwalde.com gave her namely
Duke Henry III of Glogau and Mechtilde of Braunscheig - Grubenhagen ,
although in her pedigree box She is called Elizabeth von Schweidnitz, which I thought
exceedingly odd at the time. So, It wasn`t precisely unsourced though
definitely incorrect.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 00:01:01

Dear Will,

My cooking is all in the sources :-) I try to record where information came
from and sometimes those sources may well be wrong. My main source is ES II
Tafel 126 and here five wives are given. Sofia of Kiev made a very short
appearance, married in 1420 and in 1422 he marries Zofia Holszanska. Was it
only an engagment? Did Sofia of Kiev die almost immediately?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Wartislas, Duke of Stettin, kinsman of King
Richard II o...


In a message dated 9/2/05 2:39:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Go to http://www.genealogics.org and look for Zofia Holszanska then
read
her biographical remarks, and all will be revealed :-) well almost.
Leo

Thanks Leo. I see that you are showing the details that she was "accused
of
infidelity because of her many pregnancies and her husband's advanced
age".

"Heraldry" doesn't mention anything about this and it's really so odd.
Equally odd is that "he had no heirs except off his fourth wife". This
would imply
to me that he was impotent, although you are showing a few other children
for
him. And I see that you are showing him with five wifes all together. Or
perhaps Sophia of Kiev was a mistress.

Will


Gjest

Re: Wladislaw II, King of Poland 1386 and his wives

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 00:16:01

In a message dated 9/2/05 3:00:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< My cooking is all in the sources :-) I try to record where information
came
from and sometimes those sources may well be wrong. My main source is ES II
Tafel 126 and here five wives are given. Sofia of Kiev made a very short
appearance, married in 1420 and in 1422 he marries Zofia Holszanska. Was it
only an engagment? Did Sofia of Kiev die almost immediately?
Leo >>


Leo, "Heraldry" shows this
1) Hedwig 1373/4 - 1399, Queen of Poland 1384 married 1386
so he became King of Polane, jure uxoris
2) Anne of Cilly 1380? - 1416 married in 1406
apparently his first wife "before her death, advised him to marry one of her
cousins Anne of Cilly"
3) Elizabeth d 1420 dau of Otto of Pilcza mar 1417
4) Sophia b 1405 ? - 1461 d of Andrew, Prince of Holszany

They make no mention of this other wife you are showing.

By the way for those of you who can't get enough of the Poland
intermarriages. Here is the way in which Anne of Cilly and Hedwig, Queen of Poland are
related exactly.

Hedwig dau of Louis I, King of Poland 1370
Louis I, son of Elizabeth d 1382
Elizabeth, dau of Wladislaw IV, K of Poland 1320

Wladislaw IV, K of Poland 1320 father of Casimir III, K of Poland 1333
Casimir III, father of Anne who mar William, Count of Cilly in 1380
Anne of Cilly d 1416

So Elizabeth and Anne were second cousins.
Source: "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael
MacLagain; Clarkson Potter Pub, New York 1981

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Wladislaw II, King of Poland 1386 and his wives

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2005 00:24:01

Dear Will,

It is what ES gives us. On a second inspection, I think I will remove Sofie
of Kiev as she is also missing in Rafal Prinke's superb book "Krolewska
Krew" page 113. I wonder why haven't we heard from Rafal Prinke for so long?
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Wladislaw II, King of Poland 1386 and his wives


In a message dated 9/2/05 3:00:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

My cooking is all in the sources :-) I try to record where information
came
from and sometimes those sources may well be wrong. My main source is ES
II
Tafel 126 and here five wives are given. Sofia of Kiev made a very short
appearance, married in 1420 and in 1422 he marries Zofia Holszanska. Was
it
only an engagment? Did Sofia of Kiev die almost immediately?
Leo


Leo, "Heraldry" shows this
1) Hedwig 1373/4 - 1399, Queen of Poland 1384 married 1386
so he became King of Polane, jure uxoris
2) Anne of Cilly 1380? - 1416 married in 1406
apparently his first wife "before her death, advised him to marry one of
her
cousins Anne of Cilly"
3) Elizabeth d 1420 dau of Otto of Pilcza mar 1417
4) Sophia b 1405 ? - 1461 d of Andrew, Prince of Holszany

They make no mention of this other wife you are showing.

By the way for those of you who can't get enough of the Poland
intermarriages. Here is the way in which Anne of Cilly and Hedwig, Queen
of Poland are
related exactly.

Hedwig dau of Louis I, King of Poland 1370
Louis I, son of Elizabeth d 1382
Elizabeth, dau of Wladislaw IV, K of Poland 1320

Wladislaw IV, K of Poland 1320 father of Casimir III, K of Poland 1333
Casimir III, father of Anne who mar William, Count of Cilly in 1380
Anne of Cilly d 1416

So Elizabeth and Anne were second cousins.
Source: "Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael
MacLagain; Clarkson Potter Pub, New York 1981

Will Johnson


Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 03 sep 2005 04:26:54

I messed up some of the dates (I was remembering them relative to one
date - ten years after, a year after that . . ., then when I corrected
the reference date I failed to readjust the others), so I will repeat
the appropriate section:


Free from any extrapolation, interpretation or advocacy, the data we
have allow two unambiguous family groups to be compiled:

bef.
1278
Richard = Isabel de Harcla
b. 1263 | fl. 1324
fl. 1324 |
|
| 1290-
| 1294
Richard=Eleanor de Fenes

and


Richard=Isabel
d. 1329 fl.1342
|
|
| bef. 1309
Richard=Maud de Camville
d. 1323| fl. 1348
v.p. |
|
|
William
b.1313

(note that in the second grouping, Isabel is widow of the first Richard,
but not necessarily mother of the second)

The question is how the two of these should be combined. Either way,
Richard son of Richard and Isabel de Harcla must have married twice, and
from this flows the dates for Eleanor's death. Briefly, this is Mr.
Richardson's reconstruction spelled and filled out with all that is
implicit, and with only known dates and information taken into account:

1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Both died 1224-1229. (there is a caveat here that I will
address in another post later today)

2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. By the time
of his death in 1329, Eleanor had died and Richard had remarried Isabel,
who lived through at least 1342.

3. Richard de Vernon, m. by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died v.p., 1323,
she died some time after 1339.

4. William de Vernon, b. 1313.


The reconstruction others have been favoring is:


1. Richard le Fraunceys de Vernon, b. 14 May 1263, married bef. 1278
Isabel Harcla. Richard died in 1329, while Isabel still lived in 1342.

2. Richard de Vernon, married 1290-1294 Eleanor de Fenes. Eleanor died
bef. 1309, and Richard remarried by 1309 Maud de Camville. He died
v.p., 1323, she died some time after 1339.

3. William de Vernon, b. 1313.


taf

Gjest

Re: Consequences? OT

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 14:01:02

I suppose a solution to some of Tim's points could be to have a second
off-topic list where contributors could post directly and/or all those messages
rejected by a moderator would also be posted. Perhaps this may work to some
degree in an un-moderated group — if one side of an _off topic_ thread stated
"my reply is in the off-topic list", the whole subsequent thread may be
transferred, then readers could decide for themselves if they wished to follow the
off-topic thread.

regards,
Adrian


In message of 3 Sep, fairthorne@breathe.com wrote:

Peter Stewart writes:

The task of
moderators ought to be no different from (but less intensive than)
the work of an editor in deciding what does and does not go into a
publication.

That is what it should be - but often is not.

I moderate an Open University student conference (devoted to a small
group of students and specific to a single course)

In the last few days I have had a pair of contributors each deluging
me with emails complaining about the conduct of the other

Tim replied;



This is not a cross you should have to bear.

To me, moderating requires a set of rules and I am not sure that the
rules can adequately cover all issues. Do you have rules? Are they
made known to the students? Can you summarise them here?

And what do you do with contributions you reject? Do you tell the
student that it has been rejected? Do you tell him which rule it
offended?

Do the rules apply also the the mail directed solely to you as
moderator? Do you take any action on such mail? What?

Do you have the power to exclude a student from the group if they
persist in breakign the rules?

Finally is there any check that you are applying the rules fairly?
(It is always possible that a moderator uses their power for their
own ends.)

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 14:31:01

Dear Douglas,
We still have William, 2nd Lord Camville`s missing wife
to account for this connection.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: A2A searching tip was Present Earl of Derby

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 15:10:03

In a message dated 9/3/2005 6:04:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

It may be that you can find some reference to your Fells family by searching
within these catalogue.

Chris Phillips


The problem with searching for "Fells" is probably similar to the problem
searching for "Brown" in that you get an awful lot of hits on things like "... a
brown cow to my daughter Jane..."

What I have discovered is that not only can you search for an exact name like
Anthony Brown

But you can also do a "proximity" search which is very useful for finding
something like "the marriage of Jane daughter of Anthony Brown to Master David
of Huntingdon...."

A proximity search would find Jane Brown in any of these fashions
Jane NEAR9 Brown
Jane NEAR9 Huntingdon
Jane NEAR9 David

I'm not sure everyone was aware you could use the NEAR command
The 9 I'm using means "within nine words of"
So Jane NEAR9 Brown means "find anytime the word 'Jane' appears within 9
words of the word 'Brown'"

Will Johnson

Yvonne Purdy

RE: A2A searching tip was Present Earl of Derby

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 03 sep 2005 16:28:01

Dear Will,

Thank you for your reply, and the brilliant tip on searching the a2a, with
the NEAR command. I would never have found that out. Off to try it out.

Thanks again,
Many regards,
Yvonne Purdy
In a message dated 9/3/2005 6:04:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,

cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

It may be that you can find some reference to your Fells family by
searching
within these catalogue.

Chris Phillips


The problem with searching for "Fells" is probably similar to the problem
searching for "Brown" in that you get an awful lot of hits on things like
"... a
brown cow to my daughter Jane..."

What I have discovered is that not only can you search for an exact name
like
Anthony Brown

But you can also do a "proximity" search which is very useful for finding
something like "the marriage of Jane daughter of Anthony Brown to Master
David
of Huntingdon...."

A proximity search would find Jane Brown in any of these fashions
Jane NEAR9 Brown
Jane NEAR9 Huntingdon
Jane NEAR9 David

I'm not sure everyone was aware you could use the NEAR command
The 9 I'm using means "within nine words of"
So Jane NEAR9 Brown means "find anytime the word 'Jane' appears within 9
words of the word 'Brown'"

Will Johnson
<<

______________________________

John Brandon

Re: Consequences? OT

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 sep 2005 17:29:39

(It is always possible that a moderator uses their power for their own ends.)

Yep, I would say there's a distinct possibility of that should a
moderated group be formed.

Gjest

Re: CP Addition: Eleanor (Elena) de Montagu, wife of Sir Joh

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 sep 2005 18:42:02

Saturday, 3 September, 2005



Dear Doug (and Brom, Richard, et al.),

On 22 June, you noted (in response to my prior post) that
based on your research, the manor of Kyton (or Kitton) Barton,
Devonshire was held by the Percehay family prior to the tenure
(or rather alleged tenure) of the manor by Lady Eleanor (Montagu)
Dinham, and not the Montagu family. The prior information
concerning the tenure of Kytton Barton by Lady Eleanor was provided
by Dr. Hannes Kleineke, based on several references found in the
register of Bishop Thomas Brantyngham of Exeter [1].

On this subject, I have found the following entry in the same
register, dated 7 February 1386/7:

' Holcombe-Rogus; Licence to celebrate, -
Item [septimo die mensis Februarii, Londoniis], Dominus concessit
Licenciam Matildi, relicte Willelmi Percehay, ut, per presbiteros
ydoneos, in sua presencia Divina possit facere celebrari in
Capella, sive Oratorio, infra Manerium suum de Kytone, in Parochia
de Holcombe situatum; ad beneplacitum Domini, etc. ' [2]

What is interesting, it is clear that the manor of Kytton was
held in 1386 by the Percehay family, as it was previously: the
above licence specifically refers to Matilda, widow of William
Percehay, and 'your manor of Kytone' ["Manerium suum"]. . I find
it likely this was also true in 1382. The 1382 licences [see Note
[1] below] allow for the divine celebrations by Lady Eleanor at
Kytton, but the 2nd refers to Lady Isabella Percehay and 'her
houses' there ["domorum suarum"] - in neither case do these
licences call the manor or other possessions in Kytton the
property of Lady Eleanor.

A reason for the apparent confusion on this matter presents
itself. Lady Eleanor was evidently pregnant in 1382, as the 2nd
licence evidently was granted due to her recovering while in child
bed ["post tuum puerperium"]. The Monthermer and Percehay
families had some at least distant relationships: Lady Eleanor's
maternal great-uncle, Sir Piers de Breuse (or de Braose) had
married one Joan de Percy, or de Percehay, whose family held
property in Whitford, Devon and elsewhere. This may simply have
been the case of Lady Eleanor having been cared for at Kytton
during her pregnancy, for personal/travel reasons that are not
precisely clear.

Based on the foregoing, we have at this time no evidence
proving a landholding connection of Lady Eleanor (Montagu) Dinham
to Kytton Barton, whether concerning her as yet unknown
maritagium or otherwise. The apparent descent of this manor to
Lady Eleanor should therefore be discounted.

Cheers,

John *


NOTES

[1] from Brantyngham's register, shown in prior posts:

13 July 1382 Vol. I p. 472

' Holcombe-Rogus; Licence to celebrate, -
Item, apud Chuddeleghe, xiij die Julii, Dominus concessit
Licenciam Domine Elenore, uxori Domini Johannis Dynham, Militis,
junioris, quod possit facere Divina celebrari, in presencia sua,
etc., in Capella sive Oratorio honesto infra Manerium de Kytone
situato; per unum annum duraturam. '


1382 Vol. I p. 481

' Holcombe-Rogus; Licencia pro Purificacione in Capella, -
Thomas, etc., Domine Elenore, uxori Domini Johannis Dynham,
Militis, junioris, salutem, etc. -
Ut in Capella quam Dominam Isabellam Percehay, cum qua
commoraris, infra domorum suarum septa asseris obtinere post tuum
puerperium consuete Purificacionis Ecclesiastice subire tibi
liceat solempnia, ac Capellano cuicumue ydoneo ea mor Ecclesiastico
ibidem peragere, dummodo Parochialis et Matrix Ecclesia inde non
senciat detrimentum, tenore Presencium facultatem concedimus,
tantummodo ista vice (without date). '


[2] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 635 dated 7 February 1386/7:


* John P. Ravilious

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 04 sep 2005 05:18:02

| Dear Spencer,
|
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
| able to detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the
| fact who was Jack the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong
| you are obliged to tell us what, according to you, is right. Why
| couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
| cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
| this book?

Leo van de Pas
------------------

So, as we clearly see, Leo van de Pas is the fellow who raised the issue
of the real identity of Jack The Ripper -- not I.

DSH
------------------------

Indeed, Leo seems to have quite a fascination with Jack The Ripper.

Hilarious!

And he is still very angry with me these many months later -- because I
exposed his foolishness and kicked him in the arse for good measure.

So, Leo raised the issue again just recently and whined about how angry
he still is with me for doing that.

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Pitiful!

Bottom Line:

Leo read a sensational, demagogic book that intrigued him and led him to
post some very foolish things to USENET -- including accusations against
Lord Randolph Churchill and even Queen Victoria herself and other
members of the Royal Family -- by clear implication -- without a
scintilla of proof.

If Leo uses this standard of proof in Genealogy and History he is
surely in deep kimchee.

The Burden of Proof is clearly on Leo to extricate himself -- not for
anyone else to pull him out of the hole he has dug for himself.

DSH
-----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved."

"The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #765

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 sep 2005 15:37:02

I do not as a rule offer criticism of posts on this list, but the posting by
DSH dated 04/09/05 4:42:07 AM GMT seems to be to be a sad example of
unnecessary abuse of contributors, in this case of the serious scholar Mr P.M.Stewart,
who is currently participating in a useful discussion of how matters might be
arranged so as to make this (or another) list more pleasant to use. Moreover
the post has nothing to do with medieval genealogy. It - and other posts like
it, sometimes alas contributed by Mr Stewart himself- ought not to have been
posted to the list.
Moderation of a list would inhibit such posts: but moderation would not be
necessary, if only contributors could refrain from calling each other names
such as "oaf", "charlatan", "hypocrite", "pogue"and "twit" - to mention a few
recent examples.
Surely it is possible to criticise or correct the content of a post without
indulging in abuse of the poster? My own frequent errors have been corrected
here with kindness and courtesy
MM

Peter G R Howarth

RE: What happens when you 'disinherit' yourself?

Legg inn av Peter G R Howarth » 04 sep 2005 20:02:01

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 02 September 2005 20:16
WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com] wrote 02 September 2005

In a message dated 9/2/05 2:25:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pgrhowarth@tiscali.co.uk writes:

Edmund's grandson, also Edmund, was made heir to the throne by
Richard II. He was only eight when Richard abdicated, lived quietly
in Ireland and died without issue. His heir was his elder sister
Anne, who married Richard of Conisburgh of the House of York. She
bore the same coat of arms as her brother, father and grandfather,
quarterly Mortimer and Ulster.

I cannot speak of her brother or father , but the shield of her
grandfather Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March and as you say Count of
Ulster jure uxoris is shown in "Heraldry of the Royal Families"
(op.cite.) as simply Mortimer not Ulster.

I do not know how to describe this shield, it's a bit complex, but
regardless it shows no red cross on a gold background on it.

Will Johnson
_________________________________________


Edmund became Earl of March on the death of his father, Roger, on 26 Feb
1359. He would therefore have adopted his father's arms at that time. For
what it is worth, they are usually blazoned as barry of six or and azure, on
a chief or, two pallets between two gyrons azure, over all an escutcheon
argent.

Edmund later became Earl of Ulster after the death of his father-in-law,
Lionel of Antwerp, on 17 Oct 1368. On a seal of his from 1372, he bears the
quartered arms of Mortimer and Ulster (illustrated in J P Brooke-Little,
_Boutell's Heraldry_, rev edn 1978, p 178). He therefore used his father's
arms for at least nine years and the quartered arms for possibly longer.

It was quite common in mediaeval heraldry for someone to bear more than one
coat of arms, either consecutively or even simultaneously. The tomb of
Edward, the Black Prince, has both a shield for war (his father's arms with
a silver label) and a shield for peace (black, with three silver ostrich
feathers with their quills piercing scrolls inscribed 'ich dien'). The
second shield, with matching surcoat and horse trappings, is a far more
likely explanation for his by-name than the suggestion that he wore black
armour.

Peter G R Howarth

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 02/09/2005

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 05 sep 2005 02:15:02

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.


Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he cannot provide any EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling rampant gibberish.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- ALMOST EIGHT YEARS AGO.

Mr. King dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997
------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's Part -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 05 sep 2005 09:03:02

"The Ripper and the Royals" is the tawdry book Leo van de Pas has been
seduced by.

Vide infra.

Hilarious!

DSH
---------------------

"1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.

Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim.

Take your pick! They're all nonsense.

My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.

The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997

Gjest

Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2005 09:18:58

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"The Ripper and the Royals" is the tawdry book Leo van de Pas has been
seduced by.

Vide infra.

Hilarious!

DSH
---------------------

"1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.

Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim.

Take your pick! They're all nonsense.

My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.

The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years, at
least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

With four books in the last five years surely there must be at least

one which embroiders Diana into the story somehow. What with dirty
portcard sellers from Egypt and the like, there must be a neat shoe-in
to the whole conspiracy.

Gjest

Re: Hoist with his own petard was Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2005 16:04:19

Sort of; Shakespere was speaking of an engineer (in the military sense)
being blown up by his own bomb

Gjest

Re: Hoist with his own petard was Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2005 16:57:01

So the meaning would be "blown-up by your own hand-grenade" ?
It's interesting that "fart" developed into "bomb" or "small bomb" perhaps.
Will

Gjest

Re: Margaret Knyvet's Marriages 1410-1424

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2005 23:28:01

In a message dated 9/7/05 7:25:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nugget10@hotkey.net.au writes:

<< Abt 1453 Dorset Record Office Reference: D/WLC/T271
KINGSEY, CHIPPING NORTON
(a) Sir Jn. Merney to Thos. Throkmorton & Jn. Rous, esqrs. Gift of 2
parts of his manor of Kyngesey (Bucks.) & 2 parts of 1/3 of manor of Chepyng
Norton (Oxon.) with lands etc.; also reversion of lands, tenements etc. in said
vills which Margaret Ichyngham now holds as dowry after death of Sir Thomas
Merney, the donor's brother.
(b) Thos. Throkmorton & Jn. Rous, esqrs., to Sir Jn. Merney & Joan
Barantyn, lately widow of Denis Barantyn. Demise of property as above, with
remainder on death of Sir John, Joan and the legitimate heirs of their bodies to the
right heirs of Sir John.
(c) Thos. Throkmorton & Jn. Rous, esqrs., to Jn. Bayone & Wm. Elton.
Power of attorney, to seise Sir Jn. Merney and Joan Barantyn of property above.
Undated

SUMMARY :
Margaret the widow of Thomas Marny (d.1420/1) was still living in 1453
when Thomas' younger brother John Marny married as his second wife Joan
Throckmorton, widow of Denis Barantyn. This Margaret married secondly Thomas
Echyngham. >>

I imagine there is a relationship between Thos. Throkmorton in the A2A
extract above and the Joan Throckmorton that you say married John Marney. But what
is it? Is he her father? brother? son?
Thanks!
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hoist with his own petard was Royalty for Commoners

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 sep 2005 00:19:02

Dear Listers,
An Explosion would likely lift someone off their feet,
perhaps literally. to lift is to hoist.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

paul bulkley

Re: Snippet of unusual perjury case from Procat c1535.

Legg inn av paul bulkley » 09 sep 2005 02:42:01

Can you enlighten how perjury was involved?

Did the poor bird refuse to offer evidence of its
singing ability as presumably claimed by its owner?

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley





______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

Gjest

Re: Royalty for Commoners (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 sep 2005 23:03:02

Dear John , Tony and others,
I have a Thankful Trott, Hepzibah
Carter, Mehitable Swett, Sarah Ewell, Abigail Urin, Balthasar Willix and one
of my all time favorites, Lot Strange. Of course there was my ancestral aunt
Mindwell Ward, who after about age 25 didn`t mind so well and ended up married
to 18 theology student and later minister Lemuel Jackson as a result.
Mindwell`s mother`s name was Mary Clapp and one of her brothers , Samuel had a son
with the unfortunate name of Clapp Ward.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Children of Alain I of Brittany (d. 907)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 sep 2005 23:35:43

Don McArthur wrote:
Far be it from me to delve into such arcane matters, however I would put a
slightly different interpretation on this.

Two sons of Alain le Grand are identified here:-

i) Rudalt, godson of count Tangui &
ii) Derien, son in law of count Tangui.

There would appear to be no contradiction on these two things - and no
implication that they are one and the same. Or am I mis-reading this?

If I understand Stewart Baldwin's post correctly, he is saying that
Guillotel cites a specific charter to evidence Tangui and his godson
Rudalt making a grant, but that charter - the one that Guillotel cites,
does not say this but instead that Tangui and his son-in-law Darien make
the grant. The source charter does not contain what Guillotel says that
it does - that is the contradiction.

taf

Don McArthur

RE: Children of Alain I of Brittany (d. 907)

Legg inn av Don McArthur » 10 sep 2005 00:20:03

Far be it from me to delve into such arcane matters, however I would put a
slightly different interpretation on this.

Two sons of Alain le Grand are identified here:-

i) Rudalt, godson of count Tangui &
ii) Derien, son in law of count Tangui.

There would appear to be no contradiction on these two things - and no
implication that they are one and the same. Or am I mis-reading this?

Tangui is also identified as son in law of Alain le Grand. Again I don't
see a problem here. If a daughter of Tangui married Derien, son of Alain le
Grand - AND Tangui married a daughter of Alain le Grand then undoubtedly
this daughter would be a later marriage for Tangui, perhaps also a later one
for her and without issue.

Regards,

Don McArthur.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Baldwin [mailto:sbaldw@mindspring.com]
Sent: 15 June 2005 10:32
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Children of Alain I of Brittany (d. 907)


While looking at the documentation for the children of Alain le Grand,
I came across a somewhat strange statement of Hubert Guillotel on this
matter. Guillotel (1984), pp. 372-3, states that a notice which can
be dated 27 November 908 reports the concession to Saint-Sauveur de
Redon by count Tangui and his godson Rudalt, son of Alain le Grand, of
a part of the parish of Elven in the Vannetais which they had divided,
citing no. 279 of the Redon cartulary. He then goes on to claim that
this confirms the assertion of the Saint-Aubin genealogy (discussed in
detail recently in this newgroup) which makes Tangui a son-in-law of
Alain le Grand (also in the genealogical table on p. 357).

The two strange things about this statement are: first, that the
charter in question (p. 226 in the Redon cartulary, available on
Gallica) gives the name of Tangui's son-in-law as Derien (also
confirmed elsewhere as a son of Alain le Grand) and not as Rudalt, and
second, that the Saint-Aubin genealogy, which gives "Alanus major" two
daughters, states that one was the wife of "Madudoius" and mother of
"Alanus Barbatorta" (which is confirmed by other evidence), and states
of the other daughter only that the "Rochisii" sprang from her ("De
altera orti sunt Rochisii"). This leads to two obvious questions:

1. Why is Guillotel apparently identifying Derian with count Rudalt
(also probably a son of Alain, but not explicitly called such in the
primary sources)?

2. Who are the "Rochisii", and how can the Saint-Aubin genealogy be
interpreted as stating that Tangui was a son-in-law of Alain le Grand?

As is typically the case in this book, Guillotel is short on
explanations. Does anybody know of any other papers of Guillotel (or
others) where this is discussed?

Stewart Baldwin

SOURCES:

Guillotel (1984) = André Chédeville & Hubert Guillotel, La Bretagne
des saints et des rois Ve-Xe siècle (Rennes, 1984). (The quoted part
is in the half written bt Guillotel.)

Redon cartulary = M. Aurélien de Courson, Cartulaire de l'Abaaye de
Redon (Collection de documents inédites sur l'histoire de France,
Paris, 1863).

______________________________

Tony Hoskins

Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 10 sep 2005 19:59:02

Thanks, John. Fascinating!

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

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 10 sep 2005 21:59:47

Wasn't the argument for a supposed Henry Beaufort - Alice of Arundel
coupling recently and handily dispatched by Brad Verity in Foundations?

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Gjest

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 sep 2005 22:40:02

Dear Rose, Todd, Ginny, John and others,
I seem to
recall a thread concerning Loretta / Lora (la Zouche) Sandford which showed that
Lora`s marriage portion didn`t descend to Alice (de Sandford) de Vere, Countess
of Oxford but instead was returned to the Zouche family. Unfortunately I
can`t think of the URL title and can`t locate it in the archive. Maybe I`m just
crazy.
Sincerely,
Dixmont, Maine USA

Ginny Wagner

RE: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 11 sep 2005 00:56:02

You aren't crazy .. do a search on Sanford for the year of
2004 and I believe you'll find the thread you are thinking
of. ;-) Ginny

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Children of Alain I of Brittany (d. 907)

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 11 sep 2005 03:33:23

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:19:25 +0000 (UTC), donmac@netactive.co.za ("Don
McArthur") wrote:

Far be it from me to delve into such arcane matters, however I would put a
slightly different interpretation on this.

Two sons of Alain le Grand are identified here:-

i) Rudalt, godson of count Tangui &
ii) Derien, son in law of count Tangui.

There would appear to be no contradiction on these two things - and no
implication that they are one and the same. Or am I mis-reading this?

Tangui is also identified as son in law of Alain le Grand. Again I don't
see a problem here. If a daughter of Tangui married Derien, son of Alain le
Grand - AND Tangui married a daughter of Alain le Grand then undoubtedly
this daughter would be a later marriage for Tangui, perhaps also a later one
for her and without issue.

I did not suggest that the above scenario is inconsistent. However,
being consistent is far from adequate. The problem is the apparent
lack of any evidence which would support this scenario.

Stewart Baldwin

Tony Ingham

Re: Margaret Knyvet's Marriages 1410-1424

Legg inn av Tony Ingham » 11 sep 2005 23:09:01

Hello Will,

The inclusion of the Chipping Norton item, Reference: D/WLC/T271 was
merely to indicate that Margaret [Echyngham] was still alive in abt 1453
and holding the two parts of 1/3 of Chipping Norton which she was was
given [on request] in 1422 just after the death of Thomas Marny.

Calendar of Fine Rolls Vol. XV. 1422-1430 p. 26
1 Henry VI. Dec. 26. Westminster 1422.
Commitment to Margaret late the wife of Thomas Marny, knight, - by
mainprise of John Whateley of London and John Battescombe of the
county of Devon, - of the keeping of two-thirds of a third part of the
manor of Chepyngnorton, which came into the hands of Henry V and are
still in the king's hand by the death of Thomas ; to hold the same
from Michaelmas last for as long as the premises shall remain in the
king's hand on that account, rendering for the keeping 7 marks yearly
by equal portions at Easter and Michaelmas, maintaining the houses,
enclosures and buildings, and supporting all other charges incumbent
on the said two-thirds. By bill of the treasurer.

As regards 'the Joan Throckmorton that you say married John Marney' what
can I say? It certainly looks like a marriage contractual settlement to me.

Sorry I don't know the Throckmortons. They are superficial to my research.

All the best,

Tony Ingham


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 9/7/05 7:25:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nugget10@hotkey.net.au writes:

Abt 1453 Dorset Record Office Reference: D/WLC/T271
KINGSEY, CHIPPING NORTON
(a) Sir Jn. Merney to Thos. Throkmorton & Jn. Rous, esqrs. Gift of 2
parts of his manor of Kyngesey (Bucks.) & 2 parts of 1/3 of manor of Chepyng
Norton (Oxon.) with lands etc.; also reversion of lands, tenements etc. in said
vills which Margaret Ichyngham now holds as dowry after death of Sir Thomas
Merney, the donor's brother.
(b) Thos. Throkmorton & Jn. Rous, esqrs., to Sir Jn. Merney & Joan
Barantyn, lately widow of Denis Barantyn. Demise of property as above, with
remainder on death of Sir John, Joan and the legitimate heirs of their bodies to the
right heirs of Sir John.
(c) Thos. Throkmorton & Jn. Rous, esqrs., to Jn. Bayone & Wm. Elton.
Power of attorney, to seise Sir Jn. Merney and Joan Barantyn of property above.
Undated

SUMMARY :
Margaret the widow of Thomas Marny (d.1420/1) was still living in 1453
when Thomas' younger brother John Marny married as his second wife Joan
Throckmorton, widow of Denis Barantyn. This Margaret married secondly Thomas
Echyngham.

I imagine there is a relationship between Thos. Throkmorton in the A2A
extract above and the Joan Throckmorton that you say married John Marney. But what
is it? Is he her father? brother? son?
Thanks!
Will Johnson




D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 sep 2005 07:47:58

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126499482.514142.321330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

| Dear PMS ~
|
| So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part of
| the world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:
|
| "I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am
| struck by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I
| seriously doubt I will ever be Uriah N. Owen."
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--------------------------------

| Dear PMS ~

Hilarious!

Deucedly appropriate....

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Gjest

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 07:56:01

In a message of 11 Sept Todd Farmerie stated cogent reasons for concluding
that Lawrence Sandford [Sampford] was married to Hawise, daughter of William
Corbet, and granddaughter of Robert Corbet, 4th lord of Caus, and that it was his
mother, not his wife, who was a Basset. Thanks to him for that, and to Paul
Mackenzie for his helpful work on the subject. Can we now regard Mr Farmerie's
conclusion as agreed?
MM

Peter Stewart

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 sep 2005 08:54:56

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er8Ve.241$%f7.1530@eagle.america.net...
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126499482.514142.321330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

| Dear PMS ~
|
| So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part of
| the world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:
|
| "I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am
| struck by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I
| seriously doubt I will ever be Uriah N. Owen."
|
| Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--------------------------------

| Dear PMS ~

Hilarious!

Deucedly appropriate....

'Nuff Said.

No, not enough said, Hines: why can't you plainly & unequivocally state that
you believe Richardson?

What grounds can you have for endorsing his statement as "appropriate" yet
not as true?

Only the same unprincipled, contemptible impulse of "my enemy's enemy is my
friend", that you have shown ever since you were forced to cosy up to
Richardson by your overweening vanity when caught in pretentious ignorance
of Latin over "non sequitur".

As I said before, not one respected participant in this newsgroup has
offered a wrod of support for Richardson. Everyone here knows what he is up
to, and the hopeless shifts & twists that he employs when cornered; and
everone realises that the word of this liar cannot be taken in good faith on
any matter - not on medieval genealogy, not on a question of honour, not on
expressions of friendship or collegiality.

This man grinds on with his fraud like a monkey turning a broken tune from a
hand-organ, allowing Mike Welch to be implicated in his lies rather than
admit them or drop them.

Not a shred of decency, and not a glimmer of intelligence between the sorry
pair of you.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 sep 2005 10:01:37

You can't have seen many organ-grinders' monkeys in Hawaii, Hines - they are
quite capable of imitating a simple arm movement, and can be seen doing so
on film with the keeper doing the dance. Richardson and Hines make up an
ordinary, interchangeable team of this kind.

As for your cutting another caper, failing yet again to mischaracterise me -
no-one is fooled, and you STILL avoid saying that you think Richardson is
telling the truth.

No-one is kidded that you take pleasure in my messages. We know how bitterly
you kick yourself over "non sequitur" to this day, having proved
conclusively in front of us all that you can know nothing of Latin, despite
the borrowed & sub-literate tags on your posts.

My posts are uncomfortably pointed for Hines, and he pretends the opposite.
But it does not follow - or, as he would say, it "is not being followed" -
since he is left avoiding the issues again & again while cavorting around
the nub of the question like a demented jester.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5hbVe.246$%f7.1594@eagle.america.net...
What do you make of this flabbergasted, flustered, furious pogue,
Douglas?

Can ersatz males such as "he" actually have PMS too?

"He" certainly puts on an excellent imitation.

Pogue Stewart is so dumb he thinks the monkey turns the crank on the
hand-organ.

No, the monkey is like Stewart -- he dances for our pleasure on USENET,
with his little red cap -- often on TOP of the hand-organ -- far better
than the most obedient of Pavlov's dogs performing tricks.

Although I've got to admit Pogue Peter does crank his own hand-organ
too -- frequently -- right here on SGM.

The pogue simply has NO shame about that sort of thing.

MOST Un-British -- and I really wouldn't have expected it from an
Australian either -- but standards are slipping rapidly there as well I
suppose.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kvaVe.33262$FA3.24002@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:er8Ve.241$%f7.1530@eagle.america.net...
| > <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
| > news:1126499482.514142.321330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
|
| > | Dear PMS ~
| > |
| > | So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part
of
| > | the world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:
| > |
| > | "I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am
| > | struck by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I
| > | seriously doubt I will ever be Uriah N. Owen."
| > |
| > | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
| > --------------------------------
|
| > | Dear PMS ~
|
| > Hilarious!
|
| > Deucedly appropriate....
|
| > 'Nuff Said.

| This man grinds on with his fraud like a monkey turning a broken tune
from a
| hand-organ...

Gjest

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 10:06:52

I expect a monkey - trained or untrained - would be better able to
refrain from cross-posting irrelevant bilge; unfortunately our Hawaiian
troll is not so skilled.

Plus, it is remarkably unentertaining - most trolls can dance much
better than this one. Very lame.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 sep 2005 10:33:22

What do you make of this flabbergasted, flustered, furious pogue,
Douglas?

Can ersatz males such as "he" actually have PMS too?

"He" certainly puts on an excellent imitation.

Pogue Stewart is so dumb he thinks the monkey turns the crank on the
hand-organ.

No, the monkey is like Stewart -- he dances for our pleasure on USENET,
with his little red cap -- often on TOP of the hand-organ -- far better
than the most obedient of Pavlov's dogs performing tricks.

Although I've got to admit Pogue Peter does crank his own hand-organ
too -- frequently -- right here on SGM.

The pogue simply has NO shame about that sort of thing.

MOST Un-British -- and I really wouldn't have expected it from an
Australian either -- but standards are slipping rapidly there as well I
suppose.

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kvaVe.33262$FA3.24002@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:er8Ve.241$%f7.1530@eagle.america.net...
| > <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
| > news:1126499482.514142.321330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | Dear PMS ~
| > |
| > | So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part
of
| > | the world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:
| > |
| > | "I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am
| > | struck by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I
| > | seriously doubt I will ever be Uriah N. Owen."
| > |
| > | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
| > --------------------------------
| >
| > | Dear PMS ~
| >
| > Hilarious!
| >
| > Deucedly appropriate....
| >
| > 'Nuff Said.

| This man grinds on with his fraud like a monkey turning a broken tune
from a
| hand-organ...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 sep 2005 11:19:02

Recte:

What do you make of this farblondjet, farbissen, farchadat, farpotshket,
flabbergasted, flustered, furious pogue, Douglas?

Can ersatz males such as "he" actually have PMS too?

"He" certainly puts on an excellent imitation.

Pogue Stewart is so dumb he thinks the monkey turns the crank on the
hand-organ.

No, the monkey is like Stewart -- he dances for our pleasure on USENET,
with his little red cap -- often on TOP of the hand-organ -- far better
than the most obedient of Pavlov's dogs performing tricks.

Although I've got to admit Pogue Peter does crank his own hand-organ
too -- frequently -- right here on SGM. Public masturbation.

The pogue simply has NO shame about that sort of thing.

MOST Un-British -- and I really wouldn't have expected it from an
Australian either -- but standards are slipping rapidly there as well I
suppose.

D. Spencer Hines

Landfall Enterprises, Inc.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:kvaVe.33262$FA3.24002@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

| "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:er8Ve.241$%f7.1530@eagle.america.net...
| > <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
| > news:1126499482.514142.321330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | Dear PMS ~
| > |
| > | So the full impact of my previous post will rebound in your part
| > | of the world, I'll repeat it again for added emphasis:
| > |
| > | "I am not, nor have I ever been Uriah N. Owen. And, unless I am
| > | struck by lightning and wake up in someone else's body, I
| > | seriously doubt I will ever be Uriah N. Owen."
| > |
| > | Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
| > --------------------------------
| >
| > | Dear PMS ~
| >
| > Hilarious!
| >
| > Deucedly appropriate....
| >
| > 'Nuff Said.

| This man grinds on with his fraud like a monkey turning a broken tune
| from a hand-organ...

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 12 sep 2005 17:24:00

Dear Judy ~

I published the following note regarding Alice Arundel's alleged affair
with Henry Beaufort in my book, Magna Carta Ancestry, published earlier
this year. I believe it gives a good summary of the current state of
affairs on this issue.

At the time I wrote the note below, the earliest known suggestion that
Alice Arundel was Joan Stradling's mother was the treatise, The Winning
of the Lordship of Glamorgan, written by Sir Edward Stradling in the
period, 1561/66.
However, if we consider the new anagram evidence supplied by John
Brandon's post, then the earliest instance of Alice Arundel being
inferred as Joan Stradling's mother would be contemporary to Joan
Stradling's own lifetime. In other words, we now have a much earlier
source which indicates that Alice Arundel was the mother of Joan
Stradling.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Magna Carta Ancestry (2005), pg. 784.

Note: There is no contemporary evidence that Alice Arundel was either
mistress of Henry Beaufort, or that she was the mother of his
illegitimate daughter, Joan, born say 1390. What little is known of
Alice's life is that she was married sometime before 4 March 1392/3
(date of her father's will) to John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton.
The earliest published instance of Alice being named as Joan
Beaufort's mother is the treatise, The Winning of the Lordship of
Glamorgan, written by Sir Edward Stradling in the period, 1561/66, in
which the author states that his forebear, an earlier Sir Edward
Stradling, "married with Jane, daughter to Henry Beauford, afterwards
Cardinal, begotten (before he was priest) upon Alice, one of the
daughters of Richard, Earl of Arundel." [Reference: Griffiths
"Rise of the Stradlings in of St. Donat's," in Conqueror &
Conquered in Medieval Wales (1994): 30]. Sir Edward Stradling, author
of the treatise, presumably based his statement on family muniments
which have not survived. Actually little is known of Alice Arundel's
life, much beyond her marriage, her death prior to 1415, and the fact
that she left no legitimate issue. Her dates of birth, marriage, and
death are all uncertain. Whatever the truth, Alice has been accepted
as the mother of Henry Beaufort's child by all early knowledgeable
authorities such as Sandford, Brooke, Foss, Le Neve, etc. A recent
attempt to debunk Alice as Joan's mother [see Foundations 1 (2004):
246-258] has alleged without foundation that Joan Beaufort was born
"no later than 1408." Actually, there is some evidence to suggest
that Joan was born much earlier than this, she likely being the same
approximate age as her husband, Sir Edward Stradling, who was born
about 1389 (aged 22 in 1411). During the time period, 1388/93, Henry
Beaufort was a student at Cambridge and Oxford Universities and not yet
in holy orders (see Emden Biog. Reg. of the Univ. of Oxford 1 (1957):
139-142). If Henry Beaufort's daughter Joan was born in that
period, it is barely possible that Joan was the daughter of Alice
Arundel. Suffice to say, further research is needed before the matter
of Joan Beaufort's maternity can be satisfactorily resolved. For the
time being, it is correct to say only that Joan Beaufort was the
daughter of Henry Beaufort, "it is said" by Alice Arundel].


Katheryn_Swynford wrote:
Wasn't the argument for a supposed Henry Beaufort - Alice of Arundel
coupling recently and handily dispatched by Brad Verity in Foundations?

Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

John Brandon

Re: "Uriah N. Owen"

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 sep 2005 18:49:33

Can ersatz males such as "he" actually have PMS too?

Well, they can't actually 'have' it, but they can 'be' it (if their
initials are P.M.S.).

Gjest

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 20:24:01

Mr Stewart,
Please could you desist from this tedious repetition of charges aganst Mr
Richardson. For all I know Mr Richardson may have used a pseudonym in the course
of the flame wars. I for my part do not care if he did. Certainly your
repeated attacks on him do more to undermine the high regard in which I have held you
than they do to damage Mr Richardson's reputation: but above all, as you must
surely see, these attacks are a most unwelcome distraction to all those who
value the work of this group, and who would prefer it if ordinary courtesy were
to prevail.
I have tried to write to you off list, but your published email address does
not work
MM


"Uriah N. Owen"

Gjest

Re: Nomenclature nonsense (OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 21:17:01

I had a Math teacher when I was in 7th grade named Lester Perfect.
Of course Les is the diminuative form of Lester so everyone called him Les
Perfect
Will

Gjest

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 22:30:02

In a message dated 9/10/05 12:07:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

<< John de Sanford=Cecily de Sewardstone
|
John de Sanford=Alice Basset
|
Gilbert de Sanford=Loretta la Zouche
|
Alice de Sanford=Robert de Vere >>


Thank you Rosie, this extends the ancestry I had for James Claypoole, the
immigrant, who descends from this Alice.
Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 sep 2005 23:10:15

<Millerfairfield@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1ad.3ea12d66.3057217c@aol.com...
Mr Stewart,
Please could you desist from this tedious repetition of charges aganst Mr
Richardson. For all I know Mr Richardson may have used a pseudonym in the
course
of the flame wars. I for my part do not care if he did. Certainly your
repeated attacks on him do more to undermine the high regard in which I
have held you
than they do to damage Mr Richardson's reputation: but above all, as you
must
surely see, these attacks are a most unwelcome distraction to all those
who
value the work of this group, and who would prefer it if ordinary courtesy
were
to prevail.
I have tried to write to you off list, but your published email address
does
not work

That's right, as I've said several times. It guards against spam & unwanted
private correspondence about matters raised in the newsgroup.

As for your "high regard", that is equally unwanted.

As for "distraction to all those who value the work of this group", you and
anyone else in this sanctimonious category have CHOSEN to open messages
headed 'Re: "Uriah N. Owen"', and then chosen to gripe publicly about the
unwelcome subject matter you find there. That is a piece of Richardsonian
hypocrisy and stupidity on your part.

Richardson has lied and deceived the newsgroup over years with his phoney
identity "Uriah N. Owen", and he has started a trail of lies off-list to
bolster the fraud. If anyone thinks this behaviour should go unremarked
here, or should be excused in a trice for the sake of peace, they are no
better than apologists for the constant abuse of SGM.

Richardson doesn't have a "reputation" capable of being damaged. Think
before you speak: can you name ONE acknowledged expert in medieval genealogy
who doesn't despise him and his work, or find ONE who will speak up for him?

You are another victim of his fraud if you seek to defend him even by
default, complaining about criticism, although probably as you read this
saying to yourself piously "No, not me". People who fall into the folly of
wishing for peace at the expense of openness and honesty deserve what they
will get from SGM, when this forum is abandoned for a moderated alternative
by people who genuinely want to go about the "valued work" that might have
been done here. Then it will belong to Richardson, and his reputation, and
his friends.

Will Miller Fairfield still be there, I wonder?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 23:23:01

In a message dated 9/10/05 10:52:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

<< ALAN BASSET d1231 , brother of Thomas, and who was succeeded in turn by
his sons Gilbert who died in 1241, Fulk who died in 1259 and Philip who
died in 1271. He had three daughters Phillipa, Alice and Joan. >>

In addition to the three sons and three daughters listed here, Alan de Basset
had as eldest son a Thomas, who d 1230 but had grants of land in 1222 and
1224, seven and five years prior to the first known grant to Gilbert.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 23:26:02

In a message dated 9/10/05 10:52:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

<< ALAN BASSET d1231 , brother of Thomas, and who was succeeded in turn by
his sons Gilbert who died in 1241, Fulk who died in 1259 and Philip who
died in 1271. He had three daughters Phillipa, Alice and Joan. >>

What does this do to the information presented here in May that this couple
also had a daughter Aline who m Drew of Montaigu who were thereby grandparents
to Simon the 1st Baron Montaigu (d 26 Sep 1316)

Are Aline and Alice the same person?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 sep 2005 23:29:02

In a message dated 9/10/05 10:52:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

<< ALICE BASSET. Evidence for her marriage to John Sanford comes from a
grant to her brother Gilbert Basset of the right to present one canon,
by the prior and Canons of Blackmore dedicated to St. Laurence. The
grant refers to the late Alan, son of their late patron Sir John
Sanford, and to Sir Gilbert Basset, uncle of the same Alan, and to
Alice, wife of Sir John. The lands of John de Sanford included Aston
Sanford. In addition to Alan, Alice and John Sanford had a daughter
Cecilia and sons Gilbert, Nicholas, Roger, and Laurence de Sanford. The
four sons appear without any indication of relationship, as witnesses to
a grant to Philip. Gilbert however named his father as John in 1233-4.
Nicholas was in possession of Aston by 1242. >>

And son Fulk
Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 13 sep 2005 00:37:37

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/10/05 10:52:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

ALAN BASSET d1231 , brother of Thomas, and who was succeeded in turn by
his sons Gilbert who died in 1241, Fulk who died in 1259 and Philip who
died in 1271. He had three daughters Phillipa, Alice and Joan.

In addition to the three sons and three daughters listed here, Alan de Basset
had as eldest son a Thomas, who d 1230 but had grants of land in 1222 and
1224, seven and five years prior to the first known grant to Gilbert.

.. . . and Warin and David. For a more compelte list of sons, see my
earlier post (the one that first renamed the Trusted Sources thread to
Basset and Sandford - although the list there is short on daughters).

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 sep 2005 01:16:19

Hines wrote:

<Nothing worth quoting>

And of course SGM will belong to Hines along with Richardson & Brandon
- won't that be fun?

They can exchange infantile, misogynistic jibes while limply failing to
answer each other, as they do everyone else at present.

Richardson can go on lurching to unwarranted conclusions, such as his
today about a sub-literary conceit of anagrams, assuming without
examination or knowledge of the full context that this must be
genealogical evidence, because that's what he wishes it to be.

And he can go on slopping his waste lies in the faces of his few
supporters, as with the pseudonym "Uriah" after Welch had fallen for
his con-trick & Brandon had tried to uphold this as a real name.

Then Hines can chime in with his phoney Latin tag lines, crabbily
insulting all & sundry on the sidelines of any actual controversy while
offering nothing of substance, EVER.

It's hard to see any of these people getting past a competent
moderator, but of course all of them are dumb & stubborn enough to try.

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 sep 2005 01:32:01

Damn! This Pogue Stewart thinks he is a performing seal -- and does his
best to play the role.

However, he's just not as entertaining as a live seal -- one who has
been taught to do some tricks.

B+ for effort though....

DSH

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b1nVe.36138$FA3.28146@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<whining codswallop snipped>

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 13 sep 2005 01:44:03

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/10/05 10:52:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

ALICE BASSET. Evidence for her marriage to John Sanford comes from a
grant to her brother Gilbert Basset of the right to present one canon,
by the prior and Canons of Blackmore dedicated to St. Laurence. The
grant refers to the late Alan, son of their late patron Sir John
Sanford, and to Sir Gilbert Basset, uncle of the same Alan, and to
Alice, wife of Sir John. The lands of John de Sanford included Aston
Sanford. In addition to Alan, Alice and John Sanford had a daughter
Cecilia and sons Gilbert, Nicholas, Roger, and Laurence de Sanford. The
four sons appear without any indication of relationship, as witnesses to
a grant to Philip. Gilbert however named his father as John in 1233-4.
Nicholas was in possession of Aston by 1242.

And son Fulk

The full list we have generated so far would be:

1. John (Sir John was the second witness, after Fulk Basset, of the
grant to Gilbert Basset of the right to name the 'Basset canon', while
the text indicates that Alan's father was now deceased, suggesting that
the witness was son and current senior representative of the family)
2. Alan (deceased a bit before the granting of the Basset canon, which
explicitly names his parents)
3. Gilbert (witness of Basset canon grant, as well as several Basset
charters, eventual heir)
4. Nicholas (names father as John in grant to Laurence, co-witness with
Gilbert)
5. Roger (witnesses grant from Nicholas to Laurence)
6. Laurence (named as brother by Nicholas, Philip Basset took direct
interest in his estate)
7. Fulk, Archbishop (called nephew of Philip Basset, witnessed Philip
Basset charter along with Gilbert)
8. Aline, m. Henry de Bathe
9. Cecilia m. William de Gorham


It does not look like Archbishop John belongs here, through. He appears
to have been a generation younger (someone who died 1294 is not likely
to have been brother of someone who died as an adult between 1223 and
1230), probably a nephew brought over to Ireland through the patronage
of uncle Archbishop Fulk. Since Gilbert was the surviving heir and
himself d. 1249 leaving a daughter and heiress, I suspect that Abp John
was son of Nicholas, Roger, or Laurence. I know of no children of the
first two (and I only know of Roger himself from a single charter). The
son and heir of Laurence, named Thomas, died 1299 and so outlived the
Archbishop who died 1294. Hence John he could well have been a younger
brother of Thomas.


FWIW, I found a photo of Abp Fulk's tomb:

http://www.stpatrickscathedral.ie/13.htm

taf

pj.evans

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av pj.evans » 13 sep 2005 02:28:56

Peter, a competent moderator would have you disemvoweled for trollhood.

Peter Stewart

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 sep 2005 03:20:31

Why not address the substance of the matter, instead of sniping at the edges
like another Brandon?

Obviously I would not have a fraud like Richardson's with "Uriah", & many
others, to bother about in a moderated newsgroup, so that your comment is
not only misjudged but also actively stupid.

Peter Stewart


"pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1126574936.505502.201180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter, a competent moderator would have you disemvoweled for trollhood.

Peter Stewart

Re: "Uriah N.Owen"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 sep 2005 05:08:08

Hines wrote:

Stewart missed his calling and was born too late.

His true calling was obviously to be a censor during World War II -- a
crabby little bachelor, somewhat effeminate and anally-retentive, who
spends his days reading soldiers letters to their girlfriends and
redacting the parts he disapproves of.

Another failure, Hines - if you want to get nearer the mark you will
have to try a lot harder.

War-time censors didn't "redact" letters, they simply blacked out
anything dubious.

As for crabbiness, you can't expect to turn my word already used for
you back onto me with any conviction.

Littleness, effeminacy and constipation are aspects of your fantasy
that tell more about yourself than anyone else. You share this
affliction with Brandon, who crudely tries to make out that male
critics may be female, as if belonging to the other sex could make
their opinons somehow weaker.

Misogyny gets you nowhere, and this silly misconception only reinforces
the aura of lubricity surrounding so many of your own posts and the OT
subjects that consistently enthrall you.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»