Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Uriah N.Owen"
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.
DSH
"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.
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.
DSH
"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.
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: "Uriah N.Owen"
Being female, here in the midst of an almost overwhelmingly male
posting group, I am puzzled by this charge.
While I am somewhat cognizant of the nature of the conflict between the
warring parties, I am utterly baffled as to the charge of misogyny.
My understanding is that the term refers to an irrational hatred of
women and, while some might doubtless debate whether the hatred is
indeed irrational, still misogyny is a hatred of women, and I don't
believe that I've come across misogynistic content.
Perhaps ignorance is bliss?
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
posting group, I am puzzled by this charge.
While I am somewhat cognizant of the nature of the conflict between the
warring parties, I am utterly baffled as to the charge of misogyny.
My understanding is that the term refers to an irrational hatred of
women and, while some might doubtless debate whether the hatred is
indeed irrational, still misogyny is a hatred of women, and I don't
believe that I've come across misogynistic content.
Perhaps ignorance is bliss?
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: "Uriah N.Owen"
Judy (Katheryn Swynford) wrote:
Then apparently you missed the distasteful posts from Richardson, that
Brandon and Hines responded to in kind, containing weak banter about
"PMS", as if I might cause or suffer from the condition & this
reflected badly on a person anyway.
Brandon, as I said before, has several times tried to feminise his
critics as if this - and/or his crude stereotyping of other people's
sexuality from an interest in genealogy - could weaken their position.
Hines and Richardson have resorted to this too.
In all cases the idea of effeminacy is based on nothing but fantasy,
since they have never even encountered me in person. Several people in
this newsgroup have met me, and can report on my personal manner if
this aspect can have any legitimate interest for readers - the fools
are only headed for another embarrassment, as with their inane attempt
to suggest that I had not published literary criticism.
People who respect women do not fall into the ugly ploy of trying to
feminise opponents in order to gain a specious superiority over them.
That is misogyny.
Peter Stewart
Being female, here in the midst of an almost overwhelmingly male
posting group, I am puzzled by this charge.
While I am somewhat cognizant of the nature of the conflict between
the warring parties, I am utterly baffled as to the charge of misogyny.
My understanding is that the term refers to an irrational hatred of
women and, while some might doubtless debate whether the hatred is
indeed irrational, still misogyny is a hatred of women, and I don't
believe that I've come across misogynistic content.
Then apparently you missed the distasteful posts from Richardson, that
Brandon and Hines responded to in kind, containing weak banter about
"PMS", as if I might cause or suffer from the condition & this
reflected badly on a person anyway.
Brandon, as I said before, has several times tried to feminise his
critics as if this - and/or his crude stereotyping of other people's
sexuality from an interest in genealogy - could weaken their position.
Hines and Richardson have resorted to this too.
In all cases the idea of effeminacy is based on nothing but fantasy,
since they have never even encountered me in person. Several people in
this newsgroup have met me, and can report on my personal manner if
this aspect can have any legitimate interest for readers - the fools
are only headed for another embarrassment, as with their inane attempt
to suggest that I had not published literary criticism.
People who respect women do not fall into the ugly ploy of trying to
feminise opponents in order to gain a specious superiority over them.
That is misogyny.
Peter Stewart
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Uriah N. Owen"
You are absolutely right.
Peter Stewart has accused me and others here of being misogynists.
Nonsense!
I haven't seen it -- and I certainly don't practice it.
I treat men and women equally.
I also love women -- my wife first of all.
Stewart allegedly does not have a wife.
I also have serious doubts he has a current, serious, successful,
romantic relationship with a woman.
I honestly think, on balance, that women are "better people" than men.
I have women very close to me -- including my children who are women.
Stewart has no rationale at all for his blathering on this issue.
My theory is that he just runs out of insults and invective -- so he
gets desperate and pulls a new one, no matter how outrageous, out of the
hat.
Women are certainly many of the most important contributors in this
forum.
Vive la difference!
DSH
"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126589303.465766.11430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Being female, here in the midst of an almost overwhelmingly male
| posting group, I am puzzled by this charge.
|
| While I am somewhat cognizant of the nature of the conflict between
| the warring parties, I am utterly baffled as to the charge of
| misogyny.
|
| My understanding is that the term refers to an irrational hatred of
| women and, while some might doubtless debate whether the hatred is
| indeed irrational, still misogyny is a hatred of women, and I don't
| believe that I've come across misogynistic content.
|
| Perhaps ignorance is bliss?
|
| Judy
| http://www.katherineswynford.net
Peter Stewart has accused me and others here of being misogynists.
Nonsense!
I haven't seen it -- and I certainly don't practice it.
I treat men and women equally.
I also love women -- my wife first of all.
Stewart allegedly does not have a wife.
I also have serious doubts he has a current, serious, successful,
romantic relationship with a woman.
I honestly think, on balance, that women are "better people" than men.
I have women very close to me -- including my children who are women.
Stewart has no rationale at all for his blathering on this issue.
My theory is that he just runs out of insults and invective -- so he
gets desperate and pulls a new one, no matter how outrageous, out of the
hat.
Women are certainly many of the most important contributors in this
forum.
Vive la difference!
DSH
"Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126589303.465766.11430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Being female, here in the midst of an almost overwhelmingly male
| posting group, I am puzzled by this charge.
|
| While I am somewhat cognizant of the nature of the conflict between
| the warring parties, I am utterly baffled as to the charge of
| misogyny.
|
| My understanding is that the term refers to an irrational hatred of
| women and, while some might doubtless debate whether the hatred is
| indeed irrational, still misogyny is a hatred of women, and I don't
| believe that I've come across misogynistic content.
|
| Perhaps ignorance is bliss?
|
| Judy
| http://www.katherineswynford.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: "Uriah N. Owen"
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3OuVe.283$%f7.1781@eagle.america.net...
Stewart has since posted his rationale on this issue - for once Hines might
try to address this directly instead of posting arbitrary & generalised
denials. If necessary examples of collusion by Hines in the misogynistic
sneers of Richardson and Brandon will be posted.
While he is at it Hines might also try to state forthrightly whether or no
he believes that Richarson is NOT "Uriah N. Owen". Otherwise he will surely
run into unanswerable accusations of hypocrisy whenever he demands a plain
statement of anyone else's position on any question in future.
Whoever purportedly "alleged" that I do not have a wife, I can't recall. Has
this subject ever come up? The idea of Hines about my life & relationships
is plainly unhinged fantasy as well as indecent speculation - he can know
nothing of my personal circumstances, romantic or otherwise.
As for his own attitude to women, it would be more enlightening to hear from
his wife about this rather than make do with his own account. We know he
can't be trusted to tell the truth or to admit his shortcomings. Remember
deponent verbs, "dayne", the repeated "et" in his pidgin-Latin slogan, and
so many other instances....
Peter Stewart
news:3OuVe.283$%f7.1781@eagle.america.net...
You are absolutely right.
Peter Stewart has accused me and others here of being misogynists.
Nonsense!
I haven't seen it -- and I certainly don't practice it.
I treat men and women equally.
I also love women -- my wife first of all.
Stewart allegedly does not have a wife.
I also have serious doubts he has a current, serious, successful,
romantic relationship with a woman.
I honestly think, on balance, that women are "better people" than men.
I have women very close to me -- including my children who are women.
Stewart has no rationale at all for his blathering on this issue.
Stewart has since posted his rationale on this issue - for once Hines might
try to address this directly instead of posting arbitrary & generalised
denials. If necessary examples of collusion by Hines in the misogynistic
sneers of Richardson and Brandon will be posted.
While he is at it Hines might also try to state forthrightly whether or no
he believes that Richarson is NOT "Uriah N. Owen". Otherwise he will surely
run into unanswerable accusations of hypocrisy whenever he demands a plain
statement of anyone else's position on any question in future.
Whoever purportedly "alleged" that I do not have a wife, I can't recall. Has
this subject ever come up? The idea of Hines about my life & relationships
is plainly unhinged fantasy as well as indecent speculation - he can know
nothing of my personal circumstances, romantic or otherwise.
As for his own attitude to women, it would be more enlightening to hear from
his wife about this rather than make do with his own account. We know he
can't be trusted to tell the truth or to admit his shortcomings. Remember
deponent verbs, "dayne", the repeated "et" in his pidgin-Latin slogan, and
so many other instances....
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
re: Visitations on www.ancestry.com
Recently on this list the issue came up about what Visitations ancestry has
indexed.
Today, while looking for something completely different, I entered John
Arundel and England and amongst the hits (in Local Histories) were these:
1) <a href = "http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7776">Visitations
of Hertfordshire, 1572 and 1634 </a>
2) <a href = "http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7775">Visitations
of Bedfordshire, 1566, 1582, and 1634</a>
3) <a href = "http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7778">Visitation of
Dorset, 1623</a>
It appears to me that these are in-fact indexes to those original
visitations and the people listed therein are certainly in that time period.
The one on Dorset, for example has this full citation
"Ancestry.co.uk. Visitation of Dorset, 1623 [database online]. Provo, Utah:
MyFamily.com, Inc., 2004. Original data: Rylands, John Paul, edit. The
Visitation of the County of Dorset, Taken in the Year 1623, By Henry St. George,
Richmond Herald, and Sampson Lennard, Bluemantle Pursuivant, Marshals and
Deputies to William Camden, Clarenceux King of Arms. London: n.p., 1885."
Will Johnson
indexed.
Today, while looking for something completely different, I entered John
Arundel and England and amongst the hits (in Local Histories) were these:
1) <a href = "http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7776">Visitations
of Hertfordshire, 1572 and 1634 </a>
2) <a href = "http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7775">Visitations
of Bedfordshire, 1566, 1582, and 1634</a>
3) <a href = "http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7778">Visitation of
Dorset, 1623</a>
It appears to me that these are in-fact indexes to those original
visitations and the people listed therein are certainly in that time period.
The one on Dorset, for example has this full citation
"Ancestry.co.uk. Visitation of Dorset, 1623 [database online]. Provo, Utah:
MyFamily.com, Inc., 2004. Original data: Rylands, John Paul, edit. The
Visitation of the County of Dorset, Taken in the Year 1623, By Henry St. George,
Richmond Herald, and Sampson Lennard, Bluemantle Pursuivant, Marshals and
Deputies to William Camden, Clarenceux King of Arms. London: n.p., 1885."
Will Johnson
-
Peter Marrow
William Marowe's widow etc
Dear SGMites,
It is a year after the death of William Marowe, grocer, mayor of London
1455/56, and now after the death of his youngest daughter, Agnes, that we
find one possible reason for William, being referred to as a knight in
later pedigrees and documents. From: 'Folios 41 - 50: Feb 1465-6 -',
Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: L: Edward IV-Henry VII:
Custod 'pueror' Will i Marowe orph' Civit'.
12 May, 6 Edward IV. [A.D. 1466], came Dame (Footnote 1) Katherine Marowe,
widow, John Reynkyn, John Marchall, Thomas Riche, mercers, and Philip
Hardbeen, grocer, and entered into bond in the sum of £1,860 for the
delivery into the Chamber of divers sums of money and jewels, to the use of
William, Thomas, Johanna, and Katherine, children of William Marowe, late
Alderman, the same being bequeathed to them by their said father, and
accruing to them by the decease of Agnes, their sister. (Footnote 2).
Which bond is a vast sum to be passed on to her siblings with the death of
little Agnes. So it seems that Katherine is now putting on 'airs and
graces' by calling herself 'Dame' and wants people to think she is a widow
of a knight and not just the widow of a former mayor. Many mayors were
knighted of course and she may have thought she wasn't receiving her just
respect or deference without that honour and title.
The Calendar of letter books editor's footnotes read:
1. Another instance of an unwarranted assumption of the title by the widow
of a man who never received the honour of knighthood. Cf. supra, pp 40, 51.
2. A marginal note to the effect that on the 28th April 19 Edward IV [A.D.
1479], Robert Frogmarten, who married the above Katherine, daughter of
William Marowe, came into Court, before Richard Gradyner, the mayor, and
the Aldermen, and acknowledged satisfaction for his wife's property.
'Robert Frogmarten' is the chap normally known as Robert Throckmorton of
Coughton. The other examples of the false adoption of the title 'Dame',
mentioned in #1 above, are firstly 'Dame' Agnes Foster, Wife of Stephen
"Forster", fishmonger, M.P. for the City, 1435; Alderman of Bread Street
Ward, 1444-58; Sheriff, 1444-5; Mayor, 1454-5.; and secondly 'Dame' Anne
Boleyn, widow of Geoffrey Boleyn, Alderman, Of Castle Baynard Ward 1452-
1457; of Bassishaw from 1457 until his death in 1463; Sheriff 1446-7; Mayor
1457-8. His grandson, Sir Thomas Boleyn, was father of Anne Boleyn,
sometime wife of King Henry VIII. Both of the above are from 'Folios 21-31:
Oct 1463', Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: L: Edward
IV-Henry VII.
My questions about all the above:
1) Is there any historical evidence that there were heavy penalties for the
false adoption of the honour of knighthood at that epoch?
2) What about those ladies styling themselves Dame?
best regards
Peter Marrow
It is a year after the death of William Marowe, grocer, mayor of London
1455/56, and now after the death of his youngest daughter, Agnes, that we
find one possible reason for William, being referred to as a knight in
later pedigrees and documents. From: 'Folios 41 - 50: Feb 1465-6 -',
Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: L: Edward IV-Henry VII:
Custod 'pueror' Will i Marowe orph' Civit'.
12 May, 6 Edward IV. [A.D. 1466], came Dame (Footnote 1) Katherine Marowe,
widow, John Reynkyn, John Marchall, Thomas Riche, mercers, and Philip
Hardbeen, grocer, and entered into bond in the sum of £1,860 for the
delivery into the Chamber of divers sums of money and jewels, to the use of
William, Thomas, Johanna, and Katherine, children of William Marowe, late
Alderman, the same being bequeathed to them by their said father, and
accruing to them by the decease of Agnes, their sister. (Footnote 2).
Which bond is a vast sum to be passed on to her siblings with the death of
little Agnes. So it seems that Katherine is now putting on 'airs and
graces' by calling herself 'Dame' and wants people to think she is a widow
of a knight and not just the widow of a former mayor. Many mayors were
knighted of course and she may have thought she wasn't receiving her just
respect or deference without that honour and title.
The Calendar of letter books editor's footnotes read:
1. Another instance of an unwarranted assumption of the title by the widow
of a man who never received the honour of knighthood. Cf. supra, pp 40, 51.
2. A marginal note to the effect that on the 28th April 19 Edward IV [A.D.
1479], Robert Frogmarten, who married the above Katherine, daughter of
William Marowe, came into Court, before Richard Gradyner, the mayor, and
the Aldermen, and acknowledged satisfaction for his wife's property.
'Robert Frogmarten' is the chap normally known as Robert Throckmorton of
Coughton. The other examples of the false adoption of the title 'Dame',
mentioned in #1 above, are firstly 'Dame' Agnes Foster, Wife of Stephen
"Forster", fishmonger, M.P. for the City, 1435; Alderman of Bread Street
Ward, 1444-58; Sheriff, 1444-5; Mayor, 1454-5.; and secondly 'Dame' Anne
Boleyn, widow of Geoffrey Boleyn, Alderman, Of Castle Baynard Ward 1452-
1457; of Bassishaw from 1457 until his death in 1463; Sheriff 1446-7; Mayor
1457-8. His grandson, Sir Thomas Boleyn, was father of Anne Boleyn,
sometime wife of King Henry VIII. Both of the above are from 'Folios 21-31:
Oct 1463', Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: L: Edward
IV-Henry VII.
My questions about all the above:
1) Is there any historical evidence that there were heavy penalties for the
false adoption of the honour of knighthood at that epoch?
2) What about those ladies styling themselves Dame?
best regards
Peter Marrow
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
In message of 14 Sep, peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk (Peter Marrow) wrote:
<snip>
Interesting. At least Sir Geoffrey is given that title in several
publications, viz:
CP Vol III, p. 347, sub Cobham.
Dictionary of National Biography, in Queen Anne Boleyn's article
Testamenta Vetusta, pp. 290-300, in a note to the abstract of his will.
The Visitations of Beds 1566, 1582 and 1634, p. 15
So I would like to see some clearer detail that he did not have a
knighthood.
No idea. Though I know of a coupel of people who were executed because
they were supposed to have used the Royal Coat of Arms.
I don't think there was a problem here as (a) it was not a title,
merely a style, and (b) I think many ladies came to be called Dame who
were not the wives of knights, perhaps it was like Esquire, a term of
undefined meaning.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip>
The other examples of the false adoption of the title 'Dame',
mentioned in #1 above, are firstly 'Dame' Agnes Foster, Wife of Stephen
"Forster", fishmonger, M.P. for the City, 1435; Alderman of Bread Street
Ward, 1444-58; Sheriff, 1444-5; Mayor, 1454-5.; and secondly 'Dame' Anne
Boleyn, widow of Geoffrey Boleyn, Alderman, Of Castle Baynard Ward 1452-
1457; of Bassishaw from 1457 until his death in 1463; Sheriff 1446-7; Mayor
1457-8.
Interesting. At least Sir Geoffrey is given that title in several
publications, viz:
CP Vol III, p. 347, sub Cobham.
Dictionary of National Biography, in Queen Anne Boleyn's article
Testamenta Vetusta, pp. 290-300, in a note to the abstract of his will.
The Visitations of Beds 1566, 1582 and 1634, p. 15
So I would like to see some clearer detail that he did not have a
knighthood.
My questions about all the above:
1) Is there any historical evidence that there were heavy penalties
for the false adoption of the honour of knighthood at that epoch?
No idea. Though I know of a coupel of people who were executed because
they were supposed to have used the Royal Coat of Arms.
2) What about those ladies styling themselves Dame?
I don't think there was a problem here as (a) it was not a title,
merely a style, and (b) I think many ladies came to be called Dame who
were not the wives of knights, perhaps it was like Esquire, a term of
undefined meaning.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
Sometimes, as with coded messages, partisanship can be read where none
is intended.
I, for one, find Seaton's hypothesis intriguing, and am grateful (as
expressed above) to John for kindly drawing our attention to it. I am
keen to ascertain exactly what the hypothesis involves, and as part of
trying to understand that have sought to clarify some of the terms used
(and possibly mis-used by Seaton) - not because they necessarily
undermine the hypothesis, but because they obfuscate my understanding
of it.
My Shakespeare jest was, like I am sure Will's, a light-hearted jest
only, and not intended to mock. At the same time, some scepticism is
not unwarranted, given the claims made in other sources of such 'hidden
messages', hence my reference to the so-called Bible Code: a quick
google will reveal that this is a theory that the text of the Hebrew
Old Testament contains all manner of historical predictions, the
tenability of which is called into question by the sheer volume of
letters involved in the text from which more-or-less random selections
are taken. Scholarship surely includes testing hypotheses, not just
admiring them for their orginality.
I would be grateful for further details, including any input from those
with knowledge about the contemporary use (or no-use) of such literary
devices.
Cheers
Michael
is intended.
I, for one, find Seaton's hypothesis intriguing, and am grateful (as
expressed above) to John for kindly drawing our attention to it. I am
keen to ascertain exactly what the hypothesis involves, and as part of
trying to understand that have sought to clarify some of the terms used
(and possibly mis-used by Seaton) - not because they necessarily
undermine the hypothesis, but because they obfuscate my understanding
of it.
My Shakespeare jest was, like I am sure Will's, a light-hearted jest
only, and not intended to mock. At the same time, some scepticism is
not unwarranted, given the claims made in other sources of such 'hidden
messages', hence my reference to the so-called Bible Code: a quick
google will reveal that this is a theory that the text of the Hebrew
Old Testament contains all manner of historical predictions, the
tenability of which is called into question by the sheer volume of
letters involved in the text from which more-or-less random selections
are taken. Scholarship surely includes testing hypotheses, not just
admiring them for their orginality.
I would be grateful for further details, including any input from those
with knowledge about the contemporary use (or no-use) of such literary
devices.
Cheers
Michael
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
Well said, Michael.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Sometimes, as with coded messages, partisanship can be read where none
is intended.
I, for one, find Seaton's hypothesis intriguing, and am grateful (as
expressed above) to John for kindly drawing our attention to it. I am
keen to ascertain exactly what the hypothesis involves, and as part of
trying to understand that have sought to clarify some of the terms used
(and possibly mis-used by Seaton) - not because they necessarily
undermine the hypothesis, but because they obfuscate my understanding
of it.
My Shakespeare jest was, like I am sure Will's, a light-hearted jest
only, and not intended to mock. At the same time, some scepticism is
not unwarranted, given the claims made in other sources of such 'hidden
messages', hence my reference to the so-called Bible Code: a quick
google will reveal that this is a theory that the text of the Hebrew
Old Testament contains all manner of historical predictions, the
tenability of which is called into question by the sheer volume of
letters involved in the text from which more-or-less random selections
are taken. Scholarship surely includes testing hypotheses, not just
admiring them for their orginality.
I would be grateful for further details, including any input from those
with knowledge about the contemporary use (or no-use) of such literary
devices.
Cheers
Michael
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
"As Brad suggested, Seaton's work may be interesting but not
conclusive."
If Seaton's anagram-(logogriph-) reading is sound, of course this bit
of evidence alone could never constitute in and of itself genealogical
proof. I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
bring us closer to a clear determination.
I sincerely regret the obvious partisanship here. It is sad to witness
scholars seeming to care more about winning their points than arriving
ever more closely at the truth.
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
conclusive."
If Seaton's anagram-(logogriph-) reading is sound, of course this bit
of evidence alone could never constitute in and of itself genealogical
proof. I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
bring us closer to a clear determination.
I sincerely regret the obvious partisanship here. It is sad to witness
scholars seeming to care more about winning their points than arriving
ever more closely at the truth.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #798
mvernonconnolly writes:-
<snip>
She is given as d.1422, daughter and
heiress of Edmund Flambard of Shepreth, Cambs.; so the subsequent
descent of that manor might confirm it one way or the other.
<snip>
She is given as d.1422, daughter and
heiress of Edmund Flambard of Shepreth, Cambs.; so the subsequent
descent of that manor might confirm it one way or the other.
She is given as d.1422, daughter and
heiress of Edmund Flambard of Shepreth, Cambs.; so the subsequent
descent of that manor might confirm it one way or the other.
-
Gjest
Re: Hidden words
Mvernonconnolly writes:-
<snip>
<She is given as d.1422, daughter and heiress of Edmund
<Flambard of Shepreth, Cambs.; so the subsequent
<descent of that manor might confirm it one way or the other.
Do the underlined letters reveal the author's identity?
MM
<snip>
<She is given as d.1422, daughter and heiress of Edmund
<Flambard of Shepreth, Cambs.; so the subsequent
<descent of that manor might confirm it one way or the other.
Do the underlined letters reveal the author's identity?
MM
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
"Anagrams are thus clearly not of the same evidentiary caliber as ouija
boards, but probably not a genealogical solution in this particular
case."
Judy, Thanks so much for the info from Chaucernet. Was really eager to
learn something of Seaton's reputation; sadly impeached, it would now
appear, though not completely discredited. It would be useful if more
opinions of her work cold be found, also discussions, examinations in
re: to the wishful-thinking factor in anagrams/logogriphs. Are they
indeed devices open-ended to too many interpretations?
Thanks again.
Tony Hoskins
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
boards, but probably not a genealogical solution in this particular
case."
Judy, Thanks so much for the info from Chaucernet. Was really eager to
learn something of Seaton's reputation; sadly impeached, it would now
appear, though not completely discredited. It would be useful if more
opinions of her work cold be found, also discussions, examinations in
re: to the wishful-thinking factor in anagrams/logogriphs. Are they
indeed devices open-ended to too many interpretations?
Thanks again.
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
Tony Hoskins writes:
argument is fine to start with, it often gets extended. Each small step
seems to follow logically from the previous one but when you stand back and
look at the whole it is nonsense.
The argument here about anagrams has not reached that stage but one always
fears that in the wrong hands it will and so instinctively there is
scepticism.
An example from another area - the earth precesses on its axis 1 degree
every 72 years. Graham Hancock then reads 72 (and multiples of it)into all
sorts of ancient monuments from Quetzacoatel to Giza and Ankhor (he says the
number 72 is hard-wired into the Great Pyramid). Others pick this up eg
Robert Bauval and read more into these sites and before you realise it you
have David Icke and lizards visiting earth in 10000 BC
Hope you are not offended by this Tony - I just have a fear of good theories
being highjacked
cheers
Simon
I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
bring us closer to a clear determination.
One reason that there are so many scoffers is that although this type of
argument is fine to start with, it often gets extended. Each small step
seems to follow logically from the previous one but when you stand back and
look at the whole it is nonsense.
The argument here about anagrams has not reached that stage but one always
fears that in the wrong hands it will and so instinctively there is
scepticism.
An example from another area - the earth precesses on its axis 1 degree
every 72 years. Graham Hancock then reads 72 (and multiples of it)into all
sorts of ancient monuments from Quetzacoatel to Giza and Ankhor (he says the
number 72 is hard-wired into the Great Pyramid). Others pick this up eg
Robert Bauval and read more into these sites and before you realise it you
have David Icke and lizards visiting earth in 10000 BC
Hope you are not offended by this Tony - I just have a fear of good theories
being highjacked
cheers
Simon
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
"I just have a fear of good theories being highjacked"
Hello Simon,
You make an excellent point. I share your fear. Anagrams would appear
to provide similar opportunities to the one you cite - constructs
capable of becoming tools of delusion in the wrong hands. Thanks for
your words.
Regards,
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
Hello Simon,
You make an excellent point. I share your fear. Anagrams would appear
to provide similar opportunities to the one you cite - constructs
capable of becoming tools of delusion in the wrong hands. Thanks for
your words.
Regards,
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
In a message dated 9/14/05 7:03:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< It is a year after the death of William Marowe, grocer, mayor of London
1455/56, and now after the death of his youngest daughter, Agnes, that we
find one possible reason for William, >>
What is your source for the exact death date of William Marrow ?
Also do you have a marriage date (and source) for the marriage of Robert
Throckmorton to Katherine Marrow ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< It is a year after the death of William Marowe, grocer, mayor of London
1455/56, and now after the death of his youngest daughter, Agnes, that we
find one possible reason for William, >>
What is your source for the exact death date of William Marrow ?
Also do you have a marriage date (and source) for the marriage of Robert
Throckmorton to Katherine Marrow ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
Further, on the Throckmorton descent, I had not had a good marriage date for
George Throckmorton d abt 1553/4 to Katherine Vaux d of Nicholas Vaux who d 14
May 1523 (DNB "Vaux, Nicholas")
Now I present such document establishing an approx. date for that marriage.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
Warwickshire County Record Office: Throckmorton
THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. CR 1998
Creator(s): Throckmorton family of Coughton
Family and Marriage Settlements, Wills, etc.
FILE [no title] - ref. CR 1998/Box 72/1 - date: 26 May 1501
[from Scope and Content] Covenants between Sir Nicholas Vaus and Robert
Throckmorton esq., previous to the marriage of Katereyn, second daughter of Sir
Nicholas, and George Throckmorton, son and heir apparent of Robert.
George Throckmorton d abt 1553/4 to Katherine Vaux d of Nicholas Vaux who d 14
May 1523 (DNB "Vaux, Nicholas")
Now I present such document establishing an approx. date for that marriage.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
Warwickshire County Record Office: Throckmorton
THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. CR 1998
Creator(s): Throckmorton family of Coughton
Family and Marriage Settlements, Wills, etc.
FILE [no title] - ref. CR 1998/Box 72/1 - date: 26 May 1501
[from Scope and Content] Covenants between Sir Nicholas Vaus and Robert
Throckmorton esq., previous to the marriage of Katereyn, second daughter of Sir
Nicholas, and George Throckmorton, son and heir apparent of Robert.
-
Gjest
Re: Throckmorton family
Previously I had not found a good date for the marriage of Thomas
Throckmorton to Margaret Whorwood.
I now present that document.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Throckmorton of Coughton
[DR5/842 - DR5/3407]
THROCKMORTON OF COUGHTON
Catalogue Ref. DR5
Creator(s):
Throckmorton family of Coughton Court, Warwickshire
Fladbury
Manor
FILE - Deed - ref. DR5/1752 - date: 30 November 1555
[from Scope and Content] Counterpart of the settlement between
Sir Robert Throckmorton of Coughton, Warws. knt. and William Sheldon of
Beoley, Worcs. esq. and Margaret his wife, late wife of William Horwood esq.
deceased, being a settlement previous to the marriage of Thomas Throckmorton, son
and heir of Sir Robert Throckmorton, to Margaret Horwood, daughter of the said
Margaret Sheldon, of the manor of Throckmorton with lands belonging to the
same, excepting certain lands in Hill and Moor in Fladbury.
Throckmorton to Margaret Whorwood.
I now present that document.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Throckmorton of Coughton
[DR5/842 - DR5/3407]
THROCKMORTON OF COUGHTON
Catalogue Ref. DR5
Creator(s):
Throckmorton family of Coughton Court, Warwickshire
Fladbury
Manor
FILE - Deed - ref. DR5/1752 - date: 30 November 1555
[from Scope and Content] Counterpart of the settlement between
Sir Robert Throckmorton of Coughton, Warws. knt. and William Sheldon of
Beoley, Worcs. esq. and Margaret his wife, late wife of William Horwood esq.
deceased, being a settlement previous to the marriage of Thomas Throckmorton, son
and heir of Sir Robert Throckmorton, to Margaret Horwood, daughter of the said
Margaret Sheldon, of the manor of Throckmorton with lands belonging to the
same, excepting certain lands in Hill and Moor in Fladbury.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
It took apparently 11 years before their first child was born and they had
about 16 children born between 1512 and 1528, about one a year. I have no
date of death for Katherine which should be 1528 or after not 1523.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: William Marowe's widow etc
about 16 children born between 1512 and 1528, about one a year. I have no
date of death for Katherine which should be 1528 or after not 1523.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: William Marowe's widow etc
Further, on the Throckmorton descent, I had not had a good marriage date
for
George Throckmorton d abt 1553/4 to Katherine Vaux d of Nicholas Vaux who
d 14
May 1523 (DNB "Vaux, Nicholas")
Now I present such document establishing an approx. date for that
marriage.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------
Warwickshire County Record Office: Throckmorton
THE THROCKMORTON PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. CR 1998
Creator(s): Throckmorton family of Coughton
Family and Marriage Settlements, Wills, etc.
FILE [no title] - ref. CR 1998/Box 72/1 - date: 26 May 1501
[from Scope and Content] Covenants between Sir Nicholas Vaus and Robert
Throckmorton esq., previous to the marriage of Katereyn, second daughter
of Sir
Nicholas, and George Throckmorton, son and heir apparent of Robert.
-
Gjest
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
Leo the 14 May 1523 date is the death date of her *father* Nicholas Vaux, not
of Katherine.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 9/14/05 2:32:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< It took apparently 11 years before their first child was born and they had
about 16 children born between 1512 and 1528, about one a year. I have no
date of death for Katherine which should be 1528 or after not 1523.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: William Marowe's widow etc
of Katherine.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 9/14/05 2:32:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< It took apparently 11 years before their first child was born and they had
about 16 children born between 1512 and 1528, about one a year. I have no
date of death for Katherine which should be 1528 or after not 1523.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: William Marowe's widow etc
Further, on the Throckmorton descent, I had not had a good marriage date
for
George Throckmorton d abt 1553/4 to Katherine Vaux d of Nicholas Vaux who
d 14
May 1523 (DNB "Vaux, Nicholas")
-
Gjest
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #799
In a message dated 14/09/05 8:54:27 PM GMT Daylight Time,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com writes:
Hidden words
-
Gjest
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #799
ISorry - I did not realise that the board does not accept underlinngs. Here's
another try:-
Mvernonconnolly writes:-
<snip>
<She is given as d.1422, daughter and heiress of Edmund
<Flambard of ShePreth, CaMbS.; so the subsequent
<descent of that manor might confirm iT onE WAy oR The other.
Do the extra capitalised letters reveal the author's identity?
MM
another try:-
Mvernonconnolly writes:-
<snip>
<She is given as d.1422, daughter and heiress of Edmund
<Flambard of ShePreth, CaMbS.; so the subsequent
<descent of that manor might confirm iT onE WAy oR The other.
Do the extra capitalised letters reveal the author's identity?
MM
Mvernonconnolly writes:-
snip
She is given as d.1422, daughter and heiress of Edmund
Flambard of Shepreth, Cambs.; so the subsequent
descent of that manor might confirm it one way or the other.
Do the underlined letters reveal the author's identity?
MM
-
Tony Ingham
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
Pete,
If you look for the the common denominator you will find the Dames were
wives of the Mayors of London. In those days the mayor was the second
most important man in the realm, closely followed by his Aldermen. No
king or challenger to his crown could hold England without London, e.g.
Richard III and Sir Edmund Shaa.
Regards,
Tony Ingham
Peter Marrow wrote:
If you look for the the common denominator you will find the Dames were
wives of the Mayors of London. In those days the mayor was the second
most important man in the realm, closely followed by his Aldermen. No
king or challenger to his crown could hold England without London, e.g.
Richard III and Sir Edmund Shaa.
Regards,
Tony Ingham
Peter Marrow wrote:
Dear SGMites,
It is a year after the death of William Marowe, grocer, mayor of
London 1455/56, and now after the death of his youngest daughter,
Agnes, that we find one possible reason for William, being referred to
as a knight in later pedigrees and documents. From: 'Folios 41 - 50:
Feb 1465-6 -', Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: L:
Edward IV-Henry VII:
Custod 'pueror' Will i Marowe orph' Civit'.
12 May, 6 Edward IV. [A.D. 1466], came Dame (Footnote 1) Katherine
Marowe, widow, John Reynkyn, John Marchall, Thomas Riche, mercers, and
Philip Hardbeen, grocer, and entered into bond in the sum of £1,860
for the delivery into the Chamber of divers sums of money and jewels,
to the use of William, Thomas, Johanna, and Katherine, children of
William Marowe, late Alderman, the same being bequeathed to them by
their said father, and accruing to them by the decease of Agnes, their
sister. (Footnote 2).
Which bond is a vast sum to be passed on to her siblings with the
death of little Agnes. So it seems that Katherine is now putting on
'airs and graces' by calling herself 'Dame' and wants people to think
she is a widow of a knight and not just the widow of a former mayor.
Many mayors were knighted of course and she may have thought she
wasn't receiving her just respect or deference without that honour and
title.
The Calendar of letter books editor's footnotes read:
1. Another instance of an unwarranted assumption of the title by the
widow of a man who never received the honour of knighthood. Cf.
supra, pp 40, 51.
2. A marginal note to the effect that on the 28th April 19 Edward IV
[A.D. 1479], Robert Frogmarten, who married the above Katherine,
daughter of William Marowe, came into Court, before Richard Gradyner,
the mayor, and the Aldermen, and acknowledged satisfaction for his
wife's property.
'Robert Frogmarten' is the chap normally known as Robert Throckmorton
of Coughton. The other examples of the false adoption of the title
'Dame', mentioned in #1 above, are firstly 'Dame' Agnes Foster, Wife
of Stephen "Forster", fishmonger, M.P. for the City, 1435; Alderman of
Bread Street Ward, 1444-58; Sheriff, 1444-5; Mayor, 1454-5.; and
secondly 'Dame' Anne Boleyn, widow of Geoffrey Boleyn, Alderman, Of
Castle Baynard Ward 1452- 1457; of Bassishaw from 1457 until his death
in 1463; Sheriff 1446-7; Mayor 1457-8. His grandson, Sir Thomas
Boleyn, was father of Anne Boleyn, sometime wife of King Henry VIII.
Both of the above are from 'Folios 21-31: Oct 1463', Calendar of
letter-books of the city of London: L: Edward IV-Henry VII.
My questions about all the above:
1) Is there any historical evidence that there were heavy penalties
for the false adoption of the honour of knighthood at that epoch?
2) What about those ladies styling themselves Dame?
best regards
Peter Marrow
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Basset and Sandford (was Re: Trusted Sources)
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I finally got a look at DNB, and it cites the Cal. of Papal Letters that
Alex. IV granted a dispensation for Philip Basset to marry Ela, Countess
of Warwick, "on 'the signification of his nephew, the Archbishop of
Dublin'". It goes on to say, "It seems certain that Fulk was
illegitimate son of one or other of Philip;s brothers, either Gilbert
Basset (d. 1241) [q.v.] or Fulk Basset, bishop of London, but whether of
the knight or the bishiop there seems no evidence to determine." This
last comment makes one wonder whether, if there is no evidence on which
to conclude which brother, how there is such certainty that it is one or
the other, and not some other sibling (like, say, Alice). Here, though,
we have the apparent source for the Britannica.
This speculation is misplaced. A significant issue involved in the
instalation of John as Archbishop was his illegitimacy, well documented
in Papal Letters. Thus succession is no key, and he could have been son
of any of the brothers, even of the Bishop himself.
taf
7. Fulk, Archbishop (called nephew of Philip Basset, witnessed Philip
Basset charter along with Gilbert)
I finally got a look at DNB, and it cites the Cal. of Papal Letters that
Alex. IV granted a dispensation for Philip Basset to marry Ela, Countess
of Warwick, "on 'the signification of his nephew, the Archbishop of
Dublin'". It goes on to say, "It seems certain that Fulk was
illegitimate son of one or other of Philip;s brothers, either Gilbert
Basset (d. 1241) [q.v.] or Fulk Basset, bishop of London, but whether of
the knight or the bishiop there seems no evidence to determine." This
last comment makes one wonder whether, if there is no evidence on which
to conclude which brother, how there is such certainty that it is one or
the other, and not some other sibling (like, say, Alice). Here, though,
we have the apparent source for the Britannica.
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.
This speculation is misplaced. A significant issue involved in the
instalation of John as Archbishop was his illegitimacy, well documented
in Papal Letters. Thus succession is no key, and he could have been son
of any of the brothers, even of the Bishop himself.
taf
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: Mabel de Staunton, wife of Sir John de Coggeshall - Kts
Group,
The below entries on Ralph seem to correspond to the limited amount of references to Ralph in George Frederick Beaumont's A History of Coggeshall, in Essex (pg 91), but Beaumont essentially paraphrases the same 1279 record mentioned below . These are the only sources I've seen for the mention connecting Lawrence de Coggeshall to Ralph.
* COGGESHALE, Sr Ralph de, Kt. De Argent a une crois e iiii escalops de sable. Ess. (Parl.). Witnesses deed in Ess. 18 June 1273 (C.R.) Ralph fil. Lawrence de Coggeshale confirms alienation of lands at Markshall to St. Mary's Church, Coggeshale, 12 Nov. 1279 (P.R.) Abbot of St. Edmond's enfeoffed him and w. Elizabeth of Tedenho Manor for life at 100/- p.a. rent 17 Jy. 1279 (F.R.) An exor. of Wm. fil. Warin de Monte Caniso 25 June 1289 (C.R.). Lic for Rob. Fitz Walter to lease to him Hemenhale and Sheringe Manors 24 Aug. 1294, the latter for life at £20 rent 14 Oct. 1295 (P.R.) As a Kt of Ess., non-resident, enrolled for defense of coast 1296. Sumd to Council at Rochester 8 Sep. 1297, and to serve agst. Scots 1297-8 and 1301 (P.W.). Writ for his Inq. 4 May 1305. He held Manors of Pakelesham, Codham, Dodenhoo, and Coggeshale, and other lands in Ess. as 1 1/2 Kt. Fee, and left a s. h. John, 26-30 (Inq.).
* COGGESHALE, John de. S. h. of the last. His w. Sarra is d. of Lawrence de Plumbergh, who has granted to them lands in Lit. Beniflete, 4 June 1305 (F.R.). Writ for his Inq. 24 Mar 1319. He held nearly the same lands as his f., and left s.h. John, 18 (Inq.). Qualified for Kthood.
Michael, thank you very much for the information about Roskell's view of Blanche's parentage. Moriarty published a long piece on the Tyrells and it had some confusing wording which implied that Blanch was the daughter of wife number one.
As I mentioned before, the IPMs Moriarty provides dovetail perfectly with what KTs had to say. It is noteworthy that KTs has a different ancestry of John's wife's, which seems borne out by the Manors John posessed at his IPM.
By the way, I'm not sure if everyone understands that Moriarty's work is included on Family Tree Maker CD-Rom # 181. The pagination is different (I just looked at the NEHGS site via my handy dandy new account to confirm original publication date since the CD doesn't do a good job of that) but all of the content seems to be on the CD Rom.
*SRC: Knights of Edward I by Rev C Moor, DD, FSA, FRHistS pg 220.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
The below entries on Ralph seem to correspond to the limited amount of references to Ralph in George Frederick Beaumont's A History of Coggeshall, in Essex (pg 91), but Beaumont essentially paraphrases the same 1279 record mentioned below . These are the only sources I've seen for the mention connecting Lawrence de Coggeshall to Ralph.
* COGGESHALE, Sr Ralph de, Kt. De Argent a une crois e iiii escalops de sable. Ess. (Parl.). Witnesses deed in Ess. 18 June 1273 (C.R.) Ralph fil. Lawrence de Coggeshale confirms alienation of lands at Markshall to St. Mary's Church, Coggeshale, 12 Nov. 1279 (P.R.) Abbot of St. Edmond's enfeoffed him and w. Elizabeth of Tedenho Manor for life at 100/- p.a. rent 17 Jy. 1279 (F.R.) An exor. of Wm. fil. Warin de Monte Caniso 25 June 1289 (C.R.). Lic for Rob. Fitz Walter to lease to him Hemenhale and Sheringe Manors 24 Aug. 1294, the latter for life at £20 rent 14 Oct. 1295 (P.R.) As a Kt of Ess., non-resident, enrolled for defense of coast 1296. Sumd to Council at Rochester 8 Sep. 1297, and to serve agst. Scots 1297-8 and 1301 (P.W.). Writ for his Inq. 4 May 1305. He held Manors of Pakelesham, Codham, Dodenhoo, and Coggeshale, and other lands in Ess. as 1 1/2 Kt. Fee, and left a s. h. John, 26-30 (Inq.).
* COGGESHALE, John de. S. h. of the last. His w. Sarra is d. of Lawrence de Plumbergh, who has granted to them lands in Lit. Beniflete, 4 June 1305 (F.R.). Writ for his Inq. 24 Mar 1319. He held nearly the same lands as his f., and left s.h. John, 18 (Inq.). Qualified for Kthood.
Michael, thank you very much for the information about Roskell's view of Blanche's parentage. Moriarty published a long piece on the Tyrells and it had some confusing wording which implied that Blanch was the daughter of wife number one.
As I mentioned before, the IPMs Moriarty provides dovetail perfectly with what KTs had to say. It is noteworthy that KTs has a different ancestry of John's wife's, which seems borne out by the Manors John posessed at his IPM.
By the way, I'm not sure if everyone understands that Moriarty's work is included on Family Tree Maker CD-Rom # 181. The pagination is different (I just looked at the NEHGS site via my handy dandy new account to confirm original publication date since the CD doesn't do a good job of that) but all of the content seems to be on the CD Rom.
*SRC: Knights of Edward I by Rev C Moor, DD, FSA, FRHistS pg 220.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: Mabel de Staunton, wife of Sir John de Coggeshall - Kts
I Hit send too fast,
Meant to add that the difference in John's wife's ancestry was not between Beaumont's work and Kts of Edward I, but between Kts of Edward I and Bob Coggeshall's website http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com/~kiowa/eng.htm.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
Meant to add that the difference in John's wife's ancestry was not between Beaumont's work and Kts of Edward I, but between Kts of Edward I and Bob Coggeshall's website http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com/~kiowa/eng.htm.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
-
Brad Verity
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
I first want to thank Peter Stewart and Judy Perry for calmly examining
the Seaton material (or in Judy's case, seeking the opinion of those
familiar with it) and explaining why it should not be considered "a
much earlier source which indicates that Alice Arundel was the mother
of Joan
Stradling", as Douglas Richardson posted earlier in this thread.
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
Seaton's reading of the poem - anagrams, logoriths, themes, messages in
the text, etc. - can only ever be a 1960-61 interpretation of a
15th-century work. It is not primary genealogy evidence. Even if the
poem had been explicit in stating that Henry Beaufort had an affair
with Alice, Lady of Powis, there is no way of determining if whichever
poet wrote it was making it up, elaborating, or what have you.
What I, a "scoffer", took offense to personally was the suggestion from
John Brandon that I had somehow suppressed the Seaton material by
leaving it out of my article. Even had I seen it before I wrote the
piece, however, I would not have addressed it. I don't feel literary
interpretation is sound genealogy. If that stance makes me
"prejudiced", I'll accept that label.
Nor did I try to quash anything - everyone on this newsgroup is
entitled to explore whatever avenue they wish regarding this "case",
just as I am entitled to my position that the case (Alice Lady Powis as
mistress of Cardinal Beaufort and mother of his daughter Jane
Stradling) is closed.
If "many facts and strong evidence" is meant to indicate a support that
Alice was the mistress and Cardinal and mother of Jane, I'd like to see
them enumerated, as I can think of few facts and little evidence to
suggest that she was.
Have you read my article? I thought I had done in it exactly what you
are calling for above. If I failed to do so, please let me know in
what way and which facts.
I have my position - Alice was not Jane's mother. But it is somewhat
disingenuous of you to appear to be above partisanship. You are
clearly disappointed that Alice is not Jane's mother, as you seem to
find "fascinating" anything that is presented which seems to counter
this position.
I don't know if this comment is directed toward me or Peter Stewart or
both of us.
Truth is all I ever wanted to arrive at - that's why I examined the
issue and wrote the article in the first place. After all, I was
challenging a long-accepted tradition in the genealogical and
historical arenas. At the time, I had no idea that Jane Stradling was
such an important ancestor to several people on the newsgroup.
Apparently it is only through her that Katherine Deighton can claim
descent from Edward III (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this
point) - though Deighton has a valid descent from Edward I through her
ancestor Anne Berkeley Dennis. I couldn't care less then (but I care
now - a likely bogus line has appeared in print) who Jane's children
were. What I wanted to get to the bottom of was whether or not the
Cardinal and Alice had had the affair that's been ascribed to them.
Apparently, Douglas Richardson needs to have Alice back as Jane's
mother(as it is vital to establish the Edward Stradling/Jane Beaufort
marriage prior to 1423 in order for Maurice Dennis's wife to have been
their daughter). So, he has John Brandon post about Ethel Seaton's
anagrams, then quickly follows up with encouragement and praise. I
find it remarkable that John Brandon would suddenly take an interest in
15th-century poetry interpretation as it seems so far astray from his
colonial-era sphere of research, and stumble upon Seaton's book on his
own. However, Douglas would want to follow-up on my posts on the Roos
of Helmsley family and track down the Seaton source for his Plantagenet
Ancestry research. I can only imagine his glee in finding the
unexpected Beaufort/Arundel material in it.
Yes, it is sad to witness "scholars" [cough] seeming to care more about
winning their points than arriving ever more closely at the truth.
Cheers, -----Brad
the Seaton material (or in Judy's case, seeking the opinion of those
familiar with it) and explaining why it should not be considered "a
much earlier source which indicates that Alice Arundel was the mother
of Joan
Stradling", as Douglas Richardson posted earlier in this thread.
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
"As Brad suggested, Seaton's work may be interesting but not
conclusive."
If Seaton's anagram-(logogriph-) reading is sound, of course this bit
of evidence alone could never constitute in and of itself genealogical
proof.
Seaton's reading of the poem - anagrams, logoriths, themes, messages in
the text, etc. - can only ever be a 1960-61 interpretation of a
15th-century work. It is not primary genealogy evidence. Even if the
poem had been explicit in stating that Henry Beaufort had an affair
with Alice, Lady of Powis, there is no way of determining if whichever
poet wrote it was making it up, elaborating, or what have you.
I detect though among the scoffers not so much the determination
that Seaton's read of Roos is in error as that the occasion affords said
scoffers yet another opportunity to try to quash *unprejudiced*
examination of the many facts and strong evidence of this case -
What I, a "scoffer", took offense to personally was the suggestion from
John Brandon that I had somehow suppressed the Seaton material by
leaving it out of my article. Even had I seen it before I wrote the
piece, however, I would not have addressed it. I don't feel literary
interpretation is sound genealogy. If that stance makes me
"prejudiced", I'll accept that label.
Nor did I try to quash anything - everyone on this newsgroup is
entitled to explore whatever avenue they wish regarding this "case",
just as I am entitled to my position that the case (Alice Lady Powis as
mistress of Cardinal Beaufort and mother of his daughter Jane
Stradling) is closed.
If "many facts and strong evidence" is meant to indicate a support that
Alice was the mistress and Cardinal and mother of Jane, I'd like to see
them enumerated, as I can think of few facts and little evidence to
suggest that she was.
admittedly none of which in its *single elements* supports a
genealogical proof, but which if allowed to be examined impartially, in
toto, and through the proper historical methodological synthesis might
bring us closer to a clear determination.
Have you read my article? I thought I had done in it exactly what you
are calling for above. If I failed to do so, please let me know in
what way and which facts.
I sincerely regret the obvious partisanship here.
I have my position - Alice was not Jane's mother. But it is somewhat
disingenuous of you to appear to be above partisanship. You are
clearly disappointed that Alice is not Jane's mother, as you seem to
find "fascinating" anything that is presented which seems to counter
this position.
It is sad to witness
scholars seeming to care more about winning their points than arriving
ever more closely at the truth.
I don't know if this comment is directed toward me or Peter Stewart or
both of us.
Truth is all I ever wanted to arrive at - that's why I examined the
issue and wrote the article in the first place. After all, I was
challenging a long-accepted tradition in the genealogical and
historical arenas. At the time, I had no idea that Jane Stradling was
such an important ancestor to several people on the newsgroup.
Apparently it is only through her that Katherine Deighton can claim
descent from Edward III (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this
point) - though Deighton has a valid descent from Edward I through her
ancestor Anne Berkeley Dennis. I couldn't care less then (but I care
now - a likely bogus line has appeared in print) who Jane's children
were. What I wanted to get to the bottom of was whether or not the
Cardinal and Alice had had the affair that's been ascribed to them.
Apparently, Douglas Richardson needs to have Alice back as Jane's
mother(as it is vital to establish the Edward Stradling/Jane Beaufort
marriage prior to 1423 in order for Maurice Dennis's wife to have been
their daughter). So, he has John Brandon post about Ethel Seaton's
anagrams, then quickly follows up with encouragement and praise. I
find it remarkable that John Brandon would suddenly take an interest in
15th-century poetry interpretation as it seems so far astray from his
colonial-era sphere of research, and stumble upon Seaton's book on his
own. However, Douglas would want to follow-up on my posts on the Roos
of Helmsley family and track down the Seaton source for his Plantagenet
Ancestry research. I can only imagine his glee in finding the
unexpected Beaufort/Arundel material in it.
Yes, it is sad to witness "scholars" [cough] seeming to care more about
winning their points than arriving ever more closely at the truth.
Cheers, -----Brad
-
John Higgins
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?) of
anagrams
[snip]
This brings to mind a very pertinent comment by Eugene A. Stratton, FASG, in
"Applied Genealogy", a gem of a book published in 1988:
"The more genealogical books and articles I see, the more I have come to
believe that wishful thinking is one of the most deadly enemies of
genealogists, even those who normally know and practice all the rules.
Accordingly, when a genealogist is writing on his or her own line and that
line leads to some kind of illustrious ancestry, it should be examined with
double care."
[end of quote]
Even when the genealogist in question may NOT be writing on his or her own
line, the tendency toward wishful thinking can certainly be overpowering in
these cases of illustrious ancestry. A good amount of skepticism is much
healthier....even if it does mean being labeled a "scoffer" and "prejudiced"
by some.
BTW, as a sort of "truth in advertising" perhaps Douglas Richardson should
"go public" and identify those lines in RPA and MCA which lead to his
family - is Katherine Deighton perhaps among them?
From: "Brad Verity" <batruth@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence (?) of
anagrams
[snip]
Truth is all I ever wanted to arrive at - that's why I examined the
issue and wrote the article in the first place. After all, I was
challenging a long-accepted tradition in the genealogical and
historical arenas. At the time, I had no idea that Jane Stradling was
such an important ancestor to several people on the newsgroup.
Apparently it is only through her that Katherine Deighton can claim
descent from Edward III (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this
point) - though Deighton has a valid descent from Edward I through her
ancestor Anne Berkeley Dennis. I couldn't care less then (but I care
now - a likely bogus line has appeared in print) who Jane's children
were. What I wanted to get to the bottom of was whether or not the
Cardinal and Alice had had the affair that's been ascribed to them.
Apparently, Douglas Richardson needs to have Alice back as Jane's
mother(as it is vital to establish the Edward Stradling/Jane Beaufort
marriage prior to 1423 in order for Maurice Dennis's wife to have been
their daughter). So, he has John Brandon post about Ethel Seaton's
anagrams, then quickly follows up with encouragement and praise. I
find it remarkable that John Brandon would suddenly take an interest in
15th-century poetry interpretation as it seems so far astray from his
colonial-era sphere of research, and stumble upon Seaton's book on his
own. However, Douglas would want to follow-up on my posts on the Roos
of Helmsley family and track down the Seaton source for his Plantagenet
Ancestry research. I can only imagine his glee in finding the
unexpected Beaufort/Arundel material in it.
Yes, it is sad to witness "scholars" [cough] seeming to care more about
winning their points than arriving ever more closely at the truth.
Cheers, -----Brad
This brings to mind a very pertinent comment by Eugene A. Stratton, FASG, in
"Applied Genealogy", a gem of a book published in 1988:
"The more genealogical books and articles I see, the more I have come to
believe that wishful thinking is one of the most deadly enemies of
genealogists, even those who normally know and practice all the rules.
Accordingly, when a genealogist is writing on his or her own line and that
line leads to some kind of illustrious ancestry, it should be examined with
double care."
[end of quote]
Even when the genealogist in question may NOT be writing on his or her own
line, the tendency toward wishful thinking can certainly be overpowering in
these cases of illustrious ancestry. A good amount of skepticism is much
healthier....even if it does mean being labeled a "scoffer" and "prejudiced"
by some.
BTW, as a sort of "truth in advertising" perhaps Douglas Richardson should
"go public" and identify those lines in RPA and MCA which lead to his
family - is Katherine Deighton perhaps among them?
-
Peter Marrow
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
Dear Will Johnson and list,
I do not have an exact date for William's death. His will was made on 8th
October 1464 (as William Marwe) and was proved by his executors (Thomas
Ursewyk ,William Essex and John Styward) on 15th May 1465 which is a fairly
tight date range.
I am most grateful for Tony Ingham for these details and for pointing out
the following excellent source (many moons ago) for much material on the
Marowe family.: B. H. Putnam, "Early Treatises on the Practices of Justices
of the Peace" (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History) Vol. VII (1926).
Thank you for the clues to the Throckmorton marriage dates. Again I don't
have a good date for the Catherine Marrow / Robert Throckmorton marriage.
When did their little bundle of joy George appear?
Peter
I do not have an exact date for William's death. His will was made on 8th
October 1464 (as William Marwe) and was proved by his executors (Thomas
Ursewyk ,William Essex and John Styward) on 15th May 1465 which is a fairly
tight date range.
I am most grateful for Tony Ingham for these details and for pointing out
the following excellent source (many moons ago) for much material on the
Marowe family.: B. H. Putnam, "Early Treatises on the Practices of Justices
of the Peace" (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History) Vol. VII (1926).
Thank you for the clues to the Throckmorton marriage dates. Again I don't
have a good date for the Catherine Marrow / Robert Throckmorton marriage.
When did their little bundle of joy George appear?
Peter
-
John Brandon
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
Apparently, Douglas Richardson needs to have Alice back as Jane's
mother(as it is vital to establish the Edward Stradling/Jane Beaufort
marriage prior to 1423 in order for Maurice Dennis's wife to have been
their daughter). So, he has John Brandon post about Ethel Seaton's
anagrams, then quickly follows up with encouragement and praise. I
find it remarkable that John Brandon would suddenly take an interest in
15th-century poetry interpretation as it seems so far astray from his
colonial-era sphere of research, and stumble upon Seaton's book on his
own. However, Douglas would want to follow-up on my posts on the Roos
of Helmsley family and track down the Seaton source for his Plantagenet
Ancestry research. I can only imagine his glee in finding the
unexpected Beaufort/Arundel material in it.
This is incorrect, as well as very patronizing. Just because you've
set yourself the trifling, little task of tracing ALL of Edward I's
descendants, don't assume that others have no experience in medieval
research. I've known about Ethel Seaton's book for sixteen or
seventeen years (it's mentioned in my honors thesis, "A Medieval
Merchant: William Brampton, Citizen and Stockfishmonger of London"
[South Carolina, 1990]).
-
John Brandon
Re: The maternity of Joan (Beaufort) Stradling: The evidence
BTW, as a sort of "truth in advertising" perhaps Douglas Richardson should
"go public" and identify those lines in RPA and MCA which lead to his
family - is Katherine Deighton perhaps among them?
I don't think that's the case, but Doug may want to address this.
-
Gjest
Re: Descent from Rohese de Boulogne to Simon Milborne
Off-list, Michael Miller. Brice Clagett and I have been discussing the
next steps to trale in trying to establish the putative link between
Sir John Eylesford and John Milborne.
One of these is to look at further IPMs.
I am able to give details of one potentially useful IPM - but only to
discount it as being probative in this case. That is the IPM of Peter
Melburne, which appears together with that of his wife Elizabeth as
items 818-821 in Volume XXII of the Calendar of IPMs from the PRO. It
appears that it is this IPM which is quoted in "The Family of
Bishop/Bisshop" to provide a birthdate for John Milborne of Tillington.
This Peter Melburne married Elizabeth Hondesacre, who had lands in
Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. She died in 1412; he died in 1419 or 1420
(depending on which of two completely different dates are given).
Their son John predeceased them. Elizabeth's heir were her nephews,
sons of her sisters Isabel Frodesley and Eleanor Dyneley; Peter's heir
was his nephew John Melburne, aged 22 in 1426 (sic), son of his brother
'John' (#820) or 'William' (#821).
MAR
next steps to trale in trying to establish the putative link between
Sir John Eylesford and John Milborne.
One of these is to look at further IPMs.
I am able to give details of one potentially useful IPM - but only to
discount it as being probative in this case. That is the IPM of Peter
Melburne, which appears together with that of his wife Elizabeth as
items 818-821 in Volume XXII of the Calendar of IPMs from the PRO. It
appears that it is this IPM which is quoted in "The Family of
Bishop/Bisshop" to provide a birthdate for John Milborne of Tillington.
This Peter Melburne married Elizabeth Hondesacre, who had lands in
Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. She died in 1412; he died in 1419 or 1420
(depending on which of two completely different dates are given).
Their son John predeceased them. Elizabeth's heir were her nephews,
sons of her sisters Isabel Frodesley and Eleanor Dyneley; Peter's heir
was his nephew John Melburne, aged 22 in 1426 (sic), son of his brother
'John' (#820) or 'William' (#821).
MAR
-
Gjest
Re: Mabel de Staunton, wife of Sir John de Coggeshall - Kts
The above material on the earlier portion of the Coggeshall line
appears to be very accurate.
I spent some time going through IPMs etc this evening, and can confirm
that the line is:
1. Lawrence de Coggeshall; had issue:
2. Sir Ralph de Coggeshall, died c1305; married Elizabeth. Issue:
3. John de Coggeshall, died c1319; married Sarah, daughter of Sir
Lawrence de Plumbergh [NOT Sir Jordan le Brun - unless she were a
second wife], dead by 1305. Issue:
4. John de Coggeshall, c1301-1361; married MARGARET [not Mabel; the two
were coheirs of Anfrid de Staunton - Mabel married Roger de Stonham],
daughter of John de Staunton. Issue:
5. Sir Henry de Coggeshall
etc
Kelly, you've done a great job of sorting out the Coggeshalls - not bad
for a first post!
The first two generations in the Suffolk Visitation pedigree are
'borrowed' from another line of Coggeshalls of Rivenhall.
I shall post full details on the Staunton, Plumbergh and Coggeshall
material when I get the opportunity.
MAR
appears to be very accurate.
I spent some time going through IPMs etc this evening, and can confirm
that the line is:
1. Lawrence de Coggeshall; had issue:
2. Sir Ralph de Coggeshall, died c1305; married Elizabeth. Issue:
3. John de Coggeshall, died c1319; married Sarah, daughter of Sir
Lawrence de Plumbergh [NOT Sir Jordan le Brun - unless she were a
second wife], dead by 1305. Issue:
4. John de Coggeshall, c1301-1361; married MARGARET [not Mabel; the two
were coheirs of Anfrid de Staunton - Mabel married Roger de Stonham],
daughter of John de Staunton. Issue:
5. Sir Henry de Coggeshall
etc
Kelly, you've done a great job of sorting out the Coggeshalls - not bad
for a first post!
The first two generations in the Suffolk Visitation pedigree are
'borrowed' from another line of Coggeshalls of Rivenhall.
I shall post full details on the Staunton, Plumbergh and Coggeshall
material when I get the opportunity.
MAR
-
Gjest
Re: William Marowe's widow etc
In a message dated 9/15/05 3:21:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< Thank you for the clues to the Throckmorton marriage dates. Again I don't
have a good date for the Catherine Marrow / Robert Throckmorton marriage.
When did their little bundle of joy George appear? >>
Since William died Oct 1464/May 1466 then Catherine his daughter had to be
born at least bef 1467 (allowing his wife to be pregnant at his death). You had
posted that in 1479 Robert Throckmorton acknowledged satisfaction for his
wife's portion so they were married at least by that year.
Robert Throckmorton died 12 Aug 1518 while on a pilgrimage to Palestine.
Of Robert and Catherine's children, I have three: George, Michael and Anthony.
Of George who d 1553/4 he married Katherine Vaux and they had at least two
sons before 1515, to wit: Robert Throckmorton and John Throckmorton. George
himself was born by 1491 as he appears in a Misc Worcestershire deed with his
parents in the Throckmorton Papers (previously cited).
In that document he is called "eldest son of", which may imply there is
another son.
Other than these dates and indications, I have nothing further on this family
that could pin them down to any particular year. I don't really even have an
idea what decade some of them were born or died in. Still trying to work it
all out.
Will Johnson
peter@pmarrow.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< Thank you for the clues to the Throckmorton marriage dates. Again I don't
have a good date for the Catherine Marrow / Robert Throckmorton marriage.
When did their little bundle of joy George appear? >>
Since William died Oct 1464/May 1466 then Catherine his daughter had to be
born at least bef 1467 (allowing his wife to be pregnant at his death). You had
posted that in 1479 Robert Throckmorton acknowledged satisfaction for his
wife's portion so they were married at least by that year.
Robert Throckmorton died 12 Aug 1518 while on a pilgrimage to Palestine.
Of Robert and Catherine's children, I have three: George, Michael and Anthony.
Of George who d 1553/4 he married Katherine Vaux and they had at least two
sons before 1515, to wit: Robert Throckmorton and John Throckmorton. George
himself was born by 1491 as he appears in a Misc Worcestershire deed with his
parents in the Throckmorton Papers (previously cited).
In that document he is called "eldest son of", which may imply there is
another son.
Other than these dates and indications, I have nothing further on this family
that could pin them down to any particular year. I don't really even have an
idea what decade some of them were born or died in. Still trying to work it
all out.
Will Johnson
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: Kemesek of Fordham, Cambs - Kts of Edward I Coggeshall e
Group,
KEMESEK, Sr Edmund de, Kt. K. Henry II enfeoffed Mathew, C. of Boulogne, of Exening Manor, Cambs., and Matthew enfeoffed Henry de Kemesek of 20 librates of land there. Henry had Arnulf, who had Henry, who had Edm. De K., whose w. now holds the same in dower (Inq. 26 Mar. 1254). Protection for Edm. De K. 22 May 1267 (P.R.). Sumd to serve agst. Welsh 6 Jy. 1277, he acknowledges 2 Kt. Fees at Saunford, Fordham, and Exning, and offers to make fine, but afterwards promises to serve in person with 2 serjeants (P.W.), and had Protection, going to Wales for K., 18 Jy. 1277 )P/R.). Sumd again 1282, he makes fine (P.W.), and has his scutage for 10 Ed. I in Suff., Cambs., and Ess., 13 Feb. 1286 (S.R.). Writ for his Inq. 12 May 1288. He held mess. and lands at Felsted, Tilbury as 1 Fee, and Gt. Samford as 1 Fee, in Ess., Ixening as 1 Fee, Suff., and Fordham ½ Fee, Cambs., and left s. h. Edmund, 19 (Inq.). Dower to his wid. Pernell, viz. Ixeling and Forham, lands and rents at Felsted!
, and pasture in Tilbury Marsh (C.R.), and grant on £100 fine to Bp. Of Lincoln custody of lands of said Edm. At Tilbury and Saunford and 2/3 of Felsted for 2 years in minority of his s. h. Edmund, 4 June 1288 (P.R.).
KEMESEK, Edmund de. S. h. of the last. Quittance of 60 m. fine for 2 Kt. Fees for the army of Wales 10 Ed. I, as Edm. De K., sen., had paid that sum to Lucca merchants for K., 11 May 1294. Quittance of same again 23 Sep. 1299 (C.R.). Edm. De K., jun., dead 17 Jan. 1300 (F.R.), holding Gt. Sampford Manor, Ess., in which his m. Petronilla is dowered, as 1 Kt. Fee, and leaving 2 d. coh., viz. Petronill 8, and Isabel 7 (Inq.). Dower to his wid. Joan 4 Feb. 1300 (C.R.), and grant to Walter de Aylesbury custody of his lands in minority of his coheirs, and their marriages, 16 Jy. 1300 (P.R.). Petronilla de K. is overlord at Polstede, Suff., 14 June 1305 (Inq.). Lic. For her to grant to Jas. De Lamburne and w. Joan a moiety of Polstede Manor, with regrant to herself for life, remainder to her s. Thomas, and final remainder to said James and Joan, 10 May 1308 (P.R.). Inq. Of his d. Petronilla, w. of Thos. De Gardinis, who died before proving her age. She held part of Gt. Sampford M!
anor, and left sis. H. Isabel 19, w. of Philip de Welles (Inq.), to whome livery 10 Oct. 1313 (F.R.). Edm. De K. was qualified for Kthood.
*SRC: Knights of Edward I by Rev C Moor, DD, FSA, FRHistS pg 277-8.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
KEMESEK, Sr Edmund de, Kt. K. Henry II enfeoffed Mathew, C. of Boulogne, of Exening Manor, Cambs., and Matthew enfeoffed Henry de Kemesek of 20 librates of land there. Henry had Arnulf, who had Henry, who had Edm. De K., whose w. now holds the same in dower (Inq. 26 Mar. 1254). Protection for Edm. De K. 22 May 1267 (P.R.). Sumd to serve agst. Welsh 6 Jy. 1277, he acknowledges 2 Kt. Fees at Saunford, Fordham, and Exning, and offers to make fine, but afterwards promises to serve in person with 2 serjeants (P.W.), and had Protection, going to Wales for K., 18 Jy. 1277 )P/R.). Sumd again 1282, he makes fine (P.W.), and has his scutage for 10 Ed. I in Suff., Cambs., and Ess., 13 Feb. 1286 (S.R.). Writ for his Inq. 12 May 1288. He held mess. and lands at Felsted, Tilbury as 1 Fee, and Gt. Samford as 1 Fee, in Ess., Ixening as 1 Fee, Suff., and Fordham ½ Fee, Cambs., and left s. h. Edmund, 19 (Inq.). Dower to his wid. Pernell, viz. Ixeling and Forham, lands and rents at Felsted!
, and pasture in Tilbury Marsh (C.R.), and grant on £100 fine to Bp. Of Lincoln custody of lands of said Edm. At Tilbury and Saunford and 2/3 of Felsted for 2 years in minority of his s. h. Edmund, 4 June 1288 (P.R.).
KEMESEK, Edmund de. S. h. of the last. Quittance of 60 m. fine for 2 Kt. Fees for the army of Wales 10 Ed. I, as Edm. De K., sen., had paid that sum to Lucca merchants for K., 11 May 1294. Quittance of same again 23 Sep. 1299 (C.R.). Edm. De K., jun., dead 17 Jan. 1300 (F.R.), holding Gt. Sampford Manor, Ess., in which his m. Petronilla is dowered, as 1 Kt. Fee, and leaving 2 d. coh., viz. Petronill 8, and Isabel 7 (Inq.). Dower to his wid. Joan 4 Feb. 1300 (C.R.), and grant to Walter de Aylesbury custody of his lands in minority of his coheirs, and their marriages, 16 Jy. 1300 (P.R.). Petronilla de K. is overlord at Polstede, Suff., 14 June 1305 (Inq.). Lic. For her to grant to Jas. De Lamburne and w. Joan a moiety of Polstede Manor, with regrant to herself for life, remainder to her s. Thomas, and final remainder to said James and Joan, 10 May 1308 (P.R.). Inq. Of his d. Petronilla, w. of Thos. De Gardinis, who died before proving her age. She held part of Gt. Sampford M!
anor, and left sis. H. Isabel 19, w. of Philip de Welles (Inq.), to whome livery 10 Oct. 1313 (F.R.). Edm. De K. was qualified for Kthood.
*SRC: Knights of Edward I by Rev C Moor, DD, FSA, FRHistS pg 277-8.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
-
Gjest
Re: CP error? was Re: Update to genealogics: Edward, 4th Lor
In a message dated 9/16/05 3:24:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< While looking at this information, another discrepancy emerges. The first
marriage was _in or after_ 1483. However, the son and heir, being only son
by the first wife, was aged 25 and more at his father's death in 1503.This
gives a year of birth of 1478 or before, five years before his parents
married? Not possible. >>
In my database I cite the marriage as in Jun 1480
and for source I cite THIS group with only the vague 2005-8 (August)
I tried searching google for William Bourchier and I can't find the exact
message again! That's annoying. I have that he died BEF 8 Feb 1480 and my
source is again this group. I wish now I would have cut-and-pasted the message
into my notes.
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< While looking at this information, another discrepancy emerges. The first
marriage was _in or after_ 1483. However, the son and heir, being only son
by the first wife, was aged 25 and more at his father's death in 1503.This
gives a year of birth of 1478 or before, five years before his parents
married? Not possible. >>
In my database I cite the marriage as in Jun 1480
and for source I cite THIS group with only the vague 2005-8 (August)
I tried searching google for William Bourchier and I can't find the exact
message again! That's annoying. I have that he died BEF 8 Feb 1480 and my
source is again this group. I wish now I would have cut-and-pasted the message
into my notes.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Nomenclature Nonsense (OT)
Dear Ed,
The blooming of the Flower Names occurred earlier than 1850. I
have a lot of Roses, Lily/ Lilllians and Flora /Florences in my familial
connections. of course there were also the odd Violet, Narcissia and Iris in use as
well. Rose or Rosa sometimes became Roscie which was changed into Roxey in
the case of one of my ancestresses Roxey (Rowe) Spaulding born Dearborn , Maine
(a dissembled town which is currently North Belgrade, West Waterville and
Oakland, Maine) in 1808.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
The blooming of the Flower Names occurred earlier than 1850. I
have a lot of Roses, Lily/ Lilllians and Flora /Florences in my familial
connections. of course there were also the odd Violet, Narcissia and Iris in use as
well. Rose or Rosa sometimes became Roscie which was changed into Roxey in
the case of one of my ancestresses Roxey (Rowe) Spaulding born Dearborn , Maine
(a dissembled town which is currently North Belgrade, West Waterville and
Oakland, Maine) in 1808.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Treveres and Engaine
Todd Farmerie wrote:-
<Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
<> Which Ranulf of Chester had the sister who married Robert de Trevers? Was
<> it the one whose wife was Maud of Gloucester? Or his father whose wife was
<> Lucia of Mercia?
<
<The quote actually reads "He married a sister of Ranulf I of Chester."
<The husband of Lucy is clearly meant.
<
<By the way, that Lucy appears to have been daughter of Turold, Sheriff
<of Lincoln by a daughter of William Malet, and hence "of Mercia" is
<perhaps not the best surname to give her.
<taf
Thanks for that TAF, and to Chris Phillips for his earlier contribution.
Could you please point us to sources for Ranulf, Lucy, Turold and William
Malet, TAF?
MM
<Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
<> Which Ranulf of Chester had the sister who married Robert de Trevers? Was
<> it the one whose wife was Maud of Gloucester? Or his father whose wife was
<> Lucia of Mercia?
<
<The quote actually reads "He married a sister of Ranulf I of Chester."
<The husband of Lucy is clearly meant.
<
<By the way, that Lucy appears to have been daughter of Turold, Sheriff
<of Lincoln by a daughter of William Malet, and hence "of Mercia" is
<perhaps not the best surname to give her.
<taf
Thanks for that TAF, and to Chris Phillips for his earlier contribution.
Could you please point us to sources for Ranulf, Lucy, Turold and William
Malet, TAF?
MM
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Treveres and Engaine
Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
It is given without comment in DD, (see under "Malet" and "Comes de
Cestrie" - I haven't figured out where to look for Turold yet) but a
more detailed discussion of the people in question and further
references can be found in "Domesday Book and the Malets", _Nottingham
Medieval Studies_ 41:13-51.
taf
Thanks for that TAF, and to Chris Phillips for his earlier contribution.
Could you please point us to sources for Ranulf, Lucy, Turold and William
Malet, TAF?
It is given without comment in DD, (see under "Malet" and "Comes de
Cestrie" - I haven't figured out where to look for Turold yet) but a
more detailed discussion of the people in question and further
references can be found in "Domesday Book and the Malets", _Nottingham
Medieval Studies_ 41:13-51.
taf
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Treveres and Engaine
In message of 17 Sep, "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
There's a snippet on him in DP p. 283 in the article on his son-in-law
Ivo Taillebois.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
Thanks for that TAF, and to Chris Phillips for his earlier contribution.
Could you please point us to sources for Ranulf, Lucy, Turold and William
Malet, TAF?
It is given without comment in DD, (see under "Malet" and "Comes de
Cestrie" - I haven't figured out where to look for Turold yet)
There's a snippet on him in DP p. 283 in the article on his son-in-law
Ivo Taillebois.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Hal Bradley
RE: Treveres and Engaine
Keats-Rohan has some further details in "Antecessor Noster: The Parentage of
Countess Lucy Made Plain," Prosopon, No. 2 (May 1995).
The article can be accessed on-line:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/Files/Pros/PRSPN2.doc
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: Millerfairfield@aol.com [mailto:Millerfairfield@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:32 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Treveres and Engaine
Todd Farmerie wrote:-
<Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
<> Which Ranulf of Chester had the sister who married Robert de Trevers?
Was
<> it the one whose wife was Maud of Gloucester? Or his father whose wife
was
<> Lucia of Mercia?
<
<The quote actually reads "He married a sister of Ranulf I of Chester."
<The husband of Lucy is clearly meant.
<
<By the way, that Lucy appears to have been daughter of Turold, Sheriff
<of Lincoln by a daughter of William Malet, and hence "of Mercia" is
<perhaps not the best surname to give her.
<taf
Thanks for that TAF, and to Chris Phillips for his earlier contribution.
Could you please point us to sources for Ranulf, Lucy, Turold and William
Malet, TAF?
MM
Countess Lucy Made Plain," Prosopon, No. 2 (May 1995).
The article can be accessed on-line:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/Files/Pros/PRSPN2.doc
Hal Bradley
-----Original Message-----
From: Millerfairfield@aol.com [mailto:Millerfairfield@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:32 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Treveres and Engaine
Todd Farmerie wrote:-
<Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
<> Which Ranulf of Chester had the sister who married Robert de Trevers?
Was
<> it the one whose wife was Maud of Gloucester? Or his father whose wife
was
<> Lucia of Mercia?
<
<The quote actually reads "He married a sister of Ranulf I of Chester."
<The husband of Lucy is clearly meant.
<
<By the way, that Lucy appears to have been daughter of Turold, Sheriff
<of Lincoln by a daughter of William Malet, and hence "of Mercia" is
<perhaps not the best surname to give her.
<taf
Thanks for that TAF, and to Chris Phillips for his earlier contribution.
Could you please point us to sources for Ranulf, Lucy, Turold and William
Malet, TAF?
MM
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Treveres and Engaine
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Turold has his entry on p. 1137 (under "Vicecomes" - where else?).
Chris Phillips
It is given without comment in DD, (see under "Malet" and "Comes de
Cestrie" - I haven't figured out where to look for Turold yet)
Turold has his entry on p. 1137 (under "Vicecomes" - where else?).
Chris Phillips
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Treveres and Engaine
Chris Phillips wrote:
Of course (?). Why didn't I think of that? Thanks.
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
It is given without comment in DD, (see under "Malet" and "Comes de
Cestrie" - I haven't figured out where to look for Turold yet)
Turold has his entry on p. 1137 (under "Vicecomes" - where else?).
Of course (?). Why didn't I think of that? Thanks.
-
Gjest
Re: Kemesek of Fordham, Cambs - Kts of Edward I Coggeshall e
Kelly
Once, again, many thanks for these extracts. Genealogy is a jigsaw
puzzle, so each new piece - and particularly those that consist of
primary references - is a very welcome addition towards creating the
whole.
Cheers
Michael
Once, again, many thanks for these extracts. Genealogy is a jigsaw
puzzle, so each new piece - and particularly those that consist of
primary references - is a very welcome addition towards creating the
whole.
Cheers
Michael
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
"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
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
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
"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.
Let's see Leo van de Pas's proof that Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson and heir to the throne after his father, who
later became Edward VII, was "married to a Catholic girl far beneath his
station."
But Van de Pas won't present any such convincing proof -- he'd rather
just engage in vague, malicious innuendo.
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
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.
Let's see Leo van de Pas's proof that Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson and heir to the throne after his father, who
later became Edward VII, was "married to a Catholic girl far beneath his
station."
But Van de Pas won't present any such convincing proof -- he'd rather
just engage in vague, malicious innuendo.
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
Leo van de Pas is the fellow who raised the issue of the real identity
of Jack The Ripper -- not I.
DSH
of Jack The Ripper -- not I.
DSH
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
I did not _start_ that conversation on Jack the Ripper. I added to it by
quoting a book existed. Asking questions about possibilities does not mean I
endorse them. Mentioning Roderick Stuart's book does not mean I support it.
To jump to the conclusion "he mentions a book means he _must_ agree with it"
is just so mindless.
Let's, for once, go into some detail. According to Hines I have thrown mud
at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke of Clarence and others long dead.
Since when is discussing possibilities _throwing mud_? Lets start with the
Duke of Clarence. "Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The
Ripper and the Royals" _IT_ maintains (it, not me) it was NOT Albert Victor
but it was done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill to
"protect the monarchy". .....Albert Victor may have caused it but did not do
it, nor asked for it to be done." What mud is sticking to the Duke of
Clarence?
_IF_ the story is correct, the monarchy may well have needed protection. And
Lord Randolph only just back in the good books of the Prince of Wales may
well have been willing to assist. There you have it, first a huge IF and
then a possible willingness to assist.
Have I made accusations? Have I stated facts? Considerable time before I
mentioned the same book and then Hines did not give a wimper. What has
changed? Or better why has Hines changed in his behaviour? What has happened
to him? Why is he hitting out at the world? Poor unhappy fellow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
quoting a book existed. Asking questions about possibilities does not mean I
endorse them. Mentioning Roderick Stuart's book does not mean I support it.
To jump to the conclusion "he mentions a book means he _must_ agree with it"
is just so mindless.
Let's, for once, go into some detail. According to Hines I have thrown mud
at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke of Clarence and others long dead.
Since when is discussing possibilities _throwing mud_? Lets start with the
Duke of Clarence. "Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The
Ripper and the Royals" _IT_ maintains (it, not me) it was NOT Albert Victor
but it was done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill to
"protect the monarchy". .....Albert Victor may have caused it but did not do
it, nor asked for it to be done." What mud is sticking to the Duke of
Clarence?
_IF_ the story is correct, the monarchy may well have needed protection. And
Lord Randolph only just back in the good books of the Prince of Wales may
well have been willing to assist. There you have it, first a huge IF and
then a possible willingness to assist.
Have I made accusations? Have I stated facts? Considerable time before I
mentioned the same book and then Hines did not give a wimper. What has
changed? Or better why has Hines changed in his behaviour? What has happened
to him? Why is he hitting out at the world? Poor unhappy fellow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
"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.
Let's see Leo van de Pas's proof that Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson and heir to the throne after his father, who
later became Edward VII, was "married to a Catholic girl far beneath his
station."
But Van de Pas won't present any such convincing proof -- he'd rather
just engage in vague, malicious innuendo.
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
"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."
Leo van de Pas
---------------------
The words are quite clear and speak for themselves.
A:
Let's see Leo van de Pas's evidence that Albert Victor, Duke of
Clarence, Queen Victoria's grandson and heir to the throne after his
father, who later became Edward VII, was "married to a Catholic girl far
beneath his station."
B.
Let's see Van de Pas's evidence that Lord Randolph Churchill (and
others) were involved in a conspiracy to protect the monarchy of Queen
Victoria and therefore carried out the notorious Jack The Ripper murders
in 1888, supposedly in order to silence witnesses who knew the Duke of
Clarence was "married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station."
Not just sly innuendo, slanderous speculation and malicious gossip as we
see from Van de Pas above.
Or, will he simply run for the tall grass again, as he has several times
before?
Slandering the dead, who have no means of defending themselves, is
despicable.
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
"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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
mind, but then he only has dark corners.
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Where did this come from? I suppose from one of the dark corners of Hines's
mind, but then he only has dark corners.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
No-one is arguing with you on this, Hines - it's too boring.
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JY7Xe.116$aB1.1736@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Where did you get this curious word, "thusly"?
"Thus" is an adverb: adding -ly is like saying "Hines is sadlyly dense".
It's true, but one syllable too many.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JY7Xe.116$aB1.1736@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Mr. King dismissed it thusly:
Where did you get this curious word, "thusly"?
"Thus" is an adverb: adding -ly is like saying "Hines is sadlyly dense".
It's true, but one syllable too many.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churc
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
Are there some fogeys at large in Hawaii adoring the old dumpling of a
queen-empress, as the Rastafarians do the Emperor Haile Salasse?
She was a dab enough hand at slander herself. Remember Flora Hastings, who
was on the receiving end of Victoria's harmful & wrong suspicions - before
she had even died.
Why should this particular royal person and her reputation be untouchable?
Peter Stewart
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
<snip>
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
Are there some fogeys at large in Hawaii adoring the old dumpling of a
queen-empress, as the Rastafarians do the Emperor Haile Salasse?
She was a dab enough hand at slander herself. Remember Flora Hastings, who
was on the receiving end of Victoria's harmful & wrong suspicions - before
she had even died.
Why should this particular royal person and her reputation be untouchable?
Peter Stewart
-
Kristie Thompson
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL
First, let me say that I am astounded by the depth of knowledge amongst the
members of this board. I've been observing for some time, and I am just
simply amazed. With that being said, I am also astounded at the personal
attacks that are permeating the board. It seems to me that if people just
stopped responding to personal attacks, the attackers would lose interest
and go away. I know it is hard to ignore what is a personal attack against
you, but in the common good of all of us who have to wade through vendettas
to get to the meat of the subject, can't we try? From what I've seen,
everyone on this board is knowledgeable and intelligent, so can't we just
drop the jibes and personal affronts? It is one thing to disagree with
something someone says, but it is entirely another thing to attack them
personally. I've hesitated to say these things because I don't want anyone
to turn against me - I'm simply here to learn! I've nothing against anyone,
but I really hate to get a full mailbox and find out that only 3 or 4 of the
messages are really about the topic.
Thanks for listening!
Kristie
members of this board. I've been observing for some time, and I am just
simply amazed. With that being said, I am also astounded at the personal
attacks that are permeating the board. It seems to me that if people just
stopped responding to personal attacks, the attackers would lose interest
and go away. I know it is hard to ignore what is a personal attack against
you, but in the common good of all of us who have to wade through vendettas
to get to the meat of the subject, can't we try? From what I've seen,
everyone on this board is knowledgeable and intelligent, so can't we just
drop the jibes and personal affronts? It is one thing to disagree with
something someone says, but it is entirely another thing to attack them
personally. I've hesitated to say these things because I don't want anyone
to turn against me - I'm simply here to learn! I've nothing against anyone,
but I really hate to get a full mailbox and find out that only 3 or 4 of the
messages are really about the topic.
Thanks for listening!
Kristie
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Dear Gentlemen ~
This topic has nothing to do with medieval genealogy. Please give it a
break.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
This topic has nothing to do with medieval genealogy. Please give it a
break.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
I did not _start_ that conversation on Jack the Ripper. I added to it by
quoting a book existed. Asking questions about possibilities does not mean I
endorse them. Mentioning Roderick Stuart's book does not mean I support it.
To jump to the conclusion "he mentions a book means he _must_ agree with it"
is just so mindless.
Let's, for once, go into some detail. According to Hines I have thrown mud
at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke of Clarence and others long dead.
Since when is discussing possibilities _throwing mud_? Lets start with the
Duke of Clarence. "Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The
Ripper and the Royals" _IT_ maintains (it, not me) it was NOT Albert Victor
but it was done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill to
"protect the monarchy". .....Albert Victor may have caused it but did not do
it, nor asked for it to be done." What mud is sticking to the Duke of
Clarence?
_IF_ the story is correct, the monarchy may well have needed protection. And
Lord Randolph only just back in the good books of the Prince of Wales may
well have been willing to assist. There you have it, first a huge IF and
then a possible willingness to assist.
Have I made accusations? Have I stated facts? Considerable time before I
mentioned the same book and then Hines did not give a wimper. What has
changed? Or better why has Hines changed in his behaviour? What has happened
to him? Why is he hitting out at the world? Poor unhappy fellow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
"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.
Let's see Leo van de Pas's proof that Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence,
Queen Victoria's grandson and heir to the throne after his father, who
later became Edward VII, was "married to a Catholic girl far beneath his
station."
But Van de Pas won't present any such convincing proof -- he'd rather
just engage in vague, malicious innuendo.
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
-
Gjest
Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph C
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
*Slandering* ANYONE is unforgivable.
All you're talking about is saying mean things about her.
SusanC
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
snip
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
*Slandering* ANYONE is unforgivable.
All you're talking about is saying mean things about her.
SusanC
Are there some fogeys at large in Hawaii adoring the old dumpling of a
queen-empress, as the Rastafarians do the Emperor Haile Salasse?
She was a dab enough hand at slander herself. Remember Flora Hastings, who
was on the receiving end of Victoria's harmful & wrong suspicions - before
she had even died.
Why should this particular royal person and her reputation be untouchable?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph C
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
I presume that Susan read no further in my message than the first line,
since otherwise she would have seen the flaw in her response before
posting it: by her own principle, Queen Victoria must be considered an
unforgiven slanderer for her treatment of Flora Hastings. Saying this
about her can't very well be "mean" if it is true - unless someone is
going to maintain next that "all we owe the dead is fiction".
Peter Stewart
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
snip
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
*Slandering* ANYONE is unforgivable.
All you're talking about is saying mean things about her.
SusanC
I presume that Susan read no further in my message than the first line,
since otherwise she would have seen the flaw in her response before
posting it: by her own principle, Queen Victoria must be considered an
unforgiven slanderer for her treatment of Flora Hastings. Saying this
about her can't very well be "mean" if it is true - unless someone is
going to maintain next that "all we owe the dead is fiction".
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph C
Dear Susan,
Who is where saying nasty things about Queen Victoria? Enlighten us.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <flaviaR@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph
Churchill & Queen Victoria's Grandson}
Who is where saying nasty things about Queen Victoria? Enlighten us.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <flaviaR@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph
Churchill & Queen Victoria's Grandson}
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
snip
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
*Slandering* ANYONE is unforgivable.
All you're talking about is saying mean things about her.
SusanC
Are there some fogeys at large in Hawaii adoring the old dumpling of a
queen-empress, as the Rastafarians do the Emperor Haile Salasse?
She was a dab enough hand at slander herself. Remember Flora Hastings,
who
was on the receiving end of Victoria's harmful & wrong suspicions -
before
she had even died.
Why should this particular royal person and her reputation be
untouchable?
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph C
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
What makes you uthink I "read no further"?
Victoria was EXTREMELY wrong in that case.
Saying this
How does the truth of something negate it's meanness?
Victoria was very sorry for whatshe did, once she found out the truth.
And it's only something people bring up *this sharply* wehen they *want* to
be nasty.
- unless someone is
I can see that I've blundered into atr again.
Pardon me.
SusanC
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
snip
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
*Slandering* ANYONE is unforgivable.
All you're talking about is saying mean things about her.
SusanC
I presume that Susan read no further in my message than the first line,
since otherwise she would have seen the flaw in her response before
posting it: by her own principle, Queen Victoria must be considered an
unforgiven slanderer for her treatment of Flora Hastings.
What makes you uthink I "read no further"?
Victoria was EXTREMELY wrong in that case.
Saying this
about her can't very well be "mean" if it is true
How does the truth of something negate it's meanness?
Victoria was very sorry for whatshe did, once she found out the truth.
And it's only something people bring up *this sharply* wehen they *want* to
be nasty.
- unless someone is
going to maintain next that "all we owe the dead is fiction".
I can see that I've blundered into atr again.
Pardon me.
SusanC
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL
Dear Kirsty
I think most of us despair about the vitriol on this list. The trouble is
that if the untrue or unfair assertions are not countered, then the truth
will not come out. For instance it was only by the dogged persuit of the
Uriah Owen debacle by Peter Stewart that it has finally been resolved.
Douglas Richardson has made some fine contributions, but when he makes a
blunder, as we all do from time to time, he will not acknowledge his mistake
and tries to deflect it to someone else. If he could just say "Oops, yes,
you're quite right I didn't think of that" or something, and move on a lot
of this trouble would be avoided.
And as for the trolls who get stuck into Leo, they should be hung, drawn and
quartered! No-one shares more generously or is more willing to help with a
problem.
Anyway, good on you for speaking up!
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Kristie Thompson
Date: 09/19/05 02:15:56
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL
First, let me say that I am astounded by the depth of knowledge amongst the
members of this board. I've been observing for some time, and I am just
simply amazed. With that being said, I am also astounded at the personal
attacks that are permeating the board. It seems to me that if people just
stopped responding to personal attacks, the attackers would lose interest
and go away. I know it is hard to ignore what is a personal attack against
you, but in the common good of all of us who have to wade through vendettas
to get to the meat of the subject, can't we try? From what I've seen,
everyone on this board is knowledgeable and intelligent, so can't we just
drop the jibes and personal affronts? It is one thing to disagree with
something someone says, but it is entirely another thing to attack them
personally. I've hesitated to say these things because I don't want anyone
to turn against me - I'm simply here to learn! I've nothing against anyone,
but I really hate to get a full mailbox and find out that only 3 or 4 of the
messages are really about the topic.
Thanks for listening!
Kristie
I think most of us despair about the vitriol on this list. The trouble is
that if the untrue or unfair assertions are not countered, then the truth
will not come out. For instance it was only by the dogged persuit of the
Uriah Owen debacle by Peter Stewart that it has finally been resolved.
Douglas Richardson has made some fine contributions, but when he makes a
blunder, as we all do from time to time, he will not acknowledge his mistake
and tries to deflect it to someone else. If he could just say "Oops, yes,
you're quite right I didn't think of that" or something, and move on a lot
of this trouble would be avoided.
And as for the trolls who get stuck into Leo, they should be hung, drawn and
quartered! No-one shares more generously or is more willing to help with a
problem.
Anyway, good on you for speaking up!
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Kristie Thompson
Date: 09/19/05 02:15:56
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL
First, let me say that I am astounded by the depth of knowledge amongst the
members of this board. I've been observing for some time, and I am just
simply amazed. With that being said, I am also astounded at the personal
attacks that are permeating the board. It seems to me that if people just
stopped responding to personal attacks, the attackers would lose interest
and go away. I know it is hard to ignore what is a personal attack against
you, but in the common good of all of us who have to wade through vendettas
to get to the meat of the subject, can't we try? From what I've seen,
everyone on this board is knowledgeable and intelligent, so can't we just
drop the jibes and personal affronts? It is one thing to disagree with
something someone says, but it is entirely another thing to attack them
personally. I've hesitated to say these things because I don't want anyone
to turn against me - I'm simply here to learn! I've nothing against anyone,
but I really hate to get a full mailbox and find out that only 3 or 4 of the
messages are really about the topic.
Thanks for listening!
Kristie
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Queen worship [was: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph C
SusanC wrote:
So Victoria's slander of Flora Hastings is to be forgiven because she
was sorry? Then how exactly is slander itself "unforgivable", as you
said?
Did Victoria "want to be nasty" when she caused the innocent - and, as
it turned out, dying - Flora Hastings to be subjected to medical
examination in order to prove her virginity?
The queen had bought into a slander and tested it, at great cost to
another human being, just to satisfy her own personal prurience and in
her official capacity from a prudish, selfish desire to win back
respectability for the royal court that had been squandered by her
uncles.
Historians today are entitled to test their hypotheses, whether or not
these are "mean" or even slanderous. They too can be wrong, & if so
they can equally be sorry. However, no-one has to suffer from this,
like Flora, when the subject has been dead for more than a century.
If the truth is "mean" it still needs to be told, and there are still
lessons in it.
Do you suppose there aren't courtiers today gossiping about each other,
and devising projects to raise the prestige of the monarchy that might
hurt someone, or someone's memory, along the way?
Peter Stewart
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
On 18-Sep-2005, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E89Xe.119$aB1.1638@eagle.america.net...
snip
Slandering Queen Victoria is unforgivable.
Has Hines now joined a cult where Victoria is worshipped as the deity?
*Slandering* ANYONE is unforgivable.
All you're talking about is saying mean things about her.
SusanC
I presume that Susan read no further in my message than the first line,
since otherwise she would have seen the flaw in her response before
posting it: by her own principle, Queen Victoria must be considered an
unforgiven slanderer for her treatment of Flora Hastings.
What makes you uthink I "read no further"?
Victoria was EXTREMELY wrong in that case.
Saying this about her can't very well be "mean" if it is true
How does the truth of something negate it's meanness?
Victoria was very sorry for whatshe did, once she found out the truth.
So Victoria's slander of Flora Hastings is to be forgiven because she
was sorry? Then how exactly is slander itself "unforgivable", as you
said?
And it's only something people bring up *this sharply* wehen they *want* to
be nasty.
Did Victoria "want to be nasty" when she caused the innocent - and, as
it turned out, dying - Flora Hastings to be subjected to medical
examination in order to prove her virginity?
The queen had bought into a slander and tested it, at great cost to
another human being, just to satisfy her own personal prurience and in
her official capacity from a prudish, selfish desire to win back
respectability for the royal court that had been squandered by her
uncles.
Historians today are entitled to test their hypotheses, whether or not
these are "mean" or even slanderous. They too can be wrong, & if so
they can equally be sorry. However, no-one has to suffer from this,
like Flora, when the subject has been dead for more than a century.
If the truth is "mean" it still needs to be told, and there are still
lessons in it.
Do you suppose there aren't courtiers today gossiping about each other,
and devising projects to raise the prestige of the monarchy that might
hurt someone, or someone's memory, along the way?
Peter Stewart
-
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
D. Spencer Hines writes:
""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]"
On Leo's behalf, I reply to your Aquinas card with our Kant card, which trumps:
"In Absicht der Glueckseligkeit glaubt endlich doch jedermann, die groesste Summe . . . der Annehmlichkeit des Lebens ein wahres, ja sogar das hoechste Gut nennen zu koennen. Allein auch dawider straeubt sich die Vernunft. Annehmlichkeit ist Genuss. Ist es aber auf diesen allein angelegt, so waere es thoeright, scrupulos in Ansehung der Mittel zu sein, . . . Nur durch das, was er thut ohne Ruecksicht auf Genuss, in voller Freiheit und unabhaengig von dem, was ihm die Natur auch leidend verschaffen koente, giebt er seinem Dasein als der Existenz einer Person einen absoluten Werth; und die Glueckseligkeit ist mit der ganzen Fuelle ihrer Annehmlichkeit bei weitem nicht ein unbedington Gut." (Akad. 5:208-9)
Which roughly translates as: Trolls who wish to make it a question of happiness when it should be a question of truth are morally worthless human beings.
Oh! Wait! I forgot I lost the truth game to Peter. Never mind.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
""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]"
On Leo's behalf, I reply to your Aquinas card with our Kant card, which trumps:
"In Absicht der Glueckseligkeit glaubt endlich doch jedermann, die groesste Summe . . . der Annehmlichkeit des Lebens ein wahres, ja sogar das hoechste Gut nennen zu koennen. Allein auch dawider straeubt sich die Vernunft. Annehmlichkeit ist Genuss. Ist es aber auf diesen allein angelegt, so waere es thoeright, scrupulos in Ansehung der Mittel zu sein, . . . Nur durch das, was er thut ohne Ruecksicht auf Genuss, in voller Freiheit und unabhaengig von dem, was ihm die Natur auch leidend verschaffen koente, giebt er seinem Dasein als der Existenz einer Person einen absoluten Werth; und die Glueckseligkeit ist mit der ganzen Fuelle ihrer Annehmlichkeit bei weitem nicht ein unbedington Gut." (Akad. 5:208-9)
Which roughly translates as: Trolls who wish to make it a question of happiness when it should be a question of truth are morally worthless human beings.
Oh! Wait! I forgot I lost the truth game to Peter. Never mind.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Gjest
Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham
The Sussex Arch. Collections vol.III, in its pedigree of the Lewknor family,
ancestral to James Cudworth has the following:
Sir Thomas Lewknor (MP for Lewes 1468) married Phillippa Dalyngrudge
(No second wife mentioned)
Their son Nicholas m. Elizabeth (or Isabella) da. Ralph Radmylde by
Margaret, da. and co-heir of Richard Camoys
Nicholas' son Edward m twice to unidentified women
and it says further
Sir Thomas and Phillppa also had a son, Sir Roger who m. first Eleanor
, Camoys who would appear to be the aunt of Elizabeth (Isabella) Radmylde
who married (as above) Nicholas Lewknor, brother of Sir Roger.
This SIr Roger, it says, m. second Isabell dau. Sir Roger
Echingham
Douglas Richardson says in Magna Carta:
Sir Thomas Lewknor and Phillippa Dalyngrudge had only one son, Sir
Roger , who married first Eleanor Camoys and second Katherine Chidiock (pp.
508/9)
Richardson then says Sir Thomas married second Elizabeth Echingham
widow of Thomas Hoo and was by her father of a number of children including the
above Nicholas who, Sussex says, married the niece of his half-brother's first
wife
(Richardson also identified the "Margaret de Barosa (Braose?)" who m. Ralph
Lord Camoys per the Sussex Arch. Collection as the dau of William de Brewes
and Aline de Multon)
Definite clarification of these contradictions will be much appreciated
including, if possible, the name of wife of that Edward Lewknor (son of Nicholas)
who was in turn the parent of that Edward Lewknor who m. Margaret Copley.
Robert Bowman
ancestral to James Cudworth has the following:
Sir Thomas Lewknor (MP for Lewes 1468) married Phillippa Dalyngrudge
(No second wife mentioned)
Their son Nicholas m. Elizabeth (or Isabella) da. Ralph Radmylde by
Margaret, da. and co-heir of Richard Camoys
Nicholas' son Edward m twice to unidentified women
and it says further
Sir Thomas and Phillppa also had a son, Sir Roger who m. first Eleanor
, Camoys who would appear to be the aunt of Elizabeth (Isabella) Radmylde
who married (as above) Nicholas Lewknor, brother of Sir Roger.
This SIr Roger, it says, m. second Isabell dau. Sir Roger
Echingham
Douglas Richardson says in Magna Carta:
Sir Thomas Lewknor and Phillippa Dalyngrudge had only one son, Sir
Roger , who married first Eleanor Camoys and second Katherine Chidiock (pp.
508/9)
Richardson then says Sir Thomas married second Elizabeth Echingham
widow of Thomas Hoo and was by her father of a number of children including the
above Nicholas who, Sussex says, married the niece of his half-brother's first
wife
(Richardson also identified the "Margaret de Barosa (Braose?)" who m. Ralph
Lord Camoys per the Sussex Arch. Collection as the dau of William de Brewes
and Aline de Multon)
Definite clarification of these contradictions will be much appreciated
including, if possible, the name of wife of that Edward Lewknor (son of Nicholas)
who was in turn the parent of that Edward Lewknor who m. Margaret Copley.
Robert Bowman
-
charlotte Smith
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #825-Plea Rolls Echyngham
Pat Junkin- Yes, you and I have been stuck on this for some time.I always keep the Beache in mind. You suggest that maybe the court case would be Thomas. The date for this case was 1411 and there is no Thomas as Lord of Echyngham at that time..Thomas born 1401 is the nearest..unless some one sllipped in there I don't have. It must be the William that died 1412 listed as he was the Lord of Echungham at the time. I don't know what type of record to look up on the follow up to that court case..any ideas .
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
-
Gjest
Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham
Dear Robert,
According to MCA p 877 (subject Welles) Edward Lewknor
was a son of Edward and Margaret ( ) Lewknor. Also of interest
Roger Copley Esq, b abt 1430, husband of Anne Hoo is given as a son of Sir
Richard Copley, Kt. of Batley, Yorkshire and London by his 1st wife Margaret,
daughter of Sir Richard Denton, kt. Further, on p 901 the Wroth / Lewknor
marriage is given and a line which includes their grandson Robert Wroth, esq of
Durants( in Enfield), Middlesex who married Jane, daughter of Sir Thomas Haute,
Kt of Waddenhall, Kent.. they in their turn had a daughter Dorothy Wroth who
was married to Edward and Margret (Copley) Lewknor`s son Edward Lewknor, they
being Great grandparents to James Cudworth ( see GBR RD 600 p 337 and see
also MC for identification of her parents)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
According to MCA p 877 (subject Welles) Edward Lewknor
was a son of Edward and Margaret ( ) Lewknor. Also of interest
Roger Copley Esq, b abt 1430, husband of Anne Hoo is given as a son of Sir
Richard Copley, Kt. of Batley, Yorkshire and London by his 1st wife Margaret,
daughter of Sir Richard Denton, kt. Further, on p 901 the Wroth / Lewknor
marriage is given and a line which includes their grandson Robert Wroth, esq of
Durants( in Enfield), Middlesex who married Jane, daughter of Sir Thomas Haute,
Kt of Waddenhall, Kent.. they in their turn had a daughter Dorothy Wroth who
was married to Edward and Margret (Copley) Lewknor`s son Edward Lewknor, they
being Great grandparents to James Cudworth ( see GBR RD 600 p 337 and see
also MC for identification of her parents)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne and his wife Magdalen
From Leo's database I have the wife of Anthony Browne (d 19 Jun/19 Oct 1592)
as Margaret Dacre (d 8 Apr 1608) dau of William, 3rd Lord Dacre of Gillesland
and his wife Elizabeth Talbot.
But it appears, unless these names are the same, that her name was Magdalen.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hampshire
FILE - Fine - ref. SAS-BA/282 - date: 1557
[from Scope and Content] Between WILLIAM DENTON and HENRY
HEIGHES, gent. querents, and ANTHONY BROWNE, K.G., VISCOUNT MOUNTAGUE, and MAGDALENE
his wife, deforciants, of the Manor of Swarroughton and of 8 messuages, 8
gardens, 8 orchards, 500 ac. of land, 20 ac. of meadow, 500 ac. of pasture and 20
ac. of wood in Upper Swarroughton, Noahynton, and MYcheldever
as Margaret Dacre (d 8 Apr 1608) dau of William, 3rd Lord Dacre of Gillesland
and his wife Elizabeth Talbot.
But it appears, unless these names are the same, that her name was Magdalen.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hampshire
FILE - Fine - ref. SAS-BA/282 - date: 1557
[from Scope and Content] Between WILLIAM DENTON and HENRY
HEIGHES, gent. querents, and ANTHONY BROWNE, K.G., VISCOUNT MOUNTAGUE, and MAGDALENE
his wife, deforciants, of the Manor of Swarroughton and of 8 messuages, 8
gardens, 8 orchards, 500 ac. of land, 20 ac. of meadow, 500 ac. of pasture and 20
ac. of wood in Upper Swarroughton, Noahynton, and MYcheldever
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Anthony Browne and his wife Magdalen
Dear Will,
Have another look on my website, I have her as Margaret/Magdalen.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Anthony Browne and his wife Magdalen
Have another look on my website, I have her as Margaret/Magdalen.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Anthony Browne and his wife Magdalen
From Leo's database I have the wife of Anthony Browne (d 19 Jun/19 Oct
1592)
as Margaret Dacre (d 8 Apr 1608) dau of William, 3rd Lord Dacre of
Gillesland
and his wife Elizabeth Talbot.
But it appears, unless these names are the same, that her name was
Magdalen.
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hampshire
FILE - Fine - ref. SAS-BA/282 - date: 1557
[from Scope and Content] Between WILLIAM DENTON and HENRY
HEIGHES, gent. querents, and ANTHONY BROWNE, K.G., VISCOUNT MOUNTAGUE, and
MAGDALENE
his wife, deforciants, of the Manor of Swarroughton and of 8 messuages, 8
gardens, 8 orchards, 500 ac. of land, 20 ac. of meadow, 500 ac. of pasture
and 20
ac. of wood in Upper Swarroughton, Noahynton, and MYcheldever
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne and his wife Magdalen
In a message dated 9/20/05 6:45:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Have another look on my website, I have her as Margaret/Magdalen.
Leo >>
Sorry my mistake. Sometimes I'm careful
sometimes I'm not too .....
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Have another look on my website, I have her as Margaret/Magdalen.
Leo >>
Sorry my mistake. Sometimes I'm careful
Will
-
Mark B
Re: Anthony Browne and his wife Magdalen
--- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Note my earlier post about the 1643 PCC will of
Francis Browne, “citizen and haberdasher of London.”
In the will Francis Browne names William Brisco as his
son-in-law, Peter Storie as his son-in-law, and
Elizabeth Lowther as his “kinswoman.” While this may
very well be a coincidence, your message caught my
attention because Gilsland is in Cumberland, the home
county of William Brisco, Francis Browne's son-in-law.
In fact, this William Brisco was a 4th great-grandson
(through an illegitimate daughter) of Sir Thomas, Lord
Dacre of Gilsland (25 Nov. 1467 - 24 Oct. 1525) the
father of William, Lord Dacre named above. Lowther and
Storie are also Cumbrian surnames, so this Francis
Browne likely had Northern connections. Unfortunately,
I've not been able to determine who his parents were
or if he was connected to any of the better known
Browne families.
Mark Briscoe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From Leo's database I have the wife of Anthony
Browne (d 19 Jun/19 Oct 1592)
as Margaret Dacre (d 8 Apr 1608) dau of William, 3rd
Lord Dacre of Gillesland
and his wife Elizabeth Talbot.
-snip-
Note my earlier post about the 1643 PCC will of
Francis Browne, “citizen and haberdasher of London.”
In the will Francis Browne names William Brisco as his
son-in-law, Peter Storie as his son-in-law, and
Elizabeth Lowther as his “kinswoman.” While this may
very well be a coincidence, your message caught my
attention because Gilsland is in Cumberland, the home
county of William Brisco, Francis Browne's son-in-law.
In fact, this William Brisco was a 4th great-grandson
(through an illegitimate daughter) of Sir Thomas, Lord
Dacre of Gilsland (25 Nov. 1467 - 24 Oct. 1525) the
father of William, Lord Dacre named above. Lowther and
Storie are also Cumbrian surnames, so this Francis
Browne likely had Northern connections. Unfortunately,
I've not been able to determine who his parents were
or if he was connected to any of the better known
Browne families.
Mark Briscoe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne
In a message dated 9/21/2005 8:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
I cannot see any problems with Leo's date of death for the middle Anthony
Browne, it is in agreement with CP which also states he was buried the next
day.
Can you cite the specific location in CP that you are referring to?
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
I cannot see any problems with Leo's date of death for the middle Anthony
Browne, it is in agreement with CP which also states he was buried the next
day.
Can you cite the specific location in CP that you are referring to?
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne
In a message dated 9/21/2005 8:26:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
Vol IX p 100 line 4/5 — sorry died 29 June bur 1 Aug, not the day after
his
death - I should not rely on a bad memory
Adrian
But see my problem was that it is stated 22 JULY not June ... for this
middle Anthony
This new date may correct the problem, I have to review my notes again.
Thanks
Will
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
Vol IX p 100 line 4/5 — sorry died 29 June bur 1 Aug, not the day after
his
death - I should not rely on a bad memory
Adrian
But see my problem was that it is stated 22 JULY not June ... for this
middle Anthony
This new date may correct the problem, I have to review my notes again.
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne
In a message dated 21/09/2005 16:13:42 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
In a message dated 9/21/2005 8:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
I cannot see any problems with Leo's date of death for the middle Anthony
Browne, it is in agreement with CP which also states he was buried the next
day.
Will replies,
Can you cite the specific location in CP that you are referring to?
<<<<
Vol IX p 100 line 4/5 — sorry died 29 June bur 1 Aug, not the day after his
death - I should not rely on a bad memory
Adrian
writes:
In a message dated 9/21/2005 8:08:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
I cannot see any problems with Leo's date of death for the middle Anthony
Browne, it is in agreement with CP which also states he was buried the next
day.
Will replies,
Can you cite the specific location in CP that you are referring to?
<<<<
Vol IX p 100 line 4/5 — sorry died 29 June bur 1 Aug, not the day after his
death - I should not rely on a bad memory
Adrian
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
Burke Extinct Baronetcies 2nd ed 1844 page 89 also gives died 29 June 1592
not the most reliable source but it matches
cheers
Simon
In a message dated 9/21/2005 8:26:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
Vol IX p 100 line 4/5 — sorry died 29 June bur 1 Aug, not the day after
his
death - I should not rely on a bad memory
Adrian
Burke Extinct Baronetcies 2nd ed 1844 page 89 also gives died 29 June 1592
not the most reliable source but it matches
cheers
Simon
-
Gjest
Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham
Dear Robert,
The proof that Edward Lewknor`s wife Dorothy Wroth was a
daughter of Robert and Jane (Hawte) Wroth wasn`t in MC but rather in W G Davis`
book ' The Ancestry of Mary Isaac" pp 177-178. In 1535 her father`s will
stipulated that his ward Edward Lewknor should marry his daughter Dorothy Wroth
and further indicated that if either of them refused that Dorothy might have
money from his estate`s executors ? from the Lewknor estate. Davis was not
certain.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
please note that The Ancestry of Mary Isaac is available on-line at
Ancestry.com`s Family and Local History database. It is complete and fully
searchable.
The proof that Edward Lewknor`s wife Dorothy Wroth was a
daughter of Robert and Jane (Hawte) Wroth wasn`t in MC but rather in W G Davis`
book ' The Ancestry of Mary Isaac" pp 177-178. In 1535 her father`s will
stipulated that his ward Edward Lewknor should marry his daughter Dorothy Wroth
and further indicated that if either of them refused that Dorothy might have
money from his estate`s executors ? from the Lewknor estate. Davis was not
certain.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
please note that The Ancestry of Mary Isaac is available on-line at
Ancestry.com`s Family and Local History database. It is complete and fully
searchable.
-
Gjest
Re: Did John Savage of Macclesfield die in 1463 or 1464?
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Did John Savage of Macclesfield die in 1463 or
1464?_ (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1127330798)
A second handbook mentioning regnal years seems to indicate that the third
year of Edward IV would have begun in Mar. 1462/3, but I think the conclusion
that he died in 1464 is supported by the weight of his IPM. Any comments?
1464?_ (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1127330798)
A second handbook mentioning regnal years seems to indicate that the third
year of Edward IV would have begun in Mar. 1462/3, but I think the conclusion
that he died in 1464 is supported by the weight of his IPM. Any comments?
-
John Brandon
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. He attended St Catharine's College,
Cambridge, for a while, toured the continent, spent time at Gray's Inn,
and graduated MA from Cambridge in 1667. Then in 1670 he married
Elizabeth Duke over the strong objections of her parents and his
father, and as a result Sir Edward Duke disinherited his disobedient
daughter. Bacon now had to scrabble for a livelihood, which involved
him in fraudulent land dealings and protracted litigation. His father,
fed up with his impish offspring, did what seventeenth-century English
parents often did with their mischievous children. He gave Nathaniel
£1800 and shipped him, Elizabeth, and their two daughters off to
Virginia, where the couple could rely upon family connections as well
as their grubstake. Bacon was related to Dame Frances Berkeley (née
Culpeper), wife of the governor, Sir William Berkeley, while a cousin,
also Nathaniel Bacon, sat on the council of state.
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. He attended St Catharine's College,
Cambridge, for a while, toured the continent, spent time at Gray's Inn,
and graduated MA from Cambridge in 1667. Then in 1670 he married
Elizabeth Duke over the strong objections of her parents and his
father, and as a result Sir Edward Duke disinherited his disobedient
daughter. Bacon now had to scrabble for a livelihood, which involved
him in fraudulent land dealings and protracted litigation. His father,
fed up with his impish offspring, did what seventeenth-century English
parents often did with their mischievous children. He gave Nathaniel
£1800 and shipped him, Elizabeth, and their two daughters off to
Virginia, where the couple could rely upon family connections as well
as their grubstake. Bacon was related to Dame Frances Berkeley (née
Culpeper), wife of the governor, Sir William Berkeley, while a cousin,
also Nathaniel Bacon, sat on the council of state.
-
Gjest
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
Evidently I have to wait until tomorrow....
You said Sept 23rd, I wonder if they will start at midnight (GMT) ?
Its 9 AM on the US west coast and I think GMT is maybe something like 12
hours later than that so I guess I still have a few hours to wait.
I can't wait to see if they are still skeptical of the birthdate and
parentage given to the revolutionary Nathaniel Bacon (of Bacon's Rebellion in the
US). The old DNB said that his purported birth and parentage might be spurious
(or something to that effect).
Will Johnson
You said Sept 23rd, I wonder if they will start at midnight (GMT) ?
Its 9 AM on the US west coast and I think GMT is maybe something like 12
hours later than that so I guess I still have a few hours to wait.
I can't wait to see if they are still skeptical of the birthdate and
parentage given to the revolutionary Nathaniel Bacon (of Bacon's Rebellion in the
US). The old DNB said that his purported birth and parentage might be spurious
(or something to that effect).
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
In a message dated 9/22/2005 9:41:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. He attended St Catharine's College,
Cambridge, for a while, toured the continent, spent time at Gray's Inn,
and graduated MA from Cambridge in 1667. Then in 1670 he married
Elizabeth Duke over the strong objections of her parents and his
father, and as a result Sir Edward Duke disinherited his disobedient
daughter. Bacon now had to scrabble for a livelihood, which involved
him in fraudulent land dealings and protracted litigation. His father,
fed up with his impish offspring, did what seventeenth-century English
parents often did with their mischievous children. He gave Nathaniel
£1800 and shipped him, Elizabeth, and their two daughters off to
Virginia, where the couple could rely upon family connections as well
as their grubstake. Bacon was related to Dame Frances Berkeley (née
Culpeper), wife of the governor, Sir William Berkeley, while a cousin,
also Nathaniel Bacon, sat on the council of state.
Is this quoted from the new DNB ?
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. He attended St Catharine's College,
Cambridge, for a while, toured the continent, spent time at Gray's Inn,
and graduated MA from Cambridge in 1667. Then in 1670 he married
Elizabeth Duke over the strong objections of her parents and his
father, and as a result Sir Edward Duke disinherited his disobedient
daughter. Bacon now had to scrabble for a livelihood, which involved
him in fraudulent land dealings and protracted litigation. His father,
fed up with his impish offspring, did what seventeenth-century English
parents often did with their mischievous children. He gave Nathaniel
£1800 and shipped him, Elizabeth, and their two daughters off to
Virginia, where the couple could rely upon family connections as well
as their grubstake. Bacon was related to Dame Frances Berkeley (née
Culpeper), wife of the governor, Sir William Berkeley, while a cousin,
also Nathaniel Bacon, sat on the council of state.
Is this quoted from the new DNB ?
-
John Brandon
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
Is this quoted from the new DNB ?
Uh-huh. Duh (!)
-
John Brandon
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
It was very obvious what the source was. It seems you are now trying
to pick fights like your little buddy Leo.
to pick fights like your little buddy Leo.
-
Gjest
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
In a message dated 9/22/05 10:55:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< > Is this quoted from the new DNB ?
Uh-huh. Duh (!) >>
Can you point out anywhere in your email where this should be obvious?
I would be appreciative of that.
Thanks
Will
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< > Is this quoted from the new DNB ?
Uh-huh. Duh (!) >>
Can you point out anywhere in your email where this should be obvious?
I would be appreciative of that.
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
In a message dated 9/22/05 11:41:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Get a life, please. >>
I do have a life John thanks.
And my life does not include tossing insults off-hand at anyone within range.
I don't appreciate being abused without any deliberate provocation. I only
asked you what your source was.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Get a life, please. >>
I do have a life John thanks.
And my life does not include tossing insults off-hand at anyone within range.
I don't appreciate being abused without any deliberate provocation. I only
asked you what your source was.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
John Brandon
Re: Nathaniel Bacon
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Huh? When the words "Free access to DNB this weekend" were plainly
visible in the title of the thread, and I'd been quoting profusely from
the new DNB in the parent thread?
A very reasonable position to take.
The source should have been clearly cited.
DSH
Huh? When the words "Free access to DNB this weekend" were plainly
visible in the title of the thread, and I'd been quoting profusely from
the new DNB in the parent thread?
-
Gjest
Re: Nathaniel Bacon was Free access to DNB this weekend
In a message dated 9/22/05 12:10:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< It was very obvious what the source was. It seems you are now trying
to pick fights like your little buddy Leo. >>
John I try not to work with assumptions.
Sure I was able to "assume" it was DNB, but since this article flatly
contradicts the earlier DNB article, I wanted to be assured that it was actually DNB
and not some other source you were quoting.
Will Johnson
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< It was very obvious what the source was. It seems you are now trying
to pick fights like your little buddy Leo. >>
John I try not to work with assumptions.
Sure I was able to "assume" it was DNB, but since this article flatly
contradicts the earlier DNB article, I wanted to be assured that it was actually DNB
and not some other source you were quoting.
Will Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Nathaniel Bacon
A very reasonable position to take.
The source should have been clearly cited.
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:7b.4dff23cd.30645fc2@aol.com...
| In a message dated 9/22/05 12:10:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
| starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
|
| << It was very obvious what the source was. It seems you are now
| << trying to pick fights like your little buddy Leo.
|
| John I try not to work with assumptions.
| Sure I was able to "assume" it was DNB, but since this article flatly
| contradicts the earlier DNB article, I wanted to be assured that it
| was actually DNB and not some other source you were quoting.
|
| Will Johnson
The source should have been clearly cited.
DSH
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:7b.4dff23cd.30645fc2@aol.com...
| In a message dated 9/22/05 12:10:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
| starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
|
| << It was very obvious what the source was. It seems you are now
| << trying to pick fights like your little buddy Leo.
|
| John I try not to work with assumptions.
| Sure I was able to "assume" it was DNB, but since this article flatly
| contradicts the earlier DNB article, I wanted to be assured that it
| was actually DNB and not some other source you were quoting.
|
| Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Nathaniel Bacon
In a message dated 9/22/05 9:41:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. >>
I had posted several months on the problems with this alledged parentage.
The person who married Elizabeth Brooke was not named Thomas, he was named
Nathaniel.
However the father of the Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion, is called, in
a contemporary document "Thomas".
The identification of Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion with a purported
son of some Thomas Bacon OR with this particular Nathaniel who married
Elizabeth Brooke is problematic.
We can see from the documents that it was Nathaniel Bacon who married
Elizabeth about 17 June 1641 and that he was still one of the co-heirs on 4 Nov 1670
precluding some *other* Thomas Bacon from slipping in there.
documents below
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Essex properties
FILE - Lease for 1 year, manors of Wansted and Stonehill, Essex, advowson of
Wansted Church and houses and lands in Essex and Suffolk, Nathaniel Bacon,
Friston, Esq., one of the co-heirs of Sir Robert Brooke, deceased, to Sir William
Blois, Grundisburgh - ref. HA30/312/349 - date: 4th November, 1670
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Estate management
Vouchers
FILE - Bundle of vouchers marked 'Old Receipts from my Grandfather to Lady
Brooke for my Mother's portion, etc.' being receipts from William Blois,
Grundisburgh, senior, to Lady Elizabeth Brooke for portion of his daughter, Martha
Blois, 1647 to 1657. Also acknowledgement by Nathaniel Bacon, Friston Hall, of
receipt of £1000 from Sir Robert Brooke, part payment of £2000, given to
Nathaniel Bacon with Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth, 17th June, 1641. Also note of
fines of court held at Yoxford, 19th April, 1679, and Westleton. - ref.
HA30/312/391 - date: 25th April, 1679
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. >>
I had posted several months on the problems with this alledged parentage.
The person who married Elizabeth Brooke was not named Thomas, he was named
Nathaniel.
However the father of the Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion, is called, in
a contemporary document "Thomas".
The identification of Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion with a purported
son of some Thomas Bacon OR with this particular Nathaniel who married
Elizabeth Brooke is problematic.
We can see from the documents that it was Nathaniel Bacon who married
Elizabeth about 17 June 1641 and that he was still one of the co-heirs on 4 Nov 1670
precluding some *other* Thomas Bacon from slipping in there.
documents below
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Essex properties
FILE - Lease for 1 year, manors of Wansted and Stonehill, Essex, advowson of
Wansted Church and houses and lands in Essex and Suffolk, Nathaniel Bacon,
Friston, Esq., one of the co-heirs of Sir Robert Brooke, deceased, to Sir William
Blois, Grundisburgh - ref. HA30/312/349 - date: 4th November, 1670
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Estate management
Vouchers
FILE - Bundle of vouchers marked 'Old Receipts from my Grandfather to Lady
Brooke for my Mother's portion, etc.' being receipts from William Blois,
Grundisburgh, senior, to Lady Elizabeth Brooke for portion of his daughter, Martha
Blois, 1647 to 1657. Also acknowledgement by Nathaniel Bacon, Friston Hall, of
receipt of £1000 from Sir Robert Brooke, part payment of £2000, given to
Nathaniel Bacon with Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth, 17th June, 1641. Also note of
fines of court held at Yoxford, 19th April, 1679, and Westleton. - ref.
HA30/312/391 - date: 25th April, 1679
-
Gjest
Re: Anthony Browne
In a message dated 9/21/05 8:59:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fairthorne@breathe.com writes:
<< Burke Extinct Baronetcies 2nd ed 1844 page 89 also gives died 29 June 1592
not the most reliable source but it matches >>
Thanks Simon and Adrian. I've now corrected his death date in mydatabase,
and now it makse sense given that his father 19 Jul 1592 is already stating "my
son Anthony deceased".
Will
fairthorne@breathe.com writes:
<< Burke Extinct Baronetcies 2nd ed 1844 page 89 also gives died 29 June 1592
not the most reliable source but it matches >>
Thanks Simon and Adrian. I've now corrected his death date in mydatabase,
and now it makse sense given that his father 19 Jul 1592 is already stating "my
son Anthony deceased".
Will
-
maria emma escobar
RE: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #836
Bisabuela is a great- great mother, but the word "criolla" would have two differents senses. Criolla is not exactly as creole. A "criolla" could be a woman born in America, specially in the islands, but with spanish or portuguese parents, but could be too a woman born in the same places, with one or more african ancestor.
Mee
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com escribió:
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest Volume 05 : Issue 836
Today's Topics:
#1 Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony H [mjcar@btinternet.com]
#2 Re: Rose Freville of Little Shelfo [mjcar@btinternet.com]
#3 Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony H ["John Brandon" #4 Re: Isabella DANNETT, wife of Will [mjcar@btinternet.com]
#5 Re: Nathaniel Bacon [WJhonson@aol.com]
#6 Re: Anthony Browne [WJhonson@aol.com]
#7 Correction of date of Echyngham [charlotte Smith #8 Re: Royalty For Commoners [Tony Ingham #9 Re: Deincourt [Tony Ingham #10 Re: Royalty For Commoners ["D. Spencer Hines"
#11 Erdeswyke ["Le Bateman" ]
#12 Re: Royalty For Commoners ["Peter Stewart"
#13 Re: Erdeswyke [Tony Ingham #14 Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk [mardicar@yahoo.com]
#15 Re: Deincourt ["Katheryn_Swynford" #16 Can anyone translate from Spanish? ["Leo van de Pas" #17 Re: Can anyone translate from Span [Denis Beauregard #18 Re: Can anyone translate from Span ["Todd A. Farmerie" #19 Sandford (was Re: Free access to D ["Todd A. Farmerie" #20 Re: Can anyone translate from Span ["Leo van de Pas"
Administrivia:
This GEN-MEDIEVAL digest has been distributed by RootsWeb. If you would like
to know more about RootsWeb, please visit the RootsWeb homepage at
http://www.rootsweb.com/
If you would like to unsubscribe, send to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com the message "unsubscribe" (without
the quotation marks).
If you would like to have a message included in the GEN-MEDIEVAL digest,
send it to GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com.
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 15:44:15 -0700
De: mjcar@btinternet.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony Hasilden & wife of Robert Freville
Thanks for looking, John; that's very kind of you.
According to your earlier post (16 August):
'Gary Roberts, "Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants", pp. 538-39, says
that disproof of the Peyton descent and of the identification of Rose
Peyton as the wife of Robert Freville [the elder - MAR] is to be found
in Eugene A. Stratton, "Applied Genealogy", pp. 70-72, 74, 165, 170;
while disproof of any Haselden descent is found in "Nexus" 13
(1996):129'
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 15:53:11 -0700
De: mjcar@btinternet.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Rose Freville of Little Shelford
Margaret Thirlaw (1532) left property at Badburgh (sp?)
The will refers to a bequest to the church at "BadbrUgh~m" and to "my
house, lands and pasture within the towne and ... of Badbrugh~m"
I presume this is Babraham, Cambs: cf the following from PROCAT:
C 1/1458/23:
John ORGAR v. Robert CAMPYON and Thomas THURNALL.: Lands in Babraham,
late of John Orgar, deceased, father of complainant: CAMBRIDGE.
1556-1558
MAR
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 15:57:55 -0700
De: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony Hasilden & wife of Robert Freville
Yep, there is a bit on that.
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 16:16:54 -0700
De: mjcar@btinternet.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Isabella DANNETT, wife of William LUDLAM Ld.-Mayor of Leicester (c1528-1604) - who was her family?
PART I - WINSTANLEY TITLE DEEDS
HASTINGS DOCUMENTS
The acquisition of property
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/7 - date: 22nd September,
1593
[from Scope and Content] (ii) John Dannett of Dannetts Hall
nr. Leicester, heir of Leonard Dannett.
WINSTANLEY DOCUMENTS
LEICESTERSHIRE
Property in Braunstone and Leicester Forest purchased by
Clement Winstanley in 1784; (a) Miscellaneous documents relating to the
Abney Family
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/109 - date: 9th November,
1647
[from Scope and Content] From Dannett Abney of
Leicester, gent., to William Chamberlain of Waltham in the Vale, gent.
[from Scope and Content] (ii) a. Dannett Abney, and b.
the late John Swanne.
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/111 - date: 29th
September, 1656
[from Scope and Content] (ii) a. Dannett Abney of
Leicester, gent., and b. George Abney of Leicester, gent.
Property in Aylestone and Braunstone purchased by Clement
Winstanley in 1789; (a) The Wadland Estate; Title deeds etc
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/139 - date: 20th May,
1649
[from Scope and Content] (ii) a. Richard Ludlam of
Leicester, gent., and b. William Francke of Leicester, mercer.
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:26:12 EDT
De: WJhonson@aol.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Nathaniel Bacon
In a message dated 9/22/05 9:41:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. >>
I had posted several months on the problems with this alledged parentage.
The person who married Elizabeth Brooke was not named Thomas, he was named
Nathaniel.
However the father of the Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion, is called, in
a contemporary document "Thomas".
The identification of Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion with a purported
son of some Thomas Bacon OR with this particular Nathaniel who married
Elizabeth Brooke is problematic.
We can see from the documents that it was Nathaniel Bacon who married
Elizabeth about 17 June 1641 and that he was still one of the co-heirs on 4 Nov 1670
precluding some *other* Thomas Bacon from slipping in there.
documents below
Will Johnson
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Essex properties
FILE - Lease for 1 year, manors of Wansted and Stonehill, Essex, advowson of
Wansted Church and houses and lands in Essex and Suffolk, Nathaniel Bacon,
Friston, Esq., one of the co-heirs of Sir Robert Brooke, deceased, to Sir William
Blois, Grundisburgh - ref. HA30/312/349 - date: 4th November, 1670
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Estate management
Vouchers
FILE - Bundle of vouchers marked 'Old Receipts from my Grandfather to Lady
Brooke for my Mother's portion, etc.' being receipts from William Blois,
Grundisburgh, senior, to Lady Elizabeth Brooke for portion of his daughter, Martha
Blois, 1647 to 1657. Also acknowledgement by Nathaniel Bacon, Friston Hall, of
receipt of £1000 from Sir Robert Brooke, part payment of £2000, given to
Nathaniel Bacon with Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth, 17th June, 1641. Also note of
fines of court held at Yoxford, 19th April, 1679, and Westleton. - ref.
HA30/312/391 - date: 25th April, 1679
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:35:54 EDT
De: WJhonson@aol.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Anthony Browne
In a message dated 9/21/05 8:59:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fairthorne@breathe.com writes:
<< Burke Extinct Baronetcies 2nd ed 1844 page 89 also gives died 29 June 1592
not the most reliable source but it matches >>
Thanks Simon and Adrian. I've now corrected his death date in mydatabase,
and now it makse sense given that his father 19 Jul 1592 is already stating "my
son Anthony deceased".
Will
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
De: charlotte Smith <charlotsmith@prodigy.net>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Correction of date of Echyngham
W.Johnson ...Here is a copy off my email to you that has Wm marrying Shoyswell and I don't have James marrying her. Wm Echyngham married a Shoyshwell not James
"So the tomb has Wm who probably married first Marie Shoyshell and then probably Elizabeth Croil(Kryell) and his son william was 15 or more according to his IPM
So James Echyngham born abt 1272 died 1349
son William born about 1335 age 15 and upwards on fathers ipm and died jan 18 1387/8
son William died 1412 who maried 1 Alice Batisford, 2nd Joan Fitzalan"
I hope this is clear....
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:51:59 +1000
De: Tony Ingham <nugget10@hotkey.net.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Royalty For Commoners
And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.
I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read
these 'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not
admitting to looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.
Tony Ingham
John Brandon wrote:
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:04:12 +1000
De: Tony Ingham <nugget10@hotkey.net.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Deincourt
Hello Judy,
I have much material on the Deincourt family.
I guess the marriage you refer to is the fair Blanche and Robert son and
heir of Robert Deyncourt. (see below)
John Deyncourt (from the same branch of the family) married Margery de
ERDESWYK, daughter of Thomas de Erdeswyk (Hardwick) of Leighton
Cheshire. She was the mother of his two children Roger and Alianora.
All the best,
Tony Ingham
Katheryn_Swynford wrote:
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:27:15 -0000
De: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Royalty For Commoners
Perceptive...
DSH
"Tony Ingham" wrote in message
news:433351AF.1090706@hotkey.net.au...
| And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.
|
| I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read
| these 'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not
| admitting to looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.
|
| Tony Ingham
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:40:45 -0500
De: "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Erdeswyke
I had been looking for the name Hardwick on the net, but instead I should
have been looking for other spellings. On the Agincourt Honor Roll is a
Robert ERDESWYKE, perhaps this was the name I was actually looking for. What
can one tell me about this family? Where can I locate something about it?
Thank you
Le
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:27:12 GMT
De: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Royalty For Commoners
"Tony Ingham" wrote in message
news:433351AF.1090706@hotkey.net.au...
Quite so, Tony - Brandon seems to imagine there is an arbitrary point beyond
which 'Uriah' should be left to lie in peace.
But of course most people who indulge themselves in this way are not as
blitheringly stupid as 'Jno Kent', who tells us he suffers from "having to
waste time reading" them. Evidently this dolt hasn't discovered how NOT to
open messages, much less how not to read through them, and instead has
become addicted to inconveniencing himself & then complaining about it.
Peter Stewart
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:59:49 +1000
De: Tony Ingham <nugget10@hotkey.net.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Erdeswyke
Hello Le,
This site should be very helpful for starters.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3203/Vernon2.html
I've attached a gedcom file on the Deyncourt family. If you should see
any anomalies with my data re the Erdeswyks I'd be grateful if you would
let me know.
Good hunting,
Tony
Le Bateman wrote:
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 20:19:54 -0700
De: mardicar@yahoo.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
Further validation of MAR's excellent research on the Holbrook family
posted 28 Aug 2005 is found in Copinger's "Manors of Suffolk" under
Rendlesham, vol. 4 p 321. This also extends the family back two more
generations.
"MANOR OF COLVILE'S
"This was the estate of Ulchetel under the protection of Edric of
Laxfield in King Edward the Confessor's day, and of Gislebert de
Colevilla under Robert Malet, the Domesday tenant in the time of
William the Conqueror.
"In 1204 we find Wiliam de Colvile recovering 40 acres of land here
against Robert de Colvile. In 1262 the manor was held by Ernald de
Colvile and Joan his wife, and was acquired with the advowson from them
or rather from Ernald de Colevile alone, by Richard, son of William de
Holbeck, in 1260 [Feet of Fines, 44 Hen. III. 91]. It was also held by
Richard de Holbroke, who died in 1290, when the manor vested in Sir
John de Holbroke, and in 1304 he presented to the living, which was at
that time and indeed until the time of Jas. I. appendant to this manor.
"The manor passed, as did the Manor of Broke Hall, in Nacton, in
Colneis Hundred [See Manor of Holbrook, in Samford Hundred, which I
don't have], from Sir John de Holbroke in 1306 to his widow Alicia, who
presented this year. She died in 1309, and we find the presentation in
1312 to the living made by his son, Sir John de Holbroke. He died in
1316, and in 1330 Margaret his widow claimed a moiety of the manor in
dower, and subject to her interest the manor passed to Sir Thomas de
Holbroke, son and heir of Sir John. He is mentioned on the Patent
Rolls in 1336 in connection with Rendlesham [Pat. Rolls, 9 Edw. III.
pt. ii. 13], and presented to the living in 1332. He levied a fine of
the manor in 1353 against John Caperon, parson of Tattingstone church,
and Henry White, of Tattingstone [Feet of Fines, 27 Edw. III. 10], and
died in 1360 [IPM, 34 Edw. III. 75], when the manor passed to his son
and heir, Sir John de Holbroke, who married Matilda, daughter of Sir
Robert Bourdrill (?) [sic], and died in 1375 [IPM 50 Edw. III. 32; will
1375, proved 6 Dec. 1375]. In the inquis. p.m. of this John Holbroke,
the manor is said to have been held as of Haughley Honor by the service
of 10s. to the Castle of Dover. The manor seems to have devolved upon
his two daughters and coheirs - Margery, married to John, son of Hugh
Fastolf, and Elizabeth, married to Robert Fitz-Ralph."
The article continues with the devolution of the manor through the
Fastolf family, but unfortunately I don't have the complete account.
Mardi
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 21:46:36 -0700
De: "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Deincourt
Hi Tony,
I'm feeling really dumb here, but I see that you reference:
John Deyncourt = Margery de Erdeswyk
|
-----------------------------------------------
| |
Roger Alianora
(sorry if the ASCII chart gets screwed up):
How are they relatred to Robert heir of Robert Deincourt? I haven't
been able to find much if anything at all on the Robert supposed
husband of Blanche Swynford... Of course, I just might be an idiot and
not know where to look @;-) As you will see, I clearly am not adverse
to fishing expeditions:
I happened upon (okay, got it via ILL in a fishing expedition) two
rolls of arms from Henry III and Edward III and, for the latter, it is
given for :
"Monsire Dayncourt, port d'asur, billite d'or, a une daunsy d'or ...
Monsire William Dayncourt, port d'argent, a une daunsy et billite,
sable"
[REF: _Rolls of Arms of the Reigns of Henry III. and Edward III._, ed.
Nicholas Harris Nicolas (London: William Pickering, 1829), p. 40]
Same family?
Kindest thanks,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:13:01 +1000
De: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Often you cannot translate expressions directly, what does "una bisbuela criolla" mean?
Immeditaly with this remark is given "descendant of Afonso III, King of Portugal 1210-1279" and this is in regards to someone who lived in the 20th century.
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:30:47 -0400
De: Denis Beauregard <no@nospam.com.invalid>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Le Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:13:15 +0000 (UTC), leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
("Leo van de Pas") écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
You don't know about the various translators on the web, like
google or altavista ?
In Spanish, abuela is an old lady. Maybe bisbuela is similar to
bisaieul in French, i.e. great-grand-mother ?
google translates criolla as Creole.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: http://www.sgcf.com
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:33:03 -0600
De: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Could you provide a bit more context? Bisbuela should probably be
bisabuela, i.e. greatgrandmother (or more generally, ancestress), while
criolla is an adjective meaning either Creole or Latin American. It is
not immediately obvious why the two would be found adjacent, and if it
is idiomatic, I would not recognize it, but perhaps a longer quote would
clarify.
taf
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:40:01 -0600
De: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Sandford (was Re: Free access to DNB this weekend)
I note that (re our discussion of a couple of weeks ago) DNB still has
Fulk de Sandford, Archbishop of Dublin, as a male-line Basset:
"[He] was the nephew of Sir Philip Basset (d. 1271), and therefore the
son of either Fulk Basset (d. 1259), bishop of London, or of Gilbert
Basset (d. 1241)."
Is there some reason not obvious to me why no consideration is given the
possibility that he could have been son of a sister?
As to Archbishop John, a more circumspect view is taken, indicating that
he "has traditionally been regarded as the brother of Fulk of Sandford,
archbishop of Dublin, although he was not described as Fulk's brother in
any contemporary source."
taf
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:04:43 +1000
De: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
My quote is very basic, it only gives the names of this person, born and
died in Buenos Aires and "una bisabuela criolla", descendant of Afonso III,
King of Portugal. this is all I have. I have the names of the parents and
four grandparents, all from Buenos Aires. The paternal grandfather also has
interesting additions "el Capitan de Granaderos" and "guerrero de la
Independencia", he lived from 1809 to 1887. And I do have a line to Afonso
III.
I thought that Creole only applied to people from the West Indies, not South
America,
I understand Josephine de Beauharnais was a Creole because she was born in
the West Indies but did not have a coloured ancestry.
Could bisabuela mean quarter, one-eight "criolla" whatever criolla is
indicating?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
---------------------------------
Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es
Mee
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com escribió:
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest Volume 05 : Issue 836
Today's Topics:
#1 Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony H [mjcar@btinternet.com]
#2 Re: Rose Freville of Little Shelfo [mjcar@btinternet.com]
#3 Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony H ["John Brandon" #4 Re: Isabella DANNETT, wife of Will [mjcar@btinternet.com]
#5 Re: Nathaniel Bacon [WJhonson@aol.com]
#6 Re: Anthony Browne [WJhonson@aol.com]
#7 Correction of date of Echyngham [charlotte Smith #8 Re: Royalty For Commoners [Tony Ingham #9 Re: Deincourt [Tony Ingham #10 Re: Royalty For Commoners ["D. Spencer Hines"
#11 Erdeswyke ["Le Bateman" ]
#12 Re: Royalty For Commoners ["Peter Stewart"
#13 Re: Erdeswyke [Tony Ingham #14 Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk [mardicar@yahoo.com]
#15 Re: Deincourt ["Katheryn_Swynford" #16 Can anyone translate from Spanish? ["Leo van de Pas" #17 Re: Can anyone translate from Span [Denis Beauregard #18 Re: Can anyone translate from Span ["Todd A. Farmerie" #19 Sandford (was Re: Free access to D ["Todd A. Farmerie" #20 Re: Can anyone translate from Span ["Leo van de Pas"
Administrivia:
This GEN-MEDIEVAL digest has been distributed by RootsWeb. If you would like
to know more about RootsWeb, please visit the RootsWeb homepage at
http://www.rootsweb.com/
If you would like to unsubscribe, send to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com the message "unsubscribe" (without
the quotation marks).
If you would like to have a message included in the GEN-MEDIEVAL digest,
send it to GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com.
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 15:44:15 -0700
De: mjcar@btinternet.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony Hasilden & wife of Robert Freville
Thanks for looking, John; that's very kind of you.
According to your earlier post (16 August):
'Gary Roberts, "Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants", pp. 538-39, says
that disproof of the Peyton descent and of the identification of Rose
Peyton as the wife of Robert Freville [the elder - MAR] is to be found
in Eugene A. Stratton, "Applied Genealogy", pp. 70-72, 74, 165, 170;
while disproof of any Haselden descent is found in "Nexus" 13
(1996):129'
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 15:53:11 -0700
De: mjcar@btinternet.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Rose Freville of Little Shelford
Margaret Thirlaw (1532) left property at Badburgh (sp?)
The will refers to a bequest to the church at "BadbrUgh~m" and to "my
house, lands and pasture within the towne and ... of Badbrugh~m"
I presume this is Babraham, Cambs: cf the following from PROCAT:
C 1/1458/23:
John ORGAR v. Robert CAMPYON and Thomas THURNALL.: Lands in Babraham,
late of John Orgar, deceased, father of complainant: CAMBRIDGE.
1556-1558
MAR
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 15:57:55 -0700
De: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Beatrix: daughter of Anthony Hasilden & wife of Robert Freville
Yep, there is a bit on that.
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 16:16:54 -0700
De: mjcar@btinternet.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Isabella DANNETT, wife of William LUDLAM Ld.-Mayor of Leicester (c1528-1604) - who was her family?
From the Leicestershire Record Office catalague entries on A2A:
PART I - WINSTANLEY TITLE DEEDS
HASTINGS DOCUMENTS
The acquisition of property
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/7 - date: 22nd September,
1593
[from Scope and Content] (ii) John Dannett of Dannetts Hall
nr. Leicester, heir of Leonard Dannett.
WINSTANLEY DOCUMENTS
LEICESTERSHIRE
Property in Braunstone and Leicester Forest purchased by
Clement Winstanley in 1784; (a) Miscellaneous documents relating to the
Abney Family
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/109 - date: 9th November,
1647
[from Scope and Content] From Dannett Abney of
Leicester, gent., to William Chamberlain of Waltham in the Vale, gent.
[from Scope and Content] (ii) a. Dannett Abney, and b.
the late John Swanne.
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/111 - date: 29th
September, 1656
[from Scope and Content] (ii) a. Dannett Abney of
Leicester, gent., and b. George Abney of Leicester, gent.
Property in Aylestone and Braunstone purchased by Clement
Winstanley in 1789; (a) The Wadland Estate; Title deeds etc
FILE [no title] - ref. 16 D 66/139 - date: 20th May,
1649
[from Scope and Content] (ii) a. Richard Ludlam of
Leicester, gent., and b. William Francke of Leicester, mercer.
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:26:12 EDT
De: WJhonson@aol.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Nathaniel Bacon
In a message dated 9/22/05 9:41:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Bacon, Nathaniel (1647-1676), politician in Virginia, was born on 2
January 1647, the son of Sir Thomas Bacon and his wife, Elizabeth
Brooke, of Friston Hall, Suffolk. >>
I had posted several months on the problems with this alledged parentage.
The person who married Elizabeth Brooke was not named Thomas, he was named
Nathaniel.
However the father of the Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion, is called, in
a contemporary document "Thomas".
The identification of Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion with a purported
son of some Thomas Bacon OR with this particular Nathaniel who married
Elizabeth Brooke is problematic.
We can see from the documents that it was Nathaniel Bacon who married
Elizabeth about 17 June 1641 and that he was still one of the co-heirs on 4 Nov 1670
precluding some *other* Thomas Bacon from slipping in there.
documents below
Will Johnson
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
EVIDENCES of TITLE
Other evidences concerning the Brooke-Blois estates
Essex properties
FILE - Lease for 1 year, manors of Wansted and Stonehill, Essex, advowson of
Wansted Church and houses and lands in Essex and Suffolk, Nathaniel Bacon,
Friston, Esq., one of the co-heirs of Sir Robert Brooke, deceased, to Sir William
Blois, Grundisburgh - ref. HA30/312/349 - date: 4th November, 1670
Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Blois Family Archives Catalogue Ref.
HA30
BLOIS FAMILY
BLOIS FAMILY records
Estate management
Vouchers
FILE - Bundle of vouchers marked 'Old Receipts from my Grandfather to Lady
Brooke for my Mother's portion, etc.' being receipts from William Blois,
Grundisburgh, senior, to Lady Elizabeth Brooke for portion of his daughter, Martha
Blois, 1647 to 1657. Also acknowledgement by Nathaniel Bacon, Friston Hall, of
receipt of £1000 from Sir Robert Brooke, part payment of £2000, given to
Nathaniel Bacon with Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth, 17th June, 1641. Also note of
fines of court held at Yoxford, 19th April, 1679, and Westleton. - ref.
HA30/312/391 - date: 25th April, 1679
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:35:54 EDT
De: WJhonson@aol.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Anthony Browne
In a message dated 9/21/05 8:59:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fairthorne@breathe.com writes:
<< Burke Extinct Baronetcies 2nd ed 1844 page 89 also gives died 29 June 1592
not the most reliable source but it matches >>
Thanks Simon and Adrian. I've now corrected his death date in mydatabase,
and now it makse sense given that his father 19 Jul 1592 is already stating "my
son Anthony deceased".
Will
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
De: charlotte Smith <charlotsmith@prodigy.net>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Correction of date of Echyngham
W.Johnson ...Here is a copy off my email to you that has Wm marrying Shoyswell and I don't have James marrying her. Wm Echyngham married a Shoyshwell not James
"So the tomb has Wm who probably married first Marie Shoyshell and then probably Elizabeth Croil(Kryell) and his son william was 15 or more according to his IPM
So James Echyngham born abt 1272 died 1349
son William born about 1335 age 15 and upwards on fathers ipm and died jan 18 1387/8
son William died 1412 who maried 1 Alice Batisford, 2nd Joan Fitzalan"
I hope this is clear....
Charlotsmith@prodigy.net
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:51:59 +1000
De: Tony Ingham <nugget10@hotkey.net.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Royalty For Commoners
And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.
I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read
these 'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not
admitting to looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.
Tony Ingham
John Brandon wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
By the way, all those readers who failed to speak up before about
Richardson's abuses of this newsgroup don't have to wait for another episode
after all - they can enjoy the fruits of their silence here and now, in
Uriah's idiotic persistence.
You seem not to realize that this lousy thread would not continue
without your own, kind contributions to it ...
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:04:12 +1000
De: Tony Ingham <nugget10@hotkey.net.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Deincourt
Hello Judy,
I have much material on the Deincourt family.
I guess the marriage you refer to is the fair Blanche and Robert son and
heir of Robert Deyncourt. (see below)
John Deyncourt (from the same branch of the family) married Margery de
ERDESWYK, daughter of Thomas de Erdeswyk (Hardwick) of Leighton
Cheshire. She was the mother of his two children Roger and Alianora.
All the best,
Tony Ingham
(iii) KATHARINE SWYNFORD
It is difficult to fix an accurate date for the beginning of the
/liason/ of John of Gaunt with Katharine Swynford.
The Monk of Eversham, speaking of Katharine, says: “Quam ut concubinam
multo tempore, /vivente uxore Constancia/ carnaliter cognovit (p.
128),” which, if true, limits it to 1371-1394, while Froissart’s
account narrows the period still further, viz. : “Quant . . . celle
seconde duchesse Constance fut morte, le duc de Lancastre, /la dame
vivante/, avoit tenu celle Katherine de Ruet, qui aussi avoit esté
mariée à ung chevallier d’Angleterre. /Le chevallier vivant et mort/,
tousjours le duc Jehan de Lancastre avoit amé et tenu celle dame
Katherine . . .” [K. de L. xv. 239].
Only the years 1371 and 1372 fit in with this statement, a conclusion
which harmonises with other available evidence. For instance, the
petition to the Pope above quoted mentions the adultery in the life of
Duchess Constance, not in the life of Duchess Blanche. The /Chronicon
Angliae/ (p. 196) speaks of the notoriety of the affair almost as
something new in 1378, while according to Knighton (ii. 147), it was a
well-established fact in 1381. No contemporary evidence supports the
statement of Percy MS. 78 (quoted below), which place the birth of the
Beauforts in the life of the Duchess Blanche. There is no doubt,
however that most historians have postdated the birth of the
Beauforts, or at least of the eldest of them, for in 1390 /Monseigneur
Jehon de Biaufort, bastart de Lancastre/, was old enough to bear
himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert [Froissart, K. de
L. xiv. 416], though on the other hand Henry Beaufort could be
described as /admondum puer/, when in 1398 he obtained the Bishopric
of Lincoln, and Thomas Beaufort, being described in the patent of
legitimation as /domicellus/ in 1397, was evidently too young for
knighthood in that year.
The evidence of the Register, though inconclusive because incomplete,
points to the same conclusion, viz., that the /liason/ began in 1371
or 1372.
At that date the Duke’s gifts and grants to Katharine are no greater
than might have been made to any other member of his household ;
immediately after they begin to become significant. Here are the
principal instances :— (i) May 1, 1372, gift of 10£. ; (ii) May 15,
1372, grant of an annuity of 20 marcs ; (iii) June 20, 1372, grant of
the wardship of the lands of her late husband, excepting the marriage
fees and advowsons ; (iv) June 23, 1373, gift of three bucks ; (v)
June 28, 1373, gift of oaks ; (vi) Jan. 1, 1375, grant of the wardship
of the lands and heir of Sir Robert Deyncourt, and the marriage of the
heir for her daughter Blanche ; (vii) Jan. 7, 1377, grant of the
manors of Gringley and Wheatley, and gift of a tun of wine ; (viii)
July 23, 1377 grant of tenements, late of Geoffrey de Sutton, in St.
Botolph’s ; (ix) July 24, 1377, gift of 50 oaks for the repair of her
houses at Ketelthorp ; (x) July 25, 1379, grant of the wardship of the
lands and heir of Bertram de Savenby ; (xi) Jan. 20, 1381, grant of
the wardship of the lands, and the marriage of the heir of Elys de
Thoresby ; (xii) Sept. 7, 1381, grant of an annuity of 200 marcs.
The presents, already noticed, made to Katharine by the Mayor of
Leicester belong to the years 1375 and 1379.
Katheryn_Swynford wrote:
Le,
I'm wishing I had something that would help you, as I'm trying to find
out what info exists for the Deincourt family which may or may not have
intermarried with that of Swynford ca. 1380s.
Sorry... If I find anything, I'll let you know.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:27:15 -0000
De: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Royalty For Commoners
Perceptive...
DSH
"Tony Ingham" wrote in message
news:433351AF.1090706@hotkey.net.au...
| And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.
|
| I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read
| these 'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not
| admitting to looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.
|
| Tony Ingham
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:40:45 -0500
De: "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Erdeswyke
I had been looking for the name Hardwick on the net, but instead I should
have been looking for other spellings. On the Agincourt Honor Roll is a
Robert ERDESWYKE, perhaps this was the name I was actually looking for. What
can one tell me about this family? Where can I locate something about it?
Thank you
Le
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:27:12 GMT
De: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Royalty For Commoners
"Tony Ingham" wrote in message
news:433351AF.1090706@hotkey.net.au...
And, indeed, yours as well John! And mine too, I suppose.
I think all those who write in about the loose threads secretly read these
'flame wars' and get a wee thrill from them. A bit like not admitting to
looking at the Page 3 girl in the British tabloids.
Quite so, Tony - Brandon seems to imagine there is an arbitrary point beyond
which 'Uriah' should be left to lie in peace.
But of course most people who indulge themselves in this way are not as
blitheringly stupid as 'Jno Kent', who tells us he suffers from "having to
waste time reading" them. Evidently this dolt hasn't discovered how NOT to
open messages, much less how not to read through them, and instead has
become addicted to inconveniencing himself & then complaining about it.
Peter Stewart
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:59:49 +1000
De: Tony Ingham <nugget10@hotkey.net.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Erdeswyke
Hello Le,
This site should be very helpful for starters.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3203/Vernon2.html
I've attached a gedcom file on the Deyncourt family. If you should see
any anomalies with my data re the Erdeswyks I'd be grateful if you would
let me know.
Good hunting,
Tony
Le Bateman wrote:
I had been looking for the name Hardwick on the net, but instead I should
have been looking for other spellings. On the Agincourt Honor Roll is a
Robert ERDESWYKE, perhaps this was the name I was actually looking for. What
can one tell me about this family? Where can I locate something about it?
Thank you
Le
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 20:19:54 -0700
De: mardicar@yahoo.com
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Holbrook, of Holbrook Suffolk
Further validation of MAR's excellent research on the Holbrook family
posted 28 Aug 2005 is found in Copinger's "Manors of Suffolk" under
Rendlesham, vol. 4 p 321. This also extends the family back two more
generations.
"MANOR OF COLVILE'S
"This was the estate of Ulchetel under the protection of Edric of
Laxfield in King Edward the Confessor's day, and of Gislebert de
Colevilla under Robert Malet, the Domesday tenant in the time of
William the Conqueror.
"In 1204 we find Wiliam de Colvile recovering 40 acres of land here
against Robert de Colvile. In 1262 the manor was held by Ernald de
Colvile and Joan his wife, and was acquired with the advowson from them
or rather from Ernald de Colevile alone, by Richard, son of William de
Holbeck, in 1260 [Feet of Fines, 44 Hen. III. 91]. It was also held by
Richard de Holbroke, who died in 1290, when the manor vested in Sir
John de Holbroke, and in 1304 he presented to the living, which was at
that time and indeed until the time of Jas. I. appendant to this manor.
"The manor passed, as did the Manor of Broke Hall, in Nacton, in
Colneis Hundred [See Manor of Holbrook, in Samford Hundred, which I
don't have], from Sir John de Holbroke in 1306 to his widow Alicia, who
presented this year. She died in 1309, and we find the presentation in
1312 to the living made by his son, Sir John de Holbroke. He died in
1316, and in 1330 Margaret his widow claimed a moiety of the manor in
dower, and subject to her interest the manor passed to Sir Thomas de
Holbroke, son and heir of Sir John. He is mentioned on the Patent
Rolls in 1336 in connection with Rendlesham [Pat. Rolls, 9 Edw. III.
pt. ii. 13], and presented to the living in 1332. He levied a fine of
the manor in 1353 against John Caperon, parson of Tattingstone church,
and Henry White, of Tattingstone [Feet of Fines, 27 Edw. III. 10], and
died in 1360 [IPM, 34 Edw. III. 75], when the manor passed to his son
and heir, Sir John de Holbroke, who married Matilda, daughter of Sir
Robert Bourdrill (?) [sic], and died in 1375 [IPM 50 Edw. III. 32; will
1375, proved 6 Dec. 1375]. In the inquis. p.m. of this John Holbroke,
the manor is said to have been held as of Haughley Honor by the service
of 10s. to the Castle of Dover. The manor seems to have devolved upon
his two daughters and coheirs - Margery, married to John, son of Hugh
Fastolf, and Elizabeth, married to Robert Fitz-Ralph."
The article continues with the devolution of the manor through the
Fastolf family, but unfortunately I don't have the complete account.
Mardi
______________________________Fecha: 22 Sep 2005 21:46:36 -0700
De: "Katheryn_Swynford" <katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Deincourt
Hi Tony,
I'm feeling really dumb here, but I see that you reference:
John Deyncourt = Margery de Erdeswyk
|
-----------------------------------------------
| |
Roger Alianora
(sorry if the ASCII chart gets screwed up):
How are they relatred to Robert heir of Robert Deincourt? I haven't
been able to find much if anything at all on the Robert supposed
husband of Blanche Swynford... Of course, I just might be an idiot and
not know where to look @;-) As you will see, I clearly am not adverse
to fishing expeditions:
I happened upon (okay, got it via ILL in a fishing expedition) two
rolls of arms from Henry III and Edward III and, for the latter, it is
given for :
"Monsire Dayncourt, port d'asur, billite d'or, a une daunsy d'or ...
Monsire William Dayncourt, port d'argent, a une daunsy et billite,
sable"
[REF: _Rolls of Arms of the Reigns of Henry III. and Edward III._, ed.
Nicholas Harris Nicolas (London: William Pickering, 1829), p. 40]
Same family?
Kindest thanks,
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:13:01 +1000
De: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Often you cannot translate expressions directly, what does "una bisbuela criolla" mean?
Immeditaly with this remark is given "descendant of Afonso III, King of Portugal 1210-1279" and this is in regards to someone who lived in the 20th century.
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:30:47 -0400
De: Denis Beauregard <no@nospam.com.invalid>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Le Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:13:15 +0000 (UTC), leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
("Leo van de Pas") écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
Often you cannot translate expressions directly, what does "una bisbuela criolla" mean?
Immeditaly with this remark is given "descendant of Afonso III, King of Portugal 1210-1279" and this is in regards to someone who lived in the 20th century.
You don't know about the various translators on the web, like
google or altavista ?
In Spanish, abuela is an old lady. Maybe bisbuela is similar to
bisaieul in French, i.e. great-grand-mother ?
google translates criolla as Creole.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard - Les Français d'Amérique
/\/ http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1711
/ | http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
oo oo Mon association de généalogie: http://www.sgcf.com
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:33:03 -0600
De: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Often you cannot translate expressions directly, what does "una bisbuela criolla" mean?
Immeditaly with this remark is given "descendant of Afonso III, King of Portugal 1210-1279" and this is in regards to someone who lived in the 20th century.
Could you provide a bit more context? Bisbuela should probably be
bisabuela, i.e. greatgrandmother (or more generally, ancestress), while
criolla is an adjective meaning either Creole or Latin American. It is
not immediately obvious why the two would be found adjacent, and if it
is idiomatic, I would not recognize it, but perhaps a longer quote would
clarify.
taf
______________________________Fecha: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:40:01 -0600
De: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Sandford (was Re: Free access to DNB this weekend)
I note that (re our discussion of a couple of weeks ago) DNB still has
Fulk de Sandford, Archbishop of Dublin, as a male-line Basset:
"[He] was the nephew of Sir Philip Basset (d. 1271), and therefore the
son of either Fulk Basset (d. 1259), bishop of London, or of Gilbert
Basset (d. 1241)."
Is there some reason not obvious to me why no consideration is given the
possibility that he could have been son of a sister?
As to Archbishop John, a more circumspect view is taken, indicating that
he "has traditionally been regarded as the brother of Fulk of Sandford,
archbishop of Dublin, although he was not described as Fulk's brother in
any contemporary source."
taf
______________________________Fecha: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:04:43 +1000
De: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Para: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Asunto: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
My quote is very basic, it only gives the names of this person, born and
died in Buenos Aires and "una bisabuela criolla", descendant of Afonso III,
King of Portugal. this is all I have. I have the names of the parents and
four grandparents, all from Buenos Aires. The paternal grandfather also has
interesting additions "el Capitan de Granaderos" and "guerrero de la
Independencia", he lived from 1809 to 1887. And I do have a line to Afonso
III.
I thought that Creole only applied to people from the West Indies, not South
America,
I understand Josephine de Beauharnais was a Creole because she was born in
the West Indies but did not have a coloured ancestry.
Could bisabuela mean quarter, one-eight "criolla" whatever criolla is
indicating?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Can anyone translate from Spanish?
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Often you cannot translate expressions directly, what does "una bisbuela
criolla" mean?
Immeditaly with this remark is given "descendant of Afonso III, King of
Portugal 1210-1279" and this is in regards to someone who lived in the
20th century.
Could you provide a bit more context? Bisbuela should probably be
bisabuela, i.e. greatgrandmother (or more generally, ancestress), while
criolla is an adjective meaning either Creole or Latin American. It is
not immediately obvious why the two would be found adjacent, and if it is
idiomatic, I would not recognize it, but perhaps a longer quote would
clarify.
taf
---------------------------------
Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es
-
Gjest
re: Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon's Rebellion
You know it's funny. DNB had it right the first time, then they go and
merely pick-up and add, from U.S. reference books, material that is inaccurate
and based on a fallacious identification and republish this as the more
"accurate" representation.
And this, without ANY reference back to the old version which actually
pointed out some of the issues with this identification in the first place.
The repeat the old chestnut that his father was "furious" with him for
marrying, bypassing the old DNB's pointing out that this was probably not correct.
They take his known father Thomas Bacon and paste in the wife of his
brother or cousin Elizabeth Brooke simply because someone in the US 80 years ago
made this mistake and desperately wanted to give poor Nicholas a mother. Then
they go ahead and throw in a birthdate someone alledgedly got from some
myterious parish register that they didn't reference. Although he is said to be
"of Friston Hall", the old DNB makes clear that he was probably a junior
branch, while the new one basically wants to put him in the main line.
I do see a glimmer of hope that someone in the IGI has submitted a different
mother for him, an Elizabeth Haggett whomever she may be. But really,
reviewing the sources in DNB on this person makes me pause.
merely pick-up and add, from U.S. reference books, material that is inaccurate
and based on a fallacious identification and republish this as the more
"accurate" representation.
And this, without ANY reference back to the old version which actually
pointed out some of the issues with this identification in the first place.
The repeat the old chestnut that his father was "furious" with him for
marrying, bypassing the old DNB's pointing out that this was probably not correct.
They take his known father Thomas Bacon and paste in the wife of his
brother or cousin Elizabeth Brooke simply because someone in the US 80 years ago
made this mistake and desperately wanted to give poor Nicholas a mother. Then
they go ahead and throw in a birthdate someone alledgedly got from some
myterious parish register that they didn't reference. Although he is said to be
"of Friston Hall", the old DNB makes clear that he was probably a junior
branch, while the new one basically wants to put him in the main line.
I do see a glimmer of hope that someone in the IGI has submitted a different
mother for him, an Elizabeth Haggett whomever she may be. But really,
reviewing the sources in DNB on this person makes me pause.
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogy in general was Corrections to new DNB
You know what I find interesting, is this penchant for following this
process in connecting colonial families back to England.
1) Document as much as you can about your colonial person esp vague
statements like "he came from a family not obscure", and "his father was a wealthy
Lord", and "he ran through his wealth and so was required to leave the
country"....
2) Then make a wild guess about when your person should have been born.
3) Try to find any person with the same name and approx birth year in any
document, real, fictitious, hypothetical, or otherwise.
4) Propose that they might be the same person, i.e. that your colonial John
Brown might be the same person as John Brown of London b 1642 ....
5) Wait ten years or so, and then declare, without further documentation,
that they ARE in fact the same person.
6) Wait another twenty to forty years, to have this picked up first as
tangential data in modest publications and then later as germane data in more
weighty publications. Then sit back and laugh at the great joke you've pulled,
because you realize that 99.8% of all persons will not try to verify the facts.
Will Johnson
process in connecting colonial families back to England.
1) Document as much as you can about your colonial person esp vague
statements like "he came from a family not obscure", and "his father was a wealthy
Lord", and "he ran through his wealth and so was required to leave the
country"....
2) Then make a wild guess about when your person should have been born.
3) Try to find any person with the same name and approx birth year in any
document, real, fictitious, hypothetical, or otherwise.
4) Propose that they might be the same person, i.e. that your colonial John
Brown might be the same person as John Brown of London b 1642 ....
5) Wait ten years or so, and then declare, without further documentation,
that they ARE in fact the same person.
6) Wait another twenty to forty years, to have this picked up first as
tangential data in modest publications and then later as germane data in more
weighty publications. Then sit back and laugh at the great joke you've pulled,
because you realize that 99.8% of all persons will not try to verify the facts.
Will Johnson
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: DNB corrections?
"it gives father of Henry Carey 1st Baron Hunsdon as William Cary rather
than
Henry VIII (see Anthony Hoskins in Gen Mag Vol 25 No 9 1997)"
---
The legal fact of William Carey's "paternity" of the 1st Lord Hunsdon
is incontestable, notwithstanding that Henry VIII was *likely* the real
father. Ideally, the DNB should make note of this.
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
than
Henry VIII (see Anthony Hoskins in Gen Mag Vol 25 No 9 1997)"
---
The legal fact of William Carey's "paternity" of the 1st Lord Hunsdon
is incontestable, notwithstanding that Henry VIII was *likely* the real
father. Ideally, the DNB should make note of this.
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
-
Bob New
Re: Sir Gregory SAIS, son of Cynrig Sais ap Ithel Fychan
Sir Gregory SAIS, son of Cynrig Sais ap Ithel Fychan, d. 1390.
I asked on this list in 2003 who this was. I now have the answer to my own question.
Until midnight (British time) on Sunday, the (1 year old) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (the DNB) is offering free online access. See the website at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/
Using this facility I have found a useful account of this knight's career.
I will first ask another question: who is CADWGAN SAIS ?
To place this question in context, I return to Sir Gregory Sais. The article about him in the DNB was written by A.D. Carr, and his source was his own paper "A Welsh knight in the Hundred Years War: Sir Gregory Sais", published in the "Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion" (1977), 40-53.
Not long ago I obtained a copy of this through the English public Library system. My interest in Sir Gregory is genealogical. It is known that he married a widow, Ragonde, and they probably had no children. However, the paper states this:
"In 1390 [Sir Gregory] died, leaving behind him lands in thirteen Flintshire townships. These lands had been seized by the escheater because he had conveyed them to Robert de Merston, chaplain, and Henry Salusbury, and they had conveyed them in turn to Ragonde and Cadwgan Sais. The purpose of these transactions was presumably to protect Ragonde's interests and all parties were pardoned on 5 January 1391."
I presume Cadwgan Sais's interests as well. Could he have been the son of Sir Gregory? Sir Gregory was Ragonde's third husband. Could he have been married before as well? A.D. Carr's paper also stated that "[Sir Gregory Sais] was probably a member of one of the leading families in north-east Wales; his uncle, Tudor ab Ithel Fychan, was the founder of the great Mostyn estate."
The Visitation of Herefordshire 1634 records for "SAYS OF KILPECK" a family bearing the same arms as those of Sir Gregory Sais (Azure ten roundels Argent 4, 3, 2 and 1, on a chief Or a demi-lion issuant Gules). This family were also of Withington (Wythington), near Hereford, and bears the names SAYSE or SAISE. They are recorded also on two tombstones, or stone slabs, in front of the altar in Kilpeck church. A family of SAYCEs (my ancestors) are recorded on a similar slab in nearby Dore Abbey, and the name is found locally to this day.
Bob New
I asked on this list in 2003 who this was. I now have the answer to my own question.
Until midnight (British time) on Sunday, the (1 year old) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (the DNB) is offering free online access. See the website at: http://www.oxforddnb.com/
Using this facility I have found a useful account of this knight's career.
I will first ask another question: who is CADWGAN SAIS ?
To place this question in context, I return to Sir Gregory Sais. The article about him in the DNB was written by A.D. Carr, and his source was his own paper "A Welsh knight in the Hundred Years War: Sir Gregory Sais", published in the "Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion" (1977), 40-53.
Not long ago I obtained a copy of this through the English public Library system. My interest in Sir Gregory is genealogical. It is known that he married a widow, Ragonde, and they probably had no children. However, the paper states this:
"In 1390 [Sir Gregory] died, leaving behind him lands in thirteen Flintshire townships. These lands had been seized by the escheater because he had conveyed them to Robert de Merston, chaplain, and Henry Salusbury, and they had conveyed them in turn to Ragonde and Cadwgan Sais. The purpose of these transactions was presumably to protect Ragonde's interests and all parties were pardoned on 5 January 1391."
I presume Cadwgan Sais's interests as well. Could he have been the son of Sir Gregory? Sir Gregory was Ragonde's third husband. Could he have been married before as well? A.D. Carr's paper also stated that "[Sir Gregory Sais] was probably a member of one of the leading families in north-east Wales; his uncle, Tudor ab Ithel Fychan, was the founder of the great Mostyn estate."
The Visitation of Herefordshire 1634 records for "SAYS OF KILPECK" a family bearing the same arms as those of Sir Gregory Sais (Azure ten roundels Argent 4, 3, 2 and 1, on a chief Or a demi-lion issuant Gules). This family were also of Withington (Wythington), near Hereford, and bears the names SAYSE or SAISE. They are recorded also on two tombstones, or stone slabs, in front of the altar in Kilpeck church. A family of SAYCEs (my ancestors) are recorded on a similar slab in nearby Dore Abbey, and the name is found locally to this day.
Bob New
-
Gjest
Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey
Tony Hoskins writes:
Firstly grovelling apologies, here I've been quoting your article (and have
used it since it first appeared) without waking up enough to recognise the
connection between you and it - must stop day dreaming after the Ashes
There is a dilemma - should the DNB be stating what is legally true or what
is actually (or very probably) true
For my family tree nothing is certain but I want it as close to the actual
truth as I can - so Henry VIII went in soon after I read your article (with
copious comments)
If DNB presents the legal "truth" then this presents difficulties - our
government has a habit of making idiosyncratic changes to the law, and has
no hesitation in making them retrospective
Cheers
Simon
"it gives father of Henry Carey 1st Baron Hunsdon as William Cary rather
than
Henry VIII (see Anthony Hoskins in Gen Mag Vol 25 No 9 1997)"
---
The legal fact of William Carey's "paternity" of the 1st Lord Hunsdon
is incontestable, notwithstanding that Henry VIII was *likely* the real
father. Ideally, the DNB should make note of this.
Hi Tony
Firstly grovelling apologies, here I've been quoting your article (and have
used it since it first appeared) without waking up enough to recognise the
connection between you and it - must stop day dreaming after the Ashes
There is a dilemma - should the DNB be stating what is legally true or what
is actually (or very probably) true
For my family tree nothing is certain but I want it as close to the actual
truth as I can - so Henry VIII went in soon after I read your article (with
copious comments)
If DNB presents the legal "truth" then this presents difficulties - our
government has a habit of making idiosyncratic changes to the law, and has
no hesitation in making them retrospective
Cheers
Simon
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey
There is a dilemma - should the DNB be stating what is legally true or
what is actually (or very probably) true.
Hello Simon,
In my view, with cases of disputed paternity that are supported by
unambiguous and powerful circumstantial evidence the likeliest candidate
should be shown as father in a genealogy (despite legal incongruencies),
with clear indications nonehtheless of just who the legal "father"
is/was. So, as to the _DNB_, I think it should be stated that Henry VIII
was probably the father of the 1st Lord Hunsdon, though Hunsdon was
nominally the son of his mother's husband William Carey.
In this particular instance, I think this is especially justified as a
number of leading Tudor historians (Wallace MacCaffrey (Harvard), Dale
Hoak (William and Mary), inter alios) concur with my hypothesis that
Henry VIII probably fathered the Carey children of Mary Boleyn.
With best wishes,
Tony Hoskins
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
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey
Dear Tony,
It may take a while, but the _certainty_ of William Cary being the father
should fade. And the probable paternity of Henry VIII should become more
widely accepted. I think you did a superb job with your article and this may
give Henry VIII his rightful genealogical position.
Then he could be named as ancestor of HM Queen Elizabeth II, Lady Diana
Spencer, Sarah Ferguson, Camilla Shand, the Aga Khan and
Gateway Ancestors Capt. John West, Herbert Pelham, Anne Humphrey, Wiseman
Clagett and William Tryon.
as well as many others.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey
It may take a while, but the _certainty_ of William Cary being the father
should fade. And the probable paternity of Henry VIII should become more
widely accepted. I think you did a superb job with your article and this may
give Henry VIII his rightful genealogical position.
Then he could be named as ancestor of HM Queen Elizabeth II, Lady Diana
Spencer, Sarah Ferguson, Camilla Shand, the Aga Khan and
Gateway Ancestors Capt. John West, Herbert Pelham, Anne Humphrey, Wiseman
Clagett and William Tryon.
as well as many others.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Henry VIII v Carey
There is a dilemma - should the DNB be stating what is legally true or
what is actually (or very probably) true.
Hello Simon,
In my view, with cases of disputed paternity that are supported by
unambiguous and powerful circumstantial evidence the likeliest candidate
should be shown as father in a genealogy (despite legal incongruencies),
with clear indications nonehtheless of just who the legal "father"
is/was. So, as to the _DNB_, I think it should be stated that Henry VIII
was probably the father of the 1st Lord Hunsdon, though Hunsdon was
nominally the son of his mother's husband William Carey.
In this particular instance, I think this is especially justified as a
number of leading Tudor historians (Wallace MacCaffrey (Harvard), Dale
Hoak (William and Mary), inter alios) concur with my hypothesis that
Henry VIII probably fathered the Carey children of Mary Boleyn.
With best wishes,
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: Order of the Garter
In a message dated 9/20/2005 4:38:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:
FILE - Probate of the Will of ANTHONYE BROWNE, knt. and Master of the kyngis
horses - ref. SAS-BA/19 - date: 22 Apr 1547
[from Scope and Content] To son Sir Anthony Browne, testator's collar of the
Order of the Garter, with all householf stuff, plate, money &c., debts
cattele, leases, wardships and all other things appertaining to 'my body', the
furnishing of any of testator's houses of Battell, Cowdrye or Byflet not already
bequeathed, at 21 years
I had asked in a prior post about a will which conferred a collar of the
Order of the Garter onto an heir, and whether membership in the Order was passed
in this way. Leo responded that it wasn't. I've pasted the part of the
will above to which I was referring. This Anthony is giving his "collar of the
Order of the Garter" to his son. I was presuming that the wearing of the
collar marks a person as a member of the Order. It would be interesting to see
if this son was ever made a member of the Order of the Garter.
Will
writes:
FILE - Probate of the Will of ANTHONYE BROWNE, knt. and Master of the kyngis
horses - ref. SAS-BA/19 - date: 22 Apr 1547
[from Scope and Content] To son Sir Anthony Browne, testator's collar of the
Order of the Garter, with all householf stuff, plate, money &c., debts
cattele, leases, wardships and all other things appertaining to 'my body', the
furnishing of any of testator's houses of Battell, Cowdrye or Byflet not already
bequeathed, at 21 years
I had asked in a prior post about a will which conferred a collar of the
Order of the Garter onto an heir, and whether membership in the Order was passed
in this way. Leo responded that it wasn't. I've pasted the part of the
will above to which I was referring. This Anthony is giving his "collar of the
Order of the Garter" to his son. I was presuming that the wearing of the
collar marks a person as a member of the Order. It would be interesting to see
if this son was ever made a member of the Order of the Garter.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: DNB corrections? Roger or John de Somery
The DNB has the following:
Sutton, John (VI) [John Dudley], first Baron Dudley (1400-1487), courtier
and diplomat, was born on 25 December 1400, the son of John (V) Sutton (d. 1406)
and his wife, Constance Blount (d. 1432). The Suttons were the descendants of
John, Lord Somery (d. 1308), through his elder daughter, Margaret, who had
brought her husband, John (I) Sutton, half the barony of Dudley.
I have the following. Which is correct father of Margaret, Roger de Somery
or John de Somery.
NOTES FOR ROGER DE SOMERY:
Baron Dudley. Held Dinas Powis.
In 1287, land in Bromwich, Warwickshire and neighbouring hamlets constituted
a knight’s fee held of Roger de Somery as of his castle of Dudley by a number
of tenants. Roger died in 1291 and his son John de Somery inherits. When
John dies in 1322 his heirs were his sisters, Margaret wife of John de Sutton,
and Joan widow of Thomas de Botetourt; the overlordship of Castle Bromwich
passed to the latter.
Barbara
Sutton, John (VI) [John Dudley], first Baron Dudley (1400-1487), courtier
and diplomat, was born on 25 December 1400, the son of John (V) Sutton (d. 1406)
and his wife, Constance Blount (d. 1432). The Suttons were the descendants of
John, Lord Somery (d. 1308), through his elder daughter, Margaret, who had
brought her husband, John (I) Sutton, half the barony of Dudley.
I have the following. Which is correct father of Margaret, Roger de Somery
or John de Somery.
NOTES FOR ROGER DE SOMERY:
Baron Dudley. Held Dinas Powis.
In 1287, land in Bromwich, Warwickshire and neighbouring hamlets constituted
a knight’s fee held of Roger de Somery as of his castle of Dudley by a number
of tenants. Roger died in 1291 and his son John de Somery inherits. When
John dies in 1322 his heirs were his sisters, Margaret wife of John de Sutton,
and Joan widow of Thomas de Botetourt; the overlordship of Castle Bromwich
passed to the latter.
Barbara
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Order of the Garter
The son became 1st Viscount Montagu and had to wait until 1555 before he
became the 336 Knight of the Garter in his own right.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Order of the Garter
became the 336 Knight of the Garter in his own right.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Order of the Garter
In a message dated 9/20/2005 4:38:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson
writes:
FILE - Probate of the Will of ANTHONYE BROWNE, knt. and Master of the
kyngis
horses - ref. SAS-BA/19 - date: 22 Apr 1547
[from Scope and Content] To son Sir Anthony Browne, testator's collar of
the
Order of the Garter, with all householf stuff, plate, money &c., debts
cattele, leases, wardships and all other things appertaining to 'my
body', the
furnishing of any of testator's houses of Battell, Cowdrye or Byflet not
already
bequeathed, at 21 years
I had asked in a prior post about a will which conferred a collar of the
Order of the Garter onto an heir, and whether membership in the Order was
passed
in this way. Leo responded that it wasn't. I've pasted the part of the
will above to which I was referring. This Anthony is giving his "collar
of the
Order of the Garter" to his son. I was presuming that the wearing of the
collar marks a person as a member of the Order. It would be interesting
to see
if this son was ever made a member of the Order of the Garter.
Will
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: DNB corrections? Roger or John de Somery
Roger.
Knights of Edward I 4:318
CP 12/1:114
Keats-Rohan, Domesday people 113-14
Heraldry of Worcester 2:531-32, 556
Sander's Baronies 113
-----Original Message-----
From: BWGood@aol.com
Sent: Sep 24, 2005 9:22 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Roger or John de Somery
The DNB has the following:
Sutton, John (VI) [John Dudley], first Baron Dudley (1400-1487), courtier
and diplomat, was born on 25 December 1400, the son of John (V) Sutton (d. 1406)
and his wife, Constance Blount (d. 1432). The Suttons were the descendants of
John, Lord Somery (d. 1308), through his elder daughter, Margaret, who had
brought her husband, John (I) Sutton, half the barony of Dudley.
I have the following. Which is correct father of Margaret, Roger de Somery
or John de Somery.
NOTES FOR ROGER DE SOMERY:
Baron Dudley. Held Dinas Powis.
In 1287, land in Bromwich, Warwickshire and neighbouring hamlets constituted
a knight?s fee held of Roger de Somery as of his castle of Dudley by a number
of tenants. Roger died in 1291 and his son John de Somery inherits. When
John dies in 1322 his heirs were his sisters, Margaret wife of John de Sutton,
and Joan widow of Thomas de Botetourt; the overlordship of Castle Bromwich
passed to the latter.
Barbara
Knights of Edward I 4:318
CP 12/1:114
Keats-Rohan, Domesday people 113-14
Heraldry of Worcester 2:531-32, 556
Sander's Baronies 113
-----Original Message-----
From: BWGood@aol.com
Sent: Sep 24, 2005 9:22 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNB corrections? Roger or John de Somery
The DNB has the following:
Sutton, John (VI) [John Dudley], first Baron Dudley (1400-1487), courtier
and diplomat, was born on 25 December 1400, the son of John (V) Sutton (d. 1406)
and his wife, Constance Blount (d. 1432). The Suttons were the descendants of
John, Lord Somery (d. 1308), through his elder daughter, Margaret, who had
brought her husband, John (I) Sutton, half the barony of Dudley.
I have the following. Which is correct father of Margaret, Roger de Somery
or John de Somery.
NOTES FOR ROGER DE SOMERY:
Baron Dudley. Held Dinas Powis.
In 1287, land in Bromwich, Warwickshire and neighbouring hamlets constituted
a knight?s fee held of Roger de Somery as of his castle of Dudley by a number
of tenants. Roger died in 1291 and his son John de Somery inherits. When
John dies in 1322 his heirs were his sisters, Margaret wife of John de Sutton,
and Joan widow of Thomas de Botetourt; the overlordship of Castle Bromwich
passed to the latter.
Barbara