Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
In a message dated 9/28/05 5:41:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship. >>
I agree with John, but I'd like to point out something that is a bit more
specific.
If Alan of Galloway is to be born at the latest in 1180, then his grandmother
cannot be younger than 30 years older than him. To force her to be only 26
years older is really impossible. This only allows Avice (Hawise) de Lancaster
to be born at the latest in 1150, at least 3 years *after* her alledged
mother remarried to William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal.
The only way to resurrent this lineage would be to make a claim that Gundred
and Robert divorced and she remarried promptly to William. But I suspect this
is unlikely. So I'm moving Avice to a child of a prior marriage of William's.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship. >>
I agree with John, but I'd like to point out something that is a bit more
specific.
If Alan of Galloway is to be born at the latest in 1180, then his grandmother
cannot be younger than 30 years older than him. To force her to be only 26
years older is really impossible. This only allows Avice (Hawise) de Lancaster
to be born at the latest in 1150, at least 3 years *after* her alledged
mother remarried to William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal.
The only way to resurrent this lineage would be to make a claim that Gundred
and Robert divorced and she remarried promptly to William. But I suspect this
is unlikely. So I'm moving Avice to a child of a prior marriage of William's.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Dear John, Douglas and others,
If the idea that Crinan,
father of Duncan I, King of Scots and Maldred, lord of Carlisle and Allerdale were
brothers is accepted then Margaret daughter of David son of Henry son of
David son of Malcolm son of Duncan married her 5th cousin Alan son of Roland son
of Uchtred by Gunnild daughter of Waltheof son of Gospatric (first of the
Dunbars) son of Maldred
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
If the idea that Crinan,
father of Duncan I, King of Scots and Maldred, lord of Carlisle and Allerdale were
brothers is accepted then Margaret daughter of David son of Henry son of
David son of Malcolm son of Duncan married her 5th cousin Alan son of Roland son
of Uchtred by Gunnild daughter of Waltheof son of Gospatric (first of the
Dunbars) son of Maldred
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Stringer definitely says "consanguinuity", and says that it refers not
to Margaret (who died in 1218), but to the last wife. Perhaps he meant
affinity. At all events he quotes the source of the letter, Vet Mon,
ie Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historiam Illustrantia, ed A
Theiner (1864), pp 20-21, saying it is also calendared in Anderson's
Early Sources of Scottish History (1922).
to Margaret (who died in 1218), but to the last wife. Perhaps he meant
affinity. At all events he quotes the source of the letter, Vet Mon,
ie Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historiam Illustrantia, ed A
Theiner (1864), pp 20-21, saying it is also calendared in Anderson's
Early Sources of Scottish History (1922).
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's wife
Will Johnson wrote:
This would agree with your previous statement that Roger's maternal
grandmother was Rohese de Vere (assuming Alice de Mandeville is supposed to
be a daughter of Geoffrey de M by Rohese), but it does seem to be an error
(Leo cites Turton, Plantagenet Ancestry).
Certainly Keats-Rohan [Domesday Descendants, p. 250] shows the wife of John
de Lacy as "Alice daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere".
Complete Peerage [vol. 10, Appendix J, p. 116, note d] agrees, citing Rot.
de Dominabus [1185] for the information that Alice/Adelisa had a daughter
married to John, the Constable of Chester.
Chris Phillips
Leo's great web site
has Alice de Mandeville marrying John de Lacy (later Constable of Chester)
in
1157.
This would agree with your previous statement that Roger's maternal
grandmother was Rohese de Vere (assuming Alice de Mandeville is supposed to
be a daughter of Geoffrey de M by Rohese), but it does seem to be an error
(Leo cites Turton, Plantagenet Ancestry).
Certainly Keats-Rohan [Domesday Descendants, p. 250] shows the wife of John
de Lacy as "Alice daughter of Roger of Warkworth and Adelisa de Vere".
Complete Peerage [vol. 10, Appendix J, p. 116, note d] agrees, citing Rot.
de Dominabus [1185] for the information that Alice/Adelisa had a daughter
married to John, the Constable of Chester.
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Phillips
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
John P. Ravilious wrote:
And looking at Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Descendants", the difficulty is worse
still, because she says [p. 539] that Hawise married firstly William II
Peverel of Nottingham. Also that William became a monk in 1154 [p. 1069], so
if this is correct of course she could not be a daughter of Gundred's second
marriage, considering that her first husband died in 1153!
Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as you
suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix the
difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
Chris Phillips
The range from the (approximate) birth of Gundreda de Warenne to
the (approximate) birth of Alan of Galloway runs between say 61 years
(1119 to 1180) and say 44 years (1126 to 1170). If the descent shown
in the prior message, from Gundreda de Warenne to Alan of Galloway,
were accurate this would give an average of 20.3 to 14.7 years over 3
generations. This would not be fatal to the suggestion, but more
problematically, from Hawise de Lancaster (born say 1154-1160 under the
suggested descent) to Alan of Galloway (again using an approximate
birth range of say 1170-1180) would give us a range of say 26 years
(1154 to 1180) and 10 years (1160 to 1170), an average of 13 to 5 years
over 2 generations. This clearly does not work.
Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship.
And looking at Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Descendants", the difficulty is worse
still, because she says [p. 539] that Hawise married firstly William II
Peverel of Nottingham. Also that William became a monk in 1154 [p. 1069], so
if this is correct of course she could not be a daughter of Gundred's second
marriage, considering that her first husband died in 1153!
Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as you
suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix the
difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Henry I, King of England
Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the third cousin, once removed of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
**************************************
William I, the Conqueror, King of England
Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the fourth cousin of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Brendan Wilson
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the third cousin, once removed of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
**************************************
William I, the Conqueror, King of England
Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the fourth cousin of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Brendan Wilson
Margaret's part of the descent goes as follows:
1. William de Warenne, d. 1138, m. Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois.
2. Ada de Warenne, m. Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon.
3. David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon, m. Maud of Chester
4. Margaret of Huntingdon, m. Alan Fitz Roland.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
-
Gjest
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Thursday, 29 September, 2005
Dear Brendan,
The first descent you show (for Alan of Galloway) is widely
accepted, but unproven to date. If we could fill in all the other
lacunae in his near ancestry, the consanguinity in this case would
provide further support for the suggestion that the wife of Fergus
of Galloway was an illegitimate daughter of Henry I of England.
*There is a competing theory of her having been a
daughter/granddaughter of Malcolm III of Scots, likewise with no
documentation in hand other than those known references by Hoveden
& c.
~ An interesting question re: this, if the consanguinity
that was troubling in 1222 was current (i.e. 4th degree or
closer), this descent would still not be a problem: the
relationship would have been 4th degree on Alan's side and
5th degree on Margaret's. It appears there is another
relationship, not yet discerned.....
The second descent has been shown to be erroneous, in that
Gundred(a), wife of William de Warenne, was definitely not a
daughter of William the Conqueror. I'm certain there was
discussion on this point at various times in SGM (look for
Gundred(a), Gerbod, Ghent,....).
Cheers,
John
Sep 29, 5:49 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: wilso...@paradise.net[.]nz
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:49:38 +1200
Local: Thurs, Sep 29 2005 5:49 am
Subject: Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Henry I, King of England
Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the third cousin, once removed of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
**************************************
William I, the Conqueror, King of England
Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the fourth cousin of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Brendan Wilson
Dear Brendan,
The first descent you show (for Alan of Galloway) is widely
accepted, but unproven to date. If we could fill in all the other
lacunae in his near ancestry, the consanguinity in this case would
provide further support for the suggestion that the wife of Fergus
of Galloway was an illegitimate daughter of Henry I of England.
*There is a competing theory of her having been a
daughter/granddaughter of Malcolm III of Scots, likewise with no
documentation in hand other than those known references by Hoveden
& c.
~ An interesting question re: this, if the consanguinity
that was troubling in 1222 was current (i.e. 4th degree or
closer), this descent would still not be a problem: the
relationship would have been 4th degree on Alan's side and
5th degree on Margaret's. It appears there is another
relationship, not yet discerned.....
The second descent has been shown to be erroneous, in that
Gundred(a), wife of William de Warenne, was definitely not a
daughter of William the Conqueror. I'm certain there was
discussion on this point at various times in SGM (look for
Gundred(a), Gerbod, Ghent,....).
Cheers,
John
Sep 29, 5:49 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: wilso...@paradise.net[.]nz
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:49:38 +1200
Local: Thurs, Sep 29 2005 5:49 am
Subject: Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Henry I, King of England
Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the third cousin, once removed of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
**************************************
William I, the Conqueror, King of England
Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the fourth cousin of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Brendan Wilson
-
Chris Phillips
Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of Alan
Chris Phillips wrote:
I must take that back, because looking again at the charter quoted by CP,
the"daughter" interpretation does seem possible:
"In Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, at p. 392, is a
charter by which William de Lancaster "assensu Willelmi filii mei et heredis
et Gundrede uxoris mee" makes a gift "pro animabus ... Margarete filiae
comitisse"; the first two witnesses are "Willelmo filio meo et herede,
Gundrea filia comitisse." From this it is inferred that William had a son
and heir by a first wife, and afterwards married the Countess Gundred (of
Warwick), who was already by her first husband the mother of Margaret and
Gundred." [CP ix 585, note e]
CP is suggesting here that "the countess" is William's wife Gundred, and on
the basis of other circumstantial evidence that her daughter Gundred was the
wife of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1176/7).
But as the gift is given with the consent of his son William and his wife
Gundred, and his son William is the first witness, wouldn't it be natural to
assume that his wife Gundred was the second? In that case she would be not
the widow of the Earl of Warwick, but the daughter of "the countess",
whoever that might be.
However, the problem with the "daughter" interpretation is that - as CP
points out - the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Dugdale, Monasticon, vol. v,
p. 249) does state that William de Lancaster married Gundred, widow of
Roger,
earl of Warwick. This comes from a bit of narrative following one of
William's charters, which says:
"Iste fuit primus Willielmus qui se fecit vocari, per licentiam domini
regis, Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de
Tailboys. Qui desponsavit Gundredam comitissam Warwic, qui quidem Willielmus
genuit de Gundreda praedicta Willielmum secundum."
Whether this is correct or not, it is certainly inconsistent with CP's
interpretation of the charter, which would attribute William II de Lancaster
to a previous wife, not to Gundreda.
I find it difficult to know what to make of this. Maybe someone can offer
some more definite information?
(NB. the CP account of Warwick [xii/2 362] says that Gundred, the widow of
Roger E of Warwick, was living in 1166, citing Red Book Exch. i 326. And a
footnote refers to Early Yorkshire Charters viii 10 for their alleged
daughters Gundred and Margaret.)
Chris Phillips
Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as
you
suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix
the
difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
I must take that back, because looking again at the charter quoted by CP,
the"daughter" interpretation does seem possible:
"In Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, at p. 392, is a
charter by which William de Lancaster "assensu Willelmi filii mei et heredis
et Gundrede uxoris mee" makes a gift "pro animabus ... Margarete filiae
comitisse"; the first two witnesses are "Willelmo filio meo et herede,
Gundrea filia comitisse." From this it is inferred that William had a son
and heir by a first wife, and afterwards married the Countess Gundred (of
Warwick), who was already by her first husband the mother of Margaret and
Gundred." [CP ix 585, note e]
CP is suggesting here that "the countess" is William's wife Gundred, and on
the basis of other circumstantial evidence that her daughter Gundred was the
wife of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1176/7).
But as the gift is given with the consent of his son William and his wife
Gundred, and his son William is the first witness, wouldn't it be natural to
assume that his wife Gundred was the second? In that case she would be not
the widow of the Earl of Warwick, but the daughter of "the countess",
whoever that might be.
However, the problem with the "daughter" interpretation is that - as CP
points out - the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Dugdale, Monasticon, vol. v,
p. 249) does state that William de Lancaster married Gundred, widow of
Roger,
earl of Warwick. This comes from a bit of narrative following one of
William's charters, which says:
"Iste fuit primus Willielmus qui se fecit vocari, per licentiam domini
regis, Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de
Tailboys. Qui desponsavit Gundredam comitissam Warwic, qui quidem Willielmus
genuit de Gundreda praedicta Willielmum secundum."
Whether this is correct or not, it is certainly inconsistent with CP's
interpretation of the charter, which would attribute William II de Lancaster
to a previous wife, not to Gundreda.
I find it difficult to know what to make of this. Maybe someone can offer
some more definite information?
(NB. the CP account of Warwick [xii/2 362] says that Gundred, the widow of
Roger E of Warwick, was living in 1166, citing Red Book Exch. i 326. And a
footnote refers to Early Yorkshire Charters viii 10 for their alleged
daughters Gundred and Margaret.)
Chris Phillips
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
John,
On item 2 below, Ivo de Vipont who married Isabel Lancaster b.
c."mid-1153." William de Vipont who married 2)Maud de Morville had Ivo, b.
ca. 1155-60. He died 1239. This seems consistent with your dating.
Pat
----------
On item 2 below, Ivo de Vipont who married Isabel Lancaster b.
c."mid-1153." William de Vipont who married 2)Maud de Morville had Ivo, b.
ca. 1155-60. He died 1239. This seems consistent with your dating.
Pat
----------
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
Date: Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 8:38 PM
Dear Doug, James, et al.,
Unfortunately, the consanguinity lies in another direction (or with
another spouse along the way).
1. Isabel de Vermandois was married (1st) to Robert de Beaumont,
Earl of Leicester and Count of Meulan. Robert d. (a monk) at the abbey
of Preaux, 5 June 1118, so that the earliest Isabel married (2ndly)
William de Warenne, earl of Surrey was in mid-1118. At the earliest,
Gundreda de Warenne their daughter might have been born say 1119-1125.
2. Gundreda de Warenne was married (1st) to Roger de Newburgh, earl
of Warwick, who d. 12 June 1153. She then married (2ndly), before 1156
[
ES III Tafel 699] to William de Lancaster, of Kendal. I show one
daughter, Isabel (m. to Ivo de Vipont) of this marriage. The marriage
occurred at the earliest, say mid-1153, so we might find issue (Isabel
and any possible siblings) born at the earliest say 1154.
3. Hawise de Lancaster, daughter of William de Lancaster, was wife
of Richard de Morville by 1171/2: I show that 'In 1171/2, Richard de
Morville offered 200 marks to have recognition of his claim to the
lands of his wife Avicia, a daughter of William I of Lancaster..'
[courtesy Nicholas Vincent, citing Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, Pipe Roll
Society, 18 (1894), p. 65, and Furness Coucher Book Volume 2, part 11,
334-38].
4. Most importantly, while I have seen no firm chronology to date,
it appears most likely Alan of Galloway was himself born say 1170-1180
(and possibly earlier), with his being active in the 1190's, and
married (1stly) say 1195/1205.
The range from the (approximate) birth of Gundreda de Warenne to
the (approximate) birth of Alan of Galloway runs between say 61 years
(1119 to 1180) and say 44 years (1126 to 1170). If the descent shown
in the prior message, from Gundreda de Warenne to Alan of Galloway,
were accurate this would give an average of 20.3 to 14.7 years over 3
generations. This would not be fatal to the suggestion, but more
problematically, from Hawise de Lancaster (born say 1154-1160 under the
suggested descent) to Alan of Galloway (again using an approximate
birth range of say 1170-1180) would give us a range of say 26 years
(1154 to 1180) and 10 years (1160 to 1170), an average of 13 to 5 years
over 2 generations. This clearly does not work.
Hawise de Lancaster was certainly the daughter of William de
Lancaster by a spouse prior to Gundreda de Warenne. The source of the
consanguinity between Alan of Galloway and Margaret of Huntingdon
(Scotland) lies in another relationship.
Cheers,
John
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Dear James ~
Thanks for your terrific post. Much appreciated.
The descent you've posted below for Alan Fitz Roland would make Alan
and his 2nd wife, Margaret of Huntingdon, related in the 4th and 3rd
degree of consanguinity. Such a marriage would have required a
dispensation, which this couple did not obtain at the time of their
marriage in 1209.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas, Chris, Leo, Peter et al,
According to
AR 7
lines 34 and 88 it runs as follows;
1 William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Warenne and Surrey
married
Isabel de Vermandois
2 Gundred de Warenne married William I de Lancaster,
Baron
of Kendal
3 Avice de Lancaster married Sir Richard de
Morville, Kt. of
Lauder, Constable of Scotland
4 Elena de Morville married Roland Fitz uchtred,
Lord of
Galloway
5 Alan Fitz Roland, Lord of Galloway succeeded as
Constable
of Scotland
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
Dear Chris,
Thanks for those added details, and interpretation.
The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
countess', if this was one and the same individual?
The open item seems to me, at present, to be identifying the
mother of William 'II'. How seems it to you (at present, anyway) ...?
Cheers,
John
Chris Phillips wrote:
Thanks for those added details, and interpretation.
The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
countess', if this was one and the same individual?
The open item seems to me, at present, to be identifying the
mother of William 'II'. How seems it to you (at present, anyway) ...?
Cheers,
John
Chris Phillips wrote:
Chris Phillips wrote:
Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as
you
suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix
the
difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
I must take that back, because looking again at the charter quoted by CP,
the"daughter" interpretation does seem possible:
"In Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, at p. 392, is a
charter by which William de Lancaster "assensu Willelmi filii mei et heredis
et Gundrede uxoris mee" makes a gift "pro animabus ... Margarete filiae
comitisse"; the first two witnesses are "Willelmo filio meo et herede,
Gundrea filia comitisse." From this it is inferred that William had a son
and heir by a first wife, and afterwards married the Countess Gundred (of
Warwick), who was already by her first husband the mother of Margaret and
Gundred." [CP ix 585, note e]
CP is suggesting here that "the countess" is William's wife Gundred, and on
the basis of other circumstantial evidence that her daughter Gundred was the
wife of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1176/7).
But as the gift is given with the consent of his son William and his wife
Gundred, and his son William is the first witness, wouldn't it be natural to
assume that his wife Gundred was the second? In that case she would be not
the widow of the Earl of Warwick, but the daughter of "the countess",
whoever that might be.
However, the problem with the "daughter" interpretation is that - as CP
points out - the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Dugdale, Monasticon, vol. v,
p. 249) does state that William de Lancaster married Gundred, widow of
Roger,
earl of Warwick. This comes from a bit of narrative following one of
William's charters, which says:
"Iste fuit primus Willielmus qui se fecit vocari, per licentiam domini
regis, Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de
Tailboys. Qui desponsavit Gundredam comitissam Warwic, qui quidem Willielmus
genuit de Gundreda praedicta Willielmum secundum."
Whether this is correct or not, it is certainly inconsistent with CP's
interpretation of the charter, which would attribute William II de Lancaster
to a previous wife, not to Gundreda.
I find it difficult to know what to make of this. Maybe someone can offer
some more definite information?
(NB. the CP account of Warwick [xii/2 362] says that Gundred, the widow of
Roger E of Warwick, was living in 1166, citing Red Book Exch. i 326. And a
footnote refers to Early Yorkshire Charters viii 10 for their alleged
daughters Gundred and Margaret.)
Chris Phillips
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Henry VIII descendants
I was following the posts about Henry VIII's offspring with interest.
Does
anybody know if there are any descendants of his illegitimate (or
alleged
illegitimate) children alive today?
Thanks
Vicki
----
We are legion.
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
Does
anybody know if there are any descendants of his illegitimate (or
alleged
illegitimate) children alive today?
Thanks
Vicki
----
We are legion.
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
"Vicki Perry" <vickifperry@hotmail.com> 09/29/05 06:51AM
Hi,
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz wrote:
Unfortunately it is only speculation that Elizabeth "of England" was
illegitimate daughter of Henry I.
And this is worse than speculation. Gundred, wife of William de Warenne
is known not to have been daughter of William the Conqueror, that being
based on a forged foundation legend of a religious house.
taf
Henry I, King of England
Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Fitz Roy / Elizabeth of England
Maud, of Gloucester. de Caen / Uchtred, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Fergus
Hugh, 6th Earl of Chester, de Kevelioc / Roland, Fitz Uchtred
Matilda,Lady. of Chester / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the third cousin, once removed of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
**************************************
Unfortunately it is only speculation that Elizabeth "of England" was
illegitimate daughter of Henry I.
William I, the Conqueror, King of England
Gundred of England / Henry I, King of England
William, 2nd Earl de Warenne / Elizabeth of England
Ada de Warenne / Uchtred, Lord . Fitz Fergus
David, 9th Earl of Huntingdon / Roland, Lord of Galloway.Fitz Uchtred
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon / Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
Alan, Lord of Galloway. Fitz Roland
is the fourth cousin of
Margaret, Lady. of Huntingdon
And this is worse than speculation. Gundred, wife of William de Warenne
is known not to have been daughter of William the Conqueror, that being
based on a forged foundation legend of a religious house.
taf
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
John P. Ravilious wrote:
I don't think it's so strange that his wife should appear after his son. She
does so in the consent clause, after all, and if the property in question
was inheritable the son's interest could be viewed as more material than the
wife's.
As for point (B), maybe so. But on the other hand, if the gift was by the
consent of both, and the son witnessed, why not the wife?
Maybe it would be a mistake to speculate too much without seeing the text of
the charter, but I do wonder (depending when and where it was dated) why on
the received genealogy, Gundred the daughter would have been available to
witness it at all, and why she wouldn't have been "Countess Gundred"
herself, as the wife of the Earl of Norfolk. But there's a lot about these
Gundreds that puzzles me.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that if "Gundred the countess" is William de
Lancaster's wife, there is no reason to suppose the countess herself was a
Gundred (beyond what the Furness Coucher Book says about William marrying
Gundred Countess of Warwick, of course).
I see in some old notes that Cris Nash back in 2002 said that Clay had
refuted a suggestion by Farrer that William had married the daughter rather
than the mother, so maybe this has all been settled a long time ago.
Keats-Rohan doesn't appear to refer to either, so I can't tell whether she
didn't accept the refutation or just wasn't aware of it.
I don't know about the chronology of William II, but as far as William's
daughter Hawise is concerned - it seems clearly impossible for Gundred the
widow of Roger Earl of Warwick to be her mother. I can't see how Gundred the
wife of Hugh Earl of Norfolk could be married to William de Lancaster at
all. But I suppose if it's a question of a Gundred the daughter of an
unidentified countess, anything's possible.
Chris Phillips
The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
countess', if this was one and the same individual?
I don't think it's so strange that his wife should appear after his son. She
does so in the consent clause, after all, and if the property in question
was inheritable the son's interest could be viewed as more material than the
wife's.
As for point (B), maybe so. But on the other hand, if the gift was by the
consent of both, and the son witnessed, why not the wife?
Maybe it would be a mistake to speculate too much without seeing the text of
the charter, but I do wonder (depending when and where it was dated) why on
the received genealogy, Gundred the daughter would have been available to
witness it at all, and why she wouldn't have been "Countess Gundred"
herself, as the wife of the Earl of Norfolk. But there's a lot about these
Gundreds that puzzles me.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that if "Gundred the countess" is William de
Lancaster's wife, there is no reason to suppose the countess herself was a
Gundred (beyond what the Furness Coucher Book says about William marrying
Gundred Countess of Warwick, of course).
I see in some old notes that Cris Nash back in 2002 said that Clay had
refuted a suggestion by Farrer that William had married the daughter rather
than the mother, so maybe this has all been settled a long time ago.
Keats-Rohan doesn't appear to refer to either, so I can't tell whether she
didn't accept the refutation or just wasn't aware of it.
The open item seems to me, at present, to be identifying the
mother of William 'II'. How seems it to you (at present, anyway) ...?
I don't know about the chronology of William II, but as far as William's
daughter Hawise is concerned - it seems clearly impossible for Gundred the
widow of Roger Earl of Warwick to be her mother. I can't see how Gundred the
wife of Hugh Earl of Norfolk could be married to William de Lancaster at
all. But I suppose if it's a question of a Gundred the daughter of an
unidentified countess, anything's possible.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
In a message dated 9/28/05 11:41:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< [The recital of
grants begins with that of Alicia de St. Quentin, who founded the
priory in 1135] Witnesses: Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex; Robert
son of Roger de Lascy, Constable of Chester; >>
Geoffrey's mother was a Mandeville and
Robert's grandmother was a Mandeville.
Just throwing that observation out there.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< [The recital of
grants begins with that of Alicia de St. Quentin, who founded the
priory in 1135] Witnesses: Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex; Robert
son of Roger de Lascy, Constable of Chester; >>
Geoffrey's mother was a Mandeville and
Robert's grandmother was a Mandeville.
Just throwing that observation out there.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
In a message dated 9/29/05 8:11:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< This would suggest that Roger was born in or before 1166-1169.
Assuming Roger married young which was typical in the time period, he
could produce a child say by 1181 (assuming the 1166 birthdate for
Roger is correct). >>
Peter is poking me with a hot iron.
Although as you say people married young, that does not mean that they were
allowed to sleep together, esp. when the male was the tender age of 14. In
fact, I think you'll find, in those cases where we know that birthdates exactly,
that there are really few if any cases you can cite that are supported by the
primary documentation. Or perhaps I'm wrong here.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< This would suggest that Roger was born in or before 1166-1169.
Assuming Roger married young which was typical in the time period, he
could produce a child say by 1181 (assuming the 1166 birthdate for
Roger is correct). >>
Peter is poking me with a hot iron.
Although as you say people married young, that does not mean that they were
allowed to sleep together, esp. when the male was the tender age of 14. In
fact, I think you'll find, in those cases where we know that birthdates exactly,
that there are really few if any cases you can cite that are supported by the
primary documentation. Or perhaps I'm wrong here.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
In a message dated 9/29/05 10:11:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< Jim Weber's database gives an approximate birthdate of 1150 for Roger's
father. I think the chronology would permit us to move John's birth
back five years, but not much more than that. I believe we run into
other chronological considerations with the earlier generations if we
push John's birth back much further than 1145. For one thing, we know
that John's mother, Aubrey de Lisours, was still living in 1194.
Aubrey's half-brother, Henry de Lacy, was active c. 1160. We're on a
rather tight leash chronologically I think. >>
Sorry I don't see this. If we're going to assume a person can be alive for
30 years or so before their first appearance in any documentation (i.e. Roger
de Lacy), then why not do the same for each person or even longer.
Roger's grandmother Aubrey (Albreda) de Lisours was living in 1194, but we
have no idea how old she was. Perhaps she was 80, that could allow her son John
to be born as early as say 1130. I just think taking an assumed, est date of
1150 without any support, as a support is going to lead to more mistakes.
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< Jim Weber's database gives an approximate birthdate of 1150 for Roger's
father. I think the chronology would permit us to move John's birth
back five years, but not much more than that. I believe we run into
other chronological considerations with the earlier generations if we
push John's birth back much further than 1145. For one thing, we know
that John's mother, Aubrey de Lisours, was still living in 1194.
Aubrey's half-brother, Henry de Lacy, was active c. 1160. We're on a
rather tight leash chronologically I think. >>
Sorry I don't see this. If we're going to assume a person can be alive for
30 years or so before their first appearance in any documentation (i.e. Roger
de Lacy), then why not do the same for each person or even longer.
Roger's grandmother Aubrey (Albreda) de Lisours was living in 1194, but we
have no idea how old she was. Perhaps she was 80, that could allow her son John
to be born as early as say 1130. I just think taking an assumed, est date of
1150 without any support, as a support is going to lead to more mistakes.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhgmh8$vih$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
This is assuming that everyone whose consent is recorded in a charter gave
it on the occasion, and was present to witness the document - but that is
not the case.
On the basis of this charter alone I don't see a problem with William de
Lancaster noting the (prior) consent of his wife Countess Gundred, who may
have been absent on the day and in a sense represented by the attestation of
her daughter Gundred. It would be unusual to vary "uxor mea" to "filia
comitisse" for designating the same person in the same document.
If this interpretation is based solely on the language in the charter quoted
above, it is unwarranted: sons and heirs are frequently named by their
fathers along with their mothers, but describing the last only as wives
rather than also as mothers. The relationship to the principal of the
charter was the important matter.
Peter Stewart
news:dhgmh8$vih$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Chris Phillips wrote:
Accordingly, K.-R. does make Gundred the _second_ wife of William de
Lancaster, allowing Hawise to be the daughter of his previous wife, as
you
suggest. (She actually describes Gundred as widow _or daughter_ of Roger,
Earl of Warwick, but in the light of the discussion of the identity of
Roger's wife in CP ix p. 585, note e, I don't see how "daughter" is
possible. And adding an extra generation obviously wouldn't help to fix
the
difficulty with the consanguinity argument.)
I must take that back, because looking again at the charter quoted by CP,
the"daughter" interpretation does seem possible:
"In Farrer's Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, at p. 392, is a
charter by which William de Lancaster "assensu Willelmi filii mei et
heredis
et Gundrede uxoris mee" makes a gift "pro animabus ... Margarete filiae
comitisse"; the first two witnesses are "Willelmo filio meo et herede,
Gundrea filia comitisse." From this it is inferred that William had a son
and heir by a first wife, and afterwards married the Countess Gundred (of
Warwick), who was already by her first husband the mother of Margaret and
Gundred." [CP ix 585, note e]
CP is suggesting here that "the countess" is William's wife Gundred, and
on
the basis of other circumstantial evidence that her daughter Gundred was
the
wife of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1176/7).
But as the gift is given with the consent of his son William and his wife
Gundred, and his son William is the first witness, wouldn't it be natural
to
assume that his wife Gundred was the second? In that case she would be not
the widow of the Earl of Warwick, but the daughter of "the countess",
whoever that might be.
This is assuming that everyone whose consent is recorded in a charter gave
it on the occasion, and was present to witness the document - but that is
not the case.
On the basis of this charter alone I don't see a problem with William de
Lancaster noting the (prior) consent of his wife Countess Gundred, who may
have been absent on the day and in a sense represented by the attestation of
her daughter Gundred. It would be unusual to vary "uxor mea" to "filia
comitisse" for designating the same person in the same document.
However, the problem with the "daughter" interpretation is that - as CP
points out - the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey (Dugdale, Monasticon, vol.
v,
p. 249) does state that William de Lancaster married Gundred, widow of
Roger,
earl of Warwick. This comes from a bit of narrative following one of
William's charters, which says:
"Iste fuit primus Willielmus qui se fecit vocari, per licentiam domini
regis, Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de
Tailboys. Qui desponsavit Gundredam comitissam Warwic, qui quidem
Willielmus
genuit de Gundreda praedicta Willielmum secundum."
Whether this is correct or not, it is certainly inconsistent with CP's
interpretation of the charter, which would attribute William II de
Lancaster
to a previous wife, not to Gundreda.
If this interpretation is based solely on the language in the charter quoted
above, it is unwarranted: sons and heirs are frequently named by their
fathers along with their mothers, but describing the last only as wives
rather than also as mothers. The relationship to the principal of the
charter was the important matter.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:6d.4e8cac28.306dbbc1@aol.com...
If he was present & named then of course he had been born, but this doesn't
help to determine whether this was before or after his brother John, or even
if they were twins.
Such a minor personage would not have been nominated as a witness unless he
was fully aware of the business in hand - a royal baby might have been
listed, as he could have had an interest in the proceedings, or have been
called upon to confirm the transaction, later.
A son of Roger de Lacy would have been included because of his father's
prestige, and because he happened to be there, but we can't read any more
into it than that.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 9/29/05 2:42:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
All that is definitely indicated by Robert's attesting a royal charter
in
1205 is that he was present; all that is indicated by anyone else,
including
his brother, not witnessing the same document is that they were not there.
But also you'll have to admit he was at least a certain age.
But what is that age? three? seven? twelve? fifteen? twenty?
If he was present & named then of course he had been born, but this doesn't
help to determine whether this was before or after his brother John, or even
if they were twins.
Such a minor personage would not have been nominated as a witness unless he
was fully aware of the business in hand - a royal baby might have been
listed, as he could have had an interest in the proceedings, or have been
called upon to confirm the transaction, later.
A son of Roger de Lacy would have been included because of his father's
prestige, and because he happened to be there, but we can't read any more
into it than that.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
In a message dated 9/29/05 2:42:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< All that is definitely indicated by Robert's attesting a royal charter in
1205 is that he was present; all that is indicated by anyone else, including
his brother, not witnessing the same document is that they were not there. >>
But also you'll have to admit he was at least a certain age.
But what is that age? three? seven? twelve? fifteen? twenty?
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< All that is definitely indicated by Robert's attesting a royal charter in
1205 is that he was present; all that is indicated by anyone else, including
his brother, not witnessing the same document is that they were not there. >>
But also you'll have to admit he was at least a certain age.
But what is that age? three? seven? twelve? fifteen? twenty?
Will Johnson
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
In message of 29 Sep, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
It must have been difficult to get all the important people together to
sign and seal a document. So I wonder if the role of "witness" was in
fact that of being present when the originator's seal was applied, or
whether the witnesses were more co-authorisors and might sign
and/or seal at a later time?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip>
This is assuming that everyone whose consent is recorded in a charter gave
it on the occasion, and was present to witness the document - but that is
not the case.
It must have been difficult to get all the important people together to
sign and seal a document. So I wonder if the role of "witness" was in
fact that of being present when the originator's seal was applied, or
whether the witnesses were more co-authorisors and might sign
and/or seal at a later time?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chan
In researching this issue through A2A I came across an update to
genealogics.org
On Leo's great web site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO
we see one of the three daughters of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby
Ferdinando had three daughters as heirs, no other children.
Leo's shows that Anne married 1st in 1608 to Grey Brydges, 5th Lord Chandos
of Sudeley and second to Mervyn Touchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven.
Now I present two documents which show the three heirs and that his heir Anne
was actually first, prior to either of these two marriages, and by 1602
called "Anne, Lady Strange"
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------
Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family of Knowsley, Earls of Derby
FILE [no title] - ref. DDK/7/1 - date: 22nd April, 37 Elizabeth, A.D. 1595
[from Scope and Content] Earl Ferdinand married Alice daughter of Sir John
Spencer, Knight, and has three daughters and coheiresses. Anne aged 13 years and
6 months, Frances aged 10 years and 11 months, and Elizabeth aged 7 years and
3 months. The said Alice Countess of Derby survives and William, brother of
the said Earl, is his next heir male and heir to Sir Thomas Stanley and to
Edward Earl of Derby and is 32 years of age.
---------------------------------------------
Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family of Knowsley, Earls of Derby
Grants, Family Deeds, &c. - ref. DDK/8
FILE - Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper, and Alice Countess of Derby his wife,
the Ladies Ann Lady Strange, Lady Frances Stanley and Elizabeth Lady
Hastings, daughters of the said Countess, Sir Thomas Leigh, Knight, and Thomas
Spencer, Esq., to Thomas Chamberlayne, Thomas Tyldesley and others. - ref. DDK/8/25 -
date: 6th December, 45 Elizabeth, A.D. 1602
genealogics.org
On Leo's great web site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO
we see one of the three daughters of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby
Ferdinando had three daughters as heirs, no other children.
Leo's shows that Anne married 1st in 1608 to Grey Brydges, 5th Lord Chandos
of Sudeley and second to Mervyn Touchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven.
Now I present two documents which show the three heirs and that his heir Anne
was actually first, prior to either of these two marriages, and by 1602
called "Anne, Lady Strange"
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------
Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family of Knowsley, Earls of Derby
FILE [no title] - ref. DDK/7/1 - date: 22nd April, 37 Elizabeth, A.D. 1595
[from Scope and Content] Earl Ferdinand married Alice daughter of Sir John
Spencer, Knight, and has three daughters and coheiresses. Anne aged 13 years and
6 months, Frances aged 10 years and 11 months, and Elizabeth aged 7 years and
3 months. The said Alice Countess of Derby survives and William, brother of
the said Earl, is his next heir male and heir to Sir Thomas Stanley and to
Edward Earl of Derby and is 32 years of age.
---------------------------------------------
Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family of Knowsley, Earls of Derby
Grants, Family Deeds, &c. - ref. DDK/8
FILE - Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper, and Alice Countess of Derby his wife,
the Ladies Ann Lady Strange, Lady Frances Stanley and Elizabeth Lady
Hastings, daughters of the said Countess, Sir Thomas Leigh, Knight, and Thomas
Spencer, Esq., to Thomas Chamberlayne, Thomas Tyldesley and others. - ref. DDK/8/25 -
date: 6th December, 45 Elizabeth, A.D. 1602
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
I don't know how we could prove there were instances of absentees
recorded in witness lists, unless the same person showed up at two
different locations within too short a time to move between the places.
But if this had been acceptable practice, I think witness lists in
general would look very different from what we find. Any interested
party could be nominated, in the expectation that they would comply
later - and there would surely be plenty of disputes in the legal
record that would make the anomaly plain.
There are documents where the witnesses might not have been all
together in a room, due to bad blood amongst them or from other
circumstances unknown to us. However, the transaction would not have
been regarded as complete & valid until all named as witnesses had
given assent in the presence of the written record.
It is the same today, where legal papers can be signed in different
places at different times by the parties involved, as long as they all
take a direct part in the extended process.
Peter Stewart
It must have been difficult to get all the important people together to
sign and seal a document. So I wonder if the role of "witness" was in
fact that of being present when the originator's seal was applied, or
whether the witnesses were more co-authorisors and might sign
and/or seal at a later time?
I don't know how we could prove there were instances of absentees
recorded in witness lists, unless the same person showed up at two
different locations within too short a time to move between the places.
But if this had been acceptable practice, I think witness lists in
general would look very different from what we find. Any interested
party could be nominated, in the expectation that they would comply
later - and there would surely be plenty of disputes in the legal
record that would make the anomaly plain.
There are documents where the witnesses might not have been all
together in a room, due to bad blood amongst them or from other
circumstances unknown to us. However, the transaction would not have
been regarded as complete & valid until all named as witnesses had
given assent in the presence of the written record.
It is the same today, where legal papers can be signed in different
places at different times by the parties involved, as long as they all
take a direct part in the extended process.
Peter Stewart
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chan
For those interested, I highly recommend this interesting book (see
below).
Tony Hoskins
---------
A House in Gross Disorder
Sex, Law, and the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven Cynthia B. Herrup Add to
Cart 0195139259, paper, 232 pages Mar 2001, In Stock Price:$18.95 (01)
Sex, privilege, corruption, and revenge--these are elements that we
expect to find splashed across today's tabloid headlines. But 17th
century England saw a sex scandal that brought disgrace to the ruling
class and ended with the beheading of an earl. In A House in Gross
Disorder, Cynthia Herrup presents a strikingly new interpretation of the
case of the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven and of the sexual and social
anxieties it cast into such bold relief. Castlehaven was convicted of
assisting in the rape of his own wife and of committing sodomy with his
servants. But more than that, he stood accused of inverting the natural
order of his household by reveling in rather than restraining the
intemperate passions of those he was expected to rule and protect.
Herrup argues that because an orderly house was considered both an
example and endorsement of aristocratic governance, the riotousness
presided over by Castlehaven was the most damning evidence against him.
Avoiding simple conclusions about guilt or innocence, Herrup focuses
instead on the fascinating legal, social and political dynamics of the
case and its subsequent retellings. In riveting prose, she reconsiders a
scandal that still speaks to contemporary anxieties about sex, good
governance, and the role of law in regulating both. Reviews
"Thoughtful, scrupulously researched.... A clearheaded and instructive
book."--Jonathan Yardley, Washington Post
"Cynthia Herrup's A House in Gross Disorder makes us rethink most
everything we thought we knew about the notorious 1631 `sodomy' trial of
Mervin Touchet, the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven. Beautifully written and
meticulously crafted, Herrup's study unfolds like a good detective
story."--Jean Howard, Department of English, Columbia University, and
Director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender
"Cynthia Herrup's scrupulous reconstruction of the Castlehaven scandal
and its legacy is an utterly fascinating read. But it is also rich in
theoretical implications for the history of sexuality. Herrup shows how
obscure conflicts within Castlehaven's household embodied virtually all
the social and political tensions of the period, and thus how a routine
dispute over property and inheritance could quickly escalate into a
sensational trial for rape and sodomy. The nature of Castlehaven's
transgression, which subsequent retelling of the story have radically
simplified, recovers here its tantalizing ambiguity and
complexity."--David M. Halperin, author of One Hundred Years of
Homosexuality and Saint Foucalt
"This is an extraordinary tale extraordinarily well told, but told with
an ear cocked to the ways in which contemporaries themselves told and
retold it. Like the trial itself, Herrup never quite gets to the bottom
of `what really happened,' but en route to that acceptance of
indeterminacy the book sets the Castlehaven affair precisely on a number
of pressure points and fault lines in the culture and society of early
modern England. The result is a book with considerable resonance for
anyone interested in the political, legal, social, cultural, or gender
history of seventeenth-century England."--Peter Lake, Department of
History, Princeton University
"To this sorry tale of a grossly disordered household, of a weak
patriarch, loveless marriages, corrupt and venal servants, is added the
betrayal of a son, fearful of losing his inheritance, the
irregularities, if not worse, of prejudiced court and irregular trial
procedure, of predatory aristocratic relatives, and of Castlehaven's
dubious connection with Catholicism and Ireland.... It is a cautionary
tale on many levels that haunted succeeding generations; its eloquent
retelling ought now to haunt ours."--Paul Seaver, Department of History,
Stanford University
Product Details
232 pages; 8 halftones; 5-5/16 x 8; 0-19-513925-9 About the Author(s)
Cynthia Herrup is Professor of History and Law, Duke University. She is
the former editor of the Journal of British Studies and the author of
The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in 17th Century
England. She lives in Durham, North Carolina.
below).
Tony Hoskins
---------
A House in Gross Disorder
Sex, Law, and the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven Cynthia B. Herrup Add to
Cart 0195139259, paper, 232 pages Mar 2001, In Stock Price:$18.95 (01)
Sex, privilege, corruption, and revenge--these are elements that we
expect to find splashed across today's tabloid headlines. But 17th
century England saw a sex scandal that brought disgrace to the ruling
class and ended with the beheading of an earl. In A House in Gross
Disorder, Cynthia Herrup presents a strikingly new interpretation of the
case of the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven and of the sexual and social
anxieties it cast into such bold relief. Castlehaven was convicted of
assisting in the rape of his own wife and of committing sodomy with his
servants. But more than that, he stood accused of inverting the natural
order of his household by reveling in rather than restraining the
intemperate passions of those he was expected to rule and protect.
Herrup argues that because an orderly house was considered both an
example and endorsement of aristocratic governance, the riotousness
presided over by Castlehaven was the most damning evidence against him.
Avoiding simple conclusions about guilt or innocence, Herrup focuses
instead on the fascinating legal, social and political dynamics of the
case and its subsequent retellings. In riveting prose, she reconsiders a
scandal that still speaks to contemporary anxieties about sex, good
governance, and the role of law in regulating both. Reviews
"Thoughtful, scrupulously researched.... A clearheaded and instructive
book."--Jonathan Yardley, Washington Post
"Cynthia Herrup's A House in Gross Disorder makes us rethink most
everything we thought we knew about the notorious 1631 `sodomy' trial of
Mervin Touchet, the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven. Beautifully written and
meticulously crafted, Herrup's study unfolds like a good detective
story."--Jean Howard, Department of English, Columbia University, and
Director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender
"Cynthia Herrup's scrupulous reconstruction of the Castlehaven scandal
and its legacy is an utterly fascinating read. But it is also rich in
theoretical implications for the history of sexuality. Herrup shows how
obscure conflicts within Castlehaven's household embodied virtually all
the social and political tensions of the period, and thus how a routine
dispute over property and inheritance could quickly escalate into a
sensational trial for rape and sodomy. The nature of Castlehaven's
transgression, which subsequent retelling of the story have radically
simplified, recovers here its tantalizing ambiguity and
complexity."--David M. Halperin, author of One Hundred Years of
Homosexuality and Saint Foucalt
"This is an extraordinary tale extraordinarily well told, but told with
an ear cocked to the ways in which contemporaries themselves told and
retold it. Like the trial itself, Herrup never quite gets to the bottom
of `what really happened,' but en route to that acceptance of
indeterminacy the book sets the Castlehaven affair precisely on a number
of pressure points and fault lines in the culture and society of early
modern England. The result is a book with considerable resonance for
anyone interested in the political, legal, social, cultural, or gender
history of seventeenth-century England."--Peter Lake, Department of
History, Princeton University
"To this sorry tale of a grossly disordered household, of a weak
patriarch, loveless marriages, corrupt and venal servants, is added the
betrayal of a son, fearful of losing his inheritance, the
irregularities, if not worse, of prejudiced court and irregular trial
procedure, of predatory aristocratic relatives, and of Castlehaven's
dubious connection with Catholicism and Ireland.... It is a cautionary
tale on many levels that haunted succeeding generations; its eloquent
retelling ought now to haunt ours."--Paul Seaver, Department of History,
Stanford University
Product Details
232 pages; 8 halftones; 5-5/16 x 8; 0-19-513925-9 About the Author(s)
Cynthia Herrup is Professor of History and Law, Duke University. She is
the former editor of the Journal of British Studies and the author of
The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in 17th Century
England. She lives in Durham, North Carolina.
-
Leo van de Pas
Strange? But fun? Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630
Dear Will,
For a moment I was taken aback when you called Ferdinando's daughter Anne
Lady Strange.
I knew Ferdinando has descendants (via his daughters) to the present and the
Lord/Lady Strange title "belonged" to other Stanleys and going to other
families not descending from Ferdinando.
CP gives the answer : Vol XII/1 Page 157 "The Barony of Strange of Knockyn
was, however, improperly assumed by the succeeding Earls of Derby, and
being, erroneously, supposed, in 1628, to belong to them, gave occasion to
writ of that date whereby a _new_ Barony of the name 'Strange' was created.
By the way, Ferdinando Stanley, Earl of Derby, is an ancestor of Lady Diana
Spencer, Sarah Ferguson. As his descendants include quite a few other
interesting people I made a file of all I have but that is 15 generations
and 841 pages. Therefor I made one of 10 generations and if anyone is
interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chandos
scandal [?]
For a moment I was taken aback when you called Ferdinando's daughter Anne
Lady Strange.
I knew Ferdinando has descendants (via his daughters) to the present and the
Lord/Lady Strange title "belonged" to other Stanleys and going to other
families not descending from Ferdinando.
CP gives the answer : Vol XII/1 Page 157 "The Barony of Strange of Knockyn
was, however, improperly assumed by the succeeding Earls of Derby, and
being, erroneously, supposed, in 1628, to belong to them, gave occasion to
writ of that date whereby a _new_ Barony of the name 'Strange' was created.
By the way, Ferdinando Stanley, Earl of Derby, is an ancestor of Lady Diana
Spencer, Sarah Ferguson. As his descendants include quite a few other
interesting people I made a file of all I have but that is 15 generations
and 841 pages. Therefor I made one of 10 generations and if anyone is
interested I can send it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chandos
scandal [?]
In researching this issue through A2A I came across an update to
genealogics.org
On Leo's great web site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO
we see one of the three daughters of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby
Ferdinando had three daughters as heirs, no other children.
Leo's shows that Anne married 1st in 1608 to Grey Brydges, 5th Lord
Chandos
of Sudeley and second to Mervyn Touchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven.
Now I present two documents which show the three heirs and that his heir
Anne
was actually first, prior to either of these two marriages, and by 1602
called "Anne, Lady Strange"
Will Johnson
----------------------------------------
Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family of Knowsley, Earls of Derby
FILE [no title] - ref. DDK/7/1 - date: 22nd April, 37 Elizabeth, A.D. 1595
[from Scope and Content] Earl Ferdinand married Alice daughter of Sir John
Spencer, Knight, and has three daughters and coheiresses. Anne aged 13
years and
6 months, Frances aged 10 years and 11 months, and Elizabeth aged 7 years
and
3 months. The said Alice Countess of Derby survives and William, brother
of
the said Earl, is his next heir male and heir to Sir Thomas Stanley and to
Edward Earl of Derby and is 32 years of age.
---------------------------------------------
Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family of Knowsley, Earls of Derby
Grants, Family Deeds, &c. - ref. DDK/8
FILE - Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper, and Alice Countess of Derby his
wife,
the Ladies Ann Lady Strange, Lady Frances Stanley and Elizabeth Lady
Hastings, daughters of the said Countess, Sir Thomas Leigh, Knight, and
Thomas
Spencer, Esq., to Thomas Chamberlayne, Thomas Tyldesley and others. - ref.
DDK/8/25 -
date: 6th December, 45 Elizabeth, A.D. 1602
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Henry VIII descendants
Have your doubts, by all means. But, read my article and also especially
John Parsons' comments on this group. We tend to think we "know" Henry
VIII because of the mass of literature, film, "common knowlege" and
mythology surrounding and obscuring him. In a case like this, one needs
to sweep all "knowledge" of the subject aside and re-contruct afresh
from fact.
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
John Parsons' comments on this group. We tend to think we "know" Henry
VIII because of the mass of literature, film, "common knowlege" and
mythology surrounding and obscuring him. In a case like this, one needs
to sweep all "knowledge" of the subject aside and re-contruct afresh
from fact.
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
-
Kelly Gray
Re: Henry VIII descendants
where can one access tony's article online?
thanks-
kb gray
ny
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/ca ... p?cid=3963
thanks-
kb gray
ny
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/ca ... p?cid=3963
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Henry VIII descendants
I'm not aware that the article is as yet available online. You might
contact libraries with good genealogical collections.
The citation is:
Source: "Mary Boleyn's Carey children - offspring of King Henry VIII?"
Author: Anthony Hoskins
Publication: Genealogists' Magazine (London), volume 25, number 9,
pages 345-352 (March 1997)
-----
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
contact libraries with good genealogical collections.
The citation is:
Source: "Mary Boleyn's Carey children - offspring of King Henry VIII?"
Author: Anthony Hoskins
Publication: Genealogists' Magazine (London), volume 25, number 9,
pages 345-352 (March 1997)
-----
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: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chan
I found several documents where Alice, the widow of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th
Earl of Derby is referred to both as "Countess of Derby" and also as "Dowager
Countess of Derby". There doesn't seem to be any particular pattern.
I did however notice that she is still called by this title even after her
married (in 1600) to Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper (later 1st Viscount
Brackley).
For example in 1606 she is called "Countess Dowager" while her sister-in-law
is called "Countess". In 1612 she is called "Countess of Derby" while her
brother-in-law is called "Earl of Derby". In 1613 her sister-in-law is called
"Countess of Derby" In 1635 she is called "Dowager Countess of Derby"
So it appears both women were referred to simultaneously as "Countess of
Derby"
As to Lord Chandos, I found a document where Alice "Countess Dowager Derby"
is referred to as "grandmother and guardian of Lord Chandos". That document is
dated 1635. Lord Chandos' father Grey Brydges, 5th had died in 1621, but
Anne Stanley his widow was still living and did not die until 1647.
I'm not sure why the grandmother would be guardian here instead of the mother
who probably would have been called something like "Countess Chandos" at this
point.
Will Johnson
Earl of Derby is referred to both as "Countess of Derby" and also as "Dowager
Countess of Derby". There doesn't seem to be any particular pattern.
I did however notice that she is still called by this title even after her
married (in 1600) to Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper (later 1st Viscount
Brackley).
For example in 1606 she is called "Countess Dowager" while her sister-in-law
is called "Countess". In 1612 she is called "Countess of Derby" while her
brother-in-law is called "Earl of Derby". In 1613 her sister-in-law is called
"Countess of Derby" In 1635 she is called "Dowager Countess of Derby"
So it appears both women were referred to simultaneously as "Countess of
Derby"
As to Lord Chandos, I found a document where Alice "Countess Dowager Derby"
is referred to as "grandmother and guardian of Lord Chandos". That document is
dated 1635. Lord Chandos' father Grey Brydges, 5th had died in 1621, but
Anne Stanley his widow was still living and did not die until 1647.
I'm not sure why the grandmother would be guardian here instead of the mother
who probably would have been called something like "Countess Chandos" at this
point.
Will Johnson
-
Kristie Thompson
Re: Henry VIII descendants
Tony,
I hope to be able to read your article, but I'm not sure where I can grab a
copy of it. As far as Henry VIII is concerned, my knowledge of him has come
from research - not film, common knowledge, or mythology. I am a Tudor
history fanatic and have read Weir, Ives, Starks, Murphy, etc. I'd love to
add your article to my collection. It won't take much to convince me,
because I do hope he left descendents.
I normally shy away from history "reconstructionism" because I think that
many times primary documentation is used as a "proof" for a theory, rather
than as source material. But at times, reconstructionists have brought us
some of the freshest knowledge available! Hopefully (as I am sure it is
with all the praise it has received!) your article will be one of the
latter!
Thanks again,
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <girlvol@earthlink.net>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Henry VIII descendants
I hope to be able to read your article, but I'm not sure where I can grab a
copy of it. As far as Henry VIII is concerned, my knowledge of him has come
from research - not film, common knowledge, or mythology. I am a Tudor
history fanatic and have read Weir, Ives, Starks, Murphy, etc. I'd love to
add your article to my collection. It won't take much to convince me,
because I do hope he left descendents.
I normally shy away from history "reconstructionism" because I think that
many times primary documentation is used as a "proof" for a theory, rather
than as source material. But at times, reconstructionists have brought us
some of the freshest knowledge available! Hopefully (as I am sure it is
with all the praise it has received!) your article will be one of the
latter!
Thanks again,
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <girlvol@earthlink.net>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Henry VIII descendants
Have your doubts, by all means. But, read my article and also especially
John Parsons' comments on this group. We tend to think we "know" Henry
VIII because of the mass of literature, film, "common knowlege" and
mythology surrounding and obscuring him. In a case like this, one needs
to sweep all "knowledge" of the subject aside and re-contruct afresh
from fact.
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
-
William Marshall
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
In a posting yesterday, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
I'm confused by this statement. I thought this whole discussion
was about one wife of Alan, and whether she was the daughter
of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster, or whether she was the daughter
or sister of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester. When Alan
Lord of Galloway later married Margaret of Huntingdon, wasn't
that his _second_ marriage, or was it his third?
Also, all the discussion in these several threads has been
directed toward the identification of the Lacy family as that of
Pontefract. Weis AR7 cites "Orpen, Ireland under the Normans III
chart p. 286" for Alan's first wife being a daughter of Hugh de Lacy,
Earl of Ulster (died 1243) by his first wife, Lesceline, dau. of
Bertram de Verdun. What evidence was cited by Orpen? Has it
been completely disproven such that the only alternative left is
the dau. or sister of Roger de Lacy of Pontefract? (AR7 citation
to Trans. of the Dumfrieshire & Galloway Nat. Hist Soc. 49: 49-55,
which I presume to be the 1972 article by Stringer).
Bill Marshall
wtm@research.att.com
4 A letter of Pope Honorius III of March 1222 states that Alan had
married within the prohibited degrees of consanguinuity. His later
wife was the daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster (of the Weobley
Lacys), so an earlier Lacy wife (of the Pontefract Lacys) would fit the
bill.
I'm confused by this statement. I thought this whole discussion
was about one wife of Alan, and whether she was the daughter
of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster, or whether she was the daughter
or sister of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester. When Alan
Lord of Galloway later married Margaret of Huntingdon, wasn't
that his _second_ marriage, or was it his third?
Also, all the discussion in these several threads has been
directed toward the identification of the Lacy family as that of
Pontefract. Weis AR7 cites "Orpen, Ireland under the Normans III
chart p. 286" for Alan's first wife being a daughter of Hugh de Lacy,
Earl of Ulster (died 1243) by his first wife, Lesceline, dau. of
Bertram de Verdun. What evidence was cited by Orpen? Has it
been completely disproven such that the only alternative left is
the dau. or sister of Roger de Lacy of Pontefract? (AR7 citation
to Trans. of the Dumfrieshire & Galloway Nat. Hist Soc. 49: 49-55,
which I presume to be the 1972 article by Stringer).
Bill Marshall
wtm@research.att.com
-
John P. Ravilious
3rd wife of Alan of Galloway (was: 1st wife of Alan ......)
Dear Chris, Peter, Michael, Douglas, et al.,
Following is the text concerning Alan of Galloway's 3rd marriage,
dated 30 March 1222. As opposed to what little detail we usually find
in either a supplication to the Holy See or a dispensation, this does
not specify any relationship between Alan and his wife (it also does
not name his wife), but refers to the problem as involving both
consanguinity and affinity ["consanguinitatis et affinitatis "].
Hope this is of interest.
Cheers,
John
XLVIII.
Iudicibus, ut causam matrimonii Alani comestabularii regni
Scotiae audiant. Reg. An. VI. epist. 331.
HONORIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Venerabilibus fratribus .... Eboracensi
Archiepiscopo et .... Karleolensi et .... Oxonensi Episcopis, salutem
etc. Olim dilectus filius frater Iacobus capellanus et penitentiarius
noster, tunc apostolice sedis legatus, et Ep'i quamplures Regni
Scotie suis nobis litteris intimarunt, quod nobilis vir Alanus
Comestabularius Regni eiusdem eo gradu consanguinitatis et affinitatis
sue attineret uxori, quod sine mortali peccato illi non posset
carnaliter commisceri. Idem quoque legatus, quid esset in huiusmodi
causa facturus, per suas nos duxit litteras consulendos. Quare moti ex
hiis pariter et inducti legato ipsi scripsimus, ut predicti Regni
convocatis Ep'is, quos crederet evocandos, communicato quoque illorum
et aliorum prudentum consilio, si constaret eidem computatis canonice
gradibus et distinctis, quod predicti vir et uxor in gradu sibi
prohibito attinerent, super hoc faceret, prout secundum deum
prospiceret expedire. Sane cum procurator ipsius nobilis cum obtentis
a nobis super hoc litteris remearet, quoniam ad legatum eundem
applicuit, cum in itinere foret ad nostram presentiam redeundi, ad nos
infecto negotio iterum est reversus, suppliciter postulans et humiliter
ac instanter exposcens, ut ne sustinuisset in vacuum tot labores,
negotium ipsum viris decretis committere dignaremur. Nos autem licet
favore matrimonii hac sicut alia vice difficiles aliquandiu fuissemus,
ne tamen negaremus iustitiam, in qua sumus omnibus debitores, et quam
fieri super hoc procurator ipse attentius postulabat, fraternitati
vestre in virtute obedientie districte precipiendo mandamus, quatenus
habituri pre oculis solum deum, et reddituri de hoc in die districti
examinis rationem, convocatis episcopis et aliis viris honestis, quos
videritis evocandos, audiatis causam, in qua cum omni circumspectione
ac diligentia processuri, nichil unquam de contingentibus omittendo, ut
circumveniri et tandem redargui non possitis. Cum huiusmodi factum ex
causis quibusdam, quas audivimus, non valeamus non habere suspectum,
cum ea, qua decet, maturitate consilii, appellatione postposita,
faciatis, quod secundum deum et animarum salutem fuerit faciendum.
Quod si non omnes hiis exequendis potueritis interesse, tu ea, frater
archiep'e, cum eorum altero etc. Datum Anagnie III. Kal. Aprilis,
Pontificatus nostri anno sexto. ' [1]
NOTES
[1] Augustinus Theiner, ed. Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum
(Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1969), pp. 20-21.
Chris Phillips wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Following is the text concerning Alan of Galloway's 3rd marriage,
dated 30 March 1222. As opposed to what little detail we usually find
in either a supplication to the Holy See or a dispensation, this does
not specify any relationship between Alan and his wife (it also does
not name his wife), but refers to the problem as involving both
consanguinity and affinity ["consanguinitatis et affinitatis "].
Hope this is of interest.
Cheers,
John
XLVIII.
Iudicibus, ut causam matrimonii Alani comestabularii regni
Scotiae audiant. Reg. An. VI. epist. 331.
HONORIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Venerabilibus fratribus .... Eboracensi
Archiepiscopo et .... Karleolensi et .... Oxonensi Episcopis, salutem
etc. Olim dilectus filius frater Iacobus capellanus et penitentiarius
noster, tunc apostolice sedis legatus, et Ep'i quamplures Regni
Scotie suis nobis litteris intimarunt, quod nobilis vir Alanus
Comestabularius Regni eiusdem eo gradu consanguinitatis et affinitatis
sue attineret uxori, quod sine mortali peccato illi non posset
carnaliter commisceri. Idem quoque legatus, quid esset in huiusmodi
causa facturus, per suas nos duxit litteras consulendos. Quare moti ex
hiis pariter et inducti legato ipsi scripsimus, ut predicti Regni
convocatis Ep'is, quos crederet evocandos, communicato quoque illorum
et aliorum prudentum consilio, si constaret eidem computatis canonice
gradibus et distinctis, quod predicti vir et uxor in gradu sibi
prohibito attinerent, super hoc faceret, prout secundum deum
prospiceret expedire. Sane cum procurator ipsius nobilis cum obtentis
a nobis super hoc litteris remearet, quoniam ad legatum eundem
applicuit, cum in itinere foret ad nostram presentiam redeundi, ad nos
infecto negotio iterum est reversus, suppliciter postulans et humiliter
ac instanter exposcens, ut ne sustinuisset in vacuum tot labores,
negotium ipsum viris decretis committere dignaremur. Nos autem licet
favore matrimonii hac sicut alia vice difficiles aliquandiu fuissemus,
ne tamen negaremus iustitiam, in qua sumus omnibus debitores, et quam
fieri super hoc procurator ipse attentius postulabat, fraternitati
vestre in virtute obedientie districte precipiendo mandamus, quatenus
habituri pre oculis solum deum, et reddituri de hoc in die districti
examinis rationem, convocatis episcopis et aliis viris honestis, quos
videritis evocandos, audiatis causam, in qua cum omni circumspectione
ac diligentia processuri, nichil unquam de contingentibus omittendo, ut
circumveniri et tandem redargui non possitis. Cum huiusmodi factum ex
causis quibusdam, quas audivimus, non valeamus non habere suspectum,
cum ea, qua decet, maturitate consilii, appellatione postposita,
faciatis, quod secundum deum et animarum salutem fuerit faciendum.
Quod si non omnes hiis exequendis potueritis interesse, tu ea, frater
archiep'e, cum eorum altero etc. Datum Anagnie III. Kal. Aprilis,
Pontificatus nostri anno sexto. ' [1]
NOTES
[1] Augustinus Theiner, ed. Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum
(Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1969), pp. 20-21.
Chris Phillips wrote:
John P. Ravilious wrote:
The possibility that William 'II' may have been the son of William
'I' by Gundreda should be reviewed in light of this additional claim.
It does seem, to me at least, that William 'I' was married to Gundreda
'the countess' and not her daughter. Besides the complicated marital
history of the daughter, Gundreda de Newburgh [1], the fact that the
witnesses to the charter you cite included "Willelmo filio meo et
herede, Gundrea filia comitisse " would seem quite strange. William
'II' is identified as 'my son and heir', so (A) why would the wife of
William 'I' be named after him? Also, (B) why would the charter not
name her as 'my wife' in addition to calling her 'daughter of the
countess', if this was one and the same individual?
I don't think it's so strange that his wife should appear after his son. She
does so in the consent clause, after all, and if the property in question
was inheritable the son's interest could be viewed as more material than the
wife's.
<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
Gjest
Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chan
She could not have been styled Countess Chandos, as there was no
Earldom of Chandos; she was styled Countess of Castlehaven, the highest
style she had attained.
Earldom of Chandos; she was styled Countess of Castlehaven, the highest
style she had attained.
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
We are talking about three wives, either proven or not accepted, as the
case may be:
1 ____ de Lacy, probably sister of John de Lacy of Pontefract,
Constable of Chester, by whom he had an eldest daughter Helen, who
married Roger de Quincy Earl of Winchester
2 Margaret of Huntingdon, whom he married in 1209 and who died in
1218, who transmitted the Royal blood to John Balliol
3 ______ de Lacy, dau of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster of the
Weobley branch of Lacys; no known offspring.
The article yuo quote from TDGNHAS 49, 49 is the Stringer article of
1972. He quotes the letter from the Pope. Thanks for quoting it, John.
case may be:
1 ____ de Lacy, probably sister of John de Lacy of Pontefract,
Constable of Chester, by whom he had an eldest daughter Helen, who
married Roger de Quincy Earl of Winchester
2 Margaret of Huntingdon, whom he married in 1209 and who died in
1218, who transmitted the Royal blood to John Balliol
3 ______ de Lacy, dau of Hugh de Lacy, Earl of Ulster of the
Weobley branch of Lacys; no known offspring.
The article yuo quote from TDGNHAS 49, 49 is the Stringer article of
1972. He quotes the letter from the Pope. Thanks for quoting it, John.
-
Gjest
Re: Henry VIII descendants
The new DNB is pretty adamant that John Perrott was not Henry's son, but
then they may be wrong
Regards,
Adrian
Leo wrote;
Dear Kirstie,
Don't forget John Perrott, he is a most likely son as well. I hope you can
get hold of the Tony Hoskins' article, it convinced me. Give me a little bit
of time and I will make a file with at least "some" of Henry VIII
descendants and they include the two Carey children.
One statement says : On 20 April 1535, John Hale, vicar of Isleworth, stated
to the Council that he had seen the nine-year-old Henry Carey, the king's
son. On 4 May 1535, just two weeks later, John Hale was executed at Tyburn
'for denying the King's supremacy'.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
then they may be wrong
Regards,
Adrian
Leo wrote;
Dear Kirstie,
Don't forget John Perrott, he is a most likely son as well. I hope you can
get hold of the Tony Hoskins' article, it convinced me. Give me a little bit
of time and I will make a file with at least "some" of Henry VIII
descendants and they include the two Carey children.
One statement says : On 20 April 1535, John Hale, vicar of Isleworth, stated
to the Council that he had seen the nine-year-old Henry Carey, the king's
son. On 4 May 1535, just two weeks later, John Hale was executed at Tyburn
'for denying the King's supremacy'.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Henry VIII descendants
I don't have him as a son of Henry VIII, interesting that his son Sir Thomas
marries a descendant of Henry VIII.......
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Henry VIII descendants
marries a descendant of Henry VIII.......
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Henry VIII descendants
The new DNB is pretty adamant that John Perrott was not Henry's son, but
then they may be wrong
Regards,
Adrian
Leo wrote;
Dear Kirstie,
Don't forget John Perrott, he is a most likely son as well. I hope you
can
get hold of the Tony Hoskins' article, it convinced me. Give me a little
bit
of time and I will make a file with at least "some" of Henry VIII
descendants and they include the two Carey children.
One statement says : On 20 April 1535, John Hale, vicar of Isleworth,
stated
to the Council that he had seen the nine-year-old Henry Carey, the king's
son. On 4 May 1535, just two weeks later, John Hale was executed at Tyburn
'for denying the King's supremacy'.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
<ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f4.133aaade.306e71bb@aol.com...
This is not quite what Tim and I were discussing - a witness to the
execution of a contract is only required to verify that the nominated
signatory subscribed it, but that doesn't take a whole list of people
including, often, "and many others" unnamed at the end.
The purpose of witnesses attesting to medieval charters was to verify that
the specific business described in the document had been transacted by the
principal/s, not just that such person/s had gathered a number of others
together to look on while something unknown was being agreed and recorded.
If they didn't even know the substance of the transaction, they could not
very well confirm later what charter/s of a particular individual they had
witnessed.
A modern witness, on the other hand, may be asked only to give evidence that
a signature on a piece of paper was actually his or hers, and perhaps to
recall the occasion. Medieval witnesses often didn't sign or seal the
document, they were just named in it. The involvement of family members was
mainly to verify their assent, whether or not this was made explicit in the
text.
In the charter originally discussed in this thread, the consent of William
de Lancaster's wife Gundred was worth mentioning apart from just the
relationship and pious wishes for the good of her soul, so that it is less
likely she would have been described differently ("filia comitisse" instead
of "uxor mea") as a witness to the same document.
Peter Stewart
news:1f4.133aaade.306e71bb@aol.com...
The sole purpose of a witness is to verify the person who signs and/or
seals
the document is the person he claims to be. A witness need not know the
context of the document, but should be present when the document is
signed. A
deed must always be witnessed, where land is involved at least two.
Nowadays
care is taken that the witness is not the spouse or close relation of
those
named in the deed, but that was not always the case. A contract involves
at
least two parties and the witness (if required, eg in a conveyance) will
need
to make it clear to which signature/seal he is a witness, usually clear
on
the original, the witness signing under the appropriate party. Each of
the
parties may sign at different places and time, but their corresponding
witness
should be present.
This is not quite what Tim and I were discussing - a witness to the
execution of a contract is only required to verify that the nominated
signatory subscribed it, but that doesn't take a whole list of people
including, often, "and many others" unnamed at the end.
The purpose of witnesses attesting to medieval charters was to verify that
the specific business described in the document had been transacted by the
principal/s, not just that such person/s had gathered a number of others
together to look on while something unknown was being agreed and recorded.
If they didn't even know the substance of the transaction, they could not
very well confirm later what charter/s of a particular individual they had
witnessed.
A modern witness, on the other hand, may be asked only to give evidence that
a signature on a piece of paper was actually his or hers, and perhaps to
recall the occasion. Medieval witnesses often didn't sign or seal the
document, they were just named in it. The involvement of family members was
mainly to verify their assent, whether or not this was made explicit in the
text.
In the charter originally discussed in this thread, the consent of William
de Lancaster's wife Gundred was worth mentioning apart from just the
relationship and pious wishes for the good of her soul, so that it is less
likely she would have been described differently ("filia comitisse" instead
of "uxor mea") as a witness to the same document.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: 1st wife of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway
"Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128073745.035477.54750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Can you tell us what particular aspect/s of the discussion led you to this
conclusion?
It seems to me that Alan's wife was "possibly sister of John de Lacy", but
far from "probably" so. If her father had been called "Richard the
Constable", for instance, there would be good grounds to amend his name to
Roger - but he wasn't.
Peter Stewart
news:1128073745.035477.54750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We are talking about three wives, either proven or not accepted, as the
case may be:
1 ____ de Lacy, probably sister of John de Lacy of Pontefract,
Constable of Chester, by whom he had an eldest daughter Helen, who
married Roger de Quincy Earl of Winchester
Can you tell us what particular aspect/s of the discussion led you to this
conclusion?
It seems to me that Alan's wife was "possibly sister of John de Lacy", but
far from "probably" so. If her father had been called "Richard the
Constable", for instance, there would be good grounds to amend his name to
Roger - but he wasn't.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Gundred, wife of William de Lancaster (was: 1st wife of
The sole purpose of a witness is to verify the person who signs and/or seals
the document is the person he claims to be. A witness need not know the
context of the document, but should be present when the document is signed. A
deed must always be witnessed, where land is involved at least two. Nowadays
care is taken that the witness is not the spouse or close relation of those
named in the deed, but that was not always the case. A contract involves at
least two parties and the witness (if required, eg in a conveyance) will need
to make it clear to which signature/seal he is a witness, usually clear on
the original, the witness signing under the appropriate party. Each of the
parties may sign at different places and time, but their corresponding witness
should be present.
Adrian
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Peter Stewart
I don't know how we could prove there were instances of absentees
recorded in witness lists, unless the same person showed up at two
different locations within too short a time to move between the places.
But if this had been acceptable practice, I think witness lists in
general would look very different from what we find. Any interested
party could be nominated, in the expectation that they would comply
later - and there would surely be plenty of disputes in the legal
record that would make the anomaly plain.
There are documents where the witnesses might not have been all
together in a room, due to bad blood amongst them or from other
circumstances unknown to us. However, the transaction would not have
been regarded as complete & valid until all named as witnesses had
given assent in the presence of the written record.
It is the same today, where legal papers can be signed in different
places at different times by the parties involved, as long as they all
take a direct part in the extended process.
Peter Stewart
<<<<<
the document is the person he claims to be. A witness need not know the
context of the document, but should be present when the document is signed. A
deed must always be witnessed, where land is involved at least two. Nowadays
care is taken that the witness is not the spouse or close relation of those
named in the deed, but that was not always the case. A contract involves at
least two parties and the witness (if required, eg in a conveyance) will need
to make it clear to which signature/seal he is a witness, usually clear on
the original, the witness signing under the appropriate party. Each of the
parties may sign at different places and time, but their corresponding witness
should be present.
Adrian
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
It must have been difficult to get all the important people together to
sign and seal a document. So I wonder if the role of "witness" was in
fact that of being present when the originator's seal was applied, or
whether the witnesses were more co-authorisors and might sign
and/or seal at a later time?
Peter Stewart
I don't know how we could prove there were instances of absentees
recorded in witness lists, unless the same person showed up at two
different locations within too short a time to move between the places.
But if this had been acceptable practice, I think witness lists in
general would look very different from what we find. Any interested
party could be nominated, in the expectation that they would comply
later - and there would surely be plenty of disputes in the legal
record that would make the anomaly plain.
There are documents where the witnesses might not have been all
together in a room, due to bad blood amongst them or from other
circumstances unknown to us. However, the transaction would not have
been regarded as complete & valid until all named as witnesses had
given assent in the presence of the written record.
It is the same today, where legal papers can be signed in different
places at different times by the parties involved, as long as they all
take a direct part in the extended process.
Peter Stewart
<<<<<
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wi
Dear Adrian,
Thanks for that - the problem was typographical, not geographical.
The association with Shere (Surrey) likely helped lead to the
marital association with the de Fay (Faye) family of Bramley (Surrey).
Roger de Clere of Shere, Surrey and Sinnington, Yorks. - son of Ralph
'II' de Clere - married Maud de Fay (Faye), elder sister and coheiress
of John and dau. of Ralph de Fay (Faye) of Bramley by Beatrice de
Turnham. This is the de Faye line of prior SGM debate, which
apparently leads back to Ralph's grandfather, Raoul de Faye, seigneur
de la Faye-le-Vineuse and Seneschal of Poitou under Eleanor, Duchess of
Aquitaine (his niece). Radulf de Faie was "given the manor of Bromley
[sic] in Surrey by Henry II early in his reign" [DD 454; corrected by
Chris Phillips, noting this was Bramley, Surrey ]. See ES I Band III
Tafel 813, and prior discussions on SGM (J. C. Parsons, et al.).
Cheers,
John
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Thanks for that - the problem was typographical, not geographical.
The association with Shere (Surrey) likely helped lead to the
marital association with the de Fay (Faye) family of Bramley (Surrey).
Roger de Clere of Shere, Surrey and Sinnington, Yorks. - son of Ralph
'II' de Clere - married Maud de Fay (Faye), elder sister and coheiress
of John and dau. of Ralph de Fay (Faye) of Bramley by Beatrice de
Turnham. This is the de Faye line of prior SGM debate, which
apparently leads back to Ralph's grandfather, Raoul de Faye, seigneur
de la Faye-le-Vineuse and Seneschal of Poitou under Eleanor, Duchess of
Aquitaine (his niece). Radulf de Faie was "given the manor of Bromley
[sic] in Surrey by Henry II early in his reign" [DD 454; corrected by
Chris Phillips, noting this was Bramley, Surrey ]. See ES I Band III
Tafel 813, and prior discussions on SGM (J. C. Parsons, et al.).
Cheers,
John
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I don't think there is a Shere in Yorks, but the Shere in Surrey is a few
miles from Bramley, Surrey, although there is another Bramley in Yorks (where
the apples came from)
Adrian
Dear Louise,
Thanks for that.
While dealing with few knowns and more unknowns, I'd hazard that
Maud de Clere was likely a member of the Clere family of Sinnington and
Shere, co. Yorks. (later of Bramley, Surrey). Ralph de Clere of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wilton, Shere and Sinnington, co. Yorks. ' confirmed his [brother
Roger's] gift of Atlingworth to Lewes priory, making an agreement
therefor in that year; and who gave the church of Sinnington and 4
bovates to Yeddingham priory.' [Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, p. 21,
cites Lewes Chartulary, ut sup., ii, 51-2; and E.Y.C., i, no. 595].
According to Richard Borthwick, Ralph d. in 1205, having by his wife
Mabel a son Ralph 'II', grandfather of Agatha de Clere (wife of William
le Rus of Stinton, Norfolk and Stradbroke, Suffolk) and ancestor
thereby of de Braose (of Stinton), de Weyland, de la Pole & many many
more besides.
snip
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wi
I don't think there is a Shere in Yorks, but the Shere in Surrey is a few
miles from Bramley, Surrey, although there is another Bramley in Yorks (where
the apples came from)
Adrian
Dear Louise,
Thanks for that.
While dealing with few knowns and more unknowns, I'd hazard that
Maud de Clere was likely a member of the Clere family of Sinnington and
Shere, co. Yorks. (later of Bramley, Surrey). Ralph de Clere of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wilton, Shere and Sinnington, co. Yorks. ' confirmed his [brother
Roger's] gift of Atlingworth to Lewes priory, making an agreement
therefor in that year; and who gave the church of Sinnington and 4
bovates to Yeddingham priory.' [Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, p. 21,
cites Lewes Chartulary, ut sup., ii, 51-2; and E.Y.C., i, no. 595].
According to Richard Borthwick, Ralph d. in 1205, having by his wife
Mabel a son Ralph 'II', grandfather of Agatha de Clere (wife of William
le Rus of Stinton, Norfolk and Stradbroke, Suffolk) and ancestor
thereby of de Braose (of Stinton), de Weyland, de la Pole & many many
more besides.
miles from Bramley, Surrey, although there is another Bramley in Yorks (where
the apples came from)
Adrian
Dear Louise,
Thanks for that.
While dealing with few knowns and more unknowns, I'd hazard that
Maud de Clere was likely a member of the Clere family of Sinnington and
Shere, co. Yorks. (later of Bramley, Surrey). Ralph de Clere of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wilton, Shere and Sinnington, co. Yorks. ' confirmed his [brother
Roger's] gift of Atlingworth to Lewes priory, making an agreement
therefor in that year; and who gave the church of Sinnington and 4
bovates to Yeddingham priory.' [Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, p. 21,
cites Lewes Chartulary, ut sup., ii, 51-2; and E.Y.C., i, no. 595].
According to Richard Borthwick, Ralph d. in 1205, having by his wife
Mabel a son Ralph 'II', grandfather of Agatha de Clere (wife of William
le Rus of Stinton, Norfolk and Stradbroke, Suffolk) and ancestor
thereby of de Braose (of Stinton), de Weyland, de la Pole & many many
more besides.
snip
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wi
All,
Barrow's Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History indicates that Ralph de Clere,
brother of Roger (III) Clere was in the the service of Malcolm IV and
William I and was given the estates of Mid Calder, Midlothian and
Cambusenethan, Lanarkshire. He succeeded his brother in his extensive
English estates in Yorkshire and Sussex before 1185. There is a more
thorough look at this family in the 1235 Surrey Ere pub 1979 by Surrey
Record Society in which it states that Maud de Fay brought in dower the
advowson of Shere and a moiety in Bramley.
Pat
----------
Barrow's Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History indicates that Ralph de Clere,
brother of Roger (III) Clere was in the the service of Malcolm IV and
William I and was given the estates of Mid Calder, Midlothian and
Cambusenethan, Lanarkshire. He succeeded his brother in his extensive
English estates in Yorkshire and Sussex before 1185. There is a more
thorough look at this family in the 1235 Surrey Ere pub 1979 by Surrey
Record Society in which it states that Maud de Fay brought in dower the
advowson of Shere and a moiety in Bramley.
Pat
----------
From: ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wife, _____
de Lacy
Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2005, 8:11 AM
I don't think there is a Shere in Yorks, but the Shere in Surrey is a few
miles from Bramley, Surrey, although there is another Bramley in Yorks (where
the apples came from)
Adrian
Dear Louise,
Thanks for that.
While dealing with few knowns and more unknowns, I'd hazard that
Maud de Clere was likely a member of the Clere family of Sinnington and
Shere, co. Yorks. (later of Bramley, Surrey). Ralph de Clere of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wilton, Shere and Sinnington, co. Yorks. ' confirmed his [brother
Roger's] gift of Atlingworth to Lewes priory, making an agreement
therefor in that year; and who gave the church of Sinnington and 4
bovates to Yeddingham priory.' [Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, p. 21,
cites Lewes Chartulary, ut sup., ii, 51-2; and E.Y.C., i, no. 595].
According to Richard Borthwick, Ralph d. in 1205, having by his wife
Mabel a son Ralph 'II', grandfather of Agatha de Clere (wife of William
le Rus of Stinton, Norfolk and Stradbroke, Suffolk) and ancestor
thereby of de Braose (of Stinton), de Weyland, de la Pole & many many
more besides.
snip
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Henry VIII descendants
I'd read somewhere that Mary Boleyn's elder children's father was Henry
the VIII, but didn't know how much evidence there was to support it.
I'll certainly try and find that article!
Thanks again
Vicki
---
The book to which you probably refer is by Philippa Gregory - _The
Other Boleyn Girl_ - and was based on the premise presented in my
article. Ms Gregory however failed to acknowledge my work, which -
though not having read her book myself - I am "OK with" as we say in
California.
And, *please* beware of anything you read among the plethora of drek in
popular "historical fiction" especially in re: the Tudors. Poor
Elizabeth I - she is particularly apt to be grotesquely misrepresented.
I expect to soon hear resuscitated the hermaphrodite legend. God help
us!
Tony Hoskins
the VIII, but didn't know how much evidence there was to support it.
I'll certainly try and find that article!
Thanks again
Vicki
---
The book to which you probably refer is by Philippa Gregory - _The
Other Boleyn Girl_ - and was based on the premise presented in my
article. Ms Gregory however failed to acknowledge my work, which -
though not having read her book myself - I am "OK with" as we say in
California.
And, *please* beware of anything you read among the plethora of drek in
popular "historical fiction" especially in re: the Tudors. Poor
Elizabeth I - she is particularly apt to be grotesquely misrepresented.
I expect to soon hear resuscitated the hermaphrodite legend. God help
us!
Tony Hoskins
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Corrections to "Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richard
I have a photo of John Chester's MI in the Old Wethersfield burying ground, it's a truly impressive table monument that has shown little wear. My descent runs along these lines:
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... t&id=I0578
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sep 30, 2005 12:32 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Corrections to "Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson is now live
is not widely known.
I remember you mentioning that.
If you get a 'wild hair,' and want to publish the ref. to Anne Baynton
Batt from the _Clarendon Papers_, please feel free to. It might be
interesting for descendants, in view of Charles Fitch-Northen's note
that showed Christopher Batt as a close cousin of Clarendon's.
Or was the thing from the _Clarendon Papers_ already in Walter Davis's
write-ups?
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... t&id=I0578
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sep 30, 2005 12:32 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Corrections to "Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson is now live
Eventually, I'll have to look further into the ancestry of colonist Leonard Chester. I know his Sharpe grandfather left an IPM, but no will.
Also, Leonard's marriage was located by Charles Banks decades ago, but
is not widely known.
I remember you mentioning that.
If you get a 'wild hair,' and want to publish the ref. to Anne Baynton
Batt from the _Clarendon Papers_, please feel free to. It might be
interesting for descendants, in view of Charles Fitch-Northen's note
that showed Christopher Batt as a close cousin of Clarendon's.
Or was the thing from the _Clarendon Papers_ already in Walter Davis's
write-ups?
-
Gjest
Re: Henry VIII descendants
In a message dated 9/30/05 11:14:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< I read a novel recently in which Elizabeth I had an
illegitmate child- >>
Francis Bacon
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< I read a novel recently in which Elizabeth I had an
illegitmate child- >>
Francis Bacon
-
Roger LeBlanc
Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz R
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<in part>
thought to chronological questions due mainly to a lack of resource
material.
I find that I agree with the above observation, and it seems to me that
30 years between successive male generations is a more reasonable
standard. Perhaps the age was younger in Britain, but I have trouble
believing that 20 is an acceptable average.
Roger LeBlanc
<in part>
Although as you say people married young, that does not mean that they were
allowed to sleep together, esp. when the male was the tender age of 14. In
fact, I think you'll find, in those cases where we know that birthdates exactly,
that there are really few if any cases you can cite that are supported by the
primary documentation. Or perhaps I'm wrong here.
Will Johnson
I just wanted to address this as well, since I devote quite a bit of
thought to chronological questions due mainly to a lack of resource
material.
I find that I agree with the above observation, and it seems to me that
30 years between successive male generations is a more reasonable
standard. Perhaps the age was younger in Britain, but I have trouble
believing that 20 is an acceptable average.
Roger LeBlanc
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Henry VIII descendants
No, Mr. Jhohnson, you have cut and pasted words I didn't
write and put them under my signature, as if I'd written
them, when I merely quoted from another email.
Ms. Perry wrote what you have quoted as my words; i.e., that
she had read rumors that Elizabeth I had an illegitimate
child.
I merely responded she might want to read _The Golden Lads_
by du Maurier.
Please use more care when responding to emails and in the
future, I will be sure and note who I am quoting from when I
respond with material quoted from previous emails.
Ginny Wagner
write and put them under my signature, as if I'd written
them, when I merely quoted from another email.
Ms. Perry wrote what you have quoted as my words; i.e., that
she had read rumors that Elizabeth I had an illegitimate
child.
I merely responded she might want to read _The Golden Lads_
by du Maurier.
Please use more care when responding to emails and in the
future, I will be sure and note who I am quoting from when I
respond with material quoted from previous emails.
Ginny Wagner
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Henry VIII descendants
<< I read a novel recently in which Elizabeth I had an illegitimate
child- >>
---
Francis Bacon
----
No, everyone knows Elizabeth's secret child was Christopher Marlowe, by
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (who of course everyone knows was
really "Shakespeare").
For the record, I'm joking (and being acerbically sarcastic)!
T.
child- >>
---
Francis Bacon
----
No, everyone knows Elizabeth's secret child was Christopher Marlowe, by
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (who of course everyone knows was
really "Shakespeare").
For the record, I'm joking (and being acerbically sarcastic)!
T.
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Dear Roger and Will ~
I usually figure on about 85 years for three generations in the
medieval time period, give or take. The chronology of the Lacy family,
however, is clearly much shorter than this. If we estimate the Lacy
family ancestress, Aubrey de Lisours' birthdate as circa 1130 (she was
still living in 1194), you only have 60 years between her and her
great-grandson, Robert de Lacy, born say 1185 (he witnessed a royal
charter in 1205). This is very short chronology indeed (20 years per
generation versus the normal span of 28 years per generation).
A note by W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A., in Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
518-519 (sub Fitzwilliam) indicates that Aubrey de Lisours' parents,
Robert de Lisours and Aubrey de Lacy, were married about 1129-30, but
unfortunately he give no source for this statement. If Mr. Baildon is
correct, then Aubrey de Lisours can have been born no earlier than
1129.
Suffice to say, the Lacy family does not fit the normal pattern of
chronology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Roger LeBlanc wrote:
I usually figure on about 85 years for three generations in the
medieval time period, give or take. The chronology of the Lacy family,
however, is clearly much shorter than this. If we estimate the Lacy
family ancestress, Aubrey de Lisours' birthdate as circa 1130 (she was
still living in 1194), you only have 60 years between her and her
great-grandson, Robert de Lacy, born say 1185 (he witnessed a royal
charter in 1205). This is very short chronology indeed (20 years per
generation versus the normal span of 28 years per generation).
A note by W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A., in Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
518-519 (sub Fitzwilliam) indicates that Aubrey de Lisours' parents,
Robert de Lisours and Aubrey de Lacy, were married about 1129-30, but
unfortunately he give no source for this statement. If Mr. Baildon is
correct, then Aubrey de Lisours can have been born no earlier than
1129.
Suffice to say, the Lacy family does not fit the normal pattern of
chronology.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Roger LeBlanc wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
in part
Although as you say people married young, that does not mean that they were
allowed to sleep together, esp. when the male was the tender age of 14. In
fact, I think you'll find, in those cases where we know that birthdates exactly,
that there are really few if any cases you can cite that are supported by the
primary documentation. Or perhaps I'm wrong here.
Will Johnson
I just wanted to address this as well, since I devote quite a bit of
thought to chronological questions due mainly to a lack of resource
material.
I find that I agree with the above observation, and it seems to me that
30 years between successive male generations is a more reasonable
standard. Perhaps the age was younger in Britain, but I have trouble
believing that 20 is an acceptable average.
Roger LeBlanc
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Mediaeval Church's Agricultural Land?
GLEBE.
Not just the Mediaeval Church.
DSH
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128116056.808910.72070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Hello to everyone,
|
| I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one
| english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church,
and
|
| surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the
| "churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for
| agriculture and was considerably vast.
|
| Most appreciatively,
| --
| Maysara Omar
Not just the Mediaeval Church.
DSH
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128116056.808910.72070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Hello to everyone,
|
| I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one
| english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church,
and
|
| surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the
| "churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for
| agriculture and was considerably vast.
|
| Most appreciatively,
| --
| Maysara Omar
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Newsgroup ~
I see James has referred to John, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon (died
1237) as "John le Scot." I have seen this man called John of Scotland
(John de Scotia) in several contemporary records, but never "John le
Scot." The closest I find him being called John le Scot is Matthew
Paris who refers to him as "comes Cestriae Johannes, cognomento
Scotus." A much later source, Register of Edward the Black Prince,
calls him "John Scot sometime earl of Cestre."
Can anyone produce a contemporary reference to this individual as "John
le Scot?"
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Best always, Douglas Richardsonm
Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
I see James has referred to John, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon (died
1237) as "John le Scot." I have seen this man called John of Scotland
(John de Scotia) in several contemporary records, but never "John le
Scot." The closest I find him being called John le Scot is Matthew
Paris who refers to him as "comes Cestriae Johannes, cognomento
Scotus." A much later source, Register of Edward the Black Prince,
calls him "John Scot sometime earl of Cestre."
Can anyone produce a contemporary reference to this individual as "John
le Scot?"
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Best always, Douglas Richardsonm
Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Janet,
John le Scot, non-royal ? I`d definitely consider him a
collateral royal of the Scots. If William the Lion had died without an heir his
brother David could have reasonably been expected to have become King and
John, King designate.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Janet,
John le Scot, non-royal ? I`d definitely consider him a
collateral royal of the Scots. If William the Lion had died without an heir his
brother David could have reasonably been expected to have become King and
John, King designate.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
John le Scot, non-royal ? I`d definitely consider him a
collateral royal of the Scots. If William the Lion had died without an heir his
brother David could have reasonably been expected to have become King and
John, King designate.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
In a message dated 9/30/05 3:12:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< A note by W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A., in Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
518-519 (sub Fitzwilliam) indicates that Aubrey de Lisours' parents, Robert de
Lisours and Aubrey de Lacy, were married about 1129-30, but unfortunately he give
no source for this statement. If Mr. Baildon is correct, then Aubrey de
Lisours can have been born no earlier than 1129. >>
Well really it banks on a few things here.
1) Aubrey de Lisours has the correct father.
2) Aubrey de Lisours has the correct mother.
3) Her parents were really married in 1129/30 instead of this being some kind
of misunderstanding by Mr Baildon.
4) Roger is actually the grandson of Aubrey
We have your quote "...Roger the Constable, Aubrey's grandson by her first
husband ..." but I don't think they actually recorded it in this fashion. So
it's hard to tell from this, if the document actually states "grandson" or if
this is your addition to it. Perhaps when you get a chance you could provide
the original citation and quote.
Thanks
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< A note by W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A., in Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
518-519 (sub Fitzwilliam) indicates that Aubrey de Lisours' parents, Robert de
Lisours and Aubrey de Lacy, were married about 1129-30, but unfortunately he give
no source for this statement. If Mr. Baildon is correct, then Aubrey de
Lisours can have been born no earlier than 1129. >>
Well really it banks on a few things here.
1) Aubrey de Lisours has the correct father.
2) Aubrey de Lisours has the correct mother.
3) Her parents were really married in 1129/30 instead of this being some kind
of misunderstanding by Mr Baildon.
4) Roger is actually the grandson of Aubrey
We have your quote "...Roger the Constable, Aubrey's grandson by her first
husband ..." but I don't think they actually recorded it in this fashion. So
it's hard to tell from this, if the document actually states "grandson" or if
this is your addition to it. Perhaps when you get a chance you could provide
the original citation and quote.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128117951.345027.184950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
NO: suffice to say that _IF Baildon and Richardson are both right in their
guesses_ the Lacy family does not appear to fit a pattern of chronology
_preconceived by Richardson_.
This is a waste of everybody's time - even Richardson must surely have
something better to do.
Peter Stewart
news:1128117951.345027.184950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Roger and Will ~
I usually figure on about 85 years for three generations in the
medieval time period, give or take. The chronology of the Lacy family,
however, is clearly much shorter than this. If we estimate the Lacy
family ancestress, Aubrey de Lisours' birthdate as circa 1130 (she was
still living in 1194), you only have 60 years between her and her
great-grandson, Robert de Lacy, born say 1185 (he witnessed a royal
charter in 1205). This is very short chronology indeed (20 years per
generation versus the normal span of 28 years per generation).
A note by W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A., in Complete Peerage, 5 (1926):
518-519 (sub Fitzwilliam) indicates that Aubrey de Lisours' parents,
Robert de Lisours and Aubrey de Lacy, were married about 1129-30, but
unfortunately he give no source for this statement. If Mr. Baildon is
correct, then Aubrey de Lisours can have been born no earlier than
1129.
Suffice to say, the Lacy family does not fit the normal pattern of
chronology.
NO: suffice to say that _IF Baildon and Richardson are both right in their
guesses_ the Lacy family does not appear to fit a pattern of chronology
_preconceived by Richardson_.
This is a waste of everybody's time - even Richardson must surely have
something better to do.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128120344.414355.71220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I don't intend to start looking, but in any case James was following a
convention of putting names, surnames and bynames into a modern version of
the appropriate vernacular.
If a contemporary source can be found adding "le Scot" to his name, this
will obviously not be in the form "John".
The convention is anachronistic, not exact and literal: if he was called
"Johannes Scotus", the natural assumption is that he was generally known as
"Jehan le Scot", or by varieties of that, which of course may not have
survived in writing.
Peter Stewart
news:1128120344.414355.71220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
I see James has referred to John, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon (died
1237) as "John le Scot." I have seen this man called John of Scotland
(John de Scotia) in several contemporary records, but never "John le
Scot." The closest I find him being called John le Scot is Matthew
Paris who refers to him as "comes Cestriae Johannes, cognomento
Scotus." A much later source, Register of Edward the Black Prince,
calls him "John Scot sometime earl of Cestre."
Can anyone produce a contemporary reference to this individual as "John
le Scot?"
I don't intend to start looking, but in any case James was following a
convention of putting names, surnames and bynames into a modern version of
the appropriate vernacular.
If a contemporary source can be found adding "le Scot" to his name, this
will obviously not be in the form "John".
The convention is anachronistic, not exact and literal: if he was called
"Johannes Scotus", the natural assumption is that he was generally known as
"Jehan le Scot", or by varieties of that, which of course may not have
survived in writing.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland's first wi
Dear John R , Douglas and others,
Another possible avenue
of relationship between Alan, Lord of Galloway and Margaret de Huntingdon
runs:
1 Uchtred, Earl of Northumbria
2 Eadgyth of Northumbria married Maldred of Allerdale and Aldred,
Earl of Northumbria
3 Gospatric I, Earl of Northumbria and Aelflaed of Northumbria m
Sigurd Earl j.u.
4 Waltheof of Dunbar and Waltheof II, Earl of Northumbria m Judith of
Lens
5 Gunnild of Dunbar m Uchtred, Lord of Galloway and Maud of
Northumbria and Huntingdon m St David I, King of Scots
6 Roland, Lord of Galloway and Henry, Earl of Huntingdon
7 Alan, Lord of Galloway and David, Earl of Huntingdon
8 Margaret de Huntingdon
Alan and David were 5th cousins. I wonder, could Gundred de
Warenne have been a a daughter of the 1st Earl of Surrey or might there have been a
different daughter of the 2nd Earl who was wed to William de Lancaster I ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Another possible avenue
of relationship between Alan, Lord of Galloway and Margaret de Huntingdon
runs:
1 Uchtred, Earl of Northumbria
2 Eadgyth of Northumbria married Maldred of Allerdale and Aldred,
Earl of Northumbria
3 Gospatric I, Earl of Northumbria and Aelflaed of Northumbria m
Sigurd Earl j.u.
4 Waltheof of Dunbar and Waltheof II, Earl of Northumbria m Judith of
Lens
5 Gunnild of Dunbar m Uchtred, Lord of Galloway and Maud of
Northumbria and Huntingdon m St David I, King of Scots
6 Roland, Lord of Galloway and Henry, Earl of Huntingdon
7 Alan, Lord of Galloway and David, Earl of Huntingdon
8 Margaret de Huntingdon
Alan and David were 5th cousins. I wonder, could Gundred de
Warenne have been a a daughter of the 1st Earl of Surrey or might there have been a
different daughter of the 2nd Earl who was wed to William de Lancaster I ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first w
Dear Douglas, Peter and others,
I believed I had seen John
le Scot used in contemporary (to us) histories, charts , et cetera and have
tried to locate at least one such source and have not seen any thus far, Though
on a chart p 64 of J D Mc Kie`s History of Scotland and Heraldry of the Royal
Families of Europe Table 12 Scotland both refer to John as John the Scot. In
the second reference the following dates are supplied;
David , Earl of Huntingdon was born in 1144- died 1219. married 1190
Maud, daughter of Hugh de Kevelioc, Earl of Chester d after 1231
John the Scot, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon b 1207- d 1237 married
1222 Helen d 1253, daughter of Llewelyn, Pr. of Wales
So, probably in future I will call the Earl of Chester in
question John de Scotia... unless I slip up.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I believed I had seen John
le Scot used in contemporary (to us) histories, charts , et cetera and have
tried to locate at least one such source and have not seen any thus far, Though
on a chart p 64 of J D Mc Kie`s History of Scotland and Heraldry of the Royal
Families of Europe Table 12 Scotland both refer to John as John the Scot. In
the second reference the following dates are supplied;
David , Earl of Huntingdon was born in 1144- died 1219. married 1190
Maud, daughter of Hugh de Kevelioc, Earl of Chester d after 1231
John the Scot, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon b 1207- d 1237 married
1222 Helen d 1253, daughter of Llewelyn, Pr. of Wales
So, probably in future I will call the Earl of Chester in
question John de Scotia... unless I slip up.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Correction - Lancaster confusion
In a message dated 9/30/05 6:44:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< Christian was born in say 1135, then her father Gilbert born in 1115 would
require
William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendal (d 1170) to have been born no earlier
than
1095. >>
Of course I meant "no later" instead of "no earlier"
Will Johnson
writes:
<< Christian was born in say 1135, then her father Gilbert born in 1115 would
require
William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendal (d 1170) to have been born no earlier
than
1095. >>
Of course I meant "no later" instead of "no earlier"
Will Johnson
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Sound chronology is the backbone of medieval genealogy. It is not a
waste of time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
waste of time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
NO: suffice to say that _IF Baildon and Richardson are both right in their
guesses_ the Lacy family does not appear to fit a pattern of chronology
_preconceived by Richardson_.
This is a waste of everybody's time - even Richardson must surely have
something better to do.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128152823.965051.85450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
NO again: evidence is the backbone of genealogy, in any period, and "sound"
chronology that forms part of this cannot be a matter of convenient
guesswork.
The changing hodge-podge of wishful thinking you have applied to this
problem has been a waste of time - the only remnant of your initial position
that is left to stand on is the tendentious idea put forward decades ago by
Keith Stringer. You have not yet added one whit to this, by specious
chronology or any other line of argument.
Peter Stewart
news:1128152823.965051.85450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sound chronology is the backbone of medieval genealogy. It is not a
waste of time.
NO again: evidence is the backbone of genealogy, in any period, and "sound"
chronology that forms part of this cannot be a matter of convenient
guesswork.
The changing hodge-podge of wishful thinking you have applied to this
problem has been a waste of time - the only remnant of your initial position
that is left to stand on is the tendentious idea put forward decades ago by
Keith Stringer. You have not yet added one whit to this, by specious
chronology or any other line of argument.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Evidence is the foundation of medieval genealogy; chronology is the
backbone.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
backbone.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Evidence is the foundation of medieval genealogy; sound chronology is
the backbone.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
the backbone.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128156134.242517.93500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Inanimate edifices have foundations, vertebrate organisms have backbones.
Keeping the metaphor unmixed, you can have it either way but not both.
The point remains that SOUND chronology is based on firm indications, not on
guesses.
Peter Stewart
news:1128156134.242517.93500@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Evidence is the foundation of medieval genealogy; sound chronology is
the backbone.
Inanimate edifices have foundations, vertebrate organisms have backbones.
Keeping the metaphor unmixed, you can have it either way but not both.
The point remains that SOUND chronology is based on firm indications, not on
guesses.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
In message of 1 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Please note that the above sentence was not written by Peter Stewart
but I do not have the original to quote.
This mantra of "85 years for three generations ... give or take" needs
exploring.
In particular it is the phrase "give or take" that is the real problem.
I would like to know how much this give or take, or error, is.
Unfortunately to deal with this requires some non-elementary mathematics
and a few people will start glazing over here. But I shall plough on
regardless.
Before we start any numbers, we need to have a definition of three
generations. Is it:
1. The interval from the birth of a chap or chapess to the birth of his
first great-grandchild?
2. The average interval from the birth of a chap to the births of all
his great-grandchildren? (The youngest gt-grandchild can easily
be 40 years later than the first.)
But in medieval times there are few chappies (and chappesses) whose
births we know with any degree of accuracy. So add in:
3. The interval from the death of a chap to the death of his
great-grandchild (or children)?
4. The interval from the marriage of a chap(-ess) to the marriage of
their great-grandchild (or children)?
Let's assume we can come to an agreement on some definition of "three
generations". So the next step is to accumulate a list of candidate
three-generation families. (Here my thoughts turn to Leo's database
with its 400,000 (is it?) members.) Assume that that has been done.
What will the various intervals look like? Lets plot them on a graph.
Will the graph be like this:
[Please set your font to non-proportional, eg Courier, to read these
crude graphs sensibly.]
| x
100 | x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
50 | x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
0 |________________________________x_____________x___________________
70 75 80 85 90 95
Total lengths of three generations in years
Or like this:
|
100 |
|
|
| xxx
| xx xx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
50 | xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xx xx
| xx xx
0 |__________________________________________________________________
70 75 80 85 90 95
Total lengths of three generations in years
The lower curve shows a different average (mean to the afficionados) and
a wider spread. So for any particular unspecified family, you can only
say that the generation range is within a spread of years. The normal
way to do this is to say the the generations have 95% of their number
within 20 years, say, either side of a mean of 80 years, say. More
precisely, magic charms containing the phrase "standard deviation" are
used. You cannot say that any particular family will lie on the mean,
that is mathematically quite wrong.
So to make some progress on this we need to:
(a) define which three generations of what events we mean?
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three generations.
We cannot even think of starting the second until we have come to a firm
view on the first. (Underlined!)
Any contributions, anyone?
I will cheerfully put the growing list of candidates on my web-site,
once we have agreed the definition of course. My untutored view is
that we need at least 100 sets of three generations to be
representative.
(I speak as a half trained mathematician, the rest is self-taught.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1128117951.345027.184950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear Roger and Will ~
I usually figure on about 85 years for three generations in the
medieval time period, give or take.
Please note that the above sentence was not written by Peter Stewart
but I do not have the original to quote.
This mantra of "85 years for three generations ... give or take" needs
exploring.
In particular it is the phrase "give or take" that is the real problem.
I would like to know how much this give or take, or error, is.
Unfortunately to deal with this requires some non-elementary mathematics
and a few people will start glazing over here. But I shall plough on
regardless.
Before we start any numbers, we need to have a definition of three
generations. Is it:
1. The interval from the birth of a chap or chapess to the birth of his
first great-grandchild?
2. The average interval from the birth of a chap to the births of all
his great-grandchildren? (The youngest gt-grandchild can easily
be 40 years later than the first.)
But in medieval times there are few chappies (and chappesses) whose
births we know with any degree of accuracy. So add in:
3. The interval from the death of a chap to the death of his
great-grandchild (or children)?
4. The interval from the marriage of a chap(-ess) to the marriage of
their great-grandchild (or children)?
Let's assume we can come to an agreement on some definition of "three
generations". So the next step is to accumulate a list of candidate
three-generation families. (Here my thoughts turn to Leo's database
with its 400,000 (is it?) members.) Assume that that has been done.
What will the various intervals look like? Lets plot them on a graph.
Will the graph be like this:
[Please set your font to non-proportional, eg Courier, to read these
crude graphs sensibly.]
| x
100 | x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
50 | x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
| x x
0 |________________________________x_____________x___________________
70 75 80 85 90 95
Total lengths of three generations in years
Or like this:
|
100 |
|
|
| xxx
| xx xx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
50 | xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xxx xxx
| xx xx
| xx xx
0 |__________________________________________________________________
70 75 80 85 90 95
Total lengths of three generations in years
The lower curve shows a different average (mean to the afficionados) and
a wider spread. So for any particular unspecified family, you can only
say that the generation range is within a spread of years. The normal
way to do this is to say the the generations have 95% of their number
within 20 years, say, either side of a mean of 80 years, say. More
precisely, magic charms containing the phrase "standard deviation" are
used. You cannot say that any particular family will lie on the mean,
that is mathematically quite wrong.
So to make some progress on this we need to:
(a) define which three generations of what events we mean?
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three generations.
We cannot even think of starting the second until we have come to a firm
view on the first. (Underlined!)
Any contributions, anyone?
I will cheerfully put the growing list of candidates on my web-site,
once we have agreed the definition of course. My untutored view is
that we need at least 100 sets of three generations to be
representative.
(I speak as a half trained mathematician, the rest is self-taught.)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Bill Hofstadter
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Well then practice sound chronology instead of foisting unsound
chronology on us in order to support some sophomoric conjecture.
Bill Hofstadter
On 2005-10-01 03:47:04 -0400, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> said:
chronology on us in order to support some sophomoric conjecture.
Bill Hofstadter
On 2005-10-01 03:47:04 -0400, "Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com> said:
Sound chronology is the backbone of medieval genealogy. It is not a
waste of time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart wrote:
NO: suffice to say that _IF Baildon and Richardson are both right in their
guesses_ the Lacy family does not appear to fit a pattern of chronology
_preconceived by Richardson_.
This is a waste of everybody's time - even Richardson must surely have
something better to do.
Peter Stewart
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
And what, pray tell, is the spleen?
taf
Evidence is the foundation of medieval genealogy; chronology is the
backbone.
And what, pray tell, is the spleen?
taf
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
That's funny, Todd. I like your sense of humor.
DR
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
DR
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Evidence is the foundation of medieval genealogy; chronology is the
backbone.
And what, pray tell, is the spleen?
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
In a message dated 10/1/2005 8:42:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
And what, pray tell, is the spleen?
Heraldry
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
Evidence is the foundation of medieval genealogy; chronology is the
backbone.
And what, pray tell, is the spleen?
Heraldry
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Douglas
It is rather unfair of you to misrepresent Mr Stewart in this fashion.
He did not suggest that sound chronology was a waste of time; he
suggested that further speculation on the de Lacy family in the absence
of reliable bases was a waste of time.
It is largely thanks to Mr Stewart's contributions on this front that
we have seen a revised position reached in relation to Alan Fitz Roland
first wife (assisted of course by your discovery of further documents)
desipte your having written the following of his position only a couple
of days earlier:
In any case, spurred on by this and related threads, I spent a very
pleasant day today in the City of Chester, with its many Roman and
Mediaeval remains, and can recommend it highly.
Kind regards
Michael
Sound chronology is the backbone of medieval genealogy. It is not a
waste of time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas
It is rather unfair of you to misrepresent Mr Stewart in this fashion.
He did not suggest that sound chronology was a waste of time; he
suggested that further speculation on the de Lacy family in the absence
of reliable bases was a waste of time.
It is largely thanks to Mr Stewart's contributions on this front that
we have seen a revised position reached in relation to Alan Fitz Roland
first wife (assisted of course by your discovery of further documents)
desipte your having written the following of his position only a couple
of days earlier:
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes! The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground,
crashes, and burns. Game over. So sorry.
In any case, spurred on by this and related threads, I spent a very
pleasant day today in the City of Chester, with its many Roman and
Mediaeval remains, and can recommend it highly.
Kind regards
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Chester is indeed a nice place.
Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Michael,
Agreed. Further speculation as to approximated birth dates, while it may provide satisfaction to some, is not particularly helpful in the absence of further proofs. Nothing I've seen in this 75+ message thread provides any solid evidences, in the shape of primary documents presented for evidence review, indicating the actual identity of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, other than that she had a brother named John, and a father named Richard. Supporting an unproven premise, by arguing that the 1214 maritagium suit contains errors, is a slippery slope bound for nowhere fast.
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Sent: Oct 1, 2005 4:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Douglas
It is rather unfair of you to misrepresent Mr Stewart in this fashion.
He did not suggest that sound chronology was a waste of time; he
suggested that further speculation on the de Lacy family in the absence
of reliable bases was a waste of time.
It is largely thanks to Mr Stewart's contributions on this front that
we have seen a revised position reached in relation to Alan Fitz Roland
first wife (assisted of course by your discovery of further documents)
desipte your having written the following of his position only a couple
of days earlier:
In any case, spurred on by this and related threads, I spent a very
pleasant day today in the City of Chester, with its many Roman and
Mediaeval remains, and can recommend it highly.
Kind regards
Michael
Agreed. Further speculation as to approximated birth dates, while it may provide satisfaction to some, is not particularly helpful in the absence of further proofs. Nothing I've seen in this 75+ message thread provides any solid evidences, in the shape of primary documents presented for evidence review, indicating the actual identity of Alan Fitz Roland of Galloway's 1st wife, other than that she had a brother named John, and a father named Richard. Supporting an unproven premise, by arguing that the 1214 maritagium suit contains errors, is a slippery slope bound for nowhere fast.
Best,
Kevin
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Sent: Oct 1, 2005 4:06 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz Roland'as first wife, _____ de Lacy)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Sound chronology is the backbone of medieval genealogy. It is not a
waste of time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas
It is rather unfair of you to misrepresent Mr Stewart in this fashion.
He did not suggest that sound chronology was a waste of time; he
suggested that further speculation on the de Lacy family in the absence
of reliable bases was a waste of time.
It is largely thanks to Mr Stewart's contributions on this front that
we have seen a revised position reached in relation to Alan Fitz Roland
first wife (assisted of course by your discovery of further documents)
desipte your having written the following of his position only a couple
of days earlier:
Your theory has one gigantic hole in it. It's called chronology, which
is the backbone of medieval genealogy. If we take it that John de
Lacy's father, Roger de Lacy, was born about 1176, then Roger's younger
brother, Richard de Chester, can have been born no earlier than 1178.
Presuming Richard being a younger son married before the age of 20, it
would be 1198 or later before his children were born. If Richard de
Chester had a daughter, she would be the same age as Alan Fitz Roland's
children, NOT the age of his wife. Thus, your theory is off by a whole
generation. Yikes! The short end of it: Your theory falls to the ground,
crashes, and burns. Game over. So sorry.
In any case, spurred on by this and related threads, I spent a very
pleasant day today in the City of Chester, with its many Roman and
Mediaeval remains, and can recommend it highly.
Kind regards
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Dear Douglas, Tim, and others,
I also wonder at 85 years for
three generations. The bare minimum would seem to take about 36, 60 years or
75 years both seeming far more likely than 85 and by in large attempts to
assign x years for a specified number of generations are wholy unreliable. From the
birth of my paternal grandfather to my birth (3 generations ) is 61 years
from that of my maternal grandfather to myself also 3 generations is 53 years.
It is highly improbable that there would be as much as 42 1/2 years between
births as with Douglas` rule. Note that in 1200 the English Queen Isabel of
Angouleme was 12 to her husband King John`s 33 (34 on Christmas Eve). Isabel bore
Henry III at 19 . Edward I was born in 1239 making that 3 generation span
total 51 years from birth to birth.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I also wonder at 85 years for
three generations. The bare minimum would seem to take about 36, 60 years or
75 years both seeming far more likely than 85 and by in large attempts to
assign x years for a specified number of generations are wholy unreliable. From the
birth of my paternal grandfather to my birth (3 generations ) is 61 years
from that of my maternal grandfather to myself also 3 generations is 53 years.
It is highly improbable that there would be as much as 42 1/2 years between
births as with Douglas` rule. Note that in 1200 the English Queen Isabel of
Angouleme was 12 to her husband King John`s 33 (34 on Christmas Eve). Isabel bore
Henry III at 19 . Edward I was born in 1239 making that 3 generation span
total 51 years from birth to birth.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1128197179.745147.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thank you, Michael.
As far as I am aware, the best marker for estimating the birthdate range of
Roger de Lacy is the evidence that his maternal grandmother, Alice de Vere,
was born in (or at least by ca) 1124/5. This was quoted in Paul Reed's
excellent post of 17 February 1999, at http://tinyurl.com/7q5go.
This may, of course, be inexact, as we know that ages given even for much
younger people were often approximate, and hers might have been rounded down
(or possibly up) to 60.
Peter Stewart
news:1128197179.745147.77640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Sound chronology is the backbone of medieval genealogy. It is not a
waste of time.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Douglas
It is rather unfair of you to misrepresent Mr Stewart in this fashion.
He did not suggest that sound chronology was a waste of time; he
suggested that further speculation on the de Lacy family in the absence
of reliable bases was a waste of time.
Thank you, Michael.
As far as I am aware, the best marker for estimating the birthdate range of
Roger de Lacy is the evidence that his maternal grandmother, Alice de Vere,
was born in (or at least by ca) 1124/5. This was quoted in Paul Reed's
excellent post of 17 February 1999, at http://tinyurl.com/7q5go.
This may, of course, be inexact, as we know that ages given even for much
younger people were often approximate, and hers might have been rounded down
(or possibly up) to 60.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Diana's ancestors fallen at Flodden Field
Saturday, 1 October, 2005
Dear Leo,
Thanks again for that descent. By now, hopefully you've
seen the extended ancestry I've forwarded to SGM for John
Mure of Rowallan, and also the Mure descents from his son
Mungo Mure (d. 1547) that will provide a few more links (and
a correction or two) on Genealogics, esp. re: Fleming of
Barrochan.
Genealogics is quite a benefit to SGM list members, and
probably several others: keep up the great work!
Cheers,
John
Dear Leo,
Thanks again for that descent. By now, hopefully you've
seen the extended ancestry I've forwarded to SGM for John
Mure of Rowallan, and also the Mure descents from his son
Mungo Mure (d. 1547) that will provide a few more links (and
a correction or two) on Genealogics, esp. re: Fleming of
Barrochan.
Genealogics is quite a benefit to SGM list members, and
probably several others: keep up the great work!
Cheers,
John
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
My note of caution would be that a disproportional amount of the known data
will relate to male-line descents - and probably mostly to descents through
eldest sons. This will tend to bias the generation lengths downwards, and
also to reduce the standard deviation.
Perhaps this could be dealt with by looking exclusively at sets of three
generations consisting entirely of females, if enough are known to be
statistically meaningful.
Chris Phillips
So to make some progress on this we need to:
(a) define which three generations of what events we mean?
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three generations.
My note of caution would be that a disproportional amount of the known data
will relate to male-line descents - and probably mostly to descents through
eldest sons. This will tend to bias the generation lengths downwards, and
also to reduce the standard deviation.
Perhaps this could be dealt with by looking exclusively at sets of three
generations consisting entirely of females, if enough are known to be
statistically meaningful.
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Peter Stewart wrote:
Unfortunately it's worse than that, because according to CP two different
ages are given for Alice in 1185 in different parts of the Rotuli de
Dominabus - 60 and 80.
Chris Phillips
As far as I am aware, the best marker for estimating the birthdate range
of
Roger de Lacy is the evidence that his maternal grandmother, Alice de
Vere,
was born in (or at least by ca) 1124/5. This was quoted in Paul Reed's
excellent post of 17 February 1999, at http://tinyurl.com/7q5go.
This may, of course, be inexact, as we know that ages given even for much
younger people were often approximate, and hers might have been rounded
down
(or possibly up) to 60.
Unfortunately it's worse than that, because according to CP two different
ages are given for Alice in 1185 in different parts of the Rotuli de
Dominabus - 60 and 80.
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhnvi6$fm3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
I don't mean to discourage this enquiry (that I can't claim to understand
anyway), but the best that can come of it in my view would be a
scientifically blunt instrument as opposed to an unscientifically blunt one.
People are individuals, and not programmed to reproductive schedules just
becasue these can be mathematically - or intuitively - deduced across large
enough population samples. In particular cases it will be no help at all,
and may be seriously misleading, to have a general rule in the backgound
that may or may not apply.
Peter Stewart
news:dhnvi6$fm3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
So to make some progress on this we need to:
(a) define which three generations of what events we mean?
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three generations.
My note of caution would be that a disproportional amount of the known
data
will relate to male-line descents - and probably mostly to descents
through
eldest sons. This will tend to bias the generation lengths downwards, and
also to reduce the standard deviation.
Perhaps this could be dealt with by looking exclusively at sets of three
generations consisting entirely of females, if enough are known to be
statistically meaningful.
I don't mean to discourage this enquiry (that I can't claim to understand
anyway), but the best that can come of it in my view would be a
scientifically blunt instrument as opposed to an unscientifically blunt one.
People are individuals, and not programmed to reproductive schedules just
becasue these can be mathematically - or intuitively - deduced across large
enough population samples. In particular cases it will be no help at all,
and may be seriously misleading, to have a general rule in the backgound
that may or may not apply.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhnvm6$i7p$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Well, yes and maybe no - the first reference (p. 29 in Round's edition)
says: "Alicia de Essex est de donatione Domini Regis, et est .lx. annorum".
That is plainly enough 60.
The second reference (p. 76) says: "Alicia de Essex' est de donatione Domini
Regis, et est .iiij.xx annorum (the "xx" in superscript). This is 80, but
not so plainly correct - one less stroke of the pen produces ".iij.xx" or 60
instead. The fact that Round made no reference to the discrepancy in his
footnote about Alice on p, 77 suggests to me a typographical error in the
edition rather than a copyist's mistake in the roll.
However, he did refer to his paper 'Who was Alice of Essex', _Essex
Archaeological Society Transactions_ (new series) III, 243-251. I don't have
a copy of this to check.
Peter Stewart
news:dhnvm6$i7p$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter Stewart wrote:
As far as I am aware, the best marker for estimating the birthdate range
of
Roger de Lacy is the evidence that his maternal grandmother, Alice de
Vere,
was born in (or at least by ca) 1124/5. This was quoted in Paul Reed's
excellent post of 17 February 1999, at http://tinyurl.com/7q5go.
This may, of course, be inexact, as we know that ages given even for much
younger people were often approximate, and hers might have been rounded
down
(or possibly up) to 60.
Unfortunately it's worse than that, because according to CP two different
ages are given for Alice in 1185 in different parts of the Rotuli de
Dominabus - 60 and 80.
Well, yes and maybe no - the first reference (p. 29 in Round's edition)
says: "Alicia de Essex est de donatione Domini Regis, et est .lx. annorum".
That is plainly enough 60.
The second reference (p. 76) says: "Alicia de Essex' est de donatione Domini
Regis, et est .iiij.xx annorum (the "xx" in superscript). This is 80, but
not so plainly correct - one less stroke of the pen produces ".iij.xx" or 60
instead. The fact that Round made no reference to the discrepancy in his
footnote about Alice on p, 77 suggests to me a typographical error in the
edition rather than a copyist's mistake in the roll.
However, he did refer to his paper 'Who was Alice of Essex', _Essex
Archaeological Society Transactions_ (new series) III, 243-251. I don't have
a copy of this to check.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
In message of 2 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Fully agreed and, did you but know it, this is my point.
Statistics is a science but its statements are also statistical, they
do not and cannot give predictions about individual's, save in terms of
chance.
Even if we establish a mean interval for three generations, say 58
years, it is wrong to say that a particular line had an interval of 58
years. Instead the correct statement is to say, if we know the range
or standard deviation, that 95% of families lie within a range of, say,
45 to 65 years. That still leaves 5% who lie outside whatever range we
have established.
But we have yet to establish what a generation consists of, let alone
to gather any data.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhnvi6$fm3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
So to make some progress on this we need to:
(a) define which three generations of what events we mean?
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three generations.
My note of caution would be that a disproportional amount of the known
data
will relate to male-line descents - and probably mostly to descents
through
eldest sons. This will tend to bias the generation lengths downwards, and
also to reduce the standard deviation.
Perhaps this could be dealt with by looking exclusively at sets of three
generations consisting entirely of females, if enough are known to be
statistically meaningful.
I don't mean to discourage this enquiry (that I can't claim to understand
anyway), but the best that can come of it in my view would be a
scientifically blunt instrument as opposed to an unscientifically blunt one.
People are individuals, and not programmed to reproductive schedules just
becasue these can be mathematically - or intuitively - deduced across large
enough population samples. In particular cases it will be no help at all,
and may be seriously misleading, to have a general rule in the backgound
that may or may not apply.
Fully agreed and, did you but know it, this is my point.
Statistics is a science but its statements are also statistical, they
do not and cannot give predictions about individual's, save in terms of
chance.
Even if we establish a mean interval for three generations, say 58
years, it is wrong to say that a particular line had an interval of 58
years. Instead the correct statement is to say, if we know the range
or standard deviation, that 95% of families lie within a range of, say,
45 to 65 years. That still leaves 5% who lie outside whatever range we
have established.
But we have yet to establish what a generation consists of, let alone
to gather any data.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Peter Stewart wrote:
My notes indicate that Round's paper refers to both ages. (I do have a
photocopy of the paper itself, but it's a bit inconvenient to dig out.)
On the more general point, my impression was that the iiij.xx usage was
peculiar to eighty, and didn't extend to other multiples of 20 (like
"quatre-vingts" in French). Of course I may be wrong.
Chris Phillips
The second reference (p. 76) says: "Alicia de Essex' est de donatione
Domini
Regis, et est .iiij.xx annorum (the "xx" in superscript). This is 80, but
not so plainly correct - one less stroke of the pen produces ".iij.xx" or
60
instead. The fact that Round made no reference to the discrepancy in his
footnote about Alice on p, 77 suggests to me a typographical error in the
edition rather than a copyist's mistake in the roll.
However, he did refer to his paper 'Who was Alice of Essex', _Essex
Archaeological Society Transactions_ (new series) III, 243-251. I don't
have
a copy of this to check.
My notes indicate that Round's paper refers to both ages. (I do have a
photocopy of the paper itself, but it's a bit inconvenient to dig out.)
On the more general point, my impression was that the iiij.xx usage was
peculiar to eighty, and didn't extend to other multiples of 20 (like
"quatre-vingts" in French). Of course I may be wrong.
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Well said, Tim - as you foreshadowed from the start, my feeble mind had
blanked out before I could grasp the point you were making about statistics.
Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:091f75b34d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
blanked out before I could grasp the point you were making about statistics.
Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:091f75b34d.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 2 Oct, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dhnvi6$fm3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
So to make some progress on this we need to:
(a) define which three generations of what events we mean?
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three
generations.
My note of caution would be that a disproportional amount of the known
data
will relate to male-line descents - and probably mostly to descents
through
eldest sons. This will tend to bias the generation lengths downwards,
and
also to reduce the standard deviation.
Perhaps this could be dealt with by looking exclusively at sets of
three
generations consisting entirely of females, if enough are known to be
statistically meaningful.
I don't mean to discourage this enquiry (that I can't claim to understand
anyway), but the best that can come of it in my view would be a
scientifically blunt instrument as opposed to an unscientifically blunt
one.
People are individuals, and not programmed to reproductive schedules just
becasue these can be mathematically - or intuitively - deduced across
large
enough population samples. In particular cases it will be no help at all,
and may be seriously misleading, to have a general rule in the backgound
that may or may not apply.
Fully agreed and, did you but know it, this is my point.
Statistics is a science but its statements are also statistical, they
do not and cannot give predictions about individual's, save in terms of
chance.
Even if we establish a mean interval for three generations, say 58
years, it is wrong to say that a particular line had an interval of 58
years. Instead the correct statement is to say, if we know the range
or standard deviation, that 95% of families lie within a range of, say,
45 to 65 years. That still leaves 5% who lie outside whatever range we
have established.
But we have yet to establish what a generation consists of, let alone
to gather any data.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dho8cj$dmj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Strange then if Round thought it for some reason not worth remarking on this
in his edition.
It's hard to see how a clerk would have subtracted two decades from Alice's
age in recording ".lx." instead of ".lxxx." at the first mention, then give
"iiij.xx" correctly at the second. I thought the multiple notation was used
more generally, but as in the thread about statistics this is a subject
where my glazed eyes don't take in very much. As a general rule, the less
effort and complexity that go into a mistake, the more readily it is made.
If Alice was actually recorded as both 80 and 60 years old at the same time,
we can at least conclude that she was a notably old lady in 1185, presumably
somewhat over 60.
Does anyone have Round article 'Who was Alice of Essex?' at hand to check on
this point?
Peter Stewart
news:dho8cj$dmj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter Stewart wrote:
The second reference (p. 76) says: "Alicia de Essex' est de donatione
Domini
Regis, et est .iiij.xx annorum (the "xx" in superscript). This is 80, but
not so plainly correct - one less stroke of the pen produces ".iij.xx" or
60
instead. The fact that Round made no reference to the discrepancy in his
footnote about Alice on p, 77 suggests to me a typographical error in the
edition rather than a copyist's mistake in the roll.
However, he did refer to his paper 'Who was Alice of Essex', _Essex
Archaeological Society Transactions_ (new series) III, 243-251. I don't
have
a copy of this to check.
My notes indicate that Round's paper refers to both ages. (I do have a
photocopy of the paper itself, but it's a bit inconvenient to dig out.)
On the more general point, my impression was that the iiij.xx usage was
peculiar to eighty, and didn't extend to other multiples of 20 (like
"quatre-vingts" in French). Of course I may be wrong.
Strange then if Round thought it for some reason not worth remarking on this
in his edition.
It's hard to see how a clerk would have subtracted two decades from Alice's
age in recording ".lx." instead of ".lxxx." at the first mention, then give
"iiij.xx" correctly at the second. I thought the multiple notation was used
more generally, but as in the thread about statistics this is a subject
where my glazed eyes don't take in very much. As a general rule, the less
effort and complexity that go into a mistake, the more readily it is made.
If Alice was actually recorded as both 80 and 60 years old at the same time,
we can at least conclude that she was a notably old lady in 1185, presumably
somewhat over 60.
Does anyone have Round article 'Who was Alice of Essex?' at hand to check on
this point?
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: CP error? was Re: Update to genealogics: Edward, 4th Lor
Will Johnson wrote [on 16 September]:
The source was actually a message from Leo, on 4 August, noting the same
discrepancy, but noting that CP vol. 14 changed the date of Sir William
Bourchier to before 8 February 1480, and the date of his widow's remarriage
to George Grey, E of Kent, to June 1480. This still leaves a discrepancy
with the reported age (25) of George's son and heir at the latter's death in
1503, but at least it avoids him succeeding as a minor.
Incidentally, I see the ODNB article by S. J. Gunn, on "Bourchier, Henry,
second earl of Essex (1472-1540)", sticks to the 1483 date for the death of
Sir William Bourchier. If CP vol. 14 is right about him dying before 8
February 1480, that's another ODNB correction for you.
Chris Phillips
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.
The source was actually a message from Leo, on 4 August, noting the same
discrepancy, but noting that CP vol. 14 changed the date of Sir William
Bourchier to before 8 February 1480, and the date of his widow's remarriage
to George Grey, E of Kent, to June 1480. This still leaves a discrepancy
with the reported age (25) of George's son and heir at the latter's death in
1503, but at least it avoids him succeeding as a minor.
Incidentally, I see the ODNB article by S. J. Gunn, on "Bourchier, Henry,
second earl of Essex (1472-1540)", sticks to the 1483 date for the death of
Sir William Bourchier. If CP vol. 14 is right about him dying before 8
February 1480, that's another ODNB correction for you.
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Phillips
Re: CP error? was Re: Update to genealogics: Edward, 4th Lor
By the way, Leo may like to know that messages to his email address are
bouncing back with an "over quota" error message.
Chris Phillips
bouncing back with an "over quota" error message.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology
In a message dated 02/10/2005 10:27:38 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
Tim wrote;
<<<<
Statistics is a science but its statements are also statistical, they
do not and cannot give predictions about individual's, save in terms of
chance.
<<<<
Imagine how flat history would be if we cut out all those bits that were
statistically unlikely. In my view using Richardson's rule of 85 (or is it a
rule of thumb) is very dangerous.
Adrian
writes:
Tim wrote;
<<<<
Statistics is a science but its statements are also statistical, they
do not and cannot give predictions about individual's, save in terms of
chance.
<<<<
Imagine how flat history would be if we cut out all those bits that were
statistically unlikely. In my view using Richardson's rule of 85 (or is it a
rule of thumb) is very dangerous.
Adrian
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
You don;t need accurate dates, when calculating avergaes over long
intervals.
We had a long argument over this over a year ago.
What you need is simply the time between the birth of somebody long ago,
and that of somebody recent, and the number of generations. Say
A was born in 1500, B in 1530, C in 1580, D in 1605, and E in 1640.
That's 140 years and 4 generations, or 35 years per generation. And you
don't even need the intermediate dates, just 1500 and 1640 and the
number 4.
Over longer periods, say from 500 to 1500, you don't really even need
BIRTH dates: death dates will do "reasonably" well. Say you have
somebody, let's call him "Fergus", who died in 501, and somebody,
let's call him "Hugh" who died in 1841. There are 41 generagtions
between them. That's 32.7 years per generation, in a line that
is about 90% male. We don't know Fergus's age, but we can guess
45 +- 15. We know the age of Hugh at death, 57. So to get a "best guess"
we should actually calculate not (1841-501)/41 but rather (1829-501)/41
= 32.4. The guesstimated error would be only 15/41 = .36 year,
by using death dates instead of birth dates. That's over a
very long time interval indeed, of course, and includes some females,
and some very late sons in the 14th through 19th centuries.
But you get the idea.
Doug McDonald
This mantra of "85 years for three generations ... give or take" needs
exploring.
In particular it is the phrase "give or take" that is the real problem.
I would like to know how much this give or take, or error, is.
But in medieval times there are few chappies (and chappesses) whose
births we know with any degree of accuracy. So add in:
You don;t need accurate dates, when calculating avergaes over long
intervals.
We had a long argument over this over a year ago.
What you need is simply the time between the birth of somebody long ago,
and that of somebody recent, and the number of generations. Say
A was born in 1500, B in 1530, C in 1580, D in 1605, and E in 1640.
That's 140 years and 4 generations, or 35 years per generation. And you
don't even need the intermediate dates, just 1500 and 1640 and the
number 4.
Over longer periods, say from 500 to 1500, you don't really even need
BIRTH dates: death dates will do "reasonably" well. Say you have
somebody, let's call him "Fergus", who died in 501, and somebody,
let's call him "Hugh" who died in 1841. There are 41 generagtions
between them. That's 32.7 years per generation, in a line that
is about 90% male. We don't know Fergus's age, but we can guess
45 +- 15. We know the age of Hugh at death, 57. So to get a "best guess"
we should actually calculate not (1841-501)/41 but rather (1829-501)/41
= 32.4. The guesstimated error would be only 15/41 = .36 year,
by using death dates instead of birth dates. That's over a
very long time interval indeed, of course, and includes some females,
and some very late sons in the 14th through 19th centuries.
But you get the idea.
Doug McDonald
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
In message of 2 Oct, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
But:
(a) Aren't we trying to establish some facts for medieval, not modern,
times?
(b) Just taking one genetic line is not, I suspect, a suitable sample.
For my money one needs sets of three generations of lines that are
unrelated or distantly related.
(c) I strongly suspect that taking the average of a long-generation line
is not the same as taking the average of multiple sets of three
generations.
But I agree that only the start and end dates of each three
generations are needed.
And I note that no-one has commented on what events a generation is
supposed to consist of, except Chris Phillips adding in that females
were less well documented than males and that we should consider
male-only lines as well as female-only lines. We cannot gather data if
we don't have rules for the gathering.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
This mantra of "85 years for three generations ... give or take" needs
exploring.
In particular it is the phrase "give or take" that is the real problem.
I would like to know how much this give or take, or error, is.
But in medieval times there are few chappies (and chappesses) whose
births we know with any degree of accuracy. So add in:
You don;t need accurate dates, when calculating avergaes over long
intervals.
We had a long argument over this over a year ago.
What you need is simply the time between the birth of somebody long ago,
and that of somebody recent, and the number of generations. Say
A was born in 1500, B in 1530, C in 1580, D in 1605, and E in 1640.
That's 140 years and 4 generations, or 35 years per generation. And you
don't even need the intermediate dates, just 1500 and 1640 and the
number 4.
Over longer periods, say from 500 to 1500, you don't really even need
BIRTH dates: death dates will do "reasonably" well. Say you have
somebody, let's call him "Fergus", who died in 501, and somebody,
let's call him "Hugh" who died in 1841. There are 41 generagtions
between them. That's 32.7 years per generation, in a line that
is about 90% male. We don't know Fergus's age, but we can guess
45 +- 15. We know the age of Hugh at death, 57. So to get a "best guess"
we should actually calculate not (1841-501)/41 but rather (1829-501)/41
= 32.4. The guesstimated error would be only 15/41 = .36 year,
by using death dates instead of birth dates. That's over a
very long time interval indeed, of course, and includes some females,
and some very late sons in the 14th through 19th centuries.
But:
(a) Aren't we trying to establish some facts for medieval, not modern,
times?
(b) Just taking one genetic line is not, I suspect, a suitable sample.
For my money one needs sets of three generations of lines that are
unrelated or distantly related.
(c) I strongly suspect that taking the average of a long-generation line
is not the same as taking the average of multiple sets of three
generations.
But I agree that only the start and end dates of each three
generations are needed.
And I note that no-one has commented on what events a generation is
supposed to consist of, except Chris Phillips adding in that females
were less well documented than males and that we should consider
male-only lines as well as female-only lines. We cannot gather data if
we don't have rules for the gathering.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Chronology
I said 85 years was the average, give or take. That's a rule of thumb,
not a rule. The Webster-Merriam Online Dictionary defines rule of
thumb as:
1 : a method of procedure based on experience and common sense.
2 : a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not intended to
be scientifically accurate.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,. Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
not a rule. The Webster-Merriam Online Dictionary defines rule of
thumb as:
1 : a method of procedure based on experience and common sense.
2 : a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not intended to
be scientifically accurate.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City,. Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three
generations.
I was thinking perhaps a three-generation descent from the Magna Carta
sureties? But perhaps those lines are not sufficiently well-known yet. Then
perhaps someone can come up with a list of all the Earldoms that existed, say in
1400 or 1350 or something like that and we can see if we can draw
three-generation lines off each of them ?
I would be willing to at least, trawl Leo's database if I had a list to
start with.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Roger Maynwaring (1589-1653), Lord Bishop of St David's
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Roger Maynwaring (1589-1653), Lord Bishop of
St David's ~ scionof Over Peover?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1128046887)
Dolly~
The dates of birth and death for this Roger Maynwaring seem pretty well
established. His epitaph at Christ College in Brecon, Brecknockshire, reads:
"Depositum venerabile Reverendissimi Praesulis Rogeri Manwaring, STP
illustri inter Cestrenses familia oriundi, Carolo 1mo e sacris domesticis cuius
gratia claruit Decanus Vigoriensis deinde Episcopus Menevensis qui sua
innocentia et fidelitate invictissima honore et meretis regiae causae munitus rebellis
et sacrilego Senatui se strenue opposuit; tandem vero dolore et fanatica
barbaria confessus Rego optimo truncato et ecclesia orthodoxa vel diruta vel
enthusiasmo desecrata, lubens cessit silentio sepulchri; maluit enim hinc sub
altari cum Sanctis omnibus laetam resurrectionem expectare quam belli intestini
tumultus et furores perduellium ulterius pati; flamis his cunctibus
martyrium (licet incruentum) subiit ad Carolum Martyrem (Dominum suum charissimum)
animam piam et constantem corpori demum glorificando misit praenuntiam anno
salutis humanae 1653 Julii 1mo aetat 63, episcopatus 18."
That would place is birth sometime between July 1589 and June 1590. In
Lloyd's Memoires (1677) it is stated about this Roger Maynwaring that "...he
observed Feb. the third the first day he went to school, as strictly as Nov. 9
the first day he came into the world." Combining these two items I believe we
can list his birth date as 9 Nov. 1589.
He wrote his will on 29 Jun. 1653 at "the collidge of Brecon," and it was
recorded at Westminster on 13 Aug. 1653 [as per PRO Prob/11/229].
Islitt's "Episcopal Memorials at Christ College" state he was born at Peover
Superior, and I believe that source is about as close as we can get to a
source such as Alumni Oxonienses. Writing in the 1700s Edward Yardley in
Menevia Sacra described this Roger Maynwaring's burial location at Christ College
as "under an ordinary free-stone within ye Communion rails; at ye bottom ye
Arms of ye See, impaling Barry of 12 (Arg. & Gul.) over all a mitre." Sir
Peter Leycester (1613/4-1678) of Nether Tabley, whose mother was Elizabeth
Maynwaring of Over Peover, wrote in Historical Antiquities...(1673) regarding Sir
Randall Maynwaring (d. 27 May 1612) of Over Peover that "In the Reign of
Queen Elizabeth, the Herald made for this Sir Randle's Coat, Barry of Twelve
Pieces, Argent and Gules: See Quillim's Heraldry, pag. 373. but erroneous."
This contemporary heraldic evidence alone indicates the origin of the
Maynwaring Bishop.
But for other supporting evidence: (1) Every Maynwaring of his generation
attended Brasenose College, Oxford, except for this Roger and Edmund
Maynwaring, Gent., who both received degrees from All Souls' College, Oxford, during
the same time period; (2) Randall Maynwaring (d. 1612), Knt., of Over Peover,
is known to have had a younger son named Edward with nothing further known
about him, but a PRO Exchequer Deposition [E134/1657/MICH7] shows that Bishop
Roger Maynwaring had a younger brother named Edward Maynwaring of Lydbury
Parish, Shropshire; and (3) is the fact that the 1613 Cheshire Visitation is much
flawed, and the Harleian Society editors themselves added to Randall
Maynwaring's children the names of Edmond and John (whose existences were proven by
other sources) and changed the name of the child listed as Anthony to Arthur,
so I believe Roger's absence from that list does not preclude him from
fitting in there.
Roger Maynwaring's first wife was Cecily Draper who gave consent for her
sister Susan Draper to marry George Hewett in 1624 at St Marylebone, London.
Perhaps Susan (Draper) Hewett is the sister mentioned as Susanna Stevens in
Roger Maynwaring's 1653 will. If so perhaps she is the sister mentioned in "A
True Relation of the Taking of Roger Manwering Bifhop of St. Davids coming
from Ireland in a difguifd habit, in the Ship call'd the Eagle, the 28. of June,
1642" (London, July 9. 1642.) on page 2: "his fifter poor and lyving on the
Parifh where he formerly lived in, without any reliefe, and he fuffers his
children by his former wife to fhift for themfelves..."
His second wife was Mrs. Jane Maynwaring who was made sole executrix and
guardian of his children by her. The children by his former wife were:
1. Thomas Maynwaring, Gent., of Llandovery, Carmarthenshire, who married
Elizabeth Prichard [daughter of Samuel Prichard, M.A., rector of Llanynys,
Brecknockshire], granddaughter of the Welsh poet and clergyman Rhys Prichard, M.A.
(1579-1644) of Llandovery [see Enwogion Cymru (Llandovery, 1852), pp.
424-425, Alumni Oxonienses, and Prichard's Canwyll y Cymry]. Their children: (1)
Roger Maynwaring of Llandovery; (2) Thomas Maynwaring, a student at Jesus
College, Oxford, in 1673; and (3) Hester Maynwaring, who married on 8 Aug. 1674
at St Marylebone, London, to the antiquarian William Fulman, M.A. (1632-1688).
2. Elizabeth (Maynwaring) Stevens
3. [my ancestor] Mary Maynwaring (ca. 1616-1663), who married on 11 May 1635
at St Giles-in-the-Fields, Middlesex, to Robert Brooke, M.A. (1602-1655), of
Battle, Sussex.
4. Sarah Maynwaring (d. 1664), wife of Henry Melling, Prebend of Llandaff.
The are both buried in the Bishops' Cloister at Hereford Cathedral.
St David's ~ scionof Over Peover?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1128046887)
Dolly~
The dates of birth and death for this Roger Maynwaring seem pretty well
established. His epitaph at Christ College in Brecon, Brecknockshire, reads:
"Depositum venerabile Reverendissimi Praesulis Rogeri Manwaring, STP
illustri inter Cestrenses familia oriundi, Carolo 1mo e sacris domesticis cuius
gratia claruit Decanus Vigoriensis deinde Episcopus Menevensis qui sua
innocentia et fidelitate invictissima honore et meretis regiae causae munitus rebellis
et sacrilego Senatui se strenue opposuit; tandem vero dolore et fanatica
barbaria confessus Rego optimo truncato et ecclesia orthodoxa vel diruta vel
enthusiasmo desecrata, lubens cessit silentio sepulchri; maluit enim hinc sub
altari cum Sanctis omnibus laetam resurrectionem expectare quam belli intestini
tumultus et furores perduellium ulterius pati; flamis his cunctibus
martyrium (licet incruentum) subiit ad Carolum Martyrem (Dominum suum charissimum)
animam piam et constantem corpori demum glorificando misit praenuntiam anno
salutis humanae 1653 Julii 1mo aetat 63, episcopatus 18."
That would place is birth sometime between July 1589 and June 1590. In
Lloyd's Memoires (1677) it is stated about this Roger Maynwaring that "...he
observed Feb. the third the first day he went to school, as strictly as Nov. 9
the first day he came into the world." Combining these two items I believe we
can list his birth date as 9 Nov. 1589.
He wrote his will on 29 Jun. 1653 at "the collidge of Brecon," and it was
recorded at Westminster on 13 Aug. 1653 [as per PRO Prob/11/229].
Islitt's "Episcopal Memorials at Christ College" state he was born at Peover
Superior, and I believe that source is about as close as we can get to a
source such as Alumni Oxonienses. Writing in the 1700s Edward Yardley in
Menevia Sacra described this Roger Maynwaring's burial location at Christ College
as "under an ordinary free-stone within ye Communion rails; at ye bottom ye
Arms of ye See, impaling Barry of 12 (Arg. & Gul.) over all a mitre." Sir
Peter Leycester (1613/4-1678) of Nether Tabley, whose mother was Elizabeth
Maynwaring of Over Peover, wrote in Historical Antiquities...(1673) regarding Sir
Randall Maynwaring (d. 27 May 1612) of Over Peover that "In the Reign of
Queen Elizabeth, the Herald made for this Sir Randle's Coat, Barry of Twelve
Pieces, Argent and Gules: See Quillim's Heraldry, pag. 373. but erroneous."
This contemporary heraldic evidence alone indicates the origin of the
Maynwaring Bishop.
But for other supporting evidence: (1) Every Maynwaring of his generation
attended Brasenose College, Oxford, except for this Roger and Edmund
Maynwaring, Gent., who both received degrees from All Souls' College, Oxford, during
the same time period; (2) Randall Maynwaring (d. 1612), Knt., of Over Peover,
is known to have had a younger son named Edward with nothing further known
about him, but a PRO Exchequer Deposition [E134/1657/MICH7] shows that Bishop
Roger Maynwaring had a younger brother named Edward Maynwaring of Lydbury
Parish, Shropshire; and (3) is the fact that the 1613 Cheshire Visitation is much
flawed, and the Harleian Society editors themselves added to Randall
Maynwaring's children the names of Edmond and John (whose existences were proven by
other sources) and changed the name of the child listed as Anthony to Arthur,
so I believe Roger's absence from that list does not preclude him from
fitting in there.
Roger Maynwaring's first wife was Cecily Draper who gave consent for her
sister Susan Draper to marry George Hewett in 1624 at St Marylebone, London.
Perhaps Susan (Draper) Hewett is the sister mentioned as Susanna Stevens in
Roger Maynwaring's 1653 will. If so perhaps she is the sister mentioned in "A
True Relation of the Taking of Roger Manwering Bifhop of St. Davids coming
from Ireland in a difguifd habit, in the Ship call'd the Eagle, the 28. of June,
1642" (London, July 9. 1642.) on page 2: "his fifter poor and lyving on the
Parifh where he formerly lived in, without any reliefe, and he fuffers his
children by his former wife to fhift for themfelves..."
His second wife was Mrs. Jane Maynwaring who was made sole executrix and
guardian of his children by her. The children by his former wife were:
1. Thomas Maynwaring, Gent., of Llandovery, Carmarthenshire, who married
Elizabeth Prichard [daughter of Samuel Prichard, M.A., rector of Llanynys,
Brecknockshire], granddaughter of the Welsh poet and clergyman Rhys Prichard, M.A.
(1579-1644) of Llandovery [see Enwogion Cymru (Llandovery, 1852), pp.
424-425, Alumni Oxonienses, and Prichard's Canwyll y Cymry]. Their children: (1)
Roger Maynwaring of Llandovery; (2) Thomas Maynwaring, a student at Jesus
College, Oxford, in 1673; and (3) Hester Maynwaring, who married on 8 Aug. 1674
at St Marylebone, London, to the antiquarian William Fulman, M.A. (1632-1688).
2. Elizabeth (Maynwaring) Stevens
3. [my ancestor] Mary Maynwaring (ca. 1616-1663), who married on 11 May 1635
at St Giles-in-the-Fields, Middlesex, to Robert Brooke, M.A. (1602-1655), of
Battle, Sussex.
4. Sarah Maynwaring (d. 1664), wife of Henry Melling, Prebend of Llandaff.
The are both buried in the Bishops' Cloister at Hereford Cathedral.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fi
Dear Will,
They say you can let statistics say what you want it to say.
Edward III
born 1312
Lionel of Clarence Thomas of Gloucester
born 1338 born 1355
Philippa of Clarence Anne of Gloucester
born 1355 born 1383
Elizabeth Mortimer Humphrey Stafford
born 1371 born 1402
Both three generations after Edward III, one takes 69 years the other 90. I
suppose what applies in one case doesn't in another. To use something open
to different interpretations, what help does it give?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz
Roland'as firs...
They say you can let statistics say what you want it to say.
Edward III
born 1312
Lionel of Clarence Thomas of Gloucester
born 1338 born 1355
Philippa of Clarence Anne of Gloucester
born 1355 born 1383
Elizabeth Mortimer Humphrey Stafford
born 1371 born 1402
Both three generations after Edward III, one takes 69 years the other 90. I
suppose what applies in one case doesn't in another. To use something open
to different interpretations, what help does it give?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Chronology (Was Re: Evidence re. the identity of Alan Fitz
Roland'as firs...
(b) then accumulate a representative sample of such three
generations.
I was thinking perhaps a three-generation descent from the Magna Carta
sureties? But perhaps those lines are not sufficiently well-known yet.
Then
perhaps someone can come up with a list of all the Earldoms that existed,
say in
1400 or 1350 or something like that and we can see if we can draw
three-generation lines off each of them ?
I would be willing to at least, trawl Leo's database if I had a list to
start with.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Chronology
Richardson wrote:
Until now Richardson's "method of procedure" has been to disparage
reference to dictionaries in order to define terms (remember
"cognatus"); and of course he has always proceeded without any trace of
commonsense.
A rough general principle that is not expected or intended to be
accurate for specific cases is, simply, worthless to apply in specific
cases. It can only give a phoney confidence about whatever is deduced
from the "rule of thumb".
As a tool of genealogical handiwork this may as well be called a "rule
of ten thumbs", not nearly dextrous enough to be useful.
Peter Stewart
I said 85 years was the average, give or take. That's a rule of
thumb, not a rule. The Webster-Merriam Online Dictionary defines
rule of thumb as:
1 : a method of procedure based on experience and common sense.
Until now Richardson's "method of procedure" has been to disparage
reference to dictionaries in order to define terms (remember
"cognatus"); and of course he has always proceeded without any trace of
commonsense.
2 : a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not intended to
be scientifically accurate.
A rough general principle that is not expected or intended to be
accurate for specific cases is, simply, worthless to apply in specific
cases. It can only give a phoney confidence about whatever is deduced
from the "rule of thumb".
As a tool of genealogical handiwork this may as well be called a "rule
of ten thumbs", not nearly dextrous enough to be useful.
Peter Stewart
-
Rex Hotchkiss
Re: Daughters of William I King of England
If I recall, it has been shown that a substancial portion of Norman
commoners also came to England, and their names would not have shown on
that list.
commoners also came to England, and their names would not have shown on
that list.
-
William Marshall
-
Gjest
Re: Daughters of William I King of England
Dear Le,
According to a chart published back in the 1970s The Kings and
Queens of Great Britain compiled by Anne Taute and drawn by Don Pottinger MA
(Hons) DA Unicorn Pursuivant of Arms, edited by John Brooke-Little MVO MA FSA
Richmond Herald of Arms
King William I of England and Matilda of Flanders had six daughters 1
Cecily, Abbess of Holy Trinity at Caen , 2 Adeliza who died abt 1065 betrothed to
King Harold II of England, 3 Constance d 1090 married Alan IV Fergant, Duke
of Brittany, 4 Adela d 1137 married Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres 5
Agatha ?betrothed to Harold, Earl of Wessx (AKA Harold II) and Alfonso, King of
Galicia, and Matilda
David Williamson in " Kings and Queens of Britain" p 43 says the following:
1 Cecily, Abbess of Holy Trinity, Caen d 30 July 1126
2 Agatha said to have been betrothed to Harold
3 Adeliza, a nun
4 Adela b Normandy abt 1062- died Marcigny-sur-Loire 8 March 1138
married Chartres abt 1081 Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres
5 Matilda (mentioned in the Domesday book)
6 Constance b Normandy abt 1066- d Brittany, 13 August 1090 m
Brittany 1086 Alan IV Count of Brittany (his 1st wife)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
According to a chart published back in the 1970s The Kings and
Queens of Great Britain compiled by Anne Taute and drawn by Don Pottinger MA
(Hons) DA Unicorn Pursuivant of Arms, edited by John Brooke-Little MVO MA FSA
Richmond Herald of Arms
King William I of England and Matilda of Flanders had six daughters 1
Cecily, Abbess of Holy Trinity at Caen , 2 Adeliza who died abt 1065 betrothed to
King Harold II of England, 3 Constance d 1090 married Alan IV Fergant, Duke
of Brittany, 4 Adela d 1137 married Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres 5
Agatha ?betrothed to Harold, Earl of Wessx (AKA Harold II) and Alfonso, King of
Galicia, and Matilda
David Williamson in " Kings and Queens of Britain" p 43 says the following:
1 Cecily, Abbess of Holy Trinity, Caen d 30 July 1126
2 Agatha said to have been betrothed to Harold
3 Adeliza, a nun
4 Adela b Normandy abt 1062- died Marcigny-sur-Loire 8 March 1138
married Chartres abt 1081 Stephen, Count of Blois and Chartres
5 Matilda (mentioned in the Domesday book)
6 Constance b Normandy abt 1066- d Brittany, 13 August 1090 m
Brittany 1086 Alan IV Count of Brittany (his 1st wife)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Kristie Thompson
Re: Descendants Of Henry VIII
I've seen it. He sent it directly to me, rather than taking up space on the
group.
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:58 AM
Subject: Fw: Descendants Of Henry VIII
group.
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 1:58 AM
Subject: Fw: Descendants Of Henry VIII
I send those to the two people who asked for it, the one to Spencer Hines,
as I have said before, bounced. I cannot help it he is so distrustful and
changed his e-mail address again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants Of Henry VIII
Leo wil only see this message when it is copied into a reply from
another
poster.
I don't think he meant to post these _putative_ descents from Henry VIII
to the newsgroup, but rather to the private e-mail addresses of people
who
asked for them.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jH00f.993$aB1.6090@eagle.america.net...
Leo said he was going to show us the descents from Henry VIII to Rachel
Ward and Hugh Grant.
Has anyone seen it?
DSH
______________________________
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of John Mure of Rowallan (was Diana's ancestors
In a message dated 10/1/05 5:39:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< 4 Robert Mure. Robert died in 1501.[2]
laird of Rowallan, co. Ayr.
' Robert More of Rowalland Sheriff Depute', witness to charter of
George Fullerton of Corsbie, 19 Jan 1430 together with George
Campbell of Loudoun and others [Mure, p. 70[1] ] >>
John is this item correctly placed?
Surely this Robert who died in 1501 could not be a witness 71 years earlier ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
writes:
<< 4 Robert Mure. Robert died in 1501.[2]
laird of Rowallan, co. Ayr.
' Robert More of Rowalland Sheriff Depute', witness to charter of
George Fullerton of Corsbie, 19 Jan 1430 together with George
Campbell of Loudoun and others [Mure, p. 70[1] ] >>
John is this item correctly placed?
Surely this Robert who died in 1501 could not be a witness 71 years earlier ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of John Mure of Rowallan (was Diana's ancestors
In a message dated 10/1/05 5:39:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< 12 Sir Walter Stewart. Sir Walter died on 24 May 1425 (executed) [7]
Master of Fife
'Walter Stewart of Lennox', dispensation for marriage to Janet
Erskine, '6 kal. Maii 1421' [Stuart, p. 451[10]]
found guilty of treason together with his father and grandfather,
and executed, 1425 >>
I have the grandfather as Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany who with a note
(http://www.genealogics) have his death as 3 Sep 1420. Was he really executed at the
same time as his son and grandson instead of this earlier date ?
Thanks
Will
writes:
<< 12 Sir Walter Stewart. Sir Walter died on 24 May 1425 (executed) [7]
Master of Fife
'Walter Stewart of Lennox', dispensation for marriage to Janet
Erskine, '6 kal. Maii 1421' [Stuart, p. 451[10]]
found guilty of treason together with his father and grandfather,
and executed, 1425 >>
I have the grandfather as Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany who with a note
(http://www.genealogics) have his death as 3 Sep 1420. Was he really executed at the
same time as his son and grandson instead of this earlier date ?
Thanks
Will
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Ancestry of John Mure of Rowallan (was Diana's ancestors
Dear Will,
No, the 1420 death date for Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany is
correct. The grandfather of Sir Walter Stewart, executed in 1425, was
his maternal grandfather, Duncan, Earl of Lennox (all part of the
retribution of James I against the family of his uncle, Duke Robert).
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No, the 1420 death date for Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany is
correct. The grandfather of Sir Walter Stewart, executed in 1425, was
his maternal grandfather, Duncan, Earl of Lennox (all part of the
retribution of James I against the family of his uncle, Duke Robert).
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/1/05 5:39:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:
12 Sir Walter Stewart. Sir Walter died on 24 May 1425 (executed) [7]
Master of Fife
'Walter Stewart of Lennox', dispensation for marriage to Janet
Erskine, '6 kal. Maii 1421' [Stuart, p. 451[10]]
found guilty of treason together with his father and grandfather,
and executed, 1425
I have the grandfather as Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany who with a note
(http://www.genealogics) have his death as 3 Sep 1420. Was he really executed at the
same time as his son and grandson instead of this earlier date ?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Who was the Countess of Derby in 1630 was Brydges / Chan
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:24:38 +0000 (UTC), hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony
Hoskins") wrote:
See also <http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/tudor.html>.
Hoskins") wrote:
For those interested, I highly recommend this interesting book (see
below).
Tony Hoskins
---------
A House in Gross Disorder
Sex, Law, and the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven Cynthia B. Herrup Add to
Cart 0195139259, paper, 232 pages Mar 2001, In Stock Price:$18.95 (01)
See also <http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/tudor.html>.
-
Gjest
Re: Meaning of Matertera: Fitz William, Gant, and Scrope fam
In a message dated 10/4/05 6:28:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< "The church of St. Nicholas of Droitwich was granted to the church of
Fontevrault by Matthew count of Boulogne. His daughter Ida, the
countess of Boulogne, confirmed the gift of the chapel together with
the land forming its endowment at the petition of M. abbess of
Fontevrault, whom the countess styles karissima matertera mia." >>
Can this incident be dated ?
Thanks
Will
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< "The church of St. Nicholas of Droitwich was granted to the church of
Fontevrault by Matthew count of Boulogne. His daughter Ida, the
countess of Boulogne, confirmed the gift of the chapel together with
the land forming its endowment at the petition of M. abbess of
Fontevrault, whom the countess styles karissima matertera mia." >>
Can this incident be dated ?
Thanks
Will