Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Todd A. Farmerie

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 10 nov 2005 12:02:37

Chris Phillips wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

A little shield in the middle, in the shape of a typical shield (flat
top, sides curving or deflecting in to a point at the bottom) is an
escutcheon.


I think strictly it's an "inescutcheon" (an escutcheon being any sort of
shield).

_An Heraldic Alphabet_, J.P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of
Arms, 1985, says, "When a shield is borne as a charge it is usually
called an 'escutcheon', or 'inescutcheon'." I took this to be noun and
adjective, but I admit alternative readings.

taf

Chris Phillips

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 nov 2005 13:02:03

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
_An Heraldic Alphabet_, J.P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of
Arms, 1985, says, "When a shield is borne as a charge it is usually
called an 'escutcheon', or 'inescutcheon'." I took this to be noun and
adjective, but I admit alternative readings.

No, they're both nouns. Fox-Davies speaks of an unofficial distinction
between the inescutcheon when there is only one on the shield, and
escutcheons when there are more than one.

Chris Phillips

Terry

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Terry » 10 nov 2005 15:52:01

That is true, but then again she was a Neville.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Jane Neville's tomb


In a message dated 11/9/2005 8:16:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:


The arms in the 1st and 3rd quarters, the upper left and lower right are
Neville, those in the upper right are Mar, and I would assume those in
the
lower left are also, I have no idea what those others you described would
be.

You cannot tell this from the description since it included no colors, and
the colors are relevant to determining that the quarter is Neville. At
most you
can say, it might be Neville *were* it a silver X on a red background.

Will Johnson



Terry

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Terry » 10 nov 2005 16:16:02

That would appear to be the case, the arms of Hay say three escutcheons, the
arms of Mortimer say an inescutcheon.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)
and Joan


Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
_An Heraldic Alphabet_, J.P. Brooke-Little, Norroy and Ulster King of
Arms, 1985, says, "When a shield is borne as a charge it is usually
called an 'escutcheon', or 'inescutcheon'." I took this to be noun and
adjective, but I admit alternative readings.

No, they're both nouns. Fox-Davies speaks of an unofficial distinction
between the inescutcheon when there is only one on the shield, and
escutcheons when there are more than one.

Chris Phillips




Gjest

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 19:37:28

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I cannot google for "lozenge" as I get a few billion hits :)
So maybe someone can explain what one ... is exactly?

The Oxford Guide to Heraldry says:

"A diamond shape used both as a charge and instead of a shield to
display the arms of a single woman and peeresses in their own right"

Regrettably this is ambiguous. The text in this and other lexicons
make it clear that lozenge has two definitions:

1. A diamond shape used as a charge [a charge is an item on a coat of
arms].

2. A diamond shape used instead of a shield to display the arms of a
single woman and peeresses in their own right.

In relation to the first definition, Papworth's "Ordinary of Arms" (that
is, it starts with the blazons and gives you the names of the holders)
has just over seven pages of arms where the principal charge is one or
more lozenges.

On some shields I see a "little shield" in the middle of it. Is that
a lozenge?

No. It is a shield of pretence to show the arms, or some of them, that
the children of the armiger (male) will inherit as quarterings because
their mother is a heraldic heiress. It is a way of showing off that
your wife is a heraldically superior being.

Good, clear summary, Tim. Thanks. I understand that sometimes too, an
inescutcheon can be granted as an augmentation of honour (e.g. Keith;
Lord Polwarth) but I'm not sure, even having reread Fox's chapter on
the subject, whether these are Scottish or English grants.

The study of heraldry can be of enormous utility in furthering
mediaeval genealogical research.

Michael

Terry

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Terry » 10 nov 2005 20:24:01

Apparently you don't pay attention!
In the very next post, you know the one just after I assumed they would be
Mar, I said

"Actually I should have said sounds like Mar, I don't know of any Neville's
who married into Mar, but I do there are at least three different families
who carry those arms in different colors."

Now who missed a step?!
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Jane Neville's tomb


In a message dated 11/10/2005 6:48:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

That is true, but then again she was a Neville.



Anytime you presume the answer to find the answer, you're missing a step.
Also what source did you use to confirm that one of the other quarters
was
[alledgedly, if the right colors] Mar ?
Thanks
Will Johnson



Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 23:04:17

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 11/10/05 11:30:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

There appears to be a small shield of arms square in shape which lays
on top of the larger shield of Joan Neville's arms. I assume this is
what you are calling a lozenge.

I found another example of this "square shield" on the arms of Henry
Courteney, Master of Exected (executed in 1539). In his case, it is centered over the
1st quarter and just appears to be a mirror image of that quarter (which
shows France and England).

This is the only other example, I can see in my book of a square charge
overlying any part of a shield on English arms.

Will, I presume you are referring to 'Lines of Succession' by Louda and
Maclagan, Table 6, where the Marquess of Exeter's arms are shown.

This is slightly different - what this shows is a single "grand
quarter" of the Royal Arms (i.e. a quartering which is itself divided
into four); in this case, to mark the descent from a Princess
(Catherine, daughter of Edward IV), arms are surrounded by a 'bordure'
(border) which makes it look like the central shield of 4 quarters is a
square on top of some other arms (the confusion is heightened because
the bordure consists of three fleur-de-lis alternating with three
golden leopards, ie the charges from the shield. Instead of a square
on top of a shield, it is a shield within a border, the border being
decorated with the devices from the shield it surrounds.

Examples of inescutcheons - shields placed on top of shields - may be
found at Table 7 e.g. the arms of William II, Prince of Orange: an
unusual instance of an inescutcheon placed on top of an inescutcheon,
or Anne of Denmark, ditto, or the Elector Frederick. Although these
are foreign arms, they illustrate the point. An English example will
be found at Table 9, the arms of CHarles, Prince of Wales (although
here the inescutcheon is surmounted by a crown). Or have a look at
Table 10, which shows some of the same arms with inescutcheons as Table
7 together with additional foreign examples but also (at the top left)
shows some English shields which feature royal bordures around the
quartered Royal Arms.

(Incidently, at Table 5, the arms of Alice Montagu (first and fourth
quarters) are three lozenges, just to show you what a lozenge looks
like in heraldry).

Best wishes

Michael

Gjest

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2005 23:05:12

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 11/10/05 11:30:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

There appears to be a small shield of arms square in shape which lays
on top of the larger shield of Joan Neville's arms. I assume this is
what you are calling a lozenge.

I found another example of this "square shield" on the arms of Henry
Courteney, Master of Exected (executed in 1539). In his case, it is centered over the
1st quarter and just appears to be a mirror image of that quarter (which
shows France and England).

This is the only other example, I can see in my book of a square charge
overlying any part of a shield on English arms.

Will, I thought I had posted a reply to this earlier, but no sign of
it, so here goes again (apologies if it turns into a double post).

I assume you are referring to the Marquess of Exeter's arms at Table 6
of 'Lines of Succession' by Louda & Maclagan. The quarter in question
(actually a 'grand quarter' of the Royal Arms) does not display a
shield on top of a shield, but rather a shield within a bordure
(border), the bordure containing copies of the charges from the shield
it surrounds (fleurs-de-lis and golden leopards). This is the version
of the royal arms derived from the Marquess's mother, a younger
daughter of King Edward IV.

If you turn to Table 10, you will see at top left clearer examples of
the Royal Arms displayed within a bordure. In the middle of the page
you will also see examples of the "shield upon a shield", the
inescutcheon: the two Danish arms portrayed each show an inescutcheon,
and the second (for Anne of Denmark) shows an inescutcheon upon an
inescutcheon, as does that for Princess Louise of Orange; the
Brandenburg and Palatine arms also feature inescutcheons in the
position of 'pretence' (although in each of these cases it designates
territorial arms rather than pretense). Each of these latter examples
is, of course, foreign.

For an English example of an inescutcheon upon the central point of a
quartered shield, see the arms of Charles, Prince of Wales at Table 9,
where his inescutcheon (for the Principality of Wales) is surmounted by
a crown.

Cheers

Michael

John Higgins

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av John Higgins » 11 nov 2005 00:14:49

This is an interesting and useful descent...thanks for posting it. If this
is an example of what's coming in the "baronial descents" volume, it should
be an interesting book.

FWIW, a possible addition:

One of Carl Boyer's recent books (probably the one on Welsh ancestors of
Americans) cites Bartrum and says that Sir Rhys I ap Griffith (d. 1356) had
at least two other children with descendants of interest to Americans: a
son Gruffudd and a daughter Margred, both of whose descendants are traced
further by Boyer.

Bartrum, of course, screwed up the marriages of Sir Rhys I and Sir Rhys II,
assigning Isabel de Stackpole to the father rather than the son. Boyer
doesn't catch this error and so he may not be reliable as to the placement
of the children. But it's something that may be worth looking into for
possible American descents....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:04 PM
Subject: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent


Dear Newsgroup ~

Below please find the Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent. I've used
many sources to construct the ten generations of this descent, chief
among them are W. Percy, Hedley Northumberland Families; John Hodgson,
Hist. of Northumberland; M.H. Dodds, Hist. of Northumberland, vol. 13;
Stebbing Shaw, Hist. & Antiquities of Staffordshire; Trans.
Cymmrodorion 1913-1914; John E. Lloyd, Hist. of Carmarthenshire; and
Dictionary of Welsh Biography (1959): 839-840.

There are side descents from these families through intermarriages with
the Gobion, Cromwell, and Vernon families, which marriages I've
indicated below.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
MERLAY-SOMERVILLE-GRIFFITH

1. WILLIAM DE MERLAY, of Morpeth, Northumberland, died c. 1129. He
married MENIALDE _____.

2. RANULPH DE MERLAY, of Morpeth, Northumberland, died before 1166. He
married JULIANE OF DUNBAR, daughter of Gospatrick, Earl of Dunbar
(descendant of King Ethelred II of England)

3. ROGER DE MERLAY, of Morpeth, Northumberland, died in 1188. He
married ALICE DE STUTEVILLE, daughter of Roger de Stuteville, of Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire. Alice was co-heiress before 1199 to her brother,
Anselm de Stuteville, by which she inherited the manor of Burton Agnes,
Yorkshire, and a mesne lordship of lands in North Cave, South Cliffe,
and Hotham, Yorkshire. She was living in 1242.

Children of Roger de Merlay, by Alice de Stuteville:

i. ROGER DE MERLAY [see next].

ii. AGNES DE MERLAY, married RICHARD GOBION, of Higham Gobion,
Bedfordshire.

4. ROGER DE MERLAY, of Morpeth, Witton, etc., Northumberland, Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire, etc., benefactor of Newminster Abbey and Brinkburn,
son and heir, born about 1173 (of age in 1194), died 1239. He married
(1st) in or after 1188 (grant of his marriage) ADA OF FIFE, daughter of
Duncan, 6th Earl of Fife, by his wife, Ela, daughter evidently of
Reynold de Warenne. He married (2nd) MARGERY DE UMFREVILLE, daughter
of Richard de Umfreville.

5. ROGER DE MERLAY, Knt., of Morpeth, Northumberland, Burton Agnes,
Yorkshire, etc., died 1265, son by his father's 1st marriage. He
married before 1241 ISABEL _____. His widow, Isabel, married (2nd)
before 1279 Adam de Everingham, of Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

6. ISABEL DE MERLAY, daughter and co-heiress, born about 1257 (aged 8
in 1265), died 1300. She married before 7 May 1275 ROBERT DE
SOMERVILLE, Knt., died 1297, of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas,
Curborough House (in Streethay), and Tunstall, Staffordshire, and, in
right of his wife, of Great Benton, Witton Underwood, Horsley, Stanton,
and Windegates, Northumberland, and Knaptoft, Leicestershire. Isabel
was co-heiress in 1268 to her sister, Alice de Merlay, wife of Robert
de Thweng, by which her share of the Merlay estates increased from a
one-third to one-half share. In 1294 Robert acquired the other half
share of the manor of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire by an exchange with his
wife's nephew, John de Greystoke.

Children of Isabel de Merlay, by Robert de Somerville, Knt.:

i. PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE, Knt. [see next].

ii. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE, married RALPH DE CROMWELL, Knt. Lineal
ancestors of Ralph Cromwell, Knt., 1st Lord Cromwell.

7. PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas,
Newbold, etc., Staffordshire, Knight of the Shire for Staffordshire,
Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, younger son, born about
1287 (aged 50 in 1337), died 1355. He married MARGARET DE PIPE, living
1325, daughter of Thomas de Pipe, Knt. They had two daughters, Joan
(see below) and Elizabeth (wife of John de Stafford). In 1300 his
brother Edmund de Somerville assigned Philip various lands which had
been held in dower by their mother, Isabel. Philip was heir in 1319 to
his older brother, Edmund de Somerville, clerk, by which he inherited
the manors of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Newbold, Tunstall, Staffordshire,
etc. He was also heir in 1337 to his younger brother, Roger de
Somerville, Knt., of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire. Philip may be regarded
as the second founder of Balliol College at Oxford University, to which
institution he added new scholars to the number of fellows as well as
one chaplain.

8. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE, daughter and co-heiress, died 1376. She married
about 12 February 1325 (date of settlement) RHYS AP GRIFFITH, Knt.,
adult by 1309, died 1356, of Llansadwrn in Cantrefmawr and Dryslwyn,
Carmarthen and Narberth castles in Wales, and, in right of his wife, of
Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas, etc., Staffordshire, Great Benton,
Witton-Underwood, etc., Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire,
steward of Cardigan, forester of Glyncothi and Pennant, deputy to the
royal justice of South Wales, sheriff of Carmarthen, steward of
Cantrefmawr, son and heir of Gruffydd ap Hywel ap Gruffydd ab Ednyfed
Fychan, of Llansadwrn, by Nest, daughter of Gwrwared ap Gwilym of
Cemais.

9. RHYS AP GRIFFITH, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas,
Draycott, Newbold, and Tunstall, Staffordshire, Orreby, Lincolnshire,
Stockton, Warwickshire, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir, born
about 25 December 1325, died 1380. He married (1st) before 1370 ISABEL
DE STACKPOLE, daughter and heiress of Richard de Stackpole, of
Stackpole, Angle and Lony. He married (2nd) before 1377 MARGARET LA
ZOUCHE, died 1430, daughter of _____ la Zouche. His widow, Margaret,
married (2nd) after 6 November 1385 William Walsall (died 1414), of
Rushall, Staffordshire, Knight of the Shire for Staffordshire,
Escheator of Shropshire, Staffordshire, and the Welsh Marsh, Sheriff of
Shropshire and Staffordshire, 1377, Sheriff of Staffordshire,
1381-1383, 1389-1390, 1396-1399, 1406-1407, Constable of Stafford,
Carmarthen and Dynevor castles, Marshal of the Hall to King Richard II,
1395-1399.

Child of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., by Isabel de Stackpole:

i. JOAN GRIFFITH, married RICHARD VERNON, Knt., of Haddon,
Derbyshire [see VERNON 9].

Child of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., by Margaret Zouche:

i. THOMAS GRIFFITH, Esq. [see next].

10. THOMAS [AP] GRIFFITH, Esq., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas,
etc., Staffordshire, son and heir, born 19 May 1377, died 1433. He
married ANNE BLOUNT, daughter of Walter Blount, Knt., of Barton Blount,
Derbyshire, by Sanche de Ayala, daughter of Diego Gomez de Toledo,
Alcalde maior de Toledo. Thomas was heir in 1387 to his 1st cousin,
Margaret, wife of William de Carnaby (daughter of his uncle, Henry ap
Griffith, Knt.).

Blair Southerden

Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville

Legg inn av Blair Southerden » 11 nov 2005 00:42:40

Douglas

I am intrigued by your statement about the 'general rule' for the age of
first service as sheriff: particularly because of the position of Sheriff
(or more properly deputy Sheriff of Westmorland) held by Sir Gilbert
Kirketon in 1247 and later. Could you elaborate further on this rule,
please?

Regards

Blair

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and Joan Neville


Dear James ~

Margaret Zouche's 2nd husband, William Walsall, is on record as being
Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire several times in the period,
1377 to 1407 [see Roskell, House of Parliament, 4 (1992): 753]. As a
general rule, men were about 40 when they first served as sheriff.
This provides us a rough estimated birthdate for William Walsall of
circa 1347. In correct, Margaret Zouche's 2nd husband was about 20
years younger than her first husband, Sir Rhys ap Griffith, who was
born in 1325.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 nov 2005 00:50:51

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/10/05 2:14:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Table 7 e.g. the arms of William II, Prince of Orange: an
unusual instance of an inescutcheon placed on top of an inescutcheon,
or Anne of Denmark, ditto, or the Elector Frederick.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what is an inescutcheon and what are "arms or
pretense". Or are these the same thing?

No. An inescutcheon is a small shield which can be used as a charge
(ie item) on the main shield.

Escutcheon of pretence are as I defined for you earlier, showing the
arms of a heiress wife.

The confusion is if the inescutcheon itself has charges on it making it
look as if it was arms of pretence. If you get one of these, you have
to do you genealogy first to find what might be going on.

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

Chris Phillips

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 11 nov 2005 00:57:21

Will Johnson wrote:
I'm not sure I'm understanding what is an inescutcheon and what are "arms
or
pretense". Or are these the same thing?


An inescutcheon is just a small shield appearing on a coat of arms. It can
simply be a charge, in the same way as a lion, or an eagle, or a lozenge can
be a charge. But ...

It's an inescutcheon of pretence if it bears the arms of the bearer's wife
(she being an heiress).

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 01:29:30

In a message dated 11/10/05 2:14:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Table 7 e.g. the arms of William II, Prince of Orange: an
unusual instance of an inescutcheon placed on top of an inescutcheon,
or Anne of Denmark, ditto, or the Elector Frederick. >>

I'm not sure I'm understanding what is an inescutcheon and what are "arms or
pretense". Or are these the same thing?

Will

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Sancha de Ayala (was re: tomb of Sir Walter Griffith...)

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 11 nov 2005 01:53:03

Please do Nat, that would be fascinating. (Not that I'm wishing you
sleepless nights)
Merilyn


Oh, yes, they had lots of children. More than just two have descents to
modern Americans (though I agree this is a poor reason to ignore the
others). I thought Gary Roberts' _Ancestors of the American Presidents_
has charts showing a pretty broad descendancy from her to various
presidents, perhaps leading through more children than Thomas and
Constance? (I can't find it right now to check).

As for Sancha de Ayala's 'website': I don't know to what Jeff Chip Nine
was referring, but for a long time I've been meaning to put up a page or
two dedicated to her. I have a set of photographs of her family houses
in Toledo and Quejana, as well as a good assortment of Ayala & Blount
heraldry from both Spain & England, and have been charting the very
interesting set of her kinships to leading literary figures of the
Castilian proto-renaissance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
This is on a distant back burner, but when I have a few sleepless nights
and decide to return to this, she might get her own website after all...

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Gjest

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 01:56:56

In a message dated 11/10/05 1:23:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

<< I have been reading your various posts to day, are you just a trouble
maker,
or did you wake up with a hang over? >>

Sorry that I've pointed out where you jumped to conclusions. I should
refrain from doing that, since my refraining would lead to more bad genealogy :)
Will Johnson

jeffchip9

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 11 nov 2005 03:48:04

Here's the thing: I went through the archives of this group and tried
to get all that I could on the Griffiths. I found that a lot has been
posted on them going back to the late 1990s. I don't want to make
things worse. John, about your tablet: your transcription of it shows
that John Griffith m. Anne Tyrwhitt. Every other source I've seen says
her name was Catherine. The tablet may be right, and all of these
other sources wrong, or maybe she went by both names, but the
discrepancy didn't make me pine to locate the tablet. SAL did not
mention it. Sir Walter Griffith ( who some posters now feel may have
been born closer to my estimate than others), if he married second
Agnes Constable, was probably around 30 years her senior. The
Constable family, being of the knightly class with ties to the
Despenser family, was a large one and Agnes was not an heiress. Her
parents may have felt that Sir Walter Griffith, despite his age, was a
good match. Some people who are knowlegeable about this Griffith
family (and I'm here thinking of a post dated 30 Jul 1998 "Turberville
Heirs" by Reedpcgen--I don't know who that is) think that Sir John
Griffith and Sir Thomas Griffith were not son and father, but brothers.
This post also mentions some confusion about the Griffith/Somerville
marriage (discussing a source by "Shaw"), but backs up the standard
account. I personally have not seen any documentation that
specifically states that Joan was Philip's daughter, although there are
records which show how Rhys and Joan obtained Burton Agnes, and as with
any people living that long ago, it probably wouldn't be remiss to
check and see if she had more than one marriage. I'm not alleging that
they were not descendants of the Somervilles. If you look at the
GENUKI stuff on Burton Agnes you will note that the epitaph on Roger
and Philip Somerville's tomb is (or was at that time) modern. My
understanding is that there was a fad in England in the Victorian years
to renovate these old family churches. There has been difficulty in
pinning down the parents of Margaret Zouche and Catherine/Anne Tyrwhitt
and the Anne Blount thing.
The 1604 Griffith scroll we've talked about a lot is not a herald's
visitation, even though it was compiled by a herald. This is something
a prominent family hired him to do, and he would come in with an
artist, look at whatever the family showed him, and put a pedigree
together. He probably did a number of these things. I am sending Tim
Powys-Lybbe the complete SAL stuff I ordered. The text helps to
understand the thing. He is welcome to do whatever he wants with it,
and come to whatever conclusions. The drawing of Jane Neville's arms
doesn't apparently match what's on the tomb today. Like everything
else, there may be a perfectly good explanation for that, but I don't
think I'm the person to find it. So the validity of the scroll depends
on Francis Thynne's skill as a genealogist and what the family
proffered by way of evidence. It would be good to post the whole SAL
thing on the web, but I don't have the equipment to do it.
Sancha de Ayala may have had six children; the website mentions she had
a will, and that's something I should probably track down.
I am not the first person to trace my Rhys--evidently David Faris did
it before me, although using what I don't know. Faris did not print a
pedigree of Rhys, just mentioned certain aspects of his ancestry. It's
obvious that the bulk of the Griffiths' claims of royal descent come
through the Merlay/Stuteville families. About my blocked out generation
post (which I did just to show what I thought Faris was thinking, and
which did support Sir Henry Griffith's claims): Peter Sutton sent me
some data he compiled on the early history of these people and he has
one less generation than I do. Since his stuff is documented, and mine
basically was pulled from websites, which did give some dates, but
little in the way of citations, his is the better version, but I did
mentally mark it for further examination.
I have been able to show that Jane (Neville) Griffith had two children.
There may have been others, but at least she was capable of bearing
them.
I am concerned about the number of discrepancies in the accounts of
these people; it may all be readily explained. Maybe my Rhys was
simply the youngest child of Sir John Griffith and Joan was Rhy's only
surviving child, I don't know. It would certainly help to know who his
wife was; so far I have not been able to discover that. I don't much
like the "long lines" of these people, and I have rejected other lines
for the same reason and found that I was right to do so, but maybe this
is just a situation that is as it appears. There is an IPM attributed
to Sir John Griffith dated 1471, and I am going to track it down. What
I will do with it I don't know, since the language will be archaic, but
I would like to have it, and since he is a central figure in this
matter, it needs to be done.
There are probably other things that I could mention, but I think I
will try to get the IPM, and then post what it reveals. Again, I don't
want to muddle things more, so I think that the SAL material, the
Sancha will, and the IPM will have to serve as my contribution to the
topic, which I'm well aware I started.

Jeff Chipman

Richard C. Browning, Jr.

RE: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Richard C. Browning, Jr. » 11 nov 2005 05:23:54

Jeff and All others interested,

I think you might like to take a look at the entry for "Achievements" in A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN HERALDRY by JAMES PARKER, which can be found here

http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossa.htm

I will not transcribe all that is written about this but there are also some
good illustrations along with the explanations.

I assume the Arms displayed on this tomb are done so as an achievement
although this may be a mistaken assumption. From this and what I have read
in the various threads covering the heraldry on the tomb in question, if the
background behind Jane Neville's portion of the achievement is black and
that behind the Griffith portion is white, then it indicates that she died
first. If it is the opposite it would indicate that Walter was the first to
pass away.

I would really like to see a valid blazon of the achievement, not just the
arms represented on it.

Parker also gives a explanation of lozenge, which can be found here

http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker ... tm#Lozenge


Hope this helps.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

Richard C. Browning, Jr.

RE: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Richard C. Browning, Jr. » 11 nov 2005 05:36:45

All,

To see examples of both, try this link,

http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker ... Escutcheon

The illustration for Montacute shown, although not noted as a Escuteon of
Pretence, in my opinion, appears to be that.

Again,
Hope this helps.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe [mailto:tim@powys.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 17:51
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/10/05 2:14:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Table 7 e.g. the arms of William II, Prince of Orange: an
unusual instance of an inescutcheon placed on top of an inescutcheon,
or Anne of Denmark, ditto, or the Elector Frederick.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what is an inescutcheon and what are
"arms or
pretense". Or are these the same thing?

No. An inescutcheon is a small shield which can be used as a charge
(ie item) on the main shield.

Escutcheon of pretence are as I defined for you earlier, showing the
arms of a heiress wife.

The confusion is if the inescutcheon itself has charges on it making it
look as if it was arms of pretence. If you get one of these, you have
to do you genealogy first to find what might be going on.

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

John Higgins

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av John Higgins » 11 nov 2005 06:37:25

Two small points:

1) The transcription of the 1511 tablet which I copied from MGH did say
that Sir John Griffith married Catherine Tyrwhit (not Anne). It was in my
too-quick and unchecked summary of the descent, after the transcription,
that (as Brad Verity rightly pointed out) I mis-stated her name to be Anne.
The tablet (or its transcription in MGH) did say Catherine - I introduced
the confusion of Anne.

2) Paul Reed's very informative post of 1998 did not say that Sir Thomas
Griffith and Sir John Griffith were brothers rather than father and son - it
just said that Sir Thomas had a brother John. The fact that Sir Thomas had
both a brother John and a son Sir John is reflected in at least Bartrum's
pedigree for the family, which apparently depended (at least in part) on
Shaw's Staffordshire.

[Paul Reed's note is particularly helpful in clarifying the confused
marriages of Sir Rhys I and Sir Rhys II, the father and grandfather of Sir
Thomas]

I'm glad that you're sending the SAL material to Tim to perhaps get it
accessible on the web. It's an important piece of the puzzle here. No
matter how much information we may be lucky enough to have, there will
almost certainly continue to be "discrepancies" of some type - that's the
nature of the subject!

----- Original Message -----
From: "jeffchip9" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Jane Neville's tomb


Here's the thing: I went through the archives of this group and tried
to get all that I could on the Griffiths. I found that a lot has been
posted on them going back to the late 1990s. I don't want to make
things worse. John, about your tablet: your transcription of it shows
that John Griffith m. Anne Tyrwhitt. Every other source I've seen says
her name was Catherine. The tablet may be right, and all of these
other sources wrong, or maybe she went by both names, but the
discrepancy didn't make me pine to locate the tablet. SAL did not
mention it. Sir Walter Griffith ( who some posters now feel may have
been born closer to my estimate than others), if he married second
Agnes Constable, was probably around 30 years her senior. The
Constable family, being of the knightly class with ties to the
Despenser family, was a large one and Agnes was not an heiress. Her
parents may have felt that Sir Walter Griffith, despite his age, was a
good match. Some people who are knowlegeable about this Griffith
family (and I'm here thinking of a post dated 30 Jul 1998 "Turberville
Heirs" by Reedpcgen--I don't know who that is) think that Sir John
Griffith and Sir Thomas Griffith were not son and father, but brothers.
This post also mentions some confusion about the Griffith/Somerville
marriage (discussing a source by "Shaw"), but backs up the standard
account. I personally have not seen any documentation that
specifically states that Joan was Philip's daughter, although there are
records which show how Rhys and Joan obtained Burton Agnes, and as with
any people living that long ago, it probably wouldn't be remiss to
check and see if she had more than one marriage. I'm not alleging that
they were not descendants of the Somervilles. If you look at the
GENUKI stuff on Burton Agnes you will note that the epitaph on Roger
and Philip Somerville's tomb is (or was at that time) modern. My
understanding is that there was a fad in England in the Victorian years
to renovate these old family churches. There has been difficulty in
pinning down the parents of Margaret Zouche and Catherine/Anne Tyrwhitt
and the Anne Blount thing.
The 1604 Griffith scroll we've talked about a lot is not a herald's
visitation, even though it was compiled by a herald. This is something
a prominent family hired him to do, and he would come in with an
artist, look at whatever the family showed him, and put a pedigree
together. He probably did a number of these things. I am sending Tim
Powys-Lybbe the complete SAL stuff I ordered. The text helps to
understand the thing. He is welcome to do whatever he wants with it,
and come to whatever conclusions. The drawing of Jane Neville's arms
doesn't apparently match what's on the tomb today. Like everything
else, there may be a perfectly good explanation for that, but I don't
think I'm the person to find it. So the validity of the scroll depends
on Francis Thynne's skill as a genealogist and what the family
proffered by way of evidence. It would be good to post the whole SAL
thing on the web, but I don't have the equipment to do it.
Sancha de Ayala may have had six children; the website mentions she had
a will, and that's something I should probably track down.
I am not the first person to trace my Rhys--evidently David Faris did
it before me, although using what I don't know. Faris did not print a
pedigree of Rhys, just mentioned certain aspects of his ancestry. It's
obvious that the bulk of the Griffiths' claims of royal descent come
through the Merlay/Stuteville families. About my blocked out generation
post (which I did just to show what I thought Faris was thinking, and
which did support Sir Henry Griffith's claims): Peter Sutton sent me
some data he compiled on the early history of these people and he has
one less generation than I do. Since his stuff is documented, and mine
basically was pulled from websites, which did give some dates, but
little in the way of citations, his is the better version, but I did
mentally mark it for further examination.
I have been able to show that Jane (Neville) Griffith had two children.
There may have been others, but at least she was capable of bearing
them.
I am concerned about the number of discrepancies in the accounts of
these people; it may all be readily explained. Maybe my Rhys was
simply the youngest child of Sir John Griffith and Joan was Rhy's only
surviving child, I don't know. It would certainly help to know who his
wife was; so far I have not been able to discover that. I don't much
like the "long lines" of these people, and I have rejected other lines
for the same reason and found that I was right to do so, but maybe this
is just a situation that is as it appears. There is an IPM attributed
to Sir John Griffith dated 1471, and I am going to track it down. What
I will do with it I don't know, since the language will be archaic, but
I would like to have it, and since he is a central figure in this
matter, it needs to be done.
There are probably other things that I could mention, but I think I
will try to get the IPM, and then post what it reveals. Again, I don't
want to muddle things more, so I think that the SAL material, the
Sancha will, and the IPM will have to serve as my contribution to the
topic, which I'm well aware I started.

Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 07:14:02

Send me the photograph you've been talking about and I'll post it on the web
and give everyone a link to it. That way we don't have to rely on your
description of what it looks like, we'd be able to see it ourselves.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 08:36:50

"Richard C. Browning, Jr." schrieb:

I assume the Arms displayed on this tomb are done so as an achievement
although this may be a mistaken assumption.

I'm afraid this is a mistaken assumption; "achievements" (more commonly
referred to as hatchments) date from at least a century after this
tomb.

Regards

Michael

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 nov 2005 11:46:12

In message of 11 Nov, jthiggins@sbcglobal.net ("John Higgins") wrote:

<snip>

I'm glad that you're sending the SAL material to Tim to perhaps get it
accessible on the web.

I am expecting a photocopy and as long as I am in the house when it
arrives it should take me no more than an hour to scan it and get it on
my site, no "perhaps" at all! But I expect it will be a few days before
it arrives.

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

Gjest

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 11:47:56

"John Higgins" wrote:
This is an interesting and useful descent...thanks for posting it. If this
is an example of what's coming in the "baronial descents" volume, it should
be an interesting book.

FWIW, a possible addition:

One of Carl Boyer's recent books (probably the one on Welsh ancestors of
Americans) cites Bartrum and says that Sir Rhys I ap Griffith (d. 1356) had
at least two other children with descendants of interest to Americans: a
son Gruffudd and a daughter Margred, both of whose descendants are traced
further by Boyer.

Bartrum, of course, screwed up the marriages of Sir Rhys I and Sir Rhys II,
assigning Isabel de Stackpole to the father rather than the son. Boyer
doesn't catch this error and so he may not be reliable as to the placement
of the children. But it's something that may be worth looking into for
possible American descents....

Don't know about Gruffudd ap Gruffudd, but Margred would presumably be
via the Whitney family: she was ancestral to Angharad ferch Madog ap
Ieuan Goch, who allegedly married a Robert Whitney (the one who was
k.1402 maybe? Or did she marry Eustace Whitney- or none of them at
all?); and also to Elizabeth (or Alice?), daughter of Thomas Vaughan of
Hergest, who married a later Robert Whitney (fl.1476). From the latter
marriage I believe descended, inter alia, Anne Morgan, who married the
much discussed Henry, 1st baron Hunsdon.

Matthew

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2005 14:56:12

Dear Will ~

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

W. Percy Hedley, Northumberland Families 1 (1968): 197 (sub Barony of
Morpeth) states that Roger de Merlay I "died in 1188, but his widow
[Alice de Stuteville] was stil alive in 1242 when she held East Duddo
and Twizel in free marriage." I relied on Mr. Hedley for this date.

While Mr. Hedley does not cite his source, the information comes from
Book of Fees, 2 (1923): 1125 which states the following:

1242-1243, Northumberland
"Alicia de Merlay tenet de Roger de Merlay Twisill' et Dudden de Est
per liberum maritagium."

Given that Alice de Merlay held these properties in free marriage of
Roger de Merlay III in 1242-3, I would have to assume that this Alice
de Merlay was actually Roger III's sister or aunt, not his grandmother,
Alice de Stuteville, as claimed by Hedley. In any event, Roger III's
grandmother, Alice de Stuteville, was surely dead in 1242-3.

All the same, I believe that Alice (de Stuteville) de Merlay was living
as late as 1219, as indicated by another record in Book of Fees, 1
(1920): 250:

A.D. 1219
Northumberland

"Alicia de Stuteville est de donatione domini regis et non est
maritata; terra eius valet xl.l."

"Alicia de Merlay de donatione domini regis et non est maritata; terre
eius valet c.s."

I assume that the first woman named is Alice de Stuteville, widow of
Roger de Merlay I, who appears in this record under her maiden name,
she being a major heiress in her own right. This woman was obviously
quite wealthy, as her lands were worth 40 pounds per annum. The other
lady, Alice de Merlay, also a widow, held lands worth only 100
shillings.

To fully establish the identity of the Alice de Stuteville in the 1219
record, I suggest that you consult the Curia Regis Rolls and Pipe Rolls
leading up to 1219. Given this woman's great wealth, she should
appear regularly in the records. As for the identity of the Alice de
Merlay living in 1242-3, you might well be able to trace this woman by
consulting the histories of the manors of East Duddo and Twizel in the
published Histories of Northumberland. Good luck in your sleuthing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/10/05 1:15:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

ALICE DE STUTEVILLE, daughter of Roger de Stuteville, of Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire. Alice was co-heiress before 1199 to her brother,
Anselm de Stuteville, by which she inherited the manor of Burton Agnes,
Yorkshire, and a mesne lordship of lands in North Cave, South Cliffe,
and Hotham, Yorkshire. She was living in 1242.

Douglas, what is your source that she was living in 1242 ??
Leo shows that she died in 1202. Did she really outlive her husband by 54
years ?

Will Johnson

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 16:36:01

This example is a little different than has been mentioned here in this
thread.
the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and the
main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de Montfort, or of
that family
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <brownrc@anet-dfw.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


All,

To see examples of both, try this link,

http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker ... Escutcheon

The illustration for Montacute shown, although not noted as a Escuteon of
Pretence, in my opinion, appears to be that.

Again,
Hope this helps.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe [mailto:tim@powys.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 17:51
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/10/05 2:14:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Table 7 e.g. the arms of William II, Prince of Orange: an
unusual instance of an inescutcheon placed on top of an inescutcheon,
or Anne of Denmark, ditto, or the Elector Frederick.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what is an inescutcheon and what are
"arms or
pretense". Or are these the same thing?

No. An inescutcheon is a small shield which can be used as a charge
(ie item) on the main shield.

Escutcheon of pretence are as I defined for you earlier, showing the
arms of a heiress wife.

The confusion is if the inescutcheon itself has charges on it making it
look as if it was arms of pretence. If you get one of these, you have
to do you genealogy first to find what might be going on.

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





Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 16:51:01

Whoops sorry, it should have been Thurston de Montfort, not Simon, which
makes more since considering this is the Montfort family the Montacutes
married into, which brings up another question has any one found a link
between the Montfort-le-Amuray family and the Montfort-Sure-Risle family?
Thanks
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry" <terry@mairsphotography.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


This example is a little different than has been mentioned here in this
thread.
the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and the
main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de Montfort, or
of
that family
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard C. Browning, Jr." <brownrc@anet-dfw.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


All,

To see examples of both, try this link,

http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker ... Escutcheon

The illustration for Montacute shown, although not noted as a Escuteon of
Pretence, in my opinion, appears to be that.

Again,
Hope this helps.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe [mailto:tim@powys.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 17:51
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)
and
Joan Neville

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/10/05 2:14:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Table 7 e.g. the arms of William II, Prince of Orange: an
unusual instance of an inescutcheon placed on top of an inescutcheon,
or Anne of Denmark, ditto, or the Elector Frederick.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what is an inescutcheon and what are
"arms or
pretense". Or are these the same thing?

No. An inescutcheon is a small shield which can be used as a charge
(ie item) on the main shield.

Escutcheon of pretence are as I defined for you earlier, showing the
arms of a heiress wife.

The confusion is if the inescutcheon itself has charges on it making it
look as if it was arms of pretence. If you get one of these, you have
to do you genealogy first to find what might be going on.

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









Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 nov 2005 18:41:12

In message of 11 Nov, terry@mairsphotography.com ("Terry") wrote:

This example is a little different than has been mentioned here in
this thread.
the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and
the main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de
Montfort, or of that family

Another possibility is that the main shield is that of the bishopric of
Worcester. In a later century the conjoin of a man and his office
(bishopric, earldom, whathaveyou) is shown by impaling the two coats,
that is placing them beside one another and with the personal arms on
the sinister side (right as drawn, left from the point of the bearer).

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

Gjest

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 20:29:37

Continuing on, in my desire to outline the early kingdoms of Spain, I have
gathered these facts from my 1985 edition (paper) of the Encyclopaedia
Brittanica. Please comment on any of these that may be false or true for that matter.

1) Sancho III Garces b c 992 - d 17 Oct 1035
King of Pamplona (Navarre) 1005-35; Emperor [of Spain ?] 1034-5
had four sons [mothers not named here]:
Eldest Garcia, second son Ferdinand, other two sons birth order not specified
were Gonzalo and Ramiro

2) Of these sons, Garcia IV, King of Pamplona 1035-54 d 1054
Ferdinand I b 1016/8 d 1065, King of Castile 1035-, Emperor of Leon ? 1039-
Gonzalo, King of Sobrarbeand and Ribagorza
Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

3) This last Ramiro, had a son Sancho Ramirez d 1094
King of Aragon 1063-94, King of Navarre 1076-94
born before 1045

Now working with only these facts we see that since the eldest and second son
are both named, that Ramiro, later King of Aragon, must be the third or
fourth and thus born AFT 1016, which is the earliest year for his elder brother
Ferdinand. BUT, his own son Sancho was born "before 1045". This gives a birth
range for Ramiro of 1017/1027 allowing him to be at least 17 at the birth of
his own son.

Heraldry of the Royal Families says that Ramiro and Gisberga dau of Roger,
Count Bigorre were married in 1036 so that Sancho had to be born 1036/1044

I have this Roger born 1008/1013, so his daughter Gisberga had to be born AFT
1024 and since her son Sancho was born 1036/44, I have to shorten his range
to 1038/44 and fix hers at the very small range of 1025/31

Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 20:47:03

In a message dated 11/11/05 7:35:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

<< the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and the
main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de Montfort, or of
that family >>

What are you talking about?
Maybe you could tell us what the arms of Simon de Montfort were and what your
source is first. I'm looking at them myself and I see nothing on this site
that looks anything like them.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 20:52:02

In a message dated 11/11/05 11:15:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

<< Why don't you tell us what Simons arms are supposed to look like first,
because I am sure no matter what I claim as a source you will have something
negative to say about it.
So what are they? and what is your source >>

An erect lion in silver on a red background
Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester born 1209 died 1265
"Heraldry of the Royal Families", Louda and Maclagan.

OK now you.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 21:02:02

In a message dated 11/11/05 6:00:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Given that Alice de Merlay held these properties in free marriage of
Roger de Merlay III in 1242-3, I would have to assume that this Alice
de Merlay was actually Roger III's sister or aunt, not his grandmother, >>

What does "in free marraige" imply ? Could she have been the widow of his
brother or uncle?

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2005 21:02:49

Dear Will ~

Property given in free marriage means that the gift carried no homage
or tenure in fee. If Alice de Merlay had been a Merlay widow, she
would not hold the property in free marriage, but rather in right of
her dower.

The manor of Stannington, Northumberland, which included Duddo, was
evidently a manor belonging originally to the Merlay family, as
indicated by the the following quote from an online source:

Source: http://www.genuki.bpears.org.uk/NBL/Sta ... z1868.html

"STANNINGTON, a parish in the W. division of Castle ward, county
Northumberland, 5 miles S.E. of Morpeth, its post town, and 2 W. of
Netherton. The village, which is considerable, is situated on the river
Blyth, at the mouth of which is the seaport of that name. The parish is
divided into Blagdon, Bellasis, Clifton, Duddo, and Plessey. The manor
formerly belonged to Roger de Merlai, the Greystokes, Somervilles, &c.

Douglas Richardson

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/11/05 6:00:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Given that Alice de Merlay held these properties in free marriage of
Roger de Merlay III in 1242-3, I would have to assume that this Alice
de Merlay was actually Roger III's sister or aunt, not his grandmother,

What does "in free marraige" imply ? Could she have been the widow of his
brother or uncle?

Will Johnson

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 21:04:01

Why don't you tell us what Simons arms are supposed to look like first,
because I am sure no matter what I claim as a source you will have something
negative to say about it.
So what are they? and what is your source

Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <terry@mairsphotography.com>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 7:35:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and
the
main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de Montfort, or
of
that family

What are you talking about?
Maybe you could tell us what the arms of Simon de Montfort were and what
your
source is first. I'm looking at them myself and I see nothing on this
site
that looks anything like them.

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 21:14:14

"Terry" schrieb:

So never mind, but please next time read every post, most of us have
imperfections and flaws, some of us are not ashamed to admit it and make
corrections!

Terry

That is the most refreshing post I have read for ages. Thanks (and
thanks too for your contributions, which I have been following with
interest).

Regards

Michael

Gjest

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 21:18:23

In a message dated 11/11/05 6:00:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< To fully establish the identity of the Alice de Stuteville in the 1219
record, I suggest that you consult the Curia Regis Rolls and Pipe Rolls
leading up to 1219. >>

Are these things online somewhere?
I checked A2A for East Duddo and Duddo and Twizel and basically there is
nothing before about 1550-1600 on these names.

Will

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 21:18:24

Never mind I see the problem now as I look at it again, you did not pay
attention to my second post you know the one where I said:

"Whoops sorry, it should have been Thurston de Montfort, not Simon, which
makes more since considering this is the Montfort family the Montacutes
married into, which brings up another question has any one found a link
between the Montfort-le-Amuray family and the Montfort-Sure-Risle family?
Thanks"

So never mind, but please next time read every post, most of us have
imperfections and flaws, some of us are not ashamed to admit it and make
corrections!
Thanks
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <terry@mairsphotography.com>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 7:35:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and
the
main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de Montfort, or
of
that family

What are you talking about?
Maybe you could tell us what the arms of Simon de Montfort were and what
your
source is first. I'm looking at them myself and I see nothing on this
site
that looks anything like them.

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 21:19:18

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 11/11/05 11:57:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

lion is erect, I really only have a written description so I guess it is
possible.
My description of Simons arms does mention that the lion which is standing
(Rampant) has a forked tail.

Standing and Erect have the same meaning :)

In heradlry, the term used for an animal standing on its hind legs is
"rampant". There is another term which means standing: "statant".
Erect does indeed mean upright, but it would not usually be used for
animals, where rampant is the correct term for blazoning.

MAR

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 21:20:01

See darn I did it again, I said Simon when I meant Thruston!
Please forgive me, I would not want this to mislead any one on their
genealogy search.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry" <terry@mairsphotography.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


Why don't you tell us what Simons arms are supposed to look like first,
because I am sure no matter what I claim as a source you will have
something
negative to say about it.
So what are they? and what is your source

Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <terry@mairsphotography.com>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 7:35:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

the arms on the "Escuteon of Pretence" are the arms of Montacute, and
the
main shield contains what appear to be the arms of Simon de Montfort, or
of
that family

What are you talking about?
Maybe you could tell us what the arms of Simon de Montfort were and what
your
source is first. I'm looking at them myself and I see nothing on this
site
that looks anything like them.

Will Johnson






Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 21:53:18

In a message dated 11/11/05 11:25:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

<< See darn I did it again, I said Simon when I meant Thruston!
Please forgive me, I would not want this to mislead any one on their
genealogy search. >>

Post your source for identifying Thurston's arms.
I posted mine.

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 21:56:50

I am assuming you have read my other posts by this time, so we will not go
there just now.
You must have a more detailed photo or drawing then I do if you can tell the
lion is erect, I really only have a written description so I guess it is
possible.
My description of Simons arms does mention that the lion which is standing
(Rampant) has a forked tail.
My source here to day is Burks 1884 edition.

Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 11:15:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

Why don't you tell us what Simons arms are supposed to look like first,
because I am sure no matter what I claim as a source you will have
something
negative to say about it.
So what are they? and what is your source

An erect lion in silver on a red background
Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester born 1209 died 1265
"Heraldry of the Royal Families", Louda and Maclagan.

OK now you.
Will Johnson



Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 21:57:18

Hold your horses its coming, just be patient, in fact I am sure it has
gotten here by now!

Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <terry@mairsphotography.com>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 11:25:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

See darn I did it again, I said Simon when I meant Thruston!
Please forgive me, I would not want this to mislead any one on their
genealogy search.

Post your source for identifying Thurston's arms.
I posted mine.


Chris Phillips

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 11 nov 2005 21:59:05

MAR wrote:
In heradlry, the term used for an animal standing on its hind legs is
"rampant". There is another term which means standing: "statant".
Erect does indeed mean upright, but it would not usually be used for
animals, where rampant is the correct term for blazoning.

Particularly regarding lions, which in medieval heraldry were quite
different from the sexless creatures into which they later evolved ...

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 21:59:06

In a message dated 11/11/05 11:57:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

<< lion is erect, I really only have a written description so I guess it is
possible.
My description of Simons arms does mention that the lion which is standing
(Rampant) has a forked tail. >>

Standing and Erect have the same meaning :)

Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 22:05:43

WJhon...@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 11/11/05 12:30:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

In heradlry, the term used for an animal standing on its hind legs is
"rampant". There is another term which means standing: "statant".
Erect does indeed mean upright, but it would not usually be used for
animals, where rampant is the correct term for blazoning.

I try to express what I see in English.

Sometimes a spade isn't always a spade :-)

I see that Parker's online heraldic source has been recommended on
another thread - I second that: it provides good summaries and many
illustrations, so would probably serve you well, Will, with some of
your questions.

The url is:

http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker ... %20of%20SS

Another site I sometimes use (which is brilliant) is Brian Timms's,
which has probably also been referred to here recently:

http://www.briantimms.com/

Cheers, Michael

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 22:14:30

Well now I did not say they where Thurstons arms, I said from that family,
now the arms which where in that photo, you know the one in the post that
started this, it showed an inescutcheon that was silver, with three red
diamonds running across it, those are the arms of the Montacute family, or
individuals of that family, the main shield, you know the one which this
diamond was on was gold with three blue diagonal stripes called bends,
Thurstons (darn I almost put Simon again) family used those arms with
anyware from those seven color spaces to ten little diagonal stripes, called
bendy.
Now in about 1292 ( I am sure you already know this) Thurstons great
granddaughter Elizabeth married into the Montacute/Montague family, Simon
Montacute/Montague was her son, now I don't know if this is the same Simon
mentioned on the web site or not, this COULD account for those arms, you
know the ones which were depicted on the page we both looked at, this
page----> http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker ... Escutcheon
My source again was Burkes
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <terry@mairsphotography.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 11:51:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

You must have a more detailed photo or drawing then I do if you can
tell
the
lion is erect, I really only have a written description so I guess it is
possible.

Post your source on THURSTON's arms to the entire list so we can verify
it.
And maybe you could describe what it is in the Montacute arms that you
think
is Thurston's arms.


Gjest

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 22:15:12

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 11/11/05 6:00:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

To fully establish the identity of the Alice de Stuteville in the 1219
record, I suggest that you consult the Curia Regis Rolls and Pipe Rolls
leading up to 1219.

Are these things online somewhere?


Will, apart from what might be available on the new google site etc,
Chris has an excellent summary with links, which you may already be
familiar with:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... blic.shtml

Best wishes

Michael

Terry

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Terry » 11 nov 2005 22:30:15

Thanks for the...heads up ;-)
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481) and
Joan Neville


In a message dated 11/11/05 11:57:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

lion is erect, I really only have a written description so I guess it
is
possible.
My description of Simons arms does mention that the lion which is standing
(Rampant) has a forked tail.

Standing and Erect have the same meaning :)



Gjest

Re: Inescutcheon was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2005 22:43:25

In a message dated 11/11/05 12:30:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< In heradlry, the term used for an animal standing on its hind legs is
"rampant". There is another term which means standing: "statant".
Erect does indeed mean upright, but it would not usually be used for
animals, where rampant is the correct term for blazoning. >>

I try to express what I see in English.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 11 nov 2005 23:04:54

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Continuing on, in my desire to outline the early kingdoms of Spain, I have
gathered these facts from my 1985 edition (paper) of the Encyclopaedia
Brittanica. Please comment on any of these that may be false or true for that matter.

1) Sancho III Garces b c 992 - d 17 Oct 1035
King of Pamplona (Navarre) 1005-35; Emperor [of Spain ?] 1034-5
had four sons [mothers not named here]:
Eldest Garcia, second son Ferdinand, other two sons birth order not specified
were Gonzalo and Ramiro

2) Of these sons, Garcia IV, King of Pamplona 1035-54 d 1054
Ferdinand I b 1016/8 d 1065, King of Castile 1035-, Emperor of Leon ? 1039-
Gonzalo, King of Sobrarbeand and Ribagorza
Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

3) This last Ramiro, had a son Sancho Ramirez d 1094
King of Aragon 1063-94, King of Navarre 1076-94
born before 1045

Now working with only these facts we see that since the eldest and second son
are both named, that Ramiro, later King of Aragon, must be the third or
fourth and thus born AFT 1016, which is the earliest year for his elder brother
Ferdinand. BUT, his own son Sancho was born "before 1045". This gives a birth
range for Ramiro of 1017/1027 allowing him to be at least 17 at the birth of
his own son.

Sancho gave his patrimony, the Kingdom of Castile, to his eldest son,
Garcia. He gave the County of Castile (which was originally part of
Asturias/Leon, but had become an autonomous state - a kingdom in all but
name) to his son Fernando and elevated it to a Kingdom. Further, he had
married Fernando to the sister of Vermudo III, King of Leon (who was
himself married to one of Sancho's daughters), and shortly after his
father's death, Ferdinand then defeated and killed Vermudo, acquiring
Leon jure uxoris. Gonzalo was made King of Sobrarbe and Ribagorza.
These were children of Muniadona Mayor, heiress of the County of
Castile. Ramiro was illegitimate son of Sancho III by mistress Sancha of
Aybar. He was made Count of Aragon, but elevated himself to royal
status. He then (apparently) orchestrated the death of his brother
Gonzalo, King of Ribagorza and Sobrarbe, and absorbed those into his
kingdom. While I don't think there is any evidence on which to estimate
his age, it has been speculated that he may have been older than the
legitimate sons. (Note that Sancho also had a legitimate son Ramiro, who
d.v.p.s.p.)

As to the title Emperor used above with a question mark, this was
Emperor of Spain, a purely symbolic title first adopted, IIRC, by
Alfonso III of Asturias/Leon as an indication of his preeminence among
the reconquest monarchs. It was then used by subsequent Leon kings, but
after the death of Alfonso V and the union of Castile with Navarre
(through the Navarre-instigated assassination of Muniadona's brother
Garci Sanchez), Sancho III took this title for himself. I don't recall
if Fernando used the title after the union of the Kingdoms of Castile
and Leon, but his son Alfonso VI certainly did after reuniting his
father's kingdoms and absorbing a good part of Navarre when the latter
kingdom was partitioned by Castile/Leon and Aragon after the
assassination of King Sancho IV Garces by his siblings, and Alfonso I of
Aragon & Navarre also used it while he was married to Queen Urraca of
Castile/Leon, as did her son Alfonso VII. He too split his kingdoms
upon his death, and I don't know if the title was used later, after
Castile and Leon were reunited under Fernando III.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 11 nov 2005 23:36:46

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/11/05 2:15:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

While I don't think there is any evidence on which to estimate
his age, it has been speculated that he may have been older than the
legitimate sons. (Note that Sancho also had a legitimate son Ramiro, who
d.v.p.s.p.)

Even including his son being born "bef 1045" as EB has it?

I just meant anything specific - he certainly was born early enough to
be able to proclaim himself king and assassinate his brother shortly
after his father's 1035 death.

taf

Gjest

Re: Ramiro I, King of Aragon d 1063

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2005 00:33:46

In a message dated 11/11/05 2:15:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< While I don't think there is any evidence on which to estimate
his age, it has been speculated that he may have been older than the
legitimate sons. (Note that Sancho also had a legitimate son Ramiro, who
d.v.p.s.p.) >>

Even including his son being born "bef 1045" as EB has it?

jeffchip9

Re: Jane Neville's tomb

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 12 nov 2005 04:05:56

John--
I saw that you just made a "typo" about Sir John Griffith's wife--I
don't read Latin but I could see the text had Catherine. I found out
that the paper I've talked about as "The Early Owners of Burton Agnes"
was not a production of the website per se, but rather was a chapter of
the 1914 work by Carus Vale Collier called "An Account of the Boynton
Family and the Family Seat of Burton Agnes." You can see five chapters
of it at

http://www.boyntons.us/yorkshire

Doug & Tim, this is the Collier that the SAL text refers to.
Unfortunately, while the website lists chapters appearing to deal with
monuments in the church, it did not scan them. Collier was a
well-known british archaeologist and published a number of works. I
did learn that the notes that Collier used in his book are archived at
the University of Hull. The 1471 John Griffith IPM might be part of
their files. However, I did track down the IPM series at The National
Archives at Kew, and have ordered it. It looks like this process is
going to take some time to actually receive it, then, if it's in Latin,
I might be able to find someone at the local university to translate
it, and if not, I'm sure I can find somebody to do it, but I'm hoping
it will be very useful.

I ran across this statement by Todd Farmerie from a post of 10 Dec 2000
under the heading "Pembrugge/Vernon" that these Griffiths were
"male-line kindred of Henry VII." I'm assuming, because he said
"male-line" that it refers to some common Welsh ancestor and not
through Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort. He did not elaborate on
the connection. I don't have access to Bartrum, but their have been
references to him giving some accout of these Griffiths so maybe it's
in there.

I am trying to track down the Sancha de Ayala will. She died in 1418
so I don't see any immediate "flags" that such a descent is wrong. Her
info can be found on a website devoted to Notable Women Ancestors.
Probably many already know that Sir Walter Blount was killed at the
Battle of Shrewsbury 21 Julk 1403. The NWA website does say that
Sancha had two children, but maybe all this has been discussed before
(e.g., a chart showing more children). At any rate, it would be
interesting to have her will.

While it would be interesting to track down the tablet, I am following
a lead which I hope will give me some info on the present owners of the
1604 scroll. I found that donations of material were made and other
material was purchased.

Hopefully before too long Jane Neville's tomb and heraldry will be
online, and that can only help matters.

Jeff Chipman

Richard C. Browning, Jr.

RE: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Richard C. Browning, Jr. » 12 nov 2005 05:16:02

-----Original Message-----
From: mjcar@btinternet.com [mailto:mjcar@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 01:37
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)
and Joan


"Richard C. Browning, Jr." schrieb:


I assume the Arms displayed on this tomb are done so as an achievement
although this may be a mistaken assumption.

I'm afraid this is a mistaken assumption; "achievements" (more commonly
referred to as hatchments) date from at least a century after this
tomb.

Regards

Michael

I recognize that they are also called Hatchments, having read the first
sentence from Parkers entry on achievements which reads;

" Achievements, spelt sometimes atchievements, and more frequently
hatchments: coats of arms in general, and particularly those funeral
escutcheons, which being placed upon the fronts of houses or in churches, or
elsewhere, set forth the rank and circumstances of the deceased. The arms
upon the latter may in all cases be either single or quartered."

And the entry for Hatchment which reads;

"Hatchments. See Achievements."

This is where I went first.

As I was suggesting that the reading of what Parker had to say concerning
funeral escutcheons, I thought using the term where the information would be
found to be more appropriate.

But, Thanks anyway.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, Tx

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 12 nov 2005 07:04:02

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dl40al$ms7$2@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...

Michael W Cook wrote:

On 11/11/05 14:59, in article
1131721150.298878.278400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "rrhersh@acme.com"
rrhersh@acme.com> wrote:


William Black wrote:

kerryscott5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131498114.344073.314130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Who do you think is the greatest English monarch? There are
undoubtedly many...

Charles I.

He managed, after huge effort, to turn England into a republic...

You have, it seems to me, identified the ambiguity in the original
question. I figured out back when I was still in short pants
(figuretively) that on the one hand, traditional histories love strong
kings and despise weak ones. But on the other hand, they also
celebrate the English parliamentary system, which mysteriously waxes
under the despised weak kings and wanes under the admired strong ones:
a bit of a contradiction in their thinking, no? I'm with you, but I
want to nominate Good King John for consideration.


King John was good at siege warfare, scheming and insulting people.

Little else.

Don't forget shagging the wives and daughters of his noblemen.

taf

Tim Powys-Lybbe

RE: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 12 nov 2005 12:34:11

In message of 12 Nov, brownrc@anet-dfw.com ("Richard C. Browning, Jr.") wrote:


-----Original Message-----
From: mjcar@btinternet.com [mailto:mjcar@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 01:37
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died 1481)
and Joan


"Richard C. Browning, Jr." schrieb:


I assume the Arms displayed on this tomb are done so as an achievement
although this may be a mistaken assumption.

I'm afraid this is a mistaken assumption; "achievements" (more commonly
referred to as hatchments) date from at least a century after this
tomb.

Regards

Michael

I recognize that they are also called Hatchments, having read the first
sentence from Parkers entry on achievements which reads;

" Achievements, spelt sometimes atchievements, and more frequently
hatchments: coats of arms in general, and particularly those funeral
escutcheons, which being placed upon the fronts of houses or in churches, or
elsewhere, set forth the rank and circumstances of the deceased. The arms
upon the latter may in all cases be either single or quartered."

And the entry for Hatchment which reads;

"Hatchments. See Achievements."

I was about to write that I've not seen any other heraldry book even
suggesting that hatchments were the same as achievements. But I opened
one of the series of ten volumes "Hatchments in Britain" and found this
in the introduction to Vol 4:

"The diamond-shaped hatchment, which originated in the Low Countries,
is a debased form of the medieval achievement... This practice, begun
in the early 17th century..."

The last sentence indicates that we can forget about hatchments for
these arms.

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

Michael W Cook

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 12 nov 2005 13:35:03

On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

John P. Ravilious

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 12 nov 2005 15:05:28

Saturday, 12 November, 2005



Dear Doug, John, Will, Michael, et al.,

While working on a few lines as time allows (mostly Scots of
late), I noted an additional de Somerville of Merlay descent, as
follows:

Licence dated at Kirkliston, 18 July 1298:
" Licence, at the instance of Aymer de Valencia, the
king's kinsman, for Isabella, late the wife of Robert
de Sumervill to enfeoff Roger de Sumervill, her son,
of the manor of Wytton and a moiety of the manor of
Benton, with the advowsons of the churches of Benton
and Stanyngton, which are of her purparty of the
barony of Merlay, and are held in chief. "

[CPR 1292-1301, p. 356, membrane 10]

Obviously Roger de Somerville was a younger son, who held the
manor of Witton and other property in 1298 (but not in chief).
Whether the line continued past his generation or not, I do not know at
this point.

Cheers,

John



"John Higgins" wrote:
This is an interesting and useful descent...thanks for posting it. If this
is an example of what's coming in the "baronial descents" volume, it should
be an interesting book.

FWIW, a possible addition:

One of Carl Boyer's recent books (probably the one on Welsh ancestors of
Americans) cites Bartrum and says that Sir Rhys I ap Griffith (d. 1356) had
at least two other children with descendants of interest to Americans: a
son Gruffudd and a daughter Margred, both of whose descendants are traced
further by Boyer.

<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Martin

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Martin » 12 nov 2005 16:09:30

"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Gjest

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2005 17:04:48

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

I was about to write that I've not seen any other heraldry book even
suggesting that hatchments were the same as achievements. But I opened
one of the series of ten volumes "Hatchments in Britain" and found this
in the introduction to Vol 4:

"The diamond-shaped hatchment, which originated in the Low Countries,
is a debased form of the medieval achievement... This practice, begun
in the early 17th century..."

The last sentence indicates that we can forget about hatchments for
these arms.

Volume 10 in the same series contains an initial section tracing the
history of hatchments, entitled "Early Background and Development".
Quoting Brooke-Little's 'An Heraldic Alphabet', it draws the
distinction between the words "hatchment" ("the achievement of the
deceased persons set forth on large diamond-shaped panels") and
"achievement" ("a representation of all the armorial devices to which
the bearer of the arms is entitled"), while noting that this
distinction is essentially of earl 19th century origin.

The second chapter ("Hatchments, Armorial Boards and Memorial Boards")
states that the earliest positively dated British hatchment is from
1629, although an earlier instance may date from circa 1613.

MAR

Michael W Cook

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 12 nov 2005 17:24:02

On 12/11/05 15:09, in article 437605a9_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:

"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Who exhibits his very worst traits...

Martin

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Martin » 12 nov 2005 19:59:19

"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9BC76E.18F76%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 15:09, in article 437605a9_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Who exhibits his very worst traits...

What, the carpet biting tantrums, paranoia, gross incompetance, arrogance or
taste for dubious sexual practices? I think I know the reply....

Michael W Cook

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 12 nov 2005 21:34:04

On 12/11/05 18:59, in article 43763b85$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:

"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9BC76E.18F76%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 15:09, in article 437605a9_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Who exhibits his very worst traits...

What, the carpet biting tantrums, paranoia, gross incompetance, arrogance or
taste for dubious sexual practices?

To name just a few.....

Peter Sutton

RE: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 12 nov 2005 21:48:01

John

Sir Roger de Somerville was the 5th son of Sir Robert de Somerville and
Isabel de Merlay. He died d.s.p. in 1336 and was buried at Burton Agnes.
He was married twice. His first wife was Matilda de Sutton and his second
wife was named Agnes. Agnes subsequently married Ralph de Burton (Sources:
G. E. Kendall, The Town of Hamilton in Leicestershire & its Ancient Lords
(Association of Architectural Societies Reports & Papers 1920 Volume: 35 Pt
2 pp: 323-356 & Sir Reginald Hardy of Dunstall, A History of the Parish of
Tatenhill in the County of Stafford, Vol: 1 (Harrison & Sons, London, 1897))

Roger was succeeded by his younger brother Sir Philip de Somerville.

Regards

Peter Sutton


-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Ravilious [mailto:therav3@aol.com]
Sent: 12 November 2005 14:05
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Saturday, 12 November, 2005



Dear Doug, John, Will, Michael, et al.,

While working on a few lines as time allows (mostly Scots of late), I
noted an additional de Somerville of Merlay descent, as
follows:

Licence dated at Kirkliston, 18 July 1298:
" Licence, at the instance of Aymer de Valencia, the
king's kinsman, for Isabella, late the wife of Robert
de Sumervill to enfeoff Roger de Sumervill, her son,
of the manor of Wytton and a moiety of the manor of
Benton, with the advowsons of the churches of Benton
and Stanyngton, which are of her purparty of the
barony of Merlay, and are held in chief. "

[CPR 1292-1301, p. 356, membrane 10]

Obviously Roger de Somerville was a younger son, who held the manor of
Witton and other property in 1298 (but not in chief).
Whether the line continued past his generation or not, I do not know at this
point.

Cheers,

John



"John Higgins" wrote:
This is an interesting and useful descent...thanks for posting it. If
this is an example of what's coming in the "baronial descents" volume,
it should be an interesting book.

FWIW, a possible addition:

One of Carl Boyer's recent books (probably the one on Welsh ancestors
of
Americans) cites Bartrum and says that Sir Rhys I ap Griffith (d.
1356) had at least two other children with descendants of interest to
Americans: a son Gruffudd and a daughter Margred, both of whose
descendants are traced further by Boyer.

<<<<<<<<<< SNIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Julian Richards

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Julian Richards » 12 nov 2005 22:08:52

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:34:04 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
<NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 12/11/05 18:59, in article 43763b85$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9BC76E.18F76%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 15:09, in article 437605a9_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Who exhibits his very worst traits...

What, the carpet biting tantrums, paranoia, gross incompetance, arrogance or
taste for dubious sexual practices?

To name just a few.....

I think that such comparisons are very unfair

to King John.


--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

http://www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

Hal Bradley

RE: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 12 nov 2005 22:37:48

Dear John, et al.,

Hodgson's "A History of Northumberland in Three Parts", vol. 2, part 2, p.
315 shows five sons for Robert & Isabel (de Merlay) Somerville: Robert,
Roger, Adam, John & Philip. Additionally, there was Edmund (as posted by
Douglas) and apparently a daughter Joan. Hodgson presents Philip as the
youngest son.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Ravilious [mailto:therav3@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:05 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent


Saturday, 12 November, 2005



Dear Doug, John, Will, Michael, et al.,

While working on a few lines as time allows (mostly Scots of
late), I noted an additional de Somerville of Merlay descent, as
follows:

Licence dated at Kirkliston, 18 July 1298:
" Licence, at the instance of Aymer de Valencia, the
king's kinsman, for Isabella, late the wife of Robert
de Sumervill to enfeoff Roger de Sumervill, her son,
of the manor of Wytton and a moiety of the manor of
Benton, with the advowsons of the churches of Benton
and Stanyngton, which are of her purparty of the
barony of Merlay, and are held in chief. "

[CPR 1292-1301, p. 356, membrane 10]

Obviously Roger de Somerville was a younger son, who held the
manor of Witton and other property in 1298 (but not in chief).
Whether the line continued past his generation or not, I do
not know at
this point.

Cheers,

John


snip

Gjest

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 nov 2005 23:05:09

Julian Richards schrieb:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:34:04 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 12/11/05 18:59, in article 43763b85$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9BC76E.18F76%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 15:09, in article 437605a9_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH

You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Who exhibits his very worst traits...

What, the carpet biting tantrums, paranoia, gross incompetance, arrogance or
taste for dubious sexual practices?

To name just a few.....

I think that such comparisons are very unfair to King John.

The joys of cross-posting...

Michael W Cook

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Michael W Cook » 13 nov 2005 00:02:25

On 12/11/05 21:08, in article 5emcn19sd8k4m9ubrcmc7uvrfn7a3cog0h@4ax.com,
"Julian Richards" <see@sig.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:34:04 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 12/11/05 18:59, in article 43763b85$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9BC76E.18F76%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 15:09, in article 437605a9_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
"Martin" <martin.reboul@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:


"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BF9B91AA.18F3F%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
On 12/11/05 06:04, in article MBfdf.183$RZ3.1417@eagle.america.net, "D.
Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:

Todd is correct....

King John does indeed have tens of millions of descendants.

DSH


You being one of them would explain a great deal.

Definitely a throwback...

Who exhibits his very worst traits...

What, the carpet biting tantrums, paranoia, gross incompetance, arrogance or
taste for dubious sexual practices?

To name just a few.....

I think that such comparisons are very unfair

to King John.


That's true, Hines thinks that siege warfare is getting a Firewall.

Gjest

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 00:09:56

In a message dated 11/12/05 6:15:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< Obviously Roger de Somerville was a younger son, who held the
manor of Witton and other property in 1298 (but not in chief).
Whether the line continued past his generation or not, I do not know at
this point. >>

He could have been as old as 26 and as young as 14 in 1298.
He does have an I.P.M. in 1337 (11 Edw III) and he is supposed to have had a
wife named Maude who died "bef 17 Oct 1313". It that is any help in
determining whether he had descendents.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 00:16:41

Dear Group Members,
I guess John was one of the greatest
English Monarchs, but I think Edward I was greater. He was a cross between John,
John`s brother Richard I who honestly never intended to hang around long enough
for the politically minded to get their mitts on him, but gave a far better
account of himself in battle, physically and strategically, which always would
bother King John. Edward I was also smart enough to have the first almost
modern Parliament formed and came down hard on over mighty subjects. Though his
acts in both Wales and Scotland were reprehensible He united Wales to England and
attempted to do the same with Scotland, though time was not on his side.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 00:17:53

In a message dated 11/12/05 12:37:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:

<< Hodgson's "A History of Northumberland in Three Parts", vol. 2, part 2, p.
315 shows five sons for Robert & Isabel (de Merlay) Somerville: Robert,
Roger, Adam, John & Philip. Additionally, there was Edmund (as posted by
Douglas) and apparently a daughter Joan. Hodgson presents Philip as the
youngest son. >>

Edmund, the eldest succeeded his father in 1297
If we allow the above-list to be in birth order, then we have to postulate
that
1) Robert died between 1320 (earliest death of his elder brother) and 1337
(when Roger died). Since Roger himself is called "8th Lord Somerville of
Whichnor".
2) Then I'm not sure if we know, but *if* Phillip succeeded next (he is
called "50 or more" in the 1337 I.P.M.) then John and Adam also have to have died
before 1337.

Does this all sound reasonable?
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 00:20:26

In a message dated 11/12/05 2:17:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< Richard I who honestly never intended to hang around long enough
for the politically minded to get their mitts on him, but gave a far better
account of himself in battle, physically and strategically, >>

Didn't he kill a bunch of Muslims in a fit of pique at not getting his ransom
quick enough? I'm just sayin ...
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: What is a lozenge was Tomb of Sir Walter Griffith (died

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 00:54:12

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

I cannot google for "lozenge" as I get a few billion hits :)
So maybe someone can explain what one ... is exactly?

On some shields I see a "little shield" in the middle of it. Is that a
lozenge?
And how exactly does one tell a shield from a lozenge?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Will

A good illustration of shields v lozenges used for the display of arms
may be found at the foot of Table 9 of Louda & Maclagan's work: the
maiden arms of the current Princess Royal, the late Princess of Wales,
and the Duchess of York are all shown on lozenges.

MAR

Gjest

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 00:55:21

Elizabeth II!

Dolly Ziegler

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 13 nov 2005 00:59:41

Elizabeth I

....second choice, Edgar

Dolly in Maryland

Leo

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Leo » 13 nov 2005 01:14:53

Wasn't Alfred so Great after all?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolly Ziegler" <dsz@bcpl.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Greatest English Monarch


Elizabeth I

...second choice, Edgar

Dolly in Maryland


Tony Hoskins

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 13 nov 2005 01:20:49

A pretty uninspiring lot, by and large. Still - my vote:

1) Edward I
2) Victoria
3) Elizabeth I
4) Henry VII
5) Edward III
6) Henry II



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: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 01:31:57

Dear Will,
I don`t know the subject of ransom ever came up at Acre in
1191. It`s always been my understanding that He and his men slaughtered them all
so They wouldn`t follow after his army and box them in. Richard was somewhat
paranoid where the Muslims, the French and the remaining German Crusaders were
concerned. Attending Peace talks with Salah ad Din in full armor, though
neither that Egypto-Syrian ruler nor King Philip II August of France did.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2005 04:17:04

Part of the problem, of course, is that the question does not define
"great". According to what criteria? Beloved by the people, or the
aristocracy, or his/her own relatives? A lover or a fighter? Altruistic
or flamboyant? A conquering hero or guilty of genocide? Harsh or mild?
Representative of the best Britain has to present to the rest of the
world...or descendant of whichever invader managed to kill the previous
invader? I always said that history was not for the
testosterone-poisoned. Every age and culture has its own idea of what
constitutes a "great" leader - not to mention whatever criteria were
used by historians to attach "The Great" to someone's name. Bronwen

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2005 01:51:35

Dear John, Peter, etc. ~

The History of Northumberland, vol. 13 (London, 1930), pg. 409 states
that the heir of Isabel de Merlay, widow of Robert de Somerville, was
her "older" son, Edmund de Somerville, who died c.1318. Edmund's heir
in turn was his brother, Roger de Somerville, citing Cal. Patent Rolls,
1317-1321, pg. 262. Roger de Somerville in turn "died in 1337, when
his heir was his brother, Philip, aged fifty," citing Chanc. inq. p.m.
Edward III. 51 (8) - Cal. inq. p.m., pt. 2, vol. i, p. 315."

Presuming this information is correctly stated, it means that the
correct birth order of the three Somerville sons is Edmund, Roger, and
Philip.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 nov 2005 01:55:08

Dear John, Peter, etc. ~

The History of Northumberland, vol. 13 (London, 1930), pg. 409 states
that the heir of Isabel de Merlay, widow of Robert de Somerville, was
her "older" son, Edmund de Somerville, who died c.1318. Edmund's heir
in turn was his brother, Roger de Somerville, citing Cal. Patent Rolls,
1317-1321, pg. 262. Roger de Somerville in turn "died in 1337, when
his heir was his brother, Philip, aged fifty," citing Chanc. inq. p.m.
Edward III. 52 (8) - Cal. inq. p.m., vol. viii. No. 140.

Presuming this information is correctly stated, it means that the
correct birth order of the three Somerville sons is Edmund, Roger, and
Philip.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

jeffchip9

Re: The Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 14 nov 2005 19:23:47

Douglas--
Thank you for your posts. It clears up many questions.
Jeff Chipman

Leo

To be or Not to be ; was Re: Greatest English Monarch

Legg inn av Leo » 15 nov 2005 08:33:02

Dear James,

You touch on difficult subjects----do you have to commit sodomy before you
can be regarded a homosexual? Can a person be homosexual even without ever
having sex? Can a person be heterosexual without ever having sex?

I have just finished reading a book by Lucy Moore, "Amphibious Thing, the
Life of Lord Hervey". This book tells how he fell in love with and then
married his wife. After that he met Stephen Fox (later 1st Earl of
Ilchester) and had a relationship with him. In the end the English (to quote
the book) resented him, not for having sex with another man but because of
him having fallen in love with him. To make the story messier Stephen Fox
after several years married himself (ending his relationshop with Lord
Hervey) and being very happy with his wife and fathering at least seven
children. How would you classify these two? It is not known whether they
committed sodomy.

I once asked someone "what makes a homosexual?" The answer was, not having
sex with another man, but falling in love with another man makes someone
homosexual. In which case James VI-I should be regarded a homosexual, I
really think that sodomy does not come in to it.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Greatest English Monarch


Dear Fellow Listers,
I just thought of two more of England`s
greatest Kings not yet mentioned by anyone James VI and I should be among
them
because though not especially prepossessing or popular He was the first
to rule
over the entire British Isles in recorded history. something which He did
for 22
years. It is doubtful that He was an active homosexual as that would have
been sodomy, something highly offensive to God. In the Bibical
translations from
Latin and Greek into English which He himself oversaw, there was no
loophole
making sodomy acceptable behavior just as it was slanted to support his
dissertation on the divine right of the King to rule over his subjects and
for sinful
and ungodly Kings to be dispossessed. He also came up with some
interesting
ideas to raise money, including that nonpeerage title of Baronet. James I
liked
the Anglican church better that the Presbyterianism of Scotland which He
grew
up under. The second King is James I`s grandson Charles II who was perhaps
one of the most subtle politicians of his day. Forgiving and even even
rewarding
the enemies of his father and at least in public adhering to Anglicanism.
He
was handsome for a Stuart, athletic and charming. In private He attended
Catholic rites.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


Gjest

Re: Annabel was she or wasn't she?

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2005 22:33:01

In a message dated 11/14/05 9:25:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< The Complete Peerage Volume VI page 677 Footnote F is non-committal.
The identity of his(Alexander, 3rd Earl of Huntly) mother is very doubtful.
He sat in Parliament in 1485, and was one of the Lords of the Articles, which
points to his having been son of the Princess Annabel, but in a charter of 21
February 1504/5 Elizabeth, Countess of Huntly, is called his mother, and,
further, the divorce of Annabel, and the banns of Elizabeth Hay, were recorded 4
July 1492 at his request in the Consistorial Court of Aberdeen (Scots Peerage
iv 531).

I don't grasp the meaning of the above. Could Elizabeth Hay as a remark of
endearment have called him her son? Alexander having recorded the divorce and
the banns, what does that say?
To me it seems not to have any bearing on who his mother was. >>


They are implying that if a person would be that interested in directing the
recording of his father's second wife's divorce and his third wife's banns,
then perhaps that implies that this third wife was his mother. Therefore he was
"legitimizing" himself by doing this.
Will Johnson

Leo

Re: Annabel was she or wasn't she?

Legg inn av Leo » 15 nov 2005 22:52:02

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Annabel was she or wasn't she?


In a message dated 11/14/05 9:25:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

The Complete Peerage Volume VI page 677 Footnote F is non-committal.
The identity of his(Alexander, 3rd Earl of Huntly) mother is very
doubtful.
He sat in Parliament in 1485, and was one of the Lords of the Articles,
which
points to his having been son of the Princess Annabel, but in a charter of
21
February 1504/5 Elizabeth, Countess of Huntly, is called his mother, and,
further, the divorce of Annabel, and the banns of Elizabeth Hay, were
recorded 4
July 1492 at his request in the Consistorial Court of Aberdeen (Scots
Peerage
iv 531).

I don't grasp the meaning of the above. Could Elizabeth Hay as a remark of
endearment have called him her son? Alexander having recorded the divorce
and
the banns, what does that say?
To me it seems not to have any bearing on who his mother was.


They are implying that if a person would be that interested in directing
the
recording of his father's second wife's divorce and his third wife's
banns,
then perhaps that implies that this third wife was his mother. Therefore
he was
"legitimizing" himself by doing this.
Will Johnson

Implying to legitimize himself? Why? Implying the third wife was his mother?

Why?
Two facts are established, the divorce of marriage two and the banns of
marriage three.
Do you think he was born by wife three while his father was still married to
wife two?
Leo

Douglas Richardson

Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the Lio

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 nov 2005 01:21:13

Dear Newsgroup ~

Please find below a slightly different Merlay-Somerville-Griffith
descent than one I posted previously. In this arrangement, I've set
forth a new line of descent from King William the Lion of Scotland
through an intermarrage of the Roos and Merlay families.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the numerous 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Isabel de Roos, wife of Sir Roger de
Merlay, of Morpeth, Northumberland [Generation 4 below]:

1. Via Joan de Somerville, wife of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt.

William Bladen, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Farrer,
Muriel Gurdon, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Thomas Owsley, Richard
Saltonstall, Mary Johanna Somerset.

2. Via Joan Griffith, wife of Richard Vernon, Knt.:

Robert Abell, Thomas Booth, Obadiah Bruen, Henry Corbin, Henry, Jane &
Nicholas Lowe.

3. Via Rhys Griffith, Esq., of Stickford, Lincolnshire:

William Asfordby, Joseph Bolles, Diana & Grey Skipwith.

4. Via Margaret Griffith, wife of Robert Willoughby, Knt.

Charles Calvert, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Mary Johanna Somerset.

For the links between the various immigrants and the
Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent presented below, see Douglas
Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
SCOTLAND-ROOS-MERLAY-SOMERVILLE-GRIFFITH LINE

1. WILLIAM THE LION, King of Scotland, died 1214. By a mistress,
_____, daughter of Richard Avenel, he had one illegitimate daughter,
Isabel.

2. ISABEL OF SCOTLAND, illegitimate daughter. She married (1st) Robert
de Brus. She married (2nd) at Haddington, East Lothian, Scotland early
in 1191 ROBERT DE ROOS (or ROS), of Helmsley and Hunsingore, Yorkshire,
and Wark, Northumberland, Sheriff of Cumberland, son of Everard de
Roos, Baron of Helmsley, by Roese, daughter of William Trussebut, of
Warter, Yorkshire, Baron of Hunsingore, Yorkshire, born about 1170-2
(aged 13 in 1185, had livery of his lands in 1191). They had four
sons, William, Knt., Robert, Peter, and Alexander. He succeeded to his
father's lands in 1191, paying a relief of 1,000 marks. In 1195 he
served as Bailiff and Castellan of Bonneville-sur-Touques in Lower
Normandy. In 1196 King Richard I handed a French prisoner, Hugh de
Chaumont, over to Robert's keeping. Robert imprisoned him in his
castle at Bonneville. Robert's servant, William d'Epinay, the
keeper of the castle, was afterwards bribed into conniving at Hugh's
escape. King Richard, angry at the loss of such important a prisoner,
ordered d'Epinay to be hanged, and fined Robert 1,200 marks. In 1200
Robert escorted his wife's father, King William the Lion, to do
homage to King John at Lincoln. The same year he received from King
John a grant of all the honours and lands which had belonged to Walter
Espec in Northumberland, including Wark, where Robert built a castle.
In 1203 he was again at Bonneville-sur-Touques, and appears to have
been in John's service in Normandy during the later months of that
year. In February 1205/6 he proposed to make a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. On 25 May 1205 he had livery of his share of the manor of
Braunston, Northamptonshire, formerly belonging to his grandmother,
Aubrey de Harcourt. In 1207 he seems to have let another prisoner, a
certain Thomas de Bekering, escape, for which offence he was acquitted
of a fine of 300 marks in Dec. 1207. In 1209 he was sent by the king
with others to meet the king of Scotland. In 1213 the king committed
to him the forest and county of Cumberland. In 1213 he was one of the
witnesses to John's surrender of the kingdom to the pope, and was one
of twelve men who undertook to compel John to keep his promises made in
favor of the English church. He joined the confederacy of the barons
at Stamford in Easter week, 1215. He was one of the twenty-five barons
elected to guarantee the observance of Magna Carta, signed by King John
15 June 1215. In consequence he was among the barons excommunicated by
Pope Innocent III 16 Dec. 1215. In Jan. 1216 the king granted his
lands to William, Count of Aumale. He was summoned to deliver up
Carlisle Castle, but it led to nothing. He returned to his allegiance
in November 1217, and his Cumberland estates were confirmed to him in
1218. His other lands were restored in 1220. In 1221 he was summoned
to help in besieging and destroying Skipsea Castle. He was a
benefactor of Rievaulx, Newminster, Kirkham, and the Templars. He
founded a hospital for lepers at Bolton, Northumberland. He took the
monastic habit before 23 Dec. 1226, when his son did homage for his
lands. ROBERT DE ROS died sometime in 1227, and was buried in the
Temple Church at London.

3. ROBERT DE ROOS, Knt., of Wark, Northumberland and Samquhar in
Nithsdale, Scotland, younger son. He married an unidentified wife,
_____. They had two sons, William and Robert, and two daughters,
Isabel and Ida (wife of Roger Bertram, Robert de Neville, Knt., and
John Fitz Marmaduke, Knt.). He fought in France in 1230, was Justice
of the King's Bench in 1234 and went on circuit in Lincolnshire,
Yorkshire, and Northumberland. He was Chief Justice of the Forests of
Nottinghamshire, Derby, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, and
Cumberland on 27 Nov. 1236. He had a grant for free-warren in Wark,
Carham, Presson, Mindrum, Downham, Moneylands and Learmouth,
Northumberland, 28 Dec. 1251. He lent his Castle of Wark to the King
from 28 August 1255 till 12 May 1256. In 1255, with John de Balliol,
he was appointed Guardian of Margaret, Queen of Scotland, but was
accused of unfaithfulness in that trust. He was summoned to appear at
the English Court, and eventually submitted, whereupon his lands were
seised by the King. On subsequent investigation, he was found to be
not guilty, and Wark Castle was restored to him and his older brother,
William, 7 Nov. 1259. In 1266 he conveyed the reversion of the manor
of Wark, Northumberland to his younger son, Robertd de Roos. SIR
ROBERT DE ROOS was living in 1267, but died shortly before Nov. 1269.

4. ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE MERLAY,
Knt., of Morpeth, Benton, Killingworth, North Weetslade, South
Weetslade, and Walker, Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, etc.,
2nd but eldest surviving son and heir of Roger de Merley, of Morpeth,
Northumberland, by his 1st wife, Ada, daughter of Duncan, Earl of Fife.
He was of age in 1239. They had four daughters, Mary (wife of Thomas
de Greystoke), Margery (wife of Walter de Bolebec), Alice (wife of
Robert de Thweng), and Isabel. He founded a chantry in Stannington,
Northumberland for the maintenance of one chaplain to say divine
services at the altar of St. Mary for the souls of himself, his
ancestors and successors. In 1257 he was granted a weekly market and a
yearly fair to be held at the manor of Witton Underwood,
Northumberland. About 1257 he confirmed the gift which his cousin,
Hugh Gobion, Knt., made of all his lands in Yeddingham, Yorkshire to
the nuns of Yeddingham. SIR ROGER DE MERLAY died shortly before 4
December 1265. His widow, Isabel, married (2nd) before 1271 Adam de
Everingham, of Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

5. ISABEL DE MERLAY, daughter and co-heiress, born about 1257 (aged 8
in 1265). She was co-heiress in 1268 to her sister, Alice de Merlay,
wife of Robert de Thweng, by which her share of the Merlay estates
increased from a one-third to one-half share. Isabel married (1st)
before 1270 Robert de Eure. He was living in 1271, but died in or
before 1272. She married (2nd) before 7 May 1275 ROBERT DE SOMERVILLE,
Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas, Curborough House (in
Streethay), and Tunstall, Staffordshire, and, in right of his wife, of
Great Benton, Witton Underwood, Horsley, Stanton, and Wingates,
Northumberland, and Knaptoft, Leicestershire, benefactor of Repingdon
and Worksop Priories, son and heir of John de Somerville, Knt., of
Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Curborough House (in Streethay), Tunstall,
Staffordshire, etc. They had six sons, Edmund (clerk), Robert, Roger,
Knt., Adam, Philip, Knt., and John, and two daughters, Joan (wife of
Ralph Cromwell, Knt.) and Isabel. In 1294 he acquired the other half
share of the manor of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire by an exchange with his
wife's nephew, John de Greystoke. He was summoned to serve against
the Welsh in 1277 and 1282 and against the Scots in 1296. In 1290 he
was granted a weekly market and yearly fair in Witton Underwood,
Northumberland, together with free warren in Windegates, Horsley, and
Sheles, Northumberland. SIR ROBERT DE SOMERVILLE died shortly before
17 October 1297. His widow, Isabel, died shortly before Thursday
before Christmas 1300.

Children of Isabel de Merlay, by Robert de Somerville, Knt.:

i. PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE, Knt. [see next].

ii. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE, married RALPH DE CROMWELL, Knt. [see
CROMWELL]. Joan and Ralph are the great-grandparents of Sir Ralph de
Cromwell (died 1398), 1st Lord Cromwell.

6. PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas,
Newbold, Tunstall, etc., Staffordshire, Witton Underwood,
Northumberland, etc., Knight of the Shire for Staffordshire, Sheriff of
Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, younger son, born about 1287 (aged 50
in 1337). He married before 1308 MARGARET DE PIPE, daughter of Thomas
de Pipe, Knt. They had two daughters, Joan and Elizabeth (wife of John
de Stafford). In 1300 his older brother, Edmund de Somerville,
assigned him various lands which had been held in dower by their
mother, Isabel. In 1308 and again in 1312 the Sheriff of Staffordshire
was ordered to distrain Philip and his wife, Margaret, and to produce
them in Court to complete a fine levied at York between William de
Jarpenville, plaintiff, and the said Philip and Margaret, deforciants
of two messuages and lands in Draycott-under-Nedewode, Staffordshire,
as agreed between them. In 1316 Reginald de Leghton and Alice his wife
and others sued him for a messuage and 45 acres of land in Tunstall,
Staffordshire; Philip prayed a view, and the suit was adjourned to the
morrow of St. John the Baptist. In 1317 he sued Edmund de Somerville
in a plea that he should warrant to him a messuage and 45 acres of land
in Tunstall, Staffordshire, which Reginald de Leghton and Alice his
wife, and others claimed. In 1318 Alice widow of William de
Jarpenville recovered a third of two parts of the manor of Draycott,
Staffordshire as dower against him. The same year Reginald de Leghton
and Alice his wife and others sued him for a messuage and 45 acres of
land in Tunstall, Staffordshire; Philip called to warranty Edmund de
Somerville who appeared and warranted the tenements to him. In 1323 he
sued Walter de Montgomery and Joan his wife, Vincent de Gresley, and
others for coming vi et armis to Alrewas, Staffordshire, and forcibly
removing cattle which he had lawfully impounded there, and for beating
and illtreating his servants. In 1324-5 he and Philip de Luttele were
appointed commissioners to establish uniform measures of wine, beer,
and wheat in Staffordshire. His wife, Margaret, was living in 1325.
He was heir in 1337 to his younger brother, Roger de Somerville, Knt.,
of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire. He may be regarded as the second founder
of Balliol College at Oxford University, to which institution he added
new scholars to the number of fellows as well as one chaplain. SIR
PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE died 23 (or 29) January 1355, and was buried at
Burton Agnes, Yorkshire.

Children of Philip de Somerville, Knt., by Margaret de Pipe:

i. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE [see next].

ii. ELIZABETH DE SOMERVILLE, married before 1342 JOHN DE STAFFORD.
They had one daughter, Maud (wife of Edmund de Vernon and Richard de
Stafford, K.B., Lord Stafford). Elizabeth died before her father's
death in 1355. No living descendants.

7. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE, daughter and co-heiress. She married about 12
February 1325 (date of settlement) RHYS AP GRIFFITH, Knt., of
Llansadwrn in Cantrefmawr and Dryslwyn, Carmarthen and Narberth castles
in Wales, and, in right of his wife, of Wichnor (in Tatenhill),
Alrewas, etc., Staffordshire, Bellasis, Long Benton, Stannington, and
Witton-Underwood, etc., Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire,
steward of Cardigan, forester of Glyncothi and Pennant, deputy to the
royal justice of South Wales, sheriff of Carmarthen, steward of
Cantrefmawr, son and heir of Gruffydd ap Hywel ap Gruffydd ab Ednyfed
Fychan, of Llansadwrn, by Nest, daughter of Gwrwared ap Gwilym of
Cemais. He was an adult by 1309. They had two sons, Rhys, Knt., and
Henry, Knt. He was an active organizer of native levies in south-west
Wales and served in the Scottish expeditions and the French campaign.
In 1327 he disobeyed the king's summons to resists the Scots under
Robert Bruce. In 1330 he was involved in the abortive insurrection of
the Earl of Kent. He escaped overseas but was sub subsequently
recalled. He was present at the battle of Crecy. SIR RHYS AP GRIFFITH
died at Carmarthen, Wales 10 May 1356, and was buried at Carmarthen
Priory. In 1371 his widow, Joan, and her son, Rhys, gave seisin of
their wood in Witton Underwood, Northumberland to William Heron, Knt.
Joan died at Stockton, Warwickshire 8 October 1376.

Children of Joan de Somerville, by Rhys ap Griffith, Knt.:

i. RHYS AP GRIFFITH, Knt. [see next].

ii. HENRY AP GRIFFITH, Knt., of Bellasis, Long Benton, North
Horsley, Stannington, Tranwell, Wingates, and Witton, Northumberland,
2nd son. He married before 13 April 1371 JOAN _____. They had two
daughters, Joan (contracted to marry Robert Raymes) and Margaret (wife
of William de Carnaby, Knt.). SIR HENRY AP GRIFFITH died 15 May 1372.
No living descendants.

8. RHYS [AP RHYS] AP GRIFFITH, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill),
Alrewas, Draycott, Newbold, and Tunstall, Staffordshire, Orreby,
Lincolnshire, Bellasis, Long Benton, Stannington, Wingates, and
Witton-Underwood, etc., Northumberland, Stockton, Warwickshire, Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir, born about 25 December 1325. He
married (1st) before 1370 ISABEL DE STACKPOLE, daughter and heiress of
Richard de Stackpole, of Stackpole, Angle and Lony (descendant of
Charlemagne). They had one daughter, Joan. He married (2nd) before
1376 MARGARET LA ZOUCHE, daughter of _____ la Zouche. They had two
sons, Thomas, Esq., and Rhys. In 1371 he granted all of his
Northumbrian lands to his brother, Henry ap Griffith. SIR RHYS AP
GRIFFITH died 26 May 1380, and was buried in Polesworth Abbey,
Warwickshire. On 30 May 1380 William le Latimer, Lord Latimer, was
granted the keeping of the manor of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, late of
Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., to hold until the lawful age of the heir. On
the same date Richard de Ravenser was granted the similar keeping of
the manor of Orreby, Lincolnshire. On 8 June 1380 John Holand, Knt.,
the king's brother, was granted the keeping of all of the lands late
of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., until the lawful age of the heir. Rhys'
widow, Margaret, married (2nd) after 6 November 1385 William Walsall
(died 1414), of Rushall, Staffordshire, Knight of the Shire for
Staffordshire, Escheator of Shropshire, Staffordshire, and the Welsh
Marsh, Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, 1377, Sheriff of
Staffordshire, 1381-1383, 1389-1390, 1396-1399, 1406-1407, Constable of
Stafford, Carmarthen and Dynevor castles, Marshal of the Hall to King
Richard II, 1395-1399. They had one daughter, Katherine (wife of
William Grobbere). For most of his adult life, William was actively
employed as an officer of the Crown in the north Midlands, Shropshire
and Wales, where his usefulness was recognized and rewarded. In 1388
he and Margaret bound themselves in recognizances of 205 marks to John,
Lord Neville, joining three years later with Sir Nicholas Stafford to
make a similar undertaking in the sum of 1,000 marks. In 1413 William
and Margaret sued John de Waldegrave and John Depyng, clerk, executors
of the will of Warine Waldegrave for a debt of 40 marks. In 1416 his
widow, Margaret, sued Richard Myners, Esq., of Blakenhale for treading
down and consuming her corn and grass with his cattle to the value of
100s. at Blakenhale. In 1416 Thomas Gyfhard sued her for a debt of 4
marks. She failed to appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach
her. In 1419 she sued Nicholas Hubert, yeoman, of Alrewas,
Staffordshire, for breaking into her close at Wichnor, and cutting down
her trees to the value of 100s. In 1425 she sued Robert Ryall, souter,
of Barton under Nedewode for entering her free warren at Wichnor and
taking hares, rabbits, and pheasants. In 1428 she sued Robert Rialle,
corveser, of Barton under Nedewode and others for entering her free
warren at Tunstall and Tatenhill, and cutting down her trees and
underwood, and chasing and taking hares and rabbits, pheasants, and
partridges. In 1430 she sued Roger Chare, butcher, of Barton under
Nedewode and another for breaking into her close and houses at Wichnor.
The same term she sued William Chambre, of Fald, for taking by force
her native, Robert Baker, from Tunstall, and goods and chattels worth
100s., and for entering her free warren at Tunstall, and taking hares
and rabbits, pheasants and partridges. She died testate shortly before
Trinity term 1430, when her executor, William la Zouche, Knt., sued
William de Whichenore, yeoman, to render a reasonable account for the
time he was receiver of the money of Margaret.

Child of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., by Isabel de Stackpole:

i. JOAN GRIFFITH, married RICHARD VERNON, Knt., of Haddon,
Derbyshire [see VERNON].

Children of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., by Margaret Zouche:

i. THOMAS GRIFFITH, Esq. [see next].

ii. RHYS GRIFFITH, living 1411.

10. THOMAS GRIFFITH (also known as THOMAS AP RHYS, THOMAS AP GRIFFITH),
Esq., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas, etc., Staffordshire, Witton
Underwood, Northumberland, etc., son and heir, born 19 (or 24) May 1377
(aged 5 in 1382, 19 in 1396). He was heir sometime after 1386 to his
first cousin once removed, Maud de Stafford, wife successively of
Edmund de Vernon and Richard de Stafford, K.B., Lord Stafford, by which
he inherited a 1/4th share of Bellasis, Long Benton, and Stannington,
Northumberland. He was also heir in 1387 to his 1st cousin, Margaret,
wife of William de Carnaby, Knt. (daughter of his uncle, Henry ap
Griffith, Knt.), by which he inherited another 1/4th share in Bellasis,
Long Benton, and Stannington, Northumberland. Thomas married ANNE
BLOUNT, daughter of Walter Blount, Knt., of Barton Blount, Derbyshire,
by Sanche de Ayala, daughter of Diego Gomez de Toledo, Alcalde maior de
Toledo. They had one son, John, Knt. In 1401 he granted the marriage
of Robert Corbet, a minor, to his grandfather, John Corbet. In 1405
Thomas sold all of his Northumbrian property, including the manor of
Witton Underwood, to Roger Thornton, of Newcastle. In 1414 he was
fined £15 for giving liveries against the Statute to Thomas Stokes,
Gent., of Stotfold, and two others. The same year he and many others
were distrained by the Sheriff of Staffordshire for failure to appear
in court to answer for diverse transgressions, extortions, and
contempts. In Trinity term 1431 he sued John Gunstone, yeoman, William
Jones, yeoman, and others in a plea that each of them should render a
reasonable account for the time they were the receiver of his money.
THOMAS GRIFFITH, Esq., died intestate 28 Feb. 1432/3, and was buried in
the chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Alrewas, Staffordshire. In
Trinity term 1435 John Griffith, Knt., administrator of the goods and
chattels of Thomas Griffith, Esq., sued Richard Lowe, Gent., of Coven,
to render a reasonable account for the time he was bailiff of Thomas in
Stafford.

11. JOHN GRIFFITH, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Staffordshire, and
Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir. He married KATHERINE TYRWHIT
(or TYRWHITT), daughter of Robert Tyrwhit, Knt., of Kettleby,
Lincolnshire. They had two sons, Walter, Knt., and Rhys, and one
daughter, Margaret (wife of Robert Willoughby, Knt.). In 1440 he
unsuccessfully sued Roger Thornton for the manors of Sheles, Wingates,
and Witton, and a moiety of the manors of Bellasis, Killingworth, Long
Benton, Stannington, and Tranwell, Northumberland, all of which Roger
Thornton the elder bought from John's father, Thomas Griffith. His
wife, Katherine, died 1457. SIR JOHN GRIFFITH died 20 June 1471, and
was buried in the church of Tatenhill, Staffordshire.

Children of John Griffith, Knt., by Katherine Tyrwhit:

i. WALTER GRIFFITH, Knt., of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir.
He married (1st) 6 November 1435 JOAN (or JANE) NEVILLE. They had two
children, both of whom died in young adulthood. His wife, Joan, was
living in 1457. He married (2nd) about 1463 AGNES CONSTABLE, daughter
of Robert Constable, Knt., of Flamborough, Yorkshire. They had one
son, Walter, Knt., and one daughter, Agnes (wife of Gervase Clifton).
SIR WALTER GRIFFITH died 9 August 1481, and was buried in the church of
Burton Agnes, Yorkshire.

ii. RHYS GRIFFITH, Esq., of Stickford, Lincolnshire, died 1489. He
married _____. They had one daughter, Joan (wife of Lionel Dymoke,
Knt., of Mareham-on-the-Hill, Lincolnshire) [see DYMOKE].

iii. MARGARET GRIFFITH, married ROBERT WILLOUGHBY, Knt., of Wollaton,
Nottinghamshire [see WILLOUGHBY].

Douglas Richardson

New Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from William the Lion

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 nov 2005 01:37:52

Dear Newsgroup ~

Please find below a slightly different Merlay-Somerville-Griffith
descent than one I posted previously. In this new arrangement, I've
set forth a line of descent from King William the Lion of Scotland
through an intermarrage of the Roos and Merlay families.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the numerous 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Isabel de Roos, wife of Sir Roger de
Merlay, of Morpeth, Northumberland [Generation 4 below]:

1. Via Joan de Somerville, wife of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt.

William Bladen, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Farrer,
Muriel Gurdon, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Thomas Owsley, Richard
Saltonstall, Mary Johanna Somerset.

2. Via Joan Griffith, wife of Richard Vernon, Knt.:

Robert Abell, Thomas Booth, Obadiah Bruen, Henry Corbin, Henry, Jane &
Nicholas Lowe.

3. Via Rhys Griffith, Esq., of Stickford, Lincolnshire:

William Asfordby, Joseph Bolles, Diana & Grey Skipwith.

4. Via Margaret Griffith, wife of Robert Willoughby, Knt.

Charles Calvert, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Mary Johanna Somerset.

For the links between the various immigrants and the
Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent presented below, please see Douglas
Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
SCOTLAND-ROOS-MERLAY-SOMERVILLE-GRIFFITH LINE

1. WILLIAM THE LION, King of Scotland, died 1214. By a mistress,
_____, daughter of Richard Avenel, he had one illegitimate daughter,
Isabel.

2. ISABEL OF SCOTLAND, illegitimate daughter. She married (1st) Robert
de Brus. She married (2nd) at Haddington, East Lothian, Scotland early
in 1191 ROBERT DE ROOS (or ROS), of Helmsley and Hunsingore, Yorkshire,
and Wark, Northumberland, Sheriff of Cumberland, son of Everard de
Roos, Baron of Helmsley, by Roese, daughter of William Trussebut, of
Warter, Yorkshire, Baron of Hunsingore, Yorkshire, born about 1170-2
(aged 13 in 1185, had livery of his lands in 1191). They had four
sons, William, Knt., Robert, Peter, and Alexander. He succeeded to his
father's lands in 1191, paying a relief of 1,000 marks. In 1195 he
served as Bailiff and Castellan of Bonneville-sur-Touques in Lower
Normandy. In 1196 King Richard I handed a French prisoner, Hugh de
Chaumont, over to Robert's keeping. Robert imprisoned him in his
castle at Bonneville. Robert's servant, William d'Epinay, the
keeper of the castle, was afterwards bribed into conniving at Hugh's
escape. King Richard, angry at the loss of such important a prisoner,
ordered d'Epinay to be hanged, and fined Robert 1,200 marks. In 1200
Robert escorted his wife's father, King William the Lion, to do
homage to King John at Lincoln. The same year he received from King
John a grant of all the honours and lands which had belonged to Walter
Espec in Northumberland, including Wark, where Robert built a castle.
In 1203 he was again at Bonneville-sur-Touques, and appears to have
been in John's service in Normandy during the later months of that
year. In February 1205/6 he proposed to make a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. In 1207 he seems to have let another prisoner, a certain
Thomas de Bekering, escape, for which offence he was acquitted of a
fine of 300 marks in Dec. 1207. In 1209 he was sent by the king with
others to meet the king of Scotland. In 1213 the king committed to him
the forest and county of Cumberland. In 1213 he was one of the
witnesses to John's surrender of the kingdom to the pope, and was one
of twelve men who undertook to compel John to keep his promises made in
favor of the English church. He joined the confederacy of the barons
at Stamford in Easter week, 1215. He was one of the twenty-five barons
elected to guarantee the observance of Magna Carta, signed by King John
15 June 1215. In consequence he was among the barons excommunicated by
Pope Innocent III 16 Dec. 1215. In Jan. 1216 the king granted his
lands to William, Count of Aumale. He was summoned to deliver up
Carlisle Castle, but it led to nothing. He returned to his allegiance
in November 1217, and his Cumberland estates were confirmed to him in
1218. His other lands were restored in 1220. In 1221 he was summoned
to help in besieging and destroying Skipsea Castle. He was a
benefactor of Rievaulx, Newminster, Kirkham, and the Templars. He
founded a hospital for lepers at Bolton, Northumberland. He took the
monastic habit before 23 Dec. 1226, when his son did homage for his
lands. ROBERT DE ROS died sometime in 1227, and was buried in the
Temple Church at London.

3. ROBERT DE ROOS, Knt., of Wark, Northumberland and Samquhar in
Nithsdale, Scotland, younger son. He married an unidentified wife,
_____. They had two sons, William and Robert, and two daughters,
Isabel and Ida (wife of Roger Bertram, Robert de Neville, Knt., and
John Fitz Marmaduke, Knt.). He fought in France in 1230, was Justice
of the King's Bench in 1234 and went on circuit in Lincolnshire,
Yorkshire, and Northumberland. He was Chief Justice of the Forests of
Nottinghamshire, Derby, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, and
Cumberland on 27 Nov. 1236. He had a grant for free-warren in Wark,
Carham, Presson, Mindrum, Downham, Moneylands and Learmouth,
Northumberland, 28 Dec. 1251. He lent his Castle of Wark to the King
from 28 August 1255 till 12 May 1256. In 1255, with John de Balliol,
he was appointed Guardian of Margaret, Queen of Scotland, but was
accused of unfaithfulness in that trust. He was summoned to appear at
the English Court, and eventually submitted, whereupon his lands were
seised by the King. On subsequent investigation, he was found to be
not guilty, and Wark Castle was restored to him and his older brother,
William, 7 Nov. 1259. In 1266 he conveyed the reversion of the manor
of Wark, Northumberland to his younger son, Robertd de Roos. SIR
ROBERT DE ROOS was living in 1267, but died shortly before Nov. 1269.

4. ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE MERLAY,
Knt., of Morpeth, Benton, Killingworth, North Weetslade, South
Weetslade, and Walker, Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, etc.,
2nd but eldest surviving son and heir of Roger de Merley, of Morpeth,
Northumberland, by his 1st wife, Ada, daughter of Duncan, Earl of Fife.
He was of age in 1239. They had four daughters, Mary (wife of Thomas
de Greystoke), Margery (wife of Walter de Bolebec), Alice (wife of
Robert de Thweng), and Isabel. He founded a chantry in Stannington,
Northumberland for the maintenance of one chaplain to say divine
services at the altar of St. Mary for the souls of himself, his
ancestors and successors. In 1257 he was granted a weekly market and a
yearly fair to be held at the manor of Witton Underwood,
Northumberland. About 1257 he confirmed the gift which his cousin,
Hugh Gobion, Knt., made of all his lands in Yeddingham, Yorkshire to
the nuns of Yeddingham. SIR ROGER DE MERLAY died shortly before 4
December 1265. His widow, Isabel, married (2nd) before 1271 Adam de
Everingham, of Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

5. ISABEL DE MERLAY, daughter and co-heiress, born about 1257 (aged 8
in 1265). She was co-heiress in 1268 to her sister, Alice de Merlay,
wife of Robert de Thweng, by which her share of the Merlay estates
increased from a one-third to one-half share. Isabel married (1st)
before 1270 Robert de Eure. He was living in 1271, but died in or
before 1272. She married (2nd) before 7 May 1275 ROBERT DE SOMERVILLE,
Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas, Curborough House (in
Streethay), and Tunstall, Staffordshire, and, in right of his wife, of
Great Benton, Witton Underwood, Horsley, Stanton, and Wingates,
Northumberland, and Knaptoft, Leicestershire, benefactor of Repingdon
and Worksop Priories, son and heir of John de Somerville, Knt., of
Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Curborough House (in Streethay), Tunstall,
Staffordshire, etc. They had six sons, Edmund (clerk), Robert, Roger,
Knt., Adam, Philip, Knt., and John, and two daughters, Joan (wife of
Ralph Cromwell, Knt.) and Isabel. In 1294 he acquired the other half
share of the manor of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire by an exchange with his
wife's nephew, John de Greystoke. He was summoned to serve against
the Welsh in 1277 and 1282 and against the Scots in 1296. In 1290 he
was granted a weekly market and yearly fair in Witton Underwood,
Northumberland, together with free warren in Windegates, Horsley, and
Sheles, Northumberland. SIR ROBERT DE SOMERVILLE died shortly before
17 October 1297. His widow, Isabel, died shortly before Thursday
before Christmas 1300.

Children of Isabel de Merlay, by Robert de Somerville, Knt.:

i. PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE, Knt. [see next].

ii. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE, married RALPH DE CROMWELL, Knt. [see
CROMWELL]. Joan and Ralph are the great-grandparents of Sir Ralph de
Cromwell (died 1398), 1st Lord Cromwell.

6. PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas,
Newbold, Tunstall, etc., Staffordshire, Witton Underwood,
Northumberland, etc., Knight of the Shire for Staffordshire, Sheriff of
Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, younger son, born about 1287 (aged 50
in 1337). He married before 1308 MARGARET DE PIPE, daughter of Thomas
de Pipe, Knt. They had two daughters, Joan and Elizabeth (wife of John
de Stafford). In 1300 his older brother, Edmund de Somerville,
assigned him various lands which had been held in dower by their
mother, Isabel. In 1308 and again in 1312 the Sheriff of Staffordshire
was ordered to distrain Philip and his wife, Margaret, and to produce
them in Court to complete a fine levied at York between William de
Jarpenville, plaintiff, and the said Philip and Margaret, deforciants
of two messuages and lands in Draycott-under-Nedewode, Staffordshire,
as agreed between them. In 1316 Reginald de Leghton and Alice his wife
and others sued him for a messuage and 45 acres of land in Tunstall,
Staffordshire; Philip prayed a view, and the suit was adjourned to the
morrow of St. John the Baptist. In 1317 he sued Edmund de Somerville
in a plea that he should warrant to him a messuage and 45 acres of land
in Tunstall, Staffordshire, which Reginald de Leghton and Alice his
wife, and others claimed. In 1318 Alice widow of William de
Jarpenville recovered a third of two parts of the manor of Draycott,
Staffordshire as dower against him. The same year Reginald de Leghton
and Alice his wife and others sued him for a messuage and 45 acres of
land in Tunstall, Staffordshire; Philip called to warranty Edmund de
Somerville who appeared and warranted the tenements to him. In 1323 he
sued Walter de Montgomery and Joan his wife, Vincent de Gresley, and
others for coming vi et armis to Alrewas, Staffordshire, and forcibly
removing cattle which he had lawfully impounded there, and for beating
and illtreating his servants. In 1324-5 he and Philip de Luttele were
appointed commissioners to establish uniform measures of wine, beer,
and wheat in Staffordshire. His wife, Margaret, was living in 1325.
He was heir in 1337 to his younger brother, Roger de Somerville, Knt.,
of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire. He may be regarded as the second founder
of Balliol College at Oxford University, to which institution he added
new scholars to the number of fellows as well as one chaplain. SIR
PHILIP DE SOMERVILLE died 23 (or 29) January 1355, and was buried at
Burton Agnes, Yorkshire.

7. JOAN DE SOMERVILLE, daughter and co-heiress. She married about 12
February 1325 (date of settlement) RHYS AP GRIFFITH, Knt., of
Llansadwrn in Cantrefmawr and Dryslwyn, Carmarthen and Narberth castles
in Wales, and, in right of his wife, of Wichnor (in Tatenhill),
Alrewas, etc., Staffordshire, Bellasis, Long Benton, Stannington, and
Witton-Underwood, etc., Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire,
steward of Cardigan, forester of Glyncothi and Pennant, deputy to the
royal justice of South Wales, sheriff of Carmarthen, steward of
Cantrefmawr, son and heir of Gruffydd ap Hywel ap Gruffydd ab Ednyfed
Fychan, of Llansadwrn, by Nest, daughter of Gwrwared ap Gwilym of
Cemais. He was an adult by 1309. They had two sons, Rhys, Knt., and
Henry, Knt. He was an active organizer of native levies in south-west
Wales and served in the Scottish expeditions and the French campaign.
In 1327 he disobeyed the king's summons to resists the Scots under
Robert Bruce. In 1330 he was involved in the abortive insurrection of
the Earl of Kent. He escaped overseas but was sub subsequently
recalled. He was present at the battle of Crecy. SIR RHYS AP GRIFFITH
died at Carmarthen, Wales 10 May 1356, and was buried at Carmarthen
Priory. In 1371 his widow, Joan, and her son, Rhys, gave seisin of
their wood in Witton Underwood, Northumberland to William Heron, Knt.
Joan died at Stockton, Warwickshire 8 October 1376.

8. RHYS [AP RHYS] AP GRIFFITH, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill),
Alrewas, Draycott, Newbold, and Tunstall, Staffordshire, Orreby,
Lincolnshire, Bellasis, Long Benton, Stannington, Wingates, and
Witton-Underwood, etc., Northumberland, Stockton, Warwickshire, Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir, born about 25 December 1325. He
married (1st) before 1370 ISABEL DE STACKPOLE, daughter and heiress of
Richard de Stackpole, of Stackpole, Angle and Lony (descendant of
Charlemagne). They had one daughter, Joan. He married (2nd) before
1376 MARGARET LA ZOUCHE, daughter of _____ la Zouche. They had two
sons, Thomas, Esq., and Rhys. In 1371 he granted all of his
Northumbrian lands to his brother, Henry ap Griffith. SIR RHYS AP
GRIFFITH died 26 May 1380, and was buried in Polesworth Abbey,
Warwickshire. On 30 May 1380 William le Latimer, Lord Latimer, was
granted the keeping of the manor of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, late of
Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., to hold until the lawful age of the heir. On
the same date Richard de Ravenser was granted the similar keeping of
the manor of Orreby, Lincolnshire. On 8 June 1380 John Holand, Knt.,
the king's brother, was granted the keeping of all of the lands late
of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., until the lawful age of the heir. Rhys'
widow, Margaret, married (2nd) after 6 November 1385 William Walsall
(died 1414), of Rushall, Staffordshire, Knight of the Shire for
Staffordshire, Escheator of Shropshire, Staffordshire, and the Welsh
Marsh, Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, 1377, Sheriff of
Staffordshire, 1381-1383, 1389-1390, 1396-1399, 1406-1407, Constable of
Stafford, Carmarthen and Dynevor castles, Marshal of the Hall to King
Richard II, 1395-1399. They had one daughter, Katherine (wife of
William Grobbere). For most of his adult life, William was actively
employed as an officer of the Crown in the north Midlands, Shropshire
and Wales, where his usefulness was recognized and rewarded. In 1388
he and Margaret bound themselves in recognizances of 205 marks to John,
Lord Neville, joining three years later with Sir Nicholas Stafford to
make a similar undertaking in the sum of 1,000 marks. In 1413 William
and Margaret sued John de Waldegrave and John Depyng, clerk, executors
of the will of Warine Waldegrave for a debt of 40 marks. In 1416 his
widow, Margaret, sued Richard Myners, Esq., of Blakenhale for treading
down and consuming her corn and grass with his cattle to the value of
100s. at Blakenhale. In 1416 Thomas Gyfhard sued her for a debt of 4
marks. She failed to appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to attach
her. In 1419 she sued Nicholas Hubert, yeoman, of Alrewas,
Staffordshire, for breaking into her close at Wichnor, and cutting down
her trees to the value of 100s. In 1425 she sued Robert Ryall, souter,
of Barton under Nedewode for entering her free warren at Wichnor and
taking hares, rabbits, and pheasants. In 1428 she sued Robert Rialle,
corveser, of Barton under Nedewode and others for entering her free
warren at Tunstall and Tatenhill, and cutting down her trees and
underwood, and chasing and taking hares and rabbits, pheasants, and
partridges. In 1430 she sued Roger Chare, butcher, of Barton under
Nedewode and another for breaking into her close and houses at Wichnor.
The same term she sued William Chambre, of Fald, for taking by force
her native, Robert Baker, from Tunstall, and goods and chattels worth
100s., and for entering her free warren at Tunstall, and taking hares
and rabbits, pheasants and partridges. She died testate shortly before
Trinity term 1430, when her executor, William la Zouche, Knt., sued
William de Whichenore, yeoman, to render a reasonable account for the
time he was receiver of the money of Margaret.

Child of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., by Isabel de Stackpole:

i. JOAN GRIFFITH, married RICHARD VERNON, Knt., of Haddon,
Derbyshire [see VERNON].

Children of Rhys ap Griffith, Knt., by Margaret Zouche:

i. THOMAS GRIFFITH, Esq. [see next].

ii. RHYS GRIFFITH, living 1411.

9. THOMAS GRIFFITH (also known as THOMAS AP RHYS, THOMAS AP GRIFFITH),
Esq., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Alrewas, etc., Staffordshire, Witton
Underwood, Northumberland, etc., son and heir, born 19 (or 24) May 1377
(aged 5 in 1382, 19 in 1396). He was heir sometime after 1386 to his
first cousin once removed, Maud de Stafford, wife successively of
Edmund de Vernon and Richard de Stafford, K.B., Lord Stafford, by which
he inherited a 1/4th share of Bellasis, Long Benton, and Stannington,
Northumberland. He was also heir in 1387 to his 1st cousin, Margaret,
wife of William de Carnaby, Knt. (daughter of his uncle, Henry ap
Griffith, Knt.), by which he inherited another 1/4th share in Bellasis,
Long Benton, and Stannington, Northumberland. Thomas married ANNE
BLOUNT, daughter of Walter Blount, Knt., of Barton Blount, Derbyshire,
by Sanche de Ayala, daughter of Diego Gomez de Toledo, Alcalde maior de
Toledo. They had one son, John, Knt. In 1401 he granted the marriage
of Robert Corbet, a minor, to his grandfather, John Corbet. In 1405
Thomas sold all of his Northumbrian property, including the manor of
Witton Underwood, to Roger Thornton, of Newcastle. In 1414 he was
fined £15 for giving liveries against the Statute to Thomas Stokes,
Gent., of Stotfold, and two others. The same year he and many others
were distrained by the Sheriff of Staffordshire for failure to appear
in court to answer for diverse transgressions, extortions, and
contempts. In Trinity term 1431 he sued John Gunstone, yeoman, William
Jones, yeoman, and others in a plea that each of them should render a
reasonable account for the time they were the receiver of his money.
THOMAS GRIFFITH, Esq., died intestate 28 Feb. 1432/3, and was buried in
the chantry of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Alrewas, Staffordshire. In
Trinity term 1435 John Griffith, Knt., administrator of the goods and
chattels of Thomas Griffith, Esq., sued Richard Lowe, Gent., of Coven,
to render a reasonable account for the time he was bailiff of Thomas in
Stafford.

10. JOHN GRIFFITH, Knt., of Wichnor (in Tatenhill), Staffordshire, and
Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir. He married KATHERINE TYRWHIT
(or TYRWHITT), daughter of Robert Tyrwhit, Knt., of Kettleby,
Lincolnshire. They had two sons, Walter, Knt., and Rhys, and one
daughter, Margaret (wife of Robert Willoughby, Knt.). In 1440 he
unsuccessfully sued Roger Thornton for the manors of Sheles, Wingates,
and Witton, and a moiety of the manors of Bellasis, Killingworth, Long
Benton, Stannington, and Tranwell, Northumberland, all of which Roger
Thornton the elder bought from John's father, Thomas Griffith. His
wife, Katherine, died 1457. SIR JOHN GRIFFITH died 20 June 1471, and
was buried in the church of Tatenhill, Staffordshire.

Children of John Griffith, Knt., by Katherine Tyrwhit:

i. WALTER GRIFFITH, Knt., of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, son and heir.
He married (1st) 6 November 1435 JOAN (or JANE) NEVILLE. They had two
children, both of whom died in young adulthood. His wife, Joan, was
living in 1457. He married (2nd) about 1463 AGNES CONSTABLE, daughter
of Robert Constable, Knt., of Flamborough, Yorkshire. They had one
son, Walter, Knt., and one daughter, Agnes (wife of Gervase Clifton).
SIR WALTER GRIFFITH died 9 August 1481, and was buried in the church of
Burton Agnes, Yorkshire.

ii. RHYS GRIFFITH, Esq., of Stickford, Lincolnshire, died 1489. He
married _____. They had one daughter, Joan (wife of Lionel Dymoke,
Knt., of Mareham-on-the-Hill, Lincolnshire) [see DYMOKE].

iii. MARGARET GRIFFITH, married ROBERT WILLOUGHBY, Knt., of Wollaton,
Nottinghamshire [see WILLOUGHBY].

John P. Ravilious

Re: New Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from William the

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 17 nov 2005 18:34:00

Dear Doug,

Many thanks for that most interesting post.

The most interesting (and evidently new) link I see is at Gen. 4
below [ " ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE
MERLAY, Knt., of Morpeth, ..... " ]. This individual (who m. 2ndly Sir
Adam de Everingham) was previously only known as Isabel.

When you have a chance, if you could post a reference or other
details as to how, or where, this identification was made, that would
be most appreciated.

Pity that this does not add to the ancestry of the Everinghams
..........:<

Cheers,

John



Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Please find below a slightly different Merlay-Somerville-Griffith
descent than one I posted previously. In this new arrangement, I've
set forth a line of descent from King William the Lion of Scotland
through an intermarrage of the Roos and Merlay families.

For interest's sake, I've listed below the numerous 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Isabel de Roos, wife of Sir Roger de
Merlay, of Morpeth, Northumberland [Generation 4 below]:

1. Via Joan de Somerville, wife of Ralph de Cromwell, Knt.

William Bladen, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Farrer,
Muriel Gurdon, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Thomas Owsley, Richard
Saltonstall, Mary Johanna Somerset.


SNIP

Gjest

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2005 19:55:02

Dear Doug,

You state that:

ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE MERLAY,
Knt., of Morpeth, Benton, Killingworth, North Weetslade, South
Weetslade, and Walker, Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, etc.,
2nd but eldest surviving son and heir of Roger de Merley, of Morpeth,
Northumberland, by his 1st wife, Ada, daughter of Duncan, Earl of Fife.
He was of age in 1239. They had four daughters, Mary (wife of Thomas
de Greystoke), Margery (wife of Walter de Bolebec), Alice (wife of
Robert de Thweng), and Isabel. He founded a chantry in Stannington,
Northumberland for the maintenance of one chaplain to say divine
services at the altar of St. Mary for the souls of himself, his
ancestors and successors. In 1257 he was granted a weekly market and a
yearly fair to be held at the manor of Witton Underwood,
Northumberland. About 1257 he confirmed the gift which his cousin,
Hugh Gobion, Knt., made of all his lands in Yeddingham, Yorkshire to
the nuns of Yeddingham. SIR ROGER DE MERLAY died shortly before 4
December 1265. His widow, Isabel, married (2nd) before 1271 Adam de
Everingham, of Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

The cartulary of Newminster lists only one charter concerning Ada daughter of
Duncan, earl of Fife. In that charter she is named as the mother of the
eldest son Ranulf de Merlay. The list of Benefactors of the Abbey listed in the
abbey's calendar makes it appear that Roger de Merlay tertius [as he was known]
was the son of Roger de Merlay's second wife Margery. Ada was given in marriage
to Roger de Merlay circa 1188 when Duncan, earl of Fife was given the
wardship of Roger de Merlay tertius and Duncan paid a fine to marry him to his
daughter who is unnamed in the document.

I also along with John Ravilious would like to know your source for making
Isabella de Roos the wife of Roger de Merlay. I also have never seen the mention
of a fourth daughter Margery de Merlay the wife of of Walter de Bolbec in all
the inquistions and fines surrounding Roger de Merlay's death. Mary de Merlay
married William de Greystoke who died April 17, 1289. There are numerous
documents concerning this family and I will gladly post what I mentioned above.

Regards,
MichaelAnne

Douglas Richardson

C.P. Addition: Parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife of Roger de

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 nov 2005 21:12:31

Dear John ~

The evidence of the parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife successively of
Roger de Merley (III) and Adam de Everingham, comes from a forest plea
dated the Octaves of St. Hilary 1241, which plea reads as follows:

"To his worshipful lord Henry, by the grace of God king of England,
lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,
[his servant] Thomas of Straton, health and due reverence with
obedience. At another time we made known by letter to you .... that
Sir Robert de Ros had taken in your hand the pleas of herbage, hambling
of dogs and dead wood which belonge to the foresters, where you have no
demesne wood ....

Be it remembered that Sir Roger de Merlay who now is (and others) were
attached by precept of the king and of Sir B. de Lisle, justice of the
forest, for trespass of the forest: whom the foresters saw with bows
and arrows, contrary to the assize of the forest ...

Also there were seen, contrary to the assize of the forest, Richard de
St. Peter, Richard de Duddene (and others), men of Sir Roger de Merlay;
and they were attached for a hind taken at Ladelleie and carried away,
as was presented by the foresters. From all these the king did not
obtain his justice, save only 10 marks whereby Roger de Merlay made
fine secretly, as is said, for himself and for his men aforesaid; and
this by favour of marriage between the said Roger and the daughter of
Robert de Ros already mentioned." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from
the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle
upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:): 122-123].

The plea further mentions two other marriages which were arranged
between the children of Sir Roger Bertram and Sir Robert de Roos:

"Also Sir Roger Bertram's men did chase in Chivele in the king's forest
and take a hind and a fawn buck, after the eyre of the justics of the
forest ... They are still to be attached, and, if they were not
attached, they and three hounds of Sir Roger Bertram were taken by the
foresters and by several men of those parts ... Nor, by reason of such
conspiracy and such releases have the foresters been able to do their
office and the king's advantage; and this because the marriages were
pre-arranged, and have no been made, between the son and heir of Sir
Roger [Bertram] and a daughter of Sir Robert [de Ros] on the one part,
and on the other between the son and heir of Sir Robert [de Ros] and a
daughter of Sir Roger [Bertram]." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from
the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle
upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:)125].

The same Northumberland Pleas volume cited above also shows that
Isabel, widow of Roger de Merlay, was still a widow in 1266:

Date: 1266 - "Isabel who was the wife of Roger de Merlay, by her
attorney, demands v. Richard son of Nicholas the third part of 2 tofts
and 4 bovates of land with the appurtenances in Saltwyk, and v. Walter
of Wytton the third part of 20 acres of land with the appurtenances in
Sheles, and v. Thomas son of William the third part of a carucate of
land with the appurtenances in Stainton, and the third part of 40 acres
of land with appurtenances in Sheles, and v. Ralph Gybyon the third
part of 100 acres of land with the appurtenances in Scheles, as her
dower, etc. [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from the Curia Regis and
Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle upon Tyne Records
Committee 2) (1922:): 257].

The identification of the parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife of Roger de
Merlay and Adam de Everingham, is a new addition to Complete Peerage, 5
(1926): 185, footnote a (sub Everingham), which footnote reads as
follows:

"Adam [de Everingham] married 2ndly before May 1270, Isabel, widow of
Roger de Merley, of Morpeth, Northumberland (who d.s.p.m. shortly
before 4 Dec. 1265 - Ch. Inq. p.m., Henry III, file 33, no. 10). She
survived Adam, and her dower of his lands was ordered to be assigned, 9
Dec. 1280 (Fine Roll, 54 Henry III, m. 12: Close Rolls, 7 Edward I, m.
4; 9 Edward I, m. 10)."

The above should now read "Adam [de Everingham} married 2ndly after
1266 and before May 1270, Isabel, widow of Roger de Merlay, of Morpeth,
Northumberland (who d.s.p.m. shortly before 4 Dec. 1265 - Ch. Inq.
p.m., Henry III, file 33, no. 10), and daughter of Robert de Roos,
Knt., of Wark, Northumberland (Northumberland Pleas from the Curia
Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272, pub. 1922, pp.122-123, 257). She
survived Adam, and her dower of his lands was ordered to be assigned, 9
Dec. 1280 (Fine Roll, 54 Henry III, m. 12: Close Rolls, 7 Edward I, m.
4; 9 Edward I, m. 10)."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

John P. Ravilious wrote:
Dear Doug,

Many thanks for that most interesting post.

The most interesting (and evidently new) link I see is at Gen. 4
below [ " ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE
MERLAY, Knt., of Morpeth, ..... " ]. This individual (who m. 2ndly Sir
Adam de Everingham) was previously only known as Isabel.

When you have a chance, if you could post a reference or other
details as to how, or where, this identification was made, that would
be most appreciated.

Pity that this does not add to the ancestry of the Everinghams
.........:

Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2005 21:27:02

In a message dated 11/17/05 8:52:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< 1. WILLIAM THE LION, King of Scotland, died 1214. By a mistress,
_____, daughter of Richard Avenel, he had one illegitimate daughter,
Isabel. >>

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "William, King of Scotland", pg xxv
Says he died at Stirling, and calls his wife also Isabel

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2005 21:52:01

In a message dated 11/17/05 8:52:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< 4. ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE MERLAY,
Knt., of Morpeth, Benton, Killingworth, North Weetslade, South
Weetslade, and Walker, Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, etc.,
2nd but eldest surviving son and heir of Roger de Merley, of Morpeth,
Northumberland, by his 1st wife, Ada, daughter of Duncan, Earl of Fife.
He was of age in 1239. They had four daughters, Mary (wife of Thomas
de Greystoke), Margery (wife of Walter de Bolebec), Alice (wife of
Robert de Thweng), and Isabel. >>

A few days ago (GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 2005-11-01) was not this husband
named as "William de Greystoke" instead of Thomas ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2005 21:58:02

In a message dated 11/17/05 8:52:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< 5. ISABEL DE MERLAY, daughter and co-heiress, born about 1257 (aged 8
in 1265). She was co-heiress in 1268 to her sister, >>

On her age I quote
Date: 11/2/05 2:47:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: petersutton@ntlworld.com (Peter Sutton)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

To avoid any further confusion:

1. At an inquest held on the Tuesday after the Purification 52 HIII Isabel de
Merlay was stated to be aged 12 and one of the heirs of her sister Alice de
Merlay. As Isabel is called "de Merlay" presumably she was not married at this
date. Alice obviously died sometime before this date.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 nov 2005 22:16:56

ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

The cartulary of Newminster lists only one charter concerning Ada daughter of
Duncan, earl of Fife. In that charter she is named as the mother of the
eldest son Ranulf de Merlay. The list of Benefactors of the Abbey listed in the
abbey's calendar makes it appear that Roger de Merlay tertius [as he was known]
was the son of Roger de Merlay's second wife Margery.

Regards,
MichaelAnne

Dear MichaelAnne ~

The surviving records show that Margery de Umfreville, 2nd wife of
Roger de Merlay (II), died without issue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 nov 2005 22:45:50

Dear Will ~

The correct name of Mary de Merlay's husband is William de Greystoke.
William de Greystoke was the son of Thomas de Greystoke.

DR


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/17/05 8:52:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

4. ISABEL DE ROOS, married before Hilary Term 1241 ROGER DE MERLAY,
Knt., of Morpeth, Benton, Killingworth, North Weetslade, South
Weetslade, and Walker, Northumberland, Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, etc.,
2nd but eldest surviving son and heir of Roger de Merley, of Morpeth,
Northumberland, by his 1st wife, Ada, daughter of Duncan, Earl of Fife.
He was of age in 1239. They had four daughters, Mary (wife of Thomas
de Greystoke), Margery (wife of Walter de Bolebec), Alice (wife of
Robert de Thweng), and Isabel.

A few days ago (GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 2005-11-01) was not this husband
named as "William de Greystoke" instead of Thomas ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Francoise de La Marck

Legg inn av John Higgins » 17 nov 2005 23:03:02

Upon looking at this again, it appears that I may have misread Anselme
originally (or didn't watch his indenting closely). Apparently Guillaume,
seigneur d'Aigremont (d. 1516) had a bastard son Guillaume (also not shown
in ESNF 18:21) who is noted by Anselme as "écuyer d'Ecurie de Roi François I
en 1534, et laissa une fille", with the daughter of this Guillaume (and
granddaughter of the elder one) being the Françoise who married René de
Villequier.

This would probably make the chronology work somewhat better...sorry for the
confusion....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Francoise de La Marck


Dear John,

This is a bit surprising. If her father died in 1516 and she was murdered
in
1577, then she was at least 61 when murdered. I would have guessed that
she
was much younger. Her husband tolerated her behaviour for about 15 years.
How long would they have been married by then? Lets guess another 15
years,
then she was married about 30 years and if married about 20, that would
have
made her about 50 when murdered, not at least 61 and possibly/probably
more.

Francoise's daughter recorded in Cahiers de Saint Louis is not much of a
help. That daughter gave birth in 1602, some 25 years after the murder,
how
old was she?

Is there any more information to give dates to this family?
With many thanks.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Francoise de La Marck


Anselme 7:172 says Françoise was the illegitimate daughter of Guillaume
de
la Marck, seigneur d'Aigremont, who d. 20 May 1516. This Guillaume
appears
in ESNF 18:21, without this particular natural daughter but with a
different
one.

Hope this helps...and thanks for pointing out the connection to the
Prince
of Monaco - and relating an interesting story!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 1:01 PM
Subject: Francoise de La Marck


Cahiers de St.Louis page 1425 mentions Rene de Villequier, Baron de
Clairvaux and his wife Francoise batarde de La Marck as parents of
Charlotte
Catherine de Villequier who married Jacques d'Aumont. In the long run
they
are ancestors of the present Albert, Prince of Monaco.

I found a story about this couple, how Francoise de La Marck was a
serial
adultress and how her husband accepted this for some 15 years until, on
1
September 1577, he went into his wife's bedroom and stabbed her four or
five
times and then had one of his men finish her off. Then, having stabbed a
maidservant for good measure, he had his wife's body placed in a litter
which was paraded before the king and his nobles. Then he had his wife
buried. He apparently maintained that he would gladly have killed her
lovers
too, but since they formed a small army there might be difficulties.

King Henri III recorded the story in his journal but no action was
taken
against Rene de Villequier.

My question is, does anyone know who the father was of Francoise
batarde
de la Marck?

With thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia




Leo

Re: Francoise de La Marck

Legg inn av Leo » 18 nov 2005 00:04:01

Dear John,

This is a bit surprising. If her father died in 1516 and she was murdered in
1577, then she was at least 61 when murdered. I would have guessed that she
was much younger. Her husband tolerated her behaviour for about 15 years.
How long would they have been married by then? Lets guess another 15 years,
then she was married about 30 years and if married about 20, that would have
made her about 50 when murdered, not at least 61 and possibly/probably more.

Francoise's daughter recorded in Cahiers de Saint Louis is not much of a
help. That daughter gave birth in 1602, some 25 years after the murder, how
old was she?

Is there any more information to give dates to this family?
With many thanks.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Francoise de La Marck


Anselme 7:172 says Françoise was the illegitimate daughter of Guillaume de
la Marck, seigneur d'Aigremont, who d. 20 May 1516. This Guillaume
appears
in ESNF 18:21, without this particular natural daughter but with a
different
one.

Hope this helps...and thanks for pointing out the connection to the Prince
of Monaco - and relating an interesting story!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 1:01 PM
Subject: Francoise de La Marck


Cahiers de St.Louis page 1425 mentions Rene de Villequier, Baron de
Clairvaux and his wife Francoise batarde de La Marck as parents of
Charlotte
Catherine de Villequier who married Jacques d'Aumont. In the long run they
are ancestors of the present Albert, Prince of Monaco.

I found a story about this couple, how Francoise de La Marck was a serial
adultress and how her husband accepted this for some 15 years until, on 1
September 1577, he went into his wife's bedroom and stabbed her four or
five
times and then had one of his men finish her off. Then, having stabbed a
maidservant for good measure, he had his wife's body placed in a litter
which was paraded before the king and his nobles. Then he had his wife
buried. He apparently maintained that he would gladly have killed her
lovers
too, but since they formed a small army there might be difficulties.

King Henri III recorded the story in his journal but no action was taken
against Rene de Villequier.

My question is, does anyone know who the father was of Francoise batarde
de la Marck?

With thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



Gjest

Re: Valingford, Wallingford in Battle Abbey Roll, 2 versions

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2005 03:56:02

Dear Dolly,
I have a Thomas Walford among my ancestors.I wonder if it
may not be a later variant of the same name. He arrived in Massachusetts
before 1629 and was settled around Charlestown. In 1631 He was charged with
contempt for the Puritain authorities and relocated to Portsmouth, NH in 1633. He
had a wife named Jane when He died before 21 November 1666, Jane deposed her
age as 69 in the following June. Also there was a John Wallingford b 1659,
Newbury, MA, son of Nicholas and Sarah (Travers) Wallingford. Source GDMNH pp
712-13 Walford and p 715 Wallingford
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Douglas Richardson

Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 18 nov 2005 09:52:57

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my earlier account of the children of Sir Roger de Merlay (III)
(died 1265) and his wife, Isabel de Roos, I stated that this couple had
four daughters, among them Mary and Margery. Both daughters are named
with their respective husbands on a pedigree chart of the Merlay family
found in Hedley's usually reliable History of Northumberland, pg. 197.
Actually it would appear that Mary and Margery are the same person.
This is proven by an interesting article on the Greystoke family
entitled "Some Extinct Cumberland Families, IV: The Greystokes" by
James Wilson, which article was published in The Ancestor, 6 (1903):
121-134.

On pages 127-128 of this article, the marriage of Mary de Merlay and
William de Greystoke is discussed:

"William de Greystoke, brother and heir of the aforesaid Robert, did
homage in 1264 for his brother's lands. With Mary his wife, sometimes
called Margery or Margaret, eldest daughter and co-heir of Roger de
Merlay, who was born about 1242, he obtained large possessions in
Northumberland, including a moiety of the barony of Morpeth. At the
assizes held in Newcastle in 1256, William [de Greystoke] impleaded
Hugh de Bolebec for dowry settled upon Mary his wife on 6 February,
1253, at the door of the church of Morpeth, by her first husband,
Walter de Bolebec, Hugh's son and heir. As the contracting parties had
been under age at the time of Mary's first marrage, an agreement was
effected out of court. In 1268 William did homage for his wife's
possessions as the sister and co-heir of Alice de Merlay, lately
deceased. With the moiety of the Merlay lands came several suits at
law. William de Greystoke was summoned to perform military service
against the Welsh in 1277 when he was represented by two knighrs for
his own inheritance and two knights for that of his wife. In 1282 he
was summoned to serve in person, and in 1289 he departed this life."
END OF QUOTE.

As indicated by the article on the Greystoke family, it would appear
that Mary de Merlay married (1st) 6 February 1253 Walter de Bolebec;
and (2nd) before 1256 William de Greystoke. My own research indicates
that her correct name was Mary de Merlay, not Margery or Margaret.
Among other records, I find that she is repeatedly called Mary in
various lawsuits filed in different years which are mentioned in the
book, Northumberland Pleas, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle upon Tyne
Records Comm. 2) (1922).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife of Roge

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 nov 2005 10:30:47

Douglas Richardson wrote:
The identification of the parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife of Roger de
Merlay and Adam de Everingham, is a new addition to Complete Peerage, 5
(1926): 185, footnote a (sub Everingham), which footnote reads as
follows:

"Adam [de Everingham] married 2ndly before May 1270, Isabel, widow of
Roger de Merley, of Morpeth, Northumberland (who d.s.p.m. shortly
before 4 Dec. 1265 - Ch. Inq. p.m., Henry III, file 33, no. 10). She
survived Adam, and her dower of his lands was ordered to be assigned, 9
Dec. 1280 (Fine Roll, 54 Henry III, m. 12: Close Rolls, 7 Edward I, m.
4; 9 Edward I, m. 10)."

The above should now read "Adam [de Everingham} married 2ndly after
1266 and before May 1270, Isabel, widow of Roger de Merlay, of Morpeth,
Northumberland (who d.s.p.m. shortly before 4 Dec. 1265 - Ch. Inq.
p.m., Henry III, file 33, no. 10), and daughter of Robert de Roos,
Knt., of Wark, Northumberland (Northumberland Pleas from the Curia
Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272, pub. 1922, pp.122-123, 257). She
survived Adam, and her dower of his lands was ordered to be assigned, 9
Dec. 1280 (Fine Roll, 54 Henry III, m. 12: Close Rolls, 7 Edward I, m.
4; 9 Edward I, m. 10)."

Thank you for posting this interesting evidence.

Is there any way we can be sure that the daughter of Robert de Ros, to whom
Roger de Merlay was married in 1241, was identical with Isabel, who was
Roger's widow?

Chris Phillips

John P. Ravilious

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife of Roge

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 18 nov 2005 12:51:52

Dear Chris,

I see no direct evidence to prove this, but there is a great
deal of other evidence in hand to demonstrate th:

1) The issue of Roger de Merlay, according to details I extracted
previously from his IPM [19 Jan 1265/66 [writ dated at Westminster, 4
Dec 50 Hen. III (1265) - from Brown, Yorks. Inqs. I:99-102]:
A) Mary, aged 24 and more [born bef 4 Dec 1241]
B) Isabella, aged 10 and more [born bef 4 Dec 1255]
C) Alice, aged 8 and more [born bef 4 Dec 1257]

2) We know from the evidence Doug presented from the forest plea
of 1241 [Northumberland Pleas from the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls,
1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle upon Tyne Records Committee 2)
(1922:): 122-123] that Roger de Merlay was married, in 1241 or before,
to the daughter (unnamed) of Sir Robert de Ros of Wark (d. 1269).

3) The mother of Roger de Merlay was either Margery (MichaelAnne)
or Ada (Douglas), and the name Isabel/Isabella is not readily in
evidence at this or an either generation as I have found so far (on the
Merlay side). It would appear the second daughter, Isabel/Isabella,
was named for her mother, Isabel de Ros (who was named for her paternal
grandmother Isabel, 'natural' dau. of King William of Scots).

4) Alice de Merlay, the youngest daughter, was married to (or at
least contracted to marry) Robert de Thweng (dvp 1279), eldest son and
heir of Sir Marmaduke de Thweng (d. 1279) by his wife Lucy de Brus.
This was evidently an arranged link bringing the Thwengs closer to both
the de Brus and de Ros families, of a sort we find quite frequently in
medieval families where two spouses (Robert de Ros of Wark and Margaret
de Brus) seek to link their kin closer together:

A. Robert de Thweng was the nephew of Margaret de Brus, wife
of Robert de Ros of Wark (brother of Isabel de Ros, the wife of Roger
de Merlay).
B. Alice de Merlay, evidently was the daughter of Isabel de
Ros, and therefore niece of Robert de Ros (the husband of Margaret de
Brus).

The eldest daughter, Mary, was born after this apparent
Merlay-Ros marriage. Isabella is evidently named for her mother,
Isabel de Ros; and Alice de Merlay's marriage, while not proving her
mother was Isabel de Ros, is strongly suggestive of this identification
being correct.

While finding a direct statement would be best, given the pieces
we have it is reasonable to identify the issue of Roger de Merlay as
that of his wife, the daughter of Robert de Ros. It is also reasonable
to infer that her name was Isabel or Isabella, and therefore (more
likely than not) identical with Isabel, the widow of Roger de Merlay.

Cheers,

John



Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
The identification of the parentage of Isabel de Roos, wife of Roger de
Merlay and Adam de Everingham, is a new addition to Complete Peerage, 5
(1926): 185, footnote a (sub Everingham), which footnote reads as
follows:

"Adam [de Everingham] married 2ndly before May 1270, Isabel, widow of
Roger de Merley, of Morpeth, Northumberland (who d.s.p.m. shortly
before 4 Dec. 1265 - Ch. Inq. p.m., Henry III, file 33, no. 10). She
survived Adam, and her dower of his lands was ordered to be assigned, 9
Dec. 1280 (Fine Roll, 54 Henry III, m. 12: Close Rolls, 7 Edward I, m.
4; 9 Edward I, m. 10)."

The above should now read "Adam [de Everingham} married 2ndly after
1266 and before May 1270, Isabel, widow of Roger de Merlay, of Morpeth,
Northumberland (who d.s.p.m. shortly before 4 Dec. 1265 - Ch. Inq.
p.m., Henry III, file 33, no. 10), and daughter of Robert de Roos,
Knt., of Wark, Northumberland (Northumberland Pleas from the Curia
Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272, pub. 1922, pp.122-123, 257). She
survived Adam, and her dower of his lands was ordered to be assigned, 9
Dec. 1280 (Fine Roll, 54 Henry III, m. 12: Close Rolls, 7 Edward I, m.
4; 9 Edward I, m. 10)."

Thank you for posting this interesting evidence.

Is there any way we can be sure that the daughter of Robert de Ros, to whom
Roger de Merlay was married in 1241, was identical with Isabel, who was
Roger's widow?

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»