Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Chris Phillips

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

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 18 nov 2005 17:53:17

John P. Ravilious wrote:
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.


Thanks for posting these arguments. It may be so, though personally I'd be
cautious of pushing the onomastic part of the argument too far for a name as
common as Isabel.

Another interesting ramification of your circumstantial evidence is that
Robert de Everingham, the grandson of Adam, married Lucy, the daughter and
heir of Robert de Thweng [CP v 185 note b]. On your view, this would be a
marriage between the daughter of Isabel's son-in-law (husband of her
daughter Alice by her first marriage) and the son of her stepson by her
second marriage.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 18 nov 2005 17:56:06

Dear John ~

Thank you for the good review of the evidence. I should point out,
however, that Sir Roger de Merlay III (died 1265) can not possibly be
the son of Margery de Umfreville.

Following Margery de Umfreville's death, there was an inquisition taken
at the feast of St. Peter in Cathedra in 20 Edward I (that is, 22
February 1292). The jurors stated that Richard de Umfreville
(grandfather of Gilbert de Umfreville who now is) gave the manor of
Barrasford, Northumberland to Roger de Merlay [II] in free marriage
with Margery his daughter and to their heirs of the body of Margery.
The jurors further stated that Margery died without issue ("Margeria
obiit sine herede de corpore suo.") and that the manor of Barrasford
should revert to Gilbert de Umfreville who now is who is the heir of
Richard de Umfreville his grandfather. A transcript of the full
inquisition in Latin is printed in John Hodgson, History of
Northumberland, Part II, Vol. II (1832): 470.

As for the date of the marriage of Roger de Merley II and Margery de
Umfreville, I show that Margery's father, Richard de Umfreville, died
before Nov. 1226 and that Roger de Merlay II died in 1239. Thus we can
say for certain that the marriage occurred sometime before November
1226, by which date Richard de Umfreville had granted the manor of
Barrasford to Roger in free marriage with Isabel in his daughter.

Lastly, I might add that the Latin words "corpore suo" [her body]
refers back to Margery's body, which Margery is the subject of the
sentence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


John P. Ravilious wrote:
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


Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2005 21:09:01

Dear Doug,

Thank you for the documentation on Margery de Umfraville. It is apparent
that she is indeed the mother of Roger de Merlay. The list of benefactors of
Newminster Abbey shows:

Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio, Ordinis Cisterciensis, Fundato
Anno MCXXXVII, Surtees Society Publication, Vol. 66, Andrews & Co., Durham,
1878:

Pages 299-300:

Appendix II. Benefactors.
The following records of benefactors, although printed in the Monasticon,
are here reproduced on account of their extreme interest and importance in
connection with the other contents of the present volume.

De Fundatore et praecipuis Benefactoribis Abbathiae de Newminster.
[Ex Martyrologio Novi Monasterii.]
Dominus Ranulphus de Merlay, principalis fundator noster, et Juliana uxor
ejus, qui nobis contulerunt situm hujus abbathiae, grangiam de Hulwane et duas
Rittonas. Willelmus de Merley, Rogerus de Merley primus, magister Osbertus de
Merlay, filii praedicti Ranulphi, Rogerus de Merlay secundus, Majoria uxor
ejus, qui nobis contulerunt tres piscarias in Tyna. Rogerus de Merlay tertius,
qui renovavit et confirmavit nobis omnes donationes antecessorum suorum, et
obiit anno Domini MCCLXV, et reliquit tantum duas filias haeredes, quarum
prima vocabatur Maria, et hance desponsavit dominus Willelmus baro de Graystoke;
secunda vocabatur Isabella, et hanc desponsavit Robertus de Somerville; et
in eis divisa fuit baronia de Merlay.

As you will see there are some inaccuracies in this as it mentions only two
daughters of Roger de Merlay tertius; Mary wife of William de Greystoke and
Isabella wife of Robert de Sommerville. Alice who was the wife of Robert
Thweng is not mentioned.

The proof that Roger de Merlay and his wife Ada, daughter of Duncan, earl of
Fife, had an eldest son named Ranulf is also cited in the Newminster
Cartulary:

Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio Ordinis Cisterciensis Fundatae
Anno MCXXXVII, Surtees Society Vol. 66, Andrews & Company, Durham 1878:

Page 15:
Locus 3. Grant by Roger de Merlay of Piscarie be Benton.
Omnibus, etc. Rogerus de Merlai, salutem. Noverit universitas vestra me
dedisse concessisse et hac praesenti carta mea confirmasse monachis de Novo
Monasterio, Deo et Beatae Mariae ibidem servientibus, pro salute anime et pro
animabus patris et matris mei, et Adae uxoris meae, et Ranulphi filii mei, et
omnium antecessorum meorum et heredum, picarias meas de Benton in Tyna, scilicet
Hames yhare et Burnemuth yare ad faciendum pitancias praedictis monachis in
anniversariis patris et matris meae, Adae uxoris meae, et ranulphi filii mei,
et in anniversario meo cum Deo volente contingerit. Tenendum et habendum de
me et haeredibus meis, libere, quiete, et honorifice, ab omnibus serviciis,
consuetudinibus et exaccionibus, cum omnibus pertinenciis suis et libertatibus
et asiamentis ad praedictas piscarias peryinentibus, eundo et redeundo sine
aliquo inpedimento mei vel meorum hominum, in puram et perpetuam elemosinam
sicud aliqua elemosina sanctae ecclesiae melius et liberius potest dari vel
possideri. Et ego et heredes mei haec omnia praedicta contra omnes homines
warantizabimus, etc.

The Fisheries not to be let.
Abbas et conventus confirmant cum sigillo quod praedictae piscariae in usus
conventus expendantur, nec ad firmam dimittantur, nec abbas nec celler
(arius?) inde se intromittant, salvo tamen jure judicis nostri. Idem sigillo nostro
sigillatum illi in testimonium tradiderunt.

There were other fisheries on the Tyne later granted by Roger de Merlay and
his second wife Margery de Umfraville and this gift was confirmed by Roger de
Merlay tertius which made it appear that he was the son of Margery de
Umfraville not Ada of Fife.

It is also necessary to note that Isabella de Merlay was first married to
Robert de Eure, the son of John fitz Robert of Clavering by his wife Ada de
Bailiol. Robert died bef. May 12, 1271. The documentation confirming this was
posted by John Ravilious and myself in a thread concerning the identity of
Euphemia wife of William Comyn. The relevant documents from Bain are:

Calendar of Documents pertaining to Scotland preserved in her majestys
public Record office, London edited by Joseph Bain, Vol. I 1108-1272, H.M. General
Register House 1881, Edinburgh:

#1837. Nov. 1251.
Inquisition [ under writ dated Guldeford 16th September 35 of the king's
reign, directing Thomas de Stanford and his co-escheator in teh county of York
to inquire whether Ada de Balliol enfeoffed her sons Hugh and Robert in the
manor of Stokesle before her death], made before the said escheator, by Walter
de Staynesby, William de Mubray, Richard de Waussand, John de Normandy, John
de Pathon, Simon le Bret, Roger de Sturmy, Thomas de Hurchewrd, William de
Piketon, Robert de Skutherskelf, Thomas de Salecok, Elais de Marrok; who say,
that Sir Hugh de Balliol gave the manor of Stokesley to Ada his daughter in
frank marriage and the said Ada after the death of her husabnd, enfeoffed Hugh
and Robert her sons in the said manor, on Sunday next before the Feast of St.
Barnabas the Apostle, in the king's 34th year, and they were in full seisin
from that day until after the Feast of St. Michael same year. And each of
them appointed a new senshal and reeve of the aforesaid lady, and held courts
during said time, and received amercements from many, and took homage of all
free men, and rent from th eterm of St. John [the]Baptist, and multure of the
mill, and sold part of the meadow, and caused attorn and carry another part,
and reap and carry the corn in autumn, and did other acts of property, till
the aforesaid term after Michaelmas, when they delivered the manor in lease to
their said mother, to be held for her life, paying to them 40s. per annum. So
that after her death it should remain quit to the said Hugh and Robert and
their heirs for ever. And that the said Ada died at Stokesley on Saturday next
after the Feast of St. Jamed the Apostle in the king's 35th year, as lessee
(firmarii) of her said sons. Alaso that the attorneys of the said Hugh and
Robert put themselves in seisin of said manor after the death of said Ada,
before she was buried. And on the Morrow after the burial Hugh came and entered
seisin for himself and his brother with many, and held possession for
......until he was expelled by force by the king's letters and the whole county, who
came with the Sheriff and escheators, viz.,,,,,[Bar]tholomew same year. [Inq.
p.m. 35 Henry III, no. 51]

Documents concerning Roger de Merlay III and his daughters:

Calendar of Inquistions Post Mortem, Volume I, Henry III, Kruas Reprint,
1973:

Pages 200-201:
636. Roger de Merley alias de Merlay.
Writ, Dec. 4. Extent, Tuesday before the Conversion of St. Paul, 50 Henry
III.
His three daughters are his heirs, whereof the eldest, aged 24, is married
to William de Graystok, the second, aged 10, is not married, and the third,
aged 8, was married before the said Roger's death to the son and heir of
Marmaduke de Tueng.

York. Burton manor (extent given with names of tenants), including a croft
called Cumbland, a culrure called Elyesflat, a mill and culture at Thyrnun,
and lands or rents in the towns of Drenghou and Thyrnon, held of Peter de Brus,
service unspecified.
Knight's fees pertaining to the manor;---
Harpam, Burton, Thyrnom, Mapelton, Rolleston, and Grancemor, 2 1/2 knight's
fees held by Herbert de Sancto Quintino.
Jetingham, Brentingham, Clif and Cave, 1 knight's fee held by Hugh Gubyon.
Burton. 5 bovates land held by the said Hugh by service of 1/20 knight's fee.
Rodestayn, Benton, and Buketon. 1 knight's fee held by William de Rodestayn.
Hasthorp. 1/6 knight's fee held by William de Hasthorp.
Thyrnom and Grancemor. 1/12 knight's fee held by Alan Romund.
Thrynom. 1/40 knight's fee held by Anselm le Engleys; and 1/4 knight's fee
held by John le Engleys.
Harpham. 1/12 knight's fee held by Thomas de Louthorp. (See No. 775)
C. Henry III. File 33. (10.)

Page 254:
775. Roger de Merlay.
Writ of Partition, 6 November, on the complaint of William de Craystok, who
married Mary, eldest daughter and one of the heirs of the said Roger, that
owing to the death of Alice the youngest daughter, who was in the king's
wardship, partition of the woods and parks had been omitted by the escheator, and
Robert de Eure who married Isabel, another daughter and heir, would not permit
the said William and Mary to have their portion. Partition, 4 March, 55
Henry III.

Northumberland. Morpath, Horseleye and Witton. Partition made, with full
extent of boundaries of the said parks and woods. And lot being cast, this is
the part of Sir William de Graystoc, viz.---The western part of the forest, and
Estparc with Schaldefen in Morpath; and to Sir Robert de Euer and his heirs
remain, teh eastern part of the forest, and Cotingwode and Westparc, and a
parcel of wood in Wildehaldeside.

Writ ad Plenum certorari, 20 July, divers contentions having arisen upon the
partition lately made. Inq. The day of the Exhaltation of the Holy Cross, 55
Henry III.

Northumberland. The whole inheritance of the said Roger in the county was
parted at first as follows, viz.---Morpath assigned to Sir William, son of
Thomas de Greystock and Mary his wife, Wytton with the service of Wyndegate to
the said Isabel, and Beuasys and Stanington with a parcel in Trenwell to the
said Alice; but the woods remained unparted, the wood of Morpath in the custody
of William and Mary, and the forest in that of Sir Geoffrey de Lesyni, who ad
the wardship of Isabel and Alice by the king's gift. After the death of
Alice, her part was parted by lot between the said William and mary and the
guardian of the said Isabel, and both were content, but the woods were not parted
by lot but were assigned; Sir William was never content with his part, but
Robert de Euyr was content. Whereupon Sir William procured the king's writ to
the escheator (as above), and the woods were parted, and lots cast; but
because the part formerly assigned to the said Robert fell to Sir William by lot,
the said Robert holds it still by force, and William cannot have seisin
thereof. Waste has been done by both parties but cheifly by Robert, and the
escheator having taken an oath from robert's forester to keep the woods and parks
safely, the said Robert removed him, so that the escheator could not fully
perform the king's mandate. (See No. 636).
C. Henry III. File 40. (8.)


Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2005 21:18:01

Dear Doug,

Thank you for the documentation on Margery de Umfraville. It is apparent
that she is indeed the mother of Roger de Merlay. The list of benefactors of
Newminster Abbey shows:

Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio, Ordinis Cisterciensis, Fundato
Anno MCXXXVII, Surtees Society Publication, Vol. 66, Andrews & Co., Durham,
1878:

Pages 299-300:

Appendix II. Benefactors.
The following records of benefactors, although printed in the Monasticon,
are here reproduced on account of their extreme interest and importance in
connection with the other contents of the present volume.

De Fundatore et praecipuis Benefactoribis Abbathiae de Newminster.
[Ex Martyrologio Novi Monasterii.]
Dominus Ranulphus de Merlay, principalis fundator noster, et Juliana uxor
ejus, qui nobis contulerunt situm hujus abbathiae, grangiam de Hulwane et duas
Rittonas. Willelmus de Merley, Rogerus de Merley primus, magister Osbertus de
Merlay, filii praedicti Ranulphi, Rogerus de Merlay secundus, Majoria uxor
ejus, qui nobis contulerunt tres piscarias in Tyna. Rogerus de Merlay tertius,
qui renovavit et confirmavit nobis omnes donationes antecessorum suorum, et
obiit anno Domini MCCLXV, et reliquit tantum duas filias haeredes, quarum
prima vocabatur Maria, et hance desponsavit dominus Willelmus baro de Graystoke;
secunda vocabatur Isabella, et hanc desponsavit Robertus de Somerville; et
in eis divisa fuit baronia de Merlay.

As you will see there are some inaccuracies in this as it mentions only two
daughters of Roger de Merlay tertius; Mary wife of William de Greystoke and
Isabella wife of Robert de Somerville. Alice who was the wife of Robert
Thweng is not mentioned.

The proof that Roger de Merlay and his wife Ada, daughter of Duncan, earl of
Fife, had an eldest son named Ranulf is also cited in the Newminster
Cartulary:

Chartularium Abbathiae de Novo Monasterio Ordinis Cisterciensis Fundatae
Anno MCXXXVII, Surtees Society Vol. 66, Andrews & Company, Durham 1878:

Page 15:
Locus 3. Grant by Roger de Merlay of Piscarie be Benton.
Omnibus, etc. Rogerus de Merlai, salutem. Noverit universitas vestra me
dedisse concessisse et hac praesenti carta mea confirmasse monachis de Novo
Monasterio, Deo et Beatae Mariae ibidem servientibus, pro salute anime et pro
animabus patris et matris mei, et Adae uxoris meae, et Ranulphi filii mei, et
omnium antecessorum meorum et heredum, picarias meas de Benton in Tyna, scilicet
Hames yhare et Burnemuth yare ad faciendum pitancias praedictis monachis in
anniversariis patris et matris meae, Adae uxoris meae, et Ranulphi filii mei,
et in anniversario meo cum Deo volente contingerit. tenendum et habendum de
me et haeredibus meis, libere, quiete, et honorifice, ab omnibus serviciis,
consuetudinibus et exaccionibus, cum omnibus pertinenciis suis et libertatibus
et asiamentis ad praedictas piscarias pertinentibus, eundo et redeundo sine
aliquo inpedimento mei vel meorum hominum, in puram et perpetuam elemosinam
sicud aliqua elemosina sanctae ecclesiae melius et liberius potest dari vel
possideri. Et ego et heredes mei haec omnia praedicta contra omnes homines
warantizabimus, etc.

The Fisheries not to be let.
Abbas et conventus confirmant cum sigillo quod praedictae piscariae in usus
conventus expendantur, nec ad firmam dimittantur, nec abbas nec celler
(arius?) inde se intromittant, salvo tamen jure judicis nostri. Idem sigillo nostro
sigillatum illi in testimonium tradiderunt.

There were other fisheries on the Tyne later granted by Roger de Merlay and
his second wife Margery de Umfraville and this gift was confirmed by Roger de
Merlay tertius which made it appear that he was the son of Margery de
Umfraville not Ada of Fife.

It is also necessary to note that Isabella de Merlay was first married to
Robert de Eure, the son of John fitz Robert of Clavering by his wife Ada de
Bailiol. Robert died bef. May 12, 1271. The documentation confirming this was
posted by John Ravilious and myself in a thread concerning the identity of
Euphemia wife of William Comyn. The relevant documents from Bain are:

Calendar of Documents pertaining to Scotland preserved in her majestys
public Record office, London edited by Joseph Bain, Vol. I 1108-1272, H.M. General
Register House 1881, Edinburgh:

#1837. Nov. 1251.
Inquisition [ under writ dated Guldeford 16th September 35 of the king's
reign, directing Thomas de Stanford and his co-escheator in the county of York
to inquire whether Ada de Balliol enfeoffed her sons Hugh and Robert in the
manor of Stokesle before her death], made before the said escheator, by Walter
de Staynesby, William de Mubray, Richard de Waussand, John de Normandy, John
de Pathon, Simon le Bret, Roger de Sturmy, Thomas de Hurchewrd, William de
Piketon, Robert de Skutherskelf, Thomas de Salecok, Elais de Marrok; who say,
that Sir Hugh de Balliol gave the manor of Stokesley to Ada his daughter in
frank marriage and the said Ada after the death of her husband, enfeoffed Hugh
and Robert her sons in the said manor, on Sunday next before the Feast of St.
Barnabas the Apostle, in the king's 34th year, and they were in full seisin
from that day until after the Feast of St. Michael same year. And each of
them appointed a new senshal and reeve of the aforesaid lady, and held courts
during said time, and received amercements from many, and took homage of all
free men, and rent from the term of St. John [the]Baptist, and multure of the
mill, and sold part of the meadow, and caused attorn and carry another part,
and reap and carry the corn in autumn, and did other acts of property, till
the aforesaid term after Michaelmas, when they delivered the manor in lease to
their said mother, to be held for her life, paying to them 40s. per annum. So
that after her death it should remain quit to the said Hugh and Robert and
their heirs for ever. And that the said Ada died at Stokesley on Saturday next
after the Feast of St. James the Apostle in the king's 35th year, as lessee
(firmarii) of her said sons. Also that the attorneys of the said Hugh and
Robert put themselves in seisin of said manor after the death of said Ada,
before she was buried. And on the Morrow after the burial Hugh came and entered
seisin for himself and his brother with many, and held possession for .....until
he was expelled by force by the king's letters and the whole county, who
came with the Sheriff and escheators, viz.,,,,,[Bar]tholomew same year. [Inq.
p.m. 35 Henry III, no. 51]

Documents concerning Roger de Merlay III and his daughters:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume I, Henry III, Kraus Reprint,
1973:

Pages 200-201:
636. Roger de Merley alias de Merlay.
Writ, Dec. 4. Extent, Tuesday before the Conversion of St. Paul, 50 Henry
III.
His three daughters are his heirs, whereof the eldest, aged 24, is married
to William de Graystok, the second, aged 10, is not married, and the third,
aged 8, was married before the said Roger's death to the son and heir of
Marmaduke de Tueng.

York. Burton manor (extent given with names of tenants), including a croft
called Cumbland, a culture called Elyesflat, a mill and culture at Thyrnun,
and lands or rents in the towns of Drenghou and Thyrnon, held of Peter de Brus,
service unspecified.
Knight's fees pertaining to the manor;---
Harpam, Burton, Thyrnom, Mapelton, Rolleston, and Grancemor, 2 1/2 knight's
fees held by Herbert de Sancto Quintino.
Jetingham, Brentingham, Clif and Cave, 1 knight's fee held by Hugh Gubyon.
Burton. 5 bovates land held by the said Hugh by service of 1/20 knight's fee.
Rodestayn, Benton, and Buketon. 1 knight's fee held by William de Rodestayn.
Hasthorp. 1/6 knight's fee held by William de Hasthorp.
Thyrnom and Grancemor. 1/12 knight's fee held by Alan Romund.
Thrynom. 1/40 knight's fee held by Anselm le Engleys; and 1/4 knight's fee
held by John le Engleys.
Harpham. 1/12 knight's fee held by Thomas de Louthorp. (See No. 775)
C. Henry III. File 33. (10.)

Page 254:
775. Roger de Merlay.
Writ of Partition, 6 November, on the complaint of William de Craystok, who
married Mary, eldest daughter and one of the heirs of the said Roger, that
owing to the death of Alice the youngest daughter, who was in the king's
wardship, partition of the woods and parks had been omitted by the escheator, and
Robert de Eure who married Isabel, another daughter and heir, would not permit
the said William and Mary to have their portion. Partition, 4 March, 55
Henry III.

Northumberland. Morpath, Horseleye and Witton. Partition made, with full
extent of boundaries of the said parks and woods. And lot being cast, this is
the part of Sir William de Graystoc, viz.---The western part of the forest, and
Estparc with Schaldefen in Morpath; and to Sir Robert de Euer and his heirs
remain, the eastern part of the forest, and Cotingwode and Westparc, and a
parcel of wood in Wildehaldeside.

Writ ad Plenum certorari, 20 July, divers contentions having arisen upon the
partition lately made. Inq. The day of the Exhaltation of the Holy Cross, 55
Henry III.

Northumberland. The whole inheritance of the said Roger in the county was
parted at first as follows, viz.---Morpath assigned to Sir William, son of
Thomas de Greystock and Mary his wife, Wytton with the service of Wyndegate to
the said Isabel, and Beuasys and Stanington with a parcel in Trenwell to the
said Alice; but the woods remained unparted, the wood of Morpath in the custody
of William and Mary, and the forest in that of Sir Geoffrey de Lesyni, who ad
the wardship of Isabel and Alice by the king's gift. After the death of
Alice, her part was parted by lot between the said William and Mary and the
guardian of the said Isabel, and both were content, but the woods were not parted
by lot but were assigned; Sir William was never content with his part, but
Robert de Euyr was content. Whereupon Sir William procured the king's writ to
the escheator (as above), and the woods were parted, and lots cast; but
because the part formerly assigned to the said Robert fell to Sir William by lot,
the said Robert holds it still by force, and William cannot have seisin
thereof. Waste has been done by both parties but chiefly by Robert, and the
escheator having taken an oath from Robert's forester to keep the woods and parks
safely, the said Robert removed him, so that the escheator could not fully
perform the king's mandate. (See No. 636).
C. Henry III. File 40. (8.)


Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2005 21:41:01

A jpg of a scan of a photocopy of a photograph of two pages from a roll, said
to have been commissioned in 1600-1610 time period ( I forgot) pertaining to
the Griffith/Somerville alliance is now available through my website.

Go here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... on/Royals/
and click on the link for
Griffith1.jpg or the one for
Griffith2.tif

I haven't viewed the TIF as they tend to make my system throw a fit.
The Jpg on my 5-year-old computer takes about two minutes to load, just to
warn you all.

So now you can see for yourself the shields that have been mentioned.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2005 22:09:01

In a message dated 11/18/05 1:18:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< 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, >>

*In* or before 1256
This does however, if we accept that she was born "abt 1242" allow us to put
a more definite birth range on her mother Isabel de Ros. My own est being
1208/1229

Isabel's father was "Justice of the King's Bench" in 1230 so if someone wants
to hazard a guess on how old a "Justice" needs to be, that might help pin his
age down more.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2005 22:50:02

In a message dated 11/18/05 12:08:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

<< Appendix II. Benefactors.
The following records of benefactors, although printed in the Monasticon,
are here reproduced on account of their extreme interest and importance in
connection with the other contents of the present volume.

De Fundatore et praecipuis Benefactoribis Abbathiae de Newminster.
[Ex Martyrologio Novi Monasterii.]
Dominus Ranulphus de Merlay, principalis fundator noster, et Juliana uxor
ejus, qui nobis contulerunt situm hujus abbathiae, grangiam de Hulwane et
duas
Rittonas. Willelmus de Merley, Rogerus de Merley primus, magister Osbertus
de
Merlay, filii praedicti Ranulphi, Rogerus de Merlay secundus, Majoria uxor
ejus, qui nobis contulerunt tres piscarias in Tyna. Rogerus de Merlay
tertius,
qui renovavit et confirmavit nobis omnes donationes antecessorum suorum, et
obiit anno Domini MCCLXV, et reliquit tantum duas filias haeredes, quarum
prima vocabatur Maria, et hance desponsavit dominus Willelmus baro de
Graystoke;
secunda vocabatur Isabella, et hanc desponsavit Robertus de Somerville; et
in eis divisa fuit baronia de Merlay. >>

What is the translation of this?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Kristie Thompson

DNA tests

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 19 nov 2005 00:45:02

Okay, I'm willing to put my neck out and sound like an idiot, but here goes.
If I could talk my brother into a DNA test and my uncle into a DNA test, I
could get both sides of my family, right? Because it would transmit through
the male line? As you can see I know so little about this. Would one of
you please advise me off list?
THANKS!
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-D@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:09 PM
Subject: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #1066

Gjest

Re: DNA tests

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 00:57:02

In a message dated 11/18/05 3:43:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
girlvol@earthlink.net writes:

<< Okay, I'm willing to put my neck out and sound like an idiot, but here
goes.
If I could talk my brother into a DNA test and my uncle into a DNA test, I
could get both sides of my family, right? Because it would transmit through
the male line? As you can see I know so little about this. Would one of
you please advise me off list? >>

If you are speaking of a Y-chromosone test yes. The Y chromosone only exists
in men, not women, and therefore it is only passed from a father to a son.
Women don't have it, daughters don't have it.
So it would pass down the exclusively patrilineal line.

On the flip side, mitochondrial DNA is ONLY passed from your mother.
Although it passes to all her children, regardless of *their* sex, no contribution is
made by the father to this part of the DNA. So this DNA passes down the
strictly matrilineal line, although boys have this from their mother, those boys
do NOT pass it to their children. The daughters however would pass it to all
their children.

On the third hard, your *nuclear* DNA which is what is in the nucleus of your
cells, is contributed and mixed together from both parents. So testing this
tells you very little about your remote ancestors but quite a bit about who
your two parents could be. (Paternity test).

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 nov 2005 01:12:32

Dear MichaelAnne ~

In my post from yesterday which I've copied below, I gave evidence
which showed that Margery de Umfreville was NOT the mother of Sir Roger
de Merlay III. The inquisition taken in 1292 following Margery's death
specifically states that Margery died without issue. The Latin in the
inquisition reads: "Margeria obiit sine herede de corpore suo." The
inquisition further shows that the heir to Margery's maritagium, the
manor of Barrasford, Northumberland, was her nephew, Gilbert de
Umfreville.

I might mention that Margery de Umfreville's inquisition is another
addition to Complete Peerage, as the Angus account [C.P. 1 (1910): 147]
fails to mention that Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus, was heir in
1292 to his aunt, Margery (de Umfreville) (de Merlay) de Lexington.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST

Dear John ~

Thank you for the good review of the evidence. I should point out,
however, that Sir Roger de Merlay III (died 1265) can not possibly be
the son of Margery de Umfreville.

Following Margery de Umfreville's death, there was an inquisition taken
at the feast of St. Peter in Cathedra in 20 Edward I (that is, 22
February 1292). The jurors stated that Richard de Umfreville
(grandfather of Gilbert de Umfreville who now is) gave the manor of
Barrasford, Northumberland to Roger de Merlay [II] in free marriage
with Margery his daughter and to their heirs of the body of Margery.
The jurors further stated that Margery died without issue ("Margeria
obiit sine herede de corpore suo.") and that the manor of Barrasford
should revert to Gilbert de Umfreville who now is who is the heir of
Richard de Umfreville his grandfather. A transcript of the full
inquisition in Latin is printed in John Hodgson, History of
Northumberland, Part II, Vol. II (1832): 470.

As for the date of the marriage of Roger de Merley II and Margery de
Umfreville, I show that Margery's father, Richard de Umfreville, died
before Nov. 1226 and that Roger de Merlay II died in 1239. Thus we can
say for certain that the marriage occurred sometime before November
1226, by which date Richard de Umfreville had granted the manor of
Barrasford to Roger in free marriage with Isabel in his daughter.

Lastly, I might add that the Latin words "corpore suo" [her body]
refers back to Margery's body, which Margery is the subject of the
sentence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
Dear Doug,

Thank you for the documentation on Margery de Umfraville. It is apparent
that she is indeed the mother of Roger de Merlay.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA tests

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 19 nov 2005 01:56:22

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

If you are speaking of a Y-chromosone test yes. The Y chromosone only exists
in men, not women, and therefore it is only passed from a father to a son.
Women don't have it, daughters don't have it.
So it would pass down the exclusively patrilineal line.

On the flip side, mitochondrial DNA is ONLY passed from your mother.
Although it passes to all her children, regardless of *their* sex, no contribution is
made by the father to this part of the DNA. So this DNA passes down the
strictly matrilineal line, although boys have this from their mother, those boys
do NOT pass it to their children. The daughters however would pass it to all
their children.

There are (extremely) rare cases of documented passage from the father -
in the one case I remember clearly, the mother's had a mutation
rendering her mitochondria extremely inefficient, and hence even though
the zygote starts with a thousand or so from the mother and maybe one
from the father, that one paternal mitochondria won out.

On the third hard, your *nuclear* DNA which is what is in the nucleus of your
cells, is contributed and mixed together from both parents.

The Y and X chromosomes are also "nuclear". "Autosomal" DNA is the
appropriate term for the non-gender-specific nuclear DNA. Exactly half
comes from each parent, and exactly half is passed to each child (the
material passed being on the average a 50:50 mix of maternal and paternal).

The X represents a special case as well, although not one that is all
that useful. A man's X can only have come from his mother, while a
woman has one from her father and one from her mother. This means that
a woman's will have come exactly 50% from her paternal grandmother, and
approximately 25% each from her two maternal grandparents. In turn this
provides another 'special' line, represented by alternating genders each
generation, which would have provided the highest contribution to the
X-chromosome. (This is just a curiousity, though - no beneficial
application to genetic testing above what could be learned from an
autosomal analysis.)

It is perhaps worth pointing out that because you have 1000 or more
copies of the mitochondrial DNA per cell, vs. one (if any) Y, one or two
Xs and two of everything else, mtDNA is much easier to detect, and in an
old sample, it is much more likely that a copy has survived intact.
That is why most 'ancient DNA' work is done on the mitochondrial DNA.

Relevant to this group, there was a recent disappointing report on the
potential use of DNA to identifiy the Jamestown burial. For background,
following the discovery of the actual site of the original settlement,
archeologists located a burial of a seemingly-important individual
(based on the location, him being in a lead casket, and the various
material found on the body). It had been hypothesized that the corpse
may have been that of Bartholemew Gosnold, the now-largely-forgotten
driving force behind the plantation. A sister of Gosnold was known to
have been buried under the flagging of a Suffolk church, since
refloored, and archaeologists were given permission to exhume the site
and test DNA to see if it matched that from the Jamestown burial.
Unfortunately, based on a physical examination, the skeleton they
recovered from the church was concluded not to have belonged to
Gosnold's sister, and hence DNA testing was not performed, nor are there
any other known matrilineal descendants who could be tested. THis one
may remain a puzzle.

taf

David Armstrong

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

Legg inn av David Armstrong » 19 nov 2005 01:58:03

Hi Will

I printed the JPEG of the Merlay Sommerville thing from your web site, just
for my own edfication. Could you tell me more about it? Would such a thing
have been in private hands? Does "Commissioned" mean that they hired a
scribe to produce it? are there other such thing laying around?

My wife connects with all these lines of nobility and I want to learn all
that I can. Thanks in advance!



Best Regards

David Armstrong
Elkins, WV
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Merlay-Somerville-Griffith descent from King William the Lion
of Scotland


A jpg of a scan of a photocopy of a photograph of two pages from a roll,
said
to have been commissioned in 1600-1610 time period ( I forgot) pertaining
to
the Griffith/Somerville alliance is now available through my website.

Go here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... on/Royals/
and click on the link for
Griffith1.jpg or the one for
Griffith2.tif

I haven't viewed the TIF as they tend to make my system throw a fit.
The Jpg on my 5-year-old computer takes about two minutes to load, just to
warn you all.

So now you can see for yourself the shields that have been mentioned.

Will Johnson


Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 02:10:02

In a message dated 11/18/05 4:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
heraldry@meer.net writes:

<< I printed the JPEG of the Merlay Sommerville thing from your web site,
just
for my own edfication. Could you tell me more about it? Would such a thing
have been in private hands? Does "Commissioned" mean that they hired a
scribe to produce it? are there other such thing laying around? >>

Jeff Chipman is the person perhaps who can best answer this, as he is the one
who sent me the copy I'm showing on the web.
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 02:20:02

Dear Doug,

My apologies. I meant It is apparent that she is NOT indeed the mother of
Roger de Merlay. I know that you are correct on this point and I think it is
truly a significant find. My regrets for the slip.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

re: Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford, etc

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 03:13:01

As I was adding the descendents of William the Lion I blundered upon this
person
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO

Leo is showing that he married Maude de Lucy in 1238 and then Margaret de
Burgh in 1243

But he is showing children by Maude throughout the period 1240 to 1249
overlapping the marriage to Margaret de Burgh. Can someone help clarify this?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 04:01:15

So how is William de Greystoke and Mary de Merlay related to Robert
Fitz Ralph (de Greystoke), the 2nd Lord Fitzwilliam who married
Elizabeth de Neville?

Leo

Re: Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford, etc

Legg inn av Leo » 19 nov 2005 04:05:02

You could have asked me. CP tells that Margaret de Burgh died in November
1237. Also there is an amendment to his marriage date with Maude de Lacy
(not Lucy). This marriage took place "on or before 25 January 1237/1238" I
have removed the date of the first marriage and corrected the second one.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: re: Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford, etc


As I was adding the descendents of William the Lion I blundered upon this
person
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO

Leo is showing that he married Maude de Lucy in 1238 and then Margaret de
Burgh in 1243

But he is showing children by Maude throughout the period 1240 to 1249
overlapping the marriage to Margaret de Burgh. Can someone help clarify
this?

Thanks
Will Johnson


Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 05:16:02

Dear Martin,
The 1st Baron Fitz william, Ralph FItz William was the
father of the 2nd Lord Fitz william whose son Ralph, 3rd Lord Fitz william also
was granted the tittle of 1st Lord Greystoke. He married Alice de Audley.
(who married 2nd Ralph, 2nd Lord Greystoke) son of William Fitz ralph by his
wife Joan, daughter of Thomas de Greystoke, but I`m unsure if William de
Greystoke`s relationship to Thomas.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Kevin Bradford

Re: Domesday Book Online (website)

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 19 nov 2005 07:13:45

Would that this was the complete list of landowners, but it's a great start. Thanks.

Best,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Dolly Ziegler <dsz@bcpl.net>
Sent: Nov 18, 2005 9:41 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Domesday Book Online (website)

http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk

I'm sitting here shaking my head. Google is amazing.
The Internet is amazing. Not perfect, mind you, but
-- ten years ago, even five, who would've believed
we'd have resources like this? Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

Chris Phillips

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

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 19 nov 2005 10:02:59

Will Johnson wrote:
A jpg of a scan of a photocopy of a photograph of two pages from a roll,
said
to have been commissioned in 1600-1610 time period ( I forgot) pertaining
to
the Griffith/Somerville alliance is now available through my website.

Go here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... on/Royals/
and click on the link for
Griffith1.jpg or the one for
Griffith2.tif


Thank you for posting the image of the pedigree.

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but can anyone else see this supposed lozenge that
there was all the discussion about? I can't see anything that looks like a
lozenge, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

Chris Phillips

Tim Powys-Lybbe

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

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 19 nov 2005 12:27:11

In message of 19 Nov, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Will Johnson wrote:
A jpg of a scan of a photocopy of a photograph of two pages from a roll,
said
to have been commissioned in 1600-1610 time period ( I forgot) pertaining
to
the Griffith/Somerville alliance is now available through my website.

Go here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... on/Royals/
and click on the link for
Griffith1.jpg or the one for
Griffith2.tif


Thank you for posting the image of the pedigree.

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but can anyone else see this supposed lozenge
that there was all the discussion about? I can't see anything that
looks like a lozenge, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

Agreed. I beleive it was supposed to have been on the two achievements
on the face of the "Stately tombe", but both are quartered arms with a
central escutcheon and in view of the earlyish date I don't think we
can even call the latter escutcheons of pretence.

Much to most useful parts of the images (there are two separate images
in these pictures) are the written details of the people, in the
roundels.

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 12:52:40

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In message of 19 Nov, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Maybe I shouldn't ask, but can anyone else see this supposed lozenge
that there was all the discussion about? I can't see anything that
looks like a lozenge, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

Agreed. I beleive it was supposed to have been on the two achievements
on the face of the "Stately tombe", but both are quartered arms with a
central escutcheon and in view of the earlyish date I don't think we
can even call the latter escutcheons of pretence.

I concur entirely.

Thanks to Will for hosting and posting, and to Jeff for providing the
copy.

MAR

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 nov 2005 15:31:02

In a message dated 19/11/2005 01:02:43 GMT Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Dolly Ziegler wrote:
Hello to the list. Never noticed this before -- _My ancestors came with
the Conqueror_, Anthony J. Camp [corrected reprint 1990], lists
Valingford "=Wallingford" in two versions of Battle Abbey Roll, one by
Raphael Holinshed and another by the Duchess of Cleveland [Vol. 3.]

Does anyone on the list happen to have dealt with these names in this
early time frame?

I have to say, this seems unlikely. Wallingford has every appearance of
being an English toponymic surname, derived from a so-named English town
(there is one in Oxford), and not a Norman one. Thus no one
accompanying William would have had this name (although it could have
been adopted generations later). This _can_ be deceptive, given the way
some of the Norman toponyms changed in form after the Conquest, but I
suspect that this attribution is late and without historical authenticity.

taf






Yes, The Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames states it comes from
Wallingford, Berkshire. Note that there was a DB tenant Wigot de Walingeford. Can't
see him in Keats-Rohan's DP, but not sure what the Latinized version of
Wigot is.

Adrian

Doug McDonald

Re: DNA tests

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 19 nov 2005 16:05:47

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

On the third hard, your *nuclear* DNA which is what is in the nucleus of your
cells, is contributed and mixed together from both parents.

Not "nuclear" ... "autosomal". This is because Y-DNA is also "nuclear",
as is X-DNA. This is standard jargon in the genalogy-dna business.
(Which I am in as the assistant administrator and calculationalist of
the Clan Donald USA).

Doug McDonald

Nathaniel Taylor

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

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 19 nov 2005 20:31:07

In article <7d.752da48a.30af95fd@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

A jpg of a scan of a photocopy of a photograph of two pages from a roll, said
to have been commissioned in 1600-1610 time period ( I forgot) pertaining to
the Griffith/Somerville alliance is now available through my website.

Go here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... on/Royals/
and click on the link for
Griffith1.jpg or the one for
Griffith2.tif

Will, thanks for this. The quality of the scan isn't good, but I agree
with Chris & al. that the whole lozenge discussion was not well grounded
in these images. But I'm always happy to see manuscripts like this. I
gather that this picture derives from one of the photographs
accompanying the 1948 description in the library of the Society of
Antiquaries of London. From their catalogue (A2A):

FILE - GRIFFITH FAMILY. - ref. SAL/MS/774 - date: 1948
[from Scope and Content] Description by Hugh Stanford London of an
illuminated pedigree of the Griffith family of Burton Agnes, East Yorks.,
with a note by Francis Thynne, Lancaster Herald, dated 1 Aug. 1604; 10 Jan.
1948 (fol. 5v). The pedigree was lent by Capt. Marcus Wickham-Boynton,
descendant of the Griffiths of Wicknor, Staffs., and Burton Agnes, for
exhibition at SA, 8 Jan. 1948 (A.J., 28 (1948), 113). The original is
illustrated by painted figures of knights, shields, drawings of seals on
charters. The present description is accompanied by three photographs of
sections of the pedigree. See also SAL/MSS/931/2, 936.

<...>

CORRESPONDENCE AND PAPERS - ref. SAL/MS/931/2
[from Scope and Content] ... ;- Griffith
family, genealogical and heraldic notes, and photographs from a pedigree
exhibited to SA (see SAL/MSS/774 and SAL/MS/936), c. 1948. ...

I guess the SAL only includes a couple of photographs, not a good
reproduction of the whole. Do you (or does JeffChip9) have better
images of the original object? What is its fate since 1948?

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

ralph

Re: Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford, etc

Legg inn av ralph » 19 nov 2005 20:34:16

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:02:47 +0000, Leo wrote:

You could have asked me. CP tells that Margaret de Burgh died in November
1237. Also there is an amendment to his marriage date with Maude de Lacy
(not Lucy). This marriage took place "on or before 25 January 1237/1238" I
have removed the date of the first marriage and corrected the second one.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 1:11 PM
Subject: re: Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford, etc


As I was adding the descendents of William the Lion I blundered upon this
person
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO

Leo is showing that he married Maude de Lucy in 1238 and then Margaret de
Burgh in 1243

But he is showing children by Maude throughout the period 1240 to 1249
overlapping the marriage to Margaret de Burgh. Can someone help clarify
this?

Thanks
Will Johnson

your site is excellent , Leo.

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 nov 2005 23:02:16

Dear Will ~

Thank you for posting a copy of the drawing of the table tomb of Sir
Walter Griffith and his wife, Joan (or Jane) Neville, found in the
church of Burton Agnes, Yorkshire. Much appreciated.

Unfortunately, the image you have posted is not as clear as the copy
which Jeff Chipman sent me privately. In my copy, I can make out that
there is a small shield which is placed in the center of the larger
shield which contains Joan Neville's arms. The smaller shield displays
one coat of arms, which has a repeating pattern. The pattern appears
to be either vairy or checky. My guess is that it is vairy, perhaps
for Ferrers. But this is purely a guess.

According to Coat of Arms 8 (1965): 251-255, the arms of Joan
Neville's maternal grandfather, Robert de Ferrers, were as follows:
Vairy or and gules, a lion passant guardant of the first in the dexter
canton. I see no canton in the small shield on Joan Neville's tomb.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
A jpg of a scan of a photocopy of a photograph of two pages from a roll, said
to have been commissioned in 1600-1610 time period ( I forgot) pertaining to
the Griffith/Somerville alliance is now available through my website.

Go here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... on/Royals/
and click on the link for
Griffith1.jpg or the one for
Griffith2.tif

I haven't viewed the TIF as they tend to make my system throw a fit.
The Jpg on my 5-year-old computer takes about two minutes to load, just to
warn you all.

So now you can see for yourself the shields that have been mentioned.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 nov 2005 22:21:01

In a message dated 11/19/05 11:33:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

<< I guess the SAL only includes a couple of photographs, not a good
reproduction of the whole. Do you (or does JeffChip9) have better
images of the original object? What is its fate since 1948? >>

Jeff does, but I don't. On my copy its rather hard to read whats in the
roundels. It would be nice to have a transcription of that.
Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

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

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 nov 2005 11:46:29

In message of 20 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/19/05 11:33:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

I guess the SAL only includes a couple of photographs, not a good
reproduction of the whole. Do you (or does JeffChip9) have better
images of the original object? What is its fate since 1948?

Jeff does, but I don't. On my copy its rather hard to read whats in the
roundels. It would be nice to have a transcription of that.
Will

Here goes:

Above the tomb is a aquare with these words in it:

This Stately tombe of Mibba ... This is a picture of Sir Walter
Griffith knight & Joan Neuill his wife no 3 (?) there [their] young
sonne and daughter who (?) died ... tender years is yet ... ...
Burton.

Now for the pedigree, starting with Sir Joh Griffith and his wife
Katherin, all in squares rther than the circles of the original:

(As ever, ensure you have set your font to fixed, eg Courier.)


_______________________ ______________________
| | | |
| Sr John Griffith of | | Katherin daughter of |
| ??? and Anneys Barton | | Sir Robert Tyrwyrthe |
| Knight died in the 20 | | of Kenellry in the |
| of June 11 Ed 4 in |======| Countye of Linclone |
| the yeare of Christ | | | Knight. She died in |
| 1471 | | | ye yeare of Christ |
| | | | 1457 (?) |
|_______________________| | |______________________|
|
|
|
(Arms of Griffith impaling those of Tyrwyrthe)
|
___________________________________|
| |
| |
| |
__|_____________ _______________ _|_______________ _______________
| | | | | | | |
| Margaret dau- | | Jane daughter | | Sr Walter Grif- | | Agnes daugh- |
| ghter of Sr | | of Raphe Neu- | | fith of Anneys | | ter of Sr Rob-|
| John Griffith | | ille Knight |=| Burton in York- |=| ert Constable |=
| married to Rob-| | and of his | | shire died in | | of Flamborowe |
| ert Willoughbye| | wife Marye | | the Twentye one | | Knight after |
| of Wollantone | | daughter of | | yeare of King | | married to Sr |
| in Nottingham- | | Joane Countess| | Edward ye 4 in | | Gervase Clif- |
| shire Knight | | of Westmorland| | ye yeare of | | tone Knight |
| 29.H.6 in ye | | Daughter of | | Christ 1481 on | | being his sec-|
| yeare of Christ| | John of Gaunt | | ye 9 of August | | ond wife. Shee|
| 1450 | | Duke of Lan- | | | | was widdowe |
| | | caster & of | | | | ye 22 Ed 4 |
| | | her husband | | | | |
| | | Sr Robert | | | | |
| | | Ferrers | | | | |
|________________| |_______________| |_________________| |_______________|
This Agnes died
ye 23 of January
in ye yeare of
Christ 1505
and ...


There are lines to show that Sir Walter Griffith and each of his wives
had children. The roundel for Sir Gervase Clifton on the right is
incomplete so I have not attempted to transcribe it.

I do not have a decent image for the lower of the two photographs so
there is no transcription of that.

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

Chris Phillips

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

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 nov 2005 12:37:18

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Here goes:

I've added a few attempts to fill in the gaps

Above the tomb is a aquare with these words in it:

This Stately tombe of Mibba ... This is a picture of Sir Walter
Griffith knight & Joan Neuill his wife no 3 (?) there [their] young
sonne and daughter who (?) died ... tender years is yet ... ...
Burton.

Could it be a tombe "of Alabastre" or something like that? Then possibly
"wth th ... picture"?

After "his wife" I reckon "wth there yonge sonne & doughter wch died in
there tender yeres is yet in this forme to be seene in [?]the church of
A[nn]eys Burton"

Now for the pedigree, starting with Sir Joh Griffith and his wife
Katherin, all in squares rther than the circles of the original:

(As ever, ensure you have set your font to fixed, eg Courier.)


_______________________ ______________________
| | | |
| Sr John Griffith of | | Katherin daughter of |
| ??? and Anneys Barton | | Sir Robert Tyrwyrthe |
| Knight died in the 20 | | of Kenellry in the |
| of June 11 Ed 4 in |======| Countye of Linclone |
| the yeare of Christ | | | Knight. She died in |
| 1471 | | | ye yeare of Christ |
| | | | 1457 (?) |
|_______________________| | |______________________|
|

I think Sir John is of "Wichnor" [Wychnor, Staffs] and Tyrwyrthe is of
"Kettelby".

|
|
(Arms of Griffith impaling those of Tyrwyrthe)
|
___________________________________|
| |
| |
| |
__|_____________ _______________ _|_______________ _______________
| | | | | | |
|
| Margaret dau- | | Jane daughter | | Sr Walter Grif- | | Agnes daugh-
|
| ghter of Sr | | of Raphe Neu- | | fith of Anneys | | ter of Sr
Rob-|
| John Griffith | | ille Knight |=| Burton in York- |=| ert Constable
|=
| married to Rob-| | and of his | | shire died in | | of Flamborowe
|
| ert Willoughbye| | wife Marye | | the Twentye one | | Knight after
|
| of Wollantone | | daughter of | | yeare of King | | married to Sr
|
| in Nottingham- | | Joane Countess| | Edward ye 4 in | | Gervase Clif-
|
| shire Knight | | of Westmorland| | ye yeare of | | tone Knight
|
| 29.H.6 in ye | | Daughter of | | Christ 1481 on | | being his
sec-|
| yeare of Christ| | John of Gaunt | | ye 9 of August | | ond wife.
Shee|
| 1450 | | Duke of Lan- | | | | was widdowe
|
| | | caster & of | | | | ye 22 Ed 4
|
| | | her husband | | | |
|
| | | Sr Robert | | | |
|
| | | Ferrers | | | |
|
|________________| |_______________| |_________________|
|_______________|
This Agnes died
ye 23 of January
in ye yeare of
Christ 1505
and ...

Just a couple of fussy points for Margaret's text - I think her husband is
"Willughbye of Wollatone".

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

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

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 21 nov 2005 17:30:20

I wrote:
Could it be a tombe "of Alabastre" or something like that? Then possibly
"wth th ... picture"?


Thanks to Tim for providing me with a clearer version of the image off-list.

I reckon it says "of Al?blaster w[i]th theis [these] pictures" - the ? is
probably an "e".

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 nov 2005 19:12:20

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following transcript gives the text of the Griffith drawing with
the accompanying family pedigree. I have added a few explanatory words
in brackets.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
[Above the drawing of the table tomb of Sir Walter Griffith and his
wife Joan Neville is a square with these words in it:]

"This stately tombe of Aliblaster with theis pictures of Sir Walter
Griffith knight & Joane Nevill his wife with there yonge
sonne & daughter which died in there tender yeres is yet in ?this?
forme to be seene in the church of Anneys Burton."

[The Griffith pedigree:]

"Sir John Griffith of Wichnor and Anneys Burton Knight died in the 20
of June 11 Ed. 4 in the yeare of Christ 1471. [His wife] Katherin
Daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwytthe of Kettellby in the Countye of
Linclone Knight. She died in ye yeare of Christ 1457."

[Their Children:]

"Margaret Daughter of Sir John Griffith maried to Sir Robert Willughbye
of Wollatone in Nottingham shire Knight 29 H. 6 in ye yeare of Christ
1450."

"Sir Walter Griffith of Anneys Burtone in Yorkshire Knight died in the
Twentye one yeare of King Edward ye 4 in ye yeare of Christ 1481 on ye
9 of August. [He married 1st] Jane Daughter of Raphe Neville Knight
and of his wife Marye Daughter of Joane Countess of Westmorland
Daughter of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster & of her husband Sir Robert
Ferrers. [He married 2nd] Agnes Daughter of Sir Robert Constable of
Flamborowe Knight after maried to Sir Gervase Clyftone Knight being his
second wife. Shee was widdowe ye 22 Ed. 4. This Agnes died ye 23 of
January in ye yeare of Christ 1505 and was ..."

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 nov 2005 01:12:01

In combination with this, we should remember that CP points out that in 1440
Thomas Boteler, Lord Sudeley's son and heir Ralph is called "Uncle" to
Elizabeth, the grand-daughter of John Beauchamp of Powick.

Thus I'd like to hazard that Alice Beauchamp was not the wife of Thomas
*when* Ralph was born. If she were, than Ralph here would be "uncle" to his 1st
cousin (once-removed), a relationship that would have needed a dispensation.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 nov 2005 02:26:08

Dear Will ~

I'm afraid this is yet another example of a medieval record in which
the relationships between two parties or the names stated are slightly
incorrect. In this case, Ralph le Boteler is called "uncle" to
Elizabeth Beauchamp in a record found in the Patent Rolls [Reference:
Cal. Patent Rolls, 1436-1441, pg. 364-366]. The two parties were never
married.

You can view the actual Patent Rolls record at the following weblinks:

http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/patent_r ... 000000.pdf

http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/patent_r ... 000000.pdf

http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/patent_r ... 000000.pdf

Elizabeth Beauchamp of Powick can not possibly have been Ralph le
Boteler's niece, otherwise her brother, Sir John Beauchamp (died 1374),
1st Lord Beauchamp of Powick, would have been one of the co-heirs of
Ralph le Boteler on Ralph's death in 1373, which he most definitely was
not. Rather, it appears that Elizabeth Beauchamp and Ralph le Boteler
were first cousins. Elizabeth Beauchamp's parents were Sir William
Beauchamp of Powick and his wife, Katherine Usflete. Sir William
Beauchamp of Powick in turn was the brother of Ralph le Boteler's
mother, Alice (Beauchamp) (le Boteler) Dallingridge, as attested by
numerous visitation records and Alice Beauchamp's own seal.

You're quite wrong about Alice Beauchamp not being the mother of Ralph
le Boteler. Complete Peerage shows that Ralph le Boteler's parents,
Thomas and Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385 [Reference:
C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 418]. Ralph was the fourth son of his parents
and was surely born sometime after 1385. Ralph doesn't occur in the
records until 1419. My guess is that he was born sometime around
1395-1400, which is sometime after his parents' marriage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In combination with this, we should remember that CP points out that in 1440
Thomas Boteler, Lord Sudeley's son and heir Ralph is called "Uncle" to
Elizabeth, the grand-daughter of John Beauchamp of Powick.

Thus I'd like to hazard that Alice Beauchamp was not the wife of Thomas
*when* Ralph was born. If she were, than Ralph here would be "uncle" to his 1st
cousin (once-removed), a relationship that would have needed a dispensation.

Will Johnson

..

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 nov 2005 02:53:02

In a message dated 11/21/05 5:34:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Elizabeth Beauchamp of Powick can not possibly have been Ralph le
Boteler's niece, otherwise her brother, Sir John Beauchamp (died 1374),
1st Lord Beauchamp of Powick, would have been one of the co-heirs of
Ralph le Boteler on Ralph's death in 1373, which he most definitely was
not. Rather, it appears that Elizabeth Beauchamp and Ralph le Boteler
were first cousins. >>

I pointed out that they were first cousins once removed already.
But why is it that Sir John Beauchamp would be a co-heir of Ralph, were he
his nephew ? I do not follow that.
Does he need to be a blood nephew ? That is a descendent of Ralph's parents?
Rather than an "in-law" nephew, that is a nephew by virtue of a marriage of
Ralph's.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 nov 2005 07:16:53

Dear Will ~

Thank you for your good post.

Elizabeth Beauchamp and Sir Ralph le Boteler were first cousins, not
first cousins once removed. As I indicated in my last post,
Elizabeth's father, Sir William Beauchamp of Powick, and Sir Ralph le
Boteler's mother, Alice (Beauchamp) (le Boteler) Dallingridge, were
brother and sister.

As far as we know, neither of Sir Ralph le Boteler's wives, Elizabeth
(Norbury) Hende or Alice (Deincourt) Lovel, were closely related to the
Beauchamp family of Powick. For Elizabeth Norbury's parentage, see the
archives of the newsgroup.

In any event, when kinship is stated in public records, it is
invariably blood kinship which is intended, not kinship by marriage. A
rare instance of kinship by marriage is Joan Arundel (died 1419), widow
of Sir Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, who
was styled "king's mother" in the Patent Rolls [see Cal. Patent Rolls,
1399-1401 (1903): 34, 60-61]. Joan was actually the mother of King
Henry IV's deceased first wife, Mary de Bohun.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/21/05 5:34:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Elizabeth Beauchamp of Powick can not possibly have been Ralph le
Boteler's niece, otherwise her brother, Sir John Beauchamp (died 1374),
1st Lord Beauchamp of Powick, would have been one of the co-heirs of
Ralph le Boteler on Ralph's death in 1373, which he most definitely was
not. Rather, it appears that Elizabeth Beauchamp and Ralph le Boteler
were first cousins.

I pointed out that they were first cousins once removed already.
But why is it that Sir John Beauchamp would be a co-heir of Ralph, were he
his nephew ? I do not follow that.
Does he need to be a blood nephew ? That is a descendent of Ralph's parents?
Rather than an "in-law" nephew, that is a nephew by virtue of a marriage of
Ralph's.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 nov 2005 22:46:02

In a message dated 11/22/05 10:17:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Elizabeth Beauchamp and Sir Ralph le Boteler were first cousins, not
first cousins once removed. As I indicated in my last post,
Elizabeth's father, Sir William Beauchamp of Powick, and Sir Ralph le
Boteler's mother, Alice (Beauchamp) (le Boteler) Dallingridge, were
brother and sister. >>

If youre reconstuction is correct, I stand corrected on their relationship.

By the way, the relationship quoted ("uncle") to said to have come from a
will of Henry V in 1421.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 nov 2005 22:59:02

In a message dated 11/21/05 5:34:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< You're quite wrong about Alice Beauchamp not being the mother of Ralph
le Boteler. Complete Peerage shows that Ralph le Boteler's parents,
Thomas and Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385 [Reference:
C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 418]. >>

Are you quite sure that it says this? Here is my note on this: "The Complete
Peerage account of Sudeley (vol. 12, part 1, p. 418, note k) notes that
Thomas Boteler (d. 1398) was said to have married a daughter of Sir John Beauchamp
of Powick, but points out that in 1440 Thomas's son and eventual successor
Ralph is described as the uncle of Elizabeth Beauchamp, daughter of Sir William
Beauchamp, Sir John's son and heir. (The description is actually quoted from
the will of Henry V, in 1421.)"


That's quite a difference from what you stated.
Will

Kevin Bradford

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 23 nov 2005 00:28:02

As has been suggested, the quote found in the Website has a defect, either in translation or in some portion of missing or misplaced content. Aside from Sanders, Dugdale, Keats-Rohan and The Complete Peerage, all of whom agree as to Gilbert's paternity, there is found in the last-named source a transcript of a charter that answers this question:

LANCASTER (Barony)

"...et Gilbertum filium Rogeri filii Rainfredi et Helewisam uxorem..." [CP 7:371 note (c)]

Elsewhere in the same note, is mentioned an instrument wherein Gilbert styles himself "Fitz Reinfrid" [PRO Ancient Correspondence, I/92.

Best,
Kevin

Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: butlergrt <butlergrt@aol.com>
Sent: Nov 22, 2005 2:45 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh oh!!!!!!

Good Afternoon All,
1st I want to say, "Sorry" Douglas, I didn't mean Richard, sometimes names
and numbers and such get turned around when I write. I think you may be
able to help tremendously on this one.
I have often in my search on the Butler families have noticed an odd
incongruence with names, dates, lands and popping in here and there and
just disappearing and yet always married to people of note. Things just
DON'T seem to add up, here is a major one and yet sheds an abundance of
new light. In the
Rotuli Secti ad Res Anglican et Hibernicas Spetantes, ex Archivisin Domo
Capitulari West Monasteiensi, De Prompti records found
in the basement of the Chapterhouse of Abbey of Westminster of the
Treasurey Court of the Receipt of Exchequer
Rotulus Litterarum Patentium de Anno Regni Johannis AD 1205 & 1206,
p.1-38, Part XIV # 74,
Iquote: "Mandate to Robert le
Vavasour, that as he loves his body, immediately on the sight of these
letters he set at liberty, Gilbert FitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald
Walter, t. wich, 2 Mar".

For those who are not aware, Robert le Vavasour is the father-in-law of
Theobaold Walter, Pincerna(Butler) of Ireland, Theobold died 1205 and his
alledged son and heir as passed down was Theobold Boteler, Robert Vavasour
paid to King John 1200 marks I beleive for his widowed daughter to marry
Fulk Fitzwarin, and as K. John and Fulk had patched up their feud a few
years previous and as the Boteler line continued, What then I say? I have
seen in the "Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" of other sons mentioned but
nowhere else. Gilbert fitzReinfrid is by most genealogical accounts the
son of Roger the son of Ketal the son of of either Orm by some, or the son
of Alfred or Ethelred de Lincoln(Taillebois) But here is listed a mandate
to theobolds father-in-law by king John, and I highly doubt it is an
error, one could surmise that he was held hostage for what ever reason and
then given the manor of Kendal of which he did hold. Some of this does
make logic (trying to keep this short) as Theobold Walter held the manor
of Amounderness given at different times by different accounts and some of
Stainall, he also held the manor of outrawcliffe as I have written and
they are next to the manor of Kendal and in the vicinity of Warrington,
that William Boteler, Lord of Warrington, held, and who married Ada
Workington of Kendal, dau. of Thomas Workington, Lord of Culwen, whose
grandfather Ketel and great grandfather Ethelred (Alfred) de Taillebois
were Lords of Kendal. There is a whole lot more but this is a small start,
as always any and all thoughts are welcome!!
The website that this can be viewed at is:
http://www.triviumpublishing.com/articl ... olls1.html
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler P.S. this could be a can of worms

Patricia Junkin

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 23 nov 2005 00:55:03

A few notes:

1184 Helewise [Stuteville]. Married (1) William II de Lancaster, lord of
Kendal d.1184 by whom she had Helewise (2) Hugh de Moreville of Burgh,
Cumberland [prob. cousin of Maud de Morville] d. 1202 by whom she had Ada
and Joan (3) William son of Ranulf, lord of Greystoke d.1209 by whom she had
Thomas
In 1217 notable among their absence as signatories on Alan of Galloway¹s
charter to John of Newbiggin is Roger of Lancaster, Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid¹s
illegitimate son and Robert de Brus of Annandale, lord of Edenhall
1219 William Farrers ³Extracts from A Yorkshire Assize Roll":Gilbert son of
Roger son of Reinfrid (usually known as Gilbert Fitz Fitz Reinfrid) was
father of William de Lancaster III, Baron of Kendal held land in Barton in
Wapentake of Gilling East.

Pat
----------
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh
oh!!!!!!
Date: Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 6:26 PM


As has been suggested, the quote found in the Website has a defect, either
in translation or in some portion of missing or misplaced content. Aside
from Sanders, Dugdale, Keats-Rohan and The Complete Peerage, all of whom
agree as to Gilbert's paternity, there is found in the last-named source a
transcript of a charter that answers this question:

LANCASTER (Barony)

"...et Gilbertum filium Rogeri filii Rainfredi et Helewisam uxorem..." [CP
7:371 note (c)]

Elsewhere in the same note, is mentioned an instrument wherein Gilbert
styles himself "Fitz Reinfrid" [PRO Ancient Correspondence, I/92.

Best,
Kevin

Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: butlergrt <butlergrt@aol.com
Sent: Nov 22, 2005 2:45 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh oh!!!!!!

Good Afternoon All,
1st I want to say, "Sorry" Douglas, I didn't mean Richard, sometimes names
and numbers and such get turned around when I write. I think you may be
able to help tremendously on this one.
I have often in my search on the Butler families have noticed an odd
incongruence with names, dates, lands and popping in here and there and
just disappearing and yet always married to people of note. Things just
DON'T seem to add up, here is a major one and yet sheds an abundance of
new light. In the
Rotuli Secti ad Res Anglican et Hibernicas Spetantes, ex Archivisin Domo
Capitulari West Monasteiensi, De Prompti records found
in the basement of the Chapterhouse of Abbey of Westminster of the
Treasurey Court of the Receipt of Exchequer
Rotulus Litterarum Patentium de Anno Regni Johannis AD 1205 & 1206,
p.1-38, Part XIV # 74,
Iquote: "Mandate to Robert le
Vavasour, that as he loves his body, immediately on the sight of these
letters he set at liberty, Gilbert FitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald
Walter, t. wich, 2 Mar".

For those who are not aware, Robert le Vavasour is the father-in-law of
Theobaold Walter, Pincerna(Butler) of Ireland, Theobold died 1205 and his
alledged son and heir as passed down was Theobold Boteler, Robert Vavasour
paid to King John 1200 marks I beleive for his widowed daughter to marry
Fulk Fitzwarin, and as K. John and Fulk had patched up their feud a few
years previous and as the Boteler line continued, What then I say? I have
seen in the "Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" of other sons mentioned but
nowhere else. Gilbert fitzReinfrid is by most genealogical accounts the
son of Roger the son of Ketal the son of of either Orm by some, or the son
of Alfred or Ethelred de Lincoln(Taillebois) But here is listed a mandate
to theobolds father-in-law by king John, and I highly doubt it is an
error, one could surmise that he was held hostage for what ever reason and
then given the manor of Kendal of which he did hold. Some of this does
make logic (trying to keep this short) as Theobold Walter held the manor
of Amounderness given at different times by different accounts and some of
Stainall, he also held the manor of outrawcliffe as I have written and
they are next to the manor of Kendal and in the vicinity of Warrington,
that William Boteler, Lord of Warrington, held, and who married Ada
Workington of Kendal, dau. of Thomas Workington, Lord of Culwen, whose
grandfather Ketel and great grandfather Ethelred (Alfred) de Taillebois
were Lords of Kendal. There is a whole lot more but this is a small start,
as always any and all thoughts are welcome!!
The website that this can be viewed at is:
http://www.triviumpublishing.com/articl ... olls1.html
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler P.S. this could be a can of worms


butlergrt

Re: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walte

Legg inn av butlergrt » 23 nov 2005 01:19:01

Good Evening Kevin,
If he "styles" himself fitzReinfrid, then it is as TheoboldWalter's grand
children "styled" themselves as either deVerdun or Boteler as theyso
chose, also of note Tehobold had other brothers besides Hubert, Archbishop
of Canterbury, he also had Hamo/n Pincerna who grandchildren "styled"
themselves after their maternal line Hocton-later Houghton and Roger and
one other brother whose name escapes me at this moment. Uxorem is it the
same as Uxore juris?, in the right of his wife? This term I do not know,
Thank You for the reply and thoughts.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Kevin Bradford

Re: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walte

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 23 nov 2005 02:46:02

Greetings,

"uxorem" is a variant form of "wife."

Best,
Kevin


-----Original Message-----
From: butlergrt <butlergrt@aol.com>
Sent: Nov 22, 2005 7:19 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh

Good Evening Kevin,
If he "styles" himself fitzReinfrid, then it is as TheoboldWalter's grand
children "styled" themselves as either deVerdun or Boteler as theyso
chose, also of note Tehobold had other brothers besides Hubert, Archbishop
of Canterbury, he also had Hamo/n Pincerna who grandchildren "styled"
themselves after their maternal line Hocton-later Houghton and Roger and
one other brother whose name escapes me at this moment. Uxorem is it the
same as Uxore juris?, in the right of his wife? This term I do not know,
Thank You for the reply and thoughts.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 nov 2005 05:11:57

My comments are interspersed below. DR

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/21/05 5:34:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

You're quite wrong about Alice Beauchamp not being the mother of Ralph
le Boteler. Complete Peerage shows that Ralph le Boteler's parents,
Thomas and Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385 [Reference:
C.P. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 418].

Are you quite sure that it says this?

Yes, Complete Peerage states that Thomas le Boteler and his wife,
Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385.

Here is my note on this: "The Complete
Peerage account of Sudeley (vol. 12, part 1, p. 418, note k) notes that
Thomas Boteler (d. 1398) was said to have married a daughter of Sir John Beauchamp
of Powick, but points out that in 1440 Thomas's son and eventual successor
Ralph is described as the uncle of Elizabeth Beauchamp, daughter of Sir William
Beauchamp, Sir John's son and heir. (The description is actually quoted from
the will of Henry V, in 1421.)"

That's quite a difference from what you stated.

Complete Peerage cites the Patent Roll item I mentioned in my post, not
the will of King Henry V, as the record in which Ralph le Boteler is
called the uncle of Elizabeth Beauchamp.

Will

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2005 05:57:02

In a message dated 11/22/2005 8:15:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:


Yes, Complete Peerage states that Thomas le Boteler and his wife,
Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385.

Here is my note on this: "The Complete
Peerage account of Sudeley (vol. 12, part 1, p. 418, note k) notes that
Thomas Boteler (d. 1398) was said to have married a daughter of Sir John
Beauchamp
of Powick, but points out that in 1440

I note that again you did not put quote marks around what CP says and what
you are saying. That would be helpful in order to clarify the exact verbage of
note k.

Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 23 nov 2005 09:35:28

Douglas Richardson wrote in message:
Complete Peerage cites the Patent Roll item I mentioned in my post, not
the will of King Henry V, as the record in which Ralph le Boteler is
called the uncle of Elizabeth Beauchamp.

I posted an extract from the calendar of patent rolls (which cites the will
of Henry V) in June 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/d9tqo

Chris Phillips

Kevin Bradford

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 23 nov 2005 12:46:02

"It has been stated that she was da. of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick. In 1440 Sir Ralph Boteler, s. and successor of Thomas, is descr. as uncle of Elizabeth, da. of Sir William Beauchamp of Powick and sis. of Sir Walter Beauchamp, his s. and heir: (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1436-41, pp. 364-65). These facts cannot be made to tally with the account of Beauchamp of Powick given by Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i, p. 249." [CP 12/1:418 note k]

Hope this helps.

Best,
Kevin

Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Nov 22, 2005 11:55 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Thomas le Boteler, L...

In a message dated 11/22/2005 8:15:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:


Yes, Complete Peerage states that Thomas le Boteler and his wife,
Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385.

Here is my note on this: "The Complete
Peerage account of Sudeley (vol. 12, part 1, p. 418, note k) notes that
Thomas Boteler (d. 1398) was said to have married a daughter of Sir John
Beauchamp
of Powick, but points out that in 1440

I note that again you did not put quote marks around what CP says and what
you are saying. That would be helpful in order to clarify the exact verbage of
note k.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 nov 2005 15:09:13

Dear Will ~

Here is what Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 418, with accompanying
note k, says regarding the marriage of Sir Thomas le Boteler, Lord
Sudeley, and his wife, Alice:

"He [Thomas le Boteler] married on or before 18 July 1385, Alice." [k].

Note k: "It has been stated that she was daughter of Sir John Beauchamp
of Powick. In 1440 Sir Ralph Boteler, son and successor of Thomas, is
described as uncle of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William Beauchamp of
Powick and sister of Sir Walter Beauchamp, his son and heir: (Cal.
Patent Rolls, 1436-1441, pp. 364-65). These facts cannot be made to
tally with the account of Beauchamp of Powick given by Dugdale,
Baronage, vol. i, p. 249." END OF QUOTE.

The only difference between the above and what I have posted already is
that I have earlier stated that the correct reference to the item in
the Calendar of Patent Rolls, is Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1436-1441,
pages 364-366, not 364-365. So, this is a minor correction for
Complete Peerage.

You can view the actual Patent Rolls record at the following weblinks:

http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/patent_r ... 000000.pdf

http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/patent_r ... 000000.pdf

http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/patent_r ... 000000.pdf

Complete Peerage makes no reference whatsoever to the will of King
Henry V.

Alice, wife of Sir Thomas le Boteler, is elsewhere identified as the
daughter of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick in no less than three
visitations, NONE of which are cited by Complete Peerage:

1. Hawley et al., Vis. of Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 & 1634 2 (H.S.P.
14) (1879): 563-565 (Misc. Peds.) (Cooke pedigree: "Sr Thomas
Butler. = Alice d. of John Beauchamp of Powick.").

2. Harvey et al., Vis. of Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669 (H.S.P.
19) (1884): 162-163 (Bray pedigree: "Thomas Butler Baron of Sudley
= Allice d. and heire of John Beauchampe of Powick.").

3. Benolte et al., Vis. of Surrey 1530, 1572 & 1613 (H.S.P. 43) (1899):
219-221 (Vincent pedigree: "Sir Thom. Botteler Knt. = Allice d. of
Sir John Beauchamp of Powick Knt.").

The best contemporary evidence, however, afforded to us regarding the
identity of Alice, wife of Thomas le Boteler, is her own seal which
shows her arms as being Beauchamp of Powick, that is, a fess between
six martlets [Reference: Report on the MSS of Lord de L'isle & Dudley
1 (Hist. MSS Comm. 77) (1925): 149]. This seal was overlooked by
Complete Peerage.

These distinctive arms were adopted by Alice (Beauchamp) le Boteler's
great-grandfather, Sir Walter Beauchamp (died 1303), of Alcester,
Warwickshire and Powick, Worcestershire, Steward of the Household of
King Edward I. References to Sir Walter de Beauchamp's seals bearing
these arms may be found in the following three sources:

Birch, Cat. of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 480 (seal of
Walter de Beauchamp dated 1301-Obverse. A shield of arms: a fess
between six martlets [BEAUCHAMP]. Between three lions of England, in
allusion to his office of Steward of the Household of Edward I. Borded
borders; Reverse. A small round counterseal. A shield of arms as
above in the obverse. Beaded borders).

Macdonald, Scottish Armorial Seals (1904): 17 (seal of Walter de
Beauchamp: A fess between six martlets, three in chief and as many in
base. Beaded borders).

Brault, Rolls of Arms Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997): 41 (arms of
Walter de Beauchamp: Gules, a fess between six martlets or; he sealed
with these arms in 1296, 1301, and 1303).

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/22/2005 8:15:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:


Yes, Complete Peerage states that Thomas le Boteler and his wife,
Alice, were married on or before 18 July 1385.

Here is my note on this: "The Complete
Peerage account of Sudeley (vol. 12, part 1, p. 418, note k) notes that
Thomas Boteler (d. 1398) was said to have married a daughter of Sir John
Beauchamp
of Powick, but points out that in 1440

I note that again you did not put quote marks around what CP says and what
you are saying. That would be helpful in order to clarify the exact verbage of
note k.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2005 17:11:02

In a message dated 11/23/2005 12:50:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

Complete Peerage cites the Patent Roll item I mentioned in my post, not
the will of King Henry V, as the record in which Ralph le Boteler is
called the uncle of Elizabeth Beauchamp.

I posted an extract from the calendar of patent rolls (which cites the will
of Henry V) in June 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/d9tqo

Chris Phillips


Thanks Chris for clarifying that the patent rolls are cited, or obliquely
citing the will of Henry V. The rolls of course are not using quotation marks
to let us know the exact wording in that will, and so without a copy of that
will we cannot tell if "uncle" is in the will or just in the rolls. But at
least we know, or now are reminded, that it's possible that the "uncle" is
also in the will.
Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 23 nov 2005 18:12:54

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Complete Peerage makes no reference whatsoever to the will of King
Henry V.

No, just to a Patent Roll entry that draws the relevant information
directly from said will. Hence Will was not really as far off the mark
as your repeated correction might imply when he said, "(The description
is actually quoted from the will of Henry V, in 1421.)", was he?

Alice, wife of Sir Thomas le Boteler, is elsewhere identified as the
daughter of Sir John Beauchamp of Powick in no less than three
visitations, NONE of which are cited by Complete Peerage:

When attesting to things from a time hundreds of years after the fact,
such visitations are generally given short shrift by the CP editors -
not cited or cited in a manner suggesting that they are untrustworthy.
Thus there is no real surprise that no exhaustive effort was made in
this case to cite them.

taf

Gjest

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2005 22:27:01

In a message dated 11/23/05 8:15:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< Geoffrey de Mandeville wanted to marry John's ex-wife, Isabel, daughter
of the Earl of Gloucester and great-granddaughter of Henry I. John made
him pay L20,000 (IIRC), an astronomical amount at the time, which
bankrupted him - probably John's true intent. >>

And he didn't enjoy much wedded bliss, dying two years after his marriage. I
hope it was worth it.
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 23 nov 2005 22:58:57

In message of 23 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/23/05 8:15:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Geoffrey de Mandeville wanted to marry John's ex-wife, Isabel,
daughter of the Earl of Gloucester and great-granddaughter of Henry
I. John made him pay L20,000 (IIRC), an astronomical amount at the
time, which bankrupted him - probably John's true intent.

And he didn't enjoy much wedded bliss, dying two years after his
marriage. I hope it was worth it.

I wonder. Isobel was a co-heir of the Gloucester lands. Probably the
holdings, even a third of them, were enormous and produced a fair
rental, etc income. On that basis the L20,000 might have been a fair
capital sum for the return that was received. It was quite common to
have to pay big money to marry heiresses of land that was held in chief.

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

Gjest

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2005 23:42:05

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

In a message dated 11/23/05 8:15:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Geoffrey de Mandeville wanted to marry John's ex-wife, Isabel,
daughter of the Earl of Gloucester and great-granddaughter of Henry
I. John made him pay L20,000 (IIRC), an astronomical amount at the
time, which bankrupted him - probably John's true intent.


I wonder. Isobel was a co-heir of the Gloucester lands. Probably the
holdings, even a third of them, were enormous and produced a fair
rental, etc income. On that basis the L20,000 might have been a fair
capital sum for the return that was received. It was quite common to
have to pay big money to marry heiresses of land that was held in chief.

Although it is next to impossible to translate historical sums into
today's currency terms, Munby(*) notes in his abstractions based on
purchasing power, as calculated by the Bank of England, that the
English pound of 1270 (sic) had a purchasing power of L349.75, based on
the British pound of 1992. This rate, surprisingly, was apparently
fairly constant, obtaining for each decade but five between 1270 and
1520. I think taf's memory is slightly off, and the fine on the
marriage was 20,000 marks rather than pounds. The mark being
two-thirds of a pound, we are talking about L13,333, and thus we may
consider an extremely rough approximation of L4.6 millions in today's
terms.

*'How Much Is That Worth?', Lionel Munby, 1996 edition, p 38

Patricia Junkin

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 23 nov 2005 23:57:02

Will,
There are two Helewisas. Does this clarify or do you think I am in error?
Pat

William de Lancaster I and Gundred de Warrenne m. ca. 1154 had
Avicia b. c. 1155
[In 1171/2, Richard de Morville, son of Hugh the elder, offered 200 marks
to have recognition of his claim to the lands of his wife Avicia, a daughter
of William I of Lancaster.]

William de Lancaster II d. 1184 married Helewisa de Stuteville, born say
1169 died, 1228 who married 2) Hugh de Morville, 3) William fitz Ranulf. She
was the daughter of Robert de Stuteville of Cottingham, Yorks. died 1183.

The Hugh de Morville whom Helewisa married was not, Hugh, the son of of Hugh
de Morville, Constable of Scotland, d. 1162. The son of Hugh and Beatrice
Beauchamp de Morville was among those implicated in the murder of Becket and
was probably dead by 1173-4. He was a brother to Maude who married William
de Vipont. Confusion may arise in that he was a royal justice on eyre with
Robert de Stuteville (d . 1183), according to R. M. Franklin,Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography.
Helewisa's husband Hugh was from the line of Simon and Ada Engaine de
Morville, Burgh by Sands.

William de Lancaster II and Helwise had an only daughter[Weis' AR7 (88:27)
Weis cites CP V 269 & VII 371 [Thu, 17 Oct 1996
08:50:47-0500MEDIEVAL@MAIL.EWORLD.COM From: Jim Stevens
<jstevens@IQUEST.NET], Helwise.
This daughter, Helewisa married Gilbert son of Roger fitz Reinfrid, son of
Reinfrid by whom she had
William de Lancaster III
Helewisa who married Peter de Brus
Alice who m. William de Lindsay
Serota who m. ___Multon
Roger the Bastard
according to History and Antiquities of the Counties of Westmoreland and
Cumberland, Nicholson and Burn.I


Hugh de Morville and Helwisa had two daughters.
Joan m. Richard Gernun [Testa de Nevill]. [Richard de Levinton, dying in
1250, was succeeded by his brother Ralf, who had inherited by his marriage
with Ada de Morvill a moiety of the Morvill lands, viz. six carucates in
Kirkoswald and three carucates in Lazonby worth yearly twenty-four marks.2
By this marriage he became brother-in-law to Richard de Vernun?, husband of
Helewise de Morvill, Ada's sister. In 1247 Richard de Vernun and Ralf de
Levinton did homage for the Morvill estates lately belonging to Joan de
Morvill, mother of Helewise and Ada. ]
Ada: Thomas de Multon (d. 1240) married Ada de Lucy, co-heiress of Hugh de
Morville of Burgh and widow of Richard de Lucy.

William fitz Ranulf pro d. 1209 and Helewisa had a son Thomas de Greystoke
b.c. 1202 who married Christian de Vipont the daughter of William and Maud
de Morville Vipont's son Robert. Robert de Veteri Ponte has Thomas
[Greystoke] son of William son of Randulf and his land in ward (custodia) by
King John; and to the same Thomas he married his daughter [Christiana ca.
1199-1200]; and his land is worth 50l. a year.



----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh
oh!!!!!!
Date: Tue, Nov 22, 2005, 7:27 PM


In a message dated 11/22/05 3:54:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:

1184 Helewise [Stuteville]. Married (1) William II de Lancaster, lord of
Kendal d.1184 by whom she had Helewise (2) Hugh de Moreville of Burgh,
Cumberland [prob. cousin of Maud de Morville] d. 1202 by whom she had Ada
and Joan (3) William son of Ranulf, lord of Greystoke d.1209 by whom she had
Thomas

I must have an error in my database somewhere. Here is what I can make of
the above.

If Hawise (Helawise) is to be both mother of Helewise (mar Gilbert
FitzReinfrid, Lord of Kendal) AND also mother of Thomas de Greystoke (b
1202/10) then
this puts such a crimp on her possible birth range, that it turns out that
William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendall (d 1246) could not be the son of
Gilbert.

This is because his own daughter Alicia de Lancaster b abt 1201 forces his
birth to be pushed back to a date where Hawise would herself still be a
toddler.

How can you straighten this out for me?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 nov 2005 07:04:15

Dear Newsgroup ~

Roskell has the following to say about Elizabeth Beauchamp and her
cousin, Sir Ralph Boteler, who are named in the will of King Henry V:

"[William] Beauchamp probably died before Henry V made the codicil to
his will which was dated 9 June 1421, for in that codicil the King
expressed his wish that Beauchamp's daughter Elizabeth should be
granted land worth £200 p.a. for life on condition that she married by
the advice of her mother, her uncle, Sir Walter [Beauchamp] (then
treasurer of the Household), her cousin Sir Ralph Butler (later Lord
Sudeley) and Thomas, duke of Exeter ... In due course Elizabeth married
the duke of Exeter's kinsman, Thomas Swynford." [Reference: Roskell et
al., House of Commons 1386-1421, 2 (1992): 162 (biog. of William
Beauchamp)].

Elsewhere Roskell identifies Sir Ralph Boteler's mother, Alice
Beauchamp, wife of Sir Thomas Boteler and Sir John Dallingridge, as the
sister of Sir William Beauchamp of Powick, Worcestershire, the subject
of the biography:

"[William] Beauchamp's entry into court circles was perhaps eased by
the marriage of his sister Alice widow of Sir Thomas Butler of Sudeley,
to Sir John Dallingridge, a knight of the new King's chamber."
[Reference: Roskell et al., House of Commons 1386-1421, 2 (1992): 162
(biog. of William Beauchamp)].

Both of these passages from Roskell are clear, unambiguous statements.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2005 08:32:02

In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

"[William] Beauchamp probably died before Henry V made the codicil to
his will which was dated 9 June 1421, for in that codicil the King
expressed his wish that Beauchamp's daughter Elizabeth should be
granted land worth £200 p.a. for life on condition that she married by
the advice of her mother, her uncle, Sir Walter [Beauchamp] (then
treasurer of the Household), her cousin Sir Ralph Butler (later Lord
Sudeley) and Thomas, duke of Exeter ... In due course Elizabeth married
the duke of Exeter's kinsman, Thomas Swynford." [Reference: Roskell et
al., House of Commons 1386-1421, 2 (1992): 162 (biog. of William
Beauchamp)].


He (or you) do not use quotation marks to indicate what portion is a
verbatim quote from that will and what portion is interpolated. So this adds
nothing more to what we already know. The important point being, does Henry's will
actually use the words "uncle" and "cousin" in this context?
Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 24 nov 2005 10:42:00

Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
Roskell has the following to say about Elizabeth Beauchamp and her
cousin, Sir Ralph Boteler, who are named in the will of King Henry V:

"[William] Beauchamp probably died before Henry V made the codicil to
his will which was dated 9 June 1421, for in that codicil the King
expressed his wish that Beauchamp's daughter Elizabeth should be
granted land worth £200 p.a. for life on condition that she married by
the advice of her mother, her uncle, Sir Walter [Beauchamp] (then
treasurer of the Household), her cousin Sir Ralph Butler (later Lord
Sudeley) and Thomas, duke of Exeter ... In due course Elizabeth married
the duke of Exeter's kinsman, Thomas Swynford." [Reference: Roskell et
al., House of Commons 1386-1421, 2 (1992): 162 (biog. of William
Beauchamp)].


Comparing this with what the Calendar of Patent Rolls says about the
codicil, I wonder whether the reference to Ralph as Elizabeth's uncle may
have resulted from a simple misunderstanding of the text:
<<
The king's father, in his will, written with his own hand, desired that the
said Elizabeth should have, of the gift of his feoffees, 300 marks' worth of
land for life on condition that she would marry by advice of her mother, of
the king's uncle, of Exeter, of Sir Walter Beauchamp, then treasurer of the
Household, and of her uncle, Sir Ralph Butiller

Is it possible that "her uncle", in the original codicil, describes Sir
Walter Beauchamp, not Sir Ralph Butiller?

The CP account (ii 46 note e) makes Sir Walter the eldest brother of
Elizabeth, but Roskell/History of Parliament suggests instead that he was a
younger brother of Elizabeth's father.

If "uncle" relates to Walter rather than Ralph, that would neatly confirm
HOP's revision of the Beauchamp pedigree and remove the apparent
contradiction over Ralph's relationship to the Beauchamps.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 nov 2005 16:26:17

Dear Will ~

Roskell appears to have seen a copy of the codicil of King Henry V's
will dated 9 June 1421, which contains the provision regarding
Elizabeth Beauchamp. As you are aware, the codicil is not mentioned in
the Patent Rolls item cited by Complete Peerage.

If you wish an answer to examine a transcript of the codicil of the
will for yourself, it can be found in a work by John Nichols entitled
"Collection of all the Wills, now known to be extant, of the Kings and
Queens of England." The book is available in used condition on the
internet for $75.00 US:

http://www.abaa.org/dbp/detailindex.php ... ce=froogle

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 11/23/2005 10:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

"[William] Beauchamp probably died before Henry V made the codicil to
his will which was dated 9 June 1421, for in that codicil the King
expressed his wish that Beauchamp's daughter Elizabeth should be
granted land worth £200 p.a. for life on condition that she married by
the advice of her mother, her uncle, Sir Walter [Beauchamp] (then
treasurer of the Household), her cousin Sir Ralph Butler (later Lord
Sudeley) and Thomas, duke of Exeter ... In due course Elizabeth married
the duke of Exeter's kinsman, Thomas Swynford." [Reference: Roskell et
al., House of Commons 1386-1421, 2 (1992): 162 (biog. of William
Beauchamp)].


He (or you) do not use quotation marks to indicate what portion is a
verbatim quote from that will and what portion is interpolated. So this adds
nothing more to what we already know. The important point being, does Henry's will
actually use the words "uncle" and "cousin" in this context?
Will Johnson

Cristopher Nash

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

Legg inn av Cristopher Nash » 24 nov 2005 17:21:01

27 Aug 2005 Douglas Richardson wrote —

For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st
Lord Basset (he died 1300).

SNIP

Martha Eltonhead

Douglas, forgive me for being slow on the uptake (and my recent
general absence around here has to make it hard to!) , but might you
possibly remind me how this came about? I'm having trouble seeing it!

I've Basset's death, BTW, as 31 Dec 1299 — per Knights of Edward I
(Harl Soc vol 80, 52), though the source given is "G.E.C" —
presumably as in CP II, 2 — but the latter offers no docum. Have you
found something sharper for this?

Many thanks!

Cris

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 24 nov 2005 18:10:26

Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
Roskell appears to have seen a copy of the codicil of King Henry V's
will dated 9 June 1421, which contains the provision regarding
Elizabeth Beauchamp. As you are aware, the codicil is not mentioned in
the Patent Rolls item cited by Complete Peerage.

If you wish an answer to examine a transcript of the codicil of the
will for yourself, it can be found in a work by John Nichols entitled
"Collection of all the Wills, now known to be extant, of the Kings and
Queens of England."


The codicil _is_ referred to in the entry in the patent roll cited by
Complete Peerage. As I read it, the information quoted actually comes from
the codicil, as it is followed by "as more plainly appears in an autograph
paper codicil to the will annexed".

Roskell's references for the paragraph mentioning the codicil are as
follows:

Wilts. Arch. Mag. lvi. 352-3 [this is a paper by Roskell on 'Three Wiltshire
Speakers', including Sir Walter Beauchamp (1416)]

CPR, 1422-9, p. 53 [this is a [?]confirmation of letters patent to
Catherine, widow of William Beauchamp, 15 December 1422]

CPR 1441-6, pp. 364-6 [this is the patent roll we are discussing]

CP, ii. 46-47 [Beauchamp of Powick account]

Are you sure Nichols printed a transcript of the codicil? Several online
sources say that the will of Henry V and its codicils are lost.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 nov 2005 21:18:45

I haven't checked Nichols' book. However, I assume that is where
Roskell obtained the date of the 1421 codicil to King Henry V's will.
As you are well aware, the 1440 Patent Rolls item cited by both Roskell
and Complete Peerage gives no date for the codicil.

DR

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 24 nov 2005 22:11:12

Douglas Richardson
I haven't checked Nichols' book. However, I assume that is where
Roskell obtained the date of the 1421 codicil to King Henry V's will.
As you are well aware, the 1440 Patent Rolls item cited by both Roskell
and Complete Peerage gives no date for the codicil.


As far as I can see, the only source cited by Roskell that could contain the
date of the codicil is his own article in the Wiltshire Archaeological
Magazine.

Maybe that would shed some more light on the matter, but at the moment I
don't see any reason to assume that the codicil was printed by Nichols.

Chris Phillips

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Factual History Of Britain

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 25 nov 2005 02:08:51

Appalling!

Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being
far more interested in the Marxist ones?

Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution.
John Locke was the Godfather of both.

You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times
removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons.

If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity,
we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now THIS is an Intelligent Post by someone who obviously DOES have a Sense
of History.

Vide infra pro sapientia.

DSH

"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:dm5lot$f0v$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

That's the problem of so much British general history being written from a
London perspective. I suspect that a collection of local history essays
about the civil war would give a much stronger sense of change.

In the area that I study, the changes were significant because the civil
war demolished the fortunes of the two major gentry families - and, from a
social perspective, the area became very Quaker.

However, probably more significant to the area was the opening up of
Ireland to trade and settlement. Big events like civil wars don't seem so
big when there are lots of other things going on.

The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of
the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have
ever heard of it!


Chris

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 nov 2005 08:45:08

If the original will and codicils for King Henry V have been destroyed,
then obviously they would not be found in Nichols' book. If so,
Roskell presumably saw the article entitled "The last will and codicils
of Henry V" by Patrick and Felicity Strong which appeared in English
Historical Review.1981; XCVI: 79-89.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson
I haven't checked Nichols' book. However, I assume that is where
Roskell obtained the date of the 1421 codicil to King Henry V's will.
As you are well aware, the 1440 Patent Rolls item cited by both Roskell
and Complete Peerage gives no date for the codicil.


As far as I can see, the only source cited by Roskell that could contain the
date of the codicil is his own article in the Wiltshire Archaeological
Magazine.

Maybe that would shed some more light on the matter, but at the moment I
don't see any reason to assume that the codicil was printed by Nichols.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: the name Christina

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2005 09:23:02

WJhonson writes:-
<This name Christina makes me think of a Scandinavian origin. Am I off base
<here? I've only ever seen the name in that context
How about Christian Ledet, d. and h. of Guiscard/Wiscard Ledet, who d. c.1221?
I have no information as to the origins of the Ledet family, but Christian's
mother was of Norman (Reincourt and Foliot) descent
MM

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 25 nov 2005 14:06:23

Douglas Richardson wrote:
As you are well aware, the 1440 Patent Rolls item cited by both Roskell
and Complete Peerage gives no date for the codicil.
....
If the original will and codicils for King Henry V have been destroyed,
then obviously they would not be found in Nichols' book. If so,
Roskell presumably saw the article entitled "The last will and codicils
of Henry V" by Patrick and Felicity Strong which appeared in English
Historical Review.1981; XCVI: 79-89.


Checking the wonderful "Google Book Search" I found something that sheds a
bit more light on this.

From "The Cambridge History of Britain: Volume 3, 1400-1557" (ed. Lotte
Hellinga et al., 1999), p. 262:

"The rediscovery at Eton in 1978 of a copy of Henry V's last will of 10 June
1421 and its codicils of 1422 ..." [citing Strong and Strong, 1981].

So it sounds as though the relevant codicil may have been rediscovered,
though Roskell's statement "Beauchamp probably died before Henry V made the
codicil to his will which was dated 9 June 1421" doesn't quite fit in with
the information above. Perhaps Roskell's date is meant to be that of the
will itself?

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 nov 2005 19:30:14

No doubt the relevant details regarding King Henry V's bequest to
Elizabeth Beauchamp will be made clear when the article by Strong &
Strong in English Historical Review is examined.

DR

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 nov 2005 23:55:03

In a message dated 11/24/05 1:50:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

<< The CP account (ii 46 note e) makes Sir Walter the eldest brother of
Elizabeth, but Roskell/History of Parliament suggests instead that he was a
younger brother of Elizabeth's father. >>

Actually at the moment I have two Walters, one the uncle and one the son.

The uncle who was the Treasurer of the King's Household married Elizabeth
Roches dau of Sir John Roches Knt of Broham and Wilhelmina (Or Willelma ?) de la
Mare

They were the parents of William Beauchamp (Knt in 1433), 5th Baron St Amand
by right of his wife Elizabeth de Braybrook, dau of Gerard Lord of St Amand
and Pernel Grey.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: the name Christina

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2005 19:14:33

Eadgar Aetheling had a sister called Christina. This is the earliest
example of the name in Britain, but she was probably born in Hungary
during her father's exile.

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 nov 2005 21:13:15

Douglas Richardson wrote:
No doubt the relevant details regarding King Henry V's bequest to
Elizabeth Beauchamp will be made clear when the article by Strong &
Strong in English Historical Review is examined.


Unfortunately not, but the article does at least clarify the position
regarding the codicil.

What was rediscovered at Eton College was Henry V's last will, dated 10 June
1421, together with its codicils made the following year. The text of these
is quite long, but as far as I can see they contain no mention of Elizabeth
Beauchamp.

From an entry in the Rolls of Parliament [Rot. Parl. iv 299-300] there was
also known to be a codicil dated 9 June 1421, which the king wrote in
English with his own hand, and sealed with the signet of an eagle. Strong
and Strong assume that this was a codicil to one of his previous wills, made
in 1415 and 1417.

It is this lost 1421 codicil that Roskell [Wilts Arch. Mag. vol. 56, pp.
352-3 (1955)] assumes the passage in the patent roll refers to.

So it looks as though our only information about what the codicil actually
said will have to come from the patent roll. If Roskell is correct, the
entry was translated from Henry V's English into Latin, so there is perhaps
some scope for confusion about who is being referred to as her uncle. And
perhaps there was scope for confusion in the original document, which was,
apparently, not tidily written.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 nov 2005 22:02:02

In a message dated 11/26/2005 12:15:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

If Roskell is correct, the
entry was translated from Henry V's English into Latin, so there is perhaps
some scope for confusion about who is being referred to as her uncle. And
perhaps there was scope for confusion in the original document, which was,
apparently, not tidily written.


So then it appears that Roskell, rearranged the wording in order to make it
"fit" what he thought the correct relationships should have been ...

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 nov 2005 22:55:27

Dear Cris ~

Thank you for your good post.

The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723]. Ralph
de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford, in turn was the grandson of Ralph
Basset (died 1299), 1st Lord Basset of Drayton, by his wife, Hawise.

You're correct in your statement that Ralph Basset, 1st Lord Basset of
Drayton, died 31 December 1299, as per Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 2
(sub Basset)].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Cristopher Nash wrote:
27 Aug 2005 Douglas Richardson wrote -

For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Hawise, wife of Ralph Basset, 1st
Lord Basset (he died 1300).

SNIP

Martha Eltonhead

Douglas, forgive me for being slow on the uptake (and my recent
general absence around here has to make it hard to!) , but might you
possibly remind me how this came about? I'm having trouble seeing it!

I've Basset's death, BTW, as 31 Dec 1299 - per Knights of Edward I
(Harl Soc vol 80, 52), though the source given is "G.E.C" -
presumably as in CP II, 2 - but the latter offers no docum. Have you
found something sharper for this?

Many thanks!

Cris

Gjest

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, Ivo's father Reinfrid

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 nov 2005 00:44:02

In a message dated 11/26/05 2:40:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:

<< On the face of it, this family
appears to have been a mix of Norman, Saxon and Scandinavian and blood. The
barony of Kendal was granted to Ivo de Taillebois, who died about 1089, by
William Rufus and during the reign of Henry I it passed to Ketel son of
Eldred, lord of Workington. >>

You, quoting Rosie Bevan give this above. However Emmett also posts
"Ivo .... He was Dapifer in 1091 at which time the king gave him the Lordship
of Kendal and his family is Angevin. Davis, Regesta, no.'s 408,409"

If he was Dapifer in 1091, then he did not die about 1089.

Will Johnson

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, Ivo's father Reinfrid

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 27 nov 2005 01:27:02

Quite so. I've got him dying in 1094 in Kendal. No idea where I got that
information - I wasn't very good at putting in sources when I got the
information!
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 11/27/05 10:13:32
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, Ivo's father Reinfrid

In a message dated 11/26/05 2:40:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:

<< On the face of it, this family
appears to have been a mix of Norman, Saxon and Scandinavian and blood.
The
barony of Kendal was granted to Ivo de Taillebois, who died about 1089, by
William Rufus and during the reign of Henry I it passed to Ketel son of
Eldred, lord of Workington. >>

You, quoting Rosie Bevan give this above. However Emmett also posts
"Ivo .... He was Dapifer in 1091 at which time the king gave him the
Lordship
of Kendal and his family is Angevin. Davis, Regesta, no.'s 408,409"

If he was Dapifer in 1091, then he did not die about 1089.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 nov 2005 02:11:01

In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723]. >>

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Kitchen", pg 496-499, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962

states that this Elizabeth Beke is the granddaughter not of Sir Ralph who d
1372, but rather of Ralph de Stafford of Grafton, Broomsgrove, Worcester (by
his wife Maud de Hastings) who d 1 Mar 1410

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Death date of Maud de Burgh, widow of Gil

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 nov 2005 02:43:01

In a message dated 11/26/05 3:06:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< "He married 29 September 1308, at Waltham Abbey, in the presence of his
uncle the King, and earls and barons, Maud, daughter of Richard (de
Burgh), Earl of Ulster, by Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Burgh, of
Lanvalley ... >>

On this connection of Maud to Sir John de Burgh, Leo's great website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO

shows Maud de Burgh as dau of Margaret de Guines

This Margaret
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO
is shown as dau of Arnould, Count of Guines and Alix de Coucy

Leo cites CP and others (X!! 176)

Is this a correction ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Cristopher Nash

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

Legg inn av Cristopher Nash » 27 nov 2005 04:11:02

Douglas, thanks very much for this —

The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723].

There's an old problem affecting the line you have in mind —
concerning the uncertainty as to whether the mother of Elizabeth de
Beke is a da. of Sir Ralph de Stafford — put most clearly I think by
Peter Sutton on 24 Jan 01 sub <RE: Mother of Margaret Stafford> —

In the Collection for a History of Staffordshire Volume: 1925 p.
109 ... from
a suit at Stafford Assizes in July, 1402, we learn definitely that
he (Sir Nicholas Beke)
was the son of Mary (otherwise Mariota) de Bek, and that he himself
married a wife
named Joan; while from a suit also heard at Stafford in August,
1408 we know that
he and Joan were both living at Lady day, 1348 (SHC XV, pages 114
and 122
Plea Rolls 1387-1405). However, the surname is not quoted in any
source I
have seen.

As to Ralph de Stafford's children by Katherine de Hastang I have
not seen
any direct evidence that there were any other children from this
marriage
apart from Margaret.

I am not sure how likely it would be for him to have 2 daughters
both called
Joan who lived to adulthood. Have you got a reliable source for the
marriage to Sir Nicholas Bek?

I wonder whether for MCA or in the course of other work you've turned
up an answer?

Many thanks, again!

Cris

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Death date of Maud de Burgh, widow of Gil

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 27 nov 2005 09:45:01

Will Johnson wrote:
[Douglas Richardson quoted the CP account of Gloucester]
"He married 29 September 1308, at Waltham Abbey, in the presence of his
uncle the King, and earls and barons, Maud, daughter of Richard (de
Burgh), Earl of Ulster, by Margaret, daughter of Sir John de Burgh, of
Lanvalley ...

On this connection of Maud to Sir John de Burgh, Leo's great website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO

shows Maud de Burgh as dau of Margaret de Guines

This Margaret
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 5&tree=LEO
is shown as dau of Arnould, Count of Guines and Alix de Coucy

Leo cites CP and others (X!! 176)

Is this a correction ?


Yes, it's a correction to the Gloucester account, in that the identification
of Margaret as a Burgh has been removed in the other CP accounts where she
appears.

The revision, identifying her as a daughter of the Count of Guines, is
conjectural.

Chris Phillips

Peter Sutton

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

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 27 nov 2005 15:51:01

Cris

Since I sent the message in 2001 which you referred to I have done some more
research on a possible wife for Sir Nicholas Bek.

Josiah C. Wedgewood in HCS Volume: 1917-8 Parliamentary History Volume:1
says -

" Sir Nicholas de Beek of Tean, MP Staffs 1363, 1365 - Born c. 1320; son and
heir of Robert de Beek of the same (dead)in 1347). He married Jane,
daughter of Ralph Earl of Stafford who was the mother of his heiress (Harl
MSS 6128. folio 59; and Gonville and Caius MSS No: 573 folio 107 ex. inf.
Rev. Charles Swynnerton).

In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114), his mother
Mary still having Hopton in dower for life while he had only the reversion.
He was knighted by 1348 being then in the household of Lord Stafford;
doubtless for that reason he was put on the Commission of the Peace in 1351.
He was a Commissioner occasionally 1354-61; and Sheriff of Staffordshire and
Salop from 27 November 1368 to July 1369, when he must have died, as he was
succeeded by the Under-Sheriff till November.

His only surviving daughter and heiress Elizabeth married Sir Robert de
Swynnerton of Swynnerton and was the mother of the famous Maud Swynnerton
(SC XV 114) who was abducted by Sir John de Ipstones.

He bore Arms in the Roll of 1380: Gules a Cross Ermine etc. etc."

As you know law suits 2H.IV and 9H.IV refer to a person called "Joan" as
being the wife of Sir Nicholas although they are some 30-40 years after his
death.

Now if Sir Nicholas really did marry a daughter of Ralph Stafford and
Katherine de Hastang then there would be the following relationship between
Sir Robert de Swynnerton and Elizabeth Bek:

Sir Robert
de Hastang = Isabella

1st degree, siblings Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Joan de Hastang Sir
John de Hastang = Eva

2nd degree, cousins Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Maud Haughton
Katherine de Hastang = Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford

3rd degree, 2nd cousins Sir Thomas de Swynnerton = Maud de Holand Jane
or Joan de Stafford = Sir Nicholas Bek

4th degree, 3rd cousins Sir Robert de Swynnerton =
Elizabeth Bek

As they would be related in the 4th degree they would have required a Papal
dispensation to marry.

This is what I have found:

"Calendar of entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain &
Ireland - Papal Letters Vol: VI AD 1404-1415 - PRO 1904

Lateran Regestra Vol: CXXIII 1405

12 Kal. Aug. St Peter's Rome (f.214)

Confirmation, at the recent petition of Maud, wife of John Savage, esquire
(armigeri), of the diocese of Lichfield - containing that her parents [the
late] Robert de Swynorton, knight, and the late Elizabeth his wife, upon
learning that they had contracted marriage in ignorance that they were
related in the fourth degree of kindred, obtained from the late John do
Cabrespino, canon of Narbonne, then nuncio in England who asserted that he
had faculty, for the purpose from Urban V, dispensation to remain in their
marriage, with declaration of the legitimacy of future offspring; and adding
that her said parents thereafter died, that she was born after the said
dispensation and that the registers of the, said pope which should contain
the said faculty are not in the Roman court - of the said dispensation, with
declaration that the said marriage and Maud herself were legitimate.
Exemplification is given of the letters of dispensation of John do
Cabrespino, doctor of canon law, canon of Narbonne, papal nuncio in England,
addressed to Robert de Swynarton (sic) and Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas
de Bek, of the diocese of Lichfield, which themselves contain
exemplification of Urban V's faculty Personam tuam, dated at Avignon, 8 Id.
July anno 1 [1363], to dispense twenty-five men and as many women of his
nunciature to remain in marriages contracted in ignorance of their bqing
related in the fourth degree of kindred or affinity, declaring past and
future offspring legitimate [see Cal. Lett. IV pp. 87]

The nuncio's letters, dated in his lodging at London in the year of the
Nativity, 1364, indiction 2, according to the computation of the Roman
court, 25 Jan., anno 2 Urban V, are sealed with his seal, witnessed by
Berengarius Ferrarii, canon, [and] Peter Meyssenerii of the diocese of
Seboricen (i.e. perhaps Segorve, Segobricen, in Spain) and Geneva (Geneben),
and drawn up, attested written, published and sealed in form of a public
instrument by Raymond de Campo Albaldo, clerk, of the dioces of Mende,
public notary by papal authority Ad fut. rei mem. Justis et honestis."

Although this does not prove beyond all doubt that Sir Nicholas Bek married
Joan or Jane Stafford I now believe that this was the case.

Regards

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c@windsong.org.uk]
Sent: 27 November 2005 03:10
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford

Douglas, thanks very much for this -

The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir
Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his
granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723].

There's an old problem affecting the line you have in mind -
concerning the uncertainty as to whether the mother of
Elizabeth de Beke is a da. of Sir Ralph de Stafford - put
most clearly I think by Peter Sutton on 24 Jan 01 sub <RE:
Mother of Margaret Stafford> -

In the Collection for a History of Staffordshire Volume: 1925 p.
109 ... from
a suit at Stafford Assizes in July, 1402, we learn
definitely that he
(Sir Nicholas Beke) was the son of Mary (otherwise Mariota) de Bek,
and that he himself married a wife named Joan; while from a
suit also
heard at Stafford in August,
1408 we know that
he and Joan were both living at Lady day, 1348 (SHC XV,
pages 114 and
122 Plea Rolls 1387-1405). However, the surname is not
quoted in any
source I have seen.

As to Ralph de Stafford's children by Katherine de Hastang
I have not
seen any direct evidence that there were any other children
from this
marriage apart from Margaret.

I am not sure how likely it would be for him to have 2
daughters both
called Joan who lived to adulthood. Have you got a reliable source
for the marriage to Sir Nicholas Bek?

I wonder whether for MCA or in the course of other work
you've turned up an answer?

Many thanks, again!

Cris


Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 27 nov 2005 18:22:33

Great work, Peter. Well done.

In addition to the sources which you have cited in your post, I show
that the Sir Nicholas de Bek's wife, Joan de Stafford, is identified as
the daughter of Sir Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford, in the
Visitation of Cheshire as follows:

Glover et al. Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18)
(1882): 201 (1580 Vis.) ("Sir Nicholas Beck = Jane d. to Rafe
L:Stafford & of Katherin Hastang") (Beck arms: Gules, a cross
ermine), 203 ("Sir Nicho' Beck = ... d. to the good Lord
Stafford").

Thanks to Google, the kinship chart in your post was a bit difficult to
read. So, I've taken the liberty to repost the same information below
which you did, but in two separate columns. The pedigrees below shows
the 4th degree relationship (3rd cousins) which existed between Sir
Robert de Swinnerton and his wife, Elizabeth de Bek, by way of their
common descent from Sir Robert de Hastang. This kinship is indicated
by the dispensation which you cited in your post.

1. Sir Robert de Hastang, m. Isabel
2. Joan de Hastang, m. Sir Roger de Swynnerton
3. Sir Roger de Swynnerton, m. Maud Haughton
4. Sir Thomas de Swynnerton, m. Maud de Holand
5. Sir Robert de Swynnerton, m. Elizabeth de Bek

1. Sir Robert de Hastang, m. Isabel
2. Sir John de Hastang, m. Eve
3. Katherine de Hastang, m. Ralph de Stafford, K.G., 1st Earl of
Stafford
4. Joan de Stafford, m. Sir Nicholas de Bek
5. Elizabeth de Bek, m. Sir Robert de Swynnerton

Once again, great work on your part, Peter. Well done.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Peter Sutton" wrote:
Cris

Since I sent the message in 2001 which you referred to I have done some more
research on a possible wife for Sir Nicholas Bek.

Josiah C. Wedgewood in HCS Volume: 1917-8 Parliamentary History Volume:1
says -

" Sir Nicholas de Beek of Tean, MP Staffs 1363, 1365 - Born c. 1320; son and
heir of Robert de Beek of the same (dead)in 1347). He married Jane,
daughter of Ralph Earl of Stafford who was the mother of his heiress (Harl
MSS 6128. folio 59; and Gonville and Caius MSS No: 573 folio 107 ex. inf.
Rev. Charles Swynnerton).

In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114), his mother
Mary still having Hopton in dower for life while he had only the reversion.
He was knighted by 1348 being then in the household of Lord Stafford;
doubtless for that reason he was put on the Commission of the Peace in 1351.
He was a Commissioner occasionally 1354-61; and Sheriff of Staffordshire and
Salop from 27 November 1368 to July 1369, when he must have died, as he was
succeeded by the Under-Sheriff till November.

His only surviving daughter and heiress Elizabeth married Sir Robert de
Swynnerton of Swynnerton and was the mother of the famous Maud Swynnerton
(SC XV 114) who was abducted by Sir John de Ipstones.

He bore Arms in the Roll of 1380: Gules a Cross Ermine etc. etc."

As you know law suits 2H.IV and 9H.IV refer to a person called "Joan" as
being the wife of Sir Nicholas although they are some 30-40 years after his
death.

Now if Sir Nicholas really did marry a daughter of Ralph Stafford and
Katherine de Hastang then there would be the following relationship between
Sir Robert de Swynnerton and Elizabeth Bek:

Sir Robert
de Hastang = Isabella

1st degree, siblings Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Joan de Hastang Sir
John de Hastang = Eva

2nd degree, cousins Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Maud Haughton
Katherine de Hastang = Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford

3rd degree, 2nd cousins Sir Thomas de Swynnerton = Maud de Holand Jane
or Joan de Stafford = Sir Nicholas Bek

4th degree, 3rd cousins Sir Robert de Swynnerton =
Elizabeth Bek

As they would be related in the 4th degree they would have required a Papal
dispensation to marry.

This is what I have found:

"Calendar of entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain &
Ireland - Papal Letters Vol: VI AD 1404-1415 - PRO 1904

Lateran Regestra Vol: CXXIII 1405

12 Kal. Aug. St Peter's Rome (f.214)

Confirmation, at the recent petition of Maud, wife of John Savage, esquire
(armigeri), of the diocese of Lichfield - containing that her parents [the
late] Robert de Swynorton, knight, and the late Elizabeth his wife, upon
learning that they had contracted marriage in ignorance that they were
related in the fourth degree of kindred, obtained from the late John do
Cabrespino, canon of Narbonne, then nuncio in England who asserted that he
had faculty, for the purpose from Urban V, dispensation to remain in their
marriage, with declaration of the legitimacy of future offspring; and adding
that her said parents thereafter died, that she was born after the said
dispensation and that the registers of the, said pope which should contain
the said faculty are not in the Roman court - of the said dispensation, with
declaration that the said marriage and Maud herself were legitimate.
Exemplification is given of the letters of dispensation of John do
Cabrespino, doctor of canon law, canon of Narbonne, papal nuncio in England,
addressed to Robert de Swynarton (sic) and Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas
de Bek, of the diocese of Lichfield, which themselves contain
exemplification of Urban V's faculty Personam tuam, dated at Avignon, 8 Id.
July anno 1 [1363], to dispense twenty-five men and as many women of his
nunciature to remain in marriages contracted in ignorance of their bqing
related in the fourth degree of kindred or affinity, declaring past and
future offspring legitimate [see Cal. Lett. IV pp. 87]

The nuncio's letters, dated in his lodging at London in the year of the
Nativity, 1364, indiction 2, according to the computation of the Roman
court, 25 Jan., anno 2 Urban V, are sealed with his seal, witnessed by
Berengarius Ferrarii, canon, [and] Peter Meyssenerii of the diocese of
Seboricen (i.e. perhaps Segorve, Segobricen, in Spain) and Geneva (Geneben),
and drawn up, attested written, published and sealed in form of a public
instrument by Raymond de Campo Albaldo, clerk, of the dioces of Mende,
public notary by papal authority Ad fut. rei mem. Justis et honestis."

Although this does not prove beyond all doubt that Sir Nicholas Bek married
Joan or Jane Stafford I now believe that this was the case.

Regards

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c@windsong.org.uk]
Sent: 27 November 2005 03:10
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford

Douglas, thanks very much for this -

The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir
Ralph de
Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his
granddaughter,
Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723].

There's an old problem affecting the line you have in mind -
concerning the uncertainty as to whether the mother of
Elizabeth de Beke is a da. of Sir Ralph de Stafford - put
most clearly I think by Peter Sutton on 24 Jan 01 sub <RE:
Mother of Margaret Stafford> -

In the Collection for a History of Staffordshire Volume: 1925 p.
109 ... from
a suit at Stafford Assizes in July, 1402, we learn
definitely that he
(Sir Nicholas Beke) was the son of Mary (otherwise Mariota) de Bek,
and that he himself married a wife named Joan; while from a
suit also
heard at Stafford in August,
1408 we know that
he and Joan were both living at Lady day, 1348 (SHC XV,
pages 114 and
122 Plea Rolls 1387-1405). However, the surname is not
quoted in any
source I have seen.

As to Ralph de Stafford's children by Katherine de Hastang
I have not
seen any direct evidence that there were any other children
from this
marriage apart from Margaret.

I am not sure how likely it would be for him to have 2
daughters both
called Joan who lived to adulthood. Have you got a reliable source
for the marriage to Sir Nicholas Bek?

I wonder whether for MCA or in the course of other work
you've turned up an answer?

Many thanks, again!

Cris


Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 nov 2005 18:44:02

In a message dated 11/27/2005 9:36:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

In addition to the sources which you have cited in your post, I show
that the Sir Nicholas de Bek's wife, Joan de Stafford, is identified as
the daughter of Sir Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford, in the
Visitation of Cheshire as follows:


Although the papal dispensation is a primary document, nothing else cited is.
So all we know is that they were related in the fourth degree. For a person
with no known parentage other than this dispensation's elusive clue, *that*
is not enough to determine who her parent's were. The Visitation is
worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my opinion.
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 nov 2005 19:05:12

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

Although the papal dispensation is a primary document, nothing else cited is.
So all we know is that they were related in the fourth degree. For a person
with no known parentage other than this dispensation's elusive clue, *that*
is not enough to determine who her parent's were. The Visitation is
worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my opinion.
Will Johnson

Will

It's a bit harsh to reject a Visitation record completely out of hand,
notwithstanding the timeframe involved in its pedigree. Certainly, it
should be treated with suspicion, but one needs to consider whether the
particular Visitation is known to contain other fantasies or
fabrications, or conversely, whether other of its contents can be
confirmed from surviving primary documents. One also needs to ask who
was responsible for compiling it (not all heralds were frauds or
gullible idiots). Some Visitations pedigrees are clearly based on
reliable primary documents, which may not otherwise have survived.
Others reflect family traditions, and as such may be useful as guides
or indications if not strictly accurate. Fallible and questionable:
yes; worthless, not necessarily.

MAR

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 27 nov 2005 21:30:39

Will Johnson wrote:
So then it appears that Roskell, rearranged the wording in order to make
it
"fit" what he thought the correct relationships should have been ...


Well, at any rate the relationships he gives are his own interpretation -
apparently they don't come from any other text of the codicil than the one
we've seen in the Calendar of Patent Rolls, which has seemingly been
translated into Latin and then back into English.

To be fair, Roskell didn't claim to be quoting directly from the document,
but I think ideally when a text says "uncle" and a commentator glosses it as
"cousin", it would be nice to have the difference noticed and explained.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 28 nov 2005 00:56:14

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< The Visitation is
< worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my
opinion.
< Will Johnson

Visitations are often quite helpful. However, they should always be
verified for accuracy with contemporary records. Peter Sutton has done
that.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestrynet

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Alice Beauchamp, wife of Tho

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 28 nov 2005 01:00:43

Chris Phillips wrote:
Will Johnson wrote:
So then it appears that Roskell, rearranged the wording in order to make
it
"fit" what he thought the correct relationships should have been ...


Well, at any rate the relationships he gives are his own interpretation -
apparently they don't come from any other text of the codicil than the one
we've seen in the Calendar of Patent Rolls, which has seemingly been
translated into Latin and then back into English.

To be fair, Roskell didn't claim to be quoting directly from the document,
but I think ideally when a text says "uncle" and a commentator glosses it as
"cousin", it would be nice to have the difference noticed and explained.

Chris Phillips

I agree totally. Writing explanatory notes can be quite time
consuming, though. You often end up having to overexplain the problem,
in order to justify what is clearly an error in the records.

Douglas Richardson

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 28 nov 2005 01:02:57

Douglas Richardson wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The Visitation is
worthless, discussing people several hundred years earlier, in my
opinion.
Will Johnson

Visitations are often quite helpful. However, they should always be
verified for accuracy with contemporary records. Peter Sutton has done
that.

Actually, Peter constructed the relationships based on contemporary
records, without reference to nor intention of verifying the accuracy of
any Visitation. If the Visitations require contemporary records to
'verify' them, and those same contemporary records stand very well on
their own without the visitations, it does make one wonder about the
relative value of the visitations.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 01:16:02

In a message dated 11/27/2005 4:06:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Visitations are often quite helpful. However, they should always be
verified for accuracy with contemporary records. Peter Sutton has done
that.


What records?

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 01:18:01

In a message dated 11/27/2005 6:50:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114),


What is "SC XV 114" ?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

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

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 28 nov 2005 01:33:24

In message of 28 Nov, "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

Actually, Peter constructed the relationships based on contemporary
records, without reference to nor intention of verifying the accuracy of
any Visitation. If the Visitations require contemporary records to
'verify' them, and those same contemporary records stand very well on
their own without the visitations, it does make one wonder about the
relative value of the visitations.

As a finding aid. To tell you what to look for. People and events to
find confirmation of - or not, of course.

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

Peter Sutton

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

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 28 nov 2005 10:00:01

"SC XV 114" refers to Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Edited by
the William Salt Archaeological Society - Volume XV page 114 - published in
1894.

The page covers extracts from the Plea Rolls and concerns pleas of Assize
taken at Stafford, before Hugh Huls and Henry Broun, Justices assigned,
etc., on the Monday after the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene 2 H. IV, i.e. 1st
August 1401.


Peter Sutton

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 28 November 2005 00:16
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford


In a message dated 11/27/2005 6:50:17 AM Pacific Standard
Time, petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114),


What is "SC XV 114" ?


Cristopher Nash

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

Legg inn av Cristopher Nash » 28 nov 2005 13:36:02

Thanks enormously for this, Peter — it's an extremely canny and
persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.

Scanning down, may I just ask — at the real risk of looking a gift h.
in the m. — whether anyone here has seen more in support of the
proposition that Roger de Swinnerton's w. Maud is a Haughton (e.g.
da. of Sir Thomas Haughton of Haughton — as per Rev. Charles
Swynnerton, Genealogist (N.S.), vol. xxxi, 69ff.) ? CP cites the
argument but with reservations and declines to incorporate the
conclusion (Roger de Swinnerton m. Maud Haughton) in its Swynnnerton
sequence (XII, Pt. 1, 586).

Many thanks again, Peter — and to Douglas.

Cris


On 27 Nov 2005, at 14:50, Peter Sutton wrote:

Cris

Since I sent the message in 2001 which you referred to I have done
some more
research on a possible wife for Sir Nicholas Bek.

Josiah C. Wedgewood in HCS Volume: 1917-8 Parliamentary History
Volume:1
says -

" Sir Nicholas de Beek of Tean, MP Staffs 1363, 1365 - Born c.
1320; son and
heir of Robert de Beek of the same (dead)in 1347). He married Jane,
daughter of Ralph Earl of Stafford who was the mother of his
heiress (Harl
MSS 6128. folio 59; and Gonville and Caius MSS No: 573 folio 107
ex. inf.
Rev. Charles Swynnerton).

In 1347 Tean was settled on him and his wife Jane (SC XV 114), his
mother
Mary still having Hopton in dower for life while he had only the
reversion.
He was knighted by 1348 being then in the household of Lord Stafford;
doubtless for that reason he was put on the Commission of the Peace
in 1351.
He was a Commissioner occasionally 1354-61; and Sheriff of
Staffordshire and
Salop from 27 November 1368 to July 1369, when he must have died,
as he was
succeeded by the Under-Sheriff till November.

His only surviving daughter and heiress Elizabeth married Sir
Robert de
Swynnerton of Swynnerton and was the mother of the famous Maud
Swynnerton
(SC XV 114) who was abducted by Sir John de Ipstones.

He bore Arms in the Roll of 1380: Gules a Cross Ermine etc. etc."

As you know law suits 2H.IV and 9H.IV refer to a person called
"Joan" as
being the wife of Sir Nicholas although they are some 30-40 years
after his
death.

Now if Sir Nicholas really did marry a daughter of Ralph Stafford and
Katherine de Hastang then there would be the following relationship
between
Sir Robert de Swynnerton and Elizabeth Bek:

Sir Robert
de Hastang = Isabella

1st degree, siblings Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Joan de
Hastang Sir
John de Hastang = Eva

2nd degree, cousins Sir Roger de Swynnerton = Maud Haughton
Katherine de Hastang = Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford

3rd degree, 2nd cousins Sir Thomas de Swynnerton = Maud de
Holand Jane
or Joan de Stafford = Sir Nicholas Bek

4th degree, 3rd cousins Sir Robert de Swynnerton =
Elizabeth Bek

As they would be related in the 4th degree they would have required
a Papal
dispensation to marry.

This is what I have found:

"Calendar of entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great
Britain &
Ireland - Papal Letters Vol: VI AD 1404-1415 - PRO 1904

Lateran Regestra Vol: CXXIII 1405

12 Kal. Aug. St Peter's Rome (f.214)

Confirmation, at the recent petition of Maud, wife of John Savage,
esquire
(armigeri), of the diocese of Lichfield - containing that her
parents [the
late] Robert de Swynorton, knight, and the late Elizabeth his wife,
upon
learning that they had contracted marriage in ignorance that they were
related in the fourth degree of kindred, obtained from the late
John do
Cabrespino, canon of Narbonne, then nuncio in England who asserted
that he
had faculty, for the purpose from Urban V, dispensation to remain
in their
marriage, with declaration of the legitimacy of future offspring;
and adding
that her said parents thereafter died, that she was born after the
said
dispensation and that the registers of the, said pope which should
contain
the said faculty are not in the Roman court - of the said
dispensation, with
declaration that the said marriage and Maud herself were legitimate.
Exemplification is given of the letters of dispensation of John do
Cabrespino, doctor of canon law, canon of Narbonne, papal nuncio in
England,
addressed to Robert de Swynarton (sic) and Elizabeth, daughter of
Nicholas
de Bek, of the diocese of Lichfield, which themselves contain
exemplification of Urban V's faculty Personam tuam, dated at
Avignon, 8 Id.
July anno 1 [1363], to dispense twenty-five men and as many women
of his
nunciature to remain in marriages contracted in ignorance of their
bqing
related in the fourth degree of kindred or affinity, declaring
past and
future offspring legitimate [see Cal. Lett. IV pp. 87]

The nuncio's letters, dated in his lodging at London in the year of
the
Nativity, 1364, indiction 2, according to the computation of the Roman
court, 25 Jan., anno 2 Urban V, are sealed with his seal, witnessed by
Berengarius Ferrarii, canon, [and] Peter Meyssenerii of the diocese of
Seboricen (i.e. perhaps Segorve, Segobricen, in Spain) and Geneva
(Geneben),
and drawn up, attested written, published and sealed in form of a
public
instrument by Raymond de Campo Albaldo, clerk, of the dioces of Mende,
public notary by papal authority Ad fut. rei mem. Justis et honestis."

Although this does not prove beyond all doubt that Sir Nicholas Bek
married
Joan or Jane Stafford I now believe that this was the case.

Regards

Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c@windsong.org.uk]
Sent: 27 November 2005 03:10
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford

Douglas, thanks very much for this -


The colonial immigrant, Martha Eltonhead, descends from Sir

Ralph de

Stafford (died 1372), 1st Earl of Stafford, through his

granddaughter,

Elizabeth de Beke, wife of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. [Reference:
Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, pp. 303-307, 722-723].


There's an old problem affecting the line you have in mind -
concerning the uncertainty as to whether the mother of
Elizabeth de Beke is a da. of Sir Ralph de Stafford - put
most clearly I think by Peter Sutton on 24 Jan 01 sub <RE:
Mother of Margaret Stafford> -


In the Collection for a History of Staffordshire Volume: 1925 p.
109 ... from
a suit at Stafford Assizes in July, 1402, we learn

definitely that he

(Sir Nicholas Beke) was the son of Mary (otherwise Mariota) de Bek,
and that he himself married a wife named Joan; while from a

suit also

heard at Stafford in August,
1408 we know that
he and Joan were both living at Lady day, 1348 (SHC XV,

pages 114 and

122 Plea Rolls 1387-1405). However, the surname is not

quoted in any

source I have seen.

As to Ralph de Stafford's children by Katherine de Hastang

I have not

seen any direct evidence that there were any other children

from this

marriage apart from Margaret.

I am not sure how likely it would be for him to have 2

daughters both

called Joan who lived to adulthood. Have you got a reliable source
for the marriage to Sir Nicholas Bek?


I wonder whether for MCA or in the course of other work
you've turned up an answer?

Many thanks, again!

Cris





Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 16:00:01

In a message dated 11/28/2005 4:35:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c@windsong.org.uk writes:

Thanks enormously for this, Peter — it's an extremely canny and
persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.


From what I see it only shows that two persons were related in the fourth
degree.
You understand of course that this could occur in a very large variety of
ways ?
The documents do not specify how they were related.
Will Johnson

Peter Sutton

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

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 28 nov 2005 16:46:02

Collections for a History of Staffordshire (The William Salt Archaeological
Society) Volume: 1917-8 - Staffordshire Parliamentary History Vol I,
1213-1603 by Josiah C. Wedgewood page 70 onwards, concerning Sir Roger de
Swynnerton, says " ......... He died in March of the following year, 1338,
leaving a widow Matilda. As this widow had not married again by 1357-8 we
may assume that she was his first and only wife and the mother of his large
family. She was almost certainly Matilda, daughter of Sir Robert de
Halghton (d.1303) and she died c. 1366 in her dower house at Acton". No
source is quoted for this marriage.

In Collections for a History of Staffordshire Volume: VII Part II, there is
"A History of the Family of Swynnerton of Swynnerton, and of the younger
branches of the same family settled at Eccleshall, Hilton, and Butterton" by
the Hon. and Rev. Canon Bridgeman.

Bridgman says "A Pedigree in the Huntbache MSS. (Vol. II., p. 67a) gives as
the wife of Sir Roger, and the mother of his children, a lady named
Margaret, but from what follows (see p. 39), the name of his widow appears
to have been Matilda.

On page 39 he says "In the meantime, namely, in March, 1357-8, a clerk was
admitted to the Church of Swynnerton on the presentation of the Lady Matilda
de Swynnerton, who claimed the right of patronage for that turn by reason of
holding the third part of the manor of Swynnerton in dower, inasmuch as Sir
Thomas de Swynnerton, who holds two parts of the manor, had already
presented for two turns."

His source for this is stated to be the Lichfield Diocesan Register.
Bridgeman continues "From this it would appear that Sir Roger de
Swynnerton (the Baron) had left a widow Matilda, as well as his son. Sir
Roger, the younger (who predeceased him), for if the Lady Matilda who thus
presented had been the wife of the latter, she would hardly have been in "
seisin." of one-third of the manor of Swynnerton in dower. I think her
allegation that Sir Thomas had already presented twice (perhaps it should be
for the second turn) was not strictly accurate, for I believe he had only
presented once, but her claim was nevertheless a just one, for since her
husband's death the sons of Sir Roger had presented twice, so that it
rightly came to her turn on this occasion."

As you say Cris, CP XII/1 p.586 (j) does not come to any conclusion but just
refers to the paper by the Rev. Charles Swynnerton. Note the discrepancy
between Sir Robert and Sir Thomas de Halghton. There is a IPM from Robert
de Halghton, writ 20 Jan. 32 E1 (No: 198) his heir was his son Thomas aged
15. If Roger de swynnerton was married to a Matilda de Halghton she must
have therefore been a daughter of Robert de Halghton and not of his son
Thomas. From a number of cases quoted in Banco Rolls from Trinity 32 E1
onwards Robert's widow was named Juliana.

Unfortunately none of this answers your question. Just some more pieces of
the Staffordshire jigsaw!

Peter Sutton

-----Original Message-----
From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c@windsong.org.uk]
Sent: 28 November 2005 12:34
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford

Thanks enormously for this, Peter - it's an extremely canny
and persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.

Scanning down, may I just ask - at the real risk of looking a
gift h.
in the m. - whether anyone here has seen more in support of
the proposition that Roger de Swinnerton's w. Maud is a
Haughton (e.g.
da. of Sir Thomas Haughton of Haughton - as per Rev. Charles
Swynnerton, Genealogist (N.S.), vol. xxxi, 69ff.) ? CP cites
the argument but with reservations and declines to
incorporate the conclusion (Roger de Swinnerton m. Maud
Haughton) in its Swynnnerton sequence (XII, Pt. 1, 586).

Many thanks again, Peter - and to Douglas.

Cris

Peter Sutton

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

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 28 nov 2005 17:31:01

Yes of course you are correct Will. Too many of the ancestors of Elizabeth
Beke and Robert Swynnerton are unknown, or at least not known to me and
unfortunately marriage certificates in England did not become universal for
another 500 years. I guess we will never know with any degree of certainly
who Sir Nicholas Beke was actually married to.

We don't really know that Ralph Stafford had any more than 1 daughter by
Katherine de Hastang.

But what we do know is that Sir Nicholas had a very close relationship with
Ralph Stafford, he was in his household. In 1361 Prince Lionel of Clarence
was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland, and was accompanied there by a body of
men-at-arms commanded by Ralph Earl of Stafford and others. Nicholas was a
knight in the Earl's retinue.

On 15 March 1351 both Ralph Stafford and Nicholas Beke were appointed
Conservatores Pacis (Keepers of the Peace) for Staffordshire, and they were
both Justices of the Peace for Staffordshire from 30 March 1361 for nearly
every year till Nicholas died.

If Ralph did have another daughter by his first marriage it would not
surprise me if she was married to someone like Nicholas Beke. However, I
would have been more surprised if he had married a daughter from Ralph's
second marriage to Margaret de Audley.

As Douglas has posted there is a tradition going back 500 years that Sir
Nicholas Beke was married to a daughter of Ralph Stafford by his first
marriage to Katherine Hastang. Given the close relationship between the two
men and the relationship between Elizabeth Beke and Robert Swynnerton I am
inclined to believe it. Will is not. Who knows the truth of the matter.

Peter Sutton

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 28 November 2005 14:58
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford


In a message dated 11/28/2005 4:35:21 AM Pacific Standard
Time, c@windsong.org.uk writes:

Thanks enormously for this, Peter - it's an extremely canny
and persuasive piece of work and just the kind that was needed.


From what I see it only shows that two persons were related
in the fourth degree.
You understand of course that this could occur in a very
large variety of ways ?
The documents do not specify how they were related.
Will Johnson


Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 17:42:02

In a message dated 11/28/2005 8:33:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

But what we do know is that Sir Nicholas had a very close relationship with
Ralph Stafford, he was in his household.


How do we know this again?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 17:43:02

In a message dated 11/28/2005 8:33:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

On 15 March 1351 both Ralph Stafford and Nicholas Beke were appointed
Conservatores Pacis (Keepers of the Peace) for Staffordshire, and they were
both Justices of the Peace for Staffordshire from 30 March 1361 for nearly
every year till Nicholas died.


Do we know which Ralph Stafford this refers to with certainty though?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 17:45:04

In a message dated 11/28/2005 8:33:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

As Douglas has posted there is a tradition going back 500 years that Sir
Nicholas Beke was married to a daughter of Ralph Stafford by his first
marriage to Katherine Hastang. Given the close relationship between the two
men and the relationship between Elizabeth Beke and Robert Swynnerton I am
inclined to believe it. Will is not. Who knows the truth of the matter.


This is a mingling of several things here. I did not respond to all of
them. We should seperate what I actually said, from what has been added above.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 18:05:02

In a message dated 11/28/2005 8:33:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

As Douglas has posted there is a tradition going back 500 years that Sir
Nicholas Beke was married to a daughter of Ralph Stafford by his first
marriage to Katherine Hastang.


It is the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire (per Doug) which shows that he married
a dau of Rafe Lord Stafford. That is 425 years not 500 :)

Since this "documentation" occurred two HUNDRED years after the event it
purports to relate, it is, in my opinion, worthless. There is every reason to
suspect the possibility that they simply attached the wrong Ralph Stafford at
this point, giving another royal descent to a person who in fact had none that
we can now point to.

We can sit here today and hypothecize that perhaps they had something then
which has vanished, but then every day, on this list, we are destroying lines
that once were thought to be inviolate. This one is not sacrosanct.

If there really was such a lofty connection, it should be much more obvious
then a visitation 200 years after the fact, and an acknowledgement that a
certain dispensation was not given for some nebulous fourth-degree connection of
some known person.

And the fact the 650 years after, we are still debating it should be
evidence enough that it wasn't apparent then either. I haven't yet seen anything
which destroys the theory that the Ralph Stafford was an entirely different
person.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother, Gravelda of Dunbar

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 nov 2005 18:13:02

In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:06:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Gospatric Fitz Orm, who I estimate was born say 1110.


Dear Doug,

The chronology of this family can be documented.


Gravilda was born before 1075 as her father Gospatric earl of Northumberland
was dead in 1074. Symeon of Durham [Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et
Collectanea, Vol. II, Surtees Society Publication, Andrews & Co., Durham, 1868, pp.
199] records that just before his death Gospatric was visited by two monks from
Jarrow abbey Aldwin and Turgot. Gospatric confessed his sins and died and was
buried in the porch of the church at Melrose. Symeon dates this to 1074 in
Vol. I, pp. 111 where he states that this trip took place from Jarrow to
Melrose. The confession was taken at Ubbanford [Norham]. So the latest birth date
for Gravilda was 1075.

Gospatric son of Orm first comes into documented records in 1150 as he
witnessed a charter of Henry [ son of David I, king of Scotland] with Bishop
Athewold to Holm Cultram Abbey. Gospatric would have been at least 14 when he
witnessed this charter. Gospatric died ca.1179. In 1174 he granted a charter to
Holm Cultram with the consent of his son Thomas [his heir] and another son
Alan which was witnessed at Camberton before Robert de Vallibus who was justice
itinerant in 1174. These dates seem to make it much more likely that
Gospatric was born ca. 1120-1125 which would eliminate Gravilda from being his
mother.

The next documented record of Thomas son of Gospatric occurs in 1185 when he
made an agreement with Adam de Kerkebi (Pipe rolls 31 Henry I). He died
between November 13, 1200 (Charter Rolls, 2 John, m. 27 dorso; Pipe Roll, 2 John)
and 1201(Rot. de Oblations, pp. 157, 179, 194; Westmoreland Pipe Roll, 3
John).

Based on the above data Thomas son of Gospatric would appear to have been
born ca. 1155-1160 making the logical birth date ca. 1120-1125 for Gospatric.

In the eleventh century for a woman to be married and give birth to her
first child at 45-50 is very improbable.

MIchaelAnne

Arnold Zuiderent

Wife of Johann of Sponheim

Legg inn av Arnold Zuiderent » 28 nov 2005 18:38:02

Dear Newsgroup

Johann of Sponheim, (son of Gottfried III of Sponheim and Adelheid of Sayn)
was Count of Sponheim and Lord of Sayn and Sterkenburg, mentioned in 1225.
He died in 1266.

It is not clear who was Johanns wife. Schwennicke (ES NF IV Table 119)
mentiones NN, a daughter of Count Otto (I) of Gelre. Most Internet sites,
under them http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de call her Adelheid of Mark-Altena,
daughter of Count Adolf I of Mark-Altena and his wife Irmengard of Gelre,
who was a daughter of Count Otto I of Gelre.

There seems to be no doubt that the wife of Johann of Sponheim has either
been a daughter or a granddaughter of Count Otto I of Gelre. But which
version is the most plausible one?

Best regards,
Arnold Zuiderent

http://www.zuiderent.ch

Peter Sutton

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

Legg inn av Peter Sutton » 28 nov 2005 18:53:01

I don't think that I can usefully add anymore to my previous posts regarding
Sir Nicholas Beke.

For those who wish to pursue more fully the career of Sir Nicholas Beke and
his family I would commend the "Collections for a History of Staffordshire".
This is an ongoing series of publications containing a wealth of material
relating to the county. The series commenced in 1880 and is published by the
Staffordshire Record Society which was known as the William Salt
Archaeological Society prior to 1936. Volume have been published on,
usually, an yearly basis.

Peter Sutton

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: 28 November 2005 16:41
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: Richard II's kinsman, Edmund Stafford


In a message dated 11/28/2005 8:33:29 AM Pacific Standard
Time, petersutton@ntlworld.com writes:

But what we do know is that Sir Nicholas had a very close
relationship with Ralph Stafford, he was in his household.


How do we know this again?
Thanks
Will Johnson


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»