Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Todd A. Farmerie

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 des 2005 18:14:43

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Mr. Washington and Mr. Moriarty have ably proven this
point by citing original contemporary evidence, applicable onomastics,
and sound chronology.

Perhaps, then, you could provide the work in which Mr. Moriarty cited
these documents, and his description of how he mustered these factors
(in his own words, not Mr. Washington's).

taf

Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketelteaser Reply

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 des 2005 19:02:01

In a message dated 12/4/2005 12:23:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:


I specifically stated I disagreed with Keats-Rohan regarding Ketel Fitz
Eldred being the father of Orm Fitz Ketel. I showed such a
relationship was impossible chronologically.

You didn't show it. You tried to show it. But since it's all balancing on
the point of a single charter, it's going to be a hard proof.

Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyReply

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 des 2005 21:08:01

In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:08:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:


The duel between William and Gospatric was a secondary source, and, as
opposed to filius, they used the term William fitzWilliam

Emmett what is being asked is that you name the source specifically, for
example
"The land of Kendall", by J Hooper Maxwell, 1984, Cray Publishers ...
and then also QUOTE the exact wording for example
"... the abbot of Duncan in his journal stated that William FitzWilliam
fought with Gospatric and slew him...."

THIS is just an example. I made all of this up in order to demonstrate the
exact question that is being asked of Emmett. Any resemblance of the above to
any ACTUAL source or Actual wording is purely fictional.

OK Emmett what's your source :)

Will

Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyReply

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 des 2005 21:16:02

In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:08:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:


Todd, while I pretty much support the chronology and descent of William I
and such as has been presented and posted, I still like to tie up loose
ends on this William son of Ketel "just in case" there was an early scribe
who didn't know his latin well or the individuals involved, and the two
Williams, William Lancaster I and William son of Ketel are not one in the
same.

Emmett the problem here is you haven't yet, and no one has yet, presented ANY
evidence (to my mind) that William FitzKetel and William de Lancaster were
the same person. It's not a question of whether someone goofed this century or
four hundred years ago and made them the same. The question is, is there ANY
primary evidence, whatsoever, in Latin, English, French or Hungarian, that
makes them the same person?

If there is, can you QUOTE that primary document and the source?
Thanks
Will Johnson

butlergrt

Re: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyAgain

Legg inn av butlergrt » 05 des 2005 02:55:41

Good Evening Will,
Unless the context of my post gave you that impression, it is most
regretable. The point was we have two Williams, one a son and one a
nephew, which one became William de Lancaster and which one disappeared?
They are both refered to in what would be considered primary
documentation. Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew, until you know the other William is
dead and buried (and put in his place) you can never really be sure can
you?

I, for one, would say it is probably 98% Certain he is a nephew but then
again.... 1000 years ago and different languages, the records, etc., the
inconsistancies we have seen on this family, I would place money but I
wouldn't bet the family farm on it. A strong calculated risk, sure, but
based on the inconsistincies, history and track record including primary
documentation on THIS family, it would be nice to know what happened to
the other William.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler

Douglas Richardson

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyReply

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2005 03:03:45

Dear Newsgroup ~

William de Lancaster I appears in early records as William Fitz
Gilbert, or as William Taillebois. He was the son of a certain Gilbert
and his wife, Godith, as proven by his own charter to the canons of St.
Mary de Pre of Leicester, in which he specifically refers to his
parents by name [Reference: VCH Lancaster 1 (1906): 359, citing Farrer,
Lanc. Pipe Rolls, pp. 392-393]. This is the same charter dated post
1153 which also mentions William de Lancaster I's wife, Gundred, and
Gundred daughter of the countess, both then living, as well as Margaret
daughter of the Countess (evidently deceased).

Given the above evidence, I think it's safe for Emmett to assume that
William de Lancaster I is a completely separate and distinct person
from William Fitz Ketel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

..
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:08:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:


Todd, while I pretty much support the chronology and descent of William I
and such as has been presented and posted, I still like to tie up loose
ends on this William son of Ketel "just in case" there was an early scribe
who didn't know his latin well or the individuals involved, and the two
Williams, William Lancaster I and William son of Ketel are not one in the
same.

Emmett the problem here is you haven't yet, and no one has yet, presented ANY
evidence (to my mind) that William FitzKetel and William de Lancaster were
the same person. It's not a question of whether someone goofed this century or
four hundred years ago and made them the same. The question is, is there ANY
primary evidence, whatsoever, in Latin, English, French or Hungarian, that
makes them the same person?

If there is, can you QUOTE that primary document and the source?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2005 03:18:16

Dear Todd ~

If you wish to disagree with Mr. Washington and Mr. Moriarty, you need
to post your evidence and cite your sources.

If you have no evidence or sources, simply say so and the discussion
can move on without you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website:www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyAgain

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 03:51:45

butlergrt wrote:
Good Evening Will,
Unless the context of my post gave you that impression, it is most
regretable. The point was we have two Williams, one a son and one a
nephew, which one became William de Lancaster and which one disappeared?

But I don't think this is what we have at all. We have a William Fitz
Ketel, and we have a William de Lancaster who calls Ketel his avunculus.
If you argue that William de Lancaster I is William Fits Ketel, then
we have only one person, but two conflicting relationships.

They are both refered to in what would be considered primary
documentation. Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew, until you know the other William is
dead and buried (and put in his place) you can never really be sure can
you?

You almost never know - most people at this time just disappear from the
records and their heirs (or non-heir successors) simply appear in their
place. Universal obituaries are a modern phenomenon. The very fact that
William calls Ketel his avunculus is about as strong evidence as you can
hope to find that he wasn't son of Ketel.

taf

Don Stone

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Don Stone » 05 des 2005 04:21:34

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Todd ~

If you wish to disagree with Mr. Washington and Mr. Moriarty, you need
to post your evidence and cite your sources.

If you have no evidence or sources, simply say so and the discussion
can move on without you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Douglas,

Why not just answer Todd's question ("provide the work in which Mr. Moriarty
cited these documents, and his description of how he mustered these
factors"), and then the discussion can move on with him? How can he
usefully disagree with Mr. Moriarty, if you won't say which of his works you
have in mind?

-- Don Stone

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 04:27:59

Douglas Richardson wrote:

If you wish to disagree with Mr. Washington and Mr. Moriarty, you need
to post your evidence and cite your sources.

You described Mr. Moriarty's bases for his conclusion, yet when I ask
for the precise citation and details on his conclusions in his own
words, all you do in response is demand that I refute this mysterious
uncited work. I am becoming more and more convinced that you have never
seen Mr. Moriarty's work on the question, and were trying to pull a fast
one.

If you have no evidence or sources, simply say so and the discussion
can move on without you.

If you have not seen Mr. Moriarty's work and are just pretending, then
simply say so and the discussion can move on without the smoke and mirrors.

taf

Le Bateman

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyAgain

Legg inn av Le Bateman » 05 des 2005 07:22:29

In regard to Orm fitz Gamel; Fletcher points out that in 1063 Orm,
Gamel, and Dolfin were murdered on a visit to Harold's Court in 1063. They
were from Northumbria. They supposedly had Tostig's protection of safe
conduct to Harold's court. Fletcher points to Tostig as the possible
culprit in the murders. Perhaps Tostig was a player in the feud between the
House of Uhtred and the House of Thurbrand.
Gospatric, who is presumed to be the son of Uhtred was also murdered
after December 1064. Fletcher also says Tostig did this at Queen Edith's
bidding. Maybe these being descendants of Ælfred, she believed them to be a
threat to the throne, or perhaps Thurbrand was her kin, who really knows.
These later persons, may have been his descendants. Their kinship with an
Gospatric is mentioned in a writ he drew up.
Le
:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyAgain


butlergrt wrote:
Good Evening Will,
Unless the context of my post gave you that impression, it is most
regretable. The point was we have two Williams, one a son and one a
nephew, which one became William de Lancaster and which one disappeared?

But I don't think this is what we have at all. We have a William Fitz
Ketel, and we have a William de Lancaster who calls Ketel his avunculus.
If you argue that William de Lancaster I is William Fits Ketel, then
we have only one person, but two conflicting relationships.

They are both refered to in what would be considered primary
documentation. Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew, until you know the other William is
dead and buried (and put in his place) you can never really be sure can
you?

You almost never know - most people at this time just disappear from the
records and their heirs (or non-heir successors) simply appear in their
place. Universal obituaries are a modern phenomenon. The very fact that
William calls Ketel his avunculus is about as strong evidence as you can
hope to find that he wasn't son of Ketel.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2005 07:38:19

Dear Newsgroup ~

Lest anyone be confused, I will recap Mr. Washington's article on the
parentage of William de Lancaster I from which I quoted at length this
past week.

Mr. Washington cited contemporary charter evidence in which William de
Lancaster I referred to Ketel Fitz Eldred as his uncle. In the middle
of his article, Mr. Washington quoted his "learned and distinguished
friend," Mr. G. Andrews Moriarty, who stated his opinion that William
de Lancaster I was the nephew on his mother's side of Ketel Fitz
Eldred. The chief evidence Moriarty used to identify Ketel as William
de Lancaster I's maternal uncle was onomastic in nature. He noted that
the names of William I's father, William himself, and his two brothers
were all names popular with Norman families. Thus he assumed that
William I's father, Gilbert, was Norman-French, and that it was his
mother who was native English. Dr. Keats-Rohan adopted Mr. Washington
and Mr. Moriarty's position in her book, Domesday Descendants.

Now Mr. Farmerie has been asked to provide his evidence and cite his
sources regarding his position on William de Lancaster I's relationship
to Ketel Fitz Eldred. This is a very simple request.

-- Douglas Richardson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 08:26:43

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Lest anyone be confused, I will recap Mr. Washington's article on the
parentage of William de Lancaster I from which I quoted at length this
past week.

Lest anyone be confused, I didn't ask for Mr. Washington's text - I
asked for Mr. Moriarty's and you won't (¿can't?) provide it in spite of
describing his approach and conclusions as if you knew them first-hand.

You said that both you and Dr. Keats-Rohan follow Mr. Moriarty's
conclusions and then used this convergence of opinion as a hammer with
which to beat on MichaelAnne's conclusions and approach, particularly
highlighting the points where her approach differs from Mr. Moriarty's.
However, in spite of having been asked repeatedly, you have yet to
provide a shred of evidence that either you or the good Dr. have ever
seen Mr. Moriarty's work on the subjest. Instead, you try a little
sleight of hand, deleting the original request and then again parading
out what Mr. Washington said in his article, as if that answered the
question (and with the added flair of prefacing your comments with a
wish to avoid confusion - a special "pay no attention to the man behind
the curtain" touch).

Back to the issue at hand, are you now telling us that you were basing
these descriptions on hearsay? Is that good methodology? Is this
another example of citing sources not personally consulted but rather
only seen cited or discussed by others?

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2005 08:38:52

Dear Todd ~

Mr. Washington's article on the parentage of William de Lancaster I can
hardly be considered "hearsay" regarding Mr. Moriarty's position. Mr.
Washington added the following comment:

"The foregoing notes (says Mr. Moriarty) afford some new considerations
upon the parentage and immediate ancestry of the first William de
Lancaster, lord of Kendal."

So says Mr. Moriarty.

At your earliest convenience, please provide us your evidence and
sources regarding your own position. This is the third and final
request.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

Back to the issue at hand, are you now telling us that you were basing
these descriptions on hearsay? Is that good methodology? Is this
another example of citing sources not personally consulted but rather
only seen cited or discussed by others?

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 10:31:40

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Mr. Washington's article on the parentage of William de Lancaster I can
hardly be considered "hearsay" regarding Mr. Moriarty's position. Mr.
Washington added the following comment:

Anything not derived _directly by you_ from Mr. Moriarty's writings can
hardly be considered other than hearsay. You have given us a perfect
example why this is the case earlier in this very thread. You indicated
that Ms. Guido's article proved certain things that were exactly the
opposite of her conclusions, giving no indication of this divergence.
Now, anyone who sees your post might do what you have tried to do here,
and just pretend to have read the original article while actually
drawing their summary of Ms. Guido's conclusions from your deceptive
description, and thus fall into gross error. That is why both of these
practices are flawed - providing an analysis that differs from the
conclusions of the cited source without explicitly stating the
difference of opinion; and passing on what an author concludes, not
based on their own work but based on what _someone else said_ they
concluded.

Given that the best you can do is quote what Mr. Washington said were
the conclusions of Mr. Moriarty, I think it is pretty clear now that you
have never seen Mr. Moriarty's work on the subject, nor have you any
basis for suggesting that Dr. Keats-Rohan made reference to his work.
Next time you try name-dropping in order to bludgeon another poster, it
might be in your best interest to have actually read the work of the
author you are using as a weapon (or better yet, drop the 'appeal to
authority' approach entirely).

At your earliest convenience, please provide us your evidence and
sources regarding your own position.

My position is that it's a bad idea to cite Mr. Moriarty (or anyone
else) without having seen his (or her) work on the matter in question
(at least without clearly stating that you haven't seen the work), let
alone to attack someone else on that basis: it is dishonest, it may
propagate erroneous information, and sooner or later you will get
caught, which will at best distract focus from the point you are trying
to make, or worse, make you look foolish. Do you need more evidence
than this thread had provided?

taf

Chris Phillips

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 05 des 2005 10:47:40

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Mr. Washington's article on the parentage of William de Lancaster I can
hardly be considered "hearsay" regarding Mr. Moriarty's position. Mr.
Washington added the following comment:

"The foregoing notes (says Mr. Moriarty) afford some new considerations
upon the parentage and immediate ancestry of the first William de
Lancaster, lord of Kendal."

So says Mr. Moriarty.


Is Washington referring to published work by Moriarty, or to a personal
communication?

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2005 11:28:04

Dear Todd ~

Your favorite debating ploy is to demand that others post their
evidence and cite their sources. People innocently comply and then you
promptly declare they are erroneous and stupid. It must be greatly
satisfying to your ego to demonstrate that a fellow poster is less
intelligent than you are. This time, the tables are turned and you are
the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources. You
refuse. How predictable, Todd.

Whatever your reasons, it does nothing for you to keep repeating "I'm
right, I'm right, I'm right." If you're unwilling to post your own
evidence and cite your own sources, you are merely expressing an
opinion. And, we all have opinions. In the future, I encourage you to
lay your cards on the table, state your case, and and risk being
criticized by your peers. You'll learn far more that way and become a
more humble person in the process.

I think I can speak for most people who are newsgroup members. We're
here to learn about medieval genealogy and make friends, not play a
one-upmanship game. If we want to compete, we can do that anyday on
the tennis or raquetball court.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2005 11:44:33

I believe it was a personal communication from Mr. Moriarty to Mr.
Washington. In one part of his article, Mr. Washington appears to be
quoting directly from Mr. Moriarity's notes. It is that part of Mr.
Washington's article which I posted at length.

The remainder of the article appears to be Mr. Washington's own work.
However, he acknowledged Mr. Moriarty, Mr. Henry Hornyold-Strickland,
Mr. C. Roy Huddleston, and Mr. W. Percy Hedley "for their very kind
interest in the present paper." The latter three gentlemen are all
well known Northern England historian/genealogist types.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Mr. Washington's article on the parentage of William de Lancaster I can
hardly be considered "hearsay" regarding Mr. Moriarty's position. Mr.
Washington added the following comment:

"The foregoing notes (says Mr. Moriarty) afford some new considerations
upon the parentage and immediate ancestry of the first William de
Lancaster, lord of Kendal."

So says Mr. Moriarty.


Is Washington referring to published work by Moriarty, or to a personal
communication?

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyAgain

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2005 16:41:02

In a message dated 12/4/2005 6:09:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew


There is also the theory that he was a grandson. So I wouldn't say
"obvious". It hinges on whether the meaning of "avunculus" was firm at this time, or
fluid, and also whether the document was writen with the correct
representation of the relationships.
Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 05 des 2005 19:42:12

[Note - up to this point I have focussed on the issue of the claims and
their (in)valid basis, but this slime is below contempt.]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Your favorite debating ploy is to demand that others post their
evidence and cite their sources.

Given that you keep demanding this of me, in inappropriate
circumstances, it is a bit hypocritical to complain about my 'debating
ploys'.

People innocently comply and then you
promptly declare they are erroneous and stupid.

There are two different claims here. First, are you suggesting that
erroneous conclusions should not be challenged - certainly you took
MichaelAnne to task. Your precise words were, "In sharp contrast, your
alternative view upends the chronology, overlooks the onomastics, twists
the Latin, and ignores the charter evidence." You were suggesting in no
uncertain terms that her conclusions were erroneous, yet here you decry
that very behavior. (In common parlance, "Pot . . . . . Kettle. . . .")
The problem is that you cheated in order to do it, citing a 'big name'
whose work you never consulted. So now I am at fault, apparently, for
pointing out this deception of yours.

As to calling posters "stupid", you are simply speaking an untruth.
Telling lies has apparently become too comfortable. Does your 'win at
any cost' approach really require libel?

Be a big boy and take responsibility for your own actions rather than
trying to pretend that you are a hapless victim of the big mean bully.


This time, the tables are turned and you are
the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources.

You are still missing the point, (or, rather, pretending to). You keep
saying "cite the sources for your position". My position is that you
used a deception to attack another poster, and you have finally
admitted, if only in a backhanded manner, that this assessment of your
actions was correct. Now, as is "predictable" you try to blame someone
else. You contend that if I can't cite some source, then it is my fault
that you assaulted another poster based on a fiction. Tell me - what
would be the appropriate source to cite? Another example where you
similarly tried to pull a fast one? Another example where you have
blamed someone else when you got caught?


Whatever your reasons, it does nothing for you to keep repeating "I'm
right, I'm right, I'm right."

I have not, and have never been saying "I'm right" - that's your hangup.
I have been saying "You are attacking MichaelAnne with a lie", and you
duck and weave and avoid directly admitting it, and when that doesn't
work you try your "cite your sources" mantra, hoping no one notices that
you are just throwing up a huge diversion.


In the future, I encourage you to
lay your cards on the table, state your case, and and risk being
criticized by your peers. You'll learn far more that way and become a
more humble person in the process.

In the future, I encourage you not to lie when you attack someone. I
have no hope that you will learn anything nor that you will become more
humble, as you are not open to either, but at least it will be less
distracting than you having to put up such a self-righteous firestorm
when you fail to get away with it.


I think I can speak for most people who are newsgroup members. We're
here to learn about medieval genealogy and make friends, not play a
one-upmanship game.

This from Mr. Oneupman himself? Let me remind you, as it seems to have
slipped your mind: "In sharp contrast, your alternative view upends the
chronology, overlooks the onomastics, twists the Latin, and ignores the
charter evidence." Yep, that's you - making friends.

taf

Gjest

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2005 20:45:14

Dear Douglas,

You are not speaking on my behalf. This word game you're playing looks
much like the wordgames you were playing with Peter Stewart. A fox
might loose his hairs but won't loose his tricks. I might as well be
absent again. Nothing changes much.

Hans Vogels


Douglas Richardson schreef:

Dear Todd ~

Your favorite debating ploy is to demand that others post their
evidence and cite their sources. People innocently comply and then you
promptly declare they are erroneous and stupid. It must be greatly
satisfying to your ego to demonstrate that a fellow poster is less
intelligent than you are. This time, the tables are turned and you are
the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources. You
refuse. How predictable, Todd.

Whatever your reasons, it does nothing for you to keep repeating "I'm
right, I'm right, I'm right." If you're unwilling to post your own
evidence and cite your own sources, you are merely expressing an
opinion. And, we all have opinions. In the future, I encourage you to
lay your cards on the table, state your case, and and risk being
criticized by your peers. You'll learn far more that way and become a
more humble person in the process.

I think I can speak for most people who are newsgroup members. We're
here to learn about medieval genealogy and make friends, not play a
one-upmanship game. If we want to compete, we can do that anyday on
the tennis or raquetball court.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 05 des 2005 21:15:24

In message of 5 Dec, volucris@chello.nl wrote:

Dear Douglas,

You are not speaking on my behalf. This word game you're playing looks
much like the wordgames you were playing with Peter Stewart. A fox
might loose his hairs but won't loose his tricks. I might as well be
absent again. Nothing changes much.

Seconded.

Hans Vogels


Douglas Richardson schreef:

Dear Todd ~

Your favorite debating ploy is to demand that others post their
evidence and cite their sources. People innocently comply and then you
promptly declare they are erroneous and stupid. It must be greatly
satisfying to your ego to demonstrate that a fellow poster is less
intelligent than you are. This time, the tables are turned and you are
the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources. You
refuse. How predictable, Todd.

Whatever your reasons, it does nothing for you to keep repeating "I'm
right, I'm right, I'm right." If you're unwilling to post your own
evidence and cite your own sources, you are merely expressing an
opinion. And, we all have opinions. In the future, I encourage you to
lay your cards on the table, state your case, and and risk being
criticized by your peers. You'll learn far more that way and become a
more humble person in the process.

I think I can speak for most people who are newsgroup members. We're
here to learn about medieval genealogy and make friends, not play a
one-upmanship game. If we want to compete, we can do that anyday on
the tennis or raquetball court.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



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

Dolly Ziegler

Not speaking on my behalf (was:Re: William de Lancaster I's

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 05 des 2005 22:44:01

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---559023410-1804928587-1133815568=:9116
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 5 Dec, volucris@chello.nl wrote:

Dear Douglas,

You are not speaking on my behalf. This word game you're playing looks
much like the wordgames you were playing with Peter Stewart. A fox
might loose his hairs but won't loose his tricks. I might as well be
absent again. Nothing changes much.

Seconded.


Hans Vogels

Nor for me. Dolly Ziegler


Douglas Richardson schreef:

Dear Todd ~

Your favorite debating ploy is to demand that others post their
evidence and cite their sources. People innocently comply and then you
promptly declare they are erroneous and stupid. It must be greatly
satisfying to your ego to demonstrate that a fellow poster is less
intelligent than you are. This time, the tables are turned and you are
the one asked to provide your evidence and cite your sources. You
refuse. How predictable, Todd.

Whatever your reasons, it does nothing for you to keep repeating "I'm
right, I'm right, I'm right." If you're unwilling to post your own
evidence and cite your own sources, you are merely expressing an
opinion. And, we all have opinions. In the future, I encourage you to
lay your cards on the table, state your case, and and risk being
criticized by your peers. You'll learn far more that way and become a
more humble person in the process.

I think I can speak for most people who are newsgroup members. We're
here to learn about medieval genealogy and make friends, not play a
one-upmanship game. If we want to compete, we can do that anyday on
the tennis or raquetball court.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



--=20
Tim Powys-Lybbe=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0tim@po=

wys.org
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0For a miscellany of bygones: http:=
//powys.org


---559023410-1804928587-1133815568=:9116--

Gjest

Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2005 23:33:23

In a message dated 12/3/05 10:53:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< all his recorded children; whilst William's mother,
Godith, was clearly the sister of Ketel son of Eldred and thus of
native English stock >>

Ridiculous. If she was "clearly" the sister, then where is this evidence?
This is enough to call Mr Washington's bluff imho.
Anyone who says "clearly" and presents nothing to back himself up, is not a
historian.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Mar was The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2005 23:42:03

In a message dated 12/3/05 3:43:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

<< All this states is that he was dead before 30 March 1183. All his
charters
were before 1177 as it states so it is entirely possible that he died
before
Countess Ada in 1178. >>

Is it really just "possible" ? If the King's mother Ada died in 1178, then
doesn't this charter have to be before 1179 ? And you had said she is a widow
here, so doesn't this add detail to Morgrund that CP doesn't have? Or is
there some reason to doubt:
1) Ada died in 1178 OR
2) This document is during Agnes' widowhood.

If we can't doubt either of those two statements, then we have to say that
Morgrund did, in fact, die before this document, which can't be later then 1178.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Mar was The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 00:12:14

Dear Will,

I think it can be safely said here that Morgrund predeceased Ada de Warenne
and therefore died in or shortly before 1178. Ada also witnessed a charter
of Morgrund to St. Andrews between 1165-1177 and then witnessed another
confirmation charter Agnes Countess of Mar made to St. Andrews in her widowhood.
This seems conclusive based on the three charters.

MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketelteaser Reply

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 00:19:13

In a message dated 12/3/05 6:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

<< Willelmus filius Willelmi debet xxx m. ut habeat duellum versus
Gospatricium
filium Orm. >>

So all this is saying is some "William son of William"
Doesn't specify anything to definitely state who this person was.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To Todd

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 00:38:53

In a message dated 12/5/05 9:15:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

<< I will try to endeavor a lineage as I have written and understand it,
with relevant materials thusly posted to extant point, primary sources
footnoted and see what ensues. >>

But Emmet you have never quoted a primary source. So far you have paraphrased
and referred to and alluded to, but not quoted.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Lancaster Descent...All To ToddReply

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 00:42:42

In a message dated 12/5/05 12:39:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

<< I shall in return give foot notes to the primary sources, >>

Not footnotes.... quote the sources exactly :)
Footnotes, require us each to have a library of a thousand books, which most
of us don't. And not all of these are online for easy reference.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Morville

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 01:22:02

Just to shift the wind a bit. I have a certain problem here.

Helewise de Stuteville d 1228 (GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 2005-11-23
(November)) is said to have had three husbands

The first William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal d 1184 (http://www.thepeerage.com)
Afterwhich she is said to have married Hugh de Morville d 1202
And thirdly William Greystoke FitzRanulph d 1209

Now let us contrast this information to something that was posted a short
while ago on this newsgroup

Subj: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Date: 12/2/05 10:38:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: FDP527@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Farrer deals with this in his Introduction to Vol I Records of Kendale,
excerpted below, which can be found either in the book or at internet site
http://www.edenlinks.co.uk/RECORDS/FAR/INTRO.HTM
<snip>
"During the greater part of Stephen's reign, Cumberland, Westmarieland, and
probably Kentdale and Lancashire as far south as the Ribble, were in the hands
of David of Scotland [-1153]. A few of his charters of confirmation of this
period relating to these regions have come down to us in monastic chartularies.
(Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, n. 198; Lancs. Pipe R., 274-5.) Whilst under
his rule all Westmarieland was granted to Hugh de MOREVILL, whom Sir
Archibald C. LAWRIE describes as David's "life-long friend." (Early Scottish Charters,
273.) He was constable of Scotland during the latter part of David's life.
When Henry II came to the throne, in 1154, it is certain that Westmarieland was
in Morevill's hands and with it the lordship over the greater part of
Kentdale. At that time William de LANCASTER no longer held anything in Kentdale of
Roger de MOWBRAY; but he appears to have held his lands in Westmarieland and
Kentdale of Morevill by rendering Noutgeld of ?14 6s. 3d. per annum, and some 16
carucates of land in nine vills in Kentdale as farmer under Morevill. In 1166
William de LANCASTER I held only 2 knight's fees, of the new feoffment of Roger
de MOWBRAY in Sedbergh, Thornton, Burton in Lonsdale, and the other places in
Yorkshire previously named, which his descendants held long after of the fee
of Mowbray by the same service. The Mowbray connexion with Kentdale had come
to an end upon the accession of Henry II, who placed Hugh de MOREVILL in
possession of Westmarieland in return, possibly, for past services an din pursuance
of the policy of planting his favourites in regions of great strategic
importance. Probably the change of paramount lord had little, if any, effect on the
position of William de LANCASTER in Kentdale.*


When Henry II came to the throne in 1154, the lordship of Kentdale was held
by Hugh de Moreville.
William de Lancaster appears to have held his hands of Hugh de Moreville
William de Lancaster dies in 1184
HIs widow Helewise marries one Hugh de Moreville.

What primary evidence says that she did not marry her own overlord?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Mar was The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 02:01:02

Dear MichaelAnne,
I gather that the time frame runs as follows :
1 Earl Morgrund of Mar dies in late 1177 /
early 1178
2 Countess Agnes of Mar confirms a grant to St
Andrews Church witnessed by Countess Ada of Huntingdon and Countess Ela of
Fife in 1178
3 Countess Agnes of Mar confirms a 2nd grant
with the same Countesses also in 1178
4 Countess Ada of Huntingdon dies in 1178.
Note that Morgrund`s son Duncan Earl of Mar was born not later than
1178 and died in 1243 aged at least 65 years. as He did not witness his
mother`s charters He was evidently a minor of less than 14 years (born after 1164)
quite possibly a coincidence, but was Earl Duncan II of Fife, husband of
Countess Ela, his godfather?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Mar was The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 02:14:19

In a message dated 12/5/05 4:02:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< Note that Morgrund`s son Duncan Earl of Mar was born not later
than
1178 and died in 1243 aged at least 65 years. as He did not witness his
mother`s charters He was evidently a minor of less than 14 years (born after
1164)
quite possibly a coincidence, but was Earl Duncan II of Fife, husband of
Countess Ela, his godfather? >>

Can you tell us what you source is on Duncan's age at his death?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Google Book Search (was: Updates to website)

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 02:46:03

In a message dated 12/5/05 4:54:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sbaldw@mindspring.com writes:

<< Is it correct that there is no way to download an entire book at once
(say, as a pdf file) like you can do from the Gallica site? I would
not expect this for recent books still in copyright, but the apparent
lack of such a feature for public domain books would be, in my
opinion, an inexcusable negative feature. >>

Not only that but I've encountered a few instances where you can't view the
page. You get a notation that your target text is *on* the page, but you can't
read it. Presumably then you'll rush out and buy the book.

And further, when I've tried to read forward and backward from the target
page, it appears there is a limit on how many pages you can read. Of course you
can circumvent that by merely searching again for text from the earliest or
latest page you've read, but that's a little bit of a pain :)

Will

Denis Beauregard

Re: Google Book Search (was: Updates to website)

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 06 des 2005 02:59:49

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:00:54 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

And further, when I've tried to read forward and backward from the target
page, it appears there is a limit on how many pages you can read. Of course you
can circumvent that by merely searching again for text from the earliest or
latest page you've read, but that's a little bit of a pain :)

DId you try this ?

Find some book.

Search the text at the beginning of the page (until it is hidden).
Then you may get a few words that follow.

Search again with those more words until you get all the text.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: http://www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)

Gjest

Re: Google Book Search (was: Updates to website)

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 04:13:33

In a message dated 12/5/05 6:09:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:

<< Search the text at the beginning of the page (until it is hidden).
Then you may get a few words that follow.

Search again with those more words until you get all the text. >>

Yes but it would be a lot easier if they just let you click the "next page"
button instead of having to search and search over.
Will

Gjest

Re: Update on Juliana de Leybourne

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 05:15:38

On the Juliana de Leybourne who was daughter of Thomas de Leybourne and
Alice de Toeni, there are details given in the old DNB article under her
great-grandfather Robert, wherein is a subarticle on her grandfather William.

She is presumably here as the final surviving inheritor of her grandfather
William thus indicating that none of the other lines had descent to 1309 (when
he died).

The article states that Thomas, her father, was enfeoffed by his father in
Leybourne thus indicating something about his age, since this Thomas d 1307. In
addition and probably more useful the article states that Julianna was 3
years old "at her father's death".

This helps to pin her down pretty clearly in relation to her three husbands.

1) John, 2nd Lord Hastings was b 29 Sep 1286 (http://www.genealogics.org) and died
20 Jan 1324/5
2) Thus she married Thomas, Lord Blount IN 1325. His CP entry states he
was Governor of Drosselan Castle IN 1311 and that his father was Ralph le
Blount of Belton and mother was Cicely Lovett. Not further information is given
that could give us dates on these people.
3) Her third husband William Clinton, was created Earl of Huntingdon in 1337
and dsp 13 Aug 1354 They married in 1328


Was Juliana the mother of the Elizabeth Clinton who m Sir John FitzWilliam as
stirnet has it?

Was she the mother of Lawrence Hastings, 1st Earl of Pembroke d 1348 ?

The chronology works ...

Will Johnson

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Google Book Search (was: Updates to website)

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 06 des 2005 06:07:46

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 12/5/05 6:09:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:

Search the text at the beginning of the page (until it is hidden).
Then you may get a few words that follow.

Search again with those more words until you get all the text.

Yes but it would be a lot easier if they just let you click the "next page"
button instead of having to search and search over.

In my opinion, even that is not sufficient, since I see no good reason
why you shouldn't be able to download an entire book with one command,
like you can at the Gallica website. (Here, I am talking about works
that are in the public domain. Copyrighted works are obviously a
different matter.) After all, this program is being advertised as one
that will bring many public domain books into the hands of readers,
who are then apparently expected to go through the tedium of getting
them one page at a time in order to read them or to use them as
references.

Stewart Baldwin

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Google Book Search (was: Updates to website)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 des 2005 10:21:22

In message of 6 Dec, Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:13:33 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 12/5/05 6:09:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:

Search the text at the beginning of the page (until it is hidden).
Then you may get a few words that follow.

Search again with those more words until you get all the text.

Yes but it would be a lot easier if they just let you click the "next page"
button instead of having to search and search over.

In my opinion, even that is not sufficient, since I see no good reason
why you shouldn't be able to download an entire book with one command,
like you can at the Gallica website. (Here, I am talking about works
that are in the public domain. Copyrighted works are obviously a
different matter.) After all, this program is being advertised as one
that will bring many public domain books into the hands of readers,
who are then apparently expected to go through the tedium of getting
them one page at a time in order to read them or to use them as
references.

Totally agreed. It is a waste of my time to read through pages one at
a time over the net. If only I could download whole books, I could
process the pages much faster through direct reading from disc on my
machine here.

The other problem is that they use JPEGs which may not be scaled
correctly. It would be far better if they put the whole thing into PDF
files, giving an further advantage that it is far quicker to jump
between pages. The technology for this is well established on other
sites so I can't see why Google has to go for a relatively crude method.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Update on Juliana de Leybourne

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 des 2005 11:38:40

In message of 6 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

On the Juliana de Leybourne who was daughter of Thomas de Leybourne
and Alice de Toeni, there are details given in the old DNB article
under her great-grandfather Robert, wherein is a subarticle on her
grandfather William.

She is presumably here as the final surviving inheritor of her
grandfather William thus indicating that none of the other lines had
descent to 1309 (when he died).

The article states that Thomas, her father, was enfeoffed by his
father in Leybourne thus indicating something about his age, since
this Thomas d 1307. In addition and probably more useful the
article states that Julianna was 3 years old "at her father's death".

This helps to pin her down pretty clearly in relation to her three
husbands.

1) John, 2nd Lord Hastings was b 29 Sep 1286 (http://www.genealogics.org)
and died 20 Jan 1324/5
2) Thus she married Thomas, Lord Blount IN 1325. His CP entry
states he was Governor of Drosselan Castle IN 1311 and that his
father was Ralph le Blount of Belton and mother was Cicely Lovett.
Not further information is given that could give us dates on these
people.
3) Her third husband William Clinton, was created Earl of Huntingdon
in 1337 and dsp 13 Aug 1354 They married in 1328


Was Juliana the mother of the Elizabeth Clinton who m Sir John
FitzWilliam as stirnet has it?

No from CP VI 649 incl note (v).

Was she the mother of Lawrence Hastings, 1st Earl of Pembroke d 1348
?

Yes from CP X, 388.

The chronology works ...

Will Johnson



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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Google Book Search (was: Updates to website)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 des 2005 11:46:07

In message of 6 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 12/5/05 6:09:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
no@nospam.com.invalid writes:

Search the text at the beginning of the page (until it is hidden).
Then you may get a few words that follow.

Search again with those more words until you get all the text.

Yes but it would be a lot easier if they just let you click the "next
page" button instead of having to search and search over.

Well I found I could do just that when I went in through the
Proxify server (as Chris Phillips told us) at: http://proxify.com/?289

But it was rather slow as every page needed to be downloaded separately.

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

Gjest

Re: Update on Juliana de Leybourne

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 12:52:02

In a message dated 12/6/2005 2:54:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

Was Juliana the mother of the Elizabeth Clinton who m Sir John
FitzWilliam as stirnet has it?

No from CP VI 649 incl note (v).

Was she the mother of Lawrence Hastings, 1st Earl of Pembroke d 1348
?

Yes from CP X, 388.


I don't have access to those volumes. Maybe someone who does can post what
these notes say.
Thanks
Will Johnson

butlergrt

Re: Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av butlergrt » 06 des 2005 14:26:52

Good Morning Will and All,
I agree, that from the evidence, Helewise married Hugh de Morville. I have
read that same piece you posted. In the records of the Austin Canons,
Priory of Cockersand, Vol. II, pp 152-53, secondary source" the canons
obtained judgment in the court of John, Count of Mortain where lord of the
honor of Lancaster between 1189-94 against Williams' widow, Helewise and
her 2nd husband,Hugh de Morville who there-upon confirmed the original
gifts as did Count John."British History Archives.
I may be mistaken, Will, but I thought it was William Lancaster II who
died before Michaelmas 1184, "the Kings sheriff answered for his men"
piperoll 30 Henry II, not William Lancaster I, please correct me if I am
wrong? At least as I read it on your post.
I could be wrong again but I thought it was a Gundred(reda) that married
William Lancaster I not Helewise?
This Helewise had an enviable constituition, hard times ,3 husbands and
nigh on 100 years old, as I read your post, few today can barely do that!
It must be a typo error? or did I read it right as you wanted us to? if I
did there is a problem or 2 or so...
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 16:57:02

In a message dated 12/6/2005 5:39:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

agree, that from the evidence, Helewise married Hugh de Morville


Emmet my main point was that it would seem more obvious that THE Hugh she
married was her own direct overlord. I was asking for any primary
documentation that this is not the Hugh she married.

Will

Gjest

Re: Lancaster Descent...DSH

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 16:59:01

In a message dated 12/6/2005 6:09:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

My offer to Todd was to be a start,


Emmet you can't start from an offered descent. That is the problem.
Start from a primary citation. Build a descent from that.

Gjest

Re: Dulcia Bold & Ellen Warburton, Daughters of John Savage

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 23:27:39

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Dulcia Bold & Ellen Warburton, Daughters of John
Savage (d. 1492) of Clifton?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1133460065)

Despite what is printed in VCH Lancaster about Dulcia [or Dulcie] Savage
being a daughter of SIR John Savage at the time of her 1464 marriage covenant,
it appears from a record at the Cheshire and Chester Archives in the Beamont
MSS. that her father was actually John Savage ESQ. at the time her husband
Henry Bolde (s/o Richard Bolde) settled property on her on 20 Oct. 1464 [Beamont
MSS. ~ MS 579]. That rules out what sense I was attempting to make from her
father being a knight in 1464. In 1464 John Savage (d. 1495) was still only
called an esquire [from his father's IPM], most likely being the John Savage
that was made a knight in 1471 by Edward IV and from 1472 on appearing in
Cheshire records as a knight. John Savage "junior" (d. 1492) was made a Knight
of the Bath in 1465. Chronologically it appears more likely that Dulcia who
was married and had property settled on her in 1464 was a daughter of John
Savage (ca. 1421-1495). The will of her son Richard Bolde, Knt., indicates
that Dulcia is buried in what was then called the Church of St. Wilfrid,
Farnworth (in Widnes).

Dulcia and Henry's daughter Matilda had a life lease for land in Warrington,
Wigan, Ince-in-Makerfield, and Hindley settled on her on 23 Jun. 1490 by her
father-in-law William Gerard, Esq, of Ince [Beamont MSS. ~ MS 594]. Matilda
and her husband Thomas Gerard, Esq., were ancestors of the Eltonhead
immigrants to Virginia and Maryland.

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2005 23:30:02

In a message dated 12/6/05 5:39:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

<< This Helewise had an enviable constituition, hard times ,3 husbands and
nigh on 100 years old, as I read your post, >>

Nowhere did I say Helewise lived to be 100. In fact I am not sure I
mentioned anything about her possible birthyear range.
She married three times
1) William de Lancaster who d 1184
2) Hugh de Morville d 1202
3) William FitzRanulf de Greystoke d 1209

IF she is to be the mother of both William's son Thomas de Greystoke AND the
mother of William de Lancaster's daughter Hawise (Later Baroness of Kent) THEN
she must have produced chidlren for at least 17 years. In addition to having
two daughter's by her second husband in-between.

This Helewise de Stuteville died in 1228 as was posted here on Nov 23rd.
She had to have her eldest daughter by 1185 since her first husband had died
*in* 1184.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 06 des 2005 23:54:02

Will,
May I ask if you are just interested in the primary support/resources for
the marriage or are you suggesting that the Hugh de Morville that Helewisa
married was Hugh, son of Hugh and Beatrice de Morville? It was through Maud
de Morville Vipont, daughter of Hugh and Beatrice, that the Vieuxponts and
afterwards the Cliffords obtained the lordship of Westmoreland.
Pat


----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Hugh de Morvillereply
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2005, 4:32 PM


In a message dated 12/6/05 5:39:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

This Helewise had an enviable constituition, hard times ,3 husbands and
nigh on 100 years old, as I read your post,

Nowhere did I say Helewise lived to be 100. In fact I am not sure I
mentioned anything about her possible birthyear range.
She married three times
1) William de Lancaster who d 1184
2) Hugh de Morville d 1202
3) William FitzRanulf de Greystoke d 1209

IF she is to be the mother of both William's son Thomas de Greystoke AND the
mother of William de Lancaster's daughter Hawise (Later Baroness of Kent) THEN
she must have produced chidlren for at least 17 years. In addition to having
two daughter's by her second husband in-between.

This Helewise de Stuteville died in 1228 as was posted here on Nov 23rd.
She had to have her eldest daughter by 1185 since her first husband had died
*in* 1184.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 00:38:02

In a message dated 12/6/05 3:16:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< OK so we have Maud Morley, dau of Sir John Morley ..... maybe connects to
the
St Quentins?
She looks like the only likely target to take it back.

Will Johnson >>

That's interesting .... there appears to be some controversey in this family
tree.
I have from the old DNB that Sir John Morley was "of Raglan Castle" but here
http://87.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HE/HERBERT_FAMILY_.htm

we see the statement : "He [Sir WILLIAM Herbert] appears to have married
twice, his first wife being Elizabeth Bluet of Raglan, widow of Sil James
Berkeley, and his second a daughter of David Gam, a valiant Welsh squire slain at
Agincourt. Royal favor enriched Sir William, and he was able to buy Raglan Castle
from the Lord Berkeley, his first wifes son, the deed, which remains among the
Beaufort muniments, refuting the pedigree-makers statement that he inherited
the castle as heir of his mother Maude daughter of Sir John Morley. "

So it seems we need to make sure which Herbert married Maud before we can
even proceed!!

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 00:53:02

In a message dated 12/5/05 6:09:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Anne Parr (d. 1521/2) = William Herbert (c.1506-1570)
|
William Herbert (aft 1538-1600/1)

From this, the second earl was indeed descended from the St Quintins,
but I can't see how the first earl was so descended. Has anyone got any
better ideas? >>

Well Tim, I can tell you, from the DNB article on William the 1st Earl that
his mother was Gwladus verch Daffyd, dau of David "Gam" ap Llewelyn and his
wife Gwenllian verch Gwilym.

I don't think it's likely you'll find a connection behind them.

His father William Herbert also, was the son of Sir Thomas Herbert and his
wife Maud Morley.
This Sir Thomas was the product of Guillem Herbert and his wife Gwenllian
verch Hywel
Not likely to find a connection behind them either !

OK so we have Maud Morley, dau of Sir John Morley ..... maybe connects to the
St Quentins?
She looks like the only likely target to take it back.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 01:00:02

In a message dated 12/6/05 2:48:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< May I ask if you are just interested in the primary support/resources for
the marriage or are you suggesting that the Hugh de Morville that Helewisa
married was Hugh, son of Hugh and Beatrice de Morville? It was through Maud
de Morville Vipont, daughter of Hugh and Beatrice, that the Vieuxponts and
afterwards the Cliffords obtained the lordship of Westmoreland. >>

Any primary documentation that identifies which Hugh she married.
The conjecture that the Cliffords obtained Westmoreland through the Viponts
and the Viponts through the Morevilles may be only that if its not firmly and
soundly sitting on a primary document.

Will

Patricia Junkin

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 07 des 2005 02:19:22

Will,

Hugh de Morville the Elder d. 1162

Hugh de Morville II was dead between 1173-74. On his death his sister, Maud
inherited many of his lands. Maude de Morville de V. gave her daughter
Christian 1/2 ploughland of her demesne in Renegill in frank marriage with
Robert son of Derman, land called Hynthorneham. Hodgson, Rev. John; History
of Northumberland Part II, Vol., III and The History and Antiquities of the
Counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland.

According to Dugdale's Wetherall Priory which lists among the greater
benefactors, Simon de Morville, Derman witnessed a charter by Ada de Engaine
daughter of William Engaine of Lanercost. Ranulf Meschin was earl of
Cumberland under Henry I and among those mentioned in the Carta prima de
Wetherall were: Walteof filio Cospatricii, comitas; Chettelo Ectredi filio;
et Forno Segulfi and et Silef de Penred. [Waldeve son of Earl Gospatric,
Forn son of Sigulf, Ketel son of Eldred, Odard, Hildred the knight,
Wescubrict, and Godard]
The intermarriage of these families is clear, an example is when Margaret
Penreth married Robert Vipont in a later generation.

You accept, I believe that Helewisa de Stuteville married Hugh de Morville
of Burgh by Sands after 1183. Hugh II was dead.

Evidence points to a connection between the family de Morville who were at
Burgh by Sands and the de Morvilles or Scotland and Westmoreland.

There seems to be some difference between the administration of Kendal and
the lower part of Westmoreland that a more knowledgeable contributor could
define.

You may want to look at a couple of these sources to arrive at your own
conclusions.

Pat
----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Hugh de Morvillereply
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2005, 6:17 PM


In a message dated 12/6/05 2:48:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

May I ask if you are just interested in the primary support/resources for
the marriage or are you suggesting that the Hugh de Morville that Helewisa
married was Hugh, son of Hugh and Beatrice de Morville? It was through Maud
de Morville Vipont, daughter of Hugh and Beatrice, that the Vieuxponts and
afterwards the Cliffords obtained the lordship of Westmoreland.

Any primary documentation that identifies which Hugh she married.
The conjecture that the Cliffords obtained Westmoreland through the Viponts
and the Viponts through the Morevilles may be only that if its not firmly and
soundly sitting on a primary document.

Will

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 02:27:44

In a message dated 12/6/05 4:19:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< Hugh de Morville the Elder d. 1162>>

Source ?

<<Hugh de Morville II was dead between 1173-74. On his death his sister, Maud
inherited many of his lands. Maude de Morville de V. gave her daughter
Christian 1/2 ploughland of her demesne in Renegill in frank marriage with
Robert son of Derman, land called Hynthorneham. Hodgson, Rev. John; History
of Northumberland Part II, Vol., III and The History and Antiquities of the
Counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland.>>

Is this really a reputable source and what's his source? Pat we just can't,
when questions arise, insist that something so secondary is accurate. What if
Hugh didn't die in 1173, what if *this* Hugh isn't the son of the other Hugh
but some entirely other person ?

<< According to Dugdale's Wetherall Priory which lists among the greater
benefactors, Simon de Morville, Derman witnessed a charter by Ada de Engaine
daughter of William Engaine of Lanercost. Ranulf Meschin was earl of Cumberland
under Henry I and among those mentioned in the Carta prima de Wetherall were:
Walteof filio Cospatricii, comitas; Chettelo Ectredi filio; et Forno Segulfi and
et Silef de Penred. [Waldeve son of Earl Gospatric, Forn son of Sigulf, Ketel
son of Eldred, Odard, Hildred the knight, Wescubrict, and Godard]>>

This Pat does not appear to bear on the question of which Hugh she married.
It does list some Ada de Engaine, daughter of some William Engaine "of
Lanercost". Pat could you post the date this charter is supposed to have been
created?

<< The intermarriage of these families is clear, an example is when Margaret
Penreth married Robert Vipont in a later generation.>>

Is it clear from what you've posted on the topic? I don't see it clearly.

<< You accept, I believe that Helewisa de Stuteville married Hugh de Morville
of Burgh by Sands after 1183. Hugh II was dead.>>

I do not accept this. That is the point. It's much more obvious to me that
she would have married her own overlord, rather than that she just happened to
co-incidentally marry a man with his same name, who was not even his son, but
*possibly* his nephew.

<< Evidence points to a connection between the family de Morville who were at
Burgh by Sands and the de Morvilles or Scotland and Westmoreland.>>

What evidence?


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Mar was The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 02:44:31

Dear MichaelAnne,
I know Duncan is a very common gaelic name, but
the existence of charters in which Duncan II`s wife Ela witnessed grants of
Duncan, Earl of Mar`s mother Agnes lends a certain possibility that this could
have been the case, especially as Duncan of Mar`s first official acts would have
occurred 25 years after the death of Duncan II of Fife (died aft July1203)
and Duncan`s succession to the Earldom of Mar in 1228 (see Genealogics). We
know that the old almost Queen Mother Ada was probably the aunt of Duncan`s wife
Ela. Agnes` identity is unknown and it`s never been suggested that the claim
to Mar ran through her which makes the almost joint rulership of Mar by
Morgrund and her that much more baffling. If Ada were a de Warrene by birth that
would almost account for her prominence, especially if Morgrund`s claim wasn`t as
strong as Gilchrist`s as seems to have been the case.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

butlergrt

Re: Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av butlergrt » 07 des 2005 03:15:24

Hello Will,
Your post, December 5, 2005, you start;

"just to shift the winds abit, Helewise de Stuteville d. 1128 is
said to have had three husbands.
The first William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal d. 1184(http://www.peerage..)"
That was the first thing that struck me as odd, I was under the impression
she married William II de Lancaster.
But supposing, you know what you are writing about, at face value, and
knowing by the grant of Haversham on his marriage to whomever it was or
is, and if she was of rough child bearing age, by the time she died in
1228 she would have been nigh on at least 90 to 100, an extreme age at
which I found hard to believe. I did not say anywhere that 'YOU' said she
was nigh on 100 years old, I did!! based on rough calculation, as the rest
of you are wont to do!
If I understand Pat correctly, what is being stated is that there were two
families of de Morvilles', one with two Hughs and one with one Hugh? Yes I
know what assume means!! and I had assumed that she Married Hugh, her
overlord, father of Richard that married her daughter, as it seemed
logical, he had control of her deceased husbands lands as overlord, they
are both old and his son had already married her daughter, made sense.
Maybe not? Whichever Hugh, we do know she married a Hugh de Morville
brought by suit of the Canons of Austin priory in the court of John, Count
of Mortain as previously posted and "confirmed May 13, 1207, in further
litigation between his daughter and heiress Helewise and Gilbert son of
Roger fitzReinfrid.
Priory of Austin Canons, Cockersand, Vol. II pp. 152-3 British History
Archives.
I hope this clears up my position on what I read and wrote.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Gjest

Re: Agnes of Mar was The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 03:38:22

In a message dated 12/6/2005 7:45:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

Dear MichaelAnne,
I know Duncan is a very common Gaelic name, but
the existence of charters in which Duncan II`s wife Ela witnessed grants of
Duncan, Earl of Mar`s mother Agnes lends a certain possibility that this
could
have been the case, especially as Duncan of Mar`s first official acts would
have
occurred 25 years after the death of Duncan II of Fife (died aft July 1203)
and Duncan`s succession to the Earldom of Mar in 1228 (see Genealogics). We
know that the old almost Queen Mother Ada was probably the aunt of Duncan`s
wife
Ela. Agnes` identity is unknown and it`s never been suggested that the claim
to Mar ran through her which makes the almost joint rulership of Mar by
Morgrund and her that much more baffling. If Ada were a de Warrene by birth
that
would almost account for her prominence, especially if Morgrund`s claim
wasn`t as
strong as Gilchrist`s as seems to have been the case.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA




Dear James,

You bring up an interesting historical possibility but Morgrund succeeded to
the earldom after Rothri. Because Mar was still using Tanistic succession it
is impossible to know the exact relationship of Rothri to Morgrund. The
same can be said for Morgrund's relationship to Gilchrist who succeeded him. It
was Thomas de Lundin who first challenged the Celtic laws of succession in
Mar when he challenged Duncan, son of Morgrund and Agnes, for the Earldom on
the basis that he [Thomas de Lundin] was the grandson of Gilchrist.

What is the basis that Gilchrist challenged Morgrund or had a better claim
to the earldom. Scotland is very different from England in this time period.
Duncan is much too common a name to speculate that Duncan, earl of Fife was
the Godfather to Duncan, earl of Mar.

I am still in the research phase of this and haven't yet reviewed all the
available documentation.

MichaelAnne

Hal Bradley

RE: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 07 des 2005 04:00:03

Will,

Technically, William was not a Herbert at all. His son was the first of that
surname. William ap Thomas, father of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was
the son of Thomas ap Gwylim and his wife Maud de Morley. See CP X, p. 400
note b. See also, "Limbus Patrum Morganiae et Glamorganiae" (London, 1886),
p. 264; "Annals and Antiquities of the Counties and County Families of
Wales" (London, 1875), 2:718.

I hope that is of some help.

Hal Bradley

snip
That's interesting .... there appears to be some controversey
in this family
tree.
I have from the old DNB that Sir John Morley was "of Raglan
Castle" but here
http://87.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HE/HERBERT_FAMILY_.htm

we see the statement : "He [Sir WILLIAM Herbert] appears to
have married
twice, his first wife being Elizabeth Bluet of Raglan, widow
of Sil James
Berkeley, and his second a daughter of David Gam, a valiant
Welsh squire slain at
Agincourt. Royal favor enriched Sir William, and he was able
to buy Raglan Castle
from the Lord Berkeley, his first wifes son, the deed, which
remains among the
Beaufort muniments, refuting the pedigree-makers statement
that he inherited
the castle as heir of his mother Maude daughter of Sir John Morley. "

So it seems we need to make sure which Herbert married Maud
before we can
even proceed!!

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 04:17:37

Throwing this line into OneWorldTree (not the best source, but useful as a
guide), they claim this line
Sir John Morley son of
Cicely Bardolf dau of
Thomas Bardolf son of
Hugh Bardolf son of
Juliana de Gournay dau of
Hugh de Gournay

I thought that was interesting in light of the recent discussion here on
Julianna de Dammartin, which is apparently this Juliana's grandmother.

I ran the chronology and it seems to work. I have not confirmed that this
line is accurate, but its interesting if it is.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Morvillereply

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 04:31:34

In a message dated 12/6/05 6:24:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

<< The first William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal d. 1184(http://www.peerage..)"
That was the first thing that struck me as odd, I was under the impression
she married William II de Lancaster.
But supposing, you know what you are writing about, at face value, and
knowing by the grant of Haversham on his marriage to whomever it was or
is, and if she was of rough child bearing age, by the time she died in
1228 she would have been nigh on at least 90 to 100, an extreme age at
which I found hard to believe. >>

How are you reading anything in what I said that identifies which William she
married or how old she was?
She was not 100 years old at her death. I did not say she married William
ONE nor did I say William TWO, I only said William. That does not imply one or
two.

Can you clarify exactly how you think she was so old?
Thanks
Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 07 des 2005 09:25:56

In message of 6 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 12/5/05 6:09:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

Anne Parr (d. 1521/2) = William Herbert (c.1506-1570)
|
William Herbert (aft 1538-1600/1)

From this, the second earl was indeed descended from the St Quintins,
but I can't see how the first earl was so descended. Has anyone got
any better ideas?

Well Tim, I can tell you, from the DNB article on William the 1st
Earl that his mother was Gwladus verch Daffyd, dau of David "Gam" ap
Llewelyn and his wife Gwenllian verch Gwilym.

Regrettably this is the first earl of the first Herbert creation, who
died in 1469, whereas the CP statement about the St Quintin descendants
is clearly to the first earl of the second Herbert creation of 1551, and
who lived from 1506 to 1570.

I don't think it's likely you'll find a connection behind them.

His father William Herbert also, was the son of Sir Thomas Herbert
and his wife Maud Morley. This Sir Thomas was the product of Guillem
Herbert and his wife Gwenllian verch Hywel Not likely to find a connection
behind them either !

OK so we have Maud Morley, dau of Sir John Morley ..... maybe
connects to the St Quentins? She looks like the only likely target
to take it back.

Does the DNB say anything about the first earl of the second creation?

It might be worth adding the C T Clay, the author/editor of the last
nine volumes of Early Yorkshire Charters, also wrote, p. 80 of his
"Early Yorkshire Families" pub 1973:

"This last Herbert's [St Quintin] heir was his granddaughter Lora,
ancestress of the Herbert earls of Pembroke."

So CP is not alone in this assertion.

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

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2005 21:09:56

Wednesday, 7 December, 2005\


Hello All,

William Comyn, Earl of Buchan (d. 1233) was the ancestor of
the Comyn lords of Badenoch, and others, by his first wife Sarah,
known to date only as ' yr. da. and coh. of Robert FitzHugh '[1].

An additional reference has been found, which appears to
point further to a relationship between Sarah and the Morville
famiy which may have been present, but not clearly shown, in the
Pipe Roll entry:


' 543. (Norh') Sara uxor Willelmi Cumin uersus Emmam
de Norh' de placito terre per Ricardum
Morell'. Ad eundem. Affidauit. ' [2]


This involves a case brought by Sara, wife of William
Comyn (or 'Cumin') concerning lands in Northamptonshire, possibly
the same lands referred to in the Pipe Roll. Who Emma de
Northampton ("Emmam de Norh' " in the Curia Regis entry above)
was is unclear. At the time this case was brought, Roland, Lord
of Galloway (and husband of Elena, dau. of Richard de Morville
and heiress of her brother William) had just died in Northampton
on 19 December of the previous year (1200).

It is tempting to suggest, given the texts in hand, that Robert fitz
Hugh, father of Sara, was a son of Hugh de Morville, younger brother of Richard
de Morville. This would explain the Pipe Roll (1201-2) entry, which appears to
show the land of Sara, wife of William Comyn, as being a portion of the total
of the Northamptonshire lands of Richard de Morville claimed by Roland of
Galloway (25 marks out of a total of 500 assessed). Since Elena de Morville's
English lands were primarily in Northamptonshire, she may have been called
'Elena de Northampton', and she may well be the 'Emma' de Northampton of the CR
entry:

[NOTE: conjecture link shown thus: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]


Hugh de Morville = Beatrice de Beauchamp
_________________________I_________________
I I I
Richard de = Hawise de Hugh de Maud = William
Morville I Lancaster Morville de Vipont
d. 1189 I I I
_______I_______ I_ _ _ _ _ _ V
I I I
Elena William de Robert fitz
['Emma' ?] Morville Hugh
= Roland dsp 1196 d. bef 1201
of Galloway ___________I_______
d. 1200 I I I I
I <siblings> Sarah
V = William Comyn
I
V


If correct, this would provide the hitherto unknown ancestry
of Sarah and her father Robert fitz Hugh.

Any and all relevant documentation, comment and criticism is
welcome as always.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES:

[1] CP XI:143 note (e), and Scots Peerage, I:505; the original
sources of information are Pipe Roll, 3 John, p. 183;
6 John, p. 140.

The text of the Pipe Roll, 3 John, has been rendered as
follows:

' #318. 1201-1202.
Northamptonshire:---Simon de Pateshulle renders his account.
New Oblations:---Rolland of Galloway owes 500 marks for having
a recognizance whether Richard de Moreville father of his wife
Elena, was seized of a knight's fee and pertinents in Basiath
for 15 days before the war began between king Henry the father
and king Henry the son. William Cumin accounts for 25 marks and
a palfrey for having to wife the younger daughter of Robert Fitz
Hugh, with a reasonable part of the frank tenement which was the
said Robert's. He has paid into the treasury 20 marks; and he
owes 5 marks and a palfrey. ' [ Pipe Rolls, 3 John, Rot. 13,
from Bain's Cal. Doc. Scot., courtesy MichaelAnne Guido.]


[2] Curia Regis Roll 5, mem. 26, from Stenton, ed., Pleas
Before the King or His Justices, 1198-1212 (London:
Bernard Quaritch, 1967), III:54. The text is from the
essoins of Michaelmas term, 1201.


* John P. Ravilious

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition/Correction: Parentage of Juliane de Sandwi

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 00:56:29

In a message dated 12/7/05 1:40:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Thus, it would appear that Juliane de Sandwich, wife of Sir William de
Leyburn, Lord Leyburn, was the daughter and heiress of Henry de
Sandwich, Knt. (son and heir apparent of Simon de Sandwich, Knt., of
Preston, Dene (in Margate), Ham, Ripple, and Margate, Kent), by Joan,
daughter and heiress of William d'Auberville, Knt., of Westenhanger [in
Stanford], Halyrode [in Loningborough Hundred], and Stockbury, Kent. >>


See further here
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... &lpg=PA42&
dq=sir+henry+de+sandwich&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dsir%2Bhenry%
2Bde%2Bsandwich%26lr%3D&sig=2hk0nZuYP3djvYjj0OwJPkfBTtc

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 08 des 2005 01:26:24

In message of 8 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I was told privately that the Herberts of the First creation were not
what we were discussing, so let's go back and start again to make
clear what I was saying.

The question from Tim was, if, or how, the Herberts, Earls of
Pembroke, of the SECOND creation were descendend from the St
Quentins.

So to attempt to answer this let's look first at
William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke d 1570

His grandfather was William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke beheaded in
1469

Could THIS grandfather be a descendent of the St Quentins?
1) This grandfather's own mother was of Welsh descent, with no
indication of anything else as far as I can see.
2) This grandfather's paternal grandfather also appears to be of
Welsh descent
3) HOWEVER the one remaining person, namely, this grandfather's
paternal grandmother was Maud Morley, dau of Sir John Morley himself
having a lot of possible connections back to the St Quentins.

Hopefully my approach is now clear. I do know that the goal is to
connect William d 1570 back to the St Quentins. I am proposing that
investigating the Morley ancestry might be a way to do so.

This was not my question!

I was trying to find out how CP's statement could be true. The
statement in CP XI, 368, note (c) was:

"... the descendants of Lora [St Quintin], the Herbert Earls of
Pembroke of the 2nd creation (1551) styled themselves Lords St
Quintin on the ground of the descent."

CP must have had a reason to use the strange phrase "Earls of Pembroke
of the 2nd creation". If they thought the descent from Lora was
through, or even to, the first creation, surely they would have said
that instead? My reading of their words is that they were deliberately
excluding the earls of the first creation. Therefore what they were
suggesting was that the earls of the second creation were descended
from Lora in some maternal line.

So is there a line to the first earl of the second creation that is
_not_ through the earls of the first creation? I have not found it and
strongly suspect there is not one. (There is, as I showed, a line to
the second earl of the second creation.)

But if anyone wishes to discuss the ancestry of the first creation
earls, might I suggest you change the title of this thread?

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

Gjest

Re: St Quintin to 2nd creation of Herbert earls of Pembroke

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 02:01:38

I was told privately that the Herberts of the First creation were not what we
were discussing, so let's go back and start again to make clear what I was
saying.

The question from Tim was, if, or how, the Herberts, Earls of Pembroke, of
the SECOND creation were descendend from the St Quentins.

So to attempt to answer this let's look first at
William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke d 1570

His grandfather was William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke beheaded in 1469

Could THIS grandfather be a descendent of the St Quentins?
1) This grandfather's own mother was of Welsh descent, with no indication of
anything else as far as I can see.
2) This grandfather's paternal grandfather also appears to be of Welsh descent
3) HOWEVER the one remaining person, namely, this grandfather's paternal
grandmother was Maud Morley, dau of Sir John Morley himself having a lot of
possible connections back to the St Quentins.

Hopefully my approach is now clear. I do know that the goal is to connect
William d 1570 back to the St Quentins. I am proposing that investigating the
Morley ancestry might be a way to do so.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 02:44:51

In a message dated 12/7/05 11:09:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< If correct, this would provide the hitherto unknown ancestry
of Sarah and her father Robert fitz Hugh. >>

Could Robert also be one generation earlier? Not nephew to Richard, Constable
of Scotland d 1189, but rather his brother?

Will

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 08 des 2005 03:43:48

Dear Will,

The chronology - as it is - looks neater (standard genealogical
term) with Robert as a nephew of Richard de Morville, based on the
apparent marriage range for Sara and William Comyn; of course, things
are not always so neat....;)

At the same time, if Robert fitz Hugh were a brother of Richard
de Morville, he would evidently be a namesake of their maternal
grandfather, Robert de Beauchamp.

Cheers,

John



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/7/05 11:09:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

If correct, this would provide the hitherto unknown ancestry
of Sarah and her father Robert fitz Hugh.

Could Robert also be one generation earlier? Not nephew to Richard, Constable
of Scotland d 1189, but rather his brother?

Will

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition/Correction: Parentage of Juliane de Sandwi

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 05:52:42

Doug
Thank You for the interesting link. It has been very useful.
Best Always,
Mike Welch
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Interested parties may also wish to read the information on the
Glanville, Auberville, and Crioll families at the following weblink:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... oanhg4.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
"History of Walmer and Walmer Castle", Charles Robert Stebbing Elvin;
Privately Printed, Canterbury: Cross and Jackman, 1894

Which googleprint link I posted just a short time ago, tells us that Maud de
Glanville dau of the Justiciar of England, Ralph de Glanville (d 1188/90)
married William d'Auberville (d abt 1208) and by him had a Hugh who dying in 1213
left a son and heir, a minor in 1213 William d'Auberville d 1245, the father
of the Joan d'Auberville who married Sir Henry de Sandwich.

Leo does not show this Maud here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO

It would make an interesting addition to genealogics to connect these two
lines, the daughters of Ralph de Glanville, both of whom have been the subject of
so much discussion lately.

Will

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 08 des 2005 11:28:31

Hi John

Would not your hypothesis make Sarah the granddaughter of the Hugh de
Morville who was one of the murderers of Thomas a Becket? Could be why
references to her father aret to Robert fitz Hugh rather than Robert de
Morville (assuming someone wanted to downplay the notoriety).

Doug Smith

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 08 des 2005 12:35:33

Dear Doug,

If that's the right Hugh de Morville; I thought it was Hugh de
Morville, of Burgh by Sands, Penrith, Kirkoswald and Lazenby,
Cumberland (d. 1202) who was one of the murderers of the Archbishop - ?

I show Hugh (de Morville) of Burgh by Sands as an ancestor of
many list members (myself included); if Richard de Morville the
Constable's brother is an ancestor in fact, then the good news ( ?? )
is Hugh the Murderer is definitely an ancestor.

Some ancestors are nice to hang on the family tree. Others
deserve greater punishment.......

Cheers,

John


alden@mindspring.com wrote:
Hi John

Would not your hypothesis make Sarah the granddaughter of the Hugh de
Morville who was one of the murderers of Thomas a Becket? Could be why
references to her father aret to Robert fitz Hugh rather than Robert de
Morville (assuming someone wanted to downplay the notoriety).

Doug Smith

Hal Bradley

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 08 des 2005 14:54:02

Dear Doug,

This Hugh is not the er of Becket and has no discernable relationship to the er of Becket. The er of Becket was married to Hawise de Stuteville and was a generation younger than the Hugh who married Beatrice. Since Becket was killed c. 1171 and this Hugh de Morville died c. 1162, I think we can safely rule him out.

Hal Bradley



From: "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com
Date: Thu Dec 08 04:28:31 CST 2005
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Hi John

Would not your hypothesis make Sarah the granddaughter of the Hugh de
Morville who was one of the ers of Thomas a Becket? Could be why
references to her father aret to Robert fitz Hugh rather than Robert de
Morville (assuming someone wanted to downplay the notoriety).

Doug Smith

John Brandon

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av John Brandon » 08 des 2005 15:36:52

What is "the er of Becket"?

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 17:00:03

In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:52:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:

This Hugh is not the er of Becket and has no discernable relationship
to the er of Becket. The er of Becket was married to Hawise de
Stuteville and was a generation younger than the Hugh who married Beatrice. Since
Becket was killed c. 1171 and this Hugh de Morville died c. 1162, I think we
can safely rule him out.

Hal Bradley


I think I pointed out exactly the problems with the three Hughs, and here we
see it again. There seems to be confusion on which Hugh is which. Hal and
Pat have diametrically opposed views on this, which is why we need to review
the primary documentation again.

Will Johnson

Hal Bradley

RE: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 08 des 2005 18:11:01

"murderer of Becket"

Sorry about that. I have no idea why it blanked out. It is not that way in
the post I sent to the list.

Hal Bradley

-----Original Message-----
From: John Brandon [mailto:starbuck95@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:37 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn


What is "the er of Becket"?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 08 des 2005 20:27:08

Dear John ~

I seriously doubt that Robert Fitz Hugh, father-in-law of William
Comyn, was a member of the Morville family. There are other
contemporary records of this individual. He occurs as Robert Fitz Hugh
in them, never as Robert de Morville. The woman, Emma de Northampton,
who was the defendant in the lawsuit you mentioned may have been Sarah
Comyn's mother. I doubt that "Richard Morell" name in the lawsuit was
a Morville. He was probably an attorney for one of the two parties.
If you look further, you'll probably find other references to him in
the records.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Wednesday, 7 December, 2005\


Hello All,

William Comyn, Earl of Buchan (d. 1233) was the ancestor of
the Comyn lords of Badenoch, and others, by his first wife Sarah,
known to date only as ' yr. da. and coh. of Robert FitzHugh '[1].

An additional reference has been found, which appears to
point further to a relationship between Sarah and the Morville
famiy which may have been present, but not clearly shown, in the
Pipe Roll entry:


' 543. (Norh') Sara uxor Willelmi Cumin uersus Emmam
de Norh' de placito terre per Ricardum
Morell'. Ad eundem. Affidauit. ' [2]


This involves a case brought by Sara, wife of William
Comyn (or 'Cumin') concerning lands in Northamptonshire, possibly
the same lands referred to in the Pipe Roll. Who Emma de
Northampton ("Emmam de Norh' " in the Curia Regis entry above)
was is unclear. At the time this case was brought, Roland, Lord
of Galloway (and husband of Elena, dau. of Richard de Morville
and heiress of her brother William) had just died in Northampton
on 19 December of the previous year (1200).

It is tempting to suggest, given the texts in hand, that Robert fitz
Hugh, father of Sara, was a son of Hugh de Morville, younger brother of Richard
de Morville. This would explain the Pipe Roll (1201-2) entry, which appears to
show the land of Sara, wife of William Comyn, as being a portion of the total
of the Northamptonshire lands of Richard de Morville claimed by Roland of
Galloway (25 marks out of a total of 500 assessed). Since Elena de Morville's
English lands were primarily in Northamptonshire, she may have been called
'Elena de Northampton', and she may well be the 'Emma' de Northampton of the CR
entry:

[NOTE: conjecture link shown thus: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]


Hugh de Morville = Beatrice de Beauchamp
_________________________I_________________
I I I
Richard de = Hawise de Hugh de Maud = William
Morville I Lancaster Morville de Vipont
d. 1189 I I I
_______I_______ I_ _ _ _ _ _ V
I I I
Elena William de Robert fitz
['Emma' ?] Morville Hugh
= Roland dsp 1196 d. bef 1201
of Galloway ___________I_______
d. 1200 I I I I
I <siblings> Sarah
V = William Comyn
I
V


If correct, this would provide the hitherto unknown ancestry
of Sarah and her father Robert fitz Hugh.

Any and all relevant documentation, comment and criticism is
welcome as always.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES:

[1] CP XI:143 note (e), and Scots Peerage, I:505; the original
sources of information are Pipe Roll, 3 John, p. 183;
6 John, p. 140.

The text of the Pipe Roll, 3 John, has been rendered as
follows:

' #318. 1201-1202.
Northamptonshire:---Simon de Pateshulle renders his account.
New Oblations:---Rolland of Galloway owes 500 marks for having
a recognizance whether Richard de Moreville father of his wife
Elena, was seized of a knight's fee and pertinents in Basiath
for 15 days before the war began between king Henry the father
and king Henry the son. William Cumin accounts for 25 marks and
a palfrey for having to wife the younger daughter of Robert Fitz
Hugh, with a reasonable part of the frank tenement which was the
said Robert's. He has paid into the treasury 20 marks; and he
owes 5 marks and a palfrey. ' [ Pipe Rolls, 3 John, Rot. 13,
from Bain's Cal. Doc. Scot., courtesy MichaelAnne Guido.]


[2] Curia Regis Roll 5, mem. 26, from Stenton, ed., Pleas
Before the King or His Justices, 1198-1212 (London:
Bernard Quaritch, 1967), III:54. The text is from the
essoins of Michaelmas term, 1201.


* John P. Ravilious

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 08 des 2005 20:42:22

Hal Bradley wrote:
Dear Doug,

This Hugh is not the er of Becket and has no discernable relationship to the er of Becket. The er of Becket was married to Hawise de Stuteville and was a generation younger than the Hugh who married Beatrice. Since Becket was killed c. 1171 and this Hugh de Morville died c. 1162, I think we can safely rule him out.

Hal Bradley



From: "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com
Date: Thu Dec 08 04:28:31 CST 2005
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Hi John

Would not your hypothesis make Sarah the granddaughter of the Hugh de
Morville who was one of the ers of Thomas a Becket? Could be why
references to her father aret to Robert fitz Hugh rather than Robert de
Morville (assuming someone wanted to downplay the notoriety).

Doug Smith


Thanks Hal

I was thinking of the son of the Hugh who died in 1162's (son Hugh who
died abt 1173).

If DD, pps 602-603 is correct that Hugh de Morville, Constable of
Scotland and Simon de Morville of Burgh by Sands are brothers, than it
would appear that there is a relationship between the various Hugh's.
The one I proposed would be first cousin of the Hugh who married Hawise
de Stuteville.

Doug Smith

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 08 des 2005 20:53:03

From the archives:

1999 post to Gen-Med:
J.C.B.Sharp<j...@obtfc.win-uk.net >
Subject: Re: De Warenne/Alan of Galloway ancestries
........There were at least three prominent 12th century men named Hugh
deMorville. It is clear from several recent posts that they are easily
confused. DNB is no doubt the cause of this. The first Hugh was one of
the
murderers of Becket. There is chronicle evidence that his parents were
Hugh
de Morville and Beatrice de Beauchamp, and that he was lord of
Knaresborough
and Westmorland both of which he lost in rebellion in 1173/4. He
probably
dsp overseas.........

In a time frame, Maud de Morville's son Ivo before 1160 makes a grant
³for
safety of my soul and for the souls of Hugh de Morvill and William de
Veteriponte my father and Matilda de Veteriponte my mother and Robert
my
brother and Isabel de Lancestre my wife and all my ancestors,"
therefore the
children of Hugh and Beatrice Beauchamp were b. ca. 1120+. Hugh de
Morville, who one source says was a Northamptonshire baron, had held
the
strategically vital district of Kirkby-Thore-Hillbeck on King David
I¹s
grant during the Scottish occupation of Northern England from 1141. In
1173
when Hugh de Morville II appeared to have taken the side of Scots, his
lands
were forfeited under Henry II and his sister, Maud received most of his
lordship of Westmoreland. Maud¹s lands in Westmoreland seem to have
been,
in part, at least inherited by her son Ivo. Maude (Mauld) de Morvil and
her
brother Hugh jointly held Meaburn. Between 1153 and 1177 Wm. de Veteri
Ponte
with his wife, Maude's, consent made a grant of 4 bovates of land to
the
brothers of the Hospital of St. Peter of York. A charter by Maude
herself to
the same with this:" I will cause my brother and lord, Hugh de Morevil,
within the first six months after his return to England to
confirm...etc.
and etc. A credible case is further made in a confirmation by High de
Morevill to same of a grant in Crosby Ravensworth by Thorphin of
Alverstyn.
Frederick Ragg in the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquaria Soc.
publication states that the "grantor Hugh de Morville, is shown by the
very
diction to be in a very different position from that of lord of the
manor.
The whole tone is that of the owner of a barony containing manors under
it...............In amongst the witnesses we have Haverd the constable
of
Knaresborough. This was the castle of Hugh de Morville, lord of
Westmroeland
nd Knaresborough till 1173 (Farrer, "On the tenure of Westmoreland,"
these
Transactions, n.s. vol. vii, p. 103), and the sanction could be given
by no
other that this Hugh. Comparing this with the undertaking by Mauld in
Charter II, we get an unmistakeable identification of the slaughterer
of
Becket with her brother."

Doug Smith

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 08 des 2005 22:02:04

Hi Will

Don't have a copy here. I will look this weekend when I am at home.

Doug

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 22:20:17

In a message dated 12/8/05 11:55:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

<< If DD, pps 602-603 is correct that Hugh de Morville, Constable of
Scotland and Simon de Morville of Burgh by Sands are brothers, than it
would appear that there is a relationship between the various Hugh's.
The one I proposed would be first cousin of the Hugh who married Hawise
de Stuteville. >>

Does DD state they were brothers? Or does she *conjecture* that they *might*
have been brothers?
Thanks
Will Johnson

J.C.B.Sharp

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av J.C.B.Sharp » 08 des 2005 22:45:02

In article <bd.663fe9a7.30c9b229@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com () wrote:

In a message dated 12/8/2005 5:52:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:

This Hugh is not the er of Becket and has no discernable
relationship to the er of Becket. The er of Becket was
married to Hawise de Stuteville and was a generation younger than the
Hugh who married Beatrice. Since Becket was killed c. 1171 and this
Hugh de Morville died c. 1162, I think we can safely rule him out.

Hal Bradley


I think I pointed out exactly the problems with the three Hughs, and
here we see it again. There seems to be confusion on which Hugh is
which. Hal and Pat have diametrically opposed views on this, which is
why we need to review the primary documentation again.

Will Johnson

I know of the following people named Hugh de Morville:

1. The Constable of Scotland who died in 1162 (Chronicle of Melrose). He
was given Appleby by King David after the invasion and later surrendered
it to Henry II.

2. His son who was one of those who killed Becket. The names of his father
and of his mother Beatrice de Beauchamp are chronicled (William of
Canterbury, Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, RS 67 I 128).

Henry II gave him Appleby and Knaresborough in 1158 (Pipe Rolls), and it
was to the latter castle that the murderers fled in 1170 (Hoveden).

After Appleby had surrendered without a fight to William the lion in 1173
he was deprived in 1174 having lost Knaresborough a year earlier (Pipe
Rolls).

His date of death is unknown.

3. The lord of Burgh by Sands who succeeded his father Simon in 1167 and
died in 1202 (Pipe Rolls).

4. A bishop of Coutances early in the 13th century.

J.C.B.Sharp
London

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2005 23:12:02

In a message dated 12/8/05 1:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jcbs@obtfc.win-uk.net writes:

<< 3. The lord of Burgh by Sands who succeeded his father Simon in 1167 and
died in 1202 (Pipe Rolls). >>

Thank you for this. Do you have the specific citation to the Pipe Rolls?
Will Johnson

J.C.B.Sharp

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av J.C.B.Sharp » 09 des 2005 00:21:02

In article <13c.212bebb2.30ca0952@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com () wrote:

In a message dated 12/8/05 1:10:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jcbs@obtfc.win-uk.net writes:

3. The lord of Burgh by Sands who succeeded his father Simon in 1167
and died in 1202 (Pipe Rolls).

Thank you for this. Do you have the specific citation to the Pipe
Rolls?
Will Johnson

The Pipe Rolls are very difficult to work with so if there are published
transcripts, as there are for this period, I use them.

J.C.B.Sharp
London

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2005 00:30:03

In a message dated 12/8/05 3:25:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jcbs@obtfc.win-uk.net writes:

<< The Pipe Rolls are very difficult to work with so if there are published
transcripts, as there are for this period, I use them. >>

I don't understand this. Your citation only says "Pipe Rolls".
But don't the Pipe Rolls have volume numbers, years, page number, publishers?
What I'm saying is I'd like to consult it directly and wanted to know if you
have a specific citation ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Small addition to RPA-MCA: Identity of Jane Butler, firs

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2005 02:07:02

Dear Douglas, John B and others,
The Scott/
Hering/Beckford/ Douglas-HamiltoN line by John Britton was originally in TAG 31 (1955) pp
60-62 and claimed that Bathshua Scott, daughter of Richard Scott jr married
Colonel Julines Hering of Jamaica whose daughter Bathshua Hering married Peter
Beckford. I gather either Bathshua Hering didn`t exist or was Julines`
daughter by a wife other than Bathshua Scott.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2005 02:08:01

Hugh de Moreville constable of Scotland died in 1162. He married Beatrice de
Beauchamp. This is shown by a charter of David I confirming the grant to
Sancta Marie de Dryburgh [Dryburgh Abbey] of Hugh and Beatrice. They were the
original patrons of Dryburgh Abbey.

Early Scottish Charters Prior to 1153 A.D. by Sir Archibald C. Lawrie, James
MacLehose and Sons, Glasgow, 1905:

Pages 191-192:
CCXXXIX. Confirmation by King David of the grants by Hugh de Moreville and
Beatrix de Bello Campo to the Abbey of Dryburgh, A.D. 1150-1152.
Register of Dryburgh, No. 239.

Page 191:
CCXXXVIII. Charter by Beatrix de Bello Campo granting land in Roxburgh, etc.
to the church of Dryburgh. A.D. 1150-1152.
Register de Dryburgh, No. 143.

CCXL. Confirmation by Richard de Moreville of grants to the church of
Dryburgh by his mother and his sister, circa A.D. 1152.

The above charter refers to Ada de Moreville sister of Richard.

William of Canterbury confirms that Beatrice de Beauchamp was the mother of
Hugh de Moreville that killed Thomas Becket.

The other Hugh de Moreville [died 1202] was the son of Ada de Engaine and
Simon de Moreville. This is shown by the Lanercost Cartulary:

The Lanercost Cartulary (Cumbria County Record Office MS dz/1) edited by
John M. Todd, Surtees Society Vol. 203, Athenaeum Press, 1997:

Pages 86-87:
33. Ada Engain, daughter of William Engain, grants, with the consent of
Robert I de Vaux her husband and Hugh de Morvill her son who has sworn to
maintain this and her other alms, and for the souls of her father and mother and her
husband Simon de Morvill, Little Haresceugh, owing 8d. noutgeld to the king;
the canons are to find a canon to say mass and the hours at the altar of the
Virgin Mary in Lanercost priory church.

Simon de Moreville died in 1167 [Pipe Roll 13 Henry II, p. 177]. G.W.S.
Barrow theorizes that Simon de Moreville was the cousin of Richard de Moreville.
The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, Clarendon Press, 1980, PP. 74:

Just possibly Simon, founder of the Cumberland branch of the family which
held the Solway barony of Burgh by Sands, was another brother. On balance,
however, the evidence would point to Simon's being the first cousin rather that
the brother of Hugh, Richard, Maud, Malcolm and Ada.

Lanercost Cartulary as above:

Pages 87-88:
34. Hugh de Morevill confirms Little Haresceugh, as given by his mother Ada
[No. 33] and according to the bounds (given) which she had perambulated,
owing 8d. noutgeld, two saltpans in the marsh of Burgh [by Sands] with floors, a
net in the Eden with drying rights in Burgh, and the free manse with toft and
croft as held by Rainer of Dykes given [ given by Ada -- a lost act]. [1194
X 1199] (folio 13r-v).

Hugh de Moreville married Helewise de Stuteville and had two daughters Joan
and Ada. Joan was the wife of Richard Gernon and the following excerpt of a
charter shows her ancestry:

The Register of the Priory of Wetherhal edited by J. E. Prescott, T. Wilson
Kendal & Sons, London, 1897:

Pages 190-192:
103. Carta Ricardi Gernun facta monachis de Wederhal de 2 salinis in
parochia de Burgo.
Sciant omnes qui viderint et audierint literas istas quod ego Richardus
Gernun cum consilio et assensu Johannae uxoris meae et amicorum meorum concessi
et hac mea carta confirmavi Deo et Beatae Mariae et monachis de Wederhal duas
salinas in parochia de Burgo quas Simon de Morvilla et Hugo de Morvilla
confirmaverunt eis ex dono Radulphi Engayne et Willelmi filii ejus.

A summary of the above is-- Know all the see and hear this letter that I
Richard Gernon with the advice and consent of my wife Joanna and my kinsmen
confirm two saltpans in the marshes of the parish of Burg to the monks of
Wetherhal which Simon de Moreville and Hugh de Moreville confirmed that were given
[to the monks] by Ralph Engaine and his son William.

Prescott's Notes on the charter confirm this:

Notes:
On the death of Hugo de Morvilla, his daughters, Ada and Johanna, inherited
his great property. The elder Ada was already married to Richard de Lucy of
Egremunt, the younger Johanna, was afterwards married to Richard Gernun or de
Vernun, the nephew of William Briewere. This William Briewere was a person of
great importance in the reigns of Richard I and John; he was made Justiciar
by the former (Roger de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, iii. 16); as in this case, he
seems often to have secured the wardship of minors with a view to profit; he
died in 1226-27 (see Dugdale, Baronage, i. 700). In the 4th year of John,
William Briewere accounted for 500 marks to have the daughter (Johanna) of Hugo de
Morevill with her inheritance, the right to marry her to his son Richard or
his nephew Richard Gernun, and the forestry of the forest which Hugh had (Pipe
Rolls, 4 John). Two years afterwards, we find that Richard de Lucy had got
all these privileges, with the reasonable share of his wife Alda in her
father's land, on the payment of 900 marks and five palfreys; and Richard Gernun
had the younger daughter Johanna and the reasonable share falling to her, on
the payment of 500 marks ( Pipe Rolls, 4 & 6 John). Richard Gernun and his wife
Johanna had two daughters, Helewisa who became the wife of Richard de
Vernon, dying in 1269-70 (Inq. p.m. 54 Henry III, No. 19), and Ada who married
first Ranulph Boyvill of Levington, and then William Furnival and outlived them
both, dying in 1270-71 (Inq. p.m. 55 Henry III, No. 9); the daughter of Ada,
named Helewisa de Levington, became the wife of Eustace de Bailliol and died
1270-1271(see Pipe Rolls 31 henry III; Inq. P.m. 56 Henry III, No. 35,
Calend. geneal. ed. Roberts, i, 157; Patent Rolls, 45 Henry III, m. 8d). Johanna de
Morvilla (or Gernun) died in 1246-7, when the first Richard and Radulph
Boyvill did homage for her property ( Pipe Rolls, 31 Henry III; Inq. P.m. 31
Henry III, No. 32; Fine Rolls, 31 Henry III ed. Roberts, ii, 10 and Calend.
geneal. i, 16). In 1227, Richard and Johanna entered into an agreement with the
abbey of St. Mary, at York, in regard to the lands at Cringledic. The manor of
Aikton in the Barony of Burgh, which fell to them, was said to be their
chief residence.

I hope this ends the confusion on the two branches of this family.

MichaelAnne

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Kathleen Thompson's article

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 10 des 2005 05:50:35

Douglas Richardson wrote:

I try to keep an open mind on all matters, including the Thompson
article. I promise to post all of the communications I receive
regarding the Thompson article. Hopefully we'll all learn something in
the process.

That sounds like a good plan. Is this open-minded approach something
you have adopted since posting:

"your stampede to judgement."

and

"I suspect some of Ms. Thompson's methodology is flawed."

or, like many aspects of life, does the application of this ideal prove
harder in practice than in theory?

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Was Harman Sheafe in New England in 1674?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 10 des 2005 05:55:14

John Brandon wrote:
I know that Harman Sheafe died in London in the 1680s.
His will was proved in the Court of the Dean & Chapter of St Pauls
Cathedral.
He mentions sister Margaret "Kitchen" (should be Kitchell) in New
England.

Leslie


Presumably Sampson Sheafe who married Henry Webb's other granddaughter
was also connected ...

This talk of Sheafe reminds me.

Has anyone seen any additional information regarding the Scaife family
of Winton that appears in the 1615/1666 Visitation of Cumberland and
Westmorland?

taf

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics : Sir Maurice Berkeley of Stoke d

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2005 15:50:02

Will Johnson wrote;
<SNIP>
This allows me to add this collection of persons as near relations to the

Cecils. The vast majority of my researches in the A2A are in support of my
hypothesis that all Elizabethan persons stand at most ten degrees away from
Richard
Lord Cecil d 1552/3
<<<<<
<SNIP>

By Richard Lord Cecil d 1552/3 do you mean the Richard who was father of
William Cecil Lord Burghley. If so, I have never seen him described as "Lord".

Your above hypothesis would seem to imply that you have further information
on Richard Cecil's ancestors, as only the next two or three generations of his
descendants could be described as Elizabethan, yet I understood that the
Cecil pedigree becomes a little sketchy before Richard Cecil, his father is
usually given as David. I think an early edition of Burke's did give a few more
generations, but dropped in later editions when quite a bit of
unsubstantiated material was discarded. Some paintings of Lord Burghley have six
quarterings — have you identified these. I believe some of Burghley's personal
records are kept at Kew, have you read these — I've not seen them published.

As for your hypothesis, I would suspect this was true for most Elizabethans
of a high social standing, the trick is to be able to construct pedigrees
giving all 10 degrees relationships.

Adrian

Gjest

Re: Update to genealogics : Sir Maurice Berkeley of Stoke d

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2005 16:34:01

In a message dated 12/10/2005 6:49:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:


Your above hypothesis would seem to imply that you have further information

on Richard Cecil's ancestors, as only the next two or three generations of
his
descendants could be described as Elizabethan, yet I understood that the
Cecil pedigree becomes a little sketchy before Richard Cecil, his father is

usually given as David.

No I don't have further details on his ancestors. But since his descendents
married into some of the highest families, that suffices to connect those
families to him.

And when I say 10 degrees I do not mean "of ancestry" or "of descent". I
mean 10 degrees including affinity. That is, your sister-in-law is two degrees
from you. Your wife, then her sister. Your mother-in-law is also two degrees
from you. Therefore her parents would be three degrees, and also her
siblings. Then those siblings spouses would be four degrees.

And I don't need to constuct all 10 degrees, just finding one 10 degree
relationship is sufficient to make the connection. Of course maybe of the people I
find have more than one connection of this type.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Count Roger of Poitou

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 des 2005 22:59:12

Ponthieu is a different locality from Poitou.

DR

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Thanks,
Pat

----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 3:46 PM


Dear CED ~

Nice to see you back again.

Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.

For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
Roger le Poitevin), I might recommend you visit the following weblink:

http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear J.C.B. ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.

To the Newsgroup:

Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?

CED



My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.

The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.

Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."

Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."

Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."

The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."

Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."

Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."

Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.

Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
information about his family available in print in 1902. He states:
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."

I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.

Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

J.C.B.Sharp wrote:
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.

It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.

Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that
he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Institutions, 9).

The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.

J.C.B.Sharp
London

Patricia Junkin

Re: Count Roger of Poitou

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 10 des 2005 23:07:02

"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Thanks,
Pat

----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 3:46 PM


Dear CED ~

Nice to see you back again.

Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.

For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
Roger le Poitevin), I might recommend you visit the following weblink:

http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear J.C.B. ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.

To the Newsgroup:

Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?

CED



My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.

The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.

Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."

Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."

Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."

The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."

Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."

Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."

Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.

Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
information about his family available in print in 1902. He states:
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."

I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.

Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

J.C.B.Sharp wrote:
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.

It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.

Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that
he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Institutions, 9).

The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.

J.C.B.Sharp
London

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Count Roger of Poitou

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 10 des 2005 23:23:56

Patricia Junkin wrote:
"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?

Reginald came from Ponthieu. Roger was "the Poitevin" - from Poitou.
These are entirely different places.

taf

Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2005 23:46:01

In a message dated 12/10/05 1:10:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. >>

Why are we getting this post again?
It's already been pointed out that all this argumentation is now suspect.
If the monks merely copied out the charter and then added stuff of COURSE
it's going to say "I give" and not "sometime in the past somebody gave..."

That's the nature of copying.
But is this a new post? Or is the email engine acting up?

Leo van de Pas

Re: Count Roger of Poitou

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 10 des 2005 23:47:02

Dear Patricia,

ES III/4 Tafels 637 and 640 tell how Roger, Comte de La Marche had a younger
brother, Arnoul/Arnulf who went to Scotland and is the founder of the
Scottish Montgomerie family.

I could not find a Reginald, but my feeling is that the Reginald you refer
to was fresh from France and his name may imply from where he came.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Junkin" <pajunkin@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Count Roger of Poitou


"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by,
i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of
Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The
Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W.
S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Thanks,
Pat

----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 3:46 PM


Dear CED ~

Nice to see you back again.

Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.

For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
Roger le Poitevin), I might recommend you visit the following weblink:

http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear J.C.B. ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me,
along
with the witness list.

To the Newsgroup:

Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?

CED



My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as
alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that
of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.

The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.

Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states
that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the
subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the
accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."

Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the
whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."

Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."

The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before
Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."

Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He
has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."

Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."

Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda,
was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.

Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
information about his family available in print in 1902. He states:
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co.
Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."

I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were
evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.

Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

J.C.B.Sharp wrote:
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of
the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries
and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire &
Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely
a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.

It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not
exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence
that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.

Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a
large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the
crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility
that
he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important
castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but
came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Institutions, 9).

The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary
York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.

J.C.B.Sharp
London


Gjest

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2005 23:54:02

In a message dated 12/10/05 2:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< Thus all of your remaining analysis is irrelevant -
the original charter was by Count Roger, and many of the names, were
copied from the original - dating them does nothing to validate a late
copy "embellished" (her word) with additional lands and with, among
others, the name of Orm filius Ketel not originally present. >>


I was thinking about this issue again, and I'm curious.... WHY would the
monks add Orm FitzKetel in particular? What was significant about his name,
versus fifty other names they could have added. Was he, at the time, the lord in
that area? Or did they maybe think his name should be on the document,
*because* the competing monks were arguing using the very fact that he was *not* on
it, that it was suspect? It's a curious side-issue :) For me at any rate.

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 11 des 2005 00:02:57

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/05 2:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Thus all of your remaining analysis is irrelevant -
the original charter was by Count Roger, and many of the names, were
copied from the original - dating them does nothing to validate a late
copy "embellished" (her word) with additional lands and with, among
others, the name of Orm filius Ketel not originally present.


I was thinking about this issue again, and I'm curious.... WHY would the
monks add Orm FitzKetel in particular? What was significant about his name,
versus fifty other names they could have added. Was he, at the time, the lord in
that area? Or did they maybe think his name should be on the document,
*because* the competing monks were arguing using the very fact that he was *not* on
it, that it was suspect? It's a curious side-issue :) For me at any rate.


I think this makes overmuch of this one name. What follows are the
witnesses of what Dr. Thompson interprest to be the early and late versions:

Early

Godfrey the sheriff
Oliver of Trenblel,
Ernald Barberoto,
Richard Estormit,
Hervey the priest,
Ansfrid of Montgomery,
Ralph Ghernet,
Odo,
Roger of Montbegon,
Albert Greslet,
William of Raimes,
Roger son of Ernald.


Late

the said earl
his daughter Sibyl
G[odfrey] the sheriff
Albert Greslei
R. son of Robert
W[arin] Bussel
A. his brother
P[agan] de Vilers
Ramunard son of Ailuine
Orm, Ketel
Ulf son of Thorolf
Romkil son of Raign


The takehome message is that there are only two names shared between the
two lists. Why did they change the witnesses? who knows, but they
changed them all - this is not something specific to Orm.

taf

Leo van de Pas

Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ke

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 des 2005 00:04:01

What I find curious, where is Sees (the first e has an accent) and the Abbey
of St.Martin?
Is it in Lancashire? Or in France? If in Lancashire, why would 10 years
before the conquest Roger Senior baptise a son in Lancashire?
Leo van de Pas



----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)


In a message dated 12/10/05 2:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

Thus all of your remaining analysis is irrelevant -
the original charter was by Count Roger, and many of the names, were
copied from the original - dating them does nothing to validate a late
copy "embellished" (her word) with additional lands and with, among
others, the name of Orm filius Ketel not originally present.


I was thinking about this issue again, and I'm curious.... WHY would the
monks add Orm FitzKetel in particular? What was significant about his
name,
versus fifty other names they could have added. Was he, at the time, the
lord in
that area? Or did they maybe think his name should be on the document,
*because* the competing monks were arguing using the very fact that he was
*not* on
it, that it was suspect? It's a curious side-issue :) For me at any
rate.


Gjest

Re: Fw: Count Roger of Poitou

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2005 00:09:01

In a message dated 12/10/05 1:22:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< Roger (according to ES) was the fourth (!) son of a French noble who was a
Sire and a Vicomte and who in England became Earl of Shropshire and
Shrewsbury. The eldest brother of Roger became in 1101 Count of Ponthieu. >>

Please read this post from Leo again. Some of you are glossing over the very
pertinent fact that Roger the Poitevin and "the eldest brother of Roger"
Count of PONTHIEU were .... brothers .

So all the emails saying Poitou and Ponthieu are different places are
irrelevant.
These two names are connected in one single family by the connection or Roger
to his own brother.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2005 00:16:01

Dear Leo,
Having been raised at the Norman court andn fact nephew to
one or more of the Dukes (his mother being Emma of Normandy, Aethelred II, King
of England`s 2nd wife) Edward the Confessor naturally had many friends who
crossed with him into England in 1042 and afterward.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Fw: Count Roger of Poitou

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2005 00:21:50

I believe the Poitou surname or nickname (Pictavus) might be linked
with the county of La Marche, feudaly dependent from the count of
Poitiers, which the family acquired through marriage at that time. Jean
Bunot

Leo van de Pas

Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 des 2005 00:33:01

Someone has pointed out to me that Sees apparently is in Normandy.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel
(living 1...


Dear Leo,
Having been raised at the Norman court andn fact nephew to
one or more of the Dukes (his mother being Emma of Normandy, Aethelred II,
King
of England`s 2nd wife) Edward the Confessor naturally had many friends who
crossed with him into England in 1042 and afterward.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



Chris Phillips

Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 11 des 2005 00:36:46

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Someone has pointed out to me that Sees apparently is in Normandy.

Yes - it is in the département of Orne.

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»