Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit
Dear Leo,
St. Martin at Sees was in Normandy. St. Marys at Lancaster was a cell of St.
Martin at Sees which is how they are connected.
MichaelAnne
St. Martin at Sees was in Normandy. St. Marys at Lancaster was a cell of St.
Martin at Sees which is how they are connected.
MichaelAnne
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit
Orm FitzKetel, what has he got to do with Normandy?
The story becomes messier with the minute.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel
(living 1...
The story becomes messier with the minute.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel
(living 1...
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
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit
The de la See family of Barmston, Yorks by any chance connected?
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fit
That explains it. Many thanks.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: ClaudiusI0@aol.com
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1...
Dear Leo,
St. Martin at Sees was in Normandy. St. Marys at Lancaster was a cell of St. Martin at Sees which is how they are connected.
MichaelAnne
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: ClaudiusI0@aol.com
To: leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Abbey of St Martin in Sees .Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1...
Dear Leo,
St. Martin at Sees was in Normandy. St. Marys at Lancaster was a cell of St. Martin at Sees which is how they are connected.
MichaelAnne
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Point taken.
According to Daniel Power, "Along the north-eastern borders of Normandy the
counts of Ponthieu and Eu and the lord of Saint-Valery had devised elaborate
arrangements to control conflict and war damage in this politically
sensitive region. ...." It is with these two families that the Viponts are
allied.
Pat
----------
According to Daniel Power, "Along the north-eastern borders of Normandy the
counts of Ponthieu and Eu and the lord of Saint-Valery had devised elaborate
arrangements to control conflict and war damage in this politically
sensitive region. ...." It is with these two families that the Viponts are
allied.
Pat
----------
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 5:23 PM
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
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Thus can forgeries be usefully informative, even when KNOWN to be forgeries.
O' course, the question still needs to be answered.
FM-B
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:42 PM
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-issueFor me at any
rate.
Thus can forgeries be usefully informative, even when KNOWN to be forgeries.
O' course, the question still needs to be answered.
FM-B
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
<another snip>
Would 'Ailuine' be 'Alvin'? Or, more appropriately, 'Ælfwine'?
Ford
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
<another snip>
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:
more snipping
Ramunard son of Ailuine
Would 'Ailuine' be 'Alvin'? Or, more appropriately, 'Ælfwine'?
Ford
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Ford Mommaerts-Browne wrote:
I should have indicated that I, like several others, have been relying
on an OCRed version of the artivle which is a bit confused at points.
As a first step in figuring this out, it would be helpful if someone
with access to the original article could provide the name as it appears
in the original article.
taf
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
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:
more snipping
Ramunard son of Ailuine
Would 'Ailuine' be 'Alvin'? Or, more appropriately, 'Ælfwine'?
I should have indicated that I, like several others, have been relying
on an OCRed version of the artivle which is a bit confused at points.
As a first step in figuring this out, it would be helpful if someone
with access to the original article could provide the name as it appears
in the original article.
taf
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Count Roger of Poitou
The only Roger of Poitou is refered back to Pictavensis in
the index of French charters by Round. There I find an
entry for Roger (son of Roger, earl of Shewsbury), p 435 and
count, gifts of pp 236-9. In addition, there is an entry
under Pictavensis that says See Poitiers. Then, under
Poitiers, there is Pictavum, and under Poitos, Pictavia, we
find Roger of, once again, refered back to See Pictavensis.
Roger is mentioned in a charter to the abbey of Marmoutier,
Tours, page 435:
"[1082-1084]
"(MS. lat. 12,878, fo. 289.)
"1206. [Notification that] in the reign of William, of
blessed memory, king of the English, Mathildis countess of
Mortain, wife of his brother Robert died, whereat the king
and his said brother being sad-for she was very dear to them
and to all who had known her,-distributed among monasteries
or the poor, for her soul, all that she possessed in her
lifetime, in vills, or gold and silver, or ornaments of any
kind. Whence it came to pass that the king and his brother
gave to the church of St. Mary, Mortain, which the monks of
Marmoutier possessed there outside the castle, a manor of 10
hides (hiddarum) in Dorseta seira, namely Pidele called
Hinctune, for her soul, this gift being procured by Robert
the monk, who was then at Mortain and was careful to attend
the funeral of the countess. For the said Mathildis held
that manor from the king while she lived, and therefore he
would not have the monks hold it of anyone but himself. He
gave (annuit) it them with sac and soc, free and quit,
except from Danegeld (Guelt quod colligitur per hiddas), and
this it is not to pay except [as to] four hides, [for] the
other six are in demesne and quit (nisi quatuor hidoe,
reliquoe sex sunt in dominio et quiete)[3]
"Hujus donationis testes sunt:-Rogerius comes ; Robertus
filius Hamonis ; Robertus de Belismo; Hugo de Monte
Gomerico; Rogerius Pictavensis; Robertus Osberni filius;
Gaufredus Rivallonii filius ; Alvredus pincerna; Hugo de
Diva ; Guido de Landevi, Vitalis pincerna; Richardus de
Lestra; Aigulfus vicecomes de Dorset.
"[3] Extract only in MS. lat. 5441 (2), fo. 405."
At the Abbey of St. Martin, Sees abbreviated:
There is a charter from earl Roger, called "of Poitou"
(Pictaviensis), in the year 1094, NO. 664 on page 236,
giving the church of Lancaster with all its appurtenances,
and part of the land of that town, from the old wall to
Godfrey's orchard, and as far as Presteguet, and two manors
near Lancaster, Andeduva [fn1 .. Audeeliva] and neutona, and
Ansfrid de Montegommerici with all that he held of the said
earl, and the churches of Hessan, and Prestetona, and
Estanesberia, and Cotegrava, and Cropil[le], and Wichelai,
and Calisei, and the churches of St. Peter of Lincoln, and
Walinguore [fn 2... Trans.: "Walingnore."] and Navzebeia
[fn3 ... Trans.: "Nauzebeia."] and Bodebeia, with their
appurtenances and hte tithes of Hales, and Derbeium, and
Salfort, and Risebeia, and Bissepephen; and the tithes of
all his mares, cows, and swine when they come to the
larderer; and Hervey the priest of Torp and Benedict of Eia,
and all that he holds of the earl, and the tithes of the
churches of all the land of Albert Greslet, and the tithe of
Warin Boissel at Brestona, and the tithe of the land of
Roger de Monte begonis at Calisei and Tablesbeia and Tit and
all his demesne between Rible and Mersey; and four men of
Ralk Grenet in Sulfoc.
[Testibus: ...]
No. 665 pg. 237, earl Roger, called "of Poitou," [who] gave
in 1094, ten pounds a year until he should assign [land]
worth ten pounds a year. And if anyone should desire the
prayers and benefits of the monastery of Lancaster, the earl
most gladly grants that he may give as much as half his
land. And if anyone without heir of woman should wish to
give his whole land, and should there assume the monastic
garb, to be a monk of St. Martin's, the earl grants that he
may. And St. Martin is to hold all as freely as himself
etc. [5] [fn5 ... H. 938 here continues: --"and after the
earl had granted this, Geoffrey de Ria gave the monastery a
manor, namely Sanguice and Godfrey the sheriff [gave] the
tithes of Bissopohan, and all he had in Lancaster, houses,
orchard and lands, and the land he had in little Lancaster,
and Ralf Geetier (sic) 4 men in Sutfole."[Testibus: ...]
No. 666 pp. 237-8, Notification that Arnulf [de
Montghomery] son of earl Roger, a man of great worth and
highly esteemed, so loved the brethen at Sees that, on Aug.
27, 1098, [7] in the chapter of St. Martin of Sees, SErlo
the bishop and Ralf the abbot being present, he gave the
brethren of Sees, living and to live in the abbey of ST.
Martin of Sees, in alms for ever, for his soul and those of
his father Roger and his brother Hugh, who was slain that
year, the church of St. Nicholas at Pembroch, a castle of
his in Wales, and 20 carucates of land, together with all
that his men had given or should give the abbey [1]; and he
promised that he would give other land of his, lying in
England sufficient to provide footgear for the brethren of
the abbey. This gift he made [in order] that he might
retain nothing for himself of all the rents and dues of that
land, giving even his woods for the needs of the monks,
namely for building and firing and pannage throughout his
demesne. ...
No. 668 [1098] p. 238, has testifying: regis; Anselmi
archiepiscopi; Wilfridi episcopi[6][fn6 ... of St. David's]
; Arnulfi filii Rogerii comitis; Riberti filii Hamonis
No. 669, [ca. 1105] p. 238-9, Charter of Savaric son of Cana
and Muriel his wife ... ... Ralf the abbot [7] [fn7 ...
Bishop of Rochester, 1108] granting as Herlingus held it, if
Herlingus should so grant it ...
Testes sunt hujus concessionis: Ricardus de Mereio, et
Lucia uxor ejus, et Radulfus capellanus. Concedunt quoque
et testes sunt; Radulfus et Savaricus filii ipsius Savarici;
Herveius Belee; Willelmus filio Alberti; Alexander de Sancta
Maria; Pinellus Vrito; Fulco camerarius Basso. Isti omnes
de hominibus Savarici. Ex Hominibus quoque Ricardi de
Mereio; Ingelgerius et Alexander filii Ricardi; Radulfus
dapifer; Alveredus filius Alberti. Et subscribitur
confirmatio[1] [fn1 ... crosses inserted here] Savarici et
signum ejus; signum uxoris ejus.
Nos. 670 - 675 have notes in the margin: Liber Albus, fo.
89, and 90, Trans. Vol. III, fo. 187 no. cclxviii, 189 no.
cclxix, 190 no. cclxx, and 191, Cartulary and Chetham
Society XXVI, 113. Cartulary, no. cclxxii. which should
indicate that the originals are in those books.
No. 670 [1125-1128], Charter of William archbishop of
Canterbury and legate of the apolistic see addressed to
B[ernard] bishop of St. David's and all sons of the church.
He testifies to having been told by the kind at the council
held at Westminster that earl Arnulf gave the churches of
all his land in Wales and the tithes, [and] twenty carucates
of land, with much else, and ten pounds' worth of tithes
from the churches he held in England to the monks of St.
Martin's Sees, and that the king had given an granted the
same to the said brethren, some of whom dwelt and dwell at
Pembroc. For his part he grants and confirms this, as the
king himself confirms it in his charter. Testibus[2][fn2
.... trans. H. 938: "Teste episcopo."]: episcopis
Wintoniensi Willelmo, Seifredo Cicestrensi[3][fn3 ... Trans:
"Cicesterciensi,"; H. 938; "Cicestriensi."], et Johanne
Roffensi.[4][fn4 ... Trans.: "Ross"; "Rost'" in H. 938.]
No. 672 [?1094] Charter of Roger count of Poitou (comes
Pictavensis), Printed from Inspeximus in Monast. Aug. VI,
997, and in Chetham Society XXVI., 8, from the Cartulary,
with more witne4sses.
If anyone is interested in the complete pages 236-9 feel
free to email me and I'll be glad to attach the files ...
I've tried to put what I think would be relevant herein but
certainly may have failed to address someone's specific
needs.
Ginny
the index of French charters by Round. There I find an
entry for Roger (son of Roger, earl of Shewsbury), p 435 and
count, gifts of pp 236-9. In addition, there is an entry
under Pictavensis that says See Poitiers. Then, under
Poitiers, there is Pictavum, and under Poitos, Pictavia, we
find Roger of, once again, refered back to See Pictavensis.
Roger is mentioned in a charter to the abbey of Marmoutier,
Tours, page 435:
"[1082-1084]
"(MS. lat. 12,878, fo. 289.)
"1206. [Notification that] in the reign of William, of
blessed memory, king of the English, Mathildis countess of
Mortain, wife of his brother Robert died, whereat the king
and his said brother being sad-for she was very dear to them
and to all who had known her,-distributed among monasteries
or the poor, for her soul, all that she possessed in her
lifetime, in vills, or gold and silver, or ornaments of any
kind. Whence it came to pass that the king and his brother
gave to the church of St. Mary, Mortain, which the monks of
Marmoutier possessed there outside the castle, a manor of 10
hides (hiddarum) in Dorseta seira, namely Pidele called
Hinctune, for her soul, this gift being procured by Robert
the monk, who was then at Mortain and was careful to attend
the funeral of the countess. For the said Mathildis held
that manor from the king while she lived, and therefore he
would not have the monks hold it of anyone but himself. He
gave (annuit) it them with sac and soc, free and quit,
except from Danegeld (Guelt quod colligitur per hiddas), and
this it is not to pay except [as to] four hides, [for] the
other six are in demesne and quit (nisi quatuor hidoe,
reliquoe sex sunt in dominio et quiete)[3]
"Hujus donationis testes sunt:-Rogerius comes ; Robertus
filius Hamonis ; Robertus de Belismo; Hugo de Monte
Gomerico; Rogerius Pictavensis; Robertus Osberni filius;
Gaufredus Rivallonii filius ; Alvredus pincerna; Hugo de
Diva ; Guido de Landevi, Vitalis pincerna; Richardus de
Lestra; Aigulfus vicecomes de Dorset.
"[3] Extract only in MS. lat. 5441 (2), fo. 405."
At the Abbey of St. Martin, Sees abbreviated:
There is a charter from earl Roger, called "of Poitou"
(Pictaviensis), in the year 1094, NO. 664 on page 236,
giving the church of Lancaster with all its appurtenances,
and part of the land of that town, from the old wall to
Godfrey's orchard, and as far as Presteguet, and two manors
near Lancaster, Andeduva [fn1 .. Audeeliva] and neutona, and
Ansfrid de Montegommerici with all that he held of the said
earl, and the churches of Hessan, and Prestetona, and
Estanesberia, and Cotegrava, and Cropil[le], and Wichelai,
and Calisei, and the churches of St. Peter of Lincoln, and
Walinguore [fn 2... Trans.: "Walingnore."] and Navzebeia
[fn3 ... Trans.: "Nauzebeia."] and Bodebeia, with their
appurtenances and hte tithes of Hales, and Derbeium, and
Salfort, and Risebeia, and Bissepephen; and the tithes of
all his mares, cows, and swine when they come to the
larderer; and Hervey the priest of Torp and Benedict of Eia,
and all that he holds of the earl, and the tithes of the
churches of all the land of Albert Greslet, and the tithe of
Warin Boissel at Brestona, and the tithe of the land of
Roger de Monte begonis at Calisei and Tablesbeia and Tit and
all his demesne between Rible and Mersey; and four men of
Ralk Grenet in Sulfoc.
[Testibus: ...]
No. 665 pg. 237, earl Roger, called "of Poitou," [who] gave
in 1094, ten pounds a year until he should assign [land]
worth ten pounds a year. And if anyone should desire the
prayers and benefits of the monastery of Lancaster, the earl
most gladly grants that he may give as much as half his
land. And if anyone without heir of woman should wish to
give his whole land, and should there assume the monastic
garb, to be a monk of St. Martin's, the earl grants that he
may. And St. Martin is to hold all as freely as himself
etc. [5] [fn5 ... H. 938 here continues: --"and after the
earl had granted this, Geoffrey de Ria gave the monastery a
manor, namely Sanguice and Godfrey the sheriff [gave] the
tithes of Bissopohan, and all he had in Lancaster, houses,
orchard and lands, and the land he had in little Lancaster,
and Ralf Geetier (sic) 4 men in Sutfole."[Testibus: ...]
No. 666 pp. 237-8, Notification that Arnulf [de
Montghomery] son of earl Roger, a man of great worth and
highly esteemed, so loved the brethen at Sees that, on Aug.
27, 1098, [7] in the chapter of St. Martin of Sees, SErlo
the bishop and Ralf the abbot being present, he gave the
brethren of Sees, living and to live in the abbey of ST.
Martin of Sees, in alms for ever, for his soul and those of
his father Roger and his brother Hugh, who was slain that
year, the church of St. Nicholas at Pembroch, a castle of
his in Wales, and 20 carucates of land, together with all
that his men had given or should give the abbey [1]; and he
promised that he would give other land of his, lying in
England sufficient to provide footgear for the brethren of
the abbey. This gift he made [in order] that he might
retain nothing for himself of all the rents and dues of that
land, giving even his woods for the needs of the monks,
namely for building and firing and pannage throughout his
demesne. ...
No. 668 [1098] p. 238, has testifying: regis; Anselmi
archiepiscopi; Wilfridi episcopi[6][fn6 ... of St. David's]
; Arnulfi filii Rogerii comitis; Riberti filii Hamonis
No. 669, [ca. 1105] p. 238-9, Charter of Savaric son of Cana
and Muriel his wife ... ... Ralf the abbot [7] [fn7 ...
Bishop of Rochester, 1108] granting as Herlingus held it, if
Herlingus should so grant it ...
Testes sunt hujus concessionis: Ricardus de Mereio, et
Lucia uxor ejus, et Radulfus capellanus. Concedunt quoque
et testes sunt; Radulfus et Savaricus filii ipsius Savarici;
Herveius Belee; Willelmus filio Alberti; Alexander de Sancta
Maria; Pinellus Vrito; Fulco camerarius Basso. Isti omnes
de hominibus Savarici. Ex Hominibus quoque Ricardi de
Mereio; Ingelgerius et Alexander filii Ricardi; Radulfus
dapifer; Alveredus filius Alberti. Et subscribitur
confirmatio[1] [fn1 ... crosses inserted here] Savarici et
signum ejus; signum uxoris ejus.
Nos. 670 - 675 have notes in the margin: Liber Albus, fo.
89, and 90, Trans. Vol. III, fo. 187 no. cclxviii, 189 no.
cclxix, 190 no. cclxx, and 191, Cartulary and Chetham
Society XXVI, 113. Cartulary, no. cclxxii. which should
indicate that the originals are in those books.
No. 670 [1125-1128], Charter of William archbishop of
Canterbury and legate of the apolistic see addressed to
B[ernard] bishop of St. David's and all sons of the church.
He testifies to having been told by the kind at the council
held at Westminster that earl Arnulf gave the churches of
all his land in Wales and the tithes, [and] twenty carucates
of land, with much else, and ten pounds' worth of tithes
from the churches he held in England to the monks of St.
Martin's Sees, and that the king had given an granted the
same to the said brethren, some of whom dwelt and dwell at
Pembroc. For his part he grants and confirms this, as the
king himself confirms it in his charter. Testibus[2][fn2
.... trans. H. 938: "Teste episcopo."]: episcopis
Wintoniensi Willelmo, Seifredo Cicestrensi[3][fn3 ... Trans:
"Cicesterciensi,"; H. 938; "Cicestriensi."], et Johanne
Roffensi.[4][fn4 ... Trans.: "Ross"; "Rost'" in H. 938.]
No. 672 [?1094] Charter of Roger count of Poitou (comes
Pictavensis), Printed from Inspeximus in Monast. Aug. VI,
997, and in Chetham Society XXVI., 8, from the Cartulary,
with more witne4sses.
If anyone is interested in the complete pages 236-9 feel
free to email me and I'll be glad to attach the files ...
I've tried to put what I think would be relevant herein but
certainly may have failed to address someone's specific
needs.
Ginny
-
Gjest
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #1157 (Count Roger's charter)
Douglas Richardson wrote recently
<snip>
< Count Roger specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes
Pictavencis ...
< dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
<snip>
But "dedit" means "he has given" or "he gave", not "I have given" . Why may
we not read the words as a record of a gift made at some time previous to the
date of the charter? This reading might also explain the differences in the
two witness lists: one list might record the witnesses to the original charter,
and the other -later- list would record the names of those present when the
terms of the original charter were recited.
DR says that the document recorded by Farrer "is witnessed by the said
Count".
I would think it unusual that a grantor would witness his own charter, but it
would be understandable that he might witness a later document recording the
terms of the original - what DR calls "a late date confirmation"
Could DR or some other learned person please copy Farrer's text of the
document, so far as relevant? DR says that it is on pp. 289-296 of his edition of
The Lancashire Pipe Rolls... and Early Lancaster Charters.
MM
<snip>
< Count Roger specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes
Pictavencis ...
< dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
<snip>
But "dedit" means "he has given" or "he gave", not "I have given" . Why may
we not read the words as a record of a gift made at some time previous to the
date of the charter? This reading might also explain the differences in the
two witness lists: one list might record the witnesses to the original charter,
and the other -later- list would record the names of those present when the
terms of the original charter were recited.
DR says that the document recorded by Farrer "is witnessed by the said
Count".
I would think it unusual that a grantor would witness his own charter, but it
would be understandable that he might witness a later document recording the
terms of the original - what DR calls "a late date confirmation"
Could DR or some other learned person please copy Farrer's text of the
document, so far as relevant? DR says that it is on pp. 289-296 of his edition of
The Lancashire Pipe Rolls... and Early Lancaster Charters.
MM
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Dear Ginny ~
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post this information from
Round. Much appreciated.
If I understand what you have posted, Round refers to Count Roger in
Document No. 672 as "Roger count of Poitou," whereas Dugdale who is his
source refers to him as "Earl Roger of Poictiers." As best I
understand it, Round provided the correct title in English [Poitou],
whereas Dugdale used the French form [Poitiers]. Round is also correct
to call him a count, as Roger's title came from his wife's French
inheritance, not from his lands in England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post this information from
Round. Much appreciated.
If I understand what you have posted, Round refers to Count Roger in
Document No. 672 as "Roger count of Poitou," whereas Dugdale who is his
source refers to him as "Earl Roger of Poictiers." As best I
understand it, Round provided the correct title in English [Poitou],
whereas Dugdale used the French form [Poitiers]. Round is also correct
to call him a count, as Roger's title came from his wife's French
inheritance, not from his lands in England.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Round was obviously just abstracting the text of what Thompson refers to as
version C, not stating any opinion of his own about the title held by Roger.
No doubt that is the reason he quotes the Latin phrase.
As Leo's anonymous correspondent has pointed out, it is only version C that
refers to him as "Rogerius comes pictavensis". The versions identified by
Thompson as earlier are careful to call him "Rogerius comes cognomine
pictavensis", making it clear that he was not "Count of Poitou". (Poitou is
the region, Poitiers the city.)
Chris Phillips
If I understand what you have posted, Round refers to Count Roger in
Document No. 672 as "Roger count of Poitou," whereas Dugdale who is his
source refers to him as "Earl Roger of Poictiers." As best I
understand it, Round provided the correct title in English [Poitou],
whereas Dugdale used the French form [Poitiers]. Round is also correct
to call him a count, as Roger's title came from his wife's French
inheritance, not from his lands in England.
Round was obviously just abstracting the text of what Thompson refers to as
version C, not stating any opinion of his own about the title held by Roger.
No doubt that is the reason he quotes the Latin phrase.
As Leo's anonymous correspondent has pointed out, it is only version C that
refers to him as "Rogerius comes pictavensis". The versions identified by
Thompson as earlier are careful to call him "Rogerius comes cognomine
pictavensis", making it clear that he was not "Count of Poitou". (Poitou is
the region, Poitiers the city.)
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Aske-Lightfoot Update...
Dear Larry,
Do you have the dates of marraige records you posted for Priscilla Aske
to Thomas Jones and Mary Aske to Richard Lightfoot? How do you see the
illegitimate son of Robert Aske of Aughton, is connected to Priscille Aske wife
of Thomas Jones?
There is located in the Brynmor Jones Library, Hull University, a
collection of the papers of the Aske Family of Aughton. (Catalogue Ref. DX/55).
On A2A, a summary can be reviewed. A2A states that it contains "two pedigress
combined cover the period 1079 - 1875. Does anyone have access to this
collection? A study of these pedigrees should help clarify a number of issues in
the complex family tree?
Thanks,
Jerry.
Do you have the dates of marraige records you posted for Priscilla Aske
to Thomas Jones and Mary Aske to Richard Lightfoot? How do you see the
illegitimate son of Robert Aske of Aughton, is connected to Priscille Aske wife
of Thomas Jones?
There is located in the Brynmor Jones Library, Hull University, a
collection of the papers of the Aske Family of Aughton. (Catalogue Ref. DX/55).
On A2A, a summary can be reviewed. A2A states that it contains "two pedigress
combined cover the period 1079 - 1875. Does anyone have access to this
collection? A study of these pedigrees should help clarify a number of issues in
the complex family tree?
Thanks,
Jerry.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Round correctly translated the Latin "Rogerus comes pictavensis" into
English as "Roger Count of Poitou." Whether Roger was actually Count
of Poitou is immaterial.
I note that Kathleen Thompson, on the other hand, has translated this
same text to read "Earl Roger the Poitevin." It is inapproriate to
call Roger an earl, as Roger was a French count, not an English earl.
I elsewhere find that Thompson has translated the Latin word "amicis"
as "friends," whereas the correct translation should be "kinsfolk." In
his own work, I note that Round translated the Latin word "amicis" as
"kinsfolk," when used in this manner.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
English as "Roger Count of Poitou." Whether Roger was actually Count
of Poitou is immaterial.
I note that Kathleen Thompson, on the other hand, has translated this
same text to read "Earl Roger the Poitevin." It is inapproriate to
call Roger an earl, as Roger was a French count, not an English earl.
I elsewhere find that Thompson has translated the Latin word "amicis"
as "friends," whereas the correct translation should be "kinsfolk." In
his own work, I note that Round translated the Latin word "amicis" as
"kinsfolk," when used in this manner.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Michael,
Thank you for the reply.
I found the will in two places http://www.medievalhistory.net/nev2.htm and http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Ve ... index.html
Sir George De Vere occupies scant space in CP X p 244, and his will is not mentioned. I did notice the will's absence from two other sources (AR, PA). However, I believe Douglas Richardson does refer to the will in his Magna Carta Ancestry work under the De Vere family:
"SIR GEORGE VERE left a will dated 21 August 1500 (P.C.C. 21 Blamyr)."
Please correct me if it's needed.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
Hi Kelly
According to Stirnet, citing Burke's Extinct Peerage, George de Vere, son of John, 12th Earl of Oxford, died in 1503 and was a knight. His elder brother (John, 13th Earl) is assigned a birthdate of 1442, so George would presumably be born circa 1443-1444 or later - a 1444 birthdate would not be inconsistent with a nobleman's son taking a light load of lectures at Cambridge in 1458.
I'm not familiar with the 1500 will you mention - do you have a reference? (I couldn't see anything in PCC online)
Regards
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Leighton
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Researchers,
An interesting result from a Google-Books search: Page 106 - "... In 1458 George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford, was allowed to credit towards his Cambridge degree terms in which he attended only one lecture a week..." from A History of the University of Cambridge
Is there a general consensus among those more knowledgeable than myself that this is the George De Vere whose will from 1500 is still extant? If so, I make his birth somewhere around 1437.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
Thank you for the reply.
I found the will in two places http://www.medievalhistory.net/nev2.htm and http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Ve ... index.html
Sir George De Vere occupies scant space in CP X p 244, and his will is not mentioned. I did notice the will's absence from two other sources (AR, PA). However, I believe Douglas Richardson does refer to the will in his Magna Carta Ancestry work under the De Vere family:
"SIR GEORGE VERE left a will dated 21 August 1500 (P.C.C. 21 Blamyr)."
Please correct me if it's needed.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
Hi Kelly
According to Stirnet, citing Burke's Extinct Peerage, George de Vere, son of John, 12th Earl of Oxford, died in 1503 and was a knight. His elder brother (John, 13th Earl) is assigned a birthdate of 1442, so George would presumably be born circa 1443-1444 or later - a 1444 birthdate would not be inconsistent with a nobleman's son taking a light load of lectures at Cambridge in 1458.
I'm not familiar with the 1500 will you mention - do you have a reference? (I couldn't see anything in PCC online)
Regards
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Leighton
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Researchers,
An interesting result from a Google-Books search: Page 106 - "... In 1458 George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford, was allowed to credit towards his Cambridge degree terms in which he attended only one lecture a week..." from A History of the University of Cambridge
Is there a general consensus among those more knowledgeable than myself that this is the George De Vere whose will from 1500 is still extant? If so, I make his birth somewhere around 1437.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Yes. This was exactly the point I was making. Round didn't "refer to" him as
"Roger count of Poitou" - that was just the way he translated "Rogerus comes
pictavensis". Round didn't actually think Roger was the count of Poitou.
Probably a better translation, in view of the known facts and the history of
the text he was translating, would have been "Count Roger 'the Poitevin'".
I don't think it is "immaterial" whether he was count of Poitou. Surely in
the interests of accuracy it is important to be clear that he wasn't -
particularly as some people may have got the opposite impression from the
recent discussion - and that descriptions in Dugdale and elsewhere are the
consequence of the rather misleading description "Rogerus comes pictavensis"
in version C.
These comments are fair enough, but the reason Thompson's work was cited in
the first place is that she argues that version C is a later forgery, not an
accurate text of Roger's original charter. If that's the case, the evidence
for the early appearance of Orm fitz Ketel in the 1090s disappears.
It seems to me that she makes a plausible case for this view (regardless of
whether "comes" would have been better translated as "earl", or "amicis" as
"friends"). If there are any direct arguments against her suggestion about
version C, it would be interesting to hear them.
Chris Phillips
Round correctly translated the Latin "Rogerus comes pictavensis" into
English as "Roger Count of Poitou." Whether Roger was actually Count
of Poitou is immaterial.
Yes. This was exactly the point I was making. Round didn't "refer to" him as
"Roger count of Poitou" - that was just the way he translated "Rogerus comes
pictavensis". Round didn't actually think Roger was the count of Poitou.
Probably a better translation, in view of the known facts and the history of
the text he was translating, would have been "Count Roger 'the Poitevin'".
I don't think it is "immaterial" whether he was count of Poitou. Surely in
the interests of accuracy it is important to be clear that he wasn't -
particularly as some people may have got the opposite impression from the
recent discussion - and that descriptions in Dugdale and elsewhere are the
consequence of the rather misleading description "Rogerus comes pictavensis"
in version C.
I note that Kathleen Thompson, on the other hand, has translated this
same text to read "Earl Roger the Poitevin." It is inapproriate to
call Roger an earl, as Roger was a French count, not an English earl.
I elsewhere find that Thompson has translated the Latin word "amicis"
as "friends," whereas the correct translation should be "kinsfolk." In
his own work, I note that Round translated the Latin word "amicis" as
"kinsfolk," when used in this manner.
These comments are fair enough, but the reason Thompson's work was cited in
the first place is that she argues that version C is a later forgery, not an
accurate text of Roger's original charter. If that's the case, the evidence
for the early appearance of Orm fitz Ketel in the 1090s disappears.
It seems to me that she makes a plausible case for this view (regardless of
whether "comes" would have been better translated as "earl", or "amicis" as
"friends"). If there are any direct arguments against her suggestion about
version C, it would be interesting to hear them.
Chris Phillips
-
Kelly Leighton
re: Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
My apologies, the will is also referenced in Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry pg 739.
Kelly in RI
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Leighton
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Michael,
Thank you for the reply.
I found the will in two places http://www.medievalhistory.net/nev2.htm and http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Ve ... index.html
Sir George De Vere occupies scant space in CP X p 244, and his will is not mentioned. I did notice the will's absence from two other sources (AR, PA). However, I believe Douglas Richardson does refer to the will in his Magna Carta Ancestry work under the De Vere family:
"SIR GEORGE VERE left a will dated 21 August 1500 (P.C.C. 21 Blamyr)."
Please correct me if it's needed.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
Kelly in RI
----- Original Message -----
From: Kelly Leighton
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Michael,
Thank you for the reply.
I found the will in two places http://www.medievalhistory.net/nev2.htm and http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Ve ... index.html
Sir George De Vere occupies scant space in CP X p 244, and his will is not mentioned. I did notice the will's absence from two other sources (AR, PA). However, I believe Douglas Richardson does refer to the will in his Magna Carta Ancestry work under the De Vere family:
"SIR GEORGE VERE left a will dated 21 August 1500 (P.C.C. 21 Blamyr)."
Please correct me if it's needed.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
-
Gjest
Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Does anyone know who the Richard FitzLewes or FitzLewis is? He is a
kinsman of George de Vere and mentioned twice in the will.
kinsman of George de Vere and mentioned twice in the will.
-
Gjest
Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
"Kelly Leighton" schrieb:
I see it now: it's indexed under "George Veer", proved PCC 3 April 1503
(Prob 11/13).
Michael
My apologies, the will is also referenced in Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry pg 739.
Kelly in RI
I see it now: it's indexed under "George Veer", proved PCC 3 April 1503
(Prob 11/13).
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
In a message dated 12/11/2005 8:41:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mardicar@yahoo.com writes:
Does anyone know who the Richard FitzLewes or FitzLewis is? He is a
kinsman of George de Vere and mentioned twice in the will.
Sir Richard FitzLewis son of Sir Lewis ap John aka John Lewis or John
FitzLewis
This John had married Alice de Vere and then Anne Montagu
mardicar@yahoo.com writes:
Does anyone know who the Richard FitzLewes or FitzLewis is? He is a
kinsman of George de Vere and mentioned twice in the will.
Sir Richard FitzLewis son of Sir Lewis ap John aka John Lewis or John
FitzLewis
This John had married Alice de Vere and then Anne Montagu
-
John Brandon
Re: Captain Breedon reveals the aliases of the Regicides
Looks like his son Elkanah was in New England in 1672 ...
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... cZU29MTiUU
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... cZU29MTiUU
-
Gjest
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Roger II, of Montgomery became earl of Shrewsbury December 1077
source "William the Conqueror" by David C. Douglas
page 453
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
source "William the Conqueror" by David C. Douglas
page 453
call Roger an earl, as Roger was a French count, not an English earl.
I elsewhere find that Thompson has translated the Latin word "amicis"
as "friends," whereas the correct translation should be "kinsfolk." In
his own work, I note that Round translated the Latin word "amicis" as
"kinsfolk," when used in this manner.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
There were two (no doubt more) Roger de Montgommery, father and son. The
father was the Earl and the son is the one erroneously called Comte de
Poitou. The son was not an Earl.
Richardson criticises Thompson for translating amicis as friends, and
maintains it should be kinsfolk. I suppose it depends what the sentence
tries to convey, but my very crummy Latin dictionary gives
Amicitia/ae = friendship
Amicus = friend and even mistress
And the French word for friend is ami, no doubt of Latin origins.
For Richardson to critiscise he should be pretty sure of what is meant.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Count Roger of Poitou
father was the Earl and the son is the one erroneously called Comte de
Poitou. The son was not an Earl.
Richardson criticises Thompson for translating amicis as friends, and
maintains it should be kinsfolk. I suppose it depends what the sentence
tries to convey, but my very crummy Latin dictionary gives
Amicitia/ae = friendship
Amicus = friend and even mistress
And the French word for friend is ami, no doubt of Latin origins.
For Richardson to critiscise he should be pretty sure of what is meant.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Roger II, of Montgomery became earl of Shrewsbury December 1077
source "William the Conqueror" by David C. Douglas
page 453
call Roger an earl, as Roger was a French count, not an English earl.
I elsewhere find that Thompson has translated the Latin word "amicis"
as "friends," whereas the correct translation should be "kinsfolk." In
his own work, I note that Round translated the Latin word "amicis" as
"kinsfolk," when used in this manner.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire.
Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park
Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford.
Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther &
McCormack,Dublin.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
<
< For Richardson to critiscise he should be pretty sure of what is
meant.
I'm sure, Leo.
DR
<
< For Richardson to critiscise he should be pretty sure of what is
meant.
I'm sure, Leo.
DR
----- Original Message -----
From: <wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Roger II, of Montgomery became earl of Shrewsbury December 1077
source "William the Conqueror" by David C. Douglas
page 453
call Roger an earl, as Roger was a French count, not an English earl.
I elsewhere find that Thompson has translated the Latin word "amicis"
as "friends," whereas the correct translation should be "kinsfolk." In
his own work, I note that Round translated the Latin word "amicis" as
"kinsfolk," when used in this manner.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire.
Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park
Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford.
Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther &
McCormack,Dublin.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will ~
Leo needs to check a medieval Latin dictionary.
DR
You are sure that amicis means kinsfolk, but you've provided how many
sources to prove this? While Leo has provided at least one that say it doesn't
mean this.
Will
Dear Will ~
Leo needs to check a medieval Latin dictionary.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:11:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
I'm sure, Leo.
You are sure that amicis means kinsfolk, but you've provided how many
sources to prove this? While Leo has provided at least one that say it doesn't
mean this.
So in this war of words, that puts him ahead
In My Humble Opinion
Will
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
I'm sure, Leo.
You are sure that amicis means kinsfolk, but you've provided how many
sources to prove this? While Leo has provided at least one that say it doesn't
mean this.
So in this war of words, that puts him ahead
In My Humble Opinion
Will
-
CED
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Remember when Richardson castigated Peter Stewart for using the
dictionary definition of "cognatus" ?
Remember Richardson's attitudes about dictionary definitions? He
thought then that his personal observations of the use of terms were
better than dictionary defintitions. And he has demonstrated so many
times his competence in Italian, Old French, and Greek, as well as
medieval Latin. He has never hesitated to show us his lack of
competence in the use of any language.
CED
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You are sure that amicis means kinsfolk, but you've provided how many
sources to prove this? While Leo has provided at least one that say it doesn't
mean this.
Will
Dear Will ~
Leo needs to check a medieval Latin dictionary.
To the Newsgroup:
Remember when Richardson castigated Peter Stewart for using the
dictionary definition of "cognatus" ?
Remember Richardson's attitudes about dictionary definitions? He
thought then that his personal observations of the use of terms were
better than dictionary defintitions. And he has demonstrated so many
times his competence in Italian, Old French, and Greek, as well as
medieval Latin. He has never hesitated to show us his lack of
competence in the use of any language.
CED
DR
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Chris Phillips wrote:
Again version C is the oddball. Chandler says, "Chroniclers and charter
scribes invariably used some form of the name 'Rogerius Pictavensis' in
describing Roger, never 'de Poitou', a form used by some modern
scholars." That would seem to rule out "of Poitou" as an acceptable
rendering. She also points out that Gaimar calls him, in the
vernacular, "Le Paitevin", so I think this has to win out.
taf
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Round correctly translated the Latin "Rogerus comes pictavensis" into
English as "Roger Count of Poitou." Whether Roger was actually Count
of Poitou is immaterial.
Yes. This was exactly the point I was making. Round didn't "refer to" him as
"Roger count of Poitou" - that was just the way he translated "Rogerus comes
pictavensis". Round didn't actually think Roger was the count of Poitou.
Probably a better translation, in view of the known facts and the history of
the text he was translating, would have been "Count Roger 'the Poitevin'".
I don't think it is "immaterial" whether he was count of Poitou. Surely in
the interests of accuracy it is important to be clear that he wasn't -
particularly as some people may have got the opposite impression from the
recent discussion - and that descriptions in Dugdale and elsewhere are the
consequence of the rather misleading description "Rogerus comes pictavensis"
in version C.
Again version C is the oddball. Chandler says, "Chroniclers and charter
scribes invariably used some form of the name 'Rogerius Pictavensis' in
describing Roger, never 'de Poitou', a form used by some modern
scholars." That would seem to rule out "of Poitou" as an acceptable
rendering. She also points out that Gaimar calls him, in the
vernacular, "Le Paitevin", so I think this has to win out.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< Again version C is the oddball. Chandler says, "Chroniclers and
charter
< scribes invariably used some form of the name 'Rogerius Pictavensis'
in
< describing Roger, never 'de Poitou', a form used by some modern
< scholars." That would seem to rule out "of Poitou" as an acceptable
< rendering. She also points out that Gaimar calls him, in the
< vernacular, "Le Paitevin", so I think this has to win out.
<
< taf
This is an important point. But it was not the one I made. My point
is that Ms. Thompson mistranslated Roger's style given in version C,
whereas Round translated it correctly.
DR
< Again version C is the oddball. Chandler says, "Chroniclers and
charter
< scribes invariably used some form of the name 'Rogerius Pictavensis'
in
< describing Roger, never 'de Poitou', a form used by some modern
< scholars." That would seem to rule out "of Poitou" as an acceptable
< rendering. She also points out that Gaimar calls him, in the
< vernacular, "Le Paitevin", so I think this has to win out.
<
< taf
This is an important point. But it was not the one I made. My point
is that Ms. Thompson mistranslated Roger's style given in version C,
whereas Round translated it correctly.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
In a message dated 12/11/2005 11:56:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Leo needs to check a medieval Latin dictionary.
Is there a medieval Latin dictionary?
If there is could you provide a full citation since you've checked it
yourself?
Thanks
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Leo needs to check a medieval Latin dictionary.
Is there a medieval Latin dictionary?
If there is could you provide a full citation since you've checked it
yourself?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Given that you don't seem to know what he was count of, how can you feel
so confident of this? Given how frequently he was called "the Poitevin"
how can you be so confident that Round translated it right. (Keep in
mind that this need not be an either-or: they both could be in error.)
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Again version C is the oddball. Chandler says, "Chroniclers and
charter
scribes invariably used some form of the name 'Rogerius Pictavensis'
in
describing Roger, never 'de Poitou', a form used by some modern
scholars." That would seem to rule out "of Poitou" as an acceptable
rendering. She also points out that Gaimar calls him, in the
vernacular, "Le Paitevin", so I think this has to win out.
This is an important point. But it was not the one I made. My point
is that Ms. Thompson mistranslated Roger's style given in version C,
whereas Round translated it correctly.
Given that you don't seem to know what he was count of, how can you feel
so confident of this? Given how frequently he was called "the Poitevin"
how can you be so confident that Round translated it right. (Keep in
mind that this need not be an either-or: they both could be in error.)
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
This claimed daughter was mentioned and dismissed by Chandler in her
account of Roger and his brother Arnulf. Again the wheel is reinvented.
Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father.
taf
Dear Newsgroup ~
Checking around for information regarding Count Roger of the 1094
charter, I have encountered the record in Complete Peerage regarding
William Peverel the younger, of Nottingham, and his second wife, Avice
de Lancaster. Here is what Complete Peerage says:
"William Peverel the younger, one of the principal supporters of King
Stephen, was a commander at the battle of the Standard, and was taken
prisoner at the battle of Lincoln. His estates were forfeited for a
time, and his castle of Nottingham was committed by the Empress to the
custody of William Paynel. He recovered it in 1143. His wives were
(1) Oddona, and (2) Avice de Lancaster, who was presumably a daughter
of Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis), Lord of the honour of
Lancaster, by his wife, Aumodis, Countess of La Marche. He had a son,
Henry, and a daughter, Margaret, eventually, or in her issue, his heir,
and wife of Robert, Earl of Ferrieres." [Reference: Complete Peerage,
4 (1916): 762 (sub Appendix I)].
Elsewhere, Complete Peerage presents an abstract of a charter of Avice
de Lancaster, 2nd wife of William Peverel the younger:
"(iv) Avicia de Lancastria uxor W. Peverel Walterus Cestrensi Episcopo
Given that Count Roger (cognomine Pictaviensis) lost his land holdings
in England in 1102 and then went into permanent exile, it seems
difficult to accept that Avice de Lancaster, living 1149, wife of
William Peverel of Nottingham, is his daughter. I find this especially
unlikely since Count Roger's honour of Lancaster had been lost to the
his family from 1102. Surely Avice would have had a different style in
her charter if she was Count Roger's daughter.
This claimed daughter was mentioned and dismissed by Chandler in her
account of Roger and his brother Arnulf. Again the wheel is reinvented.
Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
In a message dated 12/12/2005 1:04:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:
Let us talk about St. Marys of Lancaster as it was re-emphasized in a
later post, not St. Marys of York', St Marys of Lancasters' land and
beginning were granted in a charter by Henry de Lacy of Clitheroe Castle
in 1147 for St. Marys of Lancaster to be built, 12 monks and 10 lay
brothers left St. Marys of York, who were dis-enchanted with the lack of
discipline there left to start St. Marys of Lancaster. PROBLEM #1, 17
years to late and PROBLEM #2, WRONG GRANTOR!
St. Marys of Lancaster was torn down in 1152 by the monks who had problems
with the local populace and sustained by the Pope by their actions for the
continuity of "the true religion". It was later rebuilt in 1160 a mile
from town when the monks returned and was called either Gills church or
St. Marys-le-Gill. It was indeed a cell of St. Marys of York.
Dear Emmett,
This is a history of St. Mary-le-Gill church not St. Marys, Lancaster
[Lancaster Priory]. St. Marys, Lancaster was set up as a cell of St. Martin at Sees
in Normandy in 1094 by Roger de Poitevin.
The point about MSS C. is that it has added provisions and witnesses. If the
copyist who transcribed the register of St. Marys, Lancaster wouldn't have
used this charter in the register he compiled in the fourteenth century no one
would have debated it to begin with. Many older scholars perceived this to
be the original charter as they were unaware of the two earlier versions which
existed at the parent house in Normandy. The comparison between the three
versions show MSS. C. to be invalid in any discussion of the witnesses.
MichaelAnne
butlergrt@aol.com writes:
Let us talk about St. Marys of Lancaster as it was re-emphasized in a
later post, not St. Marys of York', St Marys of Lancasters' land and
beginning were granted in a charter by Henry de Lacy of Clitheroe Castle
in 1147 for St. Marys of Lancaster to be built, 12 monks and 10 lay
brothers left St. Marys of York, who were dis-enchanted with the lack of
discipline there left to start St. Marys of Lancaster. PROBLEM #1, 17
years to late and PROBLEM #2, WRONG GRANTOR!
St. Marys of Lancaster was torn down in 1152 by the monks who had problems
with the local populace and sustained by the Pope by their actions for the
continuity of "the true religion". It was later rebuilt in 1160 a mile
from town when the monks returned and was called either Gills church or
St. Marys-le-Gill. It was indeed a cell of St. Marys of York.
Dear Emmett,
This is a history of St. Mary-le-Gill church not St. Marys, Lancaster
[Lancaster Priory]. St. Marys, Lancaster was set up as a cell of St. Martin at Sees
in Normandy in 1094 by Roger de Poitevin.
The point about MSS C. is that it has added provisions and witnesses. If the
copyist who transcribed the register of St. Marys, Lancaster wouldn't have
used this charter in the register he compiled in the fourteenth century no one
would have debated it to begin with. Many older scholars perceived this to
be the original charter as they were unaware of the two earlier versions which
existed at the parent house in Normandy. The comparison between the three
versions show MSS. C. to be invalid in any discussion of the witnesses.
MichaelAnne
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
Claudiu...@aol.com wrote:
The comparison between the three
Dear MichaelAnne ~
Your judgement about MSS. C is a bit premature I think. This charter
needs further study before it can be adjudged irrelevant to our
discussion.
If I understand Ms. Thompson's statements, it was MSS. C that was
confirmed by King John during the time period when he was Count of
Mortain. It seems virtually certain that John was satisfied that the
charter was genuine. If he had found irregularities in the charter or
wording, it is unlikely he would have confirmed it. King John lived
within one hundred years of the date the charter was issued.
DR
The comparison between the three
versions show MSS. C. to be invalid in any discussion of the witnesses.
MichaelAnne
Dear MichaelAnne ~
Your judgement about MSS. C is a bit premature I think. This charter
needs further study before it can be adjudged irrelevant to our
discussion.
If I understand Ms. Thompson's statements, it was MSS. C that was
confirmed by King John during the time period when he was Count of
Mortain. It seems virtually certain that John was satisfied that the
charter was genuine. If he had found irregularities in the charter or
wording, it is unlikely he would have confirmed it. King John lived
within one hundred years of the date the charter was issued.
DR
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Roger le Poitevin
Dear Douglas,
Wasn`t it King William II Rufus of England who was
involved in this Comte Roger`s charter of 1094 rather than King Richard II ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Wasn`t it King William II Rufus of England who was
involved in this Comte Roger`s charter of 1094 rather than King Richard II ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Premature? Further study? Then look at it again. The data is right
there. Let us know when you feel you have something to add, other than
'I don't understand it but it must be wrong - wait to reach your
conclusions until I figure out why'. For those who already understand
the argument, it seems unnecessary to delay reaching a conclusion. What
are they to wait for? It is not like there is a version D out there
about to be published. Delaying a decision indefinitely on the off
chance that a creditable alternative explanation will surface at some
indeterminate time in the future is not a very effective way of
approaching such things.
Your point being . . . . ? How would John _know_ what was in the
original? How would he _know_ who were the witnesses?
If he had found irregularities in the charter or
Given that many documents were copies, not to mention a low but finite
error rate among scribes, it would hardly come as a surprise for there
to be minor problems: in fact, along with loss, which wasn't the case
here, why would such a confirmation be sought: because of such
irregularities in the surviving copies of a grant. The confirmation
would render any legal argument based on those irregularities moot. Why
would they need John to confirm it if the documentation survived and was
flawless?
King John lived
Can't get nothin' past you, can they.
taf
Claudiu...@aol.com wrote:
The comparison between the three
versions show MSS. C. to be invalid in any discussion of the witnesses.
Your judgement about MSS. C is a bit premature I think. This charter
needs further study before it can be adjudged irrelevant to our
discussion.
Premature? Further study? Then look at it again. The data is right
there. Let us know when you feel you have something to add, other than
'I don't understand it but it must be wrong - wait to reach your
conclusions until I figure out why'. For those who already understand
the argument, it seems unnecessary to delay reaching a conclusion. What
are they to wait for? It is not like there is a version D out there
about to be published. Delaying a decision indefinitely on the off
chance that a creditable alternative explanation will surface at some
indeterminate time in the future is not a very effective way of
approaching such things.
If I understand Ms. Thompson's statements, it was MSS. C that was
confirmed by King John during the time period when he was Count of
Mortain. It seems virtually certain that John was satisfied that the
charter was genuine.
Your point being . . . . ? How would John _know_ what was in the
original? How would he _know_ who were the witnesses?
If he had found irregularities in the charter or
wording, it is unlikely he would have confirmed it.
Given that many documents were copies, not to mention a low but finite
error rate among scribes, it would hardly come as a surprise for there
to be minor problems: in fact, along with loss, which wasn't the case
here, why would such a confirmation be sought: because of such
irregularities in the surviving copies of a grant. The confirmation
would render any legal argument based on those irregularities moot. Why
would they need John to confirm it if the documentation survived and was
flawless?
King John lived
within one hundred years of the date the charter was issued.
Can't get nothin' past you, can they.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
In a message dated 12/12/05 2:00:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:
<< The comparison between the three
versions show MSS. C. to be invalid in any discussion of the witnesses. >>
But Kathleen Thompson suggested that MSS C was a confirmation. So could not
we discuss whether, in 1130, the list of "witnesses" made sense as people who
were confirming the original document? I believe that is what Emmett was
suggesting.
Will Johnson
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:
<< The comparison between the three
versions show MSS. C. to be invalid in any discussion of the witnesses. >>
But Kathleen Thompson suggested that MSS C was a confirmation. So could not
we discuss whether, in 1130, the list of "witnesses" made sense as people who
were confirming the original document? I believe that is what Emmett was
suggesting.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
In a message dated 12/12/05 12:56:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father. >>
I did not see a proposed date for the document cited. Would that not be
important in determining whether she *should* or *should not* be calling herself
"de Lancaster" at this point?
I also had her as a daughter to Roger, but now I've dissolved that link so
the poor girl is dangling with no forebears. But what proof is there that the
two Avise's were the same person?
In fact I see I have three Avise's, with the next one marrying to William de
Lindsey and then having a son
David de Lindsey, Lord of Breneville father of the David de Lindsey, Regent
of Scotland who died in Egypt (presumable as a crusader, but I'm not sure).
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Anyhow, it is curious that you conclude she surely would have had a
different style, when it was the 'style' "de Lancastria" that originally
led to the hypothesis that Roger was her father. >>
I did not see a proposed date for the document cited. Would that not be
important in determining whether she *should* or *should not* be calling herself
"de Lancaster" at this point?
I also had her as a daughter to Roger, but now I've dissolved that link so
the poor girl is dangling with no forebears. But what proof is there that the
two Avise's were the same person?
In fact I see I have three Avise's, with the next one marrying to William de
Lindsey and then having a son
David de Lindsey, Lord of Breneville father of the David de Lindsey, Regent
of Scotland who died in Egypt (presumable as a crusader, but I'm not sure).
Will Johnson
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I think that is to represent 1005 to the 27th of July 1094 (i.e. his
lifespan), not 1005 to 1027.
taf
In a message dated 12/10/05 3:10:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
It was not Roger II de Montgomery, 1005-27 Jul 1094 who was Count of
Poitou
but his son Roger de Poictu, Earl of Lancaster who was born about 1064 and
whose wife was Almodis, Countess of Marche. That is, if "Poitou" and "Poictu
are the same name.
What do these years above "1005-27" represent?
I think that is to represent 1005 to the 27th of July 1094 (i.e. his
lifespan), not 1005 to 1027.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Arnoul de Montgommery as an ancestor
In a message dated 12/10/05 8:26:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< Arnulf had been promised the daughter of Murtagh, the Irish king but she
married Seward, son of the Norwegian king instead. Roger and Arnulf were
banished after a rebellion - the latter fled to Ireland and later joined his
brother Roger in Normandy where he fought the English on the side of Fulk of
Anjou. Arnulf eventually married his Irish Princess who was a widow by then
"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan;
Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981
suggests the following which appears to be the same people
Sigurd I (1090-1130), King of /Norway/ 1103-
son of Magnus III (107301103), King of /Norway/ 1093-
married Biadmuin of /Ireland/
daughter of Muirkertach, King of /Ireland/
Can someone comment on whether this refers in fact to the same set of
circumstances, that is Irish princess, Norweigian King (or heir at any rate). If so
it doesn't appear that she was a widow.
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< Arnulf had been promised the daughter of Murtagh, the Irish king but she
married Seward, son of the Norwegian king instead. Roger and Arnulf were
banished after a rebellion - the latter fled to Ireland and later joined his
brother Roger in Normandy where he fought the English on the side of Fulk of
Anjou. Arnulf eventually married his Irish Princess who was a widow by then
"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan;
Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981
suggests the following which appears to be the same people
Sigurd I (1090-1130), King of /Norway/ 1103-
son of Magnus III (107301103), King of /Norway/ 1093-
married Biadmuin of /Ireland/
daughter of Muirkertach, King of /Ireland/
Can someone comment on whether this refers in fact to the same set of
circumstances, that is Irish princess, Norweigian King (or heir at any rate). If so
it doesn't appear that she was a widow.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I think Emmet wasn't necessarily on the wrong track when he tried to
date the new batch of names, but there are still problems with that
approach - the list is mixed, a few old along with the new, and hence it
would not appear to be as simple as a confirmation, particularly with
the grantor in exile in La Marche. An alternative source of some of the
names is that they could have been associated with some of the new lands
- that they added the new lands and their grantors into this charter at
the same time, in which case they different names may not all represent
a single point in time (as almost certainly Roger's appearance does not
match the others). In a case like this where you know something fishy
was going on, you can never really wash off the stink, no matter what
conclusion you squeeze out of it. (No excuse not to look, though.)
taf
In a message dated 12/10/05 3:10:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
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.
Which would make sense *if* MSS C is a confirmation 36 years later.
I think Emmet wasn't necessarily on the wrong track when he tried to
date the new batch of names, but there are still problems with that
approach - the list is mixed, a few old along with the new, and hence it
would not appear to be as simple as a confirmation, particularly with
the grantor in exile in La Marche. An alternative source of some of the
names is that they could have been associated with some of the new lands
- that they added the new lands and their grantors into this charter at
the same time, in which case they different names may not all represent
a single point in time (as almost certainly Roger's appearance does not
match the others). In a case like this where you know something fishy
was going on, you can never really wash off the stink, no matter what
conclusion you squeeze out of it. (No excuse not to look, though.)
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
In a message dated 12/10/05 3:10:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< It was not Roger II de Montgomery, 1005-27 Jul 1094 who was Count of
Poitou
but his son Roger de Poictu, Earl of Lancaster who was born about 1064 and
whose wife was Almodis, Countess of Marche. That is, if "Poitou" and "Poictu
are the same name. >>
What do these years above "1005-27" represent? And how did you arrive at the
"about 1064" birth year for Roger?
Thanks
Will Johnson
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< It was not Roger II de Montgomery, 1005-27 Jul 1094 who was Count of
Poitou
but his son Roger de Poictu, Earl of Lancaster who was born about 1064 and
whose wife was Almodis, Countess of Marche. That is, if "Poitou" and "Poictu
are the same name. >>
What do these years above "1005-27" represent? And how did you arrive at the
"about 1064" birth year for Roger?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
In a message dated 12/10/05 3:10:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< 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. >>
Which would make sense *if* MSS C is a confirmation 36 years later.
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< 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. >>
Which would make sense *if* MSS C is a confirmation 36 years later.
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Michael,
Does the official version read the same as the versions on the web?
Thanks and take care,
Kelly in RI
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Date: 11 Dec 2005 08:57:39 -0800
References: <005501c5fe6d$45791260$6401a8c0@kelly2k>
In-Reply-To: <005501c5fe6d$45791260$6401a8c0@kelly2k>
"Kelly Leighton" schrieb:
I see it now: it's indexed under "George Veer", proved PCC 3 April 1503
(Prob 11/13).
Michael
Does the official version read the same as the versions on the web?
Thanks and take care,
Kelly in RI
From: mjcar@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
Date: 11 Dec 2005 08:57:39 -0800
References: <005501c5fe6d$45791260$6401a8c0@kelly2k>
In-Reply-To: <005501c5fe6d$45791260$6401a8c0@kelly2k>
"Kelly Leighton" schrieb:
My apologies, the will is also referenced in Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry pg 739.
Kelly in RI
I see it now: it's indexed under "George Veer", proved PCC 3 April 1503
(Prob 11/13).
Michael
-
butlergrt
Re: Re: The parentage of (1094)potential ans..yes
Good evening Will and All,
Well wrong St. Marys, sorry about that Michael-Anne, but yes, Will, the
conclusion is the same. I posit that this was a confirmation and
re-granting of new land as a possible composite, or as who was it that
said about
Avice de Lancaster, J.C.B. Sharp, I think in the 2000 post, wrong evidence
but right conclusion!!
If looked at in this fashion, It appears as more a possibility than not,
opinion only of course.
Best Emmett
Well wrong St. Marys, sorry about that Michael-Anne, but yes, Will, the
conclusion is the same. I posit that this was a confirmation and
re-granting of new land as a possible composite, or as who was it that
said about
Avice de Lancaster, J.C.B. Sharp, I think in the 2000 post, wrong evidence
but right conclusion!!
If looked at in this fashion, It appears as more a possibility than not,
opinion only of course.
Best Emmett
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Dear Will
"1005-27 Jul 1094" were the supposed birth and death dates for Roger de
Montgomery, father of Roger de Poictu.
The "about 1064" birthdate for the younger Roger comes from a "tree" I
discovered in New Zealand in 1990 about the de Betham family of Westmorland.
Below are the notes I have for the younger Roger, taken from various places.
Merilyn
"For family help in conquering England, William I gave Roger of Poitou the
land between the Ribble and the Mersey, Lonsdale, Cartmel and Furness. In
his turn Roger rewarded his most eminent soldiers with baronies for which
they paid him military service. (page 14 of a History of Lancashire : J.J.
Bagley)
About 1072, after the 1069 rebellion in the north had been mercilessly
suppressed, William the Conqueror added Amounderness and the land between
the Ribble and the Mersey to other lands already possessed by young Roger of
Poitou. By 1086, for reasons that are not clear, the crown had resumed
administration of the land between the Ribble and the Mersey, but two years
later, as part of his plan for strengthening the north-west against the
Scots, the new King, William Rufus, united under Roger's control Furness,
Cartmell, Lonsdale, Amounderness and the land between the Ribble and the
Mersey. Since the main invasion route from Scotland came round the
Cumberland coast and across the sands of Morecambe Bay, it was logical to
give the lord of Lancaster control of Cartmell and Furness. Roger did his
military work well. By 1092 his forces controlled the border country round
Solway Firth, and to consolidate their position were building Carlisle
Castle. Roger was also giving some unity to the future county, Lancashire,
by building a castle and priory at Lancaster and by creating military fiefs
such as the baronies of Manchester, Warrington, Penwortham and Widnes. The
honour of Lancaster which Roger possessed included several estates in other
parts of England and the old Northumbrian border along the Ribble valley
still had much meaning for many northerners including the Scots. (History of
Lancashire : J.J. Bagley)
Recent changes in tenure recorded in Domesday Book suggests that the grants
of some of these northern lordships came relatively late in the reign. Roger
the Poitevin, indeed, can scarcely have been old enough to carry conquest
into a disturbed region before about 1080 (Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166 :
Marjorie Chibnall)
In 1094 Roger encouraged the abbot of the Benedictine abbey of St. Martin at
Seez in Normandy to send a handful of monks to found a daughter house at
Lancaster. Roger endowed this priory handsomely. He gave it part of the
township of Lancaster, several small estates in Lonsdale and Amounderness
and the revenues of a dozen churches in Lancashire and the Midlands.
(History of Lancashire : J.J. Bagley)
In 1090 he fought with his brother, Robert de Belleme against Hugh de
Grentemesnil, but when he and his brother sided with Duke Robert of Normandy
against Duke Robert's brother, Henry I of England in 1102 he was deprived of
his earldom and expelled from England. On his expulsion from England, Roger
retired to the castle of Charroux in the county of La Marche-Limousine
having succeeded to the title of Count of La Marche on the death of his
brother-in-law."
-------Original Message-------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 12/13/05 09:53:13
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
In a message dated 12/10/05 3:10:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< It was not Roger II de Montgomery, 1005-27 Jul 1094 who was Count of
Poitou
but his son Roger de Poictu, Earl of Lancaster who was born about 1064 and
whose wife was Almodis, Countess of Marche. That is, if "Poitou" and
Poictu
are the same name. >>
What do these years above "1005-27" represent? And how did you arrive at
the
"about 1064" birth year for Roger?
Thanks
Will Johnson
"1005-27 Jul 1094" were the supposed birth and death dates for Roger de
Montgomery, father of Roger de Poictu.
The "about 1064" birthdate for the younger Roger comes from a "tree" I
discovered in New Zealand in 1990 about the de Betham family of Westmorland.
Below are the notes I have for the younger Roger, taken from various places.
Merilyn
"For family help in conquering England, William I gave Roger of Poitou the
land between the Ribble and the Mersey, Lonsdale, Cartmel and Furness. In
his turn Roger rewarded his most eminent soldiers with baronies for which
they paid him military service. (page 14 of a History of Lancashire : J.J.
Bagley)
About 1072, after the 1069 rebellion in the north had been mercilessly
suppressed, William the Conqueror added Amounderness and the land between
the Ribble and the Mersey to other lands already possessed by young Roger of
Poitou. By 1086, for reasons that are not clear, the crown had resumed
administration of the land between the Ribble and the Mersey, but two years
later, as part of his plan for strengthening the north-west against the
Scots, the new King, William Rufus, united under Roger's control Furness,
Cartmell, Lonsdale, Amounderness and the land between the Ribble and the
Mersey. Since the main invasion route from Scotland came round the
Cumberland coast and across the sands of Morecambe Bay, it was logical to
give the lord of Lancaster control of Cartmell and Furness. Roger did his
military work well. By 1092 his forces controlled the border country round
Solway Firth, and to consolidate their position were building Carlisle
Castle. Roger was also giving some unity to the future county, Lancashire,
by building a castle and priory at Lancaster and by creating military fiefs
such as the baronies of Manchester, Warrington, Penwortham and Widnes. The
honour of Lancaster which Roger possessed included several estates in other
parts of England and the old Northumbrian border along the Ribble valley
still had much meaning for many northerners including the Scots. (History of
Lancashire : J.J. Bagley)
Recent changes in tenure recorded in Domesday Book suggests that the grants
of some of these northern lordships came relatively late in the reign. Roger
the Poitevin, indeed, can scarcely have been old enough to carry conquest
into a disturbed region before about 1080 (Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166 :
Marjorie Chibnall)
In 1094 Roger encouraged the abbot of the Benedictine abbey of St. Martin at
Seez in Normandy to send a handful of monks to found a daughter house at
Lancaster. Roger endowed this priory handsomely. He gave it part of the
township of Lancaster, several small estates in Lonsdale and Amounderness
and the revenues of a dozen churches in Lancashire and the Midlands.
(History of Lancashire : J.J. Bagley)
In 1090 he fought with his brother, Robert de Belleme against Hugh de
Grentemesnil, but when he and his brother sided with Duke Robert of Normandy
against Duke Robert's brother, Henry I of England in 1102 he was deprived of
his earldom and expelled from England. On his expulsion from England, Roger
retired to the castle of Charroux in the county of La Marche-Limousine
having succeeded to the title of Count of La Marche on the death of his
brother-in-law."
-------Original Message-------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 12/13/05 09:53:13
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
In a message dated 12/10/05 3:10:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< It was not Roger II de Montgomery, 1005-27 Jul 1094 who was Count of
Poitou
but his son Roger de Poictu, Earl of Lancaster who was born about 1064 and
whose wife was Almodis, Countess of Marche. That is, if "Poitou" and
Poictu
are the same name. >>
What do these years above "1005-27" represent? And how did you arrive at
the
"about 1064" birth year for Roger?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
butlergrt
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
Good Evening Todd,
So you understand which argument? for the potential that the charter is a
forgery, or my argument that the potential it is a confirmation of the
existing charter with additional lands and contemporary witnesses
thereof?
In case you did not understand that I reason as to why Warin Bussel and
his brother Arnold were witnesses as they gave land and gifts to the
Priory of Penwortham and a cell to the Abbey of St. Marys of York and if
this were done at the same time, would naturally be signatories?!!
Of course having read many of your posts, I know that your next to last
paragraph about John or any other monarch (or any heir/ess coming into
titled inheritance where an ancestor granted lands or gifts) confirming
grants as they came to positon they are in was more as a point of
argumentative debate than that you already know of the nature of
confirming charters.
By the way I did sincerely appreciate your listing the witnesses in that
one post as it is often difficult for me to sometimes make heads or tails
out of them. (dyslexia)
Best Regards,
Emmett
So you understand which argument? for the potential that the charter is a
forgery, or my argument that the potential it is a confirmation of the
existing charter with additional lands and contemporary witnesses
thereof?
In case you did not understand that I reason as to why Warin Bussel and
his brother Arnold were witnesses as they gave land and gifts to the
Priory of Penwortham and a cell to the Abbey of St. Marys of York and if
this were done at the same time, would naturally be signatories?!!
Of course having read many of your posts, I know that your next to last
paragraph about John or any other monarch (or any heir/ess coming into
titled inheritance where an ancestor granted lands or gifts) confirming
grants as they came to positon they are in was more as a point of
argumentative debate than that you already know of the nature of
confirming charters.
By the way I did sincerely appreciate your listing the witnesses in that
one post as it is often difficult for me to sometimes make heads or tails
out of them. (dyslexia)
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
butlergrt
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Good Evening All,
Thank You Todd, that was the point I was trying to make, it just doesn't
always come out that simple and hope that somebody understands what I am
trying to say besides myself, (and then there are times I wonder about
myself, a little humor on my part)
Best Regards,
Emmett
Thank You Todd, that was the point I was trying to make, it just doesn't
always come out that simple and hope that somebody understands what I am
trying to say besides myself, (and then there are times I wonder about
myself, a little humor on my part)
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
In a message dated 12/12/05 4:56:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< It is extremely doubtful that a daughter of Count Roger would use the
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand. >>
Where do you get "50" ? What you posted, is undated.
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< It is extremely doubtful that a daughter of Count Roger would use the
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand. >>
Where do you get "50" ? What you posted, is undated.
-
Gjest
Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
In a message dated 12/12/05 6:08:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< Roger the Poitevin, indeed, can scarcely have been old enough to carry
conquest into a disturbed region before about 1080 (Anglo-Norman England
1066-1166 : Marjorie Chibnall)
In 1094 Roger encouraged the abbot of the Benedictine abbey of St. Martin at
Seez in Normandy to send a handful of monks to found a daughter house at
Lancaster. Roger endowed this priory handsomely. He gave it part of the
township of Lancaster, several small estates in Lonsdale and Amounderness
and the revenues of a dozen churches in Lancashire and the Midlands. (History of
Lancashire : J.J. Bagley)
In 1090 he fought with his brother, Robert de Belleme against Hugh de
Grentemesnil, but when he and his brother sided with Duke Robert of Normandy
against Duke Robert's brother, Henry I of England in 1102 he was deprived of
his earldom and expelled from England. On his expulsion from England, Roger
retired to the castle of Charroux in the county of La Marche-Limousine
having succeeded to the title of Count of La Marche on the death of his
brother-in-law." >>
I'm not seeing anything here to indicate 1005 for the Roger who d 1094
In fact rather, if his son was "scarely old enough" in 1080 to "carry
conquest into a disturbed area", this should speak to his father being a bit younger
than 75 years old at this time. Right?
While it's true that a man could have children into his 60s presumably, I'm
not sure we can determine that Roger was one of these types of men.
That is why I asked what your source for the 1005 year is, I'd discount it
and say he was born maybe 1000 to 1020 probably more toward the latter end of
this as he was having children for a while.
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< Roger the Poitevin, indeed, can scarcely have been old enough to carry
conquest into a disturbed region before about 1080 (Anglo-Norman England
1066-1166 : Marjorie Chibnall)
In 1094 Roger encouraged the abbot of the Benedictine abbey of St. Martin at
Seez in Normandy to send a handful of monks to found a daughter house at
Lancaster. Roger endowed this priory handsomely. He gave it part of the
township of Lancaster, several small estates in Lonsdale and Amounderness
and the revenues of a dozen churches in Lancashire and the Midlands. (History of
Lancashire : J.J. Bagley)
In 1090 he fought with his brother, Robert de Belleme against Hugh de
Grentemesnil, but when he and his brother sided with Duke Robert of Normandy
against Duke Robert's brother, Henry I of England in 1102 he was deprived of
his earldom and expelled from England. On his expulsion from England, Roger
retired to the castle of Charroux in the county of La Marche-Limousine
having succeeded to the title of Count of La Marche on the death of his
brother-in-law." >>
I'm not seeing anything here to indicate 1005 for the Roger who d 1094
In fact rather, if his son was "scarely old enough" in 1080 to "carry
conquest into a disturbed area", this should speak to his father being a bit younger
than 75 years old at this time. Right?
While it's true that a man could have children into his 60s presumably, I'm
not sure we can determine that Roger was one of these types of men.
That is why I asked what your source for the 1005 year is, I'd discount it
and say he was born maybe 1000 to 1020 probably more toward the latter end of
this as he was having children for a while.
-
butlergrt
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential More
Good Evening again,
Besides Henry I confirming Rogers grants, Thomas Archbishop of York, also
confirmed Rogers grants
as to the litigation referred of these charters, were also confirmed again
by Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, again by Ralph Gernon,E. of Chester
circa 1149(why? I do not understand) and of course as has been written by
John, Count of Mortain, between the years 1189-93, curiously the same time
period also ascribed involving a previous post of Helewise de Lancaster
and Hugh de Morville and the confirmation/litigation of grants by William
de Lancaster.
Alien House,The Priory of Lancaster, A History of The County Lancashire
Vol. II,(1908) pp.167-73
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38367 for further
references.
Some further things of note: 1. the 1094 charter was
for the granting of lands for an abbey(which of course had a church, but
not as it appears for a church in and of itself).
2. The church of Preston was in the manor of amounderness that was partly
in Yorkshire, partly in Lancashire. 1 of the churches held of the abbey
3. The name, Church of St. Mary, did not seem to come of use till some
time after the granting of the charter, while it could be it was always
inferred that one knew it's name--I did not find it's use for some great
time period afterwards and in the early times it was just referred to
jointly with the abbey as 'The Priory of Lancaster'. Possibly others of
you may find something else that uses the name from the beginning??!!
4. I do find it curious that the first recorded abbott is "John in 1141"
the most reknown castle and one of 4 great abbeys in England of the time
and their is no record? charters and confirmations all over the place and
even with small abbeys, what happened the previous 47 years+/- no abbots?
just a curiosity.
5. I do find it interesting the Ives/vo de Taillebois also granted the
manor of Heversham to the Abbey of St. Marys of York also in the year
1094, it's rival and who presumably held lands as under-tenant of Roger.
Just some additional information and thoughts.
Best Regards,
Emmett
Besides Henry I confirming Rogers grants, Thomas Archbishop of York, also
confirmed Rogers grants
as to the litigation referred of these charters, were also confirmed again
by Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, again by Ralph Gernon,E. of Chester
circa 1149(why? I do not understand) and of course as has been written by
John, Count of Mortain, between the years 1189-93, curiously the same time
period also ascribed involving a previous post of Helewise de Lancaster
and Hugh de Morville and the confirmation/litigation of grants by William
de Lancaster.
Alien House,The Priory of Lancaster, A History of The County Lancashire
Vol. II,(1908) pp.167-73
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38367 for further
references.
Some further things of note: 1. the 1094 charter was
for the granting of lands for an abbey(which of course had a church, but
not as it appears for a church in and of itself).
2. The church of Preston was in the manor of amounderness that was partly
in Yorkshire, partly in Lancashire. 1 of the churches held of the abbey
3. The name, Church of St. Mary, did not seem to come of use till some
time after the granting of the charter, while it could be it was always
inferred that one knew it's name--I did not find it's use for some great
time period afterwards and in the early times it was just referred to
jointly with the abbey as 'The Priory of Lancaster'. Possibly others of
you may find something else that uses the name from the beginning??!!
4. I do find it curious that the first recorded abbott is "John in 1141"
the most reknown castle and one of 4 great abbeys in England of the time
and their is no record? charters and confirmations all over the place and
even with small abbeys, what happened the previous 47 years+/- no abbots?
just a curiosity.
5. I do find it interesting the Ives/vo de Taillebois also granted the
manor of Heversham to the Abbey of St. Marys of York also in the year
1094, it's rival and who presumably held lands as under-tenant of Roger.
Just some additional information and thoughts.
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
butlergrt wrote:
I understood where you were going, at least in a general sense. I was
responding to the cry of "it's premature to reach a conclusion" with
nothing offered as either an alternative solution or a line of research
which might clarify the situation. It sounded to me like a 'tactful'
way of saying, "I can't think of any other explanation but I don't want
this to be the conclusion, so you should wait for me to think of some
viable alternative." Everyone is welcome to contribute alternatives at
any point, but unless there is definitive knowledge of additional
sources that have yet to be consulted, it is unreasonable to ask others
to withhold judgement just because you don't like the conclusion. (On
the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that judgement be
withheld when you know there is another source out there that has yet to
be included in the analysis - for example, if there is an article that
concludes the version of a charter being used is flawed, it _is_
appropriate to suggest one actually read and comprehend the article
before dismissing it.)
In genealogy all conclusions are provisional, pending new discoveries.
That need not imply that one should never reach conclusions just because
at some point in the future a better possibility might present itself.
It was not just a debate tactic. There are numerous reasons why a
charter might be confirmed. Just to name a few, there could competing
charters, by which competitors are each granted legitimate tenure; there
are lost charters, where the confirmation will replace the original
missing paperwork (or vellumwork, I guess); there are cases where there
was some flaw in the original charter: ambiguous language, flawed
bounds, etc., such that a clever lawyering trick might be used to have
it negated. I have seen examples of all of these. (And of course, I
have also seen cases where the original was perfectly valid, but someone
wanted it to say something other than what it did - these are rare to
find, since the 'smoking gun', the original charter, has a tendancy to
go up in smoke.) It certainly cannot be said that if there was a flaw
in the original charter, it would never have been confirmed.
taf
Good Evening Todd,
So you understand which argument? for the potential that the charter is a
forgery, or my argument that the potential it is a confirmation of the
existing charter with additional lands and contemporary witnesses
thereof?
In case you did not understand that I reason as to why Warin Bussel and
his brother Arnold were witnesses as they gave land and gifts to the
Priory of Penwortham and a cell to the Abbey of St. Marys of York and if
this were done at the same time, would naturally be signatories?!!
I understood where you were going, at least in a general sense. I was
responding to the cry of "it's premature to reach a conclusion" with
nothing offered as either an alternative solution or a line of research
which might clarify the situation. It sounded to me like a 'tactful'
way of saying, "I can't think of any other explanation but I don't want
this to be the conclusion, so you should wait for me to think of some
viable alternative." Everyone is welcome to contribute alternatives at
any point, but unless there is definitive knowledge of additional
sources that have yet to be consulted, it is unreasonable to ask others
to withhold judgement just because you don't like the conclusion. (On
the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that judgement be
withheld when you know there is another source out there that has yet to
be included in the analysis - for example, if there is an article that
concludes the version of a charter being used is flawed, it _is_
appropriate to suggest one actually read and comprehend the article
before dismissing it.)
In genealogy all conclusions are provisional, pending new discoveries.
That need not imply that one should never reach conclusions just because
at some point in the future a better possibility might present itself.
Of course having read many of your posts, I know that your next to last
paragraph about John or any other monarch (or any heir/ess coming into
titled inheritance where an ancestor granted lands or gifts) confirming
grants as they came to positon they are in was more as a point of
argumentative debate than that you already know of the nature of
confirming charters.
It was not just a debate tactic. There are numerous reasons why a
charter might be confirmed. Just to name a few, there could competing
charters, by which competitors are each granted legitimate tenure; there
are lost charters, where the confirmation will replace the original
missing paperwork (or vellumwork, I guess); there are cases where there
was some flaw in the original charter: ambiguous language, flawed
bounds, etc., such that a clever lawyering trick might be used to have
it negated. I have seen examples of all of these. (And of course, I
have also seen cases where the original was perfectly valid, but someone
wanted it to say something other than what it did - these are rare to
find, since the 'smoking gun', the original charter, has a tendancy to
go up in smoke.) It certainly cannot be said that if there was a flaw
in the original charter, it would never have been confirmed.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third chart
Dear Emmett ~
Thank you for posting the information regarding the Priory of Lancaster
taken from the VCH Lancaster 2, edited by W. Farrer and J. Brownbill,
published in 1908. I took the opportunity to read the material just
now and have copied the introductory comments below, along with the
first three footnotes.
The editors of this volume were obviously aware of the three versions
of Count Roger of Poitou's charters, as they state that the French
chartulary of Sées "recites three charters of Roger granting
Lancaster church and other portions of his English possessions to the
abbey." The first "two of these are ascribed in 1094," and the third
"cannot be much later in date." Mr. Farrer and Mr. Brownbill were
clearly convinced as to the authenticity and early date of the third
charter. This, of course, is a completely different viewpoint
regarding the dating and authenticity of the third charter than the one
presented by Ms. Thompson.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38367
ALIEN HOUSE
23. THE PRIORY OF LANCASTER
The priory of Lancaster was founded by Roger of Poitou, in the reign of
William Rufus, as a cell of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Martin at
Sées in Normandy. Sées formed part of the inheritance of his mother,
the notorious Countess Mabel, and its abbey, refounded in 1060 by his
father, received liberal endowments in England from the house of
Montgomery.
The chartulary of Sées recites three charters of Roger granting
Lancaster church and other portions of his English possessions to the
abbey; two of these are ascribed to 1094, the third is undated; (fn. 1)
All three differ in some important respects. That without a date was
the definitive charter of foundation, for it alone appears in the
register of the priory. (fn. 2) The others may have been granted by
Roger while in Normandy in 1094, (fn. 3) but the names of its witnesses
show that this was drawn up in the north of England, probably at
Lancaster. It cannot be much later in date.
FN 1: They are numbered in the chartulary 258, 260, and 266. These
numbers do not agree with those given in the transcript in the Archives
of the Department of the Orne at Alençon used by Mr. Round; Cal of
Doc. France, 236-9. It should be noted, too, that No. 665 of the
calendar is only a truncated fragment of No. 260 of the chartulary. For
the history of Sées see Neustria Pia, 577; Orderic Vitalis, Hist.
Eccl. (Soc. de l'Hist. de France), ii, 46-7.
FN 2: B.M. Harl. MS. 3764, fol. 1a; printed by Farrer (Lancs. Pipe R.
289) and (with the rest of the register) by W. O. Roper in Materials
for the Hist, of the Church of Lancaster (Chet. Soc.), 8. The documents
connected with the priory in Add. MS. 32107, Nos. 818-86 and Exch. Aug.
Off. Misc. Bks. vols. 33-40 include some which are not in the register:
FN 3. He unsuccessfully defended Argentan near Sées for King William
against Duke Robert; Ang].-Sax. Chron. sub anno; Hen. Huntingdon, Hist.
Angl. (Rolls Ser.), 217. Some of the witnesses of the 1094 charters are
English tenants of Roger (e.g. Godfrey the Sheriff and Albert Grelley),
but others, Oliver de Tremblet, for instance, are not known to have
been.
Thank you for posting the information regarding the Priory of Lancaster
taken from the VCH Lancaster 2, edited by W. Farrer and J. Brownbill,
published in 1908. I took the opportunity to read the material just
now and have copied the introductory comments below, along with the
first three footnotes.
The editors of this volume were obviously aware of the three versions
of Count Roger of Poitou's charters, as they state that the French
chartulary of Sées "recites three charters of Roger granting
Lancaster church and other portions of his English possessions to the
abbey." The first "two of these are ascribed in 1094," and the third
"cannot be much later in date." Mr. Farrer and Mr. Brownbill were
clearly convinced as to the authenticity and early date of the third
charter. This, of course, is a completely different viewpoint
regarding the dating and authenticity of the third charter than the one
presented by Ms. Thompson.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + +
Source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38367
ALIEN HOUSE
23. THE PRIORY OF LANCASTER
The priory of Lancaster was founded by Roger of Poitou, in the reign of
William Rufus, as a cell of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Martin at
Sées in Normandy. Sées formed part of the inheritance of his mother,
the notorious Countess Mabel, and its abbey, refounded in 1060 by his
father, received liberal endowments in England from the house of
Montgomery.
The chartulary of Sées recites three charters of Roger granting
Lancaster church and other portions of his English possessions to the
abbey; two of these are ascribed to 1094, the third is undated; (fn. 1)
All three differ in some important respects. That without a date was
the definitive charter of foundation, for it alone appears in the
register of the priory. (fn. 2) The others may have been granted by
Roger while in Normandy in 1094, (fn. 3) but the names of its witnesses
show that this was drawn up in the north of England, probably at
Lancaster. It cannot be much later in date.
FN 1: They are numbered in the chartulary 258, 260, and 266. These
numbers do not agree with those given in the transcript in the Archives
of the Department of the Orne at Alençon used by Mr. Round; Cal of
Doc. France, 236-9. It should be noted, too, that No. 665 of the
calendar is only a truncated fragment of No. 260 of the chartulary. For
the history of Sées see Neustria Pia, 577; Orderic Vitalis, Hist.
Eccl. (Soc. de l'Hist. de France), ii, 46-7.
FN 2: B.M. Harl. MS. 3764, fol. 1a; printed by Farrer (Lancs. Pipe R.
289) and (with the rest of the register) by W. O. Roper in Materials
for the Hist, of the Church of Lancaster (Chet. Soc.), 8. The documents
connected with the priory in Add. MS. 32107, Nos. 818-86 and Exch. Aug.
Off. Misc. Bks. vols. 33-40 include some which are not in the register:
FN 3. He unsuccessfully defended Argentan near Sées for King William
against Duke Robert; Ang].-Sax. Chron. sub anno; Hen. Huntingdon, Hist.
Angl. (Rolls Ser.), 217. Some of the witnesses of the 1094 charters are
English tenants of Roger (e.g. Godfrey the Sheriff and Albert Grelley),
but others, Oliver de Tremblet, for instance, are not known to have
been.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The editors of Complete Peerage state that Avice de Lancaster was
living in 1149. I assume the date 1149 comes from Avice's charter
which is presented in the text, but without a date.
My point is not so much the date, as the use of the surname "de
Lancaster." Although Count Roger of Poitou held the honour of
Lancaster in England, he never employed Lancaster as a surname. In
fact, once he lost the honour of Lancaster, it would be unlikely that
his descendants would employ this surname. This is a no brainer I
think.
DR
In a message dated 12/12/05 4:56:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
It is extremely doubtful that a daughter of Count Roger would use the
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand.
Where do you get "50" ? What you posted, is undated.
The editors of Complete Peerage state that Avice de Lancaster was
living in 1149. I assume the date 1149 comes from Avice's charter
which is presented in the text, but without a date.
My point is not so much the date, as the use of the surname "de
Lancaster." Although Count Roger of Poitou held the honour of
Lancaster in England, he never employed Lancaster as a surname. In
fact, once he lost the honour of Lancaster, it would be unlikely that
his descendants would employ this surname. This is a no brainer I
think.
DR
-
CED
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
Douglas Richardson wrote:
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson's obsession with surnames has reached the point of a joke.
Neither Roger le Poitevin nor his daughter had any concept of a
hereditary surname. To attribute ideas about hereditary surnames to
anybody in England during this period is admit a fundamental ignorance
of English social history and, consequently, the underpinings of its
genealogy.
CED
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/12/05 4:56:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
It is extremely doubtful that a daughter of Count Roger would use the
surname "de Lancaster," when Roger lost his Lancashire lands 50 years
beforehand.
Where do you get "50" ? What you posted, is undated.
The editors of Complete Peerage state that Avice de Lancaster was
living in 1149. I assume the date 1149 comes from Avice's charter
which is presented in the text, but without a date.
My point is not so much the date, as the use of the surname "de
Lancaster." Although Count Roger of Poitou held the honour of
Lancaster in England, he never employed Lancaster as a surname. In
fact, once he lost the honour of Lancaster, it would be unlikely that
his descendants would employ this surname.
To the Newsgroup:
Richardson's obsession with surnames has reached the point of a joke.
Neither Roger le Poitevin nor his daughter had any concept of a
hereditary surname. To attribute ideas about hereditary surnames to
anybody in England during this period is admit a fundamental ignorance
of English social history and, consequently, the underpinings of its
genealogy.
CED
This is a no brainer I
think.
DR
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The parentage of (1094)potential answers
Douglas Richardson wrote:
If this is the only argument in favour of the authenticity of version C, I'm
afraid it is a very weak one. Monasteries frequently manufactured spurious
charters, and no doubt many of them later received royal confirmation.
Count John could hardly have had any personal knowledge concerning the
authenticity of the charter, and I hardly think he had a textual examination
carried out by a team of 12th-century J. H. Rounds!
Had he done so, the required knowledge would have been lacking. Remember how
inaccurate monkish genealogies could be, when unsupported by contemporary
documentation.
Chris Phillips
If I understand Ms. Thompson's statements, it was MSS. C that was
confirmed by King John during the time period when he was Count of
Mortain. It seems virtually certain that John was satisfied that the
charter was genuine. If he had found irregularities in the charter or
wording, it is unlikely he would have confirmed it. King John lived
within one hundred years of the date the charter was issued.
If this is the only argument in favour of the authenticity of version C, I'm
afraid it is a very weak one. Monasteries frequently manufactured spurious
charters, and no doubt many of them later received royal confirmation.
Count John could hardly have had any personal knowledge concerning the
authenticity of the charter, and I hardly think he had a textual examination
carried out by a team of 12th-century J. H. Rounds!
Had he done so, the required knowledge would have been lacking. Remember how
inaccurate monkish genealogies could be, when unsupported by contemporary
documentation.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: C.P. Correction: Avice de Lancaster, wife of William Pev
In a message dated 12/13/2005 12:41:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
In fact, contemporary
records indicate that they didn't employ this surname. This isn't a
supposition. This is fact.
But the doesn't make sense. They didn't employ *any* surname. Isn't this
what Todd just said ? So if we find some document where one of them now calls
themselves "of Burgundy" or "of Mars" that wouldn't say anything about the
others since we have nothing in which they call themselves.... anything ?
Isn't that correct?
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
In fact, contemporary
records indicate that they didn't employ this surname. This isn't a
supposition. This is fact.
But the doesn't make sense. They didn't employ *any* surname. Isn't this
what Todd just said ? So if we find some document where one of them now calls
themselves "of Burgundy" or "of Mars" that wouldn't say anything about the
others since we have nothing in which they call themselves.... anything ?
Isn't that correct?
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third c
In a message dated 12/12/2005 11:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The editors of this volume were obviously aware of the three versions
of Count Roger of Poitou's charters, as they state that the French
chartulary of Sées "recites three charters of Roger granting
Lancaster church and other portions of his English possessions to the
abbey." The first "two of these are ascribed in 1094," and the third
"cannot be much later in date." Mr. Farrer and Mr. Brownbill were
clearly convinced as to the authenticity and early date of the third
charter. This, of course, is a completely different viewpoint
regarding the dating and authenticity of the third charter than the one
presented by Ms. Thompson.
Dear Doug,
They did not see the originals. They did not perform an analysis of the
script and compare all three charters as Kathleen Thompson did. The copy of the
third charter in the register of St. Marys, Lancaster was copied in the 14th
century into the register. It is not contemporary with the copy at St. Martins at
Sees. You cannot date a charter from a copy made 300 years later with
accuracy. To actually authenticate a charter you need to see the original or a good
facsimile. You also need to compare it to existing charters scripted at the
same time at the same place. This is what Kathleen Thompson has done.
MichaelAnne
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
The editors of this volume were obviously aware of the three versions
of Count Roger of Poitou's charters, as they state that the French
chartulary of Sées "recites three charters of Roger granting
Lancaster church and other portions of his English possessions to the
abbey." The first "two of these are ascribed in 1094," and the third
"cannot be much later in date." Mr. Farrer and Mr. Brownbill were
clearly convinced as to the authenticity and early date of the third
charter. This, of course, is a completely different viewpoint
regarding the dating and authenticity of the third charter than the one
presented by Ms. Thompson.
Dear Doug,
They did not see the originals. They did not perform an analysis of the
script and compare all three charters as Kathleen Thompson did. The copy of the
third charter in the register of St. Marys, Lancaster was copied in the 14th
century into the register. It is not contemporary with the copy at St. Martins at
Sees. You cannot date a charter from a copy made 300 years later with
accuracy. To actually authenticate a charter you need to see the original or a good
facsimile. You also need to compare it to existing charters scripted at the
same time at the same place. This is what Kathleen Thompson has done.
MichaelAnne
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third c
Douglas Richardson wrote:
So you have said before, but please can you tell us _why_ you think so?
Surely not just on the grounds you have stated, that Count John confirmed
the charter - about a century after its purported date!
Chris Phillips
PS Please note that the author of the paper we're discussing isn't "Ms."
Thompson - or even Mrs or Miss Thompson - but Dr Thompson. She studied for a
doctorate in the History Department at Sheffield University.
Ms. Thompson has made several claims in her article as to her dating
procedures and comparison of the various charters. I suspect her
methodology is flawed.
So you have said before, but please can you tell us _why_ you think so?
Surely not just on the grounds you have stated, that Count John confirmed
the charter - about a century after its purported date!
Chris Phillips
PS Please note that the author of the paper we're discussing isn't "Ms."
Thompson - or even Mrs or Miss Thompson - but Dr Thompson. She studied for a
doctorate in the History Department at Sheffield University.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third c
ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
That's very fair and honest, MichaelAnne. Thank you for noting the
correction.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Dear Doug,
The article is not confusing. I made a mistake as I am reseraching a similar
situation at Durham Priory. I confused another historians methodology with
Kathleen Thompson.
I stand corrected that Kathleen Thompson did not see the original charters.
MichaelAnne
That's very fair and honest, MichaelAnne. Thank you for noting the
correction.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third c
In a message dated 12/13/2005 12:26:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Ms. Thompson has made several claims in her article as to her dating
procedures and comparison of the various charters. I suspect her
methodology is flawed. Having seen Mr. Farrer's and Mr. Brownbill's
comments, I am even more suspicious now. You should be as well.
I'm not aware that Ms. Thompson saw any original charters as you state.
All she saw were REGISTERED copies, as follows:
Charter No. 1 is taken from Livre Blanc de Saint - Martin de Sees, f.
03v.
Charter No. 2 is taken from Livre Blanc de Saint - Martin de Sees, f.
04r.
Charter No. 3 is taken from Livre Blanc de Saint - Martin de Sees, f.
09r and from the Register of the Prior of St. Mary of Lancaster, f. 1.
If you need to see the original or a good facsimile of a charter to
authenticate it (as you say), then Ms. Thompson would be unable to date
anything she saw. I remind you: These are your own words. The Livre
Blanc of St. Martin of Sees dates from the 14th Century and the
Lancaster Register dates from the 15th Century, both LONG after the
original donations. And, If we are unable to authenticate such
documents, then Ms. Thompson has done nothing but confuse you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Doug,
The article is not confusing. I made a mistake as I am reseraching a similar
situation at Durham Priory. I confused another historians methodology with
Kathleen Thompson.
I stand corrected that Kathleen Thompson did not see the original charters.
She dates MSS. C to 1130-1150 when the dispute was going on with Shrewsbury
Abbey over two pieces of land that were included in MSS. C. She based her
analysis on the additional provisons in each copy and the changing witnesses. This
discussion is useless however as the fact that the foundation charter was
modified by adding both additional land and witnesses makes MSS. C invalid as
evidence.
MichaelAnne
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Ms. Thompson has made several claims in her article as to her dating
procedures and comparison of the various charters. I suspect her
methodology is flawed. Having seen Mr. Farrer's and Mr. Brownbill's
comments, I am even more suspicious now. You should be as well.
I'm not aware that Ms. Thompson saw any original charters as you state.
All she saw were REGISTERED copies, as follows:
Charter No. 1 is taken from Livre Blanc de Saint - Martin de Sees, f.
03v.
Charter No. 2 is taken from Livre Blanc de Saint - Martin de Sees, f.
04r.
Charter No. 3 is taken from Livre Blanc de Saint - Martin de Sees, f.
09r and from the Register of the Prior of St. Mary of Lancaster, f. 1.
If you need to see the original or a good facsimile of a charter to
authenticate it (as you say), then Ms. Thompson would be unable to date
anything she saw. I remind you: These are your own words. The Livre
Blanc of St. Martin of Sees dates from the 14th Century and the
Lancaster Register dates from the 15th Century, both LONG after the
original donations. And, If we are unable to authenticate such
documents, then Ms. Thompson has done nothing but confuse you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Doug,
The article is not confusing. I made a mistake as I am reseraching a similar
situation at Durham Priory. I confused another historians methodology with
Kathleen Thompson.
I stand corrected that Kathleen Thompson did not see the original charters.
She dates MSS. C to 1130-1150 when the dispute was going on with Shrewsbury
Abbey over two pieces of land that were included in MSS. C. She based her
analysis on the additional provisons in each copy and the changing witnesses. This
discussion is useless however as the fact that the foundation charter was
modified by adding both additional land and witnesses makes MSS. C invalid as
evidence.
MichaelAnne
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
I would be interested in this data for inclusion in my Web site, once the sources and details are made known and properly vetted. Attribution and credit will be given the author(s). Thank you.
My work, I should add, is not-for-profit and is freely shared, according to the credo of the family genealogist.
Best,
Kevin Bradford
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 3:31 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
In 1967 a book was published in which at least three great-grandchildren of King Edward II are recorded. As they were recorded only as the children of their fathers this knowledge seems to have remained obscure.
In another source I found a fourth one and, thanks to one of those European people no longer contributing to Gen-Med, a child for one of these was added. As a result it could be possible that more fairly close descendants of Edward II may be established and perhaps even lines to the present.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
My work, I should add, is not-for-profit and is freely shared, according to the credo of the family genealogist.
Best,
Kevin Bradford
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography: http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 3:31 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
In 1967 a book was published in which at least three great-grandchildren of King Edward II are recorded. As they were recorded only as the children of their fathers this knowledge seems to have remained obscure.
In another source I found a fourth one and, thanks to one of those European people no longer contributing to Gen-Med, a child for one of these was added. As a result it could be possible that more fairly close descendants of Edward II may be established and perhaps even lines to the present.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Gjest
Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
"Leo van de Pas" schrieb:
My guess is that they from Gueldres...
Dear Kevin,
Of course the details will be made known on Gen-Med. I could have said "Buy
my book to find it" but that is not my style.
I am still looking as I hope to be able to extend the knowledge. I will give
the secondary sources as most will be able to find them and so see what the
primary sources are. The sources mentioned in one of these is quite
extensive, but if you are interested I can try to eliminate sources that do
not apply.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
My guess is that they from Gueldres...
-
Gjest
Re: George de Vere, son of the Earl of Oxford
"Kelly Leighton" schrieb:
Sorry, Kelly; I've only seen the index reference rather than the text -
but they agree in calling the testator George Veer, which is a good
start...
Regards
Michael
Michael,
Does the official version read the same as the versions on the web?
Thanks and take care,
Kelly in RI
Sorry, Kelly; I've only seen the index reference rather than the text -
but they agree in calling the testator George Veer, which is a good
start...
Regards
Michael
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
Dear Kevin,
Of course the details will be made known on Gen-Med. I could have said "Buy
my book to find it" but that is not my style.
I am still looking as I hope to be able to extend the knowledge. I will give
the secondary sources as most will be able to find them and so see what the
primary sources are. The sources mentioned in one of these is quite
extensive, but if you are interested I can try to eliminate sources that do
not apply.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
Of course the details will be made known on Gen-Med. I could have said "Buy
my book to find it" but that is not my style.
I am still looking as I hope to be able to extend the knowledge. I will give
the secondary sources as most will be able to find them and so see what the
primary sources are. The sources mentioned in one of these is quite
extensive, but if you are interested I can try to eliminate sources that do
not apply.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
I would be interested in this data for inclusion in my Web site, once the
sources and details are made known and properly vetted. Attribution and
credit will be given the author(s). Thank you.
My work, I should add, is not-for-profit and is freely shared, according
to the credo of the family genealogist.
Best,
Kevin Bradford
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 3:31 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
In 1967 a book was published in which at least three great-grandchildren
of King Edward II are recorded. As they were recorded only as the children
of their fathers this knowledge seems to have remained obscure.
In another source I found a fourth one and, thanks to one of those
European people no longer contributing to Gen-Med, a child for one of
these was added. As a result it could be possible that more fairly close
descendants of Edward II may be established and perhaps even lines to the
present.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
Leo,
Excellent. Depending on what is found, I may include the details in a separate window in my site, or list the secondary references in my bibliography with explanatory notes. In any case, I appreciate your efforts and thanks for bringing up the topic.
I note you have Ann (Agnes) Paston, wife of Gilbert Talbot, Knt., in your database:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 3&tree=LEO
This is my principle family line to the Plantagenets, and while this lineage appears in one or two modern secondary works on the Plantagenets (well-known to all and I needn't repeat the references), the research is my own, sourced from both the primary and secondary record. The (Agnes) part in Anne's name is a confusion; this was an old reference from a less than reliable secondary work: her husband's will refers to her as Anne, as do all other reliable secondary sources.
I have a full list of the children of Anne Paston Talbot, as well as the family of her daughter, Elizabeth Talbot Lyttleton, from whom I am descended, if you are interested.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
Dear Kevin,
Of course the details will be made known on Gen-Med. I could have said "Buy
my book to find it" but that is not my style.
I am still looking as I hope to be able to extend the knowledge. I will give
the secondary sources as most will be able to find them and so see what the
primary sources are. The sources mentioned in one of these is quite
extensive, but if you are interested I can try to eliminate sources that do
not apply.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
Excellent. Depending on what is found, I may include the details in a separate window in my site, or list the secondary references in my bibliography with explanatory notes. In any case, I appreciate your efforts and thanks for bringing up the topic.
I note you have Ann (Agnes) Paston, wife of Gilbert Talbot, Knt., in your database:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 3&tree=LEO
This is my principle family line to the Plantagenets, and while this lineage appears in one or two modern secondary works on the Plantagenets (well-known to all and I needn't repeat the references), the research is my own, sourced from both the primary and secondary record. The (Agnes) part in Anne's name is a confusion; this was an old reference from a less than reliable secondary work: her husband's will refers to her as Anne, as do all other reliable secondary sources.
I have a full list of the children of Anne Paston Talbot, as well as the family of her daughter, Elizabeth Talbot Lyttleton, from whom I am descended, if you are interested.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
Dear Kevin,
Of course the details will be made known on Gen-Med. I could have said "Buy
my book to find it" but that is not my style.
I am still looking as I hope to be able to extend the knowledge. I will give
the secondary sources as most will be able to find them and so see what the
primary sources are. The sources mentioned in one of these is quite
extensive, but if you are interested I can try to eliminate sources that do
not apply.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Bradford" <plantagenet60@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
I would be interested in this data for inclusion in my Web site, once the
sources and details are made known and properly vetted. Attribution and
credit will be given the author(s). Thank you.
My work, I should add, is not-for-profit and is freely shared, according
to the credo of the family genealogist.
Best,
Kevin Bradford
Plantagenet Genealogy & Biography:
http://home.earthlink.net/~plantagenet6 ... enet01.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 3:31 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Plantagenets Old Knowledge put in context.
In 1967 a book was published in which at least three great-grandchildren
of King Edward II are recorded. As they were recorded only as the children
of their fathers this knowledge seems to have remained obscure.
In another source I found a fourth one and, thanks to one of those
European people no longer contributing to Gen-Med, a child for one of
these was added. As a result it could be possible that more fairly close
descendants of Edward II may be established and perhaps even lines to the
present.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
butlergrt
Re: Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's thi
Good Afternoon All,
Good G-d Almighty, Michael-Anne, I have read your posts and from what
little I glean from them you are an extremely intelligent and articulate
personage. It would also appear as you are doing research in this field
for what ever endeavor and that you are indeed knowledable in a variety of
other fields as well, But you keep repeating the phrase over and over this
is useless, pointless etc.
In doing field work one must be abit of a detective and that means reading
between the lines.
You keep sounding as if you accept carte blanche, the concept that as the
names of the witnesses are changed, therefor the document must be a
forgery!! or of no value!! And perhaps so, then again it may be indicative
that something else may have been going on, it was indeed a confirmation
with later lands and gifts added to it, the original witneseses mostly
dead and those that had a connection to these grants albeit later, were
witnesses.
I have provided a potentiality to something different and yet you do NOT
address it other than the same mantra, why?
In fact as the grants of Warin Bussel, who was a witness to the MSS C. and
granted lands to the cell of St. Marys of Lancaster(the abbey of
Penwortham) is in and of itself enough to question the forgery aspect of
the said position of Ms Thompson.
Furthermore, besides Henry I confirming those grants in 1131/2, so did
Thomas the Archbishop of York, Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, later,
Ralph Gernon-Earl of Chester c. 1149(why I do not know but it is recorded
so), and yes, John, Count of Mortain later King John.
I would then posit that the confirmation of these later years was not that
of the original 1094 charter...BUT... the charter dated c. 1130 because
that is where the Bussels and others added land and more gifts to the cell
that would need to be confirmed by the mother Abbey. And more-so, this
does not "make MSS C. "invalid as evidence", in fact, it makes things when
viewed in a proper perspective as allowing a broader range of discovery.
40 odd years can make alot of difference in available records, these other
witnesses also made grants and gifts and they had children etc., easier to
verify.
A simple anology, I own a farm and rent part of it to you, we sign a
contract(read charter) for 50 years, you being young and I being old,
sadly I die and so do my sons, 40 years pass and a nephew wants to rent
you more land(read grants of more land and gifts) but the acreage that you
rented from me stopped at a fence long removed soon after my death. The
new acreage is an addendum or a new lease with part of the stipulation
wording of the old lease included as you still had 10 years left on the
original agreement, you wanted to make sure you retained it for 10 more
years(read charter of 1094 and then charter of c. 1130), with you and the
nephew litigating where the old fence row was, you both go to a notary or
judge(read Henry I, Pope, John or whomever) and have it signed(read
confirmed) and so forth and witnesses in case something unforseen should
happen(read my nephew ,now your children and maybe an old farm hand who
had signed as witness on the original lease). This is really quite
understandable I believe, don't you?
Richard, is there a way you could e-mail Ms Thompsons article or know
where I can find it and what it is titled, I must have missed that post if
it was listed, sorry and thank You . I too would like to read it myself.
Will J. that is why I thought the Roger referred to in an earlier post was
Roger son of Roger do to the time frame and Sibyl was his sister not
daughter, but in the confirming of the MSS C., felt the witnesses knew who
they were so they didn't really have to provide explanations to anyone
else.
It is also why I added in the other post that if anyone knew where to look
for Henry I confirmation of this charter, the wording and/or witnesses
might be explanation enough or if they were not the same, some more
insight, if that is how they do it when a king confirms a charter?
unfortunately I am not knowledgable about those types of confirmations.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Good G-d Almighty, Michael-Anne, I have read your posts and from what
little I glean from them you are an extremely intelligent and articulate
personage. It would also appear as you are doing research in this field
for what ever endeavor and that you are indeed knowledable in a variety of
other fields as well, But you keep repeating the phrase over and over this
is useless, pointless etc.
In doing field work one must be abit of a detective and that means reading
between the lines.
You keep sounding as if you accept carte blanche, the concept that as the
names of the witnesses are changed, therefor the document must be a
forgery!! or of no value!! And perhaps so, then again it may be indicative
that something else may have been going on, it was indeed a confirmation
with later lands and gifts added to it, the original witneseses mostly
dead and those that had a connection to these grants albeit later, were
witnesses.
I have provided a potentiality to something different and yet you do NOT
address it other than the same mantra, why?
In fact as the grants of Warin Bussel, who was a witness to the MSS C. and
granted lands to the cell of St. Marys of Lancaster(the abbey of
Penwortham) is in and of itself enough to question the forgery aspect of
the said position of Ms Thompson.
Furthermore, besides Henry I confirming those grants in 1131/2, so did
Thomas the Archbishop of York, Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, later,
Ralph Gernon-Earl of Chester c. 1149(why I do not know but it is recorded
so), and yes, John, Count of Mortain later King John.
I would then posit that the confirmation of these later years was not that
of the original 1094 charter...BUT... the charter dated c. 1130 because
that is where the Bussels and others added land and more gifts to the cell
that would need to be confirmed by the mother Abbey. And more-so, this
does not "make MSS C. "invalid as evidence", in fact, it makes things when
viewed in a proper perspective as allowing a broader range of discovery.
40 odd years can make alot of difference in available records, these other
witnesses also made grants and gifts and they had children etc., easier to
verify.
A simple anology, I own a farm and rent part of it to you, we sign a
contract(read charter) for 50 years, you being young and I being old,
sadly I die and so do my sons, 40 years pass and a nephew wants to rent
you more land(read grants of more land and gifts) but the acreage that you
rented from me stopped at a fence long removed soon after my death. The
new acreage is an addendum or a new lease with part of the stipulation
wording of the old lease included as you still had 10 years left on the
original agreement, you wanted to make sure you retained it for 10 more
years(read charter of 1094 and then charter of c. 1130), with you and the
nephew litigating where the old fence row was, you both go to a notary or
judge(read Henry I, Pope, John or whomever) and have it signed(read
confirmed) and so forth and witnesses in case something unforseen should
happen(read my nephew ,now your children and maybe an old farm hand who
had signed as witness on the original lease). This is really quite
understandable I believe, don't you?
Richard, is there a way you could e-mail Ms Thompsons article or know
where I can find it and what it is titled, I must have missed that post if
it was listed, sorry and thank You . I too would like to read it myself.
Will J. that is why I thought the Roger referred to in an earlier post was
Roger son of Roger do to the time frame and Sibyl was his sister not
daughter, but in the confirming of the MSS C., felt the witnesses knew who
they were so they didn't really have to provide explanations to anyone
else.
It is also why I added in the other post that if anyone knew where to look
for Henry I confirmation of this charter, the wording and/or witnesses
might be explanation enough or if they were not the same, some more
insight, if that is how they do it when a king confirms a charter?
unfortunately I am not knowledgable about those types of confirmations.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's thi
Dear Emmett,
I am really wondering what was going on so long ago.
There appear to be three versions, but are they three versions of the same
thing?
The third one, on which Richardson seems to be relying on, what was that?
An establishing of what was granted? That would give it reasons to be taken
seriously, but how seriously? I don 't think we can accept everything it
records.
I see a forgery as something produced pretending to be produced by someone
else. This third version may not fall into that category but if it falsifies
records, how much reliabilty can you give it?
Best wishes,
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third
I am really wondering what was going on so long ago.
There appear to be three versions, but are they three versions of the same
thing?
The third one, on which Richardson seems to be relying on, what was that?
An establishing of what was granted? That would give it reasons to be taken
seriously, but how seriously? I don 't think we can accept everything it
records.
I see a forgery as something produced pretending to be produced by someone
else. This third version may not fall into that category but if it falsifies
records, how much reliabilty can you give it?
Best wishes,
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "butlergrt" <butlergrt@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third
Good Afternoon All,
Good G-d Almighty, Michael-Anne, I have read your posts and from what
little I glean from them you are an extremely intelligent and articulate
personage. It would also appear as you are doing research in this field
for what ever endeavor and that you are indeed knowledable in a variety of
other fields as well, But you keep repeating the phrase over and over this
is useless, pointless etc.
In doing field work one must be abit of a detective and that means reading
between the lines.
You keep sounding as if you accept carte blanche, the concept that as the
names of the witnesses are changed, therefor the document must be a
forgery!! or of no value!! And perhaps so, then again it may be indicative
that something else may have been going on, it was indeed a confirmation
with later lands and gifts added to it, the original witneseses mostly
dead and those that had a connection to these grants albeit later, were
witnesses.
I have provided a potentiality to something different and yet you do NOT
address it other than the same mantra, why?
In fact as the grants of Warin Bussel, who was a witness to the MSS C. and
granted lands to the cell of St. Marys of Lancaster(the abbey of
Penwortham) is in and of itself enough to question the forgery aspect of
the said position of Ms Thompson.
Furthermore, besides Henry I confirming those grants in 1131/2, so did
Thomas the Archbishop of York, Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, later,
Ralph Gernon-Earl of Chester c. 1149(why I do not know but it is recorded
so), and yes, John, Count of Mortain later King John.
I would then posit that the confirmation of these later years was not that
of the original 1094 charter...BUT... the charter dated c. 1130 because
that is where the Bussels and others added land and more gifts to the cell
that would need to be confirmed by the mother Abbey. And more-so, this
does not "make MSS C. "invalid as evidence", in fact, it makes things when
viewed in a proper perspective as allowing a broader range of discovery.
40 odd years can make alot of difference in available records, these other
witnesses also made grants and gifts and they had children etc., easier to
verify.
A simple anology, I own a farm and rent part of it to you, we sign a
contract(read charter) for 50 years, you being young and I being old,
sadly I die and so do my sons, 40 years pass and a nephew wants to rent
you more land(read grants of more land and gifts) but the acreage that you
rented from me stopped at a fence long removed soon after my death. The
new acreage is an addendum or a new lease with part of the stipulation
wording of the old lease included as you still had 10 years left on the
original agreement, you wanted to make sure you retained it for 10 more
years(read charter of 1094 and then charter of c. 1130), with you and the
nephew litigating where the old fence row was, you both go to a notary or
judge(read Henry I, Pope, John or whomever) and have it signed(read
confirmed) and so forth and witnesses in case something unforseen should
happen(read my nephew ,now your children and maybe an old farm hand who
had signed as witness on the original lease). This is really quite
understandable I believe, don't you?
Richard, is there a way you could e-mail Ms Thompsons article or know
where I can find it and what it is titled, I must have missed that post if
it was listed, sorry and thank You . I too would like to read it myself.
Will J. that is why I thought the Roger referred to in an earlier post was
Roger son of Roger do to the time frame and Sibyl was his sister not
daughter, but in the confirming of the MSS C., felt the witnesses knew who
they were so they didn't really have to provide explanations to anyone
else.
It is also why I added in the other post that if anyone knew where to look
for Henry I confirmation of this charter, the wording and/or witnesses
might be explanation enough or if they were not the same, some more
insight, if that is how they do it when a king confirms a charter?
unfortunately I am not knowledgable about those types of confirmations.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
-
Gjest
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
As I was going along filling in details on the Pastons, by using Leo's site I
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451, I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
Thanks
Will Johnson
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451, I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Josef Armansperg & Von Rountchart
In a message dated 12/13/05 2:42:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
<< My posting is correct. It is not my fault that the English translation is
misleading. >>
This list is not the appropriate place to post or ask questions about moderns
even if they have medieval ancestors. So can we end this thread now? thanks.
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:
<< My posting is correct. It is not my fault that the English translation is
misleading. >>
This list is not the appropriate place to post or ask questions about moderns
even if they have medieval ancestors. So can we end this thread now? thanks.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
Dear Will,
This is very interesting. If you had looked a little further you would have
found also that her first husband died in 1504 and they were not divorced

Elizabeth is the fourth child, child one born in 1470 and the second also in
1470 (how correct can that be?)
In my system I have removed the year 1451 as year of death for Elizabeth as
by then she wasn't even born.
The source was Cahiers de Saint Louis. The interesting part is that on page
88 her parents are shown with only two children, Anne and Elizabeth.
Cahiers de Saint Louis page 841 repeats this family but now with four
daughters :
1.Mary born 19 January 1470 died 1489, married Gilbert Talbot
2.Margaret, born 19 July 1470 died in 1474
3.Agnes alias Anne, married to Gilbert Talbot
4.Elizabeth, (it does say died in 1451) married (1) John Savile (died in
1504), married (2) Richard Hastings (3) Edward Poynings (4) Robert Gargrave
Sadly, volume 30 which repeats the first so many generations does not give
this family.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
This is very interesting. If you had looked a little further you would have
found also that her first husband died in 1504 and they were not divorced
Elizabeth is the fourth child, child one born in 1470 and the second also in
1470 (how correct can that be?)
In my system I have removed the year 1451 as year of death for Elizabeth as
by then she wasn't even born.
The source was Cahiers de Saint Louis. The interesting part is that on page
88 her parents are shown with only two children, Anne and Elizabeth.
Cahiers de Saint Louis page 841 repeats this family but now with four
daughters :
1.Mary born 19 January 1470 died 1489, married Gilbert Talbot
2.Margaret, born 19 July 1470 died in 1474
3.Agnes alias Anne, married to Gilbert Talbot
4.Elizabeth, (it does say died in 1451) married (1) John Savile (died in
1504), married (2) Richard Hastings (3) Edward Poynings (4) Robert Gargrave
Sadly, volume 30 which repeats the first so many generations does not give
this family.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
As I was going along filling in details on the Pastons, by using Leo's
site I
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451,
I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death
in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
According to PA3, p. 615, William Paston was buried 7 Sept. 1496. He
left a will (PCC 12 Horne) dated 17 September 1496 (sic) and proved 28
Nov. 1496. You can get the will online for 3.50 (English pounds) and
see if he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Saville as being alive.
Interestingly, how a man who was buried on the 7th wrote a will dated
ten days later is another good question.
As I was going along filling in details on the Pastons, by using Leo's site I
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451, I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
According to PA3, p. 615, William Paston was buried 7 Sept. 1496. He
left a will (PCC 12 Horne) dated 17 September 1496 (sic) and proved 28
Nov. 1496. You can get the will online for 3.50 (English pounds) and
see if he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Saville as being alive.
Interestingly, how a man who was buried on the 7th wrote a will dated
ten days later is another good question.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Mother of Irene Angelina, Queen of Germany
Should read: "Irene ..., daughter of ISAAC II Angelus, Emperor of
Byzantium".
Curious what is currently thought as to the identity of the mother of
Irene Angelina, Queen of Germany and Sicily (d.1208), daughter of
Alexius II Angelus, Emperor of Byzantium. _Wikipedia_ states:
"The identity of Isaac's first wife is unknown, but her name, Herina,
is found on the necrology of Speyer Cathedral, where their daughter
Irene is interred. His wife Herina may have been a member of the
Palaeologus family; she was dead or divorced by 1185, when Isaac
remarried. Their children were:
Euphrosyne Angelina, a nun.
Irene Angelina, married first to Roger III of Sicily, and secondly to
Philip of Swabia
Alexius IV Angelus
By his second wife, Margaret of Hungary, Isaac had two sons:
Ioannes Angelus
Manuel Angelus"
----
At the very least, is it safe to state that "Herina" is a variant of
"Irene"? What about her possibly being "Palaiologina"?
Thanks.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Byzantium".
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> 12/13/05 04:34PM
I apologize if this has perhaps already been discussed.
Curious what is currently thought as to the identity of the mother of
Irene Angelina, Queen of Germany and Sicily (d.1208), daughter of
Alexius II Angelus, Emperor of Byzantium. _Wikipedia_ states:
"The identity of Isaac's first wife is unknown, but her name, Herina,
is found on the necrology of Speyer Cathedral, where their daughter
Irene is interred. His wife Herina may have been a member of the
Palaeologus family; she was dead or divorced by 1185, when Isaac
remarried. Their children were:
Euphrosyne Angelina, a nun.
Irene Angelina, married first to Roger III of Sicily, and secondly to
Philip of Swabia
Alexius IV Angelus
By his second wife, Margaret of Hungary, Isaac had two sons:
Ioannes Angelus
Manuel Angelus"
----
At the very least, is it safe to state that "Herina" is a variant of
"Irene"? What about her possibly being "Palaiologina"?
Thanks.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
-----Original Message-----
From: mhollick@mac.com
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 6:46 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
According to PA3, p. 615, William Paston was buried 7 Sept. 1496. He
left a will (PCC 12 Horne) dated 17 September 1496 (sic) and proved 28
Nov. 1496. You can get the will online for 3.50 (English pounds) and
see if he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Saville as being alive.
Interestingly, how a man who was buried on the 7th wrote a will dated
ten days later is another good question.
Elizabeth Saville is mentioned as a legatee in her father's will (PCC 11 Horne).
The burial date you cite, obviously in error as you suspect, was by myself brought to the attention of the author of the work you mention (while the galley proofs were still in process). William Paston's will is, indeed, dated 17 Sept. 1496, being proved 28 Nov. following.
Best,
Kevin
From: mhollick@mac.com
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 6:46 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
As I was going along filling in details on the Pastons, by using Leo's site I
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451, I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
According to PA3, p. 615, William Paston was buried 7 Sept. 1496. He
left a will (PCC 12 Horne) dated 17 September 1496 (sic) and proved 28
Nov. 1496. You can get the will online for 3.50 (English pounds) and
see if he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Saville as being alive.
Interestingly, how a man who was buried on the 7th wrote a will dated
ten days later is another good question.
Elizabeth Saville is mentioned as a legatee in her father's will (PCC 11 Horne).
The burial date you cite, obviously in error as you suspect, was by myself brought to the attention of the author of the work you mention (while the galley proofs were still in process). William Paston's will is, indeed, dated 17 Sept. 1496, being proved 28 Nov. following.
Best,
Kevin
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Mother of Irene Angelina, Queen of Germany
Dear Tony,
Surely no reason to apologize - discussing things already
discussed is the essence of history (certainly of medieval genealogy,
anyway).
From the not-too-distant past, the following extracts are
pertinent. The upshot seems to be, she may have been of the
Palaeologi, but certainty is not present. I believe this particular
discussion was the source of the Wikipedia article.
Cheers,
John
_________________________________________
SGM thread, <wife of Isaac Angelus>
16 August 2005 et seq.
_________________________________________
Don Stone
Aug 17, 9:13 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Don Stone <don.st...@verizon.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:13:08 GMT
Local: Wed, Aug 17 2005 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Akrogiali wrote:
An article by Rudolf Hiestand, "Die Erste Ehe Isaaks II Angelus und
Seine Kinder" in _Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik_ 47
(1997): 199-208, gives this first wife of Isaac Angelus (and mother
of Eirene-Maria, who m. 2nd Philipp of Swabia) as Eirene.
This comes from the necrology notices of Speyer Cathedral,
which name the Empress [Irene-] Maria, her parents Isaac and
Irene, her elder sister Euphrosyne (named, following the
Byzantine pattern, after her paternal grandmother) and brother
Manuel.
Hiestand's article is of special interest because it explores the
hypothesis that Eirene or Irene, first wife of Isaac II, is a member
of the Palaiologos family, perhaps the daughter of Georgios
Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, megas hetaireiarches (Grand Heteriarque).
This is based on a reference to Andronikos Palaiologos (probable son
of Georgios) as beloved "gambros" [brother-in-law or son-in-law,
though the former is more likely] of Emp. Isaac II in a document
(from 1191) printed in A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus's _Analekta ..._, II,
Petersburg, 1894, p. 362. Unfortunately, the genealogy of the early
Palaiologoi is somewhat murky; Lindsay Brook's "The Byzantine
Ancestry of the Prince of Wales," _The Genealogist_ 2 (1981):
3-51, gives (p. 22) Andronikos as son rather than brother of Alexios,
son of Georgios, and _The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium_, 1991,
v. 2, p. 1558, gives Andronikos as son-in-law of Alexios. In any
case, _The Doukai_ by Demetrios I. Polemis, 1968, asserts (top of
p. 156) that Georgios had a son Alexios by an unidentified wife.
In a posting dated 1 March 2003 Pierre Aronax expressed a plausible
reason
for doubting this proposed Palaiologos connection, but the matter seems
to
be still somewhat "up in the air."
-- Don Stone
_________________________________________
Peter Stewart
Aug 20, 9:44 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:44:42 GMT
Local: Sat, Aug 20 2005 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
<Nichol_st...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124218153.740506.22730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The necrology notice in question is from Speyer cathedral, so the name
"Herina" given for Maria/Eirene Angelina's mother is not from a
Byzantine
source. It was perhaps assumed by the writer from knowledge that Eirene
had
been Maria's original name, rather than from definite information about
her
mother.
Peter Stewart
_________________________________________
"Paul K Davis"
Aug 21, 5:19 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: pkd...@earthlink.net ("Paul K Davis") - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:19:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sun, Aug 21 2005 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Nevertheless, in the case at hand, we have an Irene whose mother was
Irene.
The proposition that started this commentary was that the mother was
probably non-Greek to explain this, but the father was certainly Greek
(Byzantine), so I'm not sure a this would work. I'm somewhat inclined
to
think that one of the ladies changed her name during the course of
life,
after the birth of the daughter, but this is just a guess.
Concerning the original question, it appears we have essentially no
information on Irene the mother's ancestry. The conjecture that she
was a
Palaiologos has, at best, half a scrap of evidence for it, since
Andronikos
Palaiologos' brother-in-law relationship to Isaac II can also be
explained
by Andronikos marrying a sister of Isaac, which is what Sturdza shows.
Thanks for all the discussion of the question.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd...@earthlink.net]
____________________________________________
Peter Stewart
Aug 21, 6:29 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 GMT
Local: Sun, Aug 21 2005 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
""Paul K Davis"" <pkd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:410-220058021221849477@earthlink.net...
No, we have a woman baptised Eirene in Constantinople, and renamed
Maria on
marrying in the west, whose mother having lived and died in the east
was
posthumously called Herina in Germany, on unknown authority or perhaps
by
mistake & from no authority at all.
This is not proof of anything to set against the overwhelming evidence
that
Byzantines did NOT give a parent's name to a child. If the first wife
of
Isaakios Angelos was a Palaiologina as conjectured, she may also have
been
daughter of an Eirene, passing her own mother's name to her second
daughter.
But again, there is no proof.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
Surely no reason to apologize - discussing things already
discussed is the essence of history (certainly of medieval genealogy,
anyway).
From the not-too-distant past, the following extracts are
pertinent. The upshot seems to be, she may have been of the
Palaeologi, but certainty is not present. I believe this particular
discussion was the source of the Wikipedia article.
Cheers,
John
_________________________________________
SGM thread, <wife of Isaac Angelus>
16 August 2005 et seq.
_________________________________________
Don Stone
Aug 17, 9:13 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: Don Stone <don.st...@verizon.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:13:08 GMT
Local: Wed, Aug 17 2005 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Akrogiali wrote:
It is highly questionable if his first wife was Greek (Byzantine Lady). My
guess is that she was not and was baptised using an Orthodox name.
An article by Rudolf Hiestand, "Die Erste Ehe Isaaks II Angelus und
Seine Kinder" in _Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik_ 47
(1997): 199-208, gives this first wife of Isaac Angelus (and mother
of Eirene-Maria, who m. 2nd Philipp of Swabia) as Eirene.
This comes from the necrology notices of Speyer Cathedral,
which name the Empress [Irene-] Maria, her parents Isaac and
Irene, her elder sister Euphrosyne (named, following the
Byzantine pattern, after her paternal grandmother) and brother
Manuel.
Hiestand's article is of special interest because it explores the
hypothesis that Eirene or Irene, first wife of Isaac II, is a member
of the Palaiologos family, perhaps the daughter of Georgios
Palaiologos Komnenodoukas, megas hetaireiarches (Grand Heteriarque).
This is based on a reference to Andronikos Palaiologos (probable son
of Georgios) as beloved "gambros" [brother-in-law or son-in-law,
though the former is more likely] of Emp. Isaac II in a document
(from 1191) printed in A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus's _Analekta ..._, II,
Petersburg, 1894, p. 362. Unfortunately, the genealogy of the early
Palaiologoi is somewhat murky; Lindsay Brook's "The Byzantine
Ancestry of the Prince of Wales," _The Genealogist_ 2 (1981):
3-51, gives (p. 22) Andronikos as son rather than brother of Alexios,
son of Georgios, and _The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium_, 1991,
v. 2, p. 1558, gives Andronikos as son-in-law of Alexios. In any
case, _The Doukai_ by Demetrios I. Polemis, 1968, asserts (top of
p. 156) that Georgios had a son Alexios by an unidentified wife.
In a posting dated 1 March 2003 Pierre Aronax expressed a plausible
reason
for doubting this proposed Palaiologos connection, but the matter seems
to
be still somewhat "up in the air."
-- Don Stone
_________________________________________
Peter Stewart
Aug 20, 9:44 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:44:42 GMT
Local: Sat, Aug 20 2005 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
<Nichol_st...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124218153.740506.22730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Paul K Davis" wrote:
There seems to be a belief, in several internet databases, that the wife
of
Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelus, and mother-in-law of Philip of
Swabia,
was a daughter of Byzantine emperor Andronikos I Komnenos. I have not
found any support for this in any of the library sources I have
consulted.
Do any of you know if this is wishful thinking, or an uncertain
possibility, or something more solid that I simply have not found a good
source for yet?
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd...@earthlink.net]
There are several previous discussions of the wife of Isaac Angelos in
the archives of this newsgroup. One is titled "Philip of Swabia 's
mother-in-law" and another is "First Wife of Isaac II Angelos". It
would appear, based on the necrology notices of Irene Angelina, the
wife of Philip of Swabia, that her parents were named Isaac and Irene.
This would be unusual in the Greek tradition, naming a daughter after a
mother.
The necrology notice in question is from Speyer cathedral, so the name
"Herina" given for Maria/Eirene Angelina's mother is not from a
Byzantine
source. It was perhaps assumed by the writer from knowledge that Eirene
had
been Maria's original name, rather than from definite information about
her
mother.
Peter Stewart
_________________________________________
"Paul K Davis"
Aug 21, 5:19 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: pkd...@earthlink.net ("Paul K Davis") - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:19:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sun, Aug 21 2005 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Nevertheless, in the case at hand, we have an Irene whose mother was
Irene.
The proposition that started this commentary was that the mother was
probably non-Greek to explain this, but the father was certainly Greek
(Byzantine), so I'm not sure a this would work. I'm somewhat inclined
to
think that one of the ladies changed her name during the course of
life,
after the birth of the daughter, but this is just a guess.
Concerning the original question, it appears we have essentially no
information on Irene the mother's ancestry. The conjecture that she
was a
Palaiologos has, at best, half a scrap of evidence for it, since
Andronikos
Palaiologos' brother-in-law relationship to Isaac II can also be
explained
by Andronikos marrying a sister of Isaac, which is what Sturdza shows.
Thanks for all the discussion of the question.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd...@earthlink.net]
____________________________________________
Peter Stewart
Aug 21, 6:29 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:29:51 GMT
Local: Sun, Aug 21 2005 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: wife of Isaac Angelus
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
""Paul K Davis"" <pkd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:410-220058021221849477@earthlink.net...
Nevertheless, in the case at hand, we have an Irene whose mother was
Irene.
No, we have a woman baptised Eirene in Constantinople, and renamed
Maria on
marrying in the west, whose mother having lived and died in the east
was
posthumously called Herina in Germany, on unknown authority or perhaps
by
mistake & from no authority at all.
This is not proof of anything to set against the overwhelming evidence
that
Byzantines did NOT give a parent's name to a child. If the first wife
of
Isaakios Angelos was a Palaiologina as conjectured, she may also have
been
daughter of an Eirene, passing her own mother's name to her second
daughter.
But again, there is no proof.
Peter Stewart
"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
Should read: "Irene ..., daughter of ISAAC II Angelus, Emperor of
Byzantium".
"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> 12/13/05 04:34PM
I apologize if this has perhaps already been discussed.
Curious what is currently thought as to the identity of the mother of
Irene Angelina, Queen of Germany and Sicily (d.1208), daughter of
Alexius II Angelus, Emperor of Byzantium. _Wikipedia_ states:
"The identity of Isaac's first wife is unknown, but her name, Herina,
is found on the necrology of Speyer Cathedral, where their daughter
Irene is interred. His wife Herina may have been a member of the
Palaeologus family; she was dead or divorced by 1185, when Isaac
remarried. Their children were:
Euphrosyne Angelina, a nun.
Irene Angelina, married first to Roger III of Sicily, and secondly to
Philip of Swabia
Alexius IV Angelus
By his second wife, Margaret of Hungary, Isaac had two sons:
Ioannes Angelus
Manuel Angelus"
----
At the very least, is it safe to state that "Herina" is a variant of
"Irene"? What about her possibly being "Palaiologina"?
Thanks.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
CE Wood
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
The will is available for free at:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/to ... ision=div1
The will begins: "In Dei nomine, amen. The vijth day of the moneth of
September in the yere of our Lord God ml cccclxxxxvj."
Since the final "j" in the above is definitely an "i", one would assume
the "j" in "The vijth" is also an "i", thus making the date of the will
7 Sep 1496.
CE Wood
Kevin Bradford wrote:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/to ... ision=div1
The will begins: "In Dei nomine, amen. The vijth day of the moneth of
September in the yere of our Lord God ml cccclxxxxvj."
Since the final "j" in the above is definitely an "i", one would assume
the "j" in "The vijth" is also an "i", thus making the date of the will
7 Sep 1496.
CE Wood
Kevin Bradford wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: mhollick@mac.com
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 6:46 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
As I was going along filling in details on the Pastons, by using Leo's site I
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451, I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
According to PA3, p. 615, William Paston was buried 7 Sept. 1496. He
left a will (PCC 12 Horne) dated 17 September 1496 (sic) and proved 28
Nov. 1496. You can get the will online for 3.50 (English pounds) and
see if he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Saville as being alive.
Interestingly, how a man who was buried on the 7th wrote a will dated
ten days later is another good question.
Elizabeth Saville is mentioned as a legatee in her father's will (PCC 11 Horne).
The burial date you cite, obviously in error as you suspect, was by myself brought to the attention of the author of the work you mention (while the galley proofs were still in process). William Paston's will is, indeed, dated 17 Sept. 1496, being proved 28 Nov. following.
Best,
Kevin
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: William Paston / Agnes Berry (or Berre) or .... Barre pe
For further details re: William Paston the elder, see:
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... t&id=I1803
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 8:01 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: William Paston / Agnes Berry (or Berre) or .... Barre perhaps ?
On Leo's great web site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO
we see Agnes Berry and her husband William Paston with no dates and no
parents for Agnes.
I now present primary documentation showing
1) Agnes and William were both living in 1420
2) Agnes' father was Edmund Berre, Knt
3) Edmund Berre in 1420 was married with an Alice who, may or may not, be
Agnes' mother
4) Edmund Berry and Alice his wife were alive in 1420
5) the family held the manor of Oxnead which points to possible future
research
Will Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Record Office: Dr Schram's Collection
DR. SCHRAM'S COLLECTION
Catalogue Ref. MC 170
FILE - Appointment - ref. MC 170/5, 634 x 3(a) - date: 1st Sept. 1420
[from Scope and Content] Appointment by John Hevenyngham knight, John
Mannyngge, John Roys, John Whitewell, Thomas Stodhaghe and Robert Halysthorp of John
Dam jun., Alan parson of the church of Oxnead and William Havill as attorneys
to deliver seisin to William Paston of Paston and Agnes his wife daughter of
Edmund Berre knight and Alice his wife in the manor of Oxnead, the advowson of
the church of the said manor, and lands in Oxnead, Skeyton, Brampton, Burgh,
Tuttington, Mar sham and Aylsham formerly of Francis who was wife of Robert
Salle knight or William Trussell knight her nephew and heir.
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... t&id=I1803
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 8:01 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: William Paston / Agnes Berry (or Berre) or .... Barre perhaps ?
On Leo's great web site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO
we see Agnes Berry and her husband William Paston with no dates and no
parents for Agnes.
I now present primary documentation showing
1) Agnes and William were both living in 1420
2) Agnes' father was Edmund Berre, Knt
3) Edmund Berre in 1420 was married with an Alice who, may or may not, be
Agnes' mother
4) Edmund Berry and Alice his wife were alive in 1420
5) the family held the manor of Oxnead which points to possible future
research
Will Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Record Office: Dr Schram's Collection
DR. SCHRAM'S COLLECTION
Catalogue Ref. MC 170
FILE - Appointment - ref. MC 170/5, 634 x 3(a) - date: 1st Sept. 1420
[from Scope and Content] Appointment by John Hevenyngham knight, John
Mannyngge, John Roys, John Whitewell, Thomas Stodhaghe and Robert Halysthorp of John
Dam jun., Alan parson of the church of Oxnead and William Havill as attorneys
to deliver seisin to William Paston of Paston and Agnes his wife daughter of
Edmund Berre knight and Alice his wife in the manor of Oxnead, the advowson of
the church of the said manor, and lands in Oxnead, Skeyton, Brampton, Burgh,
Tuttington, Mar sham and Aylsham formerly of Francis who was wife of Robert
Salle knight or William Trussell knight her nephew and heir.
-
Kelly Leighton
Re: Domesday Book - Penguin Books edition
Michael,
Yes, that is the version I'm referring to. ISBN 0-140-51535-6, paperback.
Charlotte just sent me a page on our Reinbert of Sussex, ancestor of the Echyngham family, for comparison with a version she acquired from a library in California and though the wording for some items is slightly different (i.e. mine says knights vs. men-at-arms, TRE vs before 1066), it seems a faithful source.
One interesting fact, however, Charlotte's page states that a certain piece of land referred to was in Ninfield hundred, but Pg 41 Section IX does not refer to it as such. Only a bit more of Charlotte's version would clarify this.
Thank you and Ginny for the responses. I actually was expecting more of an interest in this source from list readers. I was ecstatic when I found my copy (while my wife looked on in embarrassed silence and tried to walk away quietly.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
Yes, that is the version I'm referring to. ISBN 0-140-51535-6, paperback.
Charlotte just sent me a page on our Reinbert of Sussex, ancestor of the Echyngham family, for comparison with a version she acquired from a library in California and though the wording for some items is slightly different (i.e. mine says knights vs. men-at-arms, TRE vs before 1066), it seems a faithful source.
One interesting fact, however, Charlotte's page states that a certain piece of land referred to was in Ninfield hundred, but Pg 41 Section IX does not refer to it as such. Only a bit more of Charlotte's version would clarify this.
Thank you and Ginny for the responses. I actually was expecting more of an interest in this source from list readers. I was ecstatic when I found my copy (while my wife looked on in embarrassed silence and tried to walk away quietly.
Take care,
Kelly in RI
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third
In a message dated 12/13/2005 5:12:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:
Good Afternoon All,
Good G-d Almighty, Michael-Anne, I have read your posts and from what
little I glean from them you are an extremely intelligent and articulate
personage. It would also appear as you are doing research in this field
for what ever endeavor and that you are indeed knowledable in a variety of
other fields as well, But you keep repeating the phrase over and over this
is useless, pointless etc.
In doing field work one must be abit of a detective and that means reading
between the lines.
You keep sounding as if you accept carte blanche, the concept that as the
names of the witnesses are changed, therefor the document must be a
forgery!! or of no value!! And perhaps so, then again it may be indicative
that something else may have been going on, it was indeed a confirmation
with later lands and gifts added to it, the original witneseses mostly
dead and those that had a connection to these grants albeit later, were
witnesses.
I have provided a potentiality to something different and yet you do NOT
address it other than the same mantra, why?
In fact as the grants of Warin Bussel, who was a witness to the MSS C. and
granted lands to the cell of St. Marys of Lancaster(the abbey of
Penwortham) is in and of itself enough to question the forgery aspect of
the said position of Ms Thompson.
Furthermore, besides Henry I confirming those grants in 1131/2, so did
Thomas the Archbishop of York, Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, later,
Ralph Gernon-Earl of Chester c. 1149(why I do not know but it is recorded
so), and yes, John, Count of Mortain later King John.
I would then posit that the confirmation of these later years was not that
of the original 1094 charter...BUT... the charter dated c. 1130 because
that is where the Bussels and others added land and more gifts to the cell
that would need to be confirmed by the mother Abbey. And more-so, this
does not "make MSS C. "invalid as evidence", in fact, it makes things when
viewed in a proper perspective as allowing a broader range of discovery.
40 odd years can make alot of difference in available records, these other
witnesses also made grants and gifts and they had children etc., easier to
verify.
A simple anology, I own a farm and rent part of it to you, we sign a
contract(read charter) for 50 years, you being young and I being old,
sadly I die and so do my sons, 40 years pass and a nephew wants to rent
you more land(read grants of more land and gifts) but the acreage that you
rented from me stopped at a fence long removed soon after my death. The
new acreage is an addendum or a new lease with part of the stipulation
wording of the old lease included as you still had 10 years left on the
original agreement, you wanted to make sure you retained it for 10 more
years(read charter of 1094 and then charter of c. 1130), with you and the
nephew litigating where the old fence row was, you both go to a notary or
judge(read Henry I, Pope, John or whomever) and have it signed(read
confirmed) and so forth and witnesses in case something unforseen should
happen(read my nephew ,now your children and maybe an old farm hand who
had signed as witness on the original lease). This is really quite
understandable I believe, don't you?
Dear Emmett,
I will try to explain why I discredit this charter as evidence. It was a
very common practice of Abbeys and priories in this era to make corrections
[additions] to foundation charters. They did this usually when a piece or pieces
of land were in dispute between the abbey and another party. By changing the
charter and having it confirmed [as this charter was by King John] it gave
the abbey a claim to the disputed land as they could state it was given to the
abbey in their foundation charter.
When a charter is modified you cannot be sure that someone did not just take
names of local people and make it appear that they witnessed the charter.
This is why I keep reiterating this point.
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
butlergrt@aol.com writes:
Good Afternoon All,
Good G-d Almighty, Michael-Anne, I have read your posts and from what
little I glean from them you are an extremely intelligent and articulate
personage. It would also appear as you are doing research in this field
for what ever endeavor and that you are indeed knowledable in a variety of
other fields as well, But you keep repeating the phrase over and over this
is useless, pointless etc.
In doing field work one must be abit of a detective and that means reading
between the lines.
You keep sounding as if you accept carte blanche, the concept that as the
names of the witnesses are changed, therefor the document must be a
forgery!! or of no value!! And perhaps so, then again it may be indicative
that something else may have been going on, it was indeed a confirmation
with later lands and gifts added to it, the original witneseses mostly
dead and those that had a connection to these grants albeit later, were
witnesses.
I have provided a potentiality to something different and yet you do NOT
address it other than the same mantra, why?
In fact as the grants of Warin Bussel, who was a witness to the MSS C. and
granted lands to the cell of St. Marys of Lancaster(the abbey of
Penwortham) is in and of itself enough to question the forgery aspect of
the said position of Ms Thompson.
Furthermore, besides Henry I confirming those grants in 1131/2, so did
Thomas the Archbishop of York, Pope Innocent II on May 3, 1139, later,
Ralph Gernon-Earl of Chester c. 1149(why I do not know but it is recorded
so), and yes, John, Count of Mortain later King John.
I would then posit that the confirmation of these later years was not that
of the original 1094 charter...BUT... the charter dated c. 1130 because
that is where the Bussels and others added land and more gifts to the cell
that would need to be confirmed by the mother Abbey. And more-so, this
does not "make MSS C. "invalid as evidence", in fact, it makes things when
viewed in a proper perspective as allowing a broader range of discovery.
40 odd years can make alot of difference in available records, these other
witnesses also made grants and gifts and they had children etc., easier to
verify.
A simple anology, I own a farm and rent part of it to you, we sign a
contract(read charter) for 50 years, you being young and I being old,
sadly I die and so do my sons, 40 years pass and a nephew wants to rent
you more land(read grants of more land and gifts) but the acreage that you
rented from me stopped at a fence long removed soon after my death. The
new acreage is an addendum or a new lease with part of the stipulation
wording of the old lease included as you still had 10 years left on the
original agreement, you wanted to make sure you retained it for 10 more
years(read charter of 1094 and then charter of c. 1130), with you and the
nephew litigating where the old fence row was, you both go to a notary or
judge(read Henry I, Pope, John or whomever) and have it signed(read
confirmed) and so forth and witnesses in case something unforseen should
happen(read my nephew ,now your children and maybe an old farm hand who
had signed as witness on the original lease). This is really quite
understandable I believe, don't you?
Dear Emmett,
I will try to explain why I discredit this charter as evidence. It was a
very common practice of Abbeys and priories in this era to make corrections
[additions] to foundation charters. They did this usually when a piece or pieces
of land were in dispute between the abbey and another party. By changing the
charter and having it confirmed [as this charter was by King John] it gave
the abbey a claim to the disputed land as they could state it was given to the
abbey in their foundation charter.
When a charter is modified you cannot be sure that someone did not just take
names of local people and make it appear that they witnessed the charter.
This is why I keep reiterating this point.
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
-
Gjest
Re: Joan Willoughby, Baroness of Eresby d 1461/2
On Leo's great web site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 3&tree=LEO
we see Joan, and her husband Richard Welles, 7th Lord Welles and 7th Lord
Willoughby of Eresby
For this marriage Leo has 1446
I now present primary documentation showing that the marriage occurred on 26
Sep 1435
Will Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Archives: Manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster [2ANC]
Manuscripts Of The Earl Of Ancaster
Catalogue Ref. ANC
Creator(s): Bertie family of Grimsthorpe Castle Lincolnshire, Barons
Willoughby De Eresby, Earls of Lindsey and Dukes of Ancaster and Kesteven
Burrell family of Grimsthorpe Castle Lincolnshire, Barons Willoughby De
Eresby, Barons Gwydir
Heathcote family of Grimsthorpe Castle Lincolnshire, Barons Willoughby De
Eresby, Barons Aveland of Aveland and Earls of Ancaster
Family Documents - ref. 2ANC3
Willoughby
FILE - Notification of a grant in fee. - ref. 2ANC3/A/19 - date: 1 October,
1435
Scope and Content Thomas Rygge of Welton, Thomas atte Halle of Candlesby and
John Ashe to Robert Waterton and Thomas Cumberworth kts., John Langholme,
John Raynold parson of Trusthorp and Thomas Spenser. Property: manors of
Lylleford co. Northampton, Hokyngton co. Cambridge, Pinchbeck and Belchford which they
have of the grant of Robert Wylughby and Simon Felbrygg kts., excepting the
bodies and sequele of John Grene senior and junior and Thomas Grene, villeins
of Belchford. The grantees are to hold the manors for 6 years from the 26
September last past when a marriage (matrimonium) was celebrated between Joan
daughter of Robert Wylughby and Richard son and heir of Lyon lord Wells. If at the
end of this time Joan and Richard have not dissented to the marriage they are
to have the manors for life. If either dissent after the end of the term the
manors are to pass to John archbishop of York, Robert bishop of London, William
Fitzhugh kt., Lord of Ravenswath Robert Roos, William Tyrwhyt kts., William
Paston justice of [...] Pleas William Caundysh sergeant at law, Richard Haugh,
Robert Forman, John Raithby, Richard Yerburgh, John Wyles and John Preston. If
neither dissent, after their deaths the manors are to remain to same
feoffees. 3 seal tags, 1 armorial seal. Endorsed 5.
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 3&tree=LEO
we see Joan, and her husband Richard Welles, 7th Lord Welles and 7th Lord
Willoughby of Eresby
For this marriage Leo has 1446
I now present primary documentation showing that the marriage occurred on 26
Sep 1435
Will Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Archives: Manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster [2ANC]
Manuscripts Of The Earl Of Ancaster
Catalogue Ref. ANC
Creator(s): Bertie family of Grimsthorpe Castle Lincolnshire, Barons
Willoughby De Eresby, Earls of Lindsey and Dukes of Ancaster and Kesteven
Burrell family of Grimsthorpe Castle Lincolnshire, Barons Willoughby De
Eresby, Barons Gwydir
Heathcote family of Grimsthorpe Castle Lincolnshire, Barons Willoughby De
Eresby, Barons Aveland of Aveland and Earls of Ancaster
Family Documents - ref. 2ANC3
Willoughby
FILE - Notification of a grant in fee. - ref. 2ANC3/A/19 - date: 1 October,
1435
Scope and Content Thomas Rygge of Welton, Thomas atte Halle of Candlesby and
John Ashe to Robert Waterton and Thomas Cumberworth kts., John Langholme,
John Raynold parson of Trusthorp and Thomas Spenser. Property: manors of
Lylleford co. Northampton, Hokyngton co. Cambridge, Pinchbeck and Belchford which they
have of the grant of Robert Wylughby and Simon Felbrygg kts., excepting the
bodies and sequele of John Grene senior and junior and Thomas Grene, villeins
of Belchford. The grantees are to hold the manors for 6 years from the 26
September last past when a marriage (matrimonium) was celebrated between Joan
daughter of Robert Wylughby and Richard son and heir of Lyon lord Wells. If at the
end of this time Joan and Richard have not dissented to the marriage they are
to have the manors for life. If either dissent after the end of the term the
manors are to pass to John archbishop of York, Robert bishop of London, William
Fitzhugh kt., Lord of Ravenswath Robert Roos, William Tyrwhyt kts., William
Paston justice of [...] Pleas William Caundysh sergeant at law, Richard Haugh,
Robert Forman, John Raithby, Richard Yerburgh, John Wyles and John Preston. If
neither dissent, after their deaths the manors are to remain to same
feoffees. 3 seal tags, 1 armorial seal. Endorsed 5.
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third
In a message dated 12/13/05 5:09:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:
<< When a charter is modified you cannot be sure that someone did not just
take
names of local people and make it appear that they witnessed the charter. >>
But MichaelAnne you have to admit that the mere *fact* that these names
appear on this charter must indicate *some* thing about the names.
Either
A) they were names of local people of some importance or
B) they were names of people the forgers thought *should* be listed as they
had or had had interest in the properties in question.
Either choice indicates something we can still glean from the names listed.
Will Johnson
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:
<< When a charter is modified you cannot be sure that someone did not just
take
names of local people and make it appear that they witnessed the charter. >>
But MichaelAnne you have to admit that the mere *fact* that these names
appear on this charter must indicate *some* thing about the names.
Either
A) they were names of local people of some importance or
B) they were names of people the forgers thought *should* be listed as they
had or had had interest in the properties in question.
Either choice indicates something we can still glean from the names listed.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
In a message dated 12/13/05 4:14:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
plantagenet60@earthlink.net writes:
<< Elizabeth Saville is mentioned as a legatee in her father's will (PCC 11
Horne). >>
It appears then "Elizabeth Saville" being mentioned, that instead "my
daughter Elizabeth" is mentioned.
plantagenet60@earthlink.net writes:
<< Elizabeth Saville is mentioned as a legatee in her father's will (PCC 11
Horne). >>
It appears then "Elizabeth Saville" being mentioned, that instead "my
daughter Elizabeth" is mentioned.
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
The transcript you cite below is incorrect. I have a copy of the original will, on which the date is clearly written "17" Sept.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: CE Wood <wood_ce@msn.com>
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 8:39 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
The will is available for free at:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/to ... ision=div1
The will begins: "In Dei nomine, amen. The vijth day of the moneth of
September in the yere of our Lord God ml cccclxxxxvj."
Since the final "j" in the above is definitely an "i", one would assume
the "j" in "The vijth" is also an "i", thus making the date of the will
7 Sep 1496.
CE Wood
Kevin Bradford wrote:
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: CE Wood <wood_ce@msn.com>
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 8:39 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
The will is available for free at:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/to ... ision=div1
The will begins: "In Dei nomine, amen. The vijth day of the moneth of
September in the yere of our Lord God ml cccclxxxxvj."
Since the final "j" in the above is definitely an "i", one would assume
the "j" in "The vijth" is also an "i", thus making the date of the will
7 Sep 1496.
CE Wood
Kevin Bradford wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: mhollick@mac.com
Sent: Dec 13, 2005 6:46 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elizabeth Paston d 1451
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
As I was going along filling in details on the Pastons, by using Leo's site I
came across this entry
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 1&tree=LEO
Here we see Elizabeth Paston d 1451 married
John Saville of Thornhill and had four children
However her own father William Paston is listed as b 28 Jun 1434
Now while William could, just remotely, have had Elizabeth before 1451, I
highly doubt she could have married and had four children before her death in
that year. Can someone clarify this issue?
According to PA3, p. 615, William Paston was buried 7 Sept. 1496. He
left a will (PCC 12 Horne) dated 17 September 1496 (sic) and proved 28
Nov. 1496. You can get the will online for 3.50 (English pounds) and
see if he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Saville as being alive.
Interestingly, how a man who was buried on the 7th wrote a will dated
ten days later is another good question.
Elizabeth Saville is mentioned as a legatee in her father's will (PCC 11 Horne).
The burial date you cite, obviously in error as you suspect, was by myself brought to the attention of the author of the work you mention (while the galley proofs were still in process). William Paston's will is, indeed, dated 17 Sept. 1496, being proved 28 Nov. following.
Best,
Kevin
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third
Will Johnson wrote:
That may be true up to a point, but the great value of a genuine charter is
that it's a contemporary legal document, and is much less likely to contain
errors than a later concoction.
In this case, an attempt is being made to argue a chronological point. If
the charter was forged in the 1130s, there is no assurance that the names of
the witnesses were chronologically appropriate, even if they were real
people remembered from a few decades ago.
Chris Phillips
But MichaelAnne you have to admit that the mere *fact* that these names
appear on this charter must indicate *some* thing about the names.
Either
A) they were names of local people of some importance or
B) they were names of people the forgers thought *should* be listed as
they
had or had had interest in the properties in question.
Either choice indicates something we can still glean from the names
listed.
That may be true up to a point, but the great value of a genuine charter is
that it's a contemporary legal document, and is much less likely to contain
errors than a later concoction.
In this case, an attempt is being made to argue a chronological point. If
the charter was forged in the 1130s, there is no assurance that the names of
the witnesses were chronologically appropriate, even if they were real
people remembered from a few decades ago.
Chris Phillips
-
butlergrt
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou'sreply
Good Morning Chris and All,
That is true to a point Chris, but the interesting thing is other than
Godfrey the sheriff and Albert Greslet(Grelley),at least the names such as
Warin Bussel, Albert Bussel his successor, P. de Vilers, and Ulf son of
Thorolf are CONTEMPORARY to that time period not from a few decades ago.
They are not only
Chronologically appropriate but some, such as Warin Bussel, continued to
give gifts of land etc. up until his death and confirmed by his son
Richard with additional gifts between 1153-60 with the advowsons of
Leyland and N. Meols to the Abbey of Penwortham the daughter cell of the
Abbey of St. Marys Lancaster.
Read my post Godfrey the sheriff, witnesses, 258... where all the
documentation is, and see if this adds more to the concept that this is
not a forgery as I posit but a confirmation and the granting of new lands
in addition. I think you will understand more then.
Best Regards,
Emmett
That is true to a point Chris, but the interesting thing is other than
Godfrey the sheriff and Albert Greslet(Grelley),at least the names such as
Warin Bussel, Albert Bussel his successor, P. de Vilers, and Ulf son of
Thorolf are CONTEMPORARY to that time period not from a few decades ago.
They are not only
Chronologically appropriate but some, such as Warin Bussel, continued to
give gifts of land etc. up until his death and confirmed by his son
Richard with additional gifts between 1153-60 with the advowsons of
Leyland and N. Meols to the Abbey of Penwortham the daughter cell of the
Abbey of St. Marys Lancaster.
Read my post Godfrey the sheriff, witnesses, 258... where all the
documentation is, and see if this adds more to the concept that this is
not a forgery as I posit but a confirmation and the granting of new lands
in addition. I think you will understand more then.
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou'sreply
Emmett Butler wrote:
I'm sorry, but there have been rather a lot of posts, and I'm not sure which
one you're referring to.
Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting version C is a _genuine_
charter from the 1130s? If so, I don't understand how it can be witnessed by
Godfrey the sheriff, who witnessed the other versions that apparently date
from the 1090s.
Chris Phillips
That is true to a point Chris, but the interesting thing is other than
Godfrey the sheriff and Albert Greslet(Grelley),at least the names such as
Warin Bussel, Albert Bussel his successor, P. de Vilers, and Ulf son of
Thorolf are CONTEMPORARY to that time period not from a few decades ago.
They are not only
Chronologically appropriate but some, such as Warin Bussel, continued to
give gifts of land etc. up until his death and confirmed by his son
Richard with additional gifts between 1153-60 with the advowsons of
Leyland and N. Meols to the Abbey of Penwortham the daughter cell of the
Abbey of St. Marys Lancaster.
Read my post Godfrey the sheriff, witnesses, 258... where all the
documentation is, and see if this adds more to the concept that this is
not a forgery as I posit but a confirmation and the granting of new lands
in addition. I think you will understand more then.
I'm sorry, but there have been rather a lot of posts, and I'm not sure which
one you're referring to.
Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting version C is a _genuine_
charter from the 1130s? If so, I don't understand how it can be witnessed by
Godfrey the sheriff, who witnessed the other versions that apparently date
from the 1090s.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger of Poitou's third
In a message dated 12/14/2005 1:56:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
In this case, an attempt is being made to argue a chronological point. If
the charter was forged in the 1130s, there is no assurance that the names of
the witnesses were chronologically appropriate, even if they were real
people remembered from a few decades ago.
That isn't the argument however. The argument is merely that the names had
*some* meaning, whatever that meaning might be or have been thought to have
been. The names are not without *any* use.
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
In this case, an attempt is being made to argue a chronological point. If
the charter was forged in the 1130s, there is no assurance that the names of
the witnesses were chronologically appropriate, even if they were real
people remembered from a few decades ago.
That isn't the argument however. The argument is merely that the names had
*some* meaning, whatever that meaning might be or have been thought to have
been. The names are not without *any* use.
Will Johnson
-
butlergrt
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
Good Morning Chris and All,
Hi Chris, yes that is what I am suggesting. The post was Dec. 13, 2005
9:28 P.M., listed as Godfrey the sheriff, witnesses,chartu. 258....,
Chris we are only talking 35 or so years here, if Godfrey was say in his
20"s or 30's, he would have only have been in his early 50' or 60's and
more than no problem to witness a confirmation of which he had been part
of the problem in the beginning if he was still alive.
It then would have to be construed that Godfrey was not exiled in 1102
with Roger and may have been the case if he was sheriff of the crown and
not of Roger. If it was not the case, I would find it highly unlikely they
would have used Godfrey the sheriff, as listed as witness, in the 1130
document, because as sheriff, it would be widely known then that he was
not at that time, if it were not so, ans the forgery mopre than
self-evident. I truly believe they held their lands in more regard than
their children or wives, and any charter pretaining to the giving or
recieving of lands,would I believe, have been closely scrutinized. Land
represented survival, wealth and prestige, even today would not someone
scrutinize a document regarding their land holdings?
Best
Emmett
Hi Chris, yes that is what I am suggesting. The post was Dec. 13, 2005
9:28 P.M., listed as Godfrey the sheriff, witnesses,chartu. 258....,
Chris we are only talking 35 or so years here, if Godfrey was say in his
20"s or 30's, he would have only have been in his early 50' or 60's and
more than no problem to witness a confirmation of which he had been part
of the problem in the beginning if he was still alive.
It then would have to be construed that Godfrey was not exiled in 1102
with Roger and may have been the case if he was sheriff of the crown and
not of Roger. If it was not the case, I would find it highly unlikely they
would have used Godfrey the sheriff, as listed as witness, in the 1130
document, because as sheriff, it would be widely known then that he was
not at that time, if it were not so, ans the forgery mopre than
self-evident. I truly believe they held their lands in more regard than
their children or wives, and any charter pretaining to the giving or
recieving of lands,would I believe, have been closely scrutinized. Land
represented survival, wealth and prestige, even today would not someone
scrutinize a document regarding their land holdings?
Best
Emmett
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
Emmett Butler wrote:
Well, I think it sould be feasible to check whether a Godfrey was really
sheriff of Lancashire from the 1090s until the 1130s. If nothing else,
presumably the sheriff would be named in the 1129-1130 pipe roll, which
survives and has been printed.
If course, if this were the case, it would show Orm fitz Ketel was living in
1130s, not in the 1090s as originally claimed.
Chris Phillips
Hi Chris, yes that is what I am suggesting. The post was Dec. 13, 2005
9:28 P.M., listed as Godfrey the sheriff, witnesses,chartu. 258....,
Chris we are only talking 35 or so years here, if Godfrey was say in his
20"s or 30's, he would have only have been in his early 50' or 60's and
more than no problem to witness a confirmation of which he had been part
of the problem in the beginning if he was still alive.
Well, I think it sould be feasible to check whether a Godfrey was really
sheriff of Lancashire from the 1090s until the 1130s. If nothing else,
presumably the sheriff would be named in the 1129-1130 pipe roll, which
survives and has been printed.
If course, if this were the case, it would show Orm fitz Ketel was living in
1130s, not in the 1090s as originally claimed.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn
In a message dated 12/8/05 5:07:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:
<< 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. >>
Thank you MichaelAnne for these proof texts that show
1) Some Hugh de Moreville and Beatrix de Bello Campo being confirmed in their
grants in 1150/2
2) Some Beatrix de Bello Campo granting land in own right 1150/2
3) Some Richard de Moreville confirming grants by his mother and sister in
1152
But what is the proof text that Hugh de Moreville, Constable of Scotland died
in 1162?
Thanks
Will Johnson
ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:
<< 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. >>
Thank you MichaelAnne for these proof texts that show
1) Some Hugh de Moreville and Beatrix de Bello Campo being confirmed in their
grants in 1150/2
2) Some Beatrix de Bello Campo granting land in own right 1150/2
3) Some Richard de Moreville confirming grants by his mother and sister in
1152
But what is the proof text that Hugh de Moreville, Constable of Scotland died
in 1162?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
Dear Chris,
What You suggest for Godfrey the Sheriff could also be
possible for Orm Fitz Ketel.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
What You suggest for Godfrey the Sheriff could also be
possible for Orm Fitz Ketel.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Here is the problem. The fact that the document has been altered in
some manner leaves us only able to conclude that the names are on there
because someone thought they should be. Since we don't know the
criteria that the person who made this decision used this is not very
informative, but we can't assume anything else. It is begging the
question to pick and choose which names are indicative of whatever we
want to conclude vs which we choose to ignore. Basically, unless
someone comes up with a clear and coherent argument that clarifies the
situation (including hard dates for everyone on it from independent
sources, and an explanation of what it is all about that is clear and
comprehensive), the document can't be used to date any of the
individuals listed on it.
taf
Dear Chris,
What You suggest for Godfrey the Sheriff could also be
possible for Orm Fitz Ketel.
Here is the problem. The fact that the document has been altered in
some manner leaves us only able to conclude that the names are on there
because someone thought they should be. Since we don't know the
criteria that the person who made this decision used this is not very
informative, but we can't assume anything else. It is begging the
question to pick and choose which names are indicative of whatever we
want to conclude vs which we choose to ignore. Basically, unless
someone comes up with a clear and coherent argument that clarifies the
situation (including hard dates for everyone on it from independent
sources, and an explanation of what it is all about that is clear and
comprehensive), the document can't be used to date any of the
individuals listed on it.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
In a message dated 12/14/05 1:10:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< What You suggest for Godfrey the Sheriff could also be
possible for Orm Fitz Ketel. >>
But that isn't relevant since Orm does not appear on the earlier copies.
Godfrey does.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< What You suggest for Godfrey the Sheriff could also be
possible for Orm Fitz Ketel. >>
But that isn't relevant since Orm does not appear on the earlier copies.
Godfrey does.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Sarah, wife of William Comyn
Dear Will,
The exact date is mentioned in two secondary Sources:
1)W.H. Turton, _The Plantagenet Ancestry_ (1928, reprinted Baltimore
1968)
2) G.W.S. Barrow_The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History_ Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1980, p. 31.
There are existing charters from 1165/6 -1171/2 that Richard de Moreville
witnessed as Constable of Scotland.
MichaelAnne
The exact date is mentioned in two secondary Sources:
1)W.H. Turton, _The Plantagenet Ancestry_ (1928, reprinted Baltimore
1968)
2) G.W.S. Barrow_The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History_ Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1980, p. 31.
There are existing charters from 1165/6 -1171/2 that Richard de Moreville
witnessed as Constable of Scotland.
MichaelAnne
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
James W Cummings wrote:
Just to clarify - I wasn't suggesting that Godfrey the sheriff witnessed boh
in the 1090s and 1130s. This was Emmett Butler's suggestion. I am sceptical
about it, but I pointed out that it can probably be checked against other
documents.
Chris Phillips
What You suggest for Godfrey the Sheriff could also be
possible for Orm Fitz Ketel.
Just to clarify - I wasn't suggesting that Godfrey the sheriff witnessed boh
in the 1090s and 1130s. This was Emmett Butler's suggestion. I am sceptical
about it, but I pointed out that it can probably be checked against other
documents.
Chris Phillips
-
butlergrt
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
Hi Chris and All,
I wish I had thought of that!!!Fabulous idea!!!!, now if anyone has access
to it, it should help clear up the problem rather quickly. I would check
though not just Lancaster but Shrewsbury as well, just to double check
potentialities and eliminate further questions.
Regarding Orm fitzKetel, ahemmm......(clearing throat), Remember I didn't
SAY that, just yet anyway.... no sense in getting the cart before the
horse.
Thanks for responding and have a great evening.
Best Regards,
Emmett
I wish I had thought of that!!!Fabulous idea!!!!, now if anyone has access
to it, it should help clear up the problem rather quickly. I would check
though not just Lancaster but Shrewsbury as well, just to double check
potentialities and eliminate further questions.
Regarding Orm fitzKetel, ahemmm......(clearing throat), Remember I didn't
SAY that, just yet anyway.... no sense in getting the cart before the
horse.
Thanks for responding and have a great evening.
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; Chris
I see that online sources give Bertram de Bulmer as sheriff in 1129, but
this is probably incorrect, as Keats-Rohan (Domesday Descendants p. 358)
says he was sheriff of _Yorkshire_ from 1129.
Chris Phillips
this is probably incorrect, as Keats-Rohan (Domesday Descendants p. 358)
says he was sheriff of _Yorkshire_ from 1129.
Chris Phillips
-
butlergrt
Re: The dating and authenticity of Roger; MORE
Good Evening All,
Doing a cross-check of the Abbey of Shrewsbury that is the contention, it
does indeed show that Poulton and the church at Kirkham was indeed given
by Roger thru Godfrey the sheriff. Other of Rogers men granted Shrewsbury
Abbey, Thelwell, Garston, and Woolston.
N.L.W., Shrews. Cart. Nos. 79,93,85,311-16,371-371b,35.
It further states that the abbey(Shrewsbury) and all of it's holdings
escheated to the crown in 1102. Therefor it would indeed need a
confirmation as would St. Marys Abbey by the crown or crown
representative and was done as such by Henry I, c. 1131/2.
Houses of Benedictine Monks, Abbey of Shrewsbury,, A History of the County
of Shropshire, Vol. II (1973) pp. 30-7 url.
http://british-history.as.uk/report.asp?compid=39921
Now I have found in the "List of the Viscounts or High Sherrifs of The
County York" from William I thru present, there was a Galfrid
d'Estoutevile, who was sheriff till 1118, provided that Galfrid and
Godfrey are one and the same name??? It is interesting to note that in c.
1119-1121 a Godfrey did become abbott of Shrewsbury (elected) not
appointed and that Henry I granted and confirmed many things for this
Godfrey, and it was historically known that men of these positions did
become monks later in their life and maybe this could be him??? Okay, it
is a stretch but could the c. 1130 charter have been produced off the 1121
charters of Henry I, confirmed c. 1131/2 Coincidental anyway, and more so
with the odds in its favor than would be against it.
When you read the British history archive page on the Abbey of Shrewsbury
and the things granted and confirmed to him by Henry I, he was no ordinary
Abbott.
Yes Todd, it is true about the 2nd list, but we know about Warin Bussel,
we know about Albert Bussel, his brother and successor, Sibyl-dau/sis of
Roger, the real KEY is who is this Godfrey the sherriff?
All for now.
Best Regards,
Emmett
Doing a cross-check of the Abbey of Shrewsbury that is the contention, it
does indeed show that Poulton and the church at Kirkham was indeed given
by Roger thru Godfrey the sheriff. Other of Rogers men granted Shrewsbury
Abbey, Thelwell, Garston, and Woolston.
N.L.W., Shrews. Cart. Nos. 79,93,85,311-16,371-371b,35.
It further states that the abbey(Shrewsbury) and all of it's holdings
escheated to the crown in 1102. Therefor it would indeed need a
confirmation as would St. Marys Abbey by the crown or crown
representative and was done as such by Henry I, c. 1131/2.
Houses of Benedictine Monks, Abbey of Shrewsbury,, A History of the County
of Shropshire, Vol. II (1973) pp. 30-7 url.
http://british-history.as.uk/report.asp?compid=39921
Now I have found in the "List of the Viscounts or High Sherrifs of The
County York" from William I thru present, there was a Galfrid
d'Estoutevile, who was sheriff till 1118, provided that Galfrid and
Godfrey are one and the same name??? It is interesting to note that in c.
1119-1121 a Godfrey did become abbott of Shrewsbury (elected) not
appointed and that Henry I granted and confirmed many things for this
Godfrey, and it was historically known that men of these positions did
become monks later in their life and maybe this could be him??? Okay, it
is a stretch but could the c. 1130 charter have been produced off the 1121
charters of Henry I, confirmed c. 1131/2 Coincidental anyway, and more so
with the odds in its favor than would be against it.
When you read the British history archive page on the Abbey of Shrewsbury
and the things granted and confirmed to him by Henry I, he was no ordinary
Abbott.
Yes Todd, it is true about the 2nd list, but we know about Warin Bussel,
we know about Albert Bussel, his brother and successor, Sibyl-dau/sis of
Roger, the real KEY is who is this Godfrey the sherriff?
All for now.
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
Gjest
Re: Another marriage for Sir Anthony Poyntz of Iron Acton d
You might like to know that two of Sir Matthew Browne of Betchworth (the one
in your message) daughters Jane and Elizabeth m brothers of Anthony Poyntz
(1480-c1535) that is John Poyntz (-1544) and Francis Poyntz (-1528).
Furthermore. Sir Matthew Browne's wife was Fridiswide/ Winifred d of Richard
Guildford of Hempsted, Kent by Joan/Jane d of Nicholas Vaux. Some of the other
names in ref. SAS/G21/7 also appear in the Betchworth/Cowdrey Browne family.
This Browne family's shield is 3 lions passant in a bend, arg. on sable (if
I have remembered it correctly), the same design, but with different
tinctures as one of the quarters on Lord Burghley shield. A letter written by Lord
Burghley shows that he was related to the Brownes of Stamford, Lincs. If you
can establish a link to these two Browne families, you may find more people
to add to your 10 degrees (per your definition) to Lord Bughrley.
Adrian
In a message dated 15/12/2005 15:19:32 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
On Leo's great website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO
we see Sir Anthony Poyntz with his wife Elizabeth Huddesfield
She d bef 12 Apr 1527
Now please flip your attention to
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO
where we see Joan Vaux, wife of Richard Guldeford (Guildford)
Richard died 6 sep 1506 in Jerusalem (see Dictionary of National Biography,
"Guildford, Richard" online at http://www.ancestry.com)
Now I present primary documentation that these two persons, widow and
widower, married each other, bef 20 Feb 1522
Will Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
East Sussex Record Office: Archive of the Gage family of Firle [SAS/G21/1 -
SAS/G46/14]
Archive of Gage family of Firle
Catalogue Ref. SAS/G
Creator(s): Gage family of Firle, East Sussex
FAMILY SETTLEMENTS
FILE - Assignment of a lease - ref. SAS/G21/18 - date: 20 Feb 1522
[from Scope and Content] Anthony Poynes, kt, and his wife Joan, late the
wife
of Richard Guldeford, kt, deceased, to Master Thomas Larck, clerk, and Henry
Guldeford, kt
FILE - Settlement - ref. SAS/G21/7 - date: 20 May 1528
[from Scope and Content] Christopher Baynham, kt (son and heir of Alice
Denys, late the wife of Thomas Baynham, kt and daughter of William Walwyn,
esq) and
his son and heir George Baynham to Henry Guldeford, kt, John Gage, kt,
William Kyngeston, kt, Antony Poyntz, kt, John Baker, gent, recorder of
London,
Henry Browne, esq (son and heir of Matthew Browne, kt), John Guldefrod, esq
(son
and heir of George Guldeford, esq), Nicholas Poyntz, esq (son and heir of
AP),
and Edward Gage and James Gage (sons of JG)
in your message) daughters Jane and Elizabeth m brothers of Anthony Poyntz
(1480-c1535) that is John Poyntz (-1544) and Francis Poyntz (-1528).
Furthermore. Sir Matthew Browne's wife was Fridiswide/ Winifred d of Richard
Guildford of Hempsted, Kent by Joan/Jane d of Nicholas Vaux. Some of the other
names in ref. SAS/G21/7 also appear in the Betchworth/Cowdrey Browne family.
This Browne family's shield is 3 lions passant in a bend, arg. on sable (if
I have remembered it correctly), the same design, but with different
tinctures as one of the quarters on Lord Burghley shield. A letter written by Lord
Burghley shows that he was related to the Brownes of Stamford, Lincs. If you
can establish a link to these two Browne families, you may find more people
to add to your 10 degrees (per your definition) to Lord Bughrley.
Adrian
In a message dated 15/12/2005 15:19:32 GMT Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
On Leo's great website here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO
we see Sir Anthony Poyntz with his wife Elizabeth Huddesfield
She d bef 12 Apr 1527
Now please flip your attention to
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 0&tree=LEO
where we see Joan Vaux, wife of Richard Guldeford (Guildford)
Richard died 6 sep 1506 in Jerusalem (see Dictionary of National Biography,
"Guildford, Richard" online at http://www.ancestry.com)
Now I present primary documentation that these two persons, widow and
widower, married each other, bef 20 Feb 1522
Will Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
East Sussex Record Office: Archive of the Gage family of Firle [SAS/G21/1 -
SAS/G46/14]
Archive of Gage family of Firle
Catalogue Ref. SAS/G
Creator(s): Gage family of Firle, East Sussex
FAMILY SETTLEMENTS
FILE - Assignment of a lease - ref. SAS/G21/18 - date: 20 Feb 1522
[from Scope and Content] Anthony Poynes, kt, and his wife Joan, late the
wife
of Richard Guldeford, kt, deceased, to Master Thomas Larck, clerk, and Henry
Guldeford, kt
FILE - Settlement - ref. SAS/G21/7 - date: 20 May 1528
[from Scope and Content] Christopher Baynham, kt (son and heir of Alice
Denys, late the wife of Thomas Baynham, kt and daughter of William Walwyn,
esq) and
his son and heir George Baynham to Henry Guldeford, kt, John Gage, kt,
William Kyngeston, kt, Antony Poyntz, kt, John Baker, gent, recorder of
London,
Henry Browne, esq (son and heir of Matthew Browne, kt), John Guldefrod, esq
(son
and heir of George Guldeford, esq), Nicholas Poyntz, esq (son and heir of
AP),
and Edward Gage and James Gage (sons of JG)
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Gateway Question: supposed Herndon-Digges conneciton
In re: supposed Herndon-Digges marriage. James Balir in genforum:
No evidence for Herndon-Digges marriage
Posted by: James Blair (ID *****4801) Date: April 29, 2004 at 06:33:26
of 2211
I notice that some posts in this forum still refer to the wife of
William Herndon as "Catherine Digges". This has long been discredited.
In "Adventurers of Purse and Person" 4th ed. v. 1, p.823-4, the
children of Edward Digges and Elizabeth Page Digges are discussed. Only
two daughters survived to marry and have children: Ann (m. William
Cole), and Mary (m. Francis Page). A footnote states: "The division of
his [Edward Digges'] wife's personal property clearly establishes that
all of the unidentified children died by 1691 without issue."
See also two articles published in the William and Mary Quarterly
concerning the family of Edward Digges:
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va ... lanter.txt
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va ... 000000.txt
See also a thread in this forum initiated with a post dated August 18
1999, quoting from an article published by Gary Boyd Roberts in Nexus in
which he concludes that the wife of William Herndon "was almost
certainly not a daughter of Gov. Edward Digges and Elizabeth Page, since
the 1691 estate division of this last, the alleged mother, lists no
daughter Catherine or her heirs". The full citation for the Roberts
article is given in the post, which can be found at
http://genforum.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/p ... ::457.html
I'm posting this for the benefit of new researchers who might
understandably assume that the Digges-Herndon connection must be true,
since it's repeated unquestioningly in so many places on the web.
-------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
No evidence for Herndon-Digges marriage
Posted by: James Blair (ID *****4801) Date: April 29, 2004 at 06:33:26
of 2211
I notice that some posts in this forum still refer to the wife of
William Herndon as "Catherine Digges". This has long been discredited.
In "Adventurers of Purse and Person" 4th ed. v. 1, p.823-4, the
children of Edward Digges and Elizabeth Page Digges are discussed. Only
two daughters survived to marry and have children: Ann (m. William
Cole), and Mary (m. Francis Page). A footnote states: "The division of
his [Edward Digges'] wife's personal property clearly establishes that
all of the unidentified children died by 1691 without issue."
See also two articles published in the William and Mary Quarterly
concerning the family of Edward Digges:
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va ... lanter.txt
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va ... 000000.txt
See also a thread in this forum initiated with a post dated August 18
1999, quoting from an article published by Gary Boyd Roberts in Nexus in
which he concludes that the wife of William Herndon "was almost
certainly not a daughter of Gov. Edward Digges and Elizabeth Page, since
the 1691 estate division of this last, the alleged mother, lists no
daughter Catherine or her heirs". The full citation for the Roberts
article is given in the post, which can be found at
http://genforum.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/p ... ::457.html
I'm posting this for the benefit of new researchers who might
understandably assume that the Digges-Herndon connection must be true,
since it's repeated unquestioningly in so many places on the web.
-------------
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562