Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 des 2005 21:12:02

In a message dated 12/29/05 10:47:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

<< But it does concern me a bit if we go too far in speculating about the
possibility of Robert's wife being a Longespee without any evidence that
there is even an onomastic argument in its favour. >>


To address this I would point out that Ida de Ros married Roger Bertram, who
has been assigned as a daughter to this Robert, has a nice onomastic fit to
her now-proposed great-grandmother Ida de Toeni

From onomastic crtieria I'm now leaning toward the possibility of a slight
alteration in my second-marriage theory, that wouldl throw Isabel de Ros into
the camp as a daughter to Mary Longespee as well. That is, that Isabel names a
daughter Mary (de Merlay) who married Walter Bolebec.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 des 2005 21:24:11

Dear Will ~

For now, I'm satisfied that rank, chronology, and naming patterns are
agreeable to the proposed marriage of Robert de Roos and Mary
Longespee. So far, so good. However, additional evidence is still
needed to prove the marriage.

As you noted, I'm especially encouraged by the fact that Isabel de
Roos, wife of Roger de Merlay, named her eldest daughter, Mary. That's
particularly helpful I think.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/29/05 10:47:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

But it does concern me a bit if we go too far in speculating about the
possibility of Robert's wife being a Longespee without any evidence that
there is even an onomastic argument in its favour.


To address this I would point out that Ida de Ros married Roger Bertram, who
has been assigned as a daughter to this Robert, has a nice onomastic fit to
her now-proposed great-grandmother Ida de Toeni

From onomastic crtieria I'm now leaning toward the possibility of a slight
alteration in my second-marriage theory, that wouldl throw Isabel de Ros into
the camp as a daughter to Mary Longespee as well. That is, that Isabel names a
daughter Mary (de Merlay) who married Walter Bolebec.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 des 2005 21:37:59

Dear Will ~

The marriage of all three Roos children are mentioned in the 1241
forest plea, which I've copied again below. The transcript below is in
English, and is taken from the book, Northumberland Pleas from the
Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle upon
Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:). In the first section, the marriage
of Sir Roger de Merlay to a daughter of Sir Robert de Roos is
mentioned. In the second section, it is stated that Sir Robert de Roos
and Sir Roger Bertram had arranged for the marriages of their
respective eldest sons to marry each other's daughters, which marriages
had occured. For interest's sake, I should mention that a Latin
transcript of this same text can be found in Curia Regis Rolls, 16
(1979): 282-286.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Date: Octaves of St. Hilary, 1241:

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

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

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

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


WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/29/05 12:15:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

It appears that Sir Robert de Roos arranged for the marriages of his
eldest three children, a son and two daughters, in or about 1241, as
all three marriages are mentioned in the 1241 forest plea as having
just taken place.

I'm only seeing two marriages in that forest plea you posted. His "son and
heir" and then also "a daughter".

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: SP Addition: Sir Robert de Danielston, grandson of Rober

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 des 2005 21:40:03

In a message dated 12/29/05 10:18:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< Sir Robert Maxwell, for
whom the dispensation was sought, was the son of Isabel Lindsay,
a first cousin of the Duke of Albany: he was therefore a first
cousin 1x removed, >>


Should this be first half-cousin 1x removed? Or maybe half first cousin...

At any rate, was Isabel the daughter of James de Lindsay, Lord of Crawford d
bef 11 Nov 1358 and his wife Egidia "Gill" Stewart who I have as a child of
Walter the Stewart d 9 Apr 1327 by his *first* wife Isabel Graham.

Whereas Robert the Duke of Albany would be by the second wife Marjorie (Mary)
dau of Robert King of Scotland.

Or if not this relationship, can you specify who Isabel's parents were so I
can add her ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 des 2005 21:45:51

Dear Will ~

The marriage of all three Roos children are mentioned in the 1241
forest plea, which I've copied again below. The transcript below is in
English, and is taken from the book, Northumberland Pleas from the
Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle upon
Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:). In the first section, the marriage
of Sir Roger de Merlay to a daughter of Sir Robert de Roos is
mentioned. In the second section, it is stated that Sir Robert de Roos
and Sir Roger Bertram had arranged for the marriages of their
respective eldest sons to marry each other's daughters, which marriages
had occured. For interest's sake, I should mention that a Latin
transcript of this same text can be found in Curia Regis Rolls, 16
(1979): 282-286.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Date: Octaves of St. Hilary, 1241:

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

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

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

"Also Sir Roger Bertram's men did chase in Chivele in the king's forest
and take a hind and a fawn buck, after the eyre of the justics of the
forest ... They are still to be attached, and, if they were not
attached, they and three hounds of Sir Roger Bertram were taken by the
foresters and by several men of those parts ... Nor, by reason of such
conspiracy and such releases have the foresters been able to do their
office and the king's advantage; and this because the marriages were
pre-arranged, and have now been made, between the son and heir of Sir
Roger [Bertram] and a daughter of Sir Robert [de Ros] on the one part,
and on the other between the son and heir of Sir Robert [de Ros] and a
daughter of Sir Roger [Bertram]." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from
the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle
upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:)125].

- Hide quoted text -

Gjest

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 des 2005 21:50:03

In a message dated 12/29/05 12:15:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< It appears that Sir Robert de Roos arranged for the marriages of his
eldest three children, a son and two daughters, in or about 1241, as
all three marriages are mentioned in the 1241 forest plea as having
just taken place. >>

I'm only seeing two marriages in that forest plea you posted. His "son and
heir" and then also "a daughter".

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Broughton ---> Nicholas, Baron Vaux, line is broken

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 des 2005 22:01:02

In a message dated 12/29/05 12:00:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< The specific problem
appears to be the parentage of William Sapcote, who clearly cannot be the
son of Sir Richard and Anne (also called Alice) Vaux >>


Thanks for that note.
For the moment Ive unhooked William Sapcote from Anne Vaux, and placed
William Sapcote as a son of John Sapcote d 5 Jan 1500/01 by a marriage *prior* to
his marriage to Elizabeth Dinham d 19 Oct 1516. The marriage date of John
Sapcote to Elizabeth Dinham is given as 7 Dec 1480 at OneWorldTree, but I haven't
done any further research on this line.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 des 2005 22:15:03

In a message dated 12/29/05 12:48:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< The marriage of all three Roos children are mentioned in the 1241
forest plea, which I've copied again below. >>

You're right... I skimmed it too fast.
Thanks for being patient :)
Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 29 des 2005 22:51:11

Will Johnson wrote:
To address this I would point out that Ida de Ros married Roger Bertram,
who
has been assigned as a daughter to this Robert, has a nice onomastic fit
to
her now-proposed great-grandmother Ida de Toeni

But what I'm concerned about is that there is apparently no evidence that
the daughter of Robert de Ros who was married to Roger Bertram by 1241 is
the same person as the wife Ida who survived him, and lived until the early
1320s.

This identification is unproved - and certainly not a safe assumption to
make without some evidence - so the proposed marriage of Robert de Ros to
Mary Longespee is really a conjecture based on onomastics which themselves
rely on another conjecture. If proof can be found for either conjecture,
fair enough ...

Chris Phillips

John Higgins

Re: John Broughton ---> Nicholas, Baron Vaux, line is broken

Legg inn av John Higgins » 29 des 2005 23:00:02

At this point, all that can be said is that the parentage of William Sapcote
(and his purported brothers) is unknown, because chronologically they cannot
be sons of Sir Richard Sapcote by his Vaux wife. Although they likely belong
to SOME earlier generation of the family, it's very speculative to assume
that they are instead brothers (or half-brothers) of Sir Richard. There are
enough other branches of this family in various visitation pedigrees that
they could well belong elsewhere - and could have been grafted onto this
branch for the benefit of the Vaux connection.

There's nothing wrong with leaving a person without parents in a database,
and it's certainly better than guessing at his parents...and then extending
that guess by giving his purported father a previously unknown first
marriage. Such guesses are what lead to the great amounts of genealogical
garbage on the Internet - including such "sources" as OneWorldTree.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: John Broughton ---> Nicholas, Baron Vaux, line is broken


In a message dated 12/29/05 12:00:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

The specific problem
appears to be the parentage of William Sapcote, who clearly cannot be the
son of Sir Richard and Anne (also called Alice) Vaux


Thanks for that note.
For the moment Ive unhooked William Sapcote from Anne Vaux, and placed
William Sapcote as a son of John Sapcote d 5 Jan 1500/01 by a marriage
*prior* to
his marriage to Elizabeth Dinham d 19 Oct 1516. The marriage date of John
Sapcote to Elizabeth Dinham is given as 7 Dec 1480 at OneWorldTree, but I
haven't
done any further research on this line.

Will Johnson

Gjest

re: Humphrey Okeover, Lettice Bagot, and Martha Cheney early

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 00:13:02

1) Some time ago I had posted a marriage agreement that "within one year
Humphrey Okeover , son and heir of Rowland Okeover of Okeover and his wife Anne"
should marry Lettice one of the daughers of Walter Bagot of Blithfield.

2) Now comes Burke's "Genealogical Dictionary of the Landed Gentry" to inform
me that (sub Okeover) Philip Okeover m Elizabeth Babington and by her had
Rowland Okeover who married Anne Needham and by her had Humphrey Okeover who
married Martha Cheney and by her his eldest son Rowland b 1624

I propose that the Rowland, Anne and Humphrey in 2 above is the same Rowland,
Anne and Humphrey in 1 above. This would therefore be a new addition to
OneWorldTree as this marriage agreeement appears to have been previously
overlooked by all trees posted there.

I produce the complete text of the two sources below for your perusal.

Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Document 1
Okeover family of Okeover
Catalogue Ref. GB 0026 D231
Creator(s): Okeover family of Okeover, Derbyshire

Family - ref. D231M/F
Okeover family
Family Settlements

FILE [no title] - ref. D231M/F19 - date: 1609/1610
[from Scope and Content] Articles of agreement between Rowland Okeover of
Okeover, Staffs, esq., Anne his wife, and Walter Bagot of Bliffield [Blithfield],
Staffs, by which Humfrey his sone and heir apparent shall within one year of
this agreement marry Lettyce Bagot, one of Walter's daughters

Document 2
Burke's Landed Gentry, sub Okeover
[in part]
"Philip Okeover, Esq of Okeover, who m Elizabeth, dau of Thomas Babington,
Esq of Dethick, co Derby, and was s by his grandson (the son of Rowland Okeover,
by Anne Needham his wife),
Humphrey Okeover, Esq of Okeover, high-sheriff of Derbyshire in 1631, who m
Martha, dau of Sir Oliver Cheney, and by her had issue. The eldest son,
Sir Rowland Okeover, of Okeover, b in 1624, m Mercy, dau of Edward Goodyere,
Esq of Heythrop, co Oxford...."

Gjest

Re: query re Isabel wife of Robert de Brus

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 03:49:31

Dear Simon,

I have no exact dates but can cite that on 9 August 1248 Robert de Brus
confirmed the donation of the whole messuage of Cragyn, made by his mother
Isabella, to Lindores Abbey. He was certainly born bef. 1227 as he was an adult
when the above charter was confirmed.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: query re Isabel wife of Robert de Brus

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 10:14:02

Thanks MichaelAnne

SP also says Robert married Isobel de Clare in or before 1240 which is
consistent with your date

cheers

Simon

ClaudiusI0@aol.com writes:

Dear Simon,

I have no exact dates but can cite that on 9 August 1248 Robert de Brus
confirmed the donation of the whole messuage of Cragyn, made by his mother
Isabella, to Lindores Abbey. He was certainly born bef. 1227 as he was an adult
when the above charter was confirmed.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Kevin Bradford

Re: William Peverel

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 30 des 2005 14:15:18

King William granted William Peverel the custody of Nottingham Castle; he also gave him properties subsequently identified as the Honour of Peverel, consisting of 100 lordships in the counties of Nottingham and Northampton, 14 in Derby, 20 in Berkshire, Leicestershire, and Oxfordshire, Bedford, Buckingham, and Essex.

It is apparently from these grants that the claim was first circulated, about the year 1500, that Peverel was a bastard of King William. The identification is no longer accepted.

CP 4 Append. I:761, 4:311
Sheppard, "Royal bye-blows: the illegitimate children of the English kings from William I to Edward III," NEHGR 119:95

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



-----Original Message-----
From: <wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz
Sent: Dec 30, 2005 1:12 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: William Peverel

The following books state that William Peverel was an illegitimate
son of William I, the Conqueror, King of England.

"Doomsday Book" Thomas Hinde Editor
The Doomsday Book, goes on to say that Ranulf Peverel married the NN
mistress of King William, and that William Peverel took Ranulf
Peverel's name.


"The Nottingham Date Book" Archive CD Books 2003

1068 King William the Conqueror arrived in
Nottingham with his illegitimate son William Peveral who came with
WTC and fought in the battle of Hastings.

I have the Elder, and the Younger as Gov of Nottingham Castles

Can anyone confirm this please?

Brendan Wilson





Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 15:47:01

Will,
From internal evidence the T.C.Evans ms must be 1890s - he quotes 1891 census
figures.
The author was a well-known local scholar and expert on Welsh traditions in
Glamorgan. The transcript (by Dr Hugh Stradling in 1996) runs to sixty-odd
pages of A4 and includes local history plus folklore. Evans had access to some
family papers, plus Col.Clarke's "Thirteen Views of St Donats" and a manuscript
by the Rev. Gamage dated 1726 (current whereabouts unknown).
Evans rubbishes the "Twelve Norman Knights" story and all the Stradling
genealogy before Sir Peter Stradling "who married Joanna, daughter of Sir Thomas
Hawey, kt, temp. Ed I".
I will post the rest of this descent if it is of any interest - I don't know
whether it is already familiar.
My personal interest in the Stradlings is late 17th century, a bit too late
for this list.
ATB
Peter Meazey

John P. Ravilious

Re: SP Addition: Sir Robert de Danielston, grandson of Rober

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 30 des 2005 15:52:59

Dear Will,

The half relationship is not usually expressed, beyond siblings
(or half-siblings). Sir Robert Maxwell was 'first cousin once removed"
to Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany (d. 1420).

You have the Lindsay-Stewart link correct, with the exception that
Isabel Graham was the 2nd (not first) wife of Walter Stewart. His
first wife was Marjory Bruce, who died in childbirth in 1317 (not March
1315/6 as is usually found in print).

Following is a pedigree from Walter Stewart to his Maxwell
great-grandchildren, including Sir Robert Maxwell of Calderwood.

Hope this is useful. Meanwhile, all the best for a Happy New
Year.

Cheers,

John



1 Walter Stewart
----------------------------------------
Death: 9 Apr 1326[1],[2]
Birth: ca 1293[3],[2]
Occ: Lord High Steward of Scotland
Father: James le Steward (ca1243-1309)
Mother: Giles (Egidia) de Burgh

Lord High Steward 1309-1327[2]

commander (nominal-active commander, Sir James Douglas) of the right
schiltrom at Bannockburn, 24 June 1314 (Barrow p. 322)[4]

Regent of Scotland during King Robert's expedition to Ireland, 1316[2]

'Walter, Steward of Scotland', Surety of the Arbroath Declaration,
6 April 1320 (Barrow pp. 424-8)[4]

he m. 1stly Marjory Bruce,
2ndly Isabel Graham

Spouse: Isabel de Graham
Father: Sir Nicholas de Graham of Abercorn(-<1306)
Mother: Mary of Strathearn (<1248-1322)

Children: Sir John Stewart of Railston(->1369)
Sir Andrew
Egidia (->1391)


1.1a Egidia Stewart*
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 21 May 1391[5]

'a papal dispensation for this marriage was granted at Avignon
3 Ides of April 1346, which describes the spouses as within the
third and fourth degree on the father's side, and in the fourth
degree on the mother's.' [SP III:11, citing Papal Letters, iii.225[2]]

'Egidia Lindsay', held the lands of Bonnington in dower (as widow
of Sir Hugh de Eglinton), 10 Dec 1377 [Fraser, Memorials I:15, 17[6]]

indult dated at Avignon, 21 May, 1391:
' Reg Aven 265, 62v
To Sir James de Douglas, knight, and Egidia his wife,
St. Andrews diocese. Indult for a plenary remission of their sins
to be granted at the hour of death by a confessor of their own choice.
Avignon, 12 Kal. Jun., anno 13. ' [CPL 1378-1394, p. 162[5]]

she m. lstly Sir James Lindsay,
2ndly Sir Hugh Eglinton,
3rdly (as 2nd wife) Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith[2]

Spouse: Sir James de Lindsay of Crawford
Death: bef 11 Nov 1358[2]
Father: Sir David de Lindsay (-<1357)
Mother: Mary de Abernethy (-<1355)
Marr: Apr 1346[2]

Children: Isabel
Sir James Lindsay of Crawford(-<1395)


1.1a.1 Isabel Lindsay
----------------------------------------

re: her husband:

' Johanne de Maxwel', witness [together with Robert Stewart, lord
of Menteith; Robert Stewart's brother Sir John Stewart, Sir John
de Danielston, Sir John Lindsay of Craigie, John Wallace of
Riccarton, Robert Houstoun and others] to charter of Robert Stewart,
as Earl of Strathearn, to Alan de Lauder as Bailie of his lands of
Birkinside, Ligardwood & others in Berwickshire, dated at Perth,
16 Oct 1369 [Red Book of Menteith II:250-1, No. 33[7]]

Spouse: Sir John de Maxwell of Pollok
Father: Sir John de Maxwell
Marr: 1367

Children: Agnes (->1404)
Sir John
Sir Robert (-1424)
William


1.1a.1.1 Agnes Maxwell
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 2 Nov 1404[8]

'Agneti sponse ejus, consang. regis', charter of King Robert III
granting the lands of Cassilis and others to Gilbert Kennedy and
his wife Agnes, "kinswoman of the King" [confirmed by King James
II], 2 Nov. 1404 [RMS p. 87, No. 378[8]]

Spouse: Sir Gilbert Kennedy of Dunure
Death: aft 2 Nov 1404[8]
Father: John Kennedy (->1385)

Children: Sir James Kennedy of Dunure(-<1408)
John
Thomas
David


1.1a.1.2 Sir John Maxwell
----------------------------------------
Occ: laird of Pollock

laird of Pollock

' Sir John of Maxwell, lord of Pollok ', witness (together with by
Sir Robert de Danielston of that Ilk, Sir Patrick Graham of
Kincardine, Robert Boyd of Kilmarnock and Sir Malcolm Fleming's sons
David Fleming and Patrick Fleming) to a charter from Malcolm Fleming
of Biggar to 'his dear nephew William Boyd, lord of Galvane '
["carissimo nepoti nostro, Wilelmo de Boyde, Domino de Galvane"] of
the lands of 'Badynhache', confirmed by King Robert III at Rothesay,
7 Jul 1395 [Fraser, Memorials II:18-19, No. 24[6]
See also Eglinton MSS. p. 8, No. 11[9] - calls William of Boyde
"grandson" in error]

Children: Margaret


1.1a.1.3 Sir Robert Maxwell
----------------------------------------
Death: 1424, Battle of Verneuil[10],[11]
Occ: laird of Calderwood

laird of Calderwood

received 1/2 of inheritance of Danielston of that Ilk through his
wife, divided in 1404 and on Oct 18, 1405 with her sister (wife
of William Cunyngham). Ref: Scots Peerage, pedigree of Cunningham,
Earl of Glencairn (p. 230n) [2]

indenture between Sir Robert Maxwell and James Stewart of Kilbride
for the marriage of his daughter 'Marioun', referred to her as
the 'dochter of the said Sir Robertis and his first wyfis', to
George Stewart, son and heir of James, 7 Apr 1416 [Fraser p. 148[12]]

' Sir Robert Maxwell' [" Roberto de Maxwell,.....militibus..."],
witness [together with Murdoch Stewart, lord of Kinclavin and
firstborn of the Duke, John Stewart, Earl of Buchan, Sir William
Borthwick and others] to charter of Robert, Duke of Albany granting
lands of Airth to Sir William Crawford, dated at Falkland, 24 April
1417 [Armstrong pp. 9-10, no. XXI[13]]

cf. Thompson and Hansen 13(1):95 #1100[10]

Spouse: Elizabeth Danielston
Death: bef 7 Apr 1416[12]
Father: Sir Robert de Danielston (-1397)
Mother: NN
Marr: bef 18 Oct 1405

Children: Sir John (?1400-ca1476)
Margaret
Patrick


1.1a.1.4 William Maxwell
----------------------------------------

of Aikenhead


1.1b Egidia Stewart* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Sir Hugh de Eglinton
Death: bef 10 Dec 1377[6],[2]
Marr: aft Oct 1357[2]

Other Spouses Sir James de Lindsay, Sir James Douglas

1.1c Egidia Stewart* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Sir James Douglas
Death: 1420[2]
Father: Sir John de Douglas (-<1349)
Mother: Agnes de Graham
Marr: Oct 1378[2]

Other Spouses Sir James de Lindsay, Sir Hugh de Eglinton


1. Leo van de Pas, "Stewart Saga - TWO," Dec 12, 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
2. Sir James Balfour Paul, ed., "The Scots Peerage," Edinburgh:
David Douglas, 1904-1914 (9 volumes).
3. Alastair Campbell of Airds, "A History of Clan Campbell,"
Edinburgh:
Polygon [an imprint of Edinburgh University Press Ltd.], 2000,
Vol. I: From Origins to Flodden.
4. G. W. S. Barrow, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland," Edinburgh University Press, 1976 (2nd ed.).
5. Charles Burns, ed., "Calendar of Papal Letters to Scotland of
Clement VII of Avignon, 1378-1394," Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable,
Ltd., 1976, Pub. of the Scottish History Society.
6. William Fraser, "Memorials of the Montgomeries, Earls of Eglinton,"
Edinburgh: published for the author, 1859.
7. William Fraser, "The Red Book of Menteith," Edinburgh: 1880, .pdf
image files provided by Genealogy.com http://www.genealogy.com,
history and evidences concerning the Earls and Earldom of Mentieth.
8. "Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum," The Register of the Great
Seal of Scotland, ed. James Balfour Paul, Edinburgh: H. M. General
Register House, 1882 [A.D. 1424-1513]].
9. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Tenth Report of the Royal
Commission on Historical Manuscripts, "Report on the Manuscripts
of The Earl of Eglinton, Sir J. Stirling Maxwell, Bart., C. S. H.
Drummond Moray, Esq.," "C. F. Weston Underwood, Esq. and G.
Wingfield Digby, Esq.," London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1885.
10. Neil D Thompson and Charles M Hansen, ""A Medieval Heritage: The
Ancestry of Charles II, King of England"," The Genealogist,
2:157-168, 3:25-44, 3:175-194, 4:144-158, 5:64-72, 5:226-239,
6:100-103, 6:148-165,, 7-8:137-143, 9:40-44, 10:73-85, 11:63-72,
11:184-193, 12:83-90, 12:250-256, 13:92-99, 13:252-256, 14:81-84,
14:207-210, 15:99-103, 15:220-224, 16:93-98, 16:227-231, 17:61-64,
a graphical summary of this ambitious project provided by the
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, URL:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/CharlesII/
11. William M. Metcalfe, "A History of the County of Renfrew from the
Earliest Times," Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1905, .pdf image
files provided by Genealogy.com http://www.genealogy.com.
12. William Fraser, ed., "Memoirs of the Maxwells of Pollok,"
Edinburgh,
1863, .pdf image files provided by Genealogy.com
http://www.genealogy.com.
13. Major William Bruce Armstrong, "The Bruces of Airth and Their
Cadets," Edinburgh: privately printed, 1892.




WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/29/05 10:18:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

Sir Robert Maxwell, for
whom the dispensation was sought, was the son of Isabel Lindsay,
a first cousin of the Duke of Albany: he was therefore a first
cousin 1x removed,


Should this be first half-cousin 1x removed? Or maybe half first cousin...

At any rate, was Isabel the daughter of James de Lindsay, Lord of Crawford d
bef 11 Nov 1358 and his wife Egidia "Gill" Stewart who I have as a child of
Walter the Stewart d 9 Apr 1327 by his *first* wife Isabel Graham.

Whereas Robert the Duke of Albany would be by the second wife Marjorie (Mary)
dau of Robert King of Scotland.

Or if not this relationship, can you specify who Isabel's parents were so I
can add her ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Question

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 17:46:54

In a message dated 12/30/2005 6:48:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
monkey@getgoin.net writes:

Of old when son is mention it goes like this Robert ap Paul Right?

Then what is daughter called?


Verch

Tony Hoskins

Re: King Cnut

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 30 des 2005 18:52:02

Please see "Leo's Great Site":

http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php? ... 9&tree=LEO

"Alina" <alinaabedin@yahoo.com> 12/30/05 07:38AM
Does King Cnut the Great of England have any living descendents? I

know that his sons left no children behind that we know of, but his
daughter Gunnhild married the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III in 1036.
Did they have children, and what became of Cnut's progeny?

Thanks!

Tony Hoskins

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 30 des 2005 19:07:10

I, for one, would be most interested in this.
With many thanks,
Tony Hoskins


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: My direct Line from Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // Come

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 19:51:02

In a message dated 12/30/2005 10:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

Ugolino de' LUPIS 974 AD ( - aft
974A.D.)
d. aft 974 A.D.
= NN
gen 18

Ubertino de' LUPIS
= una gentildonna di
PARMA
gen 19

Ugolino o Ugolotto de'
LUPIS
= NN
gen 20

Ugolino de' LUPIS si traferisce
da Roma a Firenze
= Una dama di casa GONZAGA
di Mantova
gen 21


What is your source for this section of your line?
Thanks
Will Johnson

MLS

RE: My direct Line from Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // Come

Legg inn av MLS » 30 des 2005 20:44:30

Source is a Manuscript in my family archive, also printed as a very rare
book:

Ippolito Calandrini
"Il publio Svezzese. Dell'antichissima e nobilissima famiglia degli
illustrissimi signori marchesi di Soragna e vita del glorioso San Lupo
vescovo e confessore"
printed in Parma, per i tipi di Mario Vigna,on 1653.

Do you have any suggestions can help me to trace the ancestry of
Philagrius?
Thanks
Duke Marco Lupis

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:27 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: My direct Line from Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // Comes
Orientis abt 38...



In a message dated 12/30/2005 10:24:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

Ugolino de' LUPIS 974 AD ( - aft
974A.D.)
d. aft 974 A.D.
= NN
gen 18

Ubertino de' LUPIS
= una gentildonna di
PARMA
gen 19

Ugolino o Ugolotto de'
LUPIS
= NN
gen 20

Ugolino de' LUPIS si traferisce
da Roma a Firenze
= Una dama di casa GONZAGA
di Mantova
gen 21


What is your source for this section of your line?
Thanks
Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Erbe e tisane di primissima qualità.
* Inoltre 1800 articoli erboristici. Tutti a portata di un click !
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi ... 09&d=30-12

MLS

PS RE: My direct Line from Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // C

Legg inn av MLS » 30 des 2005 20:49:02

PS:

As I already posted, the source is a genealogist named Ippolito
Calandrini, quite famous ad genealogist in Parma on the XVII century. In
my family archive we keep his original manuscript and also a very rare
printed book:
Ippolito Calandrini
"Il publio Svezzese. Dell'antichissima e nobilissima famiglia degli
illustrissimi signori marchesi di Soragna e vita del glorioso San Lupo
vescovo e confessore" stampato in Parma, per i tipi di Mario Vigna, nel
1653

On this book Calandrini trace a complete genealogy of the LUPIS family
from the first Saint Lupo or Lupus, bishop of Troyes son, he write, of
Eparchius. In the Settipani book about the nobility of MIDI can find a
tree of Saint Lupo, son of Eparchius Philagrius, noble of Toul
(Toulouse) that match whit the Calandrini's book.
In this same book, Calandrini wrote that the first taken the surname
LUPIS was one of the brothers of Saint Lupo, because, after the death of
the brother, "Sisulfo (o Gisulfo) dopo la morte del fratello San Lupo,
vescovo di Troyes, "pensò il modo col quale esso, e suoi descendenti, la
felicissima memoria del Santo conservare si dovesse; e così di Franconio
il Cognome, col quale chiamato venia, determinò di lasciare, e
sottoscriversi Sisulfo Lupo. E per corpo d'impresa, una Lupa di color
Celeste ergendosi, animata dal motto T. E. D: con le quali lettere
l'amor verso del fratello eccessivo palesar voleva, cioé Teco Esso
Desidero, e con detto motivo ebbe l'arma de' Lupis il suo principio
illustre". (I strongly hope that the friends in this list can read
Italian!)

Also according whit Calandrini, this Sisulfo LUPIS was taken as
"Scudiere del re di Francia Meroveo" from age of 18 and served later
from more 26 years as "scudiere" of king Childerico. Then his son Lupo
"inherited" this title and served , from the age of 26 , the successor
of king Childerich, king Clodio.

I'm still hope that someone can help me to find the ancestry of the
first Philagrius
Thanks for any help

The duke Marco Lupis

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hoskins [mailto:hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:41 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: My direct Line from Flavius Eparchius Philagrius //
ComesOrientis abt 382 Bishop of Cyprus; Prefect


Dear Sir,

Like others, I am most interested in your posting. Please inform us of
online sources - such as perhaps http://www.sardimpex.com/ - or print
sources where we might begin launch enquiry into this ancestry.

Sincerely,



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



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Per i progetti che rimandi da tempo, Findomestic ti offre la soluzione ideale per te, con semplicità e senza anticipi! Clicca e scopri come
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid936&d0-12

Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:16:02

The description of the paintings was of course from the T.C.Evans manuscript
- sorry, I should have made this clear. Below is the descent from Sir Peter
Stradling from the same source. Full transcript of the document available as a
windows.doc file to anyone who wants a copy - contact me off-list.

"1. Sir Peter Stradling married Joanna, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas
Hawey, knight, and had with her besides the manor of St Donats, two manors in
Somersetshire and one in Dorsetshire.

2. Sir Edward (1) Stradling, the first of that name, quartered the arms of
Hawey with those of the Stradlings. He married Eleanor, daughter and heiress of
Gilbert Strongbow, knight, of Caldicot castle, Monmouthshire. With her Sir
Edward had two manors in Oxfordshire. (He did homage in 1314 for Compton Hawey to
the Abbot of Sherborne)

3. Sir Edward (2) Stradling (1344-69), second of the name, son of the
foregoing, married Gwenllian, one of the sisters and heiress of Sir Lawrence
Berkrolles, knight, of New Castle, St Athans, otherwise the castle of East Orchard.
Their son was -

4. Sir William Stradling, knight, (1390) who married Isabell daughter and
heiress of Sir John Burt, knight. It is melancholy to add that he received with
her, albeit that she was an heiress, no fortune, for as the chronicler goes on
to explain "the estates of that family were entailed on male issue". This is
the first Stradling to whom the genealogist condescends to give a date to any
of his actions. Sir William journeyed to Jerusalem we are told in the reign of
Richard II and received knighthood according to the forms and order of the
Holy Sepulchre; which act took place "about" the year of Christ 1380. His son was
-

5. Sir Edward (3) Stradling the third. He was a personage of considerable
pretensions: he quartered the arms of St Burt in the right of his wife; then
those of the Berkerolles (whose heir he became in 1412) and with them the arms of
Turberville and Iestyn ab Gurgan. He married Jane daughter of Henry Beaufort,
who became a cardinal. This lady was descended on the mother's side from the
Arundel family. Sir Edward like his father and Grandfather made a journey to
Jerusalem to receive knighthood. (Was this a cheap and easy way of being dubbed?
It is singular that we hear nothing of any of these valiant knights using
their prowess in the tented field) Sir John Stradling a brother of this Sir
Edward married the daughter and heiress of one Dauncey, in Somersetshire
(?Wiltshire) and had two sons from whom are numerous descendants. Sir Edward's son was,

6. Sir Harry Stradling, knight, who married Elizabeth daughter of Sir William
Thomas of Raglan Castle and sister to Sir William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke.
This Sir Harry journeyed, like his immediate ancestors, to Jerusalem, and was
like them knighted there. This Sir Harry had the misfortune to die on the
return journey as hath already been narrated - in the Island of Cyprus and is
buried in the city of Famagusta. He it was who fell into the hands of Colyn
Dolphyn and had to be ransomed at 2,200 marks of which more anon. He was the last of
the family who visited Jerusalem and his son therefore appears as a plain
squire.

7. Thomas Stradling Esq. called Sir Thomas Stradling by the bards who sang in
his time and did not know that the order of knighthood was not hereditary.
The genealogist tells us this with great candour and in a state of happy
ignorance as to the liberal adornment and enlargement which the family tree had
received at the hands of these domestic minstrels. Thomas married a daughter of
Thomas Matthews of Radyr, Esq, named Jennet by whom he had two sons and a
daughter. He died before he was twenty-six years old and his widow afterwards married
Sir Rhys ab Thomas. He was succeeded by,

8. Sir Edward (4) Stradling who married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas
Arundel, knight, Llanhydrock, County of Cornwall. There were several children,
his eldest son was,

9. Sir Thomas Stradling who married Catherine, eldest daughter of Sir Thomas
Gamage of Coity Castle, knight, whose wife was Margaret, daughter of Sir John
St John, knight of Bledso. Seven children issued from this marriage. The
successor was,

10. Sir Edward (5) Stradling who married Agnes, second daughter of Sir Edward
Gage of Sussex, knight. There was no issue of this marriage. Sir Edward left
the estates to so remote a relative as the grandson by another descent of
Thomas Stradling Esq. by which it would appear that no male descendent remained in
1609 of either Sir Thomas or his father Sir Edward Stradling.

11. Sir John Stradling, knighted by James I and subsequently created a
Baronet by the same king. The title and dignity of baronet was introduced by James I
(as a means of raising money) and Sir Edward was the fifth baronet created.
He married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward Gage of Firle, Sussex, a niece of
Lady Edward Stradling (as we would now call the Lady) and who had a family of
ten children, so if one lady of the Gage family did not provide an heir for St
Donats, the other did. Sir John was a poet: his 'Beati Pacifici' was
dedicated by permission to James I. He also wrote a song in praise of Glamorganshire.
He died in 1644 and was succeeded by his eldest son.

12. Sir Edward (6) Stradling Bart. who married Mary, daughter of Sir Thomas
Mansell of Margam, Bart. In his time and person, the family fortunes and
dignity seems to have reached their highest point. The troubles of the Civil War and
all the loss and disaster incidental to being attached to the losing side
brought down the fortunes of the family. He had nine children some of whom died
in the lifetime of the father. He was succeeded by his eldest son, (no - jumps
a generation - 14 below. Note Peter)

13. Sir Edward (7) Stradling, knight, who married Catherine, daughter of Sir
Hugh Perry, Alderman of London. After his death, which preceded that of his
father, she married Bussy Mansell of Briton Ferry. He left three children, the
eldest of whom succeeded on the death of his grandfather to the family honours
and estates.

14. Sir Edward (8) Stradling, Bart, (son of Sir Edward, knight) married
Elizabeth daughter of William Hungerford Esq. of Farley Castle, Somersetshire. Sir
Edward had six children. He died September 5th 1685 and was succeeded by his
second, but eldest surviving son, (no. 15, below)

15. Sir Edward (9) Stradling, Bart, married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward
Mansell of Margam, Bart, and had two sons, I - Edward, born March 3rd 1699 -
died October 26th 1726, and 2 - Thomas, born July 24th, 1710. He was succeeded
by his second and only surviving son.

16. Sir Thomas Stradling, Bart, who died unmarried at Montpellier in France,
September 27th 1738, and with him the Stradling family, that is as far as the
possession of the St Donats estates are concerned, became extinct."

Gjest

Re: Stradling of St Donat's

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:21:02

Further extracting details from this same source, they equate the

Elizabeth Gage wife of John Stradling, Knt, Bart in 1611 who (he) died 9 Sep
1637 as a "niece of Agnes Gage, wife of Edward Stradling" who (he) died 15 May
1609

This would mean, if my other extracts have been correct that the
father of Elizabeth Gage whom I had as Edward Gage
is that same Edward Gage called "of Bentley, Framfield"
who married Margaret Shelley and had at least one son Henry Gage
(Dictionary of National Biography, "Stradling, John" online at
http://www.ancestry.com)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:24:01

In a message dated 12/30/05 1:12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, PMeazey@aol.com
writes:

<< 10. Sir Edward (5) Stradling who married Agnes, second daughter of Sir
Edward
Gage of Sussex, knight. There was no issue of this marriage. Sir Edward left
the estates to so remote a relative as the grandson by another descent of
Thomas Stradling Esq. by which it would appear that no male descendent
remained in
1609 of either Sir Thomas or his father Sir Edward Stradling. >>


In other words, his great-nephew. This is confirmed by the Gentleman's
Magazine which states that this great-nephew was in fact "John Stradling and his
wife Elizabeth Gage". This John has a DNB entry. He was created a Baronet in
1611 and died 9 Sep 1637 buried on the 11th at St Donat's.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Stradling of St Donat's

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:25:28

I not sure if I've correctly reconciled two apparently conflicting claims.

Claim 1: old DNB, sub "Stradling, Sir Thomas (1498 ? - 1571)" in speaking of
his ancestry states, in part, "Sir Harry Stradling, Sir Thomas'
great-grandfather, married Elizabeth sister of William Herbert, first earl of Pembroke
[q.v.] In 1477 he went to Jerusalem, where he received the order of the Sepulchre,
but died, on his way home, at Cyprus (Dwnn, Her. Vis.i. 158; Clark, View of
the Castle of St Donat's, pp 7-11; Merrick, op. cit. p 80)"

The op cit of Merrick must be the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
to wit, "Merrick, Morganie Archaiographia -- pedigree written in 1578 -- edit
1887, pp 78-82"
--------------------
Claim 2: "The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, From January to
June 1821, Volume 41, by Sylvanus Urban, Gent.; John Nichols and Sons, London
1821" page 489, in speaking of some pictures at St Donat's Chapel states that
one reads:
"Here lyeth Thomas Stradling Esquire, sonne to Sir Henry Stradling, knight,
and Elizabeth his wife (the daughter of William Thomas of Raglan, in County of
Monmouth, knight) who died at Cardiff, in the monastery of the preaching
fryers, the 8th day of September, in the year of our lord 1480; whose bones after
the dissolution of the said monastery, Thomas Stradling, knight, his nephew
caused to be taken up and carried to St Donats, and buried in the chancel of the
church there, by his son the 4th day of June in the year of our lord 1537, and
afterwards Edward Stradlinge, knight, his nephew's sonne, the 5th of that
name translated the said bones out of the chancel to the chapel there in the year
of our lord 1573, after whose death his wyfe married with Sir Rees ap Thomas,
knight of the garter, and died at Picton in the county of Pembroke, the 5th
day of February, in the year of our lord 1533, and was buried at Carmarthen in
the monastery of the Preaching Fryers with the said Sir Rees ap Thomas, her
husband"
-------------------------
The problem: In Claim 1, the wife of Sir Henry (Harry) Stradling is called
Elizabeth sister of William Herbert. In Claim 2 she is called Elizabeth
daughter of William Thomas of Raglan.

In my database I have the father of William Herbert as William HERBERT, Knt
Bnt. Son of Sir Thomas Herbert who (Thomas) died 4 Jul 1438 at Raglan.

My reconciliation attempt.
Both Claims are true in a sense. Elizabeth's father was perhaps called
"William ap Thomas" and so referrned to, in a manner-of-speaking, but incorrectly
as "William Thomas". However "William Herbert" has a DNB entry. I will review
that again to see what it call's his father if anything. I may have simply
assigned his father the name of Herbert with no evidence that he actually
carried this name in his lifetime.

Comments are appreciated.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Stradling of St Donat's

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:35:02

Hmmm there is something very wrong with this....

The description of these pictures is given in the The Gentlemen'a Magazine in
1821. The details as given in the MS you referenced are slightly different.
So far the differences are not what you'd call *significant* but they are of
enough of a nature to make me pause.

Shortly I will post the complete extract from The Gentleman's Magazine so we
can start to attempt to unravel what your MS has added or subtracted from what
they there state.

The ultimate guide, would be, of course, an image of the original
inscriptions themselves.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re:Question

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:48:01

Hi Janet,
Quick Welsh lesson : "mab" means son, shortened to "ab" in front of a vowel
(ab Einion) or "ap" before a consonant (ap Robert). "merch" means daughter but
gets mutated to "verch" in old spelling, "ferch" in modern. The use of "ap/ab"
continued much later then "verch" - which was well on the way out by the 16th
century.
HTH
Peter Meazey

Gjest

Re: Stradling of St Donat's

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 22:50:02

"The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical Chronicle, From January to June
1821, Volume 41, by Sylvanus Urban, Gent.; John Nichols and Sons, London 1821"
page 490:
"Edward Stradling, 5 Majoru: Fil: Et Hieres 17 Equestris Ordinis 16. Hic in
D'no obdormiscit, qui Juvenis Gallia, Germania et Italia. Peragratia, Redux
Patriae principi suis semper charus fidelis amantiasim vixit; octogenarius obiit
15 Maii, 1609. Agnetum D'ni Edw Gage, mil. fil. habuit in uxore qua
moestissima viduam sobole orbam relinquens, Jo. Stradlingum mil. Francisci natum e
multis juniorem 61. adopt. Elisabethae Gage, uxoria nep'ti, multa sobole mascula
fencundam [?] junctum integra haereditate donaviit. D'na agneta one [?]:
viro: et Jo: Strad: mil. fil. adopt : Patri. Pietatia officii et amoria ergo ae
[?] posteritati sepelliende boc sacrum po' 15 Maii 1610."

Would someone who reads Latin be able to give me the genealogical content of
this? In particular is this name John Stradling as farther to Edward ? This
is so dense I can't figure out what it's saying.
Thanks
WIll Johnson

Gjest

Re: My direct Line from Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // Come

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 des 2005 23:47:02

In a message dated 12/30/05 10:44:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< Source is a Manuscript in my family archive, also printed as a very rare
book:

Ippolito Calandrini
"Il publio Svezzese. Dell'antichissima e nobilissima famiglia degli
illustrissimi signori marchesi di Soragna e vita del glorioso San Lupo
vescovo e confessore"
printed in Parma, per i tipi di Mario Vigna,on 1653.

Do you have any suggestions can help me to trace the ancestry of
Philagrius? >>


I fear that you come here with pre-conceived notions of the *correctness* of
your sources, without an adequate basis in the possibility of their fictional
nature.

If your source on 9the century figures is a 17th century work then you're
already on the wrong foot.

The idea that a line can perpetuate itself for 800 years and yet leave no
trace of itself except in a single MS is fallacious.

Now if that source, itself names underlying sources, than those underlying
sources should be queried to determine the correctness or most likely lack of
evidence for the line thus far. However if you want to start with this work as
gospel and then attempt to go back further, you're on an errand that will
likely end in more mythological descents that will help nobody.

That's my opinion.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: query re Isabel wife of Robert de Brus

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 00:07:02

I have a note that states that Isabel was "second daughter".
Can you tell us if SP or CP or both repeat this statement?
Thanks
WIll Johnson

Gjest

Re: SP Addition: Sir Robert de Danielston, grandson of Rober

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 00:16:01

In a message dated 12/30/05 7:02:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< You have the Lindsay-Stewart link correct, with the exception that
Isabel Graham was the 2nd (not first) wife of Walter Stewart. His
first wife was Marjory Bruce, who died in childbirth in 1317 (not March
1315/6 as is usually found in print). >>

John would you mind sourceing that 1317 date ?
"Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe", Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan ;
Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981
states that she died in 1316

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: query re Isabel wife of Robert de Brus

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 00:18:02

WJhonson@aol.com writes:

I have a note that states that Isabel was "second daughter".
Can you tell us if SP or CP or both repeat this statement?
Thanks
WIll Johnson


Hi Will

SP II p430 (under Carrick)
Isabel 2nd daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon
. . .
she b 1206 d ca 1251

CP VI page 647 footnote (l)
David Earl of Huntingdon had 3 sons and 3 daughters
. . .
(1) Margaret m Alan, Lord of Galloway
(2) Isabel m Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale
(3) Ada m Henry de Hastings

but under Hastings CP VI page 345
Ada is described as the 4th daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 00:34:02

Peter,

I, too, would be interested - the Stradlings married into many South Wales
families of whom I am interested in.

Rose
Epsom Downs/UK

Gjest

Re: SP Addition: Sir Robert de Danielston, grandson of Rober

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 00:51:01

In a message dated 12/30/05 7:02:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< 1.1c Egidia Stewart* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Sir James Douglas
Death: 1420[2]
Father: Sir John de Douglas (-<1349)
Mother: Agnes de Graham
Marr: Oct 1378[2] >>


I note you're missing date information on Agnes de Graham.
I offer this repeat of your own post :) which shows she died AFT Oct 1344

Subj: SP Addition: Agnes Graham, wife of Sir John Douglas (d. ca. 1350)
Date: 11/9/05 12:44:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Therav3 (John P Ravilous)

The account in SP for the Douglas family of Dalkeith (later Earls of
Morton) provides little information with regard to spouses of family members
prior to the marriage of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith (d. 1420) to Agnes Dunbar.
This is also the case with Sir James’ father Sir John de Douglas, whose wife
Agnes is described only as (evidently) the widow of John Monfode [1].
Fortunately, the dispensation for the marriage of Sir John and his wife Agnes was
preserved, the text for which is as follows:

" 1344. 4 Id. Oct. Avignon. (f. 140d.)
To the bishop of St. Andrews. Faculty to grant dispensation to John de
Duglas, knight, and Agnes de Grame to intermarry, they having lived together and
had offspring, notwithstanding the assertion made that Agnes was aunt of a woman
with whom John had cohabited, Agnes being ignorant of the said impediment. A
penance is to be enjoined on John, and two chaplaincies of 10 marks each are
to be founded within two years. Their past and future offspring is to be
declared legitimate. [Cal. Pet. i.79; Theiner, 282.] " [2]

Gjest

Re: Ros family per Cleveland

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 00:56:01

Dear Adrian,
What the Duchess of Cleveland had to say concerning
the foul treason of the second (sic third) Robert de Ros of Werke in 1293 is
most interesting as it lends a degree of credence to John Ravilious ` contention
that his wife Lura was a Baliol.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont , Maine USA

Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 01:26:01

As an example, I have typed out the text as stated in the MS you referenced,
and then below that the text as stated in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1821, so
about 60 years prior.
This at least allows us to see a few things. First the wording in your MS
has been altered to a more modern wording, and second the parenthetical
remarks appear to be, on the picture, and not the work of either editor.

Will Johnson
--------------------------------------------------
The MS you cited [T.C.Evans ms. (Cardiff Central Library ms 3.166).] :
"On the west wall are three pictures in panels in excellent preservation, of
large size, 3ft 6in high; perhaps by 2ft 8in wide. Their excellent condition
was due as was told by the sextons wife, on our visit to the place in 1880, to
their having been sent to London by Dr Carne to be restored. The restoration
seemed to have been most judiciously performed.

The 1st picture represents a knight in dark armour kneeling in prayer, book
in hand; facing him is his lady, richly attired, also kneeling. Two sons kneel
behind the knight, one daughter behind the lady. A shield of arms fully
quartered suspended over each, and an inscription in small neat white lettering in
centre of the picture to the memory of Sir Harry Stradling, who was taken
prisoner by Colyn Dolphyn and ransomed at 2,200 marks, to pay which certain manors
(specified) were sold. Other incidents in the knight's life are also given.
On the panel and below the picture is an inscription in black lettering as
follows:-

"Here lyeth Thomas Stradling Esquire, sonne to Sir Henry Stradling, knight,
and Elizabeth his wife (the daughter of William Thomas of Raglan, in County of
Monmouth, knight) who died at Cardiff, in the monastery of the preaching
fryers, the 8th day of September, in the year of our lord 1480; whose bones after
the dissolution of the said monastery, Thomas Stradling, knight, his nephew
caused to be taken up and carried to St Donats, and buried in the chancel of the
church there, by his son the 4th day of June in the year of our lord 1537, and
afterwards Edward Stradlinge, knight, his nephew's sonne, the 5th of that
name translated the said bones out of the chancel to the chapel there in the year
of our lord 1573, after whose death his wyfe married with Sir Rees ap Thomas,
knight of the garter, and died at Picton in the county of Pembroke, the 5th
day of February, in the year of our lord 1533, and was buried at Carmarthen in
the monastery of the Preaching Fryers with the said Sir Rees ap Thomas, her
husband"

-----------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
Now we get another description from "The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical
Chronicle, From January to June 1821, Volume 41, by Sylvanus Urban, Gent.;
John Nichols and Sons, London 1821" page 489:
"Three curious old paintings on pannel remain in good preservation. They
each represent a man in armour, and a lady kneeling, with a desk between them,
accompanied by their children. The inscriptions on the paintings are as follow:
1 "Here lyeth Thomas Stradlinge, esq. sonne to Harry Stradlinge, kt, and
Elizath his wyfe (the daughter of Wm Thomas of Raglan in the countie of Monmouth,
kt, who dyed at Cardyffe in the Monastery of Preachinge Fryers, on the 8 day
of Sept. in the yere of our Lord 1480. Whose bones (after the dissolution of
the sayd Monastery) Thomas Stradlinge, knight [fn *], his nephewe, caused to
be taken up and carried to Saint Donatts and buried in the Chauncell of the
Church there, by his sonne, the 4 day of June, in the yere of our Lord 1537; and
afterwards Edward Stradlinge, knight, his nephew's sonne, the 5th of that
same, translated the said bones out of the chauncell into the Chapell ther, in the
yere of our Lord 1573; after whose death his wyfe married with Sir Rees ap
Thomas, Knight of the Garter, and dyed at Picton in the countie of Pembroke, the
5 day of February, in the yere of our Lord 1533, and was buryed at
Carmarthen, in the Church of the Monastery of Preachinge Friers with the said Sir Rees
ap Thomas her husband. ( He died before he was 26 yrs of age.)"
In the center of this painting is the following: "The undernamed Harry
Strandlinge, kt, went on pilgramage to Jerusalem, and received the order of the
Sepulchre there, as his father Edward Stradlinge, kt, the 5th [fn +] of that name,
and grandfather William Stradlinge, kt, the second of that name, did, -- and
died in the Isle of Cyprus in his coming home, the last of August in the 15
[or 16 ?] yere of K Edwd 4th and is buried there in the city of Famagusta. This
said Harry Stradlinge, from his house in Somersetshire to his house in Wales,
was taken prisoner by a Brytaine Pirate named Colin Dolphin, whose redemption
and charges stood him in 2200 markes, for the payment whereof he was driven
to sell the castle and manor of Bessalleg and Sutton in Monmouthshire, and two
manors in Oxfordshire."

* He was buried March 30, 1573 by register, which is the earliest date
recorded thereof.
+ This certainly ought to be the third of that name, instead of the fifth.

ralph

Re: Ancestors of Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // Comes Orien

Legg inn av ralph » 31 des 2005 04:12:51

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:58:56 +0000, Cannalonga wrote:

I'm Just subscribed on this forum. Hello and Happy New Year to everyone!

Does someone knows something about the ancestors of

Flavius Eparchius Philagrius // Comes Orientis abt 382 Bishop of Cyprus;
Prefect of Egipt?

His attested wife was Egnatia Avita Severa, daughter of Quintus Flavius
Egnatius Placidus Severus // (48260) (abt 330A.D. - ) and Antonia
Marcianilla // (48259) (abt 335A.D. - )
His sons:
1) Eparchius virus nob. of Toul // noble of Toulouse (48262) (abt
370A.D. - )
2) Agricola Consul of /ROMAN EMPIRE/ Prefect of Gaul; Consul 421 (34161)
(abt 370A.D. - aft 421A.D.)
3) Lysticius // (176757) (abt 375A.D. - )

I'm very interested to find the male lineage of this Flavius Eparchius
Philagrius, supposed to be my oldest direct MALE ancestor (45
generations).
I'm not sure about is father, that could be Flavius Philagrius //
Prefect of Egypt between 334 and 340 (176649) (abt 300A.D. - aft
340A.D.), cited on "History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
- Volume II" by Edward Gibbon, on note 111

Matbe could be related to

Any Help will be welcome!
Thanks
marco

(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince di Santa Margherita)






googled and found this site. still under construction.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/
the long genealogies are appreciated here.
very welcome are those who can read the latin documents.
good luck with your research.

Gjest

Re: Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 06:17:53

Following up on this thread, I've found something that I find rather
interesting. Given that the legend of Dick Whittington would have him accidently meet
Alice the daughter of Ivo 2nd Baron FitzWarin whom he marries in 1402
(http://www.wikipedia.com)

Richard Whittington is said to have been a younger son of William
Whittington, Lord of Paultley, Gloucestershire
(http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsit ... ing_1.html)

Hmm says I "Whittington of Pauntley" sounds familiar and sure enough Mary
Whittington who married William Lyttleton of Frankley, is said to be also of
Pauntley. I don't currently have details on Mary. No ancestry that is.

But leaving that aside for a moment, I decided to see what I could find on
Pauntley or Whittington in A2A

Keeping in mind that Ivo is son of William, son of Fullk, son of Fulk..... of
Whittington, Shropshire, England

I find that very unusual that a husband's surname "Richard Whittington"
should match a wife's ancestors placename "Whtitington, Shropshire". Don't know
what to make of it, but then I found this as well.

Lancashire Record Office: Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley) [DDK/1 -
DDK/44]
Stanley, Earls of Derby (of Knowsley)
Catalogue Ref. DDK
Creator(s): Stanley family, Earls of Derby
Grants, Family Deeds, &c. - ref. DDK/1
FILE - Fulk Fitz Waryn, Lord of Whytynton, to Roger Lestrange, Lord of
Knokyn. - ref. DDK/1/5 - date: 25th Feb., 43 Edward III., A.D. 1368-9


Just to kind of cement the whole idea that the FitzWarin's were Lords of
Whittington.

Will Johnson

Sutliff

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Sutliff » 31 des 2005 09:08:38

Comments interspersed:

<PMeazey@aol.com> wrote in message news:80.35c9ab4b.30e6fa28@aol.com...
The description of the paintings was of course from the T.C.Evans
manuscript
- sorry, I should have made this clear. Below is the descent from Sir
Peter
Stradling from the same source. Full transcript of the document available
as a
windows.doc file to anyone who wants a copy - contact me off-list.

"1. Sir Peter Stradling married Joanna, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas
Hawey, knight, and had with her besides the manor of St Donats, two manors
in
Somersetshire and one in Dorsetshire.

In Glamorganshire Pedigrees she is listed as Julian, daughter of Sir Thomas
Harvey of Comb-Harvey, Somerset

2. Sir Edward (1) Stradling, the first of that name, quartered the arms of
Hawey with those of the Stradlings. He married Eleanor, daughter and
heiress of
Gilbert Strongbow, knight, of Caldicot castle, Monmouthshire. With her Sir
Edward had two manors in Oxfordshire. (He did homage in 1314 for Compton
Hawey to
the Abbot of Sherborne)

3. Sir Edward (2) Stradling (1344-69), second of the name, son of the
foregoing, married Gwenllian, one of the sisters and heiress of Sir
Lawrence
Berkrolles, knight, of New Castle, St Athans, otherwise the castle of East
Orchard.
Their son was -

Sir Lawrence Berkerolles died in 1411. I do not have a death date for
Gwenllian, but her husband d. aft. 1367 was already deceased and her son d.
bet. 1400 and 1412 may also have been dead. I wonder if this statement is
actually referring to Gwenllian's mother Catherine de Turberville who was
one of the four heiresses of their father Sir Payn III de Turberville of
Coity, Glamorganshire. Lawrence d.s.p. but his heirs would likley have been
descendants of any sisters rather than the sisters themselves if they were
already deceased. Also Lawrence's wife Ismania, daughter of Stephen de
Hanham died in September 1420. Lawrence was her third husband.
4. Sir William Stradling, knight, (1390) who married Isabell daughter and
heiress of Sir John Burt, knight. It is melancholy to add that he received
with
her, albeit that she was an heiress, no fortune, for as the chronicler
goes on
to explain "the estates of that family were entailed on male issue". This
is
the first Stradling to whom the genealogist condescends to give a date to
any
of his actions. Sir William journeyed to Jerusalem we are told in the
reign of
Richard II and received knighthood according to the forms and order of the
Holy Sepulchre; which act took place "about" the year of Christ 1380. His
son was
-

Isabel, wife of William is usually given as Isabel de St. Barbe of South
Brent, Som.

5. Sir Edward (3) Stradling the third. He was a personage of considerable
pretensions: he quartered the arms of St Burt in the right of his wife;
then
those of the Berkerolles (whose heir he became in 1412) and with them the
arms of
Turberville and Iestyn ab Gurgan. He married Jane daughter of Henry
Beaufort,
who became a cardinal. This lady was descended on the mother's side from
the
Arundel family. Sir Edward like his father and Grandfather made a journey
to
Jerusalem to receive knighthood. (Was this a cheap and easy way of being
dubbed?
It is singular that we hear nothing of any of these valiant knights using
their prowess in the tented field) Sir John Stradling a brother of this
Sir
Edward married the daughter and heiress of one Dauncey, in Somersetshire
(?Wiltshire) and had two sons from whom are numerous descendants. Sir
Edward's son was,

The brother John was husband of Joan Dauntsey of Dauntsey, Wilts, daughter
of John Dauntsey d. 1405 and his wife Elizabeth Beverley d. 1395 of Hitchin,
Hertfordshire (daughter of John Beverley and Amy de Buxhall). There is a lot
in the archives about the Dauntsey Stradlings. Seems to me we discussed them
the last time about 2002 or 2003. I think that we discussed them earlier as
well around 1998 or 1999.
snip


HS

Gjest

Re:STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 des 2005 14:53:01

Will,
Evans does specifically state that he saw the pictures at St Donats in 1880
after they had been restored. Could the inscriptions have been modified by the
restorer ?
Reading through them again and checking against the Dictionary of Welsh
Biography, they make reasonable sense provided you take the word "nephew" to mean
"grandson". I can't help wondering whether the original inscriptions in 1590
were in latin, that they were replaced by English versions at some stage and
that the whole problem comes from a too-literal translation of "nepos". Or am I
losing my Elgin marbles ?
By the way, William Herbert of Raglan is referred to by the DWB as "Sir
William ap Thomas" - I'm sure you're right on this one. He was "ap Thomas Herbert",
at a time when people in South Wales were just getting used to the idea of
transmissible family names - this is an interesting hybrid form.
Still no sign of Miss Jubb for Leo...
ATB
Peter

Kelly Leighton

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 01 jan 2006 06:48:02

Yuck, I sure would appreciate if someone knew the secret to making that look right and was willing to share. It seems I went through a lot of work for nothing.

A short recap might untangle the post.

Sergeaux line:

Richard and Ellen fathered Richard who married Margaret Seneschal (her father was sir John). This might be new. I didn't know anything of Richard and Ellen previous to the A2A find.

Richard and Margaret fathered Richard who married Phillipe Arundel (her father Edmund, her grandfather Richard, 10th earl of Arundel).

Richard and Phillipa fathered Phillipa who married (before 1382) Robert Pashley. Anne Pashley and John Pashley were the children.

I don't know of anything new here on the Pashley line, maybe just a synthesis of a few sources.

Pashley line:

Ralph of Alderstead, from Merstham in Surrey was father of first Robert de Pashley who married Sarah and had Edmund de Pashley.

Edmund married (at least) twice, and Saul and ODNB differ as to how much credence to give Joan, a woman who contested 2nd wife Margaret's sons inheriting. Margaret's de Normanville (and Lovetot) ancestry proven by Paul Brand's ODNB entry fro Edmund Passele (and verified by Folio xix reference).

Never-the-less, Margaret and Robert had sons. One of them, Robert married a Joan (possibly Echingham, we're looking for source info on this) and had Robert Pashley who married Anne Howard. She was a daughter of Robert Howard, but just how (or if) she fits into the Howard lineage, I don't know.

Robert and Anne had Robert Pashley, husband of Phillipa Sergeux.

I can send a clean text file or post a temporary web page if anyone is interested.

Sorry for the mess.

Take care,

Kelly in RI

Gjest

Re:Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 08:51:02

A few comments on Will Johnson's two posts of 30th December:-
1. There is no doubt about Dick Whittington's ancestry, or about his
(childless) marriage to Alice Fitzwarren, or his mayoralty of London: Will might like
to refer to the Parliamentary Biographies for Henry IV's reign, which shows
him as the four times Mayor of London in the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV.
Another useful and amusing reference is "A Model Merchant of the Middle Ages"
by the Rev S. Lysons.
2. Pauntley in Gloucestershire had been in the family since it was inherited
in 1311 by William, son of William de "Wytinton" [sic], then aged 24 or more,
on the death of his kinsman John, son of Thomas de Solers: the manor was held
of the honour of Clifford by the service of one knight's fee, under the Earl
and Countess of Lincoln: see Glos IPMs, p.115. In 1267 it had been held by
this Thomas de Solers, according to Duncomb's History of Herefordshire, and when
his son John died childless William Whittington inherited in right of his
wife, John Solers's sister Maud.
Pauntley continued in the ownership of the descendants of Dick Whittington's
elder brother Robert until on the death of Thomas Whittington (eldest son of
John, died 1525) it fell to the share of one of his 6 daughters, married to a
Poole of Saperton, who's descendant Sir Henry Poole sold the estate to Edward
Somerset, 4th Earl of Worcester. There is a mystery about this, because John
Whittington's Will (PROB11/21) settled Pauntley on Thomas in tail male: I have
not been able to discover how this entail was rendered ineffective so as to
defeat the claim of John W's younger son Alexander W of Notgrove, his next male
heir.
3. The connection of the Whittingtons with the Littletons of Frankley is
easily explained. Marie W, sister of the last-mentioned John, had married Sir
William Littleton of Frankley: the Birmingham City archives have the following
entry in the Lyttleton of Hagley papers, reference 3279/351989:-
"Indenture between the Rt. Rev. Father in God, John Arundell, Bishop of
Covyntre "and Lychefeld [Coventry and Lichfield] and Sir William Littelton, knt.
[of Frankley] "being a settlement on the marriage of the said Sir William and
Marie Whityngton, "daughter of William Whityngton late of Pauntley [co. Glouc.]
esq., deceased of ""Elizabeth his wife, which Elizabeth was sister to the said
Bishop 1 Sept. 14 Hen. "VII.
The notes in square brackets in this citation are those provided by the
Birmingham City Archivist.

I am not sure whether Marie was William's daughter by his first marriage to
Elizabeth Croft, of Croft Castle, or by his second marriage to Elizabeth
Milborne, one of the daughters of the philoprogenitive Simon Milborne of Tillington.
4, I have never managed to establish a connection between the Whittingtons
and the Shropshire Whittington Castle- in spite of the suggestive heraldry
(gules, a fess chequy or and azure) to which I drew attention on this list a while
ago. The trouble is that towns called Whittington are numerous, and I have
never found a Shropshire connection for Dick Whittington's family before his
marriage to Ivo FitzWarren's daughter Alice. The earliest references that I can
trace for the family derive form Warwickshire in the 13th century, when William
(presumably the "William de Wytinton" mentioned above) is recorded as marrying
Hawise de Aguillon, sister and coheiress of Hugh de Aguillon of Upton Haselor
in Warwickshire ( a manor which is mentioned. Upton Haselor was ultimately
inherited by the Throckmortons of Coughton, Warks, one of whom had married a
daughter of Thomas Whittington, mentioned above.
Happy New Year to all the helpful, learned and friendly contributors to this
list

MM

Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 13:16:01

Chasing up HS's suggestion that "Combe Hawey" should read "Comb Harvey", I
came across a contribution from Rosie Bevan dated Sun, 07 Mar 2004 of which the
following is an extract :

"I thought it might be useful to obtain the 1480 inquisitions post mortem for
Joan Stradling.
I have now received this documentation from the PRO (C/140/75/52) and can
report back to the newsgroup that it does indeed contain the inquisitions of
Joan, widow of Sir Edward Stradling. The details are summarised as follows.

The writ was issued on 10th December 1479 to enquire into Joan Stradling's
landholding in Somerset and Dorset, the date of her death, and the identity and
age of her next heir. The escheator took the inquisitions on 26 and 28 June
1480 and found that Joan did not hold anything of the king in chief, but held
from a number of feoffees, including her son David Stradling, the manors of
Compton Haweye [Compton Hawey] in Dorset, and Comehaweys [Combe Hawey] and
Halsewey [Halsway] in Somerset, for the term of the lives of David Stradling, her
son, and his wife Margaret. The date of death for Joan was given as 19th October
1479, and her next kinsman and heir was Edward Stradling, son of Thomas
Stradling, son of Henry Stradling, son of Joan, aged 4 years and more."

My reading of this would indicate that the David Stradling who granted these
manors was the brother of Sir Harry (who was captured by the pirate and died
in Cyprus et cetera).
Otherwise, reading the list in descending order, we have Joan (d.1479) mother
of Henry, grandmother of Thomas, succeeded by her great-grandson Edward,
which corresponds with the accepted version in which Thomas died in 1480 in his
26th year.

So who were David Stradling and his wife Margaret, and what became of them ?
And a Happy New Year to everybody,
Peter Meazey

Gjest

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 13:57:02

Kelly wrote

I'm not sure if this will show up right, I had some difficulty transferring

the text document to outlook. The vertical lines do not look exactly straight
as a result. Nonetheless, it should be discernable.
<<<<

It probably come out okay for most readers, those who can read the text in
fixed pitch text. This is not easy to do for AOL browser, and requires cut
and pasting into a new pane, and is a pain, so I rarely bother (especially on
New Year's day). I did once use another browser recommended by a poster here,
but this crashed a couple of times, and when I found that to use it, my AOL
log-on details had to be stored in plain text, I abandoned it.

-- Note that O.F. Brown in The Tyrells of England assigns a different

ancestry to Edward Tyrell's wife Anne (mother of Phillipa, wife of Thomas
Cornwallis), but provides no proof. My post of 13 Nov 2005 elicited no response, as
did Brad Verity's post of 10 April 2004 regarding the latest research into the
ancestry of Anne, wife of Edward Tyrell. Perhaps one of the two sources noted
above that I have not seen holds the rosetta stone to the identity of this
Anne?
<<<<<<

O. F. Brown's does provide his reasoning (that Edward's wife was Anne dau of
Sir William Lysle) on pages 87 and 88, and is based on a construction of
Edward's Will, which OFB gives in his references (under 1. chapter 6b on page
229) as "Will of Edward Tyrell: _Register of Henry Chichele, Vol. II., p.
628._". Don't know where you can find this.

I presume this is the Edward Tyrell you are alluding to.

Regards
Adrian

Kelly Leighton

Re: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticis

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 01 jan 2006 16:01:02

Adrian,

Thank you very much for your response. I use internet explorer 6.0 SP1 and am fairly computer savvy (I make my living at it) but I don't exactly understand how to change the font display. I went into the usual tools-options, but no joy changing any spacings.

As for Brown's reasoning, I am aware that he cites Edward's will (you are correct that that is who I was referring to), but Edward's will does not state the father of Anne. Even Brown, himself, on page 89 refers to him as "the presumed father of Anne". He also mentions a writ following Anne's death on 26 May 1444. I do not, unfortunately, have the endnote data which supports this yet so am unable to see if this might provide any illumination. I only have a few pages of Brown's work copied from a not-so-local library. I intend to copy this also on my next trip.

The full text for a copy of Edward's will is related in an article by Moriarty "The Early Tyrrels of Heron In East Herndon" in NEHGR Vol. 109 Jan 1955 pp. 26. Brad Verity's post of 10 Apr 2004 captures the argument nicely, I believe.

It is, of course, possible that O. F. Brown is correct and Moriarty and Richardson wrong, but it does seem time to "solve" this one way or another, if possible.

Thank you again Adrian, I enjoy and respect your postings.

Kelly in RI

From: ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 07:55:34 EST
Kelly wrote

I'm not sure if this will show up right, I had some difficulty transferring

the text document to outlook. The vertical lines do not look exactly straight
as a result. Nonetheless, it should be discernable.
<<<<

It probably come out okay for most readers, those who can read the text in
fixed pitch text. This is not easy to do for AOL browser, and requires cut
and pasting into a new pane, and is a pain, so I rarely bother (especially on
New Year's day). I did once use another browser recommended by a poster here,
but this crashed a couple of times, and when I found that to use it, my AOL
log-on details had to be stored in plain text, I abandoned it.

-- Note that O.F. Brown in The Tyrells of England assigns a different

ancestry to Edward Tyrell's wife Anne (mother of Phillipa, wife of Thomas
Cornwallis), but provides no proof. My post of 13 Nov 2005 elicited no response, as
did Brad Verity's post of 10 April 2004 regarding the latest research into the
ancestry of Anne, wife of Edward Tyrell. Perhaps one of the two sources noted
above that I have not seen holds the rosetta stone to the identity of this
Anne?
<<<<<<

O. F. Brown's does provide his reasoning (that Edward's wife was Anne dau of
Sir William Lysle) on pages 87 and 88, and is based on a construction of
Edward's Will, which OFB gives in his references (under 1. chapter 6b on page
229) as "Will of Edward Tyrell: _Register of Henry Chichele, Vol. II., p.
628._". Don't know where you can find this.

I presume this is the Edward Tyrell you are alluding to.

Regards
Adrian

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 01 jan 2006 16:19:11

Hi Kelly

Look at top right of page in google groups SGM when you have a thread
open.

Fixed font - Proportional font option by clicking.

Also,

Not clear the Richard and Ellen you mention are parents of Richard Jr.
Document calls him "kinsman and heir", not son. Richard Jr. would then
more likely be a nephew.


Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: STRADLING

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 17:48:01

In a message dated 1/1/2006 4:14:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
PMeazey@aol.com writes:

So who were David Stradling and his wife Margaret, and what became of them ?
And a Happy New Year to everybody,
Peter Meazey


You would be interested to know that Brad Verity published an article on
this family in "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy"
_http://fmg.ac/FMG/Journal/01-04.htm_ (http://fmg.ac/FMG/Journal/01-04.htm)

The article is actually titled "Cardinal Beaufort and Alice of Arundel" but
relates a large number of details of the Stradlings and in particular, to your
question, on this particular David he says, in part:
"17. If this was Jane’s plan, it seems to have succeeded for a while. David
Stradling survived until at least 1487, when he presented to the church of
Combe Hawey (Somerset Record Society, 1937)."

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: SP Addition: Sir Robert de Danielston, grandson of Rober

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 01 jan 2006 22:21:48

Dear Will,

Thanks for that. I'd not incorporated that date as a terminus for
the death of Agnes as it seemed likely she lived for some time after
that, given the progeny she left behind. I will revisit that in short
order.

Cheers,

John




WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/30/05 7:02:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

1.1c Egidia Stewart* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Sir James Douglas
Death: 1420[2]
Father: Sir John de Douglas (-<1349)
Mother: Agnes de Graham
Marr: Oct 1378[2]


I note you're missing date information on Agnes de Graham.
I offer this repeat of your own post :) which shows she died AFT Oct 1344

Subj: SP Addition: Agnes Graham, wife of Sir John Douglas (d. ca. 1350)
Date: 11/9/05 12:44:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Therav3 (John P Ravilous)

The account in SP for the Douglas family of Dalkeith (later Earls of
Morton) provides little information with regard to spouses of family members
prior to the marriage of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith (d. 1420) to Agnes Dunbar.
This is also the case with Sir James' father Sir John de Douglas, whose wife
Agnes is described only as (evidently) the widow of John Monfode [1].
Fortunately, the dispensation for the marriage of Sir John and his wife Agnes was
preserved, the text for which is as follows:

" 1344. 4 Id. Oct. Avignon. (f. 140d.)
To the bishop of St. Andrews. Faculty to grant dispensation to John de
Duglas, knight, and Agnes de Grame to intermarry, they having lived together and
had offspring, notwithstanding the assertion made that Agnes was aunt of a woman
with whom John had cohabited, Agnes being ignorant of the said impediment. A
penance is to be enjoined on John, and two chaplaincies of 10 marks each are
to be founded within two years. Their past and future offspring is to be
declared legitimate. [Cal. Pet. i.79; Theiner, 282.] " [2]

John P. Ravilious

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 01 jan 2006 22:43:57

Dear Will,

The conflation of the two Joanna's [de Menteith, and her daughter
Joanna Murray) into one is a standard treatment, but is in error.
Andrew MacEwen advised Douglas Richardson some time ago (who kindly
advised me subsequently) as follows:

" Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas, married Joan,
daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Moray, of Bothwell, not his widow,
Joan
daughter and heiress of Morice Moray, Earl of Stratherne. Andrew says
it is
true that Archibald received a dispensation to marry Thomas Moray's
widow
but she appears to have died in a plague which hit Scotland in 1362 and
Archibald married her daughter instead. Andrew says the evidence is
good
that Archibald Douglas's wife, Joan, was the heiress of Bothwell which
was a
Moray property. She would not be the heiress of Bothwell if she had
only
been the widow of Sir Thomas Moray."

' Johanna de Moravia, Lady of Drumsagard', issued a charter
confirmed by her mother Johanna de Menteith, ca. 1370 [Chart.
Inchaffray, lxix, citing Laing Charters]. This was Joanna de Murray,
wife of Thomas Murray of Bothwell: her daughter, Joanna Murray, brought
Bothwell (as her inheritance, not dower) to her husband Archibald
Douglas.

Cheers,

John



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/1/06 12:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

Sir David = Helen Sir Thomas = Joanna
Graham I Murray I Murray
______I I______
I I
Sir Patrick = (2) Egidia Archibald = Joanna
Graham I Stewart Douglas I Murray
________I _______I


Why the additional Joanna Murray ?
I have that Maurice and Joanna had dispensation to marry on 10 Jul 1339
Joanna de Menteith, Countess of Strathearn was probably born no earlier than
1302 since she is having three more children with her last husband William,
5th Earl of Sutherland after 1347.

So my database shows her daughter Joanna Murray (Moray) as the wife of both
Sir Thomas Murray (Moray) *and* Archibald Douglas. whom she married 23 Jul 1362
(http://www.genealogics.org)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 23:04:02

In a message dated 1/1/06 12:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< Sir David = Helen Sir Thomas = Joanna
Graham I Murray I Murray
______I I______
I I
Sir Patrick = (2) Egidia Archibald = Joanna
Graham I Stewart Douglas I Murray
________I _______I >>


Why the additional Joanna Murray ?
I have that Maurice and Joanna had dispensation to marry on 10 Jul 1339
Joanna de Menteith, Countess of Strathearn was probably born no earlier than
1302 since she is having three more children with her last husband William,
5th Earl of Sutherland after 1347.

So my database shows her daughter Joanna Murray (Moray) as the wife of both
Sir Thomas Murray (Moray) *and* Archibald Douglas. whom she married 23 Jul 1362
(http://www.genealogics.org)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 23:09:01

I think I'm looking at a possible chronology problem with this fit.

Joanna de Menteith, Countess of Strathean married four times.
Her third husband Maurice died at the Battle of Neville's Cross, after which
she married William, 5th Earl of Sutherland and had at least three *more*
children. She could not have been born before 1302 unless she was trying to set a
record for the oldest mother.

She married her first husband abt 1323

Her 2nd husband did 19 Jul 1333 Halidon Hall and the dispensation for her to
marry her 3rd husband was dated 10 Jul 1339 and he died 17 Oct 1346 So your
purported Joanna Moray (Murray) [the 1st] could only have been born between 1340
and 1347 (the last year posthumously).

If Joanna is supposed to have died in a plague in 1362 she could have been 22
at the oldest and 15 at the youngest.

Heraldry of the Royal Families states that her son Archibald, 3rd Earl of
Douglas was born in 1369 and he died 17 Aug 1424 at the battle of Verneuil after
having at least two children. His daughter Elizabeth was perhaps born by 1405
she is married in 1413.

I can't see how likely it is that there is another generation in here, it
seems too tight to afford that.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 23:11:02

In a message dated 1/1/06 1:49:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< Andrew says the evidence is good that
Archibald Douglas's wife, Joan, was the heiress of Bothwell
which was a Moray property. She would not be the heiress of
Bothwell if she had only been the widow of Sir Thomas Moray." >>

Yes but another possibility is that Thomas Moray and Joan Moray were already
related when they married, and she inherited not as his widow, nor as his
daughter, but as the remaining heir from some last past ancestor.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 jan 2006 23:16:01

Dear Will,


The conflation of the two Joanna's [de Menteith, and her
daughter Joanna Murray) into one is a standard treatment, but is
in error. Andrew MacEwen advised Douglas Richardson some time ago
(who kindly advised me subsequently) as follows:

" Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas, married Joan,
daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Moray, of Bothwell, not his
widow, Joan daughter and heiress of Morice Moray, Earl of
Stratherne. Andrew says it is true that Archibald received a
dispensation to marry Thomas Moray's widow but she appears to have
died in a plague which hit Scotland in 1362 and Archibald married
her daughter instead. Andrew says the evidence is good that
Archibald Douglas's wife, Joan, was the heiress of Bothwell
which was a Moray property. She would not be the heiress of
Bothwell if she had only been the widow of Sir Thomas Moray."


' Johanna de Moravia, Lady of Drumsagard', issued a
charter confirmed by her mother Johanna de Menteith, ca. 1370
[Chart. Inchaffray, lxix, citing Laing Charters]. This was Joanna
de Murray, wife of Thomas Murray of Bothwell: her daughter, Joanna
Murray, brought Bothwell (as her inheritance, not dower) to her
husband Archibald Douglas.

Cheers,


John

Jeffery A. Duvall

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Jeffery A. Duvall » 01 jan 2006 23:42:02

Kelly,

I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your message or not, but are you
indicating a blood relationship between Margaret de Normanville (d. 1341)
and Sir John de Lovetot (d. 1294)? If so, I'm not familiar with it and am
very interested in any details you might be able to offer on the matter. I
posted a message several months ago about some possible clues to her
maternal ancestry (based upon Blore's description of her mother's seal, as
described in his history of Rutland -- including Blore's claim that the seal
included the arms of the Daiville family), but at best it was simply
speculation...

Thanks.

Jeff Duvall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Leighton" <kleigh1@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism


Yuck, I sure would appreciate if someone knew the secret to making that
look right and was willing to share. It seems I went through a lot of work
for nothing.

A short recap might untangle the post.

Sergeaux line:

Richard and Ellen fathered Richard who married Margaret Seneschal (her
father was sir John). This might be new. I didn't know anything of Richard
and Ellen previous to the A2A find.

Richard and Margaret fathered Richard who married Phillipe Arundel (her
father Edmund, her grandfather Richard, 10th earl of Arundel).

Richard and Phillipa fathered Phillipa who married (before 1382) Robert
Pashley. Anne Pashley and John Pashley were the children.

I don't know of anything new here on the Pashley line, maybe just a
synthesis of a few sources.

Pashley line:

Ralph of Alderstead, from Merstham in Surrey was father of first Robert de
Pashley who married Sarah and had Edmund de Pashley.

Edmund married (at least) twice, and Saul and ODNB differ as to how much
credence to give Joan, a woman who contested 2nd wife Margaret's sons
inheriting. Margaret's de Normanville (and Lovetot) ancestry proven by
Paul Brand's ODNB entry fro Edmund Passele (and verified by Folio xix
reference).

Never-the-less, Margaret and Robert had sons. One of them, Robert married
a Joan (possibly Echingham, we're looking for source info on this) and had
Robert Pashley who married Anne Howard. She was a daughter of Robert
Howard, but just how (or if) she fits into the Howard lineage, I don't
know.

Robert and Anne had Robert Pashley, husband of Phillipa Sergeux.

I can send a clean text file or post a temporary web page if anyone is
interested.

Sorry for the mess.

Take care,

Kelly in RI



Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jan 2006 01:10:02

Dear Will, John, etal,

The barony of Bothwell belonged to Walter Olifard. He died in 1242. His
granddaughter and eventual heir [daughter of Walter's son David Olifard by his
wife Joanna -- see Glasgow Register edited by Cosmo Innes, Maitland Club, 1843,
pp. 103] took the barony of Bothwell to her husband Walter of Moravia.
Walter of Moravia confirmed a grant of David Olifard to Dryburgh Abbey of a
carrucate of land in Smalham on Sept. 18, 1278 [Liber S. Marie de Dryburgh edited
by John Spotiswood, Bannatyne Club, 1847, pp. 109-110]. This is how the barony
came into the possession of the Moray family.

If we look at the chronology Joanna de Menteith married Maurice de Moravia
ca. July 11, 1339. That means Joanna Moray their daughter was not born before
1340. She could not have been born later than 1347, if she were born
posthumously, as her father died at the battle of Neville's Cross on Oct. 17, 1346.
She would have died at age 22 [ at the latest] if the theory is correct that
she died of the plague in 1362. Trying to place a child by Thomas Moray into
this scheme would mean that the child would have been born before 1361. At
the earliest the child would have been born in 1355 marrying Archibald
Douglas [a man of 37 at the time] in 1362. If we grant that Archibald Douglas the
eldest son was born at least by 1372 his mother would have been 17 at the
maximum and his father 47. This seems very unlikely.

The best explanation appears to be that Joanna Moray inherited the barony of
Bothwell as Will suggested which can be shown as her father was the second
cousin of her husband Thomas Moray and the only heir to Bothwell upon his
death. Andrew Moray of Bothwell and William Moray of Drumsagard were half
brothers. Andrew Moray of Bothwell [died 1297 at Stirling Bridge] left a son
Andrew Moray [died 1338] and he left two sons as his eventual heirs. The eldest
son John Moray died dsp before Sep. 5, 1351 and was succeeded by his younger
brother Thomas Moray who died dsp in 1361. The barony would then have passed to
the closest relatives which was the line of William of Drumsagard whose sole
heir at that time was Joanna widow of Thomas Moray of Bothwell. She brought
Bothwell as her inheritance from her deceased husband [as his closest living
relative] to her second husband Archibald Douglas. Archibald Douglas granted
a portion of the barony to the Collegiate church at Bothwell in 1398.

This fits well with the given chronology and appears the most plausible
explanation.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Kelly Leighton

Re: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 02 jan 2006 01:51:01

Doug,

Thank you for your post.

Yes, it is possible that the Richard and Ellen are not the parents of the next Richard, but the case seems to be strengthened a bit by the fact that John Passele's 1426 effort to get his lands back specifically has the statement that a single red rose every year was part of the price for his ancestor's land, a "fee" related in Richard and Ellen's record too. Since even that is not proof of a parent-sibling relationship I have to hope that perhaps something more concrete can be found.

Thank you again for your posting.

Kelly in RI

From: " alden@mindspring.com" < alden@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism
Date: 1 Jan 2006 07:19:11 -0800
References: <000d01c60ee4$05bf18e0$6401a8c0@kelly2k>
In-Reply-To: <000d01c60ee4$05bf18e0$6401a8c0@kelly2k>
Hi Kelly

Look at top right of page in google groups SGM when you have a thread
open.

Fixed font - Proportional font option by clicking.

Also,

Not clear the Richard and Ellen you mention are parents of Richard Jr.
Document calls him "kinsman and heir", not son. Richard Jr. would then
more likely be a nephew.


Doug Smith

John P. Ravilious

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 02 jan 2006 02:24:54

Dear MichaelAnne (et al.),

Many thanks for your detailed response and explanation.
Comments/observations interspersed.



Dear Will, John, etal,

The barony of Bothwell belonged to Walter Olifard. He died in
1242. His
granddaughter and eventual heir [daughter of Walter's son David Olifard
by his
wife Joanna -- see Glasgow Register edited by Cosmo Innes, Maitland
Club, 1843,
pp. 103] took the barony of Bothwell to her husband Walter of Moravia.

Walter of Moravia confirmed a grant of David Olifard to Dryburgh Abbey
of a
carrucate of land in Smalham on Sept. 18, 1278 [Liber S. Marie de
Dryburgh edited
by John Spotiswood, Bannatyne Club, 1847, pp. 109-110]. This is how
the barony
came into the possession of the Moray family.


There is a bit of variance here between the above account and
that provided in the VCH account for Oakington, co. Cambs. The
descent of this English manor mirrors in some early respects your
account for Bothwell, but diverges a bit, esp. in that this Murray
line ends with one William de Murray, who d.s.p. in/about 1300. A
closer inspection appears to be merited.

from VCH Cambridge, IX:195-99, re: Oakington, Cambs.:

' It had been held in demesne since the early 12th century by the
Olifards of Lilford (Northants.), (Footnote 17) including probably Hugh
Olifard by 1130, (Footnote 18) William Olifard, a vassal of the king of
Scots, c. 1155-70, (Footnote 19) and John Olifard, c. 1175- 80.
(Footnote 20) It then passed to descendants of William's brother David
(d. c. 1170), settled in Scotland, and was considered a dependency of
Lilford. David's son Walter, lord before 1216, (Footnote 21) was
succeeded by his son and namesake, who c. 1235 held 2½ hides at
Oakington as 1 knight's fee, (Footnote 22) and died in 1242. His son
and heir David, lord by 1244, (Footnote 23) died without issue,
probably before 1250. Oakington remained for her life with his widow
Dervorguilla, who occupied it until the 1290s. In 1279 the whole
Olifard demesne, 1½ hides, was held under 'the lady of Lilford' in fee
farm. (Footnote 24) The heir was Walter of Moray (d. 1284), son of
David's sister, (Footnote 25) whose son William (d.s.p. 1300) conveyed
his right in Oakington with Lilford between 1296 and 1299 to Anthony
Bek, bishop of Durham, (Footnote 26) lord there c. 1302. (Footnote 27)
'

footnotes:
15e.g. Liber de Bernewelle, 241; Bk. of Fees, ii. 938.
16Close R. 1242-7, 206; cf. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 449.
17For the Olifards, Scots Peerage, ed. J. B. Paul, vi. 522- 9;
Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, i. 354-5.
18Pipe R. 1130 (H.M.S.O. facsimile), 48; cf. ibid. 85.
19Pipe R. 1156-8 (Rec. Com.), 166; 1163 (P.R.S. v), 38; 1170 (P.R.S.
xvi), 198.
20Ibid. 1177 (P.R.S. xxvi), 185; 1180 (P.R.S. xxix), 35; 1181 (P.R.S.
xxx), 95.
21Rot. Litt. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i. 286.
22Liber de Bernewelle, 241; cf. B.L. Add. MS. 5805, f. 50.
23Close R. 1242-7, 206.
24Rot. Hund. ii. 449; cf. Cal. Chanc. Wts. i. 66-8, 107.
25For the Morays, Scots Peerage, ii. 122-5.
26Cal. Chanc. Wts. i. 68, 107; cf. Cal. Pat. 1292-1301, 184; Cal.
Inq. p.m. iv, pp. 502-3.
27Feud. Aids, i. 148.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


If we look at the chronology Joanna de Menteith married Maurice de
Moravia
ca. July 11, 1339. That means Joanna Moray their daughter was not born
before
1340.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Chronology is in fact a crucial element, but what the chronology
does, and does not, substantiate is critical.

The source of the 1339 date above, and what that date actually
represents, is important. We know during this same period that
certain
individuals (Robert the Stewart and Elizabeth Mure are a good example)
were busy producing issue, without benefit of a 'clean' marital bill
of
health, and only being dispensed to marry many years after the fact.

John Campbell, Earl of Athol and Joanna de Menteith's 2nd husband,
was slain at Halidon Hill on 19 July 1333. It appears unlikely that
Joanna actually remained unattached from July 1333 until 1339: if the
1339 date represents either (A) a marriage, or (B) a dispensation to
marry, we cannot rely on even that to define when Sir Maurice Murray
and Joanna de Menteith could have, or would have, produced a child.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

She could not have been born later than 1347, if she were born
posthumously, as her father died at the battle of Neville's Cross on
Oct. 17, 1346.
She would have died at age 22 [ at the latest] if the theory is
correct that
she died of the plague in 1362. Trying to place a child by Thomas
Moray into
this scheme would mean that the child would have been born before
1361. At
the earliest the child would have been born in 1355 marrying Archibald

Douglas [a man of 37 at the time] in 1362. If we grant that Archibald
Douglas the
eldest son was born at least by 1372 his mother would have been 17 at
the
maximum and his father 47. This seems very unlikely.


The best explanation appears to be that Joanna Moray inherited the
barony of
Bothwell as Will suggested which can be shown as her father was the
second
cousin of her husband Thomas Moray and the only heir to Bothwell upon
his
death. Andrew Moray of Bothwell and William Moray of Drumsagard were
half
brothers. Andrew Moray of Bothwell [died 1297 at Stirling Bridge]
left a son
Andrew Moray [died 1338] and he left two sons as his eventual heirs.
The eldest
son John Moray died dsp before Sep. 5, 1351 and was succeeded by his
younger
brother Thomas Moray who died dsp in 1361. The barony would then have
passed to
the closest relatives which was the line of William of Drumsagard
whose sole
heir at that time was Joanna widow of Thomas Moray of Bothwell. She
brought
Bothwell as her inheritance from her deceased husband [as his closest
living
relative] to her second husband Archibald Douglas. Archibald Douglas
granted
a portion of the barony to the Collegiate church at Bothwell in 1398.


This fits well with the given chronology and appears the most plausible

explanation.


Best regards,
MichaelAnne

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


The theoretical passage of Bothwell certainly deserves further
study. I will see what I might have in my notes which may relate
to the matter.

As to the chronology and the suggested pedigree, there is
another good possibility, incl. approximate dates, which would in fact
agree with Andrew MacEwen's theory:

Joanna de Menteith = 3) say 1334/1339, Sir Maurice Murray

Joanna Murray, b. say 1334/1340, d. 1362;
= say 1348/1357, Sir Thomas Murray

Joanna Murray, b. say 1349/1358,
= ca. 1372 * Archibald Douglas


Remember that the 1362 date was for the dispensation for Archibald
Douglas to marry the mother, the widowed Joanna Murray; as indicated
by Andrew MacEwen, the marriage (to the younger Joanna) did not then
occur, but was a later event, ca. 1372.

Again, the 1339 date (and to what extent the event of that year
bears on possible birth dates for children of Joanna Murray) is a
critical item. Any relevant details as to that date, the event, and
the source for same would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jan 2006 04:49:02

In a message dated 1/1/2006 4:47:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kleigh1@cox.net writes:

Yes, it is possible that the Richard and Ellen are not the parents of the
next Richard,


Kelly what Doug is pointing out is that if Richard were their son, the
document would call him son. Why call someone merely "kinsman" if he is in fact
"son" ? That's a bit obtuse :)

However you would expect "kinsman" if he were some odd relation like
great-nephew, or 1st cousin or second cousin three times removed

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jan 2006 05:21:02

In a message dated 1/1/2006 8:33:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
therav3@aol.com writes:

John Campbell, Earl of Athol and Joanna de Menteith's 2nd husband,
was slain at Halidon Hill on 19 July 1333. It appears unlikely that
Joanna actually remained unattached from July 1333 until 1339: if the
1339 date represents either (A) a marriage, or (B) a dispensation to
marry, we cannot rely on even that to define when Sir Maurice Murray
and Joanna de Menteith could have, or would have, produced a child.



Dear John,

Joanna Menteith married Sir Maurice de Moravia of Drumsagard, for which
marriage the bishop of Dunblane received authority to grant a dispensation from
Pope Benedict XII dated 5 Ides of July 1339.

As you can see from the above statement the date of July 11, 1339 is the
date of the dispensation granted for the marriage of Maurice Moray and Johanna
Menteith. The fact of a child being born to Johanna Moray and her first husband
Thomas Moray is very unlikely as there is still the question of the fact
that a very young girl would have been married to a man at least 25 to 30 years
her senior. This did occur but a more logical answer still seems the fact
that Joanna Moray was not only the widow but also the closest living relative of
her husband Thomas Moray. This is an interesting case where the widow would
have stood to inherit the entirety of her husband's property upon his death
not the usual dower. The fact she was his heir can be shown by an analysis of
the Moray family. Her father was her husband's 2nd cousin. When Thomas
Moray's brother John Moray died in 1351,Johanna, who was the only heir of her
father, became her husband's heir.

Best wishes,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jan 2006 05:38:02

In a message dated 1/1/2006 8:33:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
therav3@aol.com writes:

There is a bit of variance here between the above account and
that provided in the VCH account for Oakington, co. Cambs. The
descent of this English manor mirrors in some early respects your
account for Bothwell, but diverges a bit, esp. in that this Murray
line ends with one William de Murray, who d.s.p. in/about 1300. A
closer inspection appears to be merited.




Dear John,

I believe VCH has mixed up two different lines of the Olifard family. The
property at Smailholm which is in Roxburghshire belonged to David Olifard,
godson of David I king of Scotland, who died bef. 1170. It was this David
Olifard who was made Justiciar of the Lothians, which became hereditary in his
descendants, and he was also given the barony of Bothwell. David Olifard had a
son Walter Olifard who married Christina theorized to be the daughter of
Ferteth, earl of Strathern. They had a son Walter Olifard who died in 1242. This
Walter Olifard also held Smailholm and Bothwell. His son David Olifard
married Joanna as is shown by a charter from the Glasgow Register which states
"Omnibus sancte matris ecclesie filiis presentibus et futuris David Olyfard et
Johanna uxor eius salutem eternam in domino". This is the same David Olifard
who gave a carrucate of land in Smailholm [along with pasture and 300 eggs] to
Dryburgh Abbey. On Sept. 18, 1278, William Moray at Bothwell gave Dryburgh
abbey freedom from paying duty to grind grain at the mill in Smailholm. So
both Smailholm and Bothwell were held by Walter Moray. This is how the lands
came into the Moray family.

I am aware of your excellent research on the Monfichet family which shows
another David Olifard who married Devorguille who is connected to the Monfichet
line.

Other documentation is most welcome.

Best Wishes,
MichaelAnne

Peter Marrow

Lyttelton versus Lyttelton

Legg inn av Peter Marrow » 02 jan 2006 16:35:02

Dear SGM ites,

Sir Edward Marrow was the son and heir of Samuel Marrow and his wife
Margaret Lyttleton, daughter of Sir John Lyttleton of Frankley,
Worcestershire. Edward was probably born between 1562 and 1566. In 1596
Edward was concerned in what W.F. Carter (1) describes as 'a disgraceful
dispute between his uncle, Gilbert Lyttelton of Frankley, and the latter's
son and heir apparent, John Lyttelton':

Gilbert complained to the Court of Star Chamber that his sons, John and
Gilbert, accompanied by Edward Marrow, Humphrey Perrot, and others, had
come to Prestwood, in Staffordshire, where he, the Plaintiff, resided,
'armed with bills axes and swords', and that they threw out 'unseemly
threats against his life and members', drove nails and stones into the
locks and doors, and keeping him in close confinement, forced him to comply
with certain unreasonable demands made by his son. A few days afterwards
his son's wife, Mistress Meriel Lyttelton, with about fifty armed persons,
came to Prestwood, kept watch there for about twenty days, and prevented
all access from his friends to him. And when Lord Dudley, a Justice of the
Peace, came to quell the riot, Humphrey Perrot and others went out armed
and reviled Lord Dudley, calling him 'a base and paltry lord'. They also
threatened to stab him, the Plaintiff, to the heart, if he set one foot on
the stairs to go down to Lord Dudley, 'by reason whereof Lord Dudley was
fain to depart'. Carter comments that 'this sounds dreadful, but the
defendants made light of it, stating that John had married Meriel, daughter
of Sir Thomas Bromley, Lord Chancellor, relying on his father's promise to
settle certain Manors on him, which promise had not been fulfilled. The
Defendants had therefore gone peaceably to Prestwood, and Gilbert had come
voluntarily to an agreement. Humphrey Perrot, it appears, was steward to
the Lytteltons, and also steward of the Manor of Berkswell, the property of
Edward Marrow'.

How Edward Marrow came out of the affair Carter could not say, but
association with his cousin would seem likely to be dangerous; for John
Lyttleton a few years later was concerned in the Earl of Essex' conspiracy,
lost his estates, and ended his days in The Tower.

Has anyone got further details of this messy family quarrel?

Does anyone know the outcome of the court case?

Who were the bad guys? Was it the father, or the sons and daughter-in-law
and Edward Marrow etc? Or both?

My apologies for this being about an incident at a rather late date for
this list but I note that there are people here who know much about the
Lyttletons / Littletons.

(1) 'The Marrow Family' by William Fowler Carter, B.A., F.S.A. which forms
the second part of the introduction to Volume I, 'The Miscellany Volume' of
'The Records of King Edward's School Birmingham', published 1924 by the
Oxford University Press, London, for The Dugdale Society.

A good 2006 to One and All,

Peter Marrow
Edinburgh

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jan 2006 18:09:01

Doug,

It must have been a while ago since I wrote that.

I think you need to look at Clarence Ellis' book before you state that he is
wrong. I only have my notes from this book (I have no easy access to it) He
states that Hubert's mother was Alice based on Hubert's gift to Walsingham -
for the soul of my mother Alice. He discusses Alice (dau of John Punchard
and wdw of Robert de Nerford) whom Geoffrey de Burgh calls _nepos_, but
concludes there is not sufficient evidence for her exact connection to the de
Burghs.

Adrian

In a message dated 02/01/2006 07:15:16 GMT Standard Time,

royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Dear Adrian ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.

The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.

This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:

In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
.... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.

There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.

At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.

While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:

1. Elizabeth Alsop.

2. William Asfordby.

3. William Bladen.

4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.

5. Thomas Bressey.

6. Elizabeth Butler.

7. Francis Dade.

8. William Farrer.

9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.

10. Anne Humphrey.

11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.

12. Simon Lynde.

13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.

14. John Oxenbridge.

15. Herbert Pelham.

16. William Skepper.

17. John Stockman.

18. John West.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
< I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in
Constancy'
< concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180),
a small
< holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur
Walsingham).
<
< Adrian

Gjest

Re: Olifard of Scotland

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 jan 2006 18:49:01

Dear MichaelAnne,
The 1st wife of the John Comyn of Badenoch whom
You appear to be referring to seems to have been an Eve, the Amabilia you cite
was Alice de Roos, that John`s widow (as proven by Richardson; see MCA sub
Clarell for details) that is , assuming John didn`t have three wives.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 02 jan 2006 22:01:17

Dear Adrian ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I've already looked at Ellis' book. He appears to have discounted the
Pouchard/Punchard information in Blomfield and in the foundation
history of Creake Abbey without giving the matter serious thought. I
may be wrong, but I believe that Earl Hubert de Burgh was the nephew of
Alice Pouchard, just as is indicated in the records of Creake Abbey.
In general I find that many historians have trouble assembling pieces
of genealogical evidence scattered through many medieval sources. This
is due I think because historians feel it is their job is to tell the
history of a single individual, not set the individual's place in his
family network.

Be that as it may, as I stated in my earlier post, I've seen a
reference (perhaps in Blomfield) which states that it was Hubert de
Burgh's wife, Alice, not his mother, who was buried at Walsingham,
Norfolk. If so, then Ellis is doubly wrong.

To muddle matterrs further, here is what the new DNB has to say about
Hubert de Burgh's family:

"Burgh, Hubert de, earl of Kent (c.1170-1243), justiciar, has been
wrongly said to have been the son of a brother of William fitz Aldhelm,
steward of Henry II. It is possible, though doubtful, that his father
was the Walter whose daughter Adelina, with her son William, owed 40
marks in the pipe roll of 26 Henry II (1179/80) for recognition of
their right to a knight's fee at Burgh, Norfolk. His mother's name was
Alice, for in his grant (c.1230) of the advowson of the church of
Oulton to the prior of Walsingham, Hubert stated that the gift was
'for the soul of my mother Alice who rests in the church at
Walsingham' (BL, Cotton MS Nero E.vii, fol. 91). His elder brother
was William de Burgh (d. 1206) who, in 1185, accompanied the king's
youngest son, John, to Ireland, where he eventually became lord of
Connacht; William's son would later refer to Hubert as uncle. Two
younger brothers, Geoffrey and Thomas, became respectively archdeacon
of Norwich (1202) and then bishop of Ely (1225), and castellan of
Norwich (1215-16). Hubert has been said to have been born in 1175,
but if his brother William was of knightly age in 1185, a date some
years earlier is more probable." END OF QUOTE.

Again, we see above that no reference whatsoever is made to Hubert de
Burgh's Pouchard/Punchard connection. Also, Hubert de Burgh is
presented as younger brother of William de Burgh, lord of Connaught in
Ireland, which I suspect is in error. I say that because I believe
Hubert de Burgh was the eldest son and heir of his father. William is
thought to have been older than Hubert. If Hubert was the son and heir
of his father, and, if William was older than Hubert, then Hubert and
William can not have been brothers.

This matter certainly deserves further study. When we are finished, I
believe the Pouchard/Punchard link will be proven and it will be found
that Earl Hubert de Burgh wasn't the brother of William de Burgh of
Connaught as claimed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Doug,

It must have been a while ago since I wrote that.

I think you need to look at Clarence Ellis' book before you state that he is
wrong. I only have my notes from this book (I have no easy access to it) He
states that Hubert's mother was Alice based on Hubert's gift to Walsingham -
for the soul of my mother Alice. He discusses Alice (dau of John Punchard
and wdw of Robert de Nerford) whom Geoffrey de Burgh calls _nepos_, but
concludes there is not sufficient evidence for her exact connection to the de
Burghs.

Adrian


In a message dated 02/01/2006 07:15:16 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Dear Adrian ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.

The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.

This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:

In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.

There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.

At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.

While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:

1. Elizabeth Alsop.

2. William Asfordby.

3. William Bladen.

4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.

5. Thomas Bressey.

6. Elizabeth Butler.

7. Francis Dade.

8. William Farrer.

9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.

10. Anne Humphrey.

11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.

12. Simon Lynde.

13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.

14. John Oxenbridge.

15. Herbert Pelham.

16. William Skepper.

17. John Stockman.

18. John West.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in
Constancy'
concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180),
a small
holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur
Walsingham).

Adrian

Gjest

Re: Re: Sir John Griffith IPM 1471

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 jan 2006 12:05:03

If Jeff Chipman is still short of volunteers, I would be glad to have a stab
at translating this IPM
MM

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 03 jan 2006 15:52:33

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Adrian ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

I've already looked at Ellis' book. He appears to have discounted the
Pouchard/Punchard information in Blomfield and in the foundation
history of Creake Abbey without giving the matter serious thought. I
may be wrong, but I believe that Earl Hubert de Burgh was the nephew of
Alice Pouchard, just as is indicated in the records of Creake Abbey.
In general I find that many historians have trouble assembling pieces
of genealogical evidence scattered through many medieval sources. This
is due I think because historians feel it is their job is to tell the
history of a single individual, not set the individual's place in his
family network.

Be that as it may, as I stated in my earlier post, I've seen a
reference (perhaps in Blomfield) which states that it was Hubert de
Burgh's wife, Alice, not his mother, who was buried at Walsingham,
Norfolk. If so, then Ellis is doubly wrong.

To muddle matterrs further, here is what the new DNB has to say about
Hubert de Burgh's family:

"Burgh, Hubert de, earl of Kent (c.1170-1243), justiciar, has been
wrongly said to have been the son of a brother of William fitz Aldhelm,
steward of Henry II. It is possible, though doubtful, that his father
was the Walter whose daughter Adelina, with her son William, owed 40
marks in the pipe roll of 26 Henry II (1179/80) for recognition of
their right to a knight's fee at Burgh, Norfolk. His mother's name was
Alice, for in his grant (c.1230) of the advowson of the church of
Oulton to the prior of Walsingham, Hubert stated that the gift was
'for the soul of my mother Alice who rests in the church at
Walsingham' (BL, Cotton MS Nero E.vii, fol. 91). His elder brother
was William de Burgh (d. 1206) who, in 1185, accompanied the king's
youngest son, John, to Ireland, where he eventually became lord of
Connacht; William's son would later refer to Hubert as uncle. Two
younger brothers, Geoffrey and Thomas, became respectively archdeacon
of Norwich (1202) and then bishop of Ely (1225), and castellan of
Norwich (1215-16). Hubert has been said to have been born in 1175,
but if his brother William was of knightly age in 1185, a date some
years earlier is more probable." END OF QUOTE.

Again, we see above that no reference whatsoever is made to Hubert de
Burgh's Pouchard/Punchard connection. Also, Hubert de Burgh is
presented as younger brother of William de Burgh, lord of Connaught in
Ireland, which I suspect is in error. I say that because I believe
Hubert de Burgh was the eldest son and heir of his father. William is
thought to have been older than Hubert. If Hubert was the son and heir
of his father, and, if William was older than Hubert, then Hubert and
William can not have been brothers.

To the Newsgroup:

If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de Burgh
was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should refute
that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).

CED

This matter certainly deserves further study. When we are finished, I
believe the Pouchard/Punchard link will be proven and it will be found
that Earl Hubert de Burgh wasn't the brother of William de Burgh of
Connaught as claimed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Doug,

It must have been a while ago since I wrote that.

I think you need to look at Clarence Ellis' book before you state that he is
wrong. I only have my notes from this book (I have no easy access to it) He
states that Hubert's mother was Alice based on Hubert's gift to Walsingham -
for the soul of my mother Alice. He discusses Alice (dau of John Punchard
and wdw of Robert de Nerford) whom Geoffrey de Burgh calls _nepos_, but
concludes there is not sufficient evidence for her exact connection to the de
Burghs.

Adrian


In a message dated 02/01/2006 07:15:16 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Dear Adrian ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

If I understand the implications of an ancient document correctly, it
appears that Clarence Ellis' biography of Earl Hubert de Burgh has the
name of Earl Hubert's mother in error. I show that Hubert de Burgh's
mother was actually _____ Pouchard, daughter and evidently co-heiress
of John Pouchard, son and heir of William Pouchard, Knt., of Brunham,
Norfolk.

The evidence for Earl Hubert's mother's family is recorded in the
published account of the foundation of Creake Hospital and Abbey in
Norfolk, which information is found in the book, A.L. Bedingfield, ed.,
A Cartulary of Creak Abbey (Norfolk Rec. Soc. 35 (1936): 1-2.

This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:

In the year of the Incarnartion of our Lord Jesus Christ 1206, a little
church was founded in the honour of the sublime Birhom Mary on the site
of some 40 acres of uncultivated, endowed land, pasture and measure,
called Lingerescroft, lying jointly in Brunham next Creyk' on either
side of the highway. On this account the name of Saint Mary of the
Meadows between Crek and Brunham was chosen by a certain lord, Robert
de Nerford, a generous man, who was married to the well-born lady
Alice, daughter of John Pouchard, the son of William Pouchard, knight
... Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English, had, at the desire and agreement
of this pious woman, Lady Alice, built a chapel in honour of St.
Bartholomew the Apostle with an hospital for 13 paupers seeking refuge
there at any time ... In 1221 this chapel and all the endowed land was
dedicated by Geoffrey, Bishop of Ely, suffragan of Bishop Pandulph,
nephew of Lady Alice and brother of Hubert de Burgh." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, Earl Hubert be Burgh's brother, Geoffrey, Bishop of
Ely, is called nephew of Lady Alice Pouchard, wife of Sir Robert de
Nerford. If so, it would appear that Earl Hubert's mother was the
sister of Lady Alice Pouchard.

There are various charters recorded in the published Creake Abbey
cartulary issued by Alice Pouchard, her husband, Robert de Nerford,
Knt., and by their son and heir, Richard de Nerford, Knt. Most of the
charters have no witnesses, although I see one on pp. 3-4 issued by
Alice Pouchard in the period, c. 1225-1230, is witnessed by John de
Burgo and Reymund de Burgo. I also note another charter on pg. 4 also
dated c. 1225-1230 in which Alice Pouchard gave the patronage of a
moiety share of the church of All Saints at Wreningham, Norfolk, of
which she states she is the "rightful patron." By this, I judge that
the half share of the advowson of Wreningham was part of Alice's
Pouchard inheritance. If this is correct, presumably the other half
share of the Wreningham advowson fell to her sister's son and heir,
Earl Hubert de Burgh.

At a later date, c. 1255-1265, I note that Earl Hubert de Burgh's son
and heir, Sir John de Burgh, granted Creake Abbey 20 shillings of rent
in Brunham, Norfolk (see pp. 126, 129). If correct, then it would
appear the Brunham, Norfolk was also part of the Pouchard inheritance.
We know from the foundation charter cited in part above (pp. 1-2) and
from another charter (pg. 9) that Sir William Pouchard, grandfather of
Alice (Pouchard) de Nerford, obtained 40 acres of lands in
Lingerescroft in Brunham from East Acre Priory, which property became
the first site of the church of Creake Abbey in 1206. The editor dates
Sir William Pouchard's acquisition of the original 40 acres in Brunham
as being c. 1200-1205, but this date is surely much, much too late.
If Sir William Pouchard was Earl Hubert de Burgh's great-grandfather,
he would have been active in the reign of King Stephen back in the
1130's-1140's, not c. 1200.

While this matter needs further research, I believe that the Creake
Abbey material provides a clear indication that Earl Hubert de Burgh's
mother was a Pouchard by birth.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descend from Earl Hubert de Burgh:

1. Elizabeth Alsop.

2. William Asfordby.

3. William Bladen.

4. George & Nehemiah Blakiston.

5. Thomas Bressey.

6. Elizabeth Butler.

7. Francis Dade.

8. William Farrer.

9. Elizabeth & John Harleston.

10. Anne Humphrey.

11. Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow.

12. Simon Lynde.

13. Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield.

14. John Oxenbridge.

15. Herbert Pelham.

16. William Skepper.

17. John Stockman.

18. John West.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
I believe that Clarence Ellis' book 'Hubert de Burgh, A Study in
Constancy'
concluded that his father was perhaps a Walter de Burgh (d bfr 1180),
a small
holder in Bough next Ayleham, Norfolk by Alice (d bfr 1230, bur
Walsingham).

Adrian

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 jan 2006 16:22:41

Dear CED ~

I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father. The new DNB states, however,
that William de Burgh was Hubert de Burgh's elder brother. If Hubert
was his father's son and heir, then it is impossible for William and
Hubert to have been brothers, if William was older than Hubert I trust
this makes sense to you.

If DNB is wrong, then you should tell us why you think this is so.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com


CED wrote:

< To the Newsgroup:
<
< If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de
Burgh
< was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should
refute
< that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
< Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
< Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).
<
< CED

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 03 jan 2006 16:58:07

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

I've already refuted Mr. Ellis.

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson has said nothing about the evidence set out on the pages
following page 192 of Ellis' book.

He simply says that, since Hubert was heir to his father (not proven,
we do not know who his father was, nor the lands he held), William
could not be his brother. That does not refute Ellis' straight forward
evidence.

Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


CED


Richardson must have some motive for this latest move. Let us wait to
see what it is.

Of course if he uses evidence in his usual manner, it will be of no
useful consequence, other than marketing his writings.


I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father. The new DNB states, however,
that William de Burgh was Hubert de Burgh's elder brother. If Hubert
was his father's son and heir, then it is impossible for William and
Hubert to have been brothers, if William was older than Hubert I trust
this makes sense to you.

If DNB is wrong, then you should tell us why you think this is so.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com


CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de
Burgh
was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should
refute
that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).

CED

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 jan 2006 17:27:30

Dear CED ~

You're sidestepping the issue. Let's get you back on track.

I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
father's eldest son and heir. But, the new DNB says that Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother was William de Burgh. If Hubert was his father's
son and heir, then William can not have been Hubert's brother, assuming
that William was older than Hubert. Does this make sense to you?

Is the new DNB wrong, CED?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

I've already refuted Mr. Ellis.

Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


CED



Richardson must have some motive for this latest move. Let us wait to
see what it is.

Of course if he uses evidence in his usual manner, it will be of no
useful consequence, other than marketing his writings.


I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father. The new DNB states, however,
that William de Burgh was Hubert de Burgh's elder brother. If Hubert
was his father's son and heir, then it is impossible for William and
Hubert to have been brothers, if William was older than Hubert I trust
this makes sense to you.

If DNB is wrong, then you should tell us why you think this is so.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com


CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de
Burgh
was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should
refute
that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).

CED

Chris Phillips

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 03 jan 2006 17:36:42

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 jan 2006 18:04:03

CED wrote:
Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


Dear CED ~

Can you quote the language of the original Close Rolls for us? Thank
you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 03 jan 2006 18:13:10

Douglas Richardson wrote:
CED wrote:
Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


Dear CED ~

Can you quote the language of the original Close Rolls for us? Thank
you.

To the Newsgroup:

Again, Richardson is twisting and shifting. Of course he knows that I
do not have access to the Close Rolls. I do believe that I can rely
upon Ellis' citation. I have followed Ellis and Cazel on Hubert de
Burgh for many years and have never seen the veracity or competence of
either questioned before Richardson's challenge with these postings.
If Richardson wants to challenge Ellis' reading of the Close Rolls, he
can do so; but he has the burden - not me.


CED

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 03 jan 2006 18:20:30

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris:

Another possibility is that Hubert was heir to his mother, but not of
his father. Almost certainly William was the elder brother (on the
basis of the chronology of the acts of William and his son, Richard, as
they coincide with those of Hubert. See Ellis, p. 191).

CED





Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 jan 2006 18:32:02

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris Phillips

I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir. If this is
correct, then William de Burgh can not possibly have been Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother as claimed by the new DNB.

Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that Hubert de Burgh inherited
these properties through his mother who was allegedly a Pouchard
heiress. If so, then William de Burgh could still be an older brother
to Earl Hubert, but they were have to be half-brothers by different
mothers.

This matter needs further research I think before any firm conclusions
can be drawn. First we need to establish what properties the Pouchard
family held and then determine if any of them passed to Earl Hubert de
Burgh or his heirs. For starters, Alice Pouchard indicated that she
had a moiety share of the advowson of Wreningham, Noffolk. If this was
part of her Pouchard inheritance, it would be good to know what became
of the other half interest of the Wreningham advowson.

DR

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 03 jan 2006 19:08:02

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris Phillips

I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir.

To the Newsgroup:

Ellis lists (on the basis of a Letter Close of 13 November 1232) four
manors as being of Hubert de Burgh's 'of his heredity.' Yet, there is
ample evidence, according to Ellis, that two of the four were not
inherited according to any custom of England at the time. Regarding
the other two, nothing indicates that either of them were inherited,
other than that odd locution 'of his heredity.' There seems to be no
evidence that Hubert inherited any of the four were from his father, or
for that matter, any evidence of Hubert's father or any holding of his
father.

This 'Burgh' (there were a number of Burghs in East Anglia, this Burgh
is only a guess) which was later associated with Hubert could have any
number of attachments. It could have been a hidden place at which the
bastard children of a prominent person were reared. A search of the
records will show the Hubert had a number of 'nephews' with no more
specific connection known. Treating Hubert's parentage and 'heredity'
by normal custom and usage raises more questions than should be the
case. Something out of the ordinary is more likely.

CED


If this is
correct, then William de Burgh can not possibly have been Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother as claimed by the new DNB.

Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that Hubert de Burgh inherited
these properties through his mother who was allegedly a Pouchard
heiress. If so, then William de Burgh could still be an older brother
to Earl Hubert, but they were have to be half-brothers by different
mothers.

This matter needs further research I think before any firm conclusions
can be drawn. First we need to establish what properties the Pouchard
family held and then determine if any of them passed to Earl Hubert de
Burgh or his heirs. For starters, Alice Pouchard indicated that she
had a moiety share of the advowson of Wreningham, Noffolk. If this was
part of her Pouchard inheritance, it would be good to know what became
of the other half interest of the Wreningham advowson.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 jan 2006 20:32:23

My comments are interspersed below. DR

CED wrote:

< Ellis lists (on the basis of a Letter Close of 13 November 1232) four
< manors as being of Hubert de Burgh's 'of his heredity.'

If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB.

< Something out of the ordinary is more likely.

This matter requires further research. The first thing to be done I
think is to identify the properties held by the Pouchard family and
determine if any of them fell to Hubert de Burgh or his heirs. If
Blomfield is correct, then the Pouchard estates should have be split
among the three Pouchard co-heiresses.

I have suggested two potential Pouchard properties so far: Brunham and
Wreningham, Norfolk. The first property is almost certainly a Pouchard
property. We know from the Creake Abbey cartulary that Hubert de
Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, had land interests at Brunham.
This is good evidence in support of Hubert de Burgh's mother being a
Pouchard heiress and that Hubert de Burgh was her heir.

> CED

Clive West

Re: another wife for Wm Echingham?

Legg inn av Clive West » 03 jan 2006 21:10:02

Esseby is Canons Ashby, a village half way between Northampton and Banbury.
The village of Moreton Pinkney is just round the corner from there. I can't
help you with Cicelberge.

Regards
Clive West


----- Original Message -----
From: "charlotte smith" <charcsmith@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: another wife for Wm Echingham?


The national archives #@ E326/3696 has a grant by Margery , late the wife
of William de (Echingham) widow, to the canons of St. Mary;s Esseby, in
frank almoin of 100s yearly rent, to be paid by Sir Robert de Poer, her
brother, for the tenement which he holds of her in cicelberge. Witnesses
de Pinkeny, lord of Morton, robert Russell of Everden and other. endorsed
Carta Margerie de Echingham no date given.
This would mean her maiden name was Poer.
I cannot find Cicelberge on google and Esseby evidently is changed as
that was the medieval spelling. Any clues for me o n Cicelberge? or
Robet de Poer. I cannot place this Margery with any William Echyngham
that I have on my charts. No date does not help..I cannot find many clues
for Sir Robert de Poer.


charlotte c smith

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 03 jan 2006 23:07:18

Douglas Richardson wrote:
My comments are interspersed below. DR

CED wrote:

Ellis lists (on the basis of a Letter Close of 13 November 1232) four
manors as being of Hubert de Burgh's 'of his heredity.'

If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB.

To the Newsgroup:

As a preface, note this: hard and fast rules of hereditary succession
to lands held of the king prior to the reign of Richard I cannot be
discerned with certainty. Assumptions (and most certainly
presumptions) based on 13th Century practice ought not be carried back
to the previous century. Regarding lands held of persons other than
the king, rules of succession were even less rigid. The case law (as
law rather than the king's will) behind English common law was
developed about the time of Henry III's minority (ironically during
this discussion, while Hubert de Burgh was justiciar, in charge of the
king's court).

First, regarding William de Burgh, the elder brother of Hubert de
Burgh:
William de Burgh went to Ireland in 1185, as part of John's (later King
John) expedition. He was a favorite of John who granted him large
portions of Muster and as much of Connaught as he could conquer. (I do
not have the exact language of the grant. It was among my notes 25
years ago and lost in two cross country moves.) So far as I can
determine, William was singular among John's men to have had such a
grant. It would not be surprising if, with such interests in Ireland,
he would have resigned (to a younger brother) his rights to a couple of
insignicant manors in East Anglia. There appears to be no evidence
that William returned to England.

An unanswered question: why did William de Burgh, the son of an unknown
minor land holder, stand in such high favor with John (and by
implication Henry II and Richard I)?

Second, regarding the manor of Burgh:

There were at least four manors called Burgh in Norfolk, six or more
such manors in Suffolk, and an unknown number in Essex and the border
areas of the ancient kingdom of East Anglia. Burgh was a common name
for manors and for persons associated with them.

That Hubert's Burgh was Burgh-next-Aylsham in Norfolk is a guess at
best, a guess based on its proximity to three other manors of 'his
heredity,' two of which (Beeston and Newton) can be shown not to have
been inherited. If Beeston and Newton were not inherited, the medieval
term 'quod habuit de hereditate sua' must, in some instances, have some
meaning different from our modern understanding. The guess also takes
into consideration an itinerary of Henry III's visit to Hubert's estate
in 1232. Hubert's holding an estate in 1232 (considering his
aquisitive nature) does not create a presumption of its being held by
his brother, or father (or mother), forty years earlier.

Richardson fails to take into consideration the fact that the term
'quod habuit de hereditate sua' was used with respect to Beeston and
Newton, two manors that Hubert did not inherit in any sense now
understood.

CED


Something out of the ordinary is more likely.

This matter requires further research. The first thing to be done I
think is to identify the properties held by the Pouchard family and
determine if any of them fell to Hubert de Burgh or his heirs. If
Blomfield is correct, then the Pouchard estates should have be split
among the three Pouchard co-heiresses.

I have suggested two potential Pouchard properties so far: Brunham and
Wreningham, Norfolk. The first property is almost certainly a Pouchard
property. We know from the Creake Abbey cartulary that Hubert de
Burgh's son and heir, Sir John de Burgh, had land interests at Brunham.

We have what appears to be a complete inventory of Hubert's holdings at
his his fall from the king's favor. Neither Brunham nor Wreningham,
Norfolk, is among them; nor is any other Ponchard (Pouchard ?)
property. If John de Burgh held any such property, he did not inherit
it from his father.

CED


This is good evidence in support of Hubert de Burgh's mother being a
Pouchard heiress and that Hubert de Burgh was her heir.

CED

Gjest

Re: CP "Correction": death of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Bucha

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 jan 2006 23:38:02

John you're correct but you were beaten to the punch.

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclan ... ter2s1.htm
Earl Alexander died in 1289, and was succeeded by his son John, third Earl of
Buchan of the Comyn line. He attended and took part in the Parliament which
met at Brigham in March, 1290, and sanctioned the marriage between King
Edward’s son and the Maid of Norway, and other important matters.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 03 jan 2006 23:59:44

Dear Lee, Doug, et al.,

A 'final solution' concerning the parentage of Hubert de Burgh is
likely now in the works, based on the information now made available in
this thread. I hope (together with many on the list) that the end
result will justify the means

Lee, you wrote in part:

<<<<<< Snip >>>>>>>>>>>
First, regarding William de Burgh, the elder brother of Hubert de
Burgh:
William de Burgh went to Ireland in 1185, as part of John's (later King
John) expedition. He was a favorite of John who granted him large
portions of Muster and as much of Connaught as he could conquer. (I do
not have the exact language of the grant. It was among my notes 25
years ago and lost in two cross country moves.) So far as I can
determine, William was singular among John's men to have had such a
grant. It would not be surprising if, with such interests in Ireland,
he would have resigned (to a younger brother) his rights to a couple of
insignicant manors in East Anglia. There appears to be no evidence
that William returned to England.

An unanswered question: why did William de Burgh, the son of an unknown
minor land holder, stand in such high favor with John (and by
implication Henry II and Richard I)?

Snip


The answer to this question is also, I believe, 'in the works'.
Prior discussion on the subject, in SGM threads, included reference to
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326) and great-grandson of
William de Burgh, being styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I
(Douglas Richardson, citing Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927), pg. 261).
Subsequent references also to Earl Richard's great-nephew Robert II,
King of Scots as 'king's cousin' by Edward III of England, further
support the notion that there is something early in the de Burgh
ancestry linking them to the Kings of England.

I had previously theorized that William de Burgh was likely
married (1st) to an illegitimate daughter of John, Count of Mortain
(later King John of England), by whom he fathered the line of the Earls
of Ulster. Doug Richardson put forward the theory that his wife may
well have been a hitherto unknown daughter of John's brother, King
Richard 'Coeur de Lion'. The latter version would have a nice
onomastic twist if correct, what with William's son and heir being
named Richard.....

With some luck and the collegiality for which SGM is primarily
known, this unanswered question will hopefully be resolved soon, to the
interest of all.

Cheers,

John

John P. Ravilious

Re: CP "Correction": death of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Bucha

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 04 jan 2006 00:01:32

Dear Will,

Ah well, ...thanks for that. I will pull down the pennant, for
now......;)

Cheers,

John


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
John you're correct but you were beaten to the punch.

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclan ... ter2s1.htm
Earl Alexander died in 1289, and was succeeded by his son John, third Earl of
Buchan of the Comyn line. He attended and took part in the Parliament which
met at Brigham in March, 1290, and sanctioned the marriage between King
Edward's son and the Maid of Norway, and other important matters.

Will Johnson

CED

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av CED » 04 jan 2006 00:13:50

John P. Ravilious wrote:
Dear Lee, Doug, et al.,

A 'final solution' concerning the parentage of Hubert de Burgh is
likely now in the works, based on the information now made available in
this thread. I hope (together with many on the list) that the end
result will justify the means


John:

Is somebody going to suggest that Henry II had children by Alice of
France, that because of her status, the fact of their being cousins to
the kings had to be kept secret?

CED

Lee, you wrote in part:

Snip

First, regarding William de Burgh, the elder brother of Hubert de
Burgh:
William de Burgh went to Ireland in 1185, as part of John's (later King
John) expedition. He was a favorite of John who granted him large
portions of Muster and as much of Connaught as he could conquer. (I do
not have the exact language of the grant. It was among my notes 25
years ago and lost in two cross country moves.) So far as I can
determine, William was singular among John's men to have had such a
grant. It would not be surprising if, with such interests in Ireland,
he would have resigned (to a younger brother) his rights to a couple of
insignicant manors in East Anglia. There appears to be no evidence
that William returned to England.

An unanswered question: why did William de Burgh, the son of an unknown
minor land holder, stand in such high favor with John (and by
implication Henry II and Richard I)?

Snip

The answer to this question is also, I believe, 'in the works'.
Prior discussion on the subject, in SGM threads, included reference to
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326) and great-grandson of
William de Burgh, being styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I
(Douglas Richardson, citing Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927), pg. 261).
Subsequent references also to Earl Richard's great-nephew Robert II,
King of Scots as 'king's cousin' by Edward III of England, further
support the notion that there is something early in the de Burgh
ancestry linking them to the Kings of England.

I had previously theorized that William de Burgh was likely
married (1st) to an illegitimate daughter of John, Count of Mortain
(later King John of England), by whom he fathered the line of the Earls
of Ulster. Doug Richardson put forward the theory that his wife may
well have been a hitherto unknown daughter of John's brother, King
Richard 'Coeur de Lion'. The latter version would have a nice
onomastic twist if correct, what with William's son and heir being
named Richard.....

With some luck and the collegiality for which SGM is primarily
known, this unanswered question will hopefully be resolved soon, to the
interest of all.

Cheers,

John

John P. Ravilious

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 04 jan 2006 00:25:44

Dear Lee,

Not that I'm aware of. I believe the link will be found amongst
the illegitimate issue of a child of Henry II, not a bastard of Henry
himself.

Cheers,

John


CED wrote:
John P. Ravilious wrote:
Dear Lee, Doug, et al.,

A 'final solution' concerning the parentage of Hubert de Burgh is
likely now in the works, based on the information now made available in
this thread. I hope (together with many on the list) that the end
result will justify the means


John:

Is somebody going to suggest that Henry II had children by Alice of
France, that because of her status, the fact of their being cousins to
the kings had to be kept secret?

CED


Lee, you wrote in part:

Snip

First, regarding William de Burgh, the elder brother of Hubert de
Burgh:
William de Burgh went to Ireland in 1185, as part of John's (later King
John) expedition. He was a favorite of John who granted him large
portions of Muster and as much of Connaught as he could conquer. (I do
not have the exact language of the grant. It was among my notes 25
years ago and lost in two cross country moves.) So far as I can
determine, William was singular among John's men to have had such a
grant. It would not be surprising if, with such interests in Ireland,
he would have resigned (to a younger brother) his rights to a couple of
insignicant manors in East Anglia. There appears to be no evidence
that William returned to England.

An unanswered question: why did William de Burgh, the son of an unknown
minor land holder, stand in such high favor with John (and by
implication Henry II and Richard I)?

Snip

The answer to this question is also, I believe, 'in the works'.
Prior discussion on the subject, in SGM threads, included reference to
Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster (d. 1326) and great-grandson of
William de Burgh, being styled "king's cousin" by King Edward I
(Douglas Richardson, citing Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927), pg. 261).
Subsequent references also to Earl Richard's great-nephew Robert II,
King of Scots as 'king's cousin' by Edward III of England, further
support the notion that there is something early in the de Burgh
ancestry linking them to the Kings of England.

I had previously theorized that William de Burgh was likely
married (1st) to an illegitimate daughter of John, Count of Mortain
(later King John of England), by whom he fathered the line of the Earls
of Ulster. Doug Richardson put forward the theory that his wife may
well have been a hitherto unknown daughter of John's brother, King
Richard 'Coeur de Lion'. The latter version would have a nice
onomastic twist if correct, what with William's son and heir being
named Richard.....

With some luck and the collegiality for which SGM is primarily
known, this unanswered question will hopefully be resolved soon, to the
interest of all.

Cheers,

John

Leo van de Pas

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 jan 2006 00:29:01

Dear Will,

The sentence from Richardson you quote is ambiguous to say the least "states
clearly" seems to imply a fact were as "appears" appears to leave room for
doubt and so no fact seems there to be found. .
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent


In a message dated 1/3/06 11:49:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
father's eldest son and heir.

But what is your evidence?
Will Johnson


charlotte smith

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #6

Legg inn av charlotte smith » 04 jan 2006 00:45:02

Thanks to Adrian Channing and Clive West for their great imput. I have found those two towns. Will work on the cicelberge. I suspect it will be in Northamps also. Now I can probably place the de Poer family in that area.

GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote:
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest Volume 06 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
#1 Re: Apthorpes of Boston ["John Brandon" #2 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Douglas Richardson" #3 Re: Apthorpes of Boston ["John Brandon" #4 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["CED" ]
#5 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["CED" ]
#6 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Chris Phillips" #7 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Douglas Richardson" #8 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Douglas Richardson" #9 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu [WJhonson@aol.com]
#10 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu [WJhonson@aol.com]
#11 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Douglas Richardson" #12 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["CED" ]
#13 Re: another wife for Wm Echingham? ["Clive West" #14 Re: CP "Correction": death of Alex [WJhonson@aol.com]
#15 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu [WJhonson@aol.com]
#16 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu [ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com]
#17 Re: another wife for Wm Echingham? [ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com]
#18 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["CED" ]
#19 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Leo van de Pas" #20 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["CED" ]
#21 Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hu ["Douglas Richardson"
Administrivia:
This GEN-MEDIEVAL digest has been distributed by RootsWeb. If you would like
to know more about RootsWeb, please visit the RootsWeb homepage at
http://www.rootsweb.com/

If you would like to unsubscribe, send to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com the message "unsubscribe" (without
the quotation marks).

If you would like to have a message included in the GEN-MEDIEVAL digest,
send it to GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com.






______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 07:40:49 -0800
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apthorpes of Boston
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

http://tinyurl.com/9eyjo

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 11:10:23 -0800
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

If we are interested in determining the truth of the matter, can we not have
some sensible discussion of the evidence, rather than this daft stuff?

Chris Phillips

I agree. Let's see your evidence.

DR

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 07:52:48 -0800
From: "John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apthorpes of Boston
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Oh crap. Just do a search for "New England" in the most recent set of
documents (Dec. 2005) ...

John Brandon wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/9eyjo

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 07:58:07 -0800
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

I've already refuted Mr. Ellis.

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson has said nothing about the evidence set out on the pages
following page 192 of Ellis' book.

He simply says that, since Hubert was heir to his father (not proven,
we do not know who his father was, nor the lands he held), William
could not be his brother. That does not refute Ellis' straight forward
evidence.

Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


CED


Richardson must have some motive for this latest move. Let us wait to
see what it is.

Of course if he uses evidence in his usual manner, it will be of no
useful consequence, other than marketing his writings.


I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father. The new DNB states, however,
that William de Burgh was Hubert de Burgh's elder brother. If Hubert
was his father's son and heir, then it is impossible for William and
Hubert to have been brothers, if William was older than Hubert I trust
this makes sense to you.

If DNB is wrong, then you should tell us why you think this is so.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com


CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de
Burgh
was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should
refute
that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).

CED

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 08:19:47 -0800
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

This URL should work for you:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659

If not, you can find the Latin text by Dugdale by going through the
home page which is:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/

To say that the Creake Abbey document has no value is a bit harsh I
think, CED. Especially since the authoriative Complete Peerage quotes
from it.

To the Newsgroup:

Richardson is ignoring the fundamental question: who wrote the
foundation history and when was it written? Foundation histories, by
definition, are just that: histories, written sometime after the deeds
described. Foundation histories are not primary evidence. They are
secondary sources having value only as to who writes them, when they
were written, and for what purpose they were written. It up to
Richardson to show us the value of this foundation history.

By the way, since we do not know the name (or holding) of the father of
either Hubert de Burgh or of Bishop Geoffrey, it is possible that the
aunt (or some other relation) of Geoffrey was not the aunt (or some
other relation) of his more famous brother, Hubert.

Moreover, there is evidence that Alice was the name of Hubert's mother
(shown by Ellis, p. 191). Properly read, Ellis has shown that there
were two Alice's: one the mother of Bishop Geoffrey, the other an aunt,
great aunt, grandmother, or some other relation. Richardson has given
us nothing of value otherwise.

CED

The burden is on Richardson to prove his assertions. So far he has not
carries the burden of proof.

CED

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:36:42 -0000
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris Phillips

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 08:27:30 -0800
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Dear CED ~

You're sidestepping the issue. Let's get you back on track.

I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
father's eldest son and heir. But, the new DNB says that Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother was William de Burgh. If Hubert was his father's
son and heir, then William can not have been Hubert's brother, assuming
that William was older than Hubert. Does this make sense to you?

Is the new DNB wrong, CED?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

CED wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

I've already refuted Mr. Ellis.

Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


CED



Richardson must have some motive for this latest move. Let us wait to
see what it is.

Of course if he uses evidence in his usual manner, it will be of no
useful consequence, other than marketing his writings.


I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father. The new DNB states, however,
that William de Burgh was Hubert de Burgh's elder brother. If Hubert
was his father's son and heir, then it is impossible for William and
Hubert to have been brothers, if William was older than Hubert I trust
this makes sense to you.

If DNB is wrong, then you should tell us why you think this is so.

Best always, Douglas Richatdson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.com


CED wrote:

To the Newsgroup:

If Richardson wants us to believe his contention that William de
Burgh
was not the brother of Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, he should
refute
that ample evidence showing that the two were brothers set out by
Clarence Ellis, on page 192 and the following pages, in _Hubert de
Burgh: A Study in Constancy_ (London, 1952).

CED

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 08:57:36 -0800
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Dear CED ~

I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:56:06 EST
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 1/3/06 11:49:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
father's eldest son and heir. >>

But what is your evidence?
Will Johnson

______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:00:30 EST
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 1/3/06 11:34:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, leesmyth@cox.net
writes:

<< Richardson is ignoring the fundamental question: who wrote the
foundation history and when was it written? Foundation histories, by
definition, are just that: histories, written sometime after the deeds
described. Foundation histories are not primary evidence. They are
secondary sources having value only as to who writes them, when they
were written, and for what purpose they were written. >>

The relevant part of the document reads "Et dicta capella, cum toto loco
praedicto circumjacente, dedicata fuit anno Domini M.CC.XXI. per dominum Galfridum
Eliensem episcopum, nepotem dictae Aliciae, et fratrem Huberti de Burgo
praedicti, suffraganeum episcopi Randulfi praedicti;...."

Will Johnson

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 09:04:03 -0800
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

CED wrote:
Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


Dear CED ~

Can you quote the language of the original Close Rolls for us? Thank
you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 09:05:23 -0800
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear CED ~

I've supplied you the correct URL for the Dugdale text. What's the
problem now? Do you not read Latin?

To the Newsgroup:

It is not the Latin (we all know Richardson's history with languages);
it is the document. Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. If
Richardson uses it as evidence, he must establish its reliability. Its
status as evidence to support Richardson's original contention is the
question. Richardson has an old habit of twisting the question and
shifting the burden of proof. He is using it again.

CED

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:09:09 -0000
From: "Clive West" <clive.west3@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: another wife for Wm Echingham?
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Esseby is Canons Ashby, a village half way between Northampton and Banbury.
The village of Moreton Pinkney is just round the corner from there. I can't
help you with Cicelberge.

Regards
Clive West


----- Original Message -----
From: "charlotte smith"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: another wife for Wm Echingham?


The national archives #@ E326/3696 has a grant by Margery , late the wife
of William de (Echingham) widow, to the canons of St. Mary;s Esseby, in
frank almoin of 100s yearly rent, to be paid by Sir Robert de Poer, her
brother, for the tenement which he holds of her in cicelberge. Witnesses
de Pinkeny, lord of Morton, robert Russell of Everden and other. endorsed
Carta Margerie de Echingham no date given.
This would mean her maiden name was Poer.
I cannot find Cicelberge on google and Esseby evidently is changed as
that was the medieval spelling. Any clues for me o n Cicelberge? or
Robet de Poer. I cannot place this Margery with any William Echyngham
that I have on my charts. No date does not help..I cannot find many clues
for Sir Robert de Poer.


charlotte c smith


______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:13:03 EST
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: CP "Correction": death of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

John you're correct but you were beaten to the punch.

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclan ... ter2s1.htm
Earl Alexander died in 1289, and was succeeded by his son John, third Earl of
Buchan of the Comyn line. He attended and took part in the Parliament which
met at Brigham in March, 1290, and sanctioned the marriage between King
Edward’s son and the Maid of Norway, and other important matters.

Will Johnson

______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:17:25 EST
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

In a message dated 1/3/06 12:04:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, leesmyth@cox.net
writes:

<< Who wrote the foundation history and when was that
history written. It is not a primary source, by defintion. >>

To me it doesn't appear to be a foundation history so much as a
transliteration of a document from a cartulary. (Is that the right way to express it?) I
note, that the Dugdale volumes are particularly difficult to work with because
of the utterly bizarre way they had been scanned. Some are one, two or three
pages, some are 40 to 60 pages in each pdf. Makes no proper sense, and
difficult to use the Table of Contents, since the "clumps" of pdfs don't appear to
follow any particular pattern.

The particular pdf this one is in, is something like 10 Megabytes in size.
Not very user friendly.
However since Dugdale is out-of-copyright, maybe someone will re-set these in
a more useful way.
Of course, its useful that they are on the internet whatsoever, but
everything could stand a little improvement.

Will Johnson

______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:17:46 EST
From: ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

CED wrote,


Moreover, there is evidence that Alice was the name of Hubert's mother

(shown by Ellis, p. 191). Properly read, Ellis has shown that there
were two Alice's: one the mother of Bishop Geoffrey, the other an aunt,
great aunt, grandmother, or some other relation. Richardson has given
us nothing of value otherwise.

But Doug has already shown that the first Alice was Hubert's wife not mother:

"Be that as it may, as I stated in my earlier post, I've seen a
reference (perhaps in Blomfield) which states that it was Hubert de
Burgh's wife, Alice, not his mother, who was buried at Walsingham,
Norfolk. If so, then Ellis is doubly wrong."

So if Doug says this, even though it is from an uncertain source and that
Hurbert de Burgh is not usually given an Alice amongst his wives, it must be
right!

Adrian


______________________________
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:27:49 EST
From: ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com
Subject: Re: another wife for Wm Echingham?
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com


At a pinch, perhaps Shuckburgh, there is now a Little Shuckburgh in the same
area.

Adrian

In a message dated 03/01/2006 20:09:27 GMT Standard Time,
clive.west3@ukonline.co.uk writes:

Esseby is Canons Ashby, a village half way between Northampton and Banbury.
The village of Moreton Pinkney is just round the corner from there. I can't

help you with Cicelberge.

Regards
Clive West


----- Original Message -----
From: "charlotte smith"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: another wife for Wm Echingham?


The national archives #@ E326/3696 has a grant by Margery , late the wife
of William de (Echingham) widow, to the canons of St. Mary;s Esseby, in
frank almoin of 100s yearly rent, to be paid by Sir Robert de Poer, her
brother, for the tenement which he holds of her in cicelberge. Witnesses
de Pinkeny, lord of Morton, robert Russell of Everden and other. endorsed
Carta Margerie de Echingham no date given.
This would mean her maiden name was Poer.
I cannot find Cicelberge on google and Esseby evidently is changed as
that was the medieval spelling. Any clues for me o n Cicelberge? or
Robet de Poer. I cannot place this Margery with any William Echyngham
that I have on my charts. No date does not help..I cannot find many clues
for Sir Robert de Poer.


charlotte c smith


______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 09:13:10 -0800
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Douglas Richardson wrote:
CED wrote:
Among much other evidence on those pages, Ellis quotes a Letter Close
of 13 October 1234, addressed to Maurice fitz Gerald. justiciar of
Ireland, which refers Hubert as uncle to Richard de Burgh (William's
son). How other than through his brother, William, could Richard de
Burgh be a nephew to Hubert?


Dear CED ~

Can you quote the language of the original Close Rolls for us? Thank
you.

To the Newsgroup:

Again, Richardson is twisting and shifting. Of course he knows that I
do not have access to the Close Rolls. I do believe that I can rely
upon Ellis' citation. I have followed Ellis and Cazel on Hubert de
Burgh for many years and have never seen the veracity or competence of
either questioned before Richardson's challenge with these postings.
If Richardson wants to challenge Ellis' reading of the Close Rolls, he
can do so; but he has the burden - not me.


CED

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

______________________________
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:40:02 +1100
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Dear Will,

The sentence from Richardson you quote is ambiguous to say the least "states
clearly" seems to imply a fact were as "appears" appears to leave room for
doubt and so no fact seems there to be found. .
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent


In a message dated 1/3/06 11:49:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I stated very clearly that it appears that Earl Hubert de Burgh was his
father's eldest son and heir.

But what is your evidence?
Will Johnson



______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 09:20:30 -0800
From: "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris:

Another possibility is that Hubert was heir to his mother, but not of
his father. Almost certainly William was the elder brother (on the
basis of the chronology of the acts of William and his son, Richard, as
they coincide with those of Hubert. See Ellis, p. 191).

CED





Chris Phillips

______________________________
Date: 3 Jan 2006 09:32:02 -0800
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I've already refuted Mr. Ellis. I said that it appears that Hubert de
Burgh was the son and heir of his father.

Please could you share with us your reasons for thinking this?

And even if it were true, how would it be inconsistent with Hubert being
William's brother? Wouldn't it just imply that William was the younger
brother?

Chris Phillips

I'm quoting from memory. In his biography of Hubert de Burgh, Mr.
Ellis indicated that at the time of Earl Hubert's downfall, there were
several properties which were stated to be of Hubert's own inheritance.
One of these properties was a manor called Burgh in Norfolk, which was
surely Earl Hubert's patrimony. If so, then I think it's virtually
certain that Hubert de Burgh was his father's son and heir. If this is
correct, then William de Burgh can not possibly have been Hubert de
Burgh's elder brother as claimed by the new DNB.

Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that Hubert de Burgh inherited
these properties through his mother who was allegedly a Pouchard
heiress. If so, then William de Burgh could still be an older brother
to Earl Hubert, but they were have to be half-brothers by different
mothers.

This matter needs further research I think before any firm conclusions
can be drawn. First we need to establish what properties the Pouchard
family held and then determine if any of them passed to Earl Hubert de
Burgh or his heirs. For starters, Alice Pouchard indicated that she
had a moiety share of the advowson of Wreningham, Noffolk. If this was
part of her Pouchard inheritance, it would be good to know what became
of the other half interest of the Wreningham advowson.

DR




charlotte c smith

jeffchip9

Re: Sir John Griffith IPM 1471

Legg inn av jeffchip9 » 04 jan 2006 02:34:53

Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:
If Jeff Chipman is still short of volunteers, I would be glad to have a stab
at translating this IPM
MM

Absolutely, I will email it to you now and feel free to share it with
anybody else. I hope the copies are good; I've had a little trouble
with AOL in the past.
Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 02:40:02

In a message dated 1/3/06 3:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz writes:

<< I scanned this using OCR
hope it makes sense >>

From what source?
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Parentage of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Ken

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 02:42:15

In a message dated 1/3/06 3:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< If these manors were of Hubert de Burgh's "heredity" as stated in the
record, then Hubert be Burgh would have to have been the heir of either
his father or mother, or both. The manor of Burgh, Norfolk would
surely have been his patrimony. If so, Earl Hubert would almost
certainly have been the eldest son and heir of his father. If
correct, then William de Burgh would not be Earl Hubert's older brother
as alleged by the new DNB. >>

That's a lot of assumptions for one paragraph, but perhaps the answer is that
William gave his brother Burgh, since William was already evidently
well-satisfied with his piece of Ireland.

Or maybe "Burgh" was only named that after Hubert obtained it. That is, the
place was named for him, instead of he for it.

A third possibility is that Burgh descended to him by his being made the heir
of some other Burgh relation

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 03:02:44

In a message dated 1/3/06 3:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz writes:

<< He left 3 d. coh., viz. Devorguilla w. Of S' Rob Fitz
Walter Hawise w. Of Sr Rob. de Gresley, and Margery, a nun at
Chicksand, all of full age (Inq.). Hawise is to have Wakerle,
Devorguilla to have Hallingbury, Walken, and Lexinden. Margery is a.
nun at Sempringham 25 May 1280 (FA). Hawise was wid. of Rob. de Greyli
10 Nov. 1296 (Inq.). >>

This is speaking of John de Burgh, Baron of Lanvalley (~1234-1279)
It's interesting that Margery is still a nun in 1280

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Wannamaker-Smith", pg 793-796,
Count d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962

Makes this Margaret be the wife of Richard, 2nd Earl of Ulster, married in
1281 and thereby having at least two daughters Maud de Burgh (m Gilbert, Earl of
Gloucester) and Joan de Burgh (m Thomas Earl of Kildare)

Is this Margery, being that Margaret supportable?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Scotland - a peculiarity?

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 03:27:14

In a message dated 12/31/05 1:54:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< James (Seamus)'s father is given Angus, Lord of Bute and Arran, slain in
1210.He is not to be found in CP under either Bute or Arran. As both father and
son were slain in 1210----were they slain in the same battle? Which makes it
wrong to call the son Lord of Bute (perhaps Master of Bute, which is something
different).

But now we come to the real problem. If James was slain in 1210, when was
Jean, his daughter born? Let us assume James's wife was pregnant with her and
Jean was born in 1210. >>


You're right that the chronology is screwy on this link.
In particular Alexander and Joanna had several children, the probable birth
years and marriage years imply that Joanna was not as old as this attribution
would make her.

Here is a repost of a snip of John's earlier post on this which is in the
archives
Will Johnson

From: Therav3
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Dispensation for Robert Stewart (II of Scots) and Euphemia of Ross
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:56:14 PM Eastern Standard Time

In the recent past, Andrew B. W. MacEwen mentioned the lack of sufficient
evidence to identify Joanna, wife of Alexander the Steward (d. 1283). The
‘traditional’ identification, as given in Scots Peerage and those sources built upon
it, state that ’ his wife is said to have been Jean, daughter of James, Lord
of Bute.’[1], but no documentation is cited in SP. Andrew noted that this
alleged marriage was held to be the source of the Stewart holdings in Bute and
Arran, but is erroneous as these lands were held in prior generations having
nothing to do with the marriage of Alexander.

Gjest

Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (rev

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 03:39:33

John, can we hear what is the source and details for believing that Joanna
Moray died in 1362 from the plague ? Knowing those details might sway opinion :)
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 04:07:49

In a message dated 12/31/05 9:46:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, kleigh1@cox.net
writes:

<< Richard and Phillipa fathered Phillipa who married (before 1382) Robert
Pashley. Anne Pashley and John Pashley were the children. >>


Could you state what argument you used to prove that Robert and Phillipa were
married "before 1382" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Addition: Death, burial, and issue of Sir John Corn

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 04:18:14

In a message dated 1/2/06 11:48:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< Elizabeth of Lancaster (born by February 1363) was at least 37 when she
married Cornewall >>

In particular, her parents married on 19 May 1359 and her sister Philippa was
born 31 Mar 1360 so Elizabeth had to be born 1361/3

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 05:08:32

In a message dated 12/31/05 11:50:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< Pauntley continued in the ownership of the descendants of Dick
Whittington's
elder brother Robert until on the death of Thomas Whittington (eldest son
of
John, died 1525) >>

Richard Whittington's father William died in 1358 and yet in 1371/2 we have,
as Lord of Paultley, a "William de Whytyntone". Can you tell us who this
latter William is? Is it Robert's son?

Gloucestershire Record Office: Deeds
Deeds
Catalogue Ref. D6322
FILE [no title] - ref. D6322/5 - date: 1371/72
[from Scope and Content] Witnesses: William de Whytyntone, Lord of Pauntley,
Thomas de Ocle, John de la Forde, John Cobyn, Edmund de Boys, Walter de
Henneberewe, Edmund Waryn

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 05:08:43

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 1/3/06 3:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz writes:

I scanned this using OCR
hope it makes sense

From what source?
Will Johnson

Looks like Knights of Edward I to me.

MAR

Gjest

Re: Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 05:20:12

In a message dated 12/31/05 11:50:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< "being a settlement on the marriage of the said Sir William and
Marie Whityngton, "daughter of William Whityngton late of Pauntley [co.
Glouc.]
esq., deceased of ""Elizabeth his wife, which Elizabeth was sister to the
said
Bishop 1 Sept. 14 Hen. "VII.
The notes in square brackets in this citation are those provided by the
Birmingham City Archivist.

I am not sure whether Marie was William's daughter by his first marriage to
Elizabeth Croft, of Croft Castle, or by his second marriage to Elizabeth
Milborne, >>


Does this settlement not say that Marie's mother was Elizabeth Arundel ?
If not, how do you read that phrase related to Elizabeth?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 05:23:47

In a message dated 12/31/05 11:50:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< The earliest references that I can
trace for the family derive form Warwickshire in the 13th century, when
William
(presumably the "William de Wytinton" mentioned above) is recorded as
marrying
Hawise de Aguillon, sister and coheiress of Hugh de Aguillon of Upton
Haselor
in Warwickshire ( a manor which is mentioned. Upton Haselor was ultimately
inherited by the Throckmortons of Coughton, Warks, one of whom had married a
daughter of Thomas Whittington, mentioned above. >>


You are referring here to Thomas Throckmorton of Corse son of William and
Margaret (Matthew) who married
Margaret Whittington, dau of Thomas and Margery (Needham) ?

Do you have documents which can add dates to these people?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jan 2006 10:03:52

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:46:18 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Frem a CD
The Knights of Edward I

In a message dated 1/3/06 3:22:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz writes:

I scanned this using OCR
hope it makes sense

From what source?
Will Johnson

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.

Bob Turcott

Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 04 jan 2006 15:15:03

Jean,

Thank you! I have started a forum website dedicated for the Meherenc and
related familes, it will
also lead to the development of a website in memory of ancestor Francoise de
Meherenc. Coats of arms will be added and other documents as well.

http://groups.msn.com/MeherencGenealogy

Bob




From: magnusrufus@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Francoise De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway
Date: 12 Nov 2005 11:03:20 -0800
The same chart with minor typo corrections :

2. Raoul Bouchard, sgr de Meherenc (c. 1330)
m. possibly Ne... de Xerainville

2.1 Henri Bouchard, sgr de Meherenc
m. Thomase de Thaon

2.1.1 Jean Bouchard, sgr de Meherenc

2.1.1.1 Gilette Bouchard, dame de Meherenc
m. Jean de Bosc, sgr des Conches

2.1.1.1.1 Guillaume et Jacques du Bosc, cosgrs de Meherenc

2.2 Richard Bouchard de Meherenc, sgr de Bleville

2.3 Renouf Bouchard de Meherenc, sgr des Londes (fief de Tourailles a
Trevieres)
m. Henrye de Thaon (sister of Thomase)

2.3.1 Richard Bouchard de Meherenc, sgr des Londes
m. 1391, Marguerite Agues de Suhard

2.3.1.1 Guillaume I de Meherenc, sgr des Londes
m. 1445 Marguerite de La Haye de Bouillon

2.3.1.1.1 Guillaume II de Meherenc, sgr des Londes
m. Isabeau de Malherbe, dame de Breuil et de La Vaquerie

2.3.1.1.1.1 Denis de Meherenc, sgr des Londes
m. 1506, Anne de Grosparmy

2.3.1.1.1.1.1 Francois de Meherenc, sgr des Londes et d Asnelles
m. 1520, Jeanne de Maugny (or Le Maugny), with posterity

2.3.1.1.1.1.2 Guillaume III de Meherenc, sgr de L Aubel
m. 1520, Francoise de Maugny (sister of Jeanne)

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1 Guillaume IV de Meherenc, sgr de La Conseillere
m. 1545, Marguerite de Sausdret /Sandret

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Adrien de Meherenc, sgr de La Conseillere et de
Montmirel
m. (1) 1579 Jeanne du Pont
m. (2) 1590, Elisabeth de Clinchamps, no posterity

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Jean de Meherenc, sgr de Montmirel et de La
Conseillere
m. 1609, Jeanne du Mesnil

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Pierre de Meherenc, sgr de M. et de La C.
m. 1640, Anne Le Sens, with posterity

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 FRANCOISE DE MEHERENC DE MONTMIREL
m. 1634, Jean Gueret/Guerey

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 Rene Gueret
m. Madeleine Vigoureux

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Jacques Gueret dit Dumont
m. 1694, Anne Tardif, with posterity in NEW FRANCE

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 Thomas de Meherenc, sgr de Hautmesnil

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.2 Jean de Meherenc, seigneur de LAubel
m. Marie de Melun, with posterity

2.3.1.1.1.1.2.3 Thomas de Meherenc, sgr de Basmesnil
m. Noelle Le Blond, with posterity

2.3.1.1.1.1.3 Jacques de Meherenc, sgr du Quesnay
m. 1527,m Marie Gousseaume, with posterity

2.3.1.1.1.1.4 Jean de Meherenc
m. Marie de Vouilly, with posterity

2.3.1.1.2 Philippe de Meherenc, sgr de Flottemanville
m. 1487, Jeanne Besnard

2.3.1.1.2.1 Jean de Meherenc, sgr de Flottemanville
m. 1508, Catherine de Cayron

2.3.1.1.2.1.1 Nicolas de Meherenc, sgr de Flottemanville
m. 1538, Marguerite d Escageul de Sully

2.3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Jean-Francois de Meherenc, sgr de Flottemanville
m. 1590, Barbe de Marguerie, with posterity, head of the Bretagne
branch later nown as marquis de Meherenc de Saint-Pierre, still
existing

2.3.1.1.2.1.2 Louis de Meherenc, sgr de Familly
m. 1548, Marguerite de Bur de Saint-Christophe, with posterity (de
Meherenc de Saint-Christophe)



_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»