Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Doug McDonald

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 18 jan 2006 18:52:13

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/18/2006 7:15:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.

Doug McDonald


You mean, in the process of forming the new DNA, some bits of the father's
DNA (for example) might insert themselves upon the mother's *prior* to the
conjoining of the two?

Or if not, then what do you mean?


I think you better go to the library and find a book,
the one I mentioned being excellent, another is
Trace Your Roots with DNA : Using Genetic Tests to Explore Your Family
Tree by Megan Smolenyak and Ann Turner (Paperback - October 27, 2004)
or start some serious Googling for explanation of how DNA
works. You are asking questions that need a comprehensive
if not terribly long tutorial.

Doug McDonald

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 jan 2006 19:00:03

time to close this discussion your lies and false statements about your
background are not needed on this forum, I am going to recommend to the
moderator to have you removed.


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: Bob Turcott <bobturcott@msn.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:31:09 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

I respect your perspective and view, my source as I have stated all
along is the folks at Family Tree Dna and the genetic anthopologist with
family tree dna.

You remember when I said "someone told me so" isn't good enough?

when I say sources I mean for the sake of argument source papers written
by scientists

like the papers posted here http://www.familytreedna.com/ydnapapers.html

Irrelevant to your position. If all it takes to convince you are
irrelevant papers, I can come up with plenty.

you must clearly understand my position. with that said, I dont think
further complaining
by you about me wanting professional citations by scientist that
specialize in the field of dna
is unreasonable.

What you seem to have missed is that _I_ am a scientist who specializes in
the field of DNA! I have a pretty piece of paper stuffed under the cover
of large book in the other room to prove it. I am telling you that the
people at Family Tree DNA have intentionally simplified the situation
because they are dealing with genealogically relevant numbers of
generations, but your question, by its very nature, extends beyond the
limits within which those simplifications are valid. I am also telling you
that the type of citation you want is unlikely ever to have been published,
because it is obvious from the work that does exist, and from simple math,
as I have twice laid out, and scholarly journals stress novelty, not
dotting Is and crossing Ts. Who knows - someone may have slipped it into
an obscure journal during a slow month in their publication cycle, but do
you know how much effort you are asking for just so you don't have to deal
with the unequivocal numbers I presented? At best, some researcher may
have thrown it into the discussion section of a paper as an afterthought,
and it would have no more scientific validity because he threw it in there
than me throwing the same conclusion into this discussion.

You have staked a position based on 'common sense' and someone's
oversimplification, without truly understanding, and now you are arguing
from personal incredulity and demanding references that you likewise don't
seem to understand the significance of. Just look at the numbers in my
last post, based on your model, but with accurate math. Given 3 billion
indivisible units, how can they come from 4.3 billion ancestors? It really
is that simple.


_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 19:06:43

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/18/2006 7:15:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

actually, ALMOST 50%. It's exactly 50% barring insertions or deletions.

Doug McDonald


You mean, in the process of forming the new DNA, some bits of the father's
DNA (for example) might insert themselves upon the mother's *prior* to the
conjoining of the two?

Or if not, then what do you mean?

He is saying that in the process of copying DNA, sometimes small regions
get skipped or duplicated. Sometimes, although rarely, large regions
do. Thus, while you get one of each chromosome from each parent, that
from one parent may be slightly longer or shorter than that from the
other, by, say, 0.000001%, such that of your total DNA, you still get 22
autosomal chromosomes from each, but could actually get 50.000001% of
the total number of nucleotides from one parent and 49.999999% from the
other. As I pointed out, though, 'your DNA' is not just the sum total
of what you got from your parents, but also reflects what has happened
to it in your own development from that first cellular fusion. All
kinds of minor 'special cases' take place in your average person's
development, and all will alter how much of your total DNA came from
each parent (and how much came from neither). Except in the cases of
trisomies, as I mentioned, the difference between taking these into
account and not amounts to pedantry.

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 19:07:33

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

come on!!!`no need to get worked up here, we are supposed to help each
other out without getting so dam defensive here!!!! My only gripe with
you as I said before is referances/sources and it seems like you are on
a mission to pick us apart here...

Umm, no. Let's get the target right. I am trying to pick your argument
apart because it is just plain wrong.

I am trying to keep the more general discussing from going into
irrelevant details bearing on how exact exact must be to be exact.
(Basically, you have two quarters in your pocket and take out one, that
can reasonably be considered exactly half, in spite of the fact that one
might have worn a little more off of Washington's face than the other.)


Now it seems you are getting rude and
dont belong to this forum if you continue take constructive critisim the
wrong way how can one grow here?????

If it diverts into obscure and irrelevant discussions of meiotic and
mitotic minutiae, there ain't going to be much genealogical growth
either. In fact, when a genealogical discussion is talking about the
effect of random indels on parental inheritance distribution, it has
completely lost focus.

You are right though. Perhaps I don't belong. I should go out and
propose a new medieval genealogy group, and work with other like-minded
people to bring about its creation. This sounds like a great idea. I
could help draft the charter, put together a web page, and help manage
an associated mailing list. Oh, the great things that could then be
accomplished. It is just too bad I didn't have that idea ten years ago.


Oh, . . . . never mind.

taf

norenxaq

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av norenxaq » 18 jan 2006 19:25:02

Bob Turcott wrote:

time to close this discussion your lies and false statements about your
background are not needed on this forum, I am going to recommend to the
moderator to have you removed.


this group has no moderators. also, Todd is one of the owners

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 20:08:14

Bob Turcott wrote:
time to close this discussion your lies and false statements about your
background are not needed on this forum, I am going to recommend to the
moderator to have you removed.

OK, now you have called me a liar in public. I don't much appreciate
it, even though most readers will take it for what it is worth, given
that you are showing your lack of awareness in virtually every word of
this post:


1) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you.
You have posted it to a public group. That is considered rude, and in
some moderated groups can get you removed.


2) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you.
I know of no moderate group that removes people for responding however
they see fit to private emails sent to them and not to the list, as the
behavior in question did not take place on the list and hence is beyond
the jurisdiction of the moderators.


3) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you.
A private email is an implied invitation for response - it is
interpreted as such by most Internet Service Providers' Terms of
Service, which bar only unsolicited email. If you don't want people to
respond to you . . . .


4) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you.
It only got posted to the list when you publicly posted your complaint
about this private communication. You claim that the statements that
you characterize as "lies and false statements about [my] background"
are not needed on this forum. I tend to agree with you about their
appropriateness (although not about your characterization of their
accurateness). That is why I did not post them but sent them privately,
and then only after essentially being told "they are scientists who
specialize in DNA, who are you to contradict them?". Given that I sent
them privately, who is to blame for their appearance in the group?
Certainly not me.


5) This is not a moderated list, and no one can be removed.


6) If you wish to complain about our private email exchange to the
Listowners, who have no power to remove anyone, said Listowners are Don
Stone and Todd Farmerie. I have a pretty good idea how little
satisfaction you will get out of the exercise.


7) Finally as to the specific scurrilous allegation, my "lies and false
statements about [my] background", lets look at these:

"_I_ am a scientist who specializes in the field of DNA! I have a
pretty piece of paper stuffed under the cover of large book in the other
room to prove it."


a) "I am a scientist" - believe it or not, I do have a day job, and it
ain't genealogy. I have been a practicing scientist for about 20 years,
at multiple institutions. It is how I make my livelihood, as meager as
it is. I am putting off an experiment as we speak just to respond to
your undignified attack.

b) "who specializes in the field of DNA!" - guess what the experiment I
am putting off is: isolating and analyzing DNA. Guess what contribution
I have made to most of my scientific publications: isolating and
analyzing DNA.

c) "I have a pretty piece of paper" - it comes from an accredited
degree-granting institution, has a gold seal and all of the appropriate
signatures on it, and says that I have been awarded the degree of
"Doctor of Philosophy" (and just in case I am dealing with someone who
needs to be told, this does not mean I received it for the study of
philosophy). It does not include the word "Honorary" anywhere on the
document.

d) "stuffed under the cover of large book" - specifically, _The Official
Military Atlas of the Civil War_, the only book I own large enough to
protect said pretty document, which unlike some of my colleagues I am
not about to frame and mount on a wall.

e) "in the other room to prove it." - Here is the relevant part of the
floor-plan. X is my location. Y is the location of said book. The
room I am in is "this room", the one with the book is thus "the other" one.


----- -| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
- | ---------
|X | Y|
-------| |
| |
-------------



Now, sit back and take a take a deep breath and think really hard about
whether you wish to continue this libel. (and apologies to the group)

taf


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: Bob Turcott <bobturcott@msn.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:31:09 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

I respect your perspective and view, my source as I have stated all
along is the folks at Family Tree Dna and the genetic anthopologist
with family tree dna.

You remember when I said "someone told me so" isn't good enough?

when I say sources I mean for the sake of argument source papers
written by scientists

like the papers posted here
http://www.familytreedna.com/ydnapapers.html

Irrelevant to your position. If all it takes to convince you are
irrelevant papers, I can come up with plenty.

you must clearly understand my position. with that said, I dont think
further complaining
by you about me wanting professional citations by scientist that
specialize in the field of dna
is unreasonable.

What you seem to have missed is that _I_ am a scientist who
specializes in the field of DNA! I have a pretty piece of paper
stuffed under the cover of large book in the other room to prove it.
I am telling you that the people at Family Tree DNA have intentionally
simplified the situation because they are dealing with genealogically
relevant numbers of generations, but your question, by its very
nature, extends beyond the limits within which those simplifications
are valid. I am also telling you that the type of citation you want
is unlikely ever to have been published, because it is obvious from
the work that does exist, and from simple math, as I have twice laid
out, and scholarly journals stress novelty, not dotting Is and
crossing Ts. Who knows - someone may have slipped it into an obscure
journal during a slow month in their publication cycle, but do you
know how much effort you are asking for just so you don't have to deal
with the unequivocal numbers I presented? At best, some researcher
may have thrown it into the discussion section of a paper as an
afterthought, and it would have no more scientific validity because he
threw it in there than me throwing the same conclusion into this
discussion.

You have staked a position based on 'common sense' and someone's
oversimplification, without truly understanding, and now you are
arguing from personal incredulity and demanding references that you
likewise don't seem to understand the significance of. Just look at
the numbers in my last post, based on your model, but with accurate
math. Given 3 billion indivisible units, how can they come from 4.3
billion ancestors? It really is that simple.


_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how
to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 jan 2006 20:12:02

Todd,

Me a target, I don't think so...I saw your cheesy websites and they stink,
they lack creativity
and most impotantly understanding of anything really meaningfull to the
genealogy community, all I hear from you is just plain crap!!!




From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:07:33 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

come on!!!`no need to get worked up here, we are supposed to help each
other out without getting so dam defensive here!!!! My only gripe with you
as I said before is referances/sources and it seems like you are on a
mission to pick us apart here...

Umm, no. Let's get the target right. I am trying to pick your argument
apart because it is just plain wrong.

I am trying to keep the more general discussing from going into irrelevant
details bearing on how exact exact must be to be exact. (Basically, you
have two quarters in your pocket and take out one, that can reasonably be
considered exactly half, in spite of the fact that one might have worn a
little more off of Washington's face than the other.)


Now it seems you are getting rude and
dont belong to this forum if you continue take constructive critisim the
wrong way how can one grow here?????

If it diverts into obscure and irrelevant discussions of meiotic and
mitotic minutiae, there ain't going to be much genealogical growth either.
In fact, when a genealogical discussion is talking about the effect of
random indels on parental inheritance distribution, it has completely lost
focus.

You are right though. Perhaps I don't belong. I should go out and propose
a new medieval genealogy group, and work with other like-minded people to
bring about its creation. This sounds like a great idea. I could help
draft the charter, put together a web page, and help manage an associated
mailing list. Oh, the great things that could then be accomplished. It is
just too bad I didn't have that idea ten years ago.


Oh, . . . . never mind.

taf


_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 jan 2006 20:15:02

noren,

ask me if I care. He is crap and he knows it and his web sites lousy


From: norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:14:00 -0800



Bob Turcott wrote:

time to close this discussion your lies and false statements about your
background are not needed on this forum, I am going to recommend to the
moderator to have you removed.


this group has no moderators. also, Todd is one of the owners


_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 20:16:16

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

Me a target, I don't think so...

Not you, your unsupportable and erroneous position regarding DNA
inheritance. There is really no reason to personalize this. You are
simply wrong, but that does not reflect on your value as a person, nor
should my pointing out your error reflect on mine.

(You did, however, miss the point of that last part of my post: that
there is a certain irony in you suggesting that I have no place in this
group.)

taf

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 jan 2006 20:26:02

you are a big baby


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:08:14 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
time to close this discussion your lies and false statements about your
background are not needed on this forum, I am going to recommend to the
moderator to have you removed.

OK, now you have called me a liar in public. I don't much appreciate it,
even though most readers will take it for what it is worth, given that you
are showing your lack of awareness in virtually every word of this post:


1) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you. You
have posted it to a public group. That is considered rude, and in some
moderated groups can get you removed.


2) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you. I
know of no moderate group that removes people for responding however they
see fit to private emails sent to them and not to the list, as the behavior
in question did not take place on the list and hence is beyond the
jurisdiction of the moderators.


3) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you. A
private email is an implied invitation for response - it is interpreted as
such by most Internet Service Providers' Terms of Service, which bar only
unsolicited email. If you don't want people to respond to you . . . .


4) I sent you a private email in response to a private email from you. It
only got posted to the list when you publicly posted your complaint about
this private communication. You claim that the statements that you
characterize as "lies and false statements about [my] background" are not
needed on this forum. I tend to agree with you about their appropriateness
(although not about your characterization of their accurateness). That is
why I did not post them but sent them privately, and then only after
essentially being told "they are scientists who specialize in DNA, who are
you to contradict them?". Given that I sent them privately, who is to
blame for their appearance in the group? Certainly not me.


5) This is not a moderated list, and no one can be removed.


6) If you wish to complain about our private email exchange to the
Listowners, who have no power to remove anyone, said Listowners are Don
Stone and Todd Farmerie. I have a pretty good idea how little satisfaction
you will get out of the exercise.


7) Finally as to the specific scurrilous allegation, my "lies and false
statements about [my] background", lets look at these:

"_I_ am a scientist who specializes in the field of DNA! I have a pretty
piece of paper stuffed under the cover of large book in the other room to
prove it."


a) "I am a scientist" - believe it or not, I do have a day job, and it
ain't genealogy. I have been a practicing scientist for about 20 years, at
multiple institutions. It is how I make my livelihood, as meager as it is.
I am putting off an experiment as we speak just to respond to your
undignified attack.

b) "who specializes in the field of DNA!" - guess what the experiment I am
putting off is: isolating and analyzing DNA. Guess what contribution I
have made to most of my scientific publications: isolating and analyzing
DNA.

c) "I have a pretty piece of paper" - it comes from an accredited
degree-granting institution, has a gold seal and all of the appropriate
signatures on it, and says that I have been awarded the degree of "Doctor
of Philosophy" (and just in case I am dealing with someone who needs to be
told, this does not mean I received it for the study of philosophy). It
does not include the word "Honorary" anywhere on the document.

d) "stuffed under the cover of large book" - specifically, _The Official
Military Atlas of the Civil War_, the only book I own large enough to
protect said pretty document, which unlike some of my colleagues I am not
about to frame and mount on a wall.

e) "in the other room to prove it." - Here is the relevant part of the
floor-plan. X is my location. Y is the location of said book. The room I
am in is "this room", the one with the book is thus "the other" one.


----- -| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
- | ---------
|X | Y|
-------| |
| |
-------------



Now, sit back and take a take a deep breath and think really hard about
whether you wish to continue this libel. (and apologies to the group)

taf


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: Bob Turcott <bobturcott@msn.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:31:09 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

I respect your perspective and view, my source as I have stated all
along is the folks at Family Tree Dna and the genetic anthopologist with
family tree dna.

You remember when I said "someone told me so" isn't good enough?

when I say sources I mean for the sake of argument source papers written
by scientists

like the papers posted here
http://www.familytreedna.com/ydnapapers.html

Irrelevant to your position. If all it takes to convince you are
irrelevant papers, I can come up with plenty.

you must clearly understand my position. with that said, I dont think
further complaining
by you about me wanting professional citations by scientist that
specialize in the field of dna
is unreasonable.

What you seem to have missed is that _I_ am a scientist who specializes
in the field of DNA! I have a pretty piece of paper stuffed under the
cover of large book in the other room to prove it. I am telling you that
the people at Family Tree DNA have intentionally simplified the situation
because they are dealing with genealogically relevant numbers of
generations, but your question, by its very nature, extends beyond the
limits within which those simplifications are valid. I am also telling
you that the type of citation you want is unlikely ever to have been
published, because it is obvious from the work that does exist, and from
simple math, as I have twice laid out, and scholarly journals stress
novelty, not dotting Is and crossing Ts. Who knows - someone may have
slipped it into an obscure journal during a slow month in their
publication cycle, but do you know how much effort you are asking for
just so you don't have to deal with the unequivocal numbers I presented?
At best, some researcher may have thrown it into the discussion section
of a paper as an afterthought, and it would have no more scientific
validity because he threw it in there than me throwing the same
conclusion into this discussion.

You have staked a position based on 'common sense' and someone's
oversimplification, without truly understanding, and now you are arguing
from personal incredulity and demanding references that you likewise
don't seem to understand the significance of. Just look at the numbers
in my last post, based on your model, but with accurate math. Given 3
billion indivisible units, how can they come from 4.3 billion ancestors?
It really is that simple.


_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement



_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 jan 2006 20:43:02

Ok Todd,

I dont care what you think, if you think I dont belong then fine, but
that only your opinion. I have a lot to offer this forum at laest what I
post, I try to at least post a related source at bare minimuim.


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:16:16 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
Todd,

Me a target, I don't think so...

Not you, your unsupportable and erroneous position regarding DNA
inheritance. There is really no reason to personalize this. You are
simply wrong, but that does not reflect on your value as a person, nor
should my pointing out your error reflect on mine.

(You did, however, miss the point of that last part of my post: that there
is a certain irony in you suggesting that I have no place in this group.)

taf


_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 20:50:27

Bob Turcott wrote:
Ok Todd,

I dont care what you think, if you think I dont belong then fine, but
that only your opinion.

Still haven't twigged to the the point, have you? It was not about you.
Perhaps if your read it again, and think a little bit outside the box
it will come to you.

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2006 21:21:02

In a message dated 1/18/06 11:11:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< said Listowners are Don
Stone and Todd Farmerie. >>

..... who... is... Don stone?
In all my postings on here, I'm not sure I've ever encountered him.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2006 21:30:02

In a message dated 1/18/06 11:39:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

<< I dont care what you think, if you think I dont belong then fine, but
that only your opinion. I have a lot to offer this forum at laest what I
post, I try to at least post a related source at bare minimuim. >>

Bob. In general I'm a great stickler for sources. I often ask people to
post their source or their reasoning.
But that position needs moderation.

There are some people, who, are, experts in a certain area. And if they say
something that, at least on its face, *appears* to be reasonable, I don't
usually question it. However when they say something that seems unusual, then I
question it.

Todd did present the reasoning for why all 4 billion of your ancestors cannot
contribute to a pool which has only 3 billion slots. That is math.

I was going to challenge this a tad, merely based on the idea that 30
generations ago, there were not 4 billion people in the world, and so many of the
slots are filled by the same person. The only reason I haven't gotten into that,
is that I wanted to do a study on well-known ancestry to see how much
inbreeding I could find.

Actually I think there is someone on this list who is an expert in royal
inbreeding. Not sure if he has done a comprehensive analysis of say a random
sample of royals to try to determine inbreeding of the whole "class". And then
of course you'd have the problem of whether royal inbreeding says anything
about commoner inbreeding.

I'm sure the gut reaction would be no.
So the read core question has to be, for a random person, what is the shape
of the probability curve that shows that persons amount of inbreeding ?

Unfortunately we have very few cases where a commoner's ancestry is known
entirely back to 30 generations... probably none at all. All of my own 4th
great-grandparents are unique persons. However my mother was a DesMarais, from
French Canada. And I know that Denis knows that that implies, at a great
distance back on that line, I have a large amount of inbreeding, since the Quebecois
colonies were rather small and isolated, and families tended to intermarry a
lot therefore.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 21:40:03

Bob Turcott wrote:
Ok Todd,

I dont care what you think, if you think I dont belong then fine, but
that only your opinion. I have a lot to offer this forum at laest what I
post, I try to at least post a related source at bare minimuim.

[Apologies to the group, but turnabout is fair play and on the off
chance that legal consequences result it is probably best that this gets
a public airing. The following is a private email, one I had chosen to
ignore until the follow-up came, also provided. These are the last that
I plan to read from Mr. Turcott.]


Message 1 (top-posting corrected):

Bob Turcott wrote (Subject: "Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?"):

From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com
To: Bob Turcott <bobturcott@msn.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:26:40 -0700

Bob Turcott wrote:
you are a big baby

Ouch. I never expected that witty and insightful retort. Your mother must be so proud.

look Todd,

now I am giving you a piece of advice, I will find you and cut your
balls off do you understand who you are dealing with. Dont ever mention
my mother again, I will hunt you down..


Message 2, after Message 1 was ignored:

Bob Turcott wrote (Subject: "be carefull") [Oh, Bob - you might want to
get that spell-checker looked at]:

Todd,

You better apologize about mentioning my mother, do you understand?


(Do you find this a productive approach in dealing with people: bluster,
insult and threat? What would your mother think?)

Now I am giving you some advice. Seek help! The drug industry has made
some truly marvelous breakthroughs. With appropriate pharmacological
and psychiatric intervention, there is hope in cases like yours.
Further, it may be in your best interest to consult with a member of the
legal profession before continuing down this road, since committing
physical assault usually negatively impacts one's own lifestyle as well
as that of the victim.

Are we done seeing who can piss highest up the wall now?

[Wow, this simple discussion of DNA spiraled downward in a hurry. It
seems to have left enough of a bad taste in my mouth that I will just
step away. Anyone with any questions are free to address them to me
privately - but be warned, I may end up mentioning your mother too.]

taf

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 18 jan 2006 21:48:09

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/18/06 11:11:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

said Listowners are Don
Stone and Todd Farmerie.

.... who... is... Don stone?
In all my postings on here, I'm not sure I've ever encountered him.

He actually just posted yesterday - he has been participating from Day
One, but goes for quality over quantity.

taf

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 18 jan 2006 21:55:02

Wj

see below


From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:28:23 EST

In a message dated 1/18/06 11:39:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

I dont care what you think, if you think I dont belong then fine,
but
that only your opinion. I have a lot to offer this forum at laest what I
post, I try to at least post a related source at bare minimuim.

Bob. In general I'm a great stickler for sources. I often ask people to
post their source or their reasoning.
But that position needs moderation.
agreed..

There are some people, who, are, experts in a certain area. And if they
say
something that, at least on its face, *appears* to be reasonable, I don't
usually question it. However when they say something that seems unusual,
then I
question it.

Todd did present the reasoning for why all 4 billion of your ancestors
cannot
contribute to a pool which has only 3 billion slots. That is math.

I was going to challenge this a tad, merely based on the idea that 30
generations ago, there were not 4 billion people in the world, and so many
of the
slots are filled by the same person. The only reason I haven't gotten into
that,
is that I wanted to do a study on well-known ancestry to see how much
inbreeding I could find.

Actually I think there is someone on this list who is an expert in royal
inbreeding. Not sure if he has done a comprehensive analysis of say a
random
sample of royals to try to determine inbreeding of the whole "class". And
then
of course you'd have the problem of whether royal inbreeding says anything
about commoner inbreeding.
Its well known that the english royals are inbreeded in many areas!!!! I

would start there for sure..
I'm sure the gut reaction would be no.
So the read core question has to be, for a random person, what is the shape
of the probability curve that shows that persons amount of inbreeding ?

Unfortunately we have very few cases where a commoner's ancestry is known
entirely back to 30 generations... probably none at all. All of my own 4th
great-grandparents are unique persons. However my mother was a DesMarais,
from
French Canada. And I know that Denis knows that that implies, at a great
distance back on that line, I have a large amount of inbreeding, since the
Quebecois
colonies were rather small and isolated, and families tended to intermarry
a
lot therefore.

Will Johnson


_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm ... direct/01/

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2006 22:11:02

WJhonson@aol.com writes:

Todd did present the reasoning for why all 4 billion of your ancestors cannot
contribute to a pool which has only 3 billion slots. That is math.

it's called the Pigeonhole Principle

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2006 22:16:31

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Actually I think there is someone on this list who is an expert in royal
inbreeding. Not sure if he has done a comprehensive analysis of say a random
sample of royals to try to determine inbreeding of the whole "class". And then
of course you'd have the problem of whether royal inbreeding says anything
about commoner inbreeding.

I'm sure the gut reaction would be no.
So the read core question has to be, for a random person, what is the shape
of the probability curve that shows that persons amount of inbreeding ?

Dear Will,

if you haven't seen it already, check out Ian Fettes' study, 'Unique
Ancestors', at:

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fettesi/unique.htm

-Matthew

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jan 2006 22:56:02

In a message dated 1/18/06 1:25:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fettesi/unique.htm
-Matthew >>

Thank you, this exactly illustrates the problem.
At 20 generations Prince William has a million ancestors but only 23 thousand
are known to be unique individuals while 61 thousand are estimated to be
(estimated because we don't know who these people are... yet).

So even with this estimate, instead of one million ancestors each
contributing, on average 3000 base pairs to the 3billion that we have, we have the
situation where 60 thousand ancestors are each contributing, on average, 50,000 base
pairs.

I find that very interesting. Because I'm a math geek like that.
Also Ian's statements that he feels that royals and commoners both share this
same curve. I can possibly see that in that past where agricultural villages
were usually rather small, just like the pool of eligible partners of
political interest or with great landed estates or large maritagiums.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: English Counties (Revised Post)

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 jan 2006 23:46:10

In message of 18 Jan, lgc@insightbb.com ("Lynda Chenault") wrote:

What I understand from this message is that there are two ways to
refer to this geographical area. One is "Warwicks. and the other is
"co. Warwick." (i.e., loose the "s" when you use "co." as county and
shire are redundant.)

Well "co. Warwicks" is never used in normal writing these days, except
by genealogists who have read some Burke and think he was normal!
Further I think its usage can be traced back to the original Burke who
may have invented it in the early 19th century, so it is not that old
anyhow. The only exception this this in England is County Durham which
is usually written as "Co Durham"; no other English county has the
abbreviation "Co" put in front of or after its name.

That said it was and still is the practice to use the phrase "County of
York". In wills and birth, marriage and death certificates it is even
normal to do this and I have in my possession documents saying "County
of Berks", just to muddy the waters a tad. But this usage is not
followed when addressing letters by post.

The normal usages in England are "Warwickshire" (if you've got lots of
writing time), "Warks", "Wars" (though I had not heard of that until a
day or so back) and "Warwicks". You can put any of those on an
envelope and it will be correctly delivered by the postman - except that
we are generally requested to leave the county off addresses these days
as they are redundant.

There are also the Chapman three letter codes for the counties but I
would hardly describe these as normal usage, much as they are useful
for database indexing.

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

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jan 2006 01:28:02

This site gives all your variations plus some and has sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

The term "Eskimo" is an exonym that is not generally used by Eskimos
themselves. The term "Inuit" is sometimes used instead, but it does not properly
include the Yupik.

Some Algonquian languages call Eskimos by names that mean "eaters of raw
meat" or something that sounds similar. The Plains Ojibwe, for example, use the
word êškipot ("one who eats raw," from ašk-, "raw," and -po-, "to eat") to
refer to Eskimos. But in the period of the earliest attested French use of the
word, the Plains Ojibwe were not in contact with Europeans, nor did they have
very much direct contact with the Inuit in pre-colonial times. It is entirely
possible that the Ojibwe have adopted words resembling "Eskimo" by borrowing them
from French, and the French word merely sounds like Ojibwe words that sound
like "eaters of raw meat". Furthermore, since Cree people also traditionally
consumed raw meat, a pejorative significance based on this etymology seems
unlikely.

The Montagnais language, a dialect of Cree which was known to French traders
at the time of the earliest attestation of esquimaux, does not have vocabulary
fitting this etymological analysis. A variety of competing etymologies have
been proposed over the years, but the most likely source is the Montagnais word
meaning "snowshoe-netter". Since Montagnais speakers refer to the
neighbouring Mi'kmaq people using words that sound very much like eskimo, many
researchers have concluded that this is the more likely origin of the word. (Mailhot, J.
L'étymologie de «Esquimau» revue et corrigée Etudes Inuit/Inuit Studies
2-2:59-70 1978.)

Gjest

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jan 2006 01:56:10

In Peter Edbury's "The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374",
there is a brief mention of the Cypriot princess. Richard mentions her
in a letter dated August 6 1191: "We did battle with our enemy
[Isaakios Komnenos] and thanks to divine assistance, obtained a speedy
victory. Defeated and fettered, we hold him together with his only
daughter."

The Cypriote princess accompanied Richard I's sister Joan and wife
Berengaria to Europe, and there married Thierry, the illegitimate son
of Count Philip of Flanders. Thierry visited Cyprus in 1203, during his
tenure with the Fourth Crusade. He made a claim to the island in right
of his wife, and was promptly dismissed by Amalric de Lusignan, who was
then the current ruler of Cyprus.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 19 jan 2006 02:25:32

In message of 18 Jan, bobturcott@msn.com ("Bob Turcott") wrote:

time to close this discussion your lies and false statements about your
background are not needed on this forum, I am going to recommend to the
moderator to have you removed.

I am afraid this statement proves that you have not read what others
have written. At least one has written that there is no moderator on
this newsgroup; and that is true as anyone who cares to look at the
archives or even the FAQ can verify.

Anyhow this deliberate failure to pay attention to what is said is more
and more looking like the standard performance of a troll who gets more
and more abusive in order to stir up a bigger and more detrimental fight
fight. The standard recommendation is "Don't feed the troll" and they
fade away. 'Nuff said?

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

Denis Beauregard

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 19 jan 2006 02:51:22

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:27:10 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote in
soc.genealogy.medieval:

This site gives all your variations plus some and has sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

If you could learn to quote the text to which you are answering...


http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/1 ... 375aa4ba0f
Vocabulaire français-esquimau : dialecte des Tchiglit des bouches du
Mackenzie, 1876

Les Tchiglit ne mangent pas toujours la viande crue comme semble
l'indiquer leur nom Cris de Wiyaskiméwok .

their cree name of Wiyaskiméwok

Wiyaskiméwok can be the root of Eskimo and it is a cree word meaning
raw meat eaters.

wiyás = meat
http://www.nisto.com/cree/lesson/19.html

The Cree verb askipo:w means 'he eats raw', which may have been used
for the Eskimos.
http://www.nisto.com/cree/mail/cree-1997-11.txt

Now, if we can find what means méwok ...


It is unfortunate that no source on the web is indicating some
extract of early books where eskimo was used.
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: http://www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jan 2006 05:15:39

sigvald@binet.is wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/17/06 6:26:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
madbadrob@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:

Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe?

Do Eskimos look particularly Icelandic to you?
If anything I'd say they bare a strong resemblence to Mongolians. Or possibly
Koreans or Chinese or something of that sort.

So if they reached Iceland (which point I'm not sure of), its likely to be a
West to East migration instead of the reverse as you're hypothecizing.

They never reached Iceland.

Correct. They never reached Iceland so far as anyone knows. - Bronwen

Le Bateman

Re: Modden of Caithness

Legg inn av Le Bateman » 19 jan 2006 05:35:36

I meant was he the grandson of Maldred MacCrinan?
Sorry
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:29 PM
Subject: Modden of Caithness


Can someone tell me who Modden of Caithness is? Was he styled 1st Earl of
Caithness?. Who were his parents?
Was Maldred MacCrinan his father?

Akrogiali

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 19 jan 2006 05:38:14

NO, Unless she married 3 times.

She married in 1956, Stephen IV (Istvan IV) ARPAD King of Hungary (Son of
Bela II "The Blind) and Jelena Nemanja


<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:dc.3555636d.3100706f@aol.com...
In a message dated 1/8/06 6:52:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
Isaak had 5 children with Theodora Kamateros: Alexios, Ioannis, Irene,
Maria and Anna
and 2 more children with Irene Synadynos; Theodora and Eudokia.

Is this the same Maria who married Amalric (Amaury), King of Jerusalem on
29
Aug 1167 ?
and later married Balian, Lord of Nablus ?
Thanks
Will Johnosn

Gjest

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jan 2006 06:33:02

In a message dated 1/8/06 6:52:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

<< > D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
Isaak had 5 children with Theodora Kamateros: Alexios, Ioannis, Irene,

Maria and Anna
and 2 more children with Irene Synadynos; Theodora and Eudokia. >>

Is this the same Maria who married Amalric (Amaury), King of Jerusalem on 29
Aug 1167 ?
and later married Balian, Lord of Nablus ?
Thanks
Will Johnosn

Gjest

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jan 2006 07:47:52

In a message dated 1/18/2006 8:41:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

She married in 1956, Stephen IV (Istvan IV) ARPAD King of Hungary (Son of
Bela II "The Blind) and Jelena Nemanja


<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:dc.3555636d.3100706f@aol.com...
In a message dated 1/8/06 6:52:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
Isaak had 5 children with Theodora Kamateros: Alexios, Ioannis, Irene,
Maria and Anna


You cant mean 1156 ? So she was an infant when she married?

Scaly Lizard

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Scaly Lizard » 19 jan 2006 11:01:32

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Scaly Lizard,
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA


Yes, i've run across that tale. Somewhere around here,
i have a book that tells the story and lists some correlations
between Mandan and Welsh. But the word for chicken in
Mayan is very similar to the word for chicken in Japanese.

There are coincidences all around us, but the harder we
look for them, the more numerous they seem. I can't rule
out Welsh contact, but until some evidence comes to
light, it is more prudent to take amateur language analyses
170 years ago with a big grain of salt.

I am certainly always interested to read about things,
so if you know of a website with a fair treatment of the
story, please pass the link along.

SL

Scaly Lizard

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Scaly Lizard » 19 jan 2006 11:11:38

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:13:49 -0700, "Todd A. Farmerie"
<farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Scaly Lizard,
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)

Unfortunately, this research was flawed. In fact, much of the early
anthropological research, done by actual anthropologists (as opposed to
painters) is flawed in that it set out with the goal of finding
connections and similarities, and rarely were the researchers
disappointed. There are coincidental similarities among most languages
- you can always point out a word here or there that sounds similar and
means something vaguely similar. These led linguists astray even in
relatively recent times (like the 1970s) and frequently catch up
non-linguists trying to do this kind of research.

There are now better criteria that can help distinguish coincidental
from relational similarities, but there are no speakers of pre-contact
Mandan to evaluate.

taf

I agree with you, but on the other hand, the 'kooks' who
pointed out similarities between Sanskrit and Latin were
teased mercilessly in the halls of academe, until linguistics
became a science and Indoeuropean became a buzzword.

You just never know what of today's hogwash will be
proved true later, so it is prudent for any science to pay
attention to the fringes as a place to debate, not as a
shanty deserving demolition.

SL

Robin Haigh

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Robin Haigh » 19 jan 2006 15:59:09

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1e4.4aab58d9.3100128c@aol.com...
In a message dated 1/18/06 1:25:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fettesi/unique.htm
-Matthew

Thank you, this exactly illustrates the problem.
At 20 generations Prince William has a million ancestors but only 23
thousand are known to be unique individuals while 61 thousand are
estimated to be (estimated because we don't know who these people
are... yet).

So even with this estimate, instead of one million ancestors each
contributing, on average 3000 base pairs to the 3billion that we have,
we have the situation where 60 thousand ancestors are each
contributing, on average, 50,000 base pairs.

However, the average isn't really the issue, because the distribution
isn't uniform, it's long-tailed.

If you're an Easter Islander, all of your ancestors will be multiple
ancestors, and you'll have genes from all of them. But in the connected
world, if there more than a few people (anywhere) that you're not
descended from, then there will also be people you're descended from
by only one path. It's not possible that everybody is either a
non-ancestor or a multiple ancestor with nobody in between.

So the question is about what you inherit from somebody who has only
one number in your Ahnentafel, and this isn't affected by the fact that
other ancestors will be turning up duplicated in large numbers of slots.

--
RSH

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 19 jan 2006 20:40:09

In article <dqm3na$al6$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

----- -| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
- | ---------
|X | Y|
-------| |
| |
-------------

Dude, you're inviting some serious B&E. Don't post maps of precisely
where you keep your most treasured possessions, unobserved.

(I mean the atlas, of course.)

Nat Taylor

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

Robin Haigh

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Robin Haigh » 19 jan 2006 21:05:11

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dqjn6u$sf7$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your
ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).


Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.

Getting back to genealogy, the "paper trail" regarding Somerled's
ancestry is of highly questionable reliability, and I don't know that
such confidence is warranted.


What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
paper trail is wrong.


I don't see how we can say that.

For all we know, Somerled was descended from a long line of staunch
Celts who called themselves Gaelic, looked Gaelic, spoke Gaelic,
married Gaelic girls, fought on the Gaelic side, followed Gaelic
customs and passed them on to their children.

Only thing is, 200 years before Somerled, Mrs Staunch Celt had a
moose loose aboot the hoose and thanked the postman for dealing
with it.

OK, so the records don't mention the postman. But they wouldn't,
would they. It was taken as read that postmen existed but their
activities were unknowable. There was no need to keep spelling
it out.

So the records would be correct in their own terms -- Somerled
would be a Celt for all purposes relevant to history, unless you
think all that Celticness could be overwhelmed by a little drop
of Viking blood that nobody knew anything about. You can only
call the records "wrong" by having expectations of them beyond
what can be expected even of the best.

I've no idea how good this particular paper trail is. Maybe
there's no good reason to believe it anyway. But in general
I do worry about the prospect of conscientious work being
written off (in toto) as unreliable and history rewritten, on
the basis of chromosomes that may not tell you anything about
anything except themselves and their own independent history of
brief encounters and casual accidents.

--
RSH

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jan 2006 05:45:53

What I meant was that indigenous people throughout the part of the
Arctic that is in northeastern Siberia, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland
united in celebration (they have newspapers, computers, etc.) although
the specific reunited families were, of course, Siberian Yupiq and
Alaskan Yupiq. As far as I know, St. Lawrence Island is still on the
Siberian side of the Strait although it is politically "owned" by the
US - and I am certain that those Yupiq people were involved as well.
Indigenous people are in contact globally and many keep track of events
etc. that involve their counterparts elsewhere in the world. The
alliance is political and emotional (perhaps spiritual) rather than
biological or historical but it is a genuine allilance all the same.
Heck, even we "lower 48" indigenous people celebrated this event! -
Bronwen

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 20 jan 2006 13:09:13

[continued: Part II]


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Murchad mac Finn
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 0972[9],[2]

king of Leinster (Laigen), 966-972

' M965, An army was led by Murchadh, son of Finn, King of Leinster,
into Osraighe.
M967, Ceanannas was plundered by Sitric, son of Amhlaeibh, lord of the
foreigners, and by Murchadh, son of Finn, King of Leinster.
M970, Murchadh, son of Finn, King of Leinster, was killed by Domhnall
Claen, son of Lorcan,
CS972, Murchad son of Finn, overking of Laigin, was killed by Domnall
Claen in treachery.
AI972, Death of Murchad son of Finn, king of Laigin. '[9]

' Murchad mac Finn (of the Uí Fáeláin branch of Uí Dúnlainge),
king
of Laigin, d. 972 [AU] [R.117c=LL334c (Rw.13, CGH.13); R.117d=BB.138a
(Rw.18, CGH.14); LL337f (CGH.423)] '[7]

' Murchad mac Finn, k. Laigin, d. 972 ' [AU[8]]

cf. Stewart Baldwin [The Henry Project[10]]

Children: Gormlaith (-1030)
Mael Mórda (-ca1014), king of Laigin


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1a Gormlaith ingen Murchada*[11]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1030

' Gormlaith ingen Murchada, d. 1030 ' [AT] [BS 189, 227[8]]

she m. 1stly Olaf Cuaran,
2ndly Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill
3rdly; prob. as 3rd wife, Brian 'Boru'[10]

'In addition to being the wife of Amlaib Cuaran, she was also married
to Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, king of Mide (Meath) and king of
Ireland (d. 1022), and to Brian Boruma (#138) [BS 189, 227;
R.117c=LL.334c (Rw.14, CGH.13); LL334d (CGH.423)]'[11]

Spouse: Olaf 'Cuaran' Sigtryggsson of Dublin [1st husband]
Death: 0981[10]
Father: Sigtryggr of York (-0926)
Mother: NN

Children: Sigtryggr 'Silkiskeggi' Óláfsson (-1042) *

[* ancestor of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, and others]


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b Gormlaith ingen Murchada*
(See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Brian 'Boru' mac Cennedig, High King of Ireland [3rd husband]
Death: 23 Apr 1014, Battle of Clontarf[10]
Father: Cennédig mac Lorcáin (-0951)
Mother: Bé Binn ingen Aurchada

Children: Donnchad (-1064)
Bé Binn (-1073)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1 Donnchad mac Briain
----------------------------------------
Death: 1064, Rome (d. on pilgrimage)[9],[10],[8]

king of Munster[10]

' Donnchad mac Briain, k. Mumain (Munster), d. 1065 ' [AU[8]]

'U1014.5
Cathal son of Domnall, king of Uí Echdach, was killed by Donnchad son
of Brian.'[9]
'U1014.6
A defeat was inflicted by Tadc son of Brian on Donnchad son of Brian
and Ruaidrí ua Donnocáin, king of Arad, was left dead.'[9]
'U1015.1
Domnall son of Dub dá Bairenn was slain in battle by Donnchad son
of Brian.'[9]

'U1034.5
Donnchad son of Brian ravaged all Osraige.'[9]

'U1064.4
Donnchad son of Brian, overking of Mumu, was deposed and died in Rome
on pilgrimage.'[9]

Children: Dearbforgail (-1080)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1 Dearbforgail ingen Donnchada
----------------------------------------
Death: 1080[9]

' Dirborgaill ingen Donnchada, D. 1080 ' [AU] [BS 190, 229[8]]

'U1080.4
Derbhforgaill, daughter of Brian's son, wife of Diarmait son of Mael
na mBó, died in Imlech.'[9]

Spouse: Diarmaid mac Mael na mBó, King of Leinster and
High King of Ireland
Death: 7 Feb 1072, Battle of Odhbha[9],[8]
Father: Donnchad Mael na mBó mac Diarmaid (-1006), king of
Ui Cheinnselaig
Mother: Aife ingen Gilla Patraic

Children: Murchad (-1070)
Enna (-1092)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1 Murchad mac Diarmata
----------------------------------------
Death: 1070, d.v.p.[9],[12]
Burial: Áth Cliath[9]
Occ: king of Dublin, 1052 - 1070

king of Dublin

heir of his father (d.v.p.)[12]

' Murchad mac Diarmata, k. Laigin & Dublin, d. 1070 ' [AU[8]]

' In 1052 Diarmait Mac Mael na mBo intruded his son Murchad as
king of Dublin,..' [Cosgrove II:22[12]]

'U1070.2
Murchad son of Diarmait, king of Laigin and the foreigners, died and
was buried in Áth Cliath.'[9]

Spouse: Sadb ingen Mac Bricc

Children: Donchad (-1115)
Gormlaith


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1 Donchad mac Murchada
----------------------------------------
Death: 1115[12],[8]
Occ: King of Leinster 1090-1115

King of Leinster 1090-1115

'U1098.4
Diarmait son of Énna son of Diarmait, king of Laigin, was killed by
the sons of Murchad son of Diarmait, i.e. in the middle of Cell
Dara.'[9]

' Donnchad mac Murchada, k. Laigin, d. 1115 ' [AU[8]]

Gaelic: Donnchad mac Murchad

Spouse: Orlaith ingen Ua Bráenáin
Father: Gilla Michil Ua Bráenáin
Mother: Uchdelb ingen Cearnachain Ua Gairbita

Children: Enna (-1126)
Diarmaid (-ca1171)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1.1a Diarmaid mac Murchada*
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1 May 1171[13]
Occ: King of Leinster

King of Leinster

' Diarmait Mac Murchada, k. Laigin (Leinster), d. 1171 ' [AU[8]]

also known as 'Dermot MacMurrough'
last Irish King of Leinster (and clan chief of Ua Cennselaigh)

' M1137.12
The siege of Waterford by Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, King of Leinster,
and Conchobhar Ua Briain, King of Dal-gCais, and the foreigners of
Ath-cliath and Loch-Carman, who had two hundred ships on the sea.
They carried off with them the hostages of Donnchadh Mac Carthaigh,
of the Deisi, and of the foreigners of Port-Lairge. [14]

M1137.13
Conchobhar Ua Briain, lord of Thomond and Ormond, went into the house
of Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, King of Leinster, and left hostages there
for defending Desmond for him.' Annals of the Four Masters, 1137[14]

M1144.7
Conchobhar, son of Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair, heir apparent to
the monarchy of Ireland, was killed at Bealach Muine-na-Siride, by
Ua Dubhlaich, lord of Feara-Tulach, for he considered him as a
stranger in sovereignty over the men of Meath. Toirdhealbhach Ua
Conchobhair gave West Meath to Donnchadh, son of Muircheartach Ua
Maeleachlainn; and he divided East Meath equally between Tighearnan
Ua Ruairc, lord of Breifne, and Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, King of
Leinster, and they remained thus under the protection of the
Connaughtmen. ' Annals of the Four Masters, 1144[14]

Restored to his throne by son-in-law Richard 'Strongbow, 1170
__________________________________

" Dermot McMurrough, or Diarmiud mac Murchada (both: dûr´mt mkmr´),
1110-71, Irish king of Leinster. He became involved in a complicated
feud, partly because he abducted a neighbor's wife, and in 1166 was
defeated and banished by the High King Rory O'Connor. Dermot
appealed
for help to Henry II of England, who refused him direct support but
allowed him to enlist a force led by Richard de Clare, 2d earl of
Pembroke, and other Norman barons in Wales. After Pembroke had
invaded (1170) and won much of E Ireland, including Dublin, he married
Dermot's daughter, Eva. He was a patron of the compilation of the
valuable Irish manuscript, the Book of Leinster. " [16]

Spouse: Mór ingen Muirchertach Ua Tuathail
Father: Muirchertach Ua Tuathail (-1164), king of Ui Muiredaig
Mother: Cacht ingen Loigsig Ua Morda

Children: Aoife [Eva] (-ca1189)
Urlachan
Conchobar (-ca1170)
Enna


1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1.1a.1 Aoife [Eva] ingen
Diarmata
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1189[13]

'Evam Dermicii filiam' [Annales Hiberniae, A.D. 1171[15]]

heiress of Leinster
Styled Countess of Ireland, 1185; Countess of Striguil, 1186[13]

' Aife (Eve of Leinster) md. Richard Strongbow ' [BS 232[8]]

Spouse: Richard 'Strongbow' de Clare, Earl of Pembroke
Death: 20 Apr 1176, Dublin[13]
Birth: ca 1130[13]
Father: Gilbert de Clare (-ca1147)
Mother: Isabel de Beaumont (->1171)
Marr: ca 26 Aug 1171, Waterford[13]

Children: Isabel (-1220), m. WIlliam Marshal, earl of Pembroke
Gilbert (1173- d.s.p. <1189)



1. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn AT - Part 8 of 9," 26 Nov 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
2. T. W. Moody, F. X. Martin and F. J. Byrne, eds., "A New History
of Ireland," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984, Vol. IX, Part II:Maps,
Genealogies, Lists.
3. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn AT - Part 7 of 9," 26 Nov 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
4. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn AT - Part 6 of 9," 26 Nov 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
5. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn AT - Part 5 of 9," 26 Nov 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
6. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn AT - Part 4 of 9," 26 Nov 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
7. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn AT - Part 3 of 9," 26 Nov 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
8. Stewart Baldwin, "Eve of Leinster and Radnaillt of Dublin,"
27 July 1996 (restated 26 Feb 1998), cites Ban Senchus, AU and
other sources re: the ancestry of Aoife ingen Diarmaid, heiress
of Leinster, and wife of Richard 'Strongbow' de Clare.
9. "Annals of Ulster," University College Cork,
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/L100005/
project CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts
10. Stewart Baldwin, "The Henry Project (Ancestors of Henry II),"
sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/, extracted 13 August 2001.
11. Stewart Baldwin, "Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (Ancestor Table)," RootsWeb
(http://www.rootsweb.com), extracted 13 Sept 2000,
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/llywelyn.htm
12. Art Cosgrove, ed., "A New History of Ireland," Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1987 (Vol. II), Vol. II: Medieval Ireland, 1169-1534.
13. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland
Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
14. "Annals of the Four Masters," University College Cork,
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/L100005/
project CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts, M1247.4: slaughter
of Echmarcach Ua Cathain by Magnus Ua Cathain.
15. "Annales Hiberniae," Dublin, Trinity College: MS E.3.20,
Annales Hiberniae. James Grace of Kilkenny Richard Butler (ed),
First edition [vii pp.+ 167 pp. + 14 pp. (appendices and index)]
Irish Archaeological Society Dublin (1842), University College
Cork,
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/L100005/
project CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts.
16. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
Copyright © 2002 Columbia University Press

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 20 jan 2006 13:15:05

Friday, 20 January, 2006


Hello All (with a note to Don & Todd),

The original (complete) message appears properly in the
newsgroup (Rootsweb), having been sent first to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com. The attempt to send the message to
soc.genealogy.medieval in 2 parts has obviously failed, due to the
current problem....... whatever that may be.

To avoid eating more bandwidth, the original message can be seen
in its entirety at


http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1137722755

We now return you to your regular programming........

John

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jan 2006 20:24:12

In message of 20 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

Thanks for the mighty pedigree.

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1.1a.1 Aoife [Eva] ingen
Diarmata
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1189[13]

'Evam Dermicii filiam' [Annales Hiberniae, A.D. 1171[15]]

heiress of Leinster
Styled Countess of Ireland, 1185; Countess of Striguil, 1186[13]

CP reports in X, 356, note (a) that she was not a genealogical heiress
as she had a brother who had surviving children.

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

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 21 jan 2006 15:37:14

Dear Tim,

You are more than welcome.

As to Eva/Aoife, I believe her legitimate brothers (Conchobar -
"Connor" - and Enna) both died without issue. The surviving son of
Diarmaid, according to my notes, was her illegitimate half-brother,
Domhnall Cáemánach mac Diarmata.

Under the 'looser' inheritance laws of the Irish, I assume it was
this line that succeeded to the chiefship (and any heraldic claims
associated therewith) ?

Cheers,

John



Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 20 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

snip

Thanks for the mighty pedigree.

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1.1a.1 Aoife [Eva] ingen
Diarmata
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1189[13]

'Evam Dermicii filiam' [Annales Hiberniae, A.D. 1171[15]]

heiress of Leinster
Styled Countess of Ireland, 1185; Countess of Striguil, 1186[13]

CP reports in X, 356, note (a) that she was not a genealogical heiress
as she had a brother who had surviving children.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 jan 2006 18:24:18

In message of 21 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

As to Eva/Aoife, I believe her legitimate brothers (Conchobar -
"Connor" - and Enna) both died without issue. The surviving son of
Diarmaid, according to my notes, was her illegitimate half-brother,
Domhnall Cáemánach mac Diarmata.

This sounds like a correction for CP? Can you find some references for
this?

Under the 'looser' inheritance laws of the Irish, I assume it was
this line that succeeded to the chiefship (and any heraldic claims
associated therewith) ?

"Genealogical heirs" may be defined as legitimate heirs.

For the heraldry I suspect the rules were not explicit then as heraldry
was only invented (c. 1125-1150) a few years before her birth.

Interestingly (to me at any rate) this has led me to look up Richard
fitz Gilbert, earl of Pembroke's arms in the Medieval Ordinary of
British Arms (pub 1996 by the Soc of Antiquaries), Vol II, p. 531 where
his arms are given as (plain field) six (plain) chevrons, these being
known from a surviving seal of RICARDI FILII GILLEBERTI on a charter of
c. 1170 that is now in Huntingdon Library. This contrasts with the
arms stated to be his by the then Clarenceux king of Arms of the College
of Arms in c. 1927 of: Argent, on a chief azure, three crosses patée
fichée at the feet argent; I wonder where they got those from?

(I had been wondering if there was any sign of a quartering with
MacDonagh, but then quarterings were a much later development.)

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 20 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

snip
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1.1a.1 Aoife [Eva] ingen
Diarmata
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1189[13]

'Evam Dermicii filiam' [Annales Hiberniae, A.D. 1171[15]]

heiress of Leinster
Styled Countess of Ireland, 1185; Countess of Striguil, 1186[13]

CP reports in X, 356, note (a) that she was not a genealogical
heiress as she had a brother who had surviving children.

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

Paul K Davis

RE: rupenids?

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 21 jan 2006 22:35:48

This line appears to be sound, if one can always assume that the known wife
of an individual is also the mother of the child in question, however, I
don't see what this line has to do with your title, "rupenids?". So far as
I know, connections of Rupen with the Bagratids, while perhaps likely, are
all speculative in detail.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]


[Original Message]
From: jlucsoler <jlucsoler@modulonet.fr
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 1/21/2006 4:02:33 AM
Subject: rupenids?

que penser de cette ligne

2 Ashot III (VII) - King of Armenia
3 Khosrovanush
4Abbas - King of Armenia + 952
5 Princess of Tao
10 Gurgen II - Duke of Tao
11 Helen - Princess of Calarzene
22 Ashot II - Duke of Calarzene
23 Princess of Abasgia
46 Constantine III - Prince of Abasgia
47 Princess of Georgia
94 Adarnase IV (II) - King of Georgia
188 David I - King of Georgia

thx

jl

Akrogiali

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 22 jan 2006 01:02:33

I think she was 16. That's not Infant.

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1db.4b20379f.310081fd@aol.com...
In a message dated 1/18/2006 8:41:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

She married in 1956, Stephen IV (Istvan IV) ARPAD King of Hungary (Son of
Bela II "The Blind) and Jelena Nemanja


WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:dc.3555636d.3100706f@aol.com...
In a message dated 1/8/06 6:52:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora
Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
Isaak had 5 children with Theodora Kamateros: Alexios, Ioannis, Irene,
Maria and Anna


You cant mean 1156 ? So she was an infant when she married?

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Cheinnselaig

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jan 2006 01:55:24

Dear Tony,

Right you are. As I think I indicated elsewhere, Aoife
(Eve) was married to Richard fitz Gilbert (aka 'Strongbow')
de Clare, and mother of Isabel de Clare, wife of William
Marshall.

Fairly certain a papal dispensation for my version would
not have been forthcoming........

Dispensa mea.

John

Gjest

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jan 2006 02:04:27

No, Maria Komnene who married Amaury of Jerusalem and Balian d'Ibelin
was the daughter of Ioannes Komnenos and his wife, a Taronitissa. Her
great-grandfather was the Emperor Alexios I.

Maria Komnene who married King Istvan IV of Hungary was the daughter of
Isaakios Komnenos and Theodora Kamaterina. Her sister was Theodora who
married Baldwin III of Jerusalem (older brother of Amaury) and became
the lover of Andronikos I before he became emperor. Their grandfather
was the Emperor Ioannes II, thusly they were cousins of the Maria above.

Brad Verity

Ferrers of Tamworth Line (Was Re: Sir John Ferrers, his wife

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 22 jan 2006 09:47:48

Dear Will and John,

Comments interspersed.

wjhonson wrote:

Following up on this family yet more. I now present the primary
evidence that Elizabeth Ferrers, wife to Sir William Chetwyn "of
Alspath" was the daughter, not of John Ferrers II and Dorothy Harpur
but yet of John Ferrers I and Maud Stanley.

Great find, Will!

From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
[In another post that didn't make it onto SGM, so apologies for any

double-posting.]

This is an intriguing find, especially in light of Brad Verity's note of
just a week ago that attibuted another daughter (Jane, wife of Sir Walter
Griffith) to John Ferrers I and Maud Stanley instead of John Ferrers II and
Dorothy Harpur. Brad's note also mentioned that Maud Stanley survived her
husband, as this latest item implies (since John Ferrers I is said to have
d. in 1485, possibly at Bosworth).

Maud Stanley, it turns out did indeed survive her husband, married secondly
(as his second wife), John Agard, of Foston, Derbyshire, and seems to have
died by 1515/6, if the following document in the National Archives is an IPM
for her.

C 142/30/26 Ferrers, alias Agard, Maud: Essex 7 Hen. VIII.

The two notes together raise questions about the supposed second marriage
of
John Ferrers I, to Margaret Hungerford of Down Ampney (see posts in the
archives from Alex Stewart), by whom there was a daughter Catherine m. Sir
Anthony Babington of Dethick. I wonder if perhaps the Hungerford marriage
should instead be ascribed to the son John Ferrers II, perhaps as a 1st
marriage before the one to Dorothy Harpur.

Alex Stewart is doing thorough research into sorting out how the Margaret
Hungerford/John Ferrers marriage originated, and I'll let him share it with
the newsgroup when he's ready.

BTW this new item (if correct) represents a correction to Paget's ancestry
of Prince Charles.

Below is the information I've compiled so far on the Ferrers of Tamworth
line. As there doesn't seem to be a ready reference for them handy, I hope
this can help all of us, and be added to as more evidence is discovered.

Cheers, --------Brad


FERRERS of TAMWORTH LINE - TO 1500

******************************************************
THOMAS FERRERS I, esquire, of Tamworth Castle
Born: about 1405 Died: 6 Jan. 1459
Married 1418/9, Elizabeth Freville (born about 1394; died unknown)
[From 'A Gentry Community: Leicestershire in the Fifteenth Century,
c.1422-c.1485' by Eric Acheson]
"Thomas Ferrers I, esquire, was second son and heir male of William, lord
Ferrers of Groby ('Complete Peerage', v, p. 357). By his marriage in 1419
to Elizabeth, sister and coheir of Baldwin Freville, he acquired Tamworth
Castle in Staffordshire. On the death of his father in 1445, Thomas
inherited six manors including the manor of Flecknoe in Warwickshire. Hithe
in Oxfordshire and Woodham Ferrers in Essex but, apart from parcels of land
worth f20 per year in the hundreds of Sparkenhoe, Gartree and Guthlaxton,
most of the family's Leicestershire estate devolved to Thomas's niece,
Elizabeth Grey (C139/174/34; 'Calendar of Close Rolls, 1454-61', p. 324;
'Complete Peerage, v, p. 357 n. a). Nevertheless, Thomas was well provided
for; even before his father's death his declared annual income was f100
(E179/192/59)."

Issue:
[Note: Neither Tudor Place, nor stirnet, nor PA3, give Thomas Ferrers I any
further issue than the following two sons]

1) Sir Thomas Ferrers II of Tamworth - see below
2) Sir Henry Ferrers of East Peckham, Kent
Born: about 1425/30 Died: 28 Dec. 1500
Married 1st: unknown
Married 2nd, about 1467[but see death date Wedgwood gives William Whetenhall
below], Margaret Hextall (born: unknown; died before 1500)
[From 'History of Parliament 1439-1509' by Josiah C. Wedgwood, 1936]
"Ferrers, Sir Henry (c.1440-1500); of Peckham [footnote: Pardon Roll, 27
Feb. 1484--of East Peckham, alias late sheriff of Kent, alias Ferys.];
King's servant. M.P. Kent 1472-5.
"Second s. of Sir Thomas Ferrers of Tamworth (1415-98) by Anne sis. of
William, lord Hastings, and yr. bro. of Sir John Ferrers M.P. (1438-84) [sic
- Wedgwood is incorrect here. The will of Sir Thomas Ferrers II of
Tamworth shows he had no son named Henry. 'Complete Peerage' states that
Henry was the second son of Thomas Ferrers I and Elizabeth Freville, and
this appears to be the case.] M. (2) Margaret, widow of William Whetenhall
(d. 1468) and da. and coh. of William Hextall of Peckham, M.P.
"King's servant from Apr. 1461; steward of Cheylesmore, Warw., 1461;
exempted as "our welbeloved sqier" 1464 [footnote: 'Rot. Parl.' v. 534];
granted Hameldon, Rutd., 1467; in which grant he was joined by his wife
Margaret, 14 Nov. 1468; sheriff, Kent, 1468-9, and pardoned arrears; kntd.
at Tewkesbury with his bro. John [sic - John was his nephew], 4 May 1471;
J.P. Kent, 27 June 1471 to 5 Dec. 1483, and on Kent comns., including the
subsidy of 18 Feb. 1484. He carried the banner of the Trinity at the
funeral of Edward IV [footnote: Gairdner, 'L. and P.', 5]; sheriff, Kent, 13
May-6 Nov. 1483; pardoned 27 Feb. 1484. Under Henry VII he was again
sheriff, 1487-8, with a f100 "reward"; J.P. Kent, 4 Dec. 1490 to 10 Sept.
1498; a comnr. 1488-96; but he had ceased to hold the stewardship of
Cheylesmore.
"D. 28 Dec. 1499, when Edward, aged 36, was his s. and h.; lands--Hameldon,
Rutland, held jointly with his wife Margaret. Will of Sir Henry Ferrers,
knt., dat. 22 Dec. 1499, pr. 20 Aug. 1500 [footnote: to be bur. beside his
wife at Peckham. All his ungilt silver to his da. Elizabeth, but to remain
in hands of son Edward till her marriage. Exor.:--his son Edward (P.C.C. 4
Moone).] He is ancestor of Mr. Ferrers of Baddesley-Clinton, the commoner
who to-day represents in the male line the Domesday commissioner, Henry de
Ferrers."

Issue of Sir Henry Ferrers and Margaret Hextall: 2 sons & 1 dau [Note: PA3
states there were 4 sons & 5 daus, but gives no names or further
information.]

2A) Sir Edward Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire
Born: by 1468 Died: 29 Aug. 1535
Married, 1497, Constance Brome (born: unknown, died 1551)
[From 'History of Parliament, 1509-1558', 1982]
"MP Warwickshire 1529
"b. by 1468, 1st s. of Sir Henry Ferrers of Hambleton, Rutland and East
Peckham, Kent by 2nd w. Margaret, da. and coh. of William Hextall of East
Peckham and Gerrard's Bromley, Staffs., wid. of William Whetenhall. m.
settlement 1497, Constance (d. 1551), da. and coh. of Nicholas Brome (d. 10
Oct. 1517) of Baddesley Clinton, 4s. 6da. suc. fa. 28 Dec. 1500. Kntd. 25
Sept. 1513 [footnote: Date of birth estimated from age at fa.'s i.p.m.]
"Esquire of the body by 1509; bailiff, manors of Snitterfield and Warwick,
Warws. 1509-d.; sewer by 1511; j.p. Warws. 1511-d.; commr. subsidy 1512,
1514, 1515, 1523, 1524, musters 1522; other commissions 1519-d.; sheriff,
Warws. and Leics. 1513-14, 1518-19, Worcs. 1528-35; steward, manor of
Knowle, Warws. at d.
"Edward Ferrers's father was a younger son of the family of Tamworth,
Staffordshire, who made his career at court and in his second wife's county
of Kent, the shire for which he sat in Parliament and of which he was three
times sheriff. His wife's manor of Hextalls Court in East Peckham passed,
however, on her death to her son by an earlier marriage, and although Edward
Ferrers retained some interest in Kent--as late as 1506 he was described as
of Peckham and he died holding lands in Brenchley and Hadlow--and inherited
Hambleton in Rutland, it was on his wife's estate at Baddesley Clinton in
Warwickshire that he was to settle. His father had evidently introduced him
into the service of the crown and as early as September 1500 he was among
the witnesses to the surrender of the great seal by the executors of
Cardinal Morton. In 1509 he attended the funeral of Henry VII and two years
later the infant Prince Henry's. He had already received his first reward
of the reign, the bailiwick of Warwick and Snitterfield and in the years
that followed he was to obtain several grants of wardships. He was knighted
at Tournai, having led a band of 100 men on the campaign, he attended the
Greenwich banquet in 1517, and three years later he was a commissioner to
oversee footmen at the Field of the Cloth of Gold and afterwards served at
the meeting with Charles V at Gravelines.
"Ferrers was concurrently establishing himself in the government of his
adopted shire, only being employed elsewhere, apart from his activities as a
courtier, in two searches of London in 1519 and 1524. He evidently proved
his worth for in July 1528 he was chosen to serve out the shrieval term in
Worcestershire of his fellow-courtier and Warwickshire landowner Sir William
Compton; moreover, although he seems to have been a stranger to the shire,
he was retained in the office until his death, an arrangement which if not
unprecedented, for it had obtained under Compton himself, was certainly
unusual. He was thus a sheriff in 1529 when returned as junior knight for
his own shire of Warwickshire. This is the only occasion on which Ferrers,
then in or approaching his sixties, is known to have sat, but he may have
done so earlier, the names of the Warwickshire knights being unknown for the
four previous Henrician Parliaments. Nothing is known of his role in the
Commons and there is no indication that he shared the strong Catholic views
of his fellow-knight Sir George Throckmorton, with whose father he had been
associated as early as 1504. Outside the House he was involved as sheriff
of Worcestershire in a dispute over election expenses with the knights for
that shire, John Russell I and Sir Gilbert Talbot. He evidently remained in
favour until his death. On 24 June 1535 he wrote from Baddesley Clinton to
thank Cromwell for the pains the minister had taken in a dispute between
Ferrers's son-in-law and one Mr. Wyott or Wyatt. He was then too ill to
visit Cromwell himself but sent a message to a Mr. Wigston, presumably Roger
Wigston, a Member for Coventry in this Parliament, who was soon to be
involved in the electioneering following Ferrers's death, of which the
outcome is unknown.
"Ferrers died on 29 Aug. 1535 and was buried at Baddesley, where his wife
later set up a window to his and her own memory. In the will which he had
made on 10 July and added to on 24 Aug., and which was later to be contested
by his surviving sons, he listed lands in Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire,
Kent, Rutland, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, as well as some tenements
beside London Wall. His wife was sole executrix and his overseers a
serjeant-at-law, Sir Thomas Willoughby, his 'cousin' Thomas Marrow (the
father of the Member of that name), and Thomas Holte. His eldest son had
died in 1526 and the heir was his grandson, Edward Ferrers. Ferrers's wife
survived him by some 16 years and, according to the tenor of her will, the
administration of her husband's was committed in 1546 to Richard Mountney,
one of his creditors."

2B) Richard Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: unknown
No further information.

2C) Elizabeth Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: unknown
Married: 1501-8, James Clerke, esquire, of Forde Hall, Kent (born: unknown;
died 20 September 1553, Wrotham, Kent). Issue.


******************************************************************
Sir THOMAS FERRERS II of Tamworth Castle
Born: about 1422 Died: 22 Aug. 1498
Married: 1448, Anne Hastings (born: unknown; died: before 1498)
[From 'A Gentry Community: Leicestershire in the Fifteenth Century,
c.1422-c.1485' by Eric Acheson]
"Thomas I's elder son and heir, Thomas II, married Anne, daughter of Sir
Leonard Hastings in 1448. The parents were obviously keen on the match for
Hastings provided Anne with a marriage portion of f300 while Thomas I
transferred to the couple land valued at 40 marks yearly with the promise of
an additional grant valued at 20 marks (H.M.C., 'Hastings', I, p. 300). On
two occasions, Thomas II was pricked as sheriff for Warwickshire and
Leicestershire, first, in 1460 when he was referred to as esquire, and again
in 1468 by which time he had been knighted (Lists and Indexes, IX, p. 145).
According to Wedgwood, he died in 1498 ('Biographies', p. 318)."
[From 'Henry, Earl of Richmond' by George Grazebrook, p. 20]
"Sir Thomas Ferrers was then (17 August 1485), owner of Tamworth and did not
die till 22 August 1498. He had been on the Commission of the Peace up to
1483, but in no Commission issued in December in that year, four months
after Richard had seized the crown, his name disappears from that
honour--that is he had fallen under suspicion. Previous to that he had been
a staunch Yorkist. He had married Anna, daughter of Leonard Hastings of
Kirby and sister of William, Lord Hastings. He had inherited Tamworth from
his mother Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Sir Baldwin de Frevile. On 13
June 1483, ten days before his usurpation, Richard III had beheaded William,
Lord Hastings. Sir Thomas was suspect...He could not 'conspire,' for he
kept only a few retainers, and if Henry of Richmond failed (in the Bosworth
expedition) their fewness would show that he could not defend his castle
against so overwhelming a force. We do not know whether Ferrers was still a
Yorkist or not. Henry of Richmond knew that these cannon (at Tamworth
Castle) would be of value to them, and he sent an overwhelming force
accordingly, some miles out of their way, to seize them, and went himself
the next morning to be sure all was right."
[From 'Staffordshire Members of Parliament', 1917, pp. 262-263]
"The Will of Sir Thomas Ferrers, Kt., dated 10 February 1496/7, proved in
P.C.C. 20 October 1498. To be buried on the north side of the collegiate
church of Tamworth beside his wife Anne, and a marble slab with images of
himself and children to be erected. Makes gifts to the Church of Walton and
for repairing the Lady Bridge, the Bolle Bridge, Faseslaie Bridge and Hoppas
Bridge. Masses to be sung for the souls of his father and mother and son
John. Mentions and makes bequests to:--sons, Sir Thomas Gresley, Kt.,
Leonard Ferrers, Roger Ferrers, Sir Rafe Ferrers deyne of Thamworth, William
Ferrers and a daughter Margaret who is to have f40 from the Lord Ormonde.
To John Ferrers my heir f20 and my castle of Tamworth. Exors.:--Leonard and
Roger Ferrers. Overseers:--Sir Rafe -----------(?) [Longford], Kt., Sir
Thomas
Gresley, Kt., John Ferrers, my heir. (P.C.C. 25 Horne)"

Issue of Sir Thomas Ferrers II of Tamworth & Anne Hastings [Note: the
following may not be a complete list]

1) Sir John Ferrers I of Tamworth - see below

2) Leonard Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: after 1498
No further information.

3) Sir Roger Ferrers, dean of Tamworth
Born: unknown Died: after 1508
No further information.

4) William Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: after 1498
No further information.

5) Anne Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: unknown
Married: 1478, Sir Thomas Gresley (born 1455, died 1503), of Drakelow,
Derbyshire; sheriff of Staffordshire [Note: first cousin to Maud Stanley,
wife of John Ferrers I - Gresley's mother and Maud's father were siblings].
Issue.

6) Isabel Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: before 1511
Married: about 1481, Sir Ralph Longford (born about 1456, died 1 February
1513), of Longford, Derbyshire [See 'A Study of a Medieval Knightly Family:
The Longfords of Derbyshire - Part 2' by Rosie Bevan in 'Foundations',
Volume 1 No. 5 (January 2005), pp. 351-357.] Issue.

7) Margaret Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: after 1498
Unmarried in 1498. No further information.

*******************************************************
Sir JOHN FERRERS I of Tamworth
Born: about 1449 [Note: according to Acheson above, his parents were married
in 1448, so the HOP estimate of his birth as 1438 has to be incorrect. John
must have been a very young father, as his own son John was born about 1464]
Died: 1484
[From 'History of Parliament 1439-1509' by Josiah C. Wedgwood, 1936]
"Ferrers, Sir [footnote: He is certainly called 'esq.' on the Return, but
there is ample evidence that he was knt. before 1478] John (c.1438-84/5); of
Tamworth. ?Knt. of Body 1484. M.P. Staffordshire 1478.
"Eld. s. and h. appt. of Sir Thomas Ferrers of Tamworth castle (1415-98) by
Anne sister of William, lord Hastings--nephew therefore of the murdered Lord
Chamberlain. M. Maud da. of Sir John Stanley of Elford M.P. (1423-76), and
had John Ferrers M.P. (1463-1513) and their descendants represented Tamworth
continually until the 19th century.
"He is probably the John Ferrers employed as an attorney by Sir Richard
Cook, Just., in 1470 [footnote: 'Plea Rolls']; kntd., with his yr. bro.
Henry [sic -- Wedgwood is incorrect, this Henry was actually John's uncle],
at Tewkesbury, 4 May 1471; elector Herts., 1472; sailed with the King's
expedition to France, in command of 20 men-at-arms and 120 archers, 1475
[footnote: 'Foedera', V. iii. 56]; on comns. in Staffs. from 1477, including
the subsidy comns. of 27 Apr. and 1 Aug. 1483; J.P. Staffs., 11 Nov. 1480 to
5 Dec. 1483; acquired the custody of the lands and heir of Sir Walter
Griffith of Wichnor, Staffs., Oct. 1481.
"Richard III removed him from the bench Dec. 1483, but gave him a 40 marks
pension for life, 3 Mar. 1484 [footnote: 'Calendar of Patent Rolls'(1484),
390]; probably dead before the end of the year, since his name is absent
from the obvious comns.; certainly dead before the end of Bosworth Field.
There is an ingenious theory that when Henry Tudor "lost" his way on
Whittington Heath the night before Bosworth, he found his way unbeknown to
Tamworth castle, and exercised polite show of force to remove thence the
cannon which he employed next day--old Sir Thomas and his lady being anxious
yet afraid to help [footnote: Geo. Grazebrook, 'Henry, Earl of Richmond'].
Both Stanleys and Ferrers had feet in each camp, and straddled
successfully."
[From 'Staffordshire Members of Parliament', 1917, p. 262]
"His tomb is, or was, in Lichfield Cathedral with this inscription: 'Joh.
Ferrers miles fil Th... Ferrers et Annae ux .... filiae Hastinges miles et
Matilda filia ... Stanley ejus ux....'"

Issue of John Ferrers I and Maud Stanley [Note: By no means a complete list.
The stirnet website also gives this couple children named Richard, Maude,
Alice and Isabel, but no further information or source.]

1) Sir John Ferrers II of Tamworth - see below

2) Catherine Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: 1537
Married 1st: Thomas Cotton (born: unknown; died: about 1505) [Note: probably
son and heir of Richard Cotton, of Ridware, Staffordshire, and the Thomas
Cotton whose will of 15 November 1505 is in the National Archives database.
Richard Cotton's heirs were his daughters, so Thomas & Catherine Ferrers had
no surviving issue.]
Married 2nd: Sir Anthony Babington (born by 1476; died 23 August 1536,
Kingston-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire), of Dethick, Derbyshire. Issue.

3) Jane Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: after 1531
Married: after 1482, Sir Walter Griffith (born: 7 June 1473, Burton Agnes,
Yorkshire; died 1531), of Wichnor, Staffordshire and Burton Agnes,
Yorkshire. Issue.

4) Elizabeth Ferrers
Born: unknown Died: unknown
Married: 1490, William Chetwynd (born: unknown; died 1547), of Alspath and
Ingestre, Staffordshire. Issue.


*************************************************************
Sir JOHN FERRERS II of Tamworth
Born: about 1464 [aged 34 at his grandfather's death in 1498] Died:
16 July 1512
Married: Dorothy Harpur (born: unknown; died after 1513)
[From 'History of Parliament 1439-1509' by Josiah C. Wedgwood, 1936]
"Ferrers, Sir John (c.1463-1513); of Tamworth. M.P. Stafford boro' 1495.
"S. of Sir John Ferrers M.P. (1438-84) by Maud (Stanley); m. (1) by 1488
Maud, and (2) Dorothy da. of William Harpur of Rushall, Staffs. [footnote:
'Staffs. Colls.' 1917, pp. 282-3]
"He warranted a conveyance of land in Heref., 1495 [footnote: Shrewsbury
(Talbot) Colln. (7. 8).]; kntd. at Blackheath, 17 June 1497; sheriff,
Staffs., 1499-1500; J.P. Staffs. and Warw. 1508 till death; subsidy comn.
1504 [footnote: 'Rot. Parl.' vi. 540]; at the funeral of Henry VII; pardoned
1509 [footnote: 'Letters & Papers Henry VIII', i. 438. (2 m.4).--"of
Tamworth and of London".] Died 1512. Will, dat. 6 Oct. 1508, pr. 13 May
1513 [footnote: Exors.:--his wife and Sir Walter Griffith of Wichnor
(P.C.C.).]."

Issue of Sir John Ferrers II of Tamworth & Dorothy Harper [Note: only child
given by Tudor Place]

1) Sir Humphrey Ferrers, born about 1497 - continued the line of Ferrers on
Tamworth into the 16th century.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Patricia Junkin

Re: Goldington, Strickland

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 22 jan 2006 17:25:19

I have these two notes:
1288 Nicholas de Hastings, brother of Amice [who m. William de Goldington],
Isabel, Christina and Thomas de Hastings, was killed by Richard le Fraunceys
[husband of a daughter of Michael de Harcla]
In the 1291 IPM of Isabella de Veteri Ponte John de Goldington holds Colby.
Pat
----------
From: "Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@NOT.attglobal.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Goldington, Strickland
Date: Sat, 21, 2006, 9:52 PM


I'm tryning to flesh out the Strickland's ancestry and am a bit perplexed by
the wife of Walter Strickland (c.1260- 1342). Eleanor Goldington is supposed
to be the daughter of William Goldington and (perhaps) Christian Hastings.
Does anyone have any information about the Goldington family?

--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net


John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 22 jan 2006 17:40:56

Dear Tim,

I will dig out the refs. re: Domhnall.

Concerning events in 1170, the Annals of Ulster give us these
tidbits concerning the son and grandson of Diarmaid mac Murchada, held
as hostages by Ruaidhri Ua Conchubhair (aka 'Rory O'Connor'):

' U1170.4
The hostages of Mac Murchadha, namely, his own son and his grandson,
that is, the son of Domnall Caemanach and the son of his
foster-brother, to wit, the son of Ua Caellaidhe, were killed by
Ruaidhri Ua Conchubhair, through suggestion of Tigernan Ua Ruairc.)

U1170.5
Ath-cliath was destroyed by Diarmait Mac Murchadha and by the
transmarine men he brought with him from the east to destroy Ireland,
in revenge for his expulsion over sea out of his own land and of the
killing of his son. Howbeit, they inflicted slaughter upon the
Foreigners of Ath-cliath and Port-lairgi and, on the other hand, many
slaughters were inflicted upon themselves. Moreover, Leinster and the
country of Meath, both churches and territories, were destroyed by them
and they took Ath-cliath and Port-lairgi.'


This does not state that Domhnall was illegitimate; I will locate
that, and post when it is found.

Cheers,

John




Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 21 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

As to Eva/Aoife, I believe her legitimate brothers (Conchobar -
"Connor" - and Enna) both died without issue. The surviving son of
Diarmaid, according to my notes, was her illegitimate half-brother,
Domhnall Cáemánach mac Diarmata.

This sounds like a correction for CP? Can you find some references for
this?

Under the 'looser' inheritance laws of the Irish, I assume it was
this line that succeeded to the chiefship (and any heraldic claims
associated therewith) ?

"Genealogical heirs" may be defined as legitimate heirs.

For the heraldry I suspect the rules were not explicit then as heraldry
was only invented (c. 1125-1150) a few years before her birth.

Interestingly (to me at any rate) this has led me to look up Richard
fitz Gilbert, earl of Pembroke's arms in the Medieval Ordinary of
British Arms (pub 1996 by the Soc of Antiquaries), Vol II, p. 531 where
his arms are given as (plain field) six (plain) chevrons, these being
known from a surviving seal of RICARDI FILII GILLEBERTI on a charter of
c. 1170 that is now in Huntingdon Library. This contrasts with the
arms stated to be his by the then Clarenceux king of Arms of the College
of Arms in c. 1927 of: Argent, on a chief azure, three crosses patée
fichée at the feet argent; I wonder where they got those from?

(I had been wondering if there was any sign of a quartering with
MacDonagh, but then quarterings were a much later development.)


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 20 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

snip
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1.1.1.1.1a.1 Aoife [Eva] ingen
Diarmata
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1189[13]

'Evam Dermicii filiam' [Annales Hiberniae, A.D. 1171[15]]

heiress of Leinster
Styled Countess of Ireland, 1185; Countess of Striguil, 1186[13]

CP reports in X, 356, note (a) that she was not a genealogical
heiress as she had a brother who had surviving children.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus - "La Damsel de Chypre"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 22 jan 2006 19:01:59

In message of 22 Jan, "Akrogiali" <akrogiali@westnet.com.au> wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1db.4b20379f.310081fd@aol.com...

In a message dated 1/18/2006 8:41:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

She married in 1956, Stephen IV (Istvan IV) ARPAD King of Hungary (Son of
Bela II "The Blind) and Jelena Nemanja


WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:dc.3555636d.3100706f@aol.com...
In a message dated 1/8/06 6:52:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

D3. Isaakios Komnenos, *1115, +1154/74; 1m: 1134 Theodora
Kamaterina
(+1144); 2m: 1146 Eirene Diplosynadene
Isaak had 5 children with Theodora Kamateros: Alexios, Ioannis, Irene,
Maria and Anna


You cant mean 1156 ? So she was an infant when she married?

I think she was 16. That's not Infant.

I am reasonably sure that the old meaning of infant was anyone who was
under 21 as, regardless of age, their father had all their rights until
they were 21.

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

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 22 jan 2006 20:59:45

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:24:18 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org>
wrote:

In message of 21 Jan, "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote:

As to Eva/Aoife, I believe her legitimate brothers (Conchobar -
"Connor" - and Enna) both died without issue. The surviving son of
Diarmaid, according to my notes, was her illegitimate half-brother,
Domhnall Cáemánach mac Diarmata.

This sounds like a correction for CP? Can you find some references for
this?

The fact that CP's account of Eve of Leinster is quite poor was
pointed out long ago by David H. Kelley, FASG in his article "The
Ancestry of Eve of Leinster" in "The Genealogist" (TG) 1 (1980), 4-27.
CP's mistakes on Eve were in turn largely due to the sloppy job done
by the old DNB on pre-Norman Irish lines.

If my memory is correct, Giraldus Cambrensis is the source that
Domnall was an illegitimate son of Diarmait.

Stewart Baldwin

Gjest

Re: Daughter of Isaac Comnenus

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jan 2006 01:03:02

Dear Will,
As the Book in question claimed that Leopold, Duke of Austria
on his death bed, in accordance with the demands of the Holy See, returned
the ransom, I would assume that would of included Eleanor of Brittany and the
daughter of Isaac Dukas Komnenos whom another lister said was supposed to be
married to old Leopold himself.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Brad Verity

Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 23 jan 2006 01:22:07

"RAY Montgomery" wrote:

To whom it may concern.
I have been looking for the ancestry of William Whittington Born circa
1616/17 per court records.
He was a Militia man, and judge, at a young age in VA. So he came from so
kind of strong back ground. This is from a acceptable source. I would like
very much to see if any one is aware of any problems with the ancestry as
shown below. Please note that william Whittington died 28 sep 1659 in the
netherlands, holland.

I look forward to your critique!

Dear Ray,

I can only help with a few generations, but hopefully it's a start.

[snip of earlier generations]
SIR GUY DE WHITTINGTON was born Bet. 1390 - 1400 in Pauntley,
Gloucestersghire, England. He married CECILY BROWNING. Sir Guy was Lord of
Pauntley and attained the estates of Notgrove, Lye, and Rodborrow through
his marriage to Cecily Browning. He was High Sheriff of Gloucestershire in
1428 and 1434.

The marriage of Sir Guy Whittington and Cecily Browning is correct.
Sir Guy's will was dated 30 April 1440, and can be ordered through
Documents Online at the National Archives. There also was an IPM taken
after Sir Guy's death (this would provide the age of his heir, his
grandson John Whittington below). It is not yet published in the CIPM
series, but can also be ordered through the National Archives.

ROBERT WHITTINGTON married ELIZABETH ROUSE, daughter of BALDWYN ROUSE.

WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1451 in Gloucestershire, England. He
married ELIZABETH ARUNDEL, daughter of HUMPHREY ARUNDEL.

William's marriage to Elizabeth Arundell of Lanhearne, Cornwall, is
correct. William died on 3 November 1470, and was buried in the Grey
Friars' church, London.

JOHN WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1475 in Gloucestershire, England. He married
(1) ELIZABETH MELBORNE, daughter of SIMON MELBORNE. He married (2)
ELIZABETH CROFTS, daughter of SIR RICHARD CROFTS.
John Whittington was High Sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1517.

The identity of the wives is correct, but the order of the marriages is
reversed. John's first wife, Elizabeth Croft, was the daughter of Sir
Richard Croft and his wife Eleanor Cornewall of Burford. John's second
wife was the daughter of Simon Milbourne of Tillingham.

John Whittington died in 1525. Both his will and his IPM can be
ordered through the National Archives.

SIR THOMAS WHITTINGTON was born in Pauntley, Gloucestersghire, England. He
married MARGERY NEDHAM.

The marriage of Sir Thomas to Margery Needham is correct.

But the line fails here, as Sir Thomas died leaving no sons, but rather
six daughters by his wife Margery.

SIR ALEXANDER WHITTINGTON was born in Notgrove, Gloucestershire, England.
He married ANNE DAUNTSEY

There was an Alexander Whittington, the third son of John Whittington,
above, by his second wife Elizabeth Milbourne. It may be that your
Alexander here, married to Anne Dauntsey, was the same Alexander son of
John Whittington.

[snip of later generations]

Hope this helps.

Cheers, ---------Brad

JeffChipman

Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 23 jan 2006 05:56:50

Whoa!
I am not accusing Brad of sending Mr. Montgomery on a wild goose chase,
but I would like to make a couple of simple observations:
a. Mr. Montgomery's first task is to determine who the parents of
Capt. William Whittington were. There are some discrepancies in the
biography of this man (e.g., d. in MD or Holland? etc.).
b. This man is said to have been born about 1616. IPMs created in
1440 and 1525 aren't going to have much to say about that, but I
understand that Brad was only commenting on the line as Mr. Montgomery
supplied it.
c. Brad has identified some problem areas with the supplied line prior
to William. I frequently see in posts a suggestion that an IPM or Will
be obtained from The National Archives in Kew, England. What I don't
see is a discussion about what that entails. Be sure to get out your
credit card. First, TNA will want you to supply the location of the
document. That's the easy part, believe it or not. Then you will pay
a 10 pound fee for Kew to provide you with an estimate. They will come
back with an estimate to process your order. If agreeable, you pay for
that plus shipping, which of course will be more since it's to the USA.
The copies you get will probably be of good quality, but bear in mind
that the originals (and by the way, the copies you get will be
basically the same size as the original documents) will be of varying
quality. I don't know about the wills, but the IPMs (at least the 1440
one) will be in medieval latin. You will find it very difficult to get
a translation, since medieval latin apparently has terms unique to it.
Of course, some of these documents have been translated, and I can see
that it would be useful at some point to find out if a document exists
and where it is archived.
Unless you have someone who can help you get what you need out of the
document, you might have to pay somebody to do the translation (if you
can locate somebody to do it, that is). It may be an expensive
proposition.
Frankly, it's not an experience I care to repeat. You could just wind
up with a white elephant that tells you nothing.
I think the best advice to give Mr. Montgomery is to focus on proving
William Whittington's parents (and straightening out the discrepancies
in his bio; where he died, when he went to MD, etc.). I read somewhere
(can't remember the source) something to the effect that only about 25%
of colonial immigrants' parentage has been discovered (and that seems
high). It's easy to lose sight of the fact from reading this newsgroup
that the bulk of these people came to the colonies to obtain land,
something they probably could not have done in England for whatever
reason and were of the yeoman class. I would strongly suggest, instead
of ordering documents from the UK, get a copy of "Albion's Seed: Four
British Folkways In America," by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford
University Press, 1989) which is still in print.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 23 jan 2006 06:00:03

She was indeed "Henrietta Maria/Henriette Marie", but in common parlance
in England she was often known as "Mary".

Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?


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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Leo van de Pas

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 jan 2006 06:15:01

The only contention is that Richardson takes umbrage to my calling it
pedantic to insist that "Mary" has to be mentioned when referring to her. I
think "history" has called her Henrietta Maria/Marie, as history has given
the names to Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great and on and
on. He wants to have "Henrietta Maria (or Mary)" surely he does not expect
"Emperor Charles (or Charlemagne)"?

I agreed with him that there are records of her having been referred to as
Queen Mary, but no 'pedantic' is what has to be replied
to...........................I am still waiting to hear about the documents
proving his statement there was a "knightly class". But no, nitpicking is
more in his line.

Best wishes
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary


She was indeed "Henrietta Maria/Henriette Marie", but in common parlance
in England she was often known as "Mary".

Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?


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


Douglas Richardson

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 jan 2006 06:16:15

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

< I think "history" has called her Henrietta Maria/Marie ...

You think ? If she was known as Queen Mary in her lifetime, I think
that settles the matter. Or, is Pas trying to re-write "history?"

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary


She was indeed "Henrietta Maria/Henriette Marie", but in common parlance
in England she was often known as "Mary".

Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?


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

707/545-0831, ext. 562


Leo van de Pas

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 jan 2006 07:58:01

You are a pedant, I refrain from more appriate language, sticking to these
silly guns.
You are also a waste of time, if only more people would realise that.

I am not rewriting anything, I accept Charlemagne, William the Conqueror,
Alfred the Great, all names never used by these individuals, and I do accept
Henrietta Maria as most historians and genealogists, trained or not, accept.
Here a few examples.

Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, page 207
Charles I married Henrietta Maria etc. she has here an interesting footnote
she was never crowned owing to the religious difficulties involved.
No mention of her being regarded as "Queen Mary"

Lines of Succession, by Jiri Louda & Michael Maclagan, page 27, table 7
Charles I marries Henrietta Maria

Charles II, His Life and Times, by Antonia Fraser,
page 9 "Henrietta Maria" twice, Page 10 "Queen Henrietta Maria" twice
page 11 Queen Henrietta Maria and so on and on.

The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, John Cannon & Ralph
Griffiths
"Henrietta Maria pages 367, 368, 372, 373, 395, 398, 642

Europaische Stammtafeln, Freytag von Loringhoven Volume II Tafel 18
Henriette, not even Maria is mentioned here.

La Dynastie Capetienne, by Thierry La Hete, page 41
Henriette again no Marie/Maria

Kings and Queens of Britain, by David Williamson, page 140
The entry starts with Henrietta Maria, the biography starts with Henrietta
Maria, and then we get.... Henrietta Maria (as she is known to us ((but not
to Richardson)), though to her contemporaries _in England_ she was Queen
Mary) delighted in .........

Richardson is so sure of this that he came to gen-med to ask for a source
that this was so, because he did not remember where he had seen that
exception. And so I can only wonder, he sure was he? How sure is he of
anything?

Is this going to be yet another blooper (his term, not mine) to be added to
his list? Did it not start with Amy de Gaveston? And another recent addition
isn't it his "knightly class"?





----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:

I think "history" has called her Henrietta Maria/Marie ...

You think ? If she was known as Queen Mary in her lifetime, I think
that settles the matter. Or, is Pas trying to re-write "history?"

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary


She was indeed "Henrietta Maria/Henriette Marie", but in common
parlance
in England she was often known as "Mary".

Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?


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




Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 23 jan 2006 08:43:57

Tony Hoskins wrote:
She was indeed "Henrietta Maria/Henriette Marie", but in common parlance
in England she was often known as "Mary".

Obviously, that "Maryland" derives its name from her should tell the
tale. Why is this a contentious issue, I opine?

I have heard alternative explanations of the name of the state.

taf

Tompkins, M.L.

Re: digitized 1471 (11 Edw.4--30) IPM Sir John Griffith of W

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 23 jan 2006 11:18:01

<<You say it also means "younger kinsman," while Richardson says "near kinsman." You state this as if it were a fact; what is the source for this? Is there a source which gives "near kinsman" or "younger kinsman" as a definition or part of one?>>


Chris is right - in medieval Latin words sometimes had a different meaning from classical Latin, which makes it dangerous to attempt to interpret British medieval Latin sources using just a classical Latin dictionary. So far as I know there is no on-line source for medieval Latin (there are a few word-lists covering fairly narrow subjects, but none anywhere near comprehensive) and there is no avoiding using a printed dictionary. There is only one printed dictionary within the ordinary researcher's price-range:

RE Latham's 'Revised Medieval Latin Word-list: from British and Irish sources' (London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1965).
Physical descrip: xxiii,535p ; 26cm. ISBN: 0197258913

Latham is essential for anyone working on medieval Latin documents, whether originals or printed transcripts. Anyone using it should bear in mind that it does not give the original classical Latin meanings, only additional medieval Latin meanings. Of course a word might appear in a medieval source in its classical meaning, so one has always to look up a word twice, once in Latham and once in a classical dictionary.

An even better source for medieval Latin meanings is The 'Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources', but it is beyond most individuals' price range - at the moment it costs 375 Pounds - and it'll cost more once it's finished - so it has to be consulted in a library. It's being produced in fascicules, and so far they're up to Pel (they've been going since the 1970s, I think, and at present they're bringing out a new fascicule every couple of years). Its details are appended at the end of this posting:

It is really quite uncontroversial that 'nepos' had a wider meaning than just 'nephew' in medieval and early modern Latin. Medieval Latin Wordlist gives the following meanings: nephew; kinsman. Volume VII of the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources probably has a more detailed entry, but the nearest copy is 15 minute's walk away, so I can't supply it immediately. The next time I'm over there I'll note it and report it to the list - unless someone else gets in first.

Matt Tompkins


'Dictionary of medieval Latin from British sources' edited by RE Latham (formerly) and DR Howlett (presently) under the direction of a committee appointed by the British Academy.

I. A-B prepared by R E Latham
0-19-725948-0 Reprinted 2001 280 pages £55.00

II. C prepared by R E Latham
0-19-725968-5 Published 1981 332 pages £55.00

III. D-E prepared by R E Latham & D R Howlett
0-19-726023-3 Published 1986 392 pages £55.00

IV. F-G-H prepared by D R Howlett
0-19-726082-9 Reprinted 2001 320 pages £55.00

V. I-J-K-L prepared by D R Howlett
0-19-726148-5 Published 1997 548 pages £55.00

VI. M prepared by D R Howlett
0-19-726240-6 Published 2001 234 pages £25.00

VII. N prepared by D R Howlett
0-19-726266-X Published 2002 88 pages £25.00

VIII. O prepared by D R Howlett
0-19-726300-3 Published 2003 118 pages £25.00

IX. P-Pel prepared by D R Howlett
0-19-726340-2 Published 2005 104 pages £25.00

Fascicules measure 305 × 230 mm, and are issued in paperback. Fascicule V is issued together with a hardback case, to help librarians bind up Fascicules I-V as 'Volume I, A-L'.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 23 jan 2006 12:01:22

In message of 23 Jan, "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote:

"RAY Montgomery" wrote:


<snip of matters I know nothing of>

WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1451 in Gloucestershire, England. He
married ELIZABETH ARUNDEL, daughter of HUMPHREY ARUNDEL.

William's marriage to Elizabeth Arundell of Lanhearne, Cornwall, is
correct. William died on 3 November 1470, and was buried in the Grey
Friars' church, London.

Might I add that Elizabeth Arundell was one of two daughters both named
Elizabeth to Sir _Renfry_ Arundell and Jean (or Joan), dau. & heir of
Sir John Coleshill, slain at Agincourt, who m. close to 9 Sept 1421? See
"Arundell" part III of an erudite series on Four Catholic families by J
Jackson Howard and H Seymour Hughes, pp. 223 and 225, pub privately in
late 19th century and available as "The Genealogy of the Arundell
Family" on CDROM from

http://www.abc-publications.co.uk/

<more snip of the unknown>

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 23 jan 2006 12:07:14

In message of 23 Jan, "JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

Whoa!
I am not accusing Brad of sending Mr. Montgomery on a wild goose chase,
but I would like to make a couple of simple observations:
a. Mr. Montgomery's first task is to determine who the parents of
Capt. William Whittington were. There are some discrepancies in the
biography of this man (e.g., d. in MD or Holland? etc.).
b. This man is said to have been born about 1616. IPMs created in
1440 and 1525 aren't going to have much to say about that, but I
understand that Brad was only commenting on the line as Mr. Montgomery
supplied it.
c. Brad has identified some problem areas with the supplied line prior
to William. I frequently see in posts a suggestion that an IPM or Will
be obtained from The National Archives in Kew, England. What I don't
see is a discussion about what that entails. Be sure to get out your
credit card. First, TNA will want you to supply the location of the
document. That's the easy part, believe it or not. Then you will pay
a 10 pound fee for Kew to provide you with an estimate.

Whoa again!

While this is totally correct for most documents from Kew, wills have
been pre-prepared and are available on-line as PDF files for a mere
3.50 ukp from:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/

<snip of excellent discussion of the vicissitudes and expense of
interpreting document in medieval latin>

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

Tompkins, M.L.

RE: Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 23 jan 2006 12:33:02

<<The following excerpt from Christine Carpenter's article may help:>>

Duh - I mean David Carpenter, of course. Christine Carpenter has
written so much on the subject I typed her name without thinking.

Matt

JeffChipman

Re: digitized 1471 (11 Edw.4--30) IPM Sir John Griffith of W

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 23 jan 2006 16:16:52

I don't know where Mr. Tompkins the idea that I said it was
"controversial." I never said anything like that. I asked Chris for
his source and he did come up with one that gave "kinsman" as a
definition. Apparently the term can be further qualified depending on
context and I found that interesting, if of no immediate value to me.
I pointed out that there is software called "Blitz Latin" that has a
4000 word medieval latin dictionary included that's probably a lot more
appropriate for the occasional user than the volumes listed in Mr.
Tompkins' post.
As far as IPMs are concerned, unless it's already been
translated/abstracted, my advice is to skip it and try to find other
sources if you can that will supply the information you seek. As far
as Paul Reed is concerned, I don't know him or what his profession is;
he emailed me and asked for the scans and I never heard from him again;
he never asked for payment to do anything. It's no big deal, as I had
the thing digitized; my point is that even if you are willing to pay
for a translation, you might not be able to find someone to do it.
I've contacted the University of Notre Dame to se if they have someone
who could undertake an abstract. Someone else also contacted me; I
emailed him the scans and he said that they were not of sufficient
resolution to evaluate the manuscript. He then suggested that I have
the document blown-up; I did and mailed them to him in the UK and he
never acknowledged receiving them.
What I'm saying is that not everybody who reads/lurks/posts to this
newsgroup is a scholar. Some people who you think are scholars are
not. Many who post to this group give of themselves more than anybody
could possibly ask. I have no problem with somebody saying that an IPM
exists, which frequently happens. I also have no problem in pointing
out the commitment you're undertaking by obtaining such a document if
it's never been translated before, and to my knowledge nobody's done
that before. I'm not blaming Kew/TNA; they will tell you what language
the document is in before you purchase it. I think if you don't have
somebody lined up to help you before you start the process (whether
you're willing to pay for a translation or not), don't.

Chris Phillips

Re: digitized 1471 (11 Edw.4--30) IPM Sir John Griffith of W

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 23 jan 2006 16:53:14

Jeff Chipman wrote:
my point is that even if you are willing to pay
for a translation, you might not be able to find someone to do it.


One place you could try is the list of independent researchers on the
National Archives website:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/irlist/

The section on "Medieval records" lists 17 researchers.

Chris Phillips

Tompkins, M.L.

RE: Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 23 jan 2006 17:04:02

Dear Leo,

The problem is that medieval society changed between 1066 and the 16C,
and the knights and their class changed with it. You and Douglas
Richardson both have some right in what you say, but with respect to
different periods in medieval history.


<<Knights were men chosen from all strata of society.>>

That, however, is just not right. It comes closest to being true of the
11th and early 12th centuries, when anyone who had the horse and
equipment could be a knight - at that date the term came close to being
a simple physical description without any connotation of social status.
Though even then those who were wealthy enough to buy their own knightly
accoutrements, or whom a lord was willing to equip as one of his
household knights, generally came from the landowning classes. But for
all later periods knighthood was only available to ever higher levels of
society. Naturally some people managed to climb to knighthood from more
humble origins - but the point is that they had to rise to the knightly
level.


<<There was not one exclusive strata from which knights _only_ could
come. Knights were sons of kings as well as of much lower levels of
society. Just because most may have come from one level of society does
not make it a "knightly class" . Probably from the same classes came
most of the priests and monks, we do not call it a "priestly class"
either.>>

It isn't relevant to the existence of a knightly class that its social
superiors were also knights. Kings, dukes, earls etc are all gentlemen
- but that doesn't make them members of the gentry, nor does it prevent
the gentry existing as a class. The knightly class, like the gentry,
was a residual category - it was all the knights and those like them who
did not belong to a higher social level.


<<Richardson put some restrictions on "his" knightly class which he
cannot provide proof for. According to him someone could only become a
knight if he had three to five manors to support him. This was,
according to Richardson, a requirement _before_ someone could become a
knight. What if you own six or seven manors? Are you overqualified and
sorry no knighthood for you?>>

Douglas Richardson originally said that 'most knights held at least 3-5
manors', which is a much less prescriptive statement than you attribute
to him, allowing some knights to have fewer than 3 (though later he did
go further and say a knight 'had to own at least three to five
manors.'). Neither statement is correct of the period he was speaking
about - the late 12th century - when plenty of knights had fewer than 3
manors, and the esquire category hadn't yet emerged. However the social
structure he originally described was broadly right in relation to a
later period, around the 14th century - at that time (as David Carpenter
said in the article I quoted earlier) most knights owned at least 2-3
manors. That was also a time when legal definitions of knighthood
operated which did require a certain minimum level of wealth - though
they were never phrased in terms of number of manors owned - instead
they required a minimum annual income or ownership of land producing a
minimum income.


<<I maintain that people could be knighted and land/property given
_afterwards_ to make it possible for the person to function as a knight.
Do you really think on the battlefield they say, he deserves to be
knighted, now send someone home to check whether he has three to five
manors? If the ownership of three to five manors was a requirement,
there has to be a paper trail. "Hereby we acknowledge that so-and-so has
three manors and can be knighted", do you really think such papers
exist? Or "xyz" lost one manor and now only has two and therefor lost
his knighthood?>>

Yes, I think it is probably true that at the times when the
qualification for knighthood was determined by income any king or noble
who knighted someone with insufficient land as a reward for valour or
service would have granted it to him, though I doubt if it was a
frequent occurrence. But on the other hand, at the times when the
authorities were forcing landowners who satisfied the income test to be
knighted against their will, they might well have refused to knight
someone who did not satisfy it (though as distraint of kighthood was
primarily an exercise in taxation it is quite possible that they would
have taken the money and handed out the knighthood as fast as they
could). However because by this period knighthood was an honour men
were trying to avoid it would be difficult to find a record of someone
being refused it on this ground - but it is certainly easy to find
records of men being forced to take up a knighthood because they
satisfied the wealth test. I agree that knighthood was not lost on
account of subsequent impoverishment.


<<To have a class in society you have to have men women and children. Do
you think women and children were knights? To belong to the "knightly
class"?
Or today one son becomes a knight and they are the knightly class, and
tomorrow another becomes a priest and they are the priestly class?>>

The knightly class consisted of the knights and their families, plus
others who were not knights but came from the same social class. The
knightly class is so-called because the knights were the dominant
element in its composition, not the only element.


<<Knights were men chosen from all levels of society. Richardson has
given what he thinks were the rules, he involves himself with primary
documents, surely he can find some to substantiate his point of view.>>

It's an unreasonable test to demand contemporary references to the
knightly class. The term is a creation of modern historians, to
describe something for which contemporary society had no term, but which
undoubtedly existed, in the 11th and 12th centuries, and into the 13th,
but was subsumed by the gentry thereafter.

I do recommend Peter Coss' articles and books, or the one by Maurice
Keen I mentioned in my first posting - they will provide plenty of
detailed evidence and argument for all this.

Regards,

Matt Tompkins


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:59 PM
Subject: Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)


according to "Rich" who hasn't produced a single document confirming
that there has been a "knightly class" in England.


A google search against 'knightly class' produces the following:

An article by C Harper-Bill entitled 'The piety of the Anglo-Norman
knightly class' in Anglo-Norman Studies II: Proceedings of the Battle
Conference 1979 (Boydell Press, 1980),

An article by PR Coss entitled 'Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the crisis
of the knightly class in thirteenth century England' in Past and
Present
68 (1975), pp 3-37 (it can be read at
http://past.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/1/3 - appended at the
end
are a couple of short pedigrees, of d'Aubigny of Gt Wishford,
Willloughby of Kesteven and Nerbone of Stivichall, and a survey of the
manor of Stivichall in 1279),

An article entitled 'Was there a crisis of the knightly class in the
thirteenth century? The Oxfordshire evidence' in The English
Historical
Review
377 (Oct 1980), pp 721-752 (it can be read at
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/repri ... LXXVII/721),

A chapter entitled 'The fortunes of the knightly class in
thirteenth-century Warwickshire' in PR Coss's new book 'Lordship,
Knighthood and Locality
A Study in English Society, c. 1180-1280' (Past and Present
Publications, Cambridge University Press, 2003),

and many other references to the knightly class.

The following excerpt from Christine Carpenter's article may help:

'A note first on the definition of the 'knightly' or 'gentry' class.
Historians would probably agree, easily enough, on a description of an
active member: a lord of one or a few manors; frequently a knight,
although the number who assumed the honour was diminishing; a man busy
in local government as a coroner, forest official, sheriff or
under-sheriff. At any time in the thirteenth century there were men of
this kind throughout the counties of England. A large part of local
government depended on them.4 To define the class itself, however, is
more difficult. Contemporaries had no word for it. In the thirteenth
and
fourteenth centuries barons, knights, esquires and some laymen who
held
no military rank were all considered 'noble' or 'gentle'.5 The class
cannot be confined to those who were technically knights - that is,
had
been girded with the sword of knighthood - since this was a group of
rapidly diminishing size which lacked any real unity. Early in the
thirteenth century nearly all lords of manors (and some men of lesser
consequence) were knights. A hundred years later, to make a broad
generalization, the honour was becoming confined to those with two or
three manors and above. Aware of this difficulty Coss decides to
focus
attention on 'all who' (presumably beneath the baronage) 'held by
military tenure and were manorial landlords'. One need not cavil at
this definition, although there are problems connected with it.6 The
knightly class thus defined covers a wide social and material
spectrum.
It embraces a few lords at the top of the scale who enjoyed incomes of
baronial proportions. It also includes a group of lords who held
single
manors which contained well under 300 acres of land.'


The main points to be derived from this are (i) while historians may
disagree on the exact definition of the knightly class (and Professor
Carpenter's article was a polemical contribution to an on-going
debate),
they are in no doubt that one existed, (ii) it wasn't confined to just
those who were knights, but was the class from which knights came, and
(iii) its nature changed over time.

Matt Tompkins

PS there's an interesting review of Profesor Coss's recent book on the
Institute of Historical research website (at
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/hicks.html), by Professor
Hicks,
who doesn't entirely agree with his assessment of the evolution of the
12C knightly class into the 16C gentry.


JeffChipman

Re: digitized 1471 (11 Edw.4--30) IPM Sir John Griffith of W

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 23 jan 2006 17:04:52

Chris, thank you. For the edification of the group, there is a
"wizard" at TNA website which can hook you up with names of people
specializing in all sorts of areas, including medieval documents. TNA
assumes no responsibility for whatever arrangements you come to, but it
seems likely you can find somebody from this list, most of which have
email addresses.

Tompkins, M.L.

RE: digitized 1471 (11 Edw.4--30) IPM Sir John Griffith of W

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 23 jan 2006 18:25:02

<<I don't know where Mr. Tompkins the idea that I said it was "controversial." I never said anything like that.>>

You're quite right, Jeff (if I may call you that) - you didn't say it was controversial, and I didn't say you said it was controversial. I was referring to the fact that the list's archives are full of discussions of 'nepos', and making the point that they are really quite unnecessary - there is no doubt that in medieval Latin the word had a wider meaning than just 'nephew'.


<<I pointed out that there is software called "Blitz Latin" that has a 4000 word medieval latin dictionary included that's probably a lot more appropriate for the occasional user than the volumes listed in Mr. Tompkins' post.>>

A 4,000 word wordlist isn't very useful. I'm not sure how many words Latham's Revised Medieval Latin Word List has but it must be something like 40,000 or 50,000 or more, plus it gives many of the weird and wonderful spelling variations which medieval scribes could come up with. A second-hand copy can probably be picked up for around £20 or less, if it's a bit old and tatty, and would be far more useful.

Matt

Douglas Richardson

Re: Knightly class

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 jan 2006 19:01:31

Dear Matt ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated. I've made some
comments below.

DR

"Tompkins, M.L." wrote:
< David Carpenter
< said in the article I quoted earlier) most knights owned at least 2-3
< manors. That was also a time when legal definitions of knighthood
< operated which did require a certain minimum level of wealth - though
< they were never phrased in terms of number of manors owned - instead
< they required a minimum annual income or ownership of land producing
a
< minimum income.

Mr. Carpenter is spot on.

< Yes, I think it is probably true that at the times when the
< qualification for knighthood was determined by income any king or
noble
< who knighted someone with insufficient land as a reward for valour or
< service would have granted it to him, though I doubt if it was a
< frequent occurrence. But on the other hand, at the times when the
< authorities were forcing landowners who satisfied the income test to
be
< knighted against their will, they might well have refused to knight
< someone who did not satisfy it (though as distraint of kighthood was
< primarily an exercise in taxation it is quite possible that they
would
< have taken the money and handed out the knighthood as fast as they
< could). However because by this period knighthood was an honour men
< were trying to avoid it would be difficult to find a record of
someone
< being refused it on this ground - but it is certainly easy to find
< records of men being forced to take up a knighthood because they
< satisfied the wealth test. I agree that knighthood was not lost on
< account of subsequent impoverishment.

You're correct. There appears to have been a wealth test for
knighthood in the later periods.

< The knightly class consisted of the knights and their families, plus
< others who were not knights but came from the same social class. The
< knightly class is so-called because the knights were the dominant
< element in its composition, not the only element.

Exactly so.

< It's an unreasonable test to demand contemporary references to the
< knightly class.

Thank you for pointing this out, Matt.

< I do recommend Peter Coss' articles and books, or the one by Maurice
< Keen I mentioned in my first posting - they will provide plenty of
< detailed evidence and argument for all this.

I second the recommendation. Again, thank you for your good post.

< Regards,
<
< Matt Tompkins

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jan 2006 20:37:02

I read somewhere
(can't remember the source) something to the effect that only about 25%
of colonial immigrants' parentage has been discovered (and that seems
high). It's easy to lose sight of the fact from reading this newsgroup
that the bulk of these people came to the colonies to obtain land,
something they probably could not have done in England for whatever
reason and were of the yeoman class. I would strongly suggest, instead
of ordering documents from the UK, get a copy of "Albion's Seed: Four
British Folkways In America," by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford
University Press, 1989) which is still in print.


The percentage found probably varies by colony:
it would be higher for Pennsylvania Quakers
(many brought letters identifying their English homes),
or for New England people (many homes are known from
passenger lists, or they arrived in family groups).

Whats really interesting is that so many people, even experienced
'experts',
think that anything can be found, if they could just find a will.

That ignores what most research guide books will tell you:
only about 20% of the English population left wills.

I wish them good luck in finding the ancestry of persons who arrived as
servants,
such as Mayflower passengers John Alden, George Soule & Edward Doty.

Leslie

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Eva of Leinster: the Uí Dúnlainge

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 00:02:01

Dear John ,
You suggest that Finn mac Mael Morda `s title rigdamna
probably translates as Royal Heir or Prince . The Righ or Ri is generally
translated as king so perhaps He , like Henry mac David de Scotia, Earl of
Huntingdon d 1152 was known as King Designate.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Douglas Richardson

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 01:58:02

Dear James ~

Richard Berners, the first husband of Philippe Dallingridge, died 6
August 1412, not 1417. See a copy of an earlier post below which
discusses the problem of Richard Berners' correct death date.
Following Richard Berners' death, his widow, Philippe, married (2nd)
Thomas Lewknor, Knt., by whom she had a son and heir, Roger Lewknor.

Roger Lewknor (son of Philippe Dallingridge) married before 1426
Eleanor Camoys. Eleanor Camoys was allegedly born about 1410, she
being aged 18 in 1428. It appears virtually certain that Eleanor
Camoys was somewhat older than Roger Lewknor, as Roger was allegedly
born about 1421-2, being aged 30 in 1452, 50 in 1471. Even so, I
suspect that Roger Lewknor's age in 1452 and 1471 was probably
unstated. Please understand that these estimated ages come from
inquisitions post mortem, which range from being extremely accurate to
extremely unaccurate.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

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

I spent some time today at the Family History Library checking to see
exactly when Richard Berners, father of Margery Berners, died. The
Victoria County History for Surrey,
vol. 3, pg. 354 (sub West Horsley) states Richard Berners died in 1417.
The Victoria County History of Essex, vol. 4, pg. 191 gives the same
date but cites VCH Surrey as its source. VCH Middlesex, vol. 8, pg. 53
states Richard Berners died in 1412. This is the same year for his
death as I found in the Close Rolls. So is it 1412 or 1417?

It appears that 1412 is the correct date. John Nelson's History and
Antiquities of Islington, published 1823, pg. 98 states that Richard
Berners died in that year and was survived by his widow, Philippe, and
daughter, Margery. According to Nelson, the daughter Margery was aged
7 years in 1417. He cites as his source Esch. 5 Edward V No. 8. He
further adds that Margery was aged 12 at the death of her mother,
Philippe, in 1421, as indicated by Philippe's inquisition.

If we follow Nelson, it would appears that Margery Berners was born
about 1409/10 and thus would definitely have been the daughter of
Richard Berners's 2nd marriage to Philippe Dallingridge. This, of
course, corrects the statement in the Close Rolls that Margery was
aged 7 at her father's death. She was actually aged 7 at her father's
inquisition taken in 1417, five years after his death.

This brings home the point that it is important to check as many
sources as possible to make sure they stand in agreement with each
other and that the chronology is sound. In this instance, the Close
Rolls and two Victoria County Histories got their facts wrong. On
the other hand, one Victoria County History and Mr. Nelson got their
facts right. This shows that even a contemporary document such as
Close Rolls bears close examination.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royalances...@msn.com


Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Merilyn,
Douglas Richardson in his MCA articles on Lewknor and
Wroth give Elizabeth Lewknor was a daughter of Sir Roger Lewknor, Kt. of
Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) , Sussex born 1421/2, son of Sir Thomas Lewknor, Knt.
of Horsted Keynes, Sussex by his 1st wife Philippe Dalyngridge. He (Roger)
married before 1426 Eleanor Camoys, daughter of Sir Richard Camoys, Knt. of
Trotton, Sussex by his wife Joan, daughter of Richard Poynings, 3rd Lord Poynings.
She was born abt 1408-died testate 1464. These dates are strange.. would an
adult woman be wed to an infant of 5 years ? If They married a decade
later... perhaps, but then She would be 28 and He 15 though He could have been as old
as 17 as Philippe`s 1st husband Richard Berners died 1n 1417. They reputedly
had 10 children. Elizabeth was married to John Wroth, son of William Wroth of
Durants with marriage settlement dated May 8, 1456. Merilyn, with apology
before hand, I`m putting this before the entire group in hope of getting their
views on it.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 02:23:45

Dear Merilyn,
Douglas Richardson in his MCA articles on Lewknor and
Wroth give Elizabeth Lewknor was a daughter of Sir Roger Lewknor, Kt. of
Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) , Sussex born 1421/2, son of Sir Thomas Lewknor, Knt.
of Horsted Keynes, Sussex by his 1st wife Philippe Dalyngridge. He (Roger)
married before 1426 Eleanor Camoys, daughter of Sir Richard Camoys, Knt. of
Trotton, Sussex by his wife Joan, daughter of Richard Poynings, 3rd Lord Poynings.
She was born abt 1408-died testate 1464. These dates are strange.. would an
adult woman be wed to an infant of 5 years ? If They married a decade
later... perhaps, but then She would be 28 and He 15 though He could have been as old
as 17 as Philippe`s 1st husband Richard Berners died 1n 1417. They reputedly
had 10 children. Elizabeth was married to John Wroth, son of William Wroth of
Durants with marriage settlement dated May 8, 1456. Merilyn, with apology
before hand, I`m putting this before the entire group in hope of getting their
views on it.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 24 jan 2006 03:26:02

O.K. - so Elizabeth Lewknor who married John Wroth was the daughter of Sir
Roger Lewknor of Broadhurst and Eleanor Camoys.
But who was the Sir Thomas Lewknor who married Philippe Dallingridge?
Was he the one who was born in about 1394 and married as her second husband
Elizabeth Etchingham? He was the son of Sir Roger Lewknor of Horsted
Keynes and Margaret (Elizabeth) Carew.
I have Elizabeth Etchingham's death as 12th March 1412, but you say that
Philippe Dallingridge died 6th August 1412, so it must be a different Sir
Thomas Lewknor.
I have also just noticed another glaring error, if Elizabeth Etchingham's
death date is correct. I have her two Lewknor children as Joan born after
1421 and Nicholas (who married Elizabeth Radmylde) born about 1430. Maybe
they were also the children of Philippe?
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick


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

From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 01/24/06 11:37:07
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Dear James ~

Richard Berners, the first husband of Philippe Dallingridge, died 6
August 1412, not 1417. See a copy of an earlier post below which
discusses the problem of Richard Berners' correct death date.
Following Richard Berners' death, his widow, Philippe, married (2nd)
Thomas Lewknor, Knt., by whom she had a son and heir, Roger Lewknor.

Roger Lewknor (son of Philippe Dallingridge) married before 1426
Eleanor Camoys. Eleanor Camoys was allegedly born about 1410, she
being aged 18 in 1428. It appears virtually certain that Eleanor
Camoys was somewhat older than Roger Lewknor, as Roger was allegedly
born about 1421-2, being aged 30 in 1452, 50 in 1471. Even so, I
suspect that Roger Lewknor's age in 1452 and 1471 was probably
unstated. Please understand that these estimated ages come from
inquisitions post mortem, which range from being extremely accurate to
extremely unaccurate.

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

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

I spent some time today at the Family History Library checking to see
exactly when Richard Berners, father of Margery Berners, died. The
Victoria County History for Surrey,
vol. 3, pg. 354 (sub West Horsley) states Richard Berners died in 1417.
The Victoria County History of Essex, vol. 4, pg. 191 gives the same
date but cites VCH Surrey as its source. VCH Middlesex, vol. 8, pg. 53
states Richard Berners died in 1412. This is the same year for his
death as I found in the Close Rolls. So is it 1412 or 1417?

It appears that 1412 is the correct date. John Nelson's History and
Antiquities of Islington, published 1823, pg. 98 states that Richard
Berners died in that year and was survived by his widow, Philippe, and
daughter, Margery. According to Nelson, the daughter Margery was aged
7 years in 1417. He cites as his source Esch. 5 Edward V No. 8. He
further adds that Margery was aged 12 at the death of her mother,
Philippe, in 1421, as indicated by Philippe's inquisition.

If we follow Nelson, it would appears that Margery Berners was born
about 1409/10 and thus would definitely have been the daughter of
Richard Berners's 2nd marriage to Philippe Dallingridge. This, of
course, corrects the statement in the Close Rolls that Margery was
aged 7 at her father's death. She was actually aged 7 at her father's
inquisition taken in 1417, five years after his death.

This brings home the point that it is important to check as many
sources as possible to make sure they stand in agreement with each
other and that the chronology is sound. In this instance, the Close
Rolls and two Victoria County Histories got their facts wrong. On
the other hand, one Victoria County History and Mr. Nelson got their
facts right. This shows that even a contemporary document such as
Close Rolls bears close examination.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royalances...@msn.com


Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Merilyn,
Douglas Richardson in his MCA articles on Lewknor and
Wroth give Elizabeth Lewknor was a daughter of Sir Roger Lewknor, Kt. of
Broadhurst (in Horsted Keynes) , Sussex born 1421/2, son of Sir Thomas
Lewknor, Knt.
of Horsted Keynes, Sussex by his 1st wife Philippe Dalyngridge. He (Roger)
married before 1426 Eleanor Camoys, daughter of Sir Richard Camoys, Knt.
of
Trotton, Sussex by his wife Joan, daughter of Richard Poynings, 3rd Lord
Poynings.
She was born abt 1408-died testate 1464. These dates are strange.. would
an
adult woman be wed to an infant of 5 years ? If They married a decade
later... perhaps, but then She would be 28 and He 15 though He could have
been as old
as 17 as Philippe`s 1st husband Richard Berners died 1n 1417. They
reputedly
had 10 children. Elizabeth was married to John Wroth, son of William Wroth
of
Durants with marriage settlement dated May 8, 1456. Merilyn, with apology
before hand, I`m putting this before the entire group in hope of getting
their
views on it.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 04:06:19

You have to read the postings more carefully. Sir Richard Berners, the
first husband of Philippa Dalyngringe died on 6 August 1412 not
Philippa. Sir Thomas Lewknor was the son of Sir Roger Lewknor and
Elizabeth Carew; grandson of Sir Thomas Lewknor and Joan D'Oyley;
great-grandson of Sir Roger Lewknor and Katherine (possibly) Bardolf;
great-great-grandson of Sir Thomas Lewknor and Sibyl (---); and
great-great-great-grandson of Sir Roger Lewknor and Joan de Keynes.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Knightly class

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 24 jan 2006 05:16:02

Dear Matt,

As soon as I saw your message I knew Richardson would jump on it as manna
from heaven.

You gave him the way out to change the subject and forget all about his
demand of me that I change in my data base the entry for Henrietta
Maria----which was the subject of the conversation. However, you remarks
were interesting and appreciated.

Society has been evolving from, let's stick to about 1066. I think you will
agree that what applied at one time may not have applied earlier or later.
Therefor you cannot generalise.

You quote David Carpenter "That was also a time when legal definitions of
knighthood operated....."
then you say "It's an unreasonable test to demand contemporary references to
the knightly class.
Surely those legal definitions were contemporary to have any application?
Who made those legal definitions? Is that the proof Richardson should be
looking for? But you gave the way out to someone who in the past maintained
a message without sources is a wasted message.

You maintain that "The knightly class consisted of the knight and their
families, plus others who were not knights but came from the same social
class. The knightly class is so-called because the knights were the dominant
element in its composition, not the only element.
I have in another messages shown that according to others the knights mainly
came from the "lordly" class of families.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas


-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson [mailto:royalancestry@msn.com]
Sent: 23 January 2006 18:02
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Knightly class

Dear Matt ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated. I've made some
comments below.

DR

"Tompkins, M.L." wrote:
< David Carpenter
< said in the article I quoted earlier) most knights owned at least 2-3
< manors. That was also a time when legal definitions of knighthood <
operated which did require a certain minimum level of wealth - though <
they were never phrased in terms of number of manors owned - instead <
they required a minimum annual income or ownership of land producing a <
minimum income.

Mr. Carpenter is spot on.

< Yes, I think it is probably true that at the times when the <
qualification for knighthood was determined by income any king or noble
< who knighted someone with insufficient land as a reward for valour or
< service would have granted it to him, though I doubt if it was a <
frequent occurrence. But on the other hand, at the times when the <
authorities were forcing landowners who satisfied the income test to be
< knighted against their will, they might well have refused to knight <
someone who did not satisfy it (though as distraint of kighthood was <
primarily an exercise in taxation it is quite possible that they would <
have taken the money and handed out the knighthood as fast as they <
could). However because by this period knighthood was an honour men <
were trying to avoid it would be difficult to find a record of someone <
being refused it on this ground - but it is certainly easy to find <
records of men being forced to take up a knighthood because they <
satisfied the wealth test. I agree that knighthood was not lost on <
account of subsequent impoverishment.

You're correct. There appears to have been a wealth test for knighthood
in the later periods.

< The knightly class consisted of the knights and their families, plus <
others who were not knights but came from the same social class. The <
knightly class is so-called because the knights were the dominant <
element in its composition, not the only element.

Exactly so.

< It's an unreasonable test to demand contemporary references to the <
knightly class.

Thank you for pointing this out, Matt.

< I do recommend Peter Coss' articles and books, or the one by Maurice <
Keen I mentioned in my first posting - they will provide plenty of <
detailed evidence and argument for all this.

I second the recommendation. Again, thank you for your good post.

< Regards,
<
< Matt Tompkins

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Gjest

Re: Who is real mother of Edmund Stafford (1273-1308)

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 12:32:02

Tuesday, 24 January, 2006


Dear Tim, David, et al.,

While the subject is certainly open for discussion and subject
to proof, it is probable that the mother of Edmund Stafford was a
daughter (name unknown) of Sir Geoffrey de Langley, most likely by
his second wife Maud de Brightwell.

In a previous thread on SGM in 2004 [1], evidence was found in a
charter of Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford (d. 31 Aug 1372)
confirming a grant to the priory of Cold Norton, co. Oxon. The
witnesses included:

" Hugone de Stafford filio et haerede nostro;
Ricardo de Stafford fratre nostro;
Johanne de Peyto consanguineo nostro, militibus;
..... " [2]

Thanks to Rosie Bevan, the descent of Sir John de Peyto from
Sir Geoffrey de Langley (by his first wife) was determined, so that
the probable relationship of Earl Ralph de Stafford to John de
Peyto appears to be as follows:


Walter de Langley
of Pinley, co. Warwicks.
I
I
1) = Sir Geoffrey de Langley = 2) Matilda
I of Bisseley and Pinley : de Brightwell
I fl. 1236-7, d. 1274 : [see 1. below]
________I____________ :
I III :
Walter de Langley <siblings> NN de = Nicholas
d. 1280 Langley I de Stafford
= Alice le Bret I d. ca. 1287

___I_____________________ I
I I I I I
<siblings> Robert de Langley Edmund de Stafford
d. bef 1329 1st Lord (Baron) Stafford
I d. bef 12 Aug 1308
_______________I I

I __________________I______

I I I
Margery de Langley RALPH DE STAFFORD RICHARD DE
= William de Peyto 1st Earl of Stafford STAFFORD
I <grantor> < witness >

I I
I I
JOHN DE PEYTO HUGH DE STAFFORD
<witness> 2nd Earl of Stafford
< witness >


The foregoing appears to resolve the kinship of Sir John de
Peyto to the Staffords, and thereby supports the assertion in CP
that the wife of Nicholas de Stafford was a Langley.

Cheers,

John *






NOTES:

[1] J. Ravilious, R. Bevan, et al., <CP Confirmation: NN de
Langley, wife of Nicholas de Stafford>, SGM, 11 Oct 2004
et seq.


[2] Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum VI/1:421.


* John P. Ravilious

Tompkins, M.L.

RE: Knightly class

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 24 jan 2006 14:48:02

Dear Leo,

I haven't been making it up as I go along - I have been trying to pass
on the understanding of the knightly class which is generally accepted
among medieval historians. These are not my personal opinions, but the
conclusions of people who have devoted years to researching these
aspects of medieval society - people like David Carpenter, Professor of
Medieval History at King's College, London; Peter Coss, Professor of
Medieval History at Cardiff University; Maurice Keen, emeritus fellow at
Balliol College, Oxford; Christopher Harper-Bill, Professor of Medieval
History at the University of East Anglia. It may be that I have failed
to present their views sufficiently well, but I do urge that it would be
better to read their work and consider the detailed evidence they
present before disputing their conclusions.

I append below (again) the excerpt from David Carpenter's 1980 article
because it presents a good example of the historian's approach to the
knightly class. The most important point is that the class is not
regarded as consisting only of knights proper (so the narrow legal
qualifications for knighthood which existed at various dates do not
define the class). Another is that its boundaries, like those of all
broad social and economic classes, were not defined precisely - so its
existence is not negated by the fact that at its outer edges it blurs
into the titled nobility or the higher ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The excerpt also provides a good example of how when social and economic
historians talk about lords and the lordly class they do not necessarily
mean the titled nobility; in contexts like these a lord was anyone who
owned a manor - even just one small manor. This may be what has confused
your anonymous corespondent when he says that knights came from 'the
"lordly" class of families' - the lordly class in the 12th century was
the knightly class and those above them, and in the 15-16th centuries
was the gentry and above.

Lastly, although it is discussing just the 13th century, the excerpt
also illustrates the important point that the nature of knights and the
knightly class changed over time. Most importantly, that the term
'knightly class' becomes increasingly anachronistic after the 13th
century, as the knights proper become fewer in number and increasingly
confined to the class's upper echelons, making them less and less the
dominant element within the class.

But I should add that historians are not hung up on use of the term
'knightly' - other terms are used as well. 'Lordly' is a useful one, as
is 'seignorial', though both of them have a slightly wider ambit,
capable of encompassing the titled nobility as well, and even
ecclesiastical dignitaries and institutions in so far as they were lords
of manors. In the later middle ages 'the gentry' becomes a rough
eqivalent of the earlier knightly class.

Regards,

Matt Tompkins (or whatever my name is)



'A note first on the definition of the 'knightly' or 'gentry' class.
Historians would probably agree, easily enough, on a description of an
active member: a lord of one or a few manors; frequently a knight,
although the number who assumed the honour was diminishing; a man busy
in local government as a coroner, forest official, sheriff or
under-sheriff. At any time in the thirteenth century there were men of
this kind throughout the counties of England. A large part of local
government depended on them. To define the class itself, however, is
more difficult. Contemporaries had no word for it. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries barons, knights, esquires and some laymen who held
no military rank were all considered 'noble' or 'gentle'. The class
cannot be confined to those who were technically knights - that is, had
been girded with the sword of knighthood - since this was a group of
rapidly diminishing size which lacked any real unity. Early in the
thirteenth century nearly all lords of manors (and some men of lesser
consequence) were knights. A hundred years later, to make a broad
generalization, the honour was becoming confined to those with two or
three manors and above. Aware of this difficulty Coss decides to focus
attention on 'all who' (presumably beneath the baronage) 'held by
military tenure and were manorial landlords'. One need not cavil at
this definition, although there are problems connected with it. The
knightly class thus defined covers a wide social and material spectrum.
It embraces a few lords at the top of the scale who enjoyed incomes of
baronial proportions. It also includes a group of lords who held single
manors which contained well under 300 acres of land.'

From DA Carpenter, 'Was there a crisis of the knightly class in the
thirteenth century? The Oxfordshire evidence' in The English Historical
Review
377 (Oct 1980), pp 721-752 (the full article can be read at
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/repri ... LXXVII/721),'

JeffChipman

Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 24 jan 2006 17:19:12

Leslie--
I couldn't agree with you more. I descend from Mayflower passengers
John Howland who married Elizabeth Tilley, she and her parents being
passengers, and Richard Warren. There is no proof that Richard Warren
was a descendant of the noble de Warrene family; the Tilleys have a
proposed ancestry to the 15th cent., but were not aristocrats; and I
wonder about the commonly ascribed parentage of Howland when he was
actually Gov. Carver's servant. If the backgrounds of the Mayflower
passengers are in most cases murky, the background of the average
colonist is even more so. I think with a lot of early colonists, they
came from yeoman backgrounds, weren't going to inherit what land the
family had, and perhaps were given money to book passage to the
colonies and told "write when you're settled." That is, if they could
write.
The tendency is to tie into a gentry or knightly family which many
times links to a noble or royal connection; it's understandable on
several levels, but probably mostly because they were the people who
generated the records and in many cases are well documented. I don't
know if this topic has been discussed here before, but I think that a
colonist, who had the name, say, "Beckwith," is more likely to be
descended from a village smith who adopted that surname as from the
gentry family of Pontrefact. Probably like many people who read this
newsgroup, I have extensive colonial ancestry, but only a relative few
lines that can be traced with confidence back to the mother country.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 24 jan 2006 18:27:01

"I have heard alternative explanations of the name of the state
[Maryland]."

On the one hand. Undocumented, from <library.thinkquest.org>:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3337/time16.html

"Started as a Catholic colony, it was supposedly named for Charles I's
wife, Queen Henrietta Maria but really it was named for the Virgin Mary.
From the beginning, it had a Protestant majority."

A bald and utterly unsupported statement.

---
On the other. It would be inconceivable that Maryland would be so-named
in 1632 *overtly* in honor of the BVM. The only possible/likely reason
for naming the new province "Maryland would seem to be to honor the
queen - the received view.

Charter of Maryland, 1632. (from Maryland State Archives' site [see
esp. p., 6]):

http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/e ... arter.html

------

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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 24 jan 2006 19:41:00

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"I have heard alternative explanations of the name of the state
[Maryland]."

On the one hand. Undocumented, from <library.thinkquest.org>:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3337/time16.html

"Started as a Catholic colony, it was supposedly named for Charles I's
wife, Queen Henrietta Maria but really it was named for the Virgin Mary.
From the beginning, it had a Protestant majority."

A bald and utterly unsupported statement.

---
On the other. It would be inconceivable that Maryland would be so-named
in 1632 *overtly* in honor of the BVM. The only possible/likely reason
for naming the new province "Maryland would seem to be to honor the
queen - the received view.


I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement, but I have seen it
explicitly stated (and no, it has been so long that I can't cite any
source for it) that it is a misconception that it was named for the
Queen, but rather it was named for a female relative of Lord Baltimore.

I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved.

taf

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 24 jan 2006 20:10:02

"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline], etc.

My suspicion is that it was overtly named Maryland to honor Queen
Henrietta Maria, but privately amongst the RC cognoscenti it was thought
to refer to and honor the BVM.

Tony




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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 20:17:08

Dear Tony ~

I find King Charles I's wife's name given in modern records as both
Henrietta Maria and as Henriette Marie. I 'm curious to know what
formal name was used for her in England during her own lifetime. I
presume Henrietta Maria is the Latin form of her name, whereas
Henriette Marie is the French form. Also, in a related vein,
Williamson states that she was known to contemporaries as Queen Mary.
I'd also like to see some documentation of that, if anyone knows of
any.

I checked references to her in Pepys' Diary. The items I examined
simply referred to her as the Queen or the Queen Mother, with no given
name assigned to her.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline], etc.

My suspicion is that it was overtly named Maryland to honor Queen
Henrietta Maria, but privately amongst the RC cognoscenti it was thought
to refer to and honor the BVM.

Tony




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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 24 jan 2006 20:32:09

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline], etc.


.. . . . Pennsylvania, Delaware.


- but I get your point.

taf

Douglas Richardson

Queen Henriette Marie, not Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 20:38:20

Dear Tony ~

I've found a transcript of an original letter written in broken English
by Henriette Marie, Queen of England, to Sir Edward Nicholas, using
Google Book Search. The letter is found in the book, History of King
Charles II of England, by Jacob Abbott, pg. 7. The weblink for this
item is as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1 ... d33iwUs2og

The transcript of this letter shows that the queen signed her name as
follows:

"Your friend, Henriette Marie R."

So, she was Queen Henriette Marie, NOT Henrietta Maria.

Next question, was she really known as Queen Mary to her contemporaries
as Williamson alleges?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net







Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Tony ~

I find King Charles I's wife's name given in modern records as both
Henrietta Maria and as Henriette Marie. I 'm curious to know what
formal name was used for her in England during her own lifetime. I
presume Henrietta Maria is the Latin form of her name, whereas
Henriette Marie is the French form. Also, in a related vein,
Williamson states that she was known to contemporaries as Queen Mary.
I'd also like to see some documentation of that, if anyone knows of
any.

I checked references to her in Pepys' Diary. The items I examined
simply referred to her as the Queen or the Queen Mother, with no given
name assigned to her.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline], etc.

My suspicion is that it was overtly named Maryland to honor Queen
Henrietta Maria, but privately amongst the RC cognoscenti it was thought
to refer to and honor the BVM.

Tony




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

W David Samuelsen

Re: Extra generation in Fitzalan line?

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 24 jan 2006 20:53:02

I do have a problem with Eleanor being daughter of Richard FitzAlan and
Alisona de Saluzzo.

Since Richard has fixed birth date - 3 Feb 1267, I do have problem with
Eleanor being his daughter if widespread acceptance of her approximate
birth year being 1283! Richard at age of 16 to be father.

Illegimate daughter with an dowry?

David Samuelsen

W. David Samuelsen wrote:
Noticed the conflict and need to ask you to inform which one is correct.

Eleanor FitzAlan (abt 1283), wife of Henry Percy (1273)
daughter of Richard Fitzalan (3 Feb 1267) and Alisona De Saluzzo

Richard Fitzalan son of John FitzAlan and Isabella de Mortimer

- or is it this line?

Eleanor FitzAlan (abt 1283), wife of Henry Percy (1273)
daughter of John FitzAlan (1246) and Isabella de Mortimer
completely omitted Richard FitzAlan and Alisona de Saluzzo


The only direct contemporary evidence is that Eleanor was the sister and
executrix of one Sir Richard de Arundel (d. 1314). Monasic sources call her
the daughter of the earl of Arundel, and Douglas Richardson posted details
of a recognizance owed to Henry by earl Richard (d. 1301/2) in 1300, perhaps
representing her dowry. These tend to support your first version:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_percy.shtml

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 21:32:04

"Tony Hoskins" schrieb:

"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline], etc.

Was not Carolina named rather in honour of the King, the first of that

name (Charles)?

Douglas Richardson

Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 21:36:53

Dear Tony ~

I find there are many additional letters written by Queen Henriette
Marie which are published in the book, Lettres inédites de
Henriette-Marie, Reine d'Angleterre. The website location of this work
is as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... &lpg=PA254

The queen signs various letters which are transcribed in this volume.
Her name is always "Henriette-Marie" or simply as "H.-M." Her name is
always hyphenated. But, in many letters, there is no signature.
Almost of the letters were written in French. I do note at least one
letter in which the editor states that he has translated the letter
from English into French. She addressed her husband the king regularly
as "Mon cher coeur."

Since the hyphen is found in the French letters, I'm uncertain it she
dropped the hyphen when she was wiriting in English as indicated by the
other letter I found. If so, then her name in England would be
Henriette Marie and her name in France would be Henriette-Marie.

I note she refers to the following people as her cousin:

Cardinal Richelieu
Cardinal Mazarin
Charles, Duke of Lorraine
Comte (later Marquis) de Newcastle
James [Hamilton], Duc de Hamilton
[James Graham], Marquis de Montrose

The latter two individuals, James Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton, and James
Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose, were related by marriage to Queen
Henriette Marie, they being near kinsfolk to her husband, King Charles
I of England. James Hamilton was related to King Charles I in the 5th
and 4th degrees of kinship, and James Graham in the 5th and 5th degrees
of kinship, all by virtue of common descent from King James IV of
Scotland. This is an example of kinship by marriage being acknowledged
in private correspondence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Tony ~

I find King Charles I's wife's name given in modern records as both
Henrietta Maria and as Henriette Marie. I 'm curious to know what
formal name was used for her in England during her own lifetime. I
presume Henrietta Maria is the Latin form of her name, whereas
Henriette Marie is the French form. Also, in a related vein,
Williamson states that she was known to contemporaries as Queen Mary.
I'd also like to see some documentation of that, if anyone knows of
any.

I checked references to her in Pepys' Diary. The items I examined
simply referred to her as the Queen or the Queen Mother, with no given
name assigned to her.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline], etc.

My suspicion is that it was overtly named Maryland to honor Queen
Henrietta Maria, but privately amongst the RC cognoscenti it was thought
to refer to and honor the BVM.

Tony




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: Queen Henriette Marie, not Henrietta Maria

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 21:52:58

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Next question, was she really known as Queen Mary to her contemporaries
as Williamson alleges?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


She was indeed; for instance, John Aubrey (1626-1697) in his 'Brief
Lives' consistently refers to her as such, e.g.:

"The use of 'your humble servant' came into England by the marriage of
Queen Mary, daughter of Henry IV of France"

"And by Mary the queen-mother's meanes, he got favour from the king of
France"

"He was apothecary to Mary the queen mother"

"When Mary the queen-mother dyed at Paris... his majestie of Great
Britaine sent Sir Llewellin to Paris concerning the administration
1668"

However, he also refers to her once as Henrietta Maria, i.e.

"He was envoye from Henrietta Maria (then Queen-Mother)".

Furthermore, the State Prayers in the 1662 Prayer Book refer to her as
"Mary the Queen Mother".

It is convention today to call her Henrietta Maria - the Dictionary of
National Biography does so, as does Alison Plowden in her recent
biography of the queen (entitled 'Henrietta Maria: Charles I's
Indominatable Queen" - although she often refers to her simply as
Henrietta). This is presumably to avoid confusion: Britain has had
many Queen Mary's, but only one Queen Henrietta Maria.

MAR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Extra generation in Fitzalan line?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 21:53:26

Dear David ~

Sir Richard Fitz Alan (or de Arundel) (died 1302), 8th Earl of Arundel,
was married about Nov. 1281/2 to his wife, Alice (or Alasia) de
Saluzzo. This is indicated by correspondence regarding this marriage
which is found in the source, List of Ancient Correspondence of the
Chancery and Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 485. Richard
and Alice had their eldest son and heir, Edmund de Arundel (or Fitz
Alan), born at Marlborough Castle 1 May 1285.

Contrary to what you have posted, there is no known birthdate for
Eleanor de Arundel (died 1328), wife of Sir Henry de Percy, 1st Lord
Percy. C.P. 10 (1945): 458, footnote k erroneously states that her
parentage is "obscure." Standard accounts of the Percy family all
identify Eleanor as the "daughter of the Earl of Arundel,"
evidently Richard Fitz Alan (otherwise Arundel), 8th Earl of Arundel
mentioned above. Arrangements for Eleanor's marriage to Henry de
Percy are reflected in the recognizance made in 1300, by Eleanor's
father, Richard, Earl of Arundel, for a debt of 2,000 marks which he
owed Henry de Percy (see Cal. Close Rolls, 1296-1302 (1906): 404).
Such recognizances were often recorded in this period to guarantee the
fulfillment of a marriage contract between two families. Eleanor was
styled "kinswoman" by King Edward II on two separate occasions,
once in 1318 and again in 1322, presumably on the basis of Eleanor's
descent through her mother from Amadeo IV, Count of Savoy, brother of
Edward II's great-grandmother, Beatrice of Savoy (see C.F.R.
1307-1319 (1912): 378; C.F.R. 1319-1327 (1912): 134). Eleanor's
brothers, Edmund, Earl of Arundel, and John de Arundel, clerk, were
likewise styled "king's kinsman" (see Papal Regs.: Letters 2
(1895): 201; C.P.R. 1324-1327 (1904): 281). Eleanor's identity is
further indicated by the presence of the old and new arms of Fitz Alan
(or Arundel) displayed at her tomb (see Pevsner, Yorkshire: York and
the East Riding (Buildings of England) (1972): 30, 175-176: "...
the most splendid of all British Decorated funerary monuments")].

I trust this answers your question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

W David Samuelsen wrote:
I do have a problem with Eleanor being daughter of Richard FitzAlan and
Alisona de Saluzzo.

Since Richard has fixed birth date - 3 Feb 1267, I do have problem with
Eleanor being his daughter if widespread acceptance of her approximate
birth year being 1283! Richard at age of 16 to be father.

Illegimate daughter with an dowry?

David Samuelsen

W. David Samuelsen wrote:
Noticed the conflict and need to ask you to inform which one is correct.

Eleanor FitzAlan (abt 1283), wife of Henry Percy (1273)
daughter of Richard Fitzalan (3 Feb 1267) and Alisona De Saluzzo

Richard Fitzalan son of John FitzAlan and Isabella de Mortimer

- or is it this line?

Eleanor FitzAlan (abt 1283), wife of Henry Percy (1273)
daughter of John FitzAlan (1246) and Isabella de Mortimer
completely omitted Richard FitzAlan and Alisona de Saluzzo

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 22:07:02

Dear Douglas,
many thanks. if Roger Lewknor were born say 1414 rather
than 1421, He would have been aged 12 at his marriage to a 14 year old
Eleanor Camoys who had just inherited some properties from her minor brother Hugh`s
estate, even if Roger were only 10 or 9, the age difference looks
considerably less awkward.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Cudworth /Lewknor/Echingham

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jan 2006 22:37:02

Dear Douglas and others,
Oops ! If the IPM of Richard Berners
took place in 1417 and didn`t mention Philippe`s marriage to Thomas Lewknor,
it is unlikely to have preceded that date which would apparent place the
earliest possible date ( any cohabitation without the sanctity of marriage not
withstanding) of Roger Lewknor`s birth as 1417 or 1418, making him 8 (one year out
of infancy ) at marriage and if He were more interested in his wife then
seems to have been normal in those times at an early age, their eldest child would
probably have been born in 1431-33.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 24 jan 2006 23:42:01

". . . . Pennsylvania, Delaware."

Well, of course. And there is also Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, etc. Red herring, there, Todd! I was speaking of naming
colonies after notable *women*. Though it seems silly to pursue this,
all English colonies in America were named after royal women. That is
the point.



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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 23:43:03

Dear Tony, Michael, etc.

Below is a reference to another letter written by Queen Henriette Marie
(otherwise known as Queen Mary) which was addressed to the Marquis of
Worcester. This letter is found in the book, Manuscripts of the Duke
of Beaufort (Hist. MSS. Comm, 12th Report, Appendix, Part IX) (1891):
31. The weblink for this item is:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... 8EDDIPeT7M

In this letter which written in French, the Queen refers to herself as
"Henriette Marie de Bourbon Reyne de Grande Bretagne" (that is,
Henriette Marie de Bourbon, Queen of Great Britain). So this was her
formal name. She signs the letter, however, "Marie Henriette." This
is a complete departure from her signature I have found to her other
published letters in which she signs her name as "Henriette-Marie,"
"H.-M.," or "Henriette Marie."

So it appears her correct formal name was Henriette Marie de Bourbon.

In the letter, she specifically refers to the recipient, Edward
Somerset, Earl and Marquis of Worcester, as her beloved cousin ("bien
amé cousin"). This is yet another example of kinship by marriage
being mentioned in private correspondence. In this instance, Edward
Somerset and Henriette Marie's husband, King Charles I, were doubly
related in the 6th and 7th degrees of kinship by common descent from
Richard Wydeville (died 1469), Earl of Rivers.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 24 jan 2006 23:48:01

Right you are. King Charles I it was. I amend my previous email to read
"royal persons" rahter than "royal women".

Thanks.

Tony Hoskins

mjcar@btinternet.com> 01/24/06 12:32PM

"Tony Hoskins" schrieb:

"I guess it is possible that a little bit of convenient ambiguity
was
involved."

This seems entirely possible. For all that, it is most unlikely that
in
1632 an English chartered colony would have been named for a female
relative of Lord Baltimore. Naming a *county* "Anne Arundell" is a
different matter. Royal nomenclature for names of colonies was
commonplace: Vrginia [Elizabeth I] and Carolina [Queen Caroline],
etc.

Was not Carolina named rather in honour of the King, the first of that

name (Charles)?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 24 jan 2006 23:53:34

Dear Newsgroup ~

Doing further searching through Google Book Print, I find there is a
monumental inscription which has survived for Henrietta Anne of
England, daughter of King Charles I of England. This inscription was
reputedly placed at her tomb by her daughter, Anne Marie, Queen of
Sicily and Sardinia. The full transcript of the inscription can be
found in the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... CUPvP-Ff1I

In the inscription, the wife of King Charles I of England is called
"Marie Henriette de France."

So, again we have a reversal of the queen's given names from the normal
order Henriette Marie to Marie Henriette. There is I might note no
mention of the Latin form, Henrietta Maria.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 24 jan 2006 23:59:02

Sorry to have written in a rush. What I meant to say was that of those
English colonies in America named after notable Europeans, only
Pennsylvania and Delaware were not named after royal personages.
Virginia was named after Elizabeth I, Carolina after King Charles I; and
Maryland after Queen (Henrietta) Maria/Mary.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

Gjest

Re: Queen Henriette Marie

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 jan 2006 00:01:41

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

In the letter, she specifically refers to the recipient, Edward
Somerset, Earl and Marquis of Worcester, as her beloved cousin ("bien
amé cousin"). This is yet another example of kinship by marriage
being mentioned in private correspondence. In this instance, Edward
Somerset and Henriette Marie's husband, King Charles I, were doubly
related in the 6th and 7th degrees of kinship by common descent from
Richard Wydeville (died 1469), Earl of Rivers.

This becoming OT; is it not more likely that Her Majesty was employing
the standard Court formula in addressing peers which persists (in
formal circumstances) today in the UK (e.g. the Sovereign addresses
dukes as "Right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin", and earls as
"Right trusty and well beloved cousin") which denotes nothing in the
way of kinship? Perhaps this was another French imported courtesy.

MAR

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 25 jan 2006 00:12:07

Tony Hoskins wrote:
". . . . Pennsylvania, Delaware."

Well, of course. And there is also Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, etc. Red herring, there, Todd!

Umm, not nearly as red as yours. How about we limit the discussion to
places with names actually derived from specific people, rather than
native or foreign toponyms? (And I will grant that Delaware is iffy. I
don't actually know whether it was named for the Lords, or for the river
that in turn was named for the Lords.)

I was speaking of naming
colonies after notable *women*.

"Virginia, Carolina, etc." were your specific examples, but, as has been
pointed out, Carolina was named for a notable *man*. Then there is that
"etc.", which usually implies that the list could be continued, but it
can't: there aren't any more other than Virginia and Maryland. So, this
is really a conclusion based on Virginia alone.

My point, far from a red herring, was that of the colonies named for
men, you do have colonies named for Charles and George, but also two
deriving their name from non-royals, Lord De la Warre and William Penn.
(New York is also claimed to have been named for the Duke thereof, but
the form suggests it was named for the Duchy.) If colonies could be
named for non-royal men, why not the same for women.

Though it seems silly to pursue this,
all English colonies in America were named after royal women. That is
the point.

Huh? All English colonies except for all of them that weren't. If you
meant all English colonies named for women were named for royal women,
there were only two, Maryland and Virginia, and you can hardly draw a
definitive or even persuasive conclusion regarding Maryland based on a
supposed pattern that consists of only a single exemplar. It will take
something better than a deduction based on a singular other instance.

taf

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henriette Marie - a royal "cousin", OT but interes

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 25 jan 2006 00:19:01

Hello Doug,

Thanks for the interesting info.

One thing, though OT. I think Queen Henrietta Maria's reference to Lord
Somerset as cousin is a mere social convention. To presume she used the
term with reference to and even cognizant of this by then remote blood
relationship seems unlikely.

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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Queen Henrietta Maria, or Queen Mary: origin of "Marylan

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 25 jan 2006 00:29:01

Excellent points well phrased and presented. But, worthy of so much
discussion? Dunno.

Continuing the silliness nonetheless: the origin of the state name
Delaware - whether by way of the River, from the Lords, or directly
form the Lords, is interesting. Some other time, with lots more time to
devote to these pleasantries than I obviously have at present.

Yours in dogged cordiality,

Tony Hoskins

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> 01/24/06 03:12PM
Tony Hoskins wrote:
". . . . Pennsylvania, Delaware."

Well, of course. And there is also Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, etc. Red herring, there, Todd!

Umm, not nearly as red as yours. How about we limit the discussion to

places with names actually derived from specific people, rather than
native or foreign toponyms? (And I will grant that Delaware is iffy. I

don't actually know whether it was named for the Lords, or for the
river
that in turn was named for the Lords.)

I was speaking of naming
colonies after notable *women*.

"Virginia, Carolina, etc." were your specific examples, but, as has
been
pointed out, Carolina was named for a notable *man*. Then there is
that
"etc.", which usually implies that the list could be continued, but it

can't: there aren't any more other than Virginia and Maryland. So,
this
is really a conclusion based on Virginia alone.

My point, far from a red herring, was that of the colonies named for
men, you do have colonies named for Charles and George, but also two
deriving their name from non-royals, Lord De la Warre and William Penn.

(New York is also claimed to have been named for the Duke thereof,
but
the form suggests it was named for the Duchy.) If colonies could be
named for non-royal men, why not the same for women.

Though it seems silly to pursue this,
all English colonies in America were named after royal women. That
is
the point.

Huh? All English colonies except for all of them that weren't. If you

meant all English colonies named for women were named for royal women,

there were only two, Maryland and Virginia, and you can hardly draw a
definitive or even persuasive conclusion regarding Maryland based on a

supposed pattern that consists of only a single exemplar. It will take

something better than a deduction based on a singular other instance.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»