Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinship: An Overview
In a message dated 2/13/2006 3:27:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Showing
that the king was related to those he calls "kinsman" does seem a bit
circular to me, too: it is like showing that he was married to those he
calls "wife". Even attempting to limit the "rule" to within certain
degrees of consanguinity seems pointless,
I would also like to point out, that in some of these cases, their ancestry
back to the fourth generations is not completely known or is suspect. That
also weakens the "rule".
Will Johnson
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Showing
that the king was related to those he calls "kinsman" does seem a bit
circular to me, too: it is like showing that he was married to those he
calls "wife". Even attempting to limit the "rule" to within certain
degrees of consanguinity seems pointless,
I would also like to point out, that in some of these cases, their ancestry
back to the fourth generations is not completely known or is suspect. That
also weakens the "rule".
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinship: An Overview
WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:
Thanks, Will. Without wanting to put words into Doug's mouth, I think
that you have hit the potential usefulness of the "kinsman" references
on the head. Where the relationship is not known, such a reference may
open up opportunities or possibilities, which in turn may direct
research in useful paths. That is why I would be interested to see
within what perameters the proposition may be applied.
Regards
Michael
In a message dated 2/13/2006 3:27:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Showing
that the king was related to those he calls "kinsman" does seem a bit
circular to me, too: it is like showing that he was married to those he
calls "wife". Even attempting to limit the "rule" to within certain
degrees of consanguinity seems pointless,
I would also like to point out, that in some of these cases, their ancestry
back to the fourth generations is not completely known or is suspect. That
also weakens the "rule".
Will Johnson
Thanks, Will. Without wanting to put words into Doug's mouth, I think
that you have hit the potential usefulness of the "kinsman" references
on the head. Where the relationship is not known, such a reference may
open up opportunities or possibilities, which in turn may direct
research in useful paths. That is why I would be interested to see
within what perameters the proposition may be applied.
Regards
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Edward I's kinsman, Edward de Sain
Dear Douglas,
A few possibilities better than de Tony (in my opinion
at any rate) , One of the Royal Counts ( Dreux, Artois) , a grandchild of
any French or Spanish King down to Philip II of France, Alfonso VIII of Castile
(de Brienne for instance), bastard daughter of King John, Richard I, or Henry
II, as well as Henry the young King and Duke Geoffrey of Brittany or perhaps
even of Philip Fitzroy or Duke Arthur I of Brittany and let`s not forget the
Warennes, Lusignans and Savoyards, Count Ramon Berenguer V or perhaps a younger
sibling. so many possibilites.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
A few possibilities better than de Tony (in my opinion
at any rate) , One of the Royal Counts ( Dreux, Artois) , a grandchild of
any French or Spanish King down to Philip II of France, Alfonso VIII of Castile
(de Brienne for instance), bastard daughter of King John, Richard I, or Henry
II, as well as Henry the young King and Duke Geoffrey of Brittany or perhaps
even of Philip Fitzroy or Duke Arthur I of Brittany and let`s not forget the
Warennes, Lusignans and Savoyards, Count Ramon Berenguer V or perhaps a younger
sibling. so many possibilites.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Bosworth Field
In a message dated 2/13/06 2:27:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
stallardfamily@verizon.net writes:
<< According to a lawsuit from the 1530s (C 1/905/27-32; I have this, though
I
am not done transcribing it, yet), Humphrey's heir John (2 years old in his
inquisition) must have been allowed to inherit rather extensive properties.
This lawsuit also mentions Humphrey's daughter Joane, who married Richard
Throckmorton, son of Sir Robert of Coughton. Sir Robert was certainly a
strong supporter of Henry VII. >>
I would interested in knowing what quotes from this lawsuit help us determine
which Robert of Coughton is being discussed. An old one who d 12 Aug 1518
while on a pilgrimage to Palestine, had married Elizabeth Baynham and Catherine
Marrow.
A younger one, his grandson, also Robert of Caughton married Muriel Berkeley
and Elizabeth Hussey and died 1569/70
I don't show a Joan for either one, so I cannot yet place this information.
Thanks
Will Johnson
stallardfamily@verizon.net writes:
<< According to a lawsuit from the 1530s (C 1/905/27-32; I have this, though
I
am not done transcribing it, yet), Humphrey's heir John (2 years old in his
inquisition) must have been allowed to inherit rather extensive properties.
This lawsuit also mentions Humphrey's daughter Joane, who married Richard
Throckmorton, son of Sir Robert of Coughton. Sir Robert was certainly a
strong supporter of Henry VII. >>
I would interested in knowing what quotes from this lawsuit help us determine
which Robert of Coughton is being discussed. An old one who d 12 Aug 1518
while on a pilgrimage to Palestine, had married Elizabeth Baynham and Catherine
Marrow.
A younger one, his grandson, also Robert of Caughton married Muriel Berkeley
and Elizabeth Hussey and died 1569/70
I don't show a Joan for either one, so I cannot yet place this information.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Retraction and modification
In a message dated 2/13/06 2:27:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
stallardfamily@verizon.net writes:
<< According to a lawsuit from the 1530s (C 1/905/27-32; I have this, though
I
am not done transcribing it, yet), Humphrey's heir John (2 years old in his
inquisition) must have been allowed to inherit rather extensive properties.
This lawsuit also mentions Humphrey's daughter Joane, who married Richard
Throckmorton, son of Sir Robert of Coughton. Sir Robert was certainly a
strong supporter of Henry VII. >>
In place of "I don't show a Joan for either one" I should have said (knowing
that Joan was the daughter-in-law, not the daughter) "while I show a Richard
for one of them, I can't be sure that this is the correct person that you are
referring to without more details."
Will
stallardfamily@verizon.net writes:
<< According to a lawsuit from the 1530s (C 1/905/27-32; I have this, though
I
am not done transcribing it, yet), Humphrey's heir John (2 years old in his
inquisition) must have been allowed to inherit rather extensive properties.
This lawsuit also mentions Humphrey's daughter Joane, who married Richard
Throckmorton, son of Sir Robert of Coughton. Sir Robert was certainly a
strong supporter of Henry VII. >>
In place of "I don't show a Joan for either one" I should have said (knowing
that Joan was the daughter-in-law, not the daughter) "while I show a Richard
for one of them, I can't be sure that this is the correct person that you are
referring to without more details."
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Hugh de Hastings, 'treschier Cousin' of John of Gaun
In a message dated 2/12/06 8:57:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< yet to be discovered for Sir Hugh de
Hastings, through either his great-grandmother Margaret (wife of
Sir John d'Eiville, d. ca. 1325) or great-great grandmother Agnes
(first wife of Sir William de Braose or Breuse, of Bramber and
Gower, d. bef 1 May 1326). >>
I appear to be missing 7 of his great-great-grandparents, having nothing for
Joan Deyville, "Lady of Egmanton" and also nothing for Clarice wife of Adam
Lord Everingham.
Thanks
Will Johnson
writes:
<< yet to be discovered for Sir Hugh de
Hastings, through either his great-grandmother Margaret (wife of
Sir John d'Eiville, d. ca. 1325) or great-great grandmother Agnes
(first wife of Sir William de Braose or Breuse, of Bramber and
Gower, d. bef 1 May 1326). >>
I appear to be missing 7 of his great-great-grandparents, having nothing for
Joan Deyville, "Lady of Egmanton" and also nothing for Clarice wife of Adam
Lord Everingham.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Daughters of the 10th Lord Clifford
In a message dated 2/10/06 9:35:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 2) JOAN CLIFFORD, born about 1490, married 20 August 1509, Sir John
Huddleston, of Millom Castle, Cumberland (b. about 1488, died 1547),
only son and heir of Sir John Huddleston of Millom by his 2nd wife Jane
Stapleton, and died without issue before 1513 (when Sir John married
Joan Seymour). >>
I do not find it obvious that this John was a son of Jane Stapleton.
I had posted earlier, that rather, it seems possible that there is an
intervening generation as follows
John Huddleston m Joan Cliffordn
son of
John Huddleston m Joan FitzHugh
son of
John Huddleston m Joan Stapleton
As you can see three successive generation of John/Joan marriages could very
well lead to confusion as I think might be the case here. More research into
the primary documents of the Huddleston family should be posted to determine
if that's what we're seeing.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 2) JOAN CLIFFORD, born about 1490, married 20 August 1509, Sir John
Huddleston, of Millom Castle, Cumberland (b. about 1488, died 1547),
only son and heir of Sir John Huddleston of Millom by his 2nd wife Jane
Stapleton, and died without issue before 1513 (when Sir John married
Joan Seymour). >>
I do not find it obvious that this John was a son of Jane Stapleton.
I had posted earlier, that rather, it seems possible that there is an
intervening generation as follows
John Huddleston m Joan Cliffordn
son of
John Huddleston m Joan FitzHugh
son of
John Huddleston m Joan Stapleton
As you can see three successive generation of John/Joan marriages could very
well lead to confusion as I think might be the case here. More research into
the primary documents of the Huddleston family should be posted to determine
if that's what we're seeing.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Ferrers of Tamworth Line (Was Re: Sir John Ferrers, his
In a message dated 2/1/06 3:54:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 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 >>
The death date of Nicholas Brome appears to be flawed based on the following
document found on a2a.org.uk of which I post only the beginning snippet to
show the flaw.
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton
FERRERS OF BADDESLEY CLINTON
Catalogue Ref. DR 3
Creator(s): Ferrers family of Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire
DOCUMENTS OF TITLE
Baddesley Clinton and other places in Worwickshire
FILE - BADDESLEY CLINTON, WOODLOES, WOODCOTE, NORTON CURLIEU, OFFCHURCH,
EATHORPE, WARWICK, SOLIHULL AND LYNDON END - ref. DR 3/294 - date: 21 May 1517;
mid 17th century copy
[from Scope and Content] Mid 17th century attested copy of the Inquisition
held at Warwicke 31 May 9 Henry VIII [1517] by Thomas Purfray esq. Escheator to
the King for the county of Warwick, upon the death of Nicholas Brome esq.
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 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 >>
The death date of Nicholas Brome appears to be flawed based on the following
document found on a2a.org.uk of which I post only the beginning snippet to
show the flaw.
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton
FERRERS OF BADDESLEY CLINTON
Catalogue Ref. DR 3
Creator(s): Ferrers family of Baddesley Clinton, Warwickshire
DOCUMENTS OF TITLE
Baddesley Clinton and other places in Worwickshire
FILE - BADDESLEY CLINTON, WOODLOES, WOODCOTE, NORTON CURLIEU, OFFCHURCH,
EATHORPE, WARWICK, SOLIHULL AND LYNDON END - ref. DR 3/294 - date: 21 May 1517;
mid 17th century copy
[from Scope and Content] Mid 17th century attested copy of the Inquisition
held at Warwicke 31 May 9 Henry VIII [1517] by Thomas Purfray esq. Escheator to
the King for the county of Warwick, upon the death of Nicholas Brome esq.
-
Gjest
Re: Ferrers of Tamworth Line (Was Re: Sir John Ferrers, his
In a message dated 2/1/06 3:54:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< Married: after 1482, Sir Walter Griffith (born: 7 June 1473, Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire; died 1531), of Wichnor, Staffordshire and Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire. Issue. >>
s/b Baptised, not Born on 7 June 1473
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< Married: after 1482, Sir Walter Griffith (born: 7 June 1473, Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire; died 1531), of Wichnor, Staffordshire and Burton
Agnes, Yorkshire. Issue. >>
s/b Baptised, not Born on 7 June 1473
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Ferrers of Tamworth Line (Was Re: Sir John Ferrers, his
In a message dated 2/1/06 3:54:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 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.).]." >>
The above snippet is regarding John Ferrers who married Dorothy Harpur.
This snipped states he d 1512 with no further specificity.
I now provide such specific date of 16 July 1512 (see below primary document)
Will Johnson
--------------------------------------
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Gregory of Stivichall [DR10/1 -
DR10/467]
GREGORY OF STIVICHALL
Catalogue Ref. DR10
Creator(s): Gregory family of Stivichall, Warwickshire
DOCUMENTS OF TITLE
DEEDS AND PAPERS
Coventry
FILE - DEEDS AND PAPERS - ref. DR10/402 - date: 1512-13
[from Scope and Content] Draft of the inquisition post mortem of Sir John
Ferrers, knight, held in Coventre on [ ] 4 Henry VIII, wherein it was found that
the said John held in Coventre a burgage in Smytfordstrete in the tenure of
John Onley, a burgage in Sponstrete in the tenure of William Pisford, a burgage
in Gosfordstrete in the tenure of Laurence Walgrave, and another burgage in
Sponstrete in the tenure of John Mordoke, and late of John Mychell', also the
manor of Stychall' together with one messuage, 40 acres of land and 10 shillings
rent in Stychall, conveyed by the said John to Walter Gryffyth knight and
others on 5 October 24 Henry VII [1508] to the use of the said John, Dorothy his
wife, and his male heirs. The burgages in Coventry were held of the King of
the Earldom of Chester (service unknown) and the manor of Stychall of the Bishop
of Chester at an annual rent of 2 shillings. John Ferrers died 16 July last
past, survived by Dorothy his wife leaving as heir his son Humphrey aged 15
years.
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 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.).]." >>
The above snippet is regarding John Ferrers who married Dorothy Harpur.
This snipped states he d 1512 with no further specificity.
I now provide such specific date of 16 July 1512 (see below primary document)
Will Johnson
--------------------------------------
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office: Gregory of Stivichall [DR10/1 -
DR10/467]
GREGORY OF STIVICHALL
Catalogue Ref. DR10
Creator(s): Gregory family of Stivichall, Warwickshire
DOCUMENTS OF TITLE
DEEDS AND PAPERS
Coventry
FILE - DEEDS AND PAPERS - ref. DR10/402 - date: 1512-13
[from Scope and Content] Draft of the inquisition post mortem of Sir John
Ferrers, knight, held in Coventre on [ ] 4 Henry VIII, wherein it was found that
the said John held in Coventre a burgage in Smytfordstrete in the tenure of
John Onley, a burgage in Sponstrete in the tenure of William Pisford, a burgage
in Gosfordstrete in the tenure of Laurence Walgrave, and another burgage in
Sponstrete in the tenure of John Mordoke, and late of John Mychell', also the
manor of Stychall' together with one messuage, 40 acres of land and 10 shillings
rent in Stychall, conveyed by the said John to Walter Gryffyth knight and
others on 5 October 24 Henry VII [1508] to the use of the said John, Dorothy his
wife, and his male heirs. The burgages in Coventry were held of the King of
the Earldom of Chester (service unknown) and the manor of Stychall of the Bishop
of Chester at an annual rent of 2 shillings. John Ferrers died 16 July last
past, survived by Dorothy his wife leaving as heir his son Humphrey aged 15
years.
-
Gjest
Re: Ferrers of Tamworth Line (Was Re: Sir John Ferrers, his
In a message dated 2/1/06 3:54:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 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. >>
You had mentioned that John married first a Maud and second to Dorothy.
I note the document I just sent states that John died leaving his wife
Dorothy and Humphrey his son.
It's interesting that it says "his" and not "their".
Or should I not read too much into that ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< 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. >>
You had mentioned that John married first a Maud and second to Dorothy.
I note the document I just sent states that John died leaving his wife
Dorothy and Humphrey his son.
It's interesting that it says "his" and not "their".
Or should I not read too much into that ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Jon & Tami Stallard
Re: Bosworth Field
Howdy,
Joane Beaufo, daughter of Humphrey Beaufo of Whilton (d. 22 Aug. 1485) was
married to Richard Throckmorton of Higham Park, Northamptonshire, d. 1547
(death date according to Weis' "Magna Carta Sureties". It's the only source
I have ever seen which gives a date of death).
Richard was son of Sir Robert (d. in Palestine in 1518) and Katherine
Marrow. I'm pulling this from memory at present, as my materials are not in
front of me, but I believe that the Visitations of Warwickshire discuss the
Throckmorton family, as do the Visitations of the Butler family of
Bedfordshire (Richard and Joane/Johanna's daughter mary married George
Butler, Esquire of Droitwich, Worc., and Sharnbrook, Beds.), and as
previously mentioned, the Beaufo lineage is also covered in one of the
Oxford Visitations (as is the Hugford family).
The aforementioned lawsuit does not mention Sir Robert. It deals instead
with the Beaufo lineage insofar as it shows that Richard and Joane
Throckmorton sued for her dead brother John's properties. John's widow and
his daughter contested the claim. It's all bloody interesting stuff. Their
neighbors the Newports were embroiled, as well. The Newports intermarried
with the aforementioned Butlers of Droitwich, as did the Blount Lords
Mountjoy, who were also related by marriage to the Beaufos.
Regarding John Hugford, Beaufo's father-in-law, Michael Hicks discussed him
at some length in his chapter "The Beauchamp Trust, 1439-87" from the 1991
book 'Richard
III and His Rivals'.
At any rate, the Journal of the Richard III Society (Vol. 8, 2003) contained
an article entitled "The Buckinghamshire 6 at Bosworth" which correctly
listed Beaufo the son-in-law of John Hugford as having been killed at
Bosworth, but I'd like a more contemporary source as confirmation.
Moreover, I have heard it postulated that Beaufo and probably Hugford were
likely among the "household knights" who accompanied the King on his last
charge down Ambion Hill, but again, it's bloody difficult to prove one way
or the other. I'm fairly certain that he would not have been with Norfolk's
battle.
Anyway, someone with more intimate knowlege of the battle, help!
Thanks again for the time and attention!
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:2ee.1120881.31226302@aol.com...
Joane Beaufo, daughter of Humphrey Beaufo of Whilton (d. 22 Aug. 1485) was
married to Richard Throckmorton of Higham Park, Northamptonshire, d. 1547
(death date according to Weis' "Magna Carta Sureties". It's the only source
I have ever seen which gives a date of death).
Richard was son of Sir Robert (d. in Palestine in 1518) and Katherine
Marrow. I'm pulling this from memory at present, as my materials are not in
front of me, but I believe that the Visitations of Warwickshire discuss the
Throckmorton family, as do the Visitations of the Butler family of
Bedfordshire (Richard and Joane/Johanna's daughter mary married George
Butler, Esquire of Droitwich, Worc., and Sharnbrook, Beds.), and as
previously mentioned, the Beaufo lineage is also covered in one of the
Oxford Visitations (as is the Hugford family).
The aforementioned lawsuit does not mention Sir Robert. It deals instead
with the Beaufo lineage insofar as it shows that Richard and Joane
Throckmorton sued for her dead brother John's properties. John's widow and
his daughter contested the claim. It's all bloody interesting stuff. Their
neighbors the Newports were embroiled, as well. The Newports intermarried
with the aforementioned Butlers of Droitwich, as did the Blount Lords
Mountjoy, who were also related by marriage to the Beaufos.
Regarding John Hugford, Beaufo's father-in-law, Michael Hicks discussed him
at some length in his chapter "The Beauchamp Trust, 1439-87" from the 1991
book 'Richard
III and His Rivals'.
At any rate, the Journal of the Richard III Society (Vol. 8, 2003) contained
an article entitled "The Buckinghamshire 6 at Bosworth" which correctly
listed Beaufo the son-in-law of John Hugford as having been killed at
Bosworth, but I'd like a more contemporary source as confirmation.
Moreover, I have heard it postulated that Beaufo and probably Hugford were
likely among the "household knights" who accompanied the King on his last
charge down Ambion Hill, but again, it's bloody difficult to prove one way
or the other. I'm fairly certain that he would not have been with Norfolk's
battle.
Anyway, someone with more intimate knowlege of the battle, help!
Thanks again for the time and attention!
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:2ee.1120881.31226302@aol.com...
In a message dated 2/13/06 2:27:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
stallardfamily@verizon.net writes:
According to a lawsuit from the 1530s (C 1/905/27-32; I have this,
though
I
am not done transcribing it, yet), Humphrey's heir John (2 years old in
his
inquisition) must have been allowed to inherit rather extensive
properties.
This lawsuit also mentions Humphrey's daughter Joane, who married Richard
Throckmorton, son of Sir Robert of Coughton. Sir Robert was certainly a
strong supporter of Henry VII.
I would interested in knowing what quotes from this lawsuit help us
determine
which Robert of Coughton is being discussed. An old one who d 12 Aug 1518
while on a pilgrimage to Palestine, had married Elizabeth Baynham and
Catherine
Marrow.
A younger one, his grandson, also Robert of Caughton married Muriel
Berkeley
and Elizabeth Hussey and died 1569/70
I don't show a Joan for either one, so I cannot yet place this
information.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Bosworth Field
When you get your notes in front of you, perhaps you would be able to give us
a run-down on this part of the family, that is the children of Joane and
Richard Throckmorton? And what sources you used?
Thanks
Will Johnson
a run-down on this part of the family, that is the children of Joane and
Richard Throckmorton? And what sources you used?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Extra generation in Fitzalan line?
In a message dated 2/2/06 2:24:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< 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."
<snipped>
W David Samuelsen wrote:
But I would like to add in the way of clarification that since her brother
Edmund was born 1 May 1285, Eleanor had to be born either in 1284 percisely or
else 1286/7. The reason being that on 6 Feb 1301 she became a mother herself.
By the way, can someone who has access to CP correct this date as either 6
Feb 1301/2 or 6 Feb 1300/1 ? I'm not sure which is the correct date.
Thanks
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< 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."
<snipped>
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.
But I would like to add in the way of clarification that since her brother
Edmund was born 1 May 1285, Eleanor had to be born either in 1284 percisely or
else 1286/7. The reason being that on 6 Feb 1301 she became a mother herself.
By the way, can someone who has access to CP correct this date as either 6
Feb 1301/2 or 6 Feb 1300/1 ? I'm not sure which is the correct date.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Hugh de Hastings, 'treschier Cousin' of John of Gaun
Dear Will,
Following is a modified AT for Sir Hugh de Hastings (d. 1386), giving added details
only for those particular ancestresses (Joan Deiville and Clarice, evidently Clarice
la Warre) re: whom you wrote.
Cheers,
John
1. Sir Hugh de Hastings, of Elsing and Gressenhall, Norfolk & c., d. 6 Nov 1386
2. Hugh de Hastings,
3. Margaret de Everingham
4. Sir Hugh de Hastings, of Sutton Scotney, Hants. and Monewden, Suffolk, d. 1347
5. Margery Foliot
6. Sir Adam de Everingham, of Laxton, Notts. & c., d. 8 Feb 1387/8
(Lord Everingham)
7. Joan Deiville (or d'Eiville)
' By a fine, levied in the quinzaine of St. John the Baptist, 17 Edw. II,
John Deyville conveyed the manor of Egmanton - except a mill, & c. - to
himself, Margaret his wife, and Joan their daughter, and the heirs of the
same Margaret ' [CP IV:133, sub _Deiville_, cites Feet of Fines, case 184,
file 24, no. 225]
8. Sir John de Hastings, of Ashill, Norfolk; Lord of Abergavenny (Lord Hastings);
Competitor for the Scots crown, 1291/2; d. 10 Feb 1312/3
9. Isabel le Despenser (2nd wife)
10. Sir Richard Foliot, of Gressenhall and Weasenham, Norfolk (2nd Lord Foliot)
11. Joan de Braose
12. Sir Adam de Everingham, of Laxton, Notts. (Lord Everingham), d. bef 8 May 1341
13. Clarice, evidently Clarice la Warre
see SGM threads, < A Possible Everingham Solution: Clarice La Warre ?>, 14 June 2002
and < Clarice, wife of Sir Adam de Everingham (Clarice la Warre ?)>, Feb 2003
re: the link of Clarice d'Auberville to Mabel, wife of John de Tregoz,
see Douglas Richardson, < C.P. Addition: Clarice de Auberville, wife of Sir Fulk
Fitz Warin>, SGM, 9 Dec 2005
14. Sir John Deiville, of Egmanton, Notts., d. ca. 1325
15. Margaret
16. Sir Henry de Hastings, of Ashill, Norfolk and Nailstone, Leics. d. bef 5 Mar 1268/9
17. Joan de Cantelou, heiress of Abergavenny
18. Sir Hugh le Despenser, Earl of Winchester, executed 27 Oct 1326
19. Isabel de Beauchamp (m. 1stly to Sir Patrick de Chaworth)
20. Sir Jordan Foliot, of Elsing and Gressenhall (Lord Foliot), d. bef 2 May 1299
21. Margery de Neumarche (or Newmarch)
22. Sir William de Braose, of Bramber and Gower (Lord Braose), d. bef 1 May 1326
23. Agnes (first wife)
24. Sir Robert de Everingham, of Laxton, Notts., d. bef 21 Jul 1287
25. Alice de la Hyde
26. [Not proven] Sir Roger la Warre, of Wickwarr, Gloucs. (Lord de la Warre), d. 20 Jun 1320
27. [Not proven] Clarice de Tregoz, eldest dau. and coheir of John de Tregoz
(by Mabel FitzWarin]
28. Sir John d'Eiville, of Egmanton, Notts. & c., d. bef Oct 1291 [CP IV:132, sub _Deiville_]
29. Maud
30. NN
31. NN
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson
To: Therav3; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 5:45:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject: Re: Sir Hugh de Hastings, 'treschier Cousin' of John of Gaunt
In a message dated 2/12/06 8:57:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< yet to be discovered for Sir Hugh de
Hastings, through either his great-grandmother Margaret (wife of
Sir John d'Eiville, d. ca. 1325) or great-great grandmother Agnes
(first wife of Sir William de Braose or Breuse, of Bramber and
Gower, d. bef 1 May 1326). >>
I appear to be missing 7 of his great-great-grandparents, having nothing for
Joan Deyville, "Lady of Egmanton" and also nothing for Clarice wife of Adam
Lord Everingham.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Following is a modified AT for Sir Hugh de Hastings (d. 1386), giving added details
only for those particular ancestresses (Joan Deiville and Clarice, evidently Clarice
la Warre) re: whom you wrote.
Cheers,
John
1. Sir Hugh de Hastings, of Elsing and Gressenhall, Norfolk & c., d. 6 Nov 1386
2. Hugh de Hastings,
3. Margaret de Everingham
4. Sir Hugh de Hastings, of Sutton Scotney, Hants. and Monewden, Suffolk, d. 1347
5. Margery Foliot
6. Sir Adam de Everingham, of Laxton, Notts. & c., d. 8 Feb 1387/8
(Lord Everingham)
7. Joan Deiville (or d'Eiville)
' By a fine, levied in the quinzaine of St. John the Baptist, 17 Edw. II,
John Deyville conveyed the manor of Egmanton - except a mill, & c. - to
himself, Margaret his wife, and Joan their daughter, and the heirs of the
same Margaret ' [CP IV:133, sub _Deiville_, cites Feet of Fines, case 184,
file 24, no. 225]
8. Sir John de Hastings, of Ashill, Norfolk; Lord of Abergavenny (Lord Hastings);
Competitor for the Scots crown, 1291/2; d. 10 Feb 1312/3
9. Isabel le Despenser (2nd wife)
10. Sir Richard Foliot, of Gressenhall and Weasenham, Norfolk (2nd Lord Foliot)
11. Joan de Braose
12. Sir Adam de Everingham, of Laxton, Notts. (Lord Everingham), d. bef 8 May 1341
13. Clarice, evidently Clarice la Warre
see SGM threads, < A Possible Everingham Solution: Clarice La Warre ?>, 14 June 2002
and < Clarice, wife of Sir Adam de Everingham (Clarice la Warre ?)>, Feb 2003
re: the link of Clarice d'Auberville to Mabel, wife of John de Tregoz,
see Douglas Richardson, < C.P. Addition: Clarice de Auberville, wife of Sir Fulk
Fitz Warin>, SGM, 9 Dec 2005
14. Sir John Deiville, of Egmanton, Notts., d. ca. 1325
15. Margaret
16. Sir Henry de Hastings, of Ashill, Norfolk and Nailstone, Leics. d. bef 5 Mar 1268/9
17. Joan de Cantelou, heiress of Abergavenny
18. Sir Hugh le Despenser, Earl of Winchester, executed 27 Oct 1326
19. Isabel de Beauchamp (m. 1stly to Sir Patrick de Chaworth)
20. Sir Jordan Foliot, of Elsing and Gressenhall (Lord Foliot), d. bef 2 May 1299
21. Margery de Neumarche (or Newmarch)
22. Sir William de Braose, of Bramber and Gower (Lord Braose), d. bef 1 May 1326
23. Agnes (first wife)
24. Sir Robert de Everingham, of Laxton, Notts., d. bef 21 Jul 1287
25. Alice de la Hyde
26. [Not proven] Sir Roger la Warre, of Wickwarr, Gloucs. (Lord de la Warre), d. 20 Jun 1320
27. [Not proven] Clarice de Tregoz, eldest dau. and coheir of John de Tregoz
(by Mabel FitzWarin]
28. Sir John d'Eiville, of Egmanton, Notts. & c., d. bef Oct 1291 [CP IV:132, sub _Deiville_]
29. Maud
30. NN
31. NN
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson
To: Therav3; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 5:45:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject: Re: Sir Hugh de Hastings, 'treschier Cousin' of John of Gaunt
In a message dated 2/12/06 8:57:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< yet to be discovered for Sir Hugh de
Hastings, through either his great-grandmother Margaret (wife of
Sir John d'Eiville, d. ca. 1325) or great-great grandmother Agnes
(first wife of Sir William de Braose or Breuse, of Bramber and
Gower, d. bef 1 May 1326). >>
I appear to be missing 7 of his great-great-grandparents, having nothing for
Joan Deyville, "Lady of Egmanton" and also nothing for Clarice wife of Adam
Lord Everingham.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Extra generation in Fitzalan line?
Will Johnson wrote:
CP x 459 note e says of her son Henry:
"His age is given variously in his father's inq. p. m. the likeliest agrees
with the statement that he was b. at Leconfield, 6 Feb. 1300/1 (his proof of
age - Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vi, no. 435 - in which document there is an
obvious miscalculation of a year)."
Chris Phillips
By the way, can someone who has access to CP correct this date as either 6
Feb 1301/2 or 6 Feb 1300/1 ? I'm not sure which is the correct date.
CP x 459 note e says of her son Henry:
"His age is given variously in his father's inq. p. m. the likeliest agrees
with the statement that he was b. at Leconfield, 6 Feb. 1300/1 (his proof of
age - Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vi, no. 435 - in which document there is an
obvious miscalculation of a year)."
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Hudlestons
I have a lot of information of the line from Sir William Huddleston and Lady
Isabella de Neville right down to the present day which I would be happy to
share.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
Isabella de Neville right down to the present day which I would be happy to
share.
Rose
Epsom Downs/UK
-
Gjest
Re: RICHMOND ALIAS WEBB - Wiltshire to Massachusetts
In a message dated 2/14/2006 6:14:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
joeycook@mail.com writes:
John Richmond born c1594 of Wiltshire who later settled in
Massachusetts was a wealthy man who is given a lengthy ancestry many
places on the web back to the "Richmond alias Webb" Richmonds
Were there really '"Richmond alias Webb" Richmonds' ?
Or was there *a* "Richmond alias Webb" Richmond (sans plural).
Thanks
Will Johnson
joeycook@mail.com writes:
John Richmond born c1594 of Wiltshire who later settled in
Massachusetts was a wealthy man who is given a lengthy ancestry many
places on the web back to the "Richmond alias Webb" Richmonds
Were there really '"Richmond alias Webb" Richmonds' ?
Or was there *a* "Richmond alias Webb" Richmond (sans plural).
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Medieval Transgenered Persons
In a message dated 2/14/2006 11:02:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
In my post last evening on Amy/Joan Ufford, I inadvertedly referred to
Lady Ela de Pierpont in one place as Sir Ela de Pierpont. This
transgender slip was not intentional. Ela was definitely a lady.
Speaking of that, there was a modern-age case, in the county where I live,
where a "man" who actually voted from about the 1870-80 era, was only
discovered to be a woman upon his/her death much later.
Are there any stories/legends of transgendered persons in the medieval
period?
Thanks
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
In my post last evening on Amy/Joan Ufford, I inadvertedly referred to
Lady Ela de Pierpont in one place as Sir Ela de Pierpont. This
transgender slip was not intentional. Ela was definitely a lady.
Speaking of that, there was a modern-age case, in the county where I live,
where a "man" who actually voted from about the 1870-80 era, was only
discovered to be a woman upon his/her death much later.
Are there any stories/legends of transgendered persons in the medieval
period?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
John Brandon
Re: Medieval Transgenered Persons
Are there any stories/legends of transgendered persons in the medieval
period?
Good old Pope Joan ...
-
Jon & Tami Stallard
Re: Bosworth Field
Hey all,
I have a moment to look over my notes, so here is what I have on Richd. and
Joane's children. My primery source is "Thockmorton Family", by Charles
Wickliffe Throckmorton, Old Dominion Press, Richmond, VA 1930, 260-261. I
dont know how well this book is regarded, but it is a good starting place.
He lists:
1) John Throckmorton, d. 1554, m. Thomasine Derham
2) Gabriel Throckmorton, d. 6 January 1553, m. Emma Lawrence
3) Simon Throckmorton, m. 6 May 1546 Alice Wauton
4) Anthony Throckmorton d. 1549, m. Sithe Russell
5) Raphael Throckmorton, m. 1st Elizabeth ? and 2nd Dorothy Keane
6) Goditha Throckmorton, m. 1st George FitzGeoffrey, and 2nd Thomas Neale
7) Mary Throckmorton, m. George Butler
Jane Throckmorton m. Thomas Parnel
9) Margaret Throckmorton m. Thomas Pemberton
Mr. Throckmorton mentions the 1613 Visitation of Huntingdonshire contains
some of the above data, but I have not access to it. Does anyone? I should
like to see it. Anyway, he also quotes the will of Sir Robert Throckmorton's
brother-in-law Thomas Marrow (signed 31 March 1505, proved 10 April 1505) in
which he gives, "to sir Robert Throgmorton, knight, a silver cup. To my
nephews George and Richard Throckmorton...10 marks". (page 98). I haven't a
transcription of Sir Robert's will, although it seems to me that it is on
display at Coughton. I could be misteken about that. Does anyone have it?
Gary Boyd Roberts "Royal Descendents of 600 Immigrants" mentions Goditha as
a child of Richard anbd Joane (p.557).
As I mentoined in an earlier post, Weis' 5th Ed. "Magna Carta Sureties"
(p.12) mentions children Gabriel & Mary, and their respective spouses, as
well.
The Visitations which mention Richd. Throckmorton and spouse which I have
handy are the 1566 Bedfordshire Visitation (under Butler), the 1558 & 1634
Visitations of essex (Butler), and the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire
(Butler).
As you can see, mostly secondary sources, but one uses what one has!
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:c8.70455bd7.3122abc5@aol.com...
I have a moment to look over my notes, so here is what I have on Richd. and
Joane's children. My primery source is "Thockmorton Family", by Charles
Wickliffe Throckmorton, Old Dominion Press, Richmond, VA 1930, 260-261. I
dont know how well this book is regarded, but it is a good starting place.
He lists:
1) John Throckmorton, d. 1554, m. Thomasine Derham
2) Gabriel Throckmorton, d. 6 January 1553, m. Emma Lawrence
3) Simon Throckmorton, m. 6 May 1546 Alice Wauton
4) Anthony Throckmorton d. 1549, m. Sithe Russell
5) Raphael Throckmorton, m. 1st Elizabeth ? and 2nd Dorothy Keane
6) Goditha Throckmorton, m. 1st George FitzGeoffrey, and 2nd Thomas Neale
7) Mary Throckmorton, m. George Butler
9) Margaret Throckmorton m. Thomas Pemberton
Mr. Throckmorton mentions the 1613 Visitation of Huntingdonshire contains
some of the above data, but I have not access to it. Does anyone? I should
like to see it. Anyway, he also quotes the will of Sir Robert Throckmorton's
brother-in-law Thomas Marrow (signed 31 March 1505, proved 10 April 1505) in
which he gives, "to sir Robert Throgmorton, knight, a silver cup. To my
nephews George and Richard Throckmorton...10 marks". (page 98). I haven't a
transcription of Sir Robert's will, although it seems to me that it is on
display at Coughton. I could be misteken about that. Does anyone have it?
Gary Boyd Roberts "Royal Descendents of 600 Immigrants" mentions Goditha as
a child of Richard anbd Joane (p.557).
As I mentoined in an earlier post, Weis' 5th Ed. "Magna Carta Sureties"
(p.12) mentions children Gabriel & Mary, and their respective spouses, as
well.
The Visitations which mention Richd. Throckmorton and spouse which I have
handy are the 1566 Bedfordshire Visitation (under Butler), the 1558 & 1634
Visitations of essex (Butler), and the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire
(Butler).
As you can see, mostly secondary sources, but one uses what one has!
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:c8.70455bd7.3122abc5@aol.com...
When you get your notes in front of you, perhaps you would be able to give
us
a run-down on this part of the family, that is the children of Joane and
Richard Throckmorton? And what sources you used?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Jon & Tami Stallard
Re: Bosworth Field
Hey all,
I have a moment to look over my notes, so here is what I have on Richd. and
Joane's children. My primery source is "Thockmorton Family", by Charles
Wickliffe Throckmorton, Old Dominion Press, Richmond, VA 1930, 260-261. I
dont know how well this book is regarded, but it is a good starting place.
He lists:
1) John Throckmorton, d. 1554, m. Thomasine Derham
2) Gabriel Throckmorton, d. 6 January 1553, m. Emma Lawrence
3) Simon Throckmorton, m. 6 May 1546 Alice Wauton
4) Anthony Throckmorton d. 1549, m. Sithe Russell
5) Raphael Throckmorton, m. 1st Elizabeth ? and 2nd Dorothy Keane
6) Goditha Throckmorton, m. 1st George FitzGeoffrey, and 2nd Thomas Neale
7) Mary Throckmorton, m. George Butler
Jane Throckmorton m. Thomas Parnel
9) Margaret Throckmorton m. Thomas Pemberton
Mr. Throckmorton mentions the 1613 Visitation of Huntingdonshire contains
some of the above data, but I have not access to it. Does anyone? I should
like to see it. Anyway, he also quotes the will of Sir Robert Throckmorton's
brother-in-law Thomas Marrow (signed 31 March 1505, proved 10 April 1505) in
which he gives, "to sir Robert Throgmorton, knight, a silver cup. To my
nephews George and Richard Throckmorton...10 marks". (page 98). I haven't a
transcription of Sir Robert's will, although it seems to me that it is on
display at Coughton. I could be misteken about that. Does anyone have it?
Gary Boyd Roberts "Royal Descendents of 600 Immigrants" mentions Goditha as
a child of Richard anbd Joane (p.557).
As I mentoined in an earlier post, Weis' 5th Ed. "Magna Carta Sureties"
(p.12) mentions children Gabriel & Mary, and their respective spouses, as
well.
The Visitations which mention Richd. Throckmorton and spouse which I have
handy are the 1566 Bedfordshire Visitation (under Butler), the 1558 & 1634
Visitations of essex (Butler), and the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire
(Butler). Also, The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire gives the Beaufo
lineage, and specifies "Humphredus Beaufo de Bereford ob. 1 H7", with son
"Joh'es Beaufo de Edmondescott in Com' War obit 1516" and daughter "Johanna
uxor Rici Trockmorton". The same Visitation has a Hugford lineage, as well,
though it follows a different family after the first three generations.
As you can see, they are mostly secondary sources, but one uses what one
has! Again, thanks so much for your time and attention.
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:c8.70455bd7.3122abc5@aol.com...
I have a moment to look over my notes, so here is what I have on Richd. and
Joane's children. My primery source is "Thockmorton Family", by Charles
Wickliffe Throckmorton, Old Dominion Press, Richmond, VA 1930, 260-261. I
dont know how well this book is regarded, but it is a good starting place.
He lists:
1) John Throckmorton, d. 1554, m. Thomasine Derham
2) Gabriel Throckmorton, d. 6 January 1553, m. Emma Lawrence
3) Simon Throckmorton, m. 6 May 1546 Alice Wauton
4) Anthony Throckmorton d. 1549, m. Sithe Russell
5) Raphael Throckmorton, m. 1st Elizabeth ? and 2nd Dorothy Keane
6) Goditha Throckmorton, m. 1st George FitzGeoffrey, and 2nd Thomas Neale
7) Mary Throckmorton, m. George Butler
9) Margaret Throckmorton m. Thomas Pemberton
Mr. Throckmorton mentions the 1613 Visitation of Huntingdonshire contains
some of the above data, but I have not access to it. Does anyone? I should
like to see it. Anyway, he also quotes the will of Sir Robert Throckmorton's
brother-in-law Thomas Marrow (signed 31 March 1505, proved 10 April 1505) in
which he gives, "to sir Robert Throgmorton, knight, a silver cup. To my
nephews George and Richard Throckmorton...10 marks". (page 98). I haven't a
transcription of Sir Robert's will, although it seems to me that it is on
display at Coughton. I could be misteken about that. Does anyone have it?
Gary Boyd Roberts "Royal Descendents of 600 Immigrants" mentions Goditha as
a child of Richard anbd Joane (p.557).
As I mentoined in an earlier post, Weis' 5th Ed. "Magna Carta Sureties"
(p.12) mentions children Gabriel & Mary, and their respective spouses, as
well.
The Visitations which mention Richd. Throckmorton and spouse which I have
handy are the 1566 Bedfordshire Visitation (under Butler), the 1558 & 1634
Visitations of essex (Butler), and the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire
(Butler). Also, The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire gives the Beaufo
lineage, and specifies "Humphredus Beaufo de Bereford ob. 1 H7", with son
"Joh'es Beaufo de Edmondescott in Com' War obit 1516" and daughter "Johanna
uxor Rici Trockmorton". The same Visitation has a Hugford lineage, as well,
though it follows a different family after the first three generations.
As you can see, they are mostly secondary sources, but one uses what one
has! Again, thanks so much for your time and attention.
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:c8.70455bd7.3122abc5@aol.com...
When you get your notes in front of you, perhaps you would be able to give
us
a run-down on this part of the family, that is the children of Joane and
Richard Throckmorton? And what sources you used?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
norenxaq
Re: Medieval Transgenered Persons
John Brandon wrote:
when did the stories about her begin?
I beleive the question should be limited to those people who were
transgendered during the mediaeval period rather than including those
mediaeval people that became tg at some later period
Are there any stories/legends of transgendered persons in the medieval
period?
Good old Pope Joan ...
when did the stories about her begin?
I beleive the question should be limited to those people who were
transgendered during the mediaeval period rather than including those
mediaeval people that became tg at some later period
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Medieval Transgendered Persons
In article <43F23F6D.5BCAAD96@san.rr.com>,
norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:
The fable of pope Joan seems to have begun in the thirteenth century,
quite obscurely, and first appears mentioned around 1255, though it is
not developed into a full story until several retellings later. From
the fourteenth century onward it grew as a highly charged, scurrilous
anti-papal and then anti-Catholic trope. But its origins are as a
folktale; it did not happen.
See Alain Boureau, _La papesse Jeanne_ (Paris, 1988), trans. as _The
myth of Pope Joan_, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago, 2001).
The much more widely hyped book by Peter Stanford (_The she-pope: a
quest for the truth behind the mystery of Pope Joan_ [London: Heinemann,
1998]; subs. pub. in the USA as _The legend of Pope Joan: in search of
the truth_ [Holt, 1999]) argues for the legend's truth, but is
unconvincing and is rather Baigent-Leigh-&-Lincolnesque.
Nat Taylor
on Joan:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... peJoan.htm
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
norenxaq@san.rr.com (norenxaq) wrote:
John Brandon wrote:
Are there any stories/legends of transgendered persons in the medieval
period?
Good old Pope Joan ...
when did the stories about her begin?
I beleive the question should be limited to those people who were
transgendered during the mediaeval period rather than including those
mediaeval people that became tg at some later period ...
The fable of pope Joan seems to have begun in the thirteenth century,
quite obscurely, and first appears mentioned around 1255, though it is
not developed into a full story until several retellings later. From
the fourteenth century onward it grew as a highly charged, scurrilous
anti-papal and then anti-Catholic trope. But its origins are as a
folktale; it did not happen.
See Alain Boureau, _La papesse Jeanne_ (Paris, 1988), trans. as _The
myth of Pope Joan_, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago, 2001).
The much more widely hyped book by Peter Stanford (_The she-pope: a
quest for the truth behind the mystery of Pope Joan_ [London: Heinemann,
1998]; subs. pub. in the USA as _The legend of Pope Joan: in search of
the truth_ [Holt, 1999]) argues for the legend's truth, but is
unconvincing and is rather Baigent-Leigh-&-Lincolnesque.
Nat Taylor
on Joan:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... peJoan.htm
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
-
Gjest
Re: Bosworth Field
Jon & Tami Stallard schrieb:
It was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 9 November 1520
(PROB 11/20).
You can dowload a copy for a small fee from the Public Record Office
website.
Try:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... ueryType=1
Regards
Michael
I haven't a
transcription of Sir Robert's will, although it seems to me that it is on
display at Coughton. I could be misteken about that. Does anyone have it?
It was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 9 November 1520
(PROB 11/20).
You can dowload a copy for a small fee from the Public Record Office
website.
Try:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... ueryType=1
Regards
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Sir Robert Throckmorton d 12 Aug 1518
By the way, the ODNB states that he died "on a pilgrimage to Palestine"
It doesn't exactly say he died *in* Palestine.
At least that's the way I transcribed the statement.
Will Johnson
It doesn't exactly say he died *in* Palestine.
At least that's the way I transcribed the statement.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
In a message dated 2/14/06 9:16:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<< 10. Albert III, Count of Namur, d. 22 Jun 1102; m. Ida of Saxony, b.
ca. 1050, d. 31 Jul 1102 >>
Is there actuallly any source which gives us any idea of Ida's age or birth
information?
Thanks
Will Johnson
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<< 10. Albert III, Count of Namur, d. 22 Jun 1102; m. Ida of Saxony, b.
ca. 1050, d. 31 Jul 1102 >>
Is there actuallly any source which gives us any idea of Ida's age or birth
information?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Jon & Tami Stallard
Re: Sir Robert Throckmorton d 12 Aug 1518
True!
That's quite right, isn't it? I think Throckmorton's book implies that he
dies in Italy, somewhere! Quite a far cry from Palestine...
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1de.4c5b3269.3123aca4@aol.com...
That's quite right, isn't it? I think Throckmorton's book implies that he
dies in Italy, somewhere! Quite a far cry from Palestine...
--
Jon & Tami Stallard
stallardfamily@verizon.net
Shirts for Geeks, Gamers & Tech-Heads
http://www.geeklabel.com
Shirts for Parents, Kids, & Multiples
http://www.totlabel.com
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1de.4c5b3269.3123aca4@aol.com...
By the way, the ODNB states that he died "on a pilgrimage to Palestine"
It doesn't exactly say he died *in* Palestine.
At least that's the way I transcribed the statement.
Will Johnson
-
Robert Forrest
Re: Extra generation in Fitzalan line?
CP10:458, note k:
Richard, "the King's bachelor," was granted lands in Mar. 1314 for his
sustenance in the King's service, was captured at Bannockburn and d. Nov.
1314, his sister Eleanor being his executrix (Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-18, p.
223; Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. ii, p. 219; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 95,
167, 521; Rolls of Parl., vol. i, p. 340; Cal. Inq. Misc., vol. ii, no.
228). The parentage of Richard and Eleanor is obscure. Eleanor is called da.
of the Earl of Arundel in a Percy genealogy in the Whitby Chartulary, p.
692, and the Alnwick Chron., p. 38; and she has been usually affiliated to
Richard, Earl of Arundel, b. 3 Feb. 1266/7, which would make her sister to
Earl Edmund, b. 1 May 1285. As her s. and h. Henry was b. probably at the
end of 1300 or early in 1301, this would be just possible chronologically;
and Arundel was already being used as a family name by the FitzAlans. On the
other hand, Richard and Eleanor are ignored in accounts of that family, and
there is no evidence to connect either of them therewith. Moreover, Richard
seems to have been a man of no importance, who apparently did not hold any
lands, except those given him by the King; and the fact that his sister was
app. his executrix, and that there is no reference to any other relation,
may perhaps suggest that he was not the brother of the Earl of Arundel.
However, there is no evidence to connect Richard and Eleanor with any other
family of Arundel; and Percy's change of arms (ante, p. 457, note "d") may
support the belief that he had married a relation of the Earl of Arundel.
Prima facie it seems unlikely that Henry de Percy would marry into some
obscure family; although he may have been betrothed or married when his
elder brother was still alive.
Richard, "the King's bachelor," was granted lands in Mar. 1314 for his
sustenance in the King's service, was captured at Bannockburn and d. Nov.
1314, his sister Eleanor being his executrix (Cal. Close Rolls, 1313-18, p.
223; Cal. Fine Rolls, vol. ii, p. 219; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 95,
167, 521; Rolls of Parl., vol. i, p. 340; Cal. Inq. Misc., vol. ii, no.
228). The parentage of Richard and Eleanor is obscure. Eleanor is called da.
of the Earl of Arundel in a Percy genealogy in the Whitby Chartulary, p.
692, and the Alnwick Chron., p. 38; and she has been usually affiliated to
Richard, Earl of Arundel, b. 3 Feb. 1266/7, which would make her sister to
Earl Edmund, b. 1 May 1285. As her s. and h. Henry was b. probably at the
end of 1300 or early in 1301, this would be just possible chronologically;
and Arundel was already being used as a family name by the FitzAlans. On the
other hand, Richard and Eleanor are ignored in accounts of that family, and
there is no evidence to connect either of them therewith. Moreover, Richard
seems to have been a man of no importance, who apparently did not hold any
lands, except those given him by the King; and the fact that his sister was
app. his executrix, and that there is no reference to any other relation,
may perhaps suggest that he was not the brother of the Earl of Arundel.
However, there is no evidence to connect Richard and Eleanor with any other
family of Arundel; and Percy's change of arms (ante, p. 457, note "d") may
support the belief that he had married a relation of the Earl of Arundel.
Prima facie it seems unlikely that Henry de Percy would marry into some
obscure family; although he may have been betrothed or married when his
elder brother was still alive.
-
Kevin Bradford
Re: Medieval Transgendered Persons
-----Original Message-----
See "Sexual nonconformists and the fires of lust," (pp. 105-149) in Goodich's _Other Middle Ages: witnesses at the margins of society_. U of PA Press [Philadelphia, 1998].
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Sent: Feb 14, 2006 2:13 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Medieval Transgenered Persons
In a message dated 2/14/2006 11:02:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
In my post last evening on Amy/Joan Ufford, I inadvertedly referred to
Lady Ela de Pierpont in one place as Sir Ela de Pierpont. This
transgender slip was not intentional. Ela was definitely a lady.
Speaking of that, there was a modern-age case, in the county where I live,
where a "man" who actually voted from about the 1870-80 era, was only
discovered to be a woman upon his/her death much later.
Are there any stories/legends of transgendered persons in the medieval
period?
Thanks
Will Johnson
See "Sexual nonconformists and the fires of lust," (pp. 105-149) in Goodich's _Other Middle Ages: witnesses at the margins of society_. U of PA Press [Philadelphia, 1998].
-
Gjest
Re: PA2 and RPA correction: Greville
In a message dated 2/7/06 12:15:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< Edwards Will made 21/6/1528 proved 1/10/1529 (U269 T246/2). Edward b: c1474
Milcote, Waerwickshire, d: c1528/9 Weston on Avon.Warwickshire and is buried
in West church upon Avon, Warwickshire
Edward Knighted 13/10/1513
Married Dame Anne Denton c1499 at Milcote, Warwickshire.
regards
John H >>
What is the source for saying that Edward was b c 1474 ?
Provided that his mother was Jane Forster, and her father was Humphrey
Forster of Harpden.
Thanks
Will Johnson
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< Edwards Will made 21/6/1528 proved 1/10/1529 (U269 T246/2). Edward b: c1474
Milcote, Waerwickshire, d: c1528/9 Weston on Avon.Warwickshire and is buried
in West church upon Avon, Warwickshire
Edward Knighted 13/10/1513
Married Dame Anne Denton c1499 at Milcote, Warwickshire.
regards
John H >>
What is the source for saying that Edward was b c 1474 ?
Provided that his mother was Jane Forster, and her father was Humphrey
Forster of Harpden.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: AR7 29A line 39
Hi,
Thomas Giffard appears in AR8 43A, gen. 35 with the descent from Amy
Danvers. The detailed descent is not given, however, but appears to be still valid.
Charlie McNett
In a message dated 2/14/2006 7:02:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<<This is the line mentioned by David Teague, but readers should be aware
that in AR8, line 29A, after gen 32 "Joan Corbet," the statement is
made that "Line breaks here. Connection with No. 33 [Joan de Harley
liv. 1341] in previous editions disproved." The line was projected in
earlier editions to link up with a bastard dau. of King John.>>
Thomas Giffard appears in AR8 43A, gen. 35 with the descent from Amy
Danvers. The detailed descent is not given, however, but appears to be still valid.
Charlie McNett
In a message dated 2/14/2006 7:02:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<<This is the line mentioned by David Teague, but readers should be aware
that in AR8, line 29A, after gen 32 "Joan Corbet," the statement is
made that "Line breaks here. Connection with No. 33 [Joan de Harley
liv. 1341] in previous editions disproved." The line was projected in
earlier editions to link up with a bastard dau. of King John.>>
-
JeffChipman
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Will--
AR8 Line 149 gen.22 says that Albert III "m. 1065/6, Ida of Saxony,
dau. prob. of Bernard II, Duke in Saxony, b. abt. 995, d. 1057, and
Elica (m. abt. 1020), dau. of Heinrich, Margrave of Schweinfurt."
This gen. cites Moriarity's "The Plantagent Ancestry" and CP 1-235. I
don't have access to Moriarity, but I do to CP, and I checked this
citation:
Under the heading "Arundel," it states that Henry I's widow, The Queen
Dowager [not explicitly identified but was Adeliza of Louvain] was the
first daughter of Godefroy a la Barbe, Duke of Lothier and his first
wife Ide, dau. of Albert III, Count of Namur. Adeliza was bur. 23 Apr
1151 at a nunnery in Afflighem in South Brabant, aged about 48, or born
ca. 1103.
This is where things get messy. Adeliza's mother is identified in
AR8-149 as Ida of Chiny and Namur (b. ca. 1083) and her father as
Godfrey I, Duke of lower Lorraine. etc. In the same source, this Ida's
parentage is given as Adelaide of Namur (b. ca. 1068), dau. of Albert
III, and Otto II, Count of Chiny. This Adeleaide dau. of Albert III
would be a sister of Godfrey, Count of Namur, d. 19 Aug 1139.
What I'm saying is that once again AR8 cites a CP article that does not
explicitly support the entry. I do not know which version of Ida's
parentage is correct; it does not have a direct bearing on the Alice
Freeman line, except to provide maybe a hint as to when Albert III's
wife might have been born, but beyond stating that his wife was "Ida of
Saxony," AR8's naming her probable parents, I have no further
information on her and cannot now lay my hands on where I got the dates
for her (although the same stuff is on Stirnet, which says that Ida was
the dau. of either Bernard 2 or 3; I would favor Bernard 3 on
chronological grounds). Other sources I've seen just call her "Ida."
By the way, The Complete Peerage is available on CD-ROM from the UK.
It's not cheap, but it's a very handy way to access the information and
print out (it being in PDF format) the pages of relevant entries.
Maybe others have other sources for her.
Jeff Chipman
AR8 Line 149 gen.22 says that Albert III "m. 1065/6, Ida of Saxony,
dau. prob. of Bernard II, Duke in Saxony, b. abt. 995, d. 1057, and
Elica (m. abt. 1020), dau. of Heinrich, Margrave of Schweinfurt."
This gen. cites Moriarity's "The Plantagent Ancestry" and CP 1-235. I
don't have access to Moriarity, but I do to CP, and I checked this
citation:
Under the heading "Arundel," it states that Henry I's widow, The Queen
Dowager [not explicitly identified but was Adeliza of Louvain] was the
first daughter of Godefroy a la Barbe, Duke of Lothier and his first
wife Ide, dau. of Albert III, Count of Namur. Adeliza was bur. 23 Apr
1151 at a nunnery in Afflighem in South Brabant, aged about 48, or born
ca. 1103.
This is where things get messy. Adeliza's mother is identified in
AR8-149 as Ida of Chiny and Namur (b. ca. 1083) and her father as
Godfrey I, Duke of lower Lorraine. etc. In the same source, this Ida's
parentage is given as Adelaide of Namur (b. ca. 1068), dau. of Albert
III, and Otto II, Count of Chiny. This Adeleaide dau. of Albert III
would be a sister of Godfrey, Count of Namur, d. 19 Aug 1139.
What I'm saying is that once again AR8 cites a CP article that does not
explicitly support the entry. I do not know which version of Ida's
parentage is correct; it does not have a direct bearing on the Alice
Freeman line, except to provide maybe a hint as to when Albert III's
wife might have been born, but beyond stating that his wife was "Ida of
Saxony," AR8's naming her probable parents, I have no further
information on her and cannot now lay my hands on where I got the dates
for her (although the same stuff is on Stirnet, which says that Ida was
the dau. of either Bernard 2 or 3; I would favor Bernard 3 on
chronological grounds). Other sources I've seen just call her "Ida."
By the way, The Complete Peerage is available on CD-ROM from the UK.
It's not cheap, but it's a very handy way to access the information and
print out (it being in PDF format) the pages of relevant entries.
Maybe others have other sources for her.
Jeff Chipman
-
JeffChipman
Re: AR7 29A line 39
I did not say that there was no Danvers link, just that there is no
connection via Corbet to King John. I looked at 43A; beyond mentioning
Amy Danvers, where do you see a descent to anybody after her father
John Danvers?
Jeff Chipman
connection via Corbet to King John. I looked at 43A; beyond mentioning
Amy Danvers, where do you see a descent to anybody after her father
John Danvers?
Jeff Chipman
-
JeffChipman
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Well, I think the truth is that nobody knows who her parents were and
are guessing, perhaps based upon some notion (derived from where?) that
she was "of Saxony," and I don't think the birthyear of 1050 (which in
any case is just an estimate) is out of bounds when some sources give
her marriage year as about 1067. I agree the safest thing to do is
give her no birthyear at all and just call her "Ida.". CP certainly
doesn't help much in identifying her parents.
are guessing, perhaps based upon some notion (derived from where?) that
she was "of Saxony," and I don't think the birthyear of 1050 (which in
any case is just an estimate) is out of bounds when some sources give
her marriage year as about 1067. I agree the safest thing to do is
give her no birthyear at all and just call her "Ida.". CP certainly
doesn't help much in identifying her parents.
-
Gjest
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
In a message dated 2/14/06 5:15:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<< AR8's naming her probable parents, I have no further
information on her and cannot now lay my hands on where I got the dates
for her (although the same stuff is on Stirnet, which says that Ida was
the dau. of either Bernard 2 or 3; I would favor Bernard 3 on
chronological grounds). >>
I would remove that birthyear as I don't believe there is any support and it
may lead you astray in an accurate determination of who her parents might have
been. I.E. you may reject a set of parents because of chronology when there
is nothing to support the year stated.
Will
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<< AR8's naming her probable parents, I have no further
information on her and cannot now lay my hands on where I got the dates
for her (although the same stuff is on Stirnet, which says that Ida was
the dau. of either Bernard 2 or 3; I would favor Bernard 3 on
chronological grounds). >>
I would remove that birthyear as I don't believe there is any support and it
may lead you astray in an accurate determination of who her parents might have
been. I.E. you may reject a set of parents because of chronology when there
is nothing to support the year stated.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Alice Batisford
What is the evidence that William de Echyngham d 20 Mar 1412/3 was married to
Alice Batisford ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Alice Batisford ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
In a message dated 2/14/06 5:48:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<< and I don't think the birthyear of 1050 (which in
any case is just an estimate) is out of bounds when some sources give
her marriage year as about 1067. >>
What I tend to do, is give a birth"range" rather than a birthyear.
Being too specific, misleads others into thinking you have a reason for your
specificity. Giving a range, gives the implication, without the need to state
it, that the exact information is unknown. In my opinion.
Will Johnson
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
<< and I don't think the birthyear of 1050 (which in
any case is just an estimate) is out of bounds when some sources give
her marriage year as about 1067. >>
What I tend to do, is give a birth"range" rather than a birthyear.
Being too specific, misleads others into thinking you have a reason for your
specificity. Giving a range, gives the implication, without the need to state
it, that the exact information is unknown. In my opinion.
Will Johnson
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:25:16 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Chronicon S. Huberti Andaginensis [Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores series, viii, 477, 497] states that Ida was the widow of
duke Frederick of Lorraine (d. 1065) before she married Albert of
Namur. So, she had to have been old enough to marry in 1065 or
before.
Stewart Baldwin
In a message dated 2/14/06 9:16:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:
10. Albert III, Count of Namur, d. 22 Jun 1102; m. Ida of
Saxony, b. ca. 1050, d. 31 Jul 1102
Is there actuallly any source which gives us any idea of Ida's
age or birth information?
Chronicon S. Huberti Andaginensis [Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores series, viii, 477, 497] states that Ida was the widow of
duke Frederick of Lorraine (d. 1065) before she married Albert of
Namur. So, she had to have been old enough to marry in 1065 or
before.
Stewart Baldwin
-
John Plant
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (contempory evidence for the
As I do not have a copy of Douglas Richardson's book "Plantagenet
Ancestry", I am getting a bit confused about which "Geoffrey
Plantagenet" is being discussed on this list. However, here is some
information I have written about "Geffrey Plante Genest" who is
generally believed to have fathered the Plantagenet surname of some 300
years later. I should be interested in any additional relevant
information. In particular, I should be interested in primary source
evidence for the contemporary use of the the name Plantevelu (Planta
Pilus) by the ninth-century founder of a new duchy of Aquitaine, Bernard
Plantevelu.
I had previously thought that the earliest reference to "Plantegenest"
as the nickname Geffrey the Fair, count of Anjou was dated to the 1170s
but I note that Douglas Richardson gives an earlier usage dated to the
1150s.
I have published a summary of the methodology giving rise to the
following sense to the Plantegenest name in John S Plant (2005) Nomina,
28, pps. 115-133.
SENSE TO THE PLANAGENET SURNAME
The Plantagenet name is often incorrectly applied as though it were the
surname of all (or many) of the English kings throughout the 350 years
from Henry II to Richard III but contemporary evidence for its early use
is sparse. As John Gillingham (2001) [John Gillingham, The Angevin
Empire, Second Edition (London, 2001), p 3.] remarks:
"But although Henry II's father Count Geoffrey was known as Plantagenet
it was not until the fifteenth century that this term came to be used as
a family name, and for the story that the name came from the sprig of
broom (Planta Genista) that he liked to wear in his hat to be put into
writing we have to wait until the nineteenth century."
We may quibble about John Gillingham's statement that the `sprig of
broom' story did not appear in print until the nineteenth century. This
is in error for, in 1605, William Camden wrote of Plante Genest that he
was so called because `he ware commonly a broom-stalk in his bonnet'.
Even so, Gillingham is not alone in doubting this story -- 1605 is long
after the first evidence in the 1170s for Geffrey's nickname. Rather
than just as a fashion accessory for his hat, we might surmise that it
is likely that the nickname Plante Genest was an echo of the earlier
name Plantevelu. It is of course possible for both explanations to hold
true: the name Plantegenest was an echo of Plantevelu and Geffrey Plante
Genest reinforced that association by wearing a sprig of broom in his hat.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (2000 version) makes similar points though
it credits a different story of how Geffrey's nickname may have originated.
"Although well established, the surname Plantagenet has little
historical justification. It seems to have originated as a nickname for
Count Geffrey and has been variously explained as referring to his
practice of wearing a sprig of broom (Latin genista) in his hat or, more
probably, to his habit of planting brooms to improve his hunting covers.
It was not, however, a hereditary surname, and Geoffrey's descendants in
England remained without one for more than 250 years, although surnames
became universal outside the royal family. ... The first official use of
the surname Plantagenet by any descendant of Count Geffrey occurred in
1460, when Richard, Duke of York, claimed the throne as ``Richard
Plantaginet''."
Hints of the hunting explanation for the name appear, in a less fanciful
fashion, in the Complete Peerage [Complete Peerage, Volume XI
Appendices, p.~141] which largely dismisses hunting in favour of
Geffrey's liking for a `sprig of broom' in his hat.
"Mrs Green says that Geoffrey was so called ``from his love of hunting
over heath and broom'' (Henry II, p.~6). This may be deduced from Wace
(loc.~cit,):
E al contre Geffrei son frere,
Que l'en clamont Plante Genest,
Qui mult amout bois e forest.
However, it is more likely that Geoffrey's love of wood and forest was
inserted for the purpose of rime than as an explanation of his nickname."
One might add that Geffrey was most famous for his marriage in 1128 to
the heiress apparent to the English thone and for his conquest of
Normandy in 1144. This may well have been more in the mind of the Norman
poet Wace (1135-74) when he wrote his poem which can be taken to allude
to Geffrey's love of increasing his lands like his predecessor
Plantevelu. His augmentation by marriage and conquest can be taken to be
evoked by the Plante Genest metaphor of a germinating shoot. When John
of Marmoutier referred to Geffrey Plantegenest in the 1170s he was
writing to please Plante Genest's son Henry II (nicknamed Fitz Empress)
and, with the Plantegenest nickname, he may well have been alluding to
Geffrey's gallantry.
The Latin meaning of planta was a `shoot for propagation' and this had
led on to the `hairy shoot' meaning of the ninth-century name Plantevelu
in Aquitaine. Connotations of generation should be placed in the context
of late medieval metaphysics rather than modern biology.
Transubstantiation became an article of Christian faith in 1079 though
it had been believed by many earlier. By the early thirteenth century,
Western European scholastics were developing elaborate schemes for man's
soul with its vegetable, animal and intellective components. Geffrey
Plante Genest's nickname probably related to his powers of generating
through marriage the shoots of an Empire, for he augmented by marriage
his family's Angevin claims.
Names of philandering were popular though, with the
mid-thirteenth-century Savoyard connection, there may have been some
interchange of influence between English and Swiss Plant-like names.
English:
Plantebene - pleasant shoot
Plantefolie - wickedness shoot
Planterose - risen shoot
Swiss:
Plantefoi - planted faith
Plantamour - planted love
Planteporrets - porrected shoot
Plantefor - planted conscience
With the Queen's uncle Boniface of Savoy as archbishop of Canterbury and
his compatriot Peter of Aigueblanche as bishop of Hereford, the Savoyard
influence may have been more godly than the `hairy shoot' tradition
implied by such names as Plantevelu and Plantefolie.
Those who knew scholastic teachings may have been aware of religious
aspects to Plant-like names. Johannes Scotus Erigenea wrote in the ninth
century that bone, nail and hair contained only insensitive vegetable
life (cf. Plantevelu). Atto, bishop of Vercelli (924-61) complained of
the practices of meretriculae in his diocese who baptised turves and
branches as coparents. Avicenna (c980-1036) maintained that the soul of
plants was shared with animals and humans. Averroes (1126-98) reiterated
a scheme for the generation of life from the elements, such as clay,
through plants and animals to man. Robert Grosseteste (c1175-1253) and
others wrote significantly about the vegetable soul with its powers of
nutrition, augmentation (cf. Planterose, Planteporrets) and generation
(cf. Plantevelu, Plantegenest). The human soul had three components:
vegetable; sensory; and intellective. Roger Bacon (c1214-c1294) said
modern philosophers taught that only the intellective soul was directly
created by God (cf. Plantefoi, Plantamour, Plantefor).
As scholastic ideas became better known, a more developed metaphysical
explanation for the Plantagenet name may have come more to the fore. By
those times the English word plant was coming to mean more a grown
shoot rather that just a shoot, and the word genet had animal-life
sense as a civet cat or a horse. The civet cat is elongated and hairy --
this may be compared with the Swiss name Plantaporrets, associated with
the elongated leek plant, as well as with the `hairy shoot' meaning of
Plantevelu. The sprig of broom also is hairy. More generally,
Plantagenet can be associated with transubstantiation through the
vegetable (planta), animal (genet as a civet cat or horse) and human
genera. In particular, the word {genet} means a small Spanish horse and
the Plantagenet name may have come to evoke an image of the young
Geffrey, as a scion or establisher shoot (planta), at one with his mount
(genet) in 1128 in his pre-nuptial joustings at Rouen.
By the mid-fifteenth century, Plantagenet had become a royal surname,
relating to the renewal of the immediate male line, following the
madness of the Lancastrian king, Henry VI who was replaced by a king
from the rival House of York. The Plantagenet name embodied a sense of
this creative renewal as well as indicating that the House of York
descended, like that of Lancaster, from Geffrey Plante Genest, their
common forefather of some three hundred years earlier.
Ancestry", I am getting a bit confused about which "Geoffrey
Plantagenet" is being discussed on this list. However, here is some
information I have written about "Geffrey Plante Genest" who is
generally believed to have fathered the Plantagenet surname of some 300
years later. I should be interested in any additional relevant
information. In particular, I should be interested in primary source
evidence for the contemporary use of the the name Plantevelu (Planta
Pilus) by the ninth-century founder of a new duchy of Aquitaine, Bernard
Plantevelu.
I had previously thought that the earliest reference to "Plantegenest"
as the nickname Geffrey the Fair, count of Anjou was dated to the 1170s
but I note that Douglas Richardson gives an earlier usage dated to the
1150s.
I have published a summary of the methodology giving rise to the
following sense to the Plantegenest name in John S Plant (2005) Nomina,
28, pps. 115-133.
SENSE TO THE PLANAGENET SURNAME
The Plantagenet name is often incorrectly applied as though it were the
surname of all (or many) of the English kings throughout the 350 years
from Henry II to Richard III but contemporary evidence for its early use
is sparse. As John Gillingham (2001) [John Gillingham, The Angevin
Empire, Second Edition (London, 2001), p 3.] remarks:
"But although Henry II's father Count Geoffrey was known as Plantagenet
it was not until the fifteenth century that this term came to be used as
a family name, and for the story that the name came from the sprig of
broom (Planta Genista) that he liked to wear in his hat to be put into
writing we have to wait until the nineteenth century."
We may quibble about John Gillingham's statement that the `sprig of
broom' story did not appear in print until the nineteenth century. This
is in error for, in 1605, William Camden wrote of Plante Genest that he
was so called because `he ware commonly a broom-stalk in his bonnet'.
Even so, Gillingham is not alone in doubting this story -- 1605 is long
after the first evidence in the 1170s for Geffrey's nickname. Rather
than just as a fashion accessory for his hat, we might surmise that it
is likely that the nickname Plante Genest was an echo of the earlier
name Plantevelu. It is of course possible for both explanations to hold
true: the name Plantegenest was an echo of Plantevelu and Geffrey Plante
Genest reinforced that association by wearing a sprig of broom in his hat.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (2000 version) makes similar points though
it credits a different story of how Geffrey's nickname may have originated.
"Although well established, the surname Plantagenet has little
historical justification. It seems to have originated as a nickname for
Count Geffrey and has been variously explained as referring to his
practice of wearing a sprig of broom (Latin genista) in his hat or, more
probably, to his habit of planting brooms to improve his hunting covers.
It was not, however, a hereditary surname, and Geoffrey's descendants in
England remained without one for more than 250 years, although surnames
became universal outside the royal family. ... The first official use of
the surname Plantagenet by any descendant of Count Geffrey occurred in
1460, when Richard, Duke of York, claimed the throne as ``Richard
Plantaginet''."
Hints of the hunting explanation for the name appear, in a less fanciful
fashion, in the Complete Peerage [Complete Peerage, Volume XI
Appendices, p.~141] which largely dismisses hunting in favour of
Geffrey's liking for a `sprig of broom' in his hat.
"Mrs Green says that Geoffrey was so called ``from his love of hunting
over heath and broom'' (Henry II, p.~6). This may be deduced from Wace
(loc.~cit,):
E al contre Geffrei son frere,
Que l'en clamont Plante Genest,
Qui mult amout bois e forest.
However, it is more likely that Geoffrey's love of wood and forest was
inserted for the purpose of rime than as an explanation of his nickname."
One might add that Geffrey was most famous for his marriage in 1128 to
the heiress apparent to the English thone and for his conquest of
Normandy in 1144. This may well have been more in the mind of the Norman
poet Wace (1135-74) when he wrote his poem which can be taken to allude
to Geffrey's love of increasing his lands like his predecessor
Plantevelu. His augmentation by marriage and conquest can be taken to be
evoked by the Plante Genest metaphor of a germinating shoot. When John
of Marmoutier referred to Geffrey Plantegenest in the 1170s he was
writing to please Plante Genest's son Henry II (nicknamed Fitz Empress)
and, with the Plantegenest nickname, he may well have been alluding to
Geffrey's gallantry.
The Latin meaning of planta was a `shoot for propagation' and this had
led on to the `hairy shoot' meaning of the ninth-century name Plantevelu
in Aquitaine. Connotations of generation should be placed in the context
of late medieval metaphysics rather than modern biology.
Transubstantiation became an article of Christian faith in 1079 though
it had been believed by many earlier. By the early thirteenth century,
Western European scholastics were developing elaborate schemes for man's
soul with its vegetable, animal and intellective components. Geffrey
Plante Genest's nickname probably related to his powers of generating
through marriage the shoots of an Empire, for he augmented by marriage
his family's Angevin claims.
Names of philandering were popular though, with the
mid-thirteenth-century Savoyard connection, there may have been some
interchange of influence between English and Swiss Plant-like names.
English:
Plantebene - pleasant shoot
Plantefolie - wickedness shoot
Planterose - risen shoot
Swiss:
Plantefoi - planted faith
Plantamour - planted love
Planteporrets - porrected shoot
Plantefor - planted conscience
With the Queen's uncle Boniface of Savoy as archbishop of Canterbury and
his compatriot Peter of Aigueblanche as bishop of Hereford, the Savoyard
influence may have been more godly than the `hairy shoot' tradition
implied by such names as Plantevelu and Plantefolie.
Those who knew scholastic teachings may have been aware of religious
aspects to Plant-like names. Johannes Scotus Erigenea wrote in the ninth
century that bone, nail and hair contained only insensitive vegetable
life (cf. Plantevelu). Atto, bishop of Vercelli (924-61) complained of
the practices of meretriculae in his diocese who baptised turves and
branches as coparents. Avicenna (c980-1036) maintained that the soul of
plants was shared with animals and humans. Averroes (1126-98) reiterated
a scheme for the generation of life from the elements, such as clay,
through plants and animals to man. Robert Grosseteste (c1175-1253) and
others wrote significantly about the vegetable soul with its powers of
nutrition, augmentation (cf. Planterose, Planteporrets) and generation
(cf. Plantevelu, Plantegenest). The human soul had three components:
vegetable; sensory; and intellective. Roger Bacon (c1214-c1294) said
modern philosophers taught that only the intellective soul was directly
created by God (cf. Plantefoi, Plantamour, Plantefor).
As scholastic ideas became better known, a more developed metaphysical
explanation for the Plantagenet name may have come more to the fore. By
those times the English word plant was coming to mean more a grown
shoot rather that just a shoot, and the word genet had animal-life
sense as a civet cat or a horse. The civet cat is elongated and hairy --
this may be compared with the Swiss name Plantaporrets, associated with
the elongated leek plant, as well as with the `hairy shoot' meaning of
Plantevelu. The sprig of broom also is hairy. More generally,
Plantagenet can be associated with transubstantiation through the
vegetable (planta), animal (genet as a civet cat or horse) and human
genera. In particular, the word {genet} means a small Spanish horse and
the Plantagenet name may have come to evoke an image of the young
Geffrey, as a scion or establisher shoot (planta), at one with his mount
(genet) in 1128 in his pre-nuptial joustings at Rouen.
By the mid-fifteenth century, Plantagenet had become a royal surname,
relating to the renewal of the immediate male line, following the
madness of the Lancastrian king, Henry VI who was replaced by a king
from the rival House of York. The Plantagenet name embodied a sense of
this creative renewal as well as indicating that the House of York
descended, like that of Lancaster, from Geffrey Plante Genest, their
common forefather of some three hundred years earlier.
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (contempory evidence for the
<<The Plantagenet name is often incorrectly applied as though it were
the surname of all (or many) of the English kings throughout the 350
years from Henry II to Richard III but contemporary evidence for its
early use is sparse. As John Gillingham (2001) [John Gillingham, The
Angevin Empire, Second Edition (London, 2001), p 3.] remarks:
"But although Henry II's father Count Geoffrey was known as Plantagenet
it was not until the fifteenth century that this term came to be used as
a family name">>
Thank you very much for posting that interesting article, John.
One thing puzzles me. I can't claim ever to have thought much about the
origins of the surname Plantagenet, and I'm sure it's right that we know
of no use of it by any member of the royal family between Count Geoffrey
and Richard, Duke of York - but surely the surname must have had some
kind of currency during the intervening period. If it had been
completely unused for so long how would Richard of York have known of
it, and why would he have used it?
I can only think of one reason for him to adopt the name if it wasn't
already in use by his family: in order to emphasise his royal descent.
But that would only work if the name had known royal associations - it's
difficult to imagine him dredging up a long-forgotten surname last used
three centuries previously by someone who wasn't even himself a king of
England.
So it must surely have been in some kind of unofficial use between Count
Geoffrey and Richard of York, though the fact that it was apparently
never used officially does seem to suggest that it was thought to be not
respectable, or at least not sufficiently prestigious. Perhaps its
origins as a nickname were known and thought too frivolous for official
use.
Regards,
Matt Tompkins
the surname of all (or many) of the English kings throughout the 350
years from Henry II to Richard III but contemporary evidence for its
early use is sparse. As John Gillingham (2001) [John Gillingham, The
Angevin Empire, Second Edition (London, 2001), p 3.] remarks:
"But although Henry II's father Count Geoffrey was known as Plantagenet
it was not until the fifteenth century that this term came to be used as
a family name">>
Thank you very much for posting that interesting article, John.
One thing puzzles me. I can't claim ever to have thought much about the
origins of the surname Plantagenet, and I'm sure it's right that we know
of no use of it by any member of the royal family between Count Geoffrey
and Richard, Duke of York - but surely the surname must have had some
kind of currency during the intervening period. If it had been
completely unused for so long how would Richard of York have known of
it, and why would he have used it?
I can only think of one reason for him to adopt the name if it wasn't
already in use by his family: in order to emphasise his royal descent.
But that would only work if the name had known royal associations - it's
difficult to imagine him dredging up a long-forgotten surname last used
three centuries previously by someone who wasn't even himself a king of
England.
So it must surely have been in some kind of unofficial use between Count
Geoffrey and Richard of York, though the fact that it was apparently
never used officially does seem to suggest that it was thought to be not
respectable, or at least not sufficiently prestigious. Perhaps its
origins as a nickname were known and thought too frivolous for official
use.
Regards,
Matt Tompkins
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (... Plantevelu ...)
In article <43F2F906.5070208@isc.keele.ac.uk>,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk (John Plant) wrote:
<...>
I see you have sensibly asked for primary sources using the nickname
'Plantapilosa' for count Bernard. The first use I turned up is a
contemporary use, by Hincmar of Rheims in the _Annals of Saint-Bertin_,
sub anno 880. The original runs:
.... In quo itinere ejectis de castro Matiscano Bosonis hominibus, ipsum
castellum ceperunt [that is, the two kings Louis III and his brother
Caroloman, king of Aquitaine], et ceum comitatum Bernardo cognomento
Planta-pilosa dederunt... [1871 ed., p. 285: the 1871 edition is
available on Gallica; the better 1964 edition is not.]
Janet Nelson refers, in her footnotes to her English translation (p.
221), to an article by L. Malbos, "Du surnom de Plantevelue," _Le Moyen
Age_ 70 (1964), 5-11. Perhaps following Malbos, Nelson glosses
Hincmar's nickname for Bernard as 'hairy paws', and suggests a negative
connotation of 'foxiness' (which is certainly consistent with how
Hincmar was portraying this Bernard).
Without going to that article, I would ask, what reason do you have for
crediting only one of the two general meanings of the word 'planta', in
this nickname? Since the Latin word 'planta' was since classical times
EITHER 'a shoot or plant', OR 'the sole of a foot' (see Lewis & Short,
Neirmeyer, etc.), it is by no means certain that the name Plantapilosa
was intended to mean 'hairy shoot' rather than 'hairy foot'. The latter
'meaning' seems to me (at least) rather more likely than the former,
though neither sense would necessarily have been meant to be taken
literally. In Septimania at least, there was something of a vogue in
endowing counts with names denoting anatomical oddities--at least by the
time of the twelfth-century chroniclers, writing retrospectively about
men who had been dead for several generations (e.g. Guifred the Hairy,
William Long-Nose, William Short-Nose, etc.). Such names may themselves
have been understood as metaphorical or idiomatic for some other
memorable feature that we cannot now determine.
Reaney & Wilson (Dictionary of English Surnames, 3d rev. ed.) gloss
'plantebene' as a Middle English name given to a cultivator of beans,
and 'planterose' for a cultivator of roses; more generally, 'plant' or
'plante-' names are said by them to derive from the obvious occupational
origin rather than any sort of metaphorically charged epithet. Must we
take the zebra over the horse in these cases?
This is interesting, and such musings and associations may have been
relevant in the case of the Yorkists' adoption of 'Plantagenet', or at
least among educated commentators on the troubles of the 15th century.
But shouldn't you consider the simpler, occupational explanation for
names of the form 'plant' or 'plante-___' used by lesser individuals in
later medieval England?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk (John Plant) wrote:
... However, here is some
information I have written about "Geffrey Plante Genest" who is
generally believed to have fathered the Plantagenet surname of some 300
years later. I should be interested in any additional relevant
information. In particular, I should be interested in primary source
evidence for the contemporary use of the the name Plantevelu (Planta
Pilus) by the ninth-century founder of a new duchy of Aquitaine, Bernard
Plantevelu.
<...>
The Latin meaning of planta was a `shoot for propagation' and this had
led on to the `hairy shoot' meaning of the ninth-century name Plantevelu
in Aquitaine. Connotations of generation should be placed in the context
of late medieval metaphysics rather than modern biology.
I see you have sensibly asked for primary sources using the nickname
'Plantapilosa' for count Bernard. The first use I turned up is a
contemporary use, by Hincmar of Rheims in the _Annals of Saint-Bertin_,
sub anno 880. The original runs:
.... In quo itinere ejectis de castro Matiscano Bosonis hominibus, ipsum
castellum ceperunt [that is, the two kings Louis III and his brother
Caroloman, king of Aquitaine], et ceum comitatum Bernardo cognomento
Planta-pilosa dederunt... [1871 ed., p. 285: the 1871 edition is
available on Gallica; the better 1964 edition is not.]
Janet Nelson refers, in her footnotes to her English translation (p.
221), to an article by L. Malbos, "Du surnom de Plantevelue," _Le Moyen
Age_ 70 (1964), 5-11. Perhaps following Malbos, Nelson glosses
Hincmar's nickname for Bernard as 'hairy paws', and suggests a negative
connotation of 'foxiness' (which is certainly consistent with how
Hincmar was portraying this Bernard).
Without going to that article, I would ask, what reason do you have for
crediting only one of the two general meanings of the word 'planta', in
this nickname? Since the Latin word 'planta' was since classical times
EITHER 'a shoot or plant', OR 'the sole of a foot' (see Lewis & Short,
Neirmeyer, etc.), it is by no means certain that the name Plantapilosa
was intended to mean 'hairy shoot' rather than 'hairy foot'. The latter
'meaning' seems to me (at least) rather more likely than the former,
though neither sense would necessarily have been meant to be taken
literally. In Septimania at least, there was something of a vogue in
endowing counts with names denoting anatomical oddities--at least by the
time of the twelfth-century chroniclers, writing retrospectively about
men who had been dead for several generations (e.g. Guifred the Hairy,
William Long-Nose, William Short-Nose, etc.). Such names may themselves
have been understood as metaphorical or idiomatic for some other
memorable feature that we cannot now determine.
Names of philandering were popular though, with the
mid-thirteenth-century Savoyard connection, there may have been some
interchange of influence between English and Swiss Plant-like names.
English:
Plantebene - pleasant shoot
Plantefolie - wickedness shoot
Planterose - risen shoot
...
Reaney & Wilson (Dictionary of English Surnames, 3d rev. ed.) gloss
'plantebene' as a Middle English name given to a cultivator of beans,
and 'planterose' for a cultivator of roses; more generally, 'plant' or
'plante-' names are said by them to derive from the obvious occupational
origin rather than any sort of metaphorically charged epithet. Must we
take the zebra over the horse in these cases?
...
Those who knew scholastic teachings may have been aware of religious
aspects to Plant-like names.
...
As scholastic ideas became better known, a more developed metaphysical
explanation for the Plantagenet name may have come more to the fore.
...
By the mid-fifteenth century, Plantagenet had become a royal surname,
relating to the renewal of the immediate male line, following the
madness of the Lancastrian king, Henry VI who was replaced by a king
from the rival House of York. The Plantagenet name embodied a sense of
this creative renewal as well as indicating that the House of York
descended, like that of Lancaster, from Geffrey Plante Genest, their
common forefather of some three hundred years earlier.
This is interesting, and such musings and associations may have been
relevant in the case of the Yorkists' adoption of 'Plantagenet', or at
least among educated commentators on the troubles of the 15th century.
But shouldn't you consider the simpler, occupational explanation for
names of the form 'plant' or 'plante-___' used by lesser individuals in
later medieval England?
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
-
Gjest
Re: Was Fitz ever used on the Continent?
In a message dated 2/15/06 7:30:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< If in a chart someone is called in Latin filius Comitis, should that be
translated to Fitz Count? Especially as it applies to someone living in
Brittany? >>
Perhaps it should be translated as "son of the Count"
But then it would be hard to find him using a surname search wouldn't it?
Of course you could call him something like Eudo of Brittany I suppose
I do that for people who I can't find anything like a surname for.
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< If in a chart someone is called in Latin filius Comitis, should that be
translated to Fitz Count? Especially as it applies to someone living in
Brittany? >>
Perhaps it should be translated as "son of the Count"
But then it would be hard to find him using a surname search wouldn't it?
Of course you could call him something like Eudo of Brittany I suppose
I do that for people who I can't find anything like a surname for.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: wJohnson web page on Batisford/Echyngham
In a message dated 2/15/06 10:14:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< On your rootsweb page you have Joan Echyngham daugher of Wm Echyngham
married 1st to John rykill and 2nd to John Baynton and a son born 1439. If Joam
was born by 1394 as you say she would be 45 having the first baynton child
and she is credit with more than 1.child. Joan was married to John Rykhill MP
for many years and had daughter Joan who married a Richard Bruyn. No mention in
any wills of her mother marrying a Baynton. what proof do you have that this
Joan Echyngham Ryjhill married a Baynton.as a 2nd husband.. >>
My sources are listed
1) http://www.genealogics.org
2) GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 2006-01-17 (January)
I've modified her birthyear range because it seems to me that her mother was
Joan FitzAlan who d 1 sep 1404
That would allow her to have this child at an age of between 35 and 43, and
this being her second marriage
I have yet to see any proof that John survived her or any indication of when
he died.
As you can see I give him a wide birthrange of 1350/1410 indicating that I've
seen nothing on him except his name..
Do you have any?
Thanks
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< On your rootsweb page you have Joan Echyngham daugher of Wm Echyngham
married 1st to John rykill and 2nd to John Baynton and a son born 1439. If Joam
was born by 1394 as you say she would be 45 having the first baynton child
and she is credit with more than 1.child. Joan was married to John Rykhill MP
for many years and had daughter Joan who married a Richard Bruyn. No mention in
any wills of her mother marrying a Baynton. what proof do you have that this
Joan Echyngham Ryjhill married a Baynton.as a 2nd husband.. >>
My sources are listed
1) http://www.genealogics.org
2) GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 2006-01-17 (January)
I've modified her birthyear range because it seems to me that her mother was
Joan FitzAlan who d 1 sep 1404
That would allow her to have this child at an age of between 35 and 43, and
this being her second marriage
I have yet to see any proof that John survived her or any indication of when
he died.
As you can see I give him a wide birthrange of 1350/1410 indicating that I've
seen nothing on him except his name..
Do you have any?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Alice Batisford/Wm Echyngham
In a message dated 2/15/06 9:21:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< Several articles refer to this fact.
ONE) Vol 1 page 332 Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica gives chart of
the Peplesham family and Margery Pepelsham md 2nd wm Batisford and they had
Isabell who m arried WmFiennes;Joan who married Wm Brenchesley; Alice who married
Wm Echyngham- The chart gives the children of Alice Batisford and Wm
Echyngham as Joan wife of Wm Rikell(Rykhill) and Elizbeteh married to Thomas Hoo and
2nd Thomas Lewknor. (Joan was actually married to John Rikell son of Wm)
TWO) Sussex Arch Col Vol 8- Stained Glass Windows of Nettlestead
Church(Kent) page 228 has a chart of theCrelle-Peplesham-Batisford chart with the 3
daughters of Margery Peplesham and Wm Batisford are again identified as
Eliz(Isabelle) md Fienne, Joanne md Brenchley; Alice md W Echyngham The Arms of
Batisford are found here.
In the church at Brenchley where Joan Batisford and Wm Brenchely resided
the arms of Brenchely impaling Batisford and the arms of Etchdngham impaling
Batisford are found
THREE) Although I have n ot seen the original article there is a court case
that continued for some time and i s listed in PRO C1/19/280-290 regarding
land owned by Batisford family and the people involved in claiming this are
listed at Joan Rykill, Elizabreth Lewknor daughters of Wm Echyngham and Richard
Fiennes(grandson of Elizabeth Batisford Fiennes) regarding this Batisford
property. This shows the probability of relationship to Alice Batisford by Joan
and Elizzbeth.
FOUR) Sussex Inquisition in 1415 regarding land in winchelsea gives the
names of Joan Rykill wife of John Rykhill and her sisterElizabeth(unmarried at
this time) as daughters of Wm Echyngham . The use of the married name of Joan
again identifies her from the other above charts.
FIVE) William Echyngham married 2nd Joan Fitzalan Arundel between
1396-1401 and he would have been about 42 years old at this marriage, so again at
this age no doubt a second marriage >>
To these Charlotte I would like to add SIX from your post:
Subj: Help me think this out
Date: 1/31/06 10:15:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: charcsmith@verizon.net (charlotte smith)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
I am trying to think what this phrase means in an inquisition I have.
SIX) "Joan and Elizabeth Echyngham, daughters of William lord of Etchingham,
knight and of Joan his wife have land lying together in same quarter which
descended to them by hereditary right on the death of Joan their mother..etc.
The questoin is where Joan and Elizabeth daughters of Joan or daughters of
Alice.
The IPM is quite bold in declaring they were daughters of Joan.
Your courterclaim seems to be that they wouldn't be in court fighting against
a descendent of the Batisford family unless their own mother was a Batisford.
Document ONE states that they were daughters of Alice
Document SIX states they were daughters of Joan.
However document six is primary, document one is not.
The other claims above can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways in my
opinion.
So I believe, that they were daughters of Joan.
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< Several articles refer to this fact.
ONE) Vol 1 page 332 Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica gives chart of
the Peplesham family and Margery Pepelsham md 2nd wm Batisford and they had
Isabell who m arried WmFiennes;Joan who married Wm Brenchesley; Alice who married
Wm Echyngham- The chart gives the children of Alice Batisford and Wm
Echyngham as Joan wife of Wm Rikell(Rykhill) and Elizbeteh married to Thomas Hoo and
2nd Thomas Lewknor. (Joan was actually married to John Rikell son of Wm)
TWO) Sussex Arch Col Vol 8- Stained Glass Windows of Nettlestead
Church(Kent) page 228 has a chart of theCrelle-Peplesham-Batisford chart with the 3
daughters of Margery Peplesham and Wm Batisford are again identified as
Eliz(Isabelle) md Fienne, Joanne md Brenchley; Alice md W Echyngham The Arms of
Batisford are found here.
In the church at Brenchley where Joan Batisford and Wm Brenchely resided
the arms of Brenchely impaling Batisford and the arms of Etchdngham impaling
Batisford are found
THREE) Although I have n ot seen the original article there is a court case
that continued for some time and i s listed in PRO C1/19/280-290 regarding
land owned by Batisford family and the people involved in claiming this are
listed at Joan Rykill, Elizabreth Lewknor daughters of Wm Echyngham and Richard
Fiennes(grandson of Elizabeth Batisford Fiennes) regarding this Batisford
property. This shows the probability of relationship to Alice Batisford by Joan
and Elizzbeth.
FOUR) Sussex Inquisition in 1415 regarding land in winchelsea gives the
names of Joan Rykill wife of John Rykhill and her sisterElizabeth(unmarried at
this time) as daughters of Wm Echyngham . The use of the married name of Joan
again identifies her from the other above charts.
FIVE) William Echyngham married 2nd Joan Fitzalan Arundel between
1396-1401 and he would have been about 42 years old at this marriage, so again at
this age no doubt a second marriage >>
To these Charlotte I would like to add SIX from your post:
Subj: Help me think this out
Date: 1/31/06 10:15:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: charcsmith@verizon.net (charlotte smith)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
I am trying to think what this phrase means in an inquisition I have.
SIX) "Joan and Elizabeth Echyngham, daughters of William lord of Etchingham,
knight and of Joan his wife have land lying together in same quarter which
descended to them by hereditary right on the death of Joan their mother..etc.
The questoin is where Joan and Elizabeth daughters of Joan or daughters of
Alice.
The IPM is quite bold in declaring they were daughters of Joan.
Your courterclaim seems to be that they wouldn't be in court fighting against
a descendent of the Batisford family unless their own mother was a Batisford.
Document ONE states that they were daughters of Alice
Document SIX states they were daughters of Joan.
However document six is primary, document one is not.
The other claims above can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways in my
opinion.
So I believe, that they were daughters of Joan.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Haute Wyatts wives
In a message dated 2/13/06 9:03:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
LeBateman@ATT.Net writes:
<< Sometime ago I posted to the SGM that Haute Wyatt had two wives. I had
been going by the ages of his children listed in his Estate Administration
Papers; George 19, Edward 17, John 10, and Ann 7. John being 10 years of age at
the time of his father's death means he was born in 1628. If you could tell me
how I could obtain a copy of this I would be grateful. I only know that it is
listed in Lathrop Washington's Seventeenth & Eighteenth Century English Wills
& Administrations Relating to Virginia and Virginians. I also believe that The
1632 Visitation of Kent also lists George's age as 12, perhaps this is the
wrong age it should be 13. . He was also Baptized in 12 December 1619. >> >>
Le has given me permission to reply to this on-list.
The Rev Hawte Wyatt appears here
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Hamilton", pg 401-3. Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
from which I quote
b 1596 d 31 July 1638 ; came to Virginia in the "George", 1621, with his bro.
Sir Francis Wyatt; minister at Jamestown, 1621-25; m (1) 1619 Barbara
Elizabeth Mitford, d 31 Oct 1626; 2) Ann Cox; he returned to England and d at Boxley,
where an inscription on his tomb states that "he had Issue living in
Virginia."
end of quote
Now in parenthesis, he gives his sources for this data as "Harl. Soc. Publ.,
Vol. 58, p 12; J C Hotten; Lists, etc., p 173; Weis, Colonial Clergy of
Virginia, NC and SC, 1955"
Le this should give you at least a few more secondary sources to chase down.
But at least he confirms for you, that Hawte is said to have had two wifes
and therefore based on the ages you gave, we should be able to parcel the
children out between those two wives.
Will Johnson
LeBateman@ATT.Net writes:
<< Sometime ago I posted to the SGM that Haute Wyatt had two wives. I had
been going by the ages of his children listed in his Estate Administration
Papers; George 19, Edward 17, John 10, and Ann 7. John being 10 years of age at
the time of his father's death means he was born in 1628. If you could tell me
how I could obtain a copy of this I would be grateful. I only know that it is
listed in Lathrop Washington's Seventeenth & Eighteenth Century English Wills
& Administrations Relating to Virginia and Virginians. I also believe that The
1632 Visitation of Kent also lists George's age as 12, perhaps this is the
wrong age it should be 13. . He was also Baptized in 12 December 1619. >> >>
Le has given me permission to reply to this on-list.
The Rev Hawte Wyatt appears here
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Hamilton", pg 401-3. Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
from which I quote
b 1596 d 31 July 1638 ; came to Virginia in the "George", 1621, with his bro.
Sir Francis Wyatt; minister at Jamestown, 1621-25; m (1) 1619 Barbara
Elizabeth Mitford, d 31 Oct 1626; 2) Ann Cox; he returned to England and d at Boxley,
where an inscription on his tomb states that "he had Issue living in
Virginia."
end of quote
Now in parenthesis, he gives his sources for this data as "Harl. Soc. Publ.,
Vol. 58, p 12; J C Hotten; Lists, etc., p 173; Weis, Colonial Clergy of
Virginia, NC and SC, 1955"
Le this should give you at least a few more secondary sources to chase down.
But at least he confirms for you, that Hawte is said to have had two wifes
and therefore based on the ages you gave, we should be able to parcel the
children out between those two wives.
Will Johnson
-
John Plant
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (... Plantevelu ...)
Nat,
First of all, thank you for the primary source evidence of contemporary
usage of the name Plantapilosa.
You also raise some valid questions which I shall attempt to answer
briefly. Fuller details relating to my answers are given in the paper
John S Plant (2005) "Modern Methods and a Controversial Surname: Plant"
Nomina 28, pps 115-133. A web site relating to the Nomina journal is:
http://www.snsbi.org.uk/index.html
While I have every respect for pragmatic politeness, the 'shoot' meaning
of planta is generally more salient than the 'sole of foot' meaning.
Both meanings can be related loosely to primitive beliefs about mythic
origins from the land. A sense 'hairy paws' is a possible interpretation
and it is not surprising that this attracts more polite discussion than
'hairy shoot'. However, this does not detract from the salience of the
'shoot for propagation' meaning. The "Creation is Birth" metaphor is
accepted as a timeless standard metaphor [Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors
We Live By (1980), pp. 74-75.] as so also is the "People are Plants"
metaphor [Lakoff and Turner, Beyond Cool Reason (1989), pp. 6 and
12-14.]. By standard cognitive metaphor theory, Plantapilosa is an image
metaphor for a gallant man.
In 13th century England, there is more evidence for the name Plantefolie
than either Plantebene (rare) or Planterose (mainly French). Presumably,
it was for reasons of politeness that Reaney (1st edition, 1958) omitted
Plantefolie but this omission significantly distorts the deliberations.
Also, a study of the Middle English Dictionary (and other dictionaries)
shows that it is not at all clear that the "bean" meaning of bene was
salient.
The main thrust of my Nomina paper is to discredit the occupational
explanation for Plant and related names. There are several strands to my
arguments. I shall give just a taste of them here.
It should be realised that Reaney was going against previous opinion
when he proposed that Plant was a metonym for a gardener. Indeed the
prolific surname Plant has been ascribed a different meaning each time
an authority has written about it. M.A.Lower (1860) said that it was a
corruption of Plantagenet. Ernest Weekly (1916) suggested 'from the
plantation' or 'sprig' or 'cudgel' or 'young offspring'. Reaney (1958)
proposed the occupational meaning 'gardener'. Hanks and Hodges (1988)
added the opinion 'a tender or delicate individual'. The only meaning of
plant, albeit archaic, in the Oxford English Dictionary that fits
directly as a surname is the noun(1) sense 1(c) which is a 'young
person' (cf. the metaphorical mapping of 'offshoot' to 'offspring' and
the Welsh meaning 'children' of plant).
It seems likely that Reaney dismissed the most obvious meaning
'offspring' because the Plant name is widespread from the earliest
times. However, my recent Y-DNA evidence shows that Plant is a
"single-ancestor" prolific surname despite that. Presumably Reaney was
convinced that an occuptional meaning had to be invented to explain such
a widespread name - this despite the existance of many names of
relationship such as Child, Children, Sone, Dauter, Vaughan. However,
the DNA evidence shows that (false paternity events aside) the Plants
are indeed the offspring of a single ancestor.
This meaning for Plant relates to the 'shoot' or 'offshoot'
manifestation of the more general "People are Plants" metataphor. The
'shoot' sense relates to a qualia role of function while the 'offshoot'
sense relates to a qualia role of origins. For the active Plantagenets
the noble "function" sense of 'scion' or 'establisher shoot' seems most
appropriate whilst for lesser mortals, such as Plants, a passive
"origins" sense of 'offshoot' or 'offspring' seems most appropriate.
Regards,
John
First of all, thank you for the primary source evidence of contemporary
usage of the name Plantapilosa.
You also raise some valid questions which I shall attempt to answer
briefly. Fuller details relating to my answers are given in the paper
John S Plant (2005) "Modern Methods and a Controversial Surname: Plant"
Nomina 28, pps 115-133. A web site relating to the Nomina journal is:
http://www.snsbi.org.uk/index.html
Janet Nelson refers, in her footnotes to her English translation (p.
221), to an article by L. Malbos, "Du surnom de Plantevelue," _Le
Moyen Age_ 70 (1964), 5-11. Perhaps following Malbos, Nelson glosses
Hincmar's nickname for Bernard as 'hairy paws', and suggests a
negative connotation of 'foxiness' (which is certainly consistent with
how Hincmar was portraying this Bernard).
Without going to that article, I would ask, what reason do you have
for crediting only one of the two general meanings of the word
'planta', in this nickname? Since the Latin word 'planta' was since
classical times EITHER 'a shoot or plant', OR 'the sole of a foot'
(see Lewis & Short, Neirmeyer, etc.), it is by no means certain that
the name Plantapilosa was intended to mean 'hairy shoot' rather than
'hairy foot'.
While I have every respect for pragmatic politeness, the 'shoot' meaning
of planta is generally more salient than the 'sole of foot' meaning.
Both meanings can be related loosely to primitive beliefs about mythic
origins from the land. A sense 'hairy paws' is a possible interpretation
and it is not surprising that this attracts more polite discussion than
'hairy shoot'. However, this does not detract from the salience of the
'shoot for propagation' meaning. The "Creation is Birth" metaphor is
accepted as a timeless standard metaphor [Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors
We Live By (1980), pp. 74-75.] as so also is the "People are Plants"
metaphor [Lakoff and Turner, Beyond Cool Reason (1989), pp. 6 and
12-14.]. By standard cognitive metaphor theory, Plantapilosa is an image
metaphor for a gallant man.
Names of philandering were popular though, with the
mid-thirteenth-century Savoyard connection, there may have been some
interchange of influence between English and Swiss Plant-like names.
English:
Plantebene - pleasant shoot
Plantefolie - wickedness shoot
Planterose - risen shoot
Reaney & Wilson (Dictionary of English Surnames, 3d rev. ed.) gloss
'plantebene' as a Middle English name given to a cultivator of beans,
and 'planterose' for a cultivator of roses; more generally, 'plant' or
'plante-' names are said by them to derive from the obvious
occupational origin rather than any sort of metaphorically charged
epithet. Must we take the zebra over the horse in these cases?
In 13th century England, there is more evidence for the name Plantefolie
than either Plantebene (rare) or Planterose (mainly French). Presumably,
it was for reasons of politeness that Reaney (1st edition, 1958) omitted
Plantefolie but this omission significantly distorts the deliberations.
Also, a study of the Middle English Dictionary (and other dictionaries)
shows that it is not at all clear that the "bean" meaning of bene was
salient.
But shouldn't you consider the simpler, occupational explanation for
names of the form 'plant' or 'plante-___' used by lesser individuals
in later medieval England?
The main thrust of my Nomina paper is to discredit the occupational
explanation for Plant and related names. There are several strands to my
arguments. I shall give just a taste of them here.
It should be realised that Reaney was going against previous opinion
when he proposed that Plant was a metonym for a gardener. Indeed the
prolific surname Plant has been ascribed a different meaning each time
an authority has written about it. M.A.Lower (1860) said that it was a
corruption of Plantagenet. Ernest Weekly (1916) suggested 'from the
plantation' or 'sprig' or 'cudgel' or 'young offspring'. Reaney (1958)
proposed the occupational meaning 'gardener'. Hanks and Hodges (1988)
added the opinion 'a tender or delicate individual'. The only meaning of
plant, albeit archaic, in the Oxford English Dictionary that fits
directly as a surname is the noun(1) sense 1(c) which is a 'young
person' (cf. the metaphorical mapping of 'offshoot' to 'offspring' and
the Welsh meaning 'children' of plant).
It seems likely that Reaney dismissed the most obvious meaning
'offspring' because the Plant name is widespread from the earliest
times. However, my recent Y-DNA evidence shows that Plant is a
"single-ancestor" prolific surname despite that. Presumably Reaney was
convinced that an occuptional meaning had to be invented to explain such
a widespread name - this despite the existance of many names of
relationship such as Child, Children, Sone, Dauter, Vaughan. However,
the DNA evidence shows that (false paternity events aside) the Plants
are indeed the offspring of a single ancestor.
This meaning for Plant relates to the 'shoot' or 'offshoot'
manifestation of the more general "People are Plants" metataphor. The
'shoot' sense relates to a qualia role of function while the 'offshoot'
sense relates to a qualia role of origins. For the active Plantagenets
the noble "function" sense of 'scion' or 'establisher shoot' seems most
appropriate whilst for lesser mortals, such as Plants, a passive
"origins" sense of 'offshoot' or 'offspring' seems most appropriate.
Regards,
John
-
John H
Re: PA2 and RPA correction: Greville
It appears it may be Visitation of GLS 1623 page 315, but I cant find that
page to check.
If you have access to that page, could you advise
What I have under Edward (which doesnt tell anything about birth year), is:
Knighted 13/10/1513.
Ashley Manor and interests at Charlton Kings (Cheltenham, GLS) were
surrendered to this Edward (Sir) Greville #(D1224 No13) from John Westby
(Edward Tame actually owned them D1224 No 8 c1503) and Sir Edward was still
in possession in 1520 when he mortgaged them for £400.
His wife Ann (nee Denton) and Son & heir John also went guarantors of
mortgage repayment (D1224 No15&16)
Above Manor & interests were transferred to Robert Grevill and his heirs in
c1520.
Edward's Will made 21/6/1528 proved 1/10/1529 (U269 T246/2).
I "inherited" this database and sources are not always shown, by those who
researched it in UK & Aust.
John H
Note*** email address is a dummy due to large amounts of spam sourced from
newsgroups address.
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:2db.282f6bc.3123cd49@aol.com...
page to check.
If you have access to that page, could you advise
What I have under Edward (which doesnt tell anything about birth year), is:
Knighted 13/10/1513.
Ashley Manor and interests at Charlton Kings (Cheltenham, GLS) were
surrendered to this Edward (Sir) Greville #(D1224 No13) from John Westby
(Edward Tame actually owned them D1224 No 8 c1503) and Sir Edward was still
in possession in 1520 when he mortgaged them for £400.
His wife Ann (nee Denton) and Son & heir John also went guarantors of
mortgage repayment (D1224 No15&16)
Above Manor & interests were transferred to Robert Grevill and his heirs in
c1520.
Edward's Will made 21/6/1528 proved 1/10/1529 (U269 T246/2).
I "inherited" this database and sources are not always shown, by those who
researched it in UK & Aust.
John H
Note*** email address is a dummy due to large amounts of spam sourced from
newsgroups address.
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:2db.282f6bc.3123cd49@aol.com...
In a message dated 2/7/06 12:15:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
Edwards Will made 21/6/1528 proved 1/10/1529 (U269 T246/2). Edward b:
c1474
Milcote, Waerwickshire, d: c1528/9 Weston on Avon.Warwickshire and is
buried
in West church upon Avon, Warwickshire
Edward Knighted 13/10/1513
Married Dame Anne Denton c1499 at Milcote, Warwickshire.
regards
John H
What is the source for saying that Edward was b c 1474 ?
Provided that his mother was Jane Forster, and her father was Humphrey
Forster of Harpden.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (... Plantevelu ...)
In article <43F46504.9030500@isc.keele.ac.uk>,
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk (John Plant) wrote:
I am not sure I understand your reliance on 'metaphor' as weighting your
choice of meaning for this name, nor do I understand your use of
'politeness' here in attempting to rationalize (and counter) others'
opinions that 'hairy foot' is perhaps the more likely meaning.
Again the politeness. What do you mean? And, can you point to evidence
of frequency of 'plantefolie'? Finally, can you show why we should not
interpret 'plantefolie' as a botanical - occupational name either?
I do not understand your use of 'salient' either. I think you are
trying to say something like "it is not at all clear that 'bene' meant
'bean' here." I suppose that's true, but you need to show how looking
at a dictionary has weakened this apparently obvious element. The OED,
certainly, shows abundant Middle English instances of the spelling
'bene' for the modern 'bean': indeed it appears to have been the modal
spelling (disregarding the declined plural 'benen', etc.). The burden
of proof is on showing why this name ought to mean something other than
'planter of beans or seeds'.
It is obvious that that is your main thrust. I am wary, though, of
circular reasoning or poor use of onomastic sources, which one often
sees in arguments which counter the conventional wisdom on a particular
surname. I want to make sure I don't see these failings in this
particular case.
These various offerings don't detract from Reaney's guess, which still
seems sensible given the forms planterose, plantebene, and plantefolie
present in the 13th c. I would reject Lower out of hand here, but
realize that the others' propositions are worth considering.
I'm not sure what you mean about "the only meaning of plant ... that
fits directly as a surname." The principle of metonymy means that the
name needn't originate as a noun at all, but rather comes into use by
the association of one word with another--in this case, the verb 'to
plant', often taking a specific direct object (plantrose, plantbene),
being used for the person who does the action.
By what logic is it 'the most obvious meaning'?
The is an important assertion of fact. What is the evidence for Plant's
early and wide proliferation (compared to other surnames deriving from
Middle English speech, 12th-13th centuries)? And why could not Reaney
have chosen 'offspring' or 'shoot' in that sense, for its meaning, if he
thought it a widespread name?
What you report of the Y-DNA evidence is also extremely interesting.
But even if all current Plants can be shown to derive from a single
ancestor, that does not necessarily alter our choice for the meaning of
the name. Occupational surnames may generate many contemporaneous
distinct agnate surname origins, but the do not HAVE to; similarly, a
name which appears to have many distinct genetic origin points may be
likely to be an occupational name which was in widespread use, but not
necessarily. Specifically, might 'Plant' have arisen as a rare
occupational name, which then only survived as a name for descendants of
a single person?
I think these ideas are intriguing, but I admit I still see no good
systematic argument for preferring any other etymology over Reaney's.
The DNA evidence about current holders of the name, combined with
compiled evidence of the distribution and use of the 'Plant' surname and
compounds in medieval sources, would be a welcome body of evidence to
examine. But I think it does not in itself force us to prefer, by way
of etymological explanation, a metaphorical name-origin over the more
concrete one suggested by Reaney.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk (John Plant) wrote:
Without going to that article, I would ask, what reason do you have
for crediting only one of the two general meanings of the word
'planta', in this nickname? Since the Latin word 'planta' was since
classical times EITHER 'a shoot or plant', OR 'the sole of a foot'
(see Lewis & Short, Neirmeyer, etc.), it is by no means certain that
the name Plantapilosa was intended to mean 'hairy shoot' rather than
'hairy foot'.
While I have every respect for pragmatic politeness, the 'shoot' meaning
of planta is generally more salient than the 'sole of foot' meaning.
Both meanings can be related loosely to primitive beliefs about mythic
origins from the land. A sense 'hairy paws' is a possible interpretation
and it is not surprising that this attracts more polite discussion than
'hairy shoot'. However, this does not detract from the salience of the
'shoot for propagation' meaning. The "Creation is Birth" metaphor is
accepted as a timeless standard metaphor [Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors
We Live By (1980), pp. 74-75.] as so also is the "People are Plants"
metaphor [Lakoff and Turner, Beyond Cool Reason (1989), pp. 6 and
12-14.]. By standard cognitive metaphor theory, Plantapilosa is an image
metaphor for a gallant man.
I am not sure I understand your reliance on 'metaphor' as weighting your
choice of meaning for this name, nor do I understand your use of
'politeness' here in attempting to rationalize (and counter) others'
opinions that 'hairy foot' is perhaps the more likely meaning.
Plantebene - pleasant shoot
Plantefolie - wickedness shoot
Planterose - risen shoot
Reaney & Wilson (Dictionary of English Surnames, 3d rev. ed.) gloss
'plantebene' as a Middle English name given to a cultivator of beans,
and 'planterose' for a cultivator of roses; more generally, 'plant' or
'plante-' names are said by them to derive from the obvious
occupational origin rather than any sort of metaphorically charged
epithet. Must we take the zebra over the horse in these cases?
In 13th century England, there is more evidence for the name Plantefolie
than either Plantebene (rare) or Planterose (mainly French). Presumably,
it was for reasons of politeness that Reaney (1st edition, 1958) omitted
Plantefolie but this omission significantly distorts the deliberations.
Again the politeness. What do you mean? And, can you point to evidence
of frequency of 'plantefolie'? Finally, can you show why we should not
interpret 'plantefolie' as a botanical - occupational name either?
Also, a study of the Middle English Dictionary (and other dictionaries)
shows that it is not at all clear that the "bean" meaning of bene was
salient.
I do not understand your use of 'salient' either. I think you are
trying to say something like "it is not at all clear that 'bene' meant
'bean' here." I suppose that's true, but you need to show how looking
at a dictionary has weakened this apparently obvious element. The OED,
certainly, shows abundant Middle English instances of the spelling
'bene' for the modern 'bean': indeed it appears to have been the modal
spelling (disregarding the declined plural 'benen', etc.). The burden
of proof is on showing why this name ought to mean something other than
'planter of beans or seeds'.
But shouldn't you consider the simpler, occupational explanation for
names of the form 'plant' or 'plante-___' used by lesser individuals
in later medieval England?
The main thrust of my Nomina paper is to discredit the occupational
explanation for Plant and related names.
It is obvious that that is your main thrust. I am wary, though, of
circular reasoning or poor use of onomastic sources, which one often
sees in arguments which counter the conventional wisdom on a particular
surname. I want to make sure I don't see these failings in this
particular case.
It should be realised that Reaney was going against previous opinion
when he proposed that Plant was a metonym for a gardener. Indeed the
prolific surname Plant has been ascribed a different meaning each time
an authority has written about it. M.A.Lower (1860) said that it was a
corruption of Plantagenet. Ernest Weekly (1916) suggested 'from the
plantation' or 'sprig' or 'cudgel' or 'young offspring'. Reaney (1958)
proposed the occupational meaning 'gardener'. Hanks and Hodges (1988)
added the opinion 'a tender or delicate individual'.
These various offerings don't detract from Reaney's guess, which still
seems sensible given the forms planterose, plantebene, and plantefolie
present in the 13th c. I would reject Lower out of hand here, but
realize that the others' propositions are worth considering.
The only meaning of
plant, albeit archaic, in the Oxford English Dictionary that fits
directly as a surname is the noun(1) sense 1(c) which is a 'young
person' (cf. the metaphorical mapping of 'offshoot' to 'offspring' and
the Welsh meaning 'children' of plant).
I'm not sure what you mean about "the only meaning of plant ... that
fits directly as a surname." The principle of metonymy means that the
name needn't originate as a noun at all, but rather comes into use by
the association of one word with another--in this case, the verb 'to
plant', often taking a specific direct object (plantrose, plantbene),
being used for the person who does the action.
It seems likely that Reaney dismissed the most obvious meaning
'offspring'.
By what logic is it 'the most obvious meaning'?
... because the Plant name is widespread from the earliest
times.
The is an important assertion of fact. What is the evidence for Plant's
early and wide proliferation (compared to other surnames deriving from
Middle English speech, 12th-13th centuries)? And why could not Reaney
have chosen 'offspring' or 'shoot' in that sense, for its meaning, if he
thought it a widespread name?
However, my recent Y-DNA evidence shows that Plant is a
"single-ancestor" prolific surname despite that.
Presumably Reaney was
convinced that an occuptional meaning had to be invented to explain such
a widespread name - this despite the existance of many names of
relationship such as Child, Children, Sone, Dauter, Vaughan. However,
the DNA evidence shows that (false paternity events aside) the Plants
are indeed the offspring of a single ancestor.
What you report of the Y-DNA evidence is also extremely interesting.
But even if all current Plants can be shown to derive from a single
ancestor, that does not necessarily alter our choice for the meaning of
the name. Occupational surnames may generate many contemporaneous
distinct agnate surname origins, but the do not HAVE to; similarly, a
name which appears to have many distinct genetic origin points may be
likely to be an occupational name which was in widespread use, but not
necessarily. Specifically, might 'Plant' have arisen as a rare
occupational name, which then only survived as a name for descendants of
a single person?
This meaning for Plant relates to the 'shoot' or 'offshoot'
manifestation of the more general "People are Plants" metataphor. The
'shoot' sense relates to a qualia role of function while the 'offshoot'
sense relates to a qualia role of origins. For the active Plantagenets
the noble "function" sense of 'scion' or 'establisher shoot' seems most
appropriate whilst for lesser mortals, such as Plants, a passive
"origins" sense of 'offshoot' or 'offspring' seems most appropriate.
I think these ideas are intriguing, but I admit I still see no good
systematic argument for preferring any other etymology over Reaney's.
The DNA evidence about current holders of the name, combined with
compiled evidence of the distribution and use of the 'Plant' surname and
compounds in medieval sources, would be a welcome body of evidence to
examine. But I think it does not in itself force us to prefer, by way
of etymological explanation, a metaphorical name-origin over the more
concrete one suggested by Reaney.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm
-
Gjest
Re: Batisford/Echyngham reply to Wjohnson
In a message dated 2/16/06 8:50:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< I believe they are daughers of Alice.
I will stick to my guns at this time that joan and elzabeth are daughrers
of alice Batisford and Wm Echyngham until I can see the wording of the
document from sussex. Have you seen the original document ? They have been known to
be mixed up in translation. >>
Charlotte you may "stick to your guns" in the light of the wording of the
primary document, but I should point out that you have a vested interest in the
outcome. When you find a primary document which counters what you feel, you
should be open to the possibility that you were mistaken.
At the time that a new primary document comes to view, you need to re-take
all the primaries together with the secondary "interpretations" (which is
what they are) and review the case anew.
I think you've found interesting things re this family, but I'm going to
put these girls back under Joan as daughters. Then the new question has to be
is Thomas their brother? or half-brother? Could Thomas be a Batisford?
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< I believe they are daughers of Alice.
I will stick to my guns at this time that joan and elzabeth are daughrers
of alice Batisford and Wm Echyngham until I can see the wording of the
document from sussex. Have you seen the original document ? They have been known to
be mixed up in translation. >>
Charlotte you may "stick to your guns" in the light of the wording of the
primary document, but I should point out that you have a vested interest in the
outcome. When you find a primary document which counters what you feel, you
should be open to the possibility that you were mistaken.
At the time that a new primary document comes to view, you need to re-take
all the primaries together with the secondary "interpretations" (which is
what they are) and review the case anew.
I think you've found interesting things re this family, but I'm going to
put these girls back under Joan as daughters. Then the new question has to be
is Thomas their brother? or half-brother? Could Thomas be a Batisford?
Will Johnson
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (contempory evidence for the
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:46:16 +0000 (UTC), j.s.plant@isc.keele.ac.uk
(John Plant) wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
Another article which discusses the origin of the Plantagenet name and
has some early references to it is the following one by Jim Bradbury:
"Fulk le Réchin and the Origin of the Plantagenets", in "Studies in
Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown" (Boydell Press, 1989),
27-41. This is not a genealogical study of the ancestry of the family
(as the title might lead one to suspect), and the only statement
regarding the male-line origin of the family is the remark that
different sources give Geoffrey or Alberic as the name of Fulk's
father, with the weight of early evidence favoring the former.
Most of the article is concerned with presenting Fulk's rule in a more
positive (or perhaps less negative) light than has usually been the
case, but there is a short "speculative excursion" (as the author
calls it) at the end about the origin of the name "Plantagenet" (hence
the title of the article). The author states that the name "is
commonly found in chronicles and charters of the twelfth and later
centuries, and was applied to several members of the same family; to
Geoffrey le Bel, to Henry II, to Henry II's son Geoffrey." The
following is footnote 42 from page 40 of the article:
42 Chartrou, 93; Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Madden, 2
vols., RS 1866, 239; Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R.
Luard, RS 1890, ii, 52, 55; Ralph Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, RS
1875, 9; Diceto, Historical Works i, 243, 245, 246, 269, 291, 293; Le
Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J. Holden, 3 vols., Paris, 1971, ii, 266,
l. 10271; Chronicon Angliae Petriburgense, ed. J. A. Giles, 1845, 83;
Marchegay and Salmon, 336, 361; and Geoffrey de Vigeois, not Guillaume
as in Chartrou, in M. Bouquet, RHF xii, Paris 1877, 438.
Note 41 mentions a survey of the possibilities for the surname in J.
Chartrou, "L'Anjou de 1109 à 1151", Paris 1928, 83-5.
The author then goes on to suggest that the origin of the name might
come from the event related in the Fragment of Angevin history said to
have been written by Fulk of Anjou:
"Urban was led from the church of St. Maurice to the church of St.
Martin. Then he gave me a golden flower, which he carried in his
hand. I decided, in commemorarion and from love of him, that from then
on I and my successors would always carry it on Palm Sunday."
[Bradbury, 40-41, citing Halphen and Poupardin, 238: ab ecclesia
sancti Mauricii ad ecclesiam beati Martini deductus; ubi mihi florem
auream quem in manu gerebat donavit, quem ego etiam ab memoriam et
amorem illius in Osanna semper mihi meisque successoribus defenderum
constitui.]
Stewart Baldwin
(John Plant) wrote:
[snip]
I have published a summary of the methodology giving rise to the
following sense to the Plantegenest name in John S Plant (2005) Nomina,
28, pps. 115-133.
[snip]
Another article which discusses the origin of the Plantagenet name and
has some early references to it is the following one by Jim Bradbury:
"Fulk le Réchin and the Origin of the Plantagenets", in "Studies in
Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown" (Boydell Press, 1989),
27-41. This is not a genealogical study of the ancestry of the family
(as the title might lead one to suspect), and the only statement
regarding the male-line origin of the family is the remark that
different sources give Geoffrey or Alberic as the name of Fulk's
father, with the weight of early evidence favoring the former.
Most of the article is concerned with presenting Fulk's rule in a more
positive (or perhaps less negative) light than has usually been the
case, but there is a short "speculative excursion" (as the author
calls it) at the end about the origin of the name "Plantagenet" (hence
the title of the article). The author states that the name "is
commonly found in chronicles and charters of the twelfth and later
centuries, and was applied to several members of the same family; to
Geoffrey le Bel, to Henry II, to Henry II's son Geoffrey." The
following is footnote 42 from page 40 of the article:
42 Chartrou, 93; Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Madden, 2
vols., RS 1866, 239; Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R.
Luard, RS 1890, ii, 52, 55; Ralph Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, RS
1875, 9; Diceto, Historical Works i, 243, 245, 246, 269, 291, 293; Le
Roman de Rou de Wace, ed. A. J. Holden, 3 vols., Paris, 1971, ii, 266,
l. 10271; Chronicon Angliae Petriburgense, ed. J. A. Giles, 1845, 83;
Marchegay and Salmon, 336, 361; and Geoffrey de Vigeois, not Guillaume
as in Chartrou, in M. Bouquet, RHF xii, Paris 1877, 438.
Note 41 mentions a survey of the possibilities for the surname in J.
Chartrou, "L'Anjou de 1109 à 1151", Paris 1928, 83-5.
The author then goes on to suggest that the origin of the name might
come from the event related in the Fragment of Angevin history said to
have been written by Fulk of Anjou:
"Urban was led from the church of St. Maurice to the church of St.
Martin. Then he gave me a golden flower, which he carried in his
hand. I decided, in commemorarion and from love of him, that from then
on I and my successors would always carry it on Palm Sunday."
[Bradbury, 40-41, citing Halphen and Poupardin, 238: ab ecclesia
sancti Mauricii ad ecclesiam beati Martini deductus; ubi mihi florem
auream quem in manu gerebat donavit, quem ego etiam ab memoriam et
amorem illius in Osanna semper mihi meisque successoribus defenderum
constitui.]
Stewart Baldwin
-
Gjest
Re: Batisford/echyngham
In a message dated 2/16/06 10:44:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< i believe Elizabeth is his 1/2 sister and again joann Batisford Brenchley
names Elizabeth Echyngham lewknor in her will..in 1453 and i should think
this has some evidence of Batisford connection. She didn't name any Echynghams
The sole thing this proves, as I've noted in private emails, is that Joan and
Elizabeth were sisters. It does not provide anything in the way of proving a
Batisford connection, imho. However the IPM which states that they were the
daughters of Joan is pretty convincing.
Will
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< i believe Elizabeth is his 1/2 sister and again joann Batisford Brenchley
names Elizabeth Echyngham lewknor in her will..in 1453 and i should think
this has some evidence of Batisford connection. She didn't name any Echynghams
The sole thing this proves, as I've noted in private emails, is that Joan and
Elizabeth were sisters. It does not provide anything in the way of proving a
Batisford connection, imho. However the IPM which states that they were the
daughters of Joan is pretty convincing.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Frederick II Hohenstaufen, Stupor Mundi, -to- QEII
Dear Beverley,
There are definitely many lines connecting Friedrich II
, Holy Roman Emperor to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, the two most
common are probably through his natural son Manfred, King of Sicily who by
Beatrice of Savoy had a daughter and heiress Constance of Sicily took the kingdom
to her husband King Pedro III of Aragon, daughter Isabel of Aragon married
Diniz, King of Portugal, daughter Constance of Portugal married King Ferdinand IV
of Castile, their son King Alonso XI of Castile married his 1st cousin Maria
of Portugal, the daughter of King Afonso IV ( brother of Constance) and
Beatrice of Castile ( daughter of King Sancho IV and sister of King Ferdinand IV,
their mother was Maria, daughter of Alfonso, Duke of Molina) Alfonso XI of
Castile had by Maria of Portugal an only surviving son, King Pedro I the Cruel of
Castile who by Maria de Padilla who by her left two daughters of doubtful
legitimacy, Constance, 2nd wife of John of Ghent, Duke of Lancaster whose daughter
Catherine of Lancaster married King Henry III of Castile and Isabel who married
his brother Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Duke of York and became ancestress
through that marriage of the Royal House of York and all the subsequent Royal
houses of Great Britain except for the Stuarts prior to King James V of Scotland.
(see Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe Holy Roman Empire, Sicily Castile
under Spain) and England. There are also several legitimate lines
1 Frederick II HRE married 3rd, Isabella, daughter of King John of England
2 Margaret married Albert the Degenerate, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave
of Meissen
3 Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen married Elisabeth of Lobdeburg
4 Frederick II, Margrave of Meissen married Beatrice of Glogau
5 Frederick III, Margrave of Meissen married Catherine of Henneburg
6 Frederick I, Elector of Saxony married Catherine of Brunswick
7 Frederick II, Elector of Saxony married Margaret of Austria
8 Ernest, Elector of Saxony married Elisabeth of Bavaria
9 John the Constant, Elector of Saxony married Sophia of Mecklenburg
10 John Frederick I, Elector of Saxony married Sibylla of Cleves (He was
deprived of the Electorate by Emperor Charles V HRE (also King of Spain)
11 John William, Duke of Saxe-Weimar married Dorothea of the Palatinate
12 Frederick William I, Duke of Saxe- Altenburg married Anna Maria of the
Palatinate of Neuberg
13 John Philip, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg married Elisabeth of Brunswick
14 Elizabeth Sophia of Saxe - Altenburg married Ernest I , Duke of Saxe- Gotha
15 Frederick I, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Magdalena Sibylla of Saxe- Halle
16 Frederick II, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Magdalena Augusta of Anhalt-
Zerbst
17 Ernest II, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Mary Charlotte of Saxe- Meningen
18 Emilius, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Louisa Charlotte of Mecklenburg-
Schwerin
19 Dorothy Louise of Saxe- Gotha married Ernest I, Duke of Saxe- Coburg and
Gotha
20 Prince Albert (of Saxe- Coburg- Gotha) married Victoria, Queen- Empress of
Great Britain and India
21 Edward VII, King- Emperor of Great Britain and India married Alexandra of
Denmark
22 George V, King- Emperor of Great Britain and India married Mary of Teck
23 George VI, King of Great Britain, evenually (?1947) dropped the title of
Emperor of India\
24 Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain married Philip Mountbatten, son of
Prince Andrew of Greece, became a British subject, made Duke of Edinburgh at
marriage , accorded style of His Royal Highness and 1st Peer of the Realm in
Precedence for his lifetime. When He dies, Edward Windsor, Earl of Wessex, their
youngest son will become Duke of Edinburgh.
See Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemagne`s Descendants Volume I by
Marcellus Donald Alexander R. von Redlich pp 86-88 for generations 1- 21
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
There are definitely many lines connecting Friedrich II
, Holy Roman Emperor to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, the two most
common are probably through his natural son Manfred, King of Sicily who by
Beatrice of Savoy had a daughter and heiress Constance of Sicily took the kingdom
to her husband King Pedro III of Aragon, daughter Isabel of Aragon married
Diniz, King of Portugal, daughter Constance of Portugal married King Ferdinand IV
of Castile, their son King Alonso XI of Castile married his 1st cousin Maria
of Portugal, the daughter of King Afonso IV ( brother of Constance) and
Beatrice of Castile ( daughter of King Sancho IV and sister of King Ferdinand IV,
their mother was Maria, daughter of Alfonso, Duke of Molina) Alfonso XI of
Castile had by Maria of Portugal an only surviving son, King Pedro I the Cruel of
Castile who by Maria de Padilla who by her left two daughters of doubtful
legitimacy, Constance, 2nd wife of John of Ghent, Duke of Lancaster whose daughter
Catherine of Lancaster married King Henry III of Castile and Isabel who married
his brother Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Duke of York and became ancestress
through that marriage of the Royal House of York and all the subsequent Royal
houses of Great Britain except for the Stuarts prior to King James V of Scotland.
(see Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe Holy Roman Empire, Sicily Castile
under Spain) and England. There are also several legitimate lines
1 Frederick II HRE married 3rd, Isabella, daughter of King John of England
2 Margaret married Albert the Degenerate, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave
of Meissen
3 Frederick I, Margrave of Meissen married Elisabeth of Lobdeburg
4 Frederick II, Margrave of Meissen married Beatrice of Glogau
5 Frederick III, Margrave of Meissen married Catherine of Henneburg
6 Frederick I, Elector of Saxony married Catherine of Brunswick
7 Frederick II, Elector of Saxony married Margaret of Austria
8 Ernest, Elector of Saxony married Elisabeth of Bavaria
9 John the Constant, Elector of Saxony married Sophia of Mecklenburg
10 John Frederick I, Elector of Saxony married Sibylla of Cleves (He was
deprived of the Electorate by Emperor Charles V HRE (also King of Spain)
11 John William, Duke of Saxe-Weimar married Dorothea of the Palatinate
12 Frederick William I, Duke of Saxe- Altenburg married Anna Maria of the
Palatinate of Neuberg
13 John Philip, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg married Elisabeth of Brunswick
14 Elizabeth Sophia of Saxe - Altenburg married Ernest I , Duke of Saxe- Gotha
15 Frederick I, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Magdalena Sibylla of Saxe- Halle
16 Frederick II, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Magdalena Augusta of Anhalt-
Zerbst
17 Ernest II, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Mary Charlotte of Saxe- Meningen
18 Emilius, Duke of Saxe- Gotha married Louisa Charlotte of Mecklenburg-
Schwerin
19 Dorothy Louise of Saxe- Gotha married Ernest I, Duke of Saxe- Coburg and
Gotha
20 Prince Albert (of Saxe- Coburg- Gotha) married Victoria, Queen- Empress of
Great Britain and India
21 Edward VII, King- Emperor of Great Britain and India married Alexandra of
Denmark
22 George V, King- Emperor of Great Britain and India married Mary of Teck
23 George VI, King of Great Britain, evenually (?1947) dropped the title of
Emperor of India\
24 Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain married Philip Mountbatten, son of
Prince Andrew of Greece, became a British subject, made Duke of Edinburgh at
marriage , accorded style of His Royal Highness and 1st Peer of the Realm in
Precedence for his lifetime. When He dies, Edward Windsor, Earl of Wessex, their
youngest son will become Duke of Edinburgh.
See Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemagne`s Descendants Volume I by
Marcellus Donald Alexander R. von Redlich pp 86-88 for generations 1- 21
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
David Teague
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Hello, all.
Here is Alice Freeman's alleged descent from Hugh Capet as presented on a
couple of Internet sites:
1. Hugh Capet + Adelaide of Poitiou
2. Robert II + Constance of Provence
3. Henri I + Anna of Kiev
4. Hugh Magnus + Adelaide de Vermandois
5. Isabel de Vermandois + Sir Robert de Beaumont
6. Adeline de Beaumont + Hugh de Montfort
7. Alice de Montfort + Robert Noel of Ellenhall, Co. Stafford
8. Thomas Noel + Margaret le Strange
9. Jean Noel + William de Duston
10. William de Duston + Mary Wake
11. Isabel Duston + Walter de Grey
12. Robert de Grey + Joan de Valoines
13. Thomas de Grey (2nd son) + NN
14. Joan de Grey + Guy le Breton
15. Katherine le Breton + Thomas Quartermain
16. Thomas Quartermain + Joan Russell
17. Matilda Quartermain + John Bruley
18. Joan Bruley + John Danvers
19. Amy Danvers + John Langston
20. Joan Langston + Thomas Giffard
21. Amy Giffard + Richard Samwell
22. Susanna Samwell + Peter Edwards
23. Edward Edwards + Ursula Coles
24. Margaret Edwards + Henry Freeman
25. Alice Freeman + 1. John Tompson, gent.; + 2. Robert Parke
Because of the source, I don't altogether trust the entirety of the claimed
lineage, although I know that some portions, at least, are valid (e.g., Gen.
1 - 5 and 19 - 25). If anyone can comment on any of the other portions, I
would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks again to all of you who have given your assistance so far.
David Teague
Here is Alice Freeman's alleged descent from Hugh Capet as presented on a
couple of Internet sites:
1. Hugh Capet + Adelaide of Poitiou
2. Robert II + Constance of Provence
3. Henri I + Anna of Kiev
4. Hugh Magnus + Adelaide de Vermandois
5. Isabel de Vermandois + Sir Robert de Beaumont
6. Adeline de Beaumont + Hugh de Montfort
7. Alice de Montfort + Robert Noel of Ellenhall, Co. Stafford
8. Thomas Noel + Margaret le Strange
9. Jean Noel + William de Duston
10. William de Duston + Mary Wake
11. Isabel Duston + Walter de Grey
12. Robert de Grey + Joan de Valoines
13. Thomas de Grey (2nd son) + NN
14. Joan de Grey + Guy le Breton
15. Katherine le Breton + Thomas Quartermain
16. Thomas Quartermain + Joan Russell
17. Matilda Quartermain + John Bruley
18. Joan Bruley + John Danvers
19. Amy Danvers + John Langston
20. Joan Langston + Thomas Giffard
21. Amy Giffard + Richard Samwell
22. Susanna Samwell + Peter Edwards
23. Edward Edwards + Ursula Coles
24. Margaret Edwards + Henry Freeman
25. Alice Freeman + 1. John Tompson, gent.; + 2. Robert Parke
Because of the source, I don't altogether trust the entirety of the claimed
lineage, although I know that some portions, at least, are valid (e.g., Gen.
1 - 5 and 19 - 25). If anyone can comment on any of the other portions, I
would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks again to all of you who have given your assistance so far.
David Teague
-
Gjest
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
In a message dated 2/16/06 7:44:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
davteague@hotmail.com writes:
<< 19. Amy Danvers + John Langston
20. Joan Langston + Thomas Giffard
21. Amy Giffard + Richard Samwell
22. Susanna Samwell + Peter Edwards
23. Edward Edwards + Ursula Coles
24. Margaret Edwards + Henry Freeman
25. Alice Freeman + 1. John Tompson, gent.; + 2. Robert Parke
Because of the source, I don't altogether trust the entirety of the claimed
lineage, although I know that some portions, at least, are valid (e.g., Gen.
1 - 5 and 19 - 25). If anyone can comment on any of the other portions, I
would greatly appreciate it. >>
Can you state how you know that 19-25 is a valid descent?
Thanks
Will Johnson
davteague@hotmail.com writes:
<< 19. Amy Danvers + John Langston
20. Joan Langston + Thomas Giffard
21. Amy Giffard + Richard Samwell
22. Susanna Samwell + Peter Edwards
23. Edward Edwards + Ursula Coles
24. Margaret Edwards + Henry Freeman
25. Alice Freeman + 1. John Tompson, gent.; + 2. Robert Parke
Because of the source, I don't altogether trust the entirety of the claimed
lineage, although I know that some portions, at least, are valid (e.g., Gen.
1 - 5 and 19 - 25). If anyone can comment on any of the other portions, I
would greatly appreciate it. >>
Can you state how you know that 19-25 is a valid descent?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
David Teague
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Gen. 19 - 25 are covered in AR7, line 29A, Gen. 39 - 44, which cites, among
other refs., _TAG_ 13:1-8 and 29:215-218; _NEHGR_ cit. (which I take to be
the immediately preceding citation to _NEHGR_ 75:133-143); and (if I read
this particular ref. correctly) _Misc. Gen. Her._ Ser. VI,129, 138-139.
Although I haven't yet had the opportunity to track down the above
citations, I haven't yet seen anything that would cause me to mistrust
either the _NEHGR_ or _TAG_, as opposed to _Burke's Landed Gentry_, 18th ed.
(1971), p. 371, which is also cited in the AR7 line.
If my confidence here is misplaced, please feel free to let me know,
especially as I am hardly the only one with an interest in knowing.
David Teague
other refs., _TAG_ 13:1-8 and 29:215-218; _NEHGR_ cit. (which I take to be
the immediately preceding citation to _NEHGR_ 75:133-143); and (if I read
this particular ref. correctly) _Misc. Gen. Her._ Ser. VI,129, 138-139.
Although I haven't yet had the opportunity to track down the above
citations, I haven't yet seen anything that would cause me to mistrust
either the _NEHGR_ or _TAG_, as opposed to _Burke's Landed Gentry_, 18th ed.
(1971), p. 371, which is also cited in the AR7 line.
If my confidence here is misplaced, please feel free to let me know,
especially as I am hardly the only one with an interest in knowing.
David Teague
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: davteague@hotmail.com, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Delaware and Mary...
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:01:25 EST
In a message dated 2/16/06 7:44:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
davteague@hotmail.com writes:
19. Amy Danvers + John Langston
20. Joan Langston + Thomas Giffard
21. Amy Giffard + Richard Samwell
22. Susanna Samwell + Peter Edwards
23. Edward Edwards + Ursula Coles
24. Margaret Edwards + Henry Freeman
25. Alice Freeman + 1. John Tompson, gent.; + 2. Robert Parke
Because of the source, I don't altogether trust the entirety of the
claimed
lineage, although I know that some portions, at least, are valid (e.g.,
Gen.
1 - 5 and 19 - 25). If anyone can comment on any of the other portions, I
would greatly appreciate it.
Can you state how you know that 19-25 is a valid descent?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Davd and Will
David I have all those refs you quoted generation 19 to 25 are very
sound. Your Confidence is not misplaced
Mike Welch
"David Teague" wrote:
David I have all those refs you quoted generation 19 to 25 are very
sound. Your Confidence is not misplaced
Mike Welch
"David Teague" wrote:
Gen. 19 - 25 are covered in AR7, line 29A, Gen. 39 - 44, which cites, among
other refs., _TAG_ 13:1-8 and 29:215-218; _NEHGR_ cit. (which I take to be
the immediately preceding citation to _NEHGR_ 75:133-143); and (if I read
this particular ref. correctly) _Misc. Gen. Her._ Ser. VI,129, 138-139.
Although I haven't yet had the opportunity to track down the above
citations, I haven't yet seen anything that would cause me to mistrust
either the _NEHGR_ or _TAG_, as opposed to _Burke's Landed Gentry_, 18th ed.
(1971), p. 371, which is also cited in the AR7 line.
If my confidence here is misplaced, please feel free to let me know,
especially as I am hardly the only one with an interest in knowing.
David Teague
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: davteague@hotmail.com, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Delaware and Mary...
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:01:25 EST
In a message dated 2/16/06 7:44:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
davteague@hotmail.com writes:
19. Amy Danvers + John Langston
20. Joan Langston + Thomas Giffard
21. Amy Giffard + Richard Samwell
22. Susanna Samwell + Peter Edwards
23. Edward Edwards + Ursula Coles
24. Margaret Edwards + Henry Freeman
25. Alice Freeman + 1. John Tompson, gent.; + 2. Robert Parke
Because of the source, I don't altogether trust the entirety of the
claimed
lineage, although I know that some portions, at least, are valid (e.g.,
Gen.
1 - 5 and 19 - 25). If anyone can comment on any of the other portions, I
would greatly appreciate it.
Can you state how you know that 19-25 is a valid descent?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
In a message dated 2/16/2006 9:02:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mwelch8442@yahoo.com writes:
David I have all those refs you quoted generation 19 to 25 are very
sound. Your Confidence is not misplaced
Well for example, in those underlying sources, what do *they* cite for Amy
Giffard and Richard Samwell ?
Thanks
Will
mwelch8442@yahoo.com writes:
David I have all those refs you quoted generation 19 to 25 are very
sound. Your Confidence is not misplaced
Well for example, in those underlying sources, what do *they* cite for Amy
Giffard and Richard Samwell ?
Thanks
Will
-
Ian Fettes
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Hi David,
The descent status as per Genealogics is:
1 paths from Genealogics #00032197 Alice Freeman to Hugues Capet
Gen AT No Ancestral path
26 58641086 S M FMMM MMMF MMFF MFMF MFMM MMMF
Where S is subject, M is mother and F is father.
Cheers,
Ian
The descent status as per Genealogics is:
1 paths from Genealogics #00032197 Alice Freeman to Hugues Capet
Gen AT No Ancestral path
26 58641086 S M FMMM MMMF MMFF MFMF MFMM MMMF
Where S is subject, M is mother and F is father.
Cheers,
Ian
-
Gjest
Re: Somerled's mother-in-law
Dear Brice, et al.,
In 2004, there was some discussion following your mention of an Icelandic text
cited by Bob Cook of the University of Iceland, considered to be highly reliable,
which unequivocally stated that Somerled's wife Ragnhild was the daughter of
Ingeborg, daughter of Jarl Haakon Paulsson:
"Ragnhildis moder vaar Ingeborg Hagen Jarlis Powelssons daatter." [1]
Prior to entering the current tax season, Andrew MacEwen had mentioned that
there was publication in Europe concerning this find. He evidently found this to
be added confirmation of a relationship (that of Ingeborg and Jarl Haakon) he had
previously felt to be certain; unfortunately the identification of the author or
journal he did not recall at the time.
There is nothing on 'the Web' I see at present that leaps out concerning
discussion of such a publication; have you, or another of the list, seen or heard
further of this in an article or monograph of late?
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Brice Clagett, <Somerled's mother-in-law>, SGM, 28 Sept 2004.
In 2004, there was some discussion following your mention of an Icelandic text
cited by Bob Cook of the University of Iceland, considered to be highly reliable,
which unequivocally stated that Somerled's wife Ragnhild was the daughter of
Ingeborg, daughter of Jarl Haakon Paulsson:
"Ragnhildis moder vaar Ingeborg Hagen Jarlis Powelssons daatter." [1]
Prior to entering the current tax season, Andrew MacEwen had mentioned that
there was publication in Europe concerning this find. He evidently found this to
be added confirmation of a relationship (that of Ingeborg and Jarl Haakon) he had
previously felt to be certain; unfortunately the identification of the author or
journal he did not recall at the time.
There is nothing on 'the Web' I see at present that leaps out concerning
discussion of such a publication; have you, or another of the list, seen or heard
further of this in an article or monograph of late?
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Brice Clagett, <Somerled's mother-in-law>, SGM, 28 Sept 2004.
-
John Plant
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (... Plantevelu ...)
Nat,
To be more precise, I argue in my Nomina paper that the 'offspring'
meaning of Plant should not be ignored. Reaney criticised C. L'Estrange
Ewen with `Worst of all, he rejects sound etymologies which do not fit
his preconceived theories'. Yet, he himself ignores Weekly's sound
etymology `young offspring'.
You comment, in regard to the `hairy shoot' versus 'hairy sole of foot'
literal meanings Plantapilosa:
I am not using `metaphor' here to mean a dubious non-linear meaning. In
cognitive metaphor theory, almost everthing we say is interpreted in
terms of metaphoric and metonymic systems. Norse kernings are especially
rich in condensed metaphor and metonymy, such as saying the 'whale
house' to mean the sea. In pragmatics, which is a branch of formal
semantics, people do not say what they really mean for such reasons as
modesty or politeness. The Politeness Maxim of pragmatics is sometimes
called the Polyanna Principle. Thus, 'hairy shoot' is a particularly
rude image metaphor for the generative powers of a man and, by a kind of
metonymy called synechdoch, this can stand for the man as a whole.
Discussing 'hairy paw' avoids the problems of sounding rude; but it
seems a safe bet that Plantapilosa did not literally have a `hairy paw'
but that he did have a `hairy shoot'. By drawing attention to his `hairy
shoot' the name Plantapilosa draws attention to his virility and
gallantry, producing a fitting epithet for a War Lord. Despite the
problems of spelling out this argument in a polite manner, this seems to
me to be far more direct than saying that 'hairy paw' implied
specifically a fox (why not a wolf or a bear or a badger or a rabbit or
a hare?). I should also need to be convinced that medieval bestials
ascribed the same moral characteristics to a fox that are suggested when
we say 'foxiness' today.
In his 18th century English Dictionary, Samuel Johnson came out with it
and said that "to plant" means "to procreate". This can be related to
the planting of seed and there are Biblical references to man's seed
meaning children. In Welsh, the literal meaning of the verb planta is
"to beget children" and the noun plant literally means "children". In
Middle English and Old French, folie means wickedness or lewdness and
the adjective foli means wicked or salacious. There is one occurrence of
the by-name Plantebene (according the the MED, bene can mean the seed of
the Egyptian bean plant but there are many other more frequent known
meanings). On the other hand, there are four different occurrences of
the name Plantefolie: Curia Regis 1209; Curia Regis 1226; Close Rolls
1263; Close Rolls 1270 (for further details see
http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/origins.html#13c ). I suppose some people do
it as an occupation but there is little room for doubt that Plantefolie
is a name of philandering. By the way, names relating to agricultural
planting are rare and this is held to be because the occupation was too
commonplace for it to serve as an occupational surname. Occupational is
one category or surname, but surnames of relationship are more common.
Many people take the closest modern word or phrase they can think of and
presume that this is what the Middle English meant. This is a dangerous
approach however. The entry for 'bene' in the MED is very long and it
has practically nothing to do with beans. By the way, Reaney's
definition of the surname Bean, as I remember it, has little or nothing
to do with beans.
Hopefully, I have gone some way towards answering these proper concerns
that you have.
Reaney's Surname Dictioanry is widely available and a lot of people give
substantial credance to his guesses. However, they are now
half-a-century out of date and the Oxford University Press have decided
to discontinue it because of the large number of complaints thay are
receiving about it.
There is direct early evidence in the OED for the "young person" meaning
of Plant. From my early English literature searches there is further
evidence to support it. Why resort to metonymy, as invented by Reaney,
when there is a perfectly good "literal" (as most people would call it)
meaning of Plant. Why pick out Plantebene and Planterose (just because
these are the easiest to understand/misunderstand though modern English
interpretation/misinterpretation) when there are many other Plant-like
names including a 13th century non-royal use of the name Plauntegenet.
The provenance of Plantebene in contemporary evidence is very doubtful
and Plantefolie (leaving aside modern misconceptions about foliage) just
doesn't play out at all.
By the logic of contemporary meaning rather than modern
misunderstandings based a couple of carefully selected similar names.
The name distribution evidence is another long and complicated story and
I am running out of time. Suffice it to say that the eminent local and
family historian David Hey (The Oxford Guide to Family History, etc.)
quite recently published that Plant is a "multi-origin" name but now
accepts that he was wrong. The distribution data provides a proximity to
Wales and the literal "children" meaning of plant. The name distribution
data is presented in my Nomina paper and there is also a more-populist
presentation at http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/distrib.html . I can not
answer for Reaney - I was just trying to think of a possible reason or
excuse for him. Another possible factor is that he may have been
preoccupied with disproving the earlier "Plantagenet" claim and
immediately turned to selecting some other similar names. However,
simply relying on Planterose seems quite as irrational as pointing just
to Plantagenet. It is fair to say that the "Plantagenet story" will not
go away and there is a proper place for debunking it. There are some
proximities of the formative Plant surname to illegitimate descendants
of Geffrey Plante Genest but any fanciful claim of genetic male-line
descent now relates to the prospects for further Y-DNA evidence. The
onus of proof insists that there is *no* genetic connection though there
is a possibility of some cultural interaction with the Plante Genest
metaphor.
The DNA evidence is reported in my Nomina paper and for a more populist
account see http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/dna.html . I suppose it is just
about possible to cling on to the gardener argument though it is now
more necessary to jump through hoops to sustain it. Why not start afresh
with the latest evidence and say that the literal meaning of plant is
'offspring' (Plant is possibly from Somerset near Wales where there is
explicit evidence that the surname was hereditary by 1328) and the
Plants had seemingly migrated (e.g. 3 merchants in Rouen in 1273) around
the south coast of England before their main homeland became east
Cheshire by around 1400. The single-family surname then spread widely
throughout the west midlands and beyond.
prefer, by
Again, I contend that the literal meaning "children" of plant is more
concrete than a vague metonymy and carefully selected evidence to invent
a "gardener" theory for Plant.
Phew! Time for lunch.
John
To be more precise, I argue in my Nomina paper that the 'offspring'
meaning of Plant should not be ignored. Reaney criticised C. L'Estrange
Ewen with `Worst of all, he rejects sound etymologies which do not fit
his preconceived theories'. Yet, he himself ignores Weekly's sound
etymology `young offspring'.
You comment, in regard to the `hairy shoot' versus 'hairy sole of foot'
literal meanings Plantapilosa:
I am not sure I understand your reliance on 'metaphor' as weighting
your choice of meaning for this name, nor do I understand your use of
'politeness' here in attempting to rationalize (and counter) others'
opinions that 'hairy foot' is perhaps the more likely meaning.
I am not using `metaphor' here to mean a dubious non-linear meaning. In
cognitive metaphor theory, almost everthing we say is interpreted in
terms of metaphoric and metonymic systems. Norse kernings are especially
rich in condensed metaphor and metonymy, such as saying the 'whale
house' to mean the sea. In pragmatics, which is a branch of formal
semantics, people do not say what they really mean for such reasons as
modesty or politeness. The Politeness Maxim of pragmatics is sometimes
called the Polyanna Principle. Thus, 'hairy shoot' is a particularly
rude image metaphor for the generative powers of a man and, by a kind of
metonymy called synechdoch, this can stand for the man as a whole.
Discussing 'hairy paw' avoids the problems of sounding rude; but it
seems a safe bet that Plantapilosa did not literally have a `hairy paw'
but that he did have a `hairy shoot'. By drawing attention to his `hairy
shoot' the name Plantapilosa draws attention to his virility and
gallantry, producing a fitting epithet for a War Lord. Despite the
problems of spelling out this argument in a polite manner, this seems to
me to be far more direct than saying that 'hairy paw' implied
specifically a fox (why not a wolf or a bear or a badger or a rabbit or
a hare?). I should also need to be convinced that medieval bestials
ascribed the same moral characteristics to a fox that are suggested when
we say 'foxiness' today.
Again the politeness. What do you mean? And, can you point to evidence
of frequency of 'plantefolie'? Finally, can you show why we should not
interpret 'plantefolie' as a botanical - occupational name either?
In his 18th century English Dictionary, Samuel Johnson came out with it
and said that "to plant" means "to procreate". This can be related to
the planting of seed and there are Biblical references to man's seed
meaning children. In Welsh, the literal meaning of the verb planta is
"to beget children" and the noun plant literally means "children". In
Middle English and Old French, folie means wickedness or lewdness and
the adjective foli means wicked or salacious. There is one occurrence of
the by-name Plantebene (according the the MED, bene can mean the seed of
the Egyptian bean plant but there are many other more frequent known
meanings). On the other hand, there are four different occurrences of
the name Plantefolie: Curia Regis 1209; Curia Regis 1226; Close Rolls
1263; Close Rolls 1270 (for further details see
http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/origins.html#13c ). I suppose some people do
it as an occupation but there is little room for doubt that Plantefolie
is a name of philandering. By the way, names relating to agricultural
planting are rare and this is held to be because the occupation was too
commonplace for it to serve as an occupational surname. Occupational is
one category or surname, but surnames of relationship are more common.
I do not understand your use of 'salient' either. I think you are
trying to say something like "it is not at all clear that 'bene' meant
'bean' here." I suppose that's true, but you need to show how looking
at a dictionary has weakened this apparently obvious element. The OED,
certainly, shows abundant Middle English instances of the spelling
'bene' for the modern 'bean': indeed it appears to have been the modal
spelling (disregarding the declined plural 'benen', etc.). The burden
of proof is on showing why this name ought to mean something other
than 'planter of beans or seeds'.
Many people take the closest modern word or phrase they can think of and
presume that this is what the Middle English meant. This is a dangerous
approach however. The entry for 'bene' in the MED is very long and it
has practically nothing to do with beans. By the way, Reaney's
definition of the surname Bean, as I remember it, has little or nothing
to do with beans.
It is obvious that that is your main thrust. I am wary, though, of
circular reasoning or poor use of onomastic sources, which one often
sees in arguments which counter the conventional wisdom on a
particular surname. I want to make sure I don't see these failings in
this particular case.
Hopefully, I have gone some way towards answering these proper concerns
that you have.
These various offerings don't detract from Reaney's guess, which still
seems sensible given the forms planterose, plantebene, and plantefolie
present in the 13th c. I would reject Lower out of hand here, but
realize that the others' propositions are worth considering.
Reaney's Surname Dictioanry is widely available and a lot of people give
substantial credance to his guesses. However, they are now
half-a-century out of date and the Oxford University Press have decided
to discontinue it because of the large number of complaints thay are
receiving about it.
I'm not sure what you mean about "the only meaning of plant ... that
fits directly as a surname." The principle of metonymy means that the
name needn't originate as a noun at all, but rather comes into use by
the association of one word with another--in this case, the verb 'to
plant', often taking a specific direct object (plantrose, plantbene),
being used for the person who does the action.
There is direct early evidence in the OED for the "young person" meaning
of Plant. From my early English literature searches there is further
evidence to support it. Why resort to metonymy, as invented by Reaney,
when there is a perfectly good "literal" (as most people would call it)
meaning of Plant. Why pick out Plantebene and Planterose (just because
these are the easiest to understand/misunderstand though modern English
interpretation/misinterpretation) when there are many other Plant-like
names including a 13th century non-royal use of the name Plauntegenet.
The provenance of Plantebene in contemporary evidence is very doubtful
and Plantefolie (leaving aside modern misconceptions about foliage) just
doesn't play out at all.
By what logic is it 'the most obvious meaning'?
By the logic of contemporary meaning rather than modern
misunderstandings based a couple of carefully selected similar names.
The is an important assertion of fact. What is the evidence for
Plant's early and wide proliferation (compared to other surnames
deriving from Middle English speech, 12th-13th centuries)? And why
could not Reaney have chosen 'offspring' or 'shoot' in that sense,
for > its meaning, if he thought it a widespread name?
The name distribution evidence is another long and complicated story and
I am running out of time. Suffice it to say that the eminent local and
family historian David Hey (The Oxford Guide to Family History, etc.)
quite recently published that Plant is a "multi-origin" name but now
accepts that he was wrong. The distribution data provides a proximity to
Wales and the literal "children" meaning of plant. The name distribution
data is presented in my Nomina paper and there is also a more-populist
presentation at http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/distrib.html . I can not
answer for Reaney - I was just trying to think of a possible reason or
excuse for him. Another possible factor is that he may have been
preoccupied with disproving the earlier "Plantagenet" claim and
immediately turned to selecting some other similar names. However,
simply relying on Planterose seems quite as irrational as pointing just
to Plantagenet. It is fair to say that the "Plantagenet story" will not
go away and there is a proper place for debunking it. There are some
proximities of the formative Plant surname to illegitimate descendants
of Geffrey Plante Genest but any fanciful claim of genetic male-line
descent now relates to the prospects for further Y-DNA evidence. The
onus of proof insists that there is *no* genetic connection though there
is a possibility of some cultural interaction with the Plante Genest
metaphor.
What you report of the Y-DNA evidence is also extremely interesting.
But even if all current Plants can be shown to derive from a single
ancestor, that does not necessarily alter our choice for the meaning
of the name. Occupational surnames may generate many contemporaneous
distinct agnate surname origins, but the do not HAVE to; similarly, a
name which appears to have many distinct genetic origin points may be
likely to be an occupational name which was in widespread use, but not
necessarily. Specifically, might 'Plant' have arisen as a rare
occupational name, which then only survived as a name for descendants
of a single person?
The DNA evidence is reported in my Nomina paper and for a more populist
account see http://www.plant-fhg.org.uk/dna.html . I suppose it is just
about possible to cling on to the gardener argument though it is now
more necessary to jump through hoops to sustain it. Why not start afresh
with the latest evidence and say that the literal meaning of plant is
'offspring' (Plant is possibly from Somerset near Wales where there is
explicit evidence that the surname was hereditary by 1328) and the
Plants had seemingly migrated (e.g. 3 merchants in Rouen in 1273) around
the south coast of England before their main homeland became east
Cheshire by around 1400. The single-family surname then spread widely
throughout the west midlands and beyond.
I think these ideas are intriguing, but I admit I still see no good
systematic argument for preferring any other etymology over Reaney's.
The DNA evidence about current holders of the name, combined with
compiled evidence of the distribution and use of the 'Plant' surname
and compounds in medieval sources, would be a welcome body of
evidence > to examine. But I think it does not in itself force us to
prefer, by
way of etymological explanation, a metaphorical name-origin over the
more concrete one suggested by Reaney.
Again, I contend that the literal meaning "children" of plant is more
concrete than a vague metonymy and carefully selected evidence to invent
a "gardener" theory for Plant.
Phew! Time for lunch.
John
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 15
That's extrememly kind of you, Michael. I can't think of anything at the moment (we have a pretty good local history collection here at Leicester), and we're not so far from Aylesbury that I can't pop down there myself when I really need to see something, but every now and then something comes up which I'd like to look up but which doesn't justify the trip, so I may take you up on that. Thanks again.
Which Bucks town are you near?
Regards,
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: mjcar@btinternet.com [mailto:mjcar@btinternet.com]
Sent: 17 February 2006 12:13
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 1556
"Tompkins, M.L." wrote:
Matt
I have followed your recent posts on Bucks with great interest, and some shame, given that I have been unable to add anything to your impressive research. As I spend much of the year in Bucks, and our town library has a relatively good Local History section, if there is anything that you would like a look-up on (eg Lipscomb, the Bucks Arch.
Society publications etc) please don't hesitate to let me know.
Regards
Michael
Which Bucks town are you near?
Regards,
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: mjcar@btinternet.com [mailto:mjcar@btinternet.com]
Sent: 17 February 2006 12:13
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 1556
"Tompkins, M.L." wrote:
Does anyone know anything about a Henry Wattes, gentleman, who seems to have been knocking around Winslow in north Buckinghamshire and the surrounding area in the 1530s, and was of Hurst in Berkshire in 1556?
All I know of him is that he appeared in the landholding records of the manor of Great Horwood, next to Winslow, several times between 1529 and 1541 and then once in 1556. In 1529 he was described as of Winslow, and in 1535 of Whaddon, but in 1556 he was of Hurst in Berkshire. He was not listed in the 1522 Muster Roll anywhere in Bucks, but he appeared in the 1524/5 Lay Subsidy Roll as one of the richer taxpayers of Winslow (£14 in land, the fifth highest assessment in the town). However he was not in the 1535 Lay Subsidy Roll for Winslow (nor in Whaddon or any of the other villages surrounding Great Horwood).
A Gilbert Wattes was resident in Great Horwood from 1507 until 1522, and might possibly have been his father. However Gilbert was probably a mere husbandman (the 1522 Muster Roll valued him at just 6s in land and 30s in goods), which weakens the likelihood of a connection to Henry, who is always referred to as a gentleman.
Thanks very much,
Matt Tompkins
Matt
I have followed your recent posts on Bucks with great interest, and some shame, given that I have been unable to add anything to your impressive research. As I spend much of the year in Bucks, and our town library has a relatively good Local History section, if there is anything that you would like a look-up on (eg Lipscomb, the Bucks Arch.
Society publications etc) please don't hesitate to let me know.
Regards
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 11/02/2006 Will Johnson gave Elizabeth Arundel, wife of
William Whittington, as the daughter of "Humphrey" Arundel. Her father's name
was in fact Renfrey- a traditional name in the Arundel family of Lanherne.
Earlier posts on SGM have shown that she married Nicholas Brome after
William's death, and give references to the Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton archive on
a2a.
All the best, Will
MM
William Whittington, as the daughter of "Humphrey" Arundel. Her father's name
was in fact Renfrey- a traditional name in the Arundel family of Lanherne.
Earlier posts on SGM have shown that she married Nicholas Brome after
William's death, and give references to the Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton archive on
a2a.
All the best, Will
MM
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 2/17/2006 7:26:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 11/02/2006 Will Johnson gave Elizabeth Arundel, wife of
William Whittington, as the daughter of "Humphrey" Arundel. Her father's
name
was in fact Renfrey- a traditional name in the Arundel family of Lanherne.
I know that her husband is called Humphrey and also Renfrey.
I have yet to find any primary document which names him, the secondary
sources seem to disagree about his name.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 11/02/2006 Will Johnson gave Elizabeth Arundel, wife of
William Whittington, as the daughter of "Humphrey" Arundel. Her father's
name
was in fact Renfrey- a traditional name in the Arundel family of Lanherne.
I know that her husband is called Humphrey and also Renfrey.
I have yet to find any primary document which names him, the secondary
sources seem to disagree about his name.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 2/17/2006 7:28:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
I know that her husband is called Humphrey and also Renfrey.
I have yet to find any primary document which names him, the secondary
sources seem to disagree about his name.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
Oops replace "husband" with "father".
Will Johnson
WJhonson@aol.com writes:
I know that her husband is called Humphrey and also Renfrey.
I have yet to find any primary document which names him, the secondary
sources seem to disagree about his name.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
Oops replace "husband" with "father".
Will Johnson
-
JeffChipman
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
snip
What "they" cite (in AR8) is:
"Misc. Gen. Her. (5th Series) 6 (1926/8): 138-139; TAG 29: 215-218"
MC4 (1993) & MC5-163 (1999) also give the Samwell descent.
Jeff Chipman
Well for example, in those underlying sources, what do *they* cite for Amy
Giffard and Richard Samwell ?
Thanks
Will
What "they" cite (in AR8) is:
"Misc. Gen. Her. (5th Series) 6 (1926/8): 138-139; TAG 29: 215-218"
MC4 (1993) & MC5-163 (1999) also give the Samwell descent.
Jeff Chipman
-
Gjest
Re: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 15
"Tompkins, M.L." wrote:
Sunny Amersham, and I'm about two minutes' stroll from the library, so
it's no problem to pop in for a quick look at something. It's not a
bad selection, and I find that I rarely need to go up to Aylesbury for
something "local".
Regards
Michael
That's extrememly kind of you, Michael. I can't think of anything at the moment (we have a pretty good local history collection here at Leicester), and we're not so far from Aylesbury that I can't pop down there myself when I really need to see something, but every now and then something comes up which I'd like to look up but which doesn't justify the trip, so I may take you up on that. Thanks again.
Which Bucks town are you near?
Sunny Amersham, and I'm about two minutes' stroll from the library, so
it's no problem to pop in for a quick look at something. It's not a
bad selection, and I find that I rarely need to go up to Aylesbury for
something "local".
Regards
Michael
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
In a message dated 2/17/2006 7:28:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com writes:
<<I know that her husband is called Humphrey and also Renfrey. I have yet to find any primary document which names him, the secondary sources seem to disagree about his name. Thanks. Will Johnson
Oops replace "husband" with "father". Will Johnson>>
Is this the Remfrey Arundell (son of John Arundell of Bideford, d. before Feb 1424, eldest son of John Arundell the Magnificent who died 1433-5) who married Joan Colshull, daughter of Sir John Colshull, in or before 1421? I think the primary documents you seek may be found in HAS Fox and OJ Padel (eds), The Cornish Lands of the Arundells of Lanherne, 14th to 16th Centuries, Devon & Cornwall Record Society, NS 41 (Exeter, 2000) - or at least references to such documents.
In the Introduction at p. xxii the authors refer to him as Remfrey Arundell, and he also appears as Remfrey in the pedigree at p. clvi. The authority of two respected historians who have just edited a large collection of the family's primary documents may be sufficient, but if primary documents themselves are desired then:
1. several of the primary documents printed in the book do mention a Sir Remfrey Arundell (pp 25, 36, 70, 74, 86). However they are manorial extents from 1459, 1460 and 1480 which record him (or in 1480 his heirs) as the tenant of small sub-manorial holdings, and since the Remfrey we are interested in seems to have died before Jun 1456 (when his widow was involved in a dispute over her dower - see below) I think this must have been another Remfrey, perhaps his son of the same name (though as the holdings concerned were relatively minor it is just possible that the extents were referring to the father but in 1459 and 1460 had not yet been updated to take account of his death - and from the documents below it appears his son was not knighted).
2. at p. xxii the 1456 dispute over his widow's dower is mentioned, and the footnote gives the references for four documents relating to it in the Arundell of Lanherne Archive at the Cornwall Record Office - AR17/74-77. These documents can be located in the A2A website, where they are described collectively as:
"AR/17/74-77 John Arundell esquire v. John Nanfan, his wife Joan Nanfan (formerly the wife of Sir Remfrey Arundell) and her son Remfrey Arundell esquire. Dispute in 1454-6 over lands in Cornwall."
I've appended parts of the individual document descriptions below.
Matt Tompkins
AR/17/74, Creation date: [1454?, Sep] (... before Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary, 33 [Hen VI])
Depositions of witnesses in law-suit, Arundell vs Arundell: John Arundell senior vs Remfrey Arundell, [esquire]; concerning the manors of Lanhern and Seynt Columbe; mention that John Arundell knight, father of Remfrey Arundell knight, gave..., and that people became tenants of Sir Remfrey. ... Mention of Remfrey's homage done at Chudelegh to '...nd Bisshopp of Exeter that now ys' [= Edmund Lacy, bishop from 1420 until his death 18th Sep 1455]. Endorsed [16th century?] 'Remfry Arundl.', [17th century?] 'Sir John Arundell of Lanhern.'
Note: This probably goes with the dispute recorded in AR/17/75-77, though those are all dated 1456; Sir John Arundell gave the manors of Lanherne and St Columb to his son Remfrey [= later Sir Remfrey, father of Remfrey Arundell esquire] on 29th Jul 1429, AR/20/19.
AR/17/75, Creation date: 1456, 25th Jun (34 Hen VI)
Bond for arbitration
John Nanfan, esquire = (1)
John Arundell senior, esquire = (2)
Bond of (1) to (2) in £500, payable Aug 1st next. If (1), Joan his wife (lately wife of Remfrey Arundell knight) and Remfrey Arundell esquire abide by the arbitration of John Fortescu knight, king's chief justice, and of Nicholas Assheton, king's justice, concerning the right of title and possession of the manors of Treloy and Trefrynk, and of messuages, lands, tenements, rents, services and reversions in Penpoll iuxta Carantok, Treveglos, Kestell, Trepydannen, Enys iuxta Demylyek, Trewothowall, Kenewas, Tregollas, Tregevstek iuxta Tregollas, Trevanger, Tregawen, Goen Venov, Tyngluyn, Trelavder, Treveswethan, Tregaer in the parish of Crewen and Trenewith in the same parish, Trelowargh, Mena, Penryn, Trenowyth, Gonensy, Wynyanton, Chywer Ruyn, and Nensy [sic]; all which Joan claims to have, together with Remfrey lately her husband, by gift of John Arundell knight (except for messuages, lands and tenements in Penpoll iuxta Lananta); and concerning the right of title and posses!
sion of all the manors, lands, tenements, rents, services and reversions which were of John Arundell knight or of Anora his wife, or of Remfrey lately Joan's husband, of which Joan claims dower after the death of Remfrey; and concerning all actions and law-suits between those parties; such arbitration be given before Michaelmas next; then this bond shall be null and void; otherwise, it stands in its strength.
AR/17/76, Creation date: 1456, Sunday 22nd Aug (Sunday before St Bartholomew, 34 Hen VI); at Bodmyn
Arbitration in dispute over inheritance of lands
John Arundell, esquire = (1)
John Nanfan, esquire, Joan his wife lately wife of Remfrey Arundell knight, and Remfrey Arundell esquire, son of the said Remfrey and Joan and heir of Remfrey= (2)-(4)
Arbitration given by John Fortescu, knight, king's chief justice, and Nicholas Aissheton, king's justice of the common bench, in a dispute between (1) and (2)-(4) concerning all the manors, lands and tenements which were lately of John Arundell, knight, or of Annora his wife within Cornwall; to which arbitration both parties have bound themselves in a certain sum of money.
(3)-(4) and the heirs of body of the said Remfrey Arundell, knight, shall have from Michaelmas next the revenues from the manors of Lambron, Kelestek and Tregeustek, the mill of Tregeustek, and all messuages, lands and tenements in Tregeustek, Tregollas, Tregawen, Mene, Trelauder, Trevanger, Gonevenowe, Tynglune, Treger (parish of Crewyn), Trenewith (parish of Crewyn), Treveswethan, Chenhale, Fentenves, Melennewith iuxta Lamberan, Talgragen, Lamberan, Goddron, Treffula, Syns, Kewdeyry, Gwelentop, Redruth, Gueleworas, Crunowe, Erowe Enhire, Walle, Herlyn, Godolghanmoer, Godolghan Vian, Trescawenmer, Trescawenvyan, Nanseykyn, Spernan, Trevethen, Foos, Carenwith, Nansmur, Maule, Tresausyn, Boskenan, Carffury, Tredenek, Hensyou, Pensans, Mousehole, Caerkeff, Trevrythall, Bryn, Trelyuer, Resugyon, Polmarlowe, Rensy and Hendre.
(1) shall, by the quindene of St John Baptist next, at the cost of (2)-(4), make good and sufficient estate of those manors and tenements to (3)-(4) and the heirs of body of Remfrey, knight; to be held of the chief lords by rents and services due and accustomed.
(2)-(4) shall by the same date, at (1)'s costs, make good and sufficient estate to (1) of all other manors, lands and tenements in Cornwall which Joan and Remfrey had by gift of the said John Arundell, knight, to the exclusion of themselves and the heirs of body of Remfrey, knight, towards (1) and his heirs of body.
(2)-(4) shall by the same date deliver to (1) all charters, writings, etc., concerning all those lands which they claim by gift of Remfrey, knight, and which came into their possession after his death.
(1) shall pay £100 to (2)-(3), 50 marks at All Saints next and at All Saints in the following 2 years.
Note: The bonds AR/17/75 and AR/17/78 may both go with this arbitration. AR/17/74 seems to be depositions of witnesses in this on a similar dispute, though apparently dated Sep 1454.
See also Feet of Fines. 1110 (Jun 1457), John and Remfrey Arundell and John Nanfan and others, the same list of places.
AR/17/77, Creation date: 1456, 21st Aug (34 Hen VI)
Bond for arbitration
Remfrey Arundell, esquire = (1)
John Arundell de Lanhern, esquire = (2)
Bond of (1) to (2) for 500 marks, payable next Michaelmas. If (1) abides by the arbitration of John Fortescu, knight, king's chief justice, and Nicholas Ayssheton, king's justice of the common bench, concerning the right, title, claim and possession of all manors which were of John Arundell, knight, or Annora his wife, and concerning all actions, etc., between them (the judgement to be given by next Christmas), then this bond shall be null and void.
<<I know that her husband is called Humphrey and also Renfrey. I have yet to find any primary document which names him, the secondary sources seem to disagree about his name. Thanks. Will Johnson
Oops replace "husband" with "father". Will Johnson>>
Is this the Remfrey Arundell (son of John Arundell of Bideford, d. before Feb 1424, eldest son of John Arundell the Magnificent who died 1433-5) who married Joan Colshull, daughter of Sir John Colshull, in or before 1421? I think the primary documents you seek may be found in HAS Fox and OJ Padel (eds), The Cornish Lands of the Arundells of Lanherne, 14th to 16th Centuries, Devon & Cornwall Record Society, NS 41 (Exeter, 2000) - or at least references to such documents.
In the Introduction at p. xxii the authors refer to him as Remfrey Arundell, and he also appears as Remfrey in the pedigree at p. clvi. The authority of two respected historians who have just edited a large collection of the family's primary documents may be sufficient, but if primary documents themselves are desired then:
1. several of the primary documents printed in the book do mention a Sir Remfrey Arundell (pp 25, 36, 70, 74, 86). However they are manorial extents from 1459, 1460 and 1480 which record him (or in 1480 his heirs) as the tenant of small sub-manorial holdings, and since the Remfrey we are interested in seems to have died before Jun 1456 (when his widow was involved in a dispute over her dower - see below) I think this must have been another Remfrey, perhaps his son of the same name (though as the holdings concerned were relatively minor it is just possible that the extents were referring to the father but in 1459 and 1460 had not yet been updated to take account of his death - and from the documents below it appears his son was not knighted).
2. at p. xxii the 1456 dispute over his widow's dower is mentioned, and the footnote gives the references for four documents relating to it in the Arundell of Lanherne Archive at the Cornwall Record Office - AR17/74-77. These documents can be located in the A2A website, where they are described collectively as:
"AR/17/74-77 John Arundell esquire v. John Nanfan, his wife Joan Nanfan (formerly the wife of Sir Remfrey Arundell) and her son Remfrey Arundell esquire. Dispute in 1454-6 over lands in Cornwall."
I've appended parts of the individual document descriptions below.
Matt Tompkins
AR/17/74, Creation date: [1454?, Sep] (... before Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary, 33 [Hen VI])
Depositions of witnesses in law-suit, Arundell vs Arundell: John Arundell senior vs Remfrey Arundell, [esquire]; concerning the manors of Lanhern and Seynt Columbe; mention that John Arundell knight, father of Remfrey Arundell knight, gave..., and that people became tenants of Sir Remfrey. ... Mention of Remfrey's homage done at Chudelegh to '...nd Bisshopp of Exeter that now ys' [= Edmund Lacy, bishop from 1420 until his death 18th Sep 1455]. Endorsed [16th century?] 'Remfry Arundl.', [17th century?] 'Sir John Arundell of Lanhern.'
Note: This probably goes with the dispute recorded in AR/17/75-77, though those are all dated 1456; Sir John Arundell gave the manors of Lanherne and St Columb to his son Remfrey [= later Sir Remfrey, father of Remfrey Arundell esquire] on 29th Jul 1429, AR/20/19.
AR/17/75, Creation date: 1456, 25th Jun (34 Hen VI)
Bond for arbitration
John Nanfan, esquire = (1)
John Arundell senior, esquire = (2)
Bond of (1) to (2) in £500, payable Aug 1st next. If (1), Joan his wife (lately wife of Remfrey Arundell knight) and Remfrey Arundell esquire abide by the arbitration of John Fortescu knight, king's chief justice, and of Nicholas Assheton, king's justice, concerning the right of title and possession of the manors of Treloy and Trefrynk, and of messuages, lands, tenements, rents, services and reversions in Penpoll iuxta Carantok, Treveglos, Kestell, Trepydannen, Enys iuxta Demylyek, Trewothowall, Kenewas, Tregollas, Tregevstek iuxta Tregollas, Trevanger, Tregawen, Goen Venov, Tyngluyn, Trelavder, Treveswethan, Tregaer in the parish of Crewen and Trenewith in the same parish, Trelowargh, Mena, Penryn, Trenowyth, Gonensy, Wynyanton, Chywer Ruyn, and Nensy [sic]; all which Joan claims to have, together with Remfrey lately her husband, by gift of John Arundell knight (except for messuages, lands and tenements in Penpoll iuxta Lananta); and concerning the right of title and posses!
sion of all the manors, lands, tenements, rents, services and reversions which were of John Arundell knight or of Anora his wife, or of Remfrey lately Joan's husband, of which Joan claims dower after the death of Remfrey; and concerning all actions and law-suits between those parties; such arbitration be given before Michaelmas next; then this bond shall be null and void; otherwise, it stands in its strength.
AR/17/76, Creation date: 1456, Sunday 22nd Aug (Sunday before St Bartholomew, 34 Hen VI); at Bodmyn
Arbitration in dispute over inheritance of lands
John Arundell, esquire = (1)
John Nanfan, esquire, Joan his wife lately wife of Remfrey Arundell knight, and Remfrey Arundell esquire, son of the said Remfrey and Joan and heir of Remfrey= (2)-(4)
Arbitration given by John Fortescu, knight, king's chief justice, and Nicholas Aissheton, king's justice of the common bench, in a dispute between (1) and (2)-(4) concerning all the manors, lands and tenements which were lately of John Arundell, knight, or of Annora his wife within Cornwall; to which arbitration both parties have bound themselves in a certain sum of money.
(3)-(4) and the heirs of body of the said Remfrey Arundell, knight, shall have from Michaelmas next the revenues from the manors of Lambron, Kelestek and Tregeustek, the mill of Tregeustek, and all messuages, lands and tenements in Tregeustek, Tregollas, Tregawen, Mene, Trelauder, Trevanger, Gonevenowe, Tynglune, Treger (parish of Crewyn), Trenewith (parish of Crewyn), Treveswethan, Chenhale, Fentenves, Melennewith iuxta Lamberan, Talgragen, Lamberan, Goddron, Treffula, Syns, Kewdeyry, Gwelentop, Redruth, Gueleworas, Crunowe, Erowe Enhire, Walle, Herlyn, Godolghanmoer, Godolghan Vian, Trescawenmer, Trescawenvyan, Nanseykyn, Spernan, Trevethen, Foos, Carenwith, Nansmur, Maule, Tresausyn, Boskenan, Carffury, Tredenek, Hensyou, Pensans, Mousehole, Caerkeff, Trevrythall, Bryn, Trelyuer, Resugyon, Polmarlowe, Rensy and Hendre.
(1) shall, by the quindene of St John Baptist next, at the cost of (2)-(4), make good and sufficient estate of those manors and tenements to (3)-(4) and the heirs of body of Remfrey, knight; to be held of the chief lords by rents and services due and accustomed.
(2)-(4) shall by the same date, at (1)'s costs, make good and sufficient estate to (1) of all other manors, lands and tenements in Cornwall which Joan and Remfrey had by gift of the said John Arundell, knight, to the exclusion of themselves and the heirs of body of Remfrey, knight, towards (1) and his heirs of body.
(2)-(4) shall by the same date deliver to (1) all charters, writings, etc., concerning all those lands which they claim by gift of Remfrey, knight, and which came into their possession after his death.
(1) shall pay £100 to (2)-(3), 50 marks at All Saints next and at All Saints in the following 2 years.
Note: The bonds AR/17/75 and AR/17/78 may both go with this arbitration. AR/17/74 seems to be depositions of witnesses in this on a similar dispute, though apparently dated Sep 1454.
See also Feet of Fines. 1110 (Jun 1457), John and Remfrey Arundell and John Nanfan and others, the same list of places.
AR/17/77, Creation date: 1456, 21st Aug (34 Hen VI)
Bond for arbitration
Remfrey Arundell, esquire = (1)
John Arundell de Lanhern, esquire = (2)
Bond of (1) to (2) for 500 marks, payable next Michaelmas. If (1) abides by the arbitration of John Fortescu, knight, king's chief justice, and Nicholas Ayssheton, king's justice of the common bench, concerning the right, title, claim and possession of all manors which were of John Arundell, knight, or Annora his wife, and concerning all actions, etc., between them (the judgement to be given by next Christmas), then this bond shall be null and void.
-
David Teague
Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Thanks, Ian.
David
David
From: "Ian Fettes" <fettesi@st.net.au
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Mayflower Descendant article ("Who Were the Chipmans of
Delaware and Mary...
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:13:01 +1000
Hi David,
The descent status as per Genealogics is:
1 paths from Genealogics #00032197 Alice Freeman to Hugues Capet
Gen AT No Ancestral path
26 58641086 S M FMMM MMMF MMFF MFMF MFMM MMMF
Where S is subject, M is mother and F is father.
Cheers,
Ian
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
"Tompkins, M.L." wrote:
Hi Matt, that's indeed the one, but he is surely brother of John of
Bideford and son of Sir John- as shown in this document you quote?
-Matthew
Is this the Remfrey Arundell (son of John Arundell of Bideford, d. before Feb 1424, eldest son of John Arundell the >Magnificent who died 1433-5) who married Joan Colshull, daughter of Sir John Colshull, in or before 1421?
Hi Matt, that's indeed the one, but he is surely brother of John of
Bideford and son of Sir John- as shown in this document you quote?
-Matthew
mention that John Arundell knight, father of Remfrey Arundell knight, gave...
Note: This probably goes with the dispute recorded in AR/17/75-77, though those are all dated 1456; Sir John Arundell gave >the manors of Lanherne and St Columb to his son Remfrey [= later Sir Remfrey, father of Remfrey Arundell esquire] on 29th >Jul 1429, AR/20/19.
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
<<Hi Matt, that's indeed the one, but he is surely brother of John of
Bideford and son of Sir John- as shown in this document you quote?
-Matthew>>
Yes, you're quite right - he was brother of John of Bideford and son of
John the Magnificent. Just testing!
Matt
Bideford and son of Sir John- as shown in this document you quote?
-Matthew>>
Yes, you're quite right - he was brother of John of Bideford and son of
John the Magnificent. Just testing!
Matt
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (... Plantevelu ...)
Thank you both, John and Nat, for such an enlightening
exchange that is fascinating.
Having done a bit of research on some Plantaganet ancestors
and descendants, it seems to me that they were quite the
explorers/adventurers ... were often, if not the first, then
early, settlers to new found lands ... building churches and
government buildings, establishing governments and the
machinery thereof.
As I read the explanations by each of you, it made me think
of how they 'planted the seeds of civilization' in England,
southern Italy, America, Canada and so on.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
exchange that is fascinating.
Having done a bit of research on some Plantaganet ancestors
and descendants, it seems to me that they were quite the
explorers/adventurers ... were often, if not the first, then
early, settlers to new found lands ... building churches and
government buildings, establishing governments and the
machinery thereof.
As I read the explanations by each of you, it made me think
of how they 'planted the seeds of civilization' in England,
southern Italy, America, Canada and so on.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-
Gjest
Re: Polygamy
In a message dated 2/17/06 10:44:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< What is the proper way to handle polygamous marriages? >>
If you are saying, within a computer program, why not simply state the dates
of marriage and in the notes say "polygamous with xxx" or something like that.
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< What is the proper way to handle polygamous marriages? >>
If you are saying, within a computer program, why not simply state the dates
of marriage and in the notes say "polygamous with xxx" or something like that.
Will Johnson
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Polygamy
Yes, within the computer program; but also, at what point do
you decide that it is a polygamous marriage rather than a
woman changing her name, or the your own inability to find a
death certificate, etc.
I know that in the U.S. the Mormons practiced polygamy early
on, so if you had a Mormon household back in the early 1800s
and ran across two different names as wife of a man, you
could pretty safely assume it was a polygamous marriage.
But is there any other rule that can be followed when you
find two women's names that appear to be simultaneously the
wife?
I read that the early Celts weren't monogamous ... I wonder
how long that lasted and how it played out. Was there a law
passed in England or in Brittany or in Normandy, etc. that a
man could have only one wife? And if so, when was that law
passed? How long has the religious marriage ceremony said
cleave to only one and no other?
It seems to me, ignorant as I am about history, that these
wealthy lords who had holdings in both Brittany or Maine or
Normandy or Wales or Scotland or Ireland and England might
have had families in both places.
I think one of my ancestors might have had a family in
Michigan and another in Canada back in the late nineteenth
century. Was there a law against that then?
Do we have any accounts from the medieval times that mention
polygamy?
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
you decide that it is a polygamous marriage rather than a
woman changing her name, or the your own inability to find a
death certificate, etc.
I know that in the U.S. the Mormons practiced polygamy early
on, so if you had a Mormon household back in the early 1800s
and ran across two different names as wife of a man, you
could pretty safely assume it was a polygamous marriage.
But is there any other rule that can be followed when you
find two women's names that appear to be simultaneously the
wife?
I read that the early Celts weren't monogamous ... I wonder
how long that lasted and how it played out. Was there a law
passed in England or in Brittany or in Normandy, etc. that a
man could have only one wife? And if so, when was that law
passed? How long has the religious marriage ceremony said
cleave to only one and no other?
It seems to me, ignorant as I am about history, that these
wealthy lords who had holdings in both Brittany or Maine or
Normandy or Wales or Scotland or Ireland and England might
have had families in both places.
I think one of my ancestors might have had a family in
Michigan and another in Canada back in the late nineteenth
century. Was there a law against that then?
Do we have any accounts from the medieval times that mention
polygamy?
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
In a message dated 2/17/06 9:39:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
<< AR/17/74, Creation date: [1454?, Sep] (... before Nativity of Blessed
Virgin Mary, 33 [Hen VI])
Depositions of witnesses in law-suit, Arundell vs Arundell: John Arundell
senior vs Remfrey Arundell, [esquire]; concerning the manors of Lanhern and
Seynt Columbe; mention that John Arundell knight, father of Remfrey Arundell
knight, gave..., and that people became tenants of Sir Remfrey. ... Mention of
Remfrey's homage done at Chudelegh to '...nd Bisshopp of Exeter that now ys' [=
Edmund Lacy, bishop from 1420 until his death 18th Sep 1455]. Endorsed [16th
century?] 'Remfry Arundl.', [17th century?] 'Sir John Arundell of Lanhern.'
Note: This probably goes with the dispute recorded in AR/17/75-77, though
those are all dated 1456; Sir John Arundell gave the manors of Lanherne and St
Columb to his son Remfrey [= later Sir Remfrey, father of Remfrey Arundell
esquire] on 29th Jul 1429, AR/20/19. >>
The first person mentioned is "John Arundell senior" who is living at the
time this document is drawn-up obviously since he is one of the parties. John
Arundell the father of Renfrey died 7 Jan 1434/5, so can we not say that the
John who is a party in this suit is John the son of the John who gave the manors?
I do not have a death date for this later John but I show he married
Margaret Burghersh and had a son John "abt 1421" (http://www.thepeerage.com) and in that
case would then be called John Senior I suppose.
The above-document would then add the knowledge that he 1) survived his wife
Maud and 2) was still living in 1456
Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
<< AR/17/74, Creation date: [1454?, Sep] (... before Nativity of Blessed
Virgin Mary, 33 [Hen VI])
Depositions of witnesses in law-suit, Arundell vs Arundell: John Arundell
senior vs Remfrey Arundell, [esquire]; concerning the manors of Lanhern and
Seynt Columbe; mention that John Arundell knight, father of Remfrey Arundell
knight, gave..., and that people became tenants of Sir Remfrey. ... Mention of
Remfrey's homage done at Chudelegh to '...nd Bisshopp of Exeter that now ys' [=
Edmund Lacy, bishop from 1420 until his death 18th Sep 1455]. Endorsed [16th
century?] 'Remfry Arundl.', [17th century?] 'Sir John Arundell of Lanhern.'
Note: This probably goes with the dispute recorded in AR/17/75-77, though
those are all dated 1456; Sir John Arundell gave the manors of Lanherne and St
Columb to his son Remfrey [= later Sir Remfrey, father of Remfrey Arundell
esquire] on 29th Jul 1429, AR/20/19. >>
The first person mentioned is "John Arundell senior" who is living at the
time this document is drawn-up obviously since he is one of the parties. John
Arundell the father of Renfrey died 7 Jan 1434/5, so can we not say that the
John who is a party in this suit is John the son of the John who gave the manors?
I do not have a death date for this later John but I show he married
Margaret Burghersh and had a son John "abt 1421" (http://www.thepeerage.com) and in that
case would then be called John Senior I suppose.
The above-document would then add the knowledge that he 1) survived his wife
Maud and 2) was still living in 1456
Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
This Remfrey is also called "of Tremodrat"
And I have sources
http://www.exeter-cathedral.org.uk/Cler ... er/28.html
and
http://www.stirnet.com
Does someone know how he came to have that place ?
It might also be called "Tremadart"
Was this from his wife? What happened to it in the next generation?
Thanks
Will Johnson
And I have sources
http://www.exeter-cathedral.org.uk/Cler ... er/28.html
and
http://www.stirnet.com
Does someone know how he came to have that place ?
It might also be called "Tremadart"
Was this from his wife? What happened to it in the next generation?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Hi Will, it's confusing because they are all called John, but the John
senior here would be the one born 1421; Sir John died 1434/5 as you
say, but his son John of Bideford dvp. I have the dates c.1392-1423 for
him; he should be in HoP. His son John I have 1421-1471/3, so he would
be the head of the family in 1454; he was nephew to Sir Renfrey.
see above for 2); for 1) did you mean Margaret? -Matthew
In a message dated 2/17/06 9:39:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
AR/17/74, Creation date: [1454?, Sep] (... before Nativity of Blessed
Virgin Mary, 33 [Hen VI])
Depositions of witnesses in law-suit, Arundell vs Arundell: John Arundell
senior vs Remfrey Arundell, [esquire]; concerning the manors of Lanhern and
Seynt Columbe; mention that John Arundell knight, father of Remfrey Arundell
knight, gave..., and that people became tenants of Sir Remfrey. ... Mention of
Remfrey's homage done at Chudelegh to '...nd Bisshopp of Exeter that now ys' [=
Edmund Lacy, bishop from 1420 until his death 18th Sep 1455]. Endorsed [16th
century?] 'Remfry Arundl.', [17th century?] 'Sir John Arundell of Lanhern.'
Note: This probably goes with the dispute recorded in AR/17/75-77, though
those are all dated 1456; Sir John Arundell gave the manors of Lanherne and St
Columb to his son Remfrey [= later Sir Remfrey, father of Remfrey Arundell
esquire] on 29th Jul 1429, AR/20/19.
The first person mentioned is "John Arundell senior" who is living at the
time this document is drawn-up obviously since he is one of the parties. John
Arundell the father of Renfrey died 7 Jan 1434/5, so can we not say that the
John who is a party in this suit is John the son of the John who gave the manors?
I do not have a death date for this later John but I show he married
Margaret Burghersh and had a son John "abt 1421" (http://www.thepeerage.com) and in that
case would then be called John Senior I suppose.
Hi Will, it's confusing because they are all called John, but the John
senior here would be the one born 1421; Sir John died 1434/5 as you
say, but his son John of Bideford dvp. I have the dates c.1392-1423 for
him; he should be in HoP. His son John I have 1421-1471/3, so he would
be the head of the family in 1454; he was nephew to Sir Renfrey.
The above-document would then add the knowledge that he 1) survived his wife
Maud and 2) was still living in 1456
see above for 2); for 1) did you mean Margaret? -Matthew
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington - Remfrey Arundell
In a message dated 2/17/06 2:03:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Hi Will, it's confusing because they are all called John, but the John
senior here would be the one born 1421; Sir John died 1434/5 as you
say, but his son John of Bideford dvp. I have the dates c.1392-1423 for
him; he should be in HoP. His son John I have 1421-1471/3, so he would
be the head of the family in 1454; he was nephew to Sir Renfrey. >>
But who then would be John Junior ?
Will
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Hi Will, it's confusing because they are all called John, but the John
senior here would be the one born 1421; Sir John died 1434/5 as you
say, but his son John of Bideford dvp. I have the dates c.1392-1423 for
him; he should be in HoP. His son John I have 1421-1471/3, so he would
be the head of the family in 1454; he was nephew to Sir Renfrey. >>
But who then would be John Junior ?
Will
-
Louise Staley
Re: Batisford/Echyngham reply to Wjohnson
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If by Thomas you mean Thomas Echyngham, he is definitely a son of Joan.
"Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight In the name of God Amen, I Thomas
Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this 20th day of August 1444 make this
will. Firstly I bequeath my soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the
Holy ghost, my body to be buried in the Echyngham vault near to my
mother Joan. A number of religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my
godson, 50 marks, The residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas
Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham,
Henry the Prior of Canberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and
John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John
Fortescue and Sir Roger Fiennes my supervisors.....probated Oct 1444"
cheers
Louise
--
quod dixi dixi
snip> Then the new question has to be
is Thomas their brother? or half-brother? Could Thomas be a Batisford?
Will Johnson
If by Thomas you mean Thomas Echyngham, he is definitely a son of Joan.
"Will of Thomas Etchingham , Knight In the name of God Amen, I Thomas
Echyngham, Knight, of sound mind this 20th day of August 1444 make this
will. Firstly I bequeath my soul to almightly god, Blessed Mary and the
Holy ghost, my body to be buried in the Echyngham vault near to my
mother Joan. A number of religious bequests.. To Thomas St. Leger, my
godson, 50 marks, The residual to my wife Margaret , Sir Thomas
Lewkenor, Dame Elizabeth Lewknor, my sister, my son Thomas Echyngham,
Henry the Prior of Canberwell, Thomas Hoo, Richard Wakehurst, Jr and
John Ashurnham who I constitue my executors . I appoipnt Sir John
Fortescue and Sir Roger Fiennes my supervisors.....probated Oct 1444"
cheers
Louise
--
quod dixi dixi
-
Louise Staley
Re: Batisford/echyngham
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/16/06 10:44:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
i believe Elizabeth is his 1/2 sister and again joann Batisford Brenchley
names Elizabeth Echyngham lewknor in her will..in 1453 and i should think
this has some evidence of Batisford connection. She didn't name any Echynghams
The sole thing this proves, as I've noted in private emails, is that Joan and
Elizabeth were sisters. It does not provide anything in the way of proving a
Batisford connection, imho. However the IPM which states that they were the
daughters of Joan is pretty convincing.
Will
The mention of Joan Batisford reminds me of (yet another) of the
outstanding problems on this line. I do not think Alice, Joan and
Elizabeth Batisford were full sisters. Instead I think Elizabeth was the
daughter of Margery Peplesham and Alice and Joan were daughters of other
unknown wife/wives of William Batisford. I base this on the idea that
all three were co-heiresses of the Batisford inheritance but only
Elizabeth is mentioned as the heir of her mother, Margery Peplesham.
There is another anomaly with this family as well. Joan Brenchley's will
survives and it is dated 1453, some 50 years after her supposed sisters
Alice and Elizabeth died. It is therefore possible that we are missing
two other wives for William Batisford, one close in age to Margery
Peplesham and another much younger who is the mother of Joan. This is
not very satisfactory having to create two additional wives but without
some reason as to why Alice and Joan were omitted from Margery's IPM,
they can not be listed as her daughters.
Cheers
Louise
--
quod dixi dixi
-
Gjest
Re: Batisford/echyngham
Louise, can you review what the proof is that Alice is a child of William
Batisford ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Batisford ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Louise Staley
Re: Batisford/echyngham
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Louise, can you review what the proof is that Alice is a child of William
Batisford ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Ball (1908) gives William Batisford and Margery Peplesham as the parents
of Alice Batisford, he also gives this couple two other daughters Joan
married to Sir William Brenchley and Elizabeth married to Sir William
Fiennes.
Ball states that the Peplesham inheritance was divided among Margery's 4
daughters (3 by Batisford and 1 by her 1st husband Robert Cralle)
however it is my understanding Margery's IPM only mentions Sir Roger
Fiennes, son of Elizabeth Batisford and William Fiennes. So Ball must be
regarded with some suspicion.
On the positive side, Sir Thomas Echynham, in his will, appoints the
above Roger Fiennes as his supervisor, suggesting a close relationship,
posited as 1/2 1st cousins. Joan Brenchley's will mentions Elizabeth
Lewkenor, daughter of Sir William Echynham and her son Thomas Hoo, again
suggesting the families were closely tied.
In summary, the evidence I have is circumstantial and secondary. Perhaps
the Sussex(?) lawsuit Charlotte has mentioned will shed further light or
Charlotte or someone else may have further primary evidence I am not
aware of.
regards
Louise
References
Ball, W.E. (1908). "Stained Glass Windows of Nettlestead Church,"
Archaeologica Cantiana, Vol. XXVIII pp 157 - .
--
quod dixi dixi
-
Gjest
Re: Batisford/echyngham
In a message dated 2/17/2006 9:32:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:
Joan Brenchley's will mentions Elizabeth
Lewkenor, daughter of Sir William Echynham and her son Thomas Hoo, again
suggesting the families were closely tied.
Is it true that the will does not specify the relationship of Elizabeth
Lewknor or Thomas Hoo?
caramut@bigpond.com writes:
Joan Brenchley's will mentions Elizabeth
Lewkenor, daughter of Sir William Echynham and her son Thomas Hoo, again
suggesting the families were closely tied.
Is it true that the will does not specify the relationship of Elizabeth
Lewknor or Thomas Hoo?
-
Sutliff
Re: Somerled's mother-in-law
Brice is vacationing at the Caribbean for a few weeks so may not see this
post. You might want to repost this again in a few weeks.
<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8C801CF727A42D7-F50-36D3@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com...
post. You might want to repost this again in a few weeks.
<therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8C801CF727A42D7-F50-36D3@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com...
Dear Brice, et al.,
In 2004, there was some discussion following your mention of an
Icelandic text
cited by Bob Cook of the University of Iceland, considered to be highly
reliable,
which unequivocally stated that Somerled's wife Ragnhild was the daughter
of
Ingeborg, daughter of Jarl Haakon Paulsson:
"Ragnhildis moder vaar Ingeborg Hagen Jarlis Powelssons daatter." [1]
Prior to entering the current tax season, Andrew MacEwen had mentioned
that
there was publication in Europe concerning this find. He evidently found
this to
be added confirmation of a relationship (that of Ingeborg and Jarl Haakon)
he had
previously felt to be certain; unfortunately the identification of the
author or
journal he did not recall at the time.
There is nothing on 'the Web' I see at present that leaps out
concerning
discussion of such a publication; have you, or another of the list, seen
or heard
further of this in an article or monograph of late?
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Brice Clagett, <Somerled's mother-in-law>, SGM, 28 Sept 2004.
-
Louise Staley
Re: Batisford/echyngham
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/17/2006 9:32:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:
Joan Brenchley's will mentions Elizabeth
Lewkenor, daughter of Sir William Echynham and her son Thomas Hoo, again
suggesting the families were closely tied.
Is it true that the will does not specify the relationship of Elizabeth
Lewknor or Thomas Hoo?
I think so. I cannot find my Echyngham computer files which has all this
stuff, however from memory the will does not specify the relationships.
Louise
--
quod dixi dixi
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Somerled's mother-in-law
Dear Hap,
Thanks for that.
I have heard from Brice, and the present answer is unfortunately
<nyet>.
Should I hear of or find the publication in question, I will
pass that on.
Cheers,
John
Sutliff wrote:
Thanks for that.
I have heard from Brice, and the present answer is unfortunately
<nyet>.
Should I hear of or find the publication in question, I will
pass that on.
Cheers,
John
Sutliff wrote:
Brice is vacationing at the Caribbean for a few weeks so may not see this
post. You might want to repost this again in a few weeks.
therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8C801CF727A42D7-F50-36D3@mblk-d24.sysops.aol.com...
Dear Brice, et al.,
In 2004, there was some discussion following your mention of an
Icelandic text
cited by Bob Cook of the University of Iceland, considered to be highly
reliable,
which unequivocally stated that Somerled's wife Ragnhild was the daughter
of
Ingeborg, daughter of Jarl Haakon Paulsson:
"Ragnhildis moder vaar Ingeborg Hagen Jarlis Powelssons daatter." [1]
Prior to entering the current tax season, Andrew MacEwen had mentioned
that
there was publication in Europe concerning this find. He evidently found
this to
be added confirmation of a relationship (that of Ingeborg and Jarl Haakon)
he had
previously felt to be certain; unfortunately the identification of the
author or
journal he did not recall at the time.
There is nothing on 'the Web' I see at present that leaps out
concerning
discussion of such a publication; have you, or another of the list, seen
or heard
further of this in an article or monograph of late?
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Brice Clagett, <Somerled's mother-in-law>, SGM, 28 Sept 2004.
-
Gjest
Re: batisford/echyngham/peplesham
In a message dated 2/18/2006 10:00:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
Interesting article out of the PRO C1/9/308
John Denyssh, esq and Margaret his wife vs Thomas Echyngham, knt, john
Tamworth, john judde and john gbbes, manor of pepplesham(peplesham) enfeoffed by
the said margaret. suissex 1386-1486
It's interesting that the editors apparently had no clue what decade to put
this article into, giving it a 100 year span. That's a bit odd. Isn't it?
Will
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
Interesting article out of the PRO C1/9/308
John Denyssh, esq and Margaret his wife vs Thomas Echyngham, knt, john
Tamworth, john judde and john gbbes, manor of pepplesham(peplesham) enfeoffed by
the said margaret. suissex 1386-1486
It's interesting that the editors apparently had no clue what decade to put
this article into, giving it a 100 year span. That's a bit odd. Isn't it?
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
Dear Will,
Finally, evidence that I was probably not dreaming about John
Ravilious` posting about Mary de Tony, wife of Ralph VII can be read at
Stenhouse-L which is maintained by Leah Ryan stenhouse@earthlink.net the post in
question originated as Mary . ? ., wife of Ralph Vll de Toney and was posted
on GEN-Medieval Thursday .12 September 2002.. I`ve checked both the Google
and rootsweb GEN- Medieval archives both contain several elements of the above
thread which was started by Bob New on 11 September, but I think Google has
posts by John (including the above) that rootsweb doesn`t .
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maqine USA
Finally, evidence that I was probably not dreaming about John
Ravilious` posting about Mary de Tony, wife of Ralph VII can be read at
Stenhouse-L which is maintained by Leah Ryan stenhouse@earthlink.net the post in
question originated as Mary . ? ., wife of Ralph Vll de Toney and was posted
on GEN-Medieval Thursday .12 September 2002.. I`ve checked both the Google
and rootsweb GEN- Medieval archives both contain several elements of the above
thread which was started by Bob New on 11 September, but I think Google has
posts by John (including the above) that rootsweb doesn`t .
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maqine USA
-
Paul K Davis
RE: Polygamy
When one writes "polygamy" one naturally thinks of a group of three or more
people living together, but there are other possibilities which would
explain the occurence in the record of overlapping marriages of an
individual.
(1) Some religions and cultures have not recognized divorce. This often
results in a couple separating with no written record, and then they may
again marry, either legally or extra-legally.
(2) Some "marriage records" are based simply on the fact of a couple living
together as husband and wife, with an assumed marriage date based on the
real or assumed date of birth of first child. Some of the early New
England collections are like this. This may feed on possibility 1 or may
create an erroneous appearance of overlapping marriages.
(3) Spouses may disappear. Travelling occupations, including seafaring,
are especially prone to this. After a certain period of time a spouse
typically feels free to remarry, but there is no known termination date of
the previous marriage.
Besides these, remember that there may be a problem interpreting the
records. The problem of many people with the same name is the most common,
of course, but there are many others.
Also remember, some records are simply erroneous.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
people living together, but there are other possibilities which would
explain the occurence in the record of overlapping marriages of an
individual.
(1) Some religions and cultures have not recognized divorce. This often
results in a couple separating with no written record, and then they may
again marry, either legally or extra-legally.
(2) Some "marriage records" are based simply on the fact of a couple living
together as husband and wife, with an assumed marriage date based on the
real or assumed date of birth of first child. Some of the early New
England collections are like this. This may feed on possibility 1 or may
create an erroneous appearance of overlapping marriages.
(3) Spouses may disappear. Travelling occupations, including seafaring,
are especially prone to this. After a certain period of time a spouse
typically feels free to remarry, but there is no known termination date of
the previous marriage.
Besides these, remember that there may be a problem interpreting the
records. The problem of many people with the same name is the most common,
of course, but there are many others.
Also remember, some records are simply erroneous.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: Ginny Wagner <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 2/17/2006 11:35:03 AM
Subject: RE: Polygamy
Yes, within the computer program; but also, at what point do
you decide that it is a polygamous marriage rather than a
woman changing her name, or the your own inability to find a
death certificate, etc.
I know that in the U.S. the Mormons practiced polygamy early
on, so if you had a Mormon household back in the early 1800s
and ran across two different names as wife of a man, you
could pretty safely assume it was a polygamous marriage.
But is there any other rule that can be followed when you
find two women's names that appear to be simultaneously the
wife?
I read that the early Celts weren't monogamous ... I wonder
how long that lasted and how it played out. Was there a law
passed in England or in Brittany or in Normandy, etc. that a
man could have only one wife? And if so, when was that law
passed? How long has the religious marriage ceremony said
cleave to only one and no other?
It seems to me, ignorant as I am about history, that these
wealthy lords who had holdings in both Brittany or Maine or
Normandy or Wales or Scotland or Ireland and England might
have had families in both places.
I think one of my ancestors might have had a family in
Michigan and another in Canada back in the late nineteenth
century. Was there a law against that then?
Do we have any accounts from the medieval times that mention
polygamy?
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-
CE Wood
Re: Somerled's mother-in-law
Is it one of the books or articles mentioned at:
http://www.orkneyjar.com/news/sagabooks.htm
CE Wood
therav3@aol.com wrote:
http://www.orkneyjar.com/news/sagabooks.htm
CE Wood
therav3@aol.com wrote:
Dear Brice, et al.,
In 2004, there was some discussion following your mention of an Icelandic text
cited by Bob Cook of the University of Iceland, considered to be highly reliable,
which unequivocally stated that Somerled's wife Ragnhild was the daughter of
Ingeborg, daughter of Jarl Haakon Paulsson:
"Ragnhildis moder vaar Ingeborg Hagen Jarlis Powelssons daatter." [1]
Prior to entering the current tax season, Andrew MacEwen had mentioned that
there was publication in Europe concerning this find. He evidently found this to
be added confirmation of a relationship (that of Ingeborg and Jarl Haakon) he had
previously felt to be certain; unfortunately the identification of the author or
journal he did not recall at the time.
There is nothing on 'the Web' I see at present that leaps out concerning
discussion of such a publication; have you, or another of the list, seen or heard
further of this in an article or monograph of late?
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Brice Clagett, <Somerled's mother-in-law>, SGM, 28 Sept 2004.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Polygamy
Ginny Wagner wrote:
Perhaps specifics would help. Polygamy, per se, was illegal or
prohibited by the church (which pretty much amounted to the same thing).
Paul Davis has listed some circumstances in which it might occur, or
might appear to occur. However, in a lot more cases, it is simply a
genealogical error.
In the majority of cases where the "this person changed their name"
explanation is given, it represents a failure of the genealogist to
understand the complexity of the situation (or an attempt to gloss over
a bit of overenthusiasm in making connections. Name changes were rare,
and in some cultural settings, considered sacrilegious - I have seen a
specific example after the Great Durham mine strike, where the father of
one of the leaders was turned out of his job and blackballed from
finding another. It was suggested that he change his name, but he
insisted that on the day of his christenning he was given that name
before God, and would not turn his back on God in taking another.
No, this is not safe, unless you find them both directly documented in
an LDS context, or named as plural wives in a single document. As
likely as not, when you find an early 1800s man given two different
wives, they were either sequential, or it is a case of two people with
the same name but distinct wives being combined into one.
One good rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. If you are going to conclude that something unusual was going
on (such as polygamy) then you had better have direct evidence of it.
Setting aside the marriage ceremony (even today, in spite of it being
part of the ceremony, people have been known to cleave to more than one)
the church suppressed these polygamous practices pretty early.
Sometimes this was a more formal distinction than it was actual practice
(i.e. one would be the 'wife', while the others were 'mistresses' in the
eyes of the church).
They often did (even landholers who only had property in one place), its
just that they didn't marry more than one of the mothers at a time.
Almost certainly, but the legislation was on a state-level in the US (I
don't know about Canada) and the fine details may have differed somewhat.
I recall a few people being called to task for it.
taf
Yes, within the computer program; but also, at what point do
you decide that it is a polygamous marriage rather than a
woman changing her name, or the your own inability to find a
death certificate, etc.
Perhaps specifics would help. Polygamy, per se, was illegal or
prohibited by the church (which pretty much amounted to the same thing).
Paul Davis has listed some circumstances in which it might occur, or
might appear to occur. However, in a lot more cases, it is simply a
genealogical error.
In the majority of cases where the "this person changed their name"
explanation is given, it represents a failure of the genealogist to
understand the complexity of the situation (or an attempt to gloss over
a bit of overenthusiasm in making connections. Name changes were rare,
and in some cultural settings, considered sacrilegious - I have seen a
specific example after the Great Durham mine strike, where the father of
one of the leaders was turned out of his job and blackballed from
finding another. It was suggested that he change his name, but he
insisted that on the day of his christenning he was given that name
before God, and would not turn his back on God in taking another.
I know that in the U.S. the Mormons practiced polygamy early
on, so if you had a Mormon household back in the early 1800s
and ran across two different names as wife of a man, you
could pretty safely assume it was a polygamous marriage.
No, this is not safe, unless you find them both directly documented in
an LDS context, or named as plural wives in a single document. As
likely as not, when you find an early 1800s man given two different
wives, they were either sequential, or it is a case of two people with
the same name but distinct wives being combined into one.
But is there any other rule that can be followed when you
find two women's names that appear to be simultaneously the
wife?
One good rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. If you are going to conclude that something unusual was going
on (such as polygamy) then you had better have direct evidence of it.
I read that the early Celts weren't monogamous ... I wonder
how long that lasted and how it played out. Was there a law
passed in England or in Brittany or in Normandy, etc. that a
man could have only one wife? And if so, when was that law
passed? How long has the religious marriage ceremony said
cleave to only one and no other?
Setting aside the marriage ceremony (even today, in spite of it being
part of the ceremony, people have been known to cleave to more than one)
the church suppressed these polygamous practices pretty early.
Sometimes this was a more formal distinction than it was actual practice
(i.e. one would be the 'wife', while the others were 'mistresses' in the
eyes of the church).
It seems to me, ignorant as I am about history, that these
wealthy lords who had holdings in both Brittany or Maine or
Normandy or Wales or Scotland or Ireland and England might
have had families in both places.
They often did (even landholers who only had property in one place), its
just that they didn't marry more than one of the mothers at a time.
I think one of my ancestors might have had a family in
Michigan and another in Canada back in the late nineteenth
century. Was there a law against that then?
Almost certainly, but the legislation was on a state-level in the US (I
don't know about Canada) and the fine details may have differed somewhat.
Do we have any accounts from the medieval times that mention
polygamy?
I recall a few people being called to task for it.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Frederick II Hohenstaufen, Stupor Mundi, -to- QEII
Just to say: there are not several legitimate lines from Frederick if
you mean from different children of Frederick -- only Margaret of all
his legitimate children (there were only four) has descendants. The
Popes did their best to extinguish the Hohenstaufens in the male line,
legit and illegit, and were quite successful at it. Margaret's son
Frederick, regarded by hopeful Ghibellines as the logical claimant to
the Swabian dynasty, lay low and stayed out of trouble all his life,
dying in his bed, leaving innumerable descendants. Another
distaff-Hohenstaufen, Ottakar of Bohemia, was not so quiet and reaped
the reward of ill-timed ambition. (But he has plenty of living
descendants too, through the Luxembourgs and the Habsburgs.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
you mean from different children of Frederick -- only Margaret of all
his legitimate children (there were only four) has descendants. The
Popes did their best to extinguish the Hohenstaufens in the male line,
legit and illegit, and were quite successful at it. Margaret's son
Frederick, regarded by hopeful Ghibellines as the logical claimant to
the Swabian dynasty, lay low and stayed out of trouble all his life,
dying in his bed, leaving innumerable descendants. Another
distaff-Hohenstaufen, Ottakar of Bohemia, was not so quiet and reaped
the reward of ill-timed ambition. (But he has plenty of living
descendants too, through the Luxembourgs and the Habsburgs.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
-
Bob Turcott
Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
I agree with you. Jean Bunot is very concise and accurate with
his work, I am proud to indicate at this time that I have learned a lot from
Jean in the very short time I have known him
Taking advantage of this post I am conducting some advanced research of
the Meherec famille. One source being investigated at this time is a book
called
Histoire du Bessin the author I will name later.
On page 220 of the book Guillaume de Meherenc seigneur des londes a
Trevieres 22 mars 1420 is observed, on the same page we have Henry de
Meherenc
seigneur du fief Meherenc a Trevieres.
On page 259 under sergenterie de cerisy a Guillaume de Meherenc
du dit lieu du fief de meherenc le jeune. What does "du dit lieu du
fief
de meherenc le jeune" signify?
On page 260 we see Guillaume de Meherenc indicated as well under
serenturie de Torigni
From: aeam@videotron.ca (Alain Contant)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: 13 Jan 2005 18:44:32 -0800
_________________________________________________________________
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
his work, I am proud to indicate at this time that I have learned a lot from
Jean in the very short time I have known him
Taking advantage of this post I am conducting some advanced research of
the Meherec famille. One source being investigated at this time is a book
called
Histoire du Bessin the author I will name later.
On page 220 of the book Guillaume de Meherenc seigneur des londes a
Trevieres 22 mars 1420 is observed, on the same page we have Henry de
Meherenc
seigneur du fief Meherenc a Trevieres.
On page 259 under sergenterie de cerisy a Guillaume de Meherenc
du dit lieu du fief de meherenc le jeune. What does "du dit lieu du
fief
de meherenc le jeune" signify?
On page 260 we see Guillaume de Meherenc indicated as well under
serenturie de Torigni
From: aeam@videotron.ca (Alain Contant)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: 13 Jan 2005 18:44:32 -0800
My dear friend Jean Bunot contacted me today to verify who had been
married to Adrien de Méhérenc (Jeanne du Pont or Elisabeth de
Clinchamps ?) and to suggest that there was a discrepancy between the
additional ascendancy chart published in my article (Elisabeth) and
the chart sent to me by the marquis de Saint-Pierre (Jeanne). Of
course Jean Bunot was right.
The typed chart indicates that Adrien de Méhérenc married Jeanne du
Pont in 1579 (with issue).
I should have inserted Jeanne du Pont's name in the additional
ascendancy chart, corrected the marriage date to 1579, and indicated
that the insertion of Elisabeth de Clinchamps' name and the 1590 date
in M. Beauregard's chart (that I refer to at the beginning of my
article) is at variance with the family chart sent by the marquis de
Saint-Pierre. Did Elisabeth marry Adrien "en seconde noces"?
M. Bunot is most kind in seeing a minor glitch. It rather is careless
reviewing for which I apologize. I owe much to Jean Bunot whose
formidable interest and knowledge in genealogy has been an inspiration
to me for almost fifteen years.
_________________________________________________________________
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
-
Ray Cassidy
Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Bob,
is HTML and means nonbreaking space. It is a way to keep the two
words on either side together as one word and shown with a space between
them.
As for the rest it should of been written 'Guillaume de Méhérenc, dit "le
Jeune", seigneur de Méhérenc' to make a lot more sense. Keep up your work
with the Méhérenc family.
Ray
raysplace.org
""Bob Turcott"" <bobturcott@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY106-F154B1D82AADE4B97D3E2BAD5FE0@phx.gbl...
is HTML and means nonbreaking space. It is a way to keep the two
words on either side together as one word and shown with a space between
them.
As for the rest it should of been written 'Guillaume de Méhérenc, dit "le
Jeune", seigneur de Méhérenc' to make a lot more sense. Keep up your work
with the Méhérenc family.
Ray
raysplace.org
""Bob Turcott"" <bobturcott@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY106-F154B1D82AADE4B97D3E2BAD5FE0@phx.gbl...
I agree with you. Jean Bunot is very concise and accurate with
his work, I am proud to indicate at this time that I have learned a lot
from
Jean in the very short time I have known him
Taking advantage of this post I am conducting some advanced research of
the Meherec famille. One source being investigated at this time is a book
called
Histoire du Bessin the author I will name later.
On page 220 of the book Guillaume de Meherenc seigneur des londes a
Trevieres 22 mars 1420 is observed, on the same page we have Henry de
Meherenc
seigneur du fief Meherenc a Trevieres.
On page 259 under sergenterie de cerisy a Guillaume de Meherenc
du dit lieu du fief de meherenc le jeune. What does "du dit lieu du
fief
de meherenc le jeune" signify?
On page 260 we see Guillaume de Meherenc indicated as well under
serenturie de Torigni
From: aeam@videotron.ca (Alain Contant)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: 13 Jan 2005 18:44:32 -0800
My dear friend Jean Bunot contacted me today to verify who had been
married to Adrien de Méhérenc (Jeanne du Pont or Elisabeth de
Clinchamps ?) and to suggest that there was a discrepancy between the
additional ascendancy chart published in my article (Elisabeth) and
the chart sent to me by the marquis de Saint-Pierre (Jeanne). Of
course Jean Bunot was right.
The typed chart indicates that Adrien de Méhérenc married Jeanne du
Pont in 1579 (with issue).
I should have inserted Jeanne du Pont's name in the additional
ascendancy chart, corrected the marriage date to 1579, and indicated
that the insertion of Elisabeth de Clinchamps' name and the 1590 date
in M. Beauregard's chart (that I refer to at the beginning of my
article) is at variance with the family chart sent by the marquis de
Saint-Pierre. Did Elisabeth marry Adrien "en seconde noces"?
M. Bunot is most kind in seeing a minor glitch. It rather is careless
reviewing for which I apologize. I owe much to Jean Bunot whose
formidable interest and knowledge in genealogy has been an inspiration
to me for almost fifteen years.
_________________________________________________________________
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: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Ray,
Very interesting to see a Méhérenc carry a le Jeune surname, what would
prompt this practice?
Maybe he resided on a Le Jeune property or did it have something to do with
sergenterie de cerisy?
I am not sure how the Html code showed up, probably when I turned my rich
text editor off to plain text and performed paste function and performed no
further edit after paste.
I have 40 pages of the Bessin book to examine, also the sources shown in the
book for
Guillaume de Méhérenc seigneur des londes a Trevieres 22 mars 1420
bibl. nat. P.O. 1912 dossier Méhérenc et antig. de norm.,XXIII N#784
source for Henry de Méhérenc du fief Méhérenc a Trevieres (Méhérenc lived in
Trevieres)
bibl. nat. P.O. 1912 et arch. du calv. serie F. fonds danquin n#408
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm ... direct/01/
Very interesting to see a Méhérenc carry a le Jeune surname, what would
prompt this practice?
Maybe he resided on a Le Jeune property or did it have something to do with
sergenterie de cerisy?
I am not sure how the Html code showed up, probably when I turned my rich
text editor off to plain text and performed paste function and performed no
further edit after paste.
I have 40 pages of the Bessin book to examine, also the sources shown in the
book for
Guillaume de Méhérenc seigneur des londes a Trevieres 22 mars 1420
bibl. nat. P.O. 1912 dossier Méhérenc et antig. de norm.,XXIII N#784
source for Henry de Méhérenc du fief Méhérenc a Trevieres (Méhérenc lived in
Trevieres)
bibl. nat. P.O. 1912 et arch. du calv. serie F. fonds danquin n#408
From: "Ray Cassidy" <rcassidy12@comcast.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:10:06 -0500
Bob,
is HTML and means nonbreaking space. It is a way to keep the two
words on either side together as one word and shown with a space between
them.
As for the rest it should of been written 'Guillaume de Méhérenc, dit "le
Jeune", seigneur de Méhérenc' to make a lot more sense. Keep up your work
with the Méhérenc family.
Ray
raysplace.org
""Bob Turcott"" <bobturcott@msn.com> wrote in message
news:BAY106-F154B1D82AADE4B97D3E2BAD5FE0@phx.gbl...
I agree with you. Jean Bunot is very concise and accurate with
his work, I am proud to indicate at this time that I have learned a lot
from
Jean in the very short time I have known him
Taking advantage of this post I am conducting some advanced research of
the Meherec famille. One source being investigated at this time is a
book
called
Histoire du Bessin the author I will name later.
On page 220 of the book Guillaume de Meherenc seigneur des londes a
Trevieres 22 mars 1420 is observed, on the same page we have Henry de
Meherenc
seigneur du fief Meherenc a Trevieres.
On page 259 under sergenterie de cerisy a Guillaume de Meherenc
du dit lieu du fief de meherenc le jeune. What does "du dit lieu
du
fief
de meherenc le jeune" signify?
On page 260 we see Guillaume de Meherenc indicated as well under
serenturie de Torigni
From: aeam@videotron.ca (Alain Contant)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: 13 Jan 2005 18:44:32 -0800
My dear friend Jean Bunot contacted me today to verify who had been
married to Adrien de Méhérenc (Jeanne du Pont or Elisabeth de
Clinchamps ?) and to suggest that there was a discrepancy between the
additional ascendancy chart published in my article (Elisabeth) and
the chart sent to me by the marquis de Saint-Pierre (Jeanne). Of
course Jean Bunot was right.
The typed chart indicates that Adrien de Méhérenc married Jeanne du
Pont in 1579 (with issue).
I should have inserted Jeanne du Pont's name in the additional
ascendancy chart, corrected the marriage date to 1579, and indicated
that the insertion of Elisabeth de Clinchamps' name and the 1590 date
in M. Beauregard's chart (that I refer to at the beginning of my
article) is at variance with the family chart sent by the marquis de
Saint-Pierre. Did Elisabeth marry Adrien "en seconde noces"?
M. Bunot is most kind in seeing a minor glitch. It rather is careless
reviewing for which I apologize. I owe much to Jean Bunot whose
formidable interest and knowledge in genealogy has been an inspiration
to me for almost fifteen years.
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm ... direct/01/
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 15
Thanks for that, John. Yes, I've gone through all the Little Horwood
and Winslow wills at HALS from the start of the St Albans register in
1420 up to 1454, and a large proportion of those from then until 1500,
and some of the 16C wills (though not the Granborough ones - there just
isn't time enough). If only the same resource was available for Great
Horwood!
A few early (1420s, 1430s) wills from Winslow, Little Horwood and
Granborough, some of which aren't in the 1AR wills register, were copied
into the Winslow manor court book. Ada Levett printed their texts in
her Studies in Manorial History. John Wattes' 1427 will is one which
appears in both the court book and the will register (though there is
some uncertainty as to whether he wasn't in fact Joan Wattes) - I
believe his executor, John Geffes, may have been the Great Horwood
inhabitant of the same name.
Thanks again,
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: John Townsend [mailto:john@johntownsend.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 19 February 2006 11:47
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 1556
I feel sure you will not have overlooked that Winslow, Granborough and
Little Horwood, unlike most of Buckinghamshire, lay in the Archdeaconry
of St. Albans (Diocese of London), hence you will have searched for
relevant wills in that court. I see there was an early WATTES will at
Granborough:
1427 Wattes John, Granborough. HRO 1AR12r
Many wills for WATTS were proved in the Archdeaconry of Buckingham, but
of course these will all be at least a few miles away.
Best wishes,
John Townsend
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk
and Winslow wills at HALS from the start of the St Albans register in
1420 up to 1454, and a large proportion of those from then until 1500,
and some of the 16C wills (though not the Granborough ones - there just
isn't time enough). If only the same resource was available for Great
Horwood!
A few early (1420s, 1430s) wills from Winslow, Little Horwood and
Granborough, some of which aren't in the 1AR wills register, were copied
into the Winslow manor court book. Ada Levett printed their texts in
her Studies in Manorial History. John Wattes' 1427 will is one which
appears in both the court book and the will register (though there is
some uncertainty as to whether he wasn't in fact Joan Wattes) - I
believe his executor, John Geffes, may have been the Great Horwood
inhabitant of the same name.
Thanks again,
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: John Townsend [mailto:john@johntownsend.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 19 February 2006 11:47
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Henry WATTS gent, of Winslow /Whaddon 1530s, of Hurst 1556
I feel sure you will not have overlooked that Winslow, Granborough and
Little Horwood, unlike most of Buckinghamshire, lay in the Archdeaconry
of St. Albans (Diocese of London), hence you will have searched for
relevant wills in that court. I see there was an early WATTES will at
Granborough:
1427 Wattes John, Granborough. HRO 1AR12r
Many wills for WATTS were proved in the Archdeaconry of Buckingham, but
of course these will all be at least a few miles away.
Best wishes,
John Townsend
Genealogist/Antiquarian Bookseller
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk
-
John Plant
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name (contempory evidence for the
Matt,
You ask a very interesting question:
"Why did Richard of York not take the by-name of a more recent, more
prestigious ancestor and could it have been that the Plantagenet name
had remained in continuous unofficial use even though that lacks evidence?"
I can just make a few relevant comments.
First, I should note the genealogist's mantra of argumentum ad
ignorantum. In that context, filling in the gaps for surname information
might be seen as a sin. However, we are not here discussing the
painstaking fitting together of a pedigree for which guessing across the
gap would invalidate the whole process. Historians seem generally quite
happy to fill in the gap between the by-name of Geffrey Plante Genest
and the Plantagenet surname of the House of York while genealogists are
more inclined to complain about that.
As an initial comment, some might question the idea that Geffrey Plante
Genest was not sufficiantly important. He did, after all, father the
Angevin Empire which extended far beyond just England though he was new
to royal status. He was the intended royal successor as Matilda's
carefully selected husband but Stephen of Blois grabbed the English
throne leading to protracted fighting between the Houses of Blois and
Anjou. Also, he became the male-line progenitor of a long-standing line
of kings and that would have been a crucial consideration for discussing
the royal succession.
That said, it seems to me to be reasonable to suppose that the "hairy
shoot" connotation of the name Plantegenest was all too well understood
in the Welsh borders at least. This could have been the inspiration that
led on to the salacious by-name Plantefolie, such as for John
Plantefolie in Somerset in 1226, though the same by-name was spread
around England: Leicestershire in 1209 and Yorkshire in 1270. Also,
since 1219, an alternative spelling of the Plant surname/by-name was
Plente which meant abundant or fertile or generosity. Putting this
together with the three powers of the vegetable soul we get nutritive
generosity, abundant growth, and fertile generation. Robert Grossetest
had been at the royal court and he was prominent around 1200 in
promoting the philosophy of the vegetable soul's powers. Is it a
coincidence that this churchman was active in countering the salacious
connotations?
Perhaps the 1266 record [Close Rolls] for Galfrido Plauntegenet was a
particularly difficult one for the censors to expunge, if that is what
was happening. Galfrido was one of 35 named people: they were evidently
sergeants at arms in the itinerant king's household and they authorised
who should transport the king's garderobe.
Historians might also debate the extent to which the following remark is
telling. The poet laureate, John Gower, wrote to the new Lancastrian
king Henry IV:
My lord, in whom evere yit be founde
Pite withoute spot of violence,
Kep thilke pes alwei withinne bounde,
Which god hathe planted in thi conscience;
Taking care not to attract criticism seems to be the watchword. The king
is cautioned to keep pes (peace or seed?) always within bounds and there
is an emphasis on planted conscience. By the time that Richard duke of
York adopted "Plantaginet" as a royal surname the connotations of the
name Plante Genest may have been cleaned up.
Unfortunately, that does not answer your question directly.
Regards,
John
You ask a very interesting question:
"Why did Richard of York not take the by-name of a more recent, more
prestigious ancestor and could it have been that the Plantagenet name
had remained in continuous unofficial use even though that lacks evidence?"
I can just make a few relevant comments.
First, I should note the genealogist's mantra of argumentum ad
ignorantum. In that context, filling in the gaps for surname information
might be seen as a sin. However, we are not here discussing the
painstaking fitting together of a pedigree for which guessing across the
gap would invalidate the whole process. Historians seem generally quite
happy to fill in the gap between the by-name of Geffrey Plante Genest
and the Plantagenet surname of the House of York while genealogists are
more inclined to complain about that.
As an initial comment, some might question the idea that Geffrey Plante
Genest was not sufficiantly important. He did, after all, father the
Angevin Empire which extended far beyond just England though he was new
to royal status. He was the intended royal successor as Matilda's
carefully selected husband but Stephen of Blois grabbed the English
throne leading to protracted fighting between the Houses of Blois and
Anjou. Also, he became the male-line progenitor of a long-standing line
of kings and that would have been a crucial consideration for discussing
the royal succession.
That said, it seems to me to be reasonable to suppose that the "hairy
shoot" connotation of the name Plantegenest was all too well understood
in the Welsh borders at least. This could have been the inspiration that
led on to the salacious by-name Plantefolie, such as for John
Plantefolie in Somerset in 1226, though the same by-name was spread
around England: Leicestershire in 1209 and Yorkshire in 1270. Also,
since 1219, an alternative spelling of the Plant surname/by-name was
Plente which meant abundant or fertile or generosity. Putting this
together with the three powers of the vegetable soul we get nutritive
generosity, abundant growth, and fertile generation. Robert Grossetest
had been at the royal court and he was prominent around 1200 in
promoting the philosophy of the vegetable soul's powers. Is it a
coincidence that this churchman was active in countering the salacious
connotations?
Perhaps the 1266 record [Close Rolls] for Galfrido Plauntegenet was a
particularly difficult one for the censors to expunge, if that is what
was happening. Galfrido was one of 35 named people: they were evidently
sergeants at arms in the itinerant king's household and they authorised
who should transport the king's garderobe.
Historians might also debate the extent to which the following remark is
telling. The poet laureate, John Gower, wrote to the new Lancastrian
king Henry IV:
My lord, in whom evere yit be founde
Pite withoute spot of violence,
Kep thilke pes alwei withinne bounde,
Which god hathe planted in thi conscience;
Taking care not to attract criticism seems to be the watchword. The king
is cautioned to keep pes (peace or seed?) always within bounds and there
is an emphasis on planted conscience. By the time that Richard duke of
York adopted "Plantaginet" as a royal surname the connotations of the
name Plante Genest may have been cleaned up.
Unfortunately, that does not answer your question directly.
Regards,
John
-
W David Samuelsen
Re: [little OT] The Bonny Swans
<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1140454461>
not medieval at all. Lyric written by Loreena McKennitt
google "bonny swan" and you get all hits.
David Samuelsen
not medieval at all. Lyric written by Loreena McKennitt
google "bonny swan" and you get all hits.
David Samuelsen
-
Bob Turcott
Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
To all,
I came across another Illusive surname in the Meherenc Tree..de Suhard!!!
We observe
Richard Bouchard de Meherenc, sgr des Londes
m. 1391, Marguerite Agues de Suhard
Marguerite Agues de Suhard could possibly be a descendant of another fief or
Seigner.
One fief that I know of is Jean de caumont (Jean Suhard) Seigner de Crouay,
This Seigner is noted in the Histoire of Bessin book, I will investigate
Marguerite Agues de Suhard's exact placement in the family, she may or may
not be a daughter of Jean, but further investiagtion in this area is worth a
look as there are other Suhard fiefs or Seigner's
in the bessin book and other areas as well..
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/
I came across another Illusive surname in the Meherenc Tree..de Suhard!!!
We observe
Richard Bouchard de Meherenc, sgr des Londes
m. 1391, Marguerite Agues de Suhard
Marguerite Agues de Suhard could possibly be a descendant of another fief or
Seigner.
One fief that I know of is Jean de caumont (Jean Suhard) Seigner de Crouay,
This Seigner is noted in the Histoire of Bessin book, I will investigate
Marguerite Agues de Suhard's exact placement in the family, she may or may
not be a daughter of Jean, but further investiagtion in this area is worth a
look as there are other Suhard fiefs or Seigner's
in the bessin book and other areas as well..
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/
-
Gjest
Re: the movie
I suppose it must rank among the finest as almost no films (big budget ones
at any rate) to date have been done on Scottish History. It glamorizes and
glosses over a complex period in Scots history and utterly ignors a number of
facts pertinent to the case . It does include the One major battle that Wallace
is noted for ( Falkirk) and even brings forth the point that Robert Bruce was
at that time in King Edward I`s army. It Indicates He was known as the
Guardian of Scotland but in fact the title was Guardian of Scotland in King John
(Baliol) `s name. It is further correct as to the manner of his execution at
Edward I`s orders, but Wallace was many years dead before Prince Edward ever met,
let alone married Isabel of France. The Film further ignors that Wallace, who
may or may not have been a knight, slipped into power while the Comyn family
were both hostages in England and fighting in Edward I`s army in .. I believe
Flanders. John the Red Comyn was none too happy at Wallace`s refusal to
relinquinsh Guardianship to him ... He being Baliol`s nephew and a proven military
leader and He angrily withdrew his troop of knights from the field at
Falkirk. also, prior to 1290 when Margaret of Norway, a child of four years and
heiress to both Scotland and Norway died on her way to Scotland, King Edward I was
busily negociating for her marriage to Edward, Prince of Wales, so the
maltreatment of the Scots people would not have occurred. The Bruces and the Comyns
had many strong castles and The other Earls ( Bruce had Carrick, the Comyns
Buchan) namely Mar , Ross, Orkney, Athol, Strathearn , Dunbar, Fife and Lennox
were not that far behind nor were the Lords of the Isles at all shy about
defending their people. The War with Scotland 1296-1314 was not so easy to win
at any time for either Scot or Englishman. In the War of 1306- 1314 it was in
fact rather a war of succession rather than Independence as Bannockburn left
the Red Comyn`s son dead and an two year old infant Aymer Comyn with the claim.
Up to this point a good percentage of Scots were loath to bend the knee to
the Bruce and it went poorly for him.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
at any rate) to date have been done on Scottish History. It glamorizes and
glosses over a complex period in Scots history and utterly ignors a number of
facts pertinent to the case . It does include the One major battle that Wallace
is noted for ( Falkirk) and even brings forth the point that Robert Bruce was
at that time in King Edward I`s army. It Indicates He was known as the
Guardian of Scotland but in fact the title was Guardian of Scotland in King John
(Baliol) `s name. It is further correct as to the manner of his execution at
Edward I`s orders, but Wallace was many years dead before Prince Edward ever met,
let alone married Isabel of France. The Film further ignors that Wallace, who
may or may not have been a knight, slipped into power while the Comyn family
were both hostages in England and fighting in Edward I`s army in .. I believe
Flanders. John the Red Comyn was none too happy at Wallace`s refusal to
relinquinsh Guardianship to him ... He being Baliol`s nephew and a proven military
leader and He angrily withdrew his troop of knights from the field at
Falkirk. also, prior to 1290 when Margaret of Norway, a child of four years and
heiress to both Scotland and Norway died on her way to Scotland, King Edward I was
busily negociating for her marriage to Edward, Prince of Wales, so the
maltreatment of the Scots people would not have occurred. The Bruces and the Comyns
had many strong castles and The other Earls ( Bruce had Carrick, the Comyns
Buchan) namely Mar , Ross, Orkney, Athol, Strathearn , Dunbar, Fife and Lennox
were not that far behind nor were the Lords of the Isles at all shy about
defending their people. The War with Scotland 1296-1314 was not so easy to win
at any time for either Scot or Englishman. In the War of 1306- 1314 it was in
fact rather a war of succession rather than Independence as Bannockburn left
the Red Comyn`s son dead and an two year old infant Aymer Comyn with the claim.
Up to this point a good percentage of Scots were loath to bend the knee to
the Bruce and it went poorly for him.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA