Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 mai 2006 22:46:51

In message of 11 May, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/11/06 1:50:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I always feel uncomfortable seeing posts edited or removed in this
way (while sympathising with the desire to maintain accuracy)
because it tampers with the historical record that the newsgroup's
archives constitute.


Yes and no. The original posts to GEN-MEDIEVAL-L are archived as
well. So editing postings in google groups or soc-med or wherever,

You cannot edit posts in soc.med. The way Usenet works is to that each
Internet News Server calls for copies of all postings from other
(or some other) servers. So when you post on one server, copies of it
are made round the known universe. Then the punters read their chosen
local news server and get a copy of one of those copies. Eventually,
perhaps after a month or so, the various servers delete the old
postings, though each can hold them for different lengths of time.

So there are no editing facilities for soc-med.

doesn't actually remove all traces. Will Johnson


What you can do is to hold copies of all posts yourself, thus making
your own local archive. This is all that Google used to do - and one
or two other organisations if I remember rightly.

(I've left out the interaction with Rootsweb but then we all seem to be
gathering that Rootsweb has the more authentic archive.)

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

Gjest

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mai 2006 22:56:20

"JDUVALL" schrieb:

I'll check the pages I've copied from Payling's book to see if he lists
the sources for his discussion of the Leek family. If I find them, I'll
post them to the list.

I may have already asked this before, but is anything known of the
ancestry of this Sir John Vaux? The fact that Payling, if I recall
correctly (my notes are at home, so I'll have to verify this), indicated
that the Leeks were an old (traceable back to the time of either Henry
II or John if I'm not mistaken) family in the neighborhood, but not
particularly distinguished, and that Sir Simon's marriage to Margaret
Vaux was a real move up the social ladder (as it were) is rather
interesting in light of your original post pointing out that they were
related within a prohibited degree...

Thanks, Jeff; that would be very useful. I was at the SoG the other
day, and looked through the Thoroton Society's extracted
Nottinghamshire IPMs, but there was nothing for Vaux (or Vallibus etc)
at all. John de Vaux was Sheriff from 1347 to 1350 (sic) according to
some online sources, but that's all I have been able to find. There
are no Notts Vauxs in the Knights of Edward I.

As Thoroton himself noted, it is hard to sort the Leeks out, but this
is partly because there are so many of them. Simon Leek is named in
one early IPM but no relationship is specified. As noted earlier, the
Leek pedigree (sub Hercy) in one of the Notts Visitations is faulty and
thus particularly unreliable.

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: Possible problem with Oxenbridge line --

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mai 2006 23:13:36

John Brandon schrieb:

I believe the New England John Oxenbridge was said to have been born in
1608/09, yet the son of Daniel is called "an. nat. 18" in June 1623 ...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... dge&pgis=1

Perhaps Daniel Oxenbridge's will would be of assistance. It is
available from the PRO site:

Will of Daniel Oxenbridge, Doctor of Physic of London, proved PCC 12
September 1642 (PROB 11/190)

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Possible problem with Oxenbridge line --

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mai 2006 23:24:04

mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:

Perhaps Daniel Oxenbridge's will would be of assistance. It is
available from the PRO site:

Will of Daniel Oxenbridge, Doctor of Physic of London, proved PCC 12
September 1642 (PROB 11/190)


Or there's that of his wife, Katherine: proved PCC 5 November 1651, PRO
11/219.

And I guess this is the will of Daniel's father? Probate of John
Oxenbridge, Preacher of the Word of God at Coventry and late Minister
of Southam, Warwickshire, proved PCC 2 June 1618 (PROB 11/131).

Gjest

Re: John Rotherham of Someries, Luton (+1492)

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 mai 2006 23:26:34

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 5/11/06 2:50:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Spot on, as usual! Alice Rotherham was Thomas St George's first wife
(and thus not ancestral to the Countess of Wessex, whose St George line
comes from Thomas' second marriage). Alice had two brothers, Sir
Thomas and George.

Thank you for pointing out to me that Thomas had two marriages.
I checked Leo's database and traced the line forward a few steps and ran
smack into the Nicholas St John/Elizabeth Blout marriage that itself has a Cecil
number of 4

So now, this Rotheram, Forster, Winter connection are all within the desired
10 steps of relationship to Richard Cecil as well :)

Will "I have too much time on my hands" Johnson

Happy to be of assistance! I think your project sounds quite
interesting, and while it derives from idle amusement, it will no doubt
be of utility as well.

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Possible problem with Oxenbridge line --

Legg inn av John Brandon » 11 mai 2006 23:49:15

In this contemporary record, the Boston minister was said to be "aged
about 63" at his death in 1674 ...

http://books.google.com/books?q=oxenbri ... eet&pgis=1


Gjest

Re: John Rotherham of Someries, Luton (+1492)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 00:19:39

In a message dated 5/11/06 2:05:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< A freeman of Canterbury by 1469, he married Alice
Forster, the daughter of John and Jane Winter of Canterbury; appointed
JP for Bedfordshire in 1472, he was Sheriff of Bucks and Beds in 1476-7
and again 1488-9; died 1492 and left a PCC will. >>

Is this the same John Rotheram who had a daughter Alice who married Thomas St
George of Hatley (1473-1540) ?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 00:25:39

In a message dated 5/11/06 1:50:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< I always feel
uncomfortable seeing posts edited or removed in this way (while
sympathising with the desire to maintain accuracy) because it tampers
with the historical record that the newsgroup's archives constitute. >>

Yes and no. The original posts to GEN-MEDIEVAL-L are archived as well.
So editing postings in google groups or soc-med or wherever, doesn't actually
remove all traces.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 01:07:41

I think if a problem is going to arise, it may come from the chronological
tightness necessary to allow Christianna to be a mother four times over with her
first husband who d abt 1421.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Rotherham of Someries, Luton (+1492)

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 01:21:44

In a message dated 5/11/06 2:50:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Spot on, as usual! Alice Rotherham was Thomas St George's first wife
(and thus not ancestral to the Countess of Wessex, whose St George line
comes from Thomas' second marriage). Alice had two brothers, Sir
Thomas and George. >>

Thank you for pointing out to me that Thomas had two marriages.
I checked Leo's database and traced the line forward a few steps and ran
smack into the Nicholas St John/Elizabeth Blout marriage that itself has a Cecil
number of 4

So now, this Rotheram, Forster, Winter connection are all within the desired
10 steps of relationship to Richard Cecil as well :)

Will "I have too much time on my hands" Johnson

Gjest

Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 02:02:02

For some reason, I had, using old messages, determined that Patrick, Lord
Graham was born 1416/8, and his father Alexander Graham was born 1399/1401

If I can re-figure out, how I figured that out.... then I would suggest that
Christian Erskine is made too old here by a bit. I suppose it's possible that
a 20 year old girl is married to an infant, but as long as we're guessing,
I'd prefer her to be a bit older, say 1410/20 ish.

Will

Gjest

Re: Winter family, of Canterbury, Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 02:03:02

In a message dated 5/11/06 2:15:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< (The Thomas Forster buried in St Margaret's was probably the one of
that name who died in 1467, having been MP for Canterbury in 1459;
possibly he was Alice Rotherham's second father-in-law.) >>

Second ... husband ?

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 02:14:01

In a message dated 5/11/2006 6:15:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

Dale never gave anything to his daughter Mary. She was given an 800
acre plantation by Vincent Stanford.



This is not proven. It is a fact that Mary Dale Harrison held land on Brice
Creek in 1679 and she was involved in a law suit with Richard Merriman over
the boundaries of this property. This land had originally belonged to Col.
Thomas Bries and through various transactions part of the land was sold to Col.
Edward Carter and the other portion of the land ended up in Mary's possession.
Edward Dale oversaw the will of Col. Thomas Bries and may have purchased
part of the property before Col. John Carter as Guardian for Martha Bries
step-children sold it for the children's benefit. Not all the deeds or documents
of Lancaster County exist. In 1751 a large group of them was assembled by the
then Clerk of the Court which is what we now have. There are some gaps so we
can never be entirely sure that Edward Dale did not give the land on Bries
Creek to Mary Dale [and probably her husband Daniel Harrison].

The deed of gift to Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers in 1677 also retained
life use of the house for Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith. This deed was a
point of contention and had to be recertified in 1695 after the death of Major
Edward Dale. There were a number of lawsuits between Edward Dale and William
Rogers in the period 1693-1695 in the Lancaster County Court and at the time
Edward Dale wrote his will he was angry at William Rogers. One of these
entries follows:


Lancaster County Court 13th of September 1693
p.262 Mr. William Rogers being arrested to this court at the suite of
Major Edward Dale for six hundred pounds of tobacco and ca: and not appearing to
answer the saide suite, and the Sheriffe not takeing security accordinge to
Acte, Order accordinge to Acte is therefore granted against the saide
Sheriffe, upon whose peticon, Attachmt is granted against the saide Rogers.

The Carters were given the entire estate because of Edward Dale's anger at
his son-in-law. Mary Dale had died and he had already provided for Humphrey
Jones. He disinherited the Harrison children also and this was probably due to
the following suit by John Pinckard:

Lancaster Court Records: March 10, 1690
Upon the peticon of John Pinckard as marrieing Ellinor Harrison, Daughter of
Mr. Daniel Harrison, decd., for the estate belonging to his said wife out of
her saide Father's estate in the possession of Major Edward Dale, It is
therefore ordered with the consent of the saide Dale that the same bee forthwith
paid by him unto the said Pinckard with costs.

Recorded March 11, 1690/1 by John Stretchley Cl. Cur.

Much of Edward Dale's later life was plagued with these suits either by or
against family members. All of this is contained in the Lancaster County
records we do have.

Edward Dale was a very proud and easy angered man especially in the period
between 1684 and his death which is demonstrated well in his will.

Regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 02:18:02

Is there a date for the death of Elizabeth Rempston, wife of Sir John Cheney?
If not, I can at least offer a terminus.

Will Johnson
-------------------------------
Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies: Title deeds and estate papers of
the Lytton family of Knebworth House, Knebworth, c1279 - 1910
Title deeds and estate papers of the Lytton family of Knebworth House,
Knebworth, c1279-1910
Catalogue Ref. DE/K
Creator(s): Lytton family of Knebworth, Hertfordshire

TITLE DEEDS
Derby
Baslow, Litton
FILE - Grant - ref. DE/K/46816 - date: 10 May 1478
[from Scope and Content] By Thomas Cheyne of 'Artilburgh', Northampton, esq,
(son and heir apparent of Sir John Cheyne of Ditton, Kent, knight, and of
Elizabeth his late wife who was daughter and heir of Sir Thomas Rempston, knight,)
to John Fitzherbert, Robert Eyre, son of Robert Eyre of [Nether] Padley,
Derby, esq, Thomas Rede, citizen of London, Thomas Hunt, Robert Lytton of London,
gentlemen, Richard Blakwall and William Clayton, of the manor of Litton etc.
Power of attorney to Thomas Hogekynson and John Barton to deliver seizin.

FILE - Quitclaim - ref. DE/K/46817 - date: 9 Nov 1479
[from Scope and Content] By Sir William Plompton, Kt, to John Fitzherbert
(and others named in DE/K/46216) concerning the manor of Litton, late the
property of Sir Thomas Rempston, knight.

Gjest

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 02:27:02

Margaret the second daughter of Simon, married thirdly (?) to John Markham.

Will Johnson
--------------------------
Nottinghamshire Archives: Portland of Welbeck (1st Deposit): Deeds and Estate
Papers [DD/P/1 - DD/P/37]Portland of Welbeck (1st deposit): Deeds and Estate
Papers
Catalogue Ref. 157 DD/P
Creator(s): Cavendish family, Dukes of Newcastle upon Tyne

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
COTHAM AND SIBTHORPE - ref. 157 DD/P/8
A bundle labelled "Cavendish Deeds".
FILE [no title] - ref. 157 DD/P/8/3 - date: 1 June 1439
[from Scope and Content] Letter of Attorney: Sir Thomas Rempston, Sir John
Pygot, Nicholas Wymbyssh, William Rempston, George Plumpton, Robert Stokwyth,
clerks, Robert Rempston, esq., Ralph Leek of Kirton, Hugh Wymbyssh, John Leek of
Halom, and Richard Wakefield of Newerk to Thomas Leek and John Byngham esqs:
to deliver seisin to Mary, wife of Sir Giles Dawbeney (eldest daughter of
Simon Leek esq., dec'd.):-- manor of Cotom, 40ac. in meadow called Stokemede, and
all other property in Hawton which they with others had of the gift of S.L.
--: to Mary and heirs of her body; with remainder to Margaret, wife of John
Markham (second daughter of S.L.) and heirs of her body; then to Elizabeth, wife
of Hugh Heroy, esq. (third daughter of S.L.) and heirs of her body; then to
Anne, wife of Richard Wyloughby, esq. (fourth daughter of S.L.) and heirs of her
body; then to right heirs of S.L. Seals.

Gjest

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 02:42:02

Wait this can't be right.

It must be that these girls are all daughters of Simon Leek and Joan Talbot ?
If they were daughters of Simon his grandfather, they'd all be in their 70s
and 80s when they finally inherited !

Am I right that they were daughters of Joan?

Will

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 12 mai 2006 02:44:42

MichaelAnne--
I'm glad that you have uncovered these things, and I hope that you will
consider posting all of it so that those of us who have an interest in
this matter can consider all the facts.

When I stated above that you were supported by the Rutman article, I
meant that your usage of the term "son-in-law" as meaning either
"step-son" or "husband of a child" was also their way of using it.
Under this scenario, since we know that Daniel Harrison could not have
been Diana Dale's step-son, he must have been married to her daughter.
I don't know if at this point I'm going to go as far as that, but I
think I'm fairly representing your argument.

While I find these records interesting, they have nothing to do with
Diana Dale's legal position in 17th century VA. As soon as she married
Dale, she came under "coverture." In a 1683 lawsuit in Norfolk County,
the justices noted that Mrs. Wealthen Jones Lister was "under covert
and having noe power from her husband."

It is an absolute fact that Diana Dale was "feme covert." Had she
owned any property when she married Dale, she would have sought
"jointure" like any other propertied woman of the 17th century to
prevent her husband from doing anything he pleased with her property
(see Brown pp., 287-290). It would not have been an intelligent
decision to do otherwise.

Another misconception is that Edward Dale was somehow under some kind
of obligation to his children when he made his will. This is
completely wrong, and the planters of that era would have greatly
protested any assertion to that effect. They tended to settle their
estates on the elder branch of their family in order to maintain the
status of the family in the colony. It had nothing to do with some
quarrel with William Rogers or how Mary Dale wound up with her property
(whether she got it from Dale directly via his purchase from somebody
or from Stanford makes no difference). I am well aware of the fact
that Elizabeth Rogers wouldn't get her plantation until after the death
of both Edward and Diana Dale, and that the property had to be
"re-seated" after their demise. Defects in patents and conveyances
weren't exactly a rarity.

The legal battles over property etc. aren't going to prove that
Katherine was Diana's daughter.

I can't comment on records we don't have, nor am I going to speculate
on what these "missing" documents might have contained. What I am
going to say is that 17th century VA was a patriarchal society, that a
married woman's only enforceable rights under the law (and here I'm not
including petitions to the court as a result of physical abuse) was her
dower, which is exactly as the colony intended it to be. Men had to
repsect these dower rights, or a woman could throw a major wrench into
his ambition for his estate after he died. Diana Dale's election of a
"life-interest" in the Dale estate entitled her to receive the proceeds
thereof, which could be assigned to somebody else, but not sold or
mortgaged. Upon her death, it would revert to the Carter family. Had
she elected to reject the will, she would have been given her "dower
rights," which would consist of a life-interest in a third of the
realty, and full ownership of a third of the personalty, which in 1694
included slaves. Land in those days was cheap.

I sympathize with the Carter descendants' desire to be treated fairly,
and I think Ward did a shabby job on his article which affected so many
people. But the notion that Diana Dale was somehow, because of her
gentle birth, exempt from the rules that governed wives in VA in those
days is an error. In fact, the literature cites examples of men more
powerful and wealthy than Dale f^&%king their wives around. In his
will, Dale didn't even bother to use his wife's name (he just used the
term "now-wife").

What Douglas has done is to move back to ca. 1650/1 a supposed marriage
date for Dale and Skipwith based on nothing more than his feeling that
Katherine was Diana's daughter, and therefore the marriage must have
taken place before she was born. I don't know that Dale and Skipwith
were even in VA in 1650/1. He has produced no record to support this.
The Thomas Carter prayer book's epitaph does not state that Skipwith
was Katherine's mother. Skipwith was a godparent to the Carter's
daughter Diana, and Grey's wife was godparent to another. I think
Skipwith's main use to Dale (assuming he loved her, which one would
hope) was as a bragging point, and this is what Greene was driving at
in his letter to me. The fact that the Carters had a daughter Diana
and a son Henry Skipwith Carter proves that the Carters used some
Skipwith names, and while I agree it's evidence, I think it's just
evidence that shows a close relationship between Katherine and Diana,
as one would expect.

Skipwith never used her maiden name again after 1655 until she died in
1695. Basically, since she wasn't considered a legal entity apart from
her husband, why would she?

I strongly urge people interested in the legal and social status of
women in 17th VA to survey the literature. They are well-documented
and essential to understanding the genealogical records of this period.
Women are oft-neglected in this period. It's often said (and we've
all done it) never to research a period and place without understanding
the history, and I think what's happened in this case is that some
people are looking at it through rosy-colored glasses and seeing
something that isn't there. Carter wasn't above using Dale's arms in
his business after Dale passed, and you need to read some of these
accounts to appreciate why such a thing happened. These men thought
they were inferior to English gentry, and did everything possible to
enhance their status.

Katherine's descendants should be moving on to try to figure out who
her mother really was. I know that nothing I say will convince the
true believers in the maternity of Katherine Carter, but it's a slap in
the face of our female ancestors to not try to understand their world
and the place men let them have in it. Had 17th century VA law been
understood, I think the Carter matter would have been resolved years
ago. Since these books are easily obtainable, why not have a look at
one and see what you think?

JTC

Jeffery A. Duvall

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Jeffery A. Duvall » 12 mai 2006 05:54:57

Yes, they are the daughters of Simon Leek of Cotham, M.P. (d. aft. 1423) and
his wife Joan Talbot. See either Payling of the Roskell entry for Simon
Leek.

Jeff Duvall

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux


Wait this can't be right.

It must be that these girls are all daughters of Simon Leek and Joan
Talbot ?
If they were daughters of Simon his grandfather, they'd all be in their
70s
and 80s when they finally inherited !

Am I right that they were daughters of Joan?

Will



Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 12 mai 2006 08:31:08

Those dates seem to fit in the pretty tight chronology of the Grahams,
BUT in 1424 Patrick later Ist Lord Graham was infeft in the lands on
his grandfather's death. This would normally suggest that he was of
age. He died after 1466 and his widow married William Charteris of
Kinfauns. I don't have a genealogy of that family, but given that Lord
Graham must have been born in the early 1400s, she would probably have
been too old to bear Charteris children, even if he was born as late as
1418. His father Alexander died vita patris, the last reference to him
is a charter of 14 March 1415/16.

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 16:35:02

In a message dated 5/12/2006 9:07:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

Well Douglas, the fact that Diana Skipwith and Edward Dale were not a
married couple in 1655 is proof that Diana was not Katherine's mother.
I'm not evading the question. Doesn't it bother you that she only used
her maiden name in 1655 and never used it again for the next 40 years
until she died? This notion that she could use her maiden name after
marriage is very convenient if you posit her as Katherine Carter's
mother.




Diana Skipwith is only referred to in a few documents in Colonial Virginia.
How can anyone definitely determine how she was addressed or known on all
occasions? There are the three deeds where she is listed as "Diana Skipwith" in
1655, one deed in 1660/1 involving a land transaction with her husband which
is recorded as "Diana Dale" and the deed of 1674 where she had to sign as
Diana Dale because she was relinquishing her dower rights to the land given to
Katherine Dale and Thomas Carter. 1674 is not 40 years later. The entry
about her death was written in the Carter Family Prayer Book in 1696 and was a
choice of the author. That is a family record and cannot be considered in
anyway to reflect how she was known legally.

The deed between Ebby Bonnison and Ever Peterson that was eventually
recorded in 1658 may well be spurious as I have attested to in other posts. I just
mentioned again yesterday that Mary Dale Harrison held land on Brice Creek
which was the area involved in the three deeds of Ebby Bonnison and Ever
Peterson. Edward Dale may have been involved in this transaction silently and if
this was the case Diana Skipwith could not have witnessed this using her
married name. This point of law would have been seen to as Edward Dale himself
recorded this transaction!

There is usually a preponderance of evidence test which is applied to
lineages. In this case everyone seems to have thrown this concept away and wants to
focus on minimal documentation instead of looking at the entire body of
evidence presented.

MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 16:58:14

"Jeffery A. Duvall" wrote:
Michael,

Payling notes that Margaret Vaux brought the following properties to Sir
Simon Leek (d. ca. 1382): "Cotham and lands over the Lincs. border at
Westborough, Dry Doddington, Stubton, and Thorp." (p. 44) His sources are:
Thoroton, i. 341-3; CP 40/701, rot. 340.

Many thanks, Jeff. I shall have to take another look at Thoroton when
I am next at the British Library. While he didn't provide much useful
material on Sir Simon Leek's background, he may have some worthwhile
Vaux information. It is also useful to know that the Vaux holdings
extended into Derbyshire, as more could be found in connection with
that county. CP 40/701 is a Public Record Office reference, relating
to the Court of Common Pleas' Easter Term hearings in 1436.

He described the Leeks as follows:
"They were an ancient knightly family, established at West Leake in the
south-east corner of the county [Nottinghamshire] since the time of King
John, but, in the thirteenth century, far inferior to the Strelleys,
Cliftons, Pierponts, Chaworths, and Nevills in status. It was not until the
mid-fourteenth century and the marriage of Sir Simon Leek (d. ca. 1382) to
Margaret, the daughter and heiress of Sir John Vaux (d. 1349) of Cotham near
Newark, that the family made any progress up the social scale." (p. 44)

His sources are: Thoroton i, 48; CIPM, vi. no. 507; Notts. IPM, 1321-50,
4-5; CFR, 1347-56, 171; TE, i, 29; Calender of Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, 1198-1492,
14 vols. in 15 (HMSO, 1893-1960), iii. 456.

The Notts IPM reference probably just relates to one of the several
inquests in which Sir Simon's holdings are detailed - mostly as a
feoffee. The Papal Letter reference heads this thread. I am not sure
what the Calendar of Fine Rolls (CFR) entry is likely to reveal, but
will chase it up. I can't think off the top of my head was "TE" is:
anyone??

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 17:12:02

One last note there is also the deed of Edward Dale dated in 1677 in which
Diana Skipwith is mentioned as "the said Edward and Diana my now wife". As
Diana did not sign this deed there is no indication of whether she used either
Skipwith or Dale.

MichaelAnne

PS It is obvious from the content of this deed [the gift of land to
Elizabeth Dale and her husband in which Edward Dale and his wife retained life-use of
the house] that the term "now wife" was used to indicate that Diana was his
current wife as he might remarry later. This was not in any way to state that
he had a wife prior to Diana as it would make no sense in the context of
this document.

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Robert Plumpton / Isabel Neville

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 12 mai 2006 17:30:54

have to look this weekend.

Doug

Jeffery A. Duvall

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Jeffery A. Duvall » 12 mai 2006 18:50:36

Michael,

Payling notes that Margaret Vaux brought the following properties to Sir
Simon Leek (d. ca. 1382): "Cotham and lands over the Lincs. border at
Westborough, Dry Doddington, Stubton, and Thorp." (p. 44) His sources are:
Thoroton, i. 341-3; CP 40/701, rot. 340. He described the Leeks as follows:
"They were an ancient knightly family, established at West Leake in the
south-east corner of the county [Nottinghamshire] since the time of King
John, but, in the thirteenth century, far inferior to the Strelleys,
Cliftons, Pierponts, Chaworths, and Nevills in status. It was not until the
mid-fourteenth century and the marriage of Sir Simon Leek (d. ca. 1382) to
Margaret, the daughter and heiress of Sir John Vaux (d. 1349) of Cotham near
Newark, that the family made any progress up the social scale." (p. 44)

His sources are: Thoroton i, 48; CIPM, vi. no. 507; Notts. IPM, 1321-50,
4-5; CFR, 1347-56, 171; TE, i, 29; Calender of Entries in the Papal
Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, 1198-1492,
14 vols. in 15 (HMSO, 1893-1960), iii. 456.

I didn't photocopy the key, however, so I'm sure I can identify all the
sources, but I can always order the book again and copy that as well, the
abbreviations are unfamiliar.

At any rate, these were Payling's sources.

Cheers,

Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux


BIG CUT

Thanks, Jeff; that would be very useful. I was at the SoG the other
day, and looked through the Thoroton Society's extracted
Nottinghamshire IPMs, but there was nothing for Vaux (or Vallibus etc)
at all. John de Vaux was Sheriff from 1347 to 1350 (sic) according to
some online sources, but that's all I have been able to find. There
are no Notts Vauxs in the Knights of Edward I.

As Thoroton himself noted, it is hard to sort the Leeks out, but this
is partly because there are so many of them. Simon Leek is named in
one early IPM but no relationship is specified. As noted earlier, the
Leek pedigree (sub Hercy) in one of the Notts Visitations is faulty and
thus particularly unreliable.

Regards, Michael



Gjest

Re: Robert Plumpton / Isabel Neville

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 19:22:42

In a message dated 5/12/2006 9:20:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

I believe that Sir Robert married Agnes Gascoigne dau. of Sir William
G. and Joan Neville.


Are you stating that this is an error in the old DNB ?
If so can you give the quoted text?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Marriage of Sir Simon Leek and Margaret de Vaux

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 21:52:52

mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:

"Jeffery A. Duvall" wrote:
Michael,

Payling notes that Margaret Vaux brought the following properties to Sir
Simon Leek (d. ca. 1382): "Cotham and lands over the Lincs. border at
Westborough, Dry Doddington, Stubton, and Thorp." (p. 44) His sources are:
Thoroton, i. 341-3; CP 40/701, rot. 340.

Many thanks, Jeff. I shall have to take another look at Thoroton when
I am next at the British Library. While he didn't provide much useful
material on Sir Simon Leek's background, he may have some worthwhile
Vaux information. It is also useful to know that the Vaux holdings
extended into Derbyshire

Or even Lincolnshire, as you wrote!

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 mai 2006 22:36:26

No, Will. It's a selective use of one piece of evidence, to the
exclusion of the remaining evidence that's causing the trouble.

If Mr. Chipman and Mr. Farmerie's interpretation is correct, then they
should be able to produce additional evidence to support their
position. No such additional evidence has been forthcoming. Occam's
Razor suggests that the reason no such evidence is forthcoming for a
second wife for Edward Dale is because no such wife exists. It's that
simple, or, if you prefer, that complex.

Blabbering on and on about "feme covert" has nothing to do with the
matter at hand.

DR

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 5/12/06 11:50:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
< royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<
< << Asking someone to produce their evidence is hardly "browbeating"
them.
< A deed perhaps? A will? A marriage record? Anything? >>
<
< It's the same evidence. The interpretation of that evidence is
what's being
< used to make the assertion.
< Will

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 23:11:59

In a message dated 5/12/06 11:50:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Asking someone to produce their evidence is hardly "browbeating" them.
A deed perhaps? A will? A marriage record? Anything? >>

It's the same evidence. The interpretation of that evidence is what's being
used to make the assertion.
Will

Douglas Richardson

Riding a Dead Horse

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 mai 2006 23:16:08

Reading the current discussion about Diana Skipwith, wife of Major
Edward Dale, it strikes me that some of you are riding a dead horse.
If so, the information below will doubtless prove helpful to you.
These strategies are tried and true. They are guaranteed to keep the
dead horse alive and kicking.

DR

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The tribal wisdom of the Lakota Sioux, passed on from generation to
generation, says: "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse,
the best strategy is to dismount."

However, you probably have noticed that some organizations employ more
advanced strategies, such as:

1. Buying a stronger whip.

2. Changing riders.

3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.

4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride
dead horses.

5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.

6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.

7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.

9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead
horse's performance.

10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve
the dead horse's performance.

11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, costs
less, has lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more
to the bottom line of the economy than do other horses.

12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

And of course....

13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position

Gjest

Re: Welby of Gauxhill and Welby of Casterton

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 23:34:16

In a message dated 5/12/06 1:26:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< FILE - A Verdict at Stamford - ref. Spalding Sewers/473/2 - date: 6 July
1552
[from Scope and Content] Commissioners (actual signatures at dorse of roll)
W. Cecill, Edward Dymoke, Francis Hastenges, Geo. Seyntpoll Kenelme Dygby,
Harry Dygby, Richard Ogle, Adlard Welby, William Thorold >>

Will there is something else here that might interest you.
I would suggest that Richard Ogle, might be the same person, who married
Catherine Cooke b 1503
She was the daughter of John Cooke of Gidea Hall, Essex by his wife Alice
Saunders... So what?

Catherine's brother was Anthony Cooke, Esq of Gidea Hall who married Anne
FitzWilliam. Anthony and Anne's daughter Mildred was.... the second wife of (get
ready, get set)... William Cecil, Lord Burghley.

So Richard Ogle is the husband of his "aunt-in-law" if such a term exists.
Probably in his day, he would simply call Richard his "uncle"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Welby of Gauxhill and Welby of Casterton

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 23:44:44

Will, you will be happy to know that I have discovered the proof that
Elizabeth Welby, daughter of Henry Welby by his wife Alice White and wife of Sir
Christopher Hildyard, Knight, of Winstead, York; survived her husband.

Will Johnson
---------------------------------
Manchester University, John Rylands Library: Rylands Charters [RYCH/3278 -
RYCH/4779]
RYLANDS CHARTERS
Catalogue Ref. RYCH
ref. RYCH/3632-71
VARIOUS
FILE - Indenture of covenants between Francis, Lord Cottington, Master
of the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Sir Benjamin Rudierd, kt., Surveyor of
the same Liveries, of the one part, and Elizabeth, Lady Hyldyerd, widow
(daughter and heir of Henry Welby, esq.), of the other, respecting the manors,
lands, etc., of the said Henry Welby - ref. RYCH/3669 - date: 22 June 1637

Gjest

Re: Welby of Gauxhill and Welby of Casterton

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 23:49:00

In a message dated 5/12/06 1:35:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<<
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... lard+welby >>

Thank you John, yes this is the book I was referring to, which says nothing
further on the possibility that the son Adlard (aka Adelard) is the same one
who married Elizabeth White or not.

It does however state that his brother Henry, married Alice White.

And although it would be tempting to suppose that the Adelard who married
Elizabeth was this same brother, I just haven't found anything that is definitive
on that yet.

Will

Gjest

Re: Welby of Gauxhill and Welby of Casterton

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 23:53:38

This appears to be the same Henry Welby of Goxhill, which allows me to push
his possible birth back by another 20 years.
Will Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Lambeth Palace Library: Manuscripts [MSS 113 - 3120]
Manuscripts
Catalogue Ref. MSS
Creator(s): Lambeth Palace Library
The Queen Anne Churches
FILE - Deeds concerning the parishes of St. James and St. John Clerkenwell -
ref. MS 2732 - date: 1573-1747
item: Copy of enrolment of grant - ref. MS 2732/3 - date: 3 December 1573
[from Scope and Content] (1) Henry Welby, of Gonshill [?], Lincs., gent.;
George Blithe, of London, gent..; (2) Thomas Seckford.

Gjest

Re: Welby of Gauxhill and Welby of Casterton

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 mai 2006 23:59:43

I'm now ready to offer a correction on "Anecdotes"

On 10 Mar 1560/1 Sir John Constable is conveying to "Adelard Welby" of Goxhill

In 1564 Adlard Welby paid a "Tellers Bill" for the reason that he was the
"former Sheriff". This is in the Hill collection of Lincolnshire.

Ancedotes states that Adlard died in 1571

On finally on 3 Dec 1573 we have a copy of enrollment of grant naming "Henry
Welby of Goxhill"

"Anecdotes" states that Henry "settled at Goxhill", but clearly it was his
father at least who was already present there in 1560

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de Caldcotis (and Liv

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 13 mai 2006 03:25:39

Dear Doug, et al.,

Then there's one of the better known 2nd and 3rd degree
relationships, dispensed ca 1459 for James Douglas of Dalkeith (later
1st Earl of Morton) and Joan (aka 'the Dumb'), daughter of James I of
Scotland. James was great-grandson of Robert III, king of Scots, while
Joan was obviously a granddaughter.

Six, thus far......

Cheers,

John


Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Friday, 12 May, 2006


Dear Doug (et al.),

On 7 May 2006, you wrote (in part), citing your conversation with
Andrew B. W. MacEwen:

' Second, Andrew confirmed that dispensations for 2nd & 3rd degree
kinships in Scotland were exceedingly rare. He said he only knew
of two Scottish women in the medieval period who received such
dispensations, both of whom were major heiresses. The first
was Eupheme Sterwart, Countess of Strathearn, who obtained
successive dispensations to marry Albany half-brothers to whom
she was related by kindred in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and by
affinity in the 3rd and 4th degrees. Neither marriage took
place. The 2nd woman was Margaret Douglas (living 1473),
"the Fair Maid of Galloway," who was wife successively of
William Douglas, 8th Earl of Douglas (died 1451), James
Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, and John Stewart, 1st Earl
of Atholl. " [1]

Based on the foregoing, we therefore (at this moment) know of at
least 4 dispensations for individuals, one of whom (but evidently
only one) related to the other in the 2nd degree. If you recall, I
cited two other examples the other day:

' A. 'Egidie de Duglas quondam Henrici Soeuclar Militis relicte
vidue Glasguen.' , postnuptial dispensation for her marriage
to Alexander Stewart (related in the 3rd and 2nd degrees),
mandate issued at Rome, 29 Apr 1418 [Stuart, p 449 citing
'Martinus V. anno primo. 3 kal. Maii. 1418' ]


Elizabeth Mure = Robert II = 2) Euphemia of Ross
__________________I I__________
I I
Robert, Duke of Albany Sir William Douglas = Egidia
d. 1420 d. 1391 I Stewart
I I
Murdoch, Duke of Albany ____________I
I_________________ I
I I
2) Alexander Stewart = Egidia = 1) Sir Henry
Douglas Sinclair


B. Record of the supplication and dispensation for marriage of
Elizabeth Douglas to William Sinclair, dated at Rome, 12 Aug
1432:
' Dispensatio matrimonialis Cor.
Since William de Sancto Claro [Sinclair] and Elizabeth de
Douglas, damsel, Orkney diocese, not ignorant that they were
related on divers sides in second and third also in third
degrees of consanguinity...' [CSSR 1428-1432]


Joanna = Archibald Douglas = NN
_______I I_ _ _ _
I I
Archibald = Margaret Sir William Douglas = Egidia
Douglas I Stewart of Nithsdale I Stewart
I I
I Sir Henry Sinclair = Egidia Douglas
I___________ I
I I
Elizabeth Douglas = William Sinclair ' [2]


Add to the foregoing a fifth example, pointed out to me some time
ago by Andrew himself. Regarding the first wife (evidently named
Beatrix or Beatrice), of George Dunbar, Earl of March (d. ca. 1455),
she d. before 9 Aug 1421, when Alicia de Hay and George Dunbar had a
postnuptial dispensation, due to consanguinity (4th and 4th degree)
and affinity (she and Beatrix, former wife of George Dunbar were
related in the 4th and 2nd degrees) [3].

You might think the 1421 dispensation for William Livingston and
Elizabeth Caldecote (de Caldcotis) was involving two relative
'nobodies', but note: William was half-brother of Sir Alexander
Livingston of Callendar, the nephew (in 1421) of Sir James Douglas
of Dalkeith [then son-in-law of King Robert III] and 1st cousin
1x removed of George Dunbar, Earl of March (d. 1455, mentioned
above). By my reconstruction, his wife Elizabeth Caldecote was
great-niece of the same Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith.

Now, as to the evidence of dispensations themselves. As has been
discussed on occasion, dispensations can be valuable or nearly
useless, depending on the individuals and other available
documentation. I can cite many cases where a dispensation of '4th
degree' [or even '4th and 4th' as stated] is later corrected, the
parties being actually related in the 3rd and 4th degree. There are
cases where no such correction is documented, but the relationship is
known to be 3rd and 4th degree.

I think there are other dispensations worded for individuals
allegedly related 'in the 3rd degree of kinship', where the
relationship (if detailed) was actually 2nd and 3rd (or 3rd and 2nd).
Unfortunately, this opinion can I think neither be confirmed or
disproved; however, based on the foregoing, I see no problem with
the Douglas-Tweedie-Caldecote-Livingston descent as I proposed, and
will write further on same in the very near term.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] Douglas Richardson, <SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de
Caldcotis (and Livingston of Kilsyth)>, SGM, 7 May 2006.

[2] John P. Ravilious, <SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de
Caldcotis (and Livingston of Kilsyth)>, SGM, 5 May 2006,
cites Andrew Stuart, Genealogical History of the Stuart,
p. 449, and Dunlop and Cowan, Calendar of Scottish
Supplications, 1428-1432.

[3] Stuart, p. 452.


* John P. Ravilious

Gjest

Re: SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de Caldcotis (and Liv

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 04:19:02

Friday, 12 May, 2006


Dear Doug (et al.),

On 7 May 2006, you wrote (in part), citing your conversation with
Andrew B. W. MacEwen:

' Second, Andrew confirmed that dispensations for 2nd & 3rd degree
kinships in Scotland were exceedingly rare. He said he only knew
of two Scottish women in the medieval period who received such
dispensations, both of whom were major heiresses. The first
was Eupheme Sterwart, Countess of Strathearn, who obtained
successive dispensations to marry Albany half-brothers to whom
she was related by kindred in the 2nd and 3rd degrees and by
affinity in the 3rd and 4th degrees. Neither marriage took
place. The 2nd woman was Margaret Douglas (living 1473),
"the Fair Maid of Galloway," who was wife successively of
William Douglas, 8th Earl of Douglas (died 1451), James
Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, and John Stewart, 1st Earl
of Atholl. " [1]

Based on the foregoing, we therefore (at this moment) know of at
least 4 dispensations for individuals, one of whom (but evidently
only one) related to the other in the 2nd degree. If you recall, I
cited two other examples the other day:

' A. 'Egidie de Duglas quondam Henrici Soeuclar Militis relicte
vidue Glasguen.' , postnuptial dispensation for her marriage
to Alexander Stewart (related in the 3rd and 2nd degrees),
mandate issued at Rome, 29 Apr 1418 [Stuart, p 449 citing
'Martinus V. anno primo. 3 kal. Maii. 1418' ]


Elizabeth Mure = Robert II = 2) Euphemia of Ross
__________________I I__________
I I
Robert, Duke of Albany Sir William Douglas = Egidia
d. 1420 d. 1391 I Stewart
I I
Murdoch, Duke of Albany ____________I
I_________________ I
I I
2) Alexander Stewart = Egidia = 1) Sir Henry
Douglas Sinclair


B. Record of the supplication and dispensation for marriage of
Elizabeth Douglas to William Sinclair, dated at Rome, 12 Aug
1432:
' Dispensatio matrimonialis Cor.
Since William de Sancto Claro [Sinclair] and Elizabeth de
Douglas, damsel, Orkney diocese, not ignorant that they were
related on divers sides in second and third also in third
degrees of consanguinity...' [CSSR 1428-1432]


Joanna = Archibald Douglas = NN
_______I I_ _ _ _
I I
Archibald = Margaret Sir William Douglas = Egidia
Douglas I Stewart of Nithsdale I Stewart
I I
I Sir Henry Sinclair = Egidia Douglas
I___________ I
I I
Elizabeth Douglas = William Sinclair ' [2]


Add to the foregoing a fifth example, pointed out to me some time
ago by Andrew himself. Regarding the first wife (evidently named
Beatrix or Beatrice), of George Dunbar, Earl of March (d. ca. 1455),
she d. before 9 Aug 1421, when Alicia de Hay and George Dunbar had a
postnuptial dispensation, due to consanguinity (4th and 4th degree)
and affinity (she and Beatrix, former wife of George Dunbar were
related in the 4th and 2nd degrees) [3].

You might think the 1421 dispensation for William Livingston and
Elizabeth Caldecote (de Caldcotis) was involving two relative
'nobodies', but note: William was half-brother of Sir Alexander
Livingston of Callendar, the nephew (in 1421) of Sir James Douglas
of Dalkeith [then son-in-law of King Robert III] and 1st cousin
1x removed of George Dunbar, Earl of March (d. 1455, mentioned
above). By my reconstruction, his wife Elizabeth Caldecote was
great-niece of the same Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith.

Now, as to the evidence of dispensations themselves. As has been
discussed on occasion, dispensations can be valuable or nearly
useless, depending on the individuals and other available
documentation. I can cite many cases where a dispensation of '4th
degree' [or even '4th and 4th' as stated] is later corrected, the
parties being actually related in the 3rd and 4th degree. There are
cases where no such correction is documented, but the relationship is
known to be 3rd and 4th degree.

I think there are other dispensations worded for individuals
allegedly related 'in the 3rd degree of kinship', where the
relationship (if detailed) was actually 2nd and 3rd (or 3rd and 2nd).
Unfortunately, this opinion can I think neither be confirmed or
disproved; however, based on the foregoing, I see no problem with
the Douglas-Tweedie-Caldecote-Livingston descent as I proposed, and
will write further on same in the very near term.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] Douglas Richardson, <SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de
Caldcotis (and Livingston of Kilsyth)>, SGM, 7 May 2006.

[2] John P. Ravilious, <SP Addition: ancestry of Elizabeth de
Caldcotis (and Livingston of Kilsyth)>, SGM, 5 May 2006,
cites Andrew Stuart, Genealogical History of the Stuart,
p. 449, and Dunlop and Cowan, Calendar of Scottish
Supplications, 1428-1432.

[3] Stuart, p. 452.


* John P. Ravilious

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 13 mai 2006 04:47:06

Douglas Richardson wrote:
No, Will. It's a selective use of one piece of evidence, to the
exclusion of the remaining evidence that's causing the trouble.

If Mr. Chipman and Mr. Farmerie's interpretation is correct, then they
should be able to produce additional evidence to support their
position.

You misrepresent, again (and again, and again - it grows tedious). My
"interpretation", due to its very nature, cannot be supported by further
evidence. This is because my position is that the epitaph does not
support the conclusion that you are drawing from it. No other document
has the slightest bearing on this, only the epitaph. To demand that I
produce some will or deed to prove that the epitaph does not say what
you claim it does is ludicrous.


No such additional evidence has been forthcoming. Occam's
Razor suggests that the reason no such evidence is forthcoming for a
second wife for Edward Dale is because no such wife exists. It's that
simple, or, if you prefer, that complex.

Occam's Razor is all to frequently used to support whatever the person
making the argument wants it to support, with the details twisted to
appear the simplest. However, the most common reason for a woman using
her maiden name is that she was not married, thus one could just as well
use Occam's Razor to support the alternative argument. Its invocation
in this case is just an attempt an end run around the actual points at
issue.

Blabbering on and on about "feme covert" has nothing to do with the
matter at hand.

Which only goes to show you don't understand the import of the argument
being made - that or you are being disingenuous . As to "blubbering",
not a day ago you decried attacks and requested discussion of the
question at issue, and yet this is how you characterize and dismiss just
such a contribution as you requested. The word "hypocrite" comes to mind.

taf

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 08:23:55

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

No, Will. It's a selective use of one piece of evidence, to the
exclusion of the remaining evidence that's causing the trouble.

What an extraordinary misrepresentation.

If Mr. Chipman and Mr. Farmerie's interpretation is correct, then they
should be able to produce additional evidence to support their
position.

Why is your position supportable by one piece of evidence only (the
Dale epitaph), around which you seek to fit everything else, while
Jeff's position is unsupportable because he relies on one piece of
evidence only? Why should Jeff come up with further evidence? Why
should you not be obliged to produce contemporary evidence yourself.
Do you have a marriage record for Edward Dale and Diana Skipwith? The
inconsistency of this approach is breath-taking.

By the way, I doubt taf has an interpretation: he seems to be trying,
with the usual lack of success, to instil some logic and consistency
into this "debate".

Blabbering on and on

This from the man who decries personal attacks??

about "feme covert" has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

It certainly seems relevant to me. Do you actually understand what
Jeff is saying? Dismissing it as "blabber" rather than attempting to
refute it is not an encouraging way of advancing your argument.

As a bystander with no particular interest in the Dale family's
structure or ancestry, it seems to me that it is impossible to conclude
how many wives Edward Dale had, or who was the mother of Katherine.
Evoking Occam's razor is specious here, as it seeks to find one
solution out of a range of possibilities based on the scant evidence
available. Just because you have convinced yourself that something is
likely does not mean that it happened unless someone else can produce
proof otherwise.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 mai 2006 08:48:28

m...@btinternet.com wrote:

Why is your position supportable by one piece of evidence only (the
Dale epitaph), around which you seek to fit everything else, while
Jeff's position is unsupportable because he relies on one piece of
evidence only?

I ask once again. Please show me a deed, a will, a court record, a
marriage record, anything which shows that Edward Dale had another wife
besides Diana Skipwith.

DR

Chris Phillips

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 13 mai 2006 09:53:16

Douglas Richardson wrote:
I ask once again. Please show me a deed, a will, a court record, a
marriage record, anything which shows that Edward Dale had another wife
besides Diana Skipwith.

Surely, as a point of general principle (and particularly in the medieval
period) positive evidence is needed to prove that a particular wife was the
mother of any child.

It's not safe to argue from silence, and rely on a lack of evidence that
there was an earlier wife. If that's the best argument that can be made,
surely the claim must be regarded as unproven.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 10:46:29

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

m...@btinternet.com wrote:

Why is your position supportable by one piece of evidence only (the
Dale epitaph), around which you seek to fit everything else, while
Jeff's position is unsupportable because he relies on one piece of
evidence only?

I ask once again. Please show me a deed, a will, a court record, a
marriage record, anything which shows that Edward Dale had another wife
besides Diana Skipwith.

Er, who's the one that's blabbering on and on and on....?

Edward Dale's wife Diana used her maiden name in 1655, a date after
which at least one of Edward Dale's children was born. That is prima
facie evidence that (a) he had an earlier wife or (b) Diana Skipwith
was not the mother of all of Edward Dale's children.

It has been countered that Diana COULD have still used her maiden name
after her marriage to Edward Dale, with differing reasons advanced as
to why this COULD have been the case.

This leaves us with two reasonable propositions:

(1) Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale in 1655 or later, and was not
the mother of his children born before 1655, or

(2) Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale before 1655, and was the mother
of his earlier children, but used her maiden name in a legal document
(for whatever reason) in 1655.

Additionally, the so-called epitaph of Edward Dale has been adduced;
this apparently refers to Edward Dale having married Diana Skipwith at
an "early" period in his life. However, it has been pointed out that
this is also open to interpretation and, in any case, one "early"
marriage does not preclude an "earlier" marriage. It is certainly
reasonable to argue that an "early" marriage, expressed in terms of
Dale's colonial career, would place it before 1655, but that still
doesn't constitute proof.

You keep calling for the other side to produce probatory documents
(safe in the knowledge that apparently there are none) but you ignore
the entirely reasonable charge that the same standard applies to
yourself. In persisting with this illogical and hypocritcal approach,
you risk losing the respect that you have as a professional
genealogist.

MA-R

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 13 mai 2006 15:14:56

First of all, I totally agree that this matter has gone on too long.
Unfortunately, the Carter line appears without caveat in Douglas'
books, which at $100.00 a pop, ain't cheap. The people buying these
volumes should at least feel that most of the material therein is
accurate, and that Douglas will correct lines that aren't.

Douglas does not understand 17th century VA law. I have a copy of
Henings Statutes at Large on CD-Rom. The volumes are indexed. I can
state without fear of contradiction that Diana (Skipwith) Dale had no
more rights than any other wife of the period. She was "feme covert."
I have cited a 1683 VA court case which defines "feme covert." She did
not have a pre-nuptial agreement. Therefore, if she owned any property
when she entered into the marriage, it immediately became the property
of Edward Dale, who could do whatever he wanted to with it. If she had
property, then she would have sought "jointure" to protect her
interests. For an example of "jointure," see the will of Joseph Heale
of Lancaster Co. made 1 July 1740.

Douglas needs to accept the following legal realities in the Skipwith
case.

a. It is a fact that in 1694 Edward Dale did not have to give any of
his children anything in his will.
b. It is a fact that he did have to address his wife's dower rights,
that he could not give her less than the share prescribed by statute,
but could give her more.
c. Had Diana Dale decided that her husband's provision for her in his
will was unacceptable, she could reject the portion of the will as
applied to her and reclaimed her dower, which would consist of a
"life-interest" in a third of the real property, and full ownership of
a third of the personalty, which in 1694 included slaves.
d. A man in 17th century VA had complete authority over his wife. She
was not allowed to sign contracts, buy or sell land, or make a will.
It is extremely unlikely that Skipwith would use her maiden name after
mariage,and after the last of the 1655 deeds, she never used it again.
I do not understand why Douglas thinks that the argument that she could
have used her maiden name after marriage has any value. It is
completley unsupported by anything. Douglas simply moved back a
proposed marriage date for Dale and Skipwith to accomodate his theory
that Katherine Carter ws Diana Dale's daughter.
e. For an insight into Thomas Carter, consider this: He appropriated
Dale's arms for his personal use after Dale's demise. Thomas Carter,
like most of the gentry planters, was a snob, and that is his
motivation for writing the infamous "epitaph." Nowhere in his prayer
book does he claim that Skipwith was his wife's mother. As I have
mentioned, Edward Dale did not even refer to his wife by name in his
will. He called her "my now wife." We would not have known who is
wife was when he died except for Thomas Carter's not of her passing in
31 July 1695.
f. Ward's 2000 article in "TAG" was not that publication's finest
hour. Dr. Greene addressed some of the missing issues in his letter to
me. He supports my argument, but did not cite the legal underpinnings,
which would have helped greatly. I have his letter scanned, and if
anyone wants a copy of it, contact me at my inbox and I will be happy
to send it to you.
g. The proceeds of a "life-interest" in an estate could be assigned to
another person, but not sold or mortgaged.
h. Dale's bequeathing the Carters his entire estate was not the result
of a quarrel with William Rogers or some acrimony with the guardian of
Humphrey Jones Jr. In his will, Dale gives the reason: he wanted his
estate to be "continued together." This was typical planter policy,
and it was designed to maintain the status of the family. Why?
Because splitting the estate up meant the legatees would not have
enough property to make good marriages, and thus the status of the
family would decline (don't take my word for this; it's in the
literature). The fact that Dale did not get a "quit-claim" from the
guardian of Humphrey Jones Jr. is double evidence that Mary Dale
Harrison Jones had no such claim, and that these "quit-claims" were not
formulaic (for an example of another "quit-claim" in a will see the
1694 will of Capt. William Ball, a friend of Dale's, which can be
printed out on the Lancaster Co. GenWeb site).

JTC

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 mai 2006 17:02:35

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
<
< Er, who's the one that's blabbering on and on and on....?

< MA-R

We all blabber here, including you, Michael. And, we all make
mistakes, including me.

DR

Vickie Elam White

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 13 mai 2006 18:37:00

"JTC" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147529696.198384.186190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

snip

d. A man in 17th century VA had complete authority over his wife. She
was not allowed to sign contracts, buy or sell land, or make a will.
It is extremely unlikely that Skipwith would use her maiden name after
mariage,and after the last of the 1655 deeds, she never used it again.
I do not understand why Douglas thinks that the argument that she could
have used her maiden name after marriage has any value. It is
completley unsupported by anything. Douglas simply moved back a
proposed marriage date for Dale and Skipwith to accomodate his theory
that Katherine Carter ws Diana Dale's daughter.

snip

Elsewhere in these discussions it has been mentioned that the 1655 deeds
might be spurious. I'm not entirely sure I believe that, since I don't know
circumstances surrounding the transactions and don't understand exactly was
at stake. Can anyone enlighten me in a consise manner? Anyway, if they
were spurious, might that be the reason Diana's name was signed as Skipwith
(by herself or someone else, maybe her husband using his office as county
clerk to play a little fast and loose with the records)? If she signed as a
married women, would the deed could be challenged on that basis alone?
Perhaps the 1655 deed should not be used one way or the other as proof of
her marital status unless and/or until it can be determined that the deed
was genuine?


Vickie Elam White

Doug McDonald

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 13 mai 2006 19:25:25

Vickie Elam White wrote:

snip

Elsewhere in these discussions it has been mentioned that the 1655 deeds
might be spurious. I'm not entirely sure I believe that, since I don't know
circumstances surrounding the transactions and don't understand exactly was
at stake. Can anyone enlighten me in a consise manner? Anyway, if they
were spurious, might that be the reason Diana's name was signed as Skipwith
(by herself or someone else, maybe her husband using his office as county
clerk to play a little fast and loose with the records)? If she signed as a
married women, would the deed could be challenged on that basis alone?
Perhaps the 1655 deed should not be used one way or the other as proof of
her marital status unless and/or until it can be determined that the deed
was genuine?




That's the reason one should try, if possible, using a
single, somewhat abnormal "fact" as the absolute determinant
of anything genealogical.

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 20:46:10

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 5/13/2006 11:35:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I am afraid my notes from my visit to the church last year concentrate
on the Cheyne monuments, so I do not have the text of Henry Bullen's
memorial.


I for one would be interested in what notes you have from the Cheyne
monuments.
Will Johnson

After my having written about the "Eark of Wiltshire", I am surprised
anyone is prepared to attach any credence to my statements!

From the Guide:

"The Memorial Brasses: in the floor of the chancel is a beautiful
memorial brass. The Latin inscription reads: 'Here lies Margaret
Cheyne, once the wife of William Cheyne, who died the 23rd day of the
month of August in the year of our Lord 1419, on whose soul may God
have mercy, Amen'."

I have a copy of the original text, to which the above translation is
faithful:

"Hic jacet Margareta quonda[m] uxor Willi[a]m Cheyne que obiit xxiii
die mensis Augusti anno domini Mill~imo CCCCo XIXo a[ni]mis o[ra]te
p[ro]piet. deus Amen"

The arms appear to be: a fess unduly, three crescents [hatchings
impossible to determine].

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 20:48:57

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Er, who's the one that's blabbering on and on and on....?

MA-R

We all blabber here, including you, Michael. And, we all make
mistakes, including me.

DR

What, me? Make a msitkae? Nveer!

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 13 mai 2006 20:53:59

I am completely bemused. Why would somebody forge these 1655 deeds
when they are proof that Katherine Carter was NOT Skipwith's daughter?
What motive could there possibly be? It's nonsense.

What's happening is that some are speculating based on nothing how
Katherine Carter could be Skipwith's daughter. I don't care what
reference on colonial Virginia you consult: Diana Dale was under
"coverture" and had no legal right to act independently of her husband
unless he granted her power of attorney, or she had made a pre-nuptial
agreement (and in the case of "jointure," she would've still used her
married name) or she sought "feme sole trader" status which allowed her
to act as a businesswoman in the colony (and would have used her
married name then, too). These are facts not subject to somebody's
opinion. The minimum a woman could receive from her husband is spelled
out by statute. 17th century VA was a male-dominated society; the fact
that men could give anybody they pleased their estate in their wills
was a form of social control. Men openly boasted of putting their
wives in their place and came to regret it when they approached death.

I want to cite something people might find interesting. Some of these
books I've recommended use records from Lancaster and Middlesex
counties because the records in those places are more intact than some
other counties.

Douglas' demand for some kind of proof (e.g., probate, deed, marriage
record, etc.) that shows Edward Dale had a first wife doesn't hold
water. Capt. Thomas Carter and Daniel Harrison weren't all that
younger than Edward Dale, and in the Thomas Carter case there seems to
be general agreement that Katherine Dale was not his first wife;
MichaelAnne Guido thinks that Mary Dale was probably not Daniel
Harrison's first wife. Given political conditions in Britain after
the execution of Charles I in 1649, Cromwell was only too willing to
wish men like these bon voyage, and his regime did not unduly stress
life in VA.

It's entirely conceivable and I think probable these men married
their first wives in Britain, and brought them to VA; since married
women could not make wills, they could have died in VA and there is no
record of it.

In the Dale/Skipwith marriage, the evidence is conclusive that she
married Edward Dale in VA sometime after Nov. 1655. If Mary Dale was
Diana Dale's daughter, then Mary would have been born (at the
earliest), say, after August 1656. Joseph Harrison married Frances
Hazelwood in 1692 (Joseph Harrison became the guardian of Humphrey
Jones Jr. after Mary Seagar). Assuming for sake of argument (and I
know this isn't always the case) that Joseph was 21 when he married,
this gives him a birthdate of ca. 1671. By best estimate, then, Mary
(Dale) Harrison, if a daughter of Skipwith, was about 15 years old when
this man was born, meaning she was around 14 when he was conceived.
While certainly physiologically possible, in social terms it's very
unlikely in families like Dale's. MichaelAnne seems to think Eleanor
Harrison who had married John Pinckard by 1690/1 was older than Joseph,
but looking at the data I think it possible that Eleanor was born ca.
1672/3, which puts Mary Dale at about 16 or 17 when Eleanor was born.

Hannah Harrison who married Richard Stephens (Richard Stephens was a
witness to Capt. Thomas Carter's will in 1700) has, in
MichaelAnne's view, the best prospect of being Mary Dale's
daughter. As a reasonable estimate for Hannah's birthdate is the
late 1670s, that may be true, as Humphrey Jones Jr. was born ca. 1682.

These guesstimates are to quantify what the issues are, and are talking
points, not hard evidence.

The Rutman treatment of the colonial Chesapeake is invaluable, but it
was also written about 1979, and great advances have been made in
genealogical research since then. MichaelAnne's parceling out
tidbits shows she has access to some indexed records (I wish I knew
what that source was).

The Kathleen Brown book has a section concerning Mrs. Hannah Ball,
relict of Col. William Ball, and mother of Capt. William Ball, a close
friend of the Dales (Capt. William Ball having stood at the christening
of one of Thomas and Katherine Carter's children).

I will give an epitome of this section:

Sometime before 1695, Mrs. Hannah Ball, relict of Col. William Ball of
Lancaster Co., VA "began to promise property to her children and
grandchildren." She gave her daughter Hannah Ball Fox furniture and
a slave girl, which property had been already bequeathed by her husband
to their sons Joseph and William. Angered that their inheritance was
being jeopardized, they "began to harangue their dying mother, and,
after her death," their sister and brother-in-law who had obtained
the property. A lawsuit ensued, which was decided in favor of Hannah
Ball Fox. The slave girl's mother Bess testified that it was Mrs.
Hannah Ball's wish that Hannah Fox have the girl. No attempt was
made by the sons to recover the furniture.
However, in the early 18th century, William Ball, son of Joseph, sued
his aunt Hannah Ball Fox again over ownership of the slave, and this
time was successful, as the court held that his grandmother had had a
"life-interest" in her husband's estate, and therefore could not
legally devise his property. (see Brown, pp. 288-289)

As a period to this ugly little episode, had Mrs. Ball rejected the
provisions of her husband's will as they applied to her, she would
have been able to devise some property legally, but apparently she was
loath to give up the considerable monies derived from the Ball estate
(Brown describes the Balls as "one of the county's most elite
families.") and wanted to have her cake and eat it, too.

This situation is exactly what men like Edward Dale wanted to avoid.
That Dale did not seek to get a quit-claim from any of the Harrison
children or the guardian of Humphrey Jones Jr. shows that he did not
consider them threats to his ambitions for his estate. I am interested
in learning more about the Harrison children, and if MichaelAnne will
supply a citation for the sources of the records she's posted, I would
greatly appreciate it.

Diana Dale was not the daughter of a peer; she was the daughter of a
knight who purchased a baronetcy so he would have a heriditary title.
Descendants of Edward I were not rare in 17th century Britain. Her
gentle birth conferred upon her absolutely no legal rights in VA. It
might make her attractive to snobs like Dale and Carter, but the bottom
line is that she had no more rights (and in some cases, considerably
less than women who actually did have "jointure") than any other woman.
If you read the Brown book cited above, you will learn that many of
these colonial gentry VA women considered their husbands "pigs," and
did whatever they could do to have as little as possible with them,
beyond bearing children; I'm talking about people like Lucy Parke Byrd
and women with wealthier husbands than Edward Dale could ever aspire to
be.

Anybody who researches colonial VA families must acquaint themselves
with the literature on the subject. The material is out there and
easily available. The lives of women, no matter how miserable their
husbands tried to make them, are important and worth understanding.

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 mai 2006 20:54:47

After my having written about the "Eark of Wiltshire", I am surprised
anyone is prepared to attach any credence to my statements!

*Everyone* is not as obsessed with trivial errors as you are ... :-)

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 mai 2006 21:16:03

*Everyone* is not as humorless as you are ...

If it _had_ been funny, we would have laughed ...

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 13 mai 2006 21:18:33

In article <2e7.6b36c7b.3197944f@aol.com>, ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

...Capt. Thomas Carter had his own seal because the seal
bearing the Carter Crest was used on a existing 1739 deed of
Joseph Carter [his grandson] which bears an intact seal.

I would just urge caution with how you've stated this: an armorial seal
used by a man in 1739 does not prove that the grandfather owned that
seal. Thomas Carter's right to (those) arms may be well established
genealogically (I'm not familiar with the family), but I would be
careful drawing conclusions about possession & use. Some studies have
shown that use of arms in the colonies picked up considerably after
about 1725, both by those entitled to by descent, and those not.

Nat Taylor

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

JTC

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av JTC » 13 mai 2006 21:41:23

Well, MichaelAnne, unless Carter was blind, it was not an error.
Anytime somebody says that Katherine Carter was not Skipwith's
daughter, people come up with variations of "we don't know why this
happened." [We don't know why she signed these 1655 deeds with her
maiden name, we think those deeds might be forgeries, maybe she had a
child before she married Dale, daughters of baronets had more rights
than other women, Carter only mentioned Skipwith in Dale's epitaph even
though he didn't say Skipwith was Katherine's mother, etc. etc., maybe
DNA can resolve this--think so? Consider the Jefferson slave
descendants--they're being told that Jefferson's uncle was the father.]
This is getting sillier by the moment.

Carter was a snob. These men were snobs. I think by the time
Skipwith married Dale she had been on her own for about 4 years.

In 1804 a Maryland court threw out a 1683 deed because the seller's
wife didn't give her permission; while the defense argued that a deed
that old should be held to more lenient standards, the court rejected
that argument. I am citing this to show people took these things
seriously, and while Skipwith was only a witness to these 1655 deeds,
legal niceties were very important in the 17th century and could haunt
the participants if not done correctly. Dr. Greene's point was that a
woman using her maiden name would use it as an alias and cite both
surnames for legal reasons. Where did you get the idea this was
something she could do on a whim?

If Lucy Parke Byrd was "inferior" to her husband, you better believe
Skipwith was.

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 21:59:53

In a message dated 5/13/2006 11:35:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

I am afraid my notes from my visit to the church last year concentrate
on the Cheyne monuments, so I do not have the text of Henry Bullen's
memorial.


I for one would be interested in what notes you have from the Cheyne
monuments.
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 13 mai 2006 22:03:16

In message of 13 May, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Surely, as a point of general principle (and particularly in the medieval
period) positive evidence is needed to prove that a particular wife was the
mother of any child.

It's not safe to argue from silence, and rely on a lack of evidence that
there was an earlier wife. If that's the best argument that can be made,
surely the claim must be regarded as unproven.

Gosh, if that principle were to be used as a universal maxim, it would
chuck rather a big chunk of medieval genealogy out of the window.

I use a slightly more practical tenet: Use the best information you can
find and which you think credible (thus ruling out, for instance, some
of the early bits of visitation pedigrees), state where you got it from
and be prepared to change it when something better turns up.

The advantage of stating where you got things from is that people
immediately get a view as to their credibility.

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 13 mai 2006 22:10:09

In message of 13 May, ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

<snip>

The Dale arms in the Prayer Book were a sketch. This was not intended
for public use. It was strictly for the family. This is why Crozier
had such a difficult time placing the Dale arms. They were not drawn
for heraldic purposes.

This was a display of arms; if that was not heraldic, I cannot see what
is. :-)

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

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mai 2006 23:09:37

In a message dated 5/13/2006 1:06:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

Diana Dale was under
"coverture" and had no legal right to act independently of her husband
unless he granted her power of attorney, or she had made a pre-nuptial
agreement (and in the case of "jointure," she would've still used her
married name)


Why do you keep stating this over and over and over ?
There is no evidence of a pre-nup, that does not mean she didn't have one.
It merely means that saying there may be is an argument from silence.

Really we've been over this a hundred times. Can't we just move on.
Will

Chris Phillips

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 13 mai 2006 23:13:10

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Gosh, if that principle were to be used as a universal maxim, it would
chuck rather a big chunk of medieval genealogy out of the window.

Perhaps it would, but - speaking from bitter experience - it is very easy to
be wrong about which wife is the mother, even when there seems to be strong
circumstantial evidence in favour of one of them. I really don't think it's
safe to presume that the only known wife must be the mother of all the
children.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 00:08:39

Dear Vickie and all,

The deed in question is a three part deed which dealt with land on Brice
Creek in Lancaster County, Virginia. If you read this deed in its entirety it
appears that something is "fast and loose" here as the deed was supposed to be
recorded in 1655 by Col. John Carter but doesn't end in being recorded until
1658. This is the only deed in the existing Lancaster records that I have
come across that was recorded after the fact. All the witnesses and principal
parties in all three parts of the deed are deceased except Ebby Bonnison and
Ever Peterson who are the recipients of the land, Col. John Carter and Diana
Skipwith wife of the clerk of the Court recording the deed. This may be a
spurious deed created in 1658 to the benefit of Ebby Bonnison and Ever Peterson.

The other problem with this deed is the fact that all the land in this area
was originally owned by Col. Thomas Bries who died in 1656. Edward Dale
oversaw this estate and for brevity sake I will not go into all the major
transactions here but just mention that a majority of the land was sold later to Col.
Edward Carter. The remainder of the land ended up in the possession of Mary
Dale Harrison in 1679. How she obtained the land is not documented but the
best explanation seems to be that Edward Dale had possession of this land and
gave it to his daughter.

The law at the time was explicit that a wife could not witness a deed of her
husband. If Edward Dale had a silent interest in the land of the 1658 which
is what appears likely in this case then he recorded her name as Diana
Skipwith intentionally.

Beverly Fleet was the first to notice that this deed was a problem and I
concur with him.

Best wishes,
MichaelAnne

Renia

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Renia » 14 mai 2006 00:14:26

John Brandon wrote:

*Everyone* is not as humorless as you are ...


If it _had_ been funny, we would have laughed ...

Perhaps you don't know what an erk is. But an earl isn't one. Freudian
slip, blah-de-blah.

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 00:20:24

In a message dated 5/13/2006 4:20:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

I would just urge caution with how you've stated this: an armorial seal
used by a man in 1739 does not prove that the grandfather owned that
seal. Thomas Carter's right to (those) arms may be well established
genealogically (I'm not familiar with the family), but I would be
careful drawing conclusions about possession & use. Some studies have
shown that use of arms in the colonies picked up considerably after
about 1725, both by those entitled to by descent, and those not.

Nat Taylor



Dear Nat,

Thanks for your input on this. The seal in question is not a full armorial
seal. It is simply a crest with the initials J. C. under it. This crest
matches a seal from the Kempston Carter line that is still intact on a dower
agreement dated in 1641. The exact lineage to Capt. Thomas Carter has never been
proven.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 00:25:49

Dear Douglas, John B, Michael-Anne, Jeff and others,

Let`s say for the sake of argument that a seventeenth century Virginia woman
marries a man, divorces him and later re-marries him ( far fetched notion I
realize especially the re-marriage part) Could She use her maiden name on a
deed in the time She was divorced ? Also, what was the position on daughters of
slaves whom the owner may have acknowledged ? And finally, what was the
attitude toward a child concieved by a couple prior to their marriage ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 00:28:33

In a message dated 5/13/2006 5:20:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

This was a display of arms; if that was not heraldic, I cannot see what
is. :-)





Dear Tim,

Sorry if I confused this. What I am trying to say is that these arms were
not even drawn correctly. Capt. Thomas Carter tried to copy the tombstone of
Edward Dale and the arms were drawn on the top of it. He was not an artist!

Thanks.

MichaelAnne

Tony Hoskins

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 14 mai 2006 00:30:18

"I would just urge caution."

I agree. I know of an instance in late 17th century America where an
heraldic seal of a *maternal* ancestral line was used by an
un-armigerous descendant.

Tony

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 00:36:09

Dear Tony,

Thank you. I would like to suggest that we move on as apparently we are not
reaching any sort of consensus on this matter.

Sincerely,
MichaelAnne

Vickie Elam White

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 14 mai 2006 01:37:50

MichaelAnne,

Thank you for the explanation. Something does smell fishy. <G>

Vickie Elam White

<ClaudiusI0@aol.com> wrote in message news:423.e5444a.3197a4c5@aol.com...
Dear Vickie and all,

The deed in question is a three part deed which dealt with land on Brice
Creek in Lancaster County, Virginia. If you read this deed in its entirety
it
appears that something is "fast and loose" here as the deed was supposed
to be
recorded in 1655 by Col. John Carter but doesn't end in being recorded
until
1658. This is the only deed in the existing Lancaster records that I have
come across that was recorded after the fact. All the witnesses and
principal
parties in all three parts of the deed are deceased except Ebby Bonnison
and
Ever Peterson who are the recipients of the land, Col. John Carter and
Diana
Skipwith wife of the clerk of the Court recording the deed. This may be a
spurious deed created in 1658 to the benefit of Ebby Bonnison and Ever
Peterson.

The other problem with this deed is the fact that all the land in this
area
was originally owned by Col. Thomas Bries who died in 1656. Edward Dale
oversaw this estate and for brevity sake I will not go into all the major
transactions here but just mention that a majority of the land was sold
later to Col.
Edward Carter. The remainder of the land ended up in the possession of
Mary
Dale Harrison in 1679. How she obtained the land is not documented but
the
best explanation seems to be that Edward Dale had possession of this land
and
gave it to his daughter.

The law at the time was explicit that a wife could not witness a deed of
her
husband. If Edward Dale had a silent interest in the land of the 1658
which
is what appears likely in this case then he recorded her name as Diana
Skipwith intentionally.

Beverly Fleet was the first to notice that this deed was a problem and I
concur with him.

Best wishes,
MichaelAnne

Tony Hoskins

Re: Raimondello Orsini del Balzo (d.1406)

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 14 mai 2006 01:55:38

I note "Genealogics" apparently erroneously shows Raimondello as son of
Roberto Orsini, Conte di Nola - rather than as son of Roberto's son
Niccolo.

Tony Hoskins

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 03:25:09

Saturday, 13 May, 2006


Dear Will, Alex, et al.,

You had written:

(Will)

For some reason, I had, using old messages, determined that Patrick, Lord
Graham was born 1416/8, and his father Alexander Graham was born 1399/1401

If I can re-figure out, how I figured that out.... then I would suggest that
Christian Erskine is made too old here by a bit. I suppose it's possible
that
a 20 year old girl is married to an infant, but as long as we're guessing,
I'd prefer her to be a bit older, say 1410/20 ish.


Will

=======================

(Alex)


Those dates seem to fit in the pretty tight chronology of the Grahams,
BUT in 1424 Patrick later Ist Lord Graham was infeft in the lands on
his grandfather's death. This would normally suggest that he was of
age. He died after 1466 and his widow married William Charteris of
Kinfauns. I don't have a genealogy of that family, but given that Lord
Graham must have been born in the early 1400s, she would probably have
been too old to bear Charteris children, even if he was born as late as
1418. His father Alexander died vita patris, the last reference to him
is a charter of 14 March 1415/16.

===========================

I hadn't looked at the Graham-Erskine issue too closely, but the one
descent from the marriage of Patrick, Lord Graham and Christian that
appears thoroughly valid is through their daughter Elizabeth, who m.
William Livingston of Kilsyth. The SP article on Livingston says, of a
previous controversy re: the wife of William (slain at Flodden in 1513):

' Two entries in the Stirling MS. Protocols seem to settle
the question. The first is the record of an agreement
between Thomas, Lord Erskine, and Christina, Lady Graham, on
the one hand, and Edward Livingston of Balcastell, on the
other, for the marriage of William Livingston, son and heir-
apparent of the said Edward, and Elizabeth Graham, daughter
of the said Christina, dated 19 December 1480. That this
contemplated marriage took place, and that the relationship
between Lord Erskine and Lady Graham was that of brother and
sister, is proved by a later deed, 1 October 1482, which
bears that in prosecuting a brief of inquest purchased by
William Livingston, son and heir of the late Edward Livingston
of Balcastell, anent the lands of Castletown, etc., the
procurator of the said William alleged that Lord Erskine
(who was Sheriff of Stirlingshire) should not be a judge
in serving of the said brief, because he was suspect, the
said William having espoused the daughter of his sister. '
[SP V:186]

What I see that sticks out like a sore thumb: Elizabeth m. William
Livingston in 1480, but her siblings William and Janet were married
prior to 1460, and ca 16 June 1455 [dated of bond of relief for her
tocher], respectively. It would appear most likely that Christian
Erskine was born late in the marriage of Sir Robert Erskine and
Elizabeth Lindsay, and was possibly a second wife of Patrick, Lord
Graham. I am not aware of any other alleged wife of Patrick, so this
might be another hunt for a missing spouse, or a case of extended
child-bearing.

Cheers,

John

Tony Hoskins

RE: Raimondello Orsini del Balzo (d.1406)

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 14 mai 2006 03:28:06

The fiction of a second wife - "Maria del Balzo" - of Niccolo Orsini,
Conte di Nola, "is disposed of by Fedele Savio, "Le tre famiglie Orsini
di Monterotondo..." in _Bollettino della Societa umbria di storia
patria_ 2:89-112 at 99-106 (1896) which corrects Litta. Watson in _The
Genealogist_ 12:248 n. 15 follows the correction."

I suspect this error arose (Litta?) first in confusion as regards
Raimondello's possession of the del Balzo's county of Soleto. But,
Raimondello forceably seized this land c.1380 from his father, Niccolo,
Conte di Nola, its true heir and owner, as eldest son of Sueva del
Balzo, heiress of Soleto.

Tony Hoskins

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Gjest

Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 03:36:01

Saturday, 13 May 2006


Dear Alex, Will, et al.,

For the senior Graham of Montrose line, these are a few of the
generations I show, incl. my approximate birth-ranges for same. Besides the 1353
dispensation and Patrick, Lord Graham's est. birth year of 1403 (or before- a good
but still theoretical date), there are few anchors to grab here....

Cheers,

John



Sir Patrick Graham

of Kincardine-in-Menteith and Montrose

b. say 1350/1355 [dispensation for his parents' marriage, 9 Oct 1353 - Papal
Letters III:514]

charter of impignoration by Angus Hawincross of that Ilk of part of the lands
of Boclair in favour of Sir Patrick of Graham, knight, son and heir to David
de Graham, Lord of Dundaff, and Matilda, wife of the said Patrick, dated at
the manor-place of Mugdock on 24 August 1372 [SP VI:214, cites Lennox Book, i.
162]

~ following which, he had a charter from Robert Stewart, Earl of Fife and
Menteith, of the lands of Achincross in the Lennox dated 1377 [SP VI:213, cites
RMS fol. vol 146, no. 96]

' 165. Charter by John of Boswell of Balmuto, confirming to his kinsman,
John of Wemsy, for his good counsel, as hislands of Myrcarny,....
Witnesses, Sir Robert Stewart, Earl of Fife and Menteth, Sir Patrick
Graham, and Robert of Danyelston, knights, John of Levingston, Lord of Calendar,
Thomas Sybaulde, and others. Ante 13th June 1386. ' [ Fraser, Wemyss II:266,
no. 165]

' Sir Thomas of Erskine, Sir Patrick of Graham,and Sir Robert of Danielston,
the King's cousins and knights,..' witnesses together with others of
'A Charter under the Great Seal granted by Robert III, King of Scotland to
his
cousin David Fleming of £50 sterling of annual rent due to him by religious
men,...dated at Scone, 14th March 1391.' [Charter Chest of the
Earls of Wigtown, p. 101, no. 847 - 'cf. Reg. Mag. Sig. folio vol. p. 200']

~ Patrick Graham's wife Egidia Stewart was 1st cousin to Robert III.

'Sir Patrick of Graham', witness to a charter by Thomas of Lask and
John of Fothes to David Fleming, of all and haill the lands of
Auchloun, dated Aberdeen, 20 August 1392 [Charter Chest of the
Earls of Wigtown, p. 101, no. 847 ]

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


========================


Sir William Graham

b. say 1368-1373

of Kincardine-in-Menteith and Montrose

fought at Battle of Homildon 1402

'William the Graham', witness to an indenture between Alexander Stewart,earl
of Mar and David Fleming, dated 24 Aug 1405 [Charter Chest/Wigtown, p. 5, no.
20 ]

' William Graham of Kincardine', on embassy [together with David Lindsay,
Earl of Crawford and others] to England to enquire as to the captivity of Prince
James, Dec 1406 [Red Book of Menteith I:193, cites Foedera viii, 461]

he m. 1stly NN (possibly dau. of Barclay of Mathers),
2ndly Mary Stewart, dau. of King Robert III
(she b. say 1375-1385)

d. bef Nov 1424


============================

Alexander Graham, esq., of Kincardine-in-Menteith

heir apparent (d.v.p.)

born say 1383-1388

' Alexander Grahame [esquire]', witness [together with James Douglas of
Dalkeith, James his son and others] to a grant by Robert III, king of Scots to
Melrose abbey, dated at Dalkeith 27 March 1404 [papal confirmation at Marseilles,
23 Aug 1404 - CPL 1394-1419, p. 122]

' Alexander de Graym, filius et haeres Domini de Graym', had safe conducts on
31 Jul 1408, and again on 18 May 1412 to go to England as an hostage for
Murdoch of Fife (later the 2nd Duke of Albany) [SP VI:219]

' Alexandro de Grame filio domini de Grame ', witness [together with John
Stewart, earl of Buchan, and others] to a charter of Robert Stewart, Duke of
Albany to William de Hay of Erol, dated at Falkland, 14 May 1415 [Red Book of
Menteith II:285-6]

had seisin of the lands of the lordship of Kincardine in his father's
lifetime:
' Alexander de Grahame, pater quondam Patricii de Grahame', died vested and
seised as of fee in the lordship of Kincardine ("obiit vestitus et saisitus vt
de feodo de dominio de Kincardin") [ precept of sasine by Walter Stewart, Earl
of Athol and Caithness, as tutor of Malise, Earl of Strathearn, for infefting
Patrick Graham, dated at Methven, 10 Nov 1424 [Red Book of Menteith II:292-3,
No. 56]

dvp bef 8 Jan 1422

cf. SP VI:219-220

===========================

Patrick Graham (1st Lord Graham)
b. (apparently) before 10 Nov 1403
- presumably, of age on 10 Nov 1424

' Patricii de Grahame', being of full age, and the nearest
legitimate heir of Alexander Graham, had seisin of the
lands of the lordship of Kincardine under precept of sasine
by Walter Stewart, Earl of Athol and Caithness, as tutor of
Malise, Earl of Strathearn, dated at Methven, 10 Nov 1424
[Red Book of Menteith II:292-3, No. 56]

Kay Allen

Re: Helen ap Llwelyn

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 14 mai 2006 05:35:02

First, it is Helen/Elen ferch or verch Llewelyn. Ap
is "son of" and ferch/verch is " daughter of". I
believe that Llewelyn had two dtrs. named Elen.

Kay Allen AG r

--- Kristie Thompson <girlvol@earthlink.net> wrote:

I've come across two conflicting sources on Helen ap
Lylwelyn, daughter of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth.
One has her married to Donald, Earl of Mar and the
other has her married to Robert de Quincy. Anyone
have any insights?
Thanks,
Kristie
Kristie Thompson 2109
Ashton Rd
Fayetteville, NC 28304
girlvol@earthlink.net tel:
mobile: 9104263345
9105271333




Add me to your address book... Want a
signature like this?



Gjest

Re: Helen verch Llwelyn

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 06:17:02

In a message dated 5/13/2006 8:45:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
girlvol@earthlink.net writes:

If there are two Elens (which wouldn't
be unusual) that would definitely solve the dilemna, but do we know which
one married Donald and which one married Robert?
Thanks,


Go here
_http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/browse_thread/thread/be
4ba32b37998609/441d271b1dc5dc37%23441d271b1dc5dc37_
(http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 41d271b1dc
5dc37#441d271b1dc5dc37)

Kristie Thompson

Re: Helen verch Llwelyn

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 14 mai 2006 06:45:33

As Kay pointed out, my brain disengaged in my last post. I've never seen
mention of two daughters named Elen or Helen. That's interesting. Does
anyone else have any suggestions? If there are two Elens (which wouldn't
be unusual) that would definitely solve the dilemna, but do we know which
one married Donald and which one married Robert?
Thanks,
Kristie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay Allen" <allenk@pacbell.net>
To: "Kristie Thompson" <girlvol@earthlink.net>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Helen ap Llwelyn


First, it is Helen/Elen ferch or verch Llewelyn. Ap
is "son of" and ferch/verch is " daughter of". I
believe that Llewelyn had two dtrs. named Elen.

Kay Allen AG r

--- Kristie Thompson <girlvol@earthlink.net> wrote:

I've come across two conflicting sources on Helen ap
Lylwelyn, daughter of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth.
One has her married to Donald, Earl of Mar and the
other has her married to Robert de Quincy. Anyone
have any insights?
Thanks,
Kristie
Kristie Thompson 2109
Ashton Rd
Fayetteville, NC 28304
girlvol@earthlink.net tel:
mobile: 9104263345
9105271333




Add me to your address book... Want a
signature like this?




Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 09:19:02

_http://www.fasg.org/AllFellows.html_ (http://www.fasg.org/AllFellows.html)


61
Dr. Frederick Lewis Weis
Dover, N.H. 1951
11 April 1966
The last date is the date he died or resigned.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 09:28:27

In a message dated 5/13/2006 10:05:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

On the Internet there is much to be found of the work of Sir Anthony Wagner
and Frederick Lewis Weis, but does anyone know any biographical details for
these two?


Leo I'm thinking that he might be this one, who is in the SSDI
Frederick L Weis 22 Aug 1895 - 15 Apr 1966
last residence: Peterborough, Hillsborough, New Hampshire

WW1 Draft Cards
Frederick Lewis Weis born 22 Aug 1895 born in Rhode Island
registered in Providence, RI
Retired officer of the US Navy
[appears to be some sort of illness, but I can't quite read what it says]

1900 Census of Providence County
John P Weis Feb 1866, b Mass, "Pearl Manufacturer"
, Georgina, wife, July 1868, b Mass
- married nine years ago
, Robert, son, Nov 1893, b RI
, Frederick, son, Aug 1895, b RI
, Richard, son, Sep 1897, b RI
, Marion, daughter, Oct 1898, b RI

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 09:32:02

Here is his OneWorldTree entry
_http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=452695_
(http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/person.aspx?pid=452695)

It gives more then you ever wanted to know about his ancestry.
I was browsing his CLAPP line to see if he might be a cousin of mine but I
can't find a connection yet. But at least it's not as OT now, since he has
several lines that go back before 1660.

Will

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 09:38:50

By the way, just to cement the identification of the person I've suggested,
there is a newspaper article in the Portsmouth Herald, NH of date 24 June 1969
which states that the Colonial Dames of America in the State of New
Hampshire recently had an election. Elected as one of the "board of managers" was
"Frederick L Weis of Peterborough"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 09:43:29

In a message dated 5/13/2006 11:39:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

By the way, just to cement the identification of the person I've suggested,

there is a newspaper article in the Portsmouth Herald, NH of date 24 June
1969
which states that the Colonial Dames of America in the State of New
Hampshire recently had an election. Elected as one of the "board of
managers" was
"Frederick L Weis of Peterborough"


You know what? This doesn't make sense. The Fred who died in 1966 was ...
already dead by the time of this article. So either the Fred who is the
genealogist is the *son* of the one who died in 1966, or the one in 1969 is the
son, who was continuing his father's work. Hmmm.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 09:59:13

John Brandon schrieb:

*Everyone* is not as humorless as you are ...

If it _had_ been funny, we would have laughed ...

Oh dear, exhausted your usual small supply of pseudo-mediaeval
genealogical knowledge again, I see John, hence the need to fall back
on your stock trade of obsessing about other posters and launching ad
hominem attacks from left-field. How predictable.

I suppose you are going for the triple crown by presenting yourself as
the Champion of Error - go for it, I'm sure the field is all yours.

Meanwhile, if you ever stumble across anything related to mediaeval
genealogy, perhaps you would like to share it with the group, for a
change?

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 10:28:49

Leo if you're trying to connect him to his forebears, here is a good place
to start adding links
_http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/pedigree.aspx?pid=31881866&st=1_
(http://trees.ancestry.com/owt/pedigree. ... 81866&st=1)

This is part of his Fred's ancestry.
Just happens to land him smack in the middle of the families I've been
researching lately: Stanley, Hopton, Goushill ....

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 14 mai 2006 10:38:56

In message of 13 May, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

"I would just urge caution."

I agree. I know of an instance in late 17th century America where an
heraldic seal of a *maternal* ancestral line was used by an
un-armigerous descendant.

And in the very interesting last case in the Court of Chivalry in 1954,
(pub by the Heraldry Society and still in print for 0.65 ukp) there was
a long list of ancient deeds where people had used seals from other
members of their families.

So there are strong precedents for this.

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

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 17:16:03

In a message dated 5/14/2006 3:47:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
FordMommaerts@Cox.net writes:

I found a decent biography at (insert huge, almost crippling cringe),
wikipedia.



It's circular logic, since I wrote it last night :)
Will

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 mai 2006 19:10:56

Oh dear, exhausted your usual small supply of pseudo-mediaeval
genealogical knowledge again, I see John, hence the need to fall back
on your stock trade of obsessing about other posters and launching ad
hominem attacks from left-field. How predictable.

And you've fallen back on yr. stock trade of patronizing people and
down-playing their contributions (as though yours have been so
wide-ranging, confining themselves--as they seem to do--to the names
Docwra, Freville, Haselden, and a few others). I freely admit I'm very
bored by anything pre-1500 or so, but I have posted a lot of data that
helps people get further back from the 1500-1700 era ...

Gjest

Re: Sonne-in-Law and Now-Wife

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 19:25:02

In a message dated 5/14/2006 9:51:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

How many times am I going to have to say: WIDOWS WERE NOT OF THE SAME
LEGAL STATUS AS MARRIED WOMEN?


Jeff, we all knew this. You are not teaching us anything by repeating it
ten times.

I'm not sure if you are conciously trying to steer the conversation away
from the issue, or not, but this, was never the issue.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 22:18:02

In a message dated 5/14/2006 12:36:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mllt1@le.ac.uk writes:

A King's Sergeant at that date (and later) was a Sergeant-at-Law who
acted for the Crown (though not exclusively) - but as you say 22 would
have been an unusually young age to achieve that status.


I want to suggest that HoP has conflated two different John Cheyne (Cheyney,
etc) together. There appears to be some confusion among the secondary
sources as to this family's arrangement and there was certainly an earlier John
Cheyney running about

Victoria History "Fen Ditton" makes the situation muddier not clearer, only
stating that a son John Cheyney died in 1489 after granting, in 1480,
Mochettes to his eldest son Thomas. But that doesn't preclude there being an older
John, say his uncle, and there is a record in A2A for an obviously older John,
in a land transaction slightly, but earlier enough, to preclude him from
being this one.

Other than HoP do you have other sources for his life?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 14 mai 2006 22:30:02

There had been one there. Perhaps it had been deleted. I know that one person at wikipedia deleted reference to Sir Anthony and others, calling them charlatans. Perhaps he removed the bio.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis


|
| In a message dated 5/14/2006 3:47:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
| FordMommaerts@Cox.net writes:
|
| I found a decent biography at (insert huge, almost crippling cringe),
| wikipedia.
|
|
|
| It's circular logic, since I wrote it last night :)
| Will
|
|

Chris Phillips

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 14 mai 2006 23:15:14

Will Johnson wrote:
I want to suggest that HoP has conflated two different John Cheyne
(Cheyney,
etc) together. There appears to be some confusion among the secondary
sources as to this family's arrangement and there was certainly an
earlier John
Cheyney running about

Victoria History "Fen Ditton" makes the situation muddier not clearer,
only
stating that a son John Cheyney died in 1489 after granting, in 1480,
Mochettes to his eldest son Thomas. But that doesn't preclude there
being an older
John, say his uncle, and there is a record in A2A for an obviously older
John,
in a land transaction slightly, but earlier enough, to preclude him from
being this one.

The John who d. 1489 did have an uncle named John - the elder brother of his
father Laurence - but that uncle is stated to have died in his mother's
lifetime (i.e. by 1436) (Complete Peerage vol. 5, p. 80, pedigree).

I do have a note from VCH Herts iii 162 that in 1438 a John Cheyney is said
to have held Woodhall manor in Watton-at-Stone, but I assume this is an
error for Laurence, as that manor had apparently been settled on Laurence's
wife Elizabeth (and the VCH account is muddled in other respects).

I wonder if the King's Sergeant may have belonged to another Cheyne(y)
family altogether?

Chris Phillips

Renia

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Renia » 14 mai 2006 23:24:09

norenxaq wrote:
John Brandon wrote

I freely admit I'm very
bored by anything pre-1500 or so, but I have posted a lot of data that
helps people get further back from the 1500-1700 era ...



then why are you on a list whose primary focus is pre-1500?

To my mind, as I've said before, the newsgroup's primary focus is not
pre-1500 genealogy, but American gateway genealogy. There should be a
separate newsgroup for that.

John Brandon

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av John Brandon » 14 mai 2006 23:27:10

Why the heck not?

Gjest

Re: OT Sir Anthony Wagner - Frederick Lewis Weis

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 mai 2006 23:52:02

In a message dated 5/14/2006 1:29:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
FordMommaerts@Cox.net writes:

There had been one there. Perhaps it had been deleted. I know that one
person at wikipedia deleted reference to Sir Anthony and others, calling them
charlatans. Perhaps he removed the bio.


When I created it, it didn't exist. And Fred certainly should have one,
since at the very least, he was an author.
Will

norenxaq

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av norenxaq » 15 mai 2006 00:06:02

John Brandon wrote

I freely admit I'm very
bored by anything pre-1500 or so, but I have posted a lot of data that
helps people get further back from the 1500-1700 era ...



then why are you on a list whose primary focus is pre-1500?

Gjest

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 00:19:11

Chris Phillips schrieb:

Will Johnson wrote:
I want to suggest that HoP has conflated two different John Cheyne
(Cheyney,
etc) together. There appears to be some confusion among the secondary
sources as to this family's arrangement and there was certainly an
earlier John
Cheyney running about

Victoria History "Fen Ditton" makes the situation muddier not clearer,
only
stating that a son John Cheyney died in 1489 after granting, in 1480,
Mochettes to his eldest son Thomas. But that doesn't preclude there
being an older
John, say his uncle, and there is a record in A2A for an obviously older
John,
in a land transaction slightly, but earlier enough, to preclude him from
being this one.

The John who d. 1489 did have an uncle named John - the elder brother of his
father Laurence - but that uncle is stated to have died in his mother's
lifetime (i.e. by 1436) (Complete Peerage vol. 5, p. 80, pedigree).

I do have a note from VCH Herts iii 162 that in 1438 a John Cheyney is said
to have held Woodhall manor in Watton-at-Stone, but I assume this is an
error for Laurence, as that manor had apparently been settled on Laurence's
wife Elizabeth (and the VCH account is muddled in other respects).

I wonder if the King's Sergeant may have belonged to another Cheyne(y)
family altogether?

Thanks, Matt, Will and Chris for your replies. I agree with your
suggestions that this is likely an instance of conflated identities.
Matt: any further particulars in relation to the appointments of
Sergeants-at-law would be very welcome in confirming the profile of
appointees.

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 02:23:02

In a message dated 5/14/06 3:37:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

<< I do have a note from VCH Herts iii 162 that in 1438 a John Cheyney is
said to have held Woodhall manor in Watton-at-Stone, but I assume this is an
error for Laurence, as that manor had apparently been settled on Laurence's wife
Elizabeth (and the VCH account is muddled in other respects). >>


Interesting! The other possibility is that John dying in his mother's
lifetime is the error, and it was this uncle who both held Woodhall and was the
King's sergeant. If he died s.p. then perhaps that would explain Laurence's wife
later having that place settled on her. Alternatively, since the father
William d 6 Jun 1399, perhaps the elder brother John, as the head of the family,
presided at, and determined what would be settled on the bride of his brother ?

Do you have more details on this settlement?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Wroth of London: originally de Wrotham?

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 04:38:01

In a message dated 5/14/06 2:35:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< e for John (?Joan) Worthy, child
of Thomas Seymour's sister, viz 1339. This is, at least, not
inconsistent with a potential birthdate for John Wroth (d 1396), >>

Can you connect me up this John Wroth d 1396 to the
John Wrote m Elizabeth Lewknor in 1456 ?

Grandson maybe?
Will

Gjest

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mai 2006 04:39:02

In a message dated 5/14/06 3:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

<< pre-1500 genealogy, but American gateway genealogy. >>

Everyone is free to post whatever they want on the medieval period. To my
mind that comes all the way up to 1660, but some would disagree.

So by all means post details of your lines with documentation and we can work
on whatever you post, provided others are interesting in it.

Will

norenxaq

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av norenxaq » 15 mai 2006 05:07:02

Renia wrote:

norenxaq wrote:

John Brandon wrote

I freely admit I'm very
bored by anything pre-1500 or so, but I have posted a lot of data that
helps people get further back from the 1500-1700 era ...



then why are you on a list whose primary focus is pre-1500?


To my mind, as I've said before, the newsgroup's primary focus is not
pre-1500 genealogy,


the name of this group, gen-medieval, would invalidate that interpretation

but American gateway genealogy. There should be a separate newsgroup
for that.


no, if there is to be a separate list, it should be for gateway
ancestors. NOT the mediaeval period

Chris Phillips

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 15 mai 2006 09:20:57

Will Johnson wrote:
Interesting! The other possibility is that John dying in his mother's
lifetime is the error, and it was this uncle who both held Woodhall and
was the
King's sergeant. If he died s.p. then perhaps that would explain
Laurence's wife
later having that place settled on her. Alternatively, since the father
William d 6 Jun 1399, perhaps the elder brother John, as the head of the
family,
presided at, and determined what would be settled on the bride of his
brother ?


It doesn't seem likely that Laurence's brother John would ever have held
Woodhall, as that manor had been held by the family of Philip Boteler, the
first husband of Laurence's wife Elizabeth, and was presumably her dower.
Apparently it's stated in the inquisition post mortem of her son Philip
Boteler that Laurence and she held it for life [VCH Herts iii 162, citing
Chan IPM 31 H VI, no 27].

As for the death of John in his mother's lifetime (by 1436), I'm not sure
precisely what document this is based on. There doesn't seem to be an IPM
for his mother. However, Laurence seems to have been acting as his mother's
heir as early as 1437 [VCH Beds ii 243, citing Feet of Fines Beds East. 15 H
VI; Harl. Soc. Publ. xix].

So allowing John to survive until 1445 would require some kind of radical
reconstruction of the Cheyne pedigree. Before considering that, it would be
nice to know the evidence for making the king's sergeant one of the Fen
Ditton Cheynes, rather than a member of another family.

Chris Phillips

Matt Tompkins

Re: King's Sergeant, circa 1445

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 15 mai 2006 11:49:53

I'm afraid my books don't mention any fifteenth century lawyer called
John Cheyne. The one I had most hopes of, Eric Ives' The Common
Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England, which includes appendices listing
all Sergeants at Law and other senior members of the legal profession
1461-1510, just has one brief mention of John Cheyne of
Falstone-Cheyne, Wilts, who wasn't even a lawyer. Which suggests that
any John Cheynes who were lawyers in the 1440s weren't very active in
the profession and didn't stay in it long.

However I notice that the preceding entry in HoP 1439-1509, relating to
John Cheyne of Eastchurch (MP for Kent in 1449), says that he was a
King's Sergeant-at-Arms by April 1445 - this is curiously similar to
the statement that John Cheyne of Fen Ditton was a King's Sergeant in
1445. Perhaps Wedgewood has erroneously attributed a single office to
both men. Or if there were two King's Sergeants in 1445, they may have
both been a King's Sergeant-at-Arms (whatever that was) - which would
remove the problem of the Fen Ditton one becoming a sergeant-at-law
practically before he was out of nappies.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to contact the History of Parliament
staff who are presently working on the volume covering 1422-1509
(Wedgwood's 1439-1509 history, written in the 1930s on an amateur
basis, is not part of the official History). I see from their website
that they have finished the biographies of the Cambridgshire MPs, of
whom John Cheyne of Fen Ditton was one, so they may already have
cleared this problem up. The website is at
http://www.history.ac.uk/hop/ - click on 1422-1504 on the left. I'm
not sure which of the team dealt with Cambridgeshire (except that I
know it wasn't Hannes Kleineke) so it would probably best to start with
the section leader, Linda Clark.

An alternative would be to ask Professor John Baker at St Catherine's
College, Cambridge, who is presently working on a prosopography of the
inns of court and legal profession 1440-1550.

I'll post separately on how sergeants-at-law were appointed.

Matt Tompkins

Renia

Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of W

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 12:35:03

norenxaq wrote:

Renia wrote:

norenxaq wrote:

John Brandon wrote

I freely admit I'm very
bored by anything pre-1500 or so, but I have posted a lot of data that
helps people get further back from the 1500-1700 era ...



then why are you on a list whose primary focus is pre-1500?



To my mind, as I've said before, the newsgroup's primary focus is not
pre-1500 genealogy,



the name of this group, gen-medieval, would invalidate that interpretation

but American gateway genealogy. There should be a separate newsgroup
for that.



no, if there is to be a separate list, it should be for gateway
ancestors. NOT the mediaeval period

That's exactly what I said or meant.

Renia

Re: What this list is

Legg inn av Renia » 15 mai 2006 12:38:32

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/14/06 3:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

pre-1500 genealogy, but American gateway genealogy.

Everyone is free to post whatever they want on the medieval period. To my
mind that comes all the way up to 1660, but some would disagree.

1660 is not medieval. Some definitions of the end of the medieval period
give it as about 1485, others about 1550. This newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.medieval) or the list GEN-MEDIEVAL gives it as about
1500, IIRC.


So by all means post details of your lines with documentation and we can work
on whatever you post, provided others are interesting in it.

I have no gateway ancestors. Except for Gilbert Metcalfe, who is not an
ancestor, but a grandson of an ancestor.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»