Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gordon and Jane Kirkemo

RE: Brittany was Re: William de Mohun's (d Oct 1193) ancesto

Legg inn av Gordon and Jane Kirkemo » 03 jun 2006 22:40:02

John,



I was comparing your information with what I have on file, and I found a
discrepancy regarding the children of Stephen of Richmond. I cite the
following from DD (page 729) under the heading of "de Tancarville, Rabel":



"Son of William de Tancarville (d.1129) and Matilda of Arques. Held his
father's office of Chamberlain in Normandy. Married first Theophania,
daughter of Stephen of Richmond, by whom he had issue William, his
successor, and Oliva, wife of William Malet of Graville, and secondly Agnes
(Fees, p.1044,for 1242/43, Lincolnshire: 'set est de honore Britannie et
data fuit antiquitus in maritagio cum Theophania filia comitis Stephani, et
iterum data fuit in maritagio cum Oliva sorore Willelmi camerarii de
Tancarvilla'). He died in 1140.



This seems to suggest an additional daughter for Stephen, although the
mother is not named. I hope this is of interest.



Sincerely,

Gordon Kirkemo



-----Original Message-----
From: Therav3@aol.com [mailto:Therav3@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:09 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Brittany was Re: William de Mohun's (d Oct 1193) ancestors



Saturday, 3 June, 2006





Dear Leo, et al.,



Following for your review is what I have for Stephen, 'count

of Brittany' (& c.) and his immediate issue. This is not

complete, as I note I have included nothing to date for his

son Henri, for example.



Besides the matter of Stephen's daughter Maud, wife of Walter

de Gant, there is a correction pointed out some time ago re:

Stephen's daughter Aginore (also called Aginore de Penthievre).

She was identified as the wife of Alan de Dinan, not Oliver by

Todd Farmerie (see Todd, Mike Talbot et al., <Vitri>, SGM,

June 24, 1998).



Cheers,



John







1 Stephen of Richmond

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

Death: 21 Apr 1135[1]

Burial: quire of St. Mary's, York

Occ: Lord of Richmond

Father: Eudo of Brittany (-1079)

Mother: NN



lord of the honour of Richmond (succeeded brother Alan by 1098)[1]

Succeeded to Breton lands of Geoffrey Boterel in 1093 or 1098, and

to honour of Richmond on death of brother Alan in 1093.

Benefactor of abbey of St. Mary, York (1125-1135)

founded Augustinian abbey of Ste. Croix and Guingamp, and Cistercian

abbey of Begard in 1130[2]



also styled 'Stephen, count of Brittany' [CP VIII:672][2]



Spouse: Hawisa[1]

Death: aft 1134[2]



Children: Alan 'the Black' (-1146)

Maud

Aginore

Olive (->1162)





1.1 Alan 'the Black' of Richmond

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

Death: 15 Sep 1146[3]

Occ: Lord of the 'Honour of Richmond' - 1146[3]



2nd son; succeeded to the honour of Richmond

Given lands of de Dunstanville in Cornwall by King Stephen,

1140 - assumed title of Earl of Cornwall.

Fought for Stephen at Battle of Lincoln, 2 Feb 1141 (defeated);

captured by Ranulf of Chester, paroled before Christmas 1141[2]



lst husband of Bertha of Brittany[4],[2]



Held to be first Earl of Richmond (CP X:788)[2]



Spouse: Bertha of Brittany

Death: bef 1167[2],[4]

Father: Conan III of Brittany (-1148)

Mother: Maud of England



Children: Conan IV (-1171)

Brian (-<1171)





1.1.1 Conan IV of Brittany

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

Death: 20 Feb 1171, probably Guingamp, Brittany[3],[4]

Occ: Duke of Brittany 1156-1166 and Earl of Richmond



Lord of Richmond, co. York.

Crossed to Brittany Sept 1156, captured Rennes, defeated and

captured his stepfather Eudon of Porhoet - recognized as Duke

of Brittany[2]

In England at the Council of Clarendon, Jan 1164 (ex. charter

at Wilton for Le Mont St. Michel)[2]



Conan, duke of Brittany and earl of Richmond, restored to Torfin fitz

Robert (de Manfield) the forfeited Manfield fee of 2 knights, held

of the honour of Richmond, ca. 1159-1171

' by Hermer his great-grandfather [attavus] and Godreda [Gutherith],

Hermer's daughter. ' [EYF 57, cites EYC V: 55 and the charter of

Duke Conan, EYC IV, no. 55[5]]



~ Note: given that Duke Conan was dispossessed of his honour of

Richmond by Henry II ca. 1166, this charter should be dated

ca. 1159 - 1166.

_______________________



Deposed from his duchy by Henry II: following his return to the

continent in 1166 and the capture of the castle of Fougeres

(July 1166), Henry II

'had decided on a more drastic solution to the problem of

Brittany and the insecurity of the marchlands. He seems to

have held Duke Conan responsible for failing to keep order,

and indeed the intervention of the constable of Normandy in

August 1164 suggests that Conan was either unwilling to

discipline his vassals or incapable of subduing them. Henry

deposed him: his heiress, the infant Constance, was

betrothed to Henry's seven-year-old son Geoffrey, and

Conan retired to his ancestral county of Guingamp.'[4]



1st husband of Margaret of Huntingdon



Spouse: Margaret of Huntingdon

Birth: abt 1150

Death: 1201[2]

Father: Henry of Scotland, Earl of Northumberland (~1115-1152)

Mother: Ada de Warenne (ca1120-1178)

Marr: 1160[2]



Children: Constance (ca1162-1201), Duchess of Brittany





1.1.2 Brian fitz Alan

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

Death: bef 1171[5]



held 5 knights' fees of the Honour of Richmond[5]



cf. Clay, Early Yorkshire Families, p. 27[5]



Children: Alan fitz Brian (-ca1187), m. Agnes Haget





1.2 Maud of Brittany[2]

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



had the church and lands of St. Andrew in Swaledale as her

maritagium:

'Matildis filia consulis Stephani Brittaniae, uxor Walteri de

Gaunt', gave the church of St. Andrew in Swaledale to

Bridlington priory, from her maritagium, with the consent

of her lord (husband) Walter [Mon. Angl. VI(1):287, Num. IX[6]]



' Matilda, dau. Stephen, count of Brittany ' [ EYC II:433[7]]



Spouse: Walter de Gant

Death: 1139[2],[8]

Father: Gilbert de Gant (-ca1095)

Mother: Alice de Montfort



Children: Gilbert (ca1120-1156)

Alice

NN

Robert (-1191)





1.2.1 Gilbert de Gant

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

Birth: ca 1120[2]

Death: 1156, d.s.p.m.[2]

Occ: Earl of Lincoln



created Earl of Lincoln ca. 1147; d.s.p.m.[2]



his grant to the monks of Rufford confirmed by Sir Gilbert de Gant,

ca. 1200-1218:

' Confirmation of Grant Gilbert de Gant to Monks of Rufford all

lands in Rufford and lands which Gilbert Count of Lincoln gave

them in Eakring and 30 acres on banks of Trent at Kelham, lands

in Cracela, 2 bovates in Wilgebi which Ralph Selvanus held, land

in Barton ' - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford:

Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/SR/206 - DD/SR/215], TITLE DEEDS:

Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, etc: Charters: Rufford,

ref. DD/SR/208/96[9]



Spouse: Rohese de Clare

Death: aft 1156[2]

Father: Richard de Clare (-1136)

Mother: Adeliza of Chester



Children: Alice (-1185), m. Simon III de St. Liz





1.2.2 Alice de Gant

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



manor of Empingham given as her marriage portion in marrying Roger

de Mowbray-cf. CP Vol X (Mowbray), p. 371n[2]



' Aaliz de Gant ', gave lands at 'Litlehage' to Fountains Abbey

[Mon.Angl. V:309, Num. LXXI[6] - confirmation by her son Nigel

de Mowbray]



m. 1stly Ilbert de Lacy,

2ndly Roger de Mowbray[2]



Spouse: Roger de Mowbray

Death: 1188, Palestine (or en route to England)[2]

Father: Nigel d'Aubigny (-ca1129)

Mother: Gundreda de Gournay



Children: Nigel de Mowbray, of Melton Mowbray (-1191)

Robert de Mowbray

NN, a nun at Abbaye des Dames, Caen





1.2.3 NN de Gant[2]

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



sister of Gilbert de Gand, Earl of Lincoln (DP 326)[10]



see CP XII:437, sub _Welles_[2]



Spouse: William fitz Walter, of Wells, co. Lincs.

Death: bef 1198[2]

Father: Walter fitz Ragemer



Children: Robert fitz William, of Welle (-<1207)

Isabel, m. Robert fitz Hugh de Tateshal





1.2.4a Robert de Gant*

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

Death: 1191[8]



2nd husband



Charter, undated [est. c 1155 - 1191]:

' Charter of Robert de Gant reciting that when his brother Earl

Gilbert founded the abbey of Rufford he gave it all his domain

as is recited in the monks' charters, not excepting the church

of Aicringe which is situated in that domain and attesting that

this church belongs to the monks ' - A2A, Nottinghamshire

Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate Papers

[DD/SR/13 - DD/SR/205], DD/SR/102/35[9]



Spouse: Alice Pagnell



Children: Avice, m. Robert fitz Robert ('de Ghent')





1.2.4b Robert de Gant* (See above)

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



Spouse: Gunnor[2]



Children: Sir Gilbert de Gant, of Folkingham (ca1180-<1241)

Stephen





1.3 Aginore of Richmond[11]

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



also called Aginore de Penthievre[11] probably 'Aenor', given

granddaughter 'Eleanor' and her name.



identification as wife of Alan de Dinan, not Oliver by Todd A.

Farmerie (citing CP; versus identification as per K.S.B.

Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants p. 434[12])[11]



Spouse: Alan de Dinan[2]

Death: bef 1166[13]

Father: Geoffroi II de Dinan (->1122)

Mother: Orieldis



Children: Emma (-1208)

Roland (-<1190)





1.3.1 Emma de Dinan[2]

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

Death: 18 Dec 1208[11]



Spouse: Robert III de Vitre[2]

Death: ca 1184[11]

Father: Robert II de Vitre (-ca1161)

Mother: Emma de la Guerche



Children: Andre de Vitre

Eleanor, m. 1) William, Earl of 'Salisbury' [Wiltshire]

Alan de Dinan, of Burton, Northants.





1.3.2 Roland de Dinan

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

Death: bef 1190, d.s.p.[13],[12]



of Burton, co. Northants.



held lands in Hartland, Devon (lost due to his support of Breton

rebellions against Henry II of England);

justiciar in Brittany for Geoffrey, duke of Brittany

(Henry II's son) [DD 434][12]



tenant of Burton in 1166 and 1173[13]



cf. Chope p. 421[14]





1.4a Olive of Richmond*

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

Death: aft 1162[12]



received manor of Long Bennington, co. Lincoln (maritagium ?) from

her father[3]



benefactor of the abbey of Lucerne together with then-husband

William de St. John and his brother Robert, 1162 (DD 691)[12]



she m. lstly Henry de Fougeres,

2ndly William de St. John[12]



Spouse: Henri de Fougeres [1st husband]

Death: 1154[3]

Father: Raoul de Fougeres (-1124)

Mother: Avice de Bienfaite



Children: Raoul II (-1194)

Clemence





1.4a.1 Raoul II de Fougeres

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

Death: 1194[3]

Occ: seigneur de Fougeres



seigneur de Fougeres



had guardianship of the seigneurie of Dol and the heiress

[evidently Iseulde, daughter of John], at bequest of John

of Dol 1162 (the castle of Dol taken by Henry II of England

in 1162).[4][cf DD 437, cites Robert de Torigny, 214[12]]



He therefore became an early opponent of Henry II:

'While Henry was in England [Jan 1163 - 1166] a league had

been formed among the border barons of Brittany and Maine, led

by Ralph de Fougeres, to resist his lordship.'[4]



castle of Fougeres razed by Henry's forces following its

capture, July 1166[4]



supporter of the Young King in his rebellion against Henry

II, 1173 - captured in 1174, imprisoned until ca 1177

(restored to his lands)[4]



made seneschal of Brittany by Duke Geoffrey, ca 1181[4]



deserted Henry II and joined the side of Philip and

Richard - forfeited for same by Richard, 1189[15]



Spouse: Jeanne de Dol[3]

Father: Geldouin de Dol (-1137)

Mother: Noga de Tinteniac



Children: Guillaume de Fougeres (-1187), m. Agatha de Humez

Margaret, m. Waleran de Meulan





1.4a.2 Clemence de Fougeres

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



'daughter of Henry de Fougeres' [DD 597[12]]



Spouse: Robert 'II' de Montfort

Death: 1178[12]

Father: Hugh de Montfort

Mother: Adeline de Beaumont



Children: Hugh

Robert

Raoul

William

Henry

Aline





1.4b Olive of Richmond* (See above)

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



Spouse: William de St. John [2nd husband]

Death: bef 1195, d.s.p.[12]

Father: Roger de St. John (-ca1130)

Mother: Cecily de la Haie







1. David C. Douglas, "William the Conqueror," University of

California Press (English Monarch Series), 1964.

2. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,

1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland

Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

3. Frederick L. Weis (add/corr, Walter L Sheppard Jr.), "Ancestral

Roots of Certain American Colonists," Baltimore: Genealogical

Pub. Co.

4. W. L. Warren, "Henry II," University of California Press, 1973,

[English Monarchs Series].

5. Sir Charles Clay, ed., "Early Yorkshire Families," The Yorkshire

Archaeological Society, Record Series), 1973, Vol. CXXXV.

6. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding &

Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830, Vol. VI, Pt. 1 - Austin

Abbey of Wigmore, in Herefordshire, pp. 348-356 [Fundationis et

Fundatorum Historia], Vol. VI, Pt. 2 - Priory of Bullington,

co. Lincs., pp. 951-954, URL



http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... ail&id=265
9

7. William Farrer, Hon.D.Litt., Editor, "Early Yorkshire Charters,"

Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., Edinburgh, 1915-1916, Vol. II (1915)

Vol. III (1916), Vol. XII [the family of Constable of

Flamborough], courtesy Rosie Bevan, Vol. V [Manfield fee,

pp. 53-58 ], courtesy Rosie Bevan, <Re: Avice de Tanfield,

wife of Robert Marmion>, SGM, 26 Feb 2002.

8. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and

Descent, 1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.

9. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/

10. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday People," The Boydell Press,

1999, Vol. I: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English

Documents 1066-1166, cites Robert de Torigni, Interpolations to

Gesta Normannorum Ducum of Guillaume of Jumieges, (ed. van Houts,

ii, 270) and identification of Gilbert fitzRichard as uncle of

Meen, seigneur de Fougeres (Rouleau Mortuaire du B. Vital abbe

de Savigni, edition phototypique par L. Delisle Paris (1909),

titre no. 182).

11. Mike Talbot, "Vitri," June 24, 1998, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

additional commentary by Todd A. Farmerie (taf2@po.cwru.edu).

12. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants," The Boydell Press,

Woodbridge, 2002, cited by Rosie Bevan, 'Re: de Stuteville'

Jul 2, 2002, p. 723 (Osmund de Stuteville), full title: Domesday

Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons, Occurring in English

Documents 1066-1166: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum.

13. Rosie Bevan, "Re: Eleanor de Vitre," August 15, 2002, paper copy:

library of John P. Ravilious, citations from Rosie Bevan :

rbevan@paradise.net.nz, citation from Victoria County History

of Northants., vol. 3, p. 181 [which cites Red Book of Exchequer,

Rolls series, 331-2; Great Roll of the Pipe (Pipe Roll Soc.), xi,

119; xii, 54; xxi, p.53].

14. "R. Pearse Chope," The Early History of the Manor of Hartland,

Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the

Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art, Vol. XXXIV [Vol.

IV, 2nd series], Plymouth: W. Brendon and Son, 1902, pp. 418-449.

15. "Richard I," John Gillingham, New Haven: Yale University Press,

1999, 129, 152 (de Camville), Yale English Monarchs series.



______________________________

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Powys Fadog & Arderne Ancestry of Isabell (Radclyffe) Ha

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 jun 2006 23:08:30

In message of 3 Jun, ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Powys Fadog & Arderne Ancestry of Isabell
(Radclyffe) Harrington (d. 1518)_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1149234388)

Becky, Gordon, Hap, John, Tim & Yvonne~

Thanks very much for your comments and additions.


Also, Tim~

I believe it was Peter Leycester (1614-1678) who was refused access
to the Legh muniments. Ormerod faithfully transcribed many
sections of his multi-volumed Chester series directly from
Leycester's Historical Antiquities...(London, 1672). And Leycester
wrote in vol. 2, part IV, p. 301 (sub Over-Knotsford): "Here
fhould follow the Defcent of Legh of Booths: But becaufe I was
denied the Perufal of the Evidences, by Robert Venables Efquire,
younger Son of Peter Venables of Kinderton Efquire, who hath
married the Widow of John Legh late of Booths deceafed, I muft omit
the fame; and therefore let Pofterity blame him for it, and not me."

Fortunately by the time of the second edition in 1882, the new owner
had a different view and eagerly released the documents to the editor.

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

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 04 jun 2006 00:11:23

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Maybe I jumped to conclusions....

bummer but a great find nonetheless


Did we know before that Richard had a wife named Anne ?

They were married by 1406

Reference: U1384/T12/1
Transfer of lands [unspecified]
Creation dates: 1406
Thos. Chiche, Thos. Wallere, John Broke and Thos. Broke draper to
Richard Brenchesle and w. Ann

It appears Joan isn't yet dead.

No she's still alive but it may be that her son Richard and his wife
Anne died without issue and there are no other offspring of Joan and
William's marriage. I raise this because there is no provision for the
heirs of Richard or for any other heirs of Joan and William and I would
have expected that had there been other heirs.
H6v5 pg 21-2
25 Henry VI Membrane 15
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v5/body/Henry6vol5page0021.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0021.pdf)
Patent Rolls Henry VI volume 5 pg 21-22
Membrane 15, year: 1446
Nov 24 Westminster
"License for Richard Neutch, knight, chief justice of the Common Bench,
Thomas Leukenore, knight, John Fray, chief baron of the Exchequer, John Gorsiche,
clerk, John Crakall, clerk, Alexander Altham, clerk, Thomas Hoo, esquire,
and Richard Wakehurst the younger, their heirs, executors and assigns to found
a chantry of one chaplain to celebrate divine service daily at the alter of
St John the Baptist in the cathedral church of Canterbury for the good estate
of the king and queen Margaret and Joan Brenchele, and for their souls after
death and for the souls of William Brenchele, knight and Richard Brenchele
and Anne his wife; to be called 'Brencheles Chaunterie,' and the chaplain to be
capable of acquiring lands, rents and other possessions and of pleading and
being impleaded in any court. License also for the founders to grant in
mortmain to the chaplain a messuage in the parish of St Alphege, Canterbury, and
a yearly rent of 10L from a manor of the founders called Bilsyngton, co Kent,
held in chief, which messauge and rent are not held in chief. -- By p.s.
etc. and for 25L paid in the hanaper.
- transcribed by Will Johnson, _wjhonson@aol.com_ (mailto:wjhonson@aol.com)
from the pdf image 3 June 2006

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 00:26:14

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:27:08 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Maybe I jumped to conclusions....
Did we know before that Richard had a wife named Anne ?
It appears Joan isn't yet dead.

H6v5 pg 21-2
25 Henry VI Membrane 15
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v5/body/Henry6vol5page0021.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0021.pdf)
Patent Rolls Henry VI volume 5 pg 21-22
Membrane 15, year: 1446
Nov 24 Westminster
"License for Richard Neutch, knight, chief justice of the Common Bench,
Thomas Leukenore, knight, John Fray, chief baron of the Exchequer, John Gorsiche,
clerk, John Crakall, clerk, Alexander Altham, clerk, Thomas Hoo, esquire,
and Richard Wakehurst the younger, their heirs, executors and assigns to found
a chantry of one chaplain to celebrate divine service daily at the alter of
St John the Baptist in the cathedral church of Canterbury for the good estate
of the king and queen Margaret and Joan Brenchele, and for their souls after
death and for the souls of William Brenchele, knight and Richard Brenchele
and Anne his wife; to be called 'Brencheles Chaunterie,' and the chaplain to be
capable of acquiring lands, rents and other possessions and of pleading and
being impleaded in any court. License also for the founders to grant in
mortmain to the chaplain a messuage in the parish of St Alphege, Canterbury, and
a yearly rent of 10L from a manor of the founders called Bilsyngton, co Kent,
held in chief, which messauge and rent are not held in chief. -- By p.s.
etc. and for 25L paid in the hanaper.
- transcribed by Will Johnson, _wjhonson@aol.com_ (mailto:wjhonson@aol.com)
from the pdf image 3 June 2006

Ok, who is Richard and Ann?


--
Bob.

John Brandon

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av John Brandon » 04 jun 2006 00:26:39

some sort of revolt or something.

Yep, probably Jack Cade's.

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 00:29:02

Maybe I jumped to conclusions....
Did we know before that Richard had a wife named Anne ?
It appears Joan isn't yet dead.

H6v5 pg 21-2
25 Henry VI Membrane 15
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v5/body/Henry6vol5page0021.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0021.pdf)
Patent Rolls Henry VI volume 5 pg 21-22
Membrane 15, year: 1446
Nov 24 Westminster
"License for Richard Neutch, knight, chief justice of the Common Bench,
Thomas Leukenore, knight, John Fray, chief baron of the Exchequer, John Gorsiche,
clerk, John Crakall, clerk, Alexander Altham, clerk, Thomas Hoo, esquire,
and Richard Wakehurst the younger, their heirs, executors and assigns to found
a chantry of one chaplain to celebrate divine service daily at the alter of
St John the Baptist in the cathedral church of Canterbury for the good estate
of the king and queen Margaret and Joan Brenchele, and for their souls after
death and for the souls of William Brenchele, knight and Richard Brenchele
and Anne his wife; to be called 'Brencheles Chaunterie,' and the chaplain to be
capable of acquiring lands, rents and other possessions and of pleading and
being impleaded in any court. License also for the founders to grant in
mortmain to the chaplain a messuage in the parish of St Alphege, Canterbury, and
a yearly rent of 10L from a manor of the founders called Bilsyngton, co Kent,
held in chief, which messauge and rent are not held in chief. -- By p.s.
etc. and for 25L paid in the hanaper.
- transcribed by Will Johnson, _wjhonson@aol.com_ (mailto:wjhonson@aol.com)
from the pdf image 3 June 2006

Louise Staley

Re: More William Brenchsley

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 04 jun 2006 00:40:22

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r2supp/body/Richard2supp_0099.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r ... p_0099.pdf)

Patent Rolls
Richard II, supplement pg 99
C.66/339 year: 1394
Item 577
G.D. Guildford Castle. John Wadham, William Hankford, William Brencheslee,
Nicholas de Carrewe, William Weston and John Weston or any 5,4,3 or 2 of them,
of whom John Wadham, William Hankford or William Brencheslee to be one, for
this turn. 14 Feb W


Can someone interpret for me for the above ... means ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

I think it means they are being appointed as something, possibly
justices and it specifies that John, Willaim or William must be
appointed to this (rotating) job first.

Louise

Ye Old One

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 00:46:08

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:11:23 GMT, Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Maybe I jumped to conclusions....

bummer but a great find nonetheless

These patant rolls are proving very good sources :)

Did we know before that Richard had a wife named Anne ?

They were married by 1406

Reference: U1384/T12/1
Transfer of lands [unspecified]
Creation dates: 1406
Thos. Chiche, Thos. Wallere, John Broke and Thos. Broke draper to
Richard Brenchesle and w. Ann

It appears Joan isn't yet dead.

No she's still alive but it may be that her son Richard and his wife
Anne died without issue and there are no other offspring of Joan and
William's marriage. I raise this because there is no provision for the
heirs of Richard or for any other heirs of Joan and William and I would
have expected that had there been other heirs.

William died in 1406 and there is no mention of offspring in his will.

Could Richard be a brother to William?

I have a Master Richard de Brenchesle, parson of the church of
Estpecham in 1317 but he is too early.

In 1416 there is a warrant for the arrest of a Richard Brenchele.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0077.pdf

And I have my own progenitor, Richard Brenchesle of Bicknor, Kent who
was born about 1440 and died 1514. But of course he is a bit late.

Something is missing.

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 00:47:14

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:24:32 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In 1450 Henry VI granted a general pardon to John Mortimer
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v5/body/Henry6vol5page0338.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0338.pdf)

some sort of revolt or something.

The list of people pardoned goes on and on and on. Nice to read when you
need to be put to sleep.

At any rate, after about 34 pages of names, we find "Walter Brenchley of
Benenden, gentilman"

Will Johnson

Bugger - another one I haven't got!

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: More William Brenchsley

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 00:51:28

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:37:43 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r2supp/body/Richard2supp_0099.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r ... p_0099.pdf)

Patent Rolls
Richard II, supplement pg 99
C.66/339 year: 1394
Item 577
G.D. Guildford Castle. John Wadham, William Hankford, William Brencheslee,
Nicholas de Carrewe, William Weston and John Weston or any 5,4,3 or 2 of them,
of whom John Wadham, William Hankford or William Brencheslee to be one, for
this turn. 14 Feb W


Can someone interpret for me for the above ... means ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

It is the appointment of a panel of judges who can sit in judgement or
examination in any number from 2 to 6, provided one of the three
(senior?) judges are included.

Does it make sense now?

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 00:55:19

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/3/2006 4:37:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Ok, who is Richard and Ann?



We know that Richard is the son of Joan. You're not keeping up! We're going
very fast here :) (grin)

Bubububububutttt! Please Sir! I'm getting old and can't run very fast
these days :(

Anyway. If Richard is the son of Joan he must also be a son of William
- so why no mention of him in William's will of 1406?

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: More William Brenchsley

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 01:08:13

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:56:17 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Thanks for interpreting for him that they are being appointed as justices.
But what is the relationship to "Guildford Castle" ?

Judges *at* Guildford ?
Judges *of* Guildford ?

The king was sleeping in Guildford when he made the appointment?

Thanks
Will

Ah! start reading at page 9 of that document

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r ... p_0009.pdf

and the following couple of pages and it should all become clear.

--
Bob.

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 04 jun 2006 01:19:55

Ye Old One wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/3/2006 4:37:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Ok, who is Richard and Ann?



We know that Richard is the son of Joan. You're not keeping up! We're going
very fast here :) (grin)

Bubububububutttt! Please Sir! I'm getting old and can't run very fast
these days :(

Anyway. If Richard is the son of Joan he must also be a son of William
- so why no mention of him in William's will of 1406?

I think the evidence suggests Richard was the only child of Sir William

and Joan and that Thomas was the brother of Sir William and John was his
son. One outstanding problem is how many Johns are there.

1-Son Brenchley
+
|--2-Sir William Brenchley Knt., Justice of the Common Pleas d. Bef
| 26 May 1406, s.p.s. [4]
| +Joan [Batisford] d. Between 6 Aug and 7
| Nov 1453, s.p.s. [4]
| |--3-Richard Brenchley d. Bef 24 Nov 1446, s.p. [4]
| +Anne Wife of Richard Brenchley d. Bef 24 Nov 1446, s.p.
|--2-Thomas Brenchley [1]
+
|--3-John Brenchley of Benenden [2]
+Margaret Golding
|--4-Margaret Brenchley m. 1443 [3]
+William Moore

[1] Reference: U1384/T12/2 Thos. Brenchesle of Brenchley bro. of Sir
William to Joan, wid. of Sir William Brenchesle
[2] Reference: U1384/T12/3 John Brenchesle of Benenden to Wm. Cheyne,
justice, Wm. Cheyne of Sheppey, Rich. Wakehurst, Vincent Fynch, William
Fynch, Robert Oxebregge, Adam Ywode, Thos. Benden
[3] Edward Hasted's History of Kent (1793) " It thereafter passed to
Margaret, the daughter and coheir of John Brenchley, esq., by Margaret
Golding, his wife (she being the daughter and heiress of Richard
Golding). Margaret Brenchley married William Moore (during the 21st
year of King Henry VI) and the manor thereafter continued for some
time in the Moore/More/de la More family."
[4] Henry VI (1446) volume 5 pg 21-22
Nov 24 Westminster
"License for Richard Neutch, knight, chief justice of the Common Bench,
Thomas Leukenore, knight, John Fray, chief baron of the Exchequer, John
Gorsiche, clerk, John Crakall, clerk, Alexander Altham, clerk, Thomas
Hoo, esquire, and Richard Wakehurst the younger, their heirs, executors
and assigns to found a chantry of one chaplain to celebrate divine
service daily at the alter of St John the Baptist in the cathedral
church of Canterbury for the good estate of the king and queen Margaret
and Joan Brenchele, and for their souls after death and for the souls
of William Brenchele, knight and Richard Brenchele and Anne his wife; to
be called 'Brencheles Chaunterie,' and the chaplain to be capable of
acquiring lands, rents and other possessions and of pleading and being
impleaded in any court. License also for the founders to grant in
mortmain to the chaplain a messuage in the parish of St Alphege,
Canterbury, and a yearly rent of 10L from a manor of the founders called
Bilsyngton, co Kent, held in chief, which messauge and rent are not held
in chief. -- By p.s. etc. and for 25L paid in the hanaper.

- transcribed by Will Johnson, _wjhonson@aol.com_
(mailto:wjhonson@aol.com) from the pdf image 3 June 2006

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 01:25:03

In 1450 Henry VI granted a general pardon to John Mortimer
_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v5/body/Henry6vol5page0338.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0338.pdf)

some sort of revolt or something.

The list of people pardoned goes on and on and on. Nice to read when you
need to be put to sleep.

At any rate, after about 34 pages of names, we find "Walter Brenchley of
Benenden, gentilman"

Will Johnson

Ye Old One

Re: Re: John Brenchley of Benenden

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 01:27:11

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:13:19 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/3/2006 5:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

Has anyone had any luck in finding what this index entry refers to?
I've looked and nothing seems to be coming up in a search.


on page 388 it starts year 1434
H archbishop of Canterbury and Robert de Ponynges knight also Richard
Wydevyle and John Perye knights of the shire for the county of Kent, commissioners
to receive the oath of the following:

and then it lists a bunch of names

That's what I know. What the oath was or what it relates to, I don't know,
it doesnt say.
Maybe this is obvious to someone else on this list :)

Will

See this page

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0370.pdf

I think this could prove a very important set of lists for
researchers.

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 01:32:18

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 00:26:52 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/3/2006 5:22:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Now 1406 was the year Sir William died. So the question is why wasn't
Richard named in Sir William's will.

My only guess would be that if he is Joan's son he was not born until
after Sir William's death???



You don't have to name anyone in a will unless you want to change the
distribution of your estate from what the intestacy laws would dictate. Right?

So if you only have one child, there's no need to say anything in your will.
And even if you have two or ten, as long as you're not changing the normal
way they'd inherit, you don't have to name them.

Will


Sir William's will reads as follows:

============
Medieval Kent Wills at Lambeth - Book 23 Page 333a

William BRENCHESLE, Will 19 June 1406

A translation into English from Latin / French transcriptions made by
Leland L. Duncan

WILLIAM BRENCHESLE, Knight, Wednesday the Vigil of the Lord’ Ascension
1406. To be buried in the church of the Prior of Christ Church
Canterbury. I leave to the Prior and Convent of the same a competent
sum to pray for my soul as my executors may see fit. Residue to
Johanne my wife, whom with Master John Graue, clerk, William Makenade
and Wm. Cheyne of Sussex I make executors.
Proved 26 May 1406 and administration to William Cheyne Esquire
(scutifer) executor with powers reserved for others. (231a Arundel I).
============

I don't think that fits with your interpretation.

But I'm open to be convinced :)

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: More William Brenchsley

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 01:39:02

_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r2supp/body/Richard2supp_0099.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/r ... p_0099.pdf)

Patent Rolls
Richard II, supplement pg 99
C.66/339 year: 1394
Item 577
G.D. Guildford Castle. John Wadham, William Hankford, William Brencheslee,
Nicholas de Carrewe, William Weston and John Weston or any 5,4,3 or 2 of them,
of whom John Wadham, William Hankford or William Brencheslee to be one, for
this turn. 14 Feb W


Can someone interpret for me for the above ... means ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 01:41:02

In a message dated 6/3/2006 4:37:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Ok, who is Richard and Ann?



We know that Richard is the son of Joan. You're not keeping up! We're going
very fast here :) (grin)

Gjest

Re: More William Brenchsley

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 01:57:02

Thanks for interpreting for him that they are being appointed as justices.
But what is the relationship to "Guildford Castle" ?

Judges *at* Guildford ?
Judges *of* Guildford ?

The king was sleeping in Guildford when he made the appointment?

Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 02:05:02

In a message dated 6/3/2006 4:53:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Could Richard be a brother to William?

I have a Master Richard de Brenchesle, parson of the church of
Estpecham in 1317 but he is too early.

In 1416 there is a warrant for the arrest of a Richard Brenchele.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0077.pdf


I had a run at trying to find the old message in the archives (I don't have
my notes here at home), but we had found this past week a reference to "Joan
and her son Richard" but I can't quite lay my fingers on it.... Louise ?
Charlotte ?

Gjest

Re: John Brenchley of Benenden

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 02:15:03

In a message dated 6/3/2006 5:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

Has anyone had any luck in finding what this index entry refers to?
I've looked and nothing seems to be coming up in a search.


on page 388 it starts year 1434
H archbishop of Canterbury and Robert de Ponynges knight also Richard
Wydevyle and John Perye knights of the shire for the county of Kent, commissioners
to receive the oath of the following:

and then it lists a bunch of names

That's what I know. What the oath was or what it relates to, I don't know,
it doesnt say.
Maybe this is obvious to someone else on this list :)

Will

Gjest

Re: More William Brenchsley

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 02:18:02

And here is a bunch of stuff on Jack Cade's revolt which "mainly affected
Kent" so that now makes sense

_http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/jack_cade_info.htm_
(http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/jack_cade_info.htm)

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 02:28:02

In a message dated 6/3/2006 5:22:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Now 1406 was the year Sir William died. So the question is why wasn't
Richard named in Sir William's will.

My only guess would be that if he is Joan's son he was not born until
after Sir William's death???



You don't have to name anyone in a will unless you want to change the
distribution of your estate from what the intestacy laws would dictate. Right?

So if you only have one child, there's no need to say anything in your will.
And even if you have two or ten, as long as you're not changing the normal
way they'd inherit, you don't have to name them.

Will

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 04 jun 2006 03:20:05

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Sure it does.
Normally the wife has dower rights. Here he is giving it all to her.
So that's not what she would have gotten if he'd died intestate.

Right?

Will

Yes I think so too. But I do think it is somewhat unusual. I wonder why
there is no IPM for Sir William Brenchley unless all his land was not
held of the king.

I have also found evidence there was an elder and younger John and the
younger John had (I assume) 2 brothers, Walter and Robert.

Item details: C 1/24/1
Walter John and Robert Brencheley or Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby,
priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst
(Sanderst): (with the will of John Brenchesle, the elder annexed).:
Kent.
1386-1486

Item details: C 1/13/148
Robert, son of John Brenchesle. v. John Wattys and John Bechyng,
feoffees.: Lands, &c. in Benenden, Rolvenden, Sandhurst, and Cranbrook
(Cranebroke), &c.: Kent.
1386-1486

But, If there is an elder and younger John, and the Margaret Brenchley
who married William Moore did so in 21 Hen. VI (1443) and is the
daughter of John the younger, this would suggest ot me that John the
elder may be another brother (rather than nephew) of Sir William
Brenachley, otherwise the generations seem to be too compressed.

How does this sound?

Louise

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 03:29:02

Sure it does.
Normally the wife has dower rights. Here he is giving it all to her.
So that's not what she would have gotten if he'd died intestate.

Right?

Will

Gjest

Re: More William Brenchsley

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

Here is something more to add to your "Richard Wakehurst" and "Adam Ywode"
files

_http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v3/body/Henry6vol3page0265.pdf_
(http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0265.pdf)
Patent Rolls, Henry 6 Volume 3, pg 265
17 Henry III [year 1438]
Membrane 30d
Oct 24 at Westminster
"Appointment of Richard Wakehurst and Adam Ywode as justices to deliver the
gaol of Battle of Thomas atte Wood"

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 04 jun 2006 04:11:42

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/3/2006 7:23:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

Item details: C 1/24/1
Walter John and Robert Brencheley or Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby,
priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst
(Sanderst): (with the will of John Brenchesle, the elder annexed).:
Kent.
1386-1486


Found where ?
the PRO catalogue, where it appears it can be ordered (for a fee of

course)

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... efault.asp

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 05:16:03

In a message dated 6/3/2006 7:23:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

Item details: C 1/24/1
Walter John and Robert Brencheley or Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby,
priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst
(Sanderst): (with the will of John Brenchesle, the elder annexed).:
Kent.
1386-1486


Found where ?

Tony Hoskins

Re: OT ? We're all reptiles

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 jun 2006 07:16:02

Yours in fellow-reptilianship, to the nth degree.

I remain, chameleon-like,

T.

WJhonson@aol.com> 06/03/06 10:04PM
I was mousing around and stumbled onto David Icke's theory that

reptilian
extra-terrestrials interbred with humans and created some sort of
super-race
that has ruled "the rest of us" for thousands of years.

OK craziness, but then he says that Charlemagne was one of these
part-reptiles.

But hold on here. If Charlemagne had part-reptile-DNA and that came
to all
his descendents... then who are the "rest of us" ? There is no "rest
of us",
that's all of us.

I am one of the believers, that every person with any Western European

ancestry, given sufficient time and energy can trace themselves back to

Charlemagne.

Will Johnson

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 08:54:25

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 01:27:46 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Sure it does.
Normally the wife has dower rights. Here he is giving it all to her.
So that's not what she would have gotten if he'd died intestate.

Right?

Will

True, But. It is normal to leave somethig to the son or at the very
least mention him.

Remember that the guidline is that if you don't mention an heir who
would, without the existance of a will, have inherited part of your
estate, then you leave the will open to challange after your death. I
would think that such a rule applied just the same in the 1400s.

William's will is clearly a death-bed will. His estates were very
large and I can find no record of him passing property to Richard
before his death. I think that to totally ignore your only son in a
death-bed will would be very odd indeed.

--
Bob.

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 04 jun 2006 09:23:09

Ye Old One wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 01:27:46 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Sure it does.
Normally the wife has dower rights. Here he is giving it all to her.
So that's not what she would have gotten if he'd died intestate.

Right?

Will

True, But. It is normal to leave something to the son or at the very
least mention him.

Remember that the guideline is that if you don't mention an heir who
would, without the existence of a will, have inherited part of your
estate, then you leave the will open to challenge after your death. I
would think that such a rule applied just the same in the 1400s.

I don't think this was the case then. Most real property could not be
willed, the heir was the heir which is why it is not uncommon to have no
mention of the heir because he was getting all the land. However in this
case the land is in Kent, where for some land a system of Gavelkynde
applied which divided property amongst all sons as well as the widow.
This is why for Kentish properties we can see multiple transfers of
parts of land after death, or all rights being handed over by second
sons who were then otherwise provided for.
William's will is clearly a death-bed will. His estates were very
large and I can find no record of him passing property to Richard
before his death. I think that to totally ignore your only son in a
death-bed will would be very odd indeed.

I agree it's a bit odd but I think it is odder there does not appear to

be an IPM. I do think though that this will is not what it seems in the
sense that the vast bulk of the land held by Sir William Brenchely would
have automatically gone to his heir, irrespective of what he wrote in
his will.

The major problem with Richard not being Sir William's son is that he is
clearly described as the son of Joan, who in the same document is
described as widow of William Brenchesle, kt.

Reference: DYK/12
Grant
Creation dates: 18 Aug 1406

William Makenade, William Arderne, clerk, John Hall, Robert Suryndenne,
Thomas Wallere, John Brok, Richard Huntyngdon and William Champeneys, to
Joan, widow of William Brenchesle, kt

5 messuages, 100 acres of land, 16 acres of meadow, 50 acres of pasture,
32 acres of wood, 10s. 3d. of rent and the rent of 2 hens in Frant; 3s.
10d. and 5 farthings rent, and the rent of 5 hens in Pembury, Kent,
which they had of the gift of William Brenchesle, kt, which he had by a
fine from William Sunnynglegh and wife Margaret

To be held by Joan Brenchesle for the term of her life and afterwards by
her son Richard Brenchesle

Louise

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 04 jun 2006 09:47:44

In message of 4 Jun, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 01:27:46 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Sure it does.
Normally the wife has dower rights. Here he is giving it all to her.
So that's not what she would have gotten if he'd died intestate.

Right?

True, But. It is normal to leave somethig to the son or at the very
least mention him.

Remember that the guidline is that if you don't mention an heir who
would, without the existance of a will, have inherited part of your
estate, then you leave the will open to challange after your death. I
would think that such a rule applied just the same in the 1400s.

William's will is clearly a death-bed will. His estates were very
large and I can find no record of him passing property to Richard
before his death. I think that to totally ignore your only son in a
death-bed will would be very odd indeed.


If this is England, doesn't a distinction have to be made between Real
and Personal estate. The will only cncerns the Personal estate. The
Real estate follows the local feudal laws, depending on who the feudal
superior is.

PS: The above is an example of how the earlier and relevant part of the
exchange should be maintained. I am noticing more and
more incomprehensible posts where people quote nothing and you have
no idea from the post what they may be writing of.

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

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 10:56:06

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 00:19:55 GMT, Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/3/2006 4:37:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Ok, who is Richard and Ann?



We know that Richard is the son of Joan. You're not keeping up! We're going
very fast here :) (grin)

Bubububububutttt! Please Sir! I'm getting old and can't run very fast
these days :(

Anyway. If Richard is the son of Joan he must also be a son of William
- so why no mention of him in William's will of 1406?

I think the evidence suggests Richard was the only child of Sir William
and Joan and that Thomas was the brother of Sir William and John was his
son. One outstanding problem is how many Johns are there.

1-Son Brenchley
+
|--2-Sir William Brenchley Knt., Justice of the Common Pleas d. Bef
| 26 May 1406, s.p.s. [4]
| +Joan [Batisford] d. Between 6 Aug and 7
| Nov 1453, s.p.s. [4]
| |--3-Richard Brenchley d. Bef 24 Nov 1446, s.p. [4]
| +Anne Wife of Richard Brenchley d. Bef 24 Nov 1446, s.p.
|--2-Thomas Brenchley [1]
+
|--3-John Brenchley of Benenden [2]
+Margaret Golding
|--4-Margaret Brenchley m. 1443 [3]
+William Moore

[1] Reference: U1384/T12/2 Thos. Brenchesle of Brenchley bro. of Sir
William to Joan, wid. of Sir William Brenchesle
[2] Reference: U1384/T12/3 John Brenchesle of Benenden to Wm. Cheyne,
justice, Wm. Cheyne of Sheppey, Rich. Wakehurst, Vincent Fynch, William
Fynch, Robert Oxebregge, Adam Ywode, Thos. Benden
[3] Edward Hasted's History of Kent (1793) " It thereafter passed to
Margaret, the daughter and coheir of John Brenchley, esq., by Margaret
Golding, his wife (she being the daughter and heiress of Richard
Golding). Margaret Brenchley married William Moore (during the 21st
year of King Henry VI) and the manor thereafter continued for some
time in the Moore/More/de la More family."
[4] Henry VI (1446) volume 5 pg 21-22
Nov 24 Westminster
"License for Richard Neutch, knight, chief justice of the Common Bench,
Thomas Leukenore, knight, John Fray, chief baron of the Exchequer, John
Gorsiche, clerk, John Crakall, clerk, Alexander Altham, clerk, Thomas
Hoo, esquire, and Richard Wakehurst the younger, their heirs, executors
and assigns to found a chantry of one chaplain to celebrate divine
service daily at the alter of St John the Baptist in the cathedral
church of Canterbury for the good estate of the king and queen Margaret
and Joan Brenchele, and for their souls after death and for the souls
of William Brenchele, knight and Richard Brenchele and Anne his wife; to
be called 'Brencheles Chaunterie,' and the chaplain to be capable of
acquiring lands, rents and other possessions and of pleading and being
impleaded in any court. License also for the founders to grant in
mortmain to the chaplain a messuage in the parish of St Alphege,
Canterbury, and a yearly rent of 10L from a manor of the founders called
Bilsyngton, co Kent, held in chief, which messauge and rent are not held
in chief. -- By p.s. etc. and for 25L paid in the hanaper.

- transcribed by Will Johnson, _wjhonson@aol.com_
(mailto:wjhonson@aol.com) from the pdf image 3 June 2006


Right. Some questions, but first and explination of how I come to be
looking at all this.

Many years ago, well about 1996 to be exact, I got connected to the
internet. First thought (well, second really as I am a male) was to
find some other Brenchleys out there in internetland. I found quite a
few names and email addresses and sent out an email to make contact.

As luck would have it one of my early contacts was a Peter Brenchley
who had been studying the family tree for a larch part of his life. He
was a wonderful guy, already retired but full of life. He provided me
with my own tree back to Richard born about 1440. I got hooked.

Now Peter kept all his records as a collection of Word documents,
which allowed him to print out parts for people with relative ease.
However, I entered my own line into FTM and he liked the results. So,
he started sending me more information to add to the database. Then
Peter and his wife went off to the Far East for a series of walking
tours. Problem was, in those days, you easily lost your email address
if you were gone for a few months. I also changed my email so we lost
contact for some time. Soon after we eventually regained contact Peter
died.

So, I had masses of his data entered but no Peter to check it. Result,
what looks like becoming a lifelong battles to check and enhance what
I have.

Peter left me with the following lines.

Richard Brenchley, born about 1440, died 1514 in Bicknor, Kent.
Married to Agnes (some list here as Agnes Crompe but I have doubts).
Possible brother is Reginalde mentioned in his will.

John Brenchley, born about 1503 in Ewell, Kent, died 1561. Married
Thomasine.

Thomas Brenchley, born about 1513 in Otham, Kent. Married to Elizabeth
Crompe

John Brenchley, born about 1515, Lord of the Manor of Benenden,
Married Margaret Golding. Peter had a possible father for John with
the name of James - but there was a question mark against this.

Plus a few unconnected which did include Sir William.

Ok. Now a couple of questions.

First, against a couple of deaths you add "s.p.s" and against others
just "s.p." what does that mean?

Second, you give references like "U1384/T12/2" where can I look these
up.

And finally, I run a web hosting company, and as a result have a lot
of web space available to be at no cost. Would anyone be interested in
starting an on-line repository of all this images/references so we can
all see things or refer others to things that are under our control?

--
Bob.

kelly 6424

Re: OT ? We're all reptiles---Will

Legg inn av kelly 6424 » 04 jun 2006 15:11:02

Will-
re: "mousing around"-------more like "slithering"---!

yuck- reptiles!!
Kelly Gray

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

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 04 jun 2006 15:49:41

On 3 Jun 2006 19:20:05 -0700, "Louise Staley" <caramut@bigpond.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Sure it does.
Normally the wife has dower rights. Here he is giving it all to her.
So that's not what she would have gotten if he'd died intestate.

Right?

Will

Yes I think so too. But I do think it is somewhat unusual. I wonder why
there is no IPM for Sir William Brenchley unless all his land was not
held of the king.

I have also found evidence there was an elder and younger John and the
younger John had (I assume) 2 brothers, Walter and Robert.

Item details: C 1/24/1
Walter John and Robert Brencheley or Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby,
priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst
(Sanderst): (with the will of John Brenchesle, the elder annexed).:
Kent.
1386-1486

Item details: C 1/13/148
Robert, son of John Brenchesle. v. John Wattys and John Bechyng,
feoffees.: Lands, &c. in Benenden, Rolvenden, Sandhurst, and Cranbrook
(Cranebroke), &c.: Kent.
1386-1486

But, If there is an elder and younger John, and the Margaret Brenchley
who married William Moore did so in 21 Hen. VI (1443) and is the
daughter of John the younger, this would suggest ot me that John the
elder may be another brother (rather than nephew) of Sir William
Brenachley, otherwise the generations seem to be too compressed.

How does this sound?

Louise

Sounds good. I've always had a James as the father of John but with a
question mark against him and no details whatsoever. Now as I used to
know a John who was always called James.....

--
Bob.

L B Hansen

Re: Piddingtons

Legg inn av L B Hansen » 04 jun 2006 18:10:03

Chris - There is still a major learning curve for me in doing this early research. Why is it that there may be no monument inscriptions from this earlier time period? Is it because they have deteriorated or is there another reason?

I appreciate your suggestion and will ask about the earliest MI at Cuddington.

Thanks- Linda

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Chris Dickinson

Re: Piddingtons

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 04 jun 2006 18:26:50

Linda Hansen wrote:

Chris - There is still a major learning curve for me in doing this early
research. Why is it that there may be no monument inscriptions from this
earlier time period? Is it because they have deteriorated or is there
another reason?


I'd like to give an authoritative answer on this, but I can't. Maybe someone
else on the group can.

Early M.I.s in a churchyard, of course, really mean gravestone
inscriptions - banish images of great Victorian memorial vaults!

I don't know how common gravestones were c1600. I've always rather imagined
them as becoming common rather later in the century, as literacy spread. Not
much point in spending money on an expensive memorial if no-one could read
it. Prior to that, I've rather assumed simpler wooden markers were used.
However, I don't know.

Gravestones have rather a lot of hazards to face - simple weathering
(depending on the type of local stone available), plant and mould damage,
bird mess, breakage, clearances. Ancient churchyards are quite cramped
places with lots of re-use of the same plot - let alone the clearances of
modern vicars who want a nice green space or are afraid of being sued should
a gravestone topple over!

So the odds are rather against a very early memorial.

Chris

Gjest

Re: OT ? We're all reptiles

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 19:11:03

Dear Will,
I knew Eve was tempted by the serpent and mankind was kicked
out of Eden... but far did it actually go ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS I`ve always suspected that King John of England was a bit of a
reptile.

Gjest

Re: Question Regarding Wife of Madog ap Gruffudd Maelawr (d.

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 19:53:02

Dear Carl,
This Powys line goes directly to Samuel Appleton through the
Pulestons of Emral, the Trevors, the Worsleys, and the Whetehills to the
Isaacs and the Appletons, doesn`t it ?
Gruffydd and Emma de Aldithley also being parents of Madog Crupl who married
Margaret ferch Rhys Ieuan, who were parents of Madog ap Madog who married
Gwenillian ferch Ithel, in turn being parents of Gruffydd Llwyd ap Madog who
married Elizabeth le Strange and were parents of Gruffydd Fychan ap Gruffydd who
married Elen and was father of Lowri ferch Gruffydd who married Robert
Puleston of Emral and others including Owain Glyndwyr, Prince of Wales.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
PS was Gruffydd, husband of Emma Aldithley also in a relationship with a
Margred which produced Madog Crupl ap Gruffydd ?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Piddingtons

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 04 jun 2006 22:24:30

In message of 4 Jun, "Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:

Linda Hansen wrote:

Chris - There is still a major learning curve for me in doing this early
research. Why is it that there may be no monument inscriptions from this
earlier time period? Is it because they have deteriorated or is there
another reason?


I'd like to give an authoritative answer on this, but I can't. Maybe someone
else on the group can.

Early M.I.s in a churchyard, of course, really mean gravestone
inscriptions - banish images of great Victorian memorial vaults!

I don't know how common gravestones were c1600. I've always rather imagined
them as becoming common rather later in the century, as literacy spread. Not
much point in spending money on an expensive memorial if no-one could read
it. Prior to that, I've rather assumed simpler wooden markers were used.
However, I don't know.

Gravestones have rather a lot of hazards to face - simple weathering
(depending on the type of local stone available), plant and mould damage,
bird mess, breakage, clearances. Ancient churchyards are quite cramped
places with lots of re-use of the same plot - let alone the clearances of
modern vicars who want a nice green space or are afraid of being sued should
a gravestone topple over!

So the odds are rather against a very early memorial.

I have the impression that there were virtually no external monuments
in medieval times. There was a strong belief in the resurrection of
the body and I have also seen it said that things were likely to go
better for your body if you were parked near or in the sanctuary of the
church.

Obviously there was limited space in that part of the church so only
the wealthy would have been buried there and further large memorials
woudl have got in the way of services. Others would be buried outside
somewhere. Further the poor could not have afforded any memorial.

A practice that used to exist, according to a newpaper article in
yesterday's paper, was that of digging up bodies, or rather skeletons,
after perhaps 100 years when they had rotted down sufficiently. The
skeletons were then parked in a charnel house and the grave re-used.
But the early 18th century grave-robbings in England put a stop to that
fairly healthy practice as all removal of bodies was then outlawed.

One thing to remember is that it is still perfectly possible to this
day in England to bury anyone anywhere on land that you own or that the
owner allows.

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

Gjest

Re: Brenchesle/Batisford

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 jun 2006 23:36:02

In a message dated 6/4/2006 8:51:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:

John Ashbey, cousin and heir of John Hasket granted the manor in 1364 to Wm
Batisford . In 1423 the manor was held by Joan Brenchesle(Suss Arch Coll X
144 Feudal Aids) daughter and heir of Wm Batisford. Joan lived until 1453 and
next year possession of the manor was disputed between Elizabeth, widow of
Sr Thomas Lewknor and Joan Rykill(who married Richard Bruyn next year) ,
daughter of Joan Brencley's sister Alice and Sir Richard Fiennes, grandson of
Joan's other sister Elizabeth(Add MS 39376 fols 76, 80, 81) Sir Ri hard
evidently succeeded as Thomas Fiennes, Lord Dacre, his descendant died seized of the
manor in 1543(Chan inq pm (Ser2) IXXX 24)

This gives the mother of Joan and Elizabeth as Alice Batisford


Yes but it's mistaken.
Will

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 05 jun 2006 00:52:32

Ye Old One wrote:

Ok. Now a couple of questions.

First, against a couple of deaths you add "s.p.s" and against others
just "s.p." what does that mean?

sine prole (without issue), s.p.s without surviving issue
Second, you give references like "U1384/T12/2" where can I look these
up.

http://www.a2a.org.uk/
And finally, I run a web hosting company, and as a result have a lot
of web space available to be at no cost. Would anyone be interested in
starting an on-line repository of all this images/references so we can
all see things or refer others to things that are under our control?

I'm off to Melbourne for a few days but maybe we can work on this when I

get back. There may be copyright issues though.

Louise

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 05 jun 2006 00:57:36

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:52:32 GMT, Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

Ok. Now a couple of questions.

First, against a couple of deaths you add "s.p.s" and against others
just "s.p." what does that mean?

sine prole (without issue), s.p.s without surviving issue

Second, you give references like "U1384/T12/2" where can I look these
up.

http://www.a2a.org.uk/

And finally, I run a web hosting company, and as a result have a lot
of web space available to be at no cost. Would anyone be interested in
starting an on-line repository of all this images/references so we can
all see things or refer others to things that are under our control?

I'm off to Melbourne for a few days but maybe we can work on this when I
get back. There may be copyright issues though.

Louise

I also have a pet lawyer :)

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 05 jun 2006 00:59:07

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 23:37:44 +0000 (UTC), Jwc1870@aol.com enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Dear Bob,
Any chance of an entail on the Brenchley estate?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Large, but there is little detail.

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 jun 2006 01:39:02

Dear Bob,
Any chance of an entail on the Brenchley estate?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: batiford/Brenchesle

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 jun 2006 03:31:02

In a message dated 6/4/2006 6:20:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:

What proof do you have that it is a mistake. The original sources are given
here and need to be read for sure to state the mistake. This was wirtten in
a book, but the originial material is available for searching. How about
you getting the proof that it is wrong.


My proof as I stated to you privately, is the 1414 Inquisition which states
that Joan and Elizabeth are daughters of William Lord Etchingham knight and
Joan his wife.

Joan not Alice.
This is a primary document. VCH is not.

Will

Walt O'Dowd

Re: Henry Project page correction

Legg inn av Walt O'Dowd » 05 jun 2006 13:07:02

On the page for Simon I de Montfort l'Amaury, the section for his son
Amaury lists his first wife Richilde as being "daughter of Baldwin VII,
count of Hainaut" this should be "Baldwin II" I believe.

Walt O'Dowd

Gjest

re: Hubert de RIE

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 jun 2006 14:39:02

Monday, 5 June, 2006


Dear Cheryl,

The details noted from 'Peerage of England' (evidently
not CP, or Complete Peerage) are evidently in error. It may
well be that Hubert married a daughter of William II (I am
not aware of this), but Agnes, wife of Hubert de Rie and
mother of his heir was a daughter of Robert de Tosny, of
Belvoir, co. Leics. See the details provided below re:
this relationship, and the de Rye descent.

Cheers,

John *




1 Robert de Tosny
----------------------------------------
Death: 1088[1]
Occ: lord of Belvoir[2]
Father: NN de Tosny

of Belvoir, co. Leicester

' Robertus de Belvedeir', founder of Belvoir priory with his wife,
ca. 1085 [Mon. Angl. III:288-9, Num. I[3]]

'Robertus de Todeni', major tenant in chief at Domesday Book, 1086[4]

Spouse: Adelais[5]

Children: Berengar (-<1129), of Belvoir, co. Leics.
William (-<1129)
Geoffrey (-<1129)
Alberada (-<1129), m. Robert de Insula
Adeliza (->1135), m. Roger le Bigod
Agnes (->1129)


1.1a Agnes de Tosny*
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1129[5]

had Aslackby, co. Lincs. as her maritagium[5]

' Agnes de Toteneio ', confirmed the gift of her mother and father
of a bovate of land in 'Asclakheby' to Belvoir priory
[Mon.Angl. III:290, Num. VII[3]]

as 'Agnes de Beaupre', gave the church and manor of Aldeby to the
monks of Norwich[6]:
' Hubert de Ria assigned the tithe of his estates at Hockering,
Swanton, Deopham, Buxton and Markshall, and Agnes de Bellofago,
his wife, gave the church and manor of Aldeby. '
[Crosby, p. 182[7], cites Dodwell, Charters of Norwich Cathedral
Priory, vol. i, no. 20]

she m. lstly Ralph de Beaufou,
2ndly Hubert de Rye

identified in Sanders (erroneously) as daughter of Ralph de
Beaufou (p. 53)[1]; see K. S. B. Keats-Rohan[8], where she
is identified correctly as his widow [DP 330, sub "Radulf
de Bellofago"[4]; also DD 316[9]]

re: her 2nd husband:
of Hockering, Norfolk
castellan of Norwich

benefactor of Norwich priory [7]

2nd husband of Agnes de Tosny, to whom 'the tenancy-in-chief
of Hockering was given by Henry I'[5]

Spouse: Ralph de Beaufou [1st husband]

Children: Richard de Beaufou


1.1b Agnes de Tosny* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Hubert I de Rye [2nd husband]
Death: bef 1127[10]

Children: Henry [dsp)
Hubert II (-<1162)


1.1b.1 Hubert II de Rye
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 25 Sep 1162[10]

of Hockering, Norfolk and Aslackby, co. Lincs.

Children: Hubert III (-ca1170)


1.1b.1.1 Hubert III de Rye
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1170[10]

of Hockering, Norfolk

his cousin Ralph de Beaufour held lands at Aslackby and at Seaton,
Rutland (now Northants.) from him, 1166[5]
[K.S.B.K-R shows this as 'Hubert II', but this undoubtedly refers
to his son Hubert, based on chronology from R. O'Connor[10]]

Spouse: NN

Children: Hubert IV (-1188)


1.1b.1.1.1 Hubert IV de Rye
----------------------------------------
Death: 1188[10]

of Hockering and Hingham, Norfolk, Aslackby, co. Lincs & c.

lord of the barony of Rye[10] (manors of Hingham, Hockering,
Norfolk and others)[11]

' Hubertus de Ria', ' who held the manor of "Asselakby" in chief
of the king', gave 100 acres of wood to Sempringham priory
[Mon.Angl. VI(2):947, Num. I[3], cites the Hundred Roll for
the Earldom of Lincoln, 3 Edw. I (1275)]

Spouse: Margaret 'filia Willielmi'[11]
Father: William fitz Roscelin

Children: Aline (-<1267)
Isabel (-1263)


1.1b.1.1.1.1 Aline de Rye
----------------------------------------
Death: bef Sep 1267[10]

eldest daughter and coheiress (eventually sole heiress of the
barony of Rye)[11]

she held Foulsham, Norfolk [or at least a moiety thereof, incl. the
right to hold a market] in dower, of her son: her IPM (1268) is
cited, of a market
'..recorded 1268, held by Aline de Marshal. The market, the day
of which was not given, was held in dower by Aline de Marshal of
her son William de Marshal (CIPM, i, no. 688).'[12]

~ Note: her son William had in fact predeceased her.

Spouse: John Marshal
Death: bef 27 Jun 1235[11]
Father: John Marshal (->1189)
Mother: Alice
Marr: ca 1200[11]

Children: John Marshal (dsp <1242)
William Marshal, of Hingham and Hockering (-<1265)


1.1b.1.1.1.2 Isabel de Rye
----------------------------------------
Death: 1263, d.s.p.[1]

younger daughter and coheiress (Sanders, p. 16)[1]

she held dower in Blythborough, Suffolk[1]

Spouse: Roger de Cressy
Death: 1246[1]
Father: Hugh de Cressy (-<1190)
Mother: Margaret de Chesney (-1230)


1. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and
Descent, 1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
2. Judith A. Green, "The Descent of Belvoir," Prosopon, Vol. X.
K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, ed., April 1999.
3. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding
& Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830 (Vol. VI, Pt. 1)
URL
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
4. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday People," The Boydell
Press, 1999, Vol. I: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in
English Documents 1066-1166, cites Robert de Torigni,
Interpolations to Gesta Normannorum Ducum of Guillaume of
Jumieges, (ed. van Houts, ii, 270) and identification of Gilbert
fitzRichard as uncle of Meen, seigneur de Fougeres (Rouleau
Mortuaire du B. Vital abbe de Savigni, edition phototypique
par L. Delisle Paris (1909), titre no. 182).
5. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, "Belvoir: The Heirs of Robert and Berengar
de Tosny," "Prosopon, Number Nine (July 1998)," The Unit for
Prosopographic Research, Linacre College, Oxford, July 1998,
URL http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/Prosop/PRSPN9.stm
6. William Page, F.S.A., ed., "Victoria County History of Norfolk,"
London: James Street, Haymarket, 1906, Vol. II, p. 328 (re:
priory of Aldeby).
7. Everett U. Crosby, "Bishop & Chapter in Twelfth-century England:
A Study of the 'Mensa Episcopalis'," Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Life & Thought, 4th Series, 23, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,
1994.
8. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Additions and Corrections to Sanders’s
Baronies Prosopon, Number 11 (July 2000),"
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/Prosop
David E. Thornton, editor, Prosopon 11 (July 2000), The Unit for
Prosopographic Research, Linacre College, Oxford, Little Easton
(p. 130), Aveley (p. 2); Brattleby (p. 109) ; North Cadbury
(p. 68), above are emendations to Ian Sander's work, English
Baronies (1960).
9. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants," The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 2002, cited by Rosie Bevan, 'Re: de Stuteville'
Jul 2, 2002, p. 723 (Osmund de Stuteville), full title:
Domesday Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons, Occurring
in English Documents 1066-1166: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum.
10. Robert O'Connor, "Rye Family," Dec 1, 1999,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
11. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland
Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
12. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516,"
URL http://www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/

Renia

Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England

Legg inn av Renia » 05 jun 2006 14:48:11

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/26/06 1:51:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

King Aethelbert of Kent married a Christian princess, Bertha, the
daughter of the Frankish king, Charibert.

I don't show any descendents of this couple.
One daughter Aethelburh, Queen of /Northumbria/ married
Edwin, King of Deira 593-606, King of /Northumbria/ 616-633

but I don't show any children. If someone has children to them, I'd like to
know

A son of Aethelbert and Bertha
Eadbald, King of /Kent/ 616-640
married Emma, Princess of /Austrasia/
and had at least one child
Earconbert, King of /Kent/ 640-

but again I'm not showing any further descendents.

Will Johnson


According to Bede, Ethelbert and Bertha had a son, Eadbald, as you say.

Patricia Junkin

Re: Access to Online Patent Rolls

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 05 jun 2006 15:35:03

Simon and Bob,
I am having the same problem. Thanks to all of you who responded and, Bob,
for contacting the adm.
Pat

----------
From: fairthorne@breathe.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Access to Online Patent Rolls
Date: Sun, 4, 2006, 3:45 PM


Ye Old One writes:

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:07:14 +0000 (UTC), pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia
Junkin") enriched this group when s/he wrote:

The website format for this material offered by the University of Iowa has
changed and I am no longer able to access this. Has anyone had difficulty?
Thanks for your help.
Pat

Well I'm not sure what has changed, but the system is working fine
from my end. URL is http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/

--
Bob.

Have just tried this URL, get into the site ok but every search I make
returns no hits - including all of the listed examples

Simon

L B Hansen

Re: Piddingtons

Legg inn av L B Hansen » 05 jun 2006 16:06:01

Thanks Chris and Tim. That helps me tremendously. I had no idea that they still allowed burials on private land in the U.K. - that is very interesting. Linda


Gravestones have rather a lot of hazards to face - simple weathering
(depending on the type of local stone available), plant and mould damage,
bird mess, breakage, clearances. Ancient churchyards are quite cramped
places with lots of re-use of the same plot - let alone the clearances of
modern vicars who want a nice green space or are afraid of being sued should
a gravestone topple over!

So the odds are rather against a very early memorial.

I have the impression that there were virtually no external monuments
in medieval times. There was a strong belief in the resurrection of
the body and I have also seen it said that things were likely to go
better for your body if you were parked near or in the sanctuary of the
church.

Obviously there was limited space in that part of the church so only
the wealthy would have been buried there and further large memorials
woudl have got in the way of services. Others would be buried outside
somewhere. Further the poor could not have afforded any memorial.

A practice that used to exist, according to a newpaper article in
yesterday's paper, was that of digging up bodies, or rather skeletons,
after perhaps 100 years when they had rotted down sufficiently. The
skeletons were then parked in a charnel house and the grave re-used.
But the early 18th century grave-robbings in England put a stop to that
fairly healthy practice as all removal of bodies was then outlawed.

One thing to remember is that it is still perfectly possible to this
day in England to bury anyone anywhere on land that you own or that the
owner allows.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 jun 2006 21:19:02

In a message dated 6/4/06 1:23:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

<< However in this
case the land is in Kent, where for some land a system of Gavelkynde
applied which divided property amongst all sons as well as the widow.
This is why for Kentish properties we can see multiple transfers of
parts of land after death, or all rights being handed over by second
sons who were then otherwise provided for. >>

You mean something like, after the division, they all swapped amongst
themselves ?
Will

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 jun 2006 21:20:03

In a message dated 6/4/06 1:23:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

<< However in this
case the land is in Kent, where for some land a system of Gavelkynde
applied which divided property amongst all sons as well as the widow.
This is why for Kentish properties we can see multiple transfers of
parts of land after death, or all rights being handed over by second
sons who were then otherwise provided for. >>

Do you remember saying a few days ago, how it was curious that land is being
granted to Joan and then on the same day to Richard her son without mentioning
her in the second item ?

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 05 jun 2006 23:58:51

And if Collins (Collins, 1812, vol. 9, sub Moore) is to be believed it
is even more complicated. There were apparently two Benenden
heiresses:

From Collins:

Katherine Benenden m Thomas Moore
William Moore m. Katherine Aucher
Thomas Moore m. Agnes Austen
William Moore m. Margaret Brenchley

From this thread (possibly):

Joan Benenden m. William Brenchley
John Brenchley m. Margaret Golding (or two generations of Johns,
w/Margaret married to 2nd)
Margaret Brenchley m. William Moore

IF this is true the marriage would have reunited both halves (assumed)
of Benenden.

If there was only one William, then I would assume two marriages with
2nd wife Joan Batisford dsp.

Richard, John (the elder), Thomas, and the 2nd William (if he existed
and the one who married Joan Batisford with both dsp) could be brothers
and sons of a first William. Obviously the search for primary
documents is great - but more are needed to unravel this!

Doug Smith

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 06 jun 2006 00:10:31

On 5 Jun 2006 15:58:51 -0700, "alden@mindspring.com"
<alden@mindspring.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

And if Collins (Collins, 1812, vol. 9, sub Moore) is to be believed it
is even more complicated. There were apparently two Benenden
heiresses:

From Collins:

Katherine Benenden m Thomas Moore
William Moore m. Katherine Aucher
Thomas Moore m. Agnes Austen
William Moore m. Margaret Brenchley

From this thread (possibly):

Joan Benenden m. William Brenchley
John Brenchley m. Margaret Golding (or two generations of Johns,
w/Margaret married to 2nd)
Margaret Brenchley m. William Moore

IF this is true the marriage would have reunited both halves (assumed)
of Benenden.

If there was only one William, then I would assume two marriages with
2nd wife Joan Batisford dsp.

Richard, John (the elder), Thomas, and the 2nd William (if he existed
and the one who married Joan Batisford with both dsp) could be brothers
and sons of a first William. Obviously the search for primary
documents is great - but more are needed to unravel this!

Doug Smith


Oh boy, just when I think I'm nearly there......

I am beginning to think we need Dr Who to sort this one out :)

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: Boklerplaiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 01:02:02

Dear Listers,
There are all kinds of Explanations as to how the name
Bulkeley came to be, possibly including the possibility that it is a
corruption of a place name, say for instance Bullock`s Lea.
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 06 jun 2006 01:28:43

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/5/06 4:08:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

And if Collins (Collins, 1812, vol. 9, sub Moore) is to be believed it
is even more complicated. There were apparently two Benenden
heiresses:

From Collins:

Katherine Benenden m Thomas Moore
William Moore m. Katherine Aucher
Thomas Moore m. Agnes Austen
William Moore m. Margaret Brenchley

aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggg!

This is positing an entirely different descent for the Manor of Benenden (or
as you suggest a duel descent of two moities)

Now I'm thinking they both went ... "Hmmm how did Benenden come to the
Brenchleys? Let's see what we can cobble together..."

Kinda like what we're doing. Only hopefully with a better eye to primary
documentation.

Will


Yep

Were they guessing? Or maybe there were two moieties. Or, ....
Maybe we will find the right primary source to sort this out.

Doug

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 01:53:02

In a message dated 6/5/06 4:08:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

<< And if Collins (Collins, 1812, vol. 9, sub Moore) is to be believed it
is even more complicated. There were apparently two Benenden
heiresses:

From Collins:

Katherine Benenden m Thomas Moore
William Moore m. Katherine Aucher
Thomas Moore m. Agnes Austen
William Moore m. Margaret Brenchley >>

aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggg!

This is positing an entirely different descent for the Manor of Benenden (or
as you suggest a duel descent of two moities)

Now I'm thinking they both went ... "Hmmm how did Benenden come to the
Brenchleys? Let's see what we can cobble together..."

Kinda like what we're doing. Only hopefully with a better eye to primary
documentation.

Will

Gjest

Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 02:15:03

In a message dated 6/3/06 9:28:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< You are correct, there is no positive proof I have found of her birth and
she could have been younger. Eve Braose d. bef. 1255>>

Acutally I have that Eve died *in* 1255. In fact I specify between 20/28 in
Jul 1255
But unfortunately I have no note as to why I said that :)

<<, married after 1238, William de Cantelou, d. 25 July 1254. The year
before he had acquired
Lubbesthorpe. We know Milicent's brother, George, was born ca. 1251.>>

How do we know when George was born?


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Wills of Kent and Croil wills

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 02:25:02

In a message dated 6/2/06 8:52:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
charlotsmith@prodigy.net writes:

<< Joan Fitzalan was married to Wm de Brian and he died 30 Sept 1395 and
buried Seal, Kent. She probably didn't marry Echyngham until at least
1396/7. Joan died 1404 leaving son Thomas for sure. Could she have been
married and had Joan and Elizabeth and Thomas during this time frame
and then Joan was already married to John Rykhill in the 1415 cocument >>


In my opinion yes.
They were married for at least three years and possibly four before she died
on 1 Sep 1404.
We presume they were not married when her sister-in-law calls her "My Sister
Dame Briane" in her will of 1400, and we know they were already married by CPR
2H4 pg 434 of date 22 Feb 1400/1 where this is a grant to William Echyngham
and Joan his wife.

So three to four years is enough time to have three children, and it's always
possible that two of the three might be twins.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 06 jun 2006 03:59:02

His father's IPM.

----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture
Date: Mon, 5, 2006, 8:13 PM


In a message dated 6/3/06 9:28:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

You are correct, there is no positive proof I have found of her birth and
she could have been younger. Eve Braose d. bef. 1255

Acutally I have that Eve died *in* 1255. In fact I specify between 20/28 in
Jul 1255
But unfortunately I have no note as to why I said that :)

, married after 1238, William de Cantelou, d. 25 July 1254. The year
before he had acquired
Lubbesthorpe. We know Milicent's brother, George, was born ca. 1251.

How do we know when George was born?


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Baldwin, Count fo Ghisnes

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 05:16:02

In a message dated 6/5/06 7:27:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< E 40/505
Grant by Baldwin, Count of Ghisnes, to his brother Robert de Ghisnes, knt.,
of all the manor of Hoylande. Witnesses:- SIr Stephen Longespee, Anselm
Marshall, Rihcard de Montfichet, Richard de Clara, and others (named). Essex
October, 1241 >>

This Richard Montfichet is new to me. Is this a son of Sir William de
Montfichet and Devorguilla Abernathy ?

Will

Gjest

Re: Baldwin, Count fo Ghisnes

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 05:18:02

In a message dated 6/5/06 7:27:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< E 40/505
Grant by Baldwin, Count of Ghisnes, to his brother Robert de Ghisnes, knt.,
of all the manor of Hoylande. Witnesses:- SIr Stephen Longespee, Anselm
Marshall, Rihcard de Montfichet, Richard de Clara, and others (named). Essex
October, 1241 >>


This Anselm Marshall must be Anselm the nine earl of pembroke
who got that title, and died, both in 1245

Patricia Junkin

Re: uiowa patent rolls

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 06 jun 2006 15:33:02

I remain unable to access any part of the site as well. Thanks for the
update. Perhaps it will be sorted soon.
Pat

----------
From: Millerfairfield@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: uiowa patent rolls
Date: Tue, 6, 2006, 8:48 AM


Has there been any feedback yet from Professor Boynton's team at uiowa?
I'm still finding it impossible to get any search results
MM

Gjest

Re: Sloan's Thesis as to the Origin of English People

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 17:49:03

In a message dated 6/5/2006 9:38:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sloan@ishipress.com writes:

I now realize that Matthew Leeming is primarily a tour guide, not a
scientist.



This is now sounding a little ... shall we say off ?

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 jun 2006 17:57:02

In a message dated 6/6/2006 5:15:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

This mentions Joan in 1458 but it relates to the chantry she willed to
be set up.


How did Joan establish a chantry in 1458 ?
She is supposed to be dead.
Will

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 04:07:01

In a message dated 6/6/06 6:08:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:

<< In 1458 her execuators no doubt had funded the chantry
and it was being built or dedicated. She deceased in 1453. >>

I already posted where she funded it within her lifetime.
Will

Gjest

Re: Ancient and Modern Genealogies: Genealogy As an Academic

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 05:25:02

In a message dated 6/6/06 7:38:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

<< thirty thousand books, medals, monuments, mounds, Moabite genealogy stone

I seriously doubt he actually consulted thirty thousand books. Maybe three
hundred.
But what is the "Moabite genealogy stone" ?

Will

Gjest

Re: Jane Newdigate "Im not dead yet!"

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 12:41:06

In a message dated 07/06/2006 07:08:22 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Henry Clifford, Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria, ed. by Rev.

Joseph Stevenson, pp. 11-14.
<<<<

I understand that Henry Clifford was Jane Dormer's servant, so his memoir on
her should be reliable.

Adrian

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition--MORTIMER

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 13:35:02

Wednesday, 7 June, 2006


Dear Paul,

Thanks for your post from this morning. This will help
resolve yet another link previously undetected, and likely also
assist in solving some other riddles (great and small).

One in particular, Douglas Richardson had brought up the issue
of a relationship between Katherine (de) Clifton and the daughters
of Sir Edward le Despenser in 2002 [1], which I subsequently
conjectured would be resolved by a proposed identification of
Joan, wife of Sir Richard de Weyland [2]. In fact this
relationship now appears to result from common descent from Sir
Richard de Braose (d. bef 18 June 1292) and his wife Alice le Rus,
as follows:


Sir Richard = Alice le Rus
de Braose I
_______I_________ _ _ _
I I
Constantine de Mortimer = Sibyl Mary = John de
of Attleborough, Norfolk I de de I Weyland
[b. ca. 1280; d. 1358] I Braose Braose I
____________________________I__________ I___
I I I I I
Constantine Sir Robert Eleanor William Richard
dvp 1355 de Mortimer = Adam canon of de Weyland
d. 1387 de Lincoln d. 1319
= Margery Clifton = Joan
I d. 1367 I
______________I I I
I __________________I_______ I
I I I I I
Thomas Adam Constantine Eleanor Cecily
dvp bef dvp [b.ca. 1329; = Sir John [b.ca.1319;
1387 d.bef. 1368] Mauteby =
= Mary =Catherine I Bartholomew
I de la Pole I de Burghersh
I I I [b.ca. 1328;
I I I d. 1369]
_I______________ I I I
I I I I I I
Sibyl I Margery John V Elizabeth
I Clifton de Burghersh
___I [b.ca.1353; [b.ca. 1342;
I d. 1389] d. 1402] =
CECILY I Edward le
DE MORTIMER I Despenser
_________I __________________I___
I I I I I
KATHERINE ANNE CECILY ELIZ. MARGARET
CLIFTON 'the sisters Despenser'


I will also note, the proposed identification of Joan, wife
of Sir Richard de Weyland evidently fails, as by my original
proposal and your identification of Sibyl de Braose, Joan would
have been 1st cousin to her husband Sir Richard de Weyland, a
relationship we would not expect to have been permitted between a
married couple of that time.

There is, of course, the possibility that Constantine de
Mortimer had another (earlier or later) wife, mother of Joan....?

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] Douglas Richardson, <Cecily Weyland's Possble Kinship to
Katherine Clifton>, SGM, 2 April 2002.

[2] J. Ravilious, <Cecily Weyland's Possible Kinship to Katherine
Clifton>, SGM, 23 May 2002.


* John P. Ravilious

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Access to Online Patent Rolls

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 07 jun 2006 13:44:59

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:33:02 +0000 (UTC), pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia
Junkin") enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Simon and Bob,
I am having the same problem. Thanks to all of you who responded and, Bob,
for contacting the adm.
Pat

----------
From: fairthorne@breathe.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Access to Online Patent Rolls
Date: Sun, 4, 2006, 3:45 PM


Ye Old One writes:

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:07:14 +0000 (UTC), pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia
Junkin") enriched this group when s/he wrote:

The website format for this material offered by the University of Iowa has
changed and I am no longer able to access this. Has anyone had difficulty?
Thanks for your help.
Pat

Well I'm not sure what has changed, but the system is working fine
from my end. URL is http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/

--
Bob.

Have just tried this URL, get into the site ok but every search I make
returns no hits - including all of the listed examples

Simon



Pleased to report the problem has now been fixed. Everything up and
running 100%

--
Bob.


Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 17:33:02

In a message dated 6/7/2006 12:53:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

As to another comparison with Hull, only time will tell how willing the
compiler is to make corrections or entertain alternatives.


And Hull is sooooooo ... sloooooooow
I grew a beard waiting for a page to load.
Will

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 18:05:02

In a message dated 6/7/2006 8:53:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:

I will send along the translation that was in the book.


The will is in English, so you mean transcription.
I could read a few words, but it's difficult.
Will

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition--MORTIMER

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 19:34:03

You show Bartholomew Burghersh [4th Lord] as "b abt 1328"
with his daughter Elizabeth "b abt 1342"

Possibly Bartholomew's birthyear is incorrect, even though stated to be "26
or more at his father's death" (which occurred in 1355)

The other possibility is that Elizabeth's birthyear is incorrect
I don't have any good dates to pin on her, other than Leo suggests she was
married by 1354

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Jane Newdigate "Im not dead yet!"

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 19:51:01

In a message dated 6/6/06 11:08:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Her other granddaughter, Anne, Lady Hungerford,
went out to Louvain the year her grandmother died (separating from her
husband to do so), and took over the household, living on the Continent
for thirty-two years. She [Anne] was a friend of Margaret of Austria,
Duchess of Parma, and died in 1603, probably in old age."

Douglas thank you for your good post, much appreciated.

It's interesting the way they phrase this "seperating from her husband to do
so". The husband claimed in 1568 that his wife was having an affair and even
though reconciled somewhat, refused to pay the cost of the suit and for this
refusal was put into prison for a time.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: For MAR: Freville, Bury, Haselden, Hutton

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 22:46:02

In a message dated 6/7/06 12:54:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<<
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/docum ... 8559&REC=8

Will of William Marshall, parson of Marston, co. Bedford, dated 16 Feb.
1558. To be buried in the chancel of the Assumption of our blessed
Lady Marston nigh unto my mother's grave. To my niece Beatrix Frevell
a cup of silver double gilt. Haselden Bury my nephew, and James Hutton
his father-in-law. Devises his house at Royston, co. Cambridge, to his
sister Jane Haselden. etc. >>


I believe this Jane Hasilden must be the widow of Anthony Hasilden son of
John Hasilden and Elizabeth Cheney
Anthony died bef 1 Jun 1527 on which date his will was proved.

He left at least two daughters Elizabeth (Hasilden) Bury wife of Richard Bury
of Hengrange
and
Beatrix (Hasilden) Freville, wife of Robert Freville

So it seems that Jane, wife of Anthony Hasilden must be a Jane Marshall.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 jun 2006 23:18:02

Dear Ray,
As there have been many Yeshua ben Yosefs who have doubtless
resided in the town of Nazareth, It signifies almost nothing if You indeed
are one of them reincarnated. PS You`re obviously one of those Clinton , Gore,
or Feingold loving Dems. As for Senator Feingold who recently called for the
President`s impeachment at the Maine Democratic convention, most likely on
account of his actions in the Middle East being againest the spirit of the
Constitutional framers, I must remind him of our actions againest the Berber pirates
in the late 1700s (terrorists) and also the removal of the Pasha of Tripoli
(Libya) by the United States Marines in 1803 on orders from then President
Thomas Jefferson. A Deed immortalized in the Marine`s Theme .
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: White of Tuxford

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 jun 2006 01:36:02

How old was a boy when admitted to Gray's Inn ? In this link we see John
White of Tuxford, evidently the same one who was son of Thomas White of Tuxford
by his wife Agnes (Anne) Cecil sister of Lord Burghley. I'm trying to get a
better fix on his possible birth range.
Thanks
Will

http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN1 ... 61&lpg=PA6
1&dq=white+of+tuxford&as_brr=1 >>

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Joan Brenchesle died in 1446.

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 08 jun 2006 12:49:08

On 8 Jun 2006 02:59:33 -0700, "Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
The information I posted yesterday is, I believe, primary proof that
Joan Brenchesle died in 1443 not 1453 as both here wills seem to show.

Henry 6, Vol 5, Page 21. Membrane 15. Dated November 21st 1446.

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h ... ge0021.pdf

Hello Bob,

Surely the 21 Nov 1446 Licence to found the chantry (which your link
leads to) proves the opposite - that Joan Brenchley was not dead in
1446.

It says the chantry was to be founded for "the good estate of the king
and Queen Margaret and Joan Brenchesle, and for their souls after death
and for the souls of William Brenchele, knight ..."

The licence is distinguishing between Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou and
Joan Brenchley, who were all then alive, and Sir William Brenchley, who
was dead.

Regards,

Matt Tompkins

Mmmmmmm.... On rereading I suppose it can be read like that - will
reread the other bits I have and reconsider the matter.

--
Bob.

Patricia Junkin

Re: Baldwin, Count fo Ghisnes

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 08 jun 2006 16:44:27

I do not have a firm genealogy of these families. There is a family in Essex
who apparently either succeeded to the lands or took the name Montfichet
from Gernun. It is in this line that a William appears married to a de
Clare. Names in the line are Gilbert and Robert.
I am still researching the family.
Pat
----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: pajunkin@cox.net
Subject: Re: Baldwin, Count fo Ghisnes
Date: Tue, 6, 2006, 11:51 AM


In a message dated 6/6/2006 5:54:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
Sorry do not have Devorguilla Abernathy in my notes. This Richard may be the
great grandson of William and Margaret de Clare from my notes at present.
Pat
Could you explain in detail? I don't know which grandchild, nor which child
you are proposing attaching him to.

RJM

Re: Wills by married women

Legg inn av RJM » 08 jun 2006 19:53:12

The will of Elizabeth Scott is interesting. I find it surprising that
covenants at the time of marriage could apparently override the common
law. Perhaps this is an example of property not being taken into
possesion by the husband as mentioned by MA-R.

Also I wonder about the significance of the endorsement by John Scott.
Is there an implication that the agreement of the husband was required?

I haven't looked at the will, but Chris Dickinson mentions that there
was an attached admin. This usually happens when there is some
technical deficiency in the will. Could this deficiency be that the
will could not be proved because the testator was a married woman?

John Matthews

Chris Dickinson wrote:
RJM wrote:

John Brandon recently drew attention to the will of Dame Margaret
Temple. She apparently left money to the poor of Stafford. This is an
unusual will since (I believe) that at that time (c.1617) under English
law, married women were not able to dispose of property in their own
right and her husband was still alive. I am not aware of any other will
by a married woman who pre-deceased her husband prior to the Married
Woman's Property Act in the late 19th century, but perhaps it was more
common than I realise.

Are there any other examples?


Yes.

The PCC will of Elizabeth Scott of Crakeplace Hall in Dean in Cumberland is
one such. It is available online (date 1657).

She starts her will:

|I Elizabeth Scott now wife of John Scott of Crakeplace Hall .... doe make
|this my last will and Testament (as power was given me in the covenants
|made at the marriage of my said husband and my selfe) in manner following

It closes with:

|I am pleased to performe this my mothers will, witnes my hand henry
|crackeplace his marke; I am pleased with this my wifes will, witnes my hand
|John Scott

The attached admin makes it clear that Henry, so pleased at his mother's
will, was a minor.


Chris

Chris Dickinson

Re: Wills by married women

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 08 jun 2006 20:28:56

John Matthews wrote:

<snip>
Also I wonder about the significance of the endorsement by John Scott.
Is there an implication that the agreement of the husband was required?
snip


I am not aware that there was any problem about married women making wills,
so long as the husband agreed. His endorsement would have been a necessary
part of that agreement; much as, when there is a question in yeoman wills
about legitimacy, the added phrase 'with the licence of the lord' is usually
added. It just ties the legal knot and prevents challenge.

I haven't looked at the will, but Chris Dickinson mentions that there
was an attached admin. This usually happens when there is some
technical deficiency in the will. Could this deficiency be that the
will could not be proved because the testator was a married woman?

No. The will was proved - it is in the PCC records.

This was just an additional legal requirement to deal with the upbringing of
her children. Quite normal. It gave the administration to a Robert Fisher,
described as 'Testamentary Guardian unto Henry Crackplace and Anne
Crackplace minors naturall and lawfull children and principall legataryes in
the will'.

Chris

Gjest

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 jun 2006 20:37:05

There appears to be no online biography of William Makenade. Doing a google
search only turns up a few sideways references to him. Nothing useful on any
of the main resources I'm used to using.

Doing a google book search, the same, nothing terribly detailed. And yet,
this man appears in dozens of Patent Rolls statements.

I'm going to attempt to create a biography from the various bits and pieces,
but before I go to that trouble (which will probably take three to eight
hours), I'm wondering if anyone has a canned biography on him, from which I can
start?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Robert de Lathom 1254-1302 m. Katherine de Knowseligh 12

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 jun 2006 21:26:40

In a message dated 6/8/06 10:08:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, RLT46gem@aol.com
writes:

<< 2 Thomas Lathom 1301 - 1370
....+Alianore de Lianore 1305 -
........3 Sir Thomas de Lathom 1334 - 1381/82
.............+Joane De Venables 1334 -
.................4 Isabel deLathom, Lady Stanley 1364 - 1414
......................+ John deStanley, K.G. 1350 - 1413/14


.....*2nd Wife of Sir Thomas de Lathom:
..............+Isabella Pilkington 1348 -
..................4 Isabel deLathom, Lady Stanley 1364 - 1414
......................+ John deStanley, K.G. 1350 - 1413/14 >>

Please state your specific source that Isabel, Lady Stanley's mother was
Isabel Pilkington.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Wills by married women

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 jun 2006 21:30:26

In a message dated 6/8/06 10:15:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Sometimes, if a will was
defective in some way, a grant of administration would be made instead,
with the defective will attached together with instructions from the
court that its wishes be carried out so far as was possible, as part of
the administration (so-called "Letters of Administration with Will
annexed"). This is still a feature of modern probate law. >>

I wonder if a "Administrator with will annexed" could also refer to a
situation where the named executor (trix) died before the estate was settled ?

Will Johnson

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Stephen Bettenham and his son Thomas

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 08 jun 2006 22:51:13

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 21:33:16 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

I had added Henry Finch and his wife Agnes Bettenham to my database, stating
they were married bef 1525 and adding her father Thomas and that he must have
been born by at least 1495.

Now a second record has appeared which adds to this family of Bettenham

Patent Rolls, <a href =
"http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v3/body/Henry6vol3page0419.pdf">18 Henry VI pg 419</a> [18 Henry VI is 1440/1 - wsj]
June 14 at Westminster
"Whereas Thomas Wallere and John Brook lately demised for life to Joan, late
wife of William Brenchesle, knight, all the estate which they, with him and
Nicholas Potyn and William Potyn, clerk, also deceased, had in the manor of
Bylsyngton, said to be held in chief, by grant of John Stablegate to them, their
heirs and assigns; with remainder to John Crane and William Arderne, clerks,
William Makenade, Stephen Bettenham, William Cheyne of the county of Sussex,
Richard Makehurst, William Bertyn, Thomas Marchant, Richard Brenchesle, Henry
Malveysyn, Henry Gotele and Richard Huntyngdon, their heirs and assigns; and
after she had entered the other remaindermen released all their right and title to
the said Richard Brenchesle, who granted the premises, by the name of all
those lands, tenements, rents, reversions, farms and services, which Joan late
the wife of William Brenchesle, knight, held for life in the parishes or towns
of Brenchsle, Pepyngbury, Capele, Tudule, Tunbrigg, Hadlo, Ealdyngge,
Horsmondenne, Goutherst, Bylsyngton, Rokyngge, Aldyngton, Smethe, Broke,
Seyntemariecherche and Newecherche or elsewhere in the county of Kent whereof the remainder
after her death pertained to him, to Stephen Bettenham, Thomas, his son,
William Cheyne of the county of Sussex, Henry Hoorne, John Martyn of Derteford,
Richard Wakehurst, Thomas Elys, Thomas Marchant, Thomas Hordenne, Simon
Cunghurst, Richard Huntyngdon, Henry Gotele and Henry Malveysyn, and the said Joan
attorned to them, the king's license not being obtained in these matters; the
king, for 10 marks paid in the hauaper, has pardoned these trespasses, and grants
license to her to retain the manor for life with remainder as aforesaid.


Mmmmm. I did post that one yesterday under the title "Joan Brenchesle
recovering lands - 1440".

Them there Patant Rolls is rather useful are they not :)

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: For MAR: Freville, Bury, Haselden, Hutton

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 jun 2006 23:28:40

Sutliff schrieb:

Anthony Hasilden only had a daughter Elizabeth of which I am aware. I am
wondering if this Beatrix is the erroneous daughter, also called Rose,
assigned as wife to Robert Freville, who was disproved by Eugene A. Stratton
in _Applied Genealogy_, and thus severing a Hasilden descent?

Hap

There was a thread in September 2005 which showed that Beatrice, the
wife of the younger Robert Freville (grandson of Robert & Rose), was a
posthumous daughter of Anthony Hasilden. See:

http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... bb87449f29

Regards

Michael

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Stephen Bettenham and his son Thomas

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 08 jun 2006 23:46:31

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:26:15 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/8/06 2:53:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

Mmmmm. I did post that one yesterday under the title "Joan Brenchesle
recovering lands - 1440".

This was a case Bob of double work. You had typed it out and so had I :)
I've added all the names to my database, so I can start collecting every
reference, to each one of them, and try to make them into families that can then
be hopefully, connected to each other.

Will

Keep up the good work :)

BTW. Email on its way.

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: Stephen Bettenham and his son Thomas

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 00:09:02

I had added Henry Finch and his wife Agnes Bettenham to my database, stating
they were married bef 1525 and adding her father Thomas and that he must have
been born by at least 1495.

Now a second record has appeared which adds to this family of Bettenham

Patent Rolls, <a href =
"http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h6v3/body/Henry6vol3page0419.pdf">18 Henry VI pg 419</a> [18 Henry VI is 1440/1 - wsj]
June 14 at Westminster
"Whereas Thomas Wallere and John Brook lately demised for life to Joan, late
wife of William Brenchesle, knight, all the estate which they, with him and
Nicholas Potyn and William Potyn, clerk, also deceased, had in the manor of
Bylsyngton, said to be held in chief, by grant of John Stablegate to them, their
heirs and assigns; with remainder to John Crane and William Arderne, clerks,
William Makenade, Stephen Bettenham, William Cheyne of the county of Sussex,
Richard Makehurst, William Bertyn, Thomas Marchant, Richard Brenchesle, Henry
Malveysyn, Henry Gotele and Richard Huntyngdon, their heirs and assigns; and
after she had entered the other remaindermen released all their right and title to
the said Richard Brenchesle, who granted the premises, by the name of all
those lands, tenements, rents, reversions, farms and services, which Joan late
the wife of William Brenchesle, knight, held for life in the parishes or towns
of Brenchsle, Pepyngbury, Capele, Tudule, Tunbrigg, Hadlo, Ealdyngge,
Horsmondenne, Goutherst, Bylsyngton, Rokyngge, Aldyngton, Smethe, Broke,
Seyntemariecherche and Newecherche or elsewhere in the county of Kent whereof the remainder
after her death pertained to him, to Stephen Bettenham, Thomas, his son,
William Cheyne of the county of Sussex, Henry Hoorne, John Martyn of Derteford,
Richard Wakehurst, Thomas Elys, Thomas Marchant, Thomas Hordenne, Simon
Cunghurst, Richard Huntyngdon, Henry Gotele and Henry Malveysyn, and the said Joan
attorned to them, the king's license not being obtained in these matters; the
king, for 10 marks paid in the hauaper, has pardoned these trespasses, and grants
license to her to retain the manor for life with remainder as aforesaid.

Gjest

Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 00:26:02

Stirnet on their Zouche page here
http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... htm#linklo
claims that Isabella "probably of this generation" was a daughter of Eudes le
Zouche by Milicent Cantilupe (aka de Monte Alto)

Bear in mind that "The Knights of Edward I", which excerpt posted here
5/25/06 by wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz states that Eudes died by 25 Jun 1279

Now flipping to Stirnet on Lovel of Tichmarsh here
http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/british/ll/lovel2.htm
we see that John Lovel and his wife Isabella le Zouche had two sons named
John (and one daughter), with John the elder son being born in 1341 and John the
latter son being born abt 1344.

We can see right off that this cannot work. Isabella would have to be at
least 64 at the birth of the latter son John.

The easiest solution is that Isabella is not "of this generation" but rather
a daughter of some other Zouche.

Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Stephen Bettenham and his son Thomas

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 00:28:05

In a message dated 6/8/06 2:53:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< Mmmmm. I did post that one yesterday under the title "Joan Brenchesle
recovering lands - 1440". >>

This was a case Bob of double work. You had typed it out and so had I :)
I've added all the names to my database, so I can start collecting every
reference, to each one of them, and try to make them into families that can then
be hopefully, connected to each other.

Will

Gjest

Re: Robert de Lathom 1254-1302 m. Katherine de Knowseligh 12

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 00:40:02

In a message dated 6/8/06 2:53:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
suthen@redshift.com writes:

<< Since Edward de Lathom died in 1380 and left no issue by his wife Ellen le
Boteler of Great Marton (daughter of John le Boteler and hsi wife Margaret
de Redmayne) >>

Were Margaret de Redmayne and Joan de Redmayne wife of Thomas Wentworth
related in some obvious way?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: For MAR: Freville, Bury, Haselden, Hutton

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 00:54:03

In a message dated 6/8/06 2:08:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
suthen@redshift.com writes:

<< Anthony Hasilden only had a daughter Elizabeth of which I am aware. I am
wondering if this Beatrix is the erroneous daughter, also called Rose,
assigned as wife to Robert Freville, who was disproved by Eugene A. Stratton
in _Applied Genealogy_, and thus severing a Hasilden descent? >>

On this list back in Sep 2005 MAR had posted that Anthony amended his will to
include "that child my wife hath now" and MAR concludes by stating "It
therefore seems clear that Beatrix was the wife of Robert Freville, son and heir of
John Freville (d 1552), in turn son and heir of Robert & Rose Freville of
Little Shelford." and ""That child", it seems to me, was Beatrix, born c1527."

CE Wood

Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of

Legg inn av CE Wood » 09 jun 2006 01:32:34

Per Theroff:

1.3.1.3.Eon la Zouche, d.1279; m.before 13 Dec 1273 Millicent de
Cantelupe
1.3.1.3.1.William la Zouche (1276-1352); m.before 15 Feb 1296 Maud
Lovel
1.3.1.3.1.1.Eon la Zouche (1297/8-1326); m.before Jun 1322 Joan Inge
1.3.1.3.1.1.2.Isabel, d.1349; m.John, Lord Lovel (d.1347)

CP VIII:218: "said to be sister of William Zouche, Lord Zouche of
Haryngworth."

CE Wood

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Stirnet on their Zouche page here
http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/briti ... htm#linklo
claims that Isabella "probably of this generation" was a daughter of Eudes le
Zouche by Milicent Cantilupe (aka de Monte Alto)

Bear in mind that "The Knights of Edward I", which excerpt posted here
5/25/06 by wilson97@paradise.net[.]nz states that Eudes died by 25 Jun 1279

Now flipping to Stirnet on Lovel of Tichmarsh here
http://www.stirnet.com/html/genie/british/ll/lovel2.htm
we see that John Lovel and his wife Isabella le Zouche had two sons named
John (and one daughter), with John the elder son being born in 1341 and John the
latter son being born abt 1344.

We can see right off that this cannot work. Isabella would have to be at
least 64 at the birth of the latter son John.

The easiest solution is that Isabella is not "of this generation" but rather
a daughter of some other Zouche.

Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 09 jun 2006 01:47:18

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/4/06 1:23:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

However in this
case the land is in Kent, where for some land a system of Gavelkynde
applied which divided property amongst all sons as well as the widow.
This is why for Kentish properties we can see multiple transfers of
parts of land after death, or all rights being handed over by second
sons who were then otherwise provided for.

You mean something like, after the division, they all swapped amongst
themselves ?
Will

Not really. The law provided a formula for dividing up the land but this

would often result in ever smaller moieties being held by disparate
descendants so to avoid this parents would expressly provide for their
younger sons with whole bits of land and in return the younger sons
would renounce any interest in other bits of land. In many cases these
transactions resulted in something similar to the primogeniture which
operated in the rest of the country.

Louise

Louise Staley

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 09 jun 2006 01:49:37

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/4/06 1:23:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

However in this
case the land is in Kent, where for some land a system of Gavelkynde
applied which divided property amongst all sons as well as the widow.
This is why for Kentish properties we can see multiple transfers of
parts of land after death, or all rights being handed over by second
sons who were then otherwise provided for.

Do you remember saying a few days ago, how it was curious that land is being
granted to Joan and then on the same day to Richard her son without mentioning
her in the second item ?

Yes.


Reference: DYK/12
Grant
Creation dates: 18 Aug 1406

William Makenade, William Arderne, clerk, John Hall, Robert Suryndenne,
Thomas Wallere, John Brok, Richard Huntyngdon and William Champeneys, to
Joan, widow of William Brenchesle, kt

5 messuages, 100 acres of land, 16 acres of meadow, 50 acres of pasture,
32 acres of wood, 10s. 3d. of rent and the rent of 2 hens in Frant; 3s.
10d. and 5 farthings rent, and the rent of 5 hens in Pembury, Kent,
which they had of the gift of William Brenchesle, kt, which he had by a
fine from William Sunnynglegh and wife Margaret

To be held by JB for the term of her life and afterwards by her son
Richard Brenchesle

Seals: Seven, with fragment of an eighth, on tags, red wax; 1 the letter
R bound with hay; 2 a bird; 3 the letter M; 4 a crowned letter T; 5 a
stringed bugle-horn; 6 a talbot's

Reference: DYK/13
Grant
Creation dates: 18 Aug 1406

William Makenade and Thomas Norpynton, clerk, to Richard Brenchesle and
his heirs

Rent of 3 messuages, 200 acres land, 4 acres meadow, 100 acres pasture,
100 acres wood and 10d. of rent in Frant, Wadhurst and Mayfield which
were held by Joan, wife of William Brenchesle, kt for the term of her life

Recites that lands were granted by William Sunnynglegh to WM and
Nicholas and John Potyn, now deceased, and demised to Joan Brenchesle

Seals: two on tags, red wax; 1 the letter R; 2 a bird feeding another

Gjest

Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 02:50:02

In a message dated 6/8/06 5:38:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:

<< Per Theroff:

1.3.1.3.Eon la Zouche, d.1279; m.before 13 Dec 1273 Millicent de
Cantelupe
1.3.1.3.1.William la Zouche (1276-1352); m.before 15 Feb 1296 Maud
Lovel
1.3.1.3.1.1.Eon la Zouche (1297/8-1326); m.before Jun 1322 Joan Inge
1.3.1.3.1.1.2.Isabel, d.1349; m.John, Lord Lovel (d.1347) >>


Thanks! This placement makes much more sense.
Continuing on with these Lovell's of Titchmarch, Leo has that John the 5th
Lord d 10 Sep 1408 married
Maud Baroness Holland suo jure. Her mother listed of Joan/Alice and Maud's
paternal grandmother listed as Elizabeth

Is there any documentation on who these two women were ? Or barring that,
any guesses ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Joan wife of William Brenchsley was *dead* by 1446

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 03:01:02

In a message dated 6/8/06 5:53:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

<< > Do you remember saying a few days ago, how it was curious that land is
being
granted to Joan and then on the same day to Richard her son without
mentioning
her in the second item ?

Yes.


Reference: DYK/12
Grant
Creation dates: 18 Aug 1406

William Makenade, William Arderne, clerk, John Hall, Robert Suryndenne,
Thomas Wallere, John Brok, Richard Huntyngdon and William Champeneys, to
Joan, widow of William Brenchesle, kt

5 messuages, 100 acres of land, 16 acres of meadow, 50 acres of pasture,
32 acres of wood, 10s. 3d. of rent and the rent of 2 hens in Frant; 3s.
10d. and 5 farthings rent, and the rent of 5 hens in Pembury, Kent,
which they had of the gift of William Brenchesle, kt, which he had by a
fine from William Sunnynglegh and wife Margaret

To be held by JB for the term of her life and afterwards by her son
Richard Brenchesle

Seals: Seven, with fragment of an eighth, on tags, red wax; 1 the letter
R bound with hay; 2 a bird; 3 the letter M; 4 a crowned letter T; 5 a
stringed bugle-horn; 6 a talbot's

Reference: DYK/13
Grant
Creation dates: 18 Aug 1406

William Makenade and Thomas Norpynton, clerk, to Richard Brenchesle and
his heirs

Rent of 3 messuages, 200 acres land, 4 acres meadow, 100 acres pasture,
100 acres wood and 10d. of rent in Frant, Wadhurst and Mayfield which
were held by Joan, wife of William Brenchesle, kt for the term of her life

Recites that lands were granted by William Sunnynglegh to WM and
Nicholas and John Potyn, now deceased, and demised to Joan Brenchesle

Seals: two on tags, red wax; 1 the letter R; 2 a bird feeding another >>

William gifted one piece, probably to hold in trust ?
Joan was devised the other.

William's piece would go to Joan and Richard as heirs, she having dower
rights I suppose.
It looks like Joan and Richard are swapping properties they each inherited
from William, with Joan being the widow, and Richard being their son and
probably I suppose eldest son and heir, maybe only child but I don't think that's
obvious with just this, or something like that.

Comments?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Louise Staley

Re: VCH Sussex 9: BRENCHLY, ECHINGHAM etc. [long]

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 09 jun 2006 03:24:45

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/8/06 5:53:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

[9] for in 1479 Henry Finch,
at he time of his marriage to Henry Belknap,

Henry Finch married Henry Belknap ?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»