Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Louise Staley

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

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 09 jun 2006 03:25:35

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 ?

recte "at the time of his marriage to _Alice_ Belknap"

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 03:33:03

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 ?

CE Wood

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

Legg inn av CE Wood » 09 jun 2006 03:39:23

Ah well. If it looks too good to be true, it must be too good to be
true. IThanks for doing my homework for me.

CE Wood

Hal Bradley wrote:
This relationship would make John Lovel and his wife first cousins once removed. It is unlikely she was a Zouche.

Hal Bradley

From: CE Wood <wood_ce@msn.com
Date: Thu Jun 08 19:32:34 CDT 2006
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of Titchmarsh (d 1347)

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 03:50:03

In a message dated 6/8/06 5:53:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

<< 8. Add. Ch. 20163. Will. Battesford, one of the trustees, was the first
husband of Margery de Peplesham, who afterwards married Robert Cralle,
father of Richard. >>

Which reverses the order of the marriages compared to what Charlotte Smith
tells us.

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 04:10:03

In a message dated 6/8/06 5:53:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

<< *COODEN:* “This John in 1346 has a wife Sarah and four sons, [16] of
whom the eldest, John, seems to have died about 1397, when John Coumbe,
clerk, kinsman and heir of the last John, released his right in the
manor to William Brenchesle or Brenchley. [17] *In 1428 the quarter fee
was held by the heirs of John Codying and the Lady de Brenchesle.* [18]
Joan Brenchesle was returned as holding it in 1411, [19] although her
husband Sir William Brenchley was still living. (VCH Sussex 9: 119).â€

Hal Bradley

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

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 09 jun 2006 04:19:02

This relationship would make John Lovel and his wife first cousins once removed. It is unlikely she was a Zouche.

Hal Bradley

From: CE Wood <wood_ce@msn.com
Date: Thu Jun 08 19:32:34 CDT 2006
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of Titchmarsh (d 1347)

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

mep33

Re: Anne FIELDING.FEILDING

Legg inn av mep33 » 09 jun 2006 05:01:12

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/8/06 6:38:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

I have an Anne FIELDING daughter of Sir William FIELDING & Agnes De St
LIZ who married Humphrey GREY Esq., of Enville, Staffordshir

Do you have anything that allows you to specify a birthrange for Humphrey
Grey of Enville ? Or either of his two daughters?
Thanks
Will Johnson

All I have in my notes is- Humphrey GREY born 1448 based on " He was
aged 12 in 1460" but at the moment I cannot locate the source for
this. Have no dates on the 3 daughters, Mary who married John DIXWELL,
Margery who married Richard St BARBE and Elizabeth who married Sampson
ERDESWICK.
Sorry not to be of more help.

M Perry

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 05:15:02

In a message dated 6/8/06 7:16:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hw.bradley@verizon.net writes:

<< This relationship would make John Lovel and his wife first cousins once
removed. It is unlikely she was a Zouche. >>

Are you willing to specify the exact way they are related?
There is some missing link which I can't seem to find at genealogics nor at
stirnet that makes them first cousins. But what?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 05:21:02

In a message dated 6/8/06 8:13:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< Are you willing to specify the exact way they are related?
There is some missing link which I can't seem to find at genealogics nor at
stirnet that makes them first cousins. But what? >>

Got it. Maud is dau to John Lovel and Joan Roos.

Gjest

Re: Anne FIELDING.FEILDING

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 05:29:03

In a message dated 6/8/06 6:38:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< I have an Anne FIELDING daughter of Sir William FIELDING & Agnes De St
LIZ who married Humphrey GREY Esq., of Enville, Staffordshir >>

Do you have anything that allows you to specify a birthrange for Humphrey
Grey of Enville ? Or either of his two daughters?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Brenchesle the elder

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 05:34:02

In a message dated 6/8/06 6:09:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

<< Ye Old One wrote:
Calendar of Wills and Administrations now preserved in the Probate
Registry at Canterbury, 1396-1558
County: General
Country: England
Brencheley, Brenchesle, John, sen., Benenden C. 1 9 1397


Bad news, this is yet another John Brenchley since the document
referring to John elder and younger is dated 1434. >>


Since this Will/Admin was in 1397, and they mention Benenden, I bet this
John is either the father or older brother to William Brenchley the justice of
the court of common pleas. Good find.

Will

mep33

Re: Anne FIELDING.FEILDING

Legg inn av mep33 » 09 jun 2006 05:50:59



That is sufficient.
The Anne Feilding who married William Faunt of Foston must be in a different
generation.
Here is what Nichols says of this couple [as previously posted to this group
by Greg Vaut on 5/16/06]
Nichols Vol.IV., Pt1., pp.174-5.:

15. William Faunt "purchased Foston; died there 4 Sept 1559, age 63. Married
(1) Anne Fielding. No
issue. Married (2) Jane, widow of Nicholas Purefoy Esq., but by birth
the daughter of George
Vincent of Peckleton. Jane died 1585, age 74.

If William was born 1495/6 surely his wife was no more than say 15 years
older than him and that's a stretch. That puts her at 1480 at the outside.

Turning to your other Anne Fielding, You state that she married a man born in
1448.
At the outside, she was perhaps 15 years younger than him, which puts her at
1463

Ergo, these two Annes cannot be the same person.

Will Johnson


Thanks Will. Appreciate your kind assist

M Perry

Gjest

Re: Brenchly/Echyngham

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 07:27:04

There is definitely more work that needs to be done on the Ashburnham
involvement with the Echyngham / Brenchly crowd.

Roger Ashburnham has fingers into not one, but two manors otherwise
associated with Brenchly / Echyngham to wit, Ewhurst and Buckholdt.

At least one of these has conflicting *primary* data in A2A stating that Joan
Brenchley did *not* hold the entirety but rather a moiety. This changes the
landscape on just what was going on here.

And Joan must be a rather popular name, because Roger Ashburnham's widow is
another Joan and *she* is holding a moiety at Ewhurst in 1412 and 1417.

At this point something rather interesting occurs, when Roger's son and heir
John mortgages *the reversion of both moieties* of Ewhurst.

What happened to Joan Brenchley between 1411 and 1417 that John Ashburnham
got his hands on the reversion of her half as well as his mother [or
step-mother]'s half? And who did Joan (unknown) Ashburnham marry next?

These are all areas that need further development from primary sources.

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

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

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 09 jun 2006 08:39:21

In message of 9 Jun, Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote:

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.

Is it worth adding that not all land in Kent was subject to gavelkind?
Obviously gavelkind resulted in the reduction in the size of holdings
and by the early middle ages it was noticed that the resulting holdings
were not large enough to support knights. Obviously with Kent being on
the coast near France and the low countries it was critical that it was
well defended. So, IIRC, a law was passed that knight's holdings, the
manors, could not be divided and were not subject to gavelkind. The
result was that landowners usually held a mix of manor lands and an
assortment of gavelkind patches.

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

Ye Old One

Re: Re: John Brenchesle the elder

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 09 jun 2006 10:22:17

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 03:32:01 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/8/06 6:09:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
caramut@bigpond.com writes:

Ye Old One wrote:
Calendar of Wills and Administrations now preserved in the Probate
Registry at Canterbury, 1396-1558
County: General
Country: England
Brencheley, Brenchesle, John, sen., Benenden C. 1 9 1397


Bad news, this is yet another John Brenchley since the document
referring to John elder and younger is dated 1434.


Since this Will/Admin was in 1397, and they mention Benenden, I bet this
John is either the father or older brother to William Brenchley the justice of
the court of common pleas. Good find.

Will

One of my earliest posts to this group was prompted by confusion over
a John who was Lord of the Manor of Benenden. I had John Brenchley,
born abt 1515 died unknown. Married to Margaret Golding (b.abt 1520,
d. Unknown) with a daughter called Margaret who married William Moore.

The problem I had was several other dates conflicted. One gave
William's marriage to Margaret Brenchley as 1443 for example.

Can anyone PLEASE confirm when that John was born (or died) and any
dates for Margaret Golding or Margaret Brenchley?

--
Bob.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 13:47:52

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
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

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 13:57:21

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

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


Missed the beginning of this thread. Does anyone know the identity of
this Richard Bury?

CE Wood

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

Legg inn av CE Wood » 09 jun 2006 16:47:55

John Lovel, 1st Lord Lovel of Titchmarsh, d. bef 11 Oct 1310 (AR
212-29), married first (AR 215-29), Isabel de Bois (de Bosco) and
second (AR 215-29), Joan de Ros

The Isabel in question married John Lovel, 3rd Lord Lovel, d. 3 Nov.
1314 (AR 215-31, CP VIII:218). But Isabel who?

CE Wood


"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
I BELIEVE MAUDE LOVELL, DAUGHTER OF JOHN LOVELL D. 1311 AND ISABEL DE BOSCO
M. WILLIAM LA ZOUCHE OF HARYNGSWORTH CA. 1296-98.

----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of Titchmarsh
(d 1347)
Date: Thu, 8, 2006, 11:18 PM


In a message dated 6/8/06 8:13:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

Are you willing to specify the exact way they are related?
There is some missing link which I can't seem to find at genealogics nor at
stirnet that makes them first cousins. But what?

Got it. Maud is dau to John Lovel and Joan Roos.

Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 09 jun 2006 16:52:05

I BELIEVE MAUDE LOVELL, DAUGHTER OF JOHN LOVELL D. 1311 AND ISABEL DE BOSCO
M. WILLIAM LA ZOUCHE OF HARYNGSWORTH CA. 1296-98.

----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Stirnet Correction - Isabella le Zouche m John Lovel of Titchmarsh
(d 1347)
Date: Thu, 8, 2006, 11:18 PM


In a message dated 6/8/06 8:13:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

Are you willing to specify the exact way they are related?
There is some missing link which I can't seem to find at genealogics nor at
stirnet that makes them first cousins. But what?

Got it. Maud is dau to John Lovel and Joan Roos.

Gjest

Re: John Brenchesle the elder

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 17:21:02

In a message dated 6/9/2006 2:23:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

I had John Brenchley,
born abt 1515 died unknown. Married to Margaret Golding (b.abt 1520,
d. Unknown) with a daughter called Margaret who married William Moore.


We *can't* confirm. That's what we've been trying to do! :)
And you have their marriage date wrong. Look back at your source on their
marriage date.
I made the same mistake, putting them in Henry VIII ... which is wrong.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 17:23:02

In a message dated 6/9/2006 5:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.


Maybe... but not necessarily. I don't have the full list of siblings and
their children, so Hasilden Bury may be lurking under a different sibling. I
only mentioned the Bury connection, as it links the families, not to imply that
this particular niece was the mother of Hasilden Bury.

Will

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 17:24:02

In a message dated 6/9/2006 6:52:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:

I BELIEVE MAUDE LOVELL, DAUGHTER OF JOHN LOVELL D. 1311 AND ISABEL DE BOSCO
M. WILLIAM LA ZOUCHE OF HARYNGSWORTH CA. 1296-98.


BUT WHAT IS YOUR BELIEF BASED ON?

You must be trying to respond from an Ipod, I could never understand how
people use those little hand-held devices to do email :)

I think now we've hit the limit on possibilities for this line without
resorting to quoting sources.

Will

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 17:27:52

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/9/2006 5:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.


Maybe... but not necessarily. I don't have the full list of siblings and
their children, so Hasilden Bury may be lurking under a different sibling. I
only mentioned the Bury connection, as it links the families, not to imply that
this particular niece was the mother of Hasilden Bury.

Will

Your previous post suggests to me that Elizabeth Haselden married
Richard Bury of Hengrange, Berkshire and that they were the likely
parents of Haseldon Bury. Haseldon Bury, nephew of William Marshall, was
married to a daughter of James Hutton, so was a full adult. William
Marshall also names Jane Haseldon as his sister, and Beatrice Frevell as
his niece. Someone else said Elizabeth and Beatrice Haselden were
daughters of Anthony Haselden, whose will was proved 1st June 1527.

If this is the same Beatrice Haselden, who married Robert Fravell, then
if Beatrice was his niece, then so was Elizabeth, which makes her
presumed son Haselden his great-nephew.

Unless, of course, there are two different Beatrices.

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 17:28:48

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Renia wrote:

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.


Indeed. Details of the Bury family are to be found in the Harl Soc Pub
edition of the Visitation of Cambridgeshire, sub Haselden. I can post
further particulars if you are interested, once I have access to my
papers.

Michael


Please do, thanks. Probably my mother's patrilineal line, so I'm very
interested. (Delete the delete, of course.)

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 17:29:42

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/9/2006 5:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.


Maybe... but not necessarily. I don't have the full list of siblings and
their children, so Hasilden Bury may be lurking under a different sibling. I
only mentioned the Bury connection, as it links the families, not to imply that
this particular niece was the mother of Hasilden Bury.


Elizabeth was the mother of Haselden Bury. There was only one son, who
died s.p. and the two daughters, Elizabeth (Bury) and Beatrice
(Freville). Richard Bury, Elizabeth's husband, was of Hengrange,
Bedfordshire. The Vis. Cambs gives further details of her descendants
into the 17th century.

MA-R

Is the Cambridge visit. online? (Haven't got time to surf about at the
mo. Very excited. Sons coming to visit us here in Greece tomorrow!)

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Another William Brenchesle !

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 09 jun 2006 17:39:54

In message of 9 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I have a question...

If I find a reference in 1410 which says "x holds manor y in chief
from z"

That means he held it from the sovereign.

Can I assume that person "Z" is still living in 1410 ?

Almost certainly. I woul guess that the sovereign's deaths whistled
around th kingdon onthe drums.

Or at least in 1409 ?

Certianly that.

What do you think.

I'm not sure you thought what you wrote.

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

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 17:42:03

Renia wrote:
Your previous post suggests to me that Elizabeth Haselden married
Richard Bury of Hengrange, Berkshire and that they were the likely
parents of Haseldon Bury. Haseldon Bury, nephew of William Marshall, was
married to a daughter of James Hutton, so was a full adult. William
Marshall also names Jane Haseldon as his sister, and Beatrice Frevell as
his niece. Someone else said Elizabeth and Beatrice Haselden were
daughters of Anthony Haselden, whose will was proved 1st June 1527.

If this is the same Beatrice Haselden, who married Robert Fravell, then
if Beatrice was his niece, then so was Elizabeth, which makes her
presumed son Haselden his great-nephew.

Correct - William Marshall's sister, Jane, married Anthony Haselden (d
1527) and had four children:

(1) William Haselden, his father's heir, died 1537 without issue
(2) (son), dead without issue by 1527 as not mentioned in his father's
will - we know of his existence because his father's monumental brass
shows idents for two sons
(3) Elizabeth
(4) Beatrice, probably posthumous but certainly post-testamentary, born
circa 1527; married by 1547 Robert Freville (sic), son and heir of John
Freville of Little Shelford, Cambs.

Elizabeth, as noted, married (as his second wife, if I recall
correctly) Richard Bury of Bedfordshire. They had issue, at least one
son, Haselden.

However, I believe that Richard predeceased Elizabeth and she married
secondly James Hutton - i.e. the reference to Haselden Bury's
"father-in-law" in 1558 means his step-father. This would then make
sense of the following from the VCH Cambs, sub Litlington (manor of
Huntingfields) [Vol. 8 p 57] which says:

"By 1386 acquired by Thomas Haselden; [descended to] Anthony Haselden
(d 1527) whose only son William died under age in 1537. William's
heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Beatrice... in 1547 Francis
Haselden's daughter Frances and her husband Sir Robert Peyton resettled

the manor on Elizabeth and Beatrice and their husbands James Hutton
(sic) and Robert Freville who took a moiety each [NB the reference for
this last statement is Cal. Pat. R. 1547-8 pp 49-50 which refers to
Elizabeth's husband as Richard Bury, not James Hutton - MA-R]. In 1565
both couples sold their shares."

James Hutton may well have been the son of Thomas Hutton of Dry Drayton
(he had four sons, three of whose names are known to me - John, Thomas
and Robert - and his father was James); if so, he was a first cousin of
Elizabeth's brother-in-law Robert Freville, as Thomas Hutton had
married Robert's aunt Anne Freville.

Michael

Tim Powys-Lybbe

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

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 09 jun 2006 18:02:42

In message of 9 Jun, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/9/2006 5:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.


Maybe... but not necessarily. I don't have the full list of siblings and
their children, so Hasilden Bury may be lurking under a different sibling. I
only mentioned the Bury connection, as it links the families, not to imply that
this particular niece was the mother of Hasilden Bury.


Elizabeth was the mother of Haselden Bury. There was only one son, who
died s.p. and the two daughters, Elizabeth (Bury) and Beatrice
(Freville). Richard Bury, Elizabeth's husband, was of Hengrange,
Bedfordshire. The Vis. Cambs gives further details of her descendants
into the 17th century.

MA-R

Is the Cambridge visit. online? (Haven't got time to surf about at the
mo. Very excited. Sons coming to visit us here in Greece tomorrow!)

The required extract is now on line, for a season:

http://southfarm.plus.com/scans/Cantab_pp_88-9.pdf

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

Gjest

Re: Another William Brenchesle !

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 18:23:02

I have a question...

If I find a reference in 1410 which says "x holds manor y in chief from z"

Can I assume that person "Z" is still living in 1410 ?
Or at least in 1409 ?

What do you think.

Will

Gjest

Re: Another William Brenchesle !

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 18:24:02

In a message dated 6/9/2006 9:14:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

Yes! I found mention of another, later, William Brenchsley. This one was
living in 1408, which we all know by now was after the death of the other
one.


I might have spoken too soon. This may be a post-humous reference.

But I did find reference to where William Brenchsley and others obtained the
manors of Aldington, Estshelve, and Burdefeld "held in chief to themselves
and their heirs".

Not sure we had those in his list.
Will

Rebecca

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

Legg inn av Rebecca » 09 jun 2006 19:16:32

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

Oh, goodness, I was afraid someone would ask. The simple answer is
that I don't have any source. When I first got my family tree software
I was recording all the names and dates I could get my hands on and
didn't pay a lot of attention to silly, petty details such as sources
and such. Mea culpa. I have learned my lesson.

Another problem that has arisen is that, when merging two files, they
don't always merge the sources appropriately. When I look for the
source for a piece of information all that's recorded is the name of
the last family tree file I imported. Very annoying and I am hoping
the publisher fixes this major glitch in an update soon.

Anyway, thanks to this list, I have sorted out the mothers(!) of Lady
Stanley and have put Ms Pilkington in her proper place.

Rebecca

..

Douglas Richardson

C.P.Correction: Isabel la Zouche, wife of Sir John Lovel

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 09 jun 2006 19:25:35

Dear Carolyn, Will, Patricia, etc. ~

The identity of Isabel, wife of Sir John Lovel (died 1347), de jure 3rd
Lord Lovel of Titchmarsh, is presently uncertain. Complete Peerage, 8
(1932): 218 (sub Lovel) says Isabel is "said to be sister of William
Zouche [Lord Zouche, of Harringworth"], but adds in a footnote "there
is no authority for her parentage." Actually, this is only partly
correct, as printed secondary sources identify Isabel as either
"daughter" OR "sister" of William la Zouche, Lord Zouche of
Harringworth.

With specific regard to Complete Peerage's statement that Isabel was
possibly the sister of William la Zouche, Lord Zouche, this allegation
seems to be entirely without foundation insofar as William, 1st Lord
Zouche, is concerned. William, 1st Lord Zouche, had three known Zouche
sisters, all of whom are well documented in the records, and all of
whom were born well over twenty years before the likely birth of Isabel
Lovel. Thus, it is entirely impossible for Isabel Lovel to be William,
1st Lord Zouche's sister. On the other hand, it is possible that
Isabel Lovel was the sister of William la Zouche, 2nd Lord Zouche (died
1382), but this arrangement would make Isabel and her husband, Sir John
Lovel, related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of kindred, which is
considered too closely related for this marriage to have been
permitted.

As for the possibility that Isabel Lovel was the daughter of William,
Lord Zouche, it it true that William la Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth, had a daughter named Isabel, living 1326 (see C.P. 12(2)
(1959): 940, footnote i). But this Isabel la Zouche would have been a
1st cousin to Sir John Lovel, which again presumably makes them too
closely related for them to have intermarried. Further, the 1563
Visitation of Norfolk alleges that a "daughter of the Lord Zouche"
married Oliver Ingham, Lord Ingham (see Harvey et al. Vis. of Norfolk
1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 65). If Oliver Ingham's wife was
Lord Zouche's daughter, Isabel, it obviously would provide an
alternative history for Isabel la Zouche, precluding her marriage to
John Lovel.

If Isabel Lovel was not a Zouche, it is possible she was a Harcourt.
In the course of my research, I've learned that Isabel's grandson,
Ralph Lovel, was appointed rector of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, a
Harcourt family property, in 1405. Chronologically Isabel Lovel would
fit to be a daughter of John de Harcourt (died 1330), by his 1st wife,
Eleanor la Zouche. This parentage would make Isabel a niece to
William, 1st Lord Zouche, and remove the consanguinity issue between
her and John Lovel. This arrangement of the Lovel-Zouche family makes
a lot of sense, but to date I've found no direct evidence to support
this theory.

For what it is worth, this is what the printed literature has to say
about the parentage of Isabel, wife of Sir John Lovel, in order of date
of publication:

1. Bridges, Hist. & Antiqs. of Northamptonshire 2 (1791): 381-386
(parentage of wife Isabel not given).

2. Brydges, Collins' Peerage of England 7 (1812): 319-395 (wife
Isabel identified as "daughter of William, Lord Zouch of
Harringworth").

3. Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages (1883):
332-334 (sub Lovel) (wife Isabel identified as "sister of William,
Lord Zouche, of Harringworth").

4. Lyte, Hist. Notes of Some Somerset Manors (Somerset Rec. Soc. Extra
Ser. 1) (1931): 395-398 (parentage of wife Isabel not given).

5. C.P., 8 (1932): 218 (sub Lovel) (wife Isabel "said to be sister of
William Zouche [Lord Zouche, of Harringworth"].

6. Paget, Baronage of England (1957) 337: 6 (sub Lovel) (wife Isabel,
identified as daughter of William la Zouche, Lord Zouche of
Harringworth).

In summary, this matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

CE Wood wrote:
< John Lovel, 1st Lord Lovel of Titchmarsh, d. bef 11 Oct 1310 (AR
< 212-29), married first (AR 215-29), Isabel de Bois (de Bosco) and
< second (AR 215-29), Joan de Ros
<
< The Isabel in question married John Lovel, 3rd Lord Lovel, d. 3 Nov.
< 1314 (AR 215-31, CP VIII:218). But Isabel who?
<
< CE Wood

John P. Ravilious

Re: Stanton Harcourt

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 09 jun 2006 20:31:45

Dear Will,

No, in fact this 'Adela' is best known as 'Adeliza of Louvain'.
She was 1stly the (2nd) wife of Henry I of England, and 2ndly of
William d'Aubigny. She had no known issue by Henry, but has a
widespread progeny through her second marriage (Earls of Arundel, &c.
&c.).

Cheers,

John



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Speaking of Stanton Harcourt I have a question about it's descent.

Therav3 had posted here on 5/20/06 that "Before 1141 Adela gave it to her
kinswoman Millicent, wife of Robert Marmion"

Is this Adela that Adela "of Namur" dau of Godfrey Count of (or in) Namur who
was married to Baldwin Count of (or in) Hainault 1120-71 (d 8 Nov 1171)

Is this the correct Adela ?
Thanks
Will

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 09 jun 2006 20:38:02

-ANNE DE GROSPARMY who was from the family of the Cardinal Raoul de
Grosparmy , bishop of Evreux (+ 1270), an important French councillor,
and of his nephew Raoul de Grosparmy, bishop of Orleans (+ 1311). The
Grosparmy were seigneurs de Beuville, Benneville, barons de Flers,
etc. Anne has a good chance of being a descendant of Raoul de
Grosparmy, seigneur de Beuville married in 1404 with Denise de
Tournebu, dame de Flers, daughter of Guillaume de Tournebu, seigneur
de Marbeuf and (m.1369) of Marie Paynel de Moyon, dame de Milly (with
mother Harcourt-Beaumesnil). According to "Quartiers genealogiques
d'Olivier Laurent" (in RGN # 66, p. 205), Anne de Grosparmy was
daughter of Jean, seigneur de Benneville and Jacqueline de Sillans.

To all: I know for a fact Nicolas de GROSPARMY, was a son of Raoul. The wife
of Nicolas
appears to be Marie de ROEUX. In fact Nicolas was a very well known
alchemist according to some very reliable sources. I have a strong suspicion
that Anne de GROSPARMY could be a grandaughter
of Nicolas de Grosparmy.

I am in the process of examining this liniage further to see if its
realistic. I have sent this liniage to
Jean Bunot for examination and analysis as well.

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

Gjest

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 20:45:03

In a message dated 6/9/06 11:36:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

<< To all: I know for a fact Nicolas de GROSPARMY, was a son of Raoul. The
wife
of Nicolas
appears to be Marie de ROEUX. In fact Nicolas was a very well known
alchemist according to some very reliable sources. >>

What sources?

Gjest

Re: Another William Brenchesle !

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 20:49:02

In a message dated 6/9/06 9:53:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< In message of 9 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

I have a question...
If I find a reference in 1410 which says "x holds manor y in chief from z"

That means he held it from the sovereign.

Can I assume that person "Z" is still living in 1410 ?

Almost certainly. I woul guess that the sovereign's deaths whistled
around th kingdon onthe drums. >>


Except Tim, where it says "held in chief from ...." the "z" in question is
*not* the King.....
So does my question still stand? That person "z" is living ?
Thanks
Will

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 09 jun 2006 20:56:02

From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:44:06 EDT

In a message dated 6/9/06 11:36:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

To all: I know for a fact Nicolas de GROSPARMY, was a son of Raoul. The
wife
of Nicolas
appears to be Marie de ROEUX. In fact Nicolas was a very well known
alchemist according to some very reliable sources.

What sources?
1)- MS. Français 19072 [Saint-Germain français 1642] 17th Century. 133

folios. Paper. 260x177mm.
[Alchemical collection: summarie and extracts from works of Nicolas
Grosparmy, by Nicolas Le Valois and Pierre Vicot.]
[Cf. MSS. Français 12246, 12298-9 and 14789.]
2)- MS. Français 12246 [Supp. Fr. 2526] 18th Century. 126+151+4+65 pages.
Paper. 278x180mm.
1. Abrégé de théorique [and] Secret des secrets [of Nicolas de Grosparmy].

I will post more of them in time, this line is under private review.

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

Gjest

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 21:00:03

In a message dated 6/9/06 11:55:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

<< I will post more of them in time, this line is under private review. >>

What is the anticipated date of publication?

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 09 jun 2006 21:09:01

From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:58:01 EDT

In a message dated 6/9/06 11:55:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

I will post more of them in time, this line is under private review.

What is the anticipated date of publication?

I have no plans to make any journal as others may be writing a formal paper
this part is unclear to me at this point time. but I may put some things on
my website depending on what others involed with the project have to say
about it.

I want Jean to review it carefully, it depends when others looking it over
respond back to me.
I will certainly keep all interested parties know when I know more.

Bob

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

Gjest

Re: Stanton Harcourt

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 21:22:03

Speaking of Stanton Harcourt I have a question about it's descent.

Therav3 had posted here on 5/20/06 that "Before 1141 Adela gave it to her
kinswoman Millicent, wife of Robert Marmion"

Is this Adela that Adela "of Namur" dau of Godfrey Count of (or in) Namur who
was married to Baldwin Count of (or in) Hainault 1120-71 (d 8 Nov 1171)

Is this the correct Adela ?
Thanks
Will

John P. Ravilious

Re: Stanton Harcourt

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 09 jun 2006 22:17:55

Dear Will,

Indeed, Henry I's advancing age (or travel schedule) may have
had something to do with this; perhaps, Henry's majesté was far too
obligé elsewhere.

Certainly Henry had many mistresses spread far and wide, in
Britain, Normandy, possibly elsewhere; odd that your database was
fertile ground as well.........;)

Cheers,

John



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/9/06 12:38:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

She was 1stly the (2nd) wife of Henry I of England, and 2ndly of
William d'Aubigny. She had no known issue by Henry, but has a
widespread progeny through her second marriage (Earls of Arundel, &c.

How odd. They were married for fourteen years. That's an awful long time to
not have any children. But then Henry I had quite the troup of mistresses in
my database.

Will

Bob Turcott

Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 09 jun 2006 22:22:02

From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Meherenc de Montmirel royal gateway- new
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:35:32 +0000





-ANNE DE GROSPARMY who was from the family of the Cardinal Raoul de
Grosparmy , bishop of Evreux (+ 1270), an important French councillor,
and of his nephew Raoul de Grosparmy, bishop of Orleans (+ 1311). The
Grosparmy were seigneurs de Beuville, Benneville, barons de Flers,
etc. Anne has a good chance of being a descendant of Raoul de
Grosparmy, seigneur de Beuville married in 1404 with Denise de
Tournebu, dame de Flers, daughter of Guillaume de Tournebu, seigneur
de Marbeuf and (m.1369) of Marie Paynel de Moyon, dame de Milly (with
mother Harcourt-Beaumesnil). According to "Quartiers genealogiques
d'Olivier Laurent" (in RGN # 66, p. 205), Anne de Grosparmy was
daughter of Jean, seigneur de Benneville and Jacqueline de Sillans.

To all: I know for a fact Nicolas de GROSPARMY, was a son of Raoul. The
wife of Nicolas
appears to be Marie de ROEUX. In fact Nicolas was a very well known
alchemist according to some very reliable sources. I have a strong
suspicion that Anne de GROSPARMY could be a grandaughter
of Nicolas de Grosparmy.

I am in the process of examining this liniage further to see if its
realistic. I have sent this liniage to
Jean Bunot for examination and analysis as well.

To all: I forgot to mention the Raoul that could be Anne's great
grandfather(Nicolas father) is In year 1404, Raoul de Grosparmy was indeed
lord of Beuville and of Flers. Some of these folks were
called barons.

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

Gjest

Re: Stanton Harcourt

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 22:38:02

In a message dated 6/9/06 12:38:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< She was 1stly the (2nd) wife of Henry I of England, and 2ndly of
William d'Aubigny. She had no known issue by Henry, but has a
widespread progeny through her second marriage (Earls of Arundel, &c. >>

How odd. They were married for fourteen years. That's an awful long time to
not have any children. But then Henry I had quite the troup of mistresses in
my database.

Will

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 23:20:02

In a message dated 6/9/06 8:08:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Elizabeth was the mother of Haselden Bury. There was only one son, who
died s.p. and the two daughters, Elizabeth (Bury) and Beatrice
(Freville). Richard Bury, Elizabeth's husband, was of Hengrange,
Bedfordshire. The Vis. Cambs gives further details of her descendants
into the 17th century. >>

What I mean is that this will of Thomas Marshall only states "nephew" it
doesn't say off exactly which sibling this nephew is. And I don't have a list of
Thomas Marshall's siblings to say definitely where this person exists in that
tree.

Do you have a list of Thomas Marshall's siblngs?

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 23:25:03

Dear Ford,
Of Course Jesus (Savior or not) bragged. Son of Man... Son
of God, Son of Man and God (the last part makes me wonder what He and Mary
Magdalene might of been to each other { She not being a prostitute} I don`t think
He instructed his disciples to give up either sex or marriage... and most
assuredly not wine.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 23:30:02

In a message dated 6/9/06 9:53:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< "By 1386 acquired by Thomas Haselden; [descended to] Anthony Haselden
(d 1527) whose only son William died under age in 1537. William's
heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Beatrice... in 1547 Francis
Haselden's daughter Frances and her husband Sir Robert Peyton resettled >>

If the manor of Huntingfields descendend to Anthony, and his son William died
underage 10 years after Anthony died, leaving William's two sisters as
co-heirs to William.... How the heck did [Anthony's brother] Francis' daughter
Frances get ahold of the manor to resettle it at all ?

Why wouldn't it have been in the hands of Jane (Marshall) Hasilden, Anthony's
widow?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 23:38:41

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/9/06 9:54:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

If this is the same Beatrice Haselden, who married Robert Fravell, then
if Beatrice was his niece, then so was Elizabeth, which makes her
presumed son Haselden his great-nephew.

Unless, of course, there are two different Beatrices.

The thing you're missing is that in the will, he only says "nephew Hasilden
Bury"
Now assume that Mr Marshall had fourteen siblings and three females in his
family all married Burys... You see what I mean?

True enough. The later Burys often married whole tribes of siblings.

Just because he names Beatrice Freville and Jane Hasilden does not
automatically mean that Hasilden is off that particular part of the family.

Will Johnson

Renia

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

Legg inn av Renia » 09 jun 2006 23:40:49

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 9 Jun, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 6/9/2006 5:53:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

So Haselden Bury must have been his great-nephew.


Maybe... but not necessarily. I don't have the full list of siblings and
their children, so Hasilden Bury may be lurking under a different sibling. I
only mentioned the Bury connection, as it links the families, not to imply that
this particular niece was the mother of Hasilden Bury.


Elizabeth was the mother of Haselden Bury. There was only one son, who
died s.p. and the two daughters, Elizabeth (Bury) and Beatrice
(Freville). Richard Bury, Elizabeth's husband, was of Hengrange,
Bedfordshire. The Vis. Cambs gives further details of her descendants
into the 17th century.

MA-R

Is the Cambridge visit. online? (Haven't got time to surf about at the
mo. Very excited. Sons coming to visit us here in Greece tomorrow!)


The required extract is now on line, for a season:

http://southfarm.plus.com/scans/Cantab_pp_88-9.pdf

Cheers. I'm off for a rummage.

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jun 2006 23:45:02

In a message dated 6/9/06 9:54:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

<< If this is the same Beatrice Haselden, who married Robert Fravell, then
if Beatrice was his niece, then so was Elizabeth, which makes her
presumed son Haselden his great-nephew.

Unless, of course, there are two different Beatrices. >>

The thing you're missing is that in the will, he only says "nephew Hasilden
Bury"
Now assume that Mr Marshall had fourteen siblings and three females in his
family all married Burys... You see what I mean?

Just because he names Beatrice Freville and Jane Hasilden does not
automatically mean that Hasilden is off that particular part of the family.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Baldwin Comte de Guines

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 09 jun 2006 23:52:02

Dear Leo,
Thank you very much for forwarding this post. The Danmartin connection is
indeed interesting. Although this is labeled Essex, it seems Hoyland may be
in Yorkshire.
Pat

----------
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Fw: Baldwin Comte de Guines
Date: Fri, 9, 2006, 5:32 PM


Dear Leo,

As you know I do look every now and then quickly in the Archives of Gen
Medieval.

I have no wish at all to subscribe again.

But this time I noticed: Patricia Junkin's question concernig:

"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"

It seem not unlikely that the Baldwin concerned is Baudouin de Guines,
who
died in 1244. He had a brother Robert, mentioned in 1244. See ES VII table
81.

Baudouin was married to Mahaut de Fiennes e.m Dammartin.
The Enguerrand who married Christian Lindsay was his grandson.
And the Margaret, who married Richard de Burgh, might have been this
Enguerrand's sister.

So there are (later) connections with England/Scotland

Looking more closely at ES VII 81 (Guines) I note that Baudouin
had a sister Beatrix Abbess of Bonham (is that in England? or is it Bornem
in
Flanders? ) and a son Baudouin who was seigneur de Sangate (certainly
english).

Through the Fiennes family there was a connection to Queen Eleanor, first
wife
of Edward I, but that connection is of course later than 1241.

I guess this is nevertheless the right track. You are free to post these
remarks on
Gen medieval if you think they are relevant.

Regards,


Gjest

Re: #15 VCH Sussex 9 Brenchly, Echyngham

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 00:01:02

In a message dated 6/9/06 9:32:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:

<< !A John (Lunsford) was also holding the manor (of Lundsford) in 1423 and
1428, and was married to Elizabeth daughter of Thomas de Echingham. His son
William was in possession of Lundsford in 1469 but died in that year or the next
and another William held it in 1480. He or, more likely, a namesake died
seized of it in 1531, leaving it to his son John, a boy of `12." These
individuals are undoubtedly the successive generations of John, William, William,
William and John named in the pedigree in Coll. Top 6 & gen 4. 1 (1834) David H.
Kelley, in a following
article TAG 47:987 (Apr 1971) concludes: " New information on the
chronology makes it extremely unlikely that the mother of William Lunsford (#38 of the
article) was Elizabeth Echyngham(#37) Sir Thomas de Echyugham was born about
1401-(and) was only 27 when (his) supposed grandson, William, first appears in
the record. Moreover, Echyngham would have been only two years old when his
putative son in law John Lunsford, first appears in the records- these
chronological irregularitiess could suffice to make the alleged pedigree seem-
extremely doubtful"

From what you posted this is false.
What you posted only shows that his son-in-law appears in 1428, not his
grandson.
The only thing you posted on dates for the grandson shows he appears holding
it, in 1468

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Stanton Harcourt

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 00:09:02

Dear Will,
I would suspect Adela / Adeliz of Lovain, King Henry I`s
widow and wife thereafter (1135) of William de Albini, 1st Earl of Arundel.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 01:00:09

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 6/9/06 9:54:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

If this is the same Beatrice Haselden, who married Robert Fravell, then
if Beatrice was his niece, then so was Elizabeth, which makes her
presumed son Haselden his great-nephew.

Unless, of course, there are two different Beatrices.

The thing you're missing is that in the will, he only says "nephew Hasilden
Bury"
Now assume that Mr Marshall had fourteen siblings and three females in his
family all married Burys... You see what I mean?

Just because he names Beatrice Freville and Jane Hasilden does not
automatically mean that Hasilden is off that particular part of the family.

Except that Haselden Bury, son of Richard Bury by his second wife
Elizabeth, daughter of Anthony Haselden, is identified as such in the
Visitation of Cambridgeshire, so the relationship can be clearly
defined - see the relevant extract that Tim has very kindly made
available.

MA-R

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 01:05:29

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 6/9/06 9:53:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

"By 1386 acquired by Thomas Haselden; [descended to] Anthony Haselden
(d 1527) whose only son William died under age in 1537. William's
heirs were his sisters Elizabeth and Beatrice... in 1547 Francis
Haselden's daughter Frances and her husband Sir Robert Peyton resettled

If the manor of Huntingfields descendend to Anthony, and his son William died
underage 10 years after Anthony died, leaving William's two sisters as
co-heirs to William.... How the heck did [Anthony's brother] Francis' daughter
Frances get ahold of the manor to resettle it at all ?

Why wouldn't it have been in the hands of Jane (Marshall) Hasilden, Anthony's
widow?

There are a number of potential reasons as to why Frances Peyton could
have been in a position to settle the manor. As next heir after
Elizabeth and Beatrice, who were also likely to be minors at the time
of the brother's death in 1537, Frances Peyton and her husband are good
candidates to be feofees or to have acquired custody of the heirs until
their majority. Or there may have been some sort of entail or
life-interest whose details are lost to us.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: OT: Robert Rich, 3rd Earl of Warwick married Anne Cheke

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 15:42:02

Dear Emmett,
I have a section or two in my ancestry that is almost as
err... interesting that way. There was a fellow named John White who had
daughters Sarah and (Ann ?) married to Adrian Frye and William Thompson. Frye`s
daughter Elizabeth married William`s son James and among their children were
Alexander and Mercy Thompson. Alexander`s daughter Tamsin married Philp Jenkins
who was Mercy Thompson`s son. their son Isaiah Jenkins had sons Gustavus and
Robert who married sisters Nancy and Percey/?Persis Maguire Gustavus` daughter
Salina married Leonard Carll and had a daughter Flora who married Robert`s son
Charles Jenkins. their daughter Aura Jenkins married William Albert Condon,
son of Flora`s sister Laura Carll and her husband William Alfred Condon.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Ye Old One

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

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 10 jun 2006 21:59:55

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:23:15 +0000 (UTC), Jwc1870@aol.com enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Dear Ford,
Of Course Jesus (Savior or not) bragged. Son of Man... Son
of God, Son of Man and God (the last part makes me wonder what He and Mary
Magdalene might of been to each other { She not being a prostitute} I don`t think
He instructed his disciples to give up either sex or marriage... and most
assuredly not wine.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

In another group I saw this picture posted today - a new Woman's Xien
group that are out to convert us all:
http://static.flickr.com/22/30429945_5e23fe98bf.jpg

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jun 2006 23:06:05

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

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?

I presume you've seen this, apparently his will from 1407:

http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Resea ... %20337.htm

Ye Old One

Re: Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 11 jun 2006 00:40:33

On 10 Jun 2006 15:06:05 -0700, mjcar@btinternet.com enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

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?

I presume you've seen this, apparently his will from 1407:

http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Resea ... %20337.htm

Well, his last commission was May 12th 1407, so it could well be.

--
Bob.

Ye Old One

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 11 jun 2006 00:51:11

On 10 Jun 2006 15:06:05 -0700, mjcar@btinternet.com enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

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?

I presume you've seen this, apparently his will from 1407:

http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Resea ... %20337.htm

Oooo! Just read it in more detail. He appoints as one of his
executors: John Brynkeley senior. I think this is one of the two (or
maybe 3) John Brenchleys.

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 01:58:02

In a message dated 6/10/2006 4:53:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:

Oooo! Just read it in more detail. He appoints as one of his
executors: John Brynkeley senior. I think this is one of the two (or
maybe 3) John Brenchleys.


Hopefully this will help confirm my suspicion that they weren't just
acquaintances or co-workers or fellow-judges, but something closer.
Will

Louise Staley

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 11 jun 2006 05:44:48

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I've found arms for William Makenade here
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN01000030&id=qHbLKGF_2lIC&pg=PA222&lpg=P
A222&dq=makenade_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... q=makenade)


Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum
by Walter de Gray Birch - _Full Book_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... #pubdomain) from the _Google Books Library Project_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... brary.html)

Ermine a fess nebulee

What is a fess nebulee ?

Will Johnson

Fess - Formed by two horizontal lines drawn across the field, comprising

the center third of the shield. It is emblematic of the military girdle
worn around the body over the amour and implied that its bearer was ever
ready to serve his country.
http://www.100megsfree2.com/jjscherr/ja ... esArms.htm

and

Fess = Military belt or girdle of honor.
Nebulee or Nebuly - The sea or water.
http://www.digiserve.com/heraldry/symbols.htm

so I assume it means a horizontal bar either with wavy lines on it or
the whole thing sits on wavy lines

Louise

Gjest

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 06:24:02

I've found arms for William Makenade here
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN01000030&id=qHbLKGF_2lIC&pg=PA222&lpg=P
A222&dq=makenade_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... q=makenade)


Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum
by Walter de Gray Birch - _Full Book_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... #pubdomain) from the _Google Books Library Project_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... brary.html)

Ermine a fess nebulee

What is a fess nebulee ?

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 jun 2006 08:44:51

In message of 11 Jun, Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote:

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I've found arms for William Makenade here
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN01000030&id=qHbLKGF_2lIC&pg=PA222&lpg=P
A222&dq=makenade_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... q=makenade)


Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum
by Walter de Gray Birch - _Full Book_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... #pubdomain) from the _Google Books Library Project_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... brary.html)

Ermine a fess nebulee

What is a fess nebulee ?

Will Johnson

Fess - Formed by two horizontal lines drawn across the field, comprising
the center third of the shield. It is emblematic of the military girdle
worn around the body over the amour and implied that its bearer was ever
ready to serve his country.
http://www.100megsfree2.com/jjscherr/ja ... esArms.htm

and

Fess = Military belt or girdle of honor.
Nebulee or Nebuly - The sea or water.
http://www.digiserve.com/heraldry/symbols.htm

so I assume it means a horizontal bar either with wavy lines on it or
the whole thing sits on wavy lines


I've put the relevant page, 118, from Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to
heraldry" on my site (for a short season only):

http://southfarm.plus.com/scans/Nebuly.pdf

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

Gjest

Braveheart part II ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 09:41:02

From The Times Saturday 10 June (abridged)

Harvey Weinstein has engaged a Scottish director to make "Four Knights", an
action movie about the men Henry II asked to kill the Archbishop of
Canterbury

He told Paul McGuigan to portray the knights as a band of deputies. "Don't
think of it as medieval. Think of it as being like Young Guns."

McGuigan said he was not interested with historical accuracy. "Being from
Scotland, I don't have this reverence for the history. I see it as a modern
film. It's a kind of road movie, because they are always fleeing and they
are on the road all the time. It's a medieval Wild Bunch, full of big
characters and great action"

The director initially declined the script but relented when Weinstein asked
him to make it like a western. "It's about these four young men having to
fight off attackers."

He also draws parallels between the Norman invasion of Britain and the
British presence in Iraq.

The film will begin shooting in September, is based on Four Nights in
Knaresborough by Paul Webb, the stage version made its debut in 1999.


oh dear

Simon

Ye Old One

Re: Re: William Makenade

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 11 jun 2006 10:43:01

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 04:22:48 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

I've found arms for William Makenade here
_http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN01000030&id=qHbLKGF_2lIC&pg=PA222&lpg=P
A222&dq=makenade_
(http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... q=makenade)


Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum
by Walter de Gray Birch - _Full Book_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... #pubdomain) from the _Google Books Library Project_
(http://books.google.com/intl/en/googleb ... brary.html)

Ermine a fess nebulee

What is a fess nebulee ?

Will Johnson

Fess[e] - (fes) One of the ordinaries. A strip or band placed
horizontally across the shield, occupying one-third of the field. Its
diminutives are the bar, the barrulet and the closet.

Nebuly - (Neb'-u-ly) 1. Composed of undulations, like the wavy edges
of clouds.

--
Bob.

Lisbeth Andersson

Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England

Legg inn av Lisbeth Andersson » 11 jun 2006 16:38:16

paulvheath@gmail.com wrote in news:1148769539.084942.212660@
38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

A patronymic always refers to the father, but a matronymic refers to
the mother.


That should be metronymic.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metronymic

English is not a logical language.;-)



Lisbeth.

----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.

*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 18:29:02

It would be nice if Charles Cawley himself would say something. The excuse
that he is "not subscribed" is not very satisfying, seeing as we are discussing
his work, you'd think he's want to read the reviews.

Will

Gjest

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 18:34:02

In a message dated 6/11/2006 5:54:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dr@imperiousancestry.com writes:

But also in his memory I have maintained the non-scholarly style of
referencing any old document that I can drag up that might or might not
refer to the chappies in question. This was DF's dying wish and added
as the 29th codicil (unpublished) to his will and communicated in a
plain sealed envelope to me by his executors.


Yes all in good tongue-in-cheek fun. We know how *useful* these
unpublished, private, codicil's can be to those claiming priority in such matters.
Will

Gjest

Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 19:01:02

In a message dated 6/11/2006 9:38:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lisand@bredband.net writes:

That should be metronymic.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metronymic

English is not a logical language.;-)



My Webster's (hardback) says Matr the combination form is from Latin matr,
matri and french matr, mater all meaning mother

It says that Metr or metro, the combination form is also from french metra,
etr, meter (with the bar over the 'e') all also meaning... mother.

So it's not English that's at fault here, it's those damn French!

Will

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 11 jun 2006 19:37:50

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It would be nice if Charles Cawley himself would say something. The excuse
that he is "not subscribed" is not very satisfying, seeing as we are
discussing
his work, you'd think he's want to read the reviews.

I don't know whether Charles Cawley has followed any of the discussion or
not (I suspect not). I am planning to send him details of the specific
criticisms that have been made, though obviously in cases where people claim
to have found errors but refuse to give any details, that can't be done.

I'm sure he will want to consider these specific criticisms carefully, and I
hope "Medieval Lands" will be revised where necessary. It may be that he'll
also want to consider some changes to his wider research strategy and the
presentation of the data.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you'd like Charles Cawley to say. I've
tried to provide some general information about the project as I understand
it, or else to indicate where it's to be found online. If you have any
specific questions or requests for information, I'll be happy to pass them
on.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jun 2006 20:43:03

In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:38:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

Other than that, I'm not sure what you'd like Charles Cawley to say.


Anything at all. Hello, goodbye, you suck. Whatever.
Will

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 11 jun 2006 22:10:03

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisbeth Andersson" <lisand@bredband.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England


| paulvheath@gmail.com wrote in news:1148769539.084942.212660@
| 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
|
| > A patronymic always refers to the father, but a matronymic refers to
| > the mother.
| >
|
| That should be metronymic.
| http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metronymic
|
| English is not a logical language.;-)
|
|
|
| Lisbeth.
|
| *What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
|

This page says that metronymic is a variant of matronymic.

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 01:11:00

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6hnn9$n2t$1@nntp.aioe.org...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It would be nice if Charles Cawley himself would say something. The
excuse
that he is "not subscribed" is not very satisfying, seeing as we are
discussing
his work, you'd think he's want to read the reviews.

I don't know whether Charles Cawley has followed any of the discussion or
not (I suspect not). I am planning to send him details of the specific
criticisms that have been made, though obviously in cases where people
claim
to have found errors but refuse to give any details, that can't be done.

I can't see any reason why Charles Cawley should be obliged to respond to
this newsgroup - SGM is not the official headquarters of medieval genealogy,
or the prime repository for views on the subject. It is just a forum for
discussion amongst people of vaguely similar or overlapping interests.
Lately it has been mainly a clearing house for individual research into
gateway ancestries, that may be creditable and indeed valuable but not at
all the field of work that Cawley has chosen for himself.

Having said that, I consider the implied criticism of Douglas Richardson
above to be misplaced. He has not "refused" to give any details of errors,
but simply stated that he had come across a hundred or so glaring ones &
given up at that point, not (yet) choosing to answer a request for more
specific information. As Stewart Baldwin remarked, others are not bound to
drop their own work in order to help improve Cawley's.

Douglas Richardson also said that the Medieval Lands database was "on a
level" with the Hull Project in his view, and somehow this has been twisted
into a "ludicrous" idea as if he had said the two were of like kind rather
than standard.

Pierre Aronax has remarked on Cawley's failure to try using primary sources
for the Palaiologoi. I must say, I think it would be best for Cawley if he
stopped trying to use primary sources altogether, and dropped the pretense
that he is working up lineages from research of his own. The man is so
ignorant of Latin that he does not understand basics of case, number and
even conjunctions - for instances of total illiteracy in the language of the
majority of his sources, look at the section for the Orseolo family under
Hungary, that Cawley himself drew attention to in his Introduction:

Under the princess whom Cawley wrongly labels as doubtfully named "Grimelda"
and says "may have been baptised as Maria" (in fact her name is not
recorded, but Litta suggested she was called Helena in Venice), Cawley wrote
out: "Petrum, sororis suæ [=Stephanus Ungariorum rex] filium". "Suae" is
genitive, but the interpolated gloss is nominative.

Under Pietro Orseolo Cawley writes: "The Annalium Hildesheimensium records
that King Péter was expelled", using a genitive plural followed by a
singular verb. Cawley has taken this from the heading 'Annalium
Hildesheimensium continuatio', MGH SS III 103, obviously without realising
that this means 'continuation of the Hildesheim annals'.

Under Peter's sister Froiza (spelled "Froizza" for some reason), Cawley
attempts to quote from an imperial diploma as follows: '"Heinricus.Romanorum
imperator augustus" granted property to "Adelberti marchionis [et] uxorique
sue Froize"'. Believe it or not.

Can some who doesn't know how "and" is expressed in Latin seriously propose
himself to survey the whole of European medieval genealogy from sources,
"back-to-basics"? Can someone who understands so little of German that he
took a citation to Lui von Frizburg's papers circulated in Gestetner copies
as a reference to an otherwise unknown spouse of medieval queens seriously
put himself forward to review the secondary literature in this field?

Charles Cawley would be weall-advised to withdraw himself from the field
until he has acquired some basic skills for the work he wants to do, and in
the meantime also to withdraw his datatbase from public view. The original
content in this at present is a tissue of errors and incompetence. As I said
before, I will post a more detailed review when I have time.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 02:05:24

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:489.2f2b82f.31be1102@aol.com...
In a message dated 6/11/2006 5:10:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

ely it has been mainly a clearing house for individual research into
gateway ancestries, that may be creditable and indeed valuable but not at
all the field of work that Cawley has chosen for himself.


You're the second person who has brought this charge in the last month
and I
really don't see it. The majority of the posts over the last few weeks
have
been about people who are several centuries earlier than any gateway
person.

It's not a "charge" but just a comment, and "lately" doesn't mean just "over
the past few weeks".

Most of the interest generated in SGM from the start has been over descents
from medieval ancestors to present-day researchers, not purely over the
relationships between medieval individuals. I doubt that many people would
participate in a thread about the paternity of a medival abbess, for
instance, although she & her connections may have been far more important
than the posterity of some dim squireen and the transmission of his estate,
the kind of discussion that in aggregate wins the most sustained attention
here.

The thread that has gained the most enthusiastic adherents over the past
week or so has been a claim of personal Christhood.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jun 2006 02:37:02

In a message dated 6/11/2006 5:10:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

ely it has been mainly a clearing house for individual research into
gateway ancestries, that may be creditable and indeed valuable but not at
all the field of work that Cawley has chosen for himself.


You're the second person who has brought this charge in the last month and I
really don't see it. The majority of the posts over the last few weeks have
been about people who are several centuries earlier than any gateway person.

Will

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 12 jun 2006 08:11:40

Peter Stewart wrote:
Charles Cawley would be weall-advised to withdraw himself from the field
until he has acquired some basic skills for the work he wants to do, and
in
the meantime also to withdraw his datatbase from public view.

Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide hosting for
Charles Cawley's work?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 08:42:06

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6j3t3$v7u$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Charles Cawley would be weall-advised to withdraw himself from the field
until he has acquired some basic skills for the work he wants to do, and
in
the meantime also to withdraw his datatbase from public view.

Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide hosting for
Charles Cawley's work?

Not at all - hosting someone else's files for access and the implicit
endorsement of the work by co-holding the copyright are two quite different
things.

The FMG asked my advice on the initial proposal from Charles Cawley in July
last year, and since you are clearly angling towards discussion of this I
have copied my response below.

I don't retract this now, although I would certainly have given different
advice if I had seen more of the work, as I now have. All that I and the
rest of the advisory group (then - I have since withdrawn) were shown was
the Flanders file, on which I commented in similar terms to those posted
here more recently by Stewart Baldwin.

Cawley's work on this was less than mediocre as to scholarly standards, but
the FMG is not - and perhaps never will be - a focus for scholarship. They
were proposing to set up again a discussion site, and this kind of database
from an amateur contributor seemed to me a useful basis for starting topics,
bringing in traffic and perhaps members to the FMG. I did not consider that
they should spend time, energy and resources on a collaboration with Cawley.

Now that I find the work on Flanders to be some of the least careless and
error-ridden that Cawley has done, and given the pretentious and misleading
presentation of it as "reconstructive" work from sources, I would strongly
advise withdrawal of the whole lot.

Peter Stewart


Private e-mail from me, written 26 July 2005:

<snip of brief reference to 3rd party>

Cawley has undertaken a huge task, and appears to have gone about this with
the best of intentions if not quite the best of methodologies. I hope that
FMG can come to a decision that will be encouraging to him. Hosting his
files without any kind of editorial endorsement of the contents, indeed with
a dislaimer in this respect, would perhaps be a good outcome, both for him
and for the Foundation.

The availability of this kind of work would be a useful addition to online
resources for many people. However, it's apparent from the scope of the
project and from the example provided that Cawley has skimmed over many
sources rather than making a close study of the lineages or geographic areas
included. The result is not a systematic prosopography of the ruling class,
kindred or individuals, and not a substantial addition to the genealogical
literature, at least for Flanders: he contents himself with giving a source
or two (some not the most proximate or plausible) for the details he has
found. The format is a good choice and easy to follow.

Unfortunately Cawley has deprived himself of benefits from a great deal of
modern scholarship by using 19th-century editions, mainly Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, when more recent ones are to be preferred for many -
usually the most important - sources. The way he uses what he has found in
isolation sometimes from what he would have found by further research of his
own, or in editorial glosses, is unsatisfactory by scholarly standards. His
use of cartularia and narrative sources tends to be uncritical and even
careless.

Some instances of these problems just from the first few generations in
Chapter 1 A:

'The Cartulaire de Saint-Bertin records the death in 808 of "Lidericus
Harlebecanus", first in the list of counts of Flanders' - the list of counts
cited here was compiled in the 16th century, but no indication of this is
given: without knowing the source of information behind it the reference has
no value as evidence on the points for which it has been cited.

'The Annales Formoselenses record the death in 817 of "Lidricus comes" and
his burial at "Harlabecce"' - true, but these early 9th-century events are
recorded from a tradition that can be traced only to a mid-11th century
source. Cawley has failed to note here that Annales Blandinienses record
exactly the same information under 836, while he mentions this under
Lideric's
purported grandson Odoacre commenting that the name may be substituted in
error. It might have been, of course, but the point needing to be made is
that any confusion was due to the much later compilation of legendary
material in these sources. This entry in the two annals was copied from one
to another under different years, whether or not the scribe/s who set down
the discrepancy understood which person was thought to be the subject.

The remainder of the chapter is similarly riddled with points of evidence
and analysis that I would suggest need revision.

Having said this, I would not recommend that FMG should demand more work
from Cawley to go over what he has ready now. Since he wishes to release his
files to the public as a work-in-progress, it is worth advising him that he
may have to spend a lot of time in editorial supervision of contributions if
these are invited, and in correspondence with people asking questions or
raising issues with the information presented. I'm not sure that a
collaborative approach from this point on is worthwhile, as no-one else is
likely to have covered all the same ground in a complementary way & anyone
who could make a significant difference to the parts would likely prefer to
do their own work independently. Cawley deserves to have his name attached
to the work as sole compiler in my view, unless he wishes to hand over whole
sections to others who have specialiesd knowledge of the local history,
sources and literature.

Assuming the FMG website can spare the capacity for all his files, having
them accessible there will bring in some traffic, and more favourable
attention than otherwise. I would not recommend hosting the material if
Cawley wants to charge a fee, either to FMG or to users; and I would also
not recommend this if it is necessary to charge him for the service, as it
would be a kind of vanity publishing that soon others might seek to abuse.

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 12 jun 2006 09:58:55

Peter Stewart wrote:
[I wrote]
Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide hosting
for
Charles Cawley's work?

Not at all - hosting someone else's files for access and the implicit
endorsement of the work by co-holding the copyright are two quite
different
things.

Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the copyright on
Charles Cawley's work?

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 10:27:00

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6ja5o$f2j$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
[I wrote]
Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide hosting
for
Charles Cawley's work?

Not at all - hosting someone else's files for access and the implicit
endorsement of the work by co-holding the copyright are two quite
different
things.

Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the copyright
on
Charles Cawley's work?

You haven't improved in nous or frankness over the past 11 months.

The copyright in layout, code, logos and titles of the Medival Lands
database is explicitly held by the FMG, by their own statement on the home
page.

They are unmistakably associating themselves with the contents by devoting
such time & trouble to presenting the material. This, especially in the
absence of any kind of disclaimer as I advised them to make, amounts to an
endorsement of its value. The FMG co-holds copyright to the whole product,
in the same way as the illustrator of a children's book might do with the
author of the story. Artists & designers don't usually choose to promote
themselves in this way with stuff that doesn't meet with their approval.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 12 jun 2006 10:43:41

In message of 12 Jun, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6ja5o$f2j$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
[I wrote]
Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide
hosting for Charles Cawley's work?

Not at all - hosting someone else's files for access and the
implicit endorsement of the work by co-holding the copyright are
two quite different things.

Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the
copyright on Charles Cawley's work?

The copyright in layout, code, logos and titles of the Medival Lands
database is explicitly held by the FMG, by their own statement on the
home page.

They are unmistakably associating themselves with the contents by
devoting such time & trouble to presenting the material. This,
especially in the absence of any kind of disclaimer as I advised
them to make, amounts to an endorsement of its value. The FMG
co-holds copyright to the whole product, in the same way as the
illustrator of a children's book might do with the author of the
story. Artists & designers don't usually choose to promote
themselves in this way with stuff that doesn't meet with their
approval.

But FMG's © sign does not mean that they actually own any copyright.
They may allow stuff to go on their site for which they have no
copyright agreement and for which the owner of the copyright is
ignorant of FMG's claim. (Their site is uncontactable at the mo so I
can't check further.)

PS: Also glad to see you're back.

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

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 12 jun 2006 10:54:56

Peter Stewart wrote:
[I wrote]
Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the copyright
on
Charles Cawley's work?

You haven't improved in nous or frankness over the past 11 months.

I had hoped this could be discussed without people stooping to personal
insults. The reason I asked was to check whether there really was any such
statement that I had overlooked.

The copyright in layout, code, logos and titles of the Medival Lands
database is explicitly held by the FMG, by their own statement on the home
page.

But that is accompanied by a clear statement that the actual content is the
copyright of Charles Cawley. In other words, the FMG is asserting copyright
for the purely technical aspects of presenting the material on the
Internet - such as the pop-up navigation menus - and not at all for the
content.

As you know, the FMG acts on advice in these matters. In this case it acted
on your advice as much as on anyone else's. You advised that the material
should be hosted without requiring any revision, and gave your opinion that
this would bring "more favourable attention than otherwise". This was said
with an awareness that the work contained errors - indeed, you were aware of
the very issues on which Stewart Baldwin has concentrated his criticism.
Nevertheless, you evidently didn't feel there was any need to see more of
the work than the sample provided.

I suggest that in the circumstances, the appropriate course is to try to be
constructive, rather than attacking the project and its author.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 11:37:37

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6jdf1$dab$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
[I wrote]
Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the
copyright
on
Charles Cawley's work?

You haven't improved in nous or frankness over the past 11 months.

I had hoped this could be discussed without people stooping to personal
insults. The reason I asked was to check whether there really was any such
statement that I had overlooked.

No stopping involved. It was you whose attitudes drove me away from SGM, and
then from the FMG. Your obtuseness and complacency have forfeited any
respect I previously had for you, and as you may have noticed over years I
tend to say what I think about people I don't respect.

The copyright in layout, code, logos and titles of the Medival Lands
database is explicitly held by the FMG, by their own statement on the
home
page.

But that is accompanied by a clear statement that the actual content is
the
copyright of Charles Cawley. In other words, the FMG is asserting
copyright
for the purely technical aspects of presenting the material on the
Internet - such as the pop-up navigation menus - and not at all for the
content.

If you had read all of my post you - or at least a more honest & fothright
person - would not try to persevere in this line of argument in isolation
from the context of the copyright statement, that is the FMG has put its own
effort into the Medieval Lands database and co-presents it to the public
insterad of merely hosting it by providing storage and hyperlinks with a
disclaimer as to the contents. That was what I advised.

As you know, the FMG acts on advice in these matters. In this case it
acted
on your advice as much as on anyone else's. You advised that the material
should be hosted without requiring any revision, and gave your opinion
that
this would bring "more favourable attention than otherwise". This was said
with an awareness that the work contained errors - indeed, you were aware
of
the very issues on which Stewart Baldwin has concentrated his criticism.
Nevertheless, you evidently didn't feel there was any need to see more of
the work than the sample provided.

Quite so, because I didn't contemplate that the FMG would link its own
credibility to the stuff. Having been made aware by me that it didn't come
up to scholarly standards, they then chose to swallow whole & represent to
the public Cawley's claims about its value as prosopography and as genealogy
"recontructed" from sources. This is hooey.

I suggest that in the circumstances, the appropriate course is to try to
be
constructive, rather than attacking the project and its author.

I am not trying to be constructive, as the Medival Lands database needs to
be withdrawn and totally reconstructed to be up to its own claims. I have no
intention of doing this work. I know exactly how much is involved: one
person can't do it. In four years Cawley has done a tiny fraction of the
task he has set for himself, and has done this so incompetently that it
isn't going to do him or the FMG the credit that both parties sought.

Charles Cawley started out not knowing the extent of his own ignorance - no
harm in that - but his work so far has evidently not taught him the
beginnings of this vital lesson. There is nothing to be achieved by
constructiveness with such a thick head & hide: however, a sharp shock to
the system might get him thinking in a more sensible direction; then he will
take himself off quietly and learn the basics of the scholarly discipline he
aspires to practice.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 12 jun 2006 12:06:00

Peter Stewart wrote:
No stopping involved. It was you whose attitudes drove me away from SGM,
and
then from the FMG. Your obtuseness and complacency have forfeited any
respect I previously had for you, and as you may have noticed over years I
tend to say what I think about people I don't respect.

Well, there's obviously no point trying to continue this discussion. I won't
say any more for the time being.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 13:20:18

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6jhk2$f27$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
No stopping involved. It was you whose attitudes drove me away from SGM,
and
then from the FMG. Your obtuseness and complacency have forfeited any
respect I previously had for you, and as you may have noticed over years
I
tend to say what I think about people I don't respect.

Well, there's obviously no point trying to continue this discussion. I
won't
say any more for the time being.

You may reflect that the discussion was not mainly about what I think of
you, so that this is a typically feeble pretext for running away from the
real issues that you have not yet addressed.

Remember your remarks about Douglas Richardson allegedly "refusing" to
provide specific detail to back up his views? Well, you now have some of
this from various other posters, including me. You pretend to want more, so
long as it is "constructive".

However, we haven't yet seen any responses from you that substantiate your
original endorsement of Cawley's work as a "major" and "extremely useful
resource", or alternatively that modify this opinion, but only some
irresolute cherry-picking of aspects of other people's remarks that you
think you can fudge in isolation from whatever is too difficult to address
in context.

Not an approach to controversy that many honest & rigorous thinkers on the
subject would take.

Peter Stewart

Chris Phillips

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 12 jun 2006 13:39:51

Peter Stewart wrote:
You may reflect that the discussion was not mainly about what I think of
you, so that this is a typically feeble pretext for running away from the
real issues that you have not yet addressed.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to be personally abusive, I am _not_ going to
continue the discussion.

I have no interest in your kind of "controversy".

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 jun 2006 14:19:57

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e6jn40$b5f$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You may reflect that the discussion was not mainly about what I think of
you, so that this is a typically feeble pretext for running away from the
real issues that you have not yet addressed.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to be personally abusive, I am _not_ going
to
continue the discussion.

I have no interest in your kind of "controversy".

I don't believe you are "sorry" at all, but rather relieved to have found
what you falsely imagine to be an honourable way out of the sticky problem
you have made for yourself, by trying to pass off as a "major resource"
something you either haven't taken the trouble or don't have the means to
assess properly.

But there is no way out as long as the Medieval Lands database sits on the
FMG website as a reproach to everyone involved, including me to the extent
that my advice a year ago wasn't fully informed and consequently wasn't
negative enough.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Question of the Hamos

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jun 2006 18:57:02

In a message dated 6/12/2006 9:26:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:


I have sources which indicate that Hamo Sheriff , Pincerna & Vicomes of Kent
& other areas (incl. Camberwell), son of Hamo Dentatus, married Maud
d¹Avranches and had Hamon the Steward, Dapifer, Tenant in Chief, Essex with
properties in Sussex. (1060-1115) and Robeert Fitz-Hamon, Lord of
Glamorgan, Gloucester etc., & Corbeil, Thorigny (c. 1055- 1107).


What sources?

Lisbeth Andersson

Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England

Legg inn av Lisbeth Andersson » 12 jun 2006 21:35:11

WJhonson@aol.com wrote in news:35e.59d0e36.31bda622@aol.com:

In a message dated 6/11/2006 9:38:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lisand@bredband.net writes:

That should be metronymic.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metronymic

English is not a logical language.;-)



My Webster's (hardback) says Matr the combination form is from
Latin matr, matri and french matr, mater all meaning mother

It says that Metr or metro, the combination form is also from
french metra, etr, meter (with the bar over the 'e') all also
meaning... mother.

So it's not English that's at fault here, it's those damn French!


So the English are not satisfied with borrowing the whole French
vocabulary once, they have to do it twice? (The French made them do
it!) I'm out of here (back to occasional lurking) before somebody
tells me about the language that got stolen three or more times. :-)


Lisbeth.

----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.

*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Another reference that William Brenchley had a broth

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 13 jun 2006 00:13:57

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:15:13 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/11/06 3:23:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

Item details: SC 8/224/11173
Scope and content:
Petitioners: Gilbert de Tetlingbury (Tatlingbury) of Kent.
Addressees: King.
Places mentioned: Kent; Calais, [France]; Brenchley, Kent; Tatlingbury,
[Kent].
Other people mentioned: William de Bryncheley (Brenchley) of Brenchley;
Thomas de Bryncheley (Brenchley), brother of William de Bryncheley; John
Pikenham of London, skinner; John Drusley of London,
armourer; Richard Bray of London, skinner.


One thing you left out is that they date this item as possibly 1389, but with
a definite ending date of 1392.

Will Johnson

Well spotted.

Now all I need is to get my wife to agree to a day out in London and I
can read some of these documents and see if they are worth purchasing
copies of. Maybe the promis of a trip around Kew Gardens will do the
trick - certainly less expensive than letting her free on the shops :)

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: Another reference that William Brenchley had a brother c

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 jun 2006 00:17:02

In a message dated 6/11/06 3:23:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< Item details: SC 8/224/11173
Scope and content:
Petitioners: Gilbert de Tetlingbury (Tatlingbury) of Kent.
Addressees: King.
Places mentioned: Kent; Calais, [France]; Brenchley, Kent; Tatlingbury,
[Kent].
Other people mentioned: William de Bryncheley (Brenchley) of Brenchley;
Thomas de Bryncheley (Brenchley), brother of William de Bryncheley; John
Pikenham of London, skinner; John Drusley of London,
armourer; Richard Bray of London, skinner. >>


One thing you left out is that they date this item as possibly 1389, but with
a definite ending date of 1392.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: The Fairy Bride

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 13 jun 2006 00:24:23

I know of a very prominent woman -- the wife of a POTUS -- who has two
GARD's who are illegitimate descendants of Henry II.

Does that make her a bastard?...

Hardly.

Diana, Princess of Wales also had interesting illegitimate descents -- from
Charles II.

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...

Many of us are no doubt descended from Henry II -- some legitimately and
some illegitimately.

DSH

"celia" <c_a_blay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150093955.822854.48840@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

With one of our number descended from Henry II
how could I resist telling a story told to him in the 1180's
by Walter Map.

Louise Staley

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 13 jun 2006 02:58:56

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Louise, if you will write something, in the format of the other corrections
pages, I will post it to my page for corrections to PA

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/PAC/

Will Johnson

Will, I would like to wait until I have seen all the references cited in

PA, then I will be happy to write something for your page.

Louise

Gjest

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 jun 2006 03:41:02

Louise, if you will write something, in the format of the other corrections
pages, I will post it to my page for corrections to PA

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/PAC/

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Another reference that William Brenchley had a brother c

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 jun 2006 12:16:02

In a message dated 13/06/2006 00:15:26 GMT Standard Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

Well spotted.

Now all I need is to get my wife to agree to a day out in London and I
can read some of these documents and see if they are worth purchasing
copies of. Maybe the promis of a trip around Kew Gardens will do the
trick - certainly less expensive than letting her free on the shops :)

--
Bob.



Does she like pagodas? - I believe the one in Kew Gardens is open this
summer.

Adrian

John Brandon

Re: The Fairy Bride

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 jun 2006 15:53:57

Does that make her a bastard?...

No, her ill behavior does that ...

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Another reference that William Brenchley had a broth

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 13 jun 2006 18:34:23

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:12:53 +0000 (UTC), ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Does she like pagodas? - I believe the one in Kew Gardens is open this
summer.

Adrian

She will if I tell her she does :)

--
Bob.

Gjest

Re: RPA Correction: ECHINGHAM/BAYNTON Line not supported

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jun 2006 20:31:02

I don't however yet see the necessity for making *this* William de Echyngham
the same as *that* William de Echyngham.

John Baynton, b abt 1407 per genealogics.org, if "Jana" Echyngham is a second
wife, could possibly be *of an age* with his purported father-in-law.

However the William de Echyngham "militis" which you all want to seem to
choose, is at least one if not two generations earlier than John Baynton.

I propose the possibility that there is another William de Echyngham, militis
or not. Merely dropping the militis, which is certainly the weakest point in
the visitations, should bring into view new avenues I'm sure.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jun 2006 20:43:01

In a message dated 6/14/06 7:09:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< Edward II Vol II Page 459.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0459.pdf
Membrane 20. - May 17th 1316. - Westminster.
Inspeximus of a letter procuratory under the seal of Gilbert, bishop Of
London, dated Stebenheth by London, 13 May 1316, notifying that Master Richard de
Clare, rector of the church of Dunrnowe, in the diocese of London, and Sir
John de Capella, rector of the church of Ambresdon, in the diocese of Lincoln,
executors of the testament of Lady Margaret de Clare, sometime countess of
Cornwall, appeared before him and appointed Master Richard de Brenchesle, clerk,
their proctor and attorney in all causes and matters, pleas and suits in all
courts of the realm of France, as well ecclesiastical as secular, against all
persons, ecclesiastical or secular, of that realm, to recover and receive all
goods and inoveables of the said countess. >>

I'm assuming (perhaps falsely) that Richard de Clare, rector of the church of
Dunmowe must be related to Margaret de Clare (1249 - 1313 per "Heraldry of
the Royal Families), Countess of Cornwall, widow of Edmund (1249-1300), Earl of
Cornwall

Margaret is the dau of Richard de Clare by his wife Maud de Lacy. I don't
currently have a Richard in this family, but perhaps he is a nephew. Does
anyone know who he is?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jun 2006 20:49:02

In a message dated 6/14/06 7:09:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< Edward III Vol I Page 386.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0386.pdf
Membrane 20. - Mat 11th 1329. - Eltham.
Grant for life, to Master Richard de Brenchesle, king's clerk, of the
archdeaconry of Huntingdon, in the king's gift by reason of the late
voidance of the see of Lincoln. >>


I'm not really clear here on how archdeaconry of Huntingdon was "in the
king's gift" because of the voidance of the see of Lincoln. Was Huntingdon a part
of Lincoln ?

Second, does the fact that we see here the "see of Lincoln" mean there is
probably a relationship between this Richard de Brenchley and the "Thomas de
Brenchley" who was, in 1328, appointed, purveyor for the household of "H bishop of
Lincoln, chancellor" ? He was appointed again by "H bishop of Lincoln the
chancellor" "until Michaelmas" on May 6 1329

By the way, was date is "Mat 11th" (grin) Hopefully its "May" that way "H"
would have "voided" his see between 6 and 11 of May and everything will work
together smoothly.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jun 2006 21:03:02

In a message dated 6/14/06 11:48:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

<< Second, does the fact that we see here the "see of Lincoln" mean there is
probably a relationship between this Richard de Brenchley and the "Thomas de
Brenchley" who was, in 1328, appointed, purveyor for the household of "H
bishop of
Lincoln, chancellor" ? He was appointed again by "H bishop of Lincoln the
chancellor" "until Michaelmas" on May 6 1329 >>


Is "H" = Henry Burghersh ? I'm showing that he was Bishop of Lincoln around
this time, but I don't have a list of who preceded or succeeded him to know if
there was another "H" hanging out.

Thanks
Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»