Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1
In a message dated 6/14/06 11:48:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com 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. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Lincoln
Says that Henry Burghersh was Bishop of Lincoln from 1320 to 1341
Doesn't "voidance of the see of Lincoln" mean there wasn't a Bishop ?
Maybe I'm confused.
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJhonson@aol.com 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. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Lincoln
Says that Henry Burghersh was Bishop of Lincoln from 1320 to 1341
Doesn't "voidance of the see of Lincoln" mean there wasn't a Bishop ?
Maybe I'm confused.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Walt O'Dowd
Re: Weird question
My guess is that the answer to Leo's question is:
Griffony = Frisonie = the lands of the Friesians.
Venise = Venice.
Walt
Griffony = Frisonie = the lands of the Friesians.
Venise = Venice.
Walt
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:42:27 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Don't you just love the way I keep finding people that are not in your
records
But yes, my reading tends to agree with you.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
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
Don't you just love the way I keep finding people that are not in your
records
But yes, my reading tends to agree with you.
--
Bob.
-
John Brandon
-
Gjest
Re: Weird question
Dear Francisco and Nat,
Any Possibility that the Duke of
Pomerania was the King of Griffony ? Off- hand I can think of no one else who used
the Griffin as their heraldic symbol.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
Any Possibility that the Duke of
Pomerania was the King of Griffony ? Off- hand I can think of no one else who used
the Griffin as their heraldic symbol.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:48:38 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
I'm working on him at the moment. Nore news soon.
It is, indeed, May
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
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,
I'm working on him at the moment. Nore news soon.
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.
It is, indeed, May
Will Johnson
--
Bob.
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:01:58 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0559.pdf
show a Henry but no surname.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
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
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0559.pdf
show a Henry but no surname.
--
Bob.
-
Ye Old One
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - part 1
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:07:45 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
No, I think it means that power over Huntingdon was voided so the see
of Lincoln could no longer appoint, it was now in the King's hands.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
In a message dated 6/14/06 11:48:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Lincoln
Says that Henry Burghersh was Bishop of Lincoln from 1320 to 1341
Doesn't "voidance of the see of Lincoln" mean there wasn't a Bishop ?
Maybe I'm confused.
Thanks
Will Johnson
No, I think it means that power over Huntingdon was voided so the see
of Lincoln could no longer appoint, it was now in the King's hands.
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: baynton/echyngham
In a message dated 6/14/06 3:50:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< Joan Batisford Brenchesle names Elizabeth Echyngham Hoo Lewknor as her
executor.. this would be her niece and show relationship to Batusford family
rather than Joan Fitzalan.
And again you deliberately leave out the counter-proof.
Why?
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< Joan Batisford Brenchesle names Elizabeth Echyngham Hoo Lewknor as her
executor.. this would be her niece and show relationship to Batusford family
rather than Joan Fitzalan.
And again you deliberately leave out the counter-proof.
Why?
Will Johnson
-
celia
Re: The Fairy Bride
John Brandon wrote:
The 'Fairy Bride' thread cross posted here by DSH from
shm has now moved on to the genealogy of Hereward.
I admit to originally posting it as a bit of light relief from
the politics that infest that group but when challenged
to support Hereward being descended from Earl Leofric
I find that none of the information in the sources about
his family hangs together including his being descended
from Leofric of Bourne. It's time to move away from the
'what if' fun and see if this can be untangled, we could do
with some help here if anyone has any thoughts on the
subject please.
Celia
Does that make her a bastard?...
No, her ill behavior does that ...
The 'Fairy Bride' thread cross posted here by DSH from
shm has now moved on to the genealogy of Hereward.
I admit to originally posting it as a bit of light relief from
the politics that infest that group but when challenged
to support Hereward being descended from Earl Leofric
I find that none of the information in the sources about
his family hangs together including his being descended
from Leofric of Bourne. It's time to move away from the
'what if' fun and see if this can be untangled, we could do
with some help here if anyone has any thoughts on the
subject please.
Celia
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Weird question
John Brandon wrote:
1. From the OED:
Griffon: A Greek (obs. rare)
Quotations: 13.. K. Alis. 3134 He sat, and pleyghed at the chesse,
With o Griffoun of hethenesse.
13.. Coer de L. 1761 The French and Gryffons down rightes, Slew there
our English knights.
c1350 Will. Palerne 1961 e gryffouns an gayli gonne stint atte cherche
e brit burde meliors to abide ere.
[1677 F. Sandford General Hist. Eng. 78 He offers up the rich Standard
of Cursar King of Ciprus which he took among the spoils of the Griffons
Camp.
1837 Sir F. Palgrave Merch. & Friar i. (1844) 24 Greeks..who are
called Griffons wherever Romance is spoken.]
2. From Latham's Revised Medieval Lation Wordlist (under gryph-):
gryphones (pl.), Byzantine Greeks c 1192, c 1370
3. From the Anglo-Norman Dictionary:
griffun, -on; grif(f)ain (1) a. Greek: Alisandre ... juout as esches
a un duc griffon (Thomas de Kent's Roman de toute Chevalerie)
(2) s. Greek: Uns Griffuns vindrent ja en Estracini la cite (Henri
d'Arci's Vitas Patrum, 1399)
4. The Isaac of Griffony mentioned in the book quoted by John Brandon
is Isaac Comnenus, the Byzantine ruler of Cyrpus who imprisoned the
shipwrecked Richard I and then lost his kingdom to him. The following
is a quote from Benedict of Peterborough's account of Richard's
conquest of Cyprus in his Gesta Henrici II et Richard I:
"The king, accompanied by his bowmen, was first to land, the rest
followed, and as soon as they reached the shore one and all flung
themselves upon the Emperor and his Griffons. The arrows fell like rain
upon the grass. After a prolonged conflict the Emperor, having lost a
multitude of his men, fled, and his entire host with him. The king of
England, exulting in his great victory, pursued, and made a very great
slaughter of all who resisted, and, had not night fallen soon, he would
have taken the Emperor himself that day, either alive or dead. The king
and his men however knew not the roads and mountain paths by which the
Emperor and his followers made their escape, and would not pursue them
further but returned with a great prey both of men and animals to the
town of Limezun, whence the Griffons and Herminians [Armenians] had
fled, leaving it empty."
I think it is certain that the king of Griffony mentioned in the Camden
Roll is a king of Greece, or of the Greeks, and therefore probably
either a Byzantine emperor or a ruler of one of the Latin kingdoms in
Greece or elsewhere in the former Byzantine lands. In either case the
arms are almost certainly apocryphal, invented by some western herald
because of their aptness to the name Griffony.
Matt Tompkins
This source mentions "Isaac of Griffony."
1. From the OED:
Griffon: A Greek (obs. rare)
Quotations: 13.. K. Alis. 3134 He sat, and pleyghed at the chesse,
With o Griffoun of hethenesse.
13.. Coer de L. 1761 The French and Gryffons down rightes, Slew there
our English knights.
c1350 Will. Palerne 1961 e gryffouns an gayli gonne stint atte cherche
e brit burde meliors to abide ere.
[1677 F. Sandford General Hist. Eng. 78 He offers up the rich Standard
of Cursar King of Ciprus which he took among the spoils of the Griffons
Camp.
1837 Sir F. Palgrave Merch. & Friar i. (1844) 24 Greeks..who are
called Griffons wherever Romance is spoken.]
2. From Latham's Revised Medieval Lation Wordlist (under gryph-):
gryphones (pl.), Byzantine Greeks c 1192, c 1370
3. From the Anglo-Norman Dictionary:
griffun, -on; grif(f)ain (1) a. Greek: Alisandre ... juout as esches
a un duc griffon (Thomas de Kent's Roman de toute Chevalerie)
(2) s. Greek: Uns Griffuns vindrent ja en Estracini la cite (Henri
d'Arci's Vitas Patrum, 1399)
4. The Isaac of Griffony mentioned in the book quoted by John Brandon
is Isaac Comnenus, the Byzantine ruler of Cyrpus who imprisoned the
shipwrecked Richard I and then lost his kingdom to him. The following
is a quote from Benedict of Peterborough's account of Richard's
conquest of Cyprus in his Gesta Henrici II et Richard I:
"The king, accompanied by his bowmen, was first to land, the rest
followed, and as soon as they reached the shore one and all flung
themselves upon the Emperor and his Griffons. The arrows fell like rain
upon the grass. After a prolonged conflict the Emperor, having lost a
multitude of his men, fled, and his entire host with him. The king of
England, exulting in his great victory, pursued, and made a very great
slaughter of all who resisted, and, had not night fallen soon, he would
have taken the Emperor himself that day, either alive or dead. The king
and his men however knew not the roads and mountain paths by which the
Emperor and his followers made their escape, and would not pursue them
further but returned with a great prey both of men and animals to the
town of Limezun, whence the Griffons and Herminians [Armenians] had
fled, leaving it empty."
I think it is certain that the king of Griffony mentioned in the Camden
Roll is a king of Greece, or of the Greeks, and therefore probably
either a Byzantine emperor or a ruler of one of the Latin kingdoms in
Greece or elsewhere in the former Byzantine lands. In either case the
arms are almost certainly apocryphal, invented by some western herald
because of their aptness to the name Griffony.
Matt Tompkins
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Weird question
I think it is certain that the king of Griffony mentioned in the Camden
Roll is a king of Greece, or of the Greeks, and therefore probably
either a Byzantine emperor or a ruler of one of the Latin kingdoms in
Greece or elsewhere in the former Byzantine lands. In either case the
arms are almost certainly apocryphal, invented by some western herald
because of their aptness to the name Griffony.
The king of Griffony's arms are discussed in Gerald Brault's Early
Blazon: Heraldic Terminology in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
(Oxford, 1972), pp. 116, 217-8:
'In the Camden Roll, punning is evident in the fictitious arms
provided for D 12, Griffonie (= Greece)"
"Denholm-Young, History and Heraldry, commenting upon D 12, states:
'Among the foreigners are to be found the King of Griffonie ... who may
be fabulous'. The arms may be imaginary, but the country is not, as it
was a common designation for Greece, and in particular Constantinople
in Old French. See Flutre [Table des noms propres ... dans le romans
du Moyen Age, 1962], pp. 247,8, s.v. Gre, Grec, and p. 248, s.v. Grece,
Gresce, Gres(s)e. And identical emblem for Greece is to be found in HE
16 [Fitzwilliam Roll] and for Alexander the Great, associated with
Greece, in the Dean Tract [a 1382 heraldic treatise], p. 27, 1. 88 (Le
roy Alexandre porta l'escu de goules ove un griffon d'argent');
.... ... On the etymology, consult U.T. Holmes, jun., 'Old French
grifaigne and Grifon', Studies in Philology, xliii (1946), 586-94."
Matt Tompkins
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: gallows, view of frankpledge etc etc
Paul,
I want to particularly thank you for this and the mention of the standard,
1189, for "time out of mind."
Pat
----------
o.html
I want to particularly thank you for this and the mention of the standard,
1189, for "time out of mind."
Pat
----------
From: Paul Mackenzie <paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: gallows, view of frankpledge etc etc
Date: Wed, 14, 2006, 9:21 PM
Hi All:
There is a good discussion of the terms that are used in medieval
documents and what they mean on the following website:
"...There were dozens of standard jurisdictional franchises. For
example, "infangthief" enabled the franchise owner to hang any thief
caught red-handed in the franchise territory, whereas "outfangthief"
enabled the owner to chase the thief down outside the franchise
territory, catch him red-handed, and then hang him. "Gallows" enabled
the owner to try and punish any capital crime, and there were a variety
of jurisdictions correponding to several classes of lesser offenses.
"View of frankpledge" allowed the owner to control a local militia to
enforce the law. "The sheriff's pleas" allowed the owner to hear any
case that would normally be heard in a county court. There were also
franchises that allowed the collection of various tolls and taxes...."
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... and-peer-t
o.html
Regards
Paul Mackenzie
Queensland
-
Ye Old One
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:31:04 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Strange you should suggest that, I almost added a note putting forward
the same idea. I think that to have achived the roles the younger
Thomas and William had they should have had a father of some note.
Only problem I have with it is that Thomas the elder was already doing
well in June 1328 which would make him a little on the old side by the
time Thomas the younger came along.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
Further, I would suggest that Thomas, the brother of William Brenchley, since
he is never called "knt" might... possibly... be a bit younger than William
as opposed to older. Since he is granted custody of Sheen Manor in 1384, I'm
going to give him a birthrange of 1351/63
I wonder if possibly, the elder Thomas might be father to these Brenchley's?
John, William and Thomas.
Will Johnson
Strange you should suggest that, I almost added a note putting forward
the same idea. I think that to have achived the roles the younger
Thomas and William had they should have had a father of some note.
Only problem I have with it is that Thomas the elder was already doing
well in June 1328 which would make him a little on the old side by the
time Thomas the younger came along.
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
I don't believe the last Thomas is the same person.
First he would be at least in his 80s by the time he is given the "custody of
Sheen Manor and the king's parks of Dothewalle and Crouherst [Crowherst, also
Crowhurst]"
Secondly we have an alternate choice, towit, "Thomas Brenchley the brother of
William" who is mentioned in 1392 in the petition of Gilbert de Tetlingbury
of Kent, and again in a quitclaim of date 29 May 1408 as "brother of William
Brenchley, knt"
And again called the "Keeper of Langeley Park"
This is, I think the last Thomas you mentioned who has the notice in 1384
which you cited.
Will Johnson
First he would be at least in his 80s by the time he is given the "custody of
Sheen Manor and the king's parks of Dothewalle and Crouherst [Crowherst, also
Crowhurst]"
Secondly we have an alternate choice, towit, "Thomas Brenchley the brother of
William" who is mentioned in 1392 in the petition of Gilbert de Tetlingbury
of Kent, and again in a quitclaim of date 29 May 1408 as "brother of William
Brenchley, knt"
And again called the "Keeper of Langeley Park"
This is, I think the last Thomas you mentioned who has the notice in 1384
which you cited.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
Further, I would suggest that Thomas, the brother of William Brenchley, since
he is never called "knt" might... possibly... be a bit younger than William
as opposed to older. Since he is granted custody of Sheen Manor in 1384, I'm
going to give him a birthrange of 1351/63
I wonder if possibly, the elder Thomas might be father to these Brenchley's?
John, William and Thomas.
Will Johnson
he is never called "knt" might... possibly... be a bit younger than William
as opposed to older. Since he is granted custody of Sheen Manor in 1384, I'm
going to give him a birthrange of 1351/63
I wonder if possibly, the elder Thomas might be father to these Brenchley's?
John, William and Thomas.
Will Johnson
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:24:49 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
And I will vote for a Richard.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
In a message dated 6/15/06 11:09:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
Only problem I have with it is that Thomas the elder was already doing
well in June 1328 which would make him a little on the old side by the
time Thomas the younger came along.
Drat you bugger wanting another generation.
If we must have one, I vote for the intermediate father being called either
John or William
Will Johnson
And I will vote for a Richard.
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
We had already known that Sandhurst was mentioned in connection with the
Finch [Fynch] family "Vincent Finch of Sandhurst" named as such in A2A document
SAS-CO/1/15 16 Aug 1478
The Finch family is also involved with the Cralle family "Miscellanea
Genealogica et Heraldica Vo l page 332 it gives Margery Cralle as marrying Cheney and
her sister Margaret Cralle married James Northwood (Northwode) and sister
Isabelle married Vincent Herbert Finch" (posting by charlotte smith to GEN-MED
2/27/06)
I now present evidence that the connection was possibly through the
Brenchley's
Procat
Item details: C 1/13/148 : quick reference
Robert, son of John Brenchesle. v. John Wattys and John Bechyng, feoffees.:
Lands, &c. in Benenden, Rolvenden, Sandhurst, and Cranbrook (Cranebroke), &c.:
Kent.
1386-1486
Will Johnson
Finch [Fynch] family "Vincent Finch of Sandhurst" named as such in A2A document
SAS-CO/1/15 16 Aug 1478
The Finch family is also involved with the Cralle family "Miscellanea
Genealogica et Heraldica Vo l page 332 it gives Margery Cralle as marrying Cheney and
her sister Margaret Cralle married James Northwood (Northwode) and sister
Isabelle married Vincent Herbert Finch" (posting by charlotte smith to GEN-MED
2/27/06)
I now present evidence that the connection was possibly through the
Brenchley's
Procat
Item details: C 1/13/148 : quick reference
Robert, son of John Brenchesle. v. John Wattys and John Bechyng, feoffees.:
Lands, &c. in Benenden, Rolvenden, Sandhurst, and Cranbrook (Cranebroke), &c.:
Kent.
1386-1486
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
Good post Will, much appreciated.
As you recall, in the will of Joan Brenchsley, which Matt Tompkins graciously
transcribed in a private email 6/7/06 she mentions, among other things:
"...It'm I will my feoffees of my manoir of Tatlyngbury Derynges and of al my other
landes and / tenementes in the shire of Kent of the which thei ben seised to
myne use except ij tenementes called lynderygge and cowesherst lond with /
their appurtenances in lamberhurst that thei sell them and the money therof to
delyvere to myne executores thei to dispose it for the soules aforesaid in almes
dedes as in chirches foule weyes poor men and women and I other good dedes of
charite after their discretion and I will as to my land in Brenchesle / that
sir Johanes Knyell be preferred to the sale therof gevyn as mocher therfor as
any other man wold and as to the ij tenementes afore except I will my /
feoffees make astate therof to William Thomas and to his heirs foreuer praiyng for
the soules and aforesaid"
Why she is "making astate" for William Thomas is unclear, but then see her
testament where again the Thomas family figures "... To James Thomas 10 marcs,
Edmund Thomas 10 marcs. ...."
Now further direct your eyeballs to this newly discovered document
Procat
Item details: C 1/110/94
Roger, one of the sons and heirs of William Thomas. v. Edmund Thomas, brother
of complainant.: Tenements in Lamberhurst bequeathed to the said William by
Jane, late the wife of William Brenchesle, knight.: Kent.
1486-1529
Will Johnson
As you recall, in the will of Joan Brenchsley, which Matt Tompkins graciously
transcribed in a private email 6/7/06 she mentions, among other things:
"...It'm I will my feoffees of my manoir of Tatlyngbury Derynges and of al my other
landes and / tenementes in the shire of Kent of the which thei ben seised to
myne use except ij tenementes called lynderygge and cowesherst lond with /
their appurtenances in lamberhurst that thei sell them and the money therof to
delyvere to myne executores thei to dispose it for the soules aforesaid in almes
dedes as in chirches foule weyes poor men and women and I other good dedes of
charite after their discretion and I will as to my land in Brenchesle / that
sir Johanes Knyell be preferred to the sale therof gevyn as mocher therfor as
any other man wold and as to the ij tenementes afore except I will my /
feoffees make astate therof to William Thomas and to his heirs foreuer praiyng for
the soules and aforesaid"
Why she is "making astate" for William Thomas is unclear, but then see her
testament where again the Thomas family figures "... To James Thomas 10 marcs,
Edmund Thomas 10 marcs. ...."
Now further direct your eyeballs to this newly discovered document
Procat
Item details: C 1/110/94
Roger, one of the sons and heirs of William Thomas. v. Edmund Thomas, brother
of complainant.: Tenements in Lamberhurst bequeathed to the said William by
Jane, late the wife of William Brenchesle, knight.: Kent.
1486-1529
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
In a message dated 6/15/06 11:09:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< Only problem I have with it is that Thomas the elder was already doing
well in June 1328 which would make him a little on the old side by the
time Thomas the younger came along. >>
Drat you bugger wanting another generation.
If we must have one, I vote for the intermediate father being called either
John or William
Will Johnson
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< Only problem I have with it is that Thomas the elder was already doing
well in June 1328 which would make him a little on the old side by the
time Thomas the younger came along. >>
Drat you bugger wanting another generation.
If we must have one, I vote for the intermediate father being called either
John or William
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Rykhill, Justice of Assize in 1393
I had not previously seen William given a title/office. Here he is, with one
Procat
Item details: SC 8/187/9317
Other people mentioned: Richard II, King of England; William Rikhill, justice
of assize; William Brenchesle (Brenchesley), justice of assize; John Adam;
John de Scarle. Nature of request: Writ of Richard II, dated at Westminster on
26 June 1393, to Rikhill and Brenchesley, justices of assize in Devon, ordering
them to inquire into the matters contained in the petition from Adam enclosed
with this writ.
1393
Procat
Item details: SC 8/187/9317
Other people mentioned: Richard II, King of England; William Rikhill, justice
of assize; William Brenchesle (Brenchesley), justice of assize; John Adam;
John de Scarle. Nature of request: Writ of Richard II, dated at Westminster on
26 June 1393, to Rikhill and Brenchesley, justices of assize in Devon, ordering
them to inquire into the matters contained in the petition from Adam enclosed
with this writ.
1393
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Hudleston
WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:
Thanks, Will. Good question. Had Richard de Kirkby been a husband of
an likely heiress of Alan Pennington, I would expect his wife to also
be named in the remainder, or (if she were dead) for the remainder to
name her issue, rather than her widower.
In any case, I read the extracted document to indicate that Richard de
Kirkby and Richard Hudleston were heirs apparent of Alan Pennington at
the time he reached his majority - i.e. that they stood in an equal
position to one another vis-a-vis Alan, on the basis that the remainder
is to both of them, not to one and then the next in succession [I could
be mistaken in this reading, however].
We know Hudleston's relationship to Alan: he was the grandson and heir
of Alan's paternal great-aunt Maud (i.e. Hudleston was in the frame
because of a Pennington descent). Kirkby therefore must have had a
similar relationship: he must have stood there by virtue of a
Pennington descent, not a Hudleston descent, and he cannot have had a
combined Hudleston/Pennington descent like Richard Hudleston did,
because if he was the son of a daughter of Maud Hudleston nee
Pennington (i.e. of Alice Threlkeld or a putatuve second daughter) then
he would not have stood in the same position as the son of a son of
Maud, because of the preference given in heirship to a son over a
daughter - whereas coheirs (two great aunts) would have equal footing.
Does this make sense?
Cheers, Michael
In a message dated 6/15/06 12:54:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
It would appear that Sir Richard de Kirkeby was a descendant of one of
William Pennington's aunts, while Richard Hudleston was the son of Sir
John Hudleston the younger, the son and heir of Sir John Hudleston by
Maud Pennington; Maud was the sister of William Pennington's father,
John (d c1332).
Maybe Richard was a second husband for Alice (Huddleston) Threlkeld ? Or
maybe there was another sister ?
Thanks, Will. Good question. Had Richard de Kirkby been a husband of
an likely heiress of Alan Pennington, I would expect his wife to also
be named in the remainder, or (if she were dead) for the remainder to
name her issue, rather than her widower.
In any case, I read the extracted document to indicate that Richard de
Kirkby and Richard Hudleston were heirs apparent of Alan Pennington at
the time he reached his majority - i.e. that they stood in an equal
position to one another vis-a-vis Alan, on the basis that the remainder
is to both of them, not to one and then the next in succession [I could
be mistaken in this reading, however].
We know Hudleston's relationship to Alan: he was the grandson and heir
of Alan's paternal great-aunt Maud (i.e. Hudleston was in the frame
because of a Pennington descent). Kirkby therefore must have had a
similar relationship: he must have stood there by virtue of a
Pennington descent, not a Hudleston descent, and he cannot have had a
combined Hudleston/Pennington descent like Richard Hudleston did,
because if he was the son of a daughter of Maud Hudleston nee
Pennington (i.e. of Alice Threlkeld or a putatuve second daughter) then
he would not have stood in the same position as the son of a son of
Maud, because of the preference given in heirship to a son over a
daughter - whereas coheirs (two great aunts) would have equal footing.
Does this make sense?
Cheers, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Ther...@aol.com schrieb:
John
Many thanks - I had noted from an archives search that the
Cromwellbotham Lacys were likely to fit in with some of your research -
I would be very interested to see your further material. I must try to
get hold of a copy of Foster's work on the Penningtons, in case I am
re-inventing the wheel.
Best wishes, Michael
Thanks for those posts re: the Penningtons, and Lacys of
Cromwellbotham. It would appear that the Pennington link has
a firm basis (while retaining assorted caveats re: the
pedigree from the link you provided), as I show the following
ties to Bridtwisel involving Henry de Lacy, son of John de
Lacy and Margaret de Eland (elder per the pedigree, younger
by my rendering):
1. Release dated 1328:
' Release: Walter s. of Nich. de Tours to Hen. de Lascy s. of
John de Lascy of Crumwelbothem & Beatrice dau. of John de
Calverley; an annual rent of lands & tenements in Bruddestwisel
& Dunnokshagh in Blaburnschir, Castelton, Ypotland, Hunresfeld
& Butterwrth in Rachedale (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record
Office: Towneley of Towneley , DDTO K 24/32
2. Grant dated 1361:
' Demise: Joan, formerly the wife of Hen. de Lascy of
Crumwelbothem, for my life, to Gilbert del Legh; all my lands
& tenements in Bridesthuesel which I have in the name of
dower ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office: Towneley of
Towneley , DDTO O 12/73
These records appear to work better with the pedigree
presentation (i.e., with Henry being eldest son of John and
Margaret), including the reflection of two wives (Beatrice,
then Joan as widow).
I will post my current version of Lacy of Cromwellbotham
for your review in short order. This does not go too far
beyond the medieval range, but does indicate a need for
correction (either of my records, the on-line pedigree, or
possibly both).
John
Many thanks - I had noted from an archives search that the
Cromwellbotham Lacys were likely to fit in with some of your research -
I would be very interested to see your further material. I must try to
get hold of a copy of Foster's work on the Penningtons, in case I am
re-inventing the wheel.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: A find on John Brenchley (the younger)
WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:
Or he may be a third person of the same name; is there some reason to
identify the London goldsmith of 1352 with the Kentish man? If the
Canterbury probate record from 1397 relates to a local diocesan Probate
court (eg Archdeacon's) then it would suggest that the
testator/deceased did not have property in London.
The only PCC will I can find from the period for a Brenchley is:
William Brynchele or Brinchele of St Michael, Crooked Lane, London:
will proved June 1402 (Prob 11/2A, Marche 1-29)
MA-R
This is a good find much appreciated.
As to his identity, it's confusing to call him "John Brenchley the younger"
because he's not so identified. If you notice the date of the document (1352)
he cannot be the John Brenchley the younger who is named in the Patent Rolls
in 1434.
He must instead be the John Brenchley sen of Bendenden with a Will/admin at
Canterbury in 1397.
Or he may be a third person of the same name; is there some reason to
identify the London goldsmith of 1352 with the Kentish man? If the
Canterbury probate record from 1397 relates to a local diocesan Probate
court (eg Archdeacon's) then it would suggest that the
testator/deceased did not have property in London.
The only PCC will I can find from the period for a Brenchley is:
William Brynchele or Brinchele of St Michael, Crooked Lane, London:
will proved June 1402 (Prob 11/2A, Marche 1-29)
MA-R
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: A find on John Brenchley (the younger)
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:49:06 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
So that would give us both John's with a wife of Margaret and the
younger having a daughter of Margaret.
There are times you know, when I wish I'd been born a Smith
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
This is a good find much appreciated.
As to his identity, it's confusing to call him "John Brenchley the younger"
because he's not so identified. If you notice the date of the document (1352)
he cannot be the John Brenchley the younger who is named in the Patent Rolls
in 1434.
He must instead be the John Brenchley sen of Bendenden with a Will/admin at
Canterbury in 1397.
Will Johnson
So that would give us both John's with a wife of Margaret and the
younger having a daughter of Margaret.
There are times you know, when I wish I'd been born a Smith
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Hudleston
In a message dated 6/15/06 12:54:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< It would appear that Sir Richard de Kirkeby was a descendant of one of
William Pennington's aunts, while Richard Hudleston was the son of Sir
John Hudleston the younger, the son and heir of Sir John Hudleston by
Maud Pennington; Maud was the sister of William Pennington's father,
John (d c1332). >>
Maybe Richard was a second husband for Alice (Huddleston) Threlkeld ? Or
maybe there was another sister ?
Will
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< It would appear that Sir Richard de Kirkeby was a descendant of one of
William Pennington's aunts, while Richard Hudleston was the son of Sir
John Hudleston the younger, the son and heir of Sir John Hudleston by
Maud Pennington; Maud was the sister of William Pennington's father,
John (d c1332). >>
Maybe Richard was a second husband for Alice (Huddleston) Threlkeld ? Or
maybe there was another sister ?
Will
-
Gjest
Re: A find on John Brenchley (the younger)
This is a good find much appreciated.
As to his identity, it's confusing to call him "John Brenchley the younger"
because he's not so identified. If you notice the date of the document (1352)
he cannot be the John Brenchley the younger who is named in the Patent Rolls
in 1434.
He must instead be the John Brenchley sen of Bendenden with a Will/admin at
Canterbury in 1397.
Will Johnson
As to his identity, it's confusing to call him "John Brenchley the younger"
because he's not so identified. If you notice the date of the document (1352)
he cannot be the John Brenchley the younger who is named in the Patent Rolls
in 1434.
He must instead be the John Brenchley sen of Bendenden with a Will/admin at
Canterbury in 1397.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
re: Pennington and Lacy
Thursday, 15 June, 2006
Dear 'MA-R',
Thanks for those posts re: the Penningtons, and Lacys of
Cromwellbotham. It would appear that the Pennington link has
a firm basis (while retaining assorted caveats re: the
pedigree from the link you provided), as I show the following
ties to Bridtwisel involving Henry de Lacy, son of John de
Lacy and Margaret de Eland (elder per the pedigree, younger
by my rendering):
1. Release dated 1328:
' Release: Walter s. of Nich. de Tours to Hen. de Lascy s. of
John de Lascy of Crumwelbothem & Beatrice dau. of John de
Calverley; an annual rent of lands & tenements in Bruddestwisel
& Dunnokshagh in Blaburnschir, Castelton, Ypotland, Hunresfeld
& Butterwrth in Rachedale (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record
Office: Towneley of Towneley , DDTO K 24/32
2. Grant dated 1361:
' Demise: Joan, formerly the wife of Hen. de Lascy of
Crumwelbothem, for my life, to Gilbert del Legh; all my lands
& tenements in Bridesthuesel which I have in the name of
dower ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office: Towneley of
Towneley , DDTO O 12/73
These records appear to work better with the pedigree
presentation (i.e., with Henry being eldest son of John and
Margaret), including the reflection of two wives (Beatrice,
then Joan as widow).
I will post my current version of Lacy of Cromwellbotham
for your review in short order. This does not go too far
beyond the medieval range, but does indicate a need for
correction (either of my records, the on-line pedigree, or
possibly both).
Cheers,
John
Dear 'MA-R',
Thanks for those posts re: the Penningtons, and Lacys of
Cromwellbotham. It would appear that the Pennington link has
a firm basis (while retaining assorted caveats re: the
pedigree from the link you provided), as I show the following
ties to Bridtwisel involving Henry de Lacy, son of John de
Lacy and Margaret de Eland (elder per the pedigree, younger
by my rendering):
1. Release dated 1328:
' Release: Walter s. of Nich. de Tours to Hen. de Lascy s. of
John de Lascy of Crumwelbothem & Beatrice dau. of John de
Calverley; an annual rent of lands & tenements in Bruddestwisel
& Dunnokshagh in Blaburnschir, Castelton, Ypotland, Hunresfeld
& Butterwrth in Rachedale (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record
Office: Towneley of Towneley , DDTO K 24/32
2. Grant dated 1361:
' Demise: Joan, formerly the wife of Hen. de Lascy of
Crumwelbothem, for my life, to Gilbert del Legh; all my lands
& tenements in Bridesthuesel which I have in the name of
dower ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office: Towneley of
Towneley , DDTO O 12/73
These records appear to work better with the pedigree
presentation (i.e., with Henry being eldest son of John and
Margaret), including the reflection of two wives (Beatrice,
then Joan as widow).
I will post my current version of Lacy of Cromwellbotham
for your review in short order. This does not go too far
beyond the medieval range, but does indicate a need for
correction (either of my records, the on-line pedigree, or
possibly both).
Cheers,
John
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: A find on John Brenchley (the younger)
On 15 Jun 2006 14:35:59 -0700, mjcar@btinternet.com enriched this
group when s/he wrote:
Mmmmm. You could be right. Especially as I've just found another:-
'Roll A 24: 1380-81', Calendar of the plea and memoranda rolls of the
city of London: volume 2: 1364-1381 (1929), pp. 275-302. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... =Brynchele.
Date accessed: 15 June 2006.
Membr. 13
Mainprise of divers men, taken on suspicion of being connected with
the insurrection of the men of Kent and Essex, before Sir W.
Waleworth, Mayor, and his fellows, Justices of the King by commission:
19 June 1381
19 June Ao 4 Ric. II [1381] came Henry Aleyn, Thomas Wircestre, baker,
John Adam, tailor, and Richard Evesham and mainprised Walter West,
smith, body for body that he would be faithful to the King and
obedient to the officers of the King and the City, that he would keep
the King's peace well and faithfully, and that he would neither make
nor cause to be made any illegal covins or congregations, but would
hinder such, if he knew of them, and if he could not prevent them he
would inform the officers of the City of such as took place in the
City, and the King's officers if they arose outside, under penalty of
£100 payable to the King if he should be convicted of any breach of
the above, which sum both he and his mainpernors severally agreed to
pay, if etc. And further, the same Walter was sworn to fulfil the
above conditions and to save his mainpernors harmless.
Membr. 13b
Similarly mainprised between 19 June and 23 July: Nicholas Leonard,
Andrew Colyn, smith, Richard Upton, John Munden, David Powys,
trauelyngman, Richard Clerk of Berkyng, William Aleyn, Richard Mustel,
Stephen Woderove, Simon Patrik, webbe, William Peek, tailor, Hugh
Blankpayn of co. Essex, Ralph atte Swych, William Wheler of
Maydenhithe, John Brynchesle of Suthwerk, Thomas Lyddale, Walter
Gardiner, dwelling in Chauncelereslane, John Trigg, fuller, William
Plomer, fuller, William, Knyght, William Kyng, greytawyere, Henry
Waleys, thressher, Thomas Brymmesgrove, bokelermaker, Nicholas
Marchaunt, John Blakthorne, letherdyere, John Berkele, Robert Maryner,
John Tyby, cook, Thomas Somersete, Nicholas Dyer, dwelling at the
Haywharf, John Longevyll, Richard Pakke, smith, Bernard Chandrell of
Rochele, Henry Pountfreyt, skinner.
23 July. Henry Aleyn, smith, Stephen Lalleford, William Whelere and
John Brynchele, smith, mainprised Richard Pakke, smith, to have him
before the King's Justices at Newgate at the next Gaol Delivery.
I think I'm going to bed before I find anymore
--
Bob.
group when s/he wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:
This is a good find much appreciated.
As to his identity, it's confusing to call him "John Brenchley the younger"
because he's not so identified. If you notice the date of the document (1352)
he cannot be the John Brenchley the younger who is named in the Patent Rolls
in 1434.
He must instead be the John Brenchley sen of Bendenden with a Will/admin at
Canterbury in 1397.
Or he may be a third person of the same name; is there some reason to
identify the London goldsmith of 1352 with the Kentish man? If the
Canterbury probate record from 1397 relates to a local diocesan Probate
court (eg Archdeacon's) then it would suggest that the
testator/deceased did not have property in London.
The only PCC will I can find from the period for a Brenchley is:
William Brynchele or Brinchele of St Michael, Crooked Lane, London:
will proved June 1402 (Prob 11/2A, Marche 1-29)
MA-R
Mmmmm. You could be right. Especially as I've just found another:-
'Roll A 24: 1380-81', Calendar of the plea and memoranda rolls of the
city of London: volume 2: 1364-1381 (1929), pp. 275-302. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... =Brynchele.
Date accessed: 15 June 2006.
Membr. 13
Mainprise of divers men, taken on suspicion of being connected with
the insurrection of the men of Kent and Essex, before Sir W.
Waleworth, Mayor, and his fellows, Justices of the King by commission:
19 June 1381
19 June Ao 4 Ric. II [1381] came Henry Aleyn, Thomas Wircestre, baker,
John Adam, tailor, and Richard Evesham and mainprised Walter West,
smith, body for body that he would be faithful to the King and
obedient to the officers of the King and the City, that he would keep
the King's peace well and faithfully, and that he would neither make
nor cause to be made any illegal covins or congregations, but would
hinder such, if he knew of them, and if he could not prevent them he
would inform the officers of the City of such as took place in the
City, and the King's officers if they arose outside, under penalty of
£100 payable to the King if he should be convicted of any breach of
the above, which sum both he and his mainpernors severally agreed to
pay, if etc. And further, the same Walter was sworn to fulfil the
above conditions and to save his mainpernors harmless.
Membr. 13b
Similarly mainprised between 19 June and 23 July: Nicholas Leonard,
Andrew Colyn, smith, Richard Upton, John Munden, David Powys,
trauelyngman, Richard Clerk of Berkyng, William Aleyn, Richard Mustel,
Stephen Woderove, Simon Patrik, webbe, William Peek, tailor, Hugh
Blankpayn of co. Essex, Ralph atte Swych, William Wheler of
Maydenhithe, John Brynchesle of Suthwerk, Thomas Lyddale, Walter
Gardiner, dwelling in Chauncelereslane, John Trigg, fuller, William
Plomer, fuller, William, Knyght, William Kyng, greytawyere, Henry
Waleys, thressher, Thomas Brymmesgrove, bokelermaker, Nicholas
Marchaunt, John Blakthorne, letherdyere, John Berkele, Robert Maryner,
John Tyby, cook, Thomas Somersete, Nicholas Dyer, dwelling at the
Haywharf, John Longevyll, Richard Pakke, smith, Bernard Chandrell of
Rochele, Henry Pountfreyt, skinner.
23 July. Henry Aleyn, smith, Stephen Lalleford, William Whelere and
John Brynchele, smith, mainprised Richard Pakke, smith, to have him
before the King's Justices at Newgate at the next Gaol Delivery.
I think I'm going to bed before I find anymore
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
re: Pennington and Lacy
Dear Michael, et al.,
Following is the pedigree of Lacy of Cromwellbotham, such as I now
show it. I have moved Henry de Lacy to the 'first' spot as elder son,
per my earlier post.
Your comments and criticism (re: this and the online pedigree)
will be most welcome.
Cheers,
John
1 John de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1292[1]
Father: [alleged] Hugh de Lacy
' John de Lasci ', witness to a Grant, dated [13th cent.]:
' By Roger, son of Roger de Tornet, to Richard, son of Richard de
Fekisbi, of land in Staylande at an annual fee farm rent of 10d.
Witnesses John de Elande, Thomas de Morlande, John de Lasci
and others (named). Joperkick and Bradleygate are mentioned. '
[Publication Note: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds
Vol iii no 391] - A2A, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire
Archaeological Society: Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection,
Ancient Deeds [DD12/II/1-2/(m) Parcel 1], DD12/II/1/18(b)[2]
Spouse: Alicia de Pennington
Father: Alan de Pennington
Children: John (->1304)
1.1 John de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 23 May 1304[1]
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
yeoman of Hugh Eland, 1296, on service in Scotland
' John de Lacy de Cromwelbothom', witness (together with his
father-in-law Hugh de Eland) to a deed dated ca. 1298:
' of Henry son of Richard de Hiperum, lord of Hiperum, to Thomas de
Tothill, of certain rents there, from tenants named in another deed dated
1298, the witnesses named are Hugh de Eland, Sir John de Heaton knight,
John de Lacy de Cromwelbothom, John de Stansfeld, Henry de
Rishworth and John del Rode. ' [Stansfield p. 107[3]]
defended his rights in Todmerdene and Hunredfeld under inquiry,
23 May 1304[1]
had grant of lands in Brudtwisel, co. Lancs.:
' Conf: Alan de Penyngton, s. & h. of the late Tho. de Penyngton to
Jo. de Lascy of Crumbewelbothum; land in Bridtwisel demised to Peter
de Cestr' for his life (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office:
Towneley of Towneley , DDTO K 1/18[2]
Spouse: Margaret de Eland[4]
Father: Sir Hugh de Eland (->1324)
Mother: Johanna de Tankersley (->1328)
Marr: ca 1293[5]
Children: Henry (-<1361)
Thomas (~1301-<1353)
Margaret
1.1.1 Henry de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1361[2]
of Bridtwisel, co. Lancs.
Release dated 1328:
' Release: Walter s. of Nich. de Tours to Hen. de Lascy s. of John
de Lascy of Crumwelbothem & Beatrice dau. of John de Calverley; an
annual rent of lands & tenements in Bruddestwisel & Dunnokshagh in
Blaburnschir, Castelton, Ypotland, Hunresfeld & Butterwrth in
Rachedale (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office: Towneley
of Towneley , DDTO K 24/32[2]
grant dated 1361:
' Demise: Joan, formerly the wife of Hen. de Lascy of Crumwelbothem,
for my life, to Gilbert del Legh; all my lands & tenements in
Bridesthuesel which I have in the name of dower ' - A2A, Lancashire
Record Office: Towneley of Towneley , DDTO O 12/73[2]
Spouse: Joan
1.1.2 Thomas de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Birth: abt 1301[1]
Death: bef 1353[3],[1]
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
godfather of Mauger le Vavasour, then in his custody 1346 [1]
Spouse: Margaret[1]
Children: John (-ca1397)
Richard (-~1424)
1.1.2.1 John de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1397
of Cromwellbotham, co. Yorks.
' In a deed dated 1353, whereby John son of Thomas de Lascy, gives to
John de Bollyng, Elias de Burton and John de Crossland, chaplain, his
manor of Cromwelbothom, occur as witnesses, Sir Brian de Thornhill,
Sir Henry de Sothill, knights, William de Mirfield, John Sayvell de
Eland, Robert de Bollyng, William de Leventhorp, William de Stansfeld,
and Hugh de Coppelay. ' [Stansfield, p. 118[3]]
witness to a deed dated 1363:
' John Savile of Eland, Henry Savile, John de Lacy, William de Stansfeld
and Thomas Culpon, witnessed the deed whereby Hugh Talvas gave to
Richard [de Heton] vicar of Halifax, the manor of Copley in 1363. '
[Stansfield, p. 118[3]]
1.1.2.2 Richard Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: abt 1424[1]
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
seised of the manor of Cromwellbotham as heir of brother John Lacy, per
inquisition p.m. Pontefract, 4 Mar 1397/98
granted land in Southowram to Oliver Woodrove, 20 Jul 1416[1]
Children: John
1.1.2.2.1 John Lacy[1]
----------------------------------------
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
witness to deeds in Rastrick and Fixby, 1421 - 1448; released land in
Southowram, 1457; executor of will of Richard Peck of Southowram,
3 Mar 1439 [1]
Janet Lacy, wife of Nicholas identified as 'daughter of John Lacy,
Esq. of Cromwellbotham'[6]
Spouse: Emmota[1]
Children: John (~1395-<1474)
Janet (->1474)
1.1.2.2.1.1 John Lacy
----------------------------------------
Birth: abt 1395[1]
Death: bef 7 Jun 1474[1],[7]
Occ: lord of Cromwellbotham
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
received certain rights for life of Joan Thornhill, widow in Fixby,
16 Jan 1443/44
'John Lacy of Cromwelbothum', will dated 5 April 1474, proved 7 June
1474 [Halifax Wills I:18-19[7]]
Spouse: [alleged] Florence Molyneux[1]
Children: William (-<1474)
Richard
Gilbert (-<1492)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1 William Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 6 May 1474, d.v.p.[7]
heir presumptive of his father, d.v.p.[7]
Children: Thomas
Edward (->1487)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Thomas Lacy
----------------------------------------
of Cromwellbotham, co. York[7]
heir of grandfather John Lacy, per inq.p.m. 6 May 1474[7]
Bond dated 27 September 1487:
' By Thomas Lacy of Cromwelbothom, co. York, esquire, to Thomas
Stapilton, esquire, in £100.
Condition - If Thomas Lacy and all others interested obey the
judgement of Thomas, archbishop of York, who is arbitrating between
him and Thomas Stapilton concerning the manor of Whermby and other
lands etc. there and elsewhere in the parish of Huddresfeld, late
of William de Wermby, the bond shall be void. ' -A2A, West
Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire Archaeological Society:
Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/1/4[2]
The award of Thomas, archbishop of York, dated 2 Oct 1487:
' In the dispute between Thomas Stapylton, esquire, and Thomas Lacy
of Cromwelbothom, esquire, concerning the ownership of the manor of
Whernby and lands etc. in Lynley Wodhose Scamanden and Staneland.
Thomas Lacy has no right in the premises and shall execute a deed
of release to Stapilton and shall cause his brother Edward Lacy,
priest, to do the like. '
-A2A, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire Archaeological
Society: Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/1/6[2]
Children: Cecily
John (->1530)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Cecily Lacy
----------------------------------------
identified in pedigree of Savile[7]
re: her husband:
of Welburn, North Riding, co. York[6]
Gent., of Blaithroid [Blaidroid], in Southowram in his will[8]
Spouse: Thomas Savile
Death: bef 20 May 1531[8]
Father: Nicholas Savile (-<1527)
Mother: Margery Wilkinson
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 John Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 15 Feb 1530[8]
of Cromwellbotham, co. Yorks.
witness of will of brother-in-law Thomas Savile, dated 15 Feb 1530/31[8]
[then styled, 'Maister John Lacye, of Cromwellbotham']
Children: Richard
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Richard Lacy
----------------------------------------
of Cromwellbotham, co. Yorks.
Children: John (-1582)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 John Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: 1582, d.v.p.[9]
of Leventhorpe
heir of his father
' Reference: DD12/II/22/11
Creation dates: 1582-1588
Scope and Content
Deeds transferring the mills from John Lacy of Leventhorpe, son and
heir apparent of Richard Lacy of Cromwellbotham, to John Lacy of
Brearley.
will of John Lacy of Leventhorpe, 1582 [Turner p. 227[9]]
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(a)
Grant
Creation dates: 21 March 1588
Scope and Content
Of three parts in performance of a covenant.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(b)
Copy of court roll
Creation dates: 24 August 1582
Scope and Content
Witnessing the entailing of the fulling mill and fourth part of
corn mill on John Lacy, son of Richard Lacy, and his heirs male.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(c)
Copy of court roll
Creation dates: 1 September 1587
Scope and Content
Witnessing to the transfer of the fulling mill and fourth part
of the corn mill from John Lacy (son of Richard) and Helena,
his wife (the latter being separately.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(d)
Bond
Creation dates: 22 July 1587
Scope and Content
Of John Lacy (son of Richard) in 250l. to perform his covenants.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(e)
Two parts of a final concord
Creation dates: 1588
Scope and Content
Between John Lacy and Helena, his wife, deforciants, and John
Lacy of Brearley, querent, concerning three parts of the water
mill etc.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/12
Grant
Creation dates: 17 April 1590
Scope and Content
By John Lacy of Breerleye to Marmaduke Eland, son and heir of
Robert Eland, of an annuity of 5l. from the mills in accordance
with an agreement made 18 January 18 Elizabeth between the said
Marmaduke and John Lacy of Leventhorpe, predecessor in title to
the said John Lacy of Breereleye.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v
no. 38 ' - A2A, Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Clarke
Thornhill of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/22/12[2]
1.1.2.2.1.1.2 Richard Lacy[7]
----------------------------------------
prob. second son
beneficiary of the will of Katherine Montford of Doncaster,
2 Jan 1498/99 (Surtees Soc. Vol LIII, pp. 154-155)[8]
Children: John
1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1 John Lacy[7]
----------------------------------------
possibly beneficiary in will of Katherine Montford, 2 Jan 1498/99[8]
' To John Lacy, son of Richard Lacy, xl.s.' - will of grandfather
John Lacy [Halifax Wills I:18[7]]
1.1.2.2.1.1.3 Gilbert Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 6 Oct 1492[7]
Occ: lord of Brearley Hall
of Brearley Hall, co. York de jure uxoris
prob. third son.
received grants of tenancy in Southowram, Northowram and Hipperholme
from Thomas Nelson, mercer of York and his son Thomas, 1475/76,
1481, 1484/85 [Halifax Wills, Vol II, will of Christofer Lacy,
p. 211n[7] ][1]
beneficiary under and coexecutor of the will of his father John
Lacy, will dated 5 April 1474 and proven 7 June 1474 [Halifax
Wills I: 18-19[7] ]:
'To Gilbert Lacy, his wife sons and daughters, v marcs to be
equally divided amongst them.......
'Residue to Richard Lacy and Gilbert Lacy my sons, Persevell
Amyas and John Rysshworth aforesaid, whom I appoint executors,....'[7]
lord of Brearley Hall, co. York de jure uxoris
identified as 'Gilbert Lacy of Brierly, co. York' in pedigree
of Southill of Redbourn[10]
'Gilbert Lacy parishioner of Halifax', will dated 28 June 1492,
proved 6 Oct 1492, naming wife Johanna and son Arthur executors
[Halifax Wills I:26[7]]
re: his wife:
heiress of Brearley Hall [5]
named as 'Jane', wife of Gilbert Lacy in pedigree of Southill of
Redbourn[10]
unnamed wife of Gilbert Lacy, living at date of will of John Lacy
of Cromwellbotham, 5 April 1474[7]
'Johanna my wife', will of husband Gilbert Lacy dated 28 June 1492,
proved 6 Oct 1492 (names wife Johanna and son Arthur executors)
[Halifax Wills I:26[7]]
Spouse: Johanna Soothill
Death: aft 28 Jun 1492[7]
Father: Sir Gerard Soothill of Redbourne, co. Lincs. (1398-ca1464)
Mother: Elizabeth Fulnetby
Children: Gerard Lacy, Esq., of Brearley Hall (-<1534)
Joan (->1474)
Edward
Christopher (-<1518)
Agnes (->1518)
Arthur
1.1.2.2.1.2 Janet Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 5 Apr 1474[7]
'Jenet, daughter of John Lacy, Esq. of Cromwellbotham' in pedigree
of Savile[6]
'To Nicholas Savyll and his wife sons and daughters Xli to be equally
among them' - will of brother John Lacy, 5 April 1474 [Halifax
Wills I;18[7]]
Spouse: Nicholas Savile, of Banke in Southowram
Death: aft 5 Apr 1474[7]
Father: Henry Savile of Copley (->1437)
Mother: Eleanor Copley
Children: John
Janet
Elizabeth
Ellen
Alice
Agnes
Thomas
1.1.3 Margaret de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Thomas de Thornhill
Father: Sir John de Thornhill (-<1322)
Mother: Beatrice Talboner (->1334)
Marr: bef 12 May 1325[11]
Children: Richard (-<1406)
1. "Some Early Lacys," E. Lacey, Rootsweb World Connect Project
(www. rootsweb.com), extracted 23 Aug 2000,
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~elacey/delacy_wbg/
2. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
3. John Stansfield, "History of the Family of Stansfeld of Stansfield
in the Parish of Halifax," Leeds: Goodall and Suddick, 1885.
4. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower, Esquire,
Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell and Hughes,
Printers, London, 1881, pp. 154-156: pedigree of Hastings of Elsing
('Hastynges..' of Fenwick, co. Yorks.), 'The Visitation of Yorkshire
in the Years 1563 and 1564'.
5. Alvahn Holmes, "The Farrar's Island Family and its English Ancestry,"
Baltimore: Gateway Press, Inc., 1972, reprinted 1986, cites Rev. C.
V. Collier, 'Documents at "Burton Agnes" ', East Riding Society,
vols. 18-19 (1911-1912), providing abstracts of 6 deeds relating
to Kelke and identifying members of the Kelke family.
6. "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire," compiled by Joseph
Foster, London: W. Wilfred Head, 1874 (2 Vols.).
7. J. W. Clay, F.S.A., and E. W. Crossley, editors, "Halifax Wills,"
(privately printed for the editor), Vol. I (1389 to 1544); Vol II
(1545-1559).
8. "Testamenta Eboracensia [Selection of Wills, Reg. at York]," The
Surtees Society, Andrews & Co., Durham (J. B. Nichols & Sons,
London), Vol. IV, Pt. I: 1869, IV:50-52, will of Isabella Deincourt
(wife of Sir William fitz William) d. 1348, IV:97-99, will of
Marmaduke Constable (d. 1378), see pp. 100-101 for will of Sir
Martin de la See, IV:418-419, will of Isabella Salvayn.
9. J. Horsfall Turner, "The History of Brighouse, Rastrick, and
Hipperholme," Bingley, Yorkshire: Thomas Harrison and Sons, 1893,
.pdf image files provided by Ancestry.com http://www.ancestry.com.
10. "The Visitation of Lincolnshire," Harleian Society, Harleian Series,
Vols. 50-52 (Lincolnshire, Vols. I-III), II:555-557, Kelke of
Barnetby, III: 884-886, Skerne of Bonby and Waltham.
11. William Brown, F.S.A., ed., "Yorkshire Deeds, Vol. III," The
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, 1922, Record
series vol. LXIII - for the year 1922.
Following is the pedigree of Lacy of Cromwellbotham, such as I now
show it. I have moved Henry de Lacy to the 'first' spot as elder son,
per my earlier post.
Your comments and criticism (re: this and the online pedigree)
will be most welcome.
Cheers,
John
1 John de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1292[1]
Father: [alleged] Hugh de Lacy
' John de Lasci ', witness to a Grant, dated [13th cent.]:
' By Roger, son of Roger de Tornet, to Richard, son of Richard de
Fekisbi, of land in Staylande at an annual fee farm rent of 10d.
Witnesses John de Elande, Thomas de Morlande, John de Lasci
and others (named). Joperkick and Bradleygate are mentioned. '
[Publication Note: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds
Vol iii no 391] - A2A, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire
Archaeological Society: Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection,
Ancient Deeds [DD12/II/1-2/(m) Parcel 1], DD12/II/1/18(b)[2]
Spouse: Alicia de Pennington
Father: Alan de Pennington
Children: John (->1304)
1.1 John de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 23 May 1304[1]
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
yeoman of Hugh Eland, 1296, on service in Scotland
' John de Lacy de Cromwelbothom', witness (together with his
father-in-law Hugh de Eland) to a deed dated ca. 1298:
' of Henry son of Richard de Hiperum, lord of Hiperum, to Thomas de
Tothill, of certain rents there, from tenants named in another deed dated
1298, the witnesses named are Hugh de Eland, Sir John de Heaton knight,
John de Lacy de Cromwelbothom, John de Stansfeld, Henry de
Rishworth and John del Rode. ' [Stansfield p. 107[3]]
defended his rights in Todmerdene and Hunredfeld under inquiry,
23 May 1304[1]
had grant of lands in Brudtwisel, co. Lancs.:
' Conf: Alan de Penyngton, s. & h. of the late Tho. de Penyngton to
Jo. de Lascy of Crumbewelbothum; land in Bridtwisel demised to Peter
de Cestr' for his life (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office:
Towneley of Towneley , DDTO K 1/18[2]
Spouse: Margaret de Eland[4]
Father: Sir Hugh de Eland (->1324)
Mother: Johanna de Tankersley (->1328)
Marr: ca 1293[5]
Children: Henry (-<1361)
Thomas (~1301-<1353)
Margaret
1.1.1 Henry de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1361[2]
of Bridtwisel, co. Lancs.
Release dated 1328:
' Release: Walter s. of Nich. de Tours to Hen. de Lascy s. of John
de Lascy of Crumwelbothem & Beatrice dau. of John de Calverley; an
annual rent of lands & tenements in Bruddestwisel & Dunnokshagh in
Blaburnschir, Castelton, Ypotland, Hunresfeld & Butterwrth in
Rachedale (Seal) ' - A2A, Lancashire Record Office: Towneley
of Towneley , DDTO K 24/32[2]
grant dated 1361:
' Demise: Joan, formerly the wife of Hen. de Lascy of Crumwelbothem,
for my life, to Gilbert del Legh; all my lands & tenements in
Bridesthuesel which I have in the name of dower ' - A2A, Lancashire
Record Office: Towneley of Towneley , DDTO O 12/73[2]
Spouse: Joan
1.1.2 Thomas de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Birth: abt 1301[1]
Death: bef 1353[3],[1]
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
godfather of Mauger le Vavasour, then in his custody 1346 [1]
Spouse: Margaret[1]
Children: John (-ca1397)
Richard (-~1424)
1.1.2.1 John de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1397
of Cromwellbotham, co. Yorks.
' In a deed dated 1353, whereby John son of Thomas de Lascy, gives to
John de Bollyng, Elias de Burton and John de Crossland, chaplain, his
manor of Cromwelbothom, occur as witnesses, Sir Brian de Thornhill,
Sir Henry de Sothill, knights, William de Mirfield, John Sayvell de
Eland, Robert de Bollyng, William de Leventhorp, William de Stansfeld,
and Hugh de Coppelay. ' [Stansfield, p. 118[3]]
witness to a deed dated 1363:
' John Savile of Eland, Henry Savile, John de Lacy, William de Stansfeld
and Thomas Culpon, witnessed the deed whereby Hugh Talvas gave to
Richard [de Heton] vicar of Halifax, the manor of Copley in 1363. '
[Stansfield, p. 118[3]]
1.1.2.2 Richard Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: abt 1424[1]
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
seised of the manor of Cromwellbotham as heir of brother John Lacy, per
inquisition p.m. Pontefract, 4 Mar 1397/98
granted land in Southowram to Oliver Woodrove, 20 Jul 1416[1]
Children: John
1.1.2.2.1 John Lacy[1]
----------------------------------------
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
witness to deeds in Rastrick and Fixby, 1421 - 1448; released land in
Southowram, 1457; executor of will of Richard Peck of Southowram,
3 Mar 1439 [1]
Janet Lacy, wife of Nicholas identified as 'daughter of John Lacy,
Esq. of Cromwellbotham'[6]
Spouse: Emmota[1]
Children: John (~1395-<1474)
Janet (->1474)
1.1.2.2.1.1 John Lacy
----------------------------------------
Birth: abt 1395[1]
Death: bef 7 Jun 1474[1],[7]
Occ: lord of Cromwellbotham
of Cromwellbotham, co. York
received certain rights for life of Joan Thornhill, widow in Fixby,
16 Jan 1443/44
'John Lacy of Cromwelbothum', will dated 5 April 1474, proved 7 June
1474 [Halifax Wills I:18-19[7]]
Spouse: [alleged] Florence Molyneux[1]
Children: William (-<1474)
Richard
Gilbert (-<1492)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1 William Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 6 May 1474, d.v.p.[7]
heir presumptive of his father, d.v.p.[7]
Children: Thomas
Edward (->1487)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Thomas Lacy
----------------------------------------
of Cromwellbotham, co. York[7]
heir of grandfather John Lacy, per inq.p.m. 6 May 1474[7]
Bond dated 27 September 1487:
' By Thomas Lacy of Cromwelbothom, co. York, esquire, to Thomas
Stapilton, esquire, in £100.
Condition - If Thomas Lacy and all others interested obey the
judgement of Thomas, archbishop of York, who is arbitrating between
him and Thomas Stapilton concerning the manor of Whermby and other
lands etc. there and elsewhere in the parish of Huddresfeld, late
of William de Wermby, the bond shall be void. ' -A2A, West
Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire Archaeological Society:
Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/1/4[2]
The award of Thomas, archbishop of York, dated 2 Oct 1487:
' In the dispute between Thomas Stapylton, esquire, and Thomas Lacy
of Cromwelbothom, esquire, concerning the ownership of the manor of
Whernby and lands etc. in Lynley Wodhose Scamanden and Staneland.
Thomas Lacy has no right in the premises and shall execute a deed
of release to Stapilton and shall cause his brother Edward Lacy,
priest, to do the like. '
-A2A, West Yorkshire Archive Service, Yorkshire Archaeological
Society: Clarke Thornhill of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/1/6[2]
Children: Cecily
John (->1530)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Cecily Lacy
----------------------------------------
identified in pedigree of Savile[7]
re: her husband:
of Welburn, North Riding, co. York[6]
Gent., of Blaithroid [Blaidroid], in Southowram in his will[8]
Spouse: Thomas Savile
Death: bef 20 May 1531[8]
Father: Nicholas Savile (-<1527)
Mother: Margery Wilkinson
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 John Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 15 Feb 1530[8]
of Cromwellbotham, co. Yorks.
witness of will of brother-in-law Thomas Savile, dated 15 Feb 1530/31[8]
[then styled, 'Maister John Lacye, of Cromwellbotham']
Children: Richard
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1 Richard Lacy
----------------------------------------
of Cromwellbotham, co. Yorks.
Children: John (-1582)
1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 John Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: 1582, d.v.p.[9]
of Leventhorpe
heir of his father
' Reference: DD12/II/22/11
Creation dates: 1582-1588
Scope and Content
Deeds transferring the mills from John Lacy of Leventhorpe, son and
heir apparent of Richard Lacy of Cromwellbotham, to John Lacy of
Brearley.
will of John Lacy of Leventhorpe, 1582 [Turner p. 227[9]]
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(a)
Grant
Creation dates: 21 March 1588
Scope and Content
Of three parts in performance of a covenant.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(b)
Copy of court roll
Creation dates: 24 August 1582
Scope and Content
Witnessing the entailing of the fulling mill and fourth part of
corn mill on John Lacy, son of Richard Lacy, and his heirs male.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(c)
Copy of court roll
Creation dates: 1 September 1587
Scope and Content
Witnessing to the transfer of the fulling mill and fourth part
of the corn mill from John Lacy (son of Richard) and Helena,
his wife (the latter being separately.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(d)
Bond
Creation dates: 22 July 1587
Scope and Content
Of John Lacy (son of Richard) in 250l. to perform his covenants.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/11/(e)
Two parts of a final concord
Creation dates: 1588
Scope and Content
Between John Lacy and Helena, his wife, deforciants, and John
Lacy of Brearley, querent, concerning three parts of the water
mill etc.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v no. 36
Reference: DD12/II/22/12
Grant
Creation dates: 17 April 1590
Scope and Content
By John Lacy of Breerleye to Marmaduke Eland, son and heir of
Robert Eland, of an annuity of 5l. from the mills in accordance
with an agreement made 18 January 18 Elizabeth between the said
Marmaduke and John Lacy of Leventhorpe, predecessor in title to
the said John Lacy of Breereleye.
Publication Note
Yorkshire Archaeological Society Yorkshire Deeds Vol. v
no. 38 ' - A2A, Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Clarke
Thornhill of Fixby Collection, DD12/II/22/12[2]
1.1.2.2.1.1.2 Richard Lacy[7]
----------------------------------------
prob. second son
beneficiary of the will of Katherine Montford of Doncaster,
2 Jan 1498/99 (Surtees Soc. Vol LIII, pp. 154-155)[8]
Children: John
1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1 John Lacy[7]
----------------------------------------
possibly beneficiary in will of Katherine Montford, 2 Jan 1498/99[8]
' To John Lacy, son of Richard Lacy, xl.s.' - will of grandfather
John Lacy [Halifax Wills I:18[7]]
1.1.2.2.1.1.3 Gilbert Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 6 Oct 1492[7]
Occ: lord of Brearley Hall
of Brearley Hall, co. York de jure uxoris
prob. third son.
received grants of tenancy in Southowram, Northowram and Hipperholme
from Thomas Nelson, mercer of York and his son Thomas, 1475/76,
1481, 1484/85 [Halifax Wills, Vol II, will of Christofer Lacy,
p. 211n[7] ][1]
beneficiary under and coexecutor of the will of his father John
Lacy, will dated 5 April 1474 and proven 7 June 1474 [Halifax
Wills I: 18-19[7] ]:
'To Gilbert Lacy, his wife sons and daughters, v marcs to be
equally divided amongst them.......
'Residue to Richard Lacy and Gilbert Lacy my sons, Persevell
Amyas and John Rysshworth aforesaid, whom I appoint executors,....'[7]
lord of Brearley Hall, co. York de jure uxoris
identified as 'Gilbert Lacy of Brierly, co. York' in pedigree
of Southill of Redbourn[10]
'Gilbert Lacy parishioner of Halifax', will dated 28 June 1492,
proved 6 Oct 1492, naming wife Johanna and son Arthur executors
[Halifax Wills I:26[7]]
re: his wife:
heiress of Brearley Hall [5]
named as 'Jane', wife of Gilbert Lacy in pedigree of Southill of
Redbourn[10]
unnamed wife of Gilbert Lacy, living at date of will of John Lacy
of Cromwellbotham, 5 April 1474[7]
'Johanna my wife', will of husband Gilbert Lacy dated 28 June 1492,
proved 6 Oct 1492 (names wife Johanna and son Arthur executors)
[Halifax Wills I:26[7]]
Spouse: Johanna Soothill
Death: aft 28 Jun 1492[7]
Father: Sir Gerard Soothill of Redbourne, co. Lincs. (1398-ca1464)
Mother: Elizabeth Fulnetby
Children: Gerard Lacy, Esq., of Brearley Hall (-<1534)
Joan (->1474)
Edward
Christopher (-<1518)
Agnes (->1518)
Arthur
1.1.2.2.1.2 Janet Lacy
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 5 Apr 1474[7]
'Jenet, daughter of John Lacy, Esq. of Cromwellbotham' in pedigree
of Savile[6]
'To Nicholas Savyll and his wife sons and daughters Xli to be equally
among them' - will of brother John Lacy, 5 April 1474 [Halifax
Wills I;18[7]]
Spouse: Nicholas Savile, of Banke in Southowram
Death: aft 5 Apr 1474[7]
Father: Henry Savile of Copley (->1437)
Mother: Eleanor Copley
Children: John
Janet
Elizabeth
Ellen
Alice
Agnes
Thomas
1.1.3 Margaret de Lacy
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Thomas de Thornhill
Father: Sir John de Thornhill (-<1322)
Mother: Beatrice Talboner (->1334)
Marr: bef 12 May 1325[11]
Children: Richard (-<1406)
1. "Some Early Lacys," E. Lacey, Rootsweb World Connect Project
(www. rootsweb.com), extracted 23 Aug 2000,
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~elacey/delacy_wbg/
2. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
3. John Stansfield, "History of the Family of Stansfeld of Stansfield
in the Parish of Halifax," Leeds: Goodall and Suddick, 1885.
4. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower, Esquire,
Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell and Hughes,
Printers, London, 1881, pp. 154-156: pedigree of Hastings of Elsing
('Hastynges..' of Fenwick, co. Yorks.), 'The Visitation of Yorkshire
in the Years 1563 and 1564'.
5. Alvahn Holmes, "The Farrar's Island Family and its English Ancestry,"
Baltimore: Gateway Press, Inc., 1972, reprinted 1986, cites Rev. C.
V. Collier, 'Documents at "Burton Agnes" ', East Riding Society,
vols. 18-19 (1911-1912), providing abstracts of 6 deeds relating
to Kelke and identifying members of the Kelke family.
6. "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire," compiled by Joseph
Foster, London: W. Wilfred Head, 1874 (2 Vols.).
7. J. W. Clay, F.S.A., and E. W. Crossley, editors, "Halifax Wills,"
(privately printed for the editor), Vol. I (1389 to 1544); Vol II
(1545-1559).
8. "Testamenta Eboracensia [Selection of Wills, Reg. at York]," The
Surtees Society, Andrews & Co., Durham (J. B. Nichols & Sons,
London), Vol. IV, Pt. I: 1869, IV:50-52, will of Isabella Deincourt
(wife of Sir William fitz William) d. 1348, IV:97-99, will of
Marmaduke Constable (d. 1378), see pp. 100-101 for will of Sir
Martin de la See, IV:418-419, will of Isabella Salvayn.
9. J. Horsfall Turner, "The History of Brighouse, Rastrick, and
Hipperholme," Bingley, Yorkshire: Thomas Harrison and Sons, 1893,
.pdf image files provided by Ancestry.com http://www.ancestry.com.
10. "The Visitation of Lincolnshire," Harleian Society, Harleian Series,
Vols. 50-52 (Lincolnshire, Vols. I-III), II:555-557, Kelke of
Barnetby, III: 884-886, Skerne of Bonby and Waltham.
11. William Brown, F.S.A., ed., "Yorkshire Deeds, Vol. III," The
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, 1922, Record
series vol. LXIII - for the year 1922.
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
In a message dated 6/15/06 2:15:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< Quitclaim: manor of Ewhurst, 2 August 1361
Witnesses: Walter Colpeper, John Colpeper, John Begebury, Roger de
Assheburnehame, Thomas de Brenchesle; at Peasmarsh
(East Sussex RO, AMS6139/6) >>
This is the list of witnesses, but who are the principals?
Thanks
Will
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< Quitclaim: manor of Ewhurst, 2 August 1361
Witnesses: Walter Colpeper, John Colpeper, John Begebury, Roger de
Assheburnehame, Thomas de Brenchesle; at Peasmarsh
(East Sussex RO, AMS6139/6) >>
This is the list of witnesses, but who are the principals?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Even earlier Brenchleys - Part 2
In a message dated 6/15/06 4:25:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< Quitclaim: manor of Ewhurst, 2 August 1361
Witnesses: Walter Colpeper, John Colpeper, John Begebury, Roger de
Assheburnehame, Thomas de Brenchesle; at Peasmarsh
(East Sussex RO, AMS6139/6) > >>
That is annoying....
I have two Thomas Brenchley's.
One is probably too old, the other is probably too young.
writes:
<< Quitclaim: manor of Ewhurst, 2 August 1361
Witnesses: Walter Colpeper, John Colpeper, John Begebury, Roger de
Assheburnehame, Thomas de Brenchesle; at Peasmarsh
(East Sussex RO, AMS6139/6) > >>
That is annoying....
I have two Thomas Brenchley's.
One is probably too old, the other is probably too young.
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
I have a Joan FitzWilliam married to Henry Sothill
and then also
a Joan FitzWilliam married to Brian Thornhill
Are these two Joan's the same woman ?
Thanks
Willl Johnson
and then also
a Joan FitzWilliam married to Brian Thornhill
Are these two Joan's the same woman ?
Thanks
Willl Johnson
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Dear Will,
This is what the Visitation pedigree shows, but it is wrong.
Sir Gerard Soothill was enfeoffed in Redbourne by John de Beckingham
and Beatrice his wife [possibly the mother of Sir Gerard] in 1371, so
it's safe to say he was born before 1360, and possibly before 1350.
This does not work well with the marriage of Henry Soothill and Joan
FitzWilliam, which can only be dated at 'before 2 June 1413' at
present.
I show Sir Gerard as the great-uncle of Henry Soothill of
Soothill (husband of Joan FitzWilliam); others believe him to be the
uncle of Henry. The Visitation placement is a major chronological non
sequitur.
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This is what the Visitation pedigree shows, but it is wrong.
Sir Gerard Soothill was enfeoffed in Redbourne by John de Beckingham
and Beatrice his wife [possibly the mother of Sir Gerard] in 1371, so
it's safe to say he was born before 1360, and possibly before 1350.
This does not work well with the marriage of Henry Soothill and Joan
FitzWilliam, which can only be dated at 'before 2 June 1413' at
present.
I show Sir Gerard as the great-uncle of Henry Soothill of
Soothill (husband of Joan FitzWilliam); others believe him to be the
uncle of Henry. The Visitation placement is a major chronological non
sequitur.
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/15/06 7:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3 writes:
1.1.1.1.3a Joan FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Henry Soothill [1st husband]
Death: aft 1429[5]
Father: Henry Soothill (->1410)
Marr: bef 2 Jun 1413[17],[5]
Children: John
Is not Gerard Sothill of Redbourne d 1 Aug 1410 who m Muriel Salvin a child
to this couple Joan and Henry Sothill ?
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Thursday, 15 June, 2006
Dear Will,
The answer to your 'two Joan's FitzWilliam' query is, they are not
the same individual. This was touched on in a number of posts (some
referenced below), the resolution of which is as shown in the
pedigree below:
1. Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Sir Brian de Thornhill, was a
daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam of Sprotborough (d.
aft 4 Mar 1338/9), evidently by his wife Isabel Deincourt.
See # 1.2 below.
2. Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Henry de Sotehill (or Soothill),
was evidently the daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam
(murdered 1398) by his wife Maud Cromwell. See
# 1.1.1.1.3a below.
{Please note, the following pedigree is for illustration purposes
primarily, and is not intended to be complete.}
Cheers,
John *
1 Sir William FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 4 Mar 1338[1],[2]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
Father: Sir William FitzThomas (-<1295)
Mother: Agnes Metham
of Sprotborough and Emley, co. York[3]
executor of his father's will, 1294
' William le fitz William ', knight, serving with the army of King
Edward I in Scotland
fought at the Battle of Falkirk, 22 July 1298
: his arms are recorded as
' Or a fess gules ' (Falkirk Roll H81[4])
' Sir William FitzWilliam FitzThomas ', witness (together with
William de fleming, Sir Hugh de Eland, Sir John de Sotehill and
others) to grant by Thomas de Horbyri, brother and heir of John
of Horbyri to Sir Nicholas de Wortelay of the manor of
Shetelingthon [Shitlington], ca. 1300 [A2A, Sheffield Archives:
Wharncliffe Muniments [Wh M/D/01 - Wh M/P/13], Wh M/D/627[5]
release dated 12 May 1303:
' 1) Wm. Fitzwilliam, kt.
2) Rob. de Raynebergh and wife Alice.
(1) to (2) all lands in Addewyk (1) inherited after death of aunt
Agnes, d. of Thos. Fitzwilliam.
Witn.: John de Donecastre, Rob. Tilly, John de Eland,
Ingelram Folenfaunt, etc.
At Doncaster, Sun. after St. John of Beverley, 31 Edw.I.'
[Armorial seal.] - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Foljambe
of Osberton: Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/FJ/2 - DD/FJ/10],
DD/FJ/1/194/20[5]
his uncle ' Roger de la Wodehall', d. before 1308, survived by
his widow Maud:
' In 1308 Maud widow of Roger de la Wodehall complained
against William Fitzwilliam, his brother, Edmund, and others for
trespass at la Woodhall near Wombwell. '[6]
found to be coheir of the estate of Sir Roger Bertram, 29 Jan
1310/11 (following death of Agnes Bertram, his daughter)
[CP II:162 [1] ]
fine dated 18 Edward II [1324/25] :
' There was a fine levied, 18 Edward II, between William, son
of William, Quer. and Edmund, parson of the church of Plumtre,
deforc. of the manor of Plumtre, with the Appurtenances, and
the advowson of the church of the same manor, whereby it was
settled on the said William Fitz-William, and the heirs of his
body; Remainder to John son of the said William and the heirs
male of his; Remainder to Thomas, brother of John in like fort;
Remainder to Joan, sister of Thomas, and the heirs male of her
body; Remainder to Agnes, and to Isabel, her sisters respectively
in the same manner; remainder to the right heirs of the said
William.' { MichaelAnne Guido, extract from Thoroton, Antiquities
of Nottinghamshire, Vol. III, page 135 [sub Plumptre and
Normanton][7]}
summoned for military service against the Scots, 5 Apr 1327 (not
summoned for Parliament)[1]
imprisoned in 1327:
' Gaol delivery at York Castle, Wm son of William of Emley, kt,
John his son and Brian of Thornhill, accused of killing Richard
Playce at Dringhouses, put themselves on the county are found
not guilty ' - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford:
Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/SR/216 - DD/SR/237], DD/SR/231/52[5]
' Willielmus filius Willielmi dominus de Sprotbrugh ', confirmed
grants of his ancestors in an inspeximus for Hanepole abbey,
1331 [ Mon. Angl. V:486, Num. III[8]]
cf. CP V:518-519, sub _FitzWilliam_[1]
Spouse: Isabel Deincourt
Death: aft 25 Jul 1348[7]
Father: Sir Edmund Deincourt (>1249-1326)
Mother: Isabel de Mohun
Children: Sir John (-1349) [* possibly son of a prior wife]
Thomas (-<1348)
Margaret
Joan (->1347) [m. Sir Brian Thornhill - see below]
Agnes
Isabel
1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: 10 Aug 1349[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
2nd son, heir of brother William (d.v.p. ca. 1322)[1]
imprisoned in 1327:
' Gaol delivery at York Castle, Wm son of William of Emley, kt,
John his son and Brian of Thornhill, accused of killing Richard
Playce at Dringhouses, put themselves on the county are found not
guilty ' - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford:
Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/SR/216 - DD/SR/237], DD/SR/231/52[5]
' Johanni filio meo', will of his mother Isabella Deincourt,
25 July 1348 [Testa. Ebor. I:50, No. 40[9]]
release dated 9 March 1343/44 [witnessed by his brother-in-law
Sir Brian de Thornhill]:
' Thomas Flemyngs of Clifton to John Fitzwilliam, of all burdens,
dues and services due in his 3 weekly court for the manor of Wath.
For a red rose at the Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June).
Witnesses: Bryan de Thornhill, William de Fyncheden, Elis de
Bryton, John de Dranfeld, John de Wodehall de Wath.
At Emley, Sunday before St Gregory (12 March), 1343/4.' [A2A,
Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E],
WWM/D/32[5] ]
~ evidence indicates he was not the son of Isabel Deincourt:
Licence dated 27 Dec 1324:
' To William Fitzwilliam and Isabel, his wife, to levy a fine to
Edmund Deyncourt.
In the manor of Emeleye, held of the King, as of his manor of
Wakefield; and his manor of Darthington, held of the King as of
his Honour of Pontefract, as the King is informed by Inquisition
made by Simon de Grymmesby, escheator for the counties of York,
Westmoreland, Northumberland and Cumberland.
To be to the use of William and Isabella. On default of a male
heir, then to the use of John Fitzwilliam, and thereafter to
specified uses.
The consideration is to be 12 marks.
At Nottingham, 27 December, 1324. ' [Seal: Great Seal of King
Edward II. Obverse: King enthroned in majesty: open crown of three
points fleury, sceptre ensigned with dove and branch. Throne of
elaborate tabernacle work, with back, rising sides, and front
pieces adorned with arcading. Foot board, or corbel, ornamented
with foliage and rings. Under foot, two small lions couchant
guardant; and, at each side of the throne, lion leaping up
towards the king.
....ANGLIE DOMINUS H...NIE DUX AQUITANIE
Reverse: Equestrian, King on horse to right, in haubert of chain
mail with crown, surcoat, spur, broad sword elevated and shield
or arms of England. Bardings of neck and flank of horse charged
with same arms reversed. ...WARDUS DEI GRATIA REX ANGLIE DNS H...]
- A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/26,27[5]
confirmation dated 20 Nov 1345:
' John Fitzwilliam of Emlay, knight, to William Frankys de Cateby
and John de Gray.
Confirming a grant made by his mother, Isabella de Emlay, of
20 acres of land and a third part of one toft, with appurtenances,
in Sprotburgh and Cateby.
Witnesses: John de Raddeklyf, parson of the Church of Sprotburgh,
Hugh de Sandall, Thomas de Huntyngfeld, William de Estfeld.
At Sprotburgh, Sunday after the octave of St Martin in winter
(11 November) 1345. ' - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse
Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E] , WWM/D/34 [5]
cf. CP V:519, sub _FitzWilliam_[1]
Spouse: Jane de Reresby[1]
Father: Sir Adam de Reresby (->1349)
Mother: NN
Children: Sir John (1327-~1385)
William
Elizabeth
NN
1.1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: abt 1385, Howden (murdered)[1]
Birth: 1327[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
' Dominus Iohannes Fitzwilliam miles = Elizabeth filia domini
Clynton comitis Huntingdon. ' [Vis. North pp. 74-76[3]]
' Johanni et Willielmo filiis Johannis filii mei '; ' Item Johanni
filio Johannis filii mei XX s.', beneficiary of the will of his
grandmother Isabella Deincourt, 25 July 1348 [Testa. Ebor. I:50,
No. 40[9]]
' 1365, Michaelmas - Fine between John Fitz William, knt., and
Elizabeth his wife, plaintiffs, and Thomas del Haye and Agnes his wife,
deforciants, of the fourth part of the manor of Darthynton [Darrington]
near Pontefract; to hold to John and Elizabeth and the heirs of John.
Warranty by Thomas and Agnes for themselves and the heirs of Agnes.'[10]
Subsidy Rolls (Poll Tax) for the year 1379, for Sprotborough
(Tickhill wapentake, Sprotbrough parish):
' Johannes fitz William, Chiualer, & Elizabetha uxor ejus...xx s. '[12]
said to have been murdered 'about 1385': however, record of his living
in 1390, grant by his son as heir of Sir John FitzWilliam, dated
10 Apr 1390:
' William Fitzwilliam, knight, son and heir of John Fitzwilliam,
knight to John de Clynton, Ralph de Cromwell, Robert de Swilyngton,
Robert de Rokley, knight, William Gascoigne and Gerard de Setchill.
Manor of Hathelsay with all appurtenences in the vills of
Easthathelsay, Midelhathelsay and Westhathelsay
Witnesses: John Savyll, sen., John Savyll jun., Thomas de Reresby,
knight, John Everyngham de Birkyn, Thomas Mauncell.
At Hathelsay, 10 April, 1390 [Seal: armorial, shield of arms,
lozengy, 7 pieces, under a tree, in the field on each side, sprigs
of foliage. S... WILLI... FILS... MILITIS... Round, 2½ cms. red,
on tag.] - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/74[5]
cf. CP V:519, sub _FitzWilliam_[1]
elsewhere called William [HSP Yorkshire][13]
Spouse: Elizabeth de Clinton[14] [probably illegitimate]
Death: aft 21 Sep 1398[5]
Father: William de Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon (ca1300-1354)
Mother: NN [not married]
Children: Sir William (-1398)
Edmund (-<1436)
John (->1398)
Richard
Joan
1.1.1.1 Sir William FitzWilliam[13]
----------------------------------------
Death: 8 Apr 1398[15],[1]
Occ: lord of Emley
of Sprotborough, co. York [13]
Subsidy Rolls (Poll Tax) for the year 1379, for Sprotborough
(Tickhill wapentake, Sprotbrough parish):
' Willelmus fitz William, Chiualer, & Matilda uxor ejus....xx s. '[12]
re: his wife:
' Mawde doughter & on of theyres of Sir Raff Cromwell Lord of
Tatesall. ' [HSP 16:124, pedigree of Fitz William[13]]
'Receipt dated 20 Aug 1411:
' Matilda Fitzwilliam, lady of Hathilsay has received from Sir
John Fitzwilliam, her son, 50 marks, her dower for 1410/11. '
[Seal: indistinct. Round, 2½ cms, natural wax, on tag with a
wrapping tie.] - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse
Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/78[5]
Spouse: Maud Cromwell[13]
Death: aft 20 Aug 1411[5]
Father: Sir Ralph Cromwell (-1398)
Mother: Maud Bernake (~1337-1419)
Marr: bef 1377[16]
Children: Sir John (1377-1417)
Edmund
Ralph
Elizabeth
Joan
1.1.1.1.1a Sir John FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
Birth: 25 Jul 1377[16]
Death: 5 Jul 1417[16],[15]
Knt., of Sprotborough, co. Yorks.
' Sir John Fytz William of Sprotborowe lived 6 Hen. V.
maryed = Elenor doughter of Sir Henry Grene of Dreton in
Northamptonshire.' [HSP 16:124, pedigree of Fitz William.[13]]
grantee (by Henry de Soothill) 1410/11,
' of his manor of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto
appurtenant in Stansfeld'
which he and others subsequently granted to Henry de Soothill and
his wife Joan (evidently Joan FitzWilliam his sister), 1413[5]:
Grant dated 12 Hen IV [1410-11]
' Grant by Henry Sothyll' to Sir John Fitzwilliam, Randolf
Fitzwilliam, Sir William Scote, perpetual vicar of the church
of Dewsbery, and Sir John Dewsbery, chaplain, of his manor
of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk).'
A2A [DD/SR/26/77 ]
date: 1 Hen V [1413-14]
' Quitclaim by John Fitzwilliam, knight, Randolf Fitzwilliam,
and John Dewsbery, chaplain, in favour of Henry de Sotyll'
and Joan his wife of their claim to the manor of Rowtonstall'
and Blakschage with lands and tenements thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk)'
- A2A [DD/SR/26/83 ][5],[17][ also grant dated 2 Jun 1413, manor
of Derton: A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/79[5]]
' John FitzWilliam, knight', witness (with his brothers and John
Bosvile of Ardsley) to settlement of 23 June 1414 [A2A, Sheffield
Archives: Estate Papers of the Copley Family, Baronets of
Sprotborough, CD/89[5]]
IPM of Sir John FitzWilliam, dated 31 March 1418 [A2A, Sheffield
Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/82[5]
Spouse: Eleanor Greene
Death: bef 21 Dec 1422[16]
Father: Sir Henry Greene (-1399)
Mother: Maud Mauduit (1354-)
Marr: bef 1397[16]
Children: Maud
Sir John (1397-)
Nicholas
Ralph
Robert
William
Joan
1.1.1.1.2 Ralph FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
' Randolf Fitzwilliam ', party (together with his brother Sir John) to
a series of fines, 1410-1413:
Grant dated 12 Hen IV [1410-11]
' Grant by Henry Sothyll' to Sir John Fitzwilliam, Randolf
Fitzwilliam, Sir William Scote, perpetual vicar of the church
of Dewsbery, and Sir John Dewsbery, chaplain, of his manor
of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk).'
A2A [DD/SR/26/77 ]
date: 1 Hen V [1413-14]
' Quitclaim by John Fitzwilliam, knight, Randolf Fitzwilliam,
and John Dewsbery, chaplain, in favour of Henry de Sotyll'
and Joan his wife of their claim to the manor of Rowtonstall'
and Blakschage with lands and tenements thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk)'
- A2A [DD/SR/26/83 ][5],[17][ also grant dated 2 Jun 1413, manor
of Derton: A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/79[5]]
C 1/38/177
William Birton and Johanne his wife, late wife of Henry Southill.
v. John Southill, son of the said Henry and Johanne.: Dower in
the manor of Southill. Outrageous conduct of defendant.: York.
[dated roughly 1386-1486 [18]]
1.1.1.1.3a Joan FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
shown in the Visitation record for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire as
the daughter of William FitzWilliam (d. 1398) and Maud
Cromwell[13],[19] - previously interpreted as an error,
unsupportable based on chronology[20]
evidence found concerning transactions between Henry de Soothill
and the FitzWilliam family, 1410-1413, now show that the relationship
in the Visitation pedigree is correct but that Henry de Soothill,
husband of Joan FitzWilliam was the great-grandson of the Sir Henry
de Soothill identified in the Visitation record.[17]
Grant dated 12 Hen IV [1410-11]
' Grant by Henry Sothyll' to Sir John Fitzwilliam, Randolf
Fitzwilliam, Sir William Scote, perpetual vicar of the church
of Dewsbery, and Sir John Dewsbery, chaplain, of his manor
of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk).'
A2A [DD/SR/26/77 ]
date: 1 Hen V [1413-14]
' Quitclaim by John Fitzwilliam, knight, Randolf Fitzwilliam,
and John Dewsbery, chaplain, in favour of Henry de Sotyll'
and Joan his wife of their claim to the manor of Rowtonstall'
and Blakschage with lands and tenements thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk)'
- A2A [DD/SR/26/83 ][5],[17][ also grant dated 2 Jun 1413, manor
of Derton: A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/79[5]]
C 1/38/177
William Birton and Johanne his wife, late wife of Henry Southill.
v. John Southill, son of the said Henry and Johanne.: Dower in
the manor of Southill. Outrageous conduct of defendant.: York.
[dated roughly 1386-1486 [18]]
__________________________
previously identified by Douglas Richardson as the daughter of
Sir John's father, Sir William Fitzwilliam by Isabel Deincourt
(see notes under Joan Deincourt, their daughter)[2]
Spouse: Henry Soothill [1st husband]
Death: aft 1429[5]
Father: Henry Soothill (->1410)
Marr: bef 2 Jun 1413[17],[5]
Children: John
Other Spouses William Burton
1.1.1.1.3b Joan FitzWilliam* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: William Burton [2nd husband]
1.2 Joan FitzWilliam [See Above]
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 22 Dec 1347[21]
' Johannae filiae meae ', named in bequest in the will of her mother
Isabella Deincourt, 25 July 1348:
' Item Johannae filiae meae quartum jumentum melius
cum pullano, carrum meum cum harnes, et unum equum nigrum griseum
in illo tractante, unum lectum de Inde cum tapetis, unum psalterium
et unam bibliotecam novam. ' [Testa. Ebor. I:50, No. 40[9]]
' Joan, sister of Thomas ', named in a fine by her father,
dated 18 Edward II [1324/25] :
' There was a fine levied, 18 Edward II, between William, son of
William, Quer. and Edmund, parson of the church of Plumtre,
deforc. of the manor of Plumtre, with the Appurtenances, and
the advowson of the church of the same manor, whereby it was
settled on the said William Fitz-William, and the heirs of
his body; Remainder to John son of the said William and the
heirs male of his; Remainder to Thomas, brother of John in like
fort; Remainder to Joan, sister of Thomas, and the heirs male
of her body; Remainder to Agnes, and to Isabel, her sisters
respectively in the same manner; remainder to the right heirs
of the said William.' { MichaelAnne Guido, extract from Thoroton,
Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, Vol. III, page 135 [sub Plumptre
and Normanton][7]}
with regard to Joan FitzWilliam's brother John, and her parentage,
MichaelAnne Guido wrote:
' Joan Fitzwilliam was younger [born after the date of the marriage]
and there is adequate documentation showing her to be a daughter
of Isabel D'Eincout. Brian de Thornhill was mentioned in Isabel
D'Eincourt's [I believe he was one of the executors along with
another son-in-law and her stepson John Fitzwilliam] will in 1348,
and she named her daughter Joan Fitzwilliam in her will. '[22]
_______________________________________
' Lady Joan ', wife of Brian de Thornhill, quitclaim dated 21
Edw III [1347-8] :
' Quitclaim by Richard son of Thomas de Popilwell' in favour of
Sir Brian de Thornehill' knight and Lady Joan his wife of his
claim to lands and tenements in the fee of Gomersal' (Gomersall,
Yk) which he had previously granted to Brian and Joan, and also
to an annual rent of 12d from lands there.' - A2A,
Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate
Papers, DD/SR/26/61[5]
_______________________________________
other sources state, re: Joan FitzWilliam:
' Joan, daughter of Sir John Fitz-William, Knt. ' [pedigree of
Thornhill, of Fixby and Riddlesworth: Foster's Yorkshire
Pedigrees[23]]
parentage shown as cited by Brice Clagett:
' It was suggested on Monday that Joan FitzWilliam, alleged wife of
Sir Henry Sothill, was daughter of Sir John FitzWilliam (d. 1349)
and his wife, Jane de Reresby.
According to Watney's "The Wallop Family" 2:333, that couple did
have a daughter Joan, who in 1334 married Sir Bryan Thornhill.'[24]
as shown herein, this is impossible on chronological grounds. Also,
see the will of Isabel Deincourt, Lady FitzWilliam, in ref. to her
daughter Joan.
Spouse: Sir Brian de Thornhill
Birth: ca 1298[25],[5]
Death: aft 8 Dec 1365[5]
Father: Sir John de Thornhill (-<1322)
Mother: Beatrice Talboner (->1334)
Children: Simon
Joan
Elizabeth
Margaret
John
1. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland
Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
2. Douglas Richardson, "Re: Sothill Chronology, a rehash of
Markenfield," Dec 30, 2001, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
3. "Visitations of the North, Part III:," A Visitation of The North
of England circa 1480-1500, Publications of the Surtees Society,
Vol. CXLIV, Durham: Andrews & Co.,, 1930, 78 et seq.
4. Brian Timms, "The Falkirk Roll," an occasional roll of arms of
those having fought at the Battle of Falkirk, July 1298,
http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/falkirkH.html
5. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
6. Douglas Richardson, "Deincourt/Tibetot--CP error?," 30 December
2001, cites Rev. Joseph Hunter South Yorkshire 2 (1831):92-94,
email royalancestry@msn.com.
7. MichaelAnne Guido, "Re: Savile of Thornhill and Copley: a
Plantagenet descent," 7 September 2004, email
ClaudiusI0@aol.com, cites PRO extracts; Baildon & the Baildons
by William Paley Baildon, Chapter Eleven - The Fitzwilliams,
p. 355, Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, Vol. III,
page 135; and other sources.
8. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding
& Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830, Vol. VI, Pt. 1 -
Austin Abbey of Wigmore, in Herefordshire, pp. 348-356
[Fundationis et Fundatorum Historia], Vol. VI, Pt. 2 - Priory
of Bullington, co. Lincs., pp. 951-954, URL
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
9. "Testamenta Eboracensia [Selection of Wills, Reg. at York],"
The Surtees Society, Andrews & Co., Durham (J. B. Nichols & Sons,
London), Vol. IV, Pt. I: 1869, IV:50-52, will of Isabella
Deincourt (wife of Sir William fitz William) d. 1348, IV:97-99,
will of Marmaduke Constable (d. 1378), see pp. 100-101 for will
of Sir Martin de la See, IV:418-419, will of Isabella Salvayn.
10. W. Paley Baildon, "The Butlers of Skelbrook and Kirk Sandal,"
Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Vol. 29 (1929), pp. 68-88,
text provided by David Hepworth, <BUTLER OF SKELBROOK AND KIRK
SANDAL>, SGM, 11 January 2005, email davidbhepworth@hotmail.com.
11. "Bosville Deeds," The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical
Journal, Vol. XIII (1895), London: printed for the Association
by Bradbury, Agnew and Co., Whitefriars, E.C.
12. "Yorkshire Subsidy Rolls (Poll Tax) for the year 1379,"
transcribed from The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical
Journals,
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Mi ... field.html
13. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower,
Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell
and Hughes, Printers, London, 1881, pp. 154-156: pedigree of
Hastings of Elsing ('Hastynges..' of Fenwick, co. Yorks.),
'The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564'.
14. Paul C. Reed, "Two Unrelated Questions," Nov 25, 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, responses to queries from Richard
Ledyard.
15. Frederick L. Weis, Th. D., "The Magna Carta Sureties, 1215,"
Baltimore: Gen Pub Co., 5th ed., 1997 (W. L. Sheppard Jr & David
Faris).
16. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial
and Medieval Families," Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
Company, 2004.
17. John P. Ravilious, "Soothill of Soothill, co. Yorks., Redbourn,
co. Lincs. & C - Pt I," Nov 9, 2002, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com,
cites records provided by the Public Record Office,
Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate
Papers.
18. "The National Archives," URL
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
19. "The Visitation of Lincolnshire," Harleian Society, Harleian
Series, Vols. 50-52 (Lincolnshire, Vols. I-III), II:555-557,
Kelke of Barnetby, III: 884-886, Skerne of Bonby and Waltham.
20. John Ravilious, "Sothill Chronology," Oct 15, 2001,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
21. William Brown, F.S.A., ed., "Yorkshire Deeds, Vol. II," The
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Record series
vol. L - 1914.
22. MichaelAnne Guido, "Re: Savile of Thornhill and Copley: a
Plantagenet descent," 7 September 2004, email
ClaudiusI0@aol.com, cites will of Isabel D'Eincourt (dated 1348).
23. "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire," compiled by
Joseph Foster, London: W. Wilfred Head, 1874 (2 Vols.).
24. Brice Clagett, "Sothill chronology," 17 Oct 2001, email
bclagett@cov.com, cites Watney's "The Wallop Family" 2:333.
25. A. Gooder, Ph.D., "The Parliamentary Representation of the
County of York, 1258-1832, Vol. I," The Yorkshire Archaeological
Society, Record Series, Vol. XCI (1935), Wakefield: Printed for
the Society, 1935.
* John P. Ravilious
Dear Will,
The answer to your 'two Joan's FitzWilliam' query is, they are not
the same individual. This was touched on in a number of posts (some
referenced below), the resolution of which is as shown in the
pedigree below:
1. Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Sir Brian de Thornhill, was a
daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam of Sprotborough (d.
aft 4 Mar 1338/9), evidently by his wife Isabel Deincourt.
See # 1.2 below.
2. Joan FitzWilliam, wife of Henry de Sotehill (or Soothill),
was evidently the daughter of Sir William FitzWilliam
(murdered 1398) by his wife Maud Cromwell. See
# 1.1.1.1.3a below.
{Please note, the following pedigree is for illustration purposes
primarily, and is not intended to be complete.}
Cheers,
John *
1 Sir William FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 4 Mar 1338[1],[2]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
Father: Sir William FitzThomas (-<1295)
Mother: Agnes Metham
of Sprotborough and Emley, co. York[3]
executor of his father's will, 1294
' William le fitz William ', knight, serving with the army of King
Edward I in Scotland
fought at the Battle of Falkirk, 22 July 1298
: his arms are recorded as
' Or a fess gules ' (Falkirk Roll H81[4])
' Sir William FitzWilliam FitzThomas ', witness (together with
William de fleming, Sir Hugh de Eland, Sir John de Sotehill and
others) to grant by Thomas de Horbyri, brother and heir of John
of Horbyri to Sir Nicholas de Wortelay of the manor of
Shetelingthon [Shitlington], ca. 1300 [A2A, Sheffield Archives:
Wharncliffe Muniments [Wh M/D/01 - Wh M/P/13], Wh M/D/627[5]
release dated 12 May 1303:
' 1) Wm. Fitzwilliam, kt.
2) Rob. de Raynebergh and wife Alice.
(1) to (2) all lands in Addewyk (1) inherited after death of aunt
Agnes, d. of Thos. Fitzwilliam.
Witn.: John de Donecastre, Rob. Tilly, John de Eland,
Ingelram Folenfaunt, etc.
At Doncaster, Sun. after St. John of Beverley, 31 Edw.I.'
[Armorial seal.] - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Foljambe
of Osberton: Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/FJ/2 - DD/FJ/10],
DD/FJ/1/194/20[5]
his uncle ' Roger de la Wodehall', d. before 1308, survived by
his widow Maud:
' In 1308 Maud widow of Roger de la Wodehall complained
against William Fitzwilliam, his brother, Edmund, and others for
trespass at la Woodhall near Wombwell. '[6]
found to be coheir of the estate of Sir Roger Bertram, 29 Jan
1310/11 (following death of Agnes Bertram, his daughter)
[CP II:162 [1] ]
fine dated 18 Edward II [1324/25] :
' There was a fine levied, 18 Edward II, between William, son
of William, Quer. and Edmund, parson of the church of Plumtre,
deforc. of the manor of Plumtre, with the Appurtenances, and
the advowson of the church of the same manor, whereby it was
settled on the said William Fitz-William, and the heirs of his
body; Remainder to John son of the said William and the heirs
male of his; Remainder to Thomas, brother of John in like fort;
Remainder to Joan, sister of Thomas, and the heirs male of her
body; Remainder to Agnes, and to Isabel, her sisters respectively
in the same manner; remainder to the right heirs of the said
William.' { MichaelAnne Guido, extract from Thoroton, Antiquities
of Nottinghamshire, Vol. III, page 135 [sub Plumptre and
Normanton][7]}
summoned for military service against the Scots, 5 Apr 1327 (not
summoned for Parliament)[1]
imprisoned in 1327:
' Gaol delivery at York Castle, Wm son of William of Emley, kt,
John his son and Brian of Thornhill, accused of killing Richard
Playce at Dringhouses, put themselves on the county are found
not guilty ' - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford:
Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/SR/216 - DD/SR/237], DD/SR/231/52[5]
' Willielmus filius Willielmi dominus de Sprotbrugh ', confirmed
grants of his ancestors in an inspeximus for Hanepole abbey,
1331 [ Mon. Angl. V:486, Num. III[8]]
cf. CP V:518-519, sub _FitzWilliam_[1]
Spouse: Isabel Deincourt
Death: aft 25 Jul 1348[7]
Father: Sir Edmund Deincourt (>1249-1326)
Mother: Isabel de Mohun
Children: Sir John (-1349) [* possibly son of a prior wife]
Thomas (-<1348)
Margaret
Joan (->1347) [m. Sir Brian Thornhill - see below]
Agnes
Isabel
1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: 10 Aug 1349[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
2nd son, heir of brother William (d.v.p. ca. 1322)[1]
imprisoned in 1327:
' Gaol delivery at York Castle, Wm son of William of Emley, kt,
John his son and Brian of Thornhill, accused of killing Richard
Playce at Dringhouses, put themselves on the county are found not
guilty ' - A2A, Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford:
Deeds and Estate Papers [DD/SR/216 - DD/SR/237], DD/SR/231/52[5]
' Johanni filio meo', will of his mother Isabella Deincourt,
25 July 1348 [Testa. Ebor. I:50, No. 40[9]]
release dated 9 March 1343/44 [witnessed by his brother-in-law
Sir Brian de Thornhill]:
' Thomas Flemyngs of Clifton to John Fitzwilliam, of all burdens,
dues and services due in his 3 weekly court for the manor of Wath.
For a red rose at the Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June).
Witnesses: Bryan de Thornhill, William de Fyncheden, Elis de
Bryton, John de Dranfeld, John de Wodehall de Wath.
At Emley, Sunday before St Gregory (12 March), 1343/4.' [A2A,
Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E],
WWM/D/32[5] ]
~ evidence indicates he was not the son of Isabel Deincourt:
Licence dated 27 Dec 1324:
' To William Fitzwilliam and Isabel, his wife, to levy a fine to
Edmund Deyncourt.
In the manor of Emeleye, held of the King, as of his manor of
Wakefield; and his manor of Darthington, held of the King as of
his Honour of Pontefract, as the King is informed by Inquisition
made by Simon de Grymmesby, escheator for the counties of York,
Westmoreland, Northumberland and Cumberland.
To be to the use of William and Isabella. On default of a male
heir, then to the use of John Fitzwilliam, and thereafter to
specified uses.
The consideration is to be 12 marks.
At Nottingham, 27 December, 1324. ' [Seal: Great Seal of King
Edward II. Obverse: King enthroned in majesty: open crown of three
points fleury, sceptre ensigned with dove and branch. Throne of
elaborate tabernacle work, with back, rising sides, and front
pieces adorned with arcading. Foot board, or corbel, ornamented
with foliage and rings. Under foot, two small lions couchant
guardant; and, at each side of the throne, lion leaping up
towards the king.
....ANGLIE DOMINUS H...NIE DUX AQUITANIE
Reverse: Equestrian, King on horse to right, in haubert of chain
mail with crown, surcoat, spur, broad sword elevated and shield
or arms of England. Bardings of neck and flank of horse charged
with same arms reversed. ...WARDUS DEI GRATIA REX ANGLIE DNS H...]
- A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/26,27[5]
confirmation dated 20 Nov 1345:
' John Fitzwilliam of Emlay, knight, to William Frankys de Cateby
and John de Gray.
Confirming a grant made by his mother, Isabella de Emlay, of
20 acres of land and a third part of one toft, with appurtenances,
in Sprotburgh and Cateby.
Witnesses: John de Raddeklyf, parson of the Church of Sprotburgh,
Hugh de Sandall, Thomas de Huntyngfeld, William de Estfeld.
At Sprotburgh, Sunday after the octave of St Martin in winter
(11 November) 1345. ' - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse
Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E] , WWM/D/34 [5]
cf. CP V:519, sub _FitzWilliam_[1]
Spouse: Jane de Reresby[1]
Father: Sir Adam de Reresby (->1349)
Mother: NN
Children: Sir John (1327-~1385)
William
Elizabeth
NN
1.1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: abt 1385, Howden (murdered)[1]
Birth: 1327[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
' Dominus Iohannes Fitzwilliam miles = Elizabeth filia domini
Clynton comitis Huntingdon. ' [Vis. North pp. 74-76[3]]
' Johanni et Willielmo filiis Johannis filii mei '; ' Item Johanni
filio Johannis filii mei XX s.', beneficiary of the will of his
grandmother Isabella Deincourt, 25 July 1348 [Testa. Ebor. I:50,
No. 40[9]]
' 1365, Michaelmas - Fine between John Fitz William, knt., and
Elizabeth his wife, plaintiffs, and Thomas del Haye and Agnes his wife,
deforciants, of the fourth part of the manor of Darthynton [Darrington]
near Pontefract; to hold to John and Elizabeth and the heirs of John.
Warranty by Thomas and Agnes for themselves and the heirs of Agnes.'[10]
Subsidy Rolls (Poll Tax) for the year 1379, for Sprotborough
(Tickhill wapentake, Sprotbrough parish):
' Johannes fitz William, Chiualer, & Elizabetha uxor ejus...xx s. '[12]
said to have been murdered 'about 1385': however, record of his living
in 1390, grant by his son as heir of Sir John FitzWilliam, dated
10 Apr 1390:
' William Fitzwilliam, knight, son and heir of John Fitzwilliam,
knight to John de Clynton, Ralph de Cromwell, Robert de Swilyngton,
Robert de Rokley, knight, William Gascoigne and Gerard de Setchill.
Manor of Hathelsay with all appurtenences in the vills of
Easthathelsay, Midelhathelsay and Westhathelsay
Witnesses: John Savyll, sen., John Savyll jun., Thomas de Reresby,
knight, John Everyngham de Birkyn, Thomas Mauncell.
At Hathelsay, 10 April, 1390 [Seal: armorial, shield of arms,
lozengy, 7 pieces, under a tree, in the field on each side, sprigs
of foliage. S... WILLI... FILS... MILITIS... Round, 2½ cms. red,
on tag.] - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/74[5]
cf. CP V:519, sub _FitzWilliam_[1]
elsewhere called William [HSP Yorkshire][13]
Spouse: Elizabeth de Clinton[14] [probably illegitimate]
Death: aft 21 Sep 1398[5]
Father: William de Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon (ca1300-1354)
Mother: NN [not married]
Children: Sir William (-1398)
Edmund (-<1436)
John (->1398)
Richard
Joan
1.1.1.1 Sir William FitzWilliam[13]
----------------------------------------
Death: 8 Apr 1398[15],[1]
Occ: lord of Emley
of Sprotborough, co. York [13]
Subsidy Rolls (Poll Tax) for the year 1379, for Sprotborough
(Tickhill wapentake, Sprotbrough parish):
' Willelmus fitz William, Chiualer, & Matilda uxor ejus....xx s. '[12]
re: his wife:
' Mawde doughter & on of theyres of Sir Raff Cromwell Lord of
Tatesall. ' [HSP 16:124, pedigree of Fitz William[13]]
'Receipt dated 20 Aug 1411:
' Matilda Fitzwilliam, lady of Hathilsay has received from Sir
John Fitzwilliam, her son, 50 marks, her dower for 1410/11. '
[Seal: indistinct. Round, 2½ cms, natural wax, on tag with a
wrapping tie.] - A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse
Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/78[5]
Spouse: Maud Cromwell[13]
Death: aft 20 Aug 1411[5]
Father: Sir Ralph Cromwell (-1398)
Mother: Maud Bernake (~1337-1419)
Marr: bef 1377[16]
Children: Sir John (1377-1417)
Edmund
Ralph
Elizabeth
Joan
1.1.1.1.1a Sir John FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
Birth: 25 Jul 1377[16]
Death: 5 Jul 1417[16],[15]
Knt., of Sprotborough, co. Yorks.
' Sir John Fytz William of Sprotborowe lived 6 Hen. V.
maryed = Elenor doughter of Sir Henry Grene of Dreton in
Northamptonshire.' [HSP 16:124, pedigree of Fitz William.[13]]
grantee (by Henry de Soothill) 1410/11,
' of his manor of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto
appurtenant in Stansfeld'
which he and others subsequently granted to Henry de Soothill and
his wife Joan (evidently Joan FitzWilliam his sister), 1413[5]:
Grant dated 12 Hen IV [1410-11]
' Grant by Henry Sothyll' to Sir John Fitzwilliam, Randolf
Fitzwilliam, Sir William Scote, perpetual vicar of the church
of Dewsbery, and Sir John Dewsbery, chaplain, of his manor
of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk).'
A2A [DD/SR/26/77 ]
date: 1 Hen V [1413-14]
' Quitclaim by John Fitzwilliam, knight, Randolf Fitzwilliam,
and John Dewsbery, chaplain, in favour of Henry de Sotyll'
and Joan his wife of their claim to the manor of Rowtonstall'
and Blakschage with lands and tenements thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk)'
- A2A [DD/SR/26/83 ][5],[17][ also grant dated 2 Jun 1413, manor
of Derton: A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/79[5]]
' John FitzWilliam, knight', witness (with his brothers and John
Bosvile of Ardsley) to settlement of 23 June 1414 [A2A, Sheffield
Archives: Estate Papers of the Copley Family, Baronets of
Sprotborough, CD/89[5]]
IPM of Sir John FitzWilliam, dated 31 March 1418 [A2A, Sheffield
Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments [WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/82[5]
Spouse: Eleanor Greene
Death: bef 21 Dec 1422[16]
Father: Sir Henry Greene (-1399)
Mother: Maud Mauduit (1354-)
Marr: bef 1397[16]
Children: Maud
Sir John (1397-)
Nicholas
Ralph
Robert
William
Joan
1.1.1.1.2 Ralph FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
' Randolf Fitzwilliam ', party (together with his brother Sir John) to
a series of fines, 1410-1413:
Grant dated 12 Hen IV [1410-11]
' Grant by Henry Sothyll' to Sir John Fitzwilliam, Randolf
Fitzwilliam, Sir William Scote, perpetual vicar of the church
of Dewsbery, and Sir John Dewsbery, chaplain, of his manor
of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk).'
A2A [DD/SR/26/77 ]
date: 1 Hen V [1413-14]
' Quitclaim by John Fitzwilliam, knight, Randolf Fitzwilliam,
and John Dewsbery, chaplain, in favour of Henry de Sotyll'
and Joan his wife of their claim to the manor of Rowtonstall'
and Blakschage with lands and tenements thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk)'
- A2A [DD/SR/26/83 ][5],[17][ also grant dated 2 Jun 1413, manor
of Derton: A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/79[5]]
C 1/38/177
William Birton and Johanne his wife, late wife of Henry Southill.
v. John Southill, son of the said Henry and Johanne.: Dower in
the manor of Southill. Outrageous conduct of defendant.: York.
[dated roughly 1386-1486 [18]]
1.1.1.1.3a Joan FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
shown in the Visitation record for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire as
the daughter of William FitzWilliam (d. 1398) and Maud
Cromwell[13],[19] - previously interpreted as an error,
unsupportable based on chronology[20]
evidence found concerning transactions between Henry de Soothill
and the FitzWilliam family, 1410-1413, now show that the relationship
in the Visitation pedigree is correct but that Henry de Soothill,
husband of Joan FitzWilliam was the great-grandson of the Sir Henry
de Soothill identified in the Visitation record.[17]
Grant dated 12 Hen IV [1410-11]
' Grant by Henry Sothyll' to Sir John Fitzwilliam, Randolf
Fitzwilliam, Sir William Scote, perpetual vicar of the church
of Dewsbery, and Sir John Dewsbery, chaplain, of his manor
of Rawtonstall' Blackhagh, with all lands thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk).'
A2A [DD/SR/26/77 ]
date: 1 Hen V [1413-14]
' Quitclaim by John Fitzwilliam, knight, Randolf Fitzwilliam,
and John Dewsbery, chaplain, in favour of Henry de Sotyll'
and Joan his wife of their claim to the manor of Rowtonstall'
and Blakschage with lands and tenements thereto appurtenant
in Stansfeld' (Rawtonstall, Yk Blackshaw, Yk Stansfield, Yk)'
- A2A [DD/SR/26/83 ][5],[17][ also grant dated 2 Jun 1413, manor
of Derton: A2A, Sheffield Archives: Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments
[WWM/C - WWM/E], WWM/D/79[5]]
C 1/38/177
William Birton and Johanne his wife, late wife of Henry Southill.
v. John Southill, son of the said Henry and Johanne.: Dower in
the manor of Southill. Outrageous conduct of defendant.: York.
[dated roughly 1386-1486 [18]]
__________________________
previously identified by Douglas Richardson as the daughter of
Sir John's father, Sir William Fitzwilliam by Isabel Deincourt
(see notes under Joan Deincourt, their daughter)[2]
Spouse: Henry Soothill [1st husband]
Death: aft 1429[5]
Father: Henry Soothill (->1410)
Marr: bef 2 Jun 1413[17],[5]
Children: John
Other Spouses William Burton
1.1.1.1.3b Joan FitzWilliam* (See above)
----------------------------------------
Spouse: William Burton [2nd husband]
1.2 Joan FitzWilliam [See Above]
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 22 Dec 1347[21]
' Johannae filiae meae ', named in bequest in the will of her mother
Isabella Deincourt, 25 July 1348:
' Item Johannae filiae meae quartum jumentum melius
cum pullano, carrum meum cum harnes, et unum equum nigrum griseum
in illo tractante, unum lectum de Inde cum tapetis, unum psalterium
et unam bibliotecam novam. ' [Testa. Ebor. I:50, No. 40[9]]
' Joan, sister of Thomas ', named in a fine by her father,
dated 18 Edward II [1324/25] :
' There was a fine levied, 18 Edward II, between William, son of
William, Quer. and Edmund, parson of the church of Plumtre,
deforc. of the manor of Plumtre, with the Appurtenances, and
the advowson of the church of the same manor, whereby it was
settled on the said William Fitz-William, and the heirs of
his body; Remainder to John son of the said William and the
heirs male of his; Remainder to Thomas, brother of John in like
fort; Remainder to Joan, sister of Thomas, and the heirs male
of her body; Remainder to Agnes, and to Isabel, her sisters
respectively in the same manner; remainder to the right heirs
of the said William.' { MichaelAnne Guido, extract from Thoroton,
Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, Vol. III, page 135 [sub Plumptre
and Normanton][7]}
with regard to Joan FitzWilliam's brother John, and her parentage,
MichaelAnne Guido wrote:
' Joan Fitzwilliam was younger [born after the date of the marriage]
and there is adequate documentation showing her to be a daughter
of Isabel D'Eincout. Brian de Thornhill was mentioned in Isabel
D'Eincourt's [I believe he was one of the executors along with
another son-in-law and her stepson John Fitzwilliam] will in 1348,
and she named her daughter Joan Fitzwilliam in her will. '[22]
_______________________________________
' Lady Joan ', wife of Brian de Thornhill, quitclaim dated 21
Edw III [1347-8] :
' Quitclaim by Richard son of Thomas de Popilwell' in favour of
Sir Brian de Thornehill' knight and Lady Joan his wife of his
claim to lands and tenements in the fee of Gomersal' (Gomersall,
Yk) which he had previously granted to Brian and Joan, and also
to an annual rent of 12d from lands there.' - A2A,
Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate
Papers, DD/SR/26/61[5]
_______________________________________
other sources state, re: Joan FitzWilliam:
' Joan, daughter of Sir John Fitz-William, Knt. ' [pedigree of
Thornhill, of Fixby and Riddlesworth: Foster's Yorkshire
Pedigrees[23]]
parentage shown as cited by Brice Clagett:
' It was suggested on Monday that Joan FitzWilliam, alleged wife of
Sir Henry Sothill, was daughter of Sir John FitzWilliam (d. 1349)
and his wife, Jane de Reresby.
According to Watney's "The Wallop Family" 2:333, that couple did
have a daughter Joan, who in 1334 married Sir Bryan Thornhill.'[24]
as shown herein, this is impossible on chronological grounds. Also,
see the will of Isabel Deincourt, Lady FitzWilliam, in ref. to her
daughter Joan.
Spouse: Sir Brian de Thornhill
Birth: ca 1298[25],[5]
Death: aft 8 Dec 1365[5]
Father: Sir John de Thornhill (-<1322)
Mother: Beatrice Talboner (->1334)
Children: Simon
Joan
Elizabeth
Margaret
John
1. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland
Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
2. Douglas Richardson, "Re: Sothill Chronology, a rehash of
Markenfield," Dec 30, 2001, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
3. "Visitations of the North, Part III:," A Visitation of The North
of England circa 1480-1500, Publications of the Surtees Society,
Vol. CXLIV, Durham: Andrews & Co.,, 1930, 78 et seq.
4. Brian Timms, "The Falkirk Roll," an occasional roll of arms of
those having fought at the Battle of Falkirk, July 1298,
http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/falkirkH.html
5. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
6. Douglas Richardson, "Deincourt/Tibetot--CP error?," 30 December
2001, cites Rev. Joseph Hunter South Yorkshire 2 (1831):92-94,
email royalancestry@msn.com.
7. MichaelAnne Guido, "Re: Savile of Thornhill and Copley: a
Plantagenet descent," 7 September 2004, email
ClaudiusI0@aol.com, cites PRO extracts; Baildon & the Baildons
by William Paley Baildon, Chapter Eleven - The Fitzwilliams,
p. 355, Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, Vol. III,
page 135; and other sources.
8. Sir William Dugdale, "Monasticon Anglicanum," London: Harding
& Lepard; and Longman Rees... Green, 1830, Vol. VI, Pt. 1 -
Austin Abbey of Wigmore, in Herefordshire, pp. 348-356
[Fundationis et Fundatorum Historia], Vol. VI, Pt. 2 - Priory
of Bullington, co. Lincs., pp. 951-954, URL
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
9. "Testamenta Eboracensia [Selection of Wills, Reg. at York],"
The Surtees Society, Andrews & Co., Durham (J. B. Nichols & Sons,
London), Vol. IV, Pt. I: 1869, IV:50-52, will of Isabella
Deincourt (wife of Sir William fitz William) d. 1348, IV:97-99,
will of Marmaduke Constable (d. 1378), see pp. 100-101 for will
of Sir Martin de la See, IV:418-419, will of Isabella Salvayn.
10. W. Paley Baildon, "The Butlers of Skelbrook and Kirk Sandal,"
Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Vol. 29 (1929), pp. 68-88,
text provided by David Hepworth, <BUTLER OF SKELBROOK AND KIRK
SANDAL>, SGM, 11 January 2005, email davidbhepworth@hotmail.com.
11. "Bosville Deeds," The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical
Journal, Vol. XIII (1895), London: printed for the Association
by Bradbury, Agnew and Co., Whitefriars, E.C.
12. "Yorkshire Subsidy Rolls (Poll Tax) for the year 1379,"
transcribed from The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical
Journals,
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Mi ... field.html
13. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower,
Esquire, Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell
and Hughes, Printers, London, 1881, pp. 154-156: pedigree of
Hastings of Elsing ('Hastynges..' of Fenwick, co. Yorks.),
'The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years 1563 and 1564'.
14. Paul C. Reed, "Two Unrelated Questions," Nov 25, 1998,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, responses to queries from Richard
Ledyard.
15. Frederick L. Weis, Th. D., "The Magna Carta Sureties, 1215,"
Baltimore: Gen Pub Co., 5th ed., 1997 (W. L. Sheppard Jr & David
Faris).
16. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial
and Medieval Families," Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
Company, 2004.
17. John P. Ravilious, "Soothill of Soothill, co. Yorks., Redbourn,
co. Lincs. & C - Pt I," Nov 9, 2002, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com,
cites records provided by the Public Record Office,
Nottinghamshire Archives: Savile of Rufford: Deeds and Estate
Papers.
18. "The National Archives," URL
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
19. "The Visitation of Lincolnshire," Harleian Society, Harleian
Series, Vols. 50-52 (Lincolnshire, Vols. I-III), II:555-557,
Kelke of Barnetby, III: 884-886, Skerne of Bonby and Waltham.
20. John Ravilious, "Sothill Chronology," Oct 15, 2001,
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com.
21. William Brown, F.S.A., ed., "Yorkshire Deeds, Vol. II," The
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Record series
vol. L - 1914.
22. MichaelAnne Guido, "Re: Savile of Thornhill and Copley: a
Plantagenet descent," 7 September 2004, email
ClaudiusI0@aol.com, cites will of Isabel D'Eincourt (dated 1348).
23. "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire," compiled by
Joseph Foster, London: W. Wilfred Head, 1874 (2 Vols.).
24. Brice Clagett, "Sothill chronology," 17 Oct 2001, email
bclagett@cov.com, cites Watney's "The Wallop Family" 2:333.
25. A. Gooder, Ph.D., "The Parliamentary Representation of the
County of York, 1258-1832, Vol. I," The Yorkshire Archaeological
Society, Record Series, Vol. XCI (1935), Wakefield: Printed for
the Society, 1935.
* John P. Ravilious
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Dear Will,
True enough (as I stated, the pedigree is not complete).
The elder brother was William, evidently a half brother (son of
Sir William by a first wife, evidently named Maude). William adhered
to the Earl of Lancaster, was captured after the battle of
Boroughbridge and executed at Pontefract 22 March 1321/2. See CP
V:519, sub _FitzWilliam_.
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
True enough (as I stated, the pedigree is not complete).
The elder brother was William, evidently a half brother (son of
Sir William by a first wife, evidently named Maude). William adhered
to the Earl of Lancaster, was captured after the battle of
Boroughbridge and executed at Pontefract 22 March 1321/2. See CP
V:519, sub _FitzWilliam_.
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/15/06 7:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3 writes:
Children: Sir John (-1349) [* possibly son of a prior wife]
Thomas (-<1348)
Margaret
Joan (->1347) [m. Sir Brian Thornhill - see below]
Agnes
Isabel
1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: 10 Aug 1349[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
2nd son, heir of brother William (d.v.p. ca. 1322)[1]
John thank you for this detailed analysis.
In this snippet you say John is heir to his brother, but above, you don't
show that brother.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
In a message dated 6/15/06 7:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3 writes:
<< Children: Sir John (-1349) [* possibly son of a prior wife]
Thomas (-<1348)
Margaret
Joan (->1347) [m. Sir Brian Thornhill - see below]
Agnes
Isabel
1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: 10 Aug 1349[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
2nd son, heir of brother William (d.v.p. ca. 1322)[1] >>
John thank you for this detailed analysis.
In this snippet you say John is heir to his brother, but above, you don't
show that brother.
Will
<< Children: Sir John (-1349) [* possibly son of a prior wife]
Thomas (-<1348)
Margaret
Joan (->1347) [m. Sir Brian Thornhill - see below]
Agnes
Isabel
1.1 Sir John FitzWilliam
----------------------------------------
Death: 10 Aug 1349[1]
Occ: lord of Emley and Sprotborough
of Sprotborough, co. York[3]
2nd son, heir of brother William (d.v.p. ca. 1322)[1] >>
John thank you for this detailed analysis.
In this snippet you say John is heir to his brother, but above, you don't
show that brother.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
In a message dated 6/15/06 7:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3 writes:
<< C 1/38/177
William Birton and Johanne his wife, late wife of Henry Southill.
v. John Southill, son of the said Henry and Johanne.: Dower in
the manor of Southill. Outrageous conduct of defendant.: York.
[dated roughly 1386-1486 [18]] >>
This one can be dated a little better since we now know that Sir Henry de
Sothill, and Joan were still a couple on 1 Hen V [1413/4]
Will Johnson
<< C 1/38/177
William Birton and Johanne his wife, late wife of Henry Southill.
v. John Southill, son of the said Henry and Johanne.: Dower in
the manor of Southill. Outrageous conduct of defendant.: York.
[dated roughly 1386-1486 [18]] >>
This one can be dated a little better since we now know that Sir Henry de
Sothill, and Joan were still a couple on 1 Hen V [1413/4]
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
In a message dated 6/15/06 7:10:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3 writes:
<< 1.1.1.1.3a Joan FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Henry Soothill [1st husband]
Death: aft 1429[5]
Father: Henry Soothill (->1410)
Marr: bef 2 Jun 1413[17],[5]
Children: John >>
Is not Gerard Sothill of Redbourne d 1 Aug 1410 who m Muriel Salvin a child
to this couple Joan and Henry Sothill ?
<< 1.1.1.1.3a Joan FitzWilliam*
----------------------------------------
Spouse: Henry Soothill [1st husband]
Death: aft 1429[5]
Father: Henry Soothill (->1410)
Marr: bef 2 Jun 1413[17],[5]
Children: John >>
Is not Gerard Sothill of Redbourne d 1 Aug 1410 who m Muriel Salvin a child
to this couple Joan and Henry Sothill ?
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
In a message dated 6/15/06 8:15:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< I show Sir Gerard as the great-uncle of Henry Soothill of
Soothill (husband of Joan FitzWilliam); others believe him to be the
uncle of Henry. >>
Chronologically he could even be the brother. If all we know is that he was
enfeoffed in 1371.
Will
writes:
<< I show Sir Gerard as the great-uncle of Henry Soothill of
Soothill (husband of Joan FitzWilliam); others believe him to be the
uncle of Henry. >>
Chronologically he could even be the brother. If all we know is that he was
enfeoffed in 1371.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
In a message dated 6/15/06 8:15:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< The elder brother was William, evidently a half brother (son of
Sir William by a first wife, evidently named Maude). >>
What's the evidence that he was not a full brother ?
Thanks
Will
writes:
<< The elder brother was William, evidently a half brother (son of
Sir William by a first wife, evidently named Maude). >>
What's the evidence that he was not a full brother ?
Thanks
Will
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Dear Will,
If nothing further of the family were known, that might
(somehow) be true.
Please check the SGM archives; there are a number of threads
concerning the family, and these issues, including
"Soothill of Soothill, co. Yorks., Redbourn, co. Lincs. & C -
Pt I " (2002)
"Sothill Chronology redux" (2002)
"Markenfield-Southill (Soothill) Questions" (2003)
"Soothill Redux (was Re: Michael Wentworth of Little Harbor,
New Hampshire " (2005)
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If nothing further of the family were known, that might
(somehow) be true.
Please check the SGM archives; there are a number of threads
concerning the family, and these issues, including
"Soothill of Soothill, co. Yorks., Redbourn, co. Lincs. & C -
Pt I " (2002)
"Sothill Chronology redux" (2002)
"Markenfield-Southill (Soothill) Questions" (2003)
"Soothill Redux (was Re: Michael Wentworth of Little Harbor,
New Hampshire " (2005)
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/15/06 8:15:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
I show Sir Gerard as the great-uncle of Henry Soothill of
Soothill (husband of Joan FitzWilliam); others believe him to be the
uncle of Henry.
Chronologically he could even be the brother. If all we know is that he was
enfeoffed in 1371.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: echingham/baynton
I'm glad that all the sources quoted in PA on this connection has been
freshly rechecked.
Although a person may know or suspect that the connection is false, it's
quite another thing to convince an author (DR) to change what they have
published, in their next version.
A hundred or a thousand people may read this post and the archives, while a
thousand or ten thousand may read PA thinking it's correct.
So I applaud Louise's tendacity in having done all this work.
Will Johnson
freshly rechecked.
Although a person may know or suspect that the connection is false, it's
quite another thing to convince an author (DR) to change what they have
published, in their next version.
A hundred or a thousand people may read this post and the archives, while a
thousand or ten thousand may read PA thinking it's correct.
So I applaud Louise's tendacity in having done all this work.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: echingham/baynton
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
A glorious cross between tendency and tenacity - I'm going to start
using it myself!
I applaud Louise's tendacity in having done all this work.
A glorious cross between tendency and tenacity - I'm going to start
using it myself!
-
Gjest
Re: 2 quarters of good cats
This reminds me of an entry I was reading the other day where the town had a
dog catcher of a sorts.
He was paid to bring in the skins of dogs. I didn't extract the entry
however.
Will
dog catcher of a sorts.
He was paid to bring in the skins of dogs. I didn't extract the entry
however.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Therav3@aol.com schrieb:
John
As usual, an impressive and well presented set of facts. Is there any
heraldic evidence that might assist in placing this family within the
main Lacy line? According to Hudleston and Boumphrey, Roger de Lacy, d
c1212, Sheriff of Yorkshire and Cumberland, bore Or, a lion rampant
purpure.
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Michael, et al.,
Following is the pedigree of Lacy of Cromwellbotham, such as I now
show it. I have moved Henry de Lacy to the 'first' spot as elder son,
per my earlier post.
Your comments and criticism (re: this and the online pedigree)
will be most welcome.
Cheers,
John
John
As usual, an impressive and well presented set of facts. Is there any
heraldic evidence that might assist in placing this family within the
main Lacy line? According to Hudleston and Boumphrey, Roger de Lacy, d
c1212, Sheriff of Yorkshire and Cumberland, bore Or, a lion rampant
purpure.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Will Johnson wrote:
I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from?
Chris Phillips
Oh no! But didn't the author say he wasn't interested in corrections
until
he got version 2 out? Or did I misunderstand that?
I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from?
Chris Phillips
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: 2 quarters of good cats
In message of 17 Jun, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Lift you shed up and rest it on those stone toadstools that you see
under old farm barns.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Thanks to those who solved my cats query. It would seem "oats" is the
answer. However, although not specifically stated, the original text would seem to
have been in latin, both the errors would perhaps have occurred by the copy
typist or scan, whatever. I wonder how long oats last, this payment was made
in March, I guess that's okay — maybe I will do a little test, the closest I
have to "oats" is my breakfast cereal "Oat Crunches" and my garden shed is
perhaps the closest I can come to medieval storage conditions, so I will put
some out there this harvest time and see what they are like next March, but
how do I keep the mice away?
Lift you shed up and rest it on those stone toadstools that you see
under old farm barns.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/16/06 3:09:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< Thanks for pointing out this error. It seems that obviously inconsistent
information has been accepted incautiously from very late sources here. I
shall pass on the details to the author. >>
Oh no! But didn't the author say he wasn't interested in corrections until
he got version 2 out? Or did I misunderstand that?
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< Thanks for pointing out this error. It seems that obviously inconsistent
information has been accepted incautiously from very late sources here. I
shall pass on the details to the author. >>
Oh no! But didn't the author say he wasn't interested in corrections until
he got version 2 out? Or did I misunderstand that?
-
Gjest
Re: 2 quarters of good cats
Thanks to those who solved my cats query. It would seem "oats" is the
answer. However, although not specifically stated, the original text would seem to
have been in latin, both the errors would perhaps have occurred by the copy
typist or scan, whatever. I wonder how long oats last, this payment was made
in March, I guess that's okay — maybe I will do a little test, the closest I
have to "oats" is my breakfast cereal "Oat Crunches" and my garden shed is
perhaps the closest I can come to medieval storage conditions, so I will put
some out there this harvest time and see what they are like next March, but
how do I keep the mice away?
Adrian
In a message dated 16/06/2006 17:09:06 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
What does "2 quarters of good cats" look like?
Adrian
PRO; A2A; Shropshire Archives: Catalogue of the Shropshire deeds and papers
of the Smythe Family of Acton Burnell
Reference: 1514/254; Agreement between Richard de Welstaunestowe Prior of
Preone and Richard Burnel lord of Longeley.; Creation dates: 1292
Scope and Content
Uncertainties had arisen over the payment the men of the village of Preen
were accustomed to pay of 2 quarters of cats each year on the feast of the
BVM
in March to the lord of Longleye. The parties to the agreement with the
ascent of the Prior of Wenlok agreed thus: that Richard Burnell for himself
and
his heirs should grant to the men of Preone the ditch (fossatum) which
appears
between the lord's wood and the fields of Preone, and the same ditch to
plant
and inclose the so much from the ?thorntrees (spinnis) of his wood by view
of his forester as from the wood of the Prior of Preen.
The men of Preen are to give to Richard Burnel and his heirs 2 quarters of
good cats each year on the feast of Blessed Mary in March in the township
of
Preene for the said advantage and easement
Witnesses: brother Stephen then reeve of Lydleye knt, Sirs Roger de
Buterleye and Ivo de Clynton, knts, of Hopton,....... de Eachse, Walter
Sprenghose,
Robert Brun, ?Elna de Stutton, Robert de Aston, William de 1a Cote, Ivo de
Rokeleye, Thomas de Esthope, Thomas le Philip de Plesse.
Docketed: Richard Burnell dominus de langley
answer. However, although not specifically stated, the original text would seem to
have been in latin, both the errors would perhaps have occurred by the copy
typist or scan, whatever. I wonder how long oats last, this payment was made
in March, I guess that's okay — maybe I will do a little test, the closest I
have to "oats" is my breakfast cereal "Oat Crunches" and my garden shed is
perhaps the closest I can come to medieval storage conditions, so I will put
some out there this harvest time and see what they are like next March, but
how do I keep the mice away?
Adrian
In a message dated 16/06/2006 17:09:06 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
What does "2 quarters of good cats" look like?
Adrian
PRO; A2A; Shropshire Archives: Catalogue of the Shropshire deeds and papers
of the Smythe Family of Acton Burnell
Reference: 1514/254; Agreement between Richard de Welstaunestowe Prior of
Preone and Richard Burnel lord of Longeley.; Creation dates: 1292
Scope and Content
Uncertainties had arisen over the payment the men of the village of Preen
were accustomed to pay of 2 quarters of cats each year on the feast of the
BVM
in March to the lord of Longleye. The parties to the agreement with the
ascent of the Prior of Wenlok agreed thus: that Richard Burnell for himself
and
his heirs should grant to the men of Preone the ditch (fossatum) which
appears
between the lord's wood and the fields of Preone, and the same ditch to
plant
and inclose the so much from the ?thorntrees (spinnis) of his wood by view
of his forester as from the wood of the Prior of Preen.
The men of Preen are to give to Richard Burnel and his heirs 2 quarters of
good cats each year on the feast of Blessed Mary in March in the township
of
Preene for the said advantage and easement
Witnesses: brother Stephen then reeve of Lydleye knt, Sirs Roger de
Buterleye and Ivo de Clynton, knts, of Hopton,....... de Eachse, Walter
Sprenghose,
Robert Brun, ?Elna de Stutton, Robert de Aston, William de 1a Cote, Ivo de
Rokeleye, Thomas de Esthope, Thomas le Philip de Plesse.
Docketed: Richard Burnell dominus de langley
-
Gjest
Re: Tempest and Hudleston
In a message dated 6/16/06 2:54:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< Katherine Tempest and Sir John Hudleston's son and heir, Sir Richard
Hudleston likewise married a woman of Holand descent - the daughter of
Sir Nicholas Harington, whose grandmother Katherine Banastre was
Margaret Holand's daughter by her second marriage. >>
I'm hoping you can solve this chronologic problem I'm having with this
reconstruction.
Was Nicholas Harington of Farleton the son of Katherine Banastre ?
Leo has this Nicholas b 1345
The Sir John Tempest of Bracewell b 24 Aug 1283 d 1359 must then be
Margaret's father-in-law
I can't fit another generation in there.
Thanks
Will Johnson
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< Katherine Tempest and Sir John Hudleston's son and heir, Sir Richard
Hudleston likewise married a woman of Holand descent - the daughter of
Sir Nicholas Harington, whose grandmother Katherine Banastre was
Margaret Holand's daughter by her second marriage. >>
I'm hoping you can solve this chronologic problem I'm having with this
reconstruction.
Was Nicholas Harington of Farleton the son of Katherine Banastre ?
Leo has this Nicholas b 1345
The Sir John Tempest of Bracewell b 24 Aug 1283 d 1359 must then be
Margaret's father-in-law
I can't fit another generation in there.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/16/06 4:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from? >>
Well would he accept corrections of the sort "This statement is unfounded...
this next statement is also unfounded... this next statement is also
unfounded"
Not to be a smart-elec .....
Interesting reading on some of the points I question, are exactly the points
where he doesn't cite any authority and also doesn't enclose the point in
brackets as questionable.
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from? >>
Well would he accept corrections of the sort "This statement is unfounded...
this next statement is also unfounded... this next statement is also
unfounded"
Not to be a smart-elec .....
Interesting reading on some of the points I question, are exactly the points
where he doesn't cite any authority and also doesn't enclose the point in
brackets as questionable.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:4c1.1f18231.31c49770@aol.com...
My memory is that Cawley did not wish to receive comments on the format, as
he is already working on a revision that will change this significantly.
I understood that he is willing to receive corrections.
However, the errors are far too many and deleterious for this to be
worthwhile. The problem is not one of accuracy (as Leo remarked, such a
large volume of work is bound to contain slips) but rather of an incompetent
researcher going about the work with totally inept methodology.
The discussion of Peter Orseolo that Cawley singled out for mention in his
Introduction is a case in point. He has managed to overlook the principal
secondary works that might have steered him in a more purposeful direction
towards the apposite primary sources - and, for an aspiring genealogist,
this means absurdly missing the relevant work of no less than Szabolcs de
Vajay, to say noting of the fundamental work of Albin Gombos.
Cawley has produced a rambling and misleading study of the chronology and
marriages of Peter Orrseolo, adducing mostly the wrong primary sources or
misunderstanding what it told in these, while hitting on a couple that do
give useful points of evidence but missing precisely these details in his
extracts.
This is not an isolated instance - casual, inexperienced and/or gullible
readers often tend to imagine that anything & everything not explicitly
pointed out to them as an error is therefore likely to be correct. I
expected better than this of Chris Phillips. We see today that John Brandon
holds to this theory in his remarks about PA3, but that is of less moment
because John has not tried to present himself as an impartial observer in
this respect.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 6/16/06 4:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from?
Well would he accept corrections of the sort "This statement is
unfounded...
this next statement is also unfounded... this next statement is also
unfounded"
Not to be a smart-elec .....
Interesting reading on some of the points I question, are exactly the
points
where he doesn't cite any authority and also doesn't enclose the point in
brackets as questionable.
My memory is that Cawley did not wish to receive comments on the format, as
he is already working on a revision that will change this significantly.
I understood that he is willing to receive corrections.
However, the errors are far too many and deleterious for this to be
worthwhile. The problem is not one of accuracy (as Leo remarked, such a
large volume of work is bound to contain slips) but rather of an incompetent
researcher going about the work with totally inept methodology.
The discussion of Peter Orseolo that Cawley singled out for mention in his
Introduction is a case in point. He has managed to overlook the principal
secondary works that might have steered him in a more purposeful direction
towards the apposite primary sources - and, for an aspiring genealogist,
this means absurdly missing the relevant work of no less than Szabolcs de
Vajay, to say noting of the fundamental work of Albin Gombos.
Cawley has produced a rambling and misleading study of the chronology and
marriages of Peter Orrseolo, adducing mostly the wrong primary sources or
misunderstanding what it told in these, while hitting on a couple that do
give useful points of evidence but missing precisely these details in his
extracts.
This is not an isolated instance - casual, inexperienced and/or gullible
readers often tend to imagine that anything & everything not explicitly
pointed out to them as an error is therefore likely to be correct. I
expected better than this of Chris Phillips. We see today that John Brandon
holds to this theory in his remarks about PA3, but that is of less moment
because John has not tried to present himself as an impartial observer in
this respect.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Will Johnson is not the only one who remembers this observation.
I think by now too many flaws have been mentioned about this website and
instead of version 2 to be finalised, version 1 should be scrutinised and
lyrical descriptions should become less so.
What has been attempted (I have not seen it) sounds quite monumental, and I
can only wonder how long it has been in preparation.
Does he work alone? Or has he assistance? As a comparison, I had collected
genealogical data literally for decades (I started in 1958). In 1990 I found
someone who wrote a computer program for me, for about 12 years I have been
entering data, and only in 2002 or 2003 did Ian Fettes turn it into a
website. Knowing that so large a collection _has to be flawed_ I have
invited corrections and additions from the beginning, and almost daily they
still come in. When they do, all I can say is that they will be attended to
and only after the next update of the website (about once a month) will they
become visible. And yes, I do it all by myself, as the system I have does
not allow for co-operation, all the biographies lately entered have to be
keyed in letter by letter by myself.
These added biographies have added an enormous amount of information about
medieval England, France, Germany, Spain, the Low Countries, Bohemia, Poland
and so on.
And again I would like to ask for additions and corrections for those as
well.
I feel that Christ Phillips was perhaps too positive about this new source,
and as he does not seem to rember the remark quoted by Will Johnson, I can
only wonder what else has he forgotten?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
I think by now too many flaws have been mentioned about this website and
instead of version 2 to be finalised, version 1 should be scrutinised and
lyrical descriptions should become less so.
What has been attempted (I have not seen it) sounds quite monumental, and I
can only wonder how long it has been in preparation.
Does he work alone? Or has he assistance? As a comparison, I had collected
genealogical data literally for decades (I started in 1958). In 1990 I found
someone who wrote a computer program for me, for about 12 years I have been
entering data, and only in 2002 or 2003 did Ian Fettes turn it into a
website. Knowing that so large a collection _has to be flawed_ I have
invited corrections and additions from the beginning, and almost daily they
still come in. When they do, all I can say is that they will be attended to
and only after the next update of the website (about once a month) will they
become visible. And yes, I do it all by myself, as the system I have does
not allow for co-operation, all the biographies lately entered have to be
keyed in letter by letter by myself.
These added biographies have added an enormous amount of information about
medieval England, France, Germany, Spain, the Low Countries, Bohemia, Poland
and so on.
And again I would like to ask for additions and corrections for those as
well.
I feel that Christ Phillips was perhaps too positive about this new source,
and as he does not seem to rember the remark quoted by Will Johnson, I can
only wonder what else has he forgotten?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Will Johnson wrote:
Oh no! But didn't the author say he wasn't interested in corrections
until
he got version 2 out? Or did I misunderstand that?
I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from?
Chris Phillips
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: 2 quarters of good cats
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Adrian,
This may be the point where the 'good cats' come in (not in
quarters of course).
Cheers,
John
Thanks to those who solved my cats query. It would seem "oats" is the
answer. However, although not specifically stated, the original text would seem to
have been in latin, both the errors would perhaps have occurred by the copy
typist or scan, whatever. I wonder how long oats last, this payment was made
in March, I guess that's okay - maybe I will do a little test, the closest I
have to "oats" is my breakfast cereal "Oat Crunches" and my garden shed is
perhaps the closest I can come to medieval storage conditions, so I will put
some out there this harvest time and see what they are like next March, but
how do I keep the mice away?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Adrian,
This may be the point where the 'good cats' come in (not in
quarters of course).
Cheers,
John
Adrian
In a message dated 16/06/2006 17:09:06 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
What does "2 quarters of good cats" look like?
Adrian
PRO; A2A; Shropshire Archives: Catalogue of the Shropshire deeds and papers
of the Smythe Family of Acton Burnell
Reference: 1514/254; Agreement between Richard de Welstaunestowe Prior of
Preone and Richard Burnel lord of Longeley.; Creation dates: 1292
Scope and Content
Uncertainties had arisen over the payment the men of the village of Preen
were accustomed to pay of 2 quarters of cats each year on the feast of the
BVM
in March to the lord of Longleye. The parties to the agreement with the
ascent of the Prior of Wenlok agreed thus: that Richard Burnell for himself
and
his heirs should grant to the men of Preone the ditch (fossatum) which
appears
between the lord's wood and the fields of Preone, and the same ditch to
plant
and inclose the so much from the ?thorntrees (spinnis) of his wood by view
of his forester as from the wood of the Prior of Preen.
The men of Preen are to give to Richard Burnel and his heirs 2 quarters of
good cats each year on the feast of Blessed Mary in March in the township
of
Preene for the said advantage and easement
Witnesses: brother Stephen then reeve of Lydleye knt, Sirs Roger de
Buterleye and Ivo de Clynton, knts, of Hopton,....... de Eachse, Walter
Sprenghose,
Robert Brun, ?Elna de Stutton, Robert de Aston, William de 1a Cote, Ivo de
Rokeleye, Thomas de Esthope, Thomas le Philip de Plesse.
Docketed: Richard Burnell dominus de langley
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: 2 quarters of good cats
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Adrian,
This may be the point where the 'good cats' come in (not in
quarters of course).
Cheers,
John
Thanks to those who solved my cats query. It would seem "oats" is the
answer. However, although not specifically stated, the original text would seem to
have been in latin, both the errors would perhaps have occurred by the copy
typist or scan, whatever. I wonder how long oats last, this payment was made
in March, I guess that's okay - maybe I will do a little test, the closest I
have to "oats" is my breakfast cereal "Oat Crunches" and my garden shed is
perhaps the closest I can come to medieval storage conditions, so I will put
some out there this harvest time and see what they are like next March, but
how do I keep the mice away?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Adrian,
This may be the point where the 'good cats' come in (not in
quarters of course).
Cheers,
John
Adrian
In a message dated 16/06/2006 17:09:06 GMT Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
What does "2 quarters of good cats" look like?
Adrian
PRO; A2A; Shropshire Archives: Catalogue of the Shropshire deeds and papers
of the Smythe Family of Acton Burnell
Reference: 1514/254; Agreement between Richard de Welstaunestowe Prior of
Preone and Richard Burnel lord of Longeley.; Creation dates: 1292
Scope and Content
Uncertainties had arisen over the payment the men of the village of Preen
were accustomed to pay of 2 quarters of cats each year on the feast of the
BVM
in March to the lord of Longleye. The parties to the agreement with the
ascent of the Prior of Wenlok agreed thus: that Richard Burnell for himself
and
his heirs should grant to the men of Preone the ditch (fossatum) which
appears
between the lord's wood and the fields of Preone, and the same ditch to
plant
and inclose the so much from the ?thorntrees (spinnis) of his wood by view
of his forester as from the wood of the Prior of Preen.
The men of Preen are to give to Richard Burnel and his heirs 2 quarters of
good cats each year on the feast of Blessed Mary in March in the township
of
Preene for the said advantage and easement
Witnesses: brother Stephen then reeve of Lydleye knt, Sirs Roger de
Buterleye and Ivo de Clynton, knts, of Hopton,....... de Eachse, Walter
Sprenghose,
Robert Brun, ?Elna de Stutton, Robert de Aston, William de 1a Cote, Ivo de
Rokeleye, Thomas de Esthope, Thomas le Philip de Plesse.
Docketed: Richard Burnell dominus de langley
-
Gjest
Re: Big foot, nickname of the mother of Charles the Great
Dear Keyukato,
The Lives of the Kings and Queens of France, a
English translation (1979) of Rois et Reines de France by the Duc de Castries,
translated by Anne Dobell p 35 states that Pepin the Short convinvced the newly
elected Pope, Stephen II to anoint him, his consort Bertha of the Big Foot and
their two sons Charles (Charlemagne) and Carloman before going to war againest
the Lombards in January of 754. Interesting that the Queen was anointed as
well. If She were in fact of Merovingian blood being anointed with him and their
children might well have been like proclaiming them the heirs of the dynasty.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
The Lives of the Kings and Queens of France, a
English translation (1979) of Rois et Reines de France by the Duc de Castries,
translated by Anne Dobell p 35 states that Pepin the Short convinvced the newly
elected Pope, Stephen II to anoint him, his consort Bertha of the Big Foot and
their two sons Charles (Charlemagne) and Carloman before going to war againest
the Lombards in January of 754. Interesting that the Queen was anointed as
well. If She were in fact of Merovingian blood being anointed with him and their
children might well have been like proclaiming them the heirs of the dynasty.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Paul K Davis
Re: Weird question
The "king of the Greeks" would presumably mean the Byzantine Emperor. In
1280 there were more than one of these, at least one of whom may have been
living in the West. The "Latins"/"Franks" had conquered Constantinople in
1204, but by 1280 an heir of the last "Greek" dynasty, Michael VIII
Palaiologos, had retakend the capital, displacing the "Latin Emperor", who
may have been Philip of Courtenay (I don't have all my sources readily
available). At some points during the thirteenth century there had been
yet other claimants.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
1280 there were more than one of these, at least one of whom may have been
living in the West. The "Latins"/"Franks" had conquered Constantinople in
1204, but by 1280 an heir of the last "Greek" dynasty, Michael VIII
Palaiologos, had retakend the capital, displacing the "Latin Emperor", who
may have been Philip of Courtenay (I don't have all my sources readily
available). At some points during the thirteenth century there had been
yet other claimants.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: Matt Tompkins <mllt1@le.ac.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 6/14/2006 3:39:21 AM
Subject: Re: Weird question
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
On the Camden Roll, circa 1280, all kinds of people are mentioned and
some I really wonder who they were, for instance
King of Griffony
Duc de Venise
Would anyone have an idea who these two were?
Dear Leo,
in the medieval period Greeks were sometimes called Griffons, so this
must be the King of Greece. Exactly who that might have been in 1280,
I'm not sure, but it may not have been a real person - the arms
ascribed to him in the Roll (Azure, a griffon segreant or) are so
appropriate they look mythical.
Could the Duc de Venise be the Doge of Venice (Venise is French for
Venice, and I have an idea doge was sometimes translated as duke)? The
arms given in the Roll (Gules, a castle argent) haven't ever been the
civic arms of Venice itself, so far as I'm aware, but maybe they were
the family arms of an individual doge.
It might be worth posting the question on rec-heraldry.
Regards,
Matt Tompkins
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Dear Peter,
Nice to hear from You again. I have visited the Medieval
Lands site a few times and have especially noted the following :
Under Anglo Saxons
(sub) Kent, Cawley intimates that Emma (or as he says Ermetrude or
Ermenhildis) was almost certainly the daughter of King Clotaire II of the Franks
because 1) Eadbald`s son Eorconbert has a non Saxon element to it and 2) because
that King named one of his sons Hlothere (persumedly a corruption of Clotaire,
and it does make an onomastic sense, but proof is rather sadly lacking)
Under Anglo Saxons (sub Wessex) Cawley posits that Ecgbert being a Kentish
name and none of the other Saxon Kingdoms seemed to have used it before the
time of Alfred, that Ecgbert`s father Ealhmund was a Oiscing rather than a member
of the house of Wessex by birth, being son not of Prince Eafa of Wessex, by a
daughter of King Wihtred of Kent (his fall- back position) but instead of his
predecessor King Ecgbert II of Kent.
Under Scotland , He indicates that King Malcolm II mac Kenneth of the Scots
was married to a daughter of someone from Ossory (one of the principal Irish
Kingdoms). I think this is the first time I have seen anyone attempt to
identify this lady.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Nice to hear from You again. I have visited the Medieval
Lands site a few times and have especially noted the following :
Under Anglo Saxons
(sub) Kent, Cawley intimates that Emma (or as he says Ermetrude or
Ermenhildis) was almost certainly the daughter of King Clotaire II of the Franks
because 1) Eadbald`s son Eorconbert has a non Saxon element to it and 2) because
that King named one of his sons Hlothere (persumedly a corruption of Clotaire,
and it does make an onomastic sense, but proof is rather sadly lacking)
Under Anglo Saxons (sub Wessex) Cawley posits that Ecgbert being a Kentish
name and none of the other Saxon Kingdoms seemed to have used it before the
time of Alfred, that Ecgbert`s father Ealhmund was a Oiscing rather than a member
of the house of Wessex by birth, being son not of Prince Eafa of Wessex, by a
daughter of King Wihtred of Kent (his fall- back position) but instead of his
predecessor King Ecgbert II of Kent.
Under Scotland , He indicates that King Malcolm II mac Kenneth of the Scots
was married to a daughter of someone from Ossory (one of the principal Irish
Kingdoms). I think this is the first time I have seen anyone attempt to
identify this lady.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Tempest and Hudleston
WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:
Yes, that's right.
Not sure I follow the logic here. Burke's says that this Sir John
Tempest (the elder) married a daughter of Robert Holand - this would
appear to make him Margaret Holand's brother-in-law rather than
father-in-law.
Additionally, Burke's says that Sir John Tempest the younger married
Katherine Sherburn, apparently Margaret Holand's granddaughter; if this
reconstruction (and the alleged facts behind it) are correct, then Sir
John the younger and his wife would have been first cousins once
removed - closely consanginous - assuming that the younger Sir John is
said to have been the son of Margaret Holand's sister. I note that
Burke's Extinct Peerage says the elder Sir John married a daughter of
Hugh Clitheroe and also drops a generation, making the younger Sir John
and the first Sir Richard brothers - which would make more sense
chronologically.
Sir Nicholas Harington was the son of Katherine Banastre and the
grandson of Margaret Holand. Thus, Sir Richard Hudleston married
Margaret's great granddaughter.
Is this any clearer?
In a message dated 6/16/06 2:54:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Katherine Tempest and Sir John Hudleston's son and heir, Sir Richard
Hudleston likewise married a woman of Holand descent - the daughter of
Sir Nicholas Harington, whose grandmother Katherine Banastre was
Margaret Holand's daughter by her second marriage.
I'm hoping you can solve this chronologic problem I'm having with this
reconstruction.
Was Nicholas Harington of Farleton the son of Katherine Banastre ?
Leo has this Nicholas b 1345
Yes, that's right.
The Sir John Tempest of Bracewell b 24 Aug 1283 d 1359 must then be
Margaret's father-in-law
Not sure I follow the logic here. Burke's says that this Sir John
Tempest (the elder) married a daughter of Robert Holand - this would
appear to make him Margaret Holand's brother-in-law rather than
father-in-law.
Additionally, Burke's says that Sir John Tempest the younger married
Katherine Sherburn, apparently Margaret Holand's granddaughter; if this
reconstruction (and the alleged facts behind it) are correct, then Sir
John the younger and his wife would have been first cousins once
removed - closely consanginous - assuming that the younger Sir John is
said to have been the son of Margaret Holand's sister. I note that
Burke's Extinct Peerage says the elder Sir John married a daughter of
Hugh Clitheroe and also drops a generation, making the younger Sir John
and the first Sir Richard brothers - which would make more sense
chronologically.
Sir Nicholas Harington was the son of Katherine Banastre and the
grandson of Margaret Holand. Thus, Sir Richard Hudleston married
Margaret's great granddaughter.
Is this any clearer?
I can't fit another generation in there.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I presume what you and Will are remembering was this, posted by Tim
Powys-Lybbe on 4 June:
"He is already working on the second edition, so it is likely that the first
edition will not be revised."
Obviously that is not the same as "not being interested in corrections until
he got version 2 out"!
Charles Cawley certainly did say that he would like to be told about errors
in the work, and I have already sent him details of a number of those
pointed out here.
How quickly he will be able to correct errors remains to be seen.
Chris Phillips
Will Johnson is not the only one who remembers this observation.
....
I feel that Christ Phillips was perhaps too positive about this new
source,
and as he does not seem to rember the remark quoted by Will Johnson, I can
only wonder what else has he forgotten?
I presume what you and Will are remembering was this, posted by Tim
Powys-Lybbe on 4 June:
"He is already working on the second edition, so it is likely that the first
edition will not be revised."
Obviously that is not the same as "not being interested in corrections until
he got version 2 out"!
Charles Cawley certainly did say that he would like to be told about errors
in the work, and I have already sent him details of a number of those
pointed out here.
How quickly he will be able to correct errors remains to be seen.
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Will Johnson wrote:
Well, what he said was that this might be the case in the sections he
regards as less adequately documented.
Unfortunately it is still the case in some other places too (such as the
problematic death date for Cissa son of Ælle, pointed out by paulvheath
yesterday - which apparently comes from an extremely late primary source).
Chris Phillips
Interesting reading on some of the points I question, are exactly the
points
where he doesn't cite any authority and also doesn't enclose the point in
brackets as questionable.
Well, what he said was that this might be the case in the sections he
regards as less adequately documented.
Unfortunately it is still the case in some other places too (such as the
problematic death date for Cissa son of Ælle, pointed out by paulvheath
yesterday - which apparently comes from an extremely late primary source).
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
No, it means what it says - he doesn't want comments about _format_.
Chris Phillips
On 16 June under the same subject heading the following reference was
made:
Tim Powys-Lybbe post of 7 June, as follows:
"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and
would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition 1
as that would delay him significantly."
Reading this, I can only presume that if he does not want references to
format, he also does not want remarks or comments on the information
displayed, as that would delay him even further. I think Will Johnson and
myself understood this to be the case.
No, it means what it says - he doesn't want comments about _format_.
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70h8e$rqs$1@nntp.aioe.org...
I had posted to precisely this effect earlier today: I really wonder if you
even read messages before spinning off into defensive mania.
Peter Stewart
news:e70h8e$rqs$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Leo van de Pas wrote:
On 16 June under the same subject heading the following reference was
made:
Tim Powys-Lybbe post of 7 June, as follows:
"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and
would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition
1
as that would delay him significantly."
Reading this, I can only presume that if he does not want references to
format, he also does not want remarks or comments on the information
displayed, as that would delay him even further. I think Will Johnson and
myself understood this to be the case.
No, it means what it says - he doesn't want comments about _format_.
I had posted to precisely this effect earlier today: I really wonder if you
even read messages before spinning off into defensive mania.
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Leo, I was at Charles Cawley's presentation, and I spoke to him afterwards,
and he certainly said that he would like to be notified about errors.
What Tim posted is perfectly clear. It refers only to the format.
But if you want to believe otherwise, that's up to you.
Chris Phillips
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I believe
he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Leo, I was at Charles Cawley's presentation, and I spoke to him afterwards,
and he certainly said that he would like to be notified about errors.
What Tim posted is perfectly clear. It refers only to the format.
But if you want to believe otherwise, that's up to you.
Chris Phillips
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Tim Powys-Lybbe post of 7 June, as follows:
"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition 1
as that would delay him significantly."
Reading this, I can only presume that if he does not want references to
format, he also does not want remarks or comments on the information
displayed, as that would delay him even further. I think Will Johnson and
myself understood this to be the case.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Will Johnson is not the only one who remembers this observation.
...
I feel that Christ Phillips was perhaps too positive about this new
source,
and as he does not seem to rember the remark quoted by Will Johnson, I
can
only wonder what else has he forgotten?
I presume what you and Will are remembering was this, posted by Tim
Powys-Lybbe on 4 June:
"He is already working on the second edition, so it is likely that the
first
edition will not be revised."
Obviously that is not the same as "not being interested in corrections
until
he got version 2 out"!
On 16 June under the same subject heading the following reference was made:
Tim Powys-Lybbe post of 7 June, as follows:
"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition 1
as that would delay him significantly."
Reading this, I can only presume that if he does not want references to
format, he also does not want remarks or comments on the information
displayed, as that would delay him even further. I think Will Johnson and
myself understood this to be the case.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall here.
Tim's statement was perfectly clear, and concerned format, not corrections.
I have told you what I heard Charles Cawley say at the AGM - that he wanted
to know about corrections.
What sense does it make for you to keep saying "your opinion" is otherwise?
Chris Phillips
Chris, at the moment he doesn't want to be del.ayed by remarks on
format-----at the moment---surely later he will welcome constructive
remarks
about format, and the same applies to corrections-----in my opinion.
I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall here.
Tim's statement was perfectly clear, and concerned format, not corrections.
I have told you what I heard Charles Cawley say at the AGM - that he wanted
to know about corrections.
What sense does it make for you to keep saying "your opinion" is otherwise?
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e70kml$np3$1@nntp.aioe.org...
And which is proving to be harder?
Peter Stewart
news:e70kml$np3$1@nntp.aioe.org...
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Chris, at the moment he doesn't want to be del.ayed by remarks on
format-----at the moment---surely later he will welcome constructive
remarks
about format, and the same applies to corrections-----in my opinion.
I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall here.
And which is proving to be harder?
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In message of 17 Jun, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:
Agreed, that is what I (think I) heard Charles Cawley said. I could
not swear he used the work 'format' but it is definitely the meaning he
conveyed. I definitely heard him say he would welcome comments on the
facts.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Leo van de Pas wrote:
On 16 June under the same subject heading the following reference
was made: Tim Powys-Lybbe post of 7 June, as follows:
"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2
and would much rather not receive comments or requests about the
format of Edition 1 as that would delay him significantly."
Reading this, I can only presume that if he does not want
references to format, he also does not want remarks or comments on
the information displayed, as that would delay him even further. I
think Will Johnson and myself understood this to be the case.
No, it means what it says - he doesn't want comments about _format_.
Agreed, that is what I (think I) heard Charles Cawley said. I could
not swear he used the work 'format' but it is definitely the meaning he
conveyed. I definitely heard him say he would welcome comments on the
facts.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:06a401c691f5$ad4df420$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
The plan is apparently to develop the content in a second edition, but to
change the format: hence there is no point in making criticisms about the
format (that seems quite good to me as it is) because responding will delay
Cawley's "reconstructive" work (to borrow a joke of his) when he is already
aiming to produce a different format anyway, that isn't yet available for
public comment.
Now if Chris Phillips has finished trying occasions with the brick wall, he
might get his head around the matter of ES being the source for what he
claims is Cawley's "discovery" about Judith of Schweinfurt. The truth is
surely now unavoidable even for him: Cawley can only have meant just what I
have been saying all along.
All that has resulted from the Phillips defense is the unintended statement
that Cawley's own idea, NOT mine, is "plain silly", "absolutely absurd" and
"sheer nonsense".
Or are we now going to be told that "wives" really meant "second wife", and
that information given in ES can be readily confused with Annalista Saxo by
someone who has spent four years allegedly poring over primary sources?
Peter Stewart
news:06a401c691f5$ad4df420$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I
believe
he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Leo, I was at Charles Cawley's presentation, and I spoke to him
afterwards,
and he certainly said that he would like to be notified about errors.
What Tim posted is perfectly clear. It refers only to the format.
But if you want to believe otherwise, that's up to you.
Chris Phillips
Chris, at the moment he doesn't want to be del.ayed by remarks on
format-----at the moment---surely later he will welcome constructive
remarks about format, and the same applies to corrections-----in my
opinion. I do not blame him one bit that _at the moment_ he does not want
to be held back. And don't forget the remark came from Tim Powys-Lybbe and
in the message Tim made that comment the subject may well have been
_format_ not content.
The plan is apparently to develop the content in a second edition, but to
change the format: hence there is no point in making criticisms about the
format (that seems quite good to me as it is) because responding will delay
Cawley's "reconstructive" work (to borrow a joke of his) when he is already
aiming to produce a different format anyway, that isn't yet available for
public comment.
Now if Chris Phillips has finished trying occasions with the brick wall, he
might get his head around the matter of ES being the source for what he
claims is Cawley's "discovery" about Judith of Schweinfurt. The truth is
surely now unavoidable even for him: Cawley can only have meant just what I
have been saying all along.
All that has resulted from the Phillips defense is the unintended statement
that Cawley's own idea, NOT mine, is "plain silly", "absolutely absurd" and
"sheer nonsense".
Or are we now going to be told that "wives" really meant "second wife", and
that information given in ES can be readily confused with Annalista Saxo by
someone who has spent four years allegedly poring over primary sources?
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I believe he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Leo van de Pas
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
On 16 June under the same subject heading the following reference was
made:
Tim Powys-Lybbe post of 7 June, as follows:
"But the author specifically said that he was working on Edition 2 and
would
much rather not receive comments or requests about the format of Edition
1
as that would delay him significantly."
Reading this, I can only presume that if he does not want references to
format, he also does not want remarks or comments on the information
displayed, as that would delay him even further. I think Will Johnson and
myself understood this to be the case.
No, it means what it says - he doesn't want comments about _format_.
Chris Phillips
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I believe he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Leo van de Pas
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
format-----at the moment---surely later he will welcome constructive remarks
about format, and the same applies to corrections-----in my opinion. I do
not blame him one bit that _at the moment_ he does not want to be held back.
And don't forget the remark came from Tim Powys-Lybbe and in the message Tim
made that comment the subject may well have been _format_ not content.
Leo
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I believe
he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Leo, I was at Charles Cawley's presentation, and I spoke to him
afterwards,
and he certainly said that he would like to be notified about errors.
What Tim posted is perfectly clear. It refers only to the format.
But if you want to believe otherwise, that's up to you.
Chris Phillips
Chris, at the moment he doesn't want to be del.ayed by remarks on
format-----at the moment---surely later he will welcome constructive remarks
about format, and the same applies to corrections-----in my opinion. I do
not blame him one bit that _at the moment_ he does not want to be held back.
And don't forget the remark came from Tim Powys-Lybbe and in the message Tim
made that comment the subject may well have been _format_ not content.
Leo
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: 2 quarters of good cats
Adrian Channing wrote:
You need a meal ark.
Chris
my garden shed is perhaps the closest I can come to medieval storage
conditions, so I will put some out there this harvest time and see what
they are like next March, but how do I keep the mice away?
You need a meal ark.
Chris
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Pennington and Lacy
Dear Michael,
I don''t see a ready answer to the heraldic question in
Papworth, and unfortunately my copy of Alvahn Holmes' work on the
Farrar family (which does have some details re: Lacy of Brearley, and
Cromwellbotham) is currently on loan.
I will copy this to another list member who is a Farrar
descendant, who might have a copy of Holmes' book to hand. I don't
recall an obvious link between the Cromwellbotham arms and those of the
better-known Lacy family, but my memory is not ...... What was I
saying....?
Cheers,
John
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I don''t see a ready answer to the heraldic question in
Papworth, and unfortunately my copy of Alvahn Holmes' work on the
Farrar family (which does have some details re: Lacy of Brearley, and
Cromwellbotham) is currently on loan.
I will copy this to another list member who is a Farrar
descendant, who might have a copy of Holmes' book to hand. I don't
recall an obvious link between the Cromwellbotham arms and those of the
better-known Lacy family, but my memory is not ...... What was I
saying....?
Cheers,
John
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Therav3@aol.com schrieb:
Dear Michael, et al.,
Following is the pedigree of Lacy of Cromwellbotham, such as I now
show it. I have moved Henry de Lacy to the 'first' spot as elder son,
per my earlier post.
Your comments and criticism (re: this and the online pedigree)
will be most welcome.
Cheers,
John
John
As usual, an impressive and well presented set of facts. Is there any
heraldic evidence that might assist in placing this family within the
main Lacy line? According to Hudleston and Boumphrey, Roger de Lacy, d
c1212, Sheriff of Yorkshire and Cumberland, bore Or, a lion rampant
purpure.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
It is a little confusing to say the *author* doesn't want "comments or
requests" about the "format" of the work.
What constitutes "format" and what "content" ?
Is he saying he doesn't want spelling and punctuation corrections? As a
first pass, maybe he could go through the content and simply remove every
statement that doesn't have a citation next to it.
Will Johnson
requests" about the "format" of the work.
What constitutes "format" and what "content" ?
Is he saying he doesn't want spelling and punctuation corrections? As a
first pass, maybe he could go through the content and simply remove every
statement that doesn't have a citation next to it.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/17/2006 2:42:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I believe he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Oh no wait. The author of a "major new work" on medieval families...
doesn't *read* the major newsgroup on medieval families.
Yes, gosh, that makes so much sense to me.
Will
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
I think the emphasis is on not wanting _delay_ whether caused by remarks
about format or content. If he was swamped by the _by now_ numerous
criticism on the content, he would be so much more delayed. And I believe he
wanted to prevent _delay_ whatever the reason.
Oh no wait. The author of a "major new work" on medieval families...
doesn't *read* the major newsgroup on medieval families.
Yes, gosh, that makes so much sense to me.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/17/2006 5:54:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in which
it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England are taken
from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the author considers
well-documented.
And yet he never SAYS that on his site. Just leaving the reader swimming
hopelessly around in a mass of UNdocumented statements no better than any
WorldConnect tree or Ancestral File entry. He doesn't help the situation, he adds
to the confusion. And to add insult to injury, he doesn't STATE where he
got the statements from such as "Burke's Extinct Peerages" so there is no way
for a person to check the underlying source.
Surely he can SEE this ?
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in which
it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England are taken
from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the author considers
well-documented.
And yet he never SAYS that on his site. Just leaving the reader swimming
hopelessly around in a mass of UNdocumented statements no better than any
WorldConnect tree or Ancestral File entry. He doesn't help the situation, he adds
to the confusion. And to add insult to injury, he doesn't STATE where he
got the statements from such as "Burke's Extinct Peerages" so there is no way
for a person to check the underlying source.
Surely he can SEE this ?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/17/2006 7:09:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
Finally I even recollect him
asking for assistance in doing the English landowners.
Well why not simply remove the English sections ?
Why leave it up and allow another hundred or thousand people to be *misled*
into thinking his statements are based on primary materials ?
Obviously in it's current state, that is exactly what will happen to those
who don't have a discerning eye.
Will
writes:
Finally I even recollect him
asking for assistance in doing the English landowners.
Well why not simply remove the English sections ?
Why leave it up and allow another hundred or thousand people to be *misled*
into thinking his statements are based on primary materials ?
Obviously in it's current state, that is exactly what will happen to those
who don't have a discerning eye.
Will
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In message of 17 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If he has any sense he would not use BXP as a numbered reference
anywhere, notably because it does not comply with his principle that all
quoted references should be from primary sources. (And is a translation
of a primary source itself a primary source, similarly for a transcript
and, how coeval should a primary source be in order to be a primary one
and not a secondary - this raises all sorts of difficult questions.)
Of course he can: that is why he is working on the second edition! He
told us that he did not wish to make any changes to the first edition
as it would just delay his work on the second edition. A similar
problem must have arisen with Complete Peerage once they started work
on the second edition in c. 1910.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
In a message dated 6/17/2006 5:54:24 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Perhaps you didn't read my initial message, or various follow-ups, in which
it was pointed out that the post-Conquest sections for England are taken
from mainly secondary sources, and are not among those the author considers
well-documented.
And yet he never SAYS that on his site. Just leaving the reader
swimming hopelessly around in a mass of UNdocumented statements no
better than any WorldConnect tree or Ancestral File entry. He
doesn't help the situation, he adds to the confusion. And to add
insult to injury, he doesn't STATE where he got the statements from
such as "Burke's Extinct Peerages" so there is no way for a person
to check the underlying source.
If he has any sense he would not use BXP as a numbered reference
anywhere, notably because it does not comply with his principle that all
quoted references should be from primary sources. (And is a translation
of a primary source itself a primary source, similarly for a transcript
and, how coeval should a primary source be in order to be a primary one
and not a secondary - this raises all sorts of difficult questions.)
Surely he can SEE this ?
Of course he can: that is why he is working on the second edition! He
told us that he did not wish to make any changes to the first edition
as it would just delay his work on the second edition. A similar
problem must have arisen with Complete Peerage once they started work
on the second edition in c. 1910.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/17/2006 10:15:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:
Of course he can: that is why he is working on the second edition! He
told us that he did not wish to make any changes to the first edition
as it would just delay his work on the second edition.
Then, the English landed gentry pages, should simply be taken down.
As they are they give the false impression that they are *more*
authoritative than CP or any other work, OR what he should do is add a caveat to each and
every page stating that it is based entirely on secondary sources.
Either choice would take a minimum of effort and make a maximum of sense.
As it is now, its false advertising to claim that its based on reconstructions
from primary materials and then *NOT* state except, basically in private,
that, its not.
Will
tim@powys.org writes:
Of course he can: that is why he is working on the second edition! He
told us that he did not wish to make any changes to the first edition
as it would just delay his work on the second edition.
Then, the English landed gentry pages, should simply be taken down.
As they are they give the false impression that they are *more*
authoritative than CP or any other work, OR what he should do is add a caveat to each and
every page stating that it is based entirely on secondary sources.
Either choice would take a minimum of effort and make a maximum of sense.
As it is now, its false advertising to claim that its based on reconstructions
from primary materials and then *NOT* state except, basically in private,
that, its not.
Will
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In message of 17 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I would completely agree with your analysis: if there are no quotes,
then no research has been done. Once you have realised that applies to
a section, then I personally would ignore that section. We were told
quite clearly that no more work would be done on the first edition and
all the work was being kept for the second edition.
The interesting question is why the second edition is in preparation?
Obviously something was found to be profoundly unsatisfactory with the
first edition. We were not told what this was, we were only told that
the first edition would have no more work done on it.
Personally I would guess that the narrative, long file format apparent
within the first edition is not conducive to handling emergent research.
I suspect that, long term, the whole thing needs to be restructured more
on database lines to make it easy to develop and maintain.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Quoting the home page : "In this project, the families of rulers and
nobility of more than 140 different geographical and political
entities in medieval Europe and western Asia are being
reconstructed from scratch. The process involves extracting and
analysing detailed information from primary sources, including
contemporary chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments.
The results are presented as narrative outline genealogies.
Information on each individual is shown in "mini-biography" form,
with extracts from source material quoted in the original language.
Marriages and other connections between families are hyperlinked to
enable easy navigation between the different documents. The period
covered is the thousand years between 500 and 1500, although more
emphasis has been placed on presenting source material for the
first six hundred years of this timeframe. "
Okay choosing one of the families, that I happen to be interested in
the "Earls River" here
_http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL2.htm#_Toc127590
555_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH ... c127590555)
Just counting what appears under Chapter 6, section A, subsection 1
there are, at a minimum, one *hundred* statements of *fact, not
*one* of which has a citation. Not one of which has a quotation
*"in the original language" nor for that matter from "chronicles,
*cartularies, necrologies and testaments". It's not that there
*aren't enough citations, its that they're aren't any. Zero.
*Zilch. Nada.
Essentially, this entire section, is lifted, intact from secondary
and sometimes conflicting sources, without a single one of those
being cited.
It's really a worse than useless presentation, it's practically, in
fact if not in intent, plagarism. How exactly was this family
created ? It certainly was not "reconstructed from scratch".
Stirnet does a much better job at it. At least they cite....
something... to back up their statements.
I would completely agree with your analysis: if there are no quotes,
then no research has been done. Once you have realised that applies to
a section, then I personally would ignore that section. We were told
quite clearly that no more work would be done on the first edition and
all the work was being kept for the second edition.
The interesting question is why the second edition is in preparation?
Obviously something was found to be profoundly unsatisfactory with the
first edition. We were not told what this was, we were only told that
the first edition would have no more work done on it.
Personally I would guess that the narrative, long file format apparent
within the first edition is not conducive to handling emergent research.
I suspect that, long term, the whole thing needs to be restructured more
on database lines to make it easy to develop and maintain.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
Quoting the home page : "In this project, the families of rulers and
nobility of more than 140 different geographical and political entities in medieval
Europe and western Asia are being reconstructed from scratch. The process
involves extracting and analysing detailed information from primary sources,
including contemporary chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments.
The results are presented as narrative outline genealogies. Information on
each individual is shown in "mini-biography" form, with extracts from source
material quoted in the original language. Marriages and other connections
between families are hyperlinked to enable easy navigation between the different
documents. The period covered is the thousand years between 500 and 1500,
although more emphasis has been placed on presenting source material for the
first six hundred years of this timeframe. "
Okay choosing one of the families, that I happen to be interested in the
"Earls River" here
_http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL2.htm#_Toc127590
555_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH ... c127590555)
Just counting what appears under Chapter 6, section A, subsection 1 there
are, at a minimum, one *hundred* statements of *fact, not *one* of which has a
citation. Not one of which has a quotation "in the original language" nor
for that matter from "chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments".
It's not that there aren't enough citations, its that they're aren't any.
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Essentially, this entire section, is lifted, intact from secondary and
sometimes conflicting sources, without a single one of those being cited.
It's really a worse than useless presentation, it's practically, in fact if
not in intent, plagarism. How exactly was this family created ? It
certainly was not "reconstructed from scratch".
Stirnet does a much better job at it. At least they cite.... something...
to back up their statements.
Will Johnson
nobility of more than 140 different geographical and political entities in medieval
Europe and western Asia are being reconstructed from scratch. The process
involves extracting and analysing detailed information from primary sources,
including contemporary chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments.
The results are presented as narrative outline genealogies. Information on
each individual is shown in "mini-biography" form, with extracts from source
material quoted in the original language. Marriages and other connections
between families are hyperlinked to enable easy navigation between the different
documents. The period covered is the thousand years between 500 and 1500,
although more emphasis has been placed on presenting source material for the
first six hundred years of this timeframe. "
Okay choosing one of the families, that I happen to be interested in the
"Earls River" here
_http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL2.htm#_Toc127590
555_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH ... c127590555)
Just counting what appears under Chapter 6, section A, subsection 1 there
are, at a minimum, one *hundred* statements of *fact, not *one* of which has a
citation. Not one of which has a quotation "in the original language" nor
for that matter from "chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments".
It's not that there aren't enough citations, its that they're aren't any.
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Essentially, this entire section, is lifted, intact from secondary and
sometimes conflicting sources, without a single one of those being cited.
It's really a worse than useless presentation, it's practically, in fact if
not in intent, plagarism. How exactly was this family created ? It
certainly was not "reconstructed from scratch".
Stirnet does a much better job at it. At least they cite.... something...
to back up their statements.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
In a message dated 6/17/2006 4:24:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
Once you have realised that applies to
a section, then I personally would ignore that section.
The problem is, that *we* know this, but a random person hitting this page
would not. They, would assume, that the home page is accurate in its
characterization of the work and method used and assume that the information on the
Earls River was similarly a reconstruction from primary sources. Which it
isn't.
The nature of search engines, isn't that they include all the discussion
we're having about the database, when someone searches for the "Earls River" and
jumps right to this new "major" resouce. I think the only conscientious
thing Charles can do, is simply to take down the offending pages, *until* the
second version, which hopefully corrects the method, is available.
Secondly, he could post a caveat on each and every page, to the affect, that
any statement not cited, should be viewed with a critical eye, because it
has been plagiarized, not researched.
Will Johnson
writes:
Once you have realised that applies to
a section, then I personally would ignore that section.
The problem is, that *we* know this, but a random person hitting this page
would not. They, would assume, that the home page is accurate in its
characterization of the work and method used and assume that the information on the
Earls River was similarly a reconstruction from primary sources. Which it
isn't.
The nature of search engines, isn't that they include all the discussion
we're having about the database, when someone searches for the "Earls River" and
jumps right to this new "major" resouce. I think the only conscientious
thing Charles can do, is simply to take down the offending pages, *until* the
second version, which hopefully corrects the method, is available.
Secondly, he could post a caveat on each and every page, to the affect, that
any statement not cited, should be viewed with a critical eye, because it
has been plagiarized, not researched.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: News: Head lice forming a resistance movement.
Dear Bob, Merilyn and others,
I rather suspect the head nor
the body lice for that matter were any less "resistant" than those forming a
resistance movement today, same with all insects from flies and bees to bed
bugs, must have enjoyed the respite from those really clean Romans.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I rather suspect the head nor
the body lice for that matter were any less "resistant" than those forming a
resistance movement today, same with all insects from flies and bees to bed
bugs, must have enjoyed the respite from those really clean Romans.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
Will Johnson wrote:
No. You'll just have to be a little patient.
Or, if you like, you can ask him yourself.
Chris Phillips
You've stated that you are going to, or should, do this now, perhaps, 12
times.
Have you actually asked him yet?
No. You'll just have to be a little patient.
Or, if you like, you can ask him yourself.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 10:09:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
But rather than encourage any more pointless, ill-tempered argument about
this, I think the best thing will be simply to ask Charles Cawley what he
was referring to in his Introduction.
You've stated that you are going to, or should, do this now, perhaps, 12
times.
Have you actually asked him yet?
Will
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
But rather than encourage any more pointless, ill-tempered argument about
this, I think the best thing will be simply to ask Charles Cawley what he
was referring to in his Introduction.
You've stated that you are going to, or should, do this now, perhaps, 12
times.
Have you actually asked him yet?
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 10:54:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
No. You'll just have to be a little patient.
Or, if you like, you can ask him yourself.
Fine I've sent him an email questioning how he can claim to be building
families from scratch using only primary materials, when he has over 100
statements of fact on the Earls River, not one of which is attached to any citation.
We'll see if he responds.
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
No. You'll just have to be a little patient.
Or, if you like, you can ask him yourself.
Fine I've sent him an email questioning how he can claim to be building
families from scratch using only primary materials, when he has over 100
statements of fact on the Earls River, not one of which is attached to any citation.
We'll see if he responds.
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
Will Johnson wrote:
No. I'm trying to get "Francisco (Portugal)" to explain his comments on my
earlier statement that:
« Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »
Chris Phillips
Are you asking what's untrue about saying you're building a database from
scratch and then doing the opposite?
No. I'm trying to get "Francisco (Portugal)" to explain his comments on my
earlier statement that:
« Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources. »
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
I wrote:
"Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the
emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources."
Will Johnson wrote:
The introduction page says:
"The outline tables on royal and noble families presented in the Europaische
Stammtafeln series provide the basic informational framework. The objective
of the project is to verify all this data against primary source material
and supplement it with accurate historical background information."
Chris Phillips
"Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the
emphasis is on the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources."
Will Johnson wrote:
Which is the exact opposition of what the introduction page claims.
The introduction page says:
"The outline tables on royal and noble families presented in the Europaische
Stammtafeln series provide the basic informational framework. The objective
of the project is to verify all this data against primary source material
and supplement it with accurate historical background information."
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 1:24:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
What is untrue about it?
Are you asking what's untrue about saying you're building a database from
scratch and then doing the opposite? This debate in confusing when you don't
quote enough of the underlying statement to let us know what you're talking
about.
Will
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
What is untrue about it?
Are you asking what's untrue about saying you're building a database from
scratch and then doing the opposite? This debate in confusing when you don't
quote enough of the underlying statement to let us know what you're talking
about.
Will
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
Will Johnson wrote:
I'm not claiming anything. I'm quoting what Cawley wrote in his
Introduction, because you said it was the opposite of what I had written.
In my message, I referred to "some secondary works", because clearly more
than just ES has been used. The English section obviously uses CP.
Please bear in mind that I am not the author of "Medieval Lands". I posted
the details of the database here,because I thought people would find it
useful.
Chris Phillips
Are you now claiming that ES is the basis for all the English landed
information?
If so, shouldn't ES be credited on those pages themselves ?
I'm not claiming anything. I'm quoting what Cawley wrote in his
Introduction, because you said it was the opposite of what I had written.
In my message, I referred to "some secondary works", because clearly more
than just ES has been used. The English section obviously uses CP.
Please bear in mind that I am not the author of "Medieval Lands". I posted
the details of the database here,because I thought people would find it
useful.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 1:39:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources.
Which is the exact opposition of what the introduction page claims.
Would it not be *useful* to explain this on the database itself?
Will
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
Some secondary
works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but the emphasis is on
the
extraction of evidence from contemporary sources.
Which is the exact opposition of what the introduction page claims.
Would it not be *useful* to explain this on the database itself?
Will
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
Will Johnson wrote:
No, I am not "defending" anything. I am simply trying to point out the
facts.
I have explained to you several times, and Tim Powys-Lybbe has also
explained to you, that for the post-Conquest English part, the framework
based on secondary material is all there is so far.
But for the project as a whole, the emphasis is on primary materials. Have
you looked at any of the sections the author describes as more fully
documented? If so, you can't fail to see the references to primary
materials.
As for the rest, if you want a disclaimer put on the page, you'll have to
contact either the author, or the FMG, or both, and suggest that to them. I
have no control whatsoever over that.
Chris Phillips
But you keep defending, and defending and defending what is not
defensible.
No, I am not "defending" anything. I am simply trying to point out the
facts.
Based on primary materials, which it isn't.
I have explained to you several times, and Tim Powys-Lybbe has also
explained to you, that for the post-Conquest English part, the framework
based on secondary material is all there is so far.
But for the project as a whole, the emphasis is on primary materials. Have
you looked at any of the sections the author describes as more fully
documented? If so, you can't fail to see the references to primary
materials.
As for the rest, if you want a disclaimer put on the page, you'll have to
contact either the author, or the FMG, or both, and suggest that to them. I
have no control whatsoever over that.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 2:09:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
The introduction page says:
"The outline tables on royal and noble families presented in the Europaische
Stammtafeln series provide the basic informational framework. The objective
of the project is to verify all this data against primary source material
and supplement it with accurate historical background information."
Are you now claiming that ES is the basis for all the English landed
information?
If so, shouldn't ES be credited on those pages themselves ?
Will
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
The introduction page says:
"The outline tables on royal and noble families presented in the Europaische
Stammtafeln series provide the basic informational framework. The objective
of the project is to verify all this data against primary source material
and supplement it with accurate historical background information."
Are you now claiming that ES is the basis for all the English landed
information?
If so, shouldn't ES be credited on those pages themselves ?
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 2:39:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
In my message, I referred to "some secondary works", because clearly more
than just ES has been used. The English section obviously uses CP.
Please bear in mind that I am not the author of "Medieval Lands". I posted
the details of the database here,because I thought people would find it
useful.
But you keep defending, and defending and defending what is not defensible.
It's simply, in its present form, not what the author is claiming it is. And
what the preface is claiming it is. That is a "reconstruction". It's not.
Based on primary materials, which it isn't.
Using ES as a framework, which apparently is a half-truth.
The sole thing I'm advocating is that a disclaimer is placed on those pages
attempting to claim statements of fact. This could be done in a few minutes,
but instead you seem to want to defend and defend and defend.
Why?
Have you sent Charles an email yet? It took me about one minute to do it.
I'm just wondering why you're still on this list, discussing this issue,
instead of acting upon it.
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
In my message, I referred to "some secondary works", because clearly more
than just ES has been used. The English section obviously uses CP.
Please bear in mind that I am not the author of "Medieval Lands". I posted
the details of the database here,because I thought people would find it
useful.
But you keep defending, and defending and defending what is not defensible.
It's simply, in its present form, not what the author is claiming it is. And
what the preface is claiming it is. That is a "reconstruction". It's not.
Based on primary materials, which it isn't.
Using ES as a framework, which apparently is a half-truth.
The sole thing I'm advocating is that a disclaimer is placed on those pages
attempting to claim statements of fact. This could be done in a few minutes,
but instead you seem to want to defend and defend and defend.
Why?
Have you sent Charles an email yet? It took me about one minute to do it.
I'm just wondering why you're still on this list, discussing this issue,
instead of acting upon it.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/2006 3:09:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I described it as a "Major new online resource". That's just a factual
description of "Medieval Lands". I have explained this over and over again.
When you say "factual" you do mean its a fact that its "Major" don't you?
That is, in your own opinion, its a "major" resource ?
That's your opinion, not a quote from another person correct ?
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
I described it as a "Major new online resource". That's just a factual
description of "Medieval Lands". I have explained this over and over again.
When you say "factual" you do mean its a fact that its "Major" don't you?
That is, in your own opinion, its a "major" resource ?
That's your opinion, not a quote from another person correct ?
Will Johnson
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Lady Godiva [fl. 1040-1080]?
By some accounts, Henry V, King of England, [b.1387-d.1422] is a descendant
of Lady Godiva -- specifically a 14th great-grandson.
Queen Elizabeth II would also be a descendant of Lady Godiva by this alleged
genealogy -- specifically a 29th great-granddaughter -- which is the same
relationship I allegedly have to Lady Godiva, with the gender difference --
29th great-grandson. <g>
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
of Lady Godiva -- specifically a 14th great-grandson.
Queen Elizabeth II would also be a descendant of Lady Godiva by this alleged
genealogy -- specifically a 29th great-granddaughter -- which is the same
relationship I allegedly have to Lady Godiva, with the gender difference --
29th great-grandson. <g>
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Lady Godiva [fl. 1040-1080]?
"Of the Lady Godiva Legend. Godgifu. Sister of Thorold of Buckingham,
Sheriff of Lincolnshire.
LADY GODIVA (Godgifu, in the spelling of her time.)
An Anglo-Saxon gentlewoman, patron of the arts, equestrienne, and tax
protester, etc. All the historians say that she "flourished, circa 1040 -
1080 A.D."
Leofric, earl of Mercia, and husband of Lady Godiva, was a man of broad but
obscure interests; a religious man thoroughly Christian, and an
entrepreneur, raconteur, and general all around good sport. At the same
time, he did have an avaricious streak in him, and it is for this reason
that his name has survived through the ages, but more prominently for his
interesting response to the nagging of his bleeding-heart wife, who pestered
him incessantly over details of the daily lives of the peasants under his
control, and similar fussy matters.
It's not that she was always being petulant about everything he did, but
certain of his actions caused her to be irritable, but that part of the
story comes later.
Actually both Leofric and Godiva were quite religious, and upon their move
to Coventry, Warwickshire, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire (where Leofric had
earned his fortune and title from amazing successes in the mutton trade),
they were immediately impressed by the lack of proper facilities for
training and housing men of the cloth in or around the raucous little
district of Coventry (pop. 6215). How, they thought, were the spiritual
needs of these simple souls to be cared for? At the same time, being
somewhat "nouveau riche" and anxious to make their mark in what passed for
genteel society there (not having had the proper credentials to enter such
circles back in Shropshire -- which may have been a big piece of the
motivation for the move), they decided to apply some of their ready cash to
a worthy public cause.
Near the physical center of Coventry, where the bombed-out ruin of mighty
Coventry Cathedral stands today, Leofric and Godiva (in 1043) founded and
funded an abbey (some accounts say monastery), named in honor of Ste. Eunice
of Saxmundham (an early martyr, slain by flaying at the hands of the
Romans). The abbey faced the rising sun, as was decreed it should by Leofric
in a moment of romantic inspiration. A simple affair, made of wattle and
daub with a roof of thatched reeds in the manner of the day, it was
nevertheless imposing by standards in the village otherwise; it was the
biggest structure in the entire region.
Before long this edifice was something of a social focus for the town,
functioning not only as a center for the education and housing of those who
had received the calling, but also as a gathering point where more vulgar
popular events and festivities could be celebrated. Leofric and Godiva came
to be awarded the attention and respect they longed for from the start, and
they had served the purposes of the church as well. They did not seem to
mind that much of the activity circulating around the abbey was decidedly
Druid in origin; at least the peasants were occupied and happy. Coventry
grew around the abbey.
As a gentleman, and now established philanthropist of some local repute,
Leofric assumed a growing role in the governance of public affairs, and was
given responsibility for certain financial matters (the town had grown
enough to actually have financial matters), which he quickly understood as
presenting especially interesting opportunities. One public work generated
the idea of another, if only some money were at hand to facilitate such
growth...
Meanwhile, Godiva's proficiency as a horsewoman had become polished to a
considerable degree, as she had acquired a taste for the hunt and the social
pleasantries which accrue to the activity "apres." Plus, the people she met
during these excursions which provided such complacency, were of a
disposition and delicacy of interest to which she had aspired for some time.
She could do worse than to engage in certain preoccupations of the
intellect, and considerations of the aesthetic, and so she immersed herself
in the arts and, therefore, society.
Perhaps, she earnestly thought, aid to those industrious in this field of
elevated concern (artists) would inspire the rude masses by means of
example. Commissioning a proper portrait of herself would be a good place to
start; it would be an inspiration for simpler souls, so the work was begun.
It only slowly entered Godiva's consciousness that the lack of success she
was having in interesting the base masses in artistic concerns, beautiful
pictures of herself spread around or not, was rooted in the fact that nearly
all of them spent 100% of their waking hours in partially effective efforts
to feed and clothe themselves, and to provide some form of shelter from the
elements. Most were having a hard time of it, in light of the fact that
Leofric, in his new-found megalomaniacal grand-public-works mode, had been
taxing everything he could think of, even including a levy on manure.
Lady Godiva would not have such noble aspirations -- such as art for
everyone -- placed on a back burner for the sake of boring considerations
like a municipal water supply. Men had such ignoble visions, always
functional and mechanical, mostly never above waist level. This would not
do, the taxes must be reduced if this early medieval subsistence-agriculture
village was going to pull itself up into the 11th century and its more
cultured concerns. She went to have a pointed talk with Leofric.
Beside himself with raucous laughter, Leofric injured his left wrist
slightly as he fell off his stool in the hall of the village burghers, and
this sobered him up rather quickly. Reduce taxes in order to foster the
peasants' appreciation of silly pictures? Was she mad? No waterworks? There
would be no tax reduction; as a matter of fact, Leofric added a new tax on
pictures, which only had to be paid by his wife since she was the only
person who had any, except for the church which was exempt.
Their argument became a classic war of wills, taking the equally classic
form of nagging versus stone-walling. However, at very long last, since his
wife would not give up and was driving him to distraction and worse, Leofric
capitulated, but, regarding it all as something of a sport, attached an
interesting condition to his offer to allow some reduction in taxation.
The ancient Greeks, he pointed out, and those coarser Romans as well, viewed
the nude human body as one of the highest expressions of the perfection of
Nature. Nudity was not seen as erotic in any sense, but as purity, and a
celebration of the wonderful form of a sensuous being displayed in all its
marvelous glory for the betterment and appreciation of those enlightened
enough to consider this aesthetic. To present a well formed nude body as an
object of great beauty, even art, would be to offer a lesson of inestimable
value to the simple peasants of Coventry, whose experiences and perceptions
had never been enlightened to appreciate such perfection.
If Lady Godiva truly believed in the crusade she was promoting, then she
should lead it herself, and offer to the citizens of Coventry an example of
the glorious beauty to be understood by careful consideration of a perfect
nude human body. There could be no shame in this, it would be the most gross
error to consider it as such. Was she ashamed of the wonders of God's work?
Besides, with all that horse-back riding, and similar, she had lost some
weight and looked pretty good.
Therefore, Leofric proclaimed that if Lady Godiva would ride her horse
through the crowded market-place of Coventry, in the full light of mid-day,
clothed in only that which God had given her, as an example of the
perfection of God's work and as an expression of the highest possible
aesthetic -- she had been spreading pictures of herself around anyway --
then he would reduce taxes on the populace, lifting from them the burden
Godiva perceived, and erasing from himself any further doubt he might harbor
of the sincerity of Godiva's convictions.
To Leofric's absolute surprise, she agreed, once she had ensured that she
actually had his "permission" to do so.
Taken aback by his wife's courage and certainty in her purposes Leofric,
somewhat overwhelmed, then stated that he fully accepted the truth of Lady
Godiva's belief in the merits of her cause, and so in response, on
completion of her ride he would not just reduce taxes, but would remove all
of them -- save those tolls on horses which were already in place before he
assumed his office, and which were necessary for basic needs of the city.
A day was chosen for the event, and while no particular effort had been
expended to publicize the ride, talk of it had spread in whispers throughout
the whole of Coventry. Not wishing to reveal that this concealed discussion
had taken place, and since people were curious about all aspects of the
affair and did not want to interrupt it, the marketplace's business
proceeded as it might have done on any other less interesting Thursday in
late August.
As noon approached, so did Lady Godiva. She was not alone, but was
accompanied by two female aides also on horseback, but normally clothed; one
rode on each side and slightly to the rear. Three horses walking on the
cobbles in formation at a measured gait did not have the sound of the usual
traffic and bustle, and so -- since all were secretly and eagerly
anticipating the event -- her appearance was announced clearly to everyone.
She sat straight and properly in the saddle with a look of composure on her
face; relaxed, confident, unashamed. Her hair was done in two large braids
which were curled snugly at the back of her head, one on each side; she wore
no jewelry or other adornment. People looked at her and saw that she was not
merely naked, or nude; rather she was in a higher state of presentation --
being a correct and elevated quality of her composure, and resulting also
from the people's appraisal, appreciation, and consideration beyond simple
voyeurism.
To all present this was an experience like no other in their lives. The only
images of people unclothed they had ever seen were in the church: Adam and
Eve, and the crucified Christ. This was a lady, simple and normal with a
body like that of every other woman present, a human, a creature of God's
earth. Though he half meant it as a joke, Leofric's words rang true: here
was a celebration of being in its perfection.
Perhaps, as well, some believed with Zoroaster that sex is the bounty of
God.
So, all survived the event with peacefulness and dignity, and the taxes were
removed.
In the CHRONICA, written by Roger of Wendover (who died in 1236), the
account of the year 1057 tells the story of Godiva's ride in full detail,
and is the earliest surviving written description.
Even more complete versions are provided by the famous historian Ranulf
Higden (died in 1364) in his POLYCHRONICON, and by Henry Knighton (died c.
1396) who followed him, which explain not only the details of the ride and
its reasons, but also the specifics of the removed taxes, in particular that
all save those on horses were eliminated.
Much later, King Edward I, being an inquisitive man (he devised an earnest,
but rather awkward system for the classification of songbirds in Wales),
wished to discover the truth of the Godiva story and, therefore,
commissioned an inquiry of ancient records which showed that in 1057 and
thereabouts, there were indeed no taxes levied in Coventry except those on
horses, which was a rather anomalous situation not seen elsewhere at the
time, thereby establishing the merit and probable accuracy of the legend.
The tale of "Peeping Tom", who was struck blind (or dead) when he alone
gazed upon Lady Godiva was not added until the 17th century. This is also
true of the detail of the story, often added, that Godiva was covered
totally, except for her legs, by an enormous and improbable quantity of
hair.
Doubtless both of these embellishments were supplied later by prudish
Christian churchmen who entirely missed the point and considered that
viewing the unclothed human body under any circumstance was a heinous act
which would damn one to eternal hell fire; they certainly thought the female
body to be dirty and inferior to appreciation, and only worthy of being
hidden from view. On the face of it such a view would seem to be a
perversion, and affront to the beauty of God's work. The Greeks felt that
the idealized human form was the only one worthy to represent the gods on
earth. On the other hand, the Christian faith is unique in that it alone
has, throughout its history, suppressed any celebration of the beauty of the
human body.
So, what was Lady Godiva? A visionary; a social climber; a patron of the
arts; a dilettante of the worst order?
In any estimation, she had the guts to follow her convictions, and may have
brought a degree of enlightenment to a small corner of 11th century England.
And, probably, no one went to Hell because of it."
© Jerome C. Krause ---- http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/godiva.html
From: ""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@bigpond.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:23 PM
Subject: Lady Godiva "revealed"?
"Several questions have arisen about Lady Godiva and most are quite
impossible to give an answer to based on fact. We can only speculate----
Apparently her ride through town may have taken place in 1040----how old
was she?
Circa 1059/1062 her son, Alfgar, Earl of Mercia, died. He had by then
fathered four children. I would suggest he died young and was about thirty,
makes him born about 1030. Let's suggest his mother was about 20 when he
was born, then Lady Godiva was about thirty when she made her famous ride
through town. It could be 30 to 40. Godiva's husband died in 1057 and,
dying only about two or three years after his father, implies to me that
Alfgar was young. Lady Godiva apparently died in 1080 and, if born about
1010, makes her about 70
when she died.
To me it appears that Leofric was much older as, in The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, edited by Michael Swanton, page 188, "From 1005 he was known as
thegn and, from 1026, "dux" and, by 1032, was Earl of Mercia. On 30 October
1057 he passed away . He was very wise, before God and before the World, in
what availed all this nation. He was buried at Coventry and his son Alfgar
succeeded to his authority."
Leofric was Earl from 1032 till 1057 and in this period Lady Godiva made her
mark in history.
However, there could be more to her action than just the relief of tax for
the townspeople.
I collected and combined information in regards to Lady Godiva and, sadly,
cannot quickly quote my sources, but here we go.
She was a religious benefactress who---according to tradition when her
husband Leofric, Earl of Mercia, imposed a heavy tax on the townsfolk of
Coventry (1040)---obtained its remission by riding naked through the market
place. The story occurs in Roger of Wendover (1235). Some writers assert
that Lady Godiva ordered all to remain indoors, which they did except for
the famous Peeping Tom, but he was a later addition to the story.
An explanation of the Lady Godiva story could well be the survival of a
Celtic pagan celebration in honour of the goddess-spirit, Epona. To
celebrate the passage of the Moon across the night sky and, at the same
time, the change from winter to spring, a tradition of a naked lady with
long hair riding on a white horse had survived. Quite possibly Leofric,
Earl of Mercia, had dared his wife, Godiva, to take the local girl's place
in the procession.
Hope this partially satisfies the curiosity?
Best wishes and a happy Christmas."
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Sheriff of Lincolnshire.
LADY GODIVA (Godgifu, in the spelling of her time.)
An Anglo-Saxon gentlewoman, patron of the arts, equestrienne, and tax
protester, etc. All the historians say that she "flourished, circa 1040 -
1080 A.D."
Leofric, earl of Mercia, and husband of Lady Godiva, was a man of broad but
obscure interests; a religious man thoroughly Christian, and an
entrepreneur, raconteur, and general all around good sport. At the same
time, he did have an avaricious streak in him, and it is for this reason
that his name has survived through the ages, but more prominently for his
interesting response to the nagging of his bleeding-heart wife, who pestered
him incessantly over details of the daily lives of the peasants under his
control, and similar fussy matters.
It's not that she was always being petulant about everything he did, but
certain of his actions caused her to be irritable, but that part of the
story comes later.
Actually both Leofric and Godiva were quite religious, and upon their move
to Coventry, Warwickshire, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire (where Leofric had
earned his fortune and title from amazing successes in the mutton trade),
they were immediately impressed by the lack of proper facilities for
training and housing men of the cloth in or around the raucous little
district of Coventry (pop. 6215). How, they thought, were the spiritual
needs of these simple souls to be cared for? At the same time, being
somewhat "nouveau riche" and anxious to make their mark in what passed for
genteel society there (not having had the proper credentials to enter such
circles back in Shropshire -- which may have been a big piece of the
motivation for the move), they decided to apply some of their ready cash to
a worthy public cause.
Near the physical center of Coventry, where the bombed-out ruin of mighty
Coventry Cathedral stands today, Leofric and Godiva (in 1043) founded and
funded an abbey (some accounts say monastery), named in honor of Ste. Eunice
of Saxmundham (an early martyr, slain by flaying at the hands of the
Romans). The abbey faced the rising sun, as was decreed it should by Leofric
in a moment of romantic inspiration. A simple affair, made of wattle and
daub with a roof of thatched reeds in the manner of the day, it was
nevertheless imposing by standards in the village otherwise; it was the
biggest structure in the entire region.
Before long this edifice was something of a social focus for the town,
functioning not only as a center for the education and housing of those who
had received the calling, but also as a gathering point where more vulgar
popular events and festivities could be celebrated. Leofric and Godiva came
to be awarded the attention and respect they longed for from the start, and
they had served the purposes of the church as well. They did not seem to
mind that much of the activity circulating around the abbey was decidedly
Druid in origin; at least the peasants were occupied and happy. Coventry
grew around the abbey.
As a gentleman, and now established philanthropist of some local repute,
Leofric assumed a growing role in the governance of public affairs, and was
given responsibility for certain financial matters (the town had grown
enough to actually have financial matters), which he quickly understood as
presenting especially interesting opportunities. One public work generated
the idea of another, if only some money were at hand to facilitate such
growth...
Meanwhile, Godiva's proficiency as a horsewoman had become polished to a
considerable degree, as she had acquired a taste for the hunt and the social
pleasantries which accrue to the activity "apres." Plus, the people she met
during these excursions which provided such complacency, were of a
disposition and delicacy of interest to which she had aspired for some time.
She could do worse than to engage in certain preoccupations of the
intellect, and considerations of the aesthetic, and so she immersed herself
in the arts and, therefore, society.
Perhaps, she earnestly thought, aid to those industrious in this field of
elevated concern (artists) would inspire the rude masses by means of
example. Commissioning a proper portrait of herself would be a good place to
start; it would be an inspiration for simpler souls, so the work was begun.
It only slowly entered Godiva's consciousness that the lack of success she
was having in interesting the base masses in artistic concerns, beautiful
pictures of herself spread around or not, was rooted in the fact that nearly
all of them spent 100% of their waking hours in partially effective efforts
to feed and clothe themselves, and to provide some form of shelter from the
elements. Most were having a hard time of it, in light of the fact that
Leofric, in his new-found megalomaniacal grand-public-works mode, had been
taxing everything he could think of, even including a levy on manure.
Lady Godiva would not have such noble aspirations -- such as art for
everyone -- placed on a back burner for the sake of boring considerations
like a municipal water supply. Men had such ignoble visions, always
functional and mechanical, mostly never above waist level. This would not
do, the taxes must be reduced if this early medieval subsistence-agriculture
village was going to pull itself up into the 11th century and its more
cultured concerns. She went to have a pointed talk with Leofric.
Beside himself with raucous laughter, Leofric injured his left wrist
slightly as he fell off his stool in the hall of the village burghers, and
this sobered him up rather quickly. Reduce taxes in order to foster the
peasants' appreciation of silly pictures? Was she mad? No waterworks? There
would be no tax reduction; as a matter of fact, Leofric added a new tax on
pictures, which only had to be paid by his wife since she was the only
person who had any, except for the church which was exempt.
Their argument became a classic war of wills, taking the equally classic
form of nagging versus stone-walling. However, at very long last, since his
wife would not give up and was driving him to distraction and worse, Leofric
capitulated, but, regarding it all as something of a sport, attached an
interesting condition to his offer to allow some reduction in taxation.
The ancient Greeks, he pointed out, and those coarser Romans as well, viewed
the nude human body as one of the highest expressions of the perfection of
Nature. Nudity was not seen as erotic in any sense, but as purity, and a
celebration of the wonderful form of a sensuous being displayed in all its
marvelous glory for the betterment and appreciation of those enlightened
enough to consider this aesthetic. To present a well formed nude body as an
object of great beauty, even art, would be to offer a lesson of inestimable
value to the simple peasants of Coventry, whose experiences and perceptions
had never been enlightened to appreciate such perfection.
If Lady Godiva truly believed in the crusade she was promoting, then she
should lead it herself, and offer to the citizens of Coventry an example of
the glorious beauty to be understood by careful consideration of a perfect
nude human body. There could be no shame in this, it would be the most gross
error to consider it as such. Was she ashamed of the wonders of God's work?
Besides, with all that horse-back riding, and similar, she had lost some
weight and looked pretty good.
Therefore, Leofric proclaimed that if Lady Godiva would ride her horse
through the crowded market-place of Coventry, in the full light of mid-day,
clothed in only that which God had given her, as an example of the
perfection of God's work and as an expression of the highest possible
aesthetic -- she had been spreading pictures of herself around anyway --
then he would reduce taxes on the populace, lifting from them the burden
Godiva perceived, and erasing from himself any further doubt he might harbor
of the sincerity of Godiva's convictions.
To Leofric's absolute surprise, she agreed, once she had ensured that she
actually had his "permission" to do so.
Taken aback by his wife's courage and certainty in her purposes Leofric,
somewhat overwhelmed, then stated that he fully accepted the truth of Lady
Godiva's belief in the merits of her cause, and so in response, on
completion of her ride he would not just reduce taxes, but would remove all
of them -- save those tolls on horses which were already in place before he
assumed his office, and which were necessary for basic needs of the city.
A day was chosen for the event, and while no particular effort had been
expended to publicize the ride, talk of it had spread in whispers throughout
the whole of Coventry. Not wishing to reveal that this concealed discussion
had taken place, and since people were curious about all aspects of the
affair and did not want to interrupt it, the marketplace's business
proceeded as it might have done on any other less interesting Thursday in
late August.
As noon approached, so did Lady Godiva. She was not alone, but was
accompanied by two female aides also on horseback, but normally clothed; one
rode on each side and slightly to the rear. Three horses walking on the
cobbles in formation at a measured gait did not have the sound of the usual
traffic and bustle, and so -- since all were secretly and eagerly
anticipating the event -- her appearance was announced clearly to everyone.
She sat straight and properly in the saddle with a look of composure on her
face; relaxed, confident, unashamed. Her hair was done in two large braids
which were curled snugly at the back of her head, one on each side; she wore
no jewelry or other adornment. People looked at her and saw that she was not
merely naked, or nude; rather she was in a higher state of presentation --
being a correct and elevated quality of her composure, and resulting also
from the people's appraisal, appreciation, and consideration beyond simple
voyeurism.
To all present this was an experience like no other in their lives. The only
images of people unclothed they had ever seen were in the church: Adam and
Eve, and the crucified Christ. This was a lady, simple and normal with a
body like that of every other woman present, a human, a creature of God's
earth. Though he half meant it as a joke, Leofric's words rang true: here
was a celebration of being in its perfection.
Perhaps, as well, some believed with Zoroaster that sex is the bounty of
God.
So, all survived the event with peacefulness and dignity, and the taxes were
removed.
In the CHRONICA, written by Roger of Wendover (who died in 1236), the
account of the year 1057 tells the story of Godiva's ride in full detail,
and is the earliest surviving written description.
Even more complete versions are provided by the famous historian Ranulf
Higden (died in 1364) in his POLYCHRONICON, and by Henry Knighton (died c.
1396) who followed him, which explain not only the details of the ride and
its reasons, but also the specifics of the removed taxes, in particular that
all save those on horses were eliminated.
Much later, King Edward I, being an inquisitive man (he devised an earnest,
but rather awkward system for the classification of songbirds in Wales),
wished to discover the truth of the Godiva story and, therefore,
commissioned an inquiry of ancient records which showed that in 1057 and
thereabouts, there were indeed no taxes levied in Coventry except those on
horses, which was a rather anomalous situation not seen elsewhere at the
time, thereby establishing the merit and probable accuracy of the legend.
The tale of "Peeping Tom", who was struck blind (or dead) when he alone
gazed upon Lady Godiva was not added until the 17th century. This is also
true of the detail of the story, often added, that Godiva was covered
totally, except for her legs, by an enormous and improbable quantity of
hair.
Doubtless both of these embellishments were supplied later by prudish
Christian churchmen who entirely missed the point and considered that
viewing the unclothed human body under any circumstance was a heinous act
which would damn one to eternal hell fire; they certainly thought the female
body to be dirty and inferior to appreciation, and only worthy of being
hidden from view. On the face of it such a view would seem to be a
perversion, and affront to the beauty of God's work. The Greeks felt that
the idealized human form was the only one worthy to represent the gods on
earth. On the other hand, the Christian faith is unique in that it alone
has, throughout its history, suppressed any celebration of the beauty of the
human body.
So, what was Lady Godiva? A visionary; a social climber; a patron of the
arts; a dilettante of the worst order?
In any estimation, she had the guts to follow her convictions, and may have
brought a degree of enlightenment to a small corner of 11th century England.
And, probably, no one went to Hell because of it."
© Jerome C. Krause ---- http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/godiva.html
From: ""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@bigpond.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:23 PM
Subject: Lady Godiva "revealed"?
"Several questions have arisen about Lady Godiva and most are quite
impossible to give an answer to based on fact. We can only speculate----
Apparently her ride through town may have taken place in 1040----how old
was she?
Circa 1059/1062 her son, Alfgar, Earl of Mercia, died. He had by then
fathered four children. I would suggest he died young and was about thirty,
makes him born about 1030. Let's suggest his mother was about 20 when he
was born, then Lady Godiva was about thirty when she made her famous ride
through town. It could be 30 to 40. Godiva's husband died in 1057 and,
dying only about two or three years after his father, implies to me that
Alfgar was young. Lady Godiva apparently died in 1080 and, if born about
1010, makes her about 70
when she died.
To me it appears that Leofric was much older as, in The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, edited by Michael Swanton, page 188, "From 1005 he was known as
thegn and, from 1026, "dux" and, by 1032, was Earl of Mercia. On 30 October
1057 he passed away . He was very wise, before God and before the World, in
what availed all this nation. He was buried at Coventry and his son Alfgar
succeeded to his authority."
Leofric was Earl from 1032 till 1057 and in this period Lady Godiva made her
mark in history.
However, there could be more to her action than just the relief of tax for
the townspeople.
I collected and combined information in regards to Lady Godiva and, sadly,
cannot quickly quote my sources, but here we go.
She was a religious benefactress who---according to tradition when her
husband Leofric, Earl of Mercia, imposed a heavy tax on the townsfolk of
Coventry (1040)---obtained its remission by riding naked through the market
place. The story occurs in Roger of Wendover (1235). Some writers assert
that Lady Godiva ordered all to remain indoors, which they did except for
the famous Peeping Tom, but he was a later addition to the story.
An explanation of the Lady Godiva story could well be the survival of a
Celtic pagan celebration in honour of the goddess-spirit, Epona. To
celebrate the passage of the Moon across the night sky and, at the same
time, the change from winter to spring, a tradition of a naked lady with
long hair riding on a white horse had survived. Quite possibly Leofric,
Earl of Mercia, had dared his wife, Godiva, to take the local girl's place
in the procession.
Hope this partially satisfies the curiosity?
Best wishes and a happy Christmas."
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Gjest
Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/06 3:54:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dlogan3@bellsouth.net writes:
<< I am in no position to contribute ANYTHING >>
Yes you are. Everyone and their crazy Aunt can search the A2A and Procat
databases which are online, and the Patent Rolls which are online. Online and
free for that matter.
Will Johnson
dlogan3@bellsouth.net writes:
<< I am in no position to contribute ANYTHING >>
Yes you are. Everyone and their crazy Aunt can search the A2A and Procat
databases which are online, and the Patent Rolls which are online. Online and
free for that matter.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Contribute ANYTHING was Re: Phillips v. Stewart
I agree. Also I have found that by asking something apparent stupid
questions you can also get answers to questions you did not pose, and that
is the incredible part of people working together. For instance, so often
people say "I am descended from A", and then someone says, "Did you know A
has a brother/sister who is an ancestor of XYZ" and things like that.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart
questions you can also get answers to questions you did not pose, and that
is the incredible part of people working together. For instance, so often
people say "I am descended from A", and then someone says, "Did you know A
has a brother/sister who is an ancestor of XYZ" and things like that.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Phillips v. Stewart
In a message dated 6/18/06 3:54:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dlogan3@bellsouth.net writes:
I am in no position to contribute ANYTHING
Yes you are. Everyone and their crazy Aunt can search the A2A and Procat
databases which are online, and the Patent Rolls which are online. Online
and
free for that matter.
Will Johnson