Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Peter Stewart

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 19 jun 2006 03:05:00

Chris Phillips wrote:
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:
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."

And this flatly contradicts the previous sentence in same Introduction:

"In this work, the families of rulers and nobility...are being
reconstructed from scratch." ES is NOT "scratch".

The families have been constructed by Schwennicke and his contributors,
and the details are being verified (incompetently) by Cawley. Verifying
is NOT reconstructing "from scratch".

In July 2005 I told the FMG and Phillips that the work was not up to
scholarly standards and was not a systematic prosopography, yet in June
2006 Phillips began his presentation to SGM with these words:

"Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands", subtitled "A prosopography of
medieval European noble and royal families", is being hosted on the
website of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, and the first edition
of the work has recently been made available there".

Why did the FMG and Phillips continue to associate themselves with a
false claim in the subtitle of the work?

Phillips continued:

"This is an ambitious project, whose aim is to document the genealogy
and biographical details of European royal and noble families through a
systematic study of primary source material."

Again, why does he insist on the non-factual, endorsing description as
"systematic" fully 11 months after being told that it was NOT so?

Further, Phillips stated:

"Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but
the emphasis is on the extraction of evidence from contemporary
sources."

This deliberately belittles the amount of content that has been taken
directly - and uncritically - from ES and other secondary works. The
"emphasis" is actually on rehashing Schwennicke's work, with snippets
from often ill-chosen and ill-assessed sources thrown in. I have
demonstrated at length how inadequate this work is for Peter Orseolo,
one of the principal objects of attention in Cawley's own view of
things. In July 2005 I demonstrated the same to the FMG and Phillips
regarding the first part of the Flanders material, that Cawley himself
had offered as the sole example of his work - surely, in his view, some
of the best of it (and as it turns out, substituting "least bad" for
"best", quite so).

Phillips went on:

"In the current version, most data are available for Germany, Northern
France, Lombardy and Anglo-Saxon England, and for the earliest 600
years of the medieval period."

Again, this covers the Flanders stuff that was critiqued as inadequate
by scholarly standards for the FMG and Phillips last year, and we have
since been told by Tim recollecting Cawley's AGM presentation that all
the material for England is unverified - so that even allowing the
dishonest twist of "verified" to mean "reconstructed", his process had
reportedly not been carried out for the data on Anglo-Saxon England as
Phillips stated.

Phillips continued: "Statements not yet documented from primary sources
are indicated in some parts by [...], and in others by the absence of
source citations."

I have shown in the posts on Peter Orseolo that even this has been done
so erratically as to be flatly misleading to users.

Phillips finished: "Work on the project is continuing, and it is hoped
to produce a more fully documented second edition in due course.
However, as it stands now the work contains a tremendous amount of
information, and I'm sure people will find it an extremely useful
resource."

Thats is not strictly factual, but an opinion: one that Phillips has
not seen fit to retract, and one that he has indeed sought to justify
by misrepresenting my words from July 2006 about the usefulness to many
people of this "kind of" work.

Phillips asks why Francisco might think he was lying. If the above
isn't plainly dishonest on the part of Phillips, can someone explain to
the newsgroup - as he obviously cannot - specifically how and why?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 03:06:31

In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< 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. >>

I'm following the line that John Tempest b 24 Aug 1283 had a son John who dvp
and it was this latter John who married Margaret Holland dau of Robert
Holland.

This last couple John Tempest and Margaret Holland, then also had a son John
who had a son Robert d 1427/8

Thus the generations are 20 to 30 years apart which makes a lot more sense to
me.

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 03:10:02

In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Sir Nicholas Harington was the son of Katherine Banastre and the
grandson of Margaret Holand. Thus, Sir Richard Hudleston married
Margaret's great granddaughter. >>

Then the Nicholas Harrington who married Isabel English is the same Nicholas
who married Joan Venables ?

Gjest

Re: Contribute ANYTHING was Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 03:21:02

I was asked privately where the A2A, Procat and Patent Rolls are so here are
the relevant links

A2A
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp

Patent Rolls
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/search.html

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


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 03:32:02

In a message dated 6/17/06 2:54:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< "The body of Gerard Danet now lies in the parish church of Tiltey,
Essex. It seems evident that when the Blackfriars of London was
destroyed, his remains, and probably those of his children and his
monumental brass, were removed. Mary, his second wife, daughter and
co-heiress of Sir Edward Belknap, of Warwickshire ..." >>

In 1498 a document exists which states in part "... remainder to Alice, if
she has no heirs then...." indicating that in 1498 Alice had no children.

Did Edward Belknap have a previous wife by which he became father to this
Mary ?

I'm showing this Mary as daughter, to Edward's father Henry "Harry" and his
wife Margaret Knollys, both d 1488, which would seem to put her in the correct
generation to be a wife to Gerard Danet

Will Johnson

RJM

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av RJM » 19 jun 2006 06:28:56

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/17/06 2:54:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

"The body of Gerard Danet now lies in the parish church of Tiltey,
Essex. It seems evident that when the Blackfriars of London was
destroyed, his remains, and probably those of his children and his
monumental brass, were removed. Mary, his second wife, daughter and
co-heiress of Sir Edward Belknap, of Warwickshire ..."

In 1498 a document exists which states in part "... remainder to Alice, if
she has no heirs then...." indicating that in 1498 Alice had no children.

Did Edward Belknap have a previous wife by which he became father to this
Mary ?

I'm showing this Mary as daughter, to Edward's father Henry "Harry" and his
wife Margaret Knollys, both d 1488, which would seem to put her in the correct
generation to be a wife to Gerard Danet

Will Johnson

I believe the quotation is wrong. Mary wife of Gerald Dannett was
sister and co-heiress of Sir Edward Belknap.

I have seen it suggested that Sir Edward Belknap had an illegitimate
child, but it is clear that he had no legitimate children. If Mary had
been his legitimate child she would have been the sole heiress. As it
was she was co-heiress to his estate at Burton Dassett (and various
other properties) along with her sisters Elizabeth (married to Sir
Philip Cooke) and Anne (married to Sir Robert Wooton).

Coincidentaly, it was the Dannett third of the manor of Burton Dassett
that was purchased by Peter Temple, leading to a bitter quarrel with
Sir Anthony Cooke, but eventualy establishing the Temples as part of
the landed gentry.

John Matthews

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Lady Godiva [fl. 1040-1080]?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 19 jun 2006 06:37:23

Lady Godiva is also allegedly the 14th Great-Grandmother of King Richard III
[b. 1452 -- d. 1485] as well, which should excite all the _Ricardians_. <g>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 09:53:05

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Sir Nicholas Harington was the son of Katherine Banastre and the
grandson of Margaret Holand. Thus, Sir Richard Hudleston married
Margaret's great granddaughter.

Then the Nicholas Harrington who married Isabel English is the same Nicholas
who married Joan Venables ?

Sorry - away from my copy of HoP which would confirm this - will let
you know asap.

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 09:54:35

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

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.

I'm following the line that John Tempest b 24 Aug 1283 had a son John who dvp
and it was this latter John who married Margaret Holland dau of Robert
Holland.

This last couple John Tempest and Margaret Holland, then also had a son John
who had a son Robert d 1427/8

Part of the problem here is "which Robert Holand"? Do you have a
reference source for your comments? All I have seen is Burke's which
is (as usual) flawed and unreliable.

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 10:11:24

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

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.

I'm following the line that John Tempest b 24 Aug 1283 had a son John who dvp
and it was this latter John who married Margaret Holland dau of Robert
Holland.

Ah, I think there are two different Margaret Holands.

The first married twice, and by her second husband (Adam Banastre) was
mother of Katherine Harington nee Banastre; by her first marriage (to
John Blackburn) she was maternal grandmother of Katherine Sherburne,
who is alleged to have married a Tempest.

The second (who is elsewhere variously described Joan, Mary or unnamed)
presents more of a problem, as she seems to be relatively undocumented.
There were some posts here a couple of years ago about this problem,
which remained unresolved; HoP does seem less tentative about her
marriage to the younger John Tempest, but I am not sure what sources
were relied on for this; this also leaves the question of how factual
the alleged Sherburn-Tempest marriage is, and where it fits in.

This last couple John Tempest and Margaret Holland, then also had a son John
who had a son Robert d 1427/8

Do you mean "Richard" rather than Robert - i.e. Sir Richard Tempest of
Bracewell?

Thus the generations are 20 to 30 years apart which makes a lot more sense to
me.

Except that the elder Sir John was born in 1283, and his apparent
grandson Sir Richard (d 1427/8) is said by HoP to have been born circa
1356 - that would allow enough room for at least one more generation -
ie for Sir Richard to be the elder Sir John's great grandson.

MA-R

Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 19 jun 2006 14:13:02

Hopefully, this tag line will illicit some interest in re-visiting the
mystery.



Could anyone provide answers to the following .

Has anyone found
1)an IPM for Eudo who died in 1279,
2) a reference to him as the son of Alan and Elena, or
3) the inheritance of land in the line of Alan and Elena?

The following from Knights

Zouche, Sr Eudo la, Kt. (Eoun, Youn, Ivo, Ivonet).
Grant of 30 m. p.a. till K. provide more 27 Ap. 1261.
Livery to him Chester Beeston, and Shotwick Cas. of P. Edw. to keep and
defend, 26 Dec. 1262.
Livery to him and w. Milicent, sis. coh. of Geo. de Cantilupo: manors
late of said George at Eyton, Houton in Beds., Haringworth, Beruby, Rowell,
and Bolewik, Northants., Bridgewater and Edenworth, Som., Calston,
Bridmerston, Roele, and Calne, Wilts., Corneworthy, Dartmouth, and Totness,
Devon, Moles-Bracy, Salop, Stok St. Edwald, Dors., Hamme, Bucks., Byngele,
Yorks., Baseford, Notts., and Hereford,
1 Mar. (C.R.and F.R.), with their share of his lands in Ireland 30 May 1274
(F.R.), and in Craudon Manor and rents at Newbury, Spenhamland, and
Wodespene Manors, Berks.,

3 June 1275 Grant to him and Milicent forfeiture in their ports so long as
K. receives custom on wool and hides exported 16 Nov. 1275 (P.R.). Sumd to
serve agst. Welsh, he acknowledges 1-1/2 Fee for Milicent, and
will serve in person with a serjeant, 1 Jy. 1277 (P.W.). He and Millicent
nominate attorneys in Ireland 14 June 1278, and have Protection there 28 Ap.
1279 (P.R.). He is dead 25 June 1279. She is dead 7 Jan. 1290, leaving s.
h. William la Z. (F.R.).

Since Milicent's IPM she is styled as Milicent Montaldt and names HER heir
as William b. 1273-6 and the majority of the lands listed here were hers, is
it possible Eudo named another heir if his IPM exists?

I am searching for a plausible, if there is a plausible, answer to the
question of the two Eudos.

Zouche of Haryngsworth XII/2 p. 937. CP
Eon€ la Zouche, yr. br. of Alan la Zouche (d. 1270) of Ashby, co. Leistr'
&c. being sons of Rogr la Zouche of the same by his wife Margaret,
1) brought the treasure of Ireland to the treasurer of New Temple, London,
Sep. 1251;
2) €In July 1253 he was granted the marriage of Agatha, 6th daughter of
William de Ferrers, 5th earl of Derby, who was to be deliverd to him, 26
Feb. 1253/4.One Eudo was certainly an adult by 1253 when he is granted the
marriage of Agatha de Ferrariis provided Eudo give the king 150 marks and if
he have not the said marriage, he shall be quit of the said 100l. He chooses
not to marry Agatha and Agnes de Vescy is called upon to deliver her to Hugh
son of Ralph de Mortimer in 1255. (CPR H3)
3)He had protection, going with the Queen to the King is Gascony, 3 May 1254
4) witnessed charters of Prince Edward (at Southwark) 24 Mar., and (at
Lambeth) 28 Dec. 1257,
5) granted a pension of 30 marks a year, 27 Apr. 1261

Would a young man have been given a pension or was this simply a provision
following distinguished service?

Milicent Cantilupe had probably married John Monte Alto by 1255 and while
some may suggest that her when "19 hides were assigned to Sir William de
Cantilupo to John de Montealto, with his daughter" it may have been a
promise of a marriage, in regard to property in Bingley: Elienora presedicta
tenet eas de Milisanta de Monte Alto matre sua, NOT ZOUCHE.


We must also explain Henry de la Zouche,clerk, John and Thomas de la Zuche.

Thank you in advance for observations.
Pat



----------
From: Therav3@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture
Date: Thu, 1, 2006, 7:46 AM


Dear Pat, et al.,

Having limited time today, I noted your post and wanted to
make one quick correction.

My theory is not that Thomas la Zouche was a son of
Millicent de Cantilupo, but rather her brother-in-law. If you
closely review the chart I posted earlier (repeated below), it
indicates that there is a conjectured 'Eudes the elder', father
of Eudes (husband of Millicent) and Thomas. This would make
Eudes (husband of Millicent) a first cousin of the first Sir
Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe (as conjectured), and of the
issue of Sir Alan la Zouche, instead of being Alan's brother.

[NOTE: this chart reflects known and conjectured relationships]


Sir Roger la Zouche = Margaret Bisset
I
__________________________I_________________________________
I I I I I
Sir Alan Sir William = Alice = Eudes Lora
d. 1270 of Norton Sir William I = Gilbert
m. bef 1242 & Hobrugge de Harcourt I de Sanford
Ellen de = 1) Maud de 'ca. 1250' I m. bef 1249
Quincy I Hobrugge I
I = 2) Joan I
___________I I________ ________I_______
I I I I I
Joyce William Sir Roger Eudes Thomas
= Robert (dsp) of Lubbesthorpe d. bef 25 'steward' to
de Mortimer d. bef 30 Sept Jun 1279 Millicent,
d. 1287 1302 = bef Dec 12 March 1280/1
____I___________ = Juliana 1273
I I I Millicent de Cantilupo
I I ___I___________________
I I I I I I
Hugh Sir William Sir Roger Eudo Alan Ralph
de la Zouche of
Mortimer Mortimer Lubbesthorpe
of Ashby


Chronologically, this would also work well with the 1250's record
of a Eudes la Zouche having given away his right to marry one Agatha
to Hugh de Mortimer.

More later (when time allows).

Cheers,

John






Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 19 jun 2006 15:03:22

Dear Patricia ~

Regarding my proposed two Eudes la Zouche scenario, I note that the
book, Knights of Edward I, by Moor refers to Eudes la Zouche by various
forms of his given name. One of these forms is Ivonet. Moor does not
give the the date of the Ivonet form. However, my impression is that
Ivonet would be a reference to a young man named Eudes, aged 20 years
or younger. Over the years, I've seen stray references to Robinet for
a young Robert, and Colette for a young Nichole. If the reference to
Ivonet dates from the 1260's or later, then I should think that we
would have evidence that there was a younger Eudes living at the same
time as an older Eudes already in the records. If the reference to
Ivonet is late enough, this would be an easy way to establish if there
was one or two Eudes la Zouches in this time period. I doubt an older
man named Eudes would be addressed as Ivonet.

If there were two Eudes la Zouches, I would place the younger one as a
son of Alan la Zouche and his wife, Ellen de Quincy. The younger Eudes
la Zouche would be the individual who married Milicent de Cantelowe.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
Hopefully, this tag line will illicit some interest in re-visiting the
mystery.



Could anyone provide answers to the following .

Has anyone found
1)an IPM for Eudo who died in 1279,
2) a reference to him as the son of Alan and Elena, or
3) the inheritance of land in the line of Alan and Elena?

The following from Knights

Zouche, Sr Eudo la, Kt. (Eoun, Youn, Ivo, Ivonet).
Grant of 30 m. p.a. till K. provide more 27 Ap. 1261.
Livery to him Chester Beeston, and Shotwick Cas. of P. Edw. to keep and
defend, 26 Dec. 1262.
Livery to him and w. Milicent, sis. coh. of Geo. de Cantilupo: manors
late of said George at Eyton, Houton in Beds., Haringworth, Beruby, Rowell,
and Bolewik, Northants., Bridgewater and Edenworth, Som., Calston,
Bridmerston, Roele, and Calne, Wilts., Corneworthy, Dartmouth, and Totness,
Devon, Moles-Bracy, Salop, Stok St. Edwald, Dors., Hamme, Bucks., Byngele,
Yorks., Baseford, Notts., and Hereford,
1 Mar. (C.R.and F.R.), with their share of his lands in Ireland 30 May 1274
(F.R.), and in Craudon Manor and rents at Newbury, Spenhamland, and
Wodespene Manors, Berks.,

3 June 1275 Grant to him and Milicent forfeiture in their ports so long as
K. receives custom on wool and hides exported 16 Nov. 1275 (P.R.). Sumd to
serve agst. Welsh, he acknowledges 1-1/2 Fee for Milicent, and
will serve in person with a serjeant, 1 Jy. 1277 (P.W.). He and Millicent
nominate attorneys in Ireland 14 June 1278, and have Protection there 28 Ap.
1279 (P.R.). He is dead 25 June 1279. She is dead 7 Jan. 1290, leaving s.
h. William la Z. (F.R.).

Since Milicent's IPM she is styled as Milicent Montaldt and names HER heir
as William b. 1273-6 and the majority of the lands listed here were hers, is
it possible Eudo named another heir if his IPM exists?

I am searching for a plausible, if there is a plausible, answer to the
question of the two Eudos.

Zouche of Haryngsworth XII/2 p. 937. CP
Eon€ la Zouche, yr. br. of Alan la Zouche (d. 1270) of Ashby, co. Leistr'
&c. being sons of Rogr la Zouche of the same by his wife Margaret,
1) brought the treasure of Ireland to the treasurer of New Temple, London,
Sep. 1251;
2) €In July 1253 he was granted the marriage of Agatha, 6th daughter of
William de Ferrers, 5th earl of Derby, who was to be deliverd to him, 26
Feb. 1253/4.One Eudo was certainly an adult by 1253 when he is granted the
marriage of Agatha de Ferrariis provided Eudo give the king 150 marks and if
he have not the said marriage, he shall be quit of the said 100l. He chooses
not to marry Agatha and Agnes de Vescy is called upon to deliver her to Hugh
son of Ralph de Mortimer in 1255. (CPR H3)
3)He had protection, going with the Queen to the King is Gascony, 3 May 1254
4) witnessed charters of Prince Edward (at Southwark) 24 Mar., and (at
Lambeth) 28 Dec. 1257,
5) granted a pension of 30 marks a year, 27 Apr. 1261

Would a young man have been given a pension or was this simply a provision
following distinguished service?

Milicent Cantilupe had probably married John Monte Alto by 1255 and while
some may suggest that her when "19 hides were assigned to Sir William de
Cantilupo to John de Montealto, with his daughter" it may have been a
promise of a marriage, in regard to property in Bingley: Elienora presedicta
tenet eas de Milisanta de Monte Alto matre sua, NOT ZOUCHE.


We must also explain Henry de la Zouche,clerk, John and Thomas de la Zuche.

Thank you in advance for observations.
Pat


Gjest

Re: Phillips v. Stewart

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 17:02:02

In a message dated 6/18/2006 11:09:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

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.

WHAT secondary material? He cites.. nothing. That doesn't make the
database more useful than others, it makes it less. At least stirnet cites
something, even if its BXP, its something.


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.

Which I did, as I mentioned already. So far, no response.

Will

Gjest

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 20:08:01

In a message dated 6/19/06 10:54:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< Otherwise, if the
secondary sources simply point you to primary and other sources, then
it's not necessary to cite them. >>

I would like to vehemently disagree.
If a person posts to this list, a pointer to where specific information can
be found, that person deserves a citation. Such as "IPM of John Browne, as
posted to GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com on June 12 2006 by Douglas Richardson"

If you find a book such as Alison Weir's "Children of Henry VIII" and within
it, she cites a record of transfer of property from "John Smith to Joan
Daubigny", then you cite Alison Weir, with an additional sub-citation (if you will)
as to the document to which she is referring.

Ignoring the fact that YOU got the data from Alison, implies that you found
it yourself. That is completely inappropriate behaviour.

However Medieval Lands goes even further then this into the
realm-of-the-inappropriate -- launching itself full-scale into outright intellectual theft and
plagarism. Douglas won't call it a goat, but I will.

Cawley needs to come forth and state exactly what he's about. This database
doesn't only besmirch his own name, but that of the Foundation as well.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 19 jun 2006 20:19:02

Dear Douglas,

Thank you for replying. Sorry, but I am not certain which is your hypothesis
concerning Eudo. Is it the one posted by John?

You may have noticed in some of my posts that I study the Viponts and one
Ivo[in various forms], has not been, to my current knowledge, referred to
as Ivonet or Eudo, so I have been puzzled by the Knights reference to Eudo
la Zouche as Ivo or Ivonet. To be certain, we should see a primary reference
using the name Ivonet as Eudo la Zouche. That said, I would not consider
Ivonet to be a reference to a younger Eudo.

My question concerning Eudo's inheritance, I think, pivotal to a conclusion
about whether one or two existed.

1225 King Henry gave Beeston to Prince Edward.
Chester and Beeston were de Lacy strongholds and in 1240, John de Lacy was
governor of Chester and Beeston Castles.
1261 Monies from the Exchequer for Alan la Zusche, 50 marks, Eudo la Zusche,
30 marks and William la Zusche, 40 marks---all brothers, I believe.
1262--Chester, Beston and Shotwik, to Eudo la Zuche[I] brother of the said
Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the said Alan,justice of the
forest on this side Trent, until his arrival......
1263 William la Zuche apptd. justice of Chester by King.

How did the la Zouche family come into possession? It is implied that Alan
and the older Eudo simply held them.

I have found corroboration for William la Zuche, son of Alan in 1268. (CPR
H3).
We can trace the lands Elena de Quincy gave her son Oliver.
The confirmation to Maiden Bradley confirms Roger as the son of Alan.
However, I, as yet, have found no reference naming Eudo as the son of Alan
and Elena.

Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture
Date: Mon, 19, 2006, 10:03 AM


Dear Patricia ~

Regarding my proposed two Eudes la Zouche scenario, I note that the
book, Knights of Edward I, by Moor refers to Eudes la Zouche by various
forms of his given name. One of these forms is Ivonet. Moor does not
give the the date of the Ivonet form. However, my impression is that
Ivonet would be a reference to a young man named Eudes, aged 20 years
or younger. Over the years, I've seen stray references to Robinet for
a young Robert, and Colette for a young Nichole. If the reference to
Ivonet dates from the 1260's or later, then I should think that we
would have evidence that there was a younger Eudes living at the same
time as an older Eudes already in the records. If the reference to
Ivonet is late enough, this would be an easy way to establish if there
was one or two Eudes la Zouches in this time period. I doubt an older
man named Eudes would be addressed as Ivonet.

If there were two Eudes la Zouches, I would place the younger one as a
son of Alan la Zouche and his wife, Ellen de Quincy. The younger Eudes
la Zouche would be the individual who married Milicent de Cantelowe.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
Hopefully, this tag line will illicit some interest in re-visiting the
mystery.



Could anyone provide answers to the following .

Has anyone found
1)an IPM for Eudo who died in 1279,
2) a reference to him as the son of Alan and Elena, or
3) the inheritance of land in the line of Alan and Elena?

The following from Knights

Zouche, Sr Eudo la, Kt. (Eoun, Youn, Ivo, Ivonet).
Grant of 30 m. p.a. till K. provide more 27 Ap. 1261.
Livery to him Chester Beeston, and Shotwick Cas. of P. Edw. to keep and
defend, 26 Dec. 1262.
Livery to him and w. Milicent, sis. coh. of Geo. de Cantilupo: manors
late of said George at Eyton, Houton in Beds., Haringworth, Beruby, Rowell,
and Bolewik, Northants., Bridgewater and Edenworth, Som., Calston,
Bridmerston, Roele, and Calne, Wilts., Corneworthy, Dartmouth, and Totness,
Devon, Moles-Bracy, Salop, Stok St. Edwald, Dors., Hamme, Bucks., Byngele,
Yorks., Baseford, Notts., and Hereford,
1 Mar. (C.R.and F.R.), with their share of his lands in Ireland 30 May 1274
(F.R.), and in Craudon Manor and rents at Newbury, Spenhamland, and
Wodespene Manors, Berks.,

3 June 1275 Grant to him and Milicent forfeiture in their ports so long as
K. receives custom on wool and hides exported 16 Nov. 1275 (P.R.). Sumd to
serve agst. Welsh, he acknowledges 1-1/2 Fee for Milicent, and
will serve in person with a serjeant, 1 Jy. 1277 (P.W.). He and Millicent
nominate attorneys in Ireland 14 June 1278, and have Protection there 28 Ap.
1279 (P.R.). He is dead 25 June 1279. She is dead 7 Jan. 1290, leaving s.
h. William la Z. (F.R.).

Since Milicent's IPM she is styled as Milicent Montaldt and names HER heir
as William b. 1273-6 and the majority of the lands listed here were hers, is
it possible Eudo named another heir if his IPM exists?

I am searching for a plausible, if there is a plausible, answer to the
question of the two Eudos.

Zouche of Haryngsworth XII/2 p. 937. CP
Eon€ la Zouche, yr. br. of Alan la Zouche (d. 1270) of Ashby, co. Leistr'
&c. being sons of Rogr la Zouche of the same by his wife Margaret,
1) brought the treasure of Ireland to the treasurer of New Temple, London,
Sep. 1251;
2) €In July 1253 he was granted the marriage of Agatha, 6th daughter of
William de Ferrers, 5th earl of Derby, who was to be deliverd to him, 26
Feb. 1253/4.One Eudo was certainly an adult by 1253 when he is granted the
marriage of Agatha de Ferrariis provided Eudo give the king 150 marks and if
he have not the said marriage, he shall be quit of the said 100l. He chooses
not to marry Agatha and Agnes de Vescy is called upon to deliver her to Hugh
son of Ralph de Mortimer in 1255. (CPR H3)
3)He had protection, going with the Queen to the King is Gascony, 3 May 1254
4) witnessed charters of Prince Edward (at Southwark) 24 Mar., and (at
Lambeth) 28 Dec. 1257,
5) granted a pension of 30 marks a year, 27 Apr. 1261

Would a young man have been given a pension or was this simply a provision
following distinguished service?

Milicent Cantilupe had probably married John Monte Alto by 1255 and while
some may suggest that her when "19 hides were assigned to Sir William de
Cantilupo to John de Montealto, with his daughter" it may have been a
promise of a marriage, in regard to property in Bingley: Elienora presedicta
tenet eas de Milisanta de Monte Alto matre sua, NOT ZOUCHE.


We must also explain Henry de la Zouche,clerk, John and Thomas de la Zuche.

Thank you in advance for observations.
Pat





RJM

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av RJM » 19 jun 2006 20:23:52

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I
If you find a book such as Alison Weir's "Children of Henry VIII" and within
it, she cites a record of transfer of property from "John Smith to Joan
Daubigny", then you cite Alison Weir, with an additional sub-citation (if you will)
as to the document to which she is referring.

Ignoring the fact that YOU got the data from Alison, implies that you found
it yourself. That is completely inappropriate behaviour.


Will Johnson

I can understand where you are coming from, but let's try a little
reductio ad absurdum.

In the unlikely event tht I should write something about medieval
genealogy, I would probably mention that for most of the medieval
period surnames were not hereditary. As it happens, this is not
something I have personaly discovered; I first met this idea more than
40 years ago. However, it seems to me mildly eccentric to acknowledge
Leslie Pine as the source of the idea - even though as it happens I
first read about it in one of his books. It seems to me to be eccentric
in the extreme to include a full reference (Pine, LG; "Trace Your
Ancestors"; Evans Brothers Ltd, third edition (revised) 1964 - page
55). Perhaps I should make an effort to find out who first mentioned
this in print - but art is long and life is short.

It appears to me that some sort of value judgement is required. For
example, if I say that Izaac Walton wrote a book about angling, very
few people would believe this is a fresh discovery on my part. If, on
the other hand I said that Izaac Walton was the nephew of Sir Alexander
Temple's 2nd wife, I should acknowledge John Brandon since otherwise it
would be reasonable to believe that I had discovered it.

Presumably, a sense of proportion is needed; if the above eleven words
are an aside in a 5,000 word article do you realy need to include an
acknowledgement and citation that could run to 20 or 30 words?
(Actualy, my own answer to that question is yes, but others may think
differently.)

John Matthews

RJM

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av RJM » 19 jun 2006 20:40:47

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/18/06 10:39:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

Coincidentaly, it was the Dannett third of the manor of Burton Dassett
that was purchased by Peter Temple, leading to a bitter quarrel with
Sir Anthony Cooke, but eventualy establishing the Temples as part of
the landed gentry.

First John thank you for verifying that Mary (Belknap) Danet would appear to
be another daughter to Harry Belknap by his wife Margaret Knollys.

You mention in the above snippet that the Danet third was purchased by Peter
Temple. Can you specify a date or date range when this purchase occurred?

Thanks
Will Johnson

I'd better be a bit careful here ;)

My source is N W Alcock's scholarly edition of the account book of
Peter Temple published under the title of Warwickshire Grazier and
London Skinner 1532-1555.

The Dannett third of the Burton Dassett Manor was purchased in 2 bites.
In 1557, Peter purchased from Thomas Dannett, a half interest in the
Dannett third. He apparently paid the curiously precise sum of £972
13s 5d. In 1559, Peter bought the other half of the Dannett third of
the manor from Leonard Dannett (Thomas' brother) for £1,580.

At the time, Temple was the agent for the 3 co-owners and these
purchases upset one of the other co-owners - Sir Anthony Cooke. Alcock
gives a lengthy account of this dispute which led to Temple being in
the Tower for over a year, but which did not overturn these purchases.

John Matthews

Gjest

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 20:53:02

In a message dated 6/18/06 10:39:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< Coincidentaly, it was the Dannett third of the manor of Burton Dassett
that was purchased by Peter Temple, leading to a bitter quarrel with
Sir Anthony Cooke, but eventualy establishing the Temples as part of
the landed gentry. >>

First John thank you for verifying that Mary (Belknap) Danet would appear to
be another daughter to Harry Belknap by his wife Margaret Knollys.

You mention in the above snippet that the Danet third was purchased by Peter
Temple. Can you specify a date or date range when this purchase occurred?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 21:09:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 5:12:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< He is dead 25 June 1279. She is dead 7 Jan. 1290, leaving s.
h. William la Z. (F.R.). >>

Milicent Cantilupe was dead by 7 Jan 1290 ?
I think you must mean 7 Jan 1299 ?

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 21:10:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 5:12:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< Since Milicent's IPM she is styled as Milicent Montaldt and names HER heir
as William b. 1273-6 and the majority of the lands listed here were hers, is
it possible Eudo named another heir if his IPM exists? >>

Is William not stated to be "age 22 or more" in his mother's IPM ?
I have his birth 1276/7
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

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

In a message dated 6/19/06 2:09:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Part of the problem here is "which Robert Holand"? Do you have a
reference source for your comments? All I have seen is Burke's which
is (as usual) flawed and unreliable. >>

My reference that the wife of (some) John Tempest was a Katherine Holland,
dau of some Sir Robert Holland is the HoP article which you cited recently on
Sir Richard Tempest :)

It does say that. It calls this particular John Tempest the one who fl 1349
but maybe that's the sole mistake. Maybe this is the wrong John Tempest, and
the one who fl 1349 is the son of the one who Katherine Holland married.

I'm just taking the various snippets and trying to make them all fit together
in some form, so it's a bit of conjecture and a bit of documentation, and
then once we have some sort of framework (big grin) to try to find primary
documents to support it.

And please note, that unlike others, I'm not claiming to be a major online
resource reconstructing families from scratch ! (Give me another year before I
make that claim)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tempest and Hudleston

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 21:28:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 2:15:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Except that the elder Sir John was born in 1283, and his apparent
grandson Sir Richard (d 1427/8) is said by HoP to have been born circa
1356 - that would allow enough room for at least one more generation -
ie for Sir Richard to be the elder Sir John's great grandson. >>

Yes I'm agreeing.
Sir John Tempest 24 Aug 1283-1359
father of
Sir John Tempest dvp before 1333
father of
John Tempest
father of
Richard Tempest of Bracewell ~1356 - 1427/8

The third John above with no dates can be variously born from say 1317 to say
1332 (father d bef 1333) and so its safe to allow this extra generation :)

The tricky part is to assign the various documents to these generations in
such a way that they all make sense.

Of course I don't envy someone trying to sort out "John Tempest" in the
perhaps 100 or more citations that that name probably has.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 21:35:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 12:24:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< Presumably, a sense of proportion is needed; if the above eleven words
are an aside in a 5,000 word article do you realy need to include an
acknowledgement and citation that could run to 20 or 30 words? >>

That would be based on how obscure the information is.

If you write an article on George Bush and claim that he is the President of
the United States, you don't need a citation at all because a billion people
or more know this.

If you claim his wife was born in Abilene, you may need a citation, but since
this information can probably be found in a hundred reference works, you
wouldn't need to cite the fact that your neighbor told you.

However, if you claim that Bill Clinton was born one-month premature weighing
6 lbs 8 ozs that you would most certainly need to cite :

"First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton, David Maraniss; Simon &
Schuster, New York. 1995. as reported by Will Johnson, wjhonson@aol.com, to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com 19 June 2006"

The knowledge of his exact birthweight and that his mother claimed he was
born one month premature is rather obscure. My discovery of this interesting
tidbit is relevant, esp. as it calls into question once more, even his newly
assumed parentage.

Then the door is open to the interesting observations of whether a one month
premature baby could weigh as much as 6lbs 8 ozs.

Will Johnson

John Matthews

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av John Matthews » 19 jun 2006 21:47:16

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 12:54:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

The Dannett third of the Burton Dassett Manor was purchased in 2 bites.
In 1557, Peter purchased from Thomas Dannett, a half interest in the
Dannett third. He apparently paid the curiously precise sum of £972
13s 5d. In 1559, Peter bought the other half of the Dannett third of
the manor from Leonard Dannett (Thomas' brother) for £1,580.

I wonder if possibly the two boys were just coming of age and thus the two
seperate purchases ? That would imply that Thomas was the elder of the two.
Also I wonder why Elizabeth (Danet) Arundel is not mentioned as well. She
should have inherited with her brother John Danet.

Will Johnson

Whoops, I misread Alcock. Thomas was Leonard's uncle, not his brother.
According to Alcock, Mary Dannett (one of the original co-heirs) gave
half of her third to her younger son Thomas. Presumably she could do
this because her husband had died. The other half (of the Dannett
third) went to Mary's grandson Leonard. He was apparently the son of
Mary's older son - John. It is not clear whether this was by gift or
inheritance.

I'm not sure why you think Elizabeth should have inherited. If she had
a brother, it would be unusual for her to inherit.

John Matthews

Gjest

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 22:27:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 12:54:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< The Dannett third of the Burton Dassett Manor was purchased in 2 bites.
In 1557, Peter purchased from Thomas Dannett, a half interest in the
Dannett third. He apparently paid the curiously precise sum of £972
13s 5d. In 1559, Peter bought the other half of the Dannett third of
the manor from Leonard Dannett (Thomas' brother) for £1,580. >>

I wonder if possibly the two boys were just coming of age and thus the two
seperate purchases ? That would imply that Thomas was the elder of the two.
Also I wonder why Elizabeth (Danet) Arundel is not mentioned as well. She
should have inherited with her brother John Danet.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 22:34:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 1:16:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:

<< Is the Pipe Roll Society publication of the Pipe Rolls, from
the late 19c, considered primary or secondary source? >>

In my opinion, a transcription [typing what a person has hand-writen, or
re-typing by sight a typed version] of a manuscript is primary. Of course
photographic images might be even better, but not as likely to exist.

However, if the work involves editing the manuscript, such as adding
notes/comments esp. without correctly marking them, it should be considered secondary.

I think previously on this list, people have remarked that basically either
the earliest or most basic statement of each fact, published, should always be
considered primary, even if its not a transcript or image of the original.

So my earlier citation to Clinton weighing 6 lbs could be considered itself
primary *if* the author's underlying source is an actual image of his birth
certificate. However if the underlying source is a newspaper article, at the
time of his birth, that would be the primary source, with the published book
being secondary.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jun 2006 23:11:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 1:54:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< I'm not sure why you think Elizabeth should have inherited. If she had
a brother, it would be unusual for her to inherit. >>

Wouldn't it depend on how the remainder was stated?
All they always "to heirs male" ? Or can they be "to all heirs of the body
equally" ?

Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 19 jun 2006 23:46:02

Yes. "More" could indicate born a bit earlier.

----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture
Date: Mon, 19, 2006, 3:08 PM


In a message dated 6/19/06 5:12:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

Since Milicent's IPM she is styled as Milicent Montaldt and names HER heir
as William b. 1273-6 and the majority of the lands listed here were hers, is
it possible Eudo named another heir if his IPM exists?

Is William not stated to be "age 22 or more" in his mother's IPM ?
I have his birth 1276/7
Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 19 jun 2006 23:49:02

Apologies. Yes, 1299.

----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: pajunkin@cox.net, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture
Date: Mon, 19, 2006, 3:07 PM


In a message dated 6/19/06 5:12:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

He is dead 25 June 1279. She is dead 7 Jan. 1290, leaving s.
h. William la Z. (F.R.).

Milicent Cantilupe was dead by 7 Jan 1290 ?
I think you must mean 7 Jan 1299 ?

Will Johnson

CE Wood

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av CE Wood » 20 jun 2006 01:21:40

I believe you are referring to a different Ralph Basset, the son of
Ralph Basset of Great Weldon and Joan (Sturdon) Basset. He married Joan
de La Pole about April of 1339, and died about 1326.

The Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of Drayton, who married Joan de Grey
about 27 March 1304, was born about 1279, and died 25 February 1343.
He was son of Ralph, 1st Lord Basset of Drayton, and Hawise de Grey.

CE Wood


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 3:55:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:

Because his daughter Joan married Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of
Drayton. See Doug Richardson's PA3, p. 764. Evidently in 1285 Maud
de Verdun was an heiress to her brother Humphrey de Verdun, clerk.

Not having this work, are you saying that Joan Grey married Ralph before Joan
de la pole married him?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 01:24:19

It doesn't say, just that they married and in Richardson's work, he has
grouped end notes so, I believe he cites to CP 2 (1912):2-3 sub Basset.
Since Ralph Basset was neither a Plantagenet descendant nor a Magna
Carta descendant, he is not continued in either of Richardson's works.
I would guess he'll get treatment in English Baronial Families if that
comes to fruition. I look forward to that and the delineation between
him and Ralph Basset of Wheldon since I descend from both and I fear I
have them conflated.

Martin

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 3:55:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:

Because his daughter Joan married Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of
Drayton. See Doug Richardson's PA3, p. 764. Evidently in 1285 Maud
de Verdun was an heiress to her brother Humphrey de Verdun, clerk.

Not having this work, are you saying that Joan Grey married Ralph before Joan
de la pole married him?

Will Johnson

L B Hansen

Re: 1557 will of Ralphe Bancroft

Legg inn av L B Hansen » 20 jun 2006 01:51:02

Thank you John for your insight. Linda



1. William may well be the eldest son, particularly in view of the
reference to him bringing up his brothers and sisters. However, I have
seen wills in which the eldest son is barely mentioned because most of
the estate went to him automatically. It is by no means certain that he
is older than both his sisters. I believe he would need to be of full
age to act as executor; probably an administrator would be appointed
until he reached that age.

2. I believe that by 1557, freehold land could be disposed of by will
(although 1/3 would be reserved for the widow). Copyhold land would
follow the custom of the manor which usually (but not always) was for
the eldest son to inherit. Leases were often for three lives. If two of
the named lives were still alive the lease would remain in place,
although it would often be surrendered for a new one..

3. The will suggests to me that Ralph was a member of the gentry -
various leases, gold and silver items, etc. However, it is possible
that he was a rich yeoman. If he was gentry, the court act book would
probably describe him as Mr Ralph Bancroft or Ralph Bancroft, gent.
It's worth looking at what the burial register says (if it survives).

John Matthews



---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.

Gjest

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 02:01:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 3:55:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:

<< Because his daughter Joan married Ralph Basset, 2nd Lord Basset of
Drayton. See Doug Richardson's PA3, p. 764. Evidently in 1285 Maud
de Verdun was an heiress to her brother Humphrey de Verdun, clerk. >>

Not having this work, are you saying that Joan Grey married Ralph before Joan
de la pole married him?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: 'dame Matilda de Eyvill' and Ganton, Yorks.

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 02:38:02

In a message dated 6/17/06 11:27:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< In a past thread, I conjectured that Maud, 1st wife of Sir
John d'Eiville (d. bef Oct 1291) was a daughter of Roger de
Mowbray (d. 1266), likely by his first wife Maud de
Beauchamp [1]. An additional piece of evidence which may bear
on this conjecture was noted in Fasti Eboracenses, in which
Dixon stated that >>

Is this John the father of that John Deyville who conveyed Egmanton 17 Edw II
to himself, his wife Margaret and their daughter Joan ?

thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 02:41:01

In a message dated 6/19/06 5:24:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:

<< I believe you are referring to a different Ralph Basset, the son of
Ralph Basset of Great Weldon and Joan (Sturdon) Basset. He married Joan
de La Pole about April of 1339, and died about 1326. >>

Are you sure? That's a nice trick dying 13 years before your own marriage :)

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

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

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 20 jun 2006 03:09:03

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 5:12:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

Since Milicent's IPM she is styled as Milicent Montaldt and names HER heir
as William b. 1273-6 and the majority of the lands listed here were hers, is
it possible Eudo named another heir if his IPM exists?

Is William not stated to be "age 22 or more" in his mother's IPM ?
I have his birth 1276/7

Too much precision - if it is "aged 22 and more" it may mean nothing
more than that he was "at least 22" - b. bef. 1276/7.

taf

CE Wood

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av CE Wood » 20 jun 2006 04:36:10

How correct you are! I meant to tyoe, BORN about 1326, per CP II:11.

CE Wood


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 5:24:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:

I believe you are referring to a different Ralph Basset, the son of
Ralph Basset of Great Weldon and Joan (Sturdon) Basset. He married Joan
de La Pole about April of 1339, and died about 1326.

Are you sure? That's a nice trick dying 13 years before your own marriage :)

Will Johnson

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 04:51:02

In a message dated 6/19/06 7:09:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< Too much precision - if it is "aged 22 and more" it may mean nothing
more than that he was "at least 22" - b. bef. 1276/7. >>

I was really pointing out that she didn't have 1277 as a possibility :)

Ginny Wagner

RE: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 20 jun 2006 06:19:02

thank you, Will, who wrote:

In my opinion, a transcription [typing what a person has
hand-writen, or

re-typing by sight a typed version] of a manuscript is
primary.

Thus, cartulaires, calendars of charters, and the redbook of
the exchequer would fall into the same category?

Ginny

Gjest

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 07:13:02

In a message dated 6/19/2006 9:18:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:

Thus, cartulaires, calendars of charters, and the redbook of
the exchequer would fall into the same category?


Sure I mean basically what you're saying is... you [the editor/author] can
read.
The person doesn't have to think about what they're doing, just read what's
writen and type it.

So the mistakes are mistakes of fat-fingered-ness instead of the other kind
of mistakes that creep into secondary works. As long as the author doesn't
add [daughter of John Broune] to the notes, then you don' t have to worry about
their linking the right people to the wrong people which is such a huge
problem in things like VCH if you think they're mistaken.

It can be difficult to convince other people that VCH or CP made a mistake.
But in a cartulary, the mistakes are that the editor couldn't tell if that
an "o" wasn't an "a", not quite the same problem.

Of course then you have to also know, what was the original language. If
the original language is not the typeset language, than you have the
possibility of translation error as well to question.

The best situation would be
A) a photographic edition
B) a transcription from the photographs
C) a translation of the transcription, with notes and then
D) an interpretation of all of that

Of course, it's very rare you actually get anything like those four steps
published, which is why things like ancestry are breaking the dam open. Now
you can sit at your desk and read the patent rolls yourself. At some point,
perhaps we see photographs like we do with the US Census now.

Will Johnson

John Matthews

Re: Some Temple and Giffard wills (continued)

Legg inn av John Matthews » 20 jun 2006 07:17:40

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 1:54:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rjmatsleepers@yahoo.co.uk writes:

I'm not sure why you think Elizabeth should have inherited. If she had
a brother, it would be unusual for her to inherit.

Wouldn't it depend on how the remainder was stated?
All they always "to heirs male" ? Or can they be "to all heirs of the body
equally" ?

In this case we are talking about the descent of a manor (Burton
Dassett) before 1540. AFAIK, inheritance was determined by law - to the
eldest male or in the abscence of a male, to all females equally. At
this time, conveyance to trustees during the lifetime was being used to
circumvent the inheritance law, but even so, it was unusual to divide
real estate equally between a male and female child. I'm not aware of
an example, although there are a lot of knowledgable people in this
group who might come up with one.

All that having been said, there was something unusual about the
descent of this manor. When Sir Edward Belknap died, it was shared
equally among three of his sisters. Alcock says he left it by will to
three of his four sisters, although I have seen it suggested that he
had a fifth sister. Either way, at least one sister missed out.

John Matthews

Louise Staley

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 20 jun 2006 09:35:15

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/19/06 1:16:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:

Is the Pipe Roll Society publication of the Pipe Rolls, from
the late 19c, considered primary or secondary source?

In my opinion, a transcription [typing what a person has hand-writen, or
re-typing by sight a typed version] of a manuscript is primary. Of course
photographic images might be even better, but not as likely to exist.

However, if the work involves editing the manuscript, such as adding
notes/comments esp. without correctly marking them, it should be considered secondary.

snip

Will Johnson


To me the issue of whether a publication is primary or secondary is a
different question to citation and acknowledgement, the first goes to
the appropriate weight to give a source, the second to how to describe it.

I would like to comment on some citation practices in genealogy which
appear out of step with citation practice in academic history publications.

To give an example from the Pipe Rolls Series, my university library
offers the following information:

Author: Great Britain Exchequer.
Title: The great roll of the pipe for the first-seventeenth year of the
reign of King John, Michaelmas 1199-1214 (Pipe Rolls 45-61) : now first
printed from the original in the custody of the Right Hon. the Master of
the Rolls / edited by Doris M. Stenton.
Published: London : Printed for the Pipe Roll Society, by J. W. Ruddock
& Sons, 1933-1964.
Series: Publications of the Pipe Roll Society ; new series ; v. 18 1940.

Assuming I was citing something from n.s. volume 18 using the citation
guide for the Journal of American History would result in a footnote to
the Pipe Roll with enough information for someone else to find it and an
entry in the references list at the back something like this:

Great Britain Exchequer. /The great roll of the pipe for the
first-seventeenth year of the reign of King John, Michaelmas 1199-1214
(Pipe Rolls 45-61) : now first printed from the original in the custody
of the Right Hon. the Master of the Rolls, edited by Doris M. Stenton./
Vol. 18, /New Series/. London : Printed for the Pipe Roll Society, by J.
W. Ruddock & Sons, 1940.

However, if instead of the Pipe Rolls, the citation was to the Patent
Rolls and it was read from the online source it appears the citation
should be (however perhaps someone could comment as to whether Professor
Boynton and the University of Iowa Libraries should be cited and if so
how?):

Great Britain. Public Record Office. Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry
III preserved in the Publid Record OFfice H.M.S.O., 1901-1913 [cited 20
June 2006]. Available from http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/.

Within a newsgroup post it appears overdoing it to add the whole
citation rather than just the footnote but I see the whole citation
missing from many publications.

I also want to make a comment on a seemingly common practice of
referring to journal articles by their journal and volume number rather
than the author. This is unheard of in ordinary academic practice as it
fails to give proper credit to the creator of the work.

As an example, if an article by Suckling is referred to then the
footnote should say:

F.H. Suckling. (1905) p. 244.

the entry in the references list should (again using the Journal of
American History guide) would be:

Suckling, F.H. "Some Notes on Barsham Juxta Eccles, Co. Suffolk." /The
Genealogist n.s./ 21 (1905): 124-142, 243-250.

However what we often see is only: /The Genealogist n.s/ 21 (1905): 243-245.

I use the American Journal of History guide because that journal
publishes all kinds of history, including medieval and it the top cited
academic journal worldwide for history however I wonder if others have
another, better citation system and whether genealogy should follow the
social sciences and switch to an author/date system rather than footnotes?

Louise

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 20 jun 2006 14:47:59

In article <7rOlg.12699$ap3.2331@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote:

<many worthwhile points, well said, snipped>

Louise,

Thanks for this injection of good observations. I agree emphatically
with your point that journal articles should be cited including author
and article title, not just year and page number. This not only gives
due credit by putting someone's name in the note, but it also is
extremely valuable to the reader to know the context of the datum cited
(an edition of documents, an analytical piece on a core or tangential
subject, etc.) in order to plan followup research accordingly. At the
expense of a little more space, the benefits are important.

I use the American Journal of History guide because that journal
publishes all kinds of history, including medieval and it the top cited
academic journal worldwide for history however I wonder if others have
another, better citation system and whether genealogy should follow the
social sciences and switch to an author/date system rather than footnotes?

On this I would just point out that the title you have in mind is the
_Journal of American History_, which is (as its site says) "the leading
scholarly publication and journal of record in the field of American
history." It is the journal of the Organization of American Historicans
(OAH), which is a national society of academic historians united by a
focus in American (i.e. North American, U.S.) history, rather than by
domicile. The sister organization is the American Historical
Association, which is united by domicile rather than by subject studied
(it is the largest professional organization of historians residing in
the U.S.). Its journal, _American Historical Review_, (ostensibly)
covers all historical periods and methodologies including medieval
history, and is older than the JAH.

That having been said, both JAH and AHR require citations conforming
essentially to the canonical _Chicago Manual of Style_. However, the
Chicago Manual does not have very good or clear guidelines for citing
material from on-line editions or presentations of previously published
works (something which has been proliferating hugely in the last five
years).

The JAH style sheet is here:

http://www.indiana.edu/~jah/stylesheet.shtml

It is more complete and (I think) helpful than the AHR style sheet in
terms of footnote format. The AHR style sheet is here:

http://www.historycooperative.org/ahr/stylesheet.html

Nat Taylor

John P. Ravilious

Re: 'dame Matilda de Eyvill' and Ganton, Yorks.

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 20 jun 2006 16:03:38

Dear Will,

Indeed, he's the one.

Cheers,

John



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/17/06 11:27:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Therav3@aol.com
writes:

In a past thread, I conjectured that Maud, 1st wife of Sir
John d'Eiville (d. bef Oct 1291) was a daughter of Roger de
Mowbray (d. 1266), likely by his first wife Maud de
Beauchamp [1]. An additional piece of evidence which may bear
on this conjecture was noted in Fasti Eboracenses, in which
Dixon stated that

Is this John the father of that John Deyville who conveyed Egmanton 17 Edw II
to himself, his wife Margaret and their daughter Joan ?

thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 16:26:02

No sign of this Amice Poyning's in her alleged mother's (Dame Elizabeth
Browne, nee Paston, widow of George Browne of Betchworth and of Robert Poynings)
long Will dated 18 May 1487, eg:

"If Mary [ac: her dau by Browne] d unm, then the above to my son, her br
Mathew [ac: Browne], failing him, my son Sir Edward Poynings, failing
that, equally between my brs‑in‑law Anthony and Robert Browne apart from a s&g
cup of 26oz to my d‑in‑law Isabell Poynings..."


BTW, dramatised Paston correspondence extracts are being broadcast daily on
BBC Radio 4 this week see

_http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/drama/_
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/drama/)

where you can find facilities to listen again, up to 7 days after broadcast

Adrian

In a message dated 20/06/2006 04:40:08 GMT Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

Married about 1489, Amice Poynings, daughter of Robert Poynings of
Maidstone, Kent and Elizabeth Paston, and sister of Sir Edward Poynings
who was appointed deputy of Ireland in 1494. She seems to have died
without issue before 1492 when Sir James Ormond was betrothed to a
daughter of the Earl of Desmond. The only source for the Desmond
betrothal, however, is a statement made by James's archrival Sir Piers
Butler and there is no record of such a marriage or of the Earl of
Desmond even having such a daughter.

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 jun 2006 18:14:46

Dear Patricia ~

My hypothesis is that there were two Eudes la Zouches, one of whom was
the brother of Sir Alan la Zouche, the other of which was Sir Alan's
son by Ellen de Quincy. The younger Eudes would be the one who married
Milicent de Cantelowe. My theory is based on the fact that the elder
Eudes was specifically called brother of Alan; also, that Milicent de
Cantelowe, widow of the proposed younger Eudes, sued for dower in
property at Syston, Leicershire, which property was inherited by Sir
Alan la Zouche's wife, Ellen de Quincy. Milicent's husband can only
have obtained his right in this property through Ellen de Quincy, who
was likely his mother.

In John Ravilious' post, he suggests an alternative two Eudes la Zouche
scenario. He makes the two Eudes la Zouches father and son, not uncle
and nephew as I have proposed. In John's scenario, he identifies the
elder Eudes as the brother of Sir Alan la Zouche.

For starters, I think it would help if someone located the reference to
Eudes la Zouche as "Ivonet" la Zouche. If this reference to "Ivonet"
la Zouche dates from after 1260, then I think it is virtually certain
that there were two Eudes la Zouche. The name form Ivonet should refer
to a young man named Eudes.

I should likewise mention that the Leicestershire historian, George F.
Farnham, appears to have abstracted all the contemporary lawsuits for
Leicestershire for his massive work, Leicestershire Medieval Village
Notes. If Milicent de Cantelowe sued for dower in other property known
to be inherited by Ellen de Quincy, then I think we can be sure that
Ellen de Quincy was Milicent's mother-in-law. However, this will
require someone to go through all of the microfilms of Farnham's work,
which source unfortunately is handwritten and unindexed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Gjest

Re: Caldecotis

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 18:24:25

Tuesday, 20 June, 2006


Dear Alex,

Thanks for that extremely interesting post.

This has the potential of dovetailing with what little else I've
found re: the Caldcote (de Caldcotis) family to date. The first
individual given in Scottish Heraldic Seals of the family is John
de Caldecotis, called 'of Grayden and Sympryne (Berwickshire)' who
fl. ca. 1387/8, and appears to be quite likely the same individual
as 'John de Caldicotis, lord of Hutton under the Moor' identified
in your post.

If this is true, and the Caldicote pedigree given
below were to make Mariota/Marion de Crawford the mother of William
de Caldecotis, this would probably link this family with the
Crawfords of Auchinames. The name of Thomas Crawford of Auchinames
appears in a charter of John de Montgomery dated 8 October 1392
(W. Metcalfe, A History of the County of Renfrew, p. 119), which
was probably late in the life of that Thomas Crawford: he may have
been the father of Mariota Crawford, and grandfather of Elena de
Caldecotis (and I presume, of her brother William).

Cheers,

John *


P.S. - As to the matter of Airth, that also is a complicated matter.
The evidence published by Major William Bruce Armstrong in
The Bruces of Airth and Their Cadets (Edinburgh: privately
published, 1892) makes it apparent that the old version of
a Bruce inheritance of Airth is flawed. There was a royal
grant of Airth (or a moiety thereof) to the Bruces (of
Stenhouse as I recall), without evidence of any inheritance.

__________________________________________________



1 John de Caldcotis
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1387[1]

of Graden and Simprim, co. Berwicks.

heraldic seal of John de Caldecotis:
' CALDECOTE, John, of Grayden and Sympryne (Berwickshire). A shield of
arms: A saltire and chief, the latter charged with three escallops. Legend
(l.c.): S IOHANNIS [DE] CALDCOTYS. Diam 7/8 in. Laing, ii. 157. Reg. Ho. Ch.,
No. 193, c. 1387-8 - Cast; No. 194, c. A.D. 1388 - Cast. ' [Stevenson,
II:268[1]]
________________________________

evidently descendant of ' Caldecote, Geffrey de (del counte de Edenburgh).'
swore allegiance to King Edward I at Berwick, 1296 [Ragman Roll[2] ]

~ 'Galfrid of Caldcote', one of the auditors for Robert de Brus in his claim
to the Scots throne, 2 June 1292 [Crawfurd, p. 20[3]]
________________________________


Children: William (-<1424)


1.1 William de Caldcotis
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 6 Jan 1424[1]

of Graden and Simprim, co. Berwicks.

he evidently d. before 6 Jan 1424/5 [his wife identified as ' Caldecote,
Christiana, widow of William Caldecote ' in a charter of that date - Scottish
Heraldic Seals, II:268[1]]


re: his wife:

' Kyrstiane de Caldcottis ', her heraldic seal is identified on a charter of
8 Jan. 1424-5:
' Caldecote, Christiana, widow of William Caldecote, daughter of Walter
Twedy. A shield of arms: A saltire and chief, the latter charged with a star in
dexter and two escallops. Legend (l.c.): KYRSTIANE DE CALDCOTTIS. Diam. 1
3/16 in. Laing, ii. 158. Reg. Ho. Ch., 6 Jan. 1424-5, two of same date -
Cast. ' [Scottish Heraldic Seals, II:268[1]]

Spouse: Christiana Tweedie
Death: aft 6 Jan 1424[1]
Father: Walter Tweedie
Mother: NN Douglas

Children: Elizabeth (->1459)


1.1.1 Elizabeth de Caldcotis
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 8 Nov 1459[1]

had a third of the lands of Graden, co. Berwicks. as her maritagium
or inheritance[4]

' dilecti filii nobilis viri Willelmi de Leuynston Domicelli et delict in
Christo filie nobilis mulieris Elisabeth de Caldcotis Domicelle', postnuptial
dispensation granted 12 Nov 1421, they being related in the 3rd degree of
consanguinity ["tertio consanguinitatis gradu" - Stuart p. 453[5]]

her heraldic seal is identified on a charter of 8 Nov. 1459:
' Caldecote, Elizabeth, daughter of William Caldecote of Grayden, wife of
William Livingston of Balcastel (or of Kilsyth). A shield of arms: A saltire
and chief, the latter charged with three escallops. Foliage at top and sides
of shield. Legend (l.c.): S ELISABETH DE LEVINGSTON. Diam. 1 1/16 in.
Laing, ii. 159. Reg. Ho. Ch., No. 357 (2), 8 Nov. 1459 - Cast. ' [Scottish
Heraldic Seals, II:268[1]]

her arms according to E. Livingston:
' a saltire and chief, the latter charged with three escallops' [Livingston,
citing seal in Laing, ii. 159][4]

Spouse: William Livingston, laird of Kilsyth
Death: bef 20 Apr 1460[6],[4]
Father: Sir John Livingston of Callendar (-1402)
Mother: Agnes Douglas (->1421)
Marr: bef 12 Nov 1421[4],[5]

Children: Edward Livingston, of Balcastell and Kilsyth (-<1482)
William (->1481)
Alexander


1. John Horne Stevenson, K.C. and Marguerite Wood, Ph.D., Scottish
Heraldic Seals: Royal, Official, Ecclesiastical, Collegiate, Burghal,
Personal, Glasgow: printed by Robert MacLehose & Coy., Limited at the
University Press, 1940 (Vol. II).
2. "Clan Stirling," http://www.clanstirling.org/uploads/ragmanrolls.pdf
provides .pdf file of the names of those who swore allegiance to
Edward I of England at Berwick, 1296 (the 'Ragman Rolls').
3. George Crawfurd, "The History of the Shire of Renfrew," Paisley:
Printed and sold by Alex. Weir, 1782, (originally, Edinburgh : Printed
by James Watson, 1710), [also as cited by Burke; and Paisley Herald
article, F of Barrochan], ' containing a genealogical history of
the royal house of Stewart,..'.
4. Edwin Brockholst Livingston, "The Livingstons of Callendar and
their Principal Cadets: The history of an old Stirlingshire family,"
Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, 1920, .pdf images provided by Genealogy.com,
http://www.genealogy.com/
re: the Livingstons of Kilsyth (cf. Chapter IX, THE LIVINGSTONS,
VISCOUNTS OF KILSYTH), pp. 210 et seq.
5. Andrew Stuart, "Genealogical History of the Stewarts," : from the
earliest period of their authentic history to the present times,
London: Printed for A. Strahan, and T. Cadell Jun. and W. Davies,
in the Strand, 1798, .pdf image files provided by Genealogy.com
http://www.genealogy.com, includes texts of dispensations relevant to the
Stewart family.
6. Sir James Balfour Paul, ed., "The Scots Peerage," Edinburgh:
David Douglas, 1904-1914 (9 volumes).




* John P. Ravilious
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

Gjest

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jun 2006 20:21:49

Well how do you tie in Sir John Aylesbury, called "Sir Thomas' sisters son"
with him being born 6 May 1334 by his proof of age which would thus imply that
Sir Thomas' sister herself must be contemporaneous with the same Ralph you are
saying was b about 1326 who married Joan de la Pole ?

Will

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Caldecotis

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 20 jun 2006 21:51:56

While I accept that there is no proof that a Bruce married an Airth
heiress, there is a charter of 1463, registered 1468 under the Great
Seal, by which Agnes de Arth grants lands of Kernok in the barony of
Plane, for a certain sum, ie sells them, to Alexr Forrester of Torwood.
The principal witness is Alex Broise de Stanhouse.

A B of S's father was Robert Bruce, first of Airth (per Douglas
Baronage), son of Sir Robert of Clackmannan (per SP). While I
acknowledge the lack of proof, there are many like charters where the
relationship is not recognised, yet we would be bold to think there was
none. If we see a charter with members of the old family and members
of the new family and know that both held the same lands, we would be
foolhardy indeed to suggest that there was no relationship.

Ye Old One

Re: Re: John Brenchley (the Elder) possible probate date.

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 20 jun 2006 23:04:22

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:47:13 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/20/06 1:55:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

County: General
Country: England
Brencheley, Brenchesle, John, sen., Benenden C. 1 9 1397
England: Canterbury - Wills and Administrations in the Probate
Registry at Canterbury, 1396-1558 and 1640-1650
Calendar of Wills and Administrations now preserved in the Probate
Registry at Canterbury, 1396-1558

If you want to pursue this, the next step would seem to be to get a copy of
that 1397 document and see exactly what it says.

Will

Haven't been able to find it yet.

--
Bob.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jun 2006 23:23:40

In message of 20 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/20/06 1:25:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

But then again
William FitzWilliam was descended on his mothers side from Henry I
Beauclerc and Maud"the Empress" Queen of England from Hamelin
Plantegent, their 5th son, but then the Ormonds were too.

Could you specify this descent a bit?

(1) Henry I (1068 - 1135)
(2) Matilda (<1102 - c.1167)
(3) Henry II (1133 - 1189)
(4) John (Lackland) (1166 - 1216)
(5) Richard fitz Roy (c.1186 - c.1246)
(6) Lorette FitzRoy
(7) John Marmion Lord Marmion ( - <1322)
(8) Sir John Marmion Lord Marmion (c.1292 - c.1335)
(9) Joan Marmion ( - >1346)
(10) Maud Bernack ( - 1419)
(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

Sources can be found on all sorts of sites.

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

CE Wood

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av CE Wood » 20 jun 2006 23:37:58

I'm not sure I understand your question, specifically, Sir Thomas who?,
but

John Aylesbury was son of Thomas Aylesbury and Joan Basset.

Joan (c 1322-c 1350) was daughter of Ralph Basset of Weldon (1300-1341)
and Joan Sturdon (c.1305-aft 1346).

Joan's brother was the Ralph Basset of Weldon (c.1326-aft 1368) who
married Joan de la Pole about April 1339.

CE Wood


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Well how do you tie in Sir John Aylesbury, called "Sir Thomas' sisters son"
with him being born 6 May 1334 by his proof of age which would thus imply that
Sir Thomas' sister herself must be contemporaneous with the same Ralph you are
saying was b about 1326 who married Joan de la Pole ?

Will

Louise Staley

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement ...

Legg inn av Louise Staley » 21 jun 2006 00:35:43

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <7rOlg.12699$ap3.2331@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote:

many worthwhile points, well said, snipped

Louise,

Thanks for this injection of good observations. I agree emphatically
with your point that journal articles should be cited including author
and article title, not just year and page number. This not only gives
due credit by putting someone's name in the note, but it also is
extremely valuable to the reader to know the context of the datum cited
(an edition of documents, an analytical piece on a core or tangential
subject, etc.) in order to plan followup research accordingly. At the
expense of a little more space, the benefits are important.

I use the American Journal of History guide because that journal
publishes all kinds of history, including medieval and it the top cited
academic journal worldwide for history however I wonder if others have
another, better citation system and whether genealogy should follow the
social sciences and switch to an author/date system rather than footnotes?

On this I would just point out that the title you have in mind is the
_Journal of American History_, which is (as its site says) <snip

Yes, of course. I don't know why I used the wrong name since the
citation program I use with the journal's template in it (Endnote) uses
the correct title and I was looking at it when I wrote the post. :(
That having been said, both JAH and AHR require citations conforming
essentially to the canonical _Chicago Manual of Style_. However, the
Chicago Manual does not have very good or clear guidelines for citing
material from on-line editions or presentations of previously published
works (something which has been proliferating hugely in the last five
years).

Absolutely, an good example of the the confusion in citing electronic
sources is the ODNB which lists four options for citation of its
articles. Interestingly the ODNB regards its biographies as stand alone
articles which should be cited as if they are from a journal. The one
closest to the _Journal of American History_ is *Chicago (notes)*.

See the example for Robert Crompton who is on public access
http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/dnb/64552.html

To cite an article from the Oxford DNB, please use one of the forms
below. The Oxford DNB style is our own preferred citation form, and may
be used as a default style.

*Oxford DNB*
Tony Mason, ‘Crompton, Robert (1879–1941)’, Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/64552, accessed 21 June 2006]

*Chicago (notes)*
Tony Mason, “Crompton, Robert (1879–1941),” in Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford:
OUP, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/64552 (accessed June
1, 2006).

*Chicago (bibliography)*
Mason, Tony. “Crompton, Robert (1879–1941).” In Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, edited by H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison.
Oxford: OUP, 2004. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/64552 (accessed
June 1, 2006).

*MLA*
Mason, Tony. “Crompton, Robert (1879–1941).” Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford:
OUP, 2004. 1 June 2006 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/64552>.


Thank-you for posting this link. It is most helpful.

Louise
It is more complete and (I think) helpful than the AHR style sheet in
terms of footnote format. The AHR style sheet is here:

http://www.historycooperative.org/ahr/stylesheet.html

Nat Taylor

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 00:45:00

In a message dated 6/20/06 1:25:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

<< But then again
William FitzWilliam was descended on his mothers side from Henry I
Beauclerc and Maud"the Empress" Queen of England from Hamelin
Plantegent, their 5th son, but then the Ormonds were too. >>

Could you specify this descent a bit?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Brenchley (the Elder) possible probate date.

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 00:47:13

In a message dated 6/20/06 1:55:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< County: General
Country: England
Brencheley, Brenchesle, John, sen., Benenden C. 1 9 1397
England: Canterbury - Wills and Administrations in the Probate
Registry at Canterbury, 1396-1558 and 1640-1650
Calendar of Wills and Administrations now preserved in the Probate
Registry at Canterbury, 1396-1558 >>

If you want to pursue this, the next step would seem to be to get a copy of
that 1397 document and see exactly what it says.

Will

Gjest

Re: John Brenchley (the Elder) possible probate date.

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 01:12:22

In a message dated 6/20/06 3:09:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< Haven't been able to find it yet. >>

You just posted the citation, so what do you mean ?

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 01:45:52

In a message dated 6/20/06 3:39:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< (10) Maud Bernack ( - 1419)
(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534) >>

There seems to be a problem here
John FitzWilliam d 5 Jul 1417 Wakefield and his wife Eleanor Greene had a son
John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough born 27 May 1397

There is a pre-nuptial settlement dated 19 Jan 1410 for this John to marry
Margaret Clarell dau of Thomas.

This John then also died 1421 at Rouen, precluding him from being the father
of a man born "c 1460"

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Caldecotis

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 21 jun 2006 01:55:00

Alex,
Is this not the line of the suspected marriage of Helen Vipont with a Robert
Bruce?
Thanks.
Pat

----------
From: "Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwell@findlater.org.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Caldecotis
Date: Tue, 20, 2006, 4:51 PM


While I accept that there is no proof that a Bruce married an Airth
heiress, there is a charter of 1463, registered 1468 under the Great
Seal, by which Agnes de Arth grants lands of Kernok in the barony of
Plane, for a certain sum, ie sells them, to Alexr Forrester of Torwood.
The principal witness is Alex Broise de Stanhouse.

A B of S's father was Robert Bruce, first of Airth (per Douglas
Baronage), son of Sir Robert of Clackmannan (per SP). While I
acknowledge the lack of proof, there are many like charters where the
relationship is not recognised, yet we would be bold to think there was
none. If we see a charter with members of the old family and members
of the new family and know that both held the same lands, we would be
foolhardy indeed to suggest that there was no relationship.

Gjest

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 01:56:24

In a message dated 6/20/06 3:39:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:

<< John Aylesbury was son of Thomas Aylesbury and Joan Basset.
Joan (c 1322-c 1350) was daughter of Ralph Basset of Weldon (1300-1341)
and Joan Sturdon (c.1305-aft 1346). >>

This John above was born 6 May 1334 per his proof of age.

The below lawsuit, posted here 8/27/05 by Douglas Richardson, was filed in
1339

Collections for a History of Staffordshire, volume 15, a copy of which is
presented below.
Extracts from the Plea Rolls.
De Banco. Michaelmas, 14 Richard II [1390].

"Northampton. The transcript of a fine was returned into Court at the suit
of Thomas Basset, clerk, son and heir of Ralph Basset of Weldon, knight, and
which had been levied in 13 Edward III [1339], between Ralph Basset of Weldon,
knight, plaintiff, and Roger Basset, parson of the church of Arthyngeworth, and
Henry, son of Philip Trayly, deforciants of the manors of Weldon and Weston,
near Ashele (with certain exceptions detailed), and of the advowson of the
priory of La Launde, by which the said manors and advowson were settled on Ralph
for his life, with remainder to Ralph, son of the said Ralph Basset, and Joan,
daughter of Richard de la Pole, citizen of London, and to the male heirs of
the bodies of the said Ralph, son of Ralph and Joan, and failing such, to the
right heirs of the said Ralph Basset; and Thomas Basset stated that the said
Ralph Basset was dead, and Ralph, son of Ralph and Joan had died, without
leaving any male issue, and that one Richard Basset held two parts of the said
manors, and the advowson of the priory, and one John Clisseby and Alianora his wife
held the other third part of the same manors, against the tenor of the above
fine, and he prayed for a writ against them to show cause, etc., and it was
granted, returnable at the Octaves of St. Hillary. m. 236, dorso."
[Reference: Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 15 (1894): 28].

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Citation, Acknowledgement ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 21 jun 2006 01:57:32

In article <jD%lg.13252$ap3.145@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Louise Staley <caramut@bigpond.com> wrote:

Absolutely, a good example of the the confusion in citing electronic
sources is the ODNB which lists four options for citation of its
articles. Interestingly the ODNB regards its biographies as stand alone
articles which should be cited as if they are from a journal. The one
closest to the _Journal of American History_ is *Chicago (notes)*.

snip

*Chicago (notes)*
Tony Mason, ³Crompton, Robert (1879­1941),² in Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (Oxford:
OUP, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/64552 (accessed June
1, 2006).

It's interesting, that each of these citation forms (of which I left in
only Chicago's footnote style, above) makes it look as if it's an
article in an edited volume, simply substituting the URL for
volume:page. I would favor making a clearer distinction between the
online & print eds. of whatever it is, and whether it exists in two
distinct forms, or whether the online form is a precise facsimile of the
published version. I think this is not true of the ODNB, but if it
were, I would include volume:page of the print version as well as just
an URL for the online page.

Nat Taylor

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 02:07:43

I thought that CP had doubted that this John Fitzwilliam was the father of
Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534). I'm not sure if this Sir William
Fitzwilliam parents are known

Adrian


In a message dated 20/06/2006 23:39:53 GMT Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
In message of 20 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/20/06 1:25:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

But then again
William FitzWilliam was descended on his mothers side from Henry I
Beauclerc and Maud"the Empress" Queen of England from Hamelin
Plantegent, their 5th son, but then the Ormonds were too.

Could you specify this descent a bit?
Tim replied



(1) Henry I (1068 - 1135)
(2) Matilda (<1102 - c.1167)
(3) Henry II (1133 - 1189)
(4) John (Lackland) (1166 - 1216)
(5) Richard fitz Roy (c.1186 - c.1246)
(6) Lorette FitzRoy
(7) John Marmion Lord Marmion ( - <1322)
(8) Sir John Marmion Lord Marmion (c.1292 - c.1335)
(9) Joan Marmion ( - >1346)
(10) Maud Bernack ( - 1419)
(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

Sources can be found on all sorts of sites.

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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 jun 2006 02:43:59

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts


In a message dated 6/20/06 3:39:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

(10) Maud Bernack ( - 1419)
(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

There seems to be a problem here
John FitzWilliam d 5 Jul 1417 Wakefield and his wife Eleanor Greene had a
son
John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough born 27 May 1397

There is a pre-nuptial settlement dated 19 Jan 1410 for this John to marry
Margaret Clarell dau of Thomas.

This John then also died 1421 at Rouen, precluding him from being the
father
of a man born "c 1460"

Will Johnson
Dear Will,


According to Gerald Paget (not rock solid)
(14) Sir William FitzWilliam was a son of John FitzWilliam of Gainspark and
Eleanor Villiers. You indicate the above FitzWilliams are of Sprotborough,
are they a different family?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 04:14:18

In a message dated 6/20/06 4:44:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< According to Gerald Paget (not rock solid)
(14) Sir William FitzWilliam was a son of John FitzWilliam of Gainspark and
Eleanor Villiers. You indicate the above FitzWilliams are of Sprotborough,
are they a different family?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas >>

William FitzWilliam of Milton has a charter 16 Oct 1524 where he calls
himself "of Milton" and mentions several places, but none of them are Gainspark.
However, it is *said* that he was born at Gainspark Hall, Essex. This datum is
either at http://www.tudorplace.com.ar or in CP "Burghley", unfortunately I didn't
copy out the CP text to know for sure, right at the moment.

Then this William's father, John I have "of Greens Norton" but no notes on
why I chose that place. And then nothing further back. The Sprotborough line
however has the problem that I pointed out earlier, and I'm not sure if that
can be fixed. Below is William's charter I referred to.



Northamptonshire Record Office: Fitzwilliam (Milton) Charters [F(M)
Charter/1660 - F(M) Charter/2630]
FITZWILLIAM (MILTON) CHARTERS
MIXED ESTATES Deeds - ref. F(M) Charter/2032 - 2040
FILE [no title] - ref. F(M) Charter/2038 - date: 16 Oct 1524
[from Scope and Content] FEOFFMENT by William Fitzwilliam, of Milton, Knt. to
John Clerk, Bishop of Bath and Wells, John, Lord Marney, Thomas Vaux, Lord
Harrowden, Richard Ogle and others, of his manor of Milton, the manors of
Butler's and Thorolds in Castur, his manor in Castur called Mynskyppes, the manor of
Etton with the advowson, the manor of Marham with the advowson etc. the manor
of Fenton, Lincolnshire and all his other manors, etc. in Milton, Castur,
Upton, Aylesworth, Marham, Etton, Helpston, Wodcroft, Peykyrke, Glynton, Maxsey,
Depynggate, Fenton, and Depyng, in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire - to hold
to the use of the said Sir William and to fulfil his last will and testament.

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 04:18:48

In a message dated 6/20/06 4:44:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< > (12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

Just to make this a little more clear.

Right now I have two seperate people named John in the *approximate* time
range to be 13.
One is indeed the son of 12 as above I'll call him 13A, he is named, as the
groom, by a pre-nuptial contract with Margaret Clarell

The other is the *father* of 14 and I'll call that John 13B

The problem is, is John 13A the same person as John 13B ?
That is, are the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough, the same as the FitzWilliams
of Gainspark/Milton ?

That's the nature of the problem.

Will

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 05:15:18

Good Evening All,
I hope I get this right, my notes are kind of jumbled, more or less,
and hope this clears this up more than confuses:

We have John FitzWilliam
mar.
Eleanor de Greene, dau of Henry de Green b. c. 1352 of Green Norton,
Northamptonshire and her mother is Matilda de Mauduit b. c. 1354 of
Warminster,
Wiltshire.
Here are 3 of their several children (10) and herein the confusion
arises:

Son #1 John FitzWilliam b. 1397-d. 1421Sprotborough, York.
mar.
Margaret Clarell of Aldwark York
their son:
William FitzWilliam b. 1417-d. 12/1/1474

Son #2 William FitzWilliam b.c. 1409 Tattershall, Lincolnshire-d.
12/1/1474 Plumtree, Nottinghamshire

Son #3 John FitzWilliam b. c. 1411-d. ? Sprotborough, York.
mar.
Eleanor Villiers
their son:
William FitzWilliam b. c. 1450-d. 1534
mar.
Anne Hawes
Their son:
William FitzWilliam b. 1485 Gainsport Hall, Essex.

Now I surmise that while some of the 10 children (6 boys and 4 girls)
were born in Tattershall, Lincolnshire is that their grandmother, Maud
Cromwell, was from Tattershall.
and I surmise that son # 2 William, and his nephew William-son of son
#1 died in the waning days of the War of the Roses on 12/ 1/ 1474, but
that is only a presumption.
I further find it strange that their first two sons are named John,
with both surviving and having children, it has been known, but odd and
a tad confusing, were it not for the fact that it starts with John in
1397 and ends with Jane in 1415, with a child every year to two years,
one would have thought he had two different wives each with the first
son named John.
I know that the dates of birth are abit different but I have not
followed the leads of the other male children and their children. Hope
this adds some more information and is not overly confusing.
Best Regards as Always
Emmett L. Butler



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/20/06 4:44:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

Just to make this a little more clear.

Right now I have two seperate people named John in the *approximate* time
range to be 13.
One is indeed the son of 12 as above I'll call him 13A, he is named, as the
groom, by a pre-nuptial contract with Margaret Clarell

The other is the *father* of 14 and I'll call that John 13B

The problem is, is John 13A the same person as John 13B ?
That is, are the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough, the same as the FitzWilliams
of Gainspark/Milton ?

That's the nature of the problem.

Will

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Caldecotis

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 21 jun 2006 07:03:42

You'll have to fill me in about this suspected marriage.

Looking at the seals, it is obvious that the Caldicottis seal is based
on the Bruce of Annandale arms, viz, Or a saltire and chief Gules.
Many Bruce knights used these arms in some form or other, eg Boys,
Kirkpatrick, Moffat (Montalt), Johnstone, Jardine, Murray of Cockpool
(ancient), Tweedie and now Caldicote. Most of these families stayed in
the Annandale area, but Tweedie moved east to Drumelzier (mid Borders)
and Caldicote appears at Simprin in Berwickshire (very easterly).
However Caldicote of Hutton is presumably in the west given the
alliances with Craufurd and Boys. I do not know where Hutton is, but
people were often called by different estates in those days, depending
on the purpose of the deed. The most glaring example are the two
charters of Sir William Murray to Glasgow Cathedral both in 1292, one
as Panetarius, the other as Lord of Bothwell.

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 07:46:02

In a message dated 6/20/2006 9:24:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
butlergrt@aol.com writes:

Son #1 John FitzWilliam b. 1397-d. 1421Sprotborough, York.
mar.
Margaret Clarell of Aldwark York
their son:
William FitzWilliam b. 1417-d. 12/1/1474

Son #2 William FitzWilliam b.c. 1409 Tattershall, Lincolnshire-d.
12/1/1474 Plumtree, Nottinghamshire

Son #3 John FitzWilliam b. c. 1411-d. ? Sprotborough, York.
mar.
Eleanor Villiers
their son:
William FitzWilliam b. c. 1450-d. 1534



Emmett you're just trying to make them all work together.
But the problem is finding the *documentation* that proves this link.
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 jun 2006 08:38:26

In message of 20 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/20/06 3:39:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

(10) Maud Bernack ( - 1419)
(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

There seems to be a problem here
John FitzWilliam d 5 Jul 1417 Wakefield and his wife Eleanor Greene
had a son John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough born 27 May 1397

In CP it suggests there were two Johns and this was the first one and
not the one from whom this descent may have been made.

There is a pre-nuptial settlement dated 19 Jan 1410 for this John to
marry Margaret Clarell dau of Thomas.

This John then also died 1421 at Rouen, precluding him from being the
father of a man born "c 1460"

W Paley Baildon commented:

"Reverting to the John F. of Green's Norton, the alleged 6th son of
Sir John of Elmley, I have never found any reference to him in any
document, and neither he nor his family are mentioned in any of the
numerous fifteenth-century wills of members of the Yorkshire branches
of the family [for which see Surtees Soc., Test. Ebor., passim].
This, of course, does not prove his non-existence, but I doubt he
could have been the father of Sir William who bought Milton. John
cannot have been born, at the latest, more than a few months after his
father's death on 5 July 1417, and it may have been some years
earlier (his eldest brother, the first John, was born on 15 Aug 1397).
I do not know when Sir William I of Milton was born -- his age is not
given on his brass at Marham -- but his son, Sir William II of Milton,
was born in 1503 or 1504 (Inq. p. m., C., ser. II, vol 57, no. 3). We
have thus a period of 86 years to cover only two generations; it is
not physically impossible but demands strict proof."

So all it needs is some evidence that this John fathered a son William
when John was in his forties. Not impossible, as Baildon says.

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

Ye Old One

Re: John Brenchley (the Elder) possible probate date.

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 21 jun 2006 13:31:28

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:12:22 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/20/06 3:09:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

Haven't been able to find it yet.

You just posted the citation, so what do you mean ?

Still can't find the link. However I did find this:-

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cata ... 408234&j=1

Covering dates 1386-1486
Scope and content Walter John and Robert Brencheley or
Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby, priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and
Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst (Sanderst): (with the will of John
Brenchesle, the elder annexed).: Kent.

So I ordered the image, turns out to be just one page. If anyone wants
to see it, or even better have a go at transcribing it, you will find
it at http://www.brenchley.org/Image00001.jpg

--
Bob.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 jun 2006 16:45:11

In a private e-mail, but copied also to soc.gen.med via the MEDIEVAL-L
gateway which has yet to pass it on so I am replying to it publicly, of
21 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/21/2006 6:14:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:

(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

There seems to be a problem here
John FitzWilliam d 5 Jul 1417 Wakefield and his wife Eleanor Greene
had a son John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough born 27 May 1397

In CP it suggests there were two Johns and this was the first one and
not the one from whom this descent may have been made.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
Two Johns, father and son? Or two Johns siblings? And at what point?
Two Johns at 12? or at 13?

(The quote marks above do not follow the exchange of who wrote what, but
no matter.)

The bit you snipped out from your quotation has the answer:

"his eldest brother, the first John, was born on 15 Aug 1397"

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

CE Wood

Re: Will the real wife of John De GREY please stand up?

Legg inn av CE Wood » 21 jun 2006 17:30:10

From Douglas' 8/27/05 post, the lawsuit was not filed in 1339.

"legal proceedings were lodged in the 1390's....The plaintiffs further
claimed the Basset estates on the basis of an entail made in 1339."

CE Wood



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/20/06 3:39:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:

John Aylesbury was son of Thomas Aylesbury and Joan Basset.
Joan (c 1322-c 1350) was daughter of Ralph Basset of Weldon (1300-1341)
and Joan Sturdon (c.1305-aft 1346).

This John above was born 6 May 1334 per his proof of age.

The below lawsuit, posted here 8/27/05 by Douglas Richardson, was filed in
1339

Collections for a History of Staffordshire, volume 15, a copy of which is
presented below.
Extracts from the Plea Rolls.
De Banco. Michaelmas, 14 Richard II [1390].

"Northampton. The transcript of a fine was returned into Court at the suit
of Thomas Basset, clerk, son and heir of Ralph Basset of Weldon, knight, and
which had been levied in 13 Edward III [1339], between Ralph Basset of Weldon,
knight, plaintiff, and Roger Basset, parson of the church of Arthyngeworth, and
Henry, son of Philip Trayly, deforciants of the manors of Weldon and Weston,
near Ashele (with certain exceptions detailed), and of the advowson of the
priory of La Launde, by which the said manors and advowson were settled on Ralph
for his life, with remainder to Ralph, son of the said Ralph Basset, and Joan,
daughter of Richard de la Pole, citizen of London, and to the male heirs of
the bodies of the said Ralph, son of Ralph and Joan, and failing such, to the
right heirs of the said Ralph Basset; and Thomas Basset stated that the said
Ralph Basset was dead, and Ralph, son of Ralph and Joan had died, without
leaving any male issue, and that one Richard Basset held two parts of the said
manors, and the advowson of the priory, and one John Clisseby and Alianora his wife
held the other third part of the same manors, against the tenor of the above
fine, and he prayed for a writ against them to show cause, etc., and it was
granted, returnable at the Octaves of St. Hillary. m. 236, dorso."
[Reference: Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 15 (1894): 28].

Brad Verity

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 21 jun 2006 17:51:34

ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

No sign of this Amice Poyning's in her alleged mother's (Dame Elizabeth
Browne, nee Paston, widow of George Browne of Betchworth and of Robert Poynings)
long Will dated 18 May 1487, eg:

Dear Adrian,

I was the one who ascribed to Amice the same parents as Sir Edward
Poynings, deputy of Ireland (namely Robert Poynings and Elizabeth
Paston, taking them from his bio in HOP).

T. Blake Butler states: "He married in 1489 Amice daughter of Robert
Poynings of Wroxham etc. co. Dorset and sister of Sir Edward Poynings
Deputy of Ireland and framer of 'Poynings Statutes'. 'De Banco Rolls
Genealogist Vol. 23 NS p. 26'. In which he is called James Ormond Knt
son of James Earl of Ormond."

I haven't seen the De Banco Rolls reference that is the evidence of the
marriage. Perhaps she was a daughter of a different Robert Poynings?
Also Ormond's father is apparently incorrectly given as 'James' Earl of
Ormond (the name of the 5th Earl), not 'John'.

At any rate, it's on my list of sources to track down.

Thanks and Cheers, -----Brad

Brad Verity

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 21 jun 2006 18:00:44

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

"Reverting to the John F. of Green's Norton, the alleged 6th son of
Sir John of Elmley, I have never found any reference to him in any
document, and neither he nor his family are mentioned in any of the
numerous fifteenth-century wills of members of the Yorkshire branches
of the family [for which see Surtees Soc., Test. Ebor., passim].

Dear Will,

In the Fitzwilliam pedigree in the 1563 Visitation of Yorkshire, "John
Fytz William, of Grensnorton, 4 son to Sir John" is given as married to
"Ellyn doughter of William Vyllers, of Brokysby", but in italics next
to John's name is written "sixth son". Their only child in the
pedigree is "Sir William Fytz William of Geynspark Hall, in Essex, and
of Mylton in the countye of Northampton, maryed 3 Jane doughter of John
Ormond, and on of theyrs of Chaworth."

This particular Visitation, though, has been shown to be full of error,
and there's no way of knowing who the source was for the Fitzwilliam or
whether or not a family member was even consulted on it.

Just to expand and clarify, although the above author is doubtful that
William descends from John of Elmley, CP does state that William's father was
"John" who had "married Ellen daughter of William Villers of Brokesby in
Leicestershire".

So until we can find further documentation we can still say that William's
parents were John FitzWilliam and Ellen Villiers [of Brokesby] at least.

And that's very helpful, at the least.

Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 18:24:02

In a message dated 6/21/2006 6:14:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

(11) Maud de Cromwell
(12) John FitzWilliam ( - 1417)
(13) John Fitzwilliam
(14) Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1460 - 1534)

There seems to be a problem here
John FitzWilliam d 5 Jul 1417 Wakefield and his wife Eleanor Greene
had a son John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough born 27 May 1397

In CP it suggests there were two Johns and this was the first one and
not the one from whom this descent may have been made.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
Two Johns, father and son? Or two Johns siblings? And at what point?
Two Johns at 12? or at 13?

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 18:30:02

In a message dated 6/21/2006 6:14:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

"Reverting to the John F. of Green's Norton, the alleged 6th son of
Sir John of Elmley, I have never found any reference to him in any
document, and neither he nor his family are mentioned in any of the
numerous fifteenth-century wills of members of the Yorkshire branches
of the family [for which see Surtees Soc., Test. Ebor., passim].
This, of course, does not prove his non-existence, but I doubt he
could have been the father of Sir William who bought Milton. John
cannot have been born, at the latest, more than a few months after his
father's death on 5 July 1417, and it may have been some years
earlier (his eldest brother, the first John, was born on 15 Aug 1397).


Just to expand and clarify, although the above author is doubtful that
William descends from John of Elmley, CP does state that William's father was
"John" who had "married Ellen daughter of William Villers of Brokesby in
Leicestershire".

Additionally they state that it has been said that he was descended from one
"William FitzWilliam of Green's Norton, natural son of William the
Conqueror" but they doubt this person existed.

To me they are claiming that William FitzWilliam may be or is, connected
with Green's Norton, just not necessarily in the way some works state.

So until we can find further documentation we can still say that William's
parents were John FitzWilliam and Ellen Villiers [of Brokesby] at least.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

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

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 21 jun 2006 19:41:02

Douglas,

Thank you for clarifying. I posted a request for dialogue in 2002
concerning the possibility of two Eudos based on the note in CP and the
documents stating Eudo was a brother of Alan.

Your discovery of Milicent's petition for dower at Syston is significant.
Could you share your source, please?

Syston seems to have been Ferrers property, nevertheless, descended to the
de Quincys. I would wish more documentation since Milicent has presented a
challenge in explanation of Lubbesthorpe and lands possessed by the de
Boscos.

I am thrilled with the Farnham work and would ask when the publication date.

Pat

----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudes la Zouche, senior and junior: a conjecture
Date: Tue, 20, 2006, 1:14 PM


Dear Patricia ~

My hypothesis is that there were two Eudes la Zouches, one of whom was
the brother of Sir Alan la Zouche, the other of which was Sir Alan's
son by Ellen de Quincy. The younger Eudes would be the one who married
Milicent de Cantelowe. My theory is based on the fact that the elder
Eudes was specifically called brother of Alan; also, that Milicent de
Cantelowe, widow of the proposed younger Eudes, sued for dower in
property at Syston, Leicershire, which property was inherited by Sir
Alan la Zouche's wife, Ellen de Quincy. Milicent's husband can only
have obtained his right in this property through Ellen de Quincy, who
was likely his mother.

In John Ravilious' post, he suggests an alternative two Eudes la Zouche
scenario. He makes the two Eudes la Zouches father and son, not uncle
and nephew as I have proposed. In John's scenario, he identifies the
elder Eudes as the brother of Sir Alan la Zouche.

For starters, I think it would help if someone located the reference to
Eudes la Zouche as "Ivonet" la Zouche. If this reference to "Ivonet"
la Zouche dates from after 1260, then I think it is virtually certain
that there were two Eudes la Zouche. The name form Ivonet should refer
to a young man named Eudes.

I should likewise mention that the Leicestershire historian, George F.
Farnham, appears to have abstracted all the contemporary lawsuits for
Leicestershire for his massive work, Leicestershire Medieval Village
Notes. If Milicent de Cantelowe sued for dower in other property known
to be inherited by Ellen de Quincy, then I think we can be sure that
Ellen de Quincy was Milicent's mother-in-law. However, this will
require someone to go through all of the microfilms of Farnham's work,
which source unfortunately is handwritten and unindexed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 19:52:30

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/21/06 9:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

Of course, all of the latter-day Pooles of Sapperton would have been
descendants of the Brydges family, anyway, through Leonard Poole's
wife, "Catherine d. of Gyles Brydges Knight"


Just for others who may not be able to follow. This Catherine d 29 Jan
1656/7 and is mentioned in CP "Bedford", her husband Francis Russell being 4th Earl
of Bedford d 9 May 1641 (http://www.genealogics.org) buried at Chenies

I happen to be missing two of Catherine's gggrandparents, towit, who was the
mother of Edmund, 1st Baron Braye (d 18 Oct 1539) and who was the mother of
Thomas, 8th Lord Clinton (d 9 Aug 1517) ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Don't be butting in here, hijacking this thread to accomodate your need
for information on a totally different person! The Catherine Brydges I
mentioned had a husband (certainly NOT Francis Russell) who died in 30
Henry VIII--how could she herself have died 29 Jan. 1656/7??

Please show a little restraint in your needy, childish demands for
information, plopped suddently and unceremoniously down in the midst of
other people's threads! God, what a pill.

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 20:08:52

Oops I suppose there could have been two different Catherine Brydges d of
Giles. I simplistically thought there'd only be one of this combination :)
Will

Try to pay attention to what people are saying, not merely think, "How
can I get information for myself out of this?" You are bringing the
level of this group *way* down, in my opinion. All these nagging
questions only marginally related to what the person was saying.
Sheesh.

Ye Old One

Re: John Brenchley (the Elder) possible probate date.

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 21 jun 2006 20:15:33

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:37:12 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

In a message dated 6/21/06 6:12:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

Covering dates 1386-1486
Scope and content Walter John and Robert Brencheley or
Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby, priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and
Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst (Sanderst): (with the will of John
Brenchesle, the elder annexed).: Kent.

So I ordered the image, turns out to be just one page. If anyone wants
to see it, or even better have a go at transcribing it, you will find
it at http://www.brenchley.org/Image00001.jpg


Good work Bob! I can at least tell that the document is in English. It's
hard for me to read this elaborate hand. I did notice the name John Somerby :)

Do you want to, or can I, cross-post this to the OLD-ENGLISH-L list ?

Will

Feel free Will, and when you do add this link to it as well:

http://www.brenchley.org/Image00003.jpg

In that I've used colour manipulation to create something that I think
is more readable.

However, regardelss of what TNA say, I don't see anything that looks
like a will. There was a second image, but that was only the rear of
the page with a bundle number written on it.

--
Bob.

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 20:19:21

It's a good thing we have people like you to set people like me "straight" :)

Well, it's very irritating to notice how you "data mine" every last
word that is posted here.

And one other suggestion. Would it be possible for you to cut out the
header from your replies?

In a message dated 6/21/06 12:10:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

I can't stand the crappy, meaningless look of those things.

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 20:30:49

Do you mean this: "In a message dated 6/21/06 12:24:58 PM Pacific Daylight
Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:"

Yes. Duh.

Gjest

Re: John Brenchley (the Elder) possible probate date.

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 20:38:01

In a message dated 6/21/06 6:12:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:

<< Covering dates 1386-1486
Scope and content Walter John and Robert Brencheley or
Brencheslee. v. Sir John Somerby, priest: Lands, &c. in Benenden and
Rolvenden, Newenden and Sandhurst (Sanderst): (with the will of John
Brenchesle, the elder annexed).: Kent.

So I ordered the image, turns out to be just one page. If anyone wants
to see it, or even better have a go at transcribing it, you will find
it at http://www.brenchley.org/Image00001.jpg >>


Good work Bob! I can at least tell that the document is in English. It's
hard for me to read this elaborate hand. I did notice the name John Somerby :)

Do you want to, or can I, cross-post this to the OLD-ENGLISH-L list ?

Will

Gjest

Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 20:41:00

"Kelly Leighton" schrieb:

Will, Researchers

I knew that chicken scratch wasn't readable.

Denise married 1st Thomas De Normanville and then John de Wigton. Margaret
(Denise's daughter) married 1st William De Basing, the Edmund Passele.

John De Wigton died before 1315 when the IPM is said to have been taken (the
EXTINCT article), and certainly before 1316 when there are several CPR
entries giving his land away.

Margaret, daughter of Denise and her second husband De Wigton,

Kelly

Thanks for the very interesting posts. You might like to have a look
through the archives - about six months ago, while we were discussing
the Basing family, Mardi Carter posted some material which supported
Margaret Basing's identification as a daughter of Thomas de Normanville
(Dionesia's first husband).

Best wishes, Michael

Gjest

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 20:44:01

In a message dated 6/21/06 9:41:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< Of course, all of the latter-day Pooles of Sapperton would have been
descendants of the Brydges family, anyway, through Leonard Poole's
wife, "Catherine d. of Gyles Brydges Knight" >>


Just for others who may not be able to follow. This Catherine d 29 Jan
1656/7 and is mentioned in CP "Bedford", her husband Francis Russell being 4th Earl
of Bedford d 9 May 1641 (http://www.genealogics.org) buried at Chenies

I happen to be missing two of Catherine's gggrandparents, towit, who was the
mother of Edmund, 1st Baron Braye (d 18 Oct 1539) and who was the mother of
Thomas, 8th Lord Clinton (d 9 Aug 1517) ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 20:53:02

In a message dated 6/21/06 10:55:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kleigh1@cox.net
writes:

<< Jeff Duvall's postings on Dionysia's seal seems to confirm the D'Eyville
linkage. I have already posted (I think) that the "a Lion Rampant" (#2 of
Blore's four arms on her seal) fits the De Lovetot arms perfectly. So, I think
there is plenty of evidence to support Paul's statement that Denise was daughter
of John De Lovetot and married first, Thomas De Normanville, and then William
De Basing. >>

I followed you under here. What happened to John de Wigton ?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 jun 2006 20:53:50

In message of 21 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/21/06 9:41:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

The bit you snipped out from your quotation has the answer:

"his eldest brother, the first John, was born on 15 Aug 1397"


Okay got it now. Interesting possibility, but it seems devoid of
documentation which would support it. I need to reread DNB to see
what the earliest date is we can give William to get a feel for what
decade his father John might have lived.

It seems, at least at the moment, possible that if this is the same
family, there may be an additional generation, and the question is why
CP gives the family two John's. Do they document that at all?

What I quoted was in a note. They had relied on W Paley Baildon for
that article and said his main research on the FitzWilliams was in
"Baildon and the Baildons", Vol 2, pp. 343 et seq.

(And there is something about Johns. My brother discovered that one of
our forbears had four John sons between two wives, three of which Johns
survived into adulthood.)

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

Gjest

Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 20:59:02

In a message dated 6/21/06 10:55:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kleigh1@cox.net
writes:

<< I can't explain the difference between the two arms, but the fact that
they were both assigned to Walter De Wigton, who may very well have been the
Walter De Wigton whose son John Denise married after the death of Thomas De
Normanville in 1282 seems like anything but coincidence. >>

Are you saying Denise married
1) Thomas de Normanville d 1282
2) John de Wigton
3) William de Basing

If not, can you clarify this ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

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

In a message dated 6/21/06 10:55:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kleigh1@cox.net
writes:

<< We also have the tie that Dionesia, widow of Thoms De Normanville in 1320
was in suit with Margery widow of William Basynges (ODNB article and Nigel
Saul mention this Margaret as marrying Sir Edmund Pashley after William De Basing
died in 1316). >>

Hold on now. In 1320 she wouldn't still be the widow of a man who died 38
years earlier. Right?

Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 21 jun 2006 21:03:20

In message of 21 Jun, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/21/06 12:24:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

And one other suggestion. Would it be possible for you to cut out the
header from your replies?

I don't know what a header is....
Do you mean this: "In a message dated 6/21/06 12:24:58 PM Pacific Daylight
Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:"

I woudl support keeping that sort of header as I would also support
quoting the core of the note anyon is replying to. Both make it easier
to follow the thread of the discussion and to look things up in any
archive.

By the way, what guarantee do we have that Google and Rootsweb will
continue to keep archives of all contributions? Deja-Vu, was it?,
collapsed and it was perhaps then luck that Google picked up their
archives. Is Google ever-lasting? (For these reasons I keep my own
archives of posts that interest me.)

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

JDUVALL

RE: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

Legg inn av JDUVALL » 21 jun 2006 21:05:03

The wife of Thomas de Normanville was Denise. Their daughter, Margaret
de Normanville, was married to Sir William de Basing (Basynges).

Jeff Duvall

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:57 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

In a message dated 6/21/06 10:55:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kleigh1@cox.net
writes:

<< I can't explain the difference between the two arms, but the fact
that
they were both assigned to Walter De Wigton, who may very well have been
the
Walter De Wigton whose son John Denise married after the death of Thomas
De
Normanville in 1282 seems like anything but coincidence. >>

Are you saying Denise married
1) Thomas de Normanville d 1282
2) John de Wigton
3) William de Basing

If not, can you clarify this ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 21:06:02

In a message dated 6/21/06 11:54:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< The Catherine Brydges I
mentioned had a husband (certainly NOT Francis Russell) who died in 30
Henry VIII--how could she herself have died 29 Jan. 1656/7?? >>

Oops I suppose there could have been two different Catherine Brydges d of
Giles. I simplistically thought there'd only be one of this combination :)
Will

Gjest

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

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

In a message dated 6/21/06 12:10:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< You are bringing the
level of this group *way* down, in my opinion. >>

It's a good thing we have people like you to set people like me "straight" :)

John Brandon

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jun 2006 21:17:27

I woudl support keeping that sort of header as I would also support
quoting the core of the note anyon is replying to. Both make it easier
to follow the thread of the discussion and to look things up in any

I don't really see how it's necessary, not to mention that it is not
very attractive ...

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 21:29:02

In a message dated 6/21/06 8:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson writes:

<< Just to expand and clarify, although the above author is doubtful that
William descends from John of Elmley, CP does state that William's father was
"John" who had "married Ellen daughter of William Villers of Brokesby in
Leicestershire".

Additionally they state that it has been said that he was descended from
one "William FitzWilliam of Green's Norton, natural son of William the
Conqueror" but they doubt this person existed. >>


In the above message, replace "CP" with "DNB"
It is DNB "FitzWilliam, William" were I read the statement that his parents
were John FitzWilliam by his wife Ellen Villiers, etc [as above]

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Thoughts on Isaac Bromwich

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 21:30:02

In a message dated 6/21/06 12:24:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

<< And one other suggestion. Would it be possible for you to cut out the
header from your replies? >>

I don't know what a header is....
Do you mean this: "In a message dated 6/21/06 12:24:58 PM Pacific Daylight
Time, starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Children of John Butler, 6th Earl of Ormond:Thoughts

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 21:33:02

In a message dated 6/21/06 9:41:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< The bit you snipped out from your quotation has the answer:

"his eldest brother, the first John, was born on 15 Aug 1397"

Okay got it now. Interesting possibility, but it seems devoid of
documentation which would support it. I need to reread DNB to see what the earliest date
is we can give William to get a feel for what decade his father John might
have lived.

It seems, at least at the moment, possible that if this is the same family,
there may be an additional generation, and the question is why CP gives the
family two John's. Do they document that at all?

Will

Kelly Leighton

Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 21 jun 2006 21:34:01

Will, Researchers

I knew that chicken scratch wasn't readable.

Denise married 1st Thomas De Normanville and then John de Wigton. Margaret
(Denise's daughter) married 1st William De Basing, the Edmund Passele.

John De Wigton died before 1315 when the IPM is said to have been taken (the
EXTINCT article), and certainly before 1316 when there are several CPR
entries giving his land away.

Margaret, daughter of Denise and her second husband De Wigton, was in CPR
roll in 1324 enfeoffing land to Denise to grant back in fee simple. So
Densie was still alive in 1324. It confirms the EXTINCT article in that this
same Margaret and one of her husbands did the same thing in 1322 to a
different someone. Money problems seem confirmed.

So, second shield was De Wigton (Denise's second husband) third shield was
De Lovetot (Denise's father), 4th Shield D'Eyville (I argue was Denise's
mother Margaret).

Sorry for any confusion I generated.

Kelly in RI


----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <kleigh1@cox.net>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?


In a message dated 6/21/06 10:55:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kleigh1@cox.net
writes:

Jeff Duvall's postings on Dionysia's seal seems to confirm the
D'Eyville
linkage. I have already posted (I think) that the "a Lion Rampant" (#2 of
Blore's four arms on her seal) fits the De Lovetot arms perfectly. So, I
think
there is plenty of evidence to support Paul's statement that Denise was
daughter
of John De Lovetot and married first, Thomas De Normanville, and then
William
De Basing.

I followed you under here. What happened to John de Wigton ?

Gjest

Re: William FitzWilliam d 1534

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jun 2006 21:53:01

In a message dated 6/21/06 12:33:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

<< I need to reread DNB to see what the earliest date
is we can give William to get a feel for what decade his father John might
have lived. >>

As promised, here are the relevant extracts on William FitzWilliam. I note
this appears to correct an error at tudorplace.ar where they had the Sackville
wife married to the son.

Dictionary of National Biography, "FitzWilliam, Sir William (1460 ? - 1534)"
", sheriff of London, was son of John FitzWilliam. His mother was Ellen,
daughter of William Villiers of Brokesby in Leicestershire....FitzWilliam
lived and traded in Bread Street, London, afterwards in St Thomas Apostle, having
a county house at Gaynes Park, Chigwell, Essex. He was admitted to the livery
of the Merchant Taylors' Company of London in 1490, of which he was warden in
1494 and 1498, and master in 1499, obtaining a new charter for the company on
6 Jan 1502....Elected sheriff of London in 1510 he refused to
serve....Puchased Milton Manor, Northampton in 1506 from Richard Wittelbury....FitzWilliam
married, first, Ann, daughter of Sir John Hawes; secondly, Mildred, daughter of
Sir R Sackville of Buckhurst; thirdly, Jane, daughter of John Ormond. By his
first wife he had Sir William, his heir...Richard, Elizabeth and Ann; by his
second wife, Christopher, Francis and Thomas....buried at Marholm."
- Extracts by Will Johnson, wjhonson@aol.com Jun 2006

John P. Ravilious

Re: De Lovetot, De Normanville, D'Eyville connections?

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 22 jun 2006 01:49:46

Dear Kelly, Will, Jeff, and Michael, et al.,

Some very interesting material - thanks for bringing this all to
light.

I will endeavour to see how this does (or does not) square with
my Deiville file over the next few days.

Cheers,

John



mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
"Kelly Leighton" schrieb:

Will, Researchers

I knew that chicken scratch wasn't readable.

Denise married 1st Thomas De Normanville and then John de Wigton. Margaret
(Denise's daughter) married 1st William De Basing, the Edmund Passele.

John De Wigton died before 1315 when the IPM is said to have been taken (the
EXTINCT article), and certainly before 1316 when there are several CPR
entries giving his land away.

Margaret, daughter of Denise and her second husband De Wigton,

Kelly

Thanks for the very interesting posts. You might like to have a look
through the archives - about six months ago, while we were discussing
the Basing family, Mardi Carter posted some material which supported
Margaret Basing's identification as a daughter of Thomas de Normanville
(Dionesia's first husband).

Best wishes, Michael

Gjest

Re: William FitzWilliam d 1534

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jun 2006 01:51:02

A2A offers a correction to the DNB statement that William purchased Milton in
1506, showing the actual document by which "final concord" he bought it in
1502 from "Robert [not DNB's Richard] Wittelbury, Esq and his wife Anne" but
then leased it back to them for their lifes on payment of a rose. Robert d 1506
whence comes the 1506 date probably.

At any rate, the document is interesting in that it gives a potential...
brother? to William, and maybe some brothers-in-law possibly.

Will Johnson
----------------------------------
Northamptonshire Record Office: Fitzwilliam (Milton) Charters [F(M)
Charter/1-1659]
MILTON DEEDS

FILE [no title] - ref. F(M) Charter/1424 - date: 1 Aug 17 Hen VII [1502]
[from Scope and Content] DEED of SALE by Robert Wyttilbury, of Milton,
esquire, and Anne his wife, to William Fitzwilliam, of London, merchant, for 1200
marks [£800] of the manors of Milton and Marham with their appurtenances in
Milton, Marham, Caster, Etton, Maxsey, Norborough and Depyngate, with the
advowsons of Marham church, and of the chantry of St.Guthlake in the parish of Marham,
with all lands, rents, services, etc. thereto attached - and the wharfage and
profits of the wharf and water of Gundyade in the said county and the fishing
etc. in the same, and common of pasture, wood, turt, fishing and fowling in
land, wood, fen and water, etc.

FILE [no title] - ref. F(M) Charter/1425, 1426 - date: Octave of St Martin
[18 Nov] 18 Hen VII [1502]
[from Scope and Content] FINAL CONCORD, in duplicate, made on the Octave of
St.Martin [18 Nov.] 18 Hen.VII. [1502] whereby Robert Wittilbury, esq. and Anne
his wife conveyed to William Fitzwilliam, John Hawe, James Wilford and
Richard Fitzwilliam, the manors of Milton and Marham the advowsons of Marham and the
chantry of St.Guthlac in Marham, 40 messuages, two mills, 1000 acres of land,
100 acres of meadow, 1000 acres of pasture, 200 acres of wood and yearly
rents of 10sh.4½d. in Milton, Marham, Caster, Etton, Maxsey, Norborough, and
Depyngate, and the fishery and wharfage in the water of Gonwade - in consideration
of a payment of £200.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»