Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Henry Whitfield

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jul 2006 10:00:01

John Brandon wrote:
I'm thinking that the name Seton was mentioned as well. I believe
there was a Seton family who held the title of Lord Winton, or

I was wrong about the name Seton, which is not mentioned anywhere.
What Waters' chart actually says is: "Anna [Manning] ux. Josuae Aylmer
fil. naturalis Johis, Marchis Winton." Waters was a very careful
researcher, and almost always had good reasons for what he wrote; so I
expect the notation about "fil naturalis ... Marchis Winton" actually
comes from some contemporary pedigree chart. If so, this adds quite a
bit to the HOP sketch of Joshuae Aylmer (is anybody keeping track of
corrections?).

CP shows that William, 3rd Marquess of Winchester, had at least four
illegitimate sons, so perhaps, John, 2nd Marquess, his father, had some
as well.

Perhaps his will would answer this question:

Will of Sir John Pawlett or Earl of Wiltshire and Marques of Winchester
28 January 1577 PROB 11/59 (PCC)

Gjest

Re: de Tracy - Danvers link

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jul 2006 10:02:31

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

That being said, there are numerous immigrants (and non-immigrants
including HRH E2, IIRC) who descend from the marriage of Elizabeth,
daughter of John Russell

FWIW, E2 is HM not HRH

MA-R

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: de Tracy - Danvers link

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 jul 2006 10:20:54

In message of 11 Jul, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

That being said, there are numerous immigrants (and non-immigrants
including HRH E2, IIRC) who descend from the marriage of Elizabeth,
daughter of John Russell

FWIW, E2 is HM not HRH

What I would like to know is when all this surplus verbiage was
invented? It certainly was not there in Norman times and equally
certainly most of it was there in or before Stuart times.

So which sovereign decided to exalt himself? Or which bunch of
courtiers decided to abase themselves by flattering the sovereign?

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

Ye Old One

Re: Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442

Legg inn av Ye Old One » 11 jul 2006 11:44:44

On 10 Jul 2006 17:42:03 -0700, mhollick@mac.com enriched this group
when s/he wrote:

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/9/06 3:56:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:

If (a) why choose a 1894 compiled history to cite over
the citations given in Richardson's two works?

Because, the source I used, I can quote at length.
Richardson's sources have no quotations and unless I'm mistaken, neither he
nor anyone else has indicated that they can be viewed online, as this book I
quoted can.

You're correct that the 1894 book may be wrong, but as in another recent
example, we really can't say until the relevant quotations are all extracted and
reviewed. Simply posting a list of citations without quotes doesn't help that
situation.

Will Johnson

Inconsiderate posting style corrected, yo uhave not been charged for
this service but I do expect you to learn from it.

So we're right back to the logic of using only Internet sources. If
you choose only sources on the Internet, you are missing 99% of the
available research in genealogy. Why isn't it enough to cite to
sources that makes a person have to get his/her fat tuchus out of their
computer chair and into a library or archives?

It seems to me that you are using the "free rider" principle of
economics. You want others to go out, spend money and time to gather
research, and post it for free to use. Why shouldn't you pony up some
money and time yourself? Your membership dues to research societies
keeps those societies going. Your publication dues keeps those
scholarly journals going. At some point you have to spend some money
if you are going to do "real" genealogical research.

Martin

Unfair. The "electronic" genealogist has often invested just as much,
and maybe more, that the book/society based researcher. The proven
ability people like Will have to come up with facts on names they are
not even researching - something a book based researcher has much
greater difficulty with.

As for missing 99% of available research, I think you exaggerate. It
may have been true just a couple of years ago, but today nobody can
really do genealogical research without the internet because that is
where (a) all the up to date information is, and (b) where debates
like this can take place with the resultant swops of information.

Sure, there is a lot of stuff still not on the web. There is also a
lot of stuff on the web for which the charges to access are nothing
short of "rip-off" (Ancestry being my prime example). But groups like
this one help to put information into the hands of people who need it.
Searching with most search engines will bring up entries from this
group and electronic researchers then have the debate that backs up
the information or corrects it - soemthing missing from many printed
sources.

I own a few books on genealogy. I own hundreds of CDs. I know which I
find most useful.

--
Bob.

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of Dunham Mas

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 11 jul 2006 15:05:56

Kay Allen wrote:
I believe that the issue of Hamon VI were barred from
the inheritance and Fitton of Gawsworth inherited as
son of the sister of Hamon VI.

I believe the case is in Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls. Sorry, still from top of head. :-(

K


I think that is correct. As I remember the legitamacy of Hamon VI was
questioned. I can't remember if only his sister or his sister and his
daughters were allowed to inherit. I will have to check back to the
plea roll for that.

Doug

John Brandon

Re: Philip Dormer STANHOPE - Descendants?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 11 jul 2006 15:50:57

I have gleaned from various websites that Philip Dormer STANHOPE 4th
Earl of Chesterfield had an illegitimate son called Philip STANHOPE
(1732-1768), whose mother was Madelina Elizabeth du Bouchet. This
Philip Stanhope secretly married Eugenia Peters in 1767, though they
had lived together nominally as husband and wife from at least 1760.
They had 2 sons, Philip & Charles, who after their father's early
death, came under the protection of their grandfather Lord
Chesterfield, & received inheritances from him when he died.

The burning question - does anyone know what became of these two sons?

I have brothers Charles & Philip Stanhope in my tree, Philip m.
Elizabeth DANIEL in Bristol 1790 & they had a daughter Eugenia. Charles
died without issue in 1847 leaving most of his quite large estate to
his brother's DANIEL nephews. The Will was contested & A2A has
correspondence between one of those nephews & Philip Henry Stanhope,
5th Earl Stanhope, regarding this matter. I'm not yet sure of the
significance of this.

I may be barking up the wrong tree -

Cheers
Cheryl

Definitely sounds like the same people--the use of the name "Eugenia"
for the daughter is a good clue. Are you a descendant of this Eugenia?
Or of the Daniels family?

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 3q80&hl=en

Kay Allen

Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of Dunham Mas

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 11 jul 2006 18:01:52

Ibelieve it was only his sister who inherited.

K

--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com>
wrote:

Kay Allen wrote:
I believe that the issue of Hamon VI were barred
from
the inheritance and Fitton of Gawsworth inherited
as
son of the sister of Hamon VI.

I believe the case is in Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls. Sorry, still from top of head. :-(

K


I think that is correct. As I remember the
legitamacy of Hamon VI was
questioned. I can't remember if only his sister or
his sister and his
daughters were allowed to inherit. I will have to
check back to the
plea roll for that.

Doug


Kay Allen

Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of Dunham Mas

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 11 jul 2006 18:01:52

Ibelieve it was only his sister who inherited.

K

--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com>
wrote:

Kay Allen wrote:
I believe that the issue of Hamon VI were barred
from
the inheritance and Fitton of Gawsworth inherited
as
son of the sister of Hamon VI.

I believe the case is in Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls. Sorry, still from top of head. :-(

K


I think that is correct. As I remember the
legitamacy of Hamon VI was
questioned. I can't remember if only his sister or
his sister and his
daughters were allowed to inherit. I will have to
check back to the
plea roll for that.

Doug


Kay Allen

Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of Dunham Mas

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 11 jul 2006 18:02:51

Ibelieve it was only his sister who inherited.

K

--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com>
wrote:

Kay Allen wrote:
I believe that the issue of Hamon VI were barred
from
the inheritance and Fitton of Gawsworth inherited
as
son of the sister of Hamon VI.

I believe the case is in Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls. Sorry, still from top of head. :-(

K


I think that is correct. As I remember the
legitamacy of Hamon VI was
questioned. I can't remember if only his sister or
his sister and his
daughters were allowed to inherit. I will have to
check back to the
plea roll for that.

Doug


Don Stone

Re: Plantagenet

Legg inn av Don Stone » 11 jul 2006 18:16:03

Leo van de Pas wrote:
After a while we often take the meaning of words and expressions for granted and presume "everyone knows".

I am curious, does anyone know who actually coined the phrase "Plantagenet" and when was it first used.

"We all know" that Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou and Maine, took a Broome (planta genesta) and put it on his helmet. But do we know why he did this? Did he simply like the plant or did he use it to distinguish himself from others? Did others do a similar thing, to make themselves, once dressed for battle, to look different from the others?

Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


See the interesting mid-February discussion in this forum (with "Geoffrey
Plantagenet's name" in the subject heading).

-- Don Stone

Don Stone

Re: Henry Whitfield

Legg inn av Don Stone » 11 jul 2006 18:40:34

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
John Brandon schrieb:

It seems Charles, Duke of Suffolk, was actually "Marshal of the
Household" himself for a time ...

It just occurred to me that this may be the origin of the claim to be
related to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. If he was responsible for
Henry Manning securing the office of "Marshal of the Household,"
perhaps someone later speculated that there was some family connection
between Manning and Brandon.

There are a couple of Brandon wills from the PCC which seem to relate
to the Duke of Suffolk's immediate ancestors:

Sir William Brandon of Wangford, Suffolk, will proved 13 July 1491
Sir William Brandon, will proved 17 November 1491

These may both relate to the one person, the Duke's paternal
grandfather - and thus the putative father-in-law of Hugh Manning - or
one may represent a late grant in respect of the Duke's father, killed
at Bosworth in 1485. The elder William Brandon was married to
Elizabeth Wingfield, who was a descendant of King Edward I.


Has anyone mentioned Gary Boyd Roberts' speculation (RD600, p. lxxvii):
"Could Hugh John, named in the 1491 probate of Sir William Brandon, be Sir
William's son-in-law (husband of the perhaps deceased Margaret Brandon the
younger?) and identical with Hugh (son of John) Manning,
great-great-grandfather of the two immigrants [Rev. Henry Whitfield of Conn.
and Richard Waters of Mass.]?"

-- Don Stone

The Thill Group, Inc.

Re: Will Johnson/professisonal genealogist

Legg inn av The Thill Group, Inc. » 11 jul 2006 19:57:15

.....he didn't say he was certified, he said he was a professional...
Merriam-Webster OnLine:
Main Entry: 1pro·fes·sion·al
Pronunciation: pr&-'fesh-n&l, -'fe-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one
of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a
courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the
workplace
2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of
endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having a
particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c :
engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
3 : following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a
professional patriot>
- pro·fes·sion·al·ly adverb

Becky from under her rock, typing with a flash light
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "charlotte smith" <charcsmith@verizon.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: Will Johnson/professisonal genealogist
<SNIP>
Will Johnson, I went to the page you suggest above and you list yourself
as a professional genealogist. I didn't ;notice by which professional
group you were certified. Which professional group do you belong to in
the US.


charlotte c smith

Rik Vigeland

Re: Henry Whitfield

Legg inn av Rik Vigeland » 12 jul 2006 00:36:32

I would like to add a further inquiry: Does anyone know if there is
a marker or memorial to Henry Whitfield at Winchester Cathedral?
I expect an opportunity to visit there in 10 days, and the Rev. is a
recently discovered ancestor. I would like to find his grave.

Thanks,
Rik Vigeland

"joseph cook" <joecook@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152499344.035272.134540@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do Henry Whitfield of Guilford, CT or his wife Dorothy Sheafe have any
known royal ancestry?

Thanks

Gjest

Re: Henry Whitfield

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 02:25:46

Dear John B,
The Chart as reproduced between pp 1322-1323 in Volume II
of Water`s Genealogical gleanings in England reads Anna ux. Josuae Aylmer
fil. naturalis Johis, Marchis Winton.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 07:15:06

John Brandon schrieb:

The following webpage of the Owsley Family Organization says of Thomas1
Owsley, that, "[i]t was during one such journey, in 1679, that he was
taken prisoner by Algerine pirates and was ransomed by the villagers of
Glooston, the parish in Leicestershire, England where his father was
then serving as rector. This event was duly recorded in the Register of
Glooston Parish: 'July 28th, 1679: To redeem Thomas, son of Mr.
Owsley, Rector of Glooston, taken by the Algerines, the sum of
£1.11.3d. was collected.' By 6 September 1679, however, he was back
in Virginia."

http://www.owsleyfamily.org/thomasowsley.html

A couple of sources on Google Books seem, however, to show that this
notation was made in the parish records of Scraptoft, Leicestershire,
rather than Glooston:

It was presumably recorded in both. It was common in the 16th and 17th
centuries for letters to go out to all parishes in the country inviting
contributions to worthy causes - such as the ransom of Christian slaves
- and where such contributions were made, for corresponding entries to
be made in the churchwardens' or vestry account books.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 07:17:47

m...@btinternet.com schrieb:

John Brandon schrieb:

The following webpage of the Owsley Family Organization says of Thomas1
Owsley, that, "[i]t was during one such journey, in 1679, that he was
taken prisoner by Algerine pirates and was ransomed by the villagers of
Glooston, the parish in Leicestershire, England where his father was
then serving as rector. This event was duly recorded in the Register of
Glooston Parish: 'July 28th, 1679: To redeem Thomas, son of Mr.
Owsley, Rector of Glooston, taken by the Algerines, the sum of
£1.11.3d. was collected.' By 6 September 1679, however, he was back
in Virginia."

http://www.owsleyfamily.org/thomasowsley.html

A couple of sources on Google Books seem, however, to show that this
notation was made in the parish records of Scraptoft, Leicestershire,
rather than Glooston:

It was presumably recorded in both. It was common in the 16th and 17th
centuries for letters to go out to all parishes in the country inviting
contributions to worthy causes - such as the ransom of Christian slaves
- and where such contributions were made, for corresponding entries to
be made in the churchwardens' or vestry account books.

I have to admit, having looked at the google books entry, that the fact
that the Leicestershire entry mirrors the wording from the Owsley
website exactly does support your contention that the entry referred to
is the Scraptoft one.

Matt Tompkins

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 12 jul 2006 10:14:45

John Brandon schrieb:
The following webpage of the Owsley Family Organization says of Thomas1
Owsley, that, "[i]t was during one such journey, in 1679, that he was
taken prisoner by Algerine pirates and was ransomed by the villagers of
Glooston, the parish in Leicestershire, England where his father was
then serving as rector. This event was duly recorded in the Register of
Glooston Parish: 'July 28th, 1679: To redeem Thomas, son of Mr.
Owsley, Rector of Glooston, taken by the Algerines, the sum of
£1.11.3d. was collected.' By 6 September 1679, however, he was back
in Virginia."
http://www.owsleyfamily.org/thomasowsley.html

A couple of sources on Google Books seem, however, to show that this
notation was made in the parish records of Scraptoft, Leicestershire,
rather than Glooston:

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
I have to admit, having looked at the google books entry, that the fact
that the Leicestershire entry mirrors the wording from the Owsley
website exactly does support your contention that the entry referred to
is the Scraptoft one.

Nicholls, ii, 2, p. 285 quotes the entry, in exactly the form stated
above, in his selection of extracts from the Glooston parish registers.
He doesn't mention it in the equivalent part of his Scraptoft chapter,
though he does mention the entry in the Scraptoft register recording
money collected there on the brief for the relief of poor Protestants
in Piedmont in 1655. So at the very least the entry was in both
parishes' registers, though I'm inclined to think the reference to
Scraptoft is erroneous.

The Owsleys had no connection to Scraptoft, but four of them were
rectors of Glooston continuously between 1660 and 1744 (their patrons
were the Brudenells of Deene, ancestors of the preening idiot who lead
the Charge of the Light Brigade), and were a well-known family
hereabouts for many years. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
they were lords of the manor and rectors of Blaston (four miles east of
Glooston) where I live - in fact I live in a house built by them and
rented from the present owners of their estate.

Matt Tompkins

John Brandon

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 jul 2006 12:14:30

Two articles in _Notes & Queries_ ...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0JN91 ... oyd+owsley

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0JN91 ... oyd+owsley

Noticed some stuff about Newdigate and Dorothy Ousley and the Ousleys
of Glooston.

John Brandon

Re: Henry Whitfield

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 jul 2006 12:29:45

I would like to add a further inquiry: Does anyone know if there is
a marker or memorial to Henry Whitfield at Winchester Cathedral?
I expect an opportunity to visit there in 10 days, and the Rev. is a
recently discovered ancestor. I would like to find his grave.

Not sure about that. If you find something, could you make a copy and
post it?

John Brandon

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 jul 2006 15:00:17

Two articles in _Notes & Queries_ ...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0JN91 ... oyd+owsley

http://books.google.com/books?vid=0JN91 ... oyd+owsley

Noticed some stuff about Newdigate and Dorothy Ousley and the Ousleys
of Glooston.

Would this be the "Dorathea" Owsley, dau. of John and "Dor.," baptized
31 Dec. 1673 at Gloostone, Leics., per extracted IGI? Oddly, there is
only one other Owsley/ Ousley / Howsley extracted baptism at Gloostone
(one occurring in 1691 for a William with no parents named).



John Brandon

Re: Richard Warren ancestors

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 jul 2006 16:35:53

Alrighty then ...

lonewolf274 wrote:
To all Descendants,

It is funny how this is all turning out
about our ancestor from the Mayflower. I was told by my Grandmother
Olivia L. (Warren) Barr that when she was young someone from England
(U.K.) came to present the family with the Coat of Arms. The reason
was because there was a Lady in Waiting; just like Diana who is
recently deceased. My GreatGrandfather did not accept this gift as he
said he knows where he comes from!! Now if we weren't descended from
Royalty why would they wish to present the family with a Coat of Arms?

That is a great question to ask and there are many other families who
are tied to this one who declare there ancestry back to William the
Conqueror! One is the Hamlin family out of Kane, PA I know this as I
married a descendant of the Hamlin family and they tie themselves in a
Hamlin family history (published book) to mine the Warren family. I
really think that those who didn't believe in the ruling Religion at
the time were truly persecuted and denounced by their family/friends
from there to heritage. This is why those who were being persecuted
left England to start a new life here in the America's away from the
Church. So even to this day that persecution still exists that those
of Royal blood don't want to be compared to those who turned their back
on the Church/Families of the ruling parties of England. I really
could care less about my Royalty since I shall never truly see the
Warren family ever to rerise from the ashes and rule any country as
Ruler/PM/Figurehead as I care more about Democracy and freedom for the
people.

John Brandon

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 jul 2006 19:45:42

How odd that Richard Steele also had a bastard child known as Elizabeth
Ousley ...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... HJNU&hl=en

Douglas Richardson

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 12 jul 2006 19:47:39

Dear Mississippienne ~

Your list of children for Agnes of Germany is somewhat incomplete. By
Agnes' first marriage to Friedrich (or Frederick) I, Duke of Swabia and
Franken, Count of Hohenstaufen, she had six children:

1. Friedrich [II] [Duke of Swabia].
2. Conrad (III) [Deutsche König].
3. Gertrud (wife of Hermann von Stahleck, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein).
4. Berta von Boll (wife of Adalbert von Elchingen).
5. Richilde (wife of Hugues, Count of Roucy).
6. Heilica (wife of Friedrich III, Count of Lengenfeld).

By her second marriage to Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, she had
twelve children:

1. Adalbert.
2. Heinrich (II) [Duke of Austria].
3. Leopold (IV).
4. Ernst.
5. Otto [Bishop of Freising].
6. Conrad [Bishop of Passau, Archbishop of Salzburg].
7. Bertha (wife of Heinrich III, Burggraf of Regensburg).
8. Agnes (wife of Wladislaw II, Duke of Polen-Schlesien).
9. Gertrud (wife of Vladislav II, Duke of Bohemia).
10. Elisabeth (wife of Hermann II, Count of Winzenburg).
11.Juta/Julitta (or Judith) (wife of Guillaume V de Montferrat).
12.Uta (wife of Liutold I von Plain, Count of Hardegg).

For further particulars regarding Agnes, her marriages, and her
children, you may wish to consult the following weblink:

http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/mi ... _1143.html.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Mississippienne@gmail.com wrote:
What is the true listing (with sources, please!) of the children of
Agnes of Germany, daughter of Emperor Henry IV? She married twice, and
I know she had the following offspring:

By Frederick I, Duke of Swabia:

1. Frederick II of Swabia
2. Conrad III of Germany

By Leopold III of Austria:

3. Otto of Freising, the chronicler
4. Judith of Austria, married William V of Montferrat
5. Agnes of Austria, married Wladyslaw II of Poland


Doug McDonald

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 12 jul 2006 20:03:14

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Mississippienne ~

Your list of children for Agnes of Germany is somewhat incomplete. By
Agnes' first marriage to Friedrich (or Frederick) I, Duke of Swabia and
Franken, Count of Hohenstaufen, she had six children:


By her second marriage to Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, she had
twelve children:



18 is a LOT of kids, unless there were several pairs of
twins! This is very very suspicious.

Doug McDonald


Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 20:13:40

It would be likely she used a wet nurse, so she could be having
children every year rather than every other year. If married at 16 and
able to bear children to say 44, that's 28 years for those 18 children
to have been born.

Martin

Doug McDonald wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Mississippienne ~

Your list of children for Agnes of Germany is somewhat incomplete. By
Agnes' first marriage to Friedrich (or Frederick) I, Duke of Swabia and
Franken, Count of Hohenstaufen, she had six children:


By her second marriage to Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, she had
twelve children:



18 is a LOT of kids, unless there were several pairs of
twins! This is very very suspicious.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 12 jul 2006 20:38:13

mhollick@mac.com wrote:
It would be likely she used a wet nurse, so she could be having
children every year rather than every other year. If married at 16 and
able to bear children to say 44, that's 28 years for those 18 children
to have been born.


Yes, it's certainly possible. But still, suspicious.

Doug

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 20:59:28

In a message dated 7/12/06 10:40:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Mississippienne@gmail.com writes:

<< By Frederick I, Duke of Swabia:

1. Frederick II of Swabia
2. Conrad III of Germany >>

This part of your message is confirmed by Table 113 of
Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe, Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan,
1981

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 21:48:32

Doug McDonald wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Mississippienne ~

Your list of children for Agnes of Germany is somewhat incomplete. By
Agnes' first marriage to Friedrich (or Frederick) I, Duke of Swabia and
Franken, Count of Hohenstaufen, she had six children:


By her second marriage to Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, she had
twelve children:



18 is a LOT of kids, unless there were several pairs of
twins! This is very very suspicious.

Doug McDonald


18 is a lot, but significantly less than what is given on Miroslav
Marek's website (31!!). I would still like to see primary documentation
that all those children belonged to Agnes. Could some of them have been
illegitimate but falsely attributed to Agnes? (some of the daughters
especially didn't make very grand marriages) Working with the
chronology:

According to my notes (I'll be happy to revise if they're incorrect)
Agnes married Frederick of Swabia in 1080 and he died in 1105. Then
she was married to Leopold from about 1105 to 1136, when he died. This
gives her twenty-five years to produce the six by Frederick, not
leaving her many years of fertility to have twelve by Leopold! Even if
all the children by Leopold were twins (very unlikely) she would've
been bearing a set of twins a year for six years.

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 23:08:57

Mittelalter as indicated by Douglas Richardson seems to give her only
16 on two sources, 17 in both. Hansmartin Decker-Hauff leaves out Uta,
and Karl Lechner leaves out Adalbert the first Austria what is probably
a lapse or a bad transcription.

But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

You may have noticed that Miroslav's data on the extra 6 of the first
marriage is sparse, almost none. If anything, they could be
illegitimous of Friedrich Hohenstauffen.
On the 2nd marriage, Miroslav adds 7 more without name and that died
young, so 19 children. But, if by the last one, is meant the last one
of those who did not died young, with some three or four pair of twins,
it was not impossible.
Maybe Miroslav Marek took a bad source - or a bad translation and the
first marriage's children were meant - and possibly, as he has
Hohenstauffen and Babenberg separated he just made a mess with Agnes'
children in both tables and did not noticed it.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)




Mississippienne@gmail.com escreveu:
Doug McDonald wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Mississippienne ~

Your list of children for Agnes of Germany is somewhat incomplete. By
Agnes' first marriage to Friedrich (or Frederick) I, Duke of Swabia and
Franken, Count of Hohenstaufen, she had six children:


By her second marriage to Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, she had
twelve children:



18 is a LOT of kids, unless there were several pairs of
twins! This is very very suspicious.

Doug McDonald


18 is a lot, but significantly less than what is given on Miroslav
Marek's website (31!!). I would still like to see primary documentation
that all those children belonged to Agnes. Could some of them have been
illegitimate but falsely attributed to Agnes? (some of the daughters
especially didn't make very grand marriages) Working with the
chronology:

According to my notes (I'll be happy to revise if they're incorrect)
Agnes married Frederick of Swabia in 1080 and he died in 1105. Then
she was married to Leopold from about 1105 to 1136, when he died. This
gives her twenty-five years to produce the six by Frederick, not
leaving her many years of fertility to have twelve by Leopold! Even if
all the children by Leopold were twins (very unlikely) she would've
been bearing a set of twins a year for six years.

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jul 2006 23:30:29

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
According to Europaische Stammtafeln Volume 1.1 Tafel 14
Friedrich I and Agnes had the following children :
1.Heilika
2.Bertrada/Bertha
3.Friedrich II
4.Hildegardis
5. Konrad III
6.Giselhildis
7. Heinrich
8. Beatrix
9. Kunigunde/Kunizza
10. Sophia
11. Fides/Gertrud

Same volume Tafel 84
Leopold III and Agnes had
12.Heinrich II
13.Leopold IV
14.Berta
15.Agnes
16.Ernst
17.Otto
18. Konrad
19.Elisabeth
20.Judith
21.Gertrud
22.perhaps Uta
and 7 children who died young.

Something must be wrong, I doubt she had 28 or 29 children.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Yes, this does seem entirely excessive. I suppose it's not biologically
impossible Agnes was the mother of all those children, but it seems
very very unlikely. Does anyone have primary documentation for these
children? (deeds, wills, grants, chronicles, inscriptions)

John Brandon

Re: Thomas Owsley among the Algerines

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 jul 2006 23:44:46

All of the fascinating details of the 1698 Macclesfield Divorce Act
("for dissolving the marriage between Charles, Earl of Macclesfield,
and Anne, his wife, and to illegitmate the children of the said Anne")
are available in _The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1697-1699_ in
the Historical Manuscripts Commission series. Here are a few quotes:

p. 59-60:

On 22 Jan. Counsel called in. Counsel for E. Macclesfield called Mary
Mountaine, the nurse to the female child, who, being sworn, deposed as
follows: Mrs. Pheasant came and hired me at Chelsea to take a child.
I said I could not take a child for 6s. a week. She said "it is a
person of quality's child, and the things that come from it will be
better than if you had more." I came to the Old Bailey, and Mrs.
Pheasant took a coach and went to the other nurse. As we came home,
she said, "the mother is a Countess and the father a person of quality
and in Flanders." I told the gentlewoman that came to see the child
that Mr. Woolsley's sister had been to see the child. Mrs. Allsup came
with her. Some time after, the child fell sick, and I sent to the Old
Bailey. Mrs. Pheasant came, and next day after the lady came. I told
her I was afraid the child would die. She said she would send an
apothecary to make an issue in the child. Mrs. Pheasant came next day,
and I told her what the lady said, and we sent for an apothecary and
made an issue. The child died, and Mrs. Pheasant brought a coffin, and
it was buried in the church. I was to make an Affidavit for burial. I
was told I might swear the name was Anne Smith or Anne Savage, which I
pleased. Mr. Woolsley paid me the first time. This was in June 1695.
The 16th day I brought it home. The Christian name was Miss Anne. My
husband has it in his almanack. Mrs. Dinah Allsup came for a lock of
the child's hair. I saw this lady at Doctor's Commons and it was Lady
Macclesfield. This witness fell sick, and so another was called.
Elizabeth Pheasant (sworn): Asked whether in 1695 she was hired to
nurse any woman. I was spoken to by Mr. Woolsley in June 1695 to look
to a lady. I met her in the evening in Piccadilly. She spoke to me in
a mask. She told me her reckoning was not out till July, and I was to
take care of all things. Dinah Allsup fetched a midwife the first
time. Mrs. Richardson was the midwife. The lady spoke to her in a
mask, and told her that her reckoning would be out in July. The second
time, when in labour, I fetched Mrs. Richardson myself, the 10th or
11th of July. I went to Mrs. Richardson's house. Her maid went with
me to Soho. She was delivered about three o'clock of a female child.
She had a mask on most part of the time till the extremity of the pain.
The child was christened about ten o'clock the same day. The name was
Anne. When my Lady was in labour, she feared she should die. Mrs.
Richardson said: "I hope not, but, if you do, give me your petticoat."
Mrs. Richardson asked if this was her first child. She said, Yes, but
she had miscarried. Mr. Newdigate Woolsley and his sister were
present. Mr. Woolsley was god-father, and Mrs. Doro[thy] Woolsley and
myself god-mothers. She stayed there about six days, and then went
away in a chair to Charing Cross. I went back, and stayed there seven
or eight days to wash the lady's linen, for fear it should be seen.
The child was put to nurse in Walthamstead [Walthamstow]. Mr. Woolsley
provided the nurse, and I had the care of all. ...

p. 61:

[Rev.] Isaac Burbridge (sworn): Declares his knowledge concerning
christening the child. I christened the child by the name of Richard.
John Smith, sexton (sworn): I went with Mr. Burbridge to Fox Court,
into a room [up] one pair of stairs. The child was brought to us. I
set down the name of the child. The child was named Richard. The
parents' names, they told me, were John and Mary Smith. I wrote in
this paper 18 January 1696. ... John Morris (sworn): Gives account in
what manner and how Mrs. Pheasant was taken. She was taken [ie,
arrested] in Northamptonshire in July. Mrs. Woolsley was with her. I
found her beyond Towcester in Northamptonshire.
....

p. 64:

24 Jan [1697/8]. Elizabeth Pheasant. As to the birth of the female
child, its being put out to nurse with Mrs. Mountaine and its death.
As to the birth of the male child, its being christened and taken away.
As to enquiries by Lord Macclesfield, and witness being arrested in
Northamptonshire.

* * * *

This must have been just prior to Dorothy Ousley's marriage. The DNB
sketch of Richard Savage notes that "[i]n the register of St. Andrew's
he is only allotted one godmother, Dorothea Ousley, who married Robert
Delgardno at St. James's, Westminster, on 24 Sept. 1698 (_Harleian
Society Publications_, xxvi. 323)." This seems to be true, as the
following baptisms occur in the same time period in the records of
Saint Anne Soho, Westminster:

DOROTHY DALGARDNO, dau. of Robt. and Dorothy, 30 OCT 1702

ROBT. DALGARDNO, son of Robt. and Dorothy, 27 JAN 1703

JANE DELGARDNO, dau. of Robt. and Dorothy, 17 MAY 1705

NUDIGATE DELGARDNO, son of Robt. and Dorothy, 13 DEC 1706

MARY DELGARDNO, dau. of Robt. and Dorothy, 28 APR 1708

SARAH DELGARDNO, dau. of Robt. and Dorothy, 11 APR 1710


See also:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... hard+mason:

John Brandon

Re: Further proof of the Dodsworth-Eaton-Bourchier connectio

Legg inn av John Brandon » 13 jul 2006 00:27:31

Interesting to note this statement: "Barrington Eaton's father had
sold lace to the Restoration court."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... WpX06SAPMI

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 jul 2006 00:53:56

In a message dated 7/12/06 1:55:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Mississippienne@gmail.com writes:

<< According to my notes (I'll be happy to revise if they're incorrect)
Agnes married Frederick of Swabia in 1080 and he died in 1105. Then
she was married to Leopold from about 1105 to 1136, >>

Heraldry, cited in my last post, on her marriage to Leopold does give her
seven children by this marriage, but this book does not purport to be an
exhaustive list.

At any rate those seven (table 77, kindly noted privately by Francisco) gives
Adalbert, Leopold, Otto, Agnes, Henry, Conrad and Gertrud

So you can at *least* be fairly confident those ones are hers.
('Fairly" is subjective)

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 jul 2006 01:19:14

According to Europaische Stammtafeln Volume 1.1 Tafel 14
Friedrich I and Agnes had the following children :
1.Heilika
2.Bertrada/Bertha
3.Friedrich II
4.Hildegardis
5. Konrad III
6.Giselhildis
7. Heinrich
8. Beatrix
9. Kunigunde/Kunizza
10. Sophia
11. Fides/Gertrud

Same volume Tafel 84
Leopold III and Agnes had
12.Heinrich II
13.Leopold IV
14.Berta
15.Agnes
16.Ernst
17.Otto
18. Konrad
19.Elisabeth
20.Judith
21.Gertrud
22.perhaps Uta
and 7 children who died young.

Something must be wrong, I doubt she had 28 or 29 children.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mississippienne@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:32 AM
Subject: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV


What is the true listing (with sources, please!) of the children of
Agnes of Germany, daughter of Emperor Henry IV? She married twice, and
I know she had the following offspring:

By Frederick I, Duke of Swabia:

1. Frederick II of Swabia
2. Conrad III of Germany

By Leopold III of Austria:

3. Otto of Freising, the chronicler
4. Judith of Austria, married William V of Montferrat
5. Agnes of Austria, married Wladyslaw II of Poland


John Higgins

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av John Higgins » 13 jul 2006 01:29:29

It would be worthwhile to consult vol 1.1 of Schwennicke's ESNF (published
1998) which is much more recent than the sources cited on the website
mentioned below and has a considerable list of sources for the Hohenstaufen
and Babenberg families.

In table 14 of this volume, Agnes is shown as having 11 children by her
first marriage, in the following order: Heilika, Bertrada/Bertha, Friedrich
II, Hildegardis, Konrad III, Giselhildis/Gisela, Heinrich, Beatrix,
Kunigunde/Kunizza, Sophie, and Fides/Gertrud.

In table 84 of this volume (sub Babenberg), Agnes is shown has having 18
children by her second marriage, including one whose parentage is indicated
to be tentative and 7 children (sex not indicated) who d. young. In order
they are Heinrich II, Leopold IV, Berta, Agnes, Ernst, Otto, Konrad,
Elisabeth, Judith, Gertrud, and Uta, (this last being tentative), plus the 7
children who d. young (whose order is not indicated). [Adalbert, listed
below as a child of Agnes, is said by Schwennicke to be a child of the first
marriage of Leopold III, by an unnamed daughter of Walchun von Perg.]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV


Dear Mississippienne ~

Your list of children for Agnes of Germany is somewhat incomplete. By
Agnes' first marriage to Friedrich (or Frederick) I, Duke of Swabia and
Franken, Count of Hohenstaufen, she had six children:

1. Friedrich [II] [Duke of Swabia].
2. Conrad (III) [Deutsche König].
3. Gertrud (wife of Hermann von Stahleck, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein).
4. Berta von Boll (wife of Adalbert von Elchingen).
5. Richilde (wife of Hugues, Count of Roucy).
6. Heilica (wife of Friedrich III, Count of Lengenfeld).

By her second marriage to Leopold III, Margrave of Austria, she had
twelve children:

1. Adalbert.
2. Heinrich (II) [Duke of Austria].
3. Leopold (IV).
4. Ernst.
5. Otto [Bishop of Freising].
6. Conrad [Bishop of Passau, Archbishop of Salzburg].
7. Bertha (wife of Heinrich III, Burggraf of Regensburg).
8. Agnes (wife of Wladislaw II, Duke of Polen-Schlesien).
9. Gertrud (wife of Vladislav II, Duke of Bohemia).
10. Elisabeth (wife of Hermann II, Count of Winzenburg).
11.Juta/Julitta (or Judith) (wife of Guillaume V de Montferrat).
12.Uta (wife of Liutold I von Plain, Count of Hardegg).

For further particulars regarding Agnes, her marriages, and her
children, you may wish to consult the following weblink:


http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/mi ... riedrichs_

1/agnes_von_waiblingen_herzogin_von_schwaben_+_1143.html.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Mississippienne@gmail.com wrote:
What is the true listing (with sources, please!) of the children of
Agnes of Germany, daughter of Emperor Henry IV? She married twice, and
I know she had the following offspring:

By Frederick I, Duke of Swabia:

1. Frederick II of Swabia
2. Conrad III of Germany

By Leopold III of Austria:

3. Otto of Freising, the chronicler
4. Judith of Austria, married William V of Montferrat
5. Agnes of Austria, married Wladyslaw II of Poland



CE Wood

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av CE Wood » 13 jul 2006 02:13:24

As far as having 18 children, William, eldest son of the recently
"List" mentioned Edward Rawson of Massachusetts, had a well-documented
20 children by his only wife, Anne Glover, the first born on 11 April
1674, the 20th born on 19 Nov 1698.

No twins. Anne lived from 1656 until 29 July 1739, dying at the age of
83.

Granted this was in relatively modern times, but it was not all that
uncommon.

CE Wood


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
According to Europaische Stammtafeln Volume 1.1 Tafel 14
Friedrich I and Agnes had the following children :
1.Heilika
2.Bertrada/Bertha
3.Friedrich II
4.Hildegardis
5. Konrad III
6.Giselhildis
7. Heinrich
8. Beatrix
9. Kunigunde/Kunizza
10. Sophia
11. Fides/Gertrud

Same volume Tafel 84
Leopold III and Agnes had
12.Heinrich II
13.Leopold IV
14.Berta
15.Agnes
16.Ernst
17.Otto
18. Konrad
19.Elisabeth
20.Judith
21.Gertrud
22.perhaps Uta
and 7 children who died young.

Something must be wrong, I doubt she had 28 or 29 children.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mississippienne@gmail.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:32 AM
Subject: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV


What is the true listing (with sources, please!) of the children of
Agnes of Germany, daughter of Emperor Henry IV? She married twice, and
I know she had the following offspring:

By Frederick I, Duke of Swabia:

1. Frederick II of Swabia
2. Conrad III of Germany

By Leopold III of Austria:

3. Otto of Freising, the chronicler
4. Judith of Austria, married William V of Montferrat
5. Agnes of Austria, married Wladyslaw II of Poland


Pat Bausman

Re: Richard Warren ancestors

Legg inn av Pat Bausman » 13 jul 2006 04:27:37

Oh great! I signed on tonight after a long spell to see what, if
anything, is new on the Richard Warren front, and this is what greets
me! Yikes!


John Brandon wrote:
Alrighty then ...

lonewolf274 wrote:
To all Descendants,

It is funny how this is all turning out
about our ancestor from the Mayflower. I was told by my Grandmother
Olivia L. (Warren) Barr that when she was young someone from England
(U.K.) came to present the family with the Coat of Arms. The reason
was because there was a Lady in Waiting; just like Diana who is
recently deceased. My GreatGrandfather did not accept this gift as he
said he knows where he comes from!! Now if we weren't descended from
Royalty why would they wish to present the family with a Coat of Arms?

That is a great question to ask and there are many other families who
are tied to this one who declare there ancestry back to William the
Conqueror! One is the Hamlin family out of Kane, PA I know this as I
married a descendant of the Hamlin family and they tie themselves in a
Hamlin family history (published book) to mine the Warren family. I
really think that those who didn't believe in the ruling Religion at
the time were truly persecuted and denounced by their family/friends
from there to heritage. This is why those who were being persecuted
left England to start a new life here in the America's away from the
Church. So even to this day that persecution still exists that those
of Royal blood don't want to be compared to those who turned their back
on the Church/Families of the ruling parties of England. I really
could care less about my Royalty since I shall never truly see the
Warren family ever to rerise from the ashes and rule any country as
Ruler/PM/Figurehead as I care more about Democracy and freedom for the
people.

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 jul 2006 13:52:34

<francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152742137.278855.159650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mittelalter as indicated by Douglas Richardson seems to give her only
16 on two sources, 17 in both. Hansmartin Decker-Hauff leaves out Uta,
and Karl Lechner leaves out Adalbert the first Austria what is probably
a lapse or a bad transcription.

This was not a lapse, and may or may not have been in error - Lechner
conjectured that St Leopold had another wife before Agnes and that this lady
was mother of his son Adalbert. The rationale for this theory is that
Adalbert referred to a son of Rudolf of Perg as his "cognatus", and that the
best way to explain this term is by making him the son of St Leopold by
Rudolf's sister, who would have been a daughter of Walchun, lord of Perg. No
source confirms even the existence of such a woman, much less that she was
married to St Leopold, and none implies in any way that Adalbert was other
than a full-sibling to the children of Leopold by Agnes. However, the
possibility cannot be dismissed.

But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

If he was the son of a first wife, Adalbert was presumably born in 1104 or
1105. The marriage of St Leopold to Agnes did take place in 1106, and she
was in her 34th year (though maybe not yet turned 34) at the time.

You may have noticed that Miroslav's data on the extra 6 of the first
marriage is sparse, almost none. If anything, they could be
illegitimous of Friedrich Hohenstauffen.
On the 2nd marriage, Miroslav adds 7 more without name and that died
young, so 19 children. But, if by the last one, is meant the last one
of those who did not died young, with some three or four pair of twins,
it was not impossible.
Maybe Miroslav Marek took a bad source - or a bad translation and the
first marriage's children were meant - and possibly, as he has
Hohenstauffen and Babenberg separated he just made a mess with Agnes'
children in both tables and did not noticed it.

I don't know how well-attested the seven children who are supposed to have
died young may be. Of St Leopold's offspring whose names are recorded, all
are treated in the sources as if they were full-siblings. The youngest was
apparently Elisabeth who married Count Hermann II of WInzenburg in 1142, and
she is specifically desribed (by her brother Otto) as the sister of the
German king Konrad III - i.e. she must have been his maternal half-sister
and therefore a daughter of Agnes.

The result of combining information from the few available sources is that
Agnes probably had eleven children by her first husband and at least ten by
her second. This sort of fecundity is by no means unexampled, and I can't
see a logical reason why Agnes should not have been an example of it.
Emperors' daughters can be freaks of nature just like anyone else. If there
really were seven other offspring of the second marriage, most or all of
them would surely have been twins with others who survived childhood and
whose names are known, as clearly there must be a limit to the number of
pregnancies to term that a woman can have after her 34th year.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 jul 2006 21:25:05

"Heraldry of the Royal Families" Table 64 shows that the daughter of Louis
VII, King of France, Agnes married three times.

The first two to Emperors of Constantinople, both murdered shortly afterwards
(within 2 to 3 years of marriage).

Her third marriage is shows as to "Theodor Branas" in 1204

Who was Theodor Branas that he was able to marry an ex-Empress and Princess ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Thomas Schwarz

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Thomas Schwarz » 13 jul 2006 21:42:04

Dear all,

as Tobias Weller (Die Heiratspolitik des deutschen Hochadels im 12.
Jahrhundert, Böhlau, 2004) clearly argued, Agnes of Germany) had three
children by her first marriage to Friedrich I. of Swabia:

1. Friedrich II. of Swabia;
2. Konrad III. [German King];
3. Gertrud oo Hermann von Stahleck, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein.

By her second marriage to Leopold III, Markgraf of Austria, she had
eleven children:

1. Adalbert;
2. Heinrich II. Jasomirgott;
3. Leopold IV.;
4. Ernst;
5. Otto;
6. Konrad;
7. Bertha oo Heinrich III. Burggraf of Regensburg;
8. Agnes oo Vladislav II. of Poland;
9. Gertrud oo Vladislav II. King of Bohemia;
10. Elisabeth oo Hermann II. Count of Winzenburg;
11. Ita/Jutta oo Guillaume de Montferrat.

Greetings
Thomas Schwarz

Gjest

Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of Dunham Mas

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 jul 2006 22:42:47

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of
Dunham Massy_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1152579084)


Carl, Doug, and Kay~

Thanks for your input toward my question. Yesterday I found further
assistance at my local library in C. Moor's Knights of Edward I, vol. 1 (Harleian
Society Pub. 80 ~ 1929), vol. 2 (Harleian Society Pub. 81 ~ 1929), and vol. 3
(Harleian Society Pub. 82 ~ 1930).

Richard de Orreby (d. 1276) of Gawsworth Manor, Northcliff Manor,
Macclesfield Forest, and Snelliston lordship [all in Cheshire].
married 1. Sibyl, daughter of Walter de Brian
married 2. Alice, alive in 1290 holding 1/3 Gawsworth and Northcliff in
dower
In 1276 his heir was Thomas de Orreby, aged 13, son by Sibyl. Edmund Fytton
had made Custos of Northcliff in the minority of the heirs, and Peter de
Arderne had wardship of Gawsworth and custody of the heirs.

Thomas de Orreby (d. 1290) of Gawsworth and Northcliff, forestership of
Macclesfield, lands at Lythe, Snelliston, etc.
In 1290 his heir was Richard de Orreby, aged 6. Alice, widow of Thomas de
Orreby, held dower in his lands; wardship of the heirs of Thomas de Orreby and
livery of Gawsworth manor to Peter de Arderne.

[Since Cecily Mascy was mother to Thomas de Orreby's daughter Isabella, it
is apparent she [Cecily] was deceased before 1290 and could not be the Cecily
Mascy, daughter of Hamon Mascy VI who married John Fitton of Bollin. The
pedigree in the Plea Rolls places Cecily Mascy, mother of Isabella de Orreby, as
a sister of Hamon Mascy VI but as the pedigrees presented there are often
misleading I was hoping for clearer proof for her placement. This new
information seems to support her placement as a daughter of Hamon Mascy V ans as
being deceased before 1290 when her husband's widow was Alice.]

Todd Whitesides

cheryl

Re: Philip Dormer STANHOPE - Descendants?

Legg inn av cheryl » 14 jul 2006 01:10:02

John
Since posting this query I have found confirmation in various places -
wills etc - that "my" Philip & Charles Stanhope were indeed the
grandsons of Lord Chesterfield.

Philip's daughter Eugenia married John KEIR, they had a son who died
soon after birth, & Eugenia herself died 2 years later at Madeira, so
the line of Lord Chesterfield ended there. There is a memorial at
Madeira to her which states she was the great grand daughter of Lord
Chesterfield.

Lord Chesterfield had no children by his wife, Melusina von der
Schulenburg, Countess of Walsingham, an illegitimate daughter of George
I by Ehrengard Melusine von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal and
Munster whom he married in 1733, so he adopted his godson, a distant
cousin, also named Philip Stanhope, 5th Earl of Chesterfield
(1755-1815), as heir to the title and estates.

I am a descendant of the Daniel family.

Thanks for your interest.

Cheryl

John Brandon wrote:
I have gleaned from various websites that Philip Dormer STANHOPE 4th
Earl of Chesterfield had an illegitimate son called Philip STANHOPE
(1732-1768), whose mother was Madelina Elizabeth du Bouchet. This
Philip Stanhope secretly married Eugenia Peters in 1767, though they
had lived together nominally as husband and wife from at least 1760.
They had 2 sons, Philip & Charles, who after their father's early
death, came under the protection of their grandfather Lord
Chesterfield, & received inheritances from him when he died.

The burning question - does anyone know what became of these two sons?

I have brothers Charles & Philip Stanhope in my tree, Philip m.
Elizabeth DANIEL in Bristol 1790 & they had a daughter Eugenia. Charles
died without issue in 1847 leaving most of his quite large estate to
his brother's DANIEL nephews. The Will was contested & A2A has
correspondence between one of those nephews & Philip Henry Stanhope,
5th Earl Stanhope, regarding this matter. I'm not yet sure of the
significance of this.

I may be barking up the wrong tree -

Cheers
Cheryl

Definitely sounds like the same people--the use of the name "Eugenia"
for the daughter is a good clue. Are you a descendant of this Eugenia?
Or of the Daniels family?

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... 3q80&hl=en

Walt O'Dowd

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Walt O'Dowd » 14 jul 2006 02:17:08

On 13 Jul 2006 Will Johnson wrote: "Who was Theodor Branas that he was
able to marry an ex-Empress and Princess ?"

The following Wikipedia article on Anna provides a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_F ... man_Empire

Walt O'Dowd

Akrogiali

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 14 jul 2006 05:35:18

Theodoro Vranas, (Caesar) born about 1050, was the son of a very successful
General, Alexios Vranas and Anna Vatatzis, the daughter of another General,
Theodoro Vatatzis and eudoxia Komninos (daughter of the Emperos Ioannis II
"Kalogiannis").
He was also brother to Eudoxia.

Theodoro Vranas and Agnes Courtenay had a daughter who married Philip De
Toucy, Lord of La Terza and had with him 6 children.

""Walt O'Dowd"" <walt.odowd@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:44B6D45A.8040105@virgin.net...
On 13 Jul 2006 Will Johnson wrote: "Who was Theodor Branas that he was
able to marry an ex-Empress and Princess ?"

The following Wikipedia article on Anna provides a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_F ... man_Empire

Walt O'Dowd

Rashid Amora

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Rashid Amora » 14 jul 2006 09:18:18

Agnes was know to have 21 children. Since she had 11 eleven well documented
children with Leopold and only four were known by her first husband
(heilika, gertrud, friedrich and konrad) the remaining 7 children were
attested as having been died very young. In the abbey of Lorsch a document
was found with the names of her children by her first husband.


"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> schreef in bericht
news:mmrtg.4375$tE5.1484@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152742137.278855.159650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mittelalter as indicated by Douglas Richardson seems to give her only
16 on two sources, 17 in both. Hansmartin Decker-Hauff leaves out Uta,
and Karl Lechner leaves out Adalbert the first Austria what is probably
a lapse or a bad transcription.

This was not a lapse, and may or may not have been in error - Lechner
conjectured that St Leopold had another wife before Agnes and that this
lady was mother of his son Adalbert. The rationale for this theory is that
Adalbert referred to a son of Rudolf of Perg as his "cognatus", and that
the best way to explain this term is by making him the son of St Leopold
by Rudolf's sister, who would have been a daughter of Walchun, lord of
Perg. No source confirms even the existence of such a woman, much less
that she was married to St Leopold, and none implies in any way that
Adalbert was other than a full-sibling to the children of Leopold by
Agnes. However, the possibility cannot be dismissed.

But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

If he was the son of a first wife, Adalbert was presumably born in 1104 or
1105. The marriage of St Leopold to Agnes did take place in 1106, and she
was in her 34th year (though maybe not yet turned 34) at the time.

You may have noticed that Miroslav's data on the extra 6 of the first
marriage is sparse, almost none. If anything, they could be
illegitimous of Friedrich Hohenstauffen.
On the 2nd marriage, Miroslav adds 7 more without name and that died
young, so 19 children. But, if by the last one, is meant the last one
of those who did not died young, with some three or four pair of twins,
it was not impossible.
Maybe Miroslav Marek took a bad source - or a bad translation and the
first marriage's children were meant - and possibly, as he has
Hohenstauffen and Babenberg separated he just made a mess with Agnes'
children in both tables and did not noticed it.

I don't know how well-attested the seven children who are supposed to have
died young may be. Of St Leopold's offspring whose names are recorded, all
are treated in the sources as if they were full-siblings. The youngest was
apparently Elisabeth who married Count Hermann II of WInzenburg in 1142,
and she is specifically desribed (by her brother Otto) as the sister of
the German king Konrad III - i.e. she must have been his maternal
half-sister and therefore a daughter of Agnes.

The result of combining information from the few available sources is that
Agnes probably had eleven children by her first husband and at least ten
by her second. This sort of fecundity is by no means unexampled, and I
can't see a logical reason why Agnes should not have been an example of
it. Emperors' daughters can be freaks of nature just like anyone else. If
there really were seven other offspring of the second marriage, most or
all of them would surely have been twins with others who survived
childhood and whose names are known, as clearly there must be a limit to
the number of pregnancies to term that a woman can have after her 34th
year.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 jul 2006 10:22:01

"Rashid Amora" <doosje@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0ab9$44b753c9$5038d469$13326@news.chello.nl...
Agnes was know to have 21 children. Since she had 11 eleven well
documented children with Leopold and only four were known by her first
husband (heilika, gertrud, friedrich and konrad) the remaining 7 children
were attested as having been died very young. In the abbey of Lorsch a
document was found with the names of her children by her first husband.

Yes and no.



The extract from the Lorsch abbey source includes the following eleven, who
are evidently siblings in a family group listed probably in order of birth,
given here in their generally accepted identifications along with the
spouses named:



1. 'Hadalwigis seu Heilice comitissae Friderici comitis' [Eilike, who died
after ca 1110, wife of Friedrich, count of Legenfeld]



2. 'Bertrade seu Berthe comitisse Adalberti comitis' [Bertha of Boll, died
after 1120, wife of Adalbert, count of Elchingen]



3. 'Friderici ducis Juditte ducisse Agnetis ducisse' [Friedrich II the
One-Eyed, duke of Swabia, died 4/6 April 1147, married firstly Judith (died
22 February ca 1130/5), daughter of Heinrich IX the Black, duke of Bavaria;
married secondly Agnes, daughter of Friedrich I, count of Saarbrücken]



4. 'Hildegardis...' [followed by an illegible word, not known further]



5. 'Cuonradi regis Gertrudis regine item Gertrudis regine' [Konrad III,
German king, died 15 February 1152, married firstly Gertrud (died before ca
1134/5), daughter of Heinrich, count of Comburg & Rothenburg; married
secondly Gertrud (died 14 April 1140), daughter of Berengar II, count of
Sulzbach]



6. 'Gisilhildis seu Gisile' [Gisela or Gisihild, not known further]



7. 'Henrici pueris' [Heinrich, said to have died ca 1102]



8. 'Beatricis abbatisse' [Beatrix, abbess of an unknown convent, thought to
have died after ca 1130]



9. 'Cunigundis seu Cunisse ducisse' Henrici ducis' [Kunigunde or Cunizza,
died after ca 1120/perhaps before May 1127, whose husband was possibly
HEINRICH X the Proud, duke of Bavaria & Saxony (died 20 October 1139)



10. 'Sophie comitisse Adalberti comitis' [Sophia, wife of a Count Adalbert
who could be any one of several suggested candidates]



11. 'Fidis seu Gertrudis palatine Herimanni palatini' [Fides or Gertrud,
died 1142/9, wife of Hermann III of Stahleck, count palatine of the Rhine,
(died 1158)].



As you can see, there are not seven here who might have died in childhood,
but only three. Also there are only three whose identifications are
undoubted, leading some authorities to ignore the rest - however, no-one has
suggested a plausible alternative to explain their appearance together in
this list.



Peter Stewart

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> schreef in bericht
news:mmrtg.4375$tE5.1484@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152742137.278855.159650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mittelalter as indicated by Douglas Richardson seems to give her only
16 on two sources, 17 in both. Hansmartin Decker-Hauff leaves out Uta,
and Karl Lechner leaves out Adalbert the first Austria what is probably
a lapse or a bad transcription.

This was not a lapse, and may or may not have been in error - Lechner
conjectured that St Leopold had another wife before Agnes and that this
lady was mother of his son Adalbert. The rationale for this theory is
that Adalbert referred to a son of Rudolf of Perg as his "cognatus", and
that the best way to explain this term is by making him the son of St
Leopold by Rudolf's sister, who would have been a daughter of Walchun,
lord of Perg. No source confirms even the existence of such a woman, much
less that she was married to St Leopold, and none implies in any way that
Adalbert was other than a full-sibling to the children of Leopold by
Agnes. However, the possibility cannot be dismissed.

But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

If he was the son of a first wife, Adalbert was presumably born in 1104
or 1105. The marriage of St Leopold to Agnes did take place in 1106, and
she was in her 34th year (though maybe not yet turned 34) at the time.

You may have noticed that Miroslav's data on the extra 6 of the first
marriage is sparse, almost none. If anything, they could be
illegitimous of Friedrich Hohenstauffen.
On the 2nd marriage, Miroslav adds 7 more without name and that died
young, so 19 children. But, if by the last one, is meant the last one
of those who did not died young, with some three or four pair of twins,
it was not impossible.
Maybe Miroslav Marek took a bad source - or a bad translation and the
first marriage's children were meant - and possibly, as he has
Hohenstauffen and Babenberg separated he just made a mess with Agnes'
children in both tables and did not noticed it.

I don't know how well-attested the seven children who are supposed to
have died young may be. Of St Leopold's offspring whose names are
recorded, all are treated in the sources as if they were full-siblings.
The youngest was apparently Elisabeth who married Count Hermann II of
WInzenburg in 1142, and she is specifically desribed (by her brother
Otto) as the sister of the German king Konrad III - i.e. she must have
been his maternal half-sister and therefore a daughter of Agnes.

The result of combining information from the few available sources is
that Agnes probably had eleven children by her first husband and at least
ten by her second. This sort of fecundity is by no means unexampled, and
I can't see a logical reason why Agnes should not have been an example of
it. Emperors' daughters can be freaks of nature just like anyone else. If
there really were seven other offspring of the second marriage, most or
all of them would surely have been twins with others who survived
childhood and whose names are known, as clearly there must be a limit to
the number of pregnancies to term that a woman can have after her 34th
year.

Peter Stewart



Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2006 11:18:20

Rashid Amora escreveu:
Agnes was know to have 21 children.

Is this from a primary source?
It may be important because if true and if we accept the "Red Book"
extract, it rules out Adalbert and Uta from the marriage to Leopold
because only 10 children remain possible.

In the abbey of Lorsch a document was found with the names of her
children by her first husband.


Must be Lorch in Baden-Württemberg and not Lorsch in Hessen.

Regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 14 jul 2006 12:13:39

Akrogiali a écrit :

Theodoro Vranas, (Caesar) born about 1050,

Doubtful since Théodôros Branas was still considered rather young and
relatively inexperienced around 1196 (dixit Chôniatès). Since he was
nevertheless already commanding troops ten years earlier, it would make
him born around 1165... admitting of course that is the same individual
in both instances.

was the son of a very successful
General, Alexios Vranas and Anna Vatatzis, the daughter of another General,
Theodoro Vatatzis and eudoxia Komninos (daughter of the Emperos Ioannis II
"Kalogiannis").
He was also brother to Eudoxia.

Theodoro Vranas and Agnes Courtenay had a daughter who married Philip De
Toucy, Lord of La Terza and had with him 6 children.

No: their daughter married Narjot of Toucy: the caesar Philip of Toucy
was her son.

Pierre

Pierre

Rashid Amora

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Rashid Amora » 14 jul 2006 12:27:46

Hi Peter,
English is not my native language. What i meant was that before the
discovery of the document in the abbey of Lorsch, it was thougt that the
unknown children had died very young. After the discovery of the document in
which the seven unknown children named were named, the statement that 7
children who had died very young had to be merged with these children.
Instead of this, Agnes was given 11 children to Frederick, 11 children to
Leopold and 7 children who supposedly had died very young.
Abbey of Lorsch names the children of Agnes by her husband :
"Hadalwigis seu Heilicae comitissae Friderici comitis/Bertradae seu Berthae
comitissae Adalberti comitis/Friderici ducis Judittae ducissae Agnetis
ducissae/ Hildegardis (Wort unleserlich)/Cuonradi regis Gertrudis reginae
item Gertrudis reginae/Gisilhildis seu Gisilae/Henrici pueris/Beatricis
abbatissae/Cunigundis seu Cunissa [? Cunizzae] ducissae Henrici
ducis/Sophiae comitissae Adalberti comitis/ Fidis seu Gertrudis palatinae
Herimanni palatini/"
Children of Agnes by her second husband:
a) Adalbert (um 1107-1137); als Sohn der Agnes neuerdings umstritten
(probably not the son of Agnes)
b) Heinrich Jasomirgott (um 1108-1177)
c) Bertha (um 1109-1136/50) 1124/25 oo Heinrich Burggraf von Regensburg
d) Agnes (um 1110-1157) 1124/27 oo Wladislaw II. König von Polen
e) Leopold (um 1111-1141)
f) Otto (um 1112-1158) Bischof von Freising
g) Ernst (um 1113-nach 1136/37) unverheiratet
h) Judith (um 1114-nach 1168) 1130/32 oo Wilhelm Markgraf von Montferrat
i) Konrad (um 1115-1168) Bischof von Passau
j) Gertrud (um 1116-1151) um 1131/32 oo Wladislaw Herzog von Böhmen
k) Elisabeth (um 1117/18-1143) 1142 oo Hermann Graf von Winzenburg

http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/sa ... hauff.html



"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> schreef in bericht
news:ZmJtg.4750$tE5.1152@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Rashid Amora" <doosje@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0ab9$44b753c9$5038d469$13326@news.chello.nl...
Agnes was know to have 21 children. Since she had 11 eleven well
documented children with Leopold and only four were known by her first
husband (heilika, gertrud, friedrich and konrad) the remaining 7 children
were attested as having been died very young. In the abbey of Lorsch a
document was found with the names of her children by her first husband.

Yes and no.



The extract from the Lorsch abbey source includes the following eleven,
who are evidently siblings in a family group listed probably in order of
birth, given here in their generally accepted identifications along with
the spouses named:



1. 'Hadalwigis seu Heilice comitissae Friderici comitis' [Eilike, who died
after ca 1110, wife of Friedrich, count of Legenfeld]



2. 'Bertrade seu Berthe comitisse Adalberti comitis' [Bertha of Boll, died
after 1120, wife of Adalbert, count of Elchingen]



3. 'Friderici ducis Juditte ducisse Agnetis ducisse' [Friedrich II the
One-Eyed, duke of Swabia, died 4/6 April 1147, married firstly Judith
(died 22 February ca 1130/5), daughter of Heinrich IX the Black, duke of
Bavaria; married secondly Agnes, daughter of Friedrich I, count of
Saarbrücken]



4. 'Hildegardis...' [followed by an illegible word, not known further]



5. 'Cuonradi regis Gertrudis regine item Gertrudis regine' [Konrad III,
German king, died 15 February 1152, married firstly Gertrud (died before
ca 1134/5), daughter of Heinrich, count of Comburg & Rothenburg; married
secondly Gertrud (died 14 April 1140), daughter of Berengar II, count of
Sulzbach]



6. 'Gisilhildis seu Gisile' [Gisela or Gisihild, not known further]



7. 'Henrici pueris' [Heinrich, said to have died ca 1102]



8. 'Beatricis abbatisse' [Beatrix, abbess of an unknown convent, thought
to have died after ca 1130]



9. 'Cunigundis seu Cunisse ducisse' Henrici ducis' [Kunigunde or Cunizza,
died after ca 1120/perhaps before May 1127, whose husband was possibly
HEINRICH X the Proud, duke of Bavaria & Saxony (died 20 October 1139)



10. 'Sophie comitisse Adalberti comitis' [Sophia, wife of a Count Adalbert
who could be any one of several suggested candidates]



11. 'Fidis seu Gertrudis palatine Herimanni palatini' [Fides or Gertrud,
died 1142/9, wife of Hermann III of Stahleck, count palatine of the Rhine,
(died 1158)].



As you can see, there are not seven here who might have died in childhood,
but only three. Also there are only three whose identifications are
undoubted, leading some authorities to ignore the rest - however, no-one
has suggested a plausible alternative to explain their appearance together
in this list.



Peter Stewart

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> schreef in bericht
news:mmrtg.4375$tE5.1484@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152742137.278855.159650@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mittelalter as indicated by Douglas Richardson seems to give her only
16 on two sources, 17 in both. Hansmartin Decker-Hauff leaves out Uta,
and Karl Lechner leaves out Adalbert the first Austria what is probably
a lapse or a bad transcription.

This was not a lapse, and may or may not have been in error - Lechner
conjectured that St Leopold had another wife before Agnes and that this
lady was mother of his son Adalbert. The rationale for this theory is
that Adalbert referred to a son of Rudolf of Perg as his "cognatus", and
that the best way to explain this term is by making him the son of St
Leopold by Rudolf's sister, who would have been a daughter of Walchun,
lord of Perg. No source confirms even the existence of such a woman,
much less that she was married to St Leopold, and none implies in any
way that Adalbert was other than a full-sibling to the children of
Leopold by Agnes. However, the possibility cannot be dismissed.

But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

If he was the son of a first wife, Adalbert was presumably born in 1104
or 1105. The marriage of St Leopold to Agnes did take place in 1106, and
she was in her 34th year (though maybe not yet turned 34) at the time.

You may have noticed that Miroslav's data on the extra 6 of the first
marriage is sparse, almost none. If anything, they could be
illegitimous of Friedrich Hohenstauffen.
On the 2nd marriage, Miroslav adds 7 more without name and that died
young, so 19 children. But, if by the last one, is meant the last one
of those who did not died young, with some three or four pair of twins,
it was not impossible.
Maybe Miroslav Marek took a bad source - or a bad translation and the
first marriage's children were meant - and possibly, as he has
Hohenstauffen and Babenberg separated he just made a mess with Agnes'
children in both tables and did not noticed it.

I don't know how well-attested the seven children who are supposed to
have died young may be. Of St Leopold's offspring whose names are
recorded, all are treated in the sources as if they were full-siblings.
The youngest was apparently Elisabeth who married Count Hermann II of
WInzenburg in 1142, and she is specifically desribed (by her brother
Otto) as the sister of the German king Konrad III - i.e. she must have
been his maternal half-sister and therefore a daughter of Agnes.

The result of combining information from the few available sources is
that Agnes probably had eleven children by her first husband and at
least ten by her second. This sort of fecundity is by no means
unexampled, and I can't see a logical reason why Agnes should not have
been an example of it. Emperors' daughters can be freaks of nature just
like anyone else. If there really were seven other offspring of the
second marriage, most or all of them would surely have been twins with
others who survived childhood and whose names are known, as clearly
there must be a limit to the number of pregnancies to term that a woman
can have after her 34th year.

Peter Stewart





Gjest

Re: Jane Chauncey, widow of Bishop of Sodor and Mann

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2006 19:17:19

Heres another small item that might be of interest:

Nathaniel Burrowe son of George Burrowe of Pettaugh Suffolk, clerk
was apprenticed to Jermyn Pynde of the Haberdashers Company of
London on 22 Aug 1634.


Best wishes,

Leslie


Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Leslie ~

I've noted the corrections you posted. Thank you for sharing them with
me.

I'll check on the marriage license for Roger Ludlow and Mary Cogan when
I have the opportunity.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

lmahler@att.net wrote:
Here are some other additions / corrections
(you dont need to credit me).

The Brent siblings of Virginia & Maryland had a brother Edward Brent
who died in Virginia.
His PCC will proved in 1625 was published in Henry Waters,
Genealogical Gleanings in England.


Re: Katherine Hamby, wife of Edward Hutchinson.
They were married in Lawford, ESSEX (not Suffolk).
Her father's will was proved PCC SADLER (not Adler).

The marriage license for Roger Ludlow & Mary Cogan was supposed
to have been published in one of the last of the Mary & John Clearing
House
volumes.

Leslie




Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear John ~

Nice post. Keep up the great work.

I've added the Chauncey citation to my database, with credit to you as
follows:

"Index of Chancery Procs. (Series II) 1 (PRO Lists and Indexes 7)
(1896): 288; citation courtesy of John Brandon."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Douglas Richardson

Re: Jane Chauncey, widow of Bishop of Sodor and Mann

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 14 jul 2006 21:28:24

Dear Leslie ~

Thank you for sharing this information on the Burrough family. What is
the source?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

lmahler@att.net wrote:
< Heres another small item that might be of interest:
<
< Nathaniel Burrowe son of George Burrowe of Pettaugh Suffolk, clerk
< was apprenticed to Jermyn Pynde of the Haberdashers Company of
< London on 22 Aug 1634.
<
<
< Best wishes,
<
< Leslie

Gjest

Re: Parnell Ashby, John Bellers named in will of John Digby

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jul 2006 23:53:27

venetia schrieb:

Hi! I've just looked at will (at Nat. Archives) of John Digby d. 1533
of Eye Kettleby who asks for masses for the souls of John Bellers and
Parnell Ashby (as well as others known to be his close kin). Can anyone
help me out as to Parnell (male or female??)

Parnell is a female first name - Petronilla in Latin.

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Parnell Ashby, John Bellers named in will of John Digby

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 15 jul 2006 00:07:42

venetia wrote:
Hi! I've just looked at will (at Nat. Archives) of John Digby d. 1533
of Eye Kettleby who asks for masses for the souls of John Bellers and
Parnell Ashby (as well as others known to be his close kin). Can anyone
help me out as to Parnell (male or female??) or as to the relationship
with John Bellers, presumably the one who had previously owned Eye
Kettleby.

This family is in many of the Visitations.

I believe John Bellars was the first husband of the Katherine Griffin
who was the first wife of John Digby. John Digby and Katherine
Griffin's daughter Alice married George Ashby so presumably Parnell was
a daughter of George and Alice.


See:

Visitation of Warwick, 1619.
Visitation of Rutland, 1618-9.
VCH Rutland.
Visitation of Cheshire, 1613.

etc.

Doug Smith

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jul 2006 01:45:10

Yes, this is the same man, also called Adalbert of (Ravenstein-)Irrenberg.

Peter Stewart


"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:44B82C0B.4000308@mts.net...
Just wondering whether the Adalbert von Elchingen, shown in this thread's
postings as husband of Agnes' daughter Berta is the same as Adalbert von
Ravenstein. Leo van de Pas in his database does not show who her parents
were.

Roger LeBlanc

Akrogiali

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Akrogiali » 15 jul 2006 01:52:31

Doubtful since Théodôros Branas was still considered rather young and
relatively inexperienced around 1196 (dixit Chôniatès). Since he was
nevertheless already commanding troops ten years earlier, it would make
him born around 1165... admitting of course that is the same individual
in both instances.

Yes, I agree. His father was born was born around 1130; He was born after
1150; He also married Agnes in 1204

No: their daughter married Narjot of Toucy: the caesar Philip of Toucy
was her son.

What was the name of the daughter??? If he married Narjot De Toucy, how come
she also had a son called Narjot? Who married Lucy of Poitiers, Princess of
Antioch. They had a son named Philip (after his grandfather??) who married
Eleanor of Sicily



<pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152875619.099108.253720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Akrogiali a écrit :

Theodoro Vranas, (Caesar) born about 1050,


was the son of a very successful
General, Alexios Vranas and Anna Vatatzis, the daughter of another
General,
Theodoro Vatatzis and eudoxia Komninos (daughter of the Emperos Ioannis II
"Kalogiannis").
He was also brother to Eudoxia.

Theodoro Vranas and Agnes Courtenay had a daughter who married Philip De
Toucy, Lord of La Terza and had with him 6 children.


Pierre

Pierre

Gjest

Re: " Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Re

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2006 02:07:46

In a message dated 7/14/06 3:55:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< John DESEVILL >>

My first impression would be "de Seville"

Will Johnson

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 15 jul 2006 02:39:00

Just wondering whether the Adalbert von Elchingen, shown in this
thread's postings as husband of Agnes' daughter Berta is the same as
Adalbert von Ravenstein. Leo van de Pas in his database does not show
who her parents were.

Roger LeBlanc

mep33

Re: " Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Re

Legg inn av mep33 » 15 jul 2006 02:44:15

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/14/06 3:55:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

John DESEVILL

My first impression would be "de Seville"

Will Johnson

Hi Will,
My premise is based on threads of information from 2 sources.
1st -Burke's Extinct & Dormant Baronetcies [ on DIXWELL] which reads:
This family originally of Dixwell Hall & lords of the manor of Dixwell
co., Hertford; possesed the estate until the begining of the reign of
King Richard when they exchanged it with John of Durham for the
manor of Great Munden.
2nd- History of the County of Hertford vol 3.British History on line:
Munden Furnival seems to have bem held by John & Agnes DURHAM who
conveyed it in 1389 to Margaret, dau. of Cecily & Guy de BOYS, & her
husband Robert DYKESWELL.[ I think the surname here is also DIXWELL]
3rd - Calendar of Close Rolls 12 April 1336 - John DESEVILL and the 2
parts of the manor of Great Munden & the advowson of 2 parts of the
church & of the priory of Ronnheye[ Rowney]

Slim threads but a possibility that DESEVILL in this case is DIXWELL.
The timeline seems appropriate.
Hope to learn more if I can locate the inquistion of the escheator or
other orders in the Calendar Rolls under 10 Edawrd III.

Gjest

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2006 04:02:08

In a message dated 7/14/06 5:55:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

<< What was the name of the daughter??? If he married Narjot De Toucy, how
come
she also had a son called Narjot? Who married Lucy of Poitiers, Princess of
Antioch. They had a son named Philip (after his grandfather??) who married
Eleanor of Sicily >>

Her name is unrecorded.
She married Narjot de Toucy, Lord of Bazarnes who d 1241

His father's name was also Narjot de Toucy and the mother was Agnes Dampierre

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jul 2006 07:49:24

"Rashid Amora" <doosje@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4afe2$44b78032$5038d469$26050@news.chello.nl...
Hi Peter,
English is not my native language. What i meant was that before the
discovery of the document in the abbey of Lorsch, it was thougt that the
unknown children had died very young. After the discovery of the document
in which the seven unknown children named were named, the statement that 7
children who had died very young had to be merged with these children.
Instead of this, Agnes was given 11 children to Frederick, 11 children to
Leopold and 7 children who supposedly had died very young.
Abbey of Lorsch names the children of Agnes by her husband :
"Hadalwigis seu Heilicae comitissae Friderici comitis/Bertradae seu
Berthae comitissae Adalberti comitis/Friderici ducis Judittae ducissae
Agnetis ducissae/ Hildegardis (Wort unleserlich)/Cuonradi regis Gertrudis
reginae item Gertrudis reginae/Gisilhildis seu Gisilae/Henrici
pueris/Beatricis abbatissae/Cunigundis seu Cunissa [? Cunizzae] ducissae
Henrici ducis/Sophiae comitissae Adalberti comitis/ Fidis seu Gertrudis
palatinae Herimanni palatini/"

I had not looked into this question for some time, and checking further now
I find that Klaus Graf has cast considerable doubt over the reliance on this
purported family list and the interpretation of it by Hansmartin
Decker-Hauff. The origin of the text from the Red Book of Lorch cannot be
confirmed, and the contents had been reconstructed by an archivist from a
defective early modern copy.

Clearly this means that more caution is necessary than Decker-Hauff
applied - however, there is nothing inherently implausible in his
speculative genealogy of the family, and considering the number of children
that Agnes is credited with from her second marriage, lasting for thirty
years, it is likely enough that she had more than three or four (if not
actually eleven) children in the course of her first marriage, lasting for
nearly twenty.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 jul 2006 08:00:20

<francisco.tavaresdealmeida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152872300.653352.190330@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Rashid Amora escreveu:
Agnes was know to have 21 children.

Is this from a primary source?
It may be important because if true and if we accept the "Red Book"
extract, it rules out Adalbert and Uta from the marriage to Leopold
because only 10 children remain possible.

In the abbey of Lorsch a document was found with the names of her
children by her first husband.


Must be Lorch in Baden-Württemberg and not Lorsch in Hessen.

Quite right, Francisco. Lorsch is in the diocese of Mainz, and Lorch is in
the diocese of Augsburg. The 'Red Book', or rather the extant & dubious
reconstruction of it, was from Lorch.

Peter Stewart

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 15 jul 2006 13:22:23

Akrogiali a écrit :

No: their daughter married Narjot of Toucy: the caesar Philip of Toucy
was her son.

What was the name of the daughter???

Not recorded.

If he married Narjot De Toucy, how come
she also had a son called Narjot?
Who married Lucy of Poitiers, Princess of
Antioch.

She had not: the Narjot who married Lucy was her grandson and Philip's
son. The first Narjot and the Branaina had also a second son, called
Anselin, and two daughters.

They had a son named Philip (after his grandfather??) who married
Eleanor of Sicily

Actually, he did not: Philip, son of the second Narjot and titular
prince of Antioch was only engaged to Leonora of Anjou, but the
bethroal was broken in 1300 so that the Leonora can marry the King of
Sicily. Philip died quickly after, without posterity

On this family and his Oriental connections see J. Longnon, 'Les Toucy
en Orient et en Italie au treizième siècle', in Bulletin de la
société des sciences historiques et naturelles de l'Yonne, 96
(1953-1956), pp. 33-43.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 15 jul 2006 13:22:24

Akrogiali a écrit :

No: their daughter married Narjot of Toucy: the caesar Philip of Toucy
was her son.

What was the name of the daughter???

Not recorded.

If he married Narjot De Toucy, how come
she also had a son called Narjot?
Who married Lucy of Poitiers, Princess of
Antioch.

She had not: the Narjot who married Lucy was her grandson and Philip's
son. The first Narjot and the Branaina had also a second son, called
Anselin, and two daughters.

They had a son named Philip (after his grandfather??) who married
Eleanor of Sicily

Actually, he did not: Philip, son of the second Narjot and titular
prince of Antioch was only engaged to Leonora of Anjou, but the
bethroal was broken in 1300 so that the Leonora can marry the King of
Sicily. Philip died quickly after, without posterity

On this family and his Oriental connections see J. Longnon, 'Les Toucy
en Orient et en Italie au treizième siècle', in Bulletin de la
société des sciences historiques et naturelles de l'Yonne, 96
(1953-1956), pp. 33-43.

Pierre

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 15 jul 2006 13:32:46

WJhonson@aol.com a écrit :

In a message dated 7/14/06 5:55:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
akrogiali@westnet.com.au writes:

What was the name of the daughter??? If he married Narjot De Toucy, how
come
she also had a son called Narjot? Who married Lucy of Poitiers, Princess of
Antioch. They had a son named Philip (after his grandfather??) who married
Eleanor of Sicily

Her name is unrecorded.
She married Narjot de Toucy, Lord of Bazarnes who d 1241

His father's name was also Narjot de Toucy and the mother was Agnes Dampierre

At least that is the traditional filiation given to him, but it seems
that Narjot, son of Narjot of Toucy and of Agnès (what is the source
to make her a Dampierre?), was already dead in 1217, in which case he
can not be the baron of the Empire of Constantinople who married
Theodôros Branas' daughter. I have not investigate the question
however.

Pierre

Gjest

Re: Jane Chauncey, widow of Bishop of Sodor and Mann

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2006 18:46:39

Douglas:

This is taken from the records of the Haberdashers Company of London.

Some other apprentices there who were connected to New England:

Edward Johnson of Woburn, Mass. (apprenticed 1615),
Roland Cotton, brother of Rev. John Cotton (1603)
The Umfravilles of Ewell, Surrey, ancestral to the family of
that name at New Haven, Ct. (1609 and 1637/8)
Samuel Fawne, brother of John Fawne of Ipswich, Mass (1623)
Caleb son of Philip Verin of Salem, Mass (1633)

Leslie


Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Leslie ~

Thank you for sharing this information on the Burrough family. What is
the source?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

lmahler@att.net wrote:
Heres another small item that might be of interest:

Nathaniel Burrowe son of George Burrowe of Pettaugh Suffolk, clerk
was apprenticed to Jermyn Pynde of the Haberdashers Company of
London on 22 Aug 1634.


Best wishes,

Leslie

Douglas Richardson

Re: Early Frevilles of Tamworth & Cambridgeshire: a re-evalu

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 15 jul 2006 18:57:17

Dear Newsgroup ~

Although the secondary sources have muddled the early history of the
Freville family, the line of descent is actually quite clear if one
studies the descent of lands.

The head of this family, Baldwin de Freville (died 1257) married (1st)
Lucy de Scalers, by whom he had one son, Richard (died 1299), of Caxton
and Shelford, Cambridgeshire, Munden-Freville, Hertfordshire.
Following Lucy's death, he married (2nd) Maud Giffard, daughter of Hugh
Giffard, of Boyton, Wiltshire, by Sibyl, daughter and co-heiress of
Walter de Cormeilles, of Weston-under-Edge, Taddington, etc., co.
Gloucester. Baldwin (died 1257) had two sons by his 2nd marriage to
Maud Giffard, namely Sir Baldwin (who died without issue in 1289), and
Sir Alexander (died 1328), of Tamworth. Maud Giffard married (2nd)
William Devereux, Knt., of Holme Lacy, Herefordshire, who was slain at
the Battle of Evesham 4 August 1265. They had further issue. In 1286
Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester, granted Maud Devereux and Sibyl,
her daughter, an acre of land in the field of Wyston, which after their
deaths should go to the prioress and nuns of Wyston. Maud died 20
August 1297.

That Sir Alexander de Freville was the son of Maud Giffard is proven by
two records. First, I find that Alexander had a grant of land in
Marden, Herefordshire from his uncle, Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of
Winchester. Second, Sir Alexander was heir through his mother to a
one-sixth share of the barony of Tarrington, Herefordshire, which lands
were Giffard estates.

I find that Sir Alexander de Freville (died 1328) and his wife, Joan
Cromwell, had issue one son, Sir Baldwin de Freville (died 1343), of
Tamworth, and two daughters, Margaret (wife of Sir Henry de Wilington)
and Elizabeth (wife of Eustace de Whitney).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry. net

Gjest

Re: Early Frevilles of Tamworth & Cambridgeshire: a re-evalu

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2006 19:36:24

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Although the secondary sources have muddled the early history of the
Freville family, the line of descent is actually quite clear if one
studies the descent of lands.

The head of this family, Baldwin de Freville (died 1257) married (1st)
Lucy de Scalers, by whom he had one son, Richard (died 1299), of Caxton
and Shelford, Cambridgeshire, Munden-Freville, Hertfordshire.
Following Lucy's death, he married (2nd) Maud Giffard, daughter of Hugh
Giffard, of Boyton, Wiltshire, by Sibyl, daughter and co-heiress of
Walter de Cormeilles, of Weston-under-Edge, Taddington, etc., co.
Gloucester. Baldwin (died 1257) had two sons by his 2nd marriage to
Maud Giffard, namely Sir Baldwin (who died without issue in 1289), and
Sir Alexander (died 1328), of Tamworth. Maud Giffard married (2nd)
William Devereux, Knt., of Holme Lacy, Herefordshire, who was slain at
the Battle of Evesham 4 August 1265. They had further issue. In 1286
Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester, granted Maud Devereux and Sibyl,
her daughter, an acre of land in the field of Wyston, which after their
deaths should go to the prioress and nuns of Wyston. Maud died 20
August 1297.

That Sir Alexander de Freville was the son of Maud Giffard is proven by
two records. First, I find that Alexander had a grant of land in
Marden, Herefordshire from his uncle, Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of
Winchester. Second, Sir Alexander was heir through his mother to a
one-sixth share of the barony of Tarrington, Herefordshire, which lands
were Giffard estates.

I find that Sir Alexander de Freville (died 1328) and his wife, Joan
Cromwell, had issue one son, Sir Baldwin de Freville (died 1343), of
Tamworth, and two daughters, Margaret (wife of Sir Henry de Wilington)
and Elizabeth (wife of Eustace de Whitney).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Douglas

Many thanks for your informative response. The only element of this
that doesn't immediately make sense is the Patent Rolls entry for 1253,
viz "confirmation of a sale by Baldwin de Freville to Sibyl Giffard of
the marriage of his son and heir".

Assuming this Baldwin, living in 1253, to be Baldwin (died 1257)
husband of Lucy de Scalers, the son and heir must be Richard de
Freville (died 1299). Rather than viewing it as a reference to Maud
Giffard's marriage, perhaps we should read it to mean that Baldwin was
already married to Maud Giffard, and sold the marriage of his underage
heir to the latter's step-grandmother - a most curious transaction.
And thus perhaps Richard's otherwise unidentified wife Mabel was a
connection of the Giffard family.

Regards, Michael

Patricia Junkin

Re: " Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Re

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 15 jul 2006 20:45:49

It seems from your other evidence, the name may very well be Dixwell or
variant. It would help to know who held the other third part and I can offer
that Boys is also Bosco and Bois.
One note for Herts.
E 40/5416
Grant by Robert de Becco, rector of the church of Wethmull, to Richard the
prior, and the convent of Holy Trinity, London, in frank almoin, of the land
described in E40/5415. Witnesses:- Sir John de Marines, Richard de Bosco,
and others (named): [Herts]

Pat

----------
From: "mep33" <mep33@sbcglobal.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: " Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record"-
H.C. Maxwe...
Date: Fri, 14, 2006, 9:44 PM



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/14/06 3:55:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

John DESEVILL

My first impression would be "de Seville"

Will Johnson

Hi Will,
My premise is based on threads of information from 2 sources.
1st -Burke's Extinct & Dormant Baronetcies [ on DIXWELL] which reads:
This family originally of Dixwell Hall & lords of the manor of Dixwell
co., Hertford; possesed the estate until the begining of the reign of
King Richard when they exchanged it with John of Durham for the
manor of Great Munden.
2nd- History of the County of Hertford vol 3.British History on line:
Munden Furnival seems to have bem held by John & Agnes DURHAM who
conveyed it in 1389 to Margaret, dau. of Cecily & Guy de BOYS, & her
husband Robert DYKESWELL.[ I think the surname here is also DIXWELL]
3rd - Calendar of Close Rolls 12 April 1336 - John DESEVILL and the 2
parts of the manor of Great Munden & the advowson of 2 parts of the
church & of the priory of Ronnheye[ Rowney]

Slim threads but a possibility that DESEVILL in this case is DIXWELL.
The timeline seems appropriate.
Hope to learn more if I can locate the inquistion of the escheator or
other orders in the Calendar Rolls under 10 Edawrd III.

Gjest

Re: " Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Re

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 jul 2006 22:35:21

Thank you so much for your response.
It appears I have been " in the right church, wrong pew" After
reviewing all my notes and rereading the collected records it now
appears that DESEVILL is a corruption of De OSEVILL, and the De
OSEVILLS were owners of the manor of Munden Furnival as well as Great
Munden at one time. Margaret de BOYS was the daughter of Guy de BOYS &
Cecily De OSEVILL.
The following from the "history of the County of Hertfordshire" vol
3.,& also British HX on line shows:
"In 1285 Gerard de Furnivall had created a further sub-tenancy by
conveying the manor to John de Kirkeby, Bishop of Ely, for the yearly
rent of a pair of gilt spurs or 6d. (fn. 18) John died in 1290, and was
succeeded by his brother William de Kirkeby, (fn. 19) who lived until
1302. At this time a third of the manor was in the hands of Mathania,
the second wife of John de Cobham, (fn. 20) but the remainder passed on
the division of William's inheritance between his sisters to Margaret,
wife of Walter de Osevill, (fn. 21) with the reversion of Mathania's
third and the third held in dower by Christine de Kirkeby, William's
widow. (fn. 22) In 1304 Walter and Margaret de Osevill settled Munden
Furnivall upon their sons John and Henry and the heirs of Henry. (fn.
23) Henry de Osevill died before 1334, (fn. 24) when his widow Alice
held one third and his brother John, who survived him until 1335, held
the other two thirds. (fn. 25) Eventually the whole came to John son of
Henry de Osevill. Cecily his daughter and heiress married Guy de Boys,
(fn. 26) who was holding the manor in right of his wife in 1350. (fn.
27) He died before 1370, in which year Cecily was holding it alone.
(fn. 28) After her death Munden Furnivall seems to have been held by
John and Agnes Durham, (fn. 29) who conveyed it in 1389 to Margaret,
daughter of Cecily and Guy de Boys, and her husband Robert Dykeswell.
(fn. 30) Margaret married secondly Henry Hayward, (fn. 31) and thirdly,
before 1419, Walter Pejon or Pegeon. (fn. 32) She was succeeded by
Thomas Hayward or Howard, her son by her second husband. (fn. 33)
Thomas died shortly before 1447, when the manor of Great Munden was
conveyed by trustees to Sir John Fray, chief baron of the Exchequer.
(fn. 34) He also made himself secure against the claims of various
heirs of Thomas Howard. (fn. 35) In 1460, however, he was obliged to
sue Simon Rode and Joan his wife for illegal entry by force into the
manor. Joan claimed that she was the heir of Mabel Grimbaud, one of the
sisters of Walter de Osevill, upon whom the manor had been entailed
failing the heirs of Henry de Osevill. (fn. 36) The claim was not
successful, for Sir John Fray died seised of Great Munden in the
following year. (fn. 37)

Marge
"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
It seems from your other evidence, the name may very well be Dixwell or
variant. It would help to know who held the other third part and I can offer
that Boys is also Bosco and Bois.
One note for Herts.
E 40/5416
Grant by Robert de Becco, rector of the church of Wethmull, to Richard the
prior, and the convent of Holy Trinity, London, in frank almoin, of the land
described in E40/5415. Witnesses:- Sir John de Marines, Richard de Bosco,
and others (named): [Herts]

Pat

----------
From: "mep33" <mep33@sbcglobal.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: " Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record"-
H.C. Maxwe...
Date: Fri, 14, 2006, 9:44 PM



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/14/06 3:55:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

John DESEVILL

My first impression would be "de Seville"

Will Johnson

Hi Will,
My premise is based on threads of information from 2 sources.
1st -Burke's Extinct & Dormant Baronetcies [ on DIXWELL] which reads:
This family originally of Dixwell Hall & lords of the manor of Dixwell
co., Hertford; possesed the estate until the begining of the reign of
King Richard when they exchanged it with John of Durham for the
manor of Great Munden.
2nd- History of the County of Hertford vol 3.British History on line:
Munden Furnival seems to have bem held by John & Agnes DURHAM who
conveyed it in 1389 to Margaret, dau. of Cecily & Guy de BOYS, & her
husband Robert DYKESWELL.[ I think the surname here is also DIXWELL]
3rd - Calendar of Close Rolls 12 April 1336 - John DESEVILL and the 2
parts of the manor of Great Munden & the advowson of 2 parts of the
church & of the priory of Ronnheye[ Rowney]

Slim threads but a possibility that DESEVILL in this case is DIXWELL.
The timeline seems appropriate.
Hope to learn more if I can locate the inquistion of the escheator or
other orders in the Calendar Rolls under 10 Edawrd III.

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2006 05:19:29

Peter Stewart wrote:
But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

If he was the son of a first wife, Adalbert was presumably born in 1104 or
1105. The marriage of St Leopold to Agnes did take place in 1106, and she
was in her 34th year (though maybe not yet turned 34) at the time.

What is the source for the statement that she was in her 34th year on
the occasion of her second marriage?

From I.S. Robinson's biography of her father, "Henry IV of Germany",
Agnes was born 1072/1073 to Henry IV and Bertha of Savoy. Brothers

Konrad (1074) and the future Henry V (1086) followed, along with two
children, Adelaide and Henry, who died in infancy. Bertha died in 1087.
In 1079, Agnes was betrothed to Frederick of Bueren, who her father had
recently appointed Duke of Swabia. When Frederick died in summer 1105,
Otto of Freising relates that his and Agnes' sons Frederick and Konrad
were fifteen and twelve, respectively.

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 jul 2006 06:08:01

<Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153023569.278774.49810@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
But for dates, they say she was born in 1072/3, late 1072 and Summer
1072 (Brandenburg says 1174/5) and her first son was born when she was
16. The only given date for the 1st marriage is 1086 so you should
check where your 1080 came from.
The second marriage was in 1106, when she was 34, Adalbert was born in
1107 and the last one when she was 46.

If he was the son of a first wife, Adalbert was presumably born in 1104
or
1105. The marriage of St Leopold to Agnes did take place in 1106, and she
was in her 34th year (though maybe not yet turned 34) at the time.

What is the source for the statement that she was in her 34th year on
the occasion of her second marriage?

Deduction - she was born in 1072/3 and married for the second time in 1106.

Peter Stewart


From I.S. Robinson's biography of her father, "Henry IV of Germany",
Agnes was born 1072/1073 to Henry IV and Bertha of Savoy. Brothers
Konrad (1074) and the future Henry V (1086) followed, along with two
children, Adelaide and Henry, who died in infancy. Bertha died in 1087.
In 1079, Agnes was betrothed to Frederick of Bueren, who her father had
recently appointed Duke of Swabia. When Frederick died in summer 1105,
Otto of Freising relates that his and Agnes' sons Frederick and Konrad
were fifteen and twelve, respectively.

Gjest

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2006 08:48:30

In a message dated 7/15/2006 5:41:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:

At least that is the traditional filiation given to him, but it seems
that Narjot, son of Narjot of Toucy and of Agnès (what is the source
to make her a Dampierre?),


Pierre on the widely excoriated and yet useful (in this regard) website
_http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDIAN%20NOBILITY.htm_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUND ... BILITY.htm)

we see this statement: "She is named wife of Narjot [II] in the late 13th
century cartulary of Crisenon_[1078]_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUND ... m#_ftn1078) . "Footnote 1078 reads : "Bouchard, p. 375. "

The website makes her Agnes de Dampierre dau of Guy by his wife Helvide de
Baudemont.

The quote is not sufficiently detailed to determine if the cartulary
actually calls her Dampierre, or if it merely calls her Agnes, since it does not
quote the cartulary.

But this, is where I got my source, that she was Dampierre.

Will Johnson

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 16 jul 2006 10:23:45

WJhonson@aol.com a écrit :

In a message dated 7/15/2006 5:41:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:

At least that is the traditional filiation given to him, but it seems
that Narjot, son of Narjot of Toucy and of Agnès (what is the source
to make her a Dampierre?),


Pierre on the widely excoriated and yet useful (in this regard) website
_http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDIAN%20NOBILITY.htm_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUND ... BILITY.htm)

we see this statement: "She is named wife of Narjot [II] in the late 13th
century cartulary of Crisenon_[1078]_
(http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUND ... m#_ftn1078) . "Footnote 1078 reads : "Bouchard, p. 375. "

The website makes her Agnes de Dampierre dau of Guy by his wife Helvide de
Baudemont.

The quote is not sufficiently detailed to determine if the cartulary
actually calls her Dampierre, or if it merely calls her Agnes, since it does not
quote the cartulary.

Except the reference is to Constance B. Bouchard, Sword, Miter, and
Cloister. Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980-1198, Ithaca and
London 1987, who, on page 375, indeed says Narjot II "was succeeded by
his son Itier III, born to his wife Agnes (Crisenon 38, 41 [fols
14-15r]", but does NOT call her "Agnes of Dampierre"! It is obvious
that the author of MedLands has made a muddle here again by combining
an identification from undocumented genealogies ("Agnes of Dampierre")
with a source quotation picked in a serious book which does not sustain
the identification. If there is a source, it is not that one.

Pierre

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #588

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 16 jul 2006 16:31:54

In message of 16 Jul, Roemer222@aol.com wrote:

Does anyone know the parents of Oliver Fitton? He received a moiety
of Old Withington in Cheshire from Robert de Camville of Clifton
Camville, Staffordshire, in 1266? The other half was granted to Sir
John de Baskervyle.

I wonder if you found this in Ormerod's Cheshire (Vol iii, pp. 717-9)?
Anyhow he gives no more information on Oliver Fitton than you do, apart
from stating that the Baskervilles later inherited the whole which
indicates that Oliver's line died out - and also that he and John
Baskerville must have married sisters and co-heirs.


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

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #588

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jul 2006 17:23:29

Hi,

Does anyone know the parents of Oliver Fitton? He received a moiety of Old
Withington in Cheshire from Robert de Camville of Clifton Camville,
Staffordshire, in 1266? The other half was granted to Sir John de Baskervyle.

Kay Baganoff

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2006 02:49:24

Peter Stewart wrote:
Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
What is the source for the statement that she was in her 34th year on
the occasion of her second marriage?

Deduction - she was born in 1072/3 and married for the second time in 1106.

Ah, I thought you were implying there was a chronicle that stated she
was in her 34th year on her second wedding day.

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jul 2006 05:33:48

<Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153100964.568513.310180@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
What is the source for the statement that she was in her 34th year on
the occasion of her second marriage?

Deduction - she was born in 1072/3 and married for the second time in
1106.

Ah, I thought you were implying there was a chronicle that stated she
was in her 34th year on her second wedding day.

There is a smigeon less doubt over this than would be the case if a
chronicle did in fact write she was in her 34th year (although there may be
such a statement for all I know).

Medieval monks were erratic in their counting of years, often approximating
vaguely or confusing ordinal & cardinal numbering. On the other hand we know
the AD of her second marriage (1106) and we know that she was born between
one brother who was born at the beginning of August 1071 and another who was
born on 12 February 1074, ergo in 1072/3. Arithmetic does the rest, as
securely as any chronicler. Explicit sources account for much but not all of
our knowledge concerning medieval people, especially those whose families
were as prominent as that of the Salian emperors.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2006 06:37:28

Peter Stewart wrote:
Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153100964.568513.310180@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Peter Stewart wrote:
Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
What is the source for the statement that she was in her 34th year on
the occasion of her second marriage?

Deduction - she was born in 1072/3 and married for the second time in
1106.

Ah, I thought you were implying there was a chronicle that stated she
was in her 34th year on her second wedding day.

There is a smigeon less doubt over this than would be the case if a
chronicle did in fact write she was in her 34th year (although there may be
such a statement for all I know).

Medieval monks were erratic in their counting of years, often approximating
vaguely or confusing ordinal & cardinal numbering. On the other hand we know
the AD of her second marriage (1106) and we know that she was born between
one brother who was born at the beginning of August 1071 and another who was
born on 12 February 1074, ergo in 1072/3. Arithmetic does the rest, as
securely as any chronicler. Explicit sources account for much but not all of
our knowledge concerning medieval people, especially those whose families
were as prominent as that of the Salian emperors.

Peter Stewart

I see. The brother that was born in August 1071 -- that would be Henry,
who died in infancy, correct? Conrad was born in 1074, and the future
Henry V in 1081. There was another child who died in infancy, Adelaide,
who I presume was born between Conrad and Henry V.

Peter Stewart

Re: Frederick VI of Swabia (1167-1191)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jul 2006 07:19:06

<Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153100885.221594.77640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Frederick VI was the eldest surviving son of Frederick Barbarossa and
Beatrice of Burgundy. He died in 1191, at Acre, of a nasty case of
dysentery. (Annales Colonienses Maximi). I just have two questions:

What was the name of the Hungarian princess Frederick married while on
his journey to the Holy Land? She was a daughter of Bela III and Agnes
of Chatillon, was she identical to another known daughter of theirs?

Also, was Frederick given another name at birth? Barbarossa and
Beatrice already had a son, Frederick (1164-1170) at his birth in 1167.

There are several details to be amended here:

Frederick VI was not the eldest surviving son of Barbarossa and Beatrix of
Burgundy, but rather the next-younger brother of Emperor Heinrich VI who was
the eldest surviving son after the death of Frederick V, duke of Swabia
(born at Pavia on 16 July 1164, died between July & December 1169).

Frederick VI was baptised Konrad, and this was changed to Frederick
presumably between late 1169 and the birth of his younger brother Konrad II,
duke of Rothenburg & Swabia, ca February/March 1172.

The chronology of the family given above was established by Erwin Assmann in
'Friedrich Barbarossas Kinder', _Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des
Mittelalters_ 33 (1077). However, I notice that ES I/1 table 15 has chosen
to give the previously accepted date of 1170 for the birth of the younger
Konrad.

As far as I recall Frederick VI is not supposed to have actually married a
Hungarian princess, or anyone else for that matter. Does your sources give
this a definite marriage, or merely a betrothal?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Children of Agnes of Germany, dau of Emperor Henry IV

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jul 2006 07:29:57

<Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153114647.960175.131780@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153100964.568513.310180@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Peter Stewart wrote:
Mississippienne@gmail.com> wrote in message
What is the source for the statement that she was in her 34th year
on
the occasion of her second marriage?

Deduction - she was born in 1072/3 and married for the second time in
1106.

Ah, I thought you were implying there was a chronicle that stated she
was in her 34th year on her second wedding day.

There is a smigeon less doubt over this than would be the case if a
chronicle did in fact write she was in her 34th year (although there may
be
such a statement for all I know).

Medieval monks were erratic in their counting of years, often
approximating
vaguely or confusing ordinal & cardinal numbering. On the other hand we
know
the AD of her second marriage (1106) and we know that she was born
between
one brother who was born at the beginning of August 1071 and another who
was
born on 12 February 1074, ergo in 1072/3. Arithmetic does the rest, as
securely as any chronicler. Explicit sources account for much but not all
of
our knowledge concerning medieval people, especially those whose families
were as prominent as that of the Salian emperors.

Peter Stewart

I see. The brother that was born in August 1071 -- that would be Henry,
who died in infancy, correct? Conrad was born in 1074, and the future
Henry V in 1081. There was another child who died in infancy, Adelaide,
who I presume was born between Conrad and Henry V.

Henry was born on 1 or 2 August & died on 24 September 1071. He was not the
first child of his mother.

Konrad was born on 12 February 1074 and then there was not another child
until Henry V.

This leaves either Adelaide or Agnes to be born in the interval 1072/3.
Agnes is far more likely to have been the younger of the two, given the
number of children she had after 1106. Some authorities state unequivocally
that Adelaide was born in 1070, but I haven't noted (or looked into) the
source for this.

Peter Stewart

Derek Howard

Re: New member / van der Linden, Baron de Hooghvorst

Legg inn av Derek Howard » 17 jul 2006 11:19:30

"Robin Easton" wrote:
Hi

I am new to this list but have found its messages useful. My first message
is about the van d der Lidnen family. I'm looking for information about them
in the 1500s and before that. They were a prominent family in Louvain,
Belgium. I find a wealth of information about the later barons on the Net,
but nothing about the earlier one.

Their arms are shown here
http://www.wazamar.org/Familiewapens-in ... #JvdLinden>:

"In rood een schildhoofd van zilver beladen met drie naar rechts hellende
klophamers van zwart."

I'm interested as to how Cornelia van der Linden, born about 1560, spouse of
Lambert Lamberti, merchant in Antwerpen, was related to this family. She had
exactly the same coat of arms.

Regards
Rob

I cannot answer the question in detail but can perhaps add a few
elements to the frame.

Jean van der Lijnden, échevin of Louvain in 1418, 1419 1423, 1426,
1434, bore on his seal arms: "diaper, chargé en coer d'un macle, au
chef chargé de trois maillets penchés".

Jean van der Lijnden, échevin of Louvin bore on his seal in 1436 "un
macle en coeur au chef chargé de trois maillets penchés".

Rasse van der Lijnden, échevin of Louvain in 1513, 1515, 1528 bore on
his seal "une coquille en coeur enclos d'un macle au chef chargé de
trois maillets penchés".

Johannes van der Lijnden, échevin de Louvain in 1539, 1545 and 1546
when also called "meester" and "magister" bore on his seal "un macle au
chef chargé de trois maillets penchés".

Jean van der Lijnden, chevalier, échevin of Louvain bore in 1554 "un
(grand) macle, fruste, au chef chargé de trois maillets penchés". (De
Raadt, Sceaux armoriés des Pays-Bas et des pays avoisinants, II H-M,
1900, 360. Referring to various sources but to most of above to the
Abbey of Sainte Gertrude, at Louvain).

There is an heraldic difference however with the later family of the
Barons of Hooghevorst. There may well be a close relationship given the
similarities but a direct descent from the head of the Louvain family
is not obvious from the heraldry for the central charge in the 15th and
16th century arms is dropped.

La théatre de la noblesse du Brabant, 2nd edition, Liège 1705,
indicates that

Messire Ferdinand Vander Linden, Waumaistre of the forests of Brabant
was created chevalier by letters patent on 7 Dec 1627.

Messire Philippe Vander Linden, Waumaistre of Brabant was created
chevalier by letters patent of 9 Dec 1643 (son of the above Ferdinand).


Philippe Vander Linden, Waumaistre or Forestier of Brabant son of
Philippe, (living) Forestier of Brabant, was granted permission by
letters patent of 3 Aug 1649 to add supporters to his arms. Shield:
"gueulles au chef d'argent chargé de trios maillets panchants de
sable". Supporters : a lion to dexter and a leopard to sinister. Also
to substitute a crest coronet for the wreath on his helmet. (La
théatre, gives a genealogy from Messire Ferdinand Vander Linden,
Chevalier, Forestier de Brabant, father of Messire Philippe Vander
Linden, Chevalier, Forestier de Brabant, father of Jean Philippe Vander
Linden, Seigneur de Hooghevorst, Forestier de Brabant, died 23 Oct
1663, married Marie Françoise Verreycken daughter of Claude, and had
son Philippe Vande Linden, Baron of Hooghvorst, Seigneur of Marness,
etc.

The supporters are illustrated bearing banners - dexter that of the
arms of Vander Linden and sinister Or a fess Azure between three
mallets Gules - with the sinister supporter bearing a collar
(Jurisprudentia Heroica, 1668, 230).

The letters patent for the erection of the barony of Hooghevorst in
favour of Philippe vander Linden, 27 Sep 1663, describe him as
Chevalier grand Forestier of Brabant for the previous 32 years
(suggesting he took the post 1631), his father having held the same
post for 50 (presumably overlapping his son rather than prior to 1631,
so from 1613), and the deceased grandfather the same post. It recites
his military career and mentions the grantee's brother Mathieu killed
in battle. Philippe is said to be descended by "succession de temps &
representation de personnes" from the Dukes of Brabant via "Dame
Jenne de Dongleberghe femme de Godfrey, de Marnes, Seigneur & Dame du
dit lieu & de Servin, ses quart ayeuls paternels" he is given as
related to several illustrious houses of Germany both on his side and
through his wife Dame Marie Françoise vander Eyken. (La théatre, p.
67). Philippe is said to have received the title from the king 14 Nov
1663 (Jurisprudentia Heroica, 230).

As an aside, the Van der Linden arms were displayed in Louvain in a
memorial to Francis de Sain Victor, chevalier and lord of Bommelettes.
An Anna vander Linden daughter of the chevalier Jean and of Catherine
de Marnes, daughter of the lord of Bomelettes, married Paul de Steelant
and had a daughter who carried forward the Bomelettes estates being the
mother of Francis (Jurisprudentia Heroica, 420).

As for the Lamberti of Antwerp, a certain Jean Baptiste Cornille
Lamberti obtained letters patent of 3 Aug 1654 for a
"rehabilitation" of noblesse of the noble family of Lamberti of
Bologna in Italy, with new enoblement as far as required and the arms
of his predecessors. According to the patent, the family claimed use of
the sovereign arms of Arragon on the pretext of a Lombardy origin and
lengthy public display - but this exposed as false and the family
forced to renounce the rehabilitation of nobility which left them with
only the enoblement without arms. The family name (at least of this
family) was in truth Lambrechts rather than Lamberti. JBCL married
Marie Catherine Fredericx. He was the son of Jean Baptiste Lamberti,
seigneur of Grushove and mayor of Halen (Hal) in Brabant who married
Jeanne d'Ittre. JBL was in turn son of Gilles Lamberti, concierge of
the Town Hall in Antwerp and husband of Marie Pollaerts. (La theatre).
Perhaps it is best to be cautious of the heraldic claims of the
Lamberti.

Derek Howard

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Is There A Term For This Relationship?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 jul 2006 17:40:37

Why don't you work out a New Genealogical Nomenclature System and then sell
it to the cognoscenti.

Twit!

Et Pogue Rampant...

DSH

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"A. Gwilliam" <frederick@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153149448.314616.262090@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Jenny M Benson wrote:
A. Gwilliam wrote
It doesn't really make sense that the description of the relationship
would be the same for each, since the nature of their relationship is
different from their respective points of view. Or is the logic that
you count down generations from the common ancestor until you meet the
first person you're interested in, and that's the basis for stating the
relationship between him or her and anyone else? If so, then it's an
even more lousy system than I'd realised!

You start with two people who are siblings (therefore of the same
generation) and count down the generations until you reach the people
you are interested in. Down one generation is 1st cousins, 2
generations 2nd cousins and so on. Very logical I think.

I agree that part is logical.

If and when you get to the "interesting person" on one side and have to
go further (generation(s) to reach the other "interesting person" then
you start once removed (1 generation difference), twice removed (2
generations difference) etc. I think that is also very logical.

This is where it falls apart, though!

Let's call the OP's wife "Gill" and his friend "Tom", and ignore the
step-relationship. If we're told that Gill and Tom are third cousins,
once removed, we cannot unambiguously identify the generation of the
common ancestor in relation to either; it could be one of Gill's g. g.
grandparents or one of her g. g. g. grandparents, and conversely it
could be one of Tom's g. g. grandparents or one of his g. g. g.
grandparents. Combine this with the lack of gender marking and you can
hopefully see why I said that this was a lousy system!

--
AGw.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Is There A Term For This Relationship?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 17 jul 2006 18:25:02

Why don't you work out a New Genealogical Nomenclature System and then sell
it to the cognoscenti.

Twit!

Et Pogue Rampant...

DSH

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"A. Gwilliam" <frederick@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153149448.314616.262090@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Jenny M Benson wrote:
A. Gwilliam wrote
It doesn't really make sense that the description of the relationship
would be the same for each, since the nature of their relationship is
different from their respective points of view. Or is the logic that
you count down generations from the common ancestor until you meet the
first person you're interested in, and that's the basis for stating the
relationship between him or her and anyone else? If so, then it's an
even more lousy system than I'd realised!

You start with two people who are siblings (therefore of the same
generation) and count down the generations until you reach the people
you are interested in. Down one generation is 1st cousins, 2
generations 2nd cousins and so on. Very logical I think.

I agree that part is logical.

If and when you get to the "interesting person" on one side and have to
go further (generation(s) to reach the other "interesting person" then
you start once removed (1 generation difference), twice removed (2
generations difference) etc. I think that is also very logical.

This is where it falls apart, though!

Let's call the OP's wife "Gill" and his friend "Tom", and ignore the
step-relationship. If we're told that Gill and Tom are third cousins,
once removed, we cannot unambiguously identify the generation of the
common ancestor in relation to either; it could be one of Gill's g. g.
grandparents or one of her g. g. g. grandparents, and conversely it
could be one of Tom's g. g. grandparents or one of his g. g. g.
grandparents. Combine this with the lack of gender marking and you can
hopefully see why I said that this was a lousy system!

--
AGw.

Gjest

Re: Regarding Fitz Hugh and Willoughby marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2006 22:40:03

In a message dated 7/17/06 1:18:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sysite@swbell.net writes:

<< The Bradley web site states that Joan Fitz Hugh, born 1438, Ravensworth,
North Riding, Yorkshire, to Robert Willoughby and Elizabeth Montagu,
married Sir John Scrope, Lord Scrope on 22 Nov 1447. >>


All of the things you cited could be simultaneously correct.
Robert the 6th Lord Willoughby of Eresby did not die until 25 Jul 1452
(stirnet) while his first wife (note they wouldn't say "1st" unless there was a
"2nd" hiding somewhere) was dead by 1423.

So presumably it could be that Joan FitzHugh, dau of Henry 3rd Lord FitzHugh
was a second marriage for Robert.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes of France, Empress of Constantinople b 1171

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2006 22:55:03

In a message dated 7/16/06 2:26:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:

<< Except the reference is to Constance B. Bouchard, Sword, Miter, and
Cloister. Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980-1198, Ithaca and
London 1987, who, on page 375, indeed says Narjot II "was succeeded by
his son Itier III, born to his wife Agnes (Crisenon 38, 41 [fols
14-15r]", but does NOT call her "Agnes of Dampierre"! >>

Thank you Pierre for checking that source. I would forward this to the
Medlands project so they could clarify their entry, but so far, I've only gotten one
vague, response from the secretary or something of the FMG, and no response
at all from the author of Medlands on my various emails to them :)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Early Frevilles of Tamworth & Cambridgeshire: a re-evalu

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jul 2006 23:41:02

In a message dated 7/15/06 11:41:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Rather than viewing it as a reference to Maud
Giffard's marriage, perhaps we should read it to mean that Baldwin was
already married to Maud Giffard, and sold the marriage of his underage
heir to the latter's step-grandmother >>

Why could not "Sibyl Gifford" be Maud's mother Sibyl (Cormeilles) Gifford ?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Is There A Term For This Relationship?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 jul 2006 00:10:00

Dead Wrong.

DSH

"Robert G. Eldridge" <robert.eldridge@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:v15ob29a3o3e9d3vb45f6aagttr19v0gdi@4ax.com...

Therefore if you were told "that Gill and Tom are third cousins,
once removed" then you were not told correctly.

--
Bob

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Is There A Term For This Relationship?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 jul 2006 00:26:35

"Robert G. Eldridge" <robert.eldridge@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:v15ob29a3o3e9d3vb45f6aagttr19v0gdi@4ax.com...

Two people can be cousins, 2nd cousins etc without the need to be
specific but when there is a removal in the description then a single
person is described as a second cousin once removed (or whatever) in
respect of the other person.

Therefore if you were told "that Gill and Tom are third cousins,
once removed" then you were not told correctly.

--
Bob

Dead Wrong.

Horse Manure.

DSH
----------------------------------------------------

Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest:

Gill is the son of Sam and Bill is the son of David.

Sam and David are brothers -- the children of Winston and Sarah.

Gill and Bill are 1st cousins.

Bill has a son, Tom.

Gill and Tom are 1st cousins, once removed.

The relationship works both ways.

Now Memorize That Carefully & Don't Post Any More Ignorant Gibberish Here.

John 5:14.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Gjest

Re: John Say of Sawbridgeworth

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jul 2006 03:11:01

Is John Say of Sawbridgeworth who d 4 Oct 1478
the same person as
Sir John Say who married Agnes the widow of Sir John Fray, Chief Baron of
the Exchequor d 1461

Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Early Frevilles of Tamworth & Cambridgeshire: a re-evalu

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 jul 2006 06:35:08

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 7/15/06 11:41:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Rather than viewing it as a reference to Maud
Giffard's marriage, perhaps we should read it to mean that Baldwin was
already married to Maud Giffard, and sold the marriage of his underage
heir to the latter's step-grandmother

Why could not "Sibyl Gifford" be Maud's mother Sibyl (Cormeilles) Gifford ?

She would be; in my post, "the latter" refers to "(the) underage son
and heir" not to Maud Giffard.

MA-R

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: John Say of Sawbridgeworth

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 jul 2006 09:48:19

In message of 18 Jul, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Is John Say of Sawbridgeworth who d 4 Oct 1478
the same person as
Sir John Say who married Agnes the widow of Sir John Fray, Chief Baron of
the Exchequor d 1461

Yes. Agnes dau. of John Danvers. See Say's article in 1st edn of DNB
(or maybe 2nd but I don't have that available.)


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

Robin Easton

Re: New member / van der Linden, Baron de Hooghvorst

Legg inn av Robin Easton » 18 jul 2006 10:10:02

Thanks for your reply. The arms of Lamberti and van Linden are illustrated
in 'Geslachtlijst der familie Ghysbrechts. Met geschiedkundige
bijzonderheden haar betreffende Mechelen' by O. Le Maire (Mechelen 1930).
The arms are copied from a 17th century family tree. Lamberti's wife was
actually named van Linden, but there's nothing mentioned about her family in
the book. I'll try to find a clue in Antwerpen records. Arms of this
Lamberti family was Or a bend gules dexter, but the bend is a bit crooked to
dexter. Don't have any idea what that's called.

Robin

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Is There A Term For This Relationship?

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 jul 2006 22:58:58

"Robert G. Eldridge" <robert.eldridge@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:v15ob29a3o3e9d3vb45f6aagttr19v0gdi@4ax.com...

Two people can be cousins, 2nd cousins etc without the need to be
specific but when there is a removal in the description then a single
person is described as a second cousin once removed (or whatever) in
respect of the other person.

Therefore if you were told "that Gill and Tom are third cousins,
once removed" then you were not told correctly.

--
Bob

Dead Wrong.

Horse Manure.

DSH
----------------------------------------------------

Read, Mark, Learn And Inwardly Digest:

Gill is the son of Sam and Bill is the son of David.

Sam and David are brothers -- the children of Winston and Sarah.

Gill and Bill are 1st cousins.

Bill has a son, Tom.

Gill and Tom are 1st cousins, once removed.

The relationship works both ways.

Now Memorize That Carefully & Don't Post Any More Ignorant Gibberish Here.

John 5:14.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Gjest

Re: Regarding Fitz Hugh and Willoughby marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jul 2006 01:50:03

In a message dated 7/18/06 11:29:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sysite@swbell.net writes:

<< But, if Joan Fitz Hugh (daughter of Henry Fitz Hugh and
Elizabeth Gray) was Robt Willoughby's first wife, it would seem probable
that her birth year was within say ten years of his, >>

It might help to try to find documentation to pin down the ages of Elizabeth
Grey's children. That might lead to a better idea of when they married and
whether it's possible that Joan belongs here, or one generation back as sister
to Henry
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Say of Sawbridge, etc.

Legg inn av Gjest » 19 jul 2006 20:43:02

This Agnes Danvers was a well-married woman. According to a citation linked
off wikipedia she married four times. They do state, in that cited article
that she had no children by her last two husbands, but a total of seven by
her first two.

Will

Gjest

Re: John Say of Sawbridge, etc.

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2006 01:26:02

Thank you to those that have responded on this family so far. After making
these entries I've noticed something else interesting (to me).

John Danvers, Esq of Cokethorpe had two wives
By the first Alice Verney, he had, among others, a son Richard who married
Elizabeth Langston daughter of John Langston of Caversfield

John Danvers, by his second wife Joan Bruley had, among others, a daughter
Amy Langston who married John Langston of Caversfield

I'm sure that either these two Johns are the same person, or more likely they
are father and son, but I don't have any source for either case. So I'll try
to find something more on that today.

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»