Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tony Hoskins

Re: PRIDEAUX

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 20 jul 2006 02:51:02

Hello Sue:

I'm a descendant of the Prideaux family - from Zenobia (Prideaux)
Bowden, daughter of Jonathan Prideaux (d.1637) of Thuborough, Sutcombe,
Devon.

Vivian's _Devon_ (likewise _Cornwall_) are very useful, but *not* to be
accepted without corroboration (and frequently correction) from "harder"
sources.

By the way, how do you pronounce your name? I understand in Devon it
was once pronounced something like "Prid-yes"

Best wishes,

Tony Hoskins

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

"Sue" <sueprideaux@earthlink.net> 07/18/06 05:32PM
Hello,


I am new to the list.
The medieval line I am researching is that of Prideaux.
The main source I am using is
'Visitations of Cornwall' by J. L. Vivian.
Would this source be considered "reputable"?

Thank You,
Suzanne Prideaux
Texas


----- Original Message -----
From: Merilyn Pedrick
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:09 PM
Subject: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery


I have Wulgrin II, Count of Angouleme married to Ponce de Montgomery,
and

Wulgrin, Count of Angouleme and Ponthia de Poictu.

Are they the same people?

For the first couple I have no parents, but a child, William IV,
Count of

Angouleme died 1179 in Mesina, Italy who married Marguerite de
Turenne.

For the second couple I have no children, but Ponthia's parents are
Roger de

Poictu, Earl of Lancaster (1064-1123) and Almodis, Countess of
Marche, died

abt. 1117.

Best wishes

Merilyn Pedrick

Walt O'Dowd

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Walt O'Dowd » 20 jul 2006 16:56:02

Yes they are the same.

Roger is better known as 'Roger the Poitevin'; see his Wikipedia article
with references to secondary sources at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_the_Poitevin

Also, from the following website:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... ngoul.html
we have...
1. Vulgrin II, Count of Angoulème, died 16 September 1140, married
1stly Pontia de la Marche (Montgomery), daughter of Roger de
Montgomery, Comte de la Marche, and 2ndly Amable de Châtellerault
(died after 1140), daughter of Vicomte Aimery I.
1.1. *by 1* Guillaume IV Taillefer, Count of Angoulème, crusader, died
Messina 7 August 1179, married 1stly Emma de Limoges, daugther of
count Aimar I de Limoges, and 2ndly about 1147 Marguerite de Turenne,
daughter of Count Raimond I de Turenne.
That should get you started in the right direction.


Walt O'Dowd

Gjest

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2006 18:00:02

In a message dated 7/20/2006 3:42:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

As for the idea that people immerse themselves in late-medieval English
manorial records because they might discover, or conjecture, something new,
while ignoring the rich information about Continental ancestors because
other people


There's also the language barrier there.
Will

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jul 2006 19:39:46

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

In a message dated 7/20/06 12:11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

I can't find any earl of Lancaster of before 1267.

There was a discussion on this back in December. I repost it below.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------
Subj: Re: The Honor of Lancaster???
Date: 12/18/05 1:43:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: dhoward@skynet.be (Derek Howard)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

snip
It might help to give an outline of the early history of this barony
according to Sanders: the lands between the Ribble and the Mersey
together with the district called Amounderness north of the Ribble
were granted to Roger le Poitevin, fourth son of Roger, Earl of
Shrewsbury, by William the Conqueror. Domesday Book states that these
lands were in the king's hands but Roger recovered them early in
Rufus's reign. He fixed his seat at Lancaster but lost his estates in
1102 when he aided Robert of Beleme in rebellion.

The fief appears in the hands of Stephen of Blois circa 1115-18.
During the strife when Stephen became king his control of the honour
was indefinite. The earls of Chester and the kings of Scotland were
rivals to seize the lands. In 1149, at the Treaty if Carlisle, it was
agreed that the earl should have the territories south of the Ribble
while those north of the river were to go to Scotland. The death of
the Earl of Chester in 1153 and the minority of the heir ruined the
scheme. Henry of Anjou in the Treaty of Wallingford, Nov 1153, granted
to William of Blois, son of king Stephen, the lands which Stephen had
held before he became king. William seems to have gained possession,
circa 1156-7, of the lands south of the Ribble but it was not until
1157 that the Scots were forced to surrender control of the northern
territories. William dsp 1159, his widow Isabel seems to have held the
honour until 1164 when it passed to the control of the crown.

Does this makes any of these into the earl of Lancaster?

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

Gjest

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2006 20:18:02

In a message dated 7/20/06 12:11:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< I can't find any earl of Lancaster of before 1267. >>

There was a discussion on this back in December. I repost it below.
Will Johnson
----------------------------------
Subj: Re: The Honor of Lancaster???
Date: 12/18/05 1:43:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: dhoward@skynet.be (Derek Howard)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

<snip>
It might help to give an outline of the early history of this barony
according to Sanders: the lands between the Ribble and the Mersey together with the
district called Amounderness north of the Ribble were granted to Roger le
Poitevin, fourth son of Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury, by William the Conqueror.
Domesday Book states that these lands were in the king's hands but Roger recovered
them early in Rufus's reign. He fixed his seat at Lancaster but lost his estates
in 1102 when he aided Robert of Beleme in rebellion.

The fief appears in the hands of Stephen of Blois circa 1115-18. During the
strife when Stephen became king his control of the honour was indefinite. The
earls of Chester and the kings of Scotland were rivals to seize the lands. In
1149, at the Treaty if Carlisle, it was agreed that the earl should have the
territories south of the Ribble while those north of the river were to go to
Scotland. The death of the Earl of Chester in 1153 and the minority of the heir
ruined the scheme. Henry of Anjou in the Treaty of Wallingford, Nov 1153,
granted to William of Blois, son of king Stephen, the lands which Stephen had held
before he became king. William seems to have gained possession, circa 1156-7,
of the lands south of the Ribble but it was not until 1157 that the Scots were
forced to surrender control of the northern territories. William dsp 1159,
his widow Isabel seems to have held the honour until 1164 when it passed to the
control of the crown.

John Higgins

Re: John Say of Sawbridge, etc.

Legg inn av John Higgins » 20 jul 2006 20:23:01

I assume your question is referring to the John Langstons of Caversfield.
If so, yes, they were father and son. John (d. 1487) was father of John (d.
1505) who mar. Amys Danvers, half-sister of Richard D., who mar. Elizabeth
Langston, sister of the younger John L. For more details, see F. N.
Macnamara's "Memorials of the Danvers Family" [1895] - available, inter
alia, at the FHL.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: John Say of Sawbridge, etc.


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


Gjest

Re: Sacheverell-Zouche

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2006 20:30:02

In a message dated 7/20/06 8:26:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

<< Can anyone date this marriage?
Thanks in advance,
Pat
C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?] >>

Based on the citation is it possible to assign it a loose dating within a
decade or even a century?
And can we assume or give a possibility to the idea that Henry and John are
brothers ?

Thanks
Will

John Brandon

Re: Clue to identity of the mother of Bridget (Warde) (Rawso

Legg inn av John Brandon » 20 jul 2006 21:00:36

Speaking of my uncanny memory for names (which, however, sometimes
doesn't "kick in" immediately), note that the will of John Hawtrey,
Esq., bequeaths to "Ursula Fermor, daughter of the said Robt. Matts"
....

http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... sula+matts

.... who must (surely) be the same person mentioned by Gordon Kirkemo in
his November 2004 posting on the ahnentafel of proposed GARD Edward
Farmer.


--------------------
From: "Gordon Kirkemo"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Edward Farmer: Proposed GARD
To:

Greetings,

John Schulke, a new subscriber to GEN-MEDIEVAL, and I have been working
to
develop the ancestry of Edward Farmer who came to Massachusetts with
his
mother about 1670. As we gathered information, it seemed possible that
Edward might have descended from Henry II of England. So we put
together a
chart for Edward's ancestry, and we offer it below for comments and
feedback.

To summarize the chart, we found the Farmer family to have been from
Ratcliffe Culey, Leicestershire where they married a daughter of the
Purefoy
family of Caldecote, Warwickshire. The Purefoy family was descended
from a
Purefoy marriage with a daughter of the Fitzherberts of Norbury,
Derbyshire.
A few generations earlier we have William Fitzherbert married to Alice
de
Longford of Derbyshire. This Longford marriage provided a connection
to the
Botelers, but more importantly to Ela de Herdeburgh who has a descent
from
Henry II first introduced to our group in 2001.

In the interest of space and time, the following chart only goes back
to Ela
de Herdeburgh. Our principal sources are provided at the end and
referenced
to each generation rather than to specific individuals. These are the
sources that apply directly to the proposed ascent to Ela de
Herdeburgh.
Some additional information is available on collateral families
extending
beyond the Thirteenth Generation, and I'd be happy to share what
information
I have concerning those families. We are also interested in extending
the
lines of the collateral families listed, with a special interest in the
Hardwicks (#82) and the Staffords (#322). If anyone can offer any
additional information we would love to see it.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Rosie Bevan who reviewed an
earlier
version of this chart and provided very helpful comments.
So, are there any fatal flaws or additions/modifications that you see
and
can share with us?
Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo and John Shulke
FIRST GENERATION (1,2)

1. Edward FARMER: born about 1640 in Ansley, Warwickshire, England;
died on
27 May 1727 in Billerica, Middlesex, MA

SECOND GENERATION (1,2,3)

2. John FARMER: born about 1615 in Ansley, Yorkshire, England; married
on
13 Aug 1633 in Arley, England; died on 2 May 1663 in Ansley, Yorkshire,
England

3. Isabella BURBAGE: died on 21 May 1686 in Billerica, Middlesex, MA

THIRD GENERATION (3,4,5)

4. John FARMER: born about 1589; married; died before 22 Aug 1658 in
Ansley, Yorkshire, England

5. Mary PUREFOY

6. Thomas BURBAGE

FOURTH GENERATION (3,4,5)

8. Bartholomew FARMER: born about 1542; married; died on 22 Dec 1624
in
Ratcliffe Culey, Leicester, England

9. Ursula MATTES

10. Francis PUREFOY: married

11. Elianora BASKERUILE

Gjest

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2006 21:16:02

In a message dated 7/20/06 11:56:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Does this makes any of these into the earl of Lancaster? >>

It does give *context* for the assertion :)
One can see why someone might *call* him earl even if he wasn't.
My only point was to present data for the original post. Not to support the
claim.
Will

Peter Stewart

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jul 2006 22:27:39

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:427.5b2d727.31f10229@aol.com...
In a message dated 7/20/2006 3:42:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

As for the idea that people immerse themselves in late-medieval English
manorial records because they might discover, or conjecture, something
new,
while ignoring the rich information about Continental ancestors because
other people


There's also the language barrier there.

Precisely - so if people are coming here to ask questions anyway, WHY NOT
ask more frequently about areas of medieval genealogy that they can't
readily find covered in English?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 jul 2006 22:38:02

Dear Tim and Others,
According to Roderick Stuart`s " Royalty for
Commoners" 2nd Edition Line 335 (scraping the barrel, I know, so take with a
pound or so of salt) Gen 32 Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and
Shrewsbury, Vicomte de Exemes, Lord of Lancaster, A Companion of William the Conqueror
exiled from England by King Henry I in 1102. He uses Moriarty Plantagenet
Ancestry pp 44-45 as his source and ES III : 817-18.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 20 jul 2006 22:44:24

In message of 20 Jul, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Tim and Others,
According to Roderick Stuart`s " Royalty for
Commoners" 2nd Edition Line 335 (scraping the barrel, I know, so take with a
pound or so of salt) Gen 32 Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and
Shrewsbury, Vicomte de Exemes, Lord of Lancaster, A Companion of William the Conqueror
exiled from England by King Henry I in 1102. He uses Moriarty Plantagenet
Ancestry pp 44-45 as his source and ES III : 817-18.

Is this trying - or not - to make one of these people into the earl of
Lancaster? If so, which?

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

Patricia Junkin

Re: Sacheverell-Zouche

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 20 jul 2006 23:39:02

1515-1518

C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?].
1515-1518



----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Sacheverell-Zouche
Date: Thu, 20, 2006, 2:29 PM


In a message dated 7/20/06 8:26:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

Can anyone date this marriage?
Thanks in advance,
Pat
C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?]

Based on the citation is it possible to assign it a loose dating within a
decade or even a century?
And can we assume or give a possibility to the idea that Henry and John are
brothers ?

Thanks
Will

Leo van de Pas

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 jul 2006 23:51:01

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery


Dear Tim and Others,
According to Roderick Stuart`s " Royalty for
Commoners" 2nd Edition Line 335 (scraping the barrel, I know, so take
with a
pound or so of salt) Gen 32 Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and
Shrewsbury, Vicomte de Exemes, Lord of Lancaster, A Companion of William
the Conqueror
exiled from England by King Henry I in 1102. He uses Moriarty Plantagenet
Ancestry pp 44-45 as his source and ES III : 817-18.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Dear James

ES III 817-818 covers the Angouleme family, not Montgommery, Tafel 817 has
no bearing at all on Roger de Montgommery. Tafel 818 shows Wulgrin II
d'Angouleme died 16 September 1140, married (I) Pontia de La Marche
(Montgommery) daughter of Roger de Montgommery, Count de La Marche (2)
Amable de Chatellerault

Same volume III Tafel 637 here is shown that _the_ Roger father of
Ponthia/Pontia/Ponce was not the companion of the Conqueror. Ponce's
grandfather (who was the companion) married in 1055 and Ponce's father was
the fourth son and if only one daughter was older that Ponce's father, that
makes Ponce's father about 6 at the time of the battle of Hastings. All the
titles ascribed above to Roger de Montgommery are those of the grandfather
but Lancester is not one of them. Ponce's father was, through his wife, only
Count de La Marche.

Hope this helps.
Leo

Tony Hoskins

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 20 jul 2006 23:59:02

"My question is, WHY the virtually exclusive and unrelenting interest
only in
the English ancestors in the last few centuries of the medieval era?"

I second this. I've often wished for discussion of (for instance) some
of the non-British medieval lines behind Jacquette de Luxembourg-St Pol.
Also, there are limitless numbers of German, Italian, Eastern European,
Russian, "Franco-Crusader", Greek (etc.) families "waiting patiently in
the wings", it seems to me!

Tony

Gjest

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2006 01:16:02

In a message dated 7/20/06 2:49:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< Same volume III Tafel 637 here is shown that _the_ Roger father of
Ponthia/Pontia/Ponce was not the companion of the Conqueror. Ponce's
grandfather (who was the companion) married in 1055 and Ponce's father was
the fourth son and if only one daughter was older that Ponce's father, that
makes Ponce's father about 6 at the time of the battle of Hastings. >>

I show that Ponce's grandmother was Mabel de Belleme who was murdered 2 Dec
1082 (Chateau de Burres)

But for some reason I'm showing a daughter by this union called "Matilda de
Montgomery" who married Robert, Earl of Cornwall (d 1091) and had a daughter
Emma de Mortain by 1058

Obviously something is wrong if Matilda's parents were not married until
1055. Perhaps Matilda was a daughter by a previous union of Roger, Earl of
Shrewbury (d 1094/5)

Will Johnson

CE Wood

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av CE Wood » 21 jul 2006 02:46:01

From Bill Marshall's research:

Married: Abt 1051
Sources for this Information:
Date: 1048 [Ref: Moriarty Plantagenet p11, Moriarty Plantagenet p44]
after 1048 [Ref: Alan Wilson 10/28/1997]
between 1050 and 1052 [Ref: CP XI p686]
first marriage of Roger [Ref: CP I p230]
um X 1055 [Ref: ES III #636, ES III #637]

CE Wood

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/20/06 2:49:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Same volume III Tafel 637 here is shown that _the_ Roger father of
Ponthia/Pontia/Ponce was not the companion of the Conqueror. Ponce's
grandfather (who was the companion) married in 1055 and Ponce's father was
the fourth son and if only one daughter was older that Ponce's father, that
makes Ponce's father about 6 at the time of the battle of Hastings.

I show that Ponce's grandmother was Mabel de Belleme who was murdered 2 Dec
1082 (Chateau de Burres)

But for some reason I'm showing a daughter by this union called "Matilda de
Montgomery" who married Robert, Earl of Cornwall (d 1091) and had a daughter
Emma de Mortain by 1058

Obviously something is wrong if Matilda's parents were not married until
1055. Perhaps Matilda was a daughter by a previous union of Roger, Earl of
Shrewbury (d 1094/5)

Will Johnson

CE Wood

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av CE Wood » 21 jul 2006 02:55:12

Although not "earl", Lancaster seems to enter into it, even if only
through secondary sources. Again from Bill Marshall:

Lord of Lancaster [Ref: Moriarty Plantagenet p42]

"lands between the Ribble and the Mersey, together with the district
called Amounderness north of the Ribble, were granted to Roger le
Poitevin, fourth son of Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury, by William the
Conqueror. Domesday book states that these lands were in the king's
hands, but Roger recovered them early in Rufus's reign. HE FIXED HIS
SEAT AT LANCASTER (caps mine), but lost his estates in 1102, when he
aided his brother Robert of Belesme in rebellion." [Ref: Sanders
Baronies p126]

CE Wood

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery


Dear Tim and Others,
According to Roderick Stuart`s " Royalty for
Commoners" 2nd Edition Line 335 (scraping the barrel, I know, so take
with a
pound or so of salt) Gen 32 Roger de Montgomery, Earl of Arundel and
Shrewsbury, Vicomte de Exemes, Lord of Lancaster, A Companion of William
the Conqueror
exiled from England by King Henry I in 1102. He uses Moriarty Plantagenet
Ancestry pp 44-45 as his source and ES III : 817-18.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Dear James
ES III 817-818 covers the Angouleme family, not Montgommery, Tafel 817 has
no bearing at all on Roger de Montgommery. Tafel 818 shows Wulgrin II
d'Angouleme died 16 September 1140, married (I) Pontia de La Marche
(Montgommery) daughter of Roger de Montgommery, Count de La Marche (2)
Amable de Chatellerault

Same volume III Tafel 637 here is shown that _the_ Roger father of
Ponthia/Pontia/Ponce was not the companion of the Conqueror. Ponce's
grandfather (who was the companion) married in 1055 and Ponce's father was
the fourth son and if only one daughter was older that Ponce's father, that
makes Ponce's father about 6 at the time of the battle of Hastings. All the
titles ascribed above to Roger de Montgommery are those of the grandfather
but Lancester is not one of them. Ponce's father was, through his wife, only
Count de La Marche.

Hope this helps.
Leo

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Ursula (Mattes) Farmer ... (late 16th c.)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 21 jul 2006 03:41:38

In article <1153425635.987991.177040@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Speaking of my uncanny memory for names (which, however, sometimes
doesn't "kick in" immediately), note that the will of John Hawtrey,
Esq., bequeaths to "Ursula Fermor, daughter of the said Robt. Matts"
...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN0 ... 1-PA36&lpg
=RA1-PA36&dq=ursula+matts

... who must (surely) be the same person mentioned by Gordon Kirkemo in
his November 2004 posting on the ahnentafel of proposed GARD Edward
Farmer.

From: "Gordon Kirkemo"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Edward Farmer: Proposed GARD

John Schulke, a new subscriber to GEN-MEDIEVAL, and I have been working to
develop the ancestry of Edward Farmer who came to Massachusetts with his
mother about 1670. As we gathered information, it seemed possible that
Edward might have descended from Henry II of England. So we put together a
chart for Edward's ancestry, and we offer it below for comments and
feedback.

1. Edward FARMER: born about 1640 at Ansley, Warwickshire, England;
died 27 May 1727 at Billerica, Mass.
2. John FARMER
3. Isabella BURBAGE
4. John FARMER
5. Mary PUREFOY
6. Thomas BURBAGE
8. Bartholomew FARMER, died 22 Dec 1624 at Ratcliffe Culey, Leics.
9. Ursula MATTES
10. Francis PUREFOY
11. Elianora BASKERUILE

The Matts identification seems likely--good exhibition of memory.
Unfortunately it is now clear that the Farmers of Ratcliffe Culey,
Leicestershire, including Ursula (Mattes) Farmer, and the Purefoys of
Caldecote, Warwickshire, etc., are NOT in the ancestry of Edward Farmer
of Ansley, Warwickshire, and Billerica, Massachusetts (no. 2 above was
not son of nos. 4 and 5). An article on the real ancestry of Edward
Farmer of Billerica will appear in the NEHGRegister in October--various
middling- or upper-yeomanry connections in the sixteenth century but no
earlier known ancestry.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Sacheverell-Zouche

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2006 08:48:37

From The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century: Susan M Wright
1983. Derbyshire Record Society. Appendix 5A Marriage of Gentry

Daughters

Jane, dau of Henry Statham (d.c 1481) married
1. John Sacheverell (kt 1485) of Derbys by 1481 (E149/244/8)
2. William Zouche of Notts 1486-8 (Bull Inst Hist. Research 51, pp83-6)

David


"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
1515-1518

C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?].
1515-1518



----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Sacheverell-Zouche
Date: Thu, 20, 2006, 2:29 PM


In a message dated 7/20/06 8:26:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

Can anyone date this marriage?
Thanks in advance,
Pat
C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?]

Based on the citation is it possible to assign it a loose dating within a
decade or even a century?
And can we assume or give a possibility to the idea that Henry and John are
brothers ?

Thanks
Will

Peter Stewart

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 jul 2006 12:46:52

""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s4bf99c4.086@CENTRAL_SVR2...
"My question is, WHY the virtually exclusive and unrelenting interest
only in
the English ancestors in the last few centuries of the medieval era?"

I second this. I've often wished for discussion of (for instance) some
of the non-British medieval lines behind Jacquette de Luxembourg-St Pol.
Also, there are limitless numbers of German, Italian, Eastern European,
Russian, "Franco-Crusader", Greek (etc.) families "waiting patiently in
the wings", it seems to me!

Quite so, Tony - Jacquetta has a vast number of modern descendants,
including surely a good many who participate in SGM, through the Grey family
if not via the Tudors.

However, on recent form there would probably be more threads in the archive
about the Wydville ancestry than about the Luxembourg-St Pol connections. In
medieval genealogy, there's no rational accounting for such resolute
Anglocentricity....

Peter Stewart

Walt O'Dowd

Re: Wulgrin of Angouleme & Ponce de Montgomery

Legg inn av Walt O'Dowd » 21 jul 2006 12:53:02

I may have found where the reference to 'earl of Lancaster' originates.
In Pere Anselme (Volume 3, Chap. 26, page 288) Roger the Poitevin is
referred to as 'comte de Lancastre' and this is referenced to 'Guill. de
Jumieges p. 275'.

See page here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k76035h

Does someone have access to William's works?

Walt O'Dowd

Leo van de Pas

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 jul 2006 14:29:02

See below in between
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?


""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s4bf99c4.086@CENTRAL_SVR2...
"My question is, WHY the virtually exclusive and unrelenting interest
only in
the English ancestors in the last few centuries of the medieval era?"

I second this. I've often wished for discussion of (for instance) some
of the non-British medieval lines behind Jacquette de Luxembourg-St Pol.
Also, there are limitless numbers of German, Italian, Eastern European,
Russian, "Franco-Crusader", Greek (etc.) families "waiting patiently in
the wings", it seems to me!

Quite so, Tony - Jacquetta has a vast number of modern descendants,
including surely a good many who participate in SGM, through the Grey
family if not via the Tudors.

-------Tim Powys-Lybbe, Brice Clagett, Ian Fettes, John Steele Gordon, Peter
de Loriol, Tony Hoskins ------who did I leave out?
Leo



However, on recent form there would probably be more threads in the
archive about the Wydville ancestry than about the Luxembourg-St Pol
connections. In medieval genealogy, there's no rational accounting for
such resolute Anglocentricity....

Peter Stewart



Gjest

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2006 14:37:02

Leo van de Pas writes:

""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s4bf99c4.086@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Quite so, Tony - Jacquetta has a vast number of modern descendants,
including surely a good many who participate in SGM, through the Grey
family if not via the Tudors.

-------Tim Powys-Lybbe, Brice Clagett, Ian Fettes, John Steele Gordon,
Peter de Loriol, Tony Hoskins ------who did I leave out?
Leo


me, both lines thanks to Tony Hoskins - though I lurk rather than contribute


Simon (Fairthorne)

Patricia Junkin

Re: Sacheverell-Zouche

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 21 jul 2006 15:10:03

David,
Thank you very much.
Pat

----------
From: david11000carca@yahoo.fr
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Sacheverell-Zouche
Date: Fri, 21, 2006, 3:48 AM


From The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century: Susan M Wright
1983. Derbyshire Record Society. Appendix 5A Marriage of Gentry
Daughters

Jane, dau of Henry Statham (d.c 1481) married
1. John Sacheverell (kt 1485) of Derbys by 1481 (E149/244/8)
2. William Zouche of Notts 1486-8 (Bull Inst Hist. Research 51, pp83-6)

David


"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
1515-1518

C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?].
1515-1518



----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Sacheverell-Zouche
Date: Thu, 20, 2006, 2:29 PM


In a message dated 7/20/06 8:26:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pajunkin@cox.net
writes:

Can anyone date this marriage?
Thanks in advance,
Pat
C 1/443/2
John Sacheverell, priest, son of Johan, late the wife of William Zouche,
esquire. v. Henry Sacheverell, knight.: Detention of deeds relating to
messuages given to complainant by the said Joan.: [Derby?]

Based on the citation is it possible to assign it a loose dating within a
decade or even a century?
And can we assume or give a possibility to the idea that Henry and John are
brothers ?

Thanks
Will


John Brandon

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jul 2006 15:34:14

-------Tim Powys-Lybbe, Brice Clagett, Ian Fettes, John Steele Gordon, Peter
de Loriol, Tony Hoskins ------who did I leave out?
Leo

Peter Stewart himself, of course.

John Brandon

Re: Ursula (Mattes) Farmer ... (late 16th c.)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 21 jul 2006 15:50:59

The Matts identification seems likely--good exhibition of memory.
Unfortunately it is now clear that the Farmers of Ratcliffe Culey,
Leicestershire, including Ursula (Mattes) Farmer, and the Purefoys of
Caldecote, Warwickshire, etc., are NOT in the ancestry of Edward Farmer
of Ansley, Warwickshire, and Billerica, Massachusetts (no. 2 above was
not son of nos. 4 and 5). An article on the real ancestry of Edward
Farmer of Billerica will appear in the NEHGRegister in October--various
middling- or upper-yeomanry connections in the sixteenth century but no
earlier known ancestry.

Way to go, Nat. Nice to see you venturing on to some 'real' genealogy,
rather than review articles.

Gjest

Re: Swanhild, Lauretta of Flanders, Loon-Rieneck-Mainz

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 jul 2006 20:34:02

In a message dated 7/21/06 12:56:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<<
Her daughter Lauretta died at Forest abbey near Brussels in 1170, I think -
I will try to check this when I can. >>

Wikipedia has her father Thierry (Dirk, Deitrich) b abt 1099
This is interesting as Lauretta's third husband had to be *significantly*
older than herself, at least 40 years it is said.

Will

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Thousands Of Americans & Brits Are Related To Joan "The

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 jul 2006 21:45:49

Then, of course, there is Edward, The Black Prince, Prince of Wales himself,
her husband -- who lived from 1330 until 1376.

It's bodacious, beautiful, bountiful and befitting to have an even closer
relationship to The Black Prince -- as well as sharing at least 403 sets of
Common Ancestors with him. <G>

Tally Ho, You Common, Ruddy Blaggards! <G>

Ich dien.

Fortem Posce Animum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

ray o'hara

Re: Thousands Of Americans & Brits Are Related To Joan "The

Legg inn av ray o'hara » 21 jul 2006 23:00:50

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3bwg.7$A43.218@eagle.america.net...
It's bodacious, beautiful, bountiful and befitting to have an even closer
relationship to The Black Prince -- as well as sharing at least 403 sets
of
Common Ancestors with him. <G

that explains why your eyes are so close together.

Peter Stewart

Re: Swanhild, Lauretta of Flanders, Loon-Rieneck-Mainz

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2006 00:31:13

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:539.427c2d1.31f277bb@aol.com...
In a message dated 7/21/06 12:56:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:


Her daughter Lauretta died at Forest abbey near Brussels in 1170, I
think -
I will try to check this when I can.

Wikipedia has her father Thierry (Dirk, Deitrich) b abt 1099
This is interesting as Lauretta's third husband had to be *significantly*
older than herself, at least 40 years it is said.

Thierry was the eldest of three sons born to parents who married in August
1095 - his mother was a widow at that time, probably in her mid-twenties and
able to have children straight away.

Lauretta's third (or possibly fourth) husband - Raoul I, count of
Vermandois - was very probably older than her father. His first marriage had
lasted for 20+ years without offspring. Raoul's parents had married by ca
1080, and one of his sisters (maybe not the eldest) was married in 1096.

The doubt over the number of Lauretta's husbands is due to the annalist of
Elmare priory, who stated that she was married first to Henri of Louvain,
younger son of Godefrid I, duke of Lower Lorraine. This alleged union was
refuted by Léon Vanderkindere - the annalist continued with several errors
about the connections by marriage of Henri's elder brother Duke Godefrid II.
If Henri and Lauretta were actually married there must have been a divorce
to allow her remarriage apparently before his death, as a monk, in 1140 or
1141.

Peter Stewart

Djordje Stakic

Re:

Legg inn av Djordje Stakic » 22 jul 2006 03:10:02

unsubscribe

Gjest

Re: Marriage record of Thomas Shepard-Margaret Touteville

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2006 03:27:02

In a message dated 7/21/06 4:57:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< If the common connection between the Stuteville and Darley family is
the Gates family, it would seem that the Gates family would be
worthwhile exploring for possible leads. >>

Although the Visitations of Oxford do support that Edward Gates son of Henry
married to a Miss Cave, first name not specified daughter of Richard Cave and
granddaughter thereby of Thomas Cave by his wife Elizabeth Danvers; this
pedigree has a fatal flaw.

The online link shows that Edward's father Henry Gates died 7 Apr 1589 and
that *his* father William died 28 Sep 1485.

Which require Henry to be a minimum of 113 years old when he died.
There is no reliable source for anyone living to that age in the 15 th
century.

Will

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 22 jul 2006 04:36:41

In article <C0E7C2F7.22CA%kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:

Gordon, maybe others,
John Brandon's message about Ursula Fermor led me to
refer back to the proposed Ahnentafel, posted here by you November 2004.
I'll reproduce it below to save searches.

My interest begins with numbers 80 and 81, Thomas Purefoy and Margery
FitzHerbert. The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire p 255 has Margery as
daughter of Anthony (not Ralph) FitzHarbert, of Norbury. The same page has
Thomas as son of John Purifoy and Joanna filia Wiston de com Stafford. The
1619 Visitation of Leicestershire calls her Joane Da. Wistowe in Staffordsh.
I wondered why the ahnentafel called her Joanna Stafford.

I'm definitely interested in further information on any of their
ancestors.

Well, I (and I believe Gordon and other Farmer descendents) stopped
poking into the ancestry of these Purefoys when it became clear that
colonist Edward Farmer (ancestor of John Farmer, essentially the founder
of genealogy in New England) was hooked onto this tree in error. But of
the regular posters here perhaps Rosie Bevan has looked most closely
into the Fitzherberts (and Longfords, etc.) if not the Purefoys as well.
Rosie?

Nat Taylor

http://www.nltaylor.net

Ken Ozanne

Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 22 jul 2006 05:18:02

Gordon, maybe others,
John Brandon's message about Ursula Fermor led me to
refer back to the proposed Ahnentafel, posted here by you November 2004.
I'll reproduce it below to save searches.

My interest begins with numbers 80 and 81, Thomas Purefoy and Margery
FitzHerbert. The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire p 255 has Margery as
daughter of Anthony (not Ralph) FitzHarbert, of Norbury. The same page has
Thomas as son of John Purifoy and Joanna filia Wiston de com Stafford. The
1619 Visitation of Leicestershire calls her Joane Da. Wistowe in Staffordsh.
I wondered why the ahnentafel called her Joanna Stafford.

I'm definitely interested in further information on any of their
ancestors.

Best,
Ken

FIRST GENERATION (1,2)

1. Edward FARMER: born about 1640 in Ansley, Warwickshire, England; died on
27 May 1727 in Billerica, Middlesex, MA

SECOND GENERATION (1,2,3)

2. John FARMER: born about 1615 in Ansley, Yorkshire, England; married on
13 Aug 1633 in Arley, England; died on 2 May 1663 in Ansley, Yorkshire,
England

3. Isabella BURBAGE: died on 21 May 1686 in Billerica, Middlesex, MA

THIRD GENERATION (3,4,5)

4. John FARMER: born about 1589; married; died before 22 Aug 1658 in
Ansley, Yorkshire, England

5. Mary PUREFOY

6. Thomas BURBAGE

FOURTH GENERATION (3,4,5)

8. Bartholomew FARMER: born about 1542; married; died on 22 Dec 1624 in
Ratcliffe Culey, Leicester, England

9. Ursula MATTES

10. Francis PUREFOY: married

11. Elianora BASKERUILE

FIFTH GENERATION (5)

16. John FARMER: married; died about 1559 in, Leicestershire, England

17. Elizabeth BEARDE: died between 17 Jan 1598 and 13 Jul 1602

18. Robert MATTES/MOTTES

20. William PUREFOY: born in Caldecote, Warwickshire, England; married

21. Katherine WIGSTON

22. John BASKERUILE

SIXTH GENERATION (5,6)

32. Bartholomew FARMER: married; died about 1557 in Ratcliffe Culey,
Leicester, England

33. Margery (FARMER)

40. Michael PUREFOY: born in 1520 in Caldecote, Warwickshire, England;
married

41. Joyce HARDWICK

42. William WIGSTON

SEVENTH GENERATION (5,6,7)

64. John FARMER: married; died about 1521

65. Alice (FARMER): died about 1522

80. Thomas PUREFOY: married; died in 1542

81. Margery FITZHERBERT

82. John HARDWICK

83. Anne LANGHAM

EIGHTH GENERATION (6,7)

160. John PUREFOY: married

161. Joanna STAFFORD

162. Sir Ralph FITZHERBERT: born about 1458; married; died on 2 Mar 1483/84

163. Elizabeth MARSHALL: born about 1437; died about 20 Oct 1490

NINTH GENERATION (7,8)

320. John PUREFOY: married

321. Joan (PUREFOY)

322. Wiston STAFFORD

324. Nicholas FITZHERBERT: born about 1410; married; died in 1472

325. Alice BOOTH: born about 1415

326. John MARSHALL: born about 1411

TENTH GENERATION (7)

640. William PUREFOY: married

641. Margaret KNIGHTLEY

648. Henry FITZHERBERT: married

649. Margaret DOWNES

650. Henry BOOTH: married

651. Isabella de FINDERN

ELEVENTH GENERATION (7,8,9)

1280. William PUREFOY

1296. William FITZHERBERT: married; died after 1398

1297. Alice de LONGFORD

1300. John BOOTH: born in 1356; married; died in 1400

1301. Joanna de TRAFFORD: born in 1364

TWELFTH GENERATION (8,9)

2560. Thomas PUREFOY: married

2561. Katherine de WELLESBOROUGH

2592. William FITZHERBERT: married

2593. Jane KNIVETON

2594. Sir Nicholas de LONGFORD: born about 1288; married; died on 8 Feb
1356

2595. Alice le BOTELER

2600. Thomas BOOTH: born in 1334 in Barton, Lancashire, England; married

2601. Elena de WORSELEY: born in 1340

2602. Sir Henry de TRAFFORD: married; died in 1386

2603. Margery INCE

THIRTEENTH GENERATION (8,9)

5120. Philip I PUREFOY: married before 1343

5121. Margaret SHIRFORD

5122. John de WELLESBOROUGH

5184. Sir John FITZHERBERT: married; died after 1350

5185. Margaret MONTGOMERY

5186. Sir Nicholas KNIVETON

5188. Sir John de LONGFORD: born about 1265; married; died in 1302/3

5189. Joan BYRON

5190. William le BOTELER Lord: born on 11 Jun 1274 in Oversley,
Warwickshire, England; married before 1315/16; died before 14 Sep 1334

5191. Ela de HERDEBURGH: died after 5 Jul 1343

5200. John BOOTH: born about 1310; married

5201. Agnes BARTON: born about 1316

5202. Robert de WORSELEY: born about 1311; married

5203. Margaret BROMHALL

5204. Sir Henry de TRAFFORD: born about 1315; married

5205. Agnes DOLERINDE: born in 1302

5206. Robert INCE

SOURCES:

(1) "History of Billerica, Massachusetts" by Henry Hazen.
(2) "Genealogical Memoir of the Farmer Family" by Samuel Drake, published
in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 1.
(3) "History and Antiquities of Leicestershire" by John Nichols. See
Ratcliffe Culey, pp.938-951.
(4) "Extract from College of Arms Pedigree Record" Norfolk 36/106-108.
(5) "Visitation of Warwickshire, 1619"
(6) "Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England, Ireland, and Scotland" by
John Burke.
(7) "History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland" by John Burke.
(8) "A Study of a Medieval Knightly Family: The Longfords of
Derbyshire-Part 1," by Rosie Bevan, published in Foundations Vol. 1, No.4.
(9) "Plantagenet Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson.

volucris@chello.nl

Re: Swanhild, Lauretta of Flanders, Loon-Rieneck-Mainz

Legg inn av volucris@chello.nl » 22 jul 2006 08:16:26

Peter and Will,

Thanks for the contributions. The persons were allready known to me.
That's what triggered me. The intriging part was a possible
relationship between the said persons with the names Swanhild and
Lauretta. Two families, roughly the same period, the same combination
Swanhild-Lauretta.

With regards,
Hans Vogels


Peter Stewart schreef:

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:539.427c2d1.31f277bb@aol.com...
In a message dated 7/21/06 12:56:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:


Her daughter Lauretta died at Forest abbey near Brussels in 1170, I
think -
I will try to check this when I can.

Wikipedia has her father Thierry (Dirk, Deitrich) b abt 1099
This is interesting as Lauretta's third husband had to be *significantly*
older than herself, at least 40 years it is said.

Thierry was the eldest of three sons born to parents who married in August
1095 - his mother was a widow at that time, probably in her mid-twenties and
able to have children straight away.

Lauretta's third (or possibly fourth) husband - Raoul I, count of
Vermandois - was very probably older than her father. His first marriage had
lasted for 20+ years without offspring. Raoul's parents had married by ca
1080, and one of his sisters (maybe not the eldest) was married in 1096.

The doubt over the number of Lauretta's husbands is due to the annalist of
Elmare priory, who stated that she was married first to Henri of Louvain,
younger son of Godefrid I, duke of Lower Lorraine. This alleged union was
refuted by Léon Vanderkindere - the annalist continued with several errors
about the connections by marriage of Henri's elder brother Duke Godefrid II.
If Henri and Lauretta were actually married there must have been a divorce
to allow her remarriage apparently before his death, as a monk, in 1140 or
1141.

Peter Stewart

Peter

Re: Thousands Of Americans & Brits Are Related To Joan "The

Legg inn av Peter » 22 jul 2006 18:34:58

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:00:50 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
wrote:

"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3bwg.7$A43.218@eagle.america.net...
It's bodacious, beautiful, bountiful and befitting to have an even closer
relationship to The Black Prince -- as well as sharing at least 403 sets
of
Common Ancestors with him. <G

that explains why your eyes are so close together.


Hines cannot be related to the Black Prince - surely someone who
proved to be so incompetant when in the military would have not only
been a disappointment to his parents, but could hardly be stupid
enough to think that any of the Black Prince's genes flowed through
his sclerotic arteries.

D Spencer Hines est a deficio miles militis quod stultus

Sutliff

Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Sutliff » 23 jul 2006 00:08:19

Rosie does not follow this group any longer. I will post this privately to
her in hopes she may respond.

Hap

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-9F3B48.23364221072006@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <C0E7C2F7.22CA%kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:

Gordon, maybe others,
John Brandon's message about Ursula Fermor led me to
refer back to the proposed Ahnentafel, posted here by you November 2004.
I'll reproduce it below to save searches.

My interest begins with numbers 80 and 81, Thomas Purefoy and
Margery
FitzHerbert. The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire p 255 has Margery as
daughter of Anthony (not Ralph) FitzHarbert, of Norbury. The same page
has
Thomas as son of John Purifoy and Joanna filia Wiston de com Stafford.
The
1619 Visitation of Leicestershire calls her Joane Da. Wistowe in
Staffordsh.
I wondered why the ahnentafel called her Joanna Stafford.

I'm definitely interested in further information on any of their
ancestors.

Well, I (and I believe Gordon and other Farmer descendents) stopped
poking into the ancestry of these Purefoys when it became clear that
colonist Edward Farmer (ancestor of John Farmer, essentially the founder
of genealogy in New England) was hooked onto this tree in error. But of
the regular posters here perhaps Rosie Bevan has looked most closely
into the Fitzherberts (and Longfords, etc.) if not the Purefoys as well.
Rosie?

Nat Taylor

http://www.nltaylor.net

Gordon and Jane Kirkemo

RE: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Gordon and Jane Kirkemo » 23 jul 2006 00:29:01

Ken,

Nat is right in that I stopped looking at that segment of the Purefoy line
once he (Nat) had determined there was no connection to the Farmers. What
remains from my notes includes a reference to "History and Antiquities of
Leicestershire" by John Nichols. The reference is to a table on page 599 on
which the wife of Thomas Purefoy is identified as "Margery, dau. of sir
Ralph Fitzherbert, of Norbury."

When working on the line, I did consult with Rosie, who was a great help,
and would probably be a good source of information. I don't believe she is
currently subscribed to the list, although she might respond to a direct
query. I do know she has been busy with several research projects.

I hope this is helpful.

And while the subject has come up, let me publicly thank Nat for his great
work on developing the actual Farmer line. It has been a great pleasure to
work with, and learn, from him.

Sincerely,
Gordon

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Taylor [mailto:nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 8:37 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

In article <C0E7C2F7.22CA%kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:

Gordon, maybe others,
John Brandon's message about Ursula Fermor led me to
refer back to the proposed Ahnentafel, posted here by you November 2004.
I'll reproduce it below to save searches.

My interest begins with numbers 80 and 81, Thomas Purefoy and
Margery
FitzHerbert. The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire p 255 has Margery as
daughter of Anthony (not Ralph) FitzHarbert, of Norbury. The same page has
Thomas as son of John Purifoy and Joanna filia Wiston de com Stafford. The
1619 Visitation of Leicestershire calls her Joane Da. Wistowe in
Staffordsh.
I wondered why the ahnentafel called her Joanna Stafford.

I'm definitely interested in further information on any of their
ancestors.

Well, I (and I believe Gordon and other Farmer descendents) stopped
poking into the ancestry of these Purefoys when it became clear that
colonist Edward Farmer (ancestor of John Farmer, essentially the founder
of genealogy in New England) was hooked onto this tree in error. But of
the regular posters here perhaps Rosie Bevan has looked most closely
into the Fitzherberts (and Longfords, etc.) if not the Purefoys as well.
Rosie?

Nat Taylor

http://www.nltaylor.net

______________________________

Bob Turcott

Re: Specificities of French Medieval genealogy

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 23 jul 2006 05:15:03

To all:

This may be a little off key.

Its good to hear some positive feedback. I wish Yves the best on his
project. The best research for the best results will take quite a while and
those reasons are quite obvious. For instance I have recently discovered
that I
have an ancestor (2nd great grandmother) that carried the surname
Livingston.
Knowing what I know now, this new pet project of mine will be exciting
because I
am certain that there are only 2 origins in Scotland for that surname, its
either the Higland Barons or the lowlanders that descend from the house of
callendar, so this project will be win win for me for sure!!!!!
Just thought I would share some happy thoughts!!




From: rygagne@hotmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Specificities of French Medieval genealogy
Date: 22 Jul 2006 11:44:48 -0700
Roger LeBlanc wrote:
There are a couple of reasons for which I am reluctant to post queries
to the group concerning the de Baillon ancestry

Dear Roger,

I can only encourage you not to be reluctant anymore. I am not talking
about you, but I cannot understand why genealogists do read
soc.genealogy.medieval or others groups and keep their comments or
potential input for themselves. I had the experience recently
(May-June 2006) with the topic New Royal Gateway for Amiot Descendants
on this discussion group. Many genealogists told me their comments
verbally, I asked them why they were not sending messages to the group
so their comments could be shared by everyone, they could not come up
with an answer. The language barrier could be an explanation, who
knows. Others might believe, alas, that participation to a group is
for a restricted group only.

Have a good day everyone,
R.-Yves Gagné
Longueval Research Project
http://www.habitant.org/longueval



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

Marc Archer

re: Porteous, de Maxwell, Denniston, Stewart, Lindsay

Legg inn av Marc Archer » 23 jul 2006 05:17:02

I'm descended from a Janet Porteous b. abt. 1762, m. 1782 in Applegarth, Dumfriesshire, Scotland.
In my quest for her parents and lineage I have discovered two different emails on the Porteous mailing list that claim a lineage back to the early 1400s.
I haven't been able to verify any of this, but my resources are limited in this time frame. Can anyone verify any of this lineage (see below)?

Best,

Marc Archer

[[[[[these are excerpts from emails]]]]]

I need to prove it. Here is what I have. Egidia ( giles ) Stewart
Married Sir James De Lindsay. These two lines go to several kings Including robert bruce and william the conquer.
They had a daughter named Isobel Lindsay. Isobel Lindsay married John de Maxwell. The maxwells had two children egidia Maxwell and robert maxwell. Robert Maxwell married Elizabeth Denniston in1402. it is believed is daughter Miss
Maxwell "lady Porter" married a Porteous. Their son was
Thomas Porteous who received the lands of Hankshaw
from Sir Robert de Maxwell about 1470. The names of the line then follow to Patrick Porteous, then to William Porteous, Then Sir Patrick Porteous then patrick porteous then patrick porteous then his daughter Gizzel Porteous .

so what information can you help with??/





I can't offer much input prior to the PORTEOUS connection, but we do have=20
the family after that point.
Porteous family #1 (not complete, only line which refers to above)
1 William PORTEOUS b: Bef 1437 (Laird of Hawkshaw) m: deMAXWELL
..2 Thomas PORTEOUS b: Bef 1467 (Laird of Hawkshaw) d: 1500-1507
...3 Patrick PORTEOUS b: Bef 1507 (Laird of Hawkshaw) d: 1551-1555
....4 Adam PORTEOUS b: Bef 1550 (Laird of Hawkshaw)
......5 John PORTEOUS b: Abt 1560
.......6 Patrick PORTEOUS* b: 1582 (Laird of Hawkshaw) d: 1652 Tolboth=20
Prison (Edinburgh), MLN SCT
.......6 Grizel PORTEOUS b: 1627 (?Langholm) DFS SCT d: Oct 1707/?1717=20
Eskdalemuir, DFS SCT
.........+William BEATTIE b: 1613 d: Feb 1691/92 Eskdalemuir, DFS SCT

Hopefully someone else out there can fill in more. The title "Laird of=20
Hawkshaw" appears to have left the Porteous family in the 1700s ... the=20
last to hold it was Henrietta PORTEOUS (Heiress of Hawkshaw) who married=20
Michael ANDERSON. She was the great-granddaughter of Patrick* (1582-1652).

Linley Hooper

RE: ]Re: Latin translation

Legg inn av Linley Hooper » 23 jul 2006 07:59:03

You may wish to consider subscribing to: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com

They are very good at translations, transcriptions and interpretations and
you don't have to worry about whether it's pre 1600 or genealogical.

Linley

L B Hansen wrote:
I know that I am moving out of what is considered the medieval realm here
: ) but if anyone is willing to help me - I would truly appreciate it.

I am working on the translation of a 1682 court case in Buckingham,
England. These 8 lines appear to be the judgement and they are in Latin in

a very difficult script. I would be very grateful for any help anyone is
able to give me on this.
If anyone needs background on the case in order to help or if anyone
knows anyone else who may be able to assist me - please let me know. I have

posted it here:

9
Thank you - Linda Hansen

Gjest

Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2006 09:10:02

In a message dated 7/21/06 7:59:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au writes:

<< 162. Sir Ralph FITZHERBERT: born about 1458; married; died on 2 Mar
1483/84
163. Elizabeth MARSHALL: born about 1437; died about 20 Oct 1490 >>

This should be, I believe, "born about 1428" instead of "about 1458"
stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/bb4ae/babington1.htm#dau2

Will

Gjest

Re: what has happened to this newsgroup?

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 jul 2006 09:46:02

In a message dated 7/22/06 6:52:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lbhansen9@yahoo.com writes:

<< Merilyn - It looks like the common ancestor would be John Throckmorton and
his wife Eleanor de la Spine or De Spineto. Not having researched this
myself - it looks like Jane's father John was the son of these two as was my
ancestor Thomas Throckmorton (m. Margaret Olney). >>

What indication is there that Jane's father was John Throckmorton, eldest son
of Sir John Throckmorton of Fledbury (and London) ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Rosie Bevan

Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 23 jul 2006 10:48:36

Hi Ken, Gordon and Nat

Hap kindly contacted me about this thread.

I've not researched the Purefoy line at all but can confirm that
Margery, wife of Thomas Purefoy, was a younger daughter of Ralph
Fitzherbert and Elizabeth Marshall. In her will of 1490, Elizabeth
leaves various household goods to "Margery Purfrey my doughter", and
she refers to a promise made by John Fitzherbert before her "sonnes",
one of whom includes "Thomas Purfrey" (in the context of son-in-law).
Thomas also heads the list of witnesses of her will. Elizabeth makes
mention of a feoffment dated 10 February 1485 in which John Purfrey
acted as one of the feoffees of her lands which she inherited from her
father. He may have been Thomas' father, in which case Margery and
Thomas would have been betrothed or married by this date, but Thomas
not yet of age to act in the capacity of feoffee.

Please contact me offlist if you would like some pointers for
researching any Derbyshire families in which you are interested.

Cheers

Rosie


Sutliff wrote:
Rosie does not follow this group any longer. I will post this privately to
her in hopes she may respond.

Hap

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-9F3B48.23364221072006@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <C0E7C2F7.22CA%kenozanne@bordernet.com.au>,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au (Ken Ozanne) wrote:

Gordon, maybe others,
John Brandon's message about Ursula Fermor led me to
refer back to the proposed Ahnentafel, posted here by you November 2004.
I'll reproduce it below to save searches.

My interest begins with numbers 80 and 81, Thomas Purefoy and
Margery
FitzHerbert. The 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire p 255 has Margery as
daughter of Anthony (not Ralph) FitzHarbert, of Norbury. The same page
has
Thomas as son of John Purifoy and Joanna filia Wiston de com Stafford.
The
1619 Visitation of Leicestershire calls her Joane Da. Wistowe in
Staffordsh.
I wondered why the ahnentafel called her Joanna Stafford.

I'm definitely interested in further information on any of their
ancestors.

Well, I (and I believe Gordon and other Farmer descendents) stopped
poking into the ancestry of these Purefoys when it became clear that
colonist Edward Farmer (ancestor of John Farmer, essentially the founder
of genealogy in New England) was hooked onto this tree in error. But of
the regular posters here perhaps Rosie Bevan has looked most closely
into the Fitzherberts (and Longfords, etc.) if not the Purefoys as well.
Rosie?

Nat Taylor

http://www.nltaylor.net

Ken Ozanne

Re: FitzHerbert - was Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 23 jul 2006 14:30:03

Will,
No doubt you are right, but this is Gordon's list and Ralph is the guy
I don't think should be on it. If his version turns out to be right then
this will be useful. Thank you.

Thanks also to Nat, who pointed out what I probably should have seen on
reading over the 2004 posts. I was not interested in the actual Farmer
connection and so didn't read comments about that very closely.

And thanks to Gordon for the reference. I should have a chance to check
that out next month. I'm pretty sure it was not previously on my list of
things to see at FHL. (I actually have yet to check that it is available
there.)

And to Hap for trying to get Rosie's attention. She is a real loss to
this group.

Best,
Ken



On 23/7/2006 19:56, "GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com"
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-D-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:08:10 EDT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

In a message dated 7/21/06 7:59:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
kenozanne@bordernet.com.au writes:

162. Sir Ralph FITZHERBERT: born about 1458; married; died on 2 Mar
1483/84
163. Elizabeth MARSHALL: born about 1437; died about 20 Oct 1490

This should be, I believe, "born about 1428" instead of "about 1458"
stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/bb4ae/babington1.htm#dau2

Will

L B Hansen

Re: Throckmorton

Legg inn av L B Hansen » 23 jul 2006 17:30:02

Hi Will - Information that is found on the web. That is why I asked how to document these many lines of Throckmortons that seem to be researched yet do not have documentation. As we know, just because it is on the web or 1,000 people put it in their databases, doesn't mean it's correct.

Here's an interesting webpage. Not knowing the researcher I have no idea how well this is documented.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... IGRANT.htm

Linda

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/06 6:52:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lbhansen9@yahoo.com writes:

<< Merilyn - It looks like the common ancestor would be John Throckmorton and
his wife Eleanor de la Spine or De Spineto. Not having researched this
myself - it looks like Jane's father John was the son of these two as was my
ancestor Thomas Throckmorton (m. Margaret Olney). >>

What indication is there that Jane's father was John Throckmorton, eldest son
of Sir John Throckmorton of Fledbury (and London) ?
Thanks
Will Johnson




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

Gjest

Re: Joan, the Fair Maid Of Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2006 05:16:02

I am a descendant of Haute and he does not descend from Joan, the Fair Maid,
UNLESS Eleanor Holand is the mother of Elizabeth Tuchet de Audley rather
than Margaret de Ros. Douglas Richardson's research strongly supports that Eliza
beth was born to Margaret de Ros and James Tuchet de Audley and was not a
child of his second marriage to Eleanor Holand. The only potential connection
to Haute would be thru the Holand family and that does not seem probable.

Lee Denham



I don't think he does, but I am not certain.

----- Original Message -----
From: <JKent10581@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: Joan, the Fair Maid Of Kent


Does Haut Wyatt descend from Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent? If so, how does
he
descend?

Jno


Gjest

Re: Joan, the Fair Maid Of Kent

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2006 15:45:03

In a message dated 7/23/06 8:14:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
JKent10581@aol.com writes:
Does Haut Wyatt descend from Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent? If so, how does
he
descend?

I want to thank all of you who responded to my question about Haute Wyatt and
Joan, the Fair Maid of Kent. Again, thank you very much.

Jno

Martin

Re: Thousands Of Americans & Brits Are Related To Joan "The

Legg inn av Martin » 24 jul 2006 18:55:05

"Peter" <usenetINVALID@nidum.plus.com> wrote in message
news:j8o4c2dk7sgenthvf19j6bfgnlp9k891po@4ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:00:50 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net
wrote:


"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3bwg.7$A43.218@eagle.america.net...
It's bodacious, beautiful, bountiful and befitting to have an even closer
relationship to The Black Prince -- as well as sharing at least 403 sets
of
Common Ancestors with him. <G

that explains why your eyes are so close together.


Hines cannot be related to the Black Prince - surely someone who
proved to be so incompetant when in the military would have not only
been a disappointment to his parents, but could hardly be stupid
enough to think that any of the Black Prince's genes flowed through
his sclerotic arteries.

Must be an sp. somewhere... perhaps 'The Black Ponce'?

Hines is the sort of fellow that King Edward I might well have thrown out of a
window, to fall to his painful but well-deserved death on the stone flags
hundreds of feet below... however historically inaccurate, it would make a
delightful scene.

Gjest

Re: Throckmorton

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2006 20:18:02

In a message dated 7/23/06 8:29:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lbhansen9@yahoo.com writes:

<< Hi Will - Information that is found on the web. That is why I asked how
to document these many lines of Throckmortons that seem to be researched yet do
not have documentation. As we know, just because it is on the web or 1,000
people put it in their databases, doesn't mean it's correct.

Here's an interesting webpage. Not knowing the researcher I have no idea
how well this is documented. >>


I'd say your first step in documenting this line would be to contact the
submitter of that database and ask them "What is your documentation on this line.'
:)

If you're feeling particular ambitious about Throckmorton's in general, what
I usually do, is go to A2A and just type "Throckmorton" click Search. See how
many hits you get. Look at the oldest ones first maybe. Start a database
and just plot each document, with the relevant parties. Once you have all that
mess, then go to ancestry, and just type Throckmorton, click Search. Look at
the posted good references, like CP and (with a grain of salt) the
Visitations, use those to link up all the A2A documents. Go to Leo's site at
http://www.genealogics.org, type Throckmorton, add all those guys, link them up to the ones you
already have. Repeat for http://www.tudorplace.ar and http://www.stirnet.com

Eventually you'll get to the point, where something conflicts with something
else, and then you'll have a broad spectrum of Throckmortons with which to add
or fix details as you go.

It's probably a 40-hour project, but hey, maybe you have a lot of time to
kill :)
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Lineage of John de KIRKEBY Bishop of Ely & brother Willi

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2006 22:42:02

In a message dated 7/23/06 11:58:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< Have gathered information on John de KIRKEBY ,Bishop of Ely who died
in 1290 >>

I only have that John was Bishop in 1285 from a message you posted earlier.
But do you have a more full biography for him that pinpoints the years in
which he was Bishop ?

Gjest

Re: Proposed GARD of Edward Farmer

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 jul 2006 22:47:02

Is the Johanna Stafford, mother of Thomas Purefoy the same person as
Joan Stafford m 1477 William Knyvett (d 1515) ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Marge

Re: Lineage of John de KIRKEBY Bishop of Ely & brother Willi

Legg inn av Marge » 25 jul 2006 00:11:55

From "Biographia Juridica- A Biographphical Dictionary of the Judges of
England from the Conquest to the ---" Edward Foss p. 388-

"On July 26 1286 he was elected Bishop of Ely although he had
previously held so many ecclesiastical dignities was obliged to be
ordained priest before his consecration. Within 4 years a virulent
fever terminated his career on 26 ? 28"?[ difficult to read] 1290.
{This is a fairly extensive article about his career . Can be found on
books.google,com

From " The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester" P. 374.
A.D 1286

"On the 5th of the Ides [ the 9th] of June, Hugh, Bishop of Ely, ended
his days at his manor of Dunham in the isle of Ely; he was succeeded by
Master John De KIRKEBY, treasurer of our lord the king of England, who
was solemnly enthroned on Christmas eve."

Marge

Also to be found on books.google.com.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/23/06 11:58:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mep33@sbcglobal.net writes:

Have gathered information on John de KIRKEBY ,Bishop of Ely who died
in 1290

I only have that John was Bishop in 1285 from a message you posted earlier.
But do you have a more full biography for him that pinpoints the years in
which he was Bishop ?

Peter Stewart

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore (and, incidentally, Petronilla)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 aug 2006 10:40:05

"DBG Heuser" <dbg.heuser@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1153928989.171635.314870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear fellow-fans,
I have two questions and two theories concerning the name Aliénor
(Eleanor), supposedly first borne by Aliénor of Aquitaine .
Question 1: Does anybody here know of the occurrence of the name
Aliénor as a proper name before the birth and christening of Aliénor
of Aquitaine in c. 1122?

To return to the original question:

Alienor of Aquitaine's mother was named Aenor, daughter of Aimery I,
viscount of Châtellerault & Amauberge of l'Isle Bouchard.

The name Aenor occurs as a variant of Alienor later, but is usually found
only in the forms Aenor, Ainor, or occasionally Adenordis in the line back
from Aenor of Châtellerault. Her father's mother was Adenordis, daughter of
Aimery IV, viscount of Thouars & Orengardis of Mauléon. Aimery IV's mother
was named Adenordis, occurring also as Aynor, Ainor and Adamardis. Her
family is not known, but I suppose the last version of her name could
indicate that she was possibly connected to one of the local aristocratic
families using the masculine name Adhemar. The name Adamardis might be just
a feminisation of this name, becoming contracted in usage to Ainor.

I am not proposing this as a likely etymology for Alienor, as there are not
enough documented instances to trace Adamardis and it might be a singular
freak of spelling for all I know.

At least it's one more than the instances offered of Helen developing into
Alienor. I don't consider the explanation of Geoffroy de Vigeois to be
preposterous at all - or perhaps "Ali" might have been added to Aenor as a
nursery nickname, even from an infant attempt to pronounce her own name, as
famously with "Lilibet" for Queen Elizabeth II and many similar oddities.

I think from a vague memory that George Beech (an expert on personal names
in Poitou) has suggested that a mid-10th century viscount of Thouars had a
wife named Alienor, but I can't track this down at the moment. I will keep
looking.

Peter Stewart

Matt Tompkins

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore (and, incidentally, Petronilla)

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 01 aug 2006 16:35:50

DBG Heuser wrote:
Question 2: Does anybody here know the poems of William IX of
Toulouse, or William the Troubadour? It seems that there is a poem,
quoted in Marion Meade's Biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine (p.21), in
which one of the heroines bears the name Aliénor (the other, Ann).
Where could I find it? Naughtily, M Meade does not provide us with a
reference...

Dear DGB,

I have had a look in the edition of William IX's poetry published by
Alfred Jeanroy in 1913, entitled 'Les Chansons de Guillaume IX, Duc
d'Aquitaine (1071-1127)' (in the 1964 second edition), and it seems
none of his poems mentions either an Alienor or an Ann. In fact only
two of them mention any women by name, and they are number I (beginning
'Companho, faray un vers ... covinem'), in which he cannot choose
between Agnes and Arsen and number V (beginning 'Farai un vers pos mi
sonelh') in which Agnes and Ermessen are the wives of two lords in the
Limousin who entertain him one night.

I believe the Jeanroy edition contains the full texts of all his known
poems (there are only eleven), so I can't explain how Marion Meade can
quote one which mentions an Alienor and an Ann. It might in fact be
one of the two poems mentioned above. We could check - if you can
quote the full excerpt quoted by Ms Meade, I'll see if it matches the
text in either of the above poems.

Matt Tompkins

Gjest

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore (and, incident ally, Petronilla)

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 aug 2006 20:58:03

In a message dated 8/1/06 2:43:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< Alienor of Aquitaine's mother was named Aenor, daughter of Aimery I,
viscount of Châtellerault & Amauberge of l'Isle Bouchard.....Her father's mother
was Adenordis, daughter of Aimery IV, viscount of Thouars & Orengardis of
Mauléon. Aimery IV's mother was named Adenordis, occurring also as Aynor, Ainor and
Adamardis. Her family is not known.... >>

Speaking of the ancestry of Aenor, Duchess of /Chatellerault/, of her 16
great-great-grandparents I have four of them
The father of Gerberge de la Rochefoucauld as
18 Foucald de la /Roche/ -- which sounds kind of odd actually now that I
look at it ...
The parents of Aimery IV, Viscount of /Thouars/ as:
20 Geoffrey II, Vicomte of /Thouars/ d 1043 and
21 Adenordis (Ainor) // ( this name per Peter Stewart)

And the father of Agnes, Dame of /L'Isle-Bouchard/ as
26 Hugh, Sire of /L'Isle-Bouchard/


Will Johnson

Matt Tompkins

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore (and, incidentally, Petronilla)

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 02 aug 2006 15:08:55

Peter Stewart wrote:
You may be tired of the point (so why engage in further discussion of it?)
but my effort is to prevent other people from being bamboozled into thinking
that your persistence lends some respectability to a mistaken idea, and
adopting a piece of nonsense into their own databases.

A laudable aim, though I think people are able to form their own
judgements.

The rest of your post is just repetition of the points made before (and
with the same failure to acknowledge anything said in response to
them), so I will just refer you back to my previous responses to the
same points.

I will mention one thing, though. You have previously referred to a
late convergence between the names Alienor and Helena/Elena, apparently
in the belief that the two names were quite distinct until the end of
the middle ages, and that Alienor's modern form Eleanor did not
appear until then. This would be wrong. Eleanor of Aquitaine herself
was always Alienor in her own charters and seals, and spellings in Al-
can be found right up to the end of the medieval period, but forms like
Elianor, Elyenor also appear from an early date - certainly they are
common in the early 1300s, immediately after the name had been
popularised by Eleanor of Castille. You can even find occasional
explicit evidence that Eleanor and Helen were regarded as
interchangeable; for example, in this 1308 fine (as calendared on A2A)
John Trymanel's wife is called both Eleanor and Helen:

Berkeley Castle Muniments, Ref: BCM/D/5/92/5.
John de Segrave; and John Trymanel and Eleanor his wife. One month
after Michaelmas, 2 Edw. II [27 Oct. 1308]
Final concord concerning the manor of Westhatch; John and Helen have
acknowledged the right of John, and have quitclaimed to him; he has
given them £100.

This may not have been a solely English phenomenon, either - consider
this excerpt from a Norman version of the well-known story of Eleanor
of Aquitaine disrobing in front of her Aquitanian nobles to disprove
king Louis' allegation that she had the body of a beast (from a MS in
the Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal in Paris, 3516, fol. 314r - it is
undated, but stops in the middle of describing the Third Crusade, and
is certainly no later than the 13th century):

'En cel tans avint que li rois Loeys enhai sa fame la roine Alyenor
....
.... Quant laisie ot li rois Loeys le roine Elienor, il prist feme la
fille le roi d'Espaigne, dont il ot ij filles. Et apres morut la
dame. Et li rois reprist a feme la seror as ij contes, a qui il avoit
donees se ij filles de la roine Elyenor.'

That is hardly proof that Alienor is the same name as Elena/Helena, of
course, but it does rather point to Eleanor's subjects in her Duchy
of Normandy having believed Alienor to be a form of Helen.

That they might have been more conscious of the origin of her name than
her Occitan subjects is not entirely surprising. Helen was not a
popular saint in the south of France - her cult was a northern one,
centered on the counties of Champagne, Flanders and Brabant, and
especially on the cathedral cities of Troyes, Rheims and Auxerre. Not
only was St Helena, mother of Constantine, venerated there, so also
were various lesser saints also called Helen, including St Alena (alias
Elena) of Forest and the intriguingly named St Elenaria of St-Riquier.
(I owe these references to Dr Graham Jones of St John's College,
Oxford, who has made a study of the various cults of St Helen, and is
about to bring out a book on saint's cults and church dedications).

It is just possible that the derivation of Alienor from Helena was a
northern French invention rather than the original baptismal intention
of her father or sponsors, but it must be a better bet than a
derivation in Adenordis or Adamardis, which have obvious linguistic
difficulties. I don't think the idea that it was the consequence of
her childish attempt to pronounce either of those names, à la
Lillibet, is worth considering.

Matt Tompkins

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 aug 2006 16:14:30

This has been an interesting exchange, and I'm personally delighted to
see reference to "Ferai un vers, pos mi somelh," a time-tested shocker
for undergraduates.

I have scratched my head about Alienor in the past but never looked
systematically at it. I share Peter's skepticism, and would simply say
I don't think anyone has demonstrated Alienor's origins well enough. I
think it perfectly plausible that medieval people who *thought* it a
form of Elena were simply mistaken, however prevalent the idea may have
been (there have always been plenty of false etymologies out there).
Matt has said that the presumed equivalency was widely believed in
England because of interchanges of use of Alienor and Elena. I would
like to see more evidence of interchangable use--for instance the Latin
of the 1308 fine. And unless I missed something, the 13th-century
Norman chronicle snippet in Matt's last message doesn't support the
interchangeability of Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early
use of the initial 'El-'.

For me the most troubling linguistic point is the addition of an
apparently stressed syllable at the end, to get from 'Elen' and/or
'Elena' to 'Alienor'. Is there any closely analogous pair of names from
the medieval Western Mediterranean which shows an addition similar to
Elena to Elenor(a)?

Finally, do any of the publications of the French "anthroponymie
medievale" group around Monique Bourin, or Claudie Amado's work, etc.,
have a census or discussion of this name? I would be surprised if more
10th & 11th c. versions (or even earlier) could not be found.

Nat Taylor

http://www.nltaylor.net

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Alienor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 aug 2006 17:10:11

In article <51e.6bb8cd00.320225bf@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 8/2/2006 8:15:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

false etymologies out there)....doesn't support the interchangeability of
Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early use of the initial 'El-'.


Speaking of false etymologies, I would think it's obvious that Alienor =
El-Aenor. That is, God Aenor or Aenor-God, apparently she was a Jewess !
Quite likely a descendent of Jesus.
(tongue in cheek)

Ah. Well, perhaps her name is among the set of Hebrew derivatives in
the medieval Midi hypothesized by David Kelley. I cannot remember
where, but I think I have also seen a speculative Arabic derivation of
the name. Tolkien gave it an Elvish etymology.

Nat Taylor

http://www.nltaylor.net

Matt Tompkins

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 02 aug 2006 17:13:20

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
of the 1308 fine. And unless I missed something, the 13th-century
Norman chronicle snippet in Matt's last message doesn't support the
interchangeability of Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early
use of the initial 'El-'.

That's what I said, I thought ('... hardly proof that Alienor is the
same name as Elena/Helena, of course, ...'). It's what I meant,
anyway.

I certainly agree, and have always said, that the case for an origin in
Helena hasn't been proved - though I do think it the best supported
etymology (and I'm mystified as to why anyone ever takes Geoffrey de
Vigeois' explanation seriously).

However I'm going to leave it for someone else to pursue the lines Nat
has suggested, and return to the peasants of fifteenth century Great
Horwood (including Alianora alias Elena Brickhill).

Matt

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 aug 2006 17:35:23

In article <1154535200.402052.132390@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
of the 1308 fine. And unless I missed something, the 13th-century
Norman chronicle snippet in Matt's last message doesn't support the
interchangeability of Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early
use of the initial 'El-'.

That's what I said, I thought ('... hardly proof that Alienor is the
same name as Elena/Helena, of course, ...'). It's what I meant,
anyway.

Oh. I didn't think you were trying to use it to prove the etymology,
but it did seem from your post that you had introduced it to show that
medieval Normans as well as English *thought* the names might be
interchangeable (you wrote, "This may not have been a solely English
phenomenon, either - consider this excerpt from a Norman version...;" I
apparently mistook the antecedent of 'this phenomenon').

I do wonder whether your Elena / Alianor pairs even provide evidence
that either the lady or the scribe thought the names etymologically
equivalent. Perhaps one name was used familiarly instead of the other
even if they were known to have distinct derivations (for example, we
often call our daughter Amelia, 'Mia', though I know these names to be
distinct, because that is how our son, aetatis suae 2, was first able to
pronounce it--shades of Lillibet).

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 18:06:02

In a message dated 8/2/2006 8:15:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

false etymologies out there)....doesn't support the interchangeability of
Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early use of the initial 'El-'.


Speaking of false etymologies, I would think it's obvious that Alienor =
El-Aenor. That is, God Aenor or Aenor-God, apparently she was a Jewess !
Quite likely a descendent of Jesus.
(tongue in cheek)

Will Johnson

Matt Tompkins

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Matt Tompkins » 02 aug 2006 18:40:45

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
I do wonder whether your Elena / Alianor pairs even provide evidence
that either the lady or the scribe thought the names etymologically
equivalent. Perhaps one name was used familiarly instead of the other
even if they were known to have distinct derivations (for example, we
often call our daughter Amelia, 'Mia', though I know these names to be
distinct, because that is how our son, aetatis suae 2, was first able to
pronounce it--shades of Lillibet).


It's possible that some cases do reflect this, but in most cases I
don't think either name represents what the person was actually called
in English (or French - whatever language they used ordinarily) - they
are both just what the scribe chose to use as the Latin equivalent of
the vernacular name. Sometimes he translates Eleanor as Elianora,
other times as Elena.

Which makes it difficult to know how to translate the names back into
English. There are often several English names hidden behind one Latin
form. Should Helena/Elena be rendered as Helen or Eleanor? I always
go for Helen, in fact, but when English-language documents become
available in some numbers (the sixteenth century for ordinary people,
and sometimes the fifteenth) one often discovers that the English name
behind Helena/Elena wasn't Helen but Ellen.

Though it is sometimes evident that even that wasn't the name by which
an individual was known informally - as today, they were widely often
known by a pet form of the English name. Most English language sources
use the formal name, but occasionally one is delighted to discover that
the Latin-source Willelmus Jankins and Symon Allen, who appear as
William and Simon in most English language documents, were actually
Willcock and Simkin to their friends.

Matt

Gjest

Re: Sir Robert Peverel of Ashby Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 20:20:03

In a message dated 8/2/06 6:28:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< 4b. Edmund Peverel, living 1323, dead by 1349; issue:
5a. John Peverel, died 1349 spl
5b. Margaret Peverel, married William de la Pole; issue: >>

I thought there was some recent discussion of John and Margaret, probably
from an I.P.M. I have a note that John was b 1329/30 while Margaret was born
1331/2

I didn't mark a source on that, but it sounds suspiciously like ages from an
IPM, probably Alice's.

Oops, now checking my notes on Alice I see why, here you go


Subj: Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel
Date: 8/20/05 10:44:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

As noted earlier in this thread, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 73, footnote i
(sub Lisle) states that Alice de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle, Lord
Lisle, married (1st) Sir Thomas Seymour and (2nd) Robert Peverel. It further
claims that Alice de Lisle died in 1349, citing as its source the following:

Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ix, no. 179.

The inquisition in question is the IPM of Alice, widow of Robert Peverel, of
Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, and subsequently wife of Thomas de Verdun.
The writ for the inquisition is dated 5 May 1349. Alice Peverel's heir at the
time of her death was her grandson, John Peverel, aged 19. John Peverel was the
son of Alice's deceased son, Edmund Peverel, and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle.

The IPM of Alice (_____) (Peverel) de Verdun is followed immediately in the
published calendar by that of her minor grandson, John Peverel. The writ for
his inquisition is dated 24 November 1349. John Peverel's heir was his sister,
Margaret, wife of William de la Pole, Knt., she being aged 18. Margaret
(Peverel) de la Pole has living descendants.

--------------------------------------------
So MAR from this we can alter Edmund's "living in 1323, dead by 1349" to
"living as late as 1330, latest date he could have fathered Margaret, dead by
1349"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Robert Peverel of Ashby Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 20:30:03

In a message dated 8/2/06 10:43:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<<
While I was surprised at ODNB - because of the emphasis that CP placed
on an IPM (V, 76, note (f)) - I had accepted the results of the later
research. But now that we are back at square one, I wonder who Simon
Peverel was? Might he have been the father of both Robert and Walter? >>

Tim in Langton's register, in his own hand (presumably), he names himself as
"the son and heir of Simon Peverel". His register is online, evidently a
newly printed facsimile book or something of that sort (I haven't looked yet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_de_Langton

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 20:55:03

In a message dated 8/2/06 3:43:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< It is interesting to note that in E 40/768 & 774, it is Baldwin son of
Hugh de Essex who is making the grant to Philip Basset. Philip died in
1271, so the grants must date before 1272, yet in 1278-9 it is Hugh de
Essex who receives Tolleshunt from Philip's daughter - i.e. he was
clearly still living at the time that Baldwin made his grants. >>

If you are referring to Baldwin, son of Hugh son of Hugh d shortly bef 30 Jan
1250, this is chronologically impossible.
It must rather, be that Hugh who d shortly bef 30 Jan 1250, himself had a son
named Baldwin.
Correct ?

Will

Gjest

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 21:01:02

Based on Michael recent comments on Baldwin, granting or quit-claiming to
Philip le Basset by 1271, I propose the following modification:

1.Henry de Essex=Cecily de Valognes d. by 1186
2.Henry de Essex fl.1186, d.s.p.bef 1194
2.Hugh de Essex fl 1194 d. by 1227
3.Henry de Essex d.s.p aft 1254
3 Baldwin de Essex d.s.p. aft 1270
3.Hugh d.1250
4.Hugh b c.1245 heir of his uncle
5.Baldwin de Essex had issue
?4.Anne=Hamon le Parker
2.Robert, cleric d.s.p.
2.Agnes de Essex b. 1151/2, fl 1206
2.Gunnora de Essex d.s.p.


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Robert Peverel of Ashby Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 21:01:04

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 8/2/06 10:43:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tim@powys.org
writes:


While I was surprised at ODNB - because of the emphasis that CP placed
on an IPM (V, 76, note (f)) - I had accepted the results of the later
research. But now that we are back at square one, I wonder who Simon
Peverel was? Might he have been the father of both Robert and Walter?

Tim in Langton's register, in his own hand (presumably), he names himself as
"the son and heir of Simon Peverel". His register is online, evidently a
newly printed facsimile book or something of that sort (I haven't looked yet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_de_Langton

Will Johnson

Very interesting; thanks, Will.

Anyone wish to start an ODNB corrections/additions page?

Gjest

Re: Sir Robert Peverel of Ashby Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 21:09:41

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 8/2/06 6:28:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

4b. Edmund Peverel, living 1323, dead by 1349; issue:
5a. John Peverel, died 1349 spl
5b. Margaret Peverel, married William de la Pole; issue:

I thought there was some recent discussion of John and Margaret, probably
from an I.P.M. I have a note that John was b 1329/30 while Margaret was born
1331/2

I didn't mark a source on that, but it sounds suspiciously like ages from an
IPM, probably Alice's.

Oops, now checking my notes on Alice I see why, here you go


Subj: Re: C.P. Correction: Elizabeth de Lisle, wife of Edmund Peverel
Date: 8/20/05 10:44:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com)
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com

As noted earlier in this thread, Complete Peerage, 8 (1932): 73, footnote i
(sub Lisle) states that Alice de Lisle, daughter of Robert de Lisle, Lord
Lisle, married (1st) Sir Thomas Seymour and (2nd) Robert Peverel. It further
claims that Alice de Lisle died in 1349, citing as its source the following:

Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. ix, no. 179.

The inquisition in question is the IPM of Alice, widow of Robert Peverel, of
Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire, and subsequently wife of Thomas de Verdun.
The writ for the inquisition is dated 5 May 1349. Alice Peverel's heir at the
time of her death was her grandson, John Peverel, aged 19. John Peverel was the
son of Alice's deceased son, Edmund Peverel, and his wife, Elizabeth de Lisle.

Robert de Lisle was custodian of Edmund Peverel during his minority,
and arranged his marriage in 1323, according to the Patent Rolls.
Presumably the above statements cannot both be correct in asserting
that Robert Peverel and his son Edmund both married de Lisles - I
wonder which is the correct one. Do you know the source for the
statement that Edmund married Elizabeth de Lisle?

MA-R

Gjest

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 21:17:54

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 8/2/06 3:43:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

It is interesting to note that in E 40/768 & 774, it is Baldwin son of
Hugh de Essex who is making the grant to Philip Basset. Philip died in
1271, so the grants must date before 1272, yet in 1278-9 it is Hugh de
Essex who receives Tolleshunt from Philip's daughter - i.e. he was
clearly still living at the time that Baldwin made his grants.

If you are referring to Baldwin, son of Hugh son of Hugh d shortly bef 30 Jan
1250, this is chronologically impossible.
It must rather, be that Hugh who d shortly bef 30 Jan 1250, himself had a son
named Baldwin.
Correct ?

You raise an extremely good point, Will. I shall have to cogitate on
this.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Sir Robert Peverel of Ashby Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 22:35:07

In a message dated 8/2/06 1:13:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< Robert de Lisle was custodian of Edmund Peverel during his minority,
and arranged his marriage in 1323, according to the Patent Rolls.
Presumably the above statements cannot both be correct in asserting
that Robert Peverel and his son Edmund both married de Lisles - I
wonder which is the correct one. Do you know the source for the
statement that Edmund married Elizabeth de Lisle? >>


I do have as you state Edmund married to Elizabeth de Lisle, dau of Robert,
1st Lord Lisle of Rougerment, that marriage in 1323. So this is an example (if
true) of a custodian, marrying his ward to that custodian's own child.

If that marriage is to be credited, then it seems that it's Robert Peverels'
wife whose origin is unknown. Her presumed children and grandchildren don't
give us any help, being named with perhaps the seven most common names in the
land.....

Will

Gjest

Re: Sir Robert Peverel of Ashby Castle

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 aug 2006 22:53:06

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 8/2/06 1:13:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Robert de Lisle was custodian of Edmund Peverel during his minority,
and arranged his marriage in 1323, according to the Patent Rolls.
Presumably the above statements cannot both be correct in asserting
that Robert Peverel and his son Edmund both married de Lisles - I
wonder which is the correct one. Do you know the source for the
statement that Edmund married Elizabeth de Lisle?


I do have as you state Edmund married to Elizabeth de Lisle, dau of Robert,
1st Lord Lisle of Rougerment, that marriage in 1323. So this is an example (if
true) of a custodian, marrying his ward to that custodian's own child.

If that marriage is to be credited, then it seems that it's Robert Peverels'
wife whose origin is unknown. Her presumed children and grandchildren don't
give us any help, being named with perhaps the seven most common names in the
land.....

Absolutely right. I have checked the archives, as I ought to have done
earlier, and can confirm that Alice, wife successively of Robert
Peverel and Thomas Verdon, was not the daughter of Robert de Lisle, as
shown conclusively by Douglas last August. Mea culpa for not checking
the archives!

MA-R


Peter Stewart

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore (and, incidentally, Petronilla)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 aug 2006 00:01:12

"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1154527735.379172.122900@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Peter Stewart wrote:
You may be tired of the point (so why engage in further discussion of
it?)
but my effort is to prevent other people from being bamboozled into
thinking
that your persistence lends some respectability to a mistaken idea, and
adopting a piece of nonsense into their own databases.

A laudable aim, though I think people are able to form their own
judgements.

Of course they are - some are more and some less prepared for this when they
come to SGM. Some always seem to suppose that posts in threads that interest
them are addressed only to them, and think they have possessive control over
what other people may say to them.

The rest of your post is just repetition of the points made before (and
with the same failure to acknowledge anything said in response to
them), so I will just refer you back to my previous responses to the
same points.

Your previous point (points?) is to ignore the fact that the theory you
proposed must be capable of proof from documentary sources if it could have
been correctly known later and elsewhere.

I will mention one thing, though. You have previously referred to a
late convergence between the names Alienor and Helena/Elena, apparently
in the belief that the two names were quite distinct until the end of
the middle ages, and that Alienor's modern form Eleanor did not
appear until then. This would be wrong. Eleanor of Aquitaine herself
was always Alienor in her own charters and seals, and spellings in Al-
can be found right up to the end of the medieval period, but forms like
Elianor, Elyenor also appear from an early date - certainly they are
common in the early 1300s, immediately after the name had been
popularised by Eleanor of Castille. You can even find occasional
explicit evidence that Eleanor and Helen were regarded as
interchangeable; for example, in this 1308 fine (as calendared on A2A)
John Trymanel's wife is called both Eleanor and Helen:

Berkeley Castle Muniments, Ref: BCM/D/5/92/5.
John de Segrave; and John Trymanel and Eleanor his wife. One month
after Michaelmas, 2 Edw. II [27 Oct. 1308]
Final concord concerning the manor of Westhatch; John and Helen have
acknowledged the right of John, and have quitclaimed to him; he has
given them £100.

This seems to be a quotation from an extract, not proving that either
"Eleanor" or "Helen" appeared in the original or the name Helen was
interchanged with Eleanor in this document. If it was, this is only a less
late convergence of orthography in another place, not evidence for the
derivation of one name from the other.

This may not have been a solely English phenomenon, either - consider
this excerpt from a Norman version of the well-known story of Eleanor
of Aquitaine disrobing in front of her Aquitanian nobles to disprove
king Louis' allegation that she had the body of a beast (from a MS in
the Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal in Paris, 3516, fol. 314r - it is
undated, but stops in the middle of describing the Third Crusade, and
is certainly no later than the 13th century):

'En cel tans avint que li rois Loeys enhai sa fame la roine Alyenor
...
... Quant laisie ot li rois Loeys le roine Elienor, il prist feme la
fille le roi d'Espaigne, dont il ot ij filles. Et apres morut la
dame. Et li rois reprist a feme la seror as ij contes, a qui il avoit
donees se ij filles de la roine Elyenor.'

That is hardly proof that Alienor is the same name as Elena/Helena, of
course, but it does rather point to Eleanor's subjects in her Duchy
of Normandy having believed Alienor to be a form of Helen.

If does nothing of the sort, in fact it is good evidence for the opposite.
The usual form of Helen in Norman French was Eleine, NOT Eliene. The order
of vowels in the second syllable in the example above is of prime importance
from a linguistic point of view. The Norman poet Wace, in his Roman de Brut
that was dedicated to Alienor of Aquitaine, had every opportunity and motive
to compliment the queen over her name being identical with that of Helene of
Troy and St Helen, thought to be of English birth & upbringing, but he made
no mention of any such thing. The pronunciation as the names developed into
modern French might make this more clear: Alienor acquired an acute accent,
Aliénor (this is even found in some early vernacular texts in Aénor) whereas
Helen took the grave accent on the second e as Hélène.

That they might have been more conscious of the origin of her name than
her Occitan subjects is not entirely surprising.

Now you are off on a jig, assuming that you have made a valid point that is
not the case.

Helen was not a popular saint in the south of France - her cult was a
northern one,
centered on the counties of Champagne, Flanders and Brabant, and
especially on the cathedral cities of Troyes, Rheims and Auxerre.

Wherever relics were venerated, St Helen was the heroine who found the
ultimate example, the True Cross. If she was especially venerate in Troyes,
how about lookking for an example of "St Alienor" the mother of Constantine
in the works of Chétien de Troyes?

Not only was St Helena, mother of Constantine, venerated there, so also
were various lesser saints also called Helen, including St Alena (alias
Elena) of Forest and the intriguingly named St Elenaria of St-Riquier.
(I owe these references to Dr Graham Jones of St John's College,
Oxford, who has made a study of the various cults of St Helen, and is
about to bring out a book on saint's cults and church dedications).

So what? No-one has said that there was only one St Helen. The point s that
none of these women is ever called St Alienor.

It is just possible that the derivation of Alienor from Helena was a
northern French invention rather than the original baptismal intention
of her father or sponsors, but it must be a better bet than a
derivation in Adenordis or Adamardis, which have obvious linguistic
difficulties. I don't think the idea that it was the consequence of
her childish attempt to pronounce either of those names, à la
Lillibet, is worth considering.

Talk about flagrantly ignoring what other people write! - Adenordis and
Adamardis demonstably refer to the SAME WOMEN who are otherwise named as
Ainor, Aynor, etc, nad close ancestors of Aenor the mother of Alienor of
Aquitaine. You have yet to come up with a single documented instance of a
Helen in the right time and place who was elsewhere named Alienor.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 aug 2006 00:32:31

"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1154535200.402052.132390@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
of the 1308 fine. And unless I missed something, the 13th-century
Norman chronicle snippet in Matt's last message doesn't support the
interchangeability of Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early
use of the initial 'El-'.

That's what I said, I thought ('... hardly proof that Alienor is the
same name as Elena/Helena, of course, ...'). It's what I meant,
anyway.

I certainly agree, and have always said, that the case for an origin in
Helena hasn't been proved - though I do think it the best supported
etymology (and I'm mystified as to why anyone ever takes Geoffrey de
Vigeois' explanation seriously).

That's easy to answer - it is a modest and plausible enough statement, from
the appropriate time and place, and needs to be considered carefully.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to remember what Geoffroy actually wrote:

"Guillelmus dux Aquitaniae...de uxore quae fuit soror vicecomitis de
Chastelleyraut quae vocabatur Aenor, genuit filiam quae appellata est
Alienor, quasi alia Aenor". (William, duke of Aquitaine...by his wife who
was a sister of the viscount of Châtellerault, who was called Aenor, had a
daughter named Alienor, as if to say another Aenor).

There are plenty of examples from that time of places, properties, allods,
etc with the same name being distinguished by the addition of "alia" before
the name of one - just as the English named "New York", for instance, even
though Americans later happily named places in Texas "Paris" or whatever
without qualification for duplicates.

The practice is not so common with people. However, as I suggested, "Ali"
might have been added in the nursery rather than at the font, and this may
indeed signify "little Aenor" or could even have come about through her own
efforts to say her name.

Ainor/Aenor, judging from the development of its pronunciation, was probably
sounded at the time somewhere between Aïnor and Aénor, and an infant tongue
might well find this easier by inserting an "l", just as Elizabeth II added
an initial, and extra, "l" to her name.

That is not necessarily inconsistent with Geoffroy de Vigeois.

There are forms of Alienor with and without an "l" occuring after the time
of Alienor of Aquitaine. We have yet to see any form of Helen, Eleine,
Elena, etc, without an "l".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 01:11:06

In a message dated 8/2/06 3:47:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ToddWhitesides@aol.com writes:

<< his widow Katherine re-married on 2
Jun. 1393 to Geoffrey de Bolde, the first date seems most likely. After
his
death Alice, who had been the wife of Thomas Arderne, Miles, entered and
held
possession of his land until 1424 when John Arderne >>

I'm not sure of the liklihood, but it's interesting that I already had the
following collection

Thomas Arderne, father of John Arderne who married Katherine

In this same approx time period. That is, my data, and this new data, show
no particular chronologic difficulties.
However if the IPMs are correct then Stirnet is showing that BE1883 is
probably incorrect.
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... derne1.htm

The relevant couple is
Sir John Arderne of Elford, son of Sir Thomas de Arderne
This John was said to have married Katherine Stafford, dau of Sir Thomas
Stafford, Lord of Clifton
otherwise called "3rd Lord of Clifton" son of Richard Stafford, 1st Lord of
Clifton who d 1381

Adjusting my dates for both the Arderne and Stafford up-lines to allow John
Arderne to have an eldest dau in 1384/5, I cannot find any problem making this
couple, that couple.

Appreciate comments.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Baldwin I of Flanders: loose ends

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 01:26:02

In a message dated 8/2/06 2:31:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sbaldw@mindspring.com writes:

<< Besides Baldwin II and Raoul, who did Grierson consider to be the
third child? The supposed wife of Wilfred the Hairy? The supposed
son Charles who died young (only in very late sources, so far as I
know)? Or is it just a typo? >>

I have this third child. I don't have any notes on this line at all, so I'm
not sure what garbage bin I picked this out of :)

3) Amauri I of Flanders d 952 m a daughter of Isaac of Cambray
3.1) William of Hainault d 1003
3.1.1) Amauri, Seigneur of Montfort m Bertrade of Gomentz
3.1.1.1) Simon, Count of Montfort d 25 Sep 1087 (genealogics.org)

Gjest

Re: Baldwin I of Flanders: loose ends

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 02:45:03

I've made the correction, after reviewing Leo's great site, and my notes.
*I* or *somebody* tried to graft Amauri, Seigneur of Montfort onto the
Flanders family

This section should now be
1) Simon, Count of Montfort d 1087
2) Amauri II, Count of Montfort d 1053
3) Bertrade Gomentz
4) Guillaume, Count of Montfort d 1018
5) female Nogent, Dame of Montfort and Epernon
8) Amauri I, Seigneur of Montfort d 983
9) dau of Cambray

I had said previously dau of "Isaac" Cambray, but I don't have a source for
that name Isaac.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Baldwin I of Flanders: loose ends

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 aug 2006 03:10:04

Dear Will,

Flattery gets you everywhere :-) Even though I gather the information, I do
not regard it as _my_ information. It belongs to the source quoted. A
questionable source I used for this infomation is Ancestor lists for Queens
and Empresses of France, by Jacques Saillot. It contains many great lists
but also many errors.

Page 183 the Montfort line starts with Amaury 1er de Mansuarie, branch of
the lords of Montfort, born about 920, died 983, married NN de Cambrai,
daughter of Isaac
they are parents of
Guillaume I de Hainaut, Comte de Montfort, born about 960 died 1018, married
NN de Nogent, Dame de Montfort and Epernon
they are parents of
Amaury II, Count of Montfort, born about 1000, died 1053, married 1028
Bertrade or Berteis de Gommetz, daughter of Guillaume de Gommetz
they are parents of
Simon de Montfort, born about 1030, died 1087

and so on.

Three sources are given for this page
Le Carpentier, Histoire de Cambrai et du Cambraisis, (Heyde 1640)
J. D. de Joannis, Les seize quartiers des Captetiens
Pere Anselme, Les Grands Officiers de la Couronne (1715)

Any correction or additon much appreciated.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin I of Flanders: loose ends


I've made the correction, after reviewing Leo's great site, and my notes.
*I* or *somebody* tried to graft Amauri, Seigneur of Montfort onto the
Flanders family

This section should now be
1) Simon, Count of Montfort d 1087
2) Amauri II, Count of Montfort d 1053
3) Bertrade Gomentz
4) Guillaume, Count of Montfort d 1018
5) female Nogent, Dame of Montfort and Epernon
8) Amauri I, Seigneur of Montfort d 983
9) dau of Cambray

I had said previously dau of "Isaac" Cambray, but I don't have a source
for
that name Isaac.

Will Johnson


Peter Stewart

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 aug 2006 03:44:24

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-301F0A.11143002082006@news.west.earthlink.net...
This has been an interesting exchange, and I'm personally delighted to
see reference to "Ferai un vers, pos mi somelh," a time-tested shocker
for undergraduates.

I have scratched my head about Alienor in the past but never looked
systematically at it. I share Peter's skepticism, and would simply say
I don't think anyone has demonstrated Alienor's origins well enough. I
think it perfectly plausible that medieval people who *thought* it a
form of Elena were simply mistaken, however prevalent the idea may have
been (there have always been plenty of false etymologies out there).
Matt has said that the presumed equivalency was widely believed in
England because of interchanges of use of Alienor and Elena. I would
like to see more evidence of interchangable use--for instance the Latin
of the 1308 fine. And unless I missed something, the 13th-century
Norman chronicle snippet in Matt's last message doesn't support the
interchangeability of Alienor and Elena, though it does provide an early
use of the initial 'El-'.

For me the most troubling linguistic point is the addition of an
apparently stressed syllable at the end, to get from 'Elen' and/or
'Elena' to 'Alienor'. Is there any closely analogous pair of names from
the medieval Western Mediterranean which shows an addition similar to
Elena to Elenor(a)?

Finally, do any of the publications of the French "anthroponymie
medievale" group around Monique Bourin, or Claudie Amado's work, etc.,
have a census or discussion of this name?

I don't think so, though I don't have all the publications at home. The
closest subject matter I have at hand is in a paper by Eleanor Krawutschke &
George Beech, 'Le choix du nom d'enfant en Poitou (XIe-XIIe siècles):
l'importance de noms familiaux', _Genèse médiévale de l'anthroponymie
moderne_ III (Tours, 1995) 143-154 & tables 22-24 - where, apart from the
name of Beech's student, the name Eleanor is not mentioned. He also does not
discuss it in 'Les noms de personne poitevins du 9e au 12e siècle', _Revue
internationale d'onomastique_ 26 (1974), or in 'The Origins of the Family of
the Viscounts of Thouars', _Études de civilisation médiévale (IXe-XIIe
siècles): mélanges offerts à Edmond-René Labande (Poitiers, 1974). For the
moment I am stumped as to where he _might have_ conjectured a 10th-century
viscountess named Alienor.

As to early versions of the name with initial 'El-', these are not unusual.
For instance, a charter of Alienor of Aquitaine's niece dated 1184: "Ego
Elienor, Dei gratia comitissa Bellomontis et heres Viromandie"; and another
in 1189: "Elyenor.illustris comitis Perone Radulfi filia". In other
documents she was more typically called Alienordis, and at least once
Lyenordis as posted earlier.

I would be surprised if more 10th & 11th c. versions (or even earlier)
could not be found.

A real surprise, if the retrospective opinion accepted by Reaney and
proposed here by Matt Tompkins had any basis in fact, would be the absence
of forms such as "Helenor", "Halienor", etc.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 aug 2006 03:59:53

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cqdAg.5608$rP1.2322@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

As to early versions of the name with initial 'El-', these are not
unusual. For instance, a charter of Alienor of Aquitaine's niece dated
1184: "Ego Elienor, Dei gratia comitissa Bellomontis et heres Viromandie";
and another in 1189: "Elyenor.illustris comitis Perone Radulfi filia". In
other documents she was more typically called Alienordis, and at least
once Lyenordis as posted earlier.

It should be pointed out that this lady was countess of Saint-Quentin &
Crépy and heiress of Vermandois by inheritance, and by marriage she was
successively countess of Ostrevant, of Nevers, Auxerre & Tonnerre, and of
Boulogne. In other words, her life was passed in the heartland of veneration
of St Helen according to Matt Tompkins ("her cult was a northern one,
centered on the counties of Champagne, Flanders and Brabant, and especially
on the cathedral cities of Troyes, Rheims and Auxerre").

In this case, it should be easy enough to find references to her as sharing
the same name as St Helen.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de L

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 05:20:02

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William
de Lever of Great Lever_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1154558805)


There is an account of the Lever family of Great Lever in VCH Lancaster
5:182-187 that I just came across. Apparently William de Lever's marriage with
Joan Arderne was annulled and his children by her considered illegitimate. He
did provide for them generously though. His son Lawrence was granted in
1437 the manor of Great Lever and other lands for life, and in the same year his
daughter Margaret's marriage was arranged. He died between Aug. 1447 and 28
Jan. 1447/8 and his son by his second wife Alice [Adam de Lever, a minor]
was declared his lawful heir. His widow Alice re-married shortly after to John
Hulme.

Gjest

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 06:30:03

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen &
William de Lever of Great Lever_ (http://archiver.rootsweb.c
om/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-08/1154560058)

There is a chronological problem in identifying John Arderne of Nether
Darwen and his wife Katherine with the John Arderne of Elford who married is said
to have married Katherine Stafford.

The eldest daughter of John Arderne of Nether Darwen was born ca. 1384 [see
previous post making reference to the IPMs].

John Arderne, Knt., and Richard de Stafford, Knt., made a settlement
involving lands in Staffordshire on 7 Jan. 1345/6 previous to the marriage of their
children THOMAS Arderne and Katherine Stafford [see A2A, Birmingham City
Archives: Elford Hall Collection, ref. 3878/24].

As you can see the dates and even the name of the groom just don't seem to
match.

Todd Whitesides

Gjest

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 06:47:07

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Based on Michael recent comments on Baldwin, granting or quit-claiming to
Philip le Basset by 1271, I propose the following modification:

1.Henry de Essex=Cecily de Valognes d. by 1186
2.Henry de Essex fl.1186, d.s.p.bef 1194
2.Hugh de Essex fl 1194 d. by 1227
3.Henry de Essex d.s.p aft 1254
3 Baldwin de Essex d.s.p. aft 1270
3.Hugh d.1250
4.Hugh b c.1245 heir of his uncle
5.Baldwin de Essex had issue
?4.Anne=Hamon le Parker
2.Robert, cleric d.s.p.
2.Agnes de Essex b. 1151/2, fl 1206
2.Gunnora de Essex d.s.p.


Will Johnson

I am unclear as to where Anne de Essex fits, whether there were two
Annes or one who m twice, Anne who m Hamon le Parker and Anne who m
Thomas Prayers. Looking at the likely timescale would place two Annes,
she who m Prayers as daughter of Hugh b c1245?

regards

Geoff V

Peter MEAZEY

French medieval

Legg inn av Peter MEAZEY » 03 aug 2006 11:15:03

Hi Gerry,
Try this for size :
http://www.capsizun.com/tombeau.htm
Down at the bottom is a list of parishes, click Mathalon and you'll get
photos of the church etc.
The name Jégado/de Jégado is more frequent in Morbihan than in
Finistère. There was a De Jégado governor of Hennebont and of course the
well-known 19th century poisoner. I would suggest you tap into local
research groups on this, there are plenty of people interested -
primarily in proving that the poisoner was not too closely related :-)
Hope this helps,
Peter Meazey, Dinan, Brittany
(auteur de La Jégado, histoire de la célèbre empoisonneuse, Guingamp, 1999).

Rosie Bevan

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 03 aug 2006 11:51:04

Yes, on reflection I think you are right - with the removal of Baldwin
de Essex at generation 5. Presumably Anne, mother of Margaret Praers,
is daughter of Hugh at generation 4.

Cheers

Rosie

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Based on Michael recent comments on Baldwin, granting or quit-claiming to
Philip le Basset by 1271, I propose the following modification:

1.Henry de Essex=Cecily de Valognes d. by 1186
2.Henry de Essex fl.1186, d.s.p.bef 1194
2.Hugh de Essex fl 1194 d. by 1227
3.Henry de Essex d.s.p aft 1254
3 Baldwin de Essex d.s.p. aft 1270
3.Hugh d.1250
4.Hugh b c.1245 heir of his uncle
5.Baldwin de Essex had issue
?4.Anne=Hamon le Parker
2.Robert, cleric d.s.p.
2.Agnes de Essex b. 1151/2, fl 1206
2.Gunnora de Essex d.s.p.


Will Johnson

Rosie Bevan

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 03 aug 2006 12:09:57

ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William
de Lever of Great Lever_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1154558805)


There is an account of the Lever family of Great Lever in VCH Lancaster
5:182-187 that I just came across. Apparently William de Lever's marriage with
Joan Arderne was annulled and his children by her considered illegitimate. He
did provide for them generously though. His son Lawrence was granted in
1437 the manor of Great Lever and other lands for life, and in the same year his
daughter Margaret's marriage was arranged. He died between Aug. 1447 and 28
Jan. 1447/8 and his son by his second wife Alice [Adam de Lever, a minor]
was declared his lawful heir. His widow Alice re-married shortly after to John
Hulme.

Hi Todd

I've been scouring the pages you mention but cannot see a reference to
Joan Arderne. Can you tell me which page this is on?

Thanks

Rosie

Peter Stewart

Re: Aliénor / Eleonore (and, incidentally, Petronilla)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 aug 2006 12:26:17

"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1154527735.379172.122900@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

It is just possible that the derivation of Alienor from Helena was a
northern French invention rather than the original baptismal intention
of her father or sponsors, but it must be a better bet than a
derivation in Adenordis or Adamardis, which have obvious linguistic
difficulties.

Why do you assume that Alienor of Aquitaine must have gone through life with
exactly the name she was given at baptism? She of all people was a
purposefully outstanding individual, and naturally she might have chosen to
be known by a unique form of her given name. Diminutives and childish names
are not all that uncommon amongst the French aristocracy of her time &
before - other instances that spring to mind are "Hugolini" for Hugo, count
of Chalon & bishop of Auxerre, and "Fulconello" for Fulco V, count of Anjou
& king of Jerusalem. These were not used for all occasions or retained for
life, but some others were.

I don't think the idea that it was the consequence of her childish
attempt to pronounce either of those names, à la Lillibet, is worth
considering.

Maybe so, but why?

You seem to favour arbitrary claims and statements that add up to nothing
but your unsupported, entrenched opinion, sometimes (not here) masquerading
as erudition.

This is your prerogative, of course, but it is not a way that rational
adults conduct discourse. Perhaps you will favour us with an attempt at
analysis and explanation as to why you "think" a suggestion is "not worth
considering", rather than groundlessly blustering again.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 12:43:08

Rosie Bevan wrote:

Yes, on reflection I think you are right - with the removal of Baldwin
de Essex at generation 5. Presumably Anne, mother of Margaret Praers,
is daughter of Hugh at generation 4.

Cheers

Rosie

Perhaps Baldwin "son of Hugh", who I agree was likely a younger son of
Hugh I (ded by 1227) [ie to be placed after Hugh II died 1250], had
residual rights as his putative nephew Hugh III's heir, if the latter
had no issue at the time, or perhaps as heir-male, if Hugh had no sons
(although this latter seems less likely, if Hugh III's daughter Anne
was alleged to have transmitted his rights to her daughter and heir),
or perhaps in some other fashion was the remainderman of the 5 knight's
fees. This is still problematic, however, because E 40/768
specifically states that North Weald and its advowson, were "his".

There are five PROCAT documents which mention Baldwin, each in
connection with Philip Basset (who is then clearly still alive) and
each relating to North Weald, so I agree with Rosie's statement that
the replacement of "Baldwin son of Hugh" in generation 3 must also
necessitate the removal of the entry at generation 5.

As to the possible two Annes, I doubt one can determine whether this
represents one daughter who married twice (Hamon le Parker, then Thomas
Prayers) or two daughters, probably of two different generations. It
appears clear that Anne the wife of Thomas Praers should be placed at
generation 5 as the daughter of Hugh III (born c1245), who must have
been the grantor of North Weald to Philip Basset (c1267, according to
VCH). The extracted grant referred to in DL 25/1000 by Hugh de Essex
to "Hamon le Parker and Anne daughter of the grantor" is the source for
the belief that an Anne de Essex (daughter of Hugh) married Hamon le
Parker, although this is merely implicit rather than stated in the
document.

Perhaps John, 2nd Lord Bourchier was the eventual heir of Henry de
Essex?

Proposed re-modification of Rosie's original stemma:

1.Henry de Essex=Cecily de Valognes d. by 1186
2.Henry de Essex fl.1186, d.s.p.bef 1194
2.Hugh de Essex fl 1194 d. by 1227
3.Henry de Essex d.s.p aft 1254
3.Hugh d.1250
4.Hugh b c.1245 heir of his uncle
5. Anne=Thomas Praers
6. Margaret Praers=Robert, 1st Lord Bourchier d 1349
3. Baldwin de Essex, ff c1270
2.Robert, cleric d.s.p.
2.Agnes de Essex b. 1151/2, fl 1206
2.Gunnora de Essex d.s.p.

This earlier placement of Baldwin would also mean that, if Rosie's
interesting suggestion that Rivenhall came into the de Essex family by
marriage to a member of the family of Baldwin de Oskwerwicke (ff 1212)
is correct, this probably took place at generation 2 (Hugh I dead by
1227).

MA-R

Gjest

Re: The de Essex family and their links to the Bourchiers

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 12:48:59

Rosie Bevan wrote:

Yes, on reflection I think you are right - with the removal of Baldwin
de Essex at generation 5. Presumably Anne, mother of Margaret Praers,
is daughter of Hugh at generation 4.


Here, from A2A, are a number of charters in which Baldwin de Essex
features as a witness. Frustratingly, each is undated. Can the
respective date ranges be assertained by internal references?

Eriswell - ref. HD 1538/9 Vol.9/fol.58 [n.d.]

item: Feoffment - ref. HD 1538/9 Vol.9/fol.58/1 - date:
n.d.[13c.]
[from Scope and Content] paying 6d. annually at Easter for
services except King's service. Warranty clause. Witnesses: Baldewin de
Bolon', Baldewinde Essex', Baldewin Coco, William Bunetun, Thomas
Bunetun, Richard Bunetun, Richard Hathe, Richard de Cottune, Richard
the clerk, Ralph Spurun, William son of Austin, Simon Longo, John son
of Katherine and many others.

item: Feoffment - ref. HD 1538/9 Vol.9/fol.58/2 - date:
n.d.[13c.]
[from Scope and Content] For homage and service and fine of
7s. in silver, (1) to (2), arable land (1a.) in fields of Cokeleswrthe
[Coclesworth hamlet in Eriswell], of which ½ acre lies in field of
Grenlowe upon Midelfurlong between land of prior of Cruceroys and land
formerly of William Vig', and other ½ acre lies at Fufhowe between
land of William Vig' and land of William Austyn, abutting N. on land of
William Hurling; to hold of (1) and heirs, with liberty to sell or
assign except to religious houses; paying annually ½ lb cumin at
Christmas for all demands save King's service of ¼d. Warranty clause.
Witnesses: Sir Maurice the chaplain, Baldewin de Esex, William Austyn,
Richard Bunetun, Eustace son of Ralph, Matthew Spur', John Katerr',
William son of Matthew, John son of Jocelin, Simon his brother and many
others.

item: Feoffment [no ref.] - date: n.d.[13c.]
[from Scope and Content] For homage and service and fine of 1
gold coin, (1) to (2), messuage and land (60a.) of Ware in township of
Cuktleswrth [Coclesworth, anciently a hamlet of Eriswell] and Ereswell,
which Nigel de Finebrege sometime sold to said Ralph in fee and which
John de Finebrege, son and heir of N.F. returned and quitclaimed to
(1). To hold of (1) and heirs, paying 7s in silver annually (viz.3s.6d
at Easter and Michaelmas) for all secular demands saving King's service
of scutage of 12d. Warranty clause. Witnesses: Robert de Cantilupo,
Baldwinde Essex', Matthew de Gysney, Thomas de Maneriis, Alexander
Bunetun, Richard his brother, William Austyn, William Martel, John de
Camera, Simon Longo, John Katerin', John de Dungeton', Edmund de
Suchet, William de Twomhull, John the clerk, and others.

Are there any useful de Essex entries in Knights of Edward I?

Denis Beauregard

Re: French medieval

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 03 aug 2006 14:18:05

Le Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:10:41 +0000 (UTC), meazey@wanadoo.fr (Peter
MEAZEY) écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

The name Jégado/de Jégado is more frequent in Morbihan than in
Finistère. There was a De Jégado governor of Hennebont and of course the
well-known 19th century poisoner. I would suggest you tap into local
research groups on this, there are plenty of people interested -

Mais ce sont des Du Val de Pontlo que l'on recherche...


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mon association de généalogie:
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)

Gjest

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 21:00:07

In a message dated 8/2/06 9:25:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ToddWhitesides@aol.com writes:

<< John Arderne, Knt., and Richard de Stafford, Knt., made a settlement
involving lands in Staffordshire on 7 Jan. 1345/6 previous to the marriage
of their
children THOMAS Arderne and Katherine Stafford [see A2A, Birmingham City
Archives: Elford Hall Collection, ref. 3878/24]. >>

Have you further identified this John Arderne, Knt or Richard Stafford, Knt?
Could this Richard Stafford be the one who married Isabella Vernon? Or
perhaps the one who married Maud Camville ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 21:05:22

In a message dated 8/3/06 3:59:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

<< The wording of the fine means that any issue of Joan by Nicholas
would take precedence over any previous issue Joan may have had to the
Arderne inheritance. This makes it unlikely that she had any children
prior to her marriage with Nicholas. >>

Now that we've seen evidence that she had at least two children by her first
marriage, I wonder exactly what the nature of the "annulment" was ? If, for
example, it was that they were related, that would be interesting to know.

Will Johnson

Rosie Bevan

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 03 aug 2006 21:18:56

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/06 3:59:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

The wording of the fine means that any issue of Joan by Nicholas
would take precedence over any previous issue Joan may have had to the
Arderne inheritance. This makes it unlikely that she had any children
prior to her marriage with Nicholas.

Now that we've seen evidence that she had at least two children by her first
marriage, I wonder exactly what the nature of the "annulment" was ? If, for
example, it was that they were related, that would be interesting to know.

Will Johnson

Therein lies the problem. There is no mention of Joan in the VCH
passage and no mention of the first marriage. Todd contacted me
privately to say that he just assumed that William's illegitimate
children were from his marriage with Joan, which is an unsound
genealogical conclusion in the absence of any evidence. Illegitimate
children were far from uncommon in this time period amongst gentry,
apart from which the church was careful to preserve the legitimacy of
children born from a union made in good faith, unless the original
offence or reason for divorce was considered exceptionally heinous, or
there was undue pressure owing to a political reason. To disinherit
Joan's only heirs, had she any, would have been an unusual step by the
church.

To determine when the divorce occurred, and whether there was any issue
between William and Joan it will be necessary to seek out the relevant
episcopal records.

Cheers

Rosie

Gjest

Re: John Arderne (d. 1392) of Nether Darwen & William de Lev

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 aug 2006 22:46:02

Then the followup question would be: Are Lawrence and Margaret actually
called illegitimate in a primary document?

Also are Lawrence and Margaret given surnames in a primary document?

Previously in this thread, it was speculated that Margaret was actually a
daughter of Alice's by a previous marriage. Could Lawrence also be? Or is
Lawrence specifically called "Lever" ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Russian ancestors of early modern English nobility

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2006 00:10:03

Dear Will,
There are several, including Dobronega Maria, daughter of
Vladimir I of Kief, wife of King Casimir I of Poland, Geza II, Kilng of Hungary`s
wife Euphrosine, daughter of Mstislav I of Kief, Geza II`s paternal
grandmother was Predslava, daughter of Sviatopolk of Kief and Almos, Duke of Croatia,
Sophia, wife of King Valdemar I of Denmark was the daughter of a Russian
Prince, his mother Ingeborg was another daughter of Mstislav I of Kief. Premysl
Otakar II, Duke of Bohemia was married to Kunigunde, daughter of Rostislav
sometime Duke of Kief and Galicia (not the one in Spain ) each of the foregoing
figure in the ancestry of Margaret of Denmark, wife of James III, King of Scots
who also descended from at least the first 4 listed via King Edward III of
England and Philippa of Hainault. Rixa of Poland a 2nd great grandaughter of
Dobronega Maria of Kief was 2nd wife of Alfonso VII , King of Castile and Leon
They had Sancha of Castile, wife of Alfonso II, King of Aragon and had great
granddaughters who married Henry III, King of England, Louis IX, King of
France, the elected German King Richard, Earl of Cornwall (no offspring surviving
to present) and Charles I, King of Naples and Sicily. In addition Isabel of
Aragon, Queen of France, Isabel of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Isabel of
France, Queen of England and Isabel of Castile, Duchess of York all descend from
Alfonso II of Aragon and Sancha of Castile, a number of German and Polish
princes in the ancestry of Margaret of Denmark, Queen of Scots also have many
ancestral links to the early Russian Princes.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
ps I purposely avoided the Agatha, wife of Prince Edward question.

Marc Archer

Re: Russian ancestors of early modern English nobility

Legg inn av Marc Archer » 04 aug 2006 01:46:01

Being quite a novice at medieval genealogy, and noticing how venomous
some responders can be, I'm reluctant to ask this, but please keep in mind
my ignorance.
This recent post abt. Russian ancestors of early modern English
nobility, reminded me of hearing that Agath of Hungary was descended from a
Kiev family. Has this been disproven, or remains to be proven?

Thanks,

Marc Archer
Flint, MI

Leo van de Pas

Re: Russian ancestors of early modern English nobility

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 aug 2006 01:51:01

Dear Marc,

Someway to prevent 'nasty' replies, is to ask a clear question. With Agath
of Hungary do you mean Agatha, the wife of Edward Atheling? As far as I
know, nothing has been accepted in regards to her parentage. Like you and
me, many people would just love to have this puzzle solved.

I have looked but I cannot find another Agath/Agathe of Hungary.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Archer" <marcher51@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Russian ancestors of early modern English nobility


Being quite a novice at medieval genealogy, and noticing how venomous
some responders can be, I'm reluctant to ask this, but please keep in mind
my ignorance.
This recent post abt. Russian ancestors of early modern English
nobility, reminded me of hearing that Agath of Hungary was descended from
a Kiev family. Has this been disproven, or remains to be proven?

Thanks,

Marc Archer
Flint, MI




Gjest

Re: Russian ancestors of early modern English nobility

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 aug 2006 01:56:02

Dear Marc,
While there have been articles written, proof as best I
know has yet to be found. I usually try to be non venomous, but everyone has bad
days and sore topics.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»