Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 03 okt 2006 10:31:01

Further reading suggest that Thomas and Gilbert were infeft in Colvend
and Southwick respectively in a period from about 1176 through just
after 1185. This is from Oram's "Lordship of Galloway", p 202. 1176
was the settlement of Galloway between Henry II and Gilbert of Galloway
and 1185 is the date of Roland's conquest of the rest of Galloway after
Gilbert's death.

The implication for their birth dates is not at all conclusive, but
certainly suggestive.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 okt 2006 16:50:18

Dear Newsgroup ~

In medieval genealogy and history, obtaining an accurate chronology of
the flow of events is a paramount factor. As such, I think the
chronology in the succeeding generations of the family of Gospatric
Fitz Orm certainly bears examination.

Gospatric Fitz Orm had a great-grandson, Michael de Furness, who was
aged 6 in 1204, or born about 1198. Using the 85 year rule of thumb
for three generations which I've employed in earlier posts, if we
subtract 85 years from 1198, we obtain an estimated birthdate for
Gospatric Fitz Orm of circa 1113. We get a similar corresponding
result in chronology for Gospatric's son, Thomas Fitz Gospatric, when
we subtract 85 years from the approximate birthdate of his
great-grandson, William de Furness, who I believe was born c.
1215-1219. 85 years substracted from c. 1215-1219 indicates an
estimated birthdate of 1130/1134 for Thomas Fitz Gospatric.

Using these records, the following chronology can be constructed which
harmonizes well with the other facts as we have them:

1. Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda) of Dunbar, born before 1075, minor
and unmarried at her father's death in 1075. She married Orm Fitz
Ketel.

2. Gospatric Fitz Orm, born say 1110, died c. 1177. He married Egliva
Engaine, daughter of Ranulph Engaine (living after 1122) and Ibrea (or
Ybri) de Trevers.

3. Thomas Fitz Gospatric, born say 1130/5, died 1201, married Grace
_____.

4. Aline Fitz Thomas, born say 1160/5, living 1219, married William de
Furness (or Fleming), he was of age before 1164.

5. Michael de Furness, born about 1198 (aged 6 in 1204), died 1230/34.

6. William de Furness, born c. 1215/1219 (allegedly aged 14 at his
father's death), living 1262.

I believe the above reconstruction is both sensible and reasonable.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 18:35:03

In a message dated 10/3/2006 9:15:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Thanks for that Douglas; I note however that Arthur, Duke of Tourraine
etc, is referred to as "dear and well-beloved brother" only - what, if
any, is the inference to be drawn from this? Is it an ellipsis in the
transcribed text?


If I may be so bold. What this means is *spiritual* brother, you see
Michael, the document must be interpreted in three different ways, depending on
what day Easter falls in this calender year. So the document changes from year
to year. And don't forget that at least two out of four people do not speak
English as their native tongue and so every fourth word must be read as if
they meant something completely different from what they wrote.
Hope that helps. (Why do people say this?)
Will "spiritual brother of Loki" Johnson

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 20:11:02

On the first document:
"C 1/66/293: Thomas Coterell, esquire, and Alice, his wife, previously the
wife of John Chene, of Pynne. v. Sir William Say, knight: Detaining Isabel,
daughter and heiress of the said John Chene and Alice.: Devon. Date: 1475-1480,
or 1483-1485"


This Sir William Say may be Sir William Say of Broxbourne, Herts. who died 4
Dec 1529

This Sir William's mother was Elizabeth Cheney d 1473, dau of Lawrence Cheney
by his wife Elizabeth Cokayne. Sir John Say, father of William died 4 Oct
1478 (http://www.genealogics.org) and so it's likely this document should be dated
after that date.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 20:15:02

In a message dated 10/2/06 9:29:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< C 1/67/235

Harry Wentworth, knight, father of Philip Wentworth. v. William Say,
knight: Marriage of Isabel, a daughter of John Cheney, the younger, of
Pynne, and Alis, his wife.: Devon. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485. >>

Which record, ties the family stronger to Sir William Say of Broxbourne
since his sister Anne Say married Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead
whos own father's name was Philip, and although I don't currently have a son
Philip for him, there's no reason to expect that he didn't have one with that
name.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 20:20:03

In a message dated 10/2/06 9:29:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< C 1/67/235
Harry Wentworth, knight, father of Philip Wentworth. v. William Say,
knight: Marriage of Isabel, a daughter of John Cheney, the younger, of
Pynne, and Alis, his wife.: Devon. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485. >>

It would appear possible that John Cheney of Pynne is the son of Sir John
Cheney of Fen Ditton by his wife Elizabeth Rempston. The daughter Isabel would
then fit into the birthrange 1462/83

If we then allow Philip Wentworth to be the son of Henry Wentworth by his
wife Anne Say, then Philips birthrange would fit into 1464/85

Seems like a compatible arrangement.
Will

Douglas Richardson

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 okt 2006 20:30:31

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/2/06 9:29:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

C 1/67/235
Harry Wentworth, knight, father of Philip Wentworth. v. William Say,
knight: Marriage of Isabel, a daughter of John Cheney, the younger, of
Pynne, and Alis, his wife.: Devon. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485.

It would appear possible that John Cheney of Pynne is the son of Sir John
Cheney of Fen Ditton by his wife Elizabeth Rempston. The daughter Isabel would
then fit into the birthrange 1462/83

Will

John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon is a separate and distinct person from
Sir John Cheyne, of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire. Sorry, no soap.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 okt 2006 20:31:22

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/2/06 9:29:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

C 1/67/235
Harry Wentworth, knight, father of Philip Wentworth. v. William Say,
knight: Marriage of Isabel, a daughter of John Cheney, the younger, of
Pynne, and Alis, his wife.: Devon. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485.

It would appear possible that John Cheney of Pynne is the son of Sir John
Cheney of Fen Ditton by his wife Elizabeth Rempston. The daughter Isabel would
then fit into the birthrange 1462/83

Will

John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon is a separate and distinct person from
Sir John Cheyne, of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire. Sorry, no soap.

DR

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 20:50:02

In a message dated 10/3/06 9:00:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< I believe the above reconstruction is both sensible and reasonable. >>

It would be fortunate for some if repetition could induce belief, but except
in certain religions, its just not working. The problems with this chronology
are not fixed by reaching forward four generations and then trying to
reconstruct the family backward into narrow time frames.

We all know that a father could be 18 as well as 58 when a child is born. And
a mother might be 13 as well as 48. Trying to artificially restrict the
dates in order to prove a line doesn't work. We have not progressed on this
chronology in six months, I don't see this current thread as helping that situation.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 20:55:03

In a message dated 10/3/06 9:58:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

<< 1174: Gospatric (son) Orm arranged that his son Adam
Rector of Flimby that Holm Abbey should have Flimby
Chapel, and through an exchange with Carlisle Priory
consolidated their estate by giving Waitecroft for
Kelton (Register of Holm Abbey) >>

Do you have a full citation to this entry ?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 03 okt 2006 21:12:54

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 10/3/06 12:45:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
< royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<
< John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon is a separate and distinct person from
< Sir John Cheyne, of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire. Sorry, no soap. >>
<
< Yes "son of" would imply a seperate person.
<
< > Will

Sorry. Still no soap.

The elder John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon was a younger son of Sir
William Cheyne (born c.1374, died 1420), of Brooke, Wiltshire, by his
wife, Cecily, younger daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Stretch of
Pinhoe and Hempston Arundel, Devon.

DR

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 21:35:03

I have located online the register referred to as "Register of Holm Cultram"
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.asp?pubid=399

"Register & Records of Holm Cultram", Francis Grainger & W.G. Collingwood
(editors). 1929

The description is : "The cartulary and other records of the important
Cistercian house of Holm Cultram. From the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian
and Archaeological Society Record Series, 7."

And here are two documents that seem at first to allow that "Adam" was rector
of Camerton by 1174


'The Register: Flimby', Register & Records of Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 18-21.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49479. Date accessed:
03 October 2006.
"Flimby.
49. (C. pp. 33–35; D. art. 65).—Cospatric f. Orm, with consent of Thomas,
his son and heir, and Alan, his son, grants to Holm abbey Flemingby [Flimby] by
its right bounds, except the land of Waytecroft which he has given to the
canons of Carlisle. The bounds are:—from the confines of Alneburg [Ellenborough]
as a thorn-tree marks the division, across to Elisic; thence up to the true
division between Fleminby and Ouenrig [Ewanrigg] and thence by the true division
across between Waytecroft and Folchegile; thence up to the head of Folkegile
and by the road across to Waytecroft as far as Scalegile and across to
Suanesate; thence across as far as Akegile and down the stream between the two groves
(saltus) of Natuait by the middle of the wood to Kernepot. He grants also
common pasture in Seton and Camerton except on ploughed land and meadows and in
the wood, and from Kernepot to Fulwic [or Folchwyke] between the wood and the
sea except where it has been usually ploughed. He will share common pasture in
Flemingby; cattle strayed from either side are to be returned gratis. He
warrants the grant and will do forinsec and secular services, namely Noutegeld
[cornage] and Endemot [suit of county court], and services to the lord of Alredal,
namely Seawake [watching the coast] and Castelwerke [maintenance of fortified
posts], pleas and aids, etc. And if he cannot perform this promise he will
give something of equal value, in Cumberland if possible. [To this H. 2 adds:—]
Cospatric has exchanged land in Seton, equal in value to the church of
Camberton, for the land in Flemingby near Camberton church, and grants the whole to
the monks; at Carlisle before Robert de Vallibus, justice, in the county court.
[Robert de Vallibus was justice itinerant in 1174.]"
From: 'The Register: Flimby', Register & Records of Holm Cultram (1929), pp.
18-21. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49479. Date
accessed: 03 October 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"53. (C. p. 36).—Robert, archdeacon of Carlisle [1156-c. 1180], recites that
Adam the clerk f. Cospatric f. Orm, rector of the church of Camerton, has
quitclaimed to Holm abbey in presence of himself, the canons and many others the
chapel of Flemingby and all the land of Flemingby that belonged to the mother
church of Camerton, i.e. tithes and land which Adam owned in Flemingby, and
received from Cospatric his father property in Seton in exchange. Witness—Udard
the dean. [No. 49 dates this c. 1174.]"
From: 'The Register: Flimby (continued); Aspatria', Register & Records of
Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 23-4. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49482. Date accessed: 03 October 2006.

But there's a problem here that perhaps someone can clear up.
In the very next entry we see

"53a. (H. 2).—Adam f. Cospatric, parson of Camerton, after controversy with
Holm abbey concerning the tithes of the chapel of Flemingby, quitclaims them to
the abbey with any right he had in the chapel, its lands and fisheries; also
the fishery on the Derwent. Done before Master 'William,' official, and the
general synod at Carlisle. [No Master William is known as official of Carlisle
until about 1262 which is far too late for this transaction. The date is likely
to be near that of no. 53b, or c. 1200.]

From: 'The Register: Flimby (continued); Aspatria', Register & Records of
Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 23-4. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49482. Date accessed: 03 October 2006."


If Adam had already quitclaimed the chapel of Flimby and tithes c 1174, why
is he 24 years later quitclaiming them again ?

Looking at the first document (No 49), the name of the son, who there is not
given a title, is "Alan" not "Adam".
Gospatrick is the one giving the land, and exchanging the land, etc. His
sons are only there to ensure that they know of this so they cannot object later
presumably.

So another possible solution is that Adam was not listed in 1174 because he
was not the second son, but third or later, and that he was not the parson or
rector of Camerton at that time and it's No 53 that is incorrectly dated
backward by several years.

In fact, No 53, might have been necessitated by Alan dying and Adam now
standing in second place and his NOT having been a witness to No 49 to begin with.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 21:50:04

In a message dated 10/3/06 12:45:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< > It would appear possible that John Cheney of Pynne is the son of Sir John
Cheney of Fen Ditton by his wife Elizabeth Rempston. The daughter Isabel
would
then fit into the birthrange 1462/83

Will

John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon is a separate and distinct person from
Sir John Cheyne, of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire. Sorry, no soap. >>

Yes "son of" would imply a seperate person.

John Higgins

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av John Higgins » 03 okt 2006 22:05:02

Not just separate and distinct persons, but the family of Cheyne/Cheney of
Devon is separate and distinct from the family of Cheyne/Cheney of
Cambridgeshire - no connection, at least as far as I'm aware. Another
example of the risk of assuming things just because "the name's the
same"....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of
Ermesthorp: A...


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/2/06 9:29:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

C 1/67/235
Harry Wentworth, knight, father of Philip Wentworth. v. William Say,
knight: Marriage of Isabel, a daughter of John Cheney, the younger, of
Pynne, and Alis, his wife.: Devon. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485.

It would appear possible that John Cheney of Pynne is the son of Sir
John
Cheney of Fen Ditton by his wife Elizabeth Rempston. The daughter
Isabel would
then fit into the birthrange 1462/83

Will

John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon is a separate and distinct person from
Sir John Cheyne, of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire. Sorry, no soap.

DR

Gjest

Re: Correction to Complete Peerage?

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 okt 2006 22:06:02

In a message dated 10/3/06 9:44:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
forrest@WHIDBEY.COM writes:

<< CP 3:148, Chaundos, tells us that Sir Roger Chaundos d. 24 Sep 1353, and
"his widow...d. 15 Aug. 1361 (f)." It then carries on with: >>

Also see
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... misc05.htm

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 01:46:02

Dear Michael,
I believe that both Duke Philippe and Duke Arthur might
have used the royal "We" as both were sovereign dukes ( Dukes who didn`t
acknowledge the overlordship of the French King) and Duke John may have employed it
in his role as Regent of France for Henry VI, King of England and France.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Renia

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Usage of Mautravers title

Legg inn av Renia » 04 okt 2006 02:03:48

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/2/06 3:00:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

I concur with your identification of Anne, Lady Mautravers. The record
in question dated 1597-1598 refers to the land "late of Anne, Lady
Mautravers."

Isn't it a little odd to be describing lands as "late" of someone who had
been dead more than a decade? That's the only part that is nagging me.
Will

Lands "late of" NNNN simply means that NNNN previously held those lands.
It does not necessarily mean that NNNN is now dead, though s/he may be.

Also it is not unusual for land records to name a previous landholder,
however long ago. I know of cases where the previous (late) landholder
was named about 60 years after they ceased to hold the land in question.

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 13:30:04

In a message dated 10/3/06 1:15:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< The elder John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon was a younger son of Sir
William Cheyne (born c.1374, died 1420), of Brooke, Wiltshire, by his
wife, Cecily, younger daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Stretch of
Pinhoe and Hempston Arundel, Devon. >>

Thanks for the correction.

Is "Pinhoe" the same name as "Pynne" ?
There is a CPR entry in 1475 that this John was still living and named to a
commission. There is also a Sheriff of Devon in 1443 named John Cheyney of
Pynne which is probably the same person.

Will

Gjest

re: Stirnet conflict - Waldegrave of Stanninghall and Chewto

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 13:31:02

In their descent of Edward Waldegrave of Boreley and West Haddon (d 1 Sep
1561), stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... grave1.htm

states that his son "Charles or Christopher Waldegrave" who married Jeronyma
Jerningham and had issue, "dvp 25 Jan 1550"

However tudorplace.com.ar states that Edward Waldegrave and Francis Neville
were married in 1548
So that (unless possibly their children were illegitimate) they couldn't be
the parents of the man who married Jeronyma and died in 1550.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 13:32:02

Dear Le,
Both John, Duke of Bedford and Anne of Burgundy were
descendants of King Edward I of England , John through Edward II and Elizabeth, Countess
of Hereford and Essex and Anne through Margaret, wife of Duke John II of
Brabant

Line 1 Edward I, King of England married Eleanor of Castile, Edward II,
King of England married Isabel of France, Edward III, King of England married
Philippa of Hainault, John, Duke of Lancaster married 1st Blanche of Lancaster,
Henry IV, King of England married Mary de Bohun, John, Duke of Bedford (3rd G
grandson)

Line 2 Edward I, King of England married Eleanor of Castile, Elizabeth of
England married Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, William de
Bohun, Earl of Northampton married Elizabeth de Badlesmere, Humphrey de Bohun, Earl
of Hereford, Essex and Northampton married Joan de Arundel, Mary de Bohun
married Henry IV, King of England, John, Duke of Bedford (3rd G grandson)

Line 3 Edward I, King of England married Eleanor of Castile, Margaret of
England married John II, Duke of Brabant, John III, Duke of Brabant married Marie
d`Evereux , Margaret of Brabant married Louis II, Count of Flanders,
Margaret, heiress of Flanders and Brabant married Philippe II, Duke of Burgundy, John
, Duke of Burgundy married Margaret of Bavaria-Straubing, Anne of Burgundy
(4th G granddaughter)

John and Anne both descended from Philip IV, King of France and Joan I,
Queen of Navarre, He through Isabel, wife of King Edward II of England, She
through Philip V, King of France married Joan of Burgundy (the countship),
daughter Margaret of France married Louis I, Count of Flanders, their son Louis II,
Count of Flanders married Margaret of Brabant

John and Anne were also descendants of Blanche d`Artois married 1st Henry
I, King of Navarre and had Joan I, Queen of Navarre , wife of Philip IV, King
of France, married 2nd Edmund, Earl of Lancaster and had a son
Henry, Earl of Lancaster married Maud de Chaworth
They had a son Henry, Earl, then Duke of Lancaster married Isabel , daughter
of Henry Beaumont jure uxoris Earl of Buchan by Alice Comyn, parents of
Blanche of Lancaster who married as his 1st wife, John , Duke of Lancaster
Henry, Earl of Lancaster and Maud de Chaworth also had several daughters
including Eleanor de Lancaster who married 2nd as 2nd wife Richard de Arundel,
Earl of Arundel and Surrey and had Joan de Arundel who married Humphrey de
Bohun, Earl of Hereford, Essex and Northampton
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

re: Stirnet conflict - Waldegrave of Stanninghall and Chewto

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 13:33:02

In their descent of Edward Waldegrave of Boreley and West Haddon (d 1 Sep
1561), stirnet here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... grave1.htm

states that his son "Charles or Christopher Waldegrave" who married Jeronyma
Jerningham and had issue, "dvp 25 Jan 1550"

However tudorplace.com.ar states that Edward Waldegrave and Francis Neville
were married in 1548
So that (unless possibly their children were illegitimate) they couldn't be
the parents of the man who married Jeronyma and died in 1550.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 04 okt 2006 16:22:37

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/3/06 1:15:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

The elder John Cheyne, of Pinhoe, Devon was a younger son of Sir
William Cheyne (born c.1374, died 1420), of Brooke, Wiltshire, by his
wife, Cecily, younger daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Stretch of
Pinhoe and Hempston Arundel, Devon.

Thanks for the correction.

Is "Pinhoe" the same name as "Pynne" ?
There is a CPR entry in 1475 that this John was still living and named to a
commission. There is also a Sheriff of Devon in 1443 named John Cheyney of
Pynne which is probably the same person.

Will

There were two John Cheyne's at Pinhoe, father and son. The father
married Elizabeth Hill, daughter of Robert Hill, of Spaxton. The son
married Alice Stowell, daughter of _____ Stowell, of Cothelstone. The
younger John was survived by a daughter and heiress, Isabel Cheyne, who
married Edward Waldegrave (or Walgrave), of Suffolk.

Yes, Pinhoe is the same as Pynne.

DR

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 19:06:02

In a message dated 10/4/2006 9:05:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

1174: Gospatric (son) Orm makes grant with consent of:

(1) Thomas (son) (heir) of Gospatric.
(2) Alan (son) of Thomas.


(2) is your interpretation isnt it?
The English translation says "his son". Who "his" refers to, would be part
of the problem.

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 19:10:03

In fact, to cement my point, you refer to charter 49 when you mention "Alan,
his son" and claim this "his" refers to Thomas.

Yet if you look at 49a does it not say "Alan *brother* of Thomas" ?

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 21:00:03

In a message dated 10/4/06 4:44:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Thomas was
patron of West Ogwell, Devon in 1445, perhaps in right of his wife.
Margaret died shortly before 3 March 1476/7. >>

I suggest the 1445 record belongs to his father, not himself, also Thomas,
and still living.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 21:05:05

In a message dated 10/4/06 4:44:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Thomas married (2nd)
shortly before 7 May 1477 (date of settlement) Alice Stowell, widow of
John Cheyne, the younger, of Pinhoe, Devon, >>

Is this John Cheyne the one you've identified as son of
William Cheyne of Brooke by his wife Cecily Stretch ?
And was Alice his only wife?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 04 okt 2006 21:26:48

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 10/4/06 4:44:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
< royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<
< << Thomas was
< patron of West Ogwell, Devon in 1445, perhaps in right of his wife.
< Margaret died shortly before 3 March 1476/7. >>
<
< I suggest the 1445 record belongs to his father, not himself, also
Thomas,
< and still living.
< Will Johnson

I thought this might be the case. But the original record says that it
was Thomas Dowrish "junior" who was patron of West Ogwell, Devon in
1445 [Reference: Register of Edmund Lacy (Devon & Cornwall Record
Society), Vol. II, pg. 333]. He was also elected to represent Exeter
as "Thomas Dourissh junior" for the parliaments held in January and
November 1448-9 [Reference: Transactions Devonshire Assoc., vol. 60,
pp. 196, 208].

DR.

Gjest

Re: Dom. was Sir Adam Fitz John, of

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 21:51:02

The lesson is probably that "Dom." merely signified something like

"The big man in these parts"

and nothing more.

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 04 okt 2006 22:59:40

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
< Dear Douglas, Will and others,
< Arthur, Duke of Turrene
(later
< Arthur III, Duke of Brittany) was in fact a (step)brother to Duke
John of
< Bedford. His parents were John V de Montfort, Duke of Brittany and
Joan of Navarre
< who became Henry IV, King of England`s 2nd wife
<
< Sincerely ,
< James W Cummings
< Dixmont, Maine USA

You're entirely correct, James. Duke Arthur and Duke John were
step-brothers. However, I've never seen a step-sibling addressed as
"our brother" or "our sister" in English medieval records. So this
presumably would not be the reason Duke Arthur was addressed as "our
brother" in the 1423 accord. Duke Arthur could, however, be addressed
as "our brother" by Duke Philippe if he was already contracted to marry
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, which I believe was the
case.

DR

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 okt 2006 23:25:05

Dear Douglas, Will and others,
Arthur, Duke of Turrene (later
Arthur III, Duke of Brittany) was in fact a (step)brother to Duke John of
Bedford. His parents were John V de Montfort, Duke of Brittany and Joan of Navarre
who became Henry IV, King of England`s 2nd wife
Philip IV, King of France married Joan I, Queen of Navarre
Louis X, King of France and Navarre married Margaret, daughter of Duke
Robert II of Burgundy
Joan II, Queen of Navarre married Philip, Count of Evereux and jure uxoris
King of Navarre, son of Count Louis of Evereux by Margaret, daughter of
Philip, Count of Artois and Blanche of Brittany. Louis, Count of Evereux was a son
of King Philippe III of France by his 2nd wife Marie of Brabant
Charles I, King of Navarre married Joan, daughter of King John II of France
by Bonne of Bohemia
Joan of Navarre married 1st John V, Duke of Brittany and 2nd Henry IV, King
of England
Arthur III, Duke of Brittany was thus step brother to John, Duke of Bedford
and also 1st cousin once removed to Duke Philippe of Burgundy and his own wife
Margaret of Burgundy
Sincerely ,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

note: Count Philip of Evereux, King of Navarre(above) was the brother of
Marie of Evereux, wife of Duke John III of Brabant
(Sources: Some of the Emperor Charlemagne`s Descendants Volume I by M von
Redlich,
MacLagan and Louda Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe Tables on Navarre
(44) and France (64 and 65), Genealogics.org

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 00:07:31

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas, Will and others,
Arthur, Duke of Turrene
(later
Arthur III, Duke of Brittany) was in fact a (step)brother to Duke
John of
Bedford. His parents were John V de Montfort, Duke of Brittany and
Joan of Navarre
who became Henry IV, King of England`s 2nd wife

Sincerely ,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

You're entirely correct, James. Duke Arthur and Duke John were
step-brothers. However, I've never seen a step-sibling addressed as
"our brother" or "our sister" in English medieval records. So this
presumably would not be the reason Duke Arthur was addressed as "our
brother" in the 1423 accord. Duke Arthur could, however, be addressed
as "our brother" by Duke Philippe if he was already contracted to marry
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, which I believe was the
case.

Sorry to labour this point, Douglas - but why do you suppose that logic
does not extend to "Duke John", who you state calls the sister of his
contracted spouse his "cousin" rather than his "sister"? I would find
your hypothesis more credible if it were consistent, or if this
apparent inconsistency could be explained.

Regards, Michael

Douglas Richardson

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 okt 2006 00:18:09

Dear Michael ~

I do know of one instance where King Edward I addressed his second
wife, Margaret of France, as his sister. So I suppose it's also
possible that Duke John referred to his contracted spouse, Anne of
Burgundy, as his sister.

Anything is possible, I suppose. Grin.

DR


m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas, Will and others,
Arthur, Duke of Turrene
(later
Arthur III, Duke of Brittany) was in fact a (step)brother to Duke
John of
Bedford. His parents were John V de Montfort, Duke of Brittany and
Joan of Navarre
who became Henry IV, King of England`s 2nd wife

Sincerely ,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

You're entirely correct, James. Duke Arthur and Duke John were
step-brothers. However, I've never seen a step-sibling addressed as
"our brother" or "our sister" in English medieval records. So this
presumably would not be the reason Duke Arthur was addressed as "our
brother" in the 1423 accord. Duke Arthur could, however, be addressed
as "our brother" by Duke Philippe if he was already contracted to marry
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, which I believe was the
case.

Sorry to labour this point, Douglas - but why do you suppose that logic
does not extend to "Duke John", who you state calls the sister of his
contracted spouse his "cousin" rather than his "sister"? I would find
your hypothesis more credible if it were consistent, or if this
apparent inconsistency could be explained.

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 00:54:04

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Dear Michael ~

I do know of one instance where King Edward I addressed his second
wife, Margaret of France, as his sister. So I suppose it's also
possible that Duke John referred to his contracted spouse, Anne of
Burgundy, as his sister.

That may well be the case - and an interesting one at that, in a
tangential sense, But, being the case, what then are we to make of the
reference to "our cousin" in the text on which this thread is founded -
why not just "our [plural, for John and Philip] sister"?

Anything is possible, I suppose. Grin.

Indeed, but not all things are equally likely.

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

this
presumably would not be the reason Duke Arthur was addressed as "our
brother" in the 1423 accord. Duke Arthur could, however, be addressed
as "our brother" by Duke Philippe if he was already contracted to marry
Duke Philippe's sister, Marguerite of Burgundy, which I believe was the
case.

I think we can be pretty certain that this was the case - after all,
the whole purpose of the accord as quoted was based upon the "maryagys
concludyd, acordyd, and conservyde by-twyxte" John and Arthur and the
sisters of Philip.

However, I note that the accord is not by two parties (John and Philip)
but by *three*: John, Philip and "the Duke of Bretayne" - i.e. John V,
brother of Arthur, Duke of Tourraine. I would therefore propose that
we can explain the reference to Arthur as "brother" much more neatly as
describing the relationship between him and one of the *three*
speakers, the Duke of Brittany.

Any views?

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John,

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 00:56:01

We should also keep in mind the possibilty that there were three successive
generations of Thomas Dourish.

Although not impossible, it seems a bit odd that a man would be elected to
Parliament when he was perhaps 20 to 30, versus electing his father who was
still living until 1464. By the way, what is the source for this 1464 date?

I've found records where this family is in some way tied up with the Pomeray
family, but I haven't quite figure out yet how.

If Thomas who was "of age before 1428" was himself the son of a Thomas, then
he could be referrred to as Thomas Junior up to the point perhaps where his
own son was born.

If we shift those 1440 records up to his father, then we can allow this son
to be born later and be a closer match in age to his alleged wife Alice Stowell
who was giving birth in 1479/80, and living until at least 1507.

It should at least be kept in mind as a possible solution to the documents.

By the way, another document has Richard Dourisshe quitclaiming land, etc in
Mambury which he had by gift of Richard Whiteher "and which were formerly of
Agnes Lucas"

Might be interesting to see if this is telling us something about Richard's
wife.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walte

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 00:58:58

Jwc1870@aol.com schrieb:

Dear Michael, Douglas, Peter and others,
In medieval
Latin, Domina is clearly lady, however, why use domino instead of dominus at all

Case declension in Latin - it is the same word:

Nominative: dominus, e.g. the lord
Dative: domino, e.g. to the lord

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walte

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 01:21:01

Dear William,
There is evidence of the honorific Sir in use in England
prior to 1233, quite possibly as much as 20 years prior. One of the Dodsworth
MSS xiv, 33b and MSS Lansdowne cccxxvi 109 It appears to be an acknowledgment
of a grant made by Ricardus Cumin by his son domino Willelmo Cumin, comite de
Buchan and so places the document at sometime between 1204-1233 after William
married Margaret, Countess of Buchan and prior to his own death.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walte

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 01:50:03

Dear Michael, Douglas, Peter and others,
In medieval
Latin, Domina is clearly lady, however, why use domino instead of dominus at all
unless the ending indicated that one was greater than the other, with domino
denoting sir as in a knight or a priest or dominus for a feudal superior
(lord), including priors, abbots, bishops, cardinals and popes ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Dom. was Sir Adam Fitz John, of

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 09:50:42

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The lesson is probably that "Dom." merely signified something like

"The big man in these parts"

and nothing more.

Will Johnson

Here is an illustrative example, in which "domina" apparently does not
mean "Lady" (as in wife of a knight) or Dame (which of course is an
English word derived directly from the Latin "domina):

From A2A:

DR10/2042 - date: 7 September 1433
Domina Elizabeth Gregory heres domini Franc' Gregory

I am not familiar with the Gregory family - Francis Gregory may well
have been a knight, However, it is difficult to see how Elizabeth
Gregory, his heir, could have been entitled to the style of "Lady" or
"Dame". It seems to me to be far more likely that she was considered
"a lady".

Thus I would not be comfortable in translating "dom." as Sir or Lady
unless I could tell from the context or other contents of the document
or other reliable sources that the person was a knight, or the
wife/widow of a knight, or a member of the lower orders of clergy.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Correction to Complete Peerage?

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 okt 2006 19:01:02

But are there examples where say one IPM says not "30 or more" but something
precise like "23 and more" and another IPM a few years later would say "28
or more" (obviously impossible).

What I mean is, are there examples, where a non-rounded number disagrees
with another source ? Or can we say that if the number hasn't been rounded to a
decade, then we can rely on it?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Bekering family of Lincs & Notts: some earlier generatio

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 01:18:03

Thanks for adding more details to this Bekering line.

I'm not clear from this on the relationship between Thomas Foljambe who had
"tenure of the manor of Walton" "in right of dower of Margaret le Souche"

Since Thomas Bekering has half by right of his wife Isabel Loudham, dau of
Sir John Loudham; then, is Margaret also a Loudham dau of this same John? And
why is she called Le Zouche here? Is Thomas Foljambe her son and she has
remarried a Zouche ?

Or.... maybe Magaret is Thomas Foljambe's... mother ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Use of Sir as a title

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 01:19:02

Sir is not a title. It is a style/form of address.

Gjest

Re: Bekering family of Lincs & Notts: some earlier generatio

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 08:05:15

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

Thanks for adding more details to this Bekering line.

I'm not clear from this on the relationship between Thomas Foljambe who had
"tenure of the manor of Walton" "in right of dower of Margaret le Souche"

Since Thomas Bekering has half by right of his wife Isabel Loudham, dau of
Sir John Loudham; then, is Margaret also a Loudham dau of this same John? And
why is she called Le Zouche here? Is Thomas Foljambe her son and she has
remarried a Zouche ?

Or.... maybe Magaret is Thomas Foljambe's... mother ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Will

Margaret was the widow of the younger John Lowdham, brother of Isabel
Bekering etc.

See my post of 3 September 2005 for further details:

http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... 169cd578bc

Regards, Michael

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Dom. was Sir Adam Fitz John, of

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 06 okt 2006 08:13:10

In my experience persons were not called Dom, whether male or female,
unless they were lords in the territorial sense, or else priests. How
big you had to be to ba called Dom must have varied, because knights in
Annandale witnessing charters of the Bruces, their Lord, (ie ca 1124 -
1300), were entitled Dom, but only the bigger ones, it would seem. On
the other hand if a man was a knight it was always noted after his
name, eg Humphrey de Bosco, miles, if he was also a lord it would have
been Dom H de Bosco miles.

Usually in charters the Doms were first then the knights, then the
others, unless there were clerics with precedence, who went before all.
Clerics without precedence, often the lawyer for the deed, went last,
but were still Doms. If, as in letters of the Parliament, you had a
load of barons, those who were knights went first, so Domini R de
Chene, W de Moravia, milites, domini Fred de Smith, J de X, A de Y,
etc.

This is based on Scottish practice, but English seems to have been the
same at this period.

Birds

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Birds » 06 okt 2006 14:16:11

Douglas Richardson schreef:

My comments are interspersed below. DR
[snip]
I think we can generally assume that children were at least 14 when
they served as witnesses to their father's charters. That my
impression at least after reading thousands of English medieval
charters.

How about 'at least 7' years. See my remarks in the string:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ng=d&hl=nl

"So far Hlawitschka. Heinrich could have been fourteen but need not
have been. His minimal age at that time could have been at least seven
years. Seven being the minimal age when children could confirm actions
when their father, mother or gardian made deeds and gifts or made other
decisions important for them. Drs. T. Klaversma points out that this
fase started when the children were no longer "infans", so minimaly
seven years of age, the time when they came to the years of
distinction/discretion. The Dutchman Klaversma - in a dicussion with
the German Severin Corsten - points to a charter of 1173 in which duke
Godfried III of Brabant and his sons Hendrik and Albert made a memorial
donation for their wife and mother. As it is known that Hendrik was
born in 1165 he could have been eight and his brother seven years at
most. This and more can be read in his paper "Wassenberg en de hertogen
van Limburg in de twaalfde eeuw", in: De Maasgouw jrg. CVII (1988),
41-47."

As I read in this string the charter was written in the period
1138-1157. The witnessing sons were Thomas, Adam, and Robert. Starting
from say 1157, Robert could have been born 1150, Adam in 1149 an Thomas
in 1148. If we see father Gospatrick of age when he fathered his eldest
son he would have ultimately been born around 1126. That would make
Gospatrick be around 50 years when dueling in 1176.

On the other hand if the charter is from around 1138 the picture
becomes different with: Robert ca.1131, Adam ca.1130, Thomas ca.1129,
and father Gospatrick ca.1108. That would make Gospatrick be around 68
years in 1176.

But this is 'spielerei' from a continental frame of mind and with a
lot of if's. It need not be appropriate in England. I do not claim to
be knowledgeable. I just want to widen the horizon in providing
alternatives. The reconstructionable time frame will probable somewhere
in the middle of the road.

Hans Vogels


This means that the youngest of Gospatrick Fitz Orm's three
sons was born in or before 1143. That's the end limit of his possible
birth, not an approximate date of birth. He could have been born many
years before that date .... and probably was. I'd shove his estimated
birthdate back at least 5 years. Then subtract another ten to get to
his older brother, Thomas' date of birth. That gives you 1127 for a
date of birth for Thomas Fitz Gospatrick. And that's reasonable.
Particularly when we know Thomas had a son-in-law, William de Furness,
who was born in or before 1143. I know ... don't tell me ... it's
unwarranted that William de Furness should be born as early as 1143.
Well, don't let the unvarnished facts get in the way of your
chronology, Will.

If we allow Michael Anne to be correct, and very conservatively say the boys
were 16, 15, and 14 then we only get that Gospatric FitzOrm had to be born by
1124 allowing him to be 17 himself at the birth of his eldest son.

We need to be reasonable in our estimates, not skew the data, Will.
You're skewing the data.

Other than the fact that he was fined for engaging in a duel in 1176 (so
presumably he wasn't say 80 years old...) I've seen nothing else to allow us to
pin down any birthyear for him or his sons. Personally I would think a 70 year
old man engaging in a duel would be awfully hot-headed.

I know this sounds like an episode of the hit TV series CSI, but it's
important that we let the medieval records (and the dead) speak for
themselves. What you or I think of the people of the medieval period
and their value system is utterly and completely immaterial. When
we're ready to listen, they're ready to speak to us.

Will

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #767

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 okt 2006 15:18:26

In message of 6 Oct, Millerfairfield@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 06/10/2006 William Black wrote:-
I'd like a citation that any bishop (After Odo anyway) ever sent
fighting men to a king of <England when acting as a tenant.

I am looking at a photocopy of the IPM of my forebear William
Pateshall of Pudlestone in Herefordshire, dated 34 Eliz, in which the
jury finds that he was seised in his own demesne in fee of his manor
and other nearby lands, and held them of the queen "per servitium
militare", as of the honour of Richard's Castle, "sede vacante
Episcopatus Wigorn"- that is to say during the then current vacancy
in the see of Worcester.


This I take to be clear evidence that whenever the see of Worcester
had an incumbent bishop the bishop was entitled to call on William
Pateshall to perform military service. The bishop, as tenant in chief,
must himself I think have held the honour of Richard's castle by
military service. I do not know when or how his predecessors acquired
Richard's Castle.

I have not yet found any record of William Pateshall, or of any of
his ancestors, who are traceable through six generations back to Ralph
Pateshall (living in the 14th century) having been called on to engage
in soldiering by any of the bishops of Worcester. But having regard
to the history of the Welsh marches it must be probable that they
often were.

In case it is of interest, the family arms were Azure on a chevron
argent between three hurtes or three escallops gules

It is always difficult to say that there is one set of arms for a
family, not to mention one set for a surname. I can find these arms
given also for members of the medieval Patshull family:

Ermine, a lion gules crowned or (Dictionary of British Arms, vol I, p.
170)

Per pale Argent a fess Sable between three crescents Gules (Coat No 17,
quoted by Sebastian Nelson in his thesis on "The Paston Boom of Arms"
at http://heraldry.freeservers.com/pastons.htm)

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

Birds

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Birds » 06 okt 2006 15:22:42

Could the Alan of ca.1174 be the (eldest) son of Thomas (eldest son
and) heir of Gospatrick?

Hans Vogels

WJhonson@aol.com schreef:

I have located online the register referred to as "Register of Holm Cultram"
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.asp?pubid=399

"Register & Records of Holm Cultram", Francis Grainger & W.G. Collingwood
(editors). 1929

The description is : "The cartulary and other records of the important
Cistercian house of Holm Cultram. From the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian
and Archaeological Society Record Series, 7."

And here are two documents that seem at first to allow that "Adam" was rector
of Camerton by 1174


'The Register: Flimby', Register & Records of Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 18-21.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49479. Date accessed:
03 October 2006.
"Flimby.
49. (C. pp. 33-35; D. art. 65).-Cospatric f. Orm, with consent of Thomas,
his son and heir, and Alan, his son, grants to Holm abbey Flemingby [Flimby] by
its right bounds, except the land of Waytecroft which he has given to the
canons of Carlisle. The bounds are:-from the confines of Alneburg [Ellenborough]
as a thorn-tree marks the division, across to Elisic; thence up to the true
division between Fleminby and Ouenrig [Ewanrigg] and thence by the true division
across between Waytecroft and Folchegile; thence up to the head of Folkegile
and by the road across to Waytecroft as far as Scalegile and across to
Suanesate; thence across as far as Akegile and down the stream between the two groves
(saltus) of Natuait by the middle of the wood to Kernepot. He grants also
common pasture in Seton and Camerton except on ploughed land and meadows and in
the wood, and from Kernepot to Fulwic [or Folchwyke] between the wood and the
sea except where it has been usually ploughed. He will share common pasture in
Flemingby; cattle strayed from either side are to be returned gratis. He
warrants the grant and will do forinsec and secular services, namely Noutegeld
[cornage] and Endemot [suit of county court], and services to the lord of Alredal,
namely Seawake [watching the coast] and Castelwerke [maintenance of fortified
posts], pleas and aids, etc. And if he cannot perform this promise he will
give something of equal value, in Cumberland if possible. [To this H. 2 adds:-]
Cospatric has exchanged land in Seton, equal in value to the church of
Camberton, for the land in Flemingby near Camberton church, and grants the whole to
the monks; at Carlisle before Robert de Vallibus, justice, in the county court.
[Robert de Vallibus was justice itinerant in 1174.]"
From: 'The Register: Flimby', Register & Records of Holm Cultram (1929), pp.
18-21. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49479. Date
accessed: 03 October 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"53. (C. p. 36).-Robert, archdeacon of Carlisle [1156-c. 1180], recites that
Adam the clerk f. Cospatric f. Orm, rector of the church of Camerton, has
quitclaimed to Holm abbey in presence of himself, the canons and many others the
chapel of Flemingby and all the land of Flemingby that belonged to the mother
church of Camerton, i.e. tithes and land which Adam owned in Flemingby, and
received from Cospatric his father property in Seton in exchange. Witness-Udard
the dean. [No. 49 dates this c. 1174.]"
From: 'The Register: Flimby (continued); Aspatria', Register & Records of
Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 23-4. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49482. Date accessed: 03 October 2006.

But there's a problem here that perhaps someone can clear up.
In the very next entry we see

"53a. (H. 2).-Adam f. Cospatric, parson of Camerton, after controversy with
Holm abbey concerning the tithes of the chapel of Flemingby, quitclaims them to
the abbey with any right he had in the chapel, its lands and fisheries; also
the fishery on the Derwent. Done before Master 'William,' official, and the
general synod at Carlisle. [No Master William is known as official of Carlisle
until about 1262 which is far too late for this transaction. The date is likely
to be near that of no. 53b, or c. 1200.]

From: 'The Register: Flimby (continued); Aspatria', Register & Records of
Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 23-4. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49482. Date accessed: 03 October 2006."


If Adam had already quitclaimed the chapel of Flimby and tithes c 1174, why
is he 24 years later quitclaiming them again ?

Looking at the first document (No 49), the name of the son, who there is not
given a title, is "Alan" not "Adam".
Gospatrick is the one giving the land, and exchanging the land, etc. His
sons are only there to ensure that they know of this so they cannot object later
presumably.

So another possible solution is that Adam was not listed in 1174 because he
was not the second son, but third or later, and that he was not the parson or
rector of Camerton at that time and it's No 53 that is incorrectly dated
backward by several years.

In fact, No 53, might have been necessitated by Alan dying and Adam now
standing in second place and his NOT having been a witness to No 49 to begin with.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #767

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 15:41:02

In a message dated 06/10/2006 William Black wrote:-
<I'd like a citation that any bishop (After Odo anyway) ever sent fighting
men to a king of <England when acting as a tenant.

I am looking at a photocopy of the IPM of my forebear William Pateshall of
Pudlestone in Herefordshire, dated 34 Eliz, in which the jury finds that he
was seised in his own demesne in fee of his manor and other nearby lands, and
held them of the queen "per servitium militare", as of the honour of
Richard's Castle, "sede vacante Episcopatus Wigorn"- that is to say during the then
current vacancy in the see of Worcester.


This I take to be clear evidence that whenever the see of Worcester had an
incumbent bishop the bishop was entitled to call on William Pateshall to
perform military service. The bishop, as tenant in chief, must himself I think
have held the honour of Richard's castle by military service. I do not know when
or how his predecessors acquired Richard's Castle.

I have not yet found any record of William Pateshall, or of any of his
ancestors, who are traceable through six generations back to Ralph Pateshall
(living in the 14th century) having been called on to engage in soldiering by any
of the bishops of Worcester. But having regard to the history of the Welsh
marches it must be probable that they often were.

In case it is of interest, the family arms were Azure on a chevron argent
between three hurtes or three escallops gules
MM

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 okt 2006 15:47:02

Birds wrote:
How about 'at least 7' years. See my remarks in the string:

We can probably get some idea of the various ages at which sons could
appear in English charters simply by examining the charters of King
Henry II of England. He had several sons.

DR

Gjest

Re:Use of Sir as a title of honor

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 16:50:03

May I suggest that those colleagues who are interested in the current debate
try a search on _www.a2a.org.uk_ (http://www.a2a.org.uk) , searching for
"domin* "? They will find hundreds of examples, from very early times, which
show the following categories of people described in ancient documents as
"dominus":-
God
Kings
Peers
Justices
Knights
Landowners
Clerics
Teachers ( as to which category consider the traditions of Winchester
College and all the Oxford Colleges, where the masters are called "Dons" to this
day)

It is perhaps of particular relevance to the debate that the same person may
be at one time recorded as "Dominus X, miles", and at other times as
"Dominus X" -perhaps the document so naming him may be dateable to a period before
he was knighted?
There are also documents which name one person A as "A, miles", and another
person B as "Dominus B" , with some other description.

My conclusions, for whatever little they may be worth, are as follows:-
1. "Dominus" is most accurately translated into English as "Lord": one so
described may have been a peer, but he may equally have been the Lord of a
barony (like the Cornwalls of Burford were) or of a manor, or even a lesser
mortal- see conclusion 4 infra
2. "Miles" means "Knight"- one who has in fact been knighted- in Anglo
Norman "Chivaler"
3. A "Dominus" may or may not have been a Knight: he might have occupied any
of the positions I listed supra
4. A "Miles" may or may not have been called "Dominus"
5. Quite often a lady is described as "Domina". But ladies were never
knighted in medieval times, so a lady so described could have been a peeress, or
the owner of a barony or lordship of a manor, or perhaps by courtesy the
daughter of one such

In medieval French, I believe, "Sire" has the same meaning as "Dominus" in a
medieval Latin document: people may like to refer to the works of Froissart.
And in English "Sir" is the direct translation of "Dominus" and of "Sire"

I hope this helps
MM

Birds

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Birds » 06 okt 2006 20:17:52

Right.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=49479

Hans Vogels


WJhonson@aol.com schreef:

In a message dated 10/6/2006 7:28:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
h.vogels6@chello.nl writes:

Could the Alan of ca.1174 be the (eldest) son of Thomas (eldest son
and) heir of Gospatrick?


No because charter 49a states "Thomas and his BROTHER Alan"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 20:55:03

In a message dated 10/6/2006 7:28:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
h.vogels6@chello.nl writes:

Could the Alan of ca.1174 be the (eldest) son of Thomas (eldest son
and) heir of Gospatrick?


No because charter 49a states "Thomas and his BROTHER Alan"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 22:00:03

In a message dated 10/6/06 9:24:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

<< It would appear from records that Thomas (son)
Gospatric (son) Orm must have married during the 1150s
to have had adult children in the 1170s. >>

Thomas did not have adult children in the 1170s.

Gjest

Re: Vincent Skinner of Bolingbroke

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 okt 2006 23:46:02

Thank you Will for this link showing where Vincent fits in the Skinner family.

His first wife Audrey Ogle had as great-grandparents
Robert Ogle, Jane Eure, John FitzWilliam, Eleanor Villiers, Philip Cooke,
Elizabeth Belknap, (unknown) Saunders, and Jane Spencer

So having a host of interesting connections.

To fill in a "life" of Vincent here are the documents from A2A covering his
active period.
- Will Johnson

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Archives: Records of the Spalding Court of Sewers
Records of the Spalding Court of Sewers
Catalogue Ref. Spalding Sewers
Creator(s): Spalding Court of Sewers
"Miscellaneous letters and verdicts"
[from Scope and Content] 73vo13. The earls of Sussex & Lincoln, Wm. Russell,
Vincent Skinner, Walter Cope, Anthony Irby to John Jackson. Whitehall, 28
April, 1589.
[from Scope and Content] 77vo 18. Vincent Skinner to John Jackson, Boston, 28
July, 1589. Enclosing 17 and appointing a meeting with Mr. Carr to consider
it at Gedney, 5 August, 1589.
----------------------------
Southampton Archives Services: Southampton Corporation: Finance
Southampton Corporation: Finance
Catalogue Ref. SC 5
Creator(s): Southampton Corporation
Market Papers - ref. SC 5/20
FILE - Receipt by Roger Pedley, gent, to Vincent Skinner, officer of the
Receipt of the Exchequer, for standard measures - ref. SC 5/20/3 - date: 10 May
1602
----------------------------
East Sussex Record Office: Archive of the Sackville family, Earls De La Warr
Archive of the Sackville family, Earls De La Warr
Catalogue Ref. DLW
Creator(s): Sackville family, Earls De La Warr

Family archive; 14th - 20th c
FILE - Folder 4 - ref. ACC 5411/104 - date: c 1602-1604
[from Scope and Content] Warrant from T. Dorset to Sir Vincent Skinner to pay
£500 to John Wood, gent, for victuals for Munster

Letters and papers of Thomas Buckhurst, 1st Earl of Dorset and Baron
Buckhurst (1536-1608, see D.N.B.) as Lord Treasurer
FILE - Order signed by Thomas Buckhurst and John Fortescu Chancellor of the
Exchequer (1531?-1607; see D.N.B.) - ref. DLW/523 - date: 1601
[from Scope and Content] Subscribed: Order of Vincent Skinner to Mr. Taylor
for the payment thereof. 18 July 1601

FILE - Request of George Walford, one of the messengers of her majesty's
court of the exchequer - ref. DLW/526 - date: 1602, 1603
[from Scope and Content] Subscribed: Order for payment by Vincent Skinner to
Mr. Tayllor and note of enrollment on the pell. 26 February 1602(-3)

FILE - Request of Rowland Coulston, one of the messengers of her Majesty's
Chamber - ref. DLW/529 - date: 1602, 1603
[from Scope and Content] Subscribed: Order of Vincent Skinner to Mr. Tayllor
for the payment thereof and note of enrollment on pell. 16 Jan. 1602(-3)
----------------------
Birmingham University Information Services, Special Collections Department:
Letters Additional Collection [LAdd/2 - LAdd/2233]
Letters Additional Collection
Catalogue Ref. LAdd
FILE [no title] - ref. LAdd/528 - date: 14 Apr. 1603
[from Scope and Content] Note from Lord Buckhurst, Lord Treasurer of England,
ordering John Godman, one of his messengers, to be paid by Mr Vincent
Skinner. Signed by L.T. Buckhurst. In Buckhurst's hand: "Mr Skinner make this to be
paid by mr. Tailor"; and note from Skinner to Tailor asking him to pay £9-16-8d
------------------------------
Lincolnshire Archives: Massingberd Mundy
Massingberd Mundy
Catalogue Ref. MM
Creator(s): Massingberd-Mundy family of Ormsby, Lincolnshire
Mundy, Massingberd-, family of Ormsby, Lincolnshire
Family and estate papers of the Massingberd Mundy family
Family papers - ref. 1MM/7
Shrievalty and Land Tax etc
FILE - Commission to inquire into charitable uses - ref. 1MM/7/8/6 - date: 19
June 1604
[from Scope and Content] James I to Henry earl of Lincoln, bishop of Lincoln,
Thomas Lord Clinton, Charles lord Willoughby, Edmund lord Sheffield, William
Welby, George St. Pool], William Wray, William Pelham, Vincent Skinner, Philip
Tirwhitt, Thomas Grantham, William Heneage, Wm. Darnell, Roger Hatton Edward
Marbury, knights, dean and archdeacon of Lincoln, bishop's chancellor, Roger
Parker D.D., Andrew Cedney, Thomas Hatcliff, Richard Johnson, Anthony Irby,
Edward Skipwith, Leonard Bawtrey, Prances Bullingham, William Quadringe, John
Newcomen, Rd. Cedney, Lion Skipwith, Thomas Massingberd, Thomas Coldingham, Esq.,
Alex. Cooke, Frances Marbury, Nicolas Smyth, Henry Skynner, Thomas Cracroft,
gent.
------------------------------
Cumbria Record Office and Local Studies Library, Whitehaven: Pennington
Family of Muncaster
PENNINGTON FAMILY OF MUNCASTER
Catalogue Ref. D PEN
Creator(s): Pennington family of Muncaster
MISCELLANEOUS
FILE - A folio volume in a parchment cover, fastened with an ancient clasp -
ref. D PEN/216 - date: 1604-1606
item: [no title] - ref. D PEN/216/f. 48 - date: 1605
[from Scope and Content] Nov 14, 1605, Newcastle. Sir W. Lawson to Sir
Vincent Skinner. I pray you send by the bearer 50l. for my allowance of 100 marks
per annum, which began on the 11th of February, as by his Majesty's privy seal
will appear.
--------------
Lincolnshire Archives: Hill
Papers collected by Sir Francis Hill
Catalogue Ref. HILL
Creator(s): Hill, Sir James William Francis, 1899-1980, lawyer and historian
Tellers' Bills
FILE - Tellers' bill - ref. HILL 23/406 - date: 1610
[from Scope and Content] Date: 22 May. Paid by: Vincent Skinner, kt. For what
reason: for tithes of Burnham Grange. Amount: 3. 0. 0. Clerk: Wm. Bowyer.

Gjest

Re: William Hill, Crich, derbyshire

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2006 00:41:03

Dear Martin,
Any possiblity this William Hill was in any manorial
records or witness /participant in land transactions or law suits ?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Ancestral Roots, 8th Edition

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2006 03:16:02

Dear Will,
It`s the first time I`ve seen AncestralsRoots available at
ancestry.com either. They`re also showing it`s sister volume Magna Charta
Sureties 1215.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Ancestral Roots, 8th Edition

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2006 03:25:02

In a message dated 10/6/06 6:10:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< They`re also showing it`s sister volume Magna Charta
Sureties 1215. >>

You wouldn't happen to have a direct link to that would you :)

Gjest

Re: Nevill ancestry of Sir Adam de Newmarch of Womersley

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2006 20:30:03

Hi John:

Thanks for the Nevill ancestry of Sir Adam de Newmarch. I enjoy reading
your posts and get a lot of information from them.

Would anyone on the list have the Newmarch ancestry for Sir Adam and if
so, would they post it for the rest of us.? Thanks for your help.

Joan

Gjest

Re: Use of Sir as a title of honor

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 okt 2006 21:26:02

Dear Douglas,
Thank You. It seems bizarre somehow, but so much is.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

jonathan kirton

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V06 #767

Legg inn av jonathan kirton » 07 okt 2006 21:46:01

Attention: Tim Powys-Lybbe

Tim,

Thanks for your reply to my enquiry.

Actually the earliest record of the use of the blazon:-

"Argent, a fesse and a chevron in chief, gules" occurs
as a seal on a declaration

issued by Alan de Kirketon (also spelt Kyrton / Kirton), a
direct descendant of Gilbert

de Kirketon, who was the escheator for both the counties
of Bedfordshire and of

Buckinghamshire, and lived at Biddenham, Beds..

The declaration was issued in 1399 (1 Henry IV), at "Bydenham".

It was recorded by the heralds on the occasion of the
1586 Visitation of Beds.,

and can be found on Harleian Society Manuscript 245, folio
27, sheet 2 of 2,

the heralds having attached a drawing of the seal. (It
is doubtful if the original

document is still in existence.)

The blazon can also still be seen, quartered with the arms
of Boteler, on a 1601

memorial in the Biddenham Parish Church.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Kirton, Canada

Gjest

Re: Accord between John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgund

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 okt 2006 15:36:02

Dear Douglas and Others,
I find it interesting that a step
sibling in this time period would not ever be referred to as one`s brother or
sister, yet a brother or sister -in -law might well be called in such a manner...
then about a century later a step child could be referred to as one`s son or
daughter-in-law.
sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Athelred The Unready

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2006 00:21:02

Dear Le,
Aethelraed II the Rede-less , King of England was one of a
kind. Kent had 2 Kings named Aethelberht but no Aethelraed. Aethel Raed in
saxon appears to have meant Noble in Counsel, but his nickname means the
Counsel-less. Northumbria had 2 Kings named Aethelraed and Mercia had a Aethelraed and
there was a King, (two counting the Rede-less) named Aethelraed in Wessex.
the 1st Aethelraed of Wessex was the brother of King Aelfraed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2006 21:35:04

In a message dated 10/6/06 6:28:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
h.vogels6@chello.nl writes:

<< As I read in this string the charter was written in the period
1138-1157. The witnessing sons were Thomas, Adam, and Robert. Starting
from say 1157, Robert could have been born 1150, Adam in 1149 an Thomas
in 1148. >>

Thanks Hans for the reference to the possibility that witnessing children
might be as young as seven.
I want to point out, that the witnessing son you refer to above, was not
"Adam" but rather "Alan"

There was a son Adam, who I suspect, was a third or later son.

See the family chart here
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image. ... e=fig3.gif


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 okt 2006 21:55:03

In a message dated 10/7/06 2:13:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< Why, for starters, does your source suggest that such an ambitious man as
Simon of Lorraine did not pursue a claim of his wife to inherit Louvain as
one of four sisters born to a count with no sons? Ditto Lambert of Montaigu
and any other husband supposedly attached to this brood, >>

At the time of Henry III, Count of Louvain's death, given as Feb 1095, his
four daughters, must have been children if not infants. Their husbands might
equally well have been.

So the claim if any would have to be enforced by someone like Thierry, Duke
of Lorraine, Simon's father I suppose.

What did happen when Henry died? Chaos?

Will

Peter Stewart

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 okt 2006 08:11:26

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:be4.5970be6.325c0214@aol.com...
In a message dated 10/7/06 2:13:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

Why, for starters, does your source suggest that such an ambitious man
as
Simon of Lorraine did not pursue a claim of his wife to inherit Louvain as
one of four sisters born to a count with no sons? Ditto Lambert of
Montaigu
and any other husband supposedly attached to this brood,

At the time of Henry III, Count of Louvain's death, given as Feb 1095, his
four daughters, must have been children if not infants. Their husbands
might
equally well have been.

So the claim if any would have to be enforced by someone like Thierry,
Duke
of Lorraine, Simon's father I suppose.

What did happen when Henry died? Chaos?

Nothing so dramatic - the powers of counts were hardly so essential to
society that their interrupton or irregular transmission would always be a
cause of disorder within their territories.

In this case, Henri's younger brother Godefroy the Bearded took over as
count of Louvain. Henri's widow Gertrude was not in a strong position to
object, much less on behalf of four young daughters, since her father Robert
Friso had usurped the rights of his young nephew in Flanders a generation
earlier.

However, she was remarried to a powerful magnate nearby, Thierry the Valiant
of Upper Lorraine, and I find it odd that no murmur appears to have been
raised later when his son Simon was old enough to rule in Louvain as husband
to one of its putative heiresses, if indeed Adelaide belonged to this
family.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2006 17:40:03

In a message dated 10/10/2006 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

However, she was remarried to a powerful magnate nearby, Thierry the Valiant
of Upper Lorraine, and I find it odd that no murmur appears to have been
raised later when his son Simon was old enough to rule in Louvain as husband
to one of its putative heiresses, if indeed Adelaide belonged to this
family.


But if I understand you correctly, nobody raised a murmur.
So then that would imply possibly that the four young daughters all died
before becoming adults. Otherwise one or another of their husbands should have
raised a murmur.

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 10 okt 2006 18:25:02

According to the Roglo database Godefroy was Count of Louvain from
1106-1139, so I am just wondering if there was in fact an interim period
between these two brothers?

Roger LeBlanc

Peter Stewart wrote:

In this case, Henri's younger brother Godefroy the Bearded took over as
count of Louvain. Henri's widow Gertrude was not in a strong position to
object, much less on behalf of four young daughters, since her father Robert
Friso had usurped the rights of his young nephew in Flanders a generation
earlier.



Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2006 20:01:02

In a message dated 10/10/06 10:29:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, FDP527@aol.com
writes:

<< I don't have any problem with these approximate dates. Will Johnson
does >>

It's not just me, but rather the editors of the book of charters that are
being quoted as well. In addition, they state that Alan was not the son of
Thomas, but his brother.

Which brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2006 20:05:03

In a message dated 10/10/06 9:20:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
leblancr@mts.net writes:

<< According to the Roglo database Godefroy was Count of Louvain from
1106-1139, so I am just wondering if there was in fact an interim period
between these two brothers? >>

Wikipedia has a correction ? That he was Count of Louvain from 1095 and "Duke
of Lower Lorraine" from 1106 to 1129.

Unfortunately they cite no sources, so I'm going to tag the article, maybe
someone will come back and add where they got this from.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2006 21:00:03

Researching this family led me to stirnet's entry here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/conti ... aine02.htm

I noticed a date discrepancy in the children of
Gozelo I, Duke of Antwerp, and Upper and /Lower Lorraine/
who is said there to have died 19 Apr 1004

and yet his daughter Regelinde (Regelindis) is said there to have been
b c 1015, 10 years after her father died.

Will Johnson

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 10 okt 2006 21:15:03

Relevant to this subject, readers may want to refer back to the thread
"Louvain-Ponthieu link?" from April 2005 which also offered speculation
about these daughters.

Roger LeBlanc

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2006 21:21:43

Dear Will:

I hope this helps your thought processes. If you are referring to this
Flimby charter 49a, dated 1179-1185, it clearly shows an Alan brother
to Thomas FitzGospatric. (see Ref A below) Charter 49 can also be read
to mean Alan was son of Gospatric or son of Thomas, both had sons named
Alan, the latter being the ancestor of the Cambertons/Camertons see Ref
B below. I see nothing in these charters that causes "the house of
cards to fall down." 49 & 49a are consistent with Thomas and Alan
FitzGospatric born in the range of 1130-1140.

"49. (C. pp. 33-35; D. art. 65).-Cospatric f. Orm, with consent
of Thomas,
his son and heir, and Alan, his son, grants to Holm abbey Flemingby
[Flimby] by
its right bounds, except the land of Waytecroft which he has given to
the
canons of Carlisle.....[To this H. 2 adds:-] Cospatric has exchanged
land in Seton, equal in value to the church of Camberton, for the land
in Flemingby near Camberton church, and grants the whole to the monks;
at Carlisle before Robert de Vallibus, justice, in the county court.
[Robert de Vallibus was justice itinerant in 1174.]"

Ref A: Gospatric FitzOrm"s sons
(1) Thomas
(2) Orm de Ireby
(3) Gilbert de Southaic
(4) Alexander
(5) Adam
(6) Alan
(7) Henry
(8) Robert de Lamplugh

Source: Diagram 1
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... /ROYAL.HTM
Click below for Tree diagrams showing the Curwen line of descent. I
believe these charts come from JF Curwen's book on the family.

Ref B: SGM message from Chris Dickinson (sejanus@globalnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Lds of Galloway/CULWEN; Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 1999/07/09

"C Roy Hudleston, in "Cumberland Families and Heraldry" [CWAAS,
1978], has some relevant entries. For CURWEN, he quotes his source as
JF Curwen "A History of the Ancient House of Curwen", JPP [W Jackson
'Papers and Pedigrees mainly relating to Cumberland and Westmorland,
1891/92], CW2 xiv [Transactions of the CWAAS], and SBR [James Wilson
'The Register of the Priory of St Bees').

A separate entry on Thomas' younger son 'Alan de Camerton' says that he
is mentioned as a Knight of Cumberland 1213-14 and that his elder
brother Patric de Curwen granted or confirmed to him all his lands in
Camerton in 1236.

CRH also has entries on Thomas' uncles Orm de Ireby and Gilbert de
Southaic."

Respectfully,

Dix Preston

Douglas Richardson

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 okt 2006 21:52:04

Dear Roger, Will, etc. ~

The earlier thread which discussed the matter of the daughters of Count
Henry III of Louvain and Brabant can be access at the following weblink
which was already kindlly provided by Hans:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... f+Louvain&

In the first of that thread, John Carmi Parsons noted that Count John I
of Ponthieu (died 1191) referred to Count Philip of Flanders as his
"kinsman" ["cognatus"] in an undated letter 1172 X 1190 [Reference: C.
Brunel, Recueil des actes des comtes de Pontieu (1026-1279) (Paris,
1930), no. 122)].

Mr. Parsons identified Count John I of Ponthieu as the son of Count Guy
II (died 1147), by his wife, Ida (died 1177/78), which Ida is of
unknown parentage. Count John I's kinsman, Philip of Flanders was in
turn the son of Dietrich/Thierry "of Alsace," Count of Flanders, by
his second wife, Sibylle of Anjou.

At the time of the earlier thread, I was of the impression that
references to kinship in that time period were the same as in later
periods, that is, a person could refer to anyone within the 5th degree
of kindred as his cousin. However, after studying numerous examples of
kinship in records dating pre-1200, it is clear now that stated
kinships before 1200 were usually much closer in nature, typically
first or second cousins.

Consequently, it seems virtually certain that Count John's mother, Ida,
was a near relative of one of Count Philip's parents. And, in this
case, since Count Philip's'mother's Anjou kinsfolk seem to be well
known, Count John's mother, Ida, would presumably be very closely
related to one of Count Philip's paternal grandparents, Thierry II,
Duke of Lorraine, and his wife, Gertrude of Flanders.

This leads us to the question of Gertrude of Flanders' undetermined
issue by her first husband, Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant
(died 1095). This marriage is said to have been blessed with four
daughters. Of these four daughters, one is thought to have been Adele
(or Adelheid), wife of Simon I de Lorraine, and another daughter,
Gertrude, is claimed to married Lambert, Count of Montaigu. Ava, lady
of Wavre, has been suggested as a third daughter.

If Count John I of Ponthieu's mother, Ida, was descended from one of
the four daughters of Gertrude of Flanders and Count Henry III, it
would readily explain his kinship to Count Philip of Flanders. As
such, it would be most helpful if the identity of the four daughters of
Gertrude and Henry III could be determined. The Flanders-Brabant
marriage looks promising to me as the connecting link, if for no other
reason than we know that Count Henry III had a sister named Ida, not to
mention that Gertrude of Flanders had a maternal aunt named Ida. Ida
was also the given name of the wife of Count Henry III's brother, Duke
Godfrey I, namely Ida of Chiny.

At the present time, I have no suitable candidates to advance for the
parents of Count John's mother, Ida. My files indicate that Ida and
her husband, Count Guy II, had four children, namely Jean [Count of
Ponthieu], Guy [seigneur of Noyelles], Agnès and Edela (wife of Renaud
de Saint Valéry). With the exception of the name, Guy, quite possibly
the names of the other three children might provide us a clue to
Countess Ida of Ponthieu's parentage.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of people who descend from
Count John I of Ponthieu and his mother, Countess Ida:

Eleanor of Castile (1st wife of King Edward I of England), Jacquette de
Luxembourg, and Margaret of France (2nd wife of King Edward I of
England).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

< Relevant to this subject, readers may want to refer back to the
thread
< "Louvain-Ponthieu link?" from April 2005 which also offered
speculation
< about these daughters.
<
< Roger LeBlanc

Peter Stewart

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 okt 2006 23:07:30

"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:452BC8A0.6090607@mts.net...
According to the Roglo database Godefroy was Count of Louvain from
1106-1139, so I am just wondering if there was in fact an interim period
between these two brothers?

Roger LeBlanc

Peter Stewart wrote:

In this case, Henri's younger brother Godefroy the Bearded took over as
count of Louvain. Henri's widow Gertrude was not in a strong position to
object, much less on behalf of four young daughters, since her father
Robert Friso had usurped the rights of his young nephew in Flanders a
generation earlier.

There was no interim, sources relate that Godefroy succeeded on Henri's
accidental death at Tournai in 1095.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 okt 2006 23:13:11

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:c5b.3543827.325d472e@aol.com...
Researching this family led me to stirnet's entry here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/conti ... aine02.htm

I noticed a date discrepancy in the children of
Gozelo I, Duke of Antwerp, and Upper and /Lower Lorraine/
who is said there to have died 19 Apr 1004

and yet his daughter Regelinde (Regelindis) is said there to have been
b c 1015, 10 years after her father died.

There appears to be a typo in your online source - Gozelo died on 19 April
1044.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 okt 2006 23:20:45

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:bf6.6bb2ce1.325d180a@aol.com...
In a message dated 10/10/2006 12:13:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

However, she was remarried to a powerful magnate nearby, Thierry the
Valiant
of Upper Lorraine, and I find it odd that no murmur appears to have been
raised later when his son Simon was old enough to rule in Louvain as
husband
to one of its putative heiresses, if indeed Adelaide belonged to this
family.


But if I understand you correctly, nobody raised a murmur.
So then that would imply possibly that the four young daughters all died
before becoming adults. Otherwise one or another of their husbands should
have
raised a murmur.

This is not a correct understanding of my point - I am talking about the
particular circumstances of this family. Henri's widow Gertrude was
remarried to Duke Thierry of Upper Lorraine, and if we are to suppose that
he later chose to marry her daughter to his son & heir we must assume that
this was because the bride was considered a worthwhile match. A disinherited
niece of a neighbouring magnate would probably have been more a liability
than an asset, and a waste of Simon's propects from a better arrangement,
unless there was an intention to seek restitution of her rights, or at least
substantial reparations. However, this evidently did not happen.

The likeliest fate of Henri's daughters would have been the cloister,
although one of them is reported later to have married and left descendants.
A less prominent husband than Simon, from a less ambitious family, would
seem more plausible to me.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Kendal, Gospatric, Samlesbury

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 okt 2006 23:26:01

In a message dated 10/10/06 1:28:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, FDP527@aol.com
writes:

<< 49 & 49a are consistent with Thomas and Alan
FitzGospatric born in the range of 1130-1140. >>

I'm glad that you are in agreement that the Alan referred to in 49 is Thomas'
brother, not Thomas' son. That would cut the legs out of the idea that
Thomas here, is already necessarily an adult. And as has been pointed out, he
could be as young as 7, or some say 14 here.

Will

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 10 okt 2006 23:51:01

Thanks Douglas for the summary of the earlier thread and my apologies to
Hans for not checking his link in the earlier post. I didn't realize
there might be an interesting angle for me until Count Godefroy was
mentioned by Peter.

Roger LeBlanc

John P. Ravilious

Re: Nevill ancestry of Sir Adam de Newmarch of Womersley

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 11 okt 2006 02:51:49

Dear Joan,

Thanks for your kind words.

I am currently working on the Newmarch family in an attempt to
determine the correct descent (or descents, including the Whatton
line). If anyone else of the list has already resolved same, I would
also be interested in hearing of same.

Cheers,

John


Joemaryjoa@aol.com wrote:
Hi John:

Thanks for the Nevill ancestry of Sir Adam de Newmarch. I enjoy reading
your posts and get a lot of information from them.

Would anyone on the list have the Newmarch ancestry for Sir Adam and if
so, would they post it for the rest of us.? Thanks for your help.

Joan

Douglas Richardson

Re: Daughters of Henry III, Count of Louvain and Brabant, di

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 okt 2006 19:53:47

I'm curious to know if anyone has seen the following article:

Paul Anen: Adêle de Louvain épouse de Simon 1 duc de Lorraine. ln:
Intermédiaire des généalogistes 1961, pg. 61.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: de Vaux (and Leeke): a possible Bardolf or Everingham de

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 okt 2006 22:51:02

In a message dated 10/11/06 5:59:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< I note the same conjunction appears in a Patent Roll entry naming
William Bardolf, viz:

19 July 1254 at St Macaire: Charter granting to William Bardolf and his
heirs free warren in his demesne lands of... Rykyngton, Digeby,
Levesingham, Blokesham, Amewike, Totelaund, Branchewell, *Westburg,
Dodinton, Stobinton and Thorp*, Co Lincs, Seleford, Co Notts, Ekebroc &
Eleton, Co Derby etc" >>

Would this entry imply something about Williams coming of age possibly?
OneWorldTree has his birthyear as 1231 and his death at 1 Dec 1289
with his wife Juliana de /Gournay/ (dau of Hugh VI d 1238) dying in 1295

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: de Vaux (and Leeke): a possible Bardolf or Everingham de

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 okt 2006 22:55:03

In a message dated 10/11/06 6:29:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< (1) 14.10.1389: "presentation of Ralph Repington to a moiety of the
church at Westburgh in the diocese of Lincoln, in the King's gift by
reason of his custody of the lands and heir of William de Bardolf,
tenant in chief" >>


This is then the heir of William, 4th Lord Bardolf of Wormgay (who d 29 Jan
1386) by his wife Agnes Poynings (d 12 Jun 1403). Is Ralph her new husband?

Gjest

Re: de Vaux (and Leeke): a possible Bardolf or Everingham de

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 okt 2006 23:01:01

In a message dated 10/11/06 6:29:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< (2) 215.9.1399: "pardon to Robert de Watirton and Joan his wife, and
John de Etton and Katherine his wife, of their trespass in entering
without licence and without seeking livery thereof upon the manor of
Laxton, Notts, and a moiety of the manor of Westburgh, Lincs, upon the
death of Reginald de Everingham, knight, tenant in chief by knight
service, the said Joan and Katherine being his kinswomen and heirs." >>

Robert Waterton, Knt of Methley, Yorkshire (d 1425) is mentioned in
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "North", pg 613-6, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962
since his daughter Joan married Lionel, Baron Welles, Governor of Ireland

Robert himself married after Joan Everingham to Margaret Clarell widow of
John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough who already had three children, and was on her
next (third and last) marriage to the probably younger William Gascoigne of
Gawthorpe to have at least another six.

This document you've found helps establish more soundly how early Robert and
Joan were married.

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: de Vaux (and Leeke): a possible Bardolf or Everingham de

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 okt 2006 23:25:03

In a message dated 10/11/06 6:29:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< (2) 215.9.1399: "pardon to Robert de Watirton and Joan his wife, and
John de Etton and Katherine his wife, of their trespass in entering
without licence and without seeking livery thereof upon the manor of
Laxton, Notts, and a moiety of the manor of Westburgh, Lincs, upon the
death of Reginald de Everingham, knight, tenant in chief by knight
service, the said Joan and Katherine being his kinswomen and heirs." >>

Are you extracting this from the PR images ?
This item from 15 Sep 1399 names John de Etton as a knight, but it doesn't
name Robert as one.
Another entry a bit later called Robert Watirton "squire", but by the time of
his death he was apparently knighted.

I don't have a Reginald (Reynold) Everingham in my database yet.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Ancestry of William Girlington (also Wray, Farrar, Asfor

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 12 okt 2006 19:46:02

As a Girlington descendant (via Beatty-Asfordby-Leming-Kelke), I thank
you most heartily, John! This is all new to me, and I am most grateful
for your splendid posting.

Tony

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

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 okt 2006 21:21:02

I would note that the Thomas, Earl of Mar to whom I referred in my last post,
was married secondly to Margaret STEWART, suo jure Countess of Angus (d 1417)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 okt 2006 21:22:02

In a message dated 10/11/06 9:58:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredohair2000@yahoo.com writes:

<< Especially important for a quite a few people is any good evidence of
Marjory Stuart being a niece of the Earl of Mar, as this would seem to
provide a royal descent from the Stewarts. >>

You asked if there is a way you can help. Yes.
Trace the descent of the Earldom of Mar and attempt to identify which Earl of
Mar this could possibly refer to.

For example, there was a Thomas, Earl of Mar who died between
22 Oct 1373 and 21 Jun 1374

But what you cited has no dates to allow a skeletal chronology to be built to
see if this could be the one you refer to.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 okt 2006 22:04:48

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 10/11/06 9:58:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredohair2000@yahoo.com writes:

Especially important for a quite a few people is any good evidence of
Marjory Stuart being a niece of the Earl of Mar, as this would seem to
provide a royal descent from the Stewarts.

You asked if there is a way you can help. Yes.
Trace the descent of the Earldom of Mar and attempt to identify which Earl of
Mar this could possibly refer to.

For example, there was a Thomas, Earl of Mar who died between
22 Oct 1373 and 21 Jun 1374

I think Alexander Stewart (c1375-1435), illegitimate son of Alexander
the so-called Wolf of Badenoch (the brother of Robert III), is the
suspect; he married Isabella, Countess of Mar and thus held the Mar
title jure uxoris. Weir, in her unreferenced work, states he had a
number of brothers, all illegitimate: Duncan; Sir Andrew, of Sandhauch;
Walter; James [ancestor of the Stewarts of Garth], and Robert of
Atholl. Any of these may be a candidate for Mrs Forbes's father.

MA-R

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of William Girlington (also Wray, Farrar, Asfor

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 13 okt 2006 02:05:51

Dear Tony,

Thanks for the kind words. The details found fill in a rather
large gap in the familial AT; I'm glad you and the rest of the Asfordby
cousins are included.

Cheers,

John


"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
As a Girlington descendant (via Beatty-Asfordby-Leming-Kelke), I thank
you most heartily, John! This is all new to me, and I am most grateful
for your splendid posting.

Tony

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

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 okt 2006 03:05:04

In a message dated 10/12/06 2:14:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< I think Alexander Stewart (c1375-1435), illegitimate son of Alexander
the so-called Wolf of Badenoch (the brother of Robert III), is the
suspect; he married Isabella, Countess of Mar and thus held the Mar
title jure uxoris. >>


How is it that Isabella inherited Mar ?
I see that her mother Margaret married twice, first to Thomas, Earl of Mar
who died
between 22 Oct 1373 and 21 Jun 1374

and secondly to William, Earl Douglas who died May 1384

Leo is showing this Isabel as a daughter by William Douglas and having a
first husband married before Jul 1388
of Malcolm Drummond of Cargill

But how could Margaret, pass on Mar to her daughter by Douglas ? Should not
rather, Isabel have been a daughter by Thomas Earl of Mar in order for Isabel
to acquire Mar?

Additionally since Margaret was still living and survived her daughter
Isabel, why should Isabel have ever been called Countess of Mar while the "dowager"
Countess was still living?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 okt 2006 03:30:03

Dear Will,
Thomas, Earl of Mar who married 2nd Margaret , daughter of
Thomas Stewart, 2nd Earl of Angus had no surviving issue by her, but by his
brother in law William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas had a son George Douglas, 1st
Earl of Angus.
Margaret of Mar, sister of Earl Thomas of Mar and wife of William Douglas
was the mother of his son James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas and Earl of Mar
Thomas d 1374 and Margaret were the children of Donald II, Earl of Mar d 1332
and Isabel, who is sometimes called a Stewart, grandchildren of Gratney
/Gartnait, Earl of Mar died before 1305 by his wife Christian, sister of Robert
I, King of Scots who married 1st Isabel of Mar,died before 1304 daughter of
Donald I, Earl of Mar died 1297 by Ellen NN (formerly thought to be a daughter of
Llewelyn Fawr, Prince of Wales and previously married to Malcolm II, Earl of
Fife d 1266. Robert Bruce and Isabel of Mar had one surviving child, Marjorie
Bruce d 1316 who married Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland and had,
after a fall from her horse, Robert II b 1316- d 1390, the first Stewart King
of Scots, who succeeded his mother`s half brother King David II d 1371.
Robert`s mother died as a result of her fall and his birth. So, In short, Donald II
of Mar and Ellen Menteith (nee Mar) were 1st cousins to David II and
Marjorie Bruce, Thomas and Margaret were 2nd cousins to the 1st Stewart King Robert
II, as was James Douglas, Earl of Douglas and Mar and Christain Keith (nee
Menteith)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 okt 2006 05:15:03

Dear Leo, Will and others,
The Earl of Mar in question who is
supposed to have been uncle to Marjory Forbes (nee Stewart) is Robert II`s
bastard grandson Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar and Garioch d 1435 and son of
Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan by Mariot Athyn, son of Robert II, King of Scots
by Elizabeth Mure. according to some rootsweb databases, Marjory Stewart was
the heiress of Echt and daughter of Alexander`s son Duncan Stewart by an
unknown woman. Alexander, Earl of Mar was married to Isabel Douglas, Countess of
Mar who died in 1419. She was daughter of William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas
by Margaret, daughter of Donald II, Earl of Mar.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 okt 2006 05:21:02

Thomas, 9th Earl of Mar who died between22 Oct 1373 and 21 Jun 1374
was married twice

Firstly to Margaret Graham, Countess Menteith suo jure from whom he was
divorced sometime before 31 Jan 1359

Secondly to Margaret Stewart, suo jure Countess of Angus

This last Margaret, after his death then married William, Earl Douglas
sometime before 1377 and he died May 1384

Isabel, Countess of Mar is supposed to be the daughter of this Margaret, and
married before Jul 1388 firstly to Malcolm Drummond of Cargill.

However the question still remains, how did Isabel inherit Mar ?

By this reckoning, Isabel herself did not stand in the inheritance for Mar
but rather perhaps for Angus or Douglas or even Crawford I suppose. But where,
in Isabel's ancestry does she stand to inherit Mar?

However if she were instead a daughter by Thomas, Earl of Mar it would make
perfect sense.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av John Higgins » 13 okt 2006 06:51:01

Take another look at Leo's database - or, even better, at CP, SP, or BP.

The "last Margaret" who mar. (1) William Douglas, Earl of Douglas, was the
sister, not the wife, of Thomas, Earl of Mar who d. 1373/4. Since Thomas d.
without issue, his sister Margaret inherited the title and she in turn
passed it on to her only daughter Isabel. For the interesting story of how
her husband "the Wolf of Badenach" took on the title of Earl of Mar, see any
of the peerages.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Royal
Stewarts?...mar...


Thomas, 9th Earl of Mar who died between22 Oct 1373 and 21 Jun 1374
was married twice

Firstly to Margaret Graham, Countess Menteith suo jure from whom he was
divorced sometime before 31 Jan 1359

Secondly to Margaret Stewart, suo jure Countess of Angus

This last Margaret, after his death then married William, Earl Douglas
sometime before 1377 and he died May 1384

Isabel, Countess of Mar is supposed to be the daughter of this Margaret,
and
married before Jul 1388 firstly to Malcolm Drummond of Cargill.

However the question still remains, how did Isabel inherit Mar ?

By this reckoning, Isabel herself did not stand in the inheritance for Mar
but rather perhaps for Angus or Douglas or even Crawford I suppose. But
where,
in Isabel's ancestry does she stand to inherit Mar?

However if she were instead a daughter by Thomas, Earl of Mar it would
make
perfect sense.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Alexander Forbes (2nd laird of Echt) descended from Roya

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 okt 2006 07:16:01

In a message dated 10/12/2006 9:49:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

The "last Margaret" who mar. (1) William Douglas, Earl of Douglas, was the
sister, not the wife, of Thomas, Earl of Mar who d. 1373/4. Since Thomas d.
without issue, his sister Margaret inherited the title and she in turn


Thanks for your correction.

This is a case of too many Margaret's. Not only do we have two Margaret's,
one the wife of Thomas, and one his sister. But one of them had an affair
with the other one's husband, producing a child who became George Douglas, Earl
of Angus on 1389, his mother resignating that title.

Not only that, but both Margarets were styled at least Countess of Mar. The
one by inheritence from her brother Thomas Earl of Mar, the other by
reference to her dead husband Thomas Earl of Mar.

My confusion over the second marriage is due to, in my database showing this
adulterous affair. I do have a note "not married" but overlooked that in my
haste.

For those with the subscription, here is a direct link to CP discribing this
confusing state of affairs with the added note that the widow of Thomas was
still calling herself Countess of Angus and Mar as late as 1417.

_http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=view&r=an&dbid=6717&iid=6717-CPGEV1-01
91&rc=83,7,89,13;84,10,89,16;39,20,44,27;45,20,51,27;53,28,58,35;83,30,89,37;2
8,32,35,39;63,36,68,43;45,41,50,48;65,41,71,47;47,55,53,61;54,55,62,61;72,55,7
7,61;57,59,62,65;82,63,89,69;58,75,63,82;64,75,71,81;85,75,89,81;28,90,33,96;3
4,90,40,97;49,90,54,97;28,103,33,109;34,103,40,110;49,103,54,110&fn=george&ln=
douglas&st=d&ssrc=&pid=191_
(http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx= ... 7;45,20,51,
27;53,28,58,35;83,30,89,37;28,32,35,39;63,36,68,43;45,41,50,48;65,41,71,47;47,
55,53,61;54,55,62,61;72,55,77,61;57,59,62,65;82,63,89,69;58,75,63,82;64,75,71,
81;85,75,89,81;28,90,33,96;34,90,40,97;49,90,54,97;28,103,33,109;34,103,40,110
;49,103,54,110&fn=george&ln=douglas&st=d&ssrc=&pid=191)


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of William Girlington (also Wray, Farrar, Asfor

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 okt 2006 13:06:02

Friday, 13 October, 2006


Dear Leo, Ian, et al.,

Following on my post of the other day, following is a brief table
that provides the connecting links between the AT of William
Girlington, and the personal records on Genealogics for (1) Sir
Christopher Conyers and his wife, (2) William Girlington and his
children, and (3) Anne Girlington, wife of Sir Christopher Wray.

I may have further Girlington lines for your review down the
line, but this will link all the Girlingtons currently recorded
in Genealogics.

Cheers,

John



Sir Christopher = Helena
Conyers I Rolleston
I00177879 I I00177880
I
I
William Burgh = Elizabeth Conyers
I
I
John Catterick = Lucy Burgh
I
I
Nicholas Girlington = NN Catterick
I00387516 I
_____________________I__________
I I
Nicholas = Margery William = Katherine
Girlington I Monford Girlington I Hildyard
I I00366706 I I00366707
V _______________________I_____
I I
Nicholas = NN Isabel = 1) Christopher
Girlington I Grenville Girlington I Kelke
I00387517 I _____I = 2) Sir
I I I William
_______________________I______________ I I Tyrwhitt
I I I V V
Nicholas Anne Girlington Dorothy
I I00318630 = George Yorke
I = Sir Christopher Wray of Ashby, Lincs.
V I00318629
I
I
V

Anne Chambers

Re: What type of car do you drive, a white one?

Legg inn av Anne Chambers » 14 okt 2006 12:24:49

AT wrote:

Get classified at the skadi forum:

http://forum.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=238

has news.indiviual.net's spam trapper died ?


--
Anne Chambers, South Australia

Jim Elbrecht

Re: What type of car do you drive, a white one?

Legg inn av Jim Elbrecht » 14 okt 2006 13:08:03

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:42:49 +0930, Anne Chambers <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

AT wrote:

Get classified at the skadi forum:

http://forum.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=238

has news.indiviual.net's spam trapper died ?

Yes- bigtime. Sad that it worked so well for free for years-- so now
I've paid for it for a couple years and it stops doing what it did so
well-- the crosspost limit.

Jim

Steve Hayes

Re: What type of car do you drive, a white one?

Legg inn av Steve Hayes » 14 okt 2006 16:19:42

On 14 Oct 2006 03:37:57 -0700, "AT" <anthropologically2006@yahoo.com> wrote:

Get classified at the skadi forum:

Why? How? What is a skadi forum?


--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

Jeff

Re: What type of car do you drive, a white one?

Legg inn av Jeff » 14 okt 2006 17:38:59

Steve Hayes wrote:
However, I don't have the faintest clue what a "skadi" is, nor what
genealogical purpose it might serve. Until I know that, I see no point in
going to look at the web site listed.

Skadi was I think the Goddess of Winter
People sometimes list useful web sites in newsgroup postings, but if the
listing is to be useful, it MUST say what one can expect to find there. A web
site may have greatly useful genealogical information, but if it is about a
place that no member of my family ever even visited, it's not going to be of
much use to me, and there is no point in my wasting time and bandwidth to
visit it.

The forum the link goes to is Anthropological Taxonomy

A legitimate (if somewhat esoteric ) subject

Although the site is anything but scientific.

Any connection with Genealogy is peripheral at best.





Hugh Watkins

Re: What type of car do you drive, a white one?

Legg inn av Hugh Watkins » 15 okt 2006 00:19:36

Jeff wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

However, I don't have the faintest clue what a "skadi" is, nor what
genealogical purpose it might serve. Until I know that, I see no point in
going to look at the web site listed.


Skadi was I think the Goddess of Winter


People sometimes list useful web sites in newsgroup postings, but if the
listing is to be useful, it MUST say what one can expect to find
there. A web
site may have greatly useful genealogical information, but if it is
about a
place that no member of my family ever even visited, it's not going to
be of
much use to me, and there is no point in my wasting time and bandwidth to
visit it.


The forum the link goes to is Anthropological Taxonomy

A legitimate (if somewhat esoteric ) subject

Although the site is anything but scientific.

Any connection with Genealogy is peripheral at best.

Tribe: Germanic
Ethnicity: Germane
Subrace: Preuße
Country: Germany
Location: Preußen
Gender: Male
Age: 51
Relationship: Married, happily
Politics: Deutsch National
Religion: gottgläubig
Banner: Thingvellir
Style: Skadi Asgård

<< an example of "classification "

Skadi
A giantess, called the 'snow-shoe goddess', and the embodiment of
winter. She is the wife of the god Njord. When her father Thiazi was
slain by the gods, ...
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/skadi.html

better spelled Skaði

"ð" is a voiced "th" which our saxon ancestors used to

Hugh W

--

new phone = new daily blog
http://upsrev622.blogspot.com/

family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»