Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2006 09:58:36

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

In fact, a more natural explanation may well exist for the kinship
between Duke Henry I and King Philip. King Philip has one
great-grandmother, Beatrix, born say 1070, whose parentage is unknown.
Beatrix could easily be a sibling of one of Duke Henry I's
great-grandparents. If so, this would provide a relationship between
the two men of 4th and 4th degrees of kindred, which is more typical of
what I find for acknowledged kinships before 1225.

Dear Douglas

I appreciate the motivation behind this exercise. However, if you
concentrated on compiling and publishing, to start with, some detailed
statistics showing the scope and results of the research you have
undertaken on this topic, rather than individual cases that purport to
show either (a) a relationship that is already known or (b) no
relationship within the degree that you hypothesize should exist, thus
resulting in skeins of speculation that seem to go nowhere, I suspect
this line of enquiry might be more productive. As it it, it is
difficult to see where it is going, because we have no evidence that
the basic premise is a sound one.

Regards, Michael

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2006 10:34:02

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162702411.626359.81180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

In the course of my research, I've encountered yet another kinsman of
Duke Henry I of Lorraine and Brabant. It appears that that Duke Henry
I of Lorraine and Brabant (died 1235) was styled "kinsman"
[consanguineus & princeps noster] in a charter by Philip, King of the
Romans (died 1208) [Reference: Butkens, Trophées tant sacres que
prohanes de la duché de Brabant, 1, Preuves, pp. 55-56].

The correct title is _Trophées tant sacrés que profanes de la duché de
Brabant_. Both the original 1638 edition and the 1724 revision are available
online, but neither of these is a sensible place nowadays to consult
documents of the German king Philipp (who of course was NOT "Emperor Philipp
II" as misstated below).

For Duke Henry I's ancestry for four generations, see the following
weblink:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... &id=I03632

For Duke Henry I's extended ancestry, see the following weblink:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

For King Philip's ancestry for four generations, see the following
weblink:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... &id=I03663

For Emperor Philip II's extended ancestry, see the following weblink:

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... style=TEXT

Reviewing their respective ancestries, I find that Duke Henry I and
King Philip were related in the 4th and 5th degrees of kindred (or if
you prefer 3rd cousins once removed), by virtue of their common descent
from Henry II, Count of Louvain.

However, inasmuch as this reference to kinship falls before 1225, one
should expect to find a kinship between the two men closer than 4th and
5th degrees.

But you must have noticed that the very next document in Butkens is another
letter of Philipp in which he mentions Duke Henri but omits any mention of
kinship with him. Maybe the chancery had twigged that it was not yet 1225
and the new rule that you have invented was not yet due to be observed.

While I find nothing else promising in their received
ancestries, I do find that King Philip and Blanche of Navarre were
related in the 4th and 4th degrees of kindred, by virtue of their
common descent from Guillaume I, Count of Burgundy (died 1087). If a
similar descent from Count Guillaume I could be developed for Duke
Henry I of Brabant, it would explain Duke Henry I's kinship to Blanche
of Navarre and possibly provide an even closer kinship to King Philip.
I'm personally doubtful, however, that Duke Henry I has such a descent
from Count Guillaume I of Burgundy.

And so would any number of other links you could just as easily make up on
the fly.

In fact, a more natural explanation may well exist for the kinship
between Duke Henry I and King Philip. King Philip has one
great-grandmother, Beatrix, born say 1070, whose parentage is unknown.

Eh? Without comment you provided a link above to a pedigree that clearly
(though wrongly) shows his great-grandmother Beatrice as a daughter of
"Gerhard IV Duke of Alsace Upper Lorraine", and (also wrongly) has her birth
"abt 1058". The lady's real parentage is not certain, but it is thought
likely that she was daughter of Gerard III, seigneur of Fouvent.

The link commended to us by Richardson for the ancestry of Duke Henri of
Brabant, by the way, shows his great-grandmother Ducheess Ida as daughter of
Count Otto II of Chiny, the very theory that he dismissed without bothering
to learn its basis.

Beatrix could easily be a sibling of one of Duke Henry I's
great-grandparents.

Which one? None of them is connected to the seigneurs of Fouvent - far from
it - but I suppose you are ready to dismiss that conjecture too without even
knowing its basis.

If so, this would provide a relationship between
the two men of 4th and 4th degrees of kindred, which is more typical of
what I find for acknowledged kinships before 1225.

What exactly happened in that year to change everyone's mind about the
distance of relationships they should acknowledge?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2006 10:41:02

<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1162717116.720251.8410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Douglas Richardson schrieb:

In fact, a more natural explanation may well exist for the kinship
between Duke Henry I and King Philip. King Philip has one
great-grandmother, Beatrix, born say 1070, whose parentage is unknown.
Beatrix could easily be a sibling of one of Duke Henry I's
great-grandparents. If so, this would provide a relationship between
the two men of 4th and 4th degrees of kindred, which is more typical of
what I find for acknowledged kinships before 1225.

Dear Douglas

I appreciate the motivation behind this exercise.

How interesting - since you understand it, perhaps you could share your
aperçu with the rest of us. We certainly don't have a straightforward
explanation from Richardson, much less any system in his postings that would
help to make sense of his activity or the obviously haphazard gleanings
behind it.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2006 11:17:31

Peter Stewart schrieb:

mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1162717116.720251.8410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I appreciate the motivation behind this exercise.

How interesting - since you understand it, perhaps you could share your
aperçu with the rest of us. We certainly don't have a straightforward
explanation from Richardson, much less any system in his postings that would
help to make sense of his activity or the obviously haphazard gleanings
behind it.

Perhaps I am seeing reason where none exists, but it seems to me the
theory is that IF one could be satisfied that a reference to
"kinsman/woman" at a certain time referred to a relationship within a
specified degree, then it would narrow down the possibilities as to how
that relationship existed. That would be useful.

The defects in this theory, however, are so enormous as to render it a
pipe dream - like the recent assertions that "Dominus" always indicates
a knighthood in non-clerics. I am sure they have all been rehearsed
here before, but some that strike me are:

(1) the lack of systematic study on a wide-scale and representative
basis, which might produce statisically reliable results;
(2) the problem that even reliable statistics only show likelihood, not
proof;
(3) the possibility that relationships were misunderstood or
misremembered even at the time;
(4) the inability to prove unknown relationships at such a long remove,
given the number of possible permutations in many cases;
(5) the fact that at times some expressed "relationships" may in fact
represent mere formal expressions, e.g. the English monarch's address
to senior peers

The apparent lack of (1) and the various other factors mean that what
we are presented with are statements of the obvious ("So-and-so called
Such-and-such his cousin, and in fact he was") or questions that cannot
be answered ("A called B his cousin, but we don't know how") and,
moreover, that we are presently without the appropriate tools to be
able to tackle with any degree of confidence. I think it's great that
posters are prepared to "think outside the box", but the benefits of
doing so lie in being able to do the necessary leg-work to back up a
hunch, in submitting to reasonable peer review [one of the most useful
functions of this group] and in not presenting those hunches as facts.
In the absence of, at the very least, the systematic study that many
here have recommended over the years, these posts are just rehearsing
conundra that remain the fruits of Tantalus.

MA-R

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2006 12:07:02

Thank you, Michael - very well put. I think most of us would agree
entirely, and yet the tedium and futility of this exercise are likely to
continue, since Richardson evidently sees a value in it that somehow
compensates for the embarrassments even he must feel.

He is like a fisherman who can't stop himself from greedily depleting the
stock that he needs to cultivate for his professional future, in this case
trying to haul in catches of free information at the cost of respect from
people who share his interest in medieval genealogy. Rum.

Peter Stewart


<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1162721851.018876.244210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Peter Stewart schrieb:

mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1162717116.720251.8410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I appreciate the motivation behind this exercise.

How interesting - since you understand it, perhaps you could share your
aperçu with the rest of us. We certainly don't have a straightforward
explanation from Richardson, much less any system in his postings that
would
help to make sense of his activity or the obviously haphazard gleanings
behind it.

Perhaps I am seeing reason where none exists, but it seems to me the
theory is that IF one could be satisfied that a reference to
"kinsman/woman" at a certain time referred to a relationship within a
specified degree, then it would narrow down the possibilities as to how
that relationship existed. That would be useful.

The defects in this theory, however, are so enormous as to render it a
pipe dream - like the recent assertions that "Dominus" always indicates
a knighthood in non-clerics. I am sure they have all been rehearsed
here before, but some that strike me are:

(1) the lack of systematic study on a wide-scale and representative
basis, which might produce statisically reliable results;
(2) the problem that even reliable statistics only show likelihood, not
proof;
(3) the possibility that relationships were misunderstood or
misremembered even at the time;
(4) the inability to prove unknown relationships at such a long remove,
given the number of possible permutations in many cases;
(5) the fact that at times some expressed "relationships" may in fact
represent mere formal expressions, e.g. the English monarch's address
to senior peers

The apparent lack of (1) and the various other factors mean that what
we are presented with are statements of the obvious ("So-and-so called
Such-and-such his cousin, and in fact he was") or questions that cannot
be answered ("A called B his cousin, but we don't know how") and,
moreover, that we are presently without the appropriate tools to be
able to tackle with any degree of confidence. I think it's great that
posters are prepared to "think outside the box", but the benefits of
doing so lie in being able to do the necessary leg-work to back up a
hunch, in submitting to reasonable peer review [one of the most useful
functions of this group] and in not presenting those hunches as facts.
In the absence of, at the very least, the systematic study that many
here have recommended over the years, these posts are just rehearsing
conundra that remain the fruits of Tantalus.

MA-R

Terry J Booth

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Terry J Booth » 05 nov 2006 22:13:45

Nat,

Thank you for the update and added comments, which provide further
encouragement concerning the Wentworth/Sothill/Percehay/Faucomberge linkage
which you first outlined on your website in 2003 (based on Paul's as yet
unseen work) and that I independently found searching through some secondary
sources.

As you and James both noted, I was also mistaken about RD600's definition of
'most recent king' since I obviously was not paying attention to the dates
of death for any of the kings.

Given the SGM community's obvious respect for Paul's work and apparent
shared continuing anticipation of the publication of his Wentworth research,
your advice not to spend a lot of added time on this family makes much
sense. The downside being that there is no assurance of when - or if - it
may be published.

Terry Booth
Illinois


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?


In article <mailman.95.1162671113.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Terry J Booth" <terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The William the Lion ancestry raises an interesting question - which
descent
would RD600 choose to show as between Henry II or William. It claims to
select the "best" royal descents, by which it means (as Nat pointed out)
"from the most recent king" (page xiv). This means William should be
preferred to Henry II.

But the RD600 Wentworth addendum contradicts of its own definition of
'best'
(as a retired CPA I like to see definitions - once adopted - consistently
applied). Their new William the Lion descent on page 823 is only 17
generations to William Wentworth of NH. This is SHORTER by 2 generations
than
the erroneous 19 generation descent from John I as shown on page 399 of
the
2004 edition. The 'shorter is best' definition would conclude the new
Wentworth line is an improvement. But on page 818, GBR states "Slightly
'lesser' royal descents are presented for William Wentworth of NH . . "
The
logic in this statement contradicts RD600's own definition of 'best',
suggesting instead that shorter is NOT an improvement if a Plantagenet
descent is involved.

I would have thought (though I don't have either edition of RD600 in
front of me), that Gary meant 'lesser than the disproved King John
descent from the 2004 edition' (though Wm the Lion died only two years
before John), not necessarily lesser than the apparent descent from
Henry II of which Gary is also aware. I think the chronological
definition has been used pretty consistently in Gary's compilations, to
'rank' these descents.

On these lines in general, my understanding was that Paul Reed has
carefully established that (1) the immigrant is the Alford man people
have presumed him to be; and (2) the immediate ancestry, including the
Sothill heiress married to Oliver Wentworth being mother of his children
(as opposed to his later wife Jane, relict in his will), has now been
well established. It is unfortunate that this excellent work has not
yet been published, but I look forward to it when it does appear.
Knowing that the work has been done is one of the reasons I have not
pored over the descent myself, impatient though I may be about it. If
Will Johnson has particular reason to doubt any part of the Wentworth
ancestry which has been discussed here or published, I'd be interested
to hear it.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: 11/3/2006

Roger LeBlanc

Re: Ida de Chiny

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 05 nov 2006 22:50:08

I was just completing this message when Peter Stewart's arrived in my
mailbox.

Since it is about the only source available for me to check, I finally
looked to see what La Prehistoire des Capetiens had to say about the
lady in question.
Under the section dealing with the counts of Chiny, Otto II is shown to
be the father of several sons including Adalbero princier de Metz
(1131-36) eveque de Liege (1136-45). A daughter Ida, 'epouse de Godefred
de Louvain' is listed as being uncertain.

In the footnotes for this family, _genealogiae Fusniacenses, MGH, SS,
XX_ A. Laret-Kayser, 1986 appears (to me) to be the source.

It seems curious that if the Bishop Adalbero's identity appears certain
that Ida's should not be, given what has been established in the recent
discussion.

Roger LeBlanc

Gjest

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Alfonso X, King of Castile & León's ki

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2006 22:56:03

In a message dated 11/5/2006 1:48:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

Douglas wrote: Trophées tant sacres que prohanes de la duché de Brabant, 1
(1637): Preuves, 95].

Peter wrote: Trophées tant sacrés que prophanes de la duché de Brabant

And again: Trophées sacrés et prophanes du duché de Brabant, 2 volumes (La
Haye, 1724).

Prohanes versus Prophanes
and
tant sacres que versus sacres et
and
de la duche versus du duche
also
1637 versus 1724

I would imagine the later work, 87 years after the 1637 one, would hopefully
correct and add significant details.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Ida de Chiny

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2006 23:04:02

"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.164.1162763378.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I was just completing this message when Peter Stewart's arrived in my
mailbox.

Since it is about the only source available for me to check, I finally
looked to see what La Prehistoire des Capetiens had to say about the lady
in question.
Under the section dealing with the counts of Chiny, Otto II is shown to be
the father of several sons including Adalbero princier de Metz (1131-36)
eveque de Liege (1136-45). A daughter Ida, 'epouse de Godefred de Louvain'
is listed as being uncertain.

In the footnotes for this family, _genealogiae Fusniacenses, MGH, SS, XX_
A. Laret-Kayser, 1986 appears (to me) to be the source.

It seems curious that if the Bishop Adalbero's identity appears certain
that Ida's should not be, given what has been established in the recent
discussion.

On looking again, I think that Christian Settipani did not have time to
research this lineage independently for his 1993 book, and relied mainly on
Laret-Kayser's study.

Without reading the background references, her account of the relationships
is not perfectly clear, and she does seem to accept Bishop Adalbero as more
certainly belonging to the Chiny family than his sisters Duchess Ida and
Countess Oda.

However, there is no evidence that Count Otto II's wife Adelais of Namur had
another husband, if that unexpressed possibility was in the back of her
mind.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: King's Kinsfolk: Alfonso X, King of Castile & León's kin

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 05 nov 2006 23:13:01

The point is that Richardson's repeated "tant sacres que prohanes" is
gibberish.

The title used for the second edition differed from that of the first, that
he has at least twice now given wrongly. Both editions are effectively
superseded for our current purposes by the work of Knetsch, that Richardson
found in the FHL but failed to check properly, and/or by that of Goffinet
for the specific genealogical point that he is trying so clumsily to pursue.

Peter Stewart


<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.165.1162763594.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/5/2006 1:48:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

Douglas wrote: Trophées tant sacres que prohanes de la duché de Brabant, 1
(1637): Preuves, 95].

Peter wrote: Trophées tant sacrés que prophanes de la duché de Brabant

And again: Trophées sacrés et prophanes du duché de Brabant, 2 volumes (La
Haye, 1724).

Prohanes versus Prophanes
and
tant sacres que versus sacres et
and
de la duche versus du duche
also
1637 versus 1724

I would imagine the later work, 87 years after the 1637 one, would
hopefully
correct and add significant details.

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: White Gold...

Legg inn av Renia » 06 nov 2006 00:47:54

Interesting.

Julian Richards wrote:

From the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 20,00.html

"North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million
Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids which depopulated
coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new research.

Thousands of white Christians were seized every year to work as galley
slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim overlords in what is today
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, it is claimed.

Scholars have long known of the slave raids on Europe. But American
historian Robert Davis has calculated that the total number captured -
although small compared with the 12 million Africans shipped to the
Americas in later years - was far higher than previously recognised.

His new book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the
Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, concluded that
1 million to 1.25 million ended up in bondage.

Prof Davis's unorthodox methodology split historians over whether his
estimates were plausible but they welcomed any attempt to fill a gap
in the little-known story of Africans subjugating Europeans.

By collating different sources of information from Europe over three
centuries, the University of Ohio professor has painted a picture of a
continent at the mercy of pirates from the Barbary Coast, known as
corsairs, who sailed in lateen-rigged xebecs and oared galleys.

Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France
were hardest hit but the raiders also seized people in Britain,
Ireland and Iceland. According to one account they even captured 130
American seamen from ships that they boarded in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean between 1785 and 1793.

In the absence of detailed written records such as customs forms Prof
Davis decided to extrapolate from the best records available
indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single
time and calculate how many new slaves were needed to replace those
who died, escaped or were freed.

To keep the slave population stable, around one quarter had to be
replaced each year, which for the period 1580 to 1680 meant around
8,500 new slaves per annum, totalling 850,000.

The same methodology would suggest 475,000 were abducted in the
previous and following centuries.

"Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were
not many slaves and minimises the impact that slavery had on Europe,"
Prof Davis said in a statement this week.

"Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short
period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive
scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear."

Prof Davis conceded his methodology was not ideal but Ian Blanchard,
professor of economic history at the University of Edinburgh and an
authority on trade in Africa, said yesterday that the numbers appeared
to add up.

"We are talking about statistics which are not real, all the figures
are estimates. But I don't find that absolute figure of 1 million at
all surprising. It makes total sense."

The arrival of gold from the Americas and the shipping of slaves from
west Africa squeezed the traditional business of the Barbary merchant
fleet which was transporting gold and slaves from southern to northern
Africa, so they turned their gaze to Europe, said Prof Blanchard.

Slaving

However David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and
The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred in extrapolating
from 1580-1680 because that was the most intense slaving period: "His
figures sound a bit dodgy and I think he may be exaggerating."

Dr Earle also cautioned that the picture was clouded by the fact the
corsairs also seized non-Christian whites from eastern Europe and
black people from west Africa. "I wouldn't hazard a guess about the
total."

According to one estimate, 7,000 English people were abducted between
1622-1644, many of them ships' crews and passengers. But the corsairs
also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the
unwary.

Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland,
were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and
Cornwall.

Reverend Devereux Spratt recorded being captured by "Algerines" while
crossing the Irish sea from Cork to England in April 1641 and in 1661
Samuel Pepys wrote about two men, Captain Mootham and Mr Dawes, who
were also abducted.

Last year it was announced that one of the richest treasure wrecks
found off the coast of Devon was a 16th-century Barbary ship en route
to catch English slaves.

Although the black Africans enslaved and shipped to North and South
America over four centuries outnumbered Prof Davis's estimates of
white European taken to Africa by 12-1, it is probable they shared the
same grim conditions.

"One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended
to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature - that
only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," said the author.

In comments which may stoke controversy, he said that white slavery
had been minimised or ignored because academics preferred to treat
Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims.

While Africans laboured on sugar and cotton plantations the European
slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and
endured malnutrition, disease and maltreatment.

Ruling pashas, entitled to an eighth of all captured Christians,
housed them in overcrowded baths known as baños and used them for
public works such as building harbours and cutting trees. They were
given loaves of black bread and water.

The pasha's female captives were more likely to be regarded as
hostages to be bargained for ransom but many worked as attendants in
the palace harem while awaiting payment and freedom, which in some
cases never came. Some slaves bought by private individuals were well
treated and became companions, others were overworked and beaten.

"The most unlucky ended up stuck and forgotten out in the desert, in
some sleepy town such as Suez, or in the Turkish sultan's galleys,
where some slaves rowed for decades without ever setting foot on
shore," said Prof Davis, whose book is published in the US by Palgrave
Macmillan. "
--

Julian Richards

http://www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

Peter Jason

Re: White Gold...

Legg inn av Peter Jason » 06 nov 2006 02:22:02

I warned you about the evil Muslim....!

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 03:29:02

In a message dated 11/5/2006 6:06:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

7 Nov 1288 : Licence, for a fine of 10l., for Mabel late the wife of
John Tregoz, tenant in chief, to marry whomsoever she will of the
king's allegiance. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 2, p 302]

28 Feb 1301: Grant to John la Warre, king's yeoman, of a moiety of the
forfeiture due to the king by Joan, late the wife of John Tregoz,
tenant in chief, for marrying without licence. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 3, p
577]

8 Jun 1307: Pardon to Laurence de Hamelden, for taking to wife Joan,
late the wife of John Tregoz, tenant in chief. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 4, p
527]

Either John de Tregoz divorced Mabel and re-married Joan, or the John
de Tregoz married to Joan and who died in 1300 was actually the son of
the first John de Tregoz who had died before November 1288.


The two John's were not the same person. I think that much should be read.

Whether one was the son of the other is not clear from the above however.

Will Johnson

Sheila J

Re: White Gold...

Legg inn av Sheila J » 06 nov 2006 04:22:31

"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com.au> wrote in message
news:eim35h$lr7$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
I warned you about the evil Muslim....!

What I found so interesting about the book was the lengths to which (or
didn't) the crown went to get them back (or not back). In fact when I
picked the book up (in the airport in Frankfurt where I paid 27 Euros -for a
paperpack..but that is a different rant) I thought it was a fiction -some
light reading for the last leg of the flight. Upon glancing through, I then
realized it was a NF and I was somewhat incredulous at
a. the numbers involved
b. the sheer volume of primary documents used in the writing and,
c. the details of the slavery and the subsequent rescues.

I have never seen anything of this magnitude (outside of historical romance
novels) and couldn't believe so little has been written about it. In
particular, the story of little Thomas Pellow is quite detailed and the
number of unpublished letters from the slaves themselves are both incredibly
poignant and chock full of historical tid-bits that completely capture
time/place. I am quite interested in looking into the military side of the
various offensives/defensives involved in capturing/defending/rescuing the
slaves. ....if anyone has any further reading...(hint, hint) please do
share!

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 06:22:02

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162662027.028643.132230@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

I checked the card catalog and found that the library has an original
copy of Butkens on the shelf in the oversized collection. The exact
title of Butkens' work is: Trophées tant sacres que prohanes de la
duché de Brabant. The work was published in 1637. The author's name
is: F. Christopre Butkens.

Butkens included a long biography of Duke Godfrey I in the front
section of volume 1, and a large selection of abstracts of original
documents in a section at the end called "Preuves." In Volume 1, pp.
106-107, as expected, Butkens identified Duke Godfrey's first wife,
Ida, as the daughter of Albert III, Count of Namur. Butkens discussed
at length the evidence for Ida's parentage, including a piece of
evidence that we've already encountered, namely that Ida and her
brother, Bishop Alberon, were stated to be of the "prosopia" [family,
lineage] of Namur. This information comes from two sources, not one:
the chronicle of a contemporary individual, Chanoine Nicolas of Liège,
who wrote "Le Triomphe de S. Lambert à`Boüillon" and a chronicler
named Alberic, presumably Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Because Alberic
de Trois-Fontaines' comments were made later and were so similar to
Chanoine Nicolas, I assume Alberic obtained his material from Chanoine
Nicolas. Butkens then adds one additional piece of evidence not
discussed here on the newsgoup. He states that in a marginal note
reported by I. de Chappeauville under the year 1142, that reference is
made to a war between the said Bishop Alberon and his nephew, Henry
Count of Namur.

Checking pg. 32 of the Preuves sections at the end of the book, Butkens
directly quotes from all three sources, Alberic, Chanoine Nicolas, and
I. de Chappeauville (in that order). As stated by Butkens, the first
two sources state that Ida and her brother, Bishop Alberon, were of the
"prosopia" [family, lineage] of Namur. As for Chappeauville, he states
this information is derived from "Annotations de I. de Chappeauville
sur ladicte Histoire, chap. 39." I assume the words "sur ladicte
Histoire" mean that Chappeauville's annotations were made to the
earlier history by Chanoine Nicolas entitled "Triumphe de S. Lambert."
The abstract he provides from Chappeauville agrees with Butkens'
earlier comments. The abstract states that there was a war ["guerra"]
in 1142 between Bishop Alberon and Henry Count of Namur his nephew
["nepotem suum"].

I was doubtful that Butkens would really have included something written by
Jean Chapeauville in the late 16th/early 17th century amongst his evidence
for people and events in the 12th century - and as it turns out, of course,
he did not.

The sentence in question was taken from the annotations to Chapeauville's
edition of Gilles d'Orval, in a section drawn in turn from 'Triumphus sancti
Lamberti de castro Bullonio'. The latter was an account by a contemporary of
events in 1141, when Adalbero won back Bouillon for the epioscopal
principality of Liège, that Chapeauville guessed was written by a canon of
Saint-Lambert named Nicolas.

The marginal note was not written by Chapeauville himself, but by someone
unknown in a different ink from the main text in the manuscript of Gilles
d'Orval's work he was using. This may have been in a medieval hand, but in
any case it was inaccurate by around two years. Butkens gave only the first
part of this - the note in full reads: "Anno Domini 1142. orta est werra
instigante diabolo inter Alberonem episcopum et Henricum comitem
Namurcensem, nepotem suum, per quam miserabiliter exustum fuit templum
sancti Foillani Fossensis cum tota villa" (In 1142 [recte 1140] stride was
stirred up, at the devil's goading, between Bishop Albero and Count Henri,
his nepos [nephew or cousin], whereby the oratory of St Foilan at Fosse was
lamentably burned down with the whole village).

Butkens gives no date for the Annotations of I. de Chappeauville.
However, one presumes he wrote in a later period and was not
contemporary like Chanoine Nicolas. If so, then there are three
assumptions that we must make if we are to trust Chappeauville:

The note quoted in Chapeauville's annotations was evidently added long
enough after the events for the date to be forgotten but not the loss.
Gilles d'Orval wrote in the mid-13th century and was probably the immediate
source for "de prosapia Namucensi" in Alberic (Troisfontaines was the parent
abbey to Orval). The histories of both writers were revised to some extent
by a younger contemporary, Maurice of Neufmoustier, who added comments in
the margins that were interpolated into the text by later by copyists.
However, this note was perhaps later again since it repeats information
found in a continuator of Sigebert of Gembloux, as I said before.

1. We must assume that Chappeauville was fully informed regarding the
identity of Bishop Alberon and his relationship to Count Henry of
Namur.
2. We must assume that Chappeauville, being of later date, used the
Latin word "nepotem" to mean "nephew," and not "kinsman" as it often
did in earlier periods.
3. We must assume that Bishop Alberon living in 1142 is the same person
as Bishop Alberon of Liège. Butkens says he was, but the actual entry
by Chappeauville makes no reference to Liège.

It was indeed about Bishop Adalbero (II) of Liège.

If we're willing to make these three assumptions, then Chappeauville
has basically confirmed that Ida, first wife of Duke Godfrey I, was the
daughter of Albert III, Count of Namur, by his wife, Ida of Saxony.
However, I personally am not willing to use Chappeauville as concluding
evidence. If Chappeauville, for example, quoted from an earlier source
not in view at this time, the word "nepos" could have meant "kinsman"
in the earlier source. If so, then we would know only that Bishop
Alberon was "kinsman" to Count Henry of Namur, and would not know
Bishop Alberon's place in the Namur family.

No, Chapeauville has confirmed no such thing - he simply reported an
anonymous note stating that Count Henri was "nepos" to Bishop Adalbero. If
the writer meant nephew rather than cousin he may not have been accurate, as
with the year given in the same note, or he may have meant cousin rather
than nephew in the first place. It is not conclusive evidence for anything
except his regret at some damage inflicted an untold time before by Count
Henri.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 06:26:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:fJz3h.59747$rP1.39712@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>

The marginal note was not written by Chapeauville himself, but by someone
unknown in a different ink from the main text in the manuscript of Gilles
d'Orval's work he was using. This may have been in a medieval hand, but in
any case it was inaccurate by around two years. Butkens gave only the
first part of this - the note in full reads: "Anno Domini 1142. orta est
werra instigante diabolo inter Alberonem episcopum et Henricum comitem
Namurcensem, nepotem suum, per quam miserabiliter exustum fuit templum
sancti Foillani Fossensis cum tota villa" (In 1142 [recte 1140] stride was
stirred up, at the devil's goading, between Bishop Albero and Count Henri,
his nepos [nephew or cousin], whereby the oratory of St Foilan at Fosse
was lamentably burned down with the whole village).

The translation should read "strife was stirred up..." Typos that result in
actual words, even nonsensical ones, are the devil's own work.

Peter Stewart

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Death date for Elizabeth

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 06 nov 2006 07:07:01

Thankyou Louise, for this very interesting information. I previously didn't
have the d'Oyly ancestors which I've now found on Bill Marshall's website
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... &surname=A.
Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: Louise Staley
Date: 11/05/06 14:26:34
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Death date for Elizabeth

Dear Group,
I have not been watching this thread so please excuse me if this has
already been covered.

Elizabeth Lewkenor's will dated 20 February 1464 is online as ref. PROB
11/5 at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... /wills.asp

I haven't seen it's contents but it should help with the question of
whether Elizabeth Echyngham is the mother of Nicholas Lewkenor.

I note Rosie Bevan posted to SGM 29 June 2001 an extract from William
Bayley, Account of the House of D'Oyly, 1845, p.95:

"SIR THOMAS LEWKNOR, aforesaid of Bradhurst, co Sussex & co who had
previously in 5th Hen IV been found heir, through his grandmother Joane
D'Oyly to the extensive estates of the Tregoze family at Goring, co
Sussex, and elsewhere in that county, on the death of John Tregoze of
Goring, son of Sir Henry Tregoze, Knt : on which occasion the jury
returned that "Thomas Lewknor was the cousin and heir of the deceased
(being the son of Roger, the son of Joan, the daughter of Margaret
D'Oyly, sister of Sir Henry Tregoze) and that the said Thomas was 12
years of age. [Esch 5 Hen IV John Tregoze]. Sir Thomas thus acquired
many numerous estates in Sussex ; moved his seat to Goring ; was knight
of the shire for Sussex in 1 Hen VI (1423) and was thrice married. His
first wife was Elizabeth, daughter of his maternal kinsman and guardian
Nicholas Carew of Beddington, co. Surrey (ancestor of the Baronets Carew
of Beddington) by Mary his wife. She died s.p. Sept 1410 and was buried
in Beddington church [Manning's Surrey, II 523-9]. He married secondly
Philippa, relict of Sir Richard Berners, daughter and, by death s.p. of
her brother Richard Dalyngrigge, sole heiress of Walter Dalyngrigge, son
of Sir Roger Dalyngrigge of Bodiam Castle, co. Sussex, and cousin and
heiress of Sir John Dalyngrigge, Knt.

[Bayley goes on to say that Thomas Lewknor's third wife was Catherine
Pelham, but on my copy he has realised his mistake and crossed it out.
In his handwriting he has added "this relates to his grandson" and "his
third wife was Elizabeth Echingham"]"

From this it would seem Elizabeth Carew died s.p. so cannot be the
mother and Philippa Dalyngrigge was an heiress so may have had an IPM

which would mention her heirs.

cheers
Louise

Merilyn Pedrick wrote:
Thankyou to Tim, Martin and Charlotte for your answers to my query.

So there still seems to be some difference of opinion as to the parents of
Nicholas Lewknor.

From Tim we see that the 1530 visititation of Sussex give Nicholas's
parents
as Sir Thomas Lewknor and Phillipe Dalingrigdge. And the Worcester 1569
visitation gives the same parents to Nicholas.

Martin Hollick quotes Magna Carta Ancestries by Douglas Richardson who
says
that the parents of Nicholas were Sir Thomas Lewknor and Elizabeth
Etchingham. He gives a death date for her of before 23 Feb 1464.
Goodness
knows where I got 1412 from! But this certainly gives her a more fitting
death date.

However, Genealogics gives the name Elizabeth Carew as both the name of
Nicholas's mother (Sir Thomas Lewknor's wife) and also Sir Thomas's mother

Nicholas's paternal grandmother.

It seems therefore most probable that Elizabeth Etchingham is the mother
of
Nicholas now that Doug provides a better death date for her.

Best wishes

Merilyn

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John Watson

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av John Watson » 06 nov 2006 08:02:10

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/5/2006 6:06:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

7 Nov 1288 : Licence, for a fine of 10l., for Mabel late the wife of
John Tregoz, tenant in chief, to marry whomsoever she will of the
king's allegiance. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 2, p 302]

28 Feb 1301: Grant to John la Warre, king's yeoman, of a moiety of the
forfeiture due to the king by Joan, late the wife of John Tregoz,
tenant in chief, for marrying without licence. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 3, p
577]

8 Jun 1307: Pardon to Laurence de Hamelden, for taking to wife Joan,
late the wife of John Tregoz, tenant in chief. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 4, p
527]

Either John de Tregoz divorced Mabel and re-married Joan, or the John
de Tregoz married to Joan and who died in 1300 was actually the son of
the first John de Tregoz who had died before November 1288.


The two John's were not the same person. I think that much should be read.

Whether one was the son of the other is not clear from the above however.

Will Johnson

Hi Will,

On further looking around on Google books, I found the IPM for
Wiltshire for the John Tregoz who died in 1300 and who seems pretty
conclusively to be the father of Clarice and Sybil.

Wiltshire Inquisition Post Mortem of John de Tregoz, made before the
escheator, 25th October, 28 Edward I [1300], of the lands and tenements
which were of John Tregoz in co. Wilts on the day that he died. States,
"John la Warre, son and heir of Clarice la Warre, first-born daughter
of the said John Tregoz, who is dead, and Sibill de Graunteson, second
daughter of the said John Tregoz, are the next heirs of the said John
Tregoz : the said John la Warre is aged 24 years, and the said Sibill
30 years and more." Chan. Inq.p.m., 28 Edward I, No. 43. [Abstracts of
Wiltshire Inquisitiones Post Mortem, 1242 - 1326, British Record
Society, London 1908, pp 254-5]

So I'm still puzzled about that "Mabel late the wife of John Tregoz" in
1288. Must be a different Mabel and John - however unlikely that
seems.

Regards,

John

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 nov 2006 10:20:00

Peter Stewart wrote:

< The translation should read "strife was stirred up..." Typos that
result in
< actual words, even nonsensical ones, are the devil's own work.
<
< Peter Stewart

We all make mistakes, Peter. The difference between you and me is that
I don't blame the devil when I make one.

DR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Ida de Chiny

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 nov 2006 10:33:14

Peter Stewart wrote:

< On looking again, I think that Christian Settipani did not have time
to
< research this lineage independently for his 1993 book, and relied
mainly on
< Laret-Kayser's study.

Peter Stewart

Are you telling us Settipani did sketchy and incomplete research,
Peter? And that you're relying on him as your source that Ida, wife of
Duke Godfrey I, was a Chiny?

My - what a stunning confession!

I suspect Settipani who is an honorable man and an excellent scholar
would tell a much different story than you.

DR

Peter Stewart

Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk of

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 11:27:02

I have come across a letter from Bishop Adalbero II of Liège that appears to
settle this matter in his own words.

However, I find it very odd that Knetsch and others would have overlooked
this document - so, please note, the following is under the reservation that
I have not been able to check for discussion of the matter by him or by
Goffinet. No mention is made of it by either Laret-Kayser or Settipani.

The letter is dated 1139, in the third year of his episcopate ("anno
Dominicae incarnationis MCXXXIX...ordinationis autem nostrae iii"). This may
have suggested a problem to some scholars, since there is a charter of Count
Godfrey of Namur dated 1134 confirming a foundation of Adalbero, bishop of
Liège, on the strength of which various authorities state that Adalbero II
must have become bishop in 1134 instead of 1136. The 12th-century annalist
Lambert le Petit, of Saint-Jacques abbey in Liège, places the succession of
Adalbero in 1135. I suppose the 1134 confirmation could have referred to a
foundation by Bishop Adalbero I (died 1126). At any rate I can't see another
difficulty with the letter or any reason to suspect a forgery.

The relevant text is as follows: "Albero...Leodiensis ecclesiae
episcopus...domnus Wibaldus abbas Stabulensis avunculum nostrum Namucensem
comitem Godefridum, qui eamdem villam iniuste habebat, in curia domni nostri
Cuonradi secundi serenissimi Romanorum regis proclamavit, et praenominatam
villam iudicio curiae recepit. Aliquanto vero plus tempore germanus noster
Eustachius Leodii advocatus saepefatam villam Turnines per vim occupavit,
hoc scilicet rationis praetendens, quod Wigerus de Woronna, cuius filiam
uxorem duxerat, a praedicto avunculo nostro Namucense comite, eamdam villam
in beneficium acceperat" (Albero...bishop of Liège...lord Wibald, abbot of
Stavelot appealed in the court of our most serene lord Conrad II, king of
the Romans, against our uncle Godfrey, count of Namur, who wrongfully held
this village, and by the decision of the court he recovered it. However, our
brother Eustace, advocate of Liège, later seized this village of Tourinnes
by force, putting forward as justification that Wiger of Waremme, whose
daughter he had married, received the village in fief from our said uncle
the count of Namur).

If genuine, this proves that Adalbero was a nephew of Count Godfrey of
Namur, not his brother as Knetsch and earlier scholars such as Butkens had
it.

Furthermore, the only known way this could be the case is if Adalbero was
son of Godfrey's sister Adelais, wife of Count Otto II of Chiny. All the
other siblings are out of the question: the offspring of Godfrey's next
brother Henri, count of Laroche and advocate of Stavelot, are detailed by
Alberic of Troisfontaines; their younger brothers were Ferry, another bishop
of Liège (died 1121) and Adalbert, a childless crusader who became count of
Jaffa by right of marriage to his predecessor's widow. Adelais is the only
recorded sister of these men and no more siblings occur.

The strict meaning of "avunculus" is maternal uncle, tending to confirm
this, although the word was also used loosely instead of "patruus" (paternal
uncle).

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 11:34:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162804800.285698.319960@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

The translation should read "strife was stirred up..." Typos that
result in
actual words, even nonsensical ones, are the devil's own work.

Peter Stewart

We all make mistakes, Peter. The difference between you and me is that
I don't blame the devil when I make one.

No, the difference is that you don't admit them in the first place.

Doubt it? See if you can find anyone here to support you.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Ida de Chiny

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 11:40:03

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162805594.877691.246130@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

On looking again, I think that Christian Settipani did not have time
to
research this lineage independently for his 1993 book, and relied
mainly on
Laret-Kayser's study.

Peter Stewart

Are you telling us Settipani did sketchy and incomplete research,
Peter? And that you're relying on him as your source that Ida, wife of
Duke Godfrey I, was a Chiny?

My - what a stunning confession!

I suspect Settipani who is an honorable man and an excellent scholar
would tell a much different story than you.

Another crooked squib - I am quite obviously not relying on Settipani for
anything, just pointing out what he published on a question that interests
several people here.

I did not say that Settipani "did sketchy and incomplete research", I said
that he relied on Laret-Kayser as he was perfectly entitled to do: he
honestly cited her as his reference for each point, a scholarly practice
that you perhaps cannot comprehend. He of course would not deny this, it is
explicit in his book.

Your buffoonery is not doing you the slightest credit. I have just posted a
substantial piece of evidence that you misssed, and that you need to get to
grips with before trying to mock at others who disagree with your view.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Ida de Chiny

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 11:51:12

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

On looking again, I think that Christian Settipani did not have time
to
research this lineage independently for his 1993 book, and relied
mainly on
Laret-Kayser's study.

Peter Stewart

Are you telling us Settipani did sketchy and incomplete research,
Peter? And that you're relying on him as your source that Ida, wife of
Duke Godfrey I, was a Chiny?

My - what a stunning confession!

I suspect Settipani who is an honorable man and an excellent scholar
would tell a much different story than you.

Dear Douglas

I had thought this kind of post was beneath you. It is perfectly clear
what Peter Stewart said, and your attempt to twist his meaning merely
reflects badly on you, which is a shame. With the greatest respect,
you would be much better occupied in contributing to the discussions
about "kinship theory" or the Chiny/Namur relationships - where, it
seems to me, Peter has made some very insightful and useful factual
posts. I for one would be interested in your views on the question of
a proper study of kinship terms - does that kind of solid research not
appeal to you? Sniping about other people's mistakes (when you
invariably ignore or deny your own) and misrepresenting their
statements simply makes it look like you can't contribute to the adult
debate or that you have lost the argument. Remember, this group is
about mediaeval genealogy - and making friends!

Kind regards, Michael

John P. Ravilious

Re: Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 06 nov 2006 12:49:10

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for that evidence.

If in fact this was not a forgery, it would then appear the Chiny
connection for Ida, wife of Godfrey of Lower Lorraine (d. 1139/40) is
valid, as follows [from earlier discussion of Duke Henry of Brabant's
relationship to Blanche of Navarre]:


Hildouin IV = Adela
de Montdidier I de Roucy
_____________________I__________________
I I
Adela = Arnulf de Geoffrey = Beatrice
I Chiny II of Perche I
I I
I I
Otto II de Gilbert = Juliana
Chiny de L'Aigle I de Perche
I_____ I
I I
Godfrey IV = Ida Marguerite = Garcia Ramirez
the Bearded I de L'Aigle I (IV) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey II Sancho V
of Louvain (d. 1142) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey III (d. 1190) BLANCA
I of Navarre
I
HENRY I of Louvain (Brabant)


Should you note additional reasons to support (or doubt) the
veracity of this text, that would also be most appreciated.

Cheers,

John



Peter Stewart wrote:
I have come across a letter from Bishop Adalbero II of Liège that appears to
settle this matter in his own words.

However, I find it very odd that Knetsch and others would have overlooked
this document - so, please note, the following is under the reservation that
I have not been able to check for discussion of the matter by him or by
Goffinet. No mention is made of it by either Laret-Kayser or Settipani.

The letter is dated 1139, in the third year of his episcopate ("anno
Dominicae incarnationis MCXXXIX...ordinationis autem nostrae iii"). This may
have suggested a problem to some scholars, since there is a charter of Count
Godfrey of Namur dated 1134 confirming a foundation of Adalbero, bishop of
Liège, on the strength of which various authorities state that Adalbero II
must have become bishop in 1134 instead of 1136. The 12th-century annalist
Lambert le Petit, of Saint-Jacques abbey in Liège, places the succession of
Adalbero in 1135. I suppose the 1134 confirmation could have referred to a
foundation by Bishop Adalbero I (died 1126). At any rate I can't see another
difficulty with the letter or any reason to suspect a forgery.

The relevant text is as follows: "Albero...Leodiensis ecclesiae
episcopus...domnus Wibaldus abbas Stabulensis avunculum nostrum Namucensem
comitem Godefridum, qui eamdem villam iniuste habebat, in curia domni nostri
Cuonradi secundi serenissimi Romanorum regis proclamavit, et praenominatam
villam iudicio curiae recepit. Aliquanto vero plus tempore germanus noster
Eustachius Leodii advocatus saepefatam villam Turnines per vim occupavit,
hoc scilicet rationis praetendens, quod Wigerus de Woronna, cuius filiam
uxorem duxerat, a praedicto avunculo nostro Namucense comite, eamdam villam
in beneficium acceperat" (Albero...bishop of Liège...lord Wibald, abbot of
Stavelot appealed in the court of our most serene lord Conrad II, king of
the Romans, against our uncle Godfrey, count of Namur, who wrongfully held
this village, and by the decision of the court he recovered it. However, our
brother Eustace, advocate of Liège, later seized this village of Tourinnes
by force, putting forward as justification that Wiger of Waremme, whose
daughter he had married, received the village in fief from our said uncle
the count of Namur).

If genuine, this proves that Adalbero was a nephew of Count Godfrey of
Namur, not his brother as Knetsch and earlier scholars such as Butkens had
it.

Furthermore, the only known way this could be the case is if Adalbero was
son of Godfrey's sister Adelais, wife of Count Otto II of Chiny. All the
other siblings are out of the question: the offspring of Godfrey's next
brother Henri, count of Laroche and advocate of Stavelot, are detailed by
Alberic of Troisfontaines; their younger brothers were Ferry, another bishop
of Liège (died 1121) and Adalbert, a childless crusader who became count of
Jaffa by right of marriage to his predecessor's widow. Adelais is the only
recorded sister of these men and no more siblings occur.

The strict meaning of "avunculus" is maternal uncle, tending to confirm
this, although the word was also used loosely instead of "patruus" (paternal
uncle).

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Royal kinships #15,768

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 12:52:02

In a message dated 11/6/2006 3:35:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Letter signed and subscribed ("le bon Frère/ Alexandre"), to Queen
Victoria ("A Sa Majesté la Reine Victoria"), in French


Yes you have made a new, stunning and fantastic discovery. As I've always
maintained myself, Victoria and Alexander were fraternal twins of the Caliph
of Baghdad by his mistress, an unknown Australian aborignee only referred to
obiquely in one MS (now lost) as the "Queen of the Outback". I'm preparing a
paper on this which shall be published shortly in the "Journal of Extreme
Silliness" Volume 86.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 13:17:02

This is not an additional reason to support or doubt the document, but I
have since noted that Joseph Daris refers to it in passing (not in this
context) in his magisterial _Histoire du diocèse et de la principauté de
Liège depuis leur origine jusqu'au XIIIe siècle_ (Liège, 1890, reprinted
Brussels, 1974). It really is a mystery why Laret-Kayser neglected the
evidence, unless perhaps it had been somehow discounted before the 1980s.

Daris may have drawn the clear conclusion from it, while not mentioning
this, since he follows Goffinet without qualification, stating that Bishop
Adalbero was son of Otto II of Chiny and Adelheid of Namur - however, at the
same time he dated Adalbero's episcopate from 1134 instead of 1136, without
citing the anomolous dating of this in the 1139 letter.

It would be most useful to know what - if anything - Knetch said about it,
but unfortunately there is no copy in an Australian library. It might also
be discussed in _Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Stavelot-Malmedy_,
edited by J Halkin & C-G Roland, 2 vols (Brussels, 1909-1930). I don't have
acces to this, but if someone does it would be helpful to know whether the
document is printed and/or analysed there.

Peter Stewart



"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1162813750.283042.189930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter,

Many thanks for that evidence.

If in fact this was not a forgery, it would then appear the Chiny
connection for Ida, wife of Godfrey of Lower Lorraine (d. 1139/40) is
valid, as follows [from earlier discussion of Duke Henry of Brabant's
relationship to Blanche of Navarre]:


Hildouin IV = Adela
de Montdidier I de Roucy
_____________________I__________________
I I
Adela = Arnulf de Geoffrey = Beatrice
I Chiny II of Perche I
I I
I I
Otto II de Gilbert = Juliana
Chiny de L'Aigle I de Perche
I_____ I
I I
Godfrey IV = Ida Marguerite = Garcia Ramirez
the Bearded I de L'Aigle I (IV) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey II Sancho V
of Louvain (d. 1142) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey III (d. 1190) BLANCA
I of Navarre
I
HENRY I of Louvain (Brabant)


Should you note additional reasons to support (or doubt) the
veracity of this text, that would also be most appreciated.

Cheers,

John



Peter Stewart wrote:
I have come across a letter from Bishop Adalbero II of Liège that appears
to
settle this matter in his own words.

However, I find it very odd that Knetsch and others would have overlooked
this document - so, please note, the following is under the reservation
that
I have not been able to check for discussion of the matter by him or by
Goffinet. No mention is made of it by either Laret-Kayser or Settipani.

The letter is dated 1139, in the third year of his episcopate ("anno
Dominicae incarnationis MCXXXIX...ordinationis autem nostrae iii"). This
may
have suggested a problem to some scholars, since there is a charter of
Count
Godfrey of Namur dated 1134 confirming a foundation of Adalbero, bishop of
Liège, on the strength of which various authorities state that Adalbero II
must have become bishop in 1134 instead of 1136. The 12th-century annalist
Lambert le Petit, of Saint-Jacques abbey in Liège, places the succession
of
Adalbero in 1135. I suppose the 1134 confirmation could have referred to a
foundation by Bishop Adalbero I (died 1126). At any rate I can't see
another
difficulty with the letter or any reason to suspect a forgery.

The relevant text is as follows: "Albero...Leodiensis ecclesiae
episcopus...domnus Wibaldus abbas Stabulensis avunculum nostrum Namucensem
comitem Godefridum, qui eamdem villam iniuste habebat, in curia domni
nostri
Cuonradi secundi serenissimi Romanorum regis proclamavit, et praenominatam
villam iudicio curiae recepit. Aliquanto vero plus tempore germanus noster
Eustachius Leodii advocatus saepefatam villam Turnines per vim occupavit,
hoc scilicet rationis praetendens, quod Wigerus de Woronna, cuius filiam
uxorem duxerat, a praedicto avunculo nostro Namucense comite, eamdam
villam
in beneficium acceperat" (Albero...bishop of Liège...lord Wibald, abbot of
Stavelot appealed in the court of our most serene lord Conrad II, king of
the Romans, against our uncle Godfrey, count of Namur, who wrongfully held
this village, and by the decision of the court he recovered it. However,
our
brother Eustace, advocate of Liège, later seized this village of Tourinnes
by force, putting forward as justification that Wiger of Waremme, whose
daughter he had married, received the village in fief from our said uncle
the count of Namur).

If genuine, this proves that Adalbero was a nephew of Count Godfrey of
Namur, not his brother as Knetsch and earlier scholars such as Butkens had
it.

Furthermore, the only known way this could be the case is if Adalbero was
son of Godfrey's sister Adelais, wife of Count Otto II of Chiny. All the
other siblings are out of the question: the offspring of Godfrey's next
brother Henri, count of Laroche and advocate of Stavelot, are detailed by
Alberic of Troisfontaines; their younger brothers were Ferry, another
bishop
of Liège (died 1121) and Adalbert, a childless crusader who became count
of
Jaffa by right of marriage to his predecessor's widow. Adelais is the only
recorded sister of these men and no more siblings occur.

The strict meaning of "avunculus" is maternal uncle, tending to confirm
this, although the word was also used loosely instead of "patruus"
(paternal
uncle).

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Royal kinships #15,768

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 14:11:35

WJhonson@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 11/6/2006 3:35:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

Letter signed and subscribed ("le bon Frère/ Alexandre"), to Queen
Victoria ("A Sa Majesté la Reine Victoria"), in French


Yes you have made a new, stunning and fantastic discovery. As I've always
maintained myself, Victoria and Alexander were fraternal twins of the Caliph
of Baghdad by his mistress, an unknown Australian aborignee only referred to
obiquely in one MS (now lost) as the "Queen of the Outback". I'm preparing a
paper on this

don't forget to include a younger brother who caused terror in Whitechapel
in the 1880s

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigrees (was Eylesford, Bar

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 15:43:46

Dear Gordon, Will, Michael, and all-

This thread prompted me to have another look at various Pembrugge
materials and suddenly it all seemed to fit together a bit better, so
I'll post my theories here (split over a few posts). Firstly, the
earlier generations- I'm not familiar with Norr's work, but that
pedigree (see at bottom) seems a bit suspicious and I don't think the
facts support it- for instance, there were definitely a couple of
Ralphs, and I haven't seen the name Fulk appear in the family that
early.

The family takes its name from the village, now spelled Pembridge, in
the north of Herefordshire; perhaps confusingly, they later gave their
name to a castle at Newland near Welsh Newton in the south of the
county. (The name appears spelt in many different ways, I'll use 'de P'
to save time unless directly quoting a source.)

[At Domesday, Pembridge was held by Alfred of Marlborough, whose other
possessions in Herefordshire included Monnington and Burghill, which
would also be future Pembridge connections.]

A Ralph de P was apparently a witness to a grant of Philip de Braose,
of Bramber and Radnor, conjecturally in the period 1094-1120 [1]. The
Braose family and their successors were overlords of the family in
several manors over time, so this Ralph may reasonably be ancestor of
the family. The (seemingly) unbroken line begins with:

1. Henry de P held land at Winstone, Glos in 1177/8 [2]; five knight's
fees in Herefordshire 1203 [1]; died 1211 [1].

2. Ralph, son of Henry, fined with king John for possession of his
father's lands 1211 [1]. In 1213 he was in dispute with Aubreye Marmion
re: Weston, Glos [now Weston Subedge] [3]. The lands of Ralph and Henry
de P at Winstone were placed in the custody of William de Cauntelo in
1216, Henry 'being with the king's enemies' [2]. Ralph is thought to
have been dead by 1221 [1] or 1219 [4].

3. The Henry of 1216, presumably Ralph's heir, allegedly held Newland
and Clehonger 1219[4]. He was holding Pembridge at the time of the
death of William de Braose in 1230 [1]. In 1236 he was mentioned as
holding at Weston and Winstone of Hugh Giffard and the honour of
Cormeilles[2, 3, 5]. 4th June 1239 he had a grant from Henry III for a
market and fair at Pembridge [6], and there is a 1240 charter from him
to the burgesses of that place[7]. Henry held Pembridge for one fee
c.1243 [5].

[It seems unlikely that a man active in 1216 was finding brides for his
sons in 1254, so there are perhaps two Henrys in succession here (to be
followed by more). However, there is always the possibility that he had
his sons by a later marriage, as nothing appears known of any wife or
wives. If indeed two Henrys, it may not be clear where one ends and the
other starts. Eyton begins his pedigree with Henry in 1235 and 1254.]

3/4. Henry de P fined to have custody of Lucia and Euphemia de Gamages
and their marriages for his two sons, 10th May 1254 [5].

I'll follow the line set out by Eyton in the next post. Here is the
pedigree from Norr for comparison:

Gordon Kirkemo wrote:
Mr. Boyer provides the following
introduction:
[snip]

"According to Norr [95] the line may begin with Henry Pembridge, who had a
charter from King Henry I, and who had a daughter Sybil, who married Simon
de la Bere, and son Walter, who was born in 1108. In turn Walter had a
daughter Eleanor, who married Eustace Cecil, and a son Sir Richard, who
settled at Welsh Newton early in the thirteenth century and had sons Sir
Henry (born about 1192), Sir John (born about 1196) and Sir Fulk (born about
1200)."

I believe the Norr reference is to "Some Early English Pedigrees" by Vernon
M. Norr.

Unplaced during this period is Sir William, who apparently founded a
Franciscan friary in Hereford in 1228- see
http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/db.php?smr_no=450

[1] see essay at http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/pembridge.html
[2] VCH Glos XI 147-8, online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
[3] summarised in post by Chris Phillips, 1st Nov 2003: see
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1007719525
[4] Pedigree at p.193 of 'the House of Cornewall' by Compton Reade and
the Earl of Liverpool, 1908, apparently based on Rev CJ Robinson's
'History of the Mansions and Manors of Herefordshire' (1872). The
pedigree evidently amalgamates several Henrys.
[5] Post by Gordon Kirkemo, 1 Nov 2006, quoting Boyer citing Eyton etc.
[6]www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/herefs.html#Pem
[7] see http://www.archenfield.com/pembridge.htm

Matthew

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 17:57:35

To pick up the Pembrugge family where Eyton starts it, bearing in mind
the possible uncertainty over the number of Henrys, I'll reset the
clock to one starting with the 1254 Henry. A Henry de P was replaced as
escheator for Worcs 4 May 1251[1], but it's probably reading too much
to suppose that represents the death of the elder Henry.

1. Henry de P 1254 fined to have marriages of Lucia and Euphemia de
Gamages for his two sons. [Lucia may have died, as it was Elizabeth de
Gamages who was married to the elder son. They were daughters and
coheiresses of Godfrey de Gamages who died bef 2 Oct 1253, leaving them
as minors]. Henry de P was sheriff of Hereford 1255 [1]. He was also
apparently known as Henry de 'Clehongre' from his manor at Clehonger
[2]. He had:
2a. Henry, see below
2b. William, who married Euphemia de Gamages and thereby had the
manor of Little Dymock or Gamage Hall in Dymock, Glos, as well as
interests in Mansell Gamage and Westbury. William d.1317; for his line
see the draft VCH account of Little Dymock at
http://www.gloucestershirepast.net/ under 'Online text: Dymock', then
'manors'.

2a. Henry de P married Elizabeth De Gamages and thereby acquired
interests in Burghill, Herefs. and other places, including a claim to
Boughrood castle in Radnor (Powys). He also had the manor of Castle
Leigh at Leigh in Worcs. [2]. He was a supporter of de Montfort and
forfeited much as a result- Castle Leigh to Matthew de Gamages [2]
(apparently his wife's uncle), Winstone (and Weston?) to John Giffard
[3], and presumably the relevant Herefordshire estates to the lordship
of Radnor, Henry and his family being imprisoned at Wigmore[1]. This
Henry is said to have died circa January 1272, leaving Elizabeth as his
widow [4], perhaps holding Winstone in dower [3]. They had:
3a. Henry, see below
3b. Godfrey, occurs 1267 [4]

3a. Henry de P, the son and heir, failed to regain Pembridge in 1267
[1] but was admitted to king's peace 1268 [3] and recovered lands by
Dictum of Kenilworth 1272. He was presumably born 1255 or soon after so
would have been a minor during all this (unless there is more Henry
confusion here). His wife was Orabel (and variants thereof), daughter
of William de Harcourt [5], who brought him the manors and advowsons of
Tong, Salop and Aylestone, Leics. They were married by 26 Dec 1271 when
they had a grant from Henry III for a market and fair at Tong [5].
Orabel apparently died somewhat young leaving a son,
4a. Fulk, see below.
as Henry, who died Jan 16 1279 [4] holding manors including Tong and
Gillow [6], seems to have left a widow Alice, living 1282 and 1300 [4],
apparently mother of a younger son,
4b. Henry [4]

4a. Fulk de P, born c.1272 (aged 7 in 1279/80 [5]), married to Isabel
[4,5], and died in his twenties, like his father- IPM 20 June 1296 [5]
with lands in Wilts, Leics, Heref. and Salop. He had held Castle Leigh
in 1282 [2]; and Gillow, Hentland,Herefs. at his death [6]. His wife
Isabel survived him [4]. Their son was:

5. Fulk de P, born Aug 27 1291 [4] or aged 5 on 25 Aug 1296 [5], died
Jan 8 1326 [4], IPM 21 Jan 1296 [5]. Will 11 Nov 1325, pr. 26 Jan
1325/6 [7]. Married Maud [7], said to have been a de Bermingham [4]
(Henry de Bermingham was an executor of his will) [7]. Maud survived
him and remarried by 1333 to Robert Corbet of Hadley, with issue [4].
Fulk and Maud had issue:
6a. Fulk, b. Nov 30 1310 [4,5], married Alice, natural daughter of
Peter de Montfort, and died 1333-45 [4,5] sps. Peter de Montfort had a
life grant of Castle Leigh, with remainder to Alice for her life,
remainder to Robert de P, 1344-5 [2], by which time Alice had remarried
to Ralph Nowers [5]/ Richard le Noners [2].
6b. Robert, see below
6c. William [7]
6d. Payn [7]
(? Alice his dau, mentioned in will [7]- or does this mean his
daughter-in-law Alice Montfort?)

6b. Robert de P, had reversion of Castle Leigh 1344-5 [2], died 1350-64
[5]. Said to have m. Juliana Zouch [5], although this may be confusion
with Zouche descent of his great-grandmother. He had:
7a. Fulk, inherited lands including Tong, Aylestone, Gillow and a
claim to the advowson of Weston Subedge. He was MP for Salop 1397,
married twice but dsp 24 May 1409. For full details see [8].
7b. Juliana, below

7b. Juliana, married Sir Richard de Vernon of Haddon, Derbs, etc, who
died Sept 1376. She was aged 60, 1409 and died 1410. With Vernon she
had issue:
8a. Richard, dvm 1400, a quo Vernons of Haddon etc.
9a. William, had Ullingswick, Heref. for life at the time of Sir
Fulk's IPM, remainderman after brother Richard's issue.

I'll move on to the other branches probably tomorrow.

[1] Essay at http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/pembridge.html
[2] VCH Worcs IV 101-11, online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
[3] VCH Glos XI 147-8, online as above.
[4] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire ii 226
[5] Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees (1925), p.7
[6] http://www.wyevalleyhistory.net/Settlem ... bridge.htm
[7] His will in British Library online MSS catalogue, StoweCh 622
[8] HoP Commons 1386-1421 iv 44-6

-Matthew



Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigrees (was Eylesford, Bar

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 18:13:42

Apologies for some mistyped links, corrections enclosed:

[3] summarised in post by Chris Phillips, 1st Nov 2003: see
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1067719525
[7] see http://www.archenfield.com/Pembridge.htm


Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 18:30:18

I don't understand the problem. John Tregoz married about 1288 Mabel
Fitzwarin. He has two daugters say 1289-1291. That leaves 9-10 years
for his first wife to die and he to remarry a woman named Joan and them
himself die in 1300. So, why jump to divorce? And why would WIll
Johnson need to add his two cents that the two men were different?

Unless you have a document that says Mabel was alive past her husband,
I'm not sure I see a research problem.


John Watson wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/5/2006 6:06:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

7 Nov 1288 : Licence, for a fine of 10l., for Mabel late the wife of
John Tregoz, tenant in chief, to marry whomsoever she will of the
king's allegiance. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 2, p 302]

28 Feb 1301: Grant to John la Warre, king's yeoman, of a moiety of the
forfeiture due to the king by Joan, late the wife of John Tregoz,
tenant in chief, for marrying without licence. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 3, p
577]

8 Jun 1307: Pardon to Laurence de Hamelden, for taking to wife Joan,
late the wife of John Tregoz, tenant in chief. [CPR, Edward 1, Vol 4, p
527]

Either John de Tregoz divorced Mabel and re-married Joan, or the John
de Tregoz married to Joan and who died in 1300 was actually the son of
the first John de Tregoz who had died before November 1288.


The two John's were not the same person. I think that much should be read.

Whether one was the son of the other is not clear from the above however.

Will Johnson

Hi Will,

On further looking around on Google books, I found the IPM for
Wiltshire for the John Tregoz who died in 1300 and who seems pretty
conclusively to be the father of Clarice and Sybil.

Wiltshire Inquisition Post Mortem of John de Tregoz, made before the
escheator, 25th October, 28 Edward I [1300], of the lands and tenements
which were of John Tregoz in co. Wilts on the day that he died. States,
"John la Warre, son and heir of Clarice la Warre, first-born daughter
of the said John Tregoz, who is dead, and Sibill de Graunteson, second
daughter of the said John Tregoz, are the next heirs of the said John
Tregoz : the said John la Warre is aged 24 years, and the said Sibill
30 years and more." Chan. Inq.p.m., 28 Edward I, No. 43. [Abstracts of
Wiltshire Inquisitiones Post Mortem, 1242 - 1326, British Record
Society, London 1908, pp 254-5]

So I'm still puzzled about that "Mabel late the wife of John Tregoz" in
1288. Must be a different Mabel and John - however unlikely that
seems.

Regards,

John

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 19:06:03

In a message dated 11/6/2006 9:31:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

I don't understand the problem. John Tregoz married about 1288 Mabel
Fitzwarin. He has two daugters say 1289-1291. That leaves 9-10 years
for his first wife to die


Except you seem to fail to notice that Mabel is being given license to MARRY
whomever she wants after her marriage to John now dead obviously.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: reliability of IPMs (Eylesford)

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 19:07:02

Further to my earlier post, to which Brad Verity replied in a most helpful
way, I can report on some further Eylesford IPMs, taken from the printed
Calendars in the Public Record Office at Kew, as follows:-

GERALD EYLESFORD, pursuant to Writ 12th May 17 Edw II
Herefordshire (all held in chief, by service of 3/4 of a knight's fee)
KIng's Pyon: a messuage and 160 acres or arable land, pasture, meadows, etc
Houton: a messuage, 40 acres arable, pasture etc
Llanelion in the March [sc. Llantysilio] a messuage, 80 acres arable,
pasture etc
Munsley and Pikesley: land worth £10 per annum
Northants
Burton Latimer (a "little manor" held of William Latimer, Lord of Sutton)
Lincolnshire
Holme Spinney
1/2 of a manor held jointly with Margaret his wife, held of William
Latimer by knight's service
Son and heir: Edmund aged 20

Notes:
1. This Gerald appears to have been the elder son of Gerald de Eylesford and
his wife Christina Furnival
2. I have as yet no clue as to the identity of Margaret, his wife
3. His son Edmund proved his age Cal. Close Rolls 22nd Jan 1325
4. Cal.Pat. R 29th July 1325 and 10th September 1325 (entries recording
orders to assign dower to Margaret/Margery)

EDMUND EYLESFORD
(pursuant to Writ issued 21st January 5 Edw II [1332])
Northants
Burton - the "little manor" held of William de Latymer
Cranford - some rents
Son and heir John, aged 3 and more
I did not find Herefordshire or Lincolnshire IPMs for Edmund: Lincolnshire I
can understand, since Holme Spinney was apparently held of the Latimers. But
what had become of all the Herefordshire lands, held in chief? Why no writ
of inquiry to the sheriff of Herefordshire?

Notes:
1. Mysteriously, Cal. Close R 22nd January 1332 records that Edmund held no
land in chief, although we know from his father Gerald's IPM that Edmund
stood to inherit substantial holdings in Herefordshire and the March, including
Houton/Howton, as tenant in chief . Of these holdings we find Isabel de la
Mare, widow of Sir John Eylesford the elder, (who was not the son of Edmund,
but of Edmund's first cousin Hugh, son of Gerald Eylesford's younger brother
Richard) holding a life estate in "Howton" at her death as late as 1421. I am
baffled by this, since Houton/Howton ought to have descended in the senior
line.
2. If we accept the 1396 IPM of Sir John E the elder, King's knight of Edw
III and R II, then John E, heir of Edmund, must have been the father of Sir
John E the younger, king's knight of H IV
3. I have found no IPMs for Richard, the younger son of Gerald Eylesford and
Christina Furnival, nor for his son Hugh, father of Sir John E the elder,
nor for John E, son of Edmund, recorded as aged 3 in the IPM of his father
(presumably the father of Sir John E the younger).
4. I have still no knowledge as to the identity of the wives of any these
Eylesfords, and in particular as to any possible marriages between any of them
and daughters of the families of Bourghill, de la Barre and Boulewas
5. Nor have I any idea whether the Milbornes, later lords of Tillington (and
ancestral to a large proportion of the later English gentry) had any descent
from any of these Eylesfords: Brad Verity pointed out that they may have
acquired the significant Eylesford inheritances by purchase, rather than by
inheritance.
It still remains the case (for all I can discover) that the only known
daughter of a John Eylesford was Katherine, wife of a Herefordshire Dansey
MM

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 19:41:33

Obviously you don't understand. In 1288, Mabel was fined for not
getting a license although she was already married. The language reads
as Mabel, late[ly] the wife of John Tregoz. Meaning that she "of late"
got married without a license. Nowhere does it say that John Tregoz is
the late John Tregoz. His IPM is in 1300. So, again, what's the
problem?


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/6/2006 9:31:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

I don't understand the problem. John Tregoz married about 1288 Mabel
Fitzwarin. He has two daugters say 1289-1291. That leaves 9-10 years
for his first wife to die


Except you seem to fail to notice that Mabel is being given license to MARRY
whomever she wants after her marriage to John now dead obviously.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 20:05:04

In a message dated 11/3/06 4:53:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< 15. [was 13]. Isabel Sotehill = Oliver Wentworth
16. [was 14]. William Wentworth = Ellen Gilby
17. [was 15] Christopher Wentworth = Catherine Marbury >>

Now I am back in my office and can look at my notes on this.
The line from Oliver Wentworth + Isabel Sothill "heir of her father" to
William Wentworth, "Gent" of Waltham, Lincs is given here, courtesy of a link
posted last week by John Brandon from which I've lately been extracting. While
this is not *new*, I would suggest it's a better source for the line.

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, by Henry Fritz-Gilbert
Waters <a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0U0dwQYWFU7XUo1OYr&id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA132&dq=%22john+lawson%22+priscilla">page 128</a>

Douglas Richardson

Re: Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 nov 2006 20:12:37

Thank you, Peter. Nice post.

DR

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 20:46:02

In a message dated 11/6/06 10:46:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

<< In 1288, Mabel was fined for not
getting a license although she was already married. The language reads
as Mabel, late[ly] the wife of John Tregoz. >>

So we're to understand "whomsoever she will" to mean "make sure you only
marry John Tregoz" ?

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 21:15:59

Please. She had already married him. That why she was being fined.

The IPM for both John and Mabel appear in Vol. III of the Calendar of
Inquisitions for Edward I (1912).

#412, p. 274

Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz.
Writ, 24 May, 25 Edw. I
Inq. Wednesday after St. Barnabus, 25 Edw. I
for Bedfordshire. Weston (the manor) was held by Maud, daughter of an
dheir of William de Averenchis the elder. Hamo le Creveker married her
and they gave the manor to William their son and heir in free marriage
with the said Mabel. This William died without heir of his body so
that the said Mabel held the manor for life according to the form of
the gift aforesaid.

The claimant is John de Lenham, son of Iseult the second of the
daughters of the said Hamo and Maud aged 30 and more. The last line
notes that the manor should revert to him since the death of said
Mabel.

Endorsed: A day is given to John Tregoz and Richard de Weylaund and
other parceners.

So thus Mabel was dead by 24 May 1397 and John was still alive.

His IPM is #603, pp. 453-6, never mentions a wife named Joan. The writ
is dated 6 Sept. 28 Edward I. All the writs take place in the fall of
that year into the early part of 29 Edw. I (post December).

In the Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 1 1272-1307, p. 386:

24 May 1297 Portsmouth: Order to the escheator on this side Trent to
take into the king's hand the lands late of Mabel late the wife of John
Tregoz, deceased, tenant in chief.

p. 253 is the fine in question, note the commas:

7 November 1288: Grant, for a fine of 10l., to Mabel, late the wife of
John Tregoz, tenant in chief, that she may marry whomsoever she will
int he king's fealty.

p. 432: 6 September 1300: Order to the escheator beyond Trent to take
into the king's hand the lands late of John Tregoz, deceased, tenant in
chief.

p. 435: 26 November 1300: Order to the same to make partition of the
lands late of John Tregoz, tenant in chief, into two equal parts and to
deliver to John la Ware, kinsman and one of the heirs of John Tregoz,
to wit, son of Clarice his first-born daughter, and to William de
Grandison and Sibyl his wife, younger daughter and the other heir of
John Tregoz, their pourparties of the said lands, except the body of
the castle of Ewyas Harold which the king has assigned to John as
senior heir for the capital messuage of the said inheritance, so that
he assign to William and Sibyl 60s. of land agreed upon between him and
them before the king's council at York, and saving to Joan, late the
wife of John Tregoz, her dower; the said John la Ware and William
having done homage.

p. 449: 9 Feb. 1302: Order to the escheator beyond Trent to restore the
goods of Laurence de Hamelden and Joan his wife, late the wife of John
Tregoz, tenant in chief, which he took into the king's hand on account
of their trespass in intermarrying without license, the king having
pardoned Joan for a fine made by Laurence.

Get it now?

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/6/06 10:46:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

In 1288, Mabel was fined for not
getting a license although she was already married. The language reads
as Mabel, late[ly] the wife of John Tregoz.

So we're to understand "whomsoever she will" to mean "make sure you only
marry John Tregoz" ?

Gjest

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 21:42:02

I had posted a earlier today a link with a description that was in error.

It appears that the article the link points to is actually by Joseph Lemuel
Chester. When you go to the link, it states quite clearly on the right of the
window "by Henry Fritz-Gilbert Waters". So either this is the editor of the
whole volume in which this article appears, or google books can't figure out
how to correctly assign authors in a compiled work.

The link I gave is also verbose, it turns out the ending portion (the search
criteria) can be cut off and it still works fine.

And thirdly, I didn't give the article it's own proper heading within the
compilation

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, "A Genealogical Memoir
of the Wentworth family of England From its Saxon Origin...." by Joseph Lemuel
Chester <a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0U0dwQYWFU7XUo1OYr&id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA129">page 129</a>


Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 21:52:01

In a message dated 11/3/06 7:35:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

<< > However, in the 2004 edition of RD600 by Gary Boyd Roberts, the
Wentworth line given is by Paul C. Reed and in the pedigree Oliver
Wentworth's wife is given as Jane (---). The descent is from John
through his illegimate son Richard Fitzroy.

That Oliver Wentworth was married twice.
Jane is named as executrix in her husband's will dated 7 dec 1558

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: reliability of IPMs (Eylesford)

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 22:20:45

Millerfairfield@aol.com schrieb:

Further to my earlier post, to which Brad Verity replied in a most helpful
way, I can report on some further Eylesford IPMs, taken from the printed
Calendars in the Public Record Office at Kew, as follows:-

GERALD EYLESFORD, pursuant to Writ 12th May 17 Edw II
Herefordshire (all held in chief, by service of 3/4 of a knight's fee)
KIng's Pyon: a messuage and 160 acres or arable land, pasture, meadows, etc
Houton: a messuage, 40 acres arable, pasture etc
Llanelion in the March [sc. Llantysilio] a messuage, 80 acres arable,
pasture etc
Munsley and Pikesley: land worth £10 per annum
Northants
Burton Latimer (a "little manor" held of William Latimer, Lord of Sutton)
Lincolnshire
Holme Spinney
1/2 of a manor held jointly with Margaret his wife, held of William
Latimer by knight's service
Son and heir: Edmund aged 20

Notes:
1. This Gerald appears to have been the elder son of Gerald de Eylesford and
his wife Christina Furnival
2. I have as yet no clue as to the identity of Margaret, his wife
3. His son Edmund proved his age Cal. Close Rolls 22nd Jan 1325
4. Cal.Pat. R 29th July 1325 and 10th September 1325 (entries recording
orders to assign dower to Margaret/Margery)

EDMUND EYLESFORD
(pursuant to Writ issued 21st January 5 Edw II [1332])
Northants
Burton - the "little manor" held of William de Latymer
Cranford - some rents
Son and heir John, aged 3 and more
I did not find Herefordshire or Lincolnshire IPMs for Edmund: Lincolnshire I
can understand, since Holme Spinney was apparently held of the Latimers. But
what had become of all the Herefordshire lands, held in chief? Why no writ
of inquiry to the sheriff of Herefordshire?

Notes:
1. Mysteriously, Cal. Close R 22nd January 1332 records that Edmund held no
land in chief, although we know from his father Gerald's IPM that Edmund
stood to inherit substantial holdings in Herefordshire and the March, including
Houton/Howton, as tenant in chief . Of these holdings we find Isabel de la
Mare, widow of Sir John Eylesford the elder, (who was not the son of Edmund,
but of Edmund's first cousin Hugh, son of Gerald Eylesford's younger brother
Richard) holding a life estate in "Howton" at her death as late as 1421.. I am
baffled by this, since Houton/Howton ought to have descended in the senior
line.

Should we not conclude that the line of Gerard became extinct in 1396?

2. If we accept the 1396 IPM of Sir John E the elder, King's knight of Edw
III and R II, then John E, heir of Edmund, must have been the father of Sir
John E the younger, king's knight of H IV

Gloucestershire IPM of Sir John de Eylesford of Tillington, 1396
[British Record Society Volume 47, p 194]:

"At Westbury, 10 April 19 Richard II: John de Eylesford of Tullynton,
chivaler, held of the King in chief one third of the manor of Westbury
and by his charter thereof enfeoffed Philip Holgot, James Naysshe, Hugh
Harper, clerk, Roger Pertrych of Snytton and Roger Warde of Tullynton
who afterwards conveyed the same to John de Eynesford otherwise John de

Eylesford and Isabel his wife, who survives, and to the heirs of the
body of the said John. [He also held the manor of Bolley]. The said
John died at Eynesford (sic) 18 February last. His kinsman and heir is
John de Eynesford, chivaler, son of John son of Edmund son of Gerard
brother of Richard father of Hugh father of John de Eynesford in the
writ named; aged 30 and more. [Chan. IPM Ser. 1, 19 Richard II No 2,
new reference File 87]"

Just thought I'd post the 1396 IPM to make your point clear, Michael; I
agree with your assessments.

Regards, MA-R

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 06 nov 2006 22:27:16

In article <mailman.213.1162846215.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/3/06 7:35:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

However, in the 2004 edition of RD600 by Gary Boyd Roberts, the
Wentworth line given is by Paul C. Reed and in the pedigree Oliver
Wentworth's wife is given as Jane (---). The descent is from John
through his illegimate son Richard Fitzroy.

That Oliver Wentworth was married twice.
Jane is named as executrix in her husband's will dated 7 dec 1558

The sentence you quoted above was by Martin Hollick (please be careful
about this; snipping and misattributing is more grievous than
top-posting to many). On Saturday, to clear up the confusion, I posted
(noting my understanding of the scope of Paul Reed's work):

"... the [immigrant's] immediate ancestry, including the Sothill heiress
married to Oliver Wentworth being mother of his children (as opposed to
his later wife Jane, relict in his will), has now been well established."

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

John Watson

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av John Watson » 06 nov 2006 22:37:00

mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Please. She had already married him. That why she was being fined.

The IPM for both John and Mabel appear in Vol. III of the Calendar of
Inquisitions for Edward I (1912).

#412, p. 274

Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz.
Writ, 24 May, 25 Edw. I
Inq. Wednesday after St. Barnabus, 25 Edw. I
for Bedfordshire. Weston (the manor) was held by Maud, daughter of an
dheir of William de Averenchis the elder. Hamo le Creveker married her
and they gave the manor to William their son and heir in free marriage
with the said Mabel. This William died without heir of his body so
that the said Mabel held the manor for life according to the form of
the gift aforesaid.

The claimant is John de Lenham, son of Iseult the second of the
daughters of the said Hamo and Maud aged 30 and more. The last line
notes that the manor should revert to him since the death of said
Mabel.

Endorsed: A day is given to John Tregoz and Richard de Weylaund and
other parceners.

So thus Mabel was dead by 24 May 1397 and John was still alive.

His IPM is #603, pp. 453-6, never mentions a wife named Joan. The writ
is dated 6 Sept. 28 Edward I. All the writs take place in the fall of
that year into the early part of 29 Edw. I (post December).

In the Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. 1 1272-1307, p. 386:

24 May 1297 Portsmouth: Order to the escheator on this side Trent to
take into the king's hand the lands late of Mabel late the wife of John
Tregoz, deceased, tenant in chief.

p. 253 is the fine in question, note the commas:

7 November 1288: Grant, for a fine of 10l., to Mabel, late the wife of
John Tregoz, tenant in chief, that she may marry whomsoever she will
int he king's fealty.

p. 432: 6 September 1300: Order to the escheator beyond Trent to take
into the king's hand the lands late of John Tregoz, deceased, tenant in
chief.

p. 435: 26 November 1300: Order to the same to make partition of the
lands late of John Tregoz, tenant in chief, into two equal parts and to
deliver to John la Ware, kinsman and one of the heirs of John Tregoz,
to wit, son of Clarice his first-born daughter, and to William de
Grandison and Sibyl his wife, younger daughter and the other heir of
John Tregoz, their pourparties of the said lands, except the body of
the castle of Ewyas Harold which the king has assigned to John as
senior heir for the capital messuage of the said inheritance, so that
he assign to William and Sibyl 60s. of land agreed upon between him and
them before the king's council at York, and saving to Joan, late the
wife of John Tregoz, her dower; the said John la Ware and William
having done homage.

p. 449: 9 Feb. 1302: Order to the escheator beyond Trent to restore the
goods of Laurence de Hamelden and Joan his wife, late the wife of John
Tregoz, tenant in chief, which he took into the king's hand on account
of their trespass in intermarrying without license, the king having
pardoned Joan for a fine made by Laurence.

Get it now?

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/6/06 10:46:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:

In 1288, Mabel was fined for not
getting a license although she was already married. The language reads
as Mabel, late[ly] the wife of John Tregoz.

So we're to understand "whomsoever she will" to mean "make sure you only
marry John Tregoz" ?

The only fly in this ointment is that the IPM for Mabel is headed
"Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz." meaning that he was already
dead.

Regards,

John

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 22:47:08

No. She was dead. If he was dead the sentence would read: Mabel, the
wife of the late John Tregoz or Mabel, the wife of John Tregoz, late .
.. . .

The only fly in this ointment is that the IPM for Mabel is headed
"Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz." meaning that he was already
dead.

Regards,

John

Peter Stewart

Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?King's_Kinsfolk:_Alfonso_X,_King_of_Casti

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 nov 2006 23:31:42

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.218.1162850155.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/5/06 12:41:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

1. Philip, King of the Romans, died 1208.
2. Beatriz (or Isabel) of Hohenstauffen, married [Saint] Fernando III,
King of Castile and León.
3. Alfonso X, King of Castile and León, died 1284.

Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe says that
Beatriz married Otto IV, King 1198-, /HR Emperor/ 1209-
in 1212 and she died that same year

Whereas it says it was her sister Elizabeth who
married
Ferdinand III, King of /Castile/ 1217- and Leon 1230-
in 1219

Philipp had two daughters named Beatrix - the elder, born ca 1198, married
Otto IV, then German king & later emperor, on 2 July 1212 and died the
following month; the younger (who was also called Isabel or Elizabeth), born
in the spring of 1205, married at the end of November 1219 (as his first
wife) Fernando III, king of Castile. This Beatrix (Isabel) died on 5
November 1235.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?King's_Kinsfolk:_Alfonso_X, _King_of_Cast

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 23:55:38

In a message dated 11/5/06 12:41:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< 1. Philip, King of the Romans, died 1208.
2. Beatriz (or Isabel) of Hohenstauffen, married [Saint] Fernando III,
King of Castile and León.
3. Alfonso X, King of Castile and León, died 1284. >>

Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe says that
Beatriz married Otto IV, King 1198-, /HR Emperor/ 1209-
in 1212 and she died that same year

Whereas it says it was her sister Elizabeth who
married
Ferdinand III, King of /Castile/ 1217- and Leon 1230-
in 1219

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Fw: King's Kinsfolk: Philip, King of the Romans' kinsman

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 23:56:36

In a message dated 11/5/06 4:30:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Mississippienne@gmail.com writes:

<< Otto married Philipp's daughter Beatrix in 1212, but she died ten days
later.

Although King John didn't financially support him as Richard had, Otto still
allied with him against their common foe, Philippe Auguste, in 1214. The
alliance against the French king was so important that Otto finally married his
fiancee, the daughter of the duke of Brabant, to whom he had been betrothed
for 15 years, to secure his loyalty. Alas, it all ended badly, and the duke
betrayed him anyway. Guess that's what Otto got for leaving his daughter a virgin
for 15 years.

After that, Otto was desposed in 1215 by Frederick II, and went in
retirement before dying in 1218. >>

The above seems to have a word missing or something.
Otto married Beatrix in 1212. So the phrase "Otto finally married his
fiancee... to whom he had been betrother for 15 years" cannot be correct as well.

Will Johnson

Kay Allen

Re: Royal kinships #15,768

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 06 nov 2006 23:57:02

Michael,

I do hope that you will be able to disimplant your
tongue from your cheek. :-)

K

--- mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

Tsar Alexander III
Letter signed and subscribed ("le bon Frère/
Alexandre"), to Queen
Victoria ("A Sa Majesté la Reine Victoria"), in
French, thanking her
for the honour she intends to bestow on him in
nominating him a Knight
of the Order of the Garter and for charging the
Prince of
Wales with investing him with the order according to
usual custom, one
page, 4to, on black-edged mourning paper, integral
leaf, mourning
envelope (also in French), closed with an intact
impression of the
imperial seal in black wax, some dust-staining to
envelope and integral

leaf, St Petersburg, 16 March 1881 [New Style]

From this 2006 auction catalog, we learn that Tsar
Alexander III of
Russia was actually Queen Victoria's brother! Many
reference works
will need to be rewritten in the light of this
discovery.

MA-R ;)


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email
to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Death date for Elizabeth

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2006 23:58:02

In a message dated 11/4/06 4:03:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:

<< Sir Thomas Lewkenor, b.c. 1392, d. 1452, m. 1st Philippe Dallingridge
(by whom he had Sir Roger Lewkenor)- >>

On 1452, we now also have a report from the A2A of a document with date 21
Jul 1449 which, in speaking of "...Thomas Lewkenore, knight..." and others adds
"now all deceased."
FILE - Grant - ref. CCA-DCc-ChAnt/C/152

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 nov 2006 00:16:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162840357.108119.20510@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thank you, Peter. Nice post.

Thank you. The document of Bishop Adalbero can be found amongst the Stavelot
muniments in _Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum...amplissima collectio_,
edited by Edmund Martène & Ursin Durand, volume 2 (Paris, 1724), columns
108-110.

I can't see any rationale for rejecting this. It would make no sense to
falsify a document that rehearsed a judgement of the German king supported
by an admonition of the pope. As ff

John Watson

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av John Watson » 07 nov 2006 00:25:54

Ok - so here's a different hypothesis, which fits most of of the known
facts:

(a) Mabel, widow of William Crevequer, marries John Tregoz who is the
younger brother of Robert Tregoz. He dies in or before 1288. There is
no IPM because he holds nothing in chief. They have no children. She
dies in 1297.

(b) John Tregoz, the son of Robert Tregoz, marries someone, perhaps
Joan, and has two daughters, Clarice born about 1255 and Sibyl, born
about 1270. He dies in 1300. His widow Joan later marries Laurence de
Hamelden.

Regards,

John


mhollick@mac.com wrote:
No. She was dead. If he was dead the sentence would read: Mabel, the
wife of the late John Tregoz or Mabel, the wife of John Tregoz, late .
. . .

The only fly in this ointment is that the IPM for Mabel is headed
"Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz." meaning that he was already
dead.

Regards,

John

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 nov 2006 00:31:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:QrP3h.60133$rP1.31680@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162840357.108119.20510@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thank you, Peter. Nice post.

Thank you. The document of Bishop Adalbero can be found amongst the
Stavelot muniments in _Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum...amplissima
collectio_, edited by Edmund Martène & Ursin Durand, volume 2 (Paris,
1724), columns 108-110.

I can't see any rationale for rejecting this. It would make no sense to
falsify a document that rehearsed a judgement of the German king supported
by an admonition of the pope. As ff

Apologies - I dropped hot coffee onto my hand poised over the keyboard, a
new & painful hazard of Usenet participation for me.

To continue: As for the dating to the third year from Adalbero's election as
bishop, the annals of Rolduc (Klosterrath) confirm that his predecessor
Alexander died on 6 July 1135. Unless the choice of a successor took until
the following year, entirely possible given the tensions between the
neighbouring rulers of Namur, Louvain and Limburg at the time, this would
mean that any date in 1139 fell in the fourth year. Possibly the numerals
given as "iij" had been misread, and the original had "iv" instead.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 01:46:02

In a message dated 11/6/06 11:46:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< Again, if Douglas had actually read this source, it's
curious that he does not cite pp. 230-233 within it, which is the
author's transcription of the actual 1464 marriage contract pertaining
to John Sothill and Elizabeth Plumpton. >>

She was entered into a marraige contract.... at age 3 ?

Terry J Booth

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Terry J Booth » 07 nov 2006 01:50:01

Will,

Thank you for the added information. I think we agree with Nat and RD600
(2006) that Oliver Wentworth m.(1) Isabel Sothill, and m.(2) Jane ? the
executrix of his will. I think we all also agree that William was the son of
Isabel, not Jane. But if not, here is what I believe will constitute part of
Paul Reed's proof of it :

Extracted from the PRO website at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search
..
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to
Philip and Mary C 1/1186/18
Oliver WENTWORTHE of Goxhill, gentleman, and Isabel his wife, daughter
and heir of Richard Sothyll, v. Edmund SHEFFELDE, lord Sheffield.: Manor of
Whitthall in Flixburgh and messuages and land there and in Halton and
Conisby.: NORFOLK. . Detailed description
Date range: 1544 - 1551.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives

This is one of the 3 Chancery Suit summaries posted 15 Oct 2001 by Michael
Anne Guido that are referenced in RD600 page 824. Reviewing the 2001 SGM
posting, the dating of the suits was for some reason omitted, perhaps
because they encompassed a range of dates. Since the date of a suit
constitutes evidence of when Isabel was alive, an FASG grade genealogist
would either visit the UK National Archives or order a photocopy of this
particular record. I have instead settled for the above online summary,
since it does include a date range indicating the proceeding occurred no
earlier than 1544 (I am ignoring the other 2 suits, which have an earlier
date range of 1518-1529).

On page 130 of the NEHGR reference you noted below, it states that William
Wentworth d. 22 May 1574 leaving 2 sons 'in their minority', with the eldest
son Thomas shown as age 20 and upwards in William's 16 Aug 1574 IPM. Thus
William was a father by 1554, in which case he clearly had to be b. bef
1544, the earliest date on the chancery suit. Assuming the original record
of the suit conforms with the PRO summary, it proves that Isabel Sothill was
William's mother.

A further suggestion that William's younger son Christopher had a mother or
relative who was a Sothill/Southill can be found on page 131 of the same
NEHGR article, where it states that William's will names 'Garrett Southill,
Esq.' as guardian for Christopher. One presumes that Garrett (or perhaps the
name may be Gerard in the original of the will) was Isabel's uncle or cousin
since she was her father's heir well before 1544.

Terry Booth
Illinois

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?


In a message dated 11/3/06 4:53:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:

15. [was 13]. Isabel Sotehill = Oliver Wentworth
16. [was 14]. William Wentworth = Ellen Gilby
17. [was 15] Christopher Wentworth = Catherine Marbury

Now I am back in my office and can look at my notes on this.
The line from Oliver Wentworth + Isabel Sothill "heir of her father" to
William Wentworth, "Gent" of Waltham, Lincs is given here, courtesy of a
link
posted last week by John Brandon from which I've lately been extracting.
While
this is not *new*, I would suggest it's a better source for the line.

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, by Henry
Fritz-Gilbert
Waters <a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0U0dwQYWFU7XUo1OYr&id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA132&dq=%22john+lawson%22+priscilla">page
128</a

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006


Gjest

Re: Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 01:51:02

In a message dated 11/6/06 11:46:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< Dame Elizabeth's [(Plumpton's) Sothill] will: "I desire my doughter
Johan Sotehill, for all love and kyndenes
that have been betwix hur and me, to take the disposicon of my doughter
Annes joynter." >>

What does this mean to "take the disposition" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Evidence from Bishop Adalbero himself [was: Re: Kinsfolk

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 nov 2006 01:56:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:EEP3h.60159$rP1.23193@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:QrP3h.60133$rP1.31680@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162840357.108119.20510@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thank you, Peter. Nice post.

Thank you. The document of Bishop Adalbero can be found amongst the
Stavelot muniments in _Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum...amplissima
collectio_, edited by Edmund Martène & Ursin Durand, volume 2 (Paris,
1724), columns 108-110.

I can't see any rationale for rejecting this. It would make no sense to
falsify a document that rehearsed a judgement of the German king
supported by an admonition of the pope. As ff

Apologies - I dropped hot coffee onto my hand poised over the keyboard, a
new & painful hazard of Usenet participation for me.

To continue: As for the dating to the third year from Adalbero's election
as bishop, the annals of Rolduc (Klosterrath) confirm that his predecessor
Alexander died on 6 July 1135. Unless the choice of a successor took until
the following year, entirely possible given the tensions between the
neighbouring rulers of Namur, Louvain and Limburg at the time, this would
mean that any date in 1139 fell in the fourth year. Possibly the numerals
given as "iij" had been misread, and the original had "iv" instead.

This consideration is probably unnecessary, as there is an independent
source that confirms 1136 for the beginning of Adalbero II's episcopate.
This is Renier of Saint-Laurent, a younger contemporary who wrote
'Triumphale Bulonicum' between 1153 and 1182. Dating the recovery of
Bouillon by Adalbero he wrote: "anno 1141.episcopatus autem domni Alberonis
secundi quinto" (1141, the fifth year of Adalber's episcopate). By this
computation, 1139 was the third year.

Gilles d'Orval messed up the chronology in his 'Gesta episcoporum
Leodiensium', that has evidently added to the doubts for some historians. He
was following an unreliable source, 'Vita Odilae', that places Adalbero's
death a full decade too late, as well as 'Triumphus sancti Lamberti de
castro Bullonio' cited before, the source for "de prosapia Namucensi" that
started the hares running on this with Chapeauville and then Butkens in the
early 17th century.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 02:11:01

In a message dated 11/6/06 4:51:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terryjbooth@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< On page 130 of the NEHGR reference you noted below, it states that William
Wentworth d. 22 May 1574 leaving 2 sons 'in their minority', with the eldest
son Thomas shown as age 20 and upwards in William's 16 Aug 1574 IPM. Thus
William was a father by 1554, in which case he clearly had to be b. bef
1544, the earliest date on the chancery suit. Assuming the original record
of the suit conforms with the PRO summary, it proves that Isabel Sothill was
William's mother. >>

You can even knock a year off that, or two.
Thomas is specifically stated to be "20years and 3 months" at his fathers IPM
in Aug 1574, so I put his birth at May 1554.

Then it is stated that the eldest son Oliver, is mentioned in his
grandfather's will. Evidently died before the IPM as he is not mentioned again. So this
Oliver had to be born no later than June 1553, so William was born himself no
later than 1536.

But I take your point that if Isabel is named in a document which cannot be
earlier than 1544 than obviously she is the mother of William.

For his brother Francis Wentworth, Gent of Waltham I have no good dates to
pin him down. His daughter Barbara was certainly born by 1578 as her twins are
baptised 2 Sep 1592.

So Francis could still be by Jane perhaps.

Will

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 02:31:02

In a message dated 11/6/06 9:31:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:

<< I don't understand the problem. John Tregoz married about 1288 Mabel
Fitzwarin. He has two daugters say 1289-1291. >>

Clarice and Sibyl were much older than that.

David J. Hughes

Re: White Gold...

Legg inn av David J. Hughes » 07 nov 2006 03:22:38

Sheila J wrote:

"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com.au> wrote in message
news:eim35h$lr7$1@otis.netspace.net.au...

I warned you about the evil Muslim....!


What I found so interesting about the book was the lengths to which (or
didn't) the crown went to get them back (or not back). In fact when I
picked the book up (in the airport in Frankfurt where I paid 27 Euros -for a
paperpack..but that is a different rant) I thought it was a fiction -some
light reading for the last leg of the flight. Upon glancing through, I then
realized it was a NF and I was somewhat incredulous at
a. the numbers involved
b. the sheer volume of primary documents used in the writing and,
c. the details of the slavery and the subsequent rescues.

I have never seen anything of this magnitude (outside of historical romance
novels) and couldn't believe so little has been written about it. In
particular, the story of little Thomas Pellow is quite detailed and the
number of unpublished letters from the slaves themselves are both incredibly
poignant and chock full of historical tid-bits that completely capture
time/place. I am quite interested in looking into the military side of the
various offensives/defensives involved in capturing/defending/rescuing the
slaves. ....if anyone has any further reading...(hint, hint) please do
share!




http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba67/feat2.shtml

Slavery in Madagascar, referencing "Madagascar: or Robert Drury's
Journal during fifteen years captivity on that island", long thought to
be fiction but now seems to be based on real events.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Gjest

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 04:04:48

Dear Newsgroup ~

I had the opportunity this past week to examine the letters of Pope
Calixtus II, which letters were published in 1893 in Patrologiae cursus
Completus ... Series Latina [Patrologiae Latinae], edited by J.-P.
Migne, volume 163.

On pages 1232-1233, there is a letter from Pope Calixtus II to Emperor
Henry V dated 1122 in which Pope Calixtus II addressed Emperor Henry V
as his "kinsman" [consanguineo]:

"Calixtus episcopus, servus servorum Dei, consanguineo H. regi."

In a footnote, the editor stated that Pope Calixtus II and Emperor
Henry V shared a common descent from Guillaume I, Count of Burgundy.

So, it appears that the historian Z.N. Brooke was correct in stating
that Pope Calixtus II "could speak of the Emperor as his kinsman." He
could and did.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
< Dear Newsgroup ~
<
< As a followup to my post earlier today, I note that the book, A
History
< of Europe from 911 to 1198, by Z.N. Brooke makes a passing comment
< regarding Pope Calixtus II's kinship to Emperor Henry V:
<
< pg. 259
<
< "The new Pope, who was of exalted birth (he could speak of the
Emperor
< as his kinsman), had already given proofs of his ecclesiastical
< statemanship and proud bearing ..." END OF QUOTE
<
< So far I've been unable to find a contempory document in which Pope
< Calixtus II himself referred to Emperor Henry V as his kinsman. If
< anyone knows of such a document, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
<
< Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 nov 2006 04:29:48

<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162868688.637231.5030@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

I had the opportunity this past week to examine the letters of Pope
Calixtus II, which letters were published in 1893 in Patrologiae cursus
Completus ... Series Latina [Patrologiae Latinae], edited by J.-P.
Migne, volume 163.

On pages 1232-1233, there is a letter from Pope Calixtus II to Emperor
Henry V dated 1122 in which Pope Calixtus II addressed Emperor Henry V
as his "kinsman" [consanguineo]:

"Calixtus episcopus, servus servorum Dei, consanguineo H. regi."

In a footnote, the editor stated that Pope Calixtus II and Emperor
Henry V shared a common descent from Guillaume I, Count of Burgundy.

So, it appears that the historian Z.N. Brooke was correct in stating
that Pope Calixtus II "could speak of the Emperor as his kinsman." He
could and did.

But we also know, as did Brooke, that Calixtus II could have addressed King
Henry I as his kinsman - yet two letters printed in PL 163 show that he did
not do so.

Why is this, do you supopose, and how does it fit with your rule?

Peter Stewart

Brad Verity

Re: Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 07 nov 2006 05:16:17

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

What does this mean to "take the disposition" ?

Will, I'm not sure. Perhaps it meant to oversee it. Joan Empson
Sothill was the widow and daughter of attorneys, so perhaps that helps
explain why Dame Elizabeth chose to involve her with the Hesilriges in
such a way.

Cheers, -------Brad

Brad Verity

Re: Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 07 nov 2006 05:40:45

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

She was entered into a marraige contract.... at age 3 ?

Yep. Makes the "had to be at least age 7 at betrothal, 12 at marriage"
mantra inaccurate. She and her sister Margaret, older by a year,
became the heiresses to the many Plumpton estates after their father
William Plumpton the younger was killed at the battle of Towton in
1461. Their grandfather, the wily Sir William Plumpton, contracted in
1463 with counselor Brian Rocliff of Cowthorpe, Yorkshire (subsequently
baron of the Exchequer), for Margaret to marry Rocliff's son and heir
John. The following year, on 11 February 1464, Sir William contracted
with Henry Sothill of Stockerston, Leicestershire, for Elizabeth to
marry Sothill's son and heir John.

The young girls' mother, Elizabeth Clifford, had re-married, in the
autumn of 1461, the much older Sir Richard Hamerton, a widower whose
son and heir Stephen was married to Sir William Plumpton's daughter
Isabel. Sir Richard was one of the feoffees overseeing the interests
of his step-daughters in their marriage contracts.

Sir William Plumpton later entailed all of his estates on Robert
Plumpton, his son by his clandestine second wife, bypassing his two
married granddaughters, which caused a long-lasting dispute over the
Plumpton inheritance.

Cheers, ------Brad

Gjest

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman, Pope

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 06:38:02

In a message dated 11/6/2006 7:27:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

But we also know, as did Brooke, that Calixtus II could have addressed King
Henry I as his kinsman - yet two letters printed in PL 163 show that he did
not do so.


Pick me! Pick me!
Obviously *those* letters were writen by Calixtus' secretary and the
relationships if any would have been to the secretary. The other letter, was writen
by Calixtus himself and thus the relationships specified are to him.

Here we see the necessity of comparing left-handed and right-handed writers
as well as whether they had an elaborate or crabbed hand. We also can tell
Calixtus wrote this letter by the number of times he used the letter "e" versus
"i", and the forceful downstroke on his capital "T"s.

Of course this rule was only in effect from 1140 to Feb 12th, 1329.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: More Medieval Kinsfolk: Emperor Henry V's kinsman,Pope C

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 nov 2006 07:16:01

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.236.1162877844.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/6/2006 7:27:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

But we also know, as did Brooke, that Calixtus II could have addressed
King
Henry I as his kinsman - yet two letters printed in PL 163 show that he
did
not do so.


Pick me! Pick me!
Obviously *those* letters were writen by Calixtus' secretary and the
relationships if any would have been to the secretary. The other letter,
was writen
by Calixtus himself and thus the relationships specified are to him.

Here we see the necessity of comparing left-handed and right-handed
writers
as well as whether they had an elaborate or crabbed hand. We also can
tell
Calixtus wrote this letter by the number of times he used the letter "e"
versus
"i", and the forceful downstroke on his capital "T"s.

Of course this rule was only in effect from 1140 to Feb 12th, 1329.

Yes, this all makes perfect sense - at last.

I was thinking it might be a question of which side of the papal bed
Calixtus II got out of on any particular morning.

The fact that he was the Vicar of Christ and running the most important
diplomatic show in Europe, carefully addressing every king in identical
terms as popes were wont to do, would of course have nothing to do with
this. Rules is rules.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc); also Baskerville

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 10:23:10

Before moving on to the next Pembridge branches, some addenda to the
previous posts: firstly, Gordon Kirkemo has kindly passed on a
reference from Domesday Descendants 628-9, an entry for "de Penbrugge,
Radulf" who "attested a charter of Hugh I de Lacy of Weobley in 1100".
This would tie in well with the estimated date of Ralph de P witnessing
the Braose charter.

A couple of references that slipped my mind yesterday- a 'Henry de
Penbruge' appears on the list of sheriffs and bailiffs of Glamorgan and
Morganwg at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... =48213#s25
c.1200, and may be the Henry who d.1211.

The Henry who d.1279 was apparently a kinsman of Robert Burnell, bishop
of Bath and Wells- see Douglas Richardson's post of 30 Mar 1999 at
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 0922762976

While in this general time period, a mention of the Baskerville
genealogy- many of the Baskerville trees give the marriage of Walter
Baskerville of Eardisley to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Richard
Pembrugge (eg Robinson's 'Mansions and Manors of Herefordshire', 'House
of Cornewall'), their son Walter living 1272. This appears to be
erroneous and presumably derives from a visitation or similar-type
pedigree of later date. The invaluable article by Bruce
Coplestone-Crow, 'The Baskervilles of Herefordshire, 1086-1300' (Trans.
Woolhope Naturalists Field Club XLIII, 1979, pp18-39) identifies the
wife of this Walter as Isolda, daughter of Walter Biset. Walter
Baskerville died young in 1212 and Isolda had remarried a Pantulf by
1216. (Their son Walter d.1244, and the 1272 reference is actually for
the next generation down.)

Another error I might as well recap. is the sister given to Robert P of
Tong, said to have married Ralph de Lingen and been mother of Isabel
who married Sir Fulk Pembrugge (and had descendants via another of her
3 husbands, John Ludlow). Everybody with an interest here probably
already knows that Margery was in fact a Cheyne, and that a first
cousin marriage was unthinkable anyway (we've also now seen that there
was no Margery in her supposed father's will).

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 12:28:23

The line of Sir Richard de Pembridge KG (d.1375) is given in a pedigree
in Compton Reade and Earl of Liverpool's 'The House of Cornewall'
(1908) p.193 [apparently following Robinson's Mansions and Manors of
Herefordshire, which seems to now be on Google Books] as going:

Ralph of Pembridge and Newland c.1200, dcd 1219
Henry 1219 of Newland and Clehonger
Henry of Newland and Clehonger 13EI, 1284-5
Henry sp; & Richard, founded Chantry in Clehonger, dcd 1346=Petronilla
fl 1336, had
Sir Richard KG, et al.

The first Ralph and Henry's dates match fine with the pair briefly
deprived of lands in 1216. However, as we've seen there to be an
unbroken succession of Henrys afterwards, one alive 1284-5 can only be
the younger son of Henry who d.1279, meaning that the pedigree above
has amalgamated four or five Henrys into just two.

A reminder of the place of the younger Henry:
1. Henry de P 1254 fined to have marriages of Lucia and Euphemia de
Gamages for his two sons. [Lucia may have died, as it was Elizabeth de
Gamages who was married to the elder son. They were daughters and
coheiresses of Godfrey de Gamages who died bef 2 Oct 1253, leaving them
as minors]. Henry de P was sheriff of Hereford 1255 [1]. He was also
apparently known as Henry de 'Clehongre' from his manor at Clehonger
[2]. He had:
2a. Henry, see below
2b. William, who married Euphemia de Gamages and thereby had the
manor of Little Dymock or Gamage Hall in Dymock, Glos, as well as
interests in Mansell Gamage and Westbury. William d.1317; for his line
see the draft VCH account of Little Dymock at
http://www.gloucestershirepast.net/ under 'Online text: Dymock', then
'manors'.

2a. Henry de P married Elizabeth De Gamages and thereby acquired
interests in Burghill, Herefs. and other places, including a claim to
Boughrood castle in Radnor (Powys). He also had the manor of Castle
Leigh at Leigh in Worcs. [2]. He was a supporter of de Montfort and
forfeited much as a result- Castle Leigh to Matthew de Gamages [2]
(apparently his wife's uncle), Winstone (and Weston?) to John Giffard
[3], and presumably the relevant Herefordshire estates to the lordship
of Radnor, Henry and his family being imprisoned at Wigmore[1]. This
Henry is said to have died circa January 1272, leaving Elizabeth as his
widow [4], perhaps holding Winstone in dower [3]. They had:
3a. Henry, see below
3b. Godfrey, occurs 1267 [4]

3a. Henry de P, the son and heir, failed to regain Pembridge in 1267
[1] but was admitted to king's peace 1268 [3] and recovered lands by
Dictum of Kenilworth 1272. He was presumably born 1255 or soon after so
would have been a minor during all this (unless there is more Henry
confusion here). His wife was Orabel (and variants thereof), daughter
of William de Harcourt [5], who brought him the manors and advowsons of
Tong, Salop and Aylestone, Leics. They were married by 26 Dec 1271 when
they had a grant from Henry III for a market and fair at Tong [5].
Orabel apparently died somewhat young leaving a son,
4a. Fulk, see below.
as Henry, who died Jan 16 1279 [4] holding manors including Tong and
Gillow [6], seems to have left a widow Alice, living 1282 and 1300 [4],
apparently mother of a younger son,
4b. Henry [4]

This Henry evidently succeeded to Winstone, Glos by 1298, sold some
land there to Hugh Despenser in 1303 and the whole manor in 1310 to
Geoffrey de Pulham who then sold it to Despenser [3] (records relating
to this are in the National Archives online catalogue: E/943, E40/948,
E42/35). Despenser was a neighbour and this seems to have been part of
their general acquisition of lands.

If this Henry is the ancestor of the Clehonger branch, he may be the
'Henry of Penbrugge' who is named as a knight of William de Braose in
the latter's petition of 1317-20 in the
National Archives, SC8/204/10172, as several of the Herefordshire
manors were held of the Braoses. It may have been that as Fulk was to
inherit Tong and Aylestone from his mother, the younger son had several
of the paternal possessions.

The son of this Henry given in the truncated pedigree, another Henry
who dsp, may be a further confusion, or alternatively perhaps he was
the 'Henry de Penebrugge' who is appointed in a charter of Jan 6, 1359
along with Thomas de la Barre (who would then be his brother-in-law)
(NA, E156/28/44). However, there was a contemporary Henry (d.1362) in
the collateral line at Dymock (see link in text above to the draft
Dymock history).

Whether or not the younger Henry existed (and if he was the 1359 one,
he was presumably a younger son, as Richard had Clehonger), a Richard
seems to have succeeded to Clehonger by 1321/2 as he is named in a list
of 'contrariants', with Clehonger and Monnington (also in Herefs.) his
late possessions (National Archives, SC6/1145/6, also SC6/114516).
Richard was MP for Heref. in Sept.1337 and Feb 1337/8; he endowed the
chantry chapel at Clehonger April 1342 (NA, C143/258/20) and died
1345/6, MI at Clehonger [7]. He married Petronilla who is said to have
d. 1348 and to have a separate MI in the same place [8]; however, there
is a fine of 'Pernel de Penbrigge' of 1367 [9] and a reference to
'Petronella de Penebrugge' having an MI at Monnington [10]; or perhaps
this was an unmarried daughter.

Richard had issue:

a. Sir Richard, c.1320-1375, who was at Crecy 1346 and Poitiers 1356,
KG 1368. He acquired further possessions including Wadley, Berks, Ayot
St Lawrence, Herts, and Burgate and Fordingbridge, Hants. He was
briefly married (after 1360, when her previous husband died) to
Elizabeth (d.16 Sept 1362), widow of Edmund Lord St John and of Gerard
Lord Lisle. They had one son, Henry, who died 5 Oct 1375 still a minor.
Sir Richard died earlier that year, 26 July 1375 [7, 11].

b. Amice (Amy), dead by 1375, married Sir John Burley KG, had issue at
least Sir Richard Burley KG, and William; (? also Elizabeth who married
Sir John Hopton, a quo Corbet of Moreton C.?). The Burleys inherited
Fordingbridge etc.

c. Hawise, also dcd 1375, married Sir Thomas de la Barre and had Sir
Thomas, who inherited Ayot St Lawrence and Clehonger (a quo Cornewall
etc.)


[1] Essay at http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/pembridge.html
[2] VCH Worcs IV 101-11, online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
[3] VCH Glos XI 147-8, online as above.
[4] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire ii 226
[5] Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees (1925), p.7
[6] http://www.wyevalleyhistory.net/Settlem ... bridge.htm
[7] ODNB entry for Sir Richard Pembridge (d.1375)

[8] http://www.plantaganet.org.uk/ladies%20 ... bridge.htm
[9] available via Chris Phillips' site http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk
[10] http://www.rootsweb.com/~ukhfhs/mip.html
[11] VCH Herts III 59-63, available at http://www.british-history.ac.uk

-Matthew

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 15:25:56

The biographies in HoP Commons 1386-1421 for John Merbury and others
give the following Pembridge information:

1. Sir John Pembridge of Pembridge=Elizabeth, had:

2. Alice, daughter and heiress, d.1415=(1) Edmund de la Bere, (2)
Thomas Oldcastle of Eyton MP d.1398/9, (3) John Merbury of Weobley MP
d.1438 (as his first wife). Alice had issue:

3a. Richard Oldcastle dsp 1421
3b. Wintelan (Gwenllian, aka Joan) Oldcastle b.1392= Sir Robert Whitney
of Whitney MP (d.1443), with issue.
3c. Isabel= Walter Hackluyt, with issue.
3d. Elizabeth Merbury, d&h of John,=Sir Walter Devereux of Bodenham
(1411-1459), with issue.

There seem to be a lot of pedigrees online giving John P's father as
Ralph, and indeed he's given that paternity in the collection of
Herefordshire pedigrees in Harl. MSS 1140 in the British Library (but
the line is not taken further back). It looks as though the father was
not Ralph though, so perhaps this is yet another memory of the earlier
Ralphs.

There's a useful document on Chris Phillips' site at
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fin ... 9.shtml#28
dated 1385, which involves Thomas Oldcastle and Alice his wife and
mentions "Elizabeth who was the wife of John Penbrugge kt" holding
lands for life. This tells us that John was dead by then and confirms
his wife's name as Elizabeth; also that Alice was on her second
marriage by that date. The places mentioned are the manors of "Boghrade
and Treweryn" and lands in "Eton', Boghrade and Borghulle".

This ties in neatly with something in the National Archives
(C143/315/17):
"John son of Edward de Penebrugge to settle the manors of Bouthrede and
Eaton [in Leominster] on himself, Elzabeth his wife and his heirs,
retaining the manor of Burghill. Hereford. 28 EIII" (1354-5). The
continuity of place and wife suggest this is the same John as above, so
he is son of an Edward.

[There is a mention in E101/508/24 of "John de Penebrugge" farming
Alverington, Glos, 30EIII but no way of knowing if it's the same man;
not clear either where Alverington is/was.]

"Edward de Penbrigg" had a grant from Edward III for a market and fair
at Boughrood, 5 Oct 1335 (see http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/wales.html#Bou
)

An "Edward de Penebrugge" seems to have held land in
Westbury-on-Severn, Glos. in 1349 at the death of Nicholas de Gamage
(see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=15766 ).

There is an earlier record of Edward de P with a brother called John
(NA, C/143/36/7): John de Penebrugge to grant a rent in Meon, which he
holds of the king in chief, to Edward his brother, retaining rent
there. Glouc. 29EI (1300-1). This seems to connect with C/143/133/3:
Fulk de Penbrugge to retain the manor of Mune acquired by him from John
de Penbrugge. Glouc. 11EII (1317-8). This Fulk is presumably the one
with dates 1291-1326. Again I'm not sure where Meon/Mune is if it's in
Glos, there is a Meon Valley elsewhere though.

This earlier John may perhaps be the man of that name who married Joan
Hawey, heiress of St Donats in Glamorgan (widow of Peter Stradling),
and held a knight's fee there at the IPM of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of
Gloucester in 1314.

I haven't found anything to connect Edward (and a brother John) to a
definite point in the larger pedigree, but we can be certain he belongs
to it. Boughrood and Trewern, as well as Westbury-on-Severn and
Burghill, were all earlier held by the Gamages family; the former two
appear to have passed specifically to Elizabeth Gamages and husband
Henry de P ( see http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/pembridge.html )
rather than their siblings. As this Henry also held Pembridge, which
was held by Sir John according to HoP and does seem to have passed to
the Devereux family, it looks fairly certain Edward and John descend
from Henry and Elizabeth (rather than William and Euphemia). Exactly
how may turn up with more searching.

I include this section of the pedigree again for reference:
1. Henry de P 1254 fined to have marriages of Lucia and Euphemia de
Gamages for his two sons. [Lucia may have died, as it was Elizabeth de
Gamages who was married to the elder son. They were daughters and
coheiresses of Godfrey de Gamages who died bef 2 Oct 1253, leaving them
as minors]. Henry de P was sheriff of Hereford 1255 [1]. He was also
apparently known as Henry de 'Clehongre' from his manor at Clehonger
[2]. He had:
2a. Henry, see below
2b. William, who married Euphemia de Gamages and thereby had the
manor of Little Dymock or Gamage Hall in Dymock, Glos, as well as
interests in Mansell Gamage and Westbury. William d.1317; for his line
see the draft VCH account of Little Dymock at
http://www.gloucestershirepast.net/ under 'Online text: Dymock', then
'manors'.

2a. Henry de P married Elizabeth De Gamages and thereby acquired
interests in Burghill, Herefs. and other places, including a claim to
Boughrood castle in Radnor (Powys). He also had the manor of Castle
Leigh at Leigh in Worcs. [2]. He was a supporter of de Montfort and
forfeited much as a result- Castle Leigh to Matthew de Gamages [2]
(apparently his wife's uncle), Winstone (and Weston?) to John Giffard
[3], and presumably the relevant Herefordshire estates to the lordship
of Radnor, Henry and his family being imprisoned at Wigmore[1]. This
Henry is said to have died circa January 1272, leaving Elizabeth as his
widow [4], perhaps holding Winstone in dower [3]. They had:
3a. Henry, see below
3b. Godfrey, occurs 1267 [4]

3a. Henry de P, the son and heir, failed to regain Pembridge in 1267
[1] but was admitted to king's peace 1268 [3] and recovered lands by
Dictum of Kenilworth 1272. He was presumably born 1255 or soon after so
would have been a minor during all this (unless there is more Henry
confusion here). His wife was Orabel (and variants thereof), daughter
of William de Harcourt [5], who brought him the manors and advowsons of
Tong, Salop and Aylestone, Leics. They were married by 26 Dec 1271 when
they had a grant from Henry III for a market and fair at Tong [5].
Orabel apparently died somewhat young leaving a son,
4a. Fulk, see below.
as Henry, who died Jan 16 1279 [4] holding manors including Tong and
Gillow [6], seems to have left a widow Alice, living 1282 and 1300 [4],
apparently mother of a younger son,
4b. Henry [4]

[1] Essay at http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/pembridge.html
[2] VCH Worcs IV 101-11, online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
[3] VCH Glos XI 147-8, online as above.
[4] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire ii 226
[5] Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees (1925), p.7
[6] http://www.wyevalleyhistory.net/Settlem ... Gillow.htm
[I've corrected the above URL again- also a brand new fix to the one

below-


-Matthew

Patricia Junkin

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 07 nov 2006 15:38:06

Was the "a. Sir Richard, c.1320-1375" below in the line of Fulk?

Orabillis was the daughter of William de Harcourt and Alice la
Zouche, sister of Alan la Zouche who obtained "1267 Oct. 22. Grant at the
instance of Alan la Zuche and in aid of the marriages of Orabilla and
Margery de Harecut, daughters of William de Harecurt and Alan¹s nieces, to
the said nieces of the ransom of the value of the manors of the said William
of Tonge (a de Belmeis inheritance) and Ayliston with the soke of Straton,
belonging to the king by occasion of the trespasses of the said William, who
was against the king in the time of the disturbance had in the realm; to
hold according to the award of Kenilworth"
Henry de Penebrigge. County: Wiltshire Country: England Henry de
Pennebrigge did not hold the manor of Tudeworth in co. Wilts of the King in
chief on the day that he died, but Roger la Suche, who held that manor of
John Biset, gave it to Gilbert de Sanford with Lora, his daughter, in free
marriage, and the said Gilbert being dead, the said Lora gave the said manor
to Arrabilia, who was the wife of the said Henry de Pennebrigge, and to
Fulk, son of the said Henry and Arrabilia, by the service of 1d. by the
year.
Fulk de Penebrigg IPM 24 Edw I held the Manor of Tonge of his uncle Sir
Alan la Zouche, which manor Sir Alan, grandfather of the present Alan gave
to Alice his sister, grandmother of Sir Fulk in free marriage.
On the death of Alan la Zouche in 1314, Northtodeworth. 2 messuages and 2
carucates land held of the heirs of the said Alan by the prior of
Maydenebradele [Maidens Bradley] and the heirs of Fulk de Penbrig by service
of 1/2 knights fee.

Thanks, Pat
----------
From: mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree
Date: Tue, 7, 2006, 6:28 AM


The line of Sir Richard de Pembridge KG (d.1375) is given in a pedigree
in Compton Reade and Earl of Liverpool's 'The House of Cornewall'
(1908) p.193 [apparently following Robinson's Mansions and Manors of
Herefordshire, which seems to now be on Google Books] as going:

Ralph of Pembridge and Newland c.1200, dcd 1219
Henry 1219 of Newland and Clehonger
Henry of Newland and Clehonger 13EI, 1284-5
Henry sp; & Richard, founded Chantry in Clehonger, dcd 1346=Petronilla
fl 1336, had
Sir Richard KG, et al.

The first Ralph and Henry's dates match fine with the pair briefly
deprived of lands in 1216. However, as we've seen there to be an
unbroken succession of Henrys afterwards, one alive 1284-5 can only be
the younger son of Henry who d.1279, meaning that the pedigree above
has amalgamated four or five Henrys into just two.

A reminder of the place of the younger Henry:
1. Henry de P 1254 fined to have marriages of Lucia and Euphemia de
Gamages for his two sons. [Lucia may have died, as it was Elizabeth de
Gamages who was married to the elder son. They were daughters and
coheiresses of Godfrey de Gamages who died bef 2 Oct 1253, leaving them
as minors]. Henry de P was sheriff of Hereford 1255 [1]. He was also
apparently known as Henry de 'Clehongre' from his manor at Clehonger
[2]. He had:
2a. Henry, see below
2b. William, who married Euphemia de Gamages and thereby had the
manor of Little Dymock or Gamage Hall in Dymock, Glos, as well as
interests in Mansell Gamage and Westbury. William d.1317; for his line
see the draft VCH account of Little Dymock at
http://www.gloucestershirepast.net/ under 'Online text: Dymock', then
'manors'.

2a. Henry de P married Elizabeth De Gamages and thereby acquired
interests in Burghill, Herefs. and other places, including a claim to
Boughrood castle in Radnor (Powys). He also had the manor of Castle
Leigh at Leigh in Worcs. [2]. He was a supporter of de Montfort and
forfeited much as a result- Castle Leigh to Matthew de Gamages [2]
(apparently his wife's uncle), Winstone (and Weston?) to John Giffard
[3], and presumably the relevant Herefordshire estates to the lordship
of Radnor, Henry and his family being imprisoned at Wigmore[1]. This
Henry is said to have died circa January 1272, leaving Elizabeth as his
widow [4], perhaps holding Winstone in dower [3]. They had:
3a. Henry, see below
3b. Godfrey, occurs 1267 [4]

3a. Henry de P, the son and heir, failed to regain Pembridge in 1267
[1] but was admitted to king's peace 1268 [3] and recovered lands by
Dictum of Kenilworth 1272. He was presumably born 1255 or soon after so
would have been a minor during all this (unless there is more Henry
confusion here). His wife was Orabel (and variants thereof), daughter
of William de Harcourt [5], who brought him the manors and advowsons of
Tong, Salop and Aylestone, Leics. They were married by 26 Dec 1271 when
they had a grant from Henry III for a market and fair at Tong [5].
Orabel apparently died somewhat young leaving a son,
4a. Fulk, see below.
as Henry, who died Jan 16 1279 [4] holding manors including Tong and
Gillow [6], seems to have left a widow Alice, living 1282 and 1300 [4],
apparently mother of a younger son,
4b. Henry [4]

This Henry evidently succeeded to Winstone, Glos by 1298, sold some
land there to Hugh Despenser in 1303 and the whole manor in 1310 to
Geoffrey de Pulham who then sold it to Despenser [3] (records relating
to this are in the National Archives online catalogue: E/943, E40/948,
E42/35). Despenser was a neighbour and this seems to have been part of
their general acquisition of lands.

If this Henry is the ancestor of the Clehonger branch, he may be the
'Henry of Penbrugge' who is named as a knight of William de Braose in
the latter's petition of 1317-20 in the
National Archives, SC8/204/10172, as several of the Herefordshire
manors were held of the Braoses. It may have been that as Fulk was to
inherit Tong and Aylestone from his mother, the younger son had several
of the paternal possessions.

The son of this Henry given in the truncated pedigree, another Henry
who dsp, may be a further confusion, or alternatively perhaps he was
the 'Henry de Penebrugge' who is appointed in a charter of Jan 6, 1359
along with Thomas de la Barre (who would then be his brother-in-law)
(NA, E156/28/44). However, there was a contemporary Henry (d.1362) in
the collateral line at Dymock (see link in text above to the draft
Dymock history).

Whether or not the younger Henry existed (and if he was the 1359 one,
he was presumably a younger son, as Richard had Clehonger), a Richard
seems to have succeeded to Clehonger by 1321/2 as he is named in a list
of 'contrariants', with Clehonger and Monnington (also in Herefs.) his
late possessions (National Archives, SC6/1145/6, also SC6/114516).
Richard was MP for Heref. in Sept.1337 and Feb 1337/8; he endowed the
chantry chapel at Clehonger April 1342 (NA, C143/258/20) and died
1345/6, MI at Clehonger [7]. He married Petronilla who is said to have
d. 1348 and to have a separate MI in the same place [8]; however, there
is a fine of 'Pernel de Penbrigge' of 1367 [9] and a reference to
'Petronella de Penebrugge' having an MI at Monnington [10]; or perhaps
this was an unmarried daughter.

Richard had issue:

a. Sir Richard, c.1320-1375, who was at Crecy 1346 and Poitiers 1356,
KG 1368. He acquired further possessions including Wadley, Berks, Ayot
St Lawrence, Herts, and Burgate and Fordingbridge, Hants. He was
briefly married (after 1360, when her previous husband died) to
Elizabeth (d.16 Sept 1362), widow of Edmund Lord St John and of Gerard
Lord Lisle. They had one son, Henry, who died 5 Oct 1375 still a minor.
Sir Richard died earlier that year, 26 July 1375 [7, 11].

b. Amice (Amy), dead by 1375, married Sir John Burley KG, had issue at
least Sir Richard Burley KG, and William; (? also Elizabeth who married
Sir John Hopton, a quo Corbet of Moreton C.?). The Burleys inherited
Fordingbridge etc.

c. Hawise, also dcd 1375, married Sir Thomas de la Barre and had Sir
Thomas, who inherited Ayot St Lawrence and Clehonger (a quo Cornewall
etc.)



[1] Essay at http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/pembridge.html
[2] VCH Worcs IV 101-11, online at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/
[3] VCH Glos XI 147-8, online as above.
[4] Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire ii 226
[5] Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees (1925), p.7
[6] http://www.wyevalleyhistory.net/Settlem ... bridge.htm
[7] ODNB entry for Sir Richard Pembridge (d.1375)
[8] http://www.plantaganet.org.uk/ladies%20 ... bridge.htm
[9] available via Chris Phillips' site http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk
[10] http://www.rootsweb.com/~ukhfhs/mip.html
[11] VCH Herts III 59-63, available at http://www.british-history.ac.uk

-Matthew


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2006 17:23:32

Patricia Junkin wrote:
Was the "a. Sir Richard, c.1320-1375" below in the line of Fulk?

Orabillis was the daughter of William de Harcourt and Alice la
Zouche, sister of Alan la Zouche who obtained "1267 Oct. 22. Grant at the
instance of Alan la Zuche and in aid of the marriages of Orabilla and
Margery de Harecut, daughters of William de Harecurt and Alan¹s nieces, to
the said nieces of the ransom of the value of the manors of the said William
of Tonge (a de Belmeis inheritance) and Ayliston with the soke of Straton,
belonging to the king by occasion of the trespasses of the said William, who
was against the king in the time of the disturbance had in the realm; to
hold according to the award of Kenilworth"
Henry de Penebrigge. County: Wiltshire Country: England Henry de
Pennebrigge did not hold the manor of Tudeworth in co. Wilts of the King in
chief on the day that he died, but Roger la Suche, who held that manor of
John Biset, gave it to Gilbert de Sanford with Lora, his daughter, in free
marriage, and the said Gilbert being dead, the said Lora gave the said manor
to Arrabilia, who was the wife of the said Henry de Pennebrigge, and to
Fulk, son of the said Henry and Arrabilia, by the service of 1d. by the
year.
Fulk de Penebrigg IPM 24 Edw I held the Manor of Tonge of his uncle Sir
Alan la Zouche, which manor Sir Alan, grandfather of the present Alan gave
to Alice his sister, grandmother of Sir Fulk in free marriage.
On the death of Alan la Zouche in 1314, Northtodeworth. 2 messuages and 2
carucates land held of the heirs of the said Alan by the prior of
Maydenebradele [Maidens Bradley] and the heirs of Fulk de Penbrig by service
of 1/2 knights fee.

Hello Pat, thanks for that additional information- I tentatively

identified Sir Richard de Pembridge KG (c.1320-1375) as being grandson
of a Henry, who is given by Eyton as a son of the Henry who married
Orabilis/Arabella, only by a second wife. If so, Sir Richard would not
share the Zouche descent of the Fulks. However, more confirmation would
be welcome about this placement, and everything else of course.

-Matthew

Tony Hoskins

Re: Deighton sisters speculated connection to the Fiennes Cl

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 07 nov 2006 21:41:15

Many thanks, Vivien. I will look into this.

Best wishes,

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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Dorcas [?Mitton], wife of James Andrews of Falmouth and

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 07 nov 2006 22:39:59

Hi John:

I have the article, "The Andrews-Cogswell-Page Bible,", the Genealogist
3 (1) [Spring 1982]: 50-95. Is this the article to which you refer? I'd
be glad to check for whatever it is you need (apologies - I just "walked
into" this discussion, and am not up to speed.)

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

John Brandon

Re: Dorcas [?Mitton], wife of James Andrews of Falmouth and

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 nov 2006 22:46:36

Hi Tony,

Yes, I think so, though I didn't remember that the Cogswells were mixed
up in this line too.

Guess I'm wondering if it mentions James Andrews' wife, Dorcas, and
what proof there is that she was a daughter of Michael Mitton, gent.?
Does it give any vital dates on Dorcas?

Thanks, John



On Nov 7, 4:39 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Hi John:

I have the article, "The Andrews-Cogswell-Page Bible,", the Genealogist
3 (1) [Spring 1982]: 50-95. Is this the article to which you refer? I'd
be glad to check for whatever it is you need (apologies - I just "walked
into" this discussion, and am not up to speed.)

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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Dorcas [?Mitton], wife of James Andrews of Falmouth and

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 07 nov 2006 23:14:54

Hello John:

In re: Michael Mitton.

Robert J. Dunkle, "The Andrews-Cogswell-Page Bible", _The Genealogist_
3(1) [Spring 1982]:66, says:

[sub Elisha Davenport, b. 18 Apr 1667], "m. Falmouth, c.1696, Eleanor
(Brackett) Foxwell, b. Falmouth, bapt. Old South Church 22 Aug. 1698, d.
probably at Boston after 19 March 1721, daughter of Anthony [sup. 2],
(Anthony [sup. 1]) and Anna (Mitton, dau. Michael [sup. 1]) Brackett and
widow of Philip [sup. 2] Foxwell [endnote 164]."

Endnote 164, p. 89:

"MHGR 4:139-40 (1887), deposition dated 26 Nov. 1668: 'Aged about 17
years', establishes that Philip Foxwell was b. c. 1651. He d. before 24
Feb. 1690/1, when 'letters of administration is [sic] granted to Mrs
Elinor Foxwell later of Kittery on the Estate of her husband {Philip
Foxwell, deceased.' MPCR 3:295 (1947), He was the son of Richard [sup.
1] and Susanna (Boynton, dau. Richard [sup. 1]) Foxwell."

This seems to be all there is there on the Mittons.

All best,

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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Dorcas [?Mitton], wife of James Andrews of Falmouth andB

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 07 nov 2006 23:27:20

Hi John:

Reading your original post, I see what you are looking for. Pp. 59-67
of the article cover the family of James and Dorcas (Mitton) Andrews.
Might I be able to fax these to you? Dorcas is positively identified
there as you have stated. I will also copy the notes.

All best,

Tony

"Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> 11/07/06 02:14PM
Hello John:


In re: Michael Mitton.

Robert J. Dunkle, "The Andrews-Cogswell-Page Bible", _The Genealogist_
3(1) [Spring 1982]:66, says:

[sub Elisha Davenport, b. 18 Apr 1667], "m. Falmouth, c.1696, Eleanor
(Brackett) Foxwell, b. Falmouth, bapt. Old South Church 22 Aug. 1698,
d.
probably at Boston after 19 March 1721, daughter of Anthony [sup. 2],
(Anthony [sup. 1]) and Anna (Mitton, dau. Michael [sup. 1]) Brackett
and
widow of Philip [sup. 2] Foxwell [endnote 164]."

Endnote 164, p. 89:

"MHGR 4:139-40 (1887), deposition dated 26 Nov. 1668: 'Aged about 17
years', establishes that Philip Foxwell was b. c. 1651. He d. before
24
Feb. 1690/1, when 'letters of administration is [sic] granted to Mrs
Elinor Foxwell later of Kittery on the Estate of her husband {Philip
Foxwell, deceased.' MPCR 3:295 (1947), He was the son of Richard [sup.
1] and Susanna (Boynton, dau. Richard [sup. 1]) Foxwell."

This seems to be all there is there on the Mittons.

All best,

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

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tony Hoskins

Re: Contents of October NEHGR

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 08 nov 2006 00:26:20

"Which Marshall Kirk article?"

Presumably the oft-cited, oft-repeated, treatment of Thomas Dudley's
Sutton-Dudley ancestry. I (like many here, probably) saw Marshall's work
on this in draft years ago, and have long wondered at its being so
widely transmitted and included in other works before having been fully
and properly published. It is long overdue for full exposition.

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: Contents of October NEHGR

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 00:54:04

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"Which Marshall Kirk article?"

Presumably the oft-cited, oft-repeated, treatment of Thomas Dudley's
Sutton-Dudley ancestry.

No, actually, I was referring to the article on new and improved Thomas
Bradbury ancestry, which was advertised on this list as soon to appear
in the NEGHR

joseph cook

Re: Contents of October NEHGR

Legg inn av joseph cook » 08 nov 2006 00:56:17

Tony Hoskins wrote:
"Which Marshall Kirk article?"

Presumably the oft-cited, oft-repeated, treatment of Thomas Dudley's
Sutton-Dudley ancestry.

Actually, I was referring to the article on Thomas Bradbury's new and
improved royal ancestry. It was advertised on this list a few times
as soon to be appearing posthumously in the NEHGR.

John Brandon

Re: Dorcas [?Mitton], wife of James Andrews of Falmouth andB

Legg inn av John Brandon » 08 nov 2006 01:25:17

Hi, Tony,

Thanks for checking up on that, and thanks also for offering to fax the
pages, but I think I'll try to get a copy via ILL. It's nice to know,
however, that the connection seems to be sound.

John

Gjest

Re: Contents of October NEHGR

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 04:35:55

I wrote it so yes, it will be in the January 2007 issue. It was going
to be in this issue pending another article, but got switched at the
last minute. Editorial discretion.


On Nov 7, 6:56 pm, "joseph cook" <joec...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tony Hoskins wrote:
"Which Marshall Kirk article?"

Presumably the oft-cited, oft-repeated, treatment of Thomas Dudley's
Sutton-Dudley ancestry.Actually, I was referring to the article on Thomas Bradbury's new and
improved royal ancestry. It was advertised on this list a few times
as soon to be appearing posthumously in the NEHGR.

Gjest

Re: Capell of Little Hadham

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 05:15:04

Continuing with the parents of my last message.
Arthur Capel, 1st Earl of Essex was the son of

Arthur, 1st Baron Capel created 1641 and his wife Elizabeth Morrison (d
1660), daughter of Charles Morrison, 1st Bart of Cashiobury (d 1628)

This couple married 28 Nov 1627 per stirnet

This Arthur also has a DNB entry

<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=6892&path=Brown+-+Chaloner.Dictionary+Of+National+Biography.CA.301&fn=arthur&ln=capel&st=d&pid=
666&rc=915,1334,1050,1363;1086,1334,1257,1364&zp=75">DNB, "Capel, Arthur"</a>

citing "five sons and four daughters". I am not certain on what authority
this number is used, but Arthur was beheaded 9 Mar 1648/9 and his son did not
succeed to the Earldom of Essex until 1660. Another son, Henry Capel was lord
lieutenant of Ireland and d 1696. Henry's DNB does not give a birthyear

<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=6892&path=Brown+-+Chaloner.Dictionary+Of+National+Biography.CA.301&fn=arthur&ln=capel&st=d&pid=
666&rc=915,1334,1050,1363;1086,1334,1257,1364&zp=75">DNB, "Capel, Arthur"</a>

However I believe I have located the baptisms for this family
For baptismal record see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI
British Isles
Batch Number: C047891
extracted parish register of Little Hadham

as follows
Elizabeth Capell bap 28 Oct 1629
Mary Capell bap 16 Dec 1630
Arthur Capell 28 Jan 1631/2
Elizabeth Capell bap 4 Jun 1633
Theodosia Capell bap 17 Jan 1634/5
Henry Capell bap 6 Mar 1637/8
Theodosia Capell bap 3 Jan 1639/40

In addition the DNB entry for Arthur (bap 28 Jan 1631/2) mentions another
brother Edward, the youngest brother who was still living in 1660 when Arthur
became Earl of Essex.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Capell of Little Hadham

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 05:16:02

Today I've been spending some time rummaging around in the extracted parish
registers of Little Hadham, Hertfordshire.

Wikipedia
<a href =
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Capell,_1st_Earl_of_Essex">Entry</a> on wikipedia.org

states that Arthur Capel, 1st Earl of Essex by his wife Elizabeth Percy
daughter of Algernon, Earl of Northumberland, had one daughter and one son

This is not correct. I happened to find his DNB entry
<a href =
"http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=6892&path=Brown+-+Chaloner.Dictionary+Of+National+Biography.CA.301&fn=arthur&ln=capel&st=d&pid=
666&rc=915,1334,1050,1363;1086,1334,1257,1364&zp=75">DNB, "Capel, Arthur"</a>

which states that there were other children who did not survive to "maturity"
as they put it. So died as infants or children at any rate.

I believe I have located those baptisms as follows
For baptismal record see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI
British Isles
Batch Number: C047891
extracted parish register of Little Hadham

Charles Capell born 25 June 1660 [I don't know why it says born and not
baptised here]
Arthur Capell bap 1 Sep 1663
Henry Capell bap 10 Feb 1666
------------------------------------------------------
Algernon Capell is given a birthdate of 28 Dec 1670 by Leo and his sister
Anne "abt 1675"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Reliability of IPMs (Eylesford)

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 14:39:03

Here's another IPM problem.An IPM for Roger, Earl of March, dated to 34 Edw
III,
records that John Eylesford, son of John, held the manor of Bolley [now
called Bollow, in Westbury, Gloucestershire-MM] from him as 1/4 of a knight's
fee.
I think this must be an error. If we follow the 1396 IPM of Sir John E the
elder, which Michael Andrewes-Reading kindly reproduced on this list a couple
of days back, his remote
cousin John Eylesford the younger was the son of another John, and grandson
of Edmund. If Edmund's son John was aged only 3 in 1332, as stated in
Edmund's IPM, he cannot have had a son of full age by 1361. So I suggest that
Roger Mortimer's tenant at Bolley must have been Sir John the elder- whose
father was named Hugh.
Of course the jurors doing the inquisition for the Earl would not have been
particularly concerned with the parentage of one of the Earl's less
illustrious tenants. But this example of an error may serve as a warning against
placing total reliance on IPMs.
MM

Gjest

Re: Reliability of IPMs (Eylesford)

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 16:19:02

In a message dated 11/8/2006 5:38:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

But this example of an error may serve as a warning against
placing total reliance on IPMs.



Or perhaps an example to add weight to the idea that there are more John's
here then normally accounted for. As has already been pointed out, the Mabel
of 1288 could not have been the mother of Clarice and Sybil of the 1300 IPM.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Reliability of IPMs (Eylesford)

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 16:39:03

Several months ago, Douglas posted this
SC 8/11/550B
Covering dates 1287
Scope and content
Places mentioned: Dymock, [Gloucestershire]; Dartford, [Kent]; Iham
(Higham), [Sussex]; Iden, [Sussex]
Other people mentioned: Edward I, King of England; William de Gudisson
(Grandison); Sibyl [de Gudisson (Grandison)]
Nature of request: Copy of a charter of Edward I to the Grandisons granting
to them the manor of Dymock and 44 librates of land with appurtenances in the
manor of Dartford in exchange for the manors of Iham and Iden. Endorsement:
No endorsement.

Would this not imply that John Tregoz is already dead ? Or are we to assume
that the manors of Iham and Iden came to Sibyl with her marriage?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Leslie Mahler, FASG

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2006 22:26:02

Dear Leslie,
Congratulations on becoming a Fellow of the American
Genealogical Society.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 01:57:04

In a message dated 11/7/06 8:25:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< Hello Pat, thanks for that additional information- I tentatively
identified Sir Richard de Pembridge KG (c.1320-1375) as being grandson
of a Henry, who is given by Eyton as a son of the Henry who married
Orabilis/Arabella, only by a second wife. >>

It's tight isn't it?
Sir Sir Thomas Barre was Sheriff of Hereford in 1356 and is identified as a
nephew of Sir Richard de Pembrugge the chronology would go something like

Sir Thomas Barre b 1325/31 son of
Miss (Pembruge) Barre b 1306/18 dau of
Mr Pembruge of Clehonger b 1289/1306 son of
Henry de Pembruge b 1272/83 son of
Henry Pembruge b abt 1255 by other wife not Orabilis, and son of
Henry Pembruge married Elizabeth Gamage

That's pretty specific ! It always narrow the window for Orabilis' lifespan

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 02:06:21

Your analysis may be true and has already appeared in print. I truly
did not understand your initial post and you didn't cite any sources
or analysis, so it was not easy to understand.

The Tregoz family of Ewyas falls outside of the two major royal
compilations by Doug Richardson since they were not Plantagenet nor
Magna Carta descendants. They do appear in Ancestral Roots (AR), 8th
edition, 2004, Line 255A, which was researched by, coincidentally by
Doug Richardson. He gives the line as:

1. Robert II de Tregoz m. Juliane de Cantelou
2. Sir John de Tregoz m. Mabel Fitz Warin, widow of William le
Crevequer
3. Clarice de Tregoz m. Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Baron La Warre.
3. Sibyl de Tregoz m. William de Grandison

This we can call the "standard" line. He exclusively cites to the
Complete Peerage (CP) IV:139-143 for generations 2 and 3. For
generation 1 he also cites CP XII (2):20-22. He also notes Sussex
Archaelogical Collections 93 (1955):34-56 for generation 1 only.

Another source, although not much cited, is Carl Boyer's Medieval
English Ancestors of Certain Americans (2001), pp. 245-6. Boyer gives
the standard line as well and cites to the same sources as Richardson.

However, the article in question, Tregoz by L.F. Salzman, F.S.A., in
Sussex Arch. Collection 93:34-56 gives the line as:

1. Robert II de Tregoz m. Gillian (i.e. Juliane) de Cantelupe
2. John de Tregoz m. Joan, dau. of Adam de Cokefeld m. 2nd Laurence de
Hameldene
3. John de Tregoz m. Mabel widow of William de Crevequer, brother to
Clarice and Sibyl, noted above.

This is your theory. Sadly, neither Richardson, nor Boyer give
analysis on why they choose their theory over yours. CP XII (2):17-22
also gives the standard line. CP also cites to Salzman's article.
So we have disparate theories with no analysis. Perhaps Doug can give
us some guidance on his thinking.

Using just chronological basics, CP says that Joan who married John
Tregoz, married 2nd. Laurence de Hamelden who was living in 1307.
Afterwards she married before 1313-4, William de Beauchamp and
predeceased him (he d. 7 Apr 1354). She must have been somewhat young
to marry John Tregoz in 1298 and get married twice more.

John La Warre married shortly before November 1294. If 18, he was born
c. 1276. So his parents were married c. 1275 and Clarice was born say
1258. AR line 255A notes that William le Crevequer died in 1263 (which
totally cramps the timeline). Perhaps he was known to be dead by then.
In any case. If Clarice is born in 1258, then John and Joan were
married in 1257 and she is born in 1240. So we must believe that she
married secondly at 61 in 1301 and again c. 1312 at 72, possibly living
to 90-100. A stretch. If one could prove that Joan had children with
either Laurence or William, then she couldn't possibly also be the
mother of Clarice and Sibyl.

So wisdom anyone can impart would be greatly appreciated.



On Nov 6, 6:25 pm, "John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - so here's a different hypothesis, which fits most of of the known
facts:

(a) Mabel, widow of William Crevequer, marries John Tregoz who is the
younger brother of Robert Tregoz. He dies in or before 1288. There is
no IPM because he holds nothing in chief. They have no children. She
dies in 1297.

(b) John Tregoz, the son of Robert Tregoz, marries someone, perhaps
Joan, and has two daughters, Clarice born about 1255 and Sibyl, born
about 1270. He dies in 1300. His widow Joan later marries Laurence de
Hamelden.

Regards,

John

mholl...@mac.com wrote:
No. She was dead. If he was dead the sentence would read: Mabel, the
wife of the late John Tregoz or Mabel, the wife of John Tregoz, late .
. . .

The only fly in this ointment is that the IPM for Mabel is headed
"Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz." meaning that he was already
dead.

Regards,

John

Gjest

Re: Nevill ancestry of Sir Adam de Newmarch of Womersley

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 02:37:04

Wednesday, 8 November, 2006


Dear Hal, et al.,

One item you had mentioned in your post, a reference to Adam
de Newmarch and his wife Cecily in CCR, has been located.
Following is the text, dated 19 Edw I [1291]:

' Aug. 30. To the same [Malcolm de Harle, escheator
Grantham beyond Trent]. Order to cause all the lands
that Adam de Novo Mercato held of the king in
chief as of the inheritance of Cecily, his
wife, in Redburn, near Hilbaldestowe, which
the escheator took into the king's hands upon
Adam's death, to be replevied to Cecily until
the next parliament, so that there may then
be done what ought of right to be done. ' [1]

There are still several questions, but at least this gives
us a terminus as to the death of this Adam de Newmarch, as well
as showing that Cecily was still alive on 30 Aug 1291. I will
continue with the effort on the Newmarch family(ies), but if
any other evidence is noted, please feel free to post same to
the newsgroup.

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] CCR 19 Edw I, p. 177, mem. 4.

John P. Ravilious

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 09 nov 2006 02:58:58

Wednesday, 8 November, 2006


Dear Martin, Will, John, et al.,

I believe you will find the 'standard' descent is the correct one.
This is based on two pieces of evidence: the tenure of Lambourn, co.
Berks., and the inheritance by Mabel Fitz Warin of of Iden and Isham,
Sussex.

1. For the first, an extended look at the transmission of Lambourn
over 5 generations, esp. from Fulk Fitz Warin to his daughter
Mabel and from Mabel via her daughter Sybil de Tregoz to the
Grandison family, see the pedigree below.

2. As to the second, Doug Richardson wrote a while back (in part):

' For evidence that Mabel Fitz Warin was heiress of her mother,
Clarice de Auberville, I find that Mabel and her husband, Sir
John Tregoz, were granted free warren of Iden and I[s]ham,
Sussex 11 June 1271. ' [1]

Doug noted that Iden and Isham were subsequently inherited
by Sibyl de Tregoz.

Cheers,

John *




NOTES

[1] Douglas Richardson, <C. P. Addition: Clarice de Auberville,
wife of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin>, SGM, 9 Dec 2005, cites Moor,
Knights of Edward I 5 (H.S.P. 84) (1932), also National Archives
documents SC 8/11/550A and SC 8/11/550B.



===================================================


1 Josce de Dinan[1]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1167[2]
Father: Oliver de Dinan (->1172)

of Lambourn, Berks., Corton Dinham, Somerset, Kilmeston, Hants.,
Stanton [Stanton Fitzwarren] and Broad Blunsdon, Wilts. and Hartland
and Buckland, Devon[2]

a supporter of Matilda and then Henry II:
dispossessed of his castle at Ludlow;
received the manor of Lambourn, co. Berks from Henry II in compensation
before 1156 [Meisel[2]; DD 434[3]]

Children: Hawise (-1218)
Sibyl (-1213), m. Hugh de Plugenet


1.1 Hawise de Dinan[1]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1218[2]

co-heiress of her father[2]

the manor of Lambourn, Berks. was (part of) her inheritance, as was an
interest in Hartland and Buckland, Devon[2]

the lands of Westbury were also hers (given to her son Eudo)[4]

'In 1204 Hawise [de Dinan] and her sister and co-heiress, Sibil de
Dinan,
offered the fine of a horse for having recognition of their rights in
the
manors of Corton Dinham (Somerset), Hartland (Devonshire) and
Buckland (Devonshire). Hawise and Sibil won their suit in the
following year, for when Oliver de Dinan (apparently their cousin)
could not prove any right of possession concerning these manors,
he withdrew his claim.' [Meisel, p. 94][2]

gift of son Fulk fitz Warin of land for his foundation at Alberbury
ca. 1220-1230 made ' pro anime mee & .... Hawise matris mee ...'
(Nichols III/1, p. 332 charter 2)[5]

Spouse: Fulk fitz Warin, of Whittington, co. Salop
Death: aft 6 Nov 1194[1],[6]
Father: Fulk fitz Warin (-ca1171)
Mother: Eva
Marr: bef 1178[2]

Children: Sir Fulk (<1178->1250)
Philip
William (->1228)
John
Richard
Alan
Eudo
Eugenia
Eve


1.1.1a Sir Fulk FitzWarin*
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 8 Oct 1250[1],[7],[8]
Birth: bef 1178[2]

knight, of Lambourn, co. Berks., Whittington, co. Salop. and Alveston,
co. Gloucester
Outlawed, then pardoned 15 Nov 1203 (with restoration of castle of
Whittington 17 Oct 1204) [1]

held lands in Devon (evidently at Hartland and Buckland) by service
of a knight's fee, 1211-12 (Meisel, p. 94)[2]

in rebellion against King John following Magna Carta and the invasion
of Prince Louis: excommunicated, and the manor of Alveston, co. Glocs.
seized, June 1216 (subsequently restored) [Meisel, p. 93][2]

' Fulk fitz Warren ', had charter for a fair at Lambourn, co. Berks.
granted between 21 and 24 Oct 1219, by King Henry III to Fulk fitz
Warren. ' To be held at the manor.' Mandate to the sheriff of
Berkshire to cause him to have it (C 60/9 m. 1). Nova Oblata: he
owed one palfrey (PR, 3 Hen III, pp. xx, 115, 162; PR, 4 Hen III,
p. 187). Charter for a Fair on vfm Matthew (21 Sept) granted by
King Henry III unto Fulk fitz Warren on 3 Sept 1227 (CChR, 1226-57,
p. 58). Order to sheriff of Berkshire regarding the fair, 1 Sept
1227 (RLC, ii, p. 199).[10]

' Fulk fitz Warin ', had charter for a market and fair granted
23 Nov 1219, by King Henry III to Fulk fitz Warin (C 60/12 m. 9).[10]

' Fulco filius Warini ', made a grant of land in Alberbury, co. Salop.
in founding a Benedictine priory, ca 1220-1230,
'... pro anime mee, & Matilde uxoris mee, & Fulconis patris mee, &
Hawise matris mee... de assensu Fulconis filii & heredis mei,...
testibus: Will'o filio Warini, Henrico de Traci, Aldulpho de
Braci,.
...Hugone de Hoe,..' (Nichols III/1, pp. 332 charter 2)[5] [dated
by Meisel as '1221-26' - p. 91[2]]

'In 1230 Fulk III and Sibil de Dinan's son, Alan de Plugenay, were
sued for
one carucate in Kilmeston [co. Hants.], but they were excused from
appearing in court because they were overseas in the king's service.'
(Meisel, p. 94)[2]

fined 600 mks. in 1233 for custody of the lands and heirs of William
Pantulf, his son-in-law (Meisel, p. 46)[2]

held Tadlow, co. Cambs. of Roger de Torpel (Meisel, p. 90)[2]

m. 2ndly Clarice d'Auberville, by whom he had a daughter Mabel
(and possibly, a son Fulk, known as Fulk 'the younger' ) [2]

d. after 8 October 1250:
earliest date of fine by "FULCO FIL' WARINI & CLARIC' ux' ejus "
[previous dated entry 8 October; next is 22 October] - Chris Phillips,
citing Excerpta e Rotulis Finium 1216-1272, vol. 2: 1246-1272,
p. 89 - 34 Henry III (1250), m. 2[8]

he m. 1stly (as 2nd husband) Maud le Vavasour,
2ndly Clarice d'Auberville [cf. CP Vol V, p. 495 note (c) [1]]

~ usually called 'Fulk III'[2]

Spouse: Maud le Vavasour
Death: bef 1227[2]
Father: Robert le Vavasour (-<1228)
Mother: NN de Birkin
Marr: bef 1 Oct 1207[1],[6],[11]

Children: Sir Fulk (-1264)
Hawise
Eve


1.1.1b Sir Fulk FitzWarin* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Clarice d'Auberville [2nd wife]
Death: aft 8 Oct 1250[8]
Father: Robert d'Auberville (-<1230)
Mother: Clarice

Children: Mabel (-<1297)
Fulk (->1266)


1.1.1b.1a Mabel FitzWarin*
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 24 May 1297[1],[12]

had part of the lordship of Lambourn Hundred, co. Berks as her
maritagium :

' Fulk Fitz Warin acknowledges that he gave, conceded and
by his charter confirmed to Mabil, his daughter, for homage
and her service, his entire manor of Lambourn with all
appurtenances, to have and hold for herself and the heirs
of her body of Fulk and his heirs freely, quietly, etc.,
saving religious service, as is described in his charter.'
Meisel, p. 96 citing records of King's Bench for 1249[2]
___________________________

' For evidence that Mabel Fitz Warin was heiress of her mother, Clarice

de Auberville, I find that Mabel and her husband, Sir John Tregoz,
were
granted free warren of Iden and I[s]ham, Sussex 11 June 1271. '
[Douglas Richardson, cites Moor, Knights of Edward I 5 (H.S.P. 84)
(1932)]


probably m. 1stly, William de Crevequer in 1249;
m. 2ndly John de Tregoz (say 1255-1260 ?)[7]

she held the manor of Weston, co. Beds. in dower at her death
(IPM 24 May 1297, cited by Rosie Bevan)[12]

Spouse: William de Crevequer [1st husband]
Death: bef 6 Apr 1263, d.v.p., d.s.p.[1],[12]
Father: Hamo de Crevequer (-1263)
Mother: Maud d'Avranches
Marr: ? 1249[2]


1.1.1b.1b Mabel FitzWarin* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: John de Tregoz, of Ewyas Harold and Eaton Tregoz, co. Hereford
Death: 21 Aug 1300[1]
Father: Robert de Tregoz (-<1268)
Mother: Juliana de Cantelou (->1285)

Children: Clarice (-<1300)
Sybil (1270-1334)


1.1.1b.1b.1 Clarice de Tregoz
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 28 Aug 1300, d.v.p.[1]

eldest daughter and coheir (in her issue) of her father[1]

her son John inherited half of the barony of Ewyas Harold, co. Hereford


Spouse: Sir Roger la Warre
Death: 20 Jun 1320[1]
Father: Sir John la Warre (-<1279)
Mother: Olympia de Folkington
Marr: bef Oct 1276[1]

Children: John (<1276-1347)
Clarice (->1321) [conjectured wife of Adam de Everingham]
Roger
NN, a daughter


1.1.1b.1b.2 Sybil de Tregoz
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1270, Ewyas, co. Hereford[13]
Death: 12 Oct 1334[13]
Burial: Dore Abbey

2nd daughter and coheiress.

Lands of Sir John Tregoz ordered to be divided between his heirs,
26 Nov 1300[1] [her portion evidently included Lambourn, co. Berks
or a moiety thereof][2]


she inherited half of the barony of Ewyas Harold, co. Hereford[14]

probably 2nd wife of William de Grandison[15]

Spouse: Sir William de Grandison
Birth: Lake Neufchatel, Suisse[13]
Death: 27 Jun 1335[13]
Father: Pierre de Grandison (~1190-1263)
Mother: Agnes de Neuchatel
Marr: abt 1285

Children: Piers
John (1292-1369)
Thomas (>1291-)
William
Sir Otho
Matilda
Agnes
Mabel
Katherine (~1304-1349)


1. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982
(Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
2. Janet Meisel, "Barons of the Welsh Frontier: The Corbet, Pantulf
and Fitz Warin Families, 1066-1272," Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
3. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants," The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 2002, cited by Rosie Bevan, 'Re: de Stuteville' Jul 2,
2002, p. 723 (Osmund de Stuteville), full title: Domesday
Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons, Occurring in English
Documents 1066-1166: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum.
4. MichaelAnne Guido, "Halstead and the Old Charters," 8 November
2004, email ClaudiusI0, cites Genealogical Proofs of the
House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of he House of Maudit, by
Robert Halstead, London, 1685.
5. John Nichols, F.S.A., "The History and Antiquities of the County
of Leicester," London: Printed By and For John Nichols, 1795,
Vol. I, Appendix XIII: Chartulary of the Honour of Segrave, p.
119, charters of Thomas de Birkin, William de Flamborough and
Nicholas de Anesty, of lands in Pickwell and Leesthorpe, co.
Leics. to Stephen de Segrave, Vol. II, Pt. II (Gartre Hundred),
p. 488 re: grant of 'Boggeden' and Haverburgh to William de
Cantelou, 1237;, pp. 531 et seq., Burton Overy (family of Hugh
de Meinill), p. 768 et seq., manors of Pickwell and Leesthorpe
(Camville and Curzon), Vol. III, Pt. I (East Gascote Hundred) -
1800;
p. 62 et seq., Barrow;, pp. 301 et seq., Launde priory;, pp. 332
et seq., Whadborough (charters of Fulk Fitz Warin and family),
pp. 353 et seq., Prestwould; pp. 363 et seq., Burton on the Wolds.
6. John Ross Delafield, "Delafield : the family history," privately
published:, 1945, cites extract re: FitzWarin from Rev. R. W.
Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, .pdf image files provided by
Genealogy.com http://www.genealogy.com.
7. John P. Ravilious, "CP Correction: Fulk 'III' FitzWarin and His
Descendants," May 3, 2003, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, cites
Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III (1227-1272), Vol. II p.
210, as cited in the Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs:, and the
records of King's Bench from 1249, as cited by Janet Meisel,
Barons of the Welsh Frontier: The Corbet, Pantulf and Fitz
Warin Families, 1066-1272, p. 96.
8. Chris Phillips, "Re: CP Correction: Fulk 'III' FitzWarin and His
Descendants," May 9, 2003, paper copy: library of John Ravilious,
cites Curia Regis Rolls, vol. 16, p. 165 - Trin. Term 23 Hen III
(1239) m. 14, re: Agnes filia Warini;, Excerpta e Rotulis
Finium 2:89 (34 Hen III m. 2), re: Clarice, wife of Fulk Fitz
Warin;, CCR 1251-53 p. 208 (36 Hen III m. 20d), re: Fulk fitz
Warin 'junior' vs. John le Vavasour, Chris Phillips,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk.
9. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
10. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516,"
http://www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/
11. "Antiquities of Shropshire," The Rev. R. W. Eyton, London:
John Russell Smith, 1855, Vol. 5 - p. 242 (Ludlow), pp. 132
(Banaster) and 133-142 (Barony of Hastings), Vol. 6 - pp.
350-359 (Meole Brace and de Bracy).
12. Rosie Bevan, "Re: Clarice, wife of Sir Adam de Everingham (Clarice
la Warre ?)," Feb 19, 2003, email, therav3@aol.com (paper copy:
library of John Ravilious, cites MABEL, LATE THE WIFE OF JOHN
TREGOZ - Writ 24 May, 25 Edw I, [BEDFORD] Inq Wednesday after
St Barnabas, 25 Edw I, also CIPM v.7 no.676, the IPM of William
de Grandison (1335).
13. "Ancestors of Edmund de Mortimer," David Utzinger
UTZ@aol.com, 4 August 2000.
14. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and
Descent, 1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
15. Douglas Richardson, "Hastings-Morley," June 28, 2001,
royalancestry@email.msn.com (direct email).






mhollick@mac.com wrote:
Your analysis may be true and has already appeared in print. I truly
did not understand your initial post and you didn't cite any sources
or analysis, so it was not easy to understand.

The Tregoz family of Ewyas falls outside of the two major royal
compilations by Doug Richardson since they were not Plantagenet nor
Magna Carta descendants. They do appear in Ancestral Roots (AR), 8th
edition, 2004, Line 255A, which was researched by, coincidentally by
Doug Richardson. He gives the line as:

1. Robert II de Tregoz m. Juliane de Cantelou
2. Sir John de Tregoz m. Mabel Fitz Warin, widow of William le
Crevequer
3. Clarice de Tregoz m. Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Baron La Warre.
3. Sibyl de Tregoz m. William de Grandison

This we can call the "standard" line. He exclusively cites to the
Complete Peerage (CP) IV:139-143 for generations 2 and 3. For
generation 1 he also cites CP XII (2):20-22. He also notes Sussex
Archaelogical Collections 93 (1955):34-56 for generation 1 only.

Another source, although not much cited, is Carl Boyer's Medieval
English Ancestors of Certain Americans (2001), pp. 245-6. Boyer gives
the standard line as well and cites to the same sources as Richardson.

However, the article in question, Tregoz by L.F. Salzman, F.S.A., in
Sussex Arch. Collection 93:34-56 gives the line as:

1. Robert II de Tregoz m. Gillian (i.e. Juliane) de Cantelupe
2. John de Tregoz m. Joan, dau. of Adam de Cokefeld m. 2nd Laurence de
Hameldene
3. John de Tregoz m. Mabel widow of William de Crevequer, brother to
Clarice and Sibyl, noted above.

This is your theory. Sadly, neither Richardson, nor Boyer give
analysis on why they choose their theory over yours. CP XII (2):17-22
also gives the standard line. CP also cites to Salzman's article.
So we have disparate theories with no analysis. Perhaps Doug can give
us some guidance on his thinking.

Using just chronological basics, CP says that Joan who married John
Tregoz, married 2nd. Laurence de Hamelden who was living in 1307.
Afterwards she married before 1313-4, William de Beauchamp and
predeceased him (he d. 7 Apr 1354). She must have been somewhat young
to marry John Tregoz in 1298 and get married twice more.

John La Warre married shortly before November 1294. If 18, he was born
c. 1276. So his parents were married c. 1275 and Clarice was born say
1258. AR line 255A notes that William le Crevequer died in 1263 (which
totally cramps the timeline). Perhaps he was known to be dead by then.
In any case. If Clarice is born in 1258, then John and Joan were
married in 1257 and she is born in 1240. So we must believe that she
married secondly at 61 in 1301 and again c. 1312 at 72, possibly living
to 90-100. A stretch. If one could prove that Joan had children with
either Laurence or William, then she couldn't possibly also be the
mother of Clarice and Sibyl.

So wisdom anyone can impart would be greatly appreciated.



On Nov 6, 6:25 pm, "John Watson" <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok - so here's a different hypothesis, which fits most of of the known
facts:

(a) Mabel, widow of William Crevequer, marries John Tregoz who is the
younger brother of Robert Tregoz. He dies in or before 1288. There is
no IPM because he holds nothing in chief. They have no children. She
dies in 1297.

(b) John Tregoz, the son of Robert Tregoz, marries someone, perhaps
Joan, and has two daughters, Clarice born about 1255 and Sibyl, born
about 1270. He dies in 1300. His widow Joan later marries Laurence de
Hamelden.

Regards,

John

mholl...@mac.com wrote:
No. She was dead. If he was dead the sentence would read: Mabel, the
wife of the late John Tregoz or Mabel, the wife of John Tregoz, late .
. . .

The only fly in this ointment is that the IPM for Mabel is headed
"Mabel, late the wife of John Tregoz." meaning that he was already
dead.

Regards,

John

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 03:56:40

Wednesday, 8 November, 2006


Dear Martin, Will, John, et al.,

I believe you will find the 'standard' descent is the correct one.
This is based on two pieces of evidence: the tenure of Lambourn, co.
Berks., and the inheritance by Mabel Fitz Warin of of Iden and Isham,
Sussex.

1. For the first, an extended look at the transmission of Lambourn
over 5 generations, esp. from Fulk Fitz Warin to his daughter
Mabel and from Mabel via her daughter Sybil de Tregoz to the
Grandison family, see the pedigree below.

2. As to the second, Doug Richardson wrote a while back (in part):

' For evidence that Mabel Fitz Warin was heiress of her mother,
Clarice de Auberville, I find that Mabel and her husband, Sir
John Tregoz, were granted free warren of Iden and I[s]ham,
Sussex 11 June 1271. ' [1]

Doug noted that Iden and Isham were subsequently inherited
by Sibyl de Tregoz.

Cheers,

John *




NOTES

[1] Douglas Richardson, <C. P. Addition: Clarice de Auberville,
wife of Sir Fulk Fitz Warin>, SGM, 9 Dec 2005, cites Moor,
Knights of Edward I 5 (H.S.P. 84) (1932), also National Archives
documents SC 8/11/550A and SC 8/11/550B.



===================================================


1 Josce de Dinan[1]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1167[2]
Father: Oliver de Dinan (->1172)

of Lambourn, Berks., Corton Dinham, Somerset, Kilmeston, Hants.,
Stanton [Stanton Fitzwarren] and Broad Blunsdon, Wilts. and Hartland
and Buckland, Devon[2]

a supporter of Matilda and then Henry II:
dispossessed of his castle at Ludlow;
received the manor of Lambourn, co. Berks from Henry II in compensation
before 1156 [Meisel[2]; DD 434[3]]

Children: Hawise (-1218)
Sibyl (-1213), m. Hugh de Plugenet


1.1 Hawise de Dinan[1]
----------------------------------------
Death: 1218[2]

co-heiress of her father[2]

the manor of Lambourn, Berks. was (part of) her inheritance, as was an
interest in Hartland and Buckland, Devon[2]

the lands of Westbury were also hers (given to her son Eudo)[4]

'In 1204 Hawise [de Dinan] and her sister and co-heiress, Sibil de Dinan,
offered the fine of a horse for having recognition of their rights in the
manors of Corton Dinham (Somerset), Hartland (Devonshire) and
Buckland (Devonshire). Hawise and Sibil won their suit in the
following year, for when Oliver de Dinan (apparently their cousin)
could not prove any right of possession concerning these manors,
he withdrew his claim.' [Meisel, p. 94][2]

gift of son Fulk fitz Warin of land for his foundation at Alberbury
ca. 1220-1230 made ' pro anime mee & .... Hawise matris mee ...'
(Nichols III/1, p. 332 charter 2)[5]

Spouse: Fulk fitz Warin, of Whittington, co. Salop
Death: aft 6 Nov 1194[1],[6]
Father: Fulk fitz Warin (-ca1171)
Mother: Eva
Marr: bef 1178[2]

Children: Sir Fulk (<1178->1250)
Philip
William (->1228)
John
Richard
Alan
Eudo
Eugenia
Eve


1.1.1a Sir Fulk FitzWarin*
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 8 Oct 1250[1],[7],[8]
Birth: bef 1178[2]

knight, of Lambourn, co. Berks., Whittington, co. Salop. and Alveston,
co. Gloucester
Outlawed, then pardoned 15 Nov 1203 (with restoration of castle of
Whittington 17 Oct 1204) [1]

held lands in Devon (evidently at Hartland and Buckland) by service
of a knight's fee, 1211-12 (Meisel, p. 94)[2]

in rebellion against King John following Magna Carta and the invasion
of Prince Louis: excommunicated, and the manor of Alveston, co. Glocs.
seized, June 1216 (subsequently restored) [Meisel, p. 93][2]

' Fulk fitz Warren ', had charter for a fair at Lambourn, co. Berks.
granted between 21 and 24 Oct 1219, by King Henry III to Fulk fitz
Warren. ' To be held at the manor.' Mandate to the sheriff of
Berkshire to cause him to have it (C 60/9 m. 1). Nova Oblata: he
owed one palfrey (PR, 3 Hen III, pp. xx, 115, 162; PR, 4 Hen III,
p. 187). Charter for a Fair on vfm Matthew (21 Sept) granted by
King Henry III unto Fulk fitz Warren on 3 Sept 1227 (CChR, 1226–57,
p. 58). Order to sheriff of Berkshire regarding the fair, 1 Sept
1227 (RLC, ii, p. 199).[10]

' Fulk fitz Warin ', had charter for a market and fair granted
23 Nov 1219, by King Henry III to Fulk fitz Warin (C 60/12 m. 9).[10]

' Fulco filius Warini ', made a grant of land in Alberbury, co. Salop.
in founding a Benedictine priory, ca 1220-1230,
'... pro anime mee, & Matilde uxoris mee, & Fulconis patris mee, &
Hawise matris mee... de assensu Fulconis filii & heredis mei,...
testibus: Will'o filio Warini, Henrico de Traci, Aldulpho de Braci,.
...Hugone de Hoe,..' (Nichols III/1, pp. 332 charter 2)[5] [dated
by Meisel as '1221-26' - p. 91[2]]

'In 1230 Fulk III and Sibil de Dinan's son, Alan de Plugenay, were
sued for
one carucate in Kilmeston [co. Hants.], but they were excused from
appearing in court because they were overseas in the king's service.'
(Meisel, p. 94)[2]

fined 600 mks. in 1233 for custody of the lands and heirs of William
Pantulf, his son-in-law (Meisel, p. 46)[2]

held Tadlow, co. Cambs. of Roger de Torpel (Meisel, p. 90)[2]

m. 2ndly Clarice d'Auberville, by whom he had a daughter Mabel
(and possibly, a son Fulk, known as Fulk 'the younger' ) [2]

d. after 8 October 1250:
earliest date of fine by "FULCO FIL' WARINI & CLARIC' ux' ejus "
[previous dated entry 8 October; next is 22 October] - Chris Phillips,
citing Excerpta e Rotulis Finium 1216-1272, vol. 2: 1246-1272,
p. 89 - 34 Henry III (1250), m. 2[8]

he m. 1stly (as 2nd husband) Maud le Vavasour,
2ndly Clarice d'Auberville [cf. CP Vol V, p. 495 note (c) [1]]

~ usually called 'Fulk III'[2]

Spouse: Maud le Vavasour
Death: bef 1227[2]
Father: Robert le Vavasour (-<1228)
Mother: NN de Birkin
Marr: bef 1 Oct 1207[1],[6],[11]

Children: Sir Fulk (-1264)
Hawise
Eve


1.1.1b Sir Fulk FitzWarin* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Clarice d'Auberville [2nd wife]
Death: aft 8 Oct 1250[8]
Father: Robert d'Auberville (-<1230)
Mother: Clarice

Children: Mabel (-<1297)
Fulk (->1266)


1.1.1b.1a Mabel FitzWarin*
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 24 May 1297[1],[12]

had part of the lordship of Lambourn Hundred, co. Berks as her
maritagium :

‘ Fulk Fitz Warin acknowledges that he gave, conceded and
by his charter confirmed to Mabil, his daughter, for homage
and her service, his entire manor of Lambourn with all
appurtenances, to have and hold for herself and the heirs
of her body of Fulk and his heirs freely, quietly, etc.,
saving religious service, as is described in his charter.’
Meisel, p. 96 citing records of King's Bench for 1249[2]
___________________________

' For evidence that Mabel Fitz Warin was heiress of her mother, Clarice
de Auberville, I find that Mabel and her husband, Sir John Tregoz, were
granted free warren of Iden and I[s]ham, Sussex 11 June 1271. '
[Douglas Richardson, cites Moor, Knights of Edward I 5 (H.S.P. 84)
(1932)]


probably m. 1stly, William de Crevequer in 1249;
m. 2ndly John de Tregoz (say 1255-1260 ?)[7]

she held the manor of Weston, co. Beds. in dower at her death
(IPM 24 May 1297, cited by Rosie Bevan)[12]

Spouse: William de Crevequer [1st husband]
Death: bef 6 Apr 1263, d.v.p., d.s.p.[1],[12]
Father: Hamo de Crevequer (-1263)
Mother: Maud d'Avranches
Marr: ? 1249[2]


1.1.1b.1b Mabel FitzWarin* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: John de Tregoz, of Ewyas Harold and Eaton Tregoz, co. Hereford
Death: 21 Aug 1300[1]
Father: Robert de Tregoz (-<1268)
Mother: Juliana de Cantelou (->1285)

Children: Clarice (-<1300)
Sybil (1270-1334)


1.1.1b.1b.1 Clarice de Tregoz
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 28 Aug 1300, d.v.p.[1]

eldest daughter and coheir (in her issue) of her father[1]

her son John inherited half of the barony of Ewyas Harold, co. Hereford


Spouse: Sir Roger la Warre
Death: 20 Jun 1320[1]
Father: Sir John la Warre (-<1279)
Mother: Olympia de Folkington
Marr: bef Oct 1276[1]

Children: John (<1276-1347)
Clarice (->1321) [conjectured wife of Adam de Everingham]
Roger
NN, a daughter


1.1.1b.1b.2 Sybil de Tregoz
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1270, Ewyas, co. Hereford[13]
Death: 12 Oct 1334[13]
Burial: Dore Abbey

2nd daughter and coheiress.

Lands of Sir John Tregoz ordered to be divided between his heirs,
26 Nov 1300[1] [her portion evidently included Lambourn, co. Berks
or a moiety thereof][2]


she inherited half of the barony of Ewyas Harold, co. Hereford[14]

probably 2nd wife of William de Grandison[15]

Spouse: Sir William de Grandison
Birth: Lake Neufchatel, Suisse[13]
Death: 27 Jun 1335[13]
Father: Pierre de Grandison (~1190-1263)
Mother: Agnes de Neuchatel
Marr: abt 1285

Children: Piers
John (1292-1369)
Thomas (>1291-)
William
Sir Otho
Matilda
Agnes
Mabel
Katherine (~1304-1349)


1. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint, 1982
(Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
2. Janet Meisel, "Barons of the Welsh Frontier: The Corbet, Pantulf
and Fitz Warin Families, 1066-1272," Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
3. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants," The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 2002, cited by Rosie Bevan, 'Re: de Stuteville' Jul 2,
2002, p. 723 (Osmund de Stuteville), full title: Domesday
Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons, Occurring in English
Documents 1066-1166: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum.
4. MichaelAnne Guido, "Halstead and the Old Charters," 8 November
2004, email ClaudiusI0, cites Genealogical Proofs of the
House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of he House of Maudit, by
Robert Halstead, London, 1685.
5. John Nichols, F.S.A., "The History and Antiquities of the County
of Leicester," London: Printed By and For John Nichols, 1795,
Vol. I, Appendix XIII: Chartulary of the Honour of Segrave, p.
119, charters of Thomas de Birkin, William de Flamborough and
Nicholas de Anesty, of lands in Pickwell and Leesthorpe, co.
Leics. to Stephen de Segrave, Vol. II, Pt. II (Gartre Hundred),
p. 488 re: grant of 'Boggeden' and Haverburgh to William de
Cantelou, 1237;, pp. 531 et seq., Burton Overy (family of Hugh
de Meinill), p. 768 et seq., manors of Pickwell and Leesthorpe
(Camville and Curzon), Vol. III, Pt. I (East Gascote Hundred) - 1800;
p. 62 et seq., Barrow;, pp. 301 et seq., Launde priory;, pp. 332
et seq., Whadborough (charters of Fulk Fitz Warin and family),
pp. 353 et seq., Prestwould; pp. 363 et seq., Burton on the Wolds.
6. John Ross Delafield, "Delafield : the family history," privately
published:, 1945, cites extract re: FitzWarin from Rev. R. W.
Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, .pdf image files provided by
Genealogy.com http://www.genealogy.com.
7. John P. Ravilious, "CP Correction: Fulk 'III' FitzWarin and His
Descendants," May 3, 2003, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, cites
Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III (1227-1272), Vol. II p.
210, as cited in the Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs:, and the
records of King’s Bench from 1249, as cited by Janet Meisel,
Barons of the Welsh Frontier: The Corbet, Pantulf and Fitz
Warin Families, 1066-1272, p. 96.
8. Chris Phillips, "Re: CP Correction: Fulk 'III' FitzWarin and His
Descendants," May 9, 2003, paper copy: library of John Ravilious,
cites Curia Regis Rolls, vol. 16, p. 165 - Trin. Term 23 Hen III
(1239) m. 14, re: Agnes filia Warini;, Excerpta e Rotulis
Finium 2:89 (34 Hen III m. 2), re: Clarice, wife of Fulk Fitz
Warin;, CCR 1251-53 p. 208 (36 Hen III m. 20d), re: Fulk fitz
Warin 'junior' vs. John le Vavasour, Chris Phillips,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk.
9. "Access to Archives," http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/
10. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516,"
http://www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/
11. "Antiquities of Shropshire," The Rev. R. W. Eyton, London:
John Russell Smith, 1855, Vol. 5 - p. 242 (Ludlow), pp. 132
(Banaster) and 133-142 (Barony of Hastings), Vol. 6 - pp.
350-359 (Meole Brace and de Bracy).
12. Rosie Bevan, "Re: Clarice, wife of Sir Adam de Everingham (Clarice
la Warre ?)," Feb 19, 2003, email, therav3@aol.com (paper copy:
library of John Ravilious, cites MABEL, LATE THE WIFE OF JOHN
TREGOZ - Writ 24 May, 25 Edw I, [BEDFORD] Inq Wednesday after
St Barnabas, 25 Edw I, also CIPM v.7 no.676, the IPM of William
de Grandison (1335).
13. "Ancestors of Edmund de Mortimer," David Utzinger
UTZ@aol.com, 4 August 2000.
14. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and
Descent, 1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
15. Douglas Richardson, "Hastings-Morley," June 28, 2001,
royalancestry@email.msn.com (direct email).

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 05:16:02

But John, can you explain the 1288 fine to Mabel that was posted?

The Thill Group, Inc.

Re: Bartrum's Welsh works to be online in three years

Legg inn av The Thill Group, Inc. » 09 nov 2006 05:43:00

And it will not be up on the website for three years, so don't go looking
for it yet.
Becky
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "steven perkins" <scperkins@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Bartrum's Welsh works to be online in three years


*Website could help you trace your ancestry*

A WEBSITE is set to allow keen genealogists to find out whether they are
related to the ancient princes of Wales.

The site is being created by an academic at the University of Wales,
Aberystwyth, based on the work of an Englishman who compiled a massive
collection of work on Welsh ancestry.

It will make the task of proving a connection with historical figures
such as Hywel Dda, Llywelyn the Great or Owain Glyndr much easier.

The university will create an electronic database of Welsh genealogy
between 300 and 1500AD thanks to a grant of £300,000 from the Arts and
Humanities Research Council.

It is based on the work of Dr PC Bartrum, a native of Hampstead, London,
who has no links with Wales, and who worked as meteorologist until his
retirement in 1955.

But he has collected information about Welsh ancestry from early works
such as Brut y Tywysogion, a manuscript indexed Harley 3859 in the
British Library which dates from around 1100, and other manuscripts
largely from the 15th century onwards, compiled by heraldic bards, poets
who were experts in the ancestral history of noble families.

One such man was Gutun Owain (1450-98), who in 1491 was commissioned to
trace the ancestry of Owain Tudur of Penmynydd Anglesey, Henry VII's
grandfather.

<snip>

Full article at:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news ... ne=website
-could-help-you--trace-your-ancestry-back-to-the-great-welsh-princes&method=
full&objectid=18030664&siteid=50082-name_page.html



--
Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html
kttp://iemlnews.blogspot.com/
On-Line Journal of Genetics and Genealogy
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 06:02:06

In a message dated 11/8/06 5:56:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< 2. As to the second, Doug Richardson wrote a while back (in part):

' For evidence that Mabel Fitz Warin was heiress of her mother,
Clarice de Auberville, I find that Mabel and her husband, Sir
John Tregoz, were granted free warren of Iden and I[s]ham,
Sussex 11 June 1271. ' [1]

Doug noted that Iden and Isham were subsequently inherited
by Sibyl de Tregoz. >>

Agreed. However that creates the problem that Mabel, in 1288, is being fined
10 pounds for either getting married, or in order to get married, however you
view it. And yet, she is the mother of a Clarice granted free warren in
1271, during the lifes of both her own parents? So assuming the manor went to
Clarice in marriage, still Mabel has a 1288 fine.

How can that be explained?

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 08:57:06

WJhonson wrote:
mvernonconnolly writes:

Hello Pat, thanks for that additional information- I tentatively
identified Sir Richard de Pembridge KG (c.1320-1375) as being grandson
of a Henry, who is given by Eyton as a son of the Henry who married
Orabilis/Arabella, only by a second wife.

It's tight isn't it?
Sir Sir Thomas Barre was Sheriff of Hereford in 1356 and is identified as a
nephew of Sir Richard de Pembrugge the chronology would go something like

Sir Thomas Barre b 1325/31 son of
Miss (Pembruge) Barre b 1306/18 dau of
Mr Pembruge of Clehonger b 1289/1306 son of
Henry de Pembruge b 1272/83 son of
Henry Pembruge b abt 1255 by other wife not Orabilis, and son of
Henry Pembruge married Elizabeth Gamage

That's pretty specific ! It always narrow the window for Orabilis' lifespan
I agree it's tight if the Henry of Clehonger is the same as the son by

(2) of Henry whose first wife was Orabel, but that is only a conjecture
based on what's turned up so far; we've seen though that there are some
very short generations in the family at that period that are well
attested. I had Sir Thomas Barre down as b.c.1349 though, wasn't the
sheriff in 1356 the father (ie the one who married Hawise Pembridge)?
Either way, unless Eyton was in error, it does indeed seem that Orabel
must have died quite young.

Gjest

Re: Pembridge, Fulk Fitzwarine

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 09:55:32

By coincidence, as the Fitzwarines are also mentioned in the Tregoz
thread, I was looking at Pembridge references on Google Books yesterday
and one came up in the old story of 'Fouke le Fitzwaryn' (Histoire de
Foulques Fitz-Warin, Francisque Michel, 1840 p.62). Fulk (ie Fulk III)
and his wife Maud are given a daughter Joan who married Henry de
Pembridge ("ileq fust delyvre de une file qe fust baptize Johane, qe
pus fust mariee a sire Henre de Penebrugge.") While of course this may
not be accurate, it would be an odd thing to make up, as they weren't
that renowned a family (unless they were patrons of the author!). If
there is truth in it, chronologically this Joan might have been wife of
the Henry who was marrying his sons to the Gamage heiresses in 1254 (no
guarantee she would be mother of the sons though).

However, whether or not they were actual descendants, this is almost
certainly why the name Fulk appears in the Pembridge family in 1272 (as
there's no evidence yet of any before then); the ODNB entry for the
Fitzwarine family dates the composition of the tale to 1258-65 or
'perhaps a little later'.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»