Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Rosie Bevan

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Rosie Bevan » 09 nov 2006 10:46:45

The simple answer is that there were two Johns and two Mabels.

John Tregoz of Ewyas Harold married Mabel, daughter of Fulk fitz Warin
and Clarice de Auberville (as identified by Paget). He and Mabel
settled 87 librates of land in Isham and Iden, Sussex, (Mabel's
inheritance) and 23 librates of land in Chipping Lambourn (Mabel's
maritagium given by her father in 1249 on her first marriage to William
de Crevequer d.s.p. 1263 [CRR XIX no.326]) on William de Grandison and
Sybil in 1284/1285 [Salzmann. F of F Sussex vol. II, no.978]. Mabel
died in 1297 when an inquisition was held into the dower she held of
William de Crevequer's heirs [CIPM, 3 no. 412].

From John's IPM in 1300 [CIPM 3, no.603] we know that his heirs were
his grandson John de la Warre, son of Clarice and Roger de la Warre,

aged 24, and Sibyl, John's second daughter, aged 30, wife of William de
Grandison. John left a widow, Joan, daughter of Adam de Cokefield
(heir of her brother Robert d.1297 when she was recorded as 23 years of
age [CIPM 3, no.384] who married secondly Lawrence de Hameldene by 9th
February 1302 [CFR, 1, p.449] and thirdly William de Beauchamp [Farrer.
Honors and Knight's Fees, v. 3, p.367]. (The latter was presumably
uncle of Roger de Beauchamp of Bletsoe who married Sybil de Pateshall,
granddaughter of Sybil Tregoz)

There was another contemporary and kinsman of Sir John Tregoz. He died
around 1288 as noted, and was possibly the same as the John Tregoz,
nicknamed 'pauper' holding a knight's fee in Ewyas Harold of Sir John
Tregoz. His wife Mabel was formerly wife of John de la Riviere d. 1277
(whose mother was incidentally Eleanor, da. of Fulk fitz Warin). Mabel
died in 1317 when her inquisition [CIPM 6, no. 765] established that
she held the hamlet of Sturdon, Gloucestershire as tenant of the king,
that she had died on 26th March, and that her daughter, Joan, wife of
Richard de la Ryvere, "aged 24 and more" was her next heir. Shortly
afterwards the king made the order to the escheator "to deliver to
Richard de la Riviere and Joan his wife, daughter and heir of Amabel
late the wife of John de Tregoz, tenant in chief, the lands late of her
said mother, Richard having done fealty" [CFR, 1307-1319, pp. 332].
Presumably Joan was her daughter by John Tregoz, for in 1338 Alina
Burnel complained that Joan de la Ryvere of Wyke, her son John, John
Tregoz, and others of Joan's household broke into her houses in Compton
Daundo and carried away her goods and assaulted her servants [CPR,
13338-1340, p.183].

I hope this has helped clarify the situation.

Cheers


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
> But John, can you explain the 1288 fine to Mabel that was posted?

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 14:35:17

mhollick@mac.com wrote:

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

No; she was John Tregoz's widow in 1288. The "fine" was simply a
payment to excuse her from being obliged to marry someone else, in the
days when a feudal lord had the right to arrange the marriage of his
tenant's widow.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Bartrum's Welsh works to be online in three years

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 16:27:01

In a message dated 11/9/2006 4:50:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

So how will this website
"allow keen genealogists to find out whether they are related to the
ancient princes of Wales"?



The point is taken. Rather perhaps it should be stated that it will "allow
keen genealogists to CITE those documents which CLAIM" that they were related
to the ancient princes of Wales.

That is, no longer will the question "does anyone have the source which
connects so-and-so to so-and-so" be asked of any Welsh person from 600 to 1600 :)
or something like that. You just point to this [yet to arrive] website.

Now as to its veracity, that is an entirely different question.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Bartrum's Welsh works to be online in three years

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 17:25:32

I don't think Bartrum claimed that the volumes are anything more than a
collection of 'traditional' pedigrees (and you only have to look at
some of the English families that appear, to see just how wrong they
can be); but they are an extremely useful starting point, at least. The
internet should be an excellent home for them (depending on how they're
presented), given the number of volumes and indices, and the 'tribe'
system of organisation- hyperlinks would make the work considerably
smoother to use. On the other hand, it may also lead to a further surge
of not-very-reliable pedigrees hitting the web...

Gjest

Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 20:01:02

In a message dated 11/9/06 2:10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

<< He was apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been
born at the
latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death in May 1004, but
the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020 or 1025 the more
comfotable this chronology would become. The name Giselbert was also given
to one of the younger sons of his elder brother Balduin I of Ghent, lord of
Aalst. >>

Hmmm I see I have some kind of chronology problem here.
I have this Giselbert de Gant, Lord of Folkingham as "b abt 1034" and then,
probably from a chronological argument (although I have no notes on this) I
have his mother Gisele as b 1005/1020

But her husband I have as Rudolph (Ralph) de gand, Lord of Alost and b
1025/40 placing him as son to
Ermengarde de Flanders by an unknown husband. And Ermegarde as dau to
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders from 987-1035 by his wife Otgiva... this linkage
cannot be correct I must have really screwed up somewhere.

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 09 nov 2006 20:22:48

This is "way OT", but I might also comment that there are many
thoughtful, reasonable, and decent people on the other side of the
political divide who are indirectly disparaged by that remark.

Tony Hoskins

John Brandon

Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...

Legg inn av John Brandon » 09 nov 2006 21:19:57

There, there, Tony, I know it stings just a wee bit. But take an
asprin, go to bed early, and you'll be right as rain!

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 22:16:02

In a message dated 11/9/06 12:01:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< 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. >>


Well it seems thats going to depend on whether you think Isabel (Barre)
Eylesford who
married "bef 16 Mar 1369" to Sir John Eylesford of Tillington (d 18 Feb 1396,
s.p.)
was a daughter of this Thomas Barre or the father you say existed of the same
name.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 nov 2006 22:23:02

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.342.1163098830.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/9/06 2:10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

He was apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been
born at the latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death
in
May 1004, but the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020
or 1025 the more comfotable this chronology would become. The name
Giselbert was also given to one of the younger sons of his elder brother
Balduin I of Ghent, lord of Aalst.

Hmmm I see I have some kind of chronology problem here.
I have this Giselbert de Gant, Lord of Folkingham as "b abt 1034" and
then,
probably from a chronological argument (although I have no notes on this)
I
have his mother Gisele as b 1005/1020

But her husband I have as Rudolph (Ralph) de gand, Lord of Alost and b
1025/40 placing him as son to
Ermengarde de Flanders by an unknown husband. And Ermegarde as dau to
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders from 987-1035 by his wife Otgiva... this
linkage
cannot be correct I must have really screwed up somewhere.

You have retained an old guess at the known relationship of the counts of
Flanders to Gilbert de Gant as occurring through his father, now
discredited, along with the revised version through his mother.

The ancestry of his father Ralph is not certain. According to Warlop, he was
the advocate of St Peter's abbey (Mont-Blandin) at Ghent appearing in
records from October in 1031/4 until 1052 and was probably son of another
Ralph who appears as advocate from March 994/6 to possibly 1029 (but who may
have been more than one person), in turn perhaps son and/or grandson of
Balduin occurring in May 962.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Pembridge (Pembrugge, etc) pedigree

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 22:24:46

A few more minor Pembridge thoughts...

I wrote:
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.

The Pembridge pedigree in the 1623 Visitation of Shropshire (Harl Soc
xxix 394) starts with a 'Raph' and gives him four sons, including one
called Sir John; no issue shown for the latter, but it could have been
taken as a source by some. There is a later John in the pedigree, who
is in fact the John (d.1376) of Little Dymock; while contemporary with
Sir John, he definitely had male issue so is not to be confused (but
again, has been on the net) with the father of the heiress Alice. The
pedigree is clearly muddled [a nice oxymoron] at the start, but the
four sons seem to represent the four branches of Dymock, Tong,
Pembridge and Clehonger in collapsed form.

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.

A grant by "Elizabeth, wife of Sir Jno. Penebrugge, to William ap
Richard and John ap Richard of lands &c. in Gweligwimiethe, 26 EIII
(1352)" appears in 'Bibliotheca Phillippica' (1903) p151 no.1187 (On
Google Books). [If Elizabeth was of Welsh extraction it might explain
her grandaughter being named Wenllian.]

"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 ).

Thinking about the chronology, I now suspect that the Edward above
would be of a younger generation than the one below. As the one below
is not mentioned in relation to any of the places above, there may not
even be a near connection (Edward being the name of the kings of that
period, it was presumably more popular as a result).

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.

This seems to give the answer: E 210/2115. Henry son of Ralph de
Penebruge to Payn his son; grant of his manor of Meon [in Quinton],
(Mune): Glos (no date). The villages of Lower and Upper Quinton are
indeed on Meon Hill, and were in Gloucestershire until 1931 apparently
(now in Warwickshire). If the Henry son of Ralph was the 1216 one, and
if this Payn was progenitor of the brothers Edward and John, it would
rule out the two Edwards being in direct line to each other, as the
younger Edward must descend from the Gamage marriage. However, without
a date there's no certainty- there could be another Henry son of Ralph:
there are a couple more documents with Henry son of Ralph in, which are
also either undated or vague- one dated to the reign of Edward I, which
if correct would be too late for the 1216 man.

Gjest

Re: Pembridge, Fulk Fitzwarine

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 22:25:02

In a message dated 11/9/06 1:00:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk writes:

<< 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.") >>


The pieces so far, esp the "c" dates in Eyton would indicate that the
children Henry de Pembrugge (held two knight's fees in 1235) were born c 1218 and c
1220 per Eyton.

It seems likely if they are naming grandchildren "Fulk" that if this came
through Joan's father Fulk, she must be the mother. This however would push her
back to having children 20 years or so before her sister Eva (FitzWarin)
Blancminster. This could then lead to her father being identified with Fulk who m
Hawise of Dinham which would allow Joan to be a better wife chronologically to
Henry Pembrugge.

Will Johnson

Carl H. Jones

RE: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...

Legg inn av Carl H. Jones » 09 nov 2006 22:40:30

I am an American, and very interested in politics, but I strongly agree
that this is not the place for it. I, personally, was very distressed by the
things went, and find anyone's gloating over it to be offensive. However,
the American people have spoken.

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of John Brandon
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:26 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...


I am not an American and have no interest in American politics, but I
find this post offensive and deeply unwelcome. This is a group for
discussing mediaeval genealogy, not your (or anyone else's) politics.

Michael Andrews-Reading


Oh, I think I'm starting to catch on. Your parents were in the London
bombings in July last year, and you want the US to be as militarily
'gung-ho' as always to guarantee your own precious little safety.
(Never mind how much we are damaged domestically by it). Rather
selfish and stupid of you, if you ask me.

The British need to start looking after their own security. The
perennial stories about how someone entered a palace or got a sensitive
job by giving false credentials show just how lazy and complacent they
continue to be about these thing.


-------------------------------
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: Giselbert of Wallerfangen

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 nov 2006 23:00:03

Thanks for this Peter, I have updated my database.

Also in the mean time I had found two useful references to this
Rudolph (Ralph) De Gand, Lord of /Alost/ 1036-56 listing in particular,
underlying primary sources, and notes

here

<a href = "http://www.geneajourney.com/gant.html">Entry</a> on
geneajourney.com

<a href = "http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FLEMISH%20NOBILITY.htm">Entry</a>
on MedLands


I don't know who the author of geneajourney is, but I've accidently found it
useful from time-to-time and so now I've added direct links to both of these
database under the "Compilations" section of my jumppage here
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... Census.htm

Be sure to hit "refresh" to see the latest additions to this page.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 00:05:04

In a message dated 11/9/06 6:10:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< They were named as Joh de Wood, son of his sister Lucy;
James de Burnham, son of his sister Joan, and John Gernoun, son of his
sister Hawise. >>


You know.... I think I've seen a few times the equation of Joan to Isabel.
And I just happen to have a stray "Isabel Tregoz" who married a "*Bohun*" and
thereby had Joan "*Bohun*" who married John de Lisle of Gatcombe, Isle of
Wight (1324-1349)

I wonder.....

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 00:06:01

In a message dated 11/9/06 6:10:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< John de Boys, aged 24; James de Bornham, aged 26 and John de Ludham, aged
23.

This ties in with a legal case reported here by "Dave" back in 1998, from
the Trinity Term of 21 Edward I (1293) when the three nephews were named as
Joh de Wood, son of his sister Lucy; James de Burnham, son of his sister Joan,
and John Gernoun, son of his sister Hawise. >>


At first I was going to question how you made this particular identification,
but something in my mind said "Bois". So I typed "Bois Wood" and google says
Bois is the same as wood. I think that's French.

How odd. Does Ludham also mean something in French ? But I agree that that
only leaves "de Ludham" as equivalent to "Gernoun"

Will Johnson

John Watson

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av John Watson » 10 nov 2006 00:35:58

Rosie Bevan wrote:
The simple answer is that there were two Johns and two Mabels.

John Tregoz of Ewyas Harold married Mabel, daughter of Fulk fitz Warin
and Clarice de Auberville (as identified by Paget). He and Mabel
settled 87 librates of land in Isham and Iden, Sussex, (Mabel's
inheritance) and 23 librates of land in Chipping Lambourn (Mabel's
maritagium given by her father in 1249 on her first marriage to William
de Crevequer d.s.p. 1263 [CRR XIX no.326]) on William de Grandison and
Sybil in 1284/1285 [Salzmann. F of F Sussex vol. II, no.978]. Mabel
died in 1297 when an inquisition was held into the dower she held of
William de Crevequer's heirs [CIPM, 3 no. 412].

From John's IPM in 1300 [CIPM 3, no.603] we know that his heirs were
his grandson John de la Warre, son of Clarice and Roger de la Warre,
aged 24, and Sibyl, John's second daughter, aged 30, wife of William de
Grandison. John left a widow, Joan, daughter of Adam de Cokefield
(heir of her brother Robert d.1297 when she was recorded as 23 years of
age [CIPM 3, no.384] who married secondly Lawrence de Hameldene by 9th
February 1302 [CFR, 1, p.449] and thirdly William de Beauchamp [Farrer.
Honors and Knight's Fees, v. 3, p.367]. (The latter was presumably
uncle of Roger de Beauchamp of Bletsoe who married Sybil de Pateshall,
granddaughter of Sybil Tregoz)

There was another contemporary and kinsman of Sir John Tregoz. He died
around 1288 as noted, and was possibly the same as the John Tregoz,
nicknamed 'pauper' holding a knight's fee in Ewyas Harold of Sir John
Tregoz. His wife Mabel was formerly wife of John de la Riviere d. 1277
(whose mother was incidentally Eleanor, da. of Fulk fitz Warin). Mabel
died in 1317 when her inquisition [CIPM 6, no. 765] established that
she held the hamlet of Sturdon, Gloucestershire as tenant of the king,
that she had died on 26th March, and that her daughter, Joan, wife of
Richard de la Ryvere, "aged 24 and more" was her next heir. Shortly
afterwards the king made the order to the escheator "to deliver to
Richard de la Riviere and Joan his wife, daughter and heir of Amabel
late the wife of John de Tregoz, tenant in chief, the lands late of her
said mother, Richard having done fealty" [CFR, 1307-1319, pp. 332].
Presumably Joan was her daughter by John Tregoz, for in 1338 Alina
Burnel complained that Joan de la Ryvere of Wyke, her son John, John
Tregoz, and others of Joan's household broke into her houses in Compton
Daundo and carried away her goods and assaulted her servants [CPR,
13338-1340, p.183].

I hope this has helped clarify the situation.

Cheers

Dear Rosie, Will, John et al.,

Thank you all very much for clearing up my confusion over the two Johns
and two Mabels.

There is a possiblility that the John Tregoz who died in or before 1288
was the son of Sir John Tregoz. In a post to SGM by Douglas Richardson
on 13 Dec 2005, he quotes a footnote in VCH Sussex, Vol 9, pp 152-3.
"FN (9) Cal. Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, pg. 169. There is mention of
Sir John Tregoz, elder and younger, before 1269: Lord de L'Isle and
Dudley MSS. (Hist. MSS. Comm.), 113."

I note that now we have another John Tregoz mentioned in the CPR of 16
Nov 1338, quoted above. I wonder who he was?

Regards

John

John Higgins

Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)

Legg inn av John Higgins » 10 nov 2006 00:47:34

FWIW, your "stray" Isabel Tregoz, who was the 1st wife of Sir John de Bohun,
is "said to be" dau. of Henry Tregoz of Goring, Sussex - this according to a
two-part article on the Bohuns of Midhurst by G. W. Watson in "The
Genealogist [new series]" vol. 28. I don't know how (if at all) Isabel and
Henry fit into the Tregoz line under discussion here - but I'd be curious to
know.

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)


In a message dated 11/9/06 6:10:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

They were named as Joh de Wood, son of his sister Lucy;
James de Burnham, son of his sister Joan, and John Gernoun, son of his
sister Hawise.


You know.... I think I've seen a few times the equation of Joan to Isabel.
And I just happen to have a stray "Isabel Tregoz" who married a "*Bohun*"
and
thereby had Joan "*Bohun*" who married John de Lisle of Gatcombe, Isle of
Wight (1324-1349)

I wonder.....

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
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 » 10 nov 2006 00:52:02

In a message dated 11/9/06 1:51:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

<< Mabel's
maritagium given by her father in 1249 on her first marriage to William
de Crevequer d.s.p. 1263 [CRR XIX no.326]) >>

Since this 1263 is an issue, does CRR actually state "1263" or does it say
something more vague that makes the terminus date obscure ?

Since the 1300 IPM of John is quite specific about the ages of the heirs,
this point is of the utmost importance obviously since, if 1263 is an actual
terminus, then we are once more thrown to the wolves on this family, since Clarice
HAS to be born by 1261 at the absolute latest, unless we want to go
considering an 11 or 12 year old mother....

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 01:04:02

In a message dated 11/9/06 1:51:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rbevan@paradise.net.nz writes:

<< Mabel
died in 1317 when her inquisition [CIPM 6, no. 765] established that
she held the hamlet of Sturdon, Gloucestershire as tenant of the king,
that she had died on 26th March, and that her daughter, Joan, wife of
Richard de la Ryvere, "aged 24 and more" was her next heir. >>

Since we know that this Mabel's first husband Richard de la Riviere died in
1277
And that her second husband died abt 1288
And that her IPM in 1317 stated that her daughter Joan was 24 (thus b 1292/3)

Then Joan must be by some third marriage.
But who did Mabel marry thirdly ?

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 01:14:02

In a message dated 11/9/06 3:42:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

<< There is a possiblility that the John Tregoz who died in or before 1288
was the son of Sir John Tregoz. In a post to SGM by Douglas Richardson
on 13 Dec 2005, he quotes a footnote in VCH Sussex, Vol 9, pp 152-3.
"FN (9) Cal. Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, pg. 169. There is mention of
Sir John Tregoz, elder and younger, before 1269: Lord de L'Isle and
Dudley MSS. (Hist. MSS. Comm.), 113." >>

I like that, and that Joan, heir of Amabel was not herself a Tregoz (as my
last post) would then fix the problem of why she and her heirs weren't named in
the IPM in 1300. That John Jr d.s.p. so that Joan, if she held anything,
would have been in dower. Is that right?

If a widow has no children, then on her death would her interest if any
revert back up the line of her dead husband? I'm not sure if I'm quite clear on
that point.

Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 01:30:04

In a message dated 11/9/06 5:36:08 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< No; she was John Tregoz's widow in 1288. The "fine" was simply a
payment to excuse her from being obliged to marry someone else, in the
days when a feudal lord had the right to arrange the marriage of his
tenant's widow. >>

The way I read it, she paid the fine in order to be able to marry whoever she
wanted to. As opposed to being required to marry whoever the king wanted her
to. Isn't that what it means?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 nov 2006 01:30:04

In message of 10 Nov, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 11/9/06 3:42:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

There is a possiblility that the John Tregoz who died in or before
1288 was the son of Sir John Tregoz. In a post to SGM by Douglas
Richardson on 13 Dec 2005, he quotes a footnote in VCH Sussex, Vol
9, pp 152-3. "FN (9) Cal. Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, pg. 169. There
is mention of Sir John Tregoz, elder and younger, before 1269: Lord
de L'Isle and Dudley MSS. (Hist. MSS. Comm.), 113."

I like that, and that Joan, heir of Amabel was not herself a Tregoz
(as my last post) would then fix the problem of why she and her heirs
weren't named in the IPM in 1300. That John Jr d.s.p. so that Joan,
if she held anything, would have been in dower. Is that right?

If a widow has no children, then on her death would her interest if
any revert back up the line of her dead husband? I'm not sure if I'm
quite clear on that point.

I am reaonably certain that the answer is yes if she just married him
with no marriage settlement. The rules of coverture gave all the wife's
property to the husband. But if there was a marriage settlement, the
property would be put in the hands of trustees - so the rules of
coverture would not applu - and they would dispose of it according to
the terms. Frequently the trust would state that the property was to go
to the heir(s) of the body of the wife and if there were no such heirs,
it was to revert to the donor's right heirs. (Not sure what the
difference is between a 'right heir' and a plain and simple 'heir'.)

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

Gjest

Re: De Tregoz

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 01:44:03

In a message dated 11/9/06 4:36:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:

<< Frequently the trust would state that the property was to go
to the heir(s) of the body of the wife and if there were no such heirs,
it was to revert to the donor's right heirs. (Not sure what the
difference is between a 'right heir' and a plain and simple 'heir'.) >>

Thanks Tim, you would think that if Amabel's first husband John Tregoz was
actually the son of John Tregoz of Ewyas (IPM in 1300), then her own IPM in 1317
might indicate some sort of holding in dower that she was still sitting on,
from that first marriage.

That would probably mean her 1317 IPM should be naming some La Ware,
Everingham and/or Grandison.

Also that some holding of hers should have come from the parents of this
first marriage.

Otherwise, Rosie's statement that this other John was just some other
kinsman, not a son.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 10 nov 2006 04:23:20

Thursday, 9 November, 2006


Dear Peter,

Thanks for that last post.

There is another interesting name in the mix. You had noted
in a much earlier thread that Gilbert de Gand had a younger
brother Ragenfridus [1]. Is there any subsequent information
concerning his career? The name Ragenfrid(us) is rather rare
in England in the 12th century, a noted monk of Whitby being the
one other instance that I've seen.

While it may not help much on the ancestral side, there is one
possibility I see as to Ragenfridus (Ragenfrid) seeking his
fortune on the English side of the Channel with (or following)
his brother Gilbert. One Reinfrid is found in England, having
married a lady named Gonilla, with two known sons: Roger fitz
Reinfrid, of Gamblingay, co. Cambs., a royal justice, and his
brother Walter 'de Coutances', Archbishop of Rouen (1184-1207).
Walter's rise to the archepiscopal level tends to indicate some
important connections; further, Roger fitz Reinfrid was succeeded
by his son and heir, Gilbert fitz Roger, best known as becoming
the lord of Kendal following his marriage to Hawise, the daughter
of William de Lancaster, which was granted to him by King Richard
following his accession in 1189 [Benedict of Peterborough, II:73].

I have seen no other evidence, other than the potential (if
weak) similarity in names as noted. Should you have further
information, that would be appreciated.

Cheers,

John




NOTES

[1] Peter Stewart, <Gundrada's existence>, SGM, 29 Oct 2000.




Peter Stewart wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.342.1163098830.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/9/06 2:10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

He was apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been
born at the latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death
in
May 1004, but the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020
or 1025 the more comfotable this chronology would become. The name
Giselbert was also given to one of the younger sons of his elder brother
Balduin I of Ghent, lord of Aalst.

Hmmm I see I have some kind of chronology problem here.
I have this Giselbert de Gant, Lord of Folkingham as "b abt 1034" and
then,
probably from a chronological argument (although I have no notes on this)
I
have his mother Gisele as b 1005/1020

But her husband I have as Rudolph (Ralph) de gand, Lord of Alost and b
1025/40 placing him as son to
Ermengarde de Flanders by an unknown husband. And Ermegarde as dau to
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders from 987-1035 by his wife Otgiva... this
linkage
cannot be correct I must have really screwed up somewhere.

You have retained an old guess at the known relationship of the counts of
Flanders to Gilbert de Gant as occurring through his father, now
discredited, along with the revised version through his mother.

The ancestry of his father Ralph is not certain. According to Warlop, he was
the advocate of St Peter's abbey (Mont-Blandin) at Ghent appearing in
records from October in 1031/4 until 1052 and was probably son of another
Ralph who appears as advocate from March 994/6 to possibly 1029 (but who may
have been more than one person), in turn perhaps son and/or grandson of
Balduin occurring in May 962.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 10 nov 2006 04:27:43

Dear Peter,

Well, there may be a later descent of sorts, but the 'sibling'
issue can be aborted, unfortunately. I note with lament that 'my'
Reinfrid was a 12th century character, whereas Gilbert (of the 11th
century) would make a poor (or aged) brother, indeed.

Some other connection perhaps, but not the one I suggested.
Dispensa mea.

Cheers,

John




John P. Ravilious wrote:
Thursday, 9 November, 2006


Dear Peter,

Thanks for that last post.

There is another interesting name in the mix. You had noted
in a much earlier thread that Gilbert de Gand had a younger
brother Ragenfridus [1]. Is there any subsequent information
concerning his career? The name Ragenfrid(us) is rather rare
in England in the 12th century, a noted monk of Whitby being the
one other instance that I've seen.

While it may not help much on the ancestral side, there is one
possibility I see as to Ragenfridus (Ragenfrid) seeking his
fortune on the English side of the Channel with (or following)
his brother Gilbert. One Reinfrid is found in England, having
married a lady named Gonilla, with two known sons: Roger fitz
Reinfrid, of Gamblingay, co. Cambs., a royal justice, and his
brother Walter 'de Coutances', Archbishop of Rouen (1184-1207).
Walter's rise to the archepiscopal level tends to indicate some
important connections; further, Roger fitz Reinfrid was succeeded
by his son and heir, Gilbert fitz Roger, best known as becoming
the lord of Kendal following his marriage to Hawise, the daughter
of William de Lancaster, which was granted to him by King Richard
following his accession in 1189 [Benedict of Peterborough, II:73].

I have seen no other evidence, other than the potential (if
weak) similarity in names as noted. Should you have further
information, that would be appreciated.

Cheers,

John




NOTES

[1] Peter Stewart, <Gundrada's existence>, SGM, 29 Oct 2000.




Peter Stewart wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.342.1163098830.32209.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 11/9/06 2:10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:

He was apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been
born at the latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death
in
May 1004, but the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020
or 1025 the more comfotable this chronology would become. The name
Giselbert was also given to one of the younger sons of his elder brother
Balduin I of Ghent, lord of Aalst.

Hmmm I see I have some kind of chronology problem here.
I have this Giselbert de Gant, Lord of Folkingham as "b abt 1034" and
then,
probably from a chronological argument (although I have no notes on this)
I
have his mother Gisele as b 1005/1020

But her husband I have as Rudolph (Ralph) de gand, Lord of Alost and b
1025/40 placing him as son to
Ermengarde de Flanders by an unknown husband. And Ermegarde as dau to
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders from 987-1035 by his wife Otgiva... this
linkage
cannot be correct I must have really screwed up somewhere.

You have retained an old guess at the known relationship of the counts of
Flanders to Gilbert de Gant as occurring through his father, now
discredited, along with the revised version through his mother.

The ancestry of his father Ralph is not certain. According to Warlop, he was
the advocate of St Peter's abbey (Mont-Blandin) at Ghent appearing in
records from October in 1031/4 until 1052 and was probably son of another
Ralph who appears as advocate from March 994/6 to possibly 1029 (but who may
have been more than one person), in turn perhaps son and/or grandson of
Balduin occurring in May 962.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Pembridge, Barre, Burley

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 10:37:22

WJhonson wrote:
mvernonconnolly writes:
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)?

Well it seems thats going to depend on whether you think Isabel (Barre)
Eylesford who
married "bef 16 Mar 1369" to Sir John Eylesford of Tillington (d 18 Feb 1396,
s.p.)
was a daughter of this Thomas Barre or the father you say existed of the same
name.

From HoP:

1. Thomas de la Barre of Rotherwas MP=Hawise sis & ch Sir Richard
Pembridge of Ayot St Lawrence and had:

2. Sir Thomas de la Barre c.1349-1419 MP=Elizabeth d.1420 her (3) dau
Sir William Croyser of Stoke Dabernon by his (1), and had:

3a. Sir Thomas d.1420 vp [sic]= Alice Talbot sis 1E Shrewsbury, had 4.
John MP

3b. A daughter

Brad Verity showed that 2. died in 1420 (which HoP should have had, as
they even gave the son dvp). The pedigree in 'House of Cornewall'
(which isn't generally accurate) says that the first Thomas was MP for
Hereford 1355 and was buried with his wife in Todington, 1385. [We know
from the inheritance that Hawise Pembridge was dead in 1375.]

To help with dating, Hawise's sister Amice married Sir John Burley KG
(d.c.1383), the elder brother of Sir Simon Burley who was b.1336?
(ODNB) and ex.1388. John and Amice had Sir Richard KG (d.1387 in Spain,
sp), William (dsp 1388), Roger (issue failed 1445) and Isabel who m.
Sir John Hopton, with issue (descendant Thomas H. s. to Burley
properties in 1445),
[a quo Corbet etc.].

Gjest

Re: Pembridge, Fulk Fitzwarine

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 11:02:29

WJhonson wrote:
mvernonconnolly writes:

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.")

The pieces so far, esp the "c" dates in Eyton would indicate that the
children Henry de Pembrugge (held two knight's fees in 1235) were born c 1218 and c
1220 per Eyton.

As I pointed out in one of the earlier posts, although Eyton gives one
Henry as 1235, 1254, these records may in fact refer to two generations
of Henrys, as we also have a Henry active in 1216; and if a man is
arranging his sons' marriages to minors in 1254, I would think it more
likely that the sons were themselves minors, and not in their mid-30s
as your dates would have it. Indeed, the draft VCH text for Dymock has
that the younger son William and his wife (as of >1254) Euphemia
Gamage, held half a fee in Dymock in 1285, and William had it after her
death; and that they were succeeded by their son William as late as
1317. I think the sons were perhaps born after 1240- the elder, Henry,
only needs to be old enough to be supporting de Montfort in 1264.

It seems likely if they are naming grandchildren "Fulk" that if this came
through Joan's father Fulk, she must be the mother. This however would push her
back to having children 20 years or so before her sister Eva (FitzWarin)
Blancminster. This could then lead to her father being identified with Fulk who m
Hawise of Dinham which would allow Joan to be a better wife chronologically to
Henry Pembrugge.

From John Ravilious' post in the Tregoz thread, Fulk (III) married the
widowed Maud before 1st Oct 1207 and she was dead by 1227. In light of

my theories above, it's chronologically possible for their daughter to
be mother of Henry and William, but as we don't know of a son in that
generation called Fulk she still may not be. If she was another wife of
Henry but dsp, and Henry's son himself had a son at the time the
exploits of Fulk Fitzwarin were so popular, he might still choose the
name Fulk by association rather than by descent.

Cristopher Nash

Tregoz/Grandison

Legg inn av Cristopher Nash » 10 nov 2006 14:11:50

therav3@aol.com wrote (sub Re: De Tregoz) —

1.1.1b.1b.2 Sybil de Tregoz
----------------------------------------

[SNIP]

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


Cheers John! Just to help a bit to keep the Tregoz discussion clear
of confusion where poss, I wonder if we might just hold this part of
the sequence under wraps until some clear evidence for it turns up?
Not quite sure how, short of a visit to the sybil, we'll find
something hard as a pierre here, but otherwise I-for-one fear passing
the muddle on to my grandisons?!

Yrs ever,

C

Gjest

Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 16:59:03

In a message dated 11/10/2006 7:54:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
reojan@gmail.com writes:

Do you mean you think your ancestors should have been compensated for
the human beings they beat, raped, worked to death and had put to
death? Like they were equated to maybe a horse and cart, or a crop?


Contrarily should the government be allowed to take whatever it wants from
us, whenever it wants, without compensation, including declaring things legal
for centuries to be suddenly illegal?

Gjest

Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 nov 2006 17:53:02

In a message dated 11/10/2006 8:45:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

Sorry for the ignorance - can you explain the derivation briefly or
tell me where to look?


I thought I posted this yesterday.
Boys = Bois = the French word for "Wood"

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 10 nov 2006 18:09:48

I believe that Bois (Fr.), Boys (Eng.) and Bosco (Lat) are interchangeable
and do translate "wood."
Pat
----------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: alden@mindspring.com, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)
Date: Fri, 10, 2006, 11:51 AM



In a message dated 11/10/2006 8:45:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

Sorry for the ignorance - can you explain the derivation briefly or
tell me where to look?


I thought I posted this yesterday.
Boys = Bois = the French word for "Wood"

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
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

Janet Crawford

Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...

Legg inn av Janet Crawford » 10 nov 2006 21:16:24

Tony, one of my ancestors was black and he was hung. Tell me about
racism. And I am American.

Janet

On 11/10/06, Tony Hoskins <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
"Do you mean you think your ancestors should have been compensated for
the human beings they beat, raped, worked to death and had put to
death? Like they were equated to maybe a horse and cart, or a crop?"

That's such crap, Janet. Look into the *realities* of history, not
popular polemics passing as such. This kind of anti-American vitriol
pretending to be "history" is poisoning us all.

I strongly recommend:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/endracism-jacket.html

Tony


alden@mindspring.com

Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 10 nov 2006 21:16:43

Thank you both!

Doug

On Nov 10, 12:09 pm, "Patricia Junkin" <pajun...@cox.net> wrote:
I believe that Bois (Fr.), Boys (Eng.) and Bosco (Lat) are interchangeable
and do translate "wood."
Pat
----------

From: WJhon...@aol.com
To: a...@mindspring.com, gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Origins of Sir John Loudham (c1269-1314)
Date: Fri, 10, 2006, 11:51 AM

In a message dated 11/10/2006 8:45:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
a...@mindspring.com writes:

Sorry for the ignorance - can you explain the derivation briefly or
tell me where to look?

I thought I posted this yesterday.
Boys = Bois = the French word for "Wood"

Will Johnson

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

Douglas Richardson

Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 nov 2006 21:54:08

I find that there are three charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège
[brother of Ida, 1st wife of Duke Godfrey I] which are published in
Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Trond, by Charles Piot, volume 1
(1870): 48-52, 53-54, 62-63.

In all three charters, the bishop's name is given in Latin as "Albero
.... Leodiensis episcopus." The editor identifies the bishop as
"Albéron II, évêque de Liège." The third charter is dated 1148,
and was witnessed by several noblemen, Count Henry of Namur, Count Otto
[of Duras], and Count Louis [of Loos]. The first named individual was
the Bishop's first cousin.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 nov 2006 00:28:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163192048.375027.168040@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I find that there are three charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège
[brother of Ida, 1st wife of Duke Godfrey I] which are published in
Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Trond, by Charles Piot, volume 1
(1870): 48-52, 53-54, 62-63.

In all three charters, the bishop's name is given in Latin as "Albero
... Leodiensis episcopus." The editor identifies the bishop as
"Albéron II, évêque de Liège." The third charter is dated 1148,
and was witnessed by several noblemen, Count Henry of Namur, Count
Otto of Duras], and Count Louis [of Loos]. The first named individual
was the Bishop's first cousin.

Is this third charter dated 1148 in its text or by the editor? Bishop
Adalbero II of Liège died on his return from a third trip to Rome, in March
1145.

If editorial, possibly there is a correction at the end of the second volume
of _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Saint-Trond_; if not, the scribe or a copyist
may have erred or else the document must be suspect.

By the way, if your point is that the man should be called Albero (in
English) or Albéron (in French) instead of Adalbero/n, these were considered
the same name in his time, as witness the contemporary sources calling him
Adalbero. That is why he was explicitly numbered "secundus" - the first
Adalbero was usually named with the older form.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2006 00:47:32

Dear Peter ~

Yes, you're quite correct. The three charters of Bishop Albéron II
are dated in order 1139, 1139, and 1142. The year 1148 was a
misstatement on my part. Mea culpa.

As I stated, in all three charters, the bishop's name is written in
Latin as Albero, not the older form Adalbero. So Albéron would be the
correct French form to use for this bishop, just as Monsieur Piot has
done.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 nov 2006 01:23:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163202452.707464.248580@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~

Yes, you're quite correct. The three charters of Bishop Albéron II
are dated in order 1139, 1139, and 1142. The year 1148 was a
misstatement on my part. Mea culpa.

As I stated, in all three charters, the bishop's name is written in
Latin as Albero, not the older form Adalbero. So Albéron would be the
correct French form to use for this bishop, just as Monsieur Piot has
done.

We are writing in English. In any language, how is the modern French
Albéron, never used by any contemporary of the bishop, more correct than the
form Adalbero that we know was actually used for him? What if other charters
of his used the older form? (Only four of his documents have been cited here
so far.) Would we then have to use both forms just because he did?

If we refer to bishops of Liège as "Adalbero I" and "Albero II", to say
noting of Ad(al)bero III, does this not tend to confuse the matter
unnecsessarily?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 nov 2006 01:54:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mQ85h.62578$rP1.8345@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163202452.707464.248580@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~

Yes, you're quite correct. The three charters of Bishop Albéron II
are dated in order 1139, 1139, and 1142. The year 1148 was a
misstatement on my part. Mea culpa.

As I stated, in all three charters, the bishop's name is written in
Latin as Albero, not the older form Adalbero. So Albéron would be the
correct French form to use for this bishop, just as Monsieur Piot has
done.

We are writing in English. In any language, how is the modern French
Albéron, never used by any contemporary of the bishop, more correct than
the form Adalbero that we know was actually used for him? What if other
charters of his used the older form? (Only four of his documents have been
cited here so far.) Would we then have to use both forms just because he
did?

If we refer to bishops of Liège as "Adalbero I" and "Albero II", to say
noting of Ad(al)bero III, does this not tend to confuse the matter
unnecsessarily?

Very sloppy scribing on my part - read "A(da)lbero III".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Biddulph family

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2006 02:45:03

I've posted several points of baptism in the descent of the Biddulph family,
which were too modern for this list, to the OEL list. Not really sure if
that's the correct list to post to, but if anyone wants a copy of the information
which concerns the Biddulphs at Ledbury 1660-1730 let me know.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 nov 2006 06:45:03

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mQ85h.62578$rP1.8345@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163202452.707464.248580@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter ~

Yes, you're quite correct. The three charters of Bishop Albéron II
are dated in order 1139, 1139, and 1142. The year 1148 was a
misstatement on my part. Mea culpa.

As I stated, in all three charters, the bishop's name is written in
Latin as Albero, not the older form Adalbero. So Albéron would be the
correct French form to use for this bishop, just as Monsieur Piot has
done.

We are writing in English. In any language, how is the modern French
Albéron, never used by any contemporary of the bishop, more correct than
the form Adalbero that we know was actually used for him? What if other
charters of his used the older form? (Only four of his documents have been
cited here so far.) Would we then have to use both forms just because he
did?

If we refer to bishops of Liège as "Adalbero I" and "Albero II", to say
noting of Ad(al)bero III, does this not tend to confuse the matter
unnecsessarily?

The interchangeability of forms is emphasised by documents from the imperial
chancery - see for instance the occurrences of Bishop Adalbero II of Liège
in documents of the reigning German king, _Die Urkunden Konrads III. und
seines Sohnes Heinrich_ edited by Friedrich Hausmann (1969), no. 2 p. 4 (8
April 1138) "Adelbero Leodiensis episcopus", no. 3 p. 6 (9 April 1138)
"Albero Leodiensis episcopus". The latter form was evidently gaining in
frequnecy of use by this time, since it occurs 11 times overall for this
individual to the older form's twice.

Yet no consistency in April 1138, from one day to the next. So why should we
observe an arbitrary rule today that was meaningless to authorities in the
12th century?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Medlands

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 nov 2006 16:02:02

One very useful thing about Medlands (in my opinion) is that it does at
least list sources, albeit its sourcing isn't comprehensive and sometimes (if not
most) misinterpreted, at least it has them. Which is more than I can say
for the vast majority of online databases.

Stirnet only lumps sources at the end of huge sections, tudorplace.com.ar
has no sources whatsoever (with a few very minor exceptions), and thepeerage.com
cites sources at the end of each family (much better).

Medlands however is attempting to source each fact, that is an entirely new
level of detail. It is the same level that wikipedia is attempting to
achieve (but is far from its goal).

So Medlands has that much going for them, which is why I decided to add it
to my list. In addition, it does attempt to give all known children off each
family it details.

So it falls somewhere between the Henry Project, which is the ultimate
database, and genealogics/thepeerage.com which cite sources for each family unit,
both of which are excellent databases.

Geneajourney is too new on my list for me to say much about it, however one
interesting point about geneajourney. Whoever is maintaining it (speak up!)
is watching THIS list/newsgroup. They mention discussions by Peter Stewart,
John Ravilous and Douglas Richardson in their footnotes. The links to the
discussions are not quite excellent since they generally just link to the main
soc.med site without comment.

Ultimately it would be excellent if a database linked to the *actual*
archived postings, or quoted them. But still, it seems the geneajourney is trying
to be up-to-date.


Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Biddulph family

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 11 nov 2006 20:35:12

Will,

I'd be most interested in this Biddulph information.

A 1st cousin, 5 times removed of mine, Catharine Golston Lindon
(1800-1838), was married on 28 Dec 1826, the Rev. Theophilus Biddulph,
MA:

"At St. Paul's Church, Bristol, the Rev. Theo. Biddulph, to Cath.
eldest dau. of John Lindon, esq. of Weston Court, [in Westonzolyland,
Somerset].... [Gentleman's Magazine]

Theophilus Biddulph's death is recorded: February 15 1837, "At Clifton,
aged 36, the Rev. Theophilus Biddulph, M.A., Minister of St. Matthew's,
Bristol; late Fellow of Corpus Christi college, Oxford. He was appointed
the first incumbent of the new church of St. Matthew, Bristol, in
18...." [Gent's Mag]

My work on this family for cousins in England and Australia would be
enriched by this.

Many thanks.

Tony



WJhonson@aol.com> 11/10/06 05:43PM
I've posted several points of baptism in the descent of the Biddulph

family,
which were too modern for this list, to the OEL list. Not really sure
if
that's the correct list to post to, but if anyone wants a copy of the
information
which concerns the Biddulphs at Ledbury 1660-1730 let me know.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2006 20:50:55

Like I said, Albéron II works just fine. Albero/Adalbero are Latin
forms and should be avoided.

In the meantime, perhaps you can share with us your list of valuable
contributions to the genealogical and historical world, be they
articles or books. Or, are you simply an armchair genealogist, Peter?
If you think Mr. Cawley is pretentious, then surely your laurels must
rest on safer ground.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163239662.385731.218710@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Albéron II works just fine, Peter.

No, Albero is the appropriate spelling in English if you prefer this form.

Albéron is one of several equally acceptable versions of his name, that
happens to be in French usage - as this is a language you patently do not
understand, why pose as being familiar with it?

If you are not careful you will end up as pretentious as Charles Crawley
with his absurd polyglot snippeting in the Medieval Lands database.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 nov 2006 00:00:05

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163274655.109399.43210@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Like I said, Albéron II works just fine. Albero/Adalbero are Latin
forms and should be avoided.

I thought your principle was to give people the names they gave themselves -
Adalbero II NEVER called himself "Albéron".

In the meantime, perhaps you can share with us your list of valuable
contributions to the genealogical and historical world, be they
articles or books. Or, are you simply an armchair genealogist, Peter?

For the purposes of this newsgroup, check the archives. What is an "armchair
genealogist" for you to sneer at anyway? Do you think of yourself as some
kind of outdoorsman of this study? Or do you work standing up?

If you think Mr. Cawley is pretentious, then surely your laurels must
rest on safer ground.

Cawley absurdly writes in English but names people and their titles in other
modern languages - that he has no capacity to understand, any more than they
did. Of course this is a pose on his part. We have seen that he knows
virtually nothing of Latin and German, although he understands French much
better than you do.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Hugford, Huggford, Hungerford

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2006 00:19:03

In a message dated 11/10/06 2:41:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
focalpt1@comcast.net writes:

<< There are three wives in this Sherwood line that have not been proved.
I am trying to link one of these wives to this Hugford family.
I've read through the visitations of Warwick, Northampton but come away
without a diffinitive answer as to if these families are all from the
same root.
TIA. Patty >>

Maybe you could share with us some of the specific details you've found.
That might make it easier to see who you're attempting to connect.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Mary de Ros, wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conjectu

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2006 00:46:02

Dear John,
It`s a very interesting premise. Thornaby does seem much
closer to Thornby than does Turnberry. Any possibly that Mary could have been
the youngest child of William and Lucy Roos nee Fitz Peter ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Mary (de Brus?), wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conj

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2006 01:45:03

Dear Douglas,
If John Comyn, Earl of Buchan (Maud of Strathhearn`s
uncle) was able to witness her final marriage settlement in London on April 26,
1293 to Robert de Tony, why were William de Robert de Roos present while no
member of the Brus family was ?
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Mary (de Brus?), wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conj

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2006 01:57:02

Dear Douglas and others,
Oops, that should be if John Comyn,
Earl of Buchan witnessed Robert de Tony and Maud of Strathearn`s final marriage
settlement in London on April 26, 1293, why were William and Robert de Roos
present while neither Robert Brus, Earl of Carrick or any other Brus were not ?
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Mary de Ros, wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conjectu

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2006 02:10:04

In a message dated 11/12/06 2:44:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< The first three individuals named appear to have had a
significant interest in the proceeding: certainly, John
Comyn, Earl of Buchan was the maternal uncle of Matilda
[Earl Malise's 1st or 2nd wife and Matilda's mother was
Margaret Comyn, John's sister]. >>

What have I done wrong here.
I have Patrick, 8th Earl of Dunbar 1289-1308
"47 or more at his father's IPM in 1289"
as the first husband for
Marjory (or Egidia or Agnes) of /Comyn/

and by her
1 Patrick, Earl of Dunbar and
2 Sir Alexander Dunbar

Then I have this same Marjory Comyn marrying secondly to
Malise, 6th Earl of /Strathearn/ bef 1281- (d 1312/1313) and by her
1 Maud (Matilda) of Strathearn and
2) Malise, 7th Earl of Strathearn

This cannot be correct since Patrick died in 1308 and Maud was already
getting married to Robert Tosny in 1293 so her mother couldn't have been a widow in
time to marry Malise.

Where did I screw up?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Mary de Ros, wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conjectu

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 nov 2006 03:22:02

In a message dated 11/12/06 5:41:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< So, the Earl had five daughters, each was married but their correct names
are very questionable. >>

Thanks James. What is the source for knowing the order of the daughters and
which ordered entry married whom?
Thanks
Will

John P. Ravilious

Re: Mary de Ros, wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conjectu

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 13 nov 2006 05:15:17

Sunday, 12 November, 2006


Dear James, Will, et al.,

Following is a comparative chart of the daughters of Alexander
Comyn, Earl of Buchan: the Scots Peerage version, vs. mine. In no
case is the Scots Peerage article certain of the names: hence the
brackets. The SP text given below is verbatim. You can see this
courtesy of Googlebooks, at

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... ISO-8859-1

Hope this is helpful. Comments and corrections (documentation
requested) are welcome, as always.

Cheers,

John



Daughters of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan (d. 1290)

per Scots Peerage per John Ravilious
[numbered as issue, after sons]

5. [Marjorie], 'the eldest', married No variance. I show
to Patrick, Earl of March, or issue, Patrick, Earl of
Dunbar, and had issue. Dunbar; John; and Sir
Alexander de Dunbar,
grandfather of George,
Earl of March (d. 1420)

6. [Emma ?], married to Malise, Earl I show this individual
of Strathearn, had issue, Malise. as Margaret, who was
also wife of Sir John
de Keith (d. 1270).
See SP VI:28-29, which
gives ' Margaret Comyn who
may have been dau. of
William earl of Buchan. '
She was the daughter of
Earl Alexander, and m. 2nd
to Earl Malise of Strathearn
- see my SGM post, <SP
Correction: Marjory Comyn,
wife (1st) of John de Keith>
4 Dec 2005.

Note: Earl Malise had a
first wife Emma [Cal. of
Docs., i. 2383, 2451]. This
was not a daughter of
Alexander Comyn by my
reconstruction.

7. [Elizabeth], married to Sir No variance.
Gilbert Umfraville, Earl of
Angus, had issue Robert and
others.

8. [Elena], married to Sir William No variance. See
of Brechin, and had issue SP I:218, where Sir
Sir David. William's wife,
'Elena, relict of Sir
William of Brechin and Lady
of Kinloch', granted land
to the monks of Lindores,
24 Aug 1302.


9. _____ married to Sir Nicholas No variance.
Soulis, had issue William
and John.




WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/12/06 5:41:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

So, the Earl had five daughters, each was married but their correct names
are very questionable.

Thanks James. What is the source for knowing the order of the daughters and
which ordered entry married whom?
Thanks
Will

Bob Turcott

Re: crusaders

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 13 nov 2006 22:24:53

To Denis Beauregard :
I have more information concerning TURCOT dit TURREAU, Francois (M).
INSEE:49125. Pl: Doue-la-Fontaine (St-Pierre). Zone: Maine-et-Loire. Dest:
Acadie.
I want to email you privately about this, respond to bobturcott@msn.com



From: Denis Beauregard <no@nospam.com.invalid>
Reply-To: denis.b-at-francogene.com.invalid@nospam.com.invalid
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: crusaders
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:25:24 -0500
Le Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:19:45 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

TURCOT dit TURREAU, Francois (M). INSEE:49125. Pl: Doue-la-Fontaine
(St-Pierre). Zone: Maine-et-Loire. Dest: Acadie

Bob, thanks for this. I saw them on your website too. My question is

The original data is on my site. This particular database is now
obsolete and I have a new one with migrants by French departement
or country, and town, and also a full alphabetical index for those
married before 1721. My sources are numerous, including first
hand and second hand records. My scope is the French colonies of
the American continent, so it is in immigrant database and not an
emigrant database. Nonetheless, I have in my computer or available
in Montreal some ressources about emigrants like passengers' lists.

If your interest is France, then we should continue this in
soc.genealogy.french.

whether there's any French data to document surname use in France (not
just 'Turcot' emigrants) in the 1600s or 1700s? For England, the
National Burial Index, searchable for a particular time period, relies
entirely on extractions from parish registers; it is searchable at

See my other message in this thread.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 -
http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: http://www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén.
can.-fr.)
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La
Jemmerais)


_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo005 ... sn_hotmail

Gjest

Re: Hugford, Huggford, Hungerford

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 nov 2006 17:14:41

Thank you for your interest Will.
Well, where to start. I guess I start with the name Hugford Sherwood
b. 1787 in Greenwich, Ct d. May 5, 1855 s/o Daniel and Pruella.
Pruella is said to be a Lyon but there is absolutely no proof of her
lineage.
Daniel Sherwood b.Feb 21, 1756 in Greenwich, Ct d. June 1, 1826 s/o
Jabez and Hannah. Hannah's is said to be a Disbrow but there is
absolutely no proof of her lineage.
Jabez Sherwood b.Dec. 28, 1719 s/o Nathaniel Sherwood b. 1669.
Nathaniel m. Abigail. No record of her lineage.
Daniel and Pruella Sherwood named their children for the most part
after near ancestors. I therefore have always suspected that Hugford
Sherwood must have been named for Pruella's family (Lyon?) his mother
or Hannah (Disbrow) family his grandmother.
The first record of a Hugford/Huggeford is the probate of Thomas
Huggeford's will in Stamford.

Huggeford, Thomas, Dr., late of Greenwich, will dated June 14, 1755,
probated Aug. 5, 1755, mentions his wife Elizabeth, and children Peter,
Edward, and Frances, wife of Caleb Griffin; John Carhart of Rye, NY
bequeathed a pistol; decedent owned land at North Castle, NY. Executors
his wife and John Clapp. Witnesses Joseph Brundage, Benjamin Kniffin,
and Roger Kniffin, page 43. Inventory taken Aug. 13, 1755, by John
Clapp, and Jabez Sherwood, and filed Oct. 7, 1755, page 44.
The name of Thomas Hugford's wife, beyond Elizabeth, isn't known. He
may have and probably did marry in England about 1725.
Thomas Hugford did have a brother Edward, also a doctor, who lived in
the Peekskill, NY area. He was a Tory and ended up in Canada with his
family although they came back after things had calmed down..
Visitation of Northampton through Google Books gives me only a
"snippet".
"A Frances wife of Tho: Hugford, of Solihull in com: Warr. 2d son to
Jn° Hugford
of Henwood in com: War: M. 3 June, 41 Eliz., at Aston 'Barbara daur: of
Tho: ...
I would love to see the ending.
Visitation of Gloucesther w/pedigree pg.86 has Hungerfords.
Visitation of Warwick has all the correct "family names" This
visitation of 1619 pg. gives a Hugford pedigree with what seems like
all the 18c names. Peter, Edward, Thomas, Frances.
Somewhere I found a pedigee of Hugford which seemed to go hand in hand
with the Hungerford pedigree but can't put my finger on it now. Blast
it all!! That's what led me to seek a connection between the different
spellings and/or families.
I am seeking to find whether or not this Thomas
Hugford/Huggeford/Hungerford had a daughter named Hannah who perhaps
married a Disbrow and was widowed.
It's an interesting puzzle which has left me wondering for years.


On Nov 12, 6:16 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/10/06 2:41:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,

focal...@comcast.net writes:<< There are three wives in this Sherwood line that have not been proved.
I am trying to link one of these wives to this Hugford family.
I've read through the visitations of Warwick, Northampton but come away
without a diffinitive answer as to if these families are all from the
same root.
TIA. Patty

Maybe you could share with us some of the specific details you've found.
That might make it easier to see who you're attempting to connect.
Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Aldborough/Mauleverer/Goldesborough

Legg inn av John Higgins » 15 nov 2006 00:14:07

[We'll see if this makes it through the gateway...]

Your note provides a good deal of useful information, particularly dates, on
the Aldeburgh/Aldborough family. My main source for the family was Glover's
1585 visitation of Yorkshire (Joseph Foster ed.). Foster mushes together
the 1585 and 1612 visitations, and between them he gives only four dates for
the eight generations of the family:
1) Richard A. who mar. Eleanor Goldesborough is said to be "now living" in
1585
2) Richard's son William who mar. Anne Kaye is said to be living 1612
3) William's son Richard is said to "half a year old" in 1585
4) William's son Arthur is said to be living 1612

If I follow your message correctly we can add the following dates to various
generations of the family:
A5. Sir Richard A. (d. 1476), m. Agnes Plumpton
A6. Richard A., m. Joan Fairfax [no dates for either]
A7. Richard A. (d. shortly after 1530), m. ca. 1524 (2) Jane Mauleverer (b.
ca. 1511, living 1551)
A8. Richard A. (?b. shortly after 1530, bur. 6 Sep 1613 [per notes in
1563/4 Vis.]), m. Eleanor Goldesborough
[A9.] William A. (bap. 14 Mar 1556/7, bur 25 Jan 1627/8), m. [twice]
[A10a]. Richard A. ("half a year old" in 1585, bur 17 Jan 1587/8)
[A10b.] Arthur A. (bap. 25 July 1585 [? after the 1585 Vis.?]

Does this make sense?

I don't have access to the 1530 visitation, but if I understand your quote
correctly, it says that the Richard Aldeburgh in A7 was mar. 1st to Jane
Mauleverer and 2nd to Katherine Mauleverer, and it does not show his son
Richard. Then the 1563/4 visitation gives the marriages in the same order
but with a hand-written addition (by a later antiquarian) of the son Richard
(said to be from the marriage to Jane). But the 1585 visitation says that
Katherine was the 1st wife [mother of Ursula] and Jane the 2nd wife [mother
of Richard and Jane]. Since we know that Jane Mauleverer Aldeburgh was
married again, this 1585 version seems to be the correct one and fits well
with the various chronology points you've laid out below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:07 AM
Subject: Aldborough/Mauleverer/Goldesborough


Dear John,

I was looking more closely into your lines of descent, and have gotten
stuck on the one below. Let me know if I worked out the kinks
properly!

"John Higgins" wrote:
A1. Alice de St. Philibert; m. Sir Brian Stapleton, KG, of Carlton and
Wighill [RPA 682]
A2. Sir Brian Stapleton of Carlton; m. Elizabeth Aldeburgh [or
Aldborough]
A3. Sir Brian Stapleton of Carlton; m. Agnes Godard
A4. Elizabeth Stapleton; m. Sir William Plumpton
A5. Agnes Plumpton; m. Sir Richard Aldeburgh of Aldeburgh
A6. Sir Richard Aldeburgh of Aldeburgh; m. Joan/Jane Fairfax of Walton
[B4 below]
A7. Richard Aldeburgh of Aldeburgh; m. (2) Jane Mauleverer of
Wothersome
[C2 below]
A8. Richard Aldeburgh of Aldeburgh; m. Eleanor Goldesborough [E6
below]

The Sir Richard Aldborough of Aldborough, Yorkshire in generation A5
above, husband of Agnes Plumpton, died in 1476 (per "The Plumpton
Correspondence").

I have no dates for either Sir Richard Alborough or his wife Jane
Fairfax in generation A6 - do you?

Per the pedigree of the Aldboroughs taken by herald Thomas Tonge in
1530, which ends with the Richard Aldborough of generation A8, "Richard
Audborough, son of Richard, married Jane, doughter to James Malyvorer
of Wodersom: and by her he had yssue Jane. The said Richard maryed to
hys ijde wyfe, Kateryn, doughter to Syr Thomas Malyvorer of Alderton:
and by her he had yssue Ursula."

I don't have dates for the above Richard Aldborough of generation A7
either, but I presume he is the subject of the following National
Archives document:

C 1/548/71 Miles Newton. v. Richard Aldeburgh, esquire, son and heir
of Richard Aldeburgh.: Detention of deeds relating to a messuage in
Aldborough.: York. 1518-1529

Now, we know that Joan Mauleverer was the daughter of James Mauleverer
of Wothersome and Anne Wycliffe of Wycliffe, for she is returned as
such in the September 1551 IPM of her grandfather Sir William
Mauleverer: "Joan, wife of Peter Slingsby, gent., aged 40; Anne, wife
of Thomas Gower, aged 39; and Katherine, wife of William Conyers, aged
38; that is, daughters and co-heirs of Sir James M., knight, deceased,
son and heir of Sir William." [William Brown, 'Ingleby Arncliffe', YAJ
Vol. 16 (1902), p. 194.] From this, we can determine that Joan
Mauleverer was born about 1511, which fits (barely) with a 1492
marriage of her Sir William Mauleverer and Anne Conyers of Sockburn.
Assuming their eldest son James was born by 1495, it would make him age
16-19 at the birth of his eldest child. Quite young, but as his wife
Anne Wycliffe was herself an heiress when married about March 1510
(date of marriage settlement), immediate consummation of the marriage
in their teens was natural.

James Mauleverer was dead by 1524, when his widow Anne had her jointure
enlarged and confirmed [per Brown, p. 195]. Joan, his eldest daughter,
though only age 13 that year, would have been a prize catch, as she was
one of three co-heiresses to each of her grandfathers. It is easy to
see how Richard Aldborough would have been eager for the match, even
though Joan would not be able to have children for a couple more years
or so. As their grandfathers arranged the marriage of Joan's youngest
sister Katherine Mauleverer to William Conyers, heir of Marske, in
1525, Joan was likely married in 1524, if not sooner.

Yet the evidence of the 1530 Visitation conflicts with this. It claims
Richard Aldborough married her, had a daughter, she died, he married
again, and had another daughter - all by 1530-31. Richard Aldborough
himself - or at least someone contemporary to him - would have been
the herald Tonge's source for the above so it is very strange that the
information given is incorrect.

When did Richard Aldborough die? Apparently shortly after the 1530
Visitation pedigree, as another National Archives document implies:

C 1/716/2 Thomas and Ralph, younger sons of Richard Aldeburgh, knight.
v. Peter Slyngesbye, Jane, his wife, and Ralph Wythes.: Lands in the
tenure of defendants in Marton, Ripon, and Minskip bequeathed to
plaintiffs by their father, but not conveyed to them during their
minority.: York. 1532-1538

So Joan Mauleverer was married to second husband Peter Slingsby at some
point in the 1530s, and both were still alive in 1551. The above
document is also important in that it confirms the statement (otherwise
mistaken) in the 1530 Visitation that Joan Mauleverer had married
Richard Aldborough of Aldborough. One other piece of evidence confirms
this as well: "In 1536, in a deed in which she signed herself 'Jane
Aldbowrgh', she resigned all claim to the lands she might have
inherited in right of her father." [Brown, p. 195].

W. Hylton Dyer Longstaffe, the 1863 editor of Tonge's 1530 Visitation,
comments, "It is strange that her [Joan Mauleverer's] son and heir,
Richard [Aldborough], who signed the Visitation of 1585, is here
omitted. He then quartered Mauleverer, Colville, Wycliffe, and
Ellerton." Longstaffe makes no comment about the error of Aldborough's
wives in the Visitation entry itself, and may not have been aware of
it.

Charles Norcliffe, the 1881 editor of the 1563/4 Visitation of
Yorkshire, in his Aldborough pedigree, combines the 1530 Tonge
visitation information, with additions "in Ralph Brooke's handwriting
from this point." Brooke, though, was an early 17th-century herald, so
not contemporary to the life of either generation A7 or A8 above.
Norcliffe also notes that "Ursula and Jane alone appear as issue of
Richard Aldburgh in 1564." This is another hard-to-reconcile statement,
since the Richard Aldborough who married Eleanor, daughter of Thomas
Goldesborough and Jane Boynton of Barmston, is mentioned along with son
William Aldborough and other (unnamed) children in the 1566 will of his
father-in-law Thomas Goldesborough [printed in Richmond Wills 1 (1853),
pp. 184-187].

James Raine, the 1853 editor of Goldesborough's 1566 will, notes that
Richard Aldborough lived to a great age. His will was dated 1 April
1612, and pr. 13 September 1613. It's quite likely then that he was
born after the 1530 Visitation by herald Tonge, and that is why he was
omitted. Norcliffe notes that William Aldborough, son and heir of
Richard Aldborough and Eleanor Goldesborough, was baptized 14 March
1557, which fits in nicely with a birthdate for Richard in the early
1530s, shortly after the Visitation. It is also worth noting that
William Goldesborough, the brother of Eleanor, wife of Richard
Aldborough, was married to "Anne doughter to Pyter Slyngesby a 2
brother owt of the howsse of Scryven" (per the Goldesborough pedigree
in the 1563/4 Visitation of Yorkshire). Anne was very likely the
daughter of Peter Slingsby by his wife Joan Mauleverer, and so the two
Goldesborough siblings married the two Aldborough/Slingsby
half-siblings.

Hopefully the Aldborough pedigree at the 1585 Visitation (which I have
not yet seen) - signed by Richard Aldborough himself - will shed
further light.

Cheers, --------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash
with
Live Search!

http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/k ... e&locale=e

n-US&source=hmtagline

-------------------------------
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 Kemesek of Fordham: earlier ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2006 13:26:15

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
We know that the wife of Edmund de Kemesek (died circa 1253) was named
Maud, and it seems we can therefore identify her as the daughter of
Wimar de Thornton, whose family is further detailed in VCH Cambs, sub
Wicken.

Wimar de Thornton held the manor of Wicken, dying between 1240 and 1243
(he left a son and heir, Matthew, whose daughter and heir Mary married
into the Bassingbourne family). Wimar was himself the kinsman and heir
of Beatrice (d c1233), widow of Hugh Malebisse and daughter and heir of
Wimar (d c1203), son of Warner the Steward (ff 1160s); according to VCH
Cambs, Wimar de Thornton was the male-line great grandson of Roger,
younger brother of Warner the Steward.

Both Warner and Roger were the sons of Wimar, steward of Count Alan of
Brittany in respect of the Honour of Richmond, who held at Fordham of
Count Alan in 1086 and who received Wicken as a grant from Alan; he was
living as late as circa 1125.


According to a post by Rosie Bevan on 18 August 2004, Wimar de
Thornton's ancestry back to Wimar the Steward, his great-grandfather,
based on Clay's EYC, is as follows:

1. Wimar the Steward, dead by 1130
2. Roger, d c1145
3. Ralph the Steward, dead by 1195
4. Roger de Thornton, dead by 1206
5. Wimar de Thornton

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Mary de Ros, wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conjectu

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2006 22:11:36

Query: That Margaret or Marjory or Emma or... COMYN, the daughter of
Alexander, 2nd Earl of Buchan (d 1289), who, she, married firstly John de Keith,
Marishal of Scotland (d 1270) was NOT the mother of his son William de Keith who m
Barbara Seton and d "bef 1293" after having at least five children.

The Ancestral File gives dates which cannot be correct if William is the son
of Miss COMYN, I'd appreciate any information on putting William in his proper
timeframe.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: CP 'Addition': Elizabeth de Nevill, mother of Ralph, Lor

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2006 22:20:07

In a message dated 11/14/06 2:49:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< Based upon the IPM of Robert fitz Ralph, the account in CP
states that Ralph de Greystoke was born on 15 August 1299 [8].
His parents would have been young (Robert aged 18 or possibly more,
Elizabeth probably aged 14 or 15), >>


In particular Elizabeth must have been born between 1283 and 1285.
Does the license dated 10 Jun 1285 indicate it is post-nuptial ?
The other point to push on, would be the source for William le Boteler's
death IN 1283. If that can be moved back it will free up more room.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hugford, Huggford, Hungerford

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 nov 2006 22:36:03

I don't think Huggeford/Hugford is the same name as Hungerford.

Also your quest to link a Hugford Sherword b 1787 to the Hungerford's of "43
Eliz" is a great long-shot.
The most advantageous approach would be to prove the lineage of Hugford
Sherwood's mother Pruella, and grandmother Hannah.

This would be by consulting the records in Greenwich, CT, one would assume,
since the family lived there for several generations. In particular reviewing
all relevant documention on the Lyon and Disbrow families of that place and
time to see if you can again find that document which purports their
maiden-names and either support or disqualify it.

I would assume with an odd name like Jabez Sherwood, it shouldn't be
difficult to isolate all his records as well and see who appears with him and what
relation they might be, if any.

That's how I'd start. And then publish all the documents and argumentation
for comment.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Mary de Ros, wife of Ralph de Tony (d. 1295): a conjectu

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 15 nov 2006 23:12:23

Dear Will,

Two problems with the Ancestral Files data, without taking a
direct look at same (this is assuming there is only one entry, and not
two or more which are inconsistent anyway):

1. It is data in Ancestral Files (not a source to use in
evaluating
another source).

2. There is no evidence (other than an unsupported statement
in Scots Peerage) that this 'Barbara Seton' existed, let
alone
married William de Keith.

Cheers,

John

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Query: That Margaret or Marjory or Emma or... COMYN, the daughter of
Alexander, 2nd Earl of Buchan (d 1289), who, she, married firstly John de Keith,
Marishal of Scotland (d 1270) was NOT the mother of his son William de Keith who m
Barbara Seton and d "bef 1293" after having at least five children.

The Ancestral File gives dates which cannot be correct if William is the son
of Miss COMYN, I'd appreciate any information on putting William in his proper
timeframe.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: CP 'Addition': Elizabeth de Nevill, mother of Ralph, Lor

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 15 nov 2006 23:25:25

Dear Will,

Comments interspersed below.


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/14/06 2:49:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

Based upon the IPM of Robert fitz Ralph, the account in CP
states that Ralph de Greystoke was born on 15 August 1299 [8].
His parents would have been young (Robert aged 18 or possibly more,
Elizabeth probably aged 14 or 15),


In particular Elizabeth must have been born between 1283 and 1285.
Does the license dated 10 Jun 1285 indicate it is post-nuptial ?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The licence information in CP is all I've seen thus far; I have
not seen the licence text itself to date.



The other point to push on, would be the source for William le Boteler's
death IN 1283. If that can be moved back it will free up more room.

Will Johnson



The death information in such a case is typically more accurate
than others. If there is a loose chronological cannon on this deck, it
would most likely be the birth date of 1299 assigned to Ralph de
Greystoke. This was apparently from statements made in the 1317 IPM of
Ralph's father; the general rule-of-thumb (so to speak) with such
information is, accept as valid until you have something better.

If the 1317 IPM text can be found, that would be most helpful
(or interesting, at least).

Cheers,

John

John P. Ravilious

Re: CP 'Addition': Elizabeth de Nevill, mother of Ralph, Lor

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 15 nov 2006 23:27:30

Dear Will,

Comments interspersed below.


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/14/06 2:49:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

Based upon the IPM of Robert fitz Ralph, the account in CP
states that Ralph de Greystoke was born on 15 August 1299 [8].
His parents would have been young (Robert aged 18 or possibly more,
Elizabeth probably aged 14 or 15),


In particular Elizabeth must have been born between 1283 and 1285.
Does the license dated 10 Jun 1285 indicate it is post-nuptial ?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The licence information in CP is all I've seen thus far; I have
not seen the licence text itself to date.



The other point to push on, would be the source for William le Boteler's
death IN 1283. If that can be moved back it will free up more room.

Will Johnson



The death information in such a case is typically more accurate
than others. If there is a loose chronological cannon on this deck, it
would most likely be the birth date of 1299 assigned to Ralph de
Greystoke. This was apparently from statements made in the 1317 IPM of
Ralph's father; the general rule-of-thumb (so to speak) with such
information is, accept as valid until you have something better.

If the 1317 IPM text can be found, that would be most helpful
(or interesting, at least).

Cheers,

John

Brad Verity

Re: Aldborough/Mauleverer/Goldesborough

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 16 nov 2006 07:48:32

Dear John,

Comments interspersed.

John Higgins wrote:

[We'll see if this makes it through the gateway...]

It seems to have done so with no difficulties.

Your note provides a good deal of useful information, particularly dates, on
the Aldeburgh/Aldborough family. My main source for the family was Glover's
1585 visitation of Yorkshire (Joseph Foster ed.). Foster mushes together
the 1585 and 1612 visitations, and between them he gives only four dates for
the eight generations of the family:

Thanks for providing the 1585 visitation info. I've yet to track down
Foster's book.

1) Richard A. who mar. Eleanor Goldesborough is said to be "now living" in
1585
2) Richard's son William who mar. Anne Kaye is said to be living 1612
3) William's son Richard is said to "half a year old" in 1585
4) William's son Arthur is said to be living 1612

A good example of how the Visitation pedigrees can provide a 'snapshot'
of the family in the year that they were taken, which helps create
chronology parameters.

If I follow your message correctly we can add the following dates to various
generations of the family:
A5. Sir Richard A. (d. 1476), m. Agnes Plumpton

We can add even more info to this generation, thanks to the wonderful
research of Joan Kirby in her 1996 book 'Plumpton Letters and Papers'
(Camden Soc. 5th Series Vol. 8), p. 301:

"Sir Richard Aldburgh (d. 1475) of Aldburgh, near Boroughbridge. An
impetuous Percy feedman, it was as a supporter of Lord Egremont that he
and his father, also Sir Richard, appeared at York sessions in 1453/4
accused of disseising one of the Nevilles in Swaledale. During a
period of Lancastrian ascendancy in June 1460 he was put on the North
Riding commission of the peace, and in the aftermath of the battle of
Wakefield he and his future father-in-law Sir William Plumpton, with
Sir George Darrell, Sir Richard Tunstall, and a gang of Percy
desperados captured and beheaded the Yorkist chieftain Richard, earl of
Salisbury, though he had been granted his life. After the death of his
first wife, a daughter of Sir Roger Warde of Givendale, he married
Agnes Plumpton, whose father, Sir William, as steward of the Percy
lordship of Spofforth, was directed by the 4th earl of Northumberland
to compel Aldburgh to restore distrained or stolen cattle to Dame
Isabel Ilderton, widow of one of his most trusted retainers."

A6. Richard A., m. Joan Fairfax [no dates for either]

From Ibid., p. 301:

"His son Richard (d. 1514) knighted c.1503, held the offices of
constable and porter of Pontefract, and married Jane, daughter of Sir
Thomas Fairfax of Walton." Kirby cites as her source for this Robert
Somerville's 'History of the Duchy of Lancaster' (1953), p. 56, so
there may be more information on this Sir Richard Aldborough in that
work.

A7. Richard A. (d. shortly after 1530), m. ca. 1524 (2) Jane Mauleverer (b.
ca. 1511, living 1551)
A8. Richard A. (?b. shortly after 1530, bur. 6 Sep 1613 [per notes in
1563/4 Vis.]), m. Eleanor Goldesborough
[A9.] William A. (bap. 14 Mar 1556/7, bur 25 Jan 1627/8), m. [twice]
[A10a]. Richard A. ("half a year old" in 1585, bur 17 Jan 1587/8)
[A10b.] Arthur A. (bap. 25 July 1585 [? after the 1585 Vis.?]

Does this make sense?

Yes, and it's great to have all of the baptism and burial dates.

I don't have access to the 1530 visitation,

You can access it full view from Google Books.

but if I understand your quote
correctly, it says that the Richard Aldeburgh in A7 was mar. 1st to Jane
Mauleverer and 2nd to Katherine Mauleverer, and it does not show his son
Richard.

Correct. Clearly, Tonge made a mistake. (Let's hope it was Tonge, and
not Aldborough himself who confused his two wives, or there must have
really been a lot of ale imbibed at that particular visitation
meeting!) Since both wives had the last name of 'Mauleverer' (though
from the two branches of Allerton and Wothersome, only very distantly
related), it may be what led to Tonge's error.

Then the 1563/4 visitation gives the marriages in the same order
but with a hand-written addition (by a later antiquarian) of the son Richard
(said to be from the marriage to Jane).

See my post entitled 'Visitations of Yorkshire'. The actual 1563/4
visitation of Yorkshire made by Flower did not involve the Aldborough,
Goldesborough, or Mauleverer of Allerton families at all. In the case
of Aldborough, no visitation pedigree was made of the family between
the long gap of 1530 and 1585.

But the 1585 visitation says that
Katherine was the 1st wife [mother of Ursula] and Jane the 2nd wife [mother
of Richard and Jane]. Since we know that Jane Mauleverer Aldeburgh was
married again, this 1585 version seems to be the correct one and fits well
with the various chronology points you've laid out below.

Yes, we can assume that Robert Aldborough (c.1531/34-1613) knew who his
own parents were. His half-sister Ursula Aldborough married Dennis
Plumpton of "Ruffarlington", 2nd son of William Plumpton of Plumpton
and Isabel Babthorpe, per the Plumpton pedigree in Dugdale's 1665-66
Visitation of Yorkshire. Do you know who, if anyone, his full sister
Jane Aldborough married?

So under closer scrutiny, this line of descent from Alice de St.
Philbert to Richard Aldborough (c.1531/34-1613) holds up well. Good
stuff!

Cheers, ------Brad

Ken Ozanne

Re: Visitations

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 16 nov 2006 12:07:11

Brad, Chris, others,
Thank you very much for this. I had looked at your list
previously, Chris, but managed to miss some of the goodies.

It may be worth noting that Yorkshire Pedigrees is
available from Archive CD books as are something like 58 Harleian Society
Volumes of Visitations.

On a not entirely unrelated topic, I have recently
received the 2nd edition CD of CP with bookmarks for every family. Quite a
considerable improvement and this was a free upgrade.

I for one would appreciate further information of
important material becoming available either on CD or online.

Best,
Ken

On 16/11/2006 16:55, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com
Date: 15 Nov 2006 21:50:48 -0800
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Yorkshire Visitations

For an excellent background on heraldic visitations in general, and
those of Yorkshire and the other northern counties in particular, read
the comprehensive introduction by Frederick W. Denby to Volume 122 of
the Surtees Society. It has been invaluable to me in navigating the
convoluted pedigrees of Yorkshire families. In a nutshell, visitations
by heralds to the northern counties began as early as the 1480s and
ended with those of Sir William Dugdale in the mid-1660s. The herald/s
would meet with the head of each family, take notes on the arms borne
by the family head, as well as the pedigree, return to London and enter
the information at the College of Arms. Costs were involved: families
had to pay fees to the heralds, wine and dine them, etc., and many of
the meetings of the heralds with the family heads took place during
diplomatic missions and/or military campaigns on the Northern borders.

Unless the family head enjoyed genealogy, these heraldic visitations
were a chore to him, a bureaucratic necessity to maintain his status,
and probably viewed similarly to today's census-taking. There is no
way of determining the standards of evidence employed (were the
pedigrees from simple word of mouth, or written deeds and muniments),
which no doubt varied from herald to herald. Most pedigrees simply
followed the head of the family down through several generations,
providing only the names of the wife and heir. Daughters and younger
sons are given in most pedigrees only in the generation of the family
head providing the information to the herald, and that immediately
preceding him. Even in those two generations, mistakes were made, an
example being Thomas Tonge, Norroy King of Arms, reversing the order of
the two Mauleverer wives of then-current family head Richard Aldborough
of Aldborough, in 1530.

But as a snapshot of the family at the time of the Visitation, the
pedigrees are very useful, and often can help in setting chronology
parameters.

Most of the Yorkshire (which often included other northern counties)
Visitations are available online, and below is a listing of them, in
the order they were taken.


1480-91 -- by unknown heralds

Published in 'Visitations of the North Part III' (Surtees Soc. 144,
1930), edited by C. Hunter Blair. The pedigrees are transcribed from
Ms. Ashmole 831, which is a manuscript copy made by herald Robert
Glover (1544-1588) of an old manuscript, now lost, which may have been
an official record of an heraldic visitation of the northern counties
made in the latter part of the 15th century. Most of the pedigrees
date to the mid-1480s, just after Bosworth (1485), with a few dating to
the early 1490s. Additions made by Glover are clearly indicated by
editor Blair. Can be downloaded online through a link provided by
Chris Phillips's great website:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml


1530 --- by Thomas Tonge, Norroy King of Arms 1522-1534

Published in 'Heraldic Visitation of the Northern Counties in 1530 by
Thomas Tonge, Norroy King of Arms' (Surtees Soc. 41, 1863), edited by
W. Hylton Dyer Longstaffe. Though not entirely error-free, the
pedigrees in this Visitation can be considered a good snapshot of the
status of the families in 1530, at least for the current - and
immediate preceding- generation. Can be accessed through Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC3 ... 13&lpg=PR1
3&dq=Thomas+Tonge&as_brr=1


1530-1552 --- no known Visitations

It is thought that at least one Visitation was made by William Fellows,
Norroy King of Arms from 1536-1546, and possibly another one by his
successor Gilbert Dethick, Norroy King from 1546-1550, but if so, they
have not survived.


1552 --- by William Harvey, Norroy King of Arms 1550-1557

1558 --- by Laurence Dalton, Norroy King of Arms 1557-1562

1560-61 --- assorted pedigrees taken by Dalton

The above three are published in 'Visitations of the North Part I'
(Surtees Society 122, 1912), edited by Frederick W. Denby. Do take the
time, as mentioned before, to read Denby's excellent 38-page
Introduction (warning: pp. xlviii & xlix are missing from the pdf file
version). This volume can be downloaded through a link provided at
Chris Phillips's website:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml


1563-64 --- by William Flower, Norroy King of Arms 1562-1592

1567 --- by Flower

Purportedly published in 'The Visitation of Yorkshire in the Years
1563 and 1564, made by William Flower, esquire, Norroy king of Arms'
(Harleian Soc. 16, 1881) edited by Charles Best Norcliffe. WARNING:
The title is completely misleading. What this work is a transcription
of a manuscript (called the Northcliffe manuscript) that combines most
(but not all) of the pedigrees from the 1480-91, 1530, 1558, 1560-61,
1563-64, 1567, and 1584-85 Visitations into one volume, arranged by
family names. The manuscript started off, apparently in the hands of
heralds Flower and Glover, perhaps as their working copy, and passed
through several hands, including Ralph Brooke, a "Mr. Archer", and
Peter le Neve (Norroy King of Arms from 1704-1729), until ending up in
the hands of the Northcliffe family. As such, it cannot be considered
a snapshot in the years 1563-64 of any of the families presented in it.
That aside, Northcliffe was a dutiful and detailed editor, and his
footnotes are full of useful information. So, for the authentic
Visitation made by Flower in 1563-64, use the Surtees Society Volume
133, and view this Harleian Volume 16 as an 1881 compilation, similar
to those produced by Joseph Foster and J.W. Clay in the same period
(see below). This work can be accessed through Google Books or
downloaded as a pdf file at a link provided on Chris Phillips's
website:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC6 ... 1&lpg=PA1&
dq=Norroy+King+of+Arms

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml

The actual 1563-64 and 1567 pedigrees taken by Flower in those
Visitations are published in 'Visitations of the North Part II'
(Surtees Soc. 133, 1921), edited by Frederick W. Denby. It is also
available to download from a link provided at Chris Phillips's
website:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml


1575 --- by Flower, assisted by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald

Only a scant 46 Yorkshire pedigrees resulted from this Visitation, but
46 are still much better than none at all. They are published in
'Visitations of the North Part IV' (Surtees Soc. 146, 1932), edited
by C.H. Hunter Blair, and once again available to download as a pdf
from the link provided at Chris Phillips's website:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sou ... ions.shtml


1584-85 --- by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald 1571-1588

By this point, Flower was so aged that his son-in-law Glover was sent
up to the North to conduct the Visitation. Published in 'The
Visitation of Yorkshire made in the years 1584/5 by Robert Glover,
Somerset herald: to which is added the subsequent visitation made in
1612, by Richard St. George [London: private printing, 1875], edited by
Joseph Foster. This is the one Yorkshire Visitations volume that is
not available online, and I have yet to set eyes on it. If you can
find it in a Library somewhere, grab it, and have copies of the pages
you need made immediately - it is a hard to find item! And vital,
too, for providing snapshots of these Yorkshire families in the last
quarter of the 16th century, as so few were visited in 1575, and the
next visitation did not take place until 1612.


1612 --- by Richard St. George, Norroy King of Arms 1603-1623

This is published along with the 1584-85 Glover Visitation above. Not
having seen Foster's book, I don't know if the two Visitations were
printed separately within it, as the Surtees Society series did (a much
better way for using Visitation pedigrees as snapshots), or the
information from both Visitations was combined together into each
family's pedigree.


1665-66 --- by William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms 1660-1677

The last Visitation of Yorkshire ever done was also the first one ever
published, in 'The Visitation of the county of Yorke begun in A.D.
1665 and finished in A.D. 1666 by William Dugdale, Norroy King of
Arms' (Surtees Soc. 36, 1859), edited by Robert Davies. It is
available to view (page by page) online at the following website:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/tex ... 7.0001.001

'Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire with additions', edited by
J.W. Clay [Exeter: Pollard, 1899], is not really the Visitation
pedigrees as taken by Dugdale in 1665-66, as it is a compilation by
Clay using those pedigrees as a starting point. However, just as with
Northcliffe's Harleian Volume 16, Clay is an excellent editor,
providing much useful additional information on the various families
presented.


'Pedigrees of the county families of Yorkshire' by Joseph Foster, 3
vols. [London, 1864], I have not yet had the opportunity to peruse, but
is probably another invaluable Victorian-era compilation on Yorkshire
families.

'Yorkshire Pedigrees' by John William Walker, 3 vols. (Harleian
Soc. 94-96, 1942-1944), I have had some limited chance to use. As it
is in the same format as the actual Visitation pedigrees published by
the Hareian Society, it can easily be mistaken as another in the
series. Instead, it is an impressive compilation from the pre-computer
mid-20th century, but does contain some errors within its pedigrees
(Sothill, for example). I liken it to the pedigrees within the
'Burke's Peerage' 20th-century editions - good starting off
points, but not conclusive until verified by primary evidence.


This has turned into quite a long post, but hopefully those new to
Yorkshire medieval/Tudor-era genealogy, or simply confused by it as I
often am, will find it useful.

Cheers, ------Brad

Gjest

Re: Hugford, Huggford, Hungerford

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 nov 2006 21:01:07

Thanks again Will,
Rest assured that many, many hundreds of more scholarly people than I
have tried to unravel this puzzle for years. I have been at it for
years, on again off again. Someday, I will open soc.gen and it will
all be laid out.
Patty

On Nov 15, 4:32 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
I don't think Huggeford/Hugford is the same name as Hungerford.

Also your quest to link a Hugford Sherword b 1787 to the Hungerford's of "43
Eliz" is a great long-shot.
The most advantageous approach would be to prove the lineage of Hugford
Sherwood's mother Pruella, and grandmother Hannah.

This would be by consulting the records in Greenwich, CT, one would assume,
since the family lived there for several generations. In particular reviewing
all relevant documention on the Lyon and Disbrow families of that place and
time to see if you can again find that document which purports their
maiden-names and either support or disqualify it.

I would assume with an odd name like Jabez Sherwood, it shouldn't be
difficult to isolate all his records as well and see who appears with him and what
relation they might be, if any.

That's how I'd start. And then publish all the documents and argumentation
for comment.

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 16 nov 2006 23:05:18

John:

I'm working on the family of John Humphrey (c1597-1651), sometime of
Lynn, Massachusetts, charter member of the Massachusetts Bay Colony,
husband of (2nd wife) Elizabeth Pelham, and (3rd wife) Lady Susan
Fiennes Clinton. Perhaps the following might be of interest:

June 1662, Salem, Massachusetts Quarterly Court. "Hugh Alley, aged
fifty-three years, deposed that John Humfrey, Esq., deceased, possessed
the Plains farm 'As we goe to marble head Adjoining to Mr. peters his
farme & yt ye sd Humfrey kept seruants At his house one ye sd Land &
this Deponent sayth Alsoe yt he earned seueral pounds for worke done
there one ye plaines farme wch was payd him Allsoe by ye sd Humfrey &
when ye sd Humfrey went for England Left his son in Law otly Att ye
house.'"

Mr Adam Oatly is mentioned, also a certain Abraham Oatley, in re: lands
of John Humphrey, _Salem Quarterly Court Records and Files_ , [June
1662], pp. 394-5, notes.

Apparently, Oatley married one of John Humfrey's daughters (by his
second wife, Elziabeth Pelham), perhaps Elizabeth Humphrey (b.1623).



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" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> 11/16/06 01:29PM
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0fWEP ... ckworth%22



http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... ce+cranage



-------------------------------
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 Brandon

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av John Brandon » 16 nov 2006 23:52:41

Mr Adam Oatly is mentioned, also a certain Abraham Oatley, in re: lands
of John Humphrey, _Salem Quarterly Court Records and Files_ , [June
1662], pp. 394-5,

I think "Abraham" Otley would probably just be a mistake for "Adam."

Is there a baptism for John Humphrey's daughter Elizabeth, born in 1623?

Tony Hoskins

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs.Agnes

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17 nov 2006 00:02:09

"Is there a baptism for John Humphrey's daughter Elizabeth, born in
1623?"

Yes. Elizabeth Humphrey was baptized 23 November 1623 at Fordington,
Dorset.



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: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17 nov 2006 00:07:42

"a scandal Adam Ottley caused in the 1640s by lying about something (or
was it forging a signature?)."

If Ottley was in any way concerned in the horrific abuse (even if
simply neglectful) of John Humphrey's young daughters Dorcas and Sarah
(aged about 9 and 7 when JH left them in Lynn in late 1641) then he may
have partaken of this family's notable "colorfulness". See John
Winthrop, _History of New England, 1630-1649_, 1:54-6.

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: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs.Agnes

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 nov 2006 00:09:29

Interesting. I would say it's pretty likely she was later the wife of
Adam Otley (married early 1640s?).


On Nov 16, 6:02 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
"Is there a baptism for John Humphrey's daughter Elizabeth, born in
1623?"

Yes. Elizabeth Humphrey was baptized 23 November 1623 at Fordington,
Dorset.

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: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 nov 2006 00:11:09

Oh, yeah, there's _that_ scandal as well ...

On Nov 16, 6:07 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
"a scandal Adam Ottley caused in the 1640s by lying about something (or
was it forging a signature?)."

If Ottley was in any way concerned in the horrific abuse (even if
simply neglectful) of John Humphrey's young daughters Dorcas and Sarah
(aged about 9 and 7 when JH left them in Lynn in late 1641) then he may
have partaken of this family's notable "colorfulness". See John
Winthrop, _History of New England, 1630-1649_, 1:54-6.

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: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs.Agnes

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17 nov 2006 00:26:54

Whoever Elizabeth Humphrey married in mid-to-late 1641, all of John
Humphrey's children except Dorcas (b.c.1633) were gone from Lynn on 13
March 1643/4 when the Rev. Timothy Dalton of Hampton offered to adopt
Dorcas. [RCA, _Great Migration_, citing WP 4:451-2].

Before a too blithe acceptance that Adam Ottley, John Humphrey's
"son-in-law", was married to Elizabeth Humphrey (b.1623), more must be
learned of the life of Humphrey's 3rd wife Lady Susan. Her birth year in
her parents' enormous family is unknown. Her marriage date and place to
JH are unknown. If Lady Susan had been previously married, and had a
daughter, any husband of that step-daughter of John Humphrey would
undoubtedly had been called John Humphrey's "son-in-law", too.



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: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs.Agnes

Legg inn av John Brandon » 17 nov 2006 00:38:14

JH are unknown. If Lady Susan had been previously married, and had a
daughter, any husband of that step-daughter of John Humphrey would
undoubtedly had been called John Humphrey's "son-in-law", too.

True.

Gjest

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs.Agnes

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2006 02:41:02

In a message dated 11/16/06 3:28:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:

<< life of Humphrey's 3rd wife Lady Susan. Her birth year in
her parents' enormous family is unknown. Her marriage date and place to
JH are unknown. If Lady Susan had been previously married >>

To the discussion since you touch on the family of Thomas Clinton, 3rd Earl
of Lincoln (d 15 jan 1618/9) there is a lot of vagueness online in various
databases where I don't really find specificity to the dates of his children.

However I've found 11 of them (but not Susan) in the extracted IGI, with
baptismal date as follows
at Ashby Cum Fenby, Lincoln
Henry 18 Apr 1595
Thomas 15 May 1596
Arabella 3 Aug 1597
Theophilus 11 Nov 1599
Edward 21 Dec 1600
Anne 3 Mar 1602
at Baumber, Lincoln
Charles 30 Aug 1604
Kynvett (Knephet) 30 Jan 1605
John 19 Nov 1612
Dorcus 16 Jun 1614
Sarah Fiennes 14 Sep 1615

A good place to stick Susan *might* be between 1605 and 1612

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Lady Susan (Fiennes Clinton) Humphrey's age

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2006 03:54:02

That would then allow Dorcus and Sarah to be her next younger sisters, and
maybe help add weight to why she named her first two children that.

Will

Andrew and Inge

RE: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens ofWor

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 17 nov 2006 04:12:15

For whatever reason, this mail did not get to the list first time around, so
I try again...

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, 5 November 2006 6:28 PM


Hello Dix, Tim and List

I am very interested in the discussion about the possible connection between
the Lancaster blazonry and that of Maldred. This touches on several
questions I have been considering myself as a Lancaster genealogist. I am
trying to summarise some of it on a webpage at
http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Lancas ... rnames.htm and I am also
trying to help Steve Hissem build up a more comprehensive page at
http://balder.prohosting.com/shissem/Hi ... aster.html. Hopefully
putting everything in one place will help everyone think about these
complicated families!

First is concerning the origin of the Lancaster arms. Second is concerning
the identity Eldred of Workington, claimed as an ancestor of the De
Lancasters, and a relative somehow of Ivo de Taillebois.

First, those arms...

1. The following article claims that the Lancaster arms descend from William
Fitz Duncan de Egremont:
http://www.rockystrickland.com/strickla ... ergh_1.pdf . Many webpages
claim that William de Lancaster was castellan of Egremont in 1138, although
I have no knowledge of what record this refers to.

2. Using books.google.com, I found one source for the claim that the
Washington, Multon and Lancaster arms all descend from William Fitz Duncan
(Washington via Amundeville) is:
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register - Page 93 - by Henry
Fritz-Gilbert Waters - 1874.
Again I have no knowledge of which original records this refers to.

3. Who was this Maldred that Dix and Tim are talking about? I seem to
remember him being named as a descendant of the Anglo-Saxon royalty? Is his
name in any way connected to the surname Mauduit? See:
http://www.mkheritage.co.uk/cv/docs/peo ... farms.html
LORDS OF THE MANOR OF HANSLOPE
From 1471, sometimes known as "Hanslope alias Castlethorpe Manor".
MAUDUIT 1123 - 1237 Mauduits were granted the barony by Henry I. Sir
William Mauduit became 8th Earl of Warwick.
Argent two bars gules.

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cousin/html/p200.htm
William Mauduit, Baron of Hanslape1
b. circa 1184, d. 1257, #12228
Arms: Argent, two bars gules.1 Baron of Hanslope in Warwickshire,
England.1 William Mauduit, Baron of Hanslape was born circa 1184. He was the

son of Robert Mauduit and Isabel Basset.2,3 He married Alice de Newburgh,
daughter of Waleran, 4th Earl of Warwick and Alice de Harcourt.3,1 He died
in 1257.3

4. Here is another line of speculation: could there be a connection between
the Taillebois and the "de Bois" of southern England? Again, I am looking at
the blazonry, which in this case is stunningly close:
http://perso.modulonet.fr/~briantimms/era/db1350.html
1338 Nicholas de Boys: Argent two bars and a canton gules

This family is said to go back to Ernald or Arnold de Bois. His dynasty was
in Leicestershire and Warwickshire. At least one of the early men of this
name was a forester, which perhaps accounts for this surname? Although I've
saw no one claim this. One webpage claims that the first Ernald's father
used the surname de Waterville. The de Lancasters often seem to have had
jobs as keepers or forests in nothern England.

5. Another family in Cumbria which seems to both go back a long way, and to
shares these basic arms, is Kirkby of Kirkby Ireleth. This is (by chance?)
yet another family which is said to go back to a pre-Norman dynasty.

6. During all this thinking about blazonry a concern keeps cropping up. Were
their really heritable coats of arms earlier enough? Perhaps they started
earlier in Scotland than England?

---
Second, the question of mysteries in the De Lancaster tree was discussed a
lot last year in November, but the subject of Eldred seems to have gotten
rightly stuck on the whole question of caution about equating people who
seem to have a wide range of Anglo-Saxon names that have all collapsed under
Norman orthography (from Uchtred, Ethelred, Alfred etc etc.). I had until
reading these posts always assumed that the webpages which eqaute Eldred to
a person named Alfred the Englishman (the name of a medieval academic!) were
way off the path.

I'll just point to some of the things one reads that such an Alfred was the
father of a Gilbert de Frunesco who was in turn father of Nicholas
FitzGilbert de Taillebois, who in turn is said to have. My guesses about
this assertion are that

a. Elred of Workington versus Alfred the Englishman, if he is not being
confused with the academic who translated Arabic texts, he must appear in a
Scottish record? (Otherwise why name him like this?) But does any such
record name his son as Gilbert? Or any connection to any relatives?

b. Gilbert de Frunesco appears to be a mis-spelling that someone perhaps
made once on the internet, and which has now been copied many times. It must
have been "de Furnesio" meaning "of Furness". Furness appears to have been
part of Taillebois holdings, and even after Stephen of Boulogne gave it to
Furness Abbey, the de Lancasters appears to have maintained many rights
there, especially in Ulverston where their allies were apparently the
Flemings and Kirkbys amongst others. My question: it appears that documents
exists somewhere mentioning Gilbert de Furnesio and/or Gilbert de
Taillebois, who is presumably the same Gilbert who was the father of William
I de Lancaster. (I can't find anyone making claims that indicate they've
seen Gilbert ever being called Fitz Ketel or de Lancaster in his own
lifetime, though these are the second names genealogists keep pasting on.)
Has anyone got any idea where Gilbert (or Gilberts!) has ever been referred
to with any second name?

c. The Radcliffe theory. Reading between the lines of the many webpages on
this (I think this is the best
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/us ... DFGENE9.pd
f) it appears that the only evidence for the whole theory might be that
there is a list of knights somewhere including one Nicholas, perhaps named
Fitz Gilbert and/or perhaps named de Taillebois, who was in Radcliffe about
a generation before the first de Radcliffes?? Does anyone know the source?

---

Finally a new speculation. If Gilbert, father of William I de Lancaster was
called "de Furnesio" does this indicate that he was a Fleming? The Flemings
of Furness were known to use this name de Furnesio at just about this time,
and yet I can not find any historian who has mentioned this.

In the Lancaster DNA project, the DNA signature which appears to have
Furness connections also has a match to one Fleming family, though they
appear only to know their ancestry as far back as Ireland.

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Andrew and Inge

RE: swartahof(t)

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 17 nov 2006 04:12:17

I just realized that this appears to be a place name, although where it is I
am not sure.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew and Inge [mailto:andrew.en.inge@skynet.be]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2006 9:52 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: swartahof(t)


William I de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal, son of Gilbert.

On some charters, his names are followed by "viz. Swartahof".

It sounds like an old way of saying "black headed" but I dare not guess.

Can anyone confirm the meaning?

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens ofWor

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 17 nov 2006 11:54:51

3. Who was this Maldred that Dix and Tim are talking about? I seem to
remember him being named as a descendant of the Anglo-Saxon royalty? Is his
name in any way connected to the surname Mauduit?


Maldred is a descendant of the Scottish kings, viz:

Malcolm II
|
Bethoc m Crinan Abbott of Dunkeld
|
King Duncan I and Maldred m Edith/Aldgitha d&h Uchtred Earl of
Northumberland

descendants of Maldred

Cospatrick earl of Northumberland m sister of King Edmund of England
(he had a brother Maldred of Winlaton, from whom the Staindrop family)
|
Dolfin earl or master of Dunbar
Cospatric earl of Dunbar
Walthoef of Allerdale
plus three or more daughters

see Pedigree and Progress by Anthony Wagner

Gjest

Re: Margaret Eylesford: VCH Essex extract

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2006 16:43:35

Michael Andrewes-Reading helpfully posted an extract from
'Boxted: Manors and other estates', A History of the County of
Essex: Volume 10: Lexden Hundred (Part) including Dedham, Earls Colne
and Wivenhoe (2001), pp. 59-62, as follows:-
"John's heir Maud, daughter of John Breton the younger, married Richard
"River who held the manor in 1317, and from whom it took its name by
". He was apparently succeeded by his son Thomas, who died without
", and then by his daughter Margaret, who married Roger Bellers
"before 1361. By 1376 the manor had passed in marriage with their
"daughter Margaret to Robert Swillington (d. 1391) who was succeeded by
"his son Roger, holding in 1410. Roger Swillington was succeeded by his
"daughter Margaret, wife of John Aylesford, who sold the manor before
"1428 to Thomas Morsted (d. before 1464)."

I have not yet consulted the references given by VCH in support of this
passage, but it seems to me that the authors are partly in error here. It has
previously been shown on this list that the widowed Margaret Swillington, nee
Belers, remarried Sir John Eylesford the younger: see Nottingham University
Library Parkyns of Bunny Pa D 30
17 March 1393/4 (accessible on _www.a2a.org.uk_ (http://www.a2a.org.uk) )
" Indenture between John de Eynesford and Margaret his wife, formerly the
wife of Robert de
" Swillyngton, on the one part, and Robert Grethed and his companions,
executors of the "testament of Robert de Swillington on the other part. Robert
Grethed and his companions in "accordance with Robert's will have delivered to
John and Margaret various items of silver"

Probate of the Will of Margaret Swylyngton or Eynesford of Kyrkeby Belers
was granted at London, according to the online National Archives, on 2nd July
1418- PROB11/2B. That was in fact the date by which her executors were ordered
to bring in their accounts; the actual date of the grant of probate was 23rd
April 1418. In the Will, dated 19th February I HV, she refers to "Dom Joh
Eynesford quondam vir meus"- i.e "formerly my husband". He was evidently dead,
because the Will contains a legacy of ten marks to the Penitentiary of St
Paul's, London, described as one of her late husband's executors, to celebrate
mass for the souls of herself and her late husband. Towards the end of the
Will there is another legacy of ten marks to another John Eynesford, whose name
is followed by a word which I have not been able to read. I have no idea who
this John may have been, but he was certainly not the husband of Margaret,
daughter of Roger Swillingford- see below for the proof that this Margaret was
the wife of Sir John Graa. Also there is a legacy of six marks to "John
Daundesy": I take him to have John Dansey of Webton, identified in the
Herefordshire archives as the son and heir of Katherine, daughter of John Eyllesford,
Kt- see HRO AL40/ 998 and 1117.

Margaret Eylesford nee Belers IPM is at the PRO: C138/32, dated to 6 HV. She
is there recorded as "Aylesford, Margaret, formerly wife of Robert
Swillington, Kt".

CPR for 1433, pages 291-296, records a series of lawsuits in which Ralph
Cromwell succeeded in recovering (against Sir John Graa) inter alia the manor of
Crich as the heir of Margaret Swillington/Eylesford. But the IPM of Margaret
Gra (C139/46/40. 8 HVI) records that SHE was the daughter and heiress of Sir
Roger Swillington, married to Sir John Gra. So I think that VCH is wrong to
propose (in the last sentence cited by MA-R) that Sir Roger Swillington's
heiress Margaret was married to an Eylesford.

What I think happened is that Sir John Gra entered on various properties,
inherited from the Belers family, which had belonged to Margaret
Belers/Swillington/Eylesford in her own right (including the manors of Crich and Bonney),
claiming them in right of his wife Margaret, a Swillington heiress. But Ralph
Cromwell was able to recover them, as the heir of Margaret
Belers/Swillington/Eylesford.

By the way it is not always easy to trace the family entries in the National
Archives online. I advise people to use the search strings "ey*sford OR
ey*sford" and "sw*l?ngton"
MM

Tony Hoskins

Re: Lady Susan (Fiennes Clinton) Humphrey's age

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17 nov 2006 20:05:01

Thanks for the baptismal info, Will.

Some thoughts on likely family structure and Lady Susan's placement
therein.

Thomas and Elizabeth, 3rd Earl and Countess of Lincoln, are said [CP ?]
to have married "after 21 Sep 1584." However, the earliest known of
their children's baptismal dates is Henry's, 18 Apr 1595, at Ashby cum
Fenby, Lincs. The last known baptismal date for one of their chidlren is
Sarah's, 14 Sep 1615, at Baumber, Lincs.

Baptisms of 11 of their 18 children - in two discrete clusters
9spearated by nearly 7 years) - can at this point by confidently
stated:

Henry, 18 Apr 1595
Thomas, 15 May 1596
Arabella, 3 Aug 1597
Theophilus [later 4th Earl], 11 Nov 1599
Edward, 21 Dec 1600
Anne, 3 Mar 1602/3
Charles, 30 Aug 1604
Knyvett, 30 Jan 1605/6

[currently no baptisms for this family between Jan. 1605/6 and Nov 1612
- a period of 82 months]

John, 19 Nov 1612
Dorcas, 16 June 1614
Sarah, 14 Sep 1615

Assuming their son Henry was the first born son [named after the
child's paternal grandfather, the 2nd Earl], we might posit for the
moment that Henry was also the first born of their 18 children.
Examination of the known baptismal dates -and assuming (rightly, I
think) that a consistent period of time between birth and baptism
prevailed - it seems an average of about 18 months typically separated
the births of the Earl and Countess's children. Note that the latest
known dates (in the second cluster) reflect undiminished frequency from
the earlier births.

7 of the 18 children remain with so far undiscovered birth/baptism
information:

Susan
Frances
Elizabeth
Catherine
Lucy
Robert
James

Given the pattern of this couple's astonishing fecundity, one might
suggest that in the 82 months' lacuna of baptismal information perhaps 4
or 5 children were born. That would then suggest that possibly about 2
or 3 final children may have been born post-1615.

As Lady Susan's first known child was Dorcas Humphrey, b.c.1631-2, I
think my tentative assignment of a birth year for Lady Susan of between
about 1606-1611 is likely on target. Also, this position in the family
would make sense onomastically, suggesting as it would that Lady Susan
was fairly immediately the elder of Ladies Dorcas and Sarah - Dorcas and
Sarah (in that order) being the names of Lady Susan's first two (known)
daughters.




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: Stapleton question PA3

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 nov 2006 23:15:02

Dear Leo,
I am by no means certain of this but I think Jane Stapleton
was a daughter of Sir Brian Stapleton , kt. of Carlton by Agnes Goddard and
daughter of the Brian you mention and niece of Miles (who founded the Wighill
branch. See Burke`s Extinct Baronetcies under Ingelby. I have Agnes married to
Sir John Sothill , kt of Everingham and Ellen as the 2nd wife of one of the
Sir John Constables of Halsham, all in York.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

John Higgins

Re: Stapleton question PA3

Legg inn av John Higgins » 18 nov 2006 00:02:51

According to a pedigree of Stapilton [sic] of Carlton in Clay's ed. of
Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, the Joan Stapleton who mar. Sir William
Ingleby of Ripley was a great-granddaughter of the Bryan Stapleton who mar.
Alice de St. Philibert. Joan's parents were Sir Bryan Stapleton of Carlton
(d. 22 Oct 1417) and Agnes Goodard [or Goddard], and her paternal
grandparents were Sir Bryan Stapleton of Carlton (d. [vp] 1391) and
Elizabeth Aldbrough [sic] of Harewood. This last Sir Bryan was the elder
brother of the Miles Stapleton whose descendants are followed in RPA.

A pedigree of Ingleby in the same source says that Joan Stapleton and Sir
William Ingleby had one son, John, and three daughters (not two): Agnes, m.
John Sothill of Everingham; Katherine, m. Thomas Wombwell of Wombwell;
Elena, m. Sir John Constable of Hailsham.

Hope this helps...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Stapleton question PA3


On page 682 of his book "Plantagenet Ancestry", Douglas Richardson records
that
8.Alice de Saint Philibert, married (2) Brian de Stapleton and they had
two sons, Brian and Miles.

Two different sources tell me there was also a daughter, Joan Stapleton
who married Sir William Ingleby, and for this couple I know only two

daughters, Agnes and Ellen.
Can anyone confirm this?

This Joan Stapleton is (genealogically) interesting for many reasons. She
is ancestor to Gateways Thomas Nelson, Philip Nelson, Thomas Lord Fairfax,

William Fairfax, Edward Hyde, Sir Marmaduke Beckwith,
as well as Lady Diana Spencer, Sarah Ferguson, actress Rachel Ward, the
Aga Khan and many others.

With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
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: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 03:56:02

I have noticed in various online databases, that the number, dates and names
of the various children of Giles Alington (1572-1638) by his wife Dorothy
Cecil (d 1613) are all over the map. All the way from 1570 (which is downright
silly) up to 1639 (I suppose based on when Giles died).

So now I present the information from the extracted baptismal register of
Horseheath, Cambridge that will clarify exactly when the various children were
baptised.

For baptismal information see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C138211
extracted parish register of Horseheath

Elizabeth 25 Apr 1598
Thomas 2 Jan 1599/1600
Giles 14 Jul 1601
James 6 Sep 1602
Dorothy 9 Jan 1603/1604
Susan 30 Sep 1605
Anna 13 Apr 1607
Catherine 5 Dec 1608
William 14 Mar 1610
Mary 19 Oct 1612

The register appears to seamlessly pick up the marriages, so I'm assuming
it's complete and that the above is the complete list of children.

For the marriages we have
Dorothy 29 Mar 1623 to Thomas Leventhorpe
Susan 21 Sep 1624 to Robert Crane

And in Fakenham Magna, Suffolk the marriages of
William 20 Feb 1630 to Elizabeth Tollemache

It is also said that Catherine married Zouche Tate of Delapre
and that Mary married Thomas Hatton
but I have not found those marriages as yet.

Thomas Allington died as an infant and it is likely that Giles and James did
as well because although
William Allington and Elizabeth Tollemache's first son Giles was bap 11 Apr
1633 at Fakenham, the next three were all again back at Horseheath. So
apparently he must have inherited after his father died in 1638

William, who became 1st Baron Allington in 1642 is said to be buried at
Horseheath 1648 with his wife Elizabeth buried in 1671

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Lady Susan (Fiennes Clinton) Humphrey's age

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 04:03:03

Yes for the most part in agreement with your statements. I would like to
point out a few things.

Let's review the known marriage dates of the females
Elizabeth bap ?? mar "abt 1618" d 20 Jul 1624
Frances bap ?? mar 31 Jul 1620
Arabella bap 3 Aug 1597 mar 5 Apr 1623
Susan bap ?? mar 1628/32

I would suggest from the above that Elizabeth and Frances were older than
Arabella and thus represent two children born earlier than your Henry starting
point, as they certainly could not be born later than Arabella and fit anywhere
which makes sense.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 05:16:01

Judith (Barker) Littleton Denham
being a sharp woman of discernment apparently
married her own daugher Mary Littleton, to her step-son Thomas Denham

Gjest

Re: Stapleton question PA3

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 05:17:01

I'm in agreement with John Higgins' source on placing Joan (Stapleton)
Ingleby as a daughter of Brian Stapleton of Carlton by Agnes Goddard

Most telling in the chronology is that tudorplace.com.ar has Sir William
Ingleby as a grandson of Joan and his dates are given as 25 Mar 1455 - 4 Dec 1501

Joan, as a daughter to Brian Stapleton and Agnes Goddard must have a
birthyear of 1402/14 and her four children are all chronologically fitted to the close
time period of 1425/32

Joan (Stapleton) Ingleby left a will dated 12 Oct 1478, again adding
confirmation that she was in this time period, not three generations prior.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 05:18:02

Here is something more on Judith of Parsons Green that Todd Whitsides posted
a few years ago

http://genforum.genealogy.com/denman/messages/965.html

Gjest

Re: Was Mr. Adam Otley of Lynn the half-brother of Mrs. Agne

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 05:33:01

London Metropolitan Archives: British Records Association
BRITISH RECORDS ASSOCIATION
Catalogue Ref. BRA
Creator(s): British Records Association
ref. BRA203
GROUP XIIII: Rosamond's Farm

FILE - Bargain & Sale two pendent seals with armorial devices. - ref.
BRA203/89 - date: 3 December, 1616
[from Scope and Content] 2 Henry Denham, Citizen & Goldsmith of London &
Richard Downes Citizen & skinner of London.

FILE - Conveyance - ref. BRA203/90 - date: 3 December, 1616
[from Scope and Content] 2 Henry Denham Citizen & Goldsmith of London &
Richard Downes Citizen & skinner of London.

FILE - Assignment of mortgage one pendent seal with armorial device - ref.
BRA203/91 - date: 14 February, 1616/17
[from Scope and Content] 2 Henry Denham, cit., & goldsmith of London, Richard
Downes, cit., & skinner of London.

FILE - Quitclaim - ref. BRA203/94 - date: 24 September, 1624
[from Scope and Content] 2 Henry Denham Citizen & Goldsmith of London.

Gjest

Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 09:20:19

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

I have noticed in various online databases, that the number, dates and names
of the various children of Giles Alington (1572-1638) by his wife Dorothy
Cecil (d 1613) are all over the map. All the way from 1570 (which is downright
silly) up to 1639 (I suppose based on when Giles died).

So now I present the information from the extracted baptismal register of
Horseheath, Cambridge that will clarify exactly when the various children were
baptised.

Thanks Will.

MA-R

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Stapleton question PA3

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 nov 2006 10:43:05

In message of 17 Nov, "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

According to a pedigree of Stapilton [sic] of Carlton in Clay's ed. of
Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, the Joan Stapleton who mar. Sir
William Ingleby of Ripley was a great-granddaughter of the Bryan
Stapleton who mar. Alice de St. Philibert. Joan's parents were Sir
Bryan Stapleton of Carlton (d. 22 Oct 1417) and Agnes Goodard [or
Goddard], and her paternal grandparents were Sir Bryan Stapleton of
Carlton (d. [vp] 1391) and Elizabeth Aldbrough [sic] of Harewood.
This last Sir Bryan was the elder brother of the Miles Stapleton whose
descendants are followed in RPA.

The earlier 1584-5 Visitation in the Ingleby pedigree, p. 282, had the
father of Joan Stapleton to be Sir Brian Stapleton KG but in the
Stapleton pedigree, p. 332, has some extra generations, but see Foster's
notes below:

Sir Myles Stapleton = dau. of St Philibert (Myles had two wives)
|
Sir Brian Stapleton= Isabella, dau. of Sir John Bellewe
|
Sir Brian Stapleton = Elizabeth dau. of Sir William Aldborough
|
Sir Bryan Stapleton = Agnes dau. of Sir John Goddard
|
Sir Bryan Stapleton = Isabel, dau. of Sir Thomas Rempston
|
Joan Stapleton m. Sir William Plumpton

Sir Thos Rempston is listed in this Stapleton pedigree with two other
daughters and co-heirs, Margery who m. Richard Bingham and Elizabeth m.
Sir John Cheney, for the latter of which see Michael Andrews-Reading's
post on 5 Sept 2005 titled "Bekering of Nottinghamshire/Vaux question"

Foster, the editor of this visitation, adds two notes:

First of "Myles" Stapleton, that this was an error for which see his
Yorkshire Collection. (Presumably he thought he was Brian.)

Second of the Brian Stapleton who m. Isabella Bellewe that this
generation was not in Harleian MS no 1487 and he has omitted it from
his Yorkshire Collection.

I don't have access to his Yorkshire Collection to see what Foster
thought there.

A pedigree of Ingleby in the same source says that Joan Stapleton and
Sir William Ingleby had one son, John, and three daughters (not two):
Agnes, m. John Sothill of Everingham; Katherine, m. Thomas Wombwell of
Wombwell; Elena, m. Sir John Constable of Hailsham.

In the 1584-5 visitation, it only has John and two daughters, Agnes,
wife of John Sothill of Everingham and Katherine with no husband.

Hope this helps...

Me too!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Stapleton question PA3


On page 682 of his book "Plantagenet Ancestry", Douglas Richardson
records that 8.Alice de Saint Philibert, married (2) Brian de
Stapleton and they had two sons, Brian and Miles.

Two different sources tell me there was also a daughter, Joan
Stapleton who married Sir William Ingleby, and for this couple I
know only two daughters, Agnes and Ellen.

Can anyone confirm this?

This Joan Stapleton is (genealogically) interesting for many
reasons. She is ancestor to Gateways Thomas Nelson, Philip Nelson,
Thomas Lord Fairfax, William Fairfax, Edward Hyde, Sir Marmaduke
Beckwith, as well as Lady Diana Spencer, Sarah Ferguson, actress
Rachel Ward, the
Aga Khan and many others.

With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

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

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Margaret Eylesford: VCH Essex extract

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 18 nov 2006 11:07:20

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

In a message dated 11/17/06 6:44:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

But Ralph
Cromwell was able to recover them, as the heir of Margaret
Belers/Swillington/Eylesford.

How was Ralph Cromwell an heir to Margaret Bellers ?
I seem to be missing that connection.

CP III, 551 gives Anice, dau. & coh. of Roger de Bellers, as the wife of
Sir Ralph de Cromwell who d. bef. 28 Oct 1364.

That's probably a start.

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

Gjest

Re: Margaret Eylesford: VCH Essex extract

Legg inn av Gjest » 18 nov 2006 14:51:02

In reply to Will's query of 17th November, I derive the following from a
post of Kay Allen dated 28th September 2001:-
Ralph Cromwell, d. before 28th October 1364= Amice Bellers of Kirby Belers
Son Ralph, 1st Lord Cromwell, d. 27th August 1398= Maud Bernake of
Tattershall, Lincs
Grandson Ralph, living 1433
This last-mentioned Ralph was the one who claimed to be heir of
Margaret Belers/Swillington/Eylesford.

This Margaret and Amice were the daughters of Roger Belers of Kirby,
whose descendants failed in the male line, as explained in CPR HVI vol 2,
pages 290 et seq.
Thus Cromwell, as a descendant of Amice, came to be her sister Margaret's
heir
MM

Tony Hoskins

Re: Lady Susan (Fiennes Clinton) Humphrey's age

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 18 nov 2006 18:12:16

Thanks, Will. Good points, with which I entirely agree.

Tony

WJhonson@aol.com> 11/17/06 07:02PM
Yes for the most part in agreement with your statements. I would like

to
point out a few things.

Let's review the known marriage dates of the females
Elizabeth bap ?? mar "abt 1618" d 20 Jul 1624
Frances bap ?? mar 31 Jul 1620
Arabella bap 3 Aug 1597 mar 5 Apr 1623
Susan bap ?? mar 1628/32

I would suggest from the above that Elizabeth and Frances were older
than
Arabella and thus represent two children born earlier than your Henry
starting
point, as they certainly could not be born later than Arabella and fit
anywhere
which makes sense.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
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

Andrew and Inge

RE: Who were these members of parliament?

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 18 nov 2006 20:43:38

Thanks John

Pardon my ignorance, but what would that mean?

Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Townsend [mailto:john@johntownsend.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, 18 November 2006 11:12 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Who were these members of parliament?


Suggest "Cort" is a typo for "Cont".

John Townsend
Antiquarian Bookseller/Genealogist
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk

Brad Verity

Re: Stapleton question PA3

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 18 nov 2006 21:19:12

John Higgins wrote:

A pedigree of Ingleby in the same source says that Joan Stapleton and Sir
William Ingleby had one son, John, and three daughters (not two): Agnes, m.
John Sothill of Everingham; Katherine, m. Thomas Wombwell of Wombwell;
Elena, m. Sir John Constable of Hailsham.

Elena/Ellen Ingleby was actually married to Ralph Eure (d. before
1480), and had three daughters, before she was married to Sir John
Constable of Halsham.

See Louise Staley's work on this in her post 'Thwaites/Eure':

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 72c?hl=en&

Cheers, ------Brad

Andrew and Inge

RE: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens ofWor

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 19 nov 2006 10:04:29

Right. I am in fact uncertain what sort of evidence is being referred to.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: taf [mailto:farmerie@interfold.com]
Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2006 2:38 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens
ofWorkington&de Lancasters of Kendal



Andrew and Inge wrote:
Thank you Alex

My mail took a long time to hit the list and the meantime I have found
some
more. William Fitz Duncan and one of the Maldreds (which one?) are both
claimed by various people to have had arms which influenced the "de
Lancaster" arms as well as those of some other northern families.

I would be careful of this claim. These men date to a period just when
heraldry was emerging, and few had documented arms, in spite of
anachronistic claims to the contrary.

taf

Andrew and Inge

RE: Who were these members of parliament?

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 19 nov 2006 10:14:32

In Latin, what titles might be translated this way. Sherriff?

Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Turenne [mailto:richard.lichten1@virgin.net]
Sent: Saturday, 18 November 2006 9:31 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Who were these members of parliament?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Townsend [mailto:john@johntownsend.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, 18 November 2006 11:12 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Who were these members of parliament?


Suggest "Cort" is a typo for "Cont".

John Townsend
Antiquarian Bookseller/Genealogist
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk

Count?

Richard L

Andrew and Inge

RE: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens ofWor

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 19 nov 2006 14:35:04

Thanks Alex

The basic de Lancaster arms were Argent two bars and a canton gules. Several
members of the family had a lion guardant passant in the canton but there
were other variations it seems. Several other families had very similar
arms.

So what were the arms of the earls of Atholl?

Best Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Maxwell Findlater [mailto:maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2006 9:01 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens
ofWorkington&de Lancasters of Kendal


The Lancaster arms were as far as I remember Gules two lions passant Or
in pale. That is nothing like the arms which are generally derived
from Maldred, which are based on the paly of the earls of Atholl, if
indeed this isn't too a call too far, eg Washington etc. See Sir Iain
Moncrieffe of that Ilk, who wrote an article about double arms. You
should be able to find a copy of his Lord of the Dance, an heraldic
miscellany, ed Montgomery-Massingberd. I cannot remember where the
article was first published.

Andrew and Inge

RE: Who were these members of parliament?

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 19 nov 2006 14:35:04

Hi Paul

The reason is that nearly everyone on the list of members for Lancaster in
those centuries is related to each other and of course they are all nobles.
I am sure there must have been non-nobles who used the name "de Lancaster"
(for example clerics and tradesmen, who often lived distant from their home
town) but I do not think any such person could expect to attain this
position of representing Lancaster in parliament, and if they somehow did I
doubt they would use a title which was already in use by a well known family
in the area?

In any case I am not aware of any noble family who used the name "de
Lancaster" apart from some of the families who had held the honour of
Lancaster.

Best Regards
Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart [mailto:p_m_stewart@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2006 11:18 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Who were these members of parliament?



"Andrew and Inge" <andrew.en.inge@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:mailman.31.1163840110.22297.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In "Time Honoured Lancaster" by RGK Rigby, which is on Google Books, on
p.486, several de Lancasters appear in a list of members of parliament for
Lancaster in the 14th century.

1. Johannes de Lancastria was one of two members for Lancaster, 33rd of
Edward I, summoned to meet at Westminster 16 Feb 1304-5, which was
prorogued
to 28 Feb 1304-5. This is presumably the well-known John de Lancaster of
Howgill and Rydal, who was son of Roger, who was in turn bastard brother
of
William III of Lancaster, the last Lancaster Baron of Kendal.

2. Johannes de Lancastr' was one of two members for Lancaster, 35th of
Edward I, summoned to meet at Carlisle 20 Jan 1306-7. Again this must be
Lord John of Rydal and Howgill.

3. Johannes Cort de Lancastr' was one of two members for Lancaster, 20th
Edward II, summoned to meet at Westminster 14 December 1326, prorogued to
7
Jan 1326-7. I guess this could be Lord John, as he was still alive until
1334.

Is there a reason for you to assume this is not just a different man, named
John Cort, from Lancaster? That would seem the obvious reading.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

RE: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens ofWor

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 19 nov 2006 17:06:38

In message of 19 Nov, "Andrew and Inge" <andrew.en.inge@skynet.be>
wrote:

The basic de Lancaster arms were Argent two bars and a canton gules.
Several members of the family had a lion guardant passant in the
canton but there were other variations it seems. Several other
families had very similar arms.

So what were the arms of the earls of Atholl?

Scots Peerage vol 1, p. 433, gives sable three pallets or for the
celtic earls of Atholl.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Maxwell Findlater [mailto:maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 19 November 2006 9:01 AM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Elftred 'the Englishman' - ancestor of the Curwens
ofWorkington&de Lancasters of Kendal


The Lancaster arms were as far as I remember Gules two lions passant
Or in pale. That is nothing like the arms which are generally derived
from Maldred, which are based on the paly of the earls of Atholl, if
indeed this isn't too a call too far, eg Washington etc. See Sir Iain
Moncrieffe of that Ilk, who wrote an article about double arms. You
should be able to find a copy of his Lord of the Dance, an heraldic
miscellany, ed Montgomery-Massingberd. I cannot remember where the
article was first published.

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

Patricia Junkin

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Iseult de Sulney, mother of S

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 19 nov 2006 19:14:57

Thank you, Douglas, for this information.
Although circumstantial evidence exists, I have yet to properly place Elena
Daubeney who married Nicholas de Vipont, b. 1320, d. 1362. Elena may have
first married John de Moriceby. Her IPM states she died seized of the Manor
of Johnby and Blair Southerdon has posted material concerning the manor of
Johnby and the Kirketon connection. There was a case in "42 Edward III
during the plea in Chancery, by writ of scire fcias between John, son of
Robert de Kirketon, and Thomas, son of Thomas de Ughtred, as to which was
the heir of Gregory de Burdon, to whom the wardship of the manor of Jonby
ought to belong." Although, we have considered that Elena was an heir, I am
beginning to doubt that since by some means Sir John de Lancastre had sold
the fees to Nicholas and Elena Vipont sometime previously and when their son
Robert died in 1371 he held the manor of Johnby "of John de Kirketon, heir
of Gregory Burdon by homage and fealty rendering 5 s 3 d for cornage. He
was seised thereof by a feoffment made by John de Lancastre, knight, to
Nicholas his father and Ellen his mother and the heirs of their bodies."
Johnby continues to be held by Vipont heirs to later generations.
Some sources state Elena was the daughter of Robert Daubeney.
do you find mention of a Robert in this line.
Thank you,
Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval
Subject: Complete Peerage Addition: Iseult de Sulney, mother of Sir Elias
d'Aubeney, Lord Daubeney
Date: Sun, 19, 2006, 1:52 AM


Dear Newsgroup ~

The authoritative Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 93-96 (sub Daubeney) has
a good account of the life and ancestry of Sir Ellis (or Elias)
d'Aubeney, Lord Daubeney (died 1305), of South Ingleby, Lincolnshire,
South Petherton, Somerset, etc., seigneur of Landal in Brittany.
Complete Peerage identifies Lord Daubeney's parents as Sir Ralph
d'Aubeney (died 1292), of South Ingleby, Lincolnshire, South Petherton,
Barrington, and Chillington, Somerset, etc., seigneur of Landal in
Brittany, and his wife, Isabel (living 1294), which Isabel is of
unknown parentage.

Recently I came acrioss an abstract of a lawsuit dated Easter term
1295, between Sir Elias d'Aubeney and John de Wilington, regarding
various lands in Lantegulos, Ussa et Fawinton', Cornwall, formerly held
by Andrew de Sulney, late kinsman [consanguineus] of Sir Elias
d'Aubeney. Sir Elias's exact kinship to Andrew de Sulney is set forth
in the lawsuit. Elias' mother, Iseult (or Isolde), is stated to be the
daughter and heiress of Joldewyn [de Sulney], which Joldeyn was the son
and heir of John [de Sulney], brother of Ralph [de Sulney], father of
Andrew de Sulney.

Thus it would appear that Sir Elias d'Aubeney's mother was Iseult (or
Isolde) de Sulney, daughter and heiress of Joldewyn de Sulney. Iseult
(or Isolde) de Sulney was evidently the first wife of Sir Ralph
d'Aubeney, as Sir Ralph is known to have been survived at his death by
a [2nd] wife, Isabel, as stated by Complete Peerage.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World colonists who descend from Sir Elias d'Aubeney, Lord Daubeney:

Dorothy Beresford, Charles Calvert, Anne Humphrey, John Nelson, Herbert
Pelham, Edward Raynsford, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John
West, Margaret Wyatt.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

ABSTRACT OF LAWSUIT DATED EASTER 1295
Source:
http://www.sd-editions.com/AnaServer?PR ... tframe.anv

Cornub'. Elyas de Albiniaco per attornatum suum petit versus Johannem
de Wyllynton' duo mesuagia, centum quaterviginti et quinque acras
terre, quaterviginti et duas acras bosci, centum acras more, decem
libratas, undecim solidatas et septem denariatas redditus et redditum
unius ovis matricis, unius agni, unius hoggastry, unius libre cumini,
unius paris calcarium deauratorum, duorum parium cirotecarum,
percussionis ferramenti unius caruce et medietatem unius acre prati cum
pertinenciis in Lantegulos, Ussa et Fawinton' de quibus Andreas de
Sulny, consangineus predicti Elie, cujus heres ipse est, fuit seisitus
in dominico suo ut de feodo die quo obiit etc. Et unde dicit quod
predictus Andreas, consanguineus etc., fuit seisitus de predictis
tenementis cum pertinenciis in dominico suo ut de feodo tempore pacis
tempore domini \Henrici regis, patris domini/ regis nunc, capiendo inde
explecia ad valenciam etc. et inde obiit seisitus etc. Et de ipso
Andrea, quia obiit sine herede de se, resorciebatur feodum etc. cuidam
Johanni ut avunculo et heredi, fratri cujusdam Radulphi, patris ipsius
Andree; et de ipso Johanne descendit feodum etc. cuidam Joldewyno ut
filio et heredi etc.; et de ipso Joldewyno cuidam Isolde ut filie et
heredi; et de ipsa Isolda cuidam Philippo ut filio et heredi; et de
ipso Philippo, quia obiit sine herede de se, descendit feodum etc. isti
Elye qui nunc petit ut fratri et heredi. Et inde producit sectam etc.

Et Johannes per attornatum suum venit. Et dicit quod non debet ei inde
respondere quia dicit quod, cum predictus Elyas asserit feodum etc.
predictorum tenementorum resortiri de predicto Andrea, de cujus seisina
etc., predicto Johanni ut avunculo et heredi, fratri predicti Radulphi
patris etc., idem Radulphus nuncquam aliquem fratrem habuit, Johannem
nomine, heredem ipsius Andree, natum sive nutritum, visum aut cognitum
infra quatuor maria Anglie. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam; unde
petit judicium etc.

Et Elyas dicit quod ipse clamat predicta tenementa ut illa de quibus
predictus Andreas, consanguineus etc., obiit seisitus in dominico suo
ut de feodo et que predictus Johannes modo tenet, narrando quod de ipso
Andrea resorciebatur feodum etc. predicto Johanni ut avunculo et heredi
etc. simpliciter absque aliqua adjeccione, quem quidem resortum paratus
est verificare sicut curia consideraverit; unde cum de responsione per
predictum Johannem facta diversi possunt elici intellectus et sic
excepcio sua videtur ambigua, duplex et incerta, petit judicium si
excepcio illa in forma qua eam pretendit sit admittenda etc.

Et Johannes, ut prius, dicit quod predictus Radulphus pater etc.
nuncquam habuit aliquem fratrem, Johannem nomine, qui visus fuit, natus
aut nutritus infra quatuor maria Anglie vel qui heres predicti Andree,
de cujus seisina etc., tentus fuit aut cognitus nec eciam predictus
Joldewynus, cui predictus Elyas dicit feodum predicti tenementi
descendisse ut filio et heredi, visus fuit etc., nutritus aut cognitus.
Et hoc paratus est verificare per patriam; unde, desicut curia ista in
hujusmodi casu ulterius non potest nec debet responsionem sive
excepcionem aliquam admittere quam illam de qua rei veritas per ipsam
curiam poterit inquiri seu cognosci petit judicium etc. Et, si hoc non
sufficit, dicet aliud.

Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo hic a die sancti Michaelis
in tres septimanas etc."


-------------------------------
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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»