Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
David Teague

Re: James Knott in AP&P, 4th ed.

Legg inn av David Teague » 02 des 2006 21:44:54

Thanks again, Doug, and I hope you and yours have the happy holiday(s) of
your choice.

David Teague


From: Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: James Knott in AP&P, 4th ed.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:13:47 -0600

David Teague wrote:
Hello, everyone.

Could someone with access to the published volumes of the 4th ed. of
_Adventurers of Purse and Person_ (the excellent work on early 17th c.
Virginia families) do a lookup and summary for me?

I am interested in the family of James Knott, who was transported to Va.
on the _George_ in 1617.

Earlier editions of AP&P assigned a son William, of Surry Co., Va., to
this James Knott.



What I would like to know is whether the new, 4th ed. of AP&P still
lists William Knott of Surry Co., Va., as a son of James Knott the
immigrant.



Indeed it does.

Doug McDonald

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

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme002 ... r/overview

Andrew and Inge

RE: Gilbert the father of the first de Lancaster of Kendal

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 03 des 2006 21:26:34

On second thoughts, to be complete:

1. There is more thing we seem to *know* about William I's parentage: one
charter mentions his mother Godith, along with his father Gilbert and dead
son Jordan.

2. There is also one more thing asserted about Gilbert his father on the
internet: that he is also Gilbert of Stainton (or perhaps his father) who
was in turn the father of Bernard de Stainton and Christian de Stainton. The
Stainton in question is the one near Kendal. Christian went on to marry
Michael le Fleming, and their son Anselm de Fleming seems to have taken up
some sort of possession.

Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew and Inge [mailto:andrew.en.inge@skynet.be]
Sent: Saturday, 2 December 2006 5:29 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Gilbert the father of the first de Lancaster of Kendal


I wonder if anyone can add or subtract anything from the following musing...

The first person who we know used the name "de Lancaster," at least in a way
which stuck to the family, was William de Lancaster I of the de Lancasters
of Kendal.

He is frequently referred to as "Fitz Gilbert" and the like in contemporary
documents, but despite references to this Gilbert in *secondary* and
non-contemporary literature, for example:
- that he was called "de Furnesio"
- that he was the King's receiver in Furness
- that he had another son Roger fitz Gilbert who married Sigrid the widow of
Waldeve of Allerdale
- that there was yet another son, Robert, brother of this Roger
- that he was a member of the family of Eldred of Workington and his son
Ketel
- that he was a "de Taillebois"

....I can not find any evidence for any contemporary information about him.
(Perhaps the best I can do is, just concerning the last two, refer to the
claims of his descendents concerning the de Lancasters being somehow
descended from "Ketel filius Eutret" and de Taillebois. I think everyone who
looks at the evidence tends to think that if there was a connection it must
have been via widows, illegitimate children or daughters, and therefore
difficult to trace.)

Can anyone name any primary evidence at all concerning Gilbert?

While I remain in this ignorant state perhaps I'll make a few wild
speculative suggestions also, for people to shoot down:

1. If Gilbert used the name "de Furnesio" why not just not assume that he
was a "le Fleming" of Furness? They were using this name right at this
period, and there can't have been too many people living in the area at the
time, let alone using this title.

2. What stops us from suggesting that "fitz Gilbert" was not an early
"surname"? Indeed there was a very famous fitzGilbert family, a branch of
which became the de Clares. For example, William I de Lancastre married an
important member of the family of Richard fitz Gilbert's contemporary fellow
power-broker William de Warrene. It is often remarked that he must have been
well-connected.

3. There were also some fitzGilberts who worked for Mathilda. I understand
that John, her marshall, was a brother of William, was a knight who fought
for her, and then her chancellor. Or were these FitzGilberts of the same
family as Richard?

Best Regards
Andrew

taf

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

Legg inn av taf » 04 des 2006 07:13:18

Andrew and Inge wrote:
Dear Todd

Upon reflection, I note that the original post I am asking about did give a
reference to a webpage which at least reminds me more clearly about what the
claim was which I am asking about the basis of:

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclan ... ey/110.htm

"The sons of Bethoc and Crinan were King Duncan I of Albany (killed in
1040), whose descendants bore arms of the colors red on gold;

note that probably 80% of shields had gold or silver, and probably 75%
had red or blue, so this in not saying much. In this case, it was a red
lion and some frill on a gold shield.

and Maldred, Ruler of Cumbria,

Maldred, son of Crinan (assumed to be the same Crinan who married
Bethoc, although this is not directly attested) did not "rule"
anything.

who married the daughter of the Earl of Beornicia, and

Bernicia, and it never had an Earl.

whose descendants bore arms of the colors red on silver (white).

I don't know what family they have in mind here, so I can't identify
the arms.

So is it being claimed that Swintons, Dunbar, Dundas and Moncreiff had/have
arms like those of the de Lancasters? (Argent, two bars and a canton gules.)

No. It is being claimed that they both had something red on a metal
background, which is probably the case for, say, 10-20% of all arms.

taf

Gjest

Re: Keats-Rohan on the Fitz Reinfrids

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2006 01:07:51

In a message dated 12/2/06 3:44:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
andrew.en.inge@skynet.be writes:

<< What is known is that Roger Fitz Reinfrid must have been about the same
generation as William II de Lancaster. Therefore it is quite possible,
starting from what we know best, that the latest that Reinfrid himself could
have lived would have been in the generation of William I de Lancastre. >>

How is this known?
Thanks
Will Johnson

taf

Re: Keats-Rohan on the Fitz Reinfrids

Legg inn av taf » 05 des 2006 02:46:34

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/2/06 3:44:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
andrew.en.inge@skynet.be writes:

What is known is that Roger Fitz Reinfrid must have been about the same
generation as William II de Lancaster. Therefore it is quite possible,
starting from what we know best, that the latest that Reinfrid himself could
have lived would have been in the generation of William I de Lancastre.

How is this known?

What is known is that Roger's son married William II's daughter. That
puts the respective parents in "about the same generation".

taf

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Death date of Gervaise de Din

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2006 03:24:46

Aside from her death date I wonder what source Alan Rose is using for her
*birth* year. 1170 is surprising if she married Richard Marshall the Earl of
Pembroke as her last husband

Will Johnson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Maud de Vitré, wife of Henry de Pomeroy

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 des 2006 07:55:02

Dear Newsgroup ~

The following lawsuit abstract was published in The Genealogist, n.s.
14.

De Banco. Easter. 19 Richard 2. [1396], m. 52.

Somerset. William Boneville sued Matilda Meriet for the manors of
Dondone, Brodemersshton and two parts of the manor of Meriet.

The following pedigree was provided in the lawsuit:
_______________________
/ /
George de Meriet Isabella
/ /
John. William.
/ ______/________
/ / /
John de Meriet, Kt., / /
living 50 E. 3. Elizabeth.= Margaret.=
Humfrey William de
Stafford Boneville.

As we can see above, the paternal grandmother of Margaret Daumarle,
wife of Sir William Bonville, was Isabel (de Meriet) Daumarle, sister
of George de Meriet.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Andrew and Inge

RE: Keats-Rohan on the Fitz Reinfrids

Legg inn av Andrew and Inge » 05 des 2006 08:23:30

Dear Will

Roger's son, Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, was the son in law of William II and
Gilbert's career seems to start only when William II was old or dead, and it
continued long after that.

Best Regards
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 5 December 2006 12:08 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Keats-Rohan on the Fitz Reinfrids


In a message dated 12/2/06 3:44:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
andrew.en.inge@skynet.be writes:

<< What is known is that Roger Fitz Reinfrid must have been about the same
generation as William II de Lancaster. Therefore it is quite possible,
starting from what we know best, that the latest that Reinfrid himself
could
have lived would have been in the generation of William I de Lancastre. >>

How is this known?
Thanks
Will Johnson

taf

Re: Guzman family

Legg inn av taf » 05 des 2006 18:41:29

maria emma escobar wrote:
Jaime Salazar y Acha gives a probable first wedding to Pedro Rodriguez de Guzmán: with Elvira Gonzalez de Manzanedo, and the second weddig with Mafalda. But I find that Elvira Gonzalez de Manzanedo is alive in 1.182, when Pedro and Mafalda are alrady married.


In which article did Salazar y Acha suggest this?

This strays a little from the topic, but since you mentioned the
Manzanedo connection, I just got hold of a Canal Sanchez Pagin article
on Count Gomez Gonzalez, and he suggests that this count was
grandfather of Gomez Gonzalez de Manzanedo and of Rui Gonzalez de
Cevallos, but does not spell out the evidence for the latter at all.
Have you seen anything that might support this speculation?

taf

Gjest

Re:_Parentage_of_Maud_de_Vitr=E9, _wife_of_Henry_de_Pomero..

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 des 2006 21:58:01

In a message dated 12/4/06 11:13:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< De Banco. Easter. 19 Richard 2. [1396], m. 52.
Somerset. William Boneville sued Matilda Meriet for the manors of
Dondone, Brodemersshton and two parts of the manor of Meriet. >>

This lawsuit shows that Margaret (d'Aumale) Bonville was attempting to gain
lands held then or previously by Sir John Meriet, her second-cousin. The exact
nature of this relationship, as you outlined, is that Margaret's paternal
grandmother was Isabel de Meriet, the great-aunt of Sir John Meriet (living 50 E
3)

However in a previous post you have stated that Margaret was heiress to Sir
John Meriet as by IPM 9 Henry IV of her "maternal cousin Sir John Meriet" as
you stated (12/1/06 7:22:16 AM). Thus also making her mother Agnes, into a
Meriet.

Do you still hold the position that both her mother and grandmother were
Meriet's? Or was that a mistatement ?

Thanks
Will Johnson

norenxaq

Re: colonial America Usenet group?

Legg inn av norenxaq » 06 des 2006 01:41:54

gro wrote:

Does anyone know if there is a Usenet or other group similar to this
one that focuses on the genealogy of colonial America?


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



there is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy/


however, it is rather quiet

norenxaq

Re: colonial America Usenet group?

Legg inn av norenxaq » 06 des 2006 01:42:43

gro wrote:

Does anyone know if there is a Usenet or other group similar to this
one that focuses on the genealogy of colonial America?


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



there is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/early_modern_genealogy/


however, it is rather quiet

Douglas Richardson

Re: Re:_Parentage_of_Maud_de_Vitr=E9, _wife_of_Henry_de_Pome

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 des 2006 07:08:35

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

However in a previous post you have stated that Margaret was heiress to Sir
John Meriet as by IPM 9 Henry IV of her "maternal cousin Sir John Meriet" as
you stated (12/1/06 7:22:16 AM). Thus also making her mother Agnes, into a
Meriet.

Thanks
Will Johnson

The abstract of the lawsuit I posted proves that Margaret (Daumarle)
Bonville's paternal grandmother, Isabel Daumarle, was the sister of
George de Meriet. The maiden name of Margaret's mother, Agnes
Daumarle, is unknown.

DR

John Brandon

Re: Mr. Giffard's status as "stranger" in Massachusetts Bay

Legg inn av John Brandon » 06 des 2006 15:44:14

At first I thought the following did not make much sense ...

"The law sath yt al actions of debts acot. slander & actions of the
caise &c. shal be tryed wthin the Jurisdiction of that court wherin the
plaintive or defendant dweleth. but neither plant. nor defendant lives
in this country as we conceve. ye plant. being determined by General
Courte to be a stranger."

It seemed obvious to me that Henry Webb _did_ live in New England, but
I guess he was claiming not to live there (which would be an acceptable
interpretation if he still had property in England, as he must have).
Hence this was a legal ruse to prevent the case being tried in New
England (was this the case in which Giffard sued Webb for defaming him
to his principals?).

Douglas Richardson

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Iseult (_____) (de Bodrugan)

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 06 des 2006 20:47:44

Dear Newsgroup ~

In Part I of this post, it was shown that a 1353 lawsuit alleged that
Sir William Daumarle [great-grandfather of Sir William Bonville, Lord
Bonville], descended from a certain Iseult, wife of Henry de Pomeroy
and Roger de Bodrugan. Evidence was presented which showed that the
Iseult in question married Henry de Pomeroy in or before 1276/7, and
that she survived him as his widow in 1281. Following Pomeroy's death,
she remarried before 1303 Sir Walter de Aylesbury. Iseult died in
1311. But when did she marry Sir Roger de Bodrugan?

Three charters involving Sir Roger de Bodrugan are presented below
which are labelled A, B, and C, as well as a fourth undated charter of
Henry de Pomeroy labelled D. Charters A, B, and C indicate that Sir
Roger de Bodrugan was living in the period, 1256/9 through 1272, and
that he was the son and heir of Sir Philip de Bodrugan, Knt.

Strangely enough, two standard Bodrugan pedigrees in print entirely
ignore the existence of Sir Roger de Bodrugan. One of these pedigrees
can be found in the book, Deanery of Trigg Minor, by Sir John Maclean,
1 (1976): 554-555. Maclean asserts that Sir Philip de Bodrugan, living
1253, was succeeded by a son and heir, Henry de Bodrugan, living 1283.
This Henry de Bodrugan is stated to have been succeeded in turn by
another Henry de Bodrugan, died 1309, who Complete Peerage states was
posthumously summoned to Parliament 26 October 1309, by writ directed
Henrico de Bodrigan [Reference: Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 199 (sub
Bodrigan)]. Complete Peerage follows Maclean's arrangement of the
Bodrugan family. In point of fact, Sir Philip de Bodrugan, living
1268-9, styled lord of Pendrym [see Launceston Priory charters], was
succeeded by his son and heir, Sir Roger de Bodrugan, living 1272, who
in turn was succeeded by his son and heir, Sir Henry de Bodrugan, who
occurs 1283-1309. Thus, Complete Peerage is incorrect in stating that
the Sir Henry de Bodrugan, who died in 1309, was the "son and heir of
Henry de Bodrugan, living 1283." Sir Henry de Bodrugan, died 1309, was
actually the son and heir of Sir Roger de Bodrugan, living 1272, dead
before 1276/7, and his wife, Iseult, as correctly stated in the 1353
lawsuit which commenced this post.

Elsewhere, in the newsgroup archives, I note that back in 2001 Pat
Patterson gave the following information regarding Sir Roger de
Bodrugan's wife, Iseult, who she identified as Isolde de Pyn, daughter
of Simon de Pyn. Pat cited as her source, Whetter, Bodrugans, which
source I haven't yet seen.

"Isolde de Pyn ...dau of Simon de Pyn. She was also the great-niece of
Stephen Heym, steward of the earl of Cornwall in the 1260s and a
prominent ecclesiastic" (Whetter, Bodrugans.). She died in 1311." END
OF QUOTE.

In summary, it appears that Sir William Daumarle's great-grandmother,
Iseult (possibly de Pyn), married (1st) Sir Roger de Bodrugan, living
1272; (2nd) before 1276/7 Sir Henry de Pomeroy, born c. 1236, died
1281; and (3rd) before 1303 Sir Walter de Aylesbury. By Iseult's first
marriage, she had two sons, Sir Henry and Peter de Bodrugan [see
Charter E below for evidence of Peter]. By Iseult's second marriage,
she had one daughter, Joan de Pomeroy, mother of William Daumarle.

Sir John Maclean, Trigg Minor (pg. 549) states that Sir Henry de
Bodrugan [son of Sir Roger and Iseult above] had a sister, Joan, who
married Henry de Champernoun, died 1329, to whom he gave the manor of
Tywardreth, Cornwall. If correct, perhaps Joan, wife of Henry de
Champernoun, is the same lady as Sir Henry de Bodrugan's half-sister,
Joan Pomeroy, who married a Daumarle. Whatever the case, it would seem
that Joan, wife of Henry de Champernoun, was much younger than her
alleged brother, Sir Henry de Bodrugan. William Champernoun, son and
heir of Henry and Joan Champernoun, was born about 1313, he being aged
aged 16 at the time of his father's death in 1329. Sir Henry de
Bodrugan, on the other hand, was born say 1262, as he first occurs in
records in 1283. This matter deserves further study.

Lastly, the evidence indicates that Iseult [possibly de Pyn], widow of
Sir Roger de Bodrugan, was the 2nd wife of Henry de Pomeroy (died
1281). Henry de Pomeroy appears to have married (1st) Isabel de Bath,
who was the mother of his son and heir, another Henry de Pomeroy, born
in 1265. Presumably Isabel de Bath was nearly related to the John de
Bath, of Suffolk, for whom Henry de Pomeroy mainperned in 1268.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +
A. Charter of Roger le Vel toi Roger de Bodrugan dated 1256-1259.

Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Cornwall Record Office: Edgcumbe of Cotehele and Mount Edgcumbe.

Reference: ME/640

Creation dates: 1256-59

Scope and Content

Release and quitclaim; 4 marks of silver

1 Roger le Vel

2 Roger de Bodrugan, son of Sir Philip Bodrugan

Annuity of 4 shillings due from Gregory de Trewlegic. If this is not
paid at statutory terms 2 might take distraint on land of Trewledic
(?Trelissick in St. Ewe) until arrears were made up and his own pains
and damages. Grantor held to warranty. Witnesses: Sir Alan Bloyon,
Knight, Sir Stephen Heym, steward of Cornwall; Roger de Pridias; Odo
Pikan; John de Lanbrun.

N.d. Stephen Heyn appears as steward or sheriff in 1256 and 1259. N.
Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwall, 164 note.
+ + + + + + + + + +

B. Undated charter of Roger de Bodrugan, Knt., to Launceston Priory;
note this charter is dated 1268-1269 by the modern editor:

"Grant and confirmation of Roger de Bodrugan, knight, son and heir of
Philip de Bodrugan, to the prior and canons of the quitclaim which his
father Philip had made to them of the mill [in the manor of Bucklawren]
with the weir and water to which Philip's charter bore witness.
Sealing clause. Witnesses: John de Bello Prato [Beaupré], then
steward of Cornwall; the lords Reginald de Boterell, Guy de Nonnant,
Hugh de Treverbyn, Ralph de Bovilla. Not dated. [1268-9, when John de
Beaupré was steward of Cornwall.]" {Reference: P.L. Hull, ed., The
Cartulary of Launceston Priory (Devon & Cornwall Record Society, n.s.
30) (1987): 172].
+ + + + + + + + + +

C. Charter of Peter de Ralee to Roger de Bodrugan dated 12 May 1272.

Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Cornwall Record Office: Edgcumbe of Cotehele and Mount Edgcumbe.

Reference: ME/534

Creation dates: 12 May 1272

Scope and Content

Quitclaim in perpertuity

1 Peter de Ralee, son of Walter de Ralee

2 Roger de Bodrugan

All 1's claim in homage and service of 27d. worth of rent which Philip
de Bodrugan, 2's father, made to 1, for land of Bodelwyth and Res
temens which Philip held of 1 in his (Philip's) manor of Tregrehan.
Witnesses: Sirs Mauger de St. Albyn, Jn. Wyger, Henry. de Tracy,
knights, Ralph de Bray, Rich. de Hywyhs, Andrew de Treverbyn, Jn. Lowys
etc. Given at London
+ + + + + + + + + +

D. Undated charter of Henry de Pomeroy (died 1281) to Reginald de
Bodrugan.

Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Cornwall Record Office: Edgcumbe of Cotehele and Mount Edgcumbe

Reference: ME/531
Creation dates: n.d

Scope and Content

Grant

1 Hen. de la Pomeray

Son of Hen. de la Pomeray and Marier de Vernun

2 Reg. de Bodrigan

Tredrim which I held of lord Robt. de la Mare

Annual rent: pr. of white gloves

Consideration: 100 silver marks

Witnesses: Ste. Heym, Thos. Drand, Rog. de Bodrigan, Walter de Vernun,
Odo de Trevayls, etc.
+ + + + + + + + +

E. Charter from Henry de Bodrugan to his brother, Peter de Bodrugan,
dated 1307.

Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)
Cornwall Record Office: Edgcumbe of Cotehele and Mount Edgcumbe

Reference: ME/644
Creation dates: 7 February 1307

Scope and Content

Grant in tail

1 Henry de Bodrigan, Kt.

2 Peter de Bodrigan his brother

Messuage and carrucate of land in Tredowargh, viz. all mess. and land
which 1 held there. To 2 and heirs. To hold of chief lands of the fee.
Clause of warranty. If 2 had no issue, to revert to 1 and heirs.

Witnesses: Sirs Reginald de Boevile, Walter de Cornubia [Cornwall];
Thomas de Pridias, Kts; Henry de Campo Arnulphy [Champernoun]; John de
Roskemmer; John de Trenanyon; Benedict de Roscron; Herbert de Schewyk.

Seal, black Bodrigan arms, three bendlets Bodrigan

pj.evans

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouch

Legg inn av pj.evans » 06 des 2006 23:01:59

Millerfairfi...@aol.com wrote:
In an interesting post dated 06/12/2006 John Ravilious gave a descent from
Sir Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe
Unfortunately the vertical lines showing the descents were not aligned, so
that the descents are unclear.
Could you please post again, John- perhaps showing the descents horizontally?
mm

I find that using a fixed font works quite well. You can also copy the
chart and paste it into Notepad for a quick temporary fix. (The problem
I have is text running into the advertising in the sidebar!)

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouch

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 des 2006 23:49:23

In message of 6 Dec, "pj.evans" <pj.evans.gen@usa.net> wrote:

I find that using a fixed font works quite well. You can also copy the
chart and paste it into Notepad for a quick temporary fix. (The
problem I have is text running into the advertising in the sidebar!)

If you got your posts from Rootsweb or connected to a proper newsserver,
you would not have any of these problems. No adverts and once you have
set your font to fixed it stays there.

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

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouch

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 des 2006 23:56:43

In an interesting post dated 06/12/2006 John Ravilious gave a descent from
Sir Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe
Unfortunately the vertical lines showing the descents were not aligned, so
that the descents are unclear.
Could you please post again, John- perhaps showing the descents horizontally?
mm

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouch

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2006 01:15:55

In a message dated 12/6/06 1:57:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Millerfairfield@aol.com writes:

<< Unfortunately the vertical lines showing the descents were not aligned,
so
that the descents are unclear.
Could you please post again, John- perhaps showing the descents
horizontally?
mm >>

Roger le Zouche by his wife Felicia had a daughter Joan who married Marmaduke
Constable and had a son Robert Constable.

Roger le Zouche by his second wife Maud de Furnival, widow of John, 2nd Lord
Marmion had three children: William le Zouche of Lubesthorpe; Juliana le
Zouche who married John de St Andrew; and Margaret le Zouche who married William
Breedon.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2006 01:18:44

In a message dated 12/6/06 2:37:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
clive.west3@ukonline.co.uk writes:

<< Amongst the Hastings mss there is an indenture dated 30th November 1348,
to which the parties were William la Zouche on the one part and Roger la Zouche
of Lobbesthorpe and his wife Felicia on the other part. If Matilda was his
wife in 1353, then this document confirms that Felicia was Roger's first wife
and also suggests that William's mother must have been Felicia and not Matilda.


Argh!! No this cannot be. If Felicia were STILL his wife on 30 Nov 1348 then
Maud cannot be the mother of any of the children who all must be born by 1344
when Maud herself must be at least 48 if not older.

Maud's first daughter Avice de Marmion was b 1309 per genealogics

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2006 01:23:06

In a message dated 12/6/06 2:37:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
clive.west3@ukonline.co.uk writes:

<< Amongst the Hastings mss there is an indenture dated 30th November 1348,
to which the parties were William la Zouche on the one part and Roger la Zouche
of Lobbesthorpe and his wife Felicia on the other part. If Matilda was his
wife in 1353, then this document confirms that Felicia was Roger's first wife
and also suggests that William's mother must have been Felicia and not Matilda.

When did William become Archbishop of York?

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 des 2006 02:50:38

From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
Date: 2006/12/06 Wed AM 08:53:59 EST
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe

Wednesday, 6 December, 2006


Dear Pat, Doug, Gordon, Hal, et al.,

An interesting inquisition of 1353 (extents taken, 1354 and
1355) concerning the well known Sir Roger la Zouche (the younger)
of Lubbesthorpe, Leics. was lately noted (see below)[1], which
indicates interestingly that he was alive at least at that date,
and holding certain lands in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire as well as
his manor of Lubbesthorpe at that date. Perhaps most importantly,
he was holding these lands "for the life of Matilda, his wife".

The bulk of the Yorkshire lands in question - the manor of
Wath [Halikeld Wapentake, N.R., Yorks.], Langton-on-Swale [Gilling
Wapentake, N.R., Yorks.] and Hunmanby [Dickering Wapentake, E.R.,
Yorks.] are found to have been held by the Marmion family of
Tanfield, Yorks. and Winteringham, Lincs. 2 carucates in Wath
(Halikeld wapentake) were held by Avicia Marmion (nee de Tanfield)
of Brian fitz Alan, who held them of the Earl of Richmond, who
held them in chief, at the time of Kirkby's Inquest, 1284-5
[p. 182]. At the time of the Lay Subsidy of 1301, her grandson
Sir John Marmion (' Johannes Marmyon ') was recorded as holding
lands in Wath and Little Langton (Parva Langeton) [Kirkby's
Inquest, Lay Subsidy, p. 334 {Parva Langeton, Gilling wapentake};
p. 339 {Wath, Liberty of Richmond}]. These lands continued to be
held by the Marmion family and their heirs: following the death of
Robert, Lord Marmion (1360 or before), his sister and coheir Joan
(wife of Sir John de Bernake) inherited 1/2 of the manors of Wath,
Hunmanby and Langton-on-Swale.

It appears most likely that Maud/Matilda, wife (allegedly the
2nd wife) of Sir Roger la Zouche, was Maud de Furnival, widow of
John Marmion, Lord Marmion (d. 30 Apr 1335). The presentation of
the Zouche pedigree in the Nottinghamshire visitation (part of
the pedigree of St. Andrew) appears to in erroneous in one
particular regard. For the relevant generations, this pedigree
gives the following:


Matildis = Rogerus la Zouche = Foelicia uxor 2a
uxor 1a I miles, 1 E. 3. I 1 E. 3.
I I
I I___________________________
I I
_______I_____________________________________ I
I I I I
Juliana Margareta Willielmus la Johanna
soror et cohaeres soror et Zouche miles, uxor
Will'i la Zouche, mil. cohaeres uxor filius et Marmaduci
Johannes de S. Andrea Willielmi Bredon haeres Constable.
miles, 3 E.3, 14 E.3. 22 E.3 et
37 E. 3.


In addition to now knowing that Matilda was living in 1353, we
also know that her son Sir William la Zouche was likely born in or
before 1344: on 26 April 1364, William la Zouche of Lubesthorp,
knight, vested his manor of Lubesthorp in feoffees [3]. We further
know that Sir Robert le Constable, son of Joan la Zouche, was born
ca. 1353 or before, as he was aged 25 at his father's IPM in
1378 [4]. It is most likely that his mother Joan was born in 1337
or before: therefore, Joan's mother Felicia would have been the
first, not 2nd, wife of Sir Roger la Zouche.

The following brief chart gives the relationships as can now
be defined:

Sir Thomas de Furnival = (1) Joan le
Lord Furnival I Despenser
d. bef 18 Apr 1332 I
_______________I
I
2
Felicia = 2) Sir Roger = Maud = 1) John Marmion
I la Zouche I de Furnival I d. 30 Apr 1335
_____I d. aft I d. aft 24 I
I 24 Mar 1354 I Mar 1354 I______________
I ____________I_________ ____________I______
I I I I I I I
Joan William Juliana Margaret Robert Joan Avice
= Robert = John de = William Lord = John = John
le Constable St. Andrew Bredon Marmion de de
(Burdet?) Bernake Grey


The foregoing adds an interest line or two of ancestry to that
of the St. Andrews family, although there is no apparent benefit
to the Constable descendants of Sir Roger la Zouche.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] Chancery records, courtesy National Archives:

C 131/9/8

Chancery: Extents for Debts, Series I

Debtor: Roger la Zouche.
Creditor: John de Thoresby, Archbishop of York.
Amount: £1000.
Before whom: Chancery.
When taken: 28/06/1353
First term: 01/08/1353
Last term: 11/11/1353
Writ to: Sheriff of Lincs. [and Leics.]
Sent by: Chancery.
Endorsement: Response of Thomas de Fulnetby, sheriff of Lincs.
He has delivered to the attorney of the Archbishop of York all
the goods and chattels of Roger la Zouche and half his lands in
his bailiwick.


Inquisition and return: Date given for return to Chancery: 13/10/1353.
M.2: Extent and valuation made before Thomas de
Fulnetby, Sheriff of Lincs. at [Cherry] Willingham next to
Lincoln [Lawress Wapentake], 08/07/1355. Roger had on the day
of the recognisance at Cherry Willingham 7 cows, each worth
½m., 2 bullocks, each worth 5s.; 3 steers {stirk'} each worth
4s.; 6 calves, each worth 2s., 11 geese, each worth 2d.,
2 alder-trees worth 4s.; 16 acres of wheat, the crop worth 2s.
an acre; 12 acres of beans and peas, the crop worth 18d. an acre;
10 acres sown with barley, the crop worth 18d. an acre; the crop
of 12 acres of meadow worth 2s. an acre. One load of lead worth
16s. Rents of 4d. each from diverse tenants; 2 parts of a
messuage which is worth nothing after expenses. 101½ acres of
arable of which half is sown, worth 4d. an acre. Apples in the
garden worth 2s. a year. Court fees worth 12d. a year.
M.3: Writ about the same case to the Sheriff of Yorks., dated
Westminster, 24/03/1354. On the dorse the sheriff replies that
he has valued the lands and tenements of Roger la Zouche, knight,
at Wath and at Langton-on-Swale, and has given half of them to
John de Fenton, the attorney of the Archbishop of York.
M.4: The extent of the lands and tenements of Roger la Zouche,
knight, in Wath [Halikeld Wapentake, N.R., Yorks.] and
Langton-on-Swale [Gilling Wapentake, N.R., Yorks.] Roger holds
the manor of Wath for the life of Matilda, his wife. It contains
a capital messuage, garden, and croft of one acre which are in the
hands of a tenant at will who pays 4s. 4d. a year. Divers tenants
at will hold various messuages, crofts, and cottages, 20 bovates,
and 53 acres of land paying £6 9s. a year. Tenants at will hold
various separate meadows and pastures for which they pay 21s. 8d.
In Little Langton-on-Swale Roger holds for the lifetime of his
wife tenements worth 53s. 4d. M.5: Writ to the sheriff of Yorks,
dated Westminster, 22/11/1353, about the same debt.
M.6: Extent made before Peter de Nuttley, Sheriff of Yorks., a
Scarcroft [Skyrack Wapentake, W.R., Yorks.] 16/01/1354. Roger has
at Scarcroft 10 qrs of wheat worth 3s. a qr.; 16 qrs of oats
worth 18d. a qr; hay worth 1m.; he holds the goods and chattels
of the manor until William, the son and heir of Robert de Ryther,
knight, comes of age. The capital messuage is worth nothing
beyond expenses; 100 acres of arable worth 50s. at 6d. a year;
15 acres of meadow worth 22s. 6d. at 18d. an acre; 20 acres of
separate pasture worth ½m. at 4d. an acre; assize rents worth
50s. a year. At Hundmanby Roger holds by right of his wife
two-parts of a messuage worth 18d. a year, two-parts of a windmill
18s. 4d.; five tofts worth 9s. 10d. a year; annual rents worth
2s. 6d., one toft worth 18d. a year; 6½ bovates of land worth
41s.; 5 bovates lying uncultivated of which the herbage is worth
2s.10d., worth in all 24s. Rents worth 14s. The chattels, and
half the lands worth 67s. 6d., were delivered to John de Fenton,
and John de Feriby, the attorneys of the Archbishop.
M.7: Writ dated Westminster 22/11/1353 about the same debt.
M.8: Extent made before the bailiffs of the honour of Peverell
in Leics., at Lubbesthorpe [Guthlaxton Hundred, Leics.] 19/12/1353.
Roger la Zouche has at Lubbesthorpe a bull worth 10s., 8 cows each
worth 10s.; 2 oxen each worth 2s. 6d., five bullocks each worth
2s. 6d.; one boar worth 5s.; 5 sows each worth 4s.; 7 pigs each
worth 3s. 4d.; 5 hoggetts, each worth 20d.; 11 piglets each worth
14d.; 80 sheep each worth 20d. In the barn 59 cart-loads of iron,
each worth 3s. 4d. In the barn a stack of corn of about 20 qrs,
each worth, with the straw, 3s. 4d. Also in the barn 55 qrs of
beans and peas worth 2s. a qr. 12 qrs of wheat on 48 acres of land,
of which the crop is worth 4s. 5d. Total value of goods and
chattels: £44 15s. 8d. At Lubbesthorpe Roger has a capital
messuage with a garden worth 12d. a year; a windmill worth 18s.;
267 acres of arable worth 5d. an acre a year. Total value: 111s.
3d.; 79 acres of mowable meadow worth £9 19s. 4½d. at 2s. 6d. an
acre; 18 acres of pasture worth 6s. at 4d. an acre. Rents of
freemen worth £9 15s. 2d. a year; rents of cottagers worth
17s. 6d. Total value of lands and tenements: £26 9s. 3½d.
M.9: Detailed division of the property in M.8 giving names of the
fields and of the tenants.


[2] Pedigree of St. Andrew, Visitation of Nottinghamshire,
HSP 5:19-20.


[3] Deed dated Monday after St. Gregory, 38 Ed. III. Rutland MSS.,
Historical Manuscripts Comm. IV:11 [LUBBESTHORPE CHARTERS].


[4] Scrope, De controversia in curia militari inter Ricardum Le
Scrope et Robertum Grosvenor milites (London: Printed by S.
Bentley, 1832), p. 339, cites Esch. 1 Ric. II no. 15.


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

Peter Stewart

Re: Adalbero I of Metz's "fratres ex matre"

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 des 2006 08:52:25

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4aren21e0ii2d67pnlmkokv619bvjnkab9@4ax.com...
The main point of this posting is the following passage from the life
of abbot John of Gorze, which I have mentioned briefly before. The
passage has a reference to several unnamed brothers through the mother
("fratres ex matre") of Adalbero I, bishop of Metz (son of Wigeric and
Cunégonde).

"Causa vero erat quod in his difficilis videbatur, quod fratres ei
plures ex matre erant, et eis usque ad id temporis parum consulere
potuerat, pluribus res episcopi retinentibus, quos privare nec
consilium erat - tanto robore ex superioribus episcoporum rebus
fractis nitebantur - et ideo hac vel qualibet occasione ipsis germanis
quo quid largiretur expectabat." (Translation: Indeed, the reason
that it seemed difficult was that there were several "fratres" of his
[i.e., of bishop Adalbero] "ex matre", and he had been able to look
after them very little up to this time, being detained by many
episcopal affairs, and there was no plan to deprive them - so much did
the weak depend for strength on the greater wealth of the bishops -
and thus in this way or anyhow by opportunity he hoped for that which
he might bestow on the said "germani".) [from "Vita Iohannis
Gorziensis", chapter 110, MGH SS 4: 368]. (This is not easy material
to translate, so comments on my translation are welcome.)

The only discussion I have seen of this passage is in the 1998 article
by René Klein, "Wer waren die Eltern des Grafen Sigfrid?", Association
Luxembourgeoise de Généalogie et d'Héraldique (Luxemburgische
Gesellschaft für Genealogie und Heraldik) 1998, 9-27. I do not accept
Klein's main thesis that Sigefroid of Luxemburg and his two siblings
Frédéric (duke of Upper Lorraine) and Giselbert were sons of an
otherwise unknown third marriage of Cunégonde with duke Giselbert of
Lorraine (supposedly married to Cunégonde before his known marriage to
Gerberge). However, I do wonder why this reference has been so widely
ignored. Klein states that Renn (p. 18, note 76, which I have not
seen) only mentions this in a footnote, and I do not recall the matter
being discussed in the remaining literature which I have seen.

One thing about the context of the passage can be added which Klein
failed to mention. Chapter 110 begins with the death of the bishop's
count palatine Hamadeus, and the question of the disposal of some land
which had been held by Hamadeus. Since Hamadeus was still alive in
945 (apparently having died soon after this), these events occurred
after the death of Adalbero's brother Gozlin (dead by 943), so that
the "fratres ex matre" of this passage would not include Gozlin
(called a "germanus" of Adalbero in an earlier chapter).

For a while, I was toying with the theory that all of Cunégonde's
children other than than Adalbero and Liutgarde (both definitely
children of Wigeric), including Gozlin, were by her second husband
Ricuin of Verdun. There are a number of things that were attractive
about this theory (especially if it is combined with the theory that
has occasionally been advanced that Ricuin was closely related to
Giselbert of Lorraine). However, the main problem with this theory is
that it would make the chronology of Gozlin improbably tight.
(Wigeric lived at least until 916, and Gozlin was dead by 943 with at
least four children.)

Thus, if the words "fratres ex matre" can be interpreted in the
obvious way, Adalbero had several ("plures") brothers by the same
mother, but not by the same father, suggesting that Frédéric,
Giselbert, and Sigefroid were sons of Cunégonde either by Ricuin or by
an otherwise unknown third marriage. The main reason for doubting
that Ricuin was the father is that if Gozlin was Wigeric's son (as
seems likely), the fact that Gozlin's descendants were counts of
Verdun suggests that Ricuin did not leave descendants to inherit
Verdun. Other factors which have been mentioned are the apparent ill
will between Adalbero and Ricuin, and the desirability of later
birthdates for Frédéric and Sigefroid, neither of whom appears to have
married before the 950's. Against these indications, there is the
lack of any direct evidence for a third husband of Cunégonde.

I would be interested in knowing about any discussion of this passage
about Adalbero's "fratres ex matre" which has appeared in the
literature. In particular, does Hlawitschka's article arguing against
Klein's theory (which I have not yet seen) discuss this point in any
detail?

Yes, it does. I will be happy to send a copy if you can't obtain this.

However, I think you are reading too much into the text "fratres ei plures
ex matre erant". This seems to me a simple way to encompass a group of
brothers with more than one father, so that the author (who would have known
the paternity of all Kunigunde's sons - this was written around the time
that Frederic died in 978, and while Sigfrid was still living) might have
meant, for instance, several brothers comprising three full-blood and one
half-blood. Younger full brothers would be perhaps more likely to need and
expect, and after a delay to receive, patronage from Bishop Adalbero than
uterine half-brothers with another father's (or fathers') interests and
relatives to depend on. I can't see that the phrase necessarily indicates
"by the same mother, but not by the same father" in this context.

I don't think it is worth much as evidence for anything except that
Kunigunde apparently had at least one son, who may have left no other trace
than this, by a husband other than Wigeric.

Peter Stewart

Clive West

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Clive West » 07 des 2006 18:26:49

The William la Zouche who was Archbishop of York was not the same William
who was the son of Roger la Zouche the younger of Lubbesthorpe. The
archbishop died in 1352 , but William the son of Roger was still alive in
1359, when according to the Patent Rolls (24th Oct) he was pardoned for
his outlawry. The archbishop appears to have been Roger's cousin.

Turning to Matilda de Furnival, is there any contemporary documentary
evidence that she was the mother of William, Juliana and Margaret or this is
based only on the Notts visitation? If the latter is the case, then the
heralds' mistaken belief that Matilda was Roger's first wife might have led
them to make the wrong assumption that these children were hers rather than
Felicia's.

Clive West

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Furnival,wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe


In a message dated 12/6/06 2:37:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
clive.west3@ukonline.co.uk writes:

Amongst the Hastings mss there is an indenture dated 30th November
1348,
to which the parties were William la Zouche on the one part and Roger la
Zouche
of Lobbesthorpe and his wife Felicia on the other part. If Matilda was
his
wife in 1353, then this document confirms that Felicia was Roger's first
wife
and also suggests that William's mother must have been Felicia and not
Matilda.


When did William become Archbishop of York?


John P. Ravilious

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 07 des 2006 18:46:31

Dear Clive,

I concur. The placement of William la Zouche, Archbishop of York
is not resolved to the best of my knowledge, although he was likely a
younger son of the Zouche of Harringworth family. The Harringworth and
Lubbesthorpe families are closely associated over several generations,
down to and including the 14th century murder which resulted in Sir
Roger's temporary absence from England........

I have seen to contemporary evidence of the maternity of any of
the children of Sir Roger la Zouche. That he was married 1st to
Felicia is evident, and the chronology as now known supports the
contention that she was the mother of Joan (wife of Marmaduke le
Constable), and Sir William. Where this leaves the other daughters is
uncertain.

I have a current theory that Felicia was either the daughter, or
the widow, of Richard de Grey of Sandiacre, Derbys. (fl. 1288-1310).
If she was a daughter of Richard de Grey, and the mother of Juliana,
(wife of Sir John de St. Andrew), it would appear that Sir John de St.
Andrew and Juliana la Zouche were related in the 3rd and 3rd degree of
consanguinity. If Felicia was in fact the widow of Richard de Grey, no
such relationship would exist (or would be known, anyway). Further
documentation on this issue is wanting.

Cheers,

John



Clive West wrote:
The William la Zouche who was Archbishop of York was not the same William
who was the son of Roger la Zouche the younger of Lubbesthorpe. The
archbishop died in 1352 , but William the son of Roger was still alive in
1359, when according to the Patent Rolls (24th Oct) he was pardoned for
his outlawry. The archbishop appears to have been Roger's cousin.

Turning to Matilda de Furnival, is there any contemporary documentary
evidence that she was the mother of William, Juliana and Margaret or this is
based only on the Notts visitation? If the latter is the case, then the
heralds' mistaken belief that Matilda was Roger's first wife might have led
them to make the wrong assumption that these children were hers rather than
Felicia's.

Clive West

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Furnival,wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe


In a message dated 12/6/06 2:37:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
clive.west3@ukonline.co.uk writes:

Amongst the Hastings mss there is an indenture dated 30th November
1348,
to which the parties were William la Zouche on the one part and Roger la
Zouche
of Lobbesthorpe and his wife Felicia on the other part. If Matilda was
his
wife in 1353, then this document confirms that Felicia was Roger's first
wife
and also suggests that William's mother must have been Felicia and not
Matilda.


When did William become Archbishop of York?


Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Death date of Gervaise de Din

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 00:02:02

In a message dated 12/7/06 11:16:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mwelch8442@yahoo.com writes:

<< 4. Sir William Bonville born 1340 died 1408 married >>

Died 14 Feb 1407/1408
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... .htm#link1

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Death date of Gervaise de Din

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 00:03:01

In a message dated 12/7/06 11:16:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mwelch8442@yahoo.com writes:

<< 3. Elizabeth Fitz Roger Born 25 Aug 1370 died 15 Apr 1414 >>

What's the source for this exact birthdate ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Death date of Gervaise de Din

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 00:04:02

In a message dated 12/7/06 11:16:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mwelch8442@yahoo.com writes:

<< 1. Sir William Bonville, Lord Bonville born 20 Aug 1393 died 18 Feb
1460/1
m. 1st Margaret Grey 2ndly Elizabeth Courtenay. >>

And had an affair with Isabella Kirkeby producing an illegitimate son John.
This from a post by John Higgins referring to visitation pedigrees (11/11/06
Gen-Med)

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 00:05:02

In a message dated 12/7/06 9:51:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:

<< it would appear that Sir John de St.
Andrew and Juliana la Zouche were related in the 3rd and 3rd degree of
consanguinity. >>

There is another Juliana le Zouche we've recently discussed, to wit Juliana
le Zouche the wife of Robert Pembrugge. The two Juliana's are of-an-age to be
aunt and niece. I wonder if someone knows if they infact held this relation ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 00:06:02

In a message dated 12/7/06 9:27:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
clivewest@ukonline.co.uk writes:

<< , but William the son of Roger was still alive in
1359, when according to the Patent Rolls (24th Oct) he was pardoned for
his outlawry. The archbishop appears to have been Roger's cousin. >>

Not only was he living in 1359, but he was living in 1364 when he invests his
manor of Lubesthorpe in feoffes.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 00:07:02

In a message dated 12/7/06 2:34:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
clivewest@ukonline.co.uk writes:

<<
The William la Zouche who was Archbishop of York was not the same William
who was the son of Roger la Zouche the younger of Lubbesthorpe. The
archbishop died in 1352 , but William the son of Roger was still alive in
1359, when according to the Patent Rolls (24th Oct) he received pardon of
his outlawry. The archbishop appears to have been Roger's cousin. >>

Yes, my point being that the "William" whose relationship to Roger is not
specified in the 1348 document, might well, not be his son William, but his
brother or cousin (or whatever he was) William the Archbishop who was still living
in 1348.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: A Question of maternity: Was Alan Durward`s mother a dau

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 02:26:02

In a message dated 12/7/06 1:42:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< I know that Thomas
de Lundin (Durward) was apparently married to a daughter of Earl Malcolm of
Athol, said to be by his 2nd wife, Hextilda of Tynedale, widow of Richard
Comyn
, jure uxoris Lord of Tynedale and Bedrule >>

I don't believe this ancestry. SP states that in a charter by Earl Henry
"dated perhaps 1202" he refers to his "nephew" Colin de Lundin. If Colin did not
inherit, then Alan must be the elder brother and thus born by 1201 and
perhaps as early as 1191.

His own mother the presumed daughter of Malcolm would then be hard-pressed to
fit into a marriage that we know could not have taken place before 1183.

Rather, the chronology is loosened, by making her a daughter by Malcolm's
unnamed first wife, possibly a Strathern and so a uterine sibling to Henry, 3rd
Earl of Atholl from 1198

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: A Question of maternity: Was Alan Durward`s mother a dau

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 03:06:03

Dear Will,
My Point exactly ! It seems strange though if Eva Comyn was
in fact Alan and Colin (who had to have been born in 1202 or likelier 1195 or
earlier to be 7 in that year)`s sister, it is odd that John the Red Comyn # 1
never called Alan or Colin his brother.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouch

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 04:49:47

Will,
Indeed, there was no posting from me. A new system. Apologies.
I wished to thank John for posting this new information. The question I posed concerned Hunmandby. Hundmandby Manor was given to Gilbert Gant and descended to the Tateshale family. In the 1304 IPM of Robert Tateshal: the following lands were held of him--"Robert le Conestable, two carucates in Flotemanby (60s)) Manor of Grendal held by Walter de Grendal by service of a knight's fee (£30) Eight carucates in Hundemanby, held by John Marmion by service of a knight's fee (of which John Marmion himself holds three carucates (£9); Lora de Gaunt holds four carucates from John Marmion (£10); " How had Marmion inherited Hunmandby?
Thanks very much,
Pat

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Death date of Gervaise de Din

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 des 2006 07:13:01

William you can find the information in the NGSQ 59 1971 pages 254-262
by Walter Lee Shepard.which cites her age and birth date and year.

Hope this helps
Mike
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/7/06 11:16:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mwelch8442@yahoo.com writes:

3. Elizabeth Fitz Roger Born 25 Aug 1370 died 15 Apr 1414

What's the source for this exact birthdate ?
Thanks
Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 08 des 2006 13:41:18

Friday, 8 December, 2006


Dear Pat,

The de Gant connection with Hunmanby is documented in part
by the IPM of Gilbert de Gaunt (7 Feb 1273/4), in which the
jurors state in part,

' that Gilbert de Gaunt, who is dead, held of the King
in chief and barony, the town (villatam) of Hundemanby,
but that he granted the same town (villam) with its
apppurtenances without exception, to Gilbert, his son
and heir, in marriage with Lora de Balliol (de Balyolo),
and gave her dower of it, and placed them a long time
before his decease in full seisin. ' [1]

There is apparently an intervening tenure by the Marmions,
such that in 1304 (and likely before) Lora de Baliol, widow
of the younger Gilbert de Gaunt, was holding her dower of
John, Lord Marmion (d. bef 7 May 1322).

I think that Isabel, wife of the above John Marmion, was
likely of the Tateshal family - possibly an unknown daughter
of Robert de Tateshal (d. 22 Jul 1273) and his wife Nicole.
Perhaps the Victoria County History for Yorkshire (East
Riding) holds the answer as to how Maud (de Furnival) (Marmion)
la Zouche came to hold her dower in Hunmanby, and of whom?

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] W. Brown, Yorkshire Inquisitions [Yorks. Arch. Soc.
Record Series, vol. XII (1892)], I:137.



pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
Will,
Indeed, there was no posting from me. A new system. Apologies.
I wished to thank John for posting this new information. The question I posed concerned Hunmandby. Hundmandby Manor was given to Gilbert Gant and descended to the Tateshale family. In the 1304 IPM of Robert Tateshal: the following lands were held of him--"Robert le Conestable, two carucates in Flotemanby (60s)) Manor of Grendal held by Walter de Grendal by service of a knight's fee (£30) Eight carucates in Hundemanby, held by John Marmion by service of a knight's fee (of which John Marmion himself holds three carucates (£9); Lora de Gaunt holds four carucates from John Marmion (£10); " How had Marmion inherited Hunmandby?
Thanks very much,
Pat

Diana Trenchard

Re: Some criticism of the claimed Alston line to South Carol

Legg inn av Diana Trenchard » 09 des 2006 00:25:34

Following is a minor correction to the article by Eugene a. Stratton,
as reported by John Brandon, which might have a small influence on the
interpretation:

He said: "... an apprenticeship record shows that a John Alston, who
became an
apprentice in South Carolina in 1682, was the son of William Alston,
gentleman, of Hammersmith, Middlesex (a suburb of London)."
and
" Though we have no evidence
that the William of Bedfordshire resided at any time in the vicinity of
London, he was a barrister and thus it was quite possible that at some
point in his career he might have lived in a London suburb."

In the 17th century Hammersmith was a village separated by quite a few
miles of fields (and highwaymen, robbers etc) from the western
outskirts of London. It remained so for another two centuries. It was
therefore very unlikely that a barrister working in London would reside
in Hammersmith. The village was on the road from London to the Royal
Palaces at Kew, Richmond and Windsor, and to Bristol, South Wales and
Plymouth/Falmouth etc in the West Country. It was also on the River
Thames route to the same Palaces.

Diana

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2006 00:55:03

In a message dated 12/8/06 4:38:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
clivewest@ukonline.co.uk writes:

<< Dated Lobesthorp Sunday 30 Nov., 22 Edward."
(Source Hastings mss) >>

Can you specify what source you used to extract this from? I would like to
note that as well.
Odd that it only calls the underlying source "Hastings mss". Surely there
are quite a lot of Hastings mss ?
Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Will Johnson

Mary Zashin

Re: Nevill(e) of Scotton, co. Lincs.

Legg inn av Mary Zashin » 09 des 2006 01:20:38

On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:45 PM, gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com wrote:

From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
Date: December 7, 2006 8:41:06 PM CST
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nevill(e) of Scotton, co. Lincs.

CP IX:478

' Sir Philip de Neville, presented to Scotton, 1239-40.

And:

1.1.1.1.1 Philip de Nevill
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 19 Aug 1274[2]

of Scotton, co. Lincs.

he succeeded his father in 1243 or before:
3 fees were held 'of the abbot of Peterborough in Scotton,
Manton and elsewhere, in 1243 by Philip de Nevill, ' who had
a grant of free warren. ' [Farrer, EYC II:463[3]]

he evidently d. before 19 August 1274, when his son Robert
rendered homage to Edward I during his coronation at Westminster
[Chronicon Petroburgense p. 21[2]]

Children: Robert (->1293)



Do you know if this Philip was also the father of Joan de Nevill,
wife of John de Hardreshull, and mother of William de Hardreshull.
See CP, VI, 389:

Juliane de Hache, da. and h. . .suo jure Baroness Heche, was m. 1stly
to William de Hardreshull, of Hartshill, co. Warwick, Saleby, co.
Lincoln. . .her father's ward. He was s. and h. of John de
Hardreshull by Joan, da. of Sir Philip Nevill of Scotton. William
was born at Scotton and aged 22 on Palm Sunday, 1291.

fn. h: Thomas Nevill stated that he had been in the service of Sir
Philip Nevill of Scotton when John [father of William] m. Joan, da.
of the said Philip and mother of William, and William had been aged 4
when Sir Philip Nevill died.

M. Zashin

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Iseult (_____) (de Bodrugan)

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2006 02:14:02

In a message dated 12/8/06 11:37:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Sir
Thomas Dynham and Joan and their co-parceners held a court for the
manor in 1519, (fn. 34) and Sir Thomas died in the same year. (fn. 35)
His widow Joan married Sir William FitzWilliam, and they held a court
of the manor in 1530. (fn. 36) >>


Although it is true that Joan married Thomas Dinham and later William
FitzWilliam, he was not her second husband as the above may imply to the unwary
reader.

Joan Ormonde's second husband was Sir Edward Greville, Knt (1513) of
Milcote-on-Avon, Warwicks.

Sir Edward made his will June 21 1528 and it was proved 1 Oct 1529
as Douglas pointed out, here on 6/22/06 and 6/23/06

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Iseult (_____) (de Bodrugan)

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2006 02:23:02

In a message dated 12/8/06 11:37:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Anne Meryng died without issue, and her
third descended to her two nephews, Thomas Babington and George Dynham
eldest son of Joan FitzWilliam. (fn. 39) >>

Correcting to eldest "surviving son" of Joan FitzWilliam.
As John Dinham was her eldest, named as "son and heir" in his father's will.
Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Nevill(e) of Scotton, co. Lincs.

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 09 des 2006 03:12:32

Dear Polly,

Good to hear from you!

The filiation you describe for this Joan de Nevill (wife of John
de Hardreshull, and mother of William de Hardreshull.) as daughter of
Sir Philip de Nevill of Scotton (d. bef 19 Aug 1274) is new to me, but
chronologically it appears sound.

In particular, besides there being no Philip in the family in
the right period besides the above mentioned Sir Philip, you noted two
important facts from CP VI:389:

1. ' William was born at Scotton and aged 22 on Palm Sunday,
1291.'

2. ' and William had been aged 4 when Sir Philip Nevill
died.'

It appears from the records cited that William de Hardreshull
was born on 15 April 1269 (22 years of age on Palm Sunday, 1291, which
date fell on 15 April of that year). He would have been aged four from
15 April 1273 to 14 April 1274. As I stated, we know Sir Philip de
Nevill had died before 29 Aug 1274, as on that date his son Robert
rendered homage for his lands in Scotton and elsewhere.

We can safely say then that Sir Philip died between 15 April
1273 and 14 April 1274; we can also state from the accumulated evidence
that Joan was his daughter, and William de Hardreshull was his
grandson.

Many thanks for bringing this issue up; yet another descent
from the Nevilles of Scotton.

Cheers,

John




Mary Zashin wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:45 PM, gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com wrote:

From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
Date: December 7, 2006 8:41:06 PM CST
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Nevill(e) of Scotton, co. Lincs.

CP IX:478

' Sir Philip de Neville, presented to Scotton, 1239-40.

And:


1.1.1.1.1 Philip de Nevill
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 19 Aug 1274[2]

of Scotton, co. Lincs.

he succeeded his father in 1243 or before:
3 fees were held 'of the abbot of Peterborough in Scotton,
Manton and elsewhere, in 1243 by Philip de Nevill, ' who had
a grant of free warren. ' [Farrer, EYC II:463[3]]

he evidently d. before 19 August 1274, when his son Robert
rendered homage to Edward I during his coronation at Westminster
[Chronicon Petroburgense p. 21[2]]

Children: Robert (->1293)



Do you know if this Philip was also the father of Joan de Nevill,
wife of John de Hardreshull, and mother of William de Hardreshull.
See CP, VI, 389:

Juliane de Hache, da. and h. . .suo jure Baroness Heche, was m. 1stly
to William de Hardreshull, of Hartshill, co. Warwick, Saleby, co.
Lincoln. . .her father's ward. He was s. and h. of John de
Hardreshull by Joan, da. of Sir Philip Nevill of Scotton. William
was born at Scotton and aged 22 on Palm Sunday, 1291.

fn. h: Thomas Nevill stated that he had been in the service of Sir
Philip Nevill of Scotton when John [father of William] m. Joan, da.
of the said Philip and mother of William, and William had been aged 4
when Sir Philip Nevill died.

M. Zashin

Clive West

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Clive West » 09 des 2006 14:50:30

Dear Will,

The Hastings mss are a large collection of manuscripts originally belonging
to the Hastings family (Earls of Huntington) of Donnington,
Ashby-de-la-Zouche etc. The collection is particularly strong in mediaeval
documents relating to Leicestershire families. If you live in the US, you
are in luck as you merely have to pop over to the Huntington Library in San
Marino, California, which bought the collection in 1927. Transcripts of some
of the mss can be found in various places. I found this one in G.F.
Farnham's "Leicestershire Mediaeval Village Notes".

Clive West


----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Furnival,wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe


In a message dated 12/8/06 4:38:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
clivewest@ukonline.co.uk writes:

Dated Lobesthorp Sunday 30 Nov., 22 Edward."
(Source Hastings mss)

Can you specify what source you used to extract this from? I would like
to
note that as well.
Odd that it only calls the underlying source "Hastings mss". Surely there
are quite a lot of Hastings mss ?
Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Sir Fulk CORBET, King's knight, d. 6 Ric II

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2006 20:03:02

I was interested to see that "Stirnet" (_www.stirnet.com_
(http://www.stirnet.com) ), in a part of the database indexed as 'Corbet01' , gives the
following line of descent from Sir Fulk Corbet, stating that it is derived from
Burke's Peerage for 1934, but without citing any relevant primary sources:-

Sir Fulk Corbet of Wattlesborough m. Elizabeth
Daughter Katherine Elizabeth, bpt 07.05.1375, d.c1403
m John de la Pole of Mawddwy, d. 03.11.1403
Her children are given as
1. Fulk de la Pole of Mawddwy (dsp), and
2. Elizabeth de la Pole of Mawddwy, m. Sir Hugh Burgh of Wattlesborough and
Dinas Mawddwy, by whom she had a son Sir John Burgh of Wattlesborough and
Dinas Mawddy
This Sir John is shown as marrying Jane Clopton, daughter of Sir William
Clopton of Radbroke, and as having by her four daughters:-
A) Isabella, m. John Lingeyn [usually spelt 'Lingen'-MM]
B) Elizabeth, m. William Newport
C) Ankeret, m. John Leighton of Streeton [Stretton- MM], later of
Wattlesborough (d.1493)
D) Eleonora, m. Thomas Mitton [usually spelt 'Mytton'- MM]

As a descendant of John Leighton, and also of Sir Fulk Corbet's elder
brother Roger, I thought to see whether the above descent could be verified from
primary sources. The sources I have found so far have been the Calendar of
Patent Rolls ('CPR'), the sources identified in the Victoria County History of
Shropshire sv Stirchley, VCH Worcestershire sv More Hall (for the Clopton-
Burgh marriage -CIPM 11 Edw IV 61 and the 1569 Visitation of Worcs), Shropshire
Archives More 1037, and the Calendar of IPMs

Of the people named in Stirnet we can identify the following from the above
sources:-
Sir Fulk Corbet, d, 6 Ric II, king's esquire to Edw III and Ric II, and
king's knight to the latter: CPR
His wife Elizabeth (not so far identified by me)
His daughter Elizabeth, aged 7 at her father's death in 6 Ric II, and her
husband John Mouthe (sc. John de la Pole of Mawddwy/ Dinas Mawddach,
descendant of Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Powys), married before 23.06.1390 (CPR)
Their son Fulk Mouthe (dsp 1414- see his IPM inf.) and his sister and
heiress Elizabeth, aged 24 in 1414, married to Sir Hugh Burgh
Sir John Burgh, son of Sir Hugh and his wife Elizabeth 'Mouthe', married to
Joan, eldest d. and coh. of Thomas Clopton, son of Sir William Clopton and his
wife, d. of Alexander Besford: (IPM 7 Hen V 46). Sir John Burgh's
Worcestershire IPM is at E IV, no 71.

From eschaetor's records 2 Henry V no 34 (1414).
Copy inquisition held at Salop before David Holbache eschaetor in co Salop

and the
Marches of Wales Monday next after the feast of St. James the apostle 2
Henry V
(30 July 1414) by oaths of John Skryveyn, William Wolascote, William Poynour,
Thomas Boudelers, Robert Rodyngton, William de Eton Mascote, John de Wytton,
Roger de Cleaton, Richard Hord of Salop, William Betton of Berewyk, William
Mascote of Pontesbury and John Mascote of Longedon.
Fulk Mouth held in his demesne as of fee the manors of Shelve, Wentenore and
Yokelton and the hamlet of Stretton, parcel of the same manor of Yokelton,
and ¼th part of the forest of Cawes and 40s and the weight of pence of gold
rent with appurtenances in Eynarton, all held of the king in chief by knight
service. Shelve is worth 20s. p.a., Wentnor 30s., Yokelton and the hamlet
100s.,
the ¼ forest 15s., besides reprises.
They are all in the confines of the said County adjoining the Marches of
Wales
and wasted at the time of the enquiry by the rebel Welsh. Fulk also held in
his
demesne as of fee the manors of Heye, Cardeston, Lughton, Haburley and
Watlesburgh
and the hamlett of Bradeshull parcel of the same manor of ??Waterish, with
the
advowson of the church of Haburley and chapel of Cardeston in the said
county,
held of the Earl of Stafford as of his castle of Cawes by knight service.
Heye
is worth 60s. p.a., Cardeston and appurtenances 61s., Lughton 26s. 8d.,
Haburley
53s. 2d. and Watlesburgh 40s., Bradeshull 6s. 8d., besides reprises.
Fulk also held the manor of Hemme and hamlett of Hynton parcel of the same
manor,
in the said county, held of Adam de Peshale knight as of his manor of
Ideshale
- the jururs do not know by what service It is worth 6 marks, for the causes
above mentioned.
Fulk also held 20s. annual rent from lands and tenements in Lyghe under
Brokhurst
held of the lordship of Wemme, by what service the jurors do not know.
He held no other lands or tenements in chief or otherwise in the eschaetor's
bailiwick.
Fulk died Wednesday next before the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul
last past
(27 June 1414). Elizabeth wife of Hugh Burgh is his sister and next heir and
she is 24 or more
2 July 1678 compared with the record by Laurence Halsted, deputy of Algernon
May, Knight.
Examined at the Tower 4 July 1678 by James Siddall
Endorsed with description and "No. 20"

Shropshire Archives More 1037/2/8 Inquisition held at Salop Saturday
after the feast of St. Lawrence the martyr (17th August 1471) by oaths of Fulk
Sprencheux, esq., Roger Byton, esq., Maurice Ludlowe, esq., Richard Legh,
esq., Richard Ruse, esq., Thomas Starwardyn, Richard Acton of Acton Skotte, John
Boerley of Malehurst, Thomas Janyns, Robert Onneslowe, William Onneslowe,
William Spencer, Alan Starwardyn and William Betton of Bereweke, who say that
John Burgh, knt. was seized in his demesne as of fee of the manors of Shelve
and Wantnore [sic, but Wentnor- MM] and 40s. rents and the weight of 3d. in
gold as rent ---- ton and Styrcheley payable at Ladyday and Michaelmas and a
fourth part of the forest of Cause, all held of the king in chief by knight
service, worth yearly besides reprises, viz. Shelve 18s., Wantnore 27s. 1/4 of
the forest 15s. and the gold 3s. and not more because they all adjoin the
Marches of Wales and are waste and lie in decay on account of the spoilations of
thieves and malefactors. John Burgh was also seized of the manor of Haburley
and advowson of the church as of the castle and Lordship of Cause by knight
service, worth besides reprises 36s. and not more for the same reason as
before. He was also seized in the manor of Hemme and the hamlet of Hynyton held of
Elizabeth, Countess of Shrewsbury as of her manor of Idsall by fealty and
service doing suit of her court at Idsall twice a year, worth besides reprises
45s. He was also seized of 20s. rents from lands and tenements in Lyghe under
Brockhurst and of 2 messuages and 1 carucate of land in Haleghton near
Haughmond held of the abbot of Haughmond for a rent of 5s. a year, worth besides
reprises 10s. He was also seized of a moiety of 2 mills with appurtenances in
Brockton held of the king in chief for the service of 1/20th of a knight's
fee, worth besides reprise 5s. p.a. He was also seized of the manor of Walton
and 2 virgates of land in Mynton Medewe and Hop, held of the said Duchess of
Buckingham as of her castle and lordship of cause by knight service worth
besides reprises, the manor 15s., the land 10s. and not more for the reason given
above. He was also seized of the lordship of Braggynton and Ballesley in the
said Marches, held of the said duchess as of her castle and lordship, by
knight service, and worth p.a. besides reprises, the manor of Bragynton 6s. and
the lordship of Ballesley 8s. and not more for the same reason. He was also
seized of a messuage in Kynaston within the lordship of Knokyn in the said
Marches held of Richard Lord Lestrange knight by service (sic) rent 1 red rose
at the Nativity of St. John Baptist worth besides reprises 20d. He was also
seized of the lordship of Moutho in the said March in Powisland, held of John
Gray [Grey - MM] lord of Powys as of his castle of Pole in the lordship of
Powys for a rent of 13s. 4d. towards works at the castle, it is worth p.a.
besides reprises £4 and not more because the said lordship was wasted by robber
and rebels in Wales. John Burgh had no other lands or tenements in the County
of March when he died or else- where in the kingdom, He had been lately seized
of the manors of Watllesburgh, Heye, Loghton, Cardestan, Yokelton and
Stretton and of 72 acres pasture in Bradshyll in the County, with Which be
enfeoffed John Lyngen, Thomas Mitton, esq. and Laurence Roche clerk, who are still
seized. These manors are held of the castle and lordship of Cause by knight
service and the 72 acres pasture ofJohn Byton for the rent of 1 red rose at the
Nativity of St. John Baptist. Wattlesburgh manor is worth besides reprises
40s., Haye 30s., Loghton 26s. 8d., Cardeston 53s. 4d., Yokelton 36s. 6d. and
Stretton 26s. The pasture is worth 6s.

Shropshire Archives More 1037/2/11A
11 Edward IV By inquisition post mortem of Sir John Burgh, knt., it is found
that he died seised inter alia of the Manor of Shelve worth 18/- and no
more because it was adjoining to the Marches of Wales which was adjoining to the
County of Salop which was almost wasted, and lying in decay by the spoil of
theives and other malefactors in the Marches. That Burgh had 4 daughters and
heiresses of which Issebella the wife of John Lingen knt., was one.

Gjest

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2006 00:45:06

While working on a new line, I chanced to hit RD600 at ancestry which led me
to a royal connection.

Here is what I had had just using OneWorldTree (which I use as a guide to
what *might* be true, not a proof)
_http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=wjhonson&id=I10345&style=TE
XT_
(http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... style=TEXT)

Here is the RD600 extension which connects these Bostocks back to Henry I,
King of England
_http://content.ancestry.com/browse/bookview.aspx?dbid=49324&iid=FLHG_R
oyalDescentsof600Immigrants-0611&desc=Nicholas+Bostock_
(http://content.ancestry.com/browse/book ... s-0611&des
c=Nicholas+Bostock)

Since many of you cannot see this line I reproduce it here from page 507 of
RD600

1 Henry I, King of England d 1135 = Matilda of Scotland
2 (illegitimate by ------) Robert of Caen, 1st Earl of Gloucester = Mabel
FitzHamon
3 Maud of Gloucester = Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester
4 Hugh Kevelioc, 3rd Earl of Chester = Bertrade de Montfort
5 (illegitimate by -----) Amicia de Meschines = Ralph de Mainwaring
6 Bertrade de Mainwaring = Henry de Audley
7 Emma de Audley = Gruffudd ap Madog, Prince of Powys Fadog
8 Margred ferch Gruffudd = Sir John Arderne
9 Agnes Arderne = Sir John Whetenhall
10 Margaret Whetenhall = Adam Bostock
11 Adam Bostock = Janet Bradshaw
12 Sir Ralph Bostock = Isabel Lawton
13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables
14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly
15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath

As you can see by my site I have dated this Hugh to b 1410/1427 and at this
point in the RD600 descent, my own line diverges which another son George
Bostock = Joan Horne.

My question so far is, does the line 1-15 stand as above from RD600 without
corrections? Or are there corrections which disturb the royal connection?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2006 01:25:02

In a message dated 12/9/2006 3:43:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables
14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly
15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath


I can bring the line forward using Leo's site, where he cites for 16-21
below "Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts"

16 George Bostock = Joan Horne (Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd
Roberts)
17 Joan Bostock = William Jennings (ibid)
18 Thomas Jennings = Alice Bright (ibid)
19 Catherine Jennings = William Branch (ibid)
20 Lionel Branch = Valentia Sparkes (ibid)
21 Christopher Branch b 1602/3 d 1678/82 Henrico Co, Virginia = Mary Addie
(married Sep 1619 at St Peter's Westcheap, London (ibid)

And again I hit a stopping point, as at this point, the line I'm researching
continues with a son Thomas Branch b 1623 while Leo's continues on to
President Thomas Jefferson with a son Christopher Branch b abt 1627 Henrico Co, VA

But again, is the line sound ?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2006 03:36:02

In a message dated 12/9/2006 4:24:10 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

21 Christopher Branch b 1602/3 d 1678/82 Henrico Co, Virginia = Mary Addie
(married Sep 1619 at St Peter's Westcheap, London (ibid)


The line can be continued further (along my path) by the following Archived
Thread
_http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BRANCH/1999-05/0927927693_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/BR ... 0927927693)
which gives us
22 Thomas Branch b 1620/4 England, d Virginia m Elizabeth Gough
23 Elizabeth Branch d Henrico Co, VA m Melchizedek Richardson Jr

Will Johnson

John H

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av John H » 10 des 2006 03:52:02

Will,
Can you elucidate what the abbreviation (IBID) you have shown below, means
or stands for.
I assume a source in the way you have used it, but what source is this.
Thanks
John H
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.202.1165710210.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/9/2006 3:43:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables
14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly
15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath


I can bring the line forward using Leo's site, where he cites for 16-21
below "Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts"

16 George Bostock = Joan Horne (Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd
Roberts)
17 Joan Bostock = William Jennings (ibid)
18 Thomas Jennings = Alice Bright (ibid)
19 Catherine Jennings = William Branch (ibid)
20 Lionel Branch = Valentia Sparkes (ibid)
21 Christopher Branch b 1602/3 d 1678/82 Henrico Co, Virginia = Mary Addie
(married Sep 1619 at St Peter's Westcheap, London (ibid)

And again I hit a stopping point, as at this point, the line I'm
researching
continues with a son Thomas Branch b 1623 while Leo's continues on to
President Thomas Jefferson with a son Christopher Branch b abt 1627
Henrico Co, VA

But again, is the line sound ?

Will Johnson

alden@mindspring.com

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 10 des 2006 05:07:06

On Dec 9, 9:50 pm, "John H" <johnH4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Will,
Can you elucidate what the abbreviation (IBID) you have shown below, means
or stands for.
I assume a source in the way you have used it, but what source is this.
Thanks
John H<WJhon...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:mailman.202.1165710210.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



In a message dated 12/9/2006 3:43:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhon...@aol.com writes:

ibid means same as before

so same reference as the previous line

Doug Smith
13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables
14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly
15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath

I can bring the line forward using Leo's site, where he cites for 16-21
below "Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts"

16 George Bostock = Joan Horne (Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd
Roberts)
17 Joan Bostock = William Jennings (ibid)
18 Thomas Jennings = Alice Bright (ibid)
19 Catherine Jennings = William Branch (ibid)
20 Lionel Branch = Valentia Sparkes (ibid)
21 Christopher Branch b 1602/3 d 1678/82 Henrico Co, Virginia = Mary Addie
(married Sep 1619 at St Peter's Westcheap, London (ibid)

And again I hit a stopping point, as at this point, the line I'm
researching
continues with a son Thomas Branch b 1623 while Leo's continues on to
President Thomas Jefferson with a son Christopher Branch b abt 1627
Henrico Co, VA

But again, is the line sound ?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 des 2006 05:16:02

In a message dated 12/9/2006 7:00:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
johnH4999@hotmail.com writes:

GUILLAUME


This one is easy it's William.

John H

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av John H » 10 des 2006 06:24:01

Thanks again, Will
John H.
<alden@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1165723626.579467.249970@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 9, 9:50 pm, "John H" <johnH4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Will,
Can you elucidate what the abbreviation (IBID) you have shown below,
means
or stands for.
I assume a source in the way you have used it, but what source is this.
Thanks
John H<WJhon...@aol.com> wrote in
messagenews:mailman.202.1165710210.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...



In a message dated 12/9/2006 3:43:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
WJhon...@aol.com writes:

ibid means same as before

so same reference as the previous line

Doug Smith

13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables
14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly
15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath

I can bring the line forward using Leo's site, where he cites for 16-21
below "Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts"

16 George Bostock = Joan Horne (Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary
Boyd
Roberts)
17 Joan Bostock = William Jennings (ibid)
18 Thomas Jennings = Alice Bright (ibid)
19 Catherine Jennings = William Branch (ibid)
20 Lionel Branch = Valentia Sparkes (ibid)
21 Christopher Branch b 1602/3 d 1678/82 Henrico Co, Virginia = Mary
Addie
(married Sep 1619 at St Peter's Westcheap, London (ibid)

And again I hit a stopping point, as at this point, the line I'm
researching
continues with a son Thomas Branch b 1623 while Leo's continues on to
President Thomas Jefferson with a son Christopher Branch b abt 1627
Henrico Co, VA

But again, is the line sound ?

Will Johnson

John H

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av John H » 10 des 2006 06:25:02

Thanks, Will
JohnH

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.211.1165721087.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/9/2006 7:00:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
johnH4999@hotmail.com writes:

GUILLAUME


This one is easy it's William.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 des 2006 12:31:31

In message of 9 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


1 Henry I, King of England d 1135 = Matilda of Scotland
2 (illegitimate by ------) Robert of Caen, 1st Earl of Gloucester = Mabel
FitzHamon
3 Maud of Gloucester = Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester
4 Hugh Kevelioc, 3rd Earl of Chester = Bertrade de Montfort
5 (illegitimate by -----) Amicia de Meschines = Ralph de Mainwaring
6 Bertrade de Mainwaring = Henry de Audley
7 Emma de Audley = Gruffudd ap Madog, Prince of Powys Fadog
8 Margred ferch Gruffudd = Sir John Arderne
9 Agnes Arderne = Sir John Whetenhall
10 Margaret Whetenhall = Adam Bostock
11 Adam Bostock = Janet Bradshaw
12 Sir Ralph Bostock = Isabel Lawton
13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables

All the above are to be found between CP and Ormerod's Cheshire.

14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly

Nicholas is mentioned in Ormerod, vol III, p. 259, and said to be of
Mobberley and having issue but I can't find any further details.

15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath

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

alden@mindspring.com

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 10 des 2006 15:07:49

1 Henry I, King of England d 1135 = Matilda of Scotland
2 (illegitimate by ------) Robert of Caen, 1st Earl of Gloucester = Mabel
FitzHamon
3 Maud of Gloucester = Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester
4 Hugh Kevelioc, 3rd Earl of Chester = Bertrade de Montfort
5 (illegitimate by -----) Amicia de Meschines = Ralph de Mainwaring
6 Bertrade de Mainwaring = Henry de Audley
7 Emma de Audley = Gruffudd ap Madog, Prince of Powys Fadog
8 Margred ferch Gruffudd = Sir John Arderne
9 Agnes Arderne = Sir John Whetenhall
10 Margaret Whetenhall = Adam Bostock

11 Adam Bostock = Janet Bradshaw b abt 1365
12 Sir Ralph Bostock = Isabel Lawton b abt 1392
13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables b abt 1412
14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly b 1380-1397
15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath b 1410/1427


Using your dates for Hugh and moving backwards (and using the limited
dates I have), it would make the chronology look more likely that
Nicholas was son of the Adam who married Janet Bradshaw, rather than
the Adam that married Elizabeth Venables.

That said both RD 500 and RD 600 have this line based on Vol. 2 of the
Berkshire Visitations (unfortunately I only have Vol. 1). It looks
like primary documentation mya be very interesting.

A. J. Bostock, A short history of the Bostock Family, (1978, revised
Aug 2000) at
http://www.bostock.net/users/tony/nameh ... ridged.htm is
interesting.

Doug Smith

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: RD600 is online

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 des 2006 16:49:35

In message of 9 Dec, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:


1 Henry I, King of England d 1135 = Matilda of Scotland
2 (illegitimate by ------) Robert of Caen, 1st Earl of Gloucester = Mabel
FitzHamon
3 Maud of Gloucester = Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester
4 Hugh Kevelioc, 3rd Earl of Chester = Bertrade de Montfort
5 (illegitimate by -----) Amicia de Meschines = Ralph de Mainwaring
6 Bertrade de Mainwaring = Henry de Audley
7 Emma de Audley = Gruffudd ap Madog, Prince of Powys Fadog
8 Margred ferch Gruffudd = Sir John Arderne
9 Agnes Arderne = Sir John Whetenhall
10 Margaret Whetenhall = Adam Bostock
11 Adam Bostock = Janet Bradshaw
12 Sir Ralph Bostock = Isabel Lawton
13 Sir Adam Bostock = Elizabeth Venables

All the above are to be found between CP and Ormerod's Cheshire.

14 Nicholas Bostock = Catherine Mobberly

Nicholas is mentioned in Ormerod, vol III, p. 259, and said to be of
Mobberley and having issue but I can't find any further details.

15 Hugh Bostock = Joan del Heath

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

Turenne

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Turenne » 10 des 2006 21:08:08

John H wrote:
Thanks, Will
JohnH

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.211.1165721087.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In a message dated 12/9/2006 7:00:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
johnH4999@hotmail.com writes:

GUILLAUME


This one is easy it's William.


Arques is of course a town in Normandy. There are no Normans with
Arques as a first name as far as I can see, nor any reference to an
Arques in the Domesday Book. Heresol is confusing. I saw the ref. in
The Bigot Roll and must confess to never having seen the name before.

Richard Lichten

Kristie Thompson

John Hancock -ot

Legg inn av Kristie Thompson » 11 des 2006 02:42:02

Does anyone know the lineage of Gov. John Hancock? Sorry for the slightly
OT post.
Thank you!
Kristie

Gjest

Re: Ancestral File number

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 03:58:02

Someone (maybe Tim), a little while ago, asked me why I mentioned in a
posting the Ancestral File number. The Ancestral File is a database setup by the
LDS at _www.familysearch.org_ (http://www.familysearch.org) which is
supposed to have exactly one entry for each person. Any additional data is supposed
to be merged into the one entry.

So for example Henry I, King of England, should have only one entry.

In practice, we can see, sometimes, several entries, for who we know is the
same person. This is probably because the submitter didn't include enough
information to ensure that "Thomas Brown who married Sarah Rogers" was in fact
the same person as "Thomas Brown son of Jonathan Brown" and so you get two
entries.

At any rate, recently I discovered a new and nifty way to find people just
based on knowing their AF number from some other source.

Let's say that in browsing WorldConnect or some miscellanous website, you
happen to find that Robert I, King of France has been assigned an Ancestral File
number of 8XJF-4B.

Using google you can type in this line
site:familysearch.org 8XJF-4B
just like that

You get 22 hits. Apparently his AF is listed on each page of his two
parents, each of his children, and each page for his spouses, in addition to
himself. I didn't check all 22 hits to see what they each were, I'm just assuming.

I just found this new trick very interesting so I thought I'd share it.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 05:15:03

Dear Will and others,
Perhaps the surname Arquette was derived
from Arques and Hershel is also used as a name now and again.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

John H

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av John H » 11 des 2006 06:36:02

Thanks for effort by those who gave a response...appreciated
John H
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.256.1165807024.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Will and others,
Perhaps the surname Arquette was derived
from Arques and Hershel is also used as a name now and again.
Sincerely,

James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Richard White

Re: William Dunch Monument

Legg inn av Richard White » 11 des 2006 11:41:11

I have received a translation (thanks Meredith), so if anyone else is still out there slaving over a hot Latin-English dictionary... thanks anyway :-)

Richard White

Gjest

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 21:34:02

In a message dated 12/11/06 10:35:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
detroitannie@wanadoo.fr writes:

<< http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSuppo ... etics.html >>

"The analysis by Dr. Hammer and colleagues is based on the Y chromosome,
which is passed unchanged from father to son. Early in human evolution, all but
one of the Y chromosomes were lost as their owners had no children or only
daughters, so that all Y chromosomes today are descended from that of a single
genetic Adam who is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago. "
END QUOTE

This statement made me burst out laughing.
I sincerely hope it was writen by the reporter and not the scientist, as it's
completely groundless.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 21:38:02

In a message dated 12/11/06 9:55:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Heresol or Neresol, >>

I wonder if "Heresol" could be the modern "Hershall" ?

Gjest

Re: Polish Problem

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 22:02:02

Also see
Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe, Table 132
Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan
Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981

where they give
Casimir II, Duke of Cracow 1177
born 1138 died 1194
married first 1163 unknown
married second 1185?
Helen died 1202/6
d of Rotislav, Grand Duke of Kiev (See Table 133)

Turning to Table 133 they give
by his first wife, a daughter who m 1178 Vsevolod III, Prince of Chernigov,
Grand Duke of Kiev died 1212

by his second wife, Leszek I The White, Duke of Cracow 1194-9, 1202
born 1186/7 died 1227 in battle
married Grzymislawa d 1258, d of Ingvar Prince of Luck

Conrad I Duke of Mazovia & Kuiavia born 1187/8 died 1247
married Agathe d after 1247, d of Sviatoslav, Prince of Vladimir Vol.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Polish Problem

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 11 des 2006 22:20:43

Dear Will,

Many thanks for this. I suppose I should look more often to this beautiful
book by Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan.
The combination with ES does give more information.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: Polish Problem


Also see
Heraldry of the Royal Families of Europe, Table 132
Jiri Louda and Michael Maclagan
Clarkson N Potter, New York 1981

where they give
Casimir II, Duke of Cracow 1177
born 1138 died 1194
married first 1163 unknown
married second 1185?
Helen died 1202/6
d of Rotislav, Grand Duke of Kiev (See Table 133)

Turning to Table 133 they give
by his first wife, a daughter who m 1178 Vsevolod III, Prince of
Chernigov,
Grand Duke of Kiev died 1212

by his second wife, Leszek I The White, Duke of Cracow 1194-9, 1202
born 1186/7 died 1227 in battle
married Grzymislawa d 1258, d of Ingvar Prince of Luck

Conrad I Duke of Mazovia & Kuiavia born 1187/8 died 1247
married Agathe d after 1247, d of Sviatoslav, Prince of Vladimir Vol.

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

Doug McDonald

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 11 des 2006 22:25:02

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/06 10:35:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
detroitannie@wanadoo.fr writes:

http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSuppo ... etics.html

"The analysis by Dr. Hammer and colleagues is based on the Y chromosome,
which is passed unchanged from father to son. Early in human evolution, all but
one of the Y chromosomes were lost as their owners had no children or only
daughters, so that all Y chromosomes today are descended from that of a single
genetic Adam who is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago. "
END QUOTE

This statement made me burst out laughing.
I sincerely hope it was writen by the reporter and not the scientist, as it's
completely groundless.

It certainly is true that all men alive today descend in the
male line from ONE MAN who lived long ago. The number
140,000 is controversial. It's quite clearly a number which
is larger than 40,000 years, and quite clearly FAR smaller
than the age of the human-chimp split (i.e. their was one
male creature, long ago, from whom all men and all male
chimps descend IN THE MALE LINE, and this currently is
thought to be about 4 million years ago.)

see the Newsgroup genealogy-dna

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 22:49:02

In a message dated 12/11/06 1:26:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< It certainly is true that all men alive today descend in the
male line from ONE MAN who lived long ago. The number
140,000 is controversial. It's quite clearly a number which
is larger than 40,000 years, and quite clearly FAR smaller
than the age of the human-chimp split >>

That wasn't the point where I laughed. It was the logical jump from "all men
alive today" to "Early in human evolution, all but one of the Y chromosomes
were lost as their owners had no children or only daughters". The "Early in
human evoluation" is not supported by what we know today, and I'm skeptical it
could ever be determined.

Consider a hypothetical scenario. Two groups of "humans" who share a
connection say, 400,000 years ago, before the proposed "Adam" both go to war in the
year 500. And one group wipes the other group out. I don't think anyone would
claim that the year 500 is "early in human evolution" and yet there would be
Y-chronomosomal material, not present today, but present then, that would NOT
go back to the proposed "Adam", and this scenario would almost preclude any
attempt to determine whether it happened or not.

That is a logical leap that we just don't know and probably can never know.
Will Johnson

Doug McDonald

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 11 des 2006 22:56:02

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

That wasn't the point where I laughed. It was the logical jump from "all men
alive today" to "Early in human evolution, all but one of the Y chromosomes
were lost as their owners had no children or only daughters". The "Early in
human evoluation" is not supported by what we know today, and I'm skeptical it
could ever be determined.

Consider a hypothetical scenario. Two groups of "humans" who share a
connection say, 400,000 years ago, before the proposed "Adam" both go to war in the
year 500. And one group wipes the other group out. I don't think anyone would
claim that the year 500 is "early in human evolution" and yet there would be
Y-chronomosomal material, not present today, but present then, that would NOT
go back to the proposed "Adam", and this scenario would almost preclude any
attempt to determine whether it happened or not.

That is a logical leap that we just don't know and probably can never know.


Well, yes, absent DNA from old bones, we can't determine
exactly when the last male line from a somewhat more recent
"Adam" daughtered out. BUT ... what you don't realize is
that the PROBABILITIES are that in fact it was earlier
rather than later.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 des 2006 23:49:02

In a message dated 12/11/06 1:56:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< Well, yes, absent DNA from old bones, we can't determine
exactly when the last male line from a somewhat more recent
"Adam" daughtered out. >>

Not "more recent", that's my point, but rather "more ancient".
We cannot tell when any male-line daughtered out, simply by stating that all
living males come from the same Y-lineage. We can't tell if it was 140,000
years ago, 1400 years ago, or 14 years ago.

Will

Doug McDonald

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 11 des 2006 23:59:02

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/06 1:56:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

Well, yes, absent DNA from old bones, we can't determine
exactly when the last male line from a somewhat more recent
"Adam" daughtered out.

Not "more recent", that's my point, but rather "more ancient".
We cannot tell when any male-line daughtered out, simply by stating that all
living males come from the same Y-lineage. We can't tell if it was 140,000
years ago, 1400 years ago, or 14 years ago.


Again, that's true ... but we CAN say that the earliest man
who has descendants of two of his sons alive today lived,
roughly, 140,000 years ago. We CAN tell that earlier than
that, there are no men alive that descend from any other
man. In fact, before that, all men alive today descend from
just one male line, all the way back to the very first male
anything, perhaps a fish, perhaps a reptile, perhaps an
invertebrate, that started using Y chromosomes to determine
sex. Note that somewhere there was a split, as birds today
don't use Y chromosomes to determine sex, as it is the
female that has two different kinds of sex chromosomes.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 des 2006 00:09:01

In a message dated 12/11/06 3:05:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< In fact, before that, all men alive today descend from
just one male line, all the way back to the very first male
anything, perhaps a fish, perhaps a reptile, perhaps an
invertebrate, that started using Y chromosomes to determine
sex. Note that somewhere there was a split, as birds today
don't use Y chromosomes to determine sex, >>

Kinda destroys part of your argument doesn't it? I doubt the birds split off
at the "sea sponge" stage :)
Will

John H

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av John H » 12 des 2006 01:19:02

Thanks to all for info and thoughts.

The date from Douglas may assist as one of family made some
very large wall hangings around that era for Duke of Anjou.
Will check back on dates of those and see if anything ties in.

Was wondering why a French place would be granted arms,
as distinct from a "Seal" or "banner" for a particular region.

From Brian Timms website it appears to,have been quite common for a commune
to have arms.
namely Arques-la-Bataille, commune, Seine- Maritime, arr. Dieppe
and it states that it was an ecclesiastic arms.
Apparently Canel states it was from a seal of Vicomte d'Arques

regards
John H

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.293.1165869395.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/11/06 9:55:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Heresol or Neresol,

I wonder if "Heresol" could be the modern "Hershall" ?

Gjest

Re: Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouch

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 des 2006 01:20:18

Dear John and All,

I hope you can clarify for me a couple of observations.
John Marmion was dead ca. 1335.
Maud Furnival was dead after 1348, surviving at least 11 years. Their children born ca. 1313-1325-30.
John Marmion was heir to certain parts of Hundmandby and property at West Tanfield, Wath and Langton on Swale.W. Tanfield was acquired as an heir of Avice de Tanfield who was as an infant in the custody of Robert Vipont and married to Robert de Marmion Jr., according to Kirkeby's Inquest. It is stated that Robert, a descendant of Robert Vipont's brother, Ivo, was married to Margaret (d. 1359) heiress to Hucmandby. I have not proven this.
FILE - Extract of proceedings in Quo Warranto - ref. zDDHU/9/1 - date: 30 Sep 1280
(a) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt and Richard Malebyse to whales in the port of Fyfle (Filey), reserving their Mheads and tails to the Crown. Gilbert de Gaunt claims to have had one moiety since the Conquest; and Richard Malebyse to have had the other of the gift of Walter son of Gislebert (an ancestor of Gilbert de Gaunt) to Ralph de Nevill (an ancestor of Richard Malebyse) (b) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt to have free chase in Swaledale; free warren at Helawe and wreck of the sea at Hunmanby[Hundemanbie]. He claims that he and his ancestors have had free chase in Swaledale since time out of mind; that he has free warren at Helawe since it is within Swaledale where he has free chase; and that he does not claim wreck of the sea but only whales, reserving their heads and tails to the Crown Found for the claimants Copied 11 Jul 1666; 10 Jan 1672/3 and 13 Feb 1672/3 Originally dated 30 Sep 1280
Malbys is also holding of Robert Tateshale. Perhaps Isabel was a Nevill or Malbys.
Roger la Zuche of Lubbesthorpe was born 1292.
This new theory places Matilda as the second wife, therefore not the mother of Juliana, William and Elizabeth.
If Matilda were a Furnivall married to John Marmion, why did the possession of these lands fall to her rather than the heirs of John Marmion. Was she the guardian of her Marmion children, hence Roger la Zouche holding in right of Maud as guardian?
Was Folieca a Swyllyngton, then? 1377 Oct. 6?Receipt from Juliane relict of John Seint Andrew ?que dieux assoile? to Robert de Swyllyngton ?luncle? for six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence paid her from the manor of Lubstorp for the Christmas and Easter terms past. Armorial seal: Seint Andrew (mascally, with label) impaling Zouche. Legend: s. iu??o andrea. (Duke of Rutland)
Thank you for comment.
Pat

Dear Pat,

The de Gant connection with Hunmanby is documented in part
by the IPM of Gilbert de Gaunt (7 Feb 1273/4), in which the
jurors state in part,

' that Gilbert de Gaunt, who is dead, held of the King
in chief and barony, the town (villatam) of Hundemanby,
but that he granted the same town (villam) with its
apppurtenances without exception, to Gilbert, his son
and heir, in marriage with Lora de Balliol (de Balyolo),
and gave her dower of it, and placed them a long time
before his decease in full seisin. ' [1]

There is apparently an intervening tenure by the Marmions,
such that in 1304 (and likely before) Lora de Baliol, widow
of the younger Gilbert de Gaunt, was holding her dower of
John, Lord Marmion (d. bef 7 May 1322).

I think that Isabel, wife of the above John Marmion, was
likely of the Tateshal family - possibly an unknown daughter
of Robert de Tateshal (d. 22 Jul 1273) and his wife Nicole.
Perhaps the Victoria County History for Yorkshire (East
Riding) holds the answer as to how Maud (de Furnival) (Marmion)
la Zouche came to hold her dower in Hunmanby, and of whom?

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] W. Brown, Yorkshire Inquisitions [Yorks. Arch. Soc.
Record Series, vol. XII (1892)], I:137.



John H

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av John H » 12 des 2006 02:28:01

Further to my previous post re modern names of old names,
I have a RAINALD and wondered whether this is now Ronald or even Robert?
Or perhaps something else.
John H

"John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:457df4f7$1_4@news.chariot.net.au...
Thanks to all for info and thoughts.

The date from Douglas may assist as one of family made some
very large wall hangings around that era for Duke of Anjou.
Will check back on dates of those and see if anything ties in.

Was wondering why a French place would be granted arms,
as distinct from a "Seal" or "banner" for a particular region.

From Brian Timms website it appears to,have been quite common for a
commune to have arms.
namely Arques-la-Bataille, commune, Seine- Maritime, arr. Dieppe
and it states that it was an ecclesiastic arms.
Apparently Canel states it was from a seal of Vicomte d'Arques

regards
John H

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.293.1165869395.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/11/06 9:55:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Heresol or Neresol,

I wonder if "Heresol" could be the modern "Hershall" ?


Gjest

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 des 2006 02:53:02

In a message dated 12/11/06 5:32:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
johnH4999@hotmail.com writes:

<< I have a RAINALD and wondered whether this is now Ronald or even Robert? >>

I'd say Reginald "Reggie"

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 des 2006 03:13:02

Dear Will, John H and others,
The Name Reynold apparently meant
"king-like" a meaning given to both the modern Reginald and Ronald as well
as the variants Reynold and Ranald.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

John P. Ravilious

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 12 des 2006 04:27:54

Dear Pat,

Part of my response (re: the tenure of Hunmanby) follows in a
separate post.

The Swillington question deserves some added study, but I see no
evidence as yet firmly pointing to such a connection. Robert de
Swyllyngton "l'uncle" was simply being distinguished from a nephew of
the same name.

Cheers,

John



pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
Dear John and All,

I hope you can clarify for me a couple of observations.
John Marmion was dead ca. 1335.
Maud Furnival was dead after 1348, surviving at least 11 years. Their children born ca. 1313-1325-30.
John Marmion was heir to certain parts of Hundmandby and property at West Tanfield, Wath and Langton on Swale.W. Tanfield was acquired as an heir of Avice de Tanfield who was as an infant in the custody of Robert Vipont and married to Robert de Marmion Jr., according to Kirkeby's Inquest. It is stated that Robert, a descendant of Robert Vipont's brother, Ivo, was married to Margaret (d. 1359) heiress to Hucmandby. I have not proven this.
FILE - Extract of proceedings in Quo Warranto - ref. zDDHU/9/1 - date: 30 Sep 1280
(a) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt and Richard Malebyse to whales in the port of Fyfle (Filey), reserving their Mheads and tails to the Crown. Gilbert de Gaunt claims to have had one moiety since the Conquest; and Richard Malebyse to have had the other of the gift of Walter son of Gislebert (an ancestor of Gilbert de Gaunt) to Ralph de Nevill (an ancestor of Richard Malebyse) (b) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt to have free chase in Swaledale; free warren at Helawe and wreck of the sea at Hunmanby[Hundemanbie]. He claims that he and his ancestors have had free chase in Swaledale since time out of mind; that he has free warren at Helawe since it is within Swaledale where he has free chase; and that he does not claim wreck of the sea but only whales, reserving their heads and tails to the Crown Found for the claimants Copied 11 Jul 1666; 10 Jan 1672/3 and 13 Feb 1672/3 Originally dated 30 Sep 1280
Malbys is also holding of Robert Tateshale. Perhaps Isabel was a Nevill or Malbys.
Roger la Zuche of Lubbesthorpe was born 1292.
This new theory places Matilda as the second wife, therefore not the mother of Juliana, William and Elizabeth.
If Matilda were a Furnivall married to John Marmion, why did the possession of these lands fall to her rather than the heirs of John Marmion. Was she the guardian of her Marmion children, hence Roger la Zouche holding in right of Maud as guardian?
Was Folieca a Swyllyngton, then? 1377 Oct. 6?Receipt from Juliane relict of John Seint Andrew ?que dieux assoile? to Robert de Swyllyngton ?luncle? for six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence paid her from the manor of Lubstorp for the Christmas and Easter terms past. Armorial seal: Seint Andrew (mascally, with label) impaling Zouche. Legend: s. iu??o andrea. (Duke of Rutland)
Thank you for comment.
Pat

Dear Pat,

The de Gant connection with Hunmanby is documented in part
by the IPM of Gilbert de Gaunt (7 Feb 1273/4), in which the
jurors state in part,

' that Gilbert de Gaunt, who is dead, held of the King
in chief and barony, the town (villatam) of Hundemanby,
but that he granted the same town (villam) with its
apppurtenances without exception, to Gilbert, his son
and heir, in marriage with Lora de Balliol (de Balyolo),
and gave her dower of it, and placed them a long time
before his decease in full seisin. ' [1]

There is apparently an intervening tenure by the Marmions,
such that in 1304 (and likely before) Lora de Baliol, widow
of the younger Gilbert de Gaunt, was holding her dower of
John, Lord Marmion (d. bef 7 May 1322).

I think that Isabel, wife of the above John Marmion, was
likely of the Tateshal family - possibly an unknown daughter
of Robert de Tateshal (d. 22 Jul 1273) and his wife Nicole.
Perhaps the Victoria County History for Yorkshire (East
Riding) holds the answer as to how Maud (de Furnival) (Marmion)
la Zouche came to hold her dower in Hunmanby, and of whom?

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] W. Brown, Yorkshire Inquisitions [Yorks. Arch. Soc.
Record Series, vol. XII (1892)], I:137.



John P. Ravilious

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 12 des 2006 04:29:27

Monday, 11 December, 2006


Hello Pat, Clive, Will, et al.,

The following is extracted from the History of the County
of York (VCH series) concerning Hunmanby, E.R., Yorkshire, as
relates to the Gant, Tatershal and Marmion holdings there.


' MANORS AND OTHER ESTATES. There were two estates in
Hunmanby in 1086: one of 23 carucates, which had been
held by Carle in 1066, and the other of one carucate.
The larger estate was held in 1086 by Gilbert de Gant;
it became the centre of a small local honor, which
descended like the principal manor and is recorded
until the 14th century.
The Gants retained HUNMANBY until 1294, when another
Gilbert de Gant was obliged to surrender it to Robert
of Tatterhsall, who claimed it by inheritance from
Philip of Tattershall. Philip's father Robert had
married a niece of Gilbert de Gant, who was a widow
in 1185, and in 1199 Philip gave the king L6 13s. 4d.
to secure lands given to him by his uncle Roger who
held them by grant from Robert de Gant. At the death
of another Robert of Tatershall in 1306, a third of
the mnaor was assigned in dower to his mother Joan of
Tattershall (d. 1335). The rest passed to Robert's
heirs Thomas de Cailly, son of Emma sister of Robert
of Tattershall (d. 1298), and Emma's sisters Joan of
Driby and Isabel of Orby. Their shares were finally
assigned in1309. The widow and heirs of Gilbert de
Gant (d. 1298) unsuccessfully laid claims to the
manor for several years. ' [1]

' Several substantial estates in Hunmanby were held
under the chief lords. By the mid 13th century,
for example, the Marmion family held 2 carucates from
the Gants, and they retained their estate until the
mid 14th century. By 1360 dower was held in the
reputed manor of HUNMANBY by Maud, widow of Robert
Marmion. Robert's coheirs were his sisters Joan
and Avice. ' [2]

The VCH account above shows Maud (as widow of Robert Marmion)
holding dower in Hunmanby 'by 1360'. We know that Maud, wife
of Sir Roger la Zouche, held dower in Hunmanby and elsewhere as
of 22 November 1353 [3]. Perhaps reference to the appropriate
volume of Complete Peerage will clearly show whether the wife
of Sir Roger la Zouche was Maud de Furnival, the widow of John
Marmion (d. 1335) as previously stated, or the widow of his
son Robert as per the VCH account above. If the latter, this
would result in a more certain (and earlier) range for the
death of Robert Marmion.

The pedigree below traces the Gant connection to the Lords
Tate[r]shal, and supports the related descent of the manor of
Hunmanby as described in the VCH text above. It is interesting
that the VCH account references the Marmion holding as 2
carucates held originally of the Gants, whereas the IPM of
Robert de Tateshal (1304; cited by Pat previously) states there
were a total of 8 carucates held by the Marmions in 1304, of
the Tateshals - of which Lora (de Baliol) de Gant held 4
carucates in dower. This particular area certainly deserves
further study.

Cheers,

John *


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


Gilbert de Gant = Alice de Montfort
<Hunmanby> I
I
I
Walter de Gant = Maud of Brittany
of Folkingham, Lincs. I
d. 1139 I
____________________I__________________
I I I I I
William = NN Alice Gilbert Robert Geoffrey
fitz I = Roger E of d. 1191
Walter I de Lincoln <Hunmanby>
of Welle, I Mowbray dspm = <2> Gunnora
Lincs. I I 1156 I
I V I_______
_______I___________ I
I I I I
Robert Roger Isabel = Robert Sir Gilbert
fitz <Hunmanby> I fitz de Gant
William I Hugh de d. ca. 1241
de Welle I Tateshal I
I I V
V ______________I____________
I I I
Philip Robert Walter = Iseult
<Hunmanby> de Tateshal I Pantulf
__________________I
I
Robert = <1> Maud d'Aubigny
de Tateshal I <coheir of
<Hunmanby> I Arundel>
d. 1249 I
________I
I
Robert = Nichole
d. 1273 I
__________I
I
Robert = Joan
Lord Tateshal I 'filia
d. bef 8 Sept 1298 I Ranulfi'
________________________I__________________
I I I I
Robert Emma Joan Isabel
Lord Tateshal = Adam = Sir Robert = Sir John
d. bef 28 Jul de Cailly de Driby de Orreby
1303 = Eve I I I
de Tibetot I I I
I V V V
I
Robert
3rd Lord
dsp 1305/6
= Joan



* John P. Ravilious







pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
Dear John and All,

I hope you can clarify for me a couple of observations.
John Marmion was dead ca. 1335.
Maud Furnival was dead after 1348, surviving at least 11 years. Their children born ca. 1313-1325-30.
John Marmion was heir to certain parts of Hundmandby and property at West Tanfield, Wath and Langton on Swale.W. Tanfield was acquired as an heir of Avice de Tanfield who was as an infant in the custody of Robert Vipont and married to Robert de Marmion Jr., according to Kirkeby's Inquest. It is stated that Robert, a descendant of Robert Vipont's brother, Ivo, was married to Margaret (d. 1359) heiress to Hucmandby. I have not proven this.
FILE - Extract of proceedings in Quo Warranto - ref. zDDHU/9/1 - date: 30 Sep 1280
(a) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt and Richard Malebyse to whales in the port of Fyfle (Filey), reserving their Mheads and tails to the Crown. Gilbert de Gaunt claims to have had one moiety since the Conquest; and Richard Malebyse to have had the other of the gift of Walter son of Gislebert (an ancestor of Gilbert de Gaunt) to Ralph de Nevill (an ancestor of Richard Malebyse) (b) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt to have free chase in Swaledale; free warren at Helawe and wreck of the sea at Hunmanby[Hundemanbie]. He claims that he and his ancestors have had free chase in Swaledale since time out of mind; that he has free warren at Helawe since it is within Swaledale where he has free chase; and that he does not claim wreck of the sea but only whales, reserving their heads and tails to the Crown Found for the claimants Copied 11 Jul 1666; 10 Jan 1672/3 and 13 Feb 1672/3 Originally dated 30 Sep 1280
Malbys is also holding of Robert Tateshale. Perhaps Isabel was a Nevill or Malbys.
Roger la Zuche of Lubbesthorpe was born 1292.
This new theory places Matilda as the second wife, therefore not the mother of Juliana, William and Elizabeth.
If Matilda were a Furnivall married to John Marmion, why did the possession of these lands fall to her rather than the heirs of John Marmion. Was she the guardian of her Marmion children, hence Roger la Zouche holding in right of Maud as guardian?
Was Folieca a Swyllyngton, then? 1377 Oct. 6?Receipt from Juliane relict of John Seint Andrew ?que dieux assoile? to Robert de Swyllyngton ?luncle? for six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence paid her from the manor of Lubstorp for the Christmas and Easter terms past. Armorial seal: Seint Andrew (mascally, with label) impaling Zouche. Legend: s. iu??o andrea. (Duke of Rutland)
Thank you for comment.
Pat

Dear Pat,

The de Gant connection with Hunmanby is documented in part
by the IPM of Gilbert de Gaunt (7 Feb 1273/4), in which the
jurors state in part,

' that Gilbert de Gaunt, who is dead, held of the King
in chief and barony, the town (villatam) of Hundemanby,
but that he granted the same town (villam) with its
apppurtenances without exception, to Gilbert, his son
and heir, in marriage with Lora de Balliol (de Balyolo),
and gave her dower of it, and placed them a long time
before his decease in full seisin. ' [1]

There is apparently an intervening tenure by the Marmions,
such that in 1304 (and likely before) Lora de Baliol, widow
of the younger Gilbert de Gaunt, was holding her dower of
John, Lord Marmion (d. bef 7 May 1322).

I think that Isabel, wife of the above John Marmion, was
likely of the Tateshal family - possibly an unknown daughter
of Robert de Tateshal (d. 22 Jul 1273) and his wife Nicole.
Perhaps the Victoria County History for Yorkshire (East
Riding) holds the answer as to how Maud (de Furnival) (Marmion)
la Zouche came to hold her dower in Hunmanby, and of whom?

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] W. Brown, Yorkshire Inquisitions [Yorks. Arch. Soc.
Record Series, vol. XII (1892)], I:137.



Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Annie Natalelli-Waloszek » 12 des 2006 08:07:06

There are some interesting books, even online - concerning these "Civic
Arms" in Europe.
Siebmacher has a whole section on them for Germany and Austria; for France,
try
Pastereau

----- Original Message -----
From: "John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Current names for old.


Thanks to all for info and thoughts.

The date from Douglas may assist as one of family made some
very large wall hangings around that era for Duke of Anjou.
Will check back on dates of those and see if anything ties in.

Was wondering why a French place would be granted arms,
as distinct from a "Seal" or "banner" for a particular region.

From Brian Timms website it appears to,have been quite common for a
commune
to have arms.
namely Arques-la-Bataille, commune, Seine- Maritime, arr. Dieppe
and it states that it was an ecclesiastic arms.
Apparently Canel states it was from a seal of Vicomte d'Arques

regards
John H

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.293.1165869395.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/11/06 9:55:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Heresol or Neresol,

I wonder if "Heresol" could be the modern "Hershall" ?



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

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Annie Natalelli-Waloszek » 12 des 2006 08:07:15

About Anjou - in case anyone's interested - some recent research about old
records concerning Jerusalem - formerly part of the Angevin Kingdom of
Jerusalem and Naples - Jersualem's Austrian Consulate date records from
1849-1918 and are in Vienna's Hof and Haus Stadtarchiv, but I was wondering
where there might be earlier such records, and since Spain's historical
archives (who picked up the Kingdom along the lines) responded that they
only considered the title merely an empty formality and retained no records
from the place - (which I'm certain is untrue - there surely are records
because these titles do bring along a minimum of administrative and civic
responsabilities with them, no matter how lightly the charge is taken by
some holders - but since nobody had ever asked them for it, they forget they
have things and have no idea where they put it - which is why going there
personally and poking around until they get so nervous they prefer to look
for it themselves, rather than let some tourist find something they didn't
know they had - (see the case of the Bohemian Nobility Letters that had to
be found traces and refs of in Vienna, then return to Prague to get, after
being told there was nothing there) - where was I? Oh right, so I tried
Naples - but the Angevin archives in Naples were burned during the last
war - so if you need something that was there, you better hope they stashed
copies somewhere else.

If you're looking for where else such copies might be stashed - try first
the
hometown of the previous holders. Try next, Rome, which may have required
copies of documents concerning fiefs held by Angevins and other foreigners -
If I recall correctly, there was, for instance, a big exodus of Norman lords
to
Lombardy firstly after the Norman Invasion of 1066, when those who
didn't go, sought big fiefs of their own - (some Arundels in the batch I
think,
but I haven't thought about this in a long time, and am not yet in a fiesty
enough mood to dig it up just to say "I told you so") and again later - for
some
reason - by 16th cent or so, Lombardy was part of Austria IIRC - can some
body whose been dealing with this later straighten out my half-remembered
notes on how it all fits together? I've been dealing with 19th century
eastern
european Jews for the last 2-3 years so all this is a bit buried in the
mire -
hanging out here should dust it off quick, as everyone jumps on me for
tidbits
I'm not used to worrying about lately - therapeutic stimulae.

Annie



----- Original Message -----
From: "John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: Current names for old.


Further to my previous post re modern names of old names,
I have a RAINALD and wondered whether this is now Ronald or even Robert?
Or perhaps something else.
John H

"John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:457df4f7$1_4@news.chariot.net.au...
Thanks to all for info and thoughts.

The date from Douglas may assist as one of family made some
very large wall hangings around that era for Duke of Anjou.
Will check back on dates of those and see if anything ties in.

Was wondering why a French place would be granted arms,
as distinct from a "Seal" or "banner" for a particular region.

From Brian Timms website it appears to,have been quite common for a
commune to have arms.
namely Arques-la-Bataille, commune, Seine- Maritime, arr. Dieppe
and it states that it was an ecclesiastic arms.
Apparently Canel states it was from a seal of Vicomte d'Arques

regards
John H

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.293.1165869395.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/11/06 9:55:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Heresol or Neresol,

I wonder if "Heresol" could be the modern "Hershall" ?





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

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Annie Natalelli-Waloszek » 12 des 2006 08:27:12

I wonder if any of you have tried Y-DNA testing; of course I didn't, but I
got two of my cousins to do so - the results were so strange, that I wonder
if someone somewhere isn't jumping the gun, by giving such "definite"
answers -

first of all, two lines that should have been converging, according to
documents - about 1770 - turned out unrelated, yea unto the very night of
times - with 6 mismatches out of 15 loci -

Ok, so maybe there were some unwed mothers on the line (apparently very rare
in Jewish lines according to this study) or an adoption - or several
adoptions - but the surname is very rare, and while consistantly present
through time, is never very prolific - just one or two branches at a time -
and in this case in time, about 1770-1790 - just two branches - which looks
like two brothers - or cousins at most - one in Northern Poland, one in
Ukraine - with a spelling variant, that arose in Northern Poland, appearing
coevally with the Ukraine branch just a few miles away during some border
changes - as if to underline the link between the two -

This is all the more strange, since they're both Jewish lines, so should be
converging at the very least, by about 3000 BC, at Abraham - but they don't
even converge at 6000 with those results...

Then you come up with the Sorenson World Gen Tree and various other Family
Tree DNA cross-reference groups - which have online databases that you can
compare your results with to find long lost relatives - so first a woman
writes to one cousin saying her family (in Israel) has a 15/15 match to his
results - which is impossible, since such a match would make them brothers -
and they'd surely know about each other - but the other person wouldn't let
us see the actual DNA results, nor discuss the lines - so it looks like some
sort of scam - fine, forget it.

Then I searched the Sorenson base myself - using the surname, no results,
but using the actual markers - I found a 15/15 match, in the Ukraine
(Sorenson wouldn't tell me the name nor give out any info tho, so I wonder
what's the point of the database) ! This is even more surprising than a lost
brother in Israel, because hey, my Uncle may have sown some wild oats in the
army, that ended up in Israel, who knows - but nobody in the family has been
to Ukraine except me - I certainly wasn't leaving any Y-Chromosomes behind -

The logical conclusion, based on a bit of familiarity with the techniques
involved - seems to be that IF Sorenson's isn't cheating, and IF nobody's
scamming or falsifying results - THEN obviously, there are many more
permutation coincidences possible for the given loci being studies, than
anyone has been taking into consideration for such global and ancient
studies -

While 15 or 25 marker tests may suffice for paternity cases within a given
town and time, on a world scale, somebody needs to bring Occam's Razor into
play, to hone things finer.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: kazars and cohanim


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/06 1:56:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

Well, yes, absent DNA from old bones, we can't determine
exactly when the last male line from a somewhat more recent
"Adam" daughtered out.

Not "more recent", that's my point, but rather "more ancient".
We cannot tell when any male-line daughtered out, simply by stating that
all
living males come from the same Y-lineage. We can't tell if it was
140,000
years ago, 1400 years ago, or 14 years ago.


Again, that's true ... but we CAN say that the earliest man
who has descendants of two of his sons alive today lived,
roughly, 140,000 years ago. We CAN tell that earlier than
that, there are no men alive that descend from any other
man. In fact, before that, all men alive today descend from
just one male line, all the way back to the very first male
anything, perhaps a fish, perhaps a reptile, perhaps an
invertebrate, that started using Y chromosomes to determine
sex. Note that somewhere there was a split, as birds today
don't use Y chromosomes to determine sex, as it is the
female that has two different kinds of sex chromosomes.

Doug McDonald

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

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Annie Natalelli-Waloszek » 12 des 2006 08:29:48

What argument? I didn't see an arguement -

us birds split off as soon as we got a whiff of you agent provocateur
turkeys!!
Sponges are asexuated - you should know that
if not by remembering past lives, then from high school biology...

I think some probably split off at the snake level...

Well, it's been fun, but just seeing my
name chopped from the thread, makes it clear there is no
evolution on this list -


ready to beam me up Scottie -


----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: kazars and cohanim


In a message dated 12/11/06 3:05:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

In fact, before that, all men alive today descend from
just one male line, all the way back to the very first male
anything, perhaps a fish, perhaps a reptile, perhaps an
invertebrate, that started using Y chromosomes to determine
sex. Note that somewhere there was a split, as birds today
don't use Y chromosomes to determine sex,

Kinda destroys part of your argument doesn't it? I doubt the birds split
off
at the "sea sponge" stage :)
Will

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

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Annie Natalelli-Waloszek » 12 des 2006 08:40:56

ooops - did I say Arundel? I mean Avranches -
gettin' old -

----- Original Message -----
From: "Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <detroitannie@wanadoo.fr>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Current names for old.


About Anjou - in case anyone's interested - some recent research about old
records concerning Jerusalem - formerly part of the Angevin Kingdom of
Jerusalem and Naples - Jersualem's Austrian Consulate date records from
1849-1918 and are in Vienna's Hof and Haus Stadtarchiv, but I was
wondering
where there might be earlier such records, and since Spain's historical
archives (who picked up the Kingdom along the lines) responded that they
only considered the title merely an empty formality and retained no
records
from the place - (which I'm certain is untrue - there surely are records
because these titles do bring along a minimum of administrative and civic
responsabilities with them, no matter how lightly the charge is taken by
some holders - but since nobody had ever asked them for it, they forget
they
have things and have no idea where they put it - which is why going there
personally and poking around until they get so nervous they prefer to look
for it themselves, rather than let some tourist find something they didn't
know they had - (see the case of the Bohemian Nobility Letters that had to
be found traces and refs of in Vienna, then return to Prague to get, after
being told there was nothing there) - where was I? Oh right, so I tried
Naples - but the Angevin archives in Naples were burned during the last
war - so if you need something that was there, you better hope they
stashed
copies somewhere else.

If you're looking for where else such copies might be stashed - try first
the
hometown of the previous holders. Try next, Rome, which may have required
copies of documents concerning fiefs held by Angevins and other
foreigners -
If I recall correctly, there was, for instance, a big exodus of Norman
lords
to
Lombardy firstly after the Norman Invasion of 1066, when those who
didn't go, sought big fiefs of their own - (some Arundels in the batch I
think,
but I haven't thought about this in a long time, and am not yet in a
fiesty
enough mood to dig it up just to say "I told you so") and again later -
for
some
reason - by 16th cent or so, Lombardy was part of Austria IIRC - can some
body whose been dealing with this later straighten out my half-remembered
notes on how it all fits together? I've been dealing with 19th century
eastern
european Jews for the last 2-3 years so all this is a bit buried in the
mire -
hanging out here should dust it off quick, as everyone jumps on me for
tidbits
I'm not used to worrying about lately - therapeutic stimulae.

Annie



----- Original Message -----
From: "John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: Current names for old.



Further to my previous post re modern names of old names,
I have a RAINALD and wondered whether this is now Ronald or even Robert?
Or perhaps something else.
John H

"John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:457df4f7$1_4@news.chariot.net.au...
Thanks to all for info and thoughts.

The date from Douglas may assist as one of family made some
very large wall hangings around that era for Duke of Anjou.
Will check back on dates of those and see if anything ties in.

Was wondering why a French place would be granted arms,
as distinct from a "Seal" or "banner" for a particular region.

From Brian Timms website it appears to,have been quite common for a
commune to have arms.
namely Arques-la-Bataille, commune, Seine- Maritime, arr. Dieppe
and it states that it was an ecclesiastic arms.
Apparently Canel states it was from a seal of Vicomte d'Arques

regards
John H

WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.293.1165869395.6313.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 12/11/06 9:55:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Heresol or Neresol,

I wonder if "Heresol" could be the modern "Hershall" ?





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



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

Annie

Re: Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls

Legg inn av Annie » 12 des 2006 11:04:56

My, aren't we agressive! I'm not used to seeing anyone but myself have to
put up with that stuff - but Doug Richardson? The slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune!

while I sometimes find myself reacting as you do, thinking someone's trying
to pull a fast one on us - when I look at my own humble motivations when
posting about data from such articles - one tries generally to give
sufficient pertinent information for readers to understand the case and what
one is trying to say about it - it's best to give (and get) - the benefit of
any doubt -

Correctly citing the article implies it was used to construct the post, and
everyone knows Doug since forever, as an author who not only cites his
sources, but is capable of extracting information from source material - and
has the considerable advantage in accessing such data, of living and working
in Salt Lake, where a good part of it is available on microfilm - as well as
having had ample occasion for long standing relationships with others on the
list living and researching in London, who might easily add his shopping
list to theirs when hitting the archives -

Doug's Plantagenet book shows him capable of analysing contents to
present it in a useful light (see GenMed archives for exerpts - my own
experience with attempted usurpation (amazingly, even I, have had this
honor!) as well as potshots at typos - makes it clear why some prefer to
publish posthumously, or charge high prices like Settipani, not out of
greed,
but to limit one's readers to those sympathetic with the cause, and
appreciative
of the years of loving labors gone into it - yet one does wish to show it
was
brought to published fruition...)

So I must conclude that you're simply *relatively* new to the list?

Annie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:12 AM
Subject: Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls


Within the extracted material below the author has presented a copy of
an article appearing in The Genealogist, (New Series) Vol. 21, p. 213.

That article is titled 'Pedigrees fron the Plea Rolls.
By Major-General the Hon. GEORGE WROTTESLEY.'

Not only has the writer of the email neglected to tell us that he copied
part of Wrottesley's article but he has presented it in such a way as to
suggest, to me at least, that HE has studied the lawsuit and then
constructed a pedigree from the presentations of the Plaintiff and
the Defendant.

Whether he could (a) find the source material and (b) deduce the
pedigree from the content is doubtful.

Tony Ingham


From: Douglas Richardson
Date: Thurs, Dec 7 2006 4:43 am
Email: "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
Groups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval

Dear Newsgroup ~

Recent posts have discussed Sir William Bonville, Lord Bonville's
alleged descent from the Pomeroy and Vitré families. The chief piece of
evidence which proves Lord Bonville's Pomeroy connection is a lawsuit
dated Easter term, 27 Edward III [1353], in which Sir William Bonville's
great-grandfather, Sir William Daumarle, Knt., sued William de Bodrugan,
Knt., for the manor of Restronguet (in Mylar), Cornwall.

The details of the lawsuit are provided below, with a pedigree setting
forth the ancestry of the plaintiff and defendant as stated in the lawsuit.

De Banco. Easter. 27 Edward IIII.[sic] m. 85.

Cornwall. - William de Aumarle, Chivaler, sued William de Bodrugan,
Chivaler, for the manor of Restrouget, which Stephen Haym had given to
Henry de la Pomeraye, and Isolda, his wife, and to the heirs of their
bodies.

Henry de la Pomeray. = Isolda, temp. Edw. I. = Roger de Bodrugan.
| |
Joan. Henry.
| |
William. Oto.
| |
William de Aumarle, the plaintiff. William the
defendant.

As we can see above, the lawsuit alleges that Sir William Daumarle and
Sir William de Bodrugan shared a common descent
from a certain Iseult, wife of Henry de la Pomeray and Roger de
Bodrugan. So, what do surviving contemporary records
tell us of these people?












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

Annie

Re: Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls

Legg inn av Annie » 12 des 2006 11:05:41

My, aren't we agressive! I'm not used to seeing anyone but myself have to
put up with that stuff - but Doug Richardson? The slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune!

while I sometimes find myself reacting as you do, thinking someone's trying
to pull a fast one on us - when I look at my own humble motivations when
posting about data from such articles - one tries generally to give
sufficient pertinent information for readers to understand the case and what
one is trying to say about it - it's best to give (and get) - the benefit of
any doubt -

Correctly citing the article implies it was used to construct the post, and
everyone knows Doug since forever, as an author who not only cites his
sources, but is capable of extracting information from source material - and
has the considerable advantage in accessing such data, of living and working
in Salt Lake, where a good part of it is available on microfilm - as well as
having had ample occasion for long standing relationships with others on the
list living and researching in London, who might easily add his shopping
list to theirs when hitting the archives -

Doug's Plantagenet book shows him capable of analysing contents to
present it in a useful light (see GenMed archives for exerpts - my own
experience with attempted usurpation (amazingly, even I, have had this
honor!) as well as potshots at typos - makes it clear why some prefer to
publish posthumously, or charge high prices like Settipani, not out of
greed,
but to limit one's readers to those sympathetic with the cause, and
appreciative
of the years of loving labors gone into it - yet one does wish to show it
was
brought to published fruition...)

So I must conclude that you're simply *relatively* new to the list?

Annie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ingham" <nugget@bordernet.com.au>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:12 AM
Subject: Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls


Within the extracted material below the author has presented a copy of
an article appearing in The Genealogist, (New Series) Vol. 21, p. 213.

That article is titled 'Pedigrees fron the Plea Rolls.
By Major-General the Hon. GEORGE WROTTESLEY.'

Not only has the writer of the email neglected to tell us that he copied
part of Wrottesley's article but he has presented it in such a way as to
suggest, to me at least, that HE has studied the lawsuit and then
constructed a pedigree from the presentations of the Plaintiff and
the Defendant.

Whether he could (a) find the source material and (b) deduce the
pedigree from the content is doubtful.

Tony Ingham


From: Douglas Richardson
Date: Thurs, Dec 7 2006 4:43 am
Email: "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com>
Groups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval

Dear Newsgroup ~

Recent posts have discussed Sir William Bonville, Lord Bonville's
alleged descent from the Pomeroy and Vitré families. The chief piece of
evidence which proves Lord Bonville's Pomeroy connection is a lawsuit
dated Easter term, 27 Edward III [1353], in which Sir William Bonville's
great-grandfather, Sir William Daumarle, Knt., sued William de Bodrugan,
Knt., for the manor of Restronguet (in Mylar), Cornwall.

The details of the lawsuit are provided below, with a pedigree setting
forth the ancestry of the plaintiff and defendant as stated in the lawsuit.

De Banco. Easter. 27 Edward IIII.[sic] m. 85.

Cornwall. - William de Aumarle, Chivaler, sued William de Bodrugan,
Chivaler, for the manor of Restrouget, which Stephen Haym had given to
Henry de la Pomeraye, and Isolda, his wife, and to the heirs of their
bodies.

Henry de la Pomeray. = Isolda, temp. Edw. I. = Roger de Bodrugan.
| |
Joan. Henry.
| |
William. Oto.
| |
William de Aumarle, the plaintiff. William the
defendant.

As we can see above, the lawsuit alleges that Sir William Daumarle and
Sir William de Bodrugan shared a common descent
from a certain Iseult, wife of Henry de la Pomeray and Roger de
Bodrugan. So, what do surviving contemporary records
tell us of these people?












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

Turenne

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Turenne » 12 des 2006 11:23:11

John H wrote:

<< I have a RAINALD and wondered whether this is now Ronald or even
Robert? >>

I like Ronald as a first name though the Reynold(s) idea makes sense;
(Dan) Reinhold, (Dutch) Reinold meaning god's wielder or ruler. There
are Rainalds mentioned in Domesday as both under-tenants and
tenants-in-chief.

Richard Lichten

Sally Laine

Re: Current names for old.

Legg inn av Sally Laine » 12 des 2006 17:06:53

The names Guilliame & Rainald are still in use today in French communities
where I live.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Current names for old.


In a message dated 12/11/06 5:32:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
johnH4999@hotmail.com writes:

I have a RAINALD and wondered whether this is now Ronald or even
Robert?

I'd say Reginald "Reggie"

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

Doug McDonald

Re: kazars and cohanim

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 12 des 2006 18:14:33

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote:
I wonder if any of you have tried Y-DNA testing; of course I didn't, but
I got two of my cousins to do so - the results were so strange, that I
wonder if someone somewhere isn't jumping the gun, by giving such
"definite" answers -

first of all, two lines that should have been converging, according to
documents - about 1770 - turned out unrelated, yea unto the very night
of times - with 6 mismatches out of 15 loci -

Could you tell us the actual data? This can help a lot.
Ok, so maybe there were some unwed mothers on the line

or perhaps not unwed ... just unfaithful

This is all the more strange, since they're both Jewish lines, so should
be converging at the very least, by about 3000 BC, at Abraham - but
they don't even converge at 6000 with those results...

Not necessarily ... even back when Judaism started up, there
were numerous haplogroups present in the area, so naturally
even the first Jews were diverse.


Then you come up with the Sorenson World Gen Tree and various other
Family Tree DNA cross-reference groups - which have online databases
that you can compare your results with to find long lost relatives - so
first a woman writes to one cousin saying her family (in Israel) has a
15/15 match to his results - which is impossible, since such a match
would make them brothers

No, not at all ... only that ON AVERAGE they would be
expected to be related within 12 generations, that is, 10th
cousins.

- and they'd surely know about each other - but
the other person wouldn't let us see the actual DNA results, nor discuss
the lines - so it looks like some sort of scam - fine, forget it.

Well, yes, forget it, but it's not a scam: it's important to
note that this family is in Israel ... note that they are
likely Jews: and if not, Palestinians, whose DNA matches a
SUBSET of Jews, because they arose from the same stock long
ago..


Then I searched the Sorenson base myself - using the surname, no
results, but using the actual markers - I found a 15/15 match, in the
Ukraine (Sorenson wouldn't tell me the name nor give out any info tho,
so I wonder what's the point of the database) !
Normally Sorenson will tell you the surname of the people

earlier than two or three generations ago. Not always.

This is even more
surprising than a lost brother in Israel, because hey, my Uncle may have
sown some wild oats in the army, that ended up in Israel, who knows -
but nobody in the family has been to Ukraine except me - I certainly
wasn't leaving any Y-Chromosomes behind -

As I quoted above, 15 markers is not very many .... so there
will be matches on very distant cousins. There is even a
5% chance that they would be more distant than 48th cousins!



The logical conclusion, based on a bit of familiarity with the
techniques involved - seems to be that IF Sorenson's isn't cheating, and
IF nobody's scamming or falsifying results - THEN obviously, there are
many more permutation coincidences possible for the given loci being
studies, than anyone has been taking into consideration for such global
and ancient studies -

Not at all ... see the numbers I quote above.

While 15 or 25 marker tests may suffice for paternity cases within a
given town and time, on a world scale, somebody needs to bring Occam's
Razor into play, to hone things finer.


15 marker tests can DISPROVE close relations ... as they did
for your two cousins ... but they (Y chromosome ones, that
is) can't PROVE close relations. One needs more markers for
that. I have currently 118 markers measured for me and that
begins to be enough (note that I am testing everything
available, since I am the DNA custodian for the Clan Donald,
and also serve as sort of "prototype" for the "Somerled
people").

The fact that your near-matches are in Israel and Ukraine
is indeed significant. It would be better to see the allele
values themselves, but it does suggest that whoever the
intruder in the bedroom was, or the person who was adopted,
were Jews. There is no one "Jewish DNA" ... you can't prove
or disprove Jewishness with Y-DNA ... but there certainly
are DNA types that are associated closely with Jewishness;
some of these are also fairly closely tied to other Mideast
groups, others to the general population in Russia and Ukraine.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Royal Ancestry of Robert Cole; Addition to Mr. Richardso

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 des 2006 18:56:02

Since Brice is the only one apparently interested in this family I am
letting it drop. I don't feel like sharing information with someone who has been
willing to take information from others and then withhold sharing anything in
return. Look at the will again, Brice. There are several instances of
capital Ms in the document and the first letter of the daughter's name looks
nothing like them. When comparing her name to a handwriting guide for Elizabethan
and Jacobean writing that I have, the first letter looks clearly like the
first S given in my guide. I would say the name is clearly S---y. The a and
the r are less definite but seem the more likely letters intended. Also, look
at recusant rolls from the same time period. The name Sarah appears there
as a given name for other Catholics of the same time period. Also I have seen
the diminutive "Sary" used by another Anglo-Catholic family. I am sorry I
don't feel like sharing more, but I have received requests for information
from you before, only to be followed with a one-word email "Thanks." Then when
I send a request to you, all I receive is stony silence.

Clive West

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Clive West » 12 des 2006 20:29:32

Thanks, John, for the useful extract from the Yorkshire VCH. But I would
just like to point out a small error in your pedigree chart. Emma, Joan and
Isabel
were not the aunts of Robert 3rd Lord Tateshal but his great aunts, being
the sisters of the Robert de Tateshal who died in 1298, as stated in the
VCH. The source for this is Robert's ipm of 1308, which by the way, states
that he died
30th Jan 1306, aged 18, which seems rather young for him to be married.

Clive West


----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Furnival,wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe


Monday, 11 December, 2006


Hello Pat, Clive, Will, et al.,

The following is extracted from the History of the County
of York (VCH series) concerning Hunmanby, E.R., Yorkshire, as
relates to the Gant, Tatershal and Marmion holdings there.


' MANORS AND OTHER ESTATES. There were two estates in
Hunmanby in 1086: one of 23 carucates, which had been
held by Carle in 1066, and the other of one carucate.
The larger estate was held in 1086 by Gilbert de Gant;
it became the centre of a small local honor, which
descended like the principal manor and is recorded
until the 14th century.
The Gants retained HUNMANBY until 1294, when another
Gilbert de Gant was obliged to surrender it to Robert
of Tatterhsall, who claimed it by inheritance from
Philip of Tattershall. Philip's father Robert had
married a niece of Gilbert de Gant, who was a widow
in 1185, and in 1199 Philip gave the king L6 13s. 4d.
to secure lands given to him by his uncle Roger who
held them by grant from Robert de Gant. At the death
of another Robert of Tatershall in 1306, a third of
the mnaor was assigned in dower to his mother Joan of
Tattershall (d. 1335). The rest passed to Robert's
heirs Thomas de Cailly, son of Emma sister of Robert
of Tattershall (d. 1298), and Emma's sisters Joan of
Driby and Isabel of Orby. Their shares were finally
assigned in1309. The widow and heirs of Gilbert de
Gant (d. 1298) unsuccessfully laid claims to the
manor for several years. ' [1]

' Several substantial estates in Hunmanby were held
under the chief lords. By the mid 13th century,
for example, the Marmion family held 2 carucates from
the Gants, and they retained their estate until the
mid 14th century. By 1360 dower was held in the
reputed manor of HUNMANBY by Maud, widow of Robert
Marmion. Robert's coheirs were his sisters Joan
and Avice. ' [2]

The VCH account above shows Maud (as widow of Robert Marmion)
holding dower in Hunmanby 'by 1360'. We know that Maud, wife
of Sir Roger la Zouche, held dower in Hunmanby and elsewhere as
of 22 November 1353 [3]. Perhaps reference to the appropriate
volume of Complete Peerage will clearly show whether the wife
of Sir Roger la Zouche was Maud de Furnival, the widow of John
Marmion (d. 1335) as previously stated, or the widow of his
son Robert as per the VCH account above. If the latter, this
would result in a more certain (and earlier) range for the
death of Robert Marmion.

The pedigree below traces the Gant connection to the Lords
Tate[r]shal, and supports the related descent of the manor of
Hunmanby as described in the VCH text above. It is interesting
that the VCH account references the Marmion holding as 2
carucates held originally of the Gants, whereas the IPM of
Robert de Tateshal (1304; cited by Pat previously) states there
were a total of 8 carucates held by the Marmions in 1304, of
the Tateshals - of which Lora (de Baliol) de Gant held 4
carucates in dower. This particular area certainly deserves
further study.

Cheers,

John *


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


Gilbert de Gant = Alice de Montfort
Hunmanby> I
I
I
Walter de Gant = Maud of Brittany
of Folkingham, Lincs. I
d. 1139 I
____________________I__________________
I I I I I
William = NN Alice Gilbert Robert Geoffrey
fitz I = Roger E of d. 1191
Walter I de Lincoln <Hunmanby
of Welle, I Mowbray dspm = <2> Gunnora
Lincs. I I 1156 I
I V I_______
_______I___________ I
I I I I
Robert Roger Isabel = Robert Sir Gilbert
fitz <Hunmanby> I fitz de Gant
William I Hugh de d. ca. 1241
de Welle I Tateshal I
I I V
V ______________I____________
I I I
Philip Robert Walter = Iseult
Hunmanby> de Tateshal I Pantulf
__________________I
I
Robert = <1> Maud d'Aubigny
de Tateshal I <coheir of
Hunmanby> I Arundel
d. 1249 I
________I
I
Robert = Nichole
d. 1273 I
__________I
I
Robert = Joan
Lord Tateshal I 'filia
d. bef 8 Sept 1298 I Ranulfi'
________________________I__________________
I I I I
Robert Emma Joan Isabel
Lord Tateshal = Adam = Sir Robert = Sir John
d. bef 28 Jul de Cailly de Driby de Orreby
1303 = Eve I I I
de Tibetot I I I
I V V V
I
Robert
3rd Lord
dsp 1305/6
= Joan



* John P. Ravilious







pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
Dear John and All,

I hope you can clarify for me a couple of observations.
John Marmion was dead ca. 1335.
Maud Furnival was dead after 1348, surviving at least 11 years. Their
children born ca. 1313-1325-30.
John Marmion was heir to certain parts of Hundmandby and property at
West Tanfield, Wath and Langton on Swale.W. Tanfield was acquired as an
heir of Avice de Tanfield who was as an infant in the custody of Robert
Vipont and married to Robert de Marmion Jr., according to Kirkeby's
Inquest. It is stated that Robert, a descendant of Robert Vipont's
brother, Ivo, was married to Margaret (d. 1359) heiress to Hucmandby. I
have not proven this.
FILE - Extract of proceedings in Quo Warranto - ref. zDDHU/9/1 - date:
30 Sep 1280
(a) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt and Richard Malebyse to whales in the
port of Fyfle (Filey), reserving their Mheads and tails to the Crown.
Gilbert de Gaunt claims to have had one moiety since the Conquest; and
Richard Malebyse to have had the other of the gift of Walter son of
Gislebert (an ancestor of Gilbert de Gaunt) to Ralph de Nevill (an
ancestor of Richard Malebyse) (b) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt to have
free chase in Swaledale; free warren at Helawe and wreck of the sea at
Hunmanby[Hundemanbie]. He claims that he and his ancestors have had free
chase in Swaledale since time out of mind; that he has free warren at
Helawe since it is within Swaledale where he has free chase; and that he
does not claim wreck of the sea but only whales, reserving their heads
and tails to the Crown Found for the claimants Copied 11 Jul 1666; 10 Jan
1672/3 and 13 Feb 1672/3 Originally dated 30 Sep 1280
Malbys is also holding of Robert Tateshale. Perhaps Isabel was a Nevill
or Malbys.
Roger la Zuche of Lubbesthorpe was born 1292.
This new theory places Matilda as the second wife, therefore not the
mother of Juliana, William and Elizabeth.
If Matilda were a Furnivall married to John Marmion, why did the
possession of these lands fall to her rather than the heirs of John
Marmion. Was she the guardian of her Marmion children, hence Roger la
Zouche holding in right of Maud as guardian?
Was Folieca a Swyllyngton, then? 1377 Oct. 6?Receipt from Juliane relict
of John Seint Andrew ?que dieux assoile? to Robert de Swyllyngton
?luncle? for six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence paid her from
the manor of Lubstorp for the Christmas and Easter terms past. Armorial
seal: Seint Andrew (mascally, with label) impaling Zouche. Legend: s.
iu??o andrea. (Duke of Rutland)
Thank you for comment.
Pat

Dear Pat,

The de Gant connection with Hunmanby is documented in part
by the IPM of Gilbert de Gaunt (7 Feb 1273/4), in which the
jurors state in part,

' that Gilbert de Gaunt, who is dead, held of the King
in chief and barony, the town (villatam) of Hundemanby,
but that he granted the same town (villam) with its
apppurtenances without exception, to Gilbert, his son
and heir, in marriage with Lora de Balliol (de Balyolo),
and gave her dower of it, and placed them a long time
before his decease in full seisin. ' [1]

There is apparently an intervening tenure by the Marmions,
such that in 1304 (and likely before) Lora de Baliol, widow
of the younger Gilbert de Gaunt, was holding her dower of
John, Lord Marmion (d. bef 7 May 1322).

I think that Isabel, wife of the above John Marmion, was
likely of the Tateshal family - possibly an unknown daughter
of Robert de Tateshal (d. 22 Jul 1273) and his wife Nicole.
Perhaps the Victoria County History for Yorkshire (East
Riding) holds the answer as to how Maud (de Furnival) (Marmion)
la Zouche came to hold her dower in Hunmanby, and of whom?

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] W. Brown, Yorkshire Inquisitions [Yorks. Arch. Soc.
Record Series, vol. XII (1892)], I:137.






CE Wood

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av CE Wood » 13 des 2006 04:24:34

So CP III:552 (c), X:172, and XII/1:653 (d), among others, are wrong?

CE Wood


Clive West wrote:
Thanks, John, for the useful extract from the Yorkshire VCH. But I would
just like to point out a small error in your pedigree chart. Emma, Joan and
Isabel
were not the aunts of Robert 3rd Lord Tateshal but his great aunts, being
the sisters of the Robert de Tateshal who died in 1298, as stated in the
VCH. The source for this is Robert's ipm of 1308, which by the way, states
that he died
30th Jan 1306, aged 18, which seems rather young for him to be married.

Clive West


----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Furnival,wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of
Lubbesthorpe


Monday, 11 December, 2006


Hello Pat, Clive, Will, et al.,

The following is extracted from the History of the County
of York (VCH series) concerning Hunmanby, E.R., Yorkshire, as
relates to the Gant, Tatershal and Marmion holdings there.


' MANORS AND OTHER ESTATES. There were two estates in
Hunmanby in 1086: one of 23 carucates, which had been
held by Carle in 1066, and the other of one carucate.
The larger estate was held in 1086 by Gilbert de Gant;
it became the centre of a small local honor, which
descended like the principal manor and is recorded
until the 14th century.
The Gants retained HUNMANBY until 1294, when another
Gilbert de Gant was obliged to surrender it to Robert
of Tatterhsall, who claimed it by inheritance from
Philip of Tattershall. Philip's father Robert had
married a niece of Gilbert de Gant, who was a widow
in 1185, and in 1199 Philip gave the king L6 13s. 4d.
to secure lands given to him by his uncle Roger who
held them by grant from Robert de Gant. At the death
of another Robert of Tatershall in 1306, a third of
the mnaor was assigned in dower to his mother Joan of
Tattershall (d. 1335). The rest passed to Robert's
heirs Thomas de Cailly, son of Emma sister of Robert
of Tattershall (d. 1298), and Emma's sisters Joan of
Driby and Isabel of Orby. Their shares were finally
assigned in1309. The widow and heirs of Gilbert de
Gant (d. 1298) unsuccessfully laid claims to the
manor for several years. ' [1]

' Several substantial estates in Hunmanby were held
under the chief lords. By the mid 13th century,
for example, the Marmion family held 2 carucates from
the Gants, and they retained their estate until the
mid 14th century. By 1360 dower was held in the
reputed manor of HUNMANBY by Maud, widow of Robert
Marmion. Robert's coheirs were his sisters Joan
and Avice. ' [2]

The VCH account above shows Maud (as widow of Robert Marmion)
holding dower in Hunmanby 'by 1360'. We know that Maud, wife
of Sir Roger la Zouche, held dower in Hunmanby and elsewhere as
of 22 November 1353 [3]. Perhaps reference to the appropriate
volume of Complete Peerage will clearly show whether the wife
of Sir Roger la Zouche was Maud de Furnival, the widow of John
Marmion (d. 1335) as previously stated, or the widow of his
son Robert as per the VCH account above. If the latter, this
would result in a more certain (and earlier) range for the
death of Robert Marmion.

The pedigree below traces the Gant connection to the Lords
Tate[r]shal, and supports the related descent of the manor of
Hunmanby as described in the VCH text above. It is interesting
that the VCH account references the Marmion holding as 2
carucates held originally of the Gants, whereas the IPM of
Robert de Tateshal (1304; cited by Pat previously) states there
were a total of 8 carucates held by the Marmions in 1304, of
the Tateshals - of which Lora (de Baliol) de Gant held 4
carucates in dower. This particular area certainly deserves
further study.

Cheers,

John *


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


Gilbert de Gant = Alice de Montfort
Hunmanby> I
I
I
Walter de Gant = Maud of Brittany
of Folkingham, Lincs. I
d. 1139 I
____________________I__________________
I I I I I
William = NN Alice Gilbert Robert Geoffrey
fitz I = Roger E of d. 1191
Walter I de Lincoln <Hunmanby
of Welle, I Mowbray dspm = <2> Gunnora
Lincs. I I 1156 I
I V I_______
_______I___________ I
I I I I
Robert Roger Isabel = Robert Sir Gilbert
fitz <Hunmanby> I fitz de Gant
William I Hugh de d. ca. 1241
de Welle I Tateshal I
I I V
V ______________I____________
I I I
Philip Robert Walter = Iseult
Hunmanby> de Tateshal I Pantulf
__________________I
I
Robert = <1> Maud d'Aubigny
de Tateshal I <coheir of
Hunmanby> I Arundel
d. 1249 I
________I
I
Robert = Nichole
d. 1273 I
__________I
I
Robert = Joan
Lord Tateshal I 'filia
d. bef 8 Sept 1298 I Ranulfi'
________________________I__________________
I I I I
Robert Emma Joan Isabel
Lord Tateshal = Adam = Sir Robert = Sir John
d. bef 28 Jul de Cailly de Driby de Orreby
1303 = Eve I I I
de Tibetot I I I
I V V V
I
Robert
3rd Lord
dsp 1305/6
= Joan



* John P. Ravilious







pajunkin@bellsouth.net wrote:
Dear John and All,

I hope you can clarify for me a couple of observations.
John Marmion was dead ca. 1335.
Maud Furnival was dead after 1348, surviving at least 11 years. Their
children born ca. 1313-1325-30.
John Marmion was heir to certain parts of Hundmandby and property at
West Tanfield, Wath and Langton on Swale.W. Tanfield was acquired as an
heir of Avice de Tanfield who was as an infant in the custody of Robert
Vipont and married to Robert de Marmion Jr., according to Kirkeby's
Inquest. It is stated that Robert, a descendant of Robert Vipont's
brother, Ivo, was married to Margaret (d. 1359) heiress to Hucmandby. I
have not proven this.
FILE - Extract of proceedings in Quo Warranto - ref. zDDHU/9/1 - date:
30 Sep 1280
(a) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt and Richard Malebyse to whales in the
port of Fyfle (Filey), reserving their Mheads and tails to the Crown.
Gilbert de Gaunt claims to have had one moiety since the Conquest; and
Richard Malebyse to have had the other of the gift of Walter son of
Gislebert (an ancestor of Gilbert de Gaunt) to Ralph de Nevill (an
ancestor of Richard Malebyse) (b) on claim of Gilbert de Gaunt to have
free chase in Swaledale; free warren at Helawe and wreck of the sea at
Hunmanby[Hundemanbie]. He claims that he and his ancestors have had free
chase in Swaledale since time out of mind; that he has free warren at
Helawe since it is within Swaledale where he has free chase; and that he
does not claim wreck of the sea but only whales, reserving their heads
and tails to the Crown Found for the claimants Copied 11 Jul 1666; 10 Jan
1672/3 and 13 Feb 1672/3 Originally dated 30 Sep 1280
Malbys is also holding of Robert Tateshale. Perhaps Isabel was a Nevill
or Malbys.
Roger la Zuche of Lubbesthorpe was born 1292.
This new theory places Matilda as the second wife, therefore not the
mother of Juliana, William and Elizabeth.
If Matilda were a Furnivall married to John Marmion, why did the
possession of these lands fall to her rather than the heirs of John
Marmion. Was she the guardian of her Marmion children, hence Roger la
Zouche holding in right of Maud as guardian?
Was Folieca a Swyllyngton, then? 1377 Oct. 6?Receipt from Juliane relict
of John Seint Andrew ?que dieux assoile? to Robert de Swyllyngton
?luncle? for six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence paid her from
the manor of Lubstorp for the Christmas and Easter terms past. Armorial
seal: Seint Andrew (mascally, with label) impaling Zouche. Legend: s.
iu??o andrea. (Duke of Rutland)
Thank you for comment.
Pat

Dear Pat,

The de Gant connection with Hunmanby is documented in part
by the IPM of Gilbert de Gaunt (7 Feb 1273/4), in which the
jurors state in part,

' that Gilbert de Gaunt, who is dead, held of the King
in chief and barony, the town (villatam) of Hundemanby,
but that he granted the same town (villam) with its
apppurtenances without exception, to Gilbert, his son
and heir, in marriage with Lora de Balliol (de Balyolo),
and gave her dower of it, and placed them a long time
before his decease in full seisin. ' [1]

There is apparently an intervening tenure by the Marmions,
such that in 1304 (and likely before) Lora de Baliol, widow
of the younger Gilbert de Gaunt, was holding her dower of
John, Lord Marmion (d. bef 7 May 1322).

I think that Isabel, wife of the above John Marmion, was
likely of the Tateshal family - possibly an unknown daughter
of Robert de Tateshal (d. 22 Jul 1273) and his wife Nicole.
Perhaps the Victoria County History for Yorkshire (East
Riding) holds the answer as to how Maud (de Furnival) (Marmion)
la Zouche came to hold her dower in Hunmanby, and of whom?

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] W. Brown, Yorkshire Inquisitions [Yorks. Arch. Soc.
Record Series, vol. XII (1892)], I:137.






Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 des 2006 04:38:01

This section seems confused.
So far it seems like we have
Robert Tateshull + Nichole
-- Robert Tateshull + Joan "filia Ranulfi" (d abt 1335)
---- Robert Tateshull + Eve de Tybetot
------ Robert Tateshull d 30 Jan 1306 (per his IPM) + Joan

But could not Robert 4th above, be confused with Robert 2nd above? They both
have a wife "Joan"
Perhaps the various sources should be "quoted" so we can see exactly what
they do and don't say. Maybe these "four" Robert's are really three.... or two.

Will Johnson

CE Wood

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av CE Wood » 13 des 2006 04:57:54

On the death of Robert 1st Baron de Tateshal's grandson, Robert 3rd
Baron de Tateshal, b. 18 Mar 1288, dsp 30 Jan 1305/6, according to
Complete Peerage, vol. XII/1, p. 653 & notes (c) and (d):

"his estates were divided between his 3 coheirs: 2 ladies who were
almost certainly the daughters of the 1st Lord Tateshal (though
described as his sisters) and the son and heir of their elder sister
(c). On this assumption, the Barony supposed to have been created by
the writ of 1295 would have fallen into abeyance, according to modern
doctrine, between his 3 coheirs (d)."

(c) In the inquisition of 1306 the jurors stated that Emma, Joan and
Isabel were the sisters of Robert his grandfather (d. 1298). There are
grounds for supposing that the statements were inaccurate, and that
they were the latter's daughters by Joan his wife. Reasons to this
effect have been given in "Early Yorks Charters", dealing with lands of
the Honour of Richmond held by Joan, wife of Robert de Tateshal, and
her two sisters, expecially Joan's tenure of the manor of Hethersett,
Norfolk, where a statement is cited from Blomefield that Joan de
Tateshall settled it on Sir William Bernak and Alice his wife, Alice's
mother being described as Joan "one of the three daughters and
heiresses" of the abovenamed Joan de Tateshall. A careful examination
of the chronological details relating to Emma, Joan and Isabel and
their issue strongly supports the suggestion that they were daughters
and not sisters of Robert de Tateshal, 1st Lord Tateshal, who d. in
1298. If so, the barony supposed to have been created by the writ of
1295 would have fallen into abeyance, according to modern doctrine, in
1306 between them and their representatives."

CE Wood


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This section seems confused.
So far it seems like we have
Robert Tateshull + Nichole
-- Robert Tateshull + Joan "filia Ranulfi" (d abt 1335)
---- Robert Tateshull + Eve de Tybetot
------ Robert Tateshull d 30 Jan 1306 (per his IPM) + Joan

But could not Robert 4th above, be confused with Robert 2nd above? They both
have a wife "Joan"
Perhaps the various sources should be "quoted" so we can see exactly what
they do and don't say. Maybe these "four" Robert's are really three.... or two.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 des 2006 05:34:02

In a message dated 12/12/06 8:03:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:

<< A careful examination
of the chronological details relating to Emma, Joan and Isabel and
their issue strongly supports the suggestion that they were daughters
and not sisters of Robert de Tateshal, 1st Lord Tateshal, who d. in
1298. If so, the barony supposed to have been created by the writ of
1295 would have fallen into abeyance, according to modern doctrine, in
1306 between them and their representatives." >>

Thanks!
That tightens up the chronology quite a bit.
Will

John P. Ravilious

Re: Maud de Furnival, wife (2ndly) of Sir Roger la Zouche of

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 13 des 2006 13:24:10

Wednesday, 13 December, 2006


Dear Will, Clive, CE, et al.,

In reviewing your replies of the past few days, together with
my own notes (both those previously incorporated into my database,
and not), I see that my construction of the pedigree agrees more
fully with the CP view as expressed at CP XII/1:653 (notes (c) and
(d)) [thanks to CEW for this extract]:

' A careful examination of the chronological details relating
to Emma, Joan and Isabel and their issue strongly supports
the suggestion that they were daughters and not sisters of
Robert de Tateshal, 1st Lord Tateshal, who d. in 1298. '

This then appears to show the VCH version concerning the death
of the last Robert de Tateshal and his heirs as flawed. Given the
overall tight chronology concerning the succession ca. 1298-1306
and an excess number of Joans in the pedigree, this is
understandable. Certain items are in error, including the
statement in Blomefield (cited at CP XII/1:653, note (c)) that Joan
(de Tateshal) de Driby was an "heiress" of her mother Joan ("filia
Ranulfi") de Tateshal: she was an heiress of her nephew Robert.

As to the question of the last Robert de Tateshal having
married prior to his passing, I submit the following evidence:

1. Robert de Tateshal, born ca. 1268 (aged various 24 to 30 at
his father's death in 1298), was married to Eve de Tibetot.
He died before 28 Jul 1303. There is the following record
in the Patent Rolls of a grant of the marriage of his son
and heir by King Edward I at Brechin (Scotland) on 9 August
1303:

' Grant to Hugh Bardolf of the marriage of Robert son
and heir of Robert de Tateshale, tenant in chief. By p.s.
Mandate to the wife of the said Robert to deliver the
body of the said Robert to Hugh to be married. '
[CPR 31 Edw I (1301-07), p. 152, mem. 17]

2. Robert, the son, was born ca. 1288 [CP], and was therefore
a minor at his father's death, and also old enough to have
a marriage contracted. He died before 30 Jan 1305/06,
the date of his IPM [CP]. He was evidently married to Joan
(parentage unknown) as we have the award of dower subsequent
to his death: in Buckenham, Norfolk,

' On 22 Nov 1306, Joan, late the wife of Robert, son and heir of
Robert de Tateshal was awarded a moiety of the market as part of
her dower (CCR, 1302-7, p. 475). On 18 Apr 1308, a fourth of the
market was delivered to Thomas de Caylly; this fourth part was
worth 5s. per annum. An eighth of the market, worth 2s. 6d. per
annum, was delivered to Joan de Driby. The day of the market was
not recorded (CCR, 1307-13, pp. 58-9).

Also, re: Attleborough, Norfolk,

' On 22 Nov 1306, Joan, late the wife of Robert, son and heir of
Robert de Tateshal, was awarded a moiety of the market as part of
her dower (CCR, 1302-7, p. 475). ' [Gazetteer of Markets and
Fairs, http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html ]

It appears that Joan, wife of the last Robert de Tateshal,
died sometime before 18 Apr 1308, when a fourth of the market at
Buckenham, Norfolk (part of her dower) was delivered to Thomas de
Caylly, one of the Tateshal coheirs. I would suggest further,
while evidence is wanting, that she was most likely a previously
unknown daughter of Hugh Bardolf, Lord Bardolf, of Wormegay,
Norfolk (d. bef 20 Aug 1304) to whom the marriage was granted in
1303.

Cheers,

John *



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


Robert = <1> Maud d'Aubigny
de Tateshal I <coheir of
<Hunmanby> I Arundel>
d. 1249 I
________I
I
Robert = Nichole
d. 1273 I
__________I
I
Robert = Joan
Lord Tateshal I 'filia
d. bef 8 Sept 1298 I Ranulfi'
________________________I__________________
I I I I
Robert Emma Joan Isabel
Lord Tateshal = Adam = Sir Robert = Sir John
d. bef 28 Jul de Cailly de Driby de Orreby
1303 = Eve I I I
de Tibetot I I I
I V V V
I
Robert
3rd Lord
dsp 1305/6
= Joan
[Bardolf ?]


* John P. Ravilious



CE Wood wrote:
On the death of Robert 1st Baron de Tateshal's grandson, Robert 3rd
Baron de Tateshal, b. 18 Mar 1288, dsp 30 Jan 1305/6, according to
Complete Peerage, vol. XII/1, p. 653 & notes (c) and (d):

"his estates were divided between his 3 coheirs: 2 ladies who were
almost certainly the daughters of the 1st Lord Tateshal (though
described as his sisters) and the son and heir of their elder sister
(c). On this assumption, the Barony supposed to have been created by
the writ of 1295 would have fallen into abeyance, according to modern
doctrine, between his 3 coheirs (d)."

(c) In the inquisition of 1306 the jurors stated that Emma, Joan and
Isabel were the sisters of Robert his grandfather (d. 1298). There are
grounds for supposing that the statements were inaccurate, and that
they were the latter's daughters by Joan his wife. Reasons to this
effect have been given in "Early Yorks Charters", dealing with lands of
the Honour of Richmond held by Joan, wife of Robert de Tateshal, and
her two sisters, expecially Joan's tenure of the manor of Hethersett,
Norfolk, where a statement is cited from Blomefield that Joan de
Tateshall settled it on Sir William Bernak and Alice his wife, Alice's
mother being described as Joan "one of the three daughters and
heiresses" of the abovenamed Joan de Tateshall. A careful examination
of the chronological details relating to Emma, Joan and Isabel and
their issue strongly supports the suggestion that they were daughters
and not sisters of Robert de Tateshal, 1st Lord Tateshal, who d. in
1298. If so, the barony supposed to have been created by the writ of
1295 would have fallen into abeyance, according to modern doctrine, in
1306 between them and their representatives."

CE Wood


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This section seems confused.
So far it seems like we have
Robert Tateshull + Nichole
-- Robert Tateshull + Joan "filia Ranulfi" (d abt 1335)
---- Robert Tateshull + Eve de Tybetot
------ Robert Tateshull d 30 Jan 1306 (per his IPM) + Joan

But could not Robert 4th above, be confused with Robert 2nd above? They both
have a wife "Joan"
Perhaps the various sources should be "quoted" so we can see exactly what
they do and don't say. Maybe these "four" Robert's are really three.... or two.

Will Johnson

Clagett, Brice

RE: Royal Ancestry of Robert Cole; Addition to Mr. Richardso

Legg inn av Clagett, Brice » 13 des 2006 18:21:09

Dear Mr. Whitesides: I have no recollection of receiving an inquiry from
you to which I did not respond. If I did, I sincerely apologize. If you
will repeat it (presumably off-list), I will be glad to help if I can.
Brice Clagett

-----Original Message-----
From: ToddWhitesides@aol.com [mailto:ToddWhitesides@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:48 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Royal Ancestry of Robert Cole; Addition to Mr. Richardson's
Plantagenet A...

Since Brice is the only one apparently interested in this family I am
letting it drop. I don't feel like sharing information with someone who
has been willing to take information from others and then withhold
sharing anything in return. Look at the will again, Brice. There are
several instances of capital Ms in the document and the first letter of
the daughter's name looks nothing like them. When comparing her name
to a handwriting guide for Elizabethan and Jacobean writing that I
have, the first letter looks clearly like the first S given in my
guide. I would say the name is clearly S---y. The a and the r are
less definite but seem the more likely letters intended. Also, look at
recusant rolls from the same time period. The name Sarah appears there
as a given name for other Catholics of the same time period. Also I
have seen the diminutive "Sary" used by another Anglo-Catholic family.
I am sorry I don't feel like sharing more, but I have received requests
for information from you before, only to be followed with a one-word
email "Thanks." Then when I send a request to you, all I receive is
stony silence.

Douglas Richardson

Complete Peerage Correction: Parentage of Emme, Joan, & Isab

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 des 2006 18:46:10

Dear John, etc. ~

The statement in Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 653 regarding the
parentage of Emme, Joan, and Isabel de Tateshale is very much in error.
That they were sisters, not daughters of Robert de Tateshale who died
in 1298 is obvious from the fact that none of the three Tateshale
sisters shared in the inheritance of Joan Fitz Ralph, wife of Robert de
Tateshale. Rather, with the possible exception of one manor, Joan Fitz
Ralph's entire inheritance went to the descendants of her sister, Mary,
wife of Robert de Neville.

This matter is further discussed at some length in George Farnham's
excellent work, Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees, published in 1925,
which work includes a large genealogical chart of the Tateshale family.
The chart traces the descendants of all three Tateshale sisters.
Reviewing the chronology, it is clear that the three sisters could not
possibly be the children of Robert de Tateshale and his wife, Joan Fitz
Ralph. Rather, the chronology dictates that they were Robert's
sisters, being daughters of Robert de Tateshale, died 1273, and his
wife, Nichole, daughter of John de Grey.

For starters, here are just two chronological examples. First, Adam de
Clifton, born about 1307, was the grandson and heir of Emme de
Tateshale, one of the three Tateshale sisters. Employing the 85 year
rule of thumb for three generations, if we subtract 85 years from 1307
we should get a reasonable estimated date of birth for Emme de
Tateshale's father. Doing the math, this gives us the year 1222.
Reviewing the Tateshale pedigree, we see that Robert de Tateshale (died
1273) is the closest match to that birthdate, he being born about 1223,
being aged 26 at his father's death in 1249.

Second, Sir John de Bernake, born 1305-6 or 1309, was the grandson
and heir of Joan de Tateshale, another of the three Tateshale sisters.
Again, if we substract 85 years from 1305/1309, we get a reasonable
estimated date of birth for Joan de Tateshale's father as 1220-1224.
Once again, the closest match to this birthdate is that of Robert de
Tateshale, died 1273, who was born about 1223.

The above math shows that Complete Peerage misrepresented the facts
when it stated that it had made a "careful examination of the
chronological details relating to Emma, Joan and Isabel and their
issue." Clearly Complete Peerage had not made such an examination.
And, thanks to Mr. Farnham's careful work, this error has been exposed.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World colonists who descend from Robert de Tateshale, died 1273, and
his wife, Nichole de Grey. The list includes the immigrant, Margaret
Touteville, wife of Rev. Thomas Shepard, whose newly extended ancestry
has been previously discussed on the gen.medieval newsgroup.

William Bladen, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Muriel Gurdon, Anne
& Katherine Marbury, Thomas Owsley, Richard Saltonstall, Mary Johanna
Somerset, Margaret Touteville (two descents).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Yet Another Complete Peerage Correction: Tateshale-Orreby

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 13 des 2006 23:01:24

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my original post, I should point out yet another
correction to Complete Peerage which relates to the Tateshale family.

Complete Peerage, 10 (1945): 171-172 (sub Orreby) identifies Isabel de
Tateshale, wife of Sir John de Orreby, Lord Orreby, as the "youngest
daughter of Sir Robert de Tateshal (died 1298)." Yet, in the next
breath, the author states Sir Robert's grandson was Isabel's
great-nephew. Obviously, if she was the daughter of Sir Robert de
Tateshale who died in 1298, she would be the aunt of Sir Robert's
grandson, not his great aunt.

If I understand what Complete Peerage is saying, it would seem that the
author of the Orreby account somehow has carelessly confused Isabel de
Tateshale's real father, Robert de Tateshale the elder, who died in
1273, with Isabel's brother, Sir Robert de Tateshale, who died in 1298.
Thus the account should correctly read that Isabel de Tateshale was
"youngest daughter of Robert de Tateshal (died 1273)." Whatever the
case, Isabel was in fact the co-heir to her Tateshale great nephew who
who died in 1306, just as stated in the inquisitions which followed the
great-nephew's death. So that part is correct.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: English handwriting 1500-1700

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 14 des 2006 00:42:02

(Snip) <I have done extensive research on Archbishop George Dowdall and
have a vast collection of records regarding him. >



Dear Margaret

I was interested to see the references to the name Dowdall in Ireland, and
wondered if you had information about other Irish Dowdalls.

Anne Dowdall of Kilfenny, Limerick, Ireland, was the wife of Lt. Col.
William Pigott who died in 1667. Her parents were Sir John Dowdall of
Kilfenny and Elizabeth Southwell of Polylong.

Do you have any information about these people and their ancestors?

Best wishes

Merilyn Pedrick

Aldgate, South Australia

conaught2

Re: English handwriting 1500-1700 Dowdall's of Kilfinny and

Legg inn av conaught2 » 14 des 2006 09:20:09

Hi Merilyn,

It is interesting you should ask about the Kilfinny Dowdalls. I recently returned from a five week research trip to Ireland and still have not sorted through all the material I gathered. I always assumed the Kilfinny Dowdalls were a branch off the County Louth Dowdalls, but recently I found that the Sir John Dowdall referred to in Kilfinny was not the same Dowdall family as the County Louth Dowdall family. Sir John Dowdall has been cropping up in my research for years.

Sir John Dowdall of Kilfinny is the same Captain John Dowdall who served in Elizabeth's army in Ireland. He was from England and had no connection to the County Louth, Meath, Westmeath or Dublin Dowdalls. ( I imagine there was a connection before the Normans invaded Ireland but that is not my area of interest

.. Captain John Dowdall was commander of Youghal, County Cork, in 1569 (possibly 1580)
He was was not related to the County Louth, Meath or Westmeath Dowdalls. Captain Dowdall was from Shirwell Parish, Devon, England. Sir Arthur Chichester was from Shirwell Parish and one of his principal tenants was John and Johanne Dowdall. It appears their son James went to Ireland and settled in the town of Dungannon, County Tyrone. Captain John Dowdall was probably the youngest son and joined Elizabeth's army and served 30 years in Ireland. (Seanchas Ard Mhacha, 2004 Edition, Kristich, Margaret, James Dowdall of Drogheda An Irish Martyr - source was - (Dowdle, M.A., PhD., Harold L., Robert Dowdle, Sr., and his Descendants, Stevenson's Genealogy Center, 230 West 1230 North, Provo, Utah, 1990 ).



Captain John Dowdall was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. He led her forces in the Battle of Enniskillen and was commander of Dungannon Fort.



Hayes Manuscript, National Library of Ireland -



"Dowdall (Sir John)

London: Tract on the sate of Ireland, addressed to James I, by Sir John Dowdall (of Kilfinny), eing an autorgraph copy of twhat he wrote in March 1600 for Queen Elizabeth when he was commander of Duncannon Fort, early tempore James I

n.1714 p. 1456"



There are several listings for Sir John (Captain) Dowdall in the Hayes Manuscript.



I don't have any information about Anne Dowdall but for Sir John (Captain) his co-heir was Honora who d. 2nd Oct, 1638 and was buried in Monkstown, County Meath. She was married to Lawrence Dowdall of Monkstown, who was Registrar of Chancery. It is an interesting turn of events to find that Captain John Dowdall's daughter married into the Louth/Meath Dowdalls.



The information regarding Honora Dowdall and the Monkstown Dowdalls is taken from Irish Pedigrees p. 182 as well as the Dowdall Pedigrees Irish National Library Manuscript Dept. MS 177 p. 109. Honora is also mentioned in the will of Edward Dowdall of Monkstown found in Betham's Abstracts of Perog. Wills. I haven't been able to dicipher all the words in the will.



According to your information Anne and Honora would be sisters. Hope this is of some help.



Margaret









----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>; "conaught2" <conaught2@charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: English handwriting 1500-1700



(Snip) <I have done extensive research on Archbishop George Dowdall and
have a vast collection of records regarding him.



Dear Margaret

I was interested to see the references to the name Dowdall in Ireland, and
wondered if you had information about other Irish Dowdalls.

Anne Dowdall of Kilfenny, Limerick, Ireland, was the wife of Lt. Col.
William Pigott who died in 1667. Her parents were Sir John Dowdall of
Kilfenny and Elizabeth Southwell of Polylong.

Do you have any information about these people and their ancestors?

Best wishes

Merilyn Pedrick

Aldgate, South Australia













Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»