Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Pretty to look at but short on accuracy
Dear Leo , Douglas and others,
If We could refer to these
personages only as They referred to themselves in official documents, We would
very soon, I imagine find ourselves thoroughly confused. Which of them was the
first to use a regnal number, for instance ? Was Henry III , King of England
ever called Henricus Tertius Rex Angliae in any official document, was Edward
I, King of England ever Edvardus Primus, Rex Angliae ? And what of Louis IX,
King of France ? Ludovicus Novius, Rex Francorum. Certainly never ever
Ludovicus Sancti. not in his lifetime. I believe I`ve amply demonstrated my own utter
imcompetence in Latin enough for now.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
If We could refer to these
personages only as They referred to themselves in official documents, We would
very soon, I imagine find ourselves thoroughly confused. Which of them was the
first to use a regnal number, for instance ? Was Henry III , King of England
ever called Henricus Tertius Rex Angliae in any official document, was Edward
I, King of England ever Edvardus Primus, Rex Angliae ? And what of Louis IX,
King of France ? Ludovicus Novius, Rex Francorum. Certainly never ever
Ludovicus Sancti. not in his lifetime. I believe I`ve amply demonstrated my own utter
imcompetence in Latin enough for now.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: Fw: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
Jwc1...@aol.com a écrit :
That seems very difficult to achieve.
Pierre
Dear Douglas, Leo, Pierre , Peter S and others,
While
admittedly I have far less weight (credibility wise) than does Douglas
That seems very difficult to achieve.
Pierre
-
conaught2
Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown
Hi John,
Yes, it is the younger Sir John Dowdall who was the cause of confusion. I
am unaware of the descent from his family because I never knew of any
connection between Captain (Sir) John Dowdall 1545-abt 1606) his father and
my branch of the Dowdalls(until I found the information at the National
Library in the Hayes Manuscript this past September) which were the Dowdalls
who came from England shortly after the Strongbow and Norman invasion of
Ireland in the 12th century. The first mention of my branch of the Dowdalls
in Ireland was in 1215. Captain John Dowdall the father of your Sir John
Dowdall, came to Ireland to fight in Queen Elizabeth's army. In a letter to
Robert Cecil in 1601 he referred to his 40 year service in Ireland which
placed him first in Ireland in 1561. Captain John Dowdall was the commander
at the Battles of Belleek and Enniskillen, County Tyrone; chased Gerald
Fitzgerald, 16th Earl of Desmond down in County Limerick and was also
responsible for at least one Catholic priest's martyrdom, Fr. O'Neilan
O.F.M. on March 28, 1580 in Youghal, County Cork. Previously I gave a
possible date of Captain Dowdall's presense in Youghal as either 1569 or
1580, I have checked further references and it was 1580. Also Captain John
Dowdall had a brother James Dowdall who was a planter in Dungannon, County
Tyrone on Arthur Chichester's estate.
In Captain (Sir) John Dowdall's will dated November 30, 1604, he left the
Ardmore property to his eldest son John. who was knighted in March 1618,
thus becoming the second Sir John Dowdall of Kilfinny, not to be confused
with Sir John Dowdall of Termonfeckin; there were also a few more Sir John
Dowdalls of County Louth, but no conncection to the Kilfinny English
Dowdalls except for the marriage of Captain John Dowdall's daughter Honora
to Laurence Dowdall of Monkstown, County Meath. Honora died October 2, 1638
and was buried in Monkstown.
If I come across any further information about the Kilfinny Dowdalls I will
let you know.
Margaret Kristich
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown
Yes, it is the younger Sir John Dowdall who was the cause of confusion. I
am unaware of the descent from his family because I never knew of any
connection between Captain (Sir) John Dowdall 1545-abt 1606) his father and
my branch of the Dowdalls(until I found the information at the National
Library in the Hayes Manuscript this past September) which were the Dowdalls
who came from England shortly after the Strongbow and Norman invasion of
Ireland in the 12th century. The first mention of my branch of the Dowdalls
in Ireland was in 1215. Captain John Dowdall the father of your Sir John
Dowdall, came to Ireland to fight in Queen Elizabeth's army. In a letter to
Robert Cecil in 1601 he referred to his 40 year service in Ireland which
placed him first in Ireland in 1561. Captain John Dowdall was the commander
at the Battles of Belleek and Enniskillen, County Tyrone; chased Gerald
Fitzgerald, 16th Earl of Desmond down in County Limerick and was also
responsible for at least one Catholic priest's martyrdom, Fr. O'Neilan
O.F.M. on March 28, 1580 in Youghal, County Cork. Previously I gave a
possible date of Captain Dowdall's presense in Youghal as either 1569 or
1580, I have checked further references and it was 1580. Also Captain John
Dowdall had a brother James Dowdall who was a planter in Dungannon, County
Tyrone on Arthur Chichester's estate.
In Captain (Sir) John Dowdall's will dated November 30, 1604, he left the
Ardmore property to his eldest son John. who was knighted in March 1618,
thus becoming the second Sir John Dowdall of Kilfinny, not to be confused
with Sir John Dowdall of Termonfeckin; there were also a few more Sir John
Dowdalls of County Louth, but no conncection to the Kilfinny English
Dowdalls except for the marriage of Captain John Dowdall's daughter Honora
to Laurence Dowdall of Monkstown, County Meath. Honora died October 2, 1638
and was buried in Monkstown.
If I come across any further information about the Kilfinny Dowdalls I will
let you know.
Margaret Kristich
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown
Thanks for this further information on the Dowdalls, which clears up
confusion regarding the two Sir Johns.
If I understand it correctly, the elder Sir John Dowdall (d. ca. 1606)
came
from Shirwell, Devon, and had a wife named Margaret. Their son Sir John
was
married to Elizabeth Southwell of Polylong. This latter couple had
several
daughters including Elizabeth who mar. Sir Hardress Waller, the regicide.
Taking the line a bit further, their daughter Bridget Waller mar. Henry
Cadogan of Liscartan, Co. Meath, from which marriage comes the family of
the
present Earls Cadogan and thus connections to many other peerage
families -
and eventually Princess Diana.
----- Original Message -----
From: "conaught2" <conaught2@charter.net
To: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown
Hi John,
I found some more information regarding our discussion about the Dowdalls
of
Kilfinny. The Elizabeth you refer to as wife to Sir John Dowdall appears
to
be the daughter-in-law of Captain (Sir) John Dowdall who died abt 1606 in
Pilltown, County Waterford and the wife of Sir John Dowdall who died
before
1641. I will refer to the senior John Dowdall as Captain. Captain John
Dowdall was born in 1545 in Shirwell, Devonshire, England. In Harold
Dowdle's excellent work Robert Dowdle Senior and his Descendents, 1990,
he
has documentation of Captain Dowdall's wife's name as Margaret.
Page 7 - Captain Dowdall apparently married in Devon, for he held land
there
in "right of his wife Margaret." Taken from Court Rolls of the Manor of
Waddeton, Devon Record Office, Exeter, Devon, England, Translation
009.21,p.12.
In Captain John Dowdall's will one of the executors was John
Woode,either
the brother or father of Margaret. In Captain John Dowdall's will he
states
his wife's name as Lady Margaret. His eldest son was John who was also
knighted in March 1618.
To verify that Elizabeth was the name of Sir John Dowdall (the son)
listed
below is some interesting information.
Taken from Samuel Lewis' A Topigraphical Dictionary of Ireland regarding
Kilfinny, County Limerick:
"At the foot of a hill are the remains of Kilfenny Castle, built by
Cormac
Mac Einery in the reign of John; it afterwards belonged to the Kildare
family, by whom it was forfeited in the reign of Elizabeth. It was
besieged
by the Irish under Col. Purcell, in 1641, and resolutely defended by the
widow of Sir John Dowdall for some time, but ultimately surrendered.
The following is taken from an article about Women's Lives in the British
Civil Wars:
Lady Elizabeth Dowdall
Two months after the outbreak of the Irish rebellion in 1641, she raised
and
commanded a force of eighty men, for the defence of the castle. Otherwise
an
obscure figure.
http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/warliv ... aphies.htm
The English Civil Wars, A Soldier's Life chapter on Women:
." In 1641 during the Irish Rebellion Lady Elizabeth Dowdall raised a
company of soldiers in Munster. She seized the rebels' horses when they
attacked and hanged ten men.When
surrounded by the rebels she sent out soldiers with grenades to set fire
to
the enemy quarters and burn the rebels alive.
Lady Elizabeth Dowdall was the daughter of Sir John Dowdall, a wealthy
landowner in County Limerick Ireland. In 1629, she married Sir Hardress
Waller, one of the regicides of Charles 1st. In 1641, during the Irish
Rebellion, Lady Elizabeth successfully defended Kilfinny Castle against
the
rebels. Taken from Opentopia Encyclopedia -
http://encycl.opentopia.com/L/LA/LAD
From Answers.com
In 1641, during the Irish Rebellion Elizabeth successfully defended
Kilfinny Castle against the rebels, and is reputed to have hung several
of
them during the fighting. She died in 1658. One of her daughters was
Elizabeth Waller, Baroness Shelburne, the wife of the economist
Sir William Petty.
In John Bellew A 17th Century Man of Many Parts 1605-1679, the reknown
Irish Historian Harold O'Sullivan has information about the second
daughter
of Sir John Dowdall who married Sir Hardress Waller of England in 1629.
Waller acquired thousands of acres of land in County Limerick "on foot of
the marriage settlement".
Margaret Kristich
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Dowdall's of Kilfinny and Monkstown [was: English
handwriting1500-1700]
This is an interesting addition to the knowledge base on the confusing
Dowdall family.
Can it be confirmed that the Capt. John Dowdall who was commander of
Youghall in 1569 or 1580 was in fact the John Dowdall mentioned in the
previous note who was mar. to Elizabeth Southwell of Polylong? If this
is
the case, a pedigree (of admittedly dubious reliability) in a very
early
edition of Burke's Landed Gentry says that this couple had "several
daughters but no son". Honora the wife of Laurence Dowdall of
Mounttown
is
mentioned as the youngest daughter, while the second daughter is said
to
be
Elizabeth, wife of Sir Hardress Waller the regicide. The BLG pedigree
also
mentions the eldest daughter Anne, said to be mar., not to Lt. Col.
William
Pigott, but to "her relative John Southwell of Rathkeale". Sir John
Dowdall, the father of this particular Anne was apparently alive in
1623,
when he made a settlement of property to Anne and her husband. You
mention
that Honora was a co-heir of Sir John Dowdall - is anything said about
the
other co-heirs?
The early BLG pedigree doesn't distinguish very carefully between the
Dowdalls of Kilfinny and those of Mounttown and other localities, so
it's
not to be relied upon as a sole source, but it is interesting....
With respect to the Southwells of Polylong, Sir Thomas is mentioned in
Dashwood's 1878 edition (with extensions) of the 1563 Visitation of
Norfolk.
He is said to have mar. Anne, dau. of Sir Thomas Harris of Cornworthy,
Devon, and d. 12 June 1626, leaving two daughters [unnamed] as
co-heirs.
The Devon connection here is interesting given Margaret's new notes on
the
Devonshire connection of Capt. John Dowdall.
----- Original Message -----
From: "conaught2" <conaught2@charter.net
To: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>;
gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: English handwriting 1500-1700 Dowdall's of Kilfinny and
Monkstown
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.
-------------------------------
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: Fw: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1385.1168715115.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
I don't know why "Peter S" appears in your greeting - if this means me, I
have taken no part in this thread. Nor have I any need to do so: the
absurdity and dishonesty of Richardson's latest pose are surely
self-evident.
But I can assure you, James, that you far outweigh Richardson in
credibility, since unlike him you have not been trying for years to deceive
the newsgroup (& a wider readership) about your skills, knowledge, research
methods & capabilities.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1385.1168715115.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Dear Douglas, Leo, Pierre , Peter S and others,
While
admittedly I have far less weight (credibility wise) than does Douglas, I
rather believe the Crossback story. King Edward and Queen Eleanor and
probably
Prince Edmund were in the Holy Land when King Henry III died in 1272 and
Edward
and Eleanor had to return to England. The Lady Joan who would marry
Gilbert de
Clare, Earl of Hertford, Clare and Gloucester as his 2nd wife was born to
the
royal couple at Acre.
I don't know why "Peter S" appears in your greeting - if this means me, I
have taken no part in this thread. Nor have I any need to do so: the
absurdity and dishonesty of Richardson's latest pose are surely
self-evident.
But I can assure you, James, that you far outweigh Richardson in
credibility, since unlike him you have not been trying for years to deceive
the newsgroup (& a wider readership) about your skills, knowledge, research
methods & capabilities.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
Dear Peter,
It is You to whom I was referring. Sorry, I rather lost
track of who has and hasn`t made a response to this thread under any of Its`
names.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
It is You to whom I was referring. Sorry, I rather lost
track of who has and hasn`t made a response to this thread under any of Its`
names.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela
On 6 Feb 2005 I wrote:
I can now answer my own question, that wasn't resolved last year.
The document printed by Arbois de Jubainville was a charter of Stephen
Henry's father Count Thibaud III for Chartres cathedral, dated 9 January
1083, stating "Consensu ergo sororis meae Bertae et uxoris Adelaidis atque
filiorum meorum Stephani et Odonis" (therefore with the consent of my sister
Berta and [my] wife Adelais and my sons Stephen and Odo).
This is not evidence that Stephen was still unmarried. The consent of the
count's second (or possibly third) wife is not unusual, but adding that of a
daughter-in-law would have been distinctly less common. The sister and two
named sons did not attest the charter, while there is no reference to two
other living sons, Philip and Hugo.
There is nothing else in it that could be taken to imply whether or not
Stephen Henry was already married as clearly evidenced in the 1081 charter
cited above from _Gallia christiana_. It appears that LoPrete simply read
too much into this.
Peter Stewart
I can remember seeing the year 1081 given for the marriage of Adela to
Stephen Henry, count of Blois, though I can't recollect where.
Kimberly LoPrete in 'Adela of Blois: Familial Alliances and Female
Lordship', _Aristocratic Women in Medieval France_, edited by Theodore
Evergates (Philadelphia, 1999) pp. 14-15 stated that her wedding took
place
"most likely sometime between January 1083 and her mother's death in
November of that year, shortly after her fifteenth birthday". Further to
this (in note 22 on p. 183) she adds that Adela "was certainly married by
1085", citing a charter of that year, but that she "does not appear to
have
been married by January 1083", citing (apparently a document printed in)
Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville's _Histoire des ducs et des comtes de
Champagne_, vol. 1 pp. 497-99 no. 59. I haven't seen this.
However, the foundation charter of Saint-Julien de Sézanne priory (_Gallia
Christiana_, vol. XII, Instrumenta col. 254, Troyes no. 11), dated 1081,
makes it clear that Stephen Henry was already married at that time,
mentioning a ceremony "astante comitissa uxore Stephani Henrici comitis"
(in
the presence of Count Stephen Henry's wife). No name is given for the
countess, who joined in her husband's donations, but Stephen Henry was
married only once as far as we know.
Can anyone check what is in the document that LoPrete cited for Adela
being
still unmarried in January 1083?
I can now answer my own question, that wasn't resolved last year.
The document printed by Arbois de Jubainville was a charter of Stephen
Henry's father Count Thibaud III for Chartres cathedral, dated 9 January
1083, stating "Consensu ergo sororis meae Bertae et uxoris Adelaidis atque
filiorum meorum Stephani et Odonis" (therefore with the consent of my sister
Berta and [my] wife Adelais and my sons Stephen and Odo).
This is not evidence that Stephen was still unmarried. The consent of the
count's second (or possibly third) wife is not unusual, but adding that of a
daughter-in-law would have been distinctly less common. The sister and two
named sons did not attest the charter, while there is no reference to two
other living sons, Philip and Hugo.
There is nothing else in it that could be taken to imply whether or not
Stephen Henry was already married as clearly evidenced in the 1081 charter
cited above from _Gallia christiana_. It appears that LoPrete simply read
too much into this.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
In a message dated 1/15/2007 7:11:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pisces@slices.com writes:
Holland, 1606: A man very low of stature and withall crowchbacked
Godwyn, 1630: Crouch-backed Mary [married] to Martin Kayes, groom
Porter
Johnson, 1592: Aesope, for all his crutchback, had a quick wit.
None of these are likely to mean "bearing a cross on the back". (Aesop
couldn't have been a Christian.)
While the unrelated adjective "crouched" or "crutched" certainly means
"wearing a cross", as in "crouched friars",
The problem is the timing above. As you can see this word did not come into
use at all until the last 16th century. So the fact that he was called this
several centuries previously is very relevant. Either the OED is ignoring
this, or they are being clear that it's not the same word.
Will Johnson
pisces@slices.com writes:
Holland, 1606: A man very low of stature and withall crowchbacked
Godwyn, 1630: Crouch-backed Mary [married] to Martin Kayes, groom
Porter
Johnson, 1592: Aesope, for all his crutchback, had a quick wit.
None of these are likely to mean "bearing a cross on the back". (Aesop
couldn't have been a Christian.)
While the unrelated adjective "crouched" or "crutched" certainly means
"wearing a cross", as in "crouched friars",
The problem is the timing above. As you can see this word did not come into
use at all until the last 16th century. So the fact that he was called this
several centuries previously is very relevant. Either the OED is ignoring
this, or they are being clear that it's not the same word.
Will Johnson
-
gbh
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:25:04 EST, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Or at least, the Oxford English Dictionary has not found any earlier
example recorded in writing.
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
gbh
In a message dated 1/15/2007 7:11:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pisces@slices.com writes:
Holland, 1606: A man very low of stature and withall crowchbacked
Godwyn, 1630: Crouch-backed Mary [married] to Martin Kayes, groom
Porter
Johnson, 1592: Aesope, for all his crutchback, had a quick wit.
None of these are likely to mean "bearing a cross on the back". (Aesop
couldn't have been a Christian.)
While the unrelated adjective "crouched" or "crutched" certainly means
"wearing a cross", as in "crouched friars",
The problem is the timing above. As you can see this word did not come into
use at all until the last 16th century.
Or at least, the Oxford English Dictionary has not found any earlier
example recorded in writing.
So the fact that he was called this
several centuries previously is very relevant.
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
Either the OED is ignoring
this, or they are being clear that it's not the same word.
gbh
-
Gjest
Re: Ancient Petition Corrections: The false husbands of Joan
Is this John "de Brewes" that same Sir John who having d 1342, his heir John
"a minor in 1347, Mary Countess of Norfolk granted his wardship"
and who in 1357 was found to be insane ?
I don't currently show a marraige for him, and I don't show who his mother
was. Is she known to be Margaret de /Trehampton/ or someone else?
Thanks
Will Johnson
"a minor in 1347, Mary Countess of Norfolk granted his wardship"
and who in 1357 was found to be insane ?
I don't currently show a marraige for him, and I don't show who his mother
was. Is she known to be Margaret de /Trehampton/ or someone else?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Did William Sargent of New England have descendants in S
In a message dated 1/9/07 2:26:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Whitchurch, Shropshire, records (from extracted IGI) contain two
Sargent marriages of interest:
--Rog. Sergant or Sargeant to Mary Griffies, 13 Jan. 1666
--Roger Sarjeant to Anne Kemp, 16 Jan. 1683 >>
Per the extracted parish registers of Whitchurch
For baptism see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C037561
"Parish Register of Whitchurch, Shropshire"
there was a Roger Sargent having children baptised from 1635 to 1643
His wife is not named in the extractions.
Will Johnson
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< Whitchurch, Shropshire, records (from extracted IGI) contain two
Sargent marriages of interest:
--Rog. Sergant or Sargeant to Mary Griffies, 13 Jan. 1666
--Roger Sarjeant to Anne Kemp, 16 Jan. 1683 >>
Per the extracted parish registers of Whitchurch
For baptism see
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C037561
"Parish Register of Whitchurch, Shropshire"
there was a Roger Sargent having children baptised from 1635 to 1643
His wife is not named in the extractions.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
In a message dated 1/15/07 10:16:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< At her death, her
grandson, John Turville, inherited her manors of Normanton Turville,
Thurlaston, Stoke Golding, Wigston Magna and Croft. John was the son
of William Turville and his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas
Fouleshurst. >>
Is this Thomas Fouleshurst of Crew by his wife Cecily Mainwaring ?
Thanks
Will
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< At her death, her
grandson, John Turville, inherited her manors of Normanton Turville,
Thurlaston, Stoke Golding, Wigston Magna and Croft. John was the son
of William Turville and his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas
Fouleshurst. >>
Is this Thomas Fouleshurst of Crew by his wife Cecily Mainwaring ?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
In a message dated 1/15/07 10:16:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< William George Dimack Fletcher in his 1887 book 'Leicestershire
Pedigrees and Royal Descents', has Sir William Turville of Aston
Flamville, Leics. (d. 1549) married to Helen Ferrers, daughter of Sir
John Ferrers of Tamworth Castle (d. 1509) and Dorothy Harper. >>
I would like to point out that John did not die in 1509
He has an IPM 4H8 in which is stated "died 16 Jul last past"
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< William George Dimack Fletcher in his 1887 book 'Leicestershire
Pedigrees and Royal Descents', has Sir William Turville of Aston
Flamville, Leics. (d. 1549) married to Helen Ferrers, daughter of Sir
John Ferrers of Tamworth Castle (d. 1509) and Dorothy Harper. >>
I would like to point out that John did not die in 1509
He has an IPM 4H8 in which is stated "died 16 Jul last past"
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
If he died in 4th year in the reign of Henry VIII, sounds like 1513 to me
(not 1509).
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <royaldescent@hotmail.com>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud Stanley
(not 1509).
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <royaldescent@hotmail.com>; <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud Stanley
In a message dated 1/15/07 10:16:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
William George Dimack Fletcher in his 1887 book 'Leicestershire
Pedigrees and Royal Descents', has Sir William Turville of Aston
Flamville, Leics. (d. 1549) married to Helen Ferrers, daughter of Sir
John Ferrers of Tamworth Castle (d. 1509) and Dorothy Harper.
I would like to point out that John did not die in 1509
He has an IPM 4H8 in which is stated "died 16 Jul last past"
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Final proof of the identity of Ezekiel Fogge's mother as
There is some indication that the family of the Banks can be tweezed out of
the parish register at Hadstock. I will work on this and report later what I
find.
Will Johnson
the parish register at Hadstock. I will work on this and report later what I
find.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Final proof of the identity of Ezekiel Fogge's mother as
From
http://www.familysearch.org - IGI - British Isles - Batch C043231
"Parish Register of Hadstock, Essex"
I have fleshed out the dates for the "children of William Bankes", named in
the will of John Bankes of London. Perhaps these dates can be helpful for
hanging a chronology on this family. All children baptised at Hadstock, and all
with father "William" and with no mother mentioned.
William /Banks/ 19 Jun 1568
Richard /Banks/ 17 Oct 1570
Thomas /Banks/ 1 Mar 1572[/1573]
Mary /Banks/ 30 May 1575
Alice /Banks/ 3 Feb 1576/1577
Christopher /Banks/ , child 14 Mar 1578 d 22 Jun 1590
George /Banks/ 28 Mar 1582 d 1 Sep 1582
Joan /Banks/ , infant 25 Jul 1583 d 28 Jan 1586
George /Banks/ 19 Jan 1585
Note that there were *two* George Banks.
Will Johnson
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Ancient Petition Corrections: The false husbands of Joan
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Hi Will and others
I have the aforementioned John de Brewes , as being the son of John de
Brewes and Margaret de Trehampton [4], and having married firstly Annora
[Joan], daughter of lord Thomas de Saumford knight [1][2] and secondly
Joan de Cornubia [3].
I missed the original mail. I would be interested in knowing its content.
Regards
Paul
[1]Testimony of witnesses
To all the children of the holy mother church to whom the present
letters may come Reginald Haynton dean of Christianity of Lincoln
eternal greetings in the Lord. You are all to know that on or about the
fifth day following after the Epiphany of the year of the same Lord 1382
the noble woman lady Margaret, wife of Peter de Nuthill, lady of Lee
appeared in person in the cathedral of the blessed Mary Lincoln before
Reginald and discreet men and lords and masters John de Belnero, subdean
of the church of Lincoln, Thomas de Sutton, Peter de Dalton and John
Warsoppe canons of the before said church, lord William de Belysby,
knight, William Karnetby, William Bisset and many other persons then in
that place where the lady Margaret did appear prosecute and allege that
herself Margaret was the natural and legitimate daughter of John de
Breuos former lord of Lee out of the lawful marriage between John
himself and Annora, daughter of lord Thomas de Saumford knight, wife of
same John, contracted and solemnly notarised in the sight of the church
made and procreated… … … ..illegible……in the presence of witnesses
wealthy and of good fame aged sixty years and more as they said namely
Lord William Paytenyn de Harmeston of the diocese of Lincoln and Henry
Bothomefall of Elbesley of the diocese of York, these same witnesses
before the sacred gospels and the jurors of the benefice who are named
in this said certificate of evidence, have said on their souls to the
Jurors that were present they have seen and heard that said John and
Annora of this marriage have appeared in sight of an envoy of the church
and questioned in which place and church this marriage was solemnised,
and they have said through oath the village of West Drayton in
Nottingham and that a certain chaplain called Lord William of Lincoln
solemnised in that church this marriage between them. Likewise [they
were]* questioned what time and year this marriage was united and
solemnised between them, and they said during a certain Monday between
the festival of St. Hillary and the festival of the Purification and
Beautification of the Virgin Mary four years before the year of the
great pestilence. Likewise some of the witnesses have said after the
solemnisation of this marriage as has been mentioned previously the
aforesaid John de Breous and Annora…illegible. ..the two likewise
dwelled together as man and wife and they have been considered as such
in public. Likewise the witnesses have said…illegible….and during this
marriage the aforesaid John de Breous impregnated the said Annora his
wife. Likewise the said witnesses have said that after this marriage
was contracted said Annora through her husband the aforesaid John
pronounced her pregnancy and during the same marriage begat the
aforesaid lady Margaret at Risby. And in that place the lady Margaret
had been baptised, which baptism was seen by John Calshaw of Risby of
the diocese of Norwich one of the three witnesses at that time before
the same magistrate and on being questioned he said that he was present
in that place during then. Likewise the aforesaid witnesses all and
singularly said that after the day of the birth of the lady Margaret as
has been mentioned previously the said John and Annora his wife
recognised Margaret as their natural and legitimate daughter and ….the
said witnesses …..said that the lady Margaret was considered in public
as the natural and legitimate daughter of said John de Breous and Annora
his wife. Likewise the said witnesses all and singularly said that the
above had been announced similarly to all and singularly and became
public news and talk. Likewise they said by announcement all and
singularly that they the above mentioned witnesses have deposed
truthfully under the peril of their souls…illegible…I dean of
Christianity at the special request of said lady Margaret affix the seal
of the office of the dean and notarise with the sign below written and
make this public to the community. Given the aforesaid place and day.
SIGN OF R. HALTON – A figure in the shape of an eight pointed star on a
triangular shaped pedestral with the name R. Halton printed inside the
pedestral.
And I, Robert de Halton near Burton Stather clerk of the diocese of
Lincoln, the public notary, by sacred apostolic authority, of the
aforesaid prosecution allegation and testimony, took the oath of the
witnesses brought forth, set in motion and performed the examinations
and their depositions as is noted above during the aforesaid year of the
lord in the sixth indiction, in the fifth year of the pontificate of the
most holy father and lord in Christ, our lord Pope Urban the sixth, by
divine providence, on the eleventh day of the month of January, in the
cathedral church of Lincoln, referring one and all to the men of
Margaret, John de Kole, … illegible ..., Hugh de Midaforth whom with
many others of the Lincoln diocese having been summoned to witness the
things mentioned before, together with whom I saw and heard these
things, and I have subscribed myself here and signed my name as is usual
and accustomed, and I have attached the seal of the dean of Christianity
of Lincoln, and the aforesaid sign as asked and requested to do so by
one and all, in faith and witness of the foregoing. And as is
accustomed to me as notary, these aforesaid statements were written in
my presence ….., which I as notary have sanctioned.
No seal present
*This is not part of the original transcript, but was added for
clarity’s sake.
WYAS, BRADFORD Ref SPST/11/4/6/1
translation PW Mackenzie
[2] Deed confirming the transfer of the manor of Boyton- shortly after 6
November 1348
Sachent toutes gentz que ore sount et que a venir sount que ieo John
filez et heir mons John de Breouse ay done g[ra]unte et p[ar] ceste ma
p[re]sentt charter conferme a Marie Comitessa de Norfolk et Mareshal
Anglie et a ses heirs a tous jo[ur]s mon manoir de Boyton en la comite
de Wyltes’ ove les appurtenauntz ensemblement ove fees revercyonus +
avowysonis des eglises que avoir et tener lavaunt dit manoir ove les
appurtenauntz a les avaunt ditz Marie et ses heirs a tous jo[ur]s de
chief seignour de fee p[ar] les servyz dewes + customes Et ieo lavaunt
dit John filtz + heir Mons. John Breouse + mes heirs lavaunt dir manoir
ove appurtenauntz a lavaunt dite Marie + ses heirs a tous jo[ur]s
ensemblement ove fees revercionus + avowesones des eglises countre
tenets gentz garaunterems acquiterount + defenderonis a tous jours En
tesmoignanice de quele chose a ceste ma p[re]sent charter ay mys mon
seal p[ar] …illegible….tesmoignes Mons John Sruys Mons John de Lacy
Aleyn de Wij Wyk Thome de Hanley Thomas de la Rynacre Robert Russel
Richard de Hampton + autres Gen a Boyton …..illegible….…. vendredy
…..illegible….ap[re]s la fest de seynt Leonard lan du regne le rey
Edward tiers ap[re]s le conquest vynt + seccounde + de ffraunce Neoffisme
Seal: central heater-shaped shield with crusily, lion rampant between
three circular shields with three bars wavy surrounded by a border of
semee of crosses. The legend of the seal says “Sigill::Johanne:: Le
Breeus”.
Translation
Know all people now present and to come, I John, son and heir of Sir.
John de Breuse have given, granted and by this my present charter
confirmed to Mary Countess of Norfolk and Marshal of England and to her
heirs for ever my manor of Boyton in the county of Wiltshire with
appurtenances together with fees, reversions and advowsons of the church
&c to have and possess for ever the aforesaid manor with the
appurtenances in chief from our king in fee by due service and custom.
And hence the aforesaid John son and heir of Mons. John Breouse and his
heirs guarantees acquits and defends the aforesaid Marie and her heirs
of the aforesaid manor with appurtenances together with fees reversions
and advowsons of churches against all people in the county. In
testimony of these things to this my present charter I place my seal.
By …illegible...Witnesses Mons. John Sruys, Mons. John de Lacy, Aleyn de
Wij Wyk, Thomas de Hanley, Thomas de Rynacre, Robert Russel, Richard de
Hampton and others at Boyton dated Friday…illegible....after the feast
of St. Leonard in the twenty second year of the reign of King Edward the
third after the conquest and the ninth of France.
Seal: central heater-shaped shield with crusily, lion rampant between
three circular shields with three bars wavy surrounded by a border of
semeee of crosses. The legend of the seal says “Sigill::Johanne:: Le
Breeus”.
British Library HARL Charter 83 D 44
Comments. This deed was probably mistakenly sealed with the seal of
Joan de Brewes, presumably the wife of John de Brewes. It should be
noted that the seal is typical of a woman’s seal and has both her
husbands arms plus her fathers, which is Sandford. See also the letters
patent of 1383. However she is named as Annora in the latter.
[3]1369
Enquiry into the sanity of John de Brewes
Lincoln. The said John son of John has been an idiot since birth and
enjoys no lucid intervals.
Lee. The manor, which extends into Lee, Gaytburton, Upton, Kesceby,
Stowe St. Mary and Scostthorn, descended to him after the deaths of John
his father and Margaret his mother by a fine levied in the King's court.
It is held of earl of Richmond by knight's service.
The said Margaret, after her husband's death, took possession of the
manor as in her own right, and received the issues all her life. After
her death it was taken into the king's hands by reason of the idiotcy of
John son of John, and remained in the hands of the king and his various
farmers until it was delivered to Norman de Swynford, knight, who was in
possession and received the issues all his life. After his death John
son of John aforesaid and Edmund de Cornubia, knight, entered into the
manor, and Edmund and Joan his sister, wife of the said John son of
John, receives the issues in the name of John son of John, by what title
the jurors know not.
CIPM 12:255
[4] Inq. P.M. of Margaret Trehampton wife of John de Brewes, whose heir
is given as John de Brewes. CIPM 10:189-193
Is this John "de Brewes" that same Sir John who having d 1342, his heir John
"a minor in 1347, Mary Countess of Norfolk granted his wardship"
and who in 1357 was found to be insane ?
I don't currently show a marraige for him, and I don't show who his mother
was. Is she known to be Margaret de /Trehampton/ or someone else?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Hi Will and others
I have the aforementioned John de Brewes , as being the son of John de
Brewes and Margaret de Trehampton [4], and having married firstly Annora
[Joan], daughter of lord Thomas de Saumford knight [1][2] and secondly
Joan de Cornubia [3].
I missed the original mail. I would be interested in knowing its content.
Regards
Paul
[1]Testimony of witnesses
To all the children of the holy mother church to whom the present
letters may come Reginald Haynton dean of Christianity of Lincoln
eternal greetings in the Lord. You are all to know that on or about the
fifth day following after the Epiphany of the year of the same Lord 1382
the noble woman lady Margaret, wife of Peter de Nuthill, lady of Lee
appeared in person in the cathedral of the blessed Mary Lincoln before
Reginald and discreet men and lords and masters John de Belnero, subdean
of the church of Lincoln, Thomas de Sutton, Peter de Dalton and John
Warsoppe canons of the before said church, lord William de Belysby,
knight, William Karnetby, William Bisset and many other persons then in
that place where the lady Margaret did appear prosecute and allege that
herself Margaret was the natural and legitimate daughter of John de
Breuos former lord of Lee out of the lawful marriage between John
himself and Annora, daughter of lord Thomas de Saumford knight, wife of
same John, contracted and solemnly notarised in the sight of the church
made and procreated… … … ..illegible……in the presence of witnesses
wealthy and of good fame aged sixty years and more as they said namely
Lord William Paytenyn de Harmeston of the diocese of Lincoln and Henry
Bothomefall of Elbesley of the diocese of York, these same witnesses
before the sacred gospels and the jurors of the benefice who are named
in this said certificate of evidence, have said on their souls to the
Jurors that were present they have seen and heard that said John and
Annora of this marriage have appeared in sight of an envoy of the church
and questioned in which place and church this marriage was solemnised,
and they have said through oath the village of West Drayton in
Nottingham and that a certain chaplain called Lord William of Lincoln
solemnised in that church this marriage between them. Likewise [they
were]* questioned what time and year this marriage was united and
solemnised between them, and they said during a certain Monday between
the festival of St. Hillary and the festival of the Purification and
Beautification of the Virgin Mary four years before the year of the
great pestilence. Likewise some of the witnesses have said after the
solemnisation of this marriage as has been mentioned previously the
aforesaid John de Breous and Annora…illegible. ..the two likewise
dwelled together as man and wife and they have been considered as such
in public. Likewise the witnesses have said…illegible….and during this
marriage the aforesaid John de Breous impregnated the said Annora his
wife. Likewise the said witnesses have said that after this marriage
was contracted said Annora through her husband the aforesaid John
pronounced her pregnancy and during the same marriage begat the
aforesaid lady Margaret at Risby. And in that place the lady Margaret
had been baptised, which baptism was seen by John Calshaw of Risby of
the diocese of Norwich one of the three witnesses at that time before
the same magistrate and on being questioned he said that he was present
in that place during then. Likewise the aforesaid witnesses all and
singularly said that after the day of the birth of the lady Margaret as
has been mentioned previously the said John and Annora his wife
recognised Margaret as their natural and legitimate daughter and ….the
said witnesses …..said that the lady Margaret was considered in public
as the natural and legitimate daughter of said John de Breous and Annora
his wife. Likewise the said witnesses all and singularly said that the
above had been announced similarly to all and singularly and became
public news and talk. Likewise they said by announcement all and
singularly that they the above mentioned witnesses have deposed
truthfully under the peril of their souls…illegible…I dean of
Christianity at the special request of said lady Margaret affix the seal
of the office of the dean and notarise with the sign below written and
make this public to the community. Given the aforesaid place and day.
SIGN OF R. HALTON – A figure in the shape of an eight pointed star on a
triangular shaped pedestral with the name R. Halton printed inside the
pedestral.
And I, Robert de Halton near Burton Stather clerk of the diocese of
Lincoln, the public notary, by sacred apostolic authority, of the
aforesaid prosecution allegation and testimony, took the oath of the
witnesses brought forth, set in motion and performed the examinations
and their depositions as is noted above during the aforesaid year of the
lord in the sixth indiction, in the fifth year of the pontificate of the
most holy father and lord in Christ, our lord Pope Urban the sixth, by
divine providence, on the eleventh day of the month of January, in the
cathedral church of Lincoln, referring one and all to the men of
Margaret, John de Kole, … illegible ..., Hugh de Midaforth whom with
many others of the Lincoln diocese having been summoned to witness the
things mentioned before, together with whom I saw and heard these
things, and I have subscribed myself here and signed my name as is usual
and accustomed, and I have attached the seal of the dean of Christianity
of Lincoln, and the aforesaid sign as asked and requested to do so by
one and all, in faith and witness of the foregoing. And as is
accustomed to me as notary, these aforesaid statements were written in
my presence ….., which I as notary have sanctioned.
No seal present
*This is not part of the original transcript, but was added for
clarity’s sake.
WYAS, BRADFORD Ref SPST/11/4/6/1
translation PW Mackenzie
[2] Deed confirming the transfer of the manor of Boyton- shortly after 6
November 1348
Sachent toutes gentz que ore sount et que a venir sount que ieo John
filez et heir mons John de Breouse ay done g[ra]unte et p[ar] ceste ma
p[re]sentt charter conferme a Marie Comitessa de Norfolk et Mareshal
Anglie et a ses heirs a tous jo[ur]s mon manoir de Boyton en la comite
de Wyltes’ ove les appurtenauntz ensemblement ove fees revercyonus +
avowysonis des eglises que avoir et tener lavaunt dit manoir ove les
appurtenauntz a les avaunt ditz Marie et ses heirs a tous jo[ur]s de
chief seignour de fee p[ar] les servyz dewes + customes Et ieo lavaunt
dit John filtz + heir Mons. John Breouse + mes heirs lavaunt dir manoir
ove appurtenauntz a lavaunt dite Marie + ses heirs a tous jo[ur]s
ensemblement ove fees revercionus + avowesones des eglises countre
tenets gentz garaunterems acquiterount + defenderonis a tous jours En
tesmoignanice de quele chose a ceste ma p[re]sent charter ay mys mon
seal p[ar] …illegible….tesmoignes Mons John Sruys Mons John de Lacy
Aleyn de Wij Wyk Thome de Hanley Thomas de la Rynacre Robert Russel
Richard de Hampton + autres Gen a Boyton …..illegible….…. vendredy
…..illegible….ap[re]s la fest de seynt Leonard lan du regne le rey
Edward tiers ap[re]s le conquest vynt + seccounde + de ffraunce Neoffisme
Seal: central heater-shaped shield with crusily, lion rampant between
three circular shields with three bars wavy surrounded by a border of
semee of crosses. The legend of the seal says “Sigill::Johanne:: Le
Breeus”.
Translation
Know all people now present and to come, I John, son and heir of Sir.
John de Breuse have given, granted and by this my present charter
confirmed to Mary Countess of Norfolk and Marshal of England and to her
heirs for ever my manor of Boyton in the county of Wiltshire with
appurtenances together with fees, reversions and advowsons of the church
&c to have and possess for ever the aforesaid manor with the
appurtenances in chief from our king in fee by due service and custom.
And hence the aforesaid John son and heir of Mons. John Breouse and his
heirs guarantees acquits and defends the aforesaid Marie and her heirs
of the aforesaid manor with appurtenances together with fees reversions
and advowsons of churches against all people in the county. In
testimony of these things to this my present charter I place my seal.
By …illegible...Witnesses Mons. John Sruys, Mons. John de Lacy, Aleyn de
Wij Wyk, Thomas de Hanley, Thomas de Rynacre, Robert Russel, Richard de
Hampton and others at Boyton dated Friday…illegible....after the feast
of St. Leonard in the twenty second year of the reign of King Edward the
third after the conquest and the ninth of France.
Seal: central heater-shaped shield with crusily, lion rampant between
three circular shields with three bars wavy surrounded by a border of
semeee of crosses. The legend of the seal says “Sigill::Johanne:: Le
Breeus”.
British Library HARL Charter 83 D 44
Comments. This deed was probably mistakenly sealed with the seal of
Joan de Brewes, presumably the wife of John de Brewes. It should be
noted that the seal is typical of a woman’s seal and has both her
husbands arms plus her fathers, which is Sandford. See also the letters
patent of 1383. However she is named as Annora in the latter.
[3]1369
Enquiry into the sanity of John de Brewes
Lincoln. The said John son of John has been an idiot since birth and
enjoys no lucid intervals.
Lee. The manor, which extends into Lee, Gaytburton, Upton, Kesceby,
Stowe St. Mary and Scostthorn, descended to him after the deaths of John
his father and Margaret his mother by a fine levied in the King's court.
It is held of earl of Richmond by knight's service.
The said Margaret, after her husband's death, took possession of the
manor as in her own right, and received the issues all her life. After
her death it was taken into the king's hands by reason of the idiotcy of
John son of John, and remained in the hands of the king and his various
farmers until it was delivered to Norman de Swynford, knight, who was in
possession and received the issues all his life. After his death John
son of John aforesaid and Edmund de Cornubia, knight, entered into the
manor, and Edmund and Joan his sister, wife of the said John son of
John, receives the issues in the name of John son of John, by what title
the jurors know not.
CIPM 12:255
[4] Inq. P.M. of Margaret Trehampton wife of John de Brewes, whose heir
is given as John de Brewes. CIPM 10:189-193
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/15/07 5:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
<< I have seen a coat of arms that has been passed down through Penelope
D'arcy
c1593-c1661 (daughter of Thomas D'arcy who was an Earl of Rivers) via her
husband who was John Gage. This coat of arms includes the families of
Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston amongst others. I am trying to
establish the descent of Penelope D'arcy from the families of Lovell, Wanton
and Weston which I think is via the Harleston family. Can anyone provide me
with the descents from the Lovell, Wanton and Weston families. >>
Can you give us the source for this coat of arms?
Thanks
Will Johnson
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
<< I have seen a coat of arms that has been passed down through Penelope
D'arcy
c1593-c1661 (daughter of Thomas D'arcy who was an Earl of Rivers) via her
husband who was John Gage. This coat of arms includes the families of
Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston amongst others. I am trying to
establish the descent of Penelope D'arcy from the families of Lovell, Wanton
and Weston which I think is via the Harleston family. Can anyone provide me
with the descents from the Lovell, Wanton and Weston families. >>
Can you give us the source for this coat of arms?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
I wonder if you could again, in light of your recent research, touch on which
William de Braose was the husband of Alice de Moulton, dau of Thomas by Maud
de Vaux his wife.
Thanks
Will Johnson
William de Braose was the husband of Alice de Moulton, dau of Thomas by Maud
de Vaux his wife.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Brad Verity
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will and Leo,
No, not according to Eric Acheson, 'A Gentry Community...' (2003),
p. 231:
"Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire, arrived in
Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
Baldwin Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315). He
was returned as a knight of the shire for Leicestershire in 1423 and
again in 1431 ('Return', pp. 306, 319). In 1431 he was also
appointed to the commission to raise a loan in the county ('CPR
1429-36', p. 126). His last recorded appointment was as sheriff in
1433 ('Lists and Indexes', IX, p. 145). Thomas failed to appear
before the tax commissioners in Leicestershire in 1436, though he may
have been taxed in Chester for which a tax return does not survive
(E179/240/269; Gray, 'Incomes from Land in England in 1436', p. 622
ns. 1,2). There is no evidence to connect him with the Richard
Fouleshurst who was assessed in Leicestershire in 1436 on his income of
£5 (E179/192/59). The last reference to Thomas is in January 1439
when he tried to recover a debt of 200 marks from John Brewster of
Warwick ('CPR 1436-41', p. 105). Elizabeth Fouleshurst who married
William Turville (q.v.) was probably Thomas's daughter
('Pedigrees', p. 6)."
Hope this helps.
Cheers, -------Brad
Is this Thomas Fouleshurst of Crew by his wife Cecily Mainwaring ?
Dear Will and Leo,
No, not according to Eric Acheson, 'A Gentry Community...' (2003),
p. 231:
"Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire, arrived in
Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
Baldwin Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315). He
was returned as a knight of the shire for Leicestershire in 1423 and
again in 1431 ('Return', pp. 306, 319). In 1431 he was also
appointed to the commission to raise a loan in the county ('CPR
1429-36', p. 126). His last recorded appointment was as sheriff in
1433 ('Lists and Indexes', IX, p. 145). Thomas failed to appear
before the tax commissioners in Leicestershire in 1436, though he may
have been taxed in Chester for which a tax return does not survive
(E179/240/269; Gray, 'Incomes from Land in England in 1436', p. 622
ns. 1,2). There is no evidence to connect him with the Richard
Fouleshurst who was assessed in Leicestershire in 1436 on his income of
£5 (E179/192/59). The last reference to Thomas is in January 1439
when he tried to recover a debt of 200 marks from John Brewster of
Warwick ('CPR 1436-41', p. 105). Elizabeth Fouleshurst who married
William Turville (q.v.) was probably Thomas's daughter
('Pedigrees', p. 6)."
Hope this helps.
Cheers, -------Brad
-
Brad Verity
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Dear Will and Leo,
It was William G. D. Fletcher who had the incorrect death date of 1509
for Sir John Ferrers II of Tamworth, in the pedigree of Bate and
Kirkland of Ashby-de-la-Zouche on p. 82 of his 1887 book
'Leicestershire Pedigrees and Royal Descents'.
As Will posted last year, Sir John Ferrers II's correct date of death
is 16 July 1512.
Cheers, ------Brad
If he died in 4th year in the reign of Henry VIII, sounds like 1513 to me
(not 1509).
Dear Will and Leo,
It was William G. D. Fletcher who had the incorrect death date of 1509
for Sir John Ferrers II of Tamworth, in the pedigree of Bate and
Kirkland of Ashby-de-la-Zouche on p. 82 of his 1887 book
'Leicestershire Pedigrees and Royal Descents'.
As Will posted last year, Sir John Ferrers II's correct date of death
is 16 July 1512.
Cheers, ------Brad
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud
Brad Verity today posted a useful table of the descent of the Ferrers family
of Tamworth. The Gregory of Stivichall papers in the Warwickshire RO
(available online at _www.a2a.org.uk_ (http://www.a2a.org.uk) ) contain numerous
documents confirming their descent from William, 5th Lord Ferrers of Groby, and
incidentally deriving their descent from the Frevilles and the Botetourts
MM
of Tamworth. The Gregory of Stivichall papers in the Warwickshire RO
(available online at _www.a2a.org.uk_ (http://www.a2a.org.uk) ) contain numerous
documents confirming their descent from William, 5th Lord Ferrers of Groby, and
incidentally deriving their descent from the Frevilles and the Botetourts
MM
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Ancient Petition Corrections: The false husbands of Joan
Dear Paul ~
Thank you for the good post. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for the good post. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y
I would just like to take this opportunity to attack with scorn and contempt
anyone who uses diacritical marks in English speech. The English language
has no diacriticals and anyone who uses them is just a silly baboon parading
around in a cheap French maid's outfit.
Or something... ahem.
At any rate, I shall never use diacriticals in my own database except in
those cases where I feel like it is unavoidable (which I shall not explain) and
then in those other cases where I can't quite determine what I feel and then
in those cases I shall do the opposite of what I intended to do previously,
just for spite. I can't explain my position any further, because I'm making it
up as I go along. Strike that last part.
That's all.
Will Johnson
anyone who uses diacritical marks in English speech. The English language
has no diacriticals and anyone who uses them is just a silly baboon parading
around in a cheap French maid's outfit.
Or something... ahem.
At any rate, I shall never use diacriticals in my own database except in
those cases where I feel like it is unavoidable (which I shall not explain) and
then in those other cases where I can't quite determine what I feel and then
in those cases I shall do the opposite of what I intended to do previously,
just for spite. I can't explain my position any further, because I'm making it
up as I go along. Strike that last part.
That's all.
Will Johnson
-
Apple
Re: Alfred The Great
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Could you post a list of your ancestors, starting with William I, going
straight down (direct ancestors only)?
Anyone descended from William The Conqueror is reportedly a descendent of
Rollo.
29th Great-Grandfather in my case. <g
in Normandy.
Could you post a list of your ancestors, starting with William I, going
straight down (direct ancestors only)?
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Fw: A glove without a hand: Exposing the myth of Edmund
"What about all those other historical figures known by nicknames
applied afterwards?"
Indeed. A Plethora of Posthumous 'Plantagements'.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
applied afterwards?"
Indeed. A Plethora of Posthumous 'Plantagements'.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Alfred The Great
Can you explain what you mean by (direct ancestors only)? No doubt all the
lines Spencer Hines has to Rollo contain female links, do you call those
indirect ancestors? In which case he would have no lines to Rollo (direct
ancestors only) unless his male line of ancestry ends up with Rollo, and
that I doubt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Apple" <applefruitgloss@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval,soc.genealogy.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Alfred The Great
lines Spencer Hines has to Rollo contain female links, do you call those
indirect ancestors? In which case he would have no lines to Rollo (direct
ancestors only) unless his male line of ancestry ends up with Rollo, and
that I doubt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Apple" <applefruitgloss@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval,soc.genealogy.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Alfred The Great
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Anyone descended from William The Conqueror is reportedly a descendent of
Rollo.
29th Great-Grandfather in my case. <g
in Normandy.
Could you post a list of your ancestors, starting with William I, going
straight down (direct ancestors only)?
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
In a message dated 1/15/07 6:50:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< "Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire, arrived in
Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
Baldwin Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315). >>
But this doesn't actually say no. In fact it seems to say.. maybe.
The Thomas Fouleshurst who married Cecily Mainwaring is also called "of
Crewe" and their son Robert had a daughter named Elizabeth. Maybe she was named
for her aunt?
I have nothing to pin them down to any exact chronology exact the dates for
Robert are given as 17 Oct 1418 - 3 Dec 1498. Also I note he has an entry at
genealogics, and also here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... 2.htm#dau4
For the father I have a note
Short History of the Mainwaring Family, R Mainwaring Finley. Griffith,
Farran, Okeden & Walsh. London (reprint 1976)
but I did not extract the details. This is probably where I got the "of
Crew" from.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< "Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire, arrived in
Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
Baldwin Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315). >>
But this doesn't actually say no. In fact it seems to say.. maybe.
The Thomas Fouleshurst who married Cecily Mainwaring is also called "of
Crewe" and their son Robert had a daughter named Elizabeth. Maybe she was named
for her aunt?
I have nothing to pin them down to any exact chronology exact the dates for
Robert are given as 17 Oct 1418 - 3 Dec 1498. Also I note he has an entry at
genealogics, and also here
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... 2.htm#dau4
For the father I have a note
Short History of the Mainwaring Family, R Mainwaring Finley. Griffith,
Farran, Okeden & Walsh. London (reprint 1976)
but I did not extract the details. This is probably where I got the "of
Crew" from.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
In a message dated 1/15/07 7:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< Elizabeth Gresley m. 1) Sir John Montgomery of Cubley (d. 1513), and
had >>
Could this John Montgomery of Cubley be... perhaps... the *son* of that
Sir Nicholas Montgomery of Cubley, KB who d 1494
and see
http://genforum.genealogy.com/bagot/messages/81.html
<a href =
"http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/bb4ae/bagot1.htm#con1">Bagot (continued)</a> on stirnet.com
where he is given a daughter Anne (Montgomery) Bagot d 4 Sep 1514, then
afterward of Blithfield.
Thanks
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< Elizabeth Gresley m. 1) Sir John Montgomery of Cubley (d. 1513), and
had >>
Could this John Montgomery of Cubley be... perhaps... the *son* of that
Sir Nicholas Montgomery of Cubley, KB who d 1494
and see
http://genforum.genealogy.com/bagot/messages/81.html
<a href =
"http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/bb4ae/bagot1.htm#con1">Bagot (continued)</a> on stirnet.com
where he is given a daughter Anne (Montgomery) Bagot d 4 Sep 1514, then
afterward of Blithfield.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Dorothy Sacheverell to Nicholas Montgomery 1
Is this the correct way the line should go?
Dorothy /Sacheverell/ + Jasper /Lowe/
dau of
William /Sacheverell/ + Mary /Lowe/
son of
Henry /Sacheverell/ + Elizabeth /Montgomery/
dau of
Nicholas /Montgomery/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , K.B. of Cubley, Derbys
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , Constable of Tutbury 1418 + Joan /Longford/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , Knt of Cubley, living in 1391
Or do I have too many Nicholas' ?
Thanks
Will
Dorothy /Sacheverell/ + Jasper /Lowe/
dau of
William /Sacheverell/ + Mary /Lowe/
son of
Henry /Sacheverell/ + Elizabeth /Montgomery/
dau of
Nicholas /Montgomery/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , K.B. of Cubley, Derbys
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , Constable of Tutbury 1418 + Joan /Longford/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , Knt of Cubley, living in 1391
Or do I have too many Nicholas' ?
Thanks
Will
-
a.spencer3
Re: Alfred The Great
"Apple" <applefruitgloss@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168979336.211545.95030@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Hines has long claimed to be descended from everyone.
He's a twit.
Don't feed the animal.
Surreyman
news:1168979336.211545.95030@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Anyone descended from William The Conqueror is reportedly a descendent
of
Rollo.
29th Great-Grandfather in my case. <g
in Normandy.
Could you post a list of your ancestors, starting with William I, going
straight down (direct ancestors only)?
Hines has long claimed to be descended from everyone.
He's a twit.
Don't feed the animal.
Surreyman
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Dorothy Sacheverell to Nicholas Montgomery 1
Dear Will,
There is in fact one Nicholas too many in the pedigree you gave -
from the first (most recent) you gave,
Sir Nicholas Montgomery, of Cubley, Derby
born 1449
Sheriff of Derby, 1484
acted as an arbitrator in a dispute between Elena Delves, widow of
Sir John Delves, and Ralph Delves her son of Doddington, Cheshire [CCR
1476-1485 no. 1455]
knighted on 29 November 1489 at the investitute of Prince Arthur as
Prince of Wales
MI on tomb of Sir Nicholas and his wife:
" Hic jacet Nicholas Montgomery miles et Johanna uxor ejus, qui
quidem Nichus obiit 3 die Aug. 1494"
he m. Joan Delves, dau. of Sir John Delves and his wife Elena
Egerton
son of
Sir Nicholas Montgomery, of Cubley
born before 1415
witness to a grant by Sir Richard Vernon, 1447
He d. ca. 1465
His IPM [5 Edw IV] shows holdings in Cubley, Sudbury, Marston and
Roddesley, with lands and tenements in Mackley, Hartington, Rollesley,
Seymore, Flaghouse, Ashbourne, Hollington, Derby, Wyaston, Haddon and
Elaston.
he m. Isabella Vernon
son of
Sir Nicholas Montgomery, of Cubley
knighted before Feb 1414
JP for Derbyshire, 1419-1423
Sheriff of Staffordshire 1430-1, of Nottinghamshire and Derby
1431-2
fought in France, 1415-6; in Rouen, 'in personal attendance upon
King Henry V'
he m. [dispensation granted 7 Mar 1392, doubly related in the 4th
degree] Joan Longford
son of
Sir Nicholas Montgomery of Cubley
he m. Margaret Foljambe [possibly 2nd wife]
son of
Sir Walter de Montgomery
he m. Matilda [Maud] de Furnival
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is in fact one Nicholas too many in the pedigree you gave -
from the first (most recent) you gave,
Sir Nicholas Montgomery, of Cubley, Derby
born 1449
Sheriff of Derby, 1484
acted as an arbitrator in a dispute between Elena Delves, widow of
Sir John Delves, and Ralph Delves her son of Doddington, Cheshire [CCR
1476-1485 no. 1455]
knighted on 29 November 1489 at the investitute of Prince Arthur as
Prince of Wales
MI on tomb of Sir Nicholas and his wife:
" Hic jacet Nicholas Montgomery miles et Johanna uxor ejus, qui
quidem Nichus obiit 3 die Aug. 1494"
he m. Joan Delves, dau. of Sir John Delves and his wife Elena
Egerton
son of
Sir Nicholas Montgomery, of Cubley
born before 1415
witness to a grant by Sir Richard Vernon, 1447
He d. ca. 1465
His IPM [5 Edw IV] shows holdings in Cubley, Sudbury, Marston and
Roddesley, with lands and tenements in Mackley, Hartington, Rollesley,
Seymore, Flaghouse, Ashbourne, Hollington, Derby, Wyaston, Haddon and
Elaston.
he m. Isabella Vernon
son of
Sir Nicholas Montgomery, of Cubley
knighted before Feb 1414
JP for Derbyshire, 1419-1423
Sheriff of Staffordshire 1430-1, of Nottinghamshire and Derby
1431-2
fought in France, 1415-6; in Rouen, 'in personal attendance upon
King Henry V'
he m. [dispensation granted 7 Mar 1392, doubly related in the 4th
degree] Joan Longford
son of
Sir Nicholas Montgomery of Cubley
he m. Margaret Foljambe [possibly 2nd wife]
son of
Sir Walter de Montgomery
he m. Matilda [Maud] de Furnival
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Is this the correct way the line should go?
Dorothy /Sacheverell/ + Jasper /Lowe/
dau of
William /Sacheverell/ + Mary /Lowe/
son of
Henry /Sacheverell/ + Elizabeth /Montgomery/
dau of
Nicholas /Montgomery/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , K.B. of Cubley, Derbys
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , Constable of Tutbury 1418 + Joan /Longford/
son of
Nicholas /Montgomery/ , Knt of Cubley, living in 1391
Or do I have too many Nicholas' ?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Claimants to the English throne
Dear Bob,
I can`t say with confidence rather Edgar the Aetheling
married or not. He is rumored to have done so and to have had a daughter named
Maud who supposedly married one of the Guigues , Count of Albon. This makes no
sense to me on two accounts. 1stly, He was not likely to give his daughter a
Norman name ... unless of course He was really currying favor with (modern
sucking up to) William the Conqueror. If Edgar did go to live at Malcolm III`s
court, such a daughter would have had a Saxon or Latin name. St Margaret had at
least two daughters, Maria (also called Mary) and Eadgyth (modern Edith) Maria
was married to Count Eustace III of Boulogne, whose father had stood high in
William I`s favor for all his help during and following the conquest of
England and Eadgyth was forcibly removed from a convent and made to marry William
I`s son Henry I, King of England which seems to argue againest Edgar having any
available daughters in 1100 as They would have been one step closer to Saxon
royal blood than was a daughter of the Scots King and St Margaret.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I can`t say with confidence rather Edgar the Aetheling
married or not. He is rumored to have done so and to have had a daughter named
Maud who supposedly married one of the Guigues , Count of Albon. This makes no
sense to me on two accounts. 1stly, He was not likely to give his daughter a
Norman name ... unless of course He was really currying favor with (modern
sucking up to) William the Conqueror. If Edgar did go to live at Malcolm III`s
court, such a daughter would have had a Saxon or Latin name. St Margaret had at
least two daughters, Maria (also called Mary) and Eadgyth (modern Edith) Maria
was married to Count Eustace III of Boulogne, whose father had stood high in
William I`s favor for all his help during and following the conquest of
England and Eadgyth was forcibly removed from a convent and made to marry William
I`s son Henry I, King of England which seems to argue againest Edgar having any
available daughters in 1100 as They would have been one step closer to Saxon
royal blood than was a daughter of the Scots King and St Margaret.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
In a message dated 1/15/07 7:15:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<<
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... l=en#4cf9c
63ab8086de2 >>
I'm not sure if there was a correction to this post on this small point, but
at Blithfield there is, or was, supposed to be MI for both Sir Lewis Bagot and
his wife Anne Montgomery. The idea that Anne married later to an Agard is
contra-indicated by those MI which are supposed to say that she died 4 Sep 1514
while he died 31 May 1534,,,, I believe.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<<
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... l=en#4cf9c
63ab8086de2 >>
I'm not sure if there was a correction to this post on this small point, but
at Blithfield there is, or was, supposed to be MI for both Sir Lewis Bagot and
his wife Anne Montgomery. The idea that Anne married later to an Agard is
contra-indicated by those MI which are supposed to say that she died 4 Sep 1514
while he died 31 May 1534,,,, I believe.
Will Johnson
-
Merilyn Pedrick
Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y
What on earth is a "diacritical mark" when its at home?
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 01/17/07 05:47:47
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when you
rescreaming
I would just like to take this opportunity to attack with scorn and
contempt
anyone who uses diacritical marks in English speech. The English language
has no diacriticals and anyone who uses them is just a silly baboon
parading
around in a cheap French maid's outfit.
Or something... ahem.
At any rate, I shall never use diacriticals in my own database except in
those cases where I feel like it is unavoidable (which I shall not explain)
and
then in those other cases where I can't quite determine what I feel and then
in those cases I shall do the opposite of what I intended to do previously,
just for spite. I can't explain my position any further, because I'm
making it
up as I go along. Strike that last part.
That's all.
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
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Date: 01/17/07 05:47:47
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when you
rescreaming
I would just like to take this opportunity to attack with scorn and
contempt
anyone who uses diacritical marks in English speech. The English language
has no diacriticals and anyone who uses them is just a silly baboon
parading
around in a cheap French maid's outfit.
Or something... ahem.
At any rate, I shall never use diacriticals in my own database except in
those cases where I feel like it is unavoidable (which I shall not explain)
and
then in those other cases where I can't quite determine what I feel and then
in those cases I shall do the opposite of what I intended to do previously,
just for spite. I can't explain my position any further, because I'm
making it
up as I go along. Strike that last part.
That's all.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Gjest
Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y
In a message dated 1/16/07 2:49:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< What on earth is a "diacritical mark" when its at home? >>
Those funny little things over letters that they do in them foreign
languages-things. Those little dashes and jots and tittles over "e" or "o" or things
like that.
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< What on earth is a "diacritical mark" when its at home? >>
Those funny little things over letters that they do in them foreign
languages-things. Those little dashes and jots and tittles over "e" or "o" or things
like that.
-
pj.evans
Re: It's not possible to have a reasonable discussion when y
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
And sometimes even in English!
In a message dated 1/16/07 2:49:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
What on earth is a "diacritical mark" when its at home?
Those funny little things over letters that they do in them foreign
languages-things. Those little dashes and jots and tittles over "e" or "o" or things
like that.
And sometimes even in English!
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Claimants to the English throne
In a message dated 1/16/07 2:12:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< He is rumored to have done so and to have had a daughter named
Maud who supposedly married one of the Guigues , Count of Albon. >>
So is there no hope for this mysterious Christina, also a daughter of "Prince
Edward" I have snickered into my database from somewhere or other. She is
called a nun at her death given as 1144 and she is supposed to have, previously,
married "Ralf de Limisi, Baron of Oxburg"
Shall I have to chuck her out ?
Here is the complete note (not mine, but rather stolen from a contributor):
"Title: Baron of Oxburg, (Oxenburg in Norfolk, England).
William gave to Ralf the barony of Oxburg, or Oxenburg in Norfolk, and 41
other manors in several counties with the lands of Christina one of the sisters
of Prince Edgar, whom Ralf married.
They had Ralf who married Hadewise and had Alan, whose son Gerard married
Amy, (daughter of Trian de Hornelade of Bidun Limisi), whose son John married
Alice, daughter of Robert of Harcourt, died in 1198 and left a son, Hugh, who is
said to have died without issue some time after 1223. Through John's sister
(and co-heir) part of the barony passed by marriage with David de Limisey to the
Lindsays, or Lindseys of Scotland.
Sources:
1. The Genealogy of the Cushing Family (An account of the Ancestors and
Descendants of Matthew Cushing, who came to America in 1638) by James Cushing, The
Perrault Printing Co -Montreal, 1905. First Edition, 1877, by Lemuel Cushing,
D1881 (Finished by hisfamily)"
Will Johnson
Will Johnson
writes:
<< He is rumored to have done so and to have had a daughter named
Maud who supposedly married one of the Guigues , Count of Albon. >>
So is there no hope for this mysterious Christina, also a daughter of "Prince
Edward" I have snickered into my database from somewhere or other. She is
called a nun at her death given as 1144 and she is supposed to have, previously,
married "Ralf de Limisi, Baron of Oxburg"
Shall I have to chuck her out ?
Here is the complete note (not mine, but rather stolen from a contributor):
"Title: Baron of Oxburg, (Oxenburg in Norfolk, England).
William gave to Ralf the barony of Oxburg, or Oxenburg in Norfolk, and 41
other manors in several counties with the lands of Christina one of the sisters
of Prince Edgar, whom Ralf married.
They had Ralf who married Hadewise and had Alan, whose son Gerard married
Amy, (daughter of Trian de Hornelade of Bidun Limisi), whose son John married
Alice, daughter of Robert of Harcourt, died in 1198 and left a son, Hugh, who is
said to have died without issue some time after 1223. Through John's sister
(and co-heir) part of the barony passed by marriage with David de Limisey to the
Lindsays, or Lindseys of Scotland.
Sources:
1. The Genealogy of the Cushing Family (An account of the Ancestors and
Descendants of Matthew Cushing, who came to America in 1638) by James Cushing, The
Perrault Printing Co -Montreal, 1905. First Edition, 1877, by Lemuel Cushing,
D1881 (Finished by hisfamily)"
Will Johnson
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
gbh wrote:
<snip>
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
-
John Higgins
Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud S
I wonder if we can rule out that Thomas Fouleshurst was married twice, and
thus Elizabeth the wife of William Turville may have been a daughter of the
[2nd?] wife Cecily Mainwaring. The three Turville pedigrees I mentioned in
an earlier post in this thread say that Elizabeth was sister of Sir Robert,
and one (unfortunately Burke's Commoners) adds that she was dau. of Thomas
the sheriff of Leics 1433-4.
Looking for a Robert son of Thomas in the [admittedly limited] pedigree and
history of Fouleshurst of Crewe in Ormerod's Cheshire (3:301-9), the Sir
Robert and Sir Thomas who are chronologically likely to match the ones
mentioned above seem to point to the Robert who was son of Sir Thomas and
Cecily Mainwaring. This pedigree is likely incomplete and appears to be
based solely on the limited details contained in IPMs of the Fouleshurst
males. But some of the details regarding Sir Robert's father Sir Thomas are
interesting and do not conlflict with the information in Brad's source.
Sir Thomas is said (in an note added by Thomas Helsby, who produced the 2nd
edition of Ormerod's work) to have been born in Glenfield, Leics. IPMs for
Sir Thomas were dated in 17 and 18 Henry VI, which comes at least close to
meeting the chronology in Brad's source. The IPM of 17 Henry VI is quoted
as saying that he died on the Vigil of St. John the Baptist last. The IPMs
mention only his son and heir Robert and his widow Cecily [who apparently
subsequently married John Curson].
The Fouleshurst information in Ormerod does not mention any Thomas married
to a Joan Fitzpiers. It's certainly possible that this Thomas is separate
and distinct from the Thomas who married Cecily Mainwaring. But I think
it's also possible that one Thomas had two marriages, with the failure to
mention the other marriage and the daughter Elizabeth in the pedigree being
explained by the lack of information in the IPMs involved.
Of course this dosen't answer the question of who was the mother of
Elizabeth the wife of William Turville. And it's presently just a
hypothesis but it seems like a viable possibility....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud Stanley
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will and Leo,
No, not according to Eric Acheson, 'A Gentry Community...' (2003),
p. 231:
"Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire, arrived in
Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
Baldwin Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315). He
was returned as a knight of the shire for Leicestershire in 1423 and
again in 1431 ('Return', pp. 306, 319). In 1431 he was also
appointed to the commission to raise a loan in the county ('CPR
1429-36', p. 126). His last recorded appointment was as sheriff in
1433 ('Lists and Indexes', IX, p. 145). Thomas failed to appear
before the tax commissioners in Leicestershire in 1436, though he may
have been taxed in Chester for which a tax return does not survive
(E179/240/269; Gray, 'Incomes from Land in England in 1436', p. 622
ns. 1,2). There is no evidence to connect him with the Richard
Fouleshurst who was assessed in Leicestershire in 1436 on his income of
£5 (E179/192/59). The last reference to Thomas is in January 1439
when he tried to recover a debt of 200 marks from John Brewster of
Warwick ('CPR 1436-41', p. 105). Elizabeth Fouleshurst who married
William Turville (q.v.) was probably Thomas's daughter
('Pedigrees', p. 6)."
Hope this helps.
Cheers, -------Brad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
thus Elizabeth the wife of William Turville may have been a daughter of the
[2nd?] wife Cecily Mainwaring. The three Turville pedigrees I mentioned in
an earlier post in this thread say that Elizabeth was sister of Sir Robert,
and one (unfortunately Burke's Commoners) adds that she was dau. of Thomas
the sheriff of Leics 1433-4.
Looking for a Robert son of Thomas in the [admittedly limited] pedigree and
history of Fouleshurst of Crewe in Ormerod's Cheshire (3:301-9), the Sir
Robert and Sir Thomas who are chronologically likely to match the ones
mentioned above seem to point to the Robert who was son of Sir Thomas and
Cecily Mainwaring. This pedigree is likely incomplete and appears to be
based solely on the limited details contained in IPMs of the Fouleshurst
males. But some of the details regarding Sir Robert's father Sir Thomas are
interesting and do not conlflict with the information in Brad's source.
Sir Thomas is said (in an note added by Thomas Helsby, who produced the 2nd
edition of Ormerod's work) to have been born in Glenfield, Leics. IPMs for
Sir Thomas were dated in 17 and 18 Henry VI, which comes at least close to
meeting the chronology in Brad's source. The IPM of 17 Henry VI is quoted
as saying that he died on the Vigil of St. John the Baptist last. The IPMs
mention only his son and heir Robert and his widow Cecily [who apparently
subsequently married John Curson].
The Fouleshurst information in Ormerod does not mention any Thomas married
to a Joan Fitzpiers. It's certainly possible that this Thomas is separate
and distinct from the Thomas who married Cecily Mainwaring. But I think
it's also possible that one Thomas had two marriages, with the failure to
mention the other marriage and the daughter Elizabeth in the pedigree being
explained by the lack of information in the IPMs involved.
Of course this dosen't answer the question of who was the mother of
Elizabeth the wife of William Turville. And it's presently just a
hypothesis but it seems like a viable possibility....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Another Daughter for John Ferrers I of Tamworth & Maud Stanley
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Is this Thomas Fouleshurst of Crew by his wife Cecily Mainwaring ?
Dear Will and Leo,
No, not according to Eric Acheson, 'A Gentry Community...' (2003),
p. 231:
"Thomas Fouleshurst, esquire, of Crewe in Cheshire, arrived in
Leicestershire through his marriage to Joan, daughter and heir of
Baldwin Fitzpiers of Glenfield ('Village Notes', II, p. 315). He
was returned as a knight of the shire for Leicestershire in 1423 and
again in 1431 ('Return', pp. 306, 319). In 1431 he was also
appointed to the commission to raise a loan in the county ('CPR
1429-36', p. 126). His last recorded appointment was as sheriff in
1433 ('Lists and Indexes', IX, p. 145). Thomas failed to appear
before the tax commissioners in Leicestershire in 1436, though he may
have been taxed in Chester for which a tax return does not survive
(E179/240/269; Gray, 'Incomes from Land in England in 1436', p. 622
ns. 1,2). There is no evidence to connect him with the Richard
Fouleshurst who was assessed in Leicestershire in 1436 on his income of
£5 (E179/192/59). The last reference to Thomas is in January 1439
when he tried to recover a debt of 200 marks from John Brewster of
Warwick ('CPR 1436-41', p. 105). Elizabeth Fouleshurst who married
William Turville (q.v.) was probably Thomas's daughter
('Pedigrees', p. 6)."
Hope this helps.
Cheers, -------Brad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-------------------------------
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
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In message of 16 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
As this includes the arms for Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston, it
is most likely an achievement of arms which gives a load of quarterings.
Further personal arms are not normally inherited through daughters, much
as quarterings are - and shown in an achievement.
Further I can't find any reference to the arms of the Darcys of Chiche
(that being Thomas Darcy, earl Rivers' family) in the Medieval Ordinary
of Arms, I suspect because the third and fourth volumes have yet to be
published! My rather early Burke's 'Armory' of 1842 has nothing for
that branch of the Darcy family.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In a message dated 1/15/07 5:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
I have seen a coat of arms that has been passed down through Penelope
D'arcy c1593-c1661 (daughter of Thomas D'arcy who was an Earl of
Rivers) via her husband who was John Gage. This coat of arms
includes the families of Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston amongst
others. I am trying to establish the descent of Penelope D'arcy from
the families of Lovell, Wanton and Weston which I think is via the
Harleston family. Can anyone provide me with the descents from the
Lovell, Wanton and Weston families.
Can you give us the source for this coat of arms?
As this includes the arms for Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston, it
is most likely an achievement of arms which gives a load of quarterings.
Further personal arms are not normally inherited through daughters, much
as quarterings are - and shown in an achievement.
Further I can't find any reference to the arms of the Darcys of Chiche
(that being Thomas Darcy, earl Rivers' family) in the Medieval Ordinary
of Arms, I suspect because the third and fourth volumes have yet to be
published! My rather early Burke's 'Armory' of 1842 has nothing for
that branch of the Darcy family.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/16/07 4:30:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
<< As this includes the arms for Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston, it
is most likely an achievement of arms which gives a load of quarterings.
Further personal arms are not normally inherited through daughters, much
as quarterings are - and shown in an achievement. >>
What is an achievement of arms?
I'm suspicious that "Penelope Darcy" herself (wife of John Gage) had these
families in her ancestry at all !
Will
writes:
<< As this includes the arms for Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston, it
is most likely an achievement of arms which gives a load of quarterings.
Further personal arms are not normally inherited through daughters, much
as quarterings are - and shown in an achievement. >>
What is an achievement of arms?
I'm suspicious that "Penelope Darcy" herself (wife of John Gage) had these
families in her ancestry at all !
Will
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In message of 17 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
An achievement is a bit variable; it certainly refers to all the bits
and pieces of a coat of arms, it can also include an assembly of all the
arms inherited as quarterings by marriages of forbears to heraldic
heiresses. A long essay is in order here but I'll spare you that and
add that I've put s bit on these matters on my site.
Agreed, but I do not have her anywhere in my data so can cast no stones.
Though I do have her elder sister Elizabeth who was made countess Rivers
in her own right after the death of her father and her son inherited
this as earl Rivers. CP does not mention Elizabeth's co-heir(s).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
In a message dated 1/16/07 4:30:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, tim@powys.org
writes:
As this includes the arms for Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston, it
is most likely an achievement of arms which gives a load of quarterings.
Further personal arms are not normally inherited through daughters, much
as quarterings are - and shown in an achievement.
What is an achievement of arms?
An achievement is a bit variable; it certainly refers to all the bits
and pieces of a coat of arms, it can also include an assembly of all the
arms inherited as quarterings by marriages of forbears to heraldic
heiresses. A long essay is in order here but I'll spare you that and
add that I've put s bit on these matters on my site.
I'm suspicious that "Penelope Darcy" herself (wife of John Gage) had
these families in her ancestry at all !
Agreed, but I do not have her anywhere in my data so can cast no stones.
Though I do have her elder sister Elizabeth who was made countess Rivers
in her own right after the death of her father and her son inherited
this as earl Rivers. CP does not mention Elizabeth's co-heir(s).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Douglas Richardson
Late date nicknames like Maurice de Berkeley "the Magnanimou
Tony Hoskins wrote:
< "What about all those other historical figures known by nicknames
< applied afterwards?"
Dear Tony ~
You mean like Maurice de Berkeley "the Magnanimous?"
Please, don't get me started.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< "What about all those other historical figures known by nicknames
< applied afterwards?"
Dear Tony ~
You mean like Maurice de Berkeley "the Magnanimous?"
Please, don't get me started.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
Here are the details I have for Penelope
Her will proved 2 Jul 1661, her marriage contract 28 Jun 1611
Her husband John Gage of Firle, 1st Bart, named in the will of his uncle in
1596
John Gage died 3 Oct 1633
I'm showing five children: Thomas, John, Edward, Henry, Frances
I don't know if that's an exhaustive list or not.
For Penelope's gggrandparents I show the names: Darcy, Wentworth, de Vere,
Trussel, Rich, Dingley, blank, blank, Kytson, blank, Donington, blank,
blank,blank, Jerningham, Drury ... in that order
If anyone knows who the blanks are that would be great.
Will Johnson
Her will proved 2 Jul 1661, her marriage contract 28 Jun 1611
Her husband John Gage of Firle, 1st Bart, named in the will of his uncle in
1596
John Gage died 3 Oct 1633
I'm showing five children: Thomas, John, Edward, Henry, Frances
I don't know if that's an exhaustive list or not.
For Penelope's gggrandparents I show the names: Darcy, Wentworth, de Vere,
Trussel, Rich, Dingley, blank, blank, Kytson, blank, Donington, blank,
blank,blank, Jerningham, Drury ... in that order
If anyone knows who the blanks are that would be great.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
In a message dated 1/15/07 5:51:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< [1]1305 - GILES DE BREWOSA ALIAS DE BREOUSA - Writ, 7 Jan 33 Edward 1.
Dorset. Inq. Wednesday the feast of St. Matthias, 33 Edward 1.
Cnolton. The manor with a hundred there [snipped]
John his son, aged 3 1/2 years at the feast of the Purification last, is
his next heir.
Oxford. Inq. made at Thame, 6 March, 33 Edward 1.
Crowell. The manor held for life, by the courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Beatrice daughter and heir of John de Sancta Elena, sometime his wife
[snipped] ... Lucy, daughter of the said Giles and Beatrice, aged 7 at the
feast of
St. Michael last, is his next heir. >>
How can John be his heir and Lucy be his heir at the same time? Is this
saying that John is *not* the son of Beatrice? That is Lucy is inheriting through
her mother, because John is actually her half-brother, and yet John inherits
Cnolton as that property didnt come through Beatrice but rather either through
Giles or through Giles other wife.
Is that all right?
Will
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
<< [1]1305 - GILES DE BREWOSA ALIAS DE BREOUSA - Writ, 7 Jan 33 Edward 1.
Dorset. Inq. Wednesday the feast of St. Matthias, 33 Edward 1.
Cnolton. The manor with a hundred there [snipped]
John his son, aged 3 1/2 years at the feast of the Purification last, is
his next heir.
Oxford. Inq. made at Thame, 6 March, 33 Edward 1.
Crowell. The manor held for life, by the courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Beatrice daughter and heir of John de Sancta Elena, sometime his wife
[snipped] ... Lucy, daughter of the said Giles and Beatrice, aged 7 at the
feast of
St. Michael last, is his next heir. >>
How can John be his heir and Lucy be his heir at the same time? Is this
saying that John is *not* the son of Beatrice? That is Lucy is inheriting through
her mother, because John is actually her half-brother, and yet John inherits
Cnolton as that property didnt come through Beatrice but rather either through
Giles or through Giles other wife.
Is that all right?
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
Any discussion of the Brewes of Bramber has to incorporate and explain how
the below items are possible. This is where I got hung on on who were the wives
of William.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Sussex Archaeological Collections, "Pedigree of Owners of Findon Place
Manor", Sussex Archaeological Society 1848
"The Sussex Arch ref gives his mother as Isabel de Clare, dau of Gilbert E
Gloucester"
Reference Code: COWDRAY
The Cowdray Archives
Creation dates: c 1200-1922
Creator(s): Browne family of Cowdray Park, Viscounts Montague
Held at: West Sussex Record Office
Reference: COWDRAY/4934/f 34
Finding by inquisition that Aline, late wife of John de Moubray, and John de
Bohoun [sic], son and heir of Joan late wife of James de Bohun, are the next
heirs of William de Brewosa alias Brewose, and are of full age, 1326 [Calendar
of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 6, p. 435].Creation dates: 1326
the below items are possible. This is where I got hung on on who were the wives
of William.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Sussex Archaeological Collections, "Pedigree of Owners of Findon Place
Manor", Sussex Archaeological Society 1848
"The Sussex Arch ref gives his mother as Isabel de Clare, dau of Gilbert E
Gloucester"
Reference Code: COWDRAY
The Cowdray Archives
Creation dates: c 1200-1922
Creator(s): Browne family of Cowdray Park, Viscounts Montague
Held at: West Sussex Record Office
Reference: COWDRAY/4934/f 34
Finding by inquisition that Aline, late wife of John de Moubray, and John de
Bohoun [sic], son and heir of Joan late wife of James de Bohun, are the next
heirs of William de Brewosa alias Brewose, and are of full age, 1326 [Calendar
of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 6, p. 435].Creation dates: 1326
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
Richard de Lucy of Egremont d 1213. His widow Ada de Morville then married
Thomas de Multon who d 1240.
Their son was Thomas de Multon who married Maud de Vaux. He could not have
been born before 1213 and therefore his daughter Aline could not be born before
1230 at the earliest and possibly much later. Making it a bit difficult to
squeeze out a son William de Braose before her own death which had to occur
*by* 1251
That's just a little too tight for comfort
Will
Thomas de Multon who d 1240.
Their son was Thomas de Multon who married Maud de Vaux. He could not have
been born before 1213 and therefore his daughter Aline could not be born before
1230 at the earliest and possibly much later. Making it a bit difficult to
squeeze out a son William de Braose before her own death which had to occur
*by* 1251
That's just a little too tight for comfort
Will
-
henry neagle
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
The coat of arms that I am referring to is a heraldic achievement (shield 3
of 3) that was brought in by Bellasyse shown in black and white on page 16
of a book called The Dictionary of Heraldry Feudal Coats of Arms and
Pedigrees by Joseph Foster. A colour version of shield 3 of 3 is shown on
the front cover. All 3 shields belong to Henry Fitzalan Howard, 15th Duke
of Norfolk. The shield that was brought in by the Bellasyse family consists
of 71 quarters which came in via Elizabeth Bellasyse who was the 1st wife of
Bernard Edward Howard, 12th Duke of Norfolk. The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
are the ones that I am looking for help with in trying to establish how they
have been passed down. I have managed to work out that the Darcy quarter
no. 25 came in via Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his
wife Mary nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy before
his marriage to Mary Kitson. If anyone could tell me how the families of
quarters 26 to 31 link to the Darcy family I would be most grateful.
If anyone would like a scan copy of this achievement shield part 3 of 3 or
even the other 2 shield parts together with a list of the families and
blazons for it I will be happy to do so.
Cheers
Jamie
Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:a68b57a64e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
of 3) that was brought in by Bellasyse shown in black and white on page 16
of a book called The Dictionary of Heraldry Feudal Coats of Arms and
Pedigrees by Joseph Foster. A colour version of shield 3 of 3 is shown on
the front cover. All 3 shields belong to Henry Fitzalan Howard, 15th Duke
of Norfolk. The shield that was brought in by the Bellasyse family consists
of 71 quarters which came in via Elizabeth Bellasyse who was the 1st wife of
Bernard Edward Howard, 12th Duke of Norfolk. The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
are the ones that I am looking for help with in trying to establish how they
have been passed down. I have managed to work out that the Darcy quarter
no. 25 came in via Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his
wife Mary nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy before
his marriage to Mary Kitson. If anyone could tell me how the families of
quarters 26 to 31 link to the Darcy family I would be most grateful.
If anyone would like a scan copy of this achievement shield part 3 of 3 or
even the other 2 shield parts together with a list of the families and
blazons for it I will be happy to do so.
Cheers
Jamie
Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:a68b57a64e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 16 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/15/07 5:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
I have seen a coat of arms that has been passed down through Penelope
D'arcy c1593-c1661 (daughter of Thomas D'arcy who was an Earl of
Rivers) via her husband who was John Gage. This coat of arms
includes the families of Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston amongst
others. I am trying to establish the descent of Penelope D'arcy from
the families of Lovell, Wanton and Weston which I think is via the
Harleston family. Can anyone provide me with the descents from the
Lovell, Wanton and Weston families.
Can you give us the source for this coat of arms?
As this includes the arms for Harleston, Lovell, Wanton and Weston, it
is most likely an achievement of arms which gives a load of quarterings.
Further personal arms are not normally inherited through daughters, much
as quarterings are - and shown in an achievement.
Further I can't find any reference to the arms of the Darcys of Chiche
(that being Thomas Darcy, earl Rivers' family) in the Medieval Ordinary
of Arms, I suspect because the third and fourth volumes have yet to be
published! My rather early Burke's 'Armory' of 1842 has nothing for
that branch of the Darcy family.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
Henry Fitzalan Howard, 15th Duke of /Norfolk/
is by the way a 13th generation descendent of
Richard Cecil
Will Johnson
is by the way a 13th generation descendent of
Richard Cecil
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/16/07 7:58:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
Darcy, FitzLangley, Harleston and Bardewell all come together in the marriage
of
Thomas /Darcy/ of Danbury , Esquire of the Body to Henry VI (d 22 Sep 1485)
to
Margaret /Harleston/
This couple then descends to penelope darcy in five generations.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
Darcy, FitzLangley, Harleston and Bardewell all come together in the marriage
of
Thomas /Darcy/ of Danbury , Esquire of the Body to Henry VI (d 22 Sep 1485)
to
Margaret /Harleston/
This couple then descends to penelope darcy in five generations.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/16/07 6:45:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
<< The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
are the ones that I am looking for help with in trying to establish how they
have been passed down. I have managed to work out that the Darcy quarter
no. 25 came in via Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his
wife Mary nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy before
his marriage to Mary Kitson. >>
Are you quite sure that analysis holds up? After all to get from Elizabeth
Belasyse back to Penelope Darcy you have to reach out over 180 years, within
that range there are an awful lots of gaps in the ancestry of Elizabeth
Belasyse, unless you can fill in all of her great-great-grandparents for us ?
The Darcy could have come in at another place entirely.
Will
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
<< The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
are the ones that I am looking for help with in trying to establish how they
have been passed down. I have managed to work out that the Darcy quarter
no. 25 came in via Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his
wife Mary nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy before
his marriage to Mary Kitson. >>
Are you quite sure that analysis holds up? After all to get from Elizabeth
Belasyse back to Penelope Darcy you have to reach out over 180 years, within
that range there are an awful lots of gaps in the ancestry of Elizabeth
Belasyse, unless you can fill in all of her great-great-grandparents for us ?
The Darcy could have come in at another place entirely.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Jamie's analyis based on the order in which the quarterings appear is
entirely correct. It is worth remembering that each quarter represents
a marriage to an heiress, so there could be huge chronological gaps
between the marriage at 26 and the marriage at 27, if the intervening
wives were not heiresses. Additionally, it is not possible to state
whether each represents a Darcy marriage - for instance, 26 could be a
marriage at an early Darcy which brought in the rest of the
quarterings. An interesting puzzle indeed. I regret I am away from
base until March so can't do any digging myself until then.
MA-R
In a message dated 1/16/07 6:45:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
are the ones that I am looking for help with in trying to establish how they
have been passed down. I have managed to work out that the Darcy quarter
no. 25 came in via Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his
wife Mary nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy before
his marriage to Mary Kitson.
Are you quite sure that analysis holds up? After all to get from Elizabeth
Belasyse back to Penelope Darcy you have to reach out over 180 years, within
that range there are an awful lots of gaps in the ancestry of Elizabeth
Belasyse, unless you can fill in all of her great-great-grandparents for us ?
The Darcy could have come in at another place entirely.
Jamie's analyis based on the order in which the quarterings appear is
entirely correct. It is worth remembering that each quarter represents
a marriage to an heiress, so there could be huge chronological gaps
between the marriage at 26 and the marriage at 27, if the intervening
wives were not heiresses. Additionally, it is not possible to state
whether each represents a Darcy marriage - for instance, 26 could be a
marriage at an early Darcy which brought in the rest of the
quarterings. An interesting puzzle indeed. I regret I am away from
base until March so can't do any digging myself until then.
MA-R
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In message of 17 Jan, mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
Entirely so. But these achievements of arms are not genealogy, they are
based on genealogy. In other words the first thing you have to do is
find what the genealogy actually was by normal documentary research.
Then you can ask if the arms portrayed are justified.
I have here an achievement that was done as late as 1927; it was signed
by the Clarencieux king of arms, so you would have thought he had it
right. I also have the genealogical table that was made to devise the
achievement. But five of the arms there are genealogically wrong: they
were not inherited from heiresses. If this is the error rate in a modern
work, heaven knows what was the error rate in older works.
I simply do not trust heraldry to give reliable information about
genealogy.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/07 6:45:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henry.neagle@ntlworld.com writes:
The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for
Lovell, no. 29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell
and no. 32 for Kitson are the ones that I am looking for help with
in trying to establish how they have been passed down. I have
managed to work out that the Darcy quarter no. 25 came in via
Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his wife Mary
nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy
before his marriage to Mary Kitson.
Are you quite sure that analysis holds up? After all to get from
Elizabeth Belasyse back to Penelope Darcy you have to reach out over
180 years, within that range there are an awful lots of gaps in the
ancestry of Elizabeth Belasyse, unless you can fill in all of her
great-great-grandparents for us ?
The Darcy could have come in at another place entirely.
Jamie's analyis based on the order in which the quarterings appear is
entirely correct. It is worth remembering that each quarter represents
a marriage to an heiress, so there could be huge chronological gaps
between the marriage at 26 and the marriage at 27, if the intervening
wives were not heiresses. Additionally, it is not possible to state
whether each represents a Darcy marriage - for instance, 26 could be a
marriage at an early Darcy which brought in the rest of the
quarterings. An interesting puzzle indeed. I regret I am away from
base until March so can't do any digging myself until then.
Entirely so. But these achievements of arms are not genealogy, they are
based on genealogy. In other words the first thing you have to do is
find what the genealogy actually was by normal documentary research.
Then you can ask if the arms portrayed are justified.
I have here an achievement that was done as late as 1927; it was signed
by the Clarencieux king of arms, so you would have thought he had it
right. I also have the genealogical table that was made to devise the
achievement. But five of the arms there are genealogically wrong: they
were not inherited from heiresses. If this is the error rate in a modern
work, heaven knows what was the error rate in older works.
I simply do not trust heraldry to give reliable information about
genealogy.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In message of 17 Jan, "henry neagle" <henry.neagle@ntlworld.com> wrote:
The first question is who prepared this achievement? Was it Foster or
did he copy something in the family's possession? If it was Foster, it
is not 100% reliable much as he did fair amounts of work to verify what
he produced.
If the achievement was in the family's possession, then it is likely
that someone has already prepared the genealogical account from which it
was derived. You might find it far easier to try to find this account
than trying to recreate it from the arms: it is so difficult
establishing which were the heiresses through whom any quartered arms
might have descended. Not to mention that some heiresses may have been
left out nor that some may be erroneous.
One suggestion is that the College of Arms may have an account of the
genealogy. But be prepared to be charged fees for producing such: the
chaps there are not government employees and have to earn their keep
from fees.
But I believe the Norfolks employ an archivist; you may strike lucky and
find that they can supply the material you want.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
The coat of arms that I am referring to is a heraldic achievement (shield 3
of 3) that was brought in by Bellasyse shown in black and white on page 16
of a book called The Dictionary of Heraldry Feudal Coats of Arms and
Pedigrees by Joseph Foster. A colour version of shield 3 of 3 is shown on
the front cover. All 3 shields belong to Henry Fitzalan Howard, 15th Duke
of Norfolk. The shield that was brought in by the Bellasyse family consists
of 71 quarters which came in via Elizabeth Bellasyse who was the 1st wife of
Bernard Edward Howard, 12th Duke of Norfolk. The quarters for no. 25 for
Darcy, no. 26 for FitzLangley, no. 27 for Harleston, no. 28 for Lovell, no.
29 for Wanton, no. 30 for Weston, no. 31 for Berdwell and no. 32 for Kitson
are the ones that I am looking for help with in trying to establish how they
have been passed down. I have managed to work out that the Darcy quarter
no. 25 came in via Penelope Darcy the daughter of Thomas Darcy and of his
wife Mary nee Kitson. This Mary Kitson brought in quarter no. 32, so
therefore the quarters 26 to 31 must have belonged to Thomas Darcy before
his marriage to Mary Kitson. If anyone could tell me how the families of
quarters 26 to 31 link to the Darcy family I would be most grateful.
The first question is who prepared this achievement? Was it Foster or
did he copy something in the family's possession? If it was Foster, it
is not 100% reliable much as he did fair amounts of work to verify what
he produced.
If the achievement was in the family's possession, then it is likely
that someone has already prepared the genealogical account from which it
was derived. You might find it far easier to try to find this account
than trying to recreate it from the arms: it is so difficult
establishing which were the heiresses through whom any quartered arms
might have descended. Not to mention that some heiresses may have been
left out nor that some may be erroneous.
One suggestion is that the College of Arms may have an account of the
genealogy. But be prepared to be charged fees for producing such: the
chaps there are not government employees and have to earn their keep
from fees.
But I believe the Norfolks employ an archivist; you may strike lucky and
find that they can supply the material you want.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Giles de Brewes
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Hi All;
The Sussex Arch ref is according to modern genealogists incorrect. They
now believe that William de Brewes who died in 1326 was the son of
William de Brewes d1290 and his first wife Aline Multon. See Complete
Peerage.
Regards
Paul
Any discussion of the Brewes of Bramber has to incorporate and explain how
the below items are possible. This is where I got hung on on who were the wives
of William.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Sussex Archaeological Collections, "Pedigree of Owners of Findon Place
Manor", Sussex Archaeological Society 1848
"The Sussex Arch ref gives his mother as Isabel de Clare, dau of Gilbert E
Gloucester"
Reference Code: COWDRAY
The Cowdray Archives
Creation dates: c 1200-1922
Creator(s): Browne family of Cowdray Park, Viscounts Montague
Held at: West Sussex Record Office
Reference: COWDRAY/4934/f 34
Finding by inquisition that Aline, late wife of John de Moubray, and John de
Bohoun [sic], son and heir of Joan late wife of James de Bohun, are the next
heirs of William de Brewosa alias Brewose, and are of full age, 1326 [Calendar
of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vol. 6, p. 435].Creation dates: 1326
Hi All;
The Sussex Arch ref is according to modern genealogists incorrect. They
now believe that William de Brewes who died in 1326 was the son of
William de Brewes d1290 and his first wife Aline Multon. See Complete
Peerage.
Regards
Paul
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Giles de Brewes
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There appeared to be enough time. See the following reference [1].
Regards
Paul Mackenzie
JUST 1/1050
52-53 Hen III
Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas
Johannes de Stayngreue petit vers[us] Ric[ardu]m de Breus man[er]ium de
Thurgramby cum p[er]tin[enciis] exceptis q[uat]uor bovatis et
quadraginta acr[is] t[er]re in eodem man[er]io ut jus suum p[er]
b[r]e[v]e de recto. Et unde dicit q[uo]d quidam Simon antecessor suus
fuit fuit seisitus in d[o]m[ini]co suo ut de feodo et jure. Tempore J
Reg[is] p[at]ris d[omi]ni Reg[is]. nunc capiendo inde expleta ad
valenciam etc Et de ip[s]o Simone descendit Jus pred[ic]ti man[er]ij
cuidam Will[el]mo ut filio et heredi. Et de ip[s]o Will[el]mo descendit
Jus cuidam Sim[one] ut fil[io] et heredi. Et de ip[s]o Sim[one]
descendit <Jus> cuidam Will[el]mo ut fil[io] et heredi. Et de ip[s]o
Will[el]mo descendit Jus cuidam Johan[n]e ut filie et heredi. Et de
ip[s]a Johanna quia obijt sine herede de se, reu[er]tebat[ur] Jus cuidam
Petro fratri pred[ic]ti Will[el]mi patris ip[s]ius Johanne ut auunculo
et heredi. Et de ip[s]o Petro quia obijt sine herede de se, descendit
Jus isti Johanni qui nunc petit ut frat[ri] et heredi. Et quod tale sit
Jus suu[m], offertat’
Et Ric[ard]us venit et dicit ip[s]e no[n] potest ei inde ad hoc bre[ve]
respondere. Quia dicit q[uo]d ip[s]e p[re]t[er] pred[ic][tas qu[at]uor
bovatas et q[uad]raginta acris terre que excipiunt[u]r no[n] tenet
integri p[re]d[ic]t[u]m man[er]ium cum p[er]tin[enciis] vers[us] eum
petitum. Quia dicit q[uo]d d[omi]n[u]s Rex tenet inde tres solidatas
reddit[us] exeuntes de p[re]d[ic]to man[er]io <quos percipit> p[er]
manus quo[rum]dam Joh[a]n[ni]s fil[ius] Wakelim et Thome Molle. Et dicit
q[uo]d quidam Henri Hay tenet inde duas bovatis t[er]re. Et Priorissa de
Tykeheued tenet inde duas bovatis t[er]re. Et Prior de Elreton
simil[ite]r tenet inde q[uad]raginta acras terre. Post venit pred[ic]tus
Ric[ard]us et reliquit except[i]onem istam et dicit q[uo]d quitquid
habet in pred[ic]to man[er]io tenet ip[s]e de dono Willi de Breus et
cuiusdam Aline quondam ux[or] ip[s]ius Will[elm]i cuius jus et
maritag[u]m illud fuit et dicit q[uo]d ijdem Will[elm]us et Alina post
do[m]ini illud scil[ice]t int[er] annu[m] regni d[om]ini regis nunc
tricesimu[m] octauu[m] et quadrage-simu[m]] s[e]c[un]d[e]m ven[er]unt
coram justic[iariis] d[omi]ni reg[is] de Banco et recogn[er]unt illud
esse jus ip[s]ius Ric[ard]i p[er] fine[m] ibidem inde int[er] eis
f[ac]t[u]m. Ita q[uo]d ijdem Will[elmu]s et Alina obligau[eru]nt se et
heredes ip[s]ius Aline ad War[rantizare] et dicit q[uo]d idem
Will[elmu]s tenet om[na]s terras et tenementa que fu[eru]nt de
heriditate pred[ic]te Aline p[er] legem Angl[ie] et q[uo]d de ip[s]a
suscitauit prolem scil[ice]t q[ue]mdam Will[elmu]m fil[ium] suu[m]. Et
vocat inde ad warantum pred[ic]tem Will[elmu]m de Breuse ut tenentem
terra[rum] que fu[eru]nt pred[ic]te Alina p[er] legem Angl[ie] et
s[imiliter] pred[ic]tem Will[elmu]m fil[ium] Will[elm]i de Breuse et
heredem pred[ic]ta Aline qui est infra etatem.
Et p[re]d[ic]tus Johannes petit q[uo]d pred[ic]tus Ric[ard]us ostendat
cartam v[e]l instrumenta[m] aliquod p[er] quod p[re]d[ic]tus Will[elm]us
fil[ius] Will[elm]i qui est infra etatem debeat eidem Ric[ard]o
Warantizare et Ric[ard]us dicit q[uo]d int[er] annu[m] Tricesimu[m]
octauu[m] et xl[um] s[e]c[un[d[e]m f[ac]tus fuit finis inde <inter>
ip[siu]m Ric[ard]um et p[re]d[ic]tos Will[elmu]m et Alinam ita q[uo]d
Cirog[ra]fum inde leuauit in p[re]fata cur[ia] unde pes est in
Arch[ivis] Thesaurar[ij] et vocat pedem et[cetera]. I[de]o mandatum est
Thesaurar[io] et Baronibus de scacc[ari]o q[uo]d mittant
<t[ra]script[ione]m> pedis q[uo]d pred[ic]tus Ric[ard]us h[ab]eat
illu[d] hic A die s[anc]ti Johannis Bapt[izator]e in unu[m] mensem. Et
simil[ite]r p[re]d[ic]tus Will[el]mus de Breuse tenens
terra[rum]et[cetera] sum[monebatu]r q[uo]d sit ad p[re]fatum
t[er]minu[m]. Et sum[monebatu]r in com[itatem] Sussex. Ad diem illum
misit Thesaurarius <transcriptu[m]> pedis pred[ic]ti finis signatum
sigillo d[omi]ni regis. Quod testatur q[uo]d p[re]d[ic]ti Ric[ard]us et
Alina et her[edes] ip[s]ius Aline tenent[ur] Warantizare. Et quia
testatum est q[uo]d p[re]dic]tus Will[elm]us ?fil[ius] Will[elm]i heres
p[re]d[ic]te Aline est infra etate[m] remaneat loquela sine die us[que]
ad etatem et[cetera]
Translation
JUST 1/1050
52-53 Hen III
Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas
John de Stonegrave claims against Richard de Breuse the manor of
Thorganby with appurtenances excepting four bovates and forty acres of
land in the same manor as his right by writ of right. And on this he
says that a certain Simon, his ancestor, was seised in his demesne as of
fee and right, in the reign of King John father of the now lord king
taking therefrom the profits to the value etc. And from the same Simon
the right of the aforesaid manor descended to a certain William, as son
and heir. And from the same William the right descended to a certain
Simon, as son and heir. And from the same Simon the right descended to a
certain William, as son and heir. And from the same William the right
descended to a certain Joan, as daughter and heir. And from the said
Joan because she died without heirs of herself, the right reverted to a
certain Peter brother of said William father of Joan as uncle and heir.
And from the said Peter because he died without heirs of himself, the
right descended to the same John, who now claims as brother and heir.
And that such is his right, he offers etc.
And Richard appears and says he cannot give an answer to this writ.
Because he says that apart from the aforesaid four bovates and forty
acres of land in the same manor, which are excepted, he does not hold
the whole of the aforesaid manor with appurtenances claimed against him.
Because he says that the lord King holds therein three shillings rent
issuing from the aforesaid manor which he obtained by the hand of a
certain John son of Wakelim and Thomas Molle. And he says that a certain
Henry Hay holds therein two bovates of land. And the Prioress of Thicket
holds therein two bovates of land. And the Prior of Ellerton likewise
holds therein forty acres of land. Afterwards the aforesaid Richard
appears and withdraws that exception and says that whatever he has in
the aforesaid manor he holds by the gift of William de Breuse and a
certain Aline formerly his wife, whose right and marriage portion it
was, and he says that the same William and Alina, after that lord, that
is between the 38th year of the reign of the now lord king and the 40th
following [1253/4 – 1255/6] they came before the justices of the lord
King’s Bench and acknowledged it to be the right of the same Richard by
a Fine made there between them on condition that the same William and
Alina undertook for themselves and their heirs to warrant. And he says
that the same William holds all the lands and tenements that were of the
heredity of the aforesaid Alina by the law of England and that by the
same he maintains issue, that is a certain William his son. And he
calls therein to warrant the aforesaid William de Breuse as tenant of
the lands which were the aforesaid Alina’s by the law of England and
likewise the aforesaid William son of William de Breuse and heir of the
aforeaid Alina, who is under age.
And the aforesaid John claims that the aforesaid Richard should show the
charter or other instrument by which the aforesaid William son of
William who is under age ought to warrant the said Richard and Richard
says that between the 38th year and the 40th following a fine was made
therein between the same Richard and the aforesaid William and Alina on
condition that a Chirograph [a signed document] was levied in the
aforesaid court, of which the foot is in the archives of the Treasurer
and called the Foot etc. Therefore it was ordered to the Treasurer and
Barons of the Exchequer that they send a transcript of the foot that the
aforesaid Richard should have it here ?before/?on [ante?, apud?] the day
of St John the Baptist in one month. And likewise the aforesaid William
de Breuse tenant of the lands etc was summonsed that he be here at the
aforesaid date. And he was summonsed in the county of Sussex. And on
that day the Treasurer sent the transcript of the aforesaid foot of the
aforesaid fine sealed with the seal of the lord king. Which showed that
the aforesaid Richard and Alina and the heirs of Alina are held to
warrant And because it was shown that the aforesaid William ?son of
William heir of the aforesaid Alina is under age the suit is remanded
sine die [ie indefinitely] until [he is] of age etc
Translation
M.L. Tompkins, P. Mackenzie
Richard de Lucy of Egremont d 1213. His widow Ada de Morville then married
Thomas de Multon who d 1240.
Their son was Thomas de Multon who married Maud de Vaux. He could not have
been born before 1213 and therefore his daughter Aline could not be born before
1230 at the earliest and possibly much later. Making it a bit difficult to
squeeze out a son William de Braose before her own death which had to occur
*by* 1251
That's just a little too tight for comfort
Will
There appeared to be enough time. See the following reference [1].
Regards
Paul Mackenzie
JUST 1/1050
52-53 Hen III
Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas
Johannes de Stayngreue petit vers[us] Ric[ardu]m de Breus man[er]ium de
Thurgramby cum p[er]tin[enciis] exceptis q[uat]uor bovatis et
quadraginta acr[is] t[er]re in eodem man[er]io ut jus suum p[er]
b[r]e[v]e de recto. Et unde dicit q[uo]d quidam Simon antecessor suus
fuit fuit seisitus in d[o]m[ini]co suo ut de feodo et jure. Tempore J
Reg[is] p[at]ris d[omi]ni Reg[is]. nunc capiendo inde expleta ad
valenciam etc Et de ip[s]o Simone descendit Jus pred[ic]ti man[er]ij
cuidam Will[el]mo ut filio et heredi. Et de ip[s]o Will[el]mo descendit
Jus cuidam Sim[one] ut fil[io] et heredi. Et de ip[s]o Sim[one]
descendit <Jus> cuidam Will[el]mo ut fil[io] et heredi. Et de ip[s]o
Will[el]mo descendit Jus cuidam Johan[n]e ut filie et heredi. Et de
ip[s]a Johanna quia obijt sine herede de se, reu[er]tebat[ur] Jus cuidam
Petro fratri pred[ic]ti Will[el]mi patris ip[s]ius Johanne ut auunculo
et heredi. Et de ip[s]o Petro quia obijt sine herede de se, descendit
Jus isti Johanni qui nunc petit ut frat[ri] et heredi. Et quod tale sit
Jus suu[m], offertat’
Et Ric[ard]us venit et dicit ip[s]e no[n] potest ei inde ad hoc bre[ve]
respondere. Quia dicit q[uo]d ip[s]e p[re]t[er] pred[ic][tas qu[at]uor
bovatas et q[uad]raginta acris terre que excipiunt[u]r no[n] tenet
integri p[re]d[ic]t[u]m man[er]ium cum p[er]tin[enciis] vers[us] eum
petitum. Quia dicit q[uo]d d[omi]n[u]s Rex tenet inde tres solidatas
reddit[us] exeuntes de p[re]d[ic]to man[er]io <quos percipit> p[er]
manus quo[rum]dam Joh[a]n[ni]s fil[ius] Wakelim et Thome Molle. Et dicit
q[uo]d quidam Henri Hay tenet inde duas bovatis t[er]re. Et Priorissa de
Tykeheued tenet inde duas bovatis t[er]re. Et Prior de Elreton
simil[ite]r tenet inde q[uad]raginta acras terre. Post venit pred[ic]tus
Ric[ard]us et reliquit except[i]onem istam et dicit q[uo]d quitquid
habet in pred[ic]to man[er]io tenet ip[s]e de dono Willi de Breus et
cuiusdam Aline quondam ux[or] ip[s]ius Will[elm]i cuius jus et
maritag[u]m illud fuit et dicit q[uo]d ijdem Will[elm]us et Alina post
do[m]ini illud scil[ice]t int[er] annu[m] regni d[om]ini regis nunc
tricesimu[m] octauu[m] et quadrage-simu[m]] s[e]c[un]d[e]m ven[er]unt
coram justic[iariis] d[omi]ni reg[is] de Banco et recogn[er]unt illud
esse jus ip[s]ius Ric[ard]i p[er] fine[m] ibidem inde int[er] eis
f[ac]t[u]m. Ita q[uo]d ijdem Will[elmu]s et Alina obligau[eru]nt se et
heredes ip[s]ius Aline ad War[rantizare] et dicit q[uo]d idem
Will[elmu]s tenet om[na]s terras et tenementa que fu[eru]nt de
heriditate pred[ic]te Aline p[er] legem Angl[ie] et q[uo]d de ip[s]a
suscitauit prolem scil[ice]t q[ue]mdam Will[elmu]m fil[ium] suu[m]. Et
vocat inde ad warantum pred[ic]tem Will[elmu]m de Breuse ut tenentem
terra[rum] que fu[eru]nt pred[ic]te Alina p[er] legem Angl[ie] et
s[imiliter] pred[ic]tem Will[elmu]m fil[ium] Will[elm]i de Breuse et
heredem pred[ic]ta Aline qui est infra etatem.
Et p[re]d[ic]tus Johannes petit q[uo]d pred[ic]tus Ric[ard]us ostendat
cartam v[e]l instrumenta[m] aliquod p[er] quod p[re]d[ic]tus Will[elm]us
fil[ius] Will[elm]i qui est infra etatem debeat eidem Ric[ard]o
Warantizare et Ric[ard]us dicit q[uo]d int[er] annu[m] Tricesimu[m]
octauu[m] et xl[um] s[e]c[un[d[e]m f[ac]tus fuit finis inde <inter>
ip[siu]m Ric[ard]um et p[re]d[ic]tos Will[elmu]m et Alinam ita q[uo]d
Cirog[ra]fum inde leuauit in p[re]fata cur[ia] unde pes est in
Arch[ivis] Thesaurar[ij] et vocat pedem et[cetera]. I[de]o mandatum est
Thesaurar[io] et Baronibus de scacc[ari]o q[uo]d mittant
<t[ra]script[ione]m> pedis q[uo]d pred[ic]tus Ric[ard]us h[ab]eat
illu[d] hic A die s[anc]ti Johannis Bapt[izator]e in unu[m] mensem. Et
simil[ite]r p[re]d[ic]tus Will[el]mus de Breuse tenens
terra[rum]et[cetera] sum[monebatu]r q[uo]d sit ad p[re]fatum
t[er]minu[m]. Et sum[monebatu]r in com[itatem] Sussex. Ad diem illum
misit Thesaurarius <transcriptu[m]> pedis pred[ic]ti finis signatum
sigillo d[omi]ni regis. Quod testatur q[uo]d p[re]d[ic]ti Ric[ard]us et
Alina et her[edes] ip[s]ius Aline tenent[ur] Warantizare. Et quia
testatum est q[uo]d p[re]dic]tus Will[elm]us ?fil[ius] Will[elm]i heres
p[re]d[ic]te Aline est infra etate[m] remaneat loquela sine die us[que]
ad etatem et[cetera]
Translation
JUST 1/1050
52-53 Hen III
Yorkshire eyre of 1268-1269, Preston's roll of civil pleas
John de Stonegrave claims against Richard de Breuse the manor of
Thorganby with appurtenances excepting four bovates and forty acres of
land in the same manor as his right by writ of right. And on this he
says that a certain Simon, his ancestor, was seised in his demesne as of
fee and right, in the reign of King John father of the now lord king
taking therefrom the profits to the value etc. And from the same Simon
the right of the aforesaid manor descended to a certain William, as son
and heir. And from the same William the right descended to a certain
Simon, as son and heir. And from the same Simon the right descended to a
certain William, as son and heir. And from the same William the right
descended to a certain Joan, as daughter and heir. And from the said
Joan because she died without heirs of herself, the right reverted to a
certain Peter brother of said William father of Joan as uncle and heir.
And from the said Peter because he died without heirs of himself, the
right descended to the same John, who now claims as brother and heir.
And that such is his right, he offers etc.
And Richard appears and says he cannot give an answer to this writ.
Because he says that apart from the aforesaid four bovates and forty
acres of land in the same manor, which are excepted, he does not hold
the whole of the aforesaid manor with appurtenances claimed against him.
Because he says that the lord King holds therein three shillings rent
issuing from the aforesaid manor which he obtained by the hand of a
certain John son of Wakelim and Thomas Molle. And he says that a certain
Henry Hay holds therein two bovates of land. And the Prioress of Thicket
holds therein two bovates of land. And the Prior of Ellerton likewise
holds therein forty acres of land. Afterwards the aforesaid Richard
appears and withdraws that exception and says that whatever he has in
the aforesaid manor he holds by the gift of William de Breuse and a
certain Aline formerly his wife, whose right and marriage portion it
was, and he says that the same William and Alina, after that lord, that
is between the 38th year of the reign of the now lord king and the 40th
following [1253/4 – 1255/6] they came before the justices of the lord
King’s Bench and acknowledged it to be the right of the same Richard by
a Fine made there between them on condition that the same William and
Alina undertook for themselves and their heirs to warrant. And he says
that the same William holds all the lands and tenements that were of the
heredity of the aforesaid Alina by the law of England and that by the
same he maintains issue, that is a certain William his son. And he
calls therein to warrant the aforesaid William de Breuse as tenant of
the lands which were the aforesaid Alina’s by the law of England and
likewise the aforesaid William son of William de Breuse and heir of the
aforeaid Alina, who is under age.
And the aforesaid John claims that the aforesaid Richard should show the
charter or other instrument by which the aforesaid William son of
William who is under age ought to warrant the said Richard and Richard
says that between the 38th year and the 40th following a fine was made
therein between the same Richard and the aforesaid William and Alina on
condition that a Chirograph [a signed document] was levied in the
aforesaid court, of which the foot is in the archives of the Treasurer
and called the Foot etc. Therefore it was ordered to the Treasurer and
Barons of the Exchequer that they send a transcript of the foot that the
aforesaid Richard should have it here ?before/?on [ante?, apud?] the day
of St John the Baptist in one month. And likewise the aforesaid William
de Breuse tenant of the lands etc was summonsed that he be here at the
aforesaid date. And he was summonsed in the county of Sussex. And on
that day the Treasurer sent the transcript of the aforesaid foot of the
aforesaid fine sealed with the seal of the lord king. Which showed that
the aforesaid Richard and Alina and the heirs of Alina are held to
warrant And because it was shown that the aforesaid William ?son of
William heir of the aforesaid Alina is under age the suit is remanded
sine die [ie indefinitely] until [he is] of age etc
Translation
M.L. Tompkins, P. Mackenzie
-
gbh
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
On 16 Jan 2007 15:45:15 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
wrote:
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"? By evidence I mean not just some modern
scholar's BELIEF but, say, another recorded use of the epithet in
precisely that sense, or pictorial evidence that crusaders wore
crosses on their backs rather than on their breasts. Without such
evidence I would be reluctant to assume that the term "crouchback"
(which to me sounds insulting) was ever synonymous with the neutral,
non-insulting "crouched" meaning "wearing a cross".
The variant "crookback" could not possibly ever have meant "wearing a
cross on the back".
gbh
wrote:
gbh wrote:
snip
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"? By evidence I mean not just some modern
scholar's BELIEF but, say, another recorded use of the epithet in
precisely that sense, or pictorial evidence that crusaders wore
crosses on their backs rather than on their breasts. Without such
evidence I would be reluctant to assume that the term "crouchback"
(which to me sounds insulting) was ever synonymous with the neutral,
non-insulting "crouched" meaning "wearing a cross".
The variant "crookback" could not possibly ever have meant "wearing a
cross on the back".
gbh
-
Douglas Richardson
Edmund, Earl of Lancaster - Popular, handsome, skilled in ar
gbh wrote:
Dear gbh ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I've seen many references to crusaders in English medieval records.
I've never encountered any of them being styled or nicknamed either
"crossback" or "crouchback." I have, however, frequently seen the
phrase "taking the cross" which refers to people who had taken a vow to
go on crusade.
The following information on "taking the cross" is taken from an
internet website
(http://www.florilegium.org/files/NICOLA ... e-art.html):
" 'Taking the Cross' probably involved swearing a public oath over the
relics, and then sewing a linen cross (red or white, depending on the
particular crusade) to the shoulder of one's cloak. After this, a
person was designated a crusignatus (sometimes wrongly translated as
Crusader.). Lists of these people were kept in England by the Crown
(as well as by the Church), because their legal status changed.
Normally there were restrictions placed upon disposing of large amounts
of property; these were lifted in the case of those preparing for
crusade. Bilking crusignatus in a deal also gained one an extra
penalty in canon law. Provision was also made for wives and children
of crusaders should they be killed or lost while on crusade. The other
reason for keeping the lists was to keep track of who had not fulfilled
their oath..." END OF QUOTE.
As for actual carriage, character, and personality of Prince Edmund, I
believe the information below bears repeating.
Coat of Arms, 7 (1962): 18-24, 157-161; 10 (1969): 260-275
("... was of a gay and pleasant disposition... a generous and popular
prince, observant in religion like all his family and a keen business
man in the management of his vast estates").
Hicks, Who's Who in Late Medieval England (1991): 7-9 (biog. of
Edmund Crouchback: "Unfaltering loyalty and unstinting service
characterised his career... a princely giver and spender of money...
"the epithet 'Crouchback'... is not given to him by any
contemporary chronicler... for all that we know of him points to his
having been both handsome and skilled in arms.").
Popular, handsome, skilled in arms - Edmund doesn't exactly sound like
the Hunchback of Notre Dame, does he? As best as I can tell, the
"crouchback" legend is a myth spun out of political propaganda
circulating around the year, 1400. Since Prince Edmund and his fellow
contemporaries had been dead and in their graves for over a hundred
years, the nickname Crouchback was obviously was not anything Edmund
meritted in his lifetime. As such, I believe it's time we put the myth
to rest.
Accuracy in history is far more important than our cherished and ill
founded notions of "the good old days." Unless, of course, we
subscribe to the viewpoint of the propaganda meister, Joseph Goebbels.
Then we can believe whatever lie we fancy - the bigger the lie, the
better. And it doesn't cost anyone anything except the truth. Now
that's a bargain!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"?
Dear gbh ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I've seen many references to crusaders in English medieval records.
I've never encountered any of them being styled or nicknamed either
"crossback" or "crouchback." I have, however, frequently seen the
phrase "taking the cross" which refers to people who had taken a vow to
go on crusade.
The following information on "taking the cross" is taken from an
internet website
(http://www.florilegium.org/files/NICOLA ... e-art.html):
" 'Taking the Cross' probably involved swearing a public oath over the
relics, and then sewing a linen cross (red or white, depending on the
particular crusade) to the shoulder of one's cloak. After this, a
person was designated a crusignatus (sometimes wrongly translated as
Crusader.). Lists of these people were kept in England by the Crown
(as well as by the Church), because their legal status changed.
Normally there were restrictions placed upon disposing of large amounts
of property; these were lifted in the case of those preparing for
crusade. Bilking crusignatus in a deal also gained one an extra
penalty in canon law. Provision was also made for wives and children
of crusaders should they be killed or lost while on crusade. The other
reason for keeping the lists was to keep track of who had not fulfilled
their oath..." END OF QUOTE.
As for actual carriage, character, and personality of Prince Edmund, I
believe the information below bears repeating.
Coat of Arms, 7 (1962): 18-24, 157-161; 10 (1969): 260-275
("... was of a gay and pleasant disposition... a generous and popular
prince, observant in religion like all his family and a keen business
man in the management of his vast estates").
Hicks, Who's Who in Late Medieval England (1991): 7-9 (biog. of
Edmund Crouchback: "Unfaltering loyalty and unstinting service
characterised his career... a princely giver and spender of money...
"the epithet 'Crouchback'... is not given to him by any
contemporary chronicler... for all that we know of him points to his
having been both handsome and skilled in arms.").
Popular, handsome, skilled in arms - Edmund doesn't exactly sound like
the Hunchback of Notre Dame, does he? As best as I can tell, the
"crouchback" legend is a myth spun out of political propaganda
circulating around the year, 1400. Since Prince Edmund and his fellow
contemporaries had been dead and in their graves for over a hundred
years, the nickname Crouchback was obviously was not anything Edmund
meritted in his lifetime. As such, I believe it's time we put the myth
to rest.
Accuracy in history is far more important than our cherished and ill
founded notions of "the good old days." Unless, of course, we
subscribe to the viewpoint of the propaganda meister, Joseph Goebbels.
Then we can believe whatever lie we fancy - the bigger the lie, the
better. And it doesn't cost anyone anything except the truth. Now
that's a bargain!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:qfqrq2hl4hij3gaa3mfvfcj7snqd899pg3@4ax.com...
Another bare instance of "Crouchback" as a byname could just as easily be
interpreted to mean a hunchback, unless the writer had explicitly defined
it - in this, you are asking for something that I would not expect could be
found.
Assuming your modern intuition doesn't lead you to doubt the meaning of
"back", the evidence that "Crouchback" meant "cross-aback" is in other uses
of "crouch" for "cross" dating from the 13th century, for instance in
"Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the Cross.
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking "Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back" to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to "crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing other
words for the same condition.
Peter Stewart
news:qfqrq2hl4hij3gaa3mfvfcj7snqd899pg3@4ax.com...
On 16 Jan 2007 15:45:15 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
wrote:
gbh wrote:
snip
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"? By evidence I mean not just some modern
scholar's BELIEF but, say, another recorded use of the epithet in
precisely that sense, or pictorial evidence that crusaders wore
crosses on their backs rather than on their breasts. Without such
evidence I would be reluctant to assume that the term "crouchback"
(which to me sounds insulting) was ever synonymous with the neutral,
non-insulting "crouched" meaning "wearing a cross".
Another bare instance of "Crouchback" as a byname could just as easily be
interpreted to mean a hunchback, unless the writer had explicitly defined
it - in this, you are asking for something that I would not expect could be
found.
Assuming your modern intuition doesn't lead you to doubt the meaning of
"back", the evidence that "Crouchback" meant "cross-aback" is in other uses
of "crouch" for "cross" dating from the 13th century, for instance in
"Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the Cross.
The variant "crookback" could not possibly ever have meant "wearing a
cross on the back".
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking "Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back" to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to "crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing other
words for the same condition.
Peter Stewart
-
gbh
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:09:44 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I don't dispute that "crouch" meant "cross". I just wondered if you
knew of another example of "crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on
the back". You have said you don't. Does anybody else?
The OED does not agree with your narrow definition (modern intuition?)
of "crouch":
"To stoop or bend low with general compression of the body, as in
stooping for shelter, in fear, or in submission; to cower with the
limbs bent. Formerly often applied to the act of bowing low in
reverence or deference. Now said also of the depressed and constrained
posture assumed by a beast in fear or submission, or in order to make
a spring. (To cower concerns chiefly the head and shoulders: to crouch
affects the body as a whole.) "
Note "general compression of the body" and "the body as a whole",
nothing about it being only below the waist.
Note also Scots crouchy meaning "hunch-backed".
So, the OED doesn't agree with your claim about the meaning of the
verb "crouch", or with your inference that a hunch-back has never been
called "crouch-back" in English.
(Peter, just in case Douglas Richardson thinks I always agree with him
and disagree with you, I'd like to say that I think YOU are right in
what you say about Dominus and Sir.)
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:qfqrq2hl4hij3gaa3mfvfcj7snqd899pg3@4ax.com...
On 16 Jan 2007 15:45:15 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
wrote:
gbh wrote:
snip
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"? By evidence I mean not just some modern
scholar's BELIEF but, say, another recorded use of the epithet in
precisely that sense, or pictorial evidence that crusaders wore
crosses on their backs rather than on their breasts. Without such
evidence I would be reluctant to assume that the term "crouchback"
(which to me sounds insulting) was ever synonymous with the neutral,
non-insulting "crouched" meaning "wearing a cross".
Another bare instance of "Crouchback" as a byname could just as easily be
interpreted to mean a hunchback, unless the writer had explicitly defined
it - in this, you are asking for something that I would not expect could be
found.
Assuming your modern intuition doesn't lead you to doubt the meaning of
"back", the evidence that "Crouchback" meant "cross-aback" is in other uses
of "crouch" for "cross" dating from the 13th century, for instance in
"Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the Cross.
I don't dispute that "crouch" meant "cross". I just wondered if you
knew of another example of "crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on
the back". You have said you don't. Does anybody else?
The variant "crookback" could not possibly ever have meant "wearing a
cross on the back".
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking "Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back" to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to "crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing other
words for the same condition.
The OED does not agree with your narrow definition (modern intuition?)
of "crouch":
"To stoop or bend low with general compression of the body, as in
stooping for shelter, in fear, or in submission; to cower with the
limbs bent. Formerly often applied to the act of bowing low in
reverence or deference. Now said also of the depressed and constrained
posture assumed by a beast in fear or submission, or in order to make
a spring. (To cower concerns chiefly the head and shoulders: to crouch
affects the body as a whole.) "
Note "general compression of the body" and "the body as a whole",
nothing about it being only below the waist.
Note also Scots crouchy meaning "hunch-backed".
So, the OED doesn't agree with your claim about the meaning of the
verb "crouch", or with your inference that a hunch-back has never been
called "crouch-back" in English.
(Peter, just in case Douglas Richardson thinks I always agree with him
and disagree with you, I'd like to say that I think YOU are right in
what you say about Dominus and Sir.)
gbh
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:uq1sq29clkm9293f9213gmcu5u8fkdhie4@4ax.com...
Once again, this is circular reasoning - you say 'another example of
"crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on the back", yet you won't admit the
one example we are discussing, so why would you admit a second that could be
interpreted in exactly the same way/s? As I said, I don't know of an
EXPLICIT case where the writer used the term "Crouchback" and then defined
it: I very much doubt that this could be found, certinaly in English of the
OED would presumably record it.
Again you are restating my point while trying to represent this as refuted
by itself. The whole human body is said to "crouch" when the limbs are bent,
sepcifically the legs bent at the knees. It is a "general compression of the
body" as defined, a temporary posture but not a permanent shape, an attitude
of the whole person but not just a crook or twist above the waist.
We are not dealing with Scots usage - many words are have different meanings
north of the bnorder.
But does the OED offer an example of "crouchback" meaning hunchback before
the turn of the 16/17th century, a time when all sorts of nonce words came
into being only to disappear from the language in an equal hurry?
How do you account for "Crouchmas" for the "Invention of the Cross"? Do you
maintain that "crouch" could be used for "cross" in this compound term while
not in another?
If you want a better authority on medieval English usage in this context
than an OED contributor, and certainly far better than myself, try Paul
Strohm (Tolkien Professor of English Language & Literature at Oxford) who
wrote: "The whole story is, of course, a fabrication, derived apparently
from the fact that Edmund was a crusader, and entitled to wear the sign of
the cross on his back, and was thus known as 'Edmund Crouchback' or
'cross-back', not (as Gaunt ingeniously but groundlessly argued) 'Edmund
crooked-back'." [_England's Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of
Legitimation, 1399-1422_ (New Haven & London, 1998) pp. 3-4]
I disagree with Strohm about John of Gaunt's involvement in the matter, but
the rest is conventional good sense.
Peter Stewart
news:uq1sq29clkm9293f9213gmcu5u8fkdhie4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:09:44 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:qfqrq2hl4hij3gaa3mfvfcj7snqd899pg3@4ax.com...
On 16 Jan 2007 15:45:15 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
wrote:
gbh wrote:
snip
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"? By evidence I mean not just some modern
scholar's BELIEF but, say, another recorded use of the epithet in
precisely that sense, or pictorial evidence that crusaders wore
crosses on their backs rather than on their breasts. Without such
evidence I would be reluctant to assume that the term "crouchback"
(which to me sounds insulting) was ever synonymous with the neutral,
non-insulting "crouched" meaning "wearing a cross".
Another bare instance of "Crouchback" as a byname could just as easily be
interpreted to mean a hunchback, unless the writer had explicitly defined
it - in this, you are asking for something that I would not expect could
be
found.
Assuming your modern intuition doesn't lead you to doubt the meaning of
"back", the evidence that "Crouchback" meant "cross-aback" is in other
uses
of "crouch" for "cross" dating from the 13th century, for instance in
"Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the Cross.
I don't dispute that "crouch" meant "cross". I just wondered if you
knew of another example of "crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on
the back". You have said you don't. Does anybody else?
Once again, this is circular reasoning - you say 'another example of
"crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on the back", yet you won't admit the
one example we are discussing, so why would you admit a second that could be
interpreted in exactly the same way/s? As I said, I don't know of an
EXPLICIT case where the writer used the term "Crouchback" and then defined
it: I very much doubt that this could be found, certinaly in English of the
OED would presumably record it.
The variant "crookback" could not possibly ever have meant "wearing a
cross on the back".
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking
"Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back" to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that
is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to "crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing other
words for the same condition.
The OED does not agree with your narrow definition (modern intuition?)
of "crouch":
"To stoop or bend low with general compression of the body, as in
stooping for shelter, in fear, or in submission; to cower with the
limbs bent. Formerly often applied to the act of bowing low in
reverence or deference. Now said also of the depressed and constrained
posture assumed by a beast in fear or submission, or in order to make
a spring. (To cower concerns chiefly the head and shoulders: to crouch
affects the body as a whole.) "
Note "general compression of the body" and "the body as a whole",
nothing about it being only below the waist.
Again you are restating my point while trying to represent this as refuted
by itself. The whole human body is said to "crouch" when the limbs are bent,
sepcifically the legs bent at the knees. It is a "general compression of the
body" as defined, a temporary posture but not a permanent shape, an attitude
of the whole person but not just a crook or twist above the waist.
Note also Scots crouchy meaning "hunch-backed".
We are not dealing with Scots usage - many words are have different meanings
north of the bnorder.
So, the OED doesn't agree with your claim about the meaning of the
verb "crouch", or with your inference that a hunch-back has never been
called "crouch-back" in English.
But does the OED offer an example of "crouchback" meaning hunchback before
the turn of the 16/17th century, a time when all sorts of nonce words came
into being only to disappear from the language in an equal hurry?
How do you account for "Crouchmas" for the "Invention of the Cross"? Do you
maintain that "crouch" could be used for "cross" in this compound term while
not in another?
If you want a better authority on medieval English usage in this context
than an OED contributor, and certainly far better than myself, try Paul
Strohm (Tolkien Professor of English Language & Literature at Oxford) who
wrote: "The whole story is, of course, a fabrication, derived apparently
from the fact that Edmund was a crusader, and entitled to wear the sign of
the cross on his back, and was thus known as 'Edmund Crouchback' or
'cross-back', not (as Gaunt ingeniously but groundlessly argued) 'Edmund
crooked-back'." [_England's Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of
Legitimation, 1399-1422_ (New Haven & London, 1998) pp. 3-4]
I disagree with Strohm about John of Gaunt's involvement in the matter, but
the rest is conventional good sense.
Peter Stewart
-
Matt Tompkins
Crouchback
Peter Stewart wrote:
How do you know this? As to 'since' it is certainly wrong - the
OED gives examples of crouchback meaning hunchback in ordinary language
(unconnected with Edmund) from as early as 1519. As to 'then',
what evidence is there that crouchback was not in use to mean hunchback
before the fifteenth century?
You are presumably basing yourself on the fact that the OED's
earliest examples date from the 1490s, but that hardly proves that the
word was not in use before then (and its use in ordinary language as
early as 1519 makes a recent origin as a political invention rather
unlikely). Interestingly the OED can give no earlier examples for
crookback either (the earliest are 1494 and 1508).
What we actually have is absence of evidence either way, and of course
there is a similar absence of evidence for the assertion that
crouchback was used in Middle English to mean cross-wearer or crusader.
It is just not possible to make categorical assertions about the use
of any of these words before the fifteenth century.
Can the problem be approached from a different angle - what was the ME
word for a hunchback? The earliest date in the OED for hunchback
itself is 1712 (and for humpback 1697) so that is unlikely to have been
a medieval usage. The only word I can find in ME dictionaries is
'boss', and this was certainly in common use in the
twelfth-fourteenth centuries since it gave rise to several surnames.
However it was a French introduction, and there must also have been an
Old English word with the same meaning. The only one I can find is
hofer, hofered (= hunchback, hunchbacked), which was probably not still
in use in the ME period (it appears in a thirteenth-century copy of an
OE glossary but doesn't seem to have given rise to any surname).
Possibly the French boss replaced it completely, though one would
expect the native word to have at least continued in currency well into
the ME period.
If there was another ME word of English origin then crookback does seem
a likely candidate - we know surnames such as Crookshank, Crookbane
and Crookfoot existed, so Crookback would have been perfectly possible.
However the first element derives from an ON word (krokr), so it is
likely that they were dialect forms, confined to the north and perhaps
East Anglia (which is confirmed by the nineteenth-century distribution
of Crookshank, found mainly in the far north). If crookback existed in
the north then crouchback may have been its southern equivalent (k/ch
word pairings in northern and southern dialects are well known - think
of kirk and church - though there are admittedly technical difficulties
with a crook/crouch pairing).
Matt Tompkins
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
How do you know this? As to 'since' it is certainly wrong - the
OED gives examples of crouchback meaning hunchback in ordinary language
(unconnected with Edmund) from as early as 1519. As to 'then',
what evidence is there that crouchback was not in use to mean hunchback
before the fifteenth century?
You are presumably basing yourself on the fact that the OED's
earliest examples date from the 1490s, but that hardly proves that the
word was not in use before then (and its use in ordinary language as
early as 1519 makes a recent origin as a political invention rather
unlikely). Interestingly the OED can give no earlier examples for
crookback either (the earliest are 1494 and 1508).
What we actually have is absence of evidence either way, and of course
there is a similar absence of evidence for the assertion that
crouchback was used in Middle English to mean cross-wearer or crusader.
It is just not possible to make categorical assertions about the use
of any of these words before the fifteenth century.
Can the problem be approached from a different angle - what was the ME
word for a hunchback? The earliest date in the OED for hunchback
itself is 1712 (and for humpback 1697) so that is unlikely to have been
a medieval usage. The only word I can find in ME dictionaries is
'boss', and this was certainly in common use in the
twelfth-fourteenth centuries since it gave rise to several surnames.
However it was a French introduction, and there must also have been an
Old English word with the same meaning. The only one I can find is
hofer, hofered (= hunchback, hunchbacked), which was probably not still
in use in the ME period (it appears in a thirteenth-century copy of an
OE glossary but doesn't seem to have given rise to any surname).
Possibly the French boss replaced it completely, though one would
expect the native word to have at least continued in currency well into
the ME period.
If there was another ME word of English origin then crookback does seem
a likely candidate - we know surnames such as Crookshank, Crookbane
and Crookfoot existed, so Crookback would have been perfectly possible.
However the first element derives from an ON word (krokr), so it is
likely that they were dialect forms, confined to the north and perhaps
East Anglia (which is confirmed by the nineteenth-century distribution
of Crookshank, found mainly in the far north). If crookback existed in
the north then crouchback may have been its southern equivalent (k/ch
word pairings in northern and southern dialects are well known - think
of kirk and church - though there are admittedly technical difficulties
with a crook/crouch pairing).
Matt Tompkins
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking "Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back" to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to "crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing other
words for the same condition.
crouch
c.1394, probably from O.Fr. crochir "become bent, crooked," from croche "hook."
-
gbh
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:07:43 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
That's certainly a good authority to cite in opposition to me, a mere
lecturer in history of English, but in the absence of evidence,
Strohm, like me, is using his intuition and coming to a different
conclusion. Note his judicious use of the word "apparently" in stating
that crouchback meant "cross-back".
I'll sum up the situation as I see it:
1. At some time (we don't know when) Edmund was given the epithet
Crouchback.
2. At some time (we don't know when) this epithet was interpreted to
mean that Edmund had something wrong with his back.
3. I believe that 1 and 2 happened at the same time.
4. You believe that (1) Crouchback first meant that Edmund was a
crusader and that (2) the epithet was later interpreted in a negative
sense to imply that he had a hunchback.
I still think that my interpretation (3) is simpler and does not
conflict with what we know about the meaning of the verb "crouch" (to
stoop or bend low).
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:uq1sq29clkm9293f9213gmcu5u8fkdhie4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:09:44 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:qfqrq2hl4hij3gaa3mfvfcj7snqd899pg3@4ax.com...
On 16 Jan 2007 15:45:15 -0800, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
wrote:
gbh wrote:
snip
According to the OED he was called Crook-back in 1494, not the same
word as Crouch-back but with the same meaning. Unlike "crouch", the
word "crook" never meant cross.
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
Retrospectively claiming that the Latin "fractum" meant the same as
"crook" = "crouch", as the OED contributor apparently did, is
unwarranted - the word comes from "frango" meaning fractured, broken
into pieces. Applied to a back it suggests an accidental injury, not a
congenital deformity. A thing has to be whole first before it can be
said to be broken: if there had never been a controversay about the
significance of "crouchback", the idea that the different form
"crookback" somehow "answers" to "dorsum...fractum'" would not have
logically occurred to anyone.
Peter Stewart
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
Is there any evidence for the claim that Crouhback could have meant
"wearing a cross on the back"? By evidence I mean not just some modern
scholar's BELIEF but, say, another recorded use of the epithet in
precisely that sense, or pictorial evidence that crusaders wore
crosses on their backs rather than on their breasts. Without such
evidence I would be reluctant to assume that the term "crouchback"
(which to me sounds insulting) was ever synonymous with the neutral,
non-insulting "crouched" meaning "wearing a cross".
Another bare instance of "Crouchback" as a byname could just as easily be
interpreted to mean a hunchback, unless the writer had explicitly defined
it - in this, you are asking for something that I would not expect could
be
found.
Assuming your modern intuition doesn't lead you to doubt the meaning of
"back", the evidence that "Crouchback" meant "cross-aback" is in other
uses
of "crouch" for "cross" dating from the 13th century, for instance in
"Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the Cross.
I don't dispute that "crouch" meant "cross". I just wondered if you
knew of another example of "crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on
the back". You have said you don't. Does anybody else?
Once again, this is circular reasoning - you say 'another example of
"crouch-back" meaning "wearing a cross on the back", yet you won't admit the
one example we are discussing, so why would you admit a second that could be
interpreted in exactly the same way/s? As I said, I don't know of an
EXPLICIT case where the writer used the term "Crouchback" and then defined
it: I very much doubt that this could be found, certinaly in English of the
OED would presumably record it.
The variant "crookback" could not possibly ever have meant "wearing a
cross on the back".
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking
"Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back" to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that
is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to "crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing other
words for the same condition.
The OED does not agree with your narrow definition (modern intuition?)
of "crouch":
"To stoop or bend low with general compression of the body, as in
stooping for shelter, in fear, or in submission; to cower with the
limbs bent. Formerly often applied to the act of bowing low in
reverence or deference. Now said also of the depressed and constrained
posture assumed by a beast in fear or submission, or in order to make
a spring. (To cower concerns chiefly the head and shoulders: to crouch
affects the body as a whole.) "
Note "general compression of the body" and "the body as a whole",
nothing about it being only below the waist.
Again you are restating my point while trying to represent this as refuted
by itself. The whole human body is said to "crouch" when the limbs are bent,
sepcifically the legs bent at the knees. It is a "general compression of the
body" as defined, a temporary posture but not a permanent shape, an attitude
of the whole person but not just a crook or twist above the waist.
Note also Scots crouchy meaning "hunch-backed".
We are not dealing with Scots usage - many words are have different meanings
north of the bnorder.
So, the OED doesn't agree with your claim about the meaning of the
verb "crouch", or with your inference that a hunch-back has never been
called "crouch-back" in English.
But does the OED offer an example of "crouchback" meaning hunchback before
the turn of the 16/17th century, a time when all sorts of nonce words came
into being only to disappear from the language in an equal hurry?
How do you account for "Crouchmas" for the "Invention of the Cross"? Do you
maintain that "crouch" could be used for "cross" in this compound term while
not in another?
If you want a better authority on medieval English usage in this context
than an OED contributor, and certainly far better than myself, try Paul
Strohm (Tolkien Professor of English Language & Literature at Oxford) who
wrote: "The whole story is, of course, a fabrication, derived apparently
from the fact that Edmund was a crusader, and entitled to wear the sign of
the cross on his back, and was thus known as 'Edmund Crouchback' or
'cross-back', not (as Gaunt ingeniously but groundlessly argued) 'Edmund
crooked-back'." [_England's Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of
Legitimation, 1399-1422_ (New Haven & London, 1998) pp. 3-4]
That's certainly a good authority to cite in opposition to me, a mere
lecturer in history of English, but in the absence of evidence,
Strohm, like me, is using his intuition and coming to a different
conclusion. Note his judicious use of the word "apparently" in stating
that crouchback meant "cross-back".
I'll sum up the situation as I see it:
1. At some time (we don't know when) Edmund was given the epithet
Crouchback.
2. At some time (we don't know when) this epithet was interpreted to
mean that Edmund had something wrong with his back.
3. I believe that 1 and 2 happened at the same time.
4. You believe that (1) Crouchback first meant that Edmund was a
crusader and that (2) the epithet was later interpreted in a negative
sense to imply that he had a hunchback.
I still think that my interpretation (3) is simpler and does not
conflict with what we know about the meaning of the verb "crouch" (to
stoop or bend low).
gbh
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1169037527.923938.73490@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
I said it was not "in common use" - this does not mean it was not used. A
term that was in _common_ use would have left more of a mark, in examples
and/or in survival of the usage.
As to evidence that it was not even considered understandable in the early
15th century, I have several times pointed out that Hardyng, the ONLY source
for this in English, felt the need to gloss "crouchback" as "croukeback" to
convey the misinterpretation.
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not "crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion. Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the sign of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Crookback seems the most likely to me, not just because Hardyng used it in
this precise context, but also from the more widespread use of analogous
terms with "crook" in related languages as you note - for instance, in
Norway King Inge I was known as "Krokrygg", meaning "hunchback". The
co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as deliberate
neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary in early
English.
We know that "crookback" was the natural term when Hardyng wrote, using this
to gloss the byname, and that "crouch" occurred both alone and in compound
terms meaning "Cross" from before his time although it had become obsolete
in this sense by ca 1400.
Peter Stewart
news:1169037527.923938.73490@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
This is missing the point - Edmund's byname "Crouchback", whenever &
however this originated, was rendered as "crooke-back" in the early
15th century, by the first source to link it to the false claim that he
had been deformed and therefore excluded from the throne. In other
words, from the very start the word "Crouchback" was not understood to
carry the meaning "hunchback" except by deliberately placing this
construction on it. The purported connection needed to be explained
becasue the term "crouchback" was not in common use for a "crookback",
then or since.
How do you know this? As to 'since' it is certainly wrong - the
OED gives examples of crouchback meaning hunchback in ordinary language
(unconnected with Edmund) from as early as 1519. As to 'then',
what evidence is there that crouchback was not in use to mean hunchback
before the fifteenth century?
I said it was not "in common use" - this does not mean it was not used. A
term that was in _common_ use would have left more of a mark, in examples
and/or in survival of the usage.
As to evidence that it was not even considered understandable in the early
15th century, I have several times pointed out that Hardyng, the ONLY source
for this in English, felt the need to gloss "crouchback" as "croukeback" to
convey the misinterpretation.
You are presumably basing yourself on the fact that the OED's
earliest examples date from the 1490s, but that hardly proves that the
word was not in use before then (and its use in ordinary language as
early as 1519 makes a recent origin as a political invention rather
unlikely). Interestingly the OED can give no earlier examples for
crookback either (the earliest are 1494 and 1508).
What we actually have is absence of evidence either way, and of course
there is a similar absence of evidence for the assertion that
crouchback was used in Middle English to mean cross-wearer or crusader.
It is just not possible to make categorical assertions about the use
of any of these words before the fifteenth century.
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not "crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion. Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the sign of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Can the problem be approached from a different angle - what was the ME
word for a hunchback? The earliest date in the OED for hunchback
itself is 1712 (and for humpback 1697) so that is unlikely to have been
a medieval usage. The only word I can find in ME dictionaries is
'boss', and this was certainly in common use in the
twelfth-fourteenth centuries since it gave rise to several surnames.
However it was a French introduction, and there must also have been an
Old English word with the same meaning. The only one I can find is
hofer, hofered (= hunchback, hunchbacked), which was probably not still
in use in the ME period (it appears in a thirteenth-century copy of an
OE glossary but doesn't seem to have given rise to any surname).
Possibly the French boss replaced it completely, though one would
expect the native word to have at least continued in currency well into
the ME period.
If there was another ME word of English origin then crookback does seem
a likely candidate - we know surnames such as Crookshank, Crookbane
and Crookfoot existed, so Crookback would have been perfectly possible.
However the first element derives from an ON word (krokr), so it is
likely that they were dialect forms, confined to the north and perhaps
East Anglia (which is confirmed by the nineteenth-century distribution
of Crookshank, found mainly in the far north). If crookback existed in
the north then crouchback may have been its southern equivalent (k/ch
word pairings in northern and southern dialects are well known - think
of kirk and church - though there are admittedly technical difficulties
with a crook/crouch pairing).
Crookback seems the most likely to me, not just because Hardyng used it in
this precise context, but also from the more widespread use of analogous
terms with "crook" in related languages as you note - for instance, in
Norway King Inge I was known as "Krokrygg", meaning "hunchback". The
co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as deliberate
neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary in early
English.
We know that "crookback" was the natural term when Hardyng wrote, using this
to gloss the byname, and that "crouch" occurred both alone and in compound
terms meaning "Cross" from before his time although it had become obsolete
in this sense by ca 1400.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1596.1169037877.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
You have evidently missed or forgotten a post of mine: the dating "c.1394"
is due to the confused chronology of the earliest source, in Latin,
referring to this matter and placing it in the parliament of January 1394.
The OED connected this to "crouchback", from conflating it with another
source written in English, but actually the author referred to a broken back
("dorsum...fractum").
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1596.1169037877.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
That is my point - John Hardyng, who is the ONLY source linking
"Crouchback"
to a deformed back in English, had to gloss the term with "crouke-back"
to
make the misinterpretation clear. Naturally this meant a "crooked", that
is
bent or twisted, back. But how can the back sensibly be said to
"crouch"?
That is done from the knees, not above the waist. The back can be said
to
bend, to hunch, etc, but hardly to "crouch". If that word had been
readily
understood in the context, Hardyng would not have needed to expound the
term, and English speakers would not have had to resort to inventing
other
words for the same condition.
crouch
c.1394, probably from O.Fr. crochir "become bent, crooked," from croche
"hook."
You have evidently missed or forgotten a post of mine: the dating "c.1394"
is due to the confused chronology of the earliest source, in Latin,
referring to this matter and placing it in the parliament of January 1394.
The OED connected this to "crouchback", from conflating it with another
source written in English, but actually the author referred to a broken back
("dorsum...fractum").
Peter Stewart
-
gbh
Re: Crouchback
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:02:23 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I wonder. When it comes to insulting words, the languages I know tend
to be anything but economical. Anyway, the co-existence of "crookback"
along with "crouchback" could be a dialectal thing, as Matt says.
You wrote earlier that "In English locution a deformed spine has
always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back", yet both of these are
attested much later in the OED than "crouchback". And the lack of
early records of "crouchback" was one of your objections to my
argument.
Would you still say that your categorical use of the word "always" in
that statement was justified?
Note the co-existence of the synonyms "cross" and "crouch" in Middle
English. Two words for the same thing. So much for "the economy of
vocabulary in early English".
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
The
co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as deliberate
neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary in early
English.
I wonder. When it comes to insulting words, the languages I know tend
to be anything but economical. Anyway, the co-existence of "crookback"
along with "crouchback" could be a dialectal thing, as Matt says.
You wrote earlier that "In English locution a deformed spine has
always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back", yet both of these are
attested much later in the OED than "crouchback". And the lack of
early records of "crouchback" was one of your objections to my
argument.
Would you still say that your categorical use of the word "always" in
that statement was justified?
We know that "crookback" was the natural term when Hardyng wrote, using this
to gloss the byname, and that "crouch" occurred both alone and in compound
terms meaning "Cross" from before his time although it had become obsolete
in this sense by ca 1400.
Note the co-existence of the synonyms "cross" and "crouch" in Middle
English. Two words for the same thing. So much for "the economy of
vocabulary in early English".
gbh
-
Gjest
Re: Penelope D'arcy c1593-c1661
In a message dated 1/17/2007 12:16:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
tim@powys.org writes:
Darcy, FitzLangley, Harleston and Bardewell
But isn't it highly unlikely there would be any other marriage which
combines these four specific surnames?
Will
tim@powys.org writes:
Darcy, FitzLangley, Harleston and Bardewell
But isn't it highly unlikely there would be any other marriage which
combines these four specific surnames?
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
In a message dated 1/17/2007 1:05:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
The Sussex Arch ref is according to modern genealogists incorrect. They
now believe that William de Brewes who died in 1326 was the son of
William de Brewes d1290 and his first wife Aline Multon. See Complete
Peerage.
But the reference needs to be examined to see *why* they thought it then,
and why their argument fails. To simply discard it without comment may be to
throw out the very thing that can solve the issue.
Will
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
The Sussex Arch ref is according to modern genealogists incorrect. They
now believe that William de Brewes who died in 1326 was the son of
William de Brewes d1290 and his first wife Aline Multon. See Complete
Peerage.
But the reference needs to be examined to see *why* they thought it then,
and why their argument fails. To simply discard it without comment may be to
throw out the very thing that can solve the issue.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
In a message dated 1/17/2007 1:26:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pisces@slices.com writes:
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
That isn't true. The OED quotes refer to *that's days* usage of the word.
They say nothing of what the word had meant 20, 50 or 200 years previously.
Will
pisces@slices.com writes:
All the OED quotes indicate that there were ALLEGATIONS, at least from
the 15th century, that there was SOMETHING wrong with Edmund's back,
an injury or deformity of some kind. On the limited evidence known to
me, I would claim no more than that.
That isn't true. The OED quotes refer to *that's days* usage of the word.
They say nothing of what the word had meant 20, 50 or 200 years previously.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
In a message dated 1/17/2007 4:12:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
I very much doubt that this could be found, certinaly in English of the
OED would presumably record it.
I question whether the OED records every instance of every word ever used in
the history of the language. Do they really record a word *only* used in
the 13th century and then never used again for example?
If they don't, and a word has come into and then left the language centuries
ago, then would not that be an explanation?
Will
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
I very much doubt that this could be found, certinaly in English of the
OED would presumably record it.
I question whether the OED records every instance of every word ever used in
the history of the language. Do they really record a word *only* used in
the 13th century and then never used again for example?
If they don't, and a word has come into and then left the language centuries
ago, then would not that be an explanation?
Will
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Crouchback
Peter Stewart wrote:
Well, possibly. But the evidential problem is that there does not seem
to be any pre-fifteenth-century evidence that 'crouch' actually was
compounded with 'back' to mean cross-wearer or crusader. The only
hard evidence for the existence of the compound comes from the
fifteenth-century and later, when it meant crookback. The idea that
crouchback meant cross-back apparently dates from the seventeenth
century.
Economy of vocabulary? In Old English perhaps, but Middle English,
which is what we are talking about, had a large vocabulary. Our modern
plenitude of synonyms and near-synonyms is partly a result of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fashion for borrowing words from
other languages (especially Latin), but in large part is a consequence
of the melding of English, Scandinavian and French into Middle English,
whose vocabulary often included two, three, or even more words for much
the same thing. For example, carve/cut/slice (respectively OE, ON and
OF), or hide/skin/pelt, sick/ill/diseased or boat/ship/vessel.
When the differences between the various regional dialects are taken
into account the number of synonyms rises further. Someone who fulled
cloth was a fuller in the south and east, a tucker in the southwest and
a walker in the north. A weaver was a webb in the south, a webster in
the north, but could be a webber or weaver in some places. A southern
tanner was a northern barker, but sometimes a tawyer. A potter and a
milner in the north and east were respectively a crocker and a millward
in the southwest (or a cupper and miller, or ...).
I think Middle English's vocabulary could accommodate both crookback
and crouchback, even alongside bossy.
Matt Tompkins
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not "crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion. Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the sign of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Well, possibly. But the evidential problem is that there does not seem
to be any pre-fifteenth-century evidence that 'crouch' actually was
compounded with 'back' to mean cross-wearer or crusader. The only
hard evidence for the existence of the compound comes from the
fifteenth-century and later, when it meant crookback. The idea that
crouchback meant cross-back apparently dates from the seventeenth
century.
The co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as
deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary
in early English.
Economy of vocabulary? In Old English perhaps, but Middle English,
which is what we are talking about, had a large vocabulary. Our modern
plenitude of synonyms and near-synonyms is partly a result of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fashion for borrowing words from
other languages (especially Latin), but in large part is a consequence
of the melding of English, Scandinavian and French into Middle English,
whose vocabulary often included two, three, or even more words for much
the same thing. For example, carve/cut/slice (respectively OE, ON and
OF), or hide/skin/pelt, sick/ill/diseased or boat/ship/vessel.
When the differences between the various regional dialects are taken
into account the number of synonyms rises further. Someone who fulled
cloth was a fuller in the south and east, a tucker in the southwest and
a walker in the north. A weaver was a webb in the south, a webster in
the north, but could be a webber or weaver in some places. A southern
tanner was a northern barker, but sometimes a tawyer. A potter and a
milner in the north and east were respectively a crocker and a millward
in the southwest (or a cupper and miller, or ...).
I think Middle English's vocabulary could accommodate both crookback
and crouchback, even alongside bossy.
Matt Tompkins
-
Gjest
Re: Fw: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster - Popular, handsome, skill
In a message dated 1/17/2007 7:51:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mhollick@mac.com writes:
One record is noted from 2 Richard II as being the closest
to the Black Prince's time.
Could you quote this with a bibliographic citation?
I note that the Black Prince's wikipedia entry says that he was first called
"the Black Prince" two hundred years after his death. So if he was called
it within such a short period 2R2 that would be noteworthy.
Thanks
Will
mhollick@mac.com writes:
One record is noted from 2 Richard II as being the closest
to the Black Prince's time.
Could you quote this with a bibliographic citation?
I note that the Black Prince's wikipedia entry says that he was first called
"the Black Prince" two hundred years after his death. So if he was called
it within such a short period 2R2 that would be noteworthy.
Thanks
Will
-
Matt Tompkins
Re: Crouchback
gbh wrote:
There was also 'rood', of course - three words for the same thing.
The difference between cross and crouch may also have been regional or
dialectal, in the twelfth-fourteenth centuries at least (when surnames
were being formed). It is interesting that in the 1881 census the
surnames Crouch, Croucher and Crouchman were confined to the south east
of England, the surname Crozier was pretty much limited to the far
north of the country, and the surname Cross was found everywhere else
but was rare in the southeast (ignoring the London metropolis, of
course) and far north.
Matt Tompkins
Note the co-existence of the synonyms "cross" and "crouch" in Middle
English. Two words for the same thing. So much for "the economy of
vocabulary in early English".
There was also 'rood', of course - three words for the same thing.
The difference between cross and crouch may also have been regional or
dialectal, in the twelfth-fourteenth centuries at least (when surnames
were being formed). It is interesting that in the 1881 census the
surnames Crouch, Croucher and Crouchman were confined to the south east
of England, the surname Crozier was pretty much limited to the far
north of the country, and the surname Cross was found everywhere else
but was rare in the southeast (ignoring the London metropolis, of
course) and far north.
Matt Tompkins
-
Gjest
Re: Crouchback
It surprises me that the EB is so clear in stating that "Edmund's nickname
"Crouchback" (meaning "Crossback" or crusader) was misinterpreted, probably
intentionally, by his direct descendent Henry IV, who in claiming the throne
(1399) asserted that Edmund had really been Henry III's eldest son, but had been
disinherited as a hunchback."
In light of this discussion, that seems awfully dogmatic.
Will
"Crouchback" (meaning "Crossback" or crusader) was misinterpreted, probably
intentionally, by his direct descendent Henry IV, who in claiming the throne
(1399) asserted that Edmund had really been Henry III's eldest son, but had been
disinherited as a hunchback."
In light of this discussion, that seems awfully dogmatic.
Will
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Giles de Brewes
Will,
You seem to have understood correctly.
Lucy was daughter of Beatrice de St Helena and inherited the lands which she
brought to the family.
John was the son of Giles' second wife, Maud de Whitney.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 17/1/07 02:10, in article
mailman.1574.1168999874.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
You seem to have understood correctly.
Lucy was daughter of Beatrice de St Helena and inherited the lands which she
brought to the family.
John was the son of Giles' second wife, Maud de Whitney.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 17/1/07 02:10, in article
mailman.1574.1168999874.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/15/07 5:51:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
[1]1305 - GILES DE BREWOSA ALIAS DE BREOUSA - Writ, 7 Jan 33 Edward 1.
Dorset. Inq. Wednesday the feast of St. Matthias, 33 Edward 1.
Cnolton. The manor with a hundred there [snipped]
John his son, aged 3 1/2 years at the feast of the Purification last, is
his next heir.
Oxford. Inq. made at Thame, 6 March, 33 Edward 1.
Crowell. The manor held for life, by the courtesy of England of the
inheritance of Beatrice daughter and heir of John de Sancta Elena, sometime
his wife
[snipped] ... Lucy, daughter of the said Giles and Beatrice, aged 7 at the
feast of
St. Michael last, is his next heir.
How can John be his heir and Lucy be his heir at the same time? Is this
saying that John is *not* the son of Beatrice? That is Lucy is inheriting
through
her mother, because John is actually her half-brother, and yet John inherits
Cnolton as that property didnt come through Beatrice but rather either through
Giles or through Giles other wife.
Is that all right?
Will
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Giles de Brewes
Will
Isabel de Clare actually married Robert de Brus. The error was an example of
the Bruce/Braose confusion which has occurred many times over the years!
Paul's reference clears up any possible doubt in the question.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 17/1/07 17:01, in article
mailman.1609.1169053625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
Isabel de Clare actually married Robert de Brus. The error was an example of
the Bruce/Braose confusion which has occurred many times over the years!
Paul's reference clears up any possible doubt in the question.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 17/1/07 17:01, in article
mailman.1609.1169053625.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/17/2007 1:05:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:
The Sussex Arch ref is according to modern genealogists incorrect. They
now believe that William de Brewes who died in 1326 was the son of
William de Brewes d1290 and his first wife Aline Multon. See Complete
Peerage.
But the reference needs to be examined to see *why* they thought it then,
and why their argument fails. To simply discard it without comment may be to
throw out the very thing that can solve the issue.
Will
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster - Popular, handsome, skilled i
Dear Newsgroup ~
The information below is found on the internet at http://www.everything2.com.
I've copied the parts of the text which deal with the
"Crouchback/Crossback" myth.
The author of this modern account states that Edmund, Earl of Lancaster
"took to wearing the symbol of the cross on his back and was thereafter
generally known as 'Edmund Crouchback'." Yet, there are no
contemporary accounts that Prince Edmund ever did this. And, the
author provides no sources to document his statement. Red alert.
To his credit, the author does discuss the deformity theory. But only
to state that "there was no truth whatosever in this belief." However,
in the next breath, the author acknowledges that "it remained the
'foundation' of the Lancastrian claim to the throne and part of the
propoganda used to support Henry IV and his successors against the
rival Yorkist claimants." Curiously, the author cites only one source,
Adam of Usk, for this tale. He overlooks John Hardyng's fuller account
of this matter which fully supports Adam of Usk's statements.
By the way, for those interested in reading excerpts of John Hardyng's
fascinating chronicle, they may find the passages pertinent to
allegations about Prince Edmund's deformity in the following source:
Given-Wilson, Chronicles of the Revolution 1399-1400 (1993):
195-196.
This continual repetition of the half-truths and lies regarding Prince
Edmund reminds me of our modern "urban legends." No one knows for sure
how they got started, yet many naively believe the stories are gospel
truth.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Biography of Edmund Crouchback
Source: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1512460
Between the years 1271 and 1272 he joined his elder brother, the Lord
Edward on Crusade, and on his return he took to wearing the symbol of
the cross on his back and was thereafter generally known as 'Edmund
Crouchback'.
As noted above, he became known as 'Edmund Crouchback' because of his
habit of wearing a cross on the back of his tunic but the epithet of
'Crouchbank' was later misunderstood, and later gave rise to the belief
that he was in some way physically deformed. In fact Henry IV sought to
justify his usurpation by claiming that his ancestor Edmund Crouchback
had actually been the eldest son of Henry III, but that he was
overlooked in favour of his 'younger' brother the Lord Edward precisely
because of this deformity. 4
There was no truth whatosever in this belief, but it remained the
'foundation' of the Lancastrian claim to the throne and part of the
propoganda used to support Henry IV and his successors against the
rival Yorkist claimants.
Footnote 4: There is also an entry in the chronicle of Adam of Usk
which states that "they declared that the same Edmund was the eldest
son of King Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness, his
birthright had been set aside and his younger brother, Edward,
preferred in his place." END OF QUOTE.
The information below is found on the internet at http://www.everything2.com.
I've copied the parts of the text which deal with the
"Crouchback/Crossback" myth.
The author of this modern account states that Edmund, Earl of Lancaster
"took to wearing the symbol of the cross on his back and was thereafter
generally known as 'Edmund Crouchback'." Yet, there are no
contemporary accounts that Prince Edmund ever did this. And, the
author provides no sources to document his statement. Red alert.
To his credit, the author does discuss the deformity theory. But only
to state that "there was no truth whatosever in this belief." However,
in the next breath, the author acknowledges that "it remained the
'foundation' of the Lancastrian claim to the throne and part of the
propoganda used to support Henry IV and his successors against the
rival Yorkist claimants." Curiously, the author cites only one source,
Adam of Usk, for this tale. He overlooks John Hardyng's fuller account
of this matter which fully supports Adam of Usk's statements.
By the way, for those interested in reading excerpts of John Hardyng's
fascinating chronicle, they may find the passages pertinent to
allegations about Prince Edmund's deformity in the following source:
Given-Wilson, Chronicles of the Revolution 1399-1400 (1993):
195-196.
This continual repetition of the half-truths and lies regarding Prince
Edmund reminds me of our modern "urban legends." No one knows for sure
how they got started, yet many naively believe the stories are gospel
truth.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Biography of Edmund Crouchback
Source: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1512460
Between the years 1271 and 1272 he joined his elder brother, the Lord
Edward on Crusade, and on his return he took to wearing the symbol of
the cross on his back and was thereafter generally known as 'Edmund
Crouchback'.
As noted above, he became known as 'Edmund Crouchback' because of his
habit of wearing a cross on the back of his tunic but the epithet of
'Crouchbank' was later misunderstood, and later gave rise to the belief
that he was in some way physically deformed. In fact Henry IV sought to
justify his usurpation by claiming that his ancestor Edmund Crouchback
had actually been the eldest son of Henry III, but that he was
overlooked in favour of his 'younger' brother the Lord Edward precisely
because of this deformity. 4
There was no truth whatosever in this belief, but it remained the
'foundation' of the Lancastrian claim to the throne and part of the
propoganda used to support Henry IV and his successors against the
rival Yorkist claimants.
Footnote 4: There is also an entry in the chronicle of Adam of Usk
which states that "they declared that the same Edmund was the eldest
son of King Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness, his
birthright had been set aside and his younger brother, Edward,
preferred in his place." END OF QUOTE.
-
Gjest
Re: Giles de Brewes
In a message dated 1/17/2007 10:01:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
Paul's reference clears up any possible doubt in the question.
Not mine. I find it hard to believe that Sussex Arc. would make such a
glaring error and that CP would not acknowledge it.
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
Paul's reference clears up any possible doubt in the question.
Not mine. I find it hard to believe that Sussex Arc. would make such a
glaring error and that CP would not acknowledge it.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Giles de Brewes
Dear WIll ~
Glaring error or not, Doug Thompson is quite correct. Isabel de Clare
married Sir Robert de Brus, not Sir William de Brewes, 1st Lord Brewes.
For interest's sake, I've copied below the account of Isabel de Clare
and her husband, Sir Robert de Brus, which is taken from my book, Magna
Carta Ancestry (2005). All of my sources are provided.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
RICHARD DE CLARE, Knt., Earl of Hertford, married AMICE OF GLOUCESTER.
GILBERT DE CLARE, Knt., Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, married ISABEL
MARSHAL [see CLARE 2].
3. ISABEL DE CLARE, 2nd daughter, born 2 Nov. 1226. She married in May
1240 ROBERT DE BRUS, Knt., nicknamed the Competitor, of Annandale in
Scotland, Hartlepool, Durham, Writtle and Hatfield Broadoak, Essex,
etc., and, in right of his 2nd wife, of Ireby, Cumberland, son and heir
of Robert de Brus, of Annandale in Scotland, and, in right of his wife,
of Writtle and Hatfield Broadoak, Essex, by Isabel, daughter of David
of Huntingdon, Earl of Huntingdon. He was born about 1215 (of age in
or before 1237). Her maritagium included the vill of Ripe, Sussex.
They had three sons, Robert, Knt. [Earl of Carrick], Richard, Knt., and
James, and one daughter, Isabel. He served on the side of King Henry
III of England in the wars of the Barons. His wife, Isabel, was living
10 July 1264. Following the Battle of Evesham in 1265, he was
appointed Governor of Carlisle Castle and Sheriff of Cumberland. A
dispute arose between him and the king of Scotland concerning the
advowson and fruits of the church of Annandale. The dispute was
settled, and the decision announced 28 March 1270. He married (2nd)
before 10 May 1275 Christian d'Ireby, widow successively of Thomas de
Lascelles, Knt. (died before Oct. 1260) and Adam de Gesemuth, Knt., of
Cramlington, etc., Derbyshire (died between 27 July 1270 and 23 April
1274), and daughter and heiress of William d'Ireby, Knt., of Ireby,
Cumberland, by Christian, daughter and co-heiress of Odard de
Hodeholme. They had no issue. He was summoned to attend King Edward I
at Shrewsbury in 1283 by writ directed Roberto de Brus domino Vallis
Anandi. In 1286, after the death of King Alexander III of Scotland,
his granddaughter, the Maid of Norway, was proclaimed Queen and
successor to her grandfather. Brus set forth his claims to the Crown,
saying that he could prove by witnesses then living that King Alexander
III had declared him heir-presumptive to the Crown. This claim was
temporarily suspended, owing to the recognition of the Maid of Norway.
In 1290, on the death of that princess, he again re-asserted his claims
and took active steps towards having himself proclaimed King of
Scotland. This was stopped by the influence of King Edward I of
England, and ultimately Brus retired to his castle of Lochmaben,
Dumfriesshire. Sometime before 1286 he gave a salt marsh with pasture
in Hart, Durham to John de Romundeby. In 1292 he agreed his claim
should be tried along with those of the other Competitors by Edward as
arbitrator. After the award of the Crown to John de Balliol on 5 Nov.
1292, Brus resigned all his claim to the Kingdom of Scotland to his
son, Robert, Earl of Carrick. In 1292 he held a market at Ireby,
Cumberland in right of his wife, Christian. In 1293 he had a market at
Hartlepool, Durham within the liberties of the Bishop of Durham. SIR
ROBERT DE BRUS died at Lochmaben Castle 31 March 1295, and was buried
at Guisborough Priory, Yorkshire. His widow, Christine, died shortly
before 6 July 1305.
References:
Morant, Hist. & Antiqs. of Essex 2 (1768): 61-62, 502-503. Procs.
Soc. of Antiquaries of London 2nd ser. 4 (1869): 208-211 (charter and
seal of Robert de Brus the Competitor dated pre-1286). Papal Regs.:
Letters 1 (1893): 412 (James de Brus styled "kinsman of the Earl of
Warenne" in 1264). Macdonald, Scottish Armorial Seals (1904): 30
(seal of Robert de Brus, the Competitor: A knight on horseback, with
sword and shield bearing arms, which are repeated on the caparisons of
the horse: A saltire and chief), 30 (counterseal of Robert de Brus: A
shield, within a cusped panel, bearing arms:-A saltire (with curved
limbs) and chief. The background ornamented with foliage and flowers).
Scots Peerage, 2 (1905): 430-432 (sub Carrick); 9 (1914): 55. C.P.
2 (1912): 358-360. Genealogist n.s. 35 (1919): 1-7. Moor Knights
of Edward I 1 (H.S.P. 80) (1929): 155 (biog. of Robert de Brus).
Paget, Baronage of England (1957) 100: 1-6 (sub Brus). Sanders,
English Baronies (1960): 102. Tremlett, Rolls of Arms Henry III
(H.S.P. 113-4) (1967): 134. Paget, Lineage & Anc. of Prince Charles 2
(1977): 155. DeWindt, Royal Justice & Medieval English Countryside 2
(1981): 565-566. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 2 (1984): 92;
3(1) (1984): 156 (sub Clare). Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish
Hist. 2 (1990): 667. Curia Regis Rolls 17 (1991): 197, 368, 388; 18
(1999): 152, 158, 183, 264, 374, 382; 19 (2002): 81, 300. Brault,
Rolls of Arms Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997): 80 (arms of Robert de
Brus: Or, a saltire and a chief gules; he sealed with these arms in
1280, 1291, and 1292). Special thanks go to Andrew B.W. MacEwen and
John Ravilious for their assistance with this account.
Glaring error or not, Doug Thompson is quite correct. Isabel de Clare
married Sir Robert de Brus, not Sir William de Brewes, 1st Lord Brewes.
For interest's sake, I've copied below the account of Isabel de Clare
and her husband, Sir Robert de Brus, which is taken from my book, Magna
Carta Ancestry (2005). All of my sources are provided.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
RICHARD DE CLARE, Knt., Earl of Hertford, married AMICE OF GLOUCESTER.
GILBERT DE CLARE, Knt., Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, married ISABEL
MARSHAL [see CLARE 2].
3. ISABEL DE CLARE, 2nd daughter, born 2 Nov. 1226. She married in May
1240 ROBERT DE BRUS, Knt., nicknamed the Competitor, of Annandale in
Scotland, Hartlepool, Durham, Writtle and Hatfield Broadoak, Essex,
etc., and, in right of his 2nd wife, of Ireby, Cumberland, son and heir
of Robert de Brus, of Annandale in Scotland, and, in right of his wife,
of Writtle and Hatfield Broadoak, Essex, by Isabel, daughter of David
of Huntingdon, Earl of Huntingdon. He was born about 1215 (of age in
or before 1237). Her maritagium included the vill of Ripe, Sussex.
They had three sons, Robert, Knt. [Earl of Carrick], Richard, Knt., and
James, and one daughter, Isabel. He served on the side of King Henry
III of England in the wars of the Barons. His wife, Isabel, was living
10 July 1264. Following the Battle of Evesham in 1265, he was
appointed Governor of Carlisle Castle and Sheriff of Cumberland. A
dispute arose between him and the king of Scotland concerning the
advowson and fruits of the church of Annandale. The dispute was
settled, and the decision announced 28 March 1270. He married (2nd)
before 10 May 1275 Christian d'Ireby, widow successively of Thomas de
Lascelles, Knt. (died before Oct. 1260) and Adam de Gesemuth, Knt., of
Cramlington, etc., Derbyshire (died between 27 July 1270 and 23 April
1274), and daughter and heiress of William d'Ireby, Knt., of Ireby,
Cumberland, by Christian, daughter and co-heiress of Odard de
Hodeholme. They had no issue. He was summoned to attend King Edward I
at Shrewsbury in 1283 by writ directed Roberto de Brus domino Vallis
Anandi. In 1286, after the death of King Alexander III of Scotland,
his granddaughter, the Maid of Norway, was proclaimed Queen and
successor to her grandfather. Brus set forth his claims to the Crown,
saying that he could prove by witnesses then living that King Alexander
III had declared him heir-presumptive to the Crown. This claim was
temporarily suspended, owing to the recognition of the Maid of Norway.
In 1290, on the death of that princess, he again re-asserted his claims
and took active steps towards having himself proclaimed King of
Scotland. This was stopped by the influence of King Edward I of
England, and ultimately Brus retired to his castle of Lochmaben,
Dumfriesshire. Sometime before 1286 he gave a salt marsh with pasture
in Hart, Durham to John de Romundeby. In 1292 he agreed his claim
should be tried along with those of the other Competitors by Edward as
arbitrator. After the award of the Crown to John de Balliol on 5 Nov.
1292, Brus resigned all his claim to the Kingdom of Scotland to his
son, Robert, Earl of Carrick. In 1292 he held a market at Ireby,
Cumberland in right of his wife, Christian. In 1293 he had a market at
Hartlepool, Durham within the liberties of the Bishop of Durham. SIR
ROBERT DE BRUS died at Lochmaben Castle 31 March 1295, and was buried
at Guisborough Priory, Yorkshire. His widow, Christine, died shortly
before 6 July 1305.
References:
Morant, Hist. & Antiqs. of Essex 2 (1768): 61-62, 502-503. Procs.
Soc. of Antiquaries of London 2nd ser. 4 (1869): 208-211 (charter and
seal of Robert de Brus the Competitor dated pre-1286). Papal Regs.:
Letters 1 (1893): 412 (James de Brus styled "kinsman of the Earl of
Warenne" in 1264). Macdonald, Scottish Armorial Seals (1904): 30
(seal of Robert de Brus, the Competitor: A knight on horseback, with
sword and shield bearing arms, which are repeated on the caparisons of
the horse: A saltire and chief), 30 (counterseal of Robert de Brus: A
shield, within a cusped panel, bearing arms:-A saltire (with curved
limbs) and chief. The background ornamented with foliage and flowers).
Scots Peerage, 2 (1905): 430-432 (sub Carrick); 9 (1914): 55. C.P.
2 (1912): 358-360. Genealogist n.s. 35 (1919): 1-7. Moor Knights
of Edward I 1 (H.S.P. 80) (1929): 155 (biog. of Robert de Brus).
Paget, Baronage of England (1957) 100: 1-6 (sub Brus). Sanders,
English Baronies (1960): 102. Tremlett, Rolls of Arms Henry III
(H.S.P. 113-4) (1967): 134. Paget, Lineage & Anc. of Prince Charles 2
(1977): 155. DeWindt, Royal Justice & Medieval English Countryside 2
(1981): 565-566. Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 2 (1984): 92;
3(1) (1984): 156 (sub Clare). Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish
Hist. 2 (1990): 667. Curia Regis Rolls 17 (1991): 197, 368, 388; 18
(1999): 152, 158, 183, 264, 374, 382; 19 (2002): 81, 300. Brault,
Rolls of Arms Edward I (1272-1307) 2 (1997): 80 (arms of Robert de
Brus: Or, a saltire and a chief gules; he sealed with these arms in
1280, 1291, and 1292). Special thanks go to Andrew B.W. MacEwen and
John Ravilious for their assistance with this account.
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Giles de Brewes
Will
Your belief in the accuracy of Suss. Arch. Coll. is entirely misplaced.
I have a full set available locally and the pages are full of glaring
errors like that. Scholarship has moved on a lot since 1875.(The date of the
article you mention).
You may see that this pedigree also gives Alice de Multon as the wife of
William de Braose (d 1326) and also that Mary de Ros who died in 1326 was
the same Mary who married Thomas Brotherton and died in 1361. It also gives
a William married to Eleanor de Bavent (no evidence for this woman exists.)
The articles are written by interested amateurs, not academics and are full
of speculative errors like this.
CP would not regard it as worthy of mention.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 17/1/07 18:04, in article
mailman.1616.1169057135.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
Your belief in the accuracy of Suss. Arch. Coll. is entirely misplaced.
I have a full set available locally and the pages are full of glaring
errors like that. Scholarship has moved on a lot since 1875.(The date of the
article you mention).
You may see that this pedigree also gives Alice de Multon as the wife of
William de Braose (d 1326) and also that Mary de Ros who died in 1326 was
the same Mary who married Thomas Brotherton and died in 1361. It also gives
a William married to Eleanor de Bavent (no evidence for this woman exists.)
The articles are written by interested amateurs, not academics and are full
of speculative errors like this.
CP would not regard it as worthy of mention.
Doug Thompson
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/doug.thomps ... /stage.htm
On 17/1/07 18:04, in article
mailman.1616.1169057135.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com, "WJhonson@aol.com"
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/17/2007 10:01:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
doug.thompson@virgin.net writes:
Paul's reference clears up any possible doubt in the question.
Not mine. I find it hard to believe that Sussex Arc. would make such a
glaring error and that CP would not acknowledge it.
-
gbh
Re: Crouchback
On 17 Jan 2007 09:18:22 -0800, "Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote:
Some more adjectives meaning "hunch-backed" in Early Modern English,
all culled from the OED:
bunch-backed
crump-backed
huck-backed
huckle-backed
hulch-backed, hulchy
hump-backed, humpty
hutch-backed
plus two of foreign origin:
bossive
gibbous
And two nouns that could also be used in this sense:
urchin
and (believe it or not)
lord (sense 14 b)
"slang. A hunchback. (Cf. LORD-FISH.)
The origin of this use is obscure, but there is no reason for doubting
the identity of the word. The Dict. Canting Crew has a parallel sense
of Lady.
a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Lord, a very crooked, deformed..Person.
1725 in New Cant. Dict. 1751 SMOLLETT Per. Pic. xxviii, His
pupil..was..on account of his hump, distinguished by the title of My
Lord. 1817 NEUMAN Eng.-Sp. Dict. (ed. 3), Lord..8 (Joc.) Hombre
jorobado. 1826 LAMB Elia II. Pop. Fallacies, That a deformed person is
a lord. 1887 BESANT The World went I. iii. 86 He was, in appearance,
short and bent, with rounded shoulders, and with a hump (which made
the boys call him My Lord)."
gbh
Peter Stewart wrote:
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not "crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion. Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the sign of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Well, possibly. But the evidential problem is that there does not seem
to be any pre-fifteenth-century evidence that 'crouch' actually was
compounded with 'back' to mean cross-wearer or crusader. The only
hard evidence for the existence of the compound comes from the
fifteenth-century and later, when it meant crookback. The idea that
crouchback meant cross-back apparently dates from the seventeenth
century.
The co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as
deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary
in early English.
Economy of vocabulary? In Old English perhaps, but Middle English,
which is what we are talking about, had a large vocabulary. Our modern
plenitude of synonyms and near-synonyms is partly a result of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fashion for borrowing words from
other languages (especially Latin), but in large part is a consequence
of the melding of English, Scandinavian and French into Middle English,
whose vocabulary often included two, three, or even more words for much
the same thing. For example, carve/cut/slice (respectively OE, ON and
OF), or hide/skin/pelt, sick/ill/diseased or boat/ship/vessel.
When the differences between the various regional dialects are taken
into account the number of synonyms rises further. Someone who fulled
cloth was a fuller in the south and east, a tucker in the southwest and
a walker in the north. A weaver was a webb in the south, a webster in
the north, but could be a webber or weaver in some places. A southern
tanner was a northern barker, but sometimes a tawyer. A potter and a
milner in the north and east were respectively a crocker and a millward
in the southwest (or a cupper and miller, or ...).
I think Middle English's vocabulary could accommodate both crookback
and crouchback, even alongside bossy.
Some more adjectives meaning "hunch-backed" in Early Modern English,
all culled from the OED:
bunch-backed
crump-backed
huck-backed
huckle-backed
hulch-backed, hulchy
hump-backed, humpty
hutch-backed
plus two of foreign origin:
bossive
gibbous
And two nouns that could also be used in this sense:
urchin
and (believe it or not)
lord (sense 14 b)
"slang. A hunchback. (Cf. LORD-FISH.)
The origin of this use is obscure, but there is no reason for doubting
the identity of the word. The Dict. Canting Crew has a parallel sense
of Lady.
a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Lord, a very crooked, deformed..Person.
1725 in New Cant. Dict. 1751 SMOLLETT Per. Pic. xxviii, His
pupil..was..on account of his hump, distinguished by the title of My
Lord. 1817 NEUMAN Eng.-Sp. Dict. (ed. 3), Lord..8 (Joc.) Hombre
jorobado. 1826 LAMB Elia II. Pop. Fallacies, That a deformed person is
a lord. 1887 BESANT The World went I. iii. 86 He was, in appearance,
short and bent, with rounded shoulders, and with a hump (which made
the boys call him My Lord)."
gbh
-
Gjest
Re: FINE ROLLS ONLINE - HENRY III
I've added the Fine Rolls to my *new* jump page here
http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
so no one has to keep remembering the URL for that site
Will
http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
so no one has to keep remembering the URL for that site
Will
-
Brad Verity
Re: Crouchback
Peter Stewart wrote:
This whole issue of the Crouchback legend and Henry IV vaguely claiming
the throne as 'the right line of the blood coming from the good Lord
Henry III', has been much discussed recently by historians. Nigel
Saul, 'Richard II' (Yale English Monarchs, 1997), pp. 419-420; as Peter
mentioned previously, Paul Strohm, 'England's Empty Throne: Usurpation
and the Language of Legitimation 1399-1422' (Yale, 1998), pp. 3-4; and
even more recently, John Ashdown-Hill, 'The Lancastrian Claim to the
Throne' in 'The Ricardian' Vol. XIII (2003), pp. 27-38, and T.P.J.
Edlin, 'The Crouchback Legend Revisited' in 'The Ricardian' Vol. XIV
(2004), pp. 95-105.
Edlin: "It would be interesting to know when the claim that Edmund
Crouchback was in fact the elder son of Henry III was first made. It
appears that this was considerably before the 1394 contention in
parliament, prior to which John Ashdown-Hill finds no trace of it.
Certainly K.B. McFarlane states that John of Gaunt was believed to have
circulated the story as early as 1377, and refers to it as the 'old
Lancastrian myth' without defining precisely how old [footnote: K.B.
McFarlane, 'Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights', Oxford 1972, pp.
34, 54.]."
As to the issue of whether 'Crouchback' was a nickname completely
invented for Edmund of Lancaster in the late 14th-century by John of
Gaunt's circle to complement their propaganda that he was passed over
because of infirmity, or that they corrupted an already-existing
nickname for Edmund, I agree with Peter in favor of the latter. If it
was a complete invention on the part of the Lancastrian circle in the
late 14th-century, certainly they could've come up with a much more
explicit and clever nickname like Edmund Smallmind, especially, as
Edlin points out (p. 97): "...Adam of Usk's account of the story states
that the claim was that Edmund was set aside on account of his
'imbecility' [footnote: See A. Tuck, 'Crown and Nobility: England
1272-1461', 2nd edn., Oxford 1999, pp. 192-93.]."
The myth was not taken seriously by the commission created in 1399
(Adam of Usk was on it), and Ashdown-Hill adds (p. 32), "and it does
indeed appear to have been without foundation, for in his chronicle
William de Rishanger, a contemporary of Edmund Crouchback, refers to
him as 'Dominus Edmundus, filius regis junior' [footnote: 'Lord Edmund,
the king's younger son', J.O. Halliwell, ed., 'The Chronicle of William
de Rishanger', London 1840, p. 118.]."
As to Douglas Richardson's new crusade to rehabilitate the reputation
of Edmund by insisting he not be called 'Crouchback' anymore, it is
another of his ploys to try and impress everyone with how familiar he
is with primary records. This, though, is the man who insists
'dominus' should be translated as 'sir' not 'lord'. The above
Rishanger quote nicely shows that Richardson having access to primary
sources does not make him an expert, and any posture he takes as an
authority is as much propaganda as the Crouchback legend itself.
Cheers, -------Brad
As to evidence that it was not even considered understandable in the early
15th century, I have several times pointed out that Hardyng, the ONLY source
for this in English, felt the need to gloss "crouchback" as "croukeback" to
convey the misinterpretation.
This whole issue of the Crouchback legend and Henry IV vaguely claiming
the throne as 'the right line of the blood coming from the good Lord
Henry III', has been much discussed recently by historians. Nigel
Saul, 'Richard II' (Yale English Monarchs, 1997), pp. 419-420; as Peter
mentioned previously, Paul Strohm, 'England's Empty Throne: Usurpation
and the Language of Legitimation 1399-1422' (Yale, 1998), pp. 3-4; and
even more recently, John Ashdown-Hill, 'The Lancastrian Claim to the
Throne' in 'The Ricardian' Vol. XIII (2003), pp. 27-38, and T.P.J.
Edlin, 'The Crouchback Legend Revisited' in 'The Ricardian' Vol. XIV
(2004), pp. 95-105.
Edlin: "It would be interesting to know when the claim that Edmund
Crouchback was in fact the elder son of Henry III was first made. It
appears that this was considerably before the 1394 contention in
parliament, prior to which John Ashdown-Hill finds no trace of it.
Certainly K.B. McFarlane states that John of Gaunt was believed to have
circulated the story as early as 1377, and refers to it as the 'old
Lancastrian myth' without defining precisely how old [footnote: K.B.
McFarlane, 'Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights', Oxford 1972, pp.
34, 54.]."
As to the issue of whether 'Crouchback' was a nickname completely
invented for Edmund of Lancaster in the late 14th-century by John of
Gaunt's circle to complement their propaganda that he was passed over
because of infirmity, or that they corrupted an already-existing
nickname for Edmund, I agree with Peter in favor of the latter. If it
was a complete invention on the part of the Lancastrian circle in the
late 14th-century, certainly they could've come up with a much more
explicit and clever nickname like Edmund Smallmind, especially, as
Edlin points out (p. 97): "...Adam of Usk's account of the story states
that the claim was that Edmund was set aside on account of his
'imbecility' [footnote: See A. Tuck, 'Crown and Nobility: England
1272-1461', 2nd edn., Oxford 1999, pp. 192-93.]."
The myth was not taken seriously by the commission created in 1399
(Adam of Usk was on it), and Ashdown-Hill adds (p. 32), "and it does
indeed appear to have been without foundation, for in his chronicle
William de Rishanger, a contemporary of Edmund Crouchback, refers to
him as 'Dominus Edmundus, filius regis junior' [footnote: 'Lord Edmund,
the king's younger son', J.O. Halliwell, ed., 'The Chronicle of William
de Rishanger', London 1840, p. 118.]."
As to Douglas Richardson's new crusade to rehabilitate the reputation
of Edmund by insisting he not be called 'Crouchback' anymore, it is
another of his ploys to try and impress everyone with how familiar he
is with primary records. This, though, is the man who insists
'dominus' should be translated as 'sir' not 'lord'. The above
Rishanger quote nicely shows that Richardson having access to primary
sources does not make him an expert, and any posture he takes as an
authority is as much propaganda as the Crouchback legend itself.
Cheers, -------Brad
-
Apple
Re: Alfred The Great
a.spencer3 wrote:
Oops! My mistake.
Hines has long claimed to be descended from everyone.
He's a twit.
Don't feed the animal.
Oops! My mistake.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:it9sq21qo75666rgn4depq9ujmb9brmpfj@4ax.com...
No I wouldn't, this was a misstatement on my part.
I'm not sure about this "co-existence" - my understanding is that the
pronunciation "cross" developed later, from the French "croix" rather than
directly from the Latin "crux".
One of the intuitive problems that some people have with the word "crouch"
in this context is the accretion of negative and even dishonourable
connotations since the early middle ages. "Crouch" is used for a timorous or
a submissive posture - but this too developed from the holiness of the
meaning. In the creed, at the words "et homo factus est" (and was made man)
the congregation genuflected, i.e. bent their knees. The next words were
"crucifixus etiam pro nobis" (he was crucified also for us). The
pronunciation of "crucifixus" in the English church was "crooch-ifixus", and
"crooch" was also the pronunciation in such words as "Crouchmas" and
"crouchback" - not "crowch", as in the modern word, and not "croch" related
closer to "cross". (I think the latter is supposed to have come from Ireland
at first, but I'm not certain of this.)
Peter Stewart
news:it9sq21qo75666rgn4depq9ujmb9brmpfj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:02:23 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
The
co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as deliberate
neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary in early
English.
I wonder. When it comes to insulting words, the languages I know tend
to be anything but economical. Anyway, the co-existence of "crookback"
along with "crouchback" could be a dialectal thing, as Matt says.
You wrote earlier that "In English locution a deformed spine has
always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back", yet both of these are
attested much later in the OED than "crouchback". And the lack of
early records of "crouchback" was one of your objections to my
argument.
Would you still say that your categorical use of the word "always" in
that statement was justified?
No I wouldn't, this was a misstatement on my part.
We know that "crookback" was the natural term when Hardyng wrote, using
this
to gloss the byname, and that "crouch" occurred both alone and in compound
terms meaning "Cross" from before his time although it had become obsolete
in this sense by ca 1400.
Note the co-existence of the synonyms "cross" and "crouch" in Middle
English. Two words for the same thing. So much for "the economy of
vocabulary in early English".
I'm not sure about this "co-existence" - my understanding is that the
pronunciation "cross" developed later, from the French "croix" rather than
directly from the Latin "crux".
One of the intuitive problems that some people have with the word "crouch"
in this context is the accretion of negative and even dishonourable
connotations since the early middle ages. "Crouch" is used for a timorous or
a submissive posture - but this too developed from the holiness of the
meaning. In the creed, at the words "et homo factus est" (and was made man)
the congregation genuflected, i.e. bent their knees. The next words were
"crucifixus etiam pro nobis" (he was crucified also for us). The
pronunciation of "crucifixus" in the English church was "crooch-ifixus", and
"crooch" was also the pronunciation in such words as "Crouchmas" and
"crouchback" - not "crowch", as in the modern word, and not "croch" related
closer to "cross". (I think the latter is supposed to have come from Ireland
at first, but I'm not certain of this.)
Peter Stewart
-
Brad Verity
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Interestingly, in Le Neve's pedigree for Sir John Tate, Recorder of
London, knighted at Whitehall 12 May 1687 (H.S.P. 8 (1873), p. 411),
Sir John's father ".... Tate of De la Pree Com. North'ton." is said to
have married ".... dr of Sr Gyles Allington of Horseth by .... his 2d
wife dr of .... Dalton".
Sir Giles married his 2nd wife, who was his niece, Dorothy Dalton, on 2
December 1630, when he was age 58 and she age 24 (per CP Vol. 1, p. 107
n. a). They were ordered not to cohabit in January 1634. It's
interesting that in the 1690s, Le Neve would hear that Sir John Tate
was descended from this incestuous marriage, rather than the more
prestigious Cecil first marriage. But Le Neve indicates Sir John Tate
died unmarried, and so the knight himself was clearly not the source of
the information.
As Zouche Tate was buried on 8 January 1651, the chronology seems too
tight for him to have married a daughter of Sir Giles Alington's second
marriage and fathered at least three sons with her.
Cheers, --------Brad
I have noticed in various online databases, that the number, dates and names
of the various children of Giles Alington (1572-1638) by his wife Dorothy
Cecil (d 1613) are all over the map. All the way from 1570 (which is downright
silly) up to 1639 (I suppose based on when Giles died).
Elizabeth 25 Apr 1598
Thomas 2 Jan 1599/1600
Giles 14 Jul 1601
James 6 Sep 1602
Dorothy 9 Jan 1603/1604
Susan 30 Sep 1605
Anna 13 Apr 1607
Catherine 5 Dec 1608
William 14 Mar 1610
Mary 19 Oct 1612
It is also said that Catherine married Zouche Tate of Delapre
and that Mary married Thomas Hatton
but I have not found those marriages as yet.
Interestingly, in Le Neve's pedigree for Sir John Tate, Recorder of
London, knighted at Whitehall 12 May 1687 (H.S.P. 8 (1873), p. 411),
Sir John's father ".... Tate of De la Pree Com. North'ton." is said to
have married ".... dr of Sr Gyles Allington of Horseth by .... his 2d
wife dr of .... Dalton".
Sir Giles married his 2nd wife, who was his niece, Dorothy Dalton, on 2
December 1630, when he was age 58 and she age 24 (per CP Vol. 1, p. 107
n. a). They were ordered not to cohabit in January 1634. It's
interesting that in the 1690s, Le Neve would hear that Sir John Tate
was descended from this incestuous marriage, rather than the more
prestigious Cecil first marriage. But Le Neve indicates Sir John Tate
died unmarried, and so the knight himself was clearly not the source of
the information.
As Zouche Tate was buried on 8 January 1651, the chronology seems too
tight for him to have married a daughter of Sir Giles Alington's second
marriage and fathered at least three sons with her.
Cheers, --------Brad
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1611.1169053796.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
No, the OED attempts to record the history of words, including any obsolete
senses. If an instance can be found in the 13th century, whether in the
modern sense or a different one, it will be recorded.
But obviously it would need to be somehow self-defining to satisfy the
request for proof, and this would be most unexpected in the very few
vernacular sources that could be consulted.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.1611.1169053796.30800.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
In a message dated 1/17/2007 4:12:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
I very much doubt that this could be found, certinaly in English of the
OED would presumably record it.
I question whether the OED records every instance of every word ever used
in
the history of the language. Do they really record a word *only* used in
the 13th century and then never used again for example?
If they don't, and a word has come into and then left the language
centuries
ago, then would not that be an explanation?
No, the OED attempts to record the history of words, including any obsolete
senses. If an instance can be found in the 13th century, whether in the
modern sense or a different one, it will be recorded.
But obviously it would need to be somehow self-defining to satisfy the
request for proof, and this would be most unexpected in the very few
vernacular sources that could be consulted.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1169054301.956642.86550@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, this is begging the question: my point is that "crouchback" was
glossed - i.e. twisted, spun - in one instance at the start of the 15th
century to mean the same as "crookback". Its distinct meaning was forgotten
by then.
Ho ho. If you are incommoded or distressed by the tone of a vigorous and
civil debate, you would do well to wrap yourself in cotton wool and block it
out.
You are assuming that "crouch" in the sense of "cross" was a neologism in
Middle English, while I am not. "Crouchback" is just a compound use, like
"Crouchmas" and there is no basis to claim that one might not have existed
when the other is admitted. All the examples you give of multipe words are
for different shades of the things in question. For instance, a cow has a
"hide", living or dead, but she does not have a "pelt".
The use of "crouch" for "cross" was old in the 13th century, obsolete by the
start of the 15th. That is why it needed to be explained by the single
source transmitting this controversy - and that is why it is absurd to
suppose it was made up for Edmund's alleged deformity at that time.
Peter Stewart
news:1169054301.956642.86550@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound
usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not "crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church
at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion.
Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common
word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the sign
of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Well, possibly. But the evidential problem is that there does not seem
to be any pre-fifteenth-century evidence that 'crouch' actually was
compounded with 'back' to mean cross-wearer or crusader. The only
hard evidence for the existence of the compound comes from the
fifteenth-century and later, when it meant crookback. The idea that
crouchback meant cross-back apparently dates from the seventeenth
century.
No, this is begging the question: my point is that "crouchback" was
glossed - i.e. twisted, spun - in one instance at the start of the 15th
century to mean the same as "crookback". Its distinct meaning was forgotten
by then.
The co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as
deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of
vocabulary
in early English.
Economy of vocabulary? In Old English perhaps, but Middle English,
which is what we are talking about, had a large vocabulary. Our modern
plenitude of synonyms and near-synonyms is partly a result of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fashion for borrowing words from
other languages (especially Latin), but in large part is a consequence
of the melding of English, Scandinavian and French into Middle English,
whose vocabulary often included two, three, or even more words for much
the same thing. For example, carve/cut/slice (respectively OE, ON and
OF), or hide/skin/pelt, sick/ill/diseased or boat/ship/vessel.
When the differences between the various regional dialects are taken
into account the number of synonyms rises further. Someone who fulled
cloth was a fuller in the south and east, a tucker in the southwest and
a walker in the north. A weaver was a webb in the south, a webster in
the north, but could be a webber or weaver in some places. A southern
tanner was a northern barker, but sometimes a tawyer. A potter and a
milner in the north and east were respectively a crocker and a millward
in the southwest (or a cupper and miller, or ...).
I think Middle English's vocabulary could accommodate both crookback
and crouchback, even alongside bossy.
Ho ho. If you are incommoded or distressed by the tone of a vigorous and
civil debate, you would do well to wrap yourself in cotton wool and block it
out.
You are assuming that "crouch" in the sense of "cross" was a neologism in
Middle English, while I am not. "Crouchback" is just a compound use, like
"Crouchmas" and there is no basis to claim that one might not have existed
when the other is admitted. All the examples you give of multipe words are
for different shades of the things in question. For instance, a cow has a
"hide", living or dead, but she does not have a "pelt".
The use of "crouch" for "cross" was old in the 13th century, obsolete by the
start of the 15th. That is why it needed to be explained by the single
source transmitting this controversy - and that is why it is absurd to
suppose it was made up for Edmund's alleged deformity at that time.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster - Popular, handsome, skilled i
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1169056634.179195.37780@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
What repetition of lies, and who believes the stories?
Is your gigantic straw man now talking to you?
Peter Stewart
news:1169056634.179195.37780@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
This continual repetition of the half-truths and lies regarding Prince
Edmund reminds me of our modern "urban legends." No one knows for sure
how they got started, yet many naively believe the stories are gospel
truth.
What repetition of lies, and who believes the stories?
Is your gigantic straw man now talking to you?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
You are misrepsenting my point again - my suggesting was that two forms so
similar as "crouchback" and "crookback" would not have co-existed for the
same condition.
A whole lot of quite different words with the same meaning has nothing to do
with this. Nor have orthographic variants - "crook" and "crouch" were
different but similar words from te same ultimate source.
Peter Stewart
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:k5rsq21hsbra3jmmiodbdegkkfulhkc7vh@4ax.com...
similar as "crouchback" and "crookback" would not have co-existed for the
same condition.
A whole lot of quite different words with the same meaning has nothing to do
with this. Nor have orthographic variants - "crook" and "crouch" were
different but similar words from te same ultimate source.
Peter Stewart
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:k5rsq21hsbra3jmmiodbdegkkfulhkc7vh@4ax.com...
On 17 Jan 2007 09:18:22 -0800, "Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound
usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not
"crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church
at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion.
Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common
word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the
sign of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Well, possibly. But the evidential problem is that there does not seem
to be any pre-fifteenth-century evidence that 'crouch' actually was
compounded with 'back' to mean cross-wearer or crusader. The only
hard evidence for the existence of the compound comes from the
fifteenth-century and later, when it meant crookback. The idea that
crouchback meant cross-back apparently dates from the seventeenth
century.
The co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as
deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of
vocabulary
in early English.
Economy of vocabulary? In Old English perhaps, but Middle English,
which is what we are talking about, had a large vocabulary. Our modern
plenitude of synonyms and near-synonyms is partly a result of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fashion for borrowing words from
other languages (especially Latin), but in large part is a consequence
of the melding of English, Scandinavian and French into Middle English,
whose vocabulary often included two, three, or even more words for much
the same thing. For example, carve/cut/slice (respectively OE, ON and
OF), or hide/skin/pelt, sick/ill/diseased or boat/ship/vessel.
When the differences between the various regional dialects are taken
into account the number of synonyms rises further. Someone who fulled
cloth was a fuller in the south and east, a tucker in the southwest and
a walker in the north. A weaver was a webb in the south, a webster in
the north, but could be a webber or weaver in some places. A southern
tanner was a northern barker, but sometimes a tawyer. A potter and a
milner in the north and east were respectively a crocker and a millward
in the southwest (or a cupper and miller, or ...).
I think Middle English's vocabulary could accommodate both crookback
and crouchback, even alongside bossy.
Some more adjectives meaning "hunch-backed" in Early Modern English,
all culled from the OED:
bunch-backed
crump-backed
huck-backed
huckle-backed
hulch-backed, hulchy
hump-backed, humpty
hutch-backed
plus two of foreign origin:
bossive
gibbous
And two nouns that could also be used in this sense:
urchin
and (believe it or not)
lord (sense 14 b)
"slang. A hunchback. (Cf. LORD-FISH.)
The origin of this use is obscure, but there is no reason for doubting
the identity of the word. The Dict. Canting Crew has a parallel sense
of Lady.
a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Lord, a very crooked, deformed..Person.
1725 in New Cant. Dict. 1751 SMOLLETT Per. Pic. xxviii, His
pupil..was..on account of his hump, distinguished by the title of My
Lord. 1817 NEUMAN Eng.-Sp. Dict. (ed. 3), Lord..8 (Joc.) Hombre
jorobado. 1826 LAMB Elia II. Pop. Fallacies, That a deformed person is
a lord. 1887 BESANT The World went I. iii. 86 He was, in appearance,
short and bent, with rounded shoulders, and with a hump (which made
the boys call him My Lord)."
gbh
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Crouchback
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Mewrh.2465$u8.827@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip"
Let me clarify & emphasise this: the single source transmitting the
"Crouchback"/"croukeback" controversy was John Hardyng, in a prose addition
in a manuscript of his verse chronicle, claiming to have heard about it on
several occasions from his former patron Henry Percy, 1st earl of
Northumberland, who was dead by then. It is scarcely credible that the
account of its invention byJohn of Gaunt could be true, given that there is
no record in any parliamentary source and that if Percy had blathered about
it to such a man as Hardyng than secrecy was clearly not maintained outside
parliament.
The only other sources relating anything like this make no mention of a
"crookback" or of the byname "Crouchback". One speaks of a broken back,
while the other (and the most reliable) pins the alleged problem to Edmund's
supposed mental weakness.
John of Gaunt was the doyen of the royal family by 1394, and of course there
was an interest later in ascribing to him a story that he (as the former
husband of the great-granddaughter and eventual heiress of Edmund) would
have known the truth about. Hardyng's claim that John had planted false
information in monasteries to be incorporated into their chronicles is not
substantiated - indeed the only independent source for anything remotely
like this simply tells that Henry IV later ordered the monasteries to bring
their records on the matter forward to settle it.
Peter Stewart
news:Mewrh.2465$u8.827@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip"
The use of "crouch" for "cross" was old in the 13th century, obsolete by
the start of the 15th. That is why it needed to be explained by the single
source transmitting this controversy - and that is why it is absurd to
suppose it was made up for Edmund's alleged deformity at that time.
Let me clarify & emphasise this: the single source transmitting the
"Crouchback"/"croukeback" controversy was John Hardyng, in a prose addition
in a manuscript of his verse chronicle, claiming to have heard about it on
several occasions from his former patron Henry Percy, 1st earl of
Northumberland, who was dead by then. It is scarcely credible that the
account of its invention byJohn of Gaunt could be true, given that there is
no record in any parliamentary source and that if Percy had blathered about
it to such a man as Hardyng than secrecy was clearly not maintained outside
parliament.
The only other sources relating anything like this make no mention of a
"crookback" or of the byname "Crouchback". One speaks of a broken back,
while the other (and the most reliable) pins the alleged problem to Edmund's
supposed mental weakness.
John of Gaunt was the doyen of the royal family by 1394, and of course there
was an interest later in ascribing to him a story that he (as the former
husband of the great-granddaughter and eventual heiress of Edmund) would
have known the truth about. Hardyng's claim that John had planted false
information in monasteries to be incorporated into their chronicles is not
substantiated - indeed the only independent source for anything remotely
like this simply tells that Henry IV later ordered the monasteries to bring
their records on the matter forward to settle it.
Peter Stewart
-
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
c.1394, probably from O.Fr. crochir "become bent, crooked," from croche
"hook."
You have evidently missed or forgotten a post of mine: the dating "c.1394"
is due to the confused chronology of the earliest source, in Latin,
referring to this matter and placing it in the parliament of January 1394.
The OED connected this to "crouchback", from conflating it with another
source written in English, but actually the author referred to a broken back
("dorsum...fractum").
Peter Stewart
It is not that I did not remember the posting from which you have quoted. What you are responding to is a quotation from the Online Etymological Dictionary, which does not list the OED among its sources. I find the same derivation of the English word "crouch" from the Old French "crochir" in Walter W. Skeat's "Etymological Dictionary", together with the suggestion that the latter derives from the Late Latin "croccum, acc. of croccus, a hook."
-
Gjest
Re: The family structure of Giles Alington / Dorothy Cecil o
In a message dated 1/17/07 1:02:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< As Zouche Tate was buried on 8 January 1651, the chronology seems too
tight for him to have married a daughter of Sir Giles Alington's second
marriage and fathered at least three sons with her. >>
Thanks Brad for your helpful contribution. Any guess on when John Tate,
Recorder of London might have been born?
Sir William Tate of Delapre and his wife Elizabeth Zouche were husband and
wife for just shy of 20 years so I presume they may have had several sons. I
don't have a date for when Zouche Tate of Delapre married Catherine Allington
but this couple has a grandson born in 1666 named Bartholomew.
I would presume that if a Tate of Delapre was the father of John Tate that
that Tate must be a brother to Zouche, and not Zouche himself.
Will Johnson
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
<< As Zouche Tate was buried on 8 January 1651, the chronology seems too
tight for him to have married a daughter of Sir Giles Alington's second
marriage and fathered at least three sons with her. >>
Thanks Brad for your helpful contribution. Any guess on when John Tate,
Recorder of London might have been born?
Sir William Tate of Delapre and his wife Elizabeth Zouche were husband and
wife for just shy of 20 years so I presume they may have had several sons. I
don't have a date for when Zouche Tate of Delapre married Catherine Allington
but this couple has a grandson born in 1666 named Bartholomew.
I would presume that if a Tate of Delapre was the father of John Tate that
that Tate must be a brother to Zouche, and not Zouche himself.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
In a message dated 1/17/07 1:03:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< But obviously it would need to be somehow self-defining to satisfy the
request for proof, and this would be most unexpected in the very few
vernacular sources that could be consulted. >>
Yes using *modern* dictionaries to define what some ancient source meant. In
this case modern being a back-definition upon a word only used once, using a
definition that could possible be ensured to have this or a similar meaning a
hundred years later.
It would be interesting to know when the first *absolutely unquestioned* used
of crokeback or crookeback or cruckback or whatever was used where there is
no question at all that it means "Hunch" back.
You can't even trust the OED nowdays
entrenched opinions don't make a
position logical and sound.
Will
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< But obviously it would need to be somehow self-defining to satisfy the
request for proof, and this would be most unexpected in the very few
vernacular sources that could be consulted. >>
Yes using *modern* dictionaries to define what some ancient source meant. In
this case modern being a back-definition upon a word only used once, using a
definition that could possible be ensured to have this or a similar meaning a
hundred years later.
It would be interesting to know when the first *absolutely unquestioned* used
of crokeback or crookeback or cruckback or whatever was used where there is
no question at all that it means "Hunch" back.
You can't even trust the OED nowdays
position logical and sound.
Will
-
gbh
Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:51:09 EST, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I can only refer to the OED, which of course does not record
everything, despite the ambitions of the editors. The earliest example
they found of crouchback is:
"c1491 in R. Davies York Records (1843) 221 That Kyng Richard was an
ypocryte, a crochebake, & beried in a dike like a dogge."
Given the negative tone of that quotation, with the word occurring
between "hypocrite" and "buried like a dog", it is extremely unlikely
that "crochebake" here means a crusader.
Next comes:
"1494 FABYAN Chron. VII. 366 Sir Edmunde ye kynges other sone,
surnamed Crowch Bak. 1519 "
but that one certainly doesn't fit your criterion of *absolutely
unquestioned*.
Then there is crook-backed, which is recorded slightly earlier:
1477 EARL RIVERS (Caxton) Dictes Cija, The said ypocras was of littel
stature, grete heded, croke backed.
It was compiled by human beings. And etymology is often a matter of
guesswork, as we fumble in the dark for lack of evidence.
Indeed
gbh
In a message dated 1/17/07 1:03:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
But obviously it would need to be somehow self-defining to satisfy the
request for proof, and this would be most unexpected in the very few
vernacular sources that could be consulted.
Yes using *modern* dictionaries to define what some ancient source meant. In
this case modern being a back-definition upon a word only used once, using a
definition that could possible be ensured to have this or a similar meaning a
hundred years later.
It would be interesting to know when the first *absolutely unquestioned* used
of crokeback or crookeback or cruckback or whatever was used where there is
no question at all that it means "Hunch" back.
I can only refer to the OED, which of course does not record
everything, despite the ambitions of the editors. The earliest example
they found of crouchback is:
"c1491 in R. Davies York Records (1843) 221 That Kyng Richard was an
ypocryte, a crochebake, & beried in a dike like a dogge."
Given the negative tone of that quotation, with the word occurring
between "hypocrite" and "buried like a dog", it is extremely unlikely
that "crochebake" here means a crusader.
Next comes:
"1494 FABYAN Chron. VII. 366 Sir Edmunde ye kynges other sone,
surnamed Crowch Bak. 1519 "
but that one certainly doesn't fit your criterion of *absolutely
unquestioned*.
Then there is crook-backed, which is recorded slightly earlier:
1477 EARL RIVERS (Caxton) Dictes Cija, The said ypocras was of littel
stature, grete heded, croke backed.
You can't even trust the OED nowdays
It was compiled by human beings. And etymology is often a matter of
guesswork, as we fumble in the dark for lack of evidence.
entrenched opinions don't make a
position logical and sound.
Indeed
gbh
-
gbh
Re: Crouchback
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:14:42 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
A suggestion which I find unwarranted. I cited the co-existence in
Early Modern English of five rather similar forms for the same
condition, huck-backed, huckle-backed, hulch-backed, hump-backed,
hutch-backed. Why could the language not have accommodated two similar
forms a few centuries earlier? English has always been a rich
language, full of synonyms and dialectal variants.
Or from two separate sources. We don't really know enough to make such
a categorical statement.
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:k5rsq21hsbra3jmmiodbdegkkfulhkc7vh@4ax.com...
On 17 Jan 2007 09:18:22 -0800, "Matt Tompkins" <mllt1@le.ac.uk> wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:
We don't lack evidence both ways: for "crouch" as "cross" in compound
usage,
there is the term "Crouchmas" for the festival of the Invention of the
Cross. If "crouchback" had existed alongside this to mean not
"crossback"
but rather "hunchback", there would have been some outrage in the Church
at
the concomitant interpretation of "Crouchmas" for a holy occasion.
Nothing
was more revered than the cross, so that a double meaning of the common
word
"crouch" (that as a verb meant to bless, as when the priest made the
sign of
the cross), would surely have been remarked often & at length.
Well, possibly. But the evidential problem is that there does not seem
to be any pre-fifteenth-century evidence that 'crouch' actually was
compounded with 'back' to mean cross-wearer or crusader. The only
hard evidence for the existence of the compound comes from the
fifteenth-century and later, when it meant crookback. The idea that
crouchback meant cross-back apparently dates from the seventeenth
century.
The co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as
deliberate neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of
vocabulary
in early English.
Economy of vocabulary? In Old English perhaps, but Middle English,
which is what we are talking about, had a large vocabulary. Our modern
plenitude of synonyms and near-synonyms is partly a result of the
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fashion for borrowing words from
other languages (especially Latin), but in large part is a consequence
of the melding of English, Scandinavian and French into Middle English,
whose vocabulary often included two, three, or even more words for much
the same thing. For example, carve/cut/slice (respectively OE, ON and
OF), or hide/skin/pelt, sick/ill/diseased or boat/ship/vessel.
When the differences between the various regional dialects are taken
into account the number of synonyms rises further. Someone who fulled
cloth was a fuller in the south and east, a tucker in the southwest and
a walker in the north. A weaver was a webb in the south, a webster in
the north, but could be a webber or weaver in some places. A southern
tanner was a northern barker, but sometimes a tawyer. A potter and a
milner in the north and east were respectively a crocker and a millward
in the southwest (or a cupper and miller, or ...).
I think Middle English's vocabulary could accommodate both crookback
and crouchback, even alongside bossy.
Some more adjectives meaning "hunch-backed" in Early Modern English,
all culled from the OED:
bunch-backed
crump-backed
huck-backed
huckle-backed
hulch-backed, hulchy
hump-backed, humpty
hutch-backed
plus two of foreign origin:
bossive
gibbous
And two nouns that could also be used in this sense:
urchin
and (believe it or not)
lord (sense 14 b)
"slang. A hunchback. (Cf. LORD-FISH.)
The origin of this use is obscure, but there is no reason for doubting
the identity of the word. The Dict. Canting Crew has a parallel sense
of Lady.
a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Lord, a very crooked, deformed..Person.
1725 in New Cant. Dict. 1751 SMOLLETT Per. Pic. xxviii, His
pupil..was..on account of his hump, distinguished by the title of My
Lord. 1817 NEUMAN Eng.-Sp. Dict. (ed. 3), Lord..8 (Joc.) Hombre
jorobado. 1826 LAMB Elia II. Pop. Fallacies, That a deformed person is
a lord. 1887 BESANT The World went I. iii. 86 He was, in appearance,
short and bent, with rounded shoulders, and with a hump (which made
the boys call him My Lord)."
You are misrepsenting my point again - my suggesting was that two forms so
similar as "crouchback" and "crookback" would not have co-existed for the
same condition.
A suggestion which I find unwarranted. I cited the co-existence in
Early Modern English of five rather similar forms for the same
condition, huck-backed, huckle-backed, hulch-backed, hump-backed,
hutch-backed. Why could the language not have accommodated two similar
forms a few centuries earlier? English has always been a rich
language, full of synonyms and dialectal variants.
A whole lot of quite different words with the same meaning has nothing to do
with this. Nor have orthographic variants - "crook" and "crouch" were
different but similar words from te same ultimate source.
Or from two separate sources. We don't really know enough to make such
a categorical statement.
gbh
-
gbh
Re: Crouchback
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:54:24 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Good. It was the categorical quality of that statement that made me
join this discussion.
The OED records the spelling "cros" since the tenth century, "crosse"
since the twelfth. It's hard to imagine that being pronounced in any
other way than our "cross", and it survived its co-existence with the
form "croix" that came with the French.
Well, all that is one possible hypothesis, but I am not alone in
suspecting that the verb "crouch" and the noun "crouch" meaning
"cross" come from two different sources.
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"gbh" <pisces@slices.com> wrote in message
news:it9sq21qo75666rgn4depq9ujmb9brmpfj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:02:23 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
The
co-existence of "crookback" along with "crouchback" (except as deliberate
neologism) would be highly untypical of the economy of vocabulary in early
English.
I wonder. When it comes to insulting words, the languages I know tend
to be anything but economical. Anyway, the co-existence of "crookback"
along with "crouchback" could be a dialectal thing, as Matt says.
You wrote earlier that "In English locution a deformed spine has
always been called a "hunch-" or "hump-" back", yet both of these are
attested much later in the OED than "crouchback". And the lack of
early records of "crouchback" was one of your objections to my
argument.
Would you still say that your categorical use of the word "always" in
that statement was justified?
No I wouldn't, this was a misstatement on my part.
Good. It was the categorical quality of that statement that made me
join this discussion.
We know that "crookback" was the natural term when Hardyng wrote, using
this
to gloss the byname, and that "crouch" occurred both alone and in compound
terms meaning "Cross" from before his time although it had become obsolete
in this sense by ca 1400.
Note the co-existence of the synonyms "cross" and "crouch" in Middle
English. Two words for the same thing. So much for "the economy of
vocabulary in early English".
I'm not sure about this "co-existence" - my understanding is that the
pronunciation "cross" developed later, from the French "croix" rather than
directly from the Latin "crux".
The OED records the spelling "cros" since the tenth century, "crosse"
since the twelfth. It's hard to imagine that being pronounced in any
other way than our "cross", and it survived its co-existence with the
form "croix" that came with the French.
One of the intuitive problems that some people have with the word "crouch"
in this context is the accretion of negative and even dishonourable
connotations since the early middle ages. "Crouch" is used for a timorous or
a submissive posture - but this too developed from the holiness of the
meaning. In the creed, at the words "et homo factus est" (and was made man)
the congregation genuflected, i.e. bent their knees. The next words were
"crucifixus etiam pro nobis" (he was crucified also for us). The
pronunciation of "crucifixus" in the English church was "crooch-ifixus", and
"crooch" was also the pronunciation in such words as "Crouchmas" and
"crouchback" - not "crowch", as in the modern word, and not "croch" related
closer to "cross". (I think the latter is supposed to have come from Ireland
at first, but I'm not certain of this.)
Well, all that is one possible hypothesis, but I am not alone in
suspecting that the verb "crouch" and the noun "crouch" meaning
"cross" come from two different sources.
gbh
-
gbh
Re: Crouchback
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:35:50 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I don't dispute any of this. It seems to be a good summary of the
evidence.
But the interpretation of Crouchback as "wearing a cross on the back"
is not based on any contemporary source and is not supported by any
known parallel. It's an etymological hypothesis, not an implausible
one but still only a hypothesis. I don't think it should be stated as
an undisputed fact.
gbh
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Mewrh.2465$u8.827@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
snip"
The use of "crouch" for "cross" was old in the 13th century, obsolete by
the start of the 15th. That is why it needed to be explained by the single
source transmitting this controversy - and that is why it is absurd to
suppose it was made up for Edmund's alleged deformity at that time.
Let me clarify & emphasise this: the single source transmitting the
"Crouchback"/"croukeback" controversy was John Hardyng, in a prose addition
in a manuscript of his verse chronicle, claiming to have heard about it on
several occasions from his former patron Henry Percy, 1st earl of
Northumberland, who was dead by then. It is scarcely credible that the
account of its invention byJohn of Gaunt could be true, given that there is
no record in any parliamentary source and that if Percy had blathered about
it to such a man as Hardyng than secrecy was clearly not maintained outside
parliament.
The only other sources relating anything like this make no mention of a
"crookback" or of the byname "Crouchback". One speaks of a broken back,
while the other (and the most reliable) pins the alleged problem to Edmund's
supposed mental weakness.
John of Gaunt was the doyen of the royal family by 1394, and of course there
was an interest later in ascribing to him a story that he (as the former
husband of the great-granddaughter and eventual heiress of Edmund) would
have known the truth about. Hardyng's claim that John had planted false
information in monasteries to be incorporated into their chronicles is not
substantiated - indeed the only independent source for anything remotely
like this simply tells that Henry IV later ordered the monasteries to bring
their records on the matter forward to settle it.
I don't dispute any of this. It seems to be a good summary of the
evidence.
But the interpretation of Crouchback as "wearing a cross on the back"
is not based on any contemporary source and is not supported by any
known parallel. It's an etymological hypothesis, not an implausible
one but still only a hypothesis. I don't think it should be stated as
an undisputed fact.
gbh
-
Gjest
Re: Facts not fiction: John de Sudeley's wife, Grace de Trac
And I should note that it is not chronologically possible for the line to be
this short to John Vampage the Attorney General from 1429 to 1452
Will Johnson
this short to John Vampage the Attorney General from 1429 to 1452
Will Johnson