Blount-Ayala

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

There is no -kin ending is the Welsh fychan. It is f - y - ch-
a- n. Each letter is pronounced. If one were to apply the English system of
alphabet to the appearance of the Welsh, it might look as -kin with ch = K and
a being a short i sound. I believe this is the difficulty that the English
writers have with the Welsh surnames. They have applied their own alphabet and
phonetics to the written form of the Welsh.

reference: Rhestr o Enwau LLeoedd, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru (University of
Wales Press), Ed. Elwyn Davies, 1967, pp. xxi - xxxi.

There may not be a -kin ending in the Welsh fychan, but there IS a -kin
ending in Jenkin, just as there is in Wilkin, Watkin, Perkin, Sim(p)kin,
Thomkin, Hopkin, as well as similar dimminutive endings for other names
(i.e. Colin from Nicolas, Dickin from Richard), a list from which a form
of John would be inexplicably missing were Jenkin not to belong to this
group of names. It may well be that English botch Welsh when
pronouncing it, a phenomenon not unique to these two languages, but
unless you can also come up with an English mispronounciation of Welsh
that produced the other -kin names, then it will take more than the fact
that English mispronounce Welsh to convince me that there wasn't among
these -kin names a John-kin, represented by Jenkin.

taf

[Gjest]

Yes, thanks so much for the correction. It should have been written with the
youngest to the oldest. The Welsh certainly resisted the cultural changes.
It is the process of change that makes the study of languages so
interesting. I certainly agree that the assimilation of one culture by another does not
happen by legal decree only, and the process of Welsh to English started in
earnest under Edward I, 1273 when the English language was declared the
'official' language of court. It is important to recognize that one's view of the
linguistic transformation would be different if you started to explore the
surnames in 1800, verses, 1600, verses, 1400, etc. I believe some of the
difficulty in surname analysis reflects this cross-sectional approach. By this I mean
that one stops the clock at say 1800 and analyzes the surnames. One may
derive an accurate description for 1800, but not be a total picture of this
process. I would be concerned that by 1700, the Welsh language had lost its
linguistic edge and many early writers on English surnames were applying their own
English linguistic structure to the Welsh, not the Welsh language itself. The
word Fychan appears as early 1382 with Jevan Fychan a contemporary of Richard
II (1377 - 1399). {see County Families of Flintshire, in Annals and
Antiquities of The Counties and County Families of Wales, by Nicholas, p.451} In an
introduction section to Welsh Place-Names, Elwyn Davis, states, "..Welsh is a
much more phonetic language than English and the sounds represented by the
letters, are, on the whole, very consistent." I would have to accept that a
Welshman, writing in his own language, who have a better understanding of the
phonetics of Welsh than I. He goes on to state: "To attempt to utter Welsh words
with English sounds serves only to make pronunciation more difficult and
sometimes impossible. Much of the difficulty that English speakers experience
with Welsh names arises from failure to appreciate this fact." In this
introduction, he produces a series of pages describing Welsh sounds using the Welsh
alphabet. Using this Welsh table, the spelling of fychan phonetically would be:


f, has the same sound as the English v, eg. fan = Eng. van

y, long and short, has two sounds, the 'clear' sound that is
not known in English and is not easy to describe. It is not unlike the French u
but is nto rounded. In South Wales the sound approximates to long and short
i .

ch, is the same harsh, throaty sound as in the Scottish loch
when properly pronounced, or the German nach

a, has both long and short sounds: long a = Eng. ah as in
palm
short a = a pure, flat sound as in French a la

n, has the same sound as in Eng.

There is no -kin ending is the Welsh fychan. It is f - y - ch-
a- n. Each letter is pronounced. If one were to apply the English system of
alphabet to the appearance of the Welsh, it might look as -kin with ch = K and
a being a short i sound. I believe this is the difficulty that the English
writers have with the Welsh surnames. They have applied their own alphabet and
phonetics to the written form of the Welsh.

reference: Rhestr o Enwau LLeoedd, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru (University of
Wales Press), Ed. Elwyn Davies, 1967, pp. xxi - xxxi.

[Gjest]

You may wish to check A Gazetteer of Welsh Place-Names, University of Wales
Press, 1967. Also there are several good text on the topography of England:
1) A Topographical Dictionary of England, by Samuel Lewis, Vols I - IV,
originally published 1831; 2) Key To The Ancient Parish Registers of England and
Wales, by Burke first published 1908; 3) A Genealogical Gazetteer of England, by
Smith, published 1968.

The name Stephen first appears in the koine Greek in book titled: The
Acts of The Apostles. He is described as "...a man full of God's grace and
power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people." (New
International Version, Parallel New Testament In Greek and English, Zondervan Pub.
1975, p. 360.) The Greek spelling is S (for sigma) t (for tau) e ( for epsilon,
accent acute) , ph (for phi) , a (for alpha), v (for nu), o (for omicron) and
s(sigma). Thus St e ph an o s. One would need to take the Latin
translations and follow its use in the Brythonic as the name came to use in Welsh
Christianity.

[Gjest]

The following is a typical message from a Kerry voter. Lack of
capitalization, terrible spelling, bad punctuation and erronious in logic. Bah! Humbug!
Learn to spell. Since you claim to have a philosophy teacher I would
assume that you are a college student. I don't see how you could pass the
entrance exams if this is a fair sample of your education and intelligence.

Go back to grade school (second grade) and ask for special tutoring. A
persons ideas and thoughts can be judged by the manner in which they are
presented.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas




In a message dated 10/22/2004 3:12:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

My philosophy teacher could not understand why i would not watch the debates
to see who to vote for. i told him my mind was made up at the last election
fiasco. that no matter who ran against bush that is who i was voting for
and nothing would change my mind. he just didn't understand when i told him
i hated lying religiogus fantics who had to have there brother fix the
election for them. and that further more i was deeply ashamed to be his 9th
cousin and that i had put him on my genealogy tree in very very small
letters. and that most of my family felt the same way. Sleepy Jag

[Peter Stewart]

Comments interspersed:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


Usage varied - "avunculus" never lost its proper meaning of "maternal
uncle", but it could also take in more distant relationships, for
instance (as commonly in Breton texts) a cousin, once or twice removed.


The extension of meaning outside Brittany may have come about through
illegitimate, needy or boastful people who wanted to emphasise a family
link to higher rank, or through vagueness on the part of others
scribing, copying or even forging their documents.


My files indicate that the Latin word "avunculus" in this time period
in England was used for maternal uncle. By 1400, it was used for
either maternal or paternal uncle. If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle. Moreover, if Barraclough is correct
that this charter was inspected and confirmed by Pope Eugenius III in
1147, then this charter is almost certainly genuine.

Well, you need to do some urgent work on your "files" - a bit of
scratching around in _Foedera_ is not remotely enough to make you an
expert in medieval Latin usage.

Since you think one partial example is sufficient to establish a firm
rule about "cognatus", you are bound to admit that one exception to your
pretended rule about "avunculus" will be plenty to prove that it is
bogus. Just at random, here are two - both 12th-century examples from
English documents where the word plainly refers to paternal uncles:

1. _Early Yorkshire Charters_, vol 4, Honour of Richmond part 1, edited
by Charles Travis Clay (Leeds, 1935), confirmation in 1156-58 by Conan
IV, duke of Brittany & earl of Richmond of gifts to St Mary's, York by
two brothers of his paternal grandfather:

"ego Conanus dux Britannie et comes Richmundie Alani comitis filius
concessi et dedi et presenti carta confirmavi ecclesie sancte Marie
Eboraci et monachis ibidem Deo servientibus in puram et perpetuam
elemosinam pro me ipso et pro salute patris et matris mee et pro
animabus avunculorum patris mei comitum videlicet Alani Rufi et Alani
Nigri quicquid ipsi avunculi patris mei comites...dederunt"

2. _Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriæ_, edited
by William Henry Hart, 3 vols, Rolls Series 33 (London, 1863-1867),
dated at Bristol 1192:

"Haec est finalis concordia...inter Thomam abbatem et conventum
Gloucestriae et Ricardum Cofin juniorem de omnibus terris quas Ricardus
Cofin senior avunculus praedicti Ricardi dedit praedictis abbati".

Examples of this usage for paternal rather than maternal uncle abound
throughout the surviving records.

Richardson's arbitrary dating to "by 1400" for this usage is imaginary -
I can only assume that he was once again prepared to make a fool of
himself in order to take advantage of someone else's research, but since
my point is clear I am not going to oblige him any further.

If Farrer was right to suspect the charter of Richard Bacun, it might be
unwise to set too much store by "avunculus" in this.


I disagree.

But you have no authority to place on the table along with this flat &
useless statement. Farrer on the other hand was a great expert on these
matters.

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.


I've never seen the word "cognatus" used for brother-in-law in English
records. My files indicate "cognatus/cognata" in this period was
strictly used for a blood kinsman/kinswoman, even as close as niece or
nephew. I've already provided Mr. Stewart with an example of the
latter.

The only Latin term I've seen used for a relation by marriage in
English medieval records is "affini" or "affinis." Please see a copy
of my earlier post below which deals with this word. I should add
that on rare occasions, usually in private correspondence, I find that
a relation by marriage such as a niece's husband was addressed as
"nephew." I find this occurs after 1300. I only know of one such
instance before 1300. In public charters and crown records, when
kinship is acknowledged, invariably kinship by blood is intended, not
by marriage. This is true for all periods.

Well, you can't have looked very far if you have never come across
"cognatus" for a brother-in-law in any English record - though it's a
furphy to restrict it in this way, as if Latin vocabulary might well be
open slather elsewhere but nevertheless Anglo-Norman writers always
practised strict discipline when on the British side of the Channel.
"Brother-in-law" is the primary definition of "cognatus" given by Albert
Blaise in _Lexicon latinitatis medii aevi_, Corpus Christianorum,
Continuatio Mediaeualis (Turnhout, 1975). This meaning is found
throughout the medieval period, throughout Europe.

Various meanings of Latin words in medieval writing can exist at the
same time. The contents of most charters would have been worked out and
communicated in the vernacular first, and then translated into Latin
following the locally preferred forms. The choice of words for specific
details can be idiocyncratic.


Mr. Stewart seems to be all over the place with his alleged "meanings"
of Latin words. I'm not able to trust his renderings, unless he can
provide the newsgroup contemporary examples from English records as I
have done. If he is unable to provide examples, then he should
withdraw his claims. Simple as that.

No, it's not my opinion that needs to be revised. I am pointing out that
an exact equivalence between medieval Latin and modern English terms is
not to be regarded as absolute. The idea that a cut-off point can be
fixed beyond which certainty about the classical meaning of "avunculus"
breaks down is mere bunkum - as low in the scheme of things as posting a
fearless "correction" of a starkly nonsensical slip on my part that I
had already rectified, and then adding a further example of your own
ignorance:

Actually, "Ricardo de Clara" is Latin for Richard de Clare, not Roger
de Clare

Actually, any schoolchild could pick that up, but then any schoolchild
might also know the ablative case and how to translate it properly.

Peter Stewart

[Bronwen Edwards]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

A
persons ideas and thoughts can be judged by the manner in which they are
presented.

What a thing for a Bush supporter to say! One of the reasons for
voting against Bush may be precisely that - he is unable, even after
much obvious coaching, to speak proper American English. He flunked
out of college and spent his time drinking and taking drugs. He has
stated (proudly?) that he never reads newspapers. Reminds me of
conversations I used to overhear from groups of students (at the
college where I taught for almost 20 years) boasting about having gone
the entire semester without cracking a book. It has been my perception
that Bush supporters are less educated, less intelligent, less logical
and more prone to make issues out of nonsense like how to spell
"their" versus "there". After all, they can't form an argument based
on the issues. I have my doubts that Bush has governed anything - he
is so stupid that all he can do is point skyward and say that God told
him what to do. I am embarrassed to let the world see my country "led"
by someone like him. I wish Americans were not so convinced that
voting for a third party candidate is futile; the only thing that
makes it futile is that so many people believe it!

In a message dated 10/22/2004 3:12:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

My philosophy teacher could not understand why i would not watch the debates
to see who to vote for. i told him my mind was made up at the last election
fiasco. that no matter who ran against bush that is who i was voting for
and nothing would change my mind. he just didn't understand when i told him
i hated lying religiogus fantics who had to have there brother fix the
election for them. and that further more i was deeply ashamed to be his 9th
cousin and that i had put him on my genealogy tree in very very small
letters. and that most of my family felt the same way. Sleepy Jag

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

<snip>

If Richard Bacon referred to
Ranulph I, Earl of Chester, as his "avunculus" prior to 1150, this is
almost surely an indication that Richard Bacon was referring to Earl
Ranulph as his maternal uncle. Moreover, if Barraclough is correct
that this charter was inspected and confirmed by Pope Eugenius III in
1147, then this charter is almost certainly genuine.

Two points I neglected to comment on before:

The purported foundation charter of Rocester printed in _Monasticon_
reads "pro salute animae meae, pro salute etiam Ranulphi comitis
Cestriae avunculi mei...". The transaction took place probably in the
early 1140s, and definitely before September 1147 when the pope
confirmed it. Nothing here indicates that Bacon was referring as his
uncle to Earl Ranulf I, who had died in January 1129, rather than to
Ranulf II who lived until December 1153.

It was quite usual to dedicate gifts for the benefit of living souls
(as, obviously, of the donor himself); if Bacon originated this mention
of an Earl Ranulf of Chester, with or without "avunculus" in the
original version, it makes more sense to me that he was buttering up his
most important living connection rather than choosing to name just one
particular dead relative and no others. This was the assumption made by
Farrer in suggesting that Bacon's mother might have been an illegitimate
daughter of Earl Ranulf I, so that Ranulf II could actually have been
her son's "avunculus".

However, we can't be sure that Bacon did include such a phrase in making
his gift. The confirmation by Pope Eugenius III was of the foundation
grant but NOT necessarily of the charter as printed in _Monasticon_.
Barraclough wrote that the confirmation "seems to vouch for the
authenticity of the original grant of Rocester and its appurtenances".
In other words, it confirms the foundation to this extent but does NOT
go any way to proving that the charter in _Monasticon_ is "almost
certainly genuine" despite the suspicion to the contrary noted by Farrer.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

ACADEMICS!

They JUST can't get over the fact that they are NOT IN CHARGE.

USENET -- including THIS newsgroup -- is NOT their CLASSROOM.

When they try to EXERCISE such CONTROL they simply make FOOLS of
themselves.

Remember The Alamo!

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:18:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:
|
| [completely off-topic political rant deleted]
|
| This is a GENEALOGY discussion group.
|
| Political diatribe is not welcome here.
|
| Please take such garbage somewhere else.
|
| [Note: In an effort to be even-handed, I have given the same response
| to someone from the other end of the political spectrum. This
| response applies not just to the two guilty parties to whom the
| responses were directed (chosen because they are the two most recent
| "contributors" of such trash who appear on my news server), but to ALL
| of those COMPLETELY INCONSIDERATE posters who are under the delusion
| that cramming political opinions down the throats of others is
| acceptable behavior for a GENEALOGY discussion group.]
|
| Stewart Baldwin

[D. Spencer Hines]

ACADEMICS!

They JUST can't get over the fact that they are NOT IN CHARGE.

USENET -- including THIS newsgroup -- is NOT their CLASSROOM.

When they try to EXERCISE such CONTROL they simply make FOOLS of
themselves.

What you mean "WE" Kemo Sabe?

http://www.old-time.com/misc/kemo.html

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| On 22 Oct 2004 23:34:26 -0700, [email protected] (Bronwen Edwards)
| wrote:
|
| [completely off-topic political rant deleted]
|
| This is a GENEALOGY discussion group.
|
| Political diatribe is not welcome here.
|
| Please take such garbage somewhere else.
|
| [Note: In an effort to be even-handed, I have given the same response
| to someone from the other end of the political spectrum. This
| response applies not just to the two guilty parties to whom the
| responses were directed (chosen because they are the two most recent
| "contributors" of such trash who appear on my news server), but to ALL
| of those COMPLETELY INCONSIDERATE posters who are under the delusion
| that cramming political opinions down the throats of others is
| acceptable behavior for a GENEALOGY discussion group.]
|
| Stewart Baldwin

[Gjest]

Thanks for your discussion of the hypocoristic suffix "-kin". Please note
that my discussion has only dealt with three Welsh terms: 1) Ievan, 2) ievan and
3) fychan. Each has a specific phonetics, morphology, and syntax which much
be viewed in its lexical context. It was not my intention to imply that all
ENGLISH surnames ending in KIN were a mispronunciation of the Welsh. Of the
six surnames you list, only half are of Welsh origin, thus half would not be a
problem of Welsh phonetics. I suspect that each name has its own origins, and
that by grouping these into a single diminutive form might oversimplify their
real derivation and meaning.

[nona ferdon]

Diane,

Perhaps this is a bit late but -

What I have indicates that Maldred of Scotland (d. 1041) (Regent of
Strathclyde) had two sons,
the first:
Gospatric of Northumberland, Lord of Bamburg married Aethelreda (CP v IV, p
504) had three sons:
Dolphin
Waelthof of Crowland, Abbot of Crowland
Gospatric de Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar
and four daughters.

The second, Maldred of Allendale had three sons:
Robert
Uhtred
Ulkel
and one daughter



He ALSO had
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Sheppard" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Children of Maldred MacCrinan

[email protected] ("Le Bateman") wrote in message
news:<00be01c499f1$c77024c0$db874d0c@t1z4p4>...
If Maldred had only one child Gospatric, then who were Robert, Uhtred,
and
Dolfin? Were they Gospatric's children? And supposedly they had a brother
named Maldred.
Le

----- Original Message -----
From: "Le Bateman" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: Children of Maldred MacCrinan


What source should I search for; the names of the children of Maldred
MacCrinan and Edith? What is her Anglian name? Is there a Maldred Writ
with his descendants listed in it?
Le

Le,

Scots Peerage (vo. 3, pp. 240 - 241) provides the following
information:
Children of Maldred and "Ealdgith or Algitha (daughter of Uchtred,
earl of Northumberland, by his wife, Aelgifu or Elgiva, daughter of
Aethelred II, king of England.":
1. Gospatric, earl of Northumberland and first earl of Dunbar. He was
born about 1040.
2. Maldred, "who is claimed as the ancestor of Robert Fitz Maldred,
lord of Raby in Durham, & through him of the Nevills, Earls of
Westmoreland and Warwick, and other families of that name. He had
apparently, two sons, Robert & Uchtred." Source for this statement was
Priory of Hexham, Surtees Society, i, 95 & note: cf Liber Vitae
Dunelm, 146

"An Ulkil, son of Maldred, appears as a witness to charters by
Gospatric, brother of Dolfin, before 1138. They may have been
cousins." Source: Raine's North Durham, App. No. cxi; Liber de
Calchou, i, 234

Hope this helps,

Diane Sheppard
posted from home bluecolumbine at comcast dot net

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 22 Oct 2004 23:34:26 -0700, [email protected] (Bronwen Edwards)
wrote:

[completely off-topic political rant deleted]

This is a GENEALOGY discussion group.

Political diatribe is not welcome here.

Please take such garbage somewhere else.

[Note: In an effort to be even-handed, I have given the same response
to someone from the other end of the political spectrum. This
response applies not just to the two guilty parties to whom the
responses were directed (chosen because they are the two most recent
"contributors" of such trash who appear on my news server), but to ALL
of those COMPLETELY INCONSIDERATE posters who are under the delusion
that cramming political opinions down the throats of others is
acceptable behavior for a GENEALOGY discussion group.]

Stewart Baldwin

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:18:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

[completely off-topic political rant deleted]

This is a GENEALOGY discussion group.

Political diatribe is not welcome here.

Please take such garbage somewhere else.

[Note: In an effort to be even-handed, I have given the same response
to someone from the other end of the political spectrum. This
response applies not just to the two guilty parties to whom the
responses were directed (chosen because they are the two most recent
"contributors" of such trash who appear on my news server), but to ALL
of those COMPLETELY INCONSIDERATE posters who are under the delusion
that cramming political opinions down the throats of others is
acceptable behavior for a GENEALOGY discussion group.]

Stewart Baldwin

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Thanks for your discussion of the hypocoristic suffix "-kin". Please note
that my discussion has only dealt with three Welsh terms: 1) Ievan, 2) ievan and
3) fychan. Each has a specific phonetics, morphology, and syntax which much
be viewed in its lexical context. It was not my intention to imply that all
ENGLISH surnames ending in KIN were a mispronunciation of the Welsh.

No, but it was your intention to show that one, Jenkins, is, but I don't
see any basis for viewing it as a unique creation, in light of the
existence of all of the others.

Of the
six surnames you list, only half are of Welsh origin,

On what basis? They all appear to be derived from adding the same
dimminutive ending to a Anglo-Norman name.

thus half would not be a
problem of Welsh phonetics. I suspect that each name has its own origins, and
that by grouping these into a single diminutive form might oversimplify their
real derivation and meaning.

Why, when you have this large cluster of seemingly analogous names would
you predict that each had a different origin, rather than the simpler
explanation that they have the same origin?

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Why would you want
to lump a group of surnames that may have different foundations if separating
them provide helpful information?

Naming systems follow generalized patterns. Why would you want to
separate apparently similar names when viewing them in a shared context
may provide helpful information, and when there is no reason to believe
that they have different foundations?

Simply put, I think the derivation of the name provided by your source
is incorrect. I think the route taken from Fychan to Jenkins is
contorted, and the acquisition of the first 'n' has yet to be adequately
explained. This looks like a 'just so story' type of derivation which
is commonly seen when non-specialists with just enough linguistical
knowledge to be dangerous draw conclusions from seeming similarities
that are, in fact coincidental.

Further, I don't see any justification for dividing the family of names
I have presented into multiple groups - every one of them is easily
constructed from an Anglo-Norman given name with the common diminutive
ending -(k)in. What is unique about Jenkins that makes it different
than the others? What is unique about the common name John that it
would not similarly be diminutized? Not only can Jenkins be
legitimately derived from the common surname John, but a diminutive of
John would be conspicuously and anomolously absent were this one name
out of all of the -kin names asigned an alternative origin. To believe
that, I would have to see actual evidence, not just speculative
linguistic derivations based on hypothetical mispronounciation.

taf

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Stewart,

I fully agree with you. Bringing politics to gen-med is like a rabbi
starting to sing in a Catholic cathredral. Both are great but both have
their own place.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: Non-white royal descendants - fast becoming OT

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:18:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

[completely off-topic political rant deleted]

This is a GENEALOGY discussion group.

Political diatribe is not welcome here.

Please take such garbage somewhere else.

[Note: In an effort to be even-handed, I have given the same response
to someone from the other end of the political spectrum. This
response applies not just to the two guilty parties to whom the
responses were directed (chosen because they are the two most recent
"contributors" of such trash who appear on my news server), but to ALL
of those COMPLETELY INCONSIDERATE posters who are under the delusion
that cramming political opinions down the throats of others is
acceptable behavior for a GENEALOGY discussion group.]

Stewart Baldwin

[Gjest]

Dear Mr Eaton,
Welcome back.
Sincerely.
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

[Gjest]

Insight into the past can be provided by a study of names. Appreciation of
the language of a name may indicate foreign influences or reflect the character
of its foundation. A study of the elements of names and their combination
can have a genealogical significance and one needs all the help you can get when
researching a surname like JONES. Words have more than one meaning, and more
meaning than their lexical import at any one time. Changes in syntax,
vocabulary and pronunciation may help one isolate some family groups in a wider
community or geographic location. Names and their relationship (particularly
surnames) say something about the relationships between peoples, and at times may
help direct genealogist into new areas of family research. Why would you want
to lump a group of surnames that may have different foundations if separating
them provide helpful information? A further discussion of this topic can be
found in K.H. Jackson's , Language and History of Early Britain.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

I think it safe to set aside the 'nepos of William fitz Osbern'
connection alleged in this 'memorandum', written some 200+ years
"after the fact".

Using the definition of nephew or grandson, it does not fit with the
(scant) record. However, it could reflect an authentic tradition that
Richard received the lands as a younger kinsman of William, which we
know to be the case (both being descendants of Gunnora's family).
Similar cases of the transfer of forfeited estates are known among the
descendants of Gunnora's family.

taf

[Gjest]

Monday, 25 October, 2004


Dear Chris,

The charters of Carisbrooke priory are to be found in Mon. Angl.
VI/2, pp. 1040-1041. The problem with this particular "charter" is, it
is not actually a charter but a recapitulation dated ca. 1293 or later.

Entitled "Progenies Willielmi Filii Osberni, Comitis Herefordiae,
et primi Conquestoris Insulae Vectis", Num. 1 of the Carisbrooke
cartulary, it sets forth the problematic 'succession' as CP (per your
post) states it. It continues further, making a complete mess of the
Redvers or Reviers family after the acquisition of the Isle of Wight
by Richard de Reviers:

" De quo Ricardo - veit Baldwinus filius ejus. De quo
Baldwino, quia obiit sine haerede de se, descendit
haereditas ille Isabellae sorori ejus, quam Willielmus
de Fortibus desponsavit: Qui quidem Willielmus obierunt
sine haerede de se; et dicta Isabella supervixit:
postquam dominus rex Edwardus nunc, de ea, illam
adquisivit. "

Baldwin de Reviers, Earl of Devon (fl. ca 1236 - 1263) and brother
of Isabella, Countess of Devon and wife of William de Fortibus as set
forth above (d.s.p.s. 1293), has been amazingly conflated in this
"genealogy" with his great-great-grandfather Baldwin de Reviers, Earl
of Devon (d. 1155) and son of Richard de Reviers.

I think it safe to set aside the 'nepos of William fitz Osbern'
connection alleged in this 'memorandum', written some 200+ years
"after the fact".

Cheers,

John

[Rosie Bevan]

Apologies John. Going over the Latin I took a more interpretative meaning
than a literal one. The general confirmation of possessions on the Isle of
Wight to Lyre abbey for the monks to enjoy the possessions as freely as they
did in the time of William fitz Osbern and Richard de Redvers the grantor's
father, does indicate that Richard succeeded William fitz Osbern. How or why
is not obvious.

Cheers

Rosie

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: William fitz Osbern's alleged sons, according to the register of
Carisbrooke

Monday, 25 October, 2004


Dear Chris, Doug, Rosie, Cris, Brom and Adrian,

For your ready reference (aside from my SGM post), I am sending the 2
pages of the Carisbrooke cartulary from Monasticon Anglicanum for your
reference. I think the actual charters (Num. 2 onward) tally with the
known tenure of
the Isle of Wight by the Reviers Earls of Devon.

Cheers,

John

[cd]

I would appreciate any help or advice in relation to this papal dispensation.

I have a problem with the following line and I was wondering whether
interdicta' seems appropriate here in that would the Pope allow a Canon to implement interdicts?

Of course I may have mistranscribed this, but any thoughts or ideas would be very much appreciated.

I have included part of the transcription and amateurish translation further below to place the line in context.


11] tame[n] quor[um]cu[m]q[ue] bonor[um] Immobiliu[m] & p[re]c[i]osoru[m] mobiliu[m] ip[s]ius com[m]endati b[e]n[e]ficii tibi penitus int[er]dicta lib[er]e & licite possis Ac valeas
nevertheless, of whatsoever immoveable goods and valuable moveable goods of that commended benefice, you may and can freely and lawfully use interdicts,


Eusebeia Sutherland




1] Pius Ep[iscop]us s[er]vus s[er]voru[m] dei dilecto filio Ric[ard]o Langcake Cano[n]ico eccl[esi]e sive monast[e]rii ecclesie B[ea]te Marie Carli¹ ordinis s[anc]ti Augustini Carliol--¹ dioc¹ Sal[u]t[e]m

Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, to my beloved son Richard Langcake, Canon of the Church or Monastery of Saint Mary of Carlisle, of the Order of St Augustine, in the diocese of Carlisle, Greeting

2] & Ap[osto]licam ben[edictionem] Religionis zelus vite ac moru[m] honestas aliaq[ue] laudabilia p[ro]bitatis & virtutum m[er]ita sup[er] quib[us] apud nos fide digno co[m]men
and Apostolic Blessing. The zeal of your religious life and the repute of your conduct and other praise-worthy merits of goodness and virtuousness in regard to which you are commended to Us

3] daris testimonio nos Inducunt ut te spiritualib[us] favorib[us] & graciis p[ro]sequam[ur] hinc est q[uo]d nos te qui ut asseris canonicus eccl[es]ie sive mo[na]st[er]ij
by faithful and worthy testimony, induce us to bestow you with spiritual favours and graces. That is why we, with gracious good-will in consideration of your above-mentioned merits, wish to honour you, the Canon of the Church or Monastery

4] b[eat]e Marie Carl-¹ ordinis s[anc]ti Augustini Carl¹ Dioc¹ Ac
[or]dine[m] i[ps]um exp[re]sse p[ro]fessus exist[is] p[re]missor[um] meritor[um] tuor[um] intuitu g[ra]c[i]oso favore
of St Mary of Carlisle of the Order of St Augustine, in the Diocese of Carlisle, professing expressly the same rule, as you assert,

5] p[ro]sequi¹ volentes tuis in hac parte supplicationis inclinati tibi ut una cum porc[i]one Canonicali qua[m] in dicta ecclesia sive monast[er]io optines
and giving ear to your request in this regard that you may receive and hold together with your canon's portion in the said Church or Monastery

6] quodcu[m]que b[ene]ficiu[m] eccl[es]iasticu[m] cu[m] cura vel sine cura p[er] cl[er]icos seculares gubernari consuet¹ etia[m]si p[ar]ochial[is] eccl[es]ia vel eius p[er]petua vicaria
any ecclesiastical benefice with or without a cure for secular priests to be ruled according to custom, whether a parochial church or perpetual vicar of it,

7] p[er]sonatus cantaria vel annuale* cuiuscu[m]q[ue] taxe seu annui valent[es] et de Jure patronatus laicor[um] existat si tibi alias canonice confe
parsonage, chantry or the year¹s income* and of whatsoever type of tax or annual values, and the advowson of the lay people may exist by right if canonically conferred to you at another time,

*For Œannuale¹ Trice-Martin has: "yearly income of a prebendary; or of a priest for celebrating an anniversary.

8] rat[ur] aut eligaris v[e]l p[resen]ter[is] aut affirmaris ad illud recip[er]e in com[m]enda[m] illudque & quodcu[m]q[ue] aliud p[er] te assequend¹ b[e]n[e]ficiu[m] ---- cedere
whether you are elected, presented or affirmed to that and to accept it "in commendam", and to yield any other benefice whatsoever to be procured by you


9] & loco illius aliud simile v[e]l dissimile b[ene]ficiu[m] in com[m]end[am] simul recip[er]e & insimul quoadvix[er]is retin[er]e necnon de illius fructib[us]
and in its place, to receive likewise any other like or unlike benefice Œin commendam¹, and at the same time retain as long as you shall live, and also to dispose and administer of its fruits,

10] Redditib[us] & p[ro]ventib[us] dispon[er]e & ordinare sicuti illud p[ro] temp[or]e optinens dispon[er]e & ordinare potuerat seu eciam debuerat alienac[i]one
rents and issues, obtaining that for the time being, as it had been possible to dispose and administer even if owed by alienation

11] tame[n] quor[um]cu[m]q[ue] bonor[um] Immobiliu[m] & p[re]c[i]osoru[m] mobiliu[m] ip[s]ius com[m]endati b[e]n[e]ficii tibi penitus int[er]dicta lib[er]e & licite possis Ac valeas
nevertheless, of whatsoever immoveable goods and valuable moveable goods of that commended benefice, you may and can freely and lawfully use interdicts,

12] auct[oritat]e Ap[o]stol[i]ca tenore p[rese]ntiu[m] de sp[eci]alis dono gr[aci]e dispensamus Non obstantib[us] constituc[i]onib[us] & ordinac[i]onib[us] ap[osto]lic[is] Ac bone memorie
by the tenor of these presents, We grant dispensation by the gift of special grace and by virtue of our Apostolic authority, notwithstanding Apostolic decrees and ordinances; and for the good memory

13] Ottonis & Octoboni olim in Regno Anglie Apostolice sed[es] legator[um] Necno[n] statut[is] consuetudinib[us] ecclesie sive monast[er]ij & ordinis p[re]d[i]c[t]or[um]
of Otto and Octobonus, Legates of the Apostolic See formerly within the realm of England. And also not withstanding the statutes and customs of the Church or Monastery and of the Order aforesaid

14] Juramento confirmac[i]o[n]e Ap[osto]lica vel quavis firmatate alia roborat[is] cet[er]is q[ue] cont[r]ariis quibuscu[m]q[ue] Nulli [er]g[o] om[n]i[n]o hominum liceat hanc pagina[m]
even though ratified by oath, Apostolic confirmation, or by any other decree and anything else to the contrary whatsoever. Therefore, let no one violate this document

15] n[os]tre dispensac[i]on[is] infringere vel ei ausu tem[er]ario cont[r]aire Si quis aute[m] hoc attemptare p[re]sumpserit Indignac[i]o[ne]m om[n]ipotent[is] Dei &
of Our dispensation, or with rash daring oppose it. Moreover, if any one will presume to attempt this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of Almighty God and

[D. Spencer Hines]

http://www.addamsfamily.com/

Hmmmmmmmm...

Mildly amusing.

Think Halloween.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Douglas Richardson]

"Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[email protected] wrote:

I think it safe to set aside the 'nepos of William fitz Osbern'
connection alleged in this 'memorandum', written some 200+ years
"after the fact".

Using the definition of nephew or grandson, it does not fit with the
(scant) record. However, it could reflect an authentic tradition that
Richard received the lands as a younger kinsman of William, which we
know to be the case (both being descendants of Gunnora's family).
Similar cases of the transfer of forfeited estates are known among the
descendants of Gunnora's family.

taf

As I've indicated in earlier posts here on the newsgroup, the term
"nepos" prior to 1300 does not strictly mean nephew or grandson.
Rather, it basically means a male blood kinswoman. Whenever I see
"nepos" in a record prior to 1300, I interpret it to mean "kinsman,"
unless the document or other contemporary records indicate that a
closer relationship is intended.

DR

[Gjest]

"Dear Will,
I got a couple of items through the mail from New Brunswick(I believe the archives). Their envelopes are also printed with their address information both in English and in French."

I don't doubt it. New Brunswick, at least part of it, was back in the day Acadia. It was fought over and traded back and forth between England and France. Most, if not all, the actual settlers were French, some of them coming there from Quebec.
At any rate, as the story goes, the English governor wanted them to sware loyalty to the English king and they wanted to merely sware neutrality. This made him nervous so he had some ships brought and deported the whole lot of them. This is related in the poem Evangeline by Longfellow.
Some ended up in Louisiana from whence alledgedly came part of the influence on the Cajun blood. Cajun from Acadian.
My own ancestor was deported to Georgia and made to work in the cotton fields like a slave. He escaped and walked back to Quebec, according to a family story.
When he had been deported, his wife had been making a stew. When he arrived back she was making a stew. And he is supposed to have said, "Are you still making that stew after nine years?" Or something to that effect.
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Below is the relevant section of the Manitoba Act which was the act to create Manitoba [Assented to 12th May, 1870]. The use of both English and French was peculiar to Manitoba as far as I know, by act at this time. But my only point was that at this time French was an official language of the province.
Will

"23. Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Legislature and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person, or in any Pleading or Process, in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under the Constitution Act, 1867, or in or from all or any of the Courts of the Province, The Acts of the Legislature shall be Printed and published in both those languages. "

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

"Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[email protected] wrote:


I think it safe to set aside the 'nepos of William fitz Osbern'
connection alleged in this 'memorandum', written some 200+ years
"after the fact".

Using the definition of nephew or grandson, it does not fit with the
(scant) record. However, it could reflect an authentic tradition that
Richard received the lands as a younger kinsman of William, which we
know to be the case (both being descendants of Gunnora's family).
Similar cases of the transfer of forfeited estates are known among the
descendants of Gunnora's family.

taf


As I've indicated in earlier posts here on the newsgroup, the term
"nepos" prior to 1300 does not strictly mean nephew or grandson.
Rather, it basically means a male blood kinswoman.

What exactly is a "male blood kinswoman"? Have you been reading
_Orlando_ by any chance?

Whenever I see
"nepos" in a record prior to 1300, I interpret it to mean "kinsman,"
unless the document or other contemporary records indicate that a
closer relationship is intended.

But whenever you see the word "nepos" prior to 1300 (obviously much less
frequently than you wish us to think), are you not applying a similar
fantasy to whenever you come across "avunculus" prior to 1400? Your
purported rule on that was bunkum, pure & simple.

"Nepos" usually meant a nephew or grandson, as Todd wrote, before and
after 1300.

Peter Stewart

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], Douglas
Richardson at [email protected] wrote on 26/10/04 9:24 pm:

As I've indicated in earlier posts here on the newsgroup, the term
"nepos" prior to 1300 does not strictly mean nephew or grandson.
Rather, it basically means a male blood kinswoman.

Why do you think this? Is there evidence of usage where it is known NOT to
mean nephew or grandson?

Doug

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Doug ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Below please find a copy of one of my earlier posts in which I discuss
an example of a near male kinsman (other than nephew or grandson)
being addressed as "nepos." The individual is this case is the well
known Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, who was a son-in-law
of King Henry II of England.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
From: [email protected] (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: When nepos is not nephew
Date: 21 Jul 2004 02:10:02 -0700

Dear Newsgroup ~

I've discussed in earlier posts examples of women styled "neptis" of
the king or queen, who were cousins, not nieces of the monarch or
their wife. Stewart Baldwin has kindly called my attention to an
online article in the publication, Prosopon, which discusses the wider
applications of the Latin term "nepos"/"neptis" in the medieval
period. This article may be found at the following web address:

http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/PRSPN8.stm

A further example of a cousin being styled "nepos" may be seen with
Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria (died 1195), who I find was
variously styled "cognate," "nepos," and "consanguineum" by his first
cousin, Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, as follows:

Source: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica: Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum
Germaniæ 10 Pt. 1 (1975)

pp. 18–19, 231–233, 347–349 (instances of Henry, Duke of Saxony and
Bavaria, styled "our kinsman" ["cognate nostro"/"cognate nostri"] by
Emperor Frederick I. Barbarossa).

pp. 259–260, 332–335 (instances of Henry, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria,
styled "our nephew" ["nepotem nostrum"/"nepos noster"] by Emperor
Frederick I. Barbarossa)

pp. 364–365 (Henry, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, styled "our kinsman"
["consanguineum nostrum"] by Emperor Frederick I. Barbarossa).

Those interested in plotting the ancestry of Duke Henry and his
cousin, Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, may do so on Leo van de Pas'
great website at the following address:

http://www.genealogics.org

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]


Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BDA52F70.50997%[email protected]>...

in article [email protected], Douglas
Richardson at [email protected] wrote on 26/10/04 9:24 pm:

As I've indicated in earlier posts here on the newsgroup, the term
"nepos" prior to 1300 does not strictly mean nephew or grandson.
Rather, it basically means a male blood kinswoman.

Why do you think this? Is there evidence of usage where it is known NOT to
mean nephew or grandson?

Doug

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

By now, it is clear to all that Peter Stewart has been unable to
provide any examples of "cognatus" meaning "brother-in-law" from
contemporary English medieval records. As I stated earlier, Peter
needs to provide documentation, or withdraw his claim regarding
"cognatus."

So, Peter, I ask you once again. Provide documention, or withdraw
your claim. Simple as that.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Douglas Richardson wrote:
"Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[email protected] wrote:


I think it safe to set aside the 'nepos of William fitz Osbern'
connection alleged in this 'memorandum', written some 200+ years
"after the fact".

Using the definition of nephew or grandson, it does not fit with the
(scant) record. However, it could reflect an authentic tradition that
Richard received the lands as a younger kinsman of William, which we
know to be the case (both being descendants of Gunnora's family).
Similar cases of the transfer of forfeited estates are known among the
descendants of Gunnora's family.

taf


As I've indicated in earlier posts here on the newsgroup, the term
"nepos" prior to 1300 does not strictly mean nephew or grandson.
Rather, it basically means a male blood kinswoman.

What exactly is a "male blood kinswoman"? Have you been reading
_Orlando_ by any chance?

Whenever I see
"nepos" in a record prior to 1300, I interpret it to mean "kinsman,"
unless the document or other contemporary records indicate that a
closer relationship is intended.

But whenever you see the word "nepos" prior to 1300 (obviously much less
frequently than you wish us to think), are you not applying a similar
fantasy to whenever you come across "avunculus" prior to 1400? Your
purported rule on that was bunkum, pure & simple.

"Nepos" usually meant a nephew or grandson, as Todd wrote, before and
after 1300.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Seeing the mention of Kilbride, I noticed in my files a passing mention to a person that I have named "John Graham of Kilbride" but nothing else on him.

I have his father as Malise Graham, Acceeded to Strathern 1413, deprived of earldom of Strathen 1427 in favor of his uncle Walter, then made Earl Menteith. Immured in Pontefract Castle from 1427-1453.

I have as one of Malise' sons "Patrick Graham, Master of Menteith" who I have as the father of Alexander Graham, 2nd Earl Menteith (d bef 27 Feb 1536/7).

My problem is I can't quite figure out why John Graham, is "of Kilbride" (d abt 1488). Can anybody help on this?

Thanks
Will Johnson

[Daniel MacGregor]

"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

"Rouge Alert!"

"From an interview with John Kerry in Rolling Stone magazine:

Q: What do you think of the color-coded terror alerts the Department of
Homeland Security issues?

Kerry: I think Americans, sadly, laugh at it. They don't know what to
do.

Q: Will you continue that program?

Kerry: No. I'm going to find some more thoughtful way of alerting
America.

Reader Jonathan Wilson offers a preview of Kerry's French-looking alert
system:

Level 1: Ennui
Level 2: Comme ci, comme ca
Level 3: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Level 4: Regardez!
Level 5: Zut alors!"

James Taranto
The WSJ
------------------

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

In Re: Senator Kerry, I posted the following message to Tucker Carlson
at "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered." He had interviewed Alexandra Pelosi,
a journalist and a Democrat. She had spent the 2004 presidential
campaign filming the Democratic candidates.

Now, you would think it would behoove the good Senator to be on his
best behavior with a journalist who shared his party affiliation.

Instead, all Pelosi was able to film was the back of John Kerry's
head.

By way of contrast, in the 2000 presidential campaign, she had full
co-operation from George Walker Bush.

That, in itself, should speak volumes about what we might expect from
a Kerry Administration (Secret Service Agent to John Q. Public: "Do
you know who he is?")

I offered Carlson the following explanation:

"Dear Tucker Carlson,

"This isn't a question so much as it is a followup to this week's
'Back Page.'

"There may be a reason Alexandra Pelosi was only able to film the back
of Senator John Kerry's head.

"I'm a genealogical compiler specializing in British and Continental
royal and noble ancestry. Between 1984 and 1986 I did the ancestry of
Brooke Shields, whose paternal great-grandfather was an Italian
prince. (If you ever want to see the ancestry, go to the Library of
Congress, which has a copy of the unpublished manuscript--'Brooke's
Book: Ancestry of Brooke Shields'--I sent them.)

"As the result of that research, I now do American 'celebrity'
ancestries as well.

"Currently, I'm working on that of actress Kyra Sedgwick, wife of
actor Kevin Bacon. (So Kevin Bacon will wind up with Degrees of
Genealogical Separation as well.)

"And, according to Bill Reitwiesner (of the Library of Congress)'s
website for the genealogies of the 2004 presidential and
vice-presidential candidates
(http://members.aol.com/reitwiesn/candidates 2004), Sedgwick is a
cousin of both President Bush and Senator Kerry.

"The website tells us other things. Bush and Kerry are each others'
cousins at least 8 times. Kerry's 11th great-grandparents, Anthony
Browne, 1st Viscount Montagu and Jane Radcliffe, are also ancestors of
Her Majesty the Queen.

"Among the shared ancestors of Kerry and Sedgwick are the Cabot family
of Boston.

"You may remember Boston and the Cabots. In verse Ogden Nash came to
regret, he wrote 'I'd expect to be robbed in Chicago/But not in the
Land of the Cod/Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots/And the Cabots
speak only to God.'

"Under protest from Chicagoans, Nash subsequently admitted he and his
wife had been robbed in Boston, by the way.

"So, somewhere, back along Senator Kerry's pedigree, we have an answer
that eluded Alexandra Pelosi's vid-cam.

"I don't mean to say anything bad about the Cabots or anyone's
royally-descended ancestors.

"But maybe Boston has really, really, never gotten over itself. I'm
told Senator Kerry has spent a lot of his time cutting to the head of
the line. When challenged, the response has been 'Do you know who I
am?'

"(Yes, Senator Kerry, there 'are' two Americas. Which one do you
belong to?)

"Elsewhere in the campaign, the good Senator has demonstrated that he
is tremendously ill at ease with people who are not his social equals.
Maybe there's something his cousins, the crowned heads of Europe--all
of whom share his descent from King Edward III--could teach him about
good public relations. Or his cousin, George Walker Bush, for that
matter: just rent Pelosi's video, Senator.

"All of which suggests to me that, if elected, the good Senator will
be spending too much time parading around with his nose in the air to
be an effective president.

"Keep up the good work!"

Daniel MacGregor

[Doug Thompson]

in article [email protected], Douglas
Richardson at [email protected] wrote on 27/10/04 6:27 pm:

www.genealogics.org

Douglas

Thanks for your informative post.

Doug

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

By now, it is clear to all that Peter Stewart has been unable to
provide any examples of "cognatus" meaning "brother-in-law" from
contemporary English medieval records. As I stated earlier, Peter
needs to provide documentation, or withdraw his claim regarding
"cognatus."

So, Peter, I ask you once again. Provide documention, or withdraw
your claim. Simple as that.

If Richardson seriously thinks the newsgroup readers expect me to waste
my time on this, he is deluded in yet another matter - as I pointed out,
Albert Blaise, a very distinguished expert in medieval Latin, gave
"brother-in-law" as the _primary_ meaning of "cognatus".

If Douglas Richardson thinks someone who maintains that "cognatus" could
have this meaning must go ruffling at his behest through English records
to prove it, he is barking.

I am NOT trying to prove anything - what I have posted is accepted by
scholars and lexicographers. Richardson on the other hand seeks to
change received opinion on the meanings of "avunculus", "nepos" and
"cognatus" on the basis of his alleged findings.

Well, I am NOT going to become a research assistant to Richardson,
whatever crude goading he tries.

There was NO special Latin vocabulary used only in England before 1300.
The compilers of relevant dictionaries, from Du Cange onwards, did not
make a hideous error in defining "cognatus", that Douglas Richardson -
who knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the language - has now miraculously
corrected for posterity.

Richardson is trying to twist & change the subject because he fell flat
on his face with "avunculus" and can't prove his misconceived theory
about "nepos".

It won't work.

We still don't know what he means by a "male blood kinswoman". His
attempt to fix a new rule about "nepos" in England is backed up by an
adventitious example from Germany, of a usage that no-one has denied.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Peter ~

As you know, I have provided documentation to back up my claim that
"cognatus" can refer to a "niece" or "nephew." I have also posted
documentation that "nepos" can refer to a male kinsman other than
nephew or grandson. This is the right way to do things here on the
newsgroup. If you want people to take you seriously, then you should
do the same.

You've made the bold claim that "cognatus" means "brother-in-law."
Now you need to show your evidence. Please cite some examples from
contemporary medieval English texts in which the word "cognatus"
refers to a brother-in-law. If you have no evidence, then you need to
withdraw your claim. It's as simple as that. No bobbing, no weaving,
no deflecting are necesssary. Just evidence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

By now, it is clear to all that Peter Stewart has been unable to
provide any examples of "cognatus" meaning "brother-in-law" from
contemporary English medieval records. As I stated earlier, Peter
needs to provide documentation, or withdraw his claim regarding
"cognatus."

So, Peter, I ask you once again. Provide documention, or withdraw
your claim. Simple as that.

If Richardson seriously thinks the newsgroup readers expect me to waste
my time on this, he is deluded in yet another matter - as I pointed out,
Albert Blaise, a very distinguished expert in medieval Latin, gave
"brother-in-law" as the _primary_ meaning of "cognatus".

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Peter ~

As you know, I have provided documentation to back up my claim that
"cognatus" can refer to a "niece" or "nephew." I have also posted
documentation that "nepos" can refer to a male kinsman other than
nephew or grandson. This is the right way to do things here on the
newsgroup. If you want people to take you seriously, then you should
do the same.

You've made the bold claim that "cognatus" means "brother-in-law."
Now you need to show your evidence. Please cite some examples from
contemporary medieval English texts in which the word "cognatus"
refers to a brother-in-law. If you have no evidence, then you need to
withdraw your claim. It's as simple as that. No bobbing, no weaving,
no deflecting are necesssary. Just evidence.

Ah, there's no fool like a shameless, determined, incorrigible fool.

The above from Richardson is a tissue of misreperesentations.

His "claim" that cognatus can refer to a niece or nephew was never in
dispute, nor was the acknowledged fact that nepos could "refer to a male
kinsman other than nephew or grandson".

Without any admission of error, Richardson has dropped "avunculus" from
the discussion.

The difference between us over "cognatus" is whether or not it _could_
(NOT must) mean "brother-in-law" - Richardson trying inanely to narrow
the question further into whether or not it could mean this in an
English document from before 1400. He seems to think that Latin
vocabulary went through a series of mutations over time and space in
medieval Europe, which he can plot precisely for individual terms even
though quite demonstrably he doesn't know enough Latin to compose or
comprehend a simple sentence.

He also doesn't have good enough judgment to distinguish between "won't"
and "can't" when I decline to spoon feed him with examples of what he is
looking for to correct his own nonsense.

Very well, let us all note the edifying spectacle of Richardson with yet
more egg on his face, and see how quick he is to "withdraw" his own
unsupportable posturing and quibbling....

The pre-eminent authority on the subject of Latin usage in England in
the middle ages is the British Academy's _Dictionary of Medieval Latin
from British Sources_, prepared by Ronald Latham, David Howlett & others
(Oxford, 1975- ).

Fascicule I, A-B (1975) p. 171 gives the following definitions for
"avunculus":

"uncle (maternal or dubious); (b) paternal uncle (classical 'patruus');
(c) cousin; (d) wife's uncle; (e) (courtesy title); (f) (with 'magnus')
great uncle".

The examples I gave previously for "avunculus" signifying paternal uncle
are not included (as of course these would not be, since there are
countless alternatives), but there is a succinct example of the same
meaning from 1269, "auunculum ex parte patris" (uncle on the father's side).

Fascicule II, C (1981) p. 373 defines "cognatus" primarily as "related
by blood or marriage, akin", with the following example of the meaning
"brother-in-law" quoted from no less than the Venerable Bede, one of the
most widely-read and influential English authors of the medieval age:

"erat cognatus et amicus ejus, habens sororem ipsius conjugem" (he was
his brother-in-law and friend, having his own sister for wife).

Hence my "bold claim" that this meaning should be considered when it
can't be ruled out. This is not a matter for debate, just an established
fact that Richardson has never heard of and can't (or for his own
purposes won't) take in when informed.

Fascicule VII, N (2002) p. 1906 gives the following definitions for
"nepos", all with examples from throughout the medieval period:

"1 grandson; (b) descendant...; 2 nephew...; 3 cousin; 4 kinsman".

Richardson wishes us to believe on his shonky say-so that 3 and 4 were
the principle meanings before an arbitrary cut-off point when the
meaning reverted to 1 and 2. This is moonshine.

The whole tiresome discussion has proved nothing but that Richardson is
as stubborn in fantasy as he is in error.

He doesn't know Latin well enough to read extensively in the language.
That he should oppose his alleged "findings" from semi-literate word
spotting to the conclusions of leading lexicographers and scholars in
this field is simply preposterous.

We now await his gracious withdrawal of the rubbish that he has put forward.

Peter Stewart

[Matthew Rockefeller]

There is some confusion over John Graham of Kilbride, he apparently
had a half brother with the same name, and both lived to maturity,
they just had the same name. The elder Malise's son with Lady Anne de
Vere was John Graham of Kilbride who married Margaret Muschet and they
may or may not have been the ancestors of the Graham baronets of Esk.
The younger John, whose mother was Marion Campbell, was the ancestor
of the Grahams of Gartmore.

Matthew

[Matthew Rockefeller]

"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

http://www.addamsfamily.com/

Hmmmmmmmm...

Mildly amusing.

Think Halloween.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

A little funny and maybe even a little scary, but nowhere near as
scary as the fact that the Bush family and the Bin Laden family are
bosom buddies in the Carlyle Group. Thinking that George H.W. Bush and
Shafiq bin Ladin were discussing making big bucks for the Saudis and
Bush friends on the morning of September 11th gives me the heebee
jeebees. Nothing wrong with making big bucks, nothing at all but
as President shouldn't the American people come first?

Matthew

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is Peter Stewart's original statement regarding "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law":

"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.

As we see above, Mr. Stewart says that "brother-in-law" is "quite
usual" as a meaning for the Latin word "cognatus." However, when
pressed to cite evidence to back up his statement, he has been unable
to supply even one example from the period in question to prove his
point. What is wrong with this picture?

Since I've never seen "cognatus" used to mean "brother-in-law" in the
1200's, I'm puzzled that Mr. Stewart would claim that "brother-in-law"
is a "quite usual" meaning of "cognatus" for this period. If the word
"cognatus" usually meant "brother-in-law" as he states, it should be
easy for Mr. Stewart to supply us MANY examples. I'm sure we all
agree on this point.

For now, Mr. Stewart seems content merely to wave a dictionary around
in his hand. Does the Emperor have no clothes, or what? O.K. - He
has a dictionary but he has no evidence. Who is he fooling? I think
we all know the answer.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: douglasrichardson@[email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Peter ~

As you know, I have provided documentation to back up my claim that
"cognatus" can refer to a "niece" or "nephew." I have also posted
documentation that "nepos" can refer to a male kinsman other than
nephew or grandson. This is the right way to do things here on the
newsgroup. If you want people to take you seriously, then you should
do the same.

You've made the bold claim that "cognatus" means "brother-in-law."
Now you need to show your evidence. Please cite some examples from
contemporary medieval English texts in which the word "cognatus"
refers to a brother-in-law. If you have no evidence, then you need to
withdraw your claim. It's as simple as that. No bobbing, no weaving,
no deflecting are necesssary. Just evidence.

Ah, there's no fool like a shameless, determined, incorrigible fool.

The above from Richardson is a tissue of misreperesentations.

His "claim" that cognatus can refer to a niece or nephew was never in
dispute, nor was the acknowledged fact that nepos could "refer to a male
kinsman other than nephew or grandson".

Without any admission of error, Richardson has dropped "avunculus" from
the discussion.

The difference between us over "cognatus" is whether or not it _could_
(NOT must) mean "brother-in-law" - Richardson trying inanely to narrow
the question further into whether or not it could mean this in an
English document from before 1400. He seems to think that Latin
vocabulary went through a series of mutations over time and space in
medieval Europe, which he can plot precisely for individual terms even
though quite demonstrably he doesn't know enough Latin to compose or
comprehend a simple sentence.


He also doesn't have good enough judgment to distinguish between "won't"
and "can't" when I decline to spoon feed him with examples of what he is
looking for to correct his own nonsense.

Very well, let us all note the edifying spectacle of Richardson with yet
more egg on his face, and see how quick he is to "withdraw" his own
unsupportable posturing and quibbling....

The pre-eminent authority on the subject of Latin usage in England in
the middle ages is the British Academy's _Dictionary of Medieval Latin
from British Sources_, prepared by Ronald Latham, David Howlett & others
(Oxford, 1975- ).

Fascicule I, A-B (1975) p. 171 gives the following definitions for
"avunculus":

"uncle (maternal or dubious); (b) paternal uncle (classical 'patruus');
(c) cousin; (d) wife's uncle; (e) (courtesy title); (f) (with 'magnus')
great uncle".

The examples I gave previously for "avunculus" signifying paternal uncle
are not included (as of course these would not be, since there are
countless alternatives), but there is a succinct example of the same
meaning from 1269, "auunculum ex parte patris" (uncle on the father's side).

Fascicule II, C (1981) p. 373 defines "cognatus" primarily as "related
by blood or marriage, akin", with the following example of the meaning
"brother-in-law" quoted from no less than the Venerable Bede, one of the
most widely-read and influential English authors of the medieval age:

"erat cognatus et amicus ejus, habens sororem ipsius conjugem" (he was
his brother-in-law and friend, having his own sister for wife).

Hence my "bold claim" that this meaning should be considered when it
can't be ruled out. This is not a matter for debate, just an established
fact that Richardson has never heard of and can't (or for his own
purposes won't) take in when informed.

Fascicule VII, N (2002) p. 1906 gives the following definitions for
"nepos", all with examples from throughout the medieval period:

"1 grandson; (b) descendant...; 2 nephew...; 3 cousin; 4 kinsman".

Richardson wishes us to believe on his shonky say-so that 3 and 4 were
the principle meanings before an arbitrary cut-off point when the
meaning reverted to 1 and 2. This is moonshine.

The whole tiresome discussion has proved nothing but that Richardson is
as stubborn in fantasy as he is in error.

He doesn't know Latin well enough to read extensively in the language.
That he should oppose his alleged "findings" from semi-literate word
spotting to the conclusions of leading lexicographers and scholars in
this field is simply preposterous.

We now await his gracious withdrawal of the rubbish that he has put forward.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Well, Richardson's deliberate ignorance and dishonesty are stark naked
now for all to see - no withdrawal of his error as he demanded from me,
just more idiotic blustering. Comments interspersed:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is Peter Stewart's original statement regarding "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law":


"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law was
quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know enough to
rule it out.

This is still my statement, which I have no need to revise in any way.

As we see above, Mr. Stewart says that "brother-in-law" is "quite
usual" as a meaning for the Latin word "cognatus." However, when
pressed to cite evidence to back up his statement, he has been unable
to supply even one example from the period in question to prove his
point. What is wrong with this picture?

Here we go again - Latin dictionaries, like all others, document the
earliest examples they can find of usages because although extra
meanings may be ADDED over time - as I pointed out with 'avunculus' -
these can hardly ever be SUBTRACTED from usage, especially in a formal,
learned language rather than the vernacular. How could it possibly be
established that Bede's plain use of "cognatus" for "brother-in-law" was
unacceptable or never adopted in later centuries? Of course it couldn't,
since he was still studied and the meaning he attached to Latin words
was still plain & available to others, not unique to him or his period.
Neologisms are a different matter, and occur in Latin to this day.

Naturally I am not going to read or re-read the entire corpus of
12th-century Latin just to humour Richardson in one of the silliest
aspects of his posing as an expert - there could be little value in this
anyway, since the word 'cognatus', like any other, is normally used in
contexts where is it not simultaneously defined as it ws by Bede on one
notable occasion.

With "avunculus" it is comparatively easy to search cold and find
examples where the relationship on the father's side is obvious; but
with the exact meaning of "cognatus" in most particular texts, it would
also have to be established that the relationship could only be of blood
kinship or through marriage, one or the other, AND that the writer in
question knew this. I have no need to undertake such a search, as my
point is adequately established for any sensible reader by the evidence
I have given, and the contrary view is only proposed by someone with NIL
credibility on the subject.

The explicit usage by Bede and the authority of the British Academy's
dictionary are perfectly sufficient to establish that a monk in Chester
in the 12th century might have used the same Latin word in the same way,
which is all I have suggested.

Since I've never seen "cognatus" used to mean "brother-in-law" in the
1200's, I'm puzzled that Mr. Stewart would claim that "brother-in-law"
is a "quite usual" meaning of "cognatus" for this period. If the word
"cognatus" usually meant "brother-in-law" as he states, it should be
easy for Mr. Stewart to supply us MANY examples. I'm sure we all
agree on this point.

"Brother-in-law" was a quite usual meaning of "cognatus" throughout the
medieval period, in England as elsewhere - that is why the experts
compiling the dictionary I cited did not need to qualify their
definition statement in order to satisfy the absurd idea put forward by
Richardson. What he has or has not encountered in his oafish
word-spotting is neither here nor there for scholarship.

For now, Mr. Stewart seems content merely to wave a dictionary around
in his hand. Does the Emperor have no clothes, or what? O.K. - He
has a dictionary but he has no evidence. Who is he fooling? I think
we all know the answer.

The dictionary in question is the ultimate reference for this subject
and proves my point against the ignorant twitterings of Richardson. It
has nothing to do with MY expertise or clothing, and there is no
possibility of anyone being fooled unless they are dumb enough to have
confidence in Richardson rather than the committee of scholars assembled
by the British Academy. Their dictionary is FULL of evidence, that's
what it is for.

Peter Stewart

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

I think that the difference between `relative`
and `kindred` is simply that your relatives are those persons most closely
related to ...

This whole idea that 'relative' and 'kindred' refer to different kinds
or varying distances of relationship shows that my original post about
the grammatical and conceptual distinctions continues to be
misunderstood and misconstrued. Oh well, never mind.

Nat Taylor

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
I think that the difference between `relative`
and `kindred` is simply that your relatives are those persons most closely
related to ; in the muid twentieth century some of my ancestral aunts who tended to
have fairly large families in general recognized as far as 2nd cousins once
removed and didn`t think of themselves as `related` beyond that degree ,
Kindred would be those sharing any of your bloodlines regardless of the
recognization of that fact would be of your kindred (example , most of We posters are
kindred to each other.)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Peter Stewart]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Well, Richardson's deliberate ignorance and dishonesty are stark naked
now for all to see - no withdrawal of his error as he demanded from me,
just more idiotic blustering. Comments interspersed:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is Peter Stewart's original statement regarding "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law":


"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law
was quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know
enough to rule it out.


This is still my statement, which I have no need to revise in any way.

I should however emphasise that "brother-in-law" is only the most common
of a range of relationships by marriage that could be described by the
term "cognatus".

A usage of this word that we know was familiar to clerics in
12th-century Chester is in the Vulgate, where Jethro the father-in-law
of Moses is repeatedly called his "cognatus", cf Exodus 4:18: "abiit
Moses et reversus est ad Iethro cognatum suum (Moses went and returned
to Jethro his father-in-law); ibid 18:1 "Iethro sacerdos Madian cognatus
Mosi" (Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law); ibid 18:5
"Iethro cognatus Mosi" (Jethro, Moses' father-in-law).

Richardson of course might tell us that St Jerome was alleging incest on
the part of Moses with his blood kinswoman, Jethro's daughter.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Right!

RELATIVES and KIN and the clumsy "KIN-GROUP" all mean virtually the same
thing in English. Reliable Dictionaries treat RELATIVES and KIN as
synonyms.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

| Dear Nat ~
|
| The word parentela was translated by one editor of a medieval text I
| saw about two months ago as "relatives." I believe the word,
| "relatives," would roughly equal your fancy rendition of
| "kin-group."... Best always, Douglas Richardson

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Nat ~

The word parentela was translated by one editor of a medieval text I
saw about two months ago as "relatives." I believe the word,
"relatives," would roughly equal your fancy rendition of "kin-group."
The word "kin" should also suffice as a translation. In my post, I
chose to place the word "relatives" in the singular, as I was
referring to one specific relative of the entire "kin-group."
Evidently this confused you. If you desire, I'd be happy to post a
corrected message and add an "s" to the word, relative, so that the
archives will have the word parentela correctly translated.

Speaking of parentela, perhaps you can provide us with some further
examples of this interesting word from medieval texts. If so, we
might actually learn something new. And, that would be a wonderful
thing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson

Nathaniel Taylor <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

I think that the difference between `relative`
and `kindred` is simply that your relatives are those persons most closely
related to ...

This whole idea that 'relative' and 'kindred' refer to different kinds
or varying distances of relationship shows that my original post about
the grammatical and conceptual distinctions continues to be
misunderstood and misconstrued. Oh well, never mind.

Nat Taylor

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

For everyone's information, the Latin Vulgate cited by Mr. Stewart in
his post below was translated by St. Jerome in A.D. 380. It is not
appropriate to the place or period under discussion. He has also
referred in an earlier post to the Venerable Bede who lived about A.D.
700. Again, this is outside the period under discussion.

For Mr. Stewart to prove his point, he needs to cite some examples
from English texts from 1100-1200's which show that "cognatus" was
used to mean "brother-in-law." He has boldly claimed that
"brother-in-law" was the "usual" meaning of "cognatus." I have
challenged him on that point.

Until now, I naively assumed Mr. Stewart made his statement about
"cognatus" based on a working knowledge of the records from the
period. Instead, it appears he has merely referred to some dictionary
on his bookshelf to make his claim about "cognatus." If Mr. Stewart
is unable to find actual examples from the period, then it will be
clear to all that he is a petty fraud posing as a serious scholar, a
mere "wannabe" Latin expert. What, I ask, could be worse? Waving a
dictionary in the air does not make someone an expert.

We're still waiting for your examples, Mr. Stewart. Patiently, I
might add.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]


Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Peter Stewart wrote:
Well, Richardson's deliberate ignorance and dishonesty are stark naked
now for all to see - no withdrawal of his error as he demanded from me,
just more idiotic blustering. Comments interspersed:

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

This is Peter Stewart's original statement regarding "cognatus"
meaning "brother-in-law":


"Cognatus" could always mean a blood relative, though brother-in-law
was quite usual and should be considered whenever we don't know
enough to rule it out.


This is still my statement, which I have no need to revise in any way.

I should however emphasise that "brother-in-law" is only the most common
of a range of relationships by marriage that could be described by the
term "cognatus".

A usage of this word that we know was familiar to clerics in
12th-century Chester is in the Vulgate, where Jethro the father-in-law
of Moses is repeatedly called his "cognatus", cf Exodus 4:18: "abiit
Moses et reversus est ad Iethro cognatum suum (Moses went and returned
to Jethro his father-in-law); ibid 18:1 "Iethro sacerdos Madian cognatus
Mosi" (Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law); ibid 18:5
"Iethro cognatus Mosi" (Jethro, Moses' father-in-law).

Richardson of course might tell us that St Jerome was alleging incest on
the part of Moses with his blood kinswoman, Jethro's daughter.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/29/2004 12:27:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

"One striking feature is the amount of bread given to the dogs, the
greyhounds of the countess and the hunting dogs of Henry and Guy de
Monfort and Henry of Almain, which were kept at Odiham. On May 5th
(1265) the account mentions that bread for the dogs for ten days took
three quarters of grain; but to feed the poor, over an eight-day
period, took only half a quarter, though with the addition of thirteen
gallons of beer."





The story of how the corn bread and onion fried globules got the name "Hush
Puppies" goes something like this.

A coon hunter who had hit on hard times was unable to feed his hounds the
meat that he usually did because he had no money to buy it. The dogs had been
yelping at the back door for two days wanting to be fed. The hunter's wife
made up a large batch of the concoction which now is called hush puppies. She
then went to the back door, threw the fried morsels to the yelping dogs and
yelled out "Hush Puppies". I do not verify the accuracy of this account but
it makes sense.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Douglas Richardson) wrote:

Evidently this confused you.

No, Douglas, it did not. But really, that's neither here nor there.
I'm more than happy to admit when I'm confused, and concede when I am
wrong. It keeps the blood pressure down, you know, and I recommend you
try it some day. Shall we stop discussing grammar, please?

So, rather than continue in that vein, you might notice that I was
actually praising, and expressing interest in, your systematic search of
the CPR series for references to royal kin. Now, can you educate us
further on this: have you done similar systematic searches for *men*,
and for either sex using more comprehensive keyword criteria, either in
this CPR on-line collection, or elsewhere? I, for one, would like to
know more about it.

Speaking of parentela, perhaps you can provide us with some further
examples of this interesting word from medieval texts. If so, we
might actually learn something new. And, that would be a wonderful
thing.

Where would you like to start? One easy place is the Patrologia Latina
online, which generates over 400 hits for forms of 'parentela'. In
browsing through a couple of twelfth-century epistolary references
(rather than patristics, etc.), I find what seems to be use of
'parentela' in a more abstract form than I am used to seeing. For
example, there's an interesting appeal to the pope (Celestinus III) by
poor queen Ingeborg about her abandoment by Philip Augustus, which
appears to offer a parallel to the later English construction 'to claim
kindred of someone' that Richard Smyth posted on: "... Nullam allegat
praeterea parentelam nullamve causam alicujus excessus pro quo ab illo
debeam separari...." (PL 206:1278A).

In this case, since we are dealing with the canon law of marriage,
'allegare parentelam' refers to claiming a particular degree of
kinship--though, since this antedates 4th Lateran council, we are
talking of seven degrees.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Douglas Richardson]

Doug Thompson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BDA5DBF3.50A1A%[email protected]>...

in article [email protected], Douglas
Richardson at [email protected] wrote on 27/10/04 6:27 pm:

http://www.genealogics.org

Douglas

Thanks for your informative post.

Doug

You're quite welcome.

Douglas Richardson

[Peter Stewart]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

For everyone's information, the Latin Vulgate cited by Mr. Stewart in
his post below was translated by St. Jerome in A.D. 380. It is not
appropriate to the place or period under discussion. He has also
referred in an earlier post to the Venerable Bede who lived about A.D.
700. Again, this is outside the period under discussion.

And so Richardson is actually telling us that Jerome's Bible WASN'T
current in 12th-century Chester? No copies were made, no-one would have
understood "cognatus" to mean "father-in-law" in Exodus? This startling
news should be communicated to historians - with evidence - immediately.

For Mr. Stewart to prove his point, he needs to cite some examples
from English texts from 1100-1200's which show that "cognatus" was
used to mean "brother-in-law." He has boldly claimed that
"brother-in-law" was the "usual" meaning of "cognatus." I have
challenged him on that point.

No, for Mr Stewart to prove his point he needed to do just what anyone
would do over a specific point of definition: consult the best
dictionary. That is why the British Academy went to the trouble of
compiling such a splendid work of reference in the first place, and why
academic and other good libraries hold it.

And Mr Stewart did NOT write that "brother-in-law" was THE usual meaning
of "cognatus" - Richardson insinuates the definite article here for his
own dishonest ends: I said it was "quite usual" for "cognatus" to mean
"brother-in-law", as the quotation from Bede cited without qualification
under the primary definition in the British Academy dictionary showed.

I'm told that a later, Norman, example of this can be found on Chris
Phillips website, but I can't vouch for this and it doesn't in any case
add weight to the point that "brother-in-law" was a common enough
medieval meaning of "cognatus" for it to be worth considering when it
can't be ruled out - this is the "bold claim" that Richardson can't or
won't comprehend, since plainly he would have to admit error.

I would venture to say that on most occasions when brothers-in-law
mentioned each other in their own charters it was without any term of
relationship - at least this is demonstrably so for the Anglo-Norman
earls of Chester.

Richardson's attempted defence of his silly position about mutable Latin
vocabulary, well beyond the last ditch, only suggests that a false
system of exactness has been applied to such words as 'avunculus',
'nepos' and 'cognatus' in compiling his recent book.

Until now, I naively assumed Mr. Stewart made his statement about
"cognatus" based on a working knowledge of the records from the
period. Instead, it appears he has merely referred to some dictionary
on his bookshelf to make his claim about "cognatus." If Mr. Stewart
is unable to find actual examples from the period, then it will be
clear to all that he is a petty fraud posing as a serious scholar, a
mere "wannabe" Latin expert. What, I ask, could be worse? Waving a
dictionary in the air does not make someone an expert.

A "working knowledge" of medieval records does not extend to zeroing in
on any particular word in all its varieties of meaning: that is what the
specialised study of lexicography is for. I repeat, the expertise that
Richardson is trying to overthrow is NOT MINE, but that of the British
Academy's committee of scholars. Theirs is not "some dictionary" -
Richardson at least understands the definite article enough to abuse it,
so perhaps he will get this: it is THE dictionary for resolving any
contentious issue about what a word might mean in medieval British
sources. And by a perfect illustration from Bede it has neatly resolved
that "cognatus" could mean "brother-in-law".

We're still waiting for your examples, Mr. Stewart. Patiently, I
might add.

Wait by all means, but I'm not looking for anything since my point is
proved.

Peter Stewart

[Chris Phillips]

Peter Stewart wrote:

I'm told that a later, Norman, example of this can be found on Chris
Phillips website,

Yes - Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol.1, p.238 (1991 edn), cites H.
Hagenmeyer, Chronologie de la Premiere Croisade (1902), p.166, for a
description of William of Grandmesnil of Apulia as 'cognatus Boemundi',
William having married Bohemond's sister Mabel.

Chris Phillips

[Gjest]

Dear Todd, Douglas, et als.,
Apparently William de Grandison,
1st Lord Grandison was from Switzerland, being a son (or grandson) of Pierre I,
Sire de Grandison and his wife Agnes de Neufchatel, his alternate father
Amadeus de Grandison, Sire de Grandison was son of this same couple and married a
lady named Benoite de la Tour du Gerenstein. In any case, William married Sibyl
de Tregoz, daughter of John de Tregoz, Lord Tregoz by whom He had a son Otho,
2nd Lord Grandison , Katherine who married William de Montacute,
and Mabel who married John de Pateshall;, He is also said to have married
Blanche, daughter of Louis de Savoie, Baron of Vaud and by her to have had a
daughter Agnes de Grandison who married Thomas Bardolf, 2nd Lord Bardolf.
Soures: Ancestors of Paul Bailey McBride (On-line); Turton, p 72, Faris PA p
8 note that Thomas, Lord Bardolf`s son John was married to a grandaughter of
Gilbert and Joan (of England) Clare and that grandson William married Agnes
Poynings, daughter of Michael and Joan (Rokesley) Poynings ? same as thev One
talked about on this thread recently. The Appellation of Kinsman to the
Montacute family remains a mystery, however.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine, USA

[Gjest]

A picture of Celtic society is presented in the text "Celtic Britain" by
Lloyd Laing, pp. 20 - 21. It describes the family unit as a large group of
descendants from a common great-grandfather, called the "derbfine" and had its own
identity in law. Succession depended on it, (i.e., this family relationship),
and any member of a king's "derbfine" could succeed him: an uncle, brother, or
nephew etc. The "derbfine" owned land collectively and there was no
individual ownership. The large group was known known as a "tuath" or tribe, which
was ruled over by a chief or king. In Britain, Ireland, and Scotland this
Celtic root was patterned, as a warrior society with the family (clan) as it
foundation. In Wales, this is first described on a sixth-century tombstone from
Llantrisant in Anglesey, "...example to all his fellows [cives] and kinsmen
[parentes], in character, in discipline and in wisdom". {see Social Ties and
Social Strata, The Family, In: Wales In the Early Middle Ages, by Wendy Davies,
Leicester University Press, 1982, pp. 71- 81. The Welsh term for kindred is
"cenedl" and the principle of kinship "parentelae". Welsh laws made clear
statements about the structure of the Welsh kindred (cenedl) and defined certain
responsibilities between tribes and the kindred group. Most Welsh law involved
the kindred to six-generations, with a six-generation patilineal kindred. For
some purposes, such as homicide payments, the kindred extended to the fifth
cousins, for others such as inheritance, the sharing did not go beyond the
second cousin.
These social systems have existed in Britain prior to Roman occupation,
and shared among the Celtic groups having common roots and language.
Therefore, it is not suprising that your study revealed the same.

[Gjest]

Sir Christopher Blount beheaded in 1601 is shown on Leo's http://www.genealogics.org
sites to be the son of James Blount, 6th Lord Mountjoy but with no birthdate.
Since he did not become Lord Mountjoy and his two brothers did, prior to
1601, wouldn't that make him the youngest son?
Christopher Blount married, as her third husband Lettice Knollys, widow of
1st Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex. By that first marriage Lettice had a
daughter Penelope who subsequently married, as her second husband the brother
of this same Christopher Blount, named Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy in 1605.
Penelope was divorced from her first husband Robert Rich, 1st earl of
Warwick in 1605 when he was just 24. Leo's site shows no other marriage for
Robert Rich, but I think he must have married again before his death in 1619, 15
years later.

[Leo van de Pas]

In my own computer I have it marked off that Penelope is the first wife,
this indication is not moved to the website

CP XII/2 page 406 tells he married 2ndly 14 December 1616 Frances Wray.
there were no children by this second wife.
Hope this helps
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Christopher Blount beheaded 1601

Sir Christopher Blount beheaded in 1601 is shown on Leo's
http://www.genealogics.org
sites to be the son of James Blount, 6th Lord Mountjoy but with no
birthdate.
Since he did not become Lord Mountjoy and his two brothers did, prior
to
1601, wouldn't that make him the youngest son?
Christopher Blount married, as her third husband Lettice Knollys, widow
of
1st Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex. By that first marriage Lettice
had a
daughter Penelope who subsequently married, as her second husband the
brother
of this same Christopher Blount, named Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy in
1605.
Penelope was divorced from her first husband Robert Rich, 1st earl of
Warwick in 1605 when he was just 24. Leo's site shows no other marriage
for
Robert Rich, but I think he must have married again before his death in
1619, 15
years later.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/30/2004 10:16:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

In my own computer I have it marked off that Penelope is the first wife,
this indication is not moved to the website

CP XII/2 page 406 tells he married 2ndly 14 December 1616 Frances Wray.
there were no children by this second wife.
Hope this helps
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

I'm also curious about his birthdate. There are a few mentions that he was
16 years younger or "nearly a quarter century younger" then his wife Lettice
Knollys. There is one site that mentions that he was "23 years old when he...."
but I can't seem to find anything definitive that gives his birthdate or
even year.
A number of sites cite a number but with no source.
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Leo van de Pas]

From Burke's Extinct Peerage (1866) I have Sir Christopher Blount to be the
third son, from CP IX page 343 his elder brother William was born circa
October 1561, the next one Charles circa 1562.

I haven't seen a date of birth for Christopher either.
This is the best I can do.
Leo van de Pas



----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Christopher Blount beheaded 1601

In a message dated 10/30/2004 10:16:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

In my own computer I have it marked off that Penelope is the first wife,
this indication is not moved to the website

CP XII/2 page 406 tells he married 2ndly 14 December 1616 Frances Wray.
there were no children by this second wife.
Hope this helps
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

I'm also curious about his birthdate. There are a few mentions that he
was
16 years younger or "nearly a quarter century younger" then his wife
Lettice
Knollys. There is one site that mentions that he was "23 years old when
he...."
but I can't seem to find anything definitive that gives his birthdate or
even year.
A number of sites cite a number but with no source.
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

On Leo's http://www.genealogics.org site I note no marriage shown for this Thomas
Sidney. However on the http://www.tudorplace.com site it is shown that he married
Margaret Dakins.

The reason this is relevant to my last post, is that Margaret was the widow
of Walter Devereux, son of Lettice Knollys by her husband Walter Devereux, 1st
Earl of Essex. This Walter died 1591 and his widow married Thomas Sidney.

The curious thing about that is that Thomas' brother Philip Sidney 1554-86
had married Frances Walsingham and when he died she married (1590) Robert
Devereux, 2nd Earl Essex, brother to Walter above.

I have outlined this interesting relationship here in a graphical form
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... Dudley.jpg

Will Johnson

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Wil,
On my website it is important to look whether a person has an asterix
indicating I have exhausted all my sources for that person.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Sidney 1569-95 s/o Sir Henry Sidney / Mary Dudley

On Leo's http://www.genealogics.org site I note no marriage shown for this Thomas
Sidney. However on the http://www.tudorplace.com site it is shown that he
married
Margaret Dakins.

The reason this is relevant to my last post, is that Margaret was the
widow
of Walter Devereux, son of Lettice Knollys by her husband Walter Devereux,
1st
Earl of Essex. This Walter died 1591 and his widow married Thomas Sidney.

The curious thing about that is that Thomas' brother Philip Sidney 1554-86
had married Frances Walsingham and when he died she married (1590) Robert
Devereux, 2nd Earl Essex, brother to Walter above.

I have outlined this interesting relationship here in a graphical form
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... Dudley.jpg

Will Johnson

[Peter Marrow]

Dear SGM ites,

What did a smith do in London at that epoch? Was he just a simple farrier
(blacksmith) or did it rather describe which of the city livery companies
he belonged to when he might have done a wide range of things?

I am interested in this chap:

Marwe or Marow, Wm., cit. & smith, "le Vyne", Bysshoppesgatestrete, etc.,
in St. Bot Bpg.; W. & Test. Year 1430, Register 3, Folio 255v. (from the
Index to Testamentary Records in the Commissary Court of London, edited by
Marc Fitch. Historical Manuscripts Commission JP12. HMSO London. 1969;
pp122: Year 1430, Register 4, Folio 121v.)

He is the chap that Ms. Putnam clearly shows as the father of William
Marowe, grocer and mayor of London, in her interesting work on Thomas
Marowe ("Early Treatises on the Practices of Justices of the Peace" in
Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, Vol. VII. 1926) and NOT the
Stephen Marrow of Stepney of several later pedigrees - which mistake is
repeated widely on assorted net pages.

I think it may be safe to say that he is the chap mentioned here:

from a Calendar of Patent Rolls of Edward III: May 27th 1405. "Pardon to
John Burgate, late parson of the church of Gersyndon, co. Oxford, of his
outlawry in the husting of London for not appearing before the justices of
the Bench to satisfy William Marwe, citizen and smith of London, of a debt
of 15li which the latter recovered against him and 40s. damages; he having
surrendered to the Flete prison and satisfied the said William, as William
Thirnyng, chief justice of the Bench, has certified"

and also here:

indexed at the Public Record Office: "Jn Wright of Colne (otherwise John
Wryght, Colnee) Essex carpenter for not appearing before Rich Norton and
his fellows late justices of the bench to answer Wm Marowe citizen and
smith of London touching a debt of 20li" [entry in Calendar of Patent Rolls
(PRO C66) for Saturday 11th October 1421].

In both cases described as "citizen and smith". Those are BIG debts for a
simple farrier to be owed. I believe Chaucer was paid an annual salary of
36 pounds as Clerk of Works for the King just before this so I assume the
debts represent several thousands of pounds in today's money?

I think Adrian's bean eating horses would have been JET PROPELLED and pity
any poor blacksmith replacing the back shoes.

best regards to all
Peter Marrow
Edinburgh

[Gjest]

In a message dated 31/10/04 05:00:09 GMT Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

Sir Christopher Blount beheaded in 1601 is shown on Leo's
http://www.genealogics.org
sites to be the son of James Blount, 6th Lord Mountjoy but with no
birthdate.
Since he did not become Lord Mountjoy and his two brothers did, prior to
1601, wouldn't that make him the youngest son?
Christopher Blount married, as her third husband Lettice Knollys, widow of

1st Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex. By that first marriage Lettice had
a
daughter Penelope who subsequently married, as her second husband the
brother
of this same Christopher Blount, named Charles Blount, Lord Mountjoy in
1605.
Penelope was divorced from her first husband Robert Rich, 1st earl of
Warwick in 1605 when he was just 24. Leo's site shows no other marriage for

Robert Rich, but I think he must have married again before his death in
1619, 15
years later.

It would be interesting to see what the new DNB has on him. Although Burkes
states he was son of James Blount Lord Mountjoy and therefore brother to
Charles, later earl of Devonshire, my notes from the Oxford concise DNB (who states
he was born 1565? their question mark) states that he was probably cousin to
Charles Earl of Devon[shire].

Adrian

[Gjest]

In Marshall Kirk`s post of October 27, He made a good case for Kenelm Winslow
who died in 1605 is the same as was born In 1550/51(age 11 in 1562 list of
land owners/abutters in Clifton-in- Severnstoke) which brings up the question
of whether He was a Kenelm Jr and brother of Edward Winslow or if his wife whom
John G Hunt in his Winslow articles usually named as Elizabeth was more
probably a grandaughter rather than a daughter of Fulk and Elizabeth (Beauchamp)
Greville (who married before 1526) as Kenneth Kirkpatrick speculated in his `
Loving Cosens` article in the January 2000 issue of NEHGR pp 79-108.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jonesgenealogist:

Thank you for your interesting post regarding the ancient British
concept of family. It was very illuminating.

I notice you mention "homicide payments." Can you tell us what these
are?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]


[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

A picture of Celtic society is presented in the text "Celtic Britain" by
Lloyd Laing, pp. 20 - 21. It describes the family unit as a large group of
descendants from a common great-grandfather, called the "derbfine" and had its own
identity in law. Succession depended on it, (i.e., this family relationship),
and any member of a king's "derbfine" could succeed him: an uncle, brother, or
nephew etc. The "derbfine" owned land collectively and there was no
individual ownership. The large group was known known as a "tuath" or tribe, which
was ruled over by a chief or king. In Britain, Ireland, and Scotland this
Celtic root was patterned, as a warrior society with the family (clan) as it
foundation. In Wales, this is first described on a sixth-century tombstone from
Llantrisant in Anglesey, "...example to all his fellows [cives] and kinsmen
[parentes], in character, in discipline and in wisdom". {see Social Ties and
Social Strata, The Family, In: Wales In the Early Middle Ages, by Wendy Davies,
Leicester University Press, 1982, pp. 71- 81. The Welsh term for kindred is
"cenedl" and the principle of kinship "parentelae". Welsh laws made clear
statements about the structure of the Welsh kindred (cenedl) and defined certain
responsibilities between tribes and the kindred group. Most Welsh law involved
the kindred to six-generations, with a six-generation patilineal kindred. For
some purposes, such as homicide payments, the kindred extended to the fifth
cousins, for others such as inheritance, the sharing did not go beyond the
second cousin.
These social systems have existed in Britain prior to Roman occupation,
and shared among the Celtic groups having common roots and language.
Therefore, it is not suprising that your study revealed the same.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/31/2004 11:15:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Any information about ancient de l'Aigle's would be appreciated.
Thank you, Virginia (Ginga) Sanders Mylius, Bham, AL

Virginia you give a lot of quotes and facts but no sources for your
information.
Do you have sources?
Thanks

[Nathaniel Taylor]

[email protected] wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

{see Social Ties and
Social Strata, The Family, In: Wales In the Early Middle Ages, by Wendy
Davies,
Leicester University Press, 1982, pp. 71- 81. The Welsh term for kindred
is
"cenedl" and the principle of kinship "parentelae".

It is interesting that your source specifies an abstract definition for
the Latin word 'parentela' in this context. Is this from this article
in _Wales in the Early Middle Ages_, or does that reference only apply
to the earlier observations in your post?

Welsh laws made clear
statements about the structure of the Welsh kindred (cenedl) and defined
certain
responsibilities between tribes and the kindred group. Most Welsh law
involved
the kindred to six-generations, with a six-generation patilineal kindred.
For
some purposes, such as homicide payments, the kindred extended to the fifth
cousins, for others such as inheritance, the sharing did not go beyond the
second cousin.

This observation--that the expected obligations of one's agnate
parenetela extended to six degrees for one purpose (criminal penalties)
while it would be considered smaller for other purposes--reflects an
important general observation: how comprehensive one's 'family' or 'kin'
may be considered depends on the context. The same observation has been
made in many other contexts: who is considered family (whatever term may
be used for the grouping) may vary depending on the context: pious
commmoration in monastic necrologies; co-donors and quitclaimants in
land-grants; related persons with varying obligations under Germanic or
Celtic law (as above); possible inheritors; etc. In short, whatever the
term used for 'family' (or extended family), how it would have been
measured, and what its limits were, may varied even at the same time and
place. It makes it rather more difficult to answer the question 'how
much did medieval people know of their kin', or even 'how much were they
expected to know', since it varied depending on the context.

This is one of the important caveats about Doug's apparent pattern of
the usage of a term of kinship applied by a Plantagenet king to cousins:
if the usage appears to have been customarily limited to people within
the fifth degree (at least among this set of 14th-c. letters patent), it
was simply another abritrary convention, and does not necessarily
reflect the limits of the kings' knowledge of their kin.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Family Historian]

What gives here? This is a website for a B&B in Arkansas.

Ed Crabtree (Missouri)
[email protected]
I only work on Genealogy on days that end in "Y".
Outgoing emails scanned by McAfee VirusScan

[Gjest]

In a message dated 10/31/2004 7:26:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

What gives here? This is a website for a B&B in Arkansas.

Ed Crabtree (Missouri)
[email protected]
I only work on Genealogy on days that end in "Y".
Outgoing emails scanned by McAfee VirusScan

Try http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/

[marshall kirk]

Well, part of that's really my question: a 1562 inventory of church
lands at Clifton in Severnstoke thrice mentions, in passing, "the land
of Kenelm Winslow." I assumed, but now question the validity of my
own assumption, that KW-1562 would not be the same as KW, deponent in
1605, since KW-1605 was "ffiftie fower," thus born, if we can trust
the deposition-age, ~1551 ... and that the people taking the 1562
inventory probably wouldn't have referred to the land as that of KW,
if KW was only 11 years old. But is that really so reliable an
assumption? That's what I'm trying to get people to comment on from
their own experience, which in some cases is far wider than mine.

There are four logical possibilities, it seems to me:

1--My assumption was right, and the deposition-age was right. If so,
there must have been -- on the evidence so far -- two Kenelem
Winslows.
2--My assumption was wrong, and the deposition-age was right. If so,
there need only have been one Kenelm Winslow, born ~1551. Problem:
the terms of his 1607 will, written when he'd have been 56, don't
sound quite right for so young a man. The implication of the terms
seems to be that all his kids are adult and have received their
portions, with a hint that even some of the grandchildren may be at or
near adulthood. 56 is possible, but squeezes things.
3--My assumption was right, and the deposition-age was wrong. If so,
there need only have been one Kenelm Winslow, born, let's say, in or
before 1541. Observation: ages as recorded in depositions are less
reliable than many types of evidence, because, within quite broad
limits, they're usually unconstrained by their contexts. While a
personal or place name, for example, may, if garbled, be plausibly
corrected on the basis of the context, there's often nothing at all in
a deposition that would make an age of 54 any more obviously right or
wrong than one of 34, or 74. Consequently, an error in copying -- and
there would usually have been several stages of copying -- would be
quite likely to go uncorrected and even undetected. Or so it seems to
me.
4--My assumption was wrong, and the deposition-age was wrong. Here,
choose any outcome you like.

Commentary on my assumption still solicited.


[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

In Marshall Kirk`s post of October 27, He made a good case for Kenelm Winslow
who died in 1605 is the same as was born In 1550/51(age 11 in 1562 list of
land owners/abutters in Clifton-in- Severnstoke) which brings up the question
of whether He was a Kenelm Jr and brother of Edward Winslow or if his wife whom
John G Hunt in his Winslow articles usually named as Elizabeth was more
probably a grandaughter rather than a daughter of Fulk and Elizabeth (Beauchamp)
Greville (who married before 1526) as Kenneth Kirkpatrick speculated in his `
Loving Cosens` article in the January 2000 issue of NEHGR pp 79-108.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

The term (parentes) appears in translation of a sixth-century tombstone from
Llantrisant in Anglesey. 'example to all his fellows (cives) and kinsmen
(parentes), in character, in discipline and in wisdom' [see page 71 of Social
Ties and Social Strata, In Wales in the Early Middle Ages, by W. Davies.] The
term (parentela) was continued , being used in the 11th - 12th century
documents. The context of its use was the principle of kinship. An insightful study
is made in Patterns of Power In Early Wales, by Wendy Davies, O'Donnell
Lectures, delivered in the University of Oxford, 1983, and published Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1990. Several concepts are presented including the use of power
in the early middle ages. An analysis of linguistic terms are presented. A
very helpful reference for those interested in this area.

[Gjest]

The process of compiling Welsh law tracts is traditionally attributed to
Hywel Dda in the mid-tenth century. There is a large corpus of distinctively
Welsh legal material produced both in Welsh and Latin texts. A discussion of this
is found in the Appendix titled: The Source Material, p. 203, In Wales in the
Early Middle Ages, by Wendy Davies, Leicester University Press, 1982. The
Welsh laws make some clear statement about the structure of the Welsh kindred
(cenedl). To try and help avoid "blood feuds", the homicide payment was a way
to settle disputes among the tribes and offer an alternative to an "eye for an
eye". John Davies, in his book entitled: A History of Wales, Penguin
Books, 1994 (first published in Welsh as Hanes Cymru, in 1991), p 88 states: "The
Law of Wales, therefore, was folk law rather than state law and its emphasis
was upon ensuring reconciliation between kinship groups rather than upon
keeping order through punishment." On p. 92 he states: "The galanas of a man was
the fine which had to be paid to his kindred (or, in the case of a slave, to his
owner) if he were killed. It represented an attempt, similar to that found
in other early societies, to tame the desire to shed blood in avenging a wrong.
The amount of a man's galanas depended upon his status; that was largely
determined by his ancestry,..." ( He notes this was most likely paid in cattle,
but later law books describe payment in money.) The law books also record a
complex system of kin obligations, and details of the payers and receivers of
the galanas. One can immediately appreciate the Welsh naming system, since a
male would have his "kinship" responsibilities identified using his name.

[Gjest]

Dear Marshall et als.
If Kenelm Winslow were ` Jr` and the reading of
the 1605 depostion were correct, then wouldn`t He of had to have been either
a half brother or the father of Edward Winslow, Gentleman b bet 1560-1570 as
He refers to himself as a yeoman rather than a Gentleman. If They were
Brothers then the marriage between Kenelm Winslow ` senior` and the gentlewoman
would have had to have occured between 1551 and say 1569 with a strong possibility
of between 1551 and 1559.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas and Todd.
I may have figured out the relationship
between Richard II, King of England and Lady Philippa Montacute, Countess of
March
According to David Thaler`s website the following ancestry is given
Aubri II, Count of Dammartin was father of 1. Juliane de
Dammartin who married Hugues V de Gournay; (daughter) Millicent de Gournay
married William II de Cantilupe; (daughter) Juliane de Cantilupe married Robert
II de Tregoz; (son) John de Tregoz married Mabel Fitz Warin; ( daughter) Sybil
de Tregoz married William, Lord Grandison, (daughter) Katherine Grandison
married William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury; (daughter) Phillippa Montacute
married Roger Mortimer, Baron Wigmore who on reversal of the attainder of his
grandfather succeeded as 2nd Earl of March
2. Simon de Dammartin, Count of Dammartin, Ponthieu and Aumale married Marie,
heiress of Ponthieu and Aumale;(daughter) Joan of Aumale married (his 2nd
wife) St Fernando III, King of Castile and Leon; (daughter) Eleanor of Castile
married (as 1st wife) Edward I, King of England; (son) Edward II, King of
England married Isabel of France; (son) Edward III, King of England married Philippa
of Hainault; (son) Edward, Prince of Wales married (her 2nd husband) Joan of
Kent; Richard II, King of England; if the foregoing is correct Lady Philippa
Montacute was a fifth cousin a generation removed to King Richard II.
Everything but the identity of Juliane de Dammartin as Hugues V de Gournay`s wife
and Aubri II of Dammartin`s daughter is contained in Weis AR 7 lines 255A and
8A.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

The term (parentes) appears in translation of a sixth-century tombstone from
Llantrisant in Anglesey. 'example to all his fellows (cives) and kinsmen
(parentes), in character, in discipline and in wisdom' [see page 71 of
Social Ties and Social Strata, In Wales in the Early Middle Ages, by W.
Davies.] The term (parentela) was continued , being used in the 11th -
12th century documents. The context of its use was the principle of
kinship. An insightful study is made in Patterns of Power In Early Wales,
by Wendy Davies, O'Donnell Lectures, delivered in the University of Oxford,
1983, and published Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990. Several concepts are
presented including the use of power in the early middle ages. An analysis
of linguistic terms are presented. A very helpful reference for those
interested in this area.

Thanks especially for citing these works by Wendy Davies. Remember
'parens / parentes' is a distinct word from 'parentela'; they are to one
another as 'clientele' is to 'client / clients' in English. As we've
seen, and as you note, 'parentela' can refer to the 'principle of
kinship' as well as to a particular group of kin defined for a
particular purpose.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
Major Blunder in my previous post. Richard II and
Philippa ( Montacute )Mortimer were actually sixth Cousins; Her Husband Roger
Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March was also a cousin via Aubri II of Dammartin`s
daughter Agnes of Dammartin married Guillaume de Fiennes:(son) Ingelram de
Fiennes married ________ Conde; (son) Guillaume de Fiennes married Blanche de
Brienne ;( daughter) Margaret de Fiennes married Edmund Mortimer, Lord Mortimer of
Wigmore; (son) Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March married Joan Geneville;(son)
Edmund Mortimer, Lord Mortimer of Wigmore married Elizabeth Badlesmere; (son)
Roger Mortimer , 2nd Earl of March married Lady Philippa Montacute. Roger was
also a sixth cousin through the Dammartins of both his wife and the King.
Sincerely.
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[marshall kirk]

Dear James,

thank you for your replies. A Kenelm Winslow appears in three venues:
in the manorial records of Kempsey, as a landholder at Severnstoke
(right across the river from Kempsey), and as an old man in Worcester.
None of these men is ever called "junior" or "the younger," or
anything useful like that. The question is whether, on the evidence,
all three *could* be one man. KW of Worcester very likely *is* KW of
Kempsey; he could likewise, for various persuasive reasons, be KW of
Severnstoke, *if* either (a) my assumption that no-one would refer to
"the land of X," if X was 11, or (b) the 1605 deposition-age, is
wrong.----The relationship of Edward Winslow Sr., father of the
governor, to one or more of these Kenelm Winslows depends solely on
two facts: first, he gave a son the rare name (one in a thousand,
roughly) Kenelm; second, his son, the governor, named the family
estate here Careswell, which is a pretty obvious reference to the
estate of Kerswell in Kempsey, with which Kenelm Winslow(s) was/were
closely associated. The possible nature of that presumptive
relationship depends heavily on how many KW's we have here (one or
two) and when born (~1551 or <1541 or both).

--mk


[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Dear Marshall et als.
If Kenelm Winslow were ` Jr` and the reading of
the 1605 depostion were correct, then wouldn`t He of had to have been either
a half brother or the father of Edward Winslow, Gentleman b bet 1560-1570 as
He refers to himself as a yeoman rather than a Gentleman. If They were
Brothers then the marriage between Kenelm Winslow ` senior` and the gentlewoman
would have had to have occured between 1551 and say 1569 with a strong possibility
of between 1551 and 1559.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear James ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

By any chance, do you have any thoughts on Joan de la Mare, ancestress
of the Montfort, Montagu and le Veel families?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Dear Newsgroup,
Major Blunder in my previous post. Richard II and
Philippa ( Montacute )Mortimer were actually sixth Cousins; Her Husband Roger
Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March was also a cousin via Aubri II of Dammartin`s
daughter Agnes of Dammartin married Guillaume de Fiennes:(son) Ingelram de
Fiennes married ________ Conde; (son) Guillaume de Fiennes married Blanche de
Brienne ;( daughter) Margaret de Fiennes married Edmund Mortimer, Lord Mortimer of
Wigmore; (son) Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March married Joan Geneville;(son)
Edmund Mortimer, Lord Mortimer of Wigmore married Elizabeth Badlesmere; (son)
Roger Mortimer , 2nd Earl of March married Lady Philippa Montacute. Roger was
also a sixth cousin through the Dammartins of both his wife and the King.
Sincerely.
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[CE Wood]

Please, it should be:

"I work on Genealogy ONLY on days that end...."

"I only work on...." means you are the ONLY one who works....

Since we quibble over arcane meanings and interpretations on this
list, it behoves us to use language correctly.

CE Wood

[email protected] ("Family Historian") wrote in message news:<00ec01c4bfc2$902bb280$6401a8c0@Gateway>...

What gives here? This is a website for a B&B in Arkansas.

Ed Crabtree (Missouri)
[email protected]
I only work on Genealogy on days that end in "Y".
Outgoing emails scanned by McAfee VirusScan

[Peter Stewart]

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

Thanks especially for citing these works by Wendy Davies. Remember
'parens / parentes' is a distinct word from 'parentela'; they are to one
another as 'clientele' is to 'client / clients' in English. As we've
seen, and as you note, 'parentela' can refer to the 'principle of
kinship' as well as to a particular group of kin defined for a
particular purpose.

'Parentela' could be used for a definite fact as well as for the
principle of kinship - this is in part what I thought you meant when
defining it as "kindred" (that is, "kin condition").

For instance, in 1199 when Tiburge of Murviel explained her decision not
to marry Guillem VIII of Montpellier's son (her third cousin) on the
grounds of their undoubted consanguinity: "quoniam parentela certa et
indubitata est inter me Titgurgam et te dominum Guillelmum
Montispessulani, et filios tuos" [_Liber instrumentorum memorialium:
cartulaire des Guillems de Montpellier_, edited by Alexandre Germain &
Camille Chabaneau (Montpellier, 1884-1886) p. 762 no. 562].

In general, as with the recent discussion of 'avunculus', 'nepos' and
'cognatus', it is worth remembering that medieval writers were not
always perfect masters of Latin - its grammar or vocabulary - which is
why late-coined, non-classical words such as 'parentela' came to be used
in the first place. As with particular relationship terms that were
better understood, literal accuracy cannot always be taken for granted.

Donald Jackman's article 'Systematic Extension in Latin Relationship
Terminology', _Prosopon 8 (November 1997) at

http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/PRSPN8.stm

is a useful discussion.

He writes "Lettered persons would not have used relationship terms
indiscriminately" but also "The exact terms of immediate relationship
permit some finite observations regarding their potential for extension.
While frater and filius can readily be applied to in-law relationships
and, less readily, to 'telescopic' situations (frater for cousin,
filius, for grandson), mater and pater seem difficult to manipulate in
this fashion. Much depends on context."

An example of 'mater' not meaning 'mother' in a certain context is worth
recalling: we know from his own charters that the mother of Guillaume
II, count of Ponthieu (died October 1221) was Beatrice of Saint-Pol. He
named her several times, and called her brother his 'avunculus'.
However, in one charter he referred to "Odam, matrem meam" (ostensibly
"my mother Oda") [_Recueil des actes des comtes de Pontieu (1026-1279)_,
edited by Clovis Brunel (Paris, 1930) p. 199 no. 131].

In other circumstances, if we didn't know enough to discount it, we
might suppose that Oda was a second name of Beatrice - or if we didn't
have the other evidence about her, we might be misled entirely. However,
the context clearly indicates that the Oda in question had been
Guillaume's servant, his foster-mother or wet-nurse. So even the word
'mater' could be used in a way that might deceive genealogists who want
to tie up precise and limited meaninigs, word for word, between Latin
and modern languages.

Peter Stewart

[R. Battle]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, CE Wood wrote:

Please, it should be:

"I work on Genealogy ONLY on days that end...."

"I only work on...." means you are the ONLY one who works....

Since we quibble over arcane meanings and interpretations on this
list, it behoves us to use language correctly.
snip

That interpretation is less likely than one of the following two -- (1)
the only thing that you do is work on genealogy, or (2) the only thing
that you do with genealogy is work on it. For your interpretation to be
the most likely one, "only" should precede "I." From a
linguistic/semantic standpoint, in the sentence as given "only" has
ambiguous scope; and one of the possible meanings is the one intended. If
anything, your interpretation is the least feasible of the four options.
Your suggested rewording disambiguates the sentence in part, but note that
if you like your interpretation of the original sentence you must admit
that the reworded sentence could or should be interpreted with "only"
having scope over "genealogy" rather than "on days..."

-Robert Battle

[Family Historian]

Actually, I believe the phrase would then be

ONLY I work....

But, I copied and pasted that from a list of taglines; so I am not the
author....

But, C.E. Wood, tis your right to quibble....

Ed Crabtree (Missouri)
[email protected]
I only work on Genealogy on days that end in "Y".
Outgoing emails scanned by McAfee VirusScan

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

... 'parentela' can refer to the 'principle of
kinship' as well as to a particular group of kin defined for a
particular purpose.

'Parentela' could be used for a definite fact as well as for the
principle of kinship - this is in part what I thought you meant when
defining it as "kindred" (that is, "kin condition").

For instance, in 1199 when Tiburge of Murviel explained her decision not
to marry Guillem VIII of Montpellier's son (her third cousin) on the
grounds of their undoubted consanguinity: "quoniam parentela certa et
indubitata est inter me Titgurgam et te dominum Guillelmum
Montispessulani, et filios tuos" [_Liber instrumentorum memorialium:
cartulaire des Guillems de Montpellier_, edited by Alexandre Germain &
Camille Chabaneau (Montpellier, 1884-1886) p. 762 no. 562].

Of course--my original use of 'kindred' was as synonym for 'kin-group':
a concrete set of cousins, as in some of the documents cited originally
by Doug Richardson; but I am aware of a range of abstract uses where
'parentela' equates to 'kin-condition', used either as a 'fact' linking
two specific people, or in an hypothetical context. My 'abstract'
versus 'concrete' dichotomy was that in some usages, the 'parentela'
clearly refers to a specific, finite group of persons that the writer
has in mind; in other contexts, it refers to a condition linking two
individuals, without conjuring up a specific image of all those who
descend from their common ancestor; in yet a third sense, it is used in
the abstract without any specific group of persons or 'target' persons
in mind.

The usage you cite here is yet another setting in which an abstraction
links two concrete persons ("... because there is undoubtedly kinship
between me and you, and your sons...")--like the construction
'parentelam allegare' in the letter of Queen Ingeborg to the pope.

I had not realized the richness of medieval constructions using this
abstract sense before, though I see Du Cange cites equivalents in some
of the Germanic law codes, etc.

NB, I recently downloaded most of Du Cange from Gallica (unfortunately
they only have letters D through S on line for some reason), and find it
a handy on-disk reference.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

[Doug McDonald]

CE Wood wrote:

Please, it should be:

"I work on Genealogy ONLY on days that end...."

This means that on days that do not end in y he
does not work on genealogy, or, alternatively,
that on days that end in y he does not work
on anything except genealogy. With the ONLY
emphasized, it means the former.

I only work on Genealogy on days that end in "Y".

And so does this.

"Only I work on genealogy on days that end in Y"
means, directly, that on days that end in y nobody
else works on genealogy, and since all days end,
in English, in y, that he is the only person
in the English speaking world that word on
genealogy.

Doug McDonald,

Pedant du jour

[Doug McDonald]

Doug McDonald wrote:

CE Wood wrote:

Please, it should be:

"I work on Genealogy ONLY on days that end...."


This means that on days that do not end in y he
does not work on genealogy, or, alternatively,
that on days that end in y he does not work
on anything except genealogy. With the ONLY
emphasized, it means the former.

I think I misphrased that last clause: in fact,
the meaning depends not only on emphasis but on
the spoken pacing of the words, whether the "only"
goes with "genealogy" or "days".

Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
Remember back at the beginning of the year We had
a discussion about Eve, the King`s Kinswoman, wife of Nicholas de Tregoz and
2nd __________ de Valoines?
As I recall Douglas considered the possilibity of her being a daughter of
Gilbert Pecche and 1st wife Maud de Hastings, a possible daughter of Sir Henry
Hastings and Ada de Huntingdon; I have what seems to me an intriquing
possibility, that Eva was a daughter of Maud`s brother Sir Henry Hastings and his
wife Joan de Cantelou, a daughter and heiress of William Cantelou, Lord
Abergavenny by Eva de Braose and brother of Juliane de Cantelou, wife of Robert II de
Tregoz and thus related to Edward II to the degree of 3rd cousin once removed.
By and large the majority of Eve / Evas in
this time frame were related to a gaelic ( Irish and Scots) i.e. Aoife or a
welsh forebear i.e, Efa. there are several possilities for earlier
relationships. for instance , Any child of Malcolm III of Scots who left descendants,
Descents of Mabel of Gloucester, natural daughter of William Fitz Robert, Earl
of Gloucester and husband Gruffydd ap Ifor Bach; which lady was 2nd cousin
to Richard I and John, Kings of England.
I realize this is probably an exercise in futility,
but We have to start somewhere.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
Not to cause more confusion, but the `original`
Euphemia appears to have been the wife of Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale and
father of Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale who d 1191 sine prole, 1st husband
of Isabel, natural daughter of William the Lion, King of Scots, which lady
married 2nd Robert de Ros `Forfan` the Magna Carta Surety and of William Brus,
Lord of Annandale whose widow Christian le Stewart married as her 2nd husband,
Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar whose 1st wife had been Ada, likewise
natural daughter to William the Lion.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

"Not to cause more confusion, but the `original`
Euphemia appears to have been the wife of Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale and father of Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale who d 1191 sine prole, 1st husband of Isabel, natural daughter of William the Lion, King of Scots, which lady married 2nd Robert de Ros `Forfan` the Magna Carta Surety and of William Brus, Lord of Annandale whose widow Christian le Stewart married as her 2nd husband, Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar whose 1st wife had been Ada, likewise
natural daughter to William the Lion."

The structure of this sentence is a little confusing. I got lost after the first bit.

Correct me where I misunderstood:
1) A lady named Euphemia appears to have been the wife of Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale.
2) Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale is the father of Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale who d 1191 sine prole.
3) Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale who d 1191 sine prole was the 1st husband of Isabel, natural daughter of William the Lion, King of Scots.
4) Isabel, natural daughter of William the Lion, King of Scots married 2nd Robert de Ros `Forfan` the Magna Carta Surety.
5) William Brus, Lord of Annandale's widow Christian le Stewart married as her 2nd husband, Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar.
6) Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar's 1st wife had been Ada, natural daughter to William the Lion.

Will

[Gjest]

Dear Will,
Precisely, plus Robert Brus the younger d 1191 was the
brother of William de Brus who married Christian le Stewart
Additionally,
Isabel wife of Robert Brus the younger was sister to Ada whose husband
Patrick, Earl of Dunbar subsequently married Christian (le Stewart) Brus, widow of
William.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Newsgroup,
A further note on the Inca ancestry of Isabel
Suarez Chimpu Ocllo, wife of Sebastian Garcilaso de la Vega y Vargas. She was
granddaughter of Topu Inca ruled 1471-1492 and Great granddaughter of Pachacutec
Inca Yupanqui ruled 1438-1471 who was the first great Inca Conqueror.
`Pachacutec meant earth-shaker or earth-splitter.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

[Gjest]

Okay bear with me on one more point,

1) William, Lord of Annandale d bef 26 Jun 1215, married Christina.

2) William was the brother of Robert of Bruce d 1191 who had married Isabel natural daughter of William 'the Lion', K Scotland.

3) William and Robert's father was Robert, Lord of Annandale.

And HIS father was also Robert, Lord of Annadale who married Judith of Lancaster? Or should these last two Robert's be the same person?

Thanks
Will

[norenxaq]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Newsgroup,
A further note on the Inca ancestry of Isabel
Suarez Chimpu Ocllo, wife of Sebastian Garcilaso de la Vega y Vargas.

how does he relate to Garcilaso, the author?

She was
granddaughter of Topu Inca ruled 1471-1492 and Great granddaughter of Pachacutec
Inca Yupanqui ruled 1438-1471 who was the first great Inca Conqueror.
`Pachacutec meant earth-shaker or earth-splitter.

who were her parents?

thank-you

[Gjest]

There is a point I don't quite understand here.
I have snipped the three below documents.
It appears that John was given seisin and then he... got married without the king's consent? and so he rights were taken back and given to Robert?
Thanks
Will

#318. July 19, 1287.
Inquisition ... commanding an inquiry by men of the visne of Neuham in Northumberland, as to the age of John Comyn son and heir of William Comyn of Killebride ... who say that he is of full age, viz., 21 years and upwards.... the
king commands Edward earl of Cornwall, his lieutenant in England, to give the said John Comyn seisin of two third parts of his lands....

#401. Feb. 16, 1290.
The king commands an inquiry whether John Comyn son and heir of the late William Comyn of Kilbride was in England or Scotland when his father died, and if he left England 'fraudulently' to deprive the king of his marriage.
Westminster. ( Endorsed) The jurors find that he was at the Castle of Kilbride in Scotland at his father's death and for two years before. [ Chancery Miscellaneous Rolls, no. 474].

#440. June 28, 1290.
The king grants to Robert Fitz Roger the custody of the lands and heir of John son of William Comyn of Killebride, till his majority, and his marriage without disparagement."

[John Parsons]

Obviously, that should be "lost"--the l-o and the k-i are beside each other
on the keyboard.

Sorry.

John P.

From: [email protected] (John Brandon)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT: Alphonso XII's inbreeding
Date: 4 Nov 2004 14:23:12 -0800

If the American general had really "kist" legs at Gettysburg, maybe he
had "tendencies" as well ...

[John Parsons]

It would appear that events transpired in this order:

1) William Comyn died at a date not specified below, leaving a son & heir
John, a minor at the time of William's death. The first inq. extracted
below is *de aetate probanda* taken in 1287 to prove the age of the heir, &
does not signify the date of William's death. The jurors returned that John
was of full age & the king ordered he be given seisin of 2/3 of his estates.
That John was allowed entry into only 2/3 of his English lands is curious,
but the reason is not stated in the extract below.

2) In 1290, an inquest was taken to determine whether John Comyn had
withdrawn into Scotland at the time of his father's death (a date we do not
know from the information given below), in order to prevent the king of
England from exercising his right to approve John's marriage as John was the
underage heir of a tenant-in-chief. The inquest showed that at the time of
William's death, John had already been living for 2 years at Kilbride in
Scotland so there was no deliberate withdrawal or flight into Scotland
thereafter.

3) Assuming that this extract deals w/the same John Comyn, it would seem
that it had become clear that John was not in fact of full age, so the king
granted to Robert fitz Roger the wardship of the lands & control of John's
marriage.

Without further details, that's as much as can be deduced from the extracts
below.

Regards

John P.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: John, heir of William Comyn was Magna Carta line of Eufemia
(was Eufemia wife of William Comyn of Kilbride)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:27:24 -0500

There is a point I don't quite understand here.
I have snipped the three below documents.
It appears that John was given seisin and then he... got married without
the king's consent? and so he rights were taken back and given to Robert?
Thanks
Will

#318. July 19, 1287.
Inquisition ... commanding an inquiry by men of the visne of Neuham in
Northumberland, as to the age of John Comyn son and heir of William Comyn
of Killebride ... who say that he is of full age, viz., 21 years and
upwards.... the
king commands Edward earl of Cornwall, his lieutenant in England, to give
the said John Comyn seisin of two third parts of his lands....

#401. Feb. 16, 1290.
The king commands an inquiry whether John Comyn son and heir of the late
William Comyn of Kilbride was in England or Scotland when his father died,
and if he left England 'fraudulently' to deprive the king of his marriage.
Westminster. ( Endorsed) The jurors find that he was at the Castle of
Kilbride in Scotland at his father's death and for two years before. [
Chancery Miscellaneous Rolls, no. 474].

#440. June 28, 1290.
The king grants to Robert Fitz Roger the custody of the lands and heir of
John son of William Comyn of Killebride, till his majority, and his
marriage without disparagement."

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 5 Nov, [email protected] wrote:

Okay bear with me on one more point,

Can't blame you: it is fraught!

1) William, Lord of Annandale d bef 26 Jun 1215, married Christina.

2) William was the brother of Robert of Bruce d 1191 who had married
Isabel natural daughter of William 'the Lion', K Scotland.

3) William and Robert's father was Robert, Lord of Annandale.

And HIS father was also Robert, Lord of Annadale who married Judith
of Lancaster? Or should these last two Robert's be the same person?

Keats-Rohan has some useful stuff in her Domesday series:

DP p. 415 has Rotbert de Bruis, d. 1142, who was in Domesday and had
sons Adam, d. c. 1143 and his successor, and Robert. He received
Annandale from David I in 1124. Farrer suggested that this Rotbert's
wife was Agnes dau. of Geoffrey Bainard.

DP pp. 354-5 had both these sons Adam and Robert plus a few more of the
family and gives us:

Robert II, younger brother of Adam, m. Euphemia who was a niece or
kinswoman of William, earl of Aumale. K-R adds that he had sons
Robert, William and Bernard. (Robert II is almost certainly the Robert
who died in 1191.)

So I can't see Judith of Lancaster here.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Gjest]

Friday, 5 November, 2004



Dear John, Will, et al.,

I believe MichaelAnne can answer that issue best. If I recall, it has
to do with Euphemia, widow of William Comyn and mother of John, having
remarried without the king's licence (the 1/3 of the manor being part of her dower).

Cheers,

John

[John Parsons]

Certainly the widow's dower would fully explain John's entry into only 2/3
the lands. This was unfortunately not stated in the extract in the original
posting.

As the family had estates in both England and Scotland, there could have
been some confusion in England as to Euphemia's remarriage w/o licence.
This might have been easier for her to manage in Scotland if her remarriage
took place after Alexander III's death in 1286, when the central authority
(weaker anyway in Scotland than in England) was likely in some disarray.

Regards

John P.

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: John, heir of William Comyn was Magna Carta line of Eufemia
(was Eufemia ...
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:24:46 EST

Friday, 5 November, 2004



Dear John, Will, et al.,

I believe MichaelAnne can answer that issue best. If I recall, it
has
to do with Euphemia, widow of William Comyn and mother of John, having
remarried without the king's licence (the 1/3 of the manor being part of
her dower).

Cheers,

John

[Gjest]

Friday, 5 November, 2004


Dear Tim, Will, et al.,

Following is what I have on the de Brus (Bruce) family of Annandale
down to the issue of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick (d. 1304), father of
'The Bruce'. This includes the most recent identifications to the Stewards
of Scotland and the Earls of Dunbar.

Cheers,

John

_______________________________________



1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------

of North Cave, co. Yorks.

'Robert was granted part of North Cave very shortly after 1086.' {Richard
Borthwick, 'Re: Researching de Brus and Descendants' (cites DNB III:114;
VCH Yorks (ER) IV:27; VCH Yorks II:167)[1]}

Children: Robert (-1142)


1.1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1142[2],[3]
Occ: Lord of Cleveland and Annandale

of Skelton and Danby in Cleveland, co. York

had grant of Skelton from King Henry I, 1106[1]
exchanged other lands for Danby in Cleveland, co. Yorks.

attested a charter of William of Mortain before 1107, and charter of Henry I
at a council in Nottingham, confirming gifts to the church of Durham,
1109[3]

'Robertus de Brus', made gift of 20 carucates and 2 bovates of land, and the
town of Guisborough, to the canons of Guisborough (confirmed by grandson
Adam de Brus, before 1190[3])

'Robert de Brus', had charter from King David I of Scots for
' Estrahanent [i.e., Annandale] and all the land from the boundary of
Dunegal of Stranit [Nithsdale] to the boundary of Randolph Meschin....
Witnesses: Eustace Fitzjohn, Hugh de Morville, Alan de Perci, William
de Somerville, Berengar Engaine, Randolph de Sules, William de Morville,
Hervi son of Warin and Edmund the chamberlain', dated Scone, ca. 1124
[Donaldson, p. 19[4]]

'Robertus de Brus', made grant of the manor of Appleton Wieske ['vocatur
Appletona'] and the land between it and Kirk Levington to St. Mary's, York,
ca. 1125-35; witnessed by son Adam de Brus [EYC II:1-2, no. 648, citing
Chartulary of St. Mary's][3]

renounced allegiance to Scotland and resigned lands to younger son Robert
before Battle of the Standard, 1138

cf. Richard Borthwick, 'Researching de Brus and Descendants' (cites Sanders,
I J *English Baronies: a study of their origin and descent 1086-1327*
(Oxford, 1963 [1960]) 77; DNB III:114; K S B Keats-Rohan, *Domesday People:
A Prosopography of Persons occurring in English Documents, 1066-1166* (The
Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 1999) I:414-415)[1]

Children: Adam (-1143)
Robert (-1141)


1.1.1 Adam de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1143[3],[2]
Occ: lord of Cleveland

of Skelton and Danby in Cleveland, co. York
Visitation of Yorkshire pedigree shows his death in 1167[5]

'Ada filio meo', witness to gift of father Robert of the manor of Appleton
Wiske to St. Mary's, York ca. 1125-35 (EYC II: 1-2, cites Chartulary of St.
Mary's)[3]

previously identified by Farrer[3] and others as 1st husband of Jueta de
Arches[3]

corrections and identification as husband of Agnes of Aumale by Cris Nash[6]
and Rosie Bevan[7]

Spouse: Agnes of Aumale[3]
Death: aft 1170[3]
Father: Stephen, count of Aumale (-ca1127)
Mother: Hawise de Mortimer

Children: Adam de Brus of Skelton (ca1134-1196), m. Jueta de Arches
William de Brus [7]


1.1.2 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1141
Occ: Lord of Annandale

Lord of Annandale on father's resignation (prior to Battle of the
Standards), 1138

2nd son (elder brother inherited most of the English lands)

re: his wife Agnes:

'Agnes uxor Roberti de Brus'
founder together with her husband of Middlesborough priory as a cell of
Whitby abbey (DD 355, cites Dugdale, Mon. Anglicanum III:632, no. I)[8]
cf. also EYC II:203, no. 858[3]

Spouse: Agnes

Children: Robert (-1189)
Agatha


1.1.2.1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1189
Occ: Lord of Annandale

of Hartlepool, co. Durham
Lord of Annandale [Scot]

d. before 1196 according to Farrer, EYC[3]

made grant with wife Eufemia of the church of St. Hilda's Isle, Hartlepool,
co. Durham to the canons of Guisborough, before 1176[3]

'Robertus de Brus', grant of a messuage in Hartlepool to the monks of
Durham witnessed by sons,
'Roberto, Willelmo et Bernardo filiis meis,..' and others, ca. 1170-1190
[EYC II:8, no. 658][3]

Re: his wife Eufemia:

'Eufemia de Albamarla':
" Nepta " of William, count of Aumale, whom he married
to Robert de Brus of Annerdale [sic]. Probably his
niece, daughter of Ingelran d'Aumale. "
[DD 268, cites Farrer, EYC III, no. 1352][8]

'domina Eufemia', witness to notice by Robert de Brus her husband (to his
men) or a gift of a house with its manse and land in Lochmaben to the
brethren of the hospital of St. Peter, York. [EYC II:4, no. 651, cites
CCR iii, 92][3]

'a niece or other kinswoman ('nepta') of William, earl of Aumale' [DD 355,
cites EYC iii, 1335][8]

Spouse: Eufemia de Aumale[3]
Father: Ingelran of Aumale, brother of William, count of Aumale [8]

Children: Robert (-ca1190)
William (-<1215)
Bernard


1.1.2.1.1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1190, d.s.p.
Occ: Lord of Annandale

of Hartlepool, co. Durham
Lord of Annandale [Scot]

1st husband of Isabel of Scotland, illegitimate dau. of William the Lion
King of Scots [she m. 2ndly Robert de Ros, of Helmsley, co. Yorks.]

grant of a messuage in Hartlepool to the monks of Durham by father Robert
de Brus witnessed by sons,
'Roberto, Willelmo et Bernardo filiis meis,..' and others, ca. 1170-1190
[EYC II:8, no. 658][3]

Spouse: Isabel of Scotland
Father: William 'the Lion', King of Scots (1143-1214)
Mother: NN [not married]


1.1.2.1.2 William de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 26 Jun 1215[9],[3]
Occ: Lord of Annandale

of Hartlepool, co. Durham
Lord of Annandale [Scot]

'William de Brus', witness [with Bernard de Brus and others] to charter of
Robert de Brus * granted Elton, near Stockton, to William de Humetz,
before 1184 [EYC II:4, no. 650 -note 3; cites Brit. Mus.,
Cott. ch. xviii, 50][3]

grant of a messuage in Hartlepool to the monks of Durham by father Robert
de Brus witnessed by sons,
'Roberto, Willelmo et Bernardo filiis meis,..' and others, ca. 1170-1190
[EYC II:8, no. 658][3]

had charters for a market [mercatum] and fair, granted 1201 by King John
to William de Brus; ' William owed 20m. for having a market and a fair
lasting three days ' (PR, 3 John, pp. 249–50)[9]

* called Robert II de Brus (more likely, the father of William)

Re: his wife Christian, or Cristina:

her dower included a third of the manor of Hartlepool, co. Durham, as
evidenced by agreement with her son and heir Robert de Brus:
' On 11 Nov 1218, an agreement between Robert Brus and Patrick, earl of
Dunbar and C. the countess, records that Patrick was to retain one
third of the market (Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, i,
1108–1272, p. 123, no. 700). '[9]

identified by Andrew B. W. MacEwen as Christian/Christina le Stewart,
daughter of Walter fitz Alan[10],[11]

she m. 1stly William de Brus,
2ndly Patrick, earl of Dunbar[12]

Spouse: Christian 'filia Walter'
Father: Walter fitz Alan, steward of Scotland (-1177)
Mother: Eschina of Huntlaw

Children: Robert (-1245)
Euphemia (-ca1267)


1.1.2.1.2.1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1245[13]
Occ: Lord of Annandale

of Hartlepool, co. Durham

' On 26 Jun 1215, Philip de Ulecot was notified that K John had granted
Robert de Brus, son and heir of William de Brus, a Wed market [ and a
fair on f+2 Laurence (10 Aug)] as it was set out in the charter (RLC,
i, p. 217). On 11 Nov 1218, an agreement between Robert Brus and Patrick,
earl of Dunbar and C. the countess, records that Patrick was to retain
one third of the market (Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, i,
1108–1272, p. 123, no. 700). '[9] [14]

~ The above agreement in 1218 was between Robert, his mother Cecilia and
her new husband Patrick, Earl of Dunbar

Re: his wife Isabel:

2nd daughter, and coheiress of her brother, John, Earl of Chester

had the manors of Hatfield Regis and Writtle, Essex as her
share of the Chester inheritance (or in lieu thereof), 1238
[acc. to Sanders, held ' for the service of 1 knight's fee in
exchange for her share of the Chester estates', p. 102[2]]

also held to have received possession of Great Baddow,
Essex, 1243 (Farrer, HKF II: 47)[15]

'Her manors of Writtle and Hatfield (Broad Oak), Essex and the 1/2
hundred pertaining to Hatfield, were taken into the King's hand before
20 Mar 1251/52, and her son did homage therefor in Apr. or May. These
manors, &c., had been granted to her, 16 Oct. 1241, in exchange for her
share of the inheritance of John, Earl of Chester, in that Earldom.'[13]

Spouse: Isabel of Huntingdon
Death: bef 20 Mar 1251[13]
Father: David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon (-1219)
Mother: Maud of Chester (1171-ca1233)

Children: Robert (1210-1295)


1.1.2.1.2.1.1a Robert de Brus*
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1210[16]
Death: 31 Mar 1295, Lochmaben Castle[13],[16]
Burial: 17 Apr 1295, Guisborough Priory[13]
Occ: Lord of Annandale

Lord of Annandale
[England] of Hartlepool, co. Durham, Writtle and Hatfield, Essex & c.[13]
allegedly designated successor of Alexander II, c. 1251[16]

supporter of King Henry III in England, April 1264 at Nottingham;
fought at Battle of Lewes, 14 May 1264 (captured by de Montfort's forces)
- ransomed by son Robert[16]

his son Richard de Brus had grant of the marriage and custody
of the lands of Ralph de Tosny, 8 August 1265 * [probable as reward for
support of King Henry III at Evesham and before - originally granted to
Humphrey de Bohun and Edmund of Lancaster, 12 May 1264][13]

* order for William de St. Omer to delivery him to
'Richard' de Brus, 19 Sept 1265 [CP Vol. XII/I,
Tony, p. 773 and note b, citing Cal. Patent Rolls and
Close Rolls][13]

' Robertus de Bruse, dominus vallis Anandaie ', together with his sons
Robert snd Richard, entered into a bond with Patrick, earl of Dunbar,
Walter, earl of Menteith and others at Turnberry, 20 Sept 1286 'to adhere
to the party of Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster and Sir Thomas de Clare '
[Red Book of Menteith II: 219-220, citing Historical Docs. Scotland,
i:22[17] ]

' Brus dominus Vallis Anandie, Robertus de (Robert de
Brus feignor du Val Danant). ' - swore allegiance to King Edward I at
Berwick, 1291 [Ragman Roll[18] ]

competitor for the Scottish succession, 1292[12]

In 1292, the market at Ireby, Cumberland was held by ' Robert de Brus,
the elder, and Cristiana his wife,' the heir of the grantee [William de
Ireby] under a charter granted by King Henry III, 29 Nov 1236 (QW, p.
124).[9]

Spouse: Isabel de Clare[12]
Birth: 8 Nov 1226[13]
Death: bef 10 May 1275[13]
Father: Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford (~1180-1230)
Mother: Isabel le Marshal, d. of William le Marshal, Earl of Pembroke
(1200-1239)
Marr: abt 1240

Children: Robert (1243-<1304)
Richard (-1287)
John
Alicia [Aloysia]
Isabel
Mary (->1282)
Bernard (-<1269)

Other Spouses [2nd wife] Christiana de Ireby


1.1.2.1.2.1.1a.1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 4 Apr 1304[16],[13]
Birth: Jul 1243[13]
Occ: Earl of Carrick de jure uxoris; Lord Brus

Earl of Carrick, de jure uxoris
[England] of Hartlepool, co. Durham, Writtle and Hatfield, Essex & c.[13]

' Robertus de Brus comes de Carryke ', together with his father and
brother Richard, entered into the bond at Turnberry, 20 Sept 1286
[Red Book of Menteith II: 219-220, citing Historical Docs. Scotland,
i:22[17] ]

' Brus comes de Carryk, Robertus de ' - swore allegiance to King Edward I
at Berwick, 1291 [Ragman Roll[18] ]

performed homage and had livery of his father's English lands, 4 Jul 1295
summoned to attend the King at Shrewsbury, 28 June 1283 by writ directed
'Roberto de Brus comiti de Carrik'[13]

' In 1293, Robert de Brus had a market in Hartlepool, within the liberties
of the bp of Durham (QW, p. 604).'[9]

summoned to Parliament (England) from 24 June 1295 by writ directed
'Roberto de Brus', held thereby to have become Lord Brus[13]

Earl of Carrick in right of his wife; resigned Earldom to son, 9 Nov 1292;
Lord of Annandale 1292-1304[16]

' Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick ', knight
: his arms are recorded ca. 1285 as
' Or a saltire and a chief gules ' (St. George's Roll E93[19])

Spouse: Marjorie of Carrick
Death: bef 9 Nov 1292[16]
Father: Neil, Earl of Carrick (-1256)
Mother: Isabella
Marr: 1271[13]

Children: Robert I 'the Bruce' (1274-1329)
Edward (~1276-1318)
Christian (-ca1356)
Maud (->1323)
Mary
Isabella
Neil (-1306)
Thomas (-1306)
Alexander (-1306)
Margaret


1.1.2.1.2.1.1a.2 Richard de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1287, d.s.p.[20]

of Wigglesworth and Preston, co. Yorks.

'Ricardus de Brus', held manors of Wigglesworth and Preston, co. Yorks. of
the honor of Percy, ca. 1281 [Kirkby's Inquest, p. 21[21]]

had grant of the marriage and custody of the lands of Ralph de Tosny,
8 August 1265 * [probable as reward for support of King Henry III at
Evesham and before - originally granted to Humphrey de Bohun and Edmund
of Lancaster, 12 May 1264][13]

' Richard de Brus ', one of the knights (together with Thomas de
Clare and Nicholas de Segrave) who, at Westminster on
10 May 1270 received
' Protection with clause volumus, for four years from Easter, for Robert
de Ufford, crusader, who is going with the king and with Edward the
king's son to the Holy Land. ' [CPR 1267-1272, p. 479, m.15d[22]]

' Richard de Brus ', knight
: his arms are recorded ca. 1285 as
' Gules a saltire and a chief or ' (St. George's Roll E91[19])

' Ricardus de Brus ', together with his father and brother Robert, entered
into the bond at Turnberry, 20 Sept 1286 [Red Book of Menteith II: 219-220,
citing Historical Docs. Scotland, i:22[17] ]


1.1.2.1.2.1.1a.3 Mary de Brus (CONJECTURED)
----------------------------------------
Death: aft 1282[13]

identification tentative, but probable :

(1) grant of marriage of Ralph de Tosny to Richard de Brus
(evidently son of Robert de Brus), 8 August 1265
(2) her son Robert de Tosny born at ' Thornby [sic], in Scotland ' [CP
Vol. XII/I, Tony - p. 773][13] - this evidently was Turnberry,
co. Ayr., a stronghold of the Bruce family (as Earls of
Carrick)
(3) Robert de Tosny's continued association with/in Scotland,
including his marriage to Maud of Strathearn [13]

It is certain that 'Thornby' was Turnberry, called ' the chief castle of
Carrick ' [G.W.S. Barrow, p. 25][16]

Spouse: Ralph (VII) de Tosny, of Flamstead, co. Herts.
Death: bef 29 Jul 1295, France (prisoner)[23]
Birth: 1255[23],[13]
Father: Roger de Tosny (1235-<1264)
Mother: Alice de Bohun (-<1255)
Marr: bef 1276, prob. Scotland[23],[13]

Children: Robert de Tosny, Lord Tony(1276-<1309)
Alice (<1285-1324), m. (1) Thomas de Leyburn,
(2) William la Zouche de Mortimer,
(3) Guy de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick
NN, affianced to Robert de Tibetot 'junior'


1.1.2.1.2.1.1a.4 Bernard de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1269[24]

of Connington, co. Hunts.

'Bernard was given the manor of Connington, Hunts, by his father Robert de
Brus "The Competitor." He died in 1266 and Conington was settled on his
widow Constance who was holding it in 1276-86.'[25]

IPM, Barnard de Brus (53 Hen III)[24]

Spouse: Constance de Merston
Father: Ralph de Merston


1.1.2.1.2.2 Euphemia de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: ca 1267[12]

' Euphemia, married Patrick, sixth Earl of Dunbar ' [ SP I:12, which gives
her in error as daughter of Walter fitz Alan the Steward; also, III:256-7,
sub Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar[12] ]

she had the manor of Birkynside, co. Lauderdale as her maritagium
[SP III:256, cites Registrum de Dryburgh, 84, 85[12] ]

~ identification as Euphemia de Brus (correction of account in SP
which shows her as a daughter of Walter le Stewart) by Andrew
B. W. MacEwen[10]
[ previously thought to have been possibly a 2nd wife, as Patrick,
7th Earl of Dunbar was b. say 1213 (SP III:257), evidently older
than Alexander le Stewart, supposed brother of Euphemia[12] {now
disproved}]

Spouse: Patrick of Dunbar, Earl of Dunbar
Death: aft 14 Apr 1248, Marseilles (en route to Crusade)[12]
Father: Patrick, Earl of Dunbar (1152-1232)
Mother: Ada of Scotland, illeg. dau. of William the Lion, K of Scots

Children: Patrick (<1213-1289)
Waldeve
Isabel


1.1.2.1.3 Bernard de Brus
----------------------------------------

cf. DD 355[8]

'Bernard de Brus', witness [with William de Brus and others] to charter of
Robert de Brus * granted Elton, near Stockton, to William de Humetz,
before 1184 [EYC II:4, no. 650 -note 3; cites Brit. Mus., Cott. ch.
xviii, 50][3]

grant of a messuage in Hartlepool to the monks of Durham by father Robert
de Brus witnessed by sons,
'Roberto, Willelmo et Bernardo filiis meis,..' and others, ca. 1170-1190
[EYC II:8, no. 658][3]


1.1.2.2 Agatha de Brus
----------------------------------------

or 'Agnes', identified by Rosie Bevan as dau. of Robert de Brus[26]

parentage as stated by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (DD 355)[8]

'de Brus, Agatha':
"Daughter of Robert I de Brus, Wife of Ralph son of Ribald. Farrer, 'Early
Yorkshire Charters' II, no. 650".
This citation actually shows that Agatha was daughter of Robert II de Brus.'
Henry Sutliff, SGM, 15 Sept 2002 (also FMG), cites DD 355[27]

~ but see discussion re: EYC II: 300-301[28] [holds she was daughter of
Robert 'I' de Brus]

Spouse: Ralph fitz Ribald, of Middleham in Richmondshire, co. Yorks.
Father: Ribald of Brittany, lord of Middleham (-1121)
Mother: Beatrice Taillebois (-1112)

Children: Robert (-<1206)


1.1.2.2.1 Robert Fitz Ralph
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 1206[23]

of Middleham, co. York

~ also known as Robert fitz Ranulf

Spouse: Hawise de Glanville
Death: 1 Mar 1194[29]
Father: Ranulf de Glanville, Justiciar of England (~1120-<1190)
Mother: Bertha de Valoins

Children: Waleran (ca1170-<1206)
Ralph (-<1206)
Ranulf (<1186-<1252)



1. Richard Borthwick, "Re: Researching DE BRUS and descendants," August 21,
1999, cites sources for the ancestry of Laderine de Brus, wife of Sir
John de Bellew (or 'de Bella Acqua'), souces include Sanders, English
Baronies; EYC - C T Clay *Early Yorkshire Charters*; HKF - W Farrer
*Honors and Knights' Fees*;, and ES - D Schwennicke (ed) *Europaeische
Stammtafeln*.
2. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent,
1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
3. William Farrer, Hon.D.Litt., Editor, "Early Yorkshire Charters,"
Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., Edinburgh, 1915-1916, Vol. II (1915)
Vol. III (1916), Vol. XII [the family of Constable of Flamborough],
courtesy Rosie Bevan, Vol. V [Manfield fee, pp. 53-58 ], courtesy Rosie
Bevan, <Re: Avice de Tanfield, wife of Robert Marmion>, SGM, 26 Feb
2002.
4. Gordon Donaldson, "Scottish Historical Documents," Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press, 1970.
5. "The Visitation of Yorkshire," Harleian Soc., William Flower, Esquire,
Norroy King of Arms, Harleian Series, Vol. 16, Mitchell and Hughes,
Printers, London, 1881, pp. 154-156: pedigree of Hastings of Elsing
('Hastynges..' of Fenwick, co. Yorks.), 'The Visitation of Yorkshire in
the Years 1563 and 1564'.
6. Cristopher Nash, "Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt &
Brus," June 8, 2002, [email protected], citing Ruth Blakely,
'The Bruses of Skelton and William of Aumale', Yorks Archeol. Jnl. (2001)
73:19-28.
7. Rosie Bevan, "Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt & Brus,"
June 8, 2002, [email protected], citing Ruth Blakely, 'The
Bruses of Skelton and William of Aumale', Yorks Archeol. Jnl. (2001)
73:19-28.
8. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants," The Boydell Press,
Woodbridge, 2002, cited by Rosie Bevan, 'Re: de Stuteville' Jul 2, 2002,
p. 723 (Osmund de Stuteville), full title: Domesday Descendants: A
Prosopography of Persons, Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166:
Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum.
9. "Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs to 1516," http://www.histparl.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/
10. Andrew B. W. MacEwen, "telephone conference re: (1) Isabel de Dunbar,
wife of Roger fitz John of Warkworth," (2) Christina Stewart, countess
of Dunbar; (3) Cecilia, dau. of John fitz Robert of Wark, reference
made to his publications on The Seven Countesses, and 1999 article on
Alexander Sutherland of Dunbeath and his mistress, Catherine Chalmers,
28 October 2004, notes, library of John P. Ravilious.
11. Andrew B. W. MacEwen, "SEVEN SCOTTISH COUNTESSES: A MISCELLANY, III.
Cristina de Brus, Countess of Dunbar," The Genealogist, Fall 2003
(Volume 17, No. 2), pp. 223-233, identifieds Christina Stewart,
countess of Dunbar, part of a series on 'the Seven Scottish
Countesses', per telephone conference 28 October 2004, notes, library
of John P. Ravilious.
12. Sir James Balfour Paul, ed., "The Scots Peerage," 1904-1914
(9 volumes).
13. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 -
The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the
United Kingdom.
15. William Farrer, Litt.D., "Honors and Knights' Fees," London:
Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co., Ltd., 1924 (3 vols.), Vol I:, Vol II:
Chester; Huntingdon, Vol III: Arundel, Eudes the Sewer, Warenne.
16. G. W. S. Barrow, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland," Edinburgh University Press, 1976 (2nd ed.).
17. William Fraser, "The Red Book of Menteith," Edinburgh: 1880, .pdf image
files provided by Genealogy.com http://www.genealogy.com
history and evidences concerning the Earls and Earldom of Mentieth.
18. "Clan Stirling," http://www.clanstirling.org/uploads/ragmanrolls.pdf
provides .pdf file of the names of those who swore allegiance to
Edward I of England at Berwick, 1296 (the 'Ragman Rolls').
19. Brian Timms, "St George's Roll," College of Arms, London, MS Vincent
164 ff 1-21b., http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/, Dated c1285. Painted,
containing 677 shields., Source: Gerard J Brault, Rolls of Arms of
Edward I, Boydell & Brewer, 1997.
20. Douglas Richardson, "Mary .. ?, wife of Ralph VII de Toney," September
15, 2002, paper copy: library of John Ravilious, cites heraldic and
other information concerning Richard Bruce, or de Brus, brother of
Robert Bruce 'the Competitor', incl. G. Brault, Rolls of Arms of
Edward I.
21. John de Kirkby, "The survey of the county of York taken by John de
Kirkby, commonly called Kirkby's Inquest," also inquisitions of
knights' fees, the Nomina villarum for Yorkshire, and an appendix of
illustrative documents, Durham: Pub. for the Society by Andrews and
Co., 1867.
22. "Calendar of the Patent Rolls," preserved in the Public Record Office,
London: Printed for His Majesty's Stationery Office by the Hereford
Times Co., Ltd., 1910, (Henry III, A.D. 1258-1266), p. 435, grant to
Richard de Brus of the custody of the heir of Roger de Tony,
(Henry III, A.D. 1267-1272), (Richard II, A.D. 1377-1381), Vol. 1, p.
524, presentation to the church of Southpole, 3 July 1380.
23. Frederick L. Weis, Th. D., "The Magna Carta Sureties, 1215," Baltimore:
Gen Pub Co., 5th ed., 1997 (W. L. Sheppard Jr & David Faris).
24. Rosie Bevan, "Re: Wife of Robert II de Brus," Feb 27, 2000, cites IPM
for Barnard de Brus 53 Hen III, and Barnard de Brus, senior, and his
wife Agatha, 12 Edw II.
25. Mardi Carter, "Constance de Morteyn wife of Bernard de Brus," 4
January, 2003, also Hal Bradley, citing Moriarty, George Andrews,
"The Morteyn Family in Bedfordshire".
26. Rosie Bevan, "Re: Walter Deincourt of Blankney, co. Lincoln : a Royal
Kinsman," October 3, 2002, paper copy: library of John Ravilious, cites
Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters.
27. "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy," Corrections to K S B Keats-Rohan's,
"Domesday Descendants", http://fmg.ac/Projects/Domesday/, de Caisneto,
Sibilla - Chris Phillips, 16 March 2003, citing HKF, 3: 314, 316 and
also citing Dugdale, 1817-30, 3: 636b; 5: 559b, p.493 de Gurnai,
Hadvisa; p.303 de Ballon, Roger - Rosie Bevan, 31 March 2003, citing
Sanders, p. 14. The heir of de Ballon was Newmarch of Cadbury (not de
Gournay of Beverstone), also, re: Jordan filius Alani (cites CP xi,
320ff.).
28. "Notes on the de Brus Family (Agatha daughter of Robert de Brus I),"
http://www.milsom100.freeserve.co.uk/th ... brus02.htm
cites EYC Volume 2 pages 300-301.
29. Ray Phair, "Ranulf de Glanville," Feb 22, 1999, paper copy: library of
John P. Ravilious, cites "Early Yorkshire Charters" (EYC), ed. W. Farrer
and C.T. Clay,, 1914-65, 5:234-7, 302-3. Also W. Dugdale, "The
baronage of England", repr. 1977, 1:423-4.,, Surtees Soc. 83:61-2
(1899), ed. J.C. Atkinson; EYC 2:118-9.


* John P. Ravilious

[Roger Tansey]

Hmmmh, I could be mistaken, but I believe Robert, lord of Annandale,
d. 1142 (father of William and Robert), married an Agnes de Paynel....

Best, Roger

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Okay bear with me on one more point,

1) William, Lord of Annandale d bef 26 Jun 1215, married Christina.

2) William was the brother of Robert of Bruce d 1191 who had married Isabel natural daughter of William 'the Lion', K Scotland.

3) William and Robert's father was Robert, Lord of Annandale.

And HIS father was also Robert, Lord of Annadale who married Judith of Lancaster? Or should these last two Robert's be the same person?

Thanks
Will

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 5 Nov, [email protected] (Roger Tansey) wrote:

Hmmmh, I could be mistaken, but I believe Robert, lord of Annandale,
d. 1142 (father of William and Robert), married an Agnes de Paynel....

You have good grounds for this: both the Dictionary of National
Biography in 1886 and The Scots Peerage in 1905 say that the wife of
this Robert, who both reported to have died in 1141, was Agnes de
Paganel.

However Keats-Rohan in her Domesday People, p. 414, makes no mention of
a wife, though says he died in 1142 and in her Domesday Descendants, p.
355, has an "Agnes Uxor Roberti de Brus" as wife of the Robert who died
in 1142 and of which Agnes she reports that Farrer, editor of Vols I to
III of Early Yorkshire Charters, suggested she was the daughter of
Geoffrey Bainard.

Take your pick? Or find a contemporary document or two?

[email protected] wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Okay bear with me on one more point,

1) William, Lord of Annandale d bef 26 Jun 1215, married Christina.

2) William was the brother of Robert of Bruce d 1191 who had
married Isabel natural daughter of William 'the Lion', K Scotland.

3) William and Robert's father was Robert, Lord of Annandale.

And HIS father was also Robert, Lord of Annadale who married Judith
of Lancaster? Or should these last two Robert's be the same person?

Thanks
Will

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 5 Nov, [email protected] wrote:

Friday, 5 November, 2004


Dear Tim, Will, et al.,

Following is what I have on the de Brus (Bruce) family of Annandale
down to the issue of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick (d. 1304), father of
'The Bruce'. This includes the most recent identifications to the Stewards
of Scotland and the Earls of Dunbar.

Cheers,

John

_______________________________________



1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------

of North Cave, co. Yorks.

'Robert was granted part of North Cave very shortly after 1086.' {Richard
Borthwick, 'Re: Researching de Brus and Descendants' (cites DNB III:114;
VCH Yorks (ER) IV:27; VCH Yorks II:167)[1]}

Children: Robert (-1142)


1.1 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1142[2],[3]
Occ: Lord of Cleveland and Annandale

of Skelton and Danby in Cleveland, co. York

had grant of Skelton from King Henry I, 1106[1]
exchanged other lands for Danby in Cleveland, co. Yorks.

attested a charter of William of Mortain before 1107, and charter of Henry I
at a council in Nottingham, confirming gifts to the church of Durham,
1109[3]

'Robertus de Brus', made gift of 20 carucates and 2 bovates of land, and the
town of Guisborough, to the canons of Guisborough (confirmed by grandson
Adam de Brus, before 1190[3])

'Robert de Brus', had charter from King David I of Scots for
' Estrahanent [i.e., Annandale] and all the land from the boundary of
Dunegal of Stranit [Nithsdale] to the boundary of Randolph Meschin....
Witnesses: Eustace Fitzjohn, Hugh de Morville, Alan de Perci, William
de Somerville, Berengar Engaine, Randolph de Sules, William de Morville,
Hervi son of Warin and Edmund the chamberlain', dated Scone, ca. 1124
[Donaldson, p. 19[4]]

'Robertus de Brus', made grant of the manor of Appleton Wieske ['vocatur
Appletona'] and the land between it and Kirk Levington to St. Mary's, York,
ca. 1125-35; witnessed by son Adam de Brus [EYC II:1-2, no. 648, citing
Chartulary of St. Mary's][3]

renounced allegiance to Scotland and resigned lands to younger son Robert
before Battle of the Standard, 1138

cf. Richard Borthwick, 'Researching de Brus and Descendants' (cites Sanders,
I J *English Baronies: a study of their origin and descent 1086-1327*
(Oxford, 1963 [1960]) 77; DNB III:114; K S B Keats-Rohan, *Domesday People:
A Prosopography of Persons occurring in English Documents, 1066-1166* (The
Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 1999) I:414-415)[1]

Children: Adam (-1143)
Robert (-1141)


1.1.1 Adam de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1143[3],[2]
Occ: lord of Cleveland

of Skelton and Danby in Cleveland, co. York
Visitation of Yorkshire pedigree shows his death in 1167[5]

'Ada filio meo', witness to gift of father Robert of the manor of Appleton
Wiske to St. Mary's, York ca. 1125-35 (EYC II: 1-2, cites Chartulary of St.
Mary's)[3]

previously identified by Farrer[3] and others as 1st husband of Jueta de
Arches[3]

corrections and identification as husband of Agnes of Aumale by Cris Nash[6]
and Rosie Bevan[7]

Spouse: Agnes of Aumale[3]
Death: aft 1170[3]
Father: Stephen, count of Aumale (-ca1127)
Mother: Hawise de Mortimer

Children: Adam de Brus of Skelton (ca1134-1196), m. Jueta de Arches
William de Brus [7]


1.1.2 Robert de Brus
----------------------------------------
Death: 1141
Occ: Lord of Annandale

Lord of Annandale on father's resignation (prior to Battle of the
Standards), 1138

2nd son (elder brother inherited most of the English lands)

re: his wife Agnes:

'Agnes uxor Roberti de Brus'
founder together with her husband of Middlesborough priory as a cell of
Whitby abbey (DD 355, cites Dugdale, Mon. Anglicanum III:632, no. I)[8]
cf. also EYC II:203, no. 858[3]

My impression from this entry is that Agnes' husband is the Robert Brus
in Domesday Descendants. K-R explicitly calls her husband Robert I de
Brus and in other numbered entries this would refer to the first Robert
Brus in either of the two volumes.

Spouse: Agnes

Children: Robert (-1189)
Agatha

I am perplexed at this Robert. Other genealogies leave him out. I
cannot see him in The Scots Peerage in their article on the Bruce earls
of Carrick, pp. 428-430. Nor can I see him in the entries in
Keats-Rohan's Domesday People, p. 414, or Domesday Descendants, p.
354-5. While Keats-Rohan does not give the death date of Robert II
Brus, she has him alive in 1160-75 and SP has him dying in 1194.

Are you sure he existed?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org