Blount-Ayala

[D. Spencer Hines]

So...

If Edward VII is actually Camilla's Great-Grandfather -- she and Charles
are [half] second cousins, once removed?

Lord love a duck...

I see lots of "INBRED [BRITISH] ROYALTY" jokes on the late-night comedy
shows.

Deeeelightful!

More British Royal Fun & Games -- And The Brits, And The Tourists, Pay
For All Of It....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Mary Elizabeth PARSONS, who seems to have died in 1902, is any relation
to our own John Carmi 'Pogue' Parsons?"

"This might well explain his high interest in Camilla."

D. Spencer Hines

| >Nah, it's probably just his well-known _idee fixe_ or master mania:
| >anything to do with Queens and queenliness ...

"starbucks95"

Hmmmmmm...

So that explains his fascination with Peter 'Pogue' Stewart?

Thanks....

DSH

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

| Sorry to disappoint you all.
|
| My family is of Cornish origin and has no connection to the Scottish
family
| of the same name from which Camilla descends.
|
| OTOH my maternal grandmother's family has been settled in Lancaster
Co., PA
| since the 1720s and my maternal grandfather's in the same county since
| around 1800. I note from Mr Reitweisner's site that some of Camilla's
| ancestors lived there in the mid-1700s so who knows?
|
| Regards
|
| John P.

[Peter Tilman]

Her name is "Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles". "Shand" ceased to be part of
her name when she married.

[D. Spencer Hines]

http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/camilla.html

Absolutely First-Rate, WAR.

You should put all this in a beautiful, pricey, illustrated,
with-charts, BOOK, along with your other GEMS, tell us about it HERE and
we shall all BUY it.

Cheers,

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

I'm reflecting her ancestry -- not her legal name.

DSH

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

| Her name is "Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles". "Shand" ceased to be
part of
| her name when she married.

[Peter Stewart]

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

<snip>

Recently I learned that a dispensation was in fact granted for the
marriage of King Fernando and Jeanne de Dammartin. The
dispensation is dated 31 August 1237. It reportedly can be
found in two sources:

Brunel, Recueil des actes des comtes de Ponthieu, 1026-1279
(1930), no.304.

This reference is wrong - no. 304 in Brunel's edition (which by the way
spells the name "Pontieu") is a charter of Jeanne's parents, from August
1237 but with no day stated. This refers to the request of their eldest
daughter Jeanne, "queen of Spain and Castille" (regine Yspanie et Castelle),
and doesn't mention her husband or any relationship between them.

All this could prove is that the marriage of Jeanne to Fernando had already
taken place before the date range of 2 September/31 October given in many
genealogies, and some months "prior to 20 November" as given by Szabolcs de
Vajay in 'From Alfonso VII to Alfonso X: the First Two Centuries of the
Burgundian Dynasty in Castile and Leon--a Prosopographical Catalogue in
Social Genealogy, 1100-1300', _Studies in Genealogy and Family History in
Tribute to Charles Evans on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday_, (Salt
Lake City, 1989) on p. 381, no. 40.

Peter Stewart

[Rick Eaton]

Mt unreliable, net-based information may help guide more deliberate,
original work.

As the data claims, the WARRENNEs and LE STRANGEs conjoined as follows:

ROGER, 5th Baron STRANGE of Knockyn, d. 1382, m. ALAIVE, dau of EDMUND
FITZALAN, Earl of Arundel by his wife ALICE, dau. of WILLIAM de WARRENNE

Their children were:

John, 6th baron Strange of Knockyn, d. 1397, m. Maud, dau of John, 5th baron
Mohun of Dunster by his wife, "Joane," dau. Of Bartholomew Burghersh
               
Isabel, m. James, 2nd Lord Audley
               
LUCY, m WILLIAM, 5th Baron WILLOUGHBY of Eresby. 
JOHN, 6th Baron STRANGE of Knockyn, d 1397, m MAUD, dau of JOHN, 5th Baron
Mohun of Dunster by his wife JOANE, dau of BARTHOLOMEW BURGHERSH.



[NAMERick [email protected]@sbcglobal.net

Dear Louise,
Thank you very much for the splendid detail given in your posting.
I have looked for the Shropshire Blanchminsters in the National Library of
Wales website, but found only one possibly helpful reference, to John
"Blaungmonstre" [!] as a witness to a deed dated circa 1300. There are
numerous
references to people named de Albo Ministerio, but no William or John, Ralph
or
Reginald, and no indication that we are looking at a single family.

The PRO yields the following:-

E210/227 Grant by Giles de Erdinton, to Robert le Estrange, of the manor of
Merbury, co Chester, with the land of Halehurst, co. Salop, which he had of
the
grant of William de Albo Monasterio, for the yearly rent of a rose at
Midsummer ; in return for which Robert grants to Giles all his land in
Rowelton and
Elwrthyn for 73s. yearly rent. Witnesses :- Sirs Roger de Clifford, Hamo
Lestrange (Extrango), John de Clinton, Odo de Hodenet, knights, and others
(named) :
Chester Salop, St Peter ad Vincula 52 HIII (1268).
There is also a safe conduct for a servant of Sir Ralph B. in C81 (undated).

The a2a site contains references to 7 files mentioning people named "de Albo
Ministerio". The most interesting are:-

Shropshire Sandford of the Isle ref 465/2 (c 1256-60)
465/9 (c 1280)
IMG SRC="http://www.a2a.org.uk/images/file.gif" WIDTH="32"
HEIGHT="19" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="158">[from Scope and Content] Witnesses: Sir
Ralph de Sontford,
Henry de Scavinton, Hugh de Stiele, Reginald Modi, Richard clerk of Mitneleg,
Nicholas de Hethe, William Chaplain of Whitchurch (Albi Monasterii)

Lancs Derby DDK/1400/4 refers to Sir John L'Estrange as being Lord of
Whitchurch 17th June 17 E III.

In his recent post re Thomas of London MichaelAnne (ClaudiusIO) gave the
following pedigree:-
1. Havise de Dinan+ Fulk Fitz Warin [died 1198]
2. Fulk Fitz Warin [died aft. Oct. 8, 1250]+ Maud le Vavsour
3. Fulk Fitz Warin [died May 16, 1264]+ Constance Toeni
3. Havise Fitz Warin+ William Pantulf
3. Eve Fitz Warin+ William de Blanchminster
snip
4. Eleanor Blanchminster+ Robert le Strange [died Oct. 12, 1276]
5. John le Strange
5. Fulk le Strange+ Eleanor Giffard
snip

If that pedigree is accepted, it would seem likely that the Lordship of
Whitchurch (known in early Medieval times as Whitchurch Warenne) passed from
the
Warennes to the L'Estranges with only one intervening generation of "de Albo
Monasterio" ownership.
Camden's Britannia refers to
"...the Barons Le Strange of Blackmere, who were surnamed Le Strange
commonly, and Extranei in Latin Records, for that they were strangers brought
hether
by King Henry the Second, and in short time their house was farre propagated.
These of Blackmere were much enriched by an heire of William de
Albo-monasterio
, or this Whit-Church, and also by one of the heires of John Lord Giffard of
Brimsfeild, of ancient nobility in Glocestershire, by the onely daughter of
Walter Lord Clifford."


I will try to locate some more sources.

The West Yorkshire Archives (Calderdale) have a Catalogue "Armytage of
Kirklees" which contains at KM/8 a Confirmation by William, Earl Warren (ob.
1240),
of the grant by Reinerus Flandrensis, son of William Flandrensis, to Kirklees
Nunnery, of lands, etc. Witnesses, Osbert Giffard, Auker de Freschenvill,
Willam de Albo Monasterio, Richard de Mednar, Baldwin de Hersin, Thomas de
Horbir, Seneschal of Earl Warrenne, William de Livet, Jordan de Heton, John de
Pleiz, clerk.

So at least it appears that the last Earl Warren did know someone called
William Blanchminster.

The first appearance of a Blanchminster in Cornwall which I have been able
to trace is that of Sir Ralph de Albo Monasterio, returned as a knight
available for military service in 17 E II -see Carew Survey of Cornwall,
p45-6.
MM

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/11/05 5:15:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

The Harringtons of Essex allegedly descend from
the Harrington family of Exton, Rutland. The Exton family has a
distinguished pedigree going back to King Alfred the Great.

I have Arrington ancestors, and there seems to be some confusion over the
Arringtons and the Harringtons. Are these two families related?

Jno

[Louis Epstein]

In alt.talk.royalty Peter Tilman <[email protected]> wrote:

Her name is "Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles". "Shand" ceased to be part
of her name when she married.

(Note that this is a British custom not observed in the USA,
where the convention is that a marriage converts previous
surnames into forenames,unless dropped legally.
Viz. Marjorie Merriweather Post Close Hutton Davies May,
who eventually reverted to Post by legal means after her
last marriage).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[martin reboul]

"starbuck95" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Mary Elizabeth PARSONS, who seems to have died in 1902, is any
relation to our own >>John Carmi 'Pogue' Parsons?

This might well explain his high interest in Camilla.

Nah, it's probably just his well-known _idée fixe_ or master mania:
anything to do with Queens and queenliness ...

His Majesty the Queen has been getting remarkably excited about all this I
notice. I just hope it doesn't mean he has any ideas about visiting Britain...
must get in touch with the Home Office to make sure he doesn't!
Cheers
Martin

[Louise Staley]

Dear Michael and Rick et. al,

Proving once again that there is nothing new under the sun, I have done a
search of the Rootsweb archive that's not in Google and found this family
was discussed by Todd Farmerie, Paul Reed and Kay Allen back in 1998. They
used Eyton's Antiquities of Shropshire, George Morris Collections,
Wrottesley's Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls and Farrer's Honors & Knights'
Fees. Their thread was more concerned with the Warenne's of Ightfield but
it touched on the Warenne/Whitchurch/Blancminster/Albo Monasterio family
we are having a look at. For anyone interested, the two threads are
"Warren of Ightfield" and "Warrens of Whitchurch and Ightfield" in July
1998.

Rick, the Strange connection appears in the Shropshire Blancminster family
line in a different way to that you presented. The Alice Warenne who
married Edmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel was the daughter of William
Warenne (of the earls of Surrey line) and Joan Vere. Edmund and Alice's
daughter Alice did however marry Roger Strange 5th Baron Strange of
Knockyn about 1338 as you show. The Strange links to the
Warenne/Blancminster family occur earlier when Eleanor Blancminster
married Robert Strange of Wrockwardine before 1276 and Griffin Warenne
married Maud Strange before about 1320. I would also note that Todd
Farmerie has suggested that this marriage between Griffin and Maud is not
valid and is based on a flawed Visitation.

Michael, thanks for posting these references. I too have looked for this
family and the multiple names makes it even more difficult than just the
usual spelling changes encountered in medieval records. I look forward to
seeing any others you might find.

Here are 7 generations from the earliest Shropshire Blancminster as far as
they appear in my database, (all corrections appreciated). There may be
other children that I haven't included.

I have followed the convention of calling the Whitchurch family
Blancminster and the Ightfield family Warenne. This is merely for clarity
as the surviving records seemed to use the names interchageably and this
family is believed to be related in some (as yet unknown) way to the main
earls of Surrey Warenne line.

I have assigned William of generation 2 two wives; Eva Fitzwarine as per
MichaelAnne's suggestion and made her the mother of the children, and
Clemence, who is I believe assigned as the wife of that generation by
Eyton. For discussion of who this Clemence is see the multiple threads on
the identity of Clemence, mistress of King John I in the archives.

Descendants of Ranulph Blancminster
-----------------------------------
1-Ranulph Blancminster d. Bef 1176
+
|-2-William Blancminster d. Bef 1203
+Emma Wife of William Blancminster
|-3-William Blancminster d. Bef 1260
| +Eva Fitzwarine , par. Sir Fulk III Fitzwarine Knt., of
| Lambourn, Whittington & Alveston and Maud Vavasour
| |-4-Betraya Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. 1280,
| | s.p.
| |-4-Joan Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. , s.p.
| | +William Barrington
| |-4-Maud Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster
| | +William Bracy
| |-4-Eleanor Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. 1306,
| | Ercall Magna, SAL, ENG
| +Robert Strange of Wrockwardine, SAL d. Bef 12 Oct 1276,
| par. John Strange Lord of Knockyn and Lucy Tregoz
| |-5-Fulk Strange Baron Strange of Blackmere 1st b. Abt
| | 1267, d. Bef 23 Jan 1325
| +Eleanor Gifford d. Bef 1325, par. Sir John Gifford
| Baron Gifford 1st and Maud Clifford
| |-6-John Strange Baron Strange of Blackmere 2nd b. 25
| | Jan 1305, d. 21 Jul 1349
| | +Anchoret Boteler d. 8 Oct 1361, par. William Boteler
| | Baron Boteler 4th and Ela Herdeburgh
| | |-7-Fulk Strange Baron Strange of Blackmere 3rd b. 2
| | | Feb 1331, d. 30 Aug 1349, s.p.m.
| | |-7-John Strange Baron Strange of Blackmere 4th b. Abt
| | | 1332, Whitchurch, SAL, ENG, d. 12 May 1361
| | |-7-Eleanor Strange of Blackmere d. 20 Apr 1396
| |-6-Elizabeth Strange b. 1308, d. Nov 1381
| | +Sir Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet b. 25 Dec 1304,
| | d. 3 Dec 1375, m. Bef Mar 1323
| | |-7-Sir Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet d. Abt 1394
| |-6-Maud Strange of Blackmere
| +Griffin Warenne of Ightfield d. 1356, par. John
| Warenne of Ightfield
| |-7-John Warenne of Ightfield d. Bef 1356, v.p.
| +Brian Cornwall of Kinlet b. Abt 1326, d. 1392, par.
| Sir Edmund Cornwall of Kinlet and Elizabeth Brompton
| heiress of Kinlet
| |-7-Isabel Cornwall heiress of Kinlet
| +Sir Bewes Knoville Baron Knoville 1st d. Bef 6 Jul 1307,
| m. Abt 1276
| |-5-Eleanor Knoville
| +Thomas Mauduit of Warminster b. 14 Oct 1287, d. 1322,
| par. Warin Mauduit of Warminster and Elizabeth Lisle
| |-6-John Mauduit b. Abt 1311, d. 1364
| +Clemence Wife of William Blancminster
|-3-Griffin Warenne of Ightfield b. Bef 1234, d. 1286
+Isabel Pulford d. After 1298
|-4-John Warenne of Ightfield b. After 1271, d. After 1335
+
|-5-Griffin Warenne of Ightfield d. 1356
+Maud Strange of Blackmere , par. Fulk Strange Baron
Strange of Blackmere 1st and Eleanor Gifford
|-6-John Warenne of Ightfield d. Bef 1356, v.p.
+
|-7-Griffin Warenne of Ightfield b. Abt 1354, d. After
| 1405
+Matilda Wife of William Blancminster d. After 1238

It is my understanding that the Cornwall Blancminsters received their
Cornish lands as a result of Sir Ranulph Balncminster (d. aft. 1265) being
the son of a Yorkshire heiress, Lucy Turet of Wishale and Halegh Park,
whose inheritance included some of the Cornish possessions. As far as I am
aware the name of Lucy Turet's husband is unknown but going on the dates
he is either a younger son of William Blancminster in generation 2 or a
grandson through a younger son of Ranulph in generation 1.

The answer may well be in "The Story of Stratton Church" by Frederick
James Bone, (1919) William Brendan & Sons: Plymouth. This book is held in
the Cornwall library at Bude and Launceston and also at the Devon and
Exeter Institution Library in Exeter. Is there anyone on the list with
acces to Bude, Launceston or Exeter libraries?

thanks
Louise

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Rick Eaton wrote:
Mt unreliable, net-based information may help guide more deliberate,
original work.
As the data claims, the WARRENNEs and LE STRANGEs conjoined as follows:
ROGER, 5th Baron STRANGE of Knockyn, d. 1382, m. ALAIVE, dau of EDMUND
FITZALAN, Earl of Arundel by his wife ALICE, dau. of WILLIAM de WARRENNE

[Peter Tilman]

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

In alt.talk.royalty Peter Tilman <[email protected]> wrote:
Her name is "Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles". "Shand" ceased to be part
of her name when she married.

(Note that this is a British custom not observed in the USA,
where the convention is that a marriage converts previous
surnames into forenames,unless dropped legally.
Viz. Marjorie Merriweather Post Close Hutton Davies May,
who eventually reverted to Post by legal means after her
last marriage).

Yes, I'm aware that that's an American custom, but many Americans don't seem
to be aware of that, and assume it applies everywhere.

[Ashley Emerson]

Is Jane Legard, below, ancestor of Camilla, any relation to Ralph Legard (abt. 1490-1540), husband of Isabel Hildyard and father of Joan Legard?

I guess I am related to Camilla, too, through Nathaniel Treadway and Sufferance Haynes.

Thanks!
Ashley

3904 John Hotham, of Scarborough, co. York, d. ca. 1605 FY]
m. 3905 Jane Legard, b. 1568, d. ante 5 June 1623 [FY]


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Gjest]

Dear Louise Staley,
Fortunately the History of Stratton Church to which you referred is on line at


http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Stratton.htm

Though no sources are given, the account of the Blancminsters of Cornwall
agrees with the line that you and I have been working on.

Could you please instruct me how to get to the Rootsweb archive you mention?
I found nothing by Todd, Paul or Kay in the Warenne mailing list for July 1998.
M

[Don Stone]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Louise Staley,
Fortunately the History of Stratton Church to which you referred is on line at

http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Stratton.htm

Though no sources are given, the account of the Blancminsters of Cornwall
agrees with the line that you and I have been working on.

Could you please instruct me how to get to the Rootsweb archive you mention?
I found nothing by Todd, Paul or Kay in the Warenne mailing list for July 1998.
M

Information about accessing sgm/GM archives can be found at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/arch.htm. Follow the top link on that
page to get the the archives Louise mentioned.

-- Don Stone

[Gjest]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:48:10 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Ashley Emerson)
wrote:

Is Jane Legard, below, ancestor of Camilla, any relation to Ralph Legard (abt. 1490-1540),
husband of Isabel Hildyard and father of Joan Legard?

Granddaughter:

Ralph Legard m. Isabel Hildyard
Richard Legard m. Margaret Marshall
Jane Legard [3905] m. John Hotham [3904]

Source: Foster's Yorkshire

[Louise Staley]

Dear Michael,

Use the browse function for the Rootsweb archives and browse July 1998
then your browser's search function to search for Whitchurch, this will
bring them up in threaded format.

An excerpt from the Bone book I am trying to get a copy of is also online.
Unfortunately it is tantalising in what it doesn't say.
See http://www.localhistory.co.uk/ambra/txtco/co0025.htm

regards
Louise

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Don Stone wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
Dear Louise Staley,
Fortunately the History of Stratton Church to which you referred is on
line at

http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/Stratton.htm

Though no sources are given, the account of the Blancminsters of
Cornwall agrees with the line that you and I have been working on.

Could you please instruct me how to get to the Rootsweb archive you
mention? I found nothing by Todd, Paul or Kay in the Warenne mailing
list for July 1998.
M

Information about accessing sgm/GM archives can be found at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/arch.htm. Follow the top link on that
page to get the the archives Louise mentioned.

-- Don Stone

[Tony Hoskins]

There has been a distinct and widespread deterioration over the past
generation in the knowledge and proper use of titles of British
nobility, largely aided by the press; even (to my surprise) the British
press (I expect ignorance and solecisms on this subject here in the US).
I note references to peers as "Lord John Hopsbrewer" rather than "the
Rt. Hon. the Viscount Hopsbrewer", or more vernacularly (but perfectly
correctly) as simply "Lord Hopsbrewer". I must mention that instruction
at my English grandmother's knee (lo, those many years ago) included
clarity on the subject that if a woman were called "Margaret, Lady
Thatcher", she would most definitely *not* be a peeress in her own
right. That particular usage would indicate most likely that the lady
was the widow or divorced wife, of a baronet or peer. I also remember
being instructed in the arcane and recondite mysteries of dowager-ism!
Hmmm: maybe we *have* progressed after all, it suddenly occurs to me!

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hmmmmmmm...

Does any of Santa Rosa, California still look like the Santa Rosa,
California in Sir Alfred's superb 1943 film, _Shadow Of A Doubt_?

If so, which parts?

""Tony Hoskins"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:s20e40a7.067@CENTRAL_SVR2...

I must mention that instruction at my English grandmother's knee (lo,
those many years ago) included clarity on the subject that if a woman
were called "Margaret, Lady Thatcher", she would most definitely *not*
be a peeress in her own right. That particular usage would indicate most
likely that the lady was the widow or divorced wife, of a baronet or
peer. I also remember being instructed in the arcane and recondite
mysteries of dowager-ism! Hmmm: maybe we *have* progressed after all,
it suddenly occurs to me!

| Tony Hoskins
| Santa Rosa, California

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/12/2005 9:36:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Sarah Ferguson still calling
herself THE Duchess of York, which she isn't. She is Sarah, Duchess of
York. Similary,


Sound and fury, signifying nothing. A tempest in a teapot, or to put it
more succinctly, "Big Deal".

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

In the UK, is the name governed by law or simply custom? In the USA,
for example, it is common for women to retain their birth surname,
hyphenate it with that of their husband, or call themselves whatever
they will. Now, with the Patriot Act, it has become difficult to make
choices about one's own name - the California State Dept. of Motor
Vehicles clerk told me that the name on the driver's license must match
the one on the social security card which must match the birth
certificate etc etc. This even applied to common nicknames like "Bill"
for "William". In my case, they refused to renew my driver's license
because my birth certificate and social security card said "Bronwen"
while my driver's license said "Wendy". Next they'll be implanting
chips into our lips like racehorses and tracking where we go by our
celphones. Has the UK similarly cracked down on individual discretion
regarding names?

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

In the UK, is the name governed by law or simply custom? In the USA,
for example, it is common for women to retain their birth surname,
hyphenate it with that of their husband, or call themselves whatever
they will. Now, with the Patriot Act, it has become difficult to make
choices about one's own name - the California State Dept. of Motor
Vehicles clerk told me that the name on the driver's license must match
the one on the social security card which must match the birth
certificate etc etc. This even applied to common nicknames like "Bill"
for "William". In my case, they refused to renew my driver's license
because my birth certificate and social security card said "Bronwen"
while my driver's license said "Wendy". Next they'll be implanting
chips into our lips like racehorses and tracking where we go by our
celphones. Has the UK similarly cracked down on individual discretion
regarding names?

In the UK it is just as legal for the husband to take the wife's surname
as it is for the wife to take the husband's surname, but the custom is
to take the husband's surname.

You can be known by whatever you like in the UK, quite legally, without
having to resort to name-change by deed poll. I could suddenly decided
to be called Spongebob Squarepants, if I wanted, and open up bank
accounts, telephone bills, etc, in that name, and ask everyone to call
me Spongebob from now on.

But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.

Renia

[John Cartmell]

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

But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.

It's not quite as restricted as that. You will need to show who you are but
quite a number of official documents can be in your chosen name - as long
as their records x-refer to your 'official' name.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

[Renia]

John Cartmell wrote:

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

But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.


It's not quite as restricted as that. You will need to show who you are but
quite a number of official documents can be in your chosen name - as long
as their records x-refer to your 'official' name.

OK. When someone changed her name back to her maiden name by deedpoll, a
solicitor told her she would need the official record for legal
documents. So, really, she (and her sister) didn't need to go to all the
expense of reverting to their maiden name just to get their new name
onto official documents? Someone has misunderstood,then!

Renia

[John Cartmell]

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

John Cartmell wrote:

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

But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.


It's not quite as restricted as that. You will need to show who you
are but quite a number of official documents can be in your chosen
name - as long as their records x-refer to your 'official' name.

OK. When someone changed her name back to her maiden name by deedpoll, a
solicitor told her she would need the official record for legal
documents. So, really, she (and her sister) didn't need to go to all the
expense of reverting to their maiden name just to get their new name
onto official documents? Someone has misunderstood,then!

Some official records don't need anything other than your written request,
others may need deedpoll, some cannot be changed at all. Solicitors only
get paid for ... ?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

[erilar]

This may be on topic in your groups, but not in the one I read. Ever
thought of trimming irrelevant cross posting?

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

[Renia]

John Cartmell wrote:

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

John Cartmell wrote:


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


But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.


It's not quite as restricted as that. You will need to show who you
are but quite a number of official documents can be in your chosen
name - as long as their records x-refer to your 'official' name.



OK. When someone changed her name back to her maiden name by deedpoll, a
solicitor told her she would need the official record for legal
documents. So, really, she (and her sister) didn't need to go to all the
expense of reverting to their maiden name just to get their new name
onto official documents? Someone has misunderstood,then!


Some official records don't need anything other than your written request,
others may need deedpoll, some cannot be changed at all. Solicitors only
get paid for ... ?

Oh yes, I know about solicitors. But some records do need deedpoll, it
would appear. (Passport, NH, etc)

Renia

[John Cartmell]

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

John Cartmell wrote:

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

John Cartmell wrote:


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


But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.


It's not quite as restricted as that. You will need to show who you
are but quite a number of official documents can be in your chosen
name - as long as their records x-refer to your 'official' name.



OK. When someone changed her name back to her maiden name by deedpoll,
a solicitor told her she would need the official record for legal
documents. So, really, she (and her sister) didn't need to go to all
the expense of reverting to their maiden name just to get their new
name onto official documents? Someone has misunderstood,then!


Some official records don't need anything other than your written
request, others may need deedpoll, some cannot be changed at all.
Solicitors only get paid for ... ?

Oh yes, I know about solicitors. But some records do need deedpoll, it
would appear. (Passport, NH, etc)

Passport - possibly.
NHS - I really don't think so.
NI Number - no.
Driving licence - I'd be very surprised.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games http://www.finnybank.com http://www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

[William Black]

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

OK. When someone changed her name back to her maiden name by deedpoll, a
solicitor told her she would need the official record for legal
documents. So, really, she (and her sister) didn't need to go to all the
expense of reverting to their maiden name just to get their new name
onto official documents? Someone has misunderstood,then!

In English law your name is what you want it to be, as long as there is no
attempt to defraud.

A 'deed poll' isn't strictly necessary, but will help if you're dealing
with banks and similar institutions.

For a widowed or divorced woman to revert to her maiden name it certainly
isn't necessary as she will already have a birth certificate that proves who
she is.

She can certainly use that to order a passport, and, again in England, a
passport is currently the only form of identity that carries the weight of
law with it...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

[William Black]

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

John Cartmell wrote:


Some official records don't need anything other than your written
request,
others may need deedpoll, some cannot be changed at all. Solicitors only
get paid for ... ?

Oh yes, I know about solicitors. But some records do need deedpoll, it
would appear. (Passport, NH, etc)

Not if she's got a birth certificate in her maiden name...

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 12 Feb, Louise Staley <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

Descendants of Ranulph Blancminster
-----------------------------------
1-Ranulph Blancminster d. Bef 1176
+
|-2-William Blancminster d. Bef 1203
+Emma Wife of William Blancminster
|-3-William Blancminster d. Bef 1260
| +Eva Fitzwarine , par. Sir Fulk III Fitzwarine Knt., of
| Lambourn, Whittington & Alveston and Maud Vavasour
| |-4-Betraya Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. 1280,
| | s.p.
| |-4-Joan Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. , s.p.
| | +William Barrington
| |-4-Maud Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster
| | +William Bracy
| |-4-Eleanor Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. 1306,
| | Ercall Magna, SAL, ENG
| +Robert Strange of Wrockwardine, SAL d. Bef 12 Oct 1276,
| par. John Strange Lord of Knockyn and Lucy Tregoz

<snip>

| +Sir Bewes Knoville Baron Knoville 1st d. Bef 6 Jul 1307,
| m. Abt 1276
| |-5-Eleanor Knoville
| +Thomas Mauduit of Warminster b. 14 Oct 1287, d. 1322,
| par. Warin Mauduit of Warminster and Elizabeth Lisle
| |-6-John Mauduit b. Abt 1311, d. 1364

Very interesting this: CP, VII, 347, says emphatically that Eleanor and
Bewes had no issue and there is no correction in Vol XIV or (yet) on
Chris Phillips' site. Tell us more?

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

[Renia]

John Cartmell wrote:

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

John Cartmell wrote:


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


John Cartmell wrote:


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



But in the case of legal documents (passport, National Insurance,
driving licence, tax) the name has to be that given on my birth
certificate, marriage certificate or official documents if I have
changed my name by deed poll.


It's not quite as restricted as that. You will need to show who you
are but quite a number of official documents can be in your chosen
name - as long as their records x-refer to your 'official' name.



OK. When someone changed her name back to her maiden name by deedpoll,
a solicitor told her she would need the official record for legal
documents. So, really, she (and her sister) didn't need to go to all
the expense of reverting to their maiden name just to get their new
name onto official documents? Someone has misunderstood,then!


Some official records don't need anything other than your written
request, others may need deedpoll, some cannot be changed at all.
Solicitors only get paid for ... ?


Oh yes, I know about solicitors. But some records do need deedpoll, it
would appear. (Passport, NH, etc)


Passport - possibly.
NHS - I really don't think so.
NI Number - no.
Driving licence - I'd be very surprised.

Passport definitely (you need to provide your birth/mge cert for it).
Ditto driving licence. And income tax, I think.

Renia

[Renia]

William Black wrote:

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

John Cartmell wrote:



Some official records don't need anything other than your written

request,

others may need deedpoll, some cannot be changed at all. Solicitors only
get paid for ... ?

Oh yes, I know about solicitors. But some records do need deedpoll, it
would appear. (Passport, NH, etc)


Not if she's got a birth certificate in her maiden name...

Agreed. I don't know why this was done. (Solicitors' fees, yes, I know.)

Renia

[Tony Hoskins]

Anyhow, it appears that Thatcher & Big Bush were joined at the hip.

The obsession that cannot be laid to rest. And, we're off and running,
AGAIN !!!! (note surfeit of exclamation points).

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:07:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

Is this true? I was under the impression that Elizabeth was basically
genetically a German.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/13/2005 11:12:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:07:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

Is this true? I was under the impression that Elizabeth was basically
genetically a German.




I wondered about this myself. I really think that I may have more genes
from the old rulers of Britain than does the "Windsor" family. By the way, I
don't want the damn job.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Guy Etchells]

Here in the UK an adult may call themselves whatever they wish (as long
as there is no intent to defraud), a change of name is accomplished by
using the new name.
There is no other way to change ones name in the UK.
Procedures such as "Deed Poll" are simply ways to prove a change of name
has occurred.
Cheers
Guy

In the UK, is the name governed by law or simply custom?


snip


Has the UK similarly cracked down on individual discretion
regarding names?

--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7

[Guy Etchells]

Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven.

Nice example.

Mark Thatcher's wife is 'Lady Thatcher'

Margaret Thatcher is 'Baroness Thatcher of Wherever'

The correct form of address is 'Lady Thatcher' for the first, and probably
'My lady' or 'Baroness Wherever' for the other, depending on how well you
know them.

--

Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7

[Guy Etchells]

Are those parasites paying more into the system than they are being
paid? The Royal Family here pays more into the system than they receive,
those who call them parasites are misguided, and do not realise the true
facts.
Cheers
Guy

We have plenty of parasites of our own. Just look how many people are
busily tracing the genealogies of our governmental and corporate bunch.
Anyhow, it appears that Thatcher & Big Bush were joined at the hip.

--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~ ... warind.htm Cenotaphs in the Wakefield area.

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Stan,
I still think what a Baronets wife has is a courtesy title, like daughters
of a Duke have the courtesy title of Lady before their christian name.

When Mary Smith marries Joe Bloggs she becomes Mrs Joe Bloggs.

Margaret Thatcher 'earned' the peerage title of Lady Thatcher, and would
have been in the House of Lords, her daughter-in-law 'only' married Mark
Thatcher and therefor received the courtesy title of Lady Thatcher and is
not to be seen in the House of Lords (if it still existed). This is how I
see it.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Brown" <[email protected]>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL

But what about the wives of Baronets? Lets say we have Sir John
Thatcher, 3rd Baronet, his wife is also only Lady Thatcher. And so is
there no difference between a peeress in her own right and a woman who
only has the courtecy title? Leo

It's not a courtesy title, but a title that is hers by right as her
husband's wife. However, I believe you're correct. "Lady X" could be
the wife of Lord Smith, the wife of Sir Humphrey X (baronet or
knight), or a baroness in her own right.

However, none of those are "Margaret, Lady X".

--
Regards,
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com

[Louise Staley]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 12 Feb, Louise Staley wrote:
snip

Descendants of Ranulph Blancminster
-----------------------------------
1-Ranulph Blancminster d. Bef 1176
+
|-2-William Blancminster d. Bef 1203
+Emma Wife of William Blancminster
|-3-William Blancminster d. Bef 1260
| +Eva Fitzwarine , par. Sir Fulk III Fitzwarine Knt., of
| Lambourn, Whittington & Alveston and Maud Vavasour
| |-4-Betraya Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. 1280,
| | s.p.
| |-4-Joan Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. , s.p.
| | +William Barrington
| |-4-Maud Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster
| | +William Bracy
| |-4-Eleanor Blancminster co-heiress of Blancminster d. 1306,
| | Ercall Magna, SAL, ENG
| +Robert Strange of Wrockwardine, SAL d. Bef 12 Oct 1276,
| par. John Strange Lord of Knockyn and Lucy Tregoz

snip

| +Sir Bewes Knoville Baron Knoville 1st d. Bef 6 Jul 1307,
| m. Abt 1276
| |-5-Eleanor Knoville
| +Thomas Mauduit of Warminster b. 14 Oct 1287, d. 1322,
| par. Warin Mauduit of Warminster and Elizabeth Lisle
| |-6-John Mauduit b. Abt 1311, d. 1364

Very interesting this: CP, VII, 347, says emphatically that Eleanor and
Bewes had no issue and there is no correction in Vol XIV or (yet) on
Chris Phillips' site. Tell us more?

Dear Tim et. al,

This is from a post by MichaelAnne Guido on the 8th Feb 2005 in the thread
"Ancestry of Thomas de London, lord of Kidwelly?"

In part, that message included this line:
1. Havise de Dinan
+ Fulk Fitz Warin [died 1198]
2. Fulk Fitz Warin [died aft. Oct. 8, 1250]
+ Maud le Vavsour
3. Eve Fitz Warin
+ William de Blanchminster
4. Eleanor Blanchminster
+ Robert le Strange [died Oct. 12, 1276]
+ Brewes de Knoville [Bogo de Knoville died shortly before
July 6, 1307]
5. Eleanor de Knoville
+ Thomas Mauduit [Oct. 14, 1287-1322]
+ Richard de Peres

As I am primarily interested in Eleanor Blancminster's marriage to Robert
Strange of Wrockwardine, I didn't query her other marriage. I assume,
without that much careful checking, that in fact Eleanor Knoville is the
daughter of Sir Bewes Knoville and Joan, his fist wife, rather than of
Eleanor Blancminster, his second wife. In other words, I have no
information to overturn CP and this was well spotted (good to know someone
is actually reading these posts).

regards
Louise

P.S. to Tim, I see there is a Barrington link in this line, although
unfortunately d.s.p.
--
Quod dixi dixi

[Leo van de Pas]

The origins of Queen Elizabeth are definitely not "German", she has
English, Scots, Dutch, Hungarian, Danish, you mention it ancestors and
Germans as well.

In a continuing line ancestors have lived in Great Britain.

In my computer I have at the moment 28,434 individual ancestors for QEII. Of
these
in Germany lived 7,721
in England lived 7,249
in France lived 4,989
in The Netherlands lived 1,824
in Scotland lived 1,347
in Ireland lived 508
in Hungary lived 429
in Denmark lived 250

Making just over 25% German, or a little less than 75% not German.
Hope you agree with this.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

In a message dated 2/13/2005 11:12:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:07:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most
recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest
in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins
of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

Is this true? I was under the impression that Elizabeth was basically
genetically a German.




I wondered about this myself. I really think that I may have more genes
from the old rulers of Britain than does the "Windsor" family. By the
way, I
don't want the damn job.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: CHARLES & CAMILLA - IT'S OFFICIAL -"Republicism"

<snip>

Is this true? I was under the impression that Elizabeth was basically
genetically a German.

Dear Will

How did you obtain that impression?

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Gjest]

Renia,

As I understand the Law says you can change your surname to anything you like
but you CANNOT change your given name/christian name.  In law you are able to
call yourself Renia 'whatever you like' but you cannot change Renia.

Rose

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 14 Feb, [email protected] ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

Dear Stan,
I still think what a Baronets wife has is a courtesy title, like daughters
of a Duke have the courtesy title of Lady before their christian name.

When Mary Smith marries Joe Bloggs she becomes Mrs Joe Bloggs.

Margaret Thatcher 'earned' the peerage title of Lady Thatcher, and would
have been in the House of Lords, her daughter-in-law 'only' married Mark
Thatcher and therefor received the courtesy title of Lady Thatcher and is
not to be seen in the House of Lords (if it still existed). This is how I
see it.

Don't worry about as its not very important. Anyhow baronets are not
barons, they are a hereditary new title introduced by James I to raise
revenue, as people had to have them if they were rich and had to pay
handsomely too. Holders are called Sir and their wives are called Lady;
in times past I think some wives were called Dame. Baronets are in fact
closer to knights than barons. So young Thatcher is not and never will
be in the house of lords, let alone, indeed, his wife.

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

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 14 Feb, [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:07:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

Is this true? I was under the impression that Elizabeth was basically
genetically a German.

Until very recently the practice of the English sovereigns was to
intermarry with the families of other European Sovereigns. Perhaps
this made for some stability when the sovereigns had some powers. So
the nationality of the English sovereign's ancestors (I don't think
genes have nationality) was continental Euorpean and not English at all.
It was only with Geo VI that the practice of marrying English spouses
started and the present queen did not follow that, though her eldest
son did and continues to follow his grandfather.

I don't think Germany as a nation existed until it was united in the
mid-19th century.

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

[Ian Cairns]

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

Renia,

As I understand the Law says you can change your surname to anything you
like
but you CANNOT change your given name/christian name. In law you are able
to
call yourself Renia 'whatever you like' but you cannot change Renia.

Excuse me answering on Renia's behalf. This is incorrect. The FRC used to
have a Deed Poll on display where Reg Dwight legally changed his name to
Elton Hercules John. There is nothing immutable about a first name in law.

Ian

[Gjest]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:12:05 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/13/2005 8:07:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

3) But while presidencies can be made, monarchies cannot. The most recent
one in Europe is Belgium's, now 175 years old. Britain's is the oldest in
the western world, and 1500 years of British history flows in the veins of
Elizabeth II. She is in a very real sense the living embodiment of the
nation.

Is this true? I was under the impression that Elizabeth was basically
genetically a German.

Nope.

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~addams/wills.html

[Gjest]

Dear Louise and Tim,

CP does state that there were no children by the marriage of Eleanor
Blanchminster and Brewes de Knoville, but as was discussed previously on SGM in the
thread, the following was posted by Todd Farmerie:

There is a surviving 15th century manuscript which is a copy of a
list of Shropshire tenants in chief (apparently dated after the
above 9 Edward I IPM, and sometime prior to 21 Edward I). It
says with respect to Albo Monasterio:

Bogo de Knovile per Alianorem ejus ux. et Rob. de Bracy per
Matildam ux. suam t. maner. de A. M. (Albo Monasterio) cum
membris, sc. Hilton, Burthall', Wodhows, Magna Asche, Parva
Asche, Tildestoke, Hethley, et Kempley, de Comite Warene, et ipse
de d'no R. in cap. ut membrum Baroniae suae. Et habet ibi lib.
cur. suam bis in anno, plac. [de] sang. et hutens lev. et furcas,
marcat. et fer. et warann. nesciunt quo waranto. De quib.
membris Nich. Audeleche t. Kempley. Et Joh'es fil. Hug. t. vill.
de Hynton de predictis Bogone et Rob'to.

So we have the dates of between 1281 to 1293 when the marriage of Brewes de
Knoville and Eleanor Blanchminster occurred. Robert le Strange died Oct. 12,
1276 and his widow married after that date. This date can be narrowed by the
birth dates of his two other children. Margaret de Knoville married Thomas de
Verdun of Brixworth, co. Northampton and her son John de Verdun was born June 24,
1299. At the latest Margaret would have been born 1284 to be his mother. Her
brother only son and heir of Brewes de Knoville also named Brewes de Knoville
is stated to have been born November 6, 1281, in his father's IPM:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. V, Edward II, Kraus Reprint, 1973:

Pages 335-336:

446. Bevis (Bogo) de Knoville alias de Cnovyle.
Writ, 6 July, 35 Edward I.
Wilts. Inq. 3 August, 35 Edward I.
Dicherygge. The manor (extent given with names of tenants) including a
messuage, 1/2 virgate of land, 1/2 acre of meadow, and 1 1/2 acres wood which Adam
de Alecombe holds, owing suit at the hundred of Bissoppeston for the manor of
Dicherygge, held of the king, by reason of lands which were of Roger le Bigod,
sometime marshal of England, now in the king's hand, by service of 1/2
knight's fee except a fifth part; and it is of the inheritance of Joan (deceased)
late the wife of the said Bevis.
Bevis his son, aged 30, is his next heir.

Marches of Wales. Inq. made at Strugull, 31 July 1307.
Marthern. The manor (extent given) held of the king in chief, as of the
Honour of Strugull now in the king's hand, by service of a Welsh knight's fee.
Heir as above, aged 24 and more.

Gloucester. Inq. 1 August, 35 Edward I.
Gravenhull. Seven tenants rendering 19s. 7 1/2d. yearly, held of the king in
chief by service of 1/20 knight's fee.
Little Teynton. Two carucates of land (extent given), including a capital
messuage, held of Alan Plockenet by service of a pair of gloves, price 1d.
Kylkoite. A carucate of land (extent given) including a capital messuage and
12 acres wood within the forest of Dene, held in chief of John de Ferrariis by
socage, rendering 1/2d. (yearly).
Heir as above, aged 24 at the Feast of St. Leonard last.
C.
Edw. I. File 131. (11.)

As to the birthdate for Eleanor de Knoville we know that she was born at
least by 1293-4 as her son John de Mauduit was born Feb. 2, 1310/11 and Eleanor
was named in a fine with her husband in 1310:

A Calendar of the Feet of Fines of Huntingdonshire levied in the King's Court
1194-1603, edited by G.J. Turner, Cambridge Antiquarian Society Publications,
Volume 37, 1913:

Page 53:
9. Bewteen Thomas Mauduyt and Alianora his wife -----and Simon filius
Ricardi---- of the manor of Bukeworth', which Amicia the widow of Ricardus filius
Simonis holds for the term of her life. 3 Edward II [1310].

Thomas Mauduit was born October 14, 1287, and died in 1322 as he was executed
after the battle of Boroughbridge. His widow Eleanor remarried Richard de
Perers and is named in fines of her son John and his wife Juliana:

Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, 1327-1330, Kraus Reprint, 1972:

Page 16:

March 12, 1327.
To William Trussel, escheator this side of Trent. Order to deliver to
Eleanor, late wife of Thomas Mauduyt, tenant in chief of the late king, a third of
the manor of Wermenstre, co. Wilts, of the yearly value of £48 8s. 2d., and a
third of the manor of Westbury, in the same county, of the yearly value of £9
4s. 1d., which the king has assigned to her as her dower. Westminster.

C 143/221/2
John son of Thomas Mauduyt to settle the advowson of the chapel of the manor
of Warminster and two-thirds of the manor and hundred of Warminster, and of a
messuage, land, and rent in Westbury, with reversion of the remaining third of
the same now held by Richard de Perers and Eleanor his wife as in right of
dower of the said Eleanor, on himself and Juliana his wife and the heirs of
their bodies, with remainder to his right heirs, retaining the manor of Grately
(Hants.) with a messuage and land in Deane (Hants.). Wilts. Hants. 6 Edward III.

SC 8/63/3112

Petitioners: John [Maudut (Mauduit)], son and heir of Thomas Mauduit.
Addressees: King and council
Places mentioned: Pontefract, [West Riding of Yorkshire].
Other people mentioned: Thomas Maudut (Mauduit), father of the petitioner;
Thomas [of Lancaster], Earl of Lancaster; Hugh le Despenser, the elder.
Nature of request: Maudut requests that the king grant to him his custody and
marriage since the king has made grace to those who are of full age of the
quarrel with the earl of Lancaster, and he holds in chief of the king. Maudut's
father was executed at Pontefract and the lands, goods and chattels were given
to Despenser so that he and his mother could have anything of it until now.
Endorsement: Because the process made against Thomas was examined in full
parliament is adjudged erroneous, and the judgment by common assent of the same
parliament is repealed and annulled, let the heir be restored to his
inheritance and the wife to her dower by due process notwithstanding the judgment.

So chronologically it would appear that Eleanor was the daughter of Eleanor
Blanchminster second wife of Brewes de Knoville. The only problem with this
entire scenario is that 1/3 of a moiety of the manor of Dicherich, co. Wiltshire
passed to John Mauduit. This land does not show up in his IPM but is referred
to as the dower of his Juliana in a later document:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 11, Edward III.

#593. John Mauduyt of Wermenstre, knight.
Writ, 4 April, 38 Edward III.
Wilts. Inq. made in the city of Salisbury, Tuesday the last day of April 38
Edward III.
Weremenstre, The manor held of the king in chief by knight's service in joint
feoffment with Juliana his wife, who survives, by a fine levied in the king's
court.
Westbury. A messuage, 2 carucates of land, 20 acres meadow, 100 acres wood
and 100s. rent, with the advowson of the chapel there, held of the king in chief
by knight's service, in joint feoffment as above, and by the same fine. He
held no other lands &c. in the county.
He died on 1 April last. Maud the daughter of Thomas Mauduyt his son aged 9
years on the Feast of St. Leonard last, is his heir.
[This is a transcription in English of the document above].

Huntingdon. Inq. taken at Huntyndon, Wednesday after St. Petronilla, 38
Edward III.
Buckworth. The manor, held for life of William la Souche of Haveryngworth by
knight's service, by demise of Nicholas de Waddon and William Payn, chaplains,
with remainder to Thomas, his son, and Joan his said son's wife, and the
heirs of their bodies. The said Thomas died on Friday after SS. Simon and Jude 35
Edward III. Joan after the death of John Mauduyt, claiming the manor by the
above grant, entered and holds the manor.
John died on the last day of March, 38 Edward III. Maud daughter of the
aforesaid Thomas, aged 9 years and more, is his heir.
C.
Edw. III. File 182. (2.)

Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. IX, Richard II, 1377-1383, Kraus Reprint 1986:

Page 136:

May 19, 1379. Westminster.
Order to Thomas de Illeston, escheator in the counties of Wiltshire and
Southampton,--pursuant to an inquisition made by him showing that Juliana late wife
of John Mauduyt did not hold any lands in the said counties in her demesne as
of fee but held in chief by knight service in joint feoffment with her said
husband deceased, to wit, to them and heirs of their bodies, the manor of
Wermenstre, a messuage, 2 carucates of land, 20 acres of meadow, 100 acres of wood
and 100s. rent in Westbury, and the advowson of the chapel of that town, by a
fine levied in the court of Edward III, and also held of the king by knight
service, as of the king's manor of Hamstedmarchal, a third part of a moiety of
the manor of Dicherich, co. Wiltshire, in dower after the death of her said
husband, the manor of Cratele, co. Southampton, of the heirs of Humphrey de
Bohun, late earl of Hereford, minors in the king's ward, and that Maud, daughter of
Thomas Mauduyt the son and heir of John and Juliana, whom Henry Grene,
knight, has taken to wife, is next heir of John and Juliana, and of full age --to
deliver the premises to the said Henry and Maud.

If the moiety at Dierich came into the possession of the Mauduit family
through Eleanor it had originally come through his first wife Joan de la Hyde, but
the manor according to the IPM of Brewes de Knoville passed to his son and
heir Brewes de Knoville but by November 12, 1338, when Brewes de Knoville died
his IPM states that the only thing he held in Dicherich was a messuage and water
mill that passed to his son John de Knoville and his wife Margery:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. VIII, Edward III, 1913:

#175. Bogo or Bugo de Knovill, knight.
Writ, 3 November, 12 Edward III. Teste, Edward Duke of Cornwall &c.
Cambridge. Inq. 15 November, 12 Edward III.
Lynton. A messuage and 1 acre 1/2 rood land held of the earl of Hereford by
service of a rose yearly. He held no other lands &c. in the county. John his
son aged 23 years and more, is his next heir.

Wiltshire. Inq. taken at Chipham, 23 November, 12 Edward III.
Dicherigge. A messuage, a water-mill, lands, and rent (extent given). held
for life of the lordship of Strugull by the service of a quarter of a knight's
fee; which lands & c. after his death ought to remain to John de Knovyll and
Margery his wife, and the heirs of their bodies. Heir as above.

Gloucester. Inq. 6 December, 12 Edward III.
Gravenhulle. 15s. 4 1/2d. yearly rent from six free tenants, held of the king
in chief by service of a twenty-seventh part of a knight's fee.
Zarkleye by Lydeneye, within the forest of Dene. An assart, containing 36
acres of land, held of the king in chief rendering 9s. yearly.
Kyllcote and Little Teynton. A messuage, lands and rent (extent given), held
for his life, jointly with Joan his wife, by fine levied in the king's court,
12 Edward II, of Henry de Penebruge, as of the inheritance of Robert Walrond,
knight, in free socage. He held no other lands &c. in the county, nor in the
March (of Wales). Heir as above.

C. Edw. III. File 54. (3.)

Whether the manor was sold or transferred by other means I have been unable
to find out. The manor in this case is not conclusive proof that there was any
connection between Eleanor de Knoville and Joan de la Hyde.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 14 Feb, "Ian Cairns" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

As I understand the Law says you can change your surname to
anything you like but you CANNOT change your given name/christian
name. In law you are able to call yourself Renia 'whatever you
like' but you cannot change Renia.

Excuse me answering on Renia's behalf. This is incorrect. The FRC
used to have a Deed Poll on display where Reg Dwight legally changed
his name to Elton Hercules John. There is nothing immutable about a
first name in law.

I wonder if this business about immutable names is something to do with
USA law?

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

[Doug McDonald]

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

I wonder if this business about immutable names is something to do with
USA law?

In the US you can change your name to anything a judge will agree
to. They don't like Arabic numbers. Just about anything else is
OK .. e.g. Archimedes Plutonium.

Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

"I wonder if this business about immutable names is something to do with
USA law?"

I believe I read where a US politician recently legally change his name to "None of the Above". Could be urban legend I suppose but I've never heard of someone not being able to change their first and last name to whatever they like (in the US at least). Now the French, that's another matter.
Will

[Gjest]

Doug wrote : "In the US you can change your name to anything a judge will agreeto. They don't like Arabic numbers. Just about anything else is OK .. e.g. Archimedes Plutonium."

I wonder if they would accept quote's in a name, then I could change my name to:
I am "THEY"

Will

[John Brandon]

John Edwin Cussans, _History of Hertfordshire_, 3 vols. (London,
1870-1881; reprint, EP Publishing Limited, 1972), vol. 3, part 1, p.
311, is a little pedigree chart of the Coningsby family. It shows
that Sir Ralph Coningsby (d. 1616) married, as his second wife, "Jane,
da. of Sir John Lambe, and widow of Wm. Button."

Their son was Robert Coningsby who married ... Hicks.

Their son was John Conginsby, d. 1697, who married Mary Aram, d. 1719.

Their daughter Mary Coningsby, d. 1739, married Charles Hicks.

By his first wife (Margery Whethill), Sir Ralph Coningsby had a son
Thomas Coningsby, who married "Martha, da. of William Button." Thomas
and Martha (Button) Coningsby also had descendants who intermarried
with the Aram and Hicks families.

[Gjest]

Dear List,
A Couple of People have indicated that the Queen might
recieve conflicting advice from Mr Blair and the Prime Minister of Australia,
perhaps, but She is rather the one who might advise them rather than the other way
about. She is the embodiment of Britain`s history, the representative of all
Great Britain`s past rulers and is according to Law not allowed to espouse one
side or the other in the political arenas. She has been Queen for nearly
fifty three years now - and if the rumors about the contents of the `boxes` She is
said to view on a daily basis are true, well, then there is her true power.
She discusses everything that goes on with the Prime Minister from the most
mundane to the most serious. She has got on with most of `her` Prime Ministers,
but apparently Margaret Thatcher was an exception, if true, that would account
for her not being a Baroness, Countess, etc. in her own right. By the way,
the British may have seen the Wallis Simpson business as a adequate excuse to
force the Hitler admiring King Edward VIII to abdicate, as the boxes would have
informed him of everything as well.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Louise Staley]

Dear MichaelAnne,

Thank-you for posting this. I am having difficulty folllowing the logic as
to why Eleanor Knoville is a daughter of Eleanor Blancminster.

The timeline from the sources below seems to be:

1276 Robert Strange, 1st husband of Eleanor Blancminster dies
1281 Bewes Knoville son of Bewes Knoville and Joan de la Hyde born
1284 latest date for Margaret Knoville, daughter of Bewes and Joan to be
born
1293 latest date for the marriage of Bewes Knoville and Eleanor
Blancminster
1295 latest date for Eleanor Knoville to be born if she had a son in 1311
1307 Bewes son of Bewes inherits the manor of Dicherich, co. Wiltshire
which came into the family from his mother Joan de la Hyde
1338 Bewes jnr dies holding only a messuage and water mill in Dicherich
1378 Juliana, widow of Eleanor Knoville's son John dies holding 1/3 of a
moeity in Dicherich

From this it looks like Eleanor was the daughter of Joan de la Hyde since
her son ended up holding some of the de la Hyde inheritance, perhaps due
to a gift from Bewes jnr to his sister at some point. Eleanor Knoville
could have been born as early as 1287 when her husband was born and the
latest date possible for her birth is 1295 (she would have given birth at
16). Similarly, the marriage of Bewes Knoville and Eleanor Blancminster
occurred sometime between 1281 and 1293 yet we know it was not likely to
be in the earliest years of that timeframe since that's when Bewes jnr and
Margaret were born. I may be missing something but it seems to me that
Eleanor Knoville was most likely born about 1290 and was the daughter of
Joan.

regards
Louise

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Louise and Tim,

CP does state that there were no children by the marriage of Eleanor
Blanchminster and Brewes de Knoville, but as was discussed previously on
SGM in the
thread, the following was posted by Todd Farmerie:

There is a surviving 15th century manuscript which is a copy of a
list of Shropshire tenants in chief (apparently dated after the
above 9 Edward I IPM, and sometime prior to 21 Edward I). It
says with respect to Albo Monasterio:

Bogo de Knovile per Alianorem ejus ux. et Rob. de Bracy per
Matildam ux. suam t. maner. de A. M. (Albo Monasterio) cum
membris, sc. Hilton, Burthall', Wodhows, Magna Asche, Parva
Asche, Tildestoke, Hethley, et Kempley, de Comite Warene, et ipse
de d'no R. in cap. ut membrum Baroniae suae. Et habet ibi lib.
cur. suam bis in anno, plac. [de] sang. et hutens lev. et furcas,
marcat. et fer. et warann. nesciunt quo waranto. De quib.
membris Nich. Audeleche t. Kempley. Et Joh'es fil. Hug. t. vill.
de Hynton de predictis Bogone et Rob'to.

So we have the dates of between 1281 to 1293 when the marriage of Brewes
de
Knoville and Eleanor Blanchminster occurred. Robert le Strange died Oct.
12,
1276 and his widow married after that date. This date can be narrowed by
the
birth dates of his two other children. Margaret de Knoville married
Thomas de
Verdun of Brixworth, co. Northampton and her son John de Verdun was born
June 24,
1299. At the latest Margaret would have been born 1284 to be his mother.
Her
brother only son and heir of Brewes de Knoville also named Brewes de
Knoville
is stated to have been born November 6, 1281, in his father's IPM:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. V, Edward II, Kraus Reprint,
1973:

Pages 335-336:

446. Bevis (Bogo) de Knoville alias de Cnovyle.
Writ, 6 July, 35 Edward I.
Wilts. Inq. 3 August, 35 Edward I.
Dicherygge. The manor (extent given with names of tenants) including a
messuage, 1/2 virgate of land, 1/2 acre of meadow, and 1 1/2 acres wood
which Adam
de Alecombe holds, owing suit at the hundred of Bissoppeston for the
manor of
Dicherygge, held of the king, by reason of lands which were of Roger le
Bigod,
sometime marshal of England, now in the king's hand, by service of 1/2
knight's fee except a fifth part; and it is of the inheritance of Joan
(deceased)
late the wife of the said Bevis.
Bevis his son, aged 30, is his next heir.

Marches of Wales. Inq. made at Strugull, 31 July 1307.
Marthern. The manor (extent given) held of the king in chief, as of the
Honour of Strugull now in the king's hand, by service of a Welsh
knight's fee.
Heir as above, aged 24 and more.

Gloucester. Inq. 1 August, 35 Edward I.
Gravenhull. Seven tenants rendering 19s. 7 1/2d. yearly, held of the
king in
chief by service of 1/20 knight's fee.
Little Teynton. Two carucates of land (extent given), including a capital
messuage, held of Alan Plockenet by service of a pair of gloves, price
1d.
Kylkoite. A carucate of land (extent given) including a capital messuage
and
12 acres wood within the forest of Dene, held in chief of John de
Ferrariis by
socage, rendering 1/2d. (yearly).
Heir as above, aged 24 at the Feast of St. Leonard last.
C.
Edw. I. File 131. (11.)

As to the birthdate for Eleanor de Knoville we know that she was born at
least by 1293-4 as her son John de Mauduit was born Feb. 2, 1310/11 and
Eleanor
was named in a fine with her husband in 1310:

A Calendar of the Feet of Fines of Huntingdonshire levied in the King's
Court
1194-1603, edited by G.J. Turner, Cambridge Antiquarian Society
Publications,
Volume 37, 1913:

Page 53:
9. Bewteen Thomas Mauduyt and Alianora his wife -----and Simon filius
Ricardi---- of the manor of Bukeworth', which Amicia the widow of
Ricardus filius
Simonis holds for the term of her life. 3 Edward II [1310].

Thomas Mauduit was born October 14, 1287, and died in 1322 as he was
executed
after the battle of Boroughbridge. His widow Eleanor remarried Richard de
Perers and is named in fines of her son John and his wife Juliana:

Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, 1327-1330, Kraus Reprint, 1972:

Page 16:

March 12, 1327.
To William Trussel, escheator this side of Trent. Order to deliver to
Eleanor, late wife of Thomas Mauduyt, tenant in chief of the late king,
a third of
the manor of Wermenstre, co. Wilts, of the yearly value of £48 8s. 2d.,
and a
third of the manor of Westbury, in the same county, of the yearly value
of £9
4s. 1d., which the king has assigned to her as her dower. Westminster.

C 143/221/2
John son of Thomas Mauduyt to settle the advowson of the chapel of the
manor
of Warminster and two-thirds of the manor and hundred of Warminster, and
of a
messuage, land, and rent in Westbury, with reversion of the remaining
third of
the same now held by Richard de Perers and Eleanor his wife as in right
of
dower of the said Eleanor, on himself and Juliana his wife and the heirs
of
their bodies, with remainder to his right heirs, retaining the manor of
Grately
(Hants.) with a messuage and land in Deane (Hants.). Wilts. Hants. 6
Edward III.

SC 8/63/3112

Petitioners: John [Maudut (Mauduit)], son and heir of Thomas Mauduit.
Addressees: King and council
Places mentioned: Pontefract, [West Riding of Yorkshire].
Other people mentioned: Thomas Maudut (Mauduit), father of the
petitioner;
Thomas [of Lancaster], Earl of Lancaster; Hugh le Despenser, the elder.
Nature of request: Maudut requests that the king grant to him his
custody and
marriage since the king has made grace to those who are of full age of
the
quarrel with the earl of Lancaster, and he holds in chief of the king.
Maudut's
father was executed at Pontefract and the lands, goods and chattels were
given
to Despenser so that he and his mother could have anything of it until
now.
Endorsement: Because the process made against Thomas was examined in full
parliament is adjudged erroneous, and the judgment by common assent of
the same
parliament is repealed and annulled, let the heir be restored to his
inheritance and the wife to her dower by due process notwithstanding the
judgment.

So chronologically it would appear that Eleanor was the daughter of
Eleanor
Blanchminster second wife of Brewes de Knoville. The only problem with
this
entire scenario is that 1/3 of a moiety of the manor of Dicherich, co.
Wiltshire
passed to John Mauduit. This land does not show up in his IPM but is
referred
to as the dower of his Juliana in a later document:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 11, Edward III.

#593. John Mauduyt of Wermenstre, knight.
Writ, 4 April, 38 Edward III.
Wilts. Inq. made in the city of Salisbury, Tuesday the last day of April
38
Edward III.
Weremenstre, The manor held of the king in chief by knight's service in
joint
feoffment with Juliana his wife, who survives, by a fine levied in the
king's
court.
Westbury. A messuage, 2 carucates of land, 20 acres meadow, 100 acres
wood
and 100s. rent, with the advowson of the chapel there, held of the king
in chief
by knight's service, in joint feoffment as above, and by the same fine.
He
held no other lands &c. in the county.
He died on 1 April last. Maud the daughter of Thomas Mauduyt his son
aged 9
years on the Feast of St. Leonard last, is his heir.
[This is a transcription in English of the document above].

Huntingdon. Inq. taken at Huntyndon, Wednesday after St. Petronilla, 38
Edward III.
Buckworth. The manor, held for life of William la Souche of
Haveryngworth by
knight's service, by demise of Nicholas de Waddon and William Payn,
chaplains,
with remainder to Thomas, his son, and Joan his said son's wife, and the
heirs of their bodies. The said Thomas died on Friday after SS. Simon
and Jude 35
Edward III. Joan after the death of John Mauduyt, claiming the manor by
the
above grant, entered and holds the manor.
John died on the last day of March, 38 Edward III. Maud daughter of the
aforesaid Thomas, aged 9 years and more, is his heir.
C.
Edw. III. File 182. (2.)

Calendar of Fine Rolls, Vol. IX, Richard II, 1377-1383, Kraus Reprint
1986:

Page 136:

May 19, 1379. Westminster.
Order to Thomas de Illeston, escheator in the counties of Wiltshire and
Southampton,--pursuant to an inquisition made by him showing that
Juliana late wife
of John Mauduyt did not hold any lands in the said counties in her
demesne as
of fee but held in chief by knight service in joint feoffment with her
said
husband deceased, to wit, to them and heirs of their bodies, the manor of
Wermenstre, a messuage, 2 carucates of land, 20 acres of meadow, 100
acres of wood
and 100s. rent in Westbury, and the advowson of the chapel of that town,
by a
fine levied in the court of Edward III, and also held of the king by
knight
service, as of the king's manor of Hamstedmarchal, a third part of a
moiety of
the manor of Dicherich, co. Wiltshire, in dower after the death of her
said
husband, the manor of Cratele, co. Southampton, of the heirs of Humphrey
de
Bohun, late earl of Hereford, minors in the king's ward, and that Maud,
daughter of
Thomas Mauduyt the son and heir of John and Juliana, whom Henry Grene,
knight, has taken to wife, is next heir of John and Juliana, and of full
age --to
deliver the premises to the said Henry and Maud.

If the moiety at Dierich came into the possession of the Mauduit family
through Eleanor it had originally come through his first wife Joan de la
Hyde, but
the manor according to the IPM of Brewes de Knoville passed to his son
and
heir Brewes de Knoville but by November 12, 1338, when Brewes de
Knoville died
his IPM states that the only thing he held in Dicherich was a messuage
and water
mill that passed to his son John de Knoville and his wife Margery:

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. VIII, Edward III, 1913:

#175. Bogo or Bugo de Knovill, knight.
Writ, 3 November, 12 Edward III. Teste, Edward Duke of Cornwall &c.
Cambridge. Inq. 15 November, 12 Edward III.
Lynton. A messuage and 1 acre 1/2 rood land held of the earl of Hereford
by
service of a rose yearly. He held no other lands &c. in the county. John
his
son aged 23 years and more, is his next heir.

Wiltshire. Inq. taken at Chipham, 23 November, 12 Edward III.
Dicherigge. A messuage, a water-mill, lands, and rent (extent given).
held
for life of the lordship of Strugull by the service of a quarter of a
knight's
fee; which lands & c. after his death ought to remain to John de Knovyll
and
Margery his wife, and the heirs of their bodies. Heir as above.

Gloucester. Inq. 6 December, 12 Edward III.
Gravenhulle. 15s. 4 1/2d. yearly rent from six free tenants, held of the
king
in chief by service of a twenty-seventh part of a knight's fee.
Zarkleye by Lydeneye, within the forest of Dene. An assart, containing 36
acres of land, held of the king in chief rendering 9s. yearly.
Kyllcote and Little Teynton. A messuage, lands and rent (extent given),
held
for his life, jointly with Joan his wife, by fine levied in the king's
court,
12 Edward II, of Henry de Penebruge, as of the inheritance of Robert
Walrond,
knight, in free socage. He held no other lands &c. in the county, nor in
the
March (of Wales). Heir as above.

C. Edw. III. File 54. (3.)

Whether the manor was sold or transferred by other means I have been
unable
to find out. The manor in this case is not conclusive proof that there
was any
connection between Eleanor de Knoville and Joan de la Hyde.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

--
Quod dixi dixi

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 14 Feb, [email protected] wrote:

<On the queen>

She has got on with most of `her` Prime Ministers, but apparently
Margaret Thatcher was an exception, if true, that would account for
her not being a Baroness, Countess, etc. in her own right.

Another urban myth. I saw on one or two occasions a note on the Court
Circular saying that Mrs Thatcher was spending the weekend at Windsor
with her hubby Dennis (2 'n's or 1?). But the real point to make is
that Mrs Thatcher was created a baroness and is one. In any case the
sovereign has no choice in such matters, parliament is supreme. The
standard offer to a retiring prime minister is an earldom. Since the
war, WW2, only Atlee and Macmillan accepted that. The rest downgraded
themselves to baron(-ess) and one or two, notably Churchill, Heath and
Major, appear to have refused even that.

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

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear List,
A Couple of People have indicated that the Queen might
recieve conflicting advice from Mr Blair and the Prime Minister of Australia,
perhaps, but She is rather the one who might advise them rather than the other way
about. She is the embodiment of Britain`s history, the representative of all
Great Britain`s past rulers and is according to Law not allowed to espouse one
side or the other in the political arenas. She has been Queen for nearly
fifty three years now - and if the rumors about the contents of the `boxes` She is
said to view on a daily basis are true, well, then there is her true power.
She discusses everything that goes on with the Prime Minister from the most
mundane to the most serious. She has got on with most of `her` Prime Ministers,
but apparently Margaret Thatcher was an exception, if true, that would account
for her not being a Baroness, Countess, etc. in her own right.

Margaret Thatcher was created a Baroness in her own right.

Renia

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear MichaelAnne ~

I believe the vernacular form of the Latin given name Bogo is Boges,
Booges, or Beges. You can find the vernacular forms Boges and Booges
on ancient rolls of arms on Brian Timms' website at http://www.briantimms.com
(see Stirling and Camden Rolls). I've also found the vernacular form
Beges used in the French transcript of a contemporary lawsuit.
Historians often leave the name, Bogo, untranslated in the Latin form,
perhaps because they are not familiar with the name. I think there is
also a discussion of this given name in Complete Peerage in an
addendum.

When the vernacular form is known, it should certainly be used instead
of the Latin form. So take your pick: Boges, Booges, or Beges.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royala]

P.S.

I just realized that Bogo de Knoville is also listed on Brian Timms'
website on the St. George's Roll. That roll spells his name in the
vernacular as Boges. So we have two Boges, and one Booges from the
rolls on Brian Timms' website.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

Dear MichaelAnne ~

I believe the vernacular form of the Latin given name Bogo is Boges,
Booges, or Beges. You can find the vernacular forms Boges and
Booges
on ancient rolls of arms on Brian Timms' website at
http://www.briantimms.com
(see Stirling and Camden Rolls). I've also found the vernacular form
Beges used in the French transcript of a contemporary lawsuit.
Historians often leave the name, Bogo, untranslated in the Latin
form,
perhaps because they are not familiar with the name. I think there
is
also a discussion of this given name in Complete Peerage in an
addendum.

When the vernacular form is known, it should certainly be used
instead
of the Latin form. So take your pick: Boges, Booges, or Beges.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Douglas Richardson royala]

P.P.S.

Bogo de Knoville also appears on Brian Timms' website on the Charles
Roll as Beges de Knoville.

So we have two Boges, one Booges, and one Beges from Brian Timms'
website, but no Bewes. I already mentioned that I've elsewhere found
the vernacular spelling Beges used in a contemporary lawsuit.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

P.S.

I just realized that Bogo de Knoville is also listed on Brian Timms'
website on the St. George's Roll. That roll spells his name in the
vernacular as Boges. So we have two Boges, and one Booges from the
rolls on Brian Timms' website.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:
Dear MichaelAnne ~

I believe the vernacular form of the Latin given name Bogo is
Boges,
Booges, or Beges. You can find the vernacular forms Boges and
Booges
on ancient rolls of arms on Brian Timms' website at
http://www.briantimms.com
(see Stirling and Camden Rolls). I've also found the vernacular
form
Beges used in the French transcript of a contemporary lawsuit.
Historians often leave the name, Bogo, untranslated in the Latin
form,
perhaps because they are not familiar with the name. I think there
is
also a discussion of this given name in Complete Peerage in an
addendum.

When the vernacular form is known, it should certainly be used
instead
of the Latin form. So take your pick: Boges, Booges, or Beges.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Gjest]

"Does anyone have any information on this surname? It shows up in Charles
county Maryland about 1650. There was a Belaine-Posey marriage.

Thank you,
Shirley"

Shirley for what it's worth some WorldConnect entries show this John Belaine died Oct 1663 Charles Co, MD as being born in Burnley Parish, Lancashire, England.

Caveat: WorldConnect is not "proof", it can however be used as an indication of where to look for the proof.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

Dear Doug,

You were the one who originally corrected me several months ago as I always
used Bogo de Knoville. Here is a posting from December 200:

Dec 27 2000, 10:10 am show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: [email protected] - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:58:03 GMT
Local: Wed, Dec 27 2000 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Margaret de Verdun Pilkington?
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse

Dear Newsgroup:

In my post below, I inadvertedly posted that Sir John de Verdun (Gen.
No. 4) was born in 1249 and died c. 1376. I meant to type he was born
on 24 January 1299 and died c. 1376.

The Verdun-Bradshagh-Pilkington descent below is ancestral to the
following immigrants:

1. Thomas Bressey

2. Elizabeth (Butler) Claiborne, of VA

3. Agatha (Eltonhead) Wormeley Chicheley, Martha (Eltonhead) Conway,
Alice (Eltonhead) Burnham Corbin Creyk, Jane (Eltonhead) Morison
Fenwick, and Eleanor (Eltonhead) Brocas Carter.

4. Simon Lynde, of MA

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

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

In article <[email protected]>,

[email protected] wrote:

Hi Jamey:

Here is your Verdun-Pilkington line:

1. John de Verdun, of Bressingham, Norfolk, and Culpho, Suffolk,
married Isabel, daughter of Simon Fitz Simon, of Brixworth, co.
Northampton.

2. Sir John de Verdun, of Bressingham, Saxlingham, and Great Moulton,
Norfolk, born 1256, died 1295. He married about 1272 to Alianor,
daughter of Thomas de Furnival (died 1291), of Sheffield, co. York (of
Carolingian descent). He was heir in 1280 to his uncle, Simon Fitz
John, by which he inherited the manors of Brixworth and Cranford St.
John, co. Northampton.

3. Sir Thomas de Verdun, of Brixworth, Cranford St. John, co.
Northampton, and Bressingham, Norfolk, son and heir, born 1276, died
1315. He was married about 1295, to Margaret de Knoville, daughter of
Bewes de Knoville, lst Lord Knoville, of Blanchminster, co. Salop.

4. Sir John de Verdun, of Brixworth and Cranford St. John, co.
Northampton, Bressingham, Norfolk, etc., born 1249, died c. 1376. He
was married (lst) in or before 1325/6, to Agnes (____).

5. Edmund de Verdun, of Stagenhoe (in St. Paul's Walden), co.
Hertford,
son and heir apparent, born say 1325, died v.p. He married before in
or before 1350/1, to Joan (_____).

6. Margaret (or Margery) Verdun, daughter and heiress, born say 1355,
died 1436. She married (lst) before 1379 to Hugh de Bradshagh, Knt.
(died 1383). She married (2nd) in 1383 to Sir John Pilkington (died
1421), of Pilkington (in Prestwich), co. Lancaster.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

MichaelAnne

[CED]

Those on the list who know linguistics better than I, please correct
me. I suspect that the differences between "Bogo" and the various
forms of that name ending with "s" reflect differences in the use of
case endings in the written language at the time, rather than formal
versus vulgar. Just as Nigel > Neil, and Rognwald or Reginald > Reynold
(Renaud), Bogo or Boges > Bewes, the latter from in each case more
nearly reflecting the pronuncation. (This softening of the medial "g"
was at work very early, as the German "fugel" = the English "fowl."
The modern Nigel and Reginald would be anachronistic artificial
recreations.)

Normally the "vernacular" is everyday language spoken by the people as
distinguished from the literary language. Since we are dealing with
written texts, using the term "vernacular" is an odd usage in itself.
CED

[Chris Phillips]

CED wrote:

Those on the list who know linguistics better than I, please correct
me. I suspect that the differences between "Bogo" and the various
forms of that name ending with "s" reflect differences in the use of
case endings in the written language at the time, rather than formal
versus vulgar. Just as Nigel > Neil, and Rognwald or Reginald > Reynold
(Renaud), Bogo or Boges > Bewes, the latter from in each case more
nearly reflecting the pronuncation. (This softening of the medial "g"
was at work very early, as the German "fugel" = the English "fowl."
The modern Nigel and Reginald would be anachronistic artificial
recreations.)

The Complete Peerage appendix "Some Observations on Mediaeval Names" (vol.
3, Appendix C) agrees:
"[quoting Stevenson] Now with regard to Bogo, the nom. of this appears
written Beughes, Bouges, Bueges, Boeges, in English-French records ... The
g, gh, has the value of w, and the proper form would be Beues, etc. (cf.
also Drogo, Dreues, Drew, whence the surnames Druce, Drew.) The g spelling
seems to have been introduced, on the analogy of Hughes for Hues, specially
to avoid confusion with Bevis...."
[p. 605, note b]

Further on it adds:
"Modern surnames such as Bogg or Buggins cannot spring from
Bogo for, as W. H. Stevenson points out, the Latin g could not
have remained unchanged in English, but had become the French u
before 1066, hence Bogo gives Bewes and not Bogg."
[p. 613]

In case anyone is wondering, it's suggested that the origin of Bugg may be
the Old English woman's name "Bucge".

Chris Phillips

[Douglas Richardson royala]

I haven't seen Beughes, Bouges, Bueges, Boeges in records. Rather,
I've seen Boges, Booges, and Beges. All are very close and similar.
I've never seen Bevis or Bewes. I'm not sure I agree that the
statement that "the proper form would be Beues." I think Boges or
Beges suffice nicely. Anything but the Latin form, Bogo.

If anyone knows of more examples of this given name name in the
vernacular, I'd appreciate it if they'd post them here on the
newsgroup. This is a rare name that doesn't occur often in the
records. The name is so rare that the editor of the Selden Society
volume I saw mistook this name for a woman's given name.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancesty.net




Chris Phillips wrote:

CED wrote:
Those on the list who know linguistics better than I, please
correct
me. I suspect that the differences between "Bogo" and the various
forms of that name ending with "s" reflect differences in the use
of
case endings in the written language at the time, rather than
formal
versus vulgar. Just as Nigel > Neil, and Rognwald or Reginald
Reynold
(Renaud), Bogo or Boges > Bewes, the latter from in each case more
nearly reflecting the pronuncation. (This softening of the medial
"g"
was at work very early, as the German "fugel" = the English "fowl."
The modern Nigel and Reginald would be anachronistic artificial
recreations.)

The Complete Peerage appendix "Some Observations on Mediaeval Names"
(vol.
3, Appendix C) agrees:
"[quoting Stevenson] Now with regard to Bogo, the nom. of this
appears
written Beughes, Bouges, Bueges, Boeges, in English-French records
.... The
g, gh, has the value of w, and the proper form would be Beues, etc.
(cf.
also Drogo, Dreues, Drew, whence the surnames Druce, Drew.) The g
spelling
seems to have been introduced, on the analogy of Hughes for Hues,
specially
to avoid confusion with Bevis...."
[p. 605, note b]

Further on it adds:
"Modern surnames such as Bogg or Buggins cannot spring from
Bogo for, as W. H. Stevenson points out, the Latin g could not
have remained unchanged in English, but had become the French u
before 1066, hence Bogo gives Bewes and not Bogg."
[p. 613]

In case anyone is wondering, it's suggested that the origin of Bugg
may be
the Old English woman's name "Bucge".

Chris Phillips

[Peter Marrow]

Dear SGM ites,

Can anyone tell me anything about the background to this entry in the
patent rolls:

Membrane 26
March 1444
Westminster

Exemption, for life, of Richard Riche, citizen and mercer of London,
from being put on assizes, juries, recognitions, attaints or inquisitions
and from being, made mayor, knight for the commonalty of any county
or citizen or burgess of any city or borough of England to come to
Parliament, alderman, bailiff, sheriff, escheator, coroner, constable or reeve,
collector, assessor, taxer or controller of tenths, fifteenths, taxes,
tallages,
quotas or other subsidies, trier, arrayer or leader of men at arms, archers,
or hobelers, or other officer, commissioner or minister of the king ; and
grant that no purveyor of the king's or other's household take his wheat,
rye, barley, malt, beans, peas, oats, hay, wood, crops, faggots, coals, carts,
ships, small ships, boats, carriage, litter ,straw, horses, oxen, cows, sheep,
calves, swine, fish, conies, pheasants, partridges, cocks, hens, capons,
pullets, swans, geese, ducks or fowl alive or dead, against his will, the
production of these presents being sufficient warrant herefor; and pardon
to him of all trespasses, offences, contempts, concealments, deceptions,
extortions, misprisions, oppressions, maintenances, entries, champerties,
impeachments, insurrections, conspiracies, negligences, escapes of felons
and fugitives, ignorances and other offences committed by him hitherto
and any consequent outlawry, and nil debts, accounts, prests, arrears of
accounts, and all fines, amercements, issues forfeit, reliefs, pecuniary
pains and securities hitherto forfeited by him.

(from http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls/ )

Would Richard Riche have paid the King a large some of dosh for these
exemptions? Did a lot of people do this?

Did he have a very bad time of it as sheriff or shrieve in 1441?

I am already grateful to Adrian, Rosie, Tony Ingham and others for
previously giving me some information on Richard Rich and his connections.

best regards to One and All,
Peter Marrow

[charlotte Smith]

John Brandon: How can I get a copy of the page that
includes Thomas Prowse. I am most interested in the
Prowse family of Devon. Charlotte S

[D. Spencer Hines]

Loverly!

DSH
-----------------

"Hair of the Blog"

"On the merits of the Eason Jordan kerfuffle, we defer to our colleague
Bret Stephens, who was there, and who was the first journalist to write
about it, in the Jan. 28 issue of OpinionJournal's Political Diary.
Still, there's no gainsaying the victory that Jordan's critics in and
out of blogdom, who pursued the story relentlessly in the two ensuing
weeks, won when Jordan announced on Friday night that he was leaving
CNN. ******

Another notch cut in the bloggers' rifle butts. ---- DSH

"After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent
CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting
accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of
journalists killed in Iraq," Jordan said in a letter to colleagues that
CNN itself quotes (in a story that oddly runs under the heading of
ENTERTAINMENT).

Hilarious! ---- DSH

Bloggers of a different stripe consummated a victory over the weekend as
the Democratic National Committee elected Screaming Blue Messiah Howard
Dean as its new chairman.

The New Republic's Ryan Lizza has a fascinating account of how "a
guerrilla squad of Democratic bloggers" knocked down every other
contender for the post. An example is ex-Rep. Tim Roemer of Indiana,
who had the backing of Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid:

"The entire field of candidates, in concert with the insular liberal
blogosphere, rose up and destroyed Roemer.

Hilarious! ---- DSH

The hit was silent and deadly.

One day I received by messenger a dirty and smudged envelope with no
return address. Inside were five pages of anti-Roemer opposition
research about his positions on everything from Israel and abortion to
labor and Social Security. The same information was fed to numerous
blogs, which quickly declared Roemer anathema.

"Unless Roemer publicly, loudly, and completely repudiates his recent
[pro-privatization] position on Social Security, he is utterly
unacceptable as DNC chair," said a post on the pro-Dean site MyDD.com,
which served as a key clearinghouse of information about the race.
(Roemer did repudiate that position, but it wasn't enough.)

By the time Roemer showed up on "This Week" for a Sunday morning
announcement of his candidacy, which, in the old days, might have helped
solidify him as the establishment choice, he was badly damaged. He
spent most of his interview with George Stephanopoulos defensively
responding to bloggers he had clearly never heard of, like MyDD and The
Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum. . . .

Hilarious! ---- DSH

Roemer never recovered.

In St. Louis days later, at one of five candidate forums held around the
country for DNC members to interview the aspiring chairs, Roemer rose
and, glaring at Dean and candidate Simon Rosenberg, lashed out at the
"secret e-mails" that were circulating about him.

Hilarious! He claimed he was LIBELED too? ---- DSH

He angrily defended his pro-life record and testily challenged the DNC
members to show some tolerance on the issue. It was a brave speech, but
it was also the end of his candidacy. Applause was scattered and
perfunctory. In New York the next week, he told DNC members, "We
shouldn't let a special interest group decide our view on choice." This
time, the audience hissed. ******

Hilarious! ---- DSH

What's interesting here isn't the medium -- the rise of bloggers is old
news -- but the message. ******

In a column presumably filed before Jordan quit, U.S. News & World
Report's Michael Barone contrasts the Howard Dean ascendancy with the
Dan Rather scandal:

"What hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the
Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the
credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in Old Media. Both changes
help Bush and the Republicans. ******

Bingo! ---- DSH

In our view it's premature to conclude that Dean's chairmanship will be
a disaster for the Democrats; another scenario is that his presence will
calm the party base and make it easier for a moderate to win the
presidential nomination three years hence.

But Barone's examples illustrate well the general state of the battle
over America's cultural institutions. Today the right is enjoying
considerable success in its longstanding effort to influence
left-leaning institutions to move toward the center. The left, on the
other hand, is trying to pull them even further to the left. ******

A lesser-noticed resignation last week illustrates the former point. On
Friday Hamilton College, site of a canceled speech by Ward "Little
Eichmanns" Churchill, issued a press release announcing that Nancy
Rabinowitz (no relation to Dorothy!) was stepping down as director of
the Kirkland Project. Her comments echoed Jordan's:

"Hamilton College finds itself in the midst of a crisis that is deeply
rooted in the institution's history and set against a backdrop of
increasing political and cultural tension. Much of the resulting media
attack has been directed personally at me as Director of the Kirkland
Project. This, in turn, has been destructive to the Project and to the
educational mission of the College, in particular to its desire to
create a more diverse and welcoming environment for all students. In the
interests of the College and its community, therefore, I am stepping
down as Director, effective immediately.

I am resigning under duress, for I would have preferred to stay on until
I took my long awaited sabbatical; however, my strengths have been in
the intrinsic work of the Project itself, and what the Project needs now
is someone more adept at the kind of political and media fight that the
current climate requires.

Poor Baby! ---- DSH

Therefore, it is in the interests of the mission of the Project itself
and of the College and for no other reason that I am yielding to
requests that I resign.

Hat tip: Roger Kimball. This is a clear victory for those who are
right-wing enough to object to Churchill's anti-American hate speech,
which we'd estimate at roughly 90% of the population. ******

Compare this with the experience of Larry Summers. Harvard's president
is a partisan Democrat -- he was Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary --
and he would be considered a liberal anywhere outside the fever swamps
of academentia. He remains under attack for comments last month in
which he suggested that genetic differences may be among the reasons
fewer women than men pursue careers in math and science. Last month the
left-wing National Organization of Women demanded Summers's resignation.
******

Hilarious! ---- DSH

On Saturday three fellow university presidents -- from Stanford, MIT and
Princeton -- published a Boston Globe op-ed in which they argued that
this topic should be off limits:

"The question we must ask as a society is not "can women excel in math,
science, and engineering?"-- Marie Curie exploded that myth a century
ago -- but "how can we encourage more women with exceptional abilities
to pursue careers in these fields?" Extensive research on the abilities
and representation of males and females in science and mathematics has
identified the need to address important cultural and societal factors.
Speculation that "innate differences" may be a significant cause for the
under-representation of women in science and engineering may rejuvenate
old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases."

The academic left claims to favor free inquiry and oppose hate speech,
but in practice it opposes free inquiry and favors hate speech, at least
when doing so promotes its orthodoxy on campus. ******

Indeed! ---- DSH

In any case, the broader theme is clear: Those on the right are helping
improve institutions like the media and academia by casting light on
their most irresponsibly leftist elements, while those on the left are
trying to excommunicate responsible center-left figures like Tim Roemer
and Larry Summers.

Or to put it another way, the right is increasingly influencing the
mainstream, while the left is increasingly alienated from it."

James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
------------------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[starbuck95]

Charlotte--

Are you near a large library, perhaps a university library? Those
sorts of places tend to have the _Lists & Indexes_ series.

Maybe you wouldn't mind telling us how you're related to the Prowse
family ...?

[CED]

Mr. Richardson,

The form of medieval names is most often a matter of linguistics.
(Example: linguistic analysis proves that both "Alice" and "Adela" are
derived from the Latin form of the German name "Adelheid.") Since we
do not know the extent to which the written forms of medieval names
reflected their pronunciation except by linguistic analysis, what an
individual might have noticed in the written records is merely
anecdotal evidence of no consequence with out systematic analysis
(unless you are an expert).

What a person might "think" should be backed up by citation of an
authority or by such systematic study as to qualify the person as an
expert.

Again "vernacular" is an inappropriate term when refering to medieval
written records. Please check the dictionary for a definition of
"vernacular." Go to google and type in "vernacular etymology
definition."

You might not have seen "Bewes" because it's use in the period would
probably be in the vernacular.

The Boges > Bewes is possibly analogous to Hughes > Hewes, a Sixteenth
Century surname in Somerset and Middlesex.

CED

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

I haven't seen Beughes, Bouges, Bueges, Boeges in records. Rather,
I've seen Boges, Booges, and Beges. All are very close and similar.
I've never seen Bevis or Bewes. I'm not sure I agree that the
statement that "the proper form would be Beues." I think Boges or
Beges suffice nicely. Anything but the Latin form, Bogo.

If anyone knows of more examples of this given name name in the
vernacular, I'd appreciate it if they'd post them here on the
newsgroup. This is a rare name that doesn't occur often in the
records. The name is so rare that the editor of the Selden Society
volume I saw mistook this name for a woman's given name.

I suspect the problem is that the name may have become virtually extinct by
the time we have records in English from which we could get direct evidence
of the vernacular form.

I think the implication of the CP comments is that "Beughes, Bouges, Bueges,
Boeges" appear in records written in French, like the ones you cited. So the
possibility is that these reflect the French spelling, and it becomes very
difficult to know what would have been the English spelling (if the name was
ever spelled in English!).

Chris Phillips

[Tony Hoskins]

Could anyone enlighten me as to the reason for the enormous volume of
messages on this subject emanating from the USA? I'n English, and my

reaction to the whole subject is, "Ho Hum!"

Frank

---

Ditto from California!


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Chris Phillips]

Charlotte Smith wrote:

How can I get a copy of the page that
includes Thomas Prowse. I am most interested in the
Prowse family of Devon.

Maybe worth mentioning that the UK National Archives is able to provide
scans of nearly all its documents electronically. Not all that cheap, and of
course there may be problems with language and handwriting, but of course it
will potentially be far more informative than the index entry:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recordcopying/

Chris Phillips

[Gjest]

In a message dated 15/02/05 20:30:31 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I'n English, and my reaction to the whole subject is, "Ho Hum!"

I think a lot of people in the UK don't care much either way - we take it all
in our stride. Good Luck to them both.

Rose

[Noel Leon]

On , , Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:26:15 -0600, Re: Ancestry Of Camilla
Rosemary Shand Parker Bowles, erilar
<[email protected]> wrote:

This may be on topic in your groups, but not in the one I read. Ever
thought of trimming irrelevant cross posting?

And yet you have posted to all the groups again.
You are doing the same as those you complain about.

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Douglas Richardson [email protected] wrote:

P.P.S.

Bogo de Knoville also appears on Brian Timms' website on the Charles
Roll as Beges de Knoville.

But in the same column, we see Water, Willem, Joan (for John),
Averai (for Alfred), Hamund, Hue, Baudwin, Rauf, etc. Are you
planning on using these equivalent 'vernacular' forms as well?

taf

[Rosie Bevan]

Dear Peter

The mayoralty of London, or any other office, was not necessarily
considered an attractive propostion during medieval times, so Richard
Riche's exemption from his obligations was a luxury for which he may
have paid handsomely. I'm not sure about the mid 1400s but a century
earlier there were 24 aldermen at any one time, an office held for
life, therefore the pool was not great from which to elect the mayor
and two sheriffs every year. These posts were not greatly desired,
mainly for the disruption to family business and onerous
responsibilities for which there was not much recompense unless one was
corrupt, so ordinances were passed stating that mayors could only hold
the term for one year and not be forced or induced to hold the position
again within 7 years, later reduced to 5 years. When a mayor died in
office, a re-election occurred almost immediately - as when Adam
Fraunceys was elected the first time in 1352. There was a practical
reason for this -it stopped those eligible from absconding from town on
various pretexts to avoid election. The same thing happened when
sheriffs died too, so in 1350 ordinances were passed to discourage this
practice.

"Whereas many able persons of the City withdraw and absent themselves,
and go out of the City in order to avoid the office of of Sheriff of
London and Middlesex, and on that account others less able are elected
through their default to the same office, to their great hurt and
dishonour of the said City, and consequently to the franchise of the
said City, it is therefore agreed by the Mayor and Aldermen, with the
assent of the whole Commonalty, that in future if any absent or eloign
[distance] himself from the said City on the day of election of
Sheriffs for the reason aforesaid, he shall pay to him who shall be
elected in his place through his default 100 pounds sterling, and
furthermore lose his franchise for ever without redemption, and every
year the Mayor for the time being shall say on his conscience and by
his oath that he has elected some other person than he would have
elected if he had been present, and name the person, and the Commonalty
in the same manner; and he who shall be so named shall be in no wise
excused, and with six good and suitable persons shall make oath that he
will not absent himself again for the like cause."

Ordinance passed Tuesday 21 Sept 1350 by the Mayor, Sheriffs and
Aldermen with assent of the whole Commonalty.
[Calendar of Letter Book F, p. 306]

Cheers

Rosie






Peter Marrow wrote:

Dear SGM ites,

Can anyone tell me anything about the background to this entry in
the
patent rolls:

Membrane 26
March 1444
Westminster

Exemption, for life, of Richard Riche, citizen and mercer of London,
from being put on assizes, juries, recognitions, attaints or
inquisitions
and from being, made mayor, knight for the commonalty of any county
or citizen or burgess of any city or borough of England to come to
Parliament, alderman, bailiff, sheriff, escheator, coroner, constable
or reeve,
collector, assessor, taxer or controller of tenths, fifteenths,
taxes,
tallages,
quotas or other subsidies, trier, arrayer or leader of men at arms,
archers,
or hobelers, or other officer, commissioner or minister of the king ;
and
grant that no purveyor of the king's or other's household take his
wheat,
rye, barley, malt, beans, peas, oats, hay, wood, crops, faggots,
coals, carts,
ships, small ships, boats, carriage, litter ,straw, horses, oxen,
cows, sheep,
calves, swine, fish, conies, pheasants, partridges, cocks, hens,
capons,
pullets, swans, geese, ducks or fowl alive or dead, against his will,
the
production of these presents being sufficient warrant herefor; and
pardon
to him of all trespasses, offences, contempts, concealments,
deceptions,
extortions, misprisions, oppressions, maintenances, entries,
champerties,
impeachments, insurrections, conspiracies, negligences, escapes of
felons
and fugitives, ignorances and other offences committed by him
hitherto
and any consequent outlawry, and nil debts, accounts, prests, arrears
of
accounts, and all fines, amercements, issues forfeit, reliefs,
pecuniary
pains and securities hitherto forfeited by him.

(from http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls/ )

Would Richard Riche have paid the King a large some of dosh for these

exemptions? Did a lot of people do this?

Did he have a very bad time of it as sheriff or shrieve in 1441?

I am already grateful to Adrian, Rosie, Tony Ingham and others for
previously giving me some information on Richard Rich and his
connections.

best regards to One and All,
Peter Marrow

[starbuck95]

What is the current status of the Arundel-Echingham-Baynton line behind
Prowse? I know the Echinghams were discussed intensively more than a
year ago, but I wasn't paying full attention, as I was uncertain my
Maverick line was correct. (After looking at the Salem Church records
and Sidney Perley's _History of Salem_, I've decided it's okay).

I guess what I'm asking is-- Is the descent from Henry III (via
Arundel) still correct for the Echinghams?

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/15/2005 9:07:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Hines translated "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie" as "at [the
shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia", claiming to have
glossed some "understood elided words"

What I haven't heard explicitly declared in this very long discussion is
this: Are or Are not the following place-names describing the same identical place
?
1) Saint Jago in Galicia
2) Saint James of Compostela in Galicia
3) Sanctum-Jacobum in Galicia

Do these three describe the same identical 1 square mile (or whatever) piece
of land? Isn't that the real issue?
Will

[D. Spencer Hines]

Richard Rich may well be an ancestor of our own John Steele Gordon.

How say ye, Gordo?

DSH

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

| Dear Peter
|
| The mayoralty of London, or any other office, was not necessarily
| considered an attractive propostion during medieval times, so Richard
| Riche's exemption from his obligations was a luxury for which he may
| have paid handsomely. I'm not sure about the mid 1400s but a century
| earlier there were 24 aldermen at any one time, an office held for
| life, therefore the pool was not great from which to elect the mayor
| and two sheriffs every year. These posts were not greatly desired,
| mainly for the disruption to family business and onerous
| responsibilities for which there was not much recompense unless one
was
| corrupt, so ordinances were passed stating that mayors could only hold
| the term for one year and not be forced or induced to hold the
position
| again within 7 years, later reduced to 5 years. When a mayor died in
| office, a re-election occurred almost immediately - as when Adam
| Fraunceys was elected the first time in 1352. There was a practical
| reason for this -it stopped those eligible from absconding from town
on
| various pretexts to avoid election. The same thing happened when
| sheriffs died too, so in 1350 ordinances were passed to discourage
this
| practice.
|
| "Whereas many able persons of the City withdraw and absent themselves,
| and go out of the City in order to avoid the office of of Sheriff of
| London and Middlesex, and on that account others less able are elected
| through their default to the same office, to their great hurt and
| dishonour of the said City, and consequently to the franchise of the
| said City, it is therefore agreed by the Mayor and Aldermen, with the
| assent of the whole Commonalty, that in future if any absent or eloign
| [distance] himself from the said City on the day of election of
| Sheriffs for the reason aforesaid, he shall pay to him who shall be
| elected in his place through his default 100 pounds sterling, and
| furthermore lose his franchise for ever without redemption, and every
| year the Mayor for the time being shall say on his conscience and by
| his oath that he has elected some other person than he would have
| elected if he had been present, and name the person, and the
Commonalty
| in the same manner; and he who shall be so named shall be in no wise
| excused, and with six good and suitable persons shall make oath that
he
| will not absent himself again for the like cause."
|
| Ordinance passed Tuesday 21 Sept 1350 by the Mayor, Sheriffs and
| Aldermen with assent of the whole Commonalty.
| [Calendar of Letter Book F, p. 306]
|
| Cheers
|
| Rosie
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Marrow wrote:
| > Dear SGM ites,
| >
| > Can anyone tell me anything about the background to this entry in
| the
| > patent rolls:
| >
| > Membrane 26
| > March 1444
| > Westminster
| >
| > Exemption, for life, of Richard Riche, citizen and mercer of London,
| > from being put on assizes, juries, recognitions, attaints or
| inquisitions
| > and from being, made mayor, knight for the commonalty of any county
| > or citizen or burgess of any city or borough of England to come to
| > Parliament, alderman, bailiff, sheriff, escheator, coroner,
constable
| or reeve,
| > collector, assessor, taxer or controller of tenths, fifteenths,
| taxes,
| > tallages,
| > quotas or other subsidies, trier, arrayer or leader of men at arms,
| archers,
| > or hobelers, or other officer, commissioner or minister of the king
;
| and
| > grant that no purveyor of the king's or other's household take his
| wheat,
| > rye, barley, malt, beans, peas, oats, hay, wood, crops, faggots,
| coals, carts,
| > ships, small ships, boats, carriage, litter ,straw, horses, oxen,
| cows, sheep,
| > calves, swine, fish, conies, pheasants, partridges, cocks, hens,
| capons,
| > pullets, swans, geese, ducks or fowl alive or dead, against his
will,
| the
| > production of these presents being sufficient warrant herefor; and
| pardon
| > to him of all trespasses, offences, contempts, concealments,
| deceptions,
| > extortions, misprisions, oppressions, maintenances, entries,
| champerties,
| > impeachments, insurrections, conspiracies, negligences, escapes of
| felons
| > and fugitives, ignorances and other offences committed by him
| hitherto
| > and any consequent outlawry, and nil debts, accounts, prests,
arrears
| of
| > accounts, and all fines, amercements, issues forfeit, reliefs,
| pecuniary
| > pains and securities hitherto forfeited by him.
| >
| > (from http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls/ )
| >
| > Would Richard Riche have paid the King a large some of dosh for
these
|
| > exemptions? Did a lot of people do this?
| >
| > Did he have a very bad time of it as sheriff or shrieve in 1441?
| >
| > I am already grateful to Adrian, Rosie, Tony Ingham and others for
| > previously giving me some information on Richard Rich and his
| connections.
| >
| > best regards to One and All,
| > Peter Marrow

[charlotte Smith]

Starbucks: I believe the line is still correct.
Weiss in his book said he would like more info on the
Baynton-Echyngham proofs, but no one seems to have
found any..I asked D.Richardson if he had foundn
anything else when he updated the book, but he did not
answer. I don't have a copy of his new book to check.
I have my linve from Henry down to Maverick with
Prowse, Echyngham all listed. I am researching in
depth the Echyngham line but have not been posting on
it lately, but will again. Charlotte Smith

[starbuck95]

Thanks, I'll look for your future Echyngham postings.

[Louise Staley]

On 16 Feb 2005 06:25:37 -0800, starbuck95 <[email protected]> wrote:

What is the current status of the Arundel-Echingham-Baynton line behind
Prowse? I know the Echinghams were discussed intensively more than a
year ago, but I wasn't paying full attention, as I was uncertain my
Maverick line was correct. (After looking at the Salem Church records
and Sidney Perley's _History of Salem_, I've decided it's okay).

I guess what I'm asking is-- Is the descent from Henry III (via
Arundel) still correct for the Echinghams?

The short answer is "not proved"

The line is fine from Henry III to Joan Fitzalan

1-King Henry III King of England 1216-1272 b. 1 Oct 1207,
London, ENG, d. 16 Nov 1272, Bury St. Edmunds, Sfk, Eng
+Eleonore Berenger Queen Consort of England b. 1217, Aix-En
Provence, Fra, d. 24 Jun 1291, Amesbury, Wil, Eng, m. 14 Jan
1236-1237, Canterbury, KEN, ENG, par. Raymond Berenger 4th
Count Of Provence and Beatrix De Savoy
|-2-Edmund of Lancaster King of Sicily b. 16 Jan 1244-1245,
| London, ENG, d. 5 Jan 1295-1296, Bayonne, , Aquitaine,
| France
| +Blanch d'Artois Queen Consort of Navarre b. Abt 1248, Arras,
| , Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France, d. 2 May 1302, Paris, , ,
| France, m. Bef 18 Jan 1275-1276, Paris, , , France, par.
| Robert I d'Artois and Mathilde of Brabant
| |-3-Henry of Grosmont Earl of Lancaster b. Abt 1281, Grosmont
| | Castle, MON, WLS, d. 22 Sep 1345, Breedon-On-The-Hill,
| | Lei, Eng
| | +Lady Maud Chaworth b. 2 Feb 1282, Kidwelly, CMN, WLS, d.
| | Between 19 Feb 1317 and 3 Dec 1322, (Mottisfont, GLS,
| | ENG), m. Bef 2 Mar 1296-1297, Kidwelly, CMN, WLS, par. Sir
| | Patrick Chaworth Lord of Kempsford and Isabel Beauchamp of
| | Warwick Castle
| | |-4-Eleanor of Lancaster b. 18 Jun 1318, Woodstock, OXF,
| | | ENG, d. 11 Jan 1372, Arundel, SSX, ENG
| | | +Richard Fitzalan Earl of Arundel 10th b. 1306, Arundel,
| | | SSX, ENG, d. 24 Jan 1375-1376, Arundel, SSX, ENG, m. 5
| | | Feb 1343-1344, Stoke Poges, BUK, ENG, par. Sir Edmund
| | | Fitzalan Earl Of Arundel 2nd and Alice Warenne
| | | |-5-Sir John Fitzalan Baron Arundel 1st d. 16 Dec 1379,
| | | | (Lewes, SSX, ENG)
| | | | +Eleanor Maltravers Baroness Maltravers de jure b. Abt
| | | | 1346, d. 10 Jan 1405, (Lewes, SSX, ENG), m. 17 Feb
| | | | 1359, par. Sir John Maltravers
| | | | |-6-Joan Fitzalan b. Abt 1370, d. 1 Sep 1404,
| | | | | (Etchingham, SSX, ENG)
| | | | | +Sir William Bryan of Kemsing, KEN d. 25 Sep 1395,
| | | | | s.p., par. Sir Guy V Bryan K.G., Baron Bryan 1st and
| | | | | Elizabeth Montagu
| | | | | +Sir William Echyngham Lord of Echyngham d. 21 Mar
| | | | | 1413, (Etchingham, SSX, ENG), m. After 25 Sep 1395,
| | | | | par. Sir William Echyngham Lord of Echyngham and
| | | | | Mary Shoyswell

Thr problem occurs with proving Joan is the daughter of Joan Fitzalan.

This daughter does not appear in the Sussex Visitation. Described in PA2
as "daughter, it is said" suggesting this is from the Wiltshire Visitation
and there is no other evidence.

This placement is chronologically difficult. For Joan to be the daughter
of Joan FitzAlan she must have been born on or before 1 Sep 1404 when Joan
FitzAlan died. However her eldest son was not born until about 1439 (aged
26 or more on his father's death in 1465) and Joan and John Baynton then
went on to have four additional sons. Her eldest son was therefore born
when she was about 35 and she had at least four children after that. It is
possible that the eldest son Robert was considerably older than the 26
returned on the IPM but without further evidence this placement must be
considered suspect.

| | | | | |-7-Joan Echyngham b. Bef 1 Sep 1404
| | | | | +Sir John Baynton of Falstone in Bishopston, WIL b.
| | | | | Abt 1407, d. 20 Jun 1465, m. Bef 1439
| | | | | |-8-Sir Robert Baynton Knt., of Falstone in
| | | | | | Bishopston b. Abt 1439, d. Bef 6 Oct 1472
| | | | | | +Elizabeth Haute , par. William Haute of
| | | | | | Bisopbourne and Joan Wydeville
| | | | | |-8-Henry Baynton of Faulstone in Bishopston

Louise
--
Quod dixi dixi

[Peter Stewart]

Will Johnson wrote:

In a message dated 2/15/2005 9:07:41 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [email protected] writes:
Hines translated "apud Sanctum-Jacobum en Galicie" as "at
[the shrine of] Saint James [de Compostela] in Galicia", claiming
to have glossed some "understood elided words"

What I haven't heard explicitly declared in this very long discussion
is this: Are or Are not the following place-names describing the same
identical place?
1) Saint Jago in Galicia
2) Saint James of Compostela in Galicia
3) Sanctum-Jacobum in Galicia

Do these three describe the same identical 1 square mile (or
whatever) piece of land? Isn't that the real issue?

Quite so, Will - Spencer tried to parley a bogus quibble about this
into an accusation that I am a fraud who has been misleading the
newsgroup for years with "pig-ignorant" mistranslations (although he
has never seen fit to challenge one until now, except for his
disastrous venture into the unknown with his views on the meaning of
"non sequitur").

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Dear Renia,
Many Thanks for clearing that up. So We have evidently the
following;
1 William de Flandresis
2 Reyner I le Dapifer le Fleming at Wath on Dearne abt 1125
3 William I /II dead by 1166, recieved manor of Clifton
4 Reyner II dead by Michaelmas 1205, Founder of Kirklees Priory
5 William II / III died before 1234
6 (brother) John I died by 1250 (Early Yorkshire Families)
7 Reyner III Fitz john died by 1300 married Eglantine (or Rosamund)
de Horbury (EarlyYorkshire families)
8 William III/IV granted a fair at Wath-on- Dearne by Edward I in
1302
9 Reyner IV (son or brother?) granted a fair at Wath-on- Dearne by
Edward II in 1312
10 John II (probably son ) granted a fair at Wath-on- Dearne by
Edward II in 1316, was He the John le Fleming who witnessed a Thornhill deed in
1325 ?(Thornhill of Thornhill post by John R.)
11 Thomas I Lord of Clifton in 1344 ( Ibid Thornhill of Thornhill
post)
12 John III married Joan Fauconberge d 1356 (John R .`s post)
13 Thomas II( had younger brothers Lambert who took the name Watts
and Reyner (Watts website)
( one or two unknown generations ? )
? 14 John IV Fleming , last Fleming feudal lord of Wath on
Dearne, Clifton. etc( John R`s post
15 Cecily Fleming born say 1390 or earlier married 1407/08
Robert Waterton, uncertain if a daughter of Thomas II, John IV or another Fleming
of this house.
Note, if relationship is not otherwise stated, I believe each
generation to be father to the suceeding one.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Tony Ingham]

Mmmmm Spencer,

I'd like to see the proof of that relationship.

Tony Ingham

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Richard Rich may well be an ancestor of our own John Steele Gordon.

How say ye, Gordo?

DSH

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

| Dear Peter
|
| The mayoralty of London, or any other office, was not necessarily
| considered an attractive propostion during medieval times, so Richard
| Riche's exemption from his obligations was a luxury for which he may
| have paid handsomely. I'm not sure about the mid 1400s but a century
| earlier there were 24 aldermen at any one time, an office held for
| life, therefore the pool was not great from which to elect the mayor
| and two sheriffs every year. These posts were not greatly desired,
| mainly for the disruption to family business and onerous
| responsibilities for which there was not much recompense unless one
was
| corrupt, so ordinances were passed stating that mayors could only hold
| the term for one year and not be forced or induced to hold the
position
| again within 7 years, later reduced to 5 years. When a mayor died in
| office, a re-election occurred almost immediately - as when Adam
| Fraunceys was elected the first time in 1352. There was a practical
| reason for this -it stopped those eligible from absconding from town
on
| various pretexts to avoid election. The same thing happened when
| sheriffs died too, so in 1350 ordinances were passed to discourage
this
| practice.
|
| "Whereas many able persons of the City withdraw and absent themselves,
| and go out of the City in order to avoid the office of of Sheriff of
| London and Middlesex, and on that account others less able are elected
| through their default to the same office, to their great hurt and
| dishonour of the said City, and consequently to the franchise of the
| said City, it is therefore agreed by the Mayor and Aldermen, with the
| assent of the whole Commonalty, that in future if any absent or eloign
| [distance] himself from the said City on the day of election of
| Sheriffs for the reason aforesaid, he shall pay to him who shall be
| elected in his place through his default 100 pounds sterling, and
| furthermore lose his franchise for ever without redemption, and every
| year the Mayor for the time being shall say on his conscience and by
| his oath that he has elected some other person than he would have
| elected if he had been present, and name the person, and the
Commonalty
| in the same manner; and he who shall be so named shall be in no wise
| excused, and with six good and suitable persons shall make oath that
he
| will not absent himself again for the like cause."
|
| Ordinance passed Tuesday 21 Sept 1350 by the Mayor, Sheriffs and
| Aldermen with assent of the whole Commonalty.
| [Calendar of Letter Book F, p. 306]
|
| Cheers
|
| Rosie
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Marrow wrote:
| > Dear SGM ites,
|
| > Can anyone tell me anything about the background to this entry in
| the
| > patent rolls:
|
| > Membrane 26
| > March 1444
| > Westminster
|
| > Exemption, for life, of Richard Riche, citizen and mercer of London,
| > from being put on assizes, juries, recognitions, attaints or
| inquisitions
| > and from being, made mayor, knight for the commonalty of any county
| > or citizen or burgess of any city or borough of England to come to
| > Parliament, alderman, bailiff, sheriff, escheator, coroner,
constable
| or reeve,
| > collector, assessor, taxer or controller of tenths, fifteenths,
| taxes,
| > tallages,
| > quotas or other subsidies, trier, arrayer or leader of men at arms,
| archers,
| > or hobelers, or other officer, commissioner or minister of the king
;
| and
| > grant that no purveyor of the king's or other's household take his
| wheat,
| > rye, barley, malt, beans, peas, oats, hay, wood, crops, faggots,
| coals, carts,
| > ships, small ships, boats, carriage, litter ,straw, horses, oxen,
| cows, sheep,
| > calves, swine, fish, conies, pheasants, partridges, cocks, hens,
| capons,
| > pullets, swans, geese, ducks or fowl alive or dead, against his
will,
| the
| > production of these presents being sufficient warrant herefor; and
| pardon
| > to him of all trespasses, offences, contempts, concealments,
| deceptions,
| > extortions, misprisions, oppressions, maintenances, entries,
| champerties,
| > impeachments, insurrections, conspiracies, negligences, escapes of
| felons
| > and fugitives, ignorances and other offences committed by him
| hitherto
| > and any consequent outlawry, and nil debts, accounts, prests,
arrears
| of
| > accounts, and all fines, amercements, issues forfeit, reliefs,
| pecuniary
| > pains and securities hitherto forfeited by him.
|
| > (from http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/patentrolls/ )
|
| > Would Richard Riche have paid the King a large some of dosh for
these
|
| > exemptions? Did a lot of people do this?
|
| > Did he have a very bad time of it as sheriff or shrieve in 1441?
|
| > I am already grateful to Adrian, Rosie, Tony Ingham and others for
| > previously giving me some information on Richard Rich and his
| connections.
|
| > best regards to One and All,
| > Peter Marrow

[John Brandon]

It is possible that the eldest son Robert was considerably older than the 26
returned on the IPM but without further evidence this placement must be
considered suspect.

Well, darn it all. I guess we'll have to get someone to look into
another of J.G. Hunt's statements: "Westcote, _op. cit._ [_A View of
Devon in MDCXXX_], p. 618, shows that Grace Dowrish descended from
Thomas Fulford, of Fulford, knt., whose wife was a Courtenay of
Powderham and descended from Edward I. ... Westcote's account may be
correct, although it disagrees with that given in Vivian, and should
therefore be carefully investigated before it is accepted" (NEHGR,
115:253).

[Patricia Junkin]

Douglas,
As I understand what you have posted, Humanby was Tatershall property?
The de Ros association with Vipont is long.
In 1213, concerning hostages in England of king of Scotland to accompany K.
of S. while attending vigil of St. John at Portsmouth...fil Willelmi de
Veteri Ponte ...and Robert de Ros de fratre Walter de Clifford
³Alan of Galloway whose daughter Eleanor married Roger de Quincy, drew
heavily on the former de Morville connection-knights from Cunningham and
Largs (e.g. Hugh of Ardrossan, Alexander de Nehou, Alan and Robert de Ros)
from Lauderdale (e.g. Peter Haig, Richard Maitland, Vivian de Molyneux) and
from English Cumbria (e.g Roger de Beauchamp, William of Muncaster, Ivo de
Vieuxpont. It is on Ivo line that the Robert who married Margaret hieress of
Humandby descends.
In 1298 October 3, Jedburgh. In 26th year of the King¹s reign, a pardon for
John de Byroun, Sheriff of York for pursuing and following after escapees
from York Castle including: Nicholas Vespont, William Vespont, Simon
Vespont, Robert Vespont, John de Ros, Robert de Vespont, G..........
In 1302 Hugo de Vipont is in a document with de Willelimo de Ros. Item prior
de Caldwelle...
Thank you for replying.
Pat

----------

From: "Douglas Richardson [email protected]" <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Identity of Maud de Bernake, wife of James de Roos, of Gedney,
Lincolnshire
Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 10:33 AM


Dear Patricia ~

Thank you for your good post.

You have correctly observed that Joan (de Tateshall) de Driby settled
lands in 1323 on James de Roos, and his wife, Maud, and the heirs of
their bodies, with reversion to the heirs of Maud. Since this property
in Hunmanby, Yorkshire was part of Joan's inheritance, and since the
remainder was set to go to the heirs of Maud, this is all a good
indication that Maud was near related to Joan de Driby. Also, this
settlement appears to have taken place about the time of Maud's
marriage. As such, this settlement was almost certainly intended to
serve as Maud's maritagium.

As it turns out, Maud de Roos was Joan's own granddaughter, being the
child of William de Bernake, by his wife, Alice, daughter of Robert de
Driby and Joan de Tateshale.

Evidence of Maud de Roos' maiden name can be found in the records of
Belvoir Priory which shows that anniversary of Maud Bernak, widow of
Sir James de Ros, was kept at Belvoir Priory 24 October [Reference:
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 2(1) (1795): Appendix, pp.
23, 37].

Further information on the Roos family of Gedney, Lincolnshire will be
found in my forthcoming book, Magna Carta Ancestry, scheduled for
publication in June 2005. Please contact me offline for details
regarding ordering the book.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

[Ginny Wagner]

<The de Ros association with Vipont is long>

In Everyday Life in the Viking Age by Jacqueline Simpson, 1967, she
discusses what the various names (given by others) for Danes and Norwegians
were, on page 12 " ... in the east, the Slavs, Arabs and Byzantine Greeks
called them [Vikings] Rus or Ros, which probably was originally a Finnish
name for the Swedes. Is that the genesis of the name Ros or Roos herein?

Ginny Wagner

"Do the best one can. Do it over again. Then still improve, even if ever
so slightly, those retouches. It is myself that I re-make," said the poet
Yeats in speaking of his revisions. -- Marguerite Yourcenar

[Gjest]

Renia wrote: "Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.

Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources."

What about this example. A person writes a biography, when in their 80s, about events and persons they personally knew 60 years earlier.
These facts are not contemporary, but wouldn't that still be a primary source for the events and persons described?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Tony Hoskins]

Renia wrote: "Primary sources are always contemporary with their
subject. Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary

sources." What about this example. A person writes a biography, when in
their 80s, about events and persons they personally knew 60 years
earlier. These facts are not contemporary, but wouldn't that still be a
primary source for the events and persons described? Thanks Will
Johnson
-----

Good point. I often find it useful to think in terms of *proximity* to
events and persons as a determinant of "primary evidence" -
though certainly not always/invariably. Degrees of separation (highly
subjective in many cases necessarily) are crucial here.


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Chris Phillips]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

In earlier posts, I've shown that Elizabeth de Aton's son and heir, Sir
William Playce, was not the father of Robert Place as stated by
Complete Peerage. New research now indicates that Sir William Playce's
heirs were actually the descendants of his sister, Margaret Playce,
wife of Sir John de Sywardby.

I'm slightly confused about where this leaves us as to Elizabeth Aton's
heirs.

I've gone back over my notes, and I suspect I'm missing something, but I
can't see any evidence about whether Sir William Playce survived his mother
Elizabeth or not.

It has previously been suggested that Elizabeth's heirs were the issue of
her 2nd marriage to Sir John Conyers, and for that reason I've been assuming
that she was predeceased by the son of her 1st marriage, Sir William Playce
(if Sir William had survived to become Elizabeth's heir, her Conyers
children would have been related to him only by half blood, so could not
have succeeded him). But I can't see any mention of direct evidence to that
effect.

Even if Sir William predeceased his mother, if his daughter Elizabeth had
survived her, she must have been her heir, and in due course her inheritance
(if any) should have passed to the Sywardby heirs of the younger Elizabeth's
whole-blood aunt.

I am a bit handicapped because I haven't looked at what Elizabeth Aton's
will says. It seems odd that the Complete Peerage account identifies her
descendants as a different family of Playces. Presumably that means the
author of the CP account hadn't traced the descent of Elizabeth's share (if
any) of the Aton estates.

Chris Phillips

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 17 Feb, [email protected] wrote:

Renia wrote: "Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.

Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources."

What about this example. A person writes a biography, when in their
80s, about events and persons they personally knew 60 years earlier.
These facts are not contemporary, but wouldn't that still be a
primary source for the events and persons described?

The problem here is the reliability of the 80-year-old's memory. I
have just had an exchange with a VCH (Victoria County History) editor
where he had taken the word of an eighty year old man and, regrettably,
then wrote an account in a VCH that was incorrect.

The problem is the more acute because some old people have remarkable
pwoers of expression, are utterly confident that they have things
right, but have papered over cracks in their memory with things that
sound right but are not so.

So, to answer your question, yes I think it would be a primary source,
but false. You cannot always rely on the printed word.

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

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Renia wrote: "Primary sources are always contemporary with their subject.

Secondary sources are always produced later, using the primary sources."

What about this example. A person writes a biography, when in their 80s, about events and persons they personally knew 60 years earlier.
These facts are not contemporary, but wouldn't that still be a primary source for the events and persons described?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Indeed it is a primary source. The subject, with whom it is
contemporary, wrote it.

Renia

[Gjest]

While perusing Leo's great site at http://www.genealogics.org on these families I had a question.

John Mautrevers ~1290 is called "Baron" but I can't quite see when he was created Baron in his biography there. He died in 1364, his son and heir John ~1314 having died before him in 1349, the title evidently passed to his granddaughter Eleanor ~1346-1405 Baron Mautrevers du jure.

This Eleanor married John of Arundel in 1359 and in consequence he was summoned as Lord Mautrevers in 1377. This John died Dec 1379 and his son and heir John 1364- did not die until 1390. But this later son was never summoned as a Baron.

Why? Were there no parliaments between 1377 and 1390 ?
Will Johnson

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

Renia wrote: "Indeed it is a primary source. The subject, with whom it is contemporary, wrote it.
Renia"

But Renia I wasn't speaking of the author, I was speaking of the subjects (persons) of whom they are speaking. You're trying to prop up your definition but it's slippery.
If in my autobiography, when I myself reach 70 or so, I say "my neighbor when I was 12 was Mrs Rogers, about 70 years old, she was a cranky woman."

The author is the source, not the people about whom he is writing. Now
whether he is reliable as a source, is another matter. As Tim says, his
memory may not be what it was.

This is why the historian asks Who created this source and When? Why was
it created and for Whom. Then the historian knows that while the diary
or journal is a good primary source, he knows it may be unreliable
testimony and would have to seek out other sources to corroborate it.

Is that a primary source for the fact that:
"Mrs Rogers was a cranky woman" and
"When this author was 12, Mrs Rogers was about 70".

That's the question. The book is not contemporary with either fact, it's writen well after either fact occured.

The subject in this case, is not me, its Mrs Rogers. So in this case the subject is not contemporary with the date of the writing.

It's still a primary source. It's a first-hand account of the events of
which the author writes. No way is it a secondary source.

Some of the info in the journal might be secondary information, but that
doesn't make the journal itself a secondary source per se. For example,
his great-grandmother might have told his mother, and she told him, that
their ancestor was in the Crusades. It's a clue, a hint, a help
(particularly if you have the name of said ancestor), but it's not a
verified fact.

So is this a primary work on Mrs Rogers.

The journal is the primary source, not the information in it.

Renia

[Gjest]

Renia wrote: "Indeed it is a primary source. The subject, with whom it is contemporary, wrote it.
Renia"

But Renia I wasn't speaking of the author, I was speaking of the subjects (persons) of whom they are speaking. You're trying to prop up your definition but it's slippery.
If in my autobiography, when I myself reach 70 or so, I say "my neighbor when I was 12 was Mrs Rogers, about 70 years old, she was a cranky woman."

Is that a primary source for the fact that:
"Mrs Rogers was a cranky woman" and
"When this author was 12, Mrs Rogers was about 70".

That's the question. The book is not contemporary with either fact, it's writen well after either fact occured.

The subject in this case, is not me, its Mrs Rogers. So in this case the subject is not contemporary with the date of the writing.

So is this a primary work on Mrs Rogers.

Will

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 17 Feb, [email protected] wrote:

While perusing Leo's great site at http://www.genealogics.org on
these families I had a question.

John Mautrevers ~1290 is called "Baron" but I can't quite see when he
was created Baron in his biography there. He died in 1364, his son
and heir John ~1314 having died before him in 1349, the title
evidently passed to his granddaughter Eleanor ~1346-1405 Baron
Mautrevers du jure.

This Eleanor married John of Arundel in 1359 and in consequence he
was summoned as Lord Mautrevers in 1377. This John died Dec 1379 and
his son and heir John 1364- did not die until 1390. But this later
son was never summoned as a Baron.

Why? Were there no parliaments between 1377 and 1390 ?

Isn't this the problem that CP often refers to about the early peerages?
They frequently use the phrase about families where only the first one
or two people were ever summoned to Parliament:

"As to how far these early writs of summons did in fact create any
Peerage title, see Appendix A in Vol I"

What seems much more likely is that the sovereigns only invited to
Parliament those who they already respected as men whose counsel they
would value. The sons of competent people were not always as competent
as their fathers, so they did not get summoned. It was only in the
early 19th century when people were reviving long-dead titles that the
doctrine developed that all such summonses created an inheritable title.

Vol IV, Appendix H also refers.

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

[Tony Hoskins]

Renia wrote: "Indeed it is a primary source. The subject, with whom
it is contemporary, wrote it.

Renia"

If in my autobiography, when I myself reach 70 or so, I say "my
neighbor when I was 12 was Mrs Rogers, about 70 years old, she was a

cranky woman." Is that a primary source for the fact that: "Mrs Rogers
was a cranky woman" and "When this author was 12, Mrs Rogers was about
70".

That's the question. The book is not contemporary with either fact,
it's written well after either fact occured.

The subject in this case, is not me, its Mrs Rogers. So in this case
the subject is not contemporary with the date of the writing.

So is this a primary work on Mrs Rogers.

Will
---

Ultimately, definitions of primary and secondary evidence are variable,
scholar to scholar, and are therefore fairly viewed as subjective. One
needs rather to individually analyze the value of a source, weighing its
individual characteristics, plausibility, proximities to stated data,
etc., etc. I might also note that there exists, quite incorrectly, a
popular prejudice against "circumstantial evidence". There are many
cases I and others could cite where circumstantial evidence - often in
the form of a reasoned, intelligently assembled assemblage of data - is
actually superior to "primary eividence".

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562