Blount-Ayala

[Gjest]

Thank you very much Douglas Richardson - I had already thanked Tim
Powys-Libbe before receiving your very helpful reply, with its wealth of scholarly
references. The information you and Tim gave me is also supportive of the pedigree
given on the stirnet site.
I wish you every success with your forthcoming Plantagenet Ancestry
MM

[D. Spencer Hines]

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

| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Renia MAY be confused, i.e., bollixed up.
| >
| > It wouldn't be the first time.
| >
| > She MAY think an hour has 50 minutes rather than 60 and be confusing
| >124 minutes with 144 minutes.
|
| That's what I did. It was 145 minutes.

Fair Enough. Renia admits she bollixed the runtime for _Kingdom Of
Heaven_. Good Girl, Renia.

The film runs 145 minutes. There is no "short" version being shown in
the U.S., so Pogue Gans is also bollixed:

| Am I wrong in understanding that we in the US are seeing
| a different version than [sic] the one being shown in Europe?
| I'm told that the US version is significantly shorter.

Pogue Gans

| > The Special Edition DVD, the Director's Cut, may be closer to 220
| > minutes.
| >
| > Some of the "missing scenes" deal with a major sub-plot concerning
| > Sibylla's young son, who became Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem, for a
| > short period -- until he died tragically at 7 or 8, perhaps
| > poisoned.
|
| Someone here said Baldwin V was the son of Baldwin IV (not Balian) and
| he ruled for a year until he died when Guy became king. Balian was
| married to someone else. So it's probably just as well those erroneous
| scenes were cut.
|
| Renia

No, Renia is bollixed again, Baldwin V was the son of William of
Montferrat, Sibylla's first husband.

Deus Vult

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/11/05 10:16:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< 14 [16] Cecily Grey b: Abt. 1497 d: Abt. 1554 Burial: 28 April 1554
St.
Margaret's, Westminster
.... +[17] John Dudley, Sir b: Abt. 1495 m: Bef. 30 October 1501 Burial:
15 September 1553 St. Margaret's, Westminster
15 [18] Henry Dudley, Sir b: Abt. 1517 d: Abt. 1569 >>

Is this the same John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland who was executed 22 Aug
1553 ? He also had a son John, Earl of Warwick.
If not, can you specify how this John is connected to the other John, Duke
of Northumberland?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Nathaniel Taylor]

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

In a message dated 5/11/05 10:16:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes:

14 [16] Cecily Grey b: Abt. 1497 d: Abt. 1554 Burial: 28 April 1554
St.
Margaret's, Westminster
.... +[17] John Dudley, Sir b: Abt. 1495 m: Bef. 30 October 1501 Burial:
15 September 1553 St. Margaret's, Westminster
15 [18] Henry Dudley, Sir b: Abt. 1517 d: Abt. 1569

Is this the same John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland who was executed 22 Aug
1553 ? He also had a son John, Earl of Warwick.
If not, can you specify how this John is connected to the other John, Duke
of Northumberland?
Thanks
Will Johnson

No, this is John Sutton alias Dudley, 3d Baron Dudley--not his more
prominent second cousin John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. This
placement of Gov. Dudley in the Dudleys is the Marshall Kirk hypothesis,
now widely disseminated in various recent compendia, though Marshall's
discussion of the hypothesis has never been published. The common
Dudley descent of these two contemporary Johns is:

1. John Sutton 'VI', KG, 1st Baron Dudley; d. 1487
2. Edmund Sutton, alias Dudley, d. 1483/87 v. p.
3. Edward Sutton, alias Dudley, 2d Baron Dudley; d. 1532
4. John Sutton, alias Dudley, 3d Baron Dudley; d. 1553

1. John Sutton 'VI', KG, 1st Baron Dudley; d. 1487
2. (Sir?) John Dudley of Atherington, Sussex (3d son); d. c. 1501
3. (Sir?) Edmund Dudley, financier to Henry VII; executed 1510
4. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland; executed 1553


Nat Taylor

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

[Gjest]

This
placement of Gov. Dudley in the Dudleys is the Marshall Kirk
hypothesis,
now widely disseminated in various recent compendia, though Marshall's

discussion of the hypothesis has never been published.

As one of the twenty million or so descendants of the esteemed
governor/Boston transit hub namesake, I'd really like to see this
hypothesis in print and decide for myself if the argument is
convincing; but it's all over the Web now as "fact". Can Mr. Kirk be
persuaded to publish?

[Nathaniel Taylor]

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

This placement of Gov. Dudley in the Dudleys is the Marshall
Kirk hypothesis, now widely disseminated in various recent
compendia, though Marshall's discussion of the hypothesis
has never been published.

As one of the twenty million or so descendants of the esteemed
governor/Boston transit hub namesake, I'd really like to see this
hypothesis in print and decide for myself if the argument is
convincing; but it's all over the Web now as "fact". Can Mr. Kirk be
persuaded to publish?

Based on notes I once saw, I would say that Marshall is convincing in
demonstrating that (I think the number was) seven previous published
theories of Gov. Dudley's Dudley ancestry are less compatible with the
circumstantial evidence than his theory (which he noted was first
propounded by David H. Kelley)--but Marshall admitted that his theory
was simply a theory. Gary Roberts and others have gradually massaged it
into something resembling 'conventional wisdom' but it's still just a
theory.

Nat Taylor

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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/11/05 4:15:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

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

This placement of Gov. Dudley in the Dudleys is the Marshall
Kirk hypothesis, now widely disseminated in various recent
compendia, though Marshall's discussion of the hypothesis
has never been published.

As one of the twenty million or so descendants of the esteemed
governor/Boston transit hub namesake, I'd really like to see this
hypothesis in print and decide for myself if the argument is
convincing; but it's all over the Web now as "fact". Can Mr. Kirk be
persuaded to publish?

Based on notes I once saw, I would say that Marshall is convincing in
demonstrating that (I think the number was) seven previous published
theories of Gov. Dudley's Dudley ancestry are less compatible with the
circumstantial evidence than his theory (which he noted was first
propounded by David H. Kelley)--but Marshall admitted that his theory
was simply a theory. Gary Roberts and others have gradually massaged it
into something resembling 'conventional wisdom' but it's still just a
theory.

Nat Taylor



Previous Post by Nat Taylor:

Mr. Marshall Kirk, of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, has
conducted a thorough review (as yet unpublished) of the *SIX*
previously-published theories of descent of Gov. Thomas Dudley's father from baronial
Sutton-Dudleys (which include the one you have mentioned).

Mr. Kirk offers a seventh choice, which (like the others) has not been
proven by recovery of definitive documentary evidence of paternity, but which
(unlike the others) appears to corroborate all the known circumstantial evidence
for these Dudleys' connections with the baronial sytem. This line also
appears in the most recent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts' _Ancestors of American
Presidents_ (1st authoritative ed., Baltimore, 1993), pp. 200-201. Briefly,
Marshall's theory of the governor's descent is as follows:

Sir John Sutton, alias Dudley, 1st Baron Dudley, d. 1487, m. Elizabeth
Berkeley
Edmund Sutton, alias Dudley, d. v. p. 1483/7, m. Joice Tibetot
Edward Sutton, alias Dudley, 2d Baron Dudley, d. 1532, m. Cecily Willoughby
John Sutton alias Dudley, 3d Baron Dudley, d. 15 Sep 1553, d. Cecily Grey
<lord John was a half-wit and died penniless, so there is no will or ipm,
but he had at least five sons, including:>
Capt. Sir Henry Dudley, d. 1568/70 (who has been at times confused with
two other contemporary Sir Henry Dudleys), m. __, dau. or stepdau. of
Christopher Ashton
<Capt. Sir Henry was exiled for treason and later restored, but d. deep in
debt, leaving no will or ipm. His issue unproven but (for var. reasons
argued by Marshall) prob. included:>
Capt. Roger Dudley, m. Susanna Thorne
Gov. Thomas Dudley

These findings are presented in typescripts entitled 'The Filiation of Capt.
Roger Dudley: a Terse Summary of Points Made in Marshall K. Kirk's Talk, 20
Nov. 1993' and 'Sutton-Dudley, 1380-1649: a (Partially) Corrected Pedigree by
Marshall K. Kirk (updated 14 December 1995)'. Serious researchers who share
an interest in this question may wish to contact Mr. Kirk through the New
England Historic Genealogical Society in Boston. I cannot presume to say whether
copies of these MSS are distributed freely by the Society.

Nat Taylor

Always optimistic--Dave

[Nathaniel Taylor]

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

In a message dated 5/11/05 4:15:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Based on notes I once saw, I would say that Marshall is convincing in
demonstrating that (I think the number was) seven previous published
theories of Gov. Dudley's Dudley ancestry are less compatible with the
circumstantial evidence than his theory (which he noted was first
propounded by David H. Kelley)--but Marshall admitted that his theory
was simply a theory. Gary Roberts and others have gradually massaged it
into something resembling 'conventional wisdom' but it's still just a
theory.

Nat Taylor


Previous Post by Nat Taylor:

Mr. Marshall Kirk, of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, has
conducted a thorough review (as yet unpublished) of the *SIX*
previously-published theories of descent of Gov. Thomas Dudley's father
from
baronial
Sutton-Dudleys (which include the one you have mentioned).

Mr. Kirk offers a seventh choice, which (like the others) has not been
proven by recovery of definitive documentary evidence of paternity, but
which (unlike the others) appears to corroborate all the known
circumstantial evidence
for these Dudleys' connections with the baronial sytem. This line also
appears in the most recent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts' _Ancestors of
American
Presidents_ (1st authoritative ed., Baltimore, 1993), pp. 200-201.
Briefly,
Marshall's theory of the governor's descent is as follows:

Sir John Sutton, alias Dudley, 1st Baron Dudley, d. 1487, m. Elizabeth
Berkeley
Edmund Sutton, alias Dudley, d. v. p. 1483/7, m. Joice Tibetot
Edward Sutton, alias Dudley, 2d Baron Dudley, d. 1532, m. Cecily
Willoughby
John Sutton alias Dudley, 3d Baron Dudley, d. 15 Sep 1553, d. Cecily Grey
lord John was a half-wit and died penniless, so there is no will or ipm,
but he had at least five sons, including:
Capt. Sir Henry Dudley, d. 1568/70 (who has been at times confused with
two other contemporary Sir Henry Dudleys), m. __, dau. or stepdau. of
Christopher Ashton
Capt. Sir Henry was exiled for treason and later restored, but d. deep in
debt, leaving no will or ipm. His issue unproven but (for var. reasons
argued by Marshall) prob. included:
Capt. Roger Dudley, m. Susanna Thorne
Gov. Thomas Dudley

These findings are presented in typescripts entitled 'The Filiation of
Capt.
Roger Dudley: a Terse Summary of Points Made in Marshall K. Kirk's Talk,
20
Nov. 1993' and 'Sutton-Dudley, 1380-1649: a (Partially) Corrected Pedigree
by

Marshall K. Kirk (updated 14 December 1995)'. Serious researchers who share
an interest in this question may wish to contact Mr. Kirk through the New
England Historic Genealogical Society in Boston. I cannot presume to say
whether copies of these MSS are distributed freely by the Society.

Dave,

Thanks for reposting this 1997 post--clearer than my memory at any rate.
I can only say that Marshall no longer works at NEHGS and I'm not aware
that he intends to publish his work. No proof has been found of which
I'm aware, and I'm not sure whether there he or anyone has done any
subsequent research to uncover or build evidence to strengthen or impugn
the theory.

Nat Taylor

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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/11/05 12:46:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Dave,

I think you have an error below. I believe #24 Robert Harcourt was the
brother of #26 Richard Harcourt rather than his father. I cite ES Vol. 10
Table 139 and AR7 Line 50, as my principal sources. Like you, AR7 shows
Richard as the father of Alice.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo


Thanks for the comment. Douglas Richardson's recent Plantagenet Ancestry
has Robert as the father of Richard. I guess one would have to ask him why he
differs from AR-7 and ES? So I will.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Gjest]

Dear Peter,
Walter Sheppard lists Parkin`s History of Norfolk IV pp
305-307 as source for AR 7 line 252 Generations 28 and 29 ( Hugh le Bigod, Earl
of Norfolk and Sir Simon le Bigod)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Dave,

I think you'd better have another look at what you read into Douglas
Richardson's page.
I think Richardson has it correct but as brothers not as father and son. I
think you misread.

However, for me you have raised another question. You copied Richardson with
the date of death for Sir Robert Harcourt as 14 November 1470. Burke's
Peerage 1938 also gives that year, but Georges Martin in his book on the
Harcourt family makes it 14 November 1471. Georges Martin tells Robert was a
knight of the Garter and constructed the castle of Stanton-Harcourt near
Oxford but does not mention Sir Robert being buried there. He also makes
Robert and Richard brothers, as does Burke's Peerage and ES.

Can anyone tell when did Robert Harcourt die? 14 November 1470 or 1471?
I have looked for battles but the nearest I can find is Edgecote on 26 July
1470 and Tewkesbury but was Tewkesburt 4 or 14 May 1471?

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Harcourt discrepency

In a message dated 5/11/05 12:46:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Dave,

I think you have an error below. I believe #24 Robert Harcourt was the
brother of #26 Richard Harcourt rather than his father. I cite ES Vol.
10
Table 139 and AR7 Line 50, as my principal sources. Like you, AR7 shows
Richard as the father of Alice.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo


Thanks for the comment. Douglas Richardson's recent Plantagenet Ancestry
has Robert as the father of Richard. I guess one would have to ask him
why he
differs from AR-7 and ES? So I will.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Gjest]

On OneWorld Tree I found the following descent and I wonder at it. Some
things I can verify, others appear to be possibly clothes made out of whole cloth.
I welcome comments on this

Winston Churchill of Glanville Wotten d 1688
son of
Sarah Winston of Bradford Abbas, d 23 Oct 1678
daughter of
Henry Winston d 1609
son of
Thomas Winstone and Anne Burgh
son of
Walter Winstone and Elizabeth Davis
son of
John Winston and Margery Byseley
son of
John Winston and Catherine Baynham
son of
Walter Winston
son of
Hugh Winston and Joan
son of
Hugh Winston and Katherine Stradling
daughter of
Edward Stradling d 5 May 1453 and Joan Beaufort d 19 Oct 1479
daughter of
Henry Beauford, Bishop of Winchester d 11 Apr 1447
son of
John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster d 3 Feb 1398/9
son of
Edward III, King of England

I tried to assign birthranges to those who didn't have any and quickly saw
that the Winston's are too closely born. We would need 5 or 6 successive
17-year old father's to make it work. So it's suspect, I'm just not sure how far
forward or backward the break is at.
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/11/05 7:50:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

Dear Dave,

I think you'd better have another look at what you read into Douglas
Richardson's page.
I think Richardson has it correct but as brothers not as father and son. I
think you misread.



Hi Leo: There is an inconsistency in Douglas's book. On page 103 there is
a line of descent from Henry II to Richard Harcourt which has Robert as
father of Richard. Then on page 771 there is a line of descent from Henry II to
Richard Harcourt which has Thomas as the father of Richard. Based on all the
comments I am changing my database to reflect Richard and Robert as brothers.
Thanks.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Doug Thompson]

Parkin's Norfolk (same as Blomefield's!) gives a pedigree of Felbrigg on
p306 (Vol 4)

He notes that

" Richard de Felbrigg had an only daughter and heir, Maud, who married Simon
le Bigot, 3d son (as is said) of Hugh le Bigot, earl of Norfolk, by Maud his
wife, daughter of William Mareschal, earl of Pembroke"

and

" Maud was his (Simon's) widow, in the 36 of Henry III. as appears by a fine
then levied;"

These statements differ in two points from the other quote from the same
volume I sent earlier!

Doug


in article [email protected], [email protected] at [email protected]
wrote on 12/5/05 12:13 am:

Dear Peter,
Walter Sheppard lists Parkin`s History of Norfolk IV pp
305-307 as source for AR 7 line 252 Generations 28 and 29 ( Hugh le Bigod,
Earl
of Norfolk and Sir Simon le Bigod)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Renia]

Joe Bernstein wrote:

Hi

Long time, and all that... I haven't had unmetered net access for
some time, and haven't had home access for longer. But anyway.

Recently I stumbled for the first time on a copy of Burke's <Extinct
Peerage>s (or some such). One of the first entries in there is for
an Earldom of Chester in the 11th century, and this reminded me of
something I've often wished I could find when reading history books
and historical novels: essentially a historical atlas/catalogue of
nobles by period.

For England, at least, and just maybe for Great Britain in general,
I could do this by wading through all of Burke's (<Extinct> plus
the non-extinct, preferably for the same date). Although I gather
from the Oxfordshire volume of the Victoria County Histories that
this is not going to be a terribly reliable guide to people's actual
landholdings, it's at least a start in that direction. So my question
is, has someone already done this?

For other countries, I don't even know what's possible. The constantly
shifting boundaries from the Pyrenees to the Urals would anyway rather
complicate matters.

For Britain, the Complete Peerage might be a good start.

Renia

[Gjest]

It may be worth noting that Sir Edward Ferrers was married to Constance,
daughter of Nicholas Brome and Elizabeth Arundel, daughter of Renfrey Arundel of
Lanhearne. Elizabeth's children by Nicholas Brome included Constance Ferrers
and Dorothy Manners, daughter of Constance's sister Isabel Brome.
Elizabeth's brother John was Bishop of Coventry and later (by 1502) of
Exeter. Her first husband was William Whittington of Pauntley, d.1470, by whom she
had a son John
MM

[Gjest]

Joe Bernstein wrote:

snip)
.... something I've often wished I could find when reading history books and
historical novels: essentially a historical atlas/catalogue of nobles by
period. For England, at least, and just maybe for Great Britain in general ...
(snip)

I've found A Directory of British Peerages, Francis L. Leeson, Genealogical
Publishing Co., 1985, reasonably priced and very helpful. Don't know if still
in print, but I'm sure GPC. would be happy to tell you.

Good luck,

Brom

[Paul J Gans]

In soc.history.medieval Renia <[email protected]> wrote:

Joe Bernstein wrote:

Hi

Long time, and all that... I haven't had unmetered net access for
some time, and haven't had home access for longer. But anyway.

Recently I stumbled for the first time on a copy of Burke's <Extinct
Peerage>s (or some such). One of the first entries in there is for
an Earldom of Chester in the 11th century, and this reminded me of
something I've often wished I could find when reading history books
and historical novels: essentially a historical atlas/catalogue of
nobles by period.

For England, at least, and just maybe for Great Britain in general,
I could do this by wading through all of Burke's (<Extinct> plus
the non-extinct, preferably for the same date). Although I gather
from the Oxfordshire volume of the Victoria County Histories that
this is not going to be a terribly reliable guide to people's actual
landholdings, it's at least a start in that direction. So my question
is, has someone already done this?

For other countries, I don't even know what's possible. The constantly
shifting boundaries from the Pyrenees to the Urals would anyway rather
complicate matters.

For Britain, the Complete Peerage might be a good start.

There are various volumes out there that amount to biographical
dictionaries. They are usually alphabetical and not sorted by
period, but leafing through them can be very much fun.

----- Paul J. Gans

[Rick Eaton]

A hopefully uselful discussion list approach follows. It comes from a person
who spent almost 40 years in marketing, corporate and pulic communication,
always attemptinhg to bring people to the same sheet of music and achieve a
producting level of harmony as an outcome. Circumstances have enabled me to
write just one email today and it was this very long one to which I gave
myself. Hopefully, it will help the great majority of those who use
GEWN-MEDIEVAL-L. It is offered in a spirit and, in a mslall and different
way, to requent requests that people with a mind to change the list do so
with their feet. It is both practical and philosophical. I offer the
philosophical because I do not know the philosophy of the founder(s) and
bearers of the list.

My thoughts for your consideration and appology to Paul Gans whose posting
really relates to the following in only the most tangential way and that may
be a gratuitous claijm onh my part:

The apparent original message (Gans' below) is most interesting to me
because one extremely narrow dimension of it instructs us all [the meagerly
informed (like me) as well as the professional genealogist or highly
accomplished student of Medievalism] that all are born with unmarked slates,
that we all must learn, that we come to sources of learning with widly
varying skills and educations, and that none among us reach this source
except for that purpose, possibly with some exceptions. Some, I imagine,
come to help in informing and/or learning and they clearly do. Some seem,
although it would be wrong to impute such a motive, to either demonstrate
that they know more than everyone else, to debade certain others, and to
promote.

My specific WISH is , and it will take patience and, yes, a concern for and
interest in those who do not spend 48 hours in a 24-hour a day in this
field... as well as for those who do, was drawn from just a few words in the
original message repeated posted (below) in this thread and the reference to
the Earl of Chester.

How long it took me (months) to learn in my own off-list searching that this
title was an exception and how difficult it is for so many when names of
prominent people are used in long threads without a single reference to
title, parentage, or place or time factor! And, I wonder, if these were not
addressed up front in our postings (or at least in them) there might be
fewer exchanges of what must seem to some to be minor factors but to so many
others are of overarching importance.

(Ironically, I find that such detail is of dying interest to the novice and
most learned alike. So it must be important.)

Why do I wish this? It is selfish and it attempts to think of the needs of
tohers as well.

This is because I use this list as a learning tool, to become more informed,
in general, and in my specific areas of interest (Only one of which happens
to be Cheshire, descents from earl Hugh Lupus and the people in his circle,
Eaton Hall, Eaton Manor at Blackden, etc., etc., etc.). I want to benefit by
the discussion here more, and context and facts help me do that. If I
understand even the most meager facts about what absorbs so much time and
interest among others, then I shall be able to learn more, make decisions
and apply them (I think this is what education is about).I may even be able
to make a contribution from my quieter study.

For the record and to keep myself "honest" I offer this to those few who
don't know it: High Lupus was appointed to his position in 1070 by William
the Conqueror who was, in turn and among all else, the half-brother of
Hugh's mother. The rest gets complicated because of his several place names
and apparent girth. But just knowing the time period, or that his title was
also referred to as earl of Cheshire (by some), or that he was variously
known and traceable... can vault many researchers far ahead in their "work"
and, I hope, make the exchange of information here more useful... Sometimes
more interesting as well.

So, in short: To the extent that we can, MY WISH is for titles with names in
the first reference, a time frame, and -- obviously any other information
that can be helpful to those who may be working at anywhere along the
timetime from zero to the nth degree.

Forgive me if I appear to be pedantic and even bad at that. Because of
health matters, I have so little time at home these days and for the
pleasure of your company. This is, to me, an important consideration. I
don't know if it is to others. And I wondered, when able to ready-only
recently, if some of the detail in the myriad exchanges between recent
antagonists might have been abated by some simple, fundamental statements of
fact. How much more helpful it COULD be, how more elevating, if we dealt
only with substance as we know it, discover it, share it and reasonably
debate it, including the most basic facts.

Please, consider my suggestion nas well. And, if anyone cares to have me do
so, I would go so far as to attempt (with aqdvice and counsel) to devise a
simple sub-header system for matters dealing with individuals and for
one-time insertion in email text... and for the record.

With appreciation always for the gifts given here,

Rick Eaton

In soc.history.medieval Renia <[email protected]> wrote:
Joe Bernstein wrote:

Hi

Long time, and all that... I haven't had unmetered net access for
some time, and haven't had home access for longer. But anyway.

Recently I stumbled for the first time on a copy of Burke's <Extinct
Peerage>s (or some such). One of the first entries in there is for
an Earldom of Chester in the 11th century, and this reminded me of
something I've often wished I could find when reading history books
and historical novels: essentially a historical atlas/catalogue of
nobles by period.

For England, at least, and just maybe for Great Britain in general,
I could do this by wading through all of Burke's (<Extinct> plus
the non-extinct, preferably for the same date). Although I gather
from the Oxfordshire volume of the Victoria County Histories that
this is not going to be a terribly reliable guide to people's actual
landholdings, it's at least a start in that direction. So my question
is, has someone already done this?

For other countries, I don't even know what's possible. The constantly
shifting boundaries from the Pyrenees to the Urals would anyway rather
complicate matters.

For Britain, the Complete Peerage might be a good start.

There are various volumes out there that amount to biographical
dictionaries. They are usually alphabetical and not sorted by
period, but leafing through them can be very much fun.

----- Paul J. Gans

[Peter Marrow]

Elizabeth's children by Nicholas Brome included Constance Ferrers
and Dorothy Manners, daughter of Constance's sister Isabel Brome.

Er, I think you will find that Isabel Brome married Thomas Marowe, the
famous lawyer and subject of Putnam's paper on his legal career.

Peter Marrow
Edinburgh

[Frank]

I'm trying to establish a link between my ancestor Ralph ap Eynon born
Clearwell 1306 and his ancestors. I believe his father may have been Einon
Llwyd and another ancestor Einion Sais. Any help/advice would be
appreciated. Regards, Frank Baynham, Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire,
England.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/18/05 11:01:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< Does anyone have a Henry Benedict Stuart in their information banks????
All I know is he was a Cardinal who died in 1807 and was some how connected to
the British Royal family

http://www.answers.com/topic/henry-benedict-stuart
henry-benedict-stuart.biography.ms/

[Gjest]

On this topic there is ample testimony that Arabella Churchill had a
relationship with James (1633-1701) II , King of England and thereby had

James (1670-1734) the duke of Berwick

But on this last James is there any evidence that he had descendents?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Leo van de Pas]

Arabella had more than one child by James II. James Duke of Berwick has a
male line of descent to the present. The present duchess of Alba has a
paternal line back to him.
see http://www.genealogics.org

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: The Stuart Pretenders

On this topic there is ample testimony that Arabella Churchill had a
relationship with James (1633-1701) II , King of England and thereby had

James (1670-1734) the duke of Berwick

But on this last James is there any evidence that he had descendents?
Thanks
Will Johnson



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 17/05/05

[Frank]

Dear Leo (and others)

Odd coincidence re the name (Duke of Alba).

Just fifteen minutes ago I got a phone call,a asking if I could get
information on a family who, in 1209, were in Albi, in the Languedoc. The
present (or recent) putative descendants of this family in England included
a Colonel Dalbiac (b. abt. 1850, I gather.). I was asked to find out
whether there was in fact any connection between Col. Dalbiac's line and the
1209 lot in the Languedoc and - if so - what?

The enquirer is writing a (book?) on incidents in the Boer War involving one
or more family members.

Can anyone offer enlightenment?

Regards

Frank

[Gjest]

The family d'Albiac, is from nimes and is purportedly originally from Albi,
but the oldest sources for this family are from the 16th Century in Nimes -
one of the d'Albiacs, Susannah, daughter of Lt Gen Sir charles d'Albiac,
married in 1836 the duke of Roxburghe.
Although Larts pedigrees does not have anyhting on this family I believe
that Agnew may well do - Agnew must be treated with caution, however - he relied
too much on what he was told and not on his own scholarship!
regards
Peter

[Gjest]

On 18 July 1310, Edward II granted a charter for a fair at Garstang, Lancs
to Cockersand abbey which would suggest that on this date Ed II was in the
north.

regards,
Adrian

In a message dated 20/05/2005 02:13:28 GMT Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

Thursday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Chris, Rosie, Doug, Ian, Leo, Robert, Tim, Adrian, Cris and David,

I have obtained the text of a charter of either Edward I of
England or his son Edward II (I have ruled out Edward III),
which is either of mild or extreme interest depending on the
actual date. I wonder if anyone of the list might be able to
assist in identifying the monarch, esp. based on the regnal date
and location?

The charter involves King Edward, Roger de Mortimer, Gilbert
Talbot (which one is uncertain here as well) and Simon de Bereford,
Eschaetor South of Trent. The charter is dated by the King's
attestation,

' Teste meipso apud Wodestoke xviij. die Julii, anno regni
nostri quarto. '

This appears to put King Edward at Woodstock on 18 July 1276
(if Edward I) or 18 July 1310 (if Edward II). I believe at that
date in 1310, Edward II was already in Berwick or en route, with
plans for his impending invasion of Scotland, and am inclined to
believe the 1276 date more likely.

If anyone can confirm or disprove the above (either case), I
would be most appreciative - and, the results will be as I
indicated, of no import or significant import....

Cheers, and mille grazie!

John





<<<<<<<

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In a message dated 20/05/2005 02:13:28 GMT Standard Time, Therav3
writes:

Thursday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Chris, Rosie, Doug, Ian, Leo, Robert, Tim, Adrian, Cris and David,

I have obtained the text of a charter of either Edward I of
England or his son Edward II (I have ruled out Edward III),
which is either of mild or extreme interest depending on the
actual date. I wonder if anyone of the list might be able to
assist in identifying the monarch, esp. based on the regnal date
and location?

The charter involves King Edward, Roger de Mortimer, Gilbert
Talbot (which one is uncertain here as well) and Simon de Bereford,
Eschaetor South of Trent. The charter is dated by the King's
attestation,

' Teste meipso apud Wodestoke xviij. die Julii, anno regni
nostri quarto. '

This appears to put King Edward at Woodstock on 18 July 1276
(if Edward I) or 18 July 1310 (if Edward II). I believe at that
date in 1310, Edward II was already in Berwick or en route, with
plans for his impending invasion of Scotland, and am inclined to
believe the 1276 date more likely.

If anyone can confirm or disprove the above (either case), I
would be most appreciative - and, the results will be as I
indicated, of no import or significant import....

Cheers, and mille grazie!

John

I see a recently-published _Itinerary of Lord Edward_ by Robin Studd
(List & Index Society, v. 2284, Kew, 2000). The itinerary for his reign
is Henry Gough, _Itinerary of King Edward the First throughout his
reign, A. D. 1272-1307_, 2 vols. (Paisley, 1900)--unless there's a
recent revision to this as well as the _Lord Edward_ volume. I don't
have Gough handy, but can check it next week if no response by then.

Nat Taylor

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

[Gjest]

Dear Adrian,

Many thanks for that.

I have heard from Rosie Bevan, who has found that Simon de
Bereford was Eschaetor citra Trent from 13 Dec 1327 to 23 Oct 1330.
This dates the charter in question as 18 July 1330.

While this does not lead us down the interesting path I had
conjectured, it does tie up the identifications in the charter as being
the infamous Roger de Mortimer (exe. 1330) and Gilbert Talbot, 1st Lord
Talbot (d. 1345).

Cheers,

John

[Gjest]

Dear Nat,

Thanks for the reference, and the offer.

As I've just noted to Adrian, the identification has been
resolved. I have heard from Rosie Bevan, who has found that Simon de
Bereford was Eschaetor citra Trent from 13 Dec 1327 to 23 Oct 1330.
The charter in question should therefore be dated 18 July 1330.

Cheers,

John

[Cristopher Nash]

Hi John! Back last week from the US in time for some colorful surgery
Monday in Birmingham & long out of the loop, I couldn't resist
dipping in here for some mild convalescently convivial rumination.
I've had a look (as no doubt you've done) at Prestwich's _Edward I_
with no answer, for my part, to yr tantalising query except to say
that Edw I was certainly in these isles in '76 (not e.g. in Gascony).
But it's occurred to me that a look at the statute of Bigamy of 1276
(_Statutes of the Realm_ [Rec. Comm.] I, 42) might be a shortcut - by
an admittedly long stretch - to an answer, as it was heard and
published before him and council in that year (per Prestwich, 269).
As I recall, he sometimes met with council in Woodstock, & if by
chance this was one of those occasions the date&place data
surrounding it might back you up. Speaking of bio's, my copy of
Powicke's big _King Hen III and the Lord Edward_ is on its way to me
& I can check there too, though I don't recall how extensively it's
detailed after Hen III's death. Rosie's remark about Simon de
Bereford has to count for a lot tho, it seems to me. Here's hoping
you see how bigamy it is to disclose how little I knows.

Cheers,

Cris

Thursday, 10 May, 2005


Dear Chris, Rosie, Doug, Ian, Leo, Robert, Tim, Adrian, Cris and David,

I have obtained the text of a charter of either Edward I of
England or his son Edward II (I have ruled out Edward III),
which is either of mild or extreme interest depending on the
actual date. I wonder if anyone of the list might be able to
assist in identifying the monarch, esp. based on the regnal date
and location?

The charter involves King Edward, Roger de Mortimer, Gilbert
Talbot (which one is uncertain here as well) and Simon de Bereford,
Eschaetor South of Trent. The charter is dated by the King's
attestation,

' Teste meipso apud Wodestoke xviij. die Julii, anno regni
nostri quarto. '

This appears to put King Edward at Woodstock on 18 July 1276
(if Edward I) or 18 July 1310 (if Edward II). I believe at that
date in 1310, Edward II was already in Berwick or en route, with
plans for his impending invasion of Scotland, and am inclined to
believe the 1276 date more likely.

If anyone can confirm or disprove the above (either case), I
would be most appreciative - and, the results will be as I
indicated, of no import or significant import....

Cheers, and mille grazie!

John

[Gjest]

I searched your message for something referring to information
pertaining to 500 AD -1600 AD, to no avail. Instead I got
dirty politics as usual. Please use some other forum for your
message.








[email protected] wrote:

The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL",
dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed
meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence
and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably
ask me,
"Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to

terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity
and
self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a
"high
crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the TIMES, goes on to describe an
elaborate
plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink
the
lanet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the
evidence for
war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law,
racketeering.
However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives. Here's more.
"Bush had
made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin.
Saddam was
not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than
that of
Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and
other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess
and
conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD
intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the
facts
with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the
President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no
indication
that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding
Iraq's
weapons." We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick
whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.
Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo,
"beginning
30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.
You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you
can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch. Now
sharp
readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the
New York
Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of
the
Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's
political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the
elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within
months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the
Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the
Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard
evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British"
elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to
print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more
incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and
fibs. But in the US press nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts
and
somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's
affections. And the US media could print nothing else. Now, we have
the
stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by
the
thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably
called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the
American
people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is
that it's so easy to do.

Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's
Guardian papers, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The
Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Subscribe to his columns at
GregPalast.COM.
Media requests to CONTACT(at)GregPalast.COM.
Permission to reprint with attribution granted.

[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo
- discovered by the Times of London. - GP]

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING

From: Matthew Rycroft

Date: 23 July 2002 S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary,Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General,
Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C,
Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss
Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made.
It
should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its
contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment.
Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to
overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was
worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was
not
convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime
expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that
regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the
public
was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi
regime's
record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath
after
military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August,
Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short
(72
hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south.
Lead time
of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to
Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000),
continuous
air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time
of 60
days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous
option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego
Garcia
and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states
were
also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK
involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps
with a
discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down
two
Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of
activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken,
but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action
to
begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US
Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell
this
week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military
action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was
thin.
Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a
plan
for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons
inspectors.
This would also help with the legal justification for the use of
force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a
legal base for military action. There were three possible legal
bases:
self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The
first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR
1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of
course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference
politically
and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime
change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that
was
producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with
Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would
support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military
plan
worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military
plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan
was
workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day
one,
or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said
that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the
Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a
military
plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and
UK
interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be
US/UK
differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the
ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in
only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK
military
involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that
many
in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It
would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political
context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in
any
military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning
before we
could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military
that we
were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds
could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed
military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the
week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the
background
on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to
Saddam. He
would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of
countries
in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence
update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would
consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers. (I have
written
separately to commissionthis follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)



IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."




[Greg Palast] [The Observer - Britain's Premier
Sunday Newspaper - Guardian Media Group]



IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."
_Special to_ BuzzFlash
Thursday, May 5, 2005
By Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written
all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL,"
dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed

meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably
ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind

eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil,
stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's
needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the _Times_, goes on to describe an
elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to

hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full
well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law,
racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But
the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his

WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and
other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to

possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD
intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the

facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to
the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no
indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence
regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash
aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo,
"beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission

accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if
you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact,
printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed

across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's
political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the

elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within
months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the
Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the
Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard
evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British"

elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to
print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more
incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and

fibs. But in the US press ? nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts
and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's
affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to
sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress

nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second
look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the
American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about

Americans is that it's so easy to do.

_Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's Guardian papers, is the
author of the New York Times bestseller,_ The Best Democracy Money Can

Buy.

_Subscribe to his columns at _
href=http://www.gregpalast.com>www.GregPalast.com Media requests to

contact(at)gregpalast.com Permission to reprint with attribution
granted.

*[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo - discovered by the Times
of London. - GP]*

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir
Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan

Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss
Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be
made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its

contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment.
Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to

overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was
worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was
not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime
expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that
regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public
was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as

inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had
no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing
material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in
Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August,
Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short
(72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead

time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to
Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000),
continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead

time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A
hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego
Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf

states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for
UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps
with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down

two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of
activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken,

but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action
to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the
US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell
this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take

military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case
was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD
capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should
work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN
weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification
for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not
a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal

bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation.
The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on
UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might
of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference
politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN

inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was
the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies
for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether
the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to
give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan
was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day
one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You

said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a
military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On

this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy,
there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should
explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play
hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back
in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK
military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned

that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum
route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the
political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in
any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning

before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US
military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds
could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed
military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the

week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the
background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum

to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of
countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member

states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence
update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would
consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)


http://www.buzzflash.com




Site Design by Creative Constructs - http://www.CreativeConstructs.com

[Gjest]

A great deal is written regarding the Brent family of Stafford Co. VA
appearing in the Virginia Historical Magazine (Virginia Magazine of History) : 1V
123; 2V35; 8V239, 441; 11V 70; 12 V 293, 441; 14V 215; 15V94; 16V 97, 100, 212;
17V195,196, 197, 308, 421; 18V 319, 320, 321, 444, 447; 19V 95, 96, 204, 206,
433; 26V 43, 319; 34V 180-183, 280-285, 290, 378-384; and 35V 201.

From my notes a rough chronological
outline:

Giles Brent (ca. 1600 - 1672)
Know as "Col. Giles Brent, "first citizen" of
Stafford Co.

First arrived Maryland with sister's Margaret and Mary
and br. Fulke
22 Nov 1638
identified as "cousin" to Lord Baltimore

served as commander of Kent Island, and Deputy
Gov. MD
at St. Mary's, MD

he married "Maria", dau. to "Emperor of
Piscataway"
claimed large areas of MD through this marriage



claims denied and left MD 1646

built house on north shores of Aqauia Creek
and called his
plantation house "Peace" - was the northern
most English
settlement prior to arrival of Virginia
settlers in 1651.

Three children are identified from this union:

William Brent Giles Brent, Jr
Mary Brent

William Brent is reported to have gone to England 1708 and died
there 26 Nov, 1709, Middlesex Co. He is recorded to have married a Sarah
Gibbons who returned to America with their son, a William Brent, (Jr.). He is
reported to have had Col. William Brent (1733 - 1782) the only child of Wm. Brent
(Jr.) to have survived infancy. Interestingly, his home was burnt by the
British during our own "War of Independence".

Hope this is helpful. Cheers as you say. Jerry.

[Gjest]

Tuesday, 24 May, 2005


Hello All,

In this thread in 2004, I noted that Ellen, or Elena,
was used as a variant of Eleanor (or Alianore) in the
14th/15th centuries. As of that date, I had not noted that
Ellen, or Elena, wife of Sir John de Dinham had been
called Eleanor in a documented source.

I noted in reviewing materials received from Dr. Hannes
Kleineke last year that he had noted such a reference

" ... in the Register of Thomas Brantingham, Bishop
of Exeter ed F. C. Hingeston Randolph (2 pts 1901-6)
i. 472, which is a licence to Lady Eleanor for a
private chapel in her manor of Kyton... "

Dr. Kleineke is unfortunately incommunicado at this
time; further, I find that Bishop Brantyngham's register is
one not carried in the LOC collection. If anyone of the
group has access to this volume, confirmation of the text
(preferably in the original Latin) for this licence [ I:472
as indicated by Dr. Kleineke] would be most appreciated.

Cheers,

John

[Gjest]

Brice~

The reference for Elizabeth Savage's marriage contract is:

Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service
Catalogue ref. DCH/E/291 [13 Jan. 1458/9]
In this record Elizabeth Savage is labeled daughter of John Savage the
younger, esq.

Three successive John Savages that apply to the identification of her father
have death dates of [according to Peter Leycester's Historical Antiquities]:
1. primo die Augusti, 28 Hen. 6 (1450)
2. 29 die Junii, 3 Edw. 4 (1463)
3. 22 Novembris, 11 Hen. 7 (1495)

In 1458 [the year of Elizabeth Savage's marriage agreement], John Savage the
younger would have been the third, who died in 1495. Other of his daughters
married in 1467 [Ellen Savage to Peter Legh] and 1479 [Katharine Savage to
Thomas Legh].

Mention of the Oct. 1464 marriage covenant of Dulcia Savage and Henry Bold
is to be found on p. 405, footnotes 7 & 12, of VCH Lancaster 3. Henry Bold
supported the Lancastrian cause alongside of his grandfather Savage and the
Stanley relations.

If this identification holds up to scrutiny then, as I said earlier, the
Eltonhead descendants would have an improved royal descent from Edward I.

[Gjest]

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Bold-Savage_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1116988462)

I meant to say that Henry Bold supported the Lancastrian cause alongside of
his father-in-law Savage and his Stanley relations [not his grandfather
Savage]. Sorry for the error.

[Cristopher Nash]

[email protected] wrote -

The reference for Elizabeth Savage's marriage contract is:

Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service
Catalogue ref. DCH/E/291 [13 Jan. 1458/9]
In this record Elizabeth Savage is labeled daughter of John Savage the
younger, esq.

Three successive John Savages that apply to the identification of her father
have death dates of [according to Peter Leycester's Historical Antiquities]:
1. primo die Augusti, 28 Hen. 6 (1450)
2. 29 die Junii, 3 Edw. 4 (1463)
3. 22 Novembris, 11 Hen. 7 (1495)

In 1458 [the year of Elizabeth Savage's marriage agreement], John Savage the
younger would have been the third, who died in 1495. Other of his daughters
married in 1467 [Ellen Savage to Peter Legh] and 1479 [Katharine Savage to
Thomas Legh].

Mention of the Oct. 1464 marriage covenant of Dulcia Savage and Henry Bold
is to be found on p. 405, footnotes 7 & 12, of VCH Lancaster 3. Henry Bold
supported the Lancastrian cause alongside of his grandfather Savage and the
Stanley relations.

If this identification holds up to scrutiny then, as I said earlier, the
Eltonhead descendants would have an improved royal descent from Edward I.

Todd, this (with your accompanying postings) is extremely interesting
stuff and would resolve a longstanding puzzle, for which many thanks.

Just a few off-the-cuff thoughts --

(1) The 'esq.' you find associated with 'John Savage the younger' might help
to confirm your view if John d. 1463 proves to have been knighted by
1458/9, yes?

(2) Presumptions are

(a) that there's no other John Savage lurking in the near-enough
wings (say, a cousin) capable of the same connections and
subsequent family entitlements/claims, and

(b) (re the proposition in your initial posting that >If Dulcia
Savage is this man's daughter, then her mother is
KatherineStanley, daughter of Thomas, 1st Lord Stanley<)
that there's evidence that Katherine Stanley had not
died/been followed by another wife before the birth of
Alice/Dulcia/Dulcie. (We're assuming that Dulcia would be
a daughter younger than Elizabeth, on the basis of the later
date of her marriage covenenant, I imagine; if she's an elder
da. then some evidence of the date of the m. of John and
Katherine Stanley would - in an ideal (dream?) world! - be
helpful....)

Wonder if you've had a chance to explore these at all yet?

Would I be right in thinking - given your remarks above - whether
you're working on the Eltonhead (eventually of VA) line in general?
If so, I'd be keen to know whether you've had luck in pursuing
queries raised here in the past - esp. in the period 2000-03 - under
e.g. Eltonhead/Norris/Norreys -- ?

Meantime, thanks again for this work!

Cris
--

[Gjest]

I wonder of the present family of Bellasis, with a rather large spread in
Hampshire, is of the same stock. They have some rather beautifu' 16th Century
portraits of the family.

Pg

[Sutliff]

Earwaker and Ormerod give the names of the 15 children of John Savage and
Katherine Stanley (who are buried at Macclesfield):

Sons: Sir John, Thomas (Archbishop of York), James, Sir Lawrence, Sir Edmund
Sir Christopher, George, William, Richard and Sir Humphrey

Daughters: Eleanor (wife of Sir Piers VI Legh 1455 - 1527), Catherine (wife
of Thomas Legh 1452-1519), Margaret (wife of John Honford d. abt. 1480 and
Sir Edmund de Trafford 1452-1513), Alice (wife of Sir Roger Pilkington) and
Elizabeth (wife of John Leek of Langford)

It seems strange that if all these children are so well documented, that a
daughter married into the Bold family would have slipped notice. However, I
have some other unaffiliated female Savages, all purportedly daughters of a
Sir John Savage of Clifton:

Isabel Savage, wife of Robert Legh of Adlington 1409-1479
Ellen Savage, wife of Piers Warburton of Arley d. 1495
Dorothy Savage, wife of Robert Needham of Cranage, Shropshire d. 1449

I must admit I have not followed up on any of these to see any link to the
Savages of Clifton.

HS

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

Brice~

The reference for Elizabeth Savage's marriage contract is:

Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service
Catalogue ref. DCH/E/291 [13 Jan. 1458/9]
In this record Elizabeth Savage is labeled daughter of John Savage the
younger, esq.

Three successive John Savages that apply to the identification of her
father
have death dates of [according to Peter Leycester's Historical
Antiquities]:
1. primo die Augusti, 28 Hen. 6 (1450)
2. 29 die Junii, 3 Edw. 4 (1463)
3. 22 Novembris, 11 Hen. 7 (1495)

In 1458 [the year of Elizabeth Savage's marriage agreement], John Savage
the
younger would have been the third, who died in 1495. Other of his
daughters
married in 1467 [Ellen Savage to Peter Legh] and 1479 [Katharine Savage
to
Thomas Legh].

Mention of the Oct. 1464 marriage covenant of Dulcia Savage and Henry Bold
is to be found on p. 405, footnotes 7 & 12, of VCH Lancaster 3. Henry
Bold
supported the Lancastrian cause alongside of his grandfather Savage and
the
Stanley relations.

If this identification holds up to scrutiny then, as I said earlier, the
Eltonhead descendants would have an improved royal descent from Edward I.

[Cristopher Nash]

Thanks a lot for this, Henry, it's useful stuff. The one thing I'd
add - though it can well be a herring of the roseate variety - is
that (as some have noticed) I've had Alice as an alternate given-name
for the lady in question.

There's of course no linguistic reason to associate 'Dulcie/a' with
'Alice'. Until I've found out where the link may have come from (mea
culpa) I just can't rule out the possible use of scanning Alice (wife
of Sir Roger Pilkington) for a 2d husband.

The messy part is that at the moment I can't - physically, following
an op last week! - get at what may have been my source. I suspect,
however, that it may have been nothing more convincing than Gary B
Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants..._, though where there's
smoke there may be - well - fire? cancer? a smokescreen? Someone may
have the _500_ on hand, with a chance of skimming for Alice in GBR's
citation of Dulcie in the Eltonhead article?

Cheers,

Cris

Earwaker and Ormerod give the names of the 15 children of John Savage and
Katherine Stanley (who are buried at Macclesfield):

Sons: Sir John, Thomas (Archbishop of York), James, Sir Lawrence, Sir Edmund
Sir Christopher, George, William, Richard and Sir Humphrey

Daughters: Eleanor (wife of Sir Piers VI Legh 1455 - 1527), Catherine (wife
of Thomas Legh 1452-1519), Margaret (wife of John Honford d. abt. 1480 and
Sir Edmund de Trafford 1452-1513), Alice (wife of Sir Roger Pilkington) and
Elizabeth (wife of John Leek of Langford)

It seems strange that if all these children are so well documented, that a
daughter married into the Bold family would have slipped notice. However, I
have some other unaffiliated female Savages, all purportedly daughters of a
Sir John Savage of Clifton:

Isabel Savage, wife of Robert Legh of Adlington 1409-1479
Ellen Savage, wife of Piers Warburton of Arley d. 1495
Dorothy Savage, wife of Robert Needham of Cranage, Shropshire d. 1449

I must admit I have not followed up on any of these to see any link to the
Savages of Clifton.

HS

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

The reference for Elizabeth Savage's marriage contract is:

Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies Service
Catalogue ref. DCH/E/291 [13 Jan. 1458/9]
In this record Elizabeth Savage is labeled daughter of John Savage the
younger, esq.

Three successive John Savages that apply to the identification of her
father
have death dates of [according to Peter Leycester's Historical
Antiquities]:
1. primo die Augusti, 28 Hen. 6 (1450)
2. 29 die Junii, 3 Edw. 4 (1463)
3. 22 Novembris, 11 Hen. 7 (1495)

In 1458 [the year of Elizabeth Savage's marriage agreement], John Savage
the
younger would have been the third, who died in 1495. Other of his
daughters
married in 1467 [Ellen Savage to Peter Legh] and 1479 [Katharine Savage
to
Thomas Legh].

Mention of the Oct. 1464 marriage covenant of Dulcia Savage and Henry Bold
is to be found on p. 405, footnotes 7 & 12, of VCH Lancaster 3. Henry
Bold
supported the Lancastrian cause alongside of his grandfather Savage and
the
Stanley relations.

If this identification holds up to scrutiny then, as I said earlier, the
Eltonhead descendants would have an improved royal descent from Edward I.

--

--

[Cristopher Nash]

Hi James,

Thanks loads for this - it's just what we needed (and v. interesting
that GBR's dropped the Bold line). I hope you don't mind my passing
this on, on Gen-Med - if only to save others the trouble you've
taken??

So now we have _someone's_ idea of the possible ID of Dulcia with
Alice, once upon a time ratified - but now passed over by him.
(Passed over, though, perhaps more because of his unease with the
problem we're still now working on, concerning Dulcia/?Alice's?
father).

It remains to be seen what evidence had provoked GBR to think of
Dulcia = Alice in the first place.

.... OK, I've managed to dig out my copy of GBR 500 and see that he
cites: "various Savage sources, none satisfactory, including
_Ormerod_, vo. 1, pp. 712-13, _Salt_, new ser., vol 12 (1909), p.
144, and J. P. Rylands, ed., _Visitation of Cheshire, 1580_ (HSPVS,
vol. 18, 1882), p. 203".

Todd, from your not having mentioned it as a possibility, I gather
that you've not seen Dulcia = Alice anywhere other than perhaps in
one or another of these?

I don't want to press this too far - I'm just looking for a way to
save your idea that Dulcia may be the da. of John Savage (d. 1495)
and Katherine Stanley. by testing the possibility that she may be the
same as their da. known elsewhere as Alice.

Cheers,

Cris

Dear Cris,
I have just looked up my copy of Gary Boyd Roberts
R D 500 p 348 which indicates that while He lists Sir John Savage
and Eleanor Brereton as the probable parents of Alice ( or Dulcia)
Savage, wife of Sir Henry Bold though He also mentions the
problematic nature of which John Savage was her father. The
Connection is not mentioned by GBR in RD 600, however. instead on p
448 tracing Anne ( Sutton) Eltonhead, wife of Richard`s ancestry.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

--

[Gjest]

Dear Cris,
Of course I don`t mind, I hit the reply to simplify getting
the exact titles to Gen Mrdieval frequently, unfortunately sometimes as with
my reply to You, I forgot to change the return address.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Hello Ginny Wagner. I have spent some time researching the Tudor Tefor
(Trevor) family clan. They seem to have established themselves along the Watt's
Dyke area as part of the Cornovii tribe. The Mercians were to split the
tribal lands by defining a "border" called Offa's Dyke, leaving a "Welsh" side and
an "Anglo-Saxon" side. [ca. 757 - 796]. The Welsh side centered near the
hill fort of Dinas Bran, and the Anglo-Saxon side centered on the hill fort know
as "Old Oswestry". The ancient path between the two still roughly follows A5,
and will lead to the "Holy Island". The original tribal areas were known as
Maelor Gymraeg (Welsh Maelor) and Maelor Saesneg (English Maelor). These
were to find themselves in separate English counties of Denbigh and Flint
(detached). Other tribal areas (cantref) were Ial, Edeyrnion, Ystad Alun, Dyffryn
Clwyd, and Nanheudwy in Wales; and the towns of Oswestry, Whittington, and
Ellesmere, in Salop. As you might expect, the Welsh annalistic sources are few.
The Latin texts are known as Annales Cambriae (versions B and C), and the
vernacular chronicles are known as Brut y Tywysogion (Peniarth MS 20 version and
Red Book of Hergest version). There is also a short vernacular called
Brenhinedd y Saesson. There are also references to Welsh history found in Irish
and Anglo-Norman text. References to Rhys Sais appear to be retrospective,
perhaps due to his son's role in the killing of Gwrgenau ap Seisyll in 1081.
ByT (Pen 20) s.a. 1097 (recte 1081); ByT (RB) s.a. [1081]; ByS s.a. 1079 (recte
1081). A full discussion of these genealogical sources are given in "The
Eleventh-Century Rulers of Wales: Their Political and Genealogical Relationship.
In Ireland, Wales, and England In The Eleventh Century, KL Maund, The Boydell
Press, 1991.
The lineage of Tudor Trefor is discussed in several sources.
The Annals and Antiquities of The Counties and County Families of Wales, by
Nicholas, list the following: (p. 451, Vol. I )

Ynyr ap Gadforch
m. Rhiengar, dau. and sole h. of Lludoca ap Caradoc
Freichfras

Tudor Trefor, so called because he was born and
nursed at Trefor
(small village ca. 1.5 mi E. of Dinas Brain)
m. Angharad, dau. of Howel Dda, King of South
Wales
both are listed as witness to Saxon Charter 28
May 934 at
Winchester

Tudor Trefor is to have had 3 sons and 1 dau.

1) Gronwy = left dau. who's line becomes
Ethelystan Grodrydd

2) Llydocka = lineage is given on p. 451, Vol. I,
Nicholas.
states: through Tudor's son,
Llydocka, and
his descendants, at distant
but well-known
intervals, Rhys Sais,
Iorwerth Gam, Ednyfed Gam
of Pengwer....

3) Dingad = m. Cicely, dau. of Severus ap
Cadivor ap
Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Powis

4) Rhingor = m. to Cyhelyn ap Ifor

Hope this is helpful. Jerry.

[Maeve]

I wonder if their surname was originally Vallazza...hmmm.

[Gjest]

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Bold-Savage_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1116988462)

I appreciate the comments from everyone to the original message, and want to
respond to each.

Regarding the Dulcia or Alice confusion:
As far as I have ever seen the only known origin for the confusion is based
on the Savage pedigree in the 1580 Cheshire Visitation where Sir John Savage
and Maud Swinerton are given a daughter "Alice vxor Sr Henry Bold." I guess
this should be given as much credence as any other visitation pedigree.

Farrar and Brownbill in VCH Lancaster 3 give as their source for the 1464
marriage covenant of Dulcia [Dowse] Savage and Henry Bold - Dods. MSS.cxlii, n.
98. I am reliant on this secondary source as my sole "documentation" of
this marriage. The editors Farrar and Brownbill state that Dulcia was a
daughter of Sir John Savage. The exact language of the original is not given so I
am uncertain whether the insertion of "Sir" with her father's name is original
to the document or their editorial decision. I am assuming that "Dods.
MSS." is that multi-volume manuscript collection gathered by the seventeenth
century antiquarian Roger Dodsworth. His work is considered trustworthy enough
to be a major source for Burton's The Cartulary of Byland Abbey (2004), a
Surtees Society publication. It would seem a major step in working through the
identification process of Dulcia's father is to locate an access to
Dodsworth's manuscripts.

Regarding the finality of Ormerod's listing of the children of John Savage
and Katherine Stanley ~
From what I have encountered and perused Ormerod based much his analysis of
Cheshire families on the work of the seventeenth century antiquarian Peter
Leycester. I have read much of Leycester's Historical Antiquities at the rare
manuscripts department at my local library, including his section on the
Savage family of Clifton. His source for identifying all the sons of the
Savage-Stanley couple are a 1484 document wherein the sons of Sir John Savage the
Elder, Mayor of Chester, were all recorded as being made freemen of Chester.
The sources for identifying two of the daughters are given as licenses. Three
other daughters were found in original evidence housed at Rock Savage in
1669. No authoritative "complete" list is given and I believe none is implied,
so Dulcia should not be excluded for this reason. Maybe for another reason,
but not for that one.

******************************************************************************
**********************

This part is specifically for Cris ~
The Eltonhead article by R.G. Rankin that I mentioned can be found on pp.
35-62 of Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire for the
Year 1956, Vol. 108. I obtained my copy of this from the University of
Virginia.

******************************************************************************
**********************

I am not trying to butt heads with anyone by trying to definitively identify
the placement of Dulcia Savage within the framework of the overall Savage
family. What I am trying to do is make sense of the limited sources that I
have at hand and seek assistance from others who have access to others. I
appreciate everyone's contributions to this so far, and hope to stimulate it
further.
My personal interest in this family stems from my descent from Jane
(Eltonhead) Moryson-Fenwick. I am also working on her second husband's Fenwick
family from Brenkley (in Ponteland Parish), Northumberland, and their related
Fenwick branches in Kirkharle and Wallington.

[Gjest]

Dear Simon,
David Williamson " Kings and Queens of Britain " p 107,
RPA p 728 under Tudor and PA 2 p 362 all give King Henry VIII`s birthdate as
June 28, 1491 at Greenwich Palace.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

I was just reading the beginning of Margaret George's "The Autobiography of
Henry VIII" and realized something odd (to me at least).

When Mary came to the throne or thereabouts, Catherine (Carey) Knollys is
portrayed in this book to be writing letters, from self-imposed exile in Basle
(Switzerland). Is that accurate? Did the Carey,Knollys really flee to Basle?

Thanks
Will Johnson

[Gjest]

In a message dated 5/22/05 7:46:16 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Mother of Jane Puleston

Iolo Griffiths wrote:
Some websites give the mother of Jane Puleston as Alice Lewis of
Presaddfed, Anglesey, while many others I have seen (the majority, in
fact) give the mother as Eleanor Whitney. Does anybody know of a primary
source which shows which version is the correct one? I assume that both
women were married to Jane's father, John Puleston, but clearly only one
will be the mother.



The wonder of internet trees. From various trees I have Jane Puleston as
daughter of Alice Lewis, even though Jane is given as born about 1484, and
Alice died in 1480. Even better, Alice is supposed to have married John
Puleston about 1515.

One of the sources, however, refers to Puliestons in this book, which I
have not seen:

J E Griffiths: Pedigrees of Anglesey and Caernarvonshire Families page 275

Renia

Hi: PA 1, p.74 #4 says about William Griffin: "He was married for the
second time in 1520 to Jane Puleston, widow of Robert ap Maredudd, of Glynllifon,
daughter of John Puleston, .... by Eleanor, daughter of Robert Whitney,
Knight ....They had three sons and two daughters." citing the same source you show
above.

Always optimistic--Dave

[Gjest]

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Bold-Savage_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1117410656)

I have come across a couple of items showing that John Savage was referred
to as "Sir" John Savage as early as 1467 [see Cheshire and Chester Archives ~
DCH/U/34] and again, this time in a record with James Stanley, clerk, in
1472. I am listing these just to show my attempt at narrowing down when which
John Savage would have used the esquire or knight term.

[Douglas Richardson royala]

Dear Barbara ~

Thank you for your good post.

I'm flying out to Nashville to the NGS Conference in a little over an
hour. Right now I'm doing my last minute packing for the trip.

If memory serves me correctly, you purchased a Magna Carta Ancestry
book several weeks ago. Your cancelled check should have come through
your bank by now. When I return, I'll confirm your book order.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

"Barbara P. Smith" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Doug,

Please let me know if you have received a payment from me for the Magna
Charta book.

Thanks again,

Barbara


Subject:
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
From:
"Douglas Richardson [email protected]" <[email protected]
Date:
30 May 2005 19:08:05 -0700
To:
[email protected]

To:
[email protected]


Dear Robbie ~

I've answered your last private e-mail to me just now. My apologies
for not getting back to you sooner.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Barbara P. Smith]

[email protected] wrote:

Doug,

Please let me know if you have received a payment from me for the Magna
Charta book.

Thanks again,

Barbara

Subject:
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry
From:
"Douglas Richardson [email protected]" <[email protected]
Date:
30 May 2005 19:08:05 -0700
To:
[email protected]

To:
[email protected]


Dear Robbie ~

I've answered your last private e-mail to me just now. My apologies
for not getting back to you sooner.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Cristopher Nash]

Thanks, Todd. Close to the marriage covenant (of 1464) - and I
recall your point that in any case we're not sure at this point that
the covenant itself will have called him knight.

I think maybe the most helpful thing would be to find what way we can
of ascertaining that this Sir John (d. 1495) - and unquestionably not
the Sir John who d. 1492 - is the one we're to call Dulcia's father,
yes? Any thoughts?

I'm _extremely_ sorry meantime not to be doing legwork on this myself
as I'd certainly aim to do when I've recouped from the gut op that
for the moment has me - metaphorically speaking - legless! Wish I
could mean this in the ecstatic UK metaphorical sense, where legless
= shambling drunk! Give me a few weeks and I'll be on the case,
drunk or sober!

Best,

Cris

I have come across a couple of items showing that John Savage was referred
to as "Sir" John Savage as early as 1467 [see Cheshire and Chester Archives ~
DCH/U/34] and again, this time in a record with James Stanley, clerk, in
1472. I am listing these just to show my attempt at narrowing down
when which
John Savage would have used the esquire or knight term.

--

[Paul Mackenzie]

[email protected] wrote:

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Re: Bold-Savage_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1117410656)

I have come across a couple of items showing that John Savage was referred
to as "Sir" John Savage as early as 1467 [see Cheshire and Chester Archives ~
DCH/U/34] and again, this time in a record with James Stanley, clerk, in
1472. I am listing these just to show my attempt at narrowing down when which
John Savage would have used the esquire or knight term.

For your information, there is also a John Sauvage b1281 d1312 son of

Roger of Steynesby, Derby and Gomeshulve, Surrey CIPM 03:092, CIPM
03:406-407, CIPM 5:188.

Regards

Paul

[Frank]

Hi,



It's also been featured on Genes Reunited. I was contacted by the producer
from Shine and it seems genuine enough.



She never mentioned money so I suppose that's OK.



Regards,



Frank Baynham

Forest of Dean

Gloucestershire

UK



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 01 June 2005 10:57
To: [email protected]
Subject: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #422

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 6 Jun, [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 6/6/2005 9:29:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

The name Harry was originally a nickname for the given name, Henry.
It's actually one of the few nicknames that occur in medieval records.
Other medieval English nicknames I've noticed are Colin (for Nicholas),
Colette (for Nichole), and Robin (for Robert).

I've always referred to these as "diminuatives" in contract to a
nickname like "the Fat", "the Wise", "the guzzler of tankards" which
might have nothing to do with their name at all. The diminuative is
a "small name" for their first name. Like "Dick" for Richard.
However "Tricky" would not be a diminuative unless the person's name
was something like Trichomeus or something odd like that.

Am I using "diminuative" correctly here?

Apologies for correcting this on a newsgroup but try "diminutive" and
the on-line Dict facility says it means 'very small'.

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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 6/6/2005 9:29:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

The name Harry was originally a nickname for the given name, Henry.
It's actually one of the few nicknames that occur in medieval records.
Other medieval English nicknames I've noticed are Colin (for Nicholas),
Colette (for Nichole), and Robin (for Robert).

I've always referred to these as "diminuatives" in contract to a nickname
like
"the Fat", "the Wise", "the guzzler of tankards"
which might have nothing to do with their name at all. The diminuative is a
"small name" for their first name. Like "Dick" for Richard. However "Tricky"
would not be a diminuative unless the person's name was something like
Trichomeus or something odd like that.

Am I using "diminuative" correctly here?
Thanks
Will Johnson

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 6/6/2005 9:29:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:



The name Harry was originally a nickname for the given name, Henry.
It's actually one of the few nicknames that occur in medieval records.
Other medieval English nicknames I've noticed are Colin (for Nicholas),
Colette (for Nichole), and Robin (for Robert).



I've always referred to these as "diminuatives" in contract to a nickname
like
"the Fat", "the Wise", "the guzzler of tankards"
which might have nothing to do with their name at all. The diminuative is a
"small name" for their first name. Like "Dick" for Richard. However "Tricky"
would not be a diminuative unless the person's name was something like
Trichomeus or something odd like that.

Am I using "diminuative" correctly here?

I have seen diminutive used for certain nicknames, but usually in
reference to "little/young [name]" (e.g. "little Richard") as would be
used for a child or the younger of two, not to a nickname that is a
simply a shortening of the name. Hence, using your example, Ricky,
Dickie or Dicken would be diminutives, but not Dick.

taf

[Gjest]

In a message dated 6/6/05 11:59:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< I have seen diminutive used for certain nicknames, but usually in
reference to "little/young [name]" (e.g. "little Richard") as would be
used for a child or the younger of two, not to a nickname that is a
simply a shortening of the name. Hence, using your example, Ricky,
Dickie or Dicken would be diminutives, but not Dick. >>

I was reading the definition in Webster's Dictionary and they specifically
cite
"Jim for James". They call it a "clipping of a name" which is odd and then
they also cite "Peggy for Margaret". Now we all know that many women used the
name "Peggy" most or all of their lives in common use, so apparently it
doesn't only apply to children.

And I see also that "diminuative" is not a word but "diminutive" is so I have
to correct my spelling

[John Brandon]

Yeah, that too.

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 5 Jul 2005 06:36:12 -0700, "John Brandon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

[Stewart Baldwin wrote:]

"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field,
resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen
as being a step forward compared to its predecessors, while
still falling short of what is expected in modern scholarly
genealogy."

[The above unattributed quote was taken from one of my own postings,
but with the words "Given more space, ..." cut from the beginning of
the sentence.]

As Doug's book is clearly a revision/ updating of Faris's, how can it
"fall short of what is expected in modern scholarly genealogy" (i.e.,
nobody ever said anything remotely similar about Faris)?

See below

It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic).
....

"... it was thought smart to have Nat ..."?????????

And where did this totally outrageous statement come from? On what
basis do you insinuate that the review was anything other than the
honest opinion of the writer of that review? On what basis do you
insinuate that unnamed outside forces told Nat what to say in the
review?

This completely despicable insinuation demands an apology.

... But it
isn't practical in presenting this amount of information to have every
statement footnoted (unless Douglas is now supposed to re-format
everything to produce a three- or four-volume, CP-style set!).

What about the author's own rather grandiose claims regarding what the
book was going to be? Shouldn't the author's own claims about the
book be measured against the actual results?

Stewart Baldwin

[John Brandon]

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

[Stewart Baldwin wrote:]

"Nat was able to discuss Doug's predecessors in the field,
resulting in a more balanced review in which RPA is seen
as being a step forward compared to its predecessors, while
still falling short of what is expected in modern scholarly
genealogy."

[The above unattributed quote was taken from one of my own postings,
but with the words "Given more space, ..." cut from the beginning of
the sentence.]

I don't really think that made much difference. (Or did it?)

This completely despicable insinuation demands an apology.

Oh please.

[John Brandon]

You forgot: "your mom is."

[Gjest]

In a message dated 7/6/05 10:32:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< The first ones I happened to open were totally inconsequential. So.
Please, someone, enlighten me as to those of the 63 on the same subject that
contain useful comment >>

51 out of 63 can be condensed to the following fictitious exchange
Person A: You are!
Person B: No! You are!

Will Johnson

[D. Spencer Hines]

Peter Stewart is an Oxford dropout who likes to compare himself to
Samuel Johnson, who was also an Oxford dropout.

Hilarious!

Yes, the same Dr. Johnson chronicled by Boswell.

That's as terminally foolish as saying any Harvard dropout is as
brilliant and talented as Bill Gates, who is a Harvard dropout.

However, I say again, anyone such as Nat Taylor who has both a Harvard
A.B. and a Harvard Ph.D. and who desires an academic career but who
cannot secure a tenure-track position in Academia and who, after TEN
YEARS, is still a mere Lecturer, has some VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

Perhaps Nat drinks, takes drugs or suffers from writer's block and low
self esteem....Whatever....

There are obviously SEVERE PROBLEMS there.

DSH

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

| >>In literature only a very few writers, for instance Dryden and TS
Eliot, have been equally accomplished as creators and critics.
|
| Very odd opinion here. Dryden and Eliot were both fairly minor poets,
| and Eliot, at least, was very lacking as a critic. So much for the
| brilliant literary insights of Mr. Peter M. Stewart (or is it Hon.
| Peter M. Stewart?) ...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart admits he has not even seen, much less read, Douglas
Richardson's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ -- yet he continues to prattle,
ponderously pontificate, pose and prance about it.

Fraud & Charlatan!

DSH

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

<baldersnip>

[Peter Stewart]

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

However, I have made as many detailed posts over the past several years
as
anyone else, and these are readily available in the archive to be
assessed.

I think it's not wise to set much store by what you read on the
Internet.

I don't believe I have ever made a post based on information found on the
Internet.

It may surprise you to learn that posts to SGM are made up of information
(sometimes) and thoughts expressed in words - just like articles in print,
only more responsive.

All I can say is "Promises, promises ..." I hope it eventually
materializes.

I haven't made promises, just explained what I am doing. No salesmanship is
involved.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

Playing dumb? Poor thing ...

Not at all - your post was incoherent. The first part is quite
incomprehensible, the second part seems to suggest that people fantasise in
order to "get" somewhere and/or that this is somehow a public rather than a
private process, that might not be advisable in a particular place. Moronic.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

In literature only a very few writers, for instance Dryden and TS Eliot,
have been equally accomplished as creators and critics.

Very odd opinion here. Dryden and Eliot were both fairly minor poets,
and Eliot, at least, was very lacking as a critic. So much for the
brilliant literary insights of Mr. Peter M. Stewart (or is it Hon.
Peter M. Stewart?) ...

This is typically narcissistic, homespun & absurd: Dryden and Eliot are both
major poets, playwrights and critics by any sensible criteria. However, I
didn't state this in the post Brandon is vainly trying to mock - I only said
they were "equally accomplished" in two fields, not how great or small their
accomplishments might have been.

His attempts to "twit" others only show up what a total twit Brandon himself
is.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

... or even Lord Peter Stewart? UGH.

You have been advised already to stop fantasising about me.

Can't help yourself?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

Peter Stewart is an Oxford dropout who likes to compare himself to
Samuel Johnson, who was also an Oxford dropout.

I have NEVER compared myself to Samuel Johnson - Hines is fantasising about
me again, as foolishly as Brandon.

Hilarious!

Yes, the same Dr. Johnson chronicled by Boswell.

That's as terminally foolish as saying any Harvard dropout is as
brilliant and talented as Bill Gates, who is a Harvard dropout.

Nothing I said about Johnson related in any way to the talents or lack of
these in anyone else - it was plainly about the impact of circumstances on
academic careers. Unlike Johnson, I NEVER AIMED FOR ONE. In fact, quite
unlike him, I actively RESISTED such an outcome.

Hines doesn't feel a need to know anything about a subject before opining
about it, of course: in this instance he is trying to distract attention
from his pathetic failure to address the issues on the table about
Richardson's book.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

Hilarius Magnus Cum Laude!

Pogue Stewart admits he has not even seen, much less read, Douglas
Richardson's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ -- yet he continues to prattle,
ponderously pontificate, pose and prance about it.

Fraud & Charlatan!

Absolute rot - nothing has been misrepresented by me at any stage. I have
openly said that I haven't seen & propbably never will see the book.

I have, however, seeen enough of its contents - posted here by the author -
to assess the methods and aims of his work.

Equally Hines has of course not "read" the book from cover to cover, and has
not checked every reference in it or even a sampling of these - or surely by
now he might at least TRY to defend his position on the matter.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

On 5 Jul 2005 06:36:12 -0700, "John Brandon" <[email protected]
wrote:

<snip>

It seems different standards are slyly being invoked to allow
"reservations" about Douglas' book. I suppose it was thought smart to
have Nat carry on about substandard citations and bibliography as he's
a professor (and might lecture his students on that topic).
...

"... it was thought smart to have Nat ..."?????????

And where did this totally outrageous statement come from? On what
basis do you insinuate that the review was anything other than the
honest opinion of the writer of that review? On what basis do you
insinuate that unnamed outside forces told Nat what to say in the
review?

This completely despicable insinuation demands an apology.

I'm afraid nothing like this will eventuate, Stewart - Brandon, Welch and
Hines evidently think that normal standards of commonsense and decency don't
apply to them, and they will go on posting their habitual lies and vicious,
contemptible nonsense without any effort to defend themselves or any grace
to withdraw & apologise.

However, I'm sure that others join me in appreciating your honourable &
dignified responses.

Peter Stewart

[Paul Mackenzie]

[email protected] wrote:

I've had a quick look in the archives and see that Joan Foliot is given
a descent from Alan Bassett of Wycombe; but how did she come by the
Cheshire estates that included a sixth part of Nantwich (Wich Malbank)?
Thomas Bassett of Headington, brother of Alan, married a Malbanc
heiress and had descendants through his daughter Alice; did Joan
actually have any Malbanc blood?

Matthew

"fairthorne" wrote:

Hutchins in his History of Dorset vol 2 p656 states
"By a deed dated on Monday next after the feast of St. Mark, 55 Hen 111,
Beatrix de Turberville released to Hawysia de Sanford five marks
annually rent, part of 10 l. which the said Beatrix was entitled to
receive annually by way of dower out of Melbury, under a settlement made
by a fine between Fulk Basset, Bishop of London, and said Beatrix.
Witness, Nicholas Bretun, Aval de Rocheford, Ad. Foliot, and others.

Hawisa de Sanford is described on her monumental brass in the church as
daughter of the Lord Basset and from the terms of this deed she seems to
be the owner of this manor. Fulke Basset, bishop of London, mentioned in
the deed, was also Lord Basset of Wycombe."

Also

Hawise de Samford, wife or widow of Sir Laurence Samford was presented
as patron to the church of Melbury-Samford.
Coll. Top. Gen. 6 p334-361

On the other hand we have
Ormerod in his "Cheshire" saying that
"The second subdivision of this share [barony of Wich Malbanc
(Nantwich)] fell to Johanna (Basset)...her estate passed to the samfords

On still the other hand F.N. Craig in NEHG Vol 150 p227-237 at
p238-242 has a descent Thomas Basset-Alan Bassett-Alice Bassett m John
Samford-Laurence Samford-Ada Samford m Walter Foliot-Joan Foliot m
Nicholas Percy.

P.S. Joan Foliot subsequently married John Mautravers and Alexander
Veneables (see Coll. Top. Gen.)


I believe that the barony of Malbanc was a Basset possession which was
subdivided. I do not have the reference, but I think I saw it in a book
on the town of Nantwich.

Regards

Paul

[Gjest]

I see Peter is taking his LSD again. Please Peter go to rehab. As you
get fustrated with John and Spencer post your totally looking like the
fool that you are.

Mike Welch

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hmmmmmm....

This may have some genealogical and historical relevance to the
"Homosexual British Kings" ---- William Rufus, Edward II, James VI/I and
perhaps Richard II -- as well as the issue of "Homosexuals In The
Military And Navy".

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

July 5, 2005

"Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited"

By BENEDICT CAREY
The New York Times

"Some people are attracted to women; some are attracted to men. And
some, if Sigmund Freud, Dr. Alfred Kinsey and millions of self-described
bisexuals are to be believed, are drawn to both sexes.

But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least
in men. ******

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends
support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a
distinct and stable sexual orientation. ******

Yep. I've suspected for decades this was a crock. ---- DSH

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually
homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply
closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have
put it. ******

They are probably right. ---- DSH

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital
arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The
psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were
in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by
other men. ******

Bingo! ---- DSH

The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the
estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show
physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their
professed desires.

Because they are LYING. ---- DSH

"Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on
self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using
physiological measures," said Dr. Lisa Diamond, an associate professor
of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, who was not
involved in the study.

The discrepancy between what is happening in people's minds and what is
going on in their bodies, she said, presents a puzzle "that the field
now has to crack, and it raises this question about what we mean when we
talk about desire."

"We have assumed that everyone means the same thing," she added, "but
here we have evidence that that is not the case."

Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be
published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be
repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions
could be drawn.

Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly
understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of
bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell,
an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia
University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling
bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to
homosexuality."

Hilarious! ---- DSH

He added, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and
identity" to jump to these conclusions.

In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the
Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in
gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men.
Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as
straight and 38 as homosexual.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them
on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating
heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was
measured by scores in the middle range.

Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of
erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men.

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what
they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little
arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women
but not to men.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not
have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated
attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the
group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were
indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

"Regardless of whether the men were gay, straight or bisexual, they
showed about four times more arousal" to one sex or the other, said
Gerulf Rieger, a graduate psychology student at Northwestern and the
study's lead author.

Although about a third of the men in each group showed no significant
arousal watching the movies, their lack of response did not change the
overall findings, Mr. Rieger said.

Since at least the middle of the 19th century, behavioral scientists
have noted bisexual attraction in men and women and debated its place in
the development of sexual identity. Some experts, like Freud, concluded
that humans are naturally bisexual. In his landmark sex surveys of the
1940's, Dr. Alfred Kinsey found many married, publicly heterosexual men
who reported having had sex with other men.

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and
homosexual," Dr. Kinsey wrote. "The world is not to be divided into
sheep and goats."

By the 1990's, Newsweek had featured bisexuality on its cover, bisexuals
had formed advocacy groups and television series like "Sex and the City"
had begun exploring bisexual themes.

Yet researchers were unable to produce direct evidence of bisexual
arousal patterns in men, said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of
psychology at Northwestern and the new study's senior author.

A 1979 study of 30 men found that those who identified themselves as
bisexuals were indistinguishable from homosexuals on measures of
arousal.

Studies of gay and bisexual men in the 1990's showed that the two groups
reported similar numbers of male sexual partners and risky sexual
encounters. And a 1994 survey by The Advocate, the gay-oriented
newsmagazine, found that, before identifying themselves as gay, 40
percent of gay men had described themselves as bisexual. ******

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I
am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists,
and that for men arousal is orientation."

But other researchers - and some self-identified bisexuals - say that
the technique used in the study to measure genital arousal is too crude
to capture the richness - erotic sensations, affection, admiration -
that constitutes sexual attraction.

Social and emotional attraction are very important elements in bisexual
attraction, said Dr. Fritz Klein, a sex researcher and the author of
"The Bisexual Option."

"To claim on the basis of this study that there's no such thing as male
bisexuality is overstepping, it seems to me," said Dr. Gilbert Herdt,
director of the National Sexuality Resource Center in San Francisco. "It
may be that there is a lot less true male bisexuality than we think, but
if that's true then why in the world are there so many movies, novels
and TV shows that have this as a theme - is it collective fantasy,
merely a projection? I don't think so."

Hilarious! "If there are movies, novels and TV shows about it -- it
must exist." Another Silly-Buggers, Wacko Academic on the loose --
GILBERT HERDT ---- DSH

John Campbell, 36, a Web designer in Orange County, Calif., who
describes himself as bisexual, also said he was skeptical of the
findings.

Mr. Campbell said he had been strongly attracted to both sexes since he
was sexually aware, although all his long-term relationships had been
with women. "In my case I have been accused of being heterosexual, but
I also feel a need for sex with men," he said.

Mr. Campbell rated his erotic attraction to men and women as about
50-50, but his emotional attraction, he said, was 90 to 10 in favor of
women. "With men I can get aroused, I just don't feel the fireworks
like I do with women," he said.

About 1.5 percent of American women identify themselves bisexual. And
bisexuality appears easier to demonstrate in the female sex. A study
published last November by the same team of Canadian and American
researchers, for example, found that most women who said they were
bisexual showed arousal to men and to women.

Although only a small number of women identify themselves as bisexual,
Dr. Bailey said, bisexual arousal may for them in fact be the norm.

Researchers have little sense yet of how these differences may affect
behavior, or sexual identity. In the mid-1990's, Dr. Diamond recruited
a group of 90 women at gay pride parades, academic conferences on gender
issues and other venues. About half of the women called themselves
lesbians, a third identified as bisexual and the rest claimed no sexual
orientation. In follow-up interviews over the last 10 years, Dr.
Diamond has found that most of these women have had relationships both
with men and women.

"Most of them seem to lean one way or the other, but that doesn't
preclude them from having a relationship with the nonpreferred sex," she
said. "You may be mostly interested in women but, hey, the guy who
delivers the pizza is really hot, and what are you going to do?"

Hilarious! ---- DSH

"There's a whole lot of movement and flexibility," Dr. Diamond added.
"The fact is, we have very little research in this area, and a lot to
learn.""
-----------------------

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[Peter Stewart]

Will Johnson wrote:

51 out of 63 can be condensed to the following fictitious exchange
Person A: You are!
Person B: No! You are!

Not so - if you haven't paid closer attention than this to the matters
under discussion, why comment?

Hines, Brandon and Welch have made false, self-serving and quite
unconscionable allegations against several respected members of this
list. They have all failed to respond to any issues of substance that
have been raised.

I, not caring about respect for myself, have taken up the cudgels and
I'm not about to put these down just for the sake of your repose.

It's surprising that Richardson seems to be content to have such a crew
of reprobates as his only defenders - much as I despise his work and
attitude in many respects, I have no reason to suppose that he is
personally or intellectually as base as these others, by far.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Leo van de Pas wrote:

Dear Mike,

And I thought you were a gentleman. You attack the person but you
do not address the subject. I am reallyh disappointed in you. Throwing
mud at Peter Stewart is not going to improve the standard in
genealogical society of Douglas Richardson. Richardson was holy
upset when I called him a fool and here you happily sink to a low even
Richarson disaproves of.

Thank you, Leo. I imagine even Welch is ashamed of resorting to
far-fetched & baseless allegations of drug abuse, but can't help
himself as he has nothing else beyond stupid fantasy in his mental
arsenal.

He will do anything rather than apologise for his offenses, that a
gentleman would never have committed in the first place.

Peter Stewart

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Mike,

And I thought you were a gentleman. You attack the person but you do not
address the subject. I am reallyh disappointed in you. Throwing mud at Peter
Stewart is not going to improve the standard in genealogical society of
Douglas Richardson. Richardson was holy upset when I called him a fool and
here you happily sink to a low even Richarson disaproves of.

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Nat's Royal Review in TAG

I see Peter is taking his LSD again. Please Peter go to rehab. As you
get fustrated with John and Spencer post your totally looking like the
fool that you are.

Mike Welch

[Peter Stewart]

Spencer Hines (still busily avoiding the issues) wrote:

Stewart has never even held either book in his sweaty little hands --
yet he tells us he "despises" both works and Richardson's "attitude"
in creating them.

I said I despise Richardson's "work and attitude in many respects", but
did not specify the finished products of PA3 or MAC as among these.

Once again: I have not seen his books, they are not available to me in
public libraries, and I don't intend to purchase either of them.

Once again: Hines has obviously not "read" the books in question, as
they are designed for reference and not for sustained reading. Last
heard, he had not even received his copy of MAC to break into a sweat
over its manifold felicities.

Once again: I have observed Richardson's work and attitudes almost
daily, over years.

Once again: I have studied extracts from his published work, posted
here by himself, enough to know that he is NOT Jekyll and Hyde,
diligent, skilled and sensible in print despite being consistently
lazy, incompetent and dishonest in Usenet contributions.

If this is not so, everyone has the opportunity to prove it. No-one,
and that certainly includes Hines, has yet tried.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Spencer Hines wrote:

Hilarious!

There are Whole Worlds of Knowledge that Stewart does not understand.

Pointless!

How exactly is the incomrehensible difficulty of others in leaving
messages unread a "whole world of knowledge" or a matter of
"philosophy"?

Is there a switch in your brain, at either end of your person, that
could be turned on so as to avoid such embarrassing drivel? While you
are at it you could try to hide your prurient fascination for
homosxuality, that is quite irrelevant here.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Well I would like to take this time to apologise 1. To Peter Stewart
and 2. to the newsgroup. To say Peter is a drug addict was wrong. I
don't believe in his actions on this newsgroup but he is entitled to
his opinion. However wrong they are.

Mike Welch

[Peter Stewart]

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

Well I would like to take this time to apologise 1. To Peter Stewart
and 2. to the newsgroup. To say Peter is a drug addict was wrong. I
don't believe in his actions on this newsgroup but he is entitled to
his opinion. However wrong they are.

Thank you.

I don't think this bizarre spree on your part required a public apology
nearly so much as your ascribing "cowardice" to others for a behaviour that
so far has been exhibited only by yourself: that is, believing that David
Kelley can be and ought to be defended for his wrong, grossly misleading and
utterly ill-founded ideas about Godfrey de Bouillon, but nevertheless
failing to offer this defense.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

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

Spencer Hines (still busily avoiding the issues) wrote:

Stewart has never even held either book in his sweaty little hands --
yet he tells us he "despises" both works and Richardson's "attitude"
in creating them.

I said I despise Richardson's "work and attitude in many respects", but
did not specify the finished products of PA3 or MAC as among these.

Another telling typo: "MAC" of course should be MCA, but the mistake can
stand since "MacGenealogy" is a pretty fair desrciption of what Richardson
achieves.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Peter Stewart is doing an excellent job of demonstrating his cultivated,
congenital lunacy -- tracing back to that time he fell off his
motorcycle, while drunk, and smashed his head against the cobblestones
in Oxford Town.

He continues to rant and rail against the collected works of Douglas
Richardson, many of which he has never even SEEN, much less READ.

These, most notably and recently, are Richardson's two handsome books
published by Genealogical Publishing Company of Baltimore, not known for
publishing trash, _Plantagenet Ancestry_ and _Magna Carta Ancestry_.

Stewart has never even held either book in his sweaty little hands --
yet he tells us he "despises" both works and Richardson's "attitude" in
creating them.

Loon!

Stewart is clearly a man who has slipped his tether and straitjacket, is
off on a rip and a rant -- and who is not to be taken seriously -- but
is best used only for light entertainment.

He's like a crazed bull in a _corrida de toros_ who charges at every
scrap of cloth which is waved at him -- while the delighted picadors
continue to stab him in the neck and get him to lower his head.

Great Fun!

Ay, Toro ---- Caramba!

Deus Vult.

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hilarious!

There are Whole Worlds of Knowledge that Stewart does not understand.

Hamlet's remark to Horatio is deucedly apposite here:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy."

-- William Shakespeare [1564-1616] _The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmark_, Act I, Scene V, Line 166

DSH

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

| I have no difficulty saving myself from boredom & inconvenience in
| this regard, by leaving messages unopened, and frequently whole
| threads pass me by without a murmur.
|
| Is there some problem with this for others that I don't understand?
|
| Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Peter

Your Welcome.

Okay have a couple of questions. 1. Have you read Nat's review? and 2.
If you did read it what do you think about it. Isn't this what the
thread is about in the first place. I plan on reading it Friday when
i'm at the Library. By the way with a open mind.

Mike Welch

[Peter Stewart]

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

Peter

Your Welcome.

Okay have a couple of questions. 1. Have you read Nat's review? and 2.
If you did read it what do you think about it. Isn't this what the
thread is about in the first place. I plan on reading it Friday when
i'm at the Library. By the way with a open mind.

Yes, I've read it and stated my opinion already in the main thread: I think
it's an excellent review. Nat's reflections on the subject, as I've also
stated already, are far more generous than mine.

As I have said repeatedly over the past few years, I think that Richardson
could do much better work if he prepared himself for the task by learning to
read the languages of his primary sources, and if he studied to discriminate
more carefully in his choice of secondary authorities.

I think he would do much better for his personal reputation if he gave due
credit to fellow researchers instead of filching whatever he can from their
work while trying to belittle their efforts, reducing them to anonymity as
far as possible in his citations, and skirting round his own obligations to
collegiality on the newsgroup while endlessly complaining about others on
the same score.

Despite all this he does some useful work by covering a lot of ground that
others have neglected or overlooked: he has uncovered valuable information
in several cases and has corrected longstanding errors - usually where he
has been more-or-less the next person to go over the obscure matter
thoroughly since an original lapse or mistake was made, although he
invariably makes out that these minor discoveries are major, hard-won
triumphs for him, implying that countless others have somehow missed
whatever he noticed.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

Peter

Thank You for your thought on it and i'm looking forward to reading it
myself and I will give my opinion.

Mike Welch

[Ginny Wagner]

"Blood and feasting sustained the Celtic warrior. ... At feasts the
warriors competed in boasting matches for the honour of carving the first
portion. After exchanges around Mac Da Tho's pig, Cet Mac Magach sits down
by it with a knife in his hand to cut the champion's portion and invites any
northern warrior to challenge his right to do so. Fellow after fellow
rises, only to be put down by Cet in such an insulting and devastating
manner that the others are forced to retire. He taunts them with their
failures and shortcomings: one has been blinded, another has lost his
testicles in their last encounter, and the king's son, nicknamed the
'Stammerer of Mach', is so called because of a spear wound in the throat
from Cet. As Cet is about to carve the pig, Conall the Victorious, one of
the greatest Ulster herores, enters the hall.

"Cet and Conall compliment each other on their valour and then Cet is told
to get up from the pig. Ever since he first took up arms, Conall says, he
has not let a day go by without killing a Connachtman and sleeping with his
head under his knee.

"'It is true,' said Cet, 'you are the better man, but if Auluan were here he
would give you contest for contest. It is a blot on us that he is not
here.'

"'But he is here,' said Conall, drawing Auluan's head from his belt; and he
hurled it at Cet, hitting him on the chest, so that a rush of blood broke
over his lips."

from celtic mysteries, The Ancient Religion, by John Sharkey

[John Brandon]

You have been advised already to stop fantasising about me.

Believe me, my 'fantasies' are quite other (things that do not make me
vomit) ...

[Gjest]

methinks a touch of 'Join the army be a man, Join the navy feel a man'
syndrome!
Pg

[Gjest]

Dear Diana, Earl , Simon and others,
I `m no expert, but I
won`t allow that to stop me from hunting for answers or posting on subjects.
We live in perhaps the most remarkable age this world has ever known... or at
least remembers, most especially in the wealth of information and
misinformation that We need not even leave our homes to peruse any hour of the day or
night and so I check the various sites to see what has been written on the
various subjects. I buy some books and try to get to my local libraries a few times
a year.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[T. Stanford M. S. P. F. M]

Thanks to modem difficulties, I just got this.
Thanks, much, Diane!
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Sheppard" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Online Databases

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 2 Jul, [email protected] ("T. Stanford M. S. P. F.
Mommaerts-Browne") wrote:

Just for convenience, could someone, please, give the UR:'s for these
sites?
Thanks, en avance,
Ford

snip
Stweart Baldwin's Henry project:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm
(It has an excellent section on sources in its FAQ)

Leo van de Pas: http://www.genealogics.org

Jim Weber:

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb. ... &db=jweber

&recno=0

(ensure the line is fully joined up in your browser)

Hal Bradley:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... index2.htm

And there's a few more on the FAQ at:
http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html
though it probably needs an update.

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

Tim, Ford and other readers,

You can use the following link to search for the authors of any
databases at World Connect: http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/us. The
search engine also searches the titles, headers, footers, e-mail
addresses, etc. for key words.

Following are two other databases on World Connect that contain a
substantial number of medieval ancestors and that readers might find
helpful. Both provide sources:

Bill Marshall:
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... udedb=wtm2 Bill's
database provides sources for each fact and also notes sources that
contain errors.

Dave Ross:
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bi ... edb=utzing
Dave's database links the sources to the name. Dave's database
contains a number of transcriptions from CP and notes from the
newsgroup.

Since many of the links on the group's FAQ page are out of date,
hopefully, others will add other databases to this list.

Hope this helps,

Diane Sheppard

[T. Stanford M. S. P. F. M]

Brad,
I was certainly surprised that someone who posts as often, and as cogently
as you do, (whether I like or agree, or not, aside), is unfamiliar with
George Andrews Moriarty! You really do owe it to yourself to read somne of
his pieces. If youlike him, you like him; if you don't, you don't. But he
did contribute quite a bit to the field. Perhaps part of the problem is
that his heirs did not want, (for whatever reasons), that his life's work
not be published. Nevertheless, he did have several pieces published in
_The Register_. Perhaps Don could provide some citations, as he seems to be
remarkably capable of digging these things up.
PLEASE NOTE: My astonishment is NOT meant to be taken as rebuke or
criticism! I do, truly, find it astounding, though.
All best wishes,
Ford

I would rank him only below George Moriarty in
my personal list of the greatest American genealogists.

You of course can put him wherever you like on your list. I have no
idea who George Moriarty is, so your statement above gave me a little
chuckle - that you ranked Douglas below someone who is a complete
unknown to me.
----Brad

[Gjest]

The proverb was known in ancient Greece- "mia chelidon ouk ear poiei". Can
anyone take it back further, I wonder?
May I in passing express my appreciation of the moderate and courteous tone
of Mr Richardson's recent posts.
MM

[John Brandon]

Nevertheless, he did have several pieces published in _The Register_.

Yep, scores or hundreds, actually. In terms of productivity, he would
be up there with Henry F. Waters, Walter G. Davis, and ... Douglas
Richardson.

[Diane Sheppard]

You're welcome. Diane

[Jim Weber]

[email protected] wrote:

I've collected a bit about the Walwyn family as I have a more recent
descent from them. Thomas Walwyn who d.1415 had both a son and a
brother called William (they are each mentioned in his will); the
brother is identified in the Walwyn pedigree in Duncombe's Hereford as
being the William of Bickerton who married Joanna Greyndour (it gives
their son William d.1470, m. Elizabeth dau William Lanks, and had Alice
d.1518 m. Thomas Baynham d.1500, with issue). The William who was son
of Thomas Walwyn was of 'Longworth' (usually Longford). According to
BLG he was b.c1390, m. Jane/Joan dau. Sir Thomas Whitney, and d.1440.
However, it is still possible that they may have been confused over
time and swapped some details- the chronology may give a clue. Thomas
Walwyn and Sir John Greyndour do seem to have been almost exact (within
10 years) contemporaries and the article I mentioned gives Greyndour's
second wife Isabella as mother of Johanna; this would seem to favour
William the son as more likely chronologically, unless William the
brother was on a later marriage to a younger woman (although she was
not then an heiress). Thomas Walwyn (d.1415) may be found in HoP, House
of Commons 1386-1421, vol iv pp.765-6; Sir John Greyndour is also in
that series but I don't have a copy of his entry. These provide
abundant references. (There is no mention of Bickerton in Thomas'
holdings therein.)

Dear Matthew,

I am back from my long weekend and have had a chance to study your
information. I have also had a chance to reread the VCH-Gloucs account
of Ruardean, an excerpt of which I have copied below. On examining the
VCH account, it doesn't imply (as I had assumed in my prior reading)
that the William Walwyn who m. Ellen was a son of the Thomas Walwyn who
m. Isabel Hathaway. What VCH does seem to imply is that Ellen, who was
a widow of William Walwyn in 1445, was a sister of Isabel Hathaway and
coheir of the Ruardean property. Therefore we are presented with yet
another William Walwyn!

This new William Walwyn is certainly not the son of Thomas Walwyn &
Isabel Hathaway, yet this new William is probably related to the other
Walwyn family. In fact I tend to think that this William Walwyn might
be the brother mentioned in your source as William Walwyn of Bickerton.
Two sisters (Isabel & Ellen) marrying two brothers (Thomas & William)
is not unheard of. Then the William Walwyn who m. Joanna/Elizabeth
Greyndour would probably be William & Ellen (Hathaway) Walwyn's son.
We don't know how long this latter William Walwyn lived, but one could
speculate that he died v.p. and/or v.m., since the properties all
seemed to come together in the hands of his son William Walwyn
(grandson of Ellen & William), of Bickerton & Ruardean, d. 1471. This
would explain how William of Bickerton ended up with property in
Ruardean (part from his grandmother Ellen, and part from his cousin
Isabel Hyde). It would also place the William Walwyn who m.
Joanna/Elizabeth Greyndour closer to his wife's age, as she was b.
c1395 (or at minimum after 1384).

I have updated the tables from my previous posting to include your
information, plus my proposed changes. I also changed the ">"
previously used in my tables to a ".", as the ">" had unintended
consequences.

Regards,

Jim Weber

----------

VCH-GLOUCS, RUARDEAN (HATHAWAYS)

....Thomas Hathaway, the owner in 1366, (Footnote 16) held land in
Ruardean from the Crown for a cash rent paid at St. Briavels castle and
at his death in 1376 his heirs were his infant daughters Isabel, Sibyl,
and Ellen. (Footnote 17) His estates in Ruardean and St. Briavels were
divided between them in 1382, when Isabel and her husband Thomas Walwyn
received her share. (Footnote 18) The Crown retained the other shares
until Sibyl, who married Nicholas Hyde, and Ellen came of age.
(Footnote 19) Thomas Walwyn, of Much Marcle (Herefs.), died in 1415 and
was survived by Isabel and several sons, of whom Richard was his heir.
(Footnote 20) In 1445 Ellen, the widow of William Walwyn, quitclaimed
rents in Ruardean to John Hickox and his wife Isabel, and in 1450
Isabel quitclaimed land which she had inherited from her mother Sibyl
Hyde to William Walwyn of Bickerton in Much Marcle. (Footnote 21)
William held a manor court in 1454, (Footnote 22) when he was also
described as of Ruardean, (Footnote 23) and at his death in 1471
Hathaways, held from Ruardean manor for 1d., passed to his daughter
Alice, wife of Thomas Baynham (Footnote 24) (d. 1500)...

[From: 'Ruardean', A History of the County of Gloucester: Volume V:
Bledisloe Hundred, St. Briavels Hundred, The Forest of Dean (1996),
pp. 231-47. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=23261. Date
accessed: 08 July 2005]

----------

UPDATED TABLES for Dean, Greyndour, Hathaway, Baynham, & Walwyn lines.

TABLE A. Mitcheldean - VCH-Gloucs Vol V

1.William son of Norman, of Dean in 1086.
..1. Hugh of Dean, fl. 1130.
..1. William of Dean, fl. time of Miles of Gloucester (d. 1143) & his
son Roger Earl of Hereford (d. 1155).
..1. William of Dean, d.<1199. (this generation is blurred with the
prior in VCH)
..1. Geoffrey of Dean, held Mitcheldean 1199.
..1. William of Dean, d. c1259.
..1. Henry of Dean, d. c1292; (m. Agatha, da. of William de Lasborough.
[VCH-Gloucs, St. Briavels])
..1. William of Dean, d. c1310.
..1. William of Dean, d. c1319, m. Isabel, fl. 1320, d.<1328.
..1.1. Joan of Dean, fl. 1384, m. 1) John Esger;
..1.1. .....................by 1334 m. 2) Ralph Baynham (ap Eynon), d.
by 1366.
..1.1.1. Margaret, heir of Joan of Dean (or by 1st husband?), fl. 1384;
m. William of the hall, constable of Grosmont.
..1.1.2. Thomas Baynham, d. in 1376; m. Joan, fl. 1376.
..1.1.2.1. Thomas Baynham, d.<1395.
..1.1.2.1.1. John Baynham, minor 1395 when he was Joan of Dean's heir,
fl. 1411, d.<1418; (m. Elizabeth. [VoG])
..1.1.2.1.1.1. Robert Baynham, d. 1436; (m. Margaret Abrale/Abrahall
[VoG]).
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Thomas Baynham, minor 1436, d. 1500; m. 1) (Margaret,
da. of Richard or John Huddy [VoG])
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Sir Alexander Baynham, (heir by 1st wife), of
Mitcheldean, d. 1524.
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1. John Baynham, of Mitcheldean, d. 1528 (d.s.p.).
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2. William Baynham, of Mitcheldean, d. 1568; m. Anne,
fl. 1573 (holding Mitcheldean).
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1. Robert Baynham, d. 1572; m. Mary, d. 1610; m. Sir
Robert Woodruff, d. 1609.
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.2. Joseph Baynham, d. 1613, granted (temporarily?)
Mitcheldean in 1574 to Thomas Horn.
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1. Alexander Baynham sold Mitcheldean in 1619 to
Nicholas Roberts.
..1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Thomas Baynham (above) by 1471 m. 2) Alice Walwyn SEE
TABLE B.
..1.2. Isabel of Dean (, d.<1358; m. 1) Ralph Abenhall; m by 1354. 2)
John Basset. [VCH-Littledean]) SEE TABLE C.

TABLE B. Newland (Clearwell Manor) - VCH-Gloucs Vol V.

1. Richard son of Joce, Woodward of Dean, fl. 1223
..1. William Joce (maybe son of Richard), Forester of Dean, fl. 1245.
..1. William Joce (maybe son of William), held Bearse bailiwick in
Newland in 1282.
..1. Philip Joce, given lands in Newland in 1320 by William (or another
William Joce (son of William?)).
..1.1. (Sir Philip Joce, of Clearwell, of age 1310, fl. 19 Dec 1341.
[A2A])
..1.2. (John Joce, of Newland, of age 1310 (at which time he was named
"senior"). [A2A, VoG])
..1.2.1.. John Joce, (b. bef 1310 [A2A]), mentioned with son John in
1365.
..1.2.1.1. John Joce, of age 1365, d.<1389; m. by 1378 Isabel; m. by
1395 John Greyndour SEE BELOW.
..1.2.2. (Margaret Joce m. Robert Greyndour [VoG])
..1.2.2.1. Lawrence Greyndour, fl. 1358; m. Margaret heiress of
Abenhall, d. 1375. SEE TABLE C.
..1.2.2.1.1. John Greyndour, d. 1415/6, of Clearwell; m. 1) Marion; m.
by 1395 2) Isabel SEE ABOVE.
..1.2.2.1.1.1. Robert Greyndour (by 1st wife), d. 1443; m. Joan Rugge,
d. 1484; m. bef 1455 John Barre, d. 1483.
..1.2.2.1.1.1.1. Elizabeth, b. c1420, dsp. 1452; m. 1) Reynold West
[Lord la Warre]; m. 2) John Tiptoft [Earl of Worcs]
..1.2.2.1.1.2. (Elizabeth/Joanna Greyndour, b.c1395 [VoG, SGM]); m.
William Walwyn of Bickerton. SEE TABLE D.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1. William Walwyn, of Bickerton & Ruardean, d. 1471 (m.
Elizabeth dau. of William Lanks [SGM])
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1. Alice Walwyn, d.1518; m. by 1471 1) Thomas Baynham;
m. 2) Sir Walter Dennis. SEE TABLE A.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.1. (Isabel Baynham, d.>24 Jun 1517; m. Giles Brugge of
Cubberley, d. 1 Dec 1511 [CP 3:152, SGM])
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2. (Elizabeth Baynham; m. 1) Robert Russell; 2) Robert
Throckmorton of Coughton [AR7, SGM])
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3. Sir Christopher Baynham, heir of his mother, of
Clearwell; (m. Joane Morgan [VoG])
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1. Sir George Baynham, d. 1546; (m. Cecily, da. of
John Gage by Philippa Guilford [VoG])
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.1. Christopher Baynham, minor 1546, fl. 1555,
dsp.<1558.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.2. Richard Baynham, dsp. 1580.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3. Thomas Baynham, d. 1611; (m. Mary da. of
William Winter [VoG])
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1. Cecily Baynham; m. Sir William Throckmorton,
Bt, d. 1628.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1. Sir Baynham Throckmorton, of Clearwell, d.
1664.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1.1. Sir Baynham Throckmorton, of Clearwell,
d. c1680; m. Catherine, fl. 1698.
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1.1.1. Catherine Wild (dau.) & Carolina
Scrymsher (step-dau.) sold Clearwell in 1698
..1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.2. Joan Baynham; m. John Vaughan.

TABLE C. Abenhall - VCH-Glocs Vol V.

1. William Abenhall, a woodward in 1216 and 1237.
..1. Ralph Abenhall, fl. 1255.
..1. Ralph Abenhall (possibly same as above), d. c1301.
..1.1. John Abenhall, dsp.<1317.
..1.2. Ralph Abenhall, fl.1317, granted Abenhall to his brother Reynold.
..1.3. Reynold Abenhall, d. c1341.
..1.3.1. Ralph Abenhall, d.c1347; (m. Isabel of Dean; m. by 1354 John
Basset [VCH-Littledean]) SEE TABLE A.
..1.3.1.1. Margaret Abenhall, heir, d. 1375, m. Lawrence Greyndour, of
Newland, fl. 1358. SEE TABLE B.

TABLE D. Ruardean (Hathaways Court) - VCH-Gloucs Vol V.

1. William Hathaway, of Ruardean, d. c1317.
..1. William Hathaway, of Ruardean, d.<1355.
..1. Walter Hathaway, of Ruardean, d.<1366.
..1. Thomas Hathaway, of Ruardean, d. 1376.
..1.1. Isabel Hathaway, heir of Hathaway in 1382, b. c1366, d.>1415, m.
Thomas Walwyn, of Much Marcle, d. 1415.
..1.1.1. Richard Walwyn, heir, of Much Marcle.
..1.1.2. (Thomas Walwyn, of Hellens Manor? [BP])
..1.1.2.1. (Margaret Walwin; m. William de Croft, Sheriff of Hereford
[BP])
..1.1.3. (William Walwyn, of Longford, b. c1390, d. 1440; m. Jane/Joan
dau. of Thomas Whitney. [SGM])
..1.2. Sibyl Hathaway, b. c1369, d.<1450; m. Nicholas Hyde.
..1.2.1. Isabel in 1450 quitclaimed lands inherited from Sibyl (mother)
to William Walwyn of Bickerton.
..1.3. Ellen Hathaway, b. c1372, fl. 1445; m. William Walwyn, d.<1445
(of Bickerton, brother of Thomas d. 1415 [SGM, me])
..1.3.1. William Walwyn, of Bickerton (m. Elizabeth/Joanna Greyndour,
b.c1395 [VoG, SGM]) SEE TABLE B.

[Jim Weber]

Dear Newsgroup,

I am reposting my prior message, as it seems that whenever I try to be
a little fancy with special characters (">", "." and "..."), google
screws up my entire message.

Jim Weber

[email protected] wrote:

I've collected a bit about the Walwyn family as I have a more recent
descent from them. Thomas Walwyn who d.1415 had both a son and a
brother called William (they are each mentioned in his will); the
brother is identified in the Walwyn pedigree in Duncombe's Hereford as
being the William of Bickerton who married Joanna Greyndour (it gives
their son William d.1470, m. Elizabeth dau William Lanks, and had Alice
d.1518 m. Thomas Baynham d.1500, with issue). The William who was son
of Thomas Walwyn was of 'Longworth' (usually Longford). According to
BLG he was b.c1390, m. Jane/Joan dau. Sir Thomas Whitney, and d.1440.
However, it is still possible that they may have been confused over
time and swapped some details- the chronology may give a clue. Thomas
Walwyn and Sir John Greyndour do seem to have been almost exact (within
10 years) contemporaries and the article I mentioned gives Greyndour's
second wife Isabella as mother of Johanna; this would seem to favour
William the son as more likely chronologically, unless William the
brother was on a later marriage to a younger woman (although she was
not then an heiress). Thomas Walwyn (d.1415) may be found in HoP, House
of Commons 1386-1421, vol iv pp.765-6; Sir John Greyndour is also in
that series but I don't have a copy of his entry. These provide
abundant references. (There is no mention of Bickerton in Thomas'
holdings therein.)

Dear Matthew,

I am back from my long weekend and have had a chance to study your
information. I have also had a chance to reread the VCH-Gloucs account
of Ruardean, an excerpt of which I have copied below. On examining the
VCH account, it doesn't imply (as I had assumed in my prior reading)
that the William Walwyn who m. Ellen was a son of the Thomas Walwyn who
m. Isabel Hathaway. What VCH does seem to imply is that Ellen, who was
a widow of William Walwyn in 1445, was a sister of Isabel Hathaway and
coheir of the Ruardean property. Therefore we are presented with yet
another William Walwyn!

This new William Walwyn is certainly not the son of Thomas Walwyn &
Isabel Hathaway, yet this new William is probably related to the other
Walwyn family. In fact I tend to think that this William Walwyn might
be the brother mentioned in your source as William Walwyn of Bickerton.
Two sisters (Isabel & Ellen) marrying two brothers (Thomas & William)
is not unheard of. Then the William Walwyn who m. Joanna/Elizabeth
Greyndour would probably be William & Ellen (Hathaway) Walwyn's son.
We don't know how long this latter William Walwyn lived, but one could
speculate that he died v.p. and/or v.m., since the properties all
seemed to come together in the hands of his son William Walwyn
(grandson of Ellen & William), of Bickerton & Ruardean, d. 1471. This
would explain how William of Bickerton ended up with property in
Ruardean (part from his grandmother Ellen, and part from his cousin
Isabel Hyde). It would also place the William Walwyn who m.
Joanna/Elizabeth Greyndour closer to his wife's age, as she was b.
c1395 (or at minimum after 1384).

I have updated the tables from my previous posting to include your
information, plus my proposed changes. I also eliminated the ">"
previously used in my tables, as the ">" had unintended consequences.

Regards,

Jim Weber

----------

VCH-GLOUCS, RUARDEAN (HATHAWAYS)

Thomas Hathaway, the owner in 1366, (Footnote 16) held land in Ruardean
from the Crown for a cash rent paid at St. Briavels castle and at his
death in 1376 his heirs were his infant daughters Isabel, Sibyl, and
Ellen. (Footnote 17) His estates in Ruardean and St. Briavels were
divided between them in 1382, when Isabel and her husband Thomas Walwyn
received her share. (Footnote 18) The Crown retained the other shares
until Sibyl, who married Nicholas Hyde, and Ellen came of age.
(Footnote 19) Thomas Walwyn, of Much Marcle (Herefs.), died in 1415 and
was survived by Isabel and several sons, of whom Richard was his heir.
(Footnote 20) In 1445 Ellen, the widow of William Walwyn, quitclaimed
rents in Ruardean to John Hickox and his wife Isabel, and in 1450
Isabel quitclaimed land which she had inherited from her mother Sibyl
Hyde to William Walwyn of Bickerton in Much Marcle. (Footnote 21)
William held a manor court in 1454, (Footnote 22) when he was also
described as of Ruardean, (Footnote 23) and at his death in 1471
Hathaways, held from Ruardean manor for 1d., passed to his daughter
Alice, wife of Thomas Baynham (Footnote 24) (d. 1500).

[From: 'Ruardean', A History of the County of Gloucester: Volume V:
Bledisloe Hundred, St. Briavels Hundred, The Forest of Dean (1996),
pp. 231-47. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=23261. Date
accessed: 08 July 2005]

----------

UPDATED TABLES for Dean, Greyndour, Hathaway, Baynham, & Walwyn lines.

TABLE A. Mitcheldean - VCH-Gloucs Vol V

1.William son of Norman, of Dean in 1086.
1. Hugh of Dean, fl. 1130.
1. William of Dean, fl. time of Miles of Gloucester (d. 1143) & his son
Roger Earl of Hereford (d. 1155).
1. William of Dean, d.<1199. (this generation is blurred with the prior
in VCH)
1. Geoffrey of Dean, held Mitcheldean 1199.
1. William of Dean, d. c1259.
1. Henry of Dean, d. c1292; (m. Agatha, da. of William de Lasborough.
[VCH-Gloucs, St. Briavels])
1. William of Dean, d. c1310.
1. William of Dean, d. c1319, m. Isabel, fl. 1320, d.<1328.
1.1. Joan of Dean, fl. 1384, m. 1) John Esger;
1.1. .....................by 1334 m. 2) Ralph Baynham (ap Eynon), d. by
1366.
1.1.1. Margaret, heir of Joan of Dean (or by 1st husband?), fl. 1384;
m. William of the hall, constable of Grosmont.
1.1.2. Thomas Baynham, d. in 1376; m. Joan, fl. 1376.
1.1.2.1. Thomas Baynham, d.<1395.
1.1.2.1.1. John Baynham, minor 1395 when he was Joan of Dean's heir,
fl. 1411, d.<1418; (m. Elizabeth. [VoG])
1.1.2.1.1.1. Robert Baynham, d. 1436; (m. Margaret Abrale/Abrahall
[VoG]).
1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Thomas Baynham, minor 1436, d. 1500; m. 1) (Margaret,
da. of Richard or John Huddy [VoG])
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Sir Alexander Baynham, (heir by 1st wife), of
Mitcheldean, d. 1524.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1. John Baynham, of Mitcheldean, d. 1528 (d.s.p.).
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2. William Baynham, of Mitcheldean, d. 1568; m. Anne,
fl. 1573 (holding Mitcheldean).
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1. Robert Baynham, d. 1572; m. Mary, d. 1610; m. Sir
Robert Woodruff, d. 1609.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.2. Joseph Baynham, d. 1613, granted (temporarily?)
Mitcheldean in 1574 to Thomas Horn.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1. Alexander Baynham sold Mitcheldean in 1619 to
Nicholas Roberts.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Thomas Baynham (above) by 1471 m. 2) Alice Walwyn SEE
TABLE B.
1.2. Isabel of Dean (, d.<1358; m. 1) Ralph Abenhall; m by 1354. 2)
John Basset. [VCH-Littledean]) SEE TABLE C.

TABLE B. Newland (Clearwell Manor) - VCH-Gloucs Vol V.

1. Richard son of Joce, Woodward of Dean, fl. 1223
1. William Joce (maybe son of Richard), Forester of Dean, fl. 1245.
1. William Joce (maybe son of William), held Bearse bailiwick in
Newland in 1282.
1. Philip Joce, given lands in Newland in 1320 by William (or another
William Joce (son of William?)).
1.1. (Sir Philip Joce, of Clearwell, of age 1310, fl. 19 Dec 1341.
[A2A])
1.2. (John Joce, of Newland, of age 1310 (at which time he was named
"senior"). [A2A, VoG])
1.2.1.. John Joce, (b. bef 1310 [A2A]), mentioned with son John in
1365.
1.2.1.1. John Joce, of age 1365, d.<1389; m. by 1378 Isabel; m. by 1395
John Greyndour SEE BELOW.
1.2.2. (Margaret Joce m. Robert Greyndour [VoG])
1.2.2.1. Lawrence Greyndour, fl. 1358; m. Margaret heiress of Abenhall,
d. 1375. SEE TABLE C.
1.2.2.1.1. John Greyndour, d. 1415/6, of Clearwell; m. 1) Marion; m. by
1395 2) Isabel SEE ABOVE.
1.2.2.1.1.1. Robert Greyndour (by 1st wife), d. 1443; m. Joan Rugge, d.
1484; m. bef 1455 John Barre, d. 1483.
1.2.2.1.1.1.1. Elizabeth, b. c1420, dsp. 1452; m. 1) Reynold West [Lord
la Warre]; m. 2) John Tiptoft [Earl of Worcs]
1.2.2.1.1.2. (Elizabeth/Joanna Greyndour, b.c1395 [VoG, SGM]); m.
William Walwyn of Bickerton. SEE TABLE D.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1. William Walwyn, of Bickerton & Ruardean, d. 1471 (m.
Elizabeth dau. of William Lanks [SGM])
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1. Alice Walwyn, d.1518; m. by 1471 1) Thomas Baynham; m.
2) Sir Walter Dennis. SEE TABLE A.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.1. (Isabel Baynham, d.>24 Jun 1517; m. Giles Brugge of
Cubberley, d. 1 Dec 1511 [CP 3:152, SGM])
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.2. (Elizabeth Baynham; m. 1) Robert Russell; 2) Robert
Throckmorton of Coughton [AR7, SGM])
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3. Sir Christopher Baynham, heir of his mother, of
Clearwell; (m. Joane Morgan [VoG])
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1. Sir George Baynham, d. 1546; (m. Cecily, da. of
John Gage by Philippa Guilford [VoG])
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.1. Christopher Baynham, minor 1546, fl. 1555,
dsp.<1558.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.2. Richard Baynham, dsp. 1580.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3. Thomas Baynham, d. 1611; (m. Mary da. of William
Winter [VoG])
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1. Cecily Baynham; m. Sir William Throckmorton,
Bt, d. 1628.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1. Sir Baynham Throckmorton, of Clearwell, d.
1664.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1.1. Sir Baynham Throckmorton, of Clearwell, d.
c1680; m. Catherine, fl. 1698.
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.1.1.1.1. Catherine Wild (dau.) & Carolina
Scrymsher (step-dau.) sold Clearwell in 1698
1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1.3.1.3.2. Joan Baynham; m. John Vaughan.

TABLE C. Abenhall - VCH-Glocs Vol V.

1. William Abenhall, a woodward in 1216 and 1237.
1. Ralph Abenhall, fl. 1255.
1. Ralph Abenhall (possibly same as above), d. c1301.
1.1. John Abenhall, dsp.<1317.
1.2. Ralph Abenhall, fl.1317, granted Abenhall to his brother Reynold.
1.3. Reynold Abenhall, d. c1341.
1.3.1. Ralph Abenhall, d.c1347; (m. Isabel of Dean; m. by 1354 John
Basset [VCH-Littledean]) SEE TABLE A.
1.3.1.1. Margaret Abenhall, heir, d. 1375, m. Lawrence Greyndour, of
Newland, fl. 1358. SEE TABLE B.

TABLE D. Ruardean (Hathaways Court) - VCH-Gloucs Vol V.

1. William Hathaway, of Ruardean, d. c1317.
1. William Hathaway, of Ruardean, d.<1355.
1. Walter Hathaway, of Ruardean, d.<1366.
1. Thomas Hathaway, of Ruardean, d. 1376.
1.1. Isabel Hathaway, heir of Hathaway in 1382, b. c1366, d.>1415, m.
Thomas Walwyn, of Much Marcle, d. 1415.
1.1.1. Richard Walwyn, heir, of Much Marcle.
1.1.2. (Thomas Walwyn, of Hellens Manor? [BP])
1.1.2.1. (Margaret Walwin; m. William de Croft, Sheriff of Hereford
[BP])
1.1.3. (William Walwyn, of Longford, b. c1390, d. 1440; m. Jane/Joan
dau. of Thomas Whitney. [SGM])
1.2. Sibyl Hathaway, b. c1369, d.<1450; m. Nicholas Hyde.
1.2.1. Isabel in 1450 quitclaimed lands inherited from Sibyl (mother)
to William Walwyn of Bickerton.
1.3. Ellen Hathaway, b. c1372, fl. 1445; m. William Walwyn, d.<1445 (of
Bickerton, brother of Thomas d. 1415 [SGM, me])
1.3.1. William Walwyn, of Bickerton (m. Elizabeth/Joanna Greyndour,
b.c1395 [VoG, SGM]) SEE TABLE B.

[Tony Hoskins]

Dear Doug,

Thank you very much for the citation to the letters of Pope Urban V. I
will need to look into this document further to ensure 1) that it refers
to a current (1363) matter and 2) whether, if indeed current, it might
be an error, referring to the Count of Nola's earlier wife Giovanna/
Garizie/ Gersende de/di Sabran(o), or 3) that indeed in 1363 Giovanna
(et var.) was still Niccolo's wife.

That Niccolo's Sabran wife is consistently repeated as Sueva's mother
in almost all sources I've encountered is clear, but Shama's repeated
statements sub Orsini and de Balzo to the contrary - that she was rather
the child of Niccolo by his 2nd wife Maria del Balzo - certainly
warrants investigation of his sources.

Of interest, too, would be the fact that Niccolo Orsini, Conte di
Nola's would-be 2nd wife Maria del Balzo would be his first cousin.
Dispensations to establish date of marriage, etc.?

Below, please find three pertinent entries from Davide Shama's
site<www.sardimpex.com> stating Sueva Orsini, Duchessa d'Andria's
mother to have been Maria del Balzo.

Again, many thanks for the courtesy of your informative and kind
reply.

Tony Hoskins


**ORSINI**

K1. Nicola (* 27-8-1331 + testamento: 14-2-1399, morto poco dopo a
Nola), 3° Conte di Nola)

a) = Napoli 1352/1355 Giovanna (o Garizia) de Sabran, figlia di
Guglielmo
Conte di Ariano e di Francesca dei Conti di Celano

b) = ca. 1359 Maria del Balzo, figlia di Raimondo Conte di Soleto e di
Isabella d'Eppes (d'Appia) (* 1340/1341 + ?) (v.)

L1. (ex 1°) Beatrice (* 1352/1355 ca. + ?), Nobile Romana.
= ca. 1368/1370 Luigi Antonio della Ratta 3° Conte di Caserta (v.)

L2. (ex 2°) Roberto (* 1360 ca. + ca. 1400), 4° Conte di Nola
= 1378 ca. Margherita Sanseverino, figlia di Ruggero 2° Conte di
Tricarico
e Altomonte

L3. (ex 2°) Sveva, Nobile Romana.= 8-12-1381 Francesco I del Balzo 1°
Duca d'Andria

L4. (ex 2°) Raimondo detto "Raimondello" Orsini del Balzo (+
Taranto
17-1-1406), Conte di Soleto (occupata nel 1382), Duca di Benevento, 1°
Principe di Taranto, Duca di Bari. = 1384 ca. Maria d'Enghien Contessa
di Lecce


**DEL BALZO, entry # 1**

J2. (ex 2°) Francesco I (+ testamento: 23-4-1422), 2° Conte d'Andria,
1° Duca d'Andria dal 2-1351,

a) = (contratto: 1350) Luisa Sanseverino, forse figlia di Tommaso
6° Conte di Marsico e di Sibilla Pipino dei Conte di Minerbino (+
1351/1352)

b) = 1352 Margherita d'Angiò dei Principi di Taranto, Duchessa
di Bari, figlia di Filippo II Principe di Taranto e di Caterina di
Valois Imperatrice titolare di Costantinopoli (* 1325 + Napoli 1380)
(v.), già divorziata da Edoardo I
Balliol Re di Scozia;

c) = 8-12-1381 Sveva Orsini, figlia di Nicola Conte di Nola e di
Maria del Balzo dei Conti di Soleto (v.)


**DEL BALZO, entry # 2**

J1. Raimondo (+ Napoli 5-8-1375), Signore di Soleto investito nel 1329
e 1° Conte al 1352,

a) = ca. 1331 Margherita d'Aquino 4° Contessa d'Ascoli,
figlia di Cristoforo II 2° Conte di Ascoli e di Teodora Sanseverino dei
Conti di Marsico (+ post 6-3-1339/ante 6-12-1339) (v.), già vedova di
Riccardo da Marzano Conte di Squillace;

b) = tra 6-12-1339 e 15-11-1340 Isabelle d'Eppes (d'Appia), forse
figlia del Cavaliere Jean d'Eppes (+ Napoli 14-7-1375), già vedova di
Adinolfo
d'Aquino Conte di Belcastro e di Drogone di Merleto.

K1. (ex 1°) Giovanni (* 1332 + 20-4-1338).

K2. (ex 2°) Maria (* 1341 ca. + ?), erede della contea di Soleto.
= ca. 1359 Nicola Orsini 3° Conte di Nola

K3. (ex 2°) Altri 3 figli morti infanti

J2. Sveva
= (dote: 400 onze) 1330 Roberto Orsini Conte di Nola

J3. Beatrice
= Francesco della Ratta 2° Conte di Caserta

-----



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