Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of Yo

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The parentage of Archbishop William la Zouche (died 1352) appears to
have confused many genealogists and historians. The current ODNB
account of the Archbishop by the historian, Eric Acheson, has the
following to say regarding the Archbishop's parentage:

Source: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB)

"Zouche, William (d. 1352), administrator and archbishop of York, was
most likely a son of the Roger la Zouche who died in 1302 holding the
manor of Lubbesthorpe in Leicestershire. If this identification is
correct, William's birth would have taken place some time after 1292-
3, the year in which Roger, the eldest son and heir to the
Lubbesthorpe manor, was born. In 1337 the two brothers, William and
Roger, founded chantries at Lubbesthorpe and at Clipsham, Rutland. The
future archbishop was a kinsman (but not a younger son, as has
sometimes been supposed) of William, first Lord Zouche (d. 1352) of
Harringworth. It was the baron's mother, Millicent de Monte Alto, who
had granted Lubbesthorpe to Roger la Zouche the elder in 1267-8, and
it was the baron himself who presented the young William to his first
ecclesiastical benefice, the rectory of Clipsham, in 1315." END OF
QUOTE.

As we can above, Mr. Acheson is less than definite about the
Archbishop's parentage, saying only that he "was most likely a son of
the Roger la Zouche" of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire.

Evidence from contemporary records, however, proves ODNB wrong on this
point. Archbishop William la Zouche was actually the 2nd son of
William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, by his wife,
Maud Lovel. Here is the evidence in a nutshell:

As noted above, Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315. The person who presented him to
this living was William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth.

In 1317 William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth,
likewise settled the manor of Clipsham, Rutland for their lives on his
younger sons, William, John, and Roger, who were to pay him £20 a year
to him for life, and then a rose yearly to his heirs. This
information may be found at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... y=Clipsham

In 1328 the future Archbishop William la Zouche resigned the rectory
of Clipsham, Rutland. The same year he served as a trustee for
Willian and Joan Moton, which Joan was the widow of his older brother,
Eudes la Zouche, who had died in 1326:

Source: National Archives Catalogue: C 143/200/14. William Moton and
Joan his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la Zouch, clerk,
for his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford. 2 Edward
III. [1328] END OF QUOTE.

In 1330 and again in 1333, the three Zouche brothers, William, John,
and Roger, presented to the church of Clipsham, Rutland, proving that
they not only had the manor of Clipsham, but also the advowson of the
church there. This is indicated by two records published in 2003 by
the Lincoln Record Society:

"1383. Institution of M[aster] Ralph Turvill deacon to church of
Clipsham, Rutland, vacant by the resignation of [Master] William la
Zouche; patron, William, John, and Roger, sons of William la Zouche of
Harringworth. Inq. and ind. official of archdn. Woodstock, 9 May
1330." [Reference: Nicholas Bennett, ed., The Registers of Bishop
Henry
Burghersh, 1326-1342, 2 (Lincoln Rec. Soc.90) (2003): 27].

"1470. Institution of William de Osgodby priest, in person of M[aster]
William de Lee, clerk, his proctor, to church of Cllipsham, Rutland,
vacant by the resignation of [Master] Ralph de Turvill; patron,
William, John, and Roger, sons of William la Zouche of Harringworth,
kt. By exchange with church of Haversham. Inq. and ind. official of
archdn. Wooburn, 21 October 1333." [Reference: Nicholas Bennett,
ed., The Registers of Bishop Henry Burghersh, 1326-1342, 2 (Lincoln
Rec. Soc.90) (2003): 38].

In 1337 the king granted a license for alienation in mortmain by
Master William la Zousche, king's clerk, dean of the church of St.
Peter, York, and Roger la Zousche of 10 marks of yearly of land and
rent, not held in chief, to celebrate divine service daily in the
chapel of Lubbesthorpe, [Leicestershire] built in honor of St. Mary,
and in the church of Clipsham, [Rutland] for the souls of the said
William and Roger and their progenitors [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1334-1338 (1895): 406].

On 10 August 1349, it was stated that the king by letters patent had
lately granted license for the king's clerk Master William la Zousche,
then dean of York, and Roger la Zousche to assign in mortmain 10l.
yearly land, and
rent to certain chaplains to celebrate divine service in the chapel of
Lubbesthorpe and in the church of Kilpsham [Clipsham] for the souls of
them and their progenitors ... in part satisfaction of the said sum,
he has granted license for the said William and Roger to assign 100s.
of rent out of three messuages and three caructes of land in
Northwithme and Goneby, held by Robert son of Robert Helewell knight
which are not held in chief as appears by inquisition taken by Saier
de Rocheford, escheator in the county of Lincoln, to a chaplain to
celebrate divine service in the said church for their good estate and
for the souls aforesaid according to an ordinance to be made by them
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1348-1350, pg. 358].

The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0358.pdf

Master William la Zouche, styled dean of York, in the two records
above is none other than Archbishop William la Zouche. I believe it
is safe to assume that the Roger la Zouche mentioned with him in these
records is the same person as his brother, Sir Roger la Zouche, who is
specifically mentioned as his brother in his will [see Testamenta
Eboracensia, 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 55-56]. Robert Helwell,
knight named in the second record would surely be the same person as
the Archbishop's brother-in-law [see, for example, Papal Regs.:
Petitions 1 (1896): 20}.

Since Archbishop la Zouche and Roger la Zouche were involved with
setting up a chapel in the church of Clipsham, Rutland, it stands to
reason that they are the same individuals who were granted the
advowson of the church of that place back in 1317 for the term of
their lives by their father, William la Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth. That they acted alone without their third brother, John
la Zouche, in 1337, is presumably accounted by the fact that John la
Zouche was probably abroad doing studies at that time of this event
[see below]. That they again acted alone in 1349 without John may be
accounted for by the death of John la Zouche in or before 1343.

As for more exact specifics of the third brother, John la Zouche, I
find that he was known as Master John la Zouche, and was a churchman
like Archbishop la Zouche. In 1328 he was presented to the rectory of
Loddiswell, Devon by his father, William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth. In 1331, 1332, and again in 1336-1337, as
Master John la Zouche, Rector of Loddiswell, Devon, he was granted a
license of non-residency for a year by John de Grandison, Bishop of
Exeter, for the purpose of study. In 1333-1334 he served as a trustee
for a settlement made by his father, William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth in cos. Bedford, Somerset, and Wiltshire. In
May 1338 he was granted license to appoint William de Scargehill,
Knt., and Thomas de Thorp his attorneys until Michaelmas. In 1339 he
was granted a license of non-residency from the church of Loddiswell,
Devon by John de Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, in 1339, at the instance
of his brother, William la Zouche, Treasurer of England (afterwards
Archbishop of York). In 1339 William de Weaverham, of Asshton, and
others granted a recognizance of 8 marks to Master John la Zouche,
prebendary of Tervyn. John la Zouche presumably died before 1343,
when his father, William la Zouche, Knt., styled lord of Totnes,
Devon, presented Richard Mulso, of Gaytyngtone, as rector of
Loddiswell, Devon. He was definitely dead before 5 Id. October 1350,
as indicated by a papal letter of that date. References: Annual
Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 511. F.C. Hingeston-Randolph,
The Reg. of John de Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1327-1369) 2
(1897): 617, 657, 838, 918. Papal Regs.: Letters, 3 (1897): 318.
Green, Feet of Fines for Somerset 2 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 12) (1898):
242. VCH Rutland, 2 (1935): 41-45. Treaty Rolls Preserved in the
Public Record Office 2 (1955): 104.

Elsewhere I've noted that Archbishop William la Zouche was styled "my
most dear lord and cousin" in 1342 by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of
Ilkeston, Derbyshire [Reference: William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 11]. These two men were related in the
4th and 3rd degree of kindred (that is, 2nd cousins once removed) by
common descent from William de Cantelowe I as follows:

1. William de Cantelowe I.
2. William de Cantlowe II.
3. Milicent de Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la Zouche.
4. William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth
5. William la Zouche, Archbishop of York

1. William de Cantelowe I.
2. Nicholas de Cantelowe.
3. William de Cantelowe.
4. Nicholas de Cantelowe.

The above record in which William la Zouche was styled "cousin" by
Nicholas de Cantelowe may be found at the following weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/MatrixBoo ... 0(Beaubale).pdf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Renia]

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Which one?

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The advowson of Clipsham, Rutland which was held by Archbishop William
la Zouche and his two brothers, John and Roger, was earlier held by
their paternal grandmother, Milicent de Cantelowe (usually known as
Milicent de Mohaut from her first marriage). Milicent's ownership of
the Clipsham advowson is indicated by a record found in Rolls & Reg.
of Bishop Oliver Sutton, 1280-1299, 2 (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 43) (1946):
112. This record shows that Lady Milicent de Mohaut presented John de
Barrowby as rector of the church of Clipsham, Rutland in 1294.

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FWsWAA ... lr=&pgis=1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Dear Douglas,
I am a little confused. Do you now think that William, Archbishop of
York was the son of William and Maude Lovell? The timeline does not
seem to fit.
Millicent's son, William, was born ca. 1277, seemingly married by
1296, summoned to Parliament in 1308. Ivo, son of William and Maude,
is their eldest born ca. 1298.
It seems clear that Millicent gave Lubbesthorpe to a William la Zouche
in 1268, before the first William lord of Haryngsworth was born. Also,
Roger la Zuche of Lubbesthorpe was 11 years old when his father Roger
died, placing the younger Roger's birth in 1291-2
As I mentioned, Roger held one third knights fee in Lubbesthorpe.
1326-7. Charter of William la Zousch’, lord of Haryngworth enfeoffing
Roger la Zousch’ knight son of Robert la Zousch’ in his manor of
Lubesthorp for the above ? service. Lubbesthorpe. Sunday after St.
Peter Chair, 1 Edw III. 29 Feb 1326-7. Armorial: Zouche with
canton.Dukeof Rutland Manuscripts.
This mention of Robert/Richard is surely Roger who died in 1302, born
ca.1296.
1328-9 Jan. 15. Notification by William la Zouche of Haringworthe that
he has inspected and confirmed the charter of Millicent his mother to
Roger son of William la Zouche for (de) the manor of Lubesthorp, as
follows: 1289-96—Charter of Millicent de Montealto in her widowhood,
enfeoffing Richard la Zouche son of Sir William la Zouche in her manor
of Lubesthrop, rendering therefore to her and her heirs on June 29
annually, a chaplet of roses to be placed on the head of the image of
St. Peter in the church of Lubesthorp in her name.Witnesses: Roger la
Zouche, Alan la Zouche, Robert Neyville, Alexander de Harcourt, Andrew
Estoleye, Peter son of Roger Fitz Peter, Henry de Notyngham, John de
Folevyle, knights; master Henry de Braudeston and Sirs (domini) Hugh
de Brandeston and John la Zouche. Witnesses to Inspeximus: Robert
Burdet, William Moton the younger, Robert Champayn, Nicholas Charneyl,
Ralph Malure, knights and (3others). Lubesthorp. Sunday after St.
Hilary. 2 Edw. III. Armorial: Zouche with a canton. Manuscripts Duke
of Rutland.
William, the future Archibishop, must have become clerk ca. 1329-30.
I will also mention that after Roger la Zouche was indicted in the
death of Roger Belers, his land was taken into the king's hands and
William la zouche of Haryngsworth seemed to petition for it.
There is no doubt that the two lines are close but I cannot see
evidence that the archbishop's father was William of Haryngsworth in
the timeline.
Pat



On Jan 27, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

The parentage of Archbishop William la Zouche (died 1352) appears to
have confused many genealogists and historians. The current ODNB
account of the Archbishop by the historian, Eric Acheson, has the
following to say regarding the Archbishop's parentage:

Source: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB)

"Zouche, William (d. 1352), administrator and archbishop of York, was
most likely a son of the Roger la Zouche who died in 1302 holding the
manor of Lubbesthorpe in Leicestershire. If this identification is
correct, William's birth would have taken place some time after 1292-
3, the year in which Roger, the eldest son and heir to the
Lubbesthorpe manor, was born. In 1337 the two brothers, William and
Roger, founded chantries at Lubbesthorpe and at Clipsham, Rutland. The
future archbishop was a kinsman (but not a younger son, as has
sometimes been supposed) of William, first Lord Zouche (d. 1352) of
Harringworth. It was the baron's mother, Millicent de Monte Alto, who
had granted Lubbesthorpe to Roger la Zouche the elder in 1267-8, and
it was the baron himself who presented the young William to his first
ecclesiastical benefice, the rectory of Clipsham, in 1315." END OF
QUOTE.

As we can above, Mr. Acheson is less than definite about the
Archbishop's parentage, saying only that he "was most likely a son of
the Roger la Zouche" of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire.

Evidence from contemporary records, however, proves ODNB wrong on this
point. Archbishop William la Zouche was actually the 2nd son of
William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, by his wife,
Maud Lovel. Here is the evidence in a nutshell:

As noted above, Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315. The person who presented him to
this living was William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth.

In 1317 William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth,
likewise settled the manor of Clipsham, Rutland for their lives on his
younger sons, William, John, and Roger, who were to pay him £20 a year
to him for life, and then a rose yearly to his heirs. This
information may be found at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... y=Clipsham

In 1328 the future Archbishop William la Zouche resigned the rectory
of Clipsham, Rutland. The same year he served as a trustee for
Willian and Joan Moton, which Joan was the widow of his older brother,
Eudes la Zouche, who had died in 1326:

Source: National Archives Catalogue: C 143/200/14. William Moton and
Joan his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la Zouch, clerk,
for his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford. 2 Edward
III. [1328] END OF QUOTE.

In 1330 and again in 1333, the three Zouche brothers, William, John,
and Roger, presented to the church of Clipsham, Rutland, proving that
they not only had the manor of Clipsham, but also the advowson of the
church there. This is indicated by two records published in 2003 by
the Lincoln Record Society:

"1383. Institution of M[aster] Ralph Turvill deacon to church of
Clipsham, Rutland, vacant by the resignation of [Master] William la
Zouche; patron, William, John, and Roger, sons of William la Zouche of
Harringworth. Inq. and ind. official of archdn. Woodstock, 9 May
1330." [Reference: Nicholas Bennett, ed., The Registers of Bishop
Henry
Burghersh, 1326-1342, 2 (Lincoln Rec. Soc.90) (2003): 27].

"1470. Institution of William de Osgodby priest, in person of M[aster]
William de Lee, clerk, his proctor, to church of Cllipsham, Rutland,
vacant by the resignation of [Master] Ralph de Turvill; patron,
William, John, and Roger, sons of William la Zouche of Harringworth,
kt. By exchange with church of Haversham. Inq. and ind. official of
archdn. Wooburn, 21 October 1333." [Reference: Nicholas Bennett,
ed., The Registers of Bishop Henry Burghersh, 1326-1342, 2 (Lincoln
Rec. Soc.90) (2003): 38].

In 1337 the king granted a license for alienation in mortmain by
Master William la Zousche, king's clerk, dean of the church of St.
Peter, York, and Roger la Zousche of 10 marks of yearly of land and
rent, not held in chief, to celebrate divine service daily in the
chapel of Lubbesthorpe, [Leicestershire] built in honor of St. Mary,
and in the church of Clipsham, [Rutland] for the souls of the said
William and Roger and their progenitors [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1334-1338 (1895): 406].

On 10 August 1349, it was stated that the king by letters patent had
lately granted license for the king's clerk Master William la Zousche,
then dean of York, and Roger la Zousche to assign in mortmain 10l.
yearly land, and
rent to certain chaplains to celebrate divine service in the chapel of
Lubbesthorpe and in the church of Kilpsham [Clipsham] for the souls of
them and their progenitors ... in part satisfaction of the said sum,
he has granted license for the said William and Roger to assign 100s.
of rent out of three messuages and three caructes of land in
Northwithme and Goneby, held by Robert son of Robert Helewell knight
which are not held in chief as appears by inquisition taken by Saier
de Rocheford, escheator in the county of Lincoln, to a chaplain to
celebrate divine service in the said church for their good estate and
for the souls aforesaid according to an ordinance to be made by them
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1348-1350, pg. 358].

The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v8/body/
Edward3vol8page0358.pdf

Master William la Zouche, styled dean of York, in the two records
above is none other than Archbishop William la Zouche. I believe it
is safe to assume that the Roger la Zouche mentioned with him in these
records is the same person as his brother, Sir Roger la Zouche, who is
specifically mentioned as his brother in his will [see Testamenta
Eboracensia, 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 55-56]. Robert Helwell,
knight named in the second record would surely be the same person as
the Archbishop's brother-in-law [see, for example, Papal Regs.:
Petitions 1 (1896): 20}.

Since Archbishop la Zouche and Roger la Zouche were involved with
setting up a chapel in the church of Clipsham, Rutland, it stands to
reason that they are the same individuals who were granted the
advowson of the church of that place back in 1317 for the term of
their lives by their father, William la Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth. That they acted alone without their third brother, John
la Zouche, in 1337, is presumably accounted by the fact that John la
Zouche was probably abroad doing studies at that time of this event
[see below]. That they again acted alone in 1349 without John may be
accounted for by the death of John la Zouche in or before 1343.

As for more exact specifics of the third brother, John la Zouche, I
find that he was known as Master John la Zouche, and was a churchman
like Archbishop la Zouche. In 1328 he was presented to the rectory of
Loddiswell, Devon by his father, William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth. In 1331, 1332, and again in 1336-1337, as
Master John la Zouche, Rector of Loddiswell, Devon, he was granted a
license of non-residency for a year by John de Grandison, Bishop of
Exeter, for the purpose of study. In 1333-1334 he served as a trustee
for a settlement made by his father, William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth in cos. Bedford, Somerset, and Wiltshire. In
May 1338 he was granted license to appoint William de Scargehill,
Knt., and Thomas de Thorp his attorneys until Michaelmas. In 1339 he
was granted a license of non-residency from the church of Loddiswell,
Devon by John de Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, in 1339, at the instance
of his brother, William la Zouche, Treasurer of England (afterwards
Archbishop of York). In 1339 William de Weaverham, of Asshton, and
others granted a recognizance of 8 marks to Master John la Zouche,
prebendary of Tervyn. John la Zouche presumably died before 1343,
when his father, William la Zouche, Knt., styled lord of Totnes,
Devon, presented Richard Mulso, of Gaytyngtone, as rector of
Loddiswell, Devon. He was definitely dead before 5 Id. October 1350,
as indicated by a papal letter of that date. References: Annual
Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 511. F.C. Hingeston-Randolph,
The Reg. of John de Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1327-1369) 2
(1897): 617, 657, 838, 918. Papal Regs.: Letters, 3 (1897): 318.
Green, Feet of Fines for Somerset 2 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 12) (1898):
242. VCH Rutland, 2 (1935): 41-45. Treaty Rolls Preserved in the
Public Record Office 2 (1955): 104.

Elsewhere I've noted that Archbishop William la Zouche was styled "my
most dear lord and cousin" in 1342 by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of
Ilkeston, Derbyshire [Reference: William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 11]. These two men were related in the
4th and 3rd degree of kindred (that is, 2nd cousins once removed) by
common descent from William de Cantelowe I as follows:

1. William de Cantelowe I.
2. William de Cantlowe II.
3. Milicent de Cantelowe, wife of Eudes la Zouche.
4. William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth
5. William la Zouche, Archbishop of York

1. William de Cantelowe I.
2. Nicholas de Cantelowe.
3. William de Cantelowe.
4. Nicholas de Cantelowe.

The above record in which William la Zouche was styled "cousin" by
Nicholas de Cantelowe may be found at the following weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/MatrixBoo ... 0(Beaubale).pdf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 27, 6:55 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
< I am a little confused. Do you now think that William, Archbishop
of
< York was the son of William and Maude Lovell? The timeline does
not
< seem to fit.

Dear Pat ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Archbishop William la Zouche was first appointed to the rectory of
Clipsham, Rutland in 1315 [Reference: Biography of William la Zouche,
Archbishop of York, in ODNB, as quoted in my post]. He was presumably
a young man at that date. His next older brother, Eudes, was old
enough in 1313 to be pardoned with their father for their share in the
death of Peter de Gavaston, Earl of Cornwall. As far as I can tell,
the chronology is just fine

The Zouche family of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire was not ancestral to
Archbishop William la Zouche.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Jan 27, 5:55 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>
wrote:

As I mentioned, Roger held one third knights fee in Lubbesthorpe.
1326-7. Charter of William la Zousch', lord of Haryngworth enfeoffing
Roger la Zousch' knight son of Robert la Zousch' in his manor of
Lubesthorp for the above ? service. Lubbesthorpe. Sunday after St.
Peter Chair, 1 Edw III. 29 Feb 1326-7. Armorial: Zouche with
canton.Dukeof Rutland Manuscripts.
This mention of Robert/Richard is surely Roger who died in 1302, born
ca.1296.

I think there is a mistranscription here. In the published HMC
Rutland the document says Roger, son of Roger.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W_xKHWxNJa8C&pg=PA10

taf

[Gjest]

On Jan 27, 4:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

The parentage of Archbishop William la Zouche (died 1352) appears to
have confused many genealogists and historians. The current ODNB
account of the Archbishop by the historian, Eric Acheson, has the
following to say regarding the Archbishop's parentage:

Source: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB)

"Zouche, William (d. 1352), administrator and archbishop of York, was
most likely a son of the Roger la Zouche who died in 1302 holding the
manor of Lubbesthorpe in Leicestershire. If this identification is
correct, William's birth would have taken place some time after 1292-
3, the year in which Roger, the eldest son and heir to the
Lubbesthorpe manor, was born. In 1337 the two brothers, William and
Roger, founded chantries at Lubbesthorpe and at Clipsham, Rutland. The
future archbishop was a kinsman (but not a younger son, as has
sometimes been supposed) of William, first Lord Zouche (d. 1352) of
Harringworth. It was the baron's mother, Millicent de Monte Alto, who
had granted Lubbesthorpe to Roger la Zouche the elder in 1267-8, and
it was the baron himself who presented the young William to his first
ecclesiastical benefice, the rectory of Clipsham, in 1315." END OF
QUOTE.

As we can above, Mr. Acheson is less than definite about the
Archbishop's parentage, saying only that he "was most likely a son of
the Roger la Zouche" of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire.

Evidence from contemporary records, however, proves ODNB wrong on this
point. Archbishop William la Zouche was actually the 2nd son of
William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, by his wife,
Maud Lovel.

This last statement is just false. Anyhow, you can't seem to make up
your mind. In November of 2005, you posted virtually the same
material and concluded that CP needed corrected, holding this position
until 4 November. Then on 5 November you posed the following:

"I spent the afternoon yesterday at the library checking additional
records on the Zouche familiy of Harringworth, Northamptonshire, and
on
the Zouche family of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire. As best I can
tell,
there appears to have been two sets of contemporary William la
Zouche's, each with a brother named Roger. Both families had
connections to Clipsham, Rutland, both had lands in Lubbesthorpe,
Leicestershire, and both it seems had a Cantelowe connection. To top
it off, both families seem to have had an intermarriage with the
Mallory family. This is the classical medieval problem of two
branches
of the same family using the same given names, only in this case you
have similar ties to the same lands and to similar allied families.
In
short, it is a very complicated matter sorting the two families out
from one another in the surviving records. "

. . .

"In the meantime, having studied additional records on my own, I can
say
I now fully concur with Mr. Bennett's findings. It appears that
Archbishop la Zouche was in fact a younger son of Roger la Zouche
(died
1304), of Lubbesthorpe, and not a younger son of William la Zouche,
Knt. (died 1352), 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, as I originally
stated. Roger la Zouche (died 1304), of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire
was in turn a younger son of William la Zouche (died 1272), of King's
Nympton, Devon and Norton, Northamptonshire. When time permits, I
plan
to post my research findings here and on my website. "

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... c7142d1fa/


Now, again with the same data, you are back to the first conclusion.
Now changing one's mind in light of new data is a good thing, but I
see nothing new here that merits such a change, and this then makes
one wonder how certain this certainty really is, given that the
opposite conclusion has also been proclaimed.

Here is the evidence in a nutshell:

As noted above, Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315. The person who presented him to
this living was William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth.

At a somewhat young age to be a parish priest. Tell me, given that
the overlord family continued to show interest in the Lubbesthorpe
clan, making grants or confirmations in the 1260s, 1280s, 1300s and
1320s, is it so unreasonable that William would so favor a kinsman, a
member of this favored family? Do you have anything but 'names the
same' to draw your conclusion that the priest is the son?

In 1317 William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth,
likewise settled the manor of Clipsham, Rutland for their lives on his
younger sons, William, John, and Roger, who were to pay him £20 a year
to him for life, and then a rose yearly to his heirs. This
information may be found at the following weblink:

I have to think hard to come up with any instance of a parish priest
then being made, in his role as a private property holder, the actual
holder of the advowson under which he served. Do we know that William
the priest and William the landholder are the same man?

In 1328 the future Archbishop William la Zouche resigned the rectory
of Clipsham, Rutland. The same year he served as a trustee for
Willian and Joan Moton, which Joan was the widow of his older brother,
Eudes la Zouche, who had died in 1326:

Source: National Archives Catalogue: C 143/200/14. William Moton and
Joan his wife to grant land at Latchingdon to William la Zouch, clerk,
for his life, retaining land in Oxfordshire. Essex. Oxford. 2 Edward
III. [1328] END OF QUOTE.

You present this as if Joan would only make such a grant to a brother
in law (as you suppose). Again, her father in law had just made grant
to Roger son of Roger. Is it that unreasonable that his daughter in
law would make a grant to a younger brother of the same Roger?


[snip more of same]

Elsewhere I've noted that Archbishop William la Zouche was styled "my
most dear lord and cousin" in 1342 by Nicholas de Cantelowe, of
Ilkeston, Derbyshire [Reference: William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 1 (1830): 11]. These two men were related in the
4th and 3rd degree of kindred (that is, 2nd cousins once removed) by
common descent from William de Cantelowe I as follows:

No, these men are _hypothesized_ to have this relationship. That they
did is the subject of discussion.

And what happened to "and both [families] it seems had a Cantelowe
connection".


taf

[Gjest]

On Jan 28, 11:07 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

The parentage of Archbishop William la Zouche (died 1352) appears to
have confused many genealogists and historians.  The current ODNB
account of the Archbishop  by the historian, Eric Acheson, has the
following to say regarding the Archbishop's parentage:

Source: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB)

"Zouche, William (d. 1352), administrator and archbishop of York, was
most likely a son of the Roger la Zouche who died in 1302 holding the
manor of Lubbesthorpe in Leicestershire. If this identification is
correct, William's birth would have taken place some time after 1292-
3, the year in which Roger, the eldest son and heir to the
Lubbesthorpe manor, was born. In 1337 the two brothers, William and
Roger, founded chantries at Lubbesthorpe and at Clipsham, Rutland. The
future archbishop was a kinsman (but not a younger son, as has
sometimes been supposed) of William, first Lord Zouche (d. 1352) of
Harringworth. It was the baron's mother, Millicent de Monte Alto, who
had granted Lubbesthorpe to Roger la Zouche the elder in 1267-8, and
it was the baron himself who presented the young William to his first
ecclesiastical benefice, the rectory of Clipsham, in 1315."  END OF
QUOTE.

As we can above, Mr. Acheson is less than definite about the
Archbishop's parentage, saying only that he "was most likely a son of
the Roger la Zouche" of Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire.

Evidence from contemporary records, however, proves ODNB wrong on this
point.  Archbishop William la Zouche was actually the 2nd son of
William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth, by his wife,
Maud Lovel.  Here is the evidence in a nutshell:

(snip and removal of tedious cross-posting)

What evidence? What proof? All that the material I have snipped
shows is that there were two contemporaneous men named William
Zouche. There is nothing to "prove" that they are the same person.

NB the theorem "conjecture + wishful thinking = proof" is bad
scholarship, not to mention plain wrong.

MA-R

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Dear "taf",
Yes, on page 10, it is Roger son of Roger, not Robert, however, just
above it says "Richard son of Sir William la Zuche in her manor of
Lubbesthorpe." Apologize for that.
Pat

On Jan 27, 2008, at 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:55 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]
wrote:

As I mentioned, Roger held one third knights fee in Lubbesthorpe.
1326-7. Charter of William la Zousch', lord of Haryngworth enfeoffing
Roger la Zousch' knight son of Robert la Zousch' in his manor of
Lubesthorp for the above ? service. Lubbesthorpe. Sunday after St.
Peter Chair, 1 Edw III. 29 Feb 1326-7. Armorial: Zouche with
canton.Dukeof Rutland Manuscripts.
This mention of Robert/Richard is surely Roger who died in 1302,
born
ca.1296.

I think there is a mistranscription here. In the published HMC
Rutland the document says Roger, son of Roger.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W_xKHWxNJa8C&pg=PA10

taf

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Dear Douglas,

You have included John as a brother of Roger of Lubbesthorpe?
Certainly, a John witnesses the charter of Millicent to Roger son of
Sir William la Zouche but does this mean, he was a brother?

And of the Robert la Zouche:1279 Hugh Beaumis [Belmeis] nominates
Robert la Zusch and Richard Tiffe in Ireland for four years. CPR

The following are not all the same man.
1274 John la Zouche was rector of St. Mary’s Church, West Chitlington,
Sussex.
1277 May. 14. Inspeximus of a writing whereby John de Sancto Johanne,
knight granted Nutus Fulberti, citizen and merchant of Florence and
Mary his wife, for the lives of. Witnesses both of the latter, his
whole manor called Sottewelle, co. Berkshire….Witnesses:- Sir Edmund
earl of Cornwall, Sir Richard de Cornubia, etc. knights, John de la
Zusche. CPR
1285 Commission to R. Loced(ay),Alan son of Roaldus, Walter de
Whighthull and John de Thedemershe, to deliver the goal of Oxford of
Master William de Eboraco, Richard de Luteburgh, John la Zuche and
Michael de Crokedayk, who were put in exigent after the last eyre in
the said county for the death of Nicholas son of William de Hibernia,
and have since surrendred.CPR
1292, a suit took place between William de Bois [Bosco], plaintiff,
and Peter Helewell and John la Zuche, defendants, concerning the
manors of Thorp Ernauld--following Millicent's previous agreement. Who
was this John, an adult in 1292, so born say 1260-70?
Sir Oliver la Zouche had a son John married to an Eleanor, active
early 14thc.

I would hope sincerely that we account for the descendants of Sir
William la Zouche of Black Torrington, Devon. He was Alan and Elena's
son, brother to Eudo. Who might he have married? His son Almaric/Emery
married Thomasina and they had children.

Just to name a few.

Best,
Pat

On Jan 27, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

The advowson of Clipsham, Rutland which was held by Archbishop William
la Zouche and his two brothers, John and Roger, was earlier held by
their paternal grandmother, Milicent de Cantelowe (usually known as
Milicent de Mohaut from her first marriage). Milicent's ownership of
the Clipsham advowson is indicated by a record found in Rolls & Reg.
of Bishop Oliver Sutton, 1280-1299, 2 (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 43) (1946):
112. This record shows that Lady Milicent de Mohaut presented John de
Barrowby as rector of the church of Clipsham, Rutland in 1294.

This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FWsWAA ... lr=&pgis=1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

[Peter Stewart]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3a70ae04-2490-4e08-af24-3091a204af03@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 4:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

Here is the evidence in a nutshell:

This must have been one gigantic nut...not altogether unlike the poster.

As noted above, Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315. The person who presented him to
this living was William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of
Harringworth.

At a somewhat young age to be a parish priest.

The conventional qualifying ages according to different medieval Councils
and under various popes were:

Sub-deacon 20 or 22
Deacon 20, 23, 25 or 30
Parish priest 25 or 30
Bishop 26 for election, 30 for consecration
Cardinal-deacon 22
Cardinal 30

Conspicuous by its absence so far, but presumably amongst the primary
sources that Richardson is going to offer next, is a dispensation for
William Zouche to become a parish priest before he had reached the age of
25.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

One of our enthusiastic posters has provided a useful list of the
appropriate ages for appointments for clergyman in the medieval
period. In answer to this specific question, Eric Acheson's account
of Archbishop William la Zouche in the ODNB states that William la
Zouche was ordained an acolyte by 1315, and was only made a sub-deacon
in 1316. Using the list of ages supplied by our enthusiastic poster,
this indicates that, baring a papal dispensation, Archbishop William
la Zouche had attained his 20th birthday by 1316, and thus was born in
or before 1296. This chronology works fine for him to be Lord
Zouche's 2nd son.

For interest's sake, I've copied below Mr. Acheson's specific comments
regarding Archbishop la Zouche's early period.

Source: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), sub William la
Zouche.

"By this date [1315] Zouche had been ordained acolyte. During the
ensuing year he proceeded to the subdiaconate, but thereafter his
progress through the orders was slow. He was still a subdeacon in
1324, and as late as 1330 he was granted letters dimissory by Bishop
John Grandison of Exeter, enabling him to proceed to all orders. His
long period as a subdeacon indicates that the benefice of Clipsham was
intended to finance his studies at university. In accordance with the
papal constitution Cum ex eo, he was granted four separate
dispensations for study by successive bishops of Lincoln: two by John
Dalderby in 1316 and 1318, and two by Henry Burghersh in 1320 and
1324. He had attained the degree of master of arts by 1320, and it
seems likely that he remained at university for a total period of some
twelve years, culminating in the award of the degree of bachelor of
civil law, which he is known to have received before, and probably
well before, 1335. The place of his studies is not known, but as the
two earlier dispensations stipulated that he was to study within
England it is quite possible that he attended the schools at Oxford."
END OF QUOTE.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 27, 10:26 pm, "Patricia A. Junkin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
<
< You have included John as a brother of Roger of Lubbesthorpe?
< Certainly, a John witnesses the charter of Millicent to Roger son
of
< Sir William la Zouche but does this mean, he was a brother?
<
< Best, Pat

Dear Pat ~

I'm afraid you''re confusing different men named John la Zouche. The
John la Zouche who was the Archbishop's brother was known as Master
John la Zouche. He occurs in the records from the late 1320's through
the early 1340's, and appears to have died in or about 1343. Please
consult my references for further information regarding Master John la
Zouche.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

It was stated by Mr. Acheson in his ODNB account of Archbishop William
la Zouche that the archbishop was an acolyte by 1315.

According to the book, Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in
Late Medieval England, by Christopher Harper-Bill, published in 1991,
the minimum age for acolyte was fifteen. See the weblink below for a
copy of this material on page 89 of this book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dtzzX6 ... ZHDpRGNhZA

Thus, it would appear that Archbishop William la Zouche was born in or
before 1300. Again, the chronology fits fine for him to be William la
Zouche, the known 2nd son of William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche
of Harringworth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Stewart]

[One cross-posting removed - either Richardson is getting less delinquent by
stages or he is less of himself by two or three degrees of broadcasting...]

"Douglas Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7795a080-d64e-4ed3-87ec-86c9e04724b5@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

One of our enthusiastic posters has provided a useful list of the
appropriate ages for appointments for clergyman in the medieval
period. In answer to this specific question, Eric Acheson's account
of Archbishop William la Zouche in the ODNB states that William la
Zouche was ordained an acolyte by 1315, and was only made a sub-deacon
in 1316. Using the list of ages supplied by our enthusiastic poster,

Evidently Richardson does not realise how absurd it is for him to attempt to
be patronising....

this indicates that, baring a papal dispensation, Archbishop William
la Zouche had attained his 20th birthday by 1316, and thus was born in
or before 1296. This chronology works fine for him to be Lord
Zouche's 2nd son.

Um, no - you are being obtuse in the full view of every reader: I wrote that
the qualifying age for a sub-deacon was either 20 or 22, depending on the
prevailing authority at the time in question. Without knowing this, you
can't arbitrarily decide to go with 20 for your current purpose rather than
22. So you have some homework to do on this point, not forgetting the next
problem - when he became a parish priest, unless he had a papal
dispensation, William was required to have attained the age of at least 25,
or alternatively 30. Guessing which is not good enough.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Jan 27, 11:50 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

this indicates that, baring a papal dispensation, Archbishop William
la Zouche had attained his 20th birthday by 1316, and thus was born in
or before 1296. This chronology works fine for him to be Lord
Zouche's 2nd son.

Um, no - you are being obtuse in the full view of every reader: I wrote that
the qualifying age for a sub-deacon was either 20 or 22, depending on the
prevailing authority at the time in question. Without knowing this, you
can't arbitrarily decide to go with 20 for your current purpose rather than
22. So you have some homework to do on this point, not forgetting the next
problem - when he became a parish priest, unless he had a papal
dispensation, William was required to have attained the age of at least 25,
or alternatively 30. Guessing which is not good enough.

Given that the marriage of William and Maud is usually placed "shortly
before 15 Feb 1295/6", and the birth of the eldest son in 1297/8, I do
wonder how a William born "in or before 1296 . . . works fine", let
alone the 1290 that an age of 25 would require (which, by the way,
makes him older than Roger, son of Roger).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:48f902a5-a860-432a-914e-4da345cedc91@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 27, 11:50 pm, "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:

this indicates that, baring a papal dispensation, Archbishop William
la Zouche had attained his 20th birthday by 1316, and thus was born in
or before 1296. This chronology works fine for him to be Lord
Zouche's 2nd son.

Um, no - you are being obtuse in the full view of every reader: I wrote
that
the qualifying age for a sub-deacon was either 20 or 22, depending on the
prevailing authority at the time in question. Without knowing this, you
can't arbitrarily decide to go with 20 for your current purpose rather
than
22. So you have some homework to do on this point, not forgetting the
next
problem - when he became a parish priest, unless he had a papal
dispensation, William was required to have attained the age of at least
25,
or alternatively 30. Guessing which is not good enough.

Given that the marriage of William and Maud is usually placed "shortly
before 15 Feb 1295/6", and the birth of the eldest son in 1297/8, I do
wonder how a William born "in or before 1296 . . . works fine", let
alone the 1290 that an age of 25 would require (which, by the way,
makes him older than Roger, son of Roger).

In William's time the qualifying age for a parish priest could in theory be
as young as 24 (i.e. the 25th year inchoate), as fixed by the fourth Lateran
Council in 1215. This was confirmed by Clement V early in the 14th century.

Richardson only has to riddle his fine way, then, to a birth in 1291. Of
course, if William's parents were not married until shortly before 15
February 1295/6, another kind of dispensation would have to come into
question....

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 28, 2:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
<
< Given that the marriage of William and Maud is usually placed
"shortly
< before 15 Feb 1295/6", and the birth of the eldest son in 1297/8, I
do
< wonder how a William born "in or before 1296 . . . works fine", let
< alone the 1290 that an age of 25 would require (which, by the way,
< makes him older than Roger, son of Roger).
<
< taf

Complete Peerage, 12(2) (1959): 940 (sub Zouche) states that William
la Zouche and his wife, Maud Lovel, were married before 15 February
1295/6. It says nothing about this marriage being "shortly before"
this date. Complete Peerage cites the Patent Rolls as its source for
this statement, which item may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0184.pdf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Gjest]

On Jan 28, 8:02 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2:06 am, [email protected] wrote:

Given that the marriage of William and Maud is usually placed
"shortly
before 15 Feb 1295/6", and the birth of the eldest son in 1297/8, I
do
wonder how a William born "in or before 1296 . . . works fine", let
alone the 1290 that an age of 25 would require (which, by the way,
makes him older than Roger, son of Roger).

taf

Complete Peerage, 12(2) (1959): 940 (sub Zouche) states that William
la Zouche and his wife, Maud Lovel, were married before 15 February
1295/6. It says nothing about this marriage being "shortly before"
this date. Complete Peerage cites the Patent Rolls as its source for
this statement, which item may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0184.pdf

How many years do you think they would have waited to make what by all
appearances looks like a marriage settlement? Given that CP also
places William's birth in 1276, exactly how much before 1295/6 do you
think the marriage can be, to produce a younger son of priestly age by
1315? Given that Eudo's birth is placed 1297/8, how much older could
his younger brother have been?

If the Archbishop really was born 1291 or before, everyone has clearly
been barking up the wrong tree.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

On Jan 28, 9:55 am, [email protected] wrote:

< How many years do you think they would have waited to make what by
all
< appearances looks like a marriage settlement? Given that CP also
< places William's birth in 1276, exactly how much before 1295/6 do
you
< think the marriage can be, to produce a younger son of priestly age
by
< 1315? Given that Eudo's birth is placed 1297/8, how much older could
< his younger brother have been?
<
< If the Archbishop really was born 1291 or before, everyone has
clearly
< been barking up the wrong tree.
<
< taf

Complete Peerage says only that William la Zouche and his wife, Maud
Lovel, were married before 15 Feb. 1295/6. That's what I said, and
that's what Complete Peerage says.

DR

[Gjest]

On Jan 28, 9:18 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 28, 9:55 am, [email protected] wrote:

How many years do you think they would have waited to make what by
all
appearances looks like a marriage settlement? Given that CP also
places William's birth in 1276, exactly how much before 1295/6 do
you
think the marriage can be, to produce a younger son of priestly age
by
1315? Given that Eudo's birth is placed 1297/8, how much older could
his younger brother have been?

If the Archbishop really was born 1291 or before, everyone has
clearly
been barking up the wrong tree.

taf

Complete Peerage says only that William la Zouche and his wife, Maud
Lovel, were married before 15 Feb. 1295/6. That's what I said, and
that's what Complete Peerage says.

Yes, I read it the first time. As long as we are repeating ourselves,
though, perhaps you could address my concerns over your chronology. In
pointing out the above, you obviously think it is relevant that this
source does not use the phrase "'shortly' before" in describing the
marriage date, but you are the one who, when convenient, harps on
original primary documents, so why are you reverting to CP when we can
evaluate the original document:

How many years do you think they would have waited to make what by
all appearances looks like a marriage settlement?

Given that CP also places William's birth in 1276, exactly how much
before 1295/6 do you think the marriage can be, to produce a younger
son of priestly age by 1315?

Given that Eudo's birth is placed 1297/8, how much older could his
younger brother have been?

That is what I asked, for a consideration of the chronology in the
full context, not just a single cherry-picked date that is then _ad
hoc_ed to fit the conclusion already reached, and not for a repetition
of what CP has to say about this one date.

taf

[Gjest]

On Jan 29, 7:19 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting the date 1291, taf.  If you only
have your opinion and no evidence, you should qualify your posts with
that caveat.

DR

Dear Douglas

Here's what I don't understand.

When I first came here, because of the volume and detailed nature of
your posts, I thought you knew what you were talking about. As I
understand it, you claim to be a professional genealogist, and produce
reference works to supplement your income.

Yet you insist on posting to a public newsgroup, the archives of which
are reviewable through public search-engines, and in your postings I
have discovered that you almost invariably demonstrate a lack of (a)
sound judgment, (b) real knowledge and understanding of your period of
claimed expertise, (c) logic, (d) ability to debate like a rational
adult, and (e) collegiality. When I read them, I am usually
embarrassed for you.

I am curious: how exactly do you think these public displays of
serious deficiencies will enhance your reputation or assist you
professionally?

Best wishes, Michael

[Leticia Cluff]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:31:06 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 29, 7:19 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting the date 1291, taf.  If you only
have your opinion and no evidence, you should qualify your posts with
that caveat.

DR

Dear Douglas

Here's what I don't understand.

When I first came here, because of the volume and detailed nature of
your posts, I thought you knew what you were talking about. As I
understand it, you claim to be a professional genealogist, and produce
reference works to supplement your income.

Yet you insist on posting to a public newsgroup, the archives of which
are reviewable through public search-engines, and in your postings I
have discovered that you almost invariably demonstrate a lack of (a)
sound judgment, (b) real knowledge and understanding of your period of
claimed expertise, (c) logic, (d) ability to debate like a rational
adult, and (e) collegiality. When I read them, I am usually
embarrassed for you.

I am curious: how exactly do you think these public displays of
serious deficiencies will enhance your reputation or assist you
professionally?

Best wishes, Michael

Michael,

I too would like to read an answer to your question,
but it will probably be ignored since you forgot
to include the all-important weblink.

Tish

[Peter Stewart]

On Jan 28, 6:32 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

It was stated by Mr. Acheson in his ODNB account of Archbishop
William la Zouche that the archbishop was an acolyte by 1315.

It was stated by Mr. Richardson in the first post of this thread that
"Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315." A parrochial rector was, of
course, a priest, not an acolyte. It's rather bizarre (though we are
used to it by now) that both were presented consecutively, without
cross-referencing, as facts leading to further deductions by the same
poster.

No doubt he will soon go back to his discarded opinion of 2005, and
present this hereafter as his consistent position ever since, that he
has been forced to defend, as a scholarly professional, against the
vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary amateurs.

By the way, a few days ago in another thread (on the sons of Aubry II,
count of Mâcon) I misstakenly described a sub-deacon as being in minor
orders - this is wrong, a sub-deacon is in major orders.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

On Jan 28, 12:19 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 28, 9:55 am, [email protected] wrote:

On Jan 28, 8:02 am, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2:06 am, [email protected] wrote:

Given that the marriage of William and Maud is usually placed
"shortly
before 15 Feb 1295/6", and the birth of the eldest son in 1297/8, I
do
wonder how a William born "in or before 1296 . . . works fine", let
alone the 1290 that an age of 25 would require (which, by the way,
makes him older than Roger, son of Roger).

taf

Complete Peerage, 12(2) (1959): 940 (sub Zouche) states that William
la Zouche and his wife, Maud Lovel, were married before 15 February
1295/6. It says nothing about this marriage being "shortly before"
this date. Complete Peerage cites the Patent Rolls as its source for
this statement, which item may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e ... ge0184.pdf

How many years do you think they would have waited to make what by all
appearances looks like a marriage settlement? Given that CP also
places William's birth in 1276, exactly how much before 1295/6 do you
think the marriage can be, to produce a younger son of priestly age by
1315? Given that Eudo's birth is placed 1297/8, how much older could
his younger brother have been?

If the Archbishop really was born 1291 or before, everyone has clearly
been barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not sure where you're getting the date 1291, taf.

Perhaps were you to reread the thread, this would become more clear.
Compare in particular your post reporting when the Archbishop became
parish priest with Peter's post regarding the minimum age for being a
parish priest and subtract the latter from the former. Let me know if
you need help with the math.

If you only
have your opinion and no evidence, you should qualify your posts with
that caveat.

If you only would follow this advice yourself, Mr. Pot.

taf

[John Foster]

That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place, instead of
waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary amateurs" that
they can tear apart?

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of York


On Jan 28, 6:32 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

It was stated by Mr. Acheson in his ODNB account of Archbishop
William la Zouche that the archbishop was an acolyte by 1315.

It was stated by Mr. Richardson in the first post of this thread that
"Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315." A parrochial rector was, of
course, a priest, not an acolyte. It's rather bizarre (though we are
used to it by now) that both were presented consecutively, without
cross-referencing, as facts leading to further deductions by the same
poster.

No doubt he will soon go back to his discarded opinion of 2005, and
present this hereafter as his consistent position ever since, that he
has been forced to defend, as a scholarly professional, against the
vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary amateurs.

[Peter Stewart]

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

That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place,

Well, for one thing, because this is just a newsgroup, not a refereed
journal.

instead of waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary
amateurs" that they can tear apart?

The agenda of one researcher does not determine the priorities of others. We
are not all working in synch, of course. Usually a thread is raised here
becuase one person is immediately interested in the subject, and others
either take it up from that point or delve into notes, and memories, from
prior occasions.

On the specific point of my remark, apparently you have not observed the
modus operandi of Douglas Richardson in other cases after he has been forced
to change his mind in order to avoid admitting error...

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

Says who? This sounds like the voice of a spoilt generation, expecting to
have all the work of medieval genealogy done for them & presented neatly
tied with a bow.

Scholars working as precisely as practicable with the resources available to
them, in any time including nowadays, can naturally make mistakes or
omissions.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

On Jan 29, 6:03 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.

Before the internet, we all had to rely on whatever resources we could
get our grubby little hands on. In many cases, it wasn't that much.
That includes many *professional* works as well.

Even today, A2A is adding, every month, thousands of documents that in
some cases have *only* been viewed by members of a close family
because they've been squirreled away in their cabinets and drawers and
attics for hundreds of years.

Some of the material of course has been cited and quoted in the past,
and paraphrased and perhaps badly. And even today the editors of the
documents might be badly indexing and paraphrasing the documents
(hopefully not but it happens).

The internet allows all these resources, human and paper to collide in
a way never before attainable. I'm fairly convinced we'll still be at
it for many generations, if only to point out corrections in published
works, based on more modern research.

Will Johnson

[John Foster]

That was a rhetorical question, but I will examine it.

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

"John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place,

Well, for one thing, because this is just a newsgroup, not a refereed
journal.

Money again. I can't afford to subscribe to those things to get the answers,

even if the question was published in my lifetime.

A genealogist on another website concentrated on the non-royal part of the
lineages, because he considered making up the peerage and royal lines
"trivial" and fairly well established.

instead of waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary
amateurs" that they can tear apart?

The agenda of one researcher does not determine the priorities of others.
We are not all working in synch, of course. Usually a thread is raised
here becuase one person is immediately interested in the subject, and
others either take it up from that point or delve into notes, and
memories, from prior occasions.

On the specific point of my remark, apparently you have not observed the
modus operandi of Douglas Richardson in other cases after he has been
forced to change his mind in order to avoid admitting error...

I have, and find it curious. I asked him about it, but didn't receive an
answer. It does make me wonder about the robustness of the book contents.

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

Says who?

The scholars that keep saying that they have had 800 years to figure it out
and anything that is taken from them second hand and published in a new book
is simply "wrong"...

This sounds like the voice of a spoilt generation, expecting to

have all the work of medieval genealogy done for them & presented neatly
tied with a bow.

crossbow or longbow???

Scholars working as precisely as practicable with the resources available
to them, in any time including nowadays, can naturally make mistakes or
omissions.

Peter Stewart
I come from a generation of computer data stylists, which implements quality

checking, redundancy checking, pattern matching, robust programming, edit
checks and other things to keep the data clean.

Garbage in --- garbage out.

Somebody did crash a spacecraft into Mars by assuming that miles per second
was the same thing as kilometers per second. Guidance for an Ariane rocket
blew up in French Guiana because somebody left out a comma.

Some of us nonscholars know what rigorous really means, even though we're
not "actual rocket scientists".

Yes, the "scholars" in my earlier days used ink on index cards. A 40 year
index card project I was aware of [some professor actually got tenure
because he made an index for one publication --- in only 40 years.] when I
was a freshman was redefined a few years later as a few weeks of messing
around with a computer, and no tenure.

Medieval means "B.C." or Before the Computer. I applied for a job in 1992
that wanted all postcollege experience to be with personal computers. I
asked them what I was supposed to have done for eight years until the
personal computer was invented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of York

"John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place,

Well, for one thing, because this is just a newsgroup, not a refereed
journal.

instead of waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary
amateurs" that they can tear apart?

The agenda of one researcher does not determine the priorities of others.
We are not all working in synch, of course. Usually a thread is raised
here becuase one person is immediately interested in the subject, and
others either take it up from that point or delve into notes, and
memories, from prior occasions.

On the specific point of my remark, apparently you have not observed the
modus operandi of Douglas Richardson in other cases after he has been
forced to change his mind in order to avoid admitting error...

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

Says who? This sounds like the voice of a spoilt generation, expecting to
have all the work of medieval genealogy done for them & presented neatly
tied with a bow.

Scholars working as precisely as practicable with the resources available
to them, in any time including nowadays, can naturally make mistakes or
omissions.

Peter Stewart

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of York

That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place, instead of
waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary amateurs"
that
they can tear apart?

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

=========== "All these lineages" how many do you think there were? if it was
10 or even 100, I would agree, but no doubt the figure is very much higher.
What is great about the internet is that knowledge or questions can be
spread so much further than before. Before there was a certain amount of
knowledge as to how far a question would be distributed, but now we have no
idea who is following, say, gen-med. In some cases you can encounter that
someone never replies, we do not know this person exist, and then a question
is asked and this person may know the answer and reply direct to the person
asking the question or else to gen-med for all to see.

Many a time I have received replies and questions from people who do not
want to expose themselves to the ridicule of a few nasty people. It is very
sad that this is the case, as we all may be denied wonderful contributors
and then don't forget the many wonderful contributors we already have lost.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of
York


On Jan 28, 6:32 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

It was stated by Mr. Acheson in his ODNB account of Archbishop
William la Zouche that the archbishop was an acolyte by 1315.

It was stated by Mr. Richardson in the first post of this thread that
"Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315." A parrochial rector was, of
course, a priest, not an acolyte. It's rather bizarre (though we are
used to it by now) that both were presented consecutively, without
cross-referencing, as facts leading to further deductions by the same
poster.

No doubt he will soon go back to his discarded opinion of 2005, and
present this hereafter as his consistent position ever since, that he
has been forced to defend, as a scholarly professional, against the
vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary amateurs.


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date:
1/29/2008 9:51 AM

[John Foster]

No, it doesn't. See Mother Goose.

weblink:

http://www.apples4theteacher.com/mother ... orses.html

RIDE.

I reexamined answers to my own rhetorical question in another message.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of York

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.

[Leo van de Pas]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of York

That was a rhetorical question, but I will examine it.

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

"John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place,

Well, for one thing, because this is just a newsgroup, not a refereed
journal.

Money again. I can't afford to subscribe to those things to get the
answers,
even if the question was published in my lifetime.
========== In a way I agree. I do not have the money to buy all the

books/magazines I would like. But I try to share the contents of those I
have, and at times people with sources I do not have, have been so kind to
provide me with information I otherwise would have no access to.

As far as genealogy is concerned _all_ questions just cannot have been
asked, let alone answered. And by bringing them to a wide group of people,
with a varied interest, it is amazing the assistance we can give each other.

A genealogist on another website concentrated on the non-royal part of the
lineages, because he considered making up the peerage and royal lines
"trivial" and fairly well established.
========== This is nonsense. Only the tip of the iceberg is easily

accessible. And people who feel themselves too good to be associated with
royalty should realise that those families are often better recorded and
with the knowledge around them may supply information for other families. I
think it is great if you can go back 27 generations and I could not care
less whether there are royal ancestors amongst them or not. A royal ancestor
is as much an ancestor as any other.

instead of waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary
amateurs" that they can tear apart?

========== The problem is that there are some people _who know_ they do not
make mistakes and if anyone even dares to suggest they are wrong the knives
come out.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

The agenda of one researcher does not determine the priorities of others.
We are not all working in synch, of course. Usually a thread is raised
here becuase one person is immediately interested in the subject, and
others either take it up from that point or delve into notes, and
memories, from prior occasions.

On the specific point of my remark, apparently you have not observed the
modus operandi of Douglas Richardson in other cases after he has been
forced to change his mind in order to avoid admitting error...



I have, and find it curious. I asked him about it, but didn't receive an
answer. It does make me wonder about the robustness of the book contents.

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

Says who?

The scholars that keep saying that they have had 800 years to figure it
out
and anything that is taken from them second hand and published in a new
book
is simply "wrong"...

This sounds like the voice of a spoilt generation, expecting to
have all the work of medieval genealogy done for them & presented neatly
tied with a bow.

crossbow or longbow???

Scholars working as precisely as practicable with the resources available
to them, in any time including nowadays, can naturally make mistakes or
omissions.

Peter Stewart
I come from a generation of computer data stylists, which implements
quality
checking, redundancy checking, pattern matching, robust programming, edit
checks and other things to keep the data clean.

Garbage in --- garbage out.

Somebody did crash a spacecraft into Mars by assuming that miles per
second
was the same thing as kilometers per second. Guidance for an Ariane rocket
blew up in French Guiana because somebody left out a comma.

Some of us nonscholars know what rigorous really means, even though we're
not "actual rocket scientists".

Yes, the "scholars" in my earlier days used ink on index cards. A 40 year
index card project I was aware of [some professor actually got tenure
because he made an index for one publication --- in only 40 years.] when I
was a freshman was redefined a few years later as a few weeks of messing
around with a computer, and no tenure.

Medieval means "B.C." or Before the Computer. I applied for a job in 1992
that wanted all postcollege experience to be with personal computers. I
asked them what I was supposed to have done for eight years until the
personal computer was invented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Foster, retsof *at* austin.rr.com was retsof *at* texas.net
RETSOFtware, where QUALITY is only a slogan...

TX4.US
RETSOF.US
COKELEY.US
LOVE-M-ALL-PETCARE.TX4.US
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop of
York



"John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place,

Well, for one thing, because this is just a newsgroup, not a refereed
journal.

instead of waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary
amateurs" that they can tear apart?

The agenda of one researcher does not determine the priorities of others.
We are not all working in synch, of course. Usually a thread is raised
here becuase one person is immediately interested in the subject, and
others either take it up from that point or delve into notes, and
memories, from prior occasions.

On the specific point of my remark, apparently you have not observed the
modus operandi of Douglas Richardson in other cases after he has been
forced to change his mind in order to avoid admitting error...

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

Says who? This sounds like the voice of a spoilt generation, expecting to
have all the work of medieval genealogy done for them & presented neatly
tied with a bow.

Scholars working as precisely as practicable with the resources available
to them, in any time including nowadays, can naturally make mistakes or
omissions.

Peter Stewart



-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date:
1/29/2008 9:51 AM

[Peter Stewart]

On Jan 30, 1:51 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

That was a rhetorical question, but I will examine it.

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

news:[email protected]...

"John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place,

Well, for one thing, because this is just a newsgroup, not a refereed
journal.

Money again. I can't afford to subscribe to those things to get the answers,
even if the question was published in my lifetime.

Money doesn't enter into it, except for the aspect of time commitment
& its value - most scholarly journals don't pay enough to think about
it in that light.

The point I meant to make is that SGM is not the first order of
business for contributors, and many posts are written on the hop, as
it were, to contribute some piece of information or opinion that might
move the discussion forward or save someone else from putting in time
and effort on a misguided tangent.

All I am suggesting is that depth of research and polish of results,
on someone else's question, cannot be expected here every time
something matters to a particular reader. This is not a free
information service or medieval genealogy help desk, just a group who
share a broad (or occasionally very narrow) interest, and sometimes
conflict with each other over the interpretation of evidence, or its
comparative credibility, or even what evidence is relevant.

Peter Stewart

[Patricia A. Junkin]

I will venture to say that those of us who delve into the past whether
it be people, places or events have been, throughout history,
constrained by what is available to us, by the interpretation
contemporaries placed on information, by prejudices subsequent
interpreters placed and by mere human frailty in transcription. The
internet has opened a world of information that must be sifted and
analyzed and a degree of credibility assigned based on many factors.
I appreciate all contributions. One never knows where the seed of
truth lies which leads us to re- think, add, subtract, hypothesize or
conclude.
History and genealogy are revisionist disciplines.
My thanks to all contributors.
Pat

On Jan 29, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Leo van de Pas wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop
of York


That all seems backwards, somehow. Why don't the scholarly
professionals
make well researched scholarly postings in the first place, instead
of
waiting for "vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary
amateurs"
that
they can tear apart?

All of these lineages should have been argued and settled with
scholarly
precision long before the invention of the internet.

=========== "All these lineages" how many do you think there were?
if it was
10 or even 100, I would agree, but no doubt the figure is very much
higher.
What is great about the internet is that knowledge or questions can be
spread so much further than before. Before there was a certain
amount of
knowledge as to how far a question would be distributed, but now we
have no
idea who is following, say, gen-med. In some cases you can encounter
that
someone never replies, we do not know this person exist, and then a
question
is asked and this person may know the answer and reply direct to the
person
asking the question or else to gen-med for all to see.

Many a time I have received replies and questions from people who do
not
want to expose themselves to the ridicule of a few nasty people. It
is very
sad that this is the case, as we all may be denied wonderful
contributors
and then don't forget the many wonderful contributors we already
have lost.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Parentage of William la Zouche (died 1352), Archbishop
of
York


On Jan 28, 6:32 pm, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

It was stated by Mr. Acheson in his ODNB account of Archbishop
William la Zouche that the archbishop was an acolyte by 1315.

It was stated by Mr. Richardson in the first post of this thread that
"Archbishop William la Zouche was presented to the
rectory of Clipsham, Rutland in 1315." A parrochial rector was, of
course, a priest, not an acolyte. It's rather bizarre (though we are
used to it by now) that both were presented consecutively, without
cross-referencing, as facts leading to further deductions by the same
poster.

No doubt he will soon go back to his discarded opinion of 2005, and
present this hereafter as his consistent position ever since, that he
has been forced to defend, as a scholarly professional, against the
vexatious and uncollegial posturings of contrary amateurs.


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe'
without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 - Release Date:
1/29/2008 9:51 AM




-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message

[wjhonson]

On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

No, it doesn't. See Mother Goose.
weblink:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/mother ... if-wishe...
RIDE.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.- Hide quoted text -

Well I guess we know at least how faulty is my memory.

[wjhonson]

On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

No, it doesn't. See Mother Goose.
weblink:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/mother ... if-wishe...
RIDE.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.- Hide quoted text -

Well I guess we know at least how faulty is my memory.

[wjhonson]

On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

No, it doesn't. See Mother Goose.
weblink:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/mother ... if-wishe...
RIDE.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.- Hide quoted text -

Well I guess we know at least how faulty is my memory.

[wjhonson]

On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

No, it doesn't. See Mother Goose.
weblink:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/mother ... if-wishe...
RIDE.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.- Hide quoted text -

Well I guess we know at least how faulty is my memory.

[wjhonson]

On Jan 29, 7:06 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

No, it doesn't. See Mother Goose.
weblink:
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/mother ... if-wishe...
RIDE.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wjhonson" <[email protected]

If wishes were horses then beggers could fly
As the saying goes.- Hide quoted text -

Well I guess we know at least how faulty is my memory.

[Gjest]

On Jan 30, 1:03 pm, "John Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:

That all seems backwards, somehow.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <[email protected]

What, sort of like top-posting?

MA-R