Slektsforum Slektsforum
Slekt og Data
 
 HjelpHjelp    SøkSøk     Logg InnLogg Inn  Bli medlemBli DIS medlem  engelsk
Hvordan logge på? Les her om registrering og pålogging.
Start nytt emne Gå til side 1, 2, 3 ... 179, 180, 181  Neste   
Vis forrige emne :: Vis neste emne  
Av Innlegg
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 02:17:37    Tittel: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

message unavailable
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 02:17:38    Tittel: Re: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Sitat:
Dear Nat,
I have not seen your article in -Foundations- but your message makes me ask
a perhaps stupid question. "That his father is Pedro Suarez I is suggested
by the reuse of this name in two subsequent generations (elder brothers of
nr.16 and no 1)." This father is nr.32 in your ancestor list given below.

(I could add that the elder brother of no. 4 also bore the name.)

Sitat:
Every generation (except Sancha) have a patronym, 16.is Gomez Perez,
therefor is seems obvious that 32. is Pedro something-----why should this be
Suarez? By suggesting 32 is Pedro Suarez you seem to imply that 64 is Suar
(or similar name)?

To understand this, you need to be aware that the Castile/Leon nobility
went through several successive changes in their naming patterns, and
this specific descent spanned one of the transitions from one pattern to
another. In the earliest documents, individuals are known only by one
name - Diego, Pedro, Nepomucino, or whatever. (by the way, the dates
that follow are extremely rough estimates, from memory) In the 10th
century, patronymics came into use, whereby, as you suggest, a Pedro
Suarez would be son of someone named Suario, Fernan Gonzalez son of a
Gonzalo, etc. This system was hard and fast - no exceptions.

Next, toponymics or other descriptors began to be used, but these were
not yet surnames (ca. 11th/12th century). Like early Norman bynames,
they described the land the person was lord of, or some physical or
otherwise distinguishing characteristic. Thus you would have Gonzalo
Salvadorez de Lara being father of Rodrigo Gonzalez de Bureba, but these
then became more or less locked into place, and became true surnames
(with the caveat that several men are known to have taken their maternal
surname if it was more prominant or more distinctive).

Once surnames had been established, they supplanted the role of
patronymics, but rather than abandoning these forms, they used
patronymic forms as part of the given name (13th/14th century) A Fernan
Perez de Ayala could be father of Pedro Lopez de Ayala, but, and this is
the important part, they did not pick these combinations by whim - the
person was given the full name, given and patronymic, of an ancestor
(paternal or paternal). Thus, Pedro Lopez de Ayala was named for his
paternal grandfather, also Pedro Lopez. Fernan Perez named daughters
Elvira Alvarez, Ines Alfonso, Juana Garcia, etc, and in each case there
was an ancestor with the exact name combination.

The next step came when a particular combination came to be associated
with a family, usually when sequential generations had the same given
name, or alternated generations, but one name was more distinctive, it
would 'lock into place' as part of a true surname. Hence after three
successive Diego Garcia de Toledo generations, every member of the
family thereafter bore the surname Garcia de Toledo, or Ponce de Leon,
or Alvarez de Toledo, etc. The final change came when they began to
link bother their paternal and maternal surnames, and hence someone
could be Juan Ponce de Leon y Alvarez de Toledo (hypothetical - all of
the others are actual).

Now, returning to our example, this pedigree spans the conversion of
true patronymics to artificial ones and surnames. The brother of Number
1. Pedro Suarez de Toledo, had a name not derived from his father, Diego
Gomez. 2. Diego Gomez received a true patronymic, being son of 4. Gomez
Perez. In the previous generation, neither 4. Gomez Perez nor his
brother Pedro Suarez had a true patronymic, being sons of 8. Fernando
Gomez, and hence a true patronymic would have made them both Fernandez
(as was their brother, Gutierre Fernandez). The first was named for his
paternal grandfather, 16. Gomez Perez, the second, as great uncle, was
probably the person 2. Diego Gomez named his son for, but likewise must
have had a close ancestor named Pedro Suarez, as they did not just make
these combinations up. 8. Fernando Gomez had a true patronymic, as did
all his documented siblings, making his generation the first in this
family to name their children by the new system. That takes us to 16.
Gomez Perez. He is the first that can be directly linked, and he has
been given at last three different pedigrees by various authors. We can
say with certainty that his father was named Pedro. Looking at the
nobility of Toledo in the generation before, there are several Pedros,
but one in particular attracts attention - this is a Pedro Suarez, who
held the same (non-hereditary) title and some lands in the same areas.
The chronlogy is right, and further, there must be a Pedro Suarez
somewhere in the pedigree, and not any more distant, and while the wives
of Gomez Perez and Fernan Gomez do not have fully elaborated pedigrees,
they don't seem to have come from families using either Pedro nor
Suario. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that this Pedro Suarez was
father of Pedro Gomez, and the man for whom his grandson Fernan Gomez
named a son.

taf
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 02:31:11    Tittel: Re: Horace Round's boast Svar med Sitat

Sitat:
That he actually said this has been questioned, but whether or not that was the case, I have been researching at least one immigrant that can be traced in many lines to the 15th century, and some to the 14th and 13th, yet has no detected royal descents. In several cases, the pedigree branches off a generation before a royal marriage, and in one case from the second wife, when the first wife was of royal descent.

This latter is to be expected if a typical person has several
sons.


If I were connected "one generation earlier" I would be a descendant of James V of Scotland (and Henry VII), and Pocahontas. If there were a different wife, my Ironmonger line would connect to Edward I instead of just Henry I.

Everybody gets hit like this.<

So true. I can count, without cheating and peaking at my charts, at least five different lines where I've missed royal lines through a second wife (a Bolles descent) or a connection in an earlier generation that misses the descendant who married into a gateway line (Baldwin, Avery, Gurdon and others). These near misses make the search for the connection all that more interesting!

Dave Morehouse
Hopkins, MN

Doug McDonald
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 03:16:52    Tittel: Re: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

Dear Nat,
I have not seen your article in -Foundations- but your message makes me ask
a perhaps stupid question. "That his father is Pedro Suarez I is suggested
by the reuse of this name in two subsequent generations (elder brothers of
nr.16 and no 1)." This father is nr.32 in your ancestor list given below.

Every generation (except Sancha) have a patronym, 16.is Gomez Perez,
therefor is seems obvious that 32. is Pedro something-----why should this be
Suarez? By suggesting 32 is Pedro Suarez you seem to imply that 64 is Suar
(or similar name)?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Blount-Ayala


Sitat:
Another SGMer pointed out a much more obvious misstatement in my
'Robessart' piece in _Foundations_: earlier on the same page I called
the original Pedro Suarez Sancha de Ayala's great-grandfather, when in
fact he appears to have been her great-great-great-grandfather. As has
been discussed here before, Sancha de Ayala's paternal line seems to be:

32. Pedro Suarez [I]
16. Gomez Perez I
8. Fernan Gomez
4. Gomez Perez II
2. Diego Gomez
1. Sancha de Ayala

The line is proven back to 16 by inscriptions and the tomb of Fernan
Gomez (no. Cool in his palace, which is now the Franciscan convent of
Santa Isabel in Toledo. That his father is Pedro Suarez I is suggested
by the reuse of this name in two subsequent generations (elder brothers
of no. 16 and no. 1).

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 04:34:48    Tittel: Re: OT :Age Survey Svar med Sitat

Dear Dave,
I think I know what You mean about Genealogy being `your`
calling, that`s also how I regard it. I believe We are all born with a
variety of `gifts` and that a number of genetic factors help decide which gifts
We are more apt to make the most use of. If a Person were to care about
genealogy somewhat but also had an appitude for sports or dance, then probably
They would not explore their family connections to the same degree as someone to
whom sports or parties didn`t matter as much to. John Parsons in his e-mail
to David Hughes said ` If We were all held responsible for our ancestor`s
misdeeds We`d all be hung and that`s true enough, but by the same token I don`t
think our ancestors should be held responsible for our misdeeds and think
that It`s a mistake to let someone off with a slap on the wrist because of a
supposed genetic predisposition to criminal behavior. There is... or was such a
thing as self control. We know whether or not We are breaking most major laws
and know beforehand that if We are caught doing it there are consequences.
If You don`t agree with a law, lobbey to have it repealed, failing that
discover People who agree with You who want to be elected into office ( Unless, like
Kevin Hearst, you yourself wish to.) .
sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 04:43:11    Tittel: Re: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

Dear Todd,
What a headache. Glad you have the knowledge to explain this. These
transitions of naming patterns, what sparked them off? Was it just a change
in tradition, or was there a specific reason?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <taf2@po.cwru.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Blount-Ayala


Sitat:
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Dear Nat,
I have not seen your article in -Foundations- but your message makes me
ask
a perhaps stupid question. "That his father is Pedro Suarez I is
suggested
by the reuse of this name in two subsequent generations (elder brothers
of
nr.16 and no 1)." This father is nr.32 in your ancestor list given
below.

(I could add that the elder brother of no. 4 also bore the name.)

Every generation (except Sancha) have a patronym, 16.is Gomez Perez,
therefor is seems obvious that 32. is Pedro something-----why should
this be
Suarez? By suggesting 32 is Pedro Suarez you seem to imply that 64 is
Suar
(or similar name)?

To understand this, you need to be aware that the Castile/Leon nobility
went through several successive changes in their naming patterns, and
this specific descent spanned one of the transitions from one pattern to
another. In the earliest documents, individuals are known only by one
name - Diego, Pedro, Nepomucino, or whatever. (by the way, the dates
that follow are extremely rough estimates, from memory) In the 10th
century, patronymics came into use, whereby, as you suggest, a Pedro
Suarez would be son of someone named Suario, Fernan Gonzalez son of a
Gonzalo, etc. This system was hard and fast - no exceptions.

Next, toponymics or other descriptors began to be used, but these were
not yet surnames (ca. 11th/12th century). Like early Norman bynames,
they described the land the person was lord of, or some physical or
otherwise distinguishing characteristic. Thus you would have Gonzalo
Salvadorez de Lara being father of Rodrigo Gonzalez de Bureba, but these
then became more or less locked into place, and became true surnames
(with the caveat that several men are known to have taken their maternal
surname if it was more prominant or more distinctive).

Once surnames had been established, they supplanted the role of
patronymics, but rather than abandoning these forms, they used
patronymic forms as part of the given name (13th/14th century) A Fernan
Perez de Ayala could be father of Pedro Lopez de Ayala, but, and this is
the important part, they did not pick these combinations by whim - the
person was given the full name, given and patronymic, of an ancestor
(paternal or paternal). Thus, Pedro Lopez de Ayala was named for his
paternal grandfather, also Pedro Lopez. Fernan Perez named daughters
Elvira Alvarez, Ines Alfonso, Juana Garcia, etc, and in each case there
was an ancestor with the exact name combination.

The next step came when a particular combination came to be associated
with a family, usually when sequential generations had the same given
name, or alternated generations, but one name was more distinctive, it
would 'lock into place' as part of a true surname. Hence after three
successive Diego Garcia de Toledo generations, every member of the
family thereafter bore the surname Garcia de Toledo, or Ponce de Leon,
or Alvarez de Toledo, etc. The final change came when they began to
link bother their paternal and maternal surnames, and hence someone
could be Juan Ponce de Leon y Alvarez de Toledo (hypothetical - all of
the others are actual).

Now, returning to our example, this pedigree spans the conversion of
true patronymics to artificial ones and surnames. The brother of Number
1. Pedro Suarez de Toledo, had a name not derived from his father, Diego
Gomez. 2. Diego Gomez received a true patronymic, being son of 4. Gomez
Perez. In the previous generation, neither 4. Gomez Perez nor his
brother Pedro Suarez had a true patronymic, being sons of 8. Fernando
Gomez, and hence a true patronymic would have made them both Fernandez
(as was their brother, Gutierre Fernandez). The first was named for his
paternal grandfather, 16. Gomez Perez, the second, as great uncle, was
probably the person 2. Diego Gomez named his son for, but likewise must
have had a close ancestor named Pedro Suarez, as they did not just make
these combinations up. 8. Fernando Gomez had a true patronymic, as did
all his documented siblings, making his generation the first in this
family to name their children by the new system. That takes us to 16.
Gomez Perez. He is the first that can be directly linked, and he has
been given at last three different pedigrees by various authors. We can
say with certainty that his father was named Pedro. Looking at the
nobility of Toledo in the generation before, there are several Pedros,
but one in particular attracts attention - this is a Pedro Suarez, who
held the same (non-hereditary) title and some lands in the same areas.
The chronlogy is right, and further, there must be a Pedro Suarez
somewhere in the pedigree, and not any more distant, and while the wives
of Gomez Perez and Fernan Gomez do not have fully elaborated pedigrees,
they don't seem to have come from families using either Pedro nor
Suario. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that this Pedro Suarez was
father of Pedro Gomez, and the man for whom his grandson Fernan Gomez
named a son.

taf

Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 04:45:05    Tittel: Re: Age Survey and Question to Leo van de Pas Svar med Sitat

In my case I was fascinated since a very early age
(I'm 5Cool by the tales my father used to tell about the
Acciaioli, my paternal gmother's family (they used to
say that the Doria were just a bunch of sugarcane
planters from Bahia - one of our states - and before
that pirates; the description is an apt one). One of
our elder cousins then gave me the volume of Moreri's
Dictionnaire - a huge book, I still remember it - with
lots of Acciaioli bios. My relatives had a good deal
of the later family generations in their memories, and
so it was somewhat easy to collect it.

My mother's family also had their memories, down from
the legend of the rape (we weren't told of that part)
of the princess of Armenia by Dom Mendo Alam de
Bragança in the 11th century. Their genealogy was
well-known, since it was a family of great influence
in Brazilian politics - a president of the republic,
several cabinet ministers, state governors - in the
late 19th century and early 20th century. (Now this is
all gone.)

fa

--- marshall kirk <mkkirk@rcn.com> escreveu:
Sitat:
I'm 46, but became interested in genealogy at 12,
primarily because
I'd seen pedigree charts in history books, and
wondered what such a
chart of my own family would look like. I quizzed
my mother
searchingly and unmercifully (my father knew little
about his
relatives), and charted the results. Hearing of
this, a first cousin
once removed (then about 70) sent me a good deal of
material about our
shared ancestry back to colonial days. That the
ancestry of ordinary
folks like us could be traced so far was a
revelation to me.
Unfortunately, I lived in a rural town in Maine, was
poor, and had no
access to the materials necessary to do my own
research, so the
interest died on the vine.----Or rather, the seed
lay dormant. At 32,
as I was skimming through a copy of *Atlantic*
magazine, my eye fell
on a sidebar (featuring a photo of Gary Boyd
Roberts) about NEHGS.
Although I'd lived in Boston for 14 years, I'd had
no idea there was a
genealogical library in town. I went in 'for an
afternoon' to 'look
up my ancestry,' and was permanently hooked. Within
a year, I was
working there.

Our patrons were of all ages from teens to eighties;
the distribution
was rather flat between, say, 30 and 70, with some
bias -- due
largely, I think, to the availability of free time
-- toward older
folks. These, of course, were the people who
actually came in;
whether the age-distribution of members who didn't
come to the library
was similar, I couldn't say.


"family history" <X@X.com> wrote in message
news:<WiaSc.1793$mg.1689@amsnews02.chello.com>...
Just read that Kevin Hearst is only is 20. I' m in
my early twenties, and
have been interested in genealogy since the age of
17 or so. Just
wondering, since a lot of people on here (from
what I have gathered) are a
bit older, and not knowing a lot of people in
their twenties interested in
the matter: do you think that genealogy is a
science practiced only by old
age pensioners?


On a side note: Leo van de Pas; I noticed that I
am registered in your
database (nice webpage by the way, well done). I
don't really care being
mentionned there (although i'm not really
comfortable with it either) , but
isn't it illegal to publish the data of people who
are still alive?







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! Acesse: http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 04:47:48    Tittel: Re: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

Notice that the patronym system worked quite well in
Portugal in some cases until de late 15th century and
early 16th century.

fa

--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
escreveu:
Sitat:
Dear Todd,
What a headache. Glad you have the knowledge to
explain this. These
transitions of naming patterns, what sparked them
off? Was it just a change
in tradition, or was there a specific reason?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <taf2@po.cwru.edu
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Blount-Ayala


Leo van de Pas wrote:
Dear Nat,
I have not seen your article in -Foundations-
but your message makes me
ask
a perhaps stupid question. "That his father is
Pedro Suarez I is
suggested
by the reuse of this name in two subsequent
generations (elder brothers
of
nr.16 and no 1)." This father is nr.32 in your
ancestor list given
below.

(I could add that the elder brother of no. 4 also
bore the name.)

Every generation (except Sancha) have a
patronym, 16.is Gomez Perez,
therefor is seems obvious that 32. is Pedro
something-----why should
this be
Suarez? By suggesting 32 is Pedro Suarez you
seem to imply that 64 is
Suar
(or similar name)?

To understand this, you need to be aware that the
Castile/Leon nobility
went through several successive changes in their
naming patterns, and
this specific descent spanned one of the
transitions from one pattern to
another. In the earliest documents, individuals
are known only by one
name - Diego, Pedro, Nepomucino, or whatever. (by
the way, the dates
that follow are extremely rough estimates, from
memory) In the 10th
century, patronymics came into use, whereby, as
you suggest, a Pedro
Suarez would be son of someone named Suario,
Fernan Gonzalez son of a
Gonzalo, etc. This system was hard and fast - no
exceptions.

Next, toponymics or other descriptors began to be
used, but these were
not yet surnames (ca. 11th/12th century). Like
early Norman bynames,
they described the land the person was lord of, or
some physical or
otherwise distinguishing characteristic. Thus you
would have Gonzalo
Salvadorez de Lara being father of Rodrigo
Gonzalez de Bureba, but these
then became more or less locked into place, and
became true surnames
(with the caveat that several men are known to
have taken their maternal
surname if it was more prominant or more
distinctive).

Once surnames had been established, they
supplanted the role of
patronymics, but rather than abandoning these
forms, they used
patronymic forms as part of the given name
(13th/14th century) A Fernan
Perez de Ayala could be father of Pedro Lopez de
Ayala, but, and this is
the important part, they did not pick these
combinations by whim - the
person was given the full name, given and
patronymic, of an ancestor
(paternal or paternal). Thus, Pedro Lopez de
Ayala was named for his
paternal grandfather, also Pedro Lopez. Fernan
Perez named daughters
Elvira Alvarez, Ines Alfonso, Juana Garcia, etc,
and in each case there
was an ancestor with the exact name combination.

The next step came when a particular combination
came to be associated
with a family, usually when sequential generations
had the same given
name, or alternated generations, but one name was
more distinctive, it
would 'lock into place' as part of a true surname.
Hence after three
successive Diego Garcia de Toledo generations,
every member of the
family thereafter bore the surname Garcia de
Toledo, or Ponce de Leon,
or Alvarez de Toledo, etc. The final change came
when they began to
link bother their paternal and maternal surnames,
and hence someone
could be Juan Ponce de Leon y Alvarez de Toledo
(hypothetical - all of
the others are actual).

Now, returning to our example, this pedigree spans
the conversion of
true patronymics to artificial ones and surnames.
The brother of Number
1. Pedro Suarez de Toledo, had a name not derived
from his father, Diego
Gomez. 2. Diego Gomez received a true patronymic,
being son of 4. Gomez
Perez. In the previous generation, neither 4.
Gomez Perez nor his
brother Pedro Suarez had a true patronymic, being
sons of 8. Fernando
Gomez, and hence a true patronymic would have made
them both Fernandez
(as was their brother, Gutierre Fernandez). The
first was named for his
paternal grandfather, 16. Gomez Perez, the second,
as great uncle, was
probably the person 2. Diego Gomez named his son
for, but likewise must
have had a close ancestor named Pedro Suarez, as
they did not just make
these combinations up. 8. Fernando Gomez had a
true patronymic, as did
all his documented siblings, making his generation
the first in this
family to name their children by the new system.
That takes us to 16.
Gomez Perez. He is the first that can be directly
linked, and he has
been given at last three different pedigrees by
various authors. We can
say with certainty that his father was named
Pedro. Looking at the
nobility of Toledo in the generation before, there
are several Pedros,
but one in particular attracts attention - this is
a Pedro Suarez, who
held the same (non-hereditary) title and some
lands in the same areas.
The chronlogy is right, and further, there must be
a Pedro Suarez
somewhere in the pedigree, and not any more
distant, and while the wives
of Gomez Perez and Fernan Gomez do not have fully
elaborated pedigrees,
they don't seem to have come from families using
either Pedro nor
Suario. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that
this Pedro Suarez was
father of Pedro Gomez, and the man for whom his
grandson Fernan Gomez
named a son.

taf









_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! Acesse: http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 04:57:43    Tittel: Re: Sir John Peche's companions Svar med Sitat

On November 13th, Sir John's horse was led forth by "Mistress
St.Leger, a daughter of the Duchess of Exeter."
----
"Mistress St. Leger" would seem to be Anne St. Leger (c1475/6-1526),
daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas St. Leger by his wife, Anne [widowed]
Duchess of Exeter, daughter of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York.
Although, Douglas Richardson in PA states Anne St. Leger was married
"about 1490" to George Manners, 11th Lord de Ros , no other candidate
comes to mind at the moment. If this identification is correct,
"Mistress St. Leger" was niece of Edward IV and Richard III, and was in
the year of the joust,1494, first cousin to the Queen, Henry VII's wife,
Elizabeth of York.







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
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 05:04:08    Tittel: RE: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V04 #681 Svar med Sitat

Unscribe please
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 05:33:15    Tittel: Re: Age Survey and Question to Leo van de Pas Svar med Sitat

"family history" <X@X.com> wrote:

Sitat:

Just read that Kevin Hearst is only is 20. I' m in my early twenties, and
have been interested in genealogy since the age of 17 or so. Just
wondering, since a lot of people on here (from what I have gathered) are a
bit older, and not knowing a lot of people in their twenties interested in
the matter: do you think that genealogy is a science practiced only by old
age pensioners?
snip


Well, some of us - and I would gather quite a few more than some - got
interested in the subject as early as childhood, and started gathering
information then. I know this describes me.

Grant (at 40 not pensioned off as yet)


=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 06:05:02    Tittel: Re: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

Let me just add that the Barroso link to the da Maia
family is a secure, well-documented one.

fa

--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
escreveu:
Sitat:
Another SGMer pointed out a much more obvious
misstatement in my
'Robessart' piece in _Foundations_: earlier on the
same page I called
the original Pedro Suarez Sancha de Ayala's
great-grandfather, when in
fact he appears to have been her
great-great-great-grandfather. As has
been discussed here before, Sancha de Ayala's
paternal line seems to be:

32. Pedro Suarez [I]
16. Gomez Perez I
8. Fernan Gomez
4. Gomez Perez II
2. Diego Gomez
1. Sancha de Ayala

The line is proven back to 16 by inscriptions and
the tomb of Fernan
Gomez (no. Cool in his palace, which is now the
Franciscan convent of
Santa Isabel in Toledo. That his father is Pedro
Suarez I is suggested
by the reuse of this name in two subsequent
generations (elder brothers
of no. 16 and no. 1).

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! Acesse: http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 06:44:32    Tittel: Re: Blount-Ayala Svar med Sitat

Leo van de Pas wrote:

Sitat:
What a headache. Glad you have the knowledge to explain this. These
transitions of naming patterns, what sparked them off? Was it just a change
in tradition, or was there a specific reason?


Each of them has similar bases to those seen among the
Anglo-Normans and others, just in different combinations. The
need to distinguish people of the same common name led to the use
of the patronymics (in the spanish case, throw in the immitation
of the moors). A greater stability in land tenure and hereditary
titles led to the use of toponymics, and thence toponymic
surnames. This rendered the patronymics superfluous, but instead
of abandoning them, they converted them into the equivalent of a
middle name. Finally, these pseudo-patronymics crystalized into
heretitary surnames just as patronymics elsewhere did (the need
here was that at least four different large extended families
were all surnamed "de Toledo", so this failed to provide
distinction, hence Alvarez de Toledo vs. Garcia de Toledo.

taf
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 10:45:04    Tittel: Re: Fw: Hearst Family Genealogy Svar med Sitat

Impressive website - I noticed that we share a few ancestors in the
Dunboyne Butler line. Are you familiar with the International Butler
Society? The heart & soul of the society recently passed away and his
son now holds the title of Lord Dunboyne. You might check out the
Butler Society website. If you wish to carry back the Dunboyne line
farther, I may be able to help. Our most recent ancestors in common
are Theobald "Big Toby" Butler who died in 1795 and Elizabeth Lee of
Waterford. I descend from their son, William Butler of Drom. If you
have not already researched the Dunboyne line, you will have great
fun, I think, in doing so. They branched from the Ormond line which
included a marriage to a daughter of Edward I. Happy hunting...Bronwen
Edwards
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 12 Aug 2004 20:13:44    Tittel: Re: Dennis-Stradling Svar med Sitat

Dear Mr Clagett:

I was interested in your views regarding Edward Stradling and his wife
Joan Beaufort as parents of Joan/Katherine Stradling, wife of Maurice
Dennis. Obviously, it is desirable that more research be conducted, but
perhaps equally important here is that more careful analysis be bent in
considering the known evidence. This is a case where genealogists are,
it seems to be, well advised to immerse themselves more than is
customarily their wont in the history of the times and in the, happily
for the present case, fairly well-documented life of one of the
principals - Cardinal Beaufort.

If your phrase,

"I am less convinced by the argument, made here recently, that the
daughter must have been legitimate because Cardinal Beaufort would not
have countenanced Stradling's marrying one of his bastards to the
desirable Dennis heir."

refers to my posting, I would point out that I did not say
Joan/Katherine "must" be the daughter. I said, "is it likely that both
Sir Edward Stradling's wife and her immensely powerful father Cardinal
Beaufort would have countenanced, in about 1432, the awarding of this
particular rich husband to Sir Edward Stradling's illegitimate
daughter."

My comments were in no way categorical as you imply.

Nonetheless, arguments against the identification seem labored, but are
necessary, with additional research and consideration, to reach a more
satisfactory determination.

With best wishes,

Anthony Hoskins, M.A.
Head, History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Archivist
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library System
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95403

707.545-0831, ext. 562



Sitat:
"Clagett, Brice" <bclagett@cov.com> 08/11/04 09:14AM
Congratulations to Brad Verity on his excellent and interesting

article in the current _Foundations_. Of particular interest to me
was the footnote discussing, in a very non-committal way,
whether Edward Stradling had a daughter Joan or Katherine who
married Maurice Dennis.

It seems likely to me that Maurice Dennis did marry a daughter
of Edward Stradling, given the assertions in two early visitations
and the close relations between the two families. I am less con-
vinced by the argument, made here recently, that the daughter
must have been legitimate because Cardinal Beaufort would not
have countenanced Stradling's marrying one of his bastards to
the desirable Dennis heir. (If Stradling had no available legitimate
daughters, why would Beaufort have cared?)

At page 253 Verity refers to "the several bastards of Edward's who
were born prior to his marriage to Jane [Beaufort]." I'd be glad to
know the source for this, and whether it gives the names of the
bastards. Of course Clark's _Limbus Patrum Morganiae et Glamor-
ganiae (1886) p. 435 lists several bastards of his (not including
Joan/Katherine), but I suspect Verity has another source since
Clark does not say that the bastards were born before Edward's
marriage.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 13 Aug 2004 02:12:55    Tittel: Re: Sir John Peche's companions Svar med Sitat

I can help with the St. Leger daughter.  She was Anne St. Leger (b. abt
1476), daughter of Anne of York (Duchess of Exeter) and Sir Thomas St. Leger.  She
married George Manners, Lord Ros and died on 21 April 1526 and was the mother
of Thomas Manners, Earl of Rutland (amongst other issue). 

Rose
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 13 Aug 2004 13:36:56    Tittel: Re: Dennis-Stradling Svar med Sitat

bclagett@cov.com ("Clagett, Brice") wrote in message news:

Sitat:
Congratulations to Brad Verity on his excellent and interesting
article in the current _Foundations_. Of particular interest to me
was the footnote discussing, in a very non-committal way,
whether Edward Stradling had a daughter Joan or Katherine who
married Maurice Dennis.

Thanks, Brice. I'm glad you enjoyed the article - I had fun writing
it. Joe Edwards of FMG did a great job on creating the charts.

Sitat:
It seems likely to me that Maurice Dennis did marry a daughter
of Edward Stradling, given the assertions in two early visitations
and the close relations between the two families.

I would agree that Maurice married a Stradling as first wife, not so
much from the copy of the 1623 Visitation pedigree of Dennys, which
has a number of flaws (including, apparently, the first name of the
Stradling wife). But from the earlier Dennys pedigree in the College
of Arms.

That Edward Stradling received custody of the Dennys lands after Sir
Gilbert's 1422 death is a good indication that Maurice's wife was a
close relative of Edward, either an illegitimate daughter or a niece
(the names Johanna Stradling and Walter Dennys more favor the John
Stradling/Joan Dauntsey branch of the family).

Sitat:
I am less con-
vinced by the argument, made here recently, that the daughter
must have been legitimate because Cardinal Beaufort would not
have countenanced Stradling's marrying one of his bastards to
the desirable Dennis heir. (If Stradling had no available legitimate
daughters, why would Beaufort have cared?)

I don't think Beaufort would've objected at all. The annual income
from the Dennys lands for the ten years that Maurice remained underage
was a nice financial boost for Beaufort's son-in-law.

Sitat:
At page 253 Verity refers to "the several bastards of Edward's who
were born prior to his marriage to Jane [Beaufort]." I'd be glad to
know the source for this, and whether it gives the names of the
bastards. Of course Clark's _Limbus Patrum Morganiae et Glamor-
ganiae (1886) p. 435 lists several bastards of his (not including
Joan/Katherine), but I suspect Verity has another source since
Clark does not say that the bastards were born before Edward's
marriage.

My sole source for this was a list of the illegitmate children of
Stradling from Clark that Paul Reed provided me. My copy of this list
is back in the States, so I can't provide you the names at the moment,
but I think it matches exactly to Douglas's subsequent post on the
topic.

I haven't done any research into these illegitimate children as they
weren't relevant to the topic of my article. It is purely my own
speculation that most were born before Stradling's marriage. I came
to that conclusion for two reasons: 1) Stradling would've been in his
early 30s in the 1420-22 time span when I presume he married
Beaufort's daughter - so old enough to have fathered a few; 2) when
acting as a feoffee for one of his son-in-law's manors in the 1420s,
Cardinal Beaufort had the reversion be to Edward, Jane and their
legitimate heirs, which seems to indicate there was at least one
illegitimate at the time.

Thanks and Cheers, ------Brad
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 13 Aug 2004 13:55:23    Tittel: Re: Dennis-Stradling Svar med Sitat

hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote in message news:

Dear Mr. Hoskins,

I went to Sonoma State University (BA Psychology 1991), so am pleased
to see a resident of the lovely Santa Rosa join the Dennys/Stradling
debate.

[snip]
Sitat:
If your phrase,

"I am less convinced by the argument, made here recently, that the
daughter must have been legitimate because Cardinal Beaufort would not
have countenanced Stradling's marrying one of his bastards to the
desirable Dennis heir."

refers to my posting, I would point out that I did not say
Joan/Katherine "must" be the daughter. I said, "is it likely that both
Sir Edward Stradling's wife and her immensely powerful father Cardinal
Beaufort would have countenanced, in about 1432, the awarding of this
particular rich husband to Sir Edward Stradling's illegitimate
daughter."

I agree with you that Jane and Cardinal Beaufort would've had no issue
with Edward Stradling's illegitimate daughter marrying the Dennys
heir. But I do want to point out that the marriage took place not in
1432 when Maurice came of age, but far likelier pre-1422.

Since the marriage of Maurice was not included with the custody of the
lands after the death of Sir Gilbert Dennys in 1422 (when Maurice was
10), it's likely the marriage had already been arranged before Sir
Gilbert's death. (There's no record of anyone being granted it after
1422).

I was at the National Archives yesterday and saw the proof for the
next volume in the CIPM series. The Proof of Age for Maurice Dennys
is included. He was born at Siston (a Dennys manor in
Gloucestershire) - I don't recall the exact date (it'll be published
soon). And Edward Stradling was present at the proof of age in 1432.
It was policy for all custodians of property to be informed of the
scheduled date for the proof of age of the minor, but few actually
attended. I'm not sure how noteworthy it was that Stradling was
physically present, but it does show an attention to the process of
transfering custody of the Dennys lands to Maurice. Unfortunately
there's no mention at all of any wife of Maurice, but there wouldn't
be any need to mention one either.

Sitat:
My comments were in no way categorical as you imply.

Nonetheless, arguments against the identification seem labored, but are
necessary, with additional research and consideration, to reach a more
satisfactory determination.

Given the fact that Johanna Stradling Dennys had to be old enough to
give birth to son and heir Walter in the early 1430s, and there is no
evidence for Edward Stradling linked to Cardinal Beaufort or his
daughter prior to 1422 - plus Maurice's marriage likely arranged
before 1422 - chronology would indicate Johanna was not a legitimate
daughter of Edward by Jane Beaufort.

There's always the chance and hope that further evidence will surface.

Cheers, ------Brad
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 13 Aug 2004 14:09:00    Tittel: Re: 3.Conde de Cifuentes Svar med Sitat

I'll look for him. Very likely I have his whole male
line ancestry.

fa

--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
escreveu:
Sitat:
Juan de Silva, 3.Conde de Cifuentes, in 1479 married
Catharine Alvarez de Toledo, a descendant of Henry
II, King of England.

Can anyone confirm who his parents are?

I have no dates for
Alonso de Silva, 2.Conde de Cifuentes, he married
Beatriz de Pacheco
they had at least one son :
Luis de Silva, Senor de Villarego, he died in 1530
and was married to Ana de Condelmaria

It would be presumption on my behalf to say Juan is
a son of Alonso, he probably is, but who is his
mother? Beatriz de Pacheco or another wife of
Alonso?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia







_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! Acesse: http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 00:50:46    Tittel: RE: Gaston de FOIX m 1410 Marguerite d'ALBRET Svar med Sitat

Hi,

ES III, 149 has Marguerite D'ALBRET b: Abt 1390 d: 1453 in Bordeaux m: 10
Apr 1410 Gaston I DE FOIX Compte de Benauges b: Abt 1390 as having three
kids:-

Jean DE FOIX-CANDALE cr Earl of Kendall [Candale] d: Abt 1485
+Margaret KERDESTON m: Abt 1440 Father: Thomas KERDESTON Mother: Elizabeth
DE LA POLE

Isabelle DE FOIX-GRAILLY b: Abt 1415
+Jacques DE PONS

Agnes DE FOIX-GRAILLY
+Pey Poton DE LAMENSAN

Could they also have had the following [listed on many French websites,
whose authors are not too forthcoming with source info!]


Jeanne DE FOIX d: Aft 1473
.. +Jean DE LA LANDE b: Abt 1409 seigneur de La Brede m: 26 Jan 1425/26
Father: Jean DE LA LANDE Mother: Jeanne DE MONTFERRAND

2 Marie DE LA LANDE d: Aft 1477
..... +Berard DE MONTFERRAND vicomte d'Uza, seigneur de Belin & d'Agassac
m: 22 Oct 1447 in Podensac d: 1471 Father: Francois DE MONTFERRAND Mother:
Jouyne DE POMMIERS


Gaston had the following natural children. Francois de MONTFERRAND below is
the same as above, so there was apparently a close connection in some way.

Gaston DE BEARN

Jeanette DE BEARN
+Jeannot DE MONTFERRAND m: 1435 Father: Francois DE MONTFERRAND

Marguerite DE BEARN
+Pierre D'ANGLADE m: 1478

Jeanne DE BEARN
+Raymond AMANJEU m: 1452

Regards,

Don McArthur.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 02:16:04    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

In message of 13 Aug, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Sitat:
Deae Newsgroup,
Edward Davies still has the Dennys pedigree of
circa 1530 at _http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg_
(http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg)

This URL does nto work, even after some tinkering. Can you oblige?

Sitat:
In the depiction of Morris Dennys` first wife Johane Stradling she holds a
shield which in modern terms has a chevron down about midway. it points
upward and two sort of circular or nearly circular objects are situated
either side above the chevron point whilst a third is lined up below
where It comes to a point. So Legitimate or not She was allowed to
display a coat of arms.

Who was allowing her? Or was she just inventing her own?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 02:18:12    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

In message of 13 Aug, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Sitat:
In the depiction of Morris Dennys`
first wife Johane Stradling she holds a shield which in modern terms
has a
chevron down about midway. it points upward and two sort of circular
or nearly
circular objects are situated either side above the chevron point
whilst a third
is lined up below where It comes to a point. So Legitimate or not She
was
allowed to display a coat of arms.
-----------------

*WITHOUT* a bar sinister, it should be noted.


Bar sinisters are not usually used for illegitimate children.
Illegitimates may be granted arms, such will usually be based on their
natural father's but will not normally have any indication that they are
illegitimate.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 02:30:14    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

Deae Newsgroup,
Edward Davies still has the Dennys pedigree of
circa 1530 at _http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg_
(http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg) In the depiction of Morris Dennys`
first wife Johane Stradling she holds a shield which in modern terms has a
chevron down about midway. it points upward and two sort of circular or nearly
circular objects are situated either side above the chevron point whilst a third
is lined up below where It comes to a point. So Legitimate or not She was
allowed to display a coat of arms.
sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 02:41:12    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

In the depiction of Morris Dennys`
first wife Johane Stradling she holds a shield which in modern terms
has a
chevron down about midway. it points upward and two sort of circular
or nearly
circular objects are situated either side above the chevron point
whilst a third
is lined up below where It comes to a point. So Legitimate or not She
was
allowed to display a coat of arms.
-----------------

*WITHOUT* a bar sinister, it should be noted.

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
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 07:15:44    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alleged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:ce7a10de4c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
Sitat:
In message of 13 Aug, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Deae Newsgroup,
Edward Davies still has the Dennys pedigree
of
circa 1530 at _http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg_
(http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg)

This URL does nto work, even after some tinkering. Can you oblige?

Ann:
Needs a slash inserted after ".uk"

(http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk/dennys2.jpg)

L.P.H.,

Ann
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 11:02:09    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alleged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

In message of 14 Aug, "Ann Sharp" <axsc@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Sitat:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:ce7a10de4c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 13 Aug, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Deae Newsgroup,
Edward Davies still has the Dennys pedigree
of
circa 1530 at _http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg_
(http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.ukdennys2.jpg)

This URL does nto work, even after some tinkering. Can you oblige?

Ann:
Needs a slash inserted after ".uk"

(http://www.guiseley94.freeserve.co.uk/dennys2.jpg)

Thanks.

The arms are hopelessy indistinct but they look more like the Dennys
arms from Burke's (none-too-reliable) Armory which have three leopard's
heads plus a few other bits rather than the Stradling arms which start
with being a series of vertica stripes up and down the shield.

And it is not uncommon for a wife to bear her husband's arms.

So I don't think this gets us any further forward.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 13:45:28    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:92ac10de4c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
Sitat:
In message of 13 Aug, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

*WITHOUT* a bar sinister, it should be noted.


Bar sinisters are not usually used for illegitimate children.
Illegitimates may be granted arms, such will usually be based on their
natural father's but will not normally have any indication that they are
illegitimate.

There's no such thing as a bar sinister. A bar is a horizontal band across
the shield, narrower than a fess, and so can be neither dexter nor sinister.
Bars usually come in pairs.

JSG
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 18:38:21    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

"Bar sinister" is an error for "bend sinister", and according to Fox-Davies
even a bend sinister was used only occasionally to denote illegitimacy. He
says a bendlet or baton sinister was more frequently used.

Chris Phillips
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 18:55:21    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s11ddc04.021@CENTRAL_SVR2...
Sitat:
More on bars of a sinister description.

I now see, however, that a certain "Master Gawain of Miskbridge" shares
your opinion.

http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/wrong.html

I will yield to you and Master Gawaine that bar sinister, if ever
strictly correct, is at the least arcane heraldic lingo, albeit bad,
arcane heraldic lingo. Nonetheless "bar sinister" certainly does appear
in literature as a term in reference to bastardy.

To be sure, the phrase is used by people in a literary context. We also talk
about "the four corners of the globe" in the same way, although corners are
found on the surface of a sphere about as often as bars sinister are found
in heraldry.

However, you were using the phrase in a heraldic context, hence my post.

JSG
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 19:39:47    Tittel: The Bar Sinister Svar med Sitat

Hear, Hear!

Far and away the best BAR SINISTER is a very long, friendly one made of
fine, polished mahogany -- with toothsome barmaids and good cheer.

Rule Britannia.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1cf.288f0cd7.2e4fa066@aol.com...

| My local pub has a bar sinister....
| Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 20:17:57    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

Sitat:
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> 08/14/04 04:45AM

There's no such thing as a bar sinister. A bar is a horizontal band
across
the shield, narrower than a fess, and so can be neither dexter nor
sinister.
Bars usually come in pairs.

JSG

----

I'm afraid you are wrong. Please see:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/bar+sinister

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/bar+sinister.htm


Anthony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 20:31:38    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

More on bars of a sinister description.

I now see, however, that a certain "Master Gawain of Miskbridge" shares
your opinion.

http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/wrong.html

I will yield to you and Master Gawaine that bar sinister, if ever
strictly correct, is at the least arcane heraldic lingo, albeit bad,
arcane heraldic lingo. Nonetheless "bar sinister" certainly does appear
in literature as a term in reference to bastardy.

Tony Hoskins



Sitat:
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> 08/14/04 04:45AM

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:92ac10de4c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
Sitat:
In message of 13 Aug, hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins")
wrote:


Sitat:
*WITHOUT* a bar sinister, it should be noted.


Bar sinisters are not usually used for illegitimate children.
Illegitimates may be granted arms, such will usually be based on
their
natural father's but will not normally have any indication that they
are
illegitimate.

There's no such thing as a bar sinister. A bar is a horizontal band
across
the shield, narrower than a fess, and so can be neither dexter nor
sinister.
Bars usually come in pairs.

JSG
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 21:04:25    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

Chris Phillips wrote:

Sitat:
"Bar sinister" is an error for "bend sinister", and according to Fox-Davies
even a bend sinister was used only occasionally to denote illegitimacy. He
says a bendlet or baton sinister was more frequently used.


Boutell comments:

'Fox-Davies contends that marks of bastardy were used upon a shield by its
bearer to show, not that he was an illegitimate son, but that he was not the
legitimate heir'

The baton sinister is reserved for royal bastards (post 15th century).

'In England', writes Boutell, 'the recognised marks are the bordure wavy
round the arms, and the debruising of the crest by a bendlet sinister wavy'.

Chris D.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 21:05:29    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 14/08/04 17:44:51 GMT Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

Sitat:
Bar sinister" is an error for "bend sinister", and according to Fox-Davies
even a bend sinister was used only occasionally to denote illegitimacy. He
says a bendlet or baton sinister was more frequently used.

Chris Phillips



My local pub has a bar sinister.

I though illegitimacy was shown by changing bars, bends etc. to wavy lines,
but perhaps there was more than one method

Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 21:18:30    Tittel: RE: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

Sitat:
-----Original Message-----
From: ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com [mailto:ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com]

<SNIP>

Sitat:
I though illegitimacy was shown by changing bars, bends etc.
to wavy lines,
but perhaps there was more than one method

Adrian



Adrian,

What is your reference for this assumption? Having had an interest in heraldry for
several years now, at an amateur level, I have never seen this mentioned. I always
understood changing from normal to wavy to be just a method of differencing arms.

Thanks


Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 14 Aug 2004 21:37:53    Tittel: Re: The Bar Sinister Svar med Sitat

Now you're talkin'! Toothsome serving wenches with sinister intent.

T.H.


Sitat:
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> 08/14/04 10:39AM
Hear, Hear!


Far and away the best BAR SINISTER is a very long, friendly one made
of
fine, polished mahogany -- with toothsome barmaids and good cheer.

Rule Britannia.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1cf.288f0cd7.2e4fa066@aol.com...

| My local pub has a bar sinister....
| Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 15 Aug 2004 06:50:45    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

I had Never herd that changing anything to wavy was a sign of bastardry,
could you please give more information on this?
Thanks
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children


Sitat:
In a message dated 14/08/04 17:44:51 GMT Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

Bar sinister" is an error for "bend sinister", and according to
Fox-Davies
even a bend sinister was used only occasionally to denote illegitimacy.
He
says a bendlet or baton sinister was more frequently used.

Chris Phillips



My local pub has a bar sinister.

I though illegitimacy was shown by changing bars, bends etc. to wavy
lines,
but perhaps there was more than one method

Adrian


Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 15 Aug 2004 09:31:54    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

In message of 15 Aug, terry@mairsphotography.com ("Terry") wrote:

Sitat:
I had Never herd that changing anything to wavy was a sign of bastardry,
could you please give more information on this?

I think the point is more likely to be that the bastard cannot inherit
their father's arms unchanged. So a grant of new arms is needed. So
some change is made to the father's arms and the new version is then
granted to he bastard.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 15 Aug 2004 23:54:13    Tittel: Re: Affaitati, Lafetá Svar med Sitat

A friend just e-mailed me, saying that her former
husband is a Lafetá.

fa





_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - navegue de graça com conexão de qualidade! Acesse: http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 16 Aug 2004 03:17:35    Tittel: Re: Enough already Svar med Sitat

Or be forced to pay reparations...


""Gordon Banks"" <geb@gordonbanks.com> wrote in message
news:BJELLCLFGABOINBAFDPOCEGJCAAA.geb@gordonbanks.com...
Sitat:
And if we are to be blamed for the crimes of our ancestors, we'd all need
hanging.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Parsons [mailto:carmi47@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:49 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Enough already


my great-great-grandfather and
how he has the blood of your druggie, suicide committing cousin on his
hands
---------------------------
in memory of Michael, age 18, my cousin, a sweet boy, tender youth,
adorable child, victim of a bad law by a bad man, i love you...

Kevin: I am sure everyone on the list could see how upset you were when
you
wrote and sent the above message. Please let me offer two suggestions for
the future: first, draft your message but let it sit for 24 hours before
you send it. Then read it again carefully. Second, for Heaven's sake
have
the decency to respect other people's grief and don't refer to a tragedy
of
this nature in such appallingly slighting terms as you do above.

David: William Randolph Hearst was a powerful and influential man and his
memory naturally attracts strong feelings, negative and positive. But he
did not, as the above screed suggests, personally make the law that
criminalized marijuana. Others--citizens' elected representatives--who
were
persuaded by Hearst had as much, if not more, to do with making that law
than he did. The choice whether or not to enact that law was theirs, and
consequently they bear as much responsibility for it as Hearst. Targeting
Kevin's ancestor as the only one responsible is inaccurate and unfair. We
respect your loss, but please don't parade it like this.

Both of you: please remember that this is a discussion group about
medieval
genealogy.

Respectfully,

John P.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 16 Aug 2004 05:58:31    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children Svar med Sitat

Which of course makes sense I just wanted to make sure there was nothing on
this that I was not aware of.
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Edward Stradling`s alledged illegitimate children


Sitat:
In message of 15 Aug, terry@mairsphotography.com ("Terry") wrote:

I had Never herd that changing anything to wavy was a sign of bastardry,
could you please give more information on this?

I think the point is more likely to be that the bastard cannot inherit
their father's arms unchanged. So a grant of new arms is needed. So
some change is made to the father's arms and the new version is then
granted to he bastard.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org


Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 17 Aug 2004 00:24:04    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling`s Alledged Illegitimate ChIldren Svar med Sitat

Dear Daniel MacGregor,
What We have is a lack of provable
information as to whether Joan / Katherine ( Stradling) Dennys who wed Morris
Dennys, Esq around 1430 and died probably giving birth to her second son in
1433/34 was Sir Edward Stradling`s legitimate daughter by Jane Beaufort or not.
Given that the wife Joan Stradling`s name is so close to Jane, It`s not
improbable, but far from certain. Likewise. I don`t believe that lack of reference
to her or her Dennys descendants in Jane (Beaufort) Stradling`s IPM of
October 1479, more than forty-five years after the death of her purported daughter
is prove positive that such a relationship didn`t exist.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 17 Aug 2004 16:43:03    Tittel: Re: Sidneys of Cranleigh, Surrey Svar med Sitat

The guide to Penshurst Place gives:

Sorry, I have left out a generation in my posting

Nicholas Sidney m Ann Brandon (sister of Sir William B who was father of
Charles B, Duke of Suffolk)
]
Sir William Sindey (1482-1554) m Anne Pakenham
]
Sir Henry Sidney KG (1529-1586) m Mard d of John Dudley, Duke of
Northumberland
]
1) Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) the famous poet m Frances dau of Sir Francis

Walsingham (queen Elizabeth's spy master)
2)Sir Robert Sidney 1st Earl of Leicester (1563-1626) m Barbara Gamage
3) Lady Mary Sidney m 2nd earl of Pembroke

Furthermore the text to this guide states that the above Nicholas Sidney was
son of another William Sidney of Kingsham in Sussex, who was MP for the county
in the Parliament of 1429 and 1433

Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 17 Aug 2004 19:59:47    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Hello Daniel:

You've got it pretty much nailed. Points one and two are clear, point
three however should stand for now on the basis of presumption of
legitimacy (as I call it) unless and until something substantive to the
contrary emerges. The discussion seems at this point stalled and
befuddled in the debris left over from for so long assuming Sir Edward I
rather than Sir Edward II was the one having that immense bastard
progeny.

The case is indeed substantially as you have summarized it.

All best,

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California




Sitat:
Daniel MacGregor <dmaqgregor@hotmail.com> 08/16/04 10:21AM
Have been following the discussion of the offspring of Sir Edward

Stradling (d. 1452).

In 1990, I began work on the ancestry of the actress Glenn Close as a
follow-up to the work that I did on the ancestry of her cousin, Brooke
Shields.

Through her paternal grandmother, Elizabeth Taliaferro, the second
Mrs. Edward Bennett Close, Close descends (among others) from Col.
Thomas Ligon of Virginia who, in turn, descends from Edward Stradling
(d. 1452).

And so does TV journalist "Cokie" Roberts (through her father), as
well as my eighth cousin, twice removed (in a different line), Gary
Boyd Roberts.

At the time I initially uncovered this information, there was a
question of the legitimacy of Joan (or Katherine) Stradling, wife of
Maurice Dennis, hence my interest in this recent discussion.

In an effort to "separate the notes from the noise," do I have this
basic information straight?

(1) There has been a longstanding mix-up between Sir Edward Stradling
(d. 1452) and Sir Edward Stradling (d. 1535); resulting in

(2) A mistaken assignment of the illegitimate children of the
great-grandson to his great-grandfather; and that

(3) Joan (or Katherine) Stradling, wife of Maurice Dennis, ancestor of
Col. Thomas Ligon of Virginia is the legitimate daughter of Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife Joan, illegitimate daughter of Henry, Cardinal
Beaufort.

Or did I miss something?

Daniel MacGregor
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 17 Aug 2004 20:45:40    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

In article <s121c906.047@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Sitat:
Daniel MacGregor <dmaqgregor@hotmail.com> 08/16/04 10:21AM

In an effort to "separate the notes from the noise," do I have this
basic information straight?

(1) There has been a longstanding mix-up between Sir Edward Stradling
(d. 1452) and Sir Edward Stradling (d. 1535); resulting in

(2) A mistaken assignment of the illegitimate children of the
great-grandson to his great-grandfather; and that

(3) Joan (or Katherine) Stradling, wife of Maurice Dennis, ancestor of
Col. Thomas Ligon of Virginia is the legitimate daughter of Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife Joan, illegitimate daughter of Henry, Cardinal
Beaufort.

Or did I miss something?

You've got it pretty much nailed. Points one and two are clear, point
three however should stand for now on the basis of presumption of
legitimacy (as I call it) unless and until something substantive to the
contrary emerges. The discussion seems at this point stalled and
befuddled in the debris left over from for so long assuming Sir Edward I
rather than Sir Edward II was the one having that immense bastard
progeny.

The case is indeed substantially as you have summarized it.

Boiling this down to a few basic points is good. I agree that there has
been a great deal of hot air that detracts from the clarity of the main
issue. But Mr. MacGregor's point (3) is overstated, based on the
parallel oversimplification of the point by Douglas Richardson. Even if
the Edward Stradling in question can be shown not to be the father of
those misassigned bastards (and we still haven't seen a simple,
footnoted discussion and resolution of the various secondary sources
which assign these bastards to different generations), we are still left
with a line that hinges on the *presumption of maternity* in the lack of
any positive testimony.

Many of the other issues brought up (possible chronological issues, lack
of mention of proposed descendants in an IPM, etc.) do not *disprove*
this maternity, but should place it firmly in a *provisional* basket
that royal-descent seekers (and those researchers who appear to cater to
them) seem unwilling to employ.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 17 Aug 2004 23:01:05    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

In article <s121f9e4.024@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Sitat:
... make for me an inescapably direct statement of the
"presumption of legitimacy" of Joan/ Katherine (Stradling) Dennis.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste, but I disagree with the emphasis
on this presumption. I do not think it is necessarily true that this
Stradling daughter be legitimate. I, for one, would like to hear more
about the sources attributing known bastards to an Edward Stradling
(which one?). I would also like to see a review of the chronology,
though perhaps my imperfect memory of the thread makes this a bigger
issue than warranted.

But on a larger scale, I feel that there is a general overuse of the
assumption of maternity, not just in this case, by those who want to
regard various pre-modern descents (inevitably royal descents) as proved.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 17 Aug 2004 23:43:25    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Dear Nat,

Excellent points. But, pending essential further work, what we know is
this:

1) "Johanna" Stradling, wife of Maurice Dennis, is called daughter of
Edward Stradling in the 1623 Visitation and, in this source

2) No reference to illegitimacy is made, and

3) No mother is mentioned. And since the

4) Only wife of Edward Stradling was Joan Beaufort, the inevitable
inference is, and the known evidence points strongly to,
Johanna/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis being daughter of Edward Stradling
by his wife, Joan Beaufort.

Weighing even more heavily upon this determination is the Cardinal
Beaufort and Sir Edward Stradling connection to the estate of Gilbert
Dennis and the oversight of the affairs of his son Maurice. The deep
Beaufort and Stradling involvement in the Dennis estates and affairs,
added to the above, make for me an inescapably direct statement of the
"presumption of legitimacy" of Joan/ Katherine (Stradling) Dennis.

Thanks.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California





Sitat:
Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> 08/17/04 11:45AM

In article <s121c906.047@CENTRAL_SVR2>,

hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Sitat:
Daniel MacGregor <dmaqgregor@hotmail.com> 08/16/04 10:21AM

In an effort to "separate the notes from the noise," do I have
this
basic information straight?

(1) There has been a longstanding mix-up between Sir Edward
Stradling
(d. 1452) and Sir Edward Stradling (d. 1535); resulting in

(2) A mistaken assignment of the illegitimate children of the
great-grandson to his great-grandfather; and that

(3) Joan (or Katherine) Stradling, wife of Maurice Dennis, ancestor
of
Col. Thomas Ligon of Virginia is the legitimate daughter of Sir
Edward
Stradling and his wife Joan, illegitimate daughter of Henry,
Cardinal
Beaufort.

Or did I miss something?

You've got it pretty much nailed. Points one and two are clear,
point
three however should stand for now on the basis of presumption of
legitimacy (as I call it) unless and until something substantive to
the
contrary emerges. The discussion seems at this point stalled and
befuddled in the debris left over from for so long assuming Sir
Edward I
rather than Sir Edward II was the one having that immense bastard
progeny.

The case is indeed substantially as you have summarized it.

Boiling this down to a few basic points is good. I agree that there
has
been a great deal of hot air that detracts from the clarity of the main

issue. But Mr. MacGregor's point (3) is overstated, based on the
parallel oversimplification of the point by Douglas Richardson. Even
if
the Edward Stradling in question can be shown not to be the father of
those misassigned bastards (and we still haven't seen a simple,
footnoted discussion and resolution of the various secondary sources
which assign these bastards to different generations), we are still
left
with a line that hinges on the *presumption of maternity* in the lack
of
any positive testimony.

Many of the other issues brought up (possible chronological issues,
lack
of mention of proposed descendants in an IPM, etc.) do not *disprove*
this maternity, but should place it firmly in a *provisional* basket
that royal-descent seekers (and those researchers who appear to cater
to
them) seem unwilling to employ.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 01:57:25    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Sitat:
... make for me an inescapably direct statement of the
"presumption of legitimacy" of Joan/ Katherine (Stradling) Dennis.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste, but I disagree with the
emphasis
on this presumption. I do not think it is necessarily true that this
Stradling daughter be legitimate. I, for one, would like to hear more

about the sources attributing known bastards to an Edward Stradling
(which one?). I would also like to see a review of the chronology,
though perhaps my imperfect memory of the thread makes this a bigger
issue than warranted.

But on a larger scale, I feel that there is a general overuse of the
assumption of maternity, not just in this case, by those who want to
regard various pre-modern descents (inevitably royal descents) as
proved.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

---

I agree with you entirely that this connection should be for the moment
considered (as you earlier put it) "provisional" - I would add,
"provisionally accepted, though not proved". Nonetheless, to use a
phrase rather out of fashion in scholarly genealogy, I consider the
proposed parentage of Joan/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis - Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife Joan Beaufort - to be proved [for the moment] by
the "preponderance of the evidence". Not, "beyond a reasonable doubt"
-at least, not yet.


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
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 03:44:21    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

In article <s1221ce1.061@CENTRAL_SVR2>,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us ("Tony Hoskins") wrote:

Sitat:
... make for me an inescapably direct statement of the
"presumption of legitimacy" of Joan/ Katherine (Stradling) Dennis.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of taste, but I disagree with the
emphasis on this presumption. I do not think it is necessarily
true that this Stradling daughter be legitimate. I, for one, would
like to hear more about the sources attributing known bastards to an
Edward Stradling (which one?). I would also like to see a review of
the chronology, though perhaps my imperfect memory of the thread makes
this a bigger issue than warranted.

I agree with you entirely that this connection should be for the moment
considered (as you earlier put it) "provisional" - I would add,
"provisionally accepted, though not proved". Nonetheless, to use a
phrase rather out of fashion in scholarly genealogy, I consider the
proposed parentage of Joan/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis - Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife Joan Beaufort - to be proved [for the moment] by
the "preponderance of the evidence". Not, "beyond a reasonable doubt"
-at least, not yet.

I think we are close to agreement but for a point of semantics and,
perhaps, philosophy. I am not sure I follow your concept of 'accepted'
here (perhaps in the context of the powers-that-be of a lineage
society?). In general I feel that there is rather too much effort to
nuance the large middle area of things which are neither proved nor
disproved. And I do not agree with your verdict of 'proved by the
preponderance of evidence' here, partly for the reason below.

Sitat:
But on a larger scale, I feel that there is a general overuse of the
assumption of maternity, not just in this case, by those who want to
regard various pre-modern descents (inevitably royal descents) as
proved.

This is interesting. I have noticed this sentiment is shared by a few
others. In this particular instance, if it were known that Sir Edward
Stradling had more than the one wife, Joan Beaufort, this objection or
reluctance would make good sense. But there was only the one wife. Then,
was Joan/Katherine illegitimate? Nearly every case where I have found a
visitation pedigree to record a marriage to an illegitimate daughter, I
have seen, with reference to her, the words "filia naturalis" (or other
descriptors), and also have observed, when heraldry is provided, marks,
indications of bastardy. These words and heraldic symbols appear in
neither the c1530 painted pedigree nor in the 1623 pedigree.

I think this argument from silence can not be applied to close the book
in either direction; see below.

Sitat:
Among the various problems I see with a good deal of the comments made
by posters on this matter are 1) the apparent assumption that mothers
names (especially the "more important" among them) are often/usually
supplied in pedigrees and 2) if they aren't, this is evidence of
illegitimacy. Both of these assumptions fly in the face of a vast body
of contrary evidence. And to demand the kind of detail and specificity
in this instance, before accepting any likelihood of connection, is to
set an untenable genealogical standard - a standard that would require
the abandonment of many other long-accepted and sound genealogical
connections.

Legitimacy was the norm in those days and circles; illegitimacy, the
exception. And exceptions tend to be noted, the norm need only be
stated, not annotated. Thus, pending further research, I think that the
parentage of Joan/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis can be stated, with
confidence in the preponderance of evidence, to have been Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife, Joan Beaufort.

One of the problems with the presumption of legitimacy as you have
stated it here, and with these assertions of the 'norm' of 'those days
and circles' (and this has recently been pointed out to me by another
correspondent) is that the Stradlings, as Anglo-Welsh lords, appear to
have followed Welsh practice in having recognized (and endowed) children
by non-spousal mothers even some generations later than the Edward in
question. And in Welsh or Anglo-Welsh pedigrees of the date of those in
question, one cannot rest on an argument from silence about the
maternity of children with unnamed mothers. We are dealing with
divergent norms.

This was precisely the problem with the old assumptions of the maternity
of some of the children of Llewelyn who turned out not to be by John's
bastard daughter Joan (though here we were dealing with a period before
the mixing of Anglo-Norman and Welsh customs).

I think it something of a strawman to suggest that all the people
weighing in on the Stradling case are claiming that the Beaufort
maternity is explicitly disproved because of the arguments that (1)
mothers are usually supplied in pedigrees, and that (2) children without
named mothers are usually illegitimate. Both assumptions are, as you
say, erroneous generalizations. But here, especially, I would be more
conservative about the converse argument as you made it above. The
argument from silence does not disprove the maternity in question here,
but it does it prove it. Simply put, in Welsh pedigrees especially but
even in English ones referencing Welsh or Anglo-Welsh families, one is
still safest with the null hypothesis: children, even heirs, may be of
any maternity under Welsh custom, even at a date later than this
generation. So unless a maternity is proved, why not leave it in the
unknown category?

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 03:46:31    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Oops. I wrote:

Sitat:
The argument from silence does not disprove the maternity in question here,
but it does it prove it.

recte: ... but it does not prove it.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 03:48:19    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

<But on a larger scale, I feel that there is a general overuse of the
<assumption of maternity, not just in this case, by those who want to
<regard various pre-modern descents (inevitably royal descents) as
proved.

This is interesting. I have noticed this sentiment is shared by a few
others. In this particular instance, if it were known that Sir Edward
Stradling had more than the one wife, Joan Beaufort, this objection or
reluctance would make good sense. But there was only the one wife. Then,
was Joan/Katherine illegitimate? Nearly every case where I have found a
visitation pedigree to record a marriage to an illegitimate daughter, I
have seen, with reference to her, the words "filia naturalis" (or other
descriptors), and also have observed, when heraldry is provided, marks,
indications of bastardy. These words and heraldic symbols appear in
neither the c1530 painted pedigree nor in the 1623 pedigree.

In this very long thread of discussion, I have come to see what almost
appears to be a prejudice *against the idea* of the legitimacy of this
daughter of Edward Stradling. I confess I wonder at this. A lot of the
fear of acceptance I detect, I feel sure, would be diminished once more
comes to light on the chronology, specifics on the bastard Stradlings.

Among the various problems I see with a good deal of the comments made
by posters on this matter are 1) the apparent assumption that mothers
names (especially the "more important" among them) are often/usually
supplied in pedigrees and 2) if they aren't, this is evidence of
illegitimacy. Both of these assumptions fly in the face of a vast body
of contrary evidence. And to demand the kind of detail and specificity
in this instance, before accepting any likelihood of connection, is to
set an untenable genealogical standard - a standard that would require
the abandonment of many other long-accepted and sound genealogical
connections.

Legitimacy was the norm in those days and circles; illegitimacy, the
exception. And exceptions tend to be noted, the norm need only be
stated, not annotated. Thus, pending further research, I think that the
parentage of Joan/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis can be stated, with
confidence in the preponderance of evidence, to have been Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife, Joan Beaufort.

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
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 08:44:38    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Too much emphasis is being placed on the accuracy of the Visitations as
justification of a genealogical identity. The Visitations can be a really
horrible mine field of misinformation and have limited value of accuracy. I
have found other errors in the Visitation of Gloucestershire -1623. The
Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-4 is thoroughly polluted with incorrect
information and Colonel Vivian's work on Devonshire is also quite flawed.
The Visitation of Essex has errors and so do some of the more respected
ones. In fact, I don't think I have used any Visitation which does not have
errors.

Just look at Rosie Bevan's recent article in Foundations. Her article proves
that the Visitation of Derbyshire [Longford family] 1569, 1611 contains five
consecutive generations of incorrect spouses and one missing Longford heir.
In this day and age with so much contemporary material becoming accessible
online, Visitations should only be used as a rough guideline, with
contemporary evidence necessary as proof.

The following are the known facts:

1 - The Visitation of Gloucestershire 1623 assigns a daughter Katherine to
Sir Edward Stradling (mother not named), as wife to Maurice Dennys.

2 - An earlier Dennys pedigree from circa 1530 names the first wife of the
same Maurice Dennys as Johanna Stradling, without identifying either parent.

3 - The Wynston pedigree from 1607 ascribes a daughter Katherine to Edward
Stradling and Jean Beaufort who is shown as wife of Watkyn Wynston, Lord of
Wynston. (This contradiction is being dismissed out of hand by the RD
proponents for the Dennys family without sound vetting or scholarship in
analyzing the accuracy of this possible link).

4 - As Brad Verity states in his FMG article "Neither of these daughters is
found in surviving 15th-century records, and they are not named, nor are
their marriages listed, in Sir Edward Stradling's account of his family from
the 1560's." (Foundations, Vol. I, No. 4, July 2004, p. 254.)

5 - How many Visitations have given the wrong name for the father of a wife?
Too many for comfort. Indeed the Visitation of Gloucestershire is the only
source presented thus far which names Edward Stradling as Katherine's
father. In fact, Edward's brother John and his wife Joan Dauntsey were
associated with the Dennys family first. It was through Joan Dauntsey, first
the wife of Sir Maurice Russell of Dyrham, Gloucestershire that the
Stradlings came to know the Dennys family. Sir Gilbert Dennys was married to
Joan Dauntsey Russell Stradling's step daughter. The possibility of
Katherine being daughter of John and Joan Stradling has not been
sufficiently considered. It is also possible that Maurice Dennys was married
to both a Katherine and a Joan Stradling. One cannot draw any conclusions
from the conflicting data.

These are the only instances of identifying a Stradling wife for Maurice
Dennys (or Watkyn Wynston).To say the preponderance of evidence suggests
that the wife of Maurice Dennys was daughter of Sir Edward Stradling and
Joan Beaufort is a misrepresentation of the known facts. Her maternity is
simply not known and announcing a confident conclusion does not change this
nor validate any advocacy.

Henry Sutliff



""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s12236e0.001@CENTRAL_SVR2...
<snip>>
Sitat:
Legitimacy was the norm in those days and circles; illegitimacy, the
exception. And exceptions tend to be noted, the norm need only be
stated, not annotated. Thus, pending further research, I think that the
parentage of Joan/Katherine (Stradling) Dennis can be stated, with
confidence in the preponderance of evidence, to have been Sir Edward
Stradling and his wife, Joan Beaufort.

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
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 09:43:08    Tittel: Re: Queen Mother's Royal Descents Svar med Sitat

Recte:

You appear to be mistaken with your categorical statement:

| Matthew Stewart 11th Earl of Lennox and Elizabeth Hamilton are
| ancestors of James I, but not of the Queen Mother.

Matthew Stewart 2nd/11th Earl of Lennox and his wife, Elizabeth Hamilton
are reportedly ancestors of James I, George VI [of course] AND the Queen
Mother -- all three.

I'll leave it as an exercise for your own enjoyment to trace it.

The common descent the Queen Mother and George VI have from Matthew
Stuart (1516-1571) [the first to use that spelling], 4th/13th Earl of
Lennox and Lady Margaret Douglas [1515-1578] makes them 10th cousins,
once removed.

Since the 4th/13th Earl of Lennox is the grandson of the 2nd/11th Earl
of Lennox, of course the Queen Mother descends from the 2nd/11th Earl.

Cheers,

DSH

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:G8xUc.187005$a8.186347@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

| Matthew Stewart 11th Earl of Lennox and Elizabeth Hamilton are
| ancestors of James I, but not of the Queen Mother.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 09:49:18    Tittel: Re: Queen Mother's Royal Descents Svar med Sitat

The Queen Mother and George VI seem to have been about as closely
related as George Bush and John Kerry -- but I'll bet they got along a
lot better.

DSH
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 13:20:46    Tittel: Re: Queen Mother's Royal Descents Svar med Sitat

See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Queen Mother's Royal Descents


Sitat:
Recte:

You appear to be mistaken with your categorical statement:

| Matthew Stewart 11th Earl of Lennox and Elizabeth Hamilton are
| ancestors of James I, but not of the Queen Mother.

Matthew Stewart 2nd/11th Earl of Lennox and his wife, Elizabeth Hamilton
are reportedly ancestors of James I, George VI [of course] AND the Queen
Mother -- all three.

I'll leave it as an exercise for your own enjoyment to trace it.

The common descent the Queen Mother and George VI have from Matthew
Stuart (1516-1571) [the first to use that spelling], 4th/13th Earl of
Lennox and Lady Margaret Douglas [1515-1578] makes them 10th cousins,
once removed.

Dear Spencer,

You are confusing me and, probably, many others. You say George VI and the
Queen Mother find their first common ancestors in Matthew Stuart, Earl of
Lennox, and his wife Lady Margaret Douglas. Implying that George VI descends
from one child and the Queen Mother from another child of this Matthew
Stuart and Lady Margaret Douglas.

They had (by memory) three sons. The first died in infancy, the third,
Charles, is father of the tragic Arabella Stuart who died without children.
This leaves the middle son, Henry Darnley, husband of Mary Queen of Scots,
and he has only one child, James VI-I. This would mean that both George VI
and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have to descend from James VI-I for both to
have Matthew Stuart and Lady Margaret Douglas as ancestors.

As far as I can work it out, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother, is
not a descendant of the Stuart/Stewart, Earls of Lennox. I still think that
Henry VII and George Douglas, Master of Angus, are the nearest joint
ancestors for George VI and the Queen Mother.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 14:48:32    Tittel: Re: Apparent CP/DD Conflict (de Lisle), part 1 Svar med Sitat

Dear Gordon

This has not been an easy one to answer, but thanks to the aid of Chris
Phillips (who by rights should be writing this post as he came up with the
information and conclusions), this confusing problem may be simplified by
examining the sources. Because of the length of this answer, the post is
being split into two.

There are three conflicting accounts about the ancestry of Robert de Insula
and this is compounded by the fact that we have consecutive Robert de
Insulas for whom there are no clear dates. What we find is:

1.He was the grandson of Ralph the steward of the earl of Richmond.[CP VIII
p.71 note (f).; Clay, EYC vol 5 p.20]
2.He was the grandson of Robert the Chamberlain [DD 200 - Robert Camerarius;
Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire p.147]
3.He was the grandson of Ralph, chamberlain to the bishop of Ely [VCH Cambs.
vol. IX, p.109, 212; vol X, p.306]

This post deals with the first two versions and the following post will look
at the third version.

1.CP and Clay give that Robert de Insula was grandson of Ralph, steward of
the earl of Richmond and refer to a curia regis suit as evidence, the text
of which Chris has kindly provided. In 1208 Saher de Quincy attempted to sue
Robert for the advowson of the church of Wimpole as his inheritance and
belonging to his land there, which Saher his grandfather was seised in the
time of Henry II. Robert's attorney, Robert of Wenhaston, said that Conan,
lord of the honor of Richmond, gave the advowson to Ralph the steward,
grandfather of the said Robert, by his charter which he produced as evidence
and Conan's heirs ought to warrant him but were in the king's custody. The
suit was unsuccessful as the king did not wish it to proceed.

Curia Regis Rolls, vol. 5, p. 231
Roll 48, Trinity Term 10 John, m. 8
Headed: A die sancte Trinitatis in iij. septimanas
"Cantebr'. - Comes Segerus petit versus Robertum de Insula advocacionem
ecclesie de Winepol ut jus et hereditatem suam et ut illam que pertinet ad
terram suam quam habet in eadem villa et unde Segerus avus ejus seisitus
fuit ut de feodo et jure tempore Henrici regis patris, ita quod Henricus de
Orewell' clericus, tunc persona illius ecclesie per presentacionem ipsius
Segeri, inde cepit expleta ad valenciam x. solidorum et plus; et hoc offert
etc. per quendam liberum hominem suum etc. Et Gaufridus de Wenlaveston'
attornatus ipsius Roberti defendit jus suum; et dicit quod Conanus dominus
de honore Richemund' dedit advocacionem illius ecclesie Radulfo Dapifero avo
ipsius Roberti per cartam suam, quam protulit et que donum testatur; et
heredes ejusdem Conani debent illam advocacionem ei warantizare; et sunt in
custodia domini regis, ita quod ipse non potest illos habere; et, si hoc non
sufficit, ipse ponit se in magnam assisam et petit recognicionem fieri uter
illorum majus jus habeat in illa advocacione. Dominus rex non vult quod
loquela illa procedat: et ideo sine die."

Conan was earl of Richmond from 1156 to 1166 at the time Ralph son of Roger
held the Steward's fee, and CP and Clay interpret this to mean that Robert
de Insula was the grandson of Ralph, steward of the earl of Richmond. The
Stewards fee is discussed by Clay in EYC 5 pp.17-39 and the descent given as
follows:

1 Wimar the Steward d. bef 1130
2.Roger the Steward d.c. 1145
3.Ralph the Steward d. bef. 1195
4. Wimar d.s.p. bef Oct 1195
4. Roger de Thornton d bef 1206, had issue
4. NN
+ NN
5. Robert de Lisle fl 1208
2. Warner the Steward
3.Wimar
+ Helewise
4.Beatrice
+ Hugh Malebisse



2. The second version about Robert de Insula comes from DD 200 and Farrer,
Feudal Cambridgeshire, p.121, the former giving:
"Camerarius, Robert
Chamberlain of earl Conan of Richmond, son and successor of Odo (q.v.)
camerarius by 1129/30. Two of his three sons Wihomar, George and Nigel
succeeded him, but died without issue. Robert's eventual heirs were his
daughters Theophania wife of Theobald fitz Fulk (d.1199), Jueta wife of
Conan, Beatrice wife of Richard de Cormeille (d. 1177) and then of Robert de
Lisle, and Matilda wife of Alexander de Brito."
[Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters (1935), IV, nos 9, 19-20, 30-31, 33, 66 ;
Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters (1936), V nos 129, 242, 279-80, 377;
Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbray (1972), no. 18; Pipe Roll 31
Henry I, 27-ynb]"

Clay discusses the descent of the Chamberlain's fee in EYC 5 pp.169-179
given below. The fee consisted of 2 1/2 knight's fees in Richmondshire -
Eppleby, Kirkby Fleetham, Great and Little Fencote and Langthorne (given to
St Mary's, York), 1 fee in Holland, Lincs, 1 in Malton in Orwell, 1 in
Swaffham, 2 in Bridlingham in Chippenham, 1 in Oxcroft, 1 in Great
Wilbraham, 1 in Wendy, the latter all being in Cambridgeshire.

1.Odo the Chamberlain tenant of Count Alan in 1086 d. by 1130
2.Robert the Chamberlain, fl 1156-1158, founder of Denny priory in
Waterbeach, Cambs., a cell of Ely. He became a monk at Ely before his death.
3. Wimar the Chamberlain d.v.p.s.p.
3. Nigel succeeded father, d.s.p.c 1191
3. George d.s.p.

Robert had several daughters who were, or in their issue, the heirs to the
Chamberlain fee. They appear to include:

3.Maud d.s.p.,wife of Alexander le Breton [EYC 5 no. 277. Charter of
gift of land in Kirkby to Marrick priory]

3.Tiffany, wife of Theobald fitz Fulk (d.1199, DD 888), mother of
Fulk fitz Theobald, and grandmother of Ralph fitz Fulk

3.Avice, wife of NN Engaine, mother of Robert Engaine

3.Beatrice, wife of Richard de Cormeilles (d.1175/76, DD 410) mother
of Walter de Cormeilles d.1203/4 who left four daughters and coheirs (Alice
wife of Thomas son of William de Middleton and Godfery de Craucombe,
Sybil wife of Hugh Giffard and Ralph Belet, Margaret wife of Walter de
Stoke, Albreda wife of Richard le Brun) with landed
interests in Kirkby Fleetham in 1208. In 1236 the Giffards via Sibyl appear
to have been the only one to have had an interest in
Wilbraham and Wendy, Cambs. Said to be mother of Robert de Insula in
CP and DD.

3.Jueta, wife of Conan de Mansfield son of Torfin son of Robert by
an unknown wife. Jueta was mother of Henry son of Conan of Kelfield and
Liverton, and grandmother of Conan son of Henry [EYC
5 p. 54]

3.NN mother of Roger Chacemoine (aka Sansmanche, Sine Manica)

3.NN, wife of Hervey son of Acaris (d.c.1184, DD 858) son of Acaris
son of Bardulf progenitor of the fitz Hughs of Ravensworth, mother of Henry
son of Hervey. While it is noted that the Mansfield family
quitclaimed their interest in the Cambridge fees to Henry son of Hervey of
Ravensworth around 1200, they appear to have
retained their Yorkshire interest in Appleby and Great and Little Fencote,
the former of which they held jointly with the fitz Hughs of Ravensworth and
Stacey Coleman in 1284 [Feudal Aids vol. VI, p.96]. Tentative
evidence that Hervey of Ravensworth was married to a daughter of Robert the
Chamberlain is found in a charter in which Hervey and his
wife and daughter give moorland for grazing in Ravensworth and Kirkby
[Fleetham] to Marrick priory 1154-1158. The first two witness of the
gift are Robert the Chamberlain and Warner son of Wimar who is possibly of
Robert's wife's family [EYC 5 no.377].


In the late 1190s Fulk son of Theobald, Henry son of Hervey, Roger sine
Mantica, Dame Avice, and Walter de Cormeilles were holding equal parts in a
moiety of the manor of Wilbrahim and in Wendy as coheirs of the
Chamberlain's fee. In 1236 Robert de Insula was holding the other moiety in
socage, and Ralph son of Fulk and Ralph and John sons of Henry were the
heirs of the tenants in 1190 [Farrer, Feudal Cambridge, p.122].

Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, p. 121 puts a different slant on the pedigree

1. Odo, chamberlain of Richmond, 1086
2. Hugh? the chamberlain
3. Robert the chamberlain, 1130 ; founder of Dennye; d ante 1165
4.Wihomarc occ ante 1146
4.Ralph the chamberlain d.1175
4.George d. ante 1175
4.Nigel son of the chamberlain succ. 1175 d. temp Ric I s.p.
4.Matilda
+ Theobald
5.Fulk occ.1204
+ Alex le Breton occ 1191
4.Theophania
+ Abraham Chacemoine
5 Geoffrey de Coleburn occ.1204
4.Beatrice de Cormeilles
+ NN
5. Alice de Cormeilles
+ Robert de Insula
4. dau.
+ Conan
5.Henry fitz-Conan
4. Amicia occ. 1191
+ ?Richard Engayne d ante 1191
5. Robert Engayne occ. 1191

Third version to follow

Rosie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Kirkemo" <kirkemo@comcast.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:54 PM
Subject: Apparent CP/DD Conflict (de Lisle)


Sitat:
Rosie and Chris,

If I'm reading things correctly, I found a possible conflict between CP
and
DD concerning the ancestry of the de Lisle family.

The problem originates with a search I was doing on the British History
Online site involving the VCH History of Cambridge. I was searching for
information concerning the Picots of Quy and Waterbeach, and found some
manors that passed down to the de Lisle family.

Under the section for the Manor of Rampton, I found that Eustace Picot
granted 1 knight's fee to Ralph, chamberlain of Bishop Niel of Ely. This
Ralph is described as "ancestor of the Lisles." About 1212 Robert de
Lisle
held this fee of the bishop of Ely. A second Robert is identified as his
son who, in turn, was the father of Warin. This line became the Lord
Lisles
of Rougemont according to this description.

Under the section for the Manor of Westwick, I found that Picot, the
Sheriff
of Cambridge had as a tenant, Odo, evidently the chamberlain of Count Alan
in Cambridgeshire. The description further states, "One of Odo's
granddaughters and eventual heirs married Robert de Lisle...".

Now, in CP Vol. VIII, Sub Lisle, there is a chart showing the descent of
Lisle of Rougemont and Lisle of Kingston Lisle. The second Robert de
Insula
is shown with a wife named Beatrice de Cormeilles, who according to the
chart is the daughter of Ralph, sewer to the Earl of Richmond. This is
also
reported on page 69 in the text for Lisle of Rougemont.

In DD (page 200), I find Robert Camerarius, Chamberlain to earl Conan of
Richmond, and son and successor to Odo Camerarius. He is described as
having three sons and four daughters. The daughters were his eventual
heirs, and one of them is identified as Beatrice, wife of (1) Richard de
Cormeilles and (2) of Robert de Lisle. I also find a Radulf Camerarius
identified as chamberlain to Earl Conan with no additional information
concerning parentage or children.

There seems to be consensus that Robert de Lisle/Insula had a wife named
Beatrice. What isn't clear is her father and ancestry. It seems possible
that Camerarius and Cormeilles might both be derivatives of Chamberlain,
but
that is only a wild guess on my part. But at least two descents seem
possible:

First:

1. Odo, chamberlain to Count Alan (identified as Odo Camerarius in DP,
page
308)
2. Robert Camerarius, chamberlain to Count Conan
3. Beatrice wife of Robert de Lisle

Or, Second:

1. Odo, same as #1 above
2. Ralph de Cormeilles
3. Beatrice, same as #3 above

I can't help but wonder how the reported first husband (Richard de
Cormeilles) might figure into this. I'm hoping you can straighten this
out
for me. I look forward to hearing further from you.

Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo




Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 14:50:55    Tittel: Re: Apparent CP/DD Conflict (de Lisle), part 2 Svar med Sitat

This follows part 1

3.Three VCH accounts give us that Robert was the grandson of Ralph chamberlain to Nigel bishop of Ely, and this is the best supported version:

"The largest of three estates in Westwick in 1066 was 2 2/3; hides belonging to Blacwine, sheriff of Cambridgeshire. Together with 1/3; hide held by a sokeman of Ely abbey, it had passed by 1086 to Picot the sheriff as a 3 hide manor, later LISLES. (Footnote 4Cool Ely's interest in the sokeland was later reasserted and by the 1150s land in Westwick was possessed by Bishop Niel's chamberlain Ralph as successor or overlord of Anketil Vavassor. (Footnote 49) Robert Vavassor in 1199 sought to regain the tenancy of 2 1/2; hides from Ralph's grandson Robert de Lisle, (Footnote 50) probably unsuccessfully, since c. 1212 Lisle held 1/4; knight's fee in Westwick from the bishop of Ely. "
(Footnote 50 Cur. Reg. R. i. 102, 200, 447, 475; ii. 28; Rot. Cur. Reg. (Rec. Com.), ii. 69; Rot. de Ob. et Fin. (Rec. Com.), 31; Pipe R. 1201 (P.R.S. N.S. xiv), 125; Miller, Ely, 180.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=15347&strquery=Lisl e
[VCH Cambs. vol IX p. 109 sub Westwick]


"In 1066 and 1086 the larger of two manors in Great Wilbraham was that belonging from of old to the king. It apparently remained part of the royal demesne until the 1150s, when it was divided into two unequal parts, the smaller alienated from the 1150s. The larger part, later TEMPLE manor, then valued at £12 out of a total of £20, was held 1155-8 by Ralph son of Olaf. Thereafter, reckoned worth £15, it was retained by the king until c. 1189, when it was given, allegedly by Henry II, to Hugh de Malalney.
....
The other manors in Great Wilbraham derived from 4 hides held of the honor of Richmond. They had belonged in 1066 to Eddeva the fair and by 1086 were held of Count Alan, lord of Richmond, by his chamberlain Eudes. Robert the chamberlain, probably Eudes's son, ...Probably by 1155 Robert had given half of his Wilbraham manor with a kinswoman in marriage to Ralph son of Olaf. Ralph was steward and chamberlain to Nigel, bishop of Ely; his daughter, supposedly named Beatrice, married Robert de Lisle. Robert or his son Robert was sheriff of Cambridgeshire 1198-1201. The son had the estate in 1207 and survived into the 1220s."
URL:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=18887
[VCH Cambs. vol X p.306 sub Wilbraham]

"Eustace Picot granted 1 knight's fee at Rampton before c. 1156 to Ralph, chamberlain of Bishop Niel of Ely and ancestor of the Lisles. About 1212 Robert de Lisle held it of the bishop of Ely. In 1260 Geoffrey Burdeleys confirmed Rampton to Sir Robert de Lisle, the first Robert's son. (Footnote 33) Sir Robert, who died between 1260 and 1262, was succeeded by his son Robert (d. 1284), who was granted free warren in 1264.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=15408
[VCH Cambs. vol IX p.212 sub Rampton]


Chris once again has kindly supplied the sources below which support these accounts:

The pipe rolls record Ralph the Steward holding 20 librates of land in Wilbraham in 1156, then Ralph son of Olaf holding 16 in 1157, and 12 in 1158. There is no mention of Ralph after this date. It is likely that Ralph Olaf is the same person as Ralph the Steward.
Et In t[er]ris datis ... Et Rad' Dap' . Ep'i . xx. li' . nu'o . In
Wilburgeha'.
[Great Rolls of the Pipe 2, 3 and 4 Henry II (Rec. Com.) p. 15: 2 Henry II,
Cambridgeshire]
_____________________________________________________________________

Et Rad' Olaf. xvi. li' b'l'. in Wilburgeha'.
[Great Rolls of the Pipe 2, 3 and 4 Henry II (Rec. Com.) p. 96: 3 Henry II,
Cambridgeshire]
_____________________________________________________________________
Et Rad' Olaf. xii. li' . in Wilburgeha'.
[Great Rolls of the Pipe 2, 3 and 4 Henry II (Rec. Com.) p. 165: 4 Henry II,
Cambridgeshire]
_____________________________________________________________________

The following are charters extracted by Chris from British Library Cotton MS Claudius C xi. The first gives evidence for the hereditary gift to Ralph, steward of the prior of Ely of the isle of Coveney (from which the surname Insula likely derived) to be held for 5 shillings yearly [1]. In the charters concerning Alexander prior of Ely, Ralph is termed a steward not a chamberlain.

[using foliation at bottom right]
f. 338v
Alexander Prior & totus Conuuentus Elien' ecc'ie ... Nouerit ... nos donasse
& presenti carta concessisse Radulpho dapifero n'ro & amico insulam de
Coueneya ... de nobis tenend' p[er] seruiciu' quinque solid' annuatim ...
sibi & heredibus suis post ip'm ...


Bishop Nigel gave various messuages [in Ely] to Ralph, his chamberlain.

f. 339
[Bishop Nigel] ... dedisee & concessisse Rad'ho camerario meo
[the messuage that was of Goscelin, the messuage that was of Godard,
and the other men and messuages as above]
[Witnesses:] Will'mo Arch' Ric'o de Sc'o Paulo Petro &
Alex' cl'icus Alex' Pinc' Harnico P'eg'
Albto Anglico Jordano de Heneget' Paiano cl'ico


In the following charter, Ralph's land acquisitions are confirmed by Henry II. They include Northwald, Norfolk and Nedging, Suffolk representing 3 knights' fees given to him by bishop Nigel, Rampton, Cambs., Barford[2], Hinton [3] (inherited from Ralph's uncle Alan), Westwick, Cambs., lands in Wilbraham, Cambs., which he received with his wife in marriage, and messuages in Ely. These lands formed the nucleus of the L'Isle estate and feature in later inquisitions post mortem.

f. 340
Henricus Rex anglie dux Normannie & Acquit' & Comes And' ...
Sciatis me concessisse & hac carta mea confirmasse
Radulf' Camerario Nigelli Elien' Ep'i & h'edibus suis om'es t'r' suas ..
quas carte duorum suorum ei testant' vid'
Norwaldam & Neddynge quas Nigellus Elien' Ep'us dedit ei ... per s'uiciu'
triu' militu'
sicut carta eiusd' Ep'i testa' & carta conuentus Elien' confirmat' & Rantun'
per s'uiciu' vnius militis
quod dedit ei Eustachius Picot pro s'uicio suo & pro pecunia sua
& Berford per s'uiciu' dimid' militis faciend' Willm'o filio Alani
& hidam de Hentun' quam Alanus auu'culus eius tenebat
& Westwich' t'ram que fuit Anschetilli vauassoris
& t'r' de Wilburgeh[a]m quas cepit cu' vxore sua in maritagio
& quinque mesuag' in villa de Ely unu' quod Goscel' de Ely dedit ei &
quatuor alia que ip'e Ep'us dedit
T. Reni Com Corn' & R Com Legr' & H Com' Norff & H de Essex const & War'
fil' Ger' Cam'ar' apud Westm'"

Chris has fixed the date of this confirmation charter down to 1154, i.e. the beginning of Henry II's reign, to 1158, when Warin fitz Gerold was succeeded as Chamberlain by his brother Henry.

In the following charter prior Alexander confirms the gift of the Isle of Coveney to Robert son of Ralph the steward

f. 338v
Alexander Prior & totus conuentus Elien' ecc'ie ... Nouerit ... nos donasse
& presenti carta concessisse Roberto filio Radulphi dapiferi Insulam de
Coueneya sicut eam prius dedimus Radulpho patri suo ...

Likewise in the following charter bishop Nigel confirms lands he has given to Robert, son of Ralph his chamberlain - namely the manor of Nedging, Norfolk for two knights' fees, the Isle of Coveney, the manor of Northwold, Norfolk for one knight's fee, and various messuages in Ely for the annual rent of a pound.

f. 339
Nigellus dei gr'a Elien' Ep'us ... Notum sit ... me dedisse & p'sentis
sc'pti pagina roborasse Rob'to filio Rad'i Cam'ar' mei tota' t'ram et
tenura'
p'ris sui ... que p'ri suo donauimus he'ditario iure tenend' videl't
man'ium Neddynge ... p' s'uic' duorum militu' ...
Insula' de Coueneya ...
man'iu' de Northwolda ... p' s'uic' unius militis ...
mesugiu' quod fuit Goscelini de Ely in villa de Ely sicut idem Goscelinus &
Agnes uxor eius dederunt illud
in vita sua Rad'hp pat' suo ...
mesugium quod fuit Godardi Carpentar' & Radm' Saluar[iii]'[?]
& mesuagiu' eius Leoffonu' quoque piscatorem & Sithtricu' de Newenham cum
mesuag' ipsorum
Hec igit' mesugia p'fata cum ho'ibus ... damus & concedium ei ... pro una
libra prp'is annatim reddenda
....
[Witnesses:] Alexander prior Elien Will's Arch'us Ricardus
Thesaurarius Regis Angl' Ric'us de S'co Paulo
Alexander cl'icus Hub'tus clericus Will's cl'icus
Albtus Angl' & Adam filius eius Eu'ardus de Beche &
Robtus filius eius Albericus Pigot Gregorius filius
eius Hugo de Cotenham Jordanus de Henegeton' et
Horaldus filius eius Michael p'eg'nus Ric'us Morel
Rad'us filius Ric'i Ric'us Basset Willm's filius Turk'
Nich'us Janitor & Petrus filius eius & Salamon Aurifaber

Chris concludes that the bishop's confirmation to Robert fitz Ralph follows shortly after Ralph's death around 1158/59, " [CP- the confirmation charter by the bishop for Robert son of Ralph, comes after Richard became treasurer but before [archdeacon] William's death, say 1158-1160. So if Ralph was still alive in late 1158 (pipe roll), we can narrow the date of his death down to a year or two after that on the evidence of the charters. If so, surely the end of his tenure in Wilbraham came at his death, so he would have died 1158-1159]".

From the continuation of the land holding of the Isle of Coveney Ralph, serving prior Alexander as a steward, and bishop Nigel as a chamberlain, is clearly the same person - whether simultaneously or consecutively in these capacities, it's not apparent. There is no direct statement that he married a daughter of Robert, the Chamberlain of the earl of Richmond, but the conclusion is derived from the evidence of Henry II's confirmation charter that his wife brought with her a moiety of the smaller manor of Wilbraham, and a garbled account given in 1279 from a Hundred Roll entry abstracted by Farrer in Feudal Cambridgeshire, p.122/123, as follows:

"An unknown King of England held (the vill of) Great Wilburham in his own
hands and gave one moiety thereof to Nele de Chaunberlein with the advowson
of the church; the said Nele gave a moiety of his moiety to one Robert de
[Insu]la with one of his daughters, which tenement Robert de Insula now
holds, namely 200 a., of the honor of Richmond after Nele's death 100 a.
descended hereditarily to his 5 daughters, of which Edmund de Sardelowe
holds 90a. for the term of his life of John de Lovetot, who held of the
honor of Brittany; R.Hund. II 490 b"

Ralph's son, Robert, possibly named for Robert the Chamberlain, was the first to be named de Insula or de L'Isle. In 1236 his descendant, Robert de Insula, was stated to be holding two of the four hides, representing 200 acres, in the smaller manor of Wilbraham of the honour of Brittany - a good indication that he had inherited the moiety as a descendant of Ralph the steward/chamberlain and his wife. Whether or not Robert I's mother was Beatrice, there is no evidence. If she was, Robert would have been the elder son as his mother was married to Ralph by 1158 whereas Richard de Cormeilles, Beatrice's husband, died in 1177. Walter de Cormeilles was one of the five coheirs in the other moiety of Wilbraham and in Wendy, to which if he had been the second son, he would not have been entitled. There does not appear anything explicit that the de L'Isles inherited land of the Chambelain's fee after Nigel's death (except perhaps subtenancy of a knight's a fee in Malton in Orwell, Cam!
bs. in conjunction with Westwick and Oakington of the honour of Richmond) and it's chronologically possible for Ralph's wife to have been a sister of Robert the Chamberlain.

An alternative interpretation (representing corrections to both CP and DD) of the early Lisle pedigree may be drawn from the information above.

1.Ralph fitz Olaf, steward to prior of Ely/chamberlain to bishop of Ely ?d.by 1159
+ daughter/sister of Robert the chamberlain to the earl of Richmond/Brittany, who brought a moiety of the smaller manor of Wilbraham in marriage
2. Robert de Insula I, gift of Wilbraham was confirmed to him bet. 1158-1169. Holding half a knight's fee in Exning of Robert de Valoines in 1166.
+ Galiena Blund, who brought the manor of Exning. Henry II confirmed a gift to the couple by Geoffrey Ridel, archdeacon of Canterbury in 1167 [Eyton, Itinerary of Henry II, p.111]
3. Robert de Insula II b. c 1160-1170, fl 1208, party to a suit for the church of Wimpole by Saher de Quincy in which Ralph the steward is named as Robert's grandfather. Sheriff of Cambridgeshire 1198-1201
+NN
4. Robert de L'Isle III, b.c. 1190. In 1212 was holding in Lincolnshire 1 fee in Rampton and Cottenham of the bishop of Ely and a quarter of a fee in Westwick to farm of the Chamberlain's fee, and 2 fees in Nedging, Suffolk [Red Book of the Exchequer p. 524, 526].
+ 1. Sarah de Aunus b. c 1190-1200
+ 2. Rohese de Wahull married 1213, d.s.p. 1221 [HKF v.1 p.64, v.2 p.208, v.3 p.172]
5. Robert de Lisle IV b bef. 1213, son by first wife, d. c. 1261
+ Alice, dau. of Henry fitz Gerold [4] fl.1276 holding land in Coveney, Cambs in dower.
6.Robert de Lisle
4.Cassandra b.c. 1190, dau. Robert de Insula fl 1204, brought Newmarket and Exning as marriage portion
+ c. 1203/1204 Richard de Argentein



[1] VCH Cambs. vol. 4, p. 136 mentions the grant of Coveney by bishop Niel to Ralph to his steward (dapifer), to be held of the prior and convent at 5s yearly for all services. Prior Alexander confirmed the grant. [E 210/7102; BM Add MS 5810, f. 135d].

[2] VCH Beds. vol. 3, p. 181 gives that "In 1190-1 Jordan L'Enveise owed 15 marked for having right of land in [Great] Barford against Robert son of Ralph [Pipe R. 2 Ric. 1, m. 12d]" The text does go on to say that Robert son of Ralph was later followed by Robert de Suppethorp in the late 13th century).


[3]"Hinton" in the charter is indeed the manor of Hinton in the parish of Haddenham (vol. 4, p. 143). "In 1221 Simon de Insula held 3 carucates in HINTON (Henegeton) as 1 fee, and Philip de Insula held them in 1251. [BM Cott. MSS Tib. B.11, f. 107a, Claud. C XI, f. 53a]"

[4] Grant from Henry fil. Geroldi to Robert de Insula in marriage with Alice, his daughter, of the whole of his land in Mundeford, Norfolk. [I. H. Jeayes. Descriptive Catalogue of the Charters and Muniments ... at Berkeley Castle (1892), p. 68]

Thanks to Chris for his tremendous input and advice.

Cheers

Rosie
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 18:17:30    Tittel: Re: Apparent CP/DD Conflict (de Lisle) Svar med Sitat

Robert Forrest wrote:
Sitat:
Farrer had much more to say on the different Robert de L'Isles in his
"Honors and Knights' Fees."


Thank you for posting these extracts. Farrer's account, here and earlier in
Feudal Cambridgeshire, seems to be the origin of the false idea that a
Robert de Lisle married Beatrice de Cormeilles. Beatrice was one of the
daughters of Robert, chamberlain of the earl of Richmond.

Farrer also takes a document suggesting that a Robert de Insula was the
grandson of one Ralph the steward (dapifer), and decides that because he was
the recipient of a grant from Conan count of Brittany, he must have been
Conan's own steward (or sewer).

He then welds these two errors into a coherent whole by changing the name of
Beatrice's father to Ralph (from Robert) and by identifying the resulting
"Ralph the chamberlain" with "Ralph the steward".

What the evidence presented by Rosie shows is that the Robert de Insula of
1208 was the grandson of Ralph the dapifer in the direct male line (not
through Robert's mother), and that Ralph was the dapifer not of Conan count
of Brittany, but of the bishop of Ely (confusingly, he also seems to have
held the office of chamberlain to the bishop).

As for the supposed marriage of a Robert de Insula to Beatrice de
Cormeilles, daughter of Robert the chamberlain - the only reason that anyone
thought such a marriage had taken place was a garbled account from the late
13th century stating that a Robert de Insula had lands in Wilbraham in
marriage with a daughter of Niel, Robert's son. But contemporary evidence
shows that it was Ralph the dapifer who was given land in Wilbraham with his
wife. Chronologically, it seems likely that this wife was a daughter of
Robert.

Chris Phillips
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 19:12:23    Tittel: Re: Queen Mother's Royal Descents Svar med Sitat

I think I have identified the source of Spencer Hines' mistake. As you said
Leo, Arabella Stuart died without children. But she was married to William
Seymour 2nd Duke of Somerset, who is an ancestor of the Queen Mother.
Unfortunately, the Queen Mum's ancestor, Henry Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, was
the son of William Seymour's 2nd wife, Lady Frances Devereux, not of
Arabella Stuart. It is easy in genealogical databases to connect people up
wrongly...



""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:003f01c48505$11d32f00$c3b4fea9@email...
Sitat:
Dear Spencer,

You are confusing me and, probably, many others. You say George VI and the
Queen Mother find their first common ancestors in Matthew Stuart, Earl of
Lennox, and his wife Lady Margaret Douglas. Implying that George VI
descends
from one child and the Queen Mother from another child of this Matthew
Stuart and Lady Margaret Douglas.

They had (by memory) three sons. The first died in infancy, the third,
Charles, is father of the tragic Arabella Stuart who died without
children.
This leaves the middle son, Henry Darnley, husband of Mary Queen of Scots,
and he has only one child, James VI-I. This would mean that both George VI
and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have to descend from James VI-I for both to
have Matthew Stuart and Lady Margaret Douglas as ancestors.

As far as I can work it out, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother,
is
not a descendant of the Stuart/Stewart, Earls of Lennox. I still think
that
Henry VII and George Douglas, Master of Angus, are the nearest joint
ancestors for George VI and the Queen Mother.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 19:15:24    Tittel: Re: Apparent CP/DD Conflict (de Lisle) Svar med Sitat

Rosie, Chris, Gordon, et al--
Farrer had much more to say on the different Robert de L'Isles in his "Honors and Knights' Fees."
Vol. 2, p. 172:
"In August 1257 he [Warin Fitz-Gerold] was intending to take part in theWelsh expedition, but died about that time. According to the
evidence of the Quo Warranto rolls he left issue an only daughter Alice, who married Robert de L'Isle (Insula). The identity of this
Robert is somewhat difficult to trace owing to the fact that there was a contemporary Robert, tenant of the honor of Dover in
Lincolnshire, who succeeded his father Otuel in 1250, (60) and held lands in Northumberland, and also a Robert de L'Isle of Stoke
Lyne or L'Isle, Oxon. (Giffard, n. 25). Our Robert was descended from Robert de L'Isle, who married Beatrice de Corneilles, one of
the daughters and coheirs of Ralph the chamberlain of the earl of Richmond; from this Robert descended Robert de L'Isle, who in
1236-38 held land in Great Wilbraham in scoages of the honor of Brittany, and land of the bishop of Ely in Oakington and Westwick,
Cambs. (61) The former Robert was described in 1206 in a plea for the church of Wimpole, Cambs., as grandson of Ralph the sewer of
Conan count of Brittany. (62) He had a plea in 1199 with Robert Le Vavassour respecting land in Westwick, Cambs.; he married in 1213
Rohaise, sister and eventually coheir of John de Wahull, and relict of Robert de Tateshale; she had an inheritance in Cambridgeshire
(63) and died in 1221. (64)
"In 1212 Robert de L'Isle hald of the bishop of Ely 1 fee in Rampton and Cottenham and 1/4 fee in Westwick, Cambs., with 2 fees
in Nedging, Suff., of the bishop of Ely. (65)
"A plea in 1223 indicates that the advowson of the church of Wimpole held by Robert de L'Isle in 1223 had descended from Berenger
de Borray to Gerard his son and so apparently by marriage to Robert; Alan de Bassingeburn, who claimed the advowson, was adjudged
not be the heir of Berenger and was cast in his suit; he was son of Alexander de Bassingeburn. (66) This Ralph may be identified as
Ralph the sewer of the earl of Richmond named above.
"In 1264 the castles of Marlborough and Ludgershall were committed to Robert de L'Isle, and for a fine of 200 marks the wardship
of the land and heirs of William de Aubigny of Cainhoe. (6Cool In the ensuing year the land of Robert de L'Isle in Kemerton, Gloucs.,
was seized by the earl of Gloucester. (69) In 1269 restitution was made by licence by Robert de L'Isle to Gerard de L'Isle of his
lands which had been given to Robert by reason of trespasses charged against Gerard in the late disturbances. (70) In 1271 Gerard
and Alice his wife had land in Northamptonshire. (71) Robert de L'Isle was constable and sheriff of Oxford for a year and a quarter
until 1271. (72) This may have been the Robert de L'Isle of the Lincolnshire family, tenants of the honor of Peverel of Dover.
"In 1276 Alice de L'Isle held land in Coveney, Cambs.; Robert de L'Isle had free warren in Rampton, Cambs.; (73) Gerard de L'Isle
had certain liberties and warren in Kingston Lisle, Berks. (74) In 1275 Robert held lands in Nedging and Fimborough, Suff., of the
bishop of Ely. (75) In 1279 he held land in Oakington, Cambs., of John de Burdeleis, who held of Robert de Brus as of the honor of
Huntingdon, and 5 1/2 hides in Rampton of the same John, who held of Gilbert Pecche and he of the bishop of Ely. (76) The same
Robert also held of the honor of Brittany in Great Wilbraham, Cambs. In arrington, Cambs., lands of the honor of Richmond were held
of him. (77) In Iffley, Oxon., lands were held of the same Robert in Forest Hill. (7Cool
"Robert de L'Isle was living in June 1283, but died before the end of 1284, when Warin his son and heir had terms for payment of
the crown debt of his father. (79) Warin held land in Fimborough of the bishop of Ely in 1286, and in the following year claimed
view of frankpledge in Campton and Shifford, and cited charters made by Henry III to Warin Fitz-Gerold, his predecessor. (80) Of
these grants that of free warren in Campton and Shifford was cited by Warin's son and heir Robert in 1330 as having descended from
the first grantee to Warin's son and heir Henry, and from Henry to Warin his son and heir, and from Warin to Robert his son and
heir, and from Robert to Alice his daughter and heir, and from Alice to Warin her son and heir, and from that Warin to Robert his
son and heir living in 1330. (81) The pedigree recited is confused and inaccurate, and seems to begin with the Warin who died in
1159.
"Alice de L'Isle (relict of Robert) was living in 1290, when she acknowledged a debt as due to Warin de L'Isle. (82)..."
= = =
Refs:
60. Excerpt. Fin. ii. 91.
61. Farrer, Feud. Cambs. 121-2, 187, 239.
62. Ibid. 147, 186, 251.
63. R. de Fin. 31, 487; Excerpt Fin. i. 3.73.
64. Ibid. 73.
65. Red Bk. 523, 525.
66. Bracton's Note-Bk. n. 1578.
67. Red Bk. 365.
68. Cal. Pat. R. 350, 390, 395.
69. Cal. Misc. Inq. i. 211.
70. Cal. Pat. R. 356.
71. Excerpt Fin. ii. 538.
72. Cal. Pat. R. 536.
73. R. Hund. i. 49b, 51b; ii. 153.
74. Ibid. i. 9-10.
75. Ibid. ii. 191.
76. Ibid. 449b, 451.
77. Ibid. 491, 556.
78. Ibid. 713b, 831.
79. Cal. Fine R. i. 209.
80. Placit. de quo war. 7, 734b.
81. Ibid. 30.
82. Cal. Close R. 143.
====================
Robert Forrest
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 19:26:45    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Well said! There are many, many errors that occur in the Visitations -
don't forget that when this material was collected by the Heralds it was
information given to them by the families concerned - how many people know the names of
fathers of wives who have married into the family maybe, 3 or 4 generations
back? There is bound to be errors. Its not so long ago that many people
living today did not know the names of their own grandparents! I still don't know
the identify of my Welsh grandfather or the parents of my Irish grandmother -
and this is in 2004.

Rose
UK
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 18 Aug 2004 21:30:24    Tittel: Re: Queen Mother's Royal Descents Svar med Sitat

"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:X5MUc.157985$28.49274@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Sitat:
I think I have identified the source of Spencer Hines' mistake. As you said
Leo, Arabella Stuart died without children. But she was married to William
Seymour 2nd Duke of Somerset, who is an ancestor of the Queen Mother.
Unfortunately, the Queen Mum's ancestor, Henry Seymour, Lord Beauchamp,
was
the son of William Seymour's 2nd wife, Lady Frances Devereux, not of
Arabella Stuart. It is easy in genealogical databases to connect people up
wrongly...

I show that Jane Seymour (1637-1679, dau of William and Frances) was also
ancestral to the Queen Mother (via the Boyle family, Earls of Cork)
Regards,
Ian


Sitat:
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:003f01c48505$11d32f00$c3b4fea9@email...
Dear Spencer,

You are confusing me and, probably, many others. You say George VI and
the
Queen Mother find their first common ancestors in Matthew Stuart, Earl of
Lennox, and his wife Lady Margaret Douglas. Implying that George VI
descends
from one child and the Queen Mother from another child of this Matthew
Stuart and Lady Margaret Douglas.

They had (by memory) three sons. The first died in infancy, the third,
Charles, is father of the tragic Arabella Stuart who died without
children.
This leaves the middle son, Henry Darnley, husband of Mary Queen of
Scots,
and he has only one child, James VI-I. This would mean that both George
VI
and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon have to descend from James VI-I for both to
have Matthew Stuart and Lady Margaret Douglas as ancestors.

As far as I can work it out, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother,
is
not a descendant of the Stuart/Stewart, Earls of Lennox. I still think
that
Henry VII and George Douglas, Master of Angus, are the nearest joint
ancestors for George VI and the Queen Mother.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 19 Aug 2004 02:17:20    Tittel: Re: Possible Identification of Margaret, wife of John D'Eivi Svar med Sitat

Wednesday, 18 August, 2004


Hello All,

A group of documents on the PRO site have been found which may assist
in identifying the family of Margaret, wife of (1) Sir John D'Eiville of
Egmanton (d. ca. 1325) - his second, and (2) Sir Adam de Everingham of
Laxton, co. Notts. (d. bef 8 May 1341). To date, she has only been
identified as Margaret [1].

The PRO extracts from these documents are provided below. These
identify John D'eiville or Deiville of Egmanton [transcribed as 'de
Eynill' in error] entering into a series of agreements concerning
certain lands in Cundall, co. Yorks. starting in February 1316/7, and
ending after his death and his wife Margaret's remarriage to Adam de
Everingham [2].

The 'use' of Alexander de Ledes and his wife Elizabeth in these
agreements (including as feoffees for the purpose of reconveying
property to Sir John, 'for his wife' - see DDCC/130/7, dated 12 March
1321/2) indicates a possible close connection, most likely to
Elizabeth the wife. Her identification as a member of the Darell
family of Sessay, and the presence of Sir William Darell as a witness
in one document, may indicate that the Darell family is the
connection between Deyville and Ledes. If Margaret, wife of John
d'Eyville, was a sister of Elizabeth (Darell) Ledes, and a daughter
of William Darell of Sessay, that would explain their close
association as well as resolving the parentage of Margaret.

Should anyone have any further information concerning the Darells
of Sessay, the tenure of Cundall, or other relevant information/
advice, I would be most appreciative. This would further resolve the
ancestry of a number of list members, and many others (incl. Prince
William of the UK) besides.

Cheers,

John *

________________________________________



PRO, East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Records Service:
Chichester-Constable Family [DDCC/111 - DDCC/135]

Reference: DDCC/130/4
Gift

Creation dates: 1 Feb 1316/7

John de Eynill, lord of Thornton super Swale to Thomas son of Ralph de
Cundale and his wife Emma for their lives, property: messuage with a
croft, 2 bovates, 1½ ac. 1r. land in Cundale which the said Thomas
sometime held of him in bondage Rendering 19s. 1d. yearly for all
services except suit of court of the mill at Thornton. Witn. William the
forester ("Forestar"), John Winmer ad Houel, Richard the cook ("Coco"),
of Thornton, Robert the fisher ("Piscator") of the same. Given at
Thornton.



Reference: DDCC/130/5
Letter of Attorney

Creation dates: 28 Sep 1321

John son of Sir John de Eynill of Egmanton to William le Warener of
Cundale, property: to deliver seisin to Alexander of Ledes and wife
Elizabeth of a place of land and wood called Lytelapelgath and of 2 ac.
adjacent land to the N. in Cundale, with power to enclose Given at
Thorneton super Swale.




Reference: DDCC/130/6
Gift

Creation dates: 14 Oct 1321

John son of Sir John de Eynill lord of Egmanton to Alexander de Ledes and
wife Elizabeth, property: all his town of Cundale near Thornton super
Swale and all appurtenances in demesne as far as the boundary between
Cundale and Thornton called Heggebeck Witn. Sir John Marmion, Sir John
de Walkyngham, Sir Robert Coyners, Sir Robert de Plompton, Sir Richard
de Bernyngham, Sir Robert de Waddeslay, Sir William Darell, William de
Eskelby, William de Cundale, Warner, John de Wynnemer, John de Mauneby,
Robert le Fissher. Given at Cundale, Seal, armorial on a fess between 4
fleurs-de-lys, 2 fleurs-de-lys.




Reference: DDCC/130/7
Demise

Creation dates: 12 Mar. 1321/2

Alexander de Ledes and wife Elizabeth to Sir John de Eynill, lord of
Egmanton, for his wife, property: all their town of Cundale near
Thorneton super Swale Rendering 1d yearly. Given at Cundale Witn. Sir
John Marmyun, Sir John de Walkyngham, Sir Robert Coyners, Sir Robert de
Plumton, Sir Richard de Bernyngham, Sir Robert de Waddeslay, William de
Eskelby, William de Cundale Warener, John de Wymmer, John de Manneby,
Robert le Fissher. Seal, armorial, on a fess between four fleurs-de-lys,
two fleurs-de-lys.


_______________________________


* Note: (1) erroneous date on following entry
(2) name of spouse of Alexander de Ledes (either an error
for Elizabeth, or possibly a 2nd/subsequent spouse) [2]


Reference: DDCC/130/3
Final Concord

Creation dates: Easter (1311?)

Alexander de Ledes and wife Margaret (by their attorney Peter de
Richemond) plaintiffs, and Boniface de Ledes deforceant, property:
manors of Thorneton super Swale, Cundale, Kyrkeby super Moram, Ledes
and Gypton, with 5 messuages, 6 bovates and 7 ac. land and 60 ac. wood
in Mideby and Letteby A. and M. to have manors of Ledes, Gipton and
Kyrkeby, and two parts of the manors of Thornton and Cundale and their
appurtenances (except 6 messuages, 7 tofts, 23 bovates and 32 land and
29 ac. meadow in the manors of Kyrkeby and the two parts of the manors
of Thornton and Cundale); and they shall also have the remainders of
the third part of the manors of Thornton and Cundale, and of specified
property in those manors and in Kyrkeby on deaths of tenants (Adam de
Everingham and wife Margaret, Robert de Stokesle and wife Adeline,
Thomas de Fencotes, Thomas de Vallibus chaplain, Nicholas de Hewyk,
Geoffrey de Lutterworth and wife Beatrix, William de Popelton, Robert
de Ellerton, John son of Alan de Brafeford, William de Herneby and
wife Mariot).




NOTES

[1] CP IV:133 [Deiville]; V:188 [Everingham]

[2] This particular entry has been assigned a date of 'Easter (1311?)'
in error. Sir John D'eiville died ca. 1325, with his widow
Margaret marrying Sir Adam de Everingham before Michaelmas 1326.
As he died in 1341, this document can only be assigned an
approximate date of between 1326 and 1341, inclusive.



* John P. Ravilious
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 19 Aug 2004 12:56:56    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

Two points.----First, while it is of course true that there are many
errors in Visitations, the weight one places on a Visitation's
statement as to a given relationship of (in this case) two centuries
before should depend, to at least some significant extent, on what
proportion of such statements, in general (or better, in the
particular Visitation under consideration), one believes to be false.
It's legitimate to say, there are many errors in Visitations,
therefore statement x should be viewed with some doubt; it's not
legitimate to say, there are many errors in Visitations, therefore
statement x should be considered essentially worthless. (I've
perceived a consistent subtext, here, to that effect.) Not
legitimate, I should say, unless one is willing to estimate that, say,
over half of all such statements are false. I've not done an
empirical study (tho' neither, I'd guess, has anyone here), but I'd
take the converse to be true.----Second, I wouldn't feel at all
comfortable analogizing from typical present-day knowledge of one's
ancestry -- on which, for the great majority of us, little or nothing
of practical value depends -- to a presumptive typical knowledge, in
the 15th-17th centuries, of the ancestry of a Visitation family. A
great deal, by way of land and money, could depend on the latter,
sometimes by way of rather distant collateral descent thru women. For
such people, knowing one's ancestry was a crucial part of knowing
one's rights, and many cases in Chancery deal with canny people who
kept their eyes peeled for possible inheritances.


Maytree4@aol.com wrote in message news:<29.5f256a7e.2e54cf2a@aol.com>...
Sitat:
Well said! There are many, many errors that occur in the Visitations -
don't forget that when this material was collected by the Heralds it was
information given to them by the families concerned - how many people know the names of
fathers of wives who have married into the family maybe, 3 or 4 generations
back? There is bound to be errors. Its not so long ago that many people
living today did not know the names of their own grandparents! I still don't know
the identify of my Welsh grandfather or the parents of my Irish grandmother -
and this is in 2004.

Rose
UK
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 19 Aug 2004 19:41:54    Tittel: Re: Edward Stradling's Alleged Illegitimate Children Svar med Sitat

In message of 19 Aug, mkkirk@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote:

Sitat:
Two points.----First, while it is of course true that there are many
errors in Visitations, the weight one places on a Visitation's
statement as to a given relationship of (in this case) two centuries
before should depend, to at least some significant extent, on what
proportion of such statements, in general (or better, in the
particular Visitation under consideration), one believes to be false.

It is not a question of belief but of methodology. 'Belief' in
genealogy goes back to the bad old days when there were people with
magic genealogical senses who could lay down authoritative pedigrees.

To my mind Visitation evidence is the same as any other evidence: how
likely is it that the document refers to something that the writer could
have verified?

Sitat:
It's legitimate to say, there are many errors in Visitations,
therefore statement x should be viewed with some doubt; it's not
legitimate to say, there are many errors in Visitations, therefore
statement x should be considered essentially worthless. (I've
perceived a consistent subtext, here, to that effect.) Not
legitimate, I should say, unless one is willing to estimate that, say,
over half of all such statements are false. I've not done an
empirical study (tho' neither, I'd guess, has anyone here), but I'd
take the converse to be true.----Second, I wouldn't feel at all
comfortable analogizing from typical present-day knowledge of one's
ancestry -- on which, for the great majority of us, little or nothing
of practical value depends -- to a presumptive typical knowledge, in
the 15th-17th centuries, of the ancestry of a Visitation family. A
great deal, by way of land and money, could depend on the latter,
sometimes by way of rather distant collateral descent thru women. For
such people, knowing one's ancestry was a crucial part of knowing
one's rights, and many cases in Chancery deal with canny people who
kept their eyes peeled for possible inheritances.

But surely, as now, people would be expected to produce evidence in
court. That is why documents showing title were of such value (why do
you think my father had in his possession deeds going back to the 15th
century?).

The law courts did not and do not operate from 'belief' but from
evidence.

This brings us back to the simple rule that was adopted for most of the
later Visitations: Only quote back to the interviewee's grandfather as
that is all that he would have known himself. The College of Arms still
follows that rule. If you wish them to accept ancestry of before your
grandparents, you have to produce bits of paper.

So this is the methodology to employ. Do you have a better one and for
what reason?

Mind you all his assumes that the printed Visitations are the same as
the records taken by the herald. Until about thirty years ago, this
simply is not true, save in one or two cases where the original
documents escaped the College of Arms.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 21 Aug 2004 04:34:16    Tittel: So how does this Sir. Edward fit in? Svar med Sitat

Tim, et al:

I know there is some question as to the errors in the Visitations, but
it would seem that the publishers have in the new series tried to
correct the pegigrees as the facts and information has come to light.

Now, if you could, Where does this Sir. Edward Stradling fit into the
Stradling family?

The publications of The Harleian Soiety, New Series, Vol 14.
The Visitations of the Heralds in Wales, Published 1996
Page 50, Visitation pedigree 19.
Title: Stradling of St. Donats
Start:
[H 12; V 111; F 19]
Sir. Edward Stradling [H]
Arms: Paly of six Ar and Az, on a bend Gu three roses Or.

Sir. Edwarde Stradling, Knight [1] maryed Elysabeth, doughter to
Thomas Arundell[2b], of Cornewaile, and had yssue Thomas [3], who
maried Katheryne doughter to Sir. Thomas Gamage [4], and Robert [5]
maryed to Dennyse doughter to Watkyn Lowghter [6], who had issue [c]
Harry, John and Edwarde.


Notes and Sources:
(See ?? = See pedigree ?? in this book.)


1: Son of Thomas (d. 1480), b. c.1472; d. 8 May 1535 (IPM, PRO,
C142/57, no. 68.) Knighted 25 Sept. 1513 at Tournai, ( Knighted Welsh
Landowners", P. 292. Will proved 9 Feb. 1535/6, PCC 32 Hogen. See 11
[15] and Ballard, 108. As well as two sons given here he had two more
sones, Henry and Edward and two daughters, and a large number of
illegitimate children.

2: Of Lanherne, Cornwall, (Pedigree of J.L. Vivian, The Visitations of
Cornwall (Exeter, 1887), page 5). Elizabeth d. c. 1513 at Merthyr
Mawr. Marriage confirmed in Husbands IPM>

3: Sir. Thomas's will proved 4 May 1571, PCC 21 Holney. He was aged 30
at fathers death.

4: Lord of Coety, d. 1543. See 33. Sir. Thomas (2) m. Joyce dau. of
Sir. Richard Croft. (WG 2, Gamage 2).

5: Of Merthyr Mawr, GLA

6: Of tythegston, GLA (WG 2, lestn 7 (C2)).

Thank you,
MDW




Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote in message news:<8a6803e14c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
Sitat:
In message of 19 Aug, mkkirk@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote:

Two points.----First, while it is of course true that there are many
errors in Visitations, the weight one places on a Visitation's
statement as to a given relationship of (in this case) two centuries
before should depend, to at least some significant extent, on what
proportion of such statements, in general (or better, in the
particular Visitation under consideration), one believes to be false.

It is not a question of belief but of methodology. 'Belief' in
genealogy goes back to the bad old days when there were people with
magic genealogical senses who could lay down authoritative pedigrees.

To my mind Visitation evidence is the same as any other evidence: how
likely is it that the document refers to something that the writer could
have verified?

It's legitimate to say, there are many errors in Visitations,
therefore statement x should be viewed with some doubt; it's not
legitimate to say, there are many errors in Visitations, therefore
statement x should be considered essentially worthless. (I've
perceived a consistent subtext, here, to that effect.) Not
legitimate, I should say, unless one is willing to estimate that, say,
over half of all such statements are false. I've not done an
empirical study (tho' neither, I'd guess, has anyone here), but I'd
take the converse to be true.----Second, I wouldn't feel at all
comfortable analogizing from typical present-day knowledge of one's
ancestry -- on which, for the great majority of us, little or nothing
of practical value depends -- to a presumptive typical knowledge, in
the 15th-17th centuries, of the ancestry of a Visitation family. A
great deal, by way of land and money, could depend on the latter,
sometimes by way of rather distant collateral descent thru women. For
such people, knowing one's ancestry was a crucial part of knowing
one's rights, and many cases in Chancery deal with canny people who
kept their eyes peeled for possible inheritances.

But surely, as now, people would be expected to produce evidence in
court. That is why documents showing title were of such value (why do
you think my father had in his possession deeds going back to the 15th
century?).

The law courts did not and do not operate from 'belief' but from
evidence.

This brings us back to the simple rule that was adopted for most of the
later Visitations: Only quote back to the interviewee's grandfather as
that is all that he would have known himself. The College of Arms still
follows that rule. If you wish them to accept ancestry of before your
grandparents, you have to produce bits of paper.

So this is the methodology to employ. Do you have a better one and for
what reason?

Mind you all his assumes that the printed Visitations are the same as
the records taken by the herald. Until about thirty years ago, this
simply is not true, save in one or two cases where the original
documents escaped the College of Arms.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 21 Aug 2004 06:55:17    Tittel: Re: Question about Axtell-Holland immigrants to S.C. Svar med Sitat

The item below may help in reconstructing Cornelius Holland's family:

Nichols' _Leicestershire_, vol. 3, part 1, p. 526 ["Additions and
Corrections to Framland Hundred"]:

"Henry Smith, esq., now (1641) lord of the said manor [Withcote],
patron of the said church, and knight of the parliament for this
shire; who in 1633 was a ward of the king's; and of whom an account
has been already given. His wife was the daughter of _Cornelius_ (not
_Charles Holland_)."
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 21 Aug 2004 15:01:00    Tittel: Re: So how does this Sir. Edward fit in? Svar med Sitat

In message of 21 Aug, mdelanow@msn.com (M.Delano Warner) wrote:

Sitat:
Tim, et al:

I know there is some question as to the errors in the Visitations, but
it would seem that the publishers have in the new series tried to
correct the pegigrees as the facts and information has come to light.

In this posting, I am replying solely to the opening point about
method. If I know anything about the Stradlings (doubtful!) I'll reply
on that in a separate post.

What I am trying to establish is what method should be followed when
presented with a Visitation book. The question to be answered is:

"How much can I rely on the information in this book?"

At this point I am referring to the information transcribed from the
Visitation manuscripts into the book. I am not referring to other
information that the editor may have added in.

The two rules (the "method") I would recommend are:

1. Look at the introduction and find what manuscript was used. If it
was not an original visitation manuscript, then put a big question
mark around everything.

2. If the manuscript was the original or checked and confirmed against
the original, only accept information about the person interviewed
and as far back as his grandparents, plus his children of course.

If other, earlier, information is given in the book, ensure that you
can confirm it from another source.


The other question is whether an editor should correct the information.
For my money this is a disaster. The purpose of publishing a transcript
of any source document is to give us the raw information as provided
therein. I have the utmost suspicion when editors alter the source
text in their transcription.

But it is obviously acceptable, desirable even, for the editor to put
notes in to correct or elucidate statements in the source text. Though
he should make it very clear where the manuscript stops and where his
notes begin.

The earlier Visitation books are sadly lacking in content and method
and, in my opinion, need re-doing from the originals in the College of
Arms.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 21 Aug 2004 15:13:37    Tittel: Re: So how does this Sir. Edward fit in? Svar med Sitat

In message of 21 Aug, mdelanow@msn.com (M.Delano Warner) wrote:

Sitat:
Now, if you could, Where does this Sir. Edward Stradling fit into the
Stradling family?

The publications of The Harleian Soiety, New Series, Vol 14.
The Visitations of the Heralds in Wales, Published 1996
Page 50, Visitation pedigree 19.
Title: Stradling of St. Donats
Start:
[H 12; V 111; F 19]
Sir. Edward Stradling [H]
Arms: Paly of six Ar and Az, on a bend Gu three roses Or.

Sir. Edwarde Stradling, Knight [1] maryed Elysabeth, doughter to
Thomas Arundell[2b], of Cornewaile, and had yssue Thomas [3], who
maried Katheryne doughter to Sir. Thomas Gamage [4], and Robert [5]
maryed to Dennyse doughter to Watkyn Lowghter [6], who had issue [c]
Harry, John and Edwarde.

Personally I have no idea. But there is an interesting account at:

http://www.stradling.org.uk/docs/O_r_16.htm

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Aug 2004 09:01:14    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

Dear Chris.
I thought I had replied and thanked you, but as it doesn't show on the list,
I must assume that I didn't, and apologise.
I had previously been in contact with the archives at Luton, and while they
were very willing, they weren't able to tell me anything further. but thank
you, anyway!
Cheers,
Alwynne

"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cel62a$77h$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Sitat:
Alwynne Mackie wrote:

snip

Is there a further reference I can follow up, and if so, what is it?
Is this likely to be all the detail I shall get anyway?
The Conworth entries are the only ones with a date.

snip


If you haven't looked at A2A, might be worth doing so. I only checked one
of
the names you mentioned (Conworth) in the Bedfordshire and Luton Archives
and there is a 1781 reference to John Conworth in the Quarter Sessions
Rolls.

You could try emailing the record office with the original query. They
might
be able very quickly to identify the sources, provide you with modern
catalogue references and tell you whether the original material provides
more detail.

Chris

Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Aug 2004 23:30:38    Tittel: Re: Book review? Svar med Sitat

The other day I was at a flea market (giant yard sale for those who don't
know this term) and acquired a book "Living Descendents of Blood Royal Volume 2"
compiled by Count d'Angerville, F.R.S.A., World Nobility, London, 1962.

Does anyone know if this book is good, fair or poor in it's research?
It does give quite a large number of connection-by-connection references,
that is, it gives references on each parent-child relationship.

Will
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Aug 2004 23:34:47    Tittel: Re: ANCESTRY of RICHARD III Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 8/22/04 2:18:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
geb@gordonbanks.com writes:
RARE ROYALTY
Sitat:
GENEALOGY Book ANCESTRY of RICHARD III by Ernst-Friedrich Kraentzler. It's
a collection of pedigree charts tracing Richard III genealogically back to
Adam.
OK! So part of this book is just so much bull and baloney. Any one who says

they can give you ancestry back to ADAM is just plain not telling the truth.

Jno
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Aug 2004 08:42:51    Tittel: Re: A Varizo-free UPG? Svar med Sitat

edvamp@aol.comKILLKILL (Edvamp) wrote in message news:<20040822225746.04869.00001896@mb-m05.aol.com>...
Sitat:
I think that since you don't know me personally, your inference is rather
tenuous and a little insulting, but I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.
abandonware slandered indepth gawdamned acquintance inbuilt chegwin

freebies addittion crappola contient mimeole advertizments secureway
gadalke symetric adviced adresses asmworkshop emule aignes login
downloads apologise desparation publiquement assed theregister
eliteness pouche asshole spammer email geees john mcneil babelfish
upload ahold braindead searching babesontheweb corelation betas
hardball bastoids decieb cinix couldn himherself bearly vianello
sideeffe homepage bindisplay mailboms haltabuse kayaker bittorent gary
wi brady scamming uslovii decrypted biznes altadena wisconsin inact
laura jones doomy michael peterson bookmarked slandering ranshe tates
boreing tim harding allinurl pseudonyms groupdomain bphonebook lancia
forun moderator australia beschikbaar poursuivre ssection goodboy
leganord vermont vt ccctournament availible euskalerria cloakers
chargback unodc thelist dan grubbs laters impune clientaddr klebing
spaming finche comin draad verfolgen central city phrocrew terry hall
comming workarounds weren megago crackable gatto systran dripc
hijacked virgina va cahoots dawgs wouldn crypted comcast portscan
tions cyberangels spangdelicious sendig cyberpharises inurl freeby
eigent lois riggs cybertip contrib alphabeticaly prudenter defamation
gutierrez anonymizing hagcc definitly theorical reportstalking
develope oregon or harmony padova demoscene sprouts dieses didnt
occurrance pizdu pyslsk ccmaker dismantled pdabench voyeurs tounge
drugix dbpubs crimereport valse dryers wachtwoorden lusisti eachother
smokin inanchor openssl emoticons stats discussie pretenzii daytona
erik lunsen trolling backassward hiself esmtp cybercrime deranged
bitching everytime browser iraqi cbmsv readmessa favorise webfog
gardenwork sollicitation forum ladiest zanon habes defendent forum
teenz challanging sucecess fraudelent toolz dchenka squirel scott
curry parolj gameshows telephon infominder zenful geeminee hummmmm e
lunsen chaffe gianni cyber implemention theboard tennessee gigio
misrepres vienello phonebook holdrege girlfriend rambleings
messageboards cmaster homophobe aditionally spoofing beschlag
convinctions alltheweb izmeni privatpolitik idtheft copyrighted
anticommercial skopirovat imformation cantonale javascript bitched
impartiality usefull john dahl newsgroups intro impersonator sissies
greencard qmail informations halfheartedly veronavr soglasen
intersting stottern billy parker javascripts cached intitle
tatigkeiten ointments bittorrent isreal informati andere erik van lint
judiciaire disavowed article orgaization junkmail will phillips
kompressor webhits capio localita goasia terayon algos tn wyoming wy
luser outwiegh rizome silentes weavers mailbombs follwing foolfox
cloaking mailcity stalker entangled postid malevolence honeys
handwritting cardia mckenney whilst intergov personnels mozilla
nachrichten finem ademus unodc report mzejtibue netblock arn hub
defamatory respice aljazeera netiquette bigole california ca
persistant endevor west greenwich newsarticle cybertipii uninvolved
proxies occasionaly computerwords allinanchor bookmarlets kirk boyd
weilding normaly tvoix cheapo welle accordace oppps neccesarily emails
seens ddosattacked brainless doesn popups kissimmee douglas orgdate
gentelman gloriuos taire new york ny orggames forefront pagine
orglesson referers personals trully orgto sergey smith changedetect
accussed javier romero quidquid outblaze uncollated downloadable using
paris evanlint@nextiraone.be adverts seward particularily toopliable
scammers shtml pesky econsumer tortious cognden operapl popstars
seerev webhosting ricerca menya popup passwrd porting spammed columbus
postcount fantomaster reposting presentable heshe websmoke infos psssh
hisher bullshitting kudos cotton wood publically postgresssql jazeera
jason smith puristic safetyed ethnically bookmarks reposts sergei
smith phrocrew@yahoo.com speaketh resend marcoz iciaire quoting
rwcrmxc kazaa ccard lacessit bullshit saddam assurtions wimsnery
stbtclient sensi ctions einer hummm matt parker ordinateur pussyfootin
decompiling showpost practises reportcp systransoft showthread
filecompression netscape tina lawson sicut newbie pissed
horticulturists barrington slobo straitjacket seperate prosto
webmasters assur spams representitive weeding sociopath hited gomer
scumbag suspect stalkers crapmongers webhists serch stoggie
herdthinners collator huffy straylight cuius systranbox unbelievably
subscribtion peepoles studing lookover surprize smogs dijuno anals
cottage grove sweatheart comrom abreviations changedetection testerday
haters politcal possibly tiporich unwarranted treviso pffff trempack
icobalt spyware encense trollie scammer bestrebt semingly twentythree
antispam frends calomnie twpyhr yyyttt predica uncensored fernch schen
sreal bethelak underage specificaly groot tigen ungesetzlichen new
york propri favia cannonfodder unsolicited chargebacks whoelse lotsah
voila untergrund ffentlich mozhesh gainesville vorhanden anonimously
femme fdemo uspassword followup grmbl admin pakage tukstory combolist
whatshisname similia falsche allright wiredsafety gales seite cranston
kreditkarte wobot charset advertizing spamming xaknuli lenghty
washington wa dunno uninvited juneau zasunut basicaly mzejtibue ammy
pleskow werent download pansa I wouldn't. This is the same person
that absolutely disdains the newsgroup he posts to yet can't leave it,
who continues to post out of sheer spite and a desire to teach us a
lesson, and who has joked about newsgroup members dying in Iraq when
they mentioned they were going over there. But of course, "we're" the
socially maladjusted ones.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Aug 2004 19:00:02    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

"Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message news:<2oqtr6Fdkv6pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Sitat:
Dear Chris.
I thought I had replied and thanked you, but as it doesn't show on the list,
I must assume that I didn't, and apologise.
I had previously been in contact with the archives at Luton, and while they
were very willing, they weren't able to tell me anything further. but thank
you, anyway!
Cheers,
Alwynne

"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cel62a$77h$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Alwynne Mackie wrote:

snip

Is there a further reference I can follow up, and if so, what is it?
Is this likely to be all the detail I shall get anyway?
The Conworth entries are the only ones with a date.

snip


If you haven't looked at A2A, might be worth doing so. I only checked one
of
the names you mentioned (Conworth) in the Bedfordshire and Luton Archives
and there is a 1781 reference to John Conworth in the Quarter Sessions
Rolls.

You could try emailing the record office with the original query. They
might
be able very quickly to identify the sources, provide you with modern
catalogue references and tell you whether the original material provides
more detail.

Chris

I would have thought you were better off speaking to the RO at

Bedford, rather than at Luton.

MAR
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Aug 2004 22:14:08    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

Alwynne Mackie wrote:

<snip>
Sitat:
I had previously been in contact with the archives at Luton, and while they
were very willing, they weren't able to tell me anything further.
snip



The next best step might be (if you can) to visit the local record offices.

In my experience, archivists at county record offices are tremendously
helpful and enthusiastic, but don't necessarily know much about what's
hidden away in their basement brown boxes.

They rely (fair enough) on the catalogues and indexes that they have, but
these are frequently inexact and patchy.

At least with A2A now, it's much easier to search what's in the catalogues.
Bear in mind that A2A is constantly expanding and it's worth checking every
month what has been added. In June a very large number of family archives
were included.


Chris
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Aug 2004 12:25:57    Tittel: Re: CP Correction - Birthdates of Maud & Blanche of Lancaste Svar med Sitat

Brad Verity wrote (in June):

<<
The will of Duke Henry is abstracted in 'Testamenta Vetusta', Volume
1, p. 65. Per the editor, it was dated at Leicester Castle 15 March
1360.

"...and also we will that our Lord the King, my Lady the Queen, be
invited to our funeral; and Monsr. the Prince, and my lords his
brothers, my wife Lady Isabell, our sisters, and our brothers their
Lords, and other distinguished persons of our blood"

If the original will still exists, I'm going to order a copy, as there
are a couple of things about the Testamenta Vetusta abstract that seem
a little fishy:

1) The will is dated 15 March 1360 at Leicester, and is very short.
The Duke died 25 March 1361 at Leicester. It seems more like a will
from a deathbed rather than a full year beforehand, so the editor may
have dated it incorrectly by one year.
2) The Duke lists his "wife" Isabell immediately after the brothers
(one of whom was his son-in-law by then) of the Prince of Wales.
Isabel, the sole surviving sister of the Black Prince was alive and
still unmarried in 1360/1361. Perhaps there was a
mistranslation/mistranscription?
Sitat:


I had the pleasure of meeting Brad in London on Friday, and he generously
provided me with copies of both the transcript published in Nichols's Royal
Wills and the relevant page of Archbishop Islip's Register, from Lambeth
Palace Library. As he wouldn't be able to post for a few days, he asked me
if I could pass the text on to the newsgroup for comments.

The part concerning the invitations to his funeral is as follows (I've
relied on Nichols's transcript for the parts in [...], which are obscured in
the copy from the register):

"Et volons q' n're seign'r le Roy & ma dame le [sic] Reyne soient garniz de
n're ent'rement et mons'r [le P]rince & mes seign's ses freres & ma dame
dame Isabell & nos seors et nos freres lo'r seign's et les autres [graun]tz
de n're saunk."

So the abstract in Testamenta Vetusta was accurate, except that "ma dame
dame Isabell" has been interpreted as "my wife lady Isabell" - and Nichols
suggests the same interpretation in a footnote. But as Brad suggested
previously, it could equally be interpreted as "my lady the lady Isabell",
if it refers to the sister of the Black Prince, whose brothers have been
mentioned immediately before. (NB Looking at online sources - which I'm
reluctant to rely on - it seems that there would have been two other
surviving sisters of the Black Prince at this time, Mary and Margaret,
though they were much younger than Isabel.)

This interpretation seems plausible to me, and would obviously explain the
absence of any reference to his wife elsewhere in the will. It would also
explain why there's no record of any provision for her after his death,
without having to suppose that she died very soon after he did.

Chris Phillips
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Aug 2004 21:08:23    Tittel: Another, but different. Was - Re: Book review? Svar med Sitat

Some listers may be interested to learn that, after nearly 500 years of almost relentless vilification, an unbiased pen has written a much more believable biography of Anne Boleyn. Joanna Denny, descendant of Sir Anthony Denny, Keeper of Henry VIII's Dry Seal, has researched her subject very well, and presents an interesting picture of this tragic woman. The new "Anne Boleyn" is published by Piatkus Books, London.

Regards

Frank
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 25 Aug 2004 12:36:32    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

I would dearly love to visit the local archives, Chris, but I am here in
Australia. I have to communicate via email, but I must say I have
encountered a lot of very helpful archivists along the way, despite that.
Many thanks!
Alwynne

"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cgdc5f$42b$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
Sitat:
Alwynne Mackie wrote:

snip
I had previously been in contact with the archives at Luton, and while
they
were very willing, they weren't able to tell me anything further.
snip


The next best step might be (if you can) to visit the local record
offices.

In my experience, archivists at county record offices are tremendously
helpful and enthusiastic, but don't necessarily know much about what's
hidden away in their basement brown boxes.

They rely (fair enough) on the catalogues and indexes that they have, but
these are frequently inexact and patchy.

At least with A2A now, it's much easier to search what's in the
catalogues.
Bear in mind that A2A is constantly expanding and it's worth checking
every
month what has been added. In June a very large number of family archives
were included.


Chris

Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 25 Aug 2004 12:38:03    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

Many thanks, Michael.
I tried Luton, because that was the repository for one of the Bedford
entries I was interested in for the same John Conworth. But I shall give
Bedford a go!
Cheers,
Alwynne

"Michael Andrews-Reading" <mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d3c078ef.0408230900.4792c674@posting.google.com...
Sitat:
"Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:<2oqtr6Fdkv6pU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Dear Chris.
I thought I had replied and thanked you, but as it doesn't show on the
list,
I must assume that I didn't, and apologise.
I had previously been in contact with the archives at Luton, and while
they
were very willing, they weren't able to tell me anything further. but
thank
you, anyway!
Cheers,
Alwynne

"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cel62a$77h$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Alwynne Mackie wrote:

snip

Is there a further reference I can follow up, and if so, what is it?
Is this likely to be all the detail I shall get anyway?
The Conworth entries are the only ones with a date.

snip


If you haven't looked at A2A, might be worth doing so. I only checked
one
of
the names you mentioned (Conworth) in the Bedfordshire and Luton
Archives
and there is a 1781 reference to John Conworth in the Quarter Sessions
Rolls.

You could try emailing the record office with the original query. They
might
be able very quickly to identify the sources, provide you with modern
catalogue references and tell you whether the original material
provides
more detail.

Chris

I would have thought you were better off speaking to the RO at
Bedford, rather than at Luton.

MAR
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 25 Aug 2004 20:06:24    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

Alwynne Mackie wrote:

Sitat:
I would dearly love to visit the local archives, Chris, but I am here in
Australia. I have to communicate via email, but I must say I have
encountered a lot of very helpful archivists along the way, despite that.


A good excuse for an extended research holiday to the UK. Maybe someone of
this group should arrange such for the non-UK resident listers! :-)

Chris
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 25 Aug 2004 20:46:06    Tittel: Research holiday in UK? was: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Chris Dickinson wrote:

Sitat:
A good excuse for an extended research holiday to the UK. Maybe someone of
this group should arrange such for the non-UK resident listers! Smile

Oh my, what a fine idea. Not OT I know; will someone offer to
set up a list of interested people, so as not to clutter the
GEN-MEDIEVAL archives? Add me, Dolly in Maryland USA <dsz@BCPL.net>
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 26 Aug 2004 08:17:53    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

I wish!!!
Alwynne

"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cgiddv$3m6$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
Sitat:
Alwynne Mackie wrote:

I would dearly love to visit the local archives, Chris, but I am here in
Australia. I have to communicate via email, but I must say I have
encountered a lot of very helpful archivists along the way, despite that.


A good excuse for an extended research holiday to the UK. Maybe someone of
this group should arrange such for the non-UK resident listers! :-)

Chris


Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 26 Aug 2004 10:03:08    Tittel: Re: Taxpayer Records Source Problem Svar med Sitat

In message of 26 Aug, "Alwynne Mackie" <alwynnem@melbpc.org.au> wrote:

Sitat:
"Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message
news:cgiddv$3m6$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

Alwynne Mackie wrote:

I would dearly love to visit the local archives, Chris, but I am
here in Australia. I have to communicate via email, but I must
say I have encountered a lot of very helpful archivists along the
way, despite that.

A good excuse for an extended research holiday to the UK. Maybe
someone of this group should arrange such for the non-UK resident
listers! :-)

Chris

I wish!!!
Alwynne


I may just know someone who may be able to assist. But the first
question is the overall requirement:

1. Is is just travel and accommodation? If so, all it needs is a travel
agent.

2. Is it travel and accommodation plus guidance on English
research facilities?

If there are several people who can answer Yes to the latter, we have a
few more questions:

1. How many people are needed to make a package economically viable?

2. What sorts of research facilities?

3. Which towns would you want to visit?

4. What sort of introduction and guidance is required?

5. How long a (working) holiday?

Etc.

Remember that it needs people to agree on a common format in sufficient
numbers to make the thing viable. If something could be roughly
agreed, I could approach some people to see what they could provide.

One firm that I have patronised prefers at least 12 and preferably 20
people to take on an expert, guided tour of some area. My guess is that
it would be much the same numbers needed for a genealogical tour.

And don't expect it to be cheap, though I do know of cheaper
accommodation options.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 27 Aug 2004 06:49:26    Tittel: Re: Location sites in the UK? Svar med Sitat

I would like to thank all those of you, who responded to my query and
for all the URL's forwarded for me to look at.

--
Best wishes,
Susan
Victoria
Australia
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2004 08:04:51    Tittel: Re: CP Correction - Birthdates of Maud & Blanche of Lancaste Svar med Sitat

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:

[snip]
Sitat:
"Et volons q' n're seign'r le Roy & ma dame le [sic] Reyne soient garniz de
n're ent'rement et mons'r [le P]rince & mes seign's ses freres & ma dame
dame Isabell & nos seors et nos freres lo'r seign's et les autres [graun]tz
de n're saunk."

So the abstract in Testamenta Vetusta was accurate, except that "ma dame
dame Isabell" has been interpreted as "my wife lady Isabell" - and Nichols
suggests the same interpretation in a footnote. But as Brad suggested
previously, it could equally be interpreted as "my lady the lady Isabell",
if it refers to the sister of the Black Prince, whose brothers have been
mentioned immediately before. (NB Looking at online sources - which I'm
reluctant to rely on - it seems that there would have been two other
surviving sisters of the Black Prince at this time, Mary and Margaret,
though they were much younger than Isabel.)

Just to add to Chris's excellent summary, 'ma dame' is not the usual
term for wife in fourteenth-century wills written in French. In the
wills of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford (d. 1322), Hugh de
Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon (d. 1377), and John of Gaunt, Duke of
Lancaster (d. 1399), their wives are referred to as 'compaigne', not
'dame'.

I was incorrect about Isabel being the sole daughter of Edward III in
March 1361 - her two younger sisters Mary and Margaret were apparently
still alive, though both would die within the year. But Henry of
Grosmont was present at Woodstock for the birth of Isabel in 1332, and
may have had a special (godfather?) relationship to her. (No record
of who her godparents were seems to have survived.)

It's also striking that Duke Henry appointed his eldest sister
Blanche, Lady Wake, one of the several executors of his will, the
absence of his wife among the executors further evidence she wasn't
alive.

Cheers, --------Brad
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2004 10:35:55    Tittel: Re: genealogical motivations Svar med Sitat

This thread has is very interesting; however, a more pragmatic motivation for
interest in royal and noble ancestry has not been mentioned. Once you find
one--or two or three--you have a treasure trove of usually very well-documented
genealogical information, the product of the work of others over the years,
that a person would not be likely to be able to discover in several lifetimes
of research, had the ancestors been non-royal.

I would be as happy to be descended from his stableboy as I am from
Charlemagne. I find the life stories of my ancestors who were farmers,
merchants, rogues, and ne'er-do-wells often as interesting as any.
Unfortunately, until relatively recently there was little documentation of the
lives of common folk.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2004 23:42:29    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke ? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20.32229237.2e625458@aol.com...
Sitat:
The National Archives (Procat) site has this to say about Henry V, the
ruler
of Normandy

"Series details: C 64
Chancery: Norman Rolls 1200-1204, 1417-1422

The rolls of John's reign are similar in form, language and writing to the
close rolls and other rolls of the same period. Those of the reign of
Henry V
consist principally of letters of safe-conduct and protection, grants and
confirmations of their estates to such as voluntarily surrendered to him
or to his
commanders, and restitutions of their temporalities to such convents as
recognized his authority. In addition, the rolls include grants to Henry's
followers
of the castles and estates of such Normans as were slain or remained in
open
rebellion, and of grants of offices, commissions of array and
presentations to
ecclesiastical benefices. A considerable number of the letters concern
grants
in England.

The records in this series were discontinued after King Philip Augustus
reunited Normandy to the crown of France after the defeat of John in 1204.
They
were resumed after Henry V's successful recovery of the dominions of his
ancestors in 1417, before Normandy was once again lost under Henry VI."

Where do you see here an allusion to the use of the title "Duke of Normandy"
by Henry VI?

Pierre
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 00:57:25    Tittel: Re: genealogical motivations Svar med Sitat

Sitat:
Fortunately, the United States of America also considers itself a "free"
nation. As such each and every citizen has a right to consider anything
correct that he/she desires to be correct. This does not mean that his neighbor
must have the same opinion. In the United States everyone, including me, is
entitled to their own stupid opinion about any and all subjects. If I try
to force my beliefs and opinions on my neighbors by laws or rules I am
defeating the idea of the United States.

Unless you are part of the news media in which case you participate in
"helping" Americans frame their opinions and decide what is important
to have an opinion about....see the various books by Noam Chomsky
about how opinions are manipulated in "free" societies....



I know all of my attributes, both good and
Sitat:
bad, and I can ignore the bad if I so desire.

You must be the only human being on earth without a subconscious. The
rest of us have *some* idea about our good & bad attributes but no
idea at all about many attributes, especially bad ones. That's what
allows us to project our own bad attributes onto others where we can
safely despise them. Bronwen (probably your umpteenth cousin possibly
removed more than once)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 01:05:38    Tittel: Re: genealogical motivations Svar med Sitat

"> There simply is no "core principle" of the Constitution against
titles or
Sitat:
social distinctions. The Constitution, after all, was written by a group of
men who came overwhelmingly from the top ranks of society in an age that was
anything but egalitarian. Benjamin Franklin, by the way, was created a
marquis by Louis XVI, but before the Constitution was in place. So one of
the very authors of the Constitution itself held a major title.

JSG

One of my neighbors in central California is the current & official
Chief of the Ely O'Carrolls. He certainly did not give up his American
citizenship in order to take that position. His family has been in the
US for some generations, although I don't know how many. I also recall
at least one example of a man who was simultaneously Chief of the
Creek Indians and Chief of the McGillivray (? Not sure if I have the
correct clan) Clan. However, the question would have been different in
his case because American Indians were not permitted to become US
citizens until 1924 and this man lived, I think, during the 18th
Century (could be incorrect there, too, but I am quite sure that he
lived and died before the beginning of the 20th C.). It would be
interesting to see what would happen if an American citizen accepted
an official title from a politically sensitive government, such as
Iran or Israel....Bronwen
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 01:20:20    Tittel: Re: genealogical motivations Svar med Sitat

Bronwen Edwards wrote:

Sitat:
Unless you are part of the news media in which case you participate in
"helping" Americans frame their opinions and decide what is important
to have an opinion about....see the various books by Noam Chomsky
about how opinions are manipulated in "free" societies....

Well, yes .... but now we have Ruppert to counter Noam and
his friends. And there is the Web. People who want real
freeedom ARE being heard. What is unfortunate is that they
are seldom being PROMOTED on the mass media. There is some
promotion from Ruppert, but essentially none elsewhere.

And, of course, when it comes to promoting freedom of
the people versus the media, the is NONE, not even from Ruppert.
Witness the slippery way the Broadcast Flag got stuffed down
people's throats and virtually everybody doesn't even
know what I'm talking about ... yet.

Doug
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 01:22:23    Tittel: Re: genealogical motivations Svar med Sitat

Bronwen Edwards wrote:
Sitat:
It would be
interesting to see what would happen if an American citizen accepted
an official title from a politically sensitive government, such as
Iran or Israel


How about "Prime Minister"? Does that count?

Doug McDonald
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 01:34:18    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke ? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

The National Archives (Procat) site has this to say about Henry V, the ruler
of Normandy

"Series details: C 64
Chancery: Norman Rolls 1200-1204, 1417-1422

The rolls of John's reign are similar in form, language and writing to the
close rolls and other rolls of the same period. Those of the reign of Henry V
consist principally of letters of safe-conduct and protection, grants and
confirmations of their estates to such as voluntarily surrendered to him or to his
commanders, and restitutions of their temporalities to such convents as
recognized his authority. In addition, the rolls include grants to Henry's followers
of the castles and estates of such Normans as were slain or remained in open
rebellion, and of grants of offices, commissions of array and presentations to
ecclesiastical benefices. A considerable number of the letters concern grants
in England.

The records in this series were discontinued after King Philip Augustus
reunited Normandy to the crown of France after the defeat of John in 1204. They
were resumed after Henry V's successful recovery of the dominions of his
ancestors in 1417, before Normandy was once again lost under Henry VI."
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 03:21:34    Tittel: Re: genealogical motivations Svar med Sitat

<Unless you are part of the news media in which case you participate in
<"helping" Americans frame their opinions and decide what is important
<to have an opinion about....see the various books by Noam Chomsky
<about how opinions are manipulated in "free" societies....

---

*Chomsky* as authority! That explains it.

Please see:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/magram200407190845.asp
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 03:59:21    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke ? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:48:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


Sitat:

WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20.32229237.2e625458@aol.com...
The National Archives (Procat) site has this to say about Henry V, the
ruler
of Normandy

"Series details: C 64
Chancery: Norman Rolls 1200-1204, 1417-1422

The rolls of John's reign are similar in form, language and writing to the
close rolls and other rolls of the same period. Those of the reign of
Henry V
consist principally of letters of safe-conduct and protection, grants and
confirmations of their estates to such as voluntarily surrendered to him
or to his
commanders, and restitutions of their temporalities to such convents as
recognized his authority. In addition, the rolls include grants to Henry's
followers
of the castles and estates of such Normans as were slain or remained in
open
rebellion, and of grants of offices, commissions of array and
presentations to
ecclesiastical benefices. A considerable number of the letters concern
grants
in England.

The records in this series were discontinued after King Philip Augustus
reunited Normandy to the crown of France after the defeat of John in 1204.
They
were resumed after Henry V's successful recovery of the dominions of his
ancestors in 1417, before Normandy was once again lost under Henry VI."

Where do you see here an allusion to the use of the title "Duke of Normandy"
by Henry VI?

Pierre



I'm sure you mean Henry V. I have never alluded to anything about Henry VI.
About Henry V, since he was granting Norman estates to his followers, surely
you cannot believe he asserted NO authority with regard to Normandy. Whether
he took the title of "Duke" or "Earl" or "Count" or "Mr Big" of Normandy isn't
really the point. The point being that you were very ademant that NO ruler
of England EVER took the title of Duke of Normandy. Here is proof that Henry V
was "ruler" of Normandy, in his own mind, and in military conquest as well,
so he must have taken SOME title with regard to Normandy.
So what was that title then? You alluded to having access to all the
records of every English monarch so surely you know the answer :)

Will
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 05:34:24    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 8/28/2004 6:13:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Sitat:
Dear Will,
I think there is a difference between discourtesy and insult. Never mind
Encyclopeadia Brittanica, Pierre Aronax is an expert in French history and
genealogy, I take his word over the Encyclopeadia any time. He is definitely
not hot air--------

It's all very well to say on an email list, but you should realize
statements like that do not prove anything to a skeptic. Fine I will accept
"discourteous" in place of "insulting". I quoted a source, he quoted nothing, so far
that's not too impressive.
I'm sure if he is "an expert in French history" he will have no problem
quoting a source that gives the verbatim language from some place where Henry V
granted land in Normandy to one of his cohert, thus showing exactly what title
he uses to do so.
Perhaps as he alluded to in one email, Henry calls himself "King of
France" I don't know. I tried to search on A2A and Procat and could not find
anything right off, but then searching for Normandy, or Henry generates hundreds of
hits.
I'm not sure that "Henry, King of England" would have legal bearing to
be granting land in Normandy to anyone, conquerer or not. And I'm sure he and
his advisors knew that, and so he most likely calls himself something else in
those documents.
Maybe he calls himself "Henry, conqueror of Normany" who knows? That's
the point. So far, we don't know.

Will
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 05:49:09    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry V, Duke? of Normandy


Sitat:
In a message dated 8/28/2004 6:13:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Dear Will,
I think there is a difference between discourtesy and insult. Never mind
Encyclopeadia Brittanica, Pierre Aronax is an expert in French history
and
genealogy, I take his word over the Encyclopeadia any time. He is
definitely
not hot air--------

It's all very well to say on an email list, but you should realize
statements like that do not prove anything to a skeptic. Fine I will
accept
"discourteous" in place of "insulting". I quoted a source, he quoted
nothing, so far
that's not too impressive.
====You ask for a source where there might not be one. Encyclopaedia

Britanica calls Rouen the capital in the north-----surely they do not mean a
seat of Government? Do you expect there to be sources maintaining "Rouen is
NOT a northern capital in France"?

Sitat:
I'm sure if he is "an expert in French history" he will have no problem
quoting a source that gives the verbatim language from some place where
Henry V
granted land in Normandy to one of his cohert, thus showing exactly what
title
he uses to do so.
====This is not my territory, but being at war and on the run all the time,

surely they would try to do all things in a legal fashion, but Henry V, King
of England (and France) surely would have been the authority referred to? I
hope Pierre Aronax can advise us here about this aspect.

Sitat:
Perhaps as he alluded to in one email, Henry calls himself "King of
France" I don't know. I tried to search on A2A and Procat and could not
find
anything right off, but then searching for Normandy, or Henry generates
hundreds of
hits.
I'm not sure that "Henry, King of England" would have legal bearing
to
be granting land in Normandy to anyone, conquerer or not.
=====While being conquered, I am sure the Normandians would accept any name

Henry V called himself.
And I'm sure he and
Sitat:
his advisors knew that, and so he most likely calls himself something else
in
those documents.
Maybe he calls himself "Henry, conqueror of Normany" who knows? That's
the point. So far, we don't know.

Will
====Lets hope Pierre Aronax is able to lay his hands on something like this

as it is an interesting aspect to the 100years war.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 06:17:01    Tittel: Re: Rouen capital of Northern France Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 8/28/2004 6:49:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:


Sitat:
You ask for a source where there might not be one. Encyclopaedia
Britanica calls Rouen the capital in the north-----surely they do not mean a
seat of Government? Do you expect there to be sources maintaining "Rouen is
NOT a northern capital in France"?

Here is the exact quote under the Micropaedia article for Henry V, page 838,
EB, 1985 edition "Rouen, the capital of northern France, surrendered in
January 1419...."

There are a few possibilities here:
1) the article is using this term is a figurative sense to mean merely, the
largest, most important city in northern France;
2) they are implying that this WAS the seat of the government for the King of
France, at least sometimes, implying he had a few cities he did government
business in.

Now as you, I, and most people know, these articles are not writen by our
alcoholic aunt Milly, but rather by professionals, allegedly expert in their
field. The article on Henry V is notated (C.D.R.) and includes a bibliography of
six further sources.

C.D.R. is further expanded in the Propaedia, at the end of the volume under
the Advisors section as follows:

C.D.R. is C.D. Ross, Professor of Medieval History, University of Bristol,
England. Author of The Wars of the Roses and others.

I'm sure, if he is still living, that anyone who wants to challenge his
phrasealogy can write to him to vent their spleen.

Kind regards,
Will
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 07:48:36    Tittel: Re: Rouen capital of Northern France Svar med Sitat

Le Sun, 29 Aug 2004 02:17:01 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com écrivait
dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

Sitat:
Here is the exact quote under the Micropaedia article for Henry V, page 838,
EB, 1985 edition "Rouen, the capital of northern France, surrendered in
January 1419...."

There are a few possibilities here:
1) the article is using this term is a figurative sense to mean merely, the
largest, most important city in northern France;
2) they are implying that this WAS the seat of the government for the King of
France, at least sometimes, implying he had a few cities he did government
business in.


Or 3)
It was the capital of the English ruled territory in the Northern
France, compared to maybe Bordeaux (?) for the territory ruled
by England on the west side. Because of Britanny between them,
the English had to govern it from 2 towns.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo Mon association a 60 ans en 2003 ! - www.sgcf.com
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 12:49:17    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke ? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1d8.2a4855d9.2e627659@aol.com...
Sitat:
In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:48:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:



WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20.32229237.2e625458@aol.com...
The National Archives (Procat) site has this to say about Henry V, the
ruler
of Normandy

"Series details: C 64
Chancery: Norman Rolls 1200-1204, 1417-1422

The rolls of John's reign are similar in form, language and writing to
the
close rolls and other rolls of the same period. Those of the reign of
Henry V
consist principally of letters of safe-conduct and protection, grants
and
confirmations of their estates to such as voluntarily surrendered to
him
or to his
commanders, and restitutions of their temporalities to such convents
as
recognized his authority. In addition, the rolls include grants to
Henry's
followers
of the castles and estates of such Normans as were slain or remained
in
open
rebellion, and of grants of offices, commissions of array and
presentations to
ecclesiastical benefices. A considerable number of the letters concern
grants
in England.

The records in this series were discontinued after King Philip
Augustus
reunited Normandy to the crown of France after the defeat of John in
1204.
They
were resumed after Henry V's successful recovery of the dominions of
his
ancestors in 1417, before Normandy was once again lost under Henry
VI."

Where do you see here an allusion to the use of the title "Duke of
Normandy"
by Henry VI?

Pierre



I'm sure you mean Henry V. I have never alluded to anything about Henry
VI.
About Henry V, since he was granting Norman estates to his followers,
surely
you cannot believe he asserted NO authority with regard to Normandy.
Whether
he took the title of "Duke" or "Earl" or "Count" or "Mr Big" of Normandy
isn't
really the point.

That *is* the point. What I said was that the English king never took the
title Duke of Normandy since 1259: I said nothing more. Do you think I was
not aware that English controled Normandy during some times in the first
half of the 15th century?

Sitat:
The point being that you were very ademant that NO ruler
of England EVER took the title of Duke of Normandy. Here is proof that
Henry V
was "ruler" of Normandy, in his own mind, and in military conquest as
well,
so he must have taken SOME title with regard to Normandy.

He took no title of that kind. Why would he have? The title "king of
France", which he already used before, was enough and when he droped it, he
took no other one in reguard to Normandy.

Sitat:
So what was that title then? You alluded to having access to all the
records of every English monarch so surely you know the answer Smile

You make the claim that Henry V took a special title for Normandy: prove it.
One document will be enough: you don't need all the records.

Pierre
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 29 Aug 2004 17:28:46    Tittel: Re: Henry V, Duke? of Normandy Svar med Sitat

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:000a01c48d69$c36560a0$c3b4fea9@email...
Sitat:

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Henry V, Duke? of Normandy

<...>

Sitat:
Perhaps as he alluded to in one email, Henry calls himself "King of
France" I don't know.

If Mr Johnson doesn't know Henry V calls himself "King of France" until the
treaty of Troyes, he need some basic training in English history, not to
speak of English literature since he seems to have never open Shakespeare.

Sitat:
I tried to search on A2A and Procat and could not
find
anything right off, but then searching for Normandy, or Henry generates
hundreds of
hits.
I'm not sure that "Henry, King of England" would have legal bearing
to
be granting land in Normandy to anyone, conquerer or not.
=====While being conquered, I am sure the Normandians would accept any
name
Henry V called himself.
And I'm sure he and
his advisors knew that, and so he most likely calls himself something
else
in
those documents.
Maybe he calls himself "Henry, conqueror of Normany" who knows?
That's
the point. So far, we don't know.

Will
====Lets hope Pierre Aronax is able to lay his hands on something like
this
as it is an interesting aspect to the 100years war.

I still consider that's not to me to give proof of anything each time
somebody jump here with an absurd theory, but rather to him. Here just an
example I have at hand, taken from Foedera (vol. 9), so readable on line.
You have to remember that of course in registers the title of the king is
often ommited or reduced to Rex &c., since otherwise it would have to be
repeated almost at each page. But it is not always: in a document relating
to Normandy dated L'Aigle, 13 October 1417: "a nostre Soveraine seigneur le
Roy de France & d'Engleterre, & Seigneur d'Irlant".

I still wait for a document where Henry V would be called "Duke of Normandy"
(which would be absurd since this title would be incompatible with the title
"King of France": that is why the English king had droped the title "Duke of
Aquitaine" when he began to claim to be "king of France" in 1340, except on
local coinage).

As far as I can say, Henry VI only used the titles "king of France and
England and Lord of Ireland" from 1415 until the treaty of Troyes (1420),
and then "King of England, Heir of the kingdom of France and Lord of
Ireland" or "King of England, Heir and Regent of the Kingdom of France and
Lord of Ireland", without any additional title.



Pierre
Til Toppen
Vis Innlegg fra:   
Start nytt emne Alle klokkeslett er EET (Europa)
Gå til side 1, 2, 3 ... 179, 180, 181  Neste
Side 1 av 181
 
Gå til:  
Du kan ikke starte nye emner i dette forumet
Du kan ikke svare på emner i dette forumet
Du kan ikke endre dine egne innlegg i dette forumet
Du kan ikke slette dine egne innlegg i dette forumet
Du kan ikke laste opp filer til dette forumet
Du kan ikke laste ned filer fra dette forumet


Powered by phpBB 2.0.14 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group