Complete Peerage Addition: Death date of Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford (died 1296)
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 10 (1945): 216-218 (sub Oxford) has a good account of
Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, who died in 1296.
Regarding his death, the following information is provided:
"Robert died before 7 Sept. 1296, and was buried at Earls Colne, his
heart being buried in the Grey Friars, Ipswich." END OF QUOTE
The footnotes gives the source for this date: Cal. Fine Rolls, i pg.
377. The corresponding item in the Fine Rolls reads as follows:
"[1296]. Sept. 7. Berwick upon Tweed. Order to the escheater beyond
Trent to take into the king's hand the lands late of Robert de Veer,
earl of Oxford (Exon'), deceased, tenant in chief." END OF QUOTE.
The Fine Rolls item above may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=35322
From this record, we can be certain that Robert de Vere died shortly
before 7 September 1296. In a footnote, Complete Peerage informs us
that Robert de Vere died in England, so the king should have been
informed of the earl's death soon after his passing.
Recently I was going through the published transcript of St.
Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1296-1301, and surprisingly, I located a
specific death record for Sir Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford. It read
as follows:
Source: English Historical Review 58 (1943): 51–78
St. Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1296–1301:
“Dominus Robertus de Wer comes Oxonie migravit ad dominum in crastino
sancti Bartholomei apostolic [25 August].”
Thus it would appear that Sir Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford, died
25 August 1296. St. Edmundsbury Chronicle assigns no year to the
earl's death, but since it only covers events from 1296 forward and
since the Fine Rolls pinpoint his death year in 1296, the year
indicated is 1296.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the large number of
17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Robert de
Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby,
Barbara Aubrey, John Barclay, Charles Barham, Henry & Thomas Batte,
Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, John Bevan, Essex Beville, Dorothy
Beresford, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth,
Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles & Robert Brent,
Edward Bromfield, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole,
St. Leger Codd, Elizabeth & Thomas Coytemore, William Crymes, Francis
Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward
Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John
Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard,
Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Patrick
Houston, Edward Howell, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Edmund
Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel
Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe,
Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Roger
& Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring,
Anne & Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard
More, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton,
Joshua & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard
Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William
Randolph, Edward Raynsford, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger,
Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John
Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John &
Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys, George Yate.
Is your ancestor of this list? If so, I'd enjoy hearing from you here
on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Tim Forsythe
Here is my proposed descent from RdV5. The following link provides more
detail on the individuals and sources:
http://www.timforsythe.com/ancestors/dlist_8.php
Admittedly, the link between James Claypool (1664-1706) and James Claypoole,
of Philadelphia (1634-1687) is questionable, based on the sources I provide.
Also, I just recently discovered the link between Eliza McFarland and Jane
Claypool. It is 'almost' certainly valid, as I explain in (way too much)
detail in this article from my
blog:http://ancestorsnow.blogspot.com/2011/07/arthur-mcfarland-family.html.
Anyone who to takes the time to read it is welcome to poke holes/fun at it
in the blog comments. (You may need to try later - at the moment, all the
Google blogs are off in limbo)
[1] *Timothy James Forsythe* (-)
Ref: S2
[2] *William David Forsythe* (-)
Ref: S2,S3,S422,S429
[4] *William Henry Forsythe* (1893-1974)
Ref: S2,S6,S443,S1110:19041129,S1113:19041129,S1154
[8] *William Marion Forsyth* (1871-1904)
Ref: S2,S6,S11,S13,S993,S994,S998,S1001,S1003,S1109:19020911,S1110:19041129
[17] *Martha Lurinda McFarland* (1846-1920)
Ref: S31,S32,S39
[35] *Eliza McFarland* (1814-~1882)
Ref: S1537,N115
[71] * Jane Claypool* (1789-1846)
Ref: S1527,S1636
[142] *Jesse Claypool* (1752-1833)
Ref: S1526:24,S1528,S1636
[284] * James Claypole, Senior* (1701-1789)
Ref: S1526:24,S1529,S1636
[568] *James Claypool* (1664-1706)
Ref: S1526:24,S1636
[1136] * James Claypoole, of Philadelphia* (1634-1687)
Ref: AR8:15A,S765:780,1388,1389,S1526:7,8,10,S1636
[2272] *Sir John Claypoole* (1595-~1664)
Ref: AR8:15A,S765:1388,S1526:7,8,10,S1636
[4545] *Lady Dorothy Wingfield* (-1619)
Ref: AR8:15A,S765:1388,S1526:7-9,S1636
[9090] *Sir Robert Wingfield, Esq.* (-1580)
Ref: AR8:15A,S765:1388,S1526:7,8
[18180] *Sir Robert Wingfield, Esq.* (-1576)
Ref: AR8:15A,S765:1388,S1526:7,8
[36360] *Sir Henry Wingfield* (-1484)
Ref: AR8:15A,S765:780,S1526:7,8
[72721] * Lady Elizabeth Goushill* (-)
Ref: S765:622,780,1352,S1526:7,8
[145443] *Lady Elizabeth fitz Alan* (-1425)
Ref: AR7,CP:246-251,P2:171,204,S765:10,58,119,123,S878:216
[290886] *Sir Richard fitz Alan, 10th Earl of Arundel* (1346-1397)
Ref: AR7,P2:171,204,S765:10,11,120,780
[581772] *Sir Richard fitz Alan, 9th Earl of Arundel* (1306-1376)
Ref: AR7,P2:171,183,334,S765:10,11,119,175,2828
[1163545] *Alice de Warenne* (-~1330)
Ref: AR7,P2:170
[2327091] *Joan de Vere* (-1293)
Ref: AR7,P2:170
[4654182] *Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford* (1240-<1296)
Sources:
[AR7] Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists Who Came To New England before
1700,7th Ed.
[AR8] Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists Who Came To New England before
1700,8th Ed.
[CP] Complete Peerage
[N115] The Arthur McFarland Family (new
link:http://ancestorsnow.blogspot.com/2011/07/arthur-mcfarland-family.html
)
[P2] Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemange's Descendants,Vol. II
[S2] The Forsythe-Humphrey Story
[S3] Martha Lurinda McFarland Obituary,March 5,1920
[S6] A Book of Memories
[S11] 1880 United States Census,Illinois,Adams,La Prairie
[S13] Martha Lurinda McFarland Bible
[S31] 1850 United States Census,Illinois,Adams,Houston
[S32] 1860 United States Census,Illinois,Adams,Houston
[S39] The History of Adams County,Illinois
[S422] 1920 United States Census,Illinois,Knox,Galesburg,Ward 1
[S429] 1930 United States Census,Illinois,Knox,Galesburg,Ward 6
[S443] 1900 Unites States Census,Illinois,Knox,Galesburg
[S765] Genealogics
[S878] The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580
[S993] Martha L Forsyth Guardian Petition (Nov. 15,1881)
[S994] Martha L. Forsyth - Letters of Guardianship (Nov. 22,1881)
[S998] Martha L. Forsyth - Accounting Report (Jan 8,1883)
[S1001] Martha L. Forsyth - Accounting Report (Sep 13,1886)
[S1003] Martha L. Forsyth - Accounting Report (Feb. 8,1892)
[S1109] The Quincy Whig Newspaper
[S1110] The Qunicy Daily Whig Newspaper
[S1113] The Qunicy Daily Journal Newspaper
[S1154] Forsythe Bible Record
[S1526] The Claypoole Family in America,Vol. 1
[S1527] Will of Jesse Claypool
[S1529] Jesse and Elizabeth Claypool Land Sale,1794
[S1528] The Will of James Claypool,Sr.
[S1537] The Estate of James McFarland
[S1636] Seven Hundred Ancestors
Man, I really need to update my webbuilder to embed those sources
automatically.
Tim Forsythe
http://timforsythe.com/ancestors
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Douglas Richardson
<royala...@msn.com>wrote:
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your response. Much appreciated.
Your line from the immigrant, James Claypoole, of Pennsylvania, going
back to Sir Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, is very sound indeed.
The only problem I spot are the individuals you refer to by the
surname, Fitz Alan. Originally this family was known as Fitz Alan.
However, about 1313, this family dropped the Fitz Alan surname and
switched over entirely to the surname, Arundel.
For example, the person you refer to as "Lady Elizabeth Fitz Alan"
occurs as "Elizabeth D'Arundelle" in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated
1407. I have never found her in any contemporary record as Elizabeth
Fitz Alan.
You can view this lawsuit at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118058&strquery=CP%2040/587#s12
For a similar example of her sister, Margaret, being styled "Margaret
de Arundel" in a contemporary record, see Barker, Talbot Deeds (Lanc.
& Cheshire Rec. Soc. 103) (1953): 44 (conveyance dated 21 Dec. 1416 by
Rolande Lenthale, kt., and Margaret de Arundel his wife).
I can provide you with other examples of the use of the Arundel
surname drawn from contemporary records, including records involving
Elizabeth's father and grandfather. After the year 1313, the surname
Fitz Alan simply vanishes from contemporary records and all you find
after that date is Arundel, Arundel, Arundel. And more Arundel.
Tim Forsythe
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Douglas,
The link you provided does not seem to list her name in the text of the
Plea. The Plea lists her as Elizabeth D and ED. The only place
D'Arundelle is shown is in the table that is appended summarizing the
individuals involved. The table however is, I am guessing, not original
to the document, but the creation of an archiver? Do you have a
cleaner source for Elizabeth, her father and grandfather being referred
to as Arundel?
thanks,
Tim Forsythe
http://timforsythe.com/ancestors
Douglas Richardson
As best I can "interpret" the way the Common Pleas records have been
abstracted, the editor(s) provide an abbreviated version of a person's
name in their abstract of a lawsuit. In this case, the abstract names
the defendant as "Elizabeth D." or ED for short.
The abstract is then followed by a full list of all the people named
in the lawsuit, such plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, etc. In this
case, they give Elizabeth D.'s full name as Elizabeth D'Arundelle.
That should be the way she is named in the actual lawsuit.
When the editor has supplied a surname for someone, it should be set
in brackets. In this case, there are no brackets, so .... "Elizabeth
D'Arundelle" should be the name as it occurs in the lawsuit.
Yes, I can post other examples of the use of the surname, Arundel.
I'll do so in the next day or so.
Tim Forsythe
tf
Douglas Richardson
You asked for examples of use of the surname, Arundel, by Elizabeth
Arundel's father and grandfather. In most instances, both men occur
in contemporary records simply as Richard, Earl of Arundel, without
designation of any surname. However, when a surname does occur in
contemporary records, both men occur as Richard de Arundel or Richard
Arundel.
1. For instances of Richard, Earl of Arundel (died 1376), using or
being styled by the surname, de Arundel, see Strachey, Rotuli
Parliamentorum 2 (1777): 55–56, 226–227; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1327–1330
(1891): 562; Cal. Fine Rolls 4 (1913): 181, 218; Cal. Close Rolls,
1330–1333 (1898): 81, 381; Cal. Close Rolls, 1333–1337 (1898): 154;
National Archives, SC 8/156/7787.
Here are the instances I've found of Earl Richard using the surname
Fitz Alan:
None
2. For instances of Richard, Earl of Arundel (died 1397), using the
surname Arundel or being styled Richard [de] Arundel, see Lewis, Pedes
Finium; or, Fines Rel. Surrey (Surrey Arch. Soc. Extra Volume 1)
(1894): 222; Wrottesley, Pedigrees. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 421;
Arch. Cambrensis 6th Ser. 7(1) (1907): 1–34; Arch. Aeliana 3rd Ser. 6
(1910): 60; Cal. Patent Rolls, 1374–1377 (1916): 25, 28, 51, 107, 243;
Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel. Sussex 3 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 23) (1916):
164, 174–182; Cal. Fine Rolls 8 (1924): 286, 339; Genealogist n.s. 16
(1899): 162.
Here are the instances I've found of Earl Richard using the surname
Fitz Alan:
None
I believe the evidence speaks for itself.
Tim Forsythe
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Thanks, you tha man!
Matt Tompkins
A photograph of the original roll which was abstracted by the 'Court
of Common Pleas CP40: 1399-1500' project can be seen here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no587/aCP40no587fronts/IMG_0403.htm
(it is the second entry, with the marginal heading 'London Buk', and
runs over into the next image, no. 404)
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no587/aCP40no587fronts/IMG_0404.htm
Curiously enough the Duchess is only referred to in this entry as
Elizabeth' Ducissa Norff' (see the first three words), or as just
'predicta Ducissa' or 'eadem Ducissa' - on a quick skim through the
entry I did not see mention of d'Arundelle anywhere.
This isn't particularly surprising - it was fairly common at this time
for titled peers to be referred to by just their forename and title -
but I was nevertheless rather surprised to see it here, as I had
supposed that the names in the 'Individuals' table reflected exactly
what appeared in the actual entry. Perhaps the project's researchers
inserted a surname obtained from other sources, or perhaps it was
mentioned in an earlier entry relating to the case (the present entry
would have been only the last of a series recording of the progress of
the case from its initiation through several stages of mesne process).
Matt Tompkins
Tim Forsythe
Thanks Matt,
This is of course the problem with secondary sources, and why I always
show on my website what the authors of a source present and not what I
think it should be. Each name, claim, etc. on my site, references the
source that provided the entry so that users can review these for
themselves.
Tim Forsythe
http://timforsythe.com/ancestors
Matt Tompkins
> A photograph of the original roll which was abstracted by the 'Court
> of Common Pleas CP40: 1399-1500' project can be seen here:
>
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no587/aCP40no587fronts/IMG_0403.htm
>
> (it is the second entry, with the marginal heading 'London Buk', and
> runs over into the next image, no. 404)
>
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no587/aCP40no587fronts/IMG_0404.htm
>
> Curiously enough the Duchess is only referred to in this entry as
> Elizabeth' Ducissa Norff' (see the first three words), or as just
> 'predicta Ducissa' or 'eadem Ducissa' - on a quick skim through the
> entry I did not see mention of d'Arundelle anywhere.
>
> This isn't particularly surprising - it was fairly common at this time
> for titled peers to be referred to by just their forename and title -
> but I was nevertheless rather surprised to see it here, as I had
> supposed that the names in the 'Individuals' table reflected exactly
> what appeared in the actual entry. Perhaps the project's researchers
> inserted a surname obtained from other sources, or perhaps it was
> mentioned in an earlier entry relating to the case (the present entry
> would have been only the last of a series recording of the progress of
> the case from its initiation through several stages of mesne process).
The Court of Common Pleas CP 40 1399-1500 data on British History
Online also includes a suit brought in 1427 against Beatrice, countess
of Arundel and Surrey (widow of Thomas, 5th earl of Arundel and 10th
earl of Surrey). The Individuals table describes her as Beatrice
Fitzalan, countess of Arundel and Surrey. It can be seen here:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118093&strquery=arundell
This seems to contradict Douglas’ argument, but in the original plea
roll entry, which can be seen here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no667/bCP40no667dorses/IMG_1917.htm
(and in the following image 1918) we once again find that the actual
entry contains no reference to the surname, descrbing her only as
Beatrix Comitissa Arundell’ et Surr’ or eadem/predicta Comitissa.
Curious. I wonder what source the project researchers got these
surnames from.
Matt Tompkins
Matt Tompkins
> This seems to contradict Douglas’ argument, but in the original plea
> roll entry, which can be seen here:
>
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no667/bCP40no667dorses/IMG_1917.htm
>
> (and in the following image 1918)
Oops, that link lead to an image showing the lower half of the entry
recording the suit against Beatrice, countess of Arundel and Surrey
(which is in images 1916-7, not 1917-8) - the first half is here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no667/bCP40no667dorses/IMG_1916.htm
Some more rummaging around in the 'Court of Common Pleas CP 40
1399-1500' data reveals other examples where peers were referred to in
the rolls by just a forename and title, or even just the title alone,
and the editors have supplied the missing surname, or forename and
surname (for example a reference to just 'the duke of Lancaster'
becomes John Gaunt, duke of Lancaster in the 'Individuals' table). It
was obviously the project policy to insert these details - presumably
for database reasons.
Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting a link to the two photographic images of the
1407 Common Pleas lawsuit involving Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk.
Much appreciated.
I've looked at the two images in question and, like you, I can find no
reference to Duchess Elizabeth as "Elizabeth D'Arundelle." She is
clearly listed on the first image as "Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk
executrix of the will of Robert Goushill, knight." She is listed
again on the second image as "Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk executrix
of the will of Robert Goushill, knight." But no Elizabeth
D'Arundelle.
However, you may be right that the reference to her as "Elizabeth
D'Arundelle" comes from an earlier action in the same lawsuit, as the
abstract specifically states that Duchess Elizabeth was "in mercy for
many defaults." This means that the 1407 lawsuit was going on in
the courts for quite some time before Michaelmas 1407.
As best I can tell, however, the only other appearance I find of
Duchess Elizabeth in this database is a lawsuit dated 1401 as shown
below. This abstract is for an entirely different lawsuit.
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/560, rot. 116
Term: Hilary 1401
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Assault; Housebreaking; Taking of goods
Pleading: Elizabeth, duchess of Norfolk states that on 24 August 1400
the Suttons broke into her house in London, took goods worth 10m
(cloth, linen and wool), and assaulted her servant, Agnes Dersyngham,
so that she was deprived of service for 1 week, to her damage of £10.
END OF QUOTE.
The above lawsuit in the database may be viewed in full at the
following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118037&strquery=duchess
While we are lacking an actual reference to "Elizabeth D'Arundelle,"
the 1407 action as abstracted by the database and confirmed by the
images of the lawsuit informs us that Duchess Elizabeth's husband, Sir
Robert Goushill, died testate and that she served as his executrix,
which details are not given by Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 601–604
(sub Norfolk). In fact, Complete Peerage sub Norfolk gives so few
details of this marriage that even the death date of Sir Robert
Goushill is overlooked. My file notes indicate that Sir Robert
Goushill was slain at the Battle of Shrewsbury 21 July 1403, just a
few days after entering into the bond which was the subject of the
1407 lawsuit.
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
There is more than one lawsuit for Beatrice, Countess of Arundel and
Surrey, in the Common Pleas database. In one instance, the editors
identified Countess Beatrice as "Beatrice Fitzalan" as you state.
But in another abstract, the editors call her the same name, but set
the surname Fitzalan in brackets, indicating that they had supplied
the surname for her.
I was virtually certain that Fitzalan didn't occur in the first
lawsuit and you have confirmed that. This is another instance of
where the surname Fitzalan vanishes when the actual record is
examined.
If the editors had supplied a surname for Countess Beatrice (which I
think is fine), it should have been "Arundel" not "Fitzalan," and it
should have been set in brackets. The editors were obviously not
aware that Fitzalan hadn't been used as a surname for nearly 100 years
when the lawsuit involving Countess Beatrice is dated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Aug 11, 5:06 am, Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
< The Court of Common Pleas CP 40 1399-1500 data on British History
< Online also includes a suit brought in 1427 against Beatrice,
countess
< of Arundel and Surrey (widow of Thomas, 5th earl of Arundel and 10th
< earl of Surrey). The Individuals table describes her as Beatrice
< Fitzalan, countess of Arundel and Surrey. It can be seen here:
<
< http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118093&strquery=a...
Douglas Richardson
< Some more rummaging around in the 'Court of Common Pleas CP 40
< 1399-1500' data reveals other examples where peers were referred to
in
< the rolls by just a forename and title, or even just the title
alone,
< and the editors have supplied the missing surname, or forename and
< surname (for example a reference to just 'the duke of Lancaster'
< becomes John Gaunt, duke of Lancaster in the 'Individuals' table).
It
< was obviously the project policy to insert these details -
presumably
< for database reasons.
<
< Matt Tompkins
Matt ~
I suspected that the modern editors of the Common Pleas database had
supplied surnames for people in their database, sometimes with
brackets, sometimes not. However, I hadn't "rummaged around" in the
actual records to confirm my suspicions. You have now done so and
have found the editors have supplied both surnames and forenames to
their abstracts and that they haven't always used brackets to indicate
their additions.
I don't have any problem with the editors supplying names not found in
the original texts. Any editorial additions, however, should be set
in brackets. Why brackets were used in some instances and other times
not, I have no idea.
Matt Tompkins
>
> While we are lacking an actual reference to "Elizabeth D'Arundelle,"
> the 1407 action as abstracted by the database and confirmed by the
> images of the lawsuit informs us that Duchess Elizabeth's husband, Sir
> Robert Goushill, died testate and that she served as his executrix,
> which details are not given by Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 601–604
> (sub Norfolk). In fact, Complete Peerage sub Norfolk gives so few
> details of this marriage that even the death date of Sir Robert
> Goushill is overlooked. My file notes indicate that Sir Robert
> Goushill was slain at the Battle of Shrewsbury 21 July 1403, just a
> few days after entering into the bond which was the subject of the
> 1407 lawsuit.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The actual roll entry for Norfolk v Sutton can be seen here:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no560/aCP40no560fronts/IMG_0236.htm
Again she appears in the original text as just Elizabeth Duchess of
Norfolk, with no surname Mowbray, so again the surname must have been
supplied by the editors. It seems a bit inconsistent to call her
Mowbray here but d'Arundelle in the 1407 entry.
Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
The Google snippet view of the Ferrers account in Complete Peerage
indicates that Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, is styled "Elizabeth
d'Arundelle" in that account.
Possibly this is where the editors of the Common Pleas database
obtained the style "Elizabeth d'Arundelle" for Duchess Elizabeth.
The form "Elizabeth Arundel" would be better for Duchess Elizabeth, as
the "de" virtually disappeared from surnames in England about 1400.
"Arundelle" is merely an alternative but archaic form of the surname,
Arundel.
J Cook
> Is your ancestor of this list? If so, I'd enjoy hearing from you here
> on the newsgroup.
Yes; I descend from gateways Gov. Thomas Dudley, as well as Mary Gye
Maverick, Joseph Bolles, Percival Lowle, Thomas Bradbury and Rev.
William Sargent.
Thank you for the find.
--Joe C
The Hoorn
From Robert de Vere, 5th Earl of Oxford (died 1296), what is the line
of descent to Edward Carleton of Rowley, Mass.?
Thanks
J Cook
Plantagent Ancestry2 (Vol II, p200) by Richardson states that
Elizabeth Fitz Hugh and Ralph Greystoke are ancestors of Edward
Carleton, but does not give the line of descent to him. This could be
a printing error.? Elizabeth Fitz Hugh's aunt, Elenor Fitz Hugh was
a descendant of Edward Carleton.
Joe C
Douglas Richardson
Yep, it was a printing error.
John
A "printing error"? Page 325 of the first edition of "Plantagenet
Ancestry" also states that Elizabeth FitzHugh and Ralph Greystoke are
ancestors of Edward Carleton, as does page 341 of the first edition
of :"Magna Carta Ancestry". It's unlikely that these are all
"printing errors", since the two editions of PA, at least, were
apparently produced by different printers. More likely to be an error
in the author's manuscript, not to be blamed on a printer. Wouldn't
you agree, DR?
J Cook
> A "printing error"? Page 325 of the first edition of "Plantagenet
> Ancestry" also states that Elizabeth FitzHugh and Ralph Greystoke are
> ancestors of Edward Carleton, as does page 341 of the first edition
> of :"Magna Carta Ancestry". It's unlikely that these are all
> "printing errors", since the two editions of PA, at least, were
> apparently produced by different printers. More likely to be an error
> in the author's manuscript, not to be blamed on a printer. Wouldn't
> you agree, DR?
It's obvious what was meant. When you are basically self-publishing a
"printing error" of fact just means that it is an error in
compilation. Since there is no false line down to Edward Carleton it
isn't the type of error where the author actually believed in the line
of descent.
There's no reason to start a fight where none exists.