C.P. Addition: Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingfield, Magna Carta baron

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 671, footnote a (sub Huntingfield) includes information regarding Sir William de Huntingfield, the famous Magna Carta baron (died c.1221). Regarding his wife, Isabel, the following information is provided:

"William de Huntingfield, presumably son of Roger, with Isabel his wife, appear in 1194/5 and 1203 (Abbrev. Plac., pp. 3 and 38). She was Isabel, widow of Osmund de Stuteville, better known as Isabel de Gressinghall (Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, vol. iii, p. 396. In Harl MS. 506 she appears as Isabel de Fréville and is stated to have died in 1209." END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage does not say so, but Isabel is known to have been the daughter and heiress of William Fitz Roger, of Gressenhall and Castle Acre, Norfolk, by his wife, Aeliva. See Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 189–196 (Gressenhall-Stuteville-Foliot ped.), which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189

Isabel de Gressenhall's family and marriages are also discussed in Brown, Sibton Abbey Cartularies & Charters 1 (Suffolk Charters 7) (1985): 21–22 (re. Cressy fam.), 64, 91–92; 2 (Suffolk Charters 8) (1986): 53–56; 3 (Suffolk Charters 9) (1987): 152; 4 (Suffolk Charters 10) (1988): 4–5.

As noted by Complete Peerage, William de Huntingfield and his wife, Isabel, occur together in 1194/5 and 1203. The reference provided for these dates is "Abbrev. Plac., pp. 3 and 38." The full title of this work is Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbrevatio (1811). Pages 3 and 38 may be viewed at the following weblinks:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002064556u;view=1up;seq=31

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002064556u;view=1up;seq=66

The first item is also abstracted in Proceedings of his Majesty’s Commissioners on the Public Recs. (1833): 348, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=HCVDAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA348

The antiquarian William Dugdale included two Castle Acre Priory charters which involve William de Huntingfield's wife, Isabel, in his monumental work, Monasticon Anglicanum, 5 (1825): 52. These charters may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112109884418;view=1up;seq=84

The first Castle Acre charter was issued by Isabel's 2nd husband, Osmund de Stuteville (died c.1187), with the "advise and consent of Isabel my wife." Osmund confirmed all the gifts made by Wimar [Isabel's ancestor] and his successors. The charter was granted for his soul and that of his wife, Isabel.

The second Castle Acre charter is labelled "Carta Ysabellae Uxoris Berengari de Cressi." Berenger de Cressy was the name of Isabel's first husband, although he is no where named in the charter. The charter was issued by "Ysabella de Gressingehale" [Isabel de Gressenhall] with the advise and consent of her third husband, WIlliam de Huntingfield. In this charter, Isabel gave the monks of Castle Acre the homage of Hugh de Crec, etc., with his tenement in Weseham.

In addition to the above two charters, a third charter dated 1195 involving William and Isabel is published in Davis, Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds & Related Docs. (Camden 3rd Ser. 84) (1954): 159. The charter is a grant dated 1195 made by Samson, Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds to William de Huntingfield and Isabel his wife and her heirs. This charter is available at the following weblink:

https://deeds.library.utoronto.ca/charters/00290144).

Some time before 1221, William de Huntingfeld also made a grant in free alms to the Monks of St. Mary of Mendham, Suffolk for salvation of souls of himself, his wife Isabel, and his parents and all ancestors. In this charter, William granted the monks all his wood in Metfield, Suffolk called Haute. Reference: Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich Branch: Iveagh (Phillipps) Suffolk MSS, HD 1538/301/1, available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk.

So far, we have not seen any indication as to why Complete Peerage stated that Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingfield, was also known as Isabel de Fréville. However, in recent time, I located the following charter dated c.1190 issued by Isabel, lady of Gressighehalia [Gressenhall] granting Roger de Freville her brother [fratri meo] her holding in Wellingham, Norfolk. Reference: Stevenson, Report on the Manuscripts of Lord Middleton (Historical Manuscripts Commission 69) (1911): 34–35, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101015914086;view=1up;seq=56

The editor appears not to have realized that Isabel, lady of Gressenhall, named here was the same person as Isabel, wife of Sir William de Huntingfield, the famous Magna Carta baron, nor was any attempt made to identify this lady's brother, Roger de Freville. Roger de Freville, however, can be placed as the lineal male line ancestor of the later knightly Freville family seated at Tanworth, Warwickwshire, and also the other branch seated at Caxton and Shelford, Cambridgeshire, and Munden-Freville, Hertfordshire.

Insofar as the exact relationship between Isabel de Gressenhall and Roger de Freville is concerned, it seems likely to me that they were half-siblings, possibly sharing the same mother, Aeliva.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Isabel de Gressenhall and her 2nd husband, Osmund de Stuteville:

Elizabeth Alsop,William Asfordby, Anne Baynton, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Mary Bourchier, Charles Calvert, James & Norton Claypoole, William Crymes, Francis Dade, William Farrer, Mary Gye, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Richard Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset.

The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Isabel de Gressenhall and her 3rd husband, William de Huntingfield:

Robert Abell, Samuel Argall, William Asfordby, Charles Barham, Joseph Bickley, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Edward Bromfield, Christopher Calthorpe, Charles & Leonard Calvert, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, James Cudworth, Francis Dade, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, William Farrer, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Edmund Jennings, Matthew Kempe, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Anne, Elizabeth, & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, Rose Stoughton, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, Margaret Tyndall, Amy Wyllys.

Do you descend from Isabel de Gressenhall? If so, I'd appreciate it if you would post your line of descent from her here on the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[gdco...@gmail.com]

Douglas,

Thank you very much for this post. I'm descended from both Wm Skepper and Rose Stoughton, but I discovered that neither of Skepper's descents from Isabel is in my database. I presume the lines can be found in _Royal Ancestry_? We're in the middle of moving and my books are currently unavailable. My descent from Skepper down to my grandmother Cooke can be seen here: http://gdcooke.org/ss/default.aspx/page/org2-o/ui151.htm

My descent from Rose Stoughton runs thusly:
Rose Stoughton m. Richard Otis
Ann Otis m. Thomas Austin
Nathaniel Austin m. Catherine Neale
Phebe Austin m. John Hansen
John Hansen m. Sally Getchel
William Hansen m. Harriet Browne
Harriet Jane Hansen m. Wm Stevens Robinson
Edward Warrington Robinson m. Mary Elizabeth Robinson
Harriet Hansen Robinson m. Wm Pierce
Dorothy Harriet Pierce m. Donald F. Cooke
Gregory D. Cooke (me)

Again, thanks!

[cmw1...@gmail.com]

Seventeenth century New World immigrant, Audrey (Barlow) Almy, has been omitted from this list. Her descent from Isabel de Gressenhall and her third husband, Sir William de Huntingfield, is briefly outlined below.

1. Sir William de Huntingfield, Knt., of Huntingfield, Co. Suffolk (died 1219/1220); married Isabel, the daughter of William Fitz Roger of Gressenhall, Norfolk. Their son:
2. Sir Roger de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co., Suffolk (born before 1200; died 19 Jun 1257) married Joan de Howbridge. Their son:
3. Sir William de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co., Suffolk (born 24 Aug 1237; died shortly before 2 Nov 1290); married Emme de Grey. Their son:
4. Sir Roger de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co. Suffolk (born circa 1267; died before 5 Dec 1302); married Joyce d’Engaine, daughter of Sir John d’Engaine and Joan Greinville. Their daughter:
5. Joan de Huntingfield married Sir Richard Bassett, Knt., 1st Lord Basset of Weldon (born circa 1274; died before 18 Aug 1314). Their son:
6. Sir Ralph Basset, Knt., 2nd Lord Bassett of Weldon, (b. 27 Aug 1300; d. shortly before 4 May 1341); married Joan, said to be the daughter of, or kinswoman of, William le Latimer, 3rd Baron Latimer (Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, p. 115), but in Ancestral Roots, p. 176 (Line 187), is “said to be a Sturdon of Winterbourne, Co. Gloucester.” Their daughter,
7. Joan Bassett (died before 14 Jul 1343); married Sir Thomas Aylesbury, of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire (died shortly before 26 Aug 1349). Their son:
8. Sir John Aylesbury, born and baptized Weldon, Northants. 6 May 1334; married first before Michaelmas 1359, Isabel, allegedly a daughter of “Eubaldo [sic] Lord Strange of Knockyn.” He married secondly, before Nov. 1369, Alice. His son by his first wife:
9. Sir Thomas Aylesbury (died 1418), married as his second wife Katherine Pabenham. Their daughter:
10. Eleanor Aylesbury (born circa 1406); married by license dated 2 Jan 1423/4, Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Grafton, Worcestershire, etc., (born 1400; died 7 Jun 1450). Their son:
11. Humphrey Stafford, Esq., of Grafton, Worcestershire, (born circa 1426–7; died 8 Jul 1486); married after 1462 Katherine Fray (born circa 1447), 2nd daughter and co-heiress of John Fray, Knt., Chief Baron of the Exchequer, by Agnes, daughter of John Danvers. Their son:
12. Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Cotered and Rushden, Hertfordshire, (born 1 May 1478; died 22 Sep 1545); married (1st) after 1490 Margaret Fogge, daughter of Sir John Fogge, Knt., of Ashford, Kent, by his second wife, Alice, daughter of William Haute, Esquire. Their son:
13. Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Blatherwycke, Northamptonshire (died 1558); married 1526, Margaret Tame, daughter of Edmund Tame, Knt., of Fairford, Gloucestershire, by his 1st wife, Agnes, daughter of John Greville, Esquire. Their daughter:
14. Eleanor Stafford, married (1st) Anthony Cope, Esq., of Adstone, Northamptonshire. They had no issue. She married (as her second husband) before 1568 Thomas Barlow (or Barlowe), of Huncote, Leicestershire. Their son:
15. Stafford Barlow, Gentleman, of Narborough and Lutterworth, Leicestershire (born circa 1578; aged 62 in 1640). The name of his wife is unknown. He was deposed in a 1640 case heard in the Exchequer between John Waybred, clerk, and Sir William Faunt. His daughter:
16. Audrey Barlow, born circa 1600–1603 (aged 26 in 1626, aged 32 in 1635); married by license dated 17 Jul 1626 William Almy, Gentleman, of South Kilworth, Leicestershire.

For more information, see Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 2nd Edition, volume 1, pp. 114-123.

I descend from Audrey (Barlow) Almy through her son, Christopher Almy.

Charles Ward

[Adrian Channing]

Much of this is given in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan _Domesday Descendants_ p 488. Here K-R states that Isabel is a daughter of William, dapifer [steward] of William earl Warenne. K-R also states she was sister and eventual heir of Roger fitz William, but does not identfy him as "de Freville "

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:13:57 PM UTC-4, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe you may be missing two new world immigrant descended from Isabel: William Sargent and Thomas Dudley. Via the following:

1) Isabel de Gressenhall m. Osmond de Stuteville
2) Roger de Stuteville
3) Alice de Stuteville m. Roger de Merlay
4) Agnes de Merlay m. Richard Gobion
5) Hugh Gobion m. Matilda
6) Joan Gobion m. John de Morteyn
7) John de Morteyn m. Joan de Rothwell
8) Lucy de Morteyn m. John Giffard
9) Thomas Giffard m. Elizabeth de Missenden
10) Roger Giffard m. Isabel Stretle
11) Katherine Giffard m. Thomas Billing
12) Margaret Billing m. Edmund Thorne
13) Thomas Thorne m. Alice Arden
14) William Thorne m. Alice Stotesbury
15) Thomas Thorne m. Mary Purefoy
16) Susanne Thorne m. Roger Dudley
17) Governor Thomas Dudley

11) Thomas Giffard m. Eleanor Vaux
12) John Giffard m. Agnes Winslowe
13) Roger Giffard m. Mary Nanseglos
14) Nicholas Giffard m. Agnes Masters
15) Margaret Giffard m. Hugh Sargent
16) Roger Sargent m. Ellen Makerness
17) William Sargent

Interestingly, I don't have the Mary Gye line in my database, despite being a Mary Gye descendant myself. Do you mind sharing?
--Joe Cook

[joe...@gmail.com]

> I believe you may be missing two new world immigrant descended from Isabel: William Sargent and Thomas Dudley. Via the following:
>
> 1) Isabel de Gressenhall m. Osmond de Stuteville
> 2) Roger de Stuteville
> 3) Alice de Stuteville m. Roger de Merlay
> 4) Agnes de Merlay m. Richard Gobion
> 5) Hugh Gobion m. Matilda

<snip>

Oh, yikes, it looks like I made a mess of this confusing two Osborn de Stutevilles, and two Roger de Stuteville.

I believe the correction (to me) is:

1. Robert de Stuteville (died after 1106) m. Beatrix
2. Robert de Stuteville (died about 1140) m. Erneburga
3a. Robert de Stuteville (died about 1183) m. Helewise
4a. Osmond de Stuteville m. Isabel de Gressenhall
5a. William de Stuteville--> (ancestor of Mary Gye)

4b. Hawise de Stuteville m. Hugh de Morville --> (ancestor of Joseph Bolles)

3c. Roger de Stuteville (died bef 1202)
4c. Alice de Stuteville -> Ancestor of William Sargent and Thomas Dudley,etc

Sorry for the confusion,
--Joe C

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:13:57 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>

> The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Isabel de Gressenhall and her 3rd husband, William de Huntingfield:
>

> [snip] James Cudworth [snip]

I would like to clarify the supposed descent of James Cudworth from Isabel de Gressenhall. The parentage of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell, as published in "Magna Carta Ancestry" and "Royal Ancestry," has been conclusively disproven. The clincher, on top of all the other evidence, is that Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in the unlikely borough of Southwark -- except that St. Mary Newington church (where she was married) was ABOUT A MILE from King's Bench Prison, where her actual father John Machell (not Mathew Machell, as mistakenly assumed earlier) was being held as a debtor. The Cudworth thread is here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/5oEUwaUUZBI

This means that the Magna Carta descents of Mathew Machell's wife Mary Lewknor don't apply to James Cudworth. However, the many Magna Carta descents of John Machell's second wife Ursula Hynde DO apply, so maybe Isabella de Gressenhall is still in the mix. [James Cudworth isn't my ancestor -- I'm descended from his great-aunt Jane (Machell) Rich -- so I haven't checked.]

[JBrand]

All you have to do is ask Great Aunt Jane, right?

[deca...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 11:06:37 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

The Great Salt Lake near Salt Lake City, Utah, USA would literally have to freeze over first in its entirety before Douglas Richardson would publicly acknowledge or admit any of his errors!

[artie...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 7:13:57 PM UTC-5, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>

> Do you descend from Isabel de Gressenhall? If so, I'd appreciate it if you would post your line of descent from her here on the newsgroup.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas,
My descent from Isabel is:
Isabel FitzWilliam, aka Isabel de Gressenhall, married William de Huntingfield,
Sir Roger de Huntingfield married Joan de Howbridge (Hobrugg),
Sir William de Huntingfield married Emma de Grey,
Roger de Huntingfield married Joyce D'Engaine,
Joan de Huntingfield married Richard Basset,
Ralph Basset married Joan (de la Pole ?) ,
Eleanor Basset married John Knyvet,
Robert Knyvet married Joan Castelayn,
Thomas Knyvet married Eleanor Doreward
John Knyvet married Margaret Baynard,
Sir Thomas Knyvet married Elizabeth Lunesford,
Thomasine Knyvet married Sir William Clopton,
Richard Clopton married Margaret Playters,
William Clopton married Margaret Waldegrave,
Walter Clopton married Margaret Maidstone,
Rev William Clopton married Elizabeth Sutcliffe,
William Clopton married Ann Booth,
Anne Clopton married Nicholas Mills II,
Elizabeth Mills married David Overton Anderson Sr. ,
David Overton Anderson Jr. married Amediah Binns,
David Overton Anderson 111 married Sally Drake,
America Columbus Anderson married John Berry,
Dallas Yell Berry married Sarah Ann Southard,
Arthur Yell Berry Sr. married Fannie Lucretia Champion,
Arthur Yell Berry Jr. married Frances Katherine Gearhart,
Arthur Yell Berry III.

Trust this is what you looking for.

[John Higgins]

"The parentage of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell...has been conclusively disproved"? Only according to the view of John Schmeeckle, as expressed in the thread he cites above. A more reasonable view, also discussed in that thread, is that the maternity (and perhaps the paternity) of Mary Machell cannot be conclusively determined at present.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:35:24 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
>
> All you have to do is ask Great Aunt Jane, right?

I've been told that Jane (Machell) Rich died before the marriages of the two Mary Machells. But there's no need to go there, with what I consider to be a conclusive proof via circumstantial evidence for the parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth -- see my next post.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 2:30:46 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> "The parentage of Cudworth's mother Mary Machell...has been conclusively disproved"? Only according to the view of John Schmeeckle, as expressed in the thread he cites above. A more reasonable view, also discussed in that thread, is that the maternity (and perhaps the paternity) of Mary Machell cannot be conclusively determined at present.

@John Higgins, the thread that I cited above has evidence scattered around, collected over a period of months. I have gathered all the snippets together in one place, in a series of posts in the Cudworth thread over at WikiTree, together with a step-by-step explanation of a proof by circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps you and/or others would care to review this careful and (hopefully) well-ordered presentation of the evidence. If you do not find this proof convincing, then perhaps you could explain the reason for your skepticism.

WikiTree's Cudworth thread is here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor

If you go there and scroll down a bit to the first "answer" (it's in a box highlighted grey with a "best answer" star) and then scroll down past two comments by Liz Shifflett, you will find the beginning of my discussion, in a post dated July 7. My explanation of a proof by circumstantial evidence, detailing the evidence for the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, continues in a series of posts through July 26 -- a total of six posts.

John Higgins, I welcome a critical review of this proof of the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth, by yourself or by anyone else. Part of my discussion included mention (with links) of three other proofs by circumstantial evidence, together with a supposed proof that (in my view) simply doesn't work. This means that, including the proof for Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parents, there are five separate purported proofs by circumstantial evidence. Which ones do you find convincing, and which ones do you find unconvincing? Among the expert genealogists on this forum, is there general agreement or not?

[JBrand]

Yes, indeed, there's "no need to go there." Total nonsense.

[John Higgins]

I see nothing in the very lengthy WikiTree thread that you haven't presented here before. I also see that a number of people participating in that thread (as well as here in SGM) feel that neither theory regarding Mary Machell's parentage has been proven sufficiently to outweigh the opposing theory. You obviously disagree with this conclusion, and further discussion is clearly unlikely to change your stance. I've made it clear in the past that I don't feel either alternative is satisfactorily proven. You're unwilling to accept that conclusion (from me and others, both in SGM and in WikiTree). So be it...

[Michael Welch]

No only Decca thinks he is right but than again I think they are the same person.

[deca...@aol.com]

Sorry, Decca is not John Schmeeckle. Saying anything to the contrary is simply not true. Who are you? Just another Douglas Richardson disciple who believes that everything Richardson says is a universal truth as it pertains to genealogy? While I don’t agree with everything Schmeeckle says, even the most novice and inexperienced genealogist can see the blatant errors in Richardson’s examination of the evidence in the Mary (Machell) Cudworth parentage case. As I personally believe that her parentage hasn’t been conclusively proven, Schmeeckle’s analysis and presentation of the circumstantial evidence does lean towards John Machell and Ursula Hynde as the correct parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

Only someone blinded by their belief in the myth of Richardson’s infallibility would ignore the obvious errors in his analysis, while dismissing Schmeeckle as some trolling pseudo-psychic genealogist. Furthermore, I have no comment on Schmeeckle’s psychic abilities or whether or not he is ‘punking’ the so-called experts on SGM. However, with that said, he has intelligently and skillfully listed the obvious errors in Richardson’s analysis that renders Richardson's conclusion on the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth very suspect.

[Michael Welch]

Lol Decca your way too tense.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 5:27:30 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> I also see that a number of people participating in that[WikiTree] > thread (as well as here in SGM) feel that neither theory regarding > Mary Machell's parentage has been proven sufficiently to outweigh > the opposing theory. <snip> I've made it clear in the past that > I don't feel either alternative is satisfactorily proven.

My understanding is that, when discussing proofs by circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Furthermore, it is my understanding that FEELINGS are not an acceptable substitute for reasoned analysis.

Is there anybody who disagrees with me?

Regarding who said what over at WikiTree (and here at SGM), ever since my post on SGM's Cudworth thread on May 3 (repeated on WikiTree's Cudworth thread on May 20, pointing out that there were actually TWO Mary Machells), NOBODY has defended Richardson's broken Cudworth/Machell lineage. Furthermore, since then, NOBODY (either at SGM or at WikiTree) has given any reasoned discussion of the evidence that I have provided.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 10:59:42 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 5:27:30 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> > I also see that a number of people participating in that[WikiTree] > thread (as well as here in SGM) feel that neither theory regarding > Mary Machell's parentage has been proven sufficiently to outweigh > the opposing theory. <snip> I've made it clear in the past that > I don't feel either alternative is satisfactorily proven.
>
> My understanding is that, when discussing proofs by circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
> Furthermore, it is my understanding that FEELINGS are not an acceptable substitute for reasoned analysis.
>
> Is there anybody who disagrees with me?

Most people disagree with you. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is proof needed to convict criminal defendants in United States courts.

Genealogical proof is defined well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_Proof_Standard

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 6:29:00 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Most people disagree with you. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is proof needed to convict criminal defendants in United States courts.
>
> Genealogical proof is defined well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_Proof_Standard

Joe, it appears that you are venturing outside your area of expertise, not to mention misreading that wikitree page, as well as making an ignorant assumption about "most people." The very first sentence of that link you gave expresses "reasonable certainty" as the criterion for genealogical proof.

"Reasonable certainty" means exactly the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Thank you for confirming my point.

If anybody wants to doubt my proof for the parents of Jane (Machell) Cudworth, it is important to supply a reason, and "feelings" are not an acceptable substitute for reason.

[joe...@gmail.com]

> "Reasonable certainty" means exactly the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Is English your second language, or are you just trolling me?

[joe...@gmail.com]

"Three different standards are used in courts of law. Generally, each of the three judicial standards of proof1 requires a different level of confidence in the facts supporting a decision:

Beyond a reasonable doubt: requires at least 95% confidence that the facts support a guilty verdict
Clear and convincing: requires at least 70-75% confidence that the facts support the decision
Preponderance of evidence: requires at least 50.1% confidence that the facts support the decision

"The intermediate standard of clear and convincing proof requires a “high probability” or “reasonable certainty” that the weight of evidence favors the decision. It is applied in civil cases involving more than “mere loss of money,” such as fraud or other quasi-criminal conduct, deportation, and permanent termination of parental rights"
--https://home.campusclarity.com/standards-of-proof/

[P J Evans]

Coming from someone who claims his distant ancestors talk to him, that has to be taken as a joke.

[taf]

On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:16:19 AM UTC-7, P J Evans wrote:

> Coming from someone who claims his distant ancestors talk to him, that has
> to be taken as a joke.

And this, folks, is why you don't dabble in mystical genealogy, or at least you don't admit to it in public, if you ever want to be taken seriously. While each solution should be evaluated on its own merits, every genealogical hypothesis you put forward, no matter how well reasoned and well supported, will invariably be tainted by association with such mysticism.

taf

[P J Evans]

It was actually that pronouncement on judicial standards that did it. I know they're not the same, and so do you, and most of the other people here. (And, if I *really* need an opinion, one of my nieces has a law degree and passed the bar exam.) The mystical genealogy is fine - as long as he doesn't post it here as if it were fact.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:13:57 AM UTC+2, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Complete Peerage does not say so, but Isabel is known to have been the daughter and heiress of William Fitz Roger, of Gressenhall and Castle Acre, Norfolk, by his wife, Aeliva. See Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 189–196 (Gressenhall-Stuteville-Foliot ped.), which may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA189

Douglas,

I think Carthew, like Blomefield before him, actually has some extra generations between Isabella and the William who married Aeliva? Farrer in HKF III seems to be the one who gave a different interpretation which seems to now be the standard, writing:

"The descent of this fee from the younger Roger is not clear, but the main fine ended in an heiress Isabel, apparently Roger's sister and heir. She is said to have been first married to Berenger de Cressi. She married secondly Osmund de Stutevill, with whom she joined in confirming to Castleacre the gifts of her ancestors, namely Wimar the seneschal of Gressenhall, Roger his son, Walter son of Wimar, William son of Roger, Roger son of William and Drew his brother, and Berenger de Cressi."

Note that Farrer seems uncertain how she became the heiress of the younger Roger and his brother Drew (Drogo). If there was a charter where Isabel named her mother this would resolve it better. But without such evidence all we seem to know is that Isabel was daughter of a William, so she might for example be the daughter of Roger's brother named William, rather than Roger's father?

Do any of the Suffolk charters add anything which helps?

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Joe, I don't think it is a great revelation to point out that "certainty" means "beyond doubt" -- certainty and doubt are mutually exclusive in common English. If you apply a specialized legal meaning to my initial choice of words, then you can make a nit-picking case for the argument that the standard of genealogical proof is actually somewhat LOWER than the standard that I applied to evaluating proofs by circumstantial evidence. My basic point remains -- you failed to engage with the first sentence in the link that you provided in your misguided attempt at a rebuttal. My underlying point -- my discussion of the evidence supporting my proof by circumstantial evidence for the parents of Jane (Machell) Cudworth -- continues to get ignored.

@Taf -- if you are unable to objectively evaluate my discussion of circumstiantial proofs because elsewhere I have publicly discussed communicating with ancestors, that would seem to show an emotional bias that clouds your judgment.

However, there might be another explanation. Perhaps you and others have heaped scorn on my examples of communication with ancestors as a convenient pretext to protect the reputation of your good buddy Douglas Richardson, who appears to be practicing shoddy genealogy in an effort to sell more books. Hence my earlier reference to Richardson's "Wizard-of-Oz" humbuggery with his public "certification" of his hopelessly broken Cudworth lineage, which you and others, once again, continue to ignore.

[deca...@aol.com]

Everyone on the soc.genealogy.medieval Newsgroup knows that the yellow brick road ends at the entrance to Douglas Richardson’s office at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah:

"There were several roads nearby, but it did not take John Schmeeckle long to find the one paved with yellow bricks. Within a short time he was walking briskly toward the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah; his Silver Shoes tinkling merrily on the hard, yellow road-bed.”

[P J Evans]

Well, given that your understand of legal standards of proof isn't up to that of reputable genealogists, like E Shown Mills, why should we consider anything you say to be worth our attention?

[Andrew Lancaster]

John,

I am a bit concerned that this subject is now taking so much space in so many threads. To me it seems obvious for practical purposes that...

1. The legal terms quoted, if not perfect, were just someone's quite reasonable attempt to define the way those terms ARE (lets be honest) also used in all thoughtful debates by educated people, and...

2. You can't normally expect to use first hand witnessing of paranormal types of evidence in critical public debates, because no one else can sensibly trust do anything with it. (The un-verifiable is the first thing to criticize and dump when being critical.)

Is not banging your head against these two points really a case of making all threads about you personally? I write this as someone whose simple question about the original post will probably never be answered. :(

Andrew

[John Higgins]

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 2:59:24 AM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

Your labeling of Todd Farmerie as a "good buddy" of Douglas Richardson is laughably ignorant of the Richardson history in this group and the opinion of others regarding DR and his work. It's also grossly simplistic to imply that failure to eagerly support your version of the Cudworth lineage necessarily means support of the Richardson version. I've made it very clear that, in my judgment, both versions of the lineage are not sufficiently proven. Your already shaky credibility is not improved by remarks like this.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

I'll reply first to Andrew, then to PJ Evans, and then to Decca.

@ Andrew, I hope that you share my concern that Richardson's "certification" of his bogus Cudworth lineage is becoming a public scandal. Regarding your reference to legal terms, we're not lawyers here, and I had plain English in mind when I associated "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "reasonable certainty," which was the phrase used in the wikipedia article that PJ didn't read carefully. Either way, you need a REASON to dismiss a proof by circumstantial evidence, not FEELINGS as John Higgins said twice.

Regarding your second point, I have never discussed communication with ancestors in relation to the Cudworth lineage. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree here. By the way, what do you think of my proof by circumstantial evidence of Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parents? Do you have an opinion about the other four purported proofs that I provided as a kind of measuring stick for evaluating such proofs?

@ PJ Evans, we are genealogists, not lawyers. Legal standards for genealogical proofs is not the issue. My point is that if John Higgins wants to dismiss or doubt my proof, he has to have a REASON (not feelings). That means that he needs to engage with the evidence and conclusions in my proof, which neither he nor you have done. Regarding Elizabeth Shown Mills, she is a genealogist masquerading as a historian. I'd be pleased to compare what she says about proofs by circumstantial evidence with my understanding, as I outlined in July at https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor

@ decca, we're off to see the Wizard, because of the wonderful things he does, like taking us on a "certified" trip back to King Edward I via the mystical Cudworth/Machell/Lewknor connection.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:44:45 PM UTC-4, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'll reply first to Andrew, then to PJ Evans, and then to Decca.
>
> @ Andrew, I hope that you share my concern that Richardson's "certification" of his bogus Cudworth lineage is becoming a public scandal. Regarding your reference to legal terms, we're not lawyers here, and I had plain English in mind when I associated "beyond a reasonable doubt" with "reasonable certainty," which was the phrase used in the wikipedia article that PJ didn't read carefully. Either way, you need a REASON to dismiss a proof by circumstantial evidence, not FEELINGS as John Higgins said twice.
>
> Regarding your second point, I have never discussed communication with ancestors in relation to the Cudworth lineage. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree here. By the way, what do you think of my proof by circumstantial evidence of Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parents? Do you have an opinion about the other four purported proofs that I provided as a kind of measuring stick for evaluating such proofs?
>
> @ PJ Evans, we are genealogists, not lawyers. Legal standards for genealogical proofs is not the issue. My point is that if John Higgins wants to dismiss or doubt my proof, he has to have a REASON (not feelings). That means that he needs to engage with the evidence and conclusions in my proof, which neither he nor you have done. Regarding Elizabeth Shown Mills, she is a genealogist masquerading as a historian. I'd be pleased to compare what she says about proofs by circumstantial evidence with my understanding, as I outlined in July at https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/567199/is-james-cudworth-a-false-gateway-ancestor

I think this is getting worse than Spencer Hines.

Please stop.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Charles ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated. And nicely presented, by the way.

You're quite correct. The immigrant, Audrey (Barlow) Almy, is a lineal descendant of Isabel de Gressenhall.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

< Seventeenth century New World immigrant, Audrey (Barlow) Almy, has been
< omitted from this list. Her descent from Isabel de Gressenhall and her
< third husband, Sir William de Huntingfield, is briefly outlined below.
<
< 1. Sir William de Huntingfield, Knt., of Huntingfield, Co. Suffolk (died
< 1219/1220); married Isabel, the daughter of William Fitz Roger of
< Gressenhall, Norfolk. Their son:
< 2. Sir Roger de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co., Suffolk (born before
< 1200; died 19 Jun 1257) married Joan de Howbridge. Their son:
< 3. Sir William de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co., Suffolk (born 24 Aug
< 1237; died shortly before 2 Nov 1290); married Emme de Grey. Their son:
< 4. Sir Roger de Huntingfield, of Huntingfield, Co. Suffolk (born circa 1267; < died before 5 Dec 1302); married Joyce d’Engaine, daughter of Sir John
< d’Engaine and Joan Greinville. Their daughter:
< 5. Joan de Huntingfield married Sir Richard Bassett, Knt., 1st Lord Basset
< of Weldon (born circa 1274; died before 18 Aug 1314). Their son:
< 6. Sir Ralph Basset, Knt., 2nd Lord Bassett of Weldon, (b. 27 Aug 1300; d. \< shortly before 4 May 1341); married Joan, said to be the daughter of, or
< kinswoman of, William le Latimer, 3rd Baron Latimer (Richardson, Magna Carta < Ancestry, p. 115), but in Ancestral Roots, p. 176 (Line 187), is “said to be < a Sturdon of Winterbourne, Co. Gloucester.” Their daughter,
< 7. Joan Bassett (died before 14 Jul 1343); married Sir Thomas Aylesbury, of < Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire (died shortly before 26 Aug 1349). Their son:
< 8. Sir John Aylesbury, born and baptized Weldon, Northants. 6 May 1334;
< married first before Michaelmas 1359, Isabel, allegedly a daughter of
< “Eubaldo [sic] Lord Strange of Knockyn.” He married secondly, before Nov.
< 1369, Alice. His son by his first wife:
> 9. Sir Thomas Aylesbury (died 1418), married as his second wife Katherine
< Pabenham. Their daughter:
< 10. Eleanor Aylesbury (born circa 1406); married by license dated 2 Jan
< 1423/4, Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Grafton, Worcestershire, etc., (born
< 1400; died 7 Jun 1450). Their son:
< 11. Humphrey Stafford, Esq., of Grafton, Worcestershire, (born circa 1426–< 7; died 8 Jul 1486); married after 1462 Katherine Fray (born circa 1447),
< 2nd daughter and co-heiress of John Fray, Knt., Chief Baron of the
< Exchequer, by Agnes, daughter of John Danvers. Their son:
< 12. Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Cotered and Rushden, Hertfordshire, (born 1 < May 1478; died 22 Sep 1545); married (1st) after 1490 Margaret Fogge,
< daughter of Sir John Fogge, Knt., of Ashford, Kent, by his second wife,
< Alice, daughter of William Haute, Esquire. Their son:
< 13. Humphrey Stafford, Knt., of Blatherwycke, Northamptonshire (died 1558); < married 1526, Margaret Tame, daughter of Edmund Tame, Knt., of Fairford,
< Gloucestershire, by his 1st wife, Agnes, daughter of John Greville, Esquire. < Their daughter:
< 14. Eleanor Stafford, married (1st) Anthony Cope, Esq., of Adstone,
< Northamptonshire. They had no issue. She married (as her second husband)
< before 1568 Thomas Barlow (or Barlowe), of Huncote, Leicestershire. Their
< son:
< 15. Stafford Barlow, Gentleman, of Narborough and Lutterworth,
< Leicestershire (born circa 1578; aged 62 in 1640). The name of his wife is
< unknown. He was deposed in a 1640 case heard in the Exchequer between John
< Waybred, clerk, and Sir William Faunt. His daughter:
< 16. Audrey Barlow, born circa 1600–1603 (aged 26 in 1626, aged 32 in 1635); < married by license dated 17 Jul 1626 William Almy, Gentleman, of South
< Kilworth, Leicestershire.

< I descend from Audrey (Barlow) Almy through her son, Christopher Almy.
<
< Charles Ward

[celticp...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 6:02:55 AM UTC-6, Adrian Channing wrote:

< Much of this is given in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan _Domesday Descendants_ p 488.
< Here < K-R states that Isabel is a daughter of William, dapifer [steward] of < William < earl Warenne. K-R also states she was sister and eventual heir of < Roger fitz William, but does not identfy him as "de Freville."

Dear Adrian ~

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.

Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants II (2002): 487–488 mentions Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingfield, in passing. She alleges that Isabel was the daughter of William de Gressinghale, which William succeeded his own father by 1129/30. This is clearly impossible chronologically. Isabel herself can't have been born any earlier than c.1160 and perhaps as late as c.1165. My best guess is that Isabel would be a granddaughter of William de Gressenhall, living c.1129/30.

Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 195 (Gressenhall-Stuteville-Foliot ped.) interposes two generations between Isabel and Keats-Rohan's William de Gressenhall, living c.1129/30. See the following weblink for Launditch:

https://books.google.com/books?id=inFEAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover

I believe the parentage I gave for Isabel comes from Brown, Sibton Abbey Cartularies & Charters 1 (Suffolk Charters 7) (1985): 21–22 (re. Cressy fam.), 64, 91–92; 2 (Suffolk Charters 8) (1986): 53–56; 3 (Suffolk Charters 9) (1987): 152; 4 (Suffolk Charters 10) (1988): 4–5.

Ancestry has most of these pages online except Vol. 1, pp. 64 and 91-92. This past week I checked the available pages. Unfortunately the available pages do not discuss Isabel's parentage.

Hopefully someone in the newsgroup has access to Volume 1 of Brown and can check the missing pages for us.

One further comment: The name Aeliva used by Launditch and I think also by Brown is doubtless the Latin form for Aline. In the old handwriting, it is impossible to tell the difference between "v"s and "n"s. This sometimes creates problems for us historians.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 11:28:54 PM UTC-6, gdco...@gmail.com wrote:

< Thank you very much for this post. I'm descended from both Wm Skepper and
< Rose Stoughton, but I discovered that neither of Skepper's descents from
< Isabel is in my database. I presume the lines can be found in _Royal
< Ancestry_? We're in the middle of moving and my books are currently
< unavailable. My descent from Skepper down to my grandmother Cooke can be
< seen here: http://gdcooke.org/ss/default.aspx/page/org2-o/ui151.htm
<
< My descent from Rose Stoughton runs thusly:
< Rose Stoughton m. Richard Otis
< Ann Otis m. Thomas Austin
< Nathaniel Austin m. Catherine Neale
< Phebe Austin m. John Hansen
< John Hansen m. Sally Getchel
< William Hansen m. Harriet Browne
< Harriet Jane Hansen m. Wm Stevens Robinson
< Edward Warrington Robinson m. Mary Elizabeth Robinson
< Harriet Hansen Robinson m. Wm Pierce
< Dorothy Harriet Pierce m. Donald F. Cooke
< Gregory D. Cooke (me)
>
> Again, thanks!

You're quite welcome.

DR

[Peter Stewart]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 6:44:45 AM UTC+10, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> My point is that if John Higgins wants to dismiss or doubt my proof, he has to have a REASON (not feelings).

Why can't he just rely on a voice in his head?

Assuming he ever experienced paracusia, I would certainly trust John Higgins to listen carefully and report accurately (and for that matter grammatically) whatever he thought he heard.

Unlike some others.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 2:59:24 AM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

> @Taf -- if you are unable to objectively evaluate my discussion of
> circumstiantial proofs because elsewhere I have publicly discussed
> communicating with ancestors, that would seem to show an emotional
> bias that clouds your judgment.

If someone lacks the basic skills of identifying what is and what is not a legitimate historical source, anything they put together is inherently untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if they have assured us that they did not not engaged in head-up-arsery in this particular instance. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

> However, there might be another explanation. Perhaps you and others have
> heaped scorn on my examples of communication with ancestors as a convenient
> pretext to protect the reputation of your good buddy Douglas Richardson,
> who appears to be practicing shoddy genealogy in an effort to sell more
> books. Hence my earlier reference to Richardson's "Wizard-of-Oz" humbuggery
> with his public "certification" of his hopelessly broken Cudworth lineage,
> which you and others, once again, continue to ignore.

I have heaped scorn on your mysticism because it is utterly divorced from reality. I need no more reason. You seem to be arguing that your humbuggery is no worse than his humbuggery, which may well be the case - 'certification' is for chumps - but is hardly an argument in favor of the accuracy of your reconstruction. I can't be bothered to read either - a pox on both your houses.

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 11:48:22 PM UTC+2, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 6:02:55 AM UTC-6, Adrian Channing wrote:
>
> < Much of this is given in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan _Domesday Descendants_ p 488.
> < Here < K-R states that Isabel is a daughter of William, dapifer [steward] of < William < earl Warenne. K-R also states she was sister and eventual heir of < Roger fitz William, but does not identfy him as "de Freville."

@Adrian, Keats-Rohan is (as often) following Farrer in Honors and Knights Fees (Vol 3 available on familysearch) in this entry. He was mainly using the Castle Acre charters. K-R is aware of but cites the wrong edition and volume of Monasticon Anglicanum for the page numbers she gives. The pages she must intend are here in the 1825 ed Vol 4:

https://books.google.be/books?id=VvpAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA52

So, tracing back in this way, we can say that Roger fitz William in this comment is not a Freville but the descendant of Wimer as follows: Wimer -> Roger -> William -> Roger.

It is often much simpler to read what Farrer originally wrote than to read the summarized and often tweaked summaries which Keats-Rohan gives. As in other cases, K-R (whose aim is of course different) tends to state things as known facts but it is not easy to trace the sourcing. Farrer is more careful and more clearly sourced. As quoted already in my previous post, he does not express any certainty about the relationship between the younger Roger and Isabel who was eventually heir to him and his family (apparently after his brother Drew).

In line with Farrer, but not Keats-Rohan (or indeed Douglas), I have not yet found any charter which explicitly names ANY parent of Isabel, although charters do name antecessors (who can not be simply ancestors because several sets of brothers are included). This is what I now wonder about.

Keats-Rohan and Farrer also of course looked at more charters, as does Douglas. Some are in Farrer and Clay's Early Yorkshire Charters which came out after HKF.

> Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants II (2002): 487–488 mentions Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingfield, in passing. She alleges that Isabel was the daughter of William de Gressinghale, which William succeeded his own father by 1129/30. This is clearly impossible chronologically. Isabel herself can't have been born any earlier than c.1160 and perhaps as late as c.1165. My best guess is that Isabel would be a granddaughter of William de Gressenhall, living c.1129/30.
>
> Carthew, Hundred of Launditch & Deanery of Brisley 1 (1877): 195 (Gressenhall-Stuteville-Foliot ped.) interposes two generations between Isabel and Keats-Rohan's William de Gressenhall, living c.1129/30. See the following weblink for Launditch:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=inFEAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover

@Douglas, I am a bit confused about how to interpret what you are proposing now. Saying that Carthew interposes two extra generations, as I did in my previous post not yet replied to, is apparently seeing Farrer as correct, who, as mentioned above, is followed by Keats-Rohan, and I thought also by you. However, now you say that "My best guess is that Isabel would be a granddaughter of William de Gressenhall, living c.1129/30." That does seem possible, but I think it is a new proposal and not the one of Farrer or Keats-Rohan? Can you please clarify?

That William you mention in 1129/30, which comes from Keats-Rohan I think (DP p.977), is mentioned by Farrer, who makes the primary source clear in HKF III (not cited by Keats-Rohan):

"William son of Roger was pardoned 20s. of danegeld in Norfolk in the year 1130, and the earl of Warenne was similarly pardoned £29 10s"

But keep in mind that Farrer and others also think that...

1. His grandfather Wimer was still appearing in charters until about 1130.

2. In "Early Yorkshire Charters" Vol 8 Farrer and Clay date Roger's first acts as dapifer around 1130-1138. (Carthew says before 1135.)

See for example Farrer and Clay EYC Vol 8:

https://books.google.be/books?id=pgjiZ8TuSVUC&lpg=PA242

https://books.google.be/books?id=pgjiZ8TuSVUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78

Charter 22 taken together with 21 is supposed to show Wimer being dapifer around 1130.

Charter 24 is supposed to show Roger being dapifer before 1138.

Wimer possibly lived quite long, already appearing in Domesday in 1086, and eventually taking the habit of a monk. Might the paying of Danegeld have been a responsibility his grandson William took up earlier than he took up the dapifership? According to Farrer this dapifership was only apparently hereditary for a few generations, which might mean it was not formally hereditary.

There is also the tricky matter of charter 25 which shows a Robert being dapifer in the period 1119-1138.

I know the hereditary Hastings stewards of Bury St Edmunds tended to deputize to relatives and underlings, and this started already in the 12th century. Not sure if something like that might also have been happening.

> I believe the parentage I gave for Isabel comes from Brown, Sibton Abbey Cartularies & Charters 1 (Suffolk Charters 7) (1985): 21–22 (re. Cressy fam.), 64, 91–92; 2 (Suffolk Charters 8) (1986): 53–56; 3 (Suffolk Charters 9) (1987): 152; 4 (Suffolk Charters 10) (1988): 4–5.
>
> Ancestry has most of these pages online except Vol. 1, pp. 64 and 91-92. This past week I checked the available pages. Unfortunately the available pages do not discuss Isabel's parentage.
>
> Hopefully someone in the newsgroup has access to Volume 1 of Brown and can check the missing pages for us.

That would be good!

> One further comment: The name Aeliva used by Launditch and I think also by Brown is doubtless the Latin form for Aline. In the old handwriting, it is impossible to tell the difference between "v"s and "n"s. This sometimes creates problems for us historians.

FWIW K-R calls her Aglina on one page (DP p.487, her own entry), and Alina on the next. I think she is only mentioned in one charter where she is the mother of Roger son of William, son of Roger, son of Wimer? (Dugdale's number 12.) Dugdale and Farrer both say it says Aeliva.

Best Regards
Andrew

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:00:02 AM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote:

> FWIW K-R calls her Aglina on one page (DP p.487, her own entry), and Alina on the next. I think she is only mentioned in one charter where she is the mother of Roger son of William, son of Roger, son of Wimer? (Dugdale's number 12.) Dugdale and Farrer both say it says Aeliva.

Sorry. Monasticon Anglicanum says Aelina. Farrer says Aeliva.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Andrew ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

As you have indicated, William Fitz Roger occurs as an adult in 1129/30 (as per the published Pipe Rolls) and Keats-Rohan makes him to be the father of Isabel de Gressenhall, born c.1160-65, who was active from at least c.1185 through 1207. Unless you have an extremely long generation (which is possible but doubtful), it seems likely to me that William Fitz Roger was the grandfather of Isabel de Gressenhall. So yes I disagree with the arrangement set forth by Keats-Rohan. I don't dispute, however, that William Fitz Roger is Isabel de Gressenhall's ancestor.

In this vein, Launditch indicates that Wimar, grandfather of William Fitz Roger, witnessed a charter in 1090. If we follow Keats-Rohan, Wimar would be the great-grandfather of Isabel de Gressenhall who was active in the 1180s through 1207. Once again a generation seems to be missing if you assume 85 years for three generations. The missing adult generation would be active c.1170, which was just previous to Isabel de Gressenhall's time frame.

Another way to estimate Isabel de Gressenhall's date of birth is to examine the exact or estimated birthdates of her great-grandchildren. There are several of them found in my books. You take their birthdates, subtract 85 years, and you should come close to Isabel's own birthdate.

Unfortunately there appears to be a lack of charter evidence to conclusively prove the name of Isabel de Gressenhall's father. Possibly the missing pages of Sibton Abbey Cartularies hold the answer. I hope so.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Andrew ~

Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 9 (1808): 510–515 gives this arrangement of the Gressenhall family:

"William, son of Roger, assumed the name of Gressenhale, and left several sons by Æliva his wife; Roger, his eldest, succeeded him, and left William de Gressenhale, his son and heir. This William had an only daughter, Isabel, who married first Beringer de Cressi, and afterwards William de Huntingfield; and Osmond de Stutevill, her 3d husband, was lord of this town in her right." END OF QUOTE.

Blomefield can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol9/pp510-520

My own impression is that Blomefield may have an extra generation in his pedigree. There is charter evidence to prove the existence of William son of Roger and also his son, Roger son of William. But I know of no charter evidence to indicate the existence of William de Gressenhall.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

I will reply to both John Higgins and TAF.

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:

> Your labeling of Todd Farmerie as a "good buddy" of Douglas Richardson is laughably ignorant of the Richardson history in this group and the opinion of others regarding DR and his work.

It would seem that my irony was lost on you.

>It's also grossly simplistic to imply that failure to eagerly support your version of the Cudworth lineage necessarily means support of the Richardson version.

I never implied that, and it seems irrational for you to state that I did.

>I've made it very clear that, in my judgment, both versions of the lineage are not sufficiently proven.

I see that your "feelings" have now evolved to "judgment." However, you have never given any reason for your opinion, which you last stated (on the Cudworth thread) on March 25, long before I demonstrated that
(1) there were actually TWO Mary Machells,
(2) Bellasis (Richardson's ONLY source, and a long-after secondary source at that), contrary to Richardson's error, did NOT give a reference for his supposition that Mary Machell, wife of Ralph Cudworth, was the daughter of Mathew Machell;
(3) Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth within walking distance of where John Machell (Mathew's brother) was being held in debtors' prison, in a locale that had no other known connection to either the Machell or Cudworth families.

On March 25 you gave your assessment of "the current status of the Cudworth descent." Things have changed, and your assessment hasn't reflected that.

--

@ TAF:

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:27:53 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> If someone lacks the basic skills of identifying what is and what is not a legitimate historical source, anything they put together is inherently untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if they have assured us that they did not not engaged in head-up-arsery in this particular instance.

Your presumption that I "lack the basic skills of identifying what is and what is not a legitimate historical source" would seem to be either the result of a mental defect or a debating tactic intended to divert attention away from the fact that you have not offered any reasoned assessment of my proof by circumstantial evidence of the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.

> You seem to be arguing that your humbuggery is no worse than his humbuggery, which may well be the case - 'certification' is for chumps - but is hardly an argument in favor of the accuracy of your reconstruction. I can't be bothered to read either - a pox on both your houses.

You see Richardson's "certification" of his broken Cudworth lineage as "humbuggery." But then you seem to dismiss my proof of Mary (Machell) Cudworth's parents as "humbuggery" while admitting that you haven't read the proof. That doesn't seem logical.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Dear Douglas

If I understand correctly then, you've adjusted your position to the one of Farrer as I explained it, i.e. a cautious one. For now, this is also the best one I can propose, after spending time on it now. Like you, I hope there are more charters!

You show me 3 points in your 2 answers that we should get on record here:

1. You mention the implication of one or more long generations. I would add that perhaps we already know one: Wimer himself, who is a Domesday person that supposedly signed off on a charter about 1130. Would positing 2 generations of Wimers solve some of the problems you perceive in later generations? On the other hand, if we speculate that he really lived so long it might hint that his son and grandson could have succeeded each other quickly. A major problem is of course that many of the Castle Acre charters which show the relationships are undated.

2. Indeed Blomefield is perhaps the earliest person to say that Roger fitz William had a son William. That is an interesting point, because he was an early antiquarian who, while sometimes certainly wrong, sometimes perhaps lost evidence.

2. Carthew perhaps therefore followed Blomefield on this, however he also seems to have looked for evidence himself. But I did not find it very convincing at first sight because it appears to simply be a record showing there was a William fitz Roger, and there was one earlier in the same pedigree.

Looking for the document perhaps it does not even say anything about a William fitz Roger! If it really says William fitz Roger was a great grand father of Robert de Stuteville, that could be important for our question! Carthew describes a 1273 Bury document about Wendling. But I did not find it in either of the following:

*Davis, R. H. C. (1954), The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related Documents. (I own a copy; and in your first post in this thread you have already cited the one charter about Wendling which I can find.)

*Douglas, D. C. (1932), Feudal documents from the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015040789920

For Carthew's remark see evidence (d) on page 196 of Launditch: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/yale.39002040741580?urlappend=%3Bseq=216

Googling for the charter I find for example that the original was sold and a scan which is more or less readable was placed online: https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/norfolk-wendling-abbey-charter-of-robert-de-1837944-details.aspx

I see Robert filius William de Stuteville's wife was Johane, but I can not see any ancestors named. Farrer and Clay described it similarly in the Stuteville discussion of EYC: https://books.google.be/books?id=TbHFxV8bXuMC&lpg=PA36

This also directs us to the version in Monasticon Anglicanum: https://books.google.be/books?id=ivpAAAAAcAAJ&vq=wendling&pg=PA890#v=snippet&q=wendling&f=false

Overall, it looks like the charter does not mention ancestors and this was an interpretation added by Carthew, who was presumably following Blomefield. Whether Blomefield had some extra evidence, we apparently do not know...

Best Regards
Andrew

[taf]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:27:53 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> > If someone lacks the basic skills of identifying what is and what is not a legitimate historical source, anything they put together is inherently untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if they have assured us that they did not not engaged in head-up-arsery in this particular instance.
>
> Your presumption that I "lack the basic skills of identifying what is and what is not a legitimate historical source" would seem to be either the result of a mental defect or a debating tactic intended to divert attention away from the fact that you have not offered any reasoned assessment of my proof by circumstantial evidence of the parentage of Mary (Machell) Cudworth.
>

No, it is a reasonable conclusion regarding someone who thinks that the voices they hear in their head have any bearing on medieval genealogy.

> > You seem to be arguing that your humbuggery is no worse than his humbuggery, which may well be the case - 'certification' is for chumps - but is hardly an argument in favor of the accuracy of your reconstruction. I can't be bothered to read either - a pox on both your houses.
>
> You see Richardson's "certification" of his broken Cudworth lineage as
> "humbuggery." But then you seem to dismiss my proof of Mary (Machell)
> Cudworth's parents as "humbuggery" while admitting that you haven't read
> the proof. That doesn't seem logical.

Reading comprehension isn't your forte, is it?

taf

[deca...@aol.com]

Perhaps the gift of psychic research is his forte! Mr. Schmeeckle, you should have studied under the gifted medium, Mr. Ronald Hearn, https://ronaldhearn.wmthost.com/. Mr. Hearn was one of the best known Mediums in the world. An interesting tidbit is, as far as I know, Mr. Hearn didn't self-publish the way that Douglas Richardson seems to do.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Andrew ~

You've correctly analyzed the problem with the various lineages which have been set forth for Isabel de Gressenhall. Myself I believe I originally relied on Brown, whose work I consulted many years ago.

I just checked Rye, Norfolk Families 1 (1911): 386–387, which work I also consulted many years ago. I see he identifies Isabel, wife of William de Huntingfield, as the "d[aughter] of Henry de Gressenhall." So we have yet another proposed parentage for Isabel de Gressenhall.

Here is the evidence Rye cites to document Isabel's parentage: Nothing.

Rye may be consulted at the following weblink:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE4043048

Having reviewed the evidence anew this week, I don't think it is as cut as dried as citing Brown, Farrer, Keats-Rohan, Rye, or Blomefield, as good as all of them are. All five of them were working from a lack of evidence which invariably create problems for us historians. As I've noted, there is an obvious chronological problem with the Keats-Rohan version.

Is there any available record which might indicate Isabel de Gressenhall's immediate ancestry? Actually yes there is.

In 1195 the Abbot of St. Edmunds granted William de Huntingfield and Isabel his wife and her heirs the whole vill of Wendling, Norfolk in return for a rent of 50s. a year.

References:

1. Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbrevatio (1811): 3, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002064556u;view=1up;seq=31

2. Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 10 (1807): 87–91 quotes the actual fine involved in this transaction:

"In the sixth year of Richard I. a fine was levied on the day after St. Alphege's, before Hubert Walter Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Nigel Bishop of London, Gilbert Glanvile Bishop of Rochester, Herbert, son of Hervey, William de Warren, Richard de Wiat, and Thomas de Husseburn, the King's justices, between William de Huntingfeld and Isabel his wife, and the abbot of Bury, whereby Will. and Isabella quitclaimed all their right in this town, and advowson of the church, to the abbot, on which the abbot conveyed to him and his wife, and their heirs, the whole township of Wendling, to be held of the said abbot and his successours, by the service and payment of 60s rent per ann. and they were to hold the men and tenants of the town, by the same services and customs which they performed to the abbot's predecessors, before William, son of Roger de Gressinghale, held the same." END OF QUOTE.

Blomefield cites the following source for the above fine: Regist. Bury, Pincebek, fol. 186. The fine states the rent involved with the transaction was 60s. but I have seen it stated elsewhere (perhaps by Brown) that the rent was 50s.

Although Wendling is located in Norfolk, for some reason, the above fine is not included in Rye, Short Calendar of Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885).

Be that as it may, the fine implies that "William, son of Roger de Gressinghale" was the predecessor to Isabel de Gressenhall. I assume it is for this reason that Blomefield states in his Wendling account that Isabel de Gressenhall was the "daughter and sole heir of William de Gressinghale, lord of Gressinghale."

It may be that Blomefield jumped to a faulty conclusion. The best interpretation one can make of the fine and other evidence is that Isabel was the descendant and heiress of William son of Roger de Gressenhall. She was not necessarily his daughter. I can live with that interpretation.

While the fine isn't as exact as one would like, it is still a helpful record in identifying Isabel de Gressenhall's forebearer.

[taf]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

> You see Richardson's "certification" of his broken Cudworth lineage as
> "humbuggery."

Just for the record, I did not specifically address my comment toward anyone in particular. Any certification is humbuggery. 'This is correct because I say it correct' is not just simple appeal to authority, it is appeal to _my_ authority. I can just see how this is supposed to play out in the minds of people who do this:

Proponent: Here is the evidence and this is my conclusion.

Respondent: I see what you are thinking, but I just don't view the evidence as sufficient to draw your conclusion to the exclusion of possible alternatives.

Proponent: Well then I _certify_ it.

Respondent: Gasp! That changes everything. Now that you have certified it, the same evidence that was previously insufficient can only be viewed as overwhelming. I bow to your persuasive power. I don't know how I ever could have let something as insignificant as evidence stand in the way of recognizing your enormous greatness in all things.

Yeah, that isn't the likely outcome. More like:

Proponent: Well then I _certify_ it.

Respondent: OK, then _I_ certify that the evidence is insufficient to draw your conclusion.

Proponent: Then I double certify it.

Respondent: Then double-dog certify its insufficiency.

etc.

Certification adds nothing - indeed, it muddles things: if the same person posts something without a certification, does that mean it isn't to be taken seriously, or is it so good that the compiler does not feel the need to stick a fancy bow on it to hide an undisclosed flaw?

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

That is a good observation Douglas, so that might indeed be where Blomefield got his second William fitz Roger from, although I see nothing in that charter which implies that this was not simply the first William fitz Roger (Wm son of Roger son of Wimer)?

Isabel was heiress to the Wimer or Gressenhall family, if we can call it one of those names, but the charters show that this family had a lot of men appearing in charters in the 12th century, and while we luckily have several mentions of relationships, we have very few that are dated.

When Osmund de Stuteville and Isabel made a charter listing a whole series of predecessors whose charters they wanted to reconfirm (Castle Acre charter XIII Monasticon Anglicanum) they are in this sequence:

1. Wimarus senescallus de Gressinghale, [FWIW mostly the word dapifer seems to have been used for his position in the charters.]

2. et Rogerus filius ejus, [Charter VII is his for example, where the witness list includes Walterio fratre meo.]

3. et Walterus filius Wimari, [Presumably the one in VII, but also 2 generations later in X and XII where he also has an adult son William. So he was alive when Roger fitz William was making charters, even if older. This might be another indication that the period when the first William and second Roger were dapifers went relatively quickly. I don't see any sign that he was ever dapifer?]

4. et Wilielmus filius Rogeri,

5. et Rogerus filius Wilielmi [FWIW in charter XII he names a brother William.]

6. et Drogo frater ejus, [Charter IX is by Drogo filius Willielmi dapiferi de Gressinghale, who separately calls his father "Willielmus dapifer". So was Drogo ever a dapifer or was he just describing himself based on his father's job description? And was he definitely Roger's brother or could he have been William's?]

7. et Berengarius de Cressi

Berengar is thought to be Isabel's first husband and the list looks intended to be chronological.

Best Regards
Andrew

[Andrew Lancaster]

Douglas

I thought it worth checking for those Suffolk charters on Ancestry because as has been noted many times Ancestry.com searching sometimes seems almost deliberately awkward. I found the pages you refer to. With scanned books I have found that searches often fail, and browsing is awkward. If you browse in the Sibton charters Volume 1, the main body of that volume seems to be called "Introduction", so you have to navigate to browse that. On page 22, Hugh Crecy is being discussed and then it says:

"He had at least one brother, Berengar, who was presumably the younger. The two occur together in the Castle Acre cartulary and on occasion Berengar called himself the brother of Hugh de Cressy."

Footnote (128) to this: B.L. [British Library], Harley 2110, fo. 8r and Salzman (ed.), The Chartulary, 60-1, as Berengar brother of Hugh de Cressy; B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 35, the two occur together.

[continuing] "This cartulary shows that Berengar was the first husband of Isabella de Gressenhall, Norfolk, who subsequently married first Osmund de Stuteville and then William of Huntingfield."

Footnote (129) to this: B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 35. For an account of her family and their lands see Farrer, Honors, III. 395-7.

[continuing] "Her family made extensive grants to Castle Acre and Hugh de Cressy confirmed the grants of Wimar the sewer, her predecessor, and Wimar's successors,"

Footnote (130) to this: B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 8r.

[continuing] "while Berengar on her account made the priory a grant of Weasenham in Norfolk."

Footnote (131) to this: B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 35.

Harley NS 2110 is described here, and clearly this is referring to the Castle Acre charters: https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=3607&CollID=8&NStart=2110

Best Regards
Andrew

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:37:12 PM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
> Salzman (ed.), The Chartulary, 60-1, as Berengar brother of Hugh de Cressy;

This apparently refers to an edition of The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes.

[CE Wood]

Thank you so much. For ease, _Monasticum Anglicanum_, Volume 5, Vol. 5: Castle Acre Priory, Num, VII., p. 51, and Num, XIII., p. 52, found at https://books.google.com/books?id=VvpAAAAAcAAJ&vq.


CE Wood

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Andrew and Carolyn ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

This past week I pulled up three fines involving William de Huntingfield, the Magna Carta baron, and Isabel de Gressenhall his wife. One fine is dated 1197, the other two are dated 1198. I've listed them below with weblinks to the original fine.

1. Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885): 4:

68. Richard de Lechesham v. William de Huntingefeld and Isabel his wife, by William their attorney, in Lechesham [Lexham], Lucham [Litcham], and Quenhill.

National Archives, Norfolk Fine, Date: 1197 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/ CP25_1_153_1-12/IMG_0073.htm).

2. Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885): 11:

247. William Battaile, and William de Huntingefeld and Ysabella his wife, v. William Brito, in Sueingeton [Swannington], Aldreford [Alderford], Feletorp [Felthorpe], Attlebrige [Attlebridge], Mortun [Morton], Wichingeham [Witchingham], Weston, and Taverham, and advowsons of Churches of Sweiningeton [Swannington], Aldreford [Alderford], and Felthorp [Felthorpe].

National Archives, Norfolk Fine, Date: 1198 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/ CP25_1_153_1-12/IMG_0287.htm).

3. Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885): 12:

286. Michael Chevere v. William Huntingfeud and Isabel his wife, in Wellingham.

National Archives, Norfolk Fine, Date: 1198 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_153_1-12/IMG_0292.htm).

In the first fine, reference is made to William de Huntingfield and Isabel his wife and their heirs. The second and third fines refer to William de Huntingfield and Isabel his wife and the heirs of Isabel.

It is interesting to see original documents dating from the 1100's, especially several involving a famous Magna Carta baron.

[gdco...@gmail.com]

Douglas,

As I noted in August, I'm descended from William Skepper, and I believe his descent from Isabel and Osborn de Stuteville is as shown below. So far I haven't found Skepper's descent from Wm Huntingfield that you mentioned. Can you provide a roadmap?

Thanks,

Greg Cooke

--- 1st Generation ---

1. Rev William Skepper died at Massachusetts, before 1646.

William married (1) Jane (--?--) at England, between 1620 and 1625 he married (2) Sarah Fisher at Boston, Lincolnshire, England,, 17 Jan 1638/39. The ancestry of both women is unknown.


--- 2nd Generation ---

2. Edward Skepper, son of Richard Skepper and Joan Legard, was born at East Kirkby, Lincolnshire, England,, circa 1552, being age 4 in 1556. He died before 10 Nov 1629 when he was buried at East Kirkby, Lincolnshire, England, as "Mr. Eadward Skepper gent."

Edward married (1) Agnes (--?--) at East Kirkby, Lincolnshire, England, circa 1580 he married (2) Mary Robinson at Boston, Lincolnshire, England,, 11 Apr 1592. The ancestry of both women is unknown.


--- 3rd Generation ---

5. Joan Legard, daughter of Ralph Legard and Isabel Hildyard, was born at East Riding, Yorkshire, England, circa 1530. She died at Lincolnshire, England, after 7 Mar 1585/86, when her second husband named her in his will.

Joan married (1) , as his 2nd wife, Richard Skepper, son of Richard Skepper and Audrie [Etheldreda] Grynne, at East Kirkby, Lincolnshire, England, 1550/51 she married (2) Robert Townley , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), at Boston, Lincolnshire, England,, after 26 May 1556.


--- 4th Generation ---

11. Isabel Hildyard, daughter of Sir Peter Hildyard, Knt. and Joan de la See, was born circa 1498. She died after 10 Jul 1540.

Isabel married Ralph Legard, son of Robert Legard and Joan Haldenby, circa 1520.


--- 5th Generation ---

22. Sir Peter Hildyard, Knt, son of Sir Robert Hildyard, Knt. and Elizabeth Hastings, was born circa 1460. He died at Winestead, Yorkshire, England, 20 Mar 1501/2.

Peter married Joan de la See, daughter of Sir Martin de la See, Knt. and Elizabeth Wentworth, between 1480 and 1485.


--- 6th Generation ---

45. Elizabeth Hastings, daughter of John Hastings and Anne Morley, was born after 21 Apr 1434.

Elizabeth married Sir Robert Hildyard, Knt., son of Sir Robert Hildyard, Knt. and Katherine de la Hay, before 8 Apr 1459.


--- 7th Generation ---

90. John Hastings, son of Sir Edward Hastings, Knt. and Muriel de Dinham, was born circa 1412. He died 9 Apr 1477 at Elsing, Norfolk, England and was buried at Gressenhall Church, Gressenhall, Norfolk, England.

John married Anne Morley, daughter of Sir Thomas Morely, Knt. and Isabel de la Pole, after 21 Apr 1434.


--- 8th Generation ---

180. Sir Edward Hastings, Knt, son of Sir Hugh de Hastings, Knt. and Anne le Despenser, was born at Fenwick, York, Yorkshire, England, 21 May 1382. He died 6 Jan 1437/38.

Edward married (1) Muriel de Dinham, daughter of Sir John de Dinham, Knt. and Ellen Montagu,, 20 Feb 1405/6 he married (2) Margery Clifton , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), before 1 Jul 1447.


--- 9th Generation ---

360. Sir Hugh de Hastings, Knt, son of Sir Hugh de Hastings, Knt. and Margaret de Everingham, was born say 1356. He died on an expedition to Spain, 6 Nov 1386.

Hugh married Anne le Despenser, daughter of Sir Edward le Despenser, K.G., 4th Lord le Despenser and Elizabeth de Burghersh, before 1 Nov 1376.


--- 10th Generation ---

720. Sir Hugh de Hastings, Knt, son of Sir Hugh de Hastings, Knt. and Margery Foliot, was born circa 1335. He died at Kalkwell Hill, Calais, France, Sep 1369 and was buried at Friars Preachers, York, Yorkshire, England.

Hugh married Margaret de Everingham, daughter of Sir Adam de Everingham, Knt. and Joan d'Eiville, before 1355.


--- 11th Generation ---

1441. Margery Foliot, daughter of Sir Richard Foliot, Knt. and Joan de Brewes, was born after 1311. She died 8 Aug 1349 and was buried at Friars Minor, Yorkshire, England.

Margery married Sir Hugh de Hastings, Knt., son of Sir John de Hastings, Knt., 1st Lord Hastings and Isabel de Despenser, before 18 May 1330.


--- 12th Generation ---

2882. Sir Richard Foliot, Knt, son of Sir Jordan Foliot, Knt., Lord Foliot and Margery Newmarch, was born circa 19 Apr 1284. He died before 23 Jul 1317.

Richard married , as her 2nd husband, Joan de Brewes, daughter of Sir William de Brewes, Knt. and Agnes (--?--), after 16 Sep 1310.


--- 13th Generation ---

5764. Sir Jordan Foliot, Knt., Lord Foliot, son of Richard Foliot and Margery de Stuteville, was born 1249. He died before 2 May 1299.

Jordan married Margery Newmarch, daughter of Adam de Newmarch.


--- 14th Generation ---

11529. Margery de Stuteville.

Margery married Richard Foliot.


--- 15th Generation ---

23058. William de Stuteville died before 20 May 1259.

William married Margery de Say, daughter of Hugh de Say and Mabel Marmion, 23 Nov 1219.


--- 16th Generation ---

46116. William de Stuteville


--- 17th Generation ---

92233. Isabel Fitz William, daughter of William Fitz Roger and Æliva, was born say 1155. She died in 1207.

Isabel married (1) Berenger de Cressey she married (2) Osmond de Stuteville, son of Robert III de Stuteville and Helewise (--?--) she married (3) Sir William de Huntingfield, Knt., son of Roger Fitz William de Huntingfield and Alice de Senlis,, before 1194.

[gdco...@gmail.com]

Greetings once more,

Here is my descent from Wm Huntingfield and Isabel through Rose (Stoughton) Otis down to my maternal grandmother.

Thanks,

Greg Cooke

--- 1st Generation ---

1. Harriet Hanson Robinson, daughter of Edward Warrington Robinson and Mary Elizabeth Robinson, was born at Pueblo, Pueblo Co., Colorado, 26 May 1895. She died at Los Angeles, California,, 19 Dec 1974 and was buried at Inglewood Park Cemetery, Inglewood, Los Angeles Co., California, 23 Dec 1974.

Harriet married William Jerome Pierce, son of William Clarence Pierce and Margaret Anita Carder, at Los Angeles, California, 13 Sep 1915.


--- 2nd Generation ---

2. Edward Warrington Robinson, son of William Stevens Robinson and Harriet Jane Hanson, was born at Malden, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts, 4 May 1859. He died at Telluride, San Miguel Co., Colorado, 8 Jan 1904 and was buried at Fairmount Cemetery, Denver, Arapahoe Co., Colorado.

Edward married Mary Elizabeth Robinson, daughter of William Leonard Robinson and Matilda Caroline Higginson, at Denver, Arapahoe Co., Colorado, 11 Nov 1893.


--- 3rd Generation ---

5. Harriet Jane Hanson, daughter of William Hanson and Harriet Browne, was born at Boston, Suffolk Co., Massachusetts, 8 Feb 1825. She died at Malden, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts,, 22 Dec 1911 and was buried at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, 24 Dec 1911.

Harriet married William Stevens Robinson, son of William Robinson and Martha Cogswell, 30 Nov 1848.


--- 4th Generation ---

10. William Hanson, son of John Hanson and Sally Getchel, was born at Rochester, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, in 1795. He died at Boston, Suffolk Co., Massachusetts,, 15 Jul 1831, of Delirium tremens and was buried in the Granary Burial Ground, Boston, Suffolk Co., Massachusetts.

William married Harriet Browne, daughter of Seth Ingersoll Browne and Sarah Goding, at Milton, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 2 Jul 1822.


--- 5th Generation ---

20. John Hanson, son of John Hanson and Phebe Austin, was born at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 27 Nov 1746. He died at Rochester, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, in 1803.

John married Sally Getchel , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here).


--- 6th Generation ---

41. Phebe Austin, daughter of Nathaniel Austin and Catherine Neale, was born at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 14 Mar 1718. She died at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, before 1750.

Phebe married John Hanson, son of John Hanson and Elizabeth Meader, at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 27 Dec 1734.


--- 7th Generation ---

82. Nathaniel Austin, son of Thomas Austin and Ann Otis, was born at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 2 Mar 1687. He died at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 1749.

Nathaniel married Catherine Neale, daughter of Andrew Neale and Catherine Furbush, at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, 22 Sep 1714.


--- 8th Generation ---

165. Ann Otis, daughter of Richard Otis and Rose Stoughton, was born circa 1657.

Ann married Thomas Austin, son of Joseph Austin and Sarah Starbuck, at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, say 1677.


--- 9th Generation ---

331. Rose Stoughton died at Dover, Strafford Co., New Hampshire, before 5 Nov 1677.

Rose married Richard Otis , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), at Boston, Suffolk Co., Massachusetts, circa 1650.


--- 10th Generation ---

662. Anthony Stoughton, son of Lawrence Stoughton and Rose Ive, was born at Stoughton, Surrey, England, 4 Jul 1598. He died at Stoughton, Surrey, England, 14 Jan 1643/44.

Anthony married Agnes Pierce, daughter of Robert Pierce, say 1625.


--- 11th Generation ---

1324. Lawrence Stoughton, son of Thomas Stoughton and Elizabeth Lewkenor, was born at Stoughton, Surrey, England, 12 Nov 1554. He died at Stoughton, Surrey, England, 13 Dec 1615 and was buried at St. John's, Stoke, Surrey, England.

Lawrence married Rose Ive, daughter of Richard Ive and Elizabeth Agmondesham, 23 Apr 1575.


--- 12th Generation ---

2649. Elizabeth Lewkenor, daughter of Edmund Lewkenor and Joan Tyrell, was born at Tangmere, Sussex, England, 2 Mar 1538.

Elizabeth married , as his 2nd wife, Thomas Stoughton, son of Lawrence Stoughton and Anne Comb, before 1554.


--- 13th Generation ---

5298. Edmund Lewkenor, son of Roger Lewkenor and Anne (--?--), was born at Tangmere, Sussex, England, 16 Nov 1496. He died at Sussex, England, 11 Mar 1545/46 and was buried at Tangmere, Sussex, England,, 12 Mar 1545/46.

Edmund married Joan Tyrell, daughter of Jasper Tyrell and Anne Goring, say 1520.


--- 14th Generation ---

10596. Roger Lewkenor, son of Sir Roger Lewkenor, Knt. and Mary West, was born after 1468/69. He died before 23 Feb 1509/10, when his will was proved. He was buried at Boxgrove Priory, Sussex, England.

Roger married Anne (--?--) , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), before 29 Sep 1490.


--- 15th Generation ---

21192. Sir Roger Lewkenor, Knt, son of Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Knt. and Philippe Dallingridge, was born between 1418 and 1422. He died 4 Aug 1478.

Roger married (1) Eleanor Camoys, daughter of Sir Richard Camoys, Knt. and Joan Poynings,, before 1426 he married (2) Mary West , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), before 1468/69 he married (3) , as her 3rd husband, Katherine Chidiock, daughter of John Chidiock and Katherine Lumley, in May 1477.


--- 16th Generation ---

42384. Sir Thomas Lewkenor, Knt, son of Roger Lewkenor and Elizabeth Carew, was born circa 1392. He died 1452.

Thomas married (1) , as her 2nd husband, Philippe Dallingridge, daughter of Walter Dallingridge, before 24 Oct 1417 he married (2) , as her 2nd husband, Elizabeth Echingham , whose ancestry is unknown or not traced here, after 1422.


--- 17th Generation ---

84768. Roger Lewkenor, son of Sir Thomas de Lewkenor, Knt. and Joan d'Oyley, was born before 1374. He died before 15 Nov 1400.

Roger married Elizabeth Carew, daughter of Nicholas Carew and Isabel de la Mare, say 1390.


--- 18th Generation ---

169536. Sir Thomas de Lewkenor, Knt, son of Sir Roger de Lewkenor, Knt. and Katherine Bardolf, was born in 1347. He died in 1375.

Thomas married (1) Agnes (--?--) , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), in 1362 he married (2) Joan d'Oyley, daughter of John d'Oyley and Margaret Tregoz, circa 1370.


--- 19th Generation ---

339072. Sir Roger de Lewkenor, Knt, son of Sir Thomas de Lewkenor, Knt. and Sibyl (--?--), was born in 1304. He died 14 Mar 1362.

Roger married Katherine Bardolf , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), circa 1340.


--- 20th Generation ---

678144. Sir Thomas de Lewkenor, Knt, son of Sir Roger de Lewkenor, Knt. and Joan de Keynes, was born circa 1270/71. He died before 22 Mar 1336.

Thomas married Sibyl (--?--) , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), say 1300.


--- 21st Generation ---

1356289. Joan de Keynes, daughter of Richard de Keynes and Alice de Mankesey, was born say 1250. She died after 1276.

Joan married Sir Roger de Lewkenor, Knt., son of Sir Nicholas de Lewkenor, Knt, before 1271.


--- 22nd Generation ---

2712578. Richard de Keynes, son of Richard de Keynes and Sarah de Huntingfield, was born circa 1228. He died between 1276 and 1295.

Richard married Alice de Mankesey, daughter of Robert de Mankesey and Isabel de Bavelingham, say 1249.


--- 23rd Generation ---

5425157. Sarah de Huntingfield, daughter of Sir William de Huntingfield, Knt. and Isabel Fitz William, was born between 1195 and 1200. She died after 1228.

Sarah married (1) William Biset , whose ancestry is unknown (or not traced here), after 11 Dec 1213 she married (2) , as his 2nd wife, Richard de Keynes, son of William de Keynes,, circa 1221.


--- 24th Generation ---

10850314. Sir William de Huntingfield, Knt, son of Roger Fitz William de Huntingfield and Alice de Senlis, was born circa 1160. He died before 25 Jan 1220/21, while on crusade, possibly in the Holy Land.

William married Isabel Fitz William, daughter of William Fitz Roger and Æliva, before 1194.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Greg ~

Thank you for posting your various lines of descent from Isabel de Gressenhall, wife successive of Berenger de Cressy, Osmund de Stuteville (died c.1187), and William de Huntingfield (died 1221), the Magna Carta baron. Much appreciated.

This past month I came across an interesting Court of Common Pleas lawsuit dated Easter term 1294, which mentions Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de Huntingield. It states that Isabel de Gressenhall had two husbands, William de Huntingfield and Osmond de Stuteville, and indicates that she had surviving issue by both marriages whose names are included.

The lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/104, image 392d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no104/bCP40no104dorses/IMG_0392.htm).

The lawsuit itself is a bit confusing, as it is actually a lawsuit between John Curple and Hugh Bardolf regarding the advowson of the church of Fincham, Norfolk. Hugh Bardolf's reply is lengthy and somewhat meandering. He states that a certain woman named Ela some time ["aliquo tempe"] held the manor and advowson of the church of Fincham, Norfolk, except for seven librates of land and rents which Roger Curple, ancestor of the said John Curple, had of the gift of Roger de Warenne and Alice his wife. The relationship between Ela and the Warenne family doesn't seem to be stated, although the implication is that Ela is the heiress (presumably daughter) to Roger de Warenne and Alice his wife.

The testimony goes on to state that the said Ela, whose husband's name is not given, had three daughters and co-heirs, namely Isabel (wife of William de Huntingfield and Osmond de Stuteville), Maud (wife of Fulk d'Oyry, here called d'Oylly), and Emma (wife of Philip de Burnham). The heirs of all three sisters are traced in some detail. Maud d'Oyry's descendant, Ralph de Goushill, from whom many newsgroup members are descended, is named in passing.

So far I've determined that Maud (wife of Fulk d'Oyry) and Emma (wife of Philip de Burnham) were in fact the daughters and co-heirs of Ralph de Strange (died c.1194), of Hunstanton, Norfolk and Childs Ercall, Shropshire. This is established by Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire 8 (1859): 10–12, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cPY9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA10

Among other facts, Eyton reports that in 1198 "a suit was pending between Fulk de Oirri and Philip de Burnham, as husbands of Matilda and Emma, daughters of Ralph le Strange. It related to their shares of Ralph's inheritance ... Norfolk is the only county named with reference to this cause, but Shropshire was undoubtledly concerned. The matter remained unsettled in May 1199, when Fulk d'Oirri was beyond sea, in the service of the Earl of Albemarle."

The evidence which Eyton cites makes it clear that that Maud d'Oiry and her sister, Emma de Burnham, were daughters and co-heirs of Ralph le Strange. But Isabel de Huntingfield is no where named in the 1198 lawsuit. As such, I assume Isabel was the half-sister of Maud and Emma, she being the daughter of William de Gressenhall, by an earlier marriage of the lady named Ela.

Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. History of Norfolk 7 (1807): 344-364 has a long and rather detailed discussion of the various manors in the parish of Fincham, Norfolk, and some mention of the advowson of the church. Although the early history of the various manors and the advowson is vague, Blomefield includes mention of the families of Warenne, Bardolf, and Burnham in his account. However, no mention is made of the lady named Ela or her possession of the manor and advowson of Fincham, nor is any mention made of the Huntingfield/Stuteville families, nor any of the descendants of Maud, wife of Fulk d'Oyry. That does not mean that Ela did not exist, nor that she was the mother as claimed of the three daughters, Isabel, Maud, and Emma. Ela's daughter, Emma, wife of Philip Burnham, clearly owned property in Fincham, which is duly mentioned by Blomefield. Emma's daughter, Cecily, wife of William de Calthorpe, eventually conveyed her ownership of a manor in Fincham, Norfolk to the Grandcourt family. The Grandcourts are mentioned in the 1294 lawsuit.

As noted above, Eyton proves that Maud and Emma were certainly le Strange sisters, and there is no reason to suppose that Isabel was not also their sister, just not a full sister.

Be that as it may, Blomefield's account of Fincham, Norfolk can be seen at the following weblink:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol7/pp344-364#h3-0011

With a little bit of digging, I imagine much more can be learned regarding Ela and her three daughters, and hopefully how Ela is related to Roger de Warenne and Alice his wife.

For now it would appear that Isabel de Gressenhall has a newly identified mother, Ela, possibly a daughter of Roger de Warenne.

[gdco...@gmail.com]

Douglas,

Can "Ela" be considered the same as "Aeliva"? In RA (2013) at 3:373, you call Isabel the dau. of Wm Fitz Roger of Gressenhall by his wife Aeliva.

Thanks

Greg

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:20:56 AM UTC+1, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your continuing work on this family Douglas. I am sure you already know that there are many mentions of the relevant families in Farrer's Honors and Knights' Fees. This does have various mentions of Fincham also.

Perhaps Isabel is best described as the heiress of the Gressenhall family rather than stating that we know exactly how? Or is there now clear evidence of her relationship to William? One reason for pointing to the uncertainty is that it might also open up ideas not yet considered.

[ghowa...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 3 December 2018 00:20:56 UTC, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

> The testimony goes on to state that the said Ela, whose husband's name is not given, had three daughters and co-heirs, namely Isabel (wife of William de Huntingfield and Osmond de Stuteville), Maud (wife of Fulk d'Oyry, here called d'Oylly), and Emma (wife of Philip de Burnham). The heirs of all three sisters are traced in some detail. Maud d'Oyry's descendant, Ralph de Goushill, from whom many newsgroup members are descended, is named in passing.
>
> So far I've determined that Maud (wife of Fulk d'Oyry) and Emma (wife of Philip de Burnham) were in fact the daughters and co-heirs of Ralph de Strange (died c.1194), of Hunstanton, Norfolk and Childs Ercall, Shropshire. This is established by Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire 8 (1859): 10–12, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=cPY9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA10
>
> Among other facts, Eyton reports that in 1198 "a suit was pending between Fulk de Oirri and Philip de Burnham, as husbands of Matilda and Emma, daughters of Ralph le Strange. It related to their shares of Ralph's inheritance ... Norfolk is the only county named with reference to this cause, but Shropshire was undoubtledly concerned. The matter remained unsettled in May 1199, when Fulk d'Oirri was beyond sea, in the service of the Earl of Albemarle."
>
> The evidence which Eyton cites makes it clear that that Maud d'Oiry and her sister, Emma de Burnham, were daughters and co-heirs of Ralph le Strange. But Isabel de Huntingfield is no where named in the 1198 lawsuit. As such, I assume Isabel was the half-sister of Maud and Emma, she being the daughter of William de Gressenhall, by an earlier marriage of the lady named Ela.
>

> As noted above, Eyton proves that Maud and Emma were certainly le Strange sisters, and there is no reason to suppose that Isabel was not also their sister, just not a full sister.
>
> Be that as it may, Blomefield's account of Fincham, Norfolk can be seen at the following weblink:
>
> https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol7/pp344-364#h3-0011
>
> With a little bit of digging, I imagine much more can be learned regarding Ela and her three daughters, and hopefully how Ela is related to Roger de Warenne and Alice his wife.
>
> For now it would appear that Isabel de Gressenhall has a newly identified mother, Ela, possibly a daughter of Roger de Warenne.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Hi Douglas

I wonder if the link between these three women is through the Cressy family. I have seen it said (by Crawley; Foundation for Medieval Genealogy giving a reference to Red Book Exchequer, Part II, Appendix A, 51, p. cclxxix)that Ralph le Strange's wife and mother of Maud and Emma was a daughter of Hugh Cressy. Hugh was the brother of Berenger Cressi Isabel's first husband. I do not have access to any references myself and am just wondering?

Geoff

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 8:51:03 AM UTC-8, ghowa...@gmail.com wrote:

> I wonder if the link between these three women is through the Cressy family.
> I have seen it said (by Crawley; Foundation for Medieval Genealogy giving a
> reference to Red Book Exchequer, Part II, Appendix A, 51, p. cclxxix)that

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112105152203;view=1up;seq=137

> Ralph le Strange's wife and mother of Maud and Emma was a daughter of Hugh
> Cressy. Hugh was the brother of Berenger Cressi Isabel's first husband. I
> do not have access to any references myself and am just wondering?

The relevant entry does not say that Ralph le Strange married the daughter of Hugh Cressy, nor does it mention Maud and Emma at all. Unfortunately, Charles Cawley has a tendency to overinterpret evidence.

taf

[John P. Ravilious]

===========================

Dear Doug,

I would suggest that the member of the Warenne family named in this record was not Roger, but rather Reginald de Warenne of Wormegay.

While Fincham has not been treated in the VCH series as yet, Blomefield's account (1807) provides the following concerning the Warennes and Curples in Fincham:

" Fareswell Manor

Was part of the barony of Wirmegay, and seems to be held of it in the 20th of Henry III. by Waleran de Teyes. In the beginning of the reign of Edward I. Roger de Predetyn, son of Peter and Ascelina his wife, held it under the Lord Bardolf by the service of half a fee; it consisted of free tenants, 21 villains, who held 60 acres, and cottagers; 2 messuages, 2 carucates of land, 10 acres of meadow, free bull and boar. It came afterwards into the family of Trusbut; and Laur. Trusbutt, Esq. was lord in the reign of Richard II.—On the death of Will. Lord Viscount Beaumont, who died without issue in 1507, the barony of Wirmegay eschaeting to the Crown, King Henry VIII. on the 23d of May, in his 6th year, let to farm this manor, with the perquisites of court, to Sir John Tilney, Knt. and John Fincham, Esq. for 21 years, paying 8l. per ann. and in the 5th of Edward VI. it was granted to Thomas Horsman, who in the said year had license to alienate it to John Aysborough, to be held of the Crown, in capite, by knight's service.

In the 4th of Elizabeth, Sir Richard Sackville had license to alienate it to Thomas and William Guybon of Lynn; (fn. 20) William Guybon was lord in 1570: he married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Drury, Esq. of Fincham; and—Guybon, Esq. of Thursford in Norfolk sold it about 1720 to Richard Warner, Esq. of Elmham in Norfolk, who soon after conveyed it to Dr. Rudd, rector of North Rungton; and, by the marriage of his daughter, came to Dr. Deck, M. D.

Curple Manor

Was held by Jeffrey Curple, and Roger Curple, in the reign of Henry III. when an aid was granted to that King, on the marriage of his sister to the Emperor, (by the service of half a fee,) of the Lord Bardolf. This Roger appears to have had 4 daughters, Alice, Isabel, Catharine, and Agnes; and Catharine their mother, widow of Roger, granted lands in Sudbury, in Suffolk, &c. to Roger of the Exchequer, in the 42d of Henry III. John Curple, in the 16th of Edward I. held it, consisting of a messuage, one carucate of land, 4 acres of meadow, a windmill, free bull and boar, with free tenants, villains and cottagers. In the 12th of Edward II. Roger Curple conveyed to Maud, widow of John de Causton, messuages, lands, and a mill. This Roger died lord in the 3d of Edward III. his sister and heir married John Talbot, and their daughter and heir Alice married Robert de Causton; the said Robert and Alice, in the 16th of that King, settled lands on John de Fincham, and Alice his wife in this town, probably daughter of Robert, on her marriage; but in the 41st of the said reign, Nicholas Fastolf, and Joan his wife, held the 3d part of this manor; and in the 15th of Richard II. John de Wesenham conveyed a 3d part, with the appertenances in Buckton and Roxham, with the fishery of Redebeche, which he had of Hugh his father, to John de Fincham; and in the following year, Bartholomew Elys of Yarmouth, and Margaret his wife, conveyed their 3d part to the aforesaid John, so that the whole centered in him; and William Fincham (as is above observed) conveyed it to his brother Cornwallis, and so came to Gawsell, Richard Cheek, &c. to the Hares, in which family it continued, and is united to the other manors. "[1]

I believe that it was Reginald de Warenne and his wife Alice or Alicia (de Wormegay) who are the individuals referred to by Hugh Bardolf of Wormegay - he was the great grandson of Doun Bardolf and his wife Beatrice de Warenne, granddaughter of Reginald and Alice [Beatrice m. 2ndly Hubert de Burgh].

Cheers,

John



Notes

[1] Francis Blomefield, 'Clackclose Hundred and Half: Fincham', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 7 (London, 1807), pp. 344-364.
URL https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol7/pp344-364

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-8, John P. Ravilious wrote:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 7:20:56 PM UTC-5, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink:
> >
> > Court of Common Pleas, CP40/104, image 392d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no104/bCP40no104dorses/IMG_0392.htm).

> I would suggest that the member of the Warenne family named in this

> record was not Roger, but rather Reginald de Warenne of Wirmegay.

I agree with this - to my eye the original suit has Reg- rather than Rog-.

Without giving any explanation for it, in his summary chart of the Stranges, George Alfred Carthew in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley shows Roger le Strange married to Ela, daughter of Richard de Wirmegay, lord of Wirmegay. Based on his Wirmegay pedigree, this would seem to make her aunt of the eventual Wirmegay heiress, Alice, wife of Reginald de Warenne and ancesstress of Hugh Bardolf.

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

Concerning a possible connection between Hugh de Cressy and one of the at least two Ralf Lestranges of this period see https://archive.org/details/lestrangerecords00lestuoft/page/45 (Hamon Le Strange, Le Strange Records, p.45)

[taf]

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 11:10:11 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Without giving any explanation for it, in his summary chart of the Stranges,
> George Alfred Carthew in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley
> shows Roger le Strange married to Ela, daughter of Richard de Wirmegay, lord
> of Wirmegay.

A second antiquarian source has the same information:
Suffolk Manorial Families: Being the County Visitations and Other Pedigrees, with Extensive Additions, Volume 2

https://books.google.com/books?id=RbyWfOEv7M4C&pg=PA173

. . . and when it says extensive additions, it isn't fibbing. No telling where this information came from.

taf

[taf]

While looking for further evidence of this I came across an interesting document that includes Ela's claimed father:

Hermer, son of Richard, gives to God, and the church of the Holy Trinity of Norwich 20s. rent out of his mill in Pedeham, belonging to the manor of Langley, for the soul of Richard (prior of Norwich) his brother, and the souls of his father, &c. and of Richard de Wirmegay, his lord, to keep the anniversary of his brother Richard by name yearly, in the said church, and Richard de Wirmegaye confirmed it, the prior being his uncle; this was about 1150. (Reg. Eccl. Norw. 4. fol. 57.)

An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 10, 152.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol10/pp147-152

At Domesday, Wormegay is said to have been held by Hermer de Ferrers. Keats-Rohan gives him a son Richard de Wormegay, d. ca. 1130 (DP). Next (although the connection is not made explicit, comes William fitz Richard de Wormegai, succeeded by (probably his son) Richard de Wormgai, d. ca. 1159, then his son William, d. 1166, and the latter's daughter Alice, m. Reginald de Warenne.(DD)

Such a pedigree would allow Hermer fitz Richard and his brother prior Richard to be younger sons of Richard (fitz Hermer) de Wormegay, brothers of the first William fitz Richard de Wormegay and hence uncle of his (probably) son Richard. Such a pedigree would be remarkably short based on death dates, with William d. 1166 the great-grandson of Richard d. ca. 1130, but death dates can be deceptive if one person lived a long life and the other died relatively young.

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

Thanks Taf.

In case it is useful, I recently placed sourcing notes on Wikitree for all the individuals in the standard (uncertain) line from Hermer https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ferrers-463 to Alice https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Wormegay-2.

Concerning Muskett, unfortunately he cites Dashwood (Norfolk Visitation) and Carthew (who you already cited). Normally Dashwood and Carthew are very similar, but in this case Dashwood does not give a wife for Ralph Le Strange of Ercall. See page 62 https://archive.org/details/visitationnorfo00dashgoog/page/n72

That all these early generations were not in the original visitations is clear by comparing to Rye's roughly contemporary edition of the same. See p.271 https://archive.org/details/publicationsofha32harluoft/page/n282

Dashwood does cite Eyton for Ralph's daughters, who I think we've already discussed. (And I would again add, that there is also discussion in Farrer's Honors and Knights' Fees Vol.3.)

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Greg ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Sources vary as to when Isabel de Gressenhall's first husband, Osmund de Stuteville, died. One source which I have read states that he died at Joppa in Palestine about 1187. I presume the date 1187 is taken from the date that Saladin took Joppa.

However, Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters 9 (1952): 34 shows that Osmund de Stuteville issued a notification in 1189/92 that his controversy with the Bishop of Durham about the chapel of Cowesby, Yorkshire had been settled. So Osmund definitely did not die in 1187.

Farrer may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=TbHFxV8bXuMC&pg=PA34

There seems to be little doubt that Osmund is the Osmund de Stuteville who died on Crusade at Joppa in Palestine. For his death at Joppa, see Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis (or Chron. of the Reigns of Henry II. & Richard I. A.D. 1169–1192) 2 (Rolls Ser. 49) (1867): 149–150, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=B_s9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA150

Unfortunately the specific date of Osmund de Stuteville's death is not given in this record. I note, however, that Bertram de Verdun whose death at Joppa is given in the same source is elsewhere recorded by Dugdale to have died in 1191. Dugdale cites the chronicle of Croxden Abbey as his source for the death date of 1191 for Bertram de Verdun.

Landon, Itinerary of King Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 13) (1935): 55 records that King Richard I of England came to Joppa on 10 Sept. 1191. As such, it would appear that Osmund de Stuteville died sometime either in 1191, or in 1192 when the Siege of Joppa was ended.

As to the date of Alice de Huntingfield's two marriages, I find that she married (1st) before 1207 Richard de Solers and (2nd) before 1215 Hugh le Rus.

In 1200, as “Ric[ardus] de Soliis,” he gave £600 Anjou to have his lands in Normandy and England, and to marry as he pleased. Richard de Solers died shortly before Michaelmas 1207. In 1208 his widow, Alice, sued Thomas Peverel for one-half of vill of Faccombe, Hampshire as her dower. In 1211 her father gave the king six fair Norway goshawks for the marriage of his daughter, Alice, widow of Richard de Solers, and to have assignation of her dowry out of the lands of her late husband.

These records suggests that Richard and Alice married anytime between 1200 and 1207. Given the young ages women in this time period married, Alice could have been as young as 12 or 13 at the time of Richard de Solers' death. This means Alice was born no later than 1195. Richard and Alice appear to have had no issue.

Assuming that Isabel de Gressenhall's 1st husband, Osmund de Stuteville, died in 1191 or 1192, then Alice de Huntingfield could easily have been born by 1193. This would make Alice 14 years old at her husband's death. This makes for a tight chronology but not impossible for this class of family.

As for other indications of when William de Huntingfield's other daughters were born, I note that Richard de Dagworth who married his daughter Isabel was a minor in 1205, and William Biset who married his daughter Sarah was a minor in 1212. This suggests that Richard de Dagworth and William Biset were both a bit younger than Alice de Huntingfield's 1st husband, Richard de Solers, who apparently came of age in 1200. These records suggest that Alice was the eldest daughter of William de Huntingfield.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 4:12:26 PM UTC-7, gdco...@gmail.com wrote:
< Greetings,
<
< I finally uncovered Wm Skepper's descent from Wm Huntingfield. No new
< discovery here; just had to find DR's mid 2013 posting regarding the
< parentage of Mary Brewes, w. of John Weyland. The line as I have it is given < below.
<
< That said, is there a problem with this sequence of events?
< - Osmond d'stuteville is said to have died c. 1187.
< - Presumably, the widow Isabel took her third husband, Wm H. soon
< thereafter.
< - daughter Alice is said to have m. her 1st husband about 1200.
<
< Given the "about" dates, does this present a big problem, or is there a
< simple explanation?
<
< Thanks, Greg