Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford

Showing 1-86 of 86 messages
Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/24/06 2:14 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

There appear to be some gaps in the known ancestry of the noted
medieval figure, Sir Walter Hungerford, K.B., K.G. (died 1449), of
Farleigh Hungerford, Somerset, and Heytesbury, Wiltshire, Speaker of
the House of Commons, Steward of the Household to Kings Henry V and
Henry VI, Lord High Treasurer of England.

Birch provides the following seal for Sir Walter Hungerford:

Seal dated 1447 - A shield of arms, couché: two bars, in chief three
roundels [HUNGERFORD].  Crest on a helmet and ornamental mantling, out
of a ducal coronet, a pepper garb between two sickles erect.  Supported
by two standards, that on the right charged with per pale indented, a
chevron, for HUNGERFORD, and HEYTESBURY; that on the left, barry of
six, HUSSEY.  Within a carved bilobe ornamented on the inner edge with
small ball flowers and cusps or engrailings [Reference: Birch,
Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum 3 (1894): 132].

A similar seal of Walter Hungerford is attached to an earlier document
dated 10 Henry V [1422] when he held the office of Steward of the
Household to King Henry V.  It bears a shield bearing two bars, and in
chief three roundels, on either side of the shield a sickle.

J. J. Howard adds the following particulars regarding the origin of the
Hungerford family arms:

"According to Hoare's Hungerfordiana, page 6, Walter de Hungerford,
grandfather of the lord steward, married Elizabeth, daughter and
heiress of Adam Fitz John, of Chevill, co. Wilts, whose arms were,
Sable, two bars argent, and in chief three plates, which coat was
assumed by this lady's descendants, or indeed by her husband.  And this
is to some extent borne out by the Roll temp. Edward II. which gives
the coat in question to Sir Adam Fitz John, of the county of Lincoln,
while Jenyns' Ordinary, MS. Harl. 6589, partly printed by Nicolas as a
Roll temp Edw. III., assigns the same coat to Walter Hungerfield, the
field, however, being azure instead of sable.  The sickle is a
well-known Hungerford badge."  [Reference: Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries of London, 2nd ser. 5 (1871): 177-178].

The arms mentioned for Sir Walter Hungerford's ancestor, Sir Adam Fitz
John, of Lincolnshire, are elsewhere assigned to him in Papworth's An
Alphabetical Dictionary of Coats of Arms Belonging to Families in Great
Britain and Ireland, pg. 28.  However, inasmuch as the record of Sir
Adam Fitz John's arms derves him from Lincolnshire, it seems that
Lincolnshire was his principal seat, not Wiltshire as alleged by Hoare.

Question is: Who is Adam Fitz John, of Lincolnshire?  And what is his
ancestry?

In answer to part of that question, the following abstract of an
ancient petition dated c. 1329-c. 1338 has been located in the helpful
online National Archives Catalogue.  This item indicates that Adam Fitz
John and his wife, Elizabeth, held the manor of Ermesthorp, county
unknown, which they evidently settled by fine, and, on their deaths, it
was claimed that it "ought to descend" to their daughter, Elizabeth,
wife of Walter Hungerford.

SC 8/53/2627
Online reference:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-4320650&CATLN=7&Highlight=%2CERMESTHORP%2CERMESTHORP&accessmethod=0

Petitioners: Walter de Hungerford and Elizabeth [de Hungerford] his
wife.  Addressees: King and council.

Places mentioned: Ermesthorp [unidentified]

Other people mentioned: Geoffrey Lescrop (Scrope), justice of King's
Bench: Alice . . . stede [missing due to damage to ms]; Adam Fitz John,
father of Elizabeth de Hungerford; Elizabeth [Fitz John] his wife,
mother of Elizabeth de Hungerford

Nature of request: Walter de Hungerford and Elizabeth his wife request
execution of a fine through which the manor of Ermesthorp ought to
descend to Elizabeth, on which they have sued a scire facias before
Geoffrey Lescrop and his companions, justices of King's Bench, and
which has been delayed for four years and more.  Endorsement: The
justices are to be ordered by a writ containing the effect of this
petition to put the party to answer the scire facias in this case.  END
OF QUOTE.

So the name of Sir Adam Fitz John's wife, Elizabeth, has now been
found.  Next question is: Where is Ermesthorp?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford John P. Ravilious 9/24/06 2:31 PM
Dear Doug,

       I believe you will find this location is better known (and
spelled) as Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire.  The Trussell family is better
known for connections there: you may yet find a Hungerford - Trussell
connection in your research.

        Cheers,

                                                  John

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/24/06 2:52 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

A cursory search of possible locations for "Ermesthorp" owned by Sir
Adam Fitz John has turned up a location named Harmthorpe (archaic
spelling Hermesthorpe) situated in Aveland Wapentake in Lincolnshire.

If we accept that Sir Adam Fitz John was of Lincolnshire as stated by
Jenyns' Ordinary and by Papworth, the county is right for "Ermesthorp"
to be the same place as Harmthorpe, Lincolnshire.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/24/06 3:20 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

The online resource, Genuki, indicates that the hamlet of Hanthorpe
(also called Harmthorpe) is situated in the parish of Morton by Bourne,
Lincolnshire [Reference: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LIN/Morton].
I find that Hanthorpe also occurs in ancient records as Hermthorpe and
Hermethorpe.

Now that a prospective identification has been made for Ermesthorp, the
next step is to determine if Sir Adam Fitz John held property in this
location.

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford al...@mindspring.com 9/24/06 6:02 PM
Hi Doug

FWIW:

I show Elizabeth filia Adam as daughter of Sir Adam fitz John of
Cherill, Wilts. and his wife Joan Grapinel.  I have Elizabeth as the
sister of the Edward fitz Adam who married Anne Havering.

See:

DEP, p 291.
Visitation of Gloucestershire, 1623, Harleian Society.
Knights of Edward I, ed. Rev, C Moor, The Harleian Society, (1929),
Vol. II, p 42.
Parl. Roll.
Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563-4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 328-329 (Tyrell
pedigree).


1. Simon fitz John
2. John fitz Simon
3. Sir Richard fitz John
3. Sir Adam fitz John m. Joan Grapinel
3. John fitz John m. Petonilla Grapinel

This may be wrong.  Of course it is possible that he also held
Ermesthorp and had a second wife Elizabeth.  More primary doc. would be
very helpful.

Doug Smith

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford joseph cook 9/25/06 4:58 AM
"Dictionary of National Biography. Volume 28."
 shows:

"Hungerford, Sir THOMAS (d. 1398), speaker of the House of Commons, was
son of Walter de Hungerford of Heytesbury, Wiltshire, by Elizabeth,
daughter and hairess of Sir Adam Fitz-John of Cherill in the same
county.  The Hungerfords were seated in Wiltshire in the twelfth
century, and Thomas's father sat for the county in the parliments of
1331-2,1333-4, and 1336.  An uncle, Robert, sat fo Wiltshire in the
parliment of 1316...."

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/25/06 7:38 AM
Dear Doug ~

Thank you for your good post.  Much apppreciated.

As far as I can tell, earlier Hungerford genealogists have concluded
that Elizabeth, wife of Walter Hungerford, was the daughter and sole
heiress of Sir Adam Fitz John.  This arrangement is certainly supported
by the fact that Elizabeth and Walter's descendants adopted the arms of
Sir Adam Fitz John.  The petition which I posted in my earlier message
likewise suggests that Elizabeth Hungerford was Sir Adam Fitz John's
sole heir to his property at Ermesthorp.  Judging from the wording of
the petition, Sir Adam and his wife, Elizabeth, appear to have settled
Ermesthorp on themselves and their issue by fine, and, that on their
deaths, Ermesthorp was to revert to their sole surviving child,
Elizabeth, wife of Walter Hungerford.  Further research needs to be
done to confirm all these details, however.  If the property was
settled on Sir Adam and his wife Elizabeth and their issue, then if
Elizabeth Hungerford was claiming the property alone, we can be
reasonably certain that she was their sole surviving child.

Interestingly, this scenario does not preclude Sir Adam Fitz John from
having also married Joan Grapnel, the daughter and co-heiress of Henry
Grapnel (or Grapinel), of Great Stambridge and Latchingdon, Essex.  But
if so, my guess is that Sir Adam Fitz John had no surviving male issue
by that marriage if the Hungerford family truly assumed Sir Adam Fitz
John's arms.  If you are correct, however, that this Adam Fitz John and
his wife, Joan Grapnel, had a son, Edward Fitz John, then it seems
likely to me that we are dealing with two contemporary men named Adam
Fitz John, one who married an Elizabeth and held Ermesthorp, and one
who married Joan Grapnel.

If we have two separate and distinct Adam Fitz John's, one has to be
careful to disentangle them in contemporary records.  Indeed Moor's
Knights of Edward I which you have cited often collapses two men of the
same name into one person, be they father and son, uncle and nephew,
etc.  All the same, Moor can still be quite useful.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford al...@mindspring.com 9/25/06 4:34 PM

Hi Doug

Understood.  It is entirely possible that there were two
contemporaneous Adam fitz Johns, one in Lincolnshire and one in
Wiltshire.  Still looking to prove one way or the other.

Doug

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/25/06 10:07 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my original post, I'm now able to report that Sir
Walter Hungerford's ancestor, Sir Adam Fitz John, living 1324, was in
fact of Lincolnshire, not of Wiltshire as commonly thought to be the
case.  Sir Adam Fitz John's chief land holdings were situated at
Rippingale and Kirkby Underwood, Lincolnshire [see Feudal Aids, 3
(1904):149].  Both of these properties lie nearby to Sir Adam's other
known holding at Hanthorpe (in Morton by Bourne), Lincolnshire (also
known as Ermesthorp).  For a modern map showing the close proximity of
all three of these localities, see the following weblink:

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&GridE=-0.39400&GridN=52.80200&lon=-0.39400&lat=52.80200&search_result=Hanthorpe%2C%20Lincolnshire&db=freegaz&lang=&keepicon=true&place=Hanthorpe%2C%20Lincolnshire&pc=&advanced=&client=public&addr2=&quicksearch=hanthorpe&addr3=&scale=100000&addr1=

Sir Adam Fitz John's family typically employed a patronymic for their
surname which changed each generation, but they occasionally occur in
the records simply as "de Rippingale" from their chief seat.  Sir Adam
Fitz John is represented under his patronymic name "Fitz John" in Moor,
Knights of Edward I vol. 2 (H.S.P. 81) (1929): 42.  However, his
father, Sir John Fitz John, occurs under the name, Sir John de
Repingale, in Moor, Knights of Edward I, vol. 4 (H.S.P.83) (1931): 117.
 That the two men were son and father is confirmed by the fact that
both men used the same arms, Sable two bars and in chief three roundels
argent, and both men resided at Rippingale, Lincolnshire. For a visual
depiction of Sir John de Rippingale's arms, see the following weblink
for the Camden Roll:

http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms/rolls/CamdenD3.html

The arms of the Rippingale family were subsequently adopted by their
descendants, the baronial Hungerford family of Somerset and Wiltshire.
As best I can determine, the link between the Rippingale family of
Lincolnshire and the Hungerford family has never before been made in
print.

The following is a preliminary pedigree of the ancestry of Elizabeth
Fitz Adam, wife of Walter Hungerford:

1. Hugh, of Rippingale, Lincolnshire, died before 1259.
2. John Fitz Hugh, of Rippingale and Kirkby Underwood, Lincolnshire.
occurs c. 1243-1259, died before 1281.  He married Amabel _____, living
1281.
3. John Fitz John, Knt., of Rippingale, Lincolnshire, died testate
1298.
4. Adam Fitz John, Knt., of Rippingale, Hanthorpe (in Morton by
Bourne), and Kirkby Underwood, Lincolnshire, occurs 1303-1324, died
before 1333.  He married (1st) Constance, probable daughter of Bernard
de Brus.  They had one son, John Fitz Adam.  He married (2nd) Elizabeth
_____.  They had one daughter, Elizabeth (see below).
5. Elizabeth Fitz Adam, married Walter Hungerford.

As stated above, it appears that Sir Adam Fitz John was married twice
and that he had a child by each marriage.  His son by his 1st marriage,
John Fitz Adam, evidently sold or conveyed the manors of Rippingale and
Kirkby Underwood, Lincolnshire to John de Stonour and his wife, Maud,
in or about Easter, 7 Edward III [1333] [see Genealogist, n.s. 9: 8;
Lincolnshire Notes & Queries, 4 (1896): 38].  John Fitz Adam presumably
died soon afterwards, leaving his half-sister, Elizabeth Fitz Adam,
wife of Walter Hungerford, as his heir.  Being an heir of the
half-blood, her claim to her brother's lands at Hanthorpe was evidently
disputed.  Under normal circumstances, a sister of the half-blood was
not allowed to inherit; however, it appears that Elizabeth Hungerford
made her claim to Hanthorpe on the basis of a settlement by fine, not
by inheritance.  It is not known whether or not her claim was
successful.  In any event, the chief family properties at Rippingale
and Kirkby Underwood were already in the hands of John de Stonour.

It should be mentioned that it would be correct to refer to Walter
Hungerford's wife as Elizabeth Fitz Adam (or de Rippingale).  I find
that her half-brother was known as John Fitz Adam Fitz John de
Rippingale.

Lastly, it should be noted that Sir Adam Fitz John, of Rippingale,
Lincolnshire, living 1324, was a separate and distinct person from his
contemporary, Adam Fitz John Fitz Simon, of Little Shoebury, Essex, who
occurs 1298-1310.  It was Adam Fitz John Fitz Simon who married Joan
Grapnel, daughter and co-heiress of Henry Grapnel (or Grapinel), of
Great Stambridge and Latchingdon, Essex.  Moor's Knights of Edward I
collapsed the records of the two men into one account, which
unfortunately has caused unnecessary confusion.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Sir Adam Fitz John, of Rippingale,
Lincolnshire, living 1324:

Dorothy Beresford, Humphrey Davie, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Percival
Lowell, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley, Herbert Pelham, Edward Raynsford,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John West, George Yate.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford al...@mindspring.com 9/26/06 12:32 AM


Excellent!

Doug Smith

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 9/26/06 1:03 AM

<al...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1159255976.807281.138150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Douglas Richardson wrote:

> > Sir Adam Fitz John's family typically employed a patronymic for their
> > surname which changed each generation, but they occasionally occur in
> > the records simply as "de Rippingale" from their chief seat.  Sir Adam
> > Fitz John is represented under his patronymic name "Fitz John" in Moor,
> > Knights of Edward I vol. 2 (H.S.P. 81) (1929): 42.  However, his
> > father, Sir John Fitz John, occurs under the name, Sir John de
> > Repingale, in Moor, Knights of Edward I, vol. 4 (H.S.P.83) (1931): 117.
> >  That the two men were son and father is confirmed by the fact that
> > both men used the same arms, Sable two bars and in chief three roundels
> > argent, and both men resided at Rippingale, Lincolnshire.

English usage for family names was changing at that time.

John of Repingdale's son may just have called himself Adam the son of John'
which is what 'John FitzJohn' means.

Do you have any evidence of anyone in that line using the name 'FitzJohn' at
an earlier date?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/26/06 7:37 AM
Dear William, Doug, etc. ~

The Rippingale family appears to have consistently used a patronymic,
usually associated with "de Rippingale."  On rare occasions, they were
simply known as "de Rippingale," without using any patronymic.

For example, Sir Adam Fitz John's father was styled "John de
Repingehal" when he presented to the third part of the church of
Rippingale in 1277 [Reference: Rotuli Ricardi Gravesend Episcopi
Lincolniensis, A.D. 1258-1279 (Lincoln Record Society, 20) (1925): 78].
 But he was styled "dominum Johannes filium Johannis de Repinghale,
militem" [Sir John Fitz John of Rippingale, knight] in 1281, when his
widowed mother, Amabel, challenged his right to present to the third
part of the church of Rippingale.  He was similarly styled "Sir John
son of John of Rippingale (Repingale) knight" in Bishop Sutton's
register at the time his will was probated in 1298 [Reference: Rosalind
M.T. Hill, The Rolls and Register of Bishop Oliver Sutton, 1280-1299
(Lincoln Record Society 64) (1989): 67].

Sir Adam Fitz John's grandfather was styled "Johannem filium Hugonis de
Repingal'" when he presented to the third part of the church of
Rippingale sometime before 1235 [Reference: Rotuli Hugonis de Welles
Episcopi Lincolniensis A.D. 1209-1235 3 (Lincoln Record Society 9)
(1914): 188].  He was likewise styled "Johannem filium Hugonis de
Repinghal, militem" when he presented to the third part of the church
of Rippingale before 1253 [Reference: Rotuli Roberti Grosseteste
Episcopi Lincolniensis A.D. 1235-1253 (Lincoln Record Society 11)
(1914): 101].

I've also copied below an abstract of an ancient charter from the
helpful online A2A Catalogue.  The charter is for Hugh Fitz Alan de
Rippingale, who I suppose is the Hugh, dead before 1235, who was the
great-grandfather of Sir Adam Fitz Adam, of Rippingdale, Lincolnshire.
If this is a correct identification, then it would add yet another name
to the Rippingale-Hungerford family tree.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: A2A Catalogue (http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp)

1. Lincolnshire Archives: Manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster [2ANC]

Reference: 2ANC1/1/15

Notification of a grant in free alms for the fabric of the church.

Creation dates: first half of the 13c

Scope and Content

Hugh son of Alan of Rippingale to the abbey and monks of Vaudey for the
work of the church, and for the soul of Walter his uncle.

Property: a plot of meadow in Morton, in the place called Braidemor,
between the meadow of Hugh of Morton and Robert Peddere.

Witnesses: Osbert de Bobi, John Gubbehodm Hugh de Mortona, Ralph de
Mortona, William the chamberlain of Corby, Roger de Hermethorp, Roger
Bastard, William Morant.

Endorsement: Fabrice ecclesie tabula secund. XV. 13c. de prato de Mort'
late 13c.

The present seal tag is a portion of the top line of a papel document,
addressed to the abbot and convent of Vaudey and closely resembling a
letter of grace of 1294 (Katterbach, Exempla Scripturarum III, 15). It
has no trace of a seal.

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/26/06 7:53 AM
Dear Newsgroup ~

There appears to be a collection of early charters pertaining to
Rippingale, Lincolnshire in print:

Early Land Charters of Rippingale, ed. G.H. Fowler, Assoc. of
Architectural & Archaeological Societies, XLI Pt. II (1933); XLIII
(1935).

I assume the above article contains charters which trace the early
history of the Rippingale family.  If anyone has access to this
journal, I'd appreciate it greatly if they'd post the particulars of
the early Rippingale family which appear in this article.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/26/06 8:19 AM
Dear Newsgroup ~

The article concerning early Rippingale land charters by G.H. Fowler
seems to have been published in the journal listed below.  This journal
title is slightly different than the one I obtained from an online
source which I posted in an earlier message (see further below).

Reports and papers of the architectural and archaeological societies of
the counties of Lincoln and Northampton.

Perhaps someone can confirm that this is the correct title of the
journal in question.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Kevan Barton 9/26/06 10:29 AM
Douglas,

Is it possible that the Maud, wife of John de Stonour, was the sister of the
whole blood to John Fitz Adam?  Or, is the Stonour line related to the
FitzAdams/Rippingales in some way?  I'm just wondering why John sold or
conveyed the chief family properties.

You stated,


"His son by his 1st marriage,
John Fitz Adam, evidently sold or conveyed the manors of Rippingale and
Kirkby Underwood, Lincolnshire to John de Stonour and his wife,
Maud,..............In any event, the chief family properties at Rippingale
and Kirkby Underwood were already in the hands of John de Stonour."

Cheers,
Kevan

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford wjhonson 9/26/06 11:19 AM
In a message dated 9/25/06 10:11:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
 World immigrants who descend from Sir Adam Fitz John, of Rippingale,
 Lincolnshire, living 1324:
 
 Dorothy Beresford, Humphrey Davie, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Percival
 Lowell, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley, Herbert Pelham, Edward Raynsford,
 Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John West, George Yate. >>


Douglas was not Rev Thomas Dungan 1634-88 who died at Cold Spring, Bucks Co,
PA also of this descent?
Here is what I have on his connection
Rev Thomas Dungan born 1634 London son of
William Dungan 1607-1636 by his wife Frances Latham 1610-1677 she died at
Newport, RI. He was son of
Thomas Dungan, Gent of Lincoln's Inn, son of
John Dungan by his wife Margaret Forster 1555- daughter of
Walter Forster by his wife Margaret Neville 1530- son of
Unknown (to me) Forster by his wife Jane Hungerford  daughter of
Sir Anthony Hungerford of Down Ampney -1558 by his second wife Dorothy Danvers
etc.

Will Johnson

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford wjhonson 9/26/06 11:45 AM
In a message dated 9/26/06 7:41:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< Witnesses: Osbert de Bobi, John Gubbehodm Hugh de Mortona, Ralph de
 Mortona, William the chamberlain of Corby, Roger de Hermethorp, Roger
 Bastard, William Morant. >>

Douglas I would like to draw your attention back to your original posting
where you describe the manor of "Ermesthorp" and then above we see as a witness,
Roger de "Hermethorp"

I would suggest these two words are the same.

Will Johnson

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/26/06 12:09 PM
Dear Kevan ~

Good to hear from you as always.

Yes, you may well be correct that Maud, wife of Sir John de
Stonor/Stonour, was a sister of the full-blood to John Fitz Adam Fitz
John.  That would explain why John Fitz Adam Fitz John conveyed the
manor of Rippingale, Lincolnshire in his lifetime to John and Maud de
Stonor.  In fact, as I recall, one of the early Stonor wives had a
surname with "Fitz" in it.  Unfortunately, none of the Stonor entries
currently in the Ancestry World Connect database seem to have a
complete pedigree of the early Stonor family.  However, if John Fitz
Adam was dying without issue, he may well have chosen to sell the
reversion of the manor of Rippingale to the Stonor family and hold a
life interest, rather than let the manor escheat to the king on his
death.

Fortunately, a reliable pedigree of the early Stonor family was
published in the various volumes of the Stonor Letters and Papers.
I've consulted this pedigree in the past.  Here are the bibliographic
citations for these works:

Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge, ed.  The Stonor Letters and Papers,
1290-1483.  2 vols.  Camden Society, 3rd Series 29, 30.  London:
Camden Society, 1919.

Kingsford, Charles Lethbridge, ed.  "Supplementary Stonor Letters and
Papers (1314-1482)" in Camden Miscellany, 23.  Camden Society, 3rd
Series 34.  London: Camden Society, 1923.

Quite possibly Kingsford included particulars of the conveyance of the
manor of Rippingale, Lincolndshire to the Stonor family.  Sir John de
Stonour (husband of Maud) was Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas.  Kingsford aside, there should be ample
biographical material in print on the chief justice.

>From what I can find online, Sir John de Stonor acquired the manor of
Rippingale before 1327 from John, son of Adam, son of John de
Repinghale, with whom he was engaged in a lawsuit about it in 1333.
The following reference is provided:

   Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, vol. iii, pg. 163.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/26/06 2:29 PM
Dear Will ~

I haven't yet verified that "Ermesthorp" (otherwise Hanthorpe) was a
manor.  Hanthorpe is considered a hamlet in Morton by Bourne,
Lincolnshire by the modern source, Genuki.  Genuki is presumably
relying on a gazeteer for that information.  I don't know what the
holding of Ermesthorp was considered back in the 1300's.  If the
property was settled by fine by Sir Adam Fitz John (or by one of his
ancestors), it should be mentioned in a surviving Lincolnshire fine.
If so, the fine should clearly state if Ermesthorp was a manor, a
capital messuage, or something else in the medieval period.

Yes, the witness, Roger de Hermethorp, was almost certainly from
Hanthorpe, Lincolnshire.  Hanthorpe lies just south of Rippingale and
Kirkby Underwood, which were the chief holdings of Sir Adam Fitz John
and his family.  Hermethorp is a variant spelling of Hanthorpe in the
ancient records.

My guess is that if "Ermesthorp" was held by the Rippingale family, as
I believe is the case, it should figure in the early Rippingale
charters published by G.H. Fowler in the 1930's.  The next step is to
examine the Rippingale charters.  Fowler was a good historian.  He
probably provided a pedigree of the Rippingale family in his article.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/27/06 8:10 AM
Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my earlier posts, I'm now able to give more
particulars regarding Hugh Fitz Alan, of Rippingale, Lincolnshire, who
was the great-grandfather of Sir Adam Fitz John, of Rippingale.

My research indicates that Hugh Fitz Alan died sometime before 1230,
when his widow, Ivette, and her three probable sisters, Maud (wife of
David Anglicus), Agnes de Walecot, and Lucy de Iwarby unsuccessfuly
claimed the right to present to the church of Walcot, Lincolnshire
[Reference: F.N. Davis, Rotuli Hugonis de Welles Episcopi Lincolniensis
A.D. 1209-1235, vol. 3 (Lincoln Record Society, 9) (1914): 186-187].  I
assume that Ivette and the three other women were sisters and co-heirs
of some unidentified individual, possibly William de Walcot, whose
unnamed heirs are mentioned in the Pipe Rolls about 1210.

Ivette, widow of "Hugh Fitz Alan de Repinghall" was still living in
1245, when she is mentioned in a fine concerning 1-1/2 bovates of land
in Morton, Lincolnshire (the parish in which Hanthorpe, Lincolnshire is
located) [Reference: C.W. Foster, Final Concords of the County of
Lincoln (Lincoln Record Society, 17) (1921): 8].

Hugh Fitz Alan (husband of Ivette) is quite possibly a grandson of an
earlier Margery, widow of "Hugh filii presbiteri de Reppingehal'"
[i.e., Hugh son of the presbyter (elder) of Rippingale].  This Margery
figures in a fine dated 1212 involving land in Rippingale, Lincolnshire
[Reference: Margaret S. Walker, Feet of Fines for the County of Lincoln
for the Reign of King John, 1199-1216 (Pipe Roll Society, n.s., 29)
(1954); 169].  If Margery can be proven to be the grandmother of Hugh
Fitz Alan, this would push back the Rippingale pedigree still further
in time.  Hopefully, Fowler's article on the early Rippingale charters
will shed some further light on this possible connection.

For now, the following is a revised pedigree of the ancestry of
Elizabeth Fitz Adam de Rippingale, wife of Walter Hungerford:

1. Hugh Fitz Alan, of Rippingale, Lincolnshire, died before 1230.  He
married Ivette _____, living 1245.  They had one son, John Fitz Hugh,
Knt.

2. John Fitz Hugh, Knt., of Rippingale and Kirkby Underwood,
Lincolnshire, occurs c. 1243-1259, died before 1262.  He married Amabel
_____, living 1281.  They had two sons, John Fitz John, Knt., and Adam
Fitz John.

3. John Fitz John, Knt. (also known as John de Rippingale), of
Rippingale, Lincolnshire, adult by 1262, died testate 1298.  He married
_____.  They had one son, Adam Fitz John, Knt.

4. Adam Fitz John, Knt., of Rippingale, Hanthorpe (in Morton by
Bourne), and Kirkby Underwood, Lincolnshire, occurs 1303-1324, died
before 1327.  He married (1st) Constance, probable daughter of Bernard
de Brus.  They had one son, John Fitz Adam, living 1333.  He married

(2nd) Elizabeth _____.  They had one daughter, Elizabeth (see below).

5. Elizabeth Fitz Adam de Rippingale, married Walter Hungerford.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford wjhonson 9/27/06 4:35 PM
In a message dated 9/27/06 8:13:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:

<< 2. John Fitz Hugh, Knt., of Rippingale and Kirkby Underwood,
 Lincolnshire, occurs c. 1243-1259, died before 1262.  He married Amabel
 _____, living 1281.  They had two sons, John Fitz John, Knt., and Adam
 Fitz John. >>


You had posted previously that he "presented to the church of Rippingale
before 1235"

so shouldn't he occur "c 1235-1259" ? instead of 1243 ?
Will Johnson

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/29/06 7:20 AM
Dear Newsgroup ~

In one of my earlier posts, I gave a list of 17th Century New World
immigrants who descend from Sir Adam Fitz John (living 1324), of
Rippingale, Lincolnshire, ancestor of the baronial Hungerford family.
Since posting the list of immigrants, I've realized that two additional
names should be added to the list, namely William Bladen (whose
maternal grandmother, Frances Chaloner, is a known Hungerford
descendant) and Mary (Gye) Maverick.

I wish to thank the ever helpful John Brandon for pointing out the
Chaloner-Hungerford connection behind William Bladen's ancestry, which
descent is based partly on visitation records.  As for Mary (Gye)
Maverick, newsgroup members can find her descent from the Hungerford
family in Hal Bradley's fine database at the following weblink:

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=hwbradley&id=I35910

Hal has indicated privately that he would like to see better evidence
for this descent which goes through the Courtenay, Fulford, and Dowrish
families of Devonshire.  The line is based in part on information found
in Vivian's Visitations of Devon, which material is believed to be
accurate but which has not yet been fully verified.

Below is the newly revised list of immigrants who descend from Sir Adam
Fitz John.  If anyone knows of other immigrants who should be included
in this list, please post that information here on the newsgroup.

Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, Humphrey Davie, Mary Gye, Anne


Humphrey, Mary Launce, Percival Lowell, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley,
Herbert Pelham, Edward Raynsford, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman,
John West, George Yate.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/29/06 7:29 AM
Dear Will ~

I don't beleve the Dungan family descent from the Hungerford family is
sound.  As such, you might want to check the newsgroup archives for
further particulars regarding the Dungan family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/29/06 7:44 AM
Dear Joseph ~

Thank you for posting the information on Sir Adam Fitz John from the
Dictionary of National Biography.  Much appreciated.

Does anyone know is the same information is included in the new updated
version of the DNB?  If so, a correction will need to be sent to the
editors, so that the erroneous information about Sir Adam Fitz John
being of "Cherill" [Cherhill] can be removed.

It should be noted that the manor of Cherhill, Wiltshire was held by
the family of Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex (died 1213).  It
was held by the earl's father, Peter de Lutegareshale (also known as
Peter the Forester), the earl's older brother, Robert Fitz Peter, the
earl himself, the earl's son, Sir John Fitz Geoffrey, and so forth.
The earl's family had no connection whatsoever with the family of Sir
Adam Fitz John, who was the maternal grandfather of Sir Thomas
Hungerford.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

unk...@googlegroups.com 9/29/06 8:40 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford wjhonson 9/29/06 9:32 AM

In a message dated 9/29/2006 7:41:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
royala...@msn.com writes:

I don't  beleve the Dungan family descent from the Hungerford family is
sound.   As such, you might want to check the newsgroup archives for
further  particulars regarding the Dungan family.


I found a few comments by Doug McDonald, but no documentation.
Otherwise online I find a few people disputing it, but can't find what  their
sources are.
There's a reference to a website that is not functioning or no longer  exists.
There's an extract from a genealogical article which actually says the  
opposite.
 
I'm still looking.
Will

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford joseph cook 9/29/06 4:35 PM

> Hal has indicated privately that he would like to see better evidence
> for this descent which goes through the Courtenay, Fulford, and Dowrish
> families of Devonshire.  The line is based in part on information found
> in Vivian's Visitations of Devon, which material is believed to be
> accurate but which has not yet been fully verified.

Are you saying that this line:
Sir Thomas Fulford & Phillipe Courtenay 1424
-Alice Fulford + Thomas Dowrish
--Richard Dowrish + Barbara Catsby
---Thomas Dowrish + Elizabeth Tavener

is all covered by the Vivian's Visitations of Devon?   Does anyone have
a copy they could reference?

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford joseph cook 9/29/06 4:43 PM

> Are you saying that this line:
> Sir Thomas Fulford & Phillipe Courtenay 1424
> -Alice Fulford + Thomas Dowrish
> --Richard Dowrish + Barbara Catsby
> ---Thomas Dowrish + Elizabeth Tavener
>
> is all covered by the Vivian's Visitations of Devon?   Does anyone have
> a copy they could reference?

I guess i would note that in 2005, Brad Verity dispoved this descent.
Has new information come to light?

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/eda79c7aea925fff

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/30/06 9:29 AM
Dear Joseph ~

You probably should direct your questions about the alleged
Courtenay-Fulford-Dowrish line to Hal Bradley.  A private e-mail should
suffice.

DR

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/30/06 12:07 PM
Dear Kevan ~

I've had the opportunity this past week of examining the Stonor
pedigree in the interesting book, Stonor: A Catholic Sanctuary in the
Chilterns from ther Fifth Century till To-day, by Robert Julian Stonor,
published in 1951.  In the pedigree following page 79, Mr. Stonor shows
that Sir John de Stonor, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, born 1280,
died 1354, had a wife, Maud, but he states elsewhere that "her family
name has not survived."  Here are his exact comments on pages 79-80:

"Rather curiously, the family name of his wife, Maud, whom he married
in 1309, who bore him thirteen children and who outlived him, has not
survived.  The Walsh pedigree in Nash's Worcestershire make her the
daughter of '.... FitzLewis,' but several of the early Stonor pedigrees
in that pedigree are fictitious and there may have been some confusion
with the Maud Lewis who was the daughter of Thomas Stonore a few
generations later.  The equally inccurrate Stonor pedigree in the
Elizabethan Visitation of Oxfordshire, reproduced in the standard
reference-books, makes her the daughter of the Baron de l'Isle.
However, since his grandson, Edmund de Stonore, undoubtedly married
Lady Elizabeth de l'Isle (cf. Camden Miscellany XIII, 5 and the letter
from Lord Waryn de l'Isle to Edmund in Camden Society, Vol. XXIX, p.
11), perhaps the Elizabethan Visitors merely transposed the two
marriages, so that "the daughter of Beville of Ultone" whom they assign
to Edmund should really be the wife of his grandfather, Sir John.  The
Bevills of Gwarnack had been living in Central Cornwall since the
Norman Conquest 250 years before, and at this time some of them were
living at the Manor of Goloures as neighbours of the Bodrugans, for on
July 15th 1309 Bishop Stapledon of Exeter licensed them to use the
chapel of St. John at Galoures, perhaps for this very wedding.  The
Bevills were also related to the Winnards, one of whom Sir John's
eldest son was to marry, and the Agnes Winard whom Sir William Stonor
was to marry in 1480 was an heiress of the Bevills."  END OF QUOTE.

Elsewhere on page 89, the author notes that Chief Justice Stonor
"acquired the two neighboring Manors of Rippingale and Walcote" "far
away in Lincolnshire."  But he provides no particulars regarding this
acquisition.  We know from the other sources that Sir John de Stonor
and his wife, Maud, acquired the manor of Rippingale, Lincolnshire
sometime before 1333, from Sir Adam Fitz John's son and heir, John Fitz
Adam Fitz John, of Rippingale.  The manor of Walcote, Lincolnshire was
presumably acquired at about the same time from John Fitz Adam Fitz
John.  I've earlier posted a record which indicates that Sir Adam Fitz
John's great-grandmother, Ivette de Rippingale, and her presumed three
sisters and co-heirs attempted to present to the church at Walcote,
Lincolnshire in 1230 [Reference: F.N. Davis, Rotuli Hugonis de Welles
Episcopi Lincolniensis A.D. 1209-1235, vol. 3 (Lincoln Record Society,
9) (1914): 186-187].  Thus, the manor of Walcote, Lincolnshire was
probably part of Ivette de Rippingale's inheritance and subsequently
became part of Sir Adam Fitz John's land holdings, which fell to his
son and heir, John Fitz Adam Fitz John.  I'm still not certain who held
Walcote, Lincolnshire before 1230, but it might well be the William de
Walcote whose heirs are mentioned but not named in the Pipe Rolls about
1210.

All the same, I find it unusual that Chief Justice Stonor would have
obtained two manors "far away in Lincolnshire" unless he had a family
tie in that county.  So, the possibility remains that his wife, Maud,
might have been the sister of John Fitz Adam Fitz John, just as you
have suggested.   Having said that, it would help if we could locate
the fine by which the Stonors obtained these manors.   If the fine
gives a nominal amount of money for the purchase for the manors, we
might presume that Maud de Stonor was related in some fashion to John
Fitz Adam Fitz John.

On that note, I might point out that Sir John de Stonor and his wife,
Maud, named a son, Adam.  But in his pedigree of the Stonor family
following page 79, Mr. Stonor indicates that in the preceding
generation, Sir John de Stonor had a brother, Adam de Stonor, of
Warpsgrove, Oxfordshire, who occurs between 1286 and 1326.  Thus, the
appearance of the given name, Adam, among the children of Sir John de
Stonor and his wife, Maud, does not afford us any indication that Maud
might have been related to Sir Adam Fitz John.

This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/30/06 2:37 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

To help broaden the interest in the discussion regarding the parentage
of Maud, wife of Sir John de Stonor (died 1354), Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, I've posted below a list of the 17th Century New World
immigrants who descend from this couple:

1. Descendants of their son and heir, Sir John de Stonor, died 1361,
and his wife, Margery Winnard:

   Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston.

2. Descendants of their daughter, Alice de Stonor, wife of Sir John de
Berners:

Essex Beville, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George, Giles &
Robert Brent, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Launce, Anne Mauleverer.

Ancestry World Tree also alleges that Sir John and Maud de Stonor's
daughter, Julian, wife of Sir William de Bodrugan, is ancestral to Sir
Richard Sergeaux, husband of Philippe Arundel.  While I suspect this
information is incorrect, the following immigrants descend from Sir
Richard Sergeaux and his wife, Philippe Arundel:

Samuel Argall, Charles Barham, Marmaduke Beckwith, William Bladen, St.
Leger Codd, Francis Dade, Edward Digges, Henry Filmer, Henry Fleete,
Warham Horsmanden, Edmund Jennings, Mary Launce, Anne Lovelace,
Katherine Saint Leger, Diana & Grey Skipwith, John Throckmorton.

Robert Julian Stonor also indicates that Sir John and Maud de Stonor's
daughter, Alice, wife of John Berenger, of Shipton Bellenger, Hampshire
had issue.  I haven't been able to trace any of descendants of the
Berenger family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 9/30/06 3:43 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

Doing a Google Book Search today, I located a helpful entry which I
think conclusively proves the connection between the Fitz John family
of Rippingale, Lincolnshire and the Hungerford family of Somerset and
Wiltshire.

The item below is taken from page 198 of the Calendar of the Close
Rolls, 1368-1377, published in 1924.  Although only a partial view is
permitted by Google, what information can be viewed indicates that
Thomas de Hungerford released all his right in the manor of Rippingale,
Lincolnshire in 1370 to Bishop William de Wykeham, which right he had
by prior grant of Adam Fitz John to his father, Walter de Hungerford
and to his heirs.

Date: 1370.  Writing of Thomas de Hungreford, being a quitclaim to
William de Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, his heirs and assigns, of all
right in the manor of Reppynghale, co. Lincoln and in all lands in
Walcote, Kyrkeby, Ryngesdon, and Dunnesby which ..."

[Missing part of transcript]

"of a yearly rent of 20l. lately granted by Adam fiz Johan, then tenant
of that manor, to Walter de Hungerford, father of the said Thomas whose
heir he is, and to his heirs, and whereas at the said bishop's instance
the said Thomas had delivered to him, being then tenant of that manor,
the writing of the said Adam made to the said Walter, and it is at
present unknown where that writing ought to be found,and whereas by
three ..."   END OF QUOTE

If someone has access to a full copy of this page of Close Rolls,
perhaps they can post an abstract of the full item for the newsgroup.
Also, if someone has access to the new Dictionary of National
Biography, perhaps they can tell us if the new biography of Sir Thomas
Hungerford identifies his maternal grandfather as Adam Fitz John, of
Cherhill, Wiltshire, as was indicated in the old DNB.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford joseph cook 10/1/06 7:41 AM

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Joseph ~
>
> You probably should direct your questions about the alleged
> Courtenay-Fulford-Dowrish line to Hal Bradley.  A private e-mail should
> suffice.
> DR

No need.  You made a post containing a Hungerford-Gye link, and it
seemed prudent to mention the posted claimed disproof of this line from
last year.

J Cook

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/1/06 7:57 AM
Dear Newsgroup ~

The message below was posted to the Hungerford Family Forum on Rootsweb
back in 1998.  I see that Mr. Renold noted the discrepancies in the
published literature regarding the Hungerford family's ancestor, Sir
Adam Fitz John, and concluded "one must also strongly doubt Adam's
existence, or at least his stated details."

We now know that Sir Adam Fitz John did exist, but that he resided at
Rippingale, Lincolnshire, not at Cherhill, Wiltshire.  Kudos to Mr.
Renold for not believing everything he reads in print.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
SOURCE; HUNGERFORD-L ARCHIVES
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/HUNGERFORD/1998-08/0902731614

    From: Richard Renold <ren...@brunel.co.uk>
    Subject: The Early Hungerfords
    Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 23:46:54 -0700

Further to paragraph 3 of Peter Sherlock's note dated 7 August 1998
about Adam FitzJohn, one must also strongly doubt Adam's existence, or
at least his stated details.

There is an article about the FitzJohn family in G.E.Cokayne's 'The
Complete Peerage' (which normally quotes all its sources) and the
family is said to have property at Cherhill, Wiltshire.

The 'Dictionary of National Biography' in its article on Sir Thomas
Hungerford (d. 1398) states that his mother was '...Elizabeth, daughter
and heiress of Sir Adam Fitz-John of Cherill (sic) in the same county'
(Wiltshire).

The mention of Cherhill in both books surely means they are discussing
the same FitzJohn family?

However, 'The Complete Peerage' also includes a family tree of
Fitz-John, in which Adam or Sir Adam does not appear. It even provides
further evidence that there was no Adam FitzJohn. It shows just TWO
brothers, Sir John (died s.p. about 6 Nov 1275) and Sir Richard (died
s.p. shortly before 5 Aug 1297), who successively owned Cherhill, and
their four sisters WHO (themselves or their representatives) BECAME
CO-HEIRESSES. Cherhill eventually went, according to the footnote on
page 441, to Maud, Countess of Warwick, one of the sisters.

Adam, as alleged father of Elizabeth Hungerford "nee FitzJohn" who had
her son Thomas Hungerford by 1328, should surely have had to be the
same generation as these six siblings?

Richard Renold

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/1/06 8:02 AM
Dear Joseph ~

I spoke with Hal Bradley this past week.  The problem he cited with the
alleged Gye-Dowrish-Fulford-Courtenay descent was entirely different
than what you posted.  That's why I recommended that you contact him.

Good luck in your sleuthing.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Ian Fettes 10/1/06 11:57 PM
Hi Douglas and All,

FWIW, I note that in my records, Prince William descends from Sir Adam
FitzJohn through both his parents 106 times.

Regards,

Ian Fettes
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 12:49 AM
Dear Ian ~

Thanks for posting the information regarding the number of Prince
William's descents from Sir Adam Fitz John.  Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 1:02 AM
Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a copy of an abstract of a charter I found tonight in the
helpful online A2A Catalogue at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp.
 One of the witnesses listed is "John son of Hugh de Reppinghal," which
individual is almost certainly the paternal grandfather of Sir Adam
Fitz John, of Rippinghale, Lincolnshire.

The abstract below is in English.  However, the original document was
surely in Latin.  The transcript below refers to several individuals as
"Lord" which appears to be a mistranslation of the Latin word,
"dominus."  The correct rendering of "dominus" as used in this document
would be "Sir" not "Lord."  We know from other records that John Fitz
Hugh, of Rippinghale, was a knight.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +  +
Source: http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp

Lincolnshire Archives: Monson, Reference: MON 3/27/23

Notification of a quitclaim of interest.

Creation dates: Undated (1200-1240)

Scope and Content

Adam de Reynevil to Richard de Reynevill his brother.

Property: the land held by their brother William of the gift of his
lord Simon of Ropsley.

Witnesses: Lord Adam of Newmarket, Lord Robert de Stapilton, Lord
Baudewin de Painton (sic) Lord Hugh de Boaby, Lord John son of Hugh de
Reppinghal, William Luuhet, John de Smitheton, Eudo de Sutton, Geoffrey
the vintner, William Scorchebof, William de Arches, Robert de Norton,
Thomas de Lysurs, Michael de Sutton.

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/2/06 2:00 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159776177.306480.143890@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

 The correct rendering of "dominus" as used in this document
> would be "Sir" not "Lord."  We know from other records that John Fitz
> Hugh, of Rippinghale, was a knight.

Except that the property qualification for knighthood is much later.

They may well have been 'lord (or dominus) of the manor' without being
knighted.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 9:10 AM
Dear William ~

Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned, when a
person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin charter, the
correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you prefer "Sir John
son of Hugh").

The word domino/dominus is usually correctly rendered as "Sir" by
modern historians and archivists, but not always.  In the case of the
charter I cited, it appears that the archivist was not aware that
"domino" should be rendered "Sir."

I might note that both knights and priests were addressed in records in
the medieval period as domino/dominus [that is, Sir].  Priests were
very seldom lords of manors.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/2/06 10:17 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159805402.884678.321870@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> Dear William ~
>
> Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned, when a
> person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin charter, the
> correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you prefer "Sir John
> son of Hugh").

Nice try.

That's an invention of seventeenth century lawyers in an attempt to take the
common lands under enclosure.

I suggest you read 'Fiefs and Vassals' by Susan Reynolds where the rather
convoluted changes in the meaning of this particular term is analysed along
with several other.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 10:33 AM
My comments are interspersed below.  DR

William Black wrote:
< "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
< news:1159805402.884678.321870@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

< > Dear William ~
< >
< > Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned,
< > when a person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin
< > charter, the correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you
< > prefer "Sir John son of Hugh").
<
< Nice try.

I stated the facts.

< That's an invention of seventeenth century lawyers in an attempt to
< take the common lands under enclosure.

Not at all.  We're talking about a 13th Century medieval English
document, which has no relevance at all to seventeenth century lawyers
or their "inventions."

< I suggest you read 'Fiefs and Vassals' by Susan Reynolds where the
< rather convoluted changes in the meaning of this particular term is
< analysed along with several other.

If Ms. Reynolds stated or implied that "domino Johanne filio Hugonis"
in a 13th Century document should be rendered "lord John Fitz Hugh,"
she is wrong.  It should be rendered "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you
prefer "Sir John son of Hugh").  This is true for a layman, as well as
for a priest.

Don't believe everything you read in print.

> William Black


 
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/2/06 11:17 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159810434.496195.232280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> My comments are interspersed below.  DR

> If Ms. Reynolds stated or implied that "domino Johanne filio Hugonis"


> in a 13th Century document should be rendered "lord John Fitz Hugh,"
> she is wrong.  It should be rendered "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you
> prefer "Sir John son of Hugh").  This is true for a layman, as well as
> for a priest.

I want some evidence that all 'lords of the manor' were knighted.

Because this implies that 'squires' were never land holders with subsidiary
fiefs.

In fifteenth century England that certainly wasn't the case.

I imagine you have a list of knights and a list of manors and the numbers
are approximately equal.

Where is it?  I'd like a look.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 1:06 PM
Dear William ~

If the Latin word "domini/dominus" PRECEDES a man's name in a medieval
English or Scottish record, the word should be rendered in English as
"Sir" not "lord."  In the case of a layman, it means he was a knighted
individual.  A priest could also be addressed as "Sir."  Usually the
context of the document tells you if you are dealing with a knight or a
priest, particularly in lists of witnesses.  If the person is female
and the word which precedes her name is "domina," then it should be
rendered "lady" in English.

If the word "dominus" FOLLOWS a man's name and includes a reference to
a location, it means he was lord of that place.  In that context, the
word is correctly rendered "lord" in English.  If the person is female
and the word is "domina," it would be correctly rendered as "lady."

I might add that not all lords of the manor were knighted.  If you
thought I was saying that, you misunderstood my comments.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

William Black wrote:

< I want some evidence that all 'lords of the manor' were knighted.
<
< Because this implies that 'squires' were never land holders with
subsidiary
< fiefs.

< William Black

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/2/06 1:15 PM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159819583.452472.152450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Dear William ~
>
> If the Latin word "domini/dominus" PRECEDES a man's name in a medieval
> English or Scottish record, the word should be rendered in English as
> "Sir" not "lord."  In the case of a layman, it means he was a knighted
> individual.  A priest could also be addressed as "Sir."  Usually the
> context of the document tells you if you are dealing with a knight or a
> priest, particularly in lists of witnesses.  If the person is female
> and the word which precedes her name is "domina," then it should be
> rendered "lady" in English.

Could you give me some sort of reference for that please.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Hal Bradley 10/2/06 3:22 PM
Dear Joseph, Brad, Douglas, et al,

Brad is probably correct in his assessment of the Fulford/Courtenay line.
Yet, I would like to add a couple of notes before dismissing this line
completely:

1) C.I.P.M. Hen. VII, vol. 1, no. 658 indicates that Humphrey Fulford, son
and heir of Thomas was "aged 23 and more" at his father's death in Feb.
1489/90. This would place his birth in 1466 or a little earlier. He may have
had older sisters (and for that matter, older brothers who pre-deceased
their father). Thus, Philippe Courtenay could have married Thomas Fulford a
little earlier than Brad conjectured.

2) According to a post by Kathy Weigel, Thomas Fulford was aged 28 in 1461
(based on his father, Baldwin Fulford's i.p.m.), and was thus born
1432/1433. If Philippe Courtenay was of a similar age, she may not have been
a younger daughter.

2) Brad's analysis was based on dates provided from Charlotte Smith's post
regarding a VCH account of the Dowrish family (which she admittedly had not
seen). However, there is only one volume of the VCH of Devon. It appears to
be a general account and most likely does not contain any information on the
Dowrish family. The dates Charlotte provided appear to come, instead, from
Ancestral File. Therefore, Brad's analysis is brought into question only
because the dates provided by Charlotte are from an unsubstantiated source.
Charlotte's dates (with thirty to forty years between generations) seem a
little bit stretched.

3) IIRC, Vivian's "Visitations of the County of Devon: Comprising the
Herald's Visitations of 1531, 1564, & 1620" (1895), p. 289, notes that
Thomas Fulford had a daughter Alice, who married (1) Thomas Dowrish and (2)
Thomas Coterell (citing "Chancery Proceedings"). I have not been able to
check on this reference. The Bernau index was not on the shelf at the
library. This document might clarify the Fulford/Dowrish relationship.

4) Regarding the Dowrish/Fulford connection, I agree with Brad that
"Westcote and/or Vivian got it hopelessly confused." However, IIRC, every
visitation asserts some kind of connection. It would seem imprudent to
dismiss it without looking at the "Chancery Proceedings" noted by Vivian.

Hal Bradley

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 4:27 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

Here are abstracts of three Chancery Proceedings which appear to shed
some light on the alleged Fulford-Dowrish connection.  The second and
third suits below confirm Vivian's statement that Alice, widow of
Thomas Dowrish the elder, married (2nd) before 1486 Thomas Coterell.
She was still living in 1493/1500.

C 1/66/293:  Thomas Coterell, esquire, and Alice, his wife, previously
the wife of John Chene, of Pynne. v. Sir William Say, knight: Detaining
Isabel, daughter and heiress of the said John Chene and Alice.: Devon.
Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485

C 1/79/74:  Thomas Coterell, esquire, and Alice, his wife, previously
the wife of Thomas Dourish. v. Thomas Attwill: Detention of deeds
relating to a messuage and land in Remmyscombe, Devon.  Date: 1486

C 1/198/41:  Thomas, son and heir of Richard, son of Thomas Dourisshe.
v. Thomas Coterell and Alys, his wife, previously the wife of the said
Thomas Dourisshe, the elder.: Detention of deeds relating to the manors
of Dourisshe, Holford, Credy Hillyng, and Upton Hillyng and to lands in
Radlegh and Britport.  Date: 1493-1500.

I presume the generations of this family run short, as I note that
Alice Fulford's grandson, Thomas son of Richard Dowrish, was of age in
or before 1493/1500.  This places his birth as before 1479.   Alice
herself was still living in 1493/1500.

Before this line is rejected, solid evidence needs to be provided to
substantiate the claim that Alice Fulford was born before 1416, or that
her mother, Elizabeth Courtenay, was born born--at the earliest--after
1430.  I suspect both statements are wrong.

If Alice wife of Thomas Dowrish was the daughter of Thomas Fulford,
then the generations would run as follows:

1. Thomas Fulford, born 1432/3, died 1490, married Philippe Courtenay.
2. Alice Fulford, born say 1450/5, married Thomas Dowrish
3. Richard Dowrish.
4. Thomas Dowrish, in or born before 1479.

These generations are very short, but not impossible, especially in
view of the fact that Alice Fulford was still living after her
grandson, Thomas Dowrish the younger, came of age.  That's a good
indication that you have short generations in this family.

I recommend to Mr. Bradley that he obtain a copy of all of the Fulford
and Dowrish pedigrees on file in at the British Museum.  I know from
personal experience that many of these pedigrees have never been
published and can be quite helpful in such matters.  If available,
these pedigrees should substantiate or invalidate this descent.  The
Devonshire pedigrees at the British Library are indexed in a book by
Richard Sims entitled "An index to the pedigrees and arms contained in
the heralds' visitations, and other genealogical manuscripts in the
British Museum."
.
A word of warning:  I find that Vivian has a nasty habit of inserting a
daughter in the wrong generation.  Thus, Alice wife of Thomas Dowrish,
may well be a Fulford, but possibly placed one generation too late in
the family tree.  The pedigrees at the British Library should establish
how the correct descent goes.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 8:50 PM
Dear Hal ~

Checking internet databases just now, it appears that there was an
Alice Fulford in the previous generation of the Fulford family as I
suspected.  She was the daughter of Sir Baldwin Fulford, died 1461, by
his wife, Elizabeth Bozom.  This Alice Fulford allegedly married Sir
William Cary, who died in 1471, by whom she had a son, Thomas Cary.

If I understand the chronology correctly, it seems possible to me that
this Alice Fulford is the same woman who married Thomas Dowrish, John
Cheyne, and Thomas Coterell.  If so, her marital history would go as
follows:

1. Thomas Dowrish, died 1464.  Issue, 1 son, Richard.

2.  William Cary, Knt., died 1471.  Issue, 1 son, Robert.

3. John Cheyne, Esq., of Pinhoe, Devon.  He was living 1473/75.  Issue,
1 daughter, Isabel.

4. Thomas Coterell, Esq., married by 1486.  They were both living
1493/1500.

Hopefully some other newsgroup member will have some record in their
files which would confirm that this Alice Fulford had these four
marriages.  If Alice Fulford, wife of Thomas Dowrish, is shoved back a
generation, it would solve the tight chronology problem which presently
exists in this family line.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 9:16 PM
Dear Hal ~

Below is another Chancery reference to Alice, wife of John Cheyne, the
younger, of Pinhoe, Devon, and her daughter, Isabel.

Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp

C 1/67/235

Harry Wentworth, knight, father of Philip Wentworth. v. William Say,
knight: Marriage of Isabel, a daughter of John Cheney, the younger, of
Pynne, and Alis, his wife.: Devon.  Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Douglas Richardson 10/2/06 9:39 PM
Dear Hal ~

Below is a Chancery reference to Alice Fulford, wife of William Cary,
and her son, Thomas Cary.

Source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp

C 1/480/13

Thomas, son and heir of William Cary and of Alice, his wife, daughter
of Baldwin Folford, knight. v. John Fuleford, esquire.: Detention of
deeds relating to the manor of Ashbury, and half the manor of Brompton
Ralph, claimed by complainant in right of Margaret, his wife, daughter
and heir of Robert Spencer, knight, son and heir of John Spencer and of
Joan, his wife.  Date:  1518-1529.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) John Higgins 10/2/06 10:51 PM
FWIW, at least four sources (admittedly all secondary) show the marriage of
Sir William Cary and Alice, dau. of Sir Baldwin Fulford, and none of them
indicate that Alice had any other marriages.  The sources are:
    Cary pedigree in Vivian's edition of the Visitations of Devon
    Fulford pedigree also in Vivian (where she is called Anne)
    Fulford pedigree in Hutchins' Dorset (where she is called Elizabeth or
Anne)
    Cary pedigree in Lipscomb's Bucks

Admittedly these could all be based on the same sources, but it is
suspicious that NONE of these mention other marriages for Alice (while the
Cary pedigrees do mention Sir William's other marriage).

And the 1895 edition of Vivian's visitations of Devon, previously cited,
does not show an Alice Fulford married to Thomas Dowrish, at least in the
Fulford pedigree.  (This was pointed out by Brad Verity in 2005)  Is there
any other evidence that Alice the wife of Thomas Coterell was a Fulford?

Another possibility is that there were two Thomas Coterells who each married
an Alice, one the previous wife of John Cheyne and the other the previous
wife of Thomas Dowrish.  Without further investigation of the Coterell
family, this is perhaps as likely as one Alice having three [or four]
husbands...and still no evidence that any Alice in these Coterell, Cheyne,
or Dowrish marriages was a Fulford.

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) joseph cook 10/3/06 4:51 AM

"John Higgins" wrote:

> Another possibility is that there were two Thomas Coterells who each married
> an Alice, one the previous wife of John Cheyne and the other the previous
> wife of Thomas Dowrish.  Without further investigation of the Coterell
> family, this is perhaps as likely as one Alice having three [or four]
> husbands...and still no evidence that any Alice in these Coterell, Cheyne,
> or Dowrish marriages was a Fulford.
>

Except for this posting by DR does show provide evidence of this in
part, no?

"C 1/79/74:  Thomas Coterell, esquire, and Alice, his wife, previously
the wife of Thomas Dourish. v. Thomas Attwill: Detention of deeds
relating to a messuage and land in Remmyscombe, Devon.  Date: 1486 "

unk...@googlegroups.com 10/3/06 5:55 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) John Higgins 10/3/06 8:34 AM
Two separate records of Chancery proceedings were posted:  one mentioning
Alice widow of John Cheyne and wife of Thomas Coterell, the other mentioning
Alice widow of Thomas Dowrish and wife of Thomas Coterell.  How do we know
that these are the same Thomas Coterell?  It's not at all uncommon to see
two men of the same name in the same locality in the same timeframe -
cousins often, or even occasionally brothers.  This could simply be a case
of "the name's the same" - a common trap for genealogists to fall into.

Until we have further information, it's at least as speculative to say that
there were two Thomas Coterells as it is to say that there was one Alice
(possibly a Fulford, but not proven) who married three (or four) times.

----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph cook" <joe...@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of
Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford)


>

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Douglas Richardson 10/3/06 10:33 PM
Dear Hal ~

It appears that the Thomas Dowrish, of Dourish, Devon, from whom you
descend was of age before 1428, and died in 1464, and was buried at
Crediton, Devon. The name of his wife is not known.  He had three sons,
Thomas, Jr., Richard (your ancestor), and Walter.

In the next generation, Thomas Dowrish, styled the younger, was
evidently of age before 1445, died 10 Feb. 1483.  He was Recorder of
Exeter, 1468-1483.  He resided at Dourish and Pidsley, Devon.  He
married (1st) before 1471 to Margaret Reke, sister of Richard Reke, by
whom he had no children.  Margaret was born say 1425.  Thomas was
patron of West Ogwell, Devon in 1445, perhaps in right of his wife.
Margaret died shortly before 3 March 1476/7.  Thomas married (2nd)
shortly before 7 May 1477 (date of settlement) Alice Stowell, widow of
John Cheyne, the younger, of Pinhoe, Devon, and daughter of _____
Stowell, of Cothelstone, Somerset.  They had one daughter, Elizabeth
Dowrish, born about 1480.  Alice Stowell had one child by her earlier
Cheyne marriage, namely Isabel Cheyne, who married Edward Waldegrave
(or Walgrave), of Suffolk.  Following Thomas Dowrish the younger''s
death in 1483, Alice Stowell married (3rd) by 1484 (as his 2nd wife)
Thomas Coterell, Esq., of Washbourne, Devon, who was born in 1450, and
died shortly before 25 May 1506.  Alice and Thomas Coterell were sued
in Chancery in the period, 1493-1500, by Thomas son of Richard Dowrish,
who was Alice's former husband's nephew.  Alice survived Thomas
Coterell, and was living 20 January 1506/7.

I presume that Elizabeth Dowrish, daughter of Thomas and Alice, died
young, as all of the Dowrish family properties eventually went to
Thomas Dowrish's younger brother, Richard Dowrish (your ancestor).

The only Alice Fulford I can find is the one who married Sir William
Carey, died 1471, of Cockington, Devon.  She was the daughter of Sir
Baldwin Fulford.  She is obviously a separate and distinct person from
Alice Stowell, wife of John Cheyne the younger, Thomas Dowrish, Jr.,
and Thomas Coterell, Esq.  For particular on Alice Stowell's daughter,
Isabel (Cheyne) Waldegrave, see the following weblink:

http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ww/waldegrave1.htm

You obviously lose the Fulford-Courtenay-Hungerford connection.
However, you appear to pick up another valid royal descent through the
Bigbury/Bykebury family of Devonshire by way of their Brewes connection
(see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry, for details).  In 1428 Thomas
Dowrish (the first named above) was called "heir of William Bykebury."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Postscript:  The wording of the published abstract of the Chancery
Proceeding dated 1493/1500 between Thomas son of Richard Dowrish and
Thomas and Alice Coterell indicates that Alice Coterell was the former
wife of Thomas son of Richard Dowrish's grandfather (see my earlier
post).  At present, I'm satisfied from what records that I've seen that
Alice Coterell was the widow of his uncle, Thomas Dowrish the younger.
I say that because Alice was clearly married to Thomas Dowrish the
younger, and his heir in 1483 was stated to be his daughter, Elizabeth,
age 3, not a grown son, Richard.  However, in the inquisition of Thomas
Dowlish the younger, the jurors stated that property was settled by his
father, Thomas the elder, in 1461 on a certain Richard Dowrish, with
remainder to Richard's brother, Walter.  The relationship between
Richard and Walter to Thomas Dowrish the elder and Thomas Dowrish the
younger is not given, but the jurors were clearly aware of Richard's
existence as they said he was then still living.  I've assumed above
that Richard and Walter Dowrish were younger sons of Thomas Dowrish the
elder, who died in 1464.

HOWEVER, I note that the 1620 Visitation of Devon states that your
Richard Dowrish's father was Thomas Dowrish, living temp. Edward IV
[i.e., approximately 1464-1483], and that his grandfather was Thomas
Dowrish, living 18 Henry VI [i.e., living 1439/40].  If the visitation
is correct, then it would seem that Richard Dowrish's father was Thomas
Dowrish the younger above (died 1483), not Thomas Dowrish who died in
1464.  If that is correct, then Richard's father would be Thomas
Dowrish the younger above who married (1st) Margaret Reke and (2nd)
Alice Stowell.  This is certainly possible chronologically, and it
would agree with the published abstract of the Chancery Proceeding
dated 1493/1500.  But it doesn't agree with the IPM of Thomas Dowrish
the younger taken in 1483 which named his heir as his daughter,
Elizabeth, aged 3.  To ascertain the truth of this matter, I recommend
you get the Chancery Proceeding in question and the Dowrish visitation
records at the British Library.

In the case of inquisition of Thomas Dowrish the younger, I should add
that the jurors stated that various other properties were settled on
his wife, Alice, in 1477, and their issue.  If the inquisition only
concerned itself with that property, then it would be correct to say
that Thomas Dowrish the younger's heir was his infant daughter by his
surviving wife, Alice.   This could be in spite of the fact that he had
other children by earlier marriages still living.  This is a bit
confusing to us, but medieval society is sometimes strikingly different
from our modern value system.  So, it is still possible that Richard
Dowrish was Thomas Dowrish the younger's son and heir, in spite of what
the inquisition says.

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) John Higgins 10/4/06 4:58 AM
A couple of further notes on the supposed Alice Fulford:

1) Hal Bradley mentioned a reference to Alice Fulford, wife of Thomas
Dowrish and then of Thomas Cotterell, said to be dau. of Thomas Fulford, on
p. 289 of Vivian's Devon Visitations.  This occurs in a rather sketchy
pedigree of the Dowrish family.  As Brad Verity noted in 2005, an Alice of
this parentage and with these marriages does not occur in the Fulford
pedigree - or anywhere else in Vivian.  It's not at all inconceivable that
the Dowrish pedigree confuses Alice with her Son Richard's wife, who is
mentioned in as a Fulford in both pedigrees.  AFAIK this is the only
reference to a Fulford/Dowrish marriage earlier than the one to the son
Richard.

2)  The only other reference to an Alice Fulford in Vivian is to Alice, dau.
of Sir Baldwin, who is noted in Cary and Fulford pedigrees to have married
Sir William Cary - no no one else.  The hypothesis advanced yesterday that
this Alice Fulford married four times seems very speculative.

If the supposed royal link via the Courtenays of Powderham to Mary Gye
depends on this Fulford link, it looks very dubious at this point.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthi...@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford mj...@btinternet.com 10/4/06 8:54 AM

Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear William ~
>
> If the Latin word "domini/dominus" PRECEDES a man's name in a medieval
> English or Scottish record, the word should be rendered in English as
> "Sir" not "lord."

How then should the following PROCAT/A2A records be translated:

Dom. Thomas, Prior of Canterbury
Dom. Thomas, Archdeacon of Chester
Dom. Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury.

"Sir Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury"?

Surely, "dominus" means Lord, not "Sir"?  Often, it will appear in
conjunction with the description "militis" - then we know we are
dealing with a knight, but otherwise I would be reluctant to make the
assumption.

After all, Domino Rege does not mean "Sir King".

> In the case of a layman, it means he was a knighted
> individual.  A priest could also be addressed as "Sir."  Usually the
> context of the document tells you if you are dealing with a knight or a
> priest, particularly in lists of witnesses.

At least by the time that the English version "Sir" was used, it was
appropriated to the lower grades of the clergy - not to Archbishops.

Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 9:06 AM
"John Higgins" wrote:
<
< The only other reference to an Alice Fulford in Vivian is to Alice,
dau.
< of Sir Baldwin, who is noted in Cary and Fulford pedigrees to have
married
< Sir William Cary - no no one else.  The hypothesis advanced yesterday
that
< this Alice Fulford married four times seems very speculative.

The only Alice Fulford I can find is the one who married Sir William


Carey, died 1471, of Cockington, Devon.  She was the daughter of Sir
Baldwin Fulford.  She is a separate and distinct person from Alice
Stowell, wife of John Cheyne the younger, Thomas Dowrish the younger
(died 1483), and Thomas Coterell, Esq. (died 1506).

Hal Bradley's Dowrish family obviously loses its Fulford-Courtenay-
Hungerford connection.  However, Hal appears to pick up another valid


royal descent through the Bigbury/Bykebury family of Devonshire by way
of their Brewes connection (see my book, Magna Carta Ancestry, for
details).  In 1428 Thomas Dowrish [the elder] was called "heir of

William Bykebury."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/4/06 9:33 AM

<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1159977295.268848.179540@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Well I did actually ask for some sort of proof.

None was forthcoming.

I am therefore left with the almost inevitable conclusion that genealogy is,
as I always suspected,  run by people who make it up as they go along.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 9:48 AM
My comments are interspersed below.  DR

William Black wrote:

< Well I did actually ask for some sort of proof.
<
< None was forthcoming.

This matter has been discussed on the newsgroup previously.  You can
find further information in the archives.

> I am therefore left with the almost inevitable conclusion that genealogy is,
> as I always suspected,  run by people who make it up as they go along.

Actually most genealogists are copyists.  They don't make things up.

> William Black

DR

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/4/06 9:57 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159980502.412405.176630@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> My comments are interspersed below.  DR
>
> William Black wrote:
>
> < Well I did actually ask for some sort of proof.
> <
> < None was forthcoming.
>
> This matter has been discussed on the newsgroup previously.  You can
> find further information in the archives.

Why should I bother?

I asked you a perfectly civil question after information was given that did
not accord with a standard work on the period.  No answer was forthcoming.

I am therefore left to draw the obvious conclusion.

I also draw you attention to page 36 of Susan Reynolds book where she makes
the point that God is refered to as Dominus but is neither a fief holder or
a knight.

Legal terms used in medieval times change their meaning as time and location
changes and trying to impose a particular useage on a term is exactly the
mistake of the seventeenth century lawyers mentioned by me in an earlier
post.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 10:17 AM
My comments are interspersed below.  DR

mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > Dear William ~
> >
> > If the Latin word "domini/dominus" PRECEDES a man's name in a medieval
> > English or Scottish record, the word should be rendered in English as
> > "Sir" not "lord."
>
> How then should the following PROCAT/A2A records be translated:
>
> Dom. Thomas, Prior of Canterbury
> Dom. Thomas, Archdeacon of Chester
> Dom. Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury.
>
> "Sir Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury"?
>
> Surely, "dominus" means Lord, not "Sir"?

I believe in this context, the word should be translated Lord.
However, I'll check on this to be sure.

In the 1423 accord of John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy which
I posted this past week, the following sentence appears at the end:

"Also sygnyd by my foresayde Lorde the Regaunte of Fraunce, Syr John
Duke of Bedforde, and by my Lorde Duke of Burgayne ..."

If the above text was in Latin, I believe the Latin word for Lord and
Sir would be the same word.  If so, if one didn't know better, it would
be easy to mistranslate the Latin word used for "Syr" as "Lord."   I
might add that the form used in the original document, "Syr John Duke
of Bedforde," is the appropriate title in that time period to use for
an English royal prince.

< Often, it will appear in conjunction with the description "militis" -
then
< we know we are dealing with a knight, but otherwise I would be
< reluctant to make the assumption.

Actually historians have no trouble making that assumption.  On the
whole, when "domini/dominus" precedes a given name, it is translated as
Sir, particularly on witness lists to charters.  You're seldom aware of
it, as you only see the English translation of the text.  The A2A
Catalogue is filled with abstracts of charters in English which have
been translated from the original Latin text.  The Latin text is seldom
provided.

> After all, Domino Rege does not mean "Sir King".

It means Lord King.

> > In the case of a layman, it means he was a knighted
> > individual.  A priest could also be addressed as "Sir."  Usually the
> > context of the document tells you if you are dealing with a knight or a
> > priest, particularly in lists of witnesses.
>
> At least by the time that the English version "Sir" was used, it was
> appropriated to the lower grades of the clergy - not to Archbishops.

Do you have a fix as to when the word "Sir" was first used?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 10:36 AM
My comments are interspersed below.  DR

William Black wrote:

< I asked you a perfectly civil question after information was given
< that did not accord with a standard work on the period.  No answer
< was forthcoming.

I provided you an answer, albeit a delayed one.  As I said, this matter
has been discussed previously on the newsgroup.  You can find full
particulars in the newsgroup archives.

< I am therefore left to draw the obvious conclusion.

You assume much and that incorrectly.

< I also draw you attention to page 36 of Susan Reynolds book where she
< makes the point that God is refered to as Dominus but is neither a
< fief holder or a knight.

William: What has this got to do with a 13th Century medieval charter
in Lincolnshire?

< Legal terms used in medieval times change their meaning as time and
< location changes and trying to impose a particular useage on a term
< is exactly the mistake of the seventeenth century lawyers mentioned
< by me in an earlier post.

William: Again, what does this have to do with a 13th Century medieval
charter in Lincolnshire?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/4/06 10:49 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159982240.327141.164300@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> Do you have a fix as to when the word "Sir" was first used?

Edward I isn't it?

Which means late thirteenth century.


--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/4/06 10:59 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159983406.588354.118820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

The status of the people mentioned and if they are knights or not.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford) John Higgins 10/4/06 11:06 AM
This is a useful contribution to the pedigree of the Dowrish.  Although, as
the potscript notes, the relationship of the various Thomases and Richard
may be open to question, at least this appears to settles the
misidentification of the much-married Alice as a Fulford.

A couple of small notes:

1) Alice's family name, Stowell of Cothelstone, Somerset, is also rendered
as Stawell.  Under the latter name I remember seeing a monograph on the
family a couple of years ago at the FHL which may have information on Alice.
The FHL catalog no doubt has more information on this.

2)  It's possible that Alice and John Cheyne of Pinhoe had more children
than just the daughter who married Edward Waldegrave.  A visitation pedigree
of the the Cheyne family gives Isabella [Cheyne] Waldegrave three sisters -
but the pedigree also gives John Cheyne a different wife, so it may well be
questionable.  But it is conceivable that whatever document supports the
account below had reason to refer only to the one daughter, thus not
necessarily ruling out the existence of other daughters.

It's unfortunate that no sources are given for the lengthy and informative
account below.  It's not clear whether this is all based on one [very
informative?] document, or is instead the author's conclusions based on
information pieced together from many sources.  I'm guessing it's the
latter, which is clearly often necessary for the medieval period, but can be
quite dangerous in leading to erroneous conclusions. [For example, Monday's
hypothesis that Alice Fulford was married four times]  It would be more
useful to lay out not only the sources but the chain of reasoning that led
to the conclusions.  Without this support, the conlusions expressed should
probably be considered tentative and used with care, as any unsupported
genealogical assertion should be.  After all, modern writers cannot
necessarily be relied upon to recognize that "medieval society is sometimes
strikingly different from our modern value system".  :-)  I doubt that this
is a case of genealogists "who make it up as they go along", but - until
fuller documentation is provided - caveat lector....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Dowrish/Fulford/Courtenay - (was RE: Sir Adam Fitz John, of
Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford)


unk...@googlegroups.com 10/4/06 11:53 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Richard Smyth at Road Runner 10/4/06 12:40 PM

> > How then should the following PROCAT/A2A records be translated:
> >
> > Dom. Thomas, Prior of Canterbury
> > Dom. Thomas, Archdeacon of Chester
> > Dom. Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury.
> >
> > "Sir Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury"?

Why not translate with the English word "Dominie"?  Isn't that close to the
sense that was probably intended?


Richard Smyth
sm...@nc.rr.com

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 2:04 PM
Dear Newsgroup ~

The online Etymology Dictionary gives the following information
regarding the origin of the word, sir:

"sir:  1297, title of honor of a knight or baronet (until 17c. also a
title of priests), variant of sire, originally used only in unstressed
position. Generalized as a respectful form of address by c.1350; used
as a salutation at the beginning of letters from 1425."  [Online
reference: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sir].

I suspect the word Sir in fact occurred as a title of honor for a
knight or baron much earlier than 1297.

Below is an abstract of an entry in the Patent Rolls for the reign of
King Henry III dated 1232-1247.  The editor has translated a word in
Latin into English as "Sir."

Source:
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h3v3/body/Henry3vol3page0126.pdf

Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry III, 1232-1247
vol. 3, pg. 126

Date: 1235

"...Sir John de Lascy, earl of Lincoln, Sir R. earl of Cornwall, Sir
Roger Bygod, earl of Norfolk and Suffolk, Sir...
...Hubert de Burgo, earl of Kent, Sir Ralph son of Nicholas, Sir Walter
de Kirkeham, Sir Walter Mareschal, Godfrey...
...seals. Witnesses:-Sir Roger Bigot, earl of Norfolk and Suffolk,
Sir Ralph son of Nicholas, Sir Walter Marshal,..."  END OF QUOTE.

If the modern editor has done his job right, then "Sir" as a title of
honor for a knight or baron was already in use by 1235, not 1297.  I
believe the Latin word here translated as Sir was "dominus."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/4/06 2:09 PM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159995870.145619.273690@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

So no proof then...

'I believe' is not evidence of anything but good faith.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 2:53 PM
William Black wrote:

> So no proof then...
>
> 'I believe' is not evidence of anything but good faith.
>
> William Black

I look for the good in people, and usually find it.

DR

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Jwc...@aol.com 10/4/06 4:18 PM
Dear William,
                     There is evidence of the honorific Sir in use in England
prior to 1233, quite possibly as much as 20 years prior. One of the Dodsworth
MSS xiv, 33b and MSS Lansdowne cccxxvi 109 It appears to be an acknowledgment
of a grant made by Ricardus Cumin by his son domino Willelmo Cumin, comite de
Buchan and so places the document at sometime between 1204-1233 after William
married Margaret, Countess of Buchan and prior to his own death.
                                 Sincerely,
                                                James W Cummings
                                                Dixmont, Maine USA

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford mj...@btinternet.com 10/4/06 4:18 PM

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

> My comments are interspersed below.  DR
>
> mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >
> > How then should the following PROCAT/A2A records be translated:
> >
> > Dom. Thomas, Prior of Canterbury
> > Dom. Thomas, Archdeacon of Chester
> > Dom. Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury.
> >
> > "Sir Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury"?
> >
> > Surely, "dominus" means Lord, not "Sir"?
>
> I believe in this context, the word should be translated Lord.
> However, I'll check on this to be sure.

No need to check - it clearly means Lord rather than Sir in this cases.
 Thus I think it is dangerous to make sweeping statement such as
"whenever Dominus precedes a name in medieval sources it indicates a
knight" - clearly it does not.

> In the 1423 accord of John of Lancaster and Philippe of Burgundy which
> I posted this past week, the following sentence appears at the end:
>
> "Also sygnyd by my foresayde Lorde the Regaunte of Fraunce, Syr John
> Duke of Bedforde, and by my Lorde Duke of Burgayne ..."
>
> If the above text was in Latin, I believe the Latin word for Lord and
> Sir would be the same word.

Indeed: a knight would always be addressed as "Dominus", but not every
"Dominus" was a knight.

> If so, if one didn't know better, it would
> be easy to mistranslate the Latin word used for "Syr" as "Lord."

I am familiar with original Latin texts, thanks.  I have the good
fortune to visit the PRO and several County Record Offices regularly,
as well as the British Library MSS collection, and have myself a large
collection of deeds, fines etc going back to the 15th century, so I am
not entirely reliant on the translation of others.

> I might add that the form used in the original document, "Syr John Duke
> of Bedforde," is the appropriate title in that time period to use for
> an English royal prince.

Quaere: only if he has been knighted?

> < Often, it will appear in conjunction with the description "militis" -
> then
> < we know we are dealing with a knight, but otherwise I would be
> < reluctant to make the assumption.
>
> Actually historians have no trouble making that assumption.  On the
> whole, when "domini/dominus" precedes a given name, it is translated as
> Sir, particularly on witness lists to charters.  You're seldom aware of
> it, as you only see the English translation of the text.  The A2A
> Catalogue is filled with abstracts of charters in English which have
> been translated from the original Latin text.  The Latin text is seldom
> provided.
>
> > After all, Domino Rege does not mean "Sir King".
>
> It means Lord King.

Indeed.  Then why does Domino not mean Lord in other circumstances?

> > > In the case of a layman, it means he was a knighted
> > > individual.  A priest could also be addressed as "Sir."  Usually the
> > > context of the document tells you if you are dealing with a knight or a
> > > priest, particularly in lists of witnesses.
> >
> > At least by the time that the English version "Sir" was used, it was
> > appropriated to the lower grades of the clergy - not to Archbishops.
>
> Do you have a fix as to when the word "Sir" was first used?

Not to hand, but a quick glance at a reputable reference source should
provide it.  As you have shown elsewhere, clearly the word Sir is
related to Sire and Sieur etc - Lord.  That is not to say, however,
that every time Dominus is used in the circumstances you posit, it
indicates a knight or a member of the lower orders of the clergy.  Have
a look at Henry III's Patent Rolls - the Archbishop of Canterbury is
often referred to as Dominus, with his Christian name immediately
following.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I agree with Will's
proposition: that Dominus was used to indicate a man of standing, not
necessarily (albeit often) a knight, i.e. it often can be translated as
Sir, but not always.

I would be delighted to be shown to be mistaken, as this would give us
a valuable indication of knightly status.

Regards, Michael

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Jwc...@aol.com 10/4/06 4:44 PM
Dear Michael, Douglas, Peter and others,
                                                              In medieval
Latin, Domina is clearly lady, however, why use domino instead of dominus at all
unless the ending indicated that one was greater than the other, with domino
denoting sir as in a knight or a priest or dominus for a feudal superior
(lord), including priors, abbots, bishops, cardinals and popes ?
Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford mj...@btinternet.com 10/4/06 4:58 PM

Jwc...@aol.com schrieb:

> Dear Michael, Douglas, Peter and others,
>                                                               In medieval
> Latin, Domina is clearly lady, however, why use domino instead of dominus at all

Case declension in Latin - it is the same word:

Nominative: dominus, e.g. the lord
Dative: domino, e.g. to the lord

MA-R

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/4/06 10:13 PM
My comments are interspersed below.  DR

mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

< No need to check - it clearly means Lord rather than Sir in this
cases.
<  Thus I think it is dangerous to make sweeping statement such as
< "whenever Dominus precedes a name in medieval sources it indicates a
< knight" - clearly it does not.

The statement I made about the meaning of dominus in ancient documents
referred to documents which involve knights and priests, specifically
witness lists to charters and such.  I made no statement about this
applying to archbishops and kings.  You've asked for clarification
about the latter two categories and I gave it.  Simple enough.

< Indeed: a knight would always be addressed as "Dominus", but not
every
< "Dominus" was a knight.

A knight was not always addressed as Sir or Dominus.  In the 1200's,
the scribes were rather lax about indicating whether or not a person
was knighted.  Sometimes the person was designated a knight, sometimes
he wasn't.  After 1300, the records are much more consistent about
indicating whether or not a person was knighted.

< > I might add that the form used in the original document, "Syr John
Duke
< > of Bedforde," is the appropriate title in that time period to use
for
< > an English royal prince.
<
< Quaere: only if he has been knighted?

Men of the Duke's rank were usually knighted when they were young
teenagers, sometimes even younger.  I think we can safely assume Duke
John was already knighted in 1423.

< > > After all, Domino Rege does not mean "Sir King".
< >
< > It means Lord King.
>
> Indeed.  Then why does Domino not mean Lord in other circumstances?

You've asked the million dollar question, Michael.  I think the problem
is that the people of the time spoke French, but all of their documents
were prepared and translated into Latin.   As you know, something
always gets lost in the translation.  Perhaps the distinction between
the terms, Sir and lord (or Sire/Seigneur), was one of those things
that got blurred when French was turned into Latin.  For our own
purposes, we then translate the Latin into modern English, which in
turn causes further problems.

< In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I agree with Will's
< proposition: that Dominus was used to indicate a man of standing, not
< necessarily (albeit often) a knight, i.e. it often can be translated
as
< Sir, but not always.

My impression is that men who were addressed as "dominus" (and who were
not archbishops and kings) were men either of knightly, priestly,
baronial, or royal rank.  Saying that someone who was called "dominus"
was a "man of standing" is a very obvious remark.  It's like saying the
king was an important man in medieval society.

> I would be delighted to be shown to be mistaken, as this would give us
> a valuable indication of knightly status.

What error are you hoping to find?  You lost me.
 
> Regards, Michael

DR

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford mj...@btinternet.com 10/4/06 11:17 PM

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

> The statement I made about the meaning of dominus in ancient documents
> referred to documents which involve knights and priests, specifically
> witness lists to charters and such.  I made no statement about this
> applying to archbishops and kings.  You've asked for clarification
> about the latter two categories and I gave it.  Simple enough.
>
> What error are you hoping to find?  You lost me.

Thanks Douglas.  Perhaps you did not mean for your original statement
to come across as it did, but here is what you said:

"Insofar as medieval English and Scottish records are concerned, when a
person is called "domino Johanne filio Hugonis" in a Latin charter, the
correct rendering is "Sir John Fitz Hugh" (or if you prefer "Sir John
son of Hugh"). "

and

"If the Latin word "domini/dominus" PRECEDES a man's name in a medieval
English or Scottish record, the word should be rendered in English as
"Sir" not "lord."  In the case of a layman, it means he was a knighted

individual.  A priest could also be addressed as "Sir."

It certainly seemed you were saying that every time the word domino
appeared in a medieval document, it should be translated as Sir and not
Lord.  Clearly this is not the case: we have seen it can be applied to
kings and archbishops as well.  I suspect it could be used in cases of
important layment who were not necessarily knights too.  Given that
this newsgroup is a public forum, I thought that clarification was
important, lest the unwary be misled.

Now, given that you agree, at least in respect of kings and senior
clergy, that sometimes translation as "lord " is appropriate, there is
clearly no need for further exposition.

Regards, Michael

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/5/06 12:33 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1159998831.798438.220220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

I look for proof in history and rarely find it.

I'm afraid I didn't find it here.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/5/06 9:48 AM
William Black wrote:
<
< I look for proof in history and rarely find it.

Speaking of proof, I still don't know what Susan Reynolds and unnamed
17th Century lawyers have to do with a 13th Century Lincolnshire
charter.  William - can you please enlighten me?

DR

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/5/06 9:53 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160066880.513279.35610@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Your insistence that the word 'dominus' in a particular location in a text
denoted the status of knighthood.

The word 'dominus' relates to overlordship rather than military background
and knighthood was an exclusively military vocation at that time.

Susan Reynolds devotes a page of her book to discussing the status of that
particular word in a chapter that explains,  at some length,  why the
misrepresentations of the seventeenth century lawyers have come down to us
as the 'given terminology' when dealing with the land holding legalities of
this period.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Douglas Richardson 10/5/06 10:17 AM
William Black wrote:

> Your insistence that the word 'dominus' in a particular location in a text
> denoted the status of knighthood.

You've misquoted me.

> The word 'dominus' relates to overlordship rather than military background
> and knighthood was an exclusively military vocation at that time.

Overlordship was tied to military service in this period.  It was part
and parcel of the culture.  The two were nearly synonymous.  Even
bishops who held land of the king were required to provide knights to
the king in time of war.

> Susan Reynolds devotes a page of her book to discussing the status of that
> particular word in a chapter that explains,  at some length,  why the
> misrepresentations of the seventeenth century lawyers have come down to us
> as the 'given terminology' when dealing with the land holding legalities of
> this period.

Please explain why Susan Reynolds' comments are applicable to this
discussion.  I fail to understand what a 13th Century Lincolnshire
charter has to do with unnamed 17th Century lawyers.

> William Black
 
DR

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/5/06 10:41 AM

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160068654.644389.106530@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> William Black wrote:
>
> > Your insistence that the word 'dominus' in a particular location in a
text
> > denoted the status of knighthood.
>
> You've misquoted me.
>
> > The word 'dominus' relates to overlordship rather than military
background
> > and knighthood was an exclusively military vocation at that time.
>
> Overlordship was tied to military service in this period.

A common falacy.

 It was part
> and parcel of the culture.  The two were nearly synonymous.  Even
> bishops who held land of the king were required to provide knights to
> the king in time of war.

Depends on the type of fief.

If they held lands on behalf of the church then they certainly did not,  if
they held lands in their own right then it is possible that they may have
had to pay a form of tax.

I'd like a citation that any bishop (After Odo anyway)  ever sent fighting
men to a king of England when acting as a tenant.

> > Susan Reynolds devotes a page of her book to discussing the status of
that
> > particular word in a chapter that explains,  at some length,  why the
> > misrepresentations of the seventeenth century lawyers have come down to
us
> > as the 'given terminology' when dealing with the land holding legalities
of
> > this period.
>
> Please explain why Susan Reynolds' comments are applicable to this
> discussion.  I fail to understand what a 13th Century Lincolnshire
> charter has to do with unnamed 17th Century lawyers.

Read the book.

It relates to the various 'acts of enclosure' and the interpretation given
to medieval documents by the lawyers trying to enclose the common land and
the deliberate confusion of the terms 'demesne' and 'fief'.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Paul J Gans 10/6/06 1:58 PM
In soc.genealogy.medieval Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>My comments are interspersed below.  DR

>mj...@btinternet.com wrote:

>< No need to check - it clearly means Lord rather than Sir in this
>cases.
><  Thus I think it is dangerous to make sweeping statement such as
>< "whenever Dominus precedes a name in medieval sources it indicates a
>< knight" - clearly it does not.

>The statement I made about the meaning of dominus in ancient documents
>referred to documents which involve knights and priests, specifically
>witness lists to charters and such.  I made no statement about this
>applying to archbishops and kings.  You've asked for clarification
>about the latter two categories and I gave it.  Simple enough.

>< Indeed: a knight would always be addressed as "Dominus", but not
>every
>< "Dominus" was a knight.

>A knight was not always addressed as Sir or Dominus.  In the 1200's,
>the scribes were rather lax about indicating whether or not a person
>was knighted.  Sometimes the person was designated a knight, sometimes
>he wasn't.  After 1300, the records are much more consistent about
>indicating whether or not a person was knighted.

I fear to put my two cents into a discussion involving such
august company, but...

In England in later times (pick your own date for the start
of "later" times) knighthood was not readily accepted by those
eligible.  It carried with it too many (expensive) duties.  Thus
the ranks of knights became very largely restricted to those
propertied individuals interested in knighthood, for whatever
reason.

Hence in that "later" period, one could associate knighthood with
lordship while scarcely making an error -- and if one did, it was
certainly a flattering error.

However, earlier on, there was no particular link between knighthood
and lordship.  Many knights had no lands at all, and never gained
them.  Even William the Marshal, early on, was in that position.

Indeed, earlier on (but not in England) some knights were not
even free men.

The point being that any association between knighthood and
lordship depends on the era being considered.  It was not a
general rule and I believe that the descriptive language
used bears this out.

    ---- Paul J. Gans

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford William Black 10/6/06 2:10 PM

"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eg6g23$9gl$3@reader1.panix.com...

> In England in later times (pick your own date for the start
> of "later" times) knighthood was not readily accepted by those
> eligible.  It carried with it too many (expensive) duties.  Thus
> the ranks of knights became very largely restricted to those
> propertied individuals interested in knighthood, for whatever
> reason.
>
> Hence in that "later" period, one could associate knighthood with
> lordship while scarcely making an error -- and if one did, it was
> certainly a flattering error.
>
> However, earlier on, there was no particular link between knighthood
> and lordship.  Many knights had no lands at all, and never gained
> them.  Even William the Marshal, early on, was in that position.
>
> Indeed, earlier on (but not in England) some knights were not
> even free men.
>
> The point being that any association between knighthood and
> lordship depends on the era being considered.  It was not a
> general rule and I believe that the descriptive language
> used bears this out.

I think I said that earlier,  but nowhere near as well.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Renia 10/15/06 4:05 PM
Douglas Richardson wrote:

> My comments are interspersed below.  DR
>
> mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>>Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>Dear William ~
>>>
>>>If the Latin word "domini/dominus" PRECEDES a man's name in a medieval
>>>English or Scottish record, the word should be rendered in English as
>>>"Sir" not "lord."
>>
>>How then should the following PROCAT/A2A records be translated:
>>
>>Dom. Thomas, Prior of Canterbury
>>Dom. Thomas, Archdeacon of Chester
>>Dom. Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury.
>>
>>"Sir Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury"?
>>
>>Surely, "dominus" means Lord, not "Sir"?
>
>
> I believe in this context, the word should be translated Lord.
> However, I'll check on this to be sure.

I should imagine, that because they were Catholic priests, they should
be termed Father.
Father Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury
etc

Re: Sir Adam Fitz John, of Ermesthorp: Ancestor of Sir Walter Hungerford Renia 10/15/06 4:13 PM
Douglas Richardson wrote:

Because they have put a modern (i.e. 17th century) interpretation on
13th century words. Those interpretations may be outmoded or just plain
wrong.

More topics »