info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: New light on the parentage of Maud de Lucy, wife of Sir Gilbert de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave (died 1295)
458 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
May 28, 2016, 6:40:30 PM5/28/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Nichols, History & Antiquities of Leicestershire 3(1) (1800): 240 presents a Segrave pedigree taken from "Chronicis apud Chaucombe." The pedigree identifies Maud, the wife of Sir Gilbert de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave as Maud [de] Lucy:
“… De ipsis Gilberto [de Segrave] & Annabiliâ exivit Nicholaus, filius & heres; cui nupta fuit Matilda Lucy. De quibus prodîerunt dominus Johannes de Segrave, dominus Nicholaus de Segrave, dominus Galfridus de Segrave, dominus Petrus, and dominus Gilbertus.” END OF QUOTE.
In a previous post back in 2007, I discussed evidence which suggests that Maud de Lucy was possibly the daughter of Sir Geoffey de Lucy (died 1252), of Newington, Kent, Cublington, Buckinghamshire, Dallington and Slapton, Northamptonshire, etc., by his wife, Nichole, who was likely a member of the Cantelowe family.
Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1
The proposed kinship between the two parties is charted below:
1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux.
2. Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint John, died 1266.
3. Sir John de Saint John, born by 1245, died 1302.
1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux.
2. Nichole de Cantelowe, married (2nd) by 1235 Geoffrey de Lucy, died 1252.
3. Maud de Lucy, born say 1240/5, married Sir Nicholas de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave, died 1295.
4. Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Lord Segrave, born say 1260/5, died 1325.
Recently I was going through a biography of [Saint] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford, published in Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, Part 1 (1877). Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe was a younger son of Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, and his wife, Milicent de Gournay, named above. The biography contains an interesting story relating to Bishop Thomas on pages 42-43, which story concerns a dispute between him and Earl Gilbert de Clare in 1278:
“The bishop had a castle at Ledbury, and the Malvern Hills he claimed as his chase. But the Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, the most powerful baron in England, hunted there ... and he assumed that the right was his. The bishop ... poured over his [Earl Gilbert’s] head the awful curse of the Church; and the great earl rode home, very much surprised and indignant at being excommunicated ... because of the hares and wild-deer of the Malvern Hills ... Then S. Thomas summoned all his friends, and for three days defiantly ... hunted over the hills. The hunting party was composed of John Tregoz, his brother-in-law [recte nephew], Nicholas Segrave, Geoffry and Fulk de Lucy.” END OF QUOTE.
As we can see, Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe's hunting party in Malvern Hills consisted of his nephew, John de Tregoz (mistakenly called his brother-in-law), Nicholas de Segrave (husband of Maud de Lucy), and Geoffrey and Fulk de Lucy.
This story suggests a close association between Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe, and the Segrave and Lucy families. While this evidence is somewhat limited, it provides support for the idea that Gilbert de Segrave's wife, Maud de Lucy, was a niece of Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe. Assuming these various parties were near relatives of the Bishop, it would explain their appearance as members of his hunting party in 1278.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Nichols, History & Antiquities of Leicestershire 3(1) (1800): 240 presents a Segrave pedigree taken from "Chronicis apud Chaucombe." The pedigree identifies Maud, the wife of Sir Gilbert de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave as Maud [de] Lucy:
“… De ipsis Gilberto [de Segrave] & Annabiliâ exivit Nicholaus, filius & heres; cui nupta fuit Matilda Lucy. De quibus prodîerunt dominus Johannes de Segrave, dominus Nicholaus de Segrave, dominus Galfridus de Segrave, dominus Petrus, and dominus Gilbertus.” END OF QUOTE.
In a previous post back in 2007, I discussed evidence which suggests that Maud de Lucy was possibly the daughter of Sir Geoffey de Lucy (died 1252), of Newington, Kent, Cublington, Buckinghamshire, Dallington and Slapton, Northamptonshire, etc., by his wife, Nichole, who was likely a member of the Cantelowe family.
Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1
The proposed kinship between the two parties is charted below:
1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux.
2. Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint John, died 1266.
3. Sir John de Saint John, born by 1245, died 1302.
1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux.
2. Nichole de Cantelowe, married (2nd) by 1235 Geoffrey de Lucy, died 1252.
3. Maud de Lucy, born say 1240/5, married Sir Nicholas de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave, died 1295.
4. Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Lord Segrave, born say 1260/5, died 1325.
Recently I was going through a biography of [Saint] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford, published in Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, Part 1 (1877). Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe was a younger son of Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, and his wife, Milicent de Gournay, named above. The biography contains an interesting story relating to Bishop Thomas on pages 42-43, which story concerns a dispute between him and Earl Gilbert de Clare in 1278:
“The bishop had a castle at Ledbury, and the Malvern Hills he claimed as his chase. But the Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, the most powerful baron in England, hunted there ... and he assumed that the right was his. The bishop ... poured over his [Earl Gilbert’s] head the awful curse of the Church; and the great earl rode home, very much surprised and indignant at being excommunicated ... because of the hares and wild-deer of the Malvern Hills ... Then S. Thomas summoned all his friends, and for three days defiantly ... hunted over the hills. The hunting party was composed of John Tregoz, his brother-in-law [recte nephew], Nicholas Segrave, Geoffry and Fulk de Lucy.” END OF QUOTE.
As we can see, Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe's hunting party in Malvern Hills consisted of his nephew, John de Tregoz (mistakenly called his brother-in-law), Nicholas de Segrave (husband of Maud de Lucy), and Geoffrey and Fulk de Lucy.
This story suggests a close association between Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe, and the Segrave and Lucy families. While this evidence is somewhat limited, it provides support for the idea that Gilbert de Segrave's wife, Maud de Lucy, was a niece of Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe. Assuming these various parties were near relatives of the Bishop, it would explain their appearance as members of his hunting party in 1278.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
rbe...@fernside.co.nz
May 30, 2016, 6:26:39 PM5/30/16
to
Dear Mr Richardson
Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316).
John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299.
In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”.
John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from Richard de Lucy, the justiciar
For further details see Rosie Bevan & Peter G M Dale, ‘Reginald de Lucy, son of Richard de Lucy, King’s Justiciar: New Perspectives.’ Foundations (2016) 8: 53-72.
Abstract
In the authors’ previous article on Richard de Lucy, chief Justiciar of Henry II, and his newly discovered daughter, Rose, it was stated that we were left with the implication that there may be other unrecognised children - in particular, Reginald de Lucy, who seemed to be clearly related to Richard. A recent find from manuscripts in the British Library has indeed confirmed Reginald as brother of Geoffrey de Lucy and thus son of Richard de Lucy. This article examines the evidence and discusses the implications for the wider family network, including that of Reginald’s little known daughter, Cecily, who the authors suggest was wife of Walter de Cherlecote, (progenitor of the Lucys of Charlecote), Roger de St John and Richard Mallore.
Cheers
Rosie
Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316).
John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299.
In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”.
John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from Richard de Lucy, the justiciar
For further details see Rosie Bevan & Peter G M Dale, ‘Reginald de Lucy, son of Richard de Lucy, King’s Justiciar: New Perspectives.’ Foundations (2016) 8: 53-72.
Abstract
In the authors’ previous article on Richard de Lucy, chief Justiciar of Henry II, and his newly discovered daughter, Rose, it was stated that we were left with the implication that there may be other unrecognised children - in particular, Reginald de Lucy, who seemed to be clearly related to Richard. A recent find from manuscripts in the British Library has indeed confirmed Reginald as brother of Geoffrey de Lucy and thus son of Richard de Lucy. This article examines the evidence and discusses the implications for the wider family network, including that of Reginald’s little known daughter, Cecily, who the authors suggest was wife of Walter de Cherlecote, (progenitor of the Lucys of Charlecote), Roger de St John and Richard Mallore.
Cheers
Rosie
Patricia A. Junkin via
May 30, 2016, 7:29:01 PM5/30/16
to rbevan, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Dear Rosie,
I very much appreciate this information. My records indicate that Odo Dammartin received a moiety of the manor of Lagham (in Walkhamsted, Surrey) in marriage with the daughter of Reginald de Lucy and sister of Richard de Lucy. This Richard then split the manor between Dammartin and the St. Johns. While this property lies next to Burstowe, Horley and Horne and records imply that an Edward St. John of Lagham was the father of Elizabeth who married Thomas Slyfield, I am beginning to be convinced that Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward St. John by Alice in the Petworth St. John line.
The St. Johns of Lagham clearly are involved with the families in this area, on the death of John St. John in 1349, Katherine Sai, his wife, and his son Roger sold their Surrey properties to Nicholas Louvaine, as did my Richard de Burstowe. John and Katherine had several children including William and Nicholas. The mother of this John St. John was Margery Gyse who married secondly, Sir John de Ifield.
Pat
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
I very much appreciate this information. My records indicate that Odo Dammartin received a moiety of the manor of Lagham (in Walkhamsted, Surrey) in marriage with the daughter of Reginald de Lucy and sister of Richard de Lucy. This Richard then split the manor between Dammartin and the St. Johns. While this property lies next to Burstowe, Horley and Horne and records imply that an Edward St. John of Lagham was the father of Elizabeth who married Thomas Slyfield, I am beginning to be convinced that Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward St. John by Alice in the Petworth St. John line.
The St. Johns of Lagham clearly are involved with the families in this area, on the death of John St. John in 1349, Katherine Sai, his wife, and his son Roger sold their Surrey properties to Nicholas Louvaine, as did my Richard de Burstowe. John and Katherine had several children including William and Nicholas. The mother of this John St. John was Margery Gyse who married secondly, Sir John de Ifield.
Pat
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Douglas Richardson
May 30, 2016, 9:29:13 PM5/30/16
to
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote:
< Dear Mr Richardson
<
< Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de <St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316).
It is easy to confuse two men of the same name, John de Saint John, of Basing, and John de Saint John, of Lagham. Both appear to have been in Scotland in this time period.
< John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at < a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97),
< captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The < latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not
< summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299.
C.P. 4 (1916): 324; 11 (1949): 324 (sub Saint John) states that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was captured by the French in 1296 or 1297, and that he returned to England in 1297. He is stated in more than one source to have fought at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland in 1298. You state without source that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was not released by the French until 1299. That statement disagrees with every reliable source that I've checked.
< In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”.
The letter by Sir John de Saint John was written in August 1298 (not 1297 as you say), from a place called Langham. For a full transcript of this letter, see Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 2 (1870): 305–306. Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): xliii also dates the letter as being in 1298 and further identifies Langham as being Langholm in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, NOT Lageham, Surrey. This same date (1298) and the same identification of this locality is also provided in a well researched biography of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, in Howard de Walden, Some Feudal Lords & Their Seals (1903): 52–53 (biog. of John de St. John).
Just why you would change the date of the letter (1298) and the locality from Scotland to England is beyond me. Maybe you can explain your motives?
< John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common <descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from <Richard de Lucy, the justiciar.
Yes, it is true that the other Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, probably had a Despenser mother [Complete Peerage suggests this possibility]. If so, this would make him near kin to Sir John de Segrave, as you state. However, as I set out the evidence in my earlier post, I showed that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, would also be related to Sir John de Segrave, by their common descent from the Cantelowe family. This cross-cross of kinships between baronial families is quite common in this time period.
As far as which John de Saint John wrote the 1298 letter, both Gough, pg. 326, and Walden appear to think that it was Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. They could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Is there any other evidence to tell us the identity of the author of the 1298 letter?
Yes, I believe there is. In the 1298 letter, John de Saint John names not one, but two kinsmen, namely Sir John de Segrave and Sir Richard Siward, of Tibbers in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. There is a full biography of Sir Richard Siward published in Rogers, Book of Wallace 2 (1889): 320-323. Wallace says the following:
Sir Richard Siward was "son or grandson of Richard Siward, of the reign of Henry, possessed lands in Hampshire, at Northamptonshire, and in Tyndedale. He also held lands in the south of Scotland." END OF QUOTE.
Inasmuch as Sir Richard Siward's family held lands in Hampshire, this fact would tend to point that he was near related to Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, Hampshire, rather than Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, Surrey.
On the basis of the information cited above, I would identify the author of the 1298 letter as Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. His near kinship to Sir John de Segrave by the way of their common Cantelowe ancestry is near certain.
In any event, the letter by John de Saint John was not written in 1297 in Surrey as you claim, but in Scotland in 1298.
> Cheers
> Rosie
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote:
< Dear Mr Richardson
<
< Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de <St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316).
< John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at < a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97),
< captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The < latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not
< summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299.
< In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”.
Just why you would change the date of the letter (1298) and the locality from Scotland to England is beyond me. Maybe you can explain your motives?
< John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common <descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from <Richard de Lucy, the justiciar.
Yes, it is true that the other Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, probably had a Despenser mother [Complete Peerage suggests this possibility]. If so, this would make him near kin to Sir John de Segrave, as you state. However, as I set out the evidence in my earlier post, I showed that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, would also be related to Sir John de Segrave, by their common descent from the Cantelowe family. This cross-cross of kinships between baronial families is quite common in this time period.
As far as which John de Saint John wrote the 1298 letter, both Gough, pg. 326, and Walden appear to think that it was Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. They could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Is there any other evidence to tell us the identity of the author of the 1298 letter?
Yes, I believe there is. In the 1298 letter, John de Saint John names not one, but two kinsmen, namely Sir John de Segrave and Sir Richard Siward, of Tibbers in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. There is a full biography of Sir Richard Siward published in Rogers, Book of Wallace 2 (1889): 320-323. Wallace says the following:
Sir Richard Siward was "son or grandson of Richard Siward, of the reign of Henry, possessed lands in Hampshire, at Northamptonshire, and in Tyndedale. He also held lands in the south of Scotland." END OF QUOTE.
Inasmuch as Sir Richard Siward's family held lands in Hampshire, this fact would tend to point that he was near related to Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, Hampshire, rather than Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, Surrey.
On the basis of the information cited above, I would identify the author of the 1298 letter as Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. His near kinship to Sir John de Segrave by the way of their common Cantelowe ancestry is near certain.
In any event, the letter by John de Saint John was not written in 1297 in Surrey as you claim, but in Scotland in 1298.
> Cheers
> Rosie
Patricia Junkin via
May 30, 2016, 10:50:07 PM5/30/16
to Douglas Richardson, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Dear Douglas,
I am a bit confused by your post. Lagham in Godstone/Walkhamsted Surrey was the seat of that set of St Johns. There are other Langhams. I cannot understand the Seagrave connection. Is it through the Gyse, de Sai or other marriage? Was it a brother who married a Seagrave?
Thanks
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
I am a bit confused by your post. Lagham in Godstone/Walkhamsted Surrey was the seat of that set of St Johns. There are other Langhams. I cannot understand the Seagrave connection. Is it through the Gyse, de Sai or other marriage? Was it a brother who married a Seagrave?
Thanks
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Douglas Richardson
May 31, 2016, 3:21:06 PM5/31/16
to
Dear Matt ~
Thanks for your good post. Much appreciated.
After I made my post last night about the letter of John de Saint John, I found yet another reference to John de Saint John's Scottish letter in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 257. See the following weblink for Bain's abstract:
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofdocume02grea#page/256/mode/2up
Like Stevenson, Gough, and Walden, Bain dates the letter as being 27 August 1298. So far, so good.
The curious thing about Bain, though, is that he mentions that John de Saint John's letter named his cousin, Sir Richard Siward, but Bain makes no mention that Saint John's letter also mentioned his cousin, Sir John de Segrave. Odd.
I note that Bain states that the letter was written at Lochmaben (like TNA), whereas Stevenson, Gough, and Walden all place the letter as being written at Langham. Stevenson transcribed the full letter and stated it was written at Langham. Since he did a full transcript of the letter, I would tend to trust his statement. Be that as it may, Langham isn't even close in its lettering to Lochmaben, so I have trouble understanding how the two places can be confused by anyone. I have even more trouble understanding how Ms. Bevan can misread Langham or Lochmaben, both in Scotland, as being Lageham, Surrey. That's even stranger.
As far as the date of the letter is concerned, there is a discussion of John de Saint John, of Basing, and his time in Scotland found in Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133. Santiuste says the following:
"The building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300 was intended to be supported by other activity. After the removal of the English royal army from south-western Scotland it now fell upon Edward's lieutenant in the area, Sir John de Saint John, 'to bring to a good end his [Edward's] business in these parts'. St. John had been captured in Edward's service in Gascony, as we have seen, and spent almost a year as a prisoner of the French. He was not left to rot, however, because he was a men whom Edward greatly valued. After struggling to raise sufficient funds, Edward eventually paid a large ransom to obtain St. John's release. St. John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign, and in January 1300 he was appointed Warden of the Western March. His remit included responsibility for military affairs in three English counties (Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire), as well as in much of south-western Scotland (at least in theory)." END OF QUOTE.
Santiuste dates the building project at Dumfries to the year 1300. If so, I assume this would peg the letter of Sir John de Saint John to the year 1300, not 1298 and not 1302. I say that because Saint John's letter specifically refers to a building effort at Tibbers in Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward. If this was part of the building project mentioned by Santiuste, then 1300 would be the correct year for the letter.
As for the original source of the Saint John letter, Bain gives the following reference for this letter: Tower Miscellaneous Rolls, No. 474.
As far as when John de Saint John returned from being a prisoner in France, Complete Peerage says it took place in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states it took place in 1299. But Santiuste makes it clear that Saint John was in Scotland in time for the Falkirk campaign in 1298, which statement agrees with all the other authorities that I've consulted. I assume Ms. Bevan got her date 1299 from Dictionary of National Biography, but, if so, the date is obviously wrong.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:14:33 AM UTC-6, Tompkins wrote:
< If Stevenson's transcription of the letter is compared with its catalogue
< entry at the National Archives some oddities appear. Stevenson says it was
< dated at Langham on 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' and places it in [1298],
< whereas the TNA catalogue says it dated at Lochmaben on Tuesday before the
< beheading of St John Baptist and places it in [? 1302 Aug]. These
< discrepancies will have to be resolved before the year in which the letter
< was written can be determined.
<
< It does seem clear that the letter was written in Scotland, though, as the <letter authorises Ralph de Manton to stand in for St John on 'Merkedy prochain <après la feste Seint Bartelmew,' which cannot have been more than a couple of <days after the date of the letter. If the date given by TNA is correct, then <in any year the day of the meeting (Wednesday after the feast of St <Bartholmew) will always be the day immediately after the date of the letter <(Tuesday before the decollation of St John Baptist), so it must have been <written within a day's ride of Roxburgh (which makes Langholm, 40 miles from <Roxburgh, seem a bit more likely than Lochmaben, a good 55 or 60 miles away <over rough hill tracks).
<
< If the date of the letter really was written as 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' <then at least one year can be ruled out, as in 1299 the Wednesday after St <Bartholomew fell on 26 August - the day before the date of the letter. In <1298 it fell on 27 August itself, which would probably have made it impossible <for Ralph de Manton to get to Roxburgh in time for the meeting. Only in 1297 <and 1300-1302 did the date of the meeting fall after 27 August (in 1297 on the <following day, 28 August, and in 1300, 1301 and 1302 on 31st, 30th and 29th, <successively).
<
< Matt Tompkins
Thanks for your good post. Much appreciated.
After I made my post last night about the letter of John de Saint John, I found yet another reference to John de Saint John's Scottish letter in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 257. See the following weblink for Bain's abstract:
https://archive.org/stream/calendarofdocume02grea#page/256/mode/2up
Like Stevenson, Gough, and Walden, Bain dates the letter as being 27 August 1298. So far, so good.
The curious thing about Bain, though, is that he mentions that John de Saint John's letter named his cousin, Sir Richard Siward, but Bain makes no mention that Saint John's letter also mentioned his cousin, Sir John de Segrave. Odd.
I note that Bain states that the letter was written at Lochmaben (like TNA), whereas Stevenson, Gough, and Walden all place the letter as being written at Langham. Stevenson transcribed the full letter and stated it was written at Langham. Since he did a full transcript of the letter, I would tend to trust his statement. Be that as it may, Langham isn't even close in its lettering to Lochmaben, so I have trouble understanding how the two places can be confused by anyone. I have even more trouble understanding how Ms. Bevan can misread Langham or Lochmaben, both in Scotland, as being Lageham, Surrey. That's even stranger.
As far as the date of the letter is concerned, there is a discussion of John de Saint John, of Basing, and his time in Scotland found in Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133. Santiuste says the following:
"The building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300 was intended to be supported by other activity. After the removal of the English royal army from south-western Scotland it now fell upon Edward's lieutenant in the area, Sir John de Saint John, 'to bring to a good end his [Edward's] business in these parts'. St. John had been captured in Edward's service in Gascony, as we have seen, and spent almost a year as a prisoner of the French. He was not left to rot, however, because he was a men whom Edward greatly valued. After struggling to raise sufficient funds, Edward eventually paid a large ransom to obtain St. John's release. St. John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign, and in January 1300 he was appointed Warden of the Western March. His remit included responsibility for military affairs in three English counties (Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire), as well as in much of south-western Scotland (at least in theory)." END OF QUOTE.
Santiuste dates the building project at Dumfries to the year 1300. If so, I assume this would peg the letter of Sir John de Saint John to the year 1300, not 1298 and not 1302. I say that because Saint John's letter specifically refers to a building effort at Tibbers in Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward. If this was part of the building project mentioned by Santiuste, then 1300 would be the correct year for the letter.
As for the original source of the Saint John letter, Bain gives the following reference for this letter: Tower Miscellaneous Rolls, No. 474.
As far as when John de Saint John returned from being a prisoner in France, Complete Peerage says it took place in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states it took place in 1299. But Santiuste makes it clear that Saint John was in Scotland in time for the Falkirk campaign in 1298, which statement agrees with all the other authorities that I've consulted. I assume Ms. Bevan got her date 1299 from Dictionary of National Biography, but, if so, the date is obviously wrong.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< If Stevenson's transcription of the letter is compared with its catalogue
< entry at the National Archives some oddities appear. Stevenson says it was
< dated at Langham on 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' and places it in [1298],
< whereas the TNA catalogue says it dated at Lochmaben on Tuesday before the
< beheading of St John Baptist and places it in [? 1302 Aug]. These
< discrepancies will have to be resolved before the year in which the letter
< was written can be determined.
<
< It does seem clear that the letter was written in Scotland, though, as the <letter authorises Ralph de Manton to stand in for St John on 'Merkedy prochain <après la feste Seint Bartelmew,' which cannot have been more than a couple of <days after the date of the letter. If the date given by TNA is correct, then <in any year the day of the meeting (Wednesday after the feast of St <Bartholmew) will always be the day immediately after the date of the letter <(Tuesday before the decollation of St John Baptist), so it must have been <written within a day's ride of Roxburgh (which makes Langholm, 40 miles from <Roxburgh, seem a bit more likely than Lochmaben, a good 55 or 60 miles away <over rough hill tracks).
<
< If the date of the letter really was written as 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' <then at least one year can be ruled out, as in 1299 the Wednesday after St <Bartholomew fell on 26 August - the day before the date of the letter. In <1298 it fell on 27 August itself, which would probably have made it impossible <for Ralph de Manton to get to Roxburgh in time for the meeting. Only in 1297 <and 1300-1302 did the date of the meeting fall after 27 August (in 1297 on the <following day, 28 August, and in 1300, 1301 and 1302 on 31st, 30th and 29th, <successively).
<
< Matt Tompkins
Douglas Richardson
May 31, 2016, 5:22:57 PM5/31/16
to
Dear Matt ~
I suspect that the National Archives dated the letter of Sir John de Saint John as 1302 at Lochmaben, because Sir John stated in the letter that he was then ill, and because he reportedly died at Lochmaben Castle in Dumfriesshire in Scotland in 1302, as per the Annales Londonienses:
Stubbs, Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I & Edward II 1 (1882): 128 (Annales Londonienses sub A.D. 1302: “Eodem anno, die Jovis proximo ante festum Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ [6 September], obiit dominus Johannes de Sancto Johanne apud Lohemaban in partibus Scotiæ.”).
However, if the letter itself states it was written at Langham (as transcribed by Stevenson), obviously someone jumped to a false conclusion at the National Archives.
In a related matter, I just checked a list of participants at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 in Scotland as recorded in the heraldic source, The Falkirk Roll. According to Brian Timms, it is accepted that this roll was composed shortly after the battle. The roll may be found at the following weblink:
www.briantimms.fr/Rolls/falkirk/falkirk.html
Surprisingly, the person who is listed on the battle roll is John de Saint John, the son [i.e., the son of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing]:
H 106 John de St John, the son
Arms: Argent on a chief gules two mullets or a label azure
The above evidence does not preclude the elder Sir John de Saint John from being in Scotland in 1298, only that he didn't fight at the Battle of Falkirk.
I suspect that the National Archives dated the letter of Sir John de Saint John as 1302 at Lochmaben, because Sir John stated in the letter that he was then ill, and because he reportedly died at Lochmaben Castle in Dumfriesshire in Scotland in 1302, as per the Annales Londonienses:
Stubbs, Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I & Edward II 1 (1882): 128 (Annales Londonienses sub A.D. 1302: “Eodem anno, die Jovis proximo ante festum Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ [6 September], obiit dominus Johannes de Sancto Johanne apud Lohemaban in partibus Scotiæ.”).
However, if the letter itself states it was written at Langham (as transcribed by Stevenson), obviously someone jumped to a false conclusion at the National Archives.
In a related matter, I just checked a list of participants at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 in Scotland as recorded in the heraldic source, The Falkirk Roll. According to Brian Timms, it is accepted that this roll was composed shortly after the battle. The roll may be found at the following weblink:
www.briantimms.fr/Rolls/falkirk/falkirk.html
Surprisingly, the person who is listed on the battle roll is John de Saint John, the son [i.e., the son of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing]:
H 106 John de St John, the son
Arms: Argent on a chief gules two mullets or a label azure
The above evidence does not preclude the elder Sir John de Saint John from being in Scotland in 1298, only that he didn't fight at the Battle of Falkirk.
Peter Stewart via
May 31, 2016, 7:17:35 PM5/31/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 1/06/2016 5:21 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote:
> Dear Matt ~
>
> Thanks for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> After I made my post last night about the letter of John de Saint John, I found yet another reference to John de Saint John's Scottish letter in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 257. See the following weblink for Bain's abstract:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/calendarofdocume02grea#page/256/mode/2up
>
> Like Stevenson, Gough, and Walden, Bain dates the letter as being 27 August 1298. So far, so good.
>
> The curious thing about Bain, though, is that he mentions that John de Saint John's letter named his cousin, Sir Richard Siward, but Bain makes no mention that Saint John's letter also mentioned his cousin, Sir John de Segrave. Odd.
>
> I note that Bain states that the letter was written at Lochmaben (like TNA), whereas Stevenson, Gough, and Walden all place the letter as being written at Langham. Stevenson transcribed the full letter and stated it was written at Langham. Since he did a full transcript of the letter, I would tend to trust his statement. Be that as it may, Langham isn't even close in its lettering to Lochmaben, so I have trouble understanding how the two places can be confused by anyone. I have even more trouble understanding how Ms. Bevan can misread Langham or Lochmaben, both in Scotland, as being Lageham, Surrey. That's even stranger.
are absurdly thrashing about to get solved for you by others (as is your
habit) while casting aspersions on the "motives" of anyone who disagrees
with you (as also is your habit).
Why not just get yourself a copy from the National Archives?
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C12228973
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
May 31, 2016, 7:20:05 PM5/31/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
This is getting stranger and stranger.
Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Saint John returned from being held a prisoner in France in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states he returned to England in 1299.
Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper (1846): 251 includes the following record dated 1298:
“1863. Letters Patent from the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester — Relative to giving hostages for the delivery of John de Saint John, detained in the prison of the King of France. Gloucester, 27th May, 1298.”)."
The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=qDxKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251
If I understand the nature of this record, it seems that John de Saint John was released from prison in France about 27 May 1298, upon giving hostages for payment of his ransom. If 1298 was the correct date of his release, this might explain why Sir John de Saint John wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland two months later in July 1298.
This is getting stranger and stranger.
Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Saint John returned from being held a prisoner in France in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states he returned to England in 1299.
Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper (1846): 251 includes the following record dated 1298:
“1863. Letters Patent from the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester — Relative to giving hostages for the delivery of John de Saint John, detained in the prison of the King of France. Gloucester, 27th May, 1298.”)."
The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=qDxKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251
If I understand the nature of this record, it seems that John de Saint John was released from prison in France about 27 May 1298, upon giving hostages for payment of his ransom. If 1298 was the correct date of his release, this might explain why Sir John de Saint John wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland two months later in July 1298.
Peter Stewart via
May 31, 2016, 7:44:03 PM5/31/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
that era people sometimes trusted the word of others without imputing
ulterior "motives" at the first hint of disagreement.
Peter Stewart
rbe...@fernside.co.nz
May 31, 2016, 7:52:35 PM5/31/16
to
The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298.
It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw.
From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that.
It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or.
John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while.
As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter.
Cheers
Rosie
It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw.
From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that.
It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or.
John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while.
As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter.
Cheers
Rosie
al...@mindspring.com
May 31, 2016, 8:08:29 PM5/31/16
to
As I understand it, the relationship of John de St John and his "cousin" Sir Richard de Siward is:
John de St John of Basing d. 1302 m. Alice filia Reginald daughter of Sir Reginald FitzHerbert (d. 1286) son of Piers FitzHerbert and Alice de Warkworth.
The later couple were also parents of Lucy FitzHerbert who m. William de Ros of Helmsley (d. abt 1264). They were the parents of Alice de Ros who m. John "Red Comyn" Comyn (d/ aft 1273)who had a daughter Mary who married first Sir Simon Fraser (d. 1291) and second Sir Richard Siward.
At least that is all I have found so far...... (based on secondary sources with the usual caveats).
Doug Smith
Douglas Richardson
May 31, 2016, 8:32:59 PM5/31/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
The 1298 record I cited earlier withstanding, it appears that Sir John de Saint John was back in England by 7 July 1297. So Complete Peerage has the correct date of his return to England, namely 1297.
Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 820 shows that John de Saint John, of Basing, was summoned to perform military service in parts beyond the sea on 7 July 1297. Likewise he was summoned to a military council at Rochester in Sept. 1297, and for military service in Flanders in Dec. 1297.
The above source may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JKqJOnq9anQC&pg=PA820
As for the 1298 item I cited earlier, I believe that the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester was being levied an assessment for the ransom of Sir John de Saint John. A similar item is recorded in Macray, Chronicon Abbatiæ Rameseiensis (Rolls Ser.) (1886): xlviii, 388. The editor Mr. Macray says that item should date to 1297 or 1298.
The 1298 record I cited earlier withstanding, it appears that Sir John de Saint John was back in England by 7 July 1297. So Complete Peerage has the correct date of his return to England, namely 1297.
Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 820 shows that John de Saint John, of Basing, was summoned to perform military service in parts beyond the sea on 7 July 1297. Likewise he was summoned to a military council at Rochester in Sept. 1297, and for military service in Flanders in Dec. 1297.
The above source may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JKqJOnq9anQC&pg=PA820
As for the 1298 item I cited earlier, I believe that the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester was being levied an assessment for the ransom of Sir John de Saint John. A similar item is recorded in Macray, Chronicon Abbatiæ Rameseiensis (Rolls Ser.) (1886): xlviii, 388. The editor Mr. Macray says that item should date to 1297 or 1298.
rbe...@fernside.co.nz
May 31, 2016, 9:18:18 PM5/31/16
to
If you take the time to look up the references to these entries you will find that it is not specified whether the elder or junior John de St John is meant. The writs can only have been addressed to the younger John.
John de St John would only have been released once the ransom was paid. When that occurred has not been shown by the records you have produced.
R
John de St John would only have been released once the ransom was paid. When that occurred has not been shown by the records you have produced.
R
Patricia Junkin via
May 31, 2016, 9:42:55 PM5/31/16
to rbevan, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I have seen Lagham spelled Lageham and Langhams, all pertaining to Godstone.
Sent from my iPhone
Tompkins
Jun 1, 2016, 4:58:12 AM6/1/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
From: rbevan via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 01 June 2016 00:52
The letter can't have been written in Lagham in Surrey, Rosie, because it related to a meeting due to be held in Roxburgh only 0-4 days after the letter's date (depending on whether the date is xxvij jour de Auguste or Tuesday before the decollation of St John the Baptist). It must have been written somewhere close to Roxburgh. Whether it was Langham, probably meaning Langholm, or Lochmaben can only be determined by looking at the original.
Matt
Sent: 01 June 2016 00:52
>
> The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298.
>
> It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw.
>
> From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that.
>
> It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or.
>
> John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while.
>
> As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter.
>
> Cheers
Rosie
>
-------------------------------
> The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298.
>
> It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw.
>
> From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that.
>
> It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or.
>
> John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while.
>
> As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter.
>
> Cheers
Rosie
>
The letter can't have been written in Lagham in Surrey, Rosie, because it related to a meeting due to be held in Roxburgh only 0-4 days after the letter's date (depending on whether the date is xxvij jour de Auguste or Tuesday before the decollation of St John the Baptist). It must have been written somewhere close to Roxburgh. Whether it was Langham, probably meaning Langholm, or Lochmaben can only be determined by looking at the original.
Matt
Douglas Richardson
Jun 1, 2016, 4:29:27 PM6/1/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 294 makes it clear that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was still a prisoner in France on 18 July 1297.
Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 303 suggests Saint John was back in England on 16 August 1297, when the king granted license for "Walter de Everlee to enfeoff John de Sancto Johanne the elder of the bailiwick of the forestership of Peinbere and Everlee, and of land to the value of 10 marks a year in the manors of Pembere and Everlee, co. Southampton, which he holds in chief."
As to when Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, first appeared in Scotland, there is a long discussion of the English military efforts in Dumfriesshire by King Edward I published in the book, M'Dowall, History of the Burgh of Dumfries (1867). This book may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=MD0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover
On page 69, the author makes the first mention of John de Saint John in Scotland:
"For the purpose of keeping it in check, Lord Clifford proceeded from Carlisle into Dumfriesshire, and devasted the country, putting many of its suspected inhabitants to death ... Soon after Clifford had finished his cruel mission, John de St. John became keeper of the district - his rule extending southwards to Carlisle and eastwards to Roxburghshire ... St. John, while pretty safe in the strong Castle of Dumfries, was liable to be every now and then alarmed by rumours of risings, true or false, against his authority. We learn from the wardrobe accounts of Edward I., that St. John was allowed forty caparisoned horses, the maintenance of which was 5 3s. 6d. a day; and that for his personal following he had a knight banneret, six knights, and thirty esquires, whose pay was from 4s. a day to 1 s. - large sums, though seemingly small, since their value with reference to all commodities was at least ten times as great as the same amounts at the present day." END OF QUOTE.
The author doesn't provide a date for these events, but the book, Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 187 states that ""in the 25th Edw. I" [i.e., 1296-1297] Robert de Clifford "was sent with a hundred men at arms and twenty thousand foot from Carlisle to plunder in Scotland, and that after much slaughter he returned with considerable booty on Christmas eve." END OF QUOTE.
The date of this raid is specifically dated to 1297, by Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): pg. 100.
As such, presuming M'Dowall had his facts correctly stated, Sir John de Saint John was present in Scotland "soon after" Clifford's return from his raid on Christmas eve 1297. This time frame would agree with the Patent Rolls which suggests that John de Saint John had returned to England from France by 16 August 1297.
As far as the dating of the letter of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, we know from his letter that he was asking for help for construction then ongoing at Tibbers, Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward.
I earlier noted that Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133 referred to "the building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300."
On page 80 under events for the year 1300, M'Dowall provides the following information:
"It was part of Edward's plan to strengthen all the fortresses he already possessed, and increase their garrisons ... Accordingly, the breaches made in Lochmaben Castle were filled up, the Castle of Dumfries was put in good repair, and enlarged by the erection of a large peel, or wooden tower." END OF QUOTE
If we assume that the construction at Tibbers was part of King Edward's plan to strengthen his Scottish fortresses in Dumfriesshire, then the letter of John de Saint John would presumably date to the year 1300.
Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 294 makes it clear that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was still a prisoner in France on 18 July 1297.
Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 303 suggests Saint John was back in England on 16 August 1297, when the king granted license for "Walter de Everlee to enfeoff John de Sancto Johanne the elder of the bailiwick of the forestership of Peinbere and Everlee, and of land to the value of 10 marks a year in the manors of Pembere and Everlee, co. Southampton, which he holds in chief."
As to when Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, first appeared in Scotland, there is a long discussion of the English military efforts in Dumfriesshire by King Edward I published in the book, M'Dowall, History of the Burgh of Dumfries (1867). This book may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=MD0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover
On page 69, the author makes the first mention of John de Saint John in Scotland:
"For the purpose of keeping it in check, Lord Clifford proceeded from Carlisle into Dumfriesshire, and devasted the country, putting many of its suspected inhabitants to death ... Soon after Clifford had finished his cruel mission, John de St. John became keeper of the district - his rule extending southwards to Carlisle and eastwards to Roxburghshire ... St. John, while pretty safe in the strong Castle of Dumfries, was liable to be every now and then alarmed by rumours of risings, true or false, against his authority. We learn from the wardrobe accounts of Edward I., that St. John was allowed forty caparisoned horses, the maintenance of which was 5 3s. 6d. a day; and that for his personal following he had a knight banneret, six knights, and thirty esquires, whose pay was from 4s. a day to 1 s. - large sums, though seemingly small, since their value with reference to all commodities was at least ten times as great as the same amounts at the present day." END OF QUOTE.
The author doesn't provide a date for these events, but the book, Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 187 states that ""in the 25th Edw. I" [i.e., 1296-1297] Robert de Clifford "was sent with a hundred men at arms and twenty thousand foot from Carlisle to plunder in Scotland, and that after much slaughter he returned with considerable booty on Christmas eve." END OF QUOTE.
The date of this raid is specifically dated to 1297, by Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): pg. 100.
As such, presuming M'Dowall had his facts correctly stated, Sir John de Saint John was present in Scotland "soon after" Clifford's return from his raid on Christmas eve 1297. This time frame would agree with the Patent Rolls which suggests that John de Saint John had returned to England from France by 16 August 1297.
As far as the dating of the letter of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, we know from his letter that he was asking for help for construction then ongoing at Tibbers, Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward.
I earlier noted that Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133 referred to "the building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300."
On page 80 under events for the year 1300, M'Dowall provides the following information:
"It was part of Edward's plan to strengthen all the fortresses he already possessed, and increase their garrisons ... Accordingly, the breaches made in Lochmaben Castle were filled up, the Castle of Dumfries was put in good repair, and enlarged by the erection of a large peel, or wooden tower." END OF QUOTE
If we assume that the construction at Tibbers was part of King Edward's plan to strengthen his Scottish fortresses in Dumfriesshire, then the letter of John de Saint John would presumably date to the year 1300.
rbe...@fernside.co.nz
Jun 1, 2016, 7:36:06 PM6/1/16
to
Thanks Matt
Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original.
That John de St John of Basing was incarcerated in Paris until September 1299 is indicated by various contemporary sources.
Bemont’s Roles Gascons, cites Flores Historiarum III:299, saying that John de St John was taken prisoner on 2 February 1297 near Bonnut and kept a prisoner in Paris. As stipulated by terms in the treaty of Vyve-Sant-Bavon in 1299, John de Baliol was to be released by the King of England first, in exchange for John de St John and his companions.
https://archive.org/stream/rlesgascons03mich#page/n69/mode/2up
Flores Historiarum, III:299 under the year 1299 relates that Margaret sister of Philip IV arrived in Dover on the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 8th) for her marriage to Edward I and was married shortly afterwards in Canterbury. John Baliol the king of the Scots, being held in custody by the king of England, was allowed to leave prison, and went to the king of France. When the king saw him, he released John de St John and his companions who had been kept in prison a long time and delivered them as quickly as possible under the condition of the treaty.
https://archive.org/stream/floreshistoriaru03pari#page/298/mode/2up
This means effectively John de St John had remained in prison for a good 19 months – hence the phrase, ”in carcere suo diu retentos”.
This chronology is reiterated by Nicholas Trivet, a contemporary of Edward I in his Annales, p.376
Under the year 1299 on the Feast of the translation of St Thomas the Martyr (12 July) Trivet relates that the Pope interceded on behalf of John Baliol to ensure Baliol’s release, after which prisoners held by both kings were to be released according to the terms agreed under the truce.
https://archive.org/stream/fnicholaitrivet00socigoog#page/n407/mode/2up
Rishanger’s Gesta Edwardi Primi, p. 415 relates a similar chronology that Edward I married Margaret after which John de St John, Aimery de St Amand and other English prisoners were released.
https://archive.org/stream/willelmirishange00rish#page/414/mode/2up
Cheers
Rosie
Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original.
That John de St John of Basing was incarcerated in Paris until September 1299 is indicated by various contemporary sources.
Bemont’s Roles Gascons, cites Flores Historiarum III:299, saying that John de St John was taken prisoner on 2 February 1297 near Bonnut and kept a prisoner in Paris. As stipulated by terms in the treaty of Vyve-Sant-Bavon in 1299, John de Baliol was to be released by the King of England first, in exchange for John de St John and his companions.
https://archive.org/stream/rlesgascons03mich#page/n69/mode/2up
Flores Historiarum, III:299 under the year 1299 relates that Margaret sister of Philip IV arrived in Dover on the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 8th) for her marriage to Edward I and was married shortly afterwards in Canterbury. John Baliol the king of the Scots, being held in custody by the king of England, was allowed to leave prison, and went to the king of France. When the king saw him, he released John de St John and his companions who had been kept in prison a long time and delivered them as quickly as possible under the condition of the treaty.
https://archive.org/stream/floreshistoriaru03pari#page/298/mode/2up
This means effectively John de St John had remained in prison for a good 19 months – hence the phrase, ”in carcere suo diu retentos”.
This chronology is reiterated by Nicholas Trivet, a contemporary of Edward I in his Annales, p.376
Under the year 1299 on the Feast of the translation of St Thomas the Martyr (12 July) Trivet relates that the Pope interceded on behalf of John Baliol to ensure Baliol’s release, after which prisoners held by both kings were to be released according to the terms agreed under the truce.
https://archive.org/stream/fnicholaitrivet00socigoog#page/n407/mode/2up
Rishanger’s Gesta Edwardi Primi, p. 415 relates a similar chronology that Edward I married Margaret after which John de St John, Aimery de St Amand and other English prisoners were released.
https://archive.org/stream/willelmirishange00rish#page/414/mode/2up
Cheers
Rosie
Peter Stewart via
Jun 1, 2016, 7:51:19 PM6/1/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 2/06/2016 6:29 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 294 makes it clear that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was still a prisoner in France on 18 July 1297.
>
> Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 303 suggests Saint John was back in England on 16 August 1297, when the king granted license for "Walter de Everlee to enfeoff John de Sancto Johanne the elder of the bailiwick of the forestership of Peinbere and Everlee, and of land to the value of 10 marks a year in the manors of Pembere and Everlee, co. Southampton, which he holds in chief."
>
> As to when Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, first appeared in Scotland, there is a long discussion of the English military efforts in Dumfriesshire by King Edward I published in the book, M'Dowall, History of the Burgh of Dumfries (1867). This book may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=MD0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover
>
> On page 69, the author makes the first mention of John de Saint John in Scotland:
>
> "For the purpose of keeping it in check, Lord Clifford proceeded from Carlisle into Dumfriesshire, and devasted the country, putting many of its suspected inhabitants to death ... Soon after Clifford had finished his cruel mission, John de St. John became keeper of the district - his rule extending southwards to Carlisle and eastwards to Roxburghshire ... St. John, while pretty safe in the strong Castle of Dumfries, was liable to be every now and then alarmed by rumours of risings, true or false, against his authority. We learn from the wardrobe accounts of Edward I., that St. John was allowed forty caparisoned horses, the maintenance of which was 5 3s. 6d. a day; and that for his personal following he had a knight banneret, six knights, and thirty esquires, whose pay was from 4s. a day to 1 s. - large sums, though seemingly small, since their value with reference to all commodities was at least ten times as great as the same amounts at the present day." END OF QUOTE.
>
> The author doesn't provide a date for these events, but the book, Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 187 states that ""in the 25th Edw. I" [i.e., 1296-1297] Robert de Clifford "was sent with a hundred men at arms and twenty thousand foot from Carlisle to plunder in Scotland, and that after much slaughter he returned with considerable booty on Christmas eve." END OF QUOTE.
>
> The date of this raid is specifically dated to 1297, by Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): pg. 100.
>
> As such, presuming M'Dowall had his facts correctly stated, Sir John de Saint John was present in Scotland "soon after" Clifford's return from his raid on Christmas eve 1297. This time frame would agree with the Patent Rolls which suggests that John de Saint John had returned to England from France by 16 August 1297.
secondary sources appear in your published works?
In light of Rosie Bevan's post today we can assume that it never will
again, anyway.
And from long experience we can assume that your readers will never find
out where you learned the facts...
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Jun 1, 2016, 10:01:08 PM6/1/16
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
There is an interesting discussion of the capture of John de Saint John in France published in Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft 2 (1868): 280-283, which source may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IFlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA280
Here are three more sources which concern the ransom and imprisonment of John de Saint John in France. If the first and second sources are to be trusted, the king was pressuring the ten wealthiest monasteries of England in 1298 to raise the ransom of John de Saint John in order to provide for his release.
1. Archaelogical Journal 67 (1910): 261 (“On 8th May, 1298, within six weeks of the fire, the abbot and convent of Westminster bound themselves by a bond to certain foreign merchants to pay £250 towards the ransom of John de Saint John, then a prisoner in France.”).
2. First Report of the Deputy Keeper (1840): 58 (“Roll dated 26 Edw. I [A.D. 1297–8] entitled ‘Litteræ obligatoriæ quorundum Abbatum factæ diversis mercatoribus super deliberatione Johannis de Sancto Johanne.'”).
3. Widmore, History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster, commonly called Westminster Abbey (1751): 80-81 (“In the year 1298, the abbot and convent [of Westminster] gave bond for two hundred and fifty pounds toward the ransom of a noble person, John de Saint John, governor or general for the king in Aquitain, who, in endeavouring to relieve a castle besieged by the French, had been taken prisoner, upon whom the French had set an excessive sum, such as he himself had not the means to raise ... It was the king's recommending the matter to ten of the richest monasteries, that the house thus engaged toward the ransom of this nobleman : the like was also done by the abbies of Glastenbury, Peterborough, Evesham, and Saint Edmondbury, but refused by those of Ramsey, Abingdon, Waltham, St. Albans and Hyde.”).
These records would appear to refute Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133, who alleges that John de Saint John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign in 1298. There is no evidence that John de Saint John was present at that battle.
There is an interesting discussion of the capture of John de Saint John in France published in Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft 2 (1868): 280-283, which source may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IFlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA280
Here are three more sources which concern the ransom and imprisonment of John de Saint John in France. If the first and second sources are to be trusted, the king was pressuring the ten wealthiest monasteries of England in 1298 to raise the ransom of John de Saint John in order to provide for his release.
1. Archaelogical Journal 67 (1910): 261 (“On 8th May, 1298, within six weeks of the fire, the abbot and convent of Westminster bound themselves by a bond to certain foreign merchants to pay £250 towards the ransom of John de Saint John, then a prisoner in France.”).
2. First Report of the Deputy Keeper (1840): 58 (“Roll dated 26 Edw. I [A.D. 1297–8] entitled ‘Litteræ obligatoriæ quorundum Abbatum factæ diversis mercatoribus super deliberatione Johannis de Sancto Johanne.'”).
3. Widmore, History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster, commonly called Westminster Abbey (1751): 80-81 (“In the year 1298, the abbot and convent [of Westminster] gave bond for two hundred and fifty pounds toward the ransom of a noble person, John de Saint John, governor or general for the king in Aquitain, who, in endeavouring to relieve a castle besieged by the French, had been taken prisoner, upon whom the French had set an excessive sum, such as he himself had not the means to raise ... It was the king's recommending the matter to ten of the richest monasteries, that the house thus engaged toward the ransom of this nobleman : the like was also done by the abbies of Glastenbury, Peterborough, Evesham, and Saint Edmondbury, but refused by those of Ramsey, Abingdon, Waltham, St. Albans and Hyde.”).
These records would appear to refute Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133, who alleges that John de Saint John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign in 1298. There is no evidence that John de Saint John was present at that battle.
Peter Stewart via
Jun 1, 2016, 10:44:53 PM6/1/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
in July 1298 - apart from the sources Rosie Bevan has given you, we know
from Philippe IV's treasury accounts that a stipend was being paid for
keeping St. John in custody at Corbeil and Paris in the summer of 1298.
Do you ever bother to track down current secondary works on a subject of
interest, and follow leads from these to primary sources, or do you
actually prefer to rummage for the obsolete guff you keep quoting here
at length?
Peter Stewart
Matt Tompkins
Jun 3, 2016, 4:16:12 AM6/3/16
to
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 00:36:06 UTC+1, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote:
> Thanks Matt
>
> Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original.
>
<snip>
> Thanks Matt
>
> Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original.
>
>
> Cheers
> Rosie
>
-------------------------
Thank you, Rosie. Derek Barrie, who wrote a 1991 thesis on the baronage under Edward I, also dated the letter to 1302, though for reasons for suggestive than conclusive: Derek A. Barrie, The 'Maiores Barones' in the second half of the reign of Edward I, (1290-1307), PhD thesis, university of St Andrews (1991), p. 143.
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594
Matt
Peter Stewart via
Jun 3, 2016, 6:19:47 AM6/3/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference
to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year,
points to 1302 as the correct date.'
St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long
after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after
10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on
Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too
ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in
that year.
We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St
John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September,
*Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292:
'[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To
Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the
elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October,
*Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96.
Peter Stewart
Tompkins
Jun 3, 2016, 10:57:43 AM6/3/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote:
>> Thank you, Rosie. Derek Barrie, who wrote a 1991 thesis on the baronage under Edward I, also dated the letter to 1302, though for reasons more suggestive than conclusive: Derek A. Barrie, The 'Maiores Barones' in the second half of the reign of Edward I, (1290-1307), PhD thesis, university of St Andrews (1991), p. 143.
>>
>> https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594
>>
-------------------------
From: Peter Stewart via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 03 June 2016 11:19
> I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt
is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference
to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year,
points to 1302 as the correct date.'
>
> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long
after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after
10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on
Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too
ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in
that year.
>
> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St
John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September,
*Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292:
'[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To
Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the
elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October,
*Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
-------------------------------
is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference
to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year,
points to 1302 as the correct date.'
>
> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long
after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after
10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on
Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too
ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in
that year.
>
> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St
John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September,
*Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292:
'[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To
Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the
elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October,
*Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
Surely we only know that the meeting he was too ill to attend was a few days before his death if we assume that the letter referring to the meeting was written in 1302. Isn't that circular logic?
The illness referred to in the letter might well have been the one which finished him off in 1302, but equally people can fall ill at several points in their lives, and not die until years later.
Matt Tompkins
Peter Stewart via
Jun 3, 2016, 7:30:41 PM6/3/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 4/06/2016 12:08 AM, Tomp...@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote:
> On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote:
>>>
>>> https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594
>>>
> -------------------------
> From: Peter Stewart via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
> Sent: 03 June 2016 11:19
>> I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt
> is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference
> to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year,
> points to 1302 as the correct date.'
>> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long
> after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after
> 10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on
> Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too
> ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in
> that year.
>> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St
> John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September,
> *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292:
> '[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To
> Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the
> elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October,
> *Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
> -------------------------------
> Surely we only know that the meeting he was too ill to attend was a few days before his death if we assume that the letter referring to the meeting was written in 1302. Isn't that circular logic?
>
> The illness referred to in the letter might well have been the one which finished him off in 1302, but equally people can fall ill at several points in their lives, and not die until years later.
>
>
Obviously - that's why I wrote that the case is "a bit stronger" than
> From: Peter Stewart via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
> Sent: 03 June 2016 11:19
>> I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt
> is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference
> to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year,
> points to 1302 as the correct date.'
>> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long
> after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after
> 10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on
> Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too
> ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in
> that year.
>> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St
> John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September,
> *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292:
> '[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To
> Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the
> elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October,
> *Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
> -------------------------------
> Surely we only know that the meeting he was too ill to attend was a few days before his death if we assume that the letter referring to the meeting was written in 1302. Isn't that circular logic?
>
> The illness referred to in the letter might well have been the one which finished him off in 1302, but equally people can fall ill at several points in their lives, and not die until years later.
>
>
implied by "death later that year".
I don't think you need to teach SGM readers to suck circumstantial eggs.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
Jun 4, 2016, 8:30:53 AM6/4/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 4/06/2016 9:30 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote:
>
> On 4/06/2016 12:08 AM, Tomp...@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote:
>> On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594
>>>>
from Sir John de St John dated at Lochmaben on 27 August authorising Sir
Ralph de Manton to stand in for him at Roxburgh was written in 1302
rather than in either of the alternative possible years (1300 and 1301)
when St John was warden of the Western march.
In 1300 Sir Roger de Kirkpatrick was made constable of Lochmaben castle
from 8 July to 19 November while Sir John de St John was absent with the
king's army, 'post recessum ejusdem domini Johannis de eisdem partibus
ad exercitum regis ... ab 8 die Julii usque 19 diem Novembr[is]', see
*Liber quotidianum contrarotulorum garderobae* (London, 1787) p. 140,
https://archive.org/stream/liberquotidianu00tophgoog#page/n218/mode/2up.
In 1301 on 27 August Sir John wrote to Sir Ralph de Manton asking him to
pay 'the money in arrear to him at Pentecost last, and also the money he
should have up to All Saints ... Written at Loughm[aben], the 27th day
of August', see *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. ii p.
309 no. 1218,
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924091754394#page/n375/mode/2up. Of
course we do not need to be told that it is possible to write two
letters on different matters to the same person on the same day without
cross-referencing, but what are the odds of this as well as that Sir
John fell ill for a second time almost exactly year later?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
Jun 4, 2016, 8:36:57 AM6/4/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 4/06/2016 10:30 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote:
>
> In 1300 Sir Roger de Kirkpatrick was made constable of Lochmaben castle
> from 8 July to 19 November while Sir John de St John was absent with the
> king's army, 'post recessum ejusdem domini Johannis de eisdem partibus
> ad exercitum regis ... ab 8 die Julii usque 19 diem Novembr[is]', see
> *Liber quotidianum contrarotulorum garderobae* (London, 1787) p. 140,
> https://archive.org/stream/liberquotidianu00tophgoog#page/n218/mode/2up.
>
>
quotidianum contrarotulatoris garderobae.
Peter Stewart
0 new messages