Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Parents of John de Crophill, Knt. (died 1383), of Bonnington (in Sutton Bonnington), Nottinghamshire
521 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Aug 29, 2014, 2:38:53 PM8/29/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage includes information on Sir John de Crophull (or Crophill), Knt. (died 1383), of Sutton Bonnington, Nottinghamshire, in several accounts, namely: 2 (1912): 196 (sub Blount); 7 (1929): 5-6 (sub Husee); and 12(2) (1959): 250-252 (sub Verdun). In each account, Sir John de Crophull is correctly stated to have married before 10 Sept. 1355 Margery de Verdun, widow of William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337), and Mark Husee, Knt. (died 1346), which Margery was daughter and co-heiress of Thebaud de Verdun, Knt., 2nd Lord Verdun, hereditary Constable of Ireland (died 1316), by his 1st wife, Maud, daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Lord Mortimer.
Sir John de Crophull and his wife, Margery de Verdun, had one son, Thomas de Crophull, ancestor of the Devereux and Parr families, as indicated by an ancient account of the Lacy family recorded at Tinturn Abbey:
"Margareta [de Verdon] iii. filia nupta fuit .... Hussy. Quo defuncto, nupta fuit iterum domino Willihelmo Blunt. Quo defuncto sine hærede de se, desponsata fuit tertio, domino Johanni Crophulle militi, et habuit exitum Thomam Crophulle qui disponsavit Sibillam filiam domini Johannis de la Beere, de quibus Agnes nupta domino Waltero Deveros militi. De quibus Walterus, Johannes, Richardus, Thomas, Elizabetha, et Margareta. Quo quidem domino Waltero Deveros defuncto, dicta Agnes nupta fuit iterum Johanni Parr domino de Kyrkeby in Kendall. De quibus Thomas Parr, et Elizab. soror ejus sine hærede de se defuncta." [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 5 (1825): 270 (Abbey of Tinturn -- Lacy Gen.].
Curiously, none of the Complete Peerage accounts identify the parentage of Sir John de Crophull. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull) correctly states that Sir John de Crophull was the son of a certain Ralph de Crophull:
"Ralph de Crophull had committed to him the counties of Nottingham and Derby, to farm the issues thereof, during the king's pleasure. Also, in the 9th of the same reign, he had custody of the counties of Salop and Stafford, with the castle of Stafford committed to his case; and, in 12 Edw. II., was appointed escheator on this side Trent. In 1 Edw. III. he was possessed, along with Maud his wife, of Bonyngton and Sutton, in the county of Nottingham, with view of frank-pledge and other liberties, in the said townships." END OF QUOTE.
Sir John de Crophill's parentage is proven by at least two fines:
1. In 1322-3 Alan de Hothum, clerk, settled the manor of Tiercewell, Nottinghamshire on Ralph de Crophull and Maud for life, with successive remainders to their sons, Ralph, John, and Nicholas. [Reference: Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 3 (1796): 265-268].
2. National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, number 96.
County: Northamptonshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One week from St Michael, 5 Edward III [6 October 1331].
Parties: John de Hothum, bishop of Ely, querent, and Nicholas de Cantebrigge, the parson of the church of Fendytton', and Henry de Spaldyngton', clerk, deforciants.
Property: The manor of Colynweston' and the advowson of the church of the same vill.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: The bishop has acknowledged the manor and advowson to be the right of Nicholas, as those which Nicholas and Henry have of his gift.
For this: Nicholas and Henry have granted to the bishop the manor and advowson and have rendered them to him in the court, to hold to the bishop, of the chief lords for the life of the bishop. And after the decease of the bishop the manor and advowson shall remain to John, son of Peter de Hothum, knight, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to John, son of the same John, son of Peter, and the heirs of his body, (2) to Peter, brother of the same John, son of John, and the heirs of his body, (3) to Nicholas, son of Ralph de Crophill', and the heirs of his body, (4) to John, brother of the same Nicholas, and the heirs of his body, (5) to Alan, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body and (6) to the right heirs of the bishop. [Note: The abstract of this fine is available on Chris Phillips' website at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
Elsewhere I find that Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon) indicates that Maud, widow of Sir Ralph de Crophull, married (2nd) (as his 2nd wife) Sir John de Verdon, Lord Verdon (living 23 October 1376), of Brixworth, Northamptonshire, Bressingham, Norfolk, etc. The following information is stated by Complete Peerage regarding this marriage:
"He [John de Verdon] married, 2ndly, in or before (1339-40) 13 Edward III, Maud, widow of Ralph de Crophull, of Bonnington, Notts. (living 1332), who was living (1357-9) 31 and 32 Edward III." END OF QUOTE.
No identification of Maud de Crophull's parentage is made by Complete Peerage. I originally thought she might be a member of the baronial Stafford family. In 1345, as "Maud de Crophile, of the diocese of Lincoln," she and Richard de Stafford, Knt., and James de Pipe, Knt., obtained papal indults to choose confessors and for plenary remission [Reference: Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers rel. to Great Britain and Ireland: Letters 3 (1897): 209]. Sir Richard de Stafford and Sir James de Pipe were respectively the full-brother and half-brother of Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford. Likewise, Maud's son, Alan de Crophill, was styled "kinsman" of Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349 [Reference: Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164].
Regardless of the obvious Stafford connection, it appears that Maud de Crophull was actually the daughter of Alan de Hotham (or Hothum), by his wife, Maud, and sister of John de Hotham, Bishop of Ely, Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chancellor (died 1337). The evidence for Maud de Crophull's parentage is complex and will need to be addressed in another post.
I've copied below my current file account regarding Sir Ralph de Crophull and his wife, Maud de Hotham.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir John de Crophull, Knt. (died 1383), and his wife, Margery de Verdun.
Robert Abell, William Bladen, Thomas Booth, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton, St. Leger Codd, Edward Digges, Edward Foliot, Warham Horsmanden, Thomas Ligon, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Katherine Saint Leger, Mary Johanna Somerset, Frances & Sarah Woodward.
For further information on the Crophull and Verdon/Verdun families, please see my book, Royal Ancestry [5 volume set], published in 2013.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
1. RALPH DE CROPHULL (or CROPHILL), Knt., of Bonnington (in Sutton Bonnington) and Tiercewell, Nottinghamshire, Braunston and Hemington (in Lockington), Leicestershire, Dunsby and Wigtoft, Lincolnshire, etc. He married before 1311-12 (date of fine) MAUD DE HOTHAM (or HOTHUM), daughter of Alan de Hotham, by his wife, Maud, and sister of John de Hotham (died 1337), Bishop of Ely, Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chancellor. They had five sons, Thomas, Ralph (rector of Cottingham, Northamptonshire), John, Knt., Nicholas, Knt., and Alan, clerk, and two daughters, Maud (wife of Bernard de Brus and Bennet de Fulsham) and Alice (wife of Walter Calthorpe and John Bigod, Knt.). In 1322-3 Alan de Hothum, clerk, settled the manor of Tiercewell, Nottinghamshire on Ralph and Maud for life, with successive remainders to their sons, Ralph, John, and Nicholas. In 1327-8 he and his wife, Maud, were granted view of frank-pledge in their manors of Bonnington and Sutton, Nottinghamshire. In 1332 he and Nichole, widow of Robert de Hawstead, and John de Hawstead, Knt., owed John de Hotham, Bishop of Ely, a debt of 500 marks. SIR RALPH DE CROPHILL was living 13 October 1336 (date of fine). His widow, Maud, married (2nd) in or before 1339/40 JOHN DE VERDUN, Knt., Lord Verdun [see BRIXWORTH 12]. In 1345, as "Maud de Crophile, of the diocese of Lincoln," she and Richard de Stafford, Knt., and James de Pipe, Knt., obtained papal indults to choose confessors and for plenary remission. In 1346 Nicholas de Crophull, Knt. released to his mother, Maud, wife of John de Verdoun, all his right and claim in the manors of Bovingdon, Hertfordshire, Braunston and Hemington (in Lockington), Leicestershire, and Arnold, Nottinghamshire, together with the advowson of the church of Braunston, Leicestershire. His wife, Maud, was living 27 Jan. 1361 (date of fine), and died before 14 April 1364 (date of fine).
References:
Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 2 (1797): 267. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 513-521; 8 (1808): 41-43. Robson, British Herald (1830): 439 (Crophull/Crophill arms: Argent a saltier gules fretty or). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 180-181 (sub Crophull). Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull). Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 307, 323. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman" by Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349). Papal Regs.: Letters 3 (1897): 209. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 65, 388. C.C.R. 1349-1354 (1906): 363. Thomas, Cal. of Plea & Memoranda Rolls 1 (1926): 266. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon). Court of the King's Bench, KB27/327, image 235 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E3/KB27no327/aKB27no327fronts/IMG_0235.htm). National Archives, C 131/174/75; C 131/174/80; C 143/193/7; SC 8/243/12136 (available at www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, #96; CP 25/1/205/21, #10 [see abstract of fines at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
Complete Peerage includes information on Sir John de Crophull (or Crophill), Knt. (died 1383), of Sutton Bonnington, Nottinghamshire, in several accounts, namely: 2 (1912): 196 (sub Blount); 7 (1929): 5-6 (sub Husee); and 12(2) (1959): 250-252 (sub Verdun). In each account, Sir John de Crophull is correctly stated to have married before 10 Sept. 1355 Margery de Verdun, widow of William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337), and Mark Husee, Knt. (died 1346), which Margery was daughter and co-heiress of Thebaud de Verdun, Knt., 2nd Lord Verdun, hereditary Constable of Ireland (died 1316), by his 1st wife, Maud, daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Lord Mortimer.
Sir John de Crophull and his wife, Margery de Verdun, had one son, Thomas de Crophull, ancestor of the Devereux and Parr families, as indicated by an ancient account of the Lacy family recorded at Tinturn Abbey:
"Margareta [de Verdon] iii. filia nupta fuit .... Hussy. Quo defuncto, nupta fuit iterum domino Willihelmo Blunt. Quo defuncto sine hærede de se, desponsata fuit tertio, domino Johanni Crophulle militi, et habuit exitum Thomam Crophulle qui disponsavit Sibillam filiam domini Johannis de la Beere, de quibus Agnes nupta domino Waltero Deveros militi. De quibus Walterus, Johannes, Richardus, Thomas, Elizabetha, et Margareta. Quo quidem domino Waltero Deveros defuncto, dicta Agnes nupta fuit iterum Johanni Parr domino de Kyrkeby in Kendall. De quibus Thomas Parr, et Elizab. soror ejus sine hærede de se defuncta." [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 5 (1825): 270 (Abbey of Tinturn -- Lacy Gen.].
Curiously, none of the Complete Peerage accounts identify the parentage of Sir John de Crophull. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull) correctly states that Sir John de Crophull was the son of a certain Ralph de Crophull:
"Ralph de Crophull had committed to him the counties of Nottingham and Derby, to farm the issues thereof, during the king's pleasure. Also, in the 9th of the same reign, he had custody of the counties of Salop and Stafford, with the castle of Stafford committed to his case; and, in 12 Edw. II., was appointed escheator on this side Trent. In 1 Edw. III. he was possessed, along with Maud his wife, of Bonyngton and Sutton, in the county of Nottingham, with view of frank-pledge and other liberties, in the said townships." END OF QUOTE.
Sir John de Crophill's parentage is proven by at least two fines:
1. In 1322-3 Alan de Hothum, clerk, settled the manor of Tiercewell, Nottinghamshire on Ralph de Crophull and Maud for life, with successive remainders to their sons, Ralph, John, and Nicholas. [Reference: Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 3 (1796): 265-268].
2. National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, number 96.
County: Northamptonshire.
Place: Westminster.
Date: One week from St Michael, 5 Edward III [6 October 1331].
Parties: John de Hothum, bishop of Ely, querent, and Nicholas de Cantebrigge, the parson of the church of Fendytton', and Henry de Spaldyngton', clerk, deforciants.
Property: The manor of Colynweston' and the advowson of the church of the same vill.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: The bishop has acknowledged the manor and advowson to be the right of Nicholas, as those which Nicholas and Henry have of his gift.
For this: Nicholas and Henry have granted to the bishop the manor and advowson and have rendered them to him in the court, to hold to the bishop, of the chief lords for the life of the bishop. And after the decease of the bishop the manor and advowson shall remain to John, son of Peter de Hothum, knight, and the heirs of his body, to hold of the chief lords for ever. In default of such heirs, successive remainders (1) to John, son of the same John, son of Peter, and the heirs of his body, (2) to Peter, brother of the same John, son of John, and the heirs of his body, (3) to Nicholas, son of Ralph de Crophill', and the heirs of his body, (4) to John, brother of the same Nicholas, and the heirs of his body, (5) to Alan, brother of the same John, and the heirs of his body and (6) to the right heirs of the bishop. [Note: The abstract of this fine is available on Chris Phillips' website at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
Elsewhere I find that Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon) indicates that Maud, widow of Sir Ralph de Crophull, married (2nd) (as his 2nd wife) Sir John de Verdon, Lord Verdon (living 23 October 1376), of Brixworth, Northamptonshire, Bressingham, Norfolk, etc. The following information is stated by Complete Peerage regarding this marriage:
"He [John de Verdon] married, 2ndly, in or before (1339-40) 13 Edward III, Maud, widow of Ralph de Crophull, of Bonnington, Notts. (living 1332), who was living (1357-9) 31 and 32 Edward III." END OF QUOTE.
No identification of Maud de Crophull's parentage is made by Complete Peerage. I originally thought she might be a member of the baronial Stafford family. In 1345, as "Maud de Crophile, of the diocese of Lincoln," she and Richard de Stafford, Knt., and James de Pipe, Knt., obtained papal indults to choose confessors and for plenary remission [Reference: Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers rel. to Great Britain and Ireland: Letters 3 (1897): 209]. Sir Richard de Stafford and Sir James de Pipe were respectively the full-brother and half-brother of Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford. Likewise, Maud's son, Alan de Crophill, was styled "kinsman" of Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349 [Reference: Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164].
Regardless of the obvious Stafford connection, it appears that Maud de Crophull was actually the daughter of Alan de Hotham (or Hothum), by his wife, Maud, and sister of John de Hotham, Bishop of Ely, Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chancellor (died 1337). The evidence for Maud de Crophull's parentage is complex and will need to be addressed in another post.
I've copied below my current file account regarding Sir Ralph de Crophull and his wife, Maud de Hotham.
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir John de Crophull, Knt. (died 1383), and his wife, Margery de Verdun.
Robert Abell, William Bladen, Thomas Booth, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton, St. Leger Codd, Edward Digges, Edward Foliot, Warham Horsmanden, Thomas Ligon, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Katherine Saint Leger, Mary Johanna Somerset, Frances & Sarah Woodward.
For further information on the Crophull and Verdon/Verdun families, please see my book, Royal Ancestry [5 volume set], published in 2013.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
1. RALPH DE CROPHULL (or CROPHILL), Knt., of Bonnington (in Sutton Bonnington) and Tiercewell, Nottinghamshire, Braunston and Hemington (in Lockington), Leicestershire, Dunsby and Wigtoft, Lincolnshire, etc. He married before 1311-12 (date of fine) MAUD DE HOTHAM (or HOTHUM), daughter of Alan de Hotham, by his wife, Maud, and sister of John de Hotham (died 1337), Bishop of Ely, Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chancellor. They had five sons, Thomas, Ralph (rector of Cottingham, Northamptonshire), John, Knt., Nicholas, Knt., and Alan, clerk, and two daughters, Maud (wife of Bernard de Brus and Bennet de Fulsham) and Alice (wife of Walter Calthorpe and John Bigod, Knt.). In 1322-3 Alan de Hothum, clerk, settled the manor of Tiercewell, Nottinghamshire on Ralph and Maud for life, with successive remainders to their sons, Ralph, John, and Nicholas. In 1327-8 he and his wife, Maud, were granted view of frank-pledge in their manors of Bonnington and Sutton, Nottinghamshire. In 1332 he and Nichole, widow of Robert de Hawstead, and John de Hawstead, Knt., owed John de Hotham, Bishop of Ely, a debt of 500 marks. SIR RALPH DE CROPHILL was living 13 October 1336 (date of fine). His widow, Maud, married (2nd) in or before 1339/40 JOHN DE VERDUN, Knt., Lord Verdun [see BRIXWORTH 12]. In 1345, as "Maud de Crophile, of the diocese of Lincoln," she and Richard de Stafford, Knt., and James de Pipe, Knt., obtained papal indults to choose confessors and for plenary remission. In 1346 Nicholas de Crophull, Knt. released to his mother, Maud, wife of John de Verdoun, all his right and claim in the manors of Bovingdon, Hertfordshire, Braunston and Hemington (in Lockington), Leicestershire, and Arnold, Nottinghamshire, together with the advowson of the church of Braunston, Leicestershire. His wife, Maud, was living 27 Jan. 1361 (date of fine), and died before 14 April 1364 (date of fine).
References:
Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 2 (1797): 267. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 513-521; 8 (1808): 41-43. Robson, British Herald (1830): 439 (Crophull/Crophill arms: Argent a saltier gules fretty or). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 180-181 (sub Crophull). Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull). Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 307, 323. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman" by Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349). Papal Regs.: Letters 3 (1897): 209. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 65, 388. C.C.R. 1349-1354 (1906): 363. Thomas, Cal. of Plea & Memoranda Rolls 1 (1926): 266. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon). Court of the King's Bench, KB27/327, image 235 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E3/KB27no327/aKB27no327fronts/IMG_0235.htm). National Archives, C 131/174/75; C 131/174/80; C 143/193/7; SC 8/243/12136 (available at www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, #96; CP 25/1/205/21, #10 [see abstract of fines at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Aug 29, 2014, 6:17:43 PM8/29/14
to
On Friday, August 29, 2014 11:38:53 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>
>
> Complete Peerage includes information on Sir John de Crophull (or Crophill), Knt. (died 1383), of Sutton Bonnington, Nottinghamshire, in several accounts, namely: 2 (1912): 196 (sub Blount); 7 (1929): 5-6 (sub Husee); and 12(2) (1959): 250-252 (sub Verdun). In each account, Sir John de Crophull is correctly stated to have married before 10 Sept. 1355 Margery de Verdun, widow of William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337), and Mark Husee, Knt. (died 1346), which Margery was daughter and co-heiress of Thebaud de Verdun, Knt., 2nd Lord Verdun, hereditary Constable of Ireland (died 1316), by his 1st wife, Maud, daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Lord Mortimer.
>
>
>
> Sir John de Crophull and his wife, Margery de Verdun, had one son, Thomas de Crophull, ancestor of the Devereux and Parr families, as indicated by an ancient account of the Lacy family recorded at Tinturn Abbey:
>
>
>
> "Margareta [de Verdon] iii. filia nupta fuit .... Hussy. Quo defuncto, nupta fuit iterum domino Willihelmo Blunt. Quo defuncto sine hærede de se, desponsata fuit tertio, domino Johanni Crophulle militi, et habuit exitum Thomam Crophulle qui disponsavit Sibillam filiam domini Johannis de la Beere, de quibus Agnes nupta domino Waltero Deveros militi. De quibus Walterus, Johannes, Richardus, Thomas, Elizabetha, et Margareta. Quo quidem domino Waltero Deveros defuncto, dicta Agnes nupta fuit iterum Johanni Parr domino de Kyrkeby in Kendall. De quibus Thomas Parr, et Elizab. soror ejus sine hærede de se defuncta." [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 5 (1825): 270 (Abbey of Tinturn -- Lacy Gen.].
>
>
>
> Curiously, none of the Complete Peerage accounts identify the parentage of Sir John de Crophull. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull) correctly states that Sir John de Crophull was the son of a certain Ralph de Crophull:
>
[snip]
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>
>
> Complete Peerage includes information on Sir John de Crophull (or Crophill), Knt. (died 1383), of Sutton Bonnington, Nottinghamshire, in several accounts, namely: 2 (1912): 196 (sub Blount); 7 (1929): 5-6 (sub Husee); and 12(2) (1959): 250-252 (sub Verdun). In each account, Sir John de Crophull is correctly stated to have married before 10 Sept. 1355 Margery de Verdun, widow of William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337), and Mark Husee, Knt. (died 1346), which Margery was daughter and co-heiress of Thebaud de Verdun, Knt., 2nd Lord Verdun, hereditary Constable of Ireland (died 1316), by his 1st wife, Maud, daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Lord Mortimer.
>
>
>
> Sir John de Crophull and his wife, Margery de Verdun, had one son, Thomas de Crophull, ancestor of the Devereux and Parr families, as indicated by an ancient account of the Lacy family recorded at Tinturn Abbey:
>
>
>
> "Margareta [de Verdon] iii. filia nupta fuit .... Hussy. Quo defuncto, nupta fuit iterum domino Willihelmo Blunt. Quo defuncto sine hærede de se, desponsata fuit tertio, domino Johanni Crophulle militi, et habuit exitum Thomam Crophulle qui disponsavit Sibillam filiam domini Johannis de la Beere, de quibus Agnes nupta domino Waltero Deveros militi. De quibus Walterus, Johannes, Richardus, Thomas, Elizabetha, et Margareta. Quo quidem domino Waltero Deveros defuncto, dicta Agnes nupta fuit iterum Johanni Parr domino de Kyrkeby in Kendall. De quibus Thomas Parr, et Elizab. soror ejus sine hærede de se defuncta." [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 5 (1825): 270 (Abbey of Tinturn -- Lacy Gen.].
>
>
>
> Curiously, none of the Complete Peerage accounts identify the parentage of Sir John de Crophull. Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull) correctly states that Sir John de Crophull was the son of a certain Ralph de Crophull:
>
It's not at all "curious" that the CP accounts referenced do not identify the parentage of Sir John de Crophull. It's entirely in accord with the scope and format of CP, which almost never mentions the parentage of a widow's subsequent husband(s). In fact it would be curious if the CP accounts DID identify such a parentage.
What is more interesting (and "curious", perhaps?) is that the Richardson books Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry (at least in their first editions) DO assign a father to Sir John de Crophull, both saying that he was "son and heir of Thomas de Crophill". It would be informative and educational to know how the books' author reached this conclusion - which is apparently erroneous based on today's post. (The source of the error is not obvious from the list of references given in the books.)
Peter Howarth
Aug 29, 2014, 7:44:33 PM8/29/14
to
On Friday, 29 August 2014 19:38:53 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
<snip>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>
> I've copied below my current file account regarding Sir Ralph de Crophull and his wife, Maud de Hotham.
>
<snip>
> I've copied below my current file account regarding Sir Ralph de Crophull and his wife, Maud de Hotham.
>
>
> 1. RALPH DE CROPHULL (or CROPHILL), Knt.,
>
<snip>
> 1. RALPH DE CROPHULL (or CROPHILL), Knt.,
>
>
> References:
>
> Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 2 (1797): 267. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 513-521; 8 (1808): 41-43. Robson, British Herald (1830): 439 (Crophull/Crophill arms: Argent a saltier gules fretty or). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 180-181 (sub Crophull). Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull). Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 307, 323. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman" by Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349). Papal Regs.: Letters 3 (1897): 209. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 65, 388. C.C.R. 1349-1354 (1906): 363. Thomas, Cal. of Plea & Memoranda Rolls 1 (1926): 266. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon). Court of the King's Bench, KB27/327, image 235 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E3/KB27no327/aKB27no327fronts/IMG_0235.htm). National Archives, C 131/174/75; C 131/174/80; C 143/193/7; SC 8/243/12136 (available at www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, #96; CP 25/1/205/21, #10 [see abstract of fines at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
I am concerned that mediaeval heraldry should be subject to the same standards of evidence as are used in genealogy and other branches of history. So I followed up the reference to Thomas Robson's 'British Herald', given above. This work is in three volumes. The entry for Crophill appears in Volume I. But Robson does not give any source or any date for the arms. How do we know that these arms were used by Ralph Crophill and not by some other family of the same name? Would we accept such a bald claim in a genealogical context?
> References:
>
> Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 2 (1797): 267. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 513-521; 8 (1808): 41-43. Robson, British Herald (1830): 439 (Crophull/Crophill arms: Argent a saltier gules fretty or). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 180-181 (sub Crophull). Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull). Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 307, 323. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman" by Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349). Papal Regs.: Letters 3 (1897): 209. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 65, 388. C.C.R. 1349-1354 (1906): 363. Thomas, Cal. of Plea & Memoranda Rolls 1 (1926): 266. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon). Court of the King's Bench, KB27/327, image 235 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E3/KB27no327/aKB27no327fronts/IMG_0235.htm). National Archives, C 131/174/75; C 131/174/80; C 143/193/7; SC 8/243/12136 (available at www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, #96; CP 25/1/205/21, #10 [see abstract of fines at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
As it happens, Robson's entry may quite possibly apply to this Crophill. When it comes to mediaeval rolls of arms it should be remembered that they were privately owned, and that they never constituted official records. We must therefore be prepared for errors--and in some there are plenty.
There are three rolls of arms that have very similar collections of arms, the Ashmolean Roll (AS) compiled during a period up to about 1334, and Cooke's Ordinary (CKO) and Cotgrave's Ordinary (CG) compiled a little later around 1340. There are entries for Monsr Rauf de Crauphill (AS 310) and Monsire Rauph de Crophill (CG 328) 'port d'argent, a une salter gules, frette or'. Another roll, Thomas Jenyns' Book (TJ), was compiled around 1410 but the first part (up to TJ 1260) was based on earlier rolls such as those three. There is an entry at TJ 373 for Monsr Rauf Crophill 'port d'argent une sautour de goules frette d'or'.
There is unfortunately no mention of a Crophill seal in the standard works that I have on seals. This might well have confirmed which family was involved here. But there is one further entry that supports this particular family. In Powell's Roll (PO), dating from around 1350, there is an entry for Sr Joh de .. <orphill> (PO 337) with a painted shield of 'argent, a saltire gules fretty or, in chief a martlet sable.' This suggests that John was a younger son, which fits with the information about Ralph's sons.
There are no further entries in the mediaeval rolls for Crophill.
We therefore have evidence of arms for a Ralph Crophill at the right period, but although three rolls mention him two may have just copied the first. And there are no seals to back it up. This is followed by later evidence for a younger son called John. Since John's son Thomas died s.p.m. this could explain the lack of further entries in the rolls. So we are left with a distinct possibility that this Ralph Crophill bore 'argent, a saltire gules fretty or'. But it is not an absolute certainty.
That is what I mean about examining the evidence for heraldry to the same standard as we use in genealogy.
Peter
Tompkins
Aug 30, 2014, 5:19:21 AM8/30/14
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Very interesting - thank you for posting it.
Matt Tompkins
________________________________________
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] on behalf of Peter Howarth via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 30 August 2014 00:44
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parents of John de Crophill, Knt. (died 1383), of Bonnington (in Sutton Bonnington), Nottinghamshire
On Friday, 29 August 2014 19:38:53 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
<snip>
>
> I've copied below my current file account regarding Sir Ralph de Crophull and his wife, Maud de Hotham.
>
<snip>
>
> 1. RALPH DE CROPHULL (or CROPHILL), Knt.,
>
<snip>
>
> References:
>
> Throsby, Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire 1 (1797): 15-16; 2 (1797): 267. Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 513-521; 8 (1808): 41-43. Robson, British Herald (1830): 439 (Crophull/Crophill arms: Argent a saltier gules fretty or). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 180-181 (sub Crophull). Banks, Baronies in Fee 2 (1843): 70-71 (sub Crophull). Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 307, 323. Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 164 (Alan de Crophill, son of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., styled "kinsman" by Ralph, baron of Stafford in 1349). Papal Regs.: Letters 3 (1897): 209. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 65, 388. C.C.R. 1349-1354 (1906): 363. Thomas, Cal. of Plea & Memoranda Rolls 1 (1926): 266. C.P. 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon). Court of the King's Bench, KB27/327, image 235 (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E3/KB27no327/aKB27no327fronts/IMG_0235.htm). National Archives, C 131/1!
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
Matt Tompkins
________________________________________
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] on behalf of Peter Howarth via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 30 August 2014 00:44
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Parents of John de Crophill, Knt. (died 1383), of Bonnington (in Sutton Bonnington), Nottinghamshire
On Friday, 29 August 2014 19:38:53 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
<snip>
>
> I've copied below my current file account regarding Sir Ralph de Crophull and his wife, Maud de Hotham.
>
<snip>
>
> 1. RALPH DE CROPHULL (or CROPHILL), Knt.,
>
<snip>
>
> References:
>
74/75; C 131/174/80; C 143/193/7; SC 8/243/12136 (available at www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp). National Archives, CP 25/1/176/73, #96; CP 25/1/205/21, #10 [see abstract of fines at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].
I am concerned that mediaeval heraldry should be subject to the same standards of evidence as are used in genealogy and other branches of history. So I followed up the reference to Thomas Robson's 'British Herald', given above. This work is in three volumes. The entry for Crophill appears in Volume I. But Robson does not give any source or any date for the arms. How do we know that these arms were used by Ralph Crophill and not by some other family of the same name? Would we accept such a bald claim in a genealogical context?
As it happens, Robson's entry may quite possibly apply to this Crophill. When it comes to mediaeval rolls of arms it should be remembered that they were privately owned, and that they never constituted official records. We must therefore be prepared for errors--and in some there are plenty.
There are three rolls of arms that have very similar collections of arms, the Ashmolean Roll (AS) compiled during a period up to about 1334, and Cooke's Ordinary (CKO) and Cotgrave's Ordinary (CG) compiled a little later around 1340. There are entries for Monsr Rauf de Crauphill (AS 310) and Monsire Rauph de Crophill (CG 328) 'port d'argent, a une salter gules, frette or'. Another roll, Thomas Jenyns' Book (TJ), was compiled around 1410 but the first part (up to TJ 1260) was based on earlier rolls such as those three. There is an entry at TJ 373 for Monsr Rauf Crophill 'port d'argent une sautour de goules frette d'or'.
There is unfortunately no mention of a Crophill seal in the standard works that I have on seals. This might well have confirmed which family was involved here. But there is one further entry that supports this particular family. In Powell's Roll (PO), dating from around 1350, there is an entry for Sr Joh de .. <orphill> (PO 337) with a painted shield of 'argent, a saltire gules fretty or, in chief a martlet sable.' This suggests that John was a younger son, which fits with the information about Ralph's sons.
There are no further entries in the mediaeval rolls for Crophill.
We therefore have evidence of arms for a Ralph Crophill at the right period, but although three rolls mention him two may have just copied the first. And there are no seals to back it up. This is followed by later evidence for a younger son called John. Since John's son Thomas died s.p.m. this could explain the lack of further entries in the rolls. So we are left with a distinct possibility that this Ralph Crophill bore 'argent, a saltire gules fretty or'. But it is not an absolute certainty.
That is what I mean about examining the evidence for heraldry to the same standard as we use in genealogy.
Peter
-------------------------------
I am concerned that mediaeval heraldry should be subject to the same standards of evidence as are used in genealogy and other branches of history. So I followed up the reference to Thomas Robson's 'British Herald', given above. This work is in three volumes. The entry for Crophill appears in Volume I. But Robson does not give any source or any date for the arms. How do we know that these arms were used by Ralph Crophill and not by some other family of the same name? Would we accept such a bald claim in a genealogical context?
As it happens, Robson's entry may quite possibly apply to this Crophill. When it comes to mediaeval rolls of arms it should be remembered that they were privately owned, and that they never constituted official records. We must therefore be prepared for errors--and in some there are plenty.
There are three rolls of arms that have very similar collections of arms, the Ashmolean Roll (AS) compiled during a period up to about 1334, and Cooke's Ordinary (CKO) and Cotgrave's Ordinary (CG) compiled a little later around 1340. There are entries for Monsr Rauf de Crauphill (AS 310) and Monsire Rauph de Crophill (CG 328) 'port d'argent, a une salter gules, frette or'. Another roll, Thomas Jenyns' Book (TJ), was compiled around 1410 but the first part (up to TJ 1260) was based on earlier rolls such as those three. There is an entry at TJ 373 for Monsr Rauf Crophill 'port d'argent une sautour de goules frette d'or'.
There is unfortunately no mention of a Crophill seal in the standard works that I have on seals. This might well have confirmed which family was involved here. But there is one further entry that supports this particular family. In Powell's Roll (PO), dating from around 1350, there is an entry for Sr Joh de .. <orphill> (PO 337) with a painted shield of 'argent, a saltire gules fretty or, in chief a martlet sable.' This suggests that John was a younger son, which fits with the information about Ralph's sons.
There are no further entries in the mediaeval rolls for Crophill.
We therefore have evidence of arms for a Ralph Crophill at the right period, but although three rolls mention him two may have just copied the first. And there are no seals to back it up. This is followed by later evidence for a younger son called John. Since John's son Thomas died s.p.m. this could explain the lack of further entries in the rolls. So we are left with a distinct possibility that this Ralph Crophill bore 'argent, a saltire gules fretty or'. But it is not an absolute certainty.
That is what I mean about examining the evidence for heraldry to the same standard as we use in genealogy.
Peter
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
Aug 31, 2014, 2:35:42 PM8/31/14
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my previous post, I reported that Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 196 (sub Blount); 7 (1929): 5-6 (sub Husee); and 12(2) (1959): 250-252 (sub Verdun) all state that Sir John de Crophull married before 10 Sept. 1355 Margery de Verdun, widow of William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337), and Mark Husee, Knt. (died 1346).
I earlier thought the marriage took place after Michaelmas 1352, as Margery de Verdun is named without a husband in a lawsuit of that date. Reference: Wrottesley, Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls (1905): 71, available at the following weblink:
https://archive.org/stream/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich#page/70/mode/2up
Since Margery de Verdun's two sisters are named with their respective husbands in the lawsuit, this would typically suggest that Margery, being named without a husband, was then a single woman. This was not the case, however.
The marriage of Sir John de Crophull and Margery de Verdun actually took place in or before 1348, as in that year, Sir John Blount, Knt., of Sodington, Worcestershire released to "Margaret, the wife of Sir John Crophull, Knight, late wife of Sir William le Blount, and her heirs" all right and claim in the manor and castle of Weobley, Herefordshire. Reference: Collections for a History of Staffordshire 4 (1883): 77, footnote 4, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O-oGAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA77
We have here another example of Margery and Margaret being interchangeable in medieval records. In this case, this woman who usually occurs in records as Margery (such as her proof of age cited by Complete Peerage) is named here as Margaret. This is very typical for women named Margery and Margaret in this time period.
Complete Peerage makes no mention that Margery de Verdun had issue by her 1st husband, William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337). But Collections for a History of Staffordshire 4 (1883): 77, footnote 4 cited above states William and Margery had a daughter, Alice (or Isabel), who died before him. Unfortunately, no documentation is provided for this statement. This child is not mentioned by Complete Peerage.
In my earlier post, I noted that Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon) indicates that Sir John de Crophill's mother, Maud, widow of Sir Ralph de Crophull, married (2nd) "in or before (1339-40) 13 Edward III" (as his 2nd wife) Sir John de Verdun, Lord Verdun (living 23 October 1376), of Brixworth, Northamptonshire, Bressingham, Norfolk, etc.
Complete Peerage cites as its source for the marriage date the following two sources: Rye, Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 187; Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 316.
This marriage actually took place before 27 January 1338, as indicated by the abstract of a fine of that date found on Chris Phillips' website [http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.htm].
CP 25/1/287/39, number 248.
County: Norfolk. Suffolk.
Place: York.
Date: Two weeks from St Hilary, 12 Edward III [27 January 1338].
Parties: John de Verdon', knight, and Maud, his wife, querents, and Master Alan de Hothum, deforciant.
Property: The manors of Saxlyngham and Multon' and the advowsons of the churches of the manors of the same [sic] in the county of Norfolk and the manor of Martlesham and the advowson of the church of the same manor in the county of Suffolk.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: John has acknowledged the manors and advowsons to be the right of Master Alan, as those which Master Alan has of his gift.
For this: Master Alan has granted to John and Maud the manors and advowsons and has rendered them to them in the court, to hold to John and Maud and the heirs of John, of the chief lords for ever. END OF QUOTE.
Once again we see Maud de Hotham, wife successively of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., and John de Verdun, Knt., Lord Verdun, being associated with a member of the Hotham family.
Additional evidence of the marriage of Maud de Hotham (widow of Sir Ralph de Crophull) and Sir John de Verdun, Lord Verdun, not cited by Complete Peerage, may be found in an item published in Records of the Borough of Nottingham 1 (1882): 168-171, which is found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9XwPAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169
This item includes the Latin text and an English transcript of a lawsuit dated 1358, whereby John de Verdon, of Brixworth, Knt., and his wife, Maud, sued Walter de Gotham for a moiety of four messuages and a rent of 100 shillings in Nottingham, Nottingham, as the dower of the said Maud from the dowry of Ralph de Crophull, Knt., late her husband.
I note that the author leaves the Latin name Matilda untranslated in the English text, which is a common error. The Latin name Matilda should be translated as Maud.
In my previous post, I reported that Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 196 (sub Blount); 7 (1929): 5-6 (sub Husee); and 12(2) (1959): 250-252 (sub Verdun) all state that Sir John de Crophull married before 10 Sept. 1355 Margery de Verdun, widow of William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337), and Mark Husee, Knt. (died 1346).
I earlier thought the marriage took place after Michaelmas 1352, as Margery de Verdun is named without a husband in a lawsuit of that date. Reference: Wrottesley, Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls (1905): 71, available at the following weblink:
https://archive.org/stream/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich#page/70/mode/2up
Since Margery de Verdun's two sisters are named with their respective husbands in the lawsuit, this would typically suggest that Margery, being named without a husband, was then a single woman. This was not the case, however.
The marriage of Sir John de Crophull and Margery de Verdun actually took place in or before 1348, as in that year, Sir John Blount, Knt., of Sodington, Worcestershire released to "Margaret, the wife of Sir John Crophull, Knight, late wife of Sir William le Blount, and her heirs" all right and claim in the manor and castle of Weobley, Herefordshire. Reference: Collections for a History of Staffordshire 4 (1883): 77, footnote 4, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=O-oGAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA77
We have here another example of Margery and Margaret being interchangeable in medieval records. In this case, this woman who usually occurs in records as Margery (such as her proof of age cited by Complete Peerage) is named here as Margaret. This is very typical for women named Margery and Margaret in this time period.
Complete Peerage makes no mention that Margery de Verdun had issue by her 1st husband, William le Blount, Knt., Lord Blount (died 1337). But Collections for a History of Staffordshire 4 (1883): 77, footnote 4 cited above states William and Margery had a daughter, Alice (or Isabel), who died before him. Unfortunately, no documentation is provided for this statement. This child is not mentioned by Complete Peerage.
In my earlier post, I noted that Complete Peerage 12(2) (1959): 244-245 (sub Verdon) indicates that Sir John de Crophill's mother, Maud, widow of Sir Ralph de Crophull, married (2nd) "in or before (1339-40) 13 Edward III" (as his 2nd wife) Sir John de Verdun, Lord Verdun (living 23 October 1376), of Brixworth, Northamptonshire, Bressingham, Norfolk, etc.
Complete Peerage cites as its source for the marriage date the following two sources: Rye, Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 187; Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 316.
This marriage actually took place before 27 January 1338, as indicated by the abstract of a fine of that date found on Chris Phillips' website [http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.htm].
CP 25/1/287/39, number 248.
County: Norfolk. Suffolk.
Place: York.
Date: Two weeks from St Hilary, 12 Edward III [27 January 1338].
Parties: John de Verdon', knight, and Maud, his wife, querents, and Master Alan de Hothum, deforciant.
Property: The manors of Saxlyngham and Multon' and the advowsons of the churches of the manors of the same [sic] in the county of Norfolk and the manor of Martlesham and the advowson of the church of the same manor in the county of Suffolk.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: John has acknowledged the manors and advowsons to be the right of Master Alan, as those which Master Alan has of his gift.
For this: Master Alan has granted to John and Maud the manors and advowsons and has rendered them to them in the court, to hold to John and Maud and the heirs of John, of the chief lords for ever. END OF QUOTE.
Once again we see Maud de Hotham, wife successively of Ralph de Crophill, Knt., and John de Verdun, Knt., Lord Verdun, being associated with a member of the Hotham family.
Additional evidence of the marriage of Maud de Hotham (widow of Sir Ralph de Crophull) and Sir John de Verdun, Lord Verdun, not cited by Complete Peerage, may be found in an item published in Records of the Borough of Nottingham 1 (1882): 168-171, which is found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9XwPAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169
This item includes the Latin text and an English transcript of a lawsuit dated 1358, whereby John de Verdon, of Brixworth, Knt., and his wife, Maud, sued Walter de Gotham for a moiety of four messuages and a rent of 100 shillings in Nottingham, Nottingham, as the dower of the said Maud from the dowry of Ralph de Crophull, Knt., late her husband.
I note that the author leaves the Latin name Matilda untranslated in the English text, which is a common error. The Latin name Matilda should be translated as Maud.
Peter Howarth
Aug 31, 2014, 4:34:33 PM8/31/14
to
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 19:35:42 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
<snip>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
<snip>
> I note that the author leaves the Latin name Matilda untranslated in the English text, which is a common error. The Latin name Matilda should be translated as Maud.
I agree that Matilda in Latin can be translated into the French-derived Maud. But why may it not be left as the modern English name Matilda?
Douglas Richardson
Aug 31, 2014, 11:29:08 PM8/31/14
to
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:34:33 PM UTC-6, Peter Howarth wrote:
<
< I agree that Matilda in Latin can be translated into the French-derived
< Maud. But why may it not be left as the modern English name Matilda?
You've asked an excellent question, Peter.
<
< I agree that Matilda in Latin can be translated into the French-derived
< Maud. But why may it not be left as the modern English name Matilda?
The simple answer is that the Latin name Matilda was the form employed for the English vernacular name, Maud, in the medieval time period.
Indeed, when I find a woman in a Latin text in the medieval period as Matilda, she appears in corresponding contemporary English texts as Maud (or its variant forms). So Matilda = Latin form; Maud = English form.
If you so desire, you can easily verify this for yourself. You don't need to take my word for it.
Peter Howarth
Sep 1, 2014, 4:04:28 AM9/1/14
to
There are many modern English names that have the same form as those used in mediaeval Latin: Adam, Thomas, Agnes, Barbara, and so on. Matilda is another.
So is Agatha. Even though in mediaeval times the vernacular version was Agace or Agass, the modern name has reverted to the Latin form. The same thing has happened to Matilda.
Yes, you may use Maud if you wish, but it is not true to say that Matilda is 'an error'. It is a perfectly acceptable modern alternative.
Peter Howarth
debora...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2019, 2:41:57 PM2/5/19
to
0 new messages