C.P. Correction: Death date of Eleanor Lumley, wife of Ralph Lumley, 1st Lord Lumley
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, vol. 8 (1932), pp. 269-270 (sub Lumley) has a good
account of the life of Ralph Lumley, 1st Lord Lumley (died 1400).
Regarding the death date of his widow, Eleanor Neville, it states only
that she was "still living in 1441," citing as it source, Calendar of
Patent Rolls, 1441-1446, pg. 22.
Reviewing Complete Peerage's source, I find that the Patent Rolls
(same volume as cited), pg. 236-237, shows that Eleanor, widow of
Ralph Lumley, knight, was living 3 November 1443.
Also, I find that Calendar of Close Rolls, 1441-1447 (1937), pg. 427
shows that Eleanor Lumley was still living 16 July 1447.
For interest sake, I have listed below the names of the colonial
immigrants that descend from Sir Ralph Lumley and his wife, Eleanor
Neville.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
- - - - - - - - - - -
List of Colonial Immigrants that descend from Sir Ralph Lumley (died
1400) and his wife, Eleanor Neville (living 1447):
l. William Bladen.
2. Charles Calvert.
3. John Fenwick.
4. William Poole.
5. Maria Johanna Somerset.
6. Olive Welby.
7. Thomas Wingfield.
Richard Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:32 PM
Subject: C.P. Correction: Death date of Eleanor Lumley, wife of Ralph
Lumley, 1st Lord Lumley
> Dear Newsgroup:
>
> Complete Peerage, vol. 8 (1932), pp. 269-270 (sub Lumley)
My Dear Douglas,
I note that you take care with great specificity about the accuracy of the
Complete Peerage with respect to the date of death for the wife of Ralph,
Lord Lumley. Indeed, this is the fourth recent post in which you make a fine
point of correcting the CP. According to your post, CP has her still living
in 1441. You show, as a correction of CP, evidence that she was living as
late as 1447, with no date of death specified. CP was not in error. Lady
Lumley was, according to your own words, living in 1441. Your addition was
not a correction of CP. Your post, if accurate, adds information; it amends,
not emends.
I would remind you that on 2003-11-12 23:22:05 PST you posted the following
remarks regarding the Complete Peerage:
{Douglas Richardson to Spencer "I don't accept several bastards listed for
King Henry I in the Complete Peerage account....I note that each and every
time the issue of King Henry I's bastards comes up, you immediate post the
number of his bastards found in
Complete Peerage." }
On 15 Nov 2003, you gave us a rather rambling account - wholely lacking in
scholarship - of Henry I's bastards, which you did without "delving" in your
files. In closing you said: "I'll reserve my comments on the other bastards
until later when I have more time to study the matter."
The question has been oft stated and is now restated: how do you agree or
disagree with the list of bastards of Henry I in Appendix D, Volume XI, of
the Complete Peerage?
Your posts on other matters in the CP would naturally raise the question:
have you had time to study the matter?
Best wishes,
and happy results in all your pursuits,
Richard Smith