The Aguillon and the Ecstasy, Part II
The...@aol.com
--part1_102.c2a7675.292a5313_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--part1_102.c2a7675.292a5313_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-path: <The...@aol.com>
From: The...@aol.com
Full-name: Therav3
Message-ID: <11f.76ba97...@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:06:36 EST
Subject: The Aguillon and the Ecstasy, Part II
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.coom, cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk, cbe...@xtra.co.nz,
c...@windsong.u-net.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124
Monday, 19 November, 2001
Hello Chris, Cris, Rosie, et al.,
I'm still working (on occasion I'll admit) to make total sense of our
Aguillon (1) . Misery loves company, no ?
One current piece I am trying to resolve :
Chris, on your website your current summary of the issue of Robert
Aguillon (he who d. before 1250) and his wife Margery de Fresney includes
Joan, one-time wife of Ralph fitz Bernard and later (by. 1249) wife of Imbert
de Pugeys, and mother of Robert de Pugeys [mistaken in at least one record as
Roger], one of the heirs to the Aguillon inheritance. The pronunciation is
French being so close, this error of Roger for Robert is readily believeable.
Outside of your work, I find Imbert de Pugeys in one other group of
records only. He had a grant of the royal manor of Bampton from KH III in
1238, which he held until 1249 when this was granted to William de Valence.
During his tenure, de Pugeys also had grants dated 22 May 1241 for the market
and fair at Bampton. (2)
Therefore, I do not have any details as to manorial holdings of Imbert
de Pugeys. Therefore, the following line of descent is theoretical (as to
the connection between generations 3 and 4):
Robert de Aguillon = Margery de Fresney
_________________I
I
Joan de Aguillon = 2) Imbert de Pugeys
_____________I
I
Robert de Pugeys, b. ca. 1240-1250
_____________I
I
Robert de Pugeys = Amicia de Stokes
b.ca. 1260-1270; d. 1330 heiress of Stokes
of Stokes Pugeys co. Bucks.
(Poges), co. Bucks. I
_________________I
I
Margaret de Pugeys = John Mauduit
co-heiress of her father I of Somerford, co. Wilts
I d. 21 Aug 1347
___________________I
I
Gilles [Egidia] de Pugeys = John de Moleyns
heiress of Stokes Poges & c. of Stoke Poges & c.
The other generations are documented in CP and elsewhere (under Mauduit,
and Moleyns).
One possible link: the CP Moleyns article notes that John de Moleyns
acquired at least an interest in Addington, co. Bucks. How that is
interesting, at least because Addington, Surrey was Aguillon territory......
(grasping for straws...)
How does this stand per your records? Let me know if you agree with the
above linkage (and if documented), or if you would dismiss it as The Weakest
Link........;)
Good luck, and good hunting.
John
NOTES :
(1) I also am hoping for world peace, but draw the line at rolling stones
uphill.
(2) From the GENUKI site for Oxfordshire - Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs,
located at www.ihrinfo.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/oxon.html . This cites
records at: PR, 33 Hen III, p. xxxviii; and CChR, 1226-57, p. 259 .
--part1_102.c2a7675.292a5313_boundary--
Chris Phillips
> How does this stand per your records? Let me know if you agree with
the
> above linkage (and if documented), or if you would dismiss it as The
Weakest
> Link........;)
The only generations I know anything about are the first two or three, but
it looks OK to me.
You may find a bit more information at:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/index.shtml#fitzbernard
or in a message I posted on 22 September about the FitzBernard business.
Chris Phillips
----- Original Message -----
From: <The...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.coom>; <cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk>;
<cbe...@xtra.co.nz>; <c...@windsong.u-net.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: The Aguillon and the Ecstasy, Part II