Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
Jim Weber
I have been curious for sometime as to the ancestry for John
Bluet/Blouet, of Raglan, father of Elizabeth who married (1)
Bartholomew Picot, (2) James de Berkeley, and (3) William ap Thomas
Herbert.
Faris' Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd Edition, p. 23, states that John
Bluet of Raglan, co. Monmouth, was "of Magna Carta Surety descent",
which seems to indicate that there is a known pedigree for him; yet I
have never seen any such pedigree given.
Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall 1530 1573 & 1620, "Blewett of Colan",
p. 35, gives the following descent:
1. William Blewett, Earl of Salisbury [Yikes! Title is far-fetched!]
2. Sir Rowlan Blewett, Kt, younger son of Earl of Sarum = Lettice, dau
& coh. of Jeoffrey Ragland, Lord of Raglan
3. Sir Edmund Blewett, Kt = Isabell, sister of Hump. Bowen, Kt
4. Sir Roger Blewett, Kt = Joane, da. of Sir Lewis Powis, Kt, Lo.
Powis
5. Thomas Blewett = Edith, sister of Owen Ward, Lo. of Penalton
6. Sir Ralph Blewett, Kt, Lord of Ragland = Llowis, sister of Gilbert
de Monthermer, Earl of Hereford and Gloucester. [Ralph de Monthermer
was styled Earl of Hertford & Gloucester in right of his wife Joan of
Acre, widow of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Hertford & Gloucester. Joan
& Gilbert had a son Gilbert, who was also Earl of Hertford &
Gloucester. The latter Gilbert would have been "step-son" of Ralph de
Monthermer. Hard to say who is meant.]
[The male descent continues on for at least 5 generations]
The Visitations of Devon 1564 (ed. Frederic Thomas Colby), [year of
visitation was 1520], "Blewett" [of Holcombe Rogus?], p. 21-22, gives
the following descent:
1. William Blewett, Kt
2. Roland Blewett, younger son = Lucretia, da & coh of Galfride
Ragland, lord of Ragland
3. Edward Blewett, Knt = Isabella, sister of Humphry Bawyn, Knt
4. Roger Blewett, Knt = Johanna, d. of Lewis de Powys, Knt, lord of
Powys
5 Thomas Blewett, Knt = Edith, sister of Owen Wood, lord of Penhalton
6. Ralph Blewett, Knt, lord of Ragland = Avis, sister of Gilbert de
Monthermer
[The male descent continues on for at least 6 generations]
Presumably #6 (in both Cornwall & Devon) Ralph Blewett, lord of
Ragland, is a close relative (perhaps father/grandfather/great
grandfather) of John Bluet of Raglan.
Does anyone have any information on the ancestry of John Bluet, which
would connect with the Blewett family given in the above visitations
of Cornwall & Devon?
Thank you for any information that can be provided.
Jim Weber
Leo van de Pas
I do not have PA 2nd edition, but these people are in the 1st edition and
there is no reference to Magna Carta. In the Magna Carta book, page 38, they
are recorded with a reference to Complete Peerage volume II page 132. Could
you have misread that entry? James Berkeley, the husband of Elizabeth Bluet
has a line to Magna Carta Sureties, not Elizabeth (I think).
Leo
Jim Weber
Google wouldn't let me post a follow-up to your question about whether
PA2 said that John Bluet was of Magna Carta Surety descent, or I was
misreading it; so I am posting it with the same title, but as a new
entry.
Possibly I was misreading, the actual text states (hopefully with all
commas, etc in place):
"8. JAMES DE BERKELEY, Knt., younger son, was born about 1353/4. He
was married to ELIZABETH BLUET, widow of Bartholomew Picot, and
daughter and heiress of John Bluet, Knt., of Raglan, co. Monmouth (of
Magna Carta Surety descent). SIR JAMES DE BERKELEY died on 13 June
1405 v.f. His widow was married for the second time to WILLIAM AP
THOMAS, Knt."
While it is possible I was misreading it, the context seems to
indicate that it was John Bluet that was being referred to. Plus this
entry on p. 23, was the 2nd in the series on BERKELEY, which started
with on p. 22 with Maurice Berkeley (of Magna Carta Surety descent and
Charlemagne descent), so adding the same piece of information to
further descendants is sort of extraneous, unnecessary, verbiage
(eg.). Since PA2 doesn't add "Charlemagne descent" to the text above,
it only makes sense to me if it is referring to John Bluet.
Of course I could (and many times am) wrong.
Jim Weber
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post.
Sometime ago, I worked out the following Magna Carta Surety line for
Elizabeth Bluet, wife of James Berkeley, of Raglan Castle, co.
Monmouth (died 1405):
l. WILLIAM MALET, Magna Carta Surety, Baron of Curry-Mallet, Somerset,
married (1st) _____.
2. MABEL MALET, married HUGH DE VIVONNE, of Chewton, Somerset.
3. WILLIAM DE FORZ, Knt., of Chewton, Somerset, married MAUD DE
FERRERS (descendant of King Henry I of England).
4. JOAN DE VIVONNE, married REYNOLD FITZ PETER, Knt., of Wolverton,
co. Hants.
5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD, married JOHN PICHARD, of Stradewy Castle
[present day Llanvihangel-Ystrad, co. Cardigan], Wales, and Bishampton
and Kington, co. Worcester.
6. AMICE PICHARD, married RALPH BLUET, of Raglan, co. Monmouth, Wales,
Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, and Thruxton, co. Hereford.
7. RALPH BLUET, Knt., of Raglan and Thuruxton, co. Monmouth, Wales,
and Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, married ELIZABETH FERCH RHYS AP
HYWEL.
8. JOHN BLUET, Knt., of Raglan and Daglingworth, etc., married
KATHERINE WOGAN (or GWRGAN).
9. ELIZABETH BLUET, married (1st) BARTHOLOMEW PICOT, Knt.; (2nd) JAMES
BERKELEY, Knt., of Raglan Castle, co. Monmouth; (3rd) WILLIAM AP
THOMAS, Knt.
Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 132 (sub Berkeley) provides no information
regarding Elizabeth Bluet's ancestry. You can find partial
particulars of the above line in the Genealogist, n.s. 12 (1895):
29-30 (1895) ("Bartholomew Picot and Elizabeth his wife, sued John
Poyntz, Chivaler, and Margaret, his wife, for the manor of Thurleston
which Roger Pychard gave to Amice, his daughter, and heirs of her body
[Amice's son Ralph, first husband of Margaret, and Ralph's son, John,
father of Elizabeth]").
I trust this answers your question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
jimw...@nwintl.com (Jim Weber) wrote in message news:<ab9770e6.03121...@posting.google.com>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Jim ~
>
> Thank you for your good post.
>
> Sometime ago, I worked out the following Magna Carta Surety line for
> Elizabeth Bluet, wife of James Berkeley, of Raglan Castle, co.
> Monmouth (died 1405):
>
> l. WILLIAM MALET, Magna Carta Surety, Baron of Curry-Mallet, Somerset,
> married (1st) _____.
>
> 2. MABEL MALET, married HUGH DE VIVONNE, of Chewton, Somerset.
>
> 3. WILLIAM DE FORZ, Knt., of Chewton, Somerset, married MAUD DE
> FERRERS (descendant of King Henry I of England).
CP calls him Sir William de _Vivonne_: is this in error?
>
> 4. JOAN DE VIVONNE, married REYNOLD FITZ PETER, Knt., of Wolverton,
> co. Hants.
>
> 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD,
Surely she would have been "Katherine Filia Reynold" not Katherine Fitz
Reynold"? Katherine Fitz Peter might be a possible alternative.
> married JOHN PICHARD, of Stradewy Castle
> [present day Llanvihangel-Ystrad, co. Cardigan], Wales, and Bishampton
> and Kington, co. Worcester.
>
<snip for brevity>
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Jim Weber
THANK YOU, Douglas, for the above information.
I have seen the two generations of Ralph Bluet (and their wives) on
the internet, but without any source whatsoever. The lawsuit provides
the key piece of information for the 3 generations of Bluet (Ralph &
Amice, Ralph, John).
The above line does provide information answering the question of
Magna Charta Surety descent (at least the outline of an answer in
terms of sourced information).
There are still two questions that I have on the Bluet/Blewett line.
1) The eldest Ralph (#6) in Douglas' line should tie in (either as a
son or brother) somewhere in the lines given in the Visitations of
Cornwall & Devon. Perhaps he is the same Ralph who m. "Llowis/Avis
sister of Gilbert de Monthermer", with Amice Pichard as an additional
wife? 2) The William Blewett (eldest Blewett in both visitation
lines) should tie in with your (Douglas Richardson's) suggestion, in a
post to SGM 15 Dec 2002, that Elizabeth Bluet descends from a younger
brother of the Ralph Bluet (d. c1199) who married Nest, Henry II's
mistress.
In the 15 Dec 2002 post you recommended the book "William Marshal:
Court, Career, and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire, 1147-1219", by
David Crouch. Not having ready access to that book, I have seen a
Michael Blewett on the internet, citing that book as a source,
indicating that the Ralph Bluet/Blewett who married Nest had two
younger brothers, William and Walter, with Walter being Castellan of
Raglan Castle. It would seem likeley that the William Blewett of the
visitations would be either the same as William or a descendant of
William or Walter (providing Michael Blewett's information is
correct).
Thank you again for the information; but there is always a desire for
more.
Jim Weber
Jim Weber
>
>
> 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD, married JOHN PICHARD, of Stradewy Castle
> [present day Llanvihangel-Ystrad, co. Cardigan], Wales, and Bishampton
> and Kington, co. Worcester.
>
> 6. AMICE PICHARD, married RALPH BLUET, of Raglan, co. Monmouth, Wales,
> Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, and Thruxton, co. Hereford.
>
>
> Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 132 (sub Berkeley) provides no information
> regarding Elizabeth Bluet's ancestry. You can find partial
> particulars of the above line in the Genealogist, n.s. 12 (1895):
> 29-30 (1895) ("Bartholomew Picot and Elizabeth his wife, sued John
> Poyntz, Chivaler, and Margaret, his wife, for the manor of Thurleston
> which Roger Pychard gave to Amice, his daughter, and heirs of her body
> [Amice's son Ralph, first husband of Margaret, and Ralph's son, John,
> father of Elizabeth]").
>
Dear Douglas,
I just notice that in #5 above you state John Pichard, while in the
paragraph later you mention Roger Pychard as father of Amice. Is this
a typo?
Jim Weber
Douglas Richardson
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<31e0266...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
> In message of 13 Dec, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>
> > Dear Jim ~
> >
> > Thank you for your good post.
> >
> > Sometime ago, I worked out the following Magna Carta Surety line for
> > Elizabeth Bluet, wife of James Berkeley, of Raglan Castle, co.
> > Monmouth (died 1405):
> >
> > l. WILLIAM MALET, Magna Carta Surety, Baron of Curry-Mallet, Somerset,
> > married (1st) _____.
> >
> > 2. MABEL MALET, married HUGH DE VIVONNE, of Chewton, Somerset.
> >
> > 3. WILLIAM DE FORZ, Knt., of Chewton, Somerset, married MAUD DE
> > FERRERS (descendant of King Henry I of England).
>
> CP calls him Sir William de _Vivonne_: is this in error?
>
Yes, C.P. is in error. As best I know, Sir William appears in records
only as William de Forz, never as William de Vivonne. Conversely,
William's father, Hugh, and William's daughters, Joan and Cecily, all
used the surname, de Vivonne [Latin form = de Vivonia].
> > 4. JOAN DE VIVONNE, married REYNOLD FITZ PETER, Knt., of Wolverton,
> > co. Hants.
> >
> > 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD,
>
> Surely she would have been "Katherine Filia Reynold" not Katherine Fitz
> Reynold"? Katherine Fitz Peter might be a possible alternative.
The children of Reynold Fitz Peter employed the patronymic, Fitz
Reynold. Katherine's half-brother for instance was known as John Fitz
Reynold. John is found in Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 465. So, yes,
it is correct to call Katherine by the patronymic, Fitz Reynold.
Tim, do you descend from Elizabeth (Bluet) Berkeley?
Richard Smith
Douglas,
Please give us the citations for the following statements (actual use by the
persons - not just reference by some other person):
1. "Conversely, William's father, Hugh, and William's daughters, Joan and
Cecily, all
used the surname, de Vivonne [Latin form = de Vivonia]."
2. " The children of Reynold Fitz Peter employed the patronymic, Fitz
Reynold."
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> My comments are interspersed below. Douglas Richardson
>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
> news:<31e0266...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > In message of 13 Dec, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
> > wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > >
> > > 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD,
> >
> > Surely she would have been "Katherine Filia Reynold" not Katherine Fitz
> > Reynold"? Katherine Fitz Peter might be a possible alternative.
>
> The children of Reynold Fitz Peter employed the patronymic, Fitz
> Reynold. Katherine's half-brother for instance was known as John Fitz
> Reynold. John is found in Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 465. So, yes,
> it is correct to call Katherine by the patronymic, Fitz Reynold.
As I have already written, I can seen no justification for this.
Of course Katherine's half brother was known as "John Fitz Reynold", as
"Fitz" means son and he was indeed the son of Reynold. But that does
not mean that "Fitz Reynold" was used as a surname; the history of the
subsequent generations show that it definitely was not, as they all used
patronymics. Katherine has to have been known as "filia Reynold",
daughter of Reynold. I challenge you to produce any contemporary
document that names her "Katherine fitz Reynold", Katherine son of Reynold!
Perhaps I should explain that "patronymic" means a name derived from the
father. The old Welsh naming system was totally patronymic with "ap"
meaning "son of" and "ferch" meaning "daughter of". Similarly the
anglo-latin version with "filius" or "fitz" for "son of" and "filia" for
"daughter of". I'm sure you must know all this. And this has to be
distinguished from a surname system where all members of each successive
generation have the same final name as the previous generation. To
write, as above, "it is correct to call Katherine by the patronymic,
Fitz Reynold" is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word
"patronymic" and of the word "fitz".
> Tim, do you descend from Elizabeth (Bluet) Berkeley?
Yes, if the various secondary sources are to be believed, though this is
one of the more credible ones.
Rosie Bevan
Forz, William de Forte, William de Fortibus, so it is not strictly accurate
to say he only appears as William de Forz. Examples where he is referred to
as William le Fort can be found in CRR XIX no.2078 and CIPM II no. 43.
However I am more interested in how Douglas reconciles the fact that Amice
is given as daughter of Roger Pichard from the citation he gives in his own
post, whereas he has placed her as daughter of John Pichard. I can assure
Jim that 'Roger' is not a typo, so we are left wondering where the 'John'
comes into it. If Douglas cannot give an adequate explanation to explain the
error, the line is chopped at that point.
The Genealogist, n.s., 12:29-30 gives the following
Northumberland, Michaelmas 46 Edward III, m. 348, De Banco,
"Bartholomew Picot and Elizabeth, his wife, sued John Poyntz and Margaret,
his wife, for the manor of Thurleston which ROGER Pychard gave to Amice, HIS
daughter, and heirs of her body
ROGER Pychard
|
Amice
|
Ralph Bluet = Margaret = (2) John Poyntz
|
John
|
Elizabeth = Bartholomew Picot, the plaintiff"
I think this latest post reinforces the points made by Hap, Peter, Paul,
Spencer, Leo, Neil, Tim and many others who have expressed doubts whether
Douglas Richardson can be trusted to produce a reliable work, despite the
considerable efforts from this newsgroup (especially Paul's valiant ones),
to prevent rubbish going into print.
Peter is right that potential buyers should be warned.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
<snip>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> The Genealogist, n.s., 12:29-30 gives the following
>
> Northumberland, Michaelmas 46 Edward III, m. 348, De Banco,
>
> "Bartholomew Picot and Elizabeth, his wife, sued John Poyntz and Margaret,
> his wife, for the manor of Thurleston which ROGER Pychard gave to Amice, HIS
> daughter, and heirs of her body
>
> ROGER Pychard
> |
> Amice
> |
> Ralph Bluet = Margaret = (2) John Poyntz
> |
> John
> |
> Elizabeth = Bartholomew Picot, the plaintiff"
Smyth of Nibley wrote on James Berkeley some two hundred years after
these people were alive (Lives of the Berkeleys, Vol I, p. 375):
"For his service against the French hee was rewarded with the honor
[sic, for the Englishmen who do not know that modern USA spelling is
ancient English!] of knighthood ; And after maryed Elizabeth (written
also Isable,) the daughter and heir of Sr John Bluet al Bloet knight,
and of the lady Katharine Worgan his wife ; by whom hee had the Welsh
manors of Raglan, Talgarth, Tore, Edishall, Straddewy, and others, as
after followeth ; And the manor of Daglingworth in the County of Glouc
: And lived in Wales with his wife at her said houses there.
"Which Sr John Bluet als Bloet was the son of Ralph Bluet als Bloet and
of Reys ap-Ryes son of Reys Ap-howell, from whom after the issue of
Phillip Ap-Reys elder brother of the said Reys Ap-Reys was dead
without issue, some of the said manors, togeather with the manors of
Bremles, Langoyde, and the Seigniory of Cantreshelley, remained and
came to James lord Berkeley, son and heir of the Sr James.
[The notes by the side of this last paragraph are "vetus manusc : in
castro de Berkeley." and "com. pleas. rec. H. 6"]
"To this Sr James and Elizabeth, king Henry the fourth, in the first of
his raigne, confirmed the town and Castle of Ragelan in the County of
Monmouth, which Earle Richard son of Earle Gilbert gave in the time of
king Henry the second to Walter Bloet and his heires, to hold by one
Welsh knights fee, And further now confirms to this Sr James and
Elizabeth the grant of a market and fair in their manr of Straddewy in
the Cantred of Talgarth, which king Edward the first int he 26th of his
raigne granted to John Pichard and his heirs; To both which antient
families, This Elizabeth (saith the record) is heire."
{The sole note in the margin of the last paragraph is "Pat 1. H. 4.
pars. 5. m : 25."
My reason for quoting all this is to give maximum information on
Smyth's account of John Bluet's parents by comparison with the
apparent account from The Genealogist. The questions that result are:
1. Who was John Bluet's mother?
2. Might Margaret have been a second wife of Ralph Bluet and merely held
the manor of Thurleston as dower?
Moving on, Smyth records, Vol I, p. 376, that Sir James Berkeley died on
the 13th June 1405, that Elizabeth his wife was one of his executors and
that:
"His said wife after maryed to William Thomas a gentleman of her owne
nation."
So this leads to the third question:
3. Who did Elizabeth Berkeley née Bluet marry second? Bartholomew
Picot? or William Thomas? Or even one after the other?
Jay
> "Which Sr John Bluet als Bloet was the son of Ralph Bluet als Bloet and
> of Reys ap-Ryes son of Reys Ap-howell, from whom after the issue of
> Phillip Ap-Reys elder brother of the said Reys Ap-Reys was dead
> without issue, some of the said manors, togeather with the manors of
> Bremles, Langoyde, and the Seigniory of Cantreshelley, remained and
> came to James lord Berkeley, son and heir of the Sr James.
Can someone help me with understanding this paragraph. How can John
Bluet be the son of two men, Ralph Bluet and Rhys ap Rhys ap Hywel?
Jay
Questions interspersed among the line, comments have no >> in front.
> >
> > Sometime ago, I worked out the following Magna Carta Surety line for
> > Elizabeth Bluet, wife of James Berkeley, of Raglan Castle, co.
> > Monmouth (died 1405):
> >
> > l. WILLIAM MALET, Magna Carta Surety, Baron of Curry-Mallet, Somerset,
> > married (1st) _____.
> >
> > 2. MABEL MALET, married HUGH DE VIVONNE, of Chewton, Somerset.
> >
> > 3. WILLIAM DE FORZ, Knt., of Chewton, Somerset, married MAUD DE
> > FERRERS (descendant of King Henry I of England).
(Did he also marry Christina of Galloway (no issue?) and Isabella de
Redvers (5 children?) ?
> >
> > 4. JOAN DE VIVONNE, married REYNOLD FITZ PETER, Knt., of Wolverton,
> > co. Hants.
(Documentation for this generation?)
> >
> > 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD, married JOHN PICHARD, of Stradewy Castle
> > [present day Llanvihangel-Ystrad, co. Cardigan], Wales, and Bishampton
> > and Kington, co. Worcester.
> >
> > 6. AMICE PICHARD, married RALPH BLUET, of Raglan, co. Monmouth, Wales,
> > Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, and Thruxton, co. Hereford.
(Documentation for this generation? Below it is argued Roger Pychard
is the father of Amice and not John!!!)
> >
> > 7. RALPH BLUET, Knt., of Raglan and Thuruxton, co. Monmouth, Wales,
> > and Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, married ELIZABETH FERCH RHYS AP
> > HYWEL.
(Source for John Bluet's mother?)
> >
> > 8. JOHN BLUET, Knt., of Raglan and Daglingworth, etc., married
> > KATHERINE WOGAN (or GWRGAN).
> >
> > 9. ELIZABETH BLUET, married (1st) BARTHOLOMEW PICOT, Knt.; (2nd) JAMES
> > BERKELEY, Knt., of Raglan Castle, co. Monmouth; (3rd) WILLIAM AP
> > THOMAS, Knt.
> >
> > Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 132 (sub Berkeley) provides no information
> > regarding Elizabeth Bluet's ancestry. You can find partial
> > particulars of the above line in the Genealogist, n.s. 12 (1895):
> > 29-30 (1895) ("Bartholomew Picot and Elizabeth his wife, sued John
> > Poyntz, Chivaler, and Margaret, his wife, for the manor of Thurleston
> > which Roger Pychard gave to Amice, his daughter,
So who is John if Roger is the father of Amice?
> > and heirs of her body
> > [Amice's son Ralph, first husband of Margaret, and Ralph's son, John,
> > father of Elizabeth]").
Hoping for clarification,
Jay
Richard Smith
Yes, this is all very confusing. In order to get it straight, it is necesary
to glean parts from more than one thread.
Setting aside for the moment the question of William de Forz (le Forte,
Fortibus, etc.), your question respecting John Bluet's ancestry goes to the
nub of the original inquiry ( in part):
"From: jimw...@nwintl.com (Jim Weber)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
Date: 12 Dec 2003 14:26:18 -0800
"I have been curious for sometime as to the ancestry for John
Bluet/Blouet, of Raglan, father of Elizabeth who married (1)
Bartholomew Picot, (2) James de Berkeley, and (3) William ap Thomas
Herbert...."
Douglas Richard responded to this inquiry (in part):
"Dear Jim ~
[snip]
"Sometime ago, I worked out the following Magna Carta Surety line for
Elizabeth Bluet, wife of James Berkeley, of Raglan Castle, co.
Monmouth (died 1405):
"l. WILLIAM MALET, Magna Carta Surety, Baron of Curry-Mallet, Somerset,
married (1st) _____.
[snip]
"5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD, married JOHN PICHARD, of Stradewy Castle
[present day Llanvihangel-Ystrad, co. Cardigan], Wales, and Bishampton
and Kington, co. Worcester.
"6. AMICE PICHARD, married RALPH BLUET, of Raglan, co. Monmouth, Wales,
Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, and Thruxton, co. Hereford.
[snip]
"8. JOHN BLUET, Knt., of Raglan and Daglingworth, etc., married
KATHERINE WOGAN (or GWRGAN).
"9. ELIZABETH BLUET, married (1st) BARTHOLOMEW PICOT, Knt.; (2nd) JAMES
BERKELEY, Knt., of Raglan Castle, co. Monmouth; (3rd) WILLIAM AP
THOMAS, Knt.
[snip]
"Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah "
Others in the newsgroup suggested the same problem with Richardson's Nos. 5,
6, 7, and 8. Most notably, Rosie Bevan posted telling comtemporary evidence
to the contrary (i.e. Amice was the daughter of Roger Pichard) which would
defeat Richardson's contention that John Bluet was a descendant of William
Malet, Magna Carta Surety. (See Rosie Bevan's post of 13 Dec 2003 at 9:07
PM.)
So, Jay, you raise the same question with the same answer.
Stated a bit differently:
The question is whether Joan 'de Vivonia's' daughter, Katherine (theSurety
descendant) was the ancestor of John Bluet. That depends on whether Amice
was the daughter of John Pichard (and Katherine, presumably) or of Roger
Pichard. Douglas Richardson contends (without comtemporary evidence) that
Amice was the daughter of John, while Rosie Bevan and others hold with the
contemporary evidence that Amice was the daughter of Roger Richard.
The question of William de Forz is a bit more complicated. One for which I
do not have the proper original documents to give you a proper answer. It
involves mistaken identies in the source materials.
Best wishes,
Richard Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay" <heli...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my original post regarding the ancestry of Elizabeth
(Bluet) Berkeley, I've located a helpful document in the book,
Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales (Board of Celtic
Studies, Hist. & Law Ser. 28) (1975). This document relates to
Elizabeth (Bluet) Berkeley's ancestress, Amice Pichard, wife of Ralph
Bluet.
pg. 304:
[182] No. 9075 1308
Isabele, widow of Roger Pychard, Lord of Tretower, to the King:
Prays that he will to ..... the Justices before whom she may pursue
her right to her dower against Master Rauf Bluet and Amye, his wife,
for the lands and tenements which belonged to the said ... [Roger?]
her baron, in Stutdewy [Stradewy-Tretower] in the lordship of
Talgarthe. She prays that she may have as Justices Sir Wa[lter de]
Pedertone and Master Thomas de Roshale.
(French)
(MS defective)
Endorsed: The King conceded this favour sought at the instance of the
Countess of Cornwall, provided that it be done according to the law
and custom of those parts and without prejudice to anyone.
Comments of William Rees, the editor:
Cal. Chanc. Warrants I 1244-1326. 274 (26 June 1308). Roger Picard
succeeded his father, John, in 1296 and on his death, s.p.m. in 1306,
he was succeeded by a daughter, Amicia, who married Ralph Bluet of
Raglan. END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.03121...@posting.google.com>...
Leo van de Pas
I have been sending a message twice to gen-med and neither has appeared as
yet.
Ronny Bodine agrees with your first assesment and what do you do now? I
don't know.
>
> Cal. Chanc. Warrants I 1244-1326. 274 (26 June 1308). Roger Picard
> succeeded his father, John, in 1296 and on his death, s.p.m. in 1306,
> he was succeeded by a daughter, Amicia, who married Ralph Bluet of
> Raglan. END OF QUOTE.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The muddles we weave.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Richard Smith
Below are two excerpts from your last post giving two quotations both of
which are posted originally by you:
(A) One from your post of 13 December 2003, in which you list a descent, in
item 5 of which, you make John Pichard, husband of Katherine, the father of
Amice Pichard who married Ralph Bluet.
(B) One in the post of 17 December 2003, in which Roger Pichard was the
father of Amicia Pichard who married Ralph Bluet.
The two contradict each other. Is it possible that you cannot see the
contradiction; or, is this the first step in a maneuver we've seen you use
in the past: switch positions and make the claim of being right all along?
At any rate, based on the material in this and related treads, those for
whom you assert Surety descent through this line have been fed a line. If
Roger isn't John, there ain't no cigar. Who are those whom you have asserted
to have Surety descent form William Malet through John Bluet?
It is nice to clear up the confusion.
Have a good day,
Richard Smitth
Quote from post of 17 dec 2003:
(B) (17 Dec 2003)
> Comments of William Rees, the editor:
>
> Cal. Chanc. Warrants I 1244-1326. 274 (26 June 1308). Roger Picard
> succeeded his father, John, in 1296 and on his death, s.p.m. in 1306,
> he was succeeded by a daughter, Amicia, who married Ralph Bluet of
> Raglan. END OF QUOTE.
>
[snip]
{(A) [ quote from 13 Dec 2003]}
> > co. Hants.
> >
> > 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD, married JOHN PICHARD, of Stradewy Castle
> > [present day Llanvihangel-Ystrad, co. Cardigan], Wales, and Bishampton
> > and Kington, co. Worcester.
> >
> > 6. AMICE PICHARD, married RALPH BLUET, of Raglan, co. Monmouth, Wales,
> > Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, and Thruxton, co. Hereford.
> >
> > 7. RALPH BLUET, Knt., of Raglan and Thuruxton, co. Monmouth, Wales,
> > and Daglingworth, co. Gloucester, married ELIZABETH FERCH RHYS AP
> > HYWEL.
[snip]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
Rosie Bevan
Well, those document may be helpful to someone, but they don't help your
case at all. How about taking a look at the chronology?
I take it that you are now implying that Roger, father of Amice, was son of
John Pichard and Katherine fitz Reginald?
Katherine and John were betrothed/married by 20 July 1277 when the manor of
Stradewy was settled on them by Roger Pichard, father of John. [Knights of
Edward I, v.4, p.62]
Now Katherine, (IF daughter of Joan), must have been aged about 7 at the
time of this settlement because Joan de Vivonia was born in 1251, according
to a Dorset inquisition made at her father's death [William Brown, Yorkshire
Inquisitions, 1892. p.74]. Joan was not married to Reginald fitz Peter until
after August 1265, when his first wife was last recorded alive [CP V p.465
(d)]. Supposing Katherine was born about 1270, it is not very feasible that
she had a married grand-daughter by 1308.
You have assumed that Amice's father, Roger, was the same as the son of John
and Katherine. Unfortunately this is not borne out by the evidence, for this
John's inquisition took place in 1306 when he was holding the manor and
castle of Stradewy of Sir John fitz Reginald at his death,[CIPM v.IV
no.352], and it is recorded that his son and heir, Roger, was aged 15/16. It
is impossible that this Roger could have had a daughter of a marriageable
age two years later as appears in your record.
This is what we have
1. Roger Pichard fl 1294, granted the manor of Stradewy to his son, John, in
1277.
2. John Pichard d.1306
+ Katherine fil. Reginald b c 1270
3.Roger Pichard b. 1290.
The Roger Pichard who was lord of Tretower, and left a widow Isabel as per
your 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales' entry, was an
entirely different Roger to the one born in 1290. Note your Roger did not
hold the manor of Stradewy - only tenements. I think he was probably John's
cousin.
Quite frankly, the line does not stand up to scrutiny at all and I would not
advise anyone to accept it on such a flimsy basis.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
Robert Todd
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message news:<31e0266...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
> In message of 13 Dec, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> > <sniped for brevity>
> >
> > 4. JOAN DE VIVONNE, married REYNOLD FITZ PETER, Knt., of Wolverton,
> > co. Hants.
> >
> > 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD,
Mr. Pows-Lybbe asked:
> Surely she would have been "Katherine Filia Reynold" not Katherine Fitz
> Reynold"? Katherine Fitz Peter might be a possible alternative.
This is not true in all cases. While Katherine could have been known
as "filia Reynold", "filia Reynold" is not a true patronymic; it's
only a descriptive phrase identifying her father, and has no legal
identity. In this case, "Fitz Reynold", when used to describe
Katherine, the "Fitz" is simply a two part Anglo-Norman patronymic
that has been appropriated as a surname.
The Anglo-Norman word "fitz" is not gender specific as is the Welsh
"ap" or "ferch" or as would be the Scandinavian name "Reynoldson" or
"Reynoldsdatter". The Anglo-Norman words "fil", "filz"or "fils" refer
to males, "fille or "filles" refer to females. "Fitz" means "child
of". It is understandable that most researchers have denoted "fitz"
as "son of", as I am sure that 99.9 percent of the recorded instances
involve males. However, if one studies the connotation of the word in
the original Anglo-Norman texts, it is applicable to both males and
females.
Regards, Robert
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Mr. Pows-Lybbe, Mr. van de Pas et al.
>
> Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
> news:<31e0266...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>...
> > In message of 13 Dec, royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>
> > > <sniped for brevity>
> > >
> > > 4. JOAN DE VIVONNE, married REYNOLD FITZ PETER, Knt., of Wolverton,
> > > co. Hants.
> > >
> > > 5. KATHERINE FITZ REYNOLD,
>
> Mr. Pows-Lybbe asked:
>
> > Surely she would have been "Katherine Filia Reynold" not Katherine Fitz
> > Reynold"? Katherine Fitz Peter might be a possible alternative.
>
> This is not true in all cases. While Katherine could have been known
> as "filia Reynold", "filia Reynold" is not a true patronymic;
Does it have to be a "true patronymic"? The question is what she was
known as.
> it's only a descriptive phrase identifying her father, and has no
> legal identity. In this case, "Fitz Reynold", when used to describe
> Katherine, the "Fitz" is simply a two part Anglo-Norman patronymic
> that has been appropriated as a surname.
>
> The Anglo-Norman word "fitz" is not gender specific as is the Welsh
> "ap" or "ferch" or as would be the Scandinavian name "Reynoldson" or
> "Reynoldsdatter". The Anglo-Norman words "fil", "filz"or "fils" refer
> to males, "fille or "filles" refer to females. "Fitz" means "child
> of". It is understandable that most researchers have denoted "fitz"
> as "son of", as I am sure that 99.9 percent of the recorded instances
> involve males. However, if one studies the connotation of the word in
> the original Anglo-Norman texts, it is applicable to both males and
> females.
Thanks for that.
I have no knowledge of Anglo-Norman or of the naming practices of those
times. But what is striking is that Keats-Rohan, who presumably has
such knowledge, does not seem to follow the above naming practice and
does use "filia".
Chris Phillips
Robert Todd wrote:
> The Anglo-Norman word "fitz" is not gender specific as is the Welsh
> "ap" or "ferch" or as would be the Scandinavian name "Reynoldson" or
> "Reynoldsdatter". The Anglo-Norman words "fil", "filz"or "fils" refer
> to males, "fille or "filles" refer to females. "Fitz" means "child
> of". It is understandable that most researchers have denoted "fitz"
> as "son of", as I am sure that 99.9 percent of the recorded instances
> involve males. However, if one studies the connotation of the word in
> the original Anglo-Norman texts, it is applicable to both males and
> females.
I've always understood "fitz" meant son, not child.
A quick look at http://www.anglo-norman.net/, using the search facility,
does seem to confirm this impression, with "fitz" or "fiz" being used for
son, in opposition to "file" for daughter.
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
> From: tar...@idirect.com [mailto:tar...@idirect.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:57 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Ancestry of John Bluet, of Raglan
<snip>
> The Anglo-Norman word "fitz" is not gender specific as is the Welsh
> "ap" or "ferch" or as would be the Scandinavian name "Reynoldson" or
> "Reynoldsdatter". The Anglo-Norman words "fil", "filz"or "fils" refer
> to males, "fille or "filles" refer to females. "Fitz" means "child
> of". It is understandable that most researchers have denoted "fitz"
> as "son of", as I am sure that 99.9 percent of the recorded instances
> involve males. However, if one studies the connotation of the word in
> the original Anglo-Norman texts, it is applicable to both males and
> females.
This is news to me, as it will no doubt be to other SGM members and to
etymologists.
Before the dictionaries are corrected, perhaps Robert Todd will favour
us with some examples from the 0.1 percent of his reading of original
Anglo-Norman texts where "fitz" refers to a female, or failing that
any instance where the connotation applies to both genders before the
word formed part of an accepted surname.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
I hope Robert Todd won't take too much longer to share with us some of
the alleged examples of "fitz" referring to females. This shouldn't be
too arduous for him - presumably he took notes on such a novel &
important point from his reading, since by his own account this must
have ranged across documents that are so far unknown to historians,
genealogists and etymologists.
Peter Stewart
Clagett, Brice
Pichard descent correctly. Sir Roger Pichard (d. 1296/7), of Tretower
(Straddewy) Castle, Breconshire; Almeley, Ocle Pychard, etc., Herefordshire,
and Thirleston (Thurkelston), Northumberland (wife Joan), was succeeded
in his estates by his son John Pichard (d. 1305/6) (wife Katherine, dau.
of Sir Reynold Fitz Piers), who was succeeded by his son, Roger Pichard
(c. 1290-1308) (wife Isabel), who was succeeded by Amice, his (the younger
Roger's) sister, wife of Ralph Bluet.
The key document is reproduced in Mary Cooke's _The Picards or
Pychards_ (1878), page 36:
"Feet of Fines Ed. 2. Hereford. (File 1 to 25.) No. 8, 2 Ed. 2.
1308. - Between Peter son of Roger Pychard of Straddewy Plaintiff,
and Ralph Bluet and Amicia his wife Defendants, of the manor of Almaly
with the appurts., and the advowson of the church of the said manor.
Whereupon a plea, etc., to wit that the aforesaid Peter acknowledged
the said manor and advowson to be the right of the said Amicia, And for
this acknowledgment, etc., the same Ralph and Amicia granted to the
said Peter the said manor and advowson which Joan, who had been the wife
of Roger Pychard, held in dower of the inheritance of the said Amicia
on the day on which this agreement was made, and which after the decease
of same Joan to the said Ralph and Amicia and the heirs of the same Amicia
ought to revert, after the decease of the said Joan wholly to remain to the
said Peter and the heirs of his body, To be held of the said Ralph and
Amioia and the heirs of the said Amicia for ever, Rendering yearly one
rose for all services, etc..... And if it shall happen that the said
Peter die without heirs of his body, then after the decease of the said
Peter, the aforesaid manor and advowson wholly shall revert to the said
Ralph and Amicia and the heirs of the said Amicia, quit of other heirs
of the said Peter, To be held of the chief lords of that fee by the services
which to the same belong for ever. And this agreement was made in the
presence of the said Joan, and she did fealty to the said Peter in the
said Court. Hereford."
Thus Amice is found as heir to the family estates. Peter, who was John's
younger brother, acquired Almeley only by a subinfeudation from Amice,
in which he expressly acknowledged her right. If Amice had been a sister
of John, Peter would have been the heir after the younger Roger's death.
Chronology forbids that Amice was daughter of the younger Roger. Therefore
Amice was daughter of John.
I am unclear whether the pleading from The Genealogist NS 12:29-30 expressly
says that Amice was Sir Roger's daughter, or whether that is an inference
drawn by the editor. If it does say so, it is wrong, which isn't particularly
surprising. This document dates from 46 Ed. III, many years after the events
described. The gist of the pleading is that Roger Pichard gave the manor of
Thirleston to Amice. The legal position would have been the same whether
Amice was Roger's daughter or granddaughter, or if Amice's grantor was
John rather than Sir Roger. The important thing to the plaintiff, Elizabeth
(Bluet) Picot, was that she was entitled to Thirleston by a grant to her
great-grandmother Amice. She (or her lawyer) could easily have been confused
as to the relationship between Sir Roger and Amice.
Rosie Bevan
Thank you very much for going to the trouble of seeking out, presenting and
discussing the text of the 1308 fine.
Having read through it, I agree that this is the evidence which leads to the
logical conclusion that Amice was the daughter of John Pichard.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clagett, Brice" <bcla...@cov.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Jay
> Dear Brice
>
> Thank you very much for going to the trouble of seeking out, presenting and
> discussing the text of the 1308 fine.
>
> Having read through it, I agree that this is the evidence which leads to the
> logical conclusion that Amice was the daughter of John Pichard.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
Yes, thanks Brice, it has really been a bit of a pickle, and you
cleared up the issue. Now if we could only clear up the question of
the origins of Katherine filia Reynold so easily.
Robert Todd
<snip>
> > Mr. Pows-Lybbe asked:
> >
> > > Surely she would have been "Katherine Filia Reynold" not Katherine Fitz
> > > Reynold"? Katherine Fitz Peter might be a possible alternative.
> >
> > This is not true in all cases. While Katherine could have been known
> > as "filia Reynold", "filia Reynold" is not a true patronymic;
>
> Does it have to be a "true patronymic"? The question is what she was
> known as.
That's a very complex question to answer. The approach that I have
used in my researches is to look at how the word or phrase is used
within the text, and then referencing published texts for further
clarification.
Yet current references are not fully up to date. The Oxford
Dictionary, for instance, states that they will be revising their
documentation of Old and Middle French as well as Middle English with
"further as-yet-unpublished medieval and later documentation".
> I have no knowledge of Anglo-Norman or of the naming practices of those
> times. But what is striking is that Keats-Rohan, who presumably has
> such knowledge, does not seem to follow the above naming practice and
> does use "filia".
"filia" is from Latin, meaning "daughter," as is filus "son," possibly
from Proto-Indo-European, the hypothetical reconstructed ancestral
language of the Indo-European family root 'bheue', meaning to be,
exist, or grow. But there is also from the Late Latin period,
"filialis" meaning "of a son or daughter" which may have evolved into
Anglo-French words representing the "ts" sound in the late 13th
century. It began to be used for the voiced "s" sound and had fully
taken that role by 1400. The "Z" sound is not a native letter in Old
English.
The word "fitz" has evolved to refer to males, as most references will
attest. However, even an internet search results in sites that refer
to the meaing of "fitz" to be 'child of'. For instance:
http://mizian.com.ne.kr/englishwiz/library/names/etymology_of_last_names.htm
They have a section on patronymics (Surname History )wherein they say:
"names are those that identify the father and various cultures did so
by different means. The Scandinavians added "son" to identify John's
son or Erik's son. The Norman-French used the prefix "Fitz" to mean
child of, as in Fitzpatrick, for child of Patrick. Many other cultures
had their own prefixes to indicate of the father('s name) , including
the Scots ('Mac'Donald)".
To delve further into published texts for further clarification, using
the above example of the Scottish 'mac' see MacFarlane's (Scottish-)
Gaelic-English dictionary, which was prepared for the use of learners
of the Gaelic language by Malcolm MacFarlane. In that dictionary,
"mac" is defined as " son, or the young of any animal."
For 'fitz', I have not relied solely on web sites, but on published
material, in particuler, that of a medieval specialist who is well
respected in this and other medieval study societies. I do not have a
copy of his published works here, but I will have to go to our local
reference library to confirm.
Regards, Robert
Robert Todd
<snip>
> I've always understood "fitz" meant son, not child.
Please see my response to Mr. Powes-Lybbe, posted above in the thread.
There are web sites that refer to the usage of 'fitz' as meaning
'child of'.
> A quick look at http://www.anglo-norman.net/, using the search facility,
> does seem to confirm this impression, with "fitz" or "fiz" being used for
> son, in opposition to "file" for daughter.
I thank you for the web site, I will search it for other examples,
using their search facility. It certainly facilitates research.
It is a pity, though, that it only covers only the first two volumes,
as my original research was done the old fashioned way. Unfortunately,
my electronic notes disappeared when I simultaneously lost three of my
hard drives, so I am left with scattered notes in my 'piling' system
with which to work.
Can any other researcher contribute other web sites that are
searchable for Anglo-Norman text ?
Regards, Robert