Alice Freeman- please tell me where this line breaks down

[cynthia.ann...@gmail.com]

This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly):
King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son:
Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter:
Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son:
Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son:
Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son:
Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter:
Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter:
Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son:
William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son:
William de Camville = Iseuda; their son:
Thomas = Agnes; their daughter:
Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son:
Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter:
Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son:
William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; their son:
Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter:
Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter:
Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter:
Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son:
Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter:
Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter:
Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son:
Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter:
Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter:
Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke

I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone.
So could someone tell me where this line breaks down?
I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again.
Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help.
Cynthia Montgomery

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote:
> Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son:
> William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son:
> William de Camville = Iseuda; their son:
> Thomas = Agnes; their daughter:

> So could someone tell me where this line breaks down?

It is here in the de Camville line which is uncertain. Starting with William de Camville is not a proven son of Milicent de Rethel. Richard was twice married and his first wife is probably a better fit

[Matt A]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote:

In addition to Ethelred II, Genealogics gives a line from Joan Langston to Gilbert FitzRichard/de Clare and Adeliza de Clermont and therefore Hugues Capet. Following up on its citations might be a fruitful lead for further research.

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

On 2016-06-15 21:47:47 +0000, Matt A said:

> In addition to Ethelred II, Genealogics gives a line from Joan Langston
> to Gilbert FitzRichard/de Clare and Adeliza de Clermont and therefore
> Hugues Capet. Following up on its citations might be a fruitful lead
> for further research.

The line from Alice Freeman to Hugues Capet in Genealogics appears to
depend on the proposition that William de Duston, paternal grandfather
of the Isabel de Duston who married Walter de Grey of Rotherfield, was
married to an unknown daughter of Geoffrey Wake, son of Emma de Clare
and Hugh Wake. The citation van de Pas gives for this is American
Ancestors and Cousins of the Princess of Wales by Gary Boyd Roberts and
William Adams Reitwiesner (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company,
1984), where it appears on page 143.

However, in the 68th installment of his "Royal Descents, Notable Kin,
and Printed Sources" column, subtitled "Notable Descendants of Mrs.
Alice Freeman Thompson Parke, RD"
(http://www.americanancestors.org/StaticContent/articles?searchby=author&subquery=Gary%20Boyd%20Roberts&id=641),
Roberts himself states that Freeman's "Capetian line via, among other
families, Wake and Duston, first posited by George Andrews Moriarty,
Jr., and dependent on a stained-glass window inscription, is no longer
tenable."

I don't have references for either Moriarty's original proposition or
for its disproof.

--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
p...@panix.com
about.me/patricknh
http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

[cynthia.ann...@gmail.com]

Well, okay, I've read all about the Wake Duston business. The line I posted, as far as I am aware, doesn't go through or depend on Wake or Duston. As I said, I'm working from the latest RD600 and there is a line from Louis IV through Sir John Throckmorton that extends down through John Neale and onto Jeffrey Amherst. If you stop at Sir John Throckmorton in that line then follow Sir John Throckmorton and wife Eleanor Spinney down through their daughter Agnes Throckmorton who married Thomas Winslow to their daughter Agnes Winslow who married John Giffard you continue to trace down to Alice Freeman. So if that line is not good, it must break down somewhere. But Wake and Duston isn't the break in this line because they aren't in it at all. So I'm asking where that line breaks down. Someone posted maybe William Camville was son of Richard Camville and his first wife which would negate the Rethel line back. Of course if that would negate it for Alice it should have negated it for Jeffrey Amherst whose line still shows up going through the same son William de Camville (m. Aubree Marmion)of the same couple Milicent of Rethel = Richard de Camville.

[Joe]

This line should be broken for both of them here. There are several discussions in the archives regarding Milicent of Rethel.
See this one from earlier this year:
Re: Ancestry of Jeffrey Amherst http://tinyurl.com/glu62ow

Douglas Richardson wrote then: "Of these children, it would appear that the son Richard and the daughter Isabel (wife of Robert de Harcourt) were the only children by Richard de Camville's 2nd wife, Milicent de Rethel. This is deduced by the fact that Milicent de Rethel's lands at Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire (which she had by grant of her kinswoman, Queen Alice) were held after Milicent's death by the younger Richard de Camville. When the younger Richard de Camville died in 1191, he was succeeded briefly by his son and heir, John. It appears that John de Camville soon died without issue, and the lands at Stanton Harcourt reverted to his father Richard's sister, Isabel de Harcourt or her representative. Had Milicent de Rethel been the mother of the elder Richard de Camville's other sons, Stanton Harcourt would have fallen to them, ahead of Isabel Harcourt. The succession at Stanton Harcourt suggests that the younger Richard de Camville and Isabel de Harcourt were full sublings, and the only children of Milicent de Rethel by the elder Richard de Camville. "

Joe

[Peter Stewart]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 1:08:13 AM UTC+10, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote:
> This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly):
> King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler,
> German Emperor, their son:
> Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter:
> Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son:
> Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son:
> Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony;

Ida the wife of Albert III of Namur may have belonged to the ducal family of Saxony, as often asserted, but her origin is not certain.

The Medieval Lands database gives a sloppy and illiterate false impression on this point: according to Charles Cawley, 'The Genealogia ex stirpe Sancti Arnulfi names "Idam Namucensem … uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem" as children of "Bernardum"'.

Actually this misrepresents a highly unsatisfactory source, making it appear to provide straightforward and reliable information. The passage in question is in fact grossly garbled, either by the original writer in 1164 or more probably by a redactor in or after 1261. It purports to trace Ida and several sisters back to Heinrich the Fowler's son Heinrich of Bavaria, a younger brother of Emperor Otto I: "Henricus dux, frater Othonis primi, genuit Henricum ducem. Hic genuit Henricum imperatorem et Giselam, uxorem Stephani regis Hungrorum. Hec genuit Bernardum. Hic genuit Idam Namucensem et reginam Francorum, uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem et reginam Nacorum".

Actually Emperor Heinrich II's sister Gisela, wife of St Stephen of Hungary, was not the mother of Bernard II of Saxony (who is usually supposed, on no better authority than this passage, to have been Ida's father) while Ida herself was not sister to queens of France and Denmark (assuming ‘Nacorum’ should be read as ‘Dacorum’) although she may have been their maternal aunt as a sister to Bernard II's daughter Gertrude (respectively by each of the latter's marriages, the second to a count of Flanders). Ida was possibly also sister to Hadwig 'of Mossa' (whose second husband Engelbert, count of Sponheim, was perhaps the man titled ‘marchio’).

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:06:31 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Actually this misrepresents a highly unsatisfactory source, making it appear to provide straightforward and reliable information. The passage in question is in fact grossly garbled, either by the original writer in 1164 or more probably by a redactor in or after 1261. It purports to trace Ida and several sisters back to Heinrich the Fowler's son Heinrich of Bavaria, a younger brother of Emperor Otto I: "Henricus dux, frater Othonis primi, genuit Henricum ducem. Hic genuit Henricum imperatorem et Giselam, uxorem Stephani regis Hungrorum. Hec genuit Bernardum. Hic genuit Idam Namucensem et reginam Francorum, uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem et reginam Nacorum".
>
> Actually Emperor Heinrich II's sister Gisela, wife of St Stephen of Hungary, was not the mother of Bernard II of Saxony (who is usually supposed, on no better authority than this passage, to have been Ida's father) while Ida herself was not sister to queens of France and Denmark (assuming ‘Nacorum’ should be read as ‘Dacorum’)

At the risk a beating a dead horse, this is exactly the kind of thing that places MedLands in a bad light in the eyes of many. One need not even be an expert to know enough about the Hungarian struggle for succession to dismiss out of hand any claim that King Stephen was father of Bernard of Saxony, and conclude that any source that makes the claim must be viewed with extreme skepticism with regard to all its claims. To simply lift this one passage out of such a dubious context, with no analysis or perhaps even recognition of the problematic nature of the source from which it is drawn, demonstrates a lack of appropriate care (or else intentional selective omission) in the extraction of relational statements from sources. Worse yet, as Peter points out, with the Latin quote of the relational statement, stripped of all context, it gives the false impression of reliability to any reader unfamiliar with the entire passage.

taf

[cynthia.ann...@gmail.com]

Thank you. Especially for the plain English explanation and also for the tiny url.

[Kay Allen via]

I wrote about this back in February 2003. In any case, it can be found by searching for Alice Freeman.
When I talked with Gary Boyd Roberts, he said that the stained-glass windows weren't good evidence,The only stained-glass evidence I can remember are those of the church at Thame, Oxfordshire which related to the Quartermaine family, and didn't as I remember, touch on the Duston issue at all.But I have seen the identical line used for others.  So……..
I would recommend writing a Letter to Gary Boyd Roberts ℅ the New England Historical and Genealogical Society in Boston. He has retired, but they would probably forward it.
If I get a chance, I will see if I can dig my notebooks on this line out of storage.
Kay Allen   

-------------------------------
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

[cynthia.ann...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote:

Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who this Alice is?

[Jan Wolfe]

What is the evidence for the identity of the wives of the two William de la Spines in this pedigree?

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

I'd like to know that myself. The two secondary sources I have handy
which assert these marriages are Henry James Young's _The Blackmans of
Knight's Creek_ and Gary Boyd Roberts' _The Royal Descent of 600
Immigrants_ etc (2008 edition), the source cited by Cynthia Ann
Montgomery in starting this thread. Both are works that concatenate
their citations in such a way that makes it a bit challenging to
establish which source confirms which piece of information.

Young's references for the Bruley family are _The Quatremains of
Oxfordshire_ by William F. Carter (1936) and _Memorials of the Danvers
Family_ by F. N. Macnamara (1895). For the Durvassals, he cites
Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, page 757, and _The
Genealogist_ n.s., volume 10, page 31. And for the
Spinney/Spine/Spineto family, he cites only Charles Wickliffe
Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the
Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_.

I don't have immediate access to _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_. But
the other sources are easy to find online. The Bruley discussion in
_Memorials of the Danvers Family_ doesn't mention an "Alice de Bruley",
let alone anyone named de la Spine (or variants). _Antiquities of
Warwickshire_ doesn't anywhere, as best as I can tell, mention a
Margery Durvassal marrying a William de Spineto/Spine/etc. And the
_Genealogist_ page referred to shows merely a brief Durvassal pedigree
from a pipe roll which, again, makes no mention of a Margery.

Gary Boyd Roberts' list of references on page 559 of the 2008 edition
of his _Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_, following his presentation of
the pedigree under discussion, includes, for the generations in
question, Young's _Blackmans of Knight's Creek_, Dugdale's _Antiquities
of Warwickshire_, _The Wallop Family_ (which doesn't mention any
Spinetos/Spynes/Spinneys prior to the Sir Guy Spiney of Coughton whose
daughter married a Throckmorton), an ancestor table by Brice McAdoo
Clagett in the _Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin 31 (1989-90):
136:53, "corrected in part in [McAdoo's] forthcoming _Seven Centuries:
Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville Clagett and
Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett_" (neither of which I have access to), and
... Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's book.

So unless William F. Carter's 1936 _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_,
and/or the two works by Brice McAdoo Clagett (one of them unpublished,
as far as I know) contain evidence for the marriages of William de
Spineto (etc, d. bef. 1317) of Coughton, Warwickshire to Margary
Durvassal, daughter of Thomas Durvassal (d. bef. 1329) of Spernore,
Warwickshire, and of his son William Spyne (etc) to Alice de Bruley,
daughter of William Bruley of Aston Bruley, Warwickshire, himself a son
of Sir Henry de Bruley and Katherine Foliot ... I think we have to
conclude that both Young's and Roberts's main source for these
marriages was Col. Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A
Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in
England and the United States_. Which does indeed show these marriages.
Let's look at what the Colonel has to say.

"Alice=William de Spine" appears at the bottom of Col. Throckmorton's
"Bruley Pedigree" facing page 64, and both marriages are shown on the
"Spine and Durvassal Pedigree" facing page 68. In the latter pedigree,
the marriage of William to Margery Durvassal is footnoted "In 26 Edw.
I. (1300) he bought the de Bruley interest in Cocton from Sir Wm.
Tuchet, knt., who had inherited them from the Bishop of Ely. (Coughton
Records and Dugdale.) In Ireland 1291-3, and in 1294 in Wales with the
king for the war. (Chancery Warrants, 1294-1326, p. 47.)" The marriage
of the younger William to "Alice, dau. of William de Bruley" is
footnoted "In 22 Edw. III., William de Espinge, lord of Cocton, lets
farm to Wm. de Bruley, son of the former Henry le Bruley, knt., a
messuage in Cocton. In 36 Edw. III., William Spine quitclaimed to
Sybil, who was formerly the wife of John Durvassal, and heirs of her
body all right in the manor of Spernore. He was living 44 Edw. III.
Commissioner for arraying of Archers for French wars, 19 Edw. III.
(Dugdale and Coughton Records.)" Regarding the first of these two
footnotes, it's worth pointing out that 26 Edward I was 20 Nov 1297 to
19 Nov 1298, not "1300" as Throckmorton says. The Colonel's shaky grasp
of reignal dating has been noted elsewhere.

Col. Throckmorton's actual narrative of the Spine family runs from
pages 64 to 66, following a discussion of the de Coctons, a daughter of
whom, Throckmorton says, married the William de la Spine who was father
to the elder of the two Williams being discussed in this post.
Interestingly, this narrative passage doesn't mention any marriages to
de Bruleys or Durvassals. Following his discussion of Guy de la Spine,
knight of the shire, whose daughter Alianore married John Throckmorton,
Col. Throckmorton says "I have given above nearly verbatim the account
of the Cocton and Spine families from Wrottesley of Wrottesley by the
Right Honorable Major General Sir George Wrottesley and from the
Antiquities of Warwickshire by Sir William Dugdale". It's notable that
George Wrottesley's _History of the Family of Wrottesley of Wrottesley,
Co. Stafford_ (1903) doesn't mention the Spines at all, and Dugdale's
_Antiquities of Warwickshire_, while it does discuss the Spines (volume
2, p. 748-49), makes (as noted previously) no mention of a marriage to
a Margary Durvassal, and the name given for the wife of the younger
William Spine is merely "Alicia." In other words, the evidence
presented by Throckmorton for the Bruley and Durvassal marriages
consists entirely of his entries on two pedigree charts, accompanied by
footnotes which -- and I acknowledge that I'm merely an interested
amateur; I'd be delighted to be shown wrong here -- don't seem to me to
present information demonstrating that these marriages actually
happened.

I admit that I'm predisposed to be suspicious of Colonel Throckmorton's
book, because I've read John G. Hunt and Henry J. Young's article
"Ravens or Pelicans: Who was Joan de Harley?" (_The Genealogist_, even
newer series, 1:27, Spring 1980), which entertainly demolished Col.
Throckmorton's claim that Alexander Besford, a Worcestershire knight of
the shire who died about 1400 and who was an ancestor to (among other
early New England immigrants) Alice Freeman of Connecticut and John
Throckmorton of Rhode Island, was son to a Joan de Harley who was
herself daughter of Joan Corbet, dau. of Sir Robert Corbet, and thus
descended from Louis IV of France, Henry "the Fowler", Llywelyn ap
Iorwerth, the dukes of Normandy, and various other medieval eminences.
In the process, Hunt and Young (the latter of whom I assume to be the
same individual that compiled _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_) make
some observations about Col. Throckmorton's methods: "In the scholarly
articles of [G. Andrews] Moriarty the pedigree emerges inevitably from
the original documents consulted; by contrast, the Colonel uses his
documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke
screen, relying ultimately on his hunch. [...] Even his citations are
lifted, not always accurately, without acknowledgement of the immediate
source." "Using documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost
as a smoke screen" looks to me very much like a description of
Throckmorton's two footnotes transcribed above, and it really doesn't
encourage me to give much credibility to a pair of marriages for which
his pedigrees appear to be the only actual source.

Further destruction of the Colonel's credibility can be found in Paul
C. Reed's article nine years later, again in _The Genealogist_ (10:1,
Spring 1989), "Another Look at Joan de Harley: Will Her Real
Descendants Please Rise?", which in the process of bouncing the rubble
made a good case that the Colonel's methodological problems were not
occasional or intermittent.

Again, I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be happy to learn that I'm
wrong about any of this. It seems to me likely that many of the people
reading this are far more familiar with this material than I am. (I
certainly suspect that Jan Wolfe is.) I'm basically trying to reason as
best I can from the materials available to me, and within the
limitations of my knowledge.

[Kay Allen via]

Dear Patrick and all,
VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The archives may have some discussion also.
Kay Allen

[taf]

On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, Kay Allen via wrote:
> Dear Patrick and all,
> VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The archives may have some discussion also.

VCH Warwickshire is rather unhelpful, at least from the Durvassal side. It even questions that the women who sold to John Throckmorton were William Durvassal's granddaughters: "Joan, according to Dugdale, was the granddaughter of William Durvassal, but there seems no foundation for his guess." Yet we know from one of his ipms that William died with heirs Margaret and Joyce.

Frederick William Hackwood in "Wednesbury ancient and modern: being mainly its manorial and municipal history", p. 41, reports the following. It does not cite the documents on which it is based, but is clearly derived from primary sources:

"Henry Heronville, lord of Wednesbury, married Margaret, the daughter and heir of William Sperner. He died about St. Matthew's Day, 1406, after holding the Manor only three years. More than twenty years afterwards his name, his marriage, and his untimely death, transpire in the course of a long lawsuit."

"From the records of a prolonged trial over the manor of Frankley in Worcestershire, still proceeding in the year 1430, it would appear that Margaret, the wife of Henry Heronville, was a daughter of William Spernore, and that Joyce, wife of William Swynfen, was another daughter, and that they claimed the right of remainder in the manor of Frankley, which should descend to them on the death of their mother Alice, they being their deceased father's only heirs. The two heiresses, and Swynfen, the husband of one being under age, prayed that the suit should remain till they arrived at full age; and strangely enough Henry Heronville, the husband of the other heiress, died while the trial was pending."

His ipm lists his heirs as Joan, Alice and Margaret:

http://www.history.ac.uk/cipm-19-part-i
[no. 72]

On the next page Hackwood goes on to say:

"In 1420 the two younger daughters of the deceased Henry Heronville became nuns, Alice being over seventeen years of age, and Margaret under seventeen at the time of taking the veil. At the formal inquiry, which was then taken on oath (exactly as if each girl was dead to the world), it was given in evidence that they were co-heiresses in the manor of Wednesbury, the manor of Tymmore, and lands in "Tibyton," with their "sister Joan, wife of William Leventhorpe," who was their nearest heir.

These inquisitions are here:
http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-194/
http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-195/

The next part was documented back in 1904 in a lawsuit over the Leventhorpe inheritance:

". . . that after the decease of the said William, Jane his wife should have the same for her life if she lived after his decease without husband, and if she took another husband, that then the right heirs of the same William should have the said lands and rents to them and their heirs. And the same William Leventhorp died, after whose decease the said Jane took to husband Henry Beamond, and after the same Henry died, after whose decease the same Jane took to husband Charles Nowell, and after the said Elizabeth, mother of the said John Hudleston, died, after whose decease, and after that the said Jane had taken to husband the said Charles Nowell, . . ."

So there can be little doubt that Dugdale was doing more than guessing: Jane, wife of Henry Beaumont was daughter of Margaret (wife of Henry Heronville), daughter of William Durvassal als. Spernore.

For the other heiress, remember we have Joyce, daughter of William Spernore married to William Swynfen. The last connection is them provided by Mill Stephenson in his "Monumental Brasses of Shropshire", Arch. Jour. vol 52, quotes Stebbing Shaw's History and Antiquities of Staffordshire (which I cannot find online):

"John de la Hay, rector, grants to Richard Whitehill for life a moiety of certain lands in Rushale and Wallesal, co. Stafford, remainder to Margaret
wife of William de Vernon, daughter and heir of Jocosa, late wife of William Swynfen, Esq., and to her heirs for ever."

So the entire proof that the grantors of Spernore were the granddaughters of William Spernore was available when the editors dismissed it as an unfounded guess in 1945.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 8:43:26 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066038720;view=1up;seq=198

There are a couple of things here I would take issue with. First, he says of William Spernore/Durvassal that he is "reasonably thought to have been an illegitimate son of John Durvassal", and later "Spernore came into the possession of the bastard son, William". I kept expecting an explanation for this reasonable thought, but none came. We now know that William came into possession via a grant, jointly, to Joyce, widow of John, and to William, that William then held it for life. He later says that Rose, widow of Nicholas sued William for possession, "but without success, for William remained in possession until his death." Without success is all relative, because they agreed that William would only hold it for life and then it would revert to the right heirs of John and Joyce, Rose's, daughters (and eventually, her grandson). It was only after he died s.p. that it went back to William's children. In other words, Rose won, just not right away.

It is hard to judge without seeing the agreement in question, but the inheritance by William's daughters could only have come one of two ways - first, that they were right heirs of John and Joyce and hence Walter's natural heirs to the property, or second, that the original grant left reversion, first to the issue of John and Joyce, then to William and his right heirs. I have yet to see anyone comment that the latter was the case, but without seeing the accord, we can't be certain. If the first of these was the case, William must have been legitimate, if the latter, he was illegitimate (else as right heir he would not have needed a special reversion), which again has me wondering what the 'reasonable thought' is.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This book states:
>
> "Sir John Throckmorton, son of Thomas and Agnes, was responsible for the acquisition of the current family seat at Coughton. On 25 June 1409, Sir John married Alianore, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Guy de la Spine by his wife Katherine, daughter of John Holt and Alianore Durvassal."
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=RYoMXDQdlFEC&pg=PA173&dq=%22de+la+spine%22+throckmorton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqh_Dw_bbNAhVDSCYKHfRdCewQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=%22de%20la%20spine%22%20throckmorton&f=false
>
> This is quite different from the line presented in the first posting in the thread.

Yes, but I posted back in January how this proposed Durvassal / Holt / Throckmorton connection is based on nothing more than the fact that John Holt's wife and John Throckmorton's wife were both named Eleanor, and further that the inheritance of Spernore (entailed to the right heirs of John and Joyce Durvassal), by William Spernore's daughters on the death of Walter Holt demonstrates that Walter Holt did not have any surviving sisters - indeed that the entire descent from Nicholas Durvassal, Walter's grandfather, must have become extinct.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

Thanks Patrick, Todd, and John, for information and analysis of sources and claims concerning the wives of the various generations of Spynes.

VCH Warwickshire in the section about Coughton, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol3/pp74-86, discusses a number of land transactions related to the Spynes. While surnames attributed to wives in the various Spyne generations occur in these transactions, there doesn't seem to be any clear indication that any of these transactions resulted from marriages. The given names Joan, Margery, and Alice for Spyne wives are mentioned in these transactions. The marriage settlement for John Throckmorton and Eleanor Spyne (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/f5db12f8-2140-4fbd-b0e8-7795d7bca190) confirms the given name of Guy's wife was Katherine.

If the various generations of Spynes acquired their lands by purchase rather than marriage, what was the source of the Spyne wealth?

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to support Millicent.

[taf]

We can't be absolutely positively sure that William was not son of Millicent, but it is extremely unlikely that he was.

'The genealogists' first drew the conclusion that William the younger was son of Millicent simply because Millicent was documented as wife of William the elder. Given what they had in hand, this was a reasonable assumption - if a man only had one known wife, then the default conclusion is that his legitimate children were born to that wife, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, at the time they lacked the precise details on the pattern of inheritance of Millicent's land, which is exactly the kind of evidence to the contrary that suggests that the older sons of the elder William were not children of Millicent.

This is a case where we have to be willing to reevaluate old assumptions, whatever the cost to our tree, and when we do this we find that in all likelihood the line breaks, that William was likely son of an earlier wife and not Millicent.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:18:58 AM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> If the various generations of Spynes acquired their lands by purchase
> rather than marriage, what was the source of the Spyne wealth?

This is rarely something that can be determined - aside from inheritance or royal grant, it is often difficult to determine the source of a family's wealth.

That being said, I don't think we should dismiss inheritance just yet. First of all, just because we can't now find documentation to support the marriages doesn't mean they did not occur. Likewise, even if the details of the marriages are incorrect, it does not exclude the possibility that some of their lands were acquired by inheritance, just a different inheritance than that traditionally assigned.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 4:29:28 AM UTC+10, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:

> We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information
> to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to
> support Millicent.

Who are the genealogists whose support for Millicent impresses you?

For at least 100 years there has been direct evidence in print that Richard de Camville married twice (his own charter for Jumièges, dated 1170, naming both wives).

This supplemented indirect evidence long known that at least his eldest son Gerard was apparently too old to have been Millicent's son (her first husband was killed in 1143/44 according to William of Newburgh, whereas Richard founded Combe abbey in 1150 with the assent of his son and heir Gerard ("quod et feci concessu et favore ... filii mei et hæredis Gerardi"). The same charter refers to Richard's children ("pro salute animæ meæ et uxoris meæ, liberorumque meorum") but the only family members witnessing the donation were his son Gerard and his brother Hugo - from this it could be arguable that Gerard's younger brother William was perhaps Millicent's son, still a child in 1150, but any genealogist working after the publication of Dugdale's Monasticon who failed to consider the alternative is probably not a reliable authority.

Peter Stewart

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

On 2016-06-19 22:00:16 +0000, Kay Allen via said:

> Dear Patrick and all,
> VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might
> throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The
> archives may have some discussion also.

Hello, Kay --

As far as I can see, all that VCH Warwickshire (specifically,
"Parishes: Coughton" in volume 3, pages 74-86) tells us about these
generations is:


William de Spineto, also called "del Espine" (d. "before the end of
1316") = Margery
|
William "del Espinee" (d. bet. 1370 and 1398) = Alice
|
Sir Guy Spine = Katherine
|
Eleanor = John Throckmorton, son of Thomas Throckmorton of Fladbury, Worcs.


I searched the whole multi-volume county history for all the variants I
could imagine of Spine/Spyne/Spineto/Spinney; nothing came up
indicating any marriages to Durvassals or Bruleys.

--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
p...@panix.com
about.me/patricknh

http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:24:20 AM UTC-4, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> On 2016-06-19 22:00:16 +0000, Kay Allen via said:
>
> > Dear Patrick and all,
> > VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might
> > throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The
> > archives may have some discussion also.
>

And here we are. The identity of the families of the wives of the William de Spines and Guy de Spine has no evidence whatsoever other than the word of Mr. Throckmorton, who has been clearly shown to be very unreliable. At this point, Mr. Throckmorton should be cast aside and RD800 should have a correction added. Does anyone have a way to contact Gary Boyd Roberts?

How exciting. We can throw away these (probably false) identities, and start with a clean slate to identify the proper individuals.

--Joe Cook

[taf]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10:06:49 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> Yes, but I posted back in January how this proposed Durvassal / Holt / Throckmorton connection is based on nothing more than the fact that John Holt's wife and John Throckmorton's wife were both named Eleanor, and further that the inheritance of Spernore (entailed to the right heirs of John and Joyce Durvassal), by William Spernore's daughters on the death of Walter Holt demonstrates that Walter Holt did not have any surviving sisters - indeed that the entire descent from Nicholas Durvassal, Walter's grandfather, must have become extinct.
>

In both this and the previous post I made, I gave the wrong name to John Durvassal's wife - she was Sibyl.

taf

[taf]

As Peter has made clear, I left out an alternative - it is certainly possible that these genealogists were unaware that William the elder had two wives (I think we sometimes forget how easy we have it is locating obscure publications, or knowing that a not-so-obscure publication we wouldn't think to check has something relevant). That being said, it is also possible that they knew that Gerald was son of one mother and that Isabel was daughter of another, so how do they determine which one is likely mother of William? They pick the one with the better pedigree.

However it arose it was an ill-informed conclusion.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 5:13:10 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

> And here we are. The identity of the families of the wives of the William
> de Spines and Guy de Spine has no evidence whatsoever other than the word
> of Mr. Throckmorton, who has been clearly shown to be very unreliable.

True, yet he does cite his sources: Dugdale and Coughton Records. The former gives no information on the wives of these men. As to the latter, these are the unpublished deeds and other documents of Coughton manor, and it is unclear if the details he provides (in footnotes on a chart) represent everything he was going on.

For the Durvassal connection, it looks like William Spyne was serving as paper-plaintiff in a fine resettling Spernore on William Durvassal and his mother (or step-mother) Sibyl. I am not sure why this implies a relationship, but it is notable that Throckmorton shows this woman married to William de Sutton, and I see no mention of him elsewhere that explains his inclusion, so it appears there is more to these Coughton Records than is being detailed in the footnotes.

For the Spine/Bruley connection, he seems to be depending on some ambiguous grants of rents, but again it is hard to tell.

> How exciting. We can throw away these (probably false) identities, and
> start with a clean slate to identify the proper individuals.
>

I guess what I am saying is that the participants here have spent all of 5 days looking for proof, perhaps insufficient time to draw definitive conclusions given the vague manner in which the evidence is presented. However, that doesn't preclude a continued search for evidence, wherever it leads.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:20:54 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
...

> True, yet he does cite his sources: Dugdale and Coughton Records. The former gives no information on the wives of these men. As to the latter, these are the unpublished deeds and other documents of Coughton manor, and it is unclear if the details he provides (in footnotes on a chart) represent everything he was going on.
>
> For the Durvassal connection, it looks like William Spyne was serving as paper-plaintiff in a fine resettling Spernore on William Durvassal and his mother (or step-mother) Sibyl. I am not sure why this implies a relationship, but it is notable that Throckmorton shows this woman married to William de Sutton, and I see no mention of him elsewhere that explains his inclusion, so it appears there is more to these Coughton Records than is being detailed in the footnotes.

...

Perhaps this quitclaim suggests that William Spyne's widow Margery married a Walter de Sutton:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5520869
Reference:E 210/9005
Description: John son of Hugh de Northfolk to Walter de Suttone of Warwick, Margery his wife, and the heirs of William de la Spyne: Quitclaim of a messuage and land in North Littleton: Worcs.
Date: 11 Edw. II. [8 July 1317-7 July 1318]

[taf]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:43:12 AM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote:

> Perhaps this quitclaim suggests that William Spyne's widow Margery married
> a Walter de Sutton:
>
> http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5520869
> Reference:E 210/9005
> Description: John son of Hugh de Northfolk to Walter de Suttone of
> Warwick, Margery his wife, and the heirs of William de la Spyne:
> Quitclaim of a messuage and land in North Littleton: Worcs.
> Date: 11 Edw. II. [8 July 1317-7 July 1318]

Just as a reminder, VCH Warwickshire, in covering Coughton, says:

"In 1300 William 'of Spinney' was said to hold that part of the vill of Coughton with its wood and plain which was 'on the side of the river Arrow towards the west', (fn. 83) and in 1315 he was holding Coughton as ½ knight's fee of Guy, Earl of Warwick. (fn. 84) He died before the end of 1316, (fn. 85) having enfeoffed William de Sutton of Warwick of the manor.* In 1318 the manor was settled on William Sutton and his wife Margery for their lives, with remainders to William son of William 'del Espine' and his issue, or Joan his sister, Alice her sister, or his right heirs, (fn. 86) and William de Sutton is referred to as lord of Coughton in 1320. (fn. 87) It is possible that William de Sutton had married the widowed Margery de Spineto and obtained the guardianship of her son and his estate. "

83. Select Pleas of the Forest (Selden Soc.), 120.
84. Cal. Inq. p.m. v, p. 405; Cal. Close, 1313–18, p. 278; cf. Feud Aids, v, 178.
85. Cal. Inq. p.m. vi, 70.
86. Dugd. 748; Feet of F. (Dugd. Soc. xv), 1489.
87. P.R.O. Anct. Deeds, B. 1653.

taf

[Jan Wolfe]

Perhaps TNA abstracted de Suttone's given name incorrectly in the quitclaim, or perhaps a clerk wrote it incorrectly.

In the published series, Ancient Deeds, B. 1653 states:
[ ] B. 1653. Grant by Nicholas de Kyggeleye to Maculmus Musard and
Isabella his wife, of lands in the territory of Kynggeleye. Saturday after
St. Barnabas the Apostle, 13 Edward II.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015013091643;view=1up;seq=383

Any idea what deed is meant in footnote 87?

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 10:20:54 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:

> I guess what I am saying is that the participants here have spent all of 5 days looking for proof, perhaps insufficient time to draw definitive conclusions given the vague manner in which the evidence is presented. However, that doesn't preclude a continued search for evidence, wherever it leads.

Agreed. My point was merely that if I were developing a proof or publishing a book, I would not draw anything even close to a solid line to the names of these wives. If Mr. Throckmorton had access to rather inaccessible documents, that is no help to me or anyone really unless he describes the key contents of those documents instead of just his conclusions drawn from them. It may be the case that Gary Boyd Roberts has seen these documents, but I doubt it.

--Joe C

[D. Spencer Hines]

Gary Boyd Roberts is not interested in getting down in the weeds like this.
He makes no bones about that.

He has better things to do.

Leo van de Pas correctly draws the distinction between Hunters and
Gatherers -- as two types of Genealogists.

Leo is a Gatherer -- and so is Gary Boyd Roberts.

We need more Gatherers here on SGM and SHM...

We used to have more of them.

Now we have an imbalance -- too many Hunters and not enough Gatherers.

DSH

"A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille
[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
wrote in message
news:c09aec64-d36a-45e7...@googlegroups.com...

[djame...@aol.com]

I checked out _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_ from the local library and the only slightly relevant comment it makes is this (p 58):

"Maud [Quatremains] married John Bruley, of Waterstock, Oxfordshire, a few miles north of Thame, a manor which his great-grandmother Katherine, a Foliot heiress, granted to his grandfather John Bruley. Dr. Macnamara gives (p 219 &c.) a clear and interesting history of the Bruley family, but does not follow them into Warwickshire and Worcestershire. I might supplement his account, but content myself with noticing their handsome coat of arms ..." etc.

Thus this book makes contact with the Bruley pedigree mentioned by Patrick above (through the marriage of Henry Bruley to Katherine Foliot), but sheds no light whatsoever on the lineage in question. There is no mention of Alice Bruley or of the Spine, Durvassal or Throckmorton surnames.

Dave Ebel

[Jan Wolfe]

Thanks all for your efforts to document the de Spineto/Spyne family.

VCH Warwickshire (in the Coughton section) cites several deeds from the Warwickshire Feet of Fines volumes (Dugdale Society). I have now read the full text of these abstracts/translations. I see nothing to identify the wives of the men named William de Spineto beyond their given names. Are these volumes readily available to others interested in this family? If not, I can post transcriptions of the fines when I have finished copying them for myself.

Meanwhile the name William de Spineto appears twice in the Fine Rolls of Henry III:

1253/54 February. Wiltshire. William son of Sewal' de Spineto gives the king two marks for an assize of mort d’ancestor to be taken before Roger of Whitchester. Order to the sheriff of Wiltshire to take etc. ["Sewal' de Spineto" written over erased text.]
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_051.html#it256_010, 38 Henry III (28 October 1253–27 October 1254), membrane 10

1271 December 17. Warwickshire, "William de Spineto and Joan his wife" gave "half a mark for having a writ ad terminum. Order to the sheriff of Warwickshire." http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_069.html#it168_019, 56 Henry III (28 October 1271–27 October 1272), membrane 19

We know from one of the Fines cited in VCH that a William de Spineto was purchasing land in Coughton by 1256-1257 (41 Henry III).

We also know from deeds that the William de Spineto that married a Margery had land interests in Worcestershire.

Does it seem plausible that William son of Sewal' de Spineto was the same man as the William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton in 1254-1255? Would it be surprising for a man purchasing land in Warwickshire to have recently asked for an assize of mort d'ancestor in Wiltshire? Was 2 marks a lot to pay for such an assize? Would such a case be recorded in the King's Bench Plea Rolls?

In some records the surname of this family is written del Espyne (and variants) and later Spyne (and variants). Is the origin of this name the Latin word for a thicket of thorn bushes and the French word for thorn?

In 1196, a William de Spineto (Oxford DNB calls him William d'Épinay), keeper of the castle of Bonneville-sur-Touques, was sentenced to be hanged for his roll in allowing the escape of a prisoner entrusted to the custody of Robert de Ros.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:36:59 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> Thanks all for your efforts to document the de Spineto/Spyne family.
>
> VCH Warwickshire (in the Coughton section) cites several deeds from the Warwickshire Feet of Fines volumes (Dugdale Society). I have now read the full text of these abstracts/translations. I see nothing to identify the wives of the men named William de Spineto beyond their given names. Are these volumes readily available to others interested in this family? If not, I can post transcriptions of the fines when I have finished copying them for myself.
>
> Meanwhile the name William de Spineto appears twice in the Fine Rolls of Henry III:
>
> 1253/54 February. Wiltshire. William son of Sewal' de Spineto gives the king two marks for an assize of mort d’ancestor to be taken before Roger of Whitchester. Order to the sheriff of Wiltshire to take etc. ["Sewal' de Spineto" written over erased text.]
> http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_051.html#it256_010, 38 Henry III (28 October 1253–27 October 1254), membrane 10
>
> 1271 December 17. Warwickshire, "William de Spineto and Joan his wife" gave "half a mark for having a writ ad terminum. Order to the sheriff of Warwickshire." http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_069.html#it168_019, 56 Henry III (28 October 1271–27 October 1272), membrane 19
>
> We know from one of the Fines cited in VCH that a William de Spineto was purchasing land in Coughton by 1256-1257 (41 Henry III).
>
> We also know from deeds that the William de Spineto that married a Margery had land interests in Worcestershire.
>
> Does it seem plausible that William son of Sewal' de Spineto was the same man as the William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton in 1254-1255? Would it be surprising for a man purchasing land in Warwickshire to have recently asked for an assize of mort d'ancestor in Wiltshire? Was 2 marks a lot to pay for such an assize? Would such a case be recorded in the King's Bench Plea Rolls?

They may be different individuals. Here is another note on Sewal ('sawat' here):
https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=%22sawat%22+%22spineto%22&source=bl&ots=oQnygP6kDz&sig=2Lhgti_r6mapbIBVKDEW8gBAt30&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt6-SA973NAhVBpR4KHcafBI8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22sawat%22%20%22spineto%22&f=false

and:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=%22sawal%22+%22spineto%22&source=bl&ots=Cgikz9Q6dS&sig=Hx2rnb3-YlHIbJFRCoVRMw8gbak&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUr4Oz973NAhXCpx4KHdPDBCoQ6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=%22sawal%22%20%22spineto%22&f=false

More interestingly, perhaps, is this British History article:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol3/pp74-86

And I agree with the conclusion found here:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I26499

[taf]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:31:30 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

> And I agree with the conclusion found here:
> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I26499

Maybe in the immediate generation linked, but if the elder William married a Bruley heiress, then I suspect that was not the case for his grandson. There may have been a vague tradition (e.g. heraldry) that had the family marrying Coughton and Bruley heiresses, and hence called for two links, one to Coughton and one to Bruley, but if the first marriage was to an heiress of both, then the latter marriage is not necessary to explain the Bruley inheritance and the Bruley fines. Not that a family couldn't marry distant branches of the same family in subsequent generations, but I would suggest that this modified explanation of the earlier generation places the latter all the more in doubt.

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

Yes, completely agree, and yes, I meant for the linked page only, not whatever the other pages may say which I didn't go through in detail.
Joe Cook

[Jan Wolfe]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:31:30 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> They may be different individuals. Here is another note on Sewal ('sawat' here):

> https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293 ...
>
> and:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93 ...
>
...

Thanks, Joe, for these links to documents mentioning Sawal son of William de Spineto.

I wrote a reply a couple hours ago, but Google Groups appears to have lost it (a message said processing was taking a long time and to send the post again if it didn't appear soon), so I'm writing the reply again. My apologies for duplication if the original post eventually appears.

The first document you cited, https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&dq=Spineto, appears to be dated the end of January in 1220. Perhaps someone who can easily read this Latin can supply an explanation of the argument and the result of this court case.

The second document, a deed, https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Spineto, is dated 4 John, so nearly a generation earlier. There is another deed witnessed by William de Spineto on the same page. It is undated, but since it involves the same people perhaps it was executed at about the same time. (This William presumably cannot be the same man as the William de Spineto sentenced to be hanged in 1196 unless the hanging wasn't carried out.)

In both of the documents you cite, the given name of the son of a William de Spineto is Sawal. In the 1254 Fine Roll, the given name of the father of a William de Spineto is Sewal (with a line written through the l as in the court document). The image of the Fine Roll is here, http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/fimages/C60_51/m10.html. The entry is the ninth one above the stitches.

It seems plausible that Sawal and Sewal could be the same name. While the court case and deed were from Essex and the Fine Roll mentions Wiltshire, chronologically, the documents could refer to the same man--in 1202-1203 Sawel as a young man with his father William de Spineto living, Sawal's father William de Spineto dead by 1220, and Sewal de Spineto himself dead by February 1253/54 and his son William eager to posses his land. There is still the question of whether the son William de Spineto in 1253/54 may have been the same man as a contemporary William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton.

[Jan Wolfe]

The court case involving Sewal son of William de Spineto, cited in previous posts,
https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293 (Michaelmas 1218) and continued in the same book
https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA298 (Hilary 1219)
is from the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews and is translated here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=40xAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=Spineto
and
https://books.google.com/books?id=40xAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14&dq=Spineto

Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews
Pleas of Michaelmas Term, 3 Hen. III [A.D. 1218] ...
Essex. Samuel, son of Aaron of Colchester, demands of Sewal de Spineto, son of William de Spineto, 50s. by chirograph under the names of the said Aaron and William. Defence, that the seal of the chirograph is not William's, in evidence whereof is produced a charter bearing William's seal, which is unlike the seal of the chirograph. As the the chirograph, Samuel puts himself upon lawful Christians and Jews, who know the handwriting of the clerk who was chirographer when it was made, and avers that it is usual for knights to have two seals. Pledges: for Sewal, Osbert, the chaplin; for Samuel, Benedict Crespin. Day assigned, the quindene of St. Hilary.

Hillary Term, [A.D. 1219] ...
Essex. Sewal de Spineto complains that Samuel, son of Aaron of Colchester, demands of him a debt which he does not acknowledge to be due. Wherefore mandate is to go to the Sheriff, that, having taken security from Sewal for the prosecution of his claim, he summon the said Jew to be before the Justices at Westminster on the morrow of All Souls to show how and by what warrant he demands that debt, and to have there that whereby he demands it. Pledges for prosecution, Osbert, chaplain, of Holland, and Robert, smith, of Cochester.

[Jan Wolfe]

I think that the deeds do not provide convincing evidence for the marriage proposed in the cited website. While William de Spineto's wife Joan chronologically plausibly could have been a daughter of Hugh de Burleye and his wife Joan (who was the heiress of Simon de Coughton and his wife Constance), the language of the fines (according to the abstracts) does not suggest that the transfer of property to William, and later to William and his wife Joan, was a marriage settlement for a daughter. In particular, William paid 4 marks of silver for the property he received in 1257 from Hugh de Burleye and Joan, and in 1274 he paid John de Bibbesl' and his wife Constance (Simon's widow) 75 marks of silver and Hugh de Norfolk and his wife Joan (Hugh de Burleye's widow) 40 marks of silver for additional pieces of Coughton.

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him.

[Peter Stewart via]

Ed Mann used to participate in Gen-Med discussions - as far as I
recollect, he was a diligent "gatherer" of information from secondary
works rather than a "hunter" investigating primary sources.

A search of the newsgroup archive should tell you if the question was
ever explicitly raised when he was active in the newsgroup. If it was, I
would be surprised if Ed had argued in support of Millicent as the
mother of William beyond acknowledging this as an unlikely possibility
on the available evidence.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him.

Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a step away from the issue. Ay time it becomes a question of the genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about modern peope rather than about medieval people. Rather, let's look at the facts themselves.

When Richard de Camville died, his property went first to his son John, then to Richard's sister Isabel, and not to William or his descendants. Do you understand why this would lead some to suggest that William had a different mother than Richard and Isabel?

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)?
>
> Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter:
> Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son:
> [possible additional Marmion generation]
> Geoffrey Marmion = _______;
> Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son:
> William de Camville = Iseuda; their son:
> Thomas = Agnes; their daughter:
> Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son:
> Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter:
> Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son:
> William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley;
>
> Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter:
> Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son:
> William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son:
> William de Camville = Iseuda; their son:
> Thomas = Agnes; their daughter:
> Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son:
> Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter:
> Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son:
> William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley;
>
> I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called):

Yes, proven incorrect. Millicent of Rethel was not the mother of William de Camville.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Links as "Sources".

Yes, that's correct, with the scare quotes -- the continuing deterioration
of the American-English Language.

...As the Poguenoscenti increasingly modify it.

...So of course it has infected Genealogy too.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille
[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
wrote in message

news:bf3f1336-f033-403e...@googlegroups.com...

[D. Spencer Hines]

Reasonable Line of Inquiry.

DSH

"A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille
[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

"taf" wrote in message
news:6b1e5fb4-076c-4da7...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> Well the genealogist seems to be Edd [sic] Man do you ever heard [sic] of

> him.

Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is competent
to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a step away from

the issue. Ay [sic] time it becomes a question of the genealogists rather

[taf]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)?
> >
> > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter:
> > Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son:
> > [possible additional Marmion generation]
> > Geoffrey Marmion = _______;
> > Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son:
> > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son:

> > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter:
> > Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son:
> > William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son:
> > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son:

> > I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called):
>
> Yes, proven incorrect. Millicent of Rethel was not the mother of William de Camville.

As I understood it, the question was about the first descent as a replacement for the second.

I have two observations. First, there is no way one would expect another generation in the Marmion descent. It would mean that William de Camville would be marrying the granddaughter of his step-brother.

Second, while using a strict generational framework can sometimes lead to the wrong result, it can tell you if your reconstruction may be skewed. In this case, Isabel de Camville would be of the same generation as her half-brother William, and likewise of her Marmion half-brothers If William's wife Aubrey was of his generation, then she would be daughter of someone of the generation before his - of the generation of Millicent and not her child. I can't find any detailed study of the family but I find several references to Sir Robert Marmion (d.ca. 1181, son of Millicent) granting Llanstephan to his "uncle" Geoffrey, from whom it passed to Aubrey, wife of William de Camville. Thus it looks like no descent because Aubrey's line branches in the generation before the Rethel marriage.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:40:20 PM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him.
>
> Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is
> competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a
> step away from the issue. Ay time it becomes a question of the
> genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about
> modern peope rather than about medieval people.

Though I agree with this up to a point, I don't think Ed Mann's competence has been put at issue in this thread.

The poster apparently found the information in a post from Ed and asked if he was a known authority, not whether he was definitively right on the specific matter.

I replied that Ed was a diligent "gatherer", reflecting on his methodology but not implying anything about his competence.

In my view a "gatherer" may be as capable as a "hunter" of resolving such a problem as this - the "gatherer" may know the primary evidence quite adequately at second hand, and may also know more about differing analyses of it than a "hunter" who has found it directly and thought about it from only one perspective.

The secondary literature of medieval genealogy (including the archive of this newsgroup) has plenty of examples where old errors have been made anew by "hunter" researchers who did not gather that someone else had already corrected a mistake.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:02:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> > Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is
> > competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a

> > step away from the issue. Any time it becomes a question of the

> > genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about

> > modern people rather than about medieval people.

>
> Though I agree with this up to a point, I don't think Ed Mann's competence has been put at issue in this thread.
>

I was just using Ed as a proxy for the general issue - which is the more important question: 1) what has a past genealogist concluded (whoever that may be) and are they to be believed, or 2) what do the data say? What I want to impress on paulorica is that one is better off focusing on the evidence rather than what others in the past have concluded, perhaps with less information, perhaps with less current information, perhaps with a poor understanding of the underlying principles.

Here we have discussed the evidence, so it is a backwards step to turn focus away from the evidence and instead look to what genealogists have concluded, whether they be hunters or gatherers.

taf

[Peter Stewart via]

This is the point up to which I agree - and the same applies to primary
sources: what matters is all the available evidence (direct and
circumstantial), rather than just what any person (including a medieval
one) has written. Most primary sources only record what was believed or
concluded by someone at a point closer to the facts than we are today,
while not necessarily knowing these facts as thoroughly or examining
them as carefully as may be possible today.

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, good points all and sundry.
-------------------------------

"Here we have discussed the evidence, so it is a backwards step to turn
focus away from the evidence and instead look to what genealogists have
concluded, whether they be hunters or gatherers."

taf

-----------------

...UNLESS the genealogists had some additional skills -- and evidence which
is not being examined in this brief series of hasty newsgroup posts.

...And it certainly may be the case that they did.

Unless we are all looking at the same set of evidence -- as does a jury --
errors in judgement may creep in on little cat's feet.

Hunters can sometimes get lost in the multiplicity of detail in the
evidence.

...Which is why we need gatherers too to allow us to take a longer view.

Any Army needs both Sergeants and Generals -- who are generalists.

DSH

"A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille

[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
"taf" wrote in message

news:79f7713b-3dbf-4672...@googlegroups.com...

[JBrand]

Yah, it didn't necessarily look right. I think I got confused by the two Robert Marmions with wives Millicent.

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

Well I know Ed Mann uses in some of his genealogical notes the connection William the Conqueror-Gundreda that is much more unlikely than the connection Millicent de Rethel-William de Camville..

[Peter Stewart via]

Maintaining the William the Conqueror-Gundreda connection is not just
unlikely - it is positively foolish.

If this appears as fact in Ed Mann's notes, why do you need to wonder in
public how useful these may be to you as an authority on any other
question? I suggest you might try carting out your own rubbish bins
without asking your neighbours for moral support.

Peter Stewart

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong.

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it
doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong."

pauloricardocanedo2

It may indicate a pattern of carelessness and/or simple incompetence.

DSH

"A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille
[1606-1684]

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

wrote in message
news:5796ceab-67c8-4fe2...@googlegroups.com...

[Peter Stewart via]

On 30/06/2016 11:50 PM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote:
> Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong.
>
>

Of course it doesn't - however, it does mean that the work is most
probably no better than other bunglers could do for themselves.

This is the same pitiful excuse that has been made here for depending on
Medieval Lands.

The facile habit of using readily-accessible stashes of data causes many
an amateur in medieval genealogy to waste time and effort. It means that
one busy ignoramus exerts an influence in this field that is out of all
proportion to the skill and sense brought to it.

Self-indulgent clinging to trust in self-evident charlatans is currently
disgracing two of the world's greatest nations. It doesn't have to
disfigure SGM discussions as well.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

I was wrong, the genealogist who uses the connection Millicent de Rethel-William de Camville isn´t Ed Mann it is Leo Van de Pas.

[taf]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:01:00 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> I was wrong, the genealogist who uses the connection Millicent de Rethel
> -William de Camville isn´t Ed Mann it is Leo Van de Pas.

Not as I am reading it - he shows William de Camville as son of RIchard de Camville, but by Adelicia and not by Milicent, and it looks like it has been that way since 2003 at least.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Well so the note in which he used it is probably of before 2003.

[Peter Stewart via]

On 8/07/2016 3:06 AM, ravinmaven2001 via wrote:
> Lewis C. Loyd, _The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families_, p. 24: "Richard de Camville (d. 1176) gave to the abbey of Jumieges the tithes of his land at Hautot-l'Auvray (the next parish to Canville) in a charter which mentions his two wives Adelicia and Milisent and his brother Roger."
>
>

This was mentioned already - the charter was published a century ago
from the original, see
https://archive.org/stream/chartesdelabbay00fragoog#page/n8/mode/2up.

Peter Stewart

[mmro...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:06:49 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:13:37 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This book states:
> >
> > "Sir John Throckmorton, son of Thomas and Agnes, was responsible for the acquisition of the current family seat at Coughton. On 25 June 1409, Sir John married Alianore, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Guy de la Spine by his wife Katherine, daughter of John Holt and Alianore Durvassal."
> >
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=RYoMXDQdlFEC&pg=PA173&dq=%22de+la+spine%22+throckmorton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqh_Dw_bbNAhVDSCYKHfRdCewQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=%22de%20la%20spine%22%20throckmorton&f=false
> >
> > This is quite different from the line presented in the first posting in the thread.
>
> Yes, but I posted back in January how this proposed Durvassal / Holt / Throckmorton connection is based on nothing more than the fact that John Holt's wife and John Throckmorton's wife were both named Eleanor, and further that the inheritance of Spernore (entailed to the right heirs of John and Joyce Durvassal), by William Spernore's daughters on the death of Walter Holt demonstrates that Walter Holt did not have any surviving sisters - indeed that the entire descent from Nicholas Durvassal, Walter's grandfather, must have become extinct.
>
> taf

On the contrary, when Sir George Throckmorton had Coughton Court rebuilt he decorated the windows with the arms of his and his wife's family. These were drawn by Wenceslaus Hollar (and may still exist -- not only is Coughton Court very well preserved because the recusancy fines prevented them from altering it, but some Throckmortons still live there) and show the Spinney arms empaled with Throckmorton. It might not be the most solid evidence, but you expect a man to have some idea of who his grandmother was.

http://link.library.utoronto.ca/hollar/digobject.cfm?Idno=Hollar_k_2281&query=Hollar_k_2281&size=large&type=browse

[taf]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:17:13 PM UTC-8, mmro...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Yes, but I posted back in January how this proposed Durvassal / Holt /
> > Throckmorton connection is based on nothing more than the fact that John
> > Holt's wife and John Throckmorton's wife were both named Eleanor, and
> > further that the inheritance of Spernore (entailed to the right heirs of
> > John and Joyce Durvassal), by William Spernore's daughters on the death
> > of Walter Holt demonstrates that Walter Holt did not have any surviving
> > sisters - indeed that the entire descent from Nicholas Durvassal, Walter's
> > grandfather, must have become extinct.

> On the contrary, when Sir George Throckmorton had Coughton Court rebuilt he
> decorated the windows with the arms of his and his wife's family. These were
> drawn by Wenceslaus Hollar (and may still exist -- not only is Coughton Court
> very well preserved because the recusancy fines prevented them from altering
> it, but some Throckmortons still live there) and show the Spinney arms empaled
> with Throckmorton. It might not be the most solid evidence, but you expect a
> man to have some idea of who his grandmother was.

On the contrary? My statement was that the pedigree given to Eleanor (Spinney) Throckmorton, making her mother the heiress of the Holt/Durvassal marriage, never had anything but the most flimsy basis (that Holt's wife and Throckmorton's wife had the name Eleanor). I am not sure how arms showing that a Throckmorton married a Spinney is contrary to this in any way.

> http://link.library.utoronto.ca/hollar/digobject.cfm?Idno=Hollar_k_2281&query=Hollar_k_2281&size=large&type=browse

I can't access this, but I would assume it is the same as this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wenceslas_Hollar_-_Coughton_(Throckmorton).jpg


taf

[Paulo Canedo]

Maybe I was also wrong when I said Ed Mann uses the Gundreda connection I think I was confused because that information is all in the same page.

[o442...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-5, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Maybe I was also wrong when I said Ed Mann uses the Gundreda connection I think I was confused because that information is all in the same page.

Who is or was Ed Mann?

-Lee Ann Mann

[taf]

A former contributor to this group.

taf