Parentage of Sir William de Cantelowe, Steward of the King's Household (died 1239)
Douglas Richardson
Many members of the newsgroup descend from the baronial Cantelowe
family. In the past, various questions have arisen here on the
newsgroup as to the parentage of Sir William de Cantelowe, Steward of
the King's Household, who died in 1239. To my knowledge, to date no
one has conclusively identified Sir William's correct parentage.
The industry standard, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, has a
good biography of Sir Wiliam de Cantelowe. Regarding Sir William's
parentage, the following information is provided:
"Cantilupe [Cantelupe], William (I) de (d. 1239), baron and
administrator, was of Norman descent, probably the son of Walter de
Cantilupe, in 1166 a minor landholder in Essex and Lincolnshire." END
OF QUOTE.
In recent time (2007), Katherine A. Hanna has published a helpful
work, The Christchurch Priory Cartulary (Hampshire Record Series, Vol.
18). On page 169, a charter of Walter de Cantelowe naming his wife,
Amice, and son and heir, William, is presented. A second son, Robert,
serves as a witness.
"522. [13th Century, before 1271, possibly before 1254]
GRANT, in pure and perpetual alms, by Walter de Cantelupo - for the
salvation of his soul and those of his wife, Amicia, his son and heir
William de Cantelupo, his other children and his ancestors - to
Christchurch Priory, of 1/2 mark a year from his rent at Leigh (Lega),
viz. 20d. to be paid each quarter by Sampson de Lega and his heirs.
Witnesses: Robert de Cantelupo, his son, Robert de Cantelupo [sic] and
others." END OF QUOTE.
The grantor is doubtless the Walter de Cantelowe involved in a
Somerset fine dated 3 John [1201-2]. As such, the charter is badly
dated by the editor, as it would date from long before 1254. The
editor supposes that Walter de Cantelowe's son and heir, William, is
the same person as the William de Cantelowe "who held the manor of
Barwick in Dorset in 1251-2 and who died about Michaelmas 1254 (Book
of Fees, II, pp. 1260, 1266)." Actually the William de Cantelowe who
died in 1254 was this Walter de Cantelowe's grandson, he being the son
and heir of Walter's son and heir, William.
There are three additional records of this same family which were
published many years ago in Two Cartularies of the Augustinian Priory
of Bruton & Cluniac Priory of Montacute (Somerset Rec. Soc. 8) (1894):
158, 159. These records were overlooked by both ODNB and by Ms.
Hanna. These items may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Nuj3FKBDcw4C&pg=PA158
The first record there is an undated charter of William, son of Walter
de Cantelupe, concerning the gift, grant, and confirmation of ten
shillings coming from Samson his free man at Legh. This grant was
made with the consent of William his son and heir. Witnesses include
Walter le Poer; Gilbert de Sai; Jordan Oliver; Jordan de Alneto;
William Haketh, Randulph, serjeant of Berwic, etc. Samson "his free
man at Legh" is surely the same person as Sampson de Lega mentioned in
Walter de Cantelowe's charter above.
The second record is undated charter of William, son of William de
Cantelowe, confirming the gift of his father, William de Cantelowe.
Same witnesses as the first record above.
The third record is an undated letter of the aforesaid William son of
Walter de Cantelupe to the said Sampson de Legh to secure payment of
the said ten shillings.
While these items are all undated, I note that Randolph, serjeant of
Berwik, is one of the witnesses. I assume Berwik here mentioned is
the same place as Barwick, Somerset. Another witness, Walter le Poer,
is likely the man of that man who who was employed in various missions
in Warwickshire and Worcestershire im 1215; he was Sheriff of Devon in
1222, and a collector of the fifteenth in Worcestershire in 1226. In
the last year he was justice itinerant in Gloucestershire, and in 1227
held the same post for the counties of Oxford, Hereford, and Salop. A
third witness, Jordan Oliver, is likely the man of that name who held
the manor of Wambrook, Somerset, whose son, also named Jordan Oliver,
was a justice in eyre and sheriff of Somerset and Dorset in 1239–40.
A fourth witness may be the William Haketh, Knt., who issued a charter
dated 1241 naming Fulk de Cantelowe [see Bates Two Cartularies of the
Benedictine Abbeys of Muchelney & Athelney (Somerset Rec. Soc. 14)
(1899): 71]. A fifth witness, Jordan de Alneto, is presumably the man
of that name who was living in 1226, holding a Somerset manor.
Given these records, it seems apparent that Sir William de Cantelowe
(died 1239) was the son and heir of Walter de Cantelowe (living
1201-2), by his wife, Amice. Sir William de Cantelowe's younger
brother, Robert de Cantelowe, is presumably the man of that name who
was ancestor of the cadet Cantelowe family seated at Chilton
Cantelowe, Somerset.
When replying, please provide your sources and weblinks if you have
them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
It appears that Sir William de Cantelowe (died 1239) was correctly
identified as the son of Walter de Cantelowe in the book, Household
Knights of King John by S.D. Church (published in 1999), page 26.
However, it is uncertain what sources Mr. Church used to make that
identification. Whatever sources Mr. Church used, he evidently did
not use the four documents I posted as my sources for the
identification of Sir William de Cantelowe's parents, Walter and
Amice.
On page 27, Mr. Church discusses Robert Barat, who was a member of the
royal household before 1209. Robert Barat was described as William de
Cantelowe's brother on a number of occasions. In Jan. 1223 William de
Cantelowe was given custody of Robert's son and heir, later named as
Eustace de Cantelowe. Mr. Church says that Robert Barat "seems to
have been a son of Walter de Cantilupe." He adds: "It is unclear why
Robert should take a name other than that of his father, especially as
he passed the Cantilupe name onto his son [Eustace]. Perhaps he was
an illegitimate son of Walter de Cantilupe." Yet the charter I posted
from Christchurch Cartularly refers to Robert as "Robert de
Cantelupo," so Robert was evidently known as both Robert Barat and as
Robert de Cantelowe.
There is an interesting discussion of Robert Barat's son and heir,
Eustace de Cantelowe, of Barby, Northamptonshire, Lubbesthorpe,
Leicestershire, Basford, Nottinghamshire, etc., in Farrer, Honors &
Knights Fees (1923): 171–173. This material may be viewed at the
following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3GO7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA172
Farrer mistakenly identifies Eustace as the brother of Sir William de
Cantelowe (died 1239), whereas he was actually his nephew as Church
has pointed out. Farrer also indicates that Eustace de Cantelowe
occurs in one record as Eustace Barad. Farrer states that Eustace de
Cantelowe married Katherine de Lisle, daughter of Hugh de Lisle, of
Barby, Northamptonshire, Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire, and Thorpe in
the Glebe, Nottinghamshire. This couple had no issue. In 1241
Eustace was sued by Walter de Grendale, who claimed 10 carucates in
Barby, Nothamptonshire and the advowson of the church and the manor of
Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire and 3 virgates there as his right. In
1242 he had a respite of knighthood. In 1246 William de Harcourt,
parson of the church of Ayleston, and all his successors were adjudged
to do to Eustace de Cantelowe and his heirs the service of 1/40 fee
for 1 virgate in Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire, which service had
always been done to Aveline, late wife of Hugh de Lisle, who had held
the manor of Lubbesthorpe in dower of the inheritance of the said
Eustace, and also to William de Cantelowe in the name of custody of
the said Eustace. In 1252, Eustace de Cantelowe being deceased
without issue, the king restored to William de Cantelowe and his
heirs, as their inheritance, the lands of the said Eustace in the
manors of Barby, Lubbesthorpe, and Basford.
I should point out that the William de Cantelowe mentioned by Farrer
as living in 1252 was the first cousin of Eustace de Cantelowe
(otherwise Eustace Barad), he being the son of Eustace's uncle,
William de Cantelowe, who died in 1239.
The above information makes it clear that Robert Barat (or Cantelowe),
younger brother of Sir William de Cantelowe, was not the ancestor of
the cadet branch of the Cantelowe family seated at Chilton Cantelowe,
Somerset. The above information also makes it certain that the
charter of Walter de Cantelowe to Christchurch Priory which I gave in
my first post dates from in or before 1223, as in that year, Walter's
son, Robert, who witnessed Walter's charter, was deceased as shown by
Church.
Douglas Richardson
For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of of the enormous
number of 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir
William de Cantelowe (died 1239), son and heir of Walter and Amice de
Cantelowe:
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Barbara Aubrey, Elizabeth Alsop, William
Asfordby, Frances Baldwin, Charles Barnes, Christopher Batt, Henry &
Thomas Batte, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William
Bernard, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston,
Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier,
George, Giles & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen
Bull, Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth and Thomas
Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew
Clarkson, James & Norton Claypoole, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd,
William Crymes, James Cudworth, Thomas Culpeper, Francis Dade,
Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Anne Derehaugh,
Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John
Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye,
Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Henry
Isham, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary
Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel
Littleton, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow,
Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth
& John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More,
Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave,
Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William
Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine
Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey
Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Stratton, James
Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Jemima Waldegrave, John & Lawrence
Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Mary Wolseley, Hawte Wyatt, Henry
Wyche.
Do you see your ancestor listed here? If so, I'd enjoy hearing from
you here on the newsgroup. If you have the information, feel free to
post your line of descent from Sir William de Cantelowe down to your
immigrant ancestor.
Peasant
A nice piece of work. I have a question, though, whether there were 3
William Cantelowes who died 1239-1254, rather than 2. According to
Cawley (I know, he's to be taken with caution), William son of William
son of Walter died 1251 as recorded in the Annals of Tewkesbury p.143.
(URL http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3.htm#_Toc272563991)
Then, says Cawley, that William's son William died at Calstone 25 Sep.
1254 and was buried at Studley Priory, Warwickshire. He doesn't give
a source for this record.
In Cawley's own quotations I see at least one difficulty with his
interpretation: The 1255 death record of Eva de Briouse, wife of the
younger William, calls her "uxor Willelmi de Cantilupo” --not vidua,
which she would be if he'd died the previous year. Possibly the 1251
or the 1254 record for William is misdated and they are actually
duplicates?
Douglas Richardson
< Dear Douglas,
<
< A nice piece of work. I have a question, though, whether there were
3
< William Cantelowes who died 1239-1254, rather than 2. According to
< Cawley (I know, he's to be taken with caution), William son of
William
< son of Walter died 1251 as recorded in the Annals of Tewkesbury p.
143.
< (URLhttp://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/
> Then, says Cawley, that William's son William died at Calstone 25 Sep.
< 1254 and was buried at Studley Priory, Warwickshire. He doesn't
give
< a source for this record.
Dear Peasant ~
There were three successive William de Cantelowe's and here are their
dates of death:
1. William de Cantelowe I - died 7 April 1239 (Source: ODNB). He
married Masceline de Bracy.
2. William de Cantelowe II - died 5 March 1250/1 (Source: Luard
Annales Monastici 1 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1864): 143 (Tewkesbury Annals sub
5 March 1250/1: “Died ... William de Cantelowe in St. Peter's
Cathedral, Pershore Abbey [Worcestershire] 5 March [1250/1].”). He
married (1st) Milicent de Gournay, and (2nd) Maud Fitz Geoffrey.
3. William de Cantelowe III - died 25 September 1254 (Source: ODNB).
He married Eve de Brewes.
In my earlier posts, I stated that William de Cantelowe II died in
1254, whereas the correct date of his death is 1251. It was William
de Cantelowe III who died in 1254.
Likewise, it was William de Cantelowe III who was heir in 1252 to his
cousin, Eustace de Cantelowe (or Barad). They were first cousins once
removed, not first cousins as I stated. Thank you for catching my
error. Much appreciated.
Like Mr. Church, I'm unable to explain the secondary surname, Barat or
Barad, used by Robert de Cantelowe and his son, Eustace.
J Cook
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of of the enormous
> number of 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir
> William de Cantelowe (died 1239), son and heir of Walter and Amice de
> Cantelowe:
>
I am descended from at least two of these people (Bolles / Dudley),
but I have a third descent in my notes, based most recently on work by
Kirk in his recent NEHGR article:
1. William de C.
2. William de C.m. Eva de Braose
3. Milicent de C. m. Eudo de Zouche
4. Eve la Zouche m. Maurice de Berkeley
5. Isabel de Berkeley m. Robert de Clifford
6. Roger de Clifford m. Maud de Beauchamp
7. Katherine de Clifford m. Ralph de Greystoke
8. Maud de Greystoke m. Eudes Welles
9. Lionel Welles m. Joan Waterton
10. Margaret Welles m. Thomas Dymoke
11. Jane Dymoke m. John Fulnetby
12. Katherine Fulnetby m. William Dynwell
13. Anne Dynewell m. Henry Whitgift
14. William Whitgift
15. Elizabeth Whitgift m. Wymond Bradbury
16. Thomas Bradbury b.1610/11, New World immigrant.
J Cook
> On Dec 4, 1:11 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> > For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of of the enormous
> > number of 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir
> > William de Cantelowe (died 1239), son and heir of Walter and Amice de
> > Cantelowe:
>
> I am descended from at least two of these people (Bolles / Dudley),
> but I have a third descent in my notes, based most recently on work by
> Kirk in his recent NEHGR article:
>
Oh. also Mary Gye I am descended from; but I have no descent from
William de C. in my notes, and neither does Genealogics it seems. Is
this connection in any of your books?
Thanks,
Joe
Douglas Richardson
S.D. Church, Household Knights of King John (1999), pg. 27 states that
William de Cantelowe's brother, Robert Barat (or Robert de Cantelowe),
had a brother named Roger Orgete. This is discussed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cfxyoypOJeAC&pg=PA27
Here is a contemporary record in which Robert Barat and Roger Orget
are styled "brothers" in 1210, thus conffirming Mr, Church's
statement.
Hardy, Rotuli de liberate, ac de misis, et praestitis, regnante
Johanne (1844): 189, which item may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yKEUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA189
I'd be tempted to think that Robert Barat (also known as Robert de
Cantelowe) and Roger Orget were half-brothers. Yet, here is a record
in which Roger Orget is styled "brother" of William de Cantelowe. Mr.
Church evidently overlooked this record:
Calendar of Close Rolls, 1227-1231 (1902): 426. This item may be
viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yKEUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA189
And, here is a record in which Robert Barad is styled "son" of Walter
de Cantelowe. This record also appears to have been overlooked by Mr.
Church.
Calendar Charter Rolls, 4 (1912): 247. This item may be viewed at the
following weblink:
So we come full circle. I can not explain the secondary surnames,
Barat or Orget. Whatever the explanation, the evidence is clear that
Walter de Cantelowe had three sons, William de Cantelowe (his son and
heir), Robert Barat (or de Cantelowe), and Roger Orget.
Douglas Richardson
In my post just now, I gave the wrong weblink for Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1227-1231 (1902): 426. Mea culpa. The correct weblink is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6WRnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA426
On page 255 of the same Close Rolls volume, Nichole de Wanneville is
styled "sister" [sorori] of William de Cantelowe in 1229. This item
may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6WRnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA255
So we now have two brothers and one sister for William de Cantelowe
(died 1239). Can any anyone identity Nichole de Wanneville's husband?
Merilyn Pedrick
but this is the shortest route:
1. William de Cantelowe or Cantaloup d. 1239 m. Edgidia
2 Guillaume de Cantaloup of Eaton Bray d. 1251 m. 1216 Melisende de
Gournay
3. Sir William de Cantilupe of Calne, Wiltshire d, 1254 m. 1238 Eve de
Braose
4. Milisent de Cauntelou d. 1298 m. 1273 Eudo la Zouche
5. Eve la Zouche b. 1280 m. Maurice III "The Magnanimous" de Berkeley
6. Isabel de Berkeley d. 1362 m. 1328 Sir Thomas de Musgrave
7. Elizabeth Musgrave b. abt 1350 m. Henry de Wharton
8. Gilbert Wharton Esq., d. 1436 m. Joan Kirkby of Kirkby Thore,
Westmorland
9. NN daughter Wharton m. John Machell
10. Hugh Machell, Joint Lord of Crackenthorpe b. 1467 m. Julyan
Bainbrigge
11. Sir John Machell b. 1500 m. Jane Luddington
12. Matthew Machell b. 1537 m. Mary Lewknor
13. Mary Machell b. 1574 m. Rev. Ralph Cudworth
14. James Cudworth
......... And my daughter's children descend from William to Humphrey Davie
thus:
1. William de Cantelowe or Cantaloup d. 1239 m. Edgidia
2. Guillaume de Cantaloup of Eton Bray d. 1251 m. 1216 Melisende de
Gournay
3. Nichole de Cantaloup m. 1235 Geoffrey de Lucy
4. Maud de Lucy b. 1239 m. Sir Nicholas de Segrave
5. Eleanor de Segrave b. 1270 m. Sir Alan la Zouche
6. Maud la Zouche b. 1289 m. Sir Robert de Holand
7. Elizabeth de Holand b. 1320 Sir Henry fitz Roger of Chewton
8. John fitz Roger of Chewton b. 1345 m. Alice Cheddar
9. Elizabeth fitz Roger b. 1370 m. Sir John Bonville of Chute
10 William Bonville 1393 m. Margaret Grey
11 Margaret Bonville b. 1432 m. William de Courtenay
12 Joan de Courtenay b. 1468 m. William Carew of Mohun Ottery
13 Cecily Thomasine Carew b. 1507 m. Sir Thomas Kirkham of Blagdon
14 Thomasine (Susan) Kirkham b. 1532 m. Thomas Southcott of Bovey Tracey
15 Mary Southcott b. 1617 m. Sir William Strode of Newnham.
16 Juliana Strode. 1627 m. Sir John Davie, 1st Bart.
17 Humphrey Davie c. 1625 m. Mary White
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Douglas Richardson
Date: 5/12/2010 4:51:54 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of Sir William de Cantelowe, Steward of the King
sHousehold (died 1239)
Dear Newsgroup ~
For interest's sake, I've posted below a list of of the enormous
Number of 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir
Cantelowe:
Wyche.
You here on the newsgroup. If you have the information, feel free to
Post your line of descent from Sir William de Cantelowe down to your
Immigrant ancestor.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
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
.
John Watson
Douglas,
There is another explanation of why William de Cantilupe's brother was
called Robert Barat or Baret. He could be the half-brother of William,
a son of Amice's first marriage to a Baret. Robert Barat certainly
appears in official records under that name, until his death.
On 31 January 1223, William de Cantilupo was given custody of the land
in Northamptonshire of Robert Barat his brother, which he held in
chief, until the full age of the heirs of Robert with the marriages of
the heirs.
Thomas Dufus Hardy, Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi
Asservati, Vol. 1 (1833) p. 531b
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
< There is another explanation of why William de Cantilupe's brother
was
< called Robert Barat or Baret. He could be the half-brother of
William,
< a son of Amice's first marriage to a Baret. Robert Barat certainly
< appears in official records under that name, until his death.
Good point, John, except that Roibert Barat occurs as Robert de
Cantelowe in his father's charter to Christchurch Priory, and he is
called "Robert Barat son of Walter de Cantelowe" in the Charter
Rolls. So Robert Barat was definitely the son of Walter de Cantelowe.
And, this doesn't explain how Robert Barat and William de Cantelowe
had a brother named Roger Orget. Conceivably Roger Orget could be an
older half-brother to WIlliam and Robert, except the chronology
doesn't seem to support that idea. William de Cantelowe first
surfaces in 1198, whereas Robert Barat and Roger Orget don't surface
until 1209. This would suggest that William was the older brother,
followed by Robert and Roger. William is definitely called Walter's
son and heir in his charter to Christchurch Priory. That certainly
agrees with the order of the appearance of the three brothers in the
records.
In a similar vein, Robert Barat's son, Eustace de Cantelowe, was still
a minor in 1223, whereas it seems certain that William de Cantelowe's
son and heir, William II, was of age before 1225.
John P. Ravilious
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------------------------------
Dear John, Doug, et al.,
It is clear that Robert Barat (aka de Cantelupo) and Roger Orgete
were identified as brothers, and that they were individually
identified as brothers of William de Cantilupo (d. 1239). It was not
unheard of for a son (younger or otherwise) to take the surname of his
mother during this period - perhaps due to perceived higher status in
some cases or lands assigned by the mother in others, but frequently
for reasons not known to the modern observer.
Given that Robert Barat was also called de Cantelupo, as was his
son Eustace, it is probable that he and William de Cantelupo were full
brothers. The name of Roger Orgete (evidently dsp 1230 or shortly
before) would then hint of his being a half-brother of the two -
presumably uterine, but this is placing a guess on top of a
conjecture.
Roger Orgete's tenure of Bowden Magna and Market Harborough,
Leicestershire was unfortunately the product of his brother William de
Cantelupo's favour, otherwise some hint of his origin might have
already been found. If other avenues of research into this area are
noted, hopefully this will be made available in the near future.
Cheers,
John
John Watson
Hi Douglas,
William de Cantilupe I also had a brother Roger who wanted to marry
the widow of Hugh de Hastings in 1201.
Rotuli de Oblatís et Fíníbus in Turri Londinensi Asservati (1835) p.
195
http://www.archive.org/stream/rotulideoblatse00johngoog#page/n260/mode/1up
Regards,
John
John Watson
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Hi John and Douglas,
I guess this could be the same Roger as Roger Orgat, but here he is
called de Cantilupo.
Regards,
John
John Watson
Douglas,
There is a case in the Curia Regis Rolls of 1201, where Walter de
Cantilupe claimed the vill of Chilton Cantelo (Chilleton) Somerset
against Robert de Cantilupe [who I take to be his uncle]. The father
of Walter de Cantilupe is named as William de Cantilupe. This William
was said to be seised of Chilton Cantelo in the time of king Henry II.
(Curia Regis Rolls, ii, 29)
I presume that this William de Cantilupe was a son or grandson of
Alexander de Cantilupe who gave land in Bruton to the Priory of Bruton
in 1146. (Somerset Record Soc., viii, 105)
Regards,
John
Joe Cochoit
The entry John Watson refers to (Curia Regis Rolls, ii, p. 29) is here
http://tinyurl.com/3y8ggu9 . Does this entry state their relationship?
And the dispute (if that is what it was) was settled with Walter de
Cantilupe acknowledging Robert de Cantilupe as lord of Childeton
(Chilton Cantelo) in exchange for 28 marks. (Somerset Feet of Fines
1196-1307, p. 15 http://tinyurl.com/29828mw )
Joe
Joe Cochoit
>
> Oh. also Mary Gye I am descended from; but I have no descent from
> William de C. in my notes, and neither does Genealogics it seems. Is
> this connection in any of your books?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
Joe,
The descent to Mary Gye that I have goes:
William de Cantilupe
William de Cantilupe m. Eva de Broase
Henry de Hastings m. Joan de Cantilupe
John de Hastings m. Isabel de Despenser
Hugh de Hastings m. Margery Foliot
Robert de la Mare m. Maud de Hastings
Sir John Roches m. Willema de la Mare
Nicholas Baynton m. Joan Roches
John Baynton m. Joan
Henry Baynton
Thomas Prowse m. Jane Baynton
John Gye m. Mary Prowse
Robert Gye m. Grace Dowrish
Mary Gye
The generations from Mary Gye to Joan de Cantilupe all are found in
Doug's Magna Carta Ancestry
Joe Cochoit
taf
John and John,
Please remove soc.history.medieval when responding. This will have to
be done each time because it keeps being added back.
taf
John Watson
> On Dec 5, 12:22 am, John Watsonbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting<watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Douglas,
>
> > There is a case in the Curia Regis Rolls of 1201, where Walter de
> > Cantilupe claimed the vill of Chilton Cantelo (Chilleton) Somerset
> > against Robert de Cantilupe [who I take to be his uncle]. The father
> > of Walter de Cantilupe is named as William de Cantilupe. This William
> > was said to be seised of Chilton Cantelo in the time of king Henry II.
> > (Curia Regis Rolls, ii, 29)
>
> > I presume that this William de Cantilupe was a son or grandson of
> > Alexander de Cantilupe who gave land in Bruton to the Priory of Bruton
> > in 1146. (Somerset Record Soc., viii, 105)
>
> > Regards,
>
> > John
>
>
> And the dispute (if that is what it was) was settled with Walter de
> Cantilupe acknowledging Robert de Cantilupe as lord of Childeton
> (Chilton Cantelo) in exchange for 28 marks. (Somerset Feet of Fines
> 1196-1307, p. 15http://tinyurl.com/29828mw)
>
> Joe
Hi Joe,
No their relationship is not stated, as I said in my post, I guess
Robert is Walter's uncle.
"Robert acknowledged all the said vill to be the right of Walter" -
meaning that when Robert died it would revert to Walter or his heirs.
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
Below is a provisional family pedigree for the baronial Cantelowe
family.
The Cantelowe family of Snitterfield, Warwickshire has not been placed
in the pedigree, nor has the Cantelowe family of Chilton Cantelo,
Somerset.
Nichole, wife of _____ Marmion and Geoffrey de Lucy, was probably a
daughter of William de Cantelowe, died 1239, or possibly William de
Cantelowe, died 1251.
This thread is crossposted as it concerns a family of historical and
genealogical note.
Comments are invited. When replying, please cite your sources and
provide weblinks if you have them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
CANTELOWE FAMILY
1. WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, d. before 1201, married _____.
2. WALTER DE CANTELOWE, living 1216, married AMICE _____.
3. WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, d. 1239, married MASCELINE (or
MAZRA) DE BRACY.
4. WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, Knt., d. 1251, m. (1) c.1215/6
MILICENT DE GOURNAY; (2) after 1232 MAUD FITZ GEOFFREY, d. 1261.
5 (by1). WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, Knt.,d. 1254, m. bef.
1241 EVE DE BREWES.
6. GEORGE DE CANTELOWE, b. 1252, d. 1273, m.
MARGARET DE LACY.
6. MILICENT DE CANTELOWE, m. (1) bef. 1254 JOHN
DE MOHAUT; (2) EUDES LA ZOUCHE, Knt., of Harringworth,
Northamptonshire.
6. JOAN DE CANTELOWE, d.c. 1271, m. HENRY DE
HASTINGS, Knt.
5 (by1). JOHN DE CANTELOWE.
5 (by1). NICHOLAS DE CANTELOWE.
5 (by1). [MASTER] THOMAS DE CANTELOWE, Archdeacon of
Stafford, Bishop of Hereford, d. 1282.
5 (by1). [MASTER] HUGH DE CANTELOWE, Archdeacon of
Gloucester, Treasurer of Salisbury, liv. 1270.
5 (by1). AGNES DE CANTELOWE, married ROBERT DE SAINT
JOHN, of Basing, Hampshire.
5 (by1). JULIANE DE CANTELOWE, married ROBERT DE
TREGOZ, of Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire.
4. [MASTER] WALTER DE CANTELOWE, Bishop of Worcester, d.
1266.
3. ROBERT DE CANTELOWE (or ROBERT BARAT), died c. 1223.
4. EUSTACE DE CANTELOWE (or EUSTACE BARET), died c.1252,
m. KATHERINE DE LISLE.
3. ROGER ORGET, liv. 1230.
3. NICHOLE DE CANTELOWE, living 1229, married _____ DE
WANNEVILLE.
3. SIBYL DE CANTELOWE, married GEOFFREY PAUNCEFOTE, liv. 1242.
3. ISABEL DE CANTELOWE (probable daughter), liv. 1245, m. (1)
STEPHEN DEVEREUX, d. 1228; (2) RALPH DE PEMBRIDGE.
4. WILLIAM DEVEREUX.
2. FULK DE CANTELOWE, Knt., of Calstone Wellington, Wiltshire, d. c.
1234.
John Watson
Hi Douglas,
Addition and correction:
5. Nicholas de Cantilupe - died before 24 Sep 1266, married Eustache,
daughter and heir of Ralph fitz Hugh, son and heir apparent of Hugh
fitz Ralph of Greasley, Notts, Ilkeston, co. Derby, etc. ref. CP, iii,
p. 111 et seq. for his descendants.
2. Fulk de Cantilupe - died before 20 Nov 1229
"Quia Willelmus de Cantilup' coram rege cognovit quod ipse non est
heres Fulconis de Cantil' avunculi sui, nec aliquod jus hereditarium
clamat nomine suo; mandatum est baronibus de Scaccario quod de debito
quod ab ipso Willelmo exigunt pro ipso Fulcone, ipsum Willelmum
quietum esse faciant." Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 1:
1227-1231 (1902), p. 256
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
I can add an additional person to the Cantelowe family tree. This is
Matthew de Cantelowe, clerk, Rector of Ribston in 1231. According to
Yorkshire Arch. & Top. Jour. 8 (1884): 29, in 1239 Pope Gregory IX
granted a dispensation to “Matthew de Cantelupe, clerk of the diocese
of York, brother to the Bishop of Worcester, allowing him to hold more
benefices than one.”
This information may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vDI4jOQFbTMC&pg=PA295
Being identified as "brother to the Bishop of Worcester," this
information allows us to place Matthew de Cantelowe as a younger son
of William de Cantelowe, died 1239, and his wife, Masceline (or Mazra)
de Bracy.
Additional records concerning Matthew de Cantelowe are published in
Yorkshire Arch. & Top. Journal, 7 (1882): 442 and 9 (1886); 77-78.
These items may be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BQ6VFXY__t8C&pg=PA442
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Y-MexpI2TkC&pg=PA77
I should mention that Walter de Cantelowe, Bishop of Worcester, is
supposed to also have had a brother named Hugh de Cantelowe. The
source cited for this brother is Reg. Innocent IV no. 1694. If
someone has access to this source, I'd appreciate it if they would
post a copy of that record.
Bishop Walter de Cantelowe definitely had a nephew named [Master] Hugh
de Cantelowe, Archdeacon of Gloucester, who was a younger son of
William de Cantelowe, died 1251, and Milicent de Gournay. This Hugh
de Cantelowe died testate shortly before 6 July 1279 [see Reg. Thome
de Cantilupo Episcopi Herefordensis (Canterbury & York Soc. 1) (1906):
213].
Finally, I can add that the Hodenet family was related in some manner
to the Cantelowe family. Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe, also a son of
William and Milicent, referred to Nicholas de Hodenet as his
“kinsman” [consanguineo] in a charter dated c.1270 [see Reg. Thome de
Cantilupo Episcopi Herefordensis (Canterbury & York Soc. 1) (1906):
171; Robinson, Hist. of the Mansions & Manors of Herefordshire (1872):
37].
Merilyn Pedrick
Hi John and Douglas
This Eustache fitz Hugh who married Nicholas de Cantilupe - is she the same
woman who also married Sir William II de Ros of Ingmanthorpe?
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: John Watson
Date: 6/12/2010 11:20:12 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of Sir William de Cantelowe, Steward of the King
sHousehold (died 1239)
Hi Douglas,
Addition and correction:
5. Nicholas de Cantilupe - died before 24 Sep 1266, married Eustache,
Daughter and heir of Ralph fitz Hugh, son and heir apparent of Hugh
Fitz Ralph of Greasley, Notts, Ilkeston, co. Derby, etc. Ref. CP, iii,
P. 111 et seq. For his descendants.
2. Fulk de Cantilupe - died before 20 Nov 1229
"Quia Willelmus de Cantilup' coram rege cognovit quod ipse non EST
Heres Fulconis de Cantil' avunculi sui, nec aliquod jus hereditarium
Clamat nomine suo; mandatum EST baronibus de Scaccario quod de debito
Quod AB ipso Willelmo exigunt pro ipso Fulcone, ipsum Willelmum
Quietum esse faciant." Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 1:
taf
> Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroups. When you post to two newsgroups, your message is going to
newsgroups, plural. Two is more than one. (Sheesh, a "trained
historian and genealogist" and he can't count beyond 1. Makes me
wonder what is being used to keep count.)
> This thread is crossposted as it concerns a family of historical and
> genealogical note.
No. This thread is crossposted because you consider yourself above the
normal standards of behavior. People on this side have asked you to
discontinue this rude practice. People on that side have asked you to
discontinue this rude practice. Yet on you go.
In a perfect world, crossposting of something of common interest might
be a good thing. Of course, that asumes common interest. I would
point out in return that if anyone in soc.hist.med really does share a
common interest in medieval genealogy, they know where to find it.
Anyhow, you may have noticed that this is not a perfect world. In this
world, the real one, where someone can go through extensive training
as a "historian and genealogist" and yet come out the other end
lacking a fundamental understanding of the nature of scholarship,
crossposting at its best results in a split discussion, with some
posts here and some posts there, thus forcing everyone interested to
follow two groups rather than one - making their life more difficult
just to feel better about yourself. Of course, you wouldn't have
noticed this, for while you post to the other group, you do so only to
draw attention to yourself, and can't be bothered to monitor any
followup discussion there, some of which would make you think twice
about subjecting yourself to it.
At its worst, it involves this group in other people's nonsense.
Newsgroups are inhabited by all kinds of trolls, loons, and
egomaniacs, and the more you disrupt other groups with your pomposity,
the more you invite them to spread their disruptions here. In fact,
there was one denizen of s.h.m who made me the open threat that if I
couldn't get you to behave properly and quit posting your drivel to
their group, he would periodically make a trolling crosspost to a
series of irrelevant groups just to trick them into carpet-bombing
ours with crazy nonsense. That is, in a nutshell, what is at risk. It
need not be this vindictive, however: last week's simple request from
the other group that you stop brought a flurry of additional
irrelevant posts, and it could have been worse - may yet be, for when
the next person from one of the other groups to which that request was
crossposted decides to rile things up, he may just choose to send his
nonsense to this group too, and then we all get to enjoy a 100-post
thread having nothing to do with medieval genealogy, all because you
feel yourself above the rules. That is the potential consequence of
crossposting in the real world, which makes it awfully high-risk just
to stroke your ego. Every crosspost puts this group further at risk.
As I have suggested before, just take a look at soc.history.medieval
and ask yourself whether you want this group to be similarly overrun
by religious fanatics, political cranks and blathering idiots.
In short, you are crossposting for entirely selfish reasons, and in so
doing showing disregard for the established standards of newsgroup
behavior, for the well-being of this newsgroup, and disrespect
everyone who participates in both groups. Even you should know that
it is unwise to $h1t where you eat.
[I post this, not because I really expect Mr. Richardson to change,
after all, part of the reason he does it is that he knows it annoys
people, but in hopes of encouraging everyone else to check for and
remove crossposts when responding to his posts. If you really feel
that his post deserves to be shown fatuous in both groups, please do
so in the two individually.]
taf
John Watson
Douglas,
Hugh, brother of Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester, may be the
same person as Hugh de Cantilupe hanged for felony before 20 Jan 1227.
See Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. 1, p. 1
http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarcharter00stamgoog#page/n22/mode/1up/search/cant
Regards,
John
John Watson
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Sorry my mistake - this Hugh belonged to a different Cantilupe family
from Essex.
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
Below is the first revised provisional pedigree of the Cantelowe
family. I've added the corrections offered by John Watson and also
those found in an old post in the newsgroup archives made by John
Ravilious.
In the revised pedigree below, I've added two new children for William
de Cantelowe (died 1239) and his wife, Masceline de Bracy, namely
Matthew de Cantelowe, Rector of Ribston, Yorkshire, and _____ (wife of
Thurstan de Montfort). Thurstan de Montfort, of Beaudesert, d. 1216,
and his wiife, ____, in turn were the parents of Peter de Montfort, d.
1265, who married Alice de Audley. Peter and Alice de Montfort have
many descendants.
Peter de Montfort's place in the Cantelowe family tree is indicated by
a letter he wrote to Walter de Merton, Chancellor in 1261-3, about the
business of his uncle [avunculi], Walter de Cantelowe, Bishop of
Worcester [see Ancient Corresp., P.R.O., vol. vii, no. 20].
Another indication of a Cantelowe-Montfort connection is the statement
I've found that Juliana de Cantelowe, wife of Robert de Tregoz, was
styled "cousin" by William de Montfort, Dean of Saint Paul's, London,
which William was one of the executors of her brother, Thomas de
Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford, who died 1282 [see Roll of the
Household Expenses of Richard de Swinfield (Camden Soc. 62) (1855):
cxxx]. The original source for this item is supposed to be the
Register of Richard de Swinfield, which I haven't yet consulted.
I don't know the place of William de Montfort, Dean of Saint Paul's,
London in the Montfort family tree, but I know he used the arms of the
Montfort family of Beaudesert, Warwickshire on his seal [i.e., Bendy
of ten]. I assume he was a son or grandson of Peter de Montfort, died
1265, and his wife, Alice de Audley.
The Cantelowe family of Snitterfield, Warwickshire still has not been
placed in the pedigree, nor has the Cantelowe family of Chilton
Cantelo, Somerset.
Nichole, wife of _____ Marmion and Geoffrey de Lucy, was probably a
daughter of William de Cantelowe, died 1239, or possibly William de
Cantelowe, died 1251.
Comments are invited. When replying, please cite your sources and
provide weblinks if you have them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
CANTELOWE FAMILY
1. WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, d. before 1201, married _____.
2. WALTER DE CANTELOWE, living 1201, married AMICE _____.
3. WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, adult by 1198, d. 1239, married
MASCELINE (or MAZRA) DE BRACY.
4. WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, Knt., d. 1251, m. (1) c.1215/6
MILICENT DE GOURNAY; (2) after 1232 MAUD FITZ GEOFFREY, d. 1261.
5 (by1). WILLIAM DE CANTELOWE, Knt.,d. 1254, m. bef.
1241 EVE DE BREWES.
6. GEORGE DE CANTELOWE, b. 1252, d. 1273, m.
MARGARET DE LACY.
6. MILICENT DE CANTELOWE, m. (1) bef. 1254 JOHN
DE MOHAUT; (2) EUDES LA ZOUCHE, Knt., of Harringworth,
Northamptonshire.
6. JOAN DE CANTELOWE, d.c. 1271, m. HENRY DE
HASTINGS, Knt.
5 (by1). JOHN DE CANTELOWE.
5 (by1). NICHOLAS DE CANTELOWE, of Greasley, Nottts.,
d. bef. 1266, married EUSTACHE FITZ HUGH.
5 (by1). [MASTER] THOMAS DE CANTELOWE, Archdeacon of
Stafford, Bishop of Hereford, d. 1282.
5 (by1). [MASTER] HUGH DE CANTELOWE, Archdeacon of
Gloucester, Treasurer of Salisbury, liv. 1270.
5 (by1). AGNES DE CANTELOWE, married ROBERT DE SAINT
JOHN, of Basing, Hampshire.
5 (by1). JULIANE DE CANTELOWE, married ROBERT DE
TREGOZ, of Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire.
4. [MASTER] WALTER DE CANTELOWE, Bishop of Worcester, d.
1266.
4. MATTHEW DE CANTELOWE, Rector of Ribston, living 1239.
4. _____ DE CANTELOWE (daughter), married THURSTAN DE
MONTFORT, b.c.1184, d. 1216.
5. PETER DE MONTFORT, d. 1265, married ALICE DE
AUDLEY.
3. ROBERT DE CANTELOWE (or ROBERT BARAT), died c. 1223.
4. EUSTACE DE CANTELOWE (or EUSTACE BARET), died c.1252,
m. KATHERINE DE LISLE.
3. ROGER ORGET, liv. 1230.
3. NICHOLE DE CANTELOWE, living 1229, married _____ DE
WANNEVILLE.
3. SIBYL DE CANTELOWE, married GEOFFREY PAUNCEFOTE, liv. 1242.
3. ISABEL DE CANTELOWE (probable daughter), liv. 1245, m. (1)
STEPHEN DEVEREUX, d. 1228; (2) RALPH DE PEMBRIDGE.
4. WILLIAM DEVEREUX.
2. FULK DE CANTELOWE, Knt., of Calstone Wellington, Wiltshire, d. c.
1229.
Douglas Richardson
It appears that Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe's executor, William de
Montfort, Dean of Saint Paul's, London was a younger son of Peter de
Montfort, died 1265, and his wife, Alice de Audley. I've found
several sources which state that Peter de Montfort (died 1265) gave
the manor of Uppingham, Rutland to his younger son, William de
Montfort. See for example John Harwood, Notes on Rutlandshire (1871):
13, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2hU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13
I've also found a reference to a later deed allegedly dated 1284-5
whereby Master William de Montfort conveyed the Montfort family manors
of Preston and Uppingham, Rutland to John de Monffort [grandson of
Peter and Alice de Montfort]. This deed is mentioned in Arthur
Collins, Peerage of England 3 (1756): 198, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FIoUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA198
Master William de Montfort is surely the same person as William de
Montfort, Dean of Saint Paul's, London, who died in 1294. The
grantee John de Montfort would surely be his nephew. See the
following weblink for a reference to William de Montfort's death in
1294:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qA7UAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR180
Thus, it would seem that that William de Montfort, Dean of Saint
Paul's London, was a first cousin once removed to Thomas de Cantelowe,
Bishop of Hereford.
Philip Cheyney
<snip>
> Thus, it would seem that that William de Montfort, Dean of Saint
> Paul's London, was a first cousin once removed to Thomas de Cantelowe,
> Bishop of Hereford.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Amongst general historians, Thomas de Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford,
is also known as St Thomas of Hereford (to distinguish him from St
Thomas of Canterbury). He was canonized on 17 April 1320 and his
feast day was 2 October.
Philip
Douglas Richardson
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire (died 1265), grandson of William de Cantelowe I:
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel Argall, Walter
Aston, Charles Barham, Marmaduke Beckwith, William Bladen, George &
Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier,
Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull,
Charles Calvert, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, St. Leger Codd, Henry
Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, William Farrer, Henry Filmer,
Henry Fleete, Katherine Hamby, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham
Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund Jennings, Mary Launce, Hannah,
Samuel & Sarah Levis, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe,
Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More,
Joseph & Mary Need, John & Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas
Nelson,Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton,
George Reade, William Rodney, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard
Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diane & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna
Somerset, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Olive Welby,
John West.
If you see your ancestor listed here, feel free to post your line of
descent from the Cantelowe-Montfort families down to your immigrant.
It's interesting to see how each member of the newsgroup connects back
to the Cantelowe family.
Douglas Richardson
I need to add three more names to the list of 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Peter de Montfort (died 1265), grandson
of William de Cantelowe (died 1239):
Henry & William Randolph, Hawte Wyatt
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John Watson
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Below is the first revised provisional pedigree of the Cantelowe
Douglas,
Another small correction:
2.Walter de Cantilupe, living 1205, m. Amice
8 August 1205, The king orders Daniel Butler and his associates,
custodians of the king's wine in Southampton, to give to Walter de
Kantelo one good tun of wine from our wines at Southampton
Thomas Duffus Hardy, Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi
Asservati, Vol. 1 (1833) p. 45b
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
I've already presented evidence that William de Montfort, Dean of
Saint Paul's, London, was a younger son of Peter de Montfort (died
1265), of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, by his wife, Alice de Audley. As
such, William de Montfort was thus a first cousin once removed to
Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford (died 1282), for whom he
served as executor following the bishop's death. William de Montfort
is also alleged to have referred to the bishop's sister, Juliane (de
Cantelowe) de Tregoz, as his cousin.
Checking the volume, List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery
and Exchequer (Lists and Indexes, No. XV) (1902): 411, I find that
William de Montfort, Dean of St. Paul's, London wrote two letters in
the period, 1292-4. One was on behalf of Master Adam de Lynfeld,
presumably a fellow cleric. The other was on behalf of his nephew,
John de Earley.
Checking possible Earley/Earleigh/Erley families, it seems more than
apparent that William de Montfort's nephew was the John de Earley, who
just came of age in 1292, he being the son and heir of Philip de
Earley, of Earley Regis (or Earley Whiteknights) (in Sonning),
Berkshire and North Petherton, Somerset, by his wife, Rose. In 1276
Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford, was granted custody of Philip
de Earley's lands in Berkshire on the ground that he was frequently
obliged to come to the court on business and had no convenient lodging
at which to stay on his journeys to and from his distant diocese. The
bishop asked for a grant of the manor during the minority of the heir
and this he duly received [see VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 210–225]. The
connection between Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe and William de Montfort
is presumably why the bishop obtained custody of the lands and heir of
Philip de Earley. The Earley family and their Berkshire and Somerset
lands are mentioned repeatedly in the episcopal register of Bishop
Thomas de Cantelowe. Following the bishop's death, he bequeathed the
income from the Earley estates to his sister, Juliane de Tregoz, which
she received until John de Earley, the minor heir, came of age.
Most pedigrees state that Rose, wife of Philip de Earley/Erleigh, was
a Marisco, but, on what basis this claim is made I have no idea.
Given the evidence of William de Montfort's correspondence, Rose would
surely be the sister of William de Montfort, and thus a daughter of
Peter de Montfort (died 1265), by his wife, Alice de Audley.
This discovery opens up a whole new wing of descendants of the
Montfort, Audley, and Cantelowe families. If anyone has an Earley/
Erleigh line, I'd appreciate hearing from them here on the newsgroup.
The Earley/Erleigh family definitely has traceable descendants.
Patricia A. Junkin
Is this Thomas Cantelowe, the uncle of George and Milicent who
married Eudo la Zouche?
Thank you,
Pat
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message
Douglas Richardson
In my previous posts in this thread, I left the Cantelowe family of
Snitterfield, Warwickshire unattached from the main Cantelowe family
pedigree. I'm confident now of their place in the larger family
pedigree.
The Snitterfield branch of the family was headed by one John de
Cantelowe, living 1257, whose wife was Margery (or Margaret Comyn).
I've copied below a brief account of this couple taken from my file
notes.
I. JOHN DE CANTELOWE, of Bearley and Weston (in Weston-upon-Avon),
Warwickshire, and, in right of his wife, of Snitterfield, Avon
Dassett, Halford, Hunscote (in Charlecote), and Stourton (in
Whichford), Warwickshire. He married after 1227 and before 1236
MARGERY (or MARGARET) COMYN, daughter and heiress of William Comyn, of
Snitterfield, Warwickshire, by his wife, Eve. She was born before
1224. They had two sons, John, Knt., and Walter (priest). In 1250 he
and his wife, Margery, conveyed the manor of Weston (in Weston-upon-
Avon), Warwickshire to William de Weston for life. He had a grant of
a weekly market and a yearly fair at his manor of Snitterfield,
Warwickshire and free warren in his manor of Fonthill Giffard,
Wiltshire in 1257. His widow, Margery, was living in 1279.
References: Sackville-West, Hist. Notices of the Parish of Withyham
(1857): 40–46 (re. Cantelowe fam.). C.C.R. 1227–1231 (1902): 121.
C.C.R. 1234–1237 (1908): 293. VCH Warwick 3 1945): 43–44, 167–172,
193–196; 5 (1949): 34–38, 67–69, 89–92, 198–202, 205–209. Ancestor 9
(1904): 146–149.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
There are three indications that John de Cantelowe was a son of
William de Cantelowe, Knt., died 1251, and his 1st wife, Milicent de
Gournay. First, there is a biography of Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop
of Hereford (died 1282) in the Dictionary of National Biography, 3
(1908): 900–904. According to that biography which is based on older
sources such as Dugdale, Bishop Cantelowe had four brothers, William
(eldest brother), Nicholas and John, both knights, and Hugh, a
clergyman. This same information is given in a more recent biography
of Bishop Cantelowe, namely Alington, St Thomas of Hereford (2001).
The material by Alington may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PtnvkXIls0IC&pg=PA4
I can confirm that Bishop Cantelowe had brothers William, Nicholas,
and Hugh. Therefore I have little doubt that he also had a brother
named John. The only John de Cantelowe that I know about in this time
period is John de Cantelowe, of Snitterfield, Warwickshire, husband of
Margery (or Margaret) Comyn.
Next, there is an article on the Comyn family of Snitterfield in
Ancestor 9 (1904): 146–149, which may be viewed at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xYxIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA146
The article shows that in 1224 John de Cantelowe's future mother-in-
law, Eve, widow of William Comyn and then wife of John de Mar(a),
brought suit against William de Cantelowe, claiming one third of two
parts of the manor of Snitterfield, Warwickshire as her dower.
According to the lawsuit, William de Cantelowe had possession of the
land as custos during the minority of the heir. I presume the William
de Cantelowe who had custody of Snitterfield in 1224 was William de
Cantelowe I (husband of Masceline de Bracy) and that he subsequently
married Margery Comyn, the heiress of Snitterfield, to his young
grandson, John de Cantelowe.
As further support of this conclusion, I note that the editor of
Bishop Cantelowe's register states that Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe's
brother, John de Cantelowe,"held Snitterfield in Warwickshire by right
of his wife, Margaret Cumin."
http://books.google.com/books?id=6FgQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR2
It may also be noted that Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe held several
livings, among them being Snitterfield, Warwickshire. See the
following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6FgQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR19
Contemporary records show that John de Cantelowe and his wife, Margery
Comyn, had two sons, John, Knt. (died 1333), and Walter (a priest).
The early history of the younger John de Cantelowe, is not well
documented. However, the younger John appears to have married (1st)
Margaret de Harcourt, daughter of William de Harcourt, Knt., of
Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, by his 1st wife, Alice, daughter of
Roger la Zouche. They had no surviving issue. His wife, Margaret,
died before 17 Aug. 1276. John subsequently married (2nd) Maud ____,
by whom he had his children.
My research indicates that in 1276 Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe wrote a
letter on behalf of his nephew, John de Cantelowe, requesting that he
have courtesy of England in Aylestone, Leicestershire, it being his
late wife, Margery de Harcourt's inheritance [see List of Ancient
Corr. of the Chancery & Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902):
338; see also Index to Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and the
Exchequer, Vol. 1: A-K (Lists and Indexes, Supplementary Series, No.
XV): 221, 535].
Thus we have direct evidence that the younger John de Cantelowe of
Snitterfield was the nephew of Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe.
Having placed the Cantelowe family of Snitterfield into the larger
family tree, I've posted below a revised and updated list of the 17th
Century New World immigrants that descend from Walter de Cantelowe
(living 1201) and his wife, Amice, who are ancestral to the baronial
Cantelowe family. The list is enormous.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Barbara Aubrey, Elizabeth Alsop, Samuel
Argall, William Asfordby, Samuel Argall, Walter Aston, Frances
Baldwin, Samuel Argall, Walter Aston, Charles Barham, Charles Barnes,
Christopher Batt, Henry & Thomas Batte, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke
Beckwith, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William
Bernard, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston,
Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier,
George, Giles & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Edward Bromfield,
Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward Bromfield,
Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Charles
Calvert, Edward Carleton, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew
Clarkson, James & Norton Claypoole, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd,
Henry Corbin, William Crymes, James Cudworth, Thomas Culpeper, Francis
Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Anne
Derehaugh, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, Thomas Dudley, William Farrer,
John Fenwick, Henry Filmer, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot,
Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye, Katherine Hamby, Elizabeth & John Harleston,
Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Henry Isham, Edmund Jennings,
Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel &
Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel
Littleton, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Gabriel, Roger
& Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger
& Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Elizabeth
Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and
Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave,
Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William
Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine
Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey
Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Stratton, James
Taylor, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey, Jemima Waldegrave,
John & Lawrence Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Mary Wolseley,
Hawte Wyatt, Henry
Wyche.
For interest's sake, here is a list of the immigrants who descend
solely from the Cantelowe family of Snitterfield. The list includes
Rose (Stoughton) Otis, a newly identified descendant of the Cantelowe-
West family.
Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, Francis Dade, Anne Humphrey,
Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, John
Stockman, Rose Stoughton, John West.
Do you see your ancestor listed here? If so, I'd enjoy hearing from
you here on the newsgroup. If you have the information, feel free to
post your line of descent from Sir William de Cantelowe down to your
immigrant ancestor.
Douglas Richardson
There is further evidence that [Master] William de Montfort, Dean of
Saint's Paul, London, was the son of Peter de Montfort:
1. In 1258 “William, clerk, son of Peter de Montfort, of the diocese
of Worcester,” was granted a papal indult to hold benefices with cure
of souls to the value of 300 marks. Reference: Papal Regs.: Letters 1
(1893): 361, available at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E9oLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA361
2. In 1291, as William de Montfort, papal chaplain, dean of St. Paul's
London, he was granted a papal indult to hold benefices to the amount
of 300l., in place of the earlier indult of pope Alexander which
allowed him to hold benefices with cure of souls to the amount of 300
marks. Reference: Papal Regs.: Letters 1 (1893): 529, available at
the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E9oLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA529
Taking these two records together, it is clear that William de
Montfort, clerk, son of Peter de Montfort, living in 1258 is that same
person as William de Montfort, papal chaplain, dean of St. Paul's
London, living in 1291.
Bill
> number of 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir
> William de Cantelowe (died 1239), son and heir of Walter and Amice de
> Cantelowe:
>
> Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Barbara Aubrey, Elizabeth Alsop, William
> Asfordby, Frances Baldwin, Charles Barnes, Christopher Batt, Henry &
> Thomas Batte, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William
> Bernard, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston,
> Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier,
> Bull, Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth and Thomas
> Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew
> Clarkson, James & Norton Claypoole, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd,
> Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Anne Derehaugh,
> Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Mary Gye,
> Isham, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary
> Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel
> Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth
> & John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More,
> Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
> Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Palgrave,
> Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William
> Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine
> Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey
> Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, John Stratton, James
> Washington, Olive Welby, John West, Mary Wolseley, Hawte Wyatt, Henry
> Wyche.
>
> you here on the newsgroup. If you have the information, feel free to
> post your line of descent from Sir William de Cantelowe down to your
> immigrant ancestor.
>
Don't the Marbury sisters belong on this list?
Douglas Richardson
I've revised and expanded the Cantelowe pedigree below to include the
Cantelowe family of Snitterfield and descendants of the Montfort
family of Beaudesert, Warwickshire. The Montfort section includes the
new connection to the Earley/Erleigh familiy of Berkshire and
Somerset.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
CANTELOWE FAMILY
A1. William de Cantelowe, d. before 1201, married _____.
B1. Walter de Cantelowe, liv. 1201, married Amice _____.
C1. William de Cantelowe, adult by 1198, d. 1239, married
Masceline (or Mazra) de Bracy.
D1. William de Cantelowe, Knt., d. 1251, m. (1) c.1215/6
Milicent de Gournay; (2) after 1232 Maud Fitz Geoffrey, d. 1261.
E1 (by1). William de Cantelowe, Knt.,d. 1254, m. bef.
1241 Eve de Brewes.
F1. George de Cantelowe, b. 1252, d. 1273, m.
Margaret de Lacy.
F2. Milicent de Cantelowe, d. 1299, m. (1) bef.
1254 John de Mohaut; (2) Eudes la Zouche, Knt.
F3. Joan de Cantelowe, d.c. 1271, m. Henry de
Hastings, Knt.
E2 (by1). John de Cantelowe, of Snitterfield,
Warwickshire, liv. 1257, m. Margery Comyn, b. bef. 1224, liv. 1279.
F1. John de Cantelowe, d. 1333, m. (1) Margaret
de Harcourt, d. c.1276; (2) Maud _____, liv. 1318.
F2. William de Cantelowe, clerk, liv. 1307.
F3. Walter de Cantelowe, clerk, liv. 1328.
E3 (by1). Nichbolas de Cantelowe, of Greasley,
Nottts., d. bef. 1266, married Eustache Fitz Hugh.
E4 (by1). [Master] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of
Hereford, d. 1282.
E5 (by1). [Master] Hugh de Cantelowe, Archdeacon of
Gloucester, Treasurer of Salisbury, liv. 1270.
E6 (by1). Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint
John, of Basing, Hampshire.
E7 (by1). Juliane de Cantelowe, married Robert de
Tregoz, of Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire.
D2. [Master] Walter de Cantelowe, Bishop of Worcester, d.
1266.
D3. Matthew de Cantelowe, Rector of Ribston, Yorkshire,
living 1239.
D4. _____ de Cantelowe (daughter), married Thurstan de
Montfort, b.c.1184, d. 1216.
E1. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire,
d. 1265, married Alice de Audley.
F1. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire, d.c.1287, m. Maud de la Mare.
F2. Robert de Montfort, Knt., of Remenham,
Berkshire, d. 1274, m. Pernel de Dustanville.
F3. [Master] William de Montfort, Dean of St.
Paul's, London, d. 1294.
F4. Rose de Montfort, liv. 1304-5, m. (1)
Philip de Earley; (2) Geoffrey de Wroxhall.
C2. Robert de Cantelowe (or Robert Barat), died c. 1223.
D4. Eustache de Cantelowe (or Eustache Baret), died c.
1252, m. Katherine de Lisle.
C3. Roger Orget, liv. 1230.
C4. Nichole de Cantelowe, living 1229, married _____ de
Wanneville.
C5. Sibyl de Cantelowe, married Geoffrey Pauncefote, liv. 1242.
C6. Isabel de Cantelowe (probable daughter), liv. 1245, m. (1)
Stephen Devereux, d. 1228; (2) Ralph de Pembridge.
D1. William Devereux.
B2. Fulk de Cantelowe, Knt., of Calstone Wellington, Wiltshire, d.
c. 1229.
Douglas Richardson
> Don't the Marbury sisters belong on this list?
I suggest you post their descent and see if it works.
The Marbury sisters descend from Maud de Lucy, wife of Nicholas de
Segrave, whose mother was probably Nichole, wife of ____ Marmion and
Geoffrey de Lucy. Nichole was likely a daughter or granddaughter of
William de Cantelowe, died 1239, husband of Masceline de Bracy.
Douglas Richardson
I overlooked the names of several 17th Century New World immigrants in
my last revised list of Cantelowe descendants. The immigrants listed
below all descend from Juliane de Cantelowe, wife of Robert de Tregoz.
Kenelm Cheseldine, William Goddard, John Stratton (husband of
immigrant, Anne Derehaugh), Anne & Katherine Marbury,
Also, there are two immigrants who descend from the cadet branch of
the Cantelowe family seated at Chilton Cantelo, Somerset:
John Baynard (my own ancestor), Mary Gye
Douglas Richardson
There is a reference to Master William de Montfort, Dean of Saint
Paul's, London in the book, Paul Brand, Kings, Barons and Justices
(2003): 246.
Mr. Brand shows that in 1287 Hugh de Oddingsells sued Master William
de Montfort and Peter de Montfort.
This record may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dt1yWvqF7O8C&pg=PA246
The defendants in this lawsuit are Master William de Montfort and his
older brother, Peter de Montfort.
There is also likewise a reference to William de Montfort in a feet of
fine of the similar date, which fine concerns a property settlement by
William de Montfort's brother, Peter de Montfort, made for the benefit
of Peter de Montfort's son and daughter-in-law, John de Montfort and
Alice, daughter of William de la Plaunche. See Stokes et al.
Warwickshire Feet of Fines 2 (Dugdale Soc. 15) (1939): 14–15.
The fine indicates that William de Montfort was then holding the manor
of Wellesbourne Mountford, Warwickshire for the term of his life.
There is a discussion of the sudden death in 1294 of William de
Montfort, Dean of Saint Paul's, found in the book, J.H. Denton, Robert
Winchelsey and the Crown 1294-1313 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life
& Thought 3rd Ser. 14) (2002): 73-74.
This may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=w_eaE-Gt_00C&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
Lastly, there is a biography of William de Montfort, Dean of Saint
Paul's, in the source, Jonathan Dovey, History of Henley-in-Arden
(2007). This material is available at the following weblink:
http://www.henleynews.co.uk/history/JD_HistoryofHenley.pdf
Mr. Dovey discusses William de Montfort's sudden death at the
Westminster Parliament in 1294, as he was about to plead against
excessive taxation.
Mr. Dovey includes an interesting chapter in his work concerning the
tomb of William de Montfort's niece, Elizabeth de Montfort (died
1354), wife successively of William de Montagu and Thomas de
Furnival. Elizabeth's tomb at Christ Church, Oxford can still be
visited.
Mr. Dovey states that William de Montfort was captured in Northampton
alongside his father who was the baronial commander there in April
1264. I believe this is an error. I think the original record states
that Peter de Montfort and his two sons were captured in 1264, without
specifying the names of his two sons. The sons who were captured with
their father were surely the eldest son, Peter, and the second son,
Robert, not the third son, William, who was intended for the church.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9601f85c-2e69-4a72...@35g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> There is also likewise a reference to William de Montfort in a feet
> of fine of the similar date, which fine concerns a property
> settlement by William de Montfort's brother, Peter de Montfort,
And you like to think of yourself as a trained authority on medieval
usages - "a feet of fine", indeed.
Do you have the vaguest clue what the foot of a fine was? Evidently not.
It was originally the bottom section of a parchment on which a settlement (a
final concord, or fine) had been recorded. Hence the foot, singular, not
"feet".
As in "footing a bill" nowadays - settling it, not "feeting" it.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
>
> Do you have the vaguest clue what the foot of a fine was? Evidently not.
Actually I do. You're just being a silly goose again.
DR
Peter Stewart
Um, no - or you could never have made such an illiterate blunder.
I was of course making the obvious point so that no-one, including your tiny
claque of mindless admirers, could be misled by your ignorance.
It's no use claiming after the embarrassing fact that somehow you knew you
were mistaken all along.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> Um, no - or you could never have made such an illiterate blunder.
> >
> Peter Stewart
Thank you for the kind words. But you're still a silly old goose who
takes himself too seriously. You need to chill, dude.
DR
Peter Stewart
You don't learn, do you?
Being arrogant, stubborn, vain and pretentious can't be mended by denial or
disguised by trying to be cute after you've made yet another howler.
Are you determined to show every last person here why you are held in such
contempt by most of the others?
Peter Stewart
ABB
> "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
I went to the wikipedia entry for feet of fines and found this: (see
below), perhaps of interest to anyone interested in the underlying
subject at hand.
"A procedure in England that evolved for ending a legal action by
agreement between parties ... Each party would be given a copy of the
agreement. However, in 1195 the procedure was amended, so that three
copies were made on a single sheet of parchment, one on each side, and
one at the base. Copies could then be separated by cutting the
parchment along indented lines as a precaution against forgery. The
right and left hand copies were given to both parties, and a third
copy at the base (foot or feet) was retained by the court. For this
reason the documents are known as feet of fines."
I don't know who wrote this article but they do cite their sources, I
don't know off hand whether authors tend to refer to the bottom
portion as the "foot of fine" or "feet of fine"... as I have an
article in the works that mentions the feet of fines, I am curious to
know what other published genealogist think about this terminology, as
the author of the wiki entry seems to suggest that when dealing
specifically with one third of the original document "foot" or "feet"
is allowed. Peter, I take it you prefer the former?!!
Adrian Benjamin Burke
New York City
Douglas Richardson
> Being arrogant, stubborn, vain and pretentious can't be mended by denial or
> disguised by trying to be cute after you've made yet another howler.
>
Peter Stewart
Don't get your panties in a bunch, Peter. We all mayke mystakes. To
errr is human.
Stay on topic. Post your citations and show your weblinks. And be
civil.
DR
Douglas Richardson
Adrian ~
It is correct to refer to a single original document as a fine. But
authors usually refer to an entire compilation of fines as "feet of
fines."
I incorrectly referred to a single fine as a feet of fine. When I
wrote this, I was thinking of the title of the book, not the actual
document. Mea culpa.
If this error caused Mr. Stewart any indigestion, loss of sleep, gas,
diarrhea, lack of libido, I apologize. I'm sure my tiny error is the
least of Mr. Stewart's problems.
DR
taf
This is what comes from trusting wikipedia. The document/agreement is
a fine. The portion remaining is a foot, the collection are feet.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Checking the Ancestry World Tree database, I came across a descent for
the immigrant, Edward Bromfield, from Peter de Montfort, 3rd Lord
Montfort (and thus a descent from the Cantelowe family). The line
comes through Peter de Montfort's illegitimate son, Richard Montfort,
who married Rose Brandeston. As far I can tell, this line is sound.
The line goes as follows (dates as cited in database, not verified by
me):
1 Peter Montfort b: ABT 1325
2 Richard Montfort b: ABT 1345
+ Rose Brandeston b: ABT 1346 d: AFT 1420
3 William Montfort b: ABT 1375
4 Ellen Montfort b: ABT 1405
+ Richard Merbrooke b: ABT 1400
5 Alice Merbrooke b: ABT 1427
+ John Norreys b: ABT 1426 d: 01 SEP 1466
6 William Norreys b: ABT 1445 d: AFT 1504
+ Jane Joan Vere b: ABT 1447 d: BEF 1472
The remaining part of the descent down to Edward Bromfield can be
found by consulting newsgroup archives.
Besides the above descent, there is also an alleged descent from
Richard Montfort in the Ancestry World Tree database for the
immigrant, Alice (Freeman) Thompson. I can't verify the link through
the Holt family, however.
Douglas Richardson
Below is a further extension of the Cantelowe pedigree. The pedigree
is now extending into the 6th generation. The pedigree below marks
the first appearance of Alice de la Plaunche, wife of John de
Montfort, Knt., 1st Lord Montfort, whose Continental ancestry has been
the subject of another thread.
Please post any corrections or additions you might have here on the
newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
CANTELOWE FAMILY
A1. William de Cantelowe, d. before 1201, married _____.
B1. Walter de Cantelowe, liv. 1201, married Amice _____.
C1. William de Cantelowe, adult by 1198, d. 1239, married
Masceline (or Mazra) de Bracy.
D1. William de Cantelowe, Knt., d. 1251, m. (1) c.1215/6
Milicent de Gournay; (2) after 1232 Maud Fitz Geoffrey, d. 1261.
E1 (by1). William de Cantelowe, Knt.,d. 1254, m. bef.
1241 Eve de Brewes.
F1. George de Cantelowe, b. 1252, d. 1273, m.
Margaret de Lacy.
F2. Milicent de Cantelowe, d. 1299, m. (1) bef.
1254 John de Mohaut; (2) Eudes la Zouche, Knt., d. 1279.
G1. William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth, d. 1352, m. Maud Lovel.
G2. Elizabeth la Zouche, m. Nicholas
Poyntz, Knt., 2nd Lord Poyntz.
G3. Eve la Zouche, m. Maurice de Berkeley,
Knt., 2nd Lord Berkeley.
G4. Eleanor la Zouche, m. John de
Harcourt, Knt., of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire.
F3. Joan de Cantelowe, d.c. 1271, m. Henry de
Hastings, Knt., d. 1269.
G1. John de Hastings, Knt., 1st Lord
Hastings, d. 1313, m. (1) Isabel de Valence; (2) Isabel le Despenser.
G2. Edmund de Hastings, Knt., d. 1314, m.
Isabel Russell.
G3. Ada de Hastings, m. (1) Rhys ap
Maredudd, Knt.; (2) Robert de Champaine.
G4. Lora de Hastings, m. Thomas le
Latimer, Knt., 1st Lord Latimer of Braybrook
G5. Joan de Hastings (nun).
E2 (by1). John de Cantelowe, of Snitterfield,
Warwickshire, liv. 1257, m. Margery Comyn, b. bef. 1224, liv. 1279.
F1. John de Cantelowe, d. 1333, m. (1) Margaret
de Harcourt, d. c.1276; (2) Maud _____, liv. 1318.
G1 (by 2). John de Cantelowe.
G2 (by 2). Eleanor de Cantelowe, married
Thomas West, Knt.
F2. William de Cantelowe, clerk, liv. 1307.
F3. Walter de Cantelowe, clerk, liv. 1328.
E3 (by1). Nichbolas de Cantelowe, of Greasley,
Nottts., d. bef. 1266, married Eustache Fitz Hugh.
E4 (by1). [Master] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of
Hereford, d. 1282.
E5 (by1). [Master] Hugh de Cantelowe, Archdeacon of
Gloucester, Treasurer of Salisbury, liv. 1270.
E6 (by1). Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint
John, of Basing, Hampshire, d. 1266.
E7 (by1). Juliane de Cantelowe, liv. 1285, married
Robert de Tregoz, of Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire.
D2. [Master] Walter de Cantelowe, Bishop of Worcester, d.
1266.
D3. Matthew de Cantelowe, Rector of Ribston, Yorkshire,
liv. 1239.
D4. _____ de Cantelowe (daughter), married Thurstan de
Montfort, b.c.1184, d. 1216.
E1. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire,
d. 1265, married Alice de Audley.
F1. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire, d.c.1287, m. Maud de la Mare.
G1. John de Montfort, Knt., 1st Lord
Montfort, d. 1296, m. Alice de la Plaunche.
G2. Elizabeth de Montfort, m. (1)
William de Montagu, Knt., 2nd Lord Montagu; (2) Thomas de Furnival,
Knt., 1st Lord Furnival.
G3. Alice de Montfort, m. Warin de
Lisle, d. 1296; (2) Robert Fitz Walter, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz Walter, d.
1326.
F2. Robert de Montfort, Knt., of Remenham,
Berkshire, d. 1274, m. Pernel de Dustanville.
F3. [Master] William de Montfort, Dean of St.
Paul's, London, d. 1294.
F4. Rose de Montfort, liv. 1304-5, m. (1)
Philip de Earley/Erleigh; (2) Geoffrey de Wroxhall.
G1. John de Earley/Erleigh.
C2. Robert de Cantelowe (or Robert Barat), died c. 1223, m.
_____.
D4. Eustache de Cantelowe (or Eustache Baret), died c.
1252, m. Katherine de Lisle.
C3. Roger Orget, liv. 1230.
C4. Nichole de Cantelowe, liv. 1229, married _____ de
Wanneville (or Wennerville).
Joe Cochoit
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Also, there are two immigrants who descend from the cadet branch of
> the Cantelowe family seated at Chilton Cantelo, Somerset:
>
> John Baynard (my own ancestor), Mary Gye
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Doug,
Do you know how the Cantelo family at Chilton Cantelo connects to the
main branch?
I note that Two Cartularies of the Benedictine Abbeys of Muchelney
( http://tinyurl.com/37wbaue ) says that:
- William de Cantilupe, Lord of Chilton Cantelupe is the same person
in Charter 45 in a suit regarding Camel Rumare (East Camel, Queen’s
Camel, Camel Regis)
- Charter states he is William de Cantilupe, son of Richard de
Cantilupe
-Text says he is the great-grandson of Roger de Cantelupe to whom
Gilbert De Cantelupe granted lands in Camel in 3 John
-Text says William Cantilupe held Chilton with his brother-in-law
Richard de Venour in 1303
The 3 John Charter must be the one in this snippet view: http://tinyurl.com/2bw22rv
“Charter of Gilbert de Cantilupe giving to Robert son of Roger de
Cantilupe three vigrates of land in Camel, Som., which Roger his
father held.”
Feudal Aids IV (Somerset) p. 316 confirms Richard Le Venur and William
De Cantilupo holding Chilton in 1303. http://tinyurl.com/2vdtwlb
In the IPM of 1273 IPM of George De Cantelupe, Chilton is held by
Richard De Cantilupo and Cammel Regis is held by William de
Cantilupo. This certainly indicates that these properties belonged to
the main line and held of them by a cadet branch. http://tinyurl.com/293bye3
The above seems to make the line:
Roger de Cantilupe
|
Robert (received land from Gilbert de Cantilupe 3 John)
|
Richard
|
William (holding Chilton in 1303)
Can you confirm any of this?
How does Roger and Gilbert de Cantilupe related to the main line?
Joe Cochoit
Peter Stewart
> It is correct to refer to a single original document as a fine.
> But authors usually refer to an entire compilation of fines
> as "feet of fines."
Obviously, using "feet" as the plural of "foot".
> I incorrectly referred to a single fine as a feet of fine. When I
> wrote this, I was thinking of the title of the book, not the actual
> document. Mea culpa.
Rubbish. Take the book titled "The Spoils of Poynton" - no-one but an
ignoramus would refer to a single treasure in the house as "a spoils". You
simply did not know the basis of terminology you were using, and now you
can't bear to admit this or, weirdly, even to shut up about it.
> If this error caused Mr. Stewart any indigestion, loss of sleep,
> gas, diarrhea, lack of libido, I apologize. I'm sure my tiny
> error is the least of Mr. Stewart's problems.
It's not the scale of the error that matters, but what it reveals about your
absurd claims to expertise as a medievalist.
And yet you persist in drawing attention to it. As I said before you never
learn - little wonder that your academic "training" had no discernible
effect.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> It's not the scale of the error that matters, but what it reveals about your
> absurd claims to expertise as a medievalist.
> >
> Peter Stewart
Thank you for your kind words.
Peter Stewart
"ABB" <adrianben...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec132d39-fd3e-4767...@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> I went to the wikipedia entry for feet of fines and found this:
> (see below), perhaps of interest to anyone interested in the
> underlying subject at hand.
<snip>
> I don't know who wrote this article but they do cite their
> sources, I don't know off hand whether authors tend to refer
> to the bottom portion as the "foot of fine" or "feet of fine"... as
> I have an article in the works that mentions the feet of fines, I
> am curious to know what other published genealogist think
> about this terminology, as the author of the wiki entry seems
> to suggest that when dealing specifically with one third of the
> original document "foot" or "feet" is allowed. Peter, I take it
> you prefer the former?!!
My preferences have nothing to do with it - I don't get to decide the plural
or singular forms of words.
Try checking your own legs. Does each of these end in a foot or a feet?
Then try a dictionary. Can you find "feet" defined as a singular noun?
It beats me why some people will scramble for ways to justify obvious
howlers from Richardson. I can only supppose that the level of insecurity
requiring opinions from "other published genealogist" (singular, or meant to
be plural?) can lead to a reliance on self-proclaimed authority and a desire
to keep believing in a charlatan who conveniently purports to cover an
entire field of interest.
But in Richardson's case this is British medieval genealogy, and clearly he
has only skimmed the surface at best, never bothering to evaluate the major
classes of documentary evidence or to study the languages in which these
were written - to say nothing of his own.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< But in Richardson's case this is British medieval genealogy, and
clearly he
< has only skimmed the surface at best, never bothering to evaluate
the major
< classes of documentary evidence or to study the languages in which
these
< were written - to say nothing of his own.
<
< Peter Stewart
This is soc.genealogy.medieval, not soc.wah.wah.wah.
You're just being a silly old goose, that's all.
DR
Monica Kanellis
<royala...@msn.com>wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
...
>
>
> F1. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert,
> Warwickshire, d.c.1287, m. Maud de la Mare.
> G1. John de Montfort, Knt., 1st Lord
> Montfort, d. 1296, m. Alice de la Plaunche.
> G2. Elizabeth de Montfort, m. (1)
> William de Montagu, Knt., 2nd Lord Montagu; (2) Thomas de Furnival,
> Knt., 1st Lord Furnival.
> G3. Alice de Montfort, m. Warin de
> Lisle, d. 1296; (2) Robert Fitz Walter, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz Walter, d.
> 1326....
>
Regarding the above Maud de la Mare, do you have anything on her ancestry?
Thank you for the summarized pedigree, by the way, I had not known this
branch of the de Montforts had Cantelowe ancestry.
best,
Monica
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your post. You've asked a good question.
Maud de la Mare, wife of Sir Peter de Montfort (died 1287), of
Beaudesert, Warwickshire, was the daughter and heiress of Sir Henry de
la Mare (died 1257), of Ashstead, Surrey, and Hinton (in Hurst),
Diddenham (in Shinfield), Farley Hill, and Sheepbridge (in
Swallowfield), Berkshire, Seneschal (or bailiff) of William Longespée
II, Earl of Salisbury, Constable of Stogursey, Somerset, royal justice
[see Surrey Arch. Colls. 19 (1906): 27–32; C.P.R. 1247–1258 (1908):
463, 478; VCH Surrey 3 (1911): 248; VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 253;
C.C.R. 1264–1265 (1937): 55; Hatton, Book of Seals (1950): 136–138;
Meekings, 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31) (1979): 218–220;
Kemp, Reading Abbey Cartularies 2 (Camden 4th Ser. 33) (1987): 101].
Maud de la Mare's mother was Joan de Neville, wife successively of Sir
Henry de la Mare (died 1257) and Sir Walter de la Hyde. Joan de
Neville in turn was the daughter of John de Neville, Knt., of Essex,
by Hawise, daughter of Robert de Courteney, Knt., of Okehampton, Devon
[see Wood, Letters of Royal & Ill. Ladies (1846): 42–46 (letter dated
c.1258 from Lady Hawise de Neville (née Courtenay) to her son, Hugh de
Neville, dated c.1258, in which she says: “Sir Walter de la Hide, Joan
your sister, and all our household salute you.”; see also Blauuw,
Barons’ War (1871): 184, footnote 1); Roberts, Excerpta e Rotuilis
Finium 2 (1836): 228 (pardon of debts to Hugh de Neville, brother of
Joan, “at the instance of Henry de la Mare”); Halliwell-Phillipps,
Chron. of William de Rishanger (Camden Soc. 15) (1840): 90, 101–102
(Joan de la Mare and Hawise de Courtenay both styled “noblewomen”)
[see also Sussex N&Q 1 (1927): 215–216]; Somersetshire Pleas 4(1)
(Somerset Rec. Soc. 44) (1929): 60–62 (suit names Joan de la Mare as
mother of Maud, wife of Peter de Montfort; indicates that Joan de la
Mare had the manor of Norton, Somerset by gift of Sir John de
Gatesden, 2nd husband of Hawise de Courtenay); C.C.R., 1254–1256
(1931): 277 (Henry de la Mare named as surety for Hugh de Neville,
brother of Joan); Meekings, 1235 Surrey Eyre (Surrey Rec. Soc. 31)
(1979): 196–199; C.C.R. 1264–1268 (1937): 8 and C.C.R. 1272–1279
(1900): 378 (states that royal deer once held by Hawise de Courtenay
were subsequently in the possession of Walter de la Hyde, 2nd husband
of Joan, widow of Henry de la Mare); Peckham, Chartulary of the High
Church of Chichester (Sussex Rec. Soc. 46) (1942/3): 171, 298; Desc.
Cat. Ancient Deeds 3 (1900): 19–30 (A. 4008 — Demise of John de
Gatesden, 2nd husband of Hawise de Courtenay, witnessed by Walter de
la Hide, Knt.; see also National Archives, E 40/4008), 19–30 (A. 4010
— Release by Hawise de Neville, widow Sir John de Gatesden, witnessed
by Walter de la Hyde, Knt.; see also National Archives, E 40/4010);
Genealogist n.s. 7 (1891): 244; Genealogist n.s. 23 (1907): 143–145;
VCH Sussex 6(1) (1980): 53–64; Sussex Arch. Colls. 13 (1861): 85–96,
99 (Walter de la Hyde, 2nd husband of Joan de la Mare, holds lands at
Waldron, Sussex, formerly held by Sir John de Gatesden and his wife,
Hawise); Cal. Chancery Warrants (1927): 465 (Simon de Montagu styled
“king’s cousin and clerk” by King Edward II of England; Simon de
Montagu was related to King Edward II through his descent from Joan de
la Mare’s mother, Hawise de Courtenay)].
The passage of lands and personal estate, the long term association
between the de la Mare, de la Hyde, and Neville/Gatesden families, the
social status of Joan de la Mare as noblewoman, the royal kinship of
Simon de Montagu, as well as naming patterns all support the
identification of Joan, wife of Henry de la Mare, as Joan, daughter of
John de Neville, Knt., and Hawise de Courtenay.
The following weblink to a database in Ancestry World Tree gives the
extended pedigree of Maud de la Mare,wife of Sir Peter de Montfort:
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jones-lysell&id=I6225&style=TEXT
As with all online databases, it requires verification.
I trust this answers your question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
WJho...@aol.com
monica....@gmail.com writes:
>
> Regarding the above Maud de la Mare, do you have anything on her ancestry?
>
> Thank you for the summarized pedigree, by the way, I had not known this
> branch of the de Montforts had Cantelowe ancestry.
>
Subj: Re: CP Addition: Eleanor de Montagu, wife of Sir John de Dinham
Date: 12/18/05 4:29:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Therav3
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
<snip>
51 Matilda de la Mare. Born aft 1251.[70]
identified by Douglas Richardson as the daughter of Sir Henry de la Mare
(not his son Matthew) by his wife Joan de Neville, dau. of John de Neville of
Hallingbury, Essex:
' "Pro Matilli filia Henrici de la Mare. - Rex Willelmo de Wenling',
escaetori suo citra Trentam, salutem. Monstravit nobis Matildis filia Henrici de
la Mare quod, cum dudum contulissemus eidem Henrico custodiam terrarum
Willelmi Ortye defuncti qui de nobis tenuit in capite habendam sibi et
assignatis suis cum feodis militum, wardis et aliis ad dictam custodiam
pertinentibus, et idem Henricus dudum ante mortem suam custiodiam illam assignasset eidem
Matildi habendam usque ad legitimam etatem heredem ejusdem Willelmi ..."
Briefly, the above text states that the king had formerly granted the lands
of William de Lorty deceased to Henry de la Mare, which Henry during his
life had assigned to his daughter, Maud, to have until the lawful age of the
heir of the said William de Lorty. Since no husband is mentioned for Maud in
this record, I assume she was unmarried at the date this document was
recorded. Typically, a husband would be named if one existed. We know from
other records that Maud was definitely a minor in 1260. If we assume that Maud
was still an unmarried minor in 1265, this might suggest that she was born
in or about 1252. Maud and her husband, Peter de Montfort, had their first
known child in or about 1271, so a marriage date of between 1265 and 1271 for
Maud and Peter would surely be acceptable.
Although there may be another grant involved, it appears that Henry de la
Mare obtained the lands of William de Lorty deceased in 1256 on the payment
of a fee of 100 marks a year at the Exchequer. The grant does not mention
William de Lorty's lands, rather the wardship "falling in land to that yearly
value" late of Sabina de Lorty. That Henry de la Mare, the royal justice,
is the person who obtained the Lorty properties is indicated by the fact that
Henry was then stated to be in the king's "service," and then when he was
in Gascony, he "gave commandment to the queen and R[ichard] earl of Cornwall,
guardians of the realm." Elsewhere, the king states that he is about to
send Henry on a message to the court of Rome [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1247-1258 (1908), pp. 463, 478]. The records show that during his
career, Henry de la Mare the justice made several trips abroad for the king.
'[70]
the manor of Ashtead, co. Surrey was her maritagium or inheritance[71]
identified previously in error as daughter of Matthew de la Mare:
Regarding Sir Peter's marriage, Complete Peerage states, "He married circa 1260
Maud, daughter and heiress of Matthew, son of Henry de la Mare, with whom he
has Ashtead in Surrey." [CP IX:127][9] ( see also R. Borthwick[71] and Kay
Allen[72])
~ this results from evident confusion with the de la Mare family of
Bradwell, Essex. Chris Phillips advises of the following record, ' A pedigree in
De Banco R. 926, m. 427, cited both for the marriage of Peter and Matilda,
and for her being the daughter of Matthew son of Henry. I believe this
equates to the modern reference CP 40/926, which remarkably enough is a plea roll
from Michaelmas 9 Henry VII [1493]. If I've got that right it means that in
this instance CP has, bizarrely, preferred the evidence of a pedigree
recorded more than two centuries after the event, to two contemporary records
placing Maud as the daughter of Henry.'[73]
Monica Kanellis
Do you know if these de la Mares were connected to the Peter de la Mare who
was speaker of the House in 1377? His neice married into the Seymour family
of Wolf Hall, but I don't have anything earlier than Peter's father, Reynold
de la Mare.
best,
Monica
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Douglas Richardson
<royala...@msn.com>wrote:
> Dear Monica ~
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Douglas Richardson
> In a message dated 12/11/2010 9:12:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
< royalances...@msn.com writes:
< > 1 Peter Montfort b: ABT 1325
< > 2 Richard Montfort b: ABT 1345
< > + Rose Brandeston b: ABT 1346 d: AFT 1420
< > 3 William Montfort b: ABT 1375
< > 4 Ellen Montfort b: ABT 1405
< > + Richard Merbrooke b: ABT 1400
< > 5 Alice Merbrooke b: ABT 1427
< > + John Norreys b: ABT 1426 d: 01 SEP 1466
< > 6 William Norreys b: ABT 1445 d: AFT 1504
< > + Jane Joan Vere b: ABT 1447 d: BEF 1472
< The line is a bunch of utter nonsense.
< W
Actually the above pedigree is sound. I said nothing about the dates,
however, which may be entirely incorrect. Richard de Montfort (Gen.
2), husband of Rose de Brandeston, named above was definitely the
illegitimate son of Sir Peter de Montfort, 3rd Lord Montfort (died c.
1370). VCH Berkshire, vols. 3 and 4, and VCH Warwick, vol. 5 and 6,
taken together indicate that Richard de Montfort and his wife, Rose,
had a son and heir, William Montfort. William Montfort in turn had a
daughter and co-heiress, Ellen Montfort, wife of Richard Merbrook,
Esq. (living 1427). Ellen Montfort, wife of Richard Merbrook, Esq.,
in turn was the mother of Alice Merbrook, who married John Norreys,
Esq. [see, for example, Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 3 (1900): 52-63, Deed
A.4359]. And Alice Merbrook in turn was the mother of William
Norreys, Knt. (born about 1441, died 1507), who married Jane (or Joan)
Vere.
The specific references which support this line of descent are:
Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877): 54–56
(Montfort ped.); Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 3 (1900): 52–63 (Deeds A.
4359; A. 4374); VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 93–107, 247–250; VCH Berkshire
4 (1924): 125–130; VCH Warwick 4 (1947): 99–100; VCH Warwick 5 (1949):
108–116; Notes & Queries 196 (1951): 463–468; VCH Warwick 6 (1951): 94–
99.
You can be certain that the pedigree is correct as the manor of
Yattenden, Berkshire passed by inheritance from Rose de Brandeston,
wife of Richard de Montfort, down to the Norreys family [see also the
descent of Odes (in Hurst), Berkshire]. Another family property,
Lapworth, Warwickshire, passed to Rose de Brandeston's other
granddaughter, Margaret Montfort, who married a Catesby.
You should look further, Will, before you pronounce any pedigree "dog
vomit." So woof back at ya. But no vomit.
Douglas Richardson
wrote:
> Thank you, Douglas, this is very helpful.
>
> Do you know if these de la Mares were connected to the Peter de la Mare who
> was speaker of the House in 1377? His neice married into the Seymour family
> of Wolf Hall, but I don't have anything earlier than Peter's father, Reynold
> de la Mare.
>
> best,
>
> Monica
You're quite welcome, Monica.
I believe the family of Maud de la Mare, wife of Sir Peter de
Montfort, is a separate and distinct family from that of Peter de la
Mare, who was Speaker of the House in 1377.
Monica Kanellis
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Richardson
<royala...@msn.com>wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:16 am, Monica Kanellis <monica.kanel...@gmail.com>
Simon Fairthorne
< royalances...@msn.com writes:
< Actually the above pedigree is sound. I said nothing about the dates,
< however, which may be entirely incorrect.
If you present a set of data, such as your descent of Sir William Norreys
then the reader would expect that a similar degree of accuracy would be
associated with all the information - if it is shown or admitted that the
dates could be entirely incorrect then the average reader would assume the
same would be true of the rest. If you suspect the dates are so wrong then
either don't include them or give wider ranges to indicate the uncertainty
Cheers
Simon
John
> Simon ~
>
> Any reader who expects perfection from medieval genealogical material
> quoted verbatim from Ancestry World Tree is likely to be greatly
> disappointed.
>
> A knowledgeable person would know that dates found in online medieval
> databases are in most cases ENTIRELY guesswork. Regardless, I find
> that people often get their ancestral lines right, even if their dates
> are badly estimated.
>
> In this case, the line was correct, even if the dates were ...
> um .... imaginary.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
In fairness to Mr. Richardson, he did say in his original post that
the dates were "as cited in database, not verified by me". And,
despite Will Johnson's rant, even if the dates are garbage, that
doesn't mean that the descent itself is bad - although it would been
better to present the sources supporting it in the original post,
rather than as a later addition.
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
> Any reader who expects perfection from medieval genealogical material
> quoted verbatim from Ancestry World Tree is likely to be greatly
> disappointed.
>
> A knowledgeable person would know that dates found in online medieval
> databases are in most cases ENTIRELY guesswork. Regardless, I find
> that people often get their ancestral lines right, even if their dates
> are badly estimated.
>
> In this case, the line was correct, even if the dates were ...
> um .... imaginary.
>
What a load, as Bette Davis would say.
Between "perfection" and "putrid garbage" Mr R there is a great wide gap.
Somewhere in there is actual research. You know, the kind where you
actually do something other than trolling through a bunch of stupid pieces of
garbage in AWT.
People do not Mr D "often get their ancestral lines right". In fact,
people, in the main, are often quite wrong about every single one of their lines.
Mostly creating wishful thinking, and not having the slightest clue how to
go about finding evidence.
It's not a question of "badly estimating" the dates, its a question of
making up whatever year suits your fancy on no evidence whatsoever. Not even a
knowledge of what decade or in some cases in what *century* a person should
be placed.
In this case, the line is incorrect. Utterly and completely, lacking any
evidence for it, whatsoever.
W
John
> In a message dated 12/12/2010 6:15:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>
Calm down, Will....take your meds and go to bed like a good little
boy. You'll feel better in the morning.
Douglas Richardson
Here is a line from the Cantelowe family down to the immigrant, Edward
Bromfield, died 1734.
Generations 8-13 below are covered by the following sources:
Throsby, Thoroton’s Hist. of Nottinghamshire 3 (1790): 27; Nicolas
Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 69–70 (will of Peter de Montfort, Knt.);
Notices of the Churches of Warwickshire: Deanery of Warwick 1 (1847):
157–158; Hannett, Forest of Arden, its Towns, Villages, & Hamlets
(1863): 127–128; Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12)
(1877): 54–56 (Montfort ped.: “Richard Montfort. = Rose Da. & hey. of
Hugo Bradston de Lapworth miles.”); Desc. Cat. Ancient Deeds 3 (1900):
47, 58–60; Hudson, Memorials of a Warwickshire Parish (1904): 52–53;
VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 93–107, 247–250; VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 125–
130; C.P. 9 (1936): 128–130 (sub Montfort); VCH Warwick 4 (1947): 99–
100; VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 108–116; Notes & Queries 196 (1951): 463–
468; VCH Warwick 6 (1951): 94–99; Emery, Greater Medieval Houses of
England & Wales, 1300–1500 3 (2006): 124–125.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
1. William de Cantelowe, d. before 1201, married _____.
2. Walter de Cantelowe, liv. 1201, married Amice _____.
3. William de Cantelowe, adult by 1198, d. 1239, married Masceline de
Bracy.
4. _____ de Cantelowe (daughter), married Thurstan de Montfort, b.c.
1184, d. 1216.
5. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, d. 1265, married
Alice de Audley.
6. Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire, d.c.1287, m. Maud
de la Mare.
7. John de Montfort, Knt., 1st Lord Montfort, d. 1296, m. Alice de la
Plaunche.
8. Peter de Montfort, Knt., 3rd Lord Montfort, died c.1370, by a
mistress, Lora de Astley (or Ullenhall):
9. Richard de Montfort, of Lapworth, Warwickshire, living 1375, m.
Rose de Brandeston, living 1419.
10. William de Montfort, of Tanworth, Warwickshire, living 1390-1, m.
Agnes _____.
11. Ellen Montfort, m. Richard Merbrook, Esq.
12. Alice Merbrook, m. John Norreys, Esq., of Ockwells (in Bray) and
Yattendon, Berkshire.
13. William Norreys, Knt., of Yattendon, Berkshire, d. 1507, m. Joan
(or Jane) Vere.
14. Margaret Norreys, m. Gilbert Bullock, Esq., of Arborfield and
Barkham, Berkshire.
15. Anne Bullock, m. Oliver Oglander, of Brading, Hampshire.
16. George Oglander, Gent., of East Nunwell (in Brading), Hampshire,
m. Alice Hammond.
17. William Oglander, Knt., of East Nunwell (in Brading), Hampshire,
m. Anne Dillington.
18. Mary Oglander, m. Thomas Kempe, Gent., of Gins (in Beaulieu),
Hampshire.
19. Frances Kempe, m. Henry Bromfield, Esq., of Chawcroft (in South
Stoneham), Hampshire.
20. Edward Bromfield, of Boston, Massachusetts, died 1734.
Douglas Richardson
A couple more names can be added to the Cantelowe-Montfort family
tree. I note that the 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire indicates that
Sir Peter de Montfort, of Beaudesert, Warwickshire (died 1265) and his
wife, Alice de Audley, had a daughter, Agatha, who married Richard de
Limesey, of Arley, Warwickshire. Agatha and Richard in turn are
reported to have had a son, Sir Peter de Limsey.
Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877): 54–56
(Montfort ped.: “Agatha [Montfort] ux. Rich. Limesey de Areley.”).
The record below is taken from the online Catalogue of the National
Archives. It confirms that Sir Richard de Limesey's wife's name was
Agatha and that they had land in Henley, Warwickshire by the demise of
Sir Peter de Montfort.
National Archives, E 40/4572 (Release by Ranulph Folechanke, to Sir
Richard de Lymesey and Lady Agatha, his wife, of all his right in the
lands &c. in Henle, which he had of the demise of Sir Peter de
Montfort and others. Witnesses:- Robert de Hasting', Nicholas de
Lodingeshel, Hugh de Brauntiston, knight, and others (named]:[Warw.] )
(available at www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
Additional information on Richard de Limesey, his son, Peter, and
grandson, John, can be found in VCH Warwick, Vol. 6. This material
can be viewed at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=57084&strquery=Arley
Next, I find that Wigram, Cartulary of the Monastery of St. Frideswide
at Oxford (Oxford Hist. Soc. 31) (1896): 8–13 includes a transcript of
a charter dated 1348 issued by Elizabeth de Montfort, wife
successively of Sir William de Montagu, 2nd Lord Montagu, and Thomas
de Furnival, Knt., 1st Lord Furnival. In her charter, Elizabeth names
her parents, Sir Peter de Montfort [i.e., the younger] and his wife,
Lady Maud, as well as her cousin [consanguinei], Sir Peter de Lymesey,
Knt.
Elizabeth de Montfort would thus be a first cousin to Sir Peter de
Limesey. The Cantelowe-Montfort family tree keeps growing.
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
> You're quite wrong, Will. The Montfort-Merbrook-Norreys line is
> good. You haven't bothered to look for evidence, that's all.
>
I'm looking at what you cited now.
I'm seeing some hand-waving here....
I haven't finished my analysis yet.
It's possible that the line is possible, or even probable.
It's not yet crystal clear to me, from your sources, that the line has good
evidence.
W
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Next, I find that Wigram, Cartulary of the Monastery of St.
> Frideswide at Oxford (Oxford Hist. Soc. 31) (1896): 8–13 includes
> a transcript of a charter dated 1348 issued by Elizabeth de Montfort,
> wife successively of Sir William de Montagu, 2nd Lord Montagu,
> and Thomas de Furnival, Knt., 1st Lord Furnival. In her charter,
> Elizabeth names her parents, Sir Peter de Montfort [i.e., the younger]
> and his wife, Lady Maud, as well as her cousin [consanguinei], Sir
> Peter de Lymesey, Knt.
>
> Elizabeth de Montfort would thus be a first cousin to Sir Peter de
> Limesey. The Cantelowe-Montfort family tree keeps growing.
It's probably just as well that Richardson usually takes refuge in a mass of
citations, since he makes a predictable hash of things when he tries using a
source written in Latin.
First, the charter of 1348 was not "issued by Elizabeth de Montfort", but by
John Littlemore, prior, and the convent of St Frideswide's. It is dated 16
February 1347 (1348 new style), and was confirmed by John Gindwell, bishop
of Lincoln, on 19 February.
Secondly, on an unbiased reading it does not name Sir Peter de Lymesey as a
kinsman (consanguineus) of Elizabeth, but rather Simon Islip, canon of
Lincoln (later archbishop of Canterbury).
The relevant text is as follows (no. 695, vol. ii pp. 9-10):
"pro anima dicti domini W. de M. A., mariti dicte domine E., ac pro salubri
statu suo, et venerabilis patris domini lohannis D. G. Lincoln' Episcopi,
dum vixerint, & pro animabus ipsorum cum ab hac luce migrauerint, necnon pro
animabus domini Petri de Monte Forti patris, domine Matilde matris eiusdem
domine E. ... liberorum dictorum domini W. & E., domini Thome de Fourngual
secundi mariti prefate domine, domini Petri de Lymeseye Militis &
consanguinei eiusdem domine, magistri Simonis de Islep Canonici Lincoln', et
pro animabus omnium parentum et amicorum ipsius domine".
This list was repeated in a charter of John Buckingham, the next bishop of
Lincoln, dated 1 March 1379 (1380 new style), no. 698 on p. 15:
"pro animabus nobilis domine domine Elizabeth de Monte Acuto, ac domini
Willelmi de Monte Acuto mariti eiusdem domine E., Iohannis Lincoln'
Episcopi, Petri de Monte Forti patris, domine Matildis matris eiusdem domine
... liberorum dictorum dominorum W. & E., domini Thome de Furneuall secundi
mariti dicte domine, Petri Lymyseye Militis & consanguinei eiusdem domine,
Simonis de Islep, & pro animabus omnium parentum & amicorum ipsius domine".
If "consanguinei" is to be read as relating to Sir Peter de Lymesey then two
different scribes would have given no conjunction before Simon Islip: some
other evidence better than available would be needed to prefer this
stretched reading. Elizabeth herself had named Peter de Lymesey in two
charters without calling him her kinsman - see nos. 690 dated 6 August 1346
(p. 4) and 693 dated 10 September 1346 (p. 6): "quidem prato dominus Petrus
de Lymeseye, Miles, dominum W. de M. A., quondam maritum meum & me per
cartam suam feoffauit".
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< First, the charter of 1348 was not "issued by Elizabeth de
Montfort", but by
< John Littlemore, prior, and the convent of St Frideswide's. It is
dated 16
< February 1347 (1348 new style), and was confirmed by John Gindwell,
bishop
< of Lincoln, on 19 February.
Quite correct. But the charter was surely issued at her request. In
point of fact, the authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 82,
footnote f (sub Montagu) refers to "her deed of 1348" and states SHE
ordained prayers for her parents, children, etc. The source for
Complete Peerage's statement is the same document you are quoting.
< Secondly, on an unbiased reading it does not name Sir Peter de
Lymesey as a
< kinsman (consanguineus) of Elizabeth, but rather Simon Islip, canon
of
< Lincoln (later archbishop of Canterbury).
I did not refer to Sir Peter de Lymesey as "consanguineus." I quoted
the actual word "consanguinei." Please quote me accurately.
Regardless of what you say, I would interpret the Latin to mean that
Sir Peter de Lymesay was the kinsman of Elizabeth de Montagu, not the
kinsman of Simon Islip. So does Complete Peerage. It says the
following:
".... she ordained prayers for (among others) .... her kinsman Piers
de Limesey."
As I stated, Peter de Limesey was Elizabeth de Montfort's first
cousin, as indicated by the 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire.
Complete Peerage also refers to another source, Turner and Coxe,
Bodelian Charters, pg. 310, which you can find on GoogIe Books. Good
luck!
Douglas Richardson
< In a message dated 12/13/2010 7:25:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
<
< I'm seeing some hand-waving here....
< I haven't finished my analysis yet.
< It's possible that the line is possible, or even probable.
< It's not yet crystal clear to me, from your sources, that the line
has good
< evidence.
<
< W
Keep looking, Will. The evidence is there.
DR
Peter Stewart
> On Dec 13, 2:34 pm, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> < First, the charter of 1348 was not "issued by Elizabeth de
> Montfort", but by
> < John Littlemore, prior, and the convent of St Frideswide's. It is
> dated 16
> < February 1347 (1348 new style), and was confirmed by John Gindwell,
> bishop
> < of Lincoln, on 19 February.
>
> Quite correct. But the charter was surely issued at her request. In
> point of fact, the authoritative Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 82,
> footnote f (sub Montagu) refers to "her deed of 1348" and states SHE
> ordained prayers for her parents, children, etc. The source for
> Complete Peerage's statement is the same document you are quoting.
That's because the charter of the prior says that Elizabeth's donation
was for the souls of the people listed. There is no mention of her
request - the purpose of the charter was to direct the chantry of two
canons regular for which she had provided from property including an
enfeoffment by Sir Peter de Lymesey during her first marriage.
Since you like to pick holes in Complete Peerage, why now follow
blindly its error in called the 1348 charter "her deed" when apart
from the recapitulation of her earlier gift it was clearly not?
> < Secondly, on an unbiased reading it does not name Sir Peter de
> < Lymesey as a kinsman (consanguineus) of Elizabeth, but rather
> < Simon Islip, canon of Lincoln (later archbishop of Canterbury).
>
> I did not refer to Sir Peter de Lymesey as "consanguineus." I quoted
> the actual word "consanguinei." Please quote me accurately.
I was NOT quoting you and the actual word IS consanguineus anyway -
"consanguinei" is just the genitive singular form of this. The two are
not different words, but only different inflections of the same word.
As a stickler for convention you ought to know that Latin words when
not directly quoted are given in the nominative.
> Regardless of what you say, I would interpret the Latin to mean that
> Sir Peter de Lymesay was the kinsman of Elizabeth de Montagu, not the
> kinsman of Simon Islip. So does Complete Peerage. It says the
> following:
Of course I did not suggest that Sir Peter de Lymesey and Simon Islip
were kinsmen - the charter doesn't say any such thing, as anyone with
a smattering of Latin would recognise: "consanguinei eiusdem domine"
means "of the kinsman of the same lady", and presumably Sir Peter's
gender was known to the scribes if not to Richardson.
> ".... she ordained prayers for (among others) .... her kinsman Piers
> de Limesey."
>
> As I stated, Peter de Limesey was Elizabeth de Montfort's first
> cousin, as indicated by the 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire.
>
> Complete Peerage also refers to another source, Turner and Coxe,
> Bodelian Charters, pg. 310, which you can find on GoogIe Books. Good
> luck!
I never said that Elizabeth and Peter de Lymesey were not related, but
rather I plainly said that the charter evidence you were adducing for
this did not support it as claimed.
The last person in the list of names in the pro anima clause was Simon
Islip, and a conjunction would be expected before his name as before
the following respects for unnamed persons beginning "et pro
animabus". Also the other relationships given do not occur with a
conjunction but are immediately attached to the relevant names, e.g.
"Willelmi de Monte Acuto mariti eiusdem domine E., ... Petri de Monte
Forti patris, domine Matildis matris eiusdem domine ... domini Thome
de Furneuall secundi mariti dicte domine". By this usage if Peter de
Lymesey had been the kinsman in question one would expect "Petri
Lymyseye Militis, consanguinei eiusdem domine & Simonis de Islep", but
instead the charters say (mutatis mutandis) "Petri Lymyseye Militis &
consanguinei eiusdem domine, Simonis de Islep". The meaning is
apparently "Peter de Lymesey, knight, and a kinsman of the same lady,
Simon de Islip...".
Elizabeth twice mentioned Peter de Lymesey in her charters for St
Fridewide's and she did not call him her kinsman on either occasion.
She did not mention Simon de Islip (or most of the others in the
list). This does not mean that she and Peter de Lymesey were NOT
related, it just means that she and Simon Islip apparently were - but
whether as first cousins or more distantly you can try to work out for
yourself.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Complete Peerage also refers to another source, Turner and Coxe,
> Bodelian Charters, pg. 310, which you can find on GoogIe Books. Good
> luck!
This is typical of Richardson's ignorant use of sources - no doubt in
his ludicrously "trained" opinion this appears to bolster the
authority of his account, though it is NOT "another source" at all but
rather summaries of two of the St Frideswide's charters already
mentioned (Elizabeth's dated 6 August 1346 and John Littlemore's dated
16 February 1347/8), of which the originals are held in the Bodleian
(not "Bodelian"!) Library.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< This is typical of Richardson's ignorant use of sources.
Complete Peerage agrees with me, not you, Peter. It's the authority.
DR
John
CP is the authority?? Hardly an unquestionable authority, as you
yourself have insisted frequently by means of your loudly proclaimed
"corrections" to CP. I guess CP is an authority when it happens to
agree with you....
Peter Stewart
On Dec 13, 4:57 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> < This is typical of Richardson's ignorant use of sources.
>
> Complete Peerage agrees with me, not you, Peter. It's the authority.
Unadultered rubbish, as usual - you called it "another source" in the
context of "Peter de Limesey was Elizabeth de Montfort's first cousin, as
indicated by the 1619 Visitation of Warwickshire", whereas Complete Peerage
does not represent it in this way: one book is cited for the foundation
("She founded a chantry there in 1346 (Turner and Coxe, Bodleian [NB not
'Bodelian'] Chrs., p. 310)" and the other is cited for a plainly inaccurate
statement about the "pro anima" details as repeated later ("In her deed of
1348 she ordained prayers for (among others) her parents, her children John
de Montagu (d. young), William, late Earl of Salisbury, Simon, late Bishop
of Ely (d. 1345), Edward de Montagu, Alice de Aubeney, Lady Mary Cogan,
Elizabeth, prioress of Halliwell, Hawise Bavent, Maud, abbess of Barking,
Isabel, nun of Barking (later abbess), for her 2nd husband and for her
kinsman Piers de Limesey (Cartul. of St. Frideswide, vol. ii, pp. 4, 9)".
Ethel Stokes, who wrote most of the Montagu article, was not always one of
the most authoritative contributors to CP, and in this case she was napping.
The charter of 1348 was not actually Elizabeth's deed. So why follow Stokes?
Because you want to be satisfied with whatever supports your half-baked
reliance on a 17th-century visitation, without considering an alternative to
her reading of a medieval source.
It could be interesting and worthwhile to research the apparent relationship
between Elizabeth and Simon Islip, a far more important figure than Peter de
Limesey, but knowledge is of course not your primary aim in genealogy.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< Ethel Stokes, who wrote most of the Montagu article, was not always
one of
< the most authoritative contributors to CP, and in this case she was
napping.
<
< Peter Stewart
Ethel Stokes was not napping. But I suppose it's a good excuse to say
when you're been caught making a gaffe.
Douglas Richardson
Below is a further extension of the Cantelowe family pedigree. It
covers the first six generations of the family. This newest additions
to the pedigree include Agatha de Montfort, wife of Sir Richard de
Limesey, and her son, Sir Peter de Limesey. It also includes further
extentions of the Saint John and Tregoz portions of the pedigree.
If you have an ancestral line going back to the Cantelowe family,
please feel free to post it here on the newsgroup. I pesonally find
it fascinating to see how each person connects back to the Cantelowe
family.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
CANTELOWE FAMILY
A1. William de Cantelowe, d. before 1201, married _____.
B1. Walter de Cantelowe, liv. 1201, married Amice _____.
C1. William de Cantelowe, adult by 1198, d. 1239, married
Masceline (or Mazra) de Bracy.
D1. William de Cantelowe, Knt., d. 1251, m. (1) c.1215/6
Milicent de Gournay; (2) after 1232 Maud Fitz Geoffrey, d. 1261.
E1 (by1). William de Cantelowe, Knt.,d. 1254, m. bef.
1241 Eve de Brewes.
F1. George de Cantelowe, b. 1252, d. 1273, m.
Margaret de Lacy.
F2. Milicent de Cantelowe, d. 1299, m. (1) bef.
1254 John de Mohaut; (2) Eudes la Zouche, Knt., d. 1279.
G1. William la Zouche, Knt., 1st Lord
Zouche of Harringworth, d. 1352, m. Maud Lovel.
G2. Elizabeth la Zouche, m. Nicholas
Poyntz, Knt., 2nd Lord Poyntz.
G3. Eve la Zouche, m. Maurice de Berkeley,
Knt., 2nd Lord Berkeley.
G4. Eleanor la Zouche, m. John de
Harcourt, Knt., of Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire.
F3. Joan de Cantelowe, d.c. 1271, m. Henry de
Hastings, Knt., d. 1269.
G1. John de Hastings, Knt., 1st Lord
Hastings, d. 1313, m. (1) Isabel de Valence; (2) Isabel le Despenser.
G2. Edmund de Hastings, Knt., d. 1314, m.
Isabel Russell.
G3. Ada de Hastings, m. (1) Rhys ap
Maredudd, Knt.; (2) Robert de Champaine.
G4. Lora de Hastings, m. Thomas le
Latimer, Knt., 1st Lord Latimer of Braybrook
G5. Joan de Hastings (nun).
E2 (by1). John de Cantelowe, of Snitterfield,
Warwickshire, liv. 1257, m. Margery Comyn, b. bef. 1224, liv. 1279.
F1. John de Cantelowe, d. 1333, m. (1) Margaret
de Harcourt, d. c.1276; (2) Maud _____, liv. 1318.
G1 (by 2). John de Cantelowe.
G2 (by 2). Eleanor de Cantelowe, married
Thomas West, Knt.
F2. William de Cantelowe, clerk, liv. 1307.
F3. Walter de Cantelowe, clerk, liv. 1328.
E3 (by1). Nicholas de Cantelowe, of Greasley,
Nottts., d. bef. 1266, married Eustache Fitz Hugh.
E4 (by1). [Master] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of
Hereford, d. 1282.
E5 (by1). [Master] Hugh de Cantelowe, Archdeacon of
Gloucester, Treasurer of Salisbury, liv. 1270.
E6 (by1). Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint
John, of Basing, Hampshire, d. 1266.
F1. John de Saint John, Knt., of Basing,
Hampshire, d. 1302, m. Alice Fitz Reynold.
E7 (by1). Juliane de Cantelowe, liv. 1285, married
Robert de Tregoz, of Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire.
F1. John de Tregoz, Knt., Lord Tregoz, d. 1300,
m. (1) Mabel Fitz Warin, (2) Joan de Cokefield.
F2. Lucy de Tregoz, liv. 1294, m. John le
Strange, of Knockin, Shropshire, d. 1269.
D2. [Master] Walter de Cantelowe, Bishop of Worcester, d.
1266.
D3. Matthew de Cantelowe, Rector of Ribston, Yorkshire,
liv. 1239.
D4. _____ de Cantelowe (daughter), married Thurstan de
Montfort, b.c.1184, d. 1216.
E1. Peter de Montfort, Knt., of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire, d. 1265, married Alice de Audley.
F1. Peter de Montfort, Knt., of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire, d.c.1287, m. Maud de la Mare.
G1. John de Montfort, Knt., 1st Lord
Montfort, d. 1296, m. Alice de la Plaunche.
G2. Elizabeth de Montfort, m. (1)
William de Montagu, Knt., 2nd Lord Montagu; (2) Thomas de Furnival,
Knt., 1st Lord Furnival.
G3. Alice de Montfort, m. Warin de
Lisle, d. 1296; (2) Robert Fitz Walter, Knt., 1st Lord Fitz Walter, d.
1326.
F2. Robert de Montfort, Knt., of Remenham,
Berkshire, d. 1274, m. Pernel de Dustanville.
F3. [Master] William de Montfort, Dean of St.
Paul's, London, d. 1294.
F4. Rose de Montfort, liv. 1304-5, m. (1)
Philip de Earley/Erleigh; (2) Geoffrey de Wroxhall.
G1. John de Earley/Erleigh.
F5. Agartha de Montfort, m. Richard de
Limesey, Knt., of Arley, Warwickshire, d. bef. 1310.
G1. Peter de Limesey, Knt., of Arley,
Warwickshire, died c.1327, m. Mabel _____.
C2. Robert de Cantelowe (or Robert Barat), died c. 1223, m.
_____.
D4. Eustache de Cantelowe (or Eustache Baret), died c.
1252, m. Katherine de Lisle.
C3. Roger Orget, liv. 1230.
C4. Nichole de Cantelowe, liv. 1229, married _____ de
Wanneville (or Wennerville).
C5. Sibyl de Cantelowe, married Geoffrey Pauncefote, liv. 1242.
C6. Isabel de Cantelowe (probable daughter), liv. 1245, m. (1)
Stephen Devereux, d. 1228; (2) Ralph de Pembridge.
D1. William Devereux.
B2. Fulk de Cantelowe, Knt., of Calstone Wellington, Wiltshire, d c.
1229.
Peter Stewart
On Dec 13, 10:36 pm, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> < Ethel Stokes, who wrote most of the Montagu article, was not
> < always one of the most authoritative contributors to CP, and
> < in this case she was napping.
> <
> < Peter Stewart
>
> Ethel Stokes was not napping. But I suppose it's a good excuse
> to say when you're been caught making a gaffe.
What kind of twit are you trying to make yourself out to be now? Do you
seriously think you can get away here with insinuating error in others
without substantiating this?
You yourself acknowledged that the charter of 1348 was not Elizabeth's own
deed as Ethel Stokes misstated it to be. Remember this?
[I wrote] "First, the charter of 1348 was not "issued by Elizabeth de
Montfort", but by John Littlemore, prior, and the convent of St
Frideswide's. It is dated 16 February 1347 (1348 new style), and was
confirmed by John Gindwell, bishop of Lincoln, on 19 February."
[Richardson replied] "Quite correct. But the charter was surely issued at
her request. In point of fact, the authoritative Complete Peerage, 9
(1936): 82, footnote f (sub Montagu) refers to "her deed of 1348" and states
SHE ordained prayers for her parents, children, etc. The source for
Complete Peerage's statement is the same document you are quoting."
And I pointed out that there is nothing about Elizabeth requesting it - the
business of the document was simply to give directions for a chantry that
she had provided for two years earlier. The explicit pretext was that the
prior and convent, not the donor, had given the matter careful thought
during the interval ("deliberacione matura ac prouida").
Stokes could not have read it carefully, and evidently failed to notice that
it was the same document she had already cited from a summary in another
book that you misrepresented as "another source" for the relationship
between Elizabeth and Peter de Limesey, who is not mentioned at all in the
calendar version. (By the way, this corrctly states that the chantry was for
two secular priests, not canons regular as I wrongly said - but of course
this has nothing to do with CP & is not the "gaffe" you are now pretending
to criticise).
Are you unable to keep the facts straight for a day even when eplained to
you at length? Stokes was indeed napping, but you are fast asleep on the
job.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> Are you unable to keep the facts straight for a day even when eplained to
> you at length? Stokes was indeed napping, but you are fast asleep on the
> job.
>
> Peter Stewart
The word is spelled explained, not eplained.
Is your English failing as well as your Latin?
DR
Douglas Richardson
Newsgroup members will be interested in the discussion of the medieval
Book of Hours made c.1320–5 for Margaret de Beauchamp, wife of Sir
Robert de Lisle, 1st Lord Lisle of Rougemont. The Book of Hours is
discussed in some detail in the book, Smith, Art, Identity & Devotion
in 14th-Century England (2003): 11–20. This discussion may be viewed
at the following weblink (go to page 11 for start of discussion):
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gc7FfUF5WJcC&pg=PA15
The Book of Hours includes a depiction of the Lisle family arms: Or, a
fess between two chevrons sable.
The author presents evidence that Sir Robert de Lisle and his wife,
Margaret de Beauchamp, had two hitherto unknown daughters, Audrey
[Audere] and Aubrey [Alborou], who were nuns at Chicksands. Since Sir
Robert de Lisle's mother, Alice de Montfort, is a Cantelowe
descendant, these two new Lisle daughters would be all new descendants
of the Cantelowe family. The Cantelowe family pedigree continues to
grow!
For interest's sake, below is a list of the 17th Century New World
immigrants that descend from Margaret de Beauchamp, wife of Sir Robert
de Lisle:
Henry Fleete, Henry & William Randolph, Hawte Wyatt.
Douglas Richardson
While we're busy adding new members of the Cantelowe family tree, we
might as well make a new addition to the authoritative Complete
Peerage.
Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 123–126 (sub Montfort) includes a good
account of the life of Sir Peter de Montfort, Knt., of Beaudesert,
Warwickshire, who was slain at the Battle of Evesham 4 August 1265.
The following information is given regarding his wife, Alice de
Audley:
"He married in or before 1228, Alice, daughter of Henry de Audley.
Alice survived him." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage gives the following source which indicates that Alice
de Audley survived Peter de Montfort:
Close Rolls, 50 Henry III, m. 8 d.
Alice was evidently living as late as 4 Edward I [1275-6], however, in
which year she arraigned an assise of novel disseisin against Richard,
Bishop of Lincoln, and others touching common of pasture in Uppingham,
Rutland (a Montfort family property). See Annual Report of the Deputy
Keeper, 45 (1885): 344, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fgIrAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA344
John Watson
Douglas,
My Latin is not so great, but that particular entry in the Close
Rolls, makes it look like Alice may have drowned in a flood with her
horses and cart and the deodand of the cart and horses was granted to
James de Audley her brother. Perhaps one of our resident scholars
could provide a better translation:
22 December 1265, Rex Galfrido Rouland', escaetori suo in comitatu
Bedeford', salutem. Cum Ricardus Chytte, serviens Alicie que fuit uxor
Petri de Monte Forti, die Mercurii proximo praeterita in ducendo
quandam bigam predicte Alicie carnibus suis carcatam submersus
extiterit in aqua de Hokeclive per nimiam inundacionem ejusdem, per
quod tu equos bigam illam trahentes una cum predictis carnibus et biga
juxta debitum tui officii tanquam deodandum cepisti in manum nostram,
nos ad instanciam dilecti et fidelis nostri Jacobi de Aldithel',
fratris predicte Alicie, sibi graciam facere volentes, in hac parte
dictos equos, bigam et carnes dedimus eidem. Et ideo tibi precipimus
quod eidem Alicie equos illos bigam et carnes habere facias de dono
nostro.
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 13: 1264-1268 (1937), p.
228
Regards,
John
Peter Stewart
news:538e71a0-48fb-42b2...@o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> My Latin is not so great, but that particular entry in the Close
> Rolls, makes it look like Alice may have drowned in a flood
> with her horses and cart and the deodand of the cart and horses
> was granted to James de Audley her brother.
It was not Alice who drowned but her servant Richard Chytte
("Ricardus...submersus extiterit").
The horses, cart and load of meat had evidently been left stranded in
floodwaters, and since a mand had died in charge of these they were forfeit.
The king's mandate arranges for them to be given back to Alice at the
request of her brother James.
Peter Stewart
Matt Tompkins
> > Complete Peerage gives the following source which indicates that Alice
> > de Audley survived Peter de Montfort:
>
> > Close Rolls, 50 Henry III, m. 8 d.
>
>
> My Latin is not so great, but that particular entry in the Close
> Rolls, makes it look like Alice may have drowned in a flood with her
> horses and cart and the deodand of the cart and horses was granted to
> James de Audley her brother. Perhaps one of our resident scholars
> could provide a better translation:
>
> 22 December 1265, Rex Galfrido Rouland', escaetori suo in comitatu
> Bedeford', salutem. Cum Ricardus Chytte, serviens Alicie que fuit uxor
> Petri de Monte Forti, die Mercurii proximo praeterita in ducendo
> quandam bigam predicte Alicie carnibus suis carcatam submersus
> extiterit in aqua de Hokeclive per nimiam inundacionem ejusdem, per
> quod tu equos bigam illam trahentes una cum predictis carnibus et biga
> juxta debitum tui officii tanquam deodandum cepisti in manum nostram,
> nos ad instanciam dilecti et fidelis nostri Jacobi de Aldithel',
> fratris predicte Alicie, sibi graciam facere volentes, in hac parte
> dictos equos, bigam et carnes dedimus eidem. Et ideo tibi precipimus
> quod eidem Alicie equos illos bigam et carnes habere facias de dono
> nostro.
> Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: volume 13: 1264-1268 (1937), p.
> 228
It was Alice's servant Richard Chytte who died - the cart, its horses
and its contents were returned to Alice, instead of being taken as a
deodand, after her brother interceded on her behalf.
An interesting story. The carter was presumably travelling along
Watling Street and died in the Clipstone brook, just north of
Hockcliffe, though it's hardly more than a ditch.
Matt Tompkins
John Watson
> "John Watson" <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thank you Peter - my three years of school Latin is well behind me
these days.
Regards.
John
John Watson
HI Matt,
Thanks for your help. I blame it all on medieval climate change.
Did they give the horse meat to Alice or just the meat that was in the
cart?
Regards,
John
Matt Tompkins
The wording of the order suggests the horses were still alive, so it
was just the meat in the cart.
In fact the cart, horses and contents were presumably in good order or
Alice wouldn't have gone to such lengths to get them all back - so it
clearly wasn't a case of the cart and driver being washed away in a
torrent (which the streams around Hockliffe could hardly have
produced, anyway). Hockliffe's stretch of Watling Street was
notoriously bad until well into the turnpike period, so perhaps the
cart just got bogged down in an inundated floodplain and the driver
somehow died as a consequence of that. Though for the cart et al. to
have been taken as a deodand it would have had to have contributed to
Chytte's death in some more more direct way than just having been
under his command at the time of his death - he would have had to have
been run over by it, or fallen from it, for example - and it's a
little difficult to imagine death being caused by a bogged-down cart.
Peter Stewart
"Matt Tompkins" <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ceccc310-a29b-4d61...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> In fact the cart, horses and contents were presumably in good order
> or Alice wouldn't have gone to such lengths to get them all back -
> so it clearly wasn't a case of the cart and driver being washed away
> in a torrent (which the streams around Hockliffe could hardly have
> produced, anyway). Hockliffe's stretch of Watling Street was
> notoriously bad until well into the turnpike period, so perhaps the
> cart just got bogged down in an inundated floodplain and the driver
> somehow died as a consequence of that. Though for the cart et al.
> to have been taken as a deodand it would have had to have
> contributed to Chytte's death in some more more direct way than
> just having been under his command at the time of his death - he
> would have had to have been run over by it, or fallen from it, for
> example - and it's a little difficult to imagine death being caused by
> a bogged-down cart.
The genealogical significance of this was probably limited to any family of
Richard Chytte, but in the context a more general point is worth
considering - I don't think we should invariably take such administrative
matters as literally cut-and-dried (or in this case, wet) as determined by
the immediate official response.
The escheator had taken the horses, cart and load into custody as if these
were deodand for the king ("juxta debitum tui officii tanquam deodandum
cepisti in manum nostram"), but this doesn't automatically mean that they
had already been ascertained or would have necessarily turned out to be so.
The load could have spoiled while the question was settled, but the king
precluded this by giving it back to Alice. Whatever happened with the cart
and horses, the meat was presumably inert and incapable of contributing to
the death unless falling on top of Chytte, but there is nothing to suggest
that it had been fouled in floodwater.
In a lot of routine business officials were expected to be officious, while
kings could afford to be more relaxed.
Peter Stewart