from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
Lum...@aol.com
disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll run what I
have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about 1465, as the line
takes off from her. Please let me know what or if anything is an error.
Thank you for your help.
Sherry Sharp
1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
4. Quentin, Pepin II
5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
6 Robert
7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
11 Matilda- William m: 1053
12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
15 Waleran Newburgh
16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465
ED MANN
I have multiple lines, the shortest being:
Direct Descendants of Charlemagne
1 Charlemagne b: 2 Apr 747 d: 28 Jan 813/14 ref #: Ä50-13
+Himiltrude b: Abt. 742
2 Aupais ref #: (Ä191-14)
+Begue de Paris d: 816 ref #: Ä191-14
3 Lisiard de Fezensac ref #: S264-40
4 Gerard de Rousillon b: Abt. 790 d: 877 ref #: S264-39
+Bertha de Tours b: Abt. 790
5 Eve de Rousillion b: Abt. 820 ref #: (Ä50-17)
+Guerri I de Morvois b: Abt. 820 ref #: (Ä50-17)
6 [46] Beatrice de Morvois b: Abt. 845 ref #: (Ä50-17)
+[45] Herbert I de Vermandois b: Abt. 840 d: Abt. 903 ref #:
Ä50-17
7 Beatrice de Vermandois ref #: (Ä48-18)
+Robert I de Paris b: 866 d: 15 Jun 923 ref #: Ä48-18
8 Hugh Magnus b: Abt. 895 d: 16 Jun 956 ref #: Ä53-19
+Hedwig von Sachsen b: Abt. 921 d: 10 May 965 ref #: Ä141-19
9 [58] Hugues Capet de France b: 941 d: 24 Oct 996 ref #: Ä53-20
+[57] Adelaide de Poitou b: 945 d: Abt. 1004 ref #: Ä144A-20
10 [50] Robert II de France b: 27 Mar 972 d: 20 Jul 1031 ref #:
Ä53-21
*2nd Wife of [50] Robert II de France:
*3rd Wife of [50] Robert II de France:
+[49] Constance de Provence b: Abt. 986 d: 25 Jul 1032 ref #:
Ä141A-21
11 Henri I de France b: Abt. 1006 d: 4 Aug 1060 ref #: Ä53-22
*2nd Wife of Henri I de France:
+Anna Jaroslawna of Kiev b: 1036 d: Abt. 1082 ref #: Ä241-6
12 [10] Hugh Magnus de Crepi b: 1057 d: 18 Oct 1101 ref #: Ä53-23
+[9] Adelaide de Vermandois b: Abt. 1062 d: Abt. 1122 ref #:
Ä50-23
13 Elizabeth de Vermandois b: 1081 d: 13 Feb 1130/31 ref #: Ä50-24
+Robert I de Beaumont b: Abt. 1049 d: 5 Jun 1118 ref #: (Ä151-25)
14 Robert II de Beaumont b: 1104 d: 5 Apr 1168 ref #: Ä53-25
+Amice de Montfort b: Abt. 1100 d: Aft. 5 Apr 1168 ref #:
ESiii:700
15 [18] Isabel de Beaumont b: 1121 d: Abt. 1188
+[17] Simon de St. Liz b: 1098 d: Aug 1153 ref #: BxP:468
16 ref #: (Ä84-27)
17 Robert Mauduit b: Abt. 1172 d: Abt. Jun 1222 ref #: (Ä84-27)
+Isabel Bassett b: Abt. 1176 ref #: (Ä84-27)
18 [2] William Mauduit b: Abt. 1196 d: Apr 1257
+[1] Alice de Newburgh b: 1196 d: Bef. 1264 ref #: Ä84-27
19 [14] Isabel Mauduit b: Abt. 1227 d: Bef. 1268 ref #: Ä84-28
+[13] William de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1197 d: Aft. 7 Jan 1268/69 ref
#: BxP:30
20 Sarah de Beauchamp b: Abt. 1255 d: Aft. 1316 ref #: Ä84A-29
+Richard de Talbot b: 1250 d: Bef. 1306 ref #: BxP:526
21 Gwenllian Talbot b: Abt. 1282 ref #: BP1:620
+Payne de Turberville ref #: BP1:620
22 Sarah de Turberville ref #: BP1:620
+William de Gamage ref #: BP1:620
23 Gilbert de Gamage ref #: BP1:620
24 William Gamage ref #: BP1:620
25 Thomas Gamage ref #: BP1:620
26 Joan Gamage ref #: BP1:620
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has been
> disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll run what I
> have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about 1465, as the line
> takes off from her. Please let me know what or if anything is an error.
Well, this line has a problem, but is not the only one (since Isabel de
Vermandois descends from Robert #10). If it really has been broken, the
one I point out cannot be the only problem.
> 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> 4. Quentin, Pepin II
His name was Pepin, and he was FROM St. Quentin
> 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
Robert was NOT son of Herbert and Beatrice.
> 6 Robert
> 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
Gundred was not daughter of William and Matilda.
> 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> 15 Waleran Newburgh
> 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465
taf
Raymond l. montgomery
if Gundred is not the daughter of William and Matilda, then could you
please supply her parentage, as that is what i have?????
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely
RAY
Young Raymond
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:27:06 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
writes:
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Todd
>if Gundred is not the daughter of William and Matilda, then could you
>please supply her parentage, as that is what i have?????
I'm not Todd, but Gundred was a sister of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of
Chester, and was possibly a daughter of another Gerbod, hereditary advocate
of the Abbey of St. Bertin at St. Omer. See the second edition of
Cokayne's *Complete Peerage*, vol. XII, Part 1, p. 494, especially note
(j). The claim that Gundred was a daughter of William the Conqueror, or,
conversely, a daughter of William's wife Matilda by an earlier husband, is
fully examined, and disproved, by C. T. Clay in his *Early Yorkshire
Charters*, vol. VIII, Appendix A (pp. 40-46).
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Reedpcgen
little correction. My notes are in [brackets]:
17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
[Sarah, wife of Richard Talbot, was sister of William Beauchamp, Earl of
Warwick, not daughter. She was daughter of William de Beauchamp and Isabel
Mauduit, so this generation (18) is erroneous.]
19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
[Richard Talbot married Sarah after 7 Jan. 1268/9, possibly about 1275. He was
son of Gilbert Talbot and his wife Gwenthlian, daughter and eventual heir in
her issue of Rhys Mechyll. Richard's eldest son, Gilbert, b. 18 Oct. 1276, was
made 1st Lord Talbot.]
20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
[Gwenllian must have been born by 1280, probably earlier, as her son and heir
Sir Gilbert was acting as an adult in 1322 and his son Gilbert born before
(probably several years before) 1327. Payne was Sheriff of Glamorgan in
1315, and died 12 Edward II (1318/19) leaving his widow as executrix. So their
marriage date should be about 1296, NOT 1340.]
21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
[Sarah was one of four sisters who became coheirs after the death of the issue
of her brothers Gilbert and Richard. She was the only one to have surviving
male issue, which meant she inherited Coyty, etc. I think their general ages
are given in the various inquisitions post mortem taken after her brother
Richard's death, but I don't have them here. But she was definitely married
long before 1360.]
22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
[This Gilbert died in 1382, and married Lettice about 1364, so he was born
about 1340 or so. After his death Lettice married Maurice Basset. They could
not have married in 1385 after Gilbert's death.]
23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
[William died in 1419. His son Thomas was born ca. 1408, so he must have
married Mary daughter of Sir Thomas de Rodborough, about 1406 or earlier.]
24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
[Thomas was b. ca. 1408, so the line is correct down to here.]
pcr
Raymond l. montgomery
Thank you. I appreicate the help.
RAY
_____________________________________________________________________
Reedpcgen
Tuberville heirs. Some records add a William Gamage as son of William Gamage
and his wife Sarah Tuberville. This WIlliam would be father of the Gilbert
Tuberville (d. 1382) who married Lettice Seymour about 1363. Their eldest son
Roger Gamage was born about 1364 (aged 18 at his father's death in 1382), but
he died 4 August 1382 [sic] leaving his younger brother William Gamage as his
heir, aged 11 in 1382 (born about 1371). This also matches the age given for
him in 1411/12 (40 years and more). The descent from Tuberville is certain,
however, as the Gamages inherited Coity over the objections of a number of
other heirs, including Sir John St. John, seneschall of Gower.
As is the case with many of the Welsh lords, they were given knighthood freely
(I suspect to honor them in payment for loyalty on the Welsh frontier), but
they were not given the lands one would expect of an English knight. Further,
the main lords of the whole region were the Marcher Earls and Dukes, such as
Norfolk, Pembroke, etc. So unless the heir of the Duke/Earl was a minor in the
king's ward, there would be no inquisition post mortem taken. So it is very
difficult to trace many of the early Welsh lines with certainty.
That being said, however, I am now able to present several of these lines
correctly for the first time. Everyone else (including Clark and Bartrum) has
them hopelessly muddled and confused. I would be grateful to receive any
comments or additions on the following:
Payne Tuberville died about 1318 in his prime, leaving Gwenllian Talbot as his
executrix. Their eldest son Sir Gilbert died by 1344, leaving one son and
heir, also named Gilbert, who died in 1349 without issue, his heir being his
uncle Richard, aged 40. It seems the elder Gilbert was the first child,
Richard the youngest. Richard succeeded to Coyty, and enfeoffed the manor and
lands, receiving them back to himself and his wife Hawise, with remainder to
the various male heirs of his sisters. There were four sisters, (1) Katherine,
(2) Margaret, (3) Agnes, and (4) Sarah Tuberville. The Gamage line has already
been explained. As to the other three daughters:
(1) Katherine Tuberville married Sir Roger Berkerolles. Sir Roger died in
1351, leaving a son and heir, Lawrence, aged 14 (b. ca. 1337) and two
daughters, Gwenllian/Wenthelan and Sarah. Lawrence was knighted and married
(to Elizabeth ---) by 1369, but died without issue 18 Oct. 1411. His heirs
were Sir Edward Stradling [m. Jane Beaufort], aged 22/19 in 1411/1412 (b. ca.
1390), son of Sir WIlliam Stradling [m. Isabel St. Barbe], son of Sir Edward
Stradling [liv. 1367] of St. Donats, who married the said Gwenllian
Berkerolles, daughter of Katherine Tuberville; and John Stradling, aged
60/50/40 [depending on the source] in 1411/12, son of Sarah, Gwenllian's sister
[the name of Sarah's husband is not given]. It also appears that Gwenllian had
another brother, named Gilbert de Berkerolles, but that he died without
surviving issue before 1411. This line is of interest because these
Stradlings were ancestral to Elizabeth Coytemore [and apparently also Capt.
William Poole of Taunton, Mass,] who is ancestral to President John Quincy
Adams and others.
(2) Margaret Tuberville, second daughter and coheir of Payne and Gwenllian,
married SIr Richard de Stackpole, of Stackpole, co. Pembroke (he held 5
knights' fees). They were parents of Richard de Stackpole, whose daughter and
heiress Isabel/Elizabeth [the names were then interchangeable] Stackpole
married, as first wife, Sir Rhys Griffen [Sir Rhys Ieuanc (b. 1325, d. 1380),
son of Sir Rhys Hen ap Gruffudd (d. 1356) by Joan de Somerville]. Their
daughter and heir, Joan Griffith [according to English records pertaining to
their landholdings in co. Stafford; the descendants continued to use the
surname Griffith], married Sir Richard Vernon (she was aged 40 and more in
1411). This line has been confusing because everyone has messed up the
marriages. Sir Rhys (d. 1380) married, second, Margaret Zouche, who survived
him and married William Walsall/Marshall. It was by Margaret that Sir Rhys was
father of his heir Thomas (d. 1431, m. Ann Blount) and John Griffith. Joan was
heiress of her mother (sole heir of the Stackpole line), but the sons born to
the second wife became male heirs of her father's family. This line is of
interest as SIr Richard Vernon and John de Stackpole were ancestors of the
immigrant Robert Abell, the later Corbets of Moreton Corbet, and the later
Mainwarings of Ightfield.
(3) Agnes Tuberville, third daughter and coheir of Payne Tuberville and
Gwenllian Talbot, married SIr John de la Bere of Weobley, co. Hereford, and
Marcose, co. Glamorgan. Their son and heir John de la Bere seems to be the one
who died in 1380, leaving a son John aged 15 in 1398 [or at the death of the
father in 1380?]. The confusing point is that Sir John de la Bere of Weobley
died Sunday after the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle 13 Richard II, but his
inquisition is grouped in copy [which includes two other inquisitions for men
who died ca. 1370 and 1385] copied in 1398. It would make sense if the heir
John de la Bere was aged 15 in 1380 (b. ca. 1365), because if he were only 15
in 1398 (b. ca. 1383) he would only be about 19 when his son and heir Thomas de
la Bere was born. Thomas was aged 9 in 1411, when he was found to be one of
the heirs of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. But he died without issue leaving as
heirs Isabel/Elizabeth de la Bere [b. say 1335-40], and her sister, wife of Sir
Elias Basset of Beaupre, daughters of John de la Bere. Elizabeth de la Bere
had married Sir John St. John of Fonmon, escheator of Gower, who was taking the
profits of the de la Bere lands (and dead by Aug, 1373). They were parents of
Sir John St. John, MP, b. ca. 1360-66, d. 1424, m. by Easter 1395 [claimant in
1421], father of Sir Oliver St. John (d. 1437), who married Margaret Beauchamp
of Bletsoe and was ancestor of the St. John family of Bletsoe and Lydiard
Tregoze, from whom descend several immigrants.
pcr
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> (2) Margaret Tuberville, second daughter and coheir of Payne and Gwenllian,
> married SIr Richard de Stackpole, of Stackpole, co. Pembroke (he held 5
> knights' fees). They were parents of Richard de Stackpole, whose daughter and
> heiress Isabel/Elizabeth [the names were then interchangeable] Stackpole
> married, as first wife, Sir Rhys Griffen [Sir Rhys Ieuanc (b. 1325, d. 1380),
> son of Sir Rhys Hen ap Gruffudd (d. 1356) by Joan de Somerville]. Their
> daughter and heir, Joan Griffith [according to English records pertaining to
> their landholdings in co. Stafford; the descendants continued to use the
> surname Griffith], married Sir Richard Vernon (she was aged 40 and more in
> 1411). This line has been confusing because everyone has messed up the
> marriages. Sir Rhys (d. 1380) married, second, Margaret Zouche, who survived
> him and married William Walsall/Marshall. It was by Margaret that Sir Rhys was
> father of his heir Thomas (d. 1431, m. Ann Blount) and John Griffith. Joan was
> heiress of her mother (sole heir of the Stackpole line), but the sons born to
> the second wife became male heirs of her father's family.
It should be pointed out that the i.p.m. of Lawrence Berkrolls (in Top &
Gen 1:533-5) appears to present a different pedigree for Joan (although
this may be the fault of the translation, or a misinterpretation of an
ambiguous relational statement). It would seem to marry Richard to Joan
Stackpole, sister of Isabel. That this interpretation, if intended, is
false is proven by a marriage agreement appearing in Hist. Man. Comm.
Rutland, 4:28. In this document, (dated 20 May, 3 Ric I) Rhys ap
Griffith and Juliana Vernon agree that Joan, daughter of Rhys should
marry Richard, son of Juliana. Has anyone seen the recently published
ipms for Henry V? and if so how does the Vernon/Berkrolls relationship
appear there?
taf
Reedpcgen
conflict. That's why it's necessary to search everything available and then
weigh the evidence. It is not unusual that an inquisition attempting to cover
four generations or so in four different lines should get something confused.
The information had to come from the jurors, who sometimes got confused
themselves. As you'll find in an article by me coming out in July TAG, some
escheators were careful and some not. This is also evidenced by the
iuquisitions analyzed for the dispersement of the Corbet estate among the
Staffords, etc,. covered in the article on Joan de Harley in v. 9 of The
Genealogist.
So what one normally does is note the discrepancies and state the reasoning for
drawing the conclusions you did. Unfortunately that takes a lot of time, which
I don't really have right now, and as the information will be included in an
article on the Seymour family, I did not want to give too much away now. I
should also have listed all my sources. It will eventually all be included in
an article on the Seymour family to begin appearing in TAG in three issues or
so, all because Sir Gilbert de Tuberville married Cecily Beauchamp, wife of the
first Seymour in co. Somerset.
Several *different* sources are clear that Margaret de Tuberville, the second
daughter and coheir, married Sir Richard Stackpole. They are equally clear
that they were parents of another Richard de Stackpole, who was father of
Isabel, the heir. In several places Joan Vernon is stated to be heir of
Isabel. In one or two places it called Joan daughter of Richard de Stackpole.
Clark and others have taken this to mean that Joan was Isabel's sister. That
would be conceivable, and acceptable, except that we know from other evidence
that Joan was daughter of Rhys Griffith, and sister of Thoaas and John
Griffith. And chronology indicates she would be one generation later than
Isabel.
Bartrum takes the chronology into account, but mistakenly makes Sir Rhys Hen ap
Gruffydd (d. 1356) to have married a girl a generation younger than himself,
Isabel Stackpole. He is not certain who the first wife of Sir Rhys's son Sir
Rhys Ieuanc (d. 1380) is, but states the second wife to be Margaret Zouche, and
makes Jonet, wife of Sir Richard Vernon, daughter of Margaret and sister of
Thomas and John, citing in part Shaw's Stafford. He also confuses the
Somerville marriage. But Bartrum's scenario does not agree with the facts.
Shaw (p. 121) cites many sources no longer readily available, which
complicatesmatters when using an older source which cites mss such as this.
But Shaw gives enough information to sort things out. On p. 121 he shows that
in 12 Edw. III (1339) Sir Philip de Somerville entailed a manor of the heirs
male of the body of his wife Margaret, in default (in case none were born) to
the issue of Rese ap Griffith and Joan, his wife, for her life. Shaw also says
that Sir Philip died 23 Jan. 29 Edw. III leaving two daughters and coheirs, one
of whom, Joan, married the said Rhese ap Griffith. What is odd is that Shaw
then confounds this in his charts, giving the wrong Rhys (this Rhys's son) as
marrying Joan de Somerville. Must have been too many long nights.
Under the account of Griffith, Shaw (p. 122) shows that the younger Rhys
married Margaret Zouche. His arms were quarterly Griffith and Somerville,
indicating a heraldic match in previous generations (his parents) impaling
those of Zouche of Harringworth, indicating his wife's origins. He cites
another indenture dated 1 April 2 Hen. V by which Margaret and her second
husband William Walsall/Whaleshale leave the remainder of their jointure to
Thomas Griffith, then to his brother John, then to "lady Joan Vernon, sister of
the aforesaid Thomas." So Joan, wife of Sir Richard de Vernon was daughter of
Rhys ap Gruffydd/Griffith, as was Thomas and John.
Shaw's chart on the Somervilles (p. 126) shows Sir Philip Somerville to be
father of Rhese ap Griffith (d. 10 May 1356) who married Joan (the line is
misdrawn, and should go to Joan). Rhese and Joan are then correctly shown as
parents of the Rhese who married Margaret Zouche, but it incorrectly shows
Joan, wife of Richard Vernon, to be daughter of Rhese by Margaret Zouche,
though it does state Joan was "heiress, by mother, to Stacpole." Shaw's Vernon
pedigree (p. 404) is likewise in error, as is the chart showing corrections in
the appendix (p. 38), though this chart at least makes Joan sister of Thomas
Griffyth by different mothers.
So aside from other evidence (Sir Richard Stackpole was a juror in 1307, on the
jury for the inquisition of the Countess of Pembroke's lands in 1324, etc., the
marriage settlement mentioned by Todd which again proves that Joan was daughter
of Sir Rhys, etc.), we find that the only way to resolve these conflicts is if
Joan is granddaughter of the younger Richard Stackpole, not sister of Isabel
(note also that the Vernon arms quarter Stackpole [Shaw], but not Griffith;
Joan was not an heraldic heiress, but her mother was, indicating her mother was
a Stackpole, which agrees with Joan being called heiress of Stackpole and the
inquisitions stating she was Isabel's heir). As Margaret Zouche survived Sir
Rhys, Isabel would only fit as the unknown first wife. This answers all of the
evidence, as it means Joan could be heiress of her mother, but not of her
father as any male issue he would have by a second wife would take precidence
in his landholdings.
I hope this all makes sense and has been in some way helpful to those of you
trying to jump into this complicated foray. This is often the route you have
to take to resolve conflicts.
What is amazing is that Llyfr Baglan, a book of pedigrees drawn up 1600-7 by
John WIlliams, got it basically correct, though it called Rhys 'Richard': [f.
198 (p. 149)] "Sr Richerd stakpoll, lo. of Stakpoll in the countie of penbrock,
ma. margaret, the second da. and one of h. of Sr Paine Turbervile, lo. of
coiiti. [next generation:] Richerd Stakpoll had issue Eliza. [=Isabel] ma. to
Richerd griffyn. Richerd Griffin & Elizabeth had issue Joan ma. to Sr Richerd
Varnam, knight." Llyfr Baglan also got the Berkerolles descent and the de la
Bere descent correct too, though the wives on the Gamage pedigree seem a little
confused. It tends to be more accurate than many other Welsh pedigrees (as
Neil Thompson has noted before).
APSG has a copy of the CIPM of Henry IV and Henry V. There was another IPM
taken for Lawrenec de Berkerolles and Thomas de la Bere on the death of the
young Thomas without issue (he was a ward of the crown), but it does not give
details, merely referring the reader to CFR 14(1413-22):99-101.
pcr
Reedpcgen
Thomas de la Bere, who was born ca. 1402 (aged 9 in 1411), died 28 Oct. 1414.
He was son of John de la Bere who died 24 Sep. 1403, which John was born about
1383 as he was aged 15 in 1397/8 when an inquisition was taken by Sir John St.
John, which found that his father Sir John de la Bere of Weobley, co. Hereford,
died in 1380. This Sir John, knight, would have been born say 1335-45, so he
either did not marry until later in life, or had no issue by a first marriage.
The Calendar of Fine Rolls (CFR 14:101) states that certain lands in and around
Coytyff came into the hands of Laurence Berkerolles by reason of the minority
of Thomas de la Bere, son of John. John Seint John 'chivaler' son of Elizabeth
one of the sisters of John de la Bere 'chivaler' the father of John the father
of the said Thomas de la Bere, and John Basset, esquire, son of Margaret the
second sister of the said John de la Beer 'chivaler' are the next heirs, and of
full age. The lands were to be divided into two equal parts and John Seint
Johan and John Basset to have full seisin of their pourparties. Nothing was
said of the Stackpoles or other lines as the inquisition was only about the
lands held by Thomas de la Bere after the death of Laurence de Berkerolles
(which had been in the hands of the king). His cousin and heir, Sir John St.
John, was a servant of Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and one of the most important
men in the Gower peninsula. He was steward of the lordship of Gower for the
Mowbrays from 1397 through 1421. He was also deputy chamberlain and deputy
justiciar of South Wales, and was Mayor of Bordeaux, France, 1 Apr. 1413-12 May
1423 (he died 26 Dec. 1424).
This chronology agrees with what I estimated. We knew John St. John was not
born in 1360, but acting as an adult by 1384 (thus b. 1360-3). His mother
Elizabeth/Isabel de la Bere would therefore likely be born about 1340 or
earlier, which places here where we would expect to be Sir John's sister and
Thomas's great-aunt.
Now to Stackpole and Griffith. Sir Richard de Stackpole, who married Margaret
de Turberville, was a servant of Aymer Valence, Earl of Pembroke. He appeared
in a number of records pertaining to the Earldom. Sir Richard de Stakepol,
knight, witnessed a deed from Aymer de Valencia, Earl of Pembroke, dated 15 May
1 Edward II [1308] (CPR 1330-4, 67), witnessed another charter of the Earl
dated 24 Apr. 16 Edw. II [1324] (CPR 1374-7, 111), etc. Not only did he hold
Stackpole, which was worth 5 knights' fees, but 1 fee in Angle as well (CIM
7:273), and 1 fee in Lony, co. Pembroke. The inquisitions are clear that
Isabel de Stackpole was daughter and heir of Richard de Stackpole, son of Sir
Richard de Stackpole and his wife Margaret de Turberville. It is just that
Joan de Vernon is in one place called daughter of Richard de Stackpole, but
this is clearly an error, as it was long after the fact, and found by a jury
not closely associated with her.
Rhys [Hen] ap Gruffydd married Joan de Somerville by 1339. She was a great
heiress, which vaulted Rhys and his family into the limelight (and made
Griffith their surname instead of a temporary patronym). Sir Philip de
Somervill died 23 Jan. 29 Edw. III, holding land or moieties in (approximately)
one manor in Yorkshire, three in Leicestershire, one in Warwick, one in Derby,
fourteen in Northumberland, one in Lincoln, and three in Stafford (CIPM
10:220-5). Rees ap Griffyn and his wife Joan (Sir Philip's daughter, aged 40
and more), are mentioned frequently. The IPM of Rees ap Griffith/ap Gruffutz
[sic] the elder, knight, states that he died 10 May 30 Edward III, and held
manors or land at Stokton, co. Warwick, Staynton, Benton and Wytton, co.
Northumberland (held in right of his wife Joan), Orreby, co. Lincoln, Alrewas,
Whichenover, Briddeshall and Tatenhull, co. Stafford, Blacwelle, co. Derby and
in Nottingham. His wife, Joan, who "survies" was aged 40 and more [much more],
and his son and heir Rees ap Griffutz was aged 30 years and more "at Christmas
last." (CIPM 10:274-6). He also held land in Lansadorn, Talliares,
Combleant, Kilsayn, Kayo, Matihlayn, Maynordeill, Ketheynoc, Kergerwyn,
Perveth, Langiby, Bettous, Lanrustud, Generglyn, Pennarth, Lampeder, Drusselan,
Glycothy and Penneynt, all in South Wales.
So the son, Rhys ap Gruffydd, who married (1) Isabel/Elizabeth de Stackpole,
heiress of both Stackpole and Turberville lands, and (2) Margaret de Zouche,
was unquestionably son and heir of the elder Rhys by his wife Joan de
Somerville, coheiress of Sir Philip de Somerville. This younger Rhys ap
Griffitz [sic, both bore the 'surname' "ap Griffyth" in the English records]
died shortly before 26 May 1380, the date of the writ ordering his inquisition
post mortem (CFR 9:205, 260). The lands of Rees ap Griffith, knight, were put
into the hands of the king's brotherJohn Holand, knight, during the minority of
the heir (Ibid., 200).
***I DO NOT have this volume of the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem
(Richard II), so IF ANYONE COULD CHECK IT I'd be interested to see if it states
anything about the daughter Joan who was heir of his first wife.***
CFR 10:8-9 states that the heir of Rees ap Griffitz, 'chivaler,' was named
Thomas and aged five years and more (20 Sep. 1383). That would place the birth
about 1378. BUT the proof of age for Thomas son of Rees ap Griffith, knight,
states that Thomas was born at Whichenor and baptized in the church there on 24
May 51 Edward III [1377] (CIPM 17:512-13 [15-23 Richard II]). William
Forester, aged 44, testified that he remebers the day because he had a black
horse which broke its leg at Lichfield the same day as the birth. Richard
Strangelford, aged 62, testified he remembered because he had to carry two
gallons of wine from Lichfield to Thomas's mother the day of the birth. Thomas
Wysse, aged 49, gave the best testimony at the proof of age, stating that
Thomas's age was written in the missal in the church at Whichenore.
So we know Thomas was born in May 1377, John probably about 1379, and Sir Rhys
died in 1380. Joan was born about 1371 or before, as she was aged 40 or more
in 1411. So Joan's mother died between about 1371 and 1376. Again, the Vernon
arms indicate that Joan's mother was an heraldic heiress. Joan was not the
heiress or the Griffith arms would have been quartered too. And the Griffiths
were so prominent and had such large land holdings that if one were going to
fake quartered arms it would have quartered the Griffith arms (wrongly) instead
of the Stackpoles, who were relatively obscure. Chronology does not allow
another generation between Joan's mother and Richard de Stackpole. Joan's
mother must have either been Isabel/Elizabeth de Stackpole, or her sister. It
could not have been a father's sister, or other arms would have been introduced
into the quartering too from the sister's husband. Joan was called heir to
Isabel de Stackpole in the inquisition of Laurence de Berkerolles, though it
was in error in the latter part of the inquisition which stated Joan to be
daughter of Richard de Stackpole. We have ample evidence to prove she was
daughter of Rhys ap Gruffyd. So again, I am inclined to agree with the
information in Llyfr Baglan, which states that Elizabeth [Isabel] de Stackpole,
Richard's daughter, married Richard [Rhys] Gryffin [ap Gruffydd] and that they
were parents of Joan, who married Sir Richerd Varnam [Vernon], knight. Llyfr
Baglan got some of the pronunciation wrong, the connection being passed down
verbally, but that almost adds to its credibility, i. e., that the author was
not aware of the specific families, but gave the closest rendition that existed
to his ear. If he were falsifying things one would have thought he'd get it
right. So anyway, ...
And Shaw states (p. 404) that Joanna, wife of Richard de Vernon, dead 1402-3,
was "called (probably with truth) heir of Stackpole, living 1402-3" citing Deed
of Bishop Edmund Stafford "cop. in Huntb. No. 2." I was not able to find such
a deed among the series of Ancient Deeds, so it may recorded in that Bishop's
register. I don't remember if the register of Edmund Stafford has been
published yet. I have not checked for an inquisition of Sir Richard Vernon yet
to see if he held Stackpole at his death in 1409.
One LAST thing. I thought this interesting. CCR Henry IV 4:407 records, under
the date 20 Oct. 1412, that the king gave order to the sheriff of Hereford
(with provision to to take with him a posse with him if need be) to make
proclamation in places near the castle of Coityf in places where William Gamage
and Sir Gilbert Denys, knight, are to have "speediest" notice of it. They had
assembled armed men and archers at the castle and besieged and held it "with
armed power and the strong hand." In spite of this, "the said Gilbert and
William with no small number of men armed and arrayed in manner of war did
repair to the said castle, beseige it, and maintain the seige, purposing with
the strong hand to thrust out Joan who was the wife of Richard Vernoun knight
from possession thereof, in contempt of the king, contrary to diverse statutes,
and to the disturbance of the king's true lieges there...." The king appointed
a number of men to go and lift the seige, but "the king is informed" that in
spite of being made aware of the king's orders, Gilbert and William Gamage
"gathered together so great a multitude of armed men and archers there to
hinder the execution of their commission, that the commissioners dared not for
their lives repair thither." The king's will was "not to leave such contempt
and mischief unpunished." Hmmmm. One wonders why Joan (Griffith) Vernon held
the Castle of Coity instead of William Gamage. It was later determined by law
that the castle should belong to William Gamage and his heirs, as male heir of
Sir Payne de Turberville. Such was life.
pcr
Reedpcgen
IV and V) and there was no inquisition for Sir Richard Vernon or his wife Joan
during that period. :(
pcr
U...@aol.com
writes:
>
> I hope this all makes sense and has been in some way helpful to those of
you
> trying to jump into this complicated foray. This is often the route you
> have
> to take to resolve conflicts.
>
>
Outstanding piece Paul. Well done.
Always optimistic--Dave
Reedpcgen
follows:
1. Gilbert Gamage (d. 1382) = Lettice Seymour
2. Sir William Gamage = Mary Rodborough
3. Thomas Gamage (b. ca. 1408) = Janet Dennys (her father was the Sir Gilbert
Dennys involved with William Gamage in the siege of Coity)
4. Jane Gamage = Roger Arnold
5. John Arnold = Joan Morgan
6. Cicely Arnold (d. 1559) = (1) Richard Rowdon [she m. (2) Thomas, 5th Lord
Berkeley]
7. Catherine Rowdon = William Rede, MP (d. 1558)
8. Giles Rede (d. 1611) = Katherine Greville
9. Elizabeth Rede = Richard Brent (d. 1652)
10. George Brent (d. 1677) who emigrated to Maryland
pcr
Todd A. Farmerie
> ***I DO NOT have this volume of the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem
> (Richard II), so IF ANYONE COULD CHECK IT I'd be interested to see if it states
> anything about the daughter Joan who was heir of his first wife.***
No. In each instance, the heir is Thomas, but I did not see any mention
of what would have been the Stakepole lands.
It is too bad the i.p.m. of Berkerolles didn't translate the heirs
clause - I would have liked to see what someone else made of it. The
original ipm has been published in Top. & Gen. i:533-5. It first states
that Lawrence Berkerolles, Isabella de Stackpole, John de la Bere, and
William Gamage were coheirs of Richard de Tuberville, and then proceeds
to recite who the current heirs of each of these were, including:
"Et dicunt quod Johanna que fuit uxor Ric'i Vernon chivaler est
propinquior heres predicte Isabelle vid'i't. filia predicti Ric'i
Stakepole filii predicte Margarete et est etatis xl annorum et amplius."
While this has been taken to mean that Joan was heiress of Isabella and
daughter of Richard Stakepole (who was also Isabella's father) this does
not fit with the earlier distribution, for which, if sisters, Isabella
and Joan should have been coheiresses of the Stackpole portion of
Richard de Tuberville. I suspect instead that the intent of the inquest
was that Joan was heiress of Isabella, who was in turn daughter of
Richard, and that Joan's parentage was not being stated. This ambiguity
was later incorrectly resolved, making "daughter of said Richard son of
said Margarete" refer to Joan, when it was meant to refer to Isabella.
taf
Reedpcgen
"Et dicunt quod Johanna que fuit uxor Ric'i Vernon chivaler est propinquior
heres predicte Isabelle vid'i't. filia predicti Ric'i Stakepole filii predicte
Margarete et est etatis xl annorum et amplius."
It would have been a simple thing [and natural] for the scribe to have
accidentally left out one repeating phrase, which would have cleared the whole
thing up:
"Et dicunt quod Johanna que fuit uxor Ric'i Vernon chivaler est propinquior
heres predicte Isabelle vid'i't. *filia predicte Isabelle* filia predicti Ric'i
Stakepole filii predicte Margarete et est etatis xl annorum et amplius."
The eye could have easily skipped to the second 'predicte Isabelle' leaving
that all important phrase out. Anyway, that's the simple explanation. Then
the inquisition would fit all the facts.
pcr
Chris Pitt-Lewis
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> writes
>It is too bad the i.p.m. of Berkerolles didn't translate the heirs
>clause - I would have liked to see what someone else made of it. The
>original ipm has been published in Top. & Gen. i:533-5. It first states
>that Lawrence Berkerolles, Isabella de Stackpole, John de la Bere, and
>William Gamage were coheirs of Richard de Tuberville, and then proceeds
>to recite who the current heirs of each of these were, including:
>
>propinquior heres predicte Isabelle vid'i't. filia predicti Ric'i
>Stakepole filii predicte Margarete et est etatis xl annorum et amplius."
>
>daughter of Richard Stakepole (who was also Isabella's father) this does
>not fit with the earlier distribution, for which, if sisters, Isabella
>and Joan should have been coheiresses of the Stackpole portion of
>Richard de Tuberville. I suspect instead that the intent of the inquest
>was that Joan was heiress of Isabella, who was in turn daughter of
>Richard, and that Joan's parentage was not being stated. This ambiguity
>was later incorrectly resolved, making "daughter of said Richard son of
>said Margarete" refer to Joan, when it was meant to refer to Isabella.
>
>taf
If you are right, wouldn't it have said "filie predicti Ric'i", in the
genitive, so as to agree grammatically with "Isabelle"?
But Paul Reed's suggestion in the following post - of missing words -
sounds reasonable.
I hate to sound like the person we try to ignore, but is this a case
where someone with appropriate palaeographic skills ought to check the
original in the PRO, to see if the published transcription is actually
correct?
--
Chris Pitt-Lewis
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> If you are right, wouldn't it have said "filie predicti Ric'i", in the
> genitive, so as to agree grammatically with "Isabelle"?
>
> But Paul Reed's suggestion in the following post - of missing words -
> sounds reasonable.
>
> I hate to sound like the person we try to ignore, but is this a case
> where someone with appropriate palaeographic skills ought to check the
> original in the PRO, to see if the published transcription is actually
> correct?
Yes, someone should probably check it. I would be happy to if you put
up the funding for the trip. I may even check a certain cartulary while
I am there :)
My comment was more addressed to the original information, and the
various steps of transmission from the time the information was
collected at/for the inquest itself to its being recorded, to its being
entered in the formal record we can see in the PRO, to it being
transcribed/translated in published records. An error could have
happenned at any point in this process. (However, it has been brought to
my attention that the ipm has also been published in another location,
and since these two transcripts presumably derive from the same PRO
original, the likely origin of the error predates the recording of the
information in the PRO copy.)
taf
Reedpcgen
in the Calendar of Fine Rolls, which would have used the inquisition to copy
from, hence propagating the error, and (2) a copy is also printed (in Latin) in
Clark's Cartae of Glamorgan. So the error would have to be in copying the
original into public record, not the fault of the PRO rendering. So I doubt
checking the original will resolve the problem. But as I said in a previous
post, I've examined original inquisitions where copies for the same family
covering their land holdings in one county differ dramatically for what the
jury found in a neighboring county, regarding ages, heirs, etc. And again,
remember that this inquisition was made FOUR generations after the fact. Four
generations in ALL lines. So I ask you what jury is going to get all that
correct without very detailed muniments available?
pcr
D. Spencer Hines
Here's another chap who hasn't discovered the invention of the paragraph.
D. Spencer Hines
Exitus acta probat
D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a terminal ---
sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death rate, which we call
Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a terminal ---
sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death rate, which we call
Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<199808052000...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Reedpcgen
Glamorgancia pertinent_ (Cardiff, 1910), pp. 1466-9, states in part:
Et dicunt quod Edwardus Stradlinge et Johannes Stradlinge sunt consanguinei et
propinquiores heredes predicti Laurentii [de Berkerolles] videlicet Edwadrus
filius Willelmi filii Wenthelan unius sororum et heredum predicti Laurentii et
predictus Johannes filius Sare alterius sororum et heredum predicti Laurentii.
So we see that Edward and John are both in the nominitive following 'viz'.
This was in the section pertaining to the Berkerolle lands. The section we are
more interested in, the heirs of Richard Turberville, reads (in Clark's copy):
Et dicunt quod Johanna que fuit uxor Ricardi Vernon chivaler est propinqior
heres predicte Isabelle videlicet filia predicti Ricardi Stakepole filii
predicte Margarete et est etatis XL. annorum et amplius.
So the jury says that Joan, who was wife of Richard Vernon, chivaler (knight),
is the next heir [right heir] of the aforesaid Isabella, viz. daughter of the
aforesaid Richard Stakepole, son of the aforesaid Margaret, and is aged 40
years and more. (That's just my rough Latin, not scholarly by any standard.)
So Joan de Vernon was born about 1371, which agrees with the Griffith material.
Margaret de Turberville's husband, Sir Richard de Stakepole, was probably
older than her, as he was a prominent adult by 1307. Their son Richard may
well have been born by 1310, most probably by 1320. So there is still about a
generation missing. And Isabel de Stakepole was older, much older than Joan,
as she was named in the first entail. And Joan was not called her sister, or
coheir, in the first entail. So the internal evidence of this inquisition
itself is in conflict. The first part, reciting the earlier heirs and entail
reads in part that after Sir Richard's death without heirs of his body, the
castle and lordship of Coityf:
cum pert. descenderunt prefato Laurentio [de Berkerolles] ac quibuscunque
Isabelle filie Ricardi Stakepole[,] Johanni de la Beer chivaler et Willelmo
Gamage defunctis consanguineis et heredibus predicti Ricardi Turbervill
similiter defuncti, videlicet [here it recites Laurence's descent, then] et
predicte Isabelle ut filie predicti Ricardi Stakepole filii Margarete alterius
soroum et heredum predicti Ricardi Turbervill etiam defuncti.
I should state that several times while copying this from the Latin my eye
skipped from one Richard to the next, from one predicti to another, and so on.
I may just be tired, but looking back and forth between documents it is very
easy to get 'misplaced' in a repetitive document such as this. For a more
detailed discussion, interested readers should check _From Memory to Written
Word_ (I can't remember the author's name and my copy is in storage). It
explains how documents were created, copied, preserved, the tools used, errors
and problems in technique, etc.
I should also mention than at the end of the inquisition Clark states, "The
document appears to be a copy, TRANSCRIBED INACCURATELY in several places
[emphasis mine]."
pcr
James C. Woodard
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message <6qadu7$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
D. Spencer Hines
on matters of both form and substance.
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a terminal ---
sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death rate, which we call
Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
James C. Woodard wrote in message <6qb0s2$ndi$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
Reedpcgen
<<Nope, it's a USENET post, not an e-mail, and it falls very short of the mark
on matters of both form and substance.
Cheers,
D. Spencer Hines>>
This by a man who had just asked me for the citations to my Whitney article,
which I was kind enough to supply. You bite your own tail, Mr. Hines. I leave
you to eat your own words by checking our boutique journal (TAG) for
corrections to your ancestry.
And by the way, it may have been posted on Usenet originally, but some people
receive it as an e-mail after it is gated.
pcr
D. Spencer Hines
unjustified conclusions.
I asked him for the date of his Whitney article, which he had carelessly
omitted.
Hines has no connection to the Whitneys, so he has no need to look for
"corrections to his ancestors in TAG."
Hines does not have a tail. Is Reed growing one? Or rather is that his
nose that, Pinocchio-style, is extending?
D. Spencer Hines
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Genealogy is an infinite binary series --- both
regressively and progressively --- propagated by means of a terminal ---
sexually transmitted disease --- producing a 100% death rate, which we call
Life." [DSH] --- 4 June 1997
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<199808060814...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Chris Pitt-Lewis
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> writes
And in article <199808052302...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Reedpcgen <reed...@aol.com> writes
I agree. If more than one independent transcript has the same reading,
then we can reasonably assume it correctly reflects their original, so
that any mistake must be in that original. Little point therefore in a
trip to the PRO (only 150 miles away for me:-)).
If that original is itself a copy of some earlier document, no longer
available, then the suggestion that its scribe's eye slipped from one
"predicti" to another is entirely plausible, and is of course a rule
that is frequently applied by scholars to recover the correct reading
that lies behind corrupt medieval manuscripts of classical texts.
My point was that the existing text can *only* be read so that the word
filia after the videlicet refers back to Johanna, since both are in the
nominative. If it referred to Isabelle, it would *have* to be filie, in
the genitive, like she is.
So, if we are satisfied on other grounds that the genealogy the document
gives is a generation short (on which I am not qualified to comment),
and that the document is itself a copy of something written earlier in
the inquisition process, then the natural conclusion is that it is a
corrupt copy.
In that case the two likely reconstructions are:
1) it should read filie not filia
2) as pcr suggests, it should read videlicet filia predicte Isabelle
filie predicti Ricardi
The first alternative does not explain *how* Joan is Isabella's heir,
which is the whole point of the document. Nor does it follow the form
used elsewhere (as quoted by pcr above), with a nominative after the
word videlicet, referring directly to the person who is being proved as
heir. The second alternative therefore seems much the more likely. The
scribe's eye slipped from filia predicte to the very similar filie
predicti. It looks very much as though this reading ought to restored.
--
Chris Pitt-Lewis
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> So, if we are satisfied on other grounds that the genealogy the document
> gives is a generation short (on which I am not qualified to comment),
> and that the document is itself a copy of something written earlier in
> the inquisition process, then the natural conclusion is that it is a
> corrupt copy.
Let's add here that the genealogy presented in the document is
internally inconsistant (Isabelle could not have been sole heiress of
her branch had Joan been daughter of Richard, and hence her sister).
> In that case the two likely reconstructions are:
> 1) it should read filie not filia
> 2) as pcr suggests, it should read videlicet filia predicte Isabelle
> filie predicti Ricardi
>
> The first alternative does not explain *how* Joan is Isabella's heir,
> which is the whole point of the document.
While I don't disagree at all with pcr's suggesting (having suggested
the same thing myself some years ago), I don't entirely agree with this
statement.
The purpose of the document is to show *that* Joan was Isabelle's (and
hence Berkerolles') heiress, not *how*. In the ipms I have looked at
(which is not a huge number) I would have to say that if the heirs(ess)
is more than a couple of generations removed, (as Joan is from Lawrence)
it is more likely than not that the actual nature of the relationship is
not stated.
taf
Reedpcgen
at explaining the connectionof female heirs, as it was a legal point, but it's
like the de Banco rolls. When you start stringing long lines of generations
together (remember that many juries were almost entirely illiterate in the
earlier centuries), and escheators were normal gentlemen from the county,
sometimes knights, not terribly literate themselves (in the earlier centuries),
you had to rely on what some handy cleric might be able to make out of
documents, if documents were even at hand. The jury was generally made up of
local people who had some memory of the events of their lifetime. But when you
get to four generations of connections in all lines, which is way beyond living
memory (it almost qualifies as 'time out of mind').... Where most juries found
themselves at a loss was in determining why certain land was held (knights'
service, the payment of a rose, whatever). So I am still of the opinion that
Clark was correct in stating that the inquisition we are interested in is
internally corrupt and not the final word, as we have explained before.
pcr
Raymond l. montgomery
Do you know the ancestry of John De La Bere born about 1290 that married
agnes Tuberville???
The father of John below born about 1335-45?
as i find nothing on him in my searches??
Sincerely
RAY
>Mortem
>(Richard II), so IF ANYONE COULD CHECK IT I'd be interested to see if
>it states
>anything about the daughter Joan who was heir of his first wife.***
>
>daughter of Rhys ap Gruffyd. So again, I am inclined to agree with
>the
>information in Llyfr Baglan, which states that Elizabeth [Isabel] de
>Stackpole,
>Richard's daughter, married Richard [Rhys] Gryffin [ap Gruffydd] and
>Wilson" <twi...@pathwaynet.com>
>From: "Thomas Wilson" <twi...@pathwaynet.com>
>Received: from mx1.boston.juno.com (mx1.boston.juno.com
>[207.205.100.50])
> by m14.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP
>id QAAAA26864
> for <foxl...@juno.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 16:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from bl-30.rootsweb.com (bl-30.rootsweb.com
>[207.113.245.30])
> by mx1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP
>id QAAAA24322
> for <foxl...@juno.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 16:50:42 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (from slist@localhost)
> by bl-30.rootsweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA06585;
> Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
>Return-path: <FERMANAGH...@rootsweb.com>
>Resent-From: FERMA...@rootsweb.com
>Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
>Resent-Sender: FERMANAGH...@rootsweb.com
>Resent-Message-ID: <"NtGlbB.B.pmB.6CNx1"@bl-30.rootsweb.com>
>To: FERMA...@rootsweb.com
>Date: Sun, 02 Aug 98 16:49:14 PDT
>Subject: WILSONS
>Message-ID: <"NtGlbB.A.pmB.6CNx1"@bl-30.rootsweb.com>
>X-Status: New
>
>New to this list. I have been searching for many years for my
>gggggrandparents links in County Fermanagh. Thomas WILSON, b. abt.
>1790 in
>County Fermanagh, was married to Margaret (maiden name unknown).
>Thomas
>had one known brother, John WILSON, b. abt. 1796 in County Fermanagh,
>married to Jane (maiden name unknown) of County Tyrone. My
>ggggranfather
>John WILSON , is believed to be the Thomas and Margaret's eldest
>child, he
>was b. October 24, 1815 in County Fermanagh Thomas and Margaret
>emigrated
>to Hastings County, Ontario, Canada, sometime after 1815, presumably
>between 1824 and 1835. Thomas's brother John and his wife Jane also
>ended
>up in Hastings County, Ontario, Canada. However, I do not know if John
>and
>Jane emigrated at the same time or later. Do these WILSONS ring any
>bells, any help would be appreciated.
>
>Thomas Lester Wilson
>twi...@pathwaynet.com
Reedpcgen
Do you know the ancestry of John De La Bere born about 1290 that married Agnes
Tuberville???
The father of John below born about 1335-45?
as i find nothing on him in my searches??
[I've had computer problems, so sorry for the delay in answering.]
A: This is unfortunately one of those families that is not well documented in
printed sources, many of which are in conflict. One source says he was son of
Sir Richard de la Bere who is said to have married Margaret Gamage, daughter of
William Gamage of Rogiad, co. Monmouth. Another source says Sir John was son
of Adam (liv. 1318), son of Sir David (by his wife Joan/Igan), son of another
Sir John (by his wife Isabel), son of Robert de la Bere.
Sir Richard de la Bere is stated to be the same man who was of Southam, living
1327, 1303, and a prominent man who had extendive lands in both cos. Devon and
Hereford. He was an M. P., and was Chamberlain to the Black Prince. One
source gives him as son of Richard (by Sybil de Harley), son of Sir Stephen (by
Mabel, daughter of ___ Brian of Brampton Brian), son of Sir John (by Joan,
daughter of Stephen Heven), son of Sir Richard de la Bere. But much of this
information is muddled and confused, so none of it is trustworthy.
G. Andrews Moriarty took a stab at "The Family of de la Bere" in _The
Genealogists' Magazine_ 19(London, March 1947-December 1950):412-15, but he did
not attempt to tie our Sir John in, and I think his research and conclusions
are preliminary. There were quite a few de la Beres in Hereford about this
time, according to Feudal Aids, so it would not be prudent to suggest any
possible ancestry.
Neil D. Thompson did do a study of this family, but I put his report in storage
(some place), and he has no idea of where his is, since it was a small part
(four or five pages) of a massive amount of research done for Brice Clagget.
Brice's book stops at the 20th generation, so it does not encompass Neil's
report. So some day when I run across it, I'll post the information on the
group. I don't have time to do original research on this problem right now.
Sorry.
pcr
Reedpcgen
facts, but I should correct the citation in case someone orders the article.
The cite for _The Genealogists' Magazine_ should have been volume 10 (ten)
[slip of the finger].
This article traced things down to Kinnard de la Bere. I had checked all
sources listed in Marshall and Whitmore's guides, including George T. Clark's
_Limbus Patrum Morganiae et Glamorganiae..._ [Genealogies of Morgan and
Glamorgan] (London, 1886). None of the sources are completely accurate or
comprehensive. I think an exhaustive study for the surname needs to be done to
feel completely confident in the conclusions. Moriarty's article did not
account for others of the same in the same regions, which is why I don't feel
confident in accepting his conclusions.
pcr
Daniel Martin
au québec en 1935 par Annette Roy et Raoul Daoust. Elle s'appelle
maintenant aujourd'hui Huguette Daoust.
Daryl Verstreate
On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Lum...@aol.com wrote:
> I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has been
> disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll run what I
> have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about 1465, as the line
> takes off from her. Please let me know what or if anything is an error.
> Thank you for your help.
> Sherry Sharp
>
> 1. Charlemagne-Hildegard
> 2. Carloman Pepin II -Bertha Thoulouse
> 3. Bernhard -Cunigunde m: Abt. 816
> 4. Quentin, Pepin II
> 5 Herbert-Beatrice Vermandois
> 6 Robert
> 7 Hugh-Princess Hadwige m: 938
> 8 Hugh Capet -Ivrea
> 9 Robert m Constance De Toulouse m: 1002
> 10 Adele-Baldwin m: 1028
> 11 Matilda- William m: 1053
> 12 Gundred-William Warren m: Bef. 1077
> 13 William Warren-Isabel (Elizabeth) Vermandois m: Bef. 1118
> 14 Gundred Warren-Roger Newburgh m: Abt. 1145
> 15 Waleran Newburgh
> 16.Alice Newburgh-William Manduit m: Abt. 1190
> 17 Isabel Manduit-William Beauchamp m: Abt. 1215
> 18 William Beauchamp-Maud Debraose m: Abt. 1250
> 19 Sarah Beauchamp-Richard Talbot m: Abt. 1275
> 20 Gwenllian Talbot-Payne Tuberville m:Abt. 1340
> 21 Sarah Tuberville-William Gamage m: Abt. 1360
> 22 Gilbert Gamage-Lettice Seymour m: Abt. 1385
> 23 William Gamage Mary De Rodburg m: Abt. 1410
> 24 Thomas Gamage -Matilda m: Abt. 1440
> 25 Joan Gamage- Roger Arnold m: Abt. 1465
Leo van de Pas
so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
Leo
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
Monica Kanellis
through Matilda.
Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne.
M
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Leo van de Pas <can...@netspeed.com.au>wrote:
> In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
> so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
> lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
>
Leo van de Pas
You misunderstood. Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror nor of
his wife Matilda of Flanders.
When counting in my system and there are so many generations involved, it
takes a long time, and there may well be more than 4 lines. I mentioned the
four lines to show there was a line to Charlemagne just not the one
displayed.
Leo
From: Monica Kanellis [mailto:monica....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:36 PM
To: Leo van de Pas
Cc: Daryl Verstreate; GenMedieval
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
It would have been broken if the line had gone through William, but it goes
through Matilda.
Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne.
M
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Leo van de Pas <can...@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:
In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
Leo
-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
Olivier
Cecily Beauchamp ca 1330-1394 &
Roger Seymour 1314
|
William Seymour ca 1342-1391 &
Margaret de Brockbury ca 1345
|
Lettice Seymour ca 1357 &
Gilbert de Gamage ca 1340-1382
|
William Gamage ca 1380-1419 &
Mary Rodborough ca 1380
|
Thomas Gamage ca 1408 &
Janet Dennys ca 1410
|
Joan Gamage 1444
Monica Kanellis
the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the daughter
of William.
what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Leo van de Pas <can...@netspeed.com.au>wrote:
> Dear Monica,****
> You misunderstood. Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror nor
> When counting in my system and there are so many generations involved, it
> takes a long time, and there may well be more than 4 lines. I mentioned the
> four lines to show there was a line to Charlemagne just not the one
>
> Leo ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Monica Kanellis [mailto:monica....@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 26 July 2013 10:36 PM
> *To:* Leo van de Pas
> *Cc:* Daryl Verstreate; GenMedieval
>
> *Subject:* Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)****
>
> ** **
> It would have been broken if the line had gone through William, but it
>
> ** **
>
> Must be many more than 4 lines from Joan to Charlemagne. ****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
> wrote:****
> In this line nr 12 Gundred is not a daughter of William the Conqueror. And
> so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
> lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
>
> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>
> ** **
>
taf
> I'm not supporting any particular descent for Gundred, just pointing that
>
> the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the
daughter
>
> of William.
>
>
>
> what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?
1800s (but unfortunately the older traditions continue to be repeated).
She was entirely unconnected to either William or Matilda. Instead was
sister of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester, and daughter of Gerbod of
Oosterzele, hereditary advocate of the Abbey of St. Bertin. The connection
to William was a sloppy invention made centuries later to glorify the
founding patrons of Lewes Priory, while the suggestion that she was
daughter just of Matilda and not of William was just a misplaced attempt
made in the late 1800s to 'rescue' the flawed tradition once it became
clear it could not be correct as stated.
The easiest Carolingian line, starting with what you have, is that
Gundred's daughter-in-law, Elizabeth of Vermandois, was daughter of Hugh of
V, son of Henry I of France, son of Robert II of France, who is erroneously
given as Gundred's great-grandfather. Elizabeth's mother is a male-line
descendant of Heribert, shown in generation 5 of the line presented). The
other two lines, I would assume, are through Adelaide of Aquitaine, wife of
Hugh Capet (gen 8) - a connection generally but not universally accepted,
and through Constance of Provence, whose supposedly owes her name to
descent from Charles Constantine, son of Louis the Blind, although this
line is more problematic, being based on little more than the supposition
that their similar names must indicate a relationship.
taf
Leo van de Pas
He had no other women in his life and Matilda only had children with
William, and so by saying that Gundred is not a daughter of William the
Conqueror also implies she is not a child of Matilda either.
To: Leo van de Pas; GenMedieval
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the daughter
of William.
what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?
his wife Matilda of Flanders.
takes a long time, and there may well be more than 4 lines. I mentioned the
four lines to show there was a line to Charlemagne just not the one
displayed.
From: Monica Kanellis [mailto:monica....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:36 PM
To: Leo van de Pas
Cc: Daryl Verstreate; GenMedieval
through Matilda.
so THIS line is broken, however in my system I have at least four other
lines from Joan Gamage to Charlemagne.
Leo
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Daryl Verstreate
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 10:59 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: from Charlemagne to Arnold (?)
Monica Kanellis
Oosterzele and am pleased to push back another generation.
best
M
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:44:02 AM UTC-7, Monica Kanellis wrote:
> >
> > the logic of the line as stated is not broken by her not being the
> daughter
> >
> > of William.
> >
> >
> >
> > what is the most recent thinking on her ancestry?
>
> 1800s (but unfortunately the older traditions continue to be repeated).
> She was entirely unconnected to either William or Matilda. Instead was
> sister of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester, and daughter of Gerbod of
> Oosterzele, hereditary advocate of the Abbey of St. Bertin. The connection
> to William was a sloppy invention made centuries later to glorify the
> founding patrons of Lewes Priory, while the suggestion that she was
> daughter just of Matilda and not of William was just a misplaced attempt
> made in the late 1800s to 'rescue' the flawed tradition once it became
> clear it could not be correct as stated.
>
> The easiest Carolingian line, starting with what you have, is that
> Gundred's daughter-in-law, Elizabeth of Vermandois, was daughter of Hugh of
> V, son of Henry I of France, son of Robert II of France, who is erroneously
> given as Gundred's great-grandfather. Elizabeth's mother is a male-line
> descendant of Heribert, shown in generation 5 of the line presented). The
> other two lines, I would assume, are through Adelaide of Aquitaine, wife of
> Hugh Capet (gen 8) - a connection generally but not universally accepted,
> and through Constance of Provence, whose supposedly owes her name to
> descent from Charles Constantine, son of Louis the Blind, although this
> line is more problematic, being based on little more than the supposition
> that their similar names must indicate a relationship.
>
> taf
>
lma...@att.net
On Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:58:41 PM UTC-7, Daryl Verstreate wrote:
> Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian PEAKE with little difficulty
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 26, 1998 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Lum...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I've heard recently that the line from the Arnolds to Charlemagne has been
>
> > disproven. If that's so, at what point is the link broken? I'll run what I
>
> > have through to Joan Gamage who married Roger Arnold about 1465, as the line
>
> > takes off from her. Please let me know what or if anything is an error.
>
> > Thank you for your help.
>
> > Sherry Sharp
The lineage prepared by Horatio Somerby was published here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jtYSJeIFBFAC&pg=PA432&dq=henry+drowne+horatio+somerby&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tQn6UYWuCsSZrgGAiYGwCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=henry%20drowne%20horatio%20somerby&f=false
The Arnold pedigree was analyzed by Edson Salisbury Jones in
1915, detailing which parts had no evidence:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AQKXGD1BS4AC&pg=PA64&dq=edson+salisbury+jones+arnold&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1Qr6UbORGJKrqQHclYHYBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edson%20salisbury%20jones%20arnold&f=false
Leslie
joe...@gmail.com
> On Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:58:41 PM UTC-7, Daryl Verstreate wrote:
>
> > Has anyone been able to prove the Arnold line? I can prove down to Lord Richard Talbot + Sarah De Beauchamp and upto William Arnold + Christian PEAKE with little difficulty
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=jtYSJeIFBFAC&pg=PA432&dq=henry+drowne+horatio+somerby&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tQn6UYWuCsSZrgGAiYGwCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=henry%20drowne%20horatio%20somerby&f=false
>
David Teague
Hello, all.
It's been quite a while since I saw this addressed, but I can't recall either the answer or the date of the discussion.
I am subscribed using my old Hotmail account, and I am not receiving many of the posts. How do I adjust the situation so that I can receive the posts I have obviously been missing?
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Don Stone
I am the GEN-MED listowner currently "on duty," so I'll try to help you
solve this.
In general, subscription questions, etc., can be addressed to
gen-medie...@rootsweb.com, which will come to either Todd Farmerie
or me, as appropriate.
Is it possible that some of your GEN-MED messages are being censored as
junk by Hotmail? Do you have a different email account you could use
instead? (Perhaps subscribe at both addresses for a while to confirm
that you get more messages at one address than the other.)
-- Don Stone
Kay Allen
And they are not showing up in spam.
K
________________________________
From: Don Stone <d...@donstonetech.com>
To: David Teague <davt...@hotmail.com>
Cc: "GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com" <gen-med...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: A technical question about the newsgroup
Hello, David,
-- Don Stone
David Teague
Thanks for the prompt response.
To answer your questions, I have -- on occasion -- seen newsgroup messages in my Junk folder, but that almost never happens now, nor has it happened for a long time. As for another email address, I can certainly try that, as I have more than one address, and then see what happens.
I do recall that there was some discussion in the past, when a change on the part of Google, or RootsWeb, or somebody external to the group, would reduce the number of emails which some of us would receive from that point on, but I don't recall whose doings were involved, nor the date of the discussion, nor the suggested remedy.
David Teague
> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 12:27:29 -0700
> From: all...@pacbell.net
> CC: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Stephen Arnold
> There is at least a valid descent from the Gamage/Arnold connection. It is as
> follows:
> 1. Gilbert Gamage (d. 1382) = Lettice Seymour
> 2. Sir William Gamage = Mary Rodborough
> 3. Thomas Gamage (b. ca. 1408) = Janet Dennys (her father was the Sir Gilbert
> Dennys involved with William Gamage in the siege of Coity)
> 4. Jane Gamage = Roger Arnold
> 5. John Arnold = Joan Morgan
> 6. Cicely Arnold (d. 1559) = (1) Richard Rowdon [she m. (2) Thomas, 5th Lord
> Berkeley]
> 7. Catherine Rowdon = William Rede, MP (d. 1558)
> 8. Giles Rede (d. 1611) = Katherine Greville
> 9. Elizabeth Rede = Richard Brent (d. 1652)
> 10. George Brent (d. 1677) who emigrated to Maryland
> pcr
PLEAS NOTE FALSE INFO ABOVE - Jane Gamage = Roger Arnold did not have a son John??
It was his son Tom who had a son John!!