Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

It has been known for some time that Sir Humphrey de Bohun, Knt., Earl
of Hereford and Essex (died 1275), had four daughters by his first
marriage to Maud of Eu, daughter of daughter of Raoul (or Ralph)
d’Exoudun (or d’Issoudun), Count of Eu, Baron of Hastings, Sussex, and
seigneur of Issoudun, Melle, Chize, and la Mothe-Saint-Heray, in
Poitou. The existence of the four daughters is indicated by an
ancient pedigree of the Bohun family found in Llanthony Abbey records:

“Humfredus [de Bohun] desponsavit primo Matildem filiam comitis de Ewe
in Normannia. De quibus procreati fuerunt dominus Humfredus sextus de
Bohun, dominus de Brekenok, et quatuor filæ” [Reference: Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 134–136].

The identities of two of the four daughters, Maud de Bohun (wife of
Anselm Marshall and Roger de Quincy) and Alice de Bohun (wife of Roger
de Tony), have been known for many years. The identification of the
third daughter, Eleanor de Bohun, 2nd wife of Sir John de Verdun,
Constable of Ireland, was made in recent time here on the newsgroup.
The documentation for Eleanor's identity and her parentage was
published in my two books, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Magna Carta
Ancestry (2005).

To date, the identity of the fourth daughter has been unsolved.
Recently, however, I was going through some old issues of the
Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological
Society. Much to my surprise, I found a contemporary charter for the
fourth daughter, Mary de Bohun, in Volume 51 (published in 1929).

The charter indicates that “Mary de Boun daughter of Sir Humphrey de
Boun, Earl of Hereford and Essex," granted William de la Fripe (or
Frithe), of Chalford (in Bisley), Gloucestershire for the rent of 5
shillings of silver a field called Fripeland (or Le Frithlond) lying
in the wood of Bussage which William de Chalkford formerly held in the
holding of Bisley, Gloucestershire. [Reference: Trans. Bristol &
Gloucestershire Arch. Soc. 51 (1929): 211–212].

The charter is undated, but one of the witnesses, "Reginald de
Troham", is surely the same person as Reynold de Trougham, of Trougham
(in Bisley), Gloucestershire, who VCH Gloucester, volume 11 indicates
was living in the period, c.1251-1261. This information regarding
Reynold de Trougham may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19017&strquery=Reynold

As such, it appears that Mary de Bohun's charter would date from
approximately the same period in which Reginald de Trougham was
active, that is 1251-1261, which would place her as a daughter of Sir
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, by his 1st wife, Maud
of Eu.

At the present time, the subsequent history of Mary de Bohun is
unknown.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Humphrey de Bohun and his wife,
Maud of Eu, through their other known children:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby,
Barbara Aubrey, Christopher Batt, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith,
Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, Essex Beville, William
Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth,
Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, Giles, George & Robert Brent,
Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull,
Elizabeth Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine,
Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew Clarkson, St. Leger Codd, Henry
Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, William Farrar,
John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Thomas Gerard,
Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, Katherine Hamby, Elizabeth & John
Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey,
Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Mary
Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel
Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Nicholas and Jane Lowe,
Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Simon Lynde, Agnes
Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth, & John Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Anne &
Katherine Marbury, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More,
Joseph & Mary Need, John Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Joshua &
Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard Parker, Herbert
Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William
Randolph, Edward Raynsford, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas
Rudyard, Elizabeth Saint John, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard
Saltonstall, Anthony Savage, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey,
Margaret Touteville, Olive Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Mary
Wolseley, Frances & Sarah Woodward, Hawte Wyatt, Amy Wyllys, George
Yate.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Skip]

> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19017&strquery=Re...

and Bridget Lisle.

Fred Chalfant

[Merilyn Pedrick]

Dear Douglas

Surely dear old James Cudworth has missed out again? I have a descent for
him, mostly female, via:

Alice de Bohun

Ralph de Toeni

Alice de Toeni

Juliana de Leybourne

Alice de Hastings

John Cotton

Walter Cotton

Joan Cotton

Joan Sturgeon

Isabel Frowicke

Jane Hawte

Dorothy Wrothe

Mary Lewknor

Mary Machell

James Cudworth

Happy to hear of any corrections.

Best wishes

Merilyn Pedrick

-------Original Message-------

From: Douglas Richardson

Date: 30/08/2009 4:30:16 AM

To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Subject: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun (died
1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex

Dear Newsgroup ~

It has been known for some time that Sir Humphrey de Bohun, Knt., Earl

Of Hereford and Essex (died 1275), had four daughters by his first

Marriage to Maud of Eu, daughter of daughter of Raoul (or Ralph)

d�Exoudun (or d�Issoudun), Count of Eu, Baron of Hastings, Sussex, and

Seigneur of Issoudun, Melle, Chize, and la Mothe-Saint-Heray, in

Poitou. The existence of the four daughters is indicated by an

Ancient pedigree of the Bohun family found in Llanthony Abbey records:

�Humfredus [de Bohun] desponsavit primo Matildem filiam comitis de Ewe

In Normannia. De quibus procreati fuerunt dominus Humfredus sextus de

Bohun, dominus de Brekenok, et quatuor fil� [Reference: Dugdale,

Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 134�136].

The identities of two of the four daughters, Maud de Bohun (wife of

Anselm Marshall and Roger de Quincy) and Alice de Bohun (wife of Roger

De Tony), have been known for many years. The identification of the

Third daughter, Eleanor de Bohun, 2nd wife of Sir John de Verdun,

Constable of Ireland, was made in recent time here on the newsgroup.

The documentation for Eleanor's identity and her parentage was

Published in my two books, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Magna Carta

Ancestry (2005).

To date, the identity of the fourth daughter has been unsolved.

Recently, however, I was going through some old issues of the

Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological

Society. Much to my surprise, I found a contemporary charter for the

Fourth daughter, Mary de Bohun, in Volume 51 (published in 1929).

The charter indicates that �Mary de Boun daughter of Sir Humphrey de

Boun, Earl of Hereford and Essex," granted William de la Fripe (or

Frithe), of Chalford (in Bisley), Gloucestershire for the rent of 5

Shillings of silver a field called Fripeland (or Le Frithlond) lying

In the wood of Bussage which William de Chalkford formerly held in the

Holding of Bisley, Gloucestershire. [Reference: Trans. Bristol &

Gloucestershire Arch. Soc. 51 (1929): 211�212].

The charter is undated, but one of the witnesses, "Reginald de

Troham", is surely the same person as Reynold de Trougham, of Trougham

(in Bisley), Gloucestershire, who VCH Gloucester, volume 11 indicates

Was living in the period, c.1251-1261. This information regarding

Reynold de Trougham may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19017&strquery=Reynold

As such, it appears that Mary de Bohun's charter would date from

Approximately the same period in which Reginald de Trougham was

Active, that is 1251-1261, which would place her as a daughter of Sir

Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, by his 1st wife, Maud

Of Eu.

At the present time, the subsequent history of Mary de Bohun is

Unknown.

Yate.

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

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

.

[royala...@msn.com]

Dear Merilyn ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Unfortunately, the descent you set forth for the immigrant, James
Cudworth, breaks at Juliane de Leyburn. Juliane had three husbands:
John de Hastings, 2nd Lord Hastings (died 20 Jan. 1324/5),Thomas le
Blount, Knt., and William de Clinton, Knt., Earl of Huntingdon. To my
knowledge, she had no daughter named Alice de Hastings, who married a
Cotton. Also, to my knowledge, Juliane de Leyburn has no living
descendants.

Possibly you can find another Bohun descent lurking in the ancestry of
James Cudworth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Aug 29, 6:41 pm, "Merilyn Pedrick"

[John]

On Aug 29, 5:41 pm, "Merilyn Pedrick"

<merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Dear Douglas
>
> Surely dear old James Cudworth has missed out again?  I have a descent for
> him, mostly female, via:
>
> Alice de Bohun
>
> Ralph de Toeni
>
> Alice de Toeni
>
> Juliana de Leybourne
>
> Alice de Hastings
>
> John Cotton
>
> Walter Cotton
>
> Joan Cotton
>
> Joan Sturgeon
>
> Isabel Frowicke
>
> Jane Hawte
>
> Dorothy Wrothe
>
> Mary Lewknor
>
> Mary Machell
>
> James Cudworth
>
> Happy to hear of any corrections.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Merilyn Pedrick
>

The Hastings and Cotton links in this proposed descent for James
Cudworth were discussed in this group in December 2008 - see the
archives. There are at least two key weaknesses:

1) The parentage of John Cotton as indicated in the Cambridgeshire
visitation pedigrees is considered doubtful by reputable 20th-century
genealogists, and thus the connection (if any) to Hastings needs
further support. See the archives for more specifics.

2) The father of Alice Hastings, purported mother of John Cotton, was
John Hastings of Landwade, Cambridgeshire - a separate and distinct
person from John, 2nd Lord Hastings. There is a good discussion of
the descent of the manor of Landwade in vol. 10 of VCH Cambridgeshire,
available at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=18944.
But there is insufficient information given there to confirm a
genealogical link between the Cotton and Hastings family - or a link
between Hastings of Landwade and the Lords Hastings.

[Merilyn Pedrick]

Thanks Douglas, I've now unlinked Alice de Hastings. But how about this
descent from Humphrey & Maud:

Alice de Bohun, Ralf de Toeni, Alice de Toeni, Thomas de Beauchamp 3rd Earl
of Warwick, Maud de Beauchamp, Catherine de Clifford, Maud de Greystoke,
Lionel Welles 6th Baron Welles, Eleanor Welles, Ann Hoo, Margaret Copley,
Edward Lewknor, Mary Lewknor, Mary Machell, James Cudworth.

Does this work?

Best wishes

Merilyn

-------Original Message-------

From: royala...@msn.com

Date: 31/08/2009 4:00:47 AM

To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Subject: Re: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de Bohun

(died 1275), Earl of Hereford and Essex

Dear Merilyn ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

Unfortunately, the descent you set forth for the immigrant, James

Cudworth, breaks at Juliane de Leyburn. Juliane had three husbands:

John de Hastings, 2nd Lord Hastings (died 20 Jan. 1324/5),Thomas Le

Blount, Knt., and William de Clinton, Knt., Earl of Huntingdon. To my

Knowledge, she had no daughter named Alice de Hastings, who married a

Cotton. Also, to my knowledge, Juliane de Leyburn has no living

Descendants.

Possibly you can find another Bohun descent lurking in the ancestry of

James Cudworth.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Aug 29, 6:41 PM, "Merilyn Pedrick"

<merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net> wrote:

< Dear Douglas

<

< Surely dear old James Cudworth has missed out again? I have a

Descent for

< him, mostly female, via:

<

< Alice de Bohun

<

< Ralph de Toeni

<

< Alice de Toeni

<

< Juliana de Leybourne

<

< Alice de Hastings

<

< John Cotton

<

< Walter Cotton

<

< Joan Cotton

<

< Joan Sturgeon

<

< Isabel Frowicke

<

< Jane Hawte

<

< Dorothy Wrothe

<

< Mary Lewknor

<

< Mary Machell

<

< James Cudworth

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

[royala...@msn.com]

On Aug 30, 6:23 pm, "Merilyn Pedrick"

<merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net> wrote:
< Thanks Douglas, I've now unlinked Alice de Hastings.  But how about
this
< descent from Humphrey & Maud:
<
< Alice de Bohun, Ralf de Toeni, Alice de Toeni, Thomas de Beauchamp
3rd Earl
< of Warwick, Maud de Beauchamp, Catherine de Clifford, Maud de
Greystoke,
< Lionel Welles 6th Baron Welles, Eleanor Welles, Ann Hoo, Margaret
Copley,
< Edward Lewknor, Mary Lewknor, Mary Machell, James Cudworth.
<
< Does this work?
<
< Best wishes
<
< Merilyn

Much better, Merilyn. This new Bohun descent is sound.

[DaHoorn]

Douglas:

How certain are we that Alice de Bohun (b abt 1233, d aft 1255),
daughter of Humphrey V de Bohun and Maud d'Eu was the mother of Ralph
de Toeni (b 1255, d. bef 29 Jul 1295, Gascony, France) ? What is the
"smoking gun" source?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[royala...@msn.com]

Alice de Bohun and Roger de Tony were married by agreement dated 1239,
and she was still living in 1255. Her maritagium included the manors
of Newton Toney and East Coulston, Wiltshire. Their son, Ralph de
Tony, was born about 1255 (he being aged 22 in 1277). The marriage
settlement of Alice de Bohun provided that if she died without issue,
her maritagium was to return to the Bohun family. That Alice had
issue is made clear from the subsequent history of her maritagium.

I find that the manor of East Coulston, Wiltshire was later used as
part of the maritagium of her daughter, Alice de Bohun, wife of Sir
Walter de Beauchamp, Knt. In 1293 Walter and his wife, Alice,
exchanged lands in East Coulston, Wiltshire with her brother, Ralph de
Tony, for the manor of Cressingham, Norfolk. Meanwhile the manor of
Newton Toney, Wiltshire remained with her brother, Ralph de Tony, and
passed to his descendants. Thus, there can be no question that Ralph
de Tony and his sister, Alice (de Tony) de Beauchamp, were the
children of Alice de Bohun.

In 1334, Alice de Tony, then the aged widow of Walter de Beauchamp,
along with her daughter and son-in-law, Margaret and Robert de Lisle,
were cited by the Pope to appear as a witness regarding the matter of
the consanguinity which existed between her kinsfolk, John de Bohun,
Earl of Hereford and Essex, and his wife, Margaret Basset, both of
whom were Bohun descendants. I've been able to prove that most of the
other people cited to appear by the Pope on this occasion were related
to the Bohun family. For example, one person cited to appear in 1334
was Sir Oliver de Bohun, who I've deternined was a grandson of Sir
Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265). Hawise de Ferrers who was cited to
appear was Hawise de Muscegros, widow of John de Ferrers, who was
likewise a grandson of Sir Humphrey de Bohun (died 1265).

The 1334 record in the Papal Registers may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FNoLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA398&lpg=PA398&dq=Papal+Registers+John+Bohun+Thomas+Mandeville&source=bl&ots=-xQiSk7Xml&sig=N6b3SwvXN7lM5b-E6TBloe01NmM&hl=en&ei=tiucSsCmOdLonQfR9OyVCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I might note that following Alice de Bohun's death, her husband, Roger
de Tony, married (2nd) Isabel _____. By an unknown wife, either Alice
de Bohun or Isabel, he also had a son, Geoffrey de Tony.

For your interest, I've copied below accounts of Alice de Bohun and
her husband, Roger de Tony, and of their son, Ralph de Tony, which are
drawn from the manuscripts of the forthcoming 2nd editions of my two
books, Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry. The new 2nd
editions are scheduled for publication later this fall. I've included
all of my documentation below.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
FAMILY OF ALICE DE BOHUN AND HER HUSBAND, ROGER DE TONY.

I. ALICE DE BOHUN, married by agreement dated 30 June 1239 ROGER DE
TONY (or THONY), of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, Brinkley, Kirtling, Long
Stanton, and Whittlesford, Cambridgeshire, Carnanton (in Mawgan),
Cornwall, South Tawton, Devon, Walthamstow, Essex, Garsington,
Oxfordshire, Painscastle, Radnorshire, Stratford Tony, Wiltshire,
Elmley Lovett, Worcestershire, etc., 2nd but 1st surviving son and
heir of Ralph de Tony, Knt., of Flamstead, Hertfordshire, Blisland and
Carnanton (in Mawgan), Cornwall, Painscastle, Radnorshire, Kirtling,
Cambridgeshire, etc., by Pernel, daughter of Walter de Lacy (or
Lascy), of Weobley, Herefordshire, and lord of Meath, Ireland. He was
born about 29 Sept. 1235; came of age in 1256. Her maritagium
included the manors of Newton Toney and East Coulston, Wiltshire.
They had one son, Ralph, Knt., and one daughter, Alice. His wife,
Alice, was living in 1255. She was buried in Llanthony Abbey. He
married (2nd) after 1255 ISABEL _____. By an uncertain wife, he had a
son, Geoffrey. In 1256 Roger had license to hunt with his own dogs
the hare, fox, cat, and badger in cos. Southampton, Somerset, Dorset
and Wilts. In 1262 he presented to the church of South Tawton,
Devon. He was crossing with the Queen beyond seas in 1262. He was
summoned to be at Hereford Feb. 1262/3 for action against Llywelyn.
He adhered to King Henry III against the Barons. ROGER DE TONY died
shortly before 12 May 1264. His widow, Isabel, was living Feb.
1264/5.

References:

Clutterbuck, Hist. & Antiqs. of Hertford 1 (1815): 354 (Tony
pedigree). Baker, Hist. & Antiqs. of the County of Northampton 1
(1822–1830): 544–545 (Mandeville-Fitz Peter-Bohun pedigree). Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 134–136 (Bohun pedigree in
Llanthony Abbey records: “Alia, vocata Alicia [de Bohun], nupta fuit
domino de Thonye, et quæ Alicia jacet in capitulo prædicto”). Burke,
Dict. of the Peerages… Extinct, Dormant & in Abeyance (1831): 63–65
(sub Bohun). Roberts, Calendarium Genealogicum 1 (1865): 116.
Maclean, Parochial & Family Hist. of the Parish of Blisland (1868): 64–
66 (Tony-Beauchamp pedigree). Jour. British Arch. Assoc. 27 (1871):
179–191. Maclean, Hist. of Trigg Minor 1 (1876): 62–66. Carthew,
Hist. of the Parishes of West & East Bradenham (1883): 126. Chandler,
Five Court Rolls of Great Cressingham (1885): xxviii. Hingeston-
Randolph, Regs. of Walter Bronescombe (A.D. 1257–1280), & Peter Quivil
(A.D. 1280–1291) (1889): 181. Report & Trans. Devonshire Assoc. 2nd
Ser. 4 (1902): 588–592. Moilliet Abberley Manor, Worcestershire
(1905): 29–37. C.P.R. 1232–1247 (1906): 283. C.P.R. 1247–1258
(1908): 503. VCH Hertford 2 (1908): 194 (Tony arms: Argent, a sleeve
gules). C.C.R. 1237–1242 (1911): 422. Lloyd, Hist. of Wales from the
Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest 2 (1912): 730, 736, 740. VCH
Worcester 3 (1913): 196–197; 4 (1924): 232, 332. Cal. Inqs. Misc. 1
(1916): 99–100, 323. Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire (1920): 48–50.
C.P. 12(1) (1953): 771–772 (sub Tony); 14 (1998): 614 (sub Tony). VCH
Sussex 4 (1953): 171–174. Paget, Baronage of England (1957) 73: 1–13
(sub Bohun); 530: 4. VCH Oxford 5 (1957): 138. VCH Essex 6 (1973):
253–254. Sanders, English Baronies (1960): 117–118. VCH Cambridge 6
(1978): 136–137, 265; 9 (1989): 226. Mason, Beauchamp Cartulary
Charters (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 43) (1980): xliij–xlviij, lx (Tosny
pedigree), 214–218. VCH Wiltshire 15 (1995): 146. Britnell,
McFarlane Legacy (1995): 39. Cornwall Record Office: Arundell of
Lanherne and Trerice [AR/3], AR/3/144 (instructions to take assize of
novel disseisin dated 27 Jan. 1264, issued by King Henry III to Ralph
de Arundell, plaintiff, and Roger de Thony, defendant) (abstract of
document available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

Children of Alice de Bohun, by Roger de Tony:

i. RALPH DE TONY, Knt. [see next].

ii. ALICE DE TONY, married WALTER DE BEAUCHAMP, Knt., of Alcester,
Warwickshire [see POWICK 7].

II. RALPH DE TONY (or THONY, THONEY), Knt., of Flamstead,
Hertfordshire, Brinkley, Kirtling, Long Stanton, and Whittlesford,
Cambridgeshire, Carnanton (in Mawgan), Cornwall, Walthamstow, Essex,
Garsington, Oxfordshire, Painscastle, Radnorshire, Newton Toney and
Stratford Tony, Wiltshire, Elmley Lovett, Worcestershire, etc., son
and heir by his father’s 1st marriage, born about 1255 (aged 22 in
1277). His marriage and the custody of his lands were granted to
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, and to Edmund, the
king’s son, respectively, in 1264, but both were afterwards re-granted
to Richard de Brus 8 Aug. 1265. In 1275–1276 an assize of novel
disseisin was arraigned by Roger de Moeles against Richard de Brus and
Ralph de Tony [his ward] touching a tenement in Stanton,
Cambridgeshire. Ralph married before 1276 MARY _____, possibly a
daughter of Robert de Brus, Knt. (nicknamed the Competitor or the
Claimant) (died 1295), Lord of Annandale in Scotland, and Brucebury
(in Kempston), Bedfordshire, Hartlepool, Durham, Writtle and Hatfield
Broadoak, Essex, Conington, Huntingdonshire, Bruces (in Tottenham),
Middlesex, etc. (grand nephew of William the Lion, King of Scotland),
by his 1st wife, Isabel, daughter of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of
Gloucester and Hertford. They had one son, Robert, Knt. [Lord Tony],
and two daughters, Alice and _____ (espoused to Robert Tybotot in
1295). He was actively employed in the Welsh Wars of 1277, 1282–3,
and 1287, and fought in Gascony in 1294. In 1274 he claimed the
assize of bread and ale, free warren, gallows, weifs, and strays in
Little Cressingham, Norfolk. In the period, 1281–1284, as “Ralph de
Tony son and heir of Roger de Tony of Kyrklynge [Kirtling],” he
released to Richard de Chigewelle, of London, a rent payable by the
said Richard for shops in Old Fish Street in the parish of St.
Nicholas Cole Abbey, London. His wife, Mary, was living in 1283. He
was going beyond seas with his cousin, Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of
Hereford and Essex in 1285. In Michaelmas term 1291 an assize came to
make recognition whether Ralph de Tony, Roger de Burghill the elder,
and others unlawfully disseised Maud widow of Roger de Mortimer of her
free tenement in Bridechurch, Disserth, etc., Herefordshire. SIR
RALPH DE TONY was taken prisoner at Risonces in Gascony 31 March
1295. He died testate in Gascony 27 May 1295.

References:

Clutterbuck, Hist. & Antiqs. of Hertford 1 (1815): 354 (Tony
pedigree). Year Books of Edward I 1 (Rolls Ser. 31a) (1866): 146–
149. Maclean, Parochial & Family Hist. of the Parish of Blisland
(1868): 64–66 (Tony-Beauchamp pedigree). Maclean, Hist. of Trigg
Minor 1 (1876): 62–66. Carthew, Hist. of the Parishes of West & East
Bradenham (1883): 126. Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 45 (1885):
316. Chandler, Five Court Rolls of Great Cressingham (1885): xxix.
Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 2 (1894): 276–286 (B.2238). Feudal Aids 1
(1899): 138, 139. Report & Trans. Devonshire Assoc. 2nd Ser. 4
(1902): 588–592. C.C.R. 1288–1296 (1904): 432. Moilliet, Abberley
Manor, Worcestershire (1905): 29–37. VCH Hertford 2 (1908): 194.
C.P. 2 (1912): 358–360 (sub Brus); 12(1) (1953): 773 (sub Tony); 12(2)
(1959): 94 (sub Tybotot). Lloyd, Hist. of Wales from the Earliest
Times to the Edwardian Conquest 2 (1912): 758. VCH Worcester 3
(1913): 106–107. Cal. Inqs. Misc. 1 (1916): 323. Farrer, Feudal
Cambridgeshire (1920): 48–50. VCH Worcester 4 (1924): 332. Sayles,
Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench 2 (Selden Soc. 57) (1938).
VCH Sussex 4 (1953): 171–174. VCH Oxford 5 (1957): 138. Paget,
Baronage of England (1957) 530: 4. Sanders, English Baronies (1960):
117–118. Tremlett et al., Rolls of Arms Henry III (H.S.P. 113-4)
(1967): 134 (arms of Robert de Brus “the Competitor”: Or, a saltire
and a chief gules). VCH Essex 6 (1973): 253–254. Rees, Cal. of
Ancient Petitions Rel. Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist & Law 28)
(1975): 369. VCH Cambridge 6 (1978): 136–137, 265; 9 (1989): 226.
Mason, Beauchamp Cartulary Charters (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 43) (1980):
lx (Tosny pedigree). VCH Wiltshire 15 (1995): 146. Brault, Rolls of
Arms Edward I (1272–1307) 2 (1997): 417 (arms of Ralph de Tony:
Argent, a maunch gules). National Archives, SC 8/75/3747, Petition
dated 1295 from the executors of Ralph de Tony, and Robert son of
Ralph de Tony, to the King. Places mentioned: Gascony, [France];
Wales. Nature of request: The executors of Ralph de Tony state that
the although Ralph de Tony died in Gascony on the Friday in Pentecost
week last [27 May], the news of this only reached England at the
quinzaine of St John [9 July]. The escheator immediately entered his
lands, and wishes to levy the money that Ralph’s attorneys had paid to
his creditors, at Ralph’s command, in the period between his death and
the news reaching England. They request the King’s grace, that they
might not be charged for that period (abstract of document available
online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
Online resource: http:// perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms/rolls/
lordmarshalsLM02.htm (Lord Marshal’s Roll – arms of Ralph de Tony:
Argent a maunch gules).

[royala...@msn.com]

In my earlier post today,

For "part of the maritagium of her daughter, Alice de Bohun, wife of

Sir
Walter de Beauchamp, Knt. "

read "part of the maritagium of her daughter, Alice de Tony, wife of

Sir
Walter de Beauchamp, Knt. "

Sorry for the typo.

DR

[wjhonson]

I just want to again caution about this habit of giving exact dates to
situations for which we really don't know much. We don't have
anything to tell us when Alice was born that exactly. She could have
been born as early as 1226, she could have been born as late as 1239.

If Ralph was her son, since he was aged 22 in 1277 that puts a limit
on how late she could have been born. In addition her own mother died
in 1241.

About the mother, I hesitate to call her Maud d'Eu. Was not her
family the Lusignans? Her father was Count d'Eu but that was j.u. as
his wife, her mother, was the one who carried the title into the
family. Then Maud's brother Ralph carried it off. So I'm not sure we
should call Maud d'Eu at all.

Will Johnson

[royala...@msn.com]

On Aug 31, 6:43 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
< About the mother, I hesitate to call her Maud d'Eu.  Was not her
< family the Lusignans?  Her father was Count d'Eu but that was j.u.
as
< his wife, her mother, was the one who carried the title into the
< family.  Then Maud's brother Ralph carried it off.  So I'm not sure
we
< should call Maud d'Eu at all.
<
< Will Johnson

You're not sure or you don't know? There's a difference.

DR

[DaHoorn]

Didn't Alice de Tony marry Guy de Beauchamp?

[CE Wood]

Alice, wife of Guy was niece of Alice wife of Walter.

CE Wood

[DaHoorn]

On Sep 1, 2:57 pm, CE Wood <wood...@msn.com> wrote:
> Alice, wife of Guy was niece of Alice wife of Walter.
>

Alice de Toeni, Countess of Warwick (26 April 1284 – 1 January 1325)
was a wealthy English heiress and the second wife of Guy de Beauchamp,
10th Earl of Warwick (1272 – 12 August 1315), an English nobleman in
the reign of Kings Edward I and Edward II.

Alice de Toeni was born on 26 April 1284 in Flamsted, Hertfordshire,
the only daughter of Ralph VII de Toeni, Lord Toeni of Flamsted (1255–
1295) and his wife, Mary, about whom nothing is known except that she
was born in Scotland. Alice's paternal grandparents were Roger V de
Toeni, Lord Flamsted and Alice de Bohun. The latter was a daughter of
Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Hereford and Maud de Lusignan.

Click here for more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_de_Toeni

[CE Wood]

There are two Alices. Alice, wife of Walter, was sister to Ralph VII,
who was the father of Alice married to Guy. This elder Alice, married
(disp dated 1289) Walter de Beauchamp, the son of William de Beauchamp
and Isobel Mauduit. Walter was uncle to Guy.

CE Wood

[DaHoorn]

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_de_Toeni- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As Elmer Fudd would say, Wascally Wabbits... Thanks for the
clarification.

[wjho...@aol.com]

<<Alice de Toeni, Countess of Warwick (26 April 1284 – 1 January 1325)>>

I find the exact birthdate suspicious and the death date *on* New
Year's Day probably not defensible. Added to the fact that this is
copied from Wikipedia, with gives no sources for these dates.

Will Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: DaHoorn <sbarn...@mail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: Mary de Bohun, the missing 4th daughter of Humphrey de

Click here for more:

http://e
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_de_Toeni

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

[DaHoorn]

<<I find the exact birthdate suspicious and the death date *on* New
Year's Day probably not defensible.  Added to the fact that this is
copied from Wikipedia, with gives no sources for these dates.>>

Good catch!

My "at home records" show Alice's birthdate as "circa 1283" and died
before 8 Jan 1324/25. I merely copied and pasted the info as a
reference point in time to differentiate the 2 Alices. Sorry to
create confusion.

[royala...@msn.com]

Alice de Tony( wife successively of Guy de Beauchamp, Knt., Earl of
Warwick, and William la Zouche Mortimer, Knt., Lord Zouche), was born
about 1282–5, she being aged 24 or 27 in 1309. She died shortly
before 8 Jan. 1324/5.

She is a separate and distinct person from her aunt of the same name,
Alice de Tony, who married Walter de Beauchamp, Knt.

Both women have many descendants.

The Wikipedia account for the younger Alice de Tony cited by DaHoorn
is mediocre at best. One thing the account stumbles over is the name
of Alice's 2nd husband, William la Zouche Mortimer, who it calls
"William la Zouche de Mortimer."

For instances of the correct style “William la Zouche Mortimer” in
contemporary records, see Horwood, Year Books of Edward III: Years XI
& XII (Roll Ser. 31(6)) (1883): 346–349; Pike, Year Books of Edward
III, Years XIV & XV (Rolls Ser. 31(10)) (1889): 122–125; Reg. of Ralph
of Shrewsbury Bishop of Bath & Wells 1 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 9) (1896):
275, 338; Wrottesley, Crécy & Calais (1898): 100; Pike, Year Books of
Edward III, Years XVIII & XIX (Rolls Ser. 31(17)) (1905): 302–313;
Pike, Year Books of Edward III, Year XIX (Rolls Ser. 31(18)) (1906):
92–95.

Probably other examples could be found.

[Doug Thompson]

<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7b024ebb-666f-4068...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

For instances of the correct style �William la Zouche Mortimer� in

contemporary records, see Horwood, Year Books of Edward III: Years XI

& XII (Roll Ser. 31(6)) (1883): 346�349; Pike, Year Books of Edward
III, Years XIV & XV (Rolls Ser. 31(10)) (1889): 122�125; Reg. of Ralph

of Shrewsbury Bishop of Bath & Wells 1 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 9) (1896):

275, 338; Wrottesley, Cr�cy & Calais (1898): 100; Pike, Year Books of
Edward III, Years XVIII & XIX (Rolls Ser. 31(17)) (1905): 302�313;

Pike, Year Books of Edward III, Year XIX (Rolls Ser. 31(18)) (1906):

92�95.

Probably other examples could be found.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Examples of the alternative "de Mortimer" form can also be found

eg
Fine Rolls April 5th 1332

Grant to William la Zousche de Mortuo Mari and Eleanor his wife,
who are about to go beyond seas by the king's order in the company
of Eleanor the King's sister, that of the 3,666l. 13s. 4d. arrears of the
10,000l. which they acknowledged in Chancery to be due to the king,
they pay at the Exchequer 250 marks at Michaelmas next and Easter
following, and so yearly 500 marks. By K. &
C.

and again
Fine Rolls Jan 30 1333

Grant to William la Zouche de Mortuo Mari and Eleanor his wife
that of the residue of the 3,606 l. 13s. 4d. touching which the king
made a grant to them by letters patent as above, they pay
100 marks at the Exchequers of Easter next and Michaelmas
following, and so yearly 200 marks. By K.

Usage seems consisitent within one set of rols but variable between
different contemporary sources.

Neither usage can be condenmned as incorrect. Genealogical authorities such
as Weiss and Faris use the "de" as do most modern historians so I would not
regard this as an indication of the lack of scholarship of the Wikepedia
author.

Doug Thompson

[royala...@msn.com]

On Sep 2, 2:26 am, "Doug Thompson" <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:

< Neither usage can be condenmned as incorrect. Genealogical
authorities such
< as Weiss and Faris use the "de" as do most modern historians so I
would not
< regard this as an indication of the lack of scholarship of the
Wikepedia
< author.
<
< Doug Thompson

Except that William la Zouche Mortimer himself condemned the other
form. At one point he stated that a writ addressed to him was
invalid as it did not use the correct form of his name which he said
was "la Zouche Mortimer."

The same is still true today. If a writ was addressed to you as David
Thomson, it would be totally invalid.

Accuracy in legal matters counted back in medieval times, just as it
does today. I should think that accuracy should also matter to you
in genealogical matters.

If you need it, here is another reference to him being called "William
la Zouche Mortimer":

Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 394.

This may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FNoLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA394&dq=%22William+la+Zouche+Mortimer%22#v=onepage&q=%22William%20la%20Zouche%20Mortimer%22&f=false

[John]

On Sep 2, 12:30 pm, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:26 am, "Doug Thompson" <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> < Neither usage can be condenmned as incorrect. Genealogical
> authorities such
> < as Weiss and Faris use the "de" as do most modern historians so I
> would not
> < regard this as an indication of the lack of scholarship of the
> Wikepedia
> < author.
> <
> < Doug Thompson
>
> Except that William la Zouche Mortimer himself condemned the other
> form.    At one point he stated that a writ addressed to him was
> invalid as it did not use the correct form of his name which he said
> was "la Zouche Mortimer."
>

And your source for this statement is......???

[Doug]

On 2 Sep, 20:30, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2:26 am, "Doug Thompson" <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> < Neither usage can be condenmned as incorrect. Genealogical
> authorities such
> < as Weiss and Faris use the "de" as do most modern historians so I
> would not
> < regard this as an indication of the lack of scholarship of the
> Wikepedia
> < author.
> <
> < Doug Thompson
>
> Except that William la Zouche Mortimer himself condemned the other
> form.    At one point he stated that a writ addressed to him was
> invalid as it did not use the correct form of his name which he said
> was "la Zouche Mortimer."
>
> The same is still true today.  If a writ was addressed to you as David
> Thomson, it would be totally invalid.
>
> Accuracy in legal matters counted back in medieval times, just as it
> does today.   I should think that accuracy should also matter to you
> in genealogical matters.
>
> If you need it, here is another reference to him being called "William
> la Zouche Mortimer":
>
> Papal Regs.: Letters 2 (1895): 394.
>
> This may be viewed at the following weblink:
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=FNoLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA394&dq=%22William+...

>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

That's an interesting point Douglas. But it was a common ploy in
medieval (and modern) times to bring up a supposed fault in an address
to invalidate a writ. The event actually shows that he was commonly
addressed as William la Zouche de Mortimer (whether he liked it or
not!). Besides the instances in the fine rolls, the close rolls
regularly refer to him as William la Zouche de Mortimer, so, since
that is the way he was addressed by the king, he probably had to
accept it!

The main point is that there is no such thing as a corrrect name for a
medieval person; they were referred to in many ways in different
documents and we need to recognise all of them as the same person.

The way you choose to refer to a particular person in your files is a
matter for your personal choice and it is sometimes interesting to
hear your reasons for your choice, but it is not necessary to try to
impose your idiosyncratic choices on others, especially when you are
the one out of step with the great majority of writers.

It would be interesting to know from the assertion you make whether he
actually asked to be addressed as "William"? Or did he use another
form of the name? Can you give a reference. (No citation - no weblink
but I decided not to ignore it!)

Regards

Doug Thompson

[Patricia A. Junkin]

Most of my references refer to this William as William la (or le)
Zouche Mortimer. His brother Hugh as Hugh de Mortimer. In a 1338 Quare
impedit, William is misidentified as Walter but the form used is
Walter le Zouche Mortimer.
This may be of no help but I seem to have a consistent naming.
Pat

[royala...@msn.com]

On Sep 2, 3:55 pm, Doug <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:

< It would be interesting to know from the assertion you make whether
he
< actually asked to be addressed as "William"? Or did he use another
< form of the name? Can you give a reference. (No citation - no
weblink
< but I decided not to ignore it!)
<
< Regards
<
< Doug Thompson

Can I give you another reference to William la Zouche Mortimer?

Sure, here's another one from the Patent Rolls:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e3v3/body/Edward3vol3page0555.pdf

[Doug Thompson]

No. You misunderstood it seems. We have plenty of references to the
use of the forms William la Zouche Mortimer and William la Zouch de
Mortimer.

You made m assertion, unsupported by reference, that William had
maintained that his preferred form was William la Zouche Mortimer.
That was the reference I was asking for.

As you rightly say frequently, unsupported assertions are worthless,
so please let us know where your assertion comes from.

Regards

Doug Thompson

[royala...@msn.com]

On Sep 2, 5:33 pm, Doug Thompson <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:

< You made m assertion, unsupported by reference, that William had
< maintained that his preferred form was William la Zouche Mortimer.
< That was the reference I was asking for.
<
< As you rightly say frequently, unsupported assertions are worthless,
< so please let us know where your assertion comes from.
<
< Regards
<
< Doug Thompson

I assume you've checked all the citations that I've already provided
to you. Is that correct?

As far as the correct address in a writ, it was not entirely a legal
ploy as you suggest. William la Zouche Mortimer had a right to be
addressed in that style, if that was the name he employed during his
adult life. If he was incorrectly addressed in a writ, he had a right
to ask that the writ be denied. Then the legal process had to start
all over again.

As I stated earlier, if a writ was incorrectly addressed to you as
David Thomson, it would also be invalid today. If you complained
about the incorrect address in such a writ, a judge would rule in your
favor. You seemed to have dodged that point.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John]

We're clearly not going to get an answer to the straightforward
question, now asked politely twice, of what specific reference
supports the assertion that the man in question preferred the form of
William la Zouche Mortimer and, in particular, that he objected to the
form of William la Zouche "de" Mortimer (rather than some other form)
- which is the issue here. There also has been no evidence provided
for the assertion that this was not just a legal ploy as Doug Thompson
has suggested.

So who exactly is dodging the point here?

[Doug Thompson]

It's not an important issue for me, Douglas, whether we call William
by either form of his name.. But I'm disappointed in you,. You have
not lived up to the standards that you require of others.

Since you seem unable to provide the reference in question, we just
have to disregard this piece of "evidence" and are left with the
conclusion that his name was given in many ways in many documents and
he answered to all of them at different times.

How William is referred to in modern texts, however, is a choice for
modern writers and you seem to be the one out of step here. That's
your choice.

This thread started because you were making a useful contribution to
our knowledge and I welcome that along with your many other
interesting discussion topics. I don't think continuing this topic
will add to anyone's knowledge. We have covered the ground now.
(Unless you come up with that reference - I really am interested!)

Best wishes

Doug Thompson

[royala...@msn.com]

On Sep 3, 3:59 am, Doug Thompson <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:

< It's not an important issue for me, Douglas, whether we call William
< by either form of his name.. But I'm disappointed in you,. You have
< not lived up to the standards that you require of others.

You're disappointed easily, Doug.

I suggest you go to a good law library and look up the references I
already gave you. You should have your answer.

[Doug Thompson]

I do have a good law library handy Douglas and I have read ALL your
references. Not one of them has any bearing on the question asked!

But I went further and searched for the reference that you are
unwilling to divulge - and you are right! I do have my answer!

You avoided giving the reference because you must have misrembered its
content. Far from supporting your case it actually destroys it.

Ther are two cases, reported together. In the first mentioned, a writ
of Praecipe quod reddat is issued against Ralph, le Fitz William la
Zouche Mortymer. A Protection was put forward by Ralph's side in the
name Radulfum filium Willelmi la Zouche de Mortuo Mari. The protection
was disallowed because the name did not match that on the original
writ.

As you can see it is Ralph using the DE and his opponents neglecting
to use it. (William himself is not there to take a view since he is
dead!)

However the next note related by the roll is about the judges
referring to a similar case which did concern William.

A writ was brought against W. de la Souche de Mortimer. William sought
a Protection using the name W. Souche de Mortuo Mari. The protection
was disallowed because the names did not match.
"
William himself is using the form "Souche DE Mortimer". The other side
had used the form " DE la Souche DE Mortimer. It was the first DE that
he didn't use.

But in neither case is Ralph or William claiming advantage because the
other side used the wrong name as you asserted. It is Ralph and
William who lose out by using a DIFFERENT name. And in both cases thay
use the name with DE Mortimer.

After this brief digression into the legal jungle I think we should
say CASE CLOSED!

By the way, for those who are interested, the reference you need to
look at is

Year books of the reign of King Edward the Third, Years XII and XIII,
(Roll Ser. 31(7)) Luke Owen Pike, 1885. pages 128 - 130.

Best wishes

Doug Thompson

[royala...@msn.com]

Doug ~

There is apparently yet another suit in print involving William la
Zouche Mortimer himself, in which he stated the writ was wrongly
directed to him as it wasn't addressed to him as "William la Zouche
Mortimer." You apparently missed the lawsuit. If it was not included
in my references, then you have my apology. I've seen the suit in the
past. It is NOT the same lawsuit which you found in which a writ was
issued against Ralph le Fitz William la Zouche Mortymer [that is,
Ralph son of William la Zouche Mortymer].

In the second case you cited, if the protection was denied because it
didn't match the writ, it presumes that William would have had to use
a form that was the same or similar to the writ. That doesn't mean
that he himself did or didn't use "William la Zouche Mortimer" as his
name. You've interpreted it to mean that he used the name "W. Souche
de Mortuo Mari" which which isn't necessarily the case. He would have
had to follow the name given in the writ. In any case, a lawyer
presumably filled out the request for the protection for him. It
would not be the first time a lawyer improperly filled out legal
papers for a client.

In any case, you've proved my chief point that name forms mattered in
medieval times, just as they do now. If a request for protection was
denied because it didn't match the writ (which you've shown is the
case), that is similar to William la Zouche Mortimer asking that a
writ de denied because it was wrongly addressed to him under a
different name. It's the same principle.

Now that we've addressed the two lawsuits you found, what about the
several others I cited for you? You've ignored them. Why?

You've also declared that the "case is closed." The case is never
closed in medieval genealogy and history, Doug. There's always yet
another document which sheds more light on the unique social
conventions of the time period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sep 3, 10:06 am, Doug Thompson <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:
> On 3 Sep, 14:48, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 3:59 am, Doug Thompson <doug.thomp...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > < It's not an important issue for me, Douglas, whether we call William
> > < by either form of his name.. But I'm disappointed in you,. You have
> > < not lived up to the standards that you require of others.
>
> > You're disappointed easily, Doug.
>
> > I suggest you go to a good law library and look up the references I
> > already gave you.  You should have your answer.
>
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> I do have a good law library handy Douglas and I have read ALL your
> references. Not one of them has any bearing on the question asked!
>
> But I went further and searched for the reference that you are
> unwilling to divulge - and you are right! I do have my answer!
>
> You avoided giving the reference because you must have misrembered its
> content. Far from supporting your case it actually destroys it.
>
>

[taf]

On Sep 3, 10:00 am, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> Doug ~
>
> There is apparently yet another suit in print involving William la
> Zouche Mortimer himself, in which he stated the writ was wrongly
> directed to him as it wasn't addressed to him as "William la Zouche
> Mortimer."  You apparently missed the lawsuit.  If it was not included
> in my references, then you have my apology.  I've seen the suit in the
> past.

Given that you have been unable to provide a reference, and now say
you can't, 'take my word for it' is not very persuasive.

> In the second case you cited, if the protection was denied because it
> didn't match the writ, it presumes that William would have had to use
> a form that was the same or similar to the writ.  That doesn't mean
> that he himself did or didn't use "William la Zouche Mortimer" as his
> name.  You've interpreted it to mean that he used the name "W. Souche
> de Mortuo Mari" which which isn't necessarily the case.  He would have
> had to follow the name given in the writ.

Which blows a big hole in the entire 'the one he used is THE correct
form of the name' argument.

> In any case, you've proved my chief point that name forms mattered in
> medieval times, just as they do now.

No. That does not prove that name forms mattered with respect to
naming individuals, only that within a specific case, everything had
to match, even if it was wrong. An entire case could be fought under
a non-preferred name simply because that is what was first used. Looks
to me like they didn't think the form used mattered at all, just
internal consistency.

>  If a request for protection was
> denied because it didn't match the writ (which you've shown is the
> case), that is similar to William la Zouche Mortimer asking that a
> writ de denied because it was wrongly addressed to him under a
> different name.   It's the same principle.

No, it is not the same principle. One says 'we don't care what you
call yourself - for the purposes of this case you must use a form you
don't use'. The other (if it even exists) says 'we care what you call
yourself - so if the case uses a different form it is void'. These
are, in fact, polar opposites.

You started this by parading out the old gem that there is supposedly
a single most correct form of a medieval name - that which the
individual used. Now you try to claim support from a document that
tells the individual that he is using the incorrect form. That is
ironic, to say the least.

taf

[royala...@msn.com]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Sep 3, 12:04 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 10:00 am, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > Doug ~
>
> > There is apparently yet another suit in print involving William la
> > Zouche Mortimer himself, in which he stated the writ was wrongly
> > directed to him as it wasn't addressed to him as "William la Zouche
> > Mortimer."  You apparently missed the lawsuit.  If it was not included
> > in my references, then you have my apology.  I've seen the suit in the
> > past.
>
> Given that you have been unable to provide a reference, and now say
> you can't, 'take my word for it' is not very persuasive.

You're entirely welcome to look for the reference yourself. I know it
exists. You're also welcome to find and post the numerous citations I
gave which showed that this individual occurs regularly in
contemporary records as "William la Zouche Mortimer." If you need
me to post my citations again (with still more examples), I'll be
happy to do that for you.

> > In the second case you cited, if the protection was denied because it
> > didn't match the writ, it presumes that William would have had to use
> > a form that was the same or similar to the writ.  That doesn't mean
> > that he himself did or didn't use "William la Zouche Mortimer" as his
> > name.  You've interpreted it to mean that he used the name "W. Souche
> > de Mortuo Mari" which which isn't necessarily the case.  He would have
> > had to follow the name given in the writ.
>
> Which blows a big hole in the entire 'the one he used is THE correct
> form of the name' argument.

Not at all, taf. What is true is that William la Zouche Mortimer
occurs in records of the period as William la Zouche, William la
Zouche Mortimer, William la Zouche de Mortimer, etc. What style he
personally used is the issue I addressed. He said in the lawsuit an
abstract of which I saw that his name was William la Zouche Mortimer.
Over the years I've found many instances of his name in that form in
contemporary records. I'm sure still more can be found if you look
for them. What other people called him doesn't matter much.

We've seen in the case of the Botetourt family that male members of
this family never used a "de" with their name on their personal
seals. Yet, if one looks far and wide, one can find an occasional
reference to a stray "de Botetourt" in contemporary records. Ditto
the Longespee family.

< > In any case, you've proved my chief point that name forms mattered
in
< > medieval times, just as they do now.
<
< No. That does not prove that name forms mattered with respect to
< naming individuals, only that within a specific case, everything had
< to match, even if it was wrong.  

You're clearly not talking about legal matters. My point was that the
name in the writ had to match the man's regular name. Doug pointed
out that a protection was denied because it didn't match the name in a
writ. We often think that spelling and forms of names was fluid in
the medieval time period. And, to a large degree, they were. But not
always as Doug's citation proves. A request for a protection had to
match the name given in a writ, for example. That was point I was
making.

< >  If a request for protection was
< > denied because it didn't match the writ (which you've shown is the
< > case), that is similar to William la Zouche Mortimer asking that a
< > writ de denied because it was wrongly addressed to him under a
< > different name.   It's the same principle.
<
< No, it is not the same principle.  

Yes, it's the same principle. In the case of William la Zouche
Mortimer, it was important that the correct individual be summoned as
there were several other William la Zouche's in this time period. If
the wrong man was brought to court, and, it was found that wrong
individual had been sued, then the legal proceedings were voided and
the lawsuit had to start all over again. That's basic medieval law.

William la Zouche Mortimer's insistence that the writ addressed to him
under another form be denied was a perfectly legal claim. Then and
now.

In any case, we're getting your opinions, taf, and no evidence, no
sources, no weblinks. Your opinion is nice but doesn't mean much if
it's not backed up by evidence. When you reply, please cite some
evidence, sources, or weblinks.

> taf

DR

[Doug Thompson]

On 3 Sep, 18:00, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> Doug ~
>
> There is apparently yet another suit in print involving William la
> Zouche Mortimer himself, in which he stated the writ was wrongly
> directed to him as it wasn't addressed to him as "William la Zouche
> Mortimer."  You apparently missed the lawsuit.  

Have we descended into farce now?

There is something that agrees with you somewhere - you don't know
where - I am accused of missing it!
(While I found cases showing the complete opposite).

> In the second case you cited, if the protection was denied because it
> didn't match the writ, it presumes that William would have had to use
> a form that was the same or similar to the writ.  That doesn't mean
> that he himself did or didn't use "William la Zouche Mortimer" as his
> name.  You've interpreted it to mean that he used the name "W. Souche
> de Mortuo Mari" which which isn't necessarily the case.  He would have
> had to follow the name given in the writ.  

No. You are failing to read properly. No interpretation. That's the
form he used.

 If a request for protection was
> denied because it didn't match the writ (which you've shown is the
> case), that is similar to William la Zouche Mortimer asking that a
> writ de denied because it was wrongly addressed to him under a
> different name.   It's the same principle.

No. It is not. And this case you keep mentioning seems to exist in
your imagination only!

> Now that we've addressed the two lawsuits you found, what about the
> several others I cited for you?  You've ignored them.  Why?

No. If you read carefully you would have seen I examined every one of
them. Not one is relevant to the argument.
Yes. The form Zouche Mortimer is used by the recording clerk in those
cases. But the form Zouche de Mortimer is used by many clerks on many
other occasions.

The names used to summon him to Parlament might be taken as his
"official" name. He was summoned as William la Zouche at first, until
he was granted the barony of Mortimer. Then he was summoned a couple
of times as William la Zouche of Richards Castle, followed by a string
of summonses as Wiiliam la Zouche de Mortimer. (None as William la
Zouche Mortimer)
I suppose you might suggest he ignored all these summonses because he
didn't like the name.??

> You've also declared that the "case is closed."  The case is never
> closed in medieval genealogy and history, Doug.   There's always yet
> another document which sheds more light on the unique social
> conventions of the time period.

But we use the ones that exist - not imagination!

The evidence has been made clear during our discussion for any
observer to come to a conclusion.

The case is closed (unless new evidence comes forward).

Best wishes

Doug Thompson

[taf]

On Sep 3, 12:08 pm, royalances...@msn.com wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below.  DR
>
> On Sep 3, 12:04 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:

> > Given that you have been unable to provide a reference, and now say
> > you can't, 'take my word for it' is not very persuasive.
>
> You're entirely welcome to look for the reference yourself.

This is the rough equivalent of saying "I saw a unicorn - don't
remember where or when, but you are more than welcome to go look for
it. Sorry, but until the person claiming it exists comes up with the
evidence, it remains a myth.

> I know it exists.

Obviously not, or you could prove it.

> You're also welcome to find and post the numerous citations I
> gave which showed that this individual occurs regularly in
> contemporary records as "William la Zouche Mortimer."  

Again, I am not going to do your work for you. If this evidence is
necessary to make your point, and you can't be bothered, then it is
your point that doesn't get made.

> If you need
> me to post my citations again (with still more examples), I'll be
> happy to do that for you.

You never have gotten past this 'examples make a rule' fallacy, have
you?

>
> He said in the lawsuit an
> abstract of which I saw that his name was William la Zouche Mortimer.

Says you, but 'take my word for it' is not the level of scholarship
you demand from others, so why the double standard?

> Over the years I've found many instances of his name in that form in
> contemporary records.

Examples do not a rule make.

> < > In any case, you've proved my chief point that name forms mattered
> in
> < > medieval times, just as they do now.
> <
> < No. That does not prove that name forms mattered with respect to
> < naming individuals, only that within a specific case, everything had
> < to match, even if it was wrong.  
>
> You're clearly not talking about legal matters.

Oh, but I am.

> My point was that the
> name in the writ had to match the man's regular name.  Doug pointed
> out that a protection was denied because it didn't match the name in a
> writ.

Nice way to gloss over the conflict, but it is fatally flawed. He used
a form different than the writ. If the writ had to use man's regular
name, then he used a form different than his regular name. 'Regular'
loses any consistent meaning.

> <
> < No, it is not the same principle.  
>
> Yes, it's the same principle.  In the case of William la Zouche
> Mortimer, it was important that the correct individual be summoned as
> there were several other William la Zouche's in this time period.

The mythical case you mean.

>  If
> the wrong man was brought to court, and, it was found that wrong
> individual had been sued, then the legal proceedings were voided and
> the lawsuit had to start all over again.   That's basic medieval law.
>

Modern too, but that a proceeding against the wrong man is void is
hardly the issue at hand.

> William la Zouche Mortimer's insistence that the writ addressed to him
> under another form be denied was a perfectly legal claim.  Then and
> now.

Just as is a claim of an illegal search, but don't confuse that with
innocence. That he, supposedly, was able to pull this legal maneuver
by claiming he had a 'right' form, and elsewhere got shut out for
using a 'right' form, just shows you that this was more about
legalities than realities.

>
> In any case, we're getting your opinions, taf, and no evidence, no
> sources, no weblinks.  Your opinion is nice but doesn't mean much if
> it's not backed up by evidence.

Ah, yes. Whenever pressed, this is your typical fallback. All opinions
are not created equal. Those of Douglas are expected by him to be
accepted at face value, without evidence. (remember - "I know it
exists" from earlier in this post)

Other people, however, are not so fortunate, it being demanded that
they provide the evidence Douglas cannot. The same old pathetic
double standard that, while dressed in the language of scholarly
discussion is really nothing more than an attempt by him to silence
differing opinion even though it is no less well supported than his
own speculations.

taf