Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Addition: Alice (or Aleise) Arundel, wife of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton
460 views
Skip to first unread message
celticp...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2019, 3:25:19 PM6/7/19
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
There has been much debate online and in print regarding the allegation that Henry Beaufort, Cardinal Beaufort [died 1447], had an illegitimate daughter, Joan, by Alice Arundel, the daughter of Richard de Arundel [died 1397], Earl of Arundel and Surrey. After studying the matter in depth, I previously arrived at the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that Alice Arundel was the mother of the bishop's daughter, Joan (Beaufort) Stradling. Yet since so little was known about Alice Arundel, it seemed impossible to arrive at any safe conclusions about her life. Her date of birth, the date of her known marriage to John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and her death date were all unknown.
Recently as I was going through Common Pleas lawsuits, I encountered not one but two lawsuits which involve John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton [died 1401], and his wife, Alice Arundel. The evidence proves conclusively that this couple were married as minors before Easter term 1376 (date of the lawsuits), a full 17 years before the previously known date that this couple were married. The lawsuits reveal that Alice's name is actually Aleise [Latin form: Alesia/Alesie], not Alice. They also provide confirmation that Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was her father. The discovery of these lawsuits means it is virtually impossible that Aleise Arundel was the mother of Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter, Joan.
Below are abstracts of the two lawsuits in question:
1. In Easter term 1376 Gilbert Talbot, Knt., and Joan his wife sued John son of John de Cherleton and Aleise his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of the commote of Arwystli, Montgomeryshire, North Wales, which the said Joan claimed by the dotation of John de Cherleton of Powys, knight, her former husband. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1304d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1304.htm).
Note: Joan, wife of Gilbert Talbot, was the mother of John son of John de Cherleton.
2. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1699d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1699.htm).
This is evidently a continuation of the earlier lawsuit. The defendants John and Aleise replied by their guardians that his father John de Cherleton granted the younger John and Aleise his wife, daughter of Richard son of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, the commote in question, to them and to their heirs.
+ + + + + + +
As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period. When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name. For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and his wife, Aleise Arundel. Because the name form Aleise eventually morphed into Alice, for simplicity sake, in my account below, I refer to Aleise Arundel as "Alice (or Aleise)."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + +
JOHN CHERLETON (or CHARLETON), 4th Lord Cherleton, feudal lord of Powis, Montgomeryshire, of Pole (Welshpool), Montgomeryshire, Charlton (in Wrockwardine) and Pontesbury, Shropshire, etc., Justice of North Wales, 1388, son and heir, born 25 April 1362. He married before Easter term 1376 (date of lawsuit) ALICE (or ALEISE) ARUNDEL, daughter of Richard de Arundel, K.G., 11th Earl of Arundel, 10th Earl of Surrey, Chief Butler of England, Admiral of the West and North, 1386, Admiral and Lieutenant of the king on the Seas, 1387, Admiral of England, 1387–9, Lieutenant and Captain-General of the Fleet at Sea, 1388, by his 1st wife, Elizabeth, daughter of William de Bohun, K.G., 1st Earl of Northampton [see FITZ ALAN 12 for her ancestry]. They had no issue. In 1376 Gilbert Talbot, Knt., and Joan his wife sued John son of John de Cherleton and Aleise his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of the comnote of Arwystli, Montgomeryshire, North Wales, which the said Joan claimed as dower by the dotation of John de Cherleton of Powys, knight, her former husband. In 1378 the king presented to the church of Lydham, Shropshire, by reason of the custody of the land and heir of John de Charleton being in his hands. He was summoned to Parliament from 9 August 1382 to 3 October 1400, by writs directed Johanni de Cherleton, or Cherleton de Powys. In 1383 he petitioned the king requesting that he be restored to the manor of Plas Dinas, Montgomeryshire, Wales in the king’s hands following the forfeiture of Owain son of Thomas Rothryk. He presented to the churches of Pontesbury, Shropshire, 1387, and Lydham, Shropshire, 1392. His wife, Alice, was a legatee in the 1393 will of her father. JOHN CHERLETON was killed in battle at Pool 19 October 1401. He left a will dated 1395. His wife, Alice, died without legitimate issue sometime before 13 October 1415.
References:
Nichols, Collection of All the Wills (1780): 120–144 (will of Richard, Earl of Arundel & Surrey). Manning & Bray, Hist. & Antiqs. of Surrey 1 (1804): facing 553 (Warenne-Arundel ped.). Evans, Beauties of England & Wales 17(1) (1812): 789–798. Nicolas Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 129–134 (will of Richard, Earl of Arundel & Surrey). Dallaway, Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2(1) (1832): 134, 142. Tierney, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 1 (1834): chart foll.192. Nicolas, Procs. & Ordinances of the Privy Council of England 5 (1835): 176. Coll. Top. et Gen. 6 (1840): 20, footnote f [“Vincent says she (Alice) was married to Cardinal (Henry) Beaufort, before he was in orders, and had a daughter, Jane, married to Sir Edward Stradling (Vinc[ent] upon Brooke: 27), and, quotes as his authority, Dr. Powell’s treatise of the Conquest of Glamorganshire… In the pedigrees of Stradling (Vinc[ent] “Chaos”: 118, and Le Neve’s Baronetsi: 5.), Sir Edward Stradling is said to marry Jane, daughter of Henry Beaufort, where Alice Fitzalan is given to the Cardinal as a wife. Sandford and Le Neve style her base daughter”). Collectanea Arch. 1 (1862): 230 (Cherleton ped.). Hutchins, Hist. & Antiqs. of Dorset 3 (1868): 322–323 (Arundel ped.). Jones, Feudal Barons of Powys (1868): 1 (Cherleton ped.), 3–43. Arch. Cambrensis 5th Ser. 1 (1884): 219–221 (Fitzalan ped.). Sussex Arch. Colls. 35 (1887): 11 (chart); 41 (1898): 79–94. C.P.R. 1377–1381 (1895): 289. C.P.R. 1385–1389 (1900): 415 (John, lord of Cherleton and Powys, styled “king’s kinsman” in 1388). Bradney, Hist. of Monmouthshire 2(1) (1911): 25–28 (Somerset ped.). Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 161 (sub Cherleton); 14 (1998): 39. Harrison, Royal Anc. of George Leib Harrison 2 (1914): 28–42. Tout, Chapters in the Administratve Hist. of Mediæval England 6 (1933): 61. Salzman, Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes 2 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 40) (1934): 19–21. Legge, Anglo-Norman Letters & Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941): 87–88 (Richard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, styled “father” and Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, styled “uncle” by John Cherleton in letter dated 1396), 292–293 (letter of John Cherleton dated 1401). Jones, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300–1541 4 (1963): 45–47. Foundations 1 (2004): 246–268. Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1304d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1304.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1699d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1699.htm). National Archives, SC 8/223/11105 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
There has been much debate online and in print regarding the allegation that Henry Beaufort, Cardinal Beaufort [died 1447], had an illegitimate daughter, Joan, by Alice Arundel, the daughter of Richard de Arundel [died 1397], Earl of Arundel and Surrey. After studying the matter in depth, I previously arrived at the conclusion that it was highly unlikely that Alice Arundel was the mother of the bishop's daughter, Joan (Beaufort) Stradling. Yet since so little was known about Alice Arundel, it seemed impossible to arrive at any safe conclusions about her life. Her date of birth, the date of her known marriage to John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and her death date were all unknown.
Recently as I was going through Common Pleas lawsuits, I encountered not one but two lawsuits which involve John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton [died 1401], and his wife, Alice Arundel. The evidence proves conclusively that this couple were married as minors before Easter term 1376 (date of the lawsuits), a full 17 years before the previously known date that this couple were married. The lawsuits reveal that Alice's name is actually Aleise [Latin form: Alesia/Alesie], not Alice. They also provide confirmation that Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was her father. The discovery of these lawsuits means it is virtually impossible that Aleise Arundel was the mother of Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter, Joan.
Below are abstracts of the two lawsuits in question:
1. In Easter term 1376 Gilbert Talbot, Knt., and Joan his wife sued John son of John de Cherleton and Aleise his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of the commote of Arwystli, Montgomeryshire, North Wales, which the said Joan claimed by the dotation of John de Cherleton of Powys, knight, her former husband. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1304d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1304.htm).
Note: Joan, wife of Gilbert Talbot, was the mother of John son of John de Cherleton.
2. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1699d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1699.htm).
This is evidently a continuation of the earlier lawsuit. The defendants John and Aleise replied by their guardians that his father John de Cherleton granted the younger John and Aleise his wife, daughter of Richard son of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, the commote in question, to them and to their heirs.
+ + + + + + +
As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period. When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name. For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and his wife, Aleise Arundel. Because the name form Aleise eventually morphed into Alice, for simplicity sake, in my account below, I refer to Aleise Arundel as "Alice (or Aleise)."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + +
JOHN CHERLETON (or CHARLETON), 4th Lord Cherleton, feudal lord of Powis, Montgomeryshire, of Pole (Welshpool), Montgomeryshire, Charlton (in Wrockwardine) and Pontesbury, Shropshire, etc., Justice of North Wales, 1388, son and heir, born 25 April 1362. He married before Easter term 1376 (date of lawsuit) ALICE (or ALEISE) ARUNDEL, daughter of Richard de Arundel, K.G., 11th Earl of Arundel, 10th Earl of Surrey, Chief Butler of England, Admiral of the West and North, 1386, Admiral and Lieutenant of the king on the Seas, 1387, Admiral of England, 1387–9, Lieutenant and Captain-General of the Fleet at Sea, 1388, by his 1st wife, Elizabeth, daughter of William de Bohun, K.G., 1st Earl of Northampton [see FITZ ALAN 12 for her ancestry]. They had no issue. In 1376 Gilbert Talbot, Knt., and Joan his wife sued John son of John de Cherleton and Aleise his wife in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the third part of the comnote of Arwystli, Montgomeryshire, North Wales, which the said Joan claimed as dower by the dotation of John de Cherleton of Powys, knight, her former husband. In 1378 the king presented to the church of Lydham, Shropshire, by reason of the custody of the land and heir of John de Charleton being in his hands. He was summoned to Parliament from 9 August 1382 to 3 October 1400, by writs directed Johanni de Cherleton, or Cherleton de Powys. In 1383 he petitioned the king requesting that he be restored to the manor of Plas Dinas, Montgomeryshire, Wales in the king’s hands following the forfeiture of Owain son of Thomas Rothryk. He presented to the churches of Pontesbury, Shropshire, 1387, and Lydham, Shropshire, 1392. His wife, Alice, was a legatee in the 1393 will of her father. JOHN CHERLETON was killed in battle at Pool 19 October 1401. He left a will dated 1395. His wife, Alice, died without legitimate issue sometime before 13 October 1415.
References:
Nichols, Collection of All the Wills (1780): 120–144 (will of Richard, Earl of Arundel & Surrey). Manning & Bray, Hist. & Antiqs. of Surrey 1 (1804): facing 553 (Warenne-Arundel ped.). Evans, Beauties of England & Wales 17(1) (1812): 789–798. Nicolas Testamenta Vetusta 1 (1826): 129–134 (will of Richard, Earl of Arundel & Surrey). Dallaway, Hist. of the Western Div. of Sussex 2(1) (1832): 134, 142. Tierney, Hist. & Antiqs. of the Castle & Town of Arundel 1 (1834): chart foll.192. Nicolas, Procs. & Ordinances of the Privy Council of England 5 (1835): 176. Coll. Top. et Gen. 6 (1840): 20, footnote f [“Vincent says she (Alice) was married to Cardinal (Henry) Beaufort, before he was in orders, and had a daughter, Jane, married to Sir Edward Stradling (Vinc[ent] upon Brooke: 27), and, quotes as his authority, Dr. Powell’s treatise of the Conquest of Glamorganshire… In the pedigrees of Stradling (Vinc[ent] “Chaos”: 118, and Le Neve’s Baronetsi: 5.), Sir Edward Stradling is said to marry Jane, daughter of Henry Beaufort, where Alice Fitzalan is given to the Cardinal as a wife. Sandford and Le Neve style her base daughter”). Collectanea Arch. 1 (1862): 230 (Cherleton ped.). Hutchins, Hist. & Antiqs. of Dorset 3 (1868): 322–323 (Arundel ped.). Jones, Feudal Barons of Powys (1868): 1 (Cherleton ped.), 3–43. Arch. Cambrensis 5th Ser. 1 (1884): 219–221 (Fitzalan ped.). Sussex Arch. Colls. 35 (1887): 11 (chart); 41 (1898): 79–94. C.P.R. 1377–1381 (1895): 289. C.P.R. 1385–1389 (1900): 415 (John, lord of Cherleton and Powys, styled “king’s kinsman” in 1388). Bradney, Hist. of Monmouthshire 2(1) (1911): 25–28 (Somerset ped.). Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 161 (sub Cherleton); 14 (1998): 39. Harrison, Royal Anc. of George Leib Harrison 2 (1914): 28–42. Tout, Chapters in the Administratve Hist. of Mediæval England 6 (1933): 61. Salzman, Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes 2 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 40) (1934): 19–21. Legge, Anglo-Norman Letters & Petitions (Anglo-Norman Text Soc. 3) (1941): 87–88 (Richard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, styled “father” and Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, styled “uncle” by John Cherleton in letter dated 1396), 292–293 (letter of John Cherleton dated 1401). Jones, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300–1541 4 (1963): 45–47. Foundations 1 (2004): 246–268. Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1304d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1304.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/462, image 1699d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/E3/CP40no462/bCP40no462dorses/IMG_1699.htm). National Archives, SC 8/223/11105 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).
Brad Verity
Jun 10, 2019, 4:24:15 AM6/10/19
to
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:25:19 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
John Cherleton the father died on 13 July 1374, so he had to have granted the Montgomeryshire property of Arwystli to his young son and daughter-in-law before that date.
This supports the fact that one week after the death of the elder John Cherleton, the Earl of Arundel (Alice's father) was granted the Cherleton lands to hold until John Cherleton the younger came of age. The standard procedure was to grant the marriage of the minor heir along with the lands. The Earl of Arundel was not granted the marriage of the younger John Cherleton, along with his lands, because the younger John was already married to Arundel's daughter Alice.
20 July 1374, Westminster. “Commitment to Richard Darundell, ‘chivaler,’ of the wardship of all the manors and lands of John de Cherleton of Powys, knight, who held in chief, with the issues since John’s death, to hold until the lawful age of the heir, rendering the extent thereof yearly at the Exchequer by egual portions at Michaelmas and Easter; provided that he keeps the premises without waste and destruction, and sustain the real services and other charges incumbent thereon.” [Cal Fine Rolls 1368-1377, p. 256]
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066344857&view=1up&seq=264
I pointed this out 15 years ago in my article 'A Non-Affair To Remember- The Alleged Liaison of Cardinal Beaufort and Alice of Arundel' Foundations Vol. 1 (2004), p. 258.
> The lawsuits reveal that Alice's name is actually Aleise [Latin form: Alesia/Alesie], not Alice.
This strikes me as "you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to."
> They also provide confirmation that Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was her father.
Was this in doubt?
> The discovery of these lawsuits means it is virtually impossible that Aleise Arundel was the mother of Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter, Joan.
So the two lawsuits are further evidence in favour of the thesis behind my 15-year-old article. Again, thank you for sharing them.
> As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
Do you have any examples to support this?
> When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
It seems to have happened soon after 1400, for the Lewes Priory Chartulary, which I also referred to in my article, pointing out that in two different instances it lists Alice as the eldest daughter of her parents, states [pp. 13-14]:
"Thomas Erle of Arundell hadde iiij sustyrs Alic’ Elyzabet Johan and Margarete. Alic’ was maryed to Syr John Charlton Lord Powes and dyed wtovte yssue, Elyzabet was maryed to Thomas *[S we]* Mowbrey Erle of Notyngham and Marchall of Engeland and aftyr Duke of Noreffolke and had yssue, Johan was maryed to Syr Wyllyam Bevchampe Lord of Bergeveny and brothyr to Thomas Beuchampe Erle of Warwyke and hadde yssue y a son and a dowther..."
Alic' as it was written by the monks at Lewes c.1435 looks a lot like 'Alice', not 'Aleise', to me.
> For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and his wife, Aleise Arundel.
[snip]
And what is the evidence that John Lord Cherleton was "killed in battle at Pool"? CP states "He d.s.p., 19 Oct. 1401, at his castle of Pool, aged 39," with no mention of a battle.
Cheers, -----Brad
[snip]
> Recently as I was going through Common Pleas lawsuits, I encountered not one but two lawsuits which involve John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton [died 1401], and his wife, Alice Arundel. The evidence proves conclusively that this couple were married as minors before Easter term 1376 (date of the lawsuits), a full 17 years before the previously known date that this couple were married.
Thank you for sharing the lawsuits, Douglas. The second one that you transcribed proves that John de Cherleton and Alice Fitzalan of Arundel were married by 1374. "The defendants John and Aleise replied by their guardians that his father John de Cherleton granted the younger John and Aleise his wife, daughter of Richard son of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, the commote in question, to them and to their heirs."
John Cherleton the father died on 13 July 1374, so he had to have granted the Montgomeryshire property of Arwystli to his young son and daughter-in-law before that date.
This supports the fact that one week after the death of the elder John Cherleton, the Earl of Arundel (Alice's father) was granted the Cherleton lands to hold until John Cherleton the younger came of age. The standard procedure was to grant the marriage of the minor heir along with the lands. The Earl of Arundel was not granted the marriage of the younger John Cherleton, along with his lands, because the younger John was already married to Arundel's daughter Alice.
20 July 1374, Westminster. “Commitment to Richard Darundell, ‘chivaler,’ of the wardship of all the manors and lands of John de Cherleton of Powys, knight, who held in chief, with the issues since John’s death, to hold until the lawful age of the heir, rendering the extent thereof yearly at the Exchequer by egual portions at Michaelmas and Easter; provided that he keeps the premises without waste and destruction, and sustain the real services and other charges incumbent thereon.” [Cal Fine Rolls 1368-1377, p. 256]
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066344857&view=1up&seq=264
I pointed this out 15 years ago in my article 'A Non-Affair To Remember- The Alleged Liaison of Cardinal Beaufort and Alice of Arundel' Foundations Vol. 1 (2004), p. 258.
> The lawsuits reveal that Alice's name is actually Aleise [Latin form: Alesia/Alesie], not Alice.
> They also provide confirmation that Richard de Arundel, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, was her father.
> The discovery of these lawsuits means it is virtually impossible that Aleise Arundel was the mother of Cardinal Beaufort's bastard daughter, Joan.
> As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
> When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
"Thomas Erle of Arundell hadde iiij sustyrs Alic’ Elyzabet Johan and Margarete. Alic’ was maryed to Syr John Charlton Lord Powes and dyed wtovte yssue, Elyzabet was maryed to Thomas *[S we]* Mowbrey Erle of Notyngham and Marchall of Engeland and aftyr Duke of Noreffolke and had yssue, Johan was maryed to Syr Wyllyam Bevchampe Lord of Bergeveny and brothyr to Thomas Beuchampe Erle of Warwyke and hadde yssue y a son and a dowther..."
Alic' as it was written by the monks at Lewes c.1435 looks a lot like 'Alice', not 'Aleise', to me.
> For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and his wife, Aleise Arundel.
> JOHN CHERLETON was killed in battle at Pool 19 October 1401. He left a will dated 1395. His wife, Alice, died without legitimate issue sometime before 13 October 1415.
John's wife Alice predeceased him. Had she survived her husband Lord Cherleton, there would be record in the Chancery Rolls of her receiving dower, etc. There's no mention at all of her after Cherleton's death in 1401, which means she had died before him. I brought this point up as well in my 2004 article. If you ever locate John Cherleton's 1395 will (mentioned by CP, and again by you above), that will be great - it would help to determine if Alice was still alive in 1395, two years after she's a legatee in her father's will.
And what is the evidence that John Lord Cherleton was "killed in battle at Pool"? CP states "He d.s.p., 19 Oct. 1401, at his castle of Pool, aged 39," with no mention of a battle.
Cheers, -----Brad
Peter Stewart
Jun 10, 2019, 7:01:59 AM6/10/19
to
On 10-Jun-19 6:24 PM, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:25:19 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:25:19 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
>> The lawsuits reveal that Alice's name is actually Aleise [Latin form: Alesia/Alesie], not Alice.
>
> This strikes me as "you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to."
<snip>
>
> This strikes me as "you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to."
>> As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
>
> Do you have any examples to support this?
>
>> When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
>
> It seems to have happened soon after 1400, for the Lewes Priory Chartulary, which I also referred to in my article, pointing out that in two different instances it lists Alice as the eldest daughter of her parents, states [pp. 13-14]:
> "Thomas Erle of Arundell hadde iiij sustyrs Alic’ Elyzabet Johan and Margarete. Alic’ was maryed to Syr John Charlton Lord Powes and dyed wtovte yssue, Elyzabet was maryed to Thomas *[S we]* Mowbrey Erle of Notyngham and Marchall of Engeland and aftyr Duke of Noreffolke and had yssue, Johan was maryed to Syr Wyllyam Bevchampe Lord of Bergeveny and brothyr to Thomas Beuchampe Erle of Warwyke and hadde yssue y a son and a dowther..."
>
> Alic' as it was written by the monks at Lewes c.1435 looks a lot like 'Alice', not 'Aleise', to me.
forms, as for orthography more generally, and they made approximations
depending on their own proclivities or a courteous attempt to reflect
usages they heard.
There are individuals whose name occurs in different documents as Adela
(Adila, Adala, etc), Adelicia, Adelais, Ales, Alesia and several other
variants, with even more oddities for their namesake daughters and
granddaughters.
How it could conceivably be proved that this name bifurcated over time
into Alicia and Alesia as two distinct names yet then reintegrated "soon
after 1400" into one is beyond me.
Of course separate instances in cartulary exemplars of lost original
documents, where some rough standardisation may be expected from the
compiler/s, cannot reasonably be taken to prove any such thing.
Peter Stewart
celticp...@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2019, 2:50:56 PM6/11/19
to
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
> > As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
>
> Do you have any examples to support this?
We live in a day where millions of original medieval British documents can be viewed online. These documents are in English, French, and Latin. The Discovery catalog has many documents which can be viewed in digital format in its SC class. The AALT website also has many original Chancery Proceedings which can be viewed in digital format online.
I spent several hours yesterday looking at documents in the Discovery catalog in the SC class which are catalogued as being for medieval women named Alice. When I looked at the actual documents, ALL the women I know as Aleise occur as Aleise/Aleyse/Alese in these records. And ALL the woman I know as Alice occur as Alice/Alys in these records. The people of the 1300s and 1400s clearly had no trouble distinguishing between these two names.
With regard to the issue of Alice vs. Aleise, I find that Emily Sarah Holt, In all Time of our Tribulation (1887): 69 has some comments about this issue:
"Aleyse is the French form, and Alesia is the Latin, of the old English name Ales, the oldest spelling of both Eliza and Louisa, and itself a corruption of Heloise. The older genealogists often render it Louisa; the modern are apt to confound it with Alice, a mistake never made on the Rolls, except in one or two instances where the lady's name was evidently misapprehended."
With regard to Ms. Holt's comments, she states that Aleyse is derived from an old English name Ales. She may be correct but I have no particulars about this.
If she is correct, it suggests that the name Aleise/Aleyse has a completely different origin than the name Alice. On this score, I can say that I have seen the name Aleyse in England as early as the mid-1200's, so I know it goes way back. In spite of Ms. Holt's comments, I have never seen Aleyse rendered as Louisa by older genealogists. I have, however, seen Aleise/Aleyse regularly confounded with Alice by genealogists and historians as she says. She adds this is a mistake "never made on the Rolls," and I'm sure she is right. My experience is that a woman who is known as Alice occurs as Alicia in Latin documents and a woman who is known as Aleise/Aleyse occurs as Alesia in Latin documents. There is very little drift between the two names. I might note that there are some careful historians who leave the Latin form Alesia as Alesia in their abstracts, and do not make the jump to Alice. Chris Phillips is one of those who have adopted that policy.
Regarding the use of the name Aleise/Alice by the Arundel family, the venerable Hermentrude who posted regularly in old issues of Notes and Queries was well aware that the name Aleise was used by the Arundel family. In her post below dated 1893, she discusses two different women [aunt and niece] in the Arundel family. Hermentrude states that given name Alice is rendered Alicia in Latin, and that Ales/Aleyse is rendered in Latin as Alesia. She is entirely correct. The elder Arundel woman she identifies as Aleise is Aleise de Arundel, wife of Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent. And, yes, she is correct that this was her "real name."
Notes and Queries 8th Ser. 3 (1893): 378: "Alice Fitz Alan (8th S. ii. 248, 314, 457, 496; iii. 74, 316). - That there were two Alice FitzAlans there cannot be the least doubt, except that the real name of the elder was not Alice (Latin Alicia), but Ales or Aleyse (Latin, Alesia)." END OF QUOTE.
> > When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
>
> It seems to have happened soon after 1400, for the Lewes Priory Chartulary, which I also referred to in my article, pointing out that in two different instances it lists Alice as the eldest daughter of her parents, states [pp. 13-14]:
> "Thomas Erle of Arundell hadde iiij sustyrs Alic’ Elyzabet Johan and Margarete. Alic’ was maryed to Syr John Charlton Lord Powes and dyed wtovte yssue, Elyzabet was maryed to Thomas *[S we]* Mowbrey Erle of Notyngham and Marchall of Engeland and aftyr Duke of Noreffolke and had yssue, Johan was maryed to Syr Wyllyam Bevchampe Lord of Bergeveny and brothyr to Thomas Beuchampe Erle of Warwyke and hadde yssue y a son and a dowther..."
>
> Alic' as it was written by the monks at Lewes c.1435 looks a lot like 'Alice', not 'Aleise', to me.
I assume this document was prepared during the period that the name Aleise was morphing into Alice.
> > For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and his wife, Aleise Arundel.
> [snip]
> > JOHN CHERLETON was killed in battle at Pool 19 October 1401. He left a will dated 1395. His wife, Alice, died without legitimate issue sometime before 13 October 1415.
>
> John's wife Alice predeceased him. Had she survived her husband Lord Cherleton, there would be record in the Chancery Rolls of her receiving dower, etc. There's no mention at all of her after Cherleton's death in 1401, which means she had died before him.
I have found many women surviving their husbands where there is no assignment of dower. The failure for John de Cherleton's wife to be assigned dower doesn't mean she died before him. All we know for certain is that she died sometime before 1415.
> And what is the evidence that John Lord Cherleton was "killed in battle at Pool"? CP states "He d.s.p., 19 Oct. 1401, at his castle of Pool, aged 39," with no mention of a battle.
Thanks for bringing up this point.
Colls. Hist. & Arch. rel. Montgomeryshire 7 (1874): 341 indicates that John de Cherleton was engaged in battle with Owen Glendower and his followers in June 1401.
Chronicon Adæ de Usk 1377–1421 (1904): 238 indicates that John de Cherleton died four months after this engagement at his castle of Pool, with no mention of a battle:
“Died the noble lord, lord John Cherleton, lord of Powis, at his castle of Pool, on the day of Saint Luke (18th October), to whom by right of inheritance succeeded the lord Edward his brother, a most graceful youth, lord, in right of his wife, the countess of March, of Usk and Caerleon.” END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Cheers, -----Brad
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
Dear Brad ~
Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
> > As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
>
> Do you have any examples to support this?
I spent several hours yesterday looking at documents in the Discovery catalog in the SC class which are catalogued as being for medieval women named Alice. When I looked at the actual documents, ALL the women I know as Aleise occur as Aleise/Aleyse/Alese in these records. And ALL the woman I know as Alice occur as Alice/Alys in these records. The people of the 1300s and 1400s clearly had no trouble distinguishing between these two names.
With regard to the issue of Alice vs. Aleise, I find that Emily Sarah Holt, In all Time of our Tribulation (1887): 69 has some comments about this issue:
"Aleyse is the French form, and Alesia is the Latin, of the old English name Ales, the oldest spelling of both Eliza and Louisa, and itself a corruption of Heloise. The older genealogists often render it Louisa; the modern are apt to confound it with Alice, a mistake never made on the Rolls, except in one or two instances where the lady's name was evidently misapprehended."
With regard to Ms. Holt's comments, she states that Aleyse is derived from an old English name Ales. She may be correct but I have no particulars about this.
If she is correct, it suggests that the name Aleise/Aleyse has a completely different origin than the name Alice. On this score, I can say that I have seen the name Aleyse in England as early as the mid-1200's, so I know it goes way back. In spite of Ms. Holt's comments, I have never seen Aleyse rendered as Louisa by older genealogists. I have, however, seen Aleise/Aleyse regularly confounded with Alice by genealogists and historians as she says. She adds this is a mistake "never made on the Rolls," and I'm sure she is right. My experience is that a woman who is known as Alice occurs as Alicia in Latin documents and a woman who is known as Aleise/Aleyse occurs as Alesia in Latin documents. There is very little drift between the two names. I might note that there are some careful historians who leave the Latin form Alesia as Alesia in their abstracts, and do not make the jump to Alice. Chris Phillips is one of those who have adopted that policy.
Regarding the use of the name Aleise/Alice by the Arundel family, the venerable Hermentrude who posted regularly in old issues of Notes and Queries was well aware that the name Aleise was used by the Arundel family. In her post below dated 1893, she discusses two different women [aunt and niece] in the Arundel family. Hermentrude states that given name Alice is rendered Alicia in Latin, and that Ales/Aleyse is rendered in Latin as Alesia. She is entirely correct. The elder Arundel woman she identifies as Aleise is Aleise de Arundel, wife of Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent. And, yes, she is correct that this was her "real name."
Notes and Queries 8th Ser. 3 (1893): 378: "Alice Fitz Alan (8th S. ii. 248, 314, 457, 496; iii. 74, 316). - That there were two Alice FitzAlans there cannot be the least doubt, except that the real name of the elder was not Alice (Latin Alicia), but Ales or Aleyse (Latin, Alesia)." END OF QUOTE.
> > When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
>
> It seems to have happened soon after 1400, for the Lewes Priory Chartulary, which I also referred to in my article, pointing out that in two different instances it lists Alice as the eldest daughter of her parents, states [pp. 13-14]:
> "Thomas Erle of Arundell hadde iiij sustyrs Alic’ Elyzabet Johan and Margarete. Alic’ was maryed to Syr John Charlton Lord Powes and dyed wtovte yssue, Elyzabet was maryed to Thomas *[S we]* Mowbrey Erle of Notyngham and Marchall of Engeland and aftyr Duke of Noreffolke and had yssue, Johan was maryed to Syr Wyllyam Bevchampe Lord of Bergeveny and brothyr to Thomas Beuchampe Erle of Warwyke and hadde yssue y a son and a dowther..."
>
> Alic' as it was written by the monks at Lewes c.1435 looks a lot like 'Alice', not 'Aleise', to me.
> > For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account of John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, and his wife, Aleise Arundel.
> [snip]
> > JOHN CHERLETON was killed in battle at Pool 19 October 1401. He left a will dated 1395. His wife, Alice, died without legitimate issue sometime before 13 October 1415.
>
> John's wife Alice predeceased him. Had she survived her husband Lord Cherleton, there would be record in the Chancery Rolls of her receiving dower, etc. There's no mention at all of her after Cherleton's death in 1401, which means she had died before him.
> And what is the evidence that John Lord Cherleton was "killed in battle at Pool"? CP states "He d.s.p., 19 Oct. 1401, at his castle of Pool, aged 39," with no mention of a battle.
Colls. Hist. & Arch. rel. Montgomeryshire 7 (1874): 341 indicates that John de Cherleton was engaged in battle with Owen Glendower and his followers in June 1401.
Chronicon Adæ de Usk 1377–1421 (1904): 238 indicates that John de Cherleton died four months after this engagement at his castle of Pool, with no mention of a battle:
“Died the noble lord, lord John Cherleton, lord of Powis, at his castle of Pool, on the day of Saint Luke (18th October), to whom by right of inheritance succeeded the lord Edward his brother, a most graceful youth, lord, in right of his wife, the countess of March, of Usk and Caerleon.” END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
Peter Stewart
Jun 11, 2019, 7:13:23 PM6/11/19
to
More stale and tiresome tripe - comments interspersed:
On 12-Jun-19 4:50 AM, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> Dear Brad ~
>
> Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
>
>>> As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
>>
>> Do you have any examples to support this?
>
> We live in a day where millions of original medieval British documents can be viewed online. These documents are in English, French, and Latin. The Discovery catalog has many documents which can be viewed in digital format in its SC class. The AALT website also has many original Chancery Proceedings which can be viewed in digital format online.
>
> I spent several hours yesterday looking at documents in the Discovery catalog in the SC class which are catalogued as being for medieval women named Alice. When I looked at the actual documents, ALL the women I know as Aleise occur as Aleise/Aleyse/Alese in these records. And ALL the woman I know as Alice occur as Alice/Alys in these records. The people of the 1300s and 1400s clearly had no trouble distinguishing between these two names.
This argument is circular whichever way you look at it, so I suppose it
should be described as a spherical argument. Since we can only know
these women's names from documents, it is hardly surprising that when we
check the records we find what we know about their names.
> With regard to the issue of Alice vs. Aleise, I find that Emily Sarah Holt, In all Time of our Tribulation (1887): 69 has some comments about this issue:
>
> "Aleyse is the French form, and Alesia is the Latin, of the old English name Ales, the oldest spelling of both Eliza and Louisa, and itself a corruption of Heloise. The older genealogists often render it Louisa; the modern are apt to confound it with Alice, a mistake never made on the Rolls, except in one or two instances where the lady's name was evidently misapprehended."
>
> With regard to Ms. Holt's comments, she states that Aleyse is derived from an old English name Ales. She may be correct but I have no particulars about this.
That's simply because there is nothing new to discover about obsolete
nonsense. The name Aleyse occurs (in many variants) through a wide
swathe of Europe, derived from a Germanic original and not an "old
English" one.
> If she is correct, it suggests that the name Aleise/Aleyse has a completely different origin than the name Alice. On this score, I can say that I have seen the name Aleyse in England as early as the mid-1200's, so I know it goes way back. In spite of Ms. Holt's comments, I have never seen Aleyse rendered as Louisa by older genealogists. I have, however, seen Aleise/Aleyse regularly confounded with Alice by genealogists and historians as she says. She adds this is a mistake "never made on the Rolls," and I'm sure she is right. My experience is that a woman who is known as Alice occurs as Alicia in Latin documents and a woman who is known as Aleise/Aleyse occurs as Alesia in Latin documents. There is very little drift between the two names. I might note that there are some careful historians who leave the Latin form Alesia as Alesia in their abstracts, and do not make the jump to Alice. Chris Phillips is one of those who have adopted that policy.
>
> Regarding the use of the name Aleise/Alice by the Arundel family, the venerable Hermentrude who posted regularly in old issues of Notes and Queries was well aware that the name Aleise was used by the Arundel family. In her post below dated 1893, she discusses two different women [aunt and niece] in the Arundel family. Hermentrude states that given name Alice is rendered Alicia in Latin, and that Ales/Aleyse is rendered in Latin as Alesia. She is entirely correct. The elder Arundel woman she identifies as Aleise is Aleise de Arundel, wife of Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent. And, yes, she is correct that this was her "real name."
>
> Notes and Queries 8th Ser. 3 (1893): 378: "Alice Fitz Alan (8th S. ii. 248, 314, 457, 496; iii. 74, 316). - That there were two Alice FitzAlans there cannot be the least doubt, except that the real name of the elder was not Alice (Latin Alicia), but Ales or Aleyse (Latin, Alesia)." END OF QUOTE.
Hermentrude's mouldering remains would be more effectively stirred to
tell Alice Chaucer that her name must really have been Alesia all along,
since this was the still-current form usually preferred for her namesake
daughter Alice de Montagu, countess of Salisbury, well after 1400
(around the time she was born). Even in royal patents, that presumably
were the result of some care. Not exactly "morphed" back into Alice,
because of course it was never considered a different name in the first
place but only an orthographic variant that probably reflected nothing
more than fashionable pronunciation.
>
>>> When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
Alesia is a Latinate form, not strictly speaking a Latin one. Names are
rendered rather than translated. By the same token Philip is the
Anglicised form of the Greek name Philippos, whereas the English
translation of this is "lover of horses". The queen speaks proper
English, and I doubt she ever considers herself literally the broodmare
of her husband.
Peter Stewart
On 12-Jun-19 4:50 AM, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:24:15 AM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> Dear Brad ~
>
> Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
>
>>> As a matter of clarification, I should note that the given names Alice [Latin: Alicia] and Aleise/Aleyse [Latin: Alesia] were separate name forms in this time period.
>>
>> Do you have any examples to support this?
>
> We live in a day where millions of original medieval British documents can be viewed online. These documents are in English, French, and Latin. The Discovery catalog has many documents which can be viewed in digital format in its SC class. The AALT website also has many original Chancery Proceedings which can be viewed in digital format online.
>
> I spent several hours yesterday looking at documents in the Discovery catalog in the SC class which are catalogued as being for medieval women named Alice. When I looked at the actual documents, ALL the women I know as Aleise occur as Aleise/Aleyse/Alese in these records. And ALL the woman I know as Alice occur as Alice/Alys in these records. The people of the 1300s and 1400s clearly had no trouble distinguishing between these two names.
should be described as a spherical argument. Since we can only know
these women's names from documents, it is hardly surprising that when we
check the records we find what we know about their names.
> With regard to the issue of Alice vs. Aleise, I find that Emily Sarah Holt, In all Time of our Tribulation (1887): 69 has some comments about this issue:
>
> "Aleyse is the French form, and Alesia is the Latin, of the old English name Ales, the oldest spelling of both Eliza and Louisa, and itself a corruption of Heloise. The older genealogists often render it Louisa; the modern are apt to confound it with Alice, a mistake never made on the Rolls, except in one or two instances where the lady's name was evidently misapprehended."
>
> With regard to Ms. Holt's comments, she states that Aleyse is derived from an old English name Ales. She may be correct but I have no particulars about this.
nonsense. The name Aleyse occurs (in many variants) through a wide
swathe of Europe, derived from a Germanic original and not an "old
English" one.
> If she is correct, it suggests that the name Aleise/Aleyse has a completely different origin than the name Alice. On this score, I can say that I have seen the name Aleyse in England as early as the mid-1200's, so I know it goes way back. In spite of Ms. Holt's comments, I have never seen Aleyse rendered as Louisa by older genealogists. I have, however, seen Aleise/Aleyse regularly confounded with Alice by genealogists and historians as she says. She adds this is a mistake "never made on the Rolls," and I'm sure she is right. My experience is that a woman who is known as Alice occurs as Alicia in Latin documents and a woman who is known as Aleise/Aleyse occurs as Alesia in Latin documents. There is very little drift between the two names. I might note that there are some careful historians who leave the Latin form Alesia as Alesia in their abstracts, and do not make the jump to Alice. Chris Phillips is one of those who have adopted that policy.
>
> Regarding the use of the name Aleise/Alice by the Arundel family, the venerable Hermentrude who posted regularly in old issues of Notes and Queries was well aware that the name Aleise was used by the Arundel family. In her post below dated 1893, she discusses two different women [aunt and niece] in the Arundel family. Hermentrude states that given name Alice is rendered Alicia in Latin, and that Ales/Aleyse is rendered in Latin as Alesia. She is entirely correct. The elder Arundel woman she identifies as Aleise is Aleise de Arundel, wife of Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent. And, yes, she is correct that this was her "real name."
>
> Notes and Queries 8th Ser. 3 (1893): 378: "Alice Fitz Alan (8th S. ii. 248, 314, 457, 496; iii. 74, 316). - That there were two Alice FitzAlans there cannot be the least doubt, except that the real name of the elder was not Alice (Latin Alicia), but Ales or Aleyse (Latin, Alesia)." END OF QUOTE.
tell Alice Chaucer that her name must really have been Alesia all along,
since this was the still-current form usually preferred for her namesake
daughter Alice de Montagu, countess of Salisbury, well after 1400
(around the time she was born). Even in royal patents, that presumably
were the result of some care. Not exactly "morphed" back into Alice,
because of course it was never considered a different name in the first
place but only an orthographic variant that probably reflected nothing
more than fashionable pronunciation.
>
>>> When encountering the Latin form Alesia in contemporary records, historians often leave the name as Alesia in its Latin form without converting it to its vernacular form. Or else they translate it as Alice. At some point after 1400, the name Aleise appears to have morphed into Alice and Aleise disappeared as a given name.
rendered rather than translated. By the same token Philip is the
Anglicised form of the Greek name Philippos, whereas the English
translation of this is "lover of horses". The queen speaks proper
English, and I doubt she ever considers herself literally the broodmare
of her husband.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jun 11, 2019, 8:09:08 PM6/11/19
to
On 12-Jun-19 9:13 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Hermentrude's mouldering remains would be more effectively stirred to
> tell Alice Chaucer that her name must really have been Alesia all along,
> since this was the still-current form usually preferred for her namesake
> daughter Alice de Montagu, countess of Salisbury, well after 1400
> (around the time she was born).
This was clumsily written - I meant that 1400 was around the time Alice
> Hermentrude's mouldering remains would be more effectively stirred to
> tell Alice Chaucer that her name must really have been Alesia all along,
> since this was the still-current form usually preferred for her namesake
> daughter Alice de Montagu, countess of Salisbury, well after 1400
> (around the time she was born).
Chaucer was born, not her daughter Alice de Montagu.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jun 12, 2019, 12:05:42 AM6/12/19
to
On 12-Jun-19 9:13 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Alesia is a Latinate form, not strictly speaking a Latin one. Names are
> rendered rather than translated.
And the rendering of name forms, as suggested earlier, can be influenced
> rendered rather than translated.
by pronunciation - my guess, for what it's worth (and for me this isn't
worth taking time & trouble to investigate), is that perhaps an affected
"courtly" pronunciation of the name Alicia as "Alesia" took hold in
England after the arrival of two brides from Saluzzo: the wife of Edmund
de Lacy, earl of Lincoln (died 1258) and her niece who married Richard
Fitzalan, earl of Arundel (died 1302).
The elder of these women was a great-granddaughter of the famous
Adelasia of Montferrat, regent of Saluzzo in the early 13th century. Her
name occurs in various forms, including Adalasia, Alasia and Alaxia,
with collateral namesakes also called Alicia, Alessia, Alessina,
Adelaida and Adalissa, but there is no doubt that all of these represent
the same name, which was very common in northern Italy throughout the
medieval era.
Peter Stewart
Vance Mead
Jun 12, 2019, 6:12:16 AM6/12/19
to
I'm curious about the quote from Douglas Richardson. How and where can these documents be viewed?
There are many Manorial records in the SC class that I would love to be able to view online.
"The Discovery catalog has many documents which can be viewed in digital format in its SC class."
Vance
There are many Manorial records in the SC class that I would love to be able to view online.
"The Discovery catalog has many documents which can be viewed in digital format in its SC class."
Brad Verity
Jun 12, 2019, 2:19:04 PM6/12/19
to
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have found many women surviving their husbands where there is no assignment of dower. The failure for John de Cherleton's wife to be assigned dower doesn't mean she died before him. All we know for certain is that she died sometime before 1415.
"Many women" surviving their husbands without assignment of dower, Douglas? In England in the late 14th/early 15th century? What did these unfortunate widows live on, if they didn't receive their lawful dower?
> I have found many women surviving their husbands where there is no assignment of dower. The failure for John de Cherleton's wife to be assigned dower doesn't mean she died before him. All we know for certain is that she died sometime before 1415.
Can you supply some specific examples of women you've found who outlived their husbands without receiving dower? How many of these women were the widows of barons?
> Colls. Hist. & Arch. rel. Montgomeryshire 7 (1874): 341 indicates that John de Cherleton was engaged in battle with Owen Glendower and his followers in June 1401.
>
> Chronicon Adæ de Usk 1377–1421 (1904): 238 indicates that John de Cherleton died four months after this engagement at his castle of Pool, with no mention of a battle:
> “Died the noble lord, lord John Cherleton, lord of Powis, at his castle of Pool, on the day of Saint Luke (18th October), to whom by right of inheritance succeeded the lord Edward his brother, a most graceful youth, lord, in right of his wife, the countess of March, of Usk and Caerleon.” END OF QUOTE.
Cheers, ----Brad
celticp...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2019, 4:37:51 PM6/14/19
to
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 12:19:04 PM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have found many women surviving their husbands where there is no assignment of dower. The failure for John de Cherleton's wife to be assigned dower doesn't mean she died before him. All we know for certain is that she died sometime before 1415.
>
> "Many women" surviving their husbands without assignment of dower, Douglas? In England in the late 14th/early 15th century? What did these unfortunate widows live on, if they didn't receive their lawful dower?
>
> Can you supply some specific examples of women you've found who outlived their husbands without receiving dower? How many of these women were the widows of barons?
Here's an example for you. Sir Thomas Umnfreville (or Umframvill) died in 1387, seised of various properties including 40s. rent to be received yearly from the said town of West Whelpington, Northumberland. See Cal. IPM 16 (1974): 172–192, available at this weblink:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have found many women surviving their husbands where there is no assignment of dower. The failure for John de Cherleton's wife to be assigned dower doesn't mean she died before him. All we know for certain is that she died sometime before 1415.
>
> "Many women" surviving their husbands without assignment of dower, Douglas? In England in the late 14th/early 15th century? What did these unfortunate widows live on, if they didn't receive their lawful dower?
>
> Can you supply some specific examples of women you've found who outlived their husbands without receiving dower? How many of these women were the widows of barons?
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol16/pp172-192
No mention is made of his wife, Joan, in his inquisition post mortem. Likewise Complete Peerage makes no mention of any assignment of dower or Joan's date of death. West Whelpington, Northumberland was a fee held by Sir Thomas's father.
In Easter term 1402 I find that Joan Umfravyle sued Thomas Wille in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] in her fee at West Whelpington, Northumberland.
Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/565, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no565/aCP40no565fronts/IMG_0041.htm).
The plaintiff in this lawsuit is surely the widow of Sir Thomas de Umfreville. Surviving widow, no assignment of dower.
celticp...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2019, 5:00:44 PM6/14/19
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post earlier this week, I stated that the given names Alice and Aleise were separate and distinct given names for a long period of time in England, and that the name form Aleise eventually morphed into Alice. Alice was consistently treated as Alicia in Latin, and Aleise was consistently treated as Alesia in Latin. Evidence of the eventual movement of Aleise into Alice is demonstrated in the following records.
Perhaps the most prominent woman named Aleise of the medieval period is Aleise de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln (died 1348). She lived a long time and occurs in numerous contemporary records generated by herself. In these records, she occurs regularly as Aleise, Aleyse, or Alayse. As such, it seems clear that this was her actual name.
During her lifetime, she is mentioned in various petitions by her fellow contemporaries. In these petitions, she is variously called Alaise, Aleyse, and Alayse, which is consistent with her own style. Below are three examples.
1. National Archives, SC 8/80/3986 (petion of Hillard de Useflet dated 1326; petition mentions Henry de Lascy, Earl of Nicole [Lincoln], and Alaise his daughter and heir).
2. National Archives, SC 8/56/2766 (petition of Henry, Earl of Lancaster dated c.1327 mentions Aleyse, Countess of Nicole [Lincoln]).
3. National Archives, SC 8/56/2768 (petition of Henry, Earl of Lancaster dated 1330; petition mentions Alayse, countess of Nichole [Lincoln]).
Years after her death, Countess Aleise occurs in later date petitions. Below are two examples. In these later date petitions, she occurs as Alys or Alice.
1. National Archives, SC 8/140/6993 (petition of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. to king and council dated c.1375; petition mentions Alys, late Countess of Lincoln).
2. National Archives, SC 8/105/5238 (petition of William Drury, Esq., dated c.1431–33; petition mentions Ebulon lestraunge and lady Alice, Countess of Nicoll [Lincoln]).
Surely many other examples could be found of Countess Aleise styled as Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse in her own lifetime, and as Alice/Alys by later date persons. I think above is sufficient to see how the name was changing over time.
In my post earlier this week, I stated that the given names Alice and Aleise were separate and distinct given names for a long period of time in England, and that the name form Aleise eventually morphed into Alice. Alice was consistently treated as Alicia in Latin, and Aleise was consistently treated as Alesia in Latin. Evidence of the eventual movement of Aleise into Alice is demonstrated in the following records.
Perhaps the most prominent woman named Aleise of the medieval period is Aleise de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln (died 1348). She lived a long time and occurs in numerous contemporary records generated by herself. In these records, she occurs regularly as Aleise, Aleyse, or Alayse. As such, it seems clear that this was her actual name.
During her lifetime, she is mentioned in various petitions by her fellow contemporaries. In these petitions, she is variously called Alaise, Aleyse, and Alayse, which is consistent with her own style. Below are three examples.
1. National Archives, SC 8/80/3986 (petion of Hillard de Useflet dated 1326; petition mentions Henry de Lascy, Earl of Nicole [Lincoln], and Alaise his daughter and heir).
2. National Archives, SC 8/56/2766 (petition of Henry, Earl of Lancaster dated c.1327 mentions Aleyse, Countess of Nicole [Lincoln]).
3. National Archives, SC 8/56/2768 (petition of Henry, Earl of Lancaster dated 1330; petition mentions Alayse, countess of Nichole [Lincoln]).
Years after her death, Countess Aleise occurs in later date petitions. Below are two examples. In these later date petitions, she occurs as Alys or Alice.
1. National Archives, SC 8/140/6993 (petition of Robert de Swinnerton, Knt. to king and council dated c.1375; petition mentions Alys, late Countess of Lincoln).
2. National Archives, SC 8/105/5238 (petition of William Drury, Esq., dated c.1431–33; petition mentions Ebulon lestraunge and lady Alice, Countess of Nicoll [Lincoln]).
Surely many other examples could be found of Countess Aleise styled as Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse in her own lifetime, and as Alice/Alys by later date persons. I think above is sufficient to see how the name was changing over time.
Message has been deleted
joe...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2019, 5:24:50 PM6/14/19
to
<snip>
Douglas:
This is a very good argument that the spelling of "Aleise/Alayse/Aleyse" changed over time into a more common spelling of "Alys" and "Alice". However, it is an extremely poor argument that the names were ever independent and unique names like "Dan" and "Don" are today. It is, indeed, a better counter-argument to your main premise... it is, I think, evidence *against* your argument.
--Joe Cook
--Joe Cook
Peter Stewart
Jun 14, 2019, 7:04:23 PM6/14/19
to
document to another.
Do you suppose people suddenly thought "Aleise is so last year, let's
call her by a different name instead".
Has it never struck you that the same person might be named as Elizabeth
and Isabel, even in the same document?
Has it never occurred to you that fixed rules did not exist before the
18th century for spelling words or names of non-Latin origin?
I hope you will try to brush up your basic comprehension skills before
November 2020, otherwise you might help to re-elect the love child of
Archie Bunker and Toad of Toad Hall who currently squats in the White House.
Peter Stewart
celticp...@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2019, 7:17:43 PM6/14/19
to
On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:24:50 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
It is, indeed, a better counter-argument to your main premise... it is, I think, evidence *against* your argument.
>
> --Joe Cook
Except Joe ... I didn't present any evidence that Alice and Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse were different names. I just stated that this was the case.
It is, indeed, a better counter-argument to your main premise... it is, I think, evidence *against* your argument.
>
> --Joe Cook
If you want such evidence, you just need to spend a little time in the Discovery and AALT websites and you will find ample and abundant evidence to prove that Alice and Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse were different given names. We're talking original contemporary records generated by the people themselves.
A word of caution: Make sure you consult the original documents, NOT modern abstracts prepared by archivists.
Peter Stewart
Jun 14, 2019, 7:35:46 PM6/14/19
to
evidence AGAINST it?
If you spend eternity examining original records, all you can find is
evidence that a name derived from Germanic elements took many and
various forms in Latin documents, including Alicia and Alesia.
Modern archivists understand this. Some genealogists stubbornly won't
admit when they misconceive such a basic point and then build a specious
argument on the sands of their own ignorance.
Peter Stewart
wbld....@gmail.com
Jun 15, 2019, 7:55:02 AM6/15/19
to
0 new messages