Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Looking For Help with Agnes de Cantilupe who married Robert St. John
485 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Allen
Jul 12, 2023, 9:16:58 PM7/12/23
to
I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.
My line of descent from Robert St. John and Agnes is through their younger son, William St. John, Lord of Fonmon (as he was described in a c. 1290 deed). Fonmon is a castle/manor in Glamorgan, Wales The prevailing view is that Fonmon was part of the Umfreville 4 fees of Penmark in Glamorgan, Wales, but I am in debate with another St. John researcher about this issue. In any case, the point here is somehow William St. John acquired the manor of Fonmon in Glamorgan, Wales. He may have been the original St. John owner, acquiring it from his overlord, or it may have been property that was owned by his father, Robert St. John, which was either granted to him by is father during his father’s lifetime or transferred to him by the terms of a trust created by his father during his lifetime, or was inherited by the terms of his father’s Will (if he had one) or by the laws of intestate succession. If Robert St. John, either through his marriage or by his right of inheritance owned Fonmon manor/castle during his lifetime then, although his primary residence was Basing, Hampshire, England, he had connections in Glamorgan Wales.
There is a poorly unsourced account of the St. John family entitled "Notitia St. Johanniana: or, Genealogical and Historical Memoirs of the Most Ancient, Illustrious and Noble Family of St. John . . . .", published by Richard Newcomb, sold by John Baker (1713). On pages 20 and 27, it say this Robert St. John’s younger son, William St. John had “Faumont” (i.e., Fonmon) in appendage while his eldest son, John St. John was the heir and received Basing. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Notitia_St_Johanniana_or_Genealogical_an/2UhgAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 This statement is unsourced and other parts of the St. John family account presented in this book have serious errors so it is unclear to me whether the author of this account had primary source evidence that Robert de St. John actually owned Fonmon manor/castle and gave it (by lifetime transfer or by death transfer) to his son “in appendage” or whether this was just an undocumented assumption of the author.
There is a William de Cantelo (Cantilupe) who witnessed a charter and confirmation by Roger Sturmi, son of Roger Sturmi to Margam Abbey involving land the Earl of Gloucester gave his grandfather, Geoffrey Sturmi. Other witnesses included Herbert St. Quintin, John St. Quintin, his son, Adam de Sumeri, Ingeram de Penmarch and Luke de Barri. https://archive.org/details/historyofmargama00bircuoft/page/79/mode/1up?q=Cantelo This William de Cantilupe was an adult of the right age to have parented Agnes de Cantilupe who married Robert St. John. My educated guess is that this William de Cantilupe who was connected with Margam Abbey in Glamorgan, Wales, is not the William de Cantilupe who was married to Millicent de Gournay. I realize that the story line about William de Cantilupe who was married to Millicent de Gournay says that he had a connection with the Marches of Wales, but where is the primary source evidence of this? Was this just an assumption that the two William de Cantilupes were the same person?
The William de Cantilupe with connections to Margam Abbey in Glamorgan, Wales, was almost certainly the William de Cantilupe who was once an owner, or at least an occupant, of the manor/castle of Candleston in Glamorgan, Wales, discussed in this article. https://journals.library.wales/view/2527656/2908479/64#?xywh=-391%2C2093%2C2902%2C1863 Of particular interest in this article is that account of the Cantilupe coat of arms that was said to have been in the fireplace mantle of Candleston Castle, given as “– a leopard’s face resting upon a Fleur-de-lys, the lower part of the flower issuing from the animal’s mount.” Does anybody have knowledge of the coat of arms of the of the Cantilupe family that included William de Cantilupe who married Millicent de Gournay?
My research of the Liber Niger (c. 1166) and later records of the holdings of the Earl of Gloucester in Glamorgan suggest that the Umfrevilles owned the 4 fees of Penmark that descended down their family until the later part of the 14th century of which they created sub-manors, one of which I believe was the manor/castle of Fonmon. The property to the west of the Umfreville property appears to have been the property of the Nereberts called Aberthaw who lived in a manor/castle called Castleton, not to be confused with Candleston) and they were later referred to as being located at St. Athan/Thathan., Glamorgan, Wales. While I am not certain of this, I think that Candleston manor/castle was originally owned by the St. Quintins and later came to the Cantilupe family and if it was not adjacent to the Nerebert’s property to the west, it was very close to it to the west.
There is one other dangling Cantilupe claim that I want to discuss before I close. I don’t have access to Peter Bartrum’s collection of Welsh Genealogies. From this previous discussion at this site (starting with this message) https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/VbdYy1MmCyc/m/j8lPNyvE2GAJ I gather that Peter Bartrum concluded that Sir William de Cantilupe had an unknown daughter who he apparently alleged to have some connection with Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. Someone has converted this unknown Cantilupe daughter into Agnes de Cantilupe. Based on the discussion in this thread, it appears that Bartram’s claim/assumption/speculation is distrusted. What I distrust is that Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, assuming she was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, is connected with Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. I am not sure whether Bartram is the source to be distrusted or whether some other person who converted “unknown” de Cantilupe into Agnes de Cantilupe is the person to be distrusted., or both. A person I have been working with to sort out the St. John families and whose research and analyzing skills I have grown to trust, I think has “fallen of the deep end” on this topic. She feels she had “figured out” the ancestry of Agnes de Cantilupe, I think by reliance on this distrusted information, which I believe is greatly confusing matter. She presents her findings at her St. John website. Here is the link (you will have to navigate back from Agnes de Cantilupe). https://stjohngenealogy.com/getperson.php?personID=I104783400&tree=OSA0001 According to her presentations, Agnes de Cantilupe’s father was William ap Hopkin de Cantilupe and his father was Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. This seems incredible to me. I hope to generate a discussion in this thread that can sort out the truth of the matter.
I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.
My line of descent from Robert St. John and Agnes is through their younger son, William St. John, Lord of Fonmon (as he was described in a c. 1290 deed). Fonmon is a castle/manor in Glamorgan, Wales The prevailing view is that Fonmon was part of the Umfreville 4 fees of Penmark in Glamorgan, Wales, but I am in debate with another St. John researcher about this issue. In any case, the point here is somehow William St. John acquired the manor of Fonmon in Glamorgan, Wales. He may have been the original St. John owner, acquiring it from his overlord, or it may have been property that was owned by his father, Robert St. John, which was either granted to him by is father during his father’s lifetime or transferred to him by the terms of a trust created by his father during his lifetime, or was inherited by the terms of his father’s Will (if he had one) or by the laws of intestate succession. If Robert St. John, either through his marriage or by his right of inheritance owned Fonmon manor/castle during his lifetime then, although his primary residence was Basing, Hampshire, England, he had connections in Glamorgan Wales.
There is a poorly unsourced account of the St. John family entitled "Notitia St. Johanniana: or, Genealogical and Historical Memoirs of the Most Ancient, Illustrious and Noble Family of St. John . . . .", published by Richard Newcomb, sold by John Baker (1713). On pages 20 and 27, it say this Robert St. John’s younger son, William St. John had “Faumont” (i.e., Fonmon) in appendage while his eldest son, John St. John was the heir and received Basing. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Notitia_St_Johanniana_or_Genealogical_an/2UhgAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 This statement is unsourced and other parts of the St. John family account presented in this book have serious errors so it is unclear to me whether the author of this account had primary source evidence that Robert de St. John actually owned Fonmon manor/castle and gave it (by lifetime transfer or by death transfer) to his son “in appendage” or whether this was just an undocumented assumption of the author.
There is a William de Cantelo (Cantilupe) who witnessed a charter and confirmation by Roger Sturmi, son of Roger Sturmi to Margam Abbey involving land the Earl of Gloucester gave his grandfather, Geoffrey Sturmi. Other witnesses included Herbert St. Quintin, John St. Quintin, his son, Adam de Sumeri, Ingeram de Penmarch and Luke de Barri. https://archive.org/details/historyofmargama00bircuoft/page/79/mode/1up?q=Cantelo This William de Cantilupe was an adult of the right age to have parented Agnes de Cantilupe who married Robert St. John. My educated guess is that this William de Cantilupe who was connected with Margam Abbey in Glamorgan, Wales, is not the William de Cantilupe who was married to Millicent de Gournay. I realize that the story line about William de Cantilupe who was married to Millicent de Gournay says that he had a connection with the Marches of Wales, but where is the primary source evidence of this? Was this just an assumption that the two William de Cantilupes were the same person?
The William de Cantilupe with connections to Margam Abbey in Glamorgan, Wales, was almost certainly the William de Cantilupe who was once an owner, or at least an occupant, of the manor/castle of Candleston in Glamorgan, Wales, discussed in this article. https://journals.library.wales/view/2527656/2908479/64#?xywh=-391%2C2093%2C2902%2C1863 Of particular interest in this article is that account of the Cantilupe coat of arms that was said to have been in the fireplace mantle of Candleston Castle, given as “– a leopard’s face resting upon a Fleur-de-lys, the lower part of the flower issuing from the animal’s mount.” Does anybody have knowledge of the coat of arms of the of the Cantilupe family that included William de Cantilupe who married Millicent de Gournay?
My research of the Liber Niger (c. 1166) and later records of the holdings of the Earl of Gloucester in Glamorgan suggest that the Umfrevilles owned the 4 fees of Penmark that descended down their family until the later part of the 14th century of which they created sub-manors, one of which I believe was the manor/castle of Fonmon. The property to the west of the Umfreville property appears to have been the property of the Nereberts called Aberthaw who lived in a manor/castle called Castleton, not to be confused with Candleston) and they were later referred to as being located at St. Athan/Thathan., Glamorgan, Wales. While I am not certain of this, I think that Candleston manor/castle was originally owned by the St. Quintins and later came to the Cantilupe family and if it was not adjacent to the Nerebert’s property to the west, it was very close to it to the west.
There is one other dangling Cantilupe claim that I want to discuss before I close. I don’t have access to Peter Bartrum’s collection of Welsh Genealogies. From this previous discussion at this site (starting with this message) https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/VbdYy1MmCyc/m/j8lPNyvE2GAJ I gather that Peter Bartrum concluded that Sir William de Cantilupe had an unknown daughter who he apparently alleged to have some connection with Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. Someone has converted this unknown Cantilupe daughter into Agnes de Cantilupe. Based on the discussion in this thread, it appears that Bartram’s claim/assumption/speculation is distrusted. What I distrust is that Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, assuming she was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, is connected with Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. I am not sure whether Bartram is the source to be distrusted or whether some other person who converted “unknown” de Cantilupe into Agnes de Cantilupe is the person to be distrusted., or both. A person I have been working with to sort out the St. John families and whose research and analyzing skills I have grown to trust, I think has “fallen of the deep end” on this topic. She feels she had “figured out” the ancestry of Agnes de Cantilupe, I think by reliance on this distrusted information, which I believe is greatly confusing matter. She presents her findings at her St. John website. Here is the link (you will have to navigate back from Agnes de Cantilupe). https://stjohngenealogy.com/getperson.php?personID=I104783400&tree=OSA0001 According to her presentations, Agnes de Cantilupe’s father was William ap Hopkin de Cantilupe and his father was Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. This seems incredible to me. I hope to generate a discussion in this thread that can sort out the truth of the matter.
Peter Stewart
Jul 13, 2023, 8:47:35 AM7/13/23
to
On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
[genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Robert Allen
Jul 13, 2023, 9:03:46 PM7/13/23
to
Cheers
Bob
Peter Stewart
Jul 13, 2023, 9:33:35 PM7/13/23
to
Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jul 13, 2023, 11:14:24 PM7/13/23
to
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015072475141&view=1up&seq=237.
Peter Stewart
Robert Allen
Jul 13, 2023, 11:48:37 PM7/13/23
to
Thanks again. I found it. Just finished translating it. It give the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe. I am not able to understand the full context of this document. My assumption is that some land or rent money from land that was formerly Robert de Haia's and was passed down the cited genealogy and was eventually gifted to Boxgrove Priory and somebody is confirming this gift. The date 1309 is mentioned in the document, but the actual date that the document was created seems to be later in time. Is there some way to place a date on the creation of this document?
Peter Stewart
Jul 14, 2023, 12:23:35 AM7/14/23
to
was evidently compiled from roughly the mid-13th century until the
late-14th. I suspect that this history was inserted closer to the end of
this range, or perhaps even after it, than to the beginning.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jul 14, 2023, 12:38:36 AM7/14/23
to
https://www.bl.uk/manuscript/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_claudius_a_vi_f004r.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jul 14, 2023, 12:46:13 AM7/14/23
to
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Claudius_A_VI.
Peter Stewart
Robert Allen
Jul 14, 2023, 1:31:51 AM7/14/23
to
Robert Allen
Jul 14, 2023, 1:38:21 AM7/14/23
to
Bob
Peter Stewart
Jul 14, 2023, 2:46:24 AM7/14/23
to
On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>
> Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
>
> Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.
There is a 2015 Cardiff University doctoral thesis by Melissa
> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>
> Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
>
> Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.
Julian-Jones that you may find useful, 'The Land of the Raven and the
Wolf: Family Power and Strategy in the Welsh March, 1199-c.1300, Corbets
and the Cantilupes', see http://orca.cf.ac.uk/69064/.
George Tsambourakis
Jul 15, 2023, 5:03:19 AM7/15/23
to
Will Johnson
Jul 15, 2023, 11:19:48 AM7/15/23
to
This makes me suspect that this is a false identification, or merely a suggestion of who she might have been
As to the last wife, calling her Agnes Bigod seems to be a very odd choice
Wikipedia calls her Agnes of Essex
Will Johnson
Jul 15, 2023, 11:36:08 AM7/15/23
to
https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/362755/?offset=15#page=330&viewer=picture&o=&n=0&q=
taf
Jul 15, 2023, 12:22:22 PM7/15/23
to
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
taf
George Tsambourakis
Jul 15, 2023, 6:17:34 PM7/15/23
to
Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
Peter Stewart
Jul 15, 2023, 7:58:56 PM7/15/23
to
Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
"Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
[Cantelupe]".
Peter Stewart
Jul 15, 2023, 8:13:05 PM7/15/23
to
for other members of the family, but simply "Cantilupe" (never
"Cantilipe"!) for St Thomas.
Darrell E. Larocque
Jul 15, 2023, 8:14:12 PM7/15/23
to
Darrell
Peter Stewart
Jul 15, 2023, 8:41:47 PM7/15/23
to
modern "correct" spelling of the place from which the family took its
surname is "Canteloup". Somewhere on the internet they are probably
called "de Rockmelon".
Peter Stewart
George Tsambourakis
Jul 15, 2023, 9:32:45 PM7/15/23
to
London 4 Aug 1891: The marriage of Viscount Cantelupe, only surviving son of Earl and Countess De La Warr, to the Hon. Muriel Agnes, daughter of Lord Brassey, was solemnized yesterday.
Darrell E. Larocque
Jul 15, 2023, 9:48:22 PM7/15/23
to
Darrell
Peter Stewart
Jul 15, 2023, 10:03:02 PM7/15/23
to
earldom of De la Warr, for John West, lord De la Warr. Not exactly a
compelling orthographic standard for the medieval family of Cantilupe.
For some reason it is no longer used as the courtesy title for the heir
to the earldom, who is known instead as Lord Buckhurst.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
George Tsambourakis
Jul 15, 2023, 10:47:17 PM7/15/23
to
Peter Stewart
Jul 16, 2023, 12:40:07 AM7/16/23
to
accepted as a result of 18th-century lexicography. Not even the Zouche
family - according to CP vol iii p. 1, "The title of Lord Cantelope
[sic] was assumed by Lord Zouche of Harringworth in or before 1552, but
not on any good ground."
Peter Stewart
George Tsambourakis
Jul 16, 2023, 2:13:42 AM7/16/23
to
Peter Stewart
Jul 16, 2023, 3:04:51 AM7/16/23
to
themselves spelled the name "Cantelupe", rather than that this spelling
was arbitrarily used in reference to them later?
Do you still not get the point - made very clearly by taf - that there
was no such thing as "correct" vernacular spelling in England throughout
the medieval era?
Peter Stewart
Robert Allen
Jul 16, 2023, 3:28:19 AM7/16/23
to
As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
Bob
Bob
Peter Stewart
Jul 16, 2023, 5:23:59 AM7/16/23
to
On 16-Jul-23 5:28 PM, Robert Allen wrote:
> As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
Belt up - when you start a thread on SGM you don't get to own it or to
> As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
determine every byway that may be pursued within it.
Will Johnson
Jul 16, 2023, 9:11:28 AM7/16/23
to
Showing yet another spelling
Subj: Re: Parentage of Sir William de Cantelowe, Steward of the King's Household (died 1239)
Date: 12/4/2010 1:45:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: royala...@msn.com <mailto:royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com <mailto:gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
There were three successive William de Cantelowe's and here are their
dates of death:
1. William de Cantelowe I - died 7 April 1239 (Source: ODNB). He married Masceline de Bracy.
2. William de Cantelowe II - died 5 March 1250/1 (Source: Luard Annales Monastici 1 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1864): 143 (Tewkesbury Annals sub 5 March 1250/1: “Died ... William de Cantelowe in St. Peter's Cathedral, Pershore Abbey [Worcestershire] 5 March [1250/1].”). He married (1st) Milicent de Gournay, and (2nd) Maud Fitz Geoffrey.
3. William de Cantelowe III - died 25 September 1254 (Source: ODNB). He married Eve de Brewes.
taf
Jul 16, 2023, 12:47:48 PM7/16/23
to
The 18th-century lexicographers and those who followed them were not just passive cataloguers of historical usage. They often invented idealized retrospective rules, and modified historical spellings into never-before-seen forms to reflect these false rules. This is part of the reason why English spelling is such a quagmire for non-native speakers, with seemingly random silent letters that had never been part of words before the lexicographers 'perfected' the language. The relevance for surname spelling is that the forms that came to be standard after this time not uncommonly reflect the later retrospective 'rules' rather than what spellings were actually used at the time.
Also, one has to be careful with regard to the phoenetic renderings used in the medieval era, because they didn't pronounce things the same as modern English. This is obvious for Anglo-Norman French, but is also true for native Middle English, due to the Great Vowel Shift that began at the very end of the medieval period. How a surname spelling would be pronounced in modern English diction is a rather poor indication of how it would have been pronounced at the time.
taf
Darrell E. Larocque
Jul 16, 2023, 1:02:30 PM7/16/23
to
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 3:28:19 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
> As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
>
> Bob
You said this: "Thanks again. I found it. Just finished translating it. It give the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe." and "As you say, this is the closest to a primary source for Agnes de Cantilupe being Robert de St. John's wife as probably will ever find."
> As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
>
> Bob
I don't know what other sources you hope to find that will be revealed, but to me you got help from Peter and now after a discussion about the spelling of the name, you come back with this?
I am also a descendant of Robert de St. John and Agnes de Cantilupe through their son John, so it's not like I chose to just ask about the spelling for no reason. I have gotten confused because of the back and forth between Cantelowe and Cantilupe, and I don't think calling my sincere interest in resolving that as hijacking is fair at all.
Darrell
Peter Stewart
Jul 16, 2023, 6:38:20 PM7/16/23
to
from Aston Cantelow, in Warwickshire, that took its name from the
family. The best-known person in recent time bearing a form of this as a
surname is the singer April Cantelo. These variants - and others - still
exist, so that any alleged "correct" version has no special authority
behind it.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Jul 16, 2023, 6:46:29 PM7/16/23
to
Shakespeare's mother was from Aston Cantlow [sic] in Warwickshire.
Robert Allen
Jul 17, 2023, 7:17:45 PM7/17/23
to
Since my initial posting I have come into possession of a three pages from Peter Bartrum's Welsh Genealogy collection. His chart/page 41 is headed by Hokpin ap Howell Fychan of Tregantlle. Is says that one of his children was Sir William Cantelupe of Tregantlle who married Maud, daughter of Sir William de Londres. There is a footnote 2 after "Sir William de Londres" that says "2. So SA 33, by Glam 215 substitutes Sir Henry Humphreville; probably correctly"
Along these same lines, there is an article in "The National Library of Wales Journal", Vol. XVII (Summer 1972) entitled "The Ancestors of My Lord Herbert" , pages 238-247. At page 243, it says "By the sayd Gwenlliant Hopkyn ap Howel gat (by her) ij synes & ix doghters. The names of the sones: Sir William Kawntlo, knyght, lord of Kawntlestown . . . ." On page 244, it says - "Item. Roger d'Wmferuyll,* barwn of Penbrwk* maryd the Erl of wrwic is dochter & gat a doghter by her maryd [to] Sir Wiliam [Cantlo of] Cantloistown. Wihich doghter was heyr to her fathr, & mother to Hopkyn ap Howel ychan, father to the ix doghter above sayd . . . ."
I don't want this to turn into an Umfreville discussion, about the family or the spelling, but I totally distrust that Roger de Umfrevlle/d'Wmferuyll was an existing person in Glamorgan Wales. It is well established that a Umfreville family owned 4 fees of Penmark in Glamorgan Wales, but no Roger de Umfreville is known have existed in that family.
None of this information proves that this William de Cantilupe/Cantelupe/Cantlo of Cantloiston/Candleston manor/castle in Glamorgan Wales had a daughter name Agnes or a connection with Robert de St. John. But some people are jumping down this rabbit hole and it confusing the genealogy of Robert St. John and his wife, Agnes, daughter of a William de Cantilupe/Cantelupe.
Bob
Robert Allen
Jul 17, 2023, 7:26:56 PM7/17/23
to
George Tsambourakis
Jul 17, 2023, 7:59:19 PM7/17/23
to
I observed that the original name before 1250 was de Cantelupe. Than, for reasons unknown, in England, after about 1280, both options Cantelupe and Cantilupe were used. After 1300 Cantilupe was from frequently used in England than Cantelupe. Finally, a third option appeared "Cantelou". (Fathet Cantelupe --> daughter Cantelou). In England, after 1300, there were more individuals using the name Cantilupe. Today, It appears, "Cantelupe" is returning as the preferred name by some.
Peter Stewart
Jul 17, 2023, 8:33:24 PM7/17/23
to
misstated above or "simply" wrong: there was never a consistent spelling
before or after "about 1280". I doubt that you can have found any
support at all to offer for this preposterous idea in any vernacular
English or Anglo-Norman document, and in Latin documents where the
toponym does occur it is more usually in the form "de Cantilupo", less
frequently "de Cantelupo". Hence the name is most commonly rendered
either as closely to these alternatives as practicable, Cantilupe or
Cantelupe, by modern historians writing in English, with both given in ODNB.
Whatever problem you are still having with this reflects on your
comprehension, not on medieval orthographic conventions.
Peter Stewart
Jul 17, 2023, 8:39:46 PM7/17/23
to
On 18-Jul-23 9:17 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 3:28:19 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
>>> As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> You said this: "Thanks again. I found it. Just finished translating it. It give the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe." and "As you say, this is the closest to a primary source for Agnes de Cantilupe being Robert de St. John's wife as probably will ever find."
>>
>> I don't know what other sources you hope to find that will be revealed, but to me you got help from Peter and now after a discussion about the spelling of the name, you come back with this?
>>
>> I am also a descendant of Robert de St. John and Agnes de Cantilupe through their son John, so it's not like I chose to just ask about the spelling for no reason. I have gotten confused because of the back and forth between Cantelowe and Cantilupe, and I don't think calling my sincere interest in resolving that as hijacking is fair at all.
>>
>> Darrell
> I did get help from Peter. The help was as to one of several problem areas I was asking for help on and/or discussion about. The help I got was a secondary medieval source that carries some weight to establish that Agnes, wife of our Robert St. John was a de Cantilupe/Cantelupe.
The first help I gave was to direct your attention to the only source
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 3:28:19 AM UTC-4, Robert Allen wrote:
>>> As the creator of this thread, I am very disappointed that the my effort to engage in a genealogical dialog on the genealogy of de Cantilupe/Cantelupe family(ies) has been hijacked and diluted by a group of people who are arguing about the "correct" or prevailing spelling of the surname. We all know what family we are talking about regardless of the "correct spelling. If you want to continue the discussion on the spelling of the surname, please have the courtesy to start your own thread on the topic.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> You said this: "Thanks again. I found it. Just finished translating it. It give the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe." and "As you say, this is the closest to a primary source for Agnes de Cantilupe being Robert de St. John's wife as probably will ever find."
>>
>> I don't know what other sources you hope to find that will be revealed, but to me you got help from Peter and now after a discussion about the spelling of the name, you come back with this?
>>
>> I am also a descendant of Robert de St. John and Agnes de Cantilupe through their son John, so it's not like I chose to just ask about the spelling for no reason. I have gotten confused because of the back and forth between Cantelowe and Cantilupe, and I don't think calling my sincere interest in resolving that as hijacking is fair at all.
>>
>> Darrell
> I did get help from Peter. The help was as to one of several problem areas I was asking for help on and/or discussion about. The help I got was a secondary medieval source that carries some weight to establish that Agnes, wife of our Robert St. John was a de Cantilupe/Cantelupe.
cited in CP, which for some reason you had neglected to check, and I
took the trouble to give you links to the Latin text, to an English
translation of this when you had got it wrong, and finally to the BL
scan of the original document. Then I provided you with a link to a PhD
thesis on the Corbet and Cantilupe families, which you have evidently
not yet taken the time and trouble to consider adequately.
Yet you come back here mewling like a baby that you have not received
exactly and exclusively what you wanted in making the original posting,
which by the way did not "create" a thread that comes into being when
one or more responses are added.
I for one could no longer care less about the welter of questions you
have raised. Do some purposeful work for yourself first if you want to
start a fruitful discussion here.
taf
Jul 17, 2023, 10:05:22 PM7/17/23
to
early 1190s:Cantelo
1198 (x2):Cantelupo
1199:Cantilupo
late 12th cent (x2):Kantelupo
13th cent:Cantilupo
1200:Cantilupe
1210:Kantelowe
1214:Cantilupe
1215:Cantilup'
1215:Kantilupe
late 1210s:Cantilupe
1220:Cantel'
1224:Cantelope
1225:Cantelow
2nd quarter 13th cent:Cantilupe
1231:Cantilupo
1237:Cantilupe
1240:Cantilupe
1241:Cantilupe
1241:Cantilupo
1242:Cantelup'
1243:Cantilupe
1244:Cantilupo
1248:Cantilupo
mid-13th cent:Cantelur
mid-13th cent (x2):Cantilupe
mid-13th cent:Cantilupo
1250:Cantilupo
1254 (x2):Cantilupo
1256:Cantelupo
1258:Cantilupe
1260:Cantilupe
1260s/70s:Cantilupe
1263:Cantelupo
1263 (x2):Cantilupe
1265:Cantilupe
1267:Cantilupe
1272 (x2):Cantilupo
1273 (x3):Cantilupe
1274 (x3):Cantilupe
1275:Cantelou
1275:Cantilupe
4th quarer 13th cent (x2):Cantilupe
1276 (x2):Cantilupe
1278:Cantilupe
1280 (x2):Cantelupe
1280:Cantilupo
1282 (x2):Cantilupe
1285:Cantilupo
1287:Cantilupo
1288:Cantilupo
1289:Cantilupe
1299:Cantelo
1299 (x3):Cantilupe
(problematic dating):Kantelu
I am not seeing a trend.
taf
Jul 17, 2023, 10:13:54 PM7/17/23
to
Peter Stewart
Jul 18, 2023, 12:20:19 AM7/18/23
to
ago - at least from Google maps. I dare say there are, or have been,
other places in England taking part of all of their name from families
with this Norman toponym. Roger may have been from the modern Cantleu
near Rouen rather than from Canteloup near Caen.
Will Johnson
Jul 18, 2023, 5:22:04 PM7/18/23
to
Kantelupo sounds like a B monster movie
Or maybe Night of the Kantelupo
Or maybe Night of the Kantelupo
Peter Stewart
Jul 18, 2023, 7:17:30 PM7/18/23
to
by individual authors - for instance, Matthew Paris first mentioned the
family of William de Cantilupe with variant spellings in the same
passage ("Willelmus de Cantelu, et Willelmus filius ejus, Fulco de
Canteleu"). He subsequently quoted from a charter of King John naming
"W[illelmo] de Cantelupo", then used the latter form in his own words
("Willelmus de Cantelupo, et Willelmus filius ejus") before switching to
another vriant ("Willelmus de Cantello et Willelmus filius ejus"). All
written long before 1280.
Peter Stewart
0 new messages