Re: Ancestry of Thomas de London, lord of Kidwelly?
Claud...@aol.com
I have a question. Do you have documentation showing Westbury, co. Wiltshire
as the maritagium of Eve, wife of Henry de Tracy and Thomas de London?
I am asking because Eugenia FitzWarin, daughter of Havise Dinan [died 1218]
and Fulk FitzWarin [died aft 1194] received a large piece of land in Westbury.
This is stated in Halstead and Eugenia was the wife of Thomas Mauduit of
Warminster, co. Wiltshire. This is the only husband I have for her and Thomas
Mauduit died aft. July 28, 1244. They had only one known child a son William
Mauduit whose son Thomas upon his father's [William's] death ca. April 4, 1264, was
the ward of Warin Bassingburne.
Genealogical Proofs of the House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of the House
of Maudit by Robert Halstead, London, 1685:
Page 131:
Carta Fulconis filii Warrini
Omnibus ad quos praesens Scriptum pervenerit, Fulco filius Warrini Salutem.
Noverit universitas vestra, nos concessisse & confirmasse Eudoni filio Warrini
fratri nostro terram de Westbury cum pertinentiis, quam Havisia de Dinat mater
nostra ei dedit & concessit, sicut in carta sua continetur, quam idem Eudo
habet de dicta Havisia matre nostra. Et ut haec concessio & confirmatio nostra
rata & inconcussa permaneat, eam praefenti scripto, Sigilli nostri appositione
roboravi. Hic testibus, Willielmo Longespe Comite de Salisburia, Willielmo
Mareschall filio Willielmi Mareschall Comite de Pembroc, Reginaldo de Albo
Monasterio, Willielmo Talebot, Willielmo Frasso, Henrico filio Ricardi.....Ricardo
Sumard, Galfrido de Sancto Leodegario, Mano filio Warrini, Ricardo Talebot,
Thoma Corbet, Willielmo Panton, Thomas Wilkes, & Multis aliis. Seals intact.
Page 132:
Carta Eudoni filiis Warrini
Sciant praesentes & futuri, quod ego Eudo filius Warrini dedi & concessi &
hac praesenti carta mea confirmavi Eugeniae de Mauduit sorori meae, pro homagio
& servitio suo, totam terram meam de Westbury & de Lye cum omnibus
pertinentiis suis in Villa de Westbury & Lye, & extra, sine ullo retinemento meo vel
haeredum meorum, habendam & tenendam sibi & haeredibus suis, vel cui assignare
voluerit, loco religioso vel alibi, de me & haeredibus meis in perpetuum, libere,
quiete, & pacifice, faciendo inde mihi & haeredibus meis, ipsa & haeredes sui
vel eius assignati, servitium quod ad dictam terram pertinet, pro omni
consuetudine & demanda. Pro hac autem donatione & concessione dedit mihi dicta
Eugenia prae manibus ducentas & quatuor viginti marcas. Et ut haec mea donatio &
concessio rata & inconcussa permaneat, huic scripto sigillum meum apposui hic
testibus, Fulcone filio Warrini, Reginaldo de Albo Monasterio, Henrico de Tracy,
Waltero de Pavely, Willielmo de Pipard, Philippo Bret, Hugone de Shuggford,
Willielmo de Hodenet, Philippo Marmion, Magistro Nicolao & multis aliis. Seal
intact.
These charters show that Westbury originally belonged to Havise de Dinan the
mother of Fulk, Eudo and Eugenia. Fulk was the eldest son and heir so he gave
these lands to his younger brother Eudo, who as the second charter shows
bestowed them on Eugenia, his sister who was the wife of Thomas Mauduit at the
time of the grant to her.
Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post.
I believe the woman you name as "Eugenia" Fitz Warin may have been
named Eve Fitz Warin. I show Eve was the wife of William Mauduit, of
Warminister, Wiltshire (died 1264), son and heir of Thomas Mauduit, of
Warminster, Wiltshire (died 1244). William Mauduit was born before
1223, as he had livery of his inheritance on his father's death in
1244. William and his wife Eve were presumably married before 1249, as
their son and heir, Thomas, was of age in or before 1270. William and
Eve (not Eugenia) gave the church of Warminster, Wiltshire to the dean
and chapter of Salisbury about 1257 [Reference: Jones and Macray,
Charters and Documents of Salisbury, pg. 239]. Paget's Baronage
(1957): 361: 1 (sub Mauduit) gives the following reference for the
marriage of William Mauduit and his wife (who he calls Eugenia,
daughter of Fulke Fitz Warine): Close Rolls, 20 Henry III, m. 18. If
correct, this means that William and Eve were married in or before
1236.
According to your post, you place "Eugenia" Fitz Warin in the preceding
generation, as the wife of William Mauduit's father, Thomas Mauduit,
Sr. (died 1244). Possibly Paget made the assignment of Eugenia as
William's wife based on the Close Rolls item he cited. If so, this
record should be checked. He certainly saw Halstead, as he mentions
him as a source.
In your post below, you present two charters. The first charter shows
that Fulk Fitz Warin (son of Hawise de Dinan) confirmed the gift of
land that his mother, Hawise de Dinan, gave at Westbury, Wiltshire to
his brother, Eudes Fitz Warin. This confirmation charter was witnessed
by William Marshal the younger, who died in 1231. So this means that
this charter was made sometime prior to 1231. In a second charter, a
certain Eudes Fitz Warin gave property at Westbury, Wiltshire to his
sister "Eugenia de Mauduit," which document is undated. Eugenia's
husband is not named in this document. It is presumed that the Eudes
Fitz Warin named in the second charter is the same Eudes named in the
first charter. If so, then Eugenia Mauduit was necessarily the
daughter of Hawise de Dinan, and the sister of both Fulk and Eudes Fitz
Warin. However, there is nothing in the second charter to tells us
that there was only one Eudes Fitz Warin, or that the two Eudes are the
same person. I do note that the 2nd charter was witnessed by Eudes
Fitz Warin's nephew, Sir Henry de Tracy (b. say 1193, d. 1274), Baron
of Barnstaple, Devon. As such, the 2nd charter would fall anywhere
between 1214 and 1274.
If Eugenia is really the daughter of Hawise de Dinan, then your
assignment of her as the wife of Thomas Mauduit would surely fit the
chronology better than Paget's rendition. If correct, then perhaps
Thomas Mauduit (d. c. 1244) was married to Eugenia Fitz Warin and their
son, William, was married to an Eve _____. This matter requires
further study. As I stated above, an examination of the Close Rolls
item dated 20 Henry III might be helpful in resolving this matter. I
believe the names Eugenia and Eva are separate and distinct names in
Latin.
In response to your other question, you can find the land holding at
Westbury, Wiltshire held by Henry de Tracy's mother, Eve, discussed by
VCH Wiltshire.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Claud...@aol.com
VCH Vol. VIII for the county of Wiltshire is online and I am citing from
that for ease of use:
The 30 librates of land granted by the Empress Maud to William Defuble
(Footnote 47) must have passed into the hands of Henry II, who granted land, still
reckoned at 30 librates in 1274, to Joce de Dinan. (Footnote 48) Joce died
c. 1166 leaving two daughters. One, Sybil, married Hugh Plucknet, and received
a half share of the inheritance. (Footnote 49) Of this, five librates already
formed half of the manor of Westbury Priory. (Footnote 50) The remainder had
been subinfeudated to the Pavely family, lords of the capital manor, by 1210–
12, when it was held by Ralph de Beauchamp, who had the wardship of the
heir. (Footnote 51) In 1242–3 it was held as ½ fee by Walter Pavely of William
Plucknet. (Footnote 52) In 1280 Reynold Pavely held the land of Jocelin
Plucknet and it was said to be worth £10. (Footnote 53) No more is heard of the
Plucknet overlordship, and the land was probably merged into the Pavely
inheritance. (Footnote 54)
Hawise, Joce de Dinan's other daughter, married Fulk FitzWarin ( d. c.
1198). Her share of the inheritance also included the overlordship of half the
manor of Westbury Priory. She was still living in 1226; (Footnote 55) before her
death she is said to have given the part of Westbury which she held herself
to her son Fulk. By c. 1219 he had given the land which his mother gave him
to his brother Eudo, who soon after gave it to their sister Eugenia. She
married William Mauduit, lord of Warminster c. 1244–64, (Footnote 56) and took her
Westbury property into that family, from which it was called the manor of
WESTBURY MAUDUITS. A grant of free warren in his demesne lands made in 1317 to
Thomas Mauduit described these as lying in Westbury, Westbury Leigh, and
Chalcot. (Footnote 57) In 1562 Chalcot alone was described as a manor. (Footnote
58) But no evidence of any independent manorial organization has been found
and Chalcot was probably only a part of the Mauduit lands in Westbury.
These lands followed the same descent as Warminster (Footnote 59) until 1585
when George Tuchet, Lord Audley (d. 1617), sold them to the brothers Henry
and Nicholas Phipps. (Footnote 60)
From: British History Online
Source: Westbury: Manors. A History of the County of Wiltshire: Volume VIII,
R.B. Pugh (Editor) (1965).
URL: _http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16096_
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16096)
Date: 08/02/2005
© Copyright 2003-2005 University of London & History of Parliament Trust
In 1274 it was said that the land given by the Empress Maud to William
Defuble amounted to 30 librates. (Footnote 92) The descent of these has been
described above; 10 formed the holding of the Prior of Le Pré and 10 that of the
Mauduit family, and the remaining 10 seem to have been merged into the capital
manor. (Footnote 93) It appears, however, that Defuble's holding was larger
than the 30 librates assigned to it in 1274, and in 1210–12 it was definitely
said to amount to 50 librates. Of this, part was clearly the land held by the
heirs of Joce de Dinan, to whom Defuble's land had been regranted by Henry
II. The remainder, presumably 20 librates, was held by Ralph de Lanvaley and
William de Lanvaley. (Footnote 94) This family was associated with a holding
of Joce de Dinan at Lambourn (Berks.) (Footnote 95) and he may have given land
at Westbury to it before his death. The first member of the family certainly
holding land here was Thomas de Lanvaley, whose estate at Leigh was in the
hands of the sheriff in 1190. (Footnote 96) His relationship to the later
members of the family is not known, but he evidently was related to the family
that held land at Lambourn, and the honor of Walkern (Herts.). William de
Lanvaley of that family died c. 1215, leaving a daughter and heir Hawise, who
married John de Burgh (d. 1275). (Footnote 97) He was overlord of land at
Westbury in 1274, (Footnote 98) the last time the overlordship of the Lanvaley
estates is mentioned.
The fragmentation of those estates by subinfeudation began in 1204 with the
gift of land at Leigh from Ralph de Lanvaley to the priory of Monkton
Farleigh, in return for a life pension of 2 marks. (Footnote 99) This formed the
largest part of the manor of LEIGH PRIORS. In 1242–3 it was said to be held in
chief, (Footnote 1) and in 1274 it was reckoned at ½ fee. (Footnote 2)
Subsequent acquisitions show the priory following a policy of augmenting and
consolidating its property in Westbury Leigh. In 1226 Henry III confirmed
among the other possessions of the house in Westbury, half the vill of Westbury
Leigh and a tenement (mansura) there. (Footnote 3) In 1249 the prior
exchanged with William and Eve Mauduit the wood of Holt for 15 a. in Westbury Leigh
next to the wood which Walter of Brookway held. (Footnote 4) Another exchange
was made by the prior in 1285 with Stephen the tanner of land in 'Buricrofta'
and 'Cumputte' in Westbury Leigh for other land in the same place. (Footnote
5) More land was acquired in Leigh and Westbury in 1320–1 by an exchange
with Walter Pavely. (Footnote 6) In 1294 the Westbury Leigh estate along with
the priory's other possessions was temporarily taken into the king's hands.
(Footnote 7) In 1331 the manor was leased to John Bradford, parson of the church
at Bishopstrow, and Thomas de Croume for their lives. In 1368 licence was
granted for John Mareys and Thomas Jordan to grant some 50 a., which they held
of the Prior of Farleigh in Westbury Leigh, to the Bonhommes of Edington.
(Footnote 8) The manor, then leased out, was among the property of Monkton
Farleigh when the priory was dissolved in 1536. (Footnote 9)
In 1545 the manor, with its capital messuage, and the lands leased with it
to John Whatley, Leigh Common, and all appurtenances were conveyed to John
Adlam, clothier, of Westbury, who also received other rents due to the priory
from lands in Westbury. (Footnote 10) John died seised of the manor in the same
year leaving as his heirs his daughters Edith, wife of John Lambe, and
Alice, wife of Robert Cogswell. (Footnote 11) Edith married secondly John
Westwell, who, after Edith's death in 1577, held the manor for life. (Footnote 12) It
then passed to John Lambe, Edith's son by her first marriage. (Footnote 13)
John Lambe died in 1615 holding half the manor and was succeeded by his son,
John. (Footnote 14) This John sold his half of the manor to Sir James Ley
(cr. Earl of Marlborough 1626) in 1615. (Footnote 15) The other half, which
passed on the death of Alice Cogswell in 1606 to her grandson, Roger, (Footnote
16) had been sold by him to Sir James Ley in 1611. (Footnote 17) Ley thus
acquired the entire manor of Leigh Priors, which thenceforth followed the same
descent as the capital manor.
The half of the township of Leigh which remained after the grant to the
priory of Monkton Farleigh in 1204 was by 1242–3 divided into two parts, each
reckoned at ? fee. (Footnote 18) Robert de Maners held one directly of the heirs
of William de Lanvaley, but the other had been three times subinfeudated,
and was held by Eve de Bassingburn of Eve de Tracy of Fulk FitzWarin of the
heirs of de Lanvaley. (Footnote 19) Eve de Bassingburn had acquired her part of
Eve de Tracy in 1241. (Footnote 20) By 1274 the two parts had been united,
for John de Maners held ¼ fee directly of the tenant-in-chief. (Footnote 21)
John probably subinfeudated it before the Statute of 1290. By 1316 it was held
by John Rous; (Footnote 22) at his death in 1330 Rous was said to hold it
jointly with his wife Ela of Robert de Maners by the gift of John of Lavington.
(Footnote 23) It descended in the Rous family in the same way as the manor of
Baynton in Edington (Footnote 24) to John Rous, who was holding it in 1412.
(Footnote 25)
From: British History Online
Source: Westbury: Manors. A History of the County of Wiltshire: Volume VIII,
R.B. Pugh (Editor) (1965).
URL: _http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16096_
(http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16096)
Date: 08/02/2005
© Copyright 2003-2005 University of London & History of Parliament Trust
VCH is in error as Eugenia FitzWarin was not the wife of William Mauduit.
Eugenia would have been born before 1198 when Fulk FitzWarin died making it very
unlikely that she would have married William Mauduit and the given birth to
the son and heir Thomas Mauduit [born ca. 1248 - died 1271 on crusade with
Prince Edward]. Halstead is correct in his placing of Eugenia as the wife of
Thomas Mauduit that died in 1244 and she was the mother of William Mauduit.
The second passage shows that William Mauduit was married to an Eve, but she
is unknown. William Mauduit would have inherited Westbury Mauduits from his
mother.
The section also shows that Fulk FitzWarin was infeudated by the Lanvaley
heirs and he subinfeudated Eve de Tracy who in 1241 subinfeudated Eve de
Bassingburn. If Eve de Tracy were his daughter, then this would make Eugenia
FitzWarin and Eve FitzWarin sisters.
As Thomas Mauduit [son of William Mauduit and Eve] married Joan Bassingburn
this would make them related as they both descended from Fulk FitzWarin.
Warin Mauduit [1269-1300], son and heir of Thomas Mauduit and Joan Bassingburn,
was placed in the wardship of Warin Bassingburn upon his father's death.
I will check the citation from the Close Rolls. Thank you for presenting
this so this portion of the FitzWarin ancestry can be sorted out.
Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Claud...@aol.com
There is an error in my last posting. Warin Bassinburn had the wardship of
Thomas Mauduit, son of William Mauduit by his wife Eve. Warin Bassingburn
married Thomas to his daughter Joan Bassingburn and their son was Warin Mauduit
[1269-1300]. This is cited in the Close Rolls of Henry III, 1261-1264, pp.
339-340.
Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
A quick reply here. It's barely possible that the Eve Fulk Warin who
married Oliver de Tracy and Thomas de London, also married Thomas
Mauduit.
The grant by Eudes Fitz Warin to his sister "Eugenia" was probably made
during Eugenia's widowhood, otherwise he would have named her husband.
If "Eugenia" was married to Thomas Mauduit (died 1244) as we think
likely, then this means that the grant to Eugenia was made sometime
after 1244. This date would work well, if Sir Henry de Tracy was the
witness, as Henry was an adult in 1244 and still living. Your post
shows that Henry de Tracy's mother, Eve, widow of Oliver de Tracy and
Thomas de London, was living in 1241. So, it would appear that the two
Fitz Warin "sisters" were both living at the same approximate time.
In my post last night, I mentioned a record which shows that Thomas
Mauduit's son and heir, William, and William's wife Eve conveyed land
c. 1257 to the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury. However, given that the
name Eve is somewhat rare, I can't help but wonder if it wasn't William
and his mother Eve who conveyed these lands c. 1257. If William's
mother held dower in Warminster, then should would have to join him in
the conveyance. If so, this means that Eugenia Fitz Warin was actually
named Eve Fitz Warin.
If so, this would surely suggest that "Eugenia" Fitz Warin, wife of
Thomas Mauduit, was the same person as Eve Fitz Warin, widow of Oliver
de Tracy and Thomas de Thomas. Looking at the chronology, it seems
barely workable. We know both women had land in Westbury, Wiltshire,
and that both women were living around 1240. Please note that I'm not
saying this is probable, only that that possibility should be examined.
Clearly there was a connection between the Mauduit and Tracy/London
families, as we find that the wardship of William Mauduit's heir was
granted c. 1264 to Warin de Bassingbourne. This Warin de Bassingbourne
was either the husband or son of Eve de Tracy, Jr., daughter of Eve
Fitz Warin, by her 1st husband, Oliver de Tracy.
Anyone want to take bets that Eugenia is the same person as her sister
Eve?
Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I found the following record just now in the helpful online A2A
Catalogue (http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp):
DL 25/2299
Agreement (chirograph) between Patrick de Chaworth (Chauz) and Hawise
de London, his wife, and Henry de Tracy, concerning the manor of East
Garston, Berkshire and the advowson of the church. If the said Patrick
have no heirs by the said Hawise, the manor and advowson to revert to
the heris of Hawise. If Hawise die before she have heirs by the said
Patrick, the manor and advowson, which they have granted to Eve de
Tracy for life, shall revert at the death of the said Eve to Patrick,
for life, and at his death to the heirs of Hawise.
This document was apparently created at the time Patrick de Chaworth
married Hawise de London, the half-sister of Henry de Tracy. This
would have been on or before before 19 Dec. 1243, when Patrick and
Hawise were known to have been married. The document also shows that
Hawise's mother, Eve Fitz Warin, wife of Oliver de Tracy (died 1210)
and Thomas de London (died before 1221) went by the name, Eve de Tracy,
in the 1240's. This does not preclude the possibility that Eve Fitz
Warin married (3rd) Thomas Mauduit (died 1244).
Hawise de London had another half-sibling, Eve de Tracy, who married
Warin de Bassingbourne, of Cambridgeshire. Eve (de Tracy) de
Bassingbourne's identity is proven by the Curia Regis Rolls, which
shows she was the sister of Henry de Tracy. She had the manor of
Morebath, Devon as her maritagium. It passed to her son, Warin de
Bassingbourne, Jr.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
It's possible that Eve Fitz Warin did in fact marry (3rd) Thomas
Mauduit (died 1244), but that she is not the mother of Thomas' son and
heir, William Mauduit.
If William Mauduit was the son of Thomas and Eve, it would have
required a dispensation for William's son, Thomas (died 1271) to marry
Joan de Bassingbourne. I show that Joan de Bassingbourne would be the
great-granddaughter of Eve (Fitz Warin) (de Tracy) de London. This is
assuming that "Eugenia Fitz Warin" is the same person as Eve (Fitz
Warin) (de Tracy) de London.
One other thing: We know that "Eugenia" (Fitz Warin) Mauduit had lands
in Westbury, Wiltshire, as did Eve (Fitz Warin) (de Tracy) de London.
If the two women are the same person, then it would be important to
find out if the Mauduit family had lands in Westbury after 1240. If
they did not, then one might presume that Eve (Fitz Warin) (de Tracy)
de London was not the mother of William Mauduit. I hope this makes
sense to everyone. Eve (Fitz Warin) (de Tracy) de London appears to
have settled her lands in Wesbury, Wiltshire on her daughter, Eve (de
Tracy) de Bassingbourne. If so, then the Westbury lands would go out
of the Tracy family hands and should turn up in Bassingbourne family
inquisitions. The Westbury lands would only appear as part of Mauduit
family land holdings for the life of Eve (Fitz Warin) (de Tracy) de
London, provided she married Thomas Mauduit and was his widow.
I believe it is critical that the charter dated c. 1257 issued by
William Mauduit to the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury be located and
examined. If the charter was issued by William and Eve, with no
reference to Eve being his wife, then I think we can safely assume that
Eve was his step-mother. As a general rule, when a married couple
issued a charter jointly, their married status was also mentioned in
the record.
If anyone wants to look up the Salisbury charter, my citation for it
is:
Jones and Macray, Charters and Documents of Salisbury, pg. 329.
WJho...@aol.com
Isn't this Chaworth, London, etc connection ancestral to
James Claypool 1634 London - abt 1687 Philadelphia ?
Or has this connection been proven incorrect?
Thanks
Will
Gordon Kirkemo
I, too, have a Cogswell descent. I did note the reference to Robert Cogswell and Alice in MichaelAnne's posting. Is anything more known about the Adlam line?
And thank you MichaelAnne for posting that information.
Gordon Kirkemo
-----Original Message-----
From: John Brandon [mailto:starb...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 12:24 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Thomas de London, lord of Kidwelly?
>>In 1545 the manor, with its capital messuage, and the lands leased
with it to John Whatley, Leigh Common, and all appurtenances were
conveyed to John Adlam, clothier, of Westbury, who also received other
rents due to the priory from lands in Westbury. (Footnote 10) John
died seised of the manor in the same year leaving as his heirs his
daughters Edith, wife of John Lambe, and Alice, wife of Robert
Cogswell. (Footnote 11) Edith married secondly John Westwell, who,
after Edith's death in 1577, held the manor for life. (Footnote 12)
It then passed to John Lambe, Edith's son by her first marriage.
(Footnote 13) John Lambe died in 1615 holding half the manor and was
succeeded by his son, John. (Footnote 14) This John sold his half of
the manor to Sir James Ley (cr. Earl of Marlborough 1626) in 1615.
(Footnote 15) The other half, which passed on the death of Alice
Cogswell in 1606 to her grandson, Roger, (Footnote 16) had been sold
by him to Sir James Ley in 1611. (Footnote 17) Ley thus acquired the
entire manor of Leigh Priors, which thenceforth followed the same
descent as the capital manor.
*This is very off-topic for this thread, but I couldn't let pass
MichaelAnne's quote from the VCH Wilts. concerning the manor of Leigh
Priors in Westbury, as it is of interest to descendants the New
England Cogswell family (this includes Nat Taylor and me--any probably
others).
The Adlams were a fairly wealthy family of clothiers from Westbury.
Doug, your account of the Baynard family of Wiltshire in RPA mentions
a daughter who married an "Ambrose Adlaine" (if I'm remembering
correctly). "Ambrose Adlam" may actually be the correct name.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
In my post below, I stated that the source of the document for Patrick
de Chaworth and his wife, Hawise de London, was the helpful online A2A
Catalogue. I meant to say the helpful online National Archives
catalogue, which is the web address I supplied. My apologies if i
confused anyone.
Tony Hoskins
Tony Hoskins
>>> "Gordon Kirkemo" <kir...@comcast.net> 02/08/05 01:43PM >>>
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your good post. Below is the list of the colonial
immigrants who descend from Eve Fitz Warin, wife of Oliver de Tracy
(died 1210) and Thomas de London (died before 1221). The list includes
the Claypoole family as you thought was the case. The individual
descents can be worked out using my two books, Plantagenet Ancestry
(2004) and the forthcoming Magna Carta Ancestry, which is scheduled for
publication in June 2005.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
List of 17th Century colonial American immigrants who descend from Eve
Fitz Warin, wife of Oliver de Tracy and Thomas de London:
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Barbara
Aubrey, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith, Richard & William Bernard,
John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston,
Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George,
Giles, & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Nathaniel Browne, Stephen Bull,
Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth Butler, Christopher Calthorpe, Charles
Calvert, Edward Carleton, Grace Chetwode, James & Norton Claypoole,
William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Elizabeth Coytemore,
Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Anne
Derehaugh, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, Rowland Ellis, William Farrar,
John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete,
Edward Foliot, John Fenwick, Thomas Gerard, William Goddard, Muriel
Gurdon, Mary Gye, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Edmund Hawes, Elizabeth
Haynes, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Daniel & John Humphrey, Henry
Isham, Edmund
Jennings, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce,
Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas
Lloyd, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Percival Lowell, Gabriel, Roger &
Sarah Ludlow, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John
Mansfield, Oliver Manwaring, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer,
Richard More, John Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
Joshua & Rebecca Owen, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Richard
Palgrave, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole,
Henry & William Randolph, Edward Raynsford, George Reade, William
Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall,
Anthony Savage, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna
Somerset, John Stockman, John Throckmorton, Samuel & William Torrey,
Margaret Tyndall, Jemima Waldegrave, John & Lawrence Washington, Olive
Welby, John West, Amy Willis, Thomas Wingfield, Mary Wolseley, Hawte
Wyatt, George Yate.
Claud...@aol.com
The Manor of Westbury Mauduits did pass on in the Mauduit line. This is the
IPM for Warin Mauduit [1269-1300]:
Calendar of Inquisition Post Mortem, Vol. 3, Edward I:
601. Warren Maudut alias Mawdut.
Writ, La Rose, 26 September 28 Edw. I
Wilts. Inq. 17 Nov. 28 Edw. I.
Weremenistre. The manor and 2 carucates of land at Westbury (full extents
given with names of tenants) held of the king in chief by service of a knight's
fee.
Thomas his son, aged 14, is his next heir.
Southampton. Inq. 27 Nov. 29 Edw. I.
Dene. The manor ( extent given with names of tenants) held of the earl of
Norfolk and Suffolk in chief by service of a knight's fee.
Grately. The manor ( extent given with names of tenants) held of the earl of
Her(e)ford in chief by service of a knight's fee.
Heir as above.
Writ of certiorari de feodis & c. 26 Jan. 29 Edw. I.
Southampton. Inq. made at Andovere on Thursday before St. Nicholas, 32 Edw. I.
Dene. The advowson of the church.
Gratelye. The advowson of the church.
This is also recorded in the Abstracts of Wiltshire Inquistiones Post Mortem
1242-1326, Record Society, 1908 on pages 252-253 where the full extent of the
manor is given with names of tenants and the total value of the manor is given
as £13 5s. 1d.
In Halstead's Genealogical Proofs section from Genealogical Proofs of the
House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of the House of Maudit by Robert Halstead,
London, 1685:
Page 131:
Placita de Banco, Easter Term, 14 Henry III, Rot. 15:
Robertus de Passleu per attornatum suum petit versus Willielmum Mauduit &
Eugeniam uxorem ejus [eius]. quod reddant ei Henricum filium & haeredem Henrici
Cromwell, cujus [cuius] custodia ad eum pertinet ratione commissionis Domini
regis quod inde & fecit & dicit, &c. Sed quia dictus Robertus non oftendit
dictam commissionem, dicta custodia remansit penes dictos Willielmum & Eugeniam.
The above fine calls William Mauduit the husband of Eugenia FitzWarin, but
the date is 14 Henry III [1231-2] and William Mauduit was a still a minor. This
probably should read Thomam [Thomas] as he held the lordship of Warminster at
that time.
Thomas Mauduit is shown in VCH Wiltshire Vol. VIII under Warminster and again
I am using the online version for ease and clarity:
WARMINSTER belonged to the kings of England before the Conquest, and was
still in the hands of William I in 1086. (Footnote 32) By 1156 it had been granted
to William FitzHamon, (Footnote 33) a tenant in several counties and
constable of Salisbury Castle in the earlier part of the reign of Henry II. (Footnote
34) William held it until 1175, (Footnote 35) when it reverted to the Crown,
probably by his death. It was immediately regranted in fee to Robert Mauduit,
(Footnote 36) a royal chamberlain and younger son of a family whose chief
estates were in Buckinghamshire. (Footnote 37) He had succeeded FitzHamon in his
constableship of Salisbury, and it is possible that the estate was regarded as
appurtenant to that office. (Footnote 38) Robert obtained a renewal of the
grant when Richard I succeeded to the throne, (Footnote 39) but was dead by 1191.
(Footnote 40) His son and heir Thomas was a minor, and was in the successive
wardships of Robert de Tregoze (Footnote 41) and Hugh de Bosco (Footnote 42)
until he came of age by Michaelmas 1204. (Footnote 43) Thomas held Warminster,
except for a forfeiture when he joined John's enemies, (Footnote 44) until his
death c. 1244, when he was succeeded by his son William. (Footnote 45) William
was dead by 1264, leaving a son Thomas, a minor, whose wardship was granted
to Warin de Bassingburn, his uncle. (Footnote 46) In 1270 Thomas was given
licence to let the manor of Warminster while he went to the Holy Land with Prince
Edward. (Footnote 47) He probably died abroad, for in 1271 the wardship of his
heir Warin was granted to Richard, King of the Romans. (Footnote 48) In 1275
Thomas's widow Joan held Warminster in dower. (Footnote 49) Warin came of age
c. 1290 and in 1294 was licensed to let Warminster to Bogo de Knoville, the
last holder of his wardship, for six years. (Footnote 50) At Warin's death in
1300 he was succeeded by his son Thomas, (Footnote 51) who came of age in 1308
(Footnote 52) and was executed after the battle of Boroughbridge in 1322.
(Footnote 53) Warminster was immediately granted to Hugh le Despenser the elder,
(Footnote 54) but on the accession of Edward III Thomas's widow Eleanor was
assigned her dower in it, (Footnote 55) and the custody of the remainder granted
to John de Kingston during the minority of John, the heir. (Footnote 56) John
came of age in 1332, and settled Warminster on himself and Juliane his wife in
the same year. (Footnote 57) He died in 1364 leaving as heir, after the
termination of his widow's estate, his granddaughter Maud, daughter of his son
Thomas who was already dead. (Footnote 58)
Maud took the Mauduit inheritance to a Northhamptonshire family, for she
married Sir Henry Greene of Drayton near Kettering. (Footnote 59).
Thomas is also shown as holding this fee:
Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, 1242-1247, Kraus Reprint 1970:
Page 217:
1244.
De denariis ad operationes de Clarendon'---Mandatum est vicecomiti Wilt' quod
de catallis Thome Maudut que cepit in manum regis occasione debiti quod
predictus Thomas regi debuit, fieri faciat xl. marcas, et ipsos denarios et omnes
alios quos habere poterit de exitibus comitatus sui, poni faciat in
operationibus domorum regis de Clarendon', ne predicte operationes remaneant. Teste rege
apud Alverton, xxviii die Julii.
Calendar of Charter Rolls, Vol. I, Henry III, 1226-1257, Kraus Reprint, 1972:
Page 143: Dec. 28, 1231. Grant to Thomas Mauduit, and his heirs, of free
warren in his demesne land of Werministre.
So it appears that Thomas Mauduit was married to Eugenia FitzWarin before
1231-2.
Warin de Bassingburn is shown to hold the wardship of Thomas Mauduit
[1248-1271] and his lands which included Warminster [of which Westbury was included]:
Close Rolls, Henry III, 1261-1264, Kraus Reprint, 1970:
Pages 339-340:
April 4,1264.
Pro Warino de Bassingburn'--Quia rex concessit Warino de Bassingburn'
custodiam terrarum et Tenementorum que fuerunt Willelmi Madut de Werministr' dudum
defuncti, qui de rege tenuit in capite, habendam usque ad legitimam etatem
heredis ejudem Willelmi pro racionabili extenta quam rex inde fieri precepit,
preceptum est escaetori in comitatu Wiltes' quod ipsum Warinum terras et tenementa
predicta excolere et commodum suum inde facere permittat donec rex alius inde
preceperit. Teste rege apud Oxoniam iiii die Aprilis.
April 10, 1264.
Pro Warino de Bassingburn'---Rex escaetori suo in comitatu Wiltes' salutem.
Cum nuper pro laudabili servico quod dilectus et fidelis noster Warinus de
Bassingburn' nobis impendit concesserimus ei custodiam omnium terrarum et
tenementorum que fuerunt Willelmi Maudut de Werministr' nuper defuncti, qui de nobis
tenuit in capite, habendam per arcionabilem extentam inde faciendam, et iam
acceperimus per inquisicionem quam per dilectum et fidelem nostrum Willelmum de
Weilond, escaetorem nostrum citra Trentam, quod manerium de Werministr' quod
fuit predicti Willelmi extenditur per annum ad xiii libras et viii solidos et
quod manerium de Wetb' quod fuit predicti Willelmi extenditur ad quinque libras
undecim solidos et octo denarios; concedimus cidem Warino maneria predicta
habenda per extentam illam usque ad legitimam etatem heredis ipsuis Willelmi. Et
ideo tibi precipimus quod eidem Warino de maneriis predictis plenam seisinam
habere facias tenendis sicut predictum est. Teste rege apud Norhamt' X die
Aprilis.
In a later charter that of Elizabeth Knoville wife of Thomas Mauduit [Oct.
14, 1287- 1322] the land in Westbury had become her dower upon her husband's
death:
Genealogical Proofs of the House of Maudit, A succinct Genealogy of the House
of Maudit by Robert Halstead, London, 1685:
Page 139:
Carta Dominae Elizabethae Mauduit,
Sciant praesentes & futuri, quod ego Elizabetha filia Domini Bogoni de
Knoville & uxor quondam Domini Thomae Mauduit, in libera viduitate mea concessi,
tradidi, & ad firmam demisi Waltero de Grimsted unum messuagium in Chaldcoate in
Hundredo de Westbury, simul cum tota terra sua arabili, patis, pascuis &
pasturis, cum omnibus suis pertinentiis, quae mihi acciderunt nomine dotis apud
Westbury & Chaldcoate post decessum Domini Thomae Mauduit viri mei: Exceptis
redditibus & servitiis tam liberorum hominum quam villanorum. Habendum & tenendum
praedicto Waltero vel suis assignatis praedictum messuagium cum tota terra
praedicta, pratis, pascuis & pasturis, de me praedicta Elizabetha a Festo
Annunciationis beatae Virginis usque ad terminum duorum annorum proxime subsequentium
pleanarie completorum libere, quiete bene & in pace, reddendo inde per annum
mihi praedictae Elizabethae vel meo certo attornato literas meas deferenti
potentes, quatuor libras bonae & legalis monetae ad duos anni terminos, scilicet
ad Festa Sancti Michaelis Archangeli & Annunciationis beatae Mariae Virginis
aequalibus portionibus sine dilatione ulteriori. Et si contingat quod
praedictus Walterus vel sui assignati in toto vel in parte solutionem dictae pecuniae
terminis deficiant, obligat se dictus Walterus pro se & suis assignatis bona &
Catalla sua mobilia & immobilia super praedictus terras & tenementa inventa in
districtionem mei praedictae Elizabethae & Ballivorum meorum ad districtiones
Catallorum in eisdem inventorum capiendum & contra vadum & plegium retinendum
& dictum messuagium cum tota terra praedicta, pratis, pascuis & pasturis
praedictis, cum omnibus suis pertinentiis, refumendis, quousque de solutionibus
dictae pecuniae quae aretro fuerint, plenarie sibi fuerit satisfactum. Praedicta
Elizabetha praedictum messuagium cum tota terra praedicta, pratis, pascuis &
pasturis, praedicto Waltero vel suis assignatis per praedictum terminum duorum
annorum proxime subsequentium plenarie completorum, contra omnes mortales
warrantizabit, acquietabit & defendet, salvo tamen cumpostata saldae una cum
fructibus pratorum & Warrennae post Festum Annunciationis beatae Mariae, vicesimo
quinto die Martii untimi Anni, mihi praedictae Elizabethae, & etiam
quadraginta soldis de praedicto redditu ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Archangeli anni
eiusdem ultimi. Ita tamen quod fructus in dictis terris arabilibus crescentes
eiusdem anni ultimi praedicto Waltero vel eius assignatis remanebunt in forma
praedicta. In cuius rei testimonium praesenti scripto in modum chirographi consecto
sigillum meum apposui. Hic testibus, Roberto Plugnel, Nicholao Malemains,
Roberto Mauduit, Thoma Somerford, Walero Rottings, Nicholao de Doderidge & aliis.
There is confusion over this woman's name as an earlier charter dated at
Westbury the Friday before the feast of St. Margaret, 9 Edward II from Robert
Renand to Thomas Mauduit states:
......Ego Robertus Renand de Westbury dedi, concessi & hac praesenti carta
mea confirmavi Domino Thomae Mauduit Domino de Weminster & Elizabethae uxori
suae & Johanni filio eorum, omnes illas terras & tenementa illa cum omnibus suis
pertinentiis......
Which makes it clear that John is the son of Thomas and Elizabeth Mauduit but
a fine in 1310 from the Huntingdonshire Feet of Fines shows her as Eleanor
wife of Thomas Mauduit. This is also stated later:
Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III, 1327-1330, Kraus Reprint, 1972:
Page 16:
March 12, 1327.
To William Trussel, escheator this side of Trent. Order to deliver to
Eleanor, late wife of Thomas Mauduyt, tenant in chief of the late king, a third of
the manor of Wermenstre, co. Wilts, of the yearly value of £48 8s. 2d., and a
third of the manor of Westbury, in the same county, of the yearly value of £9
4s. 1d., which the king has assigned to her as her dower. Westminster.
C 143/221/2
John son of Thomas Mauduyt to settle the advowson of the chapel of the manor
of Warminster and two-thirds of the manor and hundred of Warminster, and of a
messuage, land, and rent in Westbury, with reversion of the remaining third of
the same now held by Richard de Perers and Eleanor his wife as in right of
dower of the said Eleanor, on himself and Juliana his wife and the heirs of
their bodies, with remainder to his right heirs, retaining the manor of Grately
(Hants.) with a messuage and land in Deane (Hants.). Wilts. Hants. 6 Edward III.
We know from the Charters that Eugenia FitzWarin was the daughter of Fulk
FitzWarin and Havise de Dinan. The Mauduit line:
1. Havise de Dinan
+ Fulk Fitz Warin [died 1198]
2. Fulk Fitz Warin [died aft. Oct. 8, 1250]
+ Maud le Vavsour
3. Fulk Fitz Warin [died May 16, 1264]
+ Constance Toeni
3. Havise Fitz Warin
+ William Pantulf
3. Eve Fitz Warin
+ William de Blanchminster
4. Betraya Blanchminster
4. Joan Blanchminster
+ William de Barenton
4. Maud Blanchminster
+ William de Bracy
4. Eleanor Blanchminster
+ Robert le Strange [died Oct. 12, 1276]
5. John le Strange
5. Fulk le Strange
+ Eleanor Giffard
+ Brewes de Knoville [Bogo de Knoville died shortly before July
6, 1307]
5. Eleanor de Knoville
+ Thomas Mauduit [Oct. 14, 1287-1322]
+ Richard de Peres
2. Eudes Fitzwarin
2. Eugenia FitzWarin
+ Thomas Mauduit [ca. 1183-aft. July 28, 1244]
3. William Mauduit [died ca. April 4, 1264]
4. Thomas Mauduit [ca. 1248-1271]
+ Joan Bassingburn [aft. 1275]
5. Warin Mauduit [1269-ca. Sept. 26, 1300]
+ Elizabeth de Lisle
6. Thomas Mauduit [Oct. 14, 1287-1322]
+ Eleanor Knoville [see above]
7. John Mauduit [Feb. 2, 1311-April 1, 1364]
+ Juliana le Moyne [ ca. 1305-April 20, 1379]
8. Thomas Mauduit [died Oct. 28, 1361]
+ Joan
9. Maud Mauduit [Nov. 6, 1354-1404]
+ Henry Greene [1343-Sept. 2, 1399]
The question is if Eugenia Fitz Warin is the same as Eve FitzWarin wife of
(1) Sir Oliver Tracy (2) Thomas de Londons then the marriage between Joan
Bassingburn and Thomas Mauduit would have been required as they were related within
the third degree of kinship. The proof of this marriage lies largely on VCH
Vol. VIII and visitation pedigrees which may be incorrect. There is also the
scenario that possibly the dispensation wasn't obtained which was the case in
many of these marriages or that it was unrecorded or lost also.
Any other information welcomed on this discussion.
Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Frederic C. Chalfant
Shouldn't the list of 17th Century colonial American immigrants who
descend from Eve
Fitz Warin include Bridget Lisle (RD600)?
Sincerely,
Fred Chalfant
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your long and helpful post. You put a lot of information
out there for everyone to digest. Much appreciated.
A couple of quick comments. You have quoted a record below which shows
that a certain Eugenia was the wife of William Mauduit in 1231-2, then
you say Eugenia must be the wife of Thomas Mauduit. Mistakes do happen
in such records, but they are rare. If the record says William, it
says William. William Mauduit's birthdate is unknown. I assume he was
born sometime in the period, 1205-1223. Following this line of
thought, if Eugenia Fitz Warin was the wife of William Mauduit, it is
almost impossible for her to have been the daughter of Hawise de Dinan.
Hawise de Dinan's eldest son and heir, Fulk Fitz Warin, was apparently
born c. 1177.
Second, the charters do not say that Eugenia was the daughter of Hawise
de Dinan. Rather, the first charter you posted in an earlier post says
that Fulk Fitz Warin (son of Hawise de Dinan) gave property at
Westbury, Wiltshire to his brother, Eudes Fitz Warin. So far, so good.
The second charter states that a certain Eudes Fitz Warin gave
property at Westbury to his sister, Eugenia de Mauduit. The second
charter does not necessarily involve the same Eudes Fitz Warin as in
the first charter. Nor is Eugenia Mauduit's husband named in this
charter. Halstead and Paget evidently concluded it was the same Eudes
Fitz Warin, but we may be dealing with two separate and distinct Eudes
Fitz Warin's. Paget identified Eugenia Fitz Warin as the wife of
William Mauduit. To make this identitification, Paget may have relied
on the Close Rolls item he cited dated 20 Henry III, rather than the De
Banco roll item you cite below.
Third, you have quoted from VCH History which identifies Warin de
Bassingbourne as uncle to Thomas, son of William Mauduit (died 1264).
I don't know the source of this statement but it seems to be in error.
Both Warin and Thomas were apparently descended from the Fitz Warin
family. They were cousins to each other, but not uncle and nephew.
With regard to the possibility that Eugenia Fitz Warin is the same
person as Eve Fitz Warin, this seems quite remote if the lands of the
two women went to two different families. Your post below shows that
Eugenia's holdings at Westbury descended to the Mauduit family, whereas
as Eve Fitz Warin's holdings probably descended to her Bassingbourne
descendants. Also, the fact that the Mauduit family inherited
Eugenia's land holdings is good evidence that Eugenia was their
ancestress, and that she was not a step-mother of no blood relation.
Hats off to you MichaelAnne for taking the time to post the voluminous
material on the Mauduit family. These records open the window a lot
wider for us to see the past with a better eye.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
William Mauduit, lord of Warminster was married to a woman named Eve. If this Eve were a sister to Warin then Thomas would be his nephew by this marriage. Right?
So without knowing who this Eve is can we say that it's not possible?
Please correct my misunderstanding here.
Thanks
Will
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Second, the charters do not say that Eugenia was the daughter
> of Hawise de Dinan. Rather, the first charter you posted in an
> earlier post says that Fulk Fitz Warin (son of Hawise de Dinan)
> gave property at Westbury, Wiltshire to his brother, Eudes Fitz
> Warin. So far, so good. The second charter states that a certain
> Eudes Fitz Warin gave property at Westbury to his sister,
> Eugenia de Mauduit. The second charter does not necessarily
> involve the same Eudes Fitz Warin as in the first charter. Nor is
> Eugenia Mauduit's husband named in this charter. Halstead and
> Paget evidently concluded it was the same Eudes Fitz Warin,
> but we may be dealing with two separate and distinct Eudes
> Fitz Warin's. Paget identified Eugenia Fitz Warin as the wife of
> William Mauduit. To make this identitification, Paget may have
> relied on the Close Rolls item he cited dated 20 Henry III, rather
> than the De Banco roll item you cite below.
I haven't read through this thread, but it seems to me that the
attestations in the two charters that MichaelAnne posted at the start
include names prominent enough to allow for settling the range of their
possible dates as co-witnesses. This might make it clearer if a
generation seperated two Eudes fitz Warins or if only one person was
more probably involved.
The first charter includes "Willielmo Longespe Comite de Salisburia,
Willielmo Mareschall filio Willielmi Mareschall Comite de Pembroc":
William Marshal the younger was earl of Pembroke from 1220 to 1231, and
William de Longespee (assuming this was Longsword, the husband of Ela)
was earl of Salisbury during this time only until early in 1226.
Can someone narrow the range for the second charter ("hic testibus,
Fulcone filio Warrini, Reginaldo de Albo Monasterio, Henrico de Tracy,
Waltero de Pavely, Willielmo de Pipard, Philippo Bret, Hugone de
Shuggford, Willielmo de Hodenet, Philippo Marmion")?
Peter Stewart
Claud...@aol.com
Philip Marmion was of age by Dec. 10, 1242 when the wardship of his marriage
expired which was being held for three years by William Cantelou. He did
homage for his father-in-law's lands for his wife on Dec. 7, 1244. He died Feb. 5,
1291.
Walter de Pavely was also of Westbury, co. Wiltshire. He died in 1256.
Sir Reginald Albo Monasterio was dead bef. 1277 and so was his son Ralph Albo
Monasterio who left an heir.
Henry de Tracy was alive in 1230 and died 1274. He was born before 1211 when
his father Sir Oliver Tracy died.
So the charter was executed before 1256.
Regards,
MichaelAnne
GRHa...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/8/2005 7:41:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
Below is the list of the colonial
immigrants who descend from Eve Fitz Warin, wife of Oliver de Tracy
(died 1210) and Thomas de London (died before 1221).
Each and every one of them? Is there no possibility that there are others
which you have not listed. I realize that it is a small thing but your
sentence is worded to indicate that there are no more. I doubt that is fact.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
>
>
> Each and every one of them? Is there no possibility that there are
others
> which you have not listed. I realize that it is a small thing but
your
> sentence is worded to indicate that there are no more. I doubt that
is fact.
>
>
> Gordon Hale
> Grand Prairie, Texas
Dear Gordon ~
I'm sure you are right. The list I posted is representative, not all
inclusive.
Can you share the names of other immigrants who descend from Eve (Fitz
Warin) (de Tracy) de London?
D. Spencer Hines
The Patriot?
DSH
<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:e1.cb4a59...@aol.com...
PDel...@aol.com
In a message dated 09/02/2005 18:56:39 GMT Standard Time,
pogue...@hotmail.com writes:
Have you been able to trace any relationship to Nathan Hale, Yale 1773,
The Patriot?
I am very interested in this person as in the 70s and 80s I knew a very
charming Mr Hale and his much younger wife (he 70s her 40s) and their child on
the Island of Hydra where we had a holiday home, ( I used to babysit for the
child, when they went to parties). He was, at the time, director of the
Metropolitan in NY. I spent many holidays at his house and his friend's flat, a John
Bradlee, in Upper East Side, Manhattan. He had some quite amazing family
heirlooms of the American Revolution as so he told me he was a descendant of
Nathan Hale. I remember introducing him to Ved Mehta and Ted Morgan.
Somewhat OT , I know but I'd be interested to know what happened to his
boy-child!
regards
Peter ( de Loriol)
D. Spencer Hines
Nathan Hale was executed in what is now part of New York City, very near
Grand Central Station and the Yale Club -- on 22 September 1776, of
course.
There is a historical plaque on Vanderbilt Avenue, beside Grand Central
Station.
But what makes you think he had legitimate descendants?
He died at 21 and was never married as far as I know.
Ved Mehta and Ted Morgan [Sanche Armand Gabriel de Gramont] -- both VERY
interesting people.
Ted Morgan is related to John Negroponte, presently our Ambassador to
Iraq and previously at the United Nations?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<PDel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c8.58301c5...@aol.com...
GRHa...@aol.com
In a message dated 2/9/2005 1:56:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pogue...@hotmail.com writes:
Have you been able to trace any relationship to Nathan Hale, Yale 1773,
The Patriot?
DSH
<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:e1.cb4a59...@aol.com...
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas
I could not determine is a previous attempt at responding to this message
was completed so I am repeating it here.
In a message dated 2/9/2005 1:56:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pogue...@hotmail.com writes:
Have you been able to trace any relationship to Nathan Hale, Yale 1773,
The Patriot?
DSH
Nope, we are a different bunch. Our family name at that time was usually in
Georgia or Virginia and was usually spelled Hailes. My great grandfather
was elected sheriff of Greene County, Georgia in 1868. That was during
reconstruction and to be elected to any office you had to be in league with the
carpetbaggers and recently freed slaves. I have a listing from a book of a
clipping of the Greene county newspaper of that time which reads:
THE ELECTION
The late election has ceased to be a matter of any interest to our
readers but for the information of those who live in other sections, we give
below the names of the gentlemen who have declared to their fellow-men, that they
heartily welcome political and socialy equality; who declare to the world
that they and their families are no better than the kinky headed African. The
county officers elect are as follows:
! R. L. McWorter, Abram Colby...............Representatives.
R. C. Hailes..........................................Sheriff.
D. A. Newsom......................................Ordinary.
C. J. Caldwell.......................................Clerk Superior Court.
John Mitchell........................................Tax
Receiver.
G. H. Thompson...................................Tax Collector.
Hugh McWhorter..................................Treasurer.
L. C. Broome........................................Surveyor.
The R. C. Hailes was my great grandfather and the rest of the family, to
distance themselves from him, changed the spelling to Hale. This was true even
of his own son, my grandfather.
Reed C. Hailes had enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861, along with my
grandfather, and stayed in only about two months before he purchased a
substitute. My grandfather stayed in and was at Appomatox.
I am NOT ashamed of Reed C. Hailes actions. I think that he was survivor
and realized the war was lost and tried to make the best he could for himself
and his section.
GRHa...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
Dear Gordon ~
I'm sure you are right. The list I posted is representative, not all
inclusive.
Can you share the names of other immigrants who descend from Eve (Fitz
Warin) (de Tracy) de London?
I realize that your list was not meant to be all inclusive but your wording
indicates that it is.
A better wording would have been, "Some of the immigrants who descend from
etc.".
I do not have this lady in my file so I assume that I have no relationship
to her. My file has gotten so large that I do not enter anyone who appears at
least to be related to me. I cannot, therefore, share any names with you.
I realize that this might be considered nit-picking, but it is important to
state actual facts in each case rather than allowing a person to make
assumptions. If, for instance, I had seen your list and I WAS descended from this
lady, but my immigrant ancestor was not in your list, I would have to think
that my information was incorrect when it might well not be.
D. Spencer Hines
Understood...
Yes, we have no right to condemn our ancestors -- we did not walk in
their shoes.
Several of my relatives fought in the C.S.A.
Two Great-Granduncles were killed -- I have a photograph of them, with
their sidearms -- one was killed in battle and one by a bushwacker after
the War was "officially" over.
Captain Thomas Henry Hines, C.S.A., is better known, as he rode with
Morgan and was probably Morgan's best scout and spy.
I also have ancestors who fought for the Union.
Was R. C. Hailes, or his family, from the North originally? -- You
mention carpetbaggers.
Had I been born in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or in fact anywhere
else in the South in 1839, or thereabouts, as were my Great-Granduncles,
I have little doubt I would have been a Jacksonian Democrat -- which
means a Republican today -- given how far the present Democrat Party has
fled from its Jeffersonian-Jacksonian roots.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ee.c6d3a9...@aol.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Tilden, the Democrat, from New York, and a Yale graduate, won the
so-called "popular vote" but lost out on the Electoral Vote due to some
shenanigans dealing with Florida. <g>
1876 -- Hayes vs. Tilden.
Chief Justice Rehnquist has written a marvelous book about it.
DSH
<GRHa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:100.cbee46...@aol.com...
| In a message dated 2/9/2005 3:36:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
| pogue...@hotmail.com writes:
|
| Was R. C. Hailes, or his family, from the North originally? -- You
| mention carpetbaggers.
| No, the Hailes came originally into Virginia from Lenham, Kent - to
Georgia
| and my father came to Texas in the early years of the 20th Century.
|
|
| So far as I am aware there were no Hailes north of Virginia who are
| ancestral to me.
|
| I mention carpetbaggers because that is who was in political control
in
| Georgia at that time. If I remember correctly Georgia was still under
| Reconstruction government until a disputed presidential election
(can't recall which
| one) when an agreement was reached between the Republicans and
Democrats that
| even though it appeared the Democrats had won they would allow the
Republicans
| to hold the office if the Republicans would agree to remove all of
the
| Reconstructions governments in the South.
|
| Dern ya, you have piqued my interst. Now I must go find out what
election
| that was.
D. Spencer Hines
The Rehnquist book is:
_Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876_
A classic, fair-minded and brilliant read.
DSH
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
12-stringer
> Georgia at that time. If I remember correctly Georgia was still under
> Reconstruction government until a disputed presidential election (can't
recall which
> one) when an agreement was reached between the Republicans and Democrats
that
> even though it appeared the Democrats had won they would allow the
Republicans
> to hold the office if the Republicans would agree to remove all of the
> Reconstructions governments in the South.
>
> Dern ya, you have piqued my interst. Now I must go find out what
election
> that was.
>
>
> Gordon Hale
> Grand Prairie, Texas
>
Hayes-Tilden, 1876.
Louise Staley
Firstly, thank-you very much MichaelAnne for posting all this information
about the Mauduits and Fitzwarines. I am only sorry not to have anything
to add re Eugenia/Eve.
I am also interested in the Blancminster link to the Fitzwarines and
through to the Stranges of Blackmere. There were a number of Blancminster
lines that ended in daughters which may, or may not, be connected. I
wonder if anyone has further information on this Blancminster family, in
particular any pointers to the lands William Blancminster held?
Thanks
Louise
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, <Claud...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> We know from the Charters that Eugenia FitzWarin was the daughter of Fulk
> FitzWarin and Havise de Dinan. The Mauduit line:
>
> 1. Havise de Dinan
> + Fulk Fitz Warin [died 1198]
> 2. Fulk Fitz Warin [died aft. Oct. 8, 1250]
> + Maud le Vavsour
> 3. Fulk Fitz Warin [died May 16, 1264]
> + Constance Toeni
> 3. Havise Fitz Warin
> + William Pantulf
> 3. Eve Fitz Warin
> + William de Blanchminster
> 4. Betraya Blanchminster
> 4. Joan Blanchminster
> + William de Barenton
> 4. Maud Blanchminster
> + William de Bracy
> 4. Eleanor Blanchminster
> + Robert le Strange [died Oct. 12, 1276]
> 5. John le Strange
> 5. Fulk le Strange
> + Eleanor Giffard
> + Brewes de Knoville
Rick Eaton
Thanks,
Rick
Clive West
> What are PREBENDARIES OF DASSET PARVA?
>
Dasset Parva is/was the name of a village. A prebendary was a cathedral
official (usually a member of the chapter) who drew a prebend or salary from
the revenues of the cathedral.
CNW
Janet
the site.
So Please resend the Medieval archives address.
Janet Ariciu
Chris Phillips
The website of the newsgroup/mailing list is here
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval
and includes information about archives.
Chris Phillips
Tim Powys-Lybbe
FAQ: http://www.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html
I have a folder into which I put all useful items from the newsgroup.
Might I suggest you do the same? (Assuming you find this useful, of
course)
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Rick Eaton
Many thanks to Clive for your answer. It seems that one of my early
ancestors was a prebendary.
WJho...@aol.com
mon...@getgoin.net writes:
<< I know I just ask this question but computer is now back running and lost
the site. So Please resend the Medieval archives address.
Janet Ariciu >>
janet I find you don't even need that if you're looking for a particular
person
I just go to www.google.con and put in something like
"John of Nottingham" GEN-MEDIEVAL-L
and it always works. Just remember to put exact phrases inside quotes and
google will look for only that exact phrase.
Will Johnson
BromN...@aol.com
I hope your early ancestor had a second job. See 2. below.
Webster's New World Dictionary, 1972; 1. a person receiving a prebend 2. in
the Church of England, an honorary canon with only the title of a prebend
Best regards,
Brom Nichol