Good day, I have a question about Roger Kelke who was father to Alice Kelke (wife of Robert Tirwhit) that I was hoping someone would be able to answer. Is this Roger Kelke the same person as the Roger Kelke who married ______ Leyburne (daughter of Henry Leyburne) and had a son William Kelke? They seem as though they would be the same age. There are also a number of fines where the Tirwhit's and the Kelke's are found together from around the same period. http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/search.php?s=1&surname=kelke&given=&place=&after=&before=&county=&finecase=&finefile=&finenumber= CP 25/1/144/150, number 5: (1395) Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit'; Nicholas Tournay; Thomas Ruston'; Joan Places: Magna Stepyng'; Frisby [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/144/151, number 33: (1401) Persons: William Kelke; Richard Tirwhit; Robert Tirwhit; Walter de Flynton'; Thomas la Warre Places: Barnetby; Ketilby; Netilton' [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/290/60, number 68: (1402-1403) Persons: Thomas Haweley; William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; John Turnay; Roger de Bernardeston'; William Ingham; Margery Places: Bernetby; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Kedyngton'; Bernardeston'; Dagenham; Berkyng'; Whetele; Dancastre; Baldirton' [Suffolk. Essex. Yorkshire] CP 25/1/144/153, number 7: (1409-1410) Persons: William Kelke; Robert Tirwhit; Nicholas Tournay; Stephen Burne; Alice Places: Magna Stepyng; Frysby [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/145/158, number 23: (1435) Persons: Roger Kelke; Robert Feryby; Patrick Skypwyth'; Agnes Places: Frothyngham; Bekeby; Wraweby [Lincolnshire] CP 25/1/280/159, number 3: (1442) Persons: William Tirwhit; William Kelke; Thomas Tirwhit; William West; Thomas Kelke; Elizabeth Places: Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laco; Beu[er]laci [Yorkshire] Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jordan Vandenberg.

See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2010-08/1282869484 In 2010, John concluded from these Westwood charters that Avicia was the wife of William (I) de Beauchamp.

They are pledges for prosecution (plegios de prosequendo), Jan. No medieval lawsuit could begin unless the plaintiff produced two pledges for prosecution, who guaranteed that he would prosecute the action to a conclusion, and not just drop it at some point. If at any point along during the process the plaintiff failed to do something ordered by the court his pledges could be amerced (fined) until her performed. Matt Tompkins ________________________________ From: Jan Wolfe <[email protected]> Sent: 09 June 2017 18:56 There are two men, John Lylleston and John Shelton, of Middlesex, listed at the bottom right of the document. What is the roll of these two men in the case? A John Lylleston is named to collect aid in Middlesex for the marriage of Blanche in 1401 in the fine rolls of Henry IV: http://scans.library.utoronto.ca/pdf/1/16/calendaroffiner12greauoft/calendaroffiner12greauoft.pdf#page=162

> An image is also available on AALT, see > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no68/IMG_0221.htm > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Thanks for that Jan, that image is much clearer. Cheers Colin

On 09/06/2017 18:18, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > I'm afraid it's a sum of money, Colin. £20 and 10 marks. > > But the document refers to John Cliderhowe of Swanscombe, one of the clerks of Chancery, which should enable the date to be narrowed down somewhat by external evidence. A quick google suggest he was living in the first decade of the 15th century - but I suspect it is he you're interested in, and want to use this document to get a date for him. > > Matt Yes Matt, it is John Cliderhowe I am interested in, the Chancery Clerk. I have finished his biography, with just the exception of a date for this Chancery suit he was involved in. That AALT image is much clearer. I have now lost confidence in the document camera in the Map Room. The model specs give it a very high resolution, but the staff must have set it much lower, as I get slightly fuzzy images consistently. Thanks Colin

I have been checking the following early Chancery Proceeding: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_cr=C%201%2F68%2F191&_dss=range&_ro=any&_st=adv The Discovery Catalogue says the date is 1386-1486 (i.e. no date), so yesterday at TNA I obtained a scan of the document. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcm9aogbtw95g7a/C_1_68_191%20-%20Cliderhowe%20v%20Payne.jpg?dl=0 The scan is not 100% clear, but is about 80% legible, and there appears to be a date (but maybe without a year) on the second line from the bottom, on the left. Can anyone make out this date? Thanks, Wibs

I'm afraid it's a sum of money, Colin. £20 and 10 marks. But the document refers to John Cliderhowe of Swanscombe, one of the clerks of Chancery, which should enable the date to be narrowed down somewhat by external evidence. A quick google suggest he was living in the first decade of the 15th century - but I suspect it is he you're interested in, and want to use this document to get a date for him. Matt -----Original Message----- From: GEN-MEDIEVAL [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colin Withers Sent: 09 June 2017 18:05 To: [email protected] Subject: Early Chancery Proceeding - Help needed with Date I have been checking the following early Chancery Proceeding: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_cr=C%201%2F68%2F191&_dss=range&_ro=any&_st=adv The Discovery Catalogue says the date is 1386-1486 (i.e. no date), so yesterday at TNA I obtained a scan of the document. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcm9aogbtw95g7a/C_1_68_191%20-%20Cliderhowe%20v%20Payne.jpg?dl=0 The scan is not 100% clear, but is about 80% legible, and there appears to be a date (but maybe without a year) on the second line from the bottom, on the left. Can anyone make out this date? Thanks, Wibs ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 9/06/2017 11:56 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote: > According to the Latin Assistant dictionary, avus means forefather or ancestor in addition to grandfather. Was it sometimes used in this broader sense in this era? > > Chris Phillips quoted the text of the 1305 inquisition that Emma Mason sites as evidence that Berta Braose married William (I) de Beauchamp (_Cal. of Inq. Misc._, i, no. 1971). See > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-09/1033304740 > > The part with the conflicting evidence about who Berta married is this: > > William de Breouse, long since deceased, who once held the manor of > Tettebury together with the said rent and other tenements belonging to the > said manor of the king in chief by service of a knight's fee, gave the said > rent a hundred and sixty years and more past to William de Bello Campo, > great grandfather of the said earl, and Berta, daughter of the said William > de Brewose, in free marriage. > > "A hundred and sixty years and more past" would be 1145 or earlier. That would be consistent with a marriage of Berta to William (I) de Beauchamp. "Great-grandfather of the said earl" would be consistent with a marriage to William (II) de Beauchamp. > > Emma Mason concluded that the error was in the "great-grandfather" statement, not in the "160 years and more past" statement. As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241. Peter Stewart

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 3:10:50 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: > One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says? > > While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason. A reader kindly sent me a link to the transcription of B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1336043/f569.item It does appear to imply that an Avicia domina de Salewarp was the mother of William de Bello Campo. In the next entry, is Walter confirming the same gift?

Thanks Matt and Colin for your explanations about the people listed as pledges. Perhaps it would be useful to have an index of the pledges in these Chancery cases. The date ranges of many of the cases could potentially be narrowed with such information.

One of the sources cited by Mason was B. M. Cotton MS. Vesp. E. ix, fo. 2v. Do we know what this source says? While the suit cited by Mason may imply that the widow of William (II) de Beauchamp may have been named Amicia, I didn't see a statement that implied that Amicia was the mother of his sons, as claimed by Mason.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:56:47 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: > On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:31:44 PM UTC-4, Colin Withers wrote: > > > An image is also available on AALT, see > > > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no68/IMG_0221.htm > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > Thanks for that Jan, that image is much clearer. > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Colin > > There are two men, John Lylleston and John Shelton, of Middlesex, listed at the bottom right of the document. What is the roll of these two men in the case? A John Lylleston is named to collect aid in Middlesex for the marriage of Blanche in 1401 in the fine rolls of Henry IV: > http://scans.library.utoronto.ca/pdf/1/16/calendaroffiner12greauoft/calendaroffiner12greauoft.pdf#page=162 A John Lylleston of Middlesex is mentioned in the close rolls in 1393: Sept. 20. Westminster. To the sheriff of Cantebrigge. Writ of supersedeas, and order by mainprise of John Lylleston of Middlesex, John Wilteshire of Cambridgeshire, Robert Goderiche of London and Thomas Blakehay of Devon to set free William Bertilmewe of Cantebrigge, if taken at suit of the king and John Penteney for leaving John Penteney's service before the term agreed. A John Lylleston died in London before 1 July 1397, see https://www.british-history.ac.uk/plea-memoranda-rolls/vol3/pp248-259

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:31:44 PM UTC-4, Colin Withers wrote: > > An image is also available on AALT, see > > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no68/IMG_0221.htm > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > Thanks for that Jan, that image is much clearer. > > Cheers > > > Colin There are two men, John Lylleston and John Shelton, of Middlesex, listed at the bottom right of the document. What is the roll of these two men in the case? A John Lylleston is named to collect aid in Middlesex for the marriage of Blanche in 1401 in the fine rolls of Henry IV: http://scans.library.utoronto.ca/pdf/1/16/calendaroffiner12greauoft/calendaroffiner12greauoft.pdf#page=162

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:54:17 PM UTC-3, [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > I stumbled upon this group by accident when searching for my Fernandez ancestors, and some of you seem educated in the history of Spanish nobility. I figure maybe some of you can help me with direction of where to go. > > > My grandfather comes from Panama where his father was an ambassador and I believe secretary of the interior. He always told me his ancestors were sent to Panama to help govern and his ancestors before that were sent to Colombia before that by the Queen of Spain to help govern. He comes from a noble family of Spain. My grandfather grew up going to the presidents palace in Panama, being told that Arnulfo Arias Madrid was a relative (my grandfather and father are named after him). When he was taken by his father to Costa Rica for months for "vacation" all the dignitaries and president would come to their home to greet and welcome them. In 1960, his father travelled to Spain to locate the family coat of arms but died in mysterious circumstances before he could present it to our family. My grandfather, Arnulfo Fernandez (b. 1929 Panama) is son of Miguel Angel Fernandez (b. 1898 Colombia/Panama), son of Pedro Fernández Montealegre (b. 1859, costa rica), son of Domingo Evaristo Fernández (I'm 99% sure). I have no way of knowing the Fernández line past that. I can't find documentation. Is there a place that all the noble coat of arms are kept and who they were awarded to? I believe if I can find all the Fernández men who were awarded family crests, then I can eventually determine which is my relative. > > p.s. My grandfather's mother, who was a Pretto-Seixas, was 100% Jewish, her lines being traced for more than 1,000 years. We believe the Fernández line is also Jewish. > > Thank you, > -Michelle Fernandez/Forester I should also point out that through other lines, branching out, there was a remote ancestress in my Fernández genealogy who was, perhaps of "converso" origin. Her last name was García-Cabrón. Cabrón was listed as a "converso" last name in some writings of dubious origin. However, I haven't found in her immediate ancestry any "converso" blood (which, of course, does not prove there wasn't any). Unfortunately, beyond the 16th C., nothing is documented about this quite peculiar last name, which in modern Spanish is used as an adjective to express a person's bad temper.

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:54:17 PM UTC-3, [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > I stumbled upon this group by accident when searching for my Fernandez ancestors, and some of you seem educated in the history of Spanish nobility. I figure maybe some of you can help me with direction of where to go. > > > My grandfather comes from Panama where his father was an ambassador and I believe secretary of the interior. He always told me his ancestors were sent to Panama to help govern and his ancestors before that were sent to Colombia before that by the Queen of Spain to help govern. He comes from a noble family of Spain. My grandfather grew up going to the presidents palace in Panama, being told that Arnulfo Arias Madrid was a relative (my grandfather and father are named after him). When he was taken by his father to Costa Rica for months for "vacation" all the dignitaries and president would come to their home to greet and welcome them. In 1960, his father travelled to Spain to locate the family coat of arms but died in mysterious circumstances before he could present it to our family. My grandfather, Arnulfo Fernandez (b. 1929 Panama) is son of Miguel Angel Fernandez (b. 1898 Colombia/Panama), son of Pedro Fernández Montealegre (b. 1859, costa rica), son of Domingo Evaristo Fernández (I'm 99% sure). I have no way of knowing the Fernández line past that. I can't find documentation. Is there a place that all the noble coat of arms are kept and who they were awarded to? I believe if I can find all the Fernández men who were awarded family crests, then I can eventually determine which is my relative. > > p.s. My grandfather's mother, who was a Pretto-Seixas, was 100% Jewish, her lines being traced for more than 1,000 years. We believe the Fernández line is also Jewish. > > Thank you, > -Michelle Fernandez/Forester Sorry, I am a Fernández too. I have no trace (in this line) of any Jewish blood in my ancestry. Fernández is the most common last name in Asturias (Northern Spain) and one of the most common in other areas of Spain. It simply means "son of Fernando" (Ferdinand). There are thousands of unrelated families with the last name in Spain. Without providing hard data, and knowing where specifically your ancestors came from in Spain, it's almost impossible to know anything about your family history, beyond what you already know.

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:05:16 PM UTC-4, Colin Withers wrote: > I have been checking the following early Chancery Proceeding: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_cr=C%201%2F68%2F191&_dss=range&_ro=any&_st=adv > > The Discovery Catalogue says the date is 1386-1486 (i.e. no date), so > yesterday at TNA I obtained a scan of the document. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcm9aogbtw95g7a/C_1_68_191%20-%20Cliderhowe%20v%20Payne.jpg?dl=0 > > The scan is not 100% clear, but is about 80% legible, and there appears > to be a date (but maybe without a year) on the second line from the > bottom, on the left. > > Can anyone make out this date? > > Thanks, > > Wibs An image is also available on AALT, see http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no68/IMG_0221.htm

On 8/06/2017 8:49 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > > ------------------------------- > It would be possible, and not at all unusual, for a remarried widower to be still holding his deceased former wife's maritagium in three situations. First, if a child had been born to the marriage, in which case the curtesy of England would give him the right to remain in possession of her property until his own death (tenure in maritagium did not alter this). Second, if, as was common, the grant in maritagium had been made to the wife AND her spouse - in which case the husband would be holding after her death in his own right. Third, if the grant in maritagium had been made to the husband alone and his heirs (which did happen, though it became less common after c1200) - in this case the husband's ownership is absolute. I don't see how the distinction between the second and third of these situations can be understood in a particular case where the convention is for an abstract simply to leave out the phrase "and his heirs". If the husband's heirs may not be the same as the wife's, this would seem an important point, much less in a highly litigious feudal society such as England from the 13th century onwards. The 1227 Sele priory abstract mentions Walter's and Hugh's heirs by daughters of William de Braiose; the 1221 fine itself mentions Walter and his heirs without reference to descent from a daughter of William, while Elrington's abstract mentions only Walter in this context. I should have thought the potential implication of the specific wording about heirs might be considered important enough to include a few extra words in an abstract. But then the preference for abstracts in English over editions of the original Latin text, and the old habit of wallowing in antiquarian jargon, are some of the reasons that impelled me towards other fields of research. Peter Stewart

> As I understand it the Sele priory fine cited by Doug Thompson blows > this out of the water, since Reynold de Braiose in 1227 evidently > thought that Berta (whichever Beauchamp she married) was a sister of > Hugh de Mortimer's wife Annora who was living in 1241. > > Peter Stewart True. And "thought that" is a bit of an understatement. I'm sure he knew his own sisters! This makes it really impossible that Berta was married to William 1 de Beauchamp. Peter, when you write "Giles had returned to England in 1213 and - of course - he and his brother could do business other than with the king. I dare say that, between them, they could even chew gum at the same time. From May 1216 Reynold was in possession of the Braiose lordships that Giles had recovered in 1215. If their sister's maritagium (or even a part of it) had been improperly withheld from the family at a time when they needed every resource they could get hold of, why would they have left Walter de Beauchamp in undisturbed possession when he was marrried to Joan de Mortimer from 1212? " I wonder if you have a knowledge of the situation in England and Wales at that time? It was not a place where Giles and Reynold could carry out business, chewing gum or not! They were at war with the King, marching about with armies in Wales. Land disputes were only settled by force of arms. The niceties of legal documentation came later. I value Matthew Tompkins' inputs which may explain some of the legal points in the fines. It looks to me now as if the 1227 fine could allow "Walter and his heirs by the daughter.." to mean the heirs through his mother, excluding heirs through his father's sons by a later wife. This ties in with Berta marrying William II de Beauchamp, the conclusion we came to 15 years ago!! But I'm not sure it quite "feels" right even now. There is a problem that the documents have glaring errors - the 160 years - and the naming of Joanna's husband as William in the Worcester Annals - and some ambiguities as in the 1227 fine's reading of Walter's heirs by Berta. We may have to keep a slightly open mind yet. Doug Thompson

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:03:22 AM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > On Friday, 9 June 2017 08:49:58 UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: > > Dear friends, > > > > I am trying to find the source for the following document cited in Rerum Britannicarum Vol 60 p.602 Ed TW Campbell 1873 > > > > "1486 12 Jan. Henry &. To our Trusty and welbeloved servant Nicholas Leventhorpe receiver of our Honnours of Pountfret....parcell of or Duchie of Lancaster in our county of York ........" > > > > URL > > > > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D_hDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA602&dq=Richard+Pek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mT5GVdnJBsz_aJD7gOgH&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Pek&f=false > > > > Thank you so much, > > Peter > > Hi Peter, > > I can't tell you where this document originated, but it's not from the Close Rolls, Patent Rolls or Fine Rolls (I checked). My guess is that it's from the Duchy of Lancaster deeds. > > Regards, > > John John thank so much for this. Peter

On Friday, 9 June 2017 08:49:58 UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: > Dear friends, > > I am trying to find the source for the following document cited in Rerum Britannicarum Vol 60 p.602 Ed TW Campbell 1873 > > "1486 12 Jan. Henry &. To our Trusty and welbeloved servant Nicholas Leventhorpe receiver of our Honnours of Pountfret....parcell of or Duchie of Lancaster in our county of York ........" > > URL > > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D_hDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA602&dq=Richard+Pek&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mT5GVdnJBsz_aJD7gOgH&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Pek&f=false > > Thank you so much, > Peter Hi Peter, I can't tell you where this document originated, but it's not from the Close Rolls, Patent Rolls or Fine Rolls (I checked). My guess is that it's from the Duchy of Lancaster deeds. Regards, John