On 2/06/2017 6:56 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 2/06/2017 5:56 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: >>> I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but - >>> >>> What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother! >>> >>> Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many. >> The younger William de Beauchamp (brother of Walter) is said to have >> married Jeanne de Saint-Valery and to have died at around 20 years of >> age. Can you let us know if you think this is incorrect, and what the >> evidence is? >> >> Peter Stewart > I have seen Joan de St Valery married to two different Williams in the pedigree but not this one before! I thought she was invented as a device to explain the Beachamp possession of the Tetbury lands, which Bertha's marriage does better. > > Is there any evidence at all for the existence of this Joan de St Valery? I was hoping you would answer this - I have no idea. There is an article on the St Valery family by Herbert Fowler in *The Genealogist*, new series 30 (1914) pp 1-16 & table, but unfortunately Internet Archive is having pathway troubles and can't be accessed (from Australia anyway) at present, so I can't find out if Joan is mentioned there. She does come up in a suspicious number of genealogy websites, in common with many an invented personage... Peter Stewart

Hi everyone, happy summer. I have become interested in one Burchard, Bishop of Worms, and would like to know a bit about his family. He had a brother Franco, also Bishop of Worms, and a sister, an Abbess of an unknown abbey. Burchard was a noted canonist, and Mathilda was famous as a maker of "sumptuous clothes." They were the children of a noble family in Hesse, Germany, but I cannot find their parents' names. Can anyone tell me? Thank you! Nancy the Crazed Ricardian

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:31:53 PM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > Wow! Thank you for the link. I wasn't aware of the 10-year paywall. I've > downloaded it to read as I was not very convinced by Margarita Torres- > Sevilla's reconstruction, even though it has acquired a status of "almost > definitive." I too was never entirely comfortable with her reconstruction, for one of the reasons Martinez Diez mentioned - the children of Flain Munoz, by both wives, seemed to be well documented with no Diego, and he just seemed to be forced in. That and a resistence to the general pattern where every noble family is made a younger branch of a small number of premier families. (For example, in Ireland, the way every family is made to descend from the kings one wonders who exactly they ruled over). That being said, I don't for a minute think the descent of El Cid from Lain Calvo can be taken for granted, based on the testimony of Historia Roderici. I don't know where the historical horizon is (the point at which authentic historical memory ends and before which is legend and tradition), but I doubt it is that far back, especially when we have the parallel of the Lara pedigree, which is completely fantastical. In one of the last papers Martínez Díez published, he went back over some of Menéndez Pidal's identifications in the Siete Infantes tale and concluded the only named figures that can be considered fully historical are count Garcia Fernandez, Almanzor, and one Cordoba general, Ghalib al-Nasiri. Gonzalo Martínez Díez, El Cantar de los siete infantes de Lara: la historia y la leyenda. Cahiers d'études hispaniques médiévales. no. 37:171-189 (2014). [http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_ARTICLE=CEHM_037_0171] taf

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5:28:48 AM UTC-3, taf wrote: > I forgot to throw in the citation:: > > http://riubu.ubu.es/handle/10259.4/2345 > > Gonzalo Martínez Díez, 2007, "Ascendientes de Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar", Boletín de la Institución Fernán González, 86 (234): 31-52 Wow! Thank you for the link. I wasn't aware of the 10-year paywall. I've downloaded it to read as I was not very convinced by Margarita Torres-Sevilla's reconstruction, even though it has acquired a status of "almost definitive." Thanks again.

> So who was the William de Beauchamp who married Maud de Lucy daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy? They had a daughter Maud who married firstly Geoffrey de Lacelles (d. 1204) and secondly Richard de Rivers (d. 1222). > > Regards, > > John I think this William comes from a different family group. Doug

> So who was the William de Beauchamp who married Maud de Lucy daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy? They had a daughter Maud who married firstly Geoffrey de Lacelles (d. 1204) and secondly Richard de Rivers (d. 1222). > > Regards, > > John I think this William comes from a different family group. Doug

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 11:16:04 AM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > On Friday, 2 June 2017 09:56:59 UTC+1, Doug Thompson wrote: > > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > > > On 2/06/2017 5:56 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > > > I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but - > > > > > > > > What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother! > > > > > > > > Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many. > > > > > > The younger William de Beauchamp (brother of Walter) is said to have > > > married Jeanne de Saint-Valery and to have died at around 20 years of > > > age. Can you let us know if you think this is incorrect, and what the > > > evidence is? > > > > > > Peter Stewart > > > > I have seen Joan de St Valery married to two different Williams in the pedigree but not this one before! I thought she was invented as a device to explain the Beachamp possession of the Tetbury lands, which Bertha's marriage does better. > > > > Is there any evidence at all for the existence of this Joan de St Valery? > > > > Doug Thompson > > So who was the William de Beauchamp who married Maud de Lucy daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy? They had a daughter Maud who married firstly Geoffrey de Lacelles (d. 1204) and secondly Richard de Rivers (d. 1222). > > Regards, > > John I think this is a William de Beauchamp from a different family group. Doug

This marriage license tells more: June 11 [1689.] Richard Thornton, of All Hallows, Lumbard Street, London, Cit. & Apothecary, Bach[elo]r, abt 23, & Mrs Beatrix Codd, of the same, Sp[inste]r, above 21, with consent of her uncle, Mr William Pett, her parents beyond seas; at St Dyonis Backchurch, Lond. https://books.google.com/books?id=AH0_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA108&dq=%22richard+thornton%22+apothecary&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmmK3hjqDUAhUKRCYKHQLYATQQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=%22richard%20thornton%22%20apothecary&f=false

Can anyone explain the following tangle? The link below, a book which does not seem particularly well-sourced, gives four marriages for the Virginia/ Maryland colonist St. Leger Codd: (1) 18 May 1667, to Beatrice Pitt, daughter of Anne Pitt [no children] (2) ca. 1668, to Mrs. Anne (Mottrom) (Wright) Fox [sons James Codd and Berkeley Codd] (3) 1671, to Mrs. Anne (Bennett) Bland [son St. Leger Codd, daughter Beatrice and Sarah Codd] (4) Mrs. Anna (Hynson) (Randall) Wickes https://books.google.com/books?id=OsgZEobJlLgC&pg=PA122&dq=%22st+leger+codd%22+beatrix&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin1OvT8p_UAhXB3SYKHQWQBmIQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=%22st%20leger%20codd%22%20beatrix&f=false _The Ancestor_, vol. 10 (1904), pp. 161-63, shows a William Pett (not Pitt), with a second wife, Anne Garbrand, by whom he had a youngest daughter, Beatrix Pett: https://archive.org/stream/ancestorquarterl10unse#page/162/mode/2up Of the daughter Beatrix Pett, the article says, "She married one ... Codd, of the Kentish family of that name. Her brother William Pett, in his will of 1692, speaks of her as a widow deceased, and names her children James Codd, and Beatrix wife of Robert Thornton." Also discussed in _Ancestor_ is Peter Pett of London, sibling of Beatrix and William above, whose will of April 1680 names his kinswoman Elizabeth Codd, daughter of St. Leger Codd. Various sources do claim that St. Leger Codd of Virginia had children called James Codd and Beatrice Codd, though I don't find an Elizabeth ascribed to him. At any rate, the husband of Beatrice Codd must really have been RICHARD Thornton, per this London-area marriage record from 1689: https://books.google.com/books?id=bjIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA42&dq=%22beatrice+codd%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1r8Sv-p_UAhWGNiYKHT9QBKgQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=%22beatrice%20codd%22&f=false This Beatrice/Beatrix must be the Beatrix Thornton of St. James Clerkenwell, Middx., living in 1717 as the widow and executrix of Richard Thornton, late citizen and apothecary of London: https://books.google.com/books?id=eOUIAQAAIAAJ&q=%22widow+and+executrix+of+richard+thornton%22&dq=%22widow+and+executrix+of+richard+thornton%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHjsmVgKDUAhXF7SYKHfYeCHYQ6AEIKDAA The _Ancestor_ article does show the mother of Beatrice Pett, married ... Codd, as an Anne (Garbrand) Pett, which shows a similarity to the claimed marriage of St. Leger Codd in the book first mentioned (1667 to "Beatrice Pitt, daughter of Anne Pitt"). If Beatrice Pett/ Pitt died a widow, doesn't that mean she would have been the LAST wife of St. Leger Codd? More standard accounts of St. Leger Codd seem to omit the Pitt/Pett marriage. https://books.google.com/books?id=jlc_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=%22st+leger+codd%22+beatrix&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin1OvT8p_UAhXB3SYKHQWQBmIQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=%22st%20leger%20codd%22%20beatrix&f=false

Em sexta-feira, 2 de junho de 2017 00:04:19 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: > On 2/06/2017 4:16 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Dear followers of the newsgroup as you may know Oberto I of Italy was ancestor of the Italian House of Este he is said by the chronicles to be the son of a so called Margrave Adalbert who probably possessed the march of Milan that compressed Lombardy and part of Liguria. This so called Malgrave Adalbert is of uncertain ancestry although you can find it quite widespread that he was probably a son of Guido of Lucca and Marozia. According to the Italian Wikipedia this theory originated with the book Gli Estensi of Luciano Chiappini. This book seems to be a very good source about the House of Este. This particular connection is very interesting because if correct it would make the House of Este male-line descendants of Bertha of Lorraine who was herself male-line great-great-granddaughter of Charlemagne providing the House of Este with a descent of Charlemagne with only ONE female generation. I'm wondering however what are the reasons of the theory that Adalberto was son of Guido. Can anyone in this newsgroup with the book report them please. Also, > > comments are welcome. > > There is an enormous literature on this subject, and Chiappini's > contribution is not usually taken as very persuasive. More plausible is > Alessandro Pallavicino's suggestion (in 2005), that Oberto was probably > descended from the family of the gastalds of Sorano. There is not enough > evidence from Oberto's patrimony and his first appearance (as a count) > in April 945 to pin down his origin. > > Peter Stewart What arguments do Chiappini and Pallavicino to support their respective thesis.

On 2/06/2017 4:16 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Dear followers of the newsgroup as you may know Oberto I of Italy was ancestor of the Italian House of Este he is said by the chronicles to be the son of a so called Margrave Adalbert who probably possessed the march of Milan that compressed Lombardy and part of Liguria. This so called Malgrave Adalbert is of uncertain ancestry although you can find it quite widespread that he was probably a son of Guido of Lucca and Marozia. According to the Italian Wikipedia this theory originated with the book Gli Estensi of Luciano Chiappini. This book seems to be a very good source about the House of Este. This particular connection is very interesting because if correct it would make the House of Este male-line descendants of Bertha of Lorraine who was herself male-line great-great-granddaughter of Charlemagne providing the House of Este with a descent of Charlemagne with only ONE female generation. I'm wondering however what are the reasons of the theory that Adalberto was son of Gu! ido. Can anyone in this newsgroup with the book report them please. Also, > comments are welcome. There is an enormous literature on this subject, and Chiappini's contribution is not usually taken as very persuasive. More plausible is Alessandro Pallavicino's suggestion (in 2005), that Oberto was probably descended from the family of the gastalds of Sorano. There is not enough evidence from Oberto's patrimony and his first appearance (as a count) in April 945 to pin down his origin. Peter Stewart

On 2/06/2017 5:56 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but - > > What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother! > > Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many. The younger William de Beauchamp (brother of Walter) is said to have married Jeanne de Saint-Valery and to have died at around 20 years of age. Can you let us know if you think this is incorrect, and what the evidence is? Peter Stewart

What argumenta do Chiappini and Pallavicino to support their respectiv thesis.

On Friday, 2 June 2017 09:56:59 UTC+1, Doug Thompson wrote: > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 2/06/2017 5:56 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > > I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but - > > > > > > What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother! > > > > > > Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many. > > > > The younger William de Beauchamp (brother of Walter) is said to have > > married Jeanne de Saint-Valery and to have died at around 20 years of > > age. Can you let us know if you think this is incorrect, and what the > > evidence is? > > > > Peter Stewart > > I have seen Joan de St Valery married to two different Williams in the pedigree but not this one before! I thought she was invented as a device to explain the Beachamp possession of the Tetbury lands, which Bertha's marriage does better. > > Is there any evidence at all for the existence of this Joan de St Valery? > > Doug Thompson So who was the William de Beauchamp who married Maud de Lucy daughter of Geoffrey de Lucy? They had a daughter Maud who married firstly Geoffrey de Lacelles (d. 1204) and secondly Richard de Rivers (d. 1222). Regards, John

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:00:29 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 2/06/2017 5:56 AM, Doug Thompson wrote: > > I know this is adding another possible layer of confusion but - > > > > What if, during Wm de Braose's custody of Elmley he married Berta to the heir. That would have been William, Walter's older brother who died in 1211. The Tebury jurors may then have had a correct descent of the land from William to Walter etc. but, since it was before their own lifetimes, made an assumption that the William was Walter's father rather than his brother! > > > > Since this is the only evidence for a Braose Beachamp marriage at all, the small error may have caused us all this confusion. It would seem to fit the time scales better than a marriage to the father, who seems to have had a wife called Amice according to many. > > The younger William de Beauchamp (brother of Walter) is said to have > married Jeanne de Saint-Valery and to have died at around 20 years of > age. Can you let us know if you think this is incorrect, and what the > evidence is? > > Peter Stewart I have seen Joan de St Valery married to two different Williams in the pedigree but not this one before! I thought she was invented as a device to explain the Beachamp possession of the Tetbury lands, which Bertha's marriage does better. Is there any evidence at all for the existence of this Joan de St Valery? Doug Thompson

I forgot to throw in the citation:: http://riubu.ubu.es/handle/10259.4/2345 Gonzalo Martínez Díez, 2007, "Ascendientes de Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar", Boletín de la Institución Fernán González, 86 (234): 31-52

I have just seen a new paper addressing the male-line ancestry of El Cid, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar. He was maternal grandfather of king García Ramírez of Navarre, in turn the great-grandfather of Fernando III, and via his daughter Eleanor of Castile, the ancestor of all of the English kings from Edward II. He was a minor nobleman, and his ancestry is recorded in a genealogy found in the Historia Roderici, which dates from not long after his death. It shows a dual descent from a legendary Castilian 'judge', Laín Calvo. He is given two sons, Fernando Laínez and Bermudo Laínez, these being parents of Laín Fernández and Rodrigo Bermúdez. Laín Fernández is given a son Nuño Laínez, who married his second-cousin-once-removed, Eilo Fernández, daughter of Fernando Rodríguez and granddaughter of Rodrigo Bermúdez. Nuño Laínez and Eilo Fernández are given a son, Laín Núñez, father of Diego Laínez, who was father of Rodrigo Díaz, El Cid. Of these, historians such as Menéndez-Pidal had identified very few records, one for El Cid's father, and oone for his grandfather, the others being entirely unknown. This changed when Margarita Torres-Sevilla noticed a correspondence between the generations of this pedigree and the line of the well-known Flaínez family, one of the premier families in Castile. While the name forms are different, she saw an identity in the two descents. As a reminder, El Cid's male lineage runs: Laín - Fernando - Laín - Nuño - Laín - Diego - Rodrigo The Flaínez line runs: (Fernando ?)- Flaín- Munio- Flaín She thus hypothesized that, while his own father was somewhat obscure, El Cid was grandson of a great nobleman, Flaín Muñoz. (Note that this Flaín Muñoz was grandfather of Diego Fernández, identified with El Cid's father-in-law.) The paper I just got hold of is from Castilian historian Gonzalo Martínez Diez, and was published in 2007, but they have a 10-year paywall so it just became available online today. Basically, he dismisses the hypothesis of Margarita Torres-Sevilla. Specifically, he raises the issue that we talked about at an early time here, the distinct character of the names Nuño and Munio. While these names are thought to share a common origin, the interpretation of them as distinct names has changed over time. For much of the previous centuries, they were thought to be variations of the same name, but there grew a realization that the two names were actually distinct (with examples being cited of brothers named Nuño and Munio). This was not as straightforward as it could have been, because scribal error or lack of a recognition of the distinction could cause the names to be exchanged. The Torres-Sevilla reconstruction would require a historical Munio Flaínez to be the same as the Historia's Nuño Laínez. Martínez Diez concludes that the names were truly distinct, and at least at the time were rarely if ever confused. Every refernce that survives of Munio Flaínez shows him under this name, never Nuño. He goes through other Munios and again sees them always as Munio, with only extremely rare exceptions. Further, he notes that Munio Flainez's documented wife is the well-known Froiloba Bermúdez de Cea, (aunt of the Queen of Pamplona), while the Historia gives Nuño Lainez the wife Eilo Fernández. Finally, he points out that the children of Flaín Muñoz seem to eb well documented, and there is no Diego among them, as the Torres-Sevilla reconstruction would require. He concludes, then, that the seeming similarity between El Cid's Laínez ancestry and the Flaínez pedigree is coincidental. Though he only mentions him in passing, there is another case where the distinction between Nuño and Munio has been minimized is in the Sánchez de Mora reconstruction of the Lara origins. The earliest known Lara is Gonzalo Núñez de Lara. The currently preferred reconstruction would make him son of a Munio González, which again would seemingly violate this rule. Martínez Diez clearly thinks this man was Gonzalo Núñez, and hence he could not be Muñoz. This would trow a spanner in the wheel. taf

On 1/06/2017 11:58 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > Depending on what the original document actually says, rather than > going by what the modern summary may seem to say, it may not be > necessary to come up with alternative scenarios to the former > conclusion that Berta de Braiose was Walter's mother. The name of > Berta's mother occurs in the Beauchamp family, apparently in the same > generation as Walter, with Matilda who married Robert Marmion - her > son called himself "filius Matillis de belo Campo" (by the way, hardly > suggesting that the "vernacular" form of her name was anything much > like "Maud"). > > Peter Stewart > > Peter Stewart O dear, I was having a "covfefe" moment - apart from not signing twice, I should have written 'her son called himself "filius Matillis de Bello Campo"...' Peter (once is probably enough) Stewart

On 1/06/2017 10:01 PM, Doug Thompson wrote: > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:17:16 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 31/05/2017 10:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> I would think it more likely to be correct as relayed as Hugh de Mortimer was a husband of a daughter as well. >> That's why I thought the meaning "descended from" would encompass both >> men's family circumstances. >> >> Without the original text we can only grope in the dark. Luckily, >> publishing extracts in English from unpublished Latin documents (as with >> Salzman's "edition" of the Sele priory cartulary) is getting to be a >> thing of the past, and perhaps before too long Magdalen will use some of >> its wealth to get a proper and complete edition of their documents >> published. >> >> Peter Stewart > The thing I find most interesting is that the reservation made on the fine is about "THE SERVICES of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer and their heirs... " Surely this implies that Reginald is referring to living people which can only mean Walter (d1235). This is my assumption, that is why I wondered if the fine might be reserving the rights of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer who were both living and of their heirs who were descendants of William de Braiose through two of the latter's daughters, i.e. one who was the mother of Walter and the other the wife of Hugh. Whatever their current family circumstances in 1227, either or both of these men in might end up having collateral agnatic heirs who were not descendants of William de Braiose. > > Also, I read only yesterday that William de Braose was granted custody of Elmley in 1202. That looks like it may have included custody of Walter then. If so Braose may have married Walter to his daughter as a first marriage. Mortimer is granted custody of Walter in 1212 after the death of Braose. Perhaps Bertha had had heirs in that time but had died subsequently. > > Depending on what the original document actually says, rather than going by what the modern summary may seem to say, it may not be necessary to come up with alternative scenarios to the former conclusion that Berta de Braiose was Walter's mother. The name of Berta's mother occurs in the Beauchamp family, apparently in the same generation as Walter, with Matilda who married Robert Marmion - her son called himself "filius Matillis de belo Campo" (by the way, hardly suggesting that the "vernacular" form of her name was anything much like "Maud"). Peter Stewart Peter Stewart

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 4:28:23 AM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > William Steeper was actually of St Andrew Holborn This tax might reveal whether there was more than one William Steeper. It is described as 'The members of the city companies in 1641 as set forth in the return for the poll tax.' The Poll Tax for London in 1641, 5 vols. (1934-1939) https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/291316?availability=Family%20History%20Library There's also The Inhabitants of London in 1638 on British History Online: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/london-inhabitants/1638 Boyd's Inhabitants of London on findmypast doesn't include a William Steeper: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-Records/boyds-inhabitants-of-london-and-family-units-1200-1946 If you study the masters, did they both live in the same part of the city? Nathan