On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:58:18 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > 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 publishing extracts in English from unpublished Latin documents (as with 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 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. Just my thoughts Doug Thompson

Correction: Francis Benning would have been the grandfather of the Wentworth wife, with Ralph Benning being the father.

Here is my original 2011 posting on the family of Benning of Tottenham High Cross, Middlesex, and their possible American descendants in the Wentworth family of New Hampshire: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2011-01/1294870485 Doug's posting above noted that Mary (Bolton) Benning could have been a daughter either of Simon and Jane (Oakman) Bolton ... or of Thomas and Mary (Barnardiston) Bolton. If the latter, there was then the possibility of descent through Barnardiston from the Mordaunt family, a connection of Lord Mordaunt. _Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica_, presents a near-contemporary London pedigree apparently proving that Simon Bolton is the correct father of the wife of Francis Benning, who I argued was the father of the American Wentworth wife. These Boltons are shown as derived from the Lancashire Bolton family of "Bolton le More." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$c146607;view=1up;seq=283 See also the Middlesex Visitation pedigree of Benning, which clearly shows a Ralph, possibly in the wrong generation: https://books.google.com/books?id=qE5bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=bolton+middlesex+visitation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRx_rnqZ3UAhVD6yYKHY99DXwQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=bolton%20middlesex%20visitation&f=false

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.

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-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.

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-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 group report them please. Also, comments are welcome.

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). 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. Doug Thompson

William Steeper was actually of St Andrew Holborn

I have a William Steeper, of St Holborn, London (d 1650) who was in a Chancery suit from 1640 called "Citizen & Merchant Taylor of London". As expected, he appears in the 'List of Freemen of the Merchant Taylors' Company, 1530-1928" as being admitted as a Freeman (having served as an apprentice to Leonard Taylor, Citizen & Merchant Taylor) on 6 August 1619. However, I have also discovered on the 'Records of London Livery Companies Online' at http://www.londonroll.org/home a further William Steeper who was apprenticed to a William Wilson, Clothworker, of London on 27 March 1609 for 9 years. I wonder if anyone has a view on whether it is possible that these two William Steepers are one in the same and that he started as an apprentice clothworker, but later became an apprentice merchant taylor? Clothworking and tailoring seem to me to be related trades? All comments welcome. Regards Robert O'Connor

On 31/05/2017 11:29 PM, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:20:08 PM UTC+2, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein, >> el Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein. >> >> A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious. > The poor editor. :) Of course he still had to do his job somehow I suppose. I can sympathise with him over the immoral/immortal poet, but not over the variety of name forms. In communication, understanding is all - and Lawrence was not trying to communicate with people who couldn't take in two or more forms of the same name. Peter Stewart

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

On 31/05/2017 8:21 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: <snip> > Of course, as Hunnisett says, there is no point in being obsessively doctrinaire on the point, and no one is going to care greatly whether Thomasine or Thomasina is given. But it is important for record translators to have principles and to apply them consistently, and if you have adopted Hunnisett's approach (as most do) then when faced with Thomasia the logical consequence is to render it as Thomasine. Tamsin, a form unrecorded before the early modern period so far as I am aware, and even then largely limited to Cornwall and the far south west, would be the crackpot option. Thomas Hardy in *The Return of the Native* called his heroine alternately Tamsin and Thomasin. Most probably he considered "Thomasine" and rejected it as too Frenchified and/or precious. Peter Stewart

On 31/05/2017 8:21 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > From: Peter Stewart > Sent: 31 May 2017 00:50 >> Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular" feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to the British Isles). >> >> But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher would waste a moment over such nonsense. >> >> Peter Stewart > > ------------------------------- > > I'm afraid you're out of step with most academic historians of late medieval England there, Peter. Why should you suppose that "most academic historians of late medieval England" set (or follow) a standard that ought to be adopted by medieval genealogists? Late medieval England is one tiny patch in a vast field of study, far from the most interesting to me. And anyway, in time this pettifogging cohort may grow out of their rather useless conformity. If their purpose is to know "what was the contemporary vernacular form", they should realise as undergraduates that these were multifarious, not at all standardised. > As I've explained several times before, it is usual for record publishing societies to adopt the principles proposed by Roy Hunnisett in Indexing for Editors (British Records Association, London, 1972). At pp 56-7 he says: > > 'Forenames of Englishmen should be given in their modern English spelling , or their most common one if there is more than one, in calendars as in indexes. This means that when necessary they must be translated from Latin and French and modernised from their older English spelling. The Latin forms present the greatest difficulties. The main problems arise from names such as Matildis, Reginaldus, Jacobus, Elias and others which can represent what are now two distinct forenames. It is suggested that when applied to medieval Englishmen such names be translated into the form which has given rise to most English surnames - Maud, Reynold, James and Ellis in the examples cited ...' Perhaps Hunnisett would be a spiritual brother of T.E. Lawrence's proof-reader, regarding whose pedantic bleatings he had the illuminating exchange with his editor copied below. His comment "I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are" applies just as well to medieval names. Peter Stewart Q. I attach a list of queries raised by F. who is reading the proofs. He finds these very clean, but full of inconsistencies in the spelling of proper names, a point which reviewers often take up. Will you annotate it in the margin, so that I can get the proofs straightened? A. Annotated: not very helpfully perhaps. Arabic names won't go into English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district. There are some 'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a wash-out for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are. Q. Slip 1. Jeddah and Jidda used impartially throughout. Intentional? A. Rather! Q. Bir Waheida was Bir Waheidi. A. Why not? All one place. Q. Slip 20. Nuri, Emir of the Ruwalla, belongs to the 'chief family of the Rualla.' On Slip 23, 'Rualla horse,' and Slip 38, 'killed one Rueli.' In later slips 'Rualla.' A. Should have also used Ruwala and Ruala. Q. Slip 28. The Bisaita is also spelt Biseita. A. Good. Q. Jedha, the she-camel, was Jedhah on Slip 40. A. She was a splendid beast. Q. Slip 53. 'Meleager, the immoral poet.' I have put 'immortal' poet, but the author may mean immoral after all. A. Immorality I know. Immortality I cannot judge. As you please: Meleager will not sue us for libel. Q. Slip 65. Author is addressed 'Ya Auruns,' but on Slip 56 was 'Aurans.' A. Also Lurens and Runs: not to mention 'Shaw.' More to follow, if time permits. Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein, el Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein. A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious.

On 31/05/2017 4:20 PM, John Watson wrote: > On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 04:49:24 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, >>>> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. >>>> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the >>>> initial W. is given there under 1225. >>> I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. >> This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting >> the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their >> heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July >> 1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose >> had died in 1197. >> >> Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the >> original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters >> of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to >> be the son rather than husband of Berta? >> >> Peter Stewart > Hi all, > > It occurs to me that this particular fine relating to property in Gloucestershire should be in print somewhere. > > Does anyone have access to: > L. F. Salzman, ed., The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Peter at Sele (1923) > or, > C. R. Elrington, ed., Abstracts of Feet of Fines relating to Gloucestershire 1199-1299, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Gloucestershire Record Series, 16 (2003) > Doug Thompson noted that it came from "the unpublished transcripts of the Sele Priory Charters at Magdelen College, Oxford" - I was wondering where he found this information. I assume it doesn't appear in Salzman's edition of the cartulary. Peter Stewart

On 31/05/2017 1:18 PM, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, >> rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. >> Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the >> initial W. is given there under 1225. > I have seen the same slip in reverse, where an ipm gives Walter when the person in question was clearly William, and I always suspected a similar cause, the use of a W. somewhere in the transmission process. This can't very well be the case with the Sele priory record "excepting the services of Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh de Mortimer, and their heirs by the daughters of William de Brewse", since it was dated July 1227 and William the (generally supposed) husband of Berta de Braiose had died in 1197. Where did this information come from? How certain is it that the original text doesn't mean "and their heirs descended from the daughters of William de Brewse", i.e. allowing for Walter de Beauchamp himself to be the son rather than husband of Berta? Peter Stewart

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 at 5:10:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Locke wrote: > It has been years since I have visited this group and I remember there being very lively and informative discussions that shed a lot of light on much of the work that I was doing back then, and I am forever grateful for the fine folks to took the time to help me out and answer my inane questions. > > I have another newbie question: is the Domville line as represented in George Ormerod's 'History of the County Palatine and City of Chester' reliable and fairly accurate? Hi i am descended from the Millington family of hawarden and think i am descended from a lady called Elizabeth Domville. Would love to talk to you

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 at 5:10:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Locke wrote: > It has been years since I have visited this group and I remember there being very lively and informative discussions that shed a lot of light on much of the work that I was doing back then, and I am forever grateful for the fine folks to took the time to help me out and answer my inane questions. > > I have another newbie question: is the Domville line as represented in George Ormerod's 'History of the County Palatine and City of Chester' reliable and fairly accurate?

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 at 5:10:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Locke wrote: > It has been years since I have visited this group and I remember there being very lively and informative discussions that shed a lot of light on much of the work that I was doing back then, and I am forever grateful for the fine folks to took the time to help me out and answer my inane questions. > > I have another newbie question: is the Domville line as represented in George Ormerod's 'History of the County Palatine and City of Chester' reliable and fairly accurate?

On 31/05/2017 12:08 PM, John Watson wrote: > On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 02:29:17 UTC+1, taf wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-7, Doug Thompson wrote: >> >>>> Wow! Great find. Hugh de Mortimer died Nov 1227 so this fine was only >>>> months before his death. If Bertha was a wife of Walter de Beauchamp >>>> then it was a wife between Joane Mortimer (died 1225) and his surviving >>>> wife Ankarat (married by 1256, survived to 1280s). >>> Not that simple I'm afraid. One or both of these other wives will probably >>> have to be discarded. The evidence for their marriages will have to be >>> reassessed. May take a while. >> With all the caveats the use of the source entails, Cawley in MedLands says (footnotes removed) that "The Annals of Worcester record that “Rogerus de Mortuo Mari…filiam suam” married “Waltero de Bello Campo.” The Annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of “Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo.”" If the same source (is this the only source?) says William in one place and Walter in the other, then I know where I would start this reevaluation. >> >> taf > Hi all, > > The evidence is as follows: > > In 1212, Roger de Mortimer paid 3,000 marks to have the custody of Walter de Beauchamp and married him to his daughter:- > 1212, Rogerus de Mortuo Mari finem fecit pro Waltero de Bello Campo et terris ejus pro iii. m. marcis, et maritaviit ei filiam suam. > Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 400. > > The annals of Worcester record the death in 1225 of Joan wife of William de Beauchamp:- > 1225, [Died] Johanna de Mortuo Mari uxor Willelmi de Bello Campo. > Henry Richards Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. 4, Annales Prioratus de Wigornia (London, 1869), 418. The editor made no remark on the name of Joan's husband in the second of these entries, but in the first he noted that Walter's Mortimer wife was Joan who died in 1225. The index makes clear that Joan was the wife of Walter the 4th baron, who died on 11 April 1236 according to the same annals. Maybe the name William is a slip of the editor, silently supplying, rather than the 14th-century annalist - the manuscript (BL Cotton. Caligula A x) is not online as far as I can tell, but perhaps only the initial W. is given there under 1225. Peter Stewart

From: Peter Stewart Sent: 31 May 2017 00:50 > > Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular" feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to the British Isles). > > But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher would waste a moment over such nonsense. > > Peter Stewart ------------------------------- I'm afraid you're out of step with most academic historians of late medieval England there, Peter. As I've explained several times before, it is usual for record publishing societies to adopt the principles proposed by Roy Hunnisett in Indexing for Editors (British Records Association, London, 1972). At pp 56-7 he says: 'Forenames of Englishmen should be given in their modern English spelling , or their most common one if there is more than one, in calendars as in indexes. This means that when necessary they must be translated from Latin and French and modernised from their older English spelling. The Latin forms present the greatest difficulties. The main problems arise from names such as Matildis, Reginaldus, Jacobus, Elias and others which can represent what are now two distinct forenames. It is suggested that when applied to medieval Englishmen such names be translated into the form which has given rise to most English surnames - Maud, Reynold, James and Ellis in the examples cited ...' 'There may be good reasons to depart from the rule in particular cases; if so it is advised that such reasons be explained at an appropriate place in the volume. It is impossible to legislate for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when increasingly the same Latin names can represent the 'continental' as well as the 'native' forms when applied to Englishmen. Each editor has to decide which are the better for his people in the period of his documents.' The principle behind the reference to surnames is that they tell us what was the contemporary vernacular form represented by the Latin translation. Consequently we use Hugh not Hugo, Lucy not Lucia, Ann not Anna, Mary not Maria, Cicely (or Cecily) not Cecilia, Pernel/Parnel not Petronilla. Of course, as Hunnisett says, there is no point in being obsessively doctrinaire on the point, and no one is going to care greatly whether Thomasine or Thomasina is given. But it is important for record translators to have principles and to apply them consistently, and if you have adopted Hunnisett's approach (as most do) then when faced with Thomasia the logical consequence is to render it as Thomasine. Tamsin, a form unrecorded before the early modern period so far as I am aware, and even then largely limited to Cornwall and the far south west, would be the crackpot option. Matt Tompkins