On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 6:29:42 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > For nearly a century, a drawn out land dispute saw the Zouche family > contesting the rights of Stowell, Bampfield and Fortescue to North Molton, > which had been St. Maur land. The descent of most of the claimants is > clear: in 1408/9, Richard, Lord St. Maur, died s.p.m., leaving sole heiress > Alice, wife of William, Lord Zouche. However, certain family lands > including North Molton fell to Richard's brother John St. Maur. John's > grandson Thomas died in 1489, leaving as heir his grandson William, who died > in the early 16th century, leaving infant daughter Joan St Maur. When she > died in 1516, her heirs were her first cousins, John Stowell and Edmund > Bampfeld, children of the sisters of her father, William St. Maur. > > Where does Fortescue fit in? The ipm of William Seymour/Seyntmaure, in > 1532, states that a life interest in North Molton was settled on him > (seemingly immediately after Joan's death, perhaps to shield the juvenile > heirs) with Stowell and Bampfield each to receive half shares on his death. A year ago I suggested that this William Seyntmaure perhaps was given a lease to North Molton as a means used by the family to protect the lands during the minority of the heirs. The interactions between the branches, and the elder William's holdings in North Molton seems more complex. In 1500, William Seyntmaure junior, son of John, son of Thomas, son of John, son of Margaret, son of John de Erlegh brought suit to challenge the holdings of William Seyntmaure (senior) of North Molton. Clearly William the elder, whatever his relationship to William the younger, had a presence at North Molton before the death of the younger William. http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H7/CP40no951/aCP40no951fronts/IMG_0314.htm taf

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:28:22 AM UTC-4, Rhys Howitt wrote: > On Sunday, 17 July 2016 03:29:53 UTC+10, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > > > He does clearly state that the John you are interested in was the son Thomas Hewett of Eccles according to his grave inscription. > > > > Doug Smith > > Is this the reference to a descendant of Dr John buried in Essex whose memorial states they were both born in Eccles? Or have I missed another reference? Thanks for taking an interest. > > At the moment my favourite theory is that he was born in Eccles, son of John and grandson of Thomas who was later Sir Thomas of Shireoaks. I need to find a will of a John Hewett (etc) of Lancashire who died after 1613. Earwarker was referring to the Dr John who d. in 1658. It is based on an inscription on a portrait at Lyme Hall, not a tomb inscription. It also says he married Lady Mary Bertie. I have no idead when the inscription was written on the portrait. Doug Smith

El dijous, 16 setembre de 1999 9:00:00 UTC+2, John Yohalem va escriure: > -- > John Yohalem > enchante@herodotus.com > > "Saepe fidelis" > > NiCubano wrote in message <19990912080257.20413.00006529@ng-cs1.aol.com>... > >Thank you Brant! > > > >Nic. > > The capture of Bayezid "the Thunderbolt" was a major event in European > history -- he was about to conquer Constantinople, which instead held out > for another half century. Tamurlane is said to have kept the Sultan in a > cage until the poor man committed suicide. Tamerlane died abruptly in 1405, > as he was about to undertake the conquest of China, and his empire promptly > fell apart. This permitted the squabbling sons of Bayezid to put their > empire together again. > > Legends that Bayezid had a daughter or other female companions along for the > ride, and that these ladies married Tamurlane or his sons, or had other > adventures, have filled European lore ever since, inspiring many a classic > tragedy and opera libretto. > > There is no truth to any of them, and Angelina, Maria and Catalina are quite > fictitious. > > Jean Coeur de Lapin > > > John Yohalem > enchante@herodotus.com > > "Saepe fidelis" I know that it's been a long time since this post was started, but I wanted to clarify some facts. According to historians and scholars, Angelina and her sister* Maria did exist. We have different documented sources ("many" taking into account the times) in which she is depicted as a real character, from Argote de Molina's investigation to Seville's municipal accounts (where they disembarked and were included in the register of the city, even recording what they had eaten for meals) to documents such as those found in King Felipe IV's counsil and a letter to Francisco Imperial's poems referring to Angelina, and others found in the Cancionero de Baena, to recent studies by reputable experts like Malkiel or Nepaulsingh. So in this case we find many texts that attest to the veracity of the facts. Thus, Angelina had a very important influence in medieval Spanish literature and even in the XIX century she was mentioned in novels such as Larra's El doncel de don Enrique el Doliente. Sadly, it is difficult to know more about her identity, since she could be part of the royal family of either Hungary, Wallachia, Galicia (in Eastern Europe, not Spain) or any other kingdom of the period. Malkiel proposes that Angelina was probably related to the Angelos dynasty from Greek origins and to another prominent/royal family from Hungarian (or surrounding territories) origins. I hope this gives more information on this interesting topic. Obviously, the possibilities mentioned above about their origins are simple assumptions, but what is clear is that they existed. _____ *Some historians state that they were not sisters, but that Angelina was a member of a royal family and Maria a maiden (based on some writings and records). However, we will not be categorical on this and follow the oldest text, which says that they were sisters.

I think an IPM trumps a biography. [Trump as in bridge, not politics :-) ] Kay Allen On Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:17 PM, P J Evans via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, Kay Allen via wrote: > Patrick and all, > They are also behind Alice Freeman Tompson Park. Lee seems to have the better handle on this. There is also a Danvers genealogy which concurs, but may be dependent on Lee. Sorry, I don't have notes to hand. > Kay Allen > >    On Saturday, July 16, 2016 6:25 AM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >  > >  Richard Fowler, chancellor to Edward IV and of the duchy of Lancaster, > married a Joan Danvers.  They were 4XG-grandparents to Anne Marbury > Hutchinson. > > According to the Westminster Abbey website's biographical squib about > William Fowler, father of Richard, Joan was a "daughter of Henry Danvers, > mercer of London." (At www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/our-history/people/ > william-fowler.) Wikipedia's article about Richard Fowler repeats this > claim about Joan Danvers' parentage. > > But Frederick George Lee's 1883 _History, Description and Antiquities of the > Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame_ transcribes (on p. > 299-300) a 1483 IPM for Sibilla Quartermayns, who died in the same year, > that seems to pretty clearly indicate that Richard Fowler's wife Joan > Danvers was a daughter of John Danvers (d. 1449) and Joan Bruley.  Richard > Fowler's wife is called "Jane...daughter of Jane, wife of John Danvers and > daughter of Matilda, one sister of Richard Quartermayne." Joan Bruley's > mother was Maud Quartermayne. > > Am I offbase?  Is there any reason to suppose the Westminster Abbey site is > correct about this Joan Danvers' parents? > > > -- > Patrick Nielsen Hayden > pnh@panix.com > about.me/patricknh > http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php > I think you're referring to _Memorials of the Danvers Family of Dauntsey_, which is available through Google books. The most relevant pages are 214-215, where he gives an abstract of the IPM for Sibilla, wife of Richard Quatremayn. _Memorials_ is apparently relying on Lee for this, but the originals are said to be at the PRO. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Sunday, 17 July 2016 03:29:53 UTC+10, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > He does clearly state that the John you are interested in was the son Thomas Hewett of Eccles according to his grave inscription. > > Doug Smith Is this the reference to a descendant of Dr John buried in Essex whose memorial states they were both born in Eccles? Or have I missed another reference? Thanks for taking an interest. At the moment my favourite theory is that he was born in Eccles, son of John and grandson of Thomas who was later Sir Thomas of Shireoaks. I need to find a will of a John Hewett (etc) of Lancashire who died after 1613.

Patrick and all, They are also behind Alice Freeman Tompson Park. Lee seems to have the better handle on this. There is also a Danvers genealogy which concurs, but may be dependent on Lee. Sorry, I don't have notes to hand. Kay Allen On Saturday, July 16, 2016 6:25 AM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: Richard Fowler, chancellor to Edward IV and of the duchy of Lancaster, married a Joan Danvers.  They were 4XG-grandparents to Anne Marbury Hutchinson. According to the Westminster Abbey website's biographical squib about William Fowler, father of Richard, Joan was a "daughter of Henry Danvers, mercer of London." (At www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/our-history/people/ william-fowler.) Wikipedia's article about Richard Fowler repeats this claim about Joan Danvers' parentage. But Frederick George Lee's 1883 _History, Description and Antiquities of the Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame_ transcribes (on p. 299-300) a 1483 IPM for Sibilla Quartermayns, who died in the same year, that seems to pretty clearly indicate that Richard Fowler's wife Joan Danvers was a daughter of John Danvers (d. 1449) and Joan Bruley.  Richard Fowler's wife is called "Jane...daughter of Jane, wife of John Danvers and daughter of Matilda, one sister of Richard Quartermayne." Joan Bruley's mother was Maud Quartermayne. Am I offbase?  Is there any reason to suppose the Westminster Abbey site is correct about this Joan Danvers' parents? -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi everyone, I just sent a message but I think it is lost in space, so I will repeat it. I have not been able to access the Archives for some time. Every route I try leads to "Internal Server Error." Do I need a new computer or is this a rootsweb issue? Thanks much, Happy Guinea Pig Appreciation Day! Nancy

Hi all, I have not been able to access the Archives for some time. Any route I try leads to "Internal Server Error". Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Nancy

Here's the information from Rootsweb technical support as of two days ago: "The Roots Web site is currently undergoing maintenance. As a result some areas of the site and its data are not accessible. This includes access to the archived Mailing List data. When the maintenance is complete these issues should be resolved. We expect the work to be completed soon, but we do not have a time frame as to when this will occur." In the meantime you can use the archive on Google Groups. Information on using the Google Groups archive can be found athttp://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/arch.htm. -- Don Stone On 7/16/2016 2:50 PM, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote: > Hi everyone, > I just sent a message but I think it is lost in space, so I will repeat it. > I have not been able to access the Archives for some time. Every route I > try leads to "Internal Server Error." Do I need a new computer or is this a > rootsweb issue? Thanks much, > Happy Guinea Pig Appreciation Day! > Nancy

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, Kay Allen via wrote: > Patrick and all, > They are also behind Alice Freeman Tompson Park. Lee seems to have the better handle on this. There is also a Danvers genealogy which concurs, but may be dependent on Lee. Sorry, I don't have notes to hand. > Kay Allen > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 6:25 AM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Richard Fowler, chancellor to Edward IV and of the duchy of Lancaster, > married a Joan Danvers.  They were 4XG-grandparents to Anne Marbury > Hutchinson. > > According to the Westminster Abbey website's biographical squib about > William Fowler, father of Richard, Joan was a "daughter of Henry Danvers, > mercer of London." (At www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/our-history/people/ > william-fowler.) Wikipedia's article about Richard Fowler repeats this > claim about Joan Danvers' parentage. > > But Frederick George Lee's 1883 _History, Description and Antiquities of the > Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame_ transcribes (on p. > 299-300) a 1483 IPM for Sibilla Quartermayns, who died in the same year, > that seems to pretty clearly indicate that Richard Fowler's wife Joan > Danvers was a daughter of John Danvers (d. 1449) and Joan Bruley.  Richard > Fowler's wife is called "Jane...daughter of Jane, wife of John Danvers and > daughter of Matilda, one sister of Richard Quartermayne." Joan Bruley's > mother was Maud Quartermayne. > > Am I offbase?  Is there any reason to suppose the Westminster Abbey site is > correct about this Joan Danvers' parents? > > > -- > Patrick Nielsen Hayden > pnh@panix.com > about.me/patricknh > http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php > I think you're referring to _Memorials of the Danvers Family of Dauntsey_, which is available through Google books. The most relevant pages are 214-215, where he gives an abstract of the IPM for Sibilla, wife of Richard Quatremayn. _Memorials_ is apparently relying on Lee for this, but the originals are said to be at the PRO.

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:59:53 AM UTC-4, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > Earwarker's bio does not provide much more detail: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=RYcrLq2t-ncC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Dr+John+Hewitt+DD&source=bl&ots=tkg0JLXCY0&sig=johspAvze3RrjZpu0SMXky9vVIs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjsvraqPPNAhWF4yYKHX2FDnEQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=Dr%20John%20Hewitt%20DD&f=false > > Doug Smith He does clearly state that the John you are interested in was the son Thomas Hewett of Eccles according to his grave inscription. Doug Smith

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:27:17 PM UTC+3, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > The Nathaniel Rich you mention below was allegedly born about 1620 in > Cornwall and was allegedly the son of Robert Rich and Susanna Bean Rich? > > DSH > > Thomas Durham of Bermuda was the eldest son of (Acting) Governor Henry > Durham and wife Judith Hunt, who was the daughter of Richard Hunt and > Frances Grimsditch, daughter of Thomas Grimsditch by Jane, sister of > Nathaniel Rich, who left a lifetime interest in his Bermuda property to the > Grimsditches. Nathaniel Rich was also a correspondent of Thomas Hunt of > Bermuda, presumed father of Gov. Henry Durham. Um no, according to the Dictionary of National Biography: "RICH, Sir NATHANIEL (1585?–1636), merchant adventurer, born about 1585, was probably eldest son of Richard Rich, an illegitimate son of Richard, first baron Rich [q. v.] His mother was daughter of John Machell, sheriff of London. He had a legal training, and was admitted a member of Gray's Inn on 2 Feb. 1609–10; but he devoted himself first to political life, and later to the rôle of a mercantile pioneer... "Rich was connected with the Bermudas Company in 1616, and bought shares in the Virginia Company in 1619. Of the latter company he became a prominent member, and when, in April 1623, there occurred the great split between two factions in the company, he took a leading part on the side of his connection, Robert Rich, second earl of Warwick [q. v.] ... In his will he named several of the Rich (Warwick) family." And he also mentioned his nephew Thomas Grimsditch, son of his sister Jane. Nathaniel Rich's brother Robert (whose death in Bermuda occasioned a letter from Thomas Durham to Nathaniel Rich) married a Dutton, and it is interesting to note that Thomas Grimsditch, husband of Nathaniel Rich's sister Jane, was also descended from the Duttons through his mother's Nuthall family of Frodsham, Cheshire.

Richard Fowler, chancellor to Edward IV and of the duchy of Lancaster, married a Joan Danvers. They were 4XG-grandparents to Anne Marbury Hutchinson. According to the Westminster Abbey website's biographical squib about William Fowler, father of Richard, Joan was a "daughter of Henry Danvers, mercer of London." (At www.westminster-abbey.org/archive/our-history/people/ william-fowler.) Wikipedia's article about Richard Fowler repeats this claim about Joan Danvers' parentage. But Frederick George Lee's 1883 _History, Description and Antiquities of the Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame_ transcribes (on p. 299-300) a 1483 IPM for Sibilla Quartermayns, who died in the same year, that seems to pretty clearly indicate that Richard Fowler's wife Joan Danvers was a daughter of John Danvers (d. 1449) and Joan Bruley. Richard Fowler's wife is called "Jane...daughter of Jane, wife of John Danvers and daughter of Matilda, one sister of Richard Quartermayne." Joan Bruley's mother was Maud Quartermayne. Am I offbase? Is there any reason to suppose the Westminster Abbey site is correct about this Joan Danvers' parents? -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

I just found this thread. Thanks for the heads up. David Teague On Thursday, July 14, 2016, Don Stone via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Thanks, Ian. Information on using the Google Groups archive can be > found at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/arch.htm. > > -- Don > > > On 7/14/2016 11:08 AM, Ian Goddard via wrote: > > On 14/07/16 17:57, Don Stone via wrote: > >> Here's the latest information from Rootsweb: > >> > >> "The Roots Web site is currently undergoing maintenance. As a result > >> some areas of the site and its data are not accessible. This includes > >> access to the archived Mailing List data. When the maintenance is > >> complete these issues should be resolved. We expect the work to be > >> completed soon, but we do not have a time frame as to when this will > >> occur." > > In the meantime you can use the archive on Google Groups. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com <javascript:;> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Is anyone else having trouble accessing the archives? Thanks in advance, David Teague On Friday, July 1, 2016, Don Stone via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > The website for the GEN-MEDIEVAL list and the soc.genealogy.medieval > newsgroup is at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/. > > It includes the FAQ, information about the archives, and some reference > information. > > -- Don Stone, GEN-MEDIEVAL co-listowner (with Todd Farmerie) > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com <javascript:;> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I said nothing about doubting, which (I agree) needs no proof. Asserting that something is false is a different thing entirely and needs proof if it is to be taken seriously. Put your own thinking cap back on, DSH, and respond to what people write instead of hitting straw men. On Thursday, 14 July 2016 18:19:42 UTC+12, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > No. Not true at all. > > The Burden of Proof is clearly on the person who PROPOSES and ENDORSES a > genealogical connection, NOT on the person who DOUBTS it. > > Put your thinking cap on and put the gin aside. > > It's just like the law in the United States. > > The prosecutor must prove the defendant is GUILTY of the alleged crime. > > The defendant does not have the Burden of Proof to prove he/she is INNOCENT. > > Didn't they teach you this in High School, at the latest? Or were you > sleeping in class? > > DSH > ..... > "RobinPatterson" wrote in message > news:08f69a95-6ae4-47d4-8d8a-23c1d1a5f98a@googlegroups.com... > .......... > > His recent ministerial appointment suggests that Boris is not suffering from > any supposed cousinship with Trump. The lineages match those on Familypedia > (based partly on Geni.com). Doubtless some professional genealogist will say > that one line or other is "bollixed", but that sort of statement needs just > as much proof as a statement that the lineages are all true.

On Friday, 15 July 2016 20:22:04 UTC+1, robert.the...@gmail.com wrote: > Why is Robert the Bursar, "man of Roger de Bully" who holds of him at Notts. seen as the same man in the Online Domesday as Robert Dispensator, brother of Urso The Sheriff of Domesday. > > Well let me start by stating I have certainly made more than my share blunders and mistakes in following leads that were not fully validated in my early research notes. I have hopefully improved my posts in the last few months having learned from my mistakes. > > Perhaps someone can explain to me why the online Domesday has combined Robert the Bursar and Robert Dispenser, brother of Urse as one. > Wikipedia says the Robert the Bursar was High Sheriff of Worschester in 1086, just for one year which happens to be the same year as the Domesday record, next it says Urso d'Abetot held the High Sheriff's office form 1069-1108, which also includes the year 1086, so why does a Robert the Bursar hold it for 1 year, when its covered by Urso. > > Wikipedia uses only one source for this entry for Robert the Bursar and takes us back to the online Domesday which I feel is in error in the first place. > Further to this, the online Domesday says the following "Robert the Bursar" - Brother of Urso d'Abetot, who was Sheriff of Worcestershire; castle at Tamworth, Staffs. Holdings in Glos., Leics., Lincs., Warwicks." > > http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/landownersp-r.html > > What makes them so sure that " Robert the Bursar", who I see as "man of Roger de Bully", who witnessed the founding of the Blythe priory. On what evidence or authority do they make them the same person. > > Katherine Keats-Rohan in Domesday People, makes no such suggestion linking either of the two Robert Dispenser's to a "Robert the Bursar", but she clearly suggests that there were two distinct Robert Dispensators in the DD record describing them as follows: > > 1. Robert Dispensator alias Robert de Abitot, brother of Urso d'Abbetot > > 2. Robert Despencer who attested Roger de Bully's foundation charter for Blythe priory was clearly not his famous contemporary of the Abitot family, so was probably Roger's own despenser , and the perhaps the Domesday tenant of the name in Notts. In 1166 Robert de Jort II, held a fee of the honour of Blythe, but the Domesday holdings of Robert I de Jort were in Liescester. > > In "The Story of England" By Michael Wood, they focus on Kibworth, where they say in Smeeton next to Kibworth is held by Robert 'Dispensator' (The Bursar). In Kibworth Beuachamp. a Robert Hostarius holds land. "Hostiruas=Usher" So this possibly Robert the Usher, which could be Robert de Jort as he was Usher Regis by a serjeanty in 1086, holding Hoton, Liesc. But we should consider there may have been more than one usher, these positions sometimes were shared. > > For futher evidence of the confusion of the online Domesady, when I search for Shackerstone, Leicestershire it returns the appropriate link, this site supposedly takes the names as seen in the original Domesday folio, it says this place is held by "Robert the Bursar" ,but when we look at the enlarges original folio we find the "Robertus Dispensator" holds Sacrestone. No where does the original folio say "Robert the Bursar". > Is this an indication of further evidence that there are two Robert Dispenser's in Domesday as noted by Dr. Keats-Rohan and the Domesday editors may have seen confusion it may cause and described him as "Robert the Bursar" instead of Robert Despenser. > > From: Place name: Shackerstone, Leicestershire Folio: 234v Great Domesday Book > Reference: E 31/2/2/1299 > Description: Place name: Shackerstone, Leicestershire > Folio: 234v Great Domesday Book > Domesday place name: Sacrestone > People mentioned within entire folio: Aethelmaer; Alnoth; Ansfrid; Edwin Alfrith; Gerard; Henry de Ferrers; Ingald; Morcar; Ralph Pippin; Richard; Robert Despenser; Robert de Bucy; Roger; Roger de Bully; Saeric; Sokeman of King William; Warin; Wife of Robert Burdet Given this confusion, surely Dr. Keats-Rohan has not seen "Robert the Bursar", man of Roger holding Fawborough, Notts. of Roger de Bully and Weston, Notts. and is shown as a Robert Dispensator. > > From the latest edition of Notinghamshire NOTES (version 1a) > > The County Notes provide a discussion on all matters of interest or obscurity in the text, in the light of the latest Domesday scholarship. Such matters vary from county to county but recurrent topics include: the identification of place-names, personal names, and individuals; the meaning of obscure Latin words or phrases, or of ambiguous formulae; uncommon data; curious statistics; relevant material from related sources; variants in other editions; the state of the manuscript, including the work of individual scribes, insertions, amendments, and scribal conventions; misreadings in Domesday facsimiles; material bearing on larger Domesday topics, such as the Domesday Inquest and the date and compilation of Domesday Book; and all other items of interest. > > > The Notes are based on the original printed edition published by Phillimore (1977) and edited by John Morris. They have been fully revised and greatly enlarged for this edition by Caroline and Frank Thorn. > > The link to the full text is below: > > http://hydra.hull.ac.uk/assets/hull:549/content > > From these notes we find the following entry.. > > ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Robert the bursar (dispensator) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. > > The key to the puzzle would seem in the identification of the 2nd Robert Dispenser who Dr. Keats- Rohan contemplates having a connection to a Robert de Jort I, being this Robert Dispenser, but she was unable to clearly see this person having any land in Notts., where the 2nd Robert Disapenser that she names was a tenant of Roger de Bully, connected to the Honour of Blythe. > > But this would only solve half the issue for Keats-Rohan. > > So if the 2nd Robert Dispenser that Keats-Rohan mentions is possibly " Robert the Bursar." The question still remains may be : Is Robert de Jort the same Robert the Bursar? > > It is difficult to say, but I see a possible relation of Robert of Jort to two other tenants of Roger de Bully in Notts., who also witnessed the Foundation charter of Blythe Priory, however that is another Research note still in progress. > > Dugdale says Robert de Jort held Hoton, for being an Usher to King William and held part of Wymeswold with his manor at Prestwold, along side of Roger de Bully and Hugh de Grandnesmil who also hold there. > > Any clarification or comments are welcome. > > Thank you > > Robert Spencer Dear Robert, There were (at least) two tenants or sub-tenants at the time of Domesday called Robert "dispensarius." The Latin word dispensarius, a job descrription, not a family name, can be translated into English as dispenser or bursar, take your pick. Robert Dispenser, who Round suggests was the brother of Urse d'Abitot, was named from his office in the royal household. He died about 1097, and some, at least, of his estates in Lincolnshire, were acquired by Urse d'Abitot, but were subsequently divided between the Beauchamp and Marmion families, suggesting that Robert was survived by a daughter, married to Robert Marmion. Regards, John

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:22:04 PM UTC-7, robert.the...@gmail.com wrote: > Why is Robert the Bursar, "man of Roger de Bully" who holds of him at Notts. > seen as the same man in the Online Domesday as Robert Dispensator, brother > of Urso The Sheriff of Domesday. [snip] > Perhaps someone can explain to me why the online Domesday has combined > Robert the Bursar and Robert Dispenser, brother of Urse as one. [snip] > http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/landownersp-r.html Simple whim of the compiler? Found it in an online genealogy? Don't mistake that site for a scholarly compilation. taf

Why is Robert the Bursar, "man of Roger de Bully" who holds of him at Notts. seen as the same man in the Online Domesday as Robert Dispensator, brother of Urso The Sheriff of Domesday. Well let me start by stating I have certainly made more than my share blunders and mistakes in following leads that were not fully validated in my early research notes. I have hopefully improved my posts in the last few months having learned from my mistakes. Perhaps someone can explain to me why the online Domesday has combined Robert the Bursar and Robert Dispenser, brother of Urse as one. Wikipedia says the Robert the Bursar was High Sheriff of Worschester in 1086, just for one year which happens to be the same year as the Domesday record, next it says Urso d'Abetot held the High Sheriff's office form 1069-1108, which also includes the year 1086, so why does a Robert the Bursar hold it for 1 year, when its covered by Urso. Wikipedia uses only one source for this entry for Robert the Bursar and takes us back to the online Domesday which I feel is in error in the first place. Further to this, the online Domesday says the following "Robert the Bursar" - Brother of Urso d'Abetot, who was Sheriff of Worcestershire; castle at Tamworth, Staffs. Holdings in Glos., Leics., Lincs., Warwicks." http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/landownersp-r.html What makes them so sure that " Robert the Bursar", who I see as "man of Roger de Bully", who witnessed the founding of the Blythe priory. On what evidence or authority do they make them the same person. Katherine Keats-Rohan in Domesday People, makes no such suggestion linking either of the two Robert Dispenser's to a "Robert the Bursar", but she clearly suggests that there were two distinct Robert Dispensators in the DD record describing them as follows: 1. Robert Dispensator alias Robert de Abitot, brother of Urso d'Abbetot 2. Robert Despencer who attested Roger de Bully's foundation charter for Blythe priory was clearly not his famous contemporary of the Abitot family, so was probably Roger's own despenser , and the perhaps the Domesday tenant of the name in Notts. In 1166 Robert de Jort II, held a fee of the honour of Blythe, but the Domesday holdings of Robert I de Jort were in Liescester. In "The Story of England" By Michael Wood, they focus on Kibworth, where they say in Smeeton next to Kibworth is held by Robert 'Dispensator' (The Bursar). In Kibworth Beuachamp. a Robert Hostarius holds land. "Hostiruas=Usher" So this possibly Robert the Usher, which could be Robert de Jort as he was Usher Regis by a serjeanty in 1086, holding Hoton, Liesc. But we should consider there may have been more than one usher, these positions sometimes were shared. For futher evidence of the confusion of the online Domesady, when I search for Shackerstone, Leicestershire it returns the appropriate link, this site supposedly takes the names as seen in the original Domesday folio, it says this place is held by "Robert the Bursar" ,but when we look at the enlarges original folio we find the "Robertus Dispensator" holds Sacrestone. No where does the original folio say "Robert the Bursar". Is this an indication of further evidence that there are two Robert Dispenser's in Domesday as noted by Dr. Keats-Rohan and the Domesday editors may have seen confusion it may cause and described him as "Robert the Bursar" instead of Robert Despenser. From: Place name: Shackerstone, Leicestershire Folio: 234v Great Domesday Book Reference: E 31/2/2/1299 Description: Place name: Shackerstone, Leicestershire Folio: 234v Great Domesday Book Domesday place name: Sacrestone People mentioned within entire folio: Aethelmaer; Alnoth; Ansfrid; Edwin Alfrith; Gerard; Henry de Ferrers; Ingald; Morcar; Ralph Pippin; Richard; Robert Despenser; Robert de Bucy; Roger; Roger de Bully; Saeric; Sokeman of King William; Warin; Wife of Robert Burdet Given this confusion, surely Dr. Keats-Rohan has not seen "Robert the Bursar", man of Roger holding Fawborough, Notts. of Roger de Bully and Weston, Notts. and is shown as a Robert Dispensator. >From the latest edition of Notinghamshire NOTES (version 1a) The County Notes provide a discussion on all matters of interest or obscurity in the text, in the light of the latest Domesday scholarship. Such matters vary from county to county but recurrent topics include: the identification of place-names, personal names, and individuals; the meaning of obscure Latin words or phrases, or of ambiguous formulae; uncommon data; curious statistics; relevant material from related sources; variants in other editions; the state of the manuscript, including the work of individual scribes, insertions, amendments, and scribal conventions; misreadings in Domesday facsimiles; material bearing on larger Domesday topics, such as the Domesday Inquest and the date and compilation of Domesday Book; and all other items of interest. The Notes are based on the original printed edition published by Phillimore (1977) and edited by John Morris. They have been fully revised and greatly enlarged for this edition by Caroline and Frank Thorn. The link to the full text is below: http://hydra.hull.ac.uk/assets/hull:549/content >From these notes we find the following entry.. ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *], ROGER'S MAN. He is possibly to be identified with Robert the bursar (dispensator) who witnessed Roger of Bully's charter founding his priory of Blyth; see the Blyth Priory Cartulary (Timson, no. 325 pp. 207-209); and 9,49 Blyth note. The key to the puzzle would seem in the identification of the 2nd Robert Dispenser who Dr. Keats- Rohan contemplates having a connection to a Robert de Jort I, being this Robert Dispenser, but she was unable to clearly see this person having any land in Notts., where the 2nd Robert Disapenser that she names was a tenant of Roger de Bully, connected to the Honour of Blythe. But this would only solve half the issue for Keats-Rohan. So if the 2nd Robert Dispenser that Keats-Rohan mentions is possibly " Robert the Bursar." The question still remains may be : Is Robert de Jort the same Robert the Bursar? It is difficult to say, but I see a possible relation of Robert of Jort to two other tenants of Roger de Bully in Notts., who also witnessed the Foundation charter of Blythe Priory, however that is another Research note still in progress. Dugdale says Robert de Jort held Hoton, for being an Usher to King William and held part of Wymeswold with his manor at Prestwold, along side of Roger de Bully and Hugh de Grandnesmil who also hold there. Any clarification or comments are welcome. Thank you Robert Spencer

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:39:01 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > You are leaving out Offa, legendary leader of the Angles. He appears in > Widsith, Beowulf, and in the royal genealogies, while Saxo Grammaticus > places him in Jutland (calling him Uffi). He is made son of Wermund son > of Wihtlaeg, son of Woden. No -frith or Frith-. There was also an Offa earlier in the Sussex pedigree (note that this Offa appears in the earliest known form of th ethe pedigree, that did not trace back to Woden but instead traced to Seaxnet). Scholars have been unsure what to make of this earlier Offa - is it an attempt to interpose Offa of Angel into the Sussex pedigree, is it intended to represent a political alliance with the Mercians? It also comes from a stretch of names that do not begin with 'S': AEscwine, Offa, Bedca. The pedigree is 9th century, so the question is, was this earlier part of the pedigree in place during the reign of Sighere? Could Sighere have named a son after this legendary ancestor, rather than after his wife and his father? Or perhaps we are overthinking this. We know next to nothing about the female lines, so there could be an actual descent from Offa of Mercia. If he was named for the legendary Offa, we don't even know the origin of this Offa legend. If it was originally of Anglo-Saxon origin, it may have an Anglo-Saxon two-part root, but that doesn't mean that king Offa was given the full name (as Stewart suggested). Likewise, though, the legend could have been adopted into the Anglo-Saxon legendary package from another group, as was the case with Hygelac and perhaps Finn. If so, then there is no certainty that the name was ever Osferth. taf