How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)? Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son: [possible additional Marmion generation] Geoffrey Marmion = _______; Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son: William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called): https://books.google.com/books?id=KYYuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA332&dq=%22richard+de+camvile%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjetNLW1cjNAhWCOSYKHaXTAIE4FBDoAQg2MAQ#v=onepage&q=%22richard%20de%20camvile%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=e4YxAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA330&dq=%22robert+de+marmyon+and+miliscent+his+wife%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB-Ji02MjNAhVBLyYKHTu9D74Q6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=%22robert%20de%20marmyon%20and%20miliscent%20his%20wife%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=NxL0AMbrWqwC&pg=PA51&dq=milicent+marmion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMy6uZ1sjNAhWBeSYKHSgJDqUQ6AEISzAH#v=onepage&q=milicent%20marmion&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=RuE_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA191&dq=milicent+marmion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP-oqw18jNAhVHxCYKHaoOAbkQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=milicent%20marmion&f=false

On 21/06/16 11:22, Tompkins wrote: > From: JuneM via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 19 June 2016 13:19 >> >> I am a volunteer researcher with a village history group in Barnsley, Yorkshire, and am currently researching the Dodworth/Dodsworth/Dodworthe family of Gawber Hall, Manor of Shepley, & Lascelles Hall in the 14th, 15th & 16th centuries. I have traced family members mainly through their witnessing of documents and have formed the opinion that they are legal people. Another document - an appointment of Attorney - has further convinced me that I'm on the right lines. However, as I'm still in my infancy as a medieval researcher I'd welcome the list's thoughts on this. >> >> June M >> > ------------------------------- > > That sounds very interesting, June. It is now recognised that there were many levels of provincial and local lawyers below the elite London attorneys, apprentices-at-law and sergeants, and there is a small literature on the problems of identifying them in the records. The footnotes to pages 83-85 of this article will guide you to some of them: > > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Vq_-ZFRtnkC&pg=PA73&dq=%22employ+lawyers+when%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjb7t67jNAhXMVhoKHZ5AAf8Q6AEINjAA#v=onepage&q=%22employ%20lawyers%20when%22&f=false > > Unfortunately it's only a Preview, so at least one of those pages will probably be unavailable. If you'd like to see it all, I can send you the text as an attachment. > > Witnessing charters and other documents would not in itself normally be evidence that an individual was acting as a lawyer - anyone could be a witness. Appointment as an attorney could sometimes be a pointer to a lawyer, but it depends very much on the circumstances - could you describe the document you have found more fully? Matt, I'd be grateful if you could send me a copy also although. One thing I've noticed looking through manorial court rolls for the years around 1300 (Wakefield) is that some individuals will frequently present essoins and act as pledges. Whilst neighbours might well act as pledges for each other* it seems likely that someone doing so on a regular basis suggests that he is being paid some sort of fee; after all there is a risk involved as I've seen one pledge for a debt left stranded when his "client" failed to appear and he had to stump up the value of the wool that was at issue and pay a fine. At the same time these individuals were not referred to as attorneys. I've even seen one enter an essoin on behalf of an attorney who had been accredited as such at a previous court. I'm interested in understanding the status of such men. In the C17th Almondbury rolls the lord of an adjacent manor was regularly represented by his attorney in the list of those present. Given that they were both called John Kaye and so were a number of other villagers this must have made life interesting. However as there was a 100% correlation between such representation and the presence of a specific John Kaye as identified by his address it wasn't difficult to identify the individual, nor to identify his house as being somewhat larger than the rest in the street on a contemporary map. It was also possible to identify him in the parish registers and to note that his appearance at that address coincided with the disappearance of a John Kaye at a different address. There's no indication of him being legally qualified; it looks as if he had been employed by his principal to look after the latter's affairs in the village and given a house befitting his status as his employer's representative. *When a batch of enclosures where being licensed in 1309 pairs of neighbours, as judged by their abodes and the land they were enclosing, were pledges for each other. Sometimes they may have been family members but usually their surnames differed. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him. Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a step away from the issue. Ay time it becomes a question of the genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about modern peope rather than about medieval people. Rather, let's look at the facts themselves. When Richard de Camville died, his property went first to his son John, then to Richard's sister Isabel, and not to William or his descendants. Do you understand why this would lead some to suggest that William had a different mother than Richard and Isabel? taf

Em terça-feira, 21 de junho de 2016 01:10:54 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 4:29:28 AM UTC+10, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > > > We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information > > to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to > > support Millicent. > > Who are the genealogists whose support for Millicent impresses you? > > For at least 100 years there has been direct evidence in print that Richard de Camville married twice (his own charter for Jumièges, dated 1170, naming both wives). > > This supplemented indirect evidence long known that at least his eldest son Gerard was apparently too old to have been Millicent's son (her first husband was killed in 1143/44 according to William of Newburgh, whereas Richard founded Combe abbey in 1150 with the assent of his son and heir Gerard ("quod et feci concessu et favore ... filii mei et hæredis Gerardi"). The same charter refers to Richard's children ("pro salute animæ meæ et uxoris meæ, liberorumque meorum") but the only family members witnessing the donation were his son Gerard and his brother Hugo - from this it could be arguable that Gerard's younger brother William was perhaps Millicent's son, still a child in 1150, but any genealogist working after the publication of Dugdale's Monasticon who failed to consider the alternative is probably not a reliable authority. > > Peter Stewart Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him.

> > On 21/06/16 11:22, Tompkins wrote: > > That sounds very interesting, June. It is now recognised that there were many levels of provincial and local lawyers below the elite London attorneys, apprentices-at-law and sergeants, and there is a small literature on the problems of identifying them in the records. The footnotes to pages 83-85 of this article will guide you to some of them: > > > > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Vq_-ZFRtnkC&pg=PA73&dq=%22employ+lawyers+when%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjb7t67jNAhXMVhoKHZ5AAf8Q6AEINjAA#v=onepage&q=%22employ%20lawyers%20when%22&f=false > > > > Unfortunately it's only a Preview, so at least one of those pages will probably be unavailable. If you'd like to see it all, I can send you the text as an attachment. > > > > Witnessing charters and other documents would not in itself normally be evidence that an individual was acting as a lawyer - anyone could be a witness. Appointment as an attorney could sometimes be a pointer to a lawyer, but it depends very much on the circumstances - could you describe the document you have found more fully? > > On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 9:34:55 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > Matt, > > I'd be grateful if you could send me a copy also although. > > One thing I've noticed looking through manorial court rolls for the > years around 1300 (Wakefield) is that some individuals will frequently > present essoins and act as pledges. Whilst neighbours might well act as > pledges for each other* it seems likely that someone doing so on a > regular basis suggests that he is being paid some sort of fee; after all > there is a risk involved as I've seen one pledge for a debt left > stranded when his "client" failed to appear and he had to stump up the > value of the wool that was at issue and pay a fine. > > At the same time these individuals were not referred to as attorneys. > I've even seen one enter an essoin on behalf of an attorney who had been > accredited as such at a previous court. I'm interested in understanding > the status of such men. > > In the C17th Almondbury rolls the lord of an adjacent manor was > regularly represented by his attorney in the list of those present. > Given that they were both called John Kaye and so were a number of other > villagers this must have made life interesting. However as there was a > 100% correlation between such representation and the presence of a > specific John Kaye as identified by his address it wasn't difficult to > identify the individual, nor to identify his house as being somewhat > larger than the rest in the street on a contemporary map. It was also > possible to identify him in the parish registers and to note that his > appearance at that address coincided with the disappearance of a John > Kaye at a different address. There's no indication of him being legally > qualified; it looks as if he had been employed by his principal to look > after the latter's affairs in the village and given a house befitting > his status as his employer's representative. > > *When a batch of enclosures where being licensed in 1309 pairs of > neighbours, as judged by their abodes and the land they were enclosing, > were pledges for each other. Sometimes they may have been family > members but usually their surnames differed. > > -- Yes, those early 14C pledgors do sound like part-time low-level village lawyers. I'll send the article direct. Matt

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 9:17:19 PM UTC+2, John Watson wrote: > On Saturday, 25 June 2016 11:50:09 UTC+1, sabaris...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 11:47:40 AM UTC+2, John Watson wrote: > > > On Saturday, 25 June 2016 00:25:38 UTC+1, sabaris...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > My first attempt to post a question on the various Rochfords and their relationship to Joan Hillary seems to have got lost in the ether. So here's another go. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a post to SGM in 2007, Douglas Richardson wrote: “Roskell's modern biography of Sir John Rochford in House of Commons 1386-1421, volume 4 maintains that Sir John's mother was NOT Joan Hillary, daughter of Sir Roger Hillary, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. My research, however, has conclusively proven this Sir John Rochford was in fact co-heir in 1400 to his uncle, Roger Hillary, Knt., by which he inherited the manors of Shelfield (in Walsall), Staffordshire and Stretton-on-Fosse, Warwickshire. These properties subsequently passed onto his heirs. This gaffe on Roskell's part is yet another reason why it is important to fact check all secondary works and online databases, including the two books published by yours truly.” > > > > > > > > The biography of Sir John Rochford of Fenn of Boston, Lincs (d. 1410) [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993, identifies Sir John only as the son of Sir Saier Rochford of Boston. The statement that he was not the son of Joan Hillary is found in a footnote, reading: “Lincs. Peds. ed. Maddison, 829, is mistaken in stating that Rochford's mother was Joan, da. and coh. of Sir Hillary, for although she did have a son named John Rochford he cannot have been our MP. The latter was succeeded by Sir Ralph Rochford of Fenn in Boston (d.1439/40) not by two young female descendants as was the case with Joan Hillary's son: CFR, xiv. 423; Fifty Earliest Eng. Wills (EETS, lxxviii), 120-8. During the lifetime of his uncle, Sir John Rochford the elder (d.c.1392), contemporaries usually referred to this MP as 'the younger' or 'son of Sir Saier' in order to avoid confusion. The problem of identification is, however, further complicated by the evidence of yet another namesake known as John Rochford of Boston. He and the subject of this biography were together parties to the endowment of Barling abbey in 1390 (C143/409/19; CPR, 1388-92, pp. 192-3), and were evidently related. John Rochford of Boston was himself a figure of some consequence. An adherent of the Lords Appellant of 1388, he served as a j.p. in Lindsey from 1387 to 1390, and, along with other members of the prolific Rochford clan, he took the oath in 1388 to support the Appellants' rule. He served on occasional royal commissions, and in 1398 was twice pardoned for his attachment to King Richard's enemies (C66/319 m. 16v; C67/30 mm. 18, 34; PR, iii. 400; CPR, 1385-9, p. 257; 1391-6, p. 430). Yet despite his connexion with leading figures in Boston (CP25(1)143/147/19, 144/148/39; JUST 1/1496 rot. 3v), we know that it was not he, but the subject of this biography who played a prominent part in the affairs of the Corpus Christi guild there.” > > > > > > > > So what do we know of Joan Hillary’s son, whose heirs were two women? Some details are to be found in the IPMs of the heirs of Sir Roger Hillary [2] and of one Alice Dorlaston [3], both given below. It is apparent from these that Sir Roger Hillary (-13 Jun 1400) was the brother of Elizabeth and Joan, whose descendants were his heirs. His sister Joan, according to Sir Roger’s IPM, married a Rochford and had a son Saer, referred to as “knight, junior,” whose son John was aged 40 and more in 1403. Not only, therefore, do we have two John Rochfords – if Sir Roger Hillary’s IPM and the HoP biography of John the MP are to be believed, both were sons of a Saer Rochford, presumably of different generations. Furthermore, if I understand these various details correctly, the John Rochford who was the father of Margery, wife of Frederick Tilney, was the son of Joan Hillary and her Rochford husband. Would he be the other John mentioned in the HoP footnote? > > > > > > > > If John Rochford MP was not a son of Joan Hillary, neither can he be the John Rochford, son of Saer, son of Joan Hillary, as stated in Roger Hillary’s IPM. But Alice Dorlaston’s IPM states that Joan had a son John, described as father of Elizabeth (m. 1st Russell and 2nd Clinton), Margery (m. Tilney) and Joan (m. Roos). > > > > > > > > And who were the two Saer Rochfords? Joan Hillary’s son of that name is referred to in her brother’s IPM as Saer junior. So who was Saer senior? > > > > > > > > I am so confused by all these Johns and Saers that I have probably missed, or misinterpreted, something that will be obvious to more experienced genealogists. I should be most grateful for comments and clarification. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Saba Risaluddin > > > > > > > > > > > > CIPM. Vol 18, 772. Roger Hillary, knight. > > > > Writ 4 May 1403. > > > > LEICESTER. Inquisition. Leicester 17 Sept > > > > Jointly with Margaret his wife, who survives him, he held 6 messuages, 2 carucates and 32 a. meadow in Snarestone and 15 a. meadow in Barrow on Soar by the grant of Hugh parson of Stretton on Fosse and William de Strethay to them and the heirs of the body of Roger, with remainder failing such heirs to John, son of Saer de Rochefort, knight, junior, and his heirs male. Snarestone is held of the heirs of John Charnels by the rent of a rose, annual value 40s.; Barrow on Soar of Thomas de Erdyngton, also by rent of a rose, annual value 18s. He died without heirs of his body on 13 June 1400, and Margaret has taken the profits since his death. John son of Saer, son of Joan, sister of Roger, and Elizabeth wife of John Russell, knight, daughter of Elizabeth, the other sister of Roger, are next heirs, John aged 40 years and more and Elizabeth 50 years and more. > > > > > > > > CIPM vol 795. Alice daughter and heir of Thomas son of Roger Dorlaston. > > > > Writ, devenerunt, 16 Dec. 1421. > > > > Stafford. Inquisition. Lichfield. 7 Jan. 1422. > > > > By reason of the death of Roger Dorlaston and the minority of Alice daughter of Thomas son of Roger the manor of Darlaston, the advowson of the church of the manor and 12 a. arable in Bentley came into the king’s hand where 2/3 remain, 1/3 being held in dower by Idony widow of Roger Dorlaston. Roger Dorlaston father of Roger was formerly seised of the manor, advowson and 12 a. in his demesne as of fee and granted them to William Benteley, Roger Basset, chaplain, John Marnham and Roger Elyngton, chaplain, who granted them to Roger Dorlaston the father and his wife Anne, deceased, and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to Roger Hillary, knight. . .The heirs of Roger Hillary were the descendants of his daughters Elizabeth and Joan: i.e. Elizabeth, Lady Clinton, aged 60 years, daughter of Elizabeth; Margery, aged 30 years, widow of Fratricus Tylney and one of the three daughters and heirs of John Rocheford, knight, son of Joan; Elizabeth Gibthorp, aged 1 year, daughter of John son of Alice, John Rocheford’s second daughter; and Margaret Roos, aged 5 years, daughter of Joan, John Rocheford’s third daughter.” > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 > > > > [2] J. L. Kirby, 'Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry IV, Entries 741-803', in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 18, Henry IV (London, 1987), pp. 244-268. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp244-268 [accessed 24 June 2016]. > > > > [3] J. L. Kirby, Janet H. Stevenson, Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem. . . 6-10 Henry V, 1418-1422, Boydell & Brewer (2002), 271 > > > > > > Dear Saba, > > > > > > Leaving aside any discussion about whether this Sir John Rochford was the MP for Boston, or not, the genealogical facts are relatively straightforward, as far as I can see: > > > > > > Sir Saier de Rochford II (i.e. Saier de Rochford, the younger) son of Ralph de Rochford and his wife Joan, was born about 1330 and died after 1370. He married, before June 1353, Joan Hilary, daughter of Sir Roger Hilary I (died 1 June 1356) and his wife Katherine (died 20 June 1356). > > > > > > Sir John de Rochford, eldest son of Saier de Rochford II and Joan Hilary was born about 1356 and died on 13 December 1410. He married Alice [Hastings?]. They had three daughters:- > > > - Margaret (or Margery), (died after 1434) wife of Frederick Tilney (died before 1412) > > > - Alice, (died before 1422) wife of William Gibthorpe (died before 1422) > > > - Joan, (died before 1422) first wife of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney (died 30 Sep 1441). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > John > > > > Dear John > > many thanks for this. It seems I allowed myself to be sidetracked by the question whether Sir John Rochford, son of Saer, was the MP or the other Sir John. > > Regards > > Saba > > Dear Saba, > > There were two Sir John de Rochfords, an elder and a younger. The elder, who died about 1393-4 is usually assumed to be the brother of Sir Saier de Rochford. However, since it appears that Sir Saier de Rochford married twice, it is also possible that he had a son named John by his first wife, and a son named John by his second wife, Joan Hillary, and that the two Johns were half-brothers. > > I find the younger John de Rochford referred to in several records as "John son of Saier de Rocheford the younger," and "John son of Saier de Rochford, junior." I had assumed that younger or junior referred to Saier, but the phraseology makes more sense if the two Johns were both sons of Saier. > > In answer to your question about which of them was the MP. The answer is that both Johns were MP. It appears that John the elder was knight of the shire for Lincoln in 1376-7 and John the younger was knight of the shire in 1390, 1394, 1397 and 1399. > > The elder John was knighted sometime before 1384 and the younger one about 1400. The writ for the expenses for the parliament of 1390 is: > 3 December 1390, Lincolnshire. John Bussy knight and John de Rocheforde £12 for 30 days. > Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II, vol. 4: 1389-1392 (1922), 305. > > Since that John de Rochford was not a knight, he must be the younger one. Similarly for the parliaments of 1394, 1397 and 1399, although I think that the elder John died in 1392 or 1393. He last appears on a Lincolnshire commission as John de Rocheford, knight, on 29 May 1392 [CPR, Ric. II, ii, 87]. > > The elder John de Rochford was succeeded by a son and heir Ralph, and the younger John by three daughters. The HOP biography seems to confuse the two men when it comes to their descendants. > > Regards, > John Dear John thank you so much for your continuing help on the Rochfords. It is all much clearer to me now. regards Saba

A few weeks ago I mentioned here an article presenting a curious pedigree of the Earls of Northumbria, by Neil McGuigan. I have since found his 2015 St. Andrews thesis, which covers the 'kings' and earls of Northumbria between the Viking deluge and the post-Norman-Conquest pacification. In addition to Northumbria itself, he addresses some peripheral aspects, notably including an appendix on Maldred MacCrinan, father of earl Gospatric. Among other things, he addressed the lack of an explicit statement that his father Crinan is the same as the Crinan, father of king Duncan. He makes the observation that Crinan is not that common of a name, and that it would be a big coincidence of one Crinan was well enough placed to marry the daughter of the king of Scotland, while a completely different Crinan was well enough placed to marry his son to the granddaughter of the king of England. At any rate, if anyone is interested here is a link to the pdf: https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/7829/NeilMcGuiganPhDThesis.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

Hello to all, My name is Jeanie Roberts and this is my first message to this list. I have just begun researching my ancestors in this era and the learning curve is very steep. I have done a lot of research on my Great Migration ancestors from the 16th and 17th centuries, but have not ventured to far back until know. I am hoping this list can help me. I am currently researching William de Say the husband of Beatrix de Mandeville, sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex. I am looking for any solid evidence of his ancestry. I have seen multiple sites that have Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Lucy as his parents. I also found a book called Early Yorkshire Charters Vol. 7 The Honor of Skipton, which suggests that his parents were Jordan de Say and his wife Lucy de Rumilly. Does anyone have any information, one way or the other? Jeanie Sent from Mail for Windows 10

On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 3:07:34 PM UTC-7, condyfee wrote: > On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > I know this is somewhat outside the medieval period and it is French to boot but the topic has cropped up here before. Can anyone comment on what is the latest consensus on the status of Anne Leneuf dit du Herisson b. 1632 Caen, Normandy, France, daughter of Michel-Mathieu Leneuf who in turn was son of Mathieu Leneuf and Jeanne Lemarchand? Anne married Antoine Desrosiers. Is Anne now considered daughter of an earlier marriage, or an illegitimate daughter, or an adopted daughter? > > Thanks for any info. > > Cynthia MontgomeryAnne Nom: LeNeuf du Herisson, Le Neuf Sexe: F Occupation: Naissance: 1631 vers Paroisse/ville: Thyru, Normandie Pays: France Décès: 16 octobre 1711 - âge: 80 Paroisse/ville: Champlain, Quebec Pays: Canada Information, autres enfants, notes, etc. Elle fut inhumée le 16 octobre 1711. Fille légitime ou illégitime de Michel LeNeuf du Hérisso > http://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?genealogie=Anne_LeNeuf&pid=11120&lng=fr

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > I know this is somewhat outside the medieval period and it is French to boot but the topic has cropped up here before. Can anyone comment on what is the latest consensus on the status of Anne Leneuf dit du Herisson b. 1632 Caen, Normandy, France, daughter of Michel-Mathieu Leneuf who in turn was son of Mathieu Leneuf and Jeanne Lemarchand? Anne married Antoine Desrosiers. Is Anne now considered daughter of an earlier marriage, or an illegitimate daughter, or an adopted daughter? > Thanks for any info. > Cynthia Montgomery http://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?genealogie=Anne_LeNeuf&pid=11120&lng=fr

On Saturday, 25 June 2016 11:50:09 UTC+1, sabaris...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 11:47:40 AM UTC+2, John Watson wrote: > > On Saturday, 25 June 2016 00:25:38 UTC+1, sabaris...@gmail.com wrote: > > > My first attempt to post a question on the various Rochfords and their relationship to Joan Hillary seems to have got lost in the ether. So here's another go. > > > > > > > > > In a post to SGM in 2007, Douglas Richardson wrote: “Roskell's modern biography of Sir John Rochford in House of Commons 1386-1421, volume 4 maintains that Sir John's mother was NOT Joan Hillary, daughter of Sir Roger Hillary, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. My research, however, has conclusively proven this Sir John Rochford was in fact co-heir in 1400 to his uncle, Roger Hillary, Knt., by which he inherited the manors of Shelfield (in Walsall), Staffordshire and Stretton-on-Fosse, Warwickshire. These properties subsequently passed onto his heirs. This gaffe on Roskell's part is yet another reason why it is important to fact check all secondary works and online databases, including the two books published by yours truly.” > > > > > > The biography of Sir John Rochford of Fenn of Boston, Lincs (d. 1410) [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993, identifies Sir John only as the son of Sir Saier Rochford of Boston. The statement that he was not the son of Joan Hillary is found in a footnote, reading: “Lincs. Peds. ed. Maddison, 829, is mistaken in stating that Rochford's mother was Joan, da. and coh. of Sir Hillary, for although she did have a son named John Rochford he cannot have been our MP. The latter was succeeded by Sir Ralph Rochford of Fenn in Boston (d.1439/40) not by two young female descendants as was the case with Joan Hillary's son: CFR, xiv. 423; Fifty Earliest Eng. Wills (EETS, lxxviii), 120-8. During the lifetime of his uncle, Sir John Rochford the elder (d.c.1392), contemporaries usually referred to this MP as 'the younger' or 'son of Sir Saier' in order to avoid confusion. The problem of identification is, however, further complicated by the evidence of yet another namesake known as John Rochford of Boston. He and the subject of this biography were together parties to the endowment of Barling abbey in 1390 (C143/409/19; CPR, 1388-92, pp. 192-3), and were evidently related. John Rochford of Boston was himself a figure of some consequence. An adherent of the Lords Appellant of 1388, he served as a j.p. in Lindsey from 1387 to 1390, and, along with other members of the prolific Rochford clan, he took the oath in 1388 to support the Appellants' rule. He served on occasional royal commissions, and in 1398 was twice pardoned for his attachment to King Richard's enemies (C66/319 m. 16v; C67/30 mm. 18, 34; PR, iii. 400; CPR, 1385-9, p. 257; 1391-6, p. 430). Yet despite his connexion with leading figures in Boston (CP25(1)143/147/19, 144/148/39; JUST 1/1496 rot. 3v), we know that it was not he, but the subject of this biography who played a prominent part in the affairs of the Corpus Christi guild there.” > > > > > > So what do we know of Joan Hillary’s son, whose heirs were two women? Some details are to be found in the IPMs of the heirs of Sir Roger Hillary [2] and of one Alice Dorlaston [3], both given below. It is apparent from these that Sir Roger Hillary (-13 Jun 1400) was the brother of Elizabeth and Joan, whose descendants were his heirs. His sister Joan, according to Sir Roger’s IPM, married a Rochford and had a son Saer, referred to as “knight, junior,” whose son John was aged 40 and more in 1403. Not only, therefore, do we have two John Rochfords – if Sir Roger Hillary’s IPM and the HoP biography of John the MP are to be believed, both were sons of a Saer Rochford, presumably of different generations. Furthermore, if I understand these various details correctly, the John Rochford who was the father of Margery, wife of Frederick Tilney, was the son of Joan Hillary and her Rochford husband. Would he be the other John mentioned in the HoP footnote? > > > > > > If John Rochford MP was not a son of Joan Hillary, neither can he be the John Rochford, son of Saer, son of Joan Hillary, as stated in Roger Hillary’s IPM. But Alice Dorlaston’s IPM states that Joan had a son John, described as father of Elizabeth (m. 1st Russell and 2nd Clinton), Margery (m. Tilney) and Joan (m. Roos). > > > > > > And who were the two Saer Rochfords? Joan Hillary’s son of that name is referred to in her brother’s IPM as Saer junior. So who was Saer senior? > > > > > > I am so confused by all these Johns and Saers that I have probably missed, or misinterpreted, something that will be obvious to more experienced genealogists. I should be most grateful for comments and clarification. > > > > > > Regards > > > Saba Risaluddin > > > > > > > > > CIPM. Vol 18, 772. Roger Hillary, knight. > > > Writ 4 May 1403. > > > LEICESTER. Inquisition. Leicester 17 Sept > > > Jointly with Margaret his wife, who survives him, he held 6 messuages, 2 carucates and 32 a. meadow in Snarestone and 15 a. meadow in Barrow on Soar by the grant of Hugh parson of Stretton on Fosse and William de Strethay to them and the heirs of the body of Roger, with remainder failing such heirs to John, son of Saer de Rochefort, knight, junior, and his heirs male. Snarestone is held of the heirs of John Charnels by the rent of a rose, annual value 40s.; Barrow on Soar of Thomas de Erdyngton, also by rent of a rose, annual value 18s. He died without heirs of his body on 13 June 1400, and Margaret has taken the profits since his death. John son of Saer, son of Joan, sister of Roger, and Elizabeth wife of John Russell, knight, daughter of Elizabeth, the other sister of Roger, are next heirs, John aged 40 years and more and Elizabeth 50 years and more. > > > > > > CIPM vol 795. Alice daughter and heir of Thomas son of Roger Dorlaston. > > > Writ, devenerunt, 16 Dec. 1421. > > > Stafford. Inquisition. Lichfield. 7 Jan. 1422. > > > By reason of the death of Roger Dorlaston and the minority of Alice daughter of Thomas son of Roger the manor of Darlaston, the advowson of the church of the manor and 12 a. arable in Bentley came into the king’s hand where 2/3 remain, 1/3 being held in dower by Idony widow of Roger Dorlaston. Roger Dorlaston father of Roger was formerly seised of the manor, advowson and 12 a. in his demesne as of fee and granted them to William Benteley, Roger Basset, chaplain, John Marnham and Roger Elyngton, chaplain, who granted them to Roger Dorlaston the father and his wife Anne, deceased, and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to Roger Hillary, knight. . .The heirs of Roger Hillary were the descendants of his daughters Elizabeth and Joan: i.e. Elizabeth, Lady Clinton, aged 60 years, daughter of Elizabeth; Margery, aged 30 years, widow of Fratricus Tylney and one of the three daughters and heirs of John Rocheford, knight, son of Joan; Elizabeth Gibthorp, aged 1 year, daughter of John son of Alice, John Rocheford’s second daughter; and Margaret Roos, aged 5 years, daughter of Joan, John Rocheford’s third daughter.” > > > > > > > > > [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 > > > [2] J. L. Kirby, 'Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry IV, Entries 741-803', in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 18, Henry IV (London, 1987), pp. 244-268. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp244-268 [accessed 24 June 2016]. > > > [3] J. L. Kirby, Janet H. Stevenson, Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem. . . 6-10 Henry V, 1418-1422, Boydell & Brewer (2002), 271 > > > > Dear Saba, > > > > Leaving aside any discussion about whether this Sir John Rochford was the MP for Boston, or not, the genealogical facts are relatively straightforward, as far as I can see: > > > > Sir Saier de Rochford II (i.e. Saier de Rochford, the younger) son of Ralph de Rochford and his wife Joan, was born about 1330 and died after 1370. He married, before June 1353, Joan Hilary, daughter of Sir Roger Hilary I (died 1 June 1356) and his wife Katherine (died 20 June 1356). > > > > Sir John de Rochford, eldest son of Saier de Rochford II and Joan Hilary was born about 1356 and died on 13 December 1410. He married Alice [Hastings?]. They had three daughters:- > > - Margaret (or Margery), (died after 1434) wife of Frederick Tilney (died before 1412) > > - Alice, (died before 1422) wife of William Gibthorpe (died before 1422) > > - Joan, (died before 1422) first wife of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney (died 30 Sep 1441). > > > > Regards, > > > > John > > Dear John > many thanks for this. It seems I allowed myself to be sidetracked by the question whether Sir John Rochford, son of Saer, was the MP or the other Sir John. > Regards > Saba Dear Saba, There were two Sir John de Rochfords, an elder and a younger. The elder, who died about 1393-4 is usually assumed to be the brother of Sir Saier de Rochford. However, since it appears that Sir Saier de Rochford married twice, it is also possible that he had a son named John by his first wife, and a son named John by his second wife, Joan Hillary, and that the two Johns were half-brothers. I find the younger John de Rochford referred to in several records as "John son of Saier de Rocheford the younger," and "John son of Saier de Rochford, junior." I had assumed that younger or junior referred to Saier, but the phraseology makes more sense if the two Johns were both sons of Saier. In answer to your question about which of them was the MP. The answer is that both Johns were MP. It appears that John the elder was knight of the shire for Lincoln in 1376-7 and John the younger was knight of the shire in 1390, 1394, 1397 and 1399. The elder John was knighted sometime before 1384 and the younger one about 1400. The writ for the expenses for the parliament of 1390 is: 3 December 1390, Lincolnshire. John Bussy knight and John de Rocheforde £12 for 30 days. Calendar of Close Rolls, Richard II, vol. 4: 1389-1392 (1922), 305. Since that John de Rochford was not a knight, he must be the younger one. Similarly for the parliaments of 1394, 1397 and 1399, although I think that the elder John died in 1392 or 1393. He last appears on a Lincolnshire commission as John de Rocheford, knight, on 29 May 1392 [CPR, Ric. II, ii, 87]. The elder John de Rochford was succeeded by a son and heir Ralph, and the younger John by three daughters. The HOP biography seems to confuse the two men when it comes to their descendants. Regards, John

Royal link between Cameron and Johnson : http://geneanjou.blog.lemonde.fr/2016/06/24/grande-bretagne-dun-premier-ministre-au-suivant/

http://geneanjou.blog.lemonde.fr/2016/06/24/grande-bretagne-dun-premier-ministre-au-suivant/

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 11:47:40 AM UTC+2, John Watson wrote: > On Saturday, 25 June 2016 00:25:38 UTC+1, sabaris...@gmail.com wrote: > > My first attempt to post a question on the various Rochfords and their relationship to Joan Hillary seems to have got lost in the ether. So here's another go. > > > > > > In a post to SGM in 2007, Douglas Richardson wrote: “Roskell's modern biography of Sir John Rochford in House of Commons 1386-1421, volume 4 maintains that Sir John's mother was NOT Joan Hillary, daughter of Sir Roger Hillary, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. My research, however, has conclusively proven this Sir John Rochford was in fact co-heir in 1400 to his uncle, Roger Hillary, Knt., by which he inherited the manors of Shelfield (in Walsall), Staffordshire and Stretton-on-Fosse, Warwickshire. These properties subsequently passed onto his heirs. This gaffe on Roskell's part is yet another reason why it is important to fact check all secondary works and online databases, including the two books published by yours truly.” > > > > The biography of Sir John Rochford of Fenn of Boston, Lincs (d. 1410) [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993, identifies Sir John only as the son of Sir Saier Rochford of Boston. The statement that he was not the son of Joan Hillary is found in a footnote, reading: “Lincs. Peds. ed. Maddison, 829, is mistaken in stating that Rochford's mother was Joan, da. and coh. of Sir Hillary, for although she did have a son named John Rochford he cannot have been our MP. The latter was succeeded by Sir Ralph Rochford of Fenn in Boston (d.1439/40) not by two young female descendants as was the case with Joan Hillary's son: CFR, xiv. 423; Fifty Earliest Eng. Wills (EETS, lxxviii), 120-8. During the lifetime of his uncle, Sir John Rochford the elder (d.c.1392), contemporaries usually referred to this MP as 'the younger' or 'son of Sir Saier' in order to avoid confusion. The problem of identification is, however, further complicated by the evidence of yet another namesake known as John Rochford of Boston. He and the subject of this biography were together parties to the endowment of Barling abbey in 1390 (C143/409/19; CPR, 1388-92, pp. 192-3), and were evidently related. John Rochford of Boston was himself a figure of some consequence. An adherent of the Lords Appellant of 1388, he served as a j.p. in Lindsey from 1387 to 1390, and, along with other members of the prolific Rochford clan, he took the oath in 1388 to support the Appellants' rule. He served on occasional royal commissions, and in 1398 was twice pardoned for his attachment to King Richard's enemies (C66/319 m. 16v; C67/30 mm. 18, 34; PR, iii. 400; CPR, 1385-9, p. 257; 1391-6, p. 430). Yet despite his connexion with leading figures in Boston (CP25(1)143/147/19, 144/148/39; JUST 1/1496 rot. 3v), we know that it was not he, but the subject of this biography who played a prominent part in the affairs of the Corpus Christi guild there.” > > > > So what do we know of Joan Hillary’s son, whose heirs were two women? Some details are to be found in the IPMs of the heirs of Sir Roger Hillary [2] and of one Alice Dorlaston [3], both given below. It is apparent from these that Sir Roger Hillary (-13 Jun 1400) was the brother of Elizabeth and Joan, whose descendants were his heirs. His sister Joan, according to Sir Roger’s IPM, married a Rochford and had a son Saer, referred to as “knight, junior,” whose son John was aged 40 and more in 1403. Not only, therefore, do we have two John Rochfords – if Sir Roger Hillary’s IPM and the HoP biography of John the MP are to be believed, both were sons of a Saer Rochford, presumably of different generations. Furthermore, if I understand these various details correctly, the John Rochford who was the father of Margery, wife of Frederick Tilney, was the son of Joan Hillary and her Rochford husband. Would he be the other John mentioned in the HoP footnote? > > > > If John Rochford MP was not a son of Joan Hillary, neither can he be the John Rochford, son of Saer, son of Joan Hillary, as stated in Roger Hillary’s IPM. But Alice Dorlaston’s IPM states that Joan had a son John, described as father of Elizabeth (m. 1st Russell and 2nd Clinton), Margery (m. Tilney) and Joan (m. Roos). > > > > And who were the two Saer Rochfords? Joan Hillary’s son of that name is referred to in her brother’s IPM as Saer junior. So who was Saer senior? > > > > I am so confused by all these Johns and Saers that I have probably missed, or misinterpreted, something that will be obvious to more experienced genealogists. I should be most grateful for comments and clarification. > > > > Regards > > Saba Risaluddin > > > > > > CIPM. Vol 18, 772. Roger Hillary, knight. > > Writ 4 May 1403. > > LEICESTER. Inquisition. Leicester 17 Sept > > Jointly with Margaret his wife, who survives him, he held 6 messuages, 2 carucates and 32 a. meadow in Snarestone and 15 a. meadow in Barrow on Soar by the grant of Hugh parson of Stretton on Fosse and William de Strethay to them and the heirs of the body of Roger, with remainder failing such heirs to John, son of Saer de Rochefort, knight, junior, and his heirs male. Snarestone is held of the heirs of John Charnels by the rent of a rose, annual value 40s.; Barrow on Soar of Thomas de Erdyngton, also by rent of a rose, annual value 18s. He died without heirs of his body on 13 June 1400, and Margaret has taken the profits since his death. John son of Saer, son of Joan, sister of Roger, and Elizabeth wife of John Russell, knight, daughter of Elizabeth, the other sister of Roger, are next heirs, John aged 40 years and more and Elizabeth 50 years and more. > > > > CIPM vol 795. Alice daughter and heir of Thomas son of Roger Dorlaston. > > Writ, devenerunt, 16 Dec. 1421. > > Stafford. Inquisition. Lichfield. 7 Jan. 1422. > > By reason of the death of Roger Dorlaston and the minority of Alice daughter of Thomas son of Roger the manor of Darlaston, the advowson of the church of the manor and 12 a. arable in Bentley came into the king’s hand where 2/3 remain, 1/3 being held in dower by Idony widow of Roger Dorlaston. Roger Dorlaston father of Roger was formerly seised of the manor, advowson and 12 a. in his demesne as of fee and granted them to William Benteley, Roger Basset, chaplain, John Marnham and Roger Elyngton, chaplain, who granted them to Roger Dorlaston the father and his wife Anne, deceased, and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to Roger Hillary, knight. . .The heirs of Roger Hillary were the descendants of his daughters Elizabeth and Joan: i.e. Elizabeth, Lady Clinton, aged 60 years, daughter of Elizabeth; Margery, aged 30 years, widow of Fratricus Tylney and one of the three daughters and heirs of John Rocheford, knight, son of Joan; Elizabeth Gibthorp, aged 1 year, daughter of John son of Alice, John Rocheford’s second daughter; and Margaret Roos, aged 5 years, daughter of Joan, John Rocheford’s third daughter.” > > > > > > [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 > > [2] J. L. Kirby, 'Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry IV, Entries 741-803', in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 18, Henry IV (London, 1987), pp. 244-268. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp244-268 [accessed 24 June 2016]. > > [3] J. L. Kirby, Janet H. Stevenson, Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem. . . 6-10 Henry V, 1418-1422, Boydell & Brewer (2002), 271 > > Dear Saba, > > Leaving aside any discussion about whether this Sir John Rochford was the MP for Boston, or not, the genealogical facts are relatively straightforward, as far as I can see: > > Sir Saier de Rochford II (i.e. Saier de Rochford, the younger) son of Ralph de Rochford and his wife Joan, was born about 1330 and died after 1370. He married, before June 1353, Joan Hilary, daughter of Sir Roger Hilary I (died 1 June 1356) and his wife Katherine (died 20 June 1356). > > Sir John de Rochford, eldest son of Saier de Rochford II and Joan Hilary was born about 1356 and died on 13 December 1410. He married Alice [Hastings?]. They had three daughters:- > - Margaret (or Margery), (died after 1434) wife of Frederick Tilney (died before 1412) > - Alice, (died before 1422) wife of William Gibthorpe (died before 1422) > - Joan, (died before 1422) first wife of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney (died 30 Sep 1441). > > Regards, > > John Dear John many thanks for this. It seems I allowed myself to be sidetracked by the question whether Sir John Rochford, son of Saer, was the MP or the other Sir John. Regards Saba

On Saturday, 25 June 2016 00:25:38 UTC+1, sabaris...@gmail.com wrote: > My first attempt to post a question on the various Rochfords and their relationship to Joan Hillary seems to have got lost in the ether. So here's another go. > > > In a post to SGM in 2007, Douglas Richardson wrote: “Roskell's modern biography of Sir John Rochford in House of Commons 1386-1421, volume 4 maintains that Sir John's mother was NOT Joan Hillary, daughter of Sir Roger Hillary, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. My research, however, has conclusively proven this Sir John Rochford was in fact co-heir in 1400 to his uncle, Roger Hillary, Knt., by which he inherited the manors of Shelfield (in Walsall), Staffordshire and Stretton-on-Fosse, Warwickshire. These properties subsequently passed onto his heirs. This gaffe on Roskell's part is yet another reason why it is important to fact check all secondary works and online databases, including the two books published by yours truly.” > > The biography of Sir John Rochford of Fenn of Boston, Lincs (d. 1410) [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993, identifies Sir John only as the son of Sir Saier Rochford of Boston. The statement that he was not the son of Joan Hillary is found in a footnote, reading: “Lincs. Peds. ed. Maddison, 829, is mistaken in stating that Rochford's mother was Joan, da. and coh. of Sir Hillary, for although she did have a son named John Rochford he cannot have been our MP. The latter was succeeded by Sir Ralph Rochford of Fenn in Boston (d.1439/40) not by two young female descendants as was the case with Joan Hillary's son: CFR, xiv. 423; Fifty Earliest Eng. Wills (EETS, lxxviii), 120-8. During the lifetime of his uncle, Sir John Rochford the elder (d.c.1392), contemporaries usually referred to this MP as 'the younger' or 'son of Sir Saier' in order to avoid confusion. The problem of identification is, however, further complicated by the evidence of yet another namesake known as John Rochford of Boston. He and the subject of this biography were together parties to the endowment of Barling abbey in 1390 (C143/409/19; CPR, 1388-92, pp. 192-3), and were evidently related. John Rochford of Boston was himself a figure of some consequence. An adherent of the Lords Appellant of 1388, he served as a j.p. in Lindsey from 1387 to 1390, and, along with other members of the prolific Rochford clan, he took the oath in 1388 to support the Appellants' rule. He served on occasional royal commissions, and in 1398 was twice pardoned for his attachment to King Richard's enemies (C66/319 m. 16v; C67/30 mm. 18, 34; PR, iii. 400; CPR, 1385-9, p. 257; 1391-6, p. 430). Yet despite his connexion with leading figures in Boston (CP25(1)143/147/19, 144/148/39; JUST 1/1496 rot. 3v), we know that it was not he, but the subject of this biography who played a prominent part in the affairs of the Corpus Christi guild there.” > > So what do we know of Joan Hillary’s son, whose heirs were two women? Some details are to be found in the IPMs of the heirs of Sir Roger Hillary [2] and of one Alice Dorlaston [3], both given below. It is apparent from these that Sir Roger Hillary (-13 Jun 1400) was the brother of Elizabeth and Joan, whose descendants were his heirs. His sister Joan, according to Sir Roger’s IPM, married a Rochford and had a son Saer, referred to as “knight, junior,” whose son John was aged 40 and more in 1403. Not only, therefore, do we have two John Rochfords – if Sir Roger Hillary’s IPM and the HoP biography of John the MP are to be believed, both were sons of a Saer Rochford, presumably of different generations. Furthermore, if I understand these various details correctly, the John Rochford who was the father of Margery, wife of Frederick Tilney, was the son of Joan Hillary and her Rochford husband. Would he be the other John mentioned in the HoP footnote? > > If John Rochford MP was not a son of Joan Hillary, neither can he be the John Rochford, son of Saer, son of Joan Hillary, as stated in Roger Hillary’s IPM. But Alice Dorlaston’s IPM states that Joan had a son John, described as father of Elizabeth (m. 1st Russell and 2nd Clinton), Margery (m. Tilney) and Joan (m. Roos). > > And who were the two Saer Rochfords? Joan Hillary’s son of that name is referred to in her brother’s IPM as Saer junior. So who was Saer senior? > > I am so confused by all these Johns and Saers that I have probably missed, or misinterpreted, something that will be obvious to more experienced genealogists. I should be most grateful for comments and clarification. > > Regards > Saba Risaluddin > > > CIPM. Vol 18, 772. Roger Hillary, knight. > Writ 4 May 1403. > LEICESTER. Inquisition. Leicester 17 Sept > Jointly with Margaret his wife, who survives him, he held 6 messuages, 2 carucates and 32 a. meadow in Snarestone and 15 a. meadow in Barrow on Soar by the grant of Hugh parson of Stretton on Fosse and William de Strethay to them and the heirs of the body of Roger, with remainder failing such heirs to John, son of Saer de Rochefort, knight, junior, and his heirs male. Snarestone is held of the heirs of John Charnels by the rent of a rose, annual value 40s.; Barrow on Soar of Thomas de Erdyngton, also by rent of a rose, annual value 18s. He died without heirs of his body on 13 June 1400, and Margaret has taken the profits since his death. John son of Saer, son of Joan, sister of Roger, and Elizabeth wife of John Russell, knight, daughter of Elizabeth, the other sister of Roger, are next heirs, John aged 40 years and more and Elizabeth 50 years and more. > > CIPM vol 795. Alice daughter and heir of Thomas son of Roger Dorlaston. > Writ, devenerunt, 16 Dec. 1421. > Stafford. Inquisition. Lichfield. 7 Jan. 1422. > By reason of the death of Roger Dorlaston and the minority of Alice daughter of Thomas son of Roger the manor of Darlaston, the advowson of the church of the manor and 12 a. arable in Bentley came into the king’s hand where 2/3 remain, 1/3 being held in dower by Idony widow of Roger Dorlaston. Roger Dorlaston father of Roger was formerly seised of the manor, advowson and 12 a. in his demesne as of fee and granted them to William Benteley, Roger Basset, chaplain, John Marnham and Roger Elyngton, chaplain, who granted them to Roger Dorlaston the father and his wife Anne, deceased, and the heirs of their bodies, remainder to Roger Hillary, knight. . .The heirs of Roger Hillary were the descendants of his daughters Elizabeth and Joan: i.e. Elizabeth, Lady Clinton, aged 60 years, daughter of Elizabeth; Margery, aged 30 years, widow of Fratricus Tylney and one of the three daughters and heirs of John Rocheford, knight, son of Joan; Elizabeth Gibthorp, aged 1 year, daughter of John son of Alice, John Rocheford’s second daughter; and Margaret Roos, aged 5 years, daughter of Joan, John Rocheford’s third daughter.” > > > [1] The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 > [2] J. L. Kirby, 'Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry IV, Entries 741-803', in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 18, Henry IV (London, 1987), pp. 244-268. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol18/pp244-268 [accessed 24 June 2016]. > [3] J. L. Kirby, Janet H. Stevenson, Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem. . . 6-10 Henry V, 1418-1422, Boydell & Brewer (2002), 271 Dear Saba, Leaving aside any discussion about whether this Sir John Rochford was the MP for Boston, or not, the genealogical facts are relatively straightforward, as far as I can see: Sir Saier de Rochford II (i.e. Saier de Rochford, the younger) son of Ralph de Rochford and his wife Joan, was born about 1330 and died after 1370. He married, before June 1353, Joan Hilary, daughter of Sir Roger Hilary I (died 1 June 1356) and his wife Katherine (died 20 June 1356). Sir John de Rochford, eldest son of Saier de Rochford II and Joan Hilary was born about 1356 and died on 13 December 1410. He married Alice [Hastings?]. They had three daughters:- - Margaret (or Margery), (died after 1434) wife of Frederick Tilney (died before 1412) - Alice, (died before 1422) wife of William Gibthorpe (died before 1422) - Joan, (died before 1422) first wife of Sir Robert Roos of Gedney (died 30 Sep 1441). Regards, John

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 7:42:09 PM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 9:19:53 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:31:30 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > And I agree with the conclusion found here: > > > http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I26499 > > > > Maybe in the immediate generation linked, but if the elder William married a Bruley heiress, then I suspect that was not the case for his grandson. There may have been a vague tradition (e.g. heraldry) that had the family marrying Coughton and Bruley heiresses, and hence called for two links, one to Coughton and one to Bruley, but if the first marriage was to an heiress of both, then the latter marriage is not necessary to explain the Bruley inheritance and the Bruley fines. Not that a family couldn't marry distant branches of the same family in subsequent generations, but I would suggest that this modified explanation of the earlier generation places the latter all the more in doubt. > > > > Yes, completely agree, and yes, I meant for the linked page only, not whatever the other pages may say which I didn't go through in detail. > Joe Cook I think that the deeds do not provide convincing evidence for the marriage proposed in the cited website. While William de Spineto's wife Joan chronologically plausibly could have been a daughter of Hugh de Burleye and his wife Joan (who was the heiress of Simon de Coughton and his wife Constance), the language of the fines (according to the abstracts) does not suggest that the transfer of property to William, and later to William and his wife Joan, was a marriage settlement for a daughter. In particular, William paid 4 marks of silver for the property he received in 1257 from Hugh de Burleye and Joan, and in 1274 he paid John de Bibbesl' and his wife Constance (Simon's widow) 75 marks of silver and Hugh de Norfolk and his wife Joan (Hugh de Burleye's widow) 40 marks of silver for additional pieces of Coughton.

On 19/06/16 03:26, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > As the discussion has now reached a point where people are starting to > discuss other projects and their platforms. I wonder if I can call on > listers to suggest a good platform for the creation of the List > initially proposed? Git (If you haven't heard of it, Google is your friend). -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

The court case involving Sewal son of William de Spineto, cited in previous posts, https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293 (Michaelmas 1218) and continued in the same book https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA298 (Hilary 1219) is from the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews and is translated here: https://books.google.com/books?id=40xAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=Spineto and https://books.google.com/books?id=40xAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14&dq=Spineto Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews Pleas of Michaelmas Term, 3 Hen. III [A.D. 1218] ... Essex. Samuel, son of Aaron of Colchester, demands of Sewal de Spineto, son of William de Spineto, 50s. by chirograph under the names of the said Aaron and William. Defence, that the seal of the chirograph is not William's, in evidence whereof is produced a charter bearing William's seal, which is unlike the seal of the chirograph. As the the chirograph, Samuel puts himself upon lawful Christians and Jews, who know the handwriting of the clerk who was chirographer when it was made, and avers that it is usual for knights to have two seals. Pledges: for Sewal, Osbert, the chaplin; for Samuel, Benedict Crespin. Day assigned, the quindene of St. Hilary. Hillary Term, [A.D. 1219] ... Essex. Sewal de Spineto complains that Samuel, son of Aaron of Colchester, demands of him a debt which he does not acknowledge to be due. Wherefore mandate is to go to the Sheriff, that, having taken security from Sewal for the prosecution of his claim, he summon the said Jew to be before the Justices at Westminster on the morrow of All Souls to show how and by what warrant he demands that debt, and to have there that whereby he demands it. Pledges for prosecution, Osbert, chaplain, of Holland, and Robert, smith, of Cochester.

All the headlines today reminded me of this BBC Who Do You Think You Are? episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dozUkeDXXgw Nathan

The interesting SP reference to Margaret Stewart mentioned by Louise: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008828538;view=1up;seq=191 I see this Margaret Stewart had a son called "Francis," as did Christiane Stewart and husband Adam Mudie: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951000733561r;view=1up;seq=225