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

I'm looking to find [Irfeld] named in the following 1239 record. It doesn't seem to be still called Irfeld in Northampton. to further research this line it would greatly help to identify it. This is the record in which it appears. Trinity Term 1239, Northampton. Juliana, who was the wife of William le Despencer, claims one third part of half a virgate of land in Irfeld as her dower. Curia Regis Roll, No. 120, m. 5. Any comments welcome. Thanks Robert

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

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 1:42:49 PM UTC-7, James LaLone via wrote: > At the genie meeting last night someone asked me if Danish surnames ending > in BORG are an indication of royalty. I have no idea, can anyone inform > me? Her name is SPRINGBORG. thanks. I doubt it. '-borg' is the same as the German -burg - a castle. Someone who owned the castle (noble, gentry) could have had such a surname, but so could anyone who just lived there. The Danes adopted surnames late (late 19th century, early 20th century). Before then many Danes simply went by their given name, their father's name, and the name of the farm or village where they lived, so a Jens Christensen Springborg was simply Jens from Springborg, son of Christian, and if he moved after marriage, his son could have been Nels Jensen Flem. taf

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 5:42:49 PM UTC-3, James LaLone via wrote: > At the genie meeting last night someone asked me if Danish surnames ending > in BORG are an indication of royalty. I have no idea, can anyone inform > me? Her name is SPRINGBORG. thanks. I don't really think so. Borg is a cognate of the German Burg (originally a castle or something like it). It most likely points to a place of origin rather than to a royal last name, AFAIK. Cheers.

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:31:30 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: ... > They may be different individuals. Here is another note on Sewal ('sawat' here): > https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293 ... > > and: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93 ... > ... Thanks, Joe, for these links to documents mentioning Sawal son of William de Spineto. I wrote a reply a couple hours ago, but Google Groups appears to have lost it (a message said processing was taking a long time and to send the post again if it didn't appear soon), so I'm writing the reply again. My apologies for duplication if the original post eventually appears. The first document you cited, https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&dq=Spineto, appears to be dated the end of January in 1220. Perhaps someone who can easily read this Latin can supply an explanation of the argument and the result of this court case. The second document, a deed, https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Spineto, is dated 4 John, so nearly a generation earlier. There is another deed witnessed by William de Spineto on the same page. It is undated, but since it involves the same people perhaps it was executed at about the same time. (This William presumably cannot be the same man as the William de Spineto sentenced to be hanged in 1196 unless the hanging wasn't carried out.) In both of the documents you cite, the given name of the son of a William de Spineto is Sawal. In the 1254 Fine Roll, the given name of the father of a William de Spineto is Sewal (with a line written through the l as in the court document). The image of the Fine Roll is here, http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/fimages/C60_51/m10.html. The entry is the ninth one above the stitches. It seems plausible that Sawal and Sewal could be the same name. While the court case and deed were from Essex and the Fine Roll mentions Wiltshire, chronologically, the documents could refer to the same man--in 1202-1203 Sawel as a young man with his father William de Spineto living, Sawal's father William de Spineto dead by 1220, and Sewal de Spineto himself dead by February 1253/54 and his son William eager to posses his land. There is still the question of whether the son William de Spineto in 1253/54 may have been the same man as a contemporary William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton.

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

At the genie meeting last night someone asked me if Danish surnames ending in BORG are an indication of royalty. I have no idea, can anyone inform me? Her name is SPRINGBORG. thanks.

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 1:42:49 PM UTC-7, James LaLone via wrote: > At the genie meeting last night someone asked me if Danish surnames ending > in BORG are an indication of royalty. I have no idea, can anyone inform > me? Her name is SPRINGBORG. thanks. I don't think so. 'Borg' just means 'castle' (equivalent to '-burg' in German) and would be found in many place names. While such a surname may have been borne by someone who owned the land with this name (i.e. gentry, nobility) it might just as well have been borne by someone who just lived there. Until recently (late 19th and early 20th century), most of the population didn't even use surnames - they would be identified by their name, their father's name and where they were from, so that a Jens Christensen Springborg would simply be Jens from Springborg, son of Christian, and if he moved to another town, his son may have been Bjorn Jensen Lindholm. taf

That would make perfect sense here since it refers to the St. John's from whom Louvaine purchased a bulk of properties. Thank you. Pat Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 23, 2016, at 2:00 PM, Richard Carruthers <leliwite@gmail.com> wrote: > > Looks like an old rendering of "from whom (feminine plural) I bought > the inheritance/ succession" > > Hope this fits. > > Richard > >> On 23/06/2016, Patricia A. Junkin via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> The following appears in the will of Nicholas Louvaine. >> des quelles ie achatay leritage >> >> Appreciate any help. >> Pat >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >>

The following appears in the will of Nicholas Louvaine. des quelles ie achatay leritage Appreciate any help. Pat

Looks like an old rendering of "from whom (feminine plural) I bought the inheritance/ succession" Hope this fits. Richard On 23/06/2016, Patricia A. Junkin via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > The following appears in the will of Nicholas Louvaine. > des quelles ie achatay leritage > > Appreciate any help. > Pat > > ------------------------------- > 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 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. taf

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:36:59 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: > Thanks all for your efforts to document the de Spineto/Spyne family. > > VCH Warwickshire (in the Coughton section) cites several deeds from the Warwickshire Feet of Fines volumes (Dugdale Society). I have now read the full text of these abstracts/translations. I see nothing to identify the wives of the men named William de Spineto beyond their given names. Are these volumes readily available to others interested in this family? If not, I can post transcriptions of the fines when I have finished copying them for myself. > > Meanwhile the name William de Spineto appears twice in the Fine Rolls of Henry III: > > 1253/54 February. Wiltshire. William son of Sewal' de Spineto gives the king two marks for an assize of mort d’ancestor to be taken before Roger of Whitchester. Order to the sheriff of Wiltshire to take etc. ["Sewal' de Spineto" written over erased text.] > http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_051.html#it256_010, 38 Henry III (28 October 1253–27 October 1254), membrane 10 > > 1271 December 17. Warwickshire, "William de Spineto and Joan his wife" gave "half a mark for having a writ ad terminum. Order to the sheriff of Warwickshire." http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_069.html#it168_019, 56 Henry III (28 October 1271–27 October 1272), membrane 19 > > We know from one of the Fines cited in VCH that a William de Spineto was purchasing land in Coughton by 1256-1257 (41 Henry III). > > We also know from deeds that the William de Spineto that married a Margery had land interests in Worcestershire. > > Does it seem plausible that William son of Sewal' de Spineto was the same man as the William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton in 1254-1255? Would it be surprising for a man purchasing land in Warwickshire to have recently asked for an assize of mort d'ancestor in Wiltshire? Was 2 marks a lot to pay for such an assize? Would such a case be recorded in the King's Bench Plea Rolls? They may be different individuals. Here is another note on Sewal ('sawat' here): https://books.google.com/books?id=lzZnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=%22sawat%22+%22spineto%22&source=bl&ots=oQnygP6kDz&sig=2Lhgti_r6mapbIBVKDEW8gBAt30&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt6-SA973NAhVBpR4KHcafBI8Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22sawat%22%20%22spineto%22&f=false and: https://books.google.com/books?id=xR0XAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=%22sawal%22+%22spineto%22&source=bl&ots=Cgikz9Q6dS&sig=Hx2rnb3-YlHIbJFRCoVRMw8gbak&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUr4Oz973NAhXCpx4KHdPDBCoQ6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=%22sawal%22%20%22spineto%22&f=false More interestingly, perhaps, is this British History article: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol3/pp74-86 And I agree with the conclusion found here: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I26499

Thanks all for your efforts to document the de Spineto/Spyne family. VCH Warwickshire (in the Coughton section) cites several deeds from the Warwickshire Feet of Fines volumes (Dugdale Society). I have now read the full text of these abstracts/translations. I see nothing to identify the wives of the men named William de Spineto beyond their given names. Are these volumes readily available to others interested in this family? If not, I can post transcriptions of the fines when I have finished copying them for myself. Meanwhile the name William de Spineto appears twice in the Fine Rolls of Henry III: 1253/54 February. Wiltshire. William son of Sewal' de Spineto gives the king two marks for an assize of mort d’ancestor to be taken before Roger of Whitchester. Order to the sheriff of Wiltshire to take etc. ["Sewal' de Spineto" written over erased text.] http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_051.html#it256_010, 38 Henry III (28 October 1253–27 October 1254), membrane 10 1271 December 17. Warwickshire, "William de Spineto and Joan his wife" gave "half a mark for having a writ ad terminum. Order to the sheriff of Warwickshire." http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_069.html#it168_019, 56 Henry III (28 October 1271–27 October 1272), membrane 19 We know from one of the Fines cited in VCH that a William de Spineto was purchasing land in Coughton by 1256-1257 (41 Henry III). We also know from deeds that the William de Spineto that married a Margery had land interests in Worcestershire. Does it seem plausible that William son of Sewal' de Spineto was the same man as the William de Spineto who purchased land in Coughton in 1254-1255? Would it be surprising for a man purchasing land in Warwickshire to have recently asked for an assize of mort d'ancestor in Wiltshire? Was 2 marks a lot to pay for such an assize? Would such a case be recorded in the King's Bench Plea Rolls? In some records the surname of this family is written del Espyne (and variants) and later Spyne (and variants). Is the origin of this name the Latin word for a thicket of thorn bushes and the French word for thorn? In 1196, a William de Spineto (Oxford DNB calls him William d'Épinay), keeper of the castle of Bonneville-sur-Touques, was sentenced to be hanged for his roll in allowing the escape of a prisoner entrusted to the custody of Robert de Ros.

> I agree, she was almost certainly NOT a legitimate child of Lord Darnley and his wife > Lady Jean Hepburn. I would say we probably have to assign two illegitimate children to > Lord Darnley; (1) Hercules Stewart, executed for "treasonable practices" in 1595, known > "base" brother to the Earl of Bothwell; (2) Christiane Stewart, made a rocker of the > infant king in 1567. SP, VOL 2 (Sub: Stewart, Earl of Bothwell) assigns two illegitimate children to John Stewart, Lord Darnley, namely Hercules Stewart and Margaret Stewart. Margaret Stewart is referenced with an obscure source for her, but SP does record the details whereby she was referred to as "daughter to the Abbot of Coldingham and brother -daughter to Robert, Earl of Orkney This Margaret married, firstly, before 1579, William Sinclair of Underhoull with whom she had at least two sons, and secondly William Bruce, 2nd of Symbister. Her Testament is dated the 14th September 1608. Has this Margaret Stewart been ruled out as a daughter of John Stewart, Lord Darnley ? Louise Gibson

> Has this Margaret Stewart been ruled out as a daughter of John Stewart, Lord Darnley ? > > Louise Gibson No, definitely not. I just didn't know of her. It is interesting that her two husbands were also Orkney/ Shetland men, from Symbister and Underhoull. I think this adds some tangential support for my suggestion about Christiane, daughter of Lord Darnley.

Sorry, on a practical note If I wanted to get a particular individual's details right in Familysearch e.g. Sir Richard Conyers of South Cowton, last of his line who was active in the 2nd half of the 19th century, married to Alice Wycliffe, either the son or grandson of Sir John Conyers, general to Henry VII, and father of a raft of daughters plus possibly another Richard who must have died young since the estates went to the girls. Where should I look for the latest / best research? Regards James

"Accountant wins legal claim to baronetcy in 'cuckoo in the nest' case that could challenge the British class system" from The Telegraph, 20 June 2016 • 11:30am. The British class system is facing an unprecedented new challenge after a landmark ruling that DNA tests can be used to determine the validity of inherited titles. "The ruling by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting at the UK Supreme Court, raises the prospect of long-established official versions of aristocratic family lineage being torn up - and could even pose intriguing questions for the Royal Family.... Mr Pringle, 57, had been due to inherit the title following the death of his father, Sir Steuart Pringle, the 10th Baronet, a decorated Royal Marines commander, three years ago. But his claim was challenged after a DNA sample given by Sir Steuart before his death for a genealogy project showed that his own father, Sir Norman Hamilton Pringle, the 9th Baronet, had been illegitimate." See the full article at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/20/accountant-wins-legal-claim-to-baronetcy-in-unusual-cuckoo-in-th/ CE Wood

On 22/06/2016 2:31 AM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: <snip> > I also disagree with Peter that there is a logical error in saying that > a wiki can chose its editors. <snip> > A wiki is just a software platform, a tool. Then please explain logically how a tool can chose its users and/or a platform can chose who stands on it. My point is that a wiki is just software, not to be hyped into anything more than a new means to an old end. Peter Stewart