On 02/06/16 08:02, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > The List or Index to the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families (LMGF) > is the first thing I think needs to be established. What purpose do you see this list or index having? I am to some extent playing Devil's Advocate here, but it is a key point to which to have agreement. I see several possible purposes: 1. To provide information on the demographics of the upper levels of mediaeval society. 2. As an index to help researchers locate primary sources on particular families or individuals. 3. As the index to a large-scale collaborative genealogy (and/or biographical dictionary) of the mediaeval landed gentry. Probably there are other possibilities I've not considered. These could all be worthwhile possible aims, but preparation is needed if they are to happen. The last thing we want is for lots of effort to be put into a list, only to find some important piece of information has been omitted, or it's been done in a format (or using a technology) that cannot readily be converted for use in these roles. I don't think the first possible purpose (demographic information) is sufficiently important to justify the immense amount of work that the list's production will require. It's a worthwhile additional benefit of the list, but not as its primary purpose. I don't think you're suggesting otherwise. However I'm not sure which, if either, of the latter two suggested purposes you intended. I initially thought it was a collaborative genealogy, but now I'm not wondering whether you are more focused on the second. Either way, I'm not sure the list, as per your mock up, is doing it. If the aim is as a source locator list, then surely the list should be of people not families; sources mention individuals, not families, and it's not always clear which family those individuals belong to. When it comes to genealogical details, I think either you need a much clearer policy on what you want and how, or you should drop it entirely until such time as you do. I think your suggestion, if I've understood it correctly, that you should allow users to do pretty much what they want on the family's page is a recipe for poor quality and inconsistent information. It's the WikiTree problem. Without guidelines on what is required it's unreasonable to suppose that angst can be avoided if everyone approaches it in a collegiate spirit; few people like it when content they've invest a lot of time in writing gets reworked without (what the original author considers to be) a very good reason. > To qualify for coverage by the List, I think it would be necessary > to be the holder of one manor, and to be of gentle status, at least, > when such descriptions still held water. That sounds an excellent threshold. > There could be sub-categories for debatable families. If someone > wanted to create an ancillary list of families of, say, franklins and > yeomen, who didn't make the cut, I think that ought to be allowed, > though it would not be the objective of the LMGF List. I don't think you should allow this. By all means allow the odd exception, for example if a particular family of yeomen forms a genealogical link between two qualifying families, or is important in some way (perhaps for having a Member of Parliament in the family). Richard

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 7:19:36 PM UTC-7, condyfee wrote: > the Memorials of the Cranes of Chilton has a a Pedigree showing > da. of Tho? Green of Greeting., by tracing a number of land actions i find a > tie of Thomas Grene of Westcretynge [Creeting St Peter], will made 1439 > as the father of Agnes, wife of Robert Crane of Stonham Jernegan, > > > > in Feoffment > Reference: HD 1538/365/36 > Description: > 1. Thomas Grene of Cretyng St Peter [Creeting St Peter] > > 2. Robert Campp of Stonham Aspale [Stonham Aspal] > > Robert Crane of Stonham Parva > > John Gleson of Stonham Aspale > > (1) to (2), piece of land lying in Stonham Aspale between land of Stonham Aspale Rectory on W. and land called Cattys on E., 1 head abutting N. on land formerly of Robert Chener', other head abutting S. on land called Qwytes; which (1) formerly had jointly with Robert Feldegate by gift of Sir John Heuenyngham, kt; to hold of chief lords of fee by accustomed services. Witnesses: Reginald Ederych, Thomas Pecher, Robert Chapman, Henry Laneman, William Thorpp and others. Given at Stonham Aspale, Monday, feast of St Margaret the Virgin, 11 Hen.VI. > > the tie of grene and crane are listed. > > Feoffment (chirograph) > Reference: HD 1538/365/37 > Description: > 1. William Thorp of Stonham Aspale [Stonham Aspal], esq. > > Thomas Sengelton of Stowemarket [Stowmarket], esq. > > Sir Andrew Bryd, clerk > > John Gleson > > William Mowney of Stonham Aspale > > 2. William Feldegate of Stonham Aspale > > William Grene, son of Thomas Grene of Westcretynge [Creeting St Peter] > > Sir John Morgon, clerk > > Thomas Colchestre of Pethawghe [Pettaugh] > > (1) to (2), 2 crofts with adjoining lane (8a.) called Melle clos, lying together in Stonham Aspale between land formerly of John Mory on S. and said lane on N., 1 head abutting E. on land formerly of John Ook, other abutting W. on close called Rasshcroft, formerly of Robert Note, which (1) lately had jointly by feoffment of William Grenehood and William Mowney; 2 pieces of land lying together in Stonham Aspale between land formerly of Henry de Stonham, chaplain and land formerly of John Ook on 1 side and land of Stonham Rectory and land late of Robert Feldegate on other side, 1 head abutting on way called Mellewey, other head on land formerly of J.O., which W.T. and W.M. together with Roger Morgon deceased lately had jointly by gift of John Waryn of Stkeneylond; 2 pieces of land in same town (2a.)parcel of tenement called Parles, 1 piece called Wylwenerowe, other called Mellelond, which W.T., A.B. and J.G. lately had by gift of Robert Wynde of Stonham Comitis [Earl Stonham]; to hold of chief lords of fee by accustomed services, on condition of payment of 14 marks (2 marks at feast of St Michael in 2nd year after present date, and 2 marks at each subsequent feast of St Michael), and 6 marks at feast of St Michael next after death of W.T., to his executors. W.T. to have said property and its crops for life. Witnesses: Reginald Ederych, Hugh Bakere, Robert Cawm, Gilbert Morgon, John Harlewene and others. Given at Stonham Aspale, Sunday before feast of St Margaret the Virgin, 12 Hen.VI. > > robert cayn is the robert crane father of Margery CRANE who marries > > Thomas APPLETON. > > in the will of Thomas Grene he has a wife > see > wj0h7GH6onNAhUPyGMKHXrJC4sQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=%20St%20Peter%2C%20Creeting%20St%20Peter&f=false > for more also a son william and a un married joan a child. > > i been working on this for a long time Thomas Grene of Westcretynge [Creeting St Peter] should be the title

the Memorials of the Cranes of Chilton has a a Pedigree showing da. of Tho? Green of Greeting., by tracing a number of land actions i find a tie of Thomas Grene of Westcretynge [Creeting St Peter], will made 1439 as the father of Agnes, wife of Robert Crane of Stonham Jernegan, in Feoffment Reference: HD 1538/365/36 Description: 1. Thomas Grene of Cretyng St Peter [Creeting St Peter] 2. Robert Campp of Stonham Aspale [Stonham Aspal] Robert Crane of Stonham Parva John Gleson of Stonham Aspale (1) to (2), piece of land lying in Stonham Aspale between land of Stonham Aspale Rectory on W. and land called Cattys on E., 1 head abutting N. on land formerly of Robert Chener', other head abutting S. on land called Qwytes; which (1) formerly had jointly with Robert Feldegate by gift of Sir John Heuenyngham, kt; to hold of chief lords of fee by accustomed services. Witnesses: Reginald Ederych, Thomas Pecher, Robert Chapman, Henry Laneman, William Thorpp and others. Given at Stonham Aspale, Monday, feast of St Margaret the Virgin, 11 Hen.VI. the tie of grene and crane are listed. Feoffment (chirograph) Reference: HD 1538/365/37 Description: 1. William Thorp of Stonham Aspale [Stonham Aspal], esq. Thomas Sengelton of Stowemarket [Stowmarket], esq. Sir Andrew Bryd, clerk John Gleson William Mowney of Stonham Aspale 2. William Feldegate of Stonham Aspale William Grene, son of Thomas Grene of Westcretynge [Creeting St Peter] Sir John Morgon, clerk Thomas Colchestre of Pethawghe [Pettaugh] (1) to (2), 2 crofts with adjoining lane (8a.) called Melle clos, lying together in Stonham Aspale between land formerly of John Mory on S. and said lane on N., 1 head abutting E. on land formerly of John Ook, other abutting W. on close called Rasshcroft, formerly of Robert Note, which (1) lately had jointly by feoffment of William Grenehood and William Mowney; 2 pieces of land lying together in Stonham Aspale between land formerly of Henry de Stonham, chaplain and land formerly of John Ook on 1 side and land of Stonham Rectory and land late of Robert Feldegate on other side, 1 head abutting on way called Mellewey, other head on land formerly of J.O., which W.T. and W.M. together with Roger Morgon deceased lately had jointly by gift of John Waryn of Stkeneylond; 2 pieces of land in same town (2a.)parcel of tenement called Parles, 1 piece called Wylwenerowe, other called Mellelond, which W.T., A.B. and J.G. lately had by gift of Robert Wynde of Stonham Comitis [Earl Stonham]; to hold of chief lords of fee by accustomed services, on condition of payment of 14 marks (2 marks at feast of St Michael in 2nd year after present date, and 2 marks at each subsequent feast of St Michael), and 6 marks at feast of St Michael next after death of W.T., to his executors. W.T. to have said property and its crops for life. Witnesses: Reginald Ederych, Hugh Bakere, Robert Cawm, Gilbert Morgon, John Harlewene and others. Given at Stonham Aspale, Sunday before feast of St Margaret the Virgin, 12 Hen.VI. robert cayn is the robert crane father of Margery CRANE who marries Thomas APPLETON. in the will of Thomas Grene he has a wife see wj0h7GH6onNAhUPyGMKHXrJC4sQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=%20St%20Peter%2C%20Creeting%20St%20Peter&f=false for more also a son william and a un married joan a child. i been working on this for a long time

You lost all potential credibility of your argument when you said: "Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah..."

On 02/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 02/06/16 08:02, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > >> The List or Index to the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families (LMGF) >> is the first thing I think needs to be established. > > What purpose do you see this list or index having? I am to some extent > playing Devil's Advocate here, but it is a key point to which to have > agreement. > > I see several possible purposes: > > 1. To provide information on the demographics of the upper levels > of mediaeval society. > > 2. As an index to help researchers locate primary sources on > particular families or individuals. > > 3. As the index to a large-scale collaborative genealogy (and/or > biographical dictionary) of the mediaeval landed gentry. > > Probably there are other possibilities I've not considered. primarily 2 with a possibility of 3, but closer to 4. To provide a List of LMG Families to enable researchers to locate individual families in the catchment area and discover other parties interested in a given family to facilitate research, and, if desired, engage in solo or collaborative research into LGM Families in a scholarly manner, with evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings available online through a potential series of linked pages, but at least one Master List page for each county showing the details I listed in my first mock-up. > > These could all be worthwhile possible aims, but preparation is needed > if they are to happen. The last thing we want is for lots of effort to > be put into a list, only to find some important piece of information has > been omitted, or it's been done in a format (or using a technology) that > cannot readily be converted for use in these roles. I think another column or other columns could probably be added to the Master List w/o much difficulty if at some future point that were found to be desired and/or required. > > I don't think the first possible purpose (demographic information) is > sufficiently important to justify the immense amount of work that the > list's production will require. It's a worthwhile additional benefit of > the list, but not as its primary purpose. I don't think you're > suggesting otherwise. Agreed > > However I'm not sure which, if either, of the latter two suggested > purposes you intended. I initially thought it was a collaborative > genealogy, but now I'm not wondering whether you are more focused on the > second. Either way, I'm not sure the list, as per your mock up, is > doing it. How would you suggest its deficiencies ought to be made up? If the aim is as a source locator list, then surely the list > should be of people not families; sources mention individuals, not > families, and it's not always clear which family those individuals > belong to. Yes, and no. Individuals are normally the sourced basis of the creation of List entries, with the proviso that often we are looking for individual members of known families, though, theoretically, research for inclusion of families for inclusion in the List could turn up hitherto unconsidered family names or names of individuals who otherwise meet the criteria. It's rather a chicken and egg question, families being composed of individuals, with the caveat that individuals can become separated from their family, particularly in the mediaeval period when naming customs did not necessarily always indicate that a given individual belonged to any particular family. In some instances, as with the Waleys of Glynde Place, Sussex, there are ancestors who probably qualify for inclusion in the List who do not have any surname. There would need to be a way of dealing with such folk, possibly be see and see also references in the List. > > When it comes to genealogical details, I think either you need a much > clearer policy on what you want and how, or you should drop it entirely > until such time as you do. What sort of genealogical details do you think it desirable that such a List lead to on deeper linked pages? I think your suggestion, if I've understood > it correctly, that you should allow users to do pretty much what they > want on the family's page is a recipe for poor quality and inconsistent > information. It's the WikiTree problem. Here I was not thinking of the quality of the material provided, but rather the scope for additional types of linked pages, because I may not have an exhaustive inventory of possible page types in mind, yet some or all of those possibilities may add to the value of the List's linkage capacity. Without guidelines on what is > required it's unreasonable to suppose that angst can be avoided if > everyone approaches it in a collegiate spirit; few people like it when > content they've invest a lot of time in writing gets reworked without > (what the original author considers to be) a very good reason. I too am in favour of guidelines. I think, however, that such a List and linked pages should provide facilities for comment areas linked to all pages, and, if desired, and/or merited, linked pages where registered users can submit their findings as alternate entries with an explanation of why this is deemed necessary in their view. This would, for example, allow one to critique an entry that cobbled together findings in such a way that a given entry amounted to something erroneous. In the end, this could be a could way of providing consistent scholarly criticism for otherwise unreviewed information of the "Fab Pedigree" kind. > It is not that I want to encourage a lot of random or disparate article types or formats; instead I am open to suggestion. I shall attempt to work up what I think to be a worthwhile List-linked fuller entry on a given family for consideration. >> To qualify for coverage by the List, I think it would be necessary >> to be the holder of one manor, and to be of gentle status, at least, >> when such descriptions still held water. > > That sounds an excellent threshold. > I am glad that will serve, then. >> There could be sub-categories for debatable families. If someone >> wanted to create an ancillary list of families of, say, franklins and >> yeomen, who didn't make the cut, I think that ought to be allowed, >> though it would not be the objective of the LMGF List. > > I don't think you should allow this. By all means allow the odd > exception, for example if a particular family of yeomen forms a > genealogical link between two qualifying families, or is important in > some way (perhaps for having a Member of Parliament in the family). > > Richard > I should have added that what I mean here is to provide a separate place for families that don't make the cut so that research into them is not wasted. Moreover, there is value in a negative result, inasmuch as a) proving that a family should be excluded from the List helps to shore up the boundaries of the List (rather like the disclaimers used in Heraldic Visitations to denote the ignoble, i.e. those who were not qualified to bear a coat-of-arms, and were, hence, "no gent."), and b) keeping a separate List of such findings can be useful in terms of going through all the possible families to be considered for inclusion or exclusion from the List, and c) having those excluded names on file to ensure that one does not keep going over the same territory and d) seeing at what point a family previously excluded eventually made the cut (which sometimes happened a generation or more down the line). This is all part of the Verified Genealogy idea I referred to earlier. Thank you, once again, for taking the time to reply to my suggestions with useful comments. All the best, Richard:)

On 2/06/2016 12:40 PM, taf via wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 6:52:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > >> It's a gender hazard that these candidates are female - the same degree >> of mystery is usually not open for speculation in men of similar status. > Interesting point. I can't think of a man with more than two alternatives, although I am sure there are some. > >> A few Byzantine ladies have yet to be pinned as fully-labelled >> genealogical specimens with accepted parentage, for instance Emperor >> Otto II's wife Theophanu and Guillaume VIII of Montpellier's wife Eudokia. > Or perhaps they have been pinned so many times it has damaged the specimen. > > Oh, wait. I just thought of a man with more than 2. Jimeno, father of Garcia Jimenez, king of 'another part of' Navarre has had all manner of father's pinned above him (as well as a recent expert concluding he didn't exist at all). And then there is Inigo Arista, who is given three different patronymics by medieval sources. > > Robert the Strong also had more than two, probably half a dozen or so, until a consensus was finally arrived at with Karl Glockner's 'Lorsch und Lothringen' in the late 1930s (though not everyone is convinced). Umberto Biancomano of Savoy is up there too. Peter Stewart

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:25:35 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that > > biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. > > I don't even want to think about a scenario where you could take a swab > of your cheek and get more of someone else's DNA than your own, without > knowing it. I just wanted to clarify what I am talking about here. Mr. Tinney's current evidence that all DNA analysis is bunk is based on 'touch DNA'. This refers to the DNA found in the small number of cells left behind in the oils transferred by touch (i.e. a fingerprint). It has been used to demonstrate that a specific person had touched the murder weapon. What it does not show is how long ago this occurred, and that is a primary criticism - not that it doesn't identify who, but that it doesn't identify when. A further concern is secondary transfer - a small number of dead cells could be transferred from one person to another when, for example, shaking hands. If that person then touches a surface, them will deposit some of their own cells, but they also may deposit some of the cells transferred to them in the prior interaction. The reason this is a problem is that forensic analysis of touch DNA requires levels of sensitivity not normally relied upon - it is trying to detect the DNA from as little as a single cell, rather than the thousands of cells normally used in a DNA test. With so few total cells, the sample tested may only have a single cell in it, and while it is most likely to have come from the person doing the touching, there is always the possibility that that cell came from the secondary transfer. You are pushing the technique to its theoretical (and biochemical) limits to detect minuscule amounts of DNA from surface. The final issues is systematic contamination - there was a specific instance where German, French and Austrian police spent all kinds of time tracking a serial killer, the Phantom of Heilbronn, because they found her DNA at a large number of sites where a violent death had taken place. As it turns out, they were using swabs that were contaminated in the factory (and were never certified DNA-free). This was only a problem because they were swabbing surfaces with no DNA, so only the low-level contamination was detected in the test. This is not the situation with genealogical testing. When doing genealogical testing, you are usually doing a cheek swab that will contain thousands of cells (one study showed that the first wash of the average swab yielded 150,000 cells, and a second wash released another 150,000). If a dozen cells from someone else have been transferred through a kiss, representing nothing more than insignificant noise amidst the 99.99% of cells from the tested individual. Indeed, the level of contamination would have to approach 20% or so before you would even notice it. At 50%, you would get an uninterpretable result rather than a wrong result. To get the wrong result, as Mr. Tinney is hinting can happen, there would have to be many more contaminating cells than cells from the test subject. This might be a concern for Hannibal Lecter, but he probably knows better than to swipe his cheek to determine his ethnic origin while he is chewing on a raw human kidney. taf

On 2/06/2016 12:01 PM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > There is an interesting discussion of the capture of John de Saint John in France published in Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft 2 (1868): 280-283, which source may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=IFlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA280 > > Here are three more sources which concern the ransom and imprisonment of John de Saint John in France. If the first and second sources are to be trusted, the king was pressuring the ten wealthiest monasteries of England in 1298 to raise the ransom of John de Saint John in order to provide for his release. > > 1. Archaelogical Journal 67 (1910): 261 (“On 8th May, 1298, within six weeks of the fire, the abbot and convent of Westminster bound themselves by a bond to certain foreign merchants to pay £250 towards the ransom of John de Saint John, then a prisoner in France.”). > > 2. First Report of the Deputy Keeper (1840): 58 (“Roll dated 26 Edw. I [A.D. 1297–8] entitled ‘Litteræ obligatoriæ quorundum Abbatum factæ diversis mercatoribus super deliberatione Johannis de Sancto Johanne.'”). > > 3. Widmore, History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster, commonly called Westminster Abbey (1751): 80-81 (“In the year 1298, the abbot and convent [of Westminster] gave bond for two hundred and fifty pounds toward the ransom of a noble person, John de Saint John, governor or general for the king in Aquitain, who, in endeavouring to relieve a castle besieged by the French, had been taken prisoner, upon whom the French had set an excessive sum, such as he himself had not the means to raise ... It was the king's recommending the matter to ten of the richest monasteries, that the house thus engaged toward the ransom of this nobleman : the like was also done by the abbies of Glastenbury, Peterborough, Evesham, and Saint Edmondbury, but refused by those of Ramsey, Abingdon, Waltham, St. Albans and Hyde.”). > > These records would appear to refute Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133, who alleges that John de Saint John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign in 1298. There is no evidence that John de Saint John was present at that battle. More to the point, there is evidence that he cannot have been at Falkirk in July 1298 - apart from the sources Rosie Bevan has given you, we know from Philippe IV's treasury accounts that a stipend was being paid for keeping St. John in custody at Corbeil and Paris in the summer of 1298. Do you ever bother to track down current secondary works on a subject of interest, and follow leads from these to primary sources, or do you actually prefer to rummage for the obsolete guff you keep quoting here at length? Peter Stewart

Hi all, A nice little website which enables anyone to easily create a coat of arms from a blazon. The result can be saved as a graphic file. For those who like to decorate their family trees with arms. http://www.karlwilcox.com/drawshield/create/ Regards, John

On 2/06/2016 7:29 AM, taf via wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:13:42 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > >> I wonder if Agatha holds the record for most different >> published theories on her origin and parentage, or if that distinction >> belongs to some other figure. > Probably Agatha - I can't think of any others with that number, unless you count the 'Prince near the Alps' who married one of Edward the Elder's daughters, but that debate is more about identity than parentage. I think the one with the next most is Jimena, mistress of Alfonso VI. One who has the potential to give Agatha a run for her money is Stephanie, wife of William, Count of Burgundy, who has three that I know of. Both of these are the opposite problem to Agatha - a near-total lack of information, as opposed to vague and conflicting information. > It's a gender hazard that these candidates are female - the same degree of mystery is usually not open for speculation in men of similar status. A few Byzantine ladies have yet to be pinned as fully-labelled genealogical specimens with accepted parentage, for instance Emperor Otto II's wife Theophanu and Guillaume VIII of Montpellier's wife Eudokia. Peter Stewart

On 2/06/2016 6:29 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 294 makes it clear that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was still a prisoner in France on 18 July 1297. > > Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301 (1895): 303 suggests Saint John was back in England on 16 August 1297, when the king granted license for "Walter de Everlee to enfeoff John de Sancto Johanne the elder of the bailiwick of the forestership of Peinbere and Everlee, and of land to the value of 10 marks a year in the manors of Pembere and Everlee, co. Southampton, which he holds in chief." > > As to when Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, first appeared in Scotland, there is a long discussion of the English military efforts in Dumfriesshire by King Edward I published in the book, M'Dowall, History of the Burgh of Dumfries (1867). This book may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=MD0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover > > On page 69, the author makes the first mention of John de Saint John in Scotland: > > "For the purpose of keeping it in check, Lord Clifford proceeded from Carlisle into Dumfriesshire, and devasted the country, putting many of its suspected inhabitants to death ... Soon after Clifford had finished his cruel mission, John de St. John became keeper of the district - his rule extending southwards to Carlisle and eastwards to Roxburghshire ... St. John, while pretty safe in the strong Castle of Dumfries, was liable to be every now and then alarmed by rumours of risings, true or false, against his authority. We learn from the wardrobe accounts of Edward I., that St. John was allowed forty caparisoned horses, the maintenance of which was 5 3s. 6d. a day; and that for his personal following he had a knight banneret, six knights, and thirty esquires, whose pay was from 4s. a day to 1 s. - large sums, though seemingly small, since their value with reference to all commodities was at least ten times as great as the same amounts at the present day." END OF QUOTE. > > The author doesn't provide a date for these events, but the book, Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock (1828): 187 states that ""in the 25th Edw. I" [i.e., 1296-1297] Robert de Clifford "was sent with a hundred men at arms and twenty thousand foot from Carlisle to plunder in Scotland, and that after much slaughter he returned with considerable booty on Christmas eve." END OF QUOTE. > > The date of this raid is specifically dated to 1297, by Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): pg. 100. > > As such, presuming M'Dowall had his facts correctly stated, Sir John de Saint John was present in Scotland "soon after" Clifford's return from his raid on Christmas eve 1297. This time frame would agree with the Patent Rolls which suggests that John de Saint John had returned to England from France by 16 August 1297. Ho hum - does any of this baloney haphazardly derived from obsolete secondary sources appear in your published works? In light of Rosie Bevan's post today we can assume that it never will again, anyway. And from long experience we can assume that your readers will never find out where you learned the facts... Peter Stewart

On 01/06/16 00:38, Jan Wolfe wrote: > In line 6 of the will of Richard Drax, does the will say > > Itm lego Johanni Wakfeld iij s > or > Itm lego Johanne Wakfeld iij s ? > > Is the bequest to John or to Joan Wakfeld? Assuming you actually mean line 9, where the amount is 3s 4d (a convenient amount, being quarter a mark, the value of a half-noble coin), it seems to me to be fairly clearly Johanni, i.e. a man named John. Richard

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > Nathan, I respectfully disagree. The current firestorm on the Internet, The internet? Really? You use 'firestorm on the internet' as your standard for scientific relevance? > from what I have evaluated, shows that even the Forensic DNA evidence is > being highly challenged. I refer to, for example: Forensic DNA evidence > is not infallible Infallibility is a standard NO forensic evidence can meet, not fingerprints, not confessions, not eyewitness testimony. Certainly it is a standard that the genealogical documentary record can't meet. The thing is, though, the procedures and practices of of forensic and genealogical DNA collection and testing are different, and the challenges entirely distinct. > As DNA analysis techniques become more sensitive, we must be careful to > reassess the probabilities of error, argues Cynthia M. Cale. > http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-is-not-infallible-1.18654 Stop being dishonest! You are citing an article that has no relevance whatsoever to the type of DNA testing done for genealogical purposes. You would know this if you actually read the essay and understood it, so I am forced to conclude one of three things: you never read it and are just harvesting quotes; you read it but it was so far over your head that you didn't understand it but that isn't stopping you from passing it on; or you know it is irrelevant but you are citing it anyhow, hoping that nobody else will notice. Each of these is dishonest. > Earlier this month, the Texas Forensic Science Commission raised concerns > about the accuracy of the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence, and > it is now checking whether convictions going back more than a decade are > safe. Again, not relevant. > Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that > biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. I don't even want to think about a scenario where you could take a swab of your cheek and get more of someone else's DNA than your own, without knowing it. > How, then can anyone convey with any degree of honesty, The irony in that is truly monumental. taf

On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 10:24:39 PM UTC-4, Peter G. M. Dale wrote: > Greetings, > > The pedigree, related to Ernulph II de Mandeville, as I understand it, is as follows: > > Geoffrey II de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex > > b. before 1091 (source: ‘The Official Baronage of England showing the succession, dignities, and offices of every peer from 1066 to 1885’, (1886), Vol. I – Dukes – Viscounts, by James E. Doyle, pp. 682) or 1100/05. Geoffrey had at least 1, and perhaps 2, siblings: (1) Beatrix (b. [1105]-[Rickling, Essex] and d. April 19 [1197 or before], bur Walden Abbey; and, perhaps, (2) Alice (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands – A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, England, Earls Created 1138-1143 (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801)) > > m. Rose de Vere (c. 1110 – 1170 or after) > > d. September 26, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk (source: ‘Oxford Dictionary of National Biography’, (2004), Vol. 36 (Macquarie-Martin), pp. 405) or September 14 or 16, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk and bur 1163 in New Temple Church, London (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801)) > > his eldest son (either illegitimate or from an earlier marriage – not, apparently, the son of Rose de Vere), > > Ernulph I de Mandeville > > b. [approx. 1110-20/1120-25]. Ernulph had at least 5 siblings: (1) Geoffrey III (d.s.p. Chester on October 21, 1166, bur Walden Abbey); (2) William (d.s.p. [Rouen/Gisors/Le Vaudreuil] Normandy on November 14, 1189, bur Abbey of Mortemer); (3) Beatrice; (4) Robert (d.s.p. before November 14, 1189); and (5) Matilda (m. (i) Peter of Ludgershall and (ii) Hugh II of Buckland (d. 1175)). (source: ‘Domesday Descendants – A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166’, Vol. II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum, (2002), by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, p. 566; Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801)) > > m. Alice d’Oilly > > d. c. 1178 (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801)) > > his son, > > Ernulph II de Mandeville > > b. [approx. 1140-50]. Ernulph had at least 3 siblings: (1) Geoffrey of Highworth (d. after 1190/94 and had a son Geoffrey); (2) Ralph of Kingham; and (3) Matilda (m. Adam de Port) + other daughters. (source: ‘Domesday Descendants’, Vol. II, p. 566). Ernulph was, as I understand it, the 2nd or 3rd son of Ernulph I. > > m. Ernulph married NN who died before c. 1185-97. He married secondly (or after NN) Maud de Luvetot c. 1185-97. > > d. c. 1216 > > his daughter, > > NN (Christiana) de Mandeville > > b. [approx. 1180-90]. NN had at least 1 sibling: (1) Ernulph III (d. 1251-54). > > m. Robert II de Mounteney of Mountnessing, Essex (c. 1175/85 - before Michaelmas 1224) > > d. in or post 1234 (source: ‘Calendar of the Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III., preserved in the PRO’, (1908), Henry III – 1234-1237, p. 158) > > I cannot, however, identify any primary evidence to confirm: > > 1. that Ernulph II was the son of Ernulph I; > 2. the identity of Ernulph II’s first wife; or > 3. that NN de Mandeville was the daughter of Ernulph II. There is, however, an abundant amount of corroborative evidence for #1 and 3. Assistance with this would be much appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Pete Greetings, For what it is worth, my primary interest is in learning anything that may provide conclusive or highly corroborative evidence that Ernulph II (who was, apparently, a Crusader at Acre in 1191) was the son of Ernulph I de Mandeville (son of Earl Geoffrey). Any assistance is, of course, very much appreciated as I am currently stumped! Cheers, Pete

Dear Richard, Thank you for your response. The List or Index to the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families (LMGF) is the first thing I think needs to be established. Once a properly established entry for a given family were added, then it would take a volunteer or volunteers prepared to register with any website set up for the LMGF List to adopt a given name and proceed to supply additional pages providing greater depth to the Project. It is quite likely that not all families would be adopted, leaving the task of covering those left out, either to a committee of dedicated researchers, or to the future. Personally, I think the first order of business is to get cracking on the simple List for all the counties in the area of coverage. Just to succeed with that would be to make considerable headway unless I am much mistaken. I am not for a moment suggesting that more detailed pages would anything but a lot of work based on the dedication, competence, and willing contributions of their submitters. I would not want to limit submitters as to the level of their coverage of a given family. If their expertise was such that they could make a fair stab at an all-inclusive study of a given family and they were prepared to make this available in toto or in part, I would be happy to accept it providing it were properly substantiated. Similarly, if someone were only prepared to provide a short but accurate description of some aspect of the history of a qualified family that would be acceptable, provided they did not object to the very real possibility that another researcher might come along who was prepared to add a great deal more to what was already available. That is all part of the idea of collegiality in my opinion. There would have to be a set of guidelines for acceptable submissions and, if possible, a board or group of qualified people to verify that the work was up to standard. As there would be a comment page attached to each sort of page involved in the project this would serve to make each item subject to peer review and collegial discussion.This in turn should lead to evidenced-based research being the distilled result of review of available material on a given family. This could help spur people on to reach a high standard of scholarship and a good exchange of learning and ideas (incl. of course theories). There could be a system of source citation adopted allowing for primary, secondary and further levels of evidence or source material to be given, and a linked area for the discussion of these citations. This could in turn lead to a useful discussion of the source materials vis-a-vis the family in question. This could make the project one where expertise could be shared and interested parties could be helped to grow from tyro to whatever they were capable of achieving. Personally, I think I would benefit greatly from the work of those more knowledgeable than myself. It all depends on a willingness to share knowledge and ideas in a collegial spirit. Also personally, I am plumping for a one-manor rule as that was what my main family of study, ERNLE, had for much of its existence. The fact that they held one manor does not appear to have excluded them from discussions by local (and other) historians of their place among the Sussex (and later, the Wiltshire, and Dorset) gentry. To qualify for coverage by the List, I think it would be necessary to be the holder of one manor, and to be of gentle status, at least, when such descriptions still held water. There could be sub-categories for debatable families. If someone wanted to create an ancillary list of families of, say, franklins and yeomen, who didn't make the cut, I think that ought to be allowed, though it would not be the objective of the LMGF List. At this point, I would be interested to hear from listers as to what they might estimate the numbers of such families to be for Sussex (or another county) for the periods 1066-1377, 1378-1485, 1486-1603, and 1604-1688, would be? Would there be anyone who might be interested to serve as a member of a group, committee, or board of reviewers and standard-setters, and dreamers and scholars for such a project. Or if this makes folk hesitant, please suggest something else. As far as I am concerned, I would consider the project a success if the objective of drawing up a simple List on a county by county basis for even one of the periods in question were met. As to the sort of literature that would be acceptable for inclusion: I think that anything could be mentioned provided it were subject to peer review and users were thereby enlightened by reading about a given item provided it were reviewed fairly with an opportunity for an "op-ed" page if someone had a reasonable concern about a review. Thank you, Richard C-Z On 01/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 31/05/16 15:27, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > >> Example of a Simple Listing >> >> SUSSEX >> >> Surname Locality Date From Date To Rank Title Contributor Source >> Research Pub. Var. >> ERNLE Earnley ca 1166 1632 ext.LMG Esq. RHBC-Z WSRO Yes >> Var. Yes >> ERNLE Sidlesham 1345/6 ibid. do do do Sx >> FF Yes do do >> ERNLE W. Wittering ante 1632 ext. do do do PCC >> Yes do do > > For an index, this might be okay. But what I'm really interested in is > what's behind these. What do the page(s) / entry(s) / article(s) for > the family actually looks like? What sort of genealogical details do > you aim to include? Is it based around a list of the heads of the > family, as per The Complete Peerage? Do you aim to include daughters > and younger sons? Do you include discussion on conjectured > relationships as the Henry Project frequently does. To what extent do > you accept secondary sources? > > I'm still not clear what you consider the scope of the project to be. > You say elsewhere that you "cannot see that contributions of the family > names and localities associated with tiny landholders or landowners will > harm the list in the long run". That rather depends what you consider > to be a tiny landholder. I the context of such a list, I'd have said > someone holding a single manor often was tiny landholder. But if you're > talking much smaller, which I infer you probably are, I think it dilutes > the project too much. If you're planning to focus initially on the > earliest period, I fear it'll result in a list full of franklins and > yeomen whose genealogies are essentially unknowable. You'd be vastly > expanding the scope of the project for no benefit. I would have thought > that gentry (or equivalent) would be more appropriate threshold; even > then, I'd be concerned it was too low. > > Richard > > ------------------------------- > 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 31/05/16 15:27, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > Example of a Simple Listing > > SUSSEX > > Surname Locality Date From Date To Rank Title Contributor Source > Research Pub. Var. > ERNLE Earnley ca 1166 1632 ext.LMG Esq. RHBC-Z WSRO Yes > Var. Yes > ERNLE Sidlesham 1345/6 ibid. do do do Sx > FF Yes do do > ERNLE W. Wittering ante 1632 ext. do do do PCC > Yes do do For an index, this might be okay. But what I'm really interested in is what's behind these. What do the page(s) / entry(s) / article(s) for the family actually looks like? What sort of genealogical details do you aim to include? Is it based around a list of the heads of the family, as per The Complete Peerage? Do you aim to include daughters and younger sons? Do you include discussion on conjectured relationships as the Henry Project frequently does. To what extent do you accept secondary sources? I'm still not clear what you consider the scope of the project to be. You say elsewhere that you "cannot see that contributions of the family names and localities associated with tiny landholders or landowners will harm the list in the long run". That rather depends what you consider to be a tiny landholder. I the context of such a list, I'd have said someone holding a single manor often was tiny landholder. But if you're talking much smaller, which I infer you probably are, I think it dilutes the project too much. If you're planning to focus initially on the earliest period, I fear it'll result in a list full of franklins and yeomen whose genealogies are essentially unknowable. You'd be vastly expanding the scope of the project for no benefit. I would have thought that gentry (or equivalent) would be more appropriate threshold; even then, I'd be concerned it was too low. Richard

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 6:16:02 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > CONCLUSION: DNA is worthless as a professional genealogical research tool. > > Ditto to TAF's post. You've completely misinterpreted Mrs. Mills' article. The professional genealogical community I participate in is currently worried that conclusions about genealogical relationships they reached in the twentienth century using historical documents will be overturned by new DNA evidence made available in the twenty-first century. > > Nathan ------------------------ Nathan, I respectfully disagree. The current firestorm on the Internet, from what I have evaluated, shows that even the Forensic DNA evidence is being highly challenged. I refer to, for example: Forensic DNA evidence is not infallible As DNA analysis techniques become more sensitive, we must be careful to reassess the probabilities of error, argues Cynthia M. Cale. http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-is-not-infallible-1.18654 Earlier this month, the Texas Forensic Science Commission raised concerns about the accuracy of the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence, and it is now checking whether convictions going back more than a decade are safe. Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. In fact, forensic scientists have no way of knowing whether the DNA was left behind through such primary, direct transfer. It could also have been deposited by secondary transfer, through an intermediary. (If I shake your hand then I could pass some of your skin cells onto something that I touch next.)" How, then can anyone convey with any degree of honesty, that any test taken outside of the "sanitary" laboratory, can be used with any "X" degree of reputable assurance? Nevertheless, consider further, any ancestral families and their remains, or known artifacts, how they could have been "touched" by various means; "kissed" or "hugged" or had other body parts replaced, and I could go on and on; are they not to a high degree of uncertainty, constantly diluted over time and weathering, by various elements intruding, etc.? DNA "proof"? What DNA proof???

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 6:52:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > It's a gender hazard that these candidates are female - the same degree > of mystery is usually not open for speculation in men of similar status. Interesting point. I can't think of a man with more than two alternatives, although I am sure there are some. > A few Byzantine ladies have yet to be pinned as fully-labelled > genealogical specimens with accepted parentage, for instance Emperor > Otto II's wife Theophanu and Guillaume VIII of Montpellier's wife Eudokia. Or perhaps they have been pinned so many times it has damaged the specimen. Oh, wait. I just thought of a man with more than 2. Jimeno, father of Garcia Jimenez, king of 'another part of' Navarre has had all manner of father's pinned above him (as well as a recent expert concluding he didn't exist at all). And then there is Inigo Arista, who is given three different patronymics by medieval sources. taf

Dear Newsgroup ~ There is an interesting discussion of the capture of John de Saint John in France published in Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft 2 (1868): 280-283, which source may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=IFlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA280 Here are three more sources which concern the ransom and imprisonment of John de Saint John in France. If the first and second sources are to be trusted, the king was pressuring the ten wealthiest monasteries of England in 1298 to raise the ransom of John de Saint John in order to provide for his release. 1. Archaelogical Journal 67 (1910): 261 (“On 8th May, 1298, within six weeks of the fire, the abbot and convent of Westminster bound themselves by a bond to certain foreign merchants to pay £250 towards the ransom of John de Saint John, then a prisoner in France.”). 2. First Report of the Deputy Keeper (1840): 58 (“Roll dated 26 Edw. I [A.D. 1297–8] entitled ‘Litteræ obligatoriæ quorundum Abbatum factæ diversis mercatoribus super deliberatione Johannis de Sancto Johanne.'”). 3. Widmore, History of the Church of St. Peter, Westminster, commonly called Westminster Abbey (1751): 80-81 (“In the year 1298, the abbot and convent [of Westminster] gave bond for two hundred and fifty pounds toward the ransom of a noble person, John de Saint John, governor or general for the king in Aquitain, who, in endeavouring to relieve a castle besieged by the French, had been taken prisoner, upon whom the French had set an excessive sum, such as he himself had not the means to raise ... It was the king's recommending the matter to ten of the richest monasteries, that the house thus engaged toward the ransom of this nobleman : the like was also done by the abbies of Glastenbury, Peterborough, Evesham, and Saint Edmondbury, but refused by those of Ramsey, Abingdon, Waltham, St. Albans and Hyde.”). These records would appear to refute Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133, who alleges that John de Saint John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign in 1298. There is no evidence that John de Saint John was present at that battle. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

"And well said, Kathy - a moment's thought should have been enough for the poster to realise that anyone descended from Fulco Rufus of Anjou (and hence from his putative paternal grandmother Petronilla) would already have fully-documented lines to Charlemagne anyway (through the families of Fulco's two grandchildren who left descendants)." Peter Stewart Thank you, Peter.