On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:22:20 PM UTC+10, Kathy Becker wrote: > "This entire business of sedulously sleuthing around for European ancestors > from the 800's-900's A.D., often -- but not always -- in a desperate, > yearning search for an ascent to Charlemagne, is often, but not always, a > Fool's Errand... > > ...Therefore one should not be surprised in the least to find mostly fools > indulging in it. > > 'Nuff Said." > > DSH > > Mr. Hines, I am not a fool and I'm certainly not engaging in a > desperate, yearning search for an ascent to Charlemagne. I couldn't > care less if my ancestors had titles or not. What I am seeking is > correct and documented sources, not fairy tales written by people with > ulterior motives. I am not a historian, a scholar or an expert when it > comes to genealogy. I am merely a 70-year old lady that is trying to > leave a valid, documented family tree for my grandchildren, which is > why I took the advice of a friend and joined this group. > > 'Nuff said. 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

Thanks Matt Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original. That John de St John of Basing was incarcerated in Paris until September 1299 is indicated by various contemporary sources. Bemont’s Roles Gascons, cites Flores Historiarum III:299, saying that John de St John was taken prisoner on 2 February 1297 near Bonnut and kept a prisoner in Paris. As stipulated by terms in the treaty of Vyve-Sant-Bavon in 1299, John de Baliol was to be released by the King of England first, in exchange for John de St John and his companions. https://archive.org/stream/rlesgascons03mich#page/n69/mode/2up Flores Historiarum, III:299 under the year 1299 relates that Margaret sister of Philip IV arrived in Dover on the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 8th) for her marriage to Edward I and was married shortly afterwards in Canterbury. John Baliol the king of the Scots, being held in custody by the king of England, was allowed to leave prison, and went to the king of France. When the king saw him, he released John de St John and his companions who had been kept in prison a long time and delivered them as quickly as possible under the condition of the treaty. https://archive.org/stream/floreshistoriaru03pari#page/298/mode/2up This means effectively John de St John had remained in prison for a good 19 months – hence the phrase, ”in carcere suo diu retentos”. This chronology is reiterated by Nicholas Trivet, a contemporary of Edward I in his Annales, p.376 Under the year 1299 on the Feast of the translation of St Thomas the Martyr (12 July) Trivet relates that the Pope interceded on behalf of John Baliol to ensure Baliol’s release, after which prisoners held by both kings were to be released according to the terms agreed under the truce. https://archive.org/stream/fnicholaitrivet00socigoog#page/n407/mode/2up Rishanger’s Gesta Edwardi Primi, p. 415 relates a similar chronology that Edward I married Margaret after which John de St John, Aimery de St Amand and other English prisoners were released. https://archive.org/stream/willelmirishange00rish#page/414/mode/2up Cheers Rosie On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 8:58:12 PM UTC+12, Tompkins wrote: > From: rbevan via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 01 June 2016 00:52 > > > > The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298. > > > > It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw. > > > > From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that. > > > > It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or. > > > > John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while. > > > > As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter. > > > > Cheers > Rosie > > > ------------------------------- > > The letter can't have been written in Lagham in Surrey, Rosie, because it related to a meeting due to be held in Roxburgh only 0-4 days after the letter's date (depending on whether the date is xxvij jour de Auguste or Tuesday before the decollation of St John the Baptist). It must have been written somewhere close to Roxburgh. Whether it was Langham, probably meaning Langholm, or Lochmaben can only be determined by looking at the original. > > Matt

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. taf

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. As far as the dating of the letter of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, we know from his letter that he was asking for help for construction then ongoing at Tibbers, Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward. I earlier noted that Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133 referred to "the building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300." On page 80 under events for the year 1300, M'Dowall provides the following information: "It was part of Edward's plan to strengthen all the fortresses he already possessed, and increase their garrisons ... Accordingly, the breaches made in Lochmaben Castle were filled up, the Castle of Dumfries was put in good repair, and enlarged by the erection of a large peel, or wooden tower." END OF QUOTE If we assume that the construction at Tibbers was part of King Edward's plan to strengthen his Scottish fortresses in Dumfriesshire, then the letter of John de Saint John would presumably date to the year 1300. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On 5/31/2016 6:53 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 1/06/2016 9:39 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: >> On 1/06/2016 2:45 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: >>> The abstract of the article on the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" >>> website makes the following statement: "He also offers a few thoughts on >>> the Agatha problem." Does the article have anything of significance on >>> this subject? >>> >> MacEwan discussed some marriages that would have been consanguineous >> under different hypotheses, coming to this conclusion (pp. 20-21): >> >> 'Of the four twelfth-century Henrician marriages discussed above, those >> of Henry V and Henry the Lion according to the Brunswick solution and of >> Earl Henry and the Young King according to the Kievan solution were >> within the forbidden degrees. But proponents of these two solutions have >> yet to show that even one of these marriages, all four of which had >> important political ramifications, was in fact incestuous in the eyes of >> the Church and required a dispensation. The reason why such evidence is >> not forthcoming should by now be obvious. [para] Twenty years ago the >> author spent considerable time investigating a possible Polish solution >> (since espoused by Ravilious), which had – and has – its charms. But if >> pressed for an opinion, my best guess – no more – would be that Agatha >> was a granddaughter – perhaps great-granddaughter – and namesake of the >> Saint Agatha, Matron, whose feast falls on 5 February, “The wife of a >> Count of Carinthia, devoted to her domestic duties and a model of >> patience under the most grievous trials. She was ever occupied in good >> works and especially in the care of the poor and distressed. She died AD >> 1024, and many miracles since worked at her tomb bear witness to her >> sanctity. She is not included in the Roman Martyrology, the Official >> Church Register.” [para] Sadly, absent the fortuitous appearance of a >> document which actually names Agatha’s parents, her identity will >> probably never be known with certainty.' >> > Apologies, I left out MacEwan's reference for his quotation (in double > marks above). This is: > > *The Book of Saints*, Compiled by the Benedictine Monks of St. > Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 3rd ed., New York, 1944, pp. 8b, 1. > > MacEwan did not argue the case for his 'best guess'. Assuming it is > based on onomastics, he would have had a hard time establishing that the > matron who died in 1024 and the problem Agatha were not both just > co-incidentally named (directly or otherwise) after St Agatha of Sicily, > whose cult was widespread and very popular in their time. Thank you for the information. St. Agatha appears as St. Agatha Hildegarde in Acta Sanctorum (Feb. vol. 1, pp. 727-9), and it escapes me why MacEwan though that such a wild guess would be preferable to proposed solutions (however problematic) that are least based on direct evidence. 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. Stewart Baldwin

In a message dated 01/06/2016 11:20:06 GMT Daylight Time, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3319446 Many French families descending from Michel Eyquem de Montaigne have 'jewish' ancestors through his mother who was a Louppes de villeneuve, or to be more precise Lopez de Vilanova. Many Protestant Noble families descending from Barbe Perez, of Geneva also have 'jewish' ancestors through her father and mother (a Lopez de Vilanova), as do a veritable clutch of German and Belgian noble families. The early protestant families of Lyon also have Jewish ancestors as business never got in the way of quarterings. I and many Genevese 'nobles' descend from this Barbe Perez whose father was one of the richest men in Spain at the time. Many patrician families of Italy, amongst which the Arnolfini, the Burlammachi, the de Tiene, the Trenta, the Micheli (aka dei Moccidenti), the Calandrinis all descend from this Barbe Perez. Peter

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote: > In line 6 [should say 9] 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? > > An image of this will is on Ancestry at http://interactive.ancestry.com/5111/40611_311103-00481/869967 > and the will is described in TNA's catalog at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D968976 > > In line 5 [actually 8] there is a bequest to "Johanne" designated as the testator's sister. There the last letter is clearly an e. > > Who was this Joan or John Wakfeld? The Drakes pedigree states that Katherine, a niece of this Richard, married Thomas Wakefield of Newark, https://archive.org/stream/visitationofyork00flow#page/103/mode/1up > > I am researching the Drax family because Barry Foulks recently alerted me to a 2007 thread in which Michael Andrews-Reading states that "This Katherine was the wife of Thomas Wakefield of Newark, Notts, whose daughter and heir Isabel (Pedigree of the Frecheville and Musard Families, p 4) married Aucher Frecheville." > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2007-09/1190893077 > > If Katherine Drax was the mother of Thomas Wakefeld's daughter Isabel who married Anker Frecheville, then it appears that 17th century New Jersey immigrant Anne (Revell) Curtis would have the following descent from King John of England: > > John = a daughter of Hamelin Plantagenet and Isabel de Warenne > Richard FitzRoy = Rohese de Dover > Lorette de Dover = William Marmion > John Marmion = Isabel > John Marmion = Maud Furnival > Joan Marmion = John Bernake > Maud Bernake = Ralph Cromwell > Maud Cromwell = William Fitzwilliam > Elizabeth Fitzwilliam = Robert Rockley > Robert Rockley = Agnes Duckenfield > Eleanor Rockley = Robert Drax > Katherine Drakes = Thomas Wakefeld > Isabel Wakefield = Anker Frecheville > Eleanor Frecheville = Robert Revell > John Revell = Mary Comberford (descendant of Henry II) > John Revell = Mary Beighton > Robert Revell = Anne Knowles > Anne Revell = John Curtis > > A 1452/53 deed mentions Maud, wife of Thomas Wakefeld of Newark. > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002032429152;view=1up;seq=69 > > I've ordered FHL film 99455 in order to read the 1459 will of Robert Drax listed here, https://books.google.com/books?id=fVwJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54. > > I would be pleased to hear about any records that identify the mother of Isabel Wakefeld. > > In addition to the deed mentioned above, Thomas Wakefeld is mentioned in deeds and Common Pleas (debt) cases from 1459-1484. A Chancery case (1475-1480 or 1483-85) identifies his father as Richard Wakefeld. See > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C7447295 > Bill of William Gilibrond of Newerk and Elene his wyfe, > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no50/C1no50nos1-301/IMG_0117.htm > Answere of Thomas Wakefeld to the bill of William Gelybrand and Elene his wyff, > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no50/C1no50nos1-301/IMG_0114.htm > (and adjacent images for the answer of the other defendant, replications, and a rejoinder) Thanks to Matt Thompkins for reading the 1457 will of Richard Drax. The bequest is to Johanni Wakfeld, thus John. Richard requested to be buried in the church of St Nicholas in Thames Ditton in the diocese of Winchester and made a bequest to every household having need in the parish of Thames Ditton. Thames Ditton, in Surrey, is a long way from Yorkshire, where the Drax/Drakes family in the pedigree lived. Perhaps this Richard is not the Richard who was a brother of Robert in the pedigree. Richard bequeathed to his "wife Maud all his movable goods pertaining to the hall, chamber, buttery and kitchen with all the plough chattels and others belonging to husbandry for the aid and maintenance of my boys" ("puerorum meum"). If Richard means his young sons, that seems like an unusual way to refer to them.

On 1/06/2016 11:03 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 1/06/2016 10:25 AM, Kathy Becker via wrote: >> Or Hugh the Abbot. Good grief. She married Tertullus and I've been warned not to confuse her father with the son of Charlemagne but I'm finding next to nothing about the correct title for her father. FMG offers a tiny blurb and refers to him under the heading, "FAMILY of HUGUES [DUKE of BURGUNDY]". A Google search for "Petronilla" results in links that blatantly name her as Charlemagne's granddaughter and nothing on her father. Any help, links, book titles, etc. would be greatly appreciated. >> > You could well start by junking any link that names Petronilla as > Charlemagne's granddaughter - his son Hugo the Abbot had no recorded > offspring. This Hugo was a monk, later archchancellor to his > half-brother Louis I, and if he had fathered any recognised child this > would have been noted. > > In the 13th century Alberic of Troisfontaines confused the Carolingian > Hugo the Abbot with his younger contemporary and namesake who was a son > of Louis I's brother-in-law Conrad the Elder and Adelais of Tours. This > younger Hugo the Abbot belonged to the Burgundian family usually known > as the Welfs or Welfings. > > Petronilla who was supposed to be mother of Ingelger (ancestor of the > counts of Anjou), and she was said to be related to a duke of Burgundy > ("ducis Burgundie consanguineam, nomine Petronillam"). Since the Welfing > Hugo was count of Angers as well as abbot of Saint-Martin de Tours, he > has been picked out as a plausible kinsman of Petronilla, assuming that > she truly existed in the first place. > > However, her name and alleged Burgundian ducal relationship occur in a > later romantic history of the counts of Anjou tracing their lineage to > Tortulfus, a forester, whose son Tertullus married Petronilla. Other > comital families had legends tracing them to fictional ancestors, the > medieval equivalent of internet genealogies derived from digital Chinese > whispers. > > It would be safer to discard Petronilla and start the line from Ingelger > - he definitely existed and was the father of Fulco I, bynamed Rufus, > who became count of the Angevins (we have his charter to prove this: > "ego Fulco, comes Andegavorum juvenis ... pro anima Ingelgerii patris mei"). > I should have thought of this at first, but I'm stuck with an outdated brain that tends to go blank on the internet even at its best - in this case, Stewart Baldwin has covered the subject in detail on the Henry Project page for Fulco I, http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/fulk0001.htm. Peter Stewart Peter Stewart

On 1/06/2016 10:25 AM, Kathy Becker via wrote: > Or Hugh the Abbot. Good grief. She married Tertullus and I've been warned not to confuse her father with the son of Charlemagne but I'm finding next to nothing about the correct title for her father. FMG offers a tiny blurb and refers to him under the heading, "FAMILY of HUGUES [DUKE of BURGUNDY]". A Google search for "Petronilla" results in links that blatantly name her as Charlemagne's granddaughter and nothing on her father. Any help, links, book titles, etc. would be greatly appreciated. > You could well start by junking any link that names Petronilla as Charlemagne's granddaughter - his son Hugo the Abbot had no recorded offspring. This Hugo was a monk, later archchancellor to his half-brother Louis I, and if he had fathered any recognised child this would have been noted. In the 13th century Alberic of Troisfontaines confused the Carolingian Hugo the Abbot with his younger contemporary and namesake who was a son of Louis I's brother-in-law Conrad the Elder and Adelais of Tours. This younger Hugo the Abbot belonged to the Burgundian family usually known as the Welfs or Welfings. Petronilla who was supposed to be mother of Ingelger (ancestor of the counts of Anjou), and she was said to be related to a duke of Burgundy ("ducis Burgundie consanguineam, nomine Petronillam"). Since the Welfing Hugo was count of Angers as well as abbot of Saint-Martin de Tours, he has been picked out as a plausible kinsman of Petronilla, assuming that she truly existed in the first place. However, her name and alleged Burgundian ducal relationship occur in a later romantic history of the counts of Anjou tracing their lineage to Tortulfus, a forester, whose son Tertullus married Petronilla. Other comital families had legends tracing them to fictional ancestors, the medieval equivalent of internet genealogies derived from digital Chinese whispers. It would be safer to discard Petronilla and start the line from Ingelger - he definitely existed and was the father of Fulco I, bynamed Rufus, who became count of the Angevins (we have his charter to prove this: "ego Fulco, comes Andegavorum juvenis ... pro anima Ingelgerii patris mei"). Peter Stewart

On 1/06/2016 9:39 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 1/06/2016 2:45 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: >> On 5/31/2016 2:32 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: >> >>> Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: >> The abstract of the article on the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" >> website makes the following statement: "He also offers a few thoughts on >> the Agatha problem." Does the article have anything of significance on >> this subject? >> > MacEwan discussed some marriages that would have been consanguineous > under different hypotheses, coming to this conclusion (pp. 20-21): > > 'Of the four twelfth-century Henrician marriages discussed above, those > of Henry V and Henry the Lion according to the Brunswick solution and of > Earl Henry and the Young King according to the Kievan solution were > within the forbidden degrees. But proponents of these two solutions have > yet to show that even one of these marriages, all four of which had > important political ramifications, was in fact incestuous in the eyes of > the Church and required a dispensation. The reason why such evidence is > not forthcoming should by now be obvious. [para] Twenty years ago the > author spent considerable time investigating a possible Polish solution > (since espoused by Ravilious), which had – and has – its charms. But if > pressed for an opinion, my best guess – no more – would be that Agatha > was a granddaughter – perhaps great-granddaughter – and namesake of the > Saint Agatha, Matron, whose feast falls on 5 February, “The wife of a > Count of Carinthia, devoted to her domestic duties and a model of > patience under the most grievous trials. She was ever occupied in good > works and especially in the care of the poor and distressed. She died AD > 1024, and many miracles since worked at her tomb bear witness to her > sanctity. She is not included in the Roman Martyrology, the Official > Church Register.” [para] Sadly, absent the fortuitous appearance of a > document which actually names Agatha’s parents, her identity will > probably never be known with certainty.' > Apologies, I left out MacEwan's reference for his quotation (in double marks above). This is: *The Book of Saints*, Compiled by the Benedictine Monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 3rd ed., New York, 1944, pp. 8b, 1. MacEwan did not argue the case for his 'best guess'. Assuming it is based on onomastics, he would have had a hard time establishing that the matron who died in 1024 and the problem Agatha were not both just co-incidentally named (directly or otherwise) after St Agatha of Sicily, whose cult was widespread and very popular in their time. Peter Stewart

On 1/06/2016 9:20 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > This is getting stranger and stranger. > > Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Saint John returned from being held a prisoner in France in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states he returned to England in 1299. > > Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper (1846): 251 includes the following record dated 1298: > > “1863. Letters Patent from the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester — Relative to giving hostages for the delivery of John de Saint John, detained in the prison of the King of France. Gloucester, 27th May, 1298.”)." > > The above record may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qDxKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251 > > If I understand the nature of this record, it seems that John de Saint John was released from prison in France about 27 May 1298, upon giving hostages for payment of his ransom. If 1298 was the correct date of his release, this might explain why Sir John de Saint John wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland two months later in July 1298. > Hostages were not invariably given *before* a prisoner was released - in that era people sometimes trusted the word of others without imputing ulterior "motives" at the first hint of disagreement. Peter Stewart

On 1/06/2016 2:45 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 5/31/2016 2:32 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > >> Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: > The abstract of the article on the "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" > website makes the following statement: "He also offers a few thoughts on > the Agatha problem." Does the article have anything of significance on > this subject? > MacEwan discussed some marriages that would have been consanguineous under different hypotheses, coming to this conclusion (pp. 20-21): 'Of the four twelfth-century Henrician marriages discussed above, those of Henry V and Henry the Lion according to the Brunswick solution and of Earl Henry and the Young King according to the Kievan solution were within the forbidden degrees. But proponents of these two solutions have yet to show that even one of these marriages, all four of which had important political ramifications, was in fact incestuous in the eyes of the Church and required a dispensation. The reason why such evidence is not forthcoming should by now be obvious. [para] Twenty years ago the author spent considerable time investigating a possible Polish solution (since espoused by Ravilious), which had – and has – its charms. But if pressed for an opinion, my best guess – no more – would be that Agatha was a granddaughter – perhaps great-granddaughter – and namesake of the Saint Agatha, Matron, whose feast falls on 5 February, “The wife of a Count of Carinthia, devoted to her domestic duties and a model of patience under the most grievous trials. She was ever occupied in good works and especially in the care of the poor and distressed. She died AD 1024, and many miracles since worked at her tomb bear witness to her sanctity. She is not included in the Roman Martyrology, the Official Church Register.” [para] Sadly, absent the fortuitous appearance of a document which actually names Agatha’s parents, her identity will probably never be known with certainty.' Peter Stewart

On 1/06/2016 5:21 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: > Dear Matt ~ > > Thanks for your good post. Much appreciated. > > After I made my post last night about the letter of John de Saint John, I found yet another reference to John de Saint John's Scottish letter in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 257. See the following weblink for Bain's abstract: > > https://archive.org/stream/calendarofdocume02grea#page/256/mode/2up > > Like Stevenson, Gough, and Walden, Bain dates the letter as being 27 August 1298. So far, so good. > > The curious thing about Bain, though, is that he mentions that John de Saint John's letter named his cousin, Sir Richard Siward, but Bain makes no mention that Saint John's letter also mentioned his cousin, Sir John de Segrave. Odd. > > I note that Bain states that the letter was written at Lochmaben (like TNA), whereas Stevenson, Gough, and Walden all place the letter as being written at Langham. Stevenson transcribed the full letter and stated it was written at Langham. Since he did a full transcript of the letter, I would tend to trust his statement. Be that as it may, Langham isn't even close in its lettering to Lochmaben, so I have trouble understanding how the two places can be confused by anyone. I have even more trouble understanding how Ms. Bevan can misread Langham or Lochmaben, both in Scotland, as being Lageham, Surrey. That's even stranger. No, it's a perfectly sensible attempt to account for a puzzle that you are absurdly thrashing about to get solved for you by others (as is your habit) while casting aspersions on the "motives" of anyone who disagrees with you (as also is your habit). Why not just get yourself a copy from the National Archives? http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C12228973 Peter Stewart

From: rbevan via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 01 June 2016 00:52 > > The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298. > > It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw. > > From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster! at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that. > > It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or. > > John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while. > > As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter. > > Cheers Rosie > ------------------------------- The letter can't have been written in Lagham in Surrey, Rosie, because it related to a meeting due to be held in Roxburgh only 0-4 days after the letter's date (depending on whether the date is xxvij jour de Auguste or Tuesday before the decollation of St John the Baptist). It must have been written somewhere close to Roxburgh. Whether it was Langham, probably meaning Langholm, or Lochmaben can only be determined by looking at the original. Matt

On 31/05/2016 10:46 PM, Kathy Becker via wrote: > >> There is definitely not a consensus about this - the ultimate source for >> "Popa" as a wife of Rollo is Dudo of Saint-Quentin, a notoriously >> divisive figure considered by many historians to be a fantasist and >> something of a pest. >> >> Dame Jinty Nelson wrote in 2011: "It is high time that historians >> stopped citing Dudo, with however many qualifications, as supplying any >> evidence at all for Rollo's wives or mistresses." >> >> It is by no means certain that Dudo's "Popa" even existed, much less >> that her father was Berengar. >> Peter Stewart > > Thank you very much, Peter. After I re-read all of my sources, my gut told me, "When in doubt, leave it out." I love your comment about Dudo. That made me laugh. > > Dudo makes me laugh, I can only think of him as a comedian trying very hard to be a serious Franco-Norman moralist. My hunch is that "Popa" was invented by him to cast a glow of Christian association over Rollo's immediate family. The name is peculiar for a female, though suspiciously similar to Poppo (also called Poppa) the German missionary credited with converting the Danes (Dudo called the Normans "Dacians", meaning Danes). Peter Stewart

taf wrote 31/05/2016 21:18 >>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:53:17 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: >>Y-DNA has a lot more depth on the chart, but autosomal has much more bredth in lieu of depth. Both useful, but in different ways. >I think Andrew was talking about a different type of autosomal analysis than you are. He was talking about SNP analysis used to determine ethnic proportions - basically useless for genealogy unless you don't know if your grandfather was a Finn or an Italian and you know everyone else is neither. What is more useful is the autosomal SNP clustering analysis that looks at conserved islands of contiguous DNA and can tell you someone is related to you within about a half-dozen generations. While it has limits, that can be useful data, though it proves no specific connection. Well I agree with both of you in a way. Autosomal testing can indeed be useful in genealogy. But in reality the autosomal testing is the same for both the ethnic studies and the genealogical ones you mention. What differs is the technical analysis then done with the masses of raw data that result. For genealogy both the older and newer technologies are limited in practice for now concerning their ability to name exact relationships within a tree. Both require triangulations that compare multiple people at the same time, and these are difficult to do without a single database being held by a central authority, such as a testing company or something like gedmatch. Such triangulation is specifically difficult in the traditional Y DNA STR testing because to draw a (male line) tree using those tests you need representatives of many branches of a line to test a very large number of markers, and neither the testing companies nor the professional and amateur genealogical community is investing in this direction. There seem to be decreasing returns to scale, and as taf says the likely future is that SNP testing (effectively the same test as the autosomal) can eventually replace this (and even give STR results at the same time). Basically, with SNP Y DNA testing a family tree of all tested male lines is being built and will eventually be able to be drawn down to a very recent level. But the triangulation using autosomal DNA is more complicated for another reason, which is that it deals with a mass of mixed DNA. Complex techniques need to compare people to determine which large blocks came from which recent ancestors. Though difficult, this is definitely now happening and giving real results for genealogy. To have success, you need however to hope that relatives have been tested. I have found matches which could then be confirmed by paper trail which went back as far as 1800 or so. The ethnic studies effectively look at the same types of blocks in autosomal DNA, but going down to much smaller blocks, shared by larger numbers of people, and going back to much more ancient ancestors. To do this, many small blocks must be considered at once, statistically, to see whether they are correlated, i.e. typically found in the same populations and sub-populations. When large numbers of small blocks of a similar size and age are strongly associated, this is assumed to define an "ancestral population" such as the "steppe component" taf mentioned. Because these can be assigned relative ages, population histories can be inferred, such as mixing of populations, or the splitting of populations, in a certain sequence. These ancestral components are often given names (such as "steppe") which are effectively guesses about who those ancestor groups were, but as new data has arrived, it has been very interesting how many simple ideas about human history have had to get more complicated and how the scientists involved have had to get more careful in their terminology and speculation. For all kinds of population history studies, Y DNA and autosomal, one quite simple problem is that just because a genetic marker is mainly found in one region today, this might not always have been the case. (In fact it seems such markers often move in waves, and are often most common at the edges of an expansion, not the original starting point.) Even the small amounts of ancient DNA so far tested have helped show this and shown many of the ideas that were spread around in the first years of such studies (many of which are still commonly held by the public) to be wrong. Best Regards Andrew

"This entire business of sedulously sleuthing around for European ancestors from the 800's-900's A.D., often -- but not always -- in a desperate, yearning search for an ascent to Charlemagne, is often, but not always, a Fool's Errand... ...Therefore one should not be surprised in the least to find mostly fools indulging in it. 'Nuff Said." DSH Mr. Hines, I am not a fool and I'm certainly not engaging in a desperate, yearning search for an ascent to Charlemagne. I couldn't care less if my ancestors had titles or not. What I am seeking is correct and documented sources, not fairy tales written by people with ulterior motives. I am not a historian, a scholar or an expert when it comes to genealogy. I am merely a 70-year old lady that is trying to leave a valid, documented family tree for my grandchildren, which is why I took the advice of a friend and joined this group. 'Nuff said. Kathy Becker

Dear all, It's been a long while since I have not posted on this list, for good reasons though since two daughters were born in the meantime... As many "medieval genealogists" I am very interested in discovering "non-christian" ancestors. Since my family research focuses mainly on southern Italy and Spain, I am actually pretty lucky in this regard. I have seen posts in the archives trying to list the "Jewish ancestors of european nobility" since there are not that many of them who have a proven line. I can contribute to this effort, adding below a few proven ancestors. The main source of information is an article published by Pedro de Montaner, head of the Mallorca municipal archives, and available freely at https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3319446 This article focuses on various families of "judeoconversos" of Mallorca who moved and settled in Sicily, integrating Sicilian nobility through marriage. Do not think that these individuals cannot be connected to today's genealogists: my wife (and my two daughters) descend from five of these families: the Tarongi/Torongi, the Vallseca, the Sanchez, the Ram and the Ribesaltes. All of these families and their members have incredibly fascinating stories that can be partially reconstructed thanks to several academic works: - the Tarongi were booksellers/bookbinders in Mallorca in the XVth century, then merchants - the Vallseca line begins with Gabriel de Vallseca, famous cartographer in the XVth century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_de_Vallseca - the Sanchez and Ram family members had to flee Zaragoza after they took part in the murder of the Inquisitor Pedro Arbuès, and Gabriel Sanchez (brother of my wife's ancestor Juan Sanchez) was one of the three people to whom Christopher Columbus wrote to announce "America's discovery" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_de_Arbu%C3%A9s - Juan de Ribesaltes was king Juan II de Aragón's doctor and was executed at the end of the XVth century by the Spanish Inquisition To these ancestors who have descendants in Sicily (and probably in Spain as well), I can add another ancestor not covered by Montaner's article. Here the source is an article by Vincent Parello, professor at Bordeaux university, article freely downloadable at http://www.persee.fr/doc/hispa_0007-4640_2000_num_102_1_5031 The article tells the story of Violante Gonzalez who died probably in 1466 and whose bones were taken out of the grave and burnt by the Inquisition in 1491, 25 years after her death ! Violante is an ancestor to some Sicilian nobles through the Fardella family (who, by the way, are also the "gateway ancestors" to the Tarongi) I'll be interested in any bibliographical suggestion to deepen my reseach on these families. Best regards, Antoine Barbry

On 31/05/2016 9:30 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > 1302 was perhaps proposed by the TNA cataloguer because on 15 August > 1302 "Sir John de St. John the K.'s lieutenant in Scotland, and Sire > Rauf de Mantone the K.'s clerk, agreed with Sir Patrick de Dumbar earl > of the Marche, to keep the castle and sheriffdom of Are ... Done at > Roxburgh, 30th August", see *Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland* > vol. 2 p. 335 no. 1320. > And/or because John de St. John is known to have been ailing in August 1302 - he died at Lochmaben on Thursday 6 September in that year according to Annales Londonienses. Peter Stewart

On 31/05/2016 8:14 PM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: > < In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de > <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, > <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in > <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred > <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. > < > From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 31 May 2016 02:29 >> The letter by Sir John de Saint John was written in August 1298 (not 1297 as you say), from a place called Langham. For a full transcript of this letter, see Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 2 (1870): 305–306. Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): xliii also dates the letter as being in 1298 and further identifies Langham as being Langholm in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, NOT Lageham, Surrey. This same date (1298) and the same identification of this locality is also provided in a well researched biography of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, in Howard de Walden, Some Feudal Lords & Their Seals (1903): 52–53 (biog. of John de St. John). >> > ------------------------------- > > If Stevenson's transcription of the letter is compared with its catalogue entry at the National Archives some oddities appear. Stevenson says it was dated at Langham on 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' and places it in [1298], whereas the TNA catalogue says it dated at Lochmaben on Tuesday before the beheading of St John Baptist and places it in [? 1302 Aug]. These discrepancies will have to be resolved before the year in which the letter was written can be determined. > > It does seem clear that the letter was written in Scotland, though, as the letter authorises Ralph de Manton to stand in for St John on 'Merkedy prochain après la feste Seint Bartelmew,' which cannot have been more than a couple of days after the date of the letter. If the date given by TNA is correct, then in any year the day of the meeting (Wednesday after the feast of St Bartholmew) will always be the day immediately after the date of the letter (Tuesday before the decollation of St John Baptist), so it must have been written within a day's ride of Roxburgh (which makes Langholm, 40 miles from Roxburgh, seem a bit more likely than Lochmaben, a good 55 or 60 miles away over rough hill tracks). > > If the date of the letter really was written as 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' then at least one year can be ruled out, as in 1299 the Wednesday after St Bartholomew fell on 26 August - the day before the date of the letter. In 1298 it fell on 27 August itself, which would probably have made it impossible for Ralph de Manton to get to Roxburgh in time for the meeting. Only in 1297 and 1300-1302 did the date of the meeting fall after 27 August (in 1297 on the following day, 28 August, and in 1300, 1301 and 1302 on 31st, 30th and 29th, successively). > 1302 was perhaps proposed by the TNA cataloguer because on 15 August 1302 "Sir John de St. John the K.'s lieutenant in Scotland, and Sire Rauf de Mantone the K.'s clerk, agreed with Sir Patrick de Dumbar earl of the Marche, to keep the castle and sheriffdom of Are ... Done at Roxburgh, 30th August", see *Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland* vol. 2 p. 335 no. 1320. Peter Stewart