I have seen Lagham spelled Lageham and Langhams, all pertaining to Godstone. Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2016, at 6:52 PM, rbevan via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > >> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:44:03 AM UTC+12, Peter Stewart via wrote: >>> 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 > > > ------------------------------- > 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

"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 Again, thank you. It looks like I'll be adjusting yet another line or two. Kathy Becker

taf wrote: "Sorry - that should have been that the 'steppe' ancestry is lower - that something must have diluted it in England." Or perhaps the steppe component has been arriving more quickly on the continent in recent millenia, than on the western edge such as the Isles. That makes some sense because of fairly common movements of people thought to have come from the "steppes". Will be interesting to compare Iberia to Britain on this point, and also to look at East-West spectra in general. I am not sure what samples are being used to represent the Celts and Old Saxons but even in Britain itself, as these Indo European groups arrived, the first generations will have been more continental in the first generations, and then "diluted" - just putting forward a scenario that could maybe explain it. By the way, now that I am writing I basically agree with you in this discussion. There ARE "profit promoters" who have a less-than-perfect impact on all sorts of genealogy and certainly in genetic genealogy. (Medieval genealogy may well be the worst type!) But this should not be seen as a reason why genetic genealogy is failing overall. To have a quick rant: I think think profit promotion has been part of the reason customers have had autosomal testing so heavily promoted, much to the detriment of Y DNA. Autosomal testing is more useful for ethnic ancestry approximation, but Y DNA (STR testing) has achieved the most for normal genealogy. And here is a quick prediction: very detailed Y DNA SNP testing is probably the next big thing for genealogy as such (based on male lines of course). The prices continue to drop but none of the big testing companies are good at it yet, and to use it well will require clever web interfaces. Once someone gets it right it would no longer be a matter of saying that two people are just in the same male line (which is what the main commercial Y DNA testing, both STR and SNP can do now). Actual tree drawing connecting all male lines down to today will become possible. Best Regards Andrew

If you take the time to look up the references to these entries you will find that it is not specified whether the elder or junior John de St John is meant. The writs can only have been addressed to the younger John. John de St John would only have been released once the ransom was paid. When that occurred has not been shown by the records you have produced. R On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 12:32:59 PM UTC+12, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > The 1298 record I cited earlier withstanding, it appears that Sir John de Saint John was back in England by 7 July 1297. So Complete Peerage has the correct date of his return to England, namely 1297. > > Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 820 shows that John de Saint John, of Basing, was summoned to perform military service in parts beyond the sea on 7 July 1297. Likewise he was summoned to a military council at Rochester in Sept. 1297, and for military service in Flanders in Dec. 1297. > > The above source may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=JKqJOnq9anQC&pg=PA820 > > As for the 1298 item I cited earlier, I believe that the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester was being levied an assessment for the ransom of Sir John de Saint John. A similar item is recorded in Macray, Chronicon Abbatiæ Rameseiensis (Rolls Ser.) (1886): xlviii, 388. The editor Mr. Macray says that item should date to 1297 or 1298. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

"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")." Then discard her I shall. Thanks once again, Peter, for your knowledge and willingness to help.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:19:45 PM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: > On 31/05/2016 11:24 AM, J.L. Fernandez Blanco via wrote: > > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:47:26 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: > >> On 30/05/2016 10:24 PM, John Watson via wrote: > >>> On Monday, 30 May 2016 06:18:33 UTC+1, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-3, taf wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:57:24 PM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Cawley mentions, inter alia, "Pope Innocent IV permitted “nobili mulieri > >>>>>> --- Sorori...Regis Scotie” to enter Doberan monastery, founded by “nobilis > >>>>>> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus”, to pray, dated 20 May 1248" (Source for > >>>>>> this: Theiner, A. (1864) Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historia > >>>>>> Illustrantia (Rome), CXXXV, p. 50.) > >>>>> The text of this source reads: > >>>>> > >>>>> INNOCENTIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Dilecte filie Nobili mulieri ... Sorori Carissimi in Christo filii nostri ... Illustris Regis Scotie, salutem etc. Pium arbitramur et congruum, ut in hiis prompti simus ad gratiam, que profectum respiciunt animarum, presertim circa personas nobiles, que pura fide conspicue deo et ecclesie sunt devote. Hinc est, quod nos tue nobilitatis precibus annuentes, ut cum sex matronis honestis monasterium de Doberan Cisterciensis ordinis Zverinensis diocesis, cuius Nobilis vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit, bis vel ter in anno causa devotionis intrare valeas, eiusdem ordinis statuto contrario non obstante, tibi auctoritate presentium conferimus facultatem. Datum Lugduni XIII. Kal. Iunii, Pontificatus nostri anno quinto. > >>>>> > >>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ADxQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA50 > >>>>> > >>>>> taf > >>>> Many thanks for the info, Todd. > >>>> > >>>> What do or can make out of this document? Any insights? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> JL > >>> Firstly, the name of the sister of the king of the Scots (Alexander II) is not given. Secondly we are told that her husband, B. de Rostock founded the Cistercian monastery of Doberan. Since the monastery was founded in or about 1186, she is more likely to have been the second wife of Borwin (or Burwin) I of Rostock, than his son Borwin II. The second wife of Borwin I was called Adelaide, and she had an only daughter Elisabeth (d. 1265), abbess of Wienhausen Abbey from 1241. > >>> > >> This is stretching the sense of the text rather a long way - "nobilis > >> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit" was written in 1248: > >> "maritus" (husband) without "quondam" (formerly), that is liberally used > >> in papal documents for deceased persons, along with "fundator existit" > >> (is a founder, NB in the present tense) strongly imply that B. of > >> Rostock was still living at the time. He was apparently enjoying > >> inherited founder's rights in Doberan abbey rather than necessarily > >> being its initial founder (monastic foundation pancartes that were often > >> presented for papal confirmation could extend the process over several > >> generations). The lord of Rostock in 1248 was Heinrich Borwin III, as > >> Hofmeister noted. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > Thank you all. Then I must conclude that this marriage, if it happened at all, left no issue. Is that right? > > > > I have just read the article by Andrew MacEwan, who supposed that > Cristina the mother of Heinrich Borwin II's son Nicholas of Werle was > the same woman as the king of Scotland's sister granted permission in > 1248 to pray at Doberan abbey. > > The case for this identification in my opinion is not made out > adequately. The descendants of Nicholas (and those of his younger > brother Heinrich Borwin III, whose wife may have been the unnamed woman > in 1248) did not put forward a claim to the Scottish throne in 1291 when > illegitimate descendants of William the Lion competed for it. I agree > with Adolf Hofmeister that any marriage of a sister of Alexander II of > Scotland to a lord of Rostock (whether or not the latter was living in > 1248) was evidently childless. > > Peter Stewart Thank you, Peter. It's more or less what I had made out, mainly based on chronology and the absence of descendants putting forward a claim to the Scots' throne during the Great Cause. Much appreciated your reading the book. Thanks again.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:19:45 PM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: > On 31/05/2016 11:24 AM, J.L. Fernandez Blanco via wrote: > > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:47:26 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: > >> On 30/05/2016 10:24 PM, John Watson via wrote: > >>> On Monday, 30 May 2016 06:18:33 UTC+1, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-3, taf wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:57:24 PM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Cawley mentions, inter alia, "Pope Innocent IV permitted “nobili mulieri > >>>>>> --- Sorori...Regis Scotie” to enter Doberan monastery, founded by “nobilis > >>>>>> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus”, to pray, dated 20 May 1248" (Source for > >>>>>> this: Theiner, A. (1864) Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historia > >>>>>> Illustrantia (Rome), CXXXV, p. 50.) > >>>>> The text of this source reads: > >>>>> > >>>>> INNOCENTIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Dilecte filie Nobili mulieri ... Sorori Carissimi in Christo filii nostri ... Illustris Regis Scotie, salutem etc. Pium arbitramur et congruum, ut in hiis prompti simus ad gratiam, que profectum respiciunt animarum, presertim circa personas nobiles, que pura fide conspicue deo et ecclesie sunt devote. Hinc est, quod nos tue nobilitatis precibus annuentes, ut cum sex matronis honestis monasterium de Doberan Cisterciensis ordinis Zverinensis diocesis, cuius Nobilis vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit, bis vel ter in anno causa devotionis intrare valeas, eiusdem ordinis statuto contrario non obstante, tibi auctoritate presentium conferimus facultatem. Datum Lugduni XIII. Kal. Iunii, Pontificatus nostri anno quinto. > >>>>> > >>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ADxQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA50 > >>>>> > >>>>> taf > >>>> Many thanks for the info, Todd. > >>>> > >>>> What do or can make out of this document? Any insights? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> JL > >>> Firstly, the name of the sister of the king of the Scots (Alexander II) is not given. Secondly we are told that her husband, B. de Rostock founded the Cistercian monastery of Doberan. Since the monastery was founded in or about 1186, she is more likely to have been the second wife of Borwin (or Burwin) I of Rostock, than his son Borwin II. The second wife of Borwin I was called Adelaide, and she had an only daughter Elisabeth (d. 1265), abbess of Wienhausen Abbey from 1241. > >>> > >> This is stretching the sense of the text rather a long way - "nobilis > >> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit" was written in 1248: > >> "maritus" (husband) without "quondam" (formerly), that is liberally used > >> in papal documents for deceased persons, along with "fundator existit" > >> (is a founder, NB in the present tense) strongly imply that B. of > >> Rostock was still living at the time. He was apparently enjoying > >> inherited founder's rights in Doberan abbey rather than necessarily > >> being its initial founder (monastic foundation pancartes that were often > >> presented for papal confirmation could extend the process over several > >> generations). The lord of Rostock in 1248 was Heinrich Borwin III, as > >> Hofmeister noted. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > Thank you all. Then I must conclude that this marriage, if it happened at all, left no issue. Is that right? > > > > I have just read the article by Andrew MacEwan, who supposed that > Cristina the mother of Heinrich Borwin II's son Nicholas of Werle was > the same woman as the king of Scotland's sister granted permission in > 1248 to pray at Doberan abbey. > > The case for this identification in my opinion is not made out > adequately. The descendants of Nicholas (and those of his younger > brother Heinrich Borwin III, whose wife may have been the unnamed woman > in 1248) did not put forward a claim to the Scottish throne in 1291 when > illegitimate descendants of William the Lion competed for it. I agree > with Adolf Hofmeister that any marriage of a sister of Alexander II of > Scotland to a lord of Rostock (whether or not the latter was living in > 1248) was evidently childless. > > Peter Stewart Thank you, Peter. Is, more or less, what I had made out without reading the article, mostly based on chronology and the lack of living descendants postulating themselves as claimants during the Great Cause. Much appreciated the effort of reading it. Thanks again.

Dear Newsgroup ~ The 1298 record I cited earlier withstanding, it appears that Sir John de Saint John was back in England by 7 July 1297. So Complete Peerage has the correct date of his return to England, namely 1297. Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs & Writs of Military Summons 1 (1827): 820 shows that John de Saint John, of Basing, was summoned to perform military service in parts beyond the sea on 7 July 1297. Likewise he was summoned to a military council at Rochester in Sept. 1297, and for military service in Flanders in Dec. 1297. The above source may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=JKqJOnq9anQC&pg=PA820 As for the 1298 item I cited earlier, I believe that the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester was being levied an assessment for the ransom of Sir John de Saint John. A similar item is recorded in Macray, Chronicon Abbatiæ Rameseiensis (Rolls Ser.) (1886): xlviii, 388. The editor Mr. Macray says that item should date to 1297 or 1298. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

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.

As I understand it, the relationship of John de St John and his "cousin" Sir Richard de Siward is: John de St John of Basing d. 1302 m. Alice filia Reginald daughter of Sir Reginald FitzHerbert (d. 1286) son of Piers FitzHerbert and Alice de Warkworth. The later couple were also parents of Lucy FitzHerbert who m. William de Ros of Helmsley (d. abt 1264). They were the parents of Alice de Ros who m. John "Red Comyn" Comyn (d/ aft 1273)who had a daughter Mary who married first Sir Simon Fraser (d. 1291) and second Sir Richard Siward. At least that is all I have found so far...... (based on secondary sources with the usual caveats). Doug Smith

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 On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:44:03 AM UTC+12, Peter Stewart via wrote: > 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

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? 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 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)

On 31/05/16 15:27, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > Apparently, one lister suggested that my piece containing a mock-up of > an entry for Sussex, as an example of the kind of entry in the List I > proposed earlier this month had become buried in the thread, and was > not seen by listers, so I append it here in hopes of responses. Richard, it's a little difficult to follow. Perhaps the formatting has been munged somewhere along the line by removal of tabs or repeated spaces. Maybe you could put it into CSV which could then be loaded into a spreadsheet for easier viewing. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

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. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Peter, I know it is only a secondary source, but Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fuerstliche Haeuser 1961, pag 511 also gives Ilaria. The article for the Sanseverino family starts with the mentioning of several sources, like Archivio Sanseverino di Bisignano, bearbeitet von Jolanda Donel Gentile, in : Archivio di Stato di Napoli. And a few more. Hope this helps. Leo van de Pas Canberra -----Original Message----- From: Peter Stewart [mailto:psssst@optusnet.com.au] Sent: Monday, 30 May, 2016 5:30 PM To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Subject: Ilaria of Lauria, wife of Enrico of Sanseverino From memory the first posting I made to this newsgroup, in the 1990s, was in response to someone who had asserted that the famous admiral Roger of Lauria's daughter married to Enrico of Sanseverino, constable of Sicily, was named Maria and not Ilaria (they are ancestors of anyone descended from Jacquetta of Luxemburg-St Pol, amongst many others). I didn't find a contemporary source to disprove this error, but cited the great 16th-century historian Jeronimo Zurita as a more reliable authority than the source for "Maria". Today I came across two letters from Pope John XXII that show Zurita was right to name her Ilaria - the first is to the minister-general of the Franciscans dated 5 November 1319 ordering that she be allowed to construct a friary, referring to her as Ilaria di Lauria, widow of Enrico, son of the count of Sanseverino ("Ilaria de Lauria, vidua Henrici, nati comitis de s. Severino"); the second, dated 5 November 1329, is an indulgence of 100 days granted to those who on the feast day of St John the Baptist visited the church she was building in his honour for the friary at Cuccaro ("ecclesiam in honorem et sub vocabulo s[ancti] Joannis Baptistae dedicatam in quodam loco quem ad opus fratrum O[rdinis] M[inorum] n[obilis] m[ulier] Ilaria de Lauria, relicta quond[am] Henrici primogeniti quond[am] Thomasii de Sancto Severino, comitis Marsici, militis, vidua, in castro suo de Cuccaro ... aedificare incepit"). Peter Stewart

Dear Matt ~ I suspect that the National Archives dated the letter of Sir John de Saint John as 1302 at Lochmaben, because Sir John stated in the letter that he was then ill, and because he reportedly died at Lochmaben Castle in Dumfriesshire in Scotland in 1302, as per the Annales Londonienses: Stubbs, Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I & Edward II 1 (1882): 128 (Annales Londonienses sub A.D. 1302: “Eodem anno, die Jovis proximo ante festum Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ [6 September], obiit dominus Johannes de Sancto Johanne apud Lohemaban in partibus Scotiæ.”). However, if the letter itself states it was written at Langham (as transcribed by Stevenson), obviously someone jumped to a false conclusion at the National Archives. In a related matter, I just checked a list of participants at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 in Scotland as recorded in the heraldic source, The Falkirk Roll. According to Brian Timms, it is accepted that this roll was composed shortly after the battle. The roll may be found at the following weblink: www.briantimms.fr/Rolls/falkirk/falkirk.html Surprisingly, the person who is listed on the battle roll is John de Saint John, the son [i.e., the son of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing]: H 106 John de St John, the son Arms: Argent on a chief gules two mullets or a label azure The above evidence does not preclude the elder Sir John de Saint John from being in Scotland in 1298, only that he didn't fight at the Battle of Falkirk. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:38:48 AM UTC-7, Leo van de Pas via wrote: > Early this year a book has been published covering titled Slovenian families, some from before 1500. They intermarry with families like Auersperg - Althann - Andrassy - Attems - Barbo-Waxenstein - Bathory - Czernin and many more. > > I received my copy from a friend of the author. If any one is interested I can try to find out how the book can be obtained and the cost. > > With best wishes > Leo van de Pas > Canberra, Australia Leo: Can you contact me regarding the details of this book? Messages I've sent to your email address have been returned as undeliverable.

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. As far as the date of the letter is concerned, there is a discussion of John de Saint John, of Basing, and his time in Scotland found in Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133. Santiuste says the following: "The building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300 was intended to be supported by other activity. After the removal of the English royal army from south-western Scotland it now fell upon Edward's lieutenant in the area, Sir John de Saint John, 'to bring to a good end his [Edward's] business in these parts'. St. John had been captured in Edward's service in Gascony, as we have seen, and spent almost a year as a prisoner of the French. He was not left to rot, however, because he was a men whom Edward greatly valued. After struggling to raise sufficient funds, Edward eventually paid a large ransom to obtain St. John's release. St. John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign, and in January 1300 he was appointed Warden of the Western March. His remit included responsibility for military affairs in three English counties (Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire), as well as in much of south-western Scotland (at least in theory)." END OF QUOTE. Santiuste dates the building project at Dumfries to the year 1300. If so, I assume this would peg the letter of Sir John de Saint John to the year 1300, not 1298 and not 1302. I say that because Saint John's letter specifically refers to a building effort at Tibbers in Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward. If this was part of the building project mentioned by Santiuste, then 1300 would be the correct year for the letter. As for the original source of the Saint John letter, Bain gives the following reference for this letter: Tower Miscellaneous Rolls, No. 474. As far as when John de Saint John returned from being a prisoner in France, Complete Peerage says it took place in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states it took place in 1299. But Santiuste makes it clear that Saint John was in Scotland in time for the Falkirk campaign in 1298, which statement agrees with all the other authorities that I've consulted. I assume Ms. Bevan got her date 1299 from Dictionary of National Biography, but, if so, the date is obviously wrong. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:14:33 AM UTC-6, Tompkins wrote: < 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). < < Matt Tompkins

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 12:09:34 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > There must be some other contribution specifically to the population in the southeast of Britain and not in the west or north England, that is causing the steppe proportion to be lower. . . . not to the west or north OF England . . . taf

On 31/05/2016 11:24 AM, J.L. Fernandez Blanco via wrote: > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:47:26 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: >> On 30/05/2016 10:24 PM, John Watson via wrote: >>> On Monday, 30 May 2016 06:18:33 UTC+1, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: >>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-3, taf wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:57:24 PM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Cawley mentions, inter alia, "Pope Innocent IV permitted “nobili mulieri >>>>>> --- Sorori...Regis Scotie” to enter Doberan monastery, founded by “nobilis >>>>>> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus”, to pray, dated 20 May 1248" (Source for >>>>>> this: Theiner, A. (1864) Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historia >>>>>> Illustrantia (Rome), CXXXV, p. 50.) >>>>> The text of this source reads: >>>>> >>>>> INNOCENTIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Dilecte filie Nobili mulieri ... Sorori Carissimi in Christo filii nostri ... Illustris Regis Scotie, salutem etc. Pium arbitramur et congruum, ut in hiis prompti simus ad gratiam, que profectum respiciunt animarum, presertim circa personas nobiles, que pura fide conspicue deo et ecclesie sunt devote. Hinc est, quod nos tue nobilitatis precibus annuentes, ut cum sex matronis honestis monasterium de Doberan Cisterciensis ordinis Zverinensis diocesis, cuius Nobilis vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit, bis vel ter in anno causa devotionis intrare valeas, eiusdem ordinis statuto contrario non obstante, tibi auctoritate presentium conferimus facultatem. Datum Lugduni XIII. Kal. Iunii, Pontificatus nostri anno quinto. >>>>> >>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ADxQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA50 >>>>> >>>>> taf >>>> Many thanks for the info, Todd. >>>> >>>> What do or can make out of this document? Any insights? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> JL >>> Firstly, the name of the sister of the king of the Scots (Alexander II) is not given. Secondly we are told that her husband, B. de Rostock founded the Cistercian monastery of Doberan. Since the monastery was founded in or about 1186, she is more likely to have been the second wife of Borwin (or Burwin) I of Rostock, than his son Borwin II. The second wife of Borwin I was called Adelaide, and she had an only daughter Elisabeth (d. 1265), abbess of Wienhausen Abbey from 1241. >>> >> This is stretching the sense of the text rather a long way - "nobilis >> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit" was written in 1248: >> "maritus" (husband) without "quondam" (formerly), that is liberally used >> in papal documents for deceased persons, along with "fundator existit" >> (is a founder, NB in the present tense) strongly imply that B. of >> Rostock was still living at the time. He was apparently enjoying >> inherited founder's rights in Doberan abbey rather than necessarily >> being its initial founder (monastic foundation pancartes that were often >> presented for papal confirmation could extend the process over several >> generations). The lord of Rostock in 1248 was Heinrich Borwin III, as >> Hofmeister noted. >> >> Peter Stewart > Thank you all. Then I must conclude that this marriage, if it happened at all, left no issue. Is that right? > I have just read the article by Andrew MacEwan, who supposed that Cristina the mother of Heinrich Borwin II's son Nicholas of Werle was the same woman as the king of Scotland's sister granted permission in 1248 to pray at Doberan abbey. The case for this identification in my opinion is not made out adequately. The descendants of Nicholas (and those of his younger brother Heinrich Borwin III, whose wife may have been the unnamed woman in 1248) did not put forward a claim to the Scottish throne in 1291 when illegitimate descendants of William the Lion competed for it. I agree with Adolf Hofmeister that any marriage of a sister of Alexander II of Scotland to a lord of Rostock (whether or not the latter was living in 1248) was evidently childless. Peter Stewart