You can go to the Foundations website and purchase that issue I believe, or subscribe and read it online. I did some research on the subject for Andrew a couple of years ago. Adrian Benjamin Burke

Today, I noticed the following study claiming that the strain of face mites in our bodies depends on our ancestry. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/52/15958.full.pdf So, are the DNA genealogy companies going to start offering face mite DNA tests? :-) Stewart Baldwin

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > Today, I noticed the following study claiming that the strain of face > mites in our bodies depends on our ancestry. > > http://www.pnas.org/content/112/52/15958.full.pdf > > So, are the DNA genealogy companies going to start offering face mite > DNA tests? :-) This is just the latest of several 'companions' that have such a relationship - for example it has already been determined that this is the case with certain gut bacteria. taf

Re: The development of more complex pages derived from the simple listing entries for surnames associated with a locality, by county, is something that can be considered later when the need arises. Indeed, someone else may want to jump in here with their suggestions. Take a look at the Sussex project pages on Geni to see if of use. https://www.geni.com/projects/Historical-Sussex/12834 Best, Erica

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

On 29/05/2016 1:50 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 5/27/2016 2:01 PM, tafarmerie via wrote: > >> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote: >>>> The Henry Project must be going on more than ten years now and is >>>> not yet complete despite an extremely more limited scope. >>> Again, it's not an especially collaborative project: it's just two >>> people, and there's no suggestion that they're seeking additional >>> collaborators. >> To give credit where it is deservedly due, it's just one person. Without going into details as to why two names are listed, all current pages represent the work of Stewart Baldwin. The other guy has made a few suggestions here and there, but in terms of actually compiling pages, his total contribution was half-done research on one line that never made it to the stage of a formal write-up before being passed on to Mr. Baldwin. > Although the vast majority of the material appearing in the Henry > Project was written by me, it has not been entirely a one man project. > Most notably, it should be pointed out that Peter Stewart wrote three of > the pages which currently appear on the website (those for Adele of > France, wife of Baldwin V, count of Flanders, and her two parents Robert > II of France and Constance of Arles). Stewart has kindly not pointed out that I have (so far) failed to contribute as promised - years ago I undertook to write a page for Baldwin V's paternal grandmother Rozala alias Susanna of Italy, but this is still unfinished. Perhaps I will be more diligent if bound to a public undertaking: I will get it sent in by the end of June. My few pages are barely a trickle towards the ocean of research that Stewart has generously placed online, and it's not surprising that the second member of the Henry Project's editorial board was unaware of them. Peter Stewart

Dear List Can anyone help me see what is written on p.503 of Milles "The Catalogue of Honour" (1610) ? This book seems very rare. Apart from Britain, Canada and the US I only see one copy in Spain, one in Singapore, and one in Melbourne, on the Worldcat website. This is one of the two sources which modern genealogists cite for the Hastings family's earliest generations. The other is Dugdale's Baronage. Both apparently drew from charters from the collection of Robert Glover, including one specific one which seems to have been very useful. Indeed, arguably without this charter several generations of well-known family tree look much less confident. As far as I know, no one seems to know where those charters are now. It seems there is at least one copy online, but it requires a log-in for a specific University: https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/1119943/Description Best Regards Andrew

Stewart Baldwin wrote: "When I first started the Henry Project back in 2001, there had been much discussion on this group about how to form the ideal database of medieval genealogy. In contrast to the "anybody can submit anything they want" type of database that was being suggested by some, others (including me) were emphasizing the necessity for some kind of "quality control." As first conceived, the Henry Project was intended to be an experiment in forming a "collaborative" database in medieval genealogy, with the size of the project hopefully kept manageable by limiting it to the few hundred individuals who were ancestors of Henry II of England." While wikis rightfully have a reputation for bring large scale and chaotic, it should be kept in mind that the most famous Wiki, Wikipedia, is also in many ways the most extreme. The standard software used to make wikis is also used by very small groups, in companies and so on. It does allow the creation of moderator groups, different rights levels, articles which need certain permissions to be changed, etc. It would be possible to move the Henry II project to a small wiki and I think that would more easily allow for a slightly bigger committee to form? I think if the founder established editorial policies right from the beginning it could help attract the right people. The biggest genealogical wiki right now seems to be Wikitree, but even there there is hope. Gedcom imports have been restricted to use in smaller modern family trees, and pre 1500 profiles now require special permission levels to edit. Also many projects have been set up within the Wiki, that focus on specific types of articles or aims, including "quality control". These projects are able to restrict editing of profiles to some extent also. (One thing I do not like about Wikitree is that it does not have talk pages for each article. These are useful for subjects needing discussion and come as standard on most wikis. It means there is a place to record debates, votes etc for each article.) The "Magna Carta" project is particularly interesting for medieval genealogy. Like the Henry II project it has stuck limited and clear aims, and it has taken a quality control approach. Bit by bit the team goes through the profiles of Magna Carta surety baron descendants and simply compares them to whatever Douglas Richardson has written. Once they match well-enough, they put their approval template on and move on. This is creating a hard core of better genealogy within the Wiki, and as each generation is worked on, various connected families tend to get fixed up as well. It is possible to imagine a similar Henry II project within Wikitree, which simply aims to run step by step through Stewarts work and try to make Wikitree agree with it. So in other words it could be a secondary thing which feeds off the existing project, but could be worked on by less highly qualified people that Stewart himself. In other words the Magna Carta project gets the benefit of being able to use a lot of people, but still has a "quality control" aspect. Best Regards Andrew

Dear Newsgroup. Has anybody had the chance to read MacEwen, A. B. W. ‘A Far-Fetched Alliance: the Marriage of Borwin of Rostock and Cristina of Scotland, Foundations, Vol. 7 (June 2015), pp. 3-24.? I found this in (I know, not the best place to look for anything) Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands Project. Apparently, according to that study, which I haven't seen (and won't be able to do it), William the Lion, King of Scots, would have been the father of Cristina, wife of Heinrich Borwin II, Prince of Mecklenburg and Lord of Rostock. 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.) Any comments will be much appreciated. José Luis Fernández-Blanco

Richard Smith wrote: >> I think it would greatly help us in understanding your proposal if you >> mocked up a short section of this list, and then amplified on one (or a >> few) of the entries so we could see what you propose the detailed >> entries to look like. > > I shall get to my drawing board and work up some entries for this > to model my proposal for such a listing. > > >> Richard [Smith] > > Richard C-Z Herewith my mock-up: List of Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families of England, Wales, and the Pale of Ireland, arranged by county, and covering the period from the Conquest to the Glorious Revolution (A.D. 1066-1688). Compiled by sundry contributors. Project examples prepared 28 May 2016, by Richard Carruthers-Żurowski, B.A. (Hons), Modern History, & M.A. (Oxon.). All collegial suggestions welcomed. Example of a Simple Listing SUSSEX Surname Locality Date From Date To Rank Title Contributor Source Research Pub. Var. ERNLE Earnley ca 1166 1632 ext. LMG Esq. RHBC-Z WSRO Yes Var. Yes ERNLE Sidlesham 1345/6 ibid. do do do Sx FF Yes do do ERNLE W. Wittering ante 1632 ext. do do do PCC Yes do do Source Detail (i.e. each entry’s justification), viz.: (could be made a clickable hyperlink) Line 1: WSRO Money-Kyrle ref. 1720/44 for Lucas de Erneleia fl. ca 1166 Line 2: Sussex Fines: 16-20 Edward III, An abstract of Feet of Fines for the County of Sussex, vol. 3: 1308-1509 (1916), no. 2003 for John de Ernelee the elder/Margaret wife, fl. 1345/6 Explanation of the categories included in the simple listing. Surname: Main spelling chosen for the family for which there was an entry. Locality: Could be a manor, or parish, estate, city, etc. Date from: date of record, either precise or approximate, as based on source citation. Date to: date of conclusion of study based on some sourced record. This could be hyperlinked to an explanation (in this instance, “Abstracts of probate acts in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, vol. 1, 1630-1634, p. 146 [Anno 1632] ERNLE, Richard, of Cackham (Cakeham, p. West Wittering), Sussex, Esq. Will [66 Audley] pr. June 16 by rel. Susan. P. r. Eliz RISTON” To this the word ext. could be included indicating that the line is apparently extinct in that locality at least at the date indicated, based on research justified by the source citation associated with that listing. If this were not the case, some other explanation could be provided on the date source page. N.B. if no date is yet included for the beginning of the period, the word ante indicating that some period prior to the date included as the terminus would be inserted. Rank: L for Landed, M for Manorial, G for Gentry. One or more would have to be chosen as justified by the source(s) cited. Research: Example of instance where a name in the simple listing is marked Yes (as being researched). The Yes would be highlighted and hyperlinked to another page showing the contributor’s name and contact information if so desired. This opens the possibility of monetising the project and charging a small fee for access to this information by non-contributors. Just how this might be made to work is something on which one would have to take advice, and, of course, need the agreement of contributors. There could be a sort of blind email address for contributors who did not want their personal email address or other particulars given out before they had had a chance to read any message sent and decide on its bona fides. This is done by the Guild of One-Name Studies (GOONS) for example. Pub. (for Publications): an indication that one or more items about the family listed have been published. The precise publications could be listed elsewhere and access to that list (which may or may not necessarily be exhaustive, of course, given human frailties, and the fact that the list of publications may grow with new discoveries of missing items, or indeed the inclusion of new publications. Var. (for Variants): all names are variants as they derive from possible representations of sounds indicative of a particular family. Here, however, the word Yes in this category would indicate that there are known and specific variants of which this entry may be deemed to be a primary, but not necessarily a sole, entry. The primary entry or entries (say, for example, ERNLE, ERNLEY, and ERNELEY) would be allowed to appear in the Listing based on the use of that spelling or spellings of the name indicated either by some justifying reason such as that that spelling is found extensively in the literature, citing where and when, or because it is the spelling associated with a modern family using that variant whose pedigree can be corroborated as linked to the name in the entry. This would obviously involve some work to provide reasonable justification, and could lead to legitimate differences of opinion, which could be made explicit elsewhere in the project’s hyperlinked pages. So elsewhere in the Listing for the county in question there could be subsidiary variant spellings given, with the date, and justification for that entry, e.g. Ernele (de) Ernelee (de) Erneleia The preposition de would appear in parentheses where the family found under that spelling was later found without it as having dropped its use. Ditto series of prefixed words such as (or series of prefixed words as in (de la) Estcourt, Where the preposition or prefixed words appeared in the name over time and were generally retained there would be no parentheses. Names would, however, be sorted by their substantive part, as in Ernle and Estcourt. One could include as many variants as were justified by citing at least one source. There could also be deviant spellings included, such as Early for Ernle where the ‘n’-less form can be clearly shown to be a case of usage for a person belonging to a family normally referred to under another a true variant. Var. could also be used to denote cases where a family, for example, Arundel or FitzAlan is referred to by more than one surname over time, and is nonetheless recognisably the same family. Of course, this could give rise to further debate, but that would be allowed for via other hyperlinked pages associated with the project as it develops. The development of more complex pages derived from the simple listing entries for surnames associated with a locality, by county, is something that can be considered later when the need arises. Indeed, someone else may want to jump in here with their suggestions. I should note that I limited the number of categories in the simple listing based in part on the page margins I am currently dealing with. Still, unless someone points out an obvious lacuna in my example, I think it is a fair representation of what may deemed a useful sort of listing which could serve as a sort of mediaeval and early modern genealogical research directory for families of these levels of society. Your thoughts are welcome, but please be collegially gentle with me!;) Thank you, Richard C-Z:)

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:42:12 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart via wrote: > On 29/05/2016 1:50 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > On 5/27/2016 2:01 PM, tafarmerie via wrote: > > > >> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote: > >>>> The Henry Project must be going on more than ten years now and is > >>>> not yet complete despite an extremely more limited scope. > >>> Again, it's not an especially collaborative project: it's just two > >>> people, and there's no suggestion that they're seeking additional > >>> collaborators. > >> To give credit where it is deservedly due, it's just one person. Without going into details as to why two names are listed, all current pages represent the work of Stewart Baldwin. The other guy has made a few suggestions here and there, but in terms of actually compiling pages, his total contribution was half-done research on one line that never made it to the stage of a formal write-up before being passed on to Mr. Baldwin. > > Although the vast majority of the material appearing in the Henry > > Project was written by me, it has not been entirely a one man project. > > Most notably, it should be pointed out that Peter Stewart wrote three of > > the pages which currently appear on the website (those for Adele of > > France, wife of Baldwin V, count of Flanders, and her two parents Robert > > II of France and Constance of Arles). > > Stewart has kindly not pointed out that I have (so far) failed to > contribute as promised - years ago I undertook to write a page for > Baldwin V's paternal grandmother Rozala alias Susanna of Italy, but this > is still unfinished. Your contributions have not gone un-noticed. I keep checking the Richard I page in hopes that Stewart incorporates the comments and improvements you made on April 4th of this year with regard to the page for Richard I. Stewart, I know your attention has been elsewhere, but hopefully taking corrections and additions to the current pages is somewhere in your queue. --Joe Cook

Dear Richard, Thank you for your message. > Is the MDR particularly relevant? That'll depend on the scope -- > specifically your definition of "landed, manorial or gentry", a point on > which I'm still unclear. The reason I mention the Manorial Documents Register (MDR) is because though it only shows those manors for which records survive of which its compilers are aware, it helps one to determine which manors existed at a given time, and under what name, which, in turn, may help contributors to the listing I am proposing to describe their candidate entries with some accuracy. One of the problems one encounters from time to time with Burke and other works is that while a locality may be attached to a family, it is difficult to determine precisely which locality is referred to in some cases because there may be several of the same name in England, Wales, or the Pale of Ireland, or, indeed, some confusion may have crept into the spelling of that locality as attached to a family, making a nonsense of that name as an accurate indicator of an actual locality. So, potentially, I see the MDR as giving a possible referral back to the correct place name if a contributor takes the time to check it, or a later editor of that initial contribution makes the effort to check it. This leads nicely into the second part of the question you have for me, i.e. my definition of "landed, manorial or gentry": At the earliest period of the catchment for this listing, there were landed and manorial families, but not yet one calls gentry as that term came into use at a later period in the course of the period I have suggested for coverage. I have used these three terms in an effort, perhaps rather clumsy or cumbersome, to apply a suitable all-encompassing nomenclature for the families I hope to see covered. As to whether, then, there is an attempt to list every family that every held land from 1066-1688, I remain somewhat agnostic. I cannot see that contributions of the family names and localities associated with tiny landholders or landowners will harm the list in the long run, provided a clear indicator of relative importance is made in the list. In other words, I do not think it necessary to bar such entries, but they will be subject to description of just where they fit into the scheme of the listing. Here I am thinking that while technically landed, and so Landed (L) in our listing, they would not be accorded the letter designation M for Manorial if they did not hold at least one manor as the singular or joint manor lord. Similarly, if they did not have family members associated with that locality who were styled at least, gent. or Esq. or equivalent (arm. for armiger, etc.), then they would not be accorded a letter G for Gentry (or still higher, K for Knightage, P for Peerage - or at an earlier period, N for Titled Nobility - or, later again, BART for Baronetage [as I don't want to confuse matters by according Baronets the abbreviation B, which one might normally expert to be accorded to the Baronage, if at some point that category were to be deemed useful in the listing, and BT is often used for Bishop's Transcripts, while, personally, I use bt for baptised/baptism, which I would not want to be confused with Bt which also appears sometimes for Baronet or Baronetage. Other indicators of rank or category of the quality of the family or members thereof could of course exist, incl. all the normal peerage ranks with their usual one letter abbreviations, and some rarer mediaeval divisions, of, say, the K (Knightage) with its Bannerets, Bachelors, etc., but for the moment I don't want to get too tied up with all of these while still keeping those historically relevant sub-categories available of course). > I think it would greatly help us in understanding your proposal if you > mocked up a short section of this list, and then amplified on one (or a > few) of the entries so we could see what you propose the detailed > entries to look like. I shall get to my drawing board and work up some entries for this to model my proposal for such a listing. > I would also still like to see how you define "landed, manorial and > gentry", as this will have a massive effect the scope of the project. See above. > 1377 seems a good time to break. When you said you wanted to treat the > whole period from William I to James II, my first thought was that it > was too long a period and needed dividing; my first back-of-an-envelope > attempt at dividing the period up looked this this: > > William I to John (1066-1216) > Henry III to Edward III (1216-1377) > Richard II to Richard III (1377-1485) > Henry VII to Elizabeth (1485-1603) > James I to James II (1603-1688) > > And at first I would suggest limiting yourself to one, or two > consecutive periods. If you want to work on the earliest two periods, I > suggest sticking only to them until the project is well under way. The reason I chose a rather long initial period of 1066-1377 is because I also thought there might not be enough initial contributions to the listing if the period were made to end too early. > Personally, though, I think the earlier periods will attract fewer > competent participants than the later ones, and for that reason I'd have > started with the Tudor period, possibly together with one of the > adjacent periods; but maybe you'll prove me wrong. I agree with your expectation that the Tudor period onward might prove more popular. For that reason I feel that starting with the earlier period might serve to encourage contributions to it without the distraction of a more popular period. Moreover, I think it best to begin at the beginning as it were.;) > Richard [Smith] Richard C-Z

On 28/05/16 01:54, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > I think your idea of starting with one county as to see how things > develop is an excellent one. Though Wiltshire might also be my first > choice, as its coverage in the Manorial Documents Register is nil, > since that part of their project has been farmed out to a county work > group, I think this points to Sussex, since Co. Meath might not > generate enough interest for an initial run to be a success. Is the MDR particularly relevant? That'll depend on the scope -- specifically your definition of "landed, manorial or gentry", a point on which I'm still unclear. Perhaps my experience is atypical, but for families in the social strata that appear in visitations, which I assume is the class of people we're talking about here, I've not found manorial records to be particularly helpful. They tend to deal with people who held land within the manor, rather than the holders of the manors themselves. That's not to say you shouldn't choose Sussex for your pilot; rather, that I'm not convinced the lack of an MDR is a relevant consideration. > At stage one I envisage adding families after the pattern you allude > to. Still, as references in primary sources are likely to be to > individual family members, I think this means that at least one > instance of an individual member of a family found in a primary source > be cited to justify the appearance of a family name in the list. > Indeed, it would seem necessary to be able to tie that individual to a > given subcomital locality in order for the landed, or manorial > requirement to be satisfied. It would also be necessary to have a > quality, rank, or title attached to that individual citation from the > original to fulfil the requirement that the individual so cited fell > into the scope of the list as being at least gentle. I think it would greatly help us in understanding your proposal if you mocked up a short section of this list, and then amplified on one (or a few) of the entries so we could see what you propose the detailed entries to look like. I would also still like to see how you define "landed, manorial and gentry", as this will have a massive effect the scope of the project. > Additionally, I would like to concentrate on creating a list for the > first three centuries after the Conquest, inviting contributors to > submit material for that period, ending with the close of the reign of > King Edward III. 1377 seems a good time to break. When you said you wanted to treat the whole period from William I to James II, my first thought was that it was too long a period and needed dividing; my first back-of-an-envelope attempt at dividing the period up looked this this: William I to John (1066-1216) Henry III to Edward III (1216-1377) Richard II to Richard III (1377-1485) Henry VII to Elizabeth (1485-1603) James I to James II (1603-1688) And at first I would suggest limiting yourself to one, or two consecutive periods. If you want to work on the earliest two periods, I suggest sticking only to them until the project is well under way. Personally, though, I think the earlier periods will attract fewer competent participants than the later ones, and for that reason I'd have started with the Tudor period, possibly together with one of the adjacent periods; but maybe you'll prove me wrong. Richard

Dear Newsgroup ~ Nichols, History & Antiquities of Leicestershire 3(1) (1800): 240 presents a Segrave pedigree taken from "Chronicis apud Chaucombe." The pedigree identifies Maud, the wife of Sir Gilbert de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave as Maud [de] Lucy: “… De ipsis Gilberto [de Segrave] & Annabiliâ exivit Nicholaus, filius & heres; cui nupta fuit Matilda Lucy. De quibus prodîerunt dominus Johannes de Segrave, dominus Nicholaus de Segrave, dominus Galfridus de Segrave, dominus Petrus, and dominus Gilbertus.” END OF QUOTE. In a previous post back in 2007, I discussed evidence which suggests that Maud de Lucy was possibly the daughter of Sir Geoffey de Lucy (died 1252), of Newington, Kent, Cublington, Buckinghamshire, Dallington and Slapton, Northamptonshire, etc., by his wife, Nichole, who was likely a member of the Cantelowe family. Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1 The proposed kinship between the two parties is charted below: 1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux. 2. Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint John, died 1266. 3. Sir John de Saint John, born by 1245, died 1302. 1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux. 2. Nichole de Cantelowe, married (2nd) by 1235 Geoffrey de Lucy, died 1252. 3. Maud de Lucy, born say 1240/5, married Sir Nicholas de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave, died 1295. 4. Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Lord Segrave, born say 1260/5, died 1325. Recently I was going through a biography of [Saint] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford, published in Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, Part 1 (1877). Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe was a younger son of Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, and his wife, Milicent de Gournay, named above. The biography contains an interesting story relating to Bishop Thomas on pages 42-43, which story concerns a dispute between him and Earl Gilbert de Clare in 1278: “The bishop had a castle at Ledbury, and the Malvern Hills he claimed as his chase. But the Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, the most powerful baron in England, hunted there ... and he assumed that the right was his. The bishop ... poured over his [Earl Gilbert’s] head the awful curse of the Church; and the great earl rode home, very much surprised and indignant at being excommunicated ... because of the hares and wild-deer of the Malvern Hills ... Then S. Thomas summoned all his friends, and for three days defiantly ... hunted over the hills. The hunting party was composed of John Tregoz, his brother-in-law [recte nephew], Nicholas Segrave, Geoffry and Fulk de Lucy.” END OF QUOTE. As we can see, Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe's hunting party in Malvern Hills consisted of his nephew, John de Tregoz (mistakenly called his brother-in-law), Nicholas de Segrave (husband of Maud de Lucy), and Geoffrey and Fulk de Lucy. This story suggests a close association between Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe, and the Segrave and Lucy families. While this evidence is somewhat limited, it provides support for the idea that Gilbert de Segrave's wife, Maud de Lucy, was a niece of Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe. Assuming these various parties were near relatives of the Bishop, it would explain their appearance as members of his hunting party in 1278. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Newsgroup ~ Back in 2008, I proposed a speculative theory that Ada (living 1305-6), wife of Sir Guy Botetourt, and mother of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt, might possibly be the same person as Ada de Hastings, widow of Sir Hubert Hovel (died c.1254). In the intervening time, I've found no evidence to support this idea. While this theory remains a possibility, I now believe Ada Botetourt belongs to another family, namely the Tibetot family. Combing through the Patent Rolls, I recently determined that in 1254 Guy Botetourt (husband of Ada) was granted free warren in all his demesne lands in Norfolk in 1254, "at the request of Robert de Ibetot." [Reference: Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 327]. Robert de Ibetot named in this record is surely the same person as Sir Robert de Tibetot, Knt. (born c.1229, died 1298), of Nettlestead, Suffolk, Burwell and Harston, Cambridgeshire, etc. Sir Robert de Tibetot was a close personal friend of Prince Edward, son of King Henry III, which Edward was afterwards King Edward I. Besides the 1254 record, I find that there were numerous subsequent common appearances in contemporary records of the Botetourt and Tibetot families. In 1290, for example, Sir Guy Botetourt and his son, Sir John Botetourt, witnessed an indenture between Sir Roger de Leukenore and Sir Robert de Tybotot regarding the manor of Menchesham [Mendlesham, Suffolk], excepting the dower of Margery, widow of Hugh Fitz Otes, Knt. [Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1288–1296 (1904): 131]. Research indicates that Sir Robert de Tibetot (died 1298) was the son and heir of Henry de Tibetot (or Tybetot, Typetot), of Shopland, Essex (died before 26 Dec. 1241), by his wife, Alda (or Ada). I might also note that Sir Robert de Tibetot and his wife, Eve de Chaworth, named one of their daughters, Ada. Given that Sir Robert de Tibetot's mother and daughter were named Alda or Ada, and given the numerous subsequent appearances of the Botetourt and Tibetot families in contemporary records, it seems quite possible to me that Ada, wife of Sir Guy Botetourt, was the sister of Sir Robert de Tibetot, and thus the daughter of Henry de Tibetot and his wife, Alda (or Ada). Such a Botetourt-Tibetot connection would readily explain the rise of Sir Guy and Ada Botetourt's son, Sir John Botetourt, in the reign of King Edward I. Having said that, more evidence needs to be located before Ada Botetourt can be assigned as a daughter of Henry de Tibetot, and his wife, Alda (or Ada). While I believe that Ada Botetourt was a Tibetot, this is still a speculative theory and should be treated as such. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 9:10:20 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newgroup ~ > > In my post this past week regarding Ada of Huntingdon, wife of Sir > Henry de Hastings, I stated that Ada de Huntingdon did not marry (2nd) > either Ralph de Brereton or William de Handsacre. Rather, I gave > evidence which proved that Ada of Huntingdon predeceased her husband c. > 1242. I raised the possibility, however, that Ada of Huntingdon's > daughter, Ada de Hastings, might have married Sir Ralph de Brereton, > even though there is no real evidence to support the marriage. > > In the intervening time, I've given the matter further thought. What > we know of the younger Ada de Hastings is given below: > > ADA DE HASTINGS. In 1252, being then a ward of the king, she was > abducted by HUBERT HOVEL, Knt., and married to him without the king’s > license. He was a younger son of Robert Hovel, Knt., of Wyverstone, > Suffolk. In Feb. 1252 the king ordered Hubert’s arrest for having > “committed many trespasses in the realm against the king’s crown and > peace.” He was subsequently arrested by the Sheriff of Bedfordshire. > The following year, 1253, the king pardoned Hubert, and commanded the > Sheriff of Bedfordshire to permit him to go free. SIR HUBERT HOVEL > died before Hilary term 1258, when his widow, Ada, claimed dower in > the third part of the manor of Harpol, Suffolk. She released her > claim to brother-in-law, Robert Hovel, senior, in return for an > annuity of two marks of silver, plus a one-time payment of ten marls > of silver. Ada was living in 1260–1261, put she put in her claim to > property in Wickham, Suffolk in a fine recorded that year. She is > possibly the Ada Hovel who occurs on the 1301 lay subsidy at Cundale, > Yorkshire. References: Arch. Journal 26 (1869): 236–256. Brown, > Yorkshire Lay Subsidy (Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. 21) (1898): 1– > 8. Rye, Cal. of Feet of Fines for Suffolk (1900): 61, 63. Copinger, > Manors of Suffolk 1 (1905): 397–399. C.P.R. 1247–1258 (1908): 130, > 191. Muskett, Suffolk Manorial Fams. 2 (1908): 59–60, 74 (Hovel > pedigree). C.P. 10 (1945): 336, footnote a (sub Pecche). > > As we can see, Ada de Hastings was widowed c.1258, and was free to > remarry at that point. My guess is that she married not Sir Ralph de > Brereton, but rather I suspect she is the Ada who married Sir Guy > Botetourt, Knt., of Little Ellingham, Norfolk (died c.1316), and was > the mother of Sir John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt (died > 1324). If so, this would help explain Sir John Botetourt's subsequent > meteoric career and his elevation to a peer. > > The evidence for this connection is the manor of Great Bradley, > Suffolk, which John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt held about > 1316, for which see Feudal Aids, 5 (1908): 45. That record may be > viewed at the following weblink: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=moBnAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Feudal+Aids+Little+Bradley&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2_1#PPA45,M1 > > There is a fine dated 1309–1310, whereby William Fitz Walter conveyed > to John and his wife, Maud, the manor of Great Bradley, Suffolk. This > may not have been a purchase, however, but rather a settlement of the > manor. See weblink below for this conveyance: > > http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&dq=Rye+Suffolk+Fines&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=o9NGyNepIi&sig=u2u1xiNuE-JgIfs6UznVWyIPqW4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA119,M1 > > Ada de Hastings' paternal grandmother, Margaret le Bigod, is alleged > by Dugdale to have had the manor of Little Bradley, Suffolk in > marriage, which might well be true. However, I don't find any of the > later male members of the Hastings family dealing with this manor, so > the manor was probably passed in marriage to one of the later Hastings > women in this time period. If it was given to Ada de Hastings, it > would have passed to her descendants. The land holdings of Little > and Great Bradley appear to have been mixed. So it is possible that > Ada de Hastings' grandmother, Margaret le Bigod, was given property in > both parishes as her maritagium. > > The Bigod family certainly had an interest in Great Bradley, Suffolk, > and its advowson, as indicated by fines on these two weblinks: > > http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&dq=Rye+Suffolk+Fines&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=o9NGyNepIi&sig=u2u1xiNuE-JgIfs6UznVWyIPqW4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA69,M1 > > http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=h7DrCiAe9ucC&dq=Rye+Suffolk+Fines&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=o9NGyNepIi&sig=u2u1xiNuE-JgIfs6UznVWyIPqW4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA69,M1 > > Sir John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt, however, had the > advowson in this place before 1316, when he presented his brother, > Master Roger Botetourt, as rector of Great Bradley, Suffolk. The > advowson thereafter descended in the Botetourt family. See the > following weblink: > > http://www.great-bradley.suffolk.gov.uk/Great%20Bradley%20church_files/rectors.htm > > I show that Ada, mother of Sir John Botetourt, Knt., was living in > 1305–1306, when a settlement was made of the manor of Cranworth, > Norfolk, and property in Wood Rising, Norfolk [see Rye, Short Cal. of > Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2 (1886): 230]. I don't find Ada in records > after this date. If Great Bradley had been her property, she > presumably would have died before 1311, when the manor was settled on > Sir John Botetourt and his wife, Maud. > > This is a speculative theory. Please treat it as such. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On 28/05/2016 9:34 AM, genealogyofthewesternworld via wrote: > I have many persons in my database who have been known by different names, different spellings, different titles, etc. Mathilde might also be Matilda, Matilde, Mathilde or Maud. Élisabeth might by Elizabeth or Isabel. You get the idea. The dukes of Aquitaine were also counts of Poitou, so do I call him Eudes Duke of Aquitaine (or Duc d'Aquitaine) or Eudes Count of Poitou (or Comte de Poitou). Eudes was duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou for just a few months, and since he had no recorded marriage or offspring he is not likely to cause much confusion. He was also duke of Gascony, so adding that title to his name (that is anyway unique in this context) could help. > > My question is this: What source would you first turn to for the name to choose if you were communicating with another medieveal genealogist? Is there one that should take precedence? Or do you just pick one of the names and hope everyone else knows all the variations? > > My advice would be: don't worry about it. The modern notion that each person should be known by just one consistent name form is not readily applicable to medieval people, and those who study genealogy need to cope with variety. The conventional way through this problem is to use a recognisable modern form of the name in the language you are using, unless this seems stilted (e.g. calling French kings Lewis in English), in which case it is almost always sensible to use the equivalent form that is most common nowadays in their part of the world. Matilda can occur in some peculiar forms, such as Maaltis for instance - there is little value in defaulting to "Maud", as if stuck in a Tennysonian twilight, when we can have no idea if the person in question ever heard this version of her name or connected it with herself. Peter Stewart

On 5/27/2016 2:01 PM, tafarmerie via wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote: >>> The Henry Project must be going on more than ten years now and is >>> not yet complete despite an extremely more limited scope. >> Again, it's not an especially collaborative project: it's just two >> people, and there's no suggestion that they're seeking additional >> collaborators. > To give credit where it is deservedly due, it's just one person. Without going into details as to why two names are listed, all current pages represent the work of Stewart Baldwin. The other guy has made a few suggestions here and there, but in terms of actually compiling pages, his total contribution was half-done research on one line that never made it to the stage of a formal write-up before being passed on to Mr. Baldwin. Although the vast majority of the material appearing in the Henry Project was written by me, it has not been entirely a one man project. Most notably, it should be pointed out that Peter Stewart wrote three of the pages which currently appear on the website (those for Adele of France, wife of Baldwin V, count of Flanders, and her two parents Robert II of France and Constance of Arles). In addition to that, there are quite a few of the other pages which were compiled by me, but were either based partly on material which Peter had contributed to this newsgroup/mailing list, or included additions or corrections made by Peter (indicated individually on the relevant pages). (There is also a significant backlog of additions and corrections which Peter has pointed out in this group which I have not yet gotten around to changing.) When I first started the Henry Project back in 2001, there had been much discussion on this group about how to form the ideal database of medieval genealogy. In contrast to the "anybody can submit anything they want" type of database that was being suggested by some, others (including me) were emphasizing the necessity for some kind of "quality control." As first conceived, the Henry Project was intended to be an experiment in forming a "collaborative" database in medieval genealogy, with the size of the project hopefully kept manageable by limiting it to the few hundred individuals who were ancestors of Henry II of England. In what can only be called an incredible flight of fantasy on my part, I thought that there would be a significant number of submissions of material to the project by others, and that at least some of them would be of reasonable quality. To deal with the expected "deluge" of submissions (which, as it turned out, did not even qualify as a "trickle"), I formed an "Editorial Board" to decide which submissions got included, and asked the group for volunteers to join me on the board, mainly to help me decide which submissions were suitable. Todd Farmerie was the only volunteer. I started writing pages to serve as examples for the format, but after receiving only one submission in the first year (by a novice using only mediocre secondary sources, which I had to politely reject), I realized that it was going be largely a one man job, fortunately amplified later on by Peter Stewart's top-notch submissions, for which I am very grateful. While Todd did not compose any of the Henry Project pages, I made significant use of material which he had posted to the group or had sent to me privately, especially on some of the Anglo-Saxon pages. I should also add that James Hansen, FASG carefully read most of the pages and pointed out numerous corrections and a huge number of typographical errors. As for the obvious question about the unfinished part of the Henry Project (the ancestors of Charlemagne plus a handful of others), I have always planned to get back to it, but I'm not sure exactly when that will be. I also have other genealogical projects at various stages of completion (most notably, a 200+ page genealogy of the Baird family and an ever-growing account of the descendants of Richard Doggett of Groton, co. Suffolk, who lived in the early 1500's). Also, I have been distracted by all of the newly available records which have given me more newly proven ancestors in the last year than in the previous ten years combined. Stewart Baldwin

On 27/05/16 16:48, Vance Mead wrote: > It seems to me that if you start with families, then there is the > possibility that the process becomes circular. There's Burke's landed > gentry, heraldic visitations, Victoria histories, etc, and additional > information will confirm or contradict these. I assumed the purpose of the starting with families was to get a reasonable initial list of the families who needed investigation: i.e. more a 'to do' list than a finished product. If so, that seems reasonable. The sources you quote are generally reliable for the existence of the family: if they say a family with that surname existed in the area, then almost certainly they did; whether the details are accurate is another matter. I assume that as Richard said he expected primary sources to be cited, neither BLG nor the VCH will be cited, and the heralds' visitations only for period contemporary with the visitation. > On the other hand, if you start with records that show individuals - > wills, IPMs, patent and close rolls, poll tax and lay subsidies, > Common Law records - then the project becomes dauntingly massive. > Then you are faced with a dilemma. If you were to search all records > - even all published records - you would find at least 100 thousand > people and millions of entries. If that's the scope, I have little interest in the project: it's impossibly large. Richard hasn't elaborated on what constitutes a "landed, manorial or gentry" family. I'm assuming it doesn't include everyone who held land (how? of whom?), or that appears in land records, or who was referred to as a gentleman in a 17th century will or parish register. Clearly (or I hope clearly) "landed, manorial or gentry" includes royalty, the nobility and baronetage; nor do I imagine it would be controversial to include the families of all knights too. Or would you exclude these, or some of them, on the grounds that they've been covered adequately elsewhere, Richard? Do you propose to include the families of everyone who held a manor? While there are lots of families who held many manors, and whose genealogies are relatively traceable, there are also plenty of examples of manors being held by just a single generation of an obscure family. Including them will significantly expand the scope of the project with people whose families are frequently problematic. > So it makes sense to start on a smaller scale, with a few counties > and a smaller time-scale. After 1400, anyway, it is more likely that > people are identified as knight/esquire/gentleman. I too was thinking about the time frame Richard Carruthers suggested, and coming to the conclusion that it was too wide. He suggests a period of 623 years, spanning 27 reigns (from William I to James II) plus the Commonwealth. Personally I'd stop sooner than 1688; the death of Elizabeth in 1603 seems the obvious date. This, incidentally, coincides with the period of this newsgroup (defined as 500 to 1600 in its charter). There's perhaps a case for starting with a very small scope; if so, perhaps the Tudor period (1485-1603) alone would be a suitable start? It might be worth starting with that for, say, just Wiltshire, looking at what you've got and then deciding if and by how much to extend it. I wouldn't go much earlier than Vance's suggestion: I had intended to suggest either 1377 or 1399 (the accessions of Richard II or Henry IV) as possible start dates. Based on my own research experiences, 1377 seems the more natural point, but that's biased by the particular families I've studied. The scope can be expanded later more easily than it can be contracted. Richard

As Joe and others have remarked the scope seems enormous, which is, of course, true. Against the dauntingness of that, I would advance the fact that the premiss of making it a web-based project would allow it to grow by instalments just as, say, Leo van de Pas's genealogics has done over the many years of its existence. I think your idea of starting with one county as to see how things develop is an excellent one. Though Wiltshire might also be my first choice, as its coverage in the Manorial Documents Register is nil, since that part of their project has been farmed out to a county work group, I think this points to Sussex, since Co. Meath might not generate enough interest for an initial run to be a success. At stage one I envisage adding families after the pattern you allude to. Still, as references in primary sources are likely to be to individual family members, I think this means that at least one instance of an individual member of a family found in a primary source be cited to justify the appearance of a family name in the list. Indeed, it would seem necessary to be able to tie that individual to a given subcomital locality in order for the landed, or manorial requirement to be satisfied. It would also be necessary to have a quality, rank, or title attached to that individual citation from the original to fulfil the requirement that the individual so cited fell into the scope of the list as being at least gentle. Additionally, I would like to concentrate on creating a list for the first three centuries after the Conquest, inviting contributors to submit material for that period, ending with the close of the reign of King Edward III. Does this seem reasonable? Thank you, Richard

On 27/05/16 03:44, joecook@gmail.com wrote: > The scope seems enormous. Clearly true, but an enormous scope needn't render the project unattainable. There are plenty of examples of ambitious projects that have succeed against the odds; obviously there are lots more examples that haven't succeeded, but if these things are never tried, they can never succeed. > How long did it take to author "Burke's Landed Gentry"? Twenty > years? And it is still full of errors. Very true, however BLG was not a particularly collaborative effort, and it's scope was considerably larger than what Richard Carruthers is proposing. The majority of families in BLG (at least based on the random sample I've just taken) were either nouveau riche or cadet branches of older landed families whose distinct published ancestry did not extend back to the period discussed here. Many of the errors in BLG seemingly derive from false information supplied by the families themselves. > The Henry Project must be going on more than ten years now and is > not yet complete despite an extremely more limited scope. Again, it's not an especially collaborative project: it's just two people, and there's no suggestion that they're seeking additional collaborators. Nor should they if they're happy with the current arrangements. It may not be "complete", whatever that means, but it's the most thorough treatment on the subject I'm familiar with. If Richard's proposed project were even half as "complete" as the Henry Project, I'd regard that as a success. In any case, the ancestry of Henry II is a much more specialist subject than the Tudor and late mediaeval gentry. There will be many keen amateurs with a good working knowledge of particular groups of 15th and 16th century families, and who could if so inclined make a meaningful contribution to the subject. This is much less true for the ancestors of Henry II. However, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the project is anything other than enormous, or that it is going to be easy progress; rather, I'm suggesting that the obstacles to it, while not inconsiderable, are potentially surmountable with forethought. Richard