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). 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? Thanks for the input. Tom Patin

On 27/05/16 04:11, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > I was thinking of doing the list in stages where the first step would be > creating a skeletal outline of surnames for the various counties with > some place names indicated and at least one source cited to justify > each name's presence in the list. I think I'd start with a single county to get a better feel for the scale of the project (which will be dependent significantly on the scope), and allow you to experiment with formats and such like without having too much data to change. I suggest one of the two English counties you mention as being of especial interest to you (Sussex and Wiltshire); although Meath is much smaller, I suspect the English counties will attract more interest. Sussex and Wiltshire have similar sizes and before the industrial revolution had similar sized populations, so on practical grounds there's probably not much to choose. (Both are counties I'm interested in, Wiltshire more so than Sussex.) Is your plan initially to list families rather than individuals? E.g. to say Estcourt of Salisbury, Eyre of Salisbury, Rogers of Bradford-on-Avon, etc. Richard

Seems like the IGI redux.

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. taf

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. 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 you have a small number of people involved, it will take decades. If you have a large number involved, quality control will suffer: you will have Wikitree. 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. Vance

On 23/05/16 23:31, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > I wonder if there has been any attempt to create a web-based listing, > more or less comprehensive, of all the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry > Families in England, Wales, and the Irish Pale, on a county by county > basis for the period, say, 1066-1688 (taking the Conquest and the end > of Heraldic Visitations to be reasonable rough dates for coverage)? > > If not, is anyone else interested in the creation of such a list, > and/or contributing to it? I think the idea has potential, and if undertaken in the right way it could generate much interest. I'm assuming you're thinking of a voluntary project with a small or no budget. If so, I think very careful consideration will need to be given before the project starts to how it is coordinated. Who would you allow to participate? Anyone who wishes to sign up? Do you allow pseudonymous contributions? Do you take any steps to determine a contributor's competence before allowing them to participate? What steps do you take if it becomes apparent that a contributor is posting unsupported or fictional lines, or violating copyright? Is the research on a person, family or place (whatever you make the basic unit of research) "owned" by a particular researcher? What if another researcher disagrees with the published version, and the original researcher refuses to accept it is in error? What sort of oversight or review process exists to allow such disagreements to be considered on their merits? What sort of editorial body will there be to ensure consistency in style and levels of proof? For example, does a Heralds' Visitations count as a reliable primary source? Ever? What steps will be in place to ensure all research is sourced? Do you have some sort of peer review process to review the research that has gone into all, or particularly important, or a random selection of research areas? What copyright and licensing regime would the research be made available under? Would it be available on-line at no charge? Are you viewing this as a step on the way towards a published series of books? How is the scope of the project defined? Specifically, how obscure can a family be while still qualifying as "landed, manorial or gentry"? Certainly by the end of the period you mention, many people claimed to be gentlemen who, a century earlier, would only have been described as yeomen. Make the definition too broad and the work includes too many people of no general interest and unrelated to the other subjects of the research, which will be detrimental to the coherence of the work and to ensuring a high quality of research. These are all questions to which I would want considered answers as part of a coherent vision of the project before committing my time; I imagine other people would think similarly. I do not believe such a project will result in consistently high quality output in a loosely governed environment with an anarchic style governance where everyone's opinion is valued equally regardless of their experience. Arguably this strategy works well for the subset of most highly visible articles on Wikipedia, but one only needs to look at obscure technical articles on subjects you know a lot about, and you'll see they're riddled with misunderstandings, errors and crackpot theories. Their articles on obscure genealogical figures are no exception. And if you think Wikipedia is bad, try looking at Wikitree. I'm not against the idea -- indeed, I think there's the possibility of something very worthwhile arising from it -- but I do think it'll be very hard to get right, and getting it wrong risks poisoning the well for future attempts. In asking some quite detailed and slightly critical questions, I'm hoping that can be avoided. Richard

Hello Joe, Thanks for getting back to me. I was thinking of doing the list in stages where the first step would be creating a skeletal outline of surnames for the various counties with some place names indicated and at least one source cited to justify each name's presence in the list. Once this is established, contributors could start to add additional sourced information and links to other pages. I don't want to go at the project so that it is too time consuming initially and people become disheartened. I'd rather see it grow initially to include a reasonably large number of names for each county before anything like a major expansion of detail took place. That way, if a person only has a few minutes a day to add entries to the basic outline, that would be practicable and encouraging. Essentially what I am thinking of is an alphabetical "see list" organised by county. Any thoughts? Thank you, Richard On 26/05/2016, joecook via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:00:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Carruthers via > wrote: >> Dear Richard, >> > > The scope seems enormous. How long did it take to author "Burke's Landed > Gentry"? Twenty years? And it is still full of errors. > > The Henry Project must be going on more than ten years now and is not yet > complete despite an extremely more limited scope. > > I respectfully submit that your scope is much too large to attract competent > people to dedicate significant time to it. It would be a great resource, > but I think it lacks in the feasibility stage. > > --Joe C > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Would anyone please know if any male members of the House of Howard (Norfolk or Effingham branches) have done an Y-DNA test and if so, where can I find the results? Thank you. Darrel Hockley

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 7:00:56 PM UTC-4, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > Dear Richard, > The scope seems enormous. How long did it take to author "Burke's Landed Gentry"? Twenty years? And it is still full of errors. The Henry Project must be going on more than ten years now and is not yet complete despite an extremely more limited scope. I respectfully submit that your scope is much too large to attract competent people to dedicate significant time to it. It would be a great resource, but I think it lacks in the feasibility stage. --Joe C

Dear Richard, Thank you for your response and the very valid points you raise in it. I think it essential that no obviously anonymous contributor be allowed to contribute. Indeed I think every entry should be tagged with the contributor's initials, and they a master list of contributors be kept. A way of vetting contributors and their contributions would need to be developed. One idea that comes to mind for a sort of vetting process involves some way in which contributing people could earn or gain higher levels of project experience and/or verification through their addition of entries to the project that could be noted with their contributions. Perhaps some sort of governing council could accord advancement to the next level of verification/experience. No one would have absolute ownership over the genealogy or other information association with a family surname entry in the listing as there would always have to be space allotted for peer review. The spirit in which this would be meant to occur would be collegial and polite. I hope I am not just being like Pollyanna in this regard. I think we could take contributions from Heraldic Visitations provided we took care to list the shortcomings of individual Visitations based on scholarly input and examples of known errors. There would have to be a system of explicit reference to sources including Visitations in order to allow users to weigh the merits of the entries. Indeed, we could allow for comments by qualified and experienced researchers warning people of what may be fictive entries in the listing. So while such entries would be allowed if found in some reputable source, they would nonetheless be subject to these caveats. That way the list could incorporate the notion of showing up known research hazards rather like navigational charts allow sea-farers to avoid shoals, rocks, and other dodgy areas for the unwary traveller. This would be an important way in which more experienced researchers could use their considerable and hard-earned knowledge and experience to raise the study of genealogy generally. On that front, some time ago, I came across an article about Verified Genealogy in which the author argued for a way of setting apart pedigrees in which all the data shown about a given lineage was carefully vetted and traced to its source material before gaining that distinction. Part of the object of the listing would be to serve as a help toward doing just that by making explicit reference to sources and building a list or lists of vetted sources with learned commentary and a discussion of problems of verification where required. This could be done in such a way as to allow for considered discussion of divergent opinion based on clear reasoning and reference to the bases of one's arguments. Since that is essentially part of what is meant to happen on gen-medieval already, I think that this could serve as a reasonable way of moving forward with such as scheme. In some ways a comprehensive listing such as I propose would serve a function akin to that of an annotated bibliography. None of these is perfect, but they can prove to be extremely useful when used correctly. Peer review of input would allow for ongoing oversight and should, if done in a spirit of friendly collegiality, serve allow for learned contributions by those whose expertise can benefit all users of the listing. That way the listing might help to show up crackpot theories, error, and misunderstandings as part of its underlying purpose making them explicit in a way that Wikipedia may not (save on its closed or semi-hidden discussion pages). For the moment, I am not envisaging a series of books, though such a listing could serve as the basis for myriad publications I imagine. A shoe-string or zero budget is indeed what I have in mind as alas genealogy has no Paul Getty to fund it, nor have I. I wonder if anyone knows of a suitable web space that would be interested in sponsoring such a project and/or someone with the computer savvy to advise on the technical aspects of such a web-based undertaking (should this idea get off the drawing board!)? Thank you, Richard C-Z

Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 608–609 (sub Segrave) includes an account of Sir Stephen de Segrave, 3rd Lord Segrave, who died in 1325. The following information is provided by Complete Peerage regarding his marriage: "He [Stephen] married Alice, said to be daughter of _____ Arundell, and [he] died before 12 Dec. 1325. He was buried at Chaucombe priory. Alice survived him." END OF QUOTE. The following sources are cited to prove that Alice, wife of Stephen de Segrave, survived him: Cal. Inq. p.m., vol. vi, no. 700; Cal. Close Rolls, 1323-27, pp. 453, 486; 1327-30, p. 178. So far, so good. Back in 2002, I presented conclusive evidence which identifies Alice, wife of Sir Stephen de Segrave, as a daughter of Richard Fitz Alan (or de Arundel), Knt., 8th Earl of Arundel, by his wife, Alice (or Alasia) di Saluzzo. Please see the newsgroup archives at the following weblink: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2002-03/1015099327 It has been alleged in print that Alice, Lady Segrave, died 7 February 1340. The source for this death date is an ancient obituary of Alice de Segrave found in extracts from Registers of the Priory of Chacombe, as published in Catalogue of the Arundel MSS. in the Library of the College of Arms (1829): 91. The obituary entry reads as follows: “Alesia de Segrave obiit vij idus Febr. [7 Feb.] Anno d’ni M ccc xl [1340].” This evidence seems fairly straightforward. However, recently I found a Common Pleas lawsuit which proves that Alice, widow of Stephen de Segrave, was living at Easter term 1342. Below is a brief abstract of this lawsuit: In Easter term 1342 John le Walshe, of Great Sherston, Wiltshire sued Alice, widow of Stephen de Segrave, in the Court of Common Pleas in a Leicestershire plea regarding a messuage; John son and heir of Stephen de Segrave was called to warranty. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/330, image 62f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no330/aCP40no330fronts/IMG_0062.htm). In summary, an ancient obituary at Chaucombe Priory records that Alice de Segrave died in 1340. However, the Common Pleas lawsuit cited above indicates that Alice was still living in Easter term 1342. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Alice de Arundel, wife of Sir Stephen de Segrave, 3rd Lord Segrave. Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Dorothy Beresford, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Elizabeth Bosvile, Charles Calvert, James Cudworth, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, John Fenwick, Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Thomas Lunsford, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Olive Welby, John West, Hawte Wyatt. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Yet another possibility for the parents of Donald MacLeod who married Margaret Cameron -- Malcolm MacLeod and Mary Finlayson! http://www.clanmacfarlanegenealogy.info/genealogy/TNGWebsite/pedigree.php?personID=I39026&tree=UL

From: Vance Mead via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 24 May 2016 04:12 > > I must have phrased that badly. I meant that a kill-hog was a butcher and this could be a secondary occupation for a husbandman. > ------------------------------- ________________________________________ Sorry, Vance, I did realise what you meant - it was I who didn't make myself entirely clear. The trouble is, we're only guessing that Thomas Ryche alias Kellog, husbandman, had a by-occupation as a butcher, so his alias doesn't really provide evidence for an occupational alias becoming an inherited surname. To my mind we can distinguish between a number of different circumstances where individuals have more than one surname: 1. the early period of surname development, when individuals were known by unstable, non-hereditary by-names, perhaps different names at different stages in their lives, or more than one name simultaneously, or one name all of the individual's life, but in all cases names which were not passed on to their children (a phase pretty much ended in the south-east by approximately the mid-14C, and in the farthest corners of England by the mid-17C). 2. the well-known Early Modern phenomenon of aliases, where individuals, and sometimes several generations of a family, used two surnames simultaneously, before eventually settling down with just one of them. This is subtly different from 1., in that both surnames have previously been stable and hereditary, and will be again once the individual or family has decided which to stick with. 3. the fairly rare late-15C/early-16C phenomenon of individuals with stable hereditary surnames also being known by an occupational by-name, but only ephemerally, i.e. only while actually engaged in that occupation, and perhaps only in the context of that occupation. The butchers (and occasionally other tradesmen) I see in manor court rolls being presented for breaches of the assize under just a single occupational surname are examples of 3., I think - I'm pretty sure it was an alias and that they retained their inherited surname in all other contexts, and passed only that inherited name on to their children. I'm unsure whether the butcher, baker and miller you've found in the CP rolls fall into category 3 or 2. It would depend on whether their occupational alias was used by itself in other contexts than their trade, and whether it became hereditary. Another point I'm uncertain about is whether aliases in category 2 ever derived from an individual's occupation. It usually seems to be assumed that both aliases were established hereditary surnames and that some reason such as illegitimacy has caused an individual to waver between two such names. If it could be shown that Thomas Ryche alias Kellog was so-called because he slaughtered pigs, rather than because he was the bastard child of a Kellogg, or had inherited lands from a Kellog family, say, then he would provide evidence that category 2. aliases did sometimes derive from the bearer's occupation - but we need to know the origin of his alias to be sure of this. Matt

Details about Anne/ Anna Mackay's first husband, Alexander MacDonald. He apparently died quite young (at least by 1657). 5. Alexander [MacDonald] of Paiblisgearry, in North Uist. In 1653 he married Anne Mackay, sister of John, Lord Reay, and by her had issue — (a) Captain Hugh Macdonald, who succeeded. (b) Barbara, who married Lachlau Maclean of Torloisk. Alexander died in or before 1657, as his wife appears on record as a widow in the course of that year. Hence in Sir James Macdonald's Deed of Entail, in 1658, his name dues not appear along with the Baronet's other brothers. Captain Hugh Macdonald of Paiblisgearry succeeded his father. He also appears on record as of Duistill, in Sleat. He was brought up evidently under the Reay influence, which was anti-Jacobite, and favourable to the Orange movement. He held the rank of Captain in the regiment of General Mackay, his relative, and had the freedom of Montrose conferred on him in 1692. Much of his military life was passed in Flanders, where he fought in the army of the States General in the war with France. He died before 1721, when he was succeeded by his son, John Macdonald of Paiblisgearry, who appears that year in an enumeration of the gentlemen of North Uist. We have no information as to the date of his death, but with him the descendants of Alexander of Paiblisgearry terminated in the male line. http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/angus-macdonald/the-clan-donald-volume-3-dca/page-34-the-clan-donald-volume-3-dca.shtml

A targe or targus was a shield - thus a Targe of the King would imply that the holder of this office was a bodyguard of the King. Peter In a message dated 24/05/2016 08:11:18 GMT Daylight Time, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: Hi all, Can anyone explain what is meant by a "targe of the king" in the context of this petition to the king dated about 1317: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062184 Regards, John ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 08:21:58 UTC+1, PDeloriol via wrote: > A targe or targus was a shield - thus a Targe of the King would imply that > the holder of this office was a bodyguard of the King. > > Peter > > > In a message dated 24/05/2016 08:11:18 GMT Daylight Time, > gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: > > Hi all, > > Can anyone explain what is meant by a "targe of the king" in the context > of this petition to the king dated about 1317: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062184 > > Regards, > > John > > ------------------------------- > 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 According to the OED, targe was also a name applied in the reigns of the first three Edwards to the King's private or privy seal (perh. bearing a shield as its device). Peter Howarth

On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 08:21:58 UTC+1, PDeloriol via wrote: > A targe or targus was a shield - thus a Targe of the King would imply that > the holder of this office was a bodyguard of the King. > > Peter > > > In a message dated 24/05/2016 08:11:18 GMT Daylight Time, > gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: > > Hi all, > > Can anyone explain what is meant by a "targe of the king" in the context > of this petition to the king dated about 1317: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062184 > > Regards, > > John > > ------------------------------- > 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 Hi Peter, Thanks for that, but a bit of further searching on BHO has given me the answer (I think). A writ of the Privy Seal was called (in French) 'brief desough la targe'. So in the context of the petition I think that targe refers to a writ from the king. Regards, John

Hi all, Can anyone explain what is meant by a "targe of the king" in the context of this petition to the king dated about 1317: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062184 Regards, John

From: Vance Mead via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 23 May 2016 18:36 > > Matt > Earlier you asked if it could be shown that descendants took the alias name. Difficult, since we're dealing with common surnames like Baker and Butcher. But here's one that might fit the bill, though it's not exact. Below is a list of appearances in CP of a man first called Ryche, then Riche alias Kelhog, then just Kellog (with variants). In the 1490s he, as Thomas senior, appears in a case together with Thomas Kellog junior, probably his son. They are usually called husbandman, but I suppose a Kylhog or butcher would probably work at that only part of the year and would be a husbandman the rest of the time. In the same area of Cambs and northern Essex there continued to be people variosuly called Kellog or Riche alias Kellog until the 1550s at least. Riche alias Kellogg must be descendants and Kellogg might be. > Vance > > Thomas Ryche alias Kellog, senior, of Lynton, Cams, husbandman 1469 Trinity Cams. Thomas Ryche, of Lynton, husbandman 1471 Michaelmas Essex. Thomas Ryche alias Kelheg, of Lynton, Cams, husbandman 1472 Hilary Essex. Thomas Riche alias Kylhog, of Lynton, Cams, husbandman 1474 Hilary Cams. Thomas Ryche alias Kylhok, of Lynton, husbandman or laborer 1474 Easter Cams. Thomas Ryche alias Kylhok, of Lynton, husbandman or laborer 1496 Easter, Cams, Thomas Kellog, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1497 Michaelmas Cams. Thomas Kellog, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Hilary, Cams, Thomas Kellog, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Easter, Cams, Thomas Kellog, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Trinity, Cams, Thomas Kellog, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Michaelmas Cams. Thomas Kellok, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1499 Trinity Cams. Thomas Kellok, senior, of Lynton, husbandman 1499 Michaelmas Cams. Thomas Kellok, senior, of Lynton, husbandman > > Thomas Kellog, junior, of Lynton,Cams, husbandman 1496 Easter, Cams, Thomas Kellog, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1497 Michaelmas Cams. Thomas Kellog, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Hilary, Cams, Thomas Kellog, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Easter, Cams, Thomas Kellog, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Trinity, Cams, Thomas Kellog, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1498 Michaelmas Cams. Thomas Kellok, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1499 Trinity Cams. Thomas Kellok, junior, of Lynton, husbandman 1499 Michaelmas Cams. Thomas Kellok, junior, of Lynton, husbandman > ------------------------------- ________________________________________ That's an impressive series of references, Vance. I'm not sure Kill-hog is necessarily an occupational by-name for a husbandman, though. It would be more apt to a butcher, I'd have thought. If it was descriptive of Thomas senior I think it is perhaps more likely to have been a nickname-type by-name - but I wonder whether we can be sure it wasn't the pre-existing hereditary surname of a family to which Thomas was somehow linked, whether through bastardy or some other connection? Matt

I must have phrased that badly. I meant that a kill-hog was a butcher and this could be a secondary occupation for a husbandman.