On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 10:40:32 AM UTC+10, taf wrote: > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 5:01:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > > I don't know if this has come up before: Petronilla's mother may have > > been the Agatha whose husband William de Grandmesnil died on a 3 October > > (year unknown) according to the obituary of Saint-Denis, see > > https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor01acaduoft#page/326/mode/2up. > > Interesting possibility. Is the wife of the elder William de Grandmesnil, > the son of Hugh, known? I posted a reply to this via Gen-Med quoting a Latin translation of a charter subscription of William's widow Mabilia - the original in Greek (that will probably not get through the Gen-Med font filter) is: σίγνον χειρὸς μαβήλιας κομητίσσης συμυίου τοῦ ἁπηχωμένου γουλλιἔλμου γραντεμανὴλ τοῦ πρωτοσεβαστοῦ Peter Stewart

Would  this help to prove my point as to this particular line of ancestry? Darrel Hockley ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: marty walker <blueflame2mw@gmail.com> To: Darrel Hockley <ddh_regina@yahoo.ca> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 11:37 AM Subject: Re: my Lightfoot of Virginia ancestry Mr. Hockley, Nice to meet you! Thanks for writing! Yes, I do see we have common relatives. From John Lightfoot and Elizabeth Phillips my line descends from Phillip Lightfoot. Below I have included descendants, I believe I have in my family tree: My line: Benjamin Lillard m. Elizabeth Lightfoot WilliamLightfoot m. ElizabethPhillips Lt. Col. Philip Lightfoot m. Alice Corbin John LightfootI m. Elizabeth PhilipsRev. Richard Lightfoot (1562-1625) m. 1st. Jane Aske (1570-1649) daughter of Robert Aske and ?, 2nd Jane A. Jones, I have seen Jane's name as Jane Aske Jones daughter of Thomas Jones (1539-1625) and Priscilla Aske (1543-1625) daughter of Robert Aske Esq. (1525-1567) and Anne Sutton (1527-1553/1556) John Lightfoot (b. 1540, d. Abt. 1600) m. ? I thought you may be interested in this , Found this in my notes: Sources: Title: Ken Rothwell, email dated January 1, 1999. krothinva@aol.com Abbrev: Rothwell, Ken (1999) Author: Ken Rothwell Publication: krothinva@aol.com Page: I have researched the LIGHTFOOT names, and have found out the following: Rev. Richard (1562-1625) md Jane Jones and left will. He had a son: John (abt 1598-1648) md Elizabeth PHILLIPS per marriage record..he and wife both left wills. He did have a son William, that died in 1698 and left will John (II) born 1622, died 1686 in Surinam, had sons John(III) and Phillip John (III) born before 1660? as he md Anne GOODRICH in 1681. He died May 28 1707 in New Kent Co Va. Their 4 kids were (Col) Goodrich, (Maj) Sherwood, Thomas, and Alice On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Darrel Hockley <ddh_regina@yahoo.ca> wrote: Hello Mr. Walker, I notice on Family Tree DNA we match at the 12 marker level and that is how I obtained your email address. My other email address is reghoc@hotmail.com Please find attached what I strongly believe is my Aske/Lightfoot ancestry. Under my Ancestral Origins on FtDNA I have 0.1 percent Native American ancestry which I believe comes from Elizabeth Tailor (died before 1686), the wife of John Lightfoot (1622 to 1686) of Virginia. My main ancestry is English, Welsh, Irish, Scots, German, with bits of French and Dutch that I otherwise know of. Darrel D. Hockley Regina, SK, Canada

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 5:01:22 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > I don't know if this has come up before: Petronilla's mother may have > been the Agatha whose husband William de Grandmesnil died on a 3 October > (year unknown) according to the obituary of Saint-Denis, see > https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor01acaduoft#page/326/mode/2up. Interesting possibility. Is the wife of the elder William de Grandmesnil, the son of Hugh, known? taf

Thanks Todd, Chris wrote a great summary. Doug Smith

On 14/05/2016 18:14, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: Colin Withers [colin@blanshard.org] > Sent: 14 May 2016 17:45 >> Pity these Pardon Roll entries give no indication of what the person is > being pardoned for. >> With so many entries, just for June alone, being "p[er] ip[su]m Regem", > I am wondering if the King was actually doing the pardoning in person, > or even knew about any of these transgressions, or whether these Pardons > were being issued out of Chancery (for the appropriate fee). >> Wibs > ------------------------------- > ------------------------------- > > I believe there two broad types of pardons - specific pardons, relating to a specific offence, and general pardons. The latter were only issued at irregular intervals, when they were handed out en masse (usually for a fee, but in 1404 for free). They would all be in the same standard format, so the record of their issue would not need to specify the offence being pardoned - perhaps the page with Nicholas Bubwith on it deals with a large batch of general pardons. > > As to whether the king was really personally involved, see: > > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HhbM5HDx3tAC&pg=PR70&dq=%22warrant+'by+the+king+himself%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2iNGFh9rMAhXiKMAKHUk8B5AQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22warrant%20'by%20the%20king%20himself%22&f=false > > What year was Bubwith's pardon issued? > > Matt > > ------------------------------- > 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 > The date on the pardon roll [C 67/30] was 21 Ric II (1397 June-1398 June). From other sources his pardon was for accepting from the pope provisions to various canonries, archdeaconries, etc without license of the king (i.e. against the statute of provisors). Wibs

On 5/14/2016 7:32 AM, Richard Smith via wrote: > It's "well known" that Sir Thomas Echyngham was the son of Joan Arundel, > and there are a number of gateway descents that rely on this. I don't > seriously doubt this, but I wanted to take a fresh look at the evidence > supporting this for two reasons. > > First, following the source citations in many of the standard secondary > sources, it seems that much reliance has been placed on the 1633-4 > visitation of Sussex (over two centuries after the marriage, and which > contains other mistakes in this family's genealogy) and/or other > unspecified records of the College of Arms. Secondly, while there's > clear evidence that Thomas's mother was called Joan, Nigel Saul suggests > in /Scenes from Provincial Life/ that Sir William had two wives called > Joan. The evidence of the brass is perhaps not ideal, but it seems strong enough to accept in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The obvious question is whether or not the statement by Nigel Saul is a significant enough "red flag" to cause concern. What reason does he give for suggesting that William had two wives named Joan? Stewart Baldwin

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 6:50:17 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > These references above merely show that Petronille's father was named > William, but that her grandfather is uncertain, although there is some > conjecture that Robert, son of Hugh, might be a good candidate. The question was summarized here in detail some years ago by Chris Phillips: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/2LxfjMCvo5Y taf

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:50:17 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:29:07 AM UTC-4, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > > Hi Joe > > > > I believe there are many if I understand your question (and looked at the correct Hugues at Leo's site). Petronille's father was named William and he was grandson of the Hugues (m. Adeliza de Beaumont) you refer to. > > > > A start at references for Hugues: DP, 124-125, 262-263. Sanders, I. J., English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent, Oxford, (1960), p 60. Hill, John Harwood, History of the Parish of Langton, (1867) Pedigree of Grentemaisnel. > > > > as for Petronille: Cartulary of St-Evroult, ii, fo 33v. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, p 238. David Crouch [The Beaumont Twins, p. 91. > > These references above merely show that Petronille's father was named William, but that her grandfather is uncertain, although there is some conjecture that Robert, son of Hugh, might be a good candidate. Yes, that is so. Doug Smith

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:29:07 AM UTC-4, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > Hi Joe > > I believe there are many if I understand your question (and looked at the correct Hugues at Leo's site). Petronille's father was named William and he was grandson of the Hugues (m. Adeliza de Beaumont) you refer to. > > A start at references for Hugues: DP, 124-125, 262-263. Sanders, I. J., English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent, Oxford, (1960), p 60. Hill, John Harwood, History of the Parish of Langton, (1867) Pedigree of Grentemaisnel. > > as for Petronille: Cartulary of St-Evroult, ii, fo 33v. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, p 238. David Crouch [The Beaumont Twins, p. 91. These references above merely show that Petronille's father was named William, but that her grandfather is uncertain, although there is some conjecture that Robert, son of Hugh, might be a good candidate.

Hi Joe I believe there are many if I understand your question (and looked at the correct Hugues at Leo's site). Petronille's father was named William and he was grandson of the Hugues (m. Adeliza de Beaumont) you refer to. A start at references for Hugues: DP, 124-125, 262-263. Sanders, I. J., English Baronies: A Study of their Origin and Descent, Oxford, (1960), p 60. Hill, John Harwood, History of the Parish of Langton, (1867) Pedigree of Grentemaisnel. as for Petronille: Cartulary of St-Evroult, ii, fo 33v. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1, p 238. David Crouch [The Beaumont Twins, p. 91. Hope this helps, Doug Smith

Are there any known royal descendants of Hugh de Grandmesnil, Companion ofthe Conqueror? genealogics.org only shows a few generations of descendants and then none. Thanks, Joe C

On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9:55:47 AM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > Then there is this alleged relationship... > > ...Similar personalities perhaps - romantic, theatrical and outsized? > > DSH > > "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do > nothing." - Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797] > > "Ignorance-Arrogance-Dishonesty-Goodwill-Fortitude-Guile-And Zeal -- > Absolutely The Worst Possible Combination Of Human Traits." > > R. Bannister Chandos Byron [1836-1903] > > George Gordon 6th Lord Byron & The Donald Trump > > > Donald John Trump is the Half-9th cousin 6 times removed * of George Gordon > Byron 6th Lord Byron > > Common Ancestor > > * Janet Stewart > (Cir 1505-1558) > | | > | | > Henry Stewart 1st Lord Methven Alexander Gordon Master of > Sutherland > (Cir 1495-Abt 1551) (Cir 1500-1530) > * Janet Stewart * Janet Stewart > (Cir 1505-1558) (Cir 1505-1558) > | | > | | > William Ruthven 1st Earl of Gowrie * John Gordon 11th Earl of > Sutherland > (1541-1584) (Cir 1525-1567) > * Dorothea Stewart Helen Stewart Countess of > Sutherland > ( -After 1605) (Cir 1509-1564) > | | > | | > James Ogilvy 6th Lord of Airlie * Alexander Gordon 12th Earl of > Sutherland > ( -Cir 1617) (Cir 1552-1594) > * Jean Ruthven Lady Jean Gordon > ( -Cir 1611) (Cir 1543-1629) > | | > | | > * James Ogilvy 1st Earl of Airlie Hugh MacKay of Far Tongue and > Strathnaver > (1586-1664) (1550-1614) > * Lady Jane Gordon > (1574-1615) > | | > | | > Patrick Urquart of Meldrum * Donald MacKay 1st Lord Reay, fiar of > Strathnaver > (1611-1664) (1590-1649) > * Margaret Ogilvy Elizabeth Thomson > ( -1637) > | | > | | > Sir George Gordon 9th Laird of Gight The Reverend Hugh Munro Minister of > Durness > (Bef 1611-Bef 1695) (Cir 1639-1698) > * Elizabeth Urquart * Anna MacKay > | | > | | > Alexander Davidson of Newton and Tillymorgan Robert MacKay of Archness > ( -1712) * Isabella Munro > * Marie Gordon 10th Laird of Gight > ( -Bef 1740) > | | > | | > * Alexander Davidson 11th Laird of Gight * Alexander MacKay > (1716-1760) Margaret Fearn > Margaret Duff > (1720-1801) > | | > | | > * George Gordon 12th Laird of Gight * Robert MacKay tacksman of > Halmdary > (1741-1779) > Katherine Innes > ( -Bef 1783) > | | > | | > Captain John Byron British Army * Ansus MacKay tenant in > Kinlochbea > (1756-1791) > * Katherine Gordon 13th Laird of Gight > (Cir 1765-1811) > | | > | | > * George Gordon Byron 6th Lord Byron Angus MacLeod of Carnachy > (1788-1824) (Cir 1757- ) > * Mary MacKay > (Cir 1750- ) > | > | > * Donald MacLeod of Whitefield, near > Thurso > (Cir 1785- ) > Margaret Cameron > (Cir 1785- ) > | > | > William MacLeod of Skerray > (1806-1869) > * Catherine MacLeod > (1809- ) > | > | > * Alexander MacLeod > (1830-1900) > Ann Macleod > (1833- ) > | > | > * Malcolm MacLeod > (1866-1954) > Mary Smith > (1867-1963) > | > | > Frederick Christ Trump Sr. > (1905-1999) > * Mary Anne MacLeod > (1912-2000) > | > | > * Donald John Trump > (1946- ) The source for the generations down to Donald MacLeod of Whitefield near Thurso is Angus Mackay, The Book of Mackay (Edinburgh, 1906): https://books.google.com/books?id=GiMNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA255&dq=angus+macleod+carnachy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUw9_Bx9vMAhVDyGMKHfq6C8UQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=angus%20macleod%20carnachy&f=false Leslie

Many thanks Matt. I thought I had got at least the date right, but now I see it is Junii. Pity these Pardon Roll entries give no indication of what the person is being pardoned for. With so many entries, just for June alone, being "p[er] ip[su]m Regem", I am wondering if the King was actually doing the pardoning in person, or even knew about any of these transgressions, or whether these Pardons were being issued out of Chancery (for the appropriate fee). Wibs On 14/05/2016 17:11, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > Sorry, mind was wandering for a moment then - it should be 'x die Junij', not 'xvj die' > > ________________________________________ > From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] on behalf of Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com [Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com] > Sent: 14 May 2016 17:08 > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: Pardon Roll entry > > From: Colin Withers via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 14 May 2016 16:43 >> Could some please have a look at the following entry from the Pardon > Roll (Supplementary Patent Roll) and see if they can make out the words > following the name and before the 10th January, and hazard a guess at > the abbreviated Latin words that end the entry: >> https://app.box.com/s/48twbcxs3o30p5gkar25910vfbvge1wj >> >> The entry is halfway down, for Nicholas Bubbewyth >> >> Many Thanks >> >> Wibs >> > ________________________________________ > ------------------------------- > > Hello Colin, > > it says: > > Nich[ol]us Bubbewyth cl[er]icus T[este] R[ege] apud Westm[onasterium] xvj die Junij. p[er] ip[su]m Regem etc. > Nicholas Bubbewyth, clerk, witness the king, at Westminster 10th June. By the king himself etc. > > The bit at the end means the decision to grant the pardon was made by the king himself. > > Matt Tompkins > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

________________________________________ From: Colin Withers [colin@blanshard.org] Sent: 14 May 2016 17:45 > > Pity these Pardon Roll entries give no indication of what the person is being pardoned for. > > With so many entries, just for June alone, being "p[er] ip[su]m Regem", I am wondering if the King was actually doing the pardoning in person, or even knew about any of these transgressions, or whether these Pardons were being issued out of Chancery (for the appropriate fee). > > Wibs ------------------------------- ------------------------------- I believe there two broad types of pardons - specific pardons, relating to a specific offence, and general pardons. The latter were only issued at irregular intervals, when they were handed out en masse (usually for a fee, but in 1404 for free). They would all be in the same standard format, so the record of their issue would not need to specify the offence being pardoned - perhaps the page with Nicholas Bubwith on it deals with a large batch of general pardons. As to whether the king was really personally involved, see: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HhbM5HDx3tAC&pg=PR70&dq=%22warrant+'by+the+king+himself%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2iNGFh9rMAhXiKMAKHUk8B5AQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22warrant%20'by%20the%20king%20himself%22&f=false What year was Bubwith's pardon issued? Matt

On 14/05/2016 4:39 PM, Jason Quick via wrote: > Copy >> I don't have time to go through this in detail, but the dispute was not >> over Hervé, a canon at Tours, becoming a monk at 'the Monastery of >> Erbrée', rather it was over his giving the church of Erbrée and its >> presbyterate to Marmoutier (not 'Martimour') when he became a monk >> there. Clarice struck him at the altar when he and Rivallon were saying >> mass, and she was whipped for this sacrilege rather than for insolence. >> The citation given by Keats-Rohan ('B. N. lat. 5441.3, pp. 295-6') is >> not to this charter at all but to to a 17th-century copy of a notice in >> the cartulary of Marmoutier that Ralph the Large had given them the >> church of Saint-Médard with the assent of his nine sons, as referenced >> in your note (f), see >> http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9077003n/f161.image.r=latin%205441. >> >> Peter Stewart > Peter, > > I took another look at this and I think Keats Rohan meant to say 294-6 not 295-6 for (B. N. lat. 5441.3). Pages 294-95 has a shorter copied charter about Hervé and the Monstary of Erbrée mentioning Euen de St Germain which is a modified copy of Rennes, AD Ille-et-Vilaine, 6 H 34 n° 3. The bottom of page 295 has the Charter of Saint-Médard with Ralph the large mentioned with his 9 sons and continues onto page 296. You can disregard my last post about needing another source. > Yes, I beg your pardon I didn't look any further than pp. 295-6. On pp. 294-5 is a copy made by Roger de Gaignières of the cartulary version of the original charter dated 1104 that you already found, http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte2168/. Peter Stewart

Could some please have a look at the following entry from the Pardon Roll (Supplementary Patent Roll) and see if they can make out the words following the name and before the 10th January, and hazard a guess at the abbreviated Latin words that end the entry: https://app.box.com/s/48twbcxs3o30p5gkar25910vfbvge1wj The entry is halfway down, for Nicholas Bubbewyth Many Thanks Wibs

Sorry, mind was wandering for a moment then - it should be 'x die Junij', not 'xvj die' ________________________________________ From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] on behalf of Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com [Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com] Sent: 14 May 2016 17:08 To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: Pardon Roll entry From: Colin Withers via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 14 May 2016 16:43 > > Could some please have a look at the following entry from the Pardon Roll (Supplementary Patent Roll) and see if they can make out the words following the name and before the 10th January, and hazard a guess at the abbreviated Latin words that end the entry: > > https://app.box.com/s/48twbcxs3o30p5gkar25910vfbvge1wj > > The entry is halfway down, for Nicholas Bubbewyth > > Many Thanks > > Wibs > ________________________________________ ------------------------------- Hello Colin, it says: Nich[ol]us Bubbewyth cl[er]icus T[este] R[ege] apud Westm[onasterium] xvj die Junij. p[er] ip[su]m Regem etc. Nicholas Bubbewyth, clerk, witness the king, at Westminster 10th June. By the king himself etc. The bit at the end means the decision to grant the pardon was made by the king himself. Matt Tompkins ------------------------------- 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

From: Colin Withers via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 14 May 2016 16:43 > > Could some please have a look at the following entry from the Pardon Roll (Supplementary Patent Roll) and see if they can make out the words following the name and before the 10th January, and hazard a guess at the abbreviated Latin words that end the entry: > > https://app.box.com/s/48twbcxs3o30p5gkar25910vfbvge1wj > > The entry is halfway down, for Nicholas Bubbewyth > > Many Thanks > > Wibs > ________________________________________ ------------------------------- Hello Colin, it says: Nich[ol]us Bubbewyth cl[er]icus T[este] R[ege] apud Westm[onasterium] xvj die Junij. p[er] ip[su]m Regem etc. Nicholas Bubbewyth, clerk, witness the king, at Westminster 10th June. By the king himself etc. The bit at the end means the decision to grant the pardon was made by the king himself. Matt Tompkins

On 14/05/2016 2:31 PM, John Watson via wrote: > On Friday, 13 May 2016 19:18:00 UTC+1, Jason Quick wrote: >> Possible Ancestry of Main d’Aubigne >> >> Ralph the Large de Gahard > Is "the Large" a correct translation of Largus? Ralph "the Generous" seems more correct. > Who knows? The word 'large' could have either sense until fairly recently in English and still does in French. In the case of a man with nine sons 'largus' may have meant copious, in a philoprogenitive way. Peter Stewart

On 14/05/16 00:49, Peter Stewart via wrote: > In this case, for instance, the order might have stated (with > contraction marks) "fil ei" for filius eius, meaning that Thomas was the > son of William, which was logically understood as "fil eor" meaning > filius eorum because he came after both William and Joan. > > But for most purposes, without independent evidence, there is little > value in splitting hypothetical hairs. Thank you for a most informative response. It's "well known" that Sir Thomas Echyngham was the son of Joan Arundel, and there are a number of gateway descents that rely on this. I don't seriously doubt this, but I wanted to take a fresh look at the evidence supporting this for two reasons. First, following the source citations in many of the standard secondary sources, it seems that much reliance has been placed on the 1633-4 visitation of Sussex (over two centuries after the marriage, and which contains other mistakes in this family's genealogy) and/or other unspecified records of the College of Arms. Secondly, while there's clear evidence that Thomas's mother was called Joan, Nigel Saul suggests in /Scenes from Provincial Life/ that Sir William had two wives called Joan. Richard