I'm sorry but I have another question that has been bothering me for quite a while. Does anyone know of any reliable source documenting the marriage of Ralph Joscelyn (1275-1313, dates approx. of course) to Maud/Matilda de Sutton (1307-1354), and if so, was she was the daughter of Sir John de Sutton (say 1286-1338), son of Richard de Sutton & Isabel Patrick, i.e.,the de Sutton family that inherited Dudley Castle? I'd appreciate anyone's input on this. Thanks, Lynnette Eldredge On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:15 AM, <gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: John Paul Jones Family History mystery solved (Sam Sloan) > 2. A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? (Robert Spencer) > 3. Re: A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? (Robert Spencer) > 4. Re: Medieval Researcher required, Pek of Wakefield (Derek Howard) > 5. William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser family > (Robert Spencer) > 6. Re: Royal line for Australian media baron Sir [sic] Rupert > Murdoch? (PDeloriol@aol.com) > 7. Re: William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser > family (Matt Tompkins) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sam Sloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 00:30:13 -0700 > Subject: Re: John Paul Jones Family History mystery solved > My Family Tradition days that I am a descendant of the sister of John Paul > Jones. I have been hearing that since I was a child. > If you would like to test that please take a DNA test from either ftdna.com > or 23andme.com or ancestry.com > Then upload the results to gedmatch.com > Since John Paul Jones lived July 6, 1747 – July 18, 1792 he is only 7 > generations back and it will show a match on gedmatch. > Sam Sloan T241983 > M085839 Sam Sloan > A149200 Sam Sloan > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Spencer <robert.dispensarium@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:40:48 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? > Previously, a Joan L'isle, dau. of Hugh was noted to be the wife of Thomas le Despenser of Loughborough. This Thomas seems to fit the bill in the records referred to below as it mentions his brother Geoffrey le Despenser and Emma d'Harcourt. This seems to indicate his wife was named Matilda. What source is there for Joan L'isle? Did she die and Thomas he remarried or is this a younger Thomas le Despenser? > > Does anyone have further info or comments? > > Curia Regis Roll 145. Mich., 35-6, Henry III, 1251, > m. 46, I/eyc.: Walter de Segrave, the essoiner of > Matilda, who was the wife of Thomas le Despenser, v. > William Knot in a plea of a bovate of land in Cusington, > and v. Emma, who was the wife of Geoffrey le > Despenser, in a plea of a third part of a virgate of land > in Cusinton as dower. > > Patent Roll. 28 June, 1251. Grant to Emma, late the > wife of Geoffrey le Despenser, of the wardship of the > land and heir of the said Geoffrey, during the minority > of the heir, with wards, reliefs, escheats, advowsons of > churches and other appurtenances. > > Fine Roll. 29 June, 1251. The king, for a fine of 400 > marks which Emma who was the wife of Geoffrey le > Despenser made with the king, has granted her the > custody of the land and heir, viz., John, son and heir of > the said Geoffrey, until his legal age. > > Extract from: Medieval Cossington, Leicestershire > By S. H. Skillington > CHAPTER IV > > During the twelfth century,the six carucates, etc., in Cossington had been held by the family of Pincerna, under the earls of Chester, to the first of whom > Barrow, with its appendages, had been granted by William the > Conqueror before 1086, the date of the Domesday. We have also > seen that Roger de Somervill and William de Meisham, presumably > the son or grandson of Ralph de Meisham, were involved > in litigation concerning the advowson of Cossington church, the > end of which is recorded as follows in the rolls of bishop Grosseteste: > "Thomas de Prestewalde is presented to the church of > Cusinton by Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser, letters of the king > having been received containing that the said Hugh in the king's > court before the justices had recovered seisin of the advowson of > the said church against Hugh, earl of Arundel, W. earl Ferrers, > the abbot of St. Severus, Roger de Sumervill and William de > Meisham by an assize of last presentation (A.D. 1239)". > > Robert > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Spencer <robert.dispensarium@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 04:48:06 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? > Further to the topic, the following seems to imply that the first Hugh Despenser who died in 1238, was a patron. > > Extract from: https://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/cossington_conservation_area_character_appraisal_adopted_130220142/Cossington%20Conservation%20Area%20Character%20Appraisal%20-%20Adopted%2013022014.pdf > > "The earliest written record of Cossington can be found in Domesday (1086) where “Cosintone” is mentioned and the Earl Hugh of Chester held 6 carucates of land here, approximately 600 acres. It is relatively unusual for such a small settlement to be referenced specifically, indicating that it must have been a village of some significance by this time. By 1220 Cossington was under the patronage of Hugh Despenser and Henry Lord Beaumont became Lord of the Manor." > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Derek Howard <dhoward@skynet.be> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 05:10:40 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: Medieval Researcher required, Pek of Wakefield > On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:34:19 PM UTC+2, Tompkins wrote: >> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:49:22 PM UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: >> > Dear Colleagues,> I have a quotation from a medieval manuscript on the ancestry of the Peck family of Wakefield. Sadly however no source cited! Any suggestions for a researcher to find the original manuscript welcome or is there another route?> Peter >> > >> From: Peter Cockerill via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] >> Sent: 01 May 2016 16:31 >> >> The following extract is from The Law Quarterly Review Vol 38 October 1922 page 464ff By WA Peck; >> >> >> >> 'We learn more from a manuscript record compiled in the sixteenth century by a member of the family, who writes; I toke this Raymembaransays owtt of divers other boks wythe yt Rentall of my lands syns the thmy yt I dyd occwpy Anno dni 1533. >> >> The first of my hawnsytwrs of my name that I can find of was in King Richard the Second days on Rychard Pek & Margett his wife and he bowght in hys lyfe thym sartn lands in Halyfax & Gledelyfe and he & hys wife had usshew thre sons yt is say Rychard, John & Thomas & dyed att Halyfax God hayfe Mersey on hys sowle. [FH records 414 Richard Peck husband of Margaret, 417 son Richard, 418 son Thomas , 403 son John] >> >> 'And hys son Rychard Pek was a man of Lawe and marryd Ellyn Kynge and he had no usshew wt her & she was sister to Sr John Kynge wecker of Halyfax. And the sayd Rychard Pek bowght fayre lands in King Henry the Syghts [sixths] thym & also byffore bowthe in Wakefield Halyfax Sowthe Howrom, Shelfe Hawle and in other playssys & dydd att Halyfax yt last yere of ye Rayne of Kynge Henry the Syght [probably 1461 rather than 1471] & was beryd att Halyfax Jesu hayfe mercy on hys sowle. [FH record 417] >> >> John Pek hys Border marrd Isabell Lacye dowghtter of John Lacy of Cromwell bothom and had usshewe wtt her fowre sons Rychard Robartt Thomas & John & the same John Pek dyed att Halyfax byfoe Rychard Pek hys brother ytt was ye man of law God hayfe mercy on hys sowle. And Thomas Pek thayre brothe was a prest.' [FH record John 403, Richard 396, Robert 406, Thomas 405, John 413] >> >> This brings us to firmer ground as the above can be checked by reference to the pedigrees recorded in the Heralds' Visitations.' >> >> >> >> My thanks to you all. >> >> Peter >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> This is a real puzzle. I had hoped the quotation would be an extract from a title deed of some recognisable sort - googling the names of the parties, place and date plus the document type would have a good chance of bringing up an entry in an archival catalogue. But it turns out the document is of a sort whose description in a catalogue is less easy to predict. The author's forename is not stated, the date is uncertain (either 1533 or an uncertain date some years after 1533), the place(s) it might be associated with in a catalogue are uncertain (probably Halifax or Wakefield, but possibly elsewhere, and maybe nowhere) and, most awkwardly, it is unclear how the document might be categorised in a catalogue (as a Remembrance? a Memorandum? Or a pedigree or genealogy? A commonplace book? Or was it part of the Rental it refers to? or ...). >> >> The author seems to have been a descendant of the first Richard Pek (married to Margaret) and to have been living in 1533. It isn't clear to me whether he wrote the MS in 1533, some years after he came into occupation of his estate, or wrote it some years after 1533, that being the year he came into occupation. If the latter then 1533 would presumably be either the year his father (or other antecessor) died or the year he came to his majority and was given livery of his inheritance - in which case he would probably have been born in or before 1512. Or just possibly it was the year he bought his lands. >> >> Anyway, looking at the Peck pedigree Flower's 1563-4 Visitation of Yorks, it seems the author might have been John Peck, son and heir of Richard Peck (d. 1516) and his wife Alice Mydleton, which John married Jane Anne, or perhaps John's son and heir Richard, who married Anne Hothom, or one of John's other sons. If it were possible to trace the subsequent ownership of the author's lands down to the 20th century, when landowners began to deposit their muniments in record offices, then one might hazard a guess as to the current whereabouts of the Peck deeds, which might include the MS in question. >> >> I don't know enough about the Pecks or their lands to do this, but someone more familiar with the family might be able to. I do notice that (i) the Law Quarterly Review article which so infuriatingly quotes from the MS but fails to identify it goes on to say that a Peck property in Wakefield called Haselden Hall 'is said (in Taylor's 'History of the Rectory Manor of Wakefield') to have been sold by another Richard Peck to George Savile in the reign of Elizabeth'; and (ii) that the Savile of Rufford deeds at Nottinghamshire Archives include a 'List of lands bought from Richard Pecks by George Savile' in c.1600 (DD/SR/227/72). It's a long shot but the sought-after MS may just possibly be among the Savile muniments. >> >> Matt Tompkins > > My first thought is that Wakefield, Halifax, Sowthowram, Shelf, etc were in the manor of Wakefield - England's largest - and the well kept records of the manor survive and would possibly have been accessible in the 16th century. So, while it does not answer the whereabouts of the quoted ms, the source for the info may well be the manor court rolls. These have been for a great length of time in the custody of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society in Leeds, but I believe the YAS mss collection has now been handed to the custody of the Leeds University Brotherton Library Special Collections department. Certainly if I were working on any genealogy in that area in the medieval period the MCRs (which start in the 13th century and continue to 1926) would be an essential source. > > Derek Howard > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Spencer <robert.dispensarium@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:02:31 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser family > Help request: Previously, I have only seen one good reference to a William as brother of Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser in a charter of Thomas de Ardene in a Chester deed, in that record he was not shown with the name Despenser following as is portrayed below. > > First, can any one ascertain if the place "Lutterburc", has a more common name. I have seen similar spellings such as Luctberg, which later states it was Loughborough,but in this case, I'm not sure? > > Secondly, to [who's men] are they referring to when it says "with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc". Bascially, I want to know: Is it saying Geoffrey de Jort has men in this place alongside Thomas Despenser? > > From: Honours and Kt's fees Vol. 1 > pg. 63 under Woodthorpe: > > > Thorpe ' Muntford ' is assumed to be the present Woodthorpe. > > The association of the family of Muntford (not Montefort) with > > this place, implied by its distinctive appellation, has not been > > discovered, but Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de > > Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son > > of Picot, with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc,' gave to > > Garendon abbey land called ' Locholmewro de Luteberc' > > > > The position of this place is proved by the following deed : > > Hugh Despenser, son and heir of Hugh Despenser, grants > > to Sir Geoffrey Despenser his uncle his wood of Thorp Munfort, > > which descended to him from his father and from William > > Despenser his uncle, namely from Lousterbothes Durnes, by > > the grantor's wood called La Haye to his park (of Loughborough), > > adjoining the ditch between Thorpwatecroft and the field of Thorpmunfort, as > far as Cadaker and so to La Thurne. > > As a side note: > Woodthorpe is named under "Fees of Honour of Chester" the tenant is named as being Despenser. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: PDeloriol@aol.com > To: leliwite@gmail.com > Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:30:09 -0400 > Subject: Re: Royal line for Australian media baron Sir [sic] Rupert Murdoch? > Ahem! Titles are accepted in Republican countries. Some Republics have even > given hereditary titles to its citizens. A Republic, grosso modo, is the > negation of an absolute monarch. hereditary titles, for instance, have not > been abolished in France, nor in Germany or Austria, they just do not have > any privileges, but the State does have a specific department that > regulates them and ensures they are not mis-used or mis-appropriated. Titles of > Knighthood abound in modern Republics. > Peter > > > In a message dated 10/05/2016 22:06:38 GMT Daylight Time, > gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: > > Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen. Even as an Australian (which he > ceased to be on becoming an American in 1985), he was not Sir Rupert. > He is a Companion of the Order of Australia, and a papal knight, but > that does not confer the accolade. It would be absurd for him to use > such a title given that he supports the republican movement in > Australia, and elsewhere. > > Richard > > On 10/05/2016, ravinmaven2001 via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> It seems possible there is a royal descent for Sir Rupert Murdoch, the >> billionaire businessman. >> >> I have used Reitwiesner and Wood's tracing of his ancestry back to > ancestor >> #116, Robert Sherson, "b. 1736/7, buried 13 Jan 1821 at Fetcham, Surrey > aged >> 84, apothecary, doctor of medicine and botanist. Will dated 2 Feb 1819, >> proved with 3 codicils at London 22 Mar 1821." The next entry is for his >> wife, Mary ___, and mentions the location of "Bridge House, Fetcham, >> Surrey." >> >> http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html >> >> These details given for Robert Sherson and his wife Mary tie in nicely > to a >> big pedigree chart in Whitaker's _An History of the Original Parish of >> Whalley_, where a footnote to the chart shows Alexander Sherson, husband > of >> Bridget Nowell, serving as "Town Clerk of Lancaster, died Nov. 21, 1737, >> leaving a numerous issue. His son Robert Sherson, M.D., late of Great >> Ormond Street, now (1809) of Bridge House, Surrey, has also a numerous >> progeny." As this statement was made in the lifetime of Robert Sherson > (d. >> 1821) of Bridge House, Fetcham, Surrey, doctor of medicine, I see no real >> reason to doubt its accuracy (though please inform me if this connection > is >> wrong). >> >> https://books.google.com > /books?id=EO1EAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA264&dq=%22son+robert+sherson%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0m7Cr-8_MAhUE2SYKHZHsD1gQ6AEIHTAA#v=on > epage&q=%22son%20robert%20sherson%22&f=false >> >> Bridget Nowell, shown by Whitaker to be mother of Robert Sherson, M.D., > was >> a daughter of Roger Nowell, Esq., of Whalley, by his wife, Rebecca, > relict >> of Cuthbert Wade (possibly born Rebecca Heber, first cousin to her own > 2nd >> husband). This seems to lead to at least one royal descent from King > Edward >> III, and probably more (the Heber lines should be checked in particular). >> >> 1. Edward III, King of England = Philippa of Hainault >> >> 2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = (3) with legitimated issue, > Katherine >> (Roet) Swynford >> >> 3. Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland >> >> 4. Richard Neville, 1st Earl of Salisbury = Alice Montagu >> >> 5. Eleanor Neville = Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby >> >> 6. Edward Stanley, Lord Monteagle = Elizabeth Harington & Anne Vaughan >> >> 7. (? possibly illegitimate) Elizabeth Stanley = Sir Thomas Langton >> >> 8. Joan Langton = John Fleetwood >> >> 9. Elizabeth Fleetwood = Roger Nowell >> >> 10. Roger Nowell = Dorothy Holt >> >> 11. Alexander Nowell = Eleanor Heber >> >> 12. Roger Nowell = Rebecca (? Heber), widow of Cuthbert Wade >> >> 13. Bridget Nowell = Alexander Sherson >> >> 14. Robert Sherson = Mary____ >> >> 15. Robert Sherson = Catherine Taylor >> >> 16. Caroline Jemima Sherson = Frederick Henry Alexander Forth >> >> 17. Robert de Lancey Forth = Anne Thomson Ware >> >> 18. Marie Grace de Lancey Forth = Rupert Greene >> >> 19. Elisabeth Joy Greene = Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch >> >> 20. Sir (Keith) Rupert Murdoch >> >> >> The H.O.P. biography of Sir Thomas Langton of Newton confirms his > marriage >> to a daughter, perhaps illegit., of Edward, Lord Monteagle. >> >> > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/langton-sir-thomas-149697-1569 >> >> Sir Thomas Langton had another wife who should be ruled out as the > mother of >> Joan Langton, who married John Fleetwood. >> >> The _Visitation of Cumberland_ shows the marriage of Joan, daughter of > Sir >> Thomas and Elizabeth (Stanley) Langton, to John Fleetwood. >> >> > https://books.google.com/books?id=4nO5MJva0IYC&pg=PA32&dq=%22thomas+langton%22+newton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_q5mqkc7MAhUFxSYKHZSKB_wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onep > age&q=%22thomas%20langton%22%20newton&f=false >> >> _Documents Relating to the Priory of Penwortham_ deals with the > Fleetwood >> and Nowell connections in detail, though again we should rule out John >> Fleetwood's other wife, Catherine Christmas, as ancestral. >> >> > https://books.google.com/books?id=MmJVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR56&dq=%22married+roger+nowell+of+read%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunvC4_c_MAhUB3yYKHWsCBHAQ6AEIMzAE > #v=onepage&q=%22married%20roger%20nowell%20of%20read%22&f=false >> >> I imagine there are in fact several royal descents, as the wife of >> generation 15, Robert Sherson, Jr., appears to have been a granddaughter > of >> Thomas Forbes, who was the son of Arthur Forbes Maitland of Pitrichie. >> >> > https://books.google.com/books?id=uZlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=sherson+nowell+fetcham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw6cmC-s_MAhUK7yYKHRDTDn0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage& > q=sherson%20nowell%20fetcham&f=false >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Matt Tompkins <mllt1@le.ac.uk> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser family > On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 14:02:32 UTC+1, Robert Spencer wrote: >> Help request: Previously, I have only seen one good reference to a William as brother of Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser in a charter of Thomas de Ardene in a Chester deed, in that record he was not shown with the name Despenser following as is portrayed below. >> >> First, can any one ascertain if the place "Lutterburc", has a more common name. I have seen similar spellings such as Luctberg, which later states it was Loughborough,but in this case, I'm not sure? >> >> Secondly, to [who's men] are they referring to when it says "with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc". Bascially, I want to know: Is it saying Geoffrey de Jort has men in this place alongside Thomas Despenser? >> >> From: Honours and Kt's fees Vol. 1 >> pg. 63 under Woodthorpe: >> >> Thorpe ' Muntford ' is assumed to be the present Woodthorpe. >> >> The association of the family of Muntford (not Montefort) with >> this place, implied by its distinctive appellation, has not been >> discovered, but Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de >> Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son >> of Picot, with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc,' gave to >> Garendon abbey land called ' Locholmewro de Luteberc' >> >> The position of this place is proved by the following deed : >> >> Hugh Despenser, son and heir of Hugh Despenser, grants >> to Sir Geoffrey Despenser his uncle his wood of Thorp Munfort, >> which descended to him from his father and from William >> Despenser his uncle, namely from Lousterbothes Durnes, by >> the grantor's wood called La Haye to his park (of Loughborough), >> adjoining the ditch between Thorpwatecroft and the field of Thorpmunfort, as >> far as Cadaker and so to La Thurne. >> >> As a side note: >> Woodthorpe is named under "Fees of Honour of Chester" the tenant is named as being Despenser. >> > > ------------------------------- > ________________________________________ > Lutterburc is certainly Loughborough, which appears in early records in forms like Lucteburc, Lucteburga (I suspect -tt- is a misreading of -ct-, a very easy mistake to make). By 1300 forms like Lughteburgh become more usual. > > In the last 6 months I've been looking at quite a few original records from Loughborough and Woodthorpe. I don't think I've ever seen the latter called anything but 'Wodthorpe', but then again all the references I've seen date from after 1350. It's quite possible that it was earlier called Thorpe Muntford or Montfort. But a short distance away from Woodthorpe are Shelthorpe, Knight Thorpe and Thorpe Acre - Thorpe Muntford might also have been one of them. > > The early forms of the names of all these places will be revealed when the final volume of Barrie Cox's Place-names of Leicestershire, dealing with West Goscote hundred, comes out (later this year?). Until then one has to look in his PhD thesis on the place-names of Leicestershire, on which the books are substantially based. We have one in our departmental library and I'll have a look at it on Friday, when I'll next be there. > > Yes, the quoted deed does seem to be saying that Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son of Picot all had tenants in Loughborough (presumably meaning the large parish/manor of Loughborough, which included at least parts of Knight Thorpe, Thorpe Acre, Woodthorpe, Shelthorpe and Cotes, across the river, and additionally had frankpledge jurisdiction over Mountsorrel, Burton on the Wolds, Barrow, Quarndon, and Prestwold). > > Matt Tompkins > >

Ahem! Titles are accepted in Republican countries. Some Republics have even given hereditary titles to its citizens. A Republic, grosso modo, is the negation of an absolute monarch. hereditary titles, for instance, have not been abolished in France, nor in Germany or Austria, they just do not have any privileges, but the State does have a specific department that regulates them and ensures they are not mis-used or mis-appropriated. Titles of Knighthood abound in modern Republics. Peter In a message dated 10/05/2016 22:06:38 GMT Daylight Time, gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen. Even as an Australian (which he ceased to be on becoming an American in 1985), he was not Sir Rupert. He is a Companion of the Order of Australia, and a papal knight, but that does not confer the accolade. It would be absurd for him to use such a title given that he supports the republican movement in Australia, and elsewhere. Richard On 10/05/2016, ravinmaven2001 via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > It seems possible there is a royal descent for Sir Rupert Murdoch, the > billionaire businessman. > > I have used Reitwiesner and Wood's tracing of his ancestry back to ancestor > #116, Robert Sherson, "b. 1736/7, buried 13 Jan 1821 at Fetcham, Surrey aged > 84, apothecary, doctor of medicine and botanist. Will dated 2 Feb 1819, > proved with 3 codicils at London 22 Mar 1821." The next entry is for his > wife, Mary ___, and mentions the location of "Bridge House, Fetcham, > Surrey." > > http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html > > These details given for Robert Sherson and his wife Mary tie in nicely to a > big pedigree chart in Whitaker's _An History of the Original Parish of > Whalley_, where a footnote to the chart shows Alexander Sherson, husband of > Bridget Nowell, serving as "Town Clerk of Lancaster, died Nov. 21, 1737, > leaving a numerous issue. His son Robert Sherson, M.D., late of Great > Ormond Street, now (1809) of Bridge House, Surrey, has also a numerous > progeny." As this statement was made in the lifetime of Robert Sherson (d. > 1821) of Bridge House, Fetcham, Surrey, doctor of medicine, I see no real > reason to doubt its accuracy (though please inform me if this connection is > wrong). > > https://books.google.com /books?id=EO1EAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA264&dq=%22son+robert+sherson%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0m7Cr-8_MAhUE2SYKHZHsD1gQ6AEIHTAA#v=on epage&q=%22son%20robert%20sherson%22&f=false > > Bridget Nowell, shown by Whitaker to be mother of Robert Sherson, M.D., was > a daughter of Roger Nowell, Esq., of Whalley, by his wife, Rebecca, relict > of Cuthbert Wade (possibly born Rebecca Heber, first cousin to her own 2nd > husband). This seems to lead to at least one royal descent from King Edward > III, and probably more (the Heber lines should be checked in particular). > > 1. Edward III, King of England = Philippa of Hainault > > 2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = (3) with legitimated issue, Katherine > (Roet) Swynford > > 3. Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland > > 4. Richard Neville, 1st Earl of Salisbury = Alice Montagu > > 5. Eleanor Neville = Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby > > 6. Edward Stanley, Lord Monteagle = Elizabeth Harington & Anne Vaughan > > 7. (? possibly illegitimate) Elizabeth Stanley = Sir Thomas Langton > > 8. Joan Langton = John Fleetwood > > 9. Elizabeth Fleetwood = Roger Nowell > > 10. Roger Nowell = Dorothy Holt > > 11. Alexander Nowell = Eleanor Heber > > 12. Roger Nowell = Rebecca (? Heber), widow of Cuthbert Wade > > 13. Bridget Nowell = Alexander Sherson > > 14. Robert Sherson = Mary____ > > 15. Robert Sherson = Catherine Taylor > > 16. Caroline Jemima Sherson = Frederick Henry Alexander Forth > > 17. Robert de Lancey Forth = Anne Thomson Ware > > 18. Marie Grace de Lancey Forth = Rupert Greene > > 19. Elisabeth Joy Greene = Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch > > 20. Sir (Keith) Rupert Murdoch > > > The H.O.P. biography of Sir Thomas Langton of Newton confirms his marriage > to a daughter, perhaps illegit., of Edward, Lord Monteagle. > > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/langton-sir-thomas-149697-1569 > > Sir Thomas Langton had another wife who should be ruled out as the mother of > Joan Langton, who married John Fleetwood. > > The _Visitation of Cumberland_ shows the marriage of Joan, daughter of Sir > Thomas and Elizabeth (Stanley) Langton, to John Fleetwood. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=4nO5MJva0IYC&pg=PA32&dq=%22thomas+langton%22+newton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_q5mqkc7MAhUFxSYKHZSKB_wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onep age&q=%22thomas%20langton%22%20newton&f=false > > _Documents Relating to the Priory of Penwortham_ deals with the Fleetwood > and Nowell connections in detail, though again we should rule out John > Fleetwood's other wife, Catherine Christmas, as ancestral. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=MmJVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR56&dq=%22married+roger+nowell+of+read%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunvC4_c_MAhUB3yYKHWsCBHAQ6AEIMzAE #v=onepage&q=%22married%20roger%20nowell%20of%20read%22&f=false > > I imagine there are in fact several royal descents, as the wife of > generation 15, Robert Sherson, Jr., appears to have been a granddaughter of > Thomas Forbes, who was the son of Arthur Forbes Maitland of Pitrichie. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=uZlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=sherson+nowell+fetcham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw6cmC-s_MAhUK7yYKHRDTDn0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage& q=sherson%20nowell%20fetcham&f=false > > ------------------------------- > 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

Thank you Matt, your as prompt as ever and keen to help, I appreciate it. The appearance of Geoffrey de Jort in the post in relation to Lougborough now makes sense, as I was seeing the founder of Burton Jorce in Notts., being referred to as "Geoffrey of Lougborough" with his brother William de Jorz, both being the sons of Robert de Jort fls. 1166 who was a Kt. of the Honour of Blythe and held Wymeswold, Leisc. of the honour of Tickhill. Further to this the following record may show the Jort /Jorz relationship. Source: Honour's and kt.'s fees Vol.1, pg.56 Heading: HONOR OF CHESTER Excerpt: "Earl Ranulf III [Ranaulf Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester 1170-1232]gave to Garendon abbey common of pasture for all herds in Barrow, except in the park.(4) He also confirmed the gifts made to the same abbey in Holywell Hall (' Haliwellhawe ') by Robert de Jorz, William de Jorz and Thomas le Despenser.(5) Hugh le Despenser gave to Stephen de Segrave, in free marriage with Roese his sister, 1 virgate in Barrow.(6)" 4. Ibid. v. 332. 5. Ibid. 6. Harl. MS. 4748, f. lid. Interestingly is the following record from: Honours and Kt.'s fees Page 2 of the Honor of Chester shows the tenant as only Jorz. HONOR OF CHESTER (Pg. 2) Burton-on-the-Wolds, Leics. . . Jorz. At the time of the Domesday survey the Jort's held only parts of Hoton and Wymeswold, Leisc., but they later seem to hold parts of Prestwold and I find them in this source named as the only tenant of Burton on the Wolds, held of the Honour of Chester. What connection did they have to the Earl's of Chester and this honour? Any ideas? I would be interested in what anyone has to say here. Thanks again, Robert

I think I have a related record, which I believe was previously posted by John Ravilious, but I'm not certain. The Red Book of the Exchequer records three knights´ fees escheated from "Thomas Dispensator cum filia et hærede Hugonis de Insula" in "[Ly]bernby in Norhamtesira…in Lubestorp in Leyecestresira…in Torp in Notinghamsira…[de honore] Piperelli de Notingham" in [1211/12. Would this date of 1211 indicate this Thomas Despenser is the brother of the Geoffrey Despenser in the above original post. My understanding previously was that he died cir. 1218, and left no issue. Now I find another possible wife (Matilda) who fls. in 1251 record, so you can see why I am curious. Robert Robert

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 14:02:32 UTC+1, Robert Spencer wrote: > Help request: Previously, I have only seen one good reference to a William as brother of Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser in a charter of Thomas de Ardene in a Chester deed, in that record he was not shown with the name Despenser following as is portrayed below. > > First, can any one ascertain if the place "Lutterburc", has a more common name. I have seen similar spellings such as Luctberg, which later states it was Loughborough,but in this case, I'm not sure? > > Secondly, to [who's men] are they referring to when it says "with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc". Bascially, I want to know: Is it saying Geoffrey de Jort has men in this place alongside Thomas Despenser? > > From: Honours and Kt's fees Vol. 1 > pg. 63 under Woodthorpe: > > Thorpe ' Muntford ' is assumed to be the present Woodthorpe. > > The association of the family of Muntford (not Montefort) with > this place, implied by its distinctive appellation, has not been > discovered, but Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de > Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son > of Picot, with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc,' gave to > Garendon abbey land called ' Locholmewro de Luteberc' > > The position of this place is proved by the following deed : > > Hugh Despenser, son and heir of Hugh Despenser, grants > to Sir Geoffrey Despenser his uncle his wood of Thorp Munfort, > which descended to him from his father and from William > Despenser his uncle, namely from Lousterbothes Durnes, by > the grantor's wood called La Haye to his park (of Loughborough), > adjoining the ditch between Thorpwatecroft and the field of Thorpmunfort, as > far as Cadaker and so to La Thurne. > > As a side note: > Woodthorpe is named under "Fees of Honour of Chester" the tenant is named as being Despenser. > ------------------------------- ________________________________________ Lutterburc is certainly Loughborough, which appears in early records in forms like Lucteburc, Lucteburga (I suspect -tt- is a misreading of -ct-, a very easy mistake to make). By 1300 forms like Lughteburgh become more usual. In the last 6 months I've been looking at quite a few original records from Loughborough and Woodthorpe. I don't think I've ever seen the latter called anything but 'Wodthorpe', but then again all the references I've seen date from after 1350. It's quite possible that it was earlier called Thorpe Muntford or Montfort. But a short distance away from Woodthorpe are Shelthorpe, Knight Thorpe and Thorpe Acre - Thorpe Muntford might also have been one of them. The early forms of the names of all these places will be revealed when the final volume of Barrie Cox's Place-names of Leicestershire, dealing with West Goscote hundred, comes out (later this year?). Until then one has to look in his PhD thesis on the place-names of Leicestershire, on which the books are substantially based. We have one in our departmental library and I'll have a look at it on Friday, when I'll next be there. Yes, the quoted deed does seem to be saying that Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son of Picot all had tenants in Loughborough (presumably meaning the large parish/manor of Loughborough, which included at least parts of Knight Thorpe, Thorpe Acre, Woodthorpe, Shelthorpe and Cotes, across the river, and additionally had frankpledge jurisdiction over Mountsorrel, Burton on the Wolds, Barrow, Quarndon, and Prestwold). Matt Tompkins

Help request: Previously, I have only seen one good reference to a William as brother of Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser in a charter of Thomas de Ardene in a Chester deed, in that record he was not shown with the name Despenser following as is portrayed below. First, can any one ascertain if the place "Lutterburc", has a more common name. I have seen similar spellings such as Luctberg, which later states it was Loughborough,but in this case, I'm not sure? Secondly, to [who's men] are they referring to when it says "with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc". Bascially, I want to know: Is it saying Geoffrey de Jort has men in this place alongside Thomas Despenser? From: Honours and Kt's fees Vol. 1 pg. 63 under Woodthorpe: Thorpe ' Muntford ' is assumed to be the present Woodthorpe. The association of the family of Muntford (not Montefort) with this place, implied by its distinctive appellation, has not been discovered, but Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son of Picot, with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc,' gave to Garendon abbey land called ' Locholmewro de Luteberc' The position of this place is proved by the following deed : Hugh Despenser, son and heir of Hugh Despenser, grants to Sir Geoffrey Despenser his uncle his wood of Thorp Munfort, which descended to him from his father and from William Despenser his uncle, namely from Lousterbothes Durnes, by the grantor's wood called La Haye to his park (of Loughborough), adjoining the ditch between Thorpwatecroft and the field of Thorpmunfort, as far as Cadaker and so to La Thurne. As a side note: Woodthorpe is named under "Fees of Honour of Chester" the tenant is named as being Despenser.

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:34:19 PM UTC+2, Tompkins wrote: > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:49:22 PM UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: > > Dear Colleagues,> I have a quotation from a medieval manuscript on the ancestry of the Peck family of Wakefield. Sadly however no source cited! Any suggestions for a researcher to find the original manuscript welcome or is there another route?> Peter > > > From: Peter Cockerill via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 01 May 2016 16:31 > >> The following extract is from The Law Quarterly Review Vol 38 October 1922 page 464ff By WA Peck; > >> > >> 'We learn more from a manuscript record compiled in the sixteenth century by a member of the family, who writes; I toke this Raymembaransays owtt of divers other boks wythe yt Rentall of my lands syns the thmy yt I dyd occwpy Anno dni 1533. > >> The first of my hawnsytwrs of my name that I can find of was in King Richard the Second days on Rychard Pek & Margett his wife and he bowght in hys lyfe thym sartn lands in Halyfax & Gledelyfe and he & hys wife had usshew thre sons yt is say Rychard, John & Thomas & dyed att Halyfax God hayfe Mersey on hys sowle. [FH records 414 Richard Peck husband of Margaret, 417 son Richard, 418 son Thomas , 403 son John] > >> 'And hys son Rychard Pek was a man of Lawe and marryd Ellyn Kynge and he had no usshew wt her & she was sister to Sr John Kynge wecker of Halyfax. And the sayd Rychard Pek bowght fayre lands in King Henry the Syghts [sixths] thym & also byffore bowthe in Wakefield Halyfax Sowthe Howrom, Shelfe Hawle and in other playssys & dydd att Halyfax yt last yere of ye Rayne of Kynge Henry the Syght [probably 1461 rather than 1471] & was beryd att Halyfax Jesu hayfe mercy on hys sowle. [FH record 417] > >> John Pek hys Border marrd Isabell Lacye dowghtter of John Lacy of Cromwell bothom and had usshewe wtt her fowre sons Rychard Robartt Thomas & John & the same John Pek dyed att Halyfax byfoe Rychard Pek hys brother ytt was ye man of law God hayfe mercy on hys sowle. And Thomas Pek thayre brothe was a prest.' [FH record John 403, Richard 396, Robert 406, Thomas 405, John 413] > >> This brings us to firmer ground as the above can be checked by reference to the pedigrees recorded in the Heralds' Visitations.' > >> > >> My thanks to you all. > >> Peter > >> > ________________________________________ > > This is a real puzzle. I had hoped the quotation would be an extract from a title deed of some recognisable sort - googling the names of the parties, place and date plus the document type would have a good chance of bringing up an entry in an archival catalogue. But it turns out the document is of a sort whose description in a catalogue is less easy to predict. The author's forename is not stated, the date is uncertain (either 1533 or an uncertain date some years after 1533), the place(s) it might be associated with in a catalogue are uncertain (probably Halifax or Wakefield, but possibly elsewhere, and maybe nowhere) and, most awkwardly, it is unclear how the document might be categorised in a catalogue (as a Remembrance? a Memorandum? Or a pedigree or genealogy? A commonplace book? Or was it part of the Rental it refers to? or ...). > > The author seems to have been a descendant of the first Richard Pek (married to Margaret) and to have been living in 1533. It isn't clear to me whether he wrote the MS in 1533, some years after he came into occupation of his estate, or wrote it some years after 1533, that being the year he came into occupation. If the latter then 1533 would presumably be either the year his father (or other antecessor) died or the year he came to his majority and was given livery of his inheritance - in which case he would probably have been born in or before 1512. Or just possibly it was the year he bought his lands. > > Anyway, looking at the Peck pedigree Flower's 1563-4 Visitation of Yorks, it seems the author might have been John Peck, son and heir of Richard Peck (d. 1516) and his wife Alice Mydleton, which John married Jane Anne, or perhaps John's son and heir Richard, who married Anne Hothom, or one of John's other sons. If it were possible to trace the subsequent ownership of the author's lands down to the 20th century, when landowners began to deposit their muniments in record offices, then one might hazard a guess as to the current whereabouts of the Peck deeds, which might include the MS in question. > > I don't know enough about the Pecks or their lands to do this, but someone more familiar with the family might be able to. I do notice that (i) the Law Quarterly Review article which so infuriatingly quotes from the MS but fails to identify it goes on to say that a Peck property in Wakefield called Haselden Hall 'is said (in Taylor's 'History of the Rectory Manor of Wakefield') to have been sold by another Richard Peck to George Savile in the reign of Elizabeth'; and (ii) that the Savile of Rufford deeds at Nottinghamshire Archives include a 'List of lands bought from Richard Pecks by George Savile' in c.1600 (DD/SR/227/72). It's a long shot but the sought-after MS may just possibly be among the Savile muniments. > > Matt Tompkins My first thought is that Wakefield, Halifax, Sowthowram, Shelf, etc were in the manor of Wakefield - England's largest - and the well kept records of the manor survive and would possibly have been accessible in the 16th century. So, while it does not answer the whereabouts of the quoted ms, the source for the info may well be the manor court rolls. These have been for a great length of time in the custody of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society in Leeds, but I believe the YAS mss collection has now been handed to the custody of the Leeds University Brotherton Library Special Collections department. Certainly if I were working on any genealogy in that area in the medieval period the MCRs (which start in the 13th century and continue to 1926) would be an essential source. Derek Howard

Further to the topic, the following seems to imply that the first Hugh Despenser who died in 1238, was a patron. Extract from: https://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/cossington_conservation_area_character_appraisal_adopted_130220142/Cossington%20Conservation%20Area%20Character%20Appraisal%20-%20Adopted%2013022014.pdf "The earliest written record of Cossington can be found in Domesday (1086) where “Cosintone” is mentioned and the Earl Hugh of Chester held 6 carucates of land here, approximately 600 acres. It is relatively unusual for such a small settlement to be referenced specifically, indicating that it must have been a village of some significance by this time. By 1220 Cossington was under the patronage of Hugh Despenser and Henry Lord Beaumont became Lord of the Manor."

Previously, a Joan L'isle, dau. of Hugh was noted to be the wife of Thomas le Despenser of Loughborough. This Thomas seems to fit the bill in the records referred to below as it mentions his brother Geoffrey le Despenser and Emma d'Harcourt. This seems to indicate his wife was named Matilda. What source is there for Joan L'isle? Did she die and Thomas he remarried or is this a younger Thomas le Despenser? Does anyone have further info or comments? Curia Regis Roll 145. Mich., 35-6, Henry III, 1251, m. 46, I/eyc.: Walter de Segrave, the essoiner of Matilda, who was the wife of Thomas le Despenser, v. William Knot in a plea of a bovate of land in Cusington, and v. Emma, who was the wife of Geoffrey le Despenser, in a plea of a third part of a virgate of land in Cusinton as dower. Patent Roll. 28 June, 1251. Grant to Emma, late the wife of Geoffrey le Despenser, of the wardship of the land and heir of the said Geoffrey, during the minority of the heir, with wards, reliefs, escheats, advowsons of churches and other appurtenances. Fine Roll. 29 June, 1251. The king, for a fine of 400 marks which Emma who was the wife of Geoffrey le Despenser made with the king, has granted her the custody of the land and heir, viz., John, son and heir of the said Geoffrey, until his legal age. Extract from: Medieval Cossington, Leicestershire By S. H. Skillington CHAPTER IV During the twelfth century,the six carucates, etc., in Cossington had been held by the family of Pincerna, under the earls of Chester, to the first of whom Barrow, with its appendages, had been granted by William the Conqueror before 1086, the date of the Domesday. We have also seen that Roger de Somervill and William de Meisham, presumably the son or grandson of Ralph de Meisham, were involved in litigation concerning the advowson of Cossington church, the end of which is recorded as follows in the rolls of bishop Grosseteste: "Thomas de Prestewalde is presented to the church of Cusinton by Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser, letters of the king having been received containing that the said Hugh in the king's court before the justices had recovered seisin of the advowson of the said church against Hugh, earl of Arundel, W. earl Ferrers, the abbot of St. Severus, Roger de Sumervill and William de Meisham by an assize of last presentation (A.D. 1239)". Robert

My Family Tradition days that I am a descendant of the sister of John Paul Jones. I have been hearing that since I was a child. If you would like to test that please take a DNA test from either ftdna.com or 23andme.com or ancestry.com Then upload the results to gedmatch.com Since John Paul Jones lived July 6, 1747 – July 18, 1792 he is only 7 generations back and it will show a match on gedmatch. Sam Sloan T241983 M085839 Sam Sloan A149200 Sam Sloan

On 10/05/16 23:22, ej959352@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Im somehow related to you but I've Kept the Jones name I don't Know How Far It goes but my Records that I have goes to Samuel H. Jones. > You are clearly under the impression that you're replying direct to an individual but in fact you're posting to what in effect is a notice board. Google Groups often misleads people in this way. I think you're probably replying to an old post. If so the original poster may no longer be reading messages on the group so it might be a good idea to go back to the original message, look up the email address of the original poster and reply direct to that. It's always good practice to quote the original post or just part of it before your reply; very few people read the groups via Google which is really an archive. All we can see is what you post so the context is lost. If you want to find out a little more about newsgroups you could check out the FAQ for the soc.genealogy.britain group at http://www.genealogy-britain.org.uk/ Ian (Replied to both poster & group) -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Dear Newsgroup ~ Since my post earlier today, I've learned that Sir Robert Radcliffe (husband of Joan Stanhope and Katherine Drury) presented to the church of Congham, Norfolk in 1487. Reference: Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. History of Norfolk, 8 (1808): 386, which may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=LAYVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA386 Inasmuch as the manor of Congham, Norfolk was held by Henry Strange, Esq., the 1st husband of Katherine Drury, at his death in 1485, it seems likely that Sir Robert Radcliffe presented to the church of Congham, Norfolk in 1487 in right of his 2nd wife's dower. If so, then the date of Sir Robert Radcliffe's marriage to Katherine Drury can be narrowed to the period, 1486-1487. That in turn narrows the possible death date of Sir Robert Radcliffe's first wife, Joan Stanhope, to the same period, 1486-1487. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah P.S. Although other records I've cited seem to show otherwise, the historian, Sally Badham, might still be correct that Joan (Stanhope) (Bourchier) Radcliffe died before September 1481. Whatever the case, Badham is certainly incorrect in stating that Joan Stanhope died in 1479.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:54:49 PM UTC-7, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > Starting point for Hebers: > > Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, with Additions, Parts 5-7, Sir William Dugdale, pps 377-380 at https://books.google.com/books?id=FqJCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=eleanor+heber+alexander+nowell&source=bl&ots=a6I7M4HZeR&sig=4DvAjXlU4v4LudCeLNy6dQ_EtOQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidzo-KqNDMAhVJZCYKHaHnAVkQ6AEIOjAJ#v=onepage&q=eleanor%20heber%20alexander%20nowell&f=false. > > Doug Smith The Heber family (later Heber-Percy) appeared in Burke's LG through the 1952 edition. A 20th-century member, Robert Heber-Percy (d. 1987) was noted (or notorious) as the "protegé" (wink, wink) of the eccentric 14th Lord Berners. The two of them were covered in a 2014 book by his granddaughter Sofka Zinovieff titled "The Mad Boy, Lord Berners, My Grandmother And Me". The family's pedigree also appears in Whitaker's "History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven", following page 70. In the Google Books scanning of the 2nd edition (1812) the pedigree has been mangled in the scanning process, but it's intact in the Internet Archive copy of the 1st edition (1805) here: https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00whit

Hi Im somehow related to you but I've Kept the Jones name I don't Know How Far It goes but my Records that I have goes to Samuel H. Jones.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote: > > > In view of past discussion regard Plantagenet Richard's Y-DNA not matching > > that of alleged Beaufort Somerset cousins, is the legitimacy question of > > John of Gaunt still an issue? If the DNA discrepancy arose from the > > circumstances of John's illegitimate parentage, then we could assume that > > both Trump and Clinton are of bastardized descent. > > There never was a legitimacy question regarding John of Gaunt, at least > not related to the Richard III DNA result. I tracked this down at the > time. I forgot to comment on the last bit - given that William the Conqueror was not born to married parents, any descendant of the post-conquest royals would derive from an out-of-wedlock birth. taf

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote: > In view of past discussion regard Plantagenet Richard's Y-DNA not matching > that of alleged Beaufort Somerset cousins, is the legitimacy question of > John of Gaunt still an issue? If the DNA discrepancy arose from the > circumstances of John's illegitimate parentage, then we could assume that > both Trump and Clinton are of bastardized descent. There never was a legitimacy question regarding John of Gaunt, at least not related to the Richard III DNA result. I tracked this down at the time. In trying to explain the implications of the Y-DNA conflict, a journalist presented as a hypothetical example that had John of Gaunt been son of someone other than Edward III, that would give rise to the result obtained. The choice of John of Gaunt appeared to be entirely arbitrary in this example. From there it was picked up by other journalists (and pseudo-journalists) and as this bounced around the media, it came to be reported as a historical hypothesis - that 'some' suspect John was illegitimate, rather than being just a hypothetical example given for the purposes of explaining the genetic mechanism. taf

Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 554 (sub Cromwell) has a good account of Sir Humphrey Bourchier (died 1471), Lord Cromwell, which individual was a first cousin to King Edward IV of England. Regarding Sir Humphrey's marriage, the following information is given by Complete Peerage: "He married, before 14 Feb. 1455/6, Joan, 2nd and youngest daughter of Sir Richard Stanhope, of Rampton, by his 2nd wife, Maud, sister of [whose issue was co-heir to] Ralph (Cromwell), Lord Cromwell, abovenamed. He [Humphrey] died s.p., 14 April 1471, being slain fighting for King Edward at Barnet field, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Will proved 18 June 1471. As he never had issue by his wife, he was not tenant by the courtesy, and probably this Barony should be regarded as a new creation, in which case it became extinct at his death; if, however, it be considered as a Barony of 1375, it fell into abeyance between his widow and her sister. His widow [Joan] married Sir Robert Radcliffe, of Hunstanton, Norfolk, whose will dated 24 Nov. 1496, was proved 19 May 1498. She died s.p., 10 March 1490, and was buried at Tatershall afsd. M.I." END OF QUOTE. Complete Peerage give no documentation whatsoever for the marriage date of Sir Humphrey Bourchier and Joan Stanhope, which the marriage is stated to have been childless. No evidence or date is cited for Joan's second marriage to Sir Robert Radcliffe. As for Joan Stanhope's death date, Complete Peerage seems to be replying on her monumental inscription at Tatershall, Lincolnshire, as no other record is discussed. Insofar as the marriage date of Sir Humphrey and his wife, Joan, cited by Complete Peerage is concerned, the source for this date is Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1452-1461 (1910): 275, which record reads in part: "1456. Feb. 14. License for Thomas Nevyll, knight, and Maud, lady of Willughby, his wife, one of the kinswomen and heirs of Ralph, late lord Cromwell, deceased, and for Humphrey Burghchier, esquire, and Joan his wife, sister of Maud and the other of the kinswomen and heirs of Ralph, to wit, daughters of Maud, sister of Ralph, tenant in chief on the day of his death, ..." END OF QUOTE. So far, so good. As to the claim that Sir Humphrey Bourchier and his wife, Joan Stanhope, had no children, that statement is patently false. Thompson, History and Antiquities of Boston (1856): 749 includes a list of the members of the Corpus Christi Guild in Boston, Lincolnshire and the dates of their respective admissions. The following two entries pertain to Sir Humphrey Bourchier and his wife, Joan Stanhope, and their son, Ralph Bourchier. 1466 Humphrey Bourchier, Lord de Cromwell. 1470. Joan, Lady Cromwell; Ralph Bourchier, her son. The above may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ofs9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA749 It is not known exactly when young Ralph Bourchier died, but presumably it was at the same time as his father in 1471, or shortly before, as Sir Humphrey Bourchier appears to have had no living children at the time of his death. Insofar as the second marriage of Joan Stanhope to Sir Robert Radcliffe is concerned, evidence for this marriage is provided by several sources, among them two visitation records: 1. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 3 (Surtees Soc. 144) (1930): 152-156 (Daubeny ped.: "Iohanna [Stanhope] filia et coh. primo nupta Humfrido Bourghchier (militi) postea Roberto Radcleff"). 2. Mundy et al., Vis. of Nottingham 1569 & 1614 (H.S.P. 4) (1871): 5-8 (Stanhope ped.: "Joanna Stanhop d'na Cromwell et Tateshal1 [1] = Humfrid' Bourchier d'ns d'ni Cromwell et Tatshall, [2] = Robertus Radcliff miles s.p."). My research indicates that Joan, wife of Robert Radcliffe, was specifically styled "the other of the kinswomen and heirs of the said Ralph Cromwell" in a fine dated 9 Feb. 1477, as shown below. Thus we see that Joan Stanhope married (2nd) Robert Radcliffe sometime before 9 February 1477. Source: http://medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_145_162.shtml#42 National Archives, CP 25/1/145/162, number 42. County: Lincolnshire. Date: One week from the Purification of the Blessed Mary, 16 Edward IV [9 February 1477]. Parties: Guy Fairfax, serjeant-at-law, Richard Pygot, serjeant-at-law, John Gygor, clerk, Thomas Fitz William the younger, esquire, William Huse, Reynold Gayton' and Richard Spert, querents, and Maud, who was the wife of Robert Wylughby, knight, one of the kinswomen and heirs of Ralph Cromwell', knight, late lord Cromwell', Robert Radclyff', esquire, and Joan, his wife, the other of the kinswomen and heirs of the said Ralph Cromwell', William, bishop of Winchester, Thomas Byllyng', knight, John Fortescu, knight, John Say, knight, Thomas Tyrell', knight, Walter Moille, knight, and Thomas Yonge, deforciants. Property: The manor of Boston' and 10 messuages, 500 acres of land, 200 acres of meadow, 300 acres of pasture and 16 pounds of rent in Boston', Skyrbek' and Lakke. In a subsequent fine dated 1480, Joan, wife of Robert Radcliffe, is again styled "one of the kinswomen and heirs of Ralph Cromwell', late knight." [Reference: National Archives, CP 25/1/294/77, number 129]. Complete Peerage states that Joan Stanhope's second husband, Sir Robert Radcliffe, was "of Hunstanton, Norfolk." This was only true, however, at the time of Sir Robert's death, as he held Hunstanston, Norfolk in right of his second wife's dower, not during his marriage to Joan Stanhope. As for evidence of where Sir Robert Radcliffe resided during his marriage to Joan Stanhope, one must turn to the records of the Common Pleas which reveals the following two lawsuits: 1. In Hilary term [23 Jan.-12 Feb.] 1477 Robert Radclyff, Esq., of Tateshall Castle, Lincolnshire and Robert Palmer, of East Dereham, Norfolk, sued Robert Salus alias Crofte, of Hingham, Norfolk, yeoman in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of four marks. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/861, image 523d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E4/CP40no861/bCP40no861dorses/IMG_0523.htm). 2. In Hilary term 1486, as "Robert Radclyff, Knt., of Tatershall, Lincolnshire, esquire of the body for King Edward IV," he sued Robert Palmer, Gent., of East Dereham, Norfolk in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £24. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/895, image 118f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H7/CP40no895/aCP40no895fronts/IMG_0118.htm). We see from the above that Sir Robert Radcliffe resided at Tatershall, Lincolnshire, which property was part of his wife's Cromwell inheritance, in 1477 and 1486. Complete Peerage states without qualification that Joan Stanhope, wife of Sir Humphrey Bourchier and Sir Robert Radcliffe, died without issue 10 March 1490, and was buried at Tatershall, Lincolnshire. Yet Lincolnshire Notes & Queries 6 (1901): 36 states that Joan Stanhope died in 1472, as per the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=vR9AAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA36 And Payling, Political Soc. in Lancastrian England (1991): 10 states Joan Stanhope, wife of Sir Robert Radcliffe, died in 1481, as per the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=VlBnAAAAMAAJ&dq=Payling%2C+Political+Society+in+Lancastrian+England&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=1481 Another full discussion of Joan Stanhope's brass at Tattershall, Lincolnshire is available online. Quoting the brass itself, that author states that Joan died 10 March 1479. See the following weblink: http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/page95.html Incredibly, we have four sources with four different dates for Joan Stanhope's death! The four death dates are: 1472, 1479, 1481, 1490. Another online discussion of Joan Stanhope's brass at Tattershall, Lincolnshire by Jules and Jenny adds the following information: "The date of death [on Joan's brass] has often mistakenly been read as 1479, but close examination shows it to be 1490." See the following weblink for this information: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jpguffogg/12247949843 In sharp contrast, an article entitled "Patterns of Patronage: Brasses to the Cromwell-Bourchier Kinship Group" by Sally Badham takes a different position: Badham states "There has been a degree of confusion over the date of death on this brass; however, she died in 1479, not 1490, as proved by documentary evidence which records that she was dead by September 1481." Ms. Badham provides the citation for her statement that Joan Stanhope was dead by September 1481: Magdalen College, Oxford, Archives, 127/44, which reference she says was supplied to her by the historian, Simon Payling. The full Badham article may be viewed at the following weblink: http://www.academia.edu/10204978/Patterns_of_Patronage_Brasses_to_the_Cromwell-Bourchier_Kinship_Group Since none of the above cited authorites can agree, what do other records say about Joan Stanhope's death date? My own research indicates that in 1484 Sir Robert Radcliff presented to the rectory of the consolidated medieties of Hethersett, and church of Cantelose, Norfolk, "in right of Joan his wife," as per the following record: "[Year] 1484, Rob. Smetherst, on Dyconson's resignation [presented by] Rob. Ratclyff, Esq. late of Tateshale in Lincoln diocese, in right of Joan his wife, one of the coheirs of Ralf Lord Cromwell." Reference: Blomefield Essay towards a Topog. History of Norfolk 5 (1806): 23-33]. The above record would suggest that Joan Stanhope was living in 1484. We've already seen evidence from the Common Pleas records that Joan's husband, Sir Robert Radcliffe, was seated at Tattershall, Lincolnshire, which was part of Joan's inheritance, in or about Hilary term 1477 and Hilary term 1486. Yet another lawsuit dated Hilary term 1490 indicates that Robert Radtclyffe, Knt., of Hunstanton, Norfolk, and Robert Parker, bailiff of Tateshall, sued Thomas Alybone, of Fulbeck, Lincolnshire, yeoman, and another in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £10. Since Sir Robert Radcliffe's residence at Hunstanton, Norfolk only came about through his marriage to his 2nd wife, Katherine Drury, we can assume that he had married Katherine Drury sometime before Hilary term 1490. Taken together, it appears that Joan (Stanhope) (Bourchier) Radcliffe died sometime between Hilary term 1486 (when her husband Sir Robert was still in residence at Tattershall, Lincolnshire) and Hilary term 1490 (when her husband was in residence at Hunstanton, Norfolk). This date range obviously disagrees with Ms. Badham's statement that Joan Stanhope was dead before September 1481. Finally, I might note that Complete Peerage makes no attempt to identify the parentage of Joan Stanhope's husband, Sir Robert Radcliffe. Sir Robert is sometimes identified in print as a younger son of Sir John Radcliffe, of Attleborough, Norfolk. However, Horrox, Richard III: A Study in Service (1989): 84, footnote 210 identifies Sir Robert Radcliff, husband of Joan Stanhope, as the son of a certain Sir Thomas Radcliffe. Here are her exact comments: "This was the Robert Ratcliffe, son of Sir Thomas, who married Joan Stanhope, lady Cromwell (hence the Tattershall connection) and then after 1485, Katherine Drury, the widow of Henry le Strange of Hunstanton: PRO, Prob 11/11 fo. 184v. Most pedigrees confuse him with his namesake, the son of Sir John [Ratcliffe] of Attleborough, who married Margaret, widow of lord Dymmoke." END OF QUOTE. Horrox carefully distinguishes between two contemporary Robert Radcliffes, one who married Joan Stanhope and Katherine Drury, and the other who married Margaret Welles, widow of Sir Thomas Dymoke. Horrox is correct in stating that the Robert Radcliffe who married Margaret Welles was the son of Sir John Radcliffe, of Attleborough, Norfolk. Inasmuch as Horrox has provided us no evidence, however, to support her statement regarding Sir Robert Radcliff'e parentage, I'm uncertain as to where she obtained this information. Presuming that Horrox is correct, Sir Robert Radcliffe's father is quite possibly the Sir Thomas Radcliffe, Knt. (born c.1391, died 1440), of Astley and Winmarleigh, Lancashire, whose biography by Roskell is found at the following weblink: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/radcliffe-sir-thomas-1391-1440 In summary, the source for the marriage date of Sir Humphrey Bourchier and Joan Stanhope cited by Complete Peerage has been located. It has been determined that Sir Humphrey and Joan had at least one son, Ralph, who was living in 1470. Joan Stanhope's second marriage to Sir Robert Radcliff has been dated to sometime before before 9 Feb. 1477. The evidence suggests that Joan Stanhope was living as late as Hilary term 1486. She was presumably deceased before Hilary term 1490, when Sir Robert Radcliffe evidently married his 2nd wife, Katherine Drury, widow of Henry le Strange, of Hunstanton, Norfolk. Lastly, Sir Robert Radcliffe is claimed by the historian, Horrox, to be the son of a Sir Thomas Radcliffe. While possible, this statement has not been verified. Horrox has, however, correctly indicated that Sir Robert Radcliffe (husband of Joan Stanhope) was a separate and distinct person from Robert Radcliffe, Esq. (died 1495), of Methley, Yorkshire, who married Margaret Welles, widow of Thomas Dymoke, Knt., of Scrivelsby, Lincolnshire. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Oops, it seems that bit was wrong.

Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen. Even as an Australian (which he ceased to be on becoming an American in 1985), he was not Sir Rupert. He is a Companion of the Order of Australia, and a papal knight, but that does not confer the accolade. It would be absurd for him to use such a title given that he supports the republican movement in Australia, and elsewhere. Richard On 10/05/2016, ravinmaven2001 via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > It seems possible there is a royal descent for Sir Rupert Murdoch, the > billionaire businessman. > > I have used Reitwiesner and Wood's tracing of his ancestry back to ancestor > #116, Robert Sherson, "b. 1736/7, buried 13 Jan 1821 at Fetcham, Surrey aged > 84, apothecary, doctor of medicine and botanist. Will dated 2 Feb 1819, > proved with 3 codicils at London 22 Mar 1821." The next entry is for his > wife, Mary ___, and mentions the location of "Bridge House, Fetcham, > Surrey." > > http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html > > These details given for Robert Sherson and his wife Mary tie in nicely to a > big pedigree chart in Whitaker's _An History of the Original Parish of > Whalley_, where a footnote to the chart shows Alexander Sherson, husband of > Bridget Nowell, serving as "Town Clerk of Lancaster, died Nov. 21, 1737, > leaving a numerous issue. His son Robert Sherson, M.D., late of Great > Ormond Street, now (1809) of Bridge House, Surrey, has also a numerous > progeny." As this statement was made in the lifetime of Robert Sherson (d. > 1821) of Bridge House, Fetcham, Surrey, doctor of medicine, I see no real > reason to doubt its accuracy (though please inform me if this connection is > wrong). > > https://books.google.com/books?id=EO1EAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA264&dq=%22son+robert+sherson%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0m7Cr-8_MAhUE2SYKHZHsD1gQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22son%20robert%20sherson%22&f=false > > Bridget Nowell, shown by Whitaker to be mother of Robert Sherson, M.D., was > a daughter of Roger Nowell, Esq., of Whalley, by his wife, Rebecca, relict > of Cuthbert Wade (possibly born Rebecca Heber, first cousin to her own 2nd > husband). This seems to lead to at least one royal descent from King Edward > III, and probably more (the Heber lines should be checked in particular). > > 1. Edward III, King of England = Philippa of Hainault > > 2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = (3) with legitimated issue, Katherine > (Roet) Swynford > > 3. Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland > > 4. Richard Neville, 1st Earl of Salisbury = Alice Montagu > > 5. Eleanor Neville = Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby > > 6. Edward Stanley, Lord Monteagle = Elizabeth Harington & Anne Vaughan > > 7. (? possibly illegitimate) Elizabeth Stanley = Sir Thomas Langton > > 8. Joan Langton = John Fleetwood > > 9. Elizabeth Fleetwood = Roger Nowell > > 10. Roger Nowell = Dorothy Holt > > 11. Alexander Nowell = Eleanor Heber > > 12. Roger Nowell = Rebecca (? Heber), widow of Cuthbert Wade > > 13. Bridget Nowell = Alexander Sherson > > 14. Robert Sherson = Mary____ > > 15. Robert Sherson = Catherine Taylor > > 16. Caroline Jemima Sherson = Frederick Henry Alexander Forth > > 17. Robert de Lancey Forth = Anne Thomson Ware > > 18. Marie Grace de Lancey Forth = Rupert Greene > > 19. Elisabeth Joy Greene = Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch > > 20. Sir (Keith) Rupert Murdoch > > > The H.O.P. biography of Sir Thomas Langton of Newton confirms his marriage > to a daughter, perhaps illegit., of Edward, Lord Monteagle. > > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/langton-sir-thomas-149697-1569 > > Sir Thomas Langton had another wife who should be ruled out as the mother of > Joan Langton, who married John Fleetwood. > > The _Visitation of Cumberland_ shows the marriage of Joan, daughter of Sir > Thomas and Elizabeth (Stanley) Langton, to John Fleetwood. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=4nO5MJva0IYC&pg=PA32&dq=%22thomas+langton%22+newton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_q5mqkc7MAhUFxSYKHZSKB_wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22thomas%20langton%22%20newton&f=false > > _Documents Relating to the Priory of Penwortham_ deals with the Fleetwood > and Nowell connections in detail, though again we should rule out John > Fleetwood's other wife, Catherine Christmas, as ancestral. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=MmJVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR56&dq=%22married+roger+nowell+of+read%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunvC4_c_MAhUB3yYKHWsCBHAQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=%22married%20roger%20nowell%20of%20read%22&f=false > > I imagine there are in fact several royal descents, as the wife of > generation 15, Robert Sherson, Jr., appears to have been a granddaughter of > Thomas Forbes, who was the son of Arthur Forbes Maitland of Pitrichie. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=uZlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=sherson+nowell+fetcham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw6cmC-s_MAhUK7yYKHRDTDn0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=sherson%20nowell%20fetcham&f=false > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Starting point for Hebers: Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, with Additions, Parts 5-7, Sir William Dugdale, pps 377-380 at https://books.google.com/books?id=FqJCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380&lpg=PA380&dq=eleanor+heber+alexander+nowell&source=bl&ots=a6I7M4HZeR&sig=4DvAjXlU4v4LudCeLNy6dQ_EtOQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidzo-KqNDMAhVJZCYKHaHnAVkQ6AEIOjAJ#v=onepage&q=eleanor%20heber%20alexander%20nowell&f=false. Doug Smith