Thanks, Joe. This looks very likely to be the lead I needed Going through the wills in the archives yesterday, I managed to try every possible spelling except "Reede", so I missed Richard. I haven't studied the document yet, but did note the references to daughter Katryn and Thomas Payn.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:58:07 AM UTC-4, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > One hypothesis to investigate would be that son Thomas is the Thomas Reade of Wisbech who m. Anne Yelverton and had a daughter Katherine married to Thomas Hatcher (Metcalfe, Visitation of Lincolnshire, 1562/4, p 61.) > > Just an idea.. > > Doug Smith Isn't this couple ancestral to Col. George Reade, the emigrant to Virginia and ancestor of George Washington? If I recall correctly, then at least Col. George's ancestors came from Norfolk. -Matt A

One hypothesis to investigate would be that son Thomas is the Thomas Reade of Wisbech who m. Anne Yelverton and had a daughter Katherine married to Thomas Hatcher (Metcalfe, Visitation of Lincolnshire, 1562/4, p 61.) Just an idea.. Doug Smith

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:27:14 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:06:59 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, lste...@charter.net wrote: > > > > > In her will, Katherine refers to her "Neece" Ann Fenner, "Daughter of Thomas Reade gentleman late of Wisbiche deceassed". Since she is very careful about distinguishing her relatives from those of her husband, it seems clear that Thomas was her brother and that her maiden name was Reade, but I have been unable to identify her parents. > > > > > > Her will indicates that she had considerable wealth, and thus one would suspect that she came from a prominent family. > > > > > > Does anyone have information about the Reade ancestors of this lady? > > > > Have you consulted this will? > > Richard Reede of Wisbech 1540: > > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D949658 > > It looks like from a very quick reading that his primary beneficiaries were his "sonne Thomas", son John, and daughter (Kathryn?) > --Joe Cook And that Thomas Payne is the executor?

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:06:59 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, lste...@charter.net wrote: > > > In her will, Katherine refers to her "Neece" Ann Fenner, "Daughter of Thomas Reade gentleman late of Wisbiche deceassed". Since she is very careful about distinguishing her relatives from those of her husband, it seems clear that Thomas was her brother and that her maiden name was Reade, but I have been unable to identify her parents. > > > > Her will indicates that she had considerable wealth, and thus one would suspect that she came from a prominent family. > > > > Does anyone have information about the Reade ancestors of this lady? > > Have you consulted this will? > Richard Reede of Wisbech 1540: > http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D949658 It looks like from a very quick reading that his primary beneficiaries were his "sonne Thomas", son John, and daughter (Kathryn?) --Joe Cook

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, lste...@charter.net wrote: > In her will, Katherine refers to her "Neece" Ann Fenner, "Daughter of Thomas Reade gentleman late of Wisbiche deceassed". Since she is very careful about distinguishing her relatives from those of her husband, it seems clear that Thomas was her brother and that her maiden name was Reade, but I have been unable to identify her parents. > > Her will indicates that she had considerable wealth, and thus one would suspect that she came from a prominent family. > > Does anyone have information about the Reade ancestors of this lady? Have you consulted this will? Richard Reede of Wisbech 1540: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D949658

Near Liz & Dan's, where Barbara meets Jennifer.  A 2-mile interpretive loop along a crep.  Very pretty. From: Peter G. M. Dale via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Eudo Dapifer and Rose fitz Richard de Clare Many thanks again Peter. I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose. Does this assist in clarifying her identify? "... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday Descendants, p. 400.]).  "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.].  Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which "Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which  "Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St. John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 165.].  The History of the foundation of St John's abbey, Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV, Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.].  Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese.  According to Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]).  Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of "secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais" married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne, 1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.].  According to the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis" which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.].  The Complete Peerage says that this parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.].  From a chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to [1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105].  This supposed different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above.  Eudes & his wife had [one possible child]:  i)          MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-).  The Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married "Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.].  According to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.].  Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42] under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round (1892), p. 169.].  The only Ottiwell has been identified was the illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester.  m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia --- (-[1116]).  m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---] (-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)." (source:  http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P-S.htm#_ftnref747) As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment.  However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife.  For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo. Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is this a reasonable conclusion? Cheers, Pete ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 02/05/16 18:53, Tompkins wrote: > From: Ian Goddard via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 02 May 2016 18:13 > >>> I forgot to mention that WMR have a family which seems to be in Thornes > (Spinetum) which could be confused. It mostly seems to be Peg[eo]r, > sometimes Pecher but I've seen it reduced to Peg or Pech. It could get > confused with Peck but I think it's distinct, especially as the early > generations of Peck seem to be in Halifax rather than Wakefield. >> >> Maybe Matt could help here. Is it possible that this could be a > rendering of Fisher, given that occupations are not always given in > their modern English form? Fisher is a local name. >> > ________________________________________ > > Pecher could certainly be Fisher, but Pegger doesn't seem so likely ('peg-maker' seems more likely). Unfortunately they seem to be variations of the same name - both used in the same entry :( -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 4:08:46 AM UTC+10, Peter G. M. Dale wrote: > Many thanks again Peter. > > I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval > Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble > and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain > information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose. > > Does this assist in clarifying her identify? > > "... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife > Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday > Descendants, p. 400.]). "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester > St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea > Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.]. > Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais > uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus > meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which > "Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi > mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. > 48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which > "Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St. > John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee > Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit > et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John, > Vol. I, p. 165.]. The History of the foundation of St John's abbey, > Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor > eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV, > Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.]. > Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese. According to > Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, > she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of > Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]). > Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of > "secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais" > married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis > monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum > Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne, > 1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.]. According to the Genealogia > Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly > "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio > comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici > primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis" > which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, > Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. The Complete Peerage says that this > parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.]. From a > chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming > that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to > [1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second > marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105]. This supposed > different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above. > Eudes & his wife had [one possible child]: > > i) MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-). The Genealogia Fundatoris of > Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni > dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married > "Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii > comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale > Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. According > to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it > does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.]. > Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42] > under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a > grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round > (1892), p. 169.]. The only Ottiwell has been identified was the > illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester. m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM > de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia > --- (-[1116]). m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL > FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---] > (-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)." > (source: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P- > S.htm#_ftnref747) The trouble with evidence from Colchester charters is that many of them are not reliable - the cartulary was compiled in the 13th century and some documents were substituted in the 14th. In 1911 Armitage Robinson concluded that ' the compiler or compilers of these forgeries must have had a number of genuine documents, which, though insufficient for the purposes contemplated, furnished the necessary historical setting ' (*Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster* p. 166). The Clare family connection may be true, but evidence independent of St John's abbey would be needed to establish the facts beyond question. Simply quoting snippets from dubious charters without context, as in the Medieval Lands database above, gives a false impression of certainty. The fact that the charter of Rohese does not call her brother Gilbert 'count' as in the foundation history, and the charter of Walter fitz Robert calling her his 'amita', suggest that these may be genuine documents, but these two sidelights are short of conclusive. > As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment. > However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd > cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided > therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be > the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's > wife. For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's > wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo. The possibility of Geoffrey de Mandeville taking his rights to Eudo's estates and dapiferate from a collateral relationship rather than direct descent is very limited. Eudo had several brothers: of these, Adam is excluded as the maternal grandfather of Geoffrey since Eudo was his heir; Robert was a bishop; Hubert had male heirs of his own. The only one left who could have been Geoffrey's grandfather, giving him seniority as Eudo's heir, was Radulf, castellan of Nottingham - but in that case, why wasn't his castellany part of the inheritance that Geoffrey was entitled to? > Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de > Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end > which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is > this a reasonable conclusion? Rohese de Vere's brother William, bishop of Hereford & chancellor, described their mother as 'Adeliza, filia Gilberti de Clare', so there is not much room for error there. I think your caution about Geoffrey de Mandeville's maternal grandmother is warranted, and Keats-Rohan's unqualified assertion is too strong - without further evidence it is probably impossible to resolve this. Peter Stewart

On 02/05/16 17:34, Tompkins wrote: > 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. The C18th might be sufficient. The West Yorks archives have a land registry going back to 1710. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

I forgot to mention that WMR have a family which seems to be in Thornes (Spinetum) which could be confused. It mostly seems to be Peg[eo]r, sometimes Pecher but I've seen it reduced to Peg or Pech. It could get confused with Peck but I think it's distinct, especially as the early generations of Peck seem to be in Halifax rather than Wakefield. Maybe Matt could help here. Is it possible that this could be a rendering of Fisher, given that occupations are not always given in their modern English form? Fisher is a local name. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On 02/05/16 15:42, Peter Cockerill 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 > > Ian I am very grateful to you for this. > > Have you any idea what might have prompted this Peck to write this account of his lands and who for? Tong the Herald visited Yorkshire in 1530 and recorded the Peck line but his account doesn't correspond with the cited manuscript which was written three years later? I think it's impossible to say exactly. One possibility might be a dispute as to property and he wanted to get his thoughts in order. It might be in connection with the marriage of one of his children and he wanted to show his position within local society. I don't have a copy of a 1530 visitation. There is a pedigree in Flowers' vistation of 1563-4. It seems similar to yours except that the Richard of the 2nd generation is simply dismissed as "dyed yonge" with no mention of a marriage. Thomas is given 3 sons but no other detail. If you haven't got that visitation I can send you the relevant pages off list. A likely source of discrepancies is that Tong's informant wasn't the same person as the author of your document. BTW, does the 1530 visitation have Kay[e] in it? -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

From: Ian Goddard via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 02 May 2016 18:13 >> I forgot to mention that WMR have a family which seems to be in Thornes (Spinetum) which could be confused. It mostly seems to be Peg[eo]r, sometimes Pecher but I've seen it reduced to Peg or Pech. It could get confused with Peck but I think it's distinct, especially as the early generations of Peck seem to be in Halifax rather than Wakefield. > > Maybe Matt could help here. Is it possible that this could be a rendering of Fisher, given that occupations are not always given in their modern English form? Fisher is a local name. > ________________________________________ Pecher could certainly be Fisher, but Pegger doesn't seem so likely ('peg-maker' seems more likely). Matt

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

On 2/05/2016 2:48 PM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Many thanks for the informed & thoughtful reply. I respond as follows: > > [1]. As per consanguinity, I am not familiar enough with the subject, save for the basic and changing prohibitions, to know whether a relationship in the 3rd degree was likely to be ignored or readily accommodated with dispensation or, alternatively, whether the granting of a technically required dispensation was to be expected in a case like this but simply absent from the surviving record. I, generally, am loathe to rely on missing evidence to satisfy genealogical challenges. However, as I said earlier, I simply do not know enough about this topic to make any determinations. > > [2]. I just re-read the Hollister article on the Mandeville family you kindly quoted. Are you in agreement with his conclusions? The arguments, while I understand the logic and import, are too advanced for me to really hazard a guess as per who is correct - Round v Hollister. > > For what it's worth, I think Hollister has the better of this argument - Round evidently supposed that inheritance was secure at the time of Eudo's death, but careful work has been done of this question since he wrote and the answer is "not so much". It has calculated that inheritance within families occurred within the frequency range of 60-80% through the reign of Henry I. We know that William de Mandeville had fallen from favour, and his father-in-law Eudo may have been incapacitated in the last two decades of his life. I wouldn't think it surprising if William's underage son Geoffrey fell into the unlucky 20-40% until Matilda decided to give him all she could of his rights - that is, lands and the dapiferate in Normandy that were under her (or officially her husband's) control, and the estates in England if Geoffrey could obtain them. Peter Stewart

On 2/05/2016 9:34 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 2/05/2016 9:15 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: >> On 2/05/2016 7:02 AM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: >>> Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al, >>> >>> Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions? >>> >>> [1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo >>> >>> [Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?] >> It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from >> Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of >> Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut >> habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and >> dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English >> inheritance. >> > I should have added that Round disagreed with this - he noted "The > clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship existed, but it > was probably collateral, instead of lineal." > > The only source we have (albeit less than fully reliable) makes the > relationship direct through Eudo's daughter Margaret. Round's > probability contradicting this was based on the estates of Eudo > escheating to the Crown at his death - but why this would happen despite > a collateral rather than direct heir having rights to the inheritance he > did not discuss. Henry I was not the most scrupulous legalist of the > age. Evidently Geoffrey's mother was already dead, or at least not able > to carry this great power to her second husband Otuel. > It was not as simple as my last sentence above. The matter was discussed at length by Warren Hollister in 'The misfortunes of the Mandevilles', *History* 58 (1973), reprinted in his collected essays *Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World* (1986) - regarding the descent of Geoffrey from Eudo through Margaret, Hollister concluded (in note 31) "The passage [in Tintern abbey's Genealogia fundatoris: 'Rohesia ... renupta Eudoni, dapifero ... Margareta filia eorum nupta fuit Willielmo de Mandevill, et fuit mater Gaufridi comitis Essexiae et jure matris, Normanniae dapifer'] was known to Round but rejected by him (and by the editors of *Complete Peerage*, V, 114) on the grounds that Eudo's lands did not pass directly to Geoffrey de Mandeville but were in Henry I's hands in 1130. This can hardly stand as an objection when one recalls that three former Mandeville manors were also in royal hands, and that Geoffrey's rights were in conflict with those of [his maternal half-brother] William fitz Othuer." Eudo died in Normandy in February 1120, allegedly after being blind for the past 15 years, and Otuel drowned in the White Ship disaster on 25 November of the same year. The history of Mandeville holdings as well as those of Eudo is too complicated to detail here, but it is worth reading Hollister's article as a corrective to Round and CP over this. Peter Stewart

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:28:15 PM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 02/05/16 18:53, Tompkins wrote: > > From: Ian Goddard via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > > Sent: 02 May 2016 18:13 > > > >>> I forgot to mention that WMR have a family which seems to be in Thornes > > (Spinetum) which could be confused. It mostly seems to be Peg[eo]r, > > sometimes Pecher but I've seen it reduced to Peg or Pech. It could get > > confused with Peck but I think it's distinct, especially as the early > > generations of Peck seem to be in Halifax rather than Wakefield. > >> > >> Maybe Matt could help here. Is it possible that this could be a > > rendering of Fisher, given that occupations are not always given in > > their modern English form? Fisher is a local name. > >> > > ________________________________________ > > > > Pecher could certainly be Fisher, but Pegger doesn't seem so likely ('peg-maker' seems more likely). > > Unfortunately they seem to be variations of the same name - both used in > the same entry :( > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Thank you all so much. I have the following supporting 'evidence' original also obtained. The Genealogical Magazine 1899-1900 Vol III DUCHY OF LANCASTER INQUISITIONS POST- MORTEM {continued). By Ethel Stokes John Sayvile, Knt. 21 March, 12 Hen. VIII. (1520/1) One Thomas Sayvile, great-grandfather of the said John, was seised of the manor of Folrigge, co. Lancaster. By charter, dated at Folrigge, St. Hilary's day, 8 Hen. V., he conveyed the same to trustees (amongst whom was Henry Sayvile of Copley, Esq.), entailing it on his heirs male. (The last surviving trustee was Richard Peke, from whom the trusteeship has descended to John Peke, now living, son of Richard, son of Richard, son of John, son of the afore- said Richard Peke). John Sayvile, Knt., died 20 March, 20 Hen. VII. Henry Saivile, Esq., is his son and heir, and heir of the aforesaid Thomas, viz., son of John, son of John, son of John, son of the said Thomas. At the date of this inquisition he is 22 and upwards. By Letters Patent, 5 Nov., 2 Hen. VIII., the wardship and marriage of the said Henry Saivile were granted to Richard Hastings, Knt. Vol. ii., no. 11.

As I read this Jonathan Atkins b. 1631 was father of Jane Atkins b. 1638? Doug Smith from Wikipedia: Sir Jonathan Atkins (c. 1610–1703) was Governor of Guernsey (1665–1670) and Governor of Barbados (1674–1680).[2][3] Atkins was commissioned Governor-in-Chief of Barbados 6 February 1674 receiving his instructions on 28 February 1674.[4] He arrived in Barbados late October or early November 1674.[5] The hurricane of 31 August 1675 was '... the worſt Enemy this Iſland ever knew, ...'.[6] Atkins was recalled and replaced by Sir Richard Dutton in 1680 who 'found the Iſland in a very flourſhing Condition'.[7] Atkins married Mary Howard, the eldest daughter of Sir William Howard and Mary Eure of Naworth Castle, on 17 November 1642. She died on 9 April 1660. At the age of 51 on 8 October 1661, Atkins married the c. 24-year-old widow, Elizabeth Anderson, daughter of Sir John Baker of Sissinghurst in Kent.[8] References Notes Hoare 2010, p. 51. Schomburgk 1847, p. 295. Oldmixon 1741, p. 32. Sainsbury 1889. Hoare 2010, p. 53. Oldmixon 1741, p. 33. Oldmixon 1741, p. 37. Hoare 2010, p. 52. Bibliography Hoare, Peter (2010). "Sir Jonathan Atkins - Holborn House, Barbados - The marble relief of King's Lynn, Norfolk (1687): A puzzling link?". Norfolk Archaeology XLVI: 48–62. Oldmixon, J (1741). The British empire in America Vol 2. London: J. Brotherton, J. Clarke, A. Ward, J. Clarke, C. Hitch [and 5 others]. Retrieved 9 May 2011. Sainsbury, W N (1889). "America and West Indies: February 1674". Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Volume 7: 1669-1674. Institute of Historical Research. Retrieved 9 May 2011. Schomburgk, R H (1847). The History of Barbados: Comprising a Geographical and Statistical Description of the Island; a Sketch of the Historical Events Since the Settlement; and an Account of Its Geology and Natural Productions. Republished 2010 Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-02331-3.

John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset /1404-1444 | | | Thomassina Beaufort ca 1428-1494 & Reginald Grey, Baron Grey of Wilton +1495 Margaret Beaufort 1443-1509 &1455 Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond ca 1430-1456 | | John Grey, Baron Grey of Wilton +1499 & Anne Grey Henry VII Tudor, King of England 1457-1509 | Edmund Grey, Baron Grey of Wilton 1468-1511 &/1492 Florence Hastings ca 1470-/1511 | Elizabeth Grey /1500-1559 &1512 John Brydges, Baron Chandos 1492-1557 | Charles Brydges 1526-1619 &ca 1559 Jane Carne | Giles Brydges, baronet Chandos of Wilton 1573-1637 & Mary Scudamore 1600-1629 | John Brydges, baronet Chandos of Wilton Castle 1623-1652 &1637 Mary Pearle 1625-1682 | James Brydges, Baron Chandos of Sudeley 1642-1714 & Elizabeth Barnard 1643-1719 | Mary Brydges 1666-1703 &1689 Theophilus Leigh 1643-1725 | Thomas Leigh 1697-1764 & Jane Walker 1704-1768 | Cassandra Leigh 1739-1827 &1764 George Austen 1731-1805 | Jane Austen 1775-1817

Many thanks again Peter. I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose. Does this assist in clarifying her identify? "... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday Descendants, p. 400.]). "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.]. Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which "Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which "Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St. John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 165.]. The History of the foundation of St John's abbey, Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV, Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.]. Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese. According to Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]). Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of "secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais" married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne, 1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.]. According to the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis" which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. The Complete Peerage says that this parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.]. From a chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to [1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105]. This supposed different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above. Eudes & his wife had [one possible child]: i) MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-). The Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married "Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. According to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.]. Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42] under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round (1892), p. 169.]. The only Ottiwell has been identified was the illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester. m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia --- (-[1116]). m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---] (-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)." (source: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P-S.htm#_ftnref747) As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment. However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife. For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo. Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is this a reasonable conclusion? Cheers, Pete