On 08-Sep-17 1:27 PM, taf wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:34:07 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: >> I have previously raised the issue here of the paternity of Vermudo II. He >> is known from chronicles and contemporary documents as the son of king >> Ordono. The problem is that there were two kings of that name in the >> preceding generation, Ordono III, son of king Ramiro II, and Ordono IV, >> son of king Alfonso (usually identified with Alfonso IV, brother of Ramiro >> II, both being sons of Ordono II, although a minority opinion would make >> Ordono IV the son of Alfonso Fruelaz, son of Fruela II and briefly king or >> anti-king in opposition to the sons of Ordono II). The traditional >> derivation of Vermudo II has been as son of Ordono III, but from time to >> time a scholar will argue that his father was instead Ordono IV. >> >> Not so. A published charter has come to my attention that makes the >> relationship explicit. A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria >> de Carracedo, issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, >> . . . quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is Vermudo >> (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II). This allows us to dismiss >> the alternative descent, and the various implications that would flow from >> it. > A year ago I posted about this charter in which Vermudo II of Leon names his father Ordono, confirming a grant made by "avus nostro dominus Ranemirus" - our 'grandfather' Ramiro, seemingly resolving the dispute about which king Ordono was his father, that it was Ordono III Ramirez and not Ordono IV Alfonso. Well, as might have been expected, the proponent of the alternative hypothesis has decided to explain this away as meaning something different. Indeed, he gives two alternative explanations, both relating to the imprecision of the term 'avus' and its cognates. > > In a 2014 article on the ancestry of Vermudo II, Manuel Carriedo Tejedo concludes that avus here does not mean grandfather. First he points to other cases where the term is used for a great-grandfather. He takes this to mean that in the charter in question, he may have been referring to great-great-great-great-grandfather, Ramiro I, in other words, that it is being used as 'ancestor'. (This seems unlikely to me, in that I don't recall ever seeing the word used for a relationship this remote.) Secondly, he points to a charter in which Vermudo refers to 'auus noster domnus Rudesindus episcopus' - calling Saint Bishop Rosendo avus when clearly 'grandfather' in the biological sense is not an option. He raises the possibility that the term might be used as ancestor to refer more broadly to a predecessor in the family - that it might refer to Ramiro II not as a direct ancestor but as first cousin of his grandfather. > > I would say that this cannot be definitively answered unless a charter is found naming Vermudo's mother, but even that would likely fall short - Ordono III and Ordono IV married the same woman, Urraca Fernandez of Castile. > > https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5710005 The full article is available here: http://www.annuariumsanctiiacobi.org/sites/annuariumsanctiiacobi.org/files/la_ascendencia_de_vermudo_ii_982-999.pdf Peter Stewart

On 08-Sep-17 9:47 AM, taf wrote: > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:19:17 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> And I should add the following question then occurs: What factors >> (socio-economic, geographic or other) might cause some Americans to have >> a disproportionately high representation of the 50%- non-Edward III >> gateways in their ancestry? > Given that the overall number of immigrants during the period is in the 10s of thousands and we have 150 who are traced to any Plantagenet, most are not going to have a large number of royal-descended immigrant ancestors, and those that do are going to be subject to some pretty large 'sampling' variation. I suspect that if more than one of my grandparents derived from this immigrant stock, I would have several additional royal immigrants and the proportions would tend to converge on the average. The question of whether or not the small 'gateway' group is a representative sample of all immigrants from England is certainly beyond my ken. Since there were strong confessional factors causing many people to cross the Atlantic until the 19th century, I suppose the emigrants represented somewhat tighter socio-economic groupings than a random sample of the English population (Methodists tended to intermarry with other Methodists, Quakers with Quakers, and so on, for an indeterminate time before and after arrival in America). This is the kind of complexity that leads to modelling rather than direct statistical analysis, so that the study is almost as open to art as to science. Peter Stewart

On 08-Sep-17 9:11 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 08-Sep-17 8:06 AM, John Higgins wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> >>> In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of >>> American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century >>> did >>> not have a known line to Edward III. >>> >>> Peter Stewart >> One possible answer to Peter's question might be provided by Douglas >> Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry".  Of the roughly 150 surnames of >> gateway ancestors (excluding siblings) covered in at least the 1st >> edition of that work, only slightly more than half have descents from >> Edward III.  The remainder derive their Plantagenet descents from an >> earlier monarch - or from a non-monarch Plantagenet descendant (e.g., >> Hamelin Plantagenet). Make of that what you will... :-) > > Thank you, John - 50%+ in a sample with no more than a few lines > traced over an interval of 4+ centuries suggests to me that the 80% > claim overall for descendants of non-emigrant English stock is > probably not far from the mark. And I should add the following question then occurs: What factors (socio-economic, geographic or other) might cause some Americans to have a disproportionately high representation of the 50%- non-Edward III gateways in their ancestry? Peter Stewart

On 08-Sep-17 8:06 AM, John Higgins wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of >> American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did >> not have a known line to Edward III. >> >> Peter Stewart > One possible answer to Peter's question might be provided by Douglas Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry". Of the roughly 150 surnames of gateway ancestors (excluding siblings) covered in at least the 1st edition of that work, only slightly more than half have descents from Edward III. The remainder derive their Plantagenet descents from an earlier monarch - or from a non-monarch Plantagenet descendant (e.g., Hamelin Plantagenet). Make of that what you will... :-) Thank you, John - 50%+ in a sample with no more than a few lines traced over an interval of 4+ centuries suggests to me that the 80% claim overall for descendants of non-emigrant English stock is probably not far from the mark. Peter Stewart

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 8:45:22 AM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > On Thursday, 7 September 2017 21:45:31 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:17:55 PM UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > Dear Newsgroup, > > > I am trying to confirm the dates of Margaret Oddingsel, daughter and co-heir of William Oddingsel and Ela Fitzwalter, who married first John Grey (d. 1311) and then Robert Moreby (d. 1335). > > > Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry, 2011, p 269) gives her birth date as c. 1277. Is this because she had to have been 18 to inherit in 1295? > > > As for the date of her death, she last appears in the records on 21 April 1330, when the king granted free warren to her, her second husband Robert Moreby and her heir John Grey (1300-1359), on her manors of Cogges, Oxfordshire, Opton and Sculcoates, Yorkshire and Weford, Staffordshire, for her lifetime and to John and his heirs after her death. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 168.) > > > Her son John Grey appears again four months later, on his own account. On 1 August 1330 he and his heirs are granted free warren on all his demesne lands, Shobynton, Estclaydon, Botilclaydon, co. Bucks, Cogges, Herdwyk, Stanlak, Feringford and Somerton, co. Oxford, Wynterburn, co. Berks, Duston, co. Northampton, and Upton, Stillingflete, Moreby, Drynghous, Sculcoates and Ketelwell, co. York. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 189.) > > > There is no mention of Margaret in this entry. Does this mean she was dead and John had inherited her lands, as suggested by the Church Monuments Society article on Margaret’s effigy? http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2012-01.html > > > The places mentioned don’t quite tally. Margaret’s manor of Weford was in the first grant but not the second and there are manors in the second which were Grey properties already inherited by John from his father (d.1311). Moreby belonged to his step father who was still alive. Could there be another reason? Was John granted these privileges, some of which seem to be new, some confirmation of existing rights, to mark his knighthood? Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he was knighted by 1330 ( http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/view/article/11544?docPos=4). > > > > > > If so, this means there is no date for Margaret’s death and she may have lived on after 1330. > > > Any thoughts would be much appreciated, > > > Thank you > > > Nicola Lowe > > > > Thank you both, that is really helpful. > > With best wishes > > Nicola > > Dear Nicola, > > But that still leaves the question of who was the lady Isabel de Clinton? From the text provided by Matt, it appears that she was a widow, and living in the Priory, it is said, for her recreation and as a place to entertain her friends (she definitely was not the prioress in 1323). Hers was not such an unusual situation, and I have come across other cases of noble widows taking up residence in nunneries, without becoming nuns. > > Was Isabel really Ida? - it seems doubtful. Isabel must have been the widow of another Clinton. A possible candidate would be the widow of John de Clinton 'the elder' of Coleshill, Warwickshire who died in 1315/6. See CP, vol. 3, p. 312-3, note (c). > > Regards, > > John Yes, that does seem much more likely, doesn't it. The same CP note goes on to say that your John Clinton had a son also John who died in 1353 leaving a widow, Alice. Alice de Clynton is listed as prioress at Wroxall in 1353-6 which fits very well. Does this make your John Clinton of Coleshill the cousin of John Clinton of Maxstoke? Very many thanks for this Nicola

On Thursday, 7 September 2017 21:45:31 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:17:55 PM UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > Dear Newsgroup, > > I am trying to confirm the dates of Margaret Oddingsel, daughter and co-heir of William Oddingsel and Ela Fitzwalter, who married first John Grey (d. 1311) and then Robert Moreby (d. 1335). > > Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry, 2011, p 269) gives her birth date as c. 1277. Is this because she had to have been 18 to inherit in 1295? > > As for the date of her death, she last appears in the records on 21 April 1330, when the king granted free warren to her, her second husband Robert Moreby and her heir John Grey (1300-1359), on her manors of Cogges, Oxfordshire, Opton and Sculcoates, Yorkshire and Weford, Staffordshire, for her lifetime and to John and his heirs after her death. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 168.) > > Her son John Grey appears again four months later, on his own account. On 1 August 1330 he and his heirs are granted free warren on all his demesne lands, Shobynton, Estclaydon, Botilclaydon, co. Bucks, Cogges, Herdwyk, Stanlak, Feringford and Somerton, co. Oxford, Wynterburn, co. Berks, Duston, co. Northampton, and Upton, Stillingflete, Moreby, Drynghous, Sculcoates and Ketelwell, co. York. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 189.) > > There is no mention of Margaret in this entry. Does this mean she was dead and John had inherited her lands, as suggested by the Church Monuments Society article on Margaret’s effigy? http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2012-01.html > > The places mentioned don’t quite tally. Margaret’s manor of Weford was in the first grant but not the second and there are manors in the second which were Grey properties already inherited by John from his father (d.1311). Moreby belonged to his step father who was still alive. Could there be another reason? Was John granted these privileges, some of which seem to be new, some confirmation of existing rights, to mark his knighthood? Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he was knighted by 1330 ( http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/view/article/11544?docPos=4). > > > > If so, this means there is no date for Margaret’s death and she may have lived on after 1330. > > Any thoughts would be much appreciated, > > Thank you > > Nicola Lowe > > Thank you both, that is really helpful. > With best wishes > Nicola Dear Nicola, But that still leaves the question of who was the lady Isabel de Clinton? From the text provided by Matt, it appears that she was a widow, and living in the Priory, it is said, for her recreation and as a place to entertain her friends (she definitely was not the prioress in 1323). Hers was not such an unusual situation, and I have come across other cases of noble widows taking up residence in nunneries, without becoming nuns. Was Isabel really Ida? - it seems doubtful. Isabel must have been the widow of another Clinton. A possible candidate would be the widow of John de Clinton 'the elder' of Coleshill, Warwickshire who died in 1315/6. See CP, vol. 3, p. 312-3, note (c). Regards, John

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 7:34:07 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > I have previously raised the issue here of the paternity of Vermudo II. He > is known from chronicles and contemporary documents as the son of king > Ordono. The problem is that there were two kings of that name in the > preceding generation, Ordono III, son of king Ramiro II, and Ordono IV, > son of king Alfonso (usually identified with Alfonso IV, brother of Ramiro > II, both being sons of Ordono II, although a minority opinion would make > Ordono IV the son of Alfonso Fruelaz, son of Fruela II and briefly king or > anti-king in opposition to the sons of Ordono II). The traditional > derivation of Vermudo II has been as son of Ordono III, but from time to > time a scholar will argue that his father was instead Ordono IV. > > Not so. A published charter has come to my attention that makes the > relationship explicit. A royal charter in the Cartulary of Santa Maria > de Carracedo, issued by Vermudo, refers to "patris mei domini Hordonii, > . . . quod avus noster dominus Ranemirus. . . .", so there it is Vermudo > (II) was son of Ordono (III), son of Ramiro (II). This allows us to dismiss > the alternative descent, and the various implications that would flow from > it. A year ago I posted about this charter in which Vermudo II of Leon names his father Ordono, confirming a grant made by "avus nostro dominus Ranemirus" - our 'grandfather' Ramiro, seemingly resolving the dispute about which king Ordono was his father, that it was Ordono III Ramirez and not Ordono IV Alfonso. Well, as might have been expected, the proponent of the alternative hypothesis has decided to explain this away as meaning something different. Indeed, he gives two alternative explanations, both relating to the imprecision of the term 'avus' and its cognates. In a 2014 article on the ancestry of Vermudo II, Manuel Carriedo Tejedo concludes that avus here does not mean grandfather. First he points to other cases where the term is used for a great-grandfather. He takes this to mean that in the charter in question, he may have been referring to great-great-great-great-grandfather, Ramiro I, in other words, that it is being used as 'ancestor'. (This seems unlikely to me, in that I don't recall ever seeing the word used for a relationship this remote.) Secondly, he points to a charter in which Vermudo refers to 'auus noster domnus Rudesindus episcopus' - calling Saint Bishop Rosendo avus when clearly 'grandfather' in the biological sense is not an option. He raises the possibility that the term might be used as ancestor to refer more broadly to a predecessor in the family - that it might refer to Ramiro II not as a direct ancestor but as first cousin of his grandfather. I would say that this cannot be definitively answered unless a charter is found naming Vermudo's mother, but even that would likely fall short - Ordono III and Ordono IV married the same woman, Urraca Fernandez of Castile. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5710005 taf

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:19:17 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > And I should add the following question then occurs: What factors > (socio-economic, geographic or other) might cause some Americans to have > a disproportionately high representation of the 50%- non-Edward III > gateways in their ancestry? Given that the overall number of immigrants during the period is in the 10s of thousands and we have 150 who are traced to any Plantagenet, most are not going to have a large number of royal-descended immigrant ancestors, and those that do are going to be subject to some pretty large 'sampling' variation. I suspect that if more than one of my grandparents derived from this immigrant stock, I would have several additional royal immigrants and the proportions would tend to converge on the average. taf

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of > American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did > not have a known line to Edward III. > > Peter Stewart One possible answer to Peter's question might be provided by Douglas Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry". Of the roughly 150 surnames of gateway ancestors (excluding siblings) covered in at least the 1st edition of that work, only slightly more than half have descents from Edward III. The remainder derive their Plantagenet descents from an earlier monarch - or from a non-monarch Plantagenet descendant (e.g., Hamelin Plantagenet). Make of that what you will... :-)

On 07-Sep-17 9:06 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > The first source naming Lambert as a husband of Judith's mother is > Vita Waldevi comitis (written after 1219), that added Lambert to > information taken from Orderic who did not name him, and this was the > unreliable basis for the Huntingdon chronicle (written after 1291). > Many historians do not pay close attention to this kind of incidental > question, or to the evaluation of sources peripheral to their main > subject. These datings are inexact: I should have written 'Vita Waldevi comitis (written in or after 1219) ... the Huntingdon chronicle (written in 1291)'. Peter Stewart

Lengthy article on David Dale and his house ... https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080332326;view=1up;seq=119 It names his grandparents (and a different mother from the RBS bio!).

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:17:55 PM UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > Dear Newsgroup, > I am trying to confirm the dates of Margaret Oddingsel, daughter and co-heir of William Oddingsel and Ela Fitzwalter, who married first John Grey (d. 1311) and then Robert Moreby (d. 1335). > Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry, 2011, p 269) gives her birth date as c. 1277. Is this because she had to have been 18 to inherit in 1295? > As for the date of her death, she last appears in the records on 21 April 1330, when the king granted free warren to her, her second husband Robert Moreby and her heir John Grey (1300-1359), on her manors of Cogges, Oxfordshire, Opton and Sculcoates, Yorkshire and Weford, Staffordshire, for her lifetime and to John and his heirs after her death. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 168.) > Her son John Grey appears again four months later, on his own account. On 1 August 1330 he and his heirs are granted free warren on all his demesne lands, Shobynton, Estclaydon, Botilclaydon, co. Bucks, Cogges, Herdwyk, Stanlak, Feringford and Somerton, co. Oxford, Wynterburn, co. Berks, Duston, co. Northampton, and Upton, Stillingflete, Moreby, Drynghous, Sculcoates and Ketelwell, co. York. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 189.) > There is no mention of Margaret in this entry. Does this mean she was dead and John had inherited her lands, as suggested by the Church Monuments Society article on Margaret’s effigy? http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2012-01.html > The places mentioned don’t quite tally. Margaret’s manor of Weford was in the first grant but not the second and there are manors in the second which were Grey properties already inherited by John from his father (d.1311). Moreby belonged to his step father who was still alive. Could there be another reason? Was John granted these privileges, some of which seem to be new, some confirmation of existing rights, to mark his knighthood? Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he was knighted by 1330 ( http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/view/article/11544?docPos=4). > > If so, this means there is no date for Margaret’s death and she may have lived on after 1330. > Any thoughts would be much appreciated, > Thank you > Nicola Lowe Thank you both, that is really helpful. With best wishes Nicola

The wife of Robert Owen, founder of the New Harmony community in Indiana, was (Ann) Caroline or Carolina Dale, a known descendant of John Campbell, d. 1777, "cashier" of the Bank of Scotland. Robert Owen and Caroline Dale have a good number of prominent American descendants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dale_Owen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Dale_Snedeker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dale_Owen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen_(geologist) https://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/jdowen.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Faunt_Le_Roy_Runcie Ann Caroline (Dale) Owen's line of descent from John Campbell was: John Campbell, d. 1777 = (2) Ann Carolina Campbell "of Tofts" Ann Carolina Campbell = David Dale Ann Carolina/Caroline Dale = Robert Owen, sometime of New Harmony, Indiana See: https://www.rbs.com/heritage/people/david-dale.html https://www.rbs.com/heritage/people/john-campbell.html The opening paragraph of "cashier" John Campbell's biography in the _Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_ says: "Campbell, John (c.1703–1777), banker and businessman, was held by contemporaries to be an illegitimate son of Colin Campbell of Ardmaddy, younger son of the first earl of Breadalbane (1634–1717). Later testimonies suggest that Colin Campbell married Grizel Douglas against the earl's wishes, and that all evidence of this legal marriage was later destroyed, and with it, the claim of John Campbell's descendants to the earldom. After his father's death, John was raised in the Breadalbane household at Finlarig in the Perthshire highlands. In 1718 he was apprenticed to Colin Kirk, writer to the signet, for three years." Some very accurate information on Cashier John's supposed father, Colin (? of Armaddy), appears in _6 Papers Relating To Claims To The Earldom Of Breadalbane and Holland_, published in 1866. John Campbell, first earl of Breadalbane, registered a deed in a minor court in Edinburgh in July 1705--it did not make its way into the books of Council and Session and the General Register House until 1870. In this deed, Breadalbane mentioned his older son Lord Glenorchy, and Glenorchy's lawful heirs-male, "which failing ... to Master Colin Campbell, also his the said John first Earl of Breadalbane's lawful son procreate between him and Mary Countess of Caithness, his last spouse, and the heirs male of his body ..." The fuller history of Colin Campbell is given in the commentary following this deed: "The said Master Colin Campbell, the son of the first Earl by his spouse Mary Countess of Caithness, died on the 31st day of March 1708, at Kensington, in the county of Middlesex [England], and a tablet to his memory is in the church of that parish. There is contained under the date of the year 1710, in the Kirk Session Register in the parish of Kenmore, in which parish Taymouth Castle is situate, a copy of a letter, dated March 16th, 1710, from the first Earl to his chamberlain, John Campbell, which commences as follows: --- 'Whereas it pleased God to remove my son, Master Colin Campbell, at London, the last day of March 1708. He did by his latter will mortifie and bequeath an hundred pounds sterline in money, chargeable on his estate in Nether Lorne, and the annual rent thereof, to be yearly paid by our order, and our successor's direction and the minister and kirk session of Kenmor, to the said minister and kirk session of that parish.' No will of the said Colin Campbell is registered or to be found recorded in Scotland or England." https://books.google.com/books?id=ydANAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA7&dq=%22failing+to+master+colin+campbell%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfq4yo6JPWAhUGziYKHZhyB7QQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22failing%20to%20master%20colin%20campbell%22&f=false This document and the sources it quotes shows that John, 1st earl of Breadalbane, had a lawful son, Mr. or "Master" Colin Campbell,--i.e., a minister (or at least a university graduate). Mr. Colin died 31 March 1708 and is buried at Kensington in England, with the following inscription: Here lyeth the body of Mr. Colin Campbell, son to the Earl of Bread Albany and Holland, and to Mary, Countess Dowager of Caithness, daughter of Archibald [Campbell], Marquis of Argyle. He died the 31st day of March, in the year 1708, and of his age the 29th year. A youth of great parts and hopes. [Arms ....] https://books.google.com/books?id=N4JLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA191&dq=%22colin+campbell%22+kensington&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7w87wvJHWAhVI6yYKHTdyADoQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22colin%20campbell%22%20kensington&f=false Does it looks as though John Campbell, the Cashier, could be a son (legitimate/ illegitimate?) of this Mr. Colin Campbell?

Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 00:25:00 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: > In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of > American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did > not have a known line to Edward III. > > Peter Stewart There is one I can tell Agnes Harris.

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:18:24 AM UTC-4, John Watson wrote: > On Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:05:07 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:57 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > > Dear Nicola ~ > > > > > > You've asked an interesting question. > > > > > > Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 4 (1846): 89 includes the following person in his list of prioress of Wroxall: > > > > > > "Isabella, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, knight" was a Prioress of Wroxall. She died in A.D. 1300." END OF QUOTE. > > > > > > The additional information is added in a footnote on this page: > > > > > > "So Dugdale, in the first edition of his History, from Chron. de Wroxhall, ut supr. fol. 9 a ... Dr. Thomas .... adds "Isabella de Clinton, injunctiones ab epis. missae fuere et monialibus reformare scandala, A.D. 1323." .... According to Willis's MSS. Notes in a copy of his Mitred Abbies, she died in 1330." END OF QUOTE. > > > > > > The above material can be found at the following weblink: > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA89 > > > > > > You're correct that VCH Warwick 2 (1908): 70-73 refers to the abbess Isabel (not Ida) de Clinton as Prioress of Wroxall. Here is what is said in that source: > > > > > > "Bishop Cobham visited this nunnery in 1323, when he found grave discord existing between the prioress and Lady Isabel Clinton, some of the sisters adhering to the one and some to the other. He also found that cups and other vessels and utensils intended for hospitality had been sold, that hospitality and almsgiving were insufficient, and that there were scarcely enough necessaries for the sisters ... It would seem that the party of Isabel de Clinton obtained the victory, for Agnes was succeeded by Isabel, widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, patron of the house. On the death of Isabel the temporalities were seized by the too great zeal of the county escheator. On 13 November, 1325, John de Bolingbrok, escheator for Warwickshire, was ordered to meddle no further with the priory of Wroxall or any of its possessions, which he had taken into the king's hands at the late voidance." END OF QUOTE. > > > > > > Reviewing the above, it would appear that we have no less than three different death dates for Isabel the prioress, 1300, 1330, and 1325. Likewise this prioress is identified by both Dugdale and VCH Warwick as the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke. If she was the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, "patron" of Wroxall, she can only have been his known widow, Ida de Oddingseles. However, Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 312–313 (sub Clinton) makes no mention that Ida was a Prioress, only that she was living 1 March 1321/2. > > > > > > Elsewhere Smith and London, Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216–1377 (2001): 624 merely adds to the confusion. They make no mention of either Ida or Isabel de Clinton as prioress. Rather they say an Isabel de Fokeram occurs as prioress 13 March 1328 (Records of Wroxall, no. 44) and 2 Oct. 1328 (PRO, E326/5500). They list a second and apparently separate Isabel de Fokerham who served as prioress in 1339-1352. See the following weblink for this source: > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=aRDqqGWj3ikC&pg=PA624 > > > > > > If you're shaking your head and say you don't understand, join the club. > > > > > > Here's what I know about the later life of Ida de Oddingseles, widow of Sir John de Clinton, of Maxstoke: > > > > > > In 1319 Ida, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, was summoned to answer William la Zouche [Mortimer] concerning a plea that she surrender to him [her son] John son and heir of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, whose wardship belonged to the said William, for reason that John de Clinton held his land of him by knight’s service. The said Ida came by William de Coleshill her attorney and said that she held the aforesaid wardship by the lease of William la Zouche [Mortimer], lord of Ashby, Alice the widow of Sir Guy de Beauchamp, Simon de Sutton, and William de Wellesbourne, executors of the will of Guy de Beauchamp, late earl of Warwick; she vouched to warranty the said William, Alice, etc. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/229, image 299f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no229/aCP40no229fronts/IMG_0299.htm)]. > > > > > > On 1 March 1321/2 the king ordered John de Walewayn, escheator this side Trent, to permit her to have the easement of houses in the manor of La Grove until further order. In Feb. 1322 she was granted protection for one year. > > > > > > On 8 April 1325 John Pecche the elder and John Murdak acknowledged in court that they owed Ida, widow of John de Clynton, a debt of £100; in Trinity term 1328, Ida then being deceased, her executors, John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry de Lisle, were suing the said parties in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of the debt. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 49d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0049.htm)]. > > > > > > In Trinity term 1328 Thomas de Hastang sued John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry del Idle, executors of the will of Ida late the wife of John de Clynton, of Maxstoke, and John son of John de Clynton in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £200. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 378d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0378.htm). > > > > > > In summary, I can accept that Ida de Oddingseles is the Lady "Isabel" de Clinton" who was found to be in grave discord with Agnes, Prioress of Wroxall, in 1323. Although Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2 suggest otherwise, Ida was surely not a prioress on 8 April 1325 when John Pecche and John Murdak acknowledged that they owed her a debt. Likewise Ida de Oddingseles is not styled prioress of Maxstoke in the last two legal matters in 1328 which immediately follow her death. Given these facts and that Smith and London do not include Ida as a prioress of Wroxall, I conclude that she was not prioress of Wroxall as alleged by Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2. > > > > > > Possibly new information may be found which sheds additional light on this confusing matter. I see VCH Warwick 2 cites the Register of Walter Reynolds, Bishop of Worcester (which is in print), which source I haven't yet examined. To be thorough, this source should be checked. If you have access to the bishops's register, please let me know. > > > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:59:20 AM UTC-6, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 8:11:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote: > > > > > On Monday, 24 July 2017 18:02:33 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help and pointers to resources, particularly your reference to the shield of Ralph de Grey which is described but not identified in Blair's article. If Ralph had a shield of his own, what conclusion can I draw? Does it mean that he lived to 21? Thank you again, Nicola > > > > > > > > > > The only extant copy of the Carlisle Roll says that it is a list of earls, bannerets and knights present in the vanguard of Edward III's host at Carlisle on 12 July 1334. At this time each knight would be expected to bear arms as identification, not in battle as the old books claim, but in order to help with the organising of each banneret's group of knights. The earls and bannerets appear at the beginning of the roll. At number 218, Ralph Grey was well down the list, not too far from the end, where numbers 241-275 were German knights serving under William, Count of Jülich and Earl of Cambridge. This suggests that he was not one of the more experienced knights. In the case of Scrope v Grosvenor in 1389, several of the witnesses claimed to have been on campaign, one or two in actual battle, from their early or mid teens onwards. Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II), born 1284, went on campaign in Scotland with his father from 1300 onwards. There can therefore be no guarantee that Ralph Grey would be of age in 1334. > > > > > > > > > > One other point. Younger sons were often discouraged from marrying unless they had found themselves an heiress. I have a few times found an unmarried younger son in one generation followed by another unmarried younger son in the next generation both of whom held the same manor for life and bore the same differenced coat of arms. The arms attributed to Ralph Grey appear in three windows in Cogges church, more often than any other arms apart from those for Grey of Rothermere itself. That could mean something -- or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > Peter Howarth > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > Can anyone help me sort out the following please? > > > > Margaret Oddingsell's eldest sister was Ida who as Douglas Richardson shows in Plantagenet Ancestry (p 545-6) married first Roger de Herdebergh and then John Clinton (d. 1311). He goes on to say that some time after John's death Ida entered the convent at Wroxall and became prioress, dying in office in 1325. > > > > > > > > This is partly confirmed in the 'Records of Wroxall Abbey and Manor', J.W. Ryland, 1903, xix, 17-18; and in VCH Warks 2, 70-73, except that both these sources call the woman Dame Isabella de Clinton, not Ida. Are they the same person? Could it be Ida's daughter-in-law? Her first son was called John (d. 1335). This wiki entry says he married Isabella de Beauchamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Beauchamp,_10th_Earl_of_Warwick. > > > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, thank you > > > > Nicola > > > > Thanks very much Douglas for such a thorough and helpful answer. > > > > If Ida was the same woman as Isabella, she would have been prioress for quite a short time, after 1323 when she was in dispute with Agnes, the existing prioress, and before 1325 when she died. The date of her death is indicated by a vacancy at the convent at which point Ida's son John is named as patron (Records of Wroxhall, Rylands, 1903, p. 18, quoting Close Roll for 1325). This is the same date as Ida's death as indicated by her will, coincidences which point to Ida. If Ida had written the will before entering the convent that could explain why it didn't describe her as prioress. She may also have just been acting rather than confirmed prioress which might explain her absence from Smith and London's list. Do you think this is likely? I will try and find bishop Reynolds's Register to see what the entry actually says. > > Thanks again > > Nicola > > Hi Nicola, > > Bishop Walter Reynolds' register isn't going to help you. He was bishop of Worcester from 1307 to 1313, when he was translated to Canterbury. His register shows (p. 29) that Agnes de Aylesbury was elected prioress of Wroxall in December 1311. > > Agnes appears to have died before November 1325 (CCR, 1323-1327, 426). The bishop's register covering this period is: E. H. Pearce,The register of Thomas Cobham, Bishop of Worcester, 1317-1327. Worcester Historical Society, 40 (1930) which does not seem to be online. > > Regards, > > John Hello all, E. H. Pearce, The register of Thomas Cobham, Bishop of Worcester, 1317-1327, Worcester Historical Society, 40 (1930), is available as a Family History Book which can be consulted online from within Family History center branches (https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?from=fhd&dps_pid=IE8209257). As I am presently at one, I took the liberty of transcribing the only reference I could find to, as she is called, "the noble lady Ysabella de Clyntone," on pp.161-3, which regards the dispute referenced in VCH Warwick 2:7, 70-73. "Iniuncciones que fiebant Priorisse et monialibus de Wroxhale. The Bishop's injunctions to the Prioress and nuns of Wroxall:-- In the interval since our last visitation of your house we have heard many ill rumors about the state of it, and in consequence of many incitements we appointed commissaries to correct and amend what needed correction and amendment alike in the head and in the members. But the more we tried to plant the olive-tree of peace and to prune away scandals, the greater was the crop of dissension and the more disgraceful were the offences; the enemy sowed tares; the injunctions of our commissaries were set at nought. Therefore on Monday the morrow of St. Denys the Martyr [10 Oct. 1323; St. Denis, Martyr, was celebrated on 3 October; St. Denis of Paris on 9 October; and, as 10 October was a Monday in 1323, it appears the latter is meant.] we came to you publicly in order to see for ourselves whether your conduct justified the clamours which reached us. And, though in your college we found in general an observance of holy Religion, an obvious chastity and many other good points, yet, while omitting more trivial matters which can be briefly comprehended in a general injunction, we think it well to set forth what needs correction. To begin from the top, we found that the Prioress was accused of immoral relations with John de Wartone, presbyter; that a grievous quarrel existed between her and the lady Isabella de Clyntone, the younger nuns siding with the Prioress and the elder with the lady Isabella, and the house being thus split up as by party-walls; that the Prioress is too ready to wander abroad and so to spend the goods of the monastery without cause; that during her time a wood was sold, without any knowledge coming to the sisters that the price had been used for the purposes of the church; that she is impatient with the answers of the sisters and unfriendly and quarrelsome in her own replies; that in her time the carpets, linen, goblets, salt-cellars, and other vessels and utensils long ago intended for hospitable uses have been sold or destroyed; that the buildings of the house both inside and outside the walls are in a ruinous condition; that the proper and customary hospitality and almsgiving have almost entirely ceased, nor has due care been taken of the nuns when they are sick; that they have been robbed of their customary portion of beer, meat, and fish, four nuns receiving scarcely a pint of very weak beer each day [Fol. 92], and meat and fish and other necessaries being given in such small portions as to be scarcely enough to live on; that their servants do not render accounts; that the lands are not properly cultivated, and that the larder is bare of necessaries. Wishing, then, to make up these defects and cure these diseases, we command the Prioress in virtue of her obedience, that, although she has purged herself before us in the matter of incontinence, of which she could not deny that there was a rumour, she have no further dealings with John de Wartone either in buying or selling or borrowing or sending him victuals or any gifts, lest she give rise of objections and scandals; that, as peace and goodwill have been restored in our presence between her and the lady Ysabella, the prioress is not to foment strife between the parties in the house, but to do all she can to preserve the unity of the sisterhood; that, while in Religion all the sisters should be equal, and the very mark of nobility is to be honourable and yet not to wish to be honoured, nevertheless those should be preferred in honour who bring special honour to the whole college. Therefore we give orders that you [p.163] place the noble lady Ysabella de Clyntone in full charge of the chamber, which with your consent she made for herself on entering your convent, for her recreation and to entertain her friends, without of course intending that she should claim any vested right in it or neglect divine service or fill it with a burdensome or unruly retinue, to the distress of the sisters; for, as she has put off the old man in her conversation, in order that she may serve the King of Peace in a place of peace, so she should have a household to correspond--chaste, peaceable and modest. The days are evil and everything is unusually dear; but it was clearly brought home to us that many disadvantages have resulted from the want of care shown by the Prioress in respect of the property. Careful husbandry would have better enabled the house to support the burdens incumbent upon it. We therefore enjoin the Prioress to take to her two nuns prudent in affairs, to be specially chosen by the convent or the majority, with whose knowledge and consent she may receive the goods coming to the monastery and faithfully and wisely apply them to useful purposes of common concern, may make up the losses indicated, restore what has been alienated, pilfered or wasted, and at least once a year render and true reckoning before the convent or its representatives, the Prioress being particularly forbidden to give away, sell, pledge or alienate the goods of the house without the knowledge and consent of the nuns. We order the nuns to render obedience to the Prioress in all things lawful and honest, abstaining from cliques and confederacies against her, of which we hear rumour. The Prioress[For the admission of this Agnes de Alesbury, as Prioress, see Register, Reynolds, f. 37b. 38b (ed. R. A. Wilson, p.29f.)] must talk to her nuns in a more friendly way than is her wont, and consort with them more in the dortor[*] and refectory and at the divine offices by day and by night, unless lawfully prevented. Moreover, lest the usual troubles should arise again as the result of our injunctions, and lest there should be neglect to carry them out to the best of your power, we pronounce sentence of greater excommunication, to take effect six days after such neglect, reserving the benefit of absolution to ourselves and our commissaries." [*] A "dortor" appears to be a monk's residence. See William Gostling, A walk in and about the city of Canterbury (1774), Chapter 25, "Of the Dortors," p.100 (http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/TopographicalTradition/1774-gostling.pdf) This volume does not contain any further reference to any member of the Clinton family, nor Agnes de Alesbury, whose status as Prioress seems to be merely inferred by the editor in the note I transcribed, and not directly confirmed by the text of this particular act. -Matt Ahlgren

On 06-Sep-17 11:13 PM, deca0317@aol.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 8:06:19 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>> Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm. >> This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father - >> it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors. >> >> The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and >> its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress. >> >> Peter Stewart > Below is a post by Douglas Richardson from 2009 that addresses the issue concerning the correct parentage of Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror. Hopefully it will help in this discussion. I personally believe that Richardson got this one correct. > > {“Dear Newsgroup ~ > > I have this sinking feeling of déjà vu. The same objection that is > being raised regarding Edgar the Atheling having had a daughter, > Margaret (as per the Chronicle of the Canons of Huntingdon) is the > VERY SAME objection raised sometime in the past regarding the > parentage of Countess Judith, the niece of William the Conqueror. In > Huntingdon chronicle, Judith is named as the daughter of Lambert of > Lens [see Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, 2 (1922): 28, > which specifically reads: "Ivetta, who was the daughter of Lambert, > the count of Lens."]. A snippet view of this text may be viewed at > the following weblink: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=6X5nAAAAMAAJ&dq=Early+Sources+ofScottish+History&q=Lambert&pgis=1#search_anchor > > Elsewhere, Countess Judith is likewise styled "Ivettam, filliam > comitis Lamberti de Lens, sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de > Albemarlia" in a 13th Century account of the life of her husband, > Earl Waltheof [see Vita et passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis > Huntendonie et Norhantonie, in Chron. Anglo-Normandes, vol. 2, pg. > 112]. > > Regardless some genealogists scratched their heads and even a few > historians doubted that Judith was the daughter of Lambert of Lens. > Regardless, after verifying that Lambert of Lens existed and that the > chronology permitted him to be the father of Countess Judith, the > Huntingdon Chronicle is now accepted as accurate by all reliable > historians. In any case, it would be highly unlikely that the Canons > of Huntingdon would make up a phony story that Countess Judith was > Lambert's daughter. Hardly, by a long stretch - the editor of the work that Richardson linked to did not accept it for a start. Look at the index, p. 758, and you will find 'Judith (or Ivetta), dau. Odo of Champagne and Adelaide, sis. k. William I; w. Waltheof, s. Siward': no mention of Lambert. Sources need to be evaluated. Scholars were never in doubt that Lambert of Lens existed - Richardson's supposition that 'reliable historians' needed to verify this in the context of Judith's paternity is misguided. The first source naming Lambert as a husband of Judith's mother is Vita Waldevi comitis (written after 1219), that added Lambert to information taken from Orderic who did not name him, and this was the unreliable basis for the Huntingdon chronicle (written after 1291). Many historians do not pay close attention to this kind of incidental question, or to the evaluation of sources peripheral to their main subject. Peter Stewart

On 06-Sep-17 11:14 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 13:06:19 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: >> On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>> Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm. >> This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father - >> it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors. >> >> The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and >> its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress. >> >> Peter Stewart > There is a very good reason to explain Judith not being Lambert's heiress. When Lambert died Judith was a baby. So babies forfeited hereditary rights? Judith may have been born posthumously for all we know, but if she was Lambert's child she was the only one. The assumption that her father's brother would have the temerity to usurp the inheritance of a niece of William of Normandy is just a speculative scenario, not a 'very good reason' to explain this. Other heirs and heiresses who were displaced as children, and their own subsequent offspring, did not always accept dispossession quietly: it is far from highly credible to me that Judith and then her daughters (both of them married to powerful men) would have done this without so much as a peep over the countship of Lens. Peter Stewart

On Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:05:07 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:57 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > Dear Nicola ~ > > > > You've asked an interesting question. > > > > Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 4 (1846): 89 includes the following person in his list of prioress of Wroxall: > > > > "Isabella, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, knight" was a Prioress of Wroxall. She died in A.D. 1300." END OF QUOTE. > > > > The additional information is added in a footnote on this page: > > > > "So Dugdale, in the first edition of his History, from Chron. de Wroxhall, ut supr. fol. 9 a ... Dr. Thomas .... adds "Isabella de Clinton, injunctiones ab epis. missae fuere et monialibus reformare scandala, A.D. 1323." .... According to Willis's MSS. Notes in a copy of his Mitred Abbies, she died in 1330." END OF QUOTE. > > > > The above material can be found at the following weblink: > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA89 > > > > You're correct that VCH Warwick 2 (1908): 70-73 refers to the abbess Isabel (not Ida) de Clinton as Prioress of Wroxall. Here is what is said in that source: > > > > "Bishop Cobham visited this nunnery in 1323, when he found grave discord existing between the prioress and Lady Isabel Clinton, some of the sisters adhering to the one and some to the other. He also found that cups and other vessels and utensils intended for hospitality had been sold, that hospitality and almsgiving were insufficient, and that there were scarcely enough necessaries for the sisters ... It would seem that the party of Isabel de Clinton obtained the victory, for Agnes was succeeded by Isabel, widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, patron of the house. On the death of Isabel the temporalities were seized by the too great zeal of the county escheator. On 13 November, 1325, John de Bolingbrok, escheator for Warwickshire, was ordered to meddle no further with the priory of Wroxall or any of its possessions, which he had taken into the king's hands at the late voidance." END OF QUOTE. > > > > Reviewing the above, it would appear that we have no less than three different death dates for Isabel the prioress, 1300, 1330, and 1325. Likewise this prioress is identified by both Dugdale and VCH Warwick as the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke. If she was the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, "patron" of Wroxall, she can only have been his known widow, Ida de Oddingseles. However, Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 312–313 (sub Clinton) makes no mention that Ida was a Prioress, only that she was living 1 March 1321/2. > > > > Elsewhere Smith and London, Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216–1377 (2001): 624 merely adds to the confusion. They make no mention of either Ida or Isabel de Clinton as prioress. Rather they say an Isabel de Fokeram occurs as prioress 13 March 1328 (Records of Wroxall, no. 44) and 2 Oct. 1328 (PRO, E326/5500). They list a second and apparently separate Isabel de Fokerham who served as prioress in 1339-1352. See the following weblink for this source: > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=aRDqqGWj3ikC&pg=PA624 > > > > If you're shaking your head and say you don't understand, join the club. > > > > Here's what I know about the later life of Ida de Oddingseles, widow of Sir John de Clinton, of Maxstoke: > > > > In 1319 Ida, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, was summoned to answer William la Zouche [Mortimer] concerning a plea that she surrender to him [her son] John son and heir of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, whose wardship belonged to the said William, for reason that John de Clinton held his land of him by knight’s service. The said Ida came by William de Coleshill her attorney and said that she held the aforesaid wardship by the lease of William la Zouche [Mortimer], lord of Ashby, Alice the widow of Sir Guy de Beauchamp, Simon de Sutton, and William de Wellesbourne, executors of the will of Guy de Beauchamp, late earl of Warwick; she vouched to warranty the said William, Alice, etc. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/229, image 299f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no229/aCP40no229fronts/IMG_0299.htm)]. > > > > On 1 March 1321/2 the king ordered John de Walewayn, escheator this side Trent, to permit her to have the easement of houses in the manor of La Grove until further order. In Feb. 1322 she was granted protection for one year. > > > > On 8 April 1325 John Pecche the elder and John Murdak acknowledged in court that they owed Ida, widow of John de Clynton, a debt of £100; in Trinity term 1328, Ida then being deceased, her executors, John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry de Lisle, were suing the said parties in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of the debt. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 49d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0049.htm)]. > > > > In Trinity term 1328 Thomas de Hastang sued John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry del Idle, executors of the will of Ida late the wife of John de Clynton, of Maxstoke, and John son of John de Clynton in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £200. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 378d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0378.htm). > > > > In summary, I can accept that Ida de Oddingseles is the Lady "Isabel" de Clinton" who was found to be in grave discord with Agnes, Prioress of Wroxall, in 1323. Although Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2 suggest otherwise, Ida was surely not a prioress on 8 April 1325 when John Pecche and John Murdak acknowledged that they owed her a debt. Likewise Ida de Oddingseles is not styled prioress of Maxstoke in the last two legal matters in 1328 which immediately follow her death. Given these facts and that Smith and London do not include Ida as a prioress of Wroxall, I conclude that she was not prioress of Wroxall as alleged by Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2. > > > > Possibly new information may be found which sheds additional light on this confusing matter. I see VCH Warwick 2 cites the Register of Walter Reynolds, Bishop of Worcester (which is in print), which source I haven't yet examined. To be thorough, this source should be checked. If you have access to the bishops's register, please let me know. > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > > > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:59:20 AM UTC-6, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 8:11:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote: > > > > On Monday, 24 July 2017 18:02:33 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help and pointers to resources, particularly your reference to the shield of Ralph de Grey which is described but not identified in Blair's article. If Ralph had a shield of his own, what conclusion can I draw? Does it mean that he lived to 21? Thank you again, Nicola > > > > > > > > The only extant copy of the Carlisle Roll says that it is a list of earls, bannerets and knights present in the vanguard of Edward III's host at Carlisle on 12 July 1334. At this time each knight would be expected to bear arms as identification, not in battle as the old books claim, but in order to help with the organising of each banneret's group of knights. The earls and bannerets appear at the beginning of the roll. At number 218, Ralph Grey was well down the list, not too far from the end, where numbers 241-275 were German knights serving under William, Count of Jülich and Earl of Cambridge. This suggests that he was not one of the more experienced knights. In the case of Scrope v Grosvenor in 1389, several of the witnesses claimed to have been on campaign, one or two in actual battle, from their early or mid teens onwards. Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II), born 1284, went on campaign in Scotland with his father from 1300 onwards. There can therefore be no guarantee that Ralph Grey would be of age in 1334. > > > > > > > > One other point. Younger sons were often discouraged from marrying unless they had found themselves an heiress. I have a few times found an unmarried younger son in one generation followed by another unmarried younger son in the next generation both of whom held the same manor for life and bore the same differenced coat of arms. The arms attributed to Ralph Grey appear in three windows in Cogges church, more often than any other arms apart from those for Grey of Rothermere itself. That could mean something -- or nothing. > > > > > > > > Peter Howarth > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Can anyone help me sort out the following please? > > > Margaret Oddingsell's eldest sister was Ida who as Douglas Richardson shows in Plantagenet Ancestry (p 545-6) married first Roger de Herdebergh and then John Clinton (d. 1311). He goes on to say that some time after John's death Ida entered the convent at Wroxall and became prioress, dying in office in 1325. > > > > > > This is partly confirmed in the 'Records of Wroxall Abbey and Manor', J.W. Ryland, 1903, xix, 17-18; and in VCH Warks 2, 70-73, except that both these sources call the woman Dame Isabella de Clinton, not Ida. Are they the same person? Could it be Ida's daughter-in-law? Her first son was called John (d. 1335). This wiki entry says he married Isabella de Beauchamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Beauchamp,_10th_Earl_of_Warwick. > > > > > > Any help much appreciated, thank you > > > Nicola > > Thanks very much Douglas for such a thorough and helpful answer. > > If Ida was the same woman as Isabella, she would have been prioress for quite a short time, after 1323 when she was in dispute with Agnes, the existing prioress, and before 1325 when she died. The date of her death is indicated by a vacancy at the convent at which point Ida's son John is named as patron (Records of Wroxhall, Rylands, 1903, p. 18, quoting Close Roll for 1325). This is the same date as Ida's death as indicated by her will, coincidences which point to Ida. If Ida had written the will before entering the convent that could explain why it didn't describe her as prioress. She may also have just been acting rather than confirmed prioress which might explain her absence from Smith and London's list. Do you think this is likely? I will try and find bishop Reynolds's Register to see what the entry actually says. > Thanks again > Nicola Hi Nicola, Bishop Walter Reynolds' register isn't going to help you. He was bishop of Worcester from 1307 to 1313, when he was translated to Canterbury. His register shows (p. 29) that Agnes de Aylesbury was elected prioress of Wroxall in December 1311. Agnes appears to have died before November 1325 (CCR, 1323-1327, 426). The bishop's register covering this period is: E. H. Pearce,The register of Thomas Cobham, Bishop of Worcester, 1317-1327. Worcester Historical Society, 40 (1930) which does not seem to be online. Regards, John

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:45:57 PM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Nicola ~ > > You've asked an interesting question. > > Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 4 (1846): 89 includes the following person in his list of prioress of Wroxall: > > "Isabella, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, knight" was a Prioress of Wroxall. She died in A.D. 1300." END OF QUOTE. > > The additional information is added in a footnote on this page: > > "So Dugdale, in the first edition of his History, from Chron. de Wroxhall, ut supr. fol. 9 a ... Dr. Thomas .... adds "Isabella de Clinton, injunctiones ab epis. missae fuere et monialibus reformare scandala, A.D. 1323." .... According to Willis's MSS. Notes in a copy of his Mitred Abbies, she died in 1330." END OF QUOTE. > > The above material can be found at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA89 > > You're correct that VCH Warwick 2 (1908): 70-73 refers to the abbess Isabel (not Ida) de Clinton as Prioress of Wroxall. Here is what is said in that source: > > "Bishop Cobham visited this nunnery in 1323, when he found grave discord existing between the prioress and Lady Isabel Clinton, some of the sisters adhering to the one and some to the other. He also found that cups and other vessels and utensils intended for hospitality had been sold, that hospitality and almsgiving were insufficient, and that there were scarcely enough necessaries for the sisters ... It would seem that the party of Isabel de Clinton obtained the victory, for Agnes was succeeded by Isabel, widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, patron of the house. On the death of Isabel the temporalities were seized by the too great zeal of the county escheator. On 13 November, 1325, John de Bolingbrok, escheator for Warwickshire, was ordered to meddle no further with the priory of Wroxall or any of its possessions, which he had taken into the king's hands at the late voidance." END OF QUOTE. > > Reviewing the above, it would appear that we have no less than three different death dates for Isabel the prioress, 1300, 1330, and 1325. Likewise this prioress is identified by both Dugdale and VCH Warwick as the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke. If she was the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, "patron" of Wroxall, she can only have been his known widow, Ida de Oddingseles. However, Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 312–313 (sub Clinton) makes no mention that Ida was a Prioress, only that she was living 1 March 1321/2. > > Elsewhere Smith and London, Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216–1377 (2001): 624 merely adds to the confusion. They make no mention of either Ida or Isabel de Clinton as prioress. Rather they say an Isabel de Fokeram occurs as prioress 13 March 1328 (Records of Wroxall, no. 44) and 2 Oct. 1328 (PRO, E326/5500). They list a second and apparently separate Isabel de Fokerham who served as prioress in 1339-1352. See the following weblink for this source: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=aRDqqGWj3ikC&pg=PA624 > > If you're shaking your head and say you don't understand, join the club. > > Here's what I know about the later life of Ida de Oddingseles, widow of Sir John de Clinton, of Maxstoke: > > In 1319 Ida, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, was summoned to answer William la Zouche [Mortimer] concerning a plea that she surrender to him [her son] John son and heir of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, whose wardship belonged to the said William, for reason that John de Clinton held his land of him by knight’s service. The said Ida came by William de Coleshill her attorney and said that she held the aforesaid wardship by the lease of William la Zouche [Mortimer], lord of Ashby, Alice the widow of Sir Guy de Beauchamp, Simon de Sutton, and William de Wellesbourne, executors of the will of Guy de Beauchamp, late earl of Warwick; she vouched to warranty the said William, Alice, etc. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/229, image 299f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no229/aCP40no229fronts/IMG_0299.htm)]. > > On 1 March 1321/2 the king ordered John de Walewayn, escheator this side Trent, to permit her to have the easement of houses in the manor of La Grove until further order. In Feb. 1322 she was granted protection for one year. > > On 8 April 1325 John Pecche the elder and John Murdak acknowledged in court that they owed Ida, widow of John de Clynton, a debt of £100; in Trinity term 1328, Ida then being deceased, her executors, John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry de Lisle, were suing the said parties in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of the debt. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 49d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0049.htm)]. > > In Trinity term 1328 Thomas de Hastang sued John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry del Idle, executors of the will of Ida late the wife of John de Clynton, of Maxstoke, and John son of John de Clynton in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £200. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 378d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0378.htm). > > In summary, I can accept that Ida de Oddingseles is the Lady "Isabel" de Clinton" who was found to be in grave discord with Agnes, Prioress of Wroxall, in 1323. Although Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2 suggest otherwise, Ida was surely not a prioress on 8 April 1325 when John Pecche and John Murdak acknowledged that they owed her a debt. Likewise Ida de Oddingseles is not styled prioress of Maxstoke in the last two legal matters in 1328 which immediately follow her death. Given these facts and that Smith and London do not include Ida as a prioress of Wroxall, I conclude that she was not prioress of Wroxall as alleged by Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2. > > Possibly new information may be found which sheds additional light on this confusing matter. I see VCH Warwick 2 cites the Register of Walter Reynolds, Bishop of Worcester (which is in print), which source I haven't yet examined. To be thorough, this source should be checked. If you have access to the bishops's register, please let me know. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:59:20 AM UTC-6, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 8:11:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote: > > > On Monday, 24 July 2017 18:02:33 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help and pointers to resources, particularly your reference to the shield of Ralph de Grey which is described but not identified in Blair's article. If Ralph had a shield of his own, what conclusion can I draw? Does it mean that he lived to 21? Thank you again, Nicola > > > > > > The only extant copy of the Carlisle Roll says that it is a list of earls, bannerets and knights present in the vanguard of Edward III's host at Carlisle on 12 July 1334. At this time each knight would be expected to bear arms as identification, not in battle as the old books claim, but in order to help with the organising of each banneret's group of knights. The earls and bannerets appear at the beginning of the roll. At number 218, Ralph Grey was well down the list, not too far from the end, where numbers 241-275 were German knights serving under William, Count of Jülich and Earl of Cambridge. This suggests that he was not one of the more experienced knights. In the case of Scrope v Grosvenor in 1389, several of the witnesses claimed to have been on campaign, one or two in actual battle, from their early or mid teens onwards. Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II), born 1284, went on campaign in Scotland with his father from 1300 onwards. There can therefore be no guarantee that Ralph Grey would be of age in 1334. > > > > > > One other point. Younger sons were often discouraged from marrying unless they had found themselves an heiress. I have a few times found an unmarried younger son in one generation followed by another unmarried younger son in the next generation both of whom held the same manor for life and bore the same differenced coat of arms. The arms attributed to Ralph Grey appear in three windows in Cogges church, more often than any other arms apart from those for Grey of Rothermere itself. That could mean something -- or nothing. > > > > > > Peter Howarth > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > Can anyone help me sort out the following please? > > Margaret Oddingsell's eldest sister was Ida who as Douglas Richardson shows in Plantagenet Ancestry (p 545-6) married first Roger de Herdebergh and then John Clinton (d. 1311). He goes on to say that some time after John's death Ida entered the convent at Wroxall and became prioress, dying in office in 1325. > > > > This is partly confirmed in the 'Records of Wroxall Abbey and Manor', J.W. Ryland, 1903, xix, 17-18; and in VCH Warks 2, 70-73, except that both these sources call the woman Dame Isabella de Clinton, not Ida. Are they the same person? Could it be Ida's daughter-in-law? Her first son was called John (d. 1335). This wiki entry says he married Isabella de Beauchamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Beauchamp,_10th_Earl_of_Warwick. > > > > Any help much appreciated, thank you > > Nicola Thanks very much Douglas for such a thorough and helpful answer. If Ida was the same woman as Isabella, she would have been prioress for quite a short time, after 1323 when she was in dispute with Agnes, the existing prioress, and before 1325 when she died. The date of her death is indicated by a vacancy at the convent at which point Ida's son John is named as patron (Records of Wroxhall, Rylands, 1903, p. 18, quoting Close Roll for 1325). This is the same date as Ida's death as indicated by her will, coincidences which point to Ida. If Ida had written the will before entering the convent that could explain why it didn't describe her as prioress. She may also have just been acting rather than confirmed prioress which might explain her absence from Smith and London's list. Do you think this is likely? I will try and find bishop Reynolds's Register to see what the entry actually says. Thanks again Nicola

On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm. This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father - it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors. The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress. Peter Stewart