On 4/06/2016 12:08 AM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote: >>> Thank you, Rosie. Derek Barrie, who wrote a 1991 thesis on the baronage under Edward I, also dated the letter to 1302, though for reasons more suggestive than conclusive: Derek A. Barrie, The 'Maiores Barones' in the second half of the reign of Edward I, (1290-1307), PhD thesis, university of St Andrews (1991), p. 143. >>> >>> https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594 >>> > ------------------------- > From: Peter Stewart via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 03 June 2016 11:19 >> I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt > is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference > to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year, > points to 1302 as the correct date.' >> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long > after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after > 10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on > Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too > ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in > that year. >> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St > John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September, > *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292: > '[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To > Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the > elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October, > *Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96. >> Peter Stewart >> > ------------------------------- > Surely we only know that the meeting he was too ill to attend was a few days before his death if we assume that the letter referring to the meeting was written in 1302. Isn't that circular logic? > > The illness referred to in the letter might well have been the one which finished him off in 1302, but equally people can fall ill at several points in their lives, and not die until years later. > > Obviously - that's why I wrote that the case is "a bit stronger" than implied by "death later that year". I don't think you need to teach SGM readers to suck circumstantial eggs. Peter Stewart

On 4/06/2016 9:30 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 4/06/2016 12:08 AM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: >> On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote: >>>> Thank you, Rosie. Derek Barrie, who wrote a 1991 thesis on the baronage under Edward I, also dated the letter to 1302, though for reasons more suggestive than conclusive: Derek A. Barrie, The 'Maiores Barones' in the second half of the reign of Edward I, (1290-1307), PhD thesis, university of St Andrews (1991), p. 143. >>>> >>>> https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594 >>>> >> ------------------------- >> From: Peter Stewart via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] >> Sent: 03 June 2016 11:19 >>> I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt >> is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference >> to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year, >> points to 1302 as the correct date.' >>> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long >> after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after >> 10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on >> Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too >> ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in >> that year. >>> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St >> John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September, >> *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292: >> '[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To >> Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the >> elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October, >> *Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96. >>> Peter Stewart >>> >> ------------------------------- >> Surely we only know that the meeting he was too ill to attend was a few days before his death if we assume that the letter referring to the meeting was written in 1302. Isn't that circular logic? >> >> The illness referred to in the letter might well have been the one which finished him off in 1302, but equally people can fall ill at several points in their lives, and not die until years later. >> >> > Obviously - that's why I wrote that the case is "a bit stronger" than > implied by "death later that year". > > I don't think you need to teach SGM readers to suck circumstantial eggs. > Actually there are further circumstantial indicators that the letter from Sir John de St John dated at Lochmaben on 27 August authorising Sir Ralph de Manton to stand in for him at Roxburgh was written in 1302 rather than in either of the alternative possible years (1300 and 1301) when St John was warden of the Western march. In 1300 Sir Roger de Kirkpatrick was made constable of Lochmaben castle from 8 July to 19 November while Sir John de St John was absent with the king's army, 'post recessum ejusdem domini Johannis de eisdem partibus ad exercitum regis ... ab 8 die Julii usque 19 diem Novembr[is]', see *Liber quotidianum contrarotulorum garderobae* (London, 1787) p. 140, https://archive.org/stream/liberquotidianu00tophgoog#page/n218/mode/2up. In 1301 on 27 August Sir John wrote to Sir Ralph de Manton asking him to pay 'the money in arrear to him at Pentecost last, and also the money he should have up to All Saints ... Written at Loughm[aben], the 27th day of August', see *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. ii p. 309 no. 1218, https://archive.org/stream/cu31924091754394#page/n375/mode/2up. Of course we do not need to be told that it is possible to write two letters on different matters to the same person on the same day without cross-referencing, but what are the odds of this as well as that Sir John fell ill for a second time almost exactly year later? Peter Stewart