Dear Newsgroup ~ Nichols, History & Antiquities of Leicestershire 3(1) (1800): 240 presents a Segrave pedigree taken from "Chronicis apud Chaucombe." The pedigree identifies Maud, the wife of Sir Gilbert de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave as Maud [de] Lucy: “… De ipsis Gilberto [de Segrave] & Annabiliâ exivit Nicholaus, filius & heres; cui nupta fuit Matilda Lucy. De quibus prodîerunt dominus Johannes de Segrave, dominus Nicholaus de Segrave, dominus Galfridus de Segrave, dominus Petrus, and dominus Gilbertus.” END OF QUOTE. In a previous post back in 2007, I discussed evidence which suggests that Maud de Lucy was possibly the daughter of Sir Geoffey de Lucy (died 1252), of Newington, Kent, Cublington, Buckinghamshire, Dallington and Slapton, Northamptonshire, etc., by his wife, Nichole, who was likely a member of the Cantelowe family. Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1 The proposed kinship between the two parties is charted below: 1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux. 2. Agnes de Cantelowe, married Robert de Saint John, died 1266. 3. Sir John de Saint John, born by 1245, died 1302. 1. Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, married 1st, 1215/6, Milicent de Gournay, Countess of Evreux. 2. Nichole de Cantelowe, married (2nd) by 1235 Geoffrey de Lucy, died 1252. 3. Maud de Lucy, born say 1240/5, married Sir Nicholas de Segrave, 1st Lord Segrave, died 1295. 4. Sir John de Segrave, 2nd Lord Segrave, born say 1260/5, died 1325. Recently I was going through a biography of [Saint] Thomas de Cantelowe, Bishop of Hereford, published in Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, Part 1 (1877). Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe was a younger son of Sir William de Cantelowe, died 1251, and his wife, Milicent de Gournay, named above. The biography contains an interesting story relating to Bishop Thomas on pages 42-43, which story concerns a dispute between him and Earl Gilbert de Clare in 1278: “The bishop had a castle at Ledbury, and the Malvern Hills he claimed as his chase. But the Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, the most powerful baron in England, hunted there ... and he assumed that the right was his. The bishop ... poured over his [Earl Gilbert’s] head the awful curse of the Church; and the great earl rode home, very much surprised and indignant at being excommunicated ... because of the hares and wild-deer of the Malvern Hills ... Then S. Thomas summoned all his friends, and for three days defiantly ... hunted over the hills. The hunting party was composed of John Tregoz, his brother-in-law [recte nephew], Nicholas Segrave, Geoffry and Fulk de Lucy.” END OF QUOTE. As we can see, Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe's hunting party in Malvern Hills consisted of his nephew, John de Tregoz (mistakenly called his brother-in-law), Nicholas de Segrave (husband of Maud de Lucy), and Geoffrey and Fulk de Lucy. This story suggests a close association between Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe, and the Segrave and Lucy families. While this evidence is somewhat limited, it provides support for the idea that Gilbert de Segrave's wife, Maud de Lucy, was a niece of Bishop Thomas de Cantelowe. Assuming these various parties were near relatives of the Bishop, it would explain their appearance as members of his hunting party in 1278. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Mr Richardson Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316). John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299. In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from Richard de Lucy, the justiciar For further details see Rosie Bevan & Peter G M Dale, ‘Reginald de Lucy, son of Richard de Lucy, King’s Justiciar: New Perspectives.’ Foundations (2016) 8: 53-72. Abstract In the authors’ previous article on Richard de Lucy, chief Justiciar of Henry II, and his newly discovered daughter, Rose, it was stated that we were left with the implication that there may be other unrecognised children - in particular, Reginald de Lucy, who seemed to be clearly related to Richard. A recent find from manuscripts in the British Library has indeed confirmed Reginald as brother of Geoffrey de Lucy and thus son of Richard de Lucy. This article examines the evidence and discusses the implications for the wider family network, including that of Reginald’s little known daughter, Cecily, who the authors suggest was wife of Walter de Cherlecote, (progenitor of the Lucys of Charlecote), Roger de St John and Richard Mallore. Cheers Rosie On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:40:30 AM UTC+12, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1 >

My comments are interspersed below. DR On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: < Dear Mr Richardson < < Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de <St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316). It is easy to confuse two men of the same name, John de Saint John, of Basing, and John de Saint John, of Lagham. Both appear to have been in Scotland in this time period. < John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at < a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), < captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The < latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not < summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299. C.P. 4 (1916): 324; 11 (1949): 324 (sub Saint John) states that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was captured by the French in 1296 or 1297, and that he returned to England in 1297. He is stated in more than one source to have fought at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland in 1298. You state without source that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was not released by the French until 1299. That statement disagrees with every reliable source that I've checked. < In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. The letter by Sir John de Saint John was written in August 1298 (not 1297 as you say), from a place called Langham. For a full transcript of this letter, see Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 2 (1870): 305–306. Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): xliii also dates the letter as being in 1298 and further identifies Langham as being Langholm in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, NOT Lageham, Surrey. This same date (1298) and the same identification of this locality is also provided in a well researched biography of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, in Howard de Walden, Some Feudal Lords & Their Seals (1903): 52–53 (biog. of John de St. John). Just why you would change the date of the letter (1298) and the locality from Scotland to England is beyond me. Maybe you can explain your motives? < John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common <descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from <Richard de Lucy, the justiciar. Yes, it is true that the other Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, probably had a Despenser mother [Complete Peerage suggests this possibility]. If so, this would make him near kin to Sir John de Segrave, as you state. However, as I set out the evidence in my earlier post, I showed that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, would also be related to Sir John de Segrave, by their common descent from the Cantelowe family. This cross-cross of kinships between baronial families is quite common in this time period. As far as which John de Saint John wrote the 1298 letter, both Gough, pg. 326, and Walden appear to think that it was Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. They could be wrong, but I doubt it. Is there any other evidence to tell us the identity of the author of the 1298 letter? Yes, I believe there is. In the 1298 letter, John de Saint John names not one, but two kinsmen, namely Sir John de Segrave and Sir Richard Siward, of Tibbers in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. There is a full biography of Sir Richard Siward published in Rogers, Book of Wallace 2 (1889): 320-323. Wallace says the following: Sir Richard Siward was "son or grandson of Richard Siward, of the reign of Henry, possessed lands in Hampshire, at Northamptonshire, and in Tyndedale. He also held lands in the south of Scotland." END OF QUOTE. Inasmuch as Sir Richard Siward's family held lands in Hampshire, this fact would tend to point that he was near related to Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, Hampshire, rather than Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, Surrey. On the basis of the information cited above, I would identify the author of the 1298 letter as Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. His near kinship to Sir John de Segrave by the way of their common Cantelowe ancestry is near certain. In any event, the letter by John de Saint John was not written in 1297 in Surrey as you claim, but in Scotland in 1298. > Cheers > Rosie Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Matt ~ Thanks for your good post. Much appreciated. After I made my post last night about the letter of John de Saint John, I found yet another reference to John de Saint John's Scottish letter in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 257. See the following weblink for Bain's abstract: https://archive.org/stream/calendarofdocume02grea#page/256/mode/2up Like Stevenson, Gough, and Walden, Bain dates the letter as being 27 August 1298. So far, so good. The curious thing about Bain, though, is that he mentions that John de Saint John's letter named his cousin, Sir Richard Siward, but Bain makes no mention that Saint John's letter also mentioned his cousin, Sir John de Segrave. Odd. I note that Bain states that the letter was written at Lochmaben (like TNA), whereas Stevenson, Gough, and Walden all place the letter as being written at Langham. Stevenson transcribed the full letter and stated it was written at Langham. Since he did a full transcript of the letter, I would tend to trust his statement. Be that as it may, Langham isn't even close in its lettering to Lochmaben, so I have trouble understanding how the two places can be confused by anyone. I have even more trouble understanding how Ms. Bevan can misread Langham or Lochmaben, both in Scotland, as being Lageham, Surrey. That's even stranger. As far as the date of the letter is concerned, there is a discussion of John de Saint John, of Basing, and his time in Scotland found in Santiuste, Hammer of the Scots: Edward I and the Scottish Wars of Independence (2015): 133. Santiuste says the following: "The building work ordered at Dumfries in late 1300 was intended to be supported by other activity. After the removal of the English royal army from south-western Scotland it now fell upon Edward's lieutenant in the area, Sir John de Saint John, 'to bring to a good end his [Edward's] business in these parts'. St. John had been captured in Edward's service in Gascony, as we have seen, and spent almost a year as a prisoner of the French. He was not left to rot, however, because he was a men whom Edward greatly valued. After struggling to raise sufficient funds, Edward eventually paid a large ransom to obtain St. John's release. St. John returned to England in time to take part in the Falkirk campaign, and in January 1300 he was appointed Warden of the Western March. His remit included responsibility for military affairs in three English counties (Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire), as well as in much of south-western Scotland (at least in theory)." END OF QUOTE. Santiuste dates the building project at Dumfries to the year 1300. If so, I assume this would peg the letter of Sir John de Saint John to the year 1300, not 1298 and not 1302. I say that because Saint John's letter specifically refers to a building effort at Tibbers in Dumfriesshire by his cousin, Sir Richard Siward. If this was part of the building project mentioned by Santiuste, then 1300 would be the correct year for the letter. As for the original source of the Saint John letter, Bain gives the following reference for this letter: Tower Miscellaneous Rolls, No. 474. As far as when John de Saint John returned from being a prisoner in France, Complete Peerage says it took place in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states it took place in 1299. But Santiuste makes it clear that Saint John was in Scotland in time for the Falkirk campaign in 1298, which statement agrees with all the other authorities that I've consulted. I assume Ms. Bevan got her date 1299 from Dictionary of National Biography, but, if so, the date is obviously wrong. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:14:33 AM UTC-6, Tompkins wrote: < If Stevenson's transcription of the letter is compared with its catalogue < entry at the National Archives some oddities appear. Stevenson says it was < dated at Langham on 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' and places it in [1298], < whereas the TNA catalogue says it dated at Lochmaben on Tuesday before the < beheading of St John Baptist and places it in [? 1302 Aug]. These < discrepancies will have to be resolved before the year in which the letter < was written can be determined. < < It does seem clear that the letter was written in Scotland, though, as the <letter authorises Ralph de Manton to stand in for St John on 'Merkedy prochain <après la feste Seint Bartelmew,' which cannot have been more than a couple of <days after the date of the letter. If the date given by TNA is correct, then <in any year the day of the meeting (Wednesday after the feast of St <Bartholmew) will always be the day immediately after the date of the letter <(Tuesday before the decollation of St John Baptist), so it must have been <written within a day's ride of Roxburgh (which makes Langholm, 40 miles from <Roxburgh, seem a bit more likely than Lochmaben, a good 55 or 60 miles away <over rough hill tracks). < < If the date of the letter really was written as 'le xxvij jour de Auguste' <then at least one year can be ruled out, as in 1299 the Wednesday after St <Bartholomew fell on 26 August - the day before the date of the letter. In <1298 it fell on 27 August itself, which would probably have made it impossible <for Ralph de Manton to get to Roxburgh in time for the meeting. Only in 1297 <and 1300-1302 did the date of the meeting fall after 27 August (in 1297 on the <following day, 28 August, and in 1300, 1301 and 1302 on 31st, 30th and 29th, <successively). < < Matt Tompkins

On 1/06/2016 5:21 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: > Dear Matt ~ > > Thanks for your good post. Much appreciated. > > After I made my post last night about the letter of John de Saint John, I found yet another reference to John de Saint John's Scottish letter in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 257. See the following weblink for Bain's abstract: > > https://archive.org/stream/calendarofdocume02grea#page/256/mode/2up > > Like Stevenson, Gough, and Walden, Bain dates the letter as being 27 August 1298. So far, so good. > > The curious thing about Bain, though, is that he mentions that John de Saint John's letter named his cousin, Sir Richard Siward, but Bain makes no mention that Saint John's letter also mentioned his cousin, Sir John de Segrave. Odd. > > I note that Bain states that the letter was written at Lochmaben (like TNA), whereas Stevenson, Gough, and Walden all place the letter as being written at Langham. Stevenson transcribed the full letter and stated it was written at Langham. Since he did a full transcript of the letter, I would tend to trust his statement. Be that as it may, Langham isn't even close in its lettering to Lochmaben, so I have trouble understanding how the two places can be confused by anyone. I have even more trouble understanding how Ms. Bevan can misread Langham or Lochmaben, both in Scotland, as being Lageham, Surrey. That's even stranger. No, it's a perfectly sensible attempt to account for a puzzle that you are absurdly thrashing about to get solved for you by others (as is your habit) while casting aspersions on the "motives" of anyone who disagrees with you (as also is your habit). Why not just get yourself a copy from the National Archives? http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C12228973 Peter Stewart