On 31/05/2016 8:14 PM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: > < 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”. > < > From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 31 May 2016 02:29 >> 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). >> > ------------------------------- > > 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). > 1302 was perhaps proposed by the TNA cataloguer because on 15 August 1302 "Sir John de St. John the K.'s lieutenant in Scotland, and Sire Rauf de Mantone the K.'s clerk, agreed with Sir Patrick de Dumbar earl of the Marche, to keep the castle and sheriffdom of Are ... Done at Roxburgh, 30th August", see *Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland* vol. 2 p. 335 no. 1320. Peter Stewart

Happy for corrections or additions. Thought the court case particularly interesting. Pat ST. JOHN OF LANGHAM Thomas de St. John, Lord of Stanton, co. Oxon. Living 1112 d.? Barton:Late in the 12th century Thomas St John had a set of fish ponds made that were fed by the River Dorn.[2] Their remains are visible about 990 yards (910 m) north of the parish church.[1] Line falls to Thomas's brother: John de St. John s/h living 1139 had: 1. Roger m. Cecily Haya 2. Thomas de St. John s/h Lord of Stanton afsd 1166[1] 3. William de St. John wits 1212 grant of Odo Dammartin John alive 1229 Roger d. 1265-Lucy? de Lucy, sister of Richard de Lucy (Egremont)[1] (I)John b. bef. 1265 [2] d. 1317 (11 Edw II)-Alice SONS: John Nicholas (II)John b. 1277 d. 1323 m. Margaret/Margery who m 2) John de Ifield[PJ1] *seized of the manors of Stanton St. John and Barton) 1317 confirmed gift of Glimpton by father to Nicholas SONS: Peter b. 1313[4]. Thomas (By Ifield, Margery had Margaret who inherited Apuldrefield and Broham, m. Stephen de Ashway; Katherine m. Sir Thomas Foxle; Joan dsp)[5] (III). John b. 1308, d. 1349-Katharine de Saye d/o Geoffrey[PJ2] summoned to Parlia. 1327-1331, and in (1327)5 Edw III., “Making proof of his age, had livery of his lands.” SONS: John Roger b. 1329 d. 1353 dsp m. Joan William [PJ1]In 1343 Sir John de Ifield appears to be holding Swallowfield since in that year there is a suit between Roger son of John St. John miles and Joan his wife plts, and John de Sto. Johanne of Lageham, chivaler, deforciant, of the Manor ofSwalefelde, with appurts. which John de Ifelde chivaler and his wife Margeria hold for the term of the life of the said Margeria. John de St. John grants the reversion of the said manor after the death of John de Ifield and his wife to said Roger and Joan and the the heirs of their bodies; but if none, then revert to John de St. John and his heirs. Seipp Number: 1323.066 1323 Common Pleas Dower Dower Mich. 17 Edw. 2 Plt. Cecille, widow of John St. John of Lagham Other names Margery, widow of John of St. John of Lagham Cecille qe fuit la feme John de Seint John de Lagham port' breve de Dower Devom cele s.v. John (de Saint John), Lord Saint John of Lagham, b. 1276-1286, d. 1323, married Margery, d. 1346, in Cokayne, Complete Peerage, vol. 11, pp. 349-350. Summary: In a writ of Dower brought by Cecille who was the wife of John of St. John of Lagham, defendant said that the wife of John de St. John of Lagham was named Margery and not Cecille. Issue was joined on whether plaintiff had been John's wife joined to him in lawful matrimony. Cecille, who was the wife of John of St. John of Lagham, brought a writ of Dower. The defendant said that she who was the wife of John of St. John of Lagham had the name Margery, and not Cecile; ready etc. The plaintiff asked what the defendant answered to Cecile, who brought this writ. The defendant said as before. The plaintiff said that, if the defendant wanted to say that she who brought this writ had the name Margery, and not Cecille, she wanted to aver her writ, and this was another person than Margery; then the defendant could say that she was never joined in lawful matrimony. The defendant said that if she who brought the writ were here in her own person, he would well have knowledge whether she was the wife of John or another person, but he said that (dye qe) she was present by attorney, the defendant could not know this, except inasmuch as she named herself by the surname of the wife of John, and from this he took his answer, that is, that the wife of John had the name Margery, and not Cecille. The plaintiff said that, whether she were present by attorney or in her own person, this did not change the plea, and besides the defendant did not answer to Cecille, if he did not say that, whereas she named herself Cecille, she had the name Margery and not Cecille, because it could be that John had two wives, one Cecille and another Margery, and if it were so, then his wife had the name Cecille as well as Margery, and Cecille contra; thus the defendant's answer could be true with the plaintiff's writ; therefore the defendant pleaded nothing to the plaintiff. The defendant said that if he had another wife it was for the plaintiff to plead it, and in this way to maintain her writ, because the defendant pleaded as much as he could. Friskeney JCP said that his averment was not receivable, because it could have two causes of truth, the one, whereas she named herself Cecille she had the name of Margery; then by this mistake the writ was bad; the other, that she who brought this writ was never his wife, which would naturally be an answer to the action; therefore, this averment, which contained in itself two distinct matters (deux gros), of which one was to the writ and the other to the action, was not receivable. Bereford CJCP told the defendant to say over. The defendant said that his wife was never joined to him in lawful matrimony; ready etc., and the other side said the contrary. Where to aver the (devoins) B., (ove) in which church. A serjeant said, in the Bishopric of LIncoln, and in the church, etc.[1] 23 [1] http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/display.php?id=5388 On May 31, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > > On 31/05/2016 8:14 PM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: >> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: >> < 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”. >> < >> From: Douglas Richardson via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] >> Sent: 31 May 2016 02:29 >>> 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). >>> >> ------------------------------- >> >> 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). >> > > 1302 was perhaps proposed by the TNA cataloguer because on 15 August > 1302 "Sir John de St. John the K.'s lieutenant in Scotland, and Sire > Rauf de Mantone the K.'s clerk, agreed with Sir Patrick de Dumbar earl > of the Marche, to keep the castle and sheriffdom of Are ... Done at > Roxburgh, 30th August", see *Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland* > vol. 2 p. 335 no. 1320. > > Peter Stewart > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 31/05/2016 9:30 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > 1302 was perhaps proposed by the TNA cataloguer because on 15 August > 1302 "Sir John de St. John the K.'s lieutenant in Scotland, and Sire > Rauf de Mantone the K.'s clerk, agreed with Sir Patrick de Dumbar earl > of the Marche, to keep the castle and sheriffdom of Are ... Done at > Roxburgh, 30th August", see *Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland* > vol. 2 p. 335 no. 1320. > And/or because John de St. John is known to have been ailing in August 1302 - he died at Lochmaben on Thursday 6 September in that year according to Annales Londonienses. Peter Stewart