The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298. It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw. >From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that. It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or. John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while. As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter. Cheers Rosie On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:44:03 AM UTC+12, Peter Stewart via wrote: > On 1/06/2016 9:20 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: > > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > > > This is getting stranger and stranger. > > > > Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Saint John returned from being held a prisoner in France in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states he returned to England in 1299. > > > > Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper (1846): 251 includes the following record dated 1298: > > > > “1863. Letters Patent from the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester — Relative to giving hostages for the delivery of John de Saint John, detained in the prison of the King of France. Gloucester, 27th May, 1298.”)." > > > > The above record may be viewed at the following weblink: > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qDxKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251 > > > > If I understand the nature of this record, it seems that John de Saint John was released from prison in France about 27 May 1298, upon giving hostages for payment of his ransom. If 1298 was the correct date of his release, this might explain why Sir John de Saint John wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland two months later in July 1298. > > > > Hostages were not invariably given *before* a prisoner was released - in > that era people sometimes trusted the word of others without imputing > ulterior "motives" at the first hint of disagreement. > > Peter Stewart

As I understand it, the relationship of John de St John and his "cousin" Sir Richard de Siward is: John de St John of Basing d. 1302 m. Alice filia Reginald daughter of Sir Reginald FitzHerbert (d. 1286) son of Piers FitzHerbert and Alice de Warkworth. The later couple were also parents of Lucy FitzHerbert who m. William de Ros of Helmsley (d. abt 1264). They were the parents of Alice de Ros who m. John "Red Comyn" Comyn (d/ aft 1273)who had a daughter Mary who married first Sir Simon Fraser (d. 1291) and second Sir Richard Siward. At least that is all I have found so far...... (based on secondary sources with the usual caveats). Doug Smith

I have seen Lagham spelled Lageham and Langhams, all pertaining to Godstone. Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2016, at 6:52 PM, rbevan via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298. > > It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw. > > From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the ! muster at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that. > > It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or. > > John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while. > > As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter. > > Cheers > Rosie > > > > > >> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:44:03 AM UTC+12, Peter Stewart via wrote: >>> On 1/06/2016 9:20 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote: >>> Dear Newsgroup ~ >>> >>> This is getting stranger and stranger. >>> >>> Complete Peerage states that Sir John de Saint John returned from being held a prisoner in France in 1297, whereas Dictionary of National Biography states he returned to England in 1299. >>> >>> Seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper (1846): 251 includes the following record dated 1298: >>> >>> “1863. Letters Patent from the Abbot and Convent of St. Peter’s, Gloucester — Relative to giving hostages for the delivery of John de Saint John, detained in the prison of the King of France. Gloucester, 27th May, 1298.”)." >>> >>> The above record may be viewed at the following weblink: >>> >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=qDxKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA251 >>> >>> If I understand the nature of this record, it seems that John de Saint John was released from prison in France about 27 May 1298, upon giving hostages for payment of his ransom. If 1298 was the correct date of his release, this might explain why Sir John de Saint John wasn't at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland two months later in July 1298. >> >> Hostages were not invariably given *before* a prisoner was released - in >> that era people sometimes trusted the word of others without imputing >> ulterior "motives" at the first hint of disagreement. >> >> 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

From: rbevan via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 01 June 2016 00:52 > > The 1297 date was a typo I made in my article and has since been amended online to 1298. It was certainly not a deliberate falsification as insinuated by Mr Richardson. However it does not alter the fact that it could not have been John de St John of Basing writing that letter in 1298. > > It is evident that there has been much confusion over the St John family, as there were 3 individuals by the same name extant and performing military service in the period -John de St John of Basing, senior; John de St John, junior; and John de St John of Lagham. Lagham was spelt variously as Lageham and Laugham in the rolls (see CPR, 1318-1323, 17 for example) and I suspect it was the latter variant that Stevenson saw. > > From 1294 John de St John of Basing, sr, had served in Gascony. John de St John of Basing senior was taken prisoner at the battle of Bellegarde in early 1297 and was not released until after the Treaty of L’Aumone in the summer of 1299 after incurring heavy debts during his captivity. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Saint-John,_John_de_(DNB00) In November 1299 he pledged four of his manors in Sussex and Hampshire for sixteen years to the merchants of the Society of Buonsignori of Siena [CPR, 1292-1301, 482]. He was certainly back in England by October 1299 when he was summoned to attend the parliament at New Temple, London on 18th October. The next summons for military service was in January 1300, when he was commissioned as the King’s Lieutenant in Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire and Annandale [Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs, p.820]. This was the first time he served in Scotland - although his son had been summoned to serve the previous year (summoned to the muster! at Carlisle on 6 June 1299), and according to the Falkirk Roll had fought at that battle, but there is no record of a summons for him. I have yet to see evidence of John de St John senior serving in Scotland before that. > > It is interesting to note that the Falkirk Roll, compiled shortly after the battle, only has the arms of one St John, which it denotes as ‘Johan de St Johan, le fiz”. They were Argent, on a chief gules two mullets or, a label azure [Brault. Rolls of Arms of Edward I, I:416, II: 372-3]. This supports the theory that John senior was not at the battle as claimed by CP. Incidentally the arms used by both families seem to have been the same - argent, on a chief gules two mullets or. > > John de St John of Lagham, however, was the only St John known to be summoned to muster at Carlisle on 25 May 1298 for military service against the Scots, so presumably he fought at the battle of Falkirk on 22 July. He was evidently back at Lagham by late summer, perhaps owing to illness. Whatever the reason he was not again summoned until 1301, which might suggest that he was incapacitated for a while. > > As the letter was written from “Langham” or Laugham as I suspect it was really written, and as John of Lagham’s relationship to John de Segrave is already predicated, and that John de St John, Sr, of Basing could not have been in Scotland in 1298, I maintain that John de St John of Lagham was the author of the letter. > > Cheers Rosie > ------------------------------- The letter can't have been written in Lagham in Surrey, Rosie, because it related to a meeting due to be held in Roxburgh only 0-4 days after the letter's date (depending on whether the date is xxvij jour de Auguste or Tuesday before the decollation of St John the Baptist). It must have been written somewhere close to Roxburgh. Whether it was Langham, probably meaning Langholm, or Lochmaben can only be determined by looking at the original. Matt