On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:33:24 PM UTC+1, Jeanie Roberts via wrote: > In Volume 1 page 373, is the Carta of William de Say. It begins with: > > Isti sunt milites William de Say de veteri feffamento: my attempt to > translate: (these are the knights of William de Say of the old > feffamento). > This is followed by a list of knights. > On the following page it says: > De noviter feodatis de domnio meo: (The new feodatis of my lord) > The first name is: > Willelmus de Say avunculus meus j militem de Witehurst: ( William de Say, > my uncle, one knight's fee ) > other knights names then > Willelmus filius, quintam parem militis in Kembolton. ( William son 1/5 > knights fee Kimbolton). > > The date is 1166. In Medieval Lands, William de Say of Kimbolton was the > s/o William de Say and Beatrix de Mandeville. Does the first part of the > Carta refer to the elder William who according to Medieval Lands died about > 1155? Who is being referred to as My Lord in the beginning of the second > part. And who is calling William de Say my uncle? Does the William de Say > of the Carta have an Uncle named William and a son named William? Or do I > have this completely wrong. > > Hoping someone is bored this Saturday morning and can help. > > Jeanie The man referred to in the phrase 'Isti sunt milites Willelmi de Say de veteri feffamento' is the William de Say who submitted the carta, so must be the one who was living in 1166 - the son of William de Say and Beatrice de Mandeville). The phrase 'De noviter feodatis de domnio meo' means 'of new enfeoffments from my demesne'. The 'meo' here and the 'meus' in 'avunculus meus' both refer to the William de Say who submitted the carta. It's difficult to say who 'Willelmus filius' was son of. He might possibly be the son of William de Say who submitted the carta, but he might also be the son of the tenant listed immediately before him, Ricardus Anglicus, tenant of Wirham, or of someone else entirely (if a name which ought to have followed 'filius' had been omitted). Matt Tompkins