On Thursday, 2 June 2016 00:36:06 UTC+1, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: > Thanks Matt > > Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original. > <snip> > > Cheers > Rosie > ------------------------- 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 for 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 Matt

On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote: > On Thursday, 2 June 2016 00:36:06 UTC+1, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: >> Thanks Matt >> >> Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original. >> > <snip> >> Cheers >> Rosie >> > ------------------------- > > 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 for 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 > > 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

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. Matt Tompkins