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. That John de St John of Basing was incarcerated in Paris until September 1299 is indicated by various contemporary sources. Bemont’s Roles Gascons, cites Flores Historiarum III:299, saying that John de St John was taken prisoner on 2 February 1297 near Bonnut and kept a prisoner in Paris. As stipulated by terms in the treaty of Vyve-Sant-Bavon in 1299, John de Baliol was to be released by the King of England first, in exchange for John de St John and his companions. https://archive.org/stream/rlesgascons03mich#page/n69/mode/2up Flores Historiarum, III:299 under the year 1299 relates that Margaret sister of Philip IV arrived in Dover on the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (September 8th) for her marriage to Edward I and was married shortly afterwards in Canterbury. John Baliol the king of the Scots, being held in custody by the king of England, was allowed to leave prison, and went to the king of France. When the king saw him, he released John de St John and his companions who had been kept in prison a long time and delivered them as quickly as possible under the condition of the treaty. https://archive.org/stream/floreshistoriaru03pari#page/298/mode/2up This means effectively John de St John had remained in prison for a good 19 months – hence the phrase, ”in carcere suo diu retentos”. This chronology is reiterated by Nicholas Trivet, a contemporary of Edward I in his Annales, p.376 Under the year 1299 on the Feast of the translation of St Thomas the Martyr (12 July) Trivet relates that the Pope interceded on behalf of John Baliol to ensure Baliol’s release, after which prisoners held by both kings were to be released according to the terms agreed under the truce. https://archive.org/stream/fnicholaitrivet00socigoog#page/n407/mode/2up Rishanger’s Gesta Edwardi Primi, p. 415 relates a similar chronology that Edward I married Margaret after which John de St John, Aimery de St Amand and other English prisoners were released. https://archive.org/stream/willelmirishange00rish#page/414/mode/2up Cheers Rosie On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 8:58:12 PM UTC+12, Tompkins wrote: > 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