I'm sorry but I have another question that has been bothering me for quite a while. Does anyone know of any reliable source documenting the marriage of Ralph Joscelyn (1275-1313, dates approx. of course) to Maud/Matilda de Sutton (1307-1354), and if so, was she was the daughter of Sir John de Sutton (say 1286-1338), son of Richard de Sutton & Isabel Patrick, i.e.,the de Sutton family that inherited Dudley Castle? I'd appreciate anyone's input on this. Thanks, Lynnette Eldredge On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:15 AM, <gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: John Paul Jones Family History mystery solved (Sam Sloan) > 2. A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? (Robert Spencer) > 3. Re: A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? (Robert Spencer) > 4. Re: Medieval Researcher required, Pek of Wakefield (Derek Howard) > 5. William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser family > (Robert Spencer) > 6. Re: Royal line for Australian media baron Sir [sic] Rupert > Murdoch? (PDeloriol@aol.com) > 7. Re: William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser > family (Matt Tompkins) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sam Sloan <samhsloan@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 00:30:13 -0700 > Subject: Re: John Paul Jones Family History mystery solved > My Family Tradition days that I am a descendant of the sister of John Paul > Jones. I have been hearing that since I was a child. > If you would like to test that please take a DNA test from either ftdna.com > or 23andme.com or ancestry.com > Then upload the results to gedmatch.com > Since John Paul Jones lived July 6, 1747 – July 18, 1792 he is only 7 > generations back and it will show a match on gedmatch. > Sam Sloan T241983 > M085839 Sam Sloan > A149200 Sam Sloan > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Spencer <robert.dispensarium@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:40:48 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? > Previously, a Joan L'isle, dau. of Hugh was noted to be the wife of Thomas le Despenser of Loughborough. This Thomas seems to fit the bill in the records referred to below as it mentions his brother Geoffrey le Despenser and Emma d'Harcourt. This seems to indicate his wife was named Matilda. What source is there for Joan L'isle? Did she die and Thomas he remarried or is this a younger Thomas le Despenser? > > Does anyone have further info or comments? > > Curia Regis Roll 145. Mich., 35-6, Henry III, 1251, > m. 46, I/eyc.: Walter de Segrave, the essoiner of > Matilda, who was the wife of Thomas le Despenser, v. > William Knot in a plea of a bovate of land in Cusington, > and v. Emma, who was the wife of Geoffrey le > Despenser, in a plea of a third part of a virgate of land > in Cusinton as dower. > > Patent Roll. 28 June, 1251. Grant to Emma, late the > wife of Geoffrey le Despenser, of the wardship of the > land and heir of the said Geoffrey, during the minority > of the heir, with wards, reliefs, escheats, advowsons of > churches and other appurtenances. > > Fine Roll. 29 June, 1251. The king, for a fine of 400 > marks which Emma who was the wife of Geoffrey le > Despenser made with the king, has granted her the > custody of the land and heir, viz., John, son and heir of > the said Geoffrey, until his legal age. > > Extract from: Medieval Cossington, Leicestershire > By S. H. Skillington > CHAPTER IV > > During the twelfth century,the six carucates, etc., in Cossington had been held by the family of Pincerna, under the earls of Chester, to the first of whom > Barrow, with its appendages, had been granted by William the > Conqueror before 1086, the date of the Domesday. We have also > seen that Roger de Somervill and William de Meisham, presumably > the son or grandson of Ralph de Meisham, were involved > in litigation concerning the advowson of Cossington church, the > end of which is recorded as follows in the rolls of bishop Grosseteste: > "Thomas de Prestewalde is presented to the church of > Cusinton by Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser, letters of the king > having been received containing that the said Hugh in the king's > court before the justices had recovered seisin of the advowson of > the said church against Hugh, earl of Arundel, W. earl Ferrers, > the abbot of St. Severus, Roger de Sumervill and William de > Meisham by an assize of last presentation (A.D. 1239)". > > Robert > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Spencer <robert.dispensarium@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 04:48:06 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: A 2nd wife of Thomas Le Despenser found ?? > Further to the topic, the following seems to imply that the first Hugh Despenser who died in 1238, was a patron. > > Extract from: https://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/cossington_conservation_area_character_appraisal_adopted_130220142/Cossington%20Conservation%20Area%20Character%20Appraisal%20-%20Adopted%2013022014.pdf > > "The earliest written record of Cossington can be found in Domesday (1086) where “Cosintone” is mentioned and the Earl Hugh of Chester held 6 carucates of land here, approximately 600 acres. It is relatively unusual for such a small settlement to be referenced specifically, indicating that it must have been a village of some significance by this time. By 1220 Cossington was under the patronage of Hugh Despenser and Henry Lord Beaumont became Lord of the Manor." > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Derek Howard <dhoward@skynet.be> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 05:10:40 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: Medieval Researcher required, Pek of Wakefield > On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:34:19 PM UTC+2, Tompkins wrote: >> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:49:22 PM UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: >> > Dear Colleagues,> I have a quotation from a medieval manuscript on the ancestry of the Peck family of Wakefield. Sadly however no source cited! Any suggestions for a researcher to find the original manuscript welcome or is there another route?> Peter >> > >> From: Peter Cockerill via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] >> Sent: 01 May 2016 16:31 >> >> The following extract is from The Law Quarterly Review Vol 38 October 1922 page 464ff By WA Peck; >> >> >> >> 'We learn more from a manuscript record compiled in the sixteenth century by a member of the family, who writes; I toke this Raymembaransays owtt of divers other boks wythe yt Rentall of my lands syns the thmy yt I dyd occwpy Anno dni 1533. >> >> The first of my hawnsytwrs of my name that I can find of was in King Richard the Second days on Rychard Pek & Margett his wife and he bowght in hys lyfe thym sartn lands in Halyfax & Gledelyfe and he & hys wife had usshew thre sons yt is say Rychard, John & Thomas & dyed att Halyfax God hayfe Mersey on hys sowle. [FH records 414 Richard Peck husband of Margaret, 417 son Richard, 418 son Thomas , 403 son John] >> >> 'And hys son Rychard Pek was a man of Lawe and marryd Ellyn Kynge and he had no usshew wt her & she was sister to Sr John Kynge wecker of Halyfax. And the sayd Rychard Pek bowght fayre lands in King Henry the Syghts [sixths] thym & also byffore bowthe in Wakefield Halyfax Sowthe Howrom, Shelfe Hawle and in other playssys & dydd att Halyfax yt last yere of ye Rayne of Kynge Henry the Syght [probably 1461 rather than 1471] & was beryd att Halyfax Jesu hayfe mercy on hys sowle. [FH record 417] >> >> John Pek hys Border marrd Isabell Lacye dowghtter of John Lacy of Cromwell bothom and had usshewe wtt her fowre sons Rychard Robartt Thomas & John & the same John Pek dyed att Halyfax byfoe Rychard Pek hys brother ytt was ye man of law God hayfe mercy on hys sowle. And Thomas Pek thayre brothe was a prest.' [FH record John 403, Richard 396, Robert 406, Thomas 405, John 413] >> >> This brings us to firmer ground as the above can be checked by reference to the pedigrees recorded in the Heralds' Visitations.' >> >> >> >> My thanks to you all. >> >> Peter >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> This is a real puzzle. I had hoped the quotation would be an extract from a title deed of some recognisable sort - googling the names of the parties, place and date plus the document type would have a good chance of bringing up an entry in an archival catalogue. But it turns out the document is of a sort whose description in a catalogue is less easy to predict. The author's forename is not stated, the date is uncertain (either 1533 or an uncertain date some years after 1533), the place(s) it might be associated with in a catalogue are uncertain (probably Halifax or Wakefield, but possibly elsewhere, and maybe nowhere) and, most awkwardly, it is unclear how the document might be categorised in a catalogue (as a Remembrance? a Memorandum? Or a pedigree or genealogy? A commonplace book? Or was it part of the Rental it refers to? or ...). >> >> The author seems to have been a descendant of the first Richard Pek (married to Margaret) and to have been living in 1533. It isn't clear to me whether he wrote the MS in 1533, some years after he came into occupation of his estate, or wrote it some years after 1533, that being the year he came into occupation. If the latter then 1533 would presumably be either the year his father (or other antecessor) died or the year he came to his majority and was given livery of his inheritance - in which case he would probably have been born in or before 1512. Or just possibly it was the year he bought his lands. >> >> Anyway, looking at the Peck pedigree Flower's 1563-4 Visitation of Yorks, it seems the author might have been John Peck, son and heir of Richard Peck (d. 1516) and his wife Alice Mydleton, which John married Jane Anne, or perhaps John's son and heir Richard, who married Anne Hothom, or one of John's other sons. If it were possible to trace the subsequent ownership of the author's lands down to the 20th century, when landowners began to deposit their muniments in record offices, then one might hazard a guess as to the current whereabouts of the Peck deeds, which might include the MS in question. >> >> I don't know enough about the Pecks or their lands to do this, but someone more familiar with the family might be able to. I do notice that (i) the Law Quarterly Review article which so infuriatingly quotes from the MS but fails to identify it goes on to say that a Peck property in Wakefield called Haselden Hall 'is said (in Taylor's 'History of the Rectory Manor of Wakefield') to have been sold by another Richard Peck to George Savile in the reign of Elizabeth'; and (ii) that the Savile of Rufford deeds at Nottinghamshire Archives include a 'List of lands bought from Richard Pecks by George Savile' in c.1600 (DD/SR/227/72). It's a long shot but the sought-after MS may just possibly be among the Savile muniments. >> >> Matt Tompkins > > My first thought is that Wakefield, Halifax, Sowthowram, Shelf, etc were in the manor of Wakefield - England's largest - and the well kept records of the manor survive and would possibly have been accessible in the 16th century. So, while it does not answer the whereabouts of the quoted ms, the source for the info may well be the manor court rolls. These have been for a great length of time in the custody of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society in Leeds, but I believe the YAS mss collection has now been handed to the custody of the Leeds University Brotherton Library Special Collections department. Certainly if I were working on any genealogy in that area in the medieval period the MCRs (which start in the 13th century and continue to 1926) would be an essential source. > > Derek Howard > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Robert Spencer <robert.dispensarium@gmail.com> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:02:31 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser family > Help request: Previously, I have only seen one good reference to a William as brother of Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser in a charter of Thomas de Ardene in a Chester deed, in that record he was not shown with the name Despenser following as is portrayed below. > > First, can any one ascertain if the place "Lutterburc", has a more common name. I have seen similar spellings such as Luctberg, which later states it was Loughborough,but in this case, I'm not sure? > > Secondly, to [who's men] are they referring to when it says "with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc". Bascially, I want to know: Is it saying Geoffrey de Jort has men in this place alongside Thomas Despenser? > > From: Honours and Kt's fees Vol. 1 > pg. 63 under Woodthorpe: > > > Thorpe ' Muntford ' is assumed to be the present Woodthorpe. > > The association of the family of Muntford (not Montefort) with > > this place, implied by its distinctive appellation, has not been > > discovered, but Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de > > Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son > > of Picot, with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc,' gave to > > Garendon abbey land called ' Locholmewro de Luteberc' > > > > The position of this place is proved by the following deed : > > Hugh Despenser, son and heir of Hugh Despenser, grants > > to Sir Geoffrey Despenser his uncle his wood of Thorp Munfort, > > which descended to him from his father and from William > > Despenser his uncle, namely from Lousterbothes Durnes, by > > the grantor's wood called La Haye to his park (of Loughborough), > > adjoining the ditch between Thorpwatecroft and the field of Thorpmunfort, as > far as Cadaker and so to La Thurne. > > As a side note: > Woodthorpe is named under "Fees of Honour of Chester" the tenant is named as being Despenser. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: PDeloriol@aol.com > To: leliwite@gmail.com > Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:30:09 -0400 > Subject: Re: Royal line for Australian media baron Sir [sic] Rupert Murdoch? > Ahem! Titles are accepted in Republican countries. Some Republics have even > given hereditary titles to its citizens. A Republic, grosso modo, is the > negation of an absolute monarch. hereditary titles, for instance, have not > been abolished in France, nor in Germany or Austria, they just do not have > any privileges, but the State does have a specific department that > regulates them and ensures they are not mis-used or mis-appropriated. Titles of > Knighthood abound in modern Republics. > Peter > > > In a message dated 10/05/2016 22:06:38 GMT Daylight Time, > gen-medieval@rootsweb.com writes: > > Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen. Even as an Australian (which he > ceased to be on becoming an American in 1985), he was not Sir Rupert. > He is a Companion of the Order of Australia, and a papal knight, but > that does not confer the accolade. It would be absurd for him to use > such a title given that he supports the republican movement in > Australia, and elsewhere. > > Richard > > On 10/05/2016, ravinmaven2001 via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> It seems possible there is a royal descent for Sir Rupert Murdoch, the >> billionaire businessman. >> >> I have used Reitwiesner and Wood's tracing of his ancestry back to > ancestor >> #116, Robert Sherson, "b. 1736/7, buried 13 Jan 1821 at Fetcham, Surrey > aged >> 84, apothecary, doctor of medicine and botanist. Will dated 2 Feb 1819, >> proved with 3 codicils at London 22 Mar 1821." The next entry is for his >> wife, Mary ___, and mentions the location of "Bridge House, Fetcham, >> Surrey." >> >> http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html >> >> These details given for Robert Sherson and his wife Mary tie in nicely > to a >> big pedigree chart in Whitaker's _An History of the Original Parish of >> Whalley_, where a footnote to the chart shows Alexander Sherson, husband > of >> Bridget Nowell, serving as "Town Clerk of Lancaster, died Nov. 21, 1737, >> leaving a numerous issue. His son Robert Sherson, M.D., late of Great >> Ormond Street, now (1809) of Bridge House, Surrey, has also a numerous >> progeny." As this statement was made in the lifetime of Robert Sherson > (d. >> 1821) of Bridge House, Fetcham, Surrey, doctor of medicine, I see no real >> reason to doubt its accuracy (though please inform me if this connection > is >> wrong). >> >> https://books.google.com > /books?id=EO1EAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA264&dq=%22son+robert+sherson%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0m7Cr-8_MAhUE2SYKHZHsD1gQ6AEIHTAA#v=on > epage&q=%22son%20robert%20sherson%22&f=false >> >> Bridget Nowell, shown by Whitaker to be mother of Robert Sherson, M.D., > was >> a daughter of Roger Nowell, Esq., of Whalley, by his wife, Rebecca, > relict >> of Cuthbert Wade (possibly born Rebecca Heber, first cousin to her own > 2nd >> husband). This seems to lead to at least one royal descent from King > Edward >> III, and probably more (the Heber lines should be checked in particular). >> >> 1. Edward III, King of England = Philippa of Hainault >> >> 2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = (3) with legitimated issue, > Katherine >> (Roet) Swynford >> >> 3. Joan Beaufort = Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmoreland >> >> 4. Richard Neville, 1st Earl of Salisbury = Alice Montagu >> >> 5. Eleanor Neville = Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby >> >> 6. Edward Stanley, Lord Monteagle = Elizabeth Harington & Anne Vaughan >> >> 7. (? possibly illegitimate) Elizabeth Stanley = Sir Thomas Langton >> >> 8. Joan Langton = John Fleetwood >> >> 9. Elizabeth Fleetwood = Roger Nowell >> >> 10. Roger Nowell = Dorothy Holt >> >> 11. Alexander Nowell = Eleanor Heber >> >> 12. Roger Nowell = Rebecca (? Heber), widow of Cuthbert Wade >> >> 13. Bridget Nowell = Alexander Sherson >> >> 14. Robert Sherson = Mary____ >> >> 15. Robert Sherson = Catherine Taylor >> >> 16. Caroline Jemima Sherson = Frederick Henry Alexander Forth >> >> 17. Robert de Lancey Forth = Anne Thomson Ware >> >> 18. Marie Grace de Lancey Forth = Rupert Greene >> >> 19. Elisabeth Joy Greene = Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch >> >> 20. Sir (Keith) Rupert Murdoch >> >> >> The H.O.P. biography of Sir Thomas Langton of Newton confirms his > marriage >> to a daughter, perhaps illegit., of Edward, Lord Monteagle. >> >> > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/langton-sir-thomas-149697-1569 >> >> Sir Thomas Langton had another wife who should be ruled out as the > mother of >> Joan Langton, who married John Fleetwood. >> >> The _Visitation of Cumberland_ shows the marriage of Joan, daughter of > Sir >> Thomas and Elizabeth (Stanley) Langton, to John Fleetwood. >> >> > https://books.google.com/books?id=4nO5MJva0IYC&pg=PA32&dq=%22thomas+langton%22+newton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_q5mqkc7MAhUFxSYKHZSKB_wQ6AEIHTAA#v=onep > age&q=%22thomas%20langton%22%20newton&f=false >> >> _Documents Relating to the Priory of Penwortham_ deals with the > Fleetwood >> and Nowell connections in detail, though again we should rule out John >> Fleetwood's other wife, Catherine Christmas, as ancestral. >> >> > https://books.google.com/books?id=MmJVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR56&dq=%22married+roger+nowell+of+read%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunvC4_c_MAhUB3yYKHWsCBHAQ6AEIMzAE > #v=onepage&q=%22married%20roger%20nowell%20of%20read%22&f=false >> >> I imagine there are in fact several royal descents, as the wife of >> generation 15, Robert Sherson, Jr., appears to have been a granddaughter > of >> Thomas Forbes, who was the son of Arthur Forbes Maitland of Pitrichie. >> >> > https://books.google.com/books?id=uZlNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=sherson+nowell+fetcham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw6cmC-s_MAhUK7yYKHRDTDn0Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage& > q=sherson%20nowell%20fetcham&f=false >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Matt Tompkins <mllt1@le.ac.uk> > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > Cc: > Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: William Despenser confirmed as member of the Despenser family > On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 14:02:32 UTC+1, Robert Spencer wrote: >> Help request: Previously, I have only seen one good reference to a William as brother of Hugh, son of Hugh Despenser in a charter of Thomas de Ardene in a Chester deed, in that record he was not shown with the name Despenser following as is portrayed below. >> >> First, can any one ascertain if the place "Lutterburc", has a more common name. I have seen similar spellings such as Luctberg, which later states it was Loughborough,but in this case, I'm not sure? >> >> Secondly, to [who's men] are they referring to when it says "with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc". Bascially, I want to know: Is it saying Geoffrey de Jort has men in this place alongside Thomas Despenser? >> >> From: Honours and Kt's fees Vol. 1 >> pg. 63 under Woodthorpe: >> >> Thorpe ' Muntford ' is assumed to be the present Woodthorpe. >> >> The association of the family of Muntford (not Montefort) with >> this place, implied by its distinctive appellation, has not been >> discovered, but Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de >> Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son >> of Picot, with the consent of their men of ' Lutterburc,' gave to >> Garendon abbey land called ' Locholmewro de Luteberc' >> >> The position of this place is proved by the following deed : >> >> Hugh Despenser, son and heir of Hugh Despenser, grants >> to Sir Geoffrey Despenser his uncle his wood of Thorp Munfort, >> which descended to him from his father and from William >> Despenser his uncle, namely from Lousterbothes Durnes, by >> the grantor's wood called La Haye to his park (of Loughborough), >> adjoining the ditch between Thorpwatecroft and the field of Thorpmunfort, as >> far as Cadaker and so to La Thurne. >> >> As a side note: >> Woodthorpe is named under "Fees of Honour of Chester" the tenant is named as being Despenser. >> > > ------------------------------- > ________________________________________ > Lutterburc is certainly Loughborough, which appears in early records in forms like Lucteburc, Lucteburga (I suspect -tt- is a misreading of -ct-, a very easy mistake to make). By 1300 forms like Lughteburgh become more usual. > > In the last 6 months I've been looking at quite a few original records from Loughborough and Woodthorpe. I don't think I've ever seen the latter called anything but 'Wodthorpe', but then again all the references I've seen date from after 1350. It's quite possible that it was earlier called Thorpe Muntford or Montfort. But a short distance away from Woodthorpe are Shelthorpe, Knight Thorpe and Thorpe Acre - Thorpe Muntford might also have been one of them. > > The early forms of the names of all these places will be revealed when the final volume of Barrie Cox's Place-names of Leicestershire, dealing with West Goscote hundred, comes out (later this year?). Until then one has to look in his PhD thesis on the place-names of Leicestershire, on which the books are substantially based. We have one in our departmental library and I'll have a look at it on Friday, when I'll next be there. > > Yes, the quoted deed does seem to be saying that Thomas Despenser, Geoffrey de Jort, W. de Munford, Henry son of Serlo and Robert his son, and Robert son of Picot all had tenants in Loughborough (presumably meaning the large parish/manor of Loughborough, which included at least parts of Knight Thorpe, Thorpe Acre, Woodthorpe, Shelthorpe and Cotes, across the river, and additionally had frankpledge jurisdiction over Mountsorrel, Burton on the Wolds, Barrow, Quarndon, and Prestwold). > > Matt Tompkins > >