Notes: Family Collectives

Ancestry Solutions'
Ancestral Collectives

Matches 2,551 to 2,600 of 4,853

#	Notes	Linked to
2551	His cousin.	SANDYS, Mary (I10684)
2552	His father on the christening is described as a labourer. Buried with his mother, Joan, on the same day, aged 2 months.	SMITH, Simon ^ (I12445)
2553	His father, Thomas L. Carlin, had been born in New Orleans, U.S.A. and his mother Rosella nee James in Kentucky, U.S.A.. Cause of death was due to hypostatic pneumonia resuting from a fracture of the left humerus when he slipped and fell in the bathroom at the City Infirmary on June 9, 1941.	CARLIN, Thomas J. (I8015)
2554	His first wife Anne Perient died 10 FEB 1624 • Ayot, Hertfordshire, England ======================================================== First name(s) Martin Last name Trott Gender Male Birth year - Birth place - Baptism year 1586 Baptism date 31 May 1586 Place - County London Country England Father's first name(s) Martin Father's last name Trott Mother's first name(s) - Mother's last name - Record set England Births & Baptisms 1538-1975 Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records Subcategory Parish Baptisms First name(s) Martin Last name Trott Marriage year 1625 Spouse's first name(s) Elz Spouse's last name Blincoe Place London Diocese Dedication Bishop Ml County London, Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex Country England Source Boyd's 1st miscellaneous marriage index, 1415-1808 By 1560 the three portions had been reunited, purchased by Rose Trott, a London widow. When she died in 1574 she left Langridge to her son Martin Trott2 , who seems to have actually lived there. He, or his son or grandson, all with the same name, had a map drawn up of the inherited estate3 . The map must date from after Martin’s inheritance in 1575 and before his grandson sold it in the late 17th century4 . It shows a clear depiction of the house within its moat, as well as the farmland, a barn, and a small house to the east built by one of the Trotts and later called Upper Langridge. Langridge Farmhouse itself had been described as ‘newly-built’ in a deed of 1548.5 . Langridge passed to a Benjamin Maddox6 , later to the Fitzgeralds 7 and then in 1721 to the Martin family8 . By about 1800, the owner was the Revd Joseph Martin, a Gloucestershire rector, and the tenant was Thomas Collin9 . The Revd Martin sold it in 1814 to Anthony Watts10. By the time of the Tithe Award in 184811 it was recorded as being owned by the trustees of the late Joseph Harvey, the tenant farmer being John Gray. At that time it extended to 167 acres, but John Gray farmed a further 54, making 221 acres altogether, of which only 19 acres were arable, the rest being grass. The associated Tithe Map (Fig 2a) shows the house with more or less its present shape, some small outbuildings behind, and the courtyard of farm buildings to the south. ========================================================================= History of Parliament Online: Family and Education 1st s. of Edward Trott of Yorks. by his w. Elizabeth Parke. educ. Peterhouse, Camb. 1567; BA Clare 1571; G. Inn 1573, called 1584. m. 1602, Mary, da. of Sir George Perient of Ayot St. Peter, Herts., 3da. Kntd. 1619...He made his will in October 1634 and it was proved by his widow and executrix on 3 Feb. 1637.4 MARTIN2 TROTT (MARTYN1) was born March 31, 1586 in England. He married (1) ELIZABETH BLINCOE, daughter of GEORGE BLINCOE. He married (2) ANNE PERIENT 1604, daughter of SIR GEORGE PERIENT. She was born November 23, 1586 in Ayot, Hertford, and died February 10, 1623/24 in Ayot, Hertford. Notes for MARTIN TROTT: Martin Trott baptized March 31, 1586 was the oldest son of Martin and Joane Bowyer Trott. He matriculated pensioner from St. Joh's University of Cambridge, Easter Term 1603. He entered his pedigree and arms at the Herald's Visitation of Essez, in 1634. He was of Langridge, Nasing, co. Essex and also of Whethampstead, Hertfordshire. Will: April 03, 1617 =============================================================== First name(s) Martin Last name Trot Birth year - Occupation Esqr Burial year 1685 Burial date 01 Feb 1685 Place Waltham Holy Cross County Essex Country England Archive Essex Record Office Archive reference D/P 75/1/5 Record set Essex Burial Index 1530-1994 ====================================================== IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN: the three and twentieth day of June one thousand six hundred and twentieth and in the yeares of the Raigne of our Sovereign Lord James by the grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, defender of the faith etc. the eighteenth and of Scotland the four and fiftieth; I MARTIN TROTT of Nasinge in the County of Essex, Esquire do make and ordain this my last Will and Testament in manner and form following, First and principally I do commend my soul into the hands of my lord Jesus Christ who by his most precious blood redeemed me And as touching my worldly estate I do hereby revoke and utterly renounce all former Wills, Deeds of gift or other matters whatsoever that may any way hinder or be prejudicial to this my last Will and Testament, my body I do commit to the earth whereof it was made and I will the same to be buried in the parish church of St. John's in Walbrooke, London, where I received my first breath and when my belove late wife lyeth buried and desire to be layed as near unto her as conveniently may be and to be buried in the night without any great charge. And my will is that within three months after my death there shall be set up a fairi with pendant with my coate arms and the arms of my late wife and of my now wife, also the city's arms, the Merchant Adventurers arms and the Mercers' Arms and every one of the said Arms to be fairly gilt. Item I do will that four hundred pounds be paid unto GEORGE CARLTON and JOHN VAVSOUR, Gent to such uses as are expressed in the condition of the bond which I sealed unto them before I entered marriage with my now wife which was to my best remembrance for the better maintenance of her and her children after my decease but I refer that unto their disposing. Item I do will that next after this four hundred pounds to GEORGE CARLTON and JOHN VAVASOR discharged my son WILLIAM TROTT be paid two hundred pounds which is due to him by my Bond after my decease. Item, I do give unto my son WESTERNE and his wife, my daughter, two shillings and six pence. Item, I do give unto my son BANISTER and my daughter his wife two shillings and six pence. Item, I do give unto my daughter NORDEN two shillings and six pence. Item I do give unto my son MARTIN TROTT two shillings and six pence. Item I do give and bequeth unto MR. INDE now minister of the parish of Nasinge wherein I dwell five pounds for the burial of my former wife and for his dues and duties for my own burial. Item I give unto SARA CAGE my grandchild which was born in the house wherein I now dwell the bond of fifty pounds which is due to me or my Executrix nine months after my decease by SIR GEORGE PERINT, KNIGHT and MARTIN TROTT my son to be paid unto the said SARA when she cometh to the age of one and twenty years or at her marriage which shall first happen and I do will that the money shall remain in the hands of my welbeloved wife for and towards the education of the said SARA whom I do intreat to educate and bring her up. And if the said SARA shall happen to die before she shall be married or accomplish the age of one and twenty years then my will is that my welbeloved wife PHILLIPP TROTT shall have the fifty pounds. Item, I do give and bequeath unto WILLIAM my son my seal ring at arms and whatsoever shall remain of my personal estate these sums above mentioned my burial and funeral rites and all other debts if any be being paid and sicharged. Item, I do will that four indifferent honest and peaceable men be chosen two of them by my son WILLIAM and the other two by my welbeloved wife which within three weeks after my decease shall indifferently prise my goods and personal estate but if it shall happen that my son WILLIAM shall not make choise of two indifferent honest and peaceable men within the time before limited then my will is that PHILLIPP TROTT my welbeloved wife shall make choice of the whole four to prise my goods and personal estate. Item I do make and ordain PHILLIPP TROTT my welbeloved wife to be my sole Executrix of this my last Will and Testament. Item, I do appoint EDWARD INDE now minister of Nasinge and JOHN JOVE of Broxbourn, Gent, to be overseers of this my last Will and Testament. Item, I do will that if any controversy shall arise between my son WILLIAM TROTT and my welbeloved wife whom I have made my sole Executrix that my said overseers shall choose two indifferent honest men to join with them and shall end all controversies between them for my earnest desire and my will is that they should not go to law. By me MARTIN TROTT Witnesses hereunto John Jove Edward Inde Francis Sutton PROBATUN FUIT TESTAMENTUM SUPRA SCRIPTUM apud London cora venerabili viro dmo Johanne Bennet Milite et Legu doctore curie Prerogative Cantuar Magro custode sive commissario ltime constituto vicesimo nono die mensis Junii Anno dm Millesimo Sextentesimo vicesimo juramento PHILLIPPE TROTT relicte dicti defuncti et executricis in eodem Testamento nominate cui comissa fuit administrato bonoru virim et creditoru dicti defuncti de hui et fidelita administrando eadem adsancta dei Evangctia vigore comissiones in ea parte als emanete jurat. Exh [Source: England & Wales, Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1384-1858 PROB 11: Will Registers 1599-1623 Piece 135: Soame, Quire Numbers 1-64 (1620)] ============================================================= Source for the later will England & Wales, Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1384-1858 for Martin Trott PROB 11: Will Registers 1655-1659 Piece 265: Ruthen, Quire Numbers 208-259 (1657) dated 24 July 1655 ============================================================ ------------------------------ First name(s) Martin Last name Trott Name note - Marriage year 1605 Marriage date 31 Oct 1605 Marriage place London Spouse's first name(s) Anne Spouse's last name Periant Spouse's age - County London Country England Record set England Marriages 1538-1973 from Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900 Martin Trott, St. John's College, entered Easter, 1603 Matriculated pens. from St. John's, Easter, 1603. Probably son of Martin of Langridge, Essex. Of Langridge, Esq., Married (1) Anne, dau. of Sir George Perient, of Ayot, Herts., Knt; (2) Elizabeth dau. of George Blincoe, late of Weeke, Sussex, July 22, 1625 (Vix. o Essex. 1634; Geneal. Bedford, 372) First name(s) Martin Supplied first name Martin Last name Trot Birth year - Death year 1656 Burial year 1656 Church St Bride Fleet Street Place London County London Notes - Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records Subcategory Parish Burials ================================= C 7 - Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings before 1714, Hamilton This record (browse from here by hierarchy or by reference) Catalogue description Short title: Trott v Trott. Plaintiffs: Andrew Trott. Defendants: Martin Trott and... Ordering and viewing options This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded. You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you. Book a visit Request a copy Reference: C 7/444/97 Description: Short title: Trott v Trott. Plaintiffs: Andrew Trott. Defendants: Martin Trott and others. Place or subject: property in Nazeing and Waltham Holy Cross, Essex. Document type: bill and answer Date: 1658 Held by: The National Archives, Kew Legal status: Public Record(s) Closure status: Open Document, Open Description C 5 - Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings before 1714, Bridges This record (browse from here by hierarchy or by reference) Catalogue description Short title: Trott v Trott. Plaintiffs: Mayne Trott and others. Defendants: Martin Trott... Ordering and viewing options This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded. You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you. Book a visit Request a copy Reference: C 5/29/222 Description: Short title: Trott v Trott. Plaintiffs: Mayne Trott and others. Defendants: Martin Trott and others. Subject: property in Nazeing and Waltham Holy Cross, Essex. Document type: bill, answer. Date: 1657 Held by: The National Archives, Kew Legal status: Public Record(s) Closure status: Open Document, Open Description C 2 - Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings, Series I, Elizabeth I to Charles I Subseries within C 2 - Elizabeth I Subsubseries within C 2 - T plaintiffs: originally 11 bundles This record (browse from here by hierarchy or by reference) Catalogue description Short title: Trott v Portise. Plaintiffs: Martin Trott. Defendants: Alice Portise and... Ordering and viewing options This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded. You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you. Book a visit Request a copy Reference: C 2/Eliz/T4/35 Description: Short title: Trott v Portise. Plaintiffs: Martin Trott. Defendants: Alice Portise and Thomas Cooke. Subject: Performance of an award etc. A messuage, orchard, gardens, and 120 acres of land called Langridge, in the parish of Nasing [Nazeing], Essex. Document type: [Pleadings] Date: Between 1558 and 1603 Held by: The National Archives, Kew Legal status: Public Record(s) Closure status: Open Document, Open Description C 2 - Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings, Series I, Elizabeth I to Charles I Subseries within C 2 - Elizabeth I Subsubseries within C 2 - G plaintiffs: originally 15 bundles This record (browse from here by hierarchy or by reference) Catalogue description Short title: Grevill v Trott. Plaintiffs: Edward Grevill esq, Elizabeth Grevill his wife... Ordering and viewing options This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded. You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew. You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a quotation for a copy to be sent to you. Book a visit Request a copy Reference: C 2/Eliz/G14/52 Description: Short title: Grevill v Trott. Plaintiffs: Edward Grevill esq, Elizabeth Grevill his wife and others. Defendants: Martin Trott and John Povey. Subject: Claim of life estate in right of plaintiff Elizabeth; said to be discharged from tithes. The manor and parsonage of Nasing [Nazeing], Essex, some time part of the possessions of the abbey of Waltham Holy Cross, and upon the suppression thereof granted by King Henry V111 to Sir Anthony Denny kt, and his heirs, and was settled by him on plaintiff Elizabeth for her jointure, upon her marriage with Henry Denny her first husband; which said manor and the demesnes thereof are discharged from tithes. Document type: [Pleadings] Date: Between 1558 and 1603 Held by: The National Archives, Kew Legal status: Public Record(s) Closure status: Open Document, Open Description	TROTT, Martin (I14854)
2555	His mother's name on this baptism is recorded as Marie.	SPILLETT, Edward (I4435)
2556	His name first appears on the Census of 1686. Married twice, he was the father of at least nineteen children. DOIRON, Jean, married Marie-Anne Canol, and both of them were from France, according to Pierre Trahan, husband of his granddaughter Madeleine Vincent (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 111). Another Pierre Trahan, who was a nephew of Jean Doiron’s second wife, Marie Trahan, mistakenly attributes the given name of Charles to him (ibid., p. 8), as do three other depositions: one from Jean Doiron’s grandson Jean Hébert (ibid., p. 11), one from his great-grandson Félix Boudrot (ibid., p. 39), and the last from Marie-Madeleine LeBlanc on behalf of her son-in-law Miniac Daigre, another of the ancestor’s great-grandsons (ibid., p. 25). Miniac Daigre’s uncles Alexis and Jean Doiron in their joint deposition likewise call their grandfather Charles, but do not mention his place of origin (ibid., p. 16). The 1693 census shows clearly that the same man who was listed as the husband of Marie-Anne Canol in 1686 had remarried Marie Trahan, and both those censuses and various other records in Acadia uniformly call the Doiron forebear Jean (see DGFA-1, pp. 513-516).	DOUARON DIT DOIRON, Jean (I232)
2557	His name first appears on the Census of 1686. Married twice, he was the father of at least nineteen children. DOIRON, Jean, married Marie-Anne Canol, and both of them were from France, according to Pierre Trahan, husband of his granddaughter Madeleine Vincent (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 111). Another Pierre Trahan, who was a nephew of Jean Doiron’s second wife, Marie Trahan, mistakenly attributes the given name of Charles to him (ibid., p. 8), as do three other depositions: one from Jean Doiron’s grandson Jean Hébert (ibid., p. 11), one from his great-grandson Félix Boudrot (ibid., p. 39), and the last from Marie-Madeleine LeBlanc on behalf of her son-in-law Miniac Daigre, another of the ancestor’s great-grandsons (ibid., p. 25). Miniac Daigre’s uncles Alexis and Jean Doiron in their joint deposition likewise call their grandfather Charles, but do not mention his place of origin (ibid., p. 16). The 1693 census shows clearly that the same man who was listed as the husband of Marie-Anne Canol in 1686 had remarried Marie Trahan, and both those censuses and various other records in Acadia uniformly call the Doiron forebear Jean (see DGFA-1, pp. 513-516).	DOUARON DIT DOIRON, Jean (I1480)
2558	His parents were Charles and Mary, and he was a mariner. Records of Bristol Ships 1800-1838 (Vessels over 150 tons) https://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/History/bristolrecordsociety/publications/brs15.pdf p. 57 Charles Tripp Cuvillie, Sr. HERO . Built at Chepstow, r8rs. No. 7, r8 FEB. r8rs. 229-h tons; length 87' rrw; breadth (above) 24' 6w; depth r7'. r deck ; 2 masts ; snow rig ; square stern ; no gallery ; a scroll head ; a high quarter-deck. Owners: John Irving, merchant ; J ohn Harris, sail-maker; and George Pocock, schoolmaster, all of Bristol ; with Cuthbert Vaux, merchant, Sunderland. Masters: Charles Cuvillie. 30 Sept. r8r5, L. S. Pugh. [n.d.], Richard Dunn. 9 Aug. r8r7, William Small. 24 Dec. r8rg, James Rae. 26 Aug. r8r7; C. Vaux sold his share to J. Irving. Registered anew at London, No. 315 in r82o ; 28 Dec. r82o. In Bristol ownership made voyages to Trinidad and Tobago. p. 59 W A T ER L 0 0. Built at Jarrow, 1815. No. 42, 9 DEc. 1815. Previous registry, Newcastle No. 107 in 1815. 260:-l tons ; length 87' ; breadth (above) 26' 8. ; height s' 10·. 2 decks, the lower open amidships ; 2 masts and a trysail mast ; snow rig ; square stem ; no gallery ; no head ; a flush deck. Owners: George Eveleigh Kiddell, William Hood and James Wason, merchants, Bristol. Masters : Thomas Warren. 5 Jan. 1816, Robert Jarrett. Registered anew No. 29 in 1816. No. 29, 3 AuG. 1816. Constructional details as above, except now a bust head. Owners : as above . .Master : Charles Cuvillie. Registered anew No. 43 in 1818. No. 43, 10 OCT. 1818. 2 decks and a quarter-deck; length 86' 8.; height in cabin 6' s·; other details as above. Owners : as above. Masters : David Jones. 29 Oct. 1819, Thomas Bell. 16 Aug. 1823, William Lovell. 6 May 1824, Thomas Bell. 17 Sept. 1819 ; one-eighth sold to each, Kenneth Ross, esquire, St. Vincent ; Thomas Bell, mariner, Bristol ; and Simpson Bell, merchant, London. One-fourth sold to J ohn Bangley, merchant, Bristol. 15 Oct. 1819 ; K. Ross sold one-eighth to S. Bell. Registered anew at Liverpool, No. 17 in 1825 ; 17 Jan. 1825. The Waterloo was at first a trader to Charlestown, South Carolina, for Kiddell, Hood and Co., and was advertised ' for sale, freight or charter ' in August, 1819. With the addition of the new shareholders enumerated above, she sailed as a West-Indiaman.	CUVILLIE, Charles Tripp (I16026)
2559	His title derived from a feudal barony. Source: [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume XII/1, page 610. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.	MAUDUIT, William Baron of Hanslape (I8283)
2560	His will dated 26 Oct 1487 is in Latin and very difficult to read owing to the type of scribe tool used to write it. He wishes to be buried at the church of Wickhambreaux and leaves the usual bequests to the church. He names his wife Isabelle and two sons, Robert and John. He also names a daughter, Agnes whom he later refers to as Anna. He also names his "sister Beatrice Harryson". It is impossible to determine with just this one document whether she is a biological sister to Robert Austen who married a Mr. Harryson, or if she is the sister-in-law either married or a spinster and being the biological sister of his wife, Isabelle.	AUSTEN, Robert (I17730)
2561	Historic Map of London 2020. Historical Personography. In J. Jenstad (Ed), The Map of Early Modern London. Victoria: University of Victoria. Retrieved from https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/historical_personography.htm. Elizabeth Bowyer Daughter of Francis Bowyer and Elizabeth Bowyer. Sister of William Bowyer, Robert Bowyer, Francis Bowyer, John Bowyer, Joane Bowyer, and Margaret Bowyer. Elizabeth Bowyer (née Tillesworth) Wife of Francis Bowyer. Mother of William Bowyer, Robert Bowyer, Francis Bowyer, John Bowyer, Joane Bowyer, Margaret Bowyer, and Elizabeth Bowyer. Daughter of William Tillesworth. Francis Bowyer (d. 1580) Sheriff of London 1577-1578. Member of the Grocers’ Company. Husband of Elizabeth Bowyer. Father of William Bowyer, Robert Bowyer, Francis Bowyer, John Bowyer, Joane Bowyer, Margaret Bowyer, and Elizabeth Bowyer. Son of Robert Bowyer and Margaret Bowyer. Brother of Robert Bowyer, William Bowyer, Henry Bowyer, and Peter Bowyer. Buried at St. Nicholas Acon. MASL [Mayors and Sherriffs of London, University of Toronto] Francis Bowyer Son of Francis Bowyer and Elizabeth Bowyer. Brother of William Bowyer, Robert Bowyer, John Bowyer, Joane Bowyer, Margaret Bowyer, and Elizabeth Bowyer. Henry Bowyer Son of Robert Bowyer and Margaret Bowyer. Brother of Francis Bowyer, Robert Bowyer, William Bowyer, and Peter Bowyer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inquisition Poste Mortem is at https://books.google.ca/books?id=Ad9AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22francis+bowyer%22+alderman+london&source=bl&ots=kizjII5PIh&sig=ACfU3U274y0Jp2W4I5rHduuYBeol5S2HGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjklpmV4b7xAhWRHM0KHWzXAqY4ChDoATAJegQIBRAD#v=onepage&q=%22francis%20bowyer%22%20alderman%20london&f=false ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Bowyer1 M, #355391, d. 24 June 1581 Last Edited=8 May 2009 Francis Bowyer was the son of Robert Bowyer and Margaret (?)2 He married Elizabeth Tillesworth, daughter of William Tillesworth.1 He died on 24 June 1581.1 He held the office of Alderman of London.1 He was a merchant at London, EnglandG.1 He held the office of Sheriff of London in 1577.1 He also had three younger sons and three daughters.2 Child of Francis Bowyer and Elizabeth Tillesworth Sir William Bowyer+2 d. Aug 1616 Citations [S37] BP2003 volume 1, page 1090. See link for full details for this source. Hereinafter cited as. [S37] [S37] BP2003. [S37] [S37] Mosley, Charles, editor. Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes. Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1576. Francis Bowyer. His daughter married Sir William Spencer of Yarnton, and their daughter married Sir Henry Montagu, Lord Chief Justice and Lord High Treasurer, created Earl of Manchester, and was mother of the 2nd Earl (the celebrated Parliamentarian General) from whom the Dukes of Manchester are descended. 1601. Sir Henry Anderson. Son-in-law of Francis Bowyer (Alderman, Sheriff 1577–8), and grandfather of Henry Anderson, created a Baronet. His eldest daughter was mother of Sir Thomas Dereham, Bart., the third married the second Viscount Kilmorey, but died before he succeeded to the title, the fourth was wife of Sir Charles Wilmot, created Viscount Wilmot, by which marriage she was grandmother of the profligate Earl of Rochester, the youngest married Sir John Spencer, Bart., of Offley. [Source: Alfred P Beaven, 'Notes on the aldermen, 1502-1700', in The Aldermen of the City of London Temp. Henry III - 1912 (London, 1908), pp. 168-195. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/london-aldermen/hen3-1912/pp168-195 [accessed 30 June 2021].] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANOR Fishbourne was held as 6 hides in the time of Edward the Confessor by Earl Tostig, the brother of King Harold. In 1086 it was held by the Abbey of Séez (Normandy) of Earl Roger, (fn. 8) by whom it had been given to them. (fn. 9) In 1272 the abbey received a grant of free warren in their demesnes here, (fn. 10) and in 1291 they acquired 28 acres in Fishbourne from William de Braclesham. (fn. 11) After the seizure of the property of alien religious houses the Sussex estates of Séez, including Fishbourne, were granted in 1416 to the nunnery of Syon (Middx.). (fn. 12) After the dissolution of that house FISHBOURNE, for the first time called a manor, was annexed to the honor of Petworth in April 1540, (fn. 13) being at that time in the hands of Thomas Lane under a lease for forty years dating from June 1529. (fn. 14) It is said to have been held of the Crown in chief by 'Sir Thomas White and others' in 1558, (fn. 15) but in 1560 the manor of NEW FISHBOURNE was granted to John Fenner, (fn. 16) who died on Christmas Day 1566, (fn. 17) having in the previous year sold to Bartholomew and Francis Dodd; and they in 1570 sold the manor to Francis Bowyer, alderman of London, and Elizabeth his wife. (fn. 18) Francis Bowyer died 14 June 1581, holding the manor of the Queen, valued at £20, by knight service, his wife surviving. (fn. 19) Their son Sir William Bowyer settled the manor on himself and his wife Mary in 1605, (fn. 20) but four years later settled it on his son Henry on his marriage with Anne daughter of Nicholas Salter. (fn. 21) Sir William outlived his son, dying in 1615, when his heir was Henry's infant son William. (fn. 22) In 1633 this William Bowyer, with Anne Harris, widow, his mother, (fn. 23) was dealing with the manor, (fn. 24) which he then sold to William Cawley. (fn. 25) At the Restoration Cawley's estates were forfeited and Fishbourne was among the manors given to James, Duke of York. (fn. 26) Cawley seems, however, to have sold, or possibly mortgaged, it in 1639 to John Biggs of Portsmouth, (fn. 27) whose widow married John Tredcroft. Previously William Bowyer had apparently leased 'for 1000 years' part of the estate to John Comber, who died in 1623 and left the lease to his young son Thomas Comber. (fn. 28) Thomas died in 1634, leaving the lease to his daughter Katherine. (fn. 29) His elder brother John Comber in 1683 acquired the manor of New Fishbourne from Sir John Biggs, (fn. 30) to whom it had been left in 1662 by his step-father John Tredcroft, rector of West Grinstead. (fn. 31) John Comber in 1684 bequeathed his manor of Fishbourne to his nephew (Sir) Thomas Miller. (fn. 32) In this family it descended, Dame Susannah Miller holding the manor in 1785, and Sir Thomas Miller in 1788. (fn. 33) The Rev. Sir Thomas Combe Miller, 6th bart., of Froyle, sold the manor to Edward Stanford between 1870 (fn. 34) and 1876. (fn. 35) He died about 1882 and his widow bequeathed it to Major-General Byron. (fn. 36) fn 18. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxciii, 38; Suss. Rec. Soc. iii, 142. [Chancery Inquisitions poste mortem] fn 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. xix, 168. 21. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccclxiii, 210. 22. Ibid. 23. Suss. Arch. Coll. xlii, 32, pedigree B. 24. Recov. R. Mich. 9 Chas. I, no. 16. 25. Add. MS. 39493, fol. 111. [Source: 'New Fishbourne', in A History of the County of Sussex: Volume 4, the Rape of Chichester, ed. L F Salzman (London, 1953), pp. 154-156. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/sussex/vol4/pp154-156 [accessed 30 June 2021].]	BOWYER, Francis (I267)
2562	Historical Manuscripts Commission in the National Register of Archives Families and Estates Index lists the following: Ruck family of Pennal, Merionethshire 18th-19th century: deeds, correspondence and papers relating to family and antecedents. Deposited at the National Library of Wales, Department of Manuscripts and Records. Reference: Esgair and Pantperthog: NRA 34883 Esgair & Pantperthog. fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/69091 Title Lease and counterpart Date 1846 Description Lessee: Ruck, Lawrence. Rectory and land in the parish of Halstow. The Manor of Barksore. 9 Dec. Extent 2 docs fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/69092 Title Lease and counterpart Date 1853 Description Lessee: Ruck, Lawrence. Rectory and land in the parish of Halstow. The Manor of Barksore. 9 Dec. Extent 2 docs fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/69093 Title Counterpart lease Date 1853 Description Lessee: Ruck, Lawrence. Rectory and land in the parish of Halstow. The Manor of Barksore. 8 Dec. Extent 1 doc fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/96720 Title Release from Thomas Dodd and others to Lawrence Ruck Date 25 Nov 1841 Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish. Extent 1 doc fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/96721 Title Release from Henry Hudson and others to Lawrence Ruck Date 8 Feb 1842 Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish. Extent 1 doc fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/96722 Title Mortgage from Lawrence Ruck to William Day Date 17 Dec 1860 Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish. Extent 1 doc fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/96723 Title Abstract of title, lawrence Ruck Date 20 Jul 1864 Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish. Extent 1 doc fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives Level file RefNo CCA-U63/96724 Title Lease to Lawrence Ruck for 21 years Date 8 Dec 1860 Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish. Extent 1 doc --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1860, Jan. 12 1 Mary Matthews of Esgair Lleverin, co. Mon., widow 2 Lawrence Ruck of Newington next Sittingbourne, Kent, esq. GRANT of the m. and lands called Nantycittir, otherwise Tynewydd, in Eskeireth, p. Trefeglwys. 1879, April 14 1 Laurence Ruck of Pantlludw, p. Pennal, co. Mer., esq. 2 Edward Bennett of Rhydycarw, p. Trefeglwys, co. Mont., esq. GRANT of the m. and lands called Nantycittir, otherwise Tynewydd, in Eskeireth, p. Trefeglwys. (Plan in margin and schedule appended.) Both grants found among the collections at the National Library of Wales. Research papers of Cecil E. Vaughan Owen, esq., Glasgoed, Llanidloes (1901-81), local historian, deposited by him, relating mainly to the history of co. Mont., especially Arwystli and Llanidloes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3886 [no date] From: ROBERT PARRY, Clynnog Mr Ruck is to hold an auction on Friday. Perhaps David Lloyd George can come by the 8 o'clock train. Found among the collections at the National Library of Wales. Papers of WILLIAM GEORGE (SOLICITOR) (11) Part 11 of Schedule. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Found among the pre-1999 collections at the National Library of Wales. ESGAIR AND PANTPERTHOG, deposited by Mr A. D. Ruck, Chislehurst, 1950, 1950134. 403. 1848, Nov. 2 LETTER from John G. W. Bonsall, Machynlleth, to Laurence Ruck, Esq., Pantllydw, concerning the watercourse through Sir John Edward's land. 404. 1848, Nov. 14 LETTER from Sir John Edwards, Greenfields, to Mr Morgan, requesting him to apply to Mr Ruck, the writer's tenant, for permission to make an embankment. 405. 1849, Nov. 24 LETTER from David Howell, 'At Llugwy', to Laurence Ruck, Pantlludw, intimating that he is autherised by Mr Anwyl to offer the addressee the whole of the property included in the advertisement for £3000, including the timber and timber-land. 278. 1849, Nov. 27 1. Jonathan Anwyl of Llugwy, co. Merioneth, esq.; 2. Lawrence Ruck of Pantlludw, esq. AGREEMENT, with Conditions of Sale, for the purchase of the properties specified in No. 274. 279. 1849, Nov. 27 1. Jonathan Anwyl, esq.; 2. Lawrence Ruck, esq. AGREEMENT pursuant to No. 278. 282. (a) 1850, Feb. 4 1. Jonathan Anwyl of Llugwy, co. Merioneth, esq.; 2. Laurence Ruck of Pantlludw, esq. MORTGAGE for £2500 of the properties specified in No. 278; with COVENANT for the production of title deeds. (b) 1852, June 29 1. Evan Anwyl of Hendreseivion in the parish of Llanwrin, co. Montgomery, gent., devisee of trust and mortgage estates, and also sole executor named in the will of the within-named Jonathan Anwyl; 2. The within-named Laurence Ruck. RECONVEYANCE of the properties mortgaged in (a). Endorsement. 283. 1850, Feb. 4 RECIEPT from Jonathan Anwyl to Laurence Ruck for No. 282; and MEMORANDUM of agreement concerning the same. 406. 1852, April 6 LETTER from D. Howell, Machynlleth, to L. Ruck, Esq., concerning the latter's proposal to pay up the mortgage at once. 285. No date ABSTRACT OF TITLE (1792-1852) of Lawrence Ruck, esq., to the farm of Gelligreen in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth 419-424. 1856, Aug. - 1857, Jan. LETTERS (6) from the Rev. D. Twopeny, Stockbury, Sittingbourne, to L. Ruck, Esq., concerning the 'Larkins Charity', a payment to the poor of £1 annually, which had been lost to the parish for 13 years or more. 425. [1856, Aug.5] PARTICULARS of the 'Larkins Charity', sent with No. 419. 318-363 1856-1857 LETTERS and PAPERS relating to the Newtown and Machynlleth Railway project. The correspondence consists almost entirely of letters from David Howell, Machynlleth, to Laurence Ruck. 1860, April 19 1. Mary Matthews of Esgair leverin in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth, widow; 2. Mary Ann Ruck, wife of Laurence Ruck of Pantlludw in the said parish of Pennal, esq.; 3. The Reverend Foulk Evans of Machynlleth, co. Montgomery, Minister of the Gospel. MORTGAGE for £250 of the properties devised by the will (15 Jan. 1849) of Richard Matthews late of Esgair Lleverin, co. Merioneth, esq., deceased. 434. 1861, March 8 BILL of John Happenden, Maidstone Nursery, St.Paul's County Road, Newington, to M.Laurence Ruck for fruit-trees. 287. 1862. ABSTRACT OF TITLE (1798-1849) of Lawrence Ruck, esq., to a certain farm and lands called Maeswerngoch and Bryneithinog appertaining thereto in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth. 89. 1863, June 18 1. Mary Matthews of Esgir in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth, widow, and Mary Ann Ruck of N. 18 Elgin Crescent, Notting Hill, London; 2. Caroline Ford, widow, and John Randle Minshull Ford, a Lieutenant in H.M. 8th Regiment of Infantry, both of Llwyngwern in the parish of Llanwrin, co. Montgomery; 3. Henry John Standly of Pinner, co. Middlesex, esq. LEASE for 21 years of right of tramroad through a field part of Lliwdy Farm in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth. Counterpart. 296. 1866, Nov. 15 LETTER from John Seager, Cryalls Lodge, Borden, Nr. Sittingbourne, to -- - --, stating that he has no interest in L.Ruck's property after his lease. 436. 1867, July 13 JURY SUMMONS from William Watkin Edward Wynne, esq., sheriff of Merionethshire to Laurence Ruck, Pant llydw, Penal, esq. 437. 1879, Oct. 30 LETTER from Messrs. Combe & Wainwright, 6 Staple Inn, London, to J.L.Ruck, Esq., enclosing cheque on account of rent; Mr Wood's account for repairs and Mr Seager's rent. 438. 1880, Aug. 6 'REPORT as to Crops growing upon Cranbrook Farm Newington and Cowstead Farm Stockbury.' 439. 1880, Aug. 6 LETTER from Messrs. Jackson & Sons, Sittingbourne, to Lawrence Ruck, Esq., accompanying No. 438; with copy of reply, dated 13 Aug. 1880. 457. -, Dec.2 LETTER from M.J., Glan Mor, to Mrs M.A. Ruck. The writer scarcely expects now to let the house before the Spring. 299. 1875, Oct. 24 NOTICE from Messrs. Wainwright & Co., 9 Staple Inn, solicitors for Richard Cox and John Harold Milton, to Lawrence Ruck, esq., of Pantllydwn, co. Merioneth, that by an indenture dated 22 Oct. 1895 the principal sum of £4000 secured by a previous indenture dated 4 Aug. 1886 was assigned by the said Richard Cox to the said Richard Cox and John Harold Milton. 300. 1898, June 4 1. Richard Cox of Theale near Reading, co. Berks, M.D., and John Harold Milton of 9 Staple Inn, co. Middlesex, solicitor; 2. Arthur John Bodvel-Roberts of Cefnycoed, near Ca[e]rnarvon, co. Caernarvon, gent. TRANSFER of mortgage of a messuage and lands called Nettlestead farm and other properties in the parishes of Stockbury and Newington, co. Kent. Draft. 302. 1898, Aug. 16 1. Richard Matthews Ruck, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Royal Engineers; 2. Oliver Edwal Ruck, a Major in the Royal Engineers; 3. Arthur Ashley Ruck of Llwynybrain, co. Ca[e]rnarvon, a Colonel in H.M.Army; 4. Arthur John Bodvel-Roberts of CefnyCoed near Ca[e]rnarvon, co. Ca[e]rnarvon, gent. CONVEYANCE of undivided shares of the properties specified in No. 300. Draft 462. No date A PEDIGREE of the descendants of Baron Lewis Owen, Dolgelley, including the Ruck family. Torn.	RUCK, Lawrence (I3490)
2563	Hodges Johan c 1 Sep 1610 d/o Robert/Barbara West Farleigh PR Hodges Robert c 12 Mar 1611/2 S/O Robert Hodges Elizabeth c 13 Dec 1607 d/o Robert Hodges Mary c 26 Mar 1609 d/o Robert Hodges Catherine c 12 Dec 1613 d/o Robert Hodges Ellen c 6 Aug 1615 do Robert Hodges Barbara c 20 Jul 1617 d/o Robert Hodges Grisegon c 22 Nov 1618 d/o Robert Hodges Robert c 13 Aug 1620 s/o Robert Hodges Frances c 10 Feb 1621/2 d/o Robert Hodges Augustine c 13 Nov 1625 s/o Robert Hodges Robert Catlett Barbarye m 18 Jul 1603 Basden Thomas Hodges Catherine m 2 Dec 1632	HODGES, John (I19599)
2564	Hodges Robert Bigg Mary m 26 Feb 1654/5 he of Teston, she of Hunton, according to a late Act for marriages were in the presence of Samuel Bendy, Richard Walker, Robert Smith as witnesses, married before me Augustine Skynner at West Farleigh PR Hodges Robert Bigg Mary m 27 Feb 1654 he son of John Hodges, she do Thomas Bigg Hunton PR This marriage also appears at West Farleigh and Teston.	Family (F6090)
2565	Honywood Evidences is a compilation of information from various sections of The Topographer and Genealogist, Vol. 2	Source (S175)
2566	Horace Buckland Austin (Brown) 1866–1944 BIRTH 25 APR 1866 • Reading, Berkshire, England DEATH DEC 1944 • Maidstone, Kent, England Children of marriage James Brown 1888– Harry Austin 1889– Horace G Brown 1890– Martha Jane Brown 1893– Amelia Brown 1898– Nellie Austin 1899– James Edward Austin	AUSTIN (BROWN), Horace Buckland (I19031)
2567	householder on burial	TITHERDEN, Timothy (I6540)
2568	Householder on burial.	PORDAGE, Thomas (I18878)
2569	Householder on burial.	PORDAGE, Francis (I18882)
2570	Householder on burial.	BULFINCH, William (I19360)
2571	http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/2fe46375-6d16-4dc4-9da5-7db5627d26f6 Lease This record is held by Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library See contact details Reference: CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/394A Title: Lease Description: From: William Sellyng, I, prior of Canterbury Cathedral Priory; the convent of Canterbury Cathedral Priory To: John Graunt of Sandwich; Thomas A Denne of Barham; John Assherst of Chart The manor of Lydcourt [alias Lydden, in Worth, Kent], with livestock as specified. Reserving certain rights and dues. For a term of 15 years. For an annual payment of £36 13s 4d, payable as specified. Conditions on repairs, including repairs to the sea walls, and other conditions. Details of livery. Right of distraint and re-entry if payment in arrears. The lessees have made a bond in £80to observe the terms of the lease. Priory's part of indenture. Endorsed 'Lydcourt' in 16th cent hand. Date: 7 Dec 1486 Held by: Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library, not available at The National Archives Former reference in its original department: CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/394A Language: English Physical description: 1 document Physical condition: Parchment, 1m, indented at top, 3 seal tags, all with traces of red wax, dirty, creased ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1484 CP 25/1/117/342, number 26. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: The day after St Martin, 2 Richard III [12 November 1484]. Parties: Thomas Denne and Michael Denne, querents, and William Clitherowe, citizen and grocer of London', and Margaret, his wife, deforciants. Property: 54 acres of land in the parish of Westhithe in the marsh of Romeney. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: William and Margaret have acknowledged the land to be the right of Thomas, and have remised and quitclaimed it from themselves and the heirs of Margaret to Thomas and Michael and the heirs of Thomas for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: Thomas and Michael have given them 40 marks of silver. Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.) Persons: Thomas Denn, Michael Denn, William Clitheroe, Margaret Clitheroe Places: London, West Hythe, Romney 1486 First Previous6 of 30Last Next CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae L - Chartae Antiquae L Title Lease Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/L/394A Date 7 Dec 1486 Description From: William Sellyng, I, prior of Canterbury Cathedral Priory; the convent of Canterbury Cathedral Priory To: John Graunt of Sandwich; Thomas A Denne of Barham; John Assherst of Chart The manor of Lydcourt [alias Lydden, in Worth, Kent], with livestock as specified. Reserving certain rights and dues. For a term of 15 years. For an annual payment of £36 13s 4d, payable as specified. Conditions on repairs, including repairs to the sea walls, and other conditions. Details of livery. Right of distraint and re-entry if payment in arrears. The lessees have made a bond in £80to observe the terms of the lease. Priory's part of indenture. Endorsed 'Lydcourt' in 16th cent hand. Extent 1 doc Physical Description Parchment, 1m, indented at top, 3 seal tags, all with traces of red wax, dirty, creased Language Latin AccessStatus Open Open 1489 CP 25/1/117A/344, number 71. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from St Martin, 5 Henry VII [25 November 1489]. And afterwards one week from St Hilary in the same year [20 January 1490]. Parties: John Fyneux', William Boys, Michael Denne, Thomas Denne and Thomas Nethersole, querents, and Robert Austyn' and Joan, his wife, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages, 120 acres of land and 3 acres of wood in Nunnyngton'. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: Robert and Joan have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of Thomas Nethersole, as those which the same Thomas, John, William, Michael and Thomas Denne have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Joan to John, William, Michael, Thomas and Thomas and the heirs of Thomas Nethersole for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John, William, Michael, Thomas and Thomas have given them 30 pounds sterling. Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.) Persons: John Fineux, William Boys, Michael Denn, Thomas Denn, Thomas Nethersole, Robert Austin, Joan Austin Places: Nonington 1508 Archaeologia Cantiana, v25-p263-264 DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO...... op cit. 17. [4.] 125B.—1508. Grant by William Lauraunce of the parish of Berham to William Cullyng of the same parish, Thomas Denne, John Gate, and Thomas Rolf of seven acres of land lying at Southberham at Colysse between the lands of Robert Marsh towards the east, of William Cullyng south and west, and the common road towards the north, etc., which Richard Laurence his father, Thomas Petite, and William Audele conjointly held by ffeoffment of William Browne of Berham, deceased. Dated at Berham 23 September, 24 Henry VII. [Seal attached.] Witnesses : John Neve, Senr ', Thomas ffirner, Nicholas Vytell, John Weste, John Neve, Junr #18. [5.] 125c.— 1508. Letter of attorney from William Laurence to Thomas Weldiche, to deliver the said seven acres of land at Southbarham, at Colysse, etc., to William Culling, etc. (as in the preceding Grant). Dated 23 September, 24 Henry VII. [Seal attached.] 1527 Archaeologia Cantiana, 1902, vol. p. 264 #20 [6] 154B-1527 Grant by Thomas Beolo [Beale], gentleman, to Thomas Culling of the parish of Barham, Thomas a Denne, Thomas Ladde, William Nasshe of Berham and William a Denne of Kingston, of one croft and two acres of land in Barham, the said croft containing by estimation seven acres and a half lying next the lands of John Brooke east and south, Thomas Beole west, and James Mershe north; the said two acres of Thomas Beole south, William Cullyng west and north, and the King's highway east. 5 October 19 Henry VIII [1527] [seal attached] this document establishes my Thomas at Barham as early as 1527. The reference to William a Denne of Kingston would lead me to think that that William was a brother, uncle or father of my Thomas. It might be worth investigating any Wills left of Thomas Ladde, William Nasshe both of Barham and William a Denne of Kingston. It might also be worth looking into a Will for Thomas Beale. Other feets of fines place Thomas and William a Denne in Barham as early as 1509. =================================================================== Possible William Nashe Will Nasshe William Barham 1547 1547 PRC/17/25/177 1547 In his Will, this Thomas a'Den is described as being "the elder of the parish of Barham". From his Will, I would suggest that Margaret Naishe is not his first wife and may not be the mother of the children Christopher, Michael and David. No mention is made of Agnes in his Will but there is mention of Richard Austen and Edith Austen but no relationship is stated to the Testator. =================================================================== Feet of Fines 1509 - no harnett 1 Hen VIII CP25(2) 19/102 Michaelmas Term #23 Thomas Frode and wife Alice, John Godyn and wife Joan, William Moket and wife Margaret to Thomas a Denne, John Bone and Ingram Jenkyn Messuage 60 aces land, 60 acres pastue and 2 acres wood in Folkestone, Barham and Capel le Ferne. 40 marcs. 2 Hen VIII CP25(2) 19/103 [1510] Michaelmas Term #55 John Crips and wife Avice to Thomas Denne, James Dyggys, esq. Thomas Roulfe and William Denne. Moiety of messuage, 100 acres land, 4 acres mead, 40 aces pastue and 40 acres wood in Kingston, Upper Hardres, Barham, Selling and Bourn = Bishopsbourne? GB40 (21) 7 Hen VIII CP25(2) 19/108 [1515] Michaelmas Term #257 John Cryps and wife Avice to Thomas a Denne, Vincent Broke, John a Denne and Thomas a Gate. Moiety of messuage, 100 acres land, 4 acres mead, 40 acres past and 40 acres wood in Kingston, Barham, Upper Hardres, Selling and Bishopsboune GB40 (27) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Denne (Denne Hill, Kingston, Elbridge, Bishopsbourne, and Lydd, co. Kent, and Winchilsea, co. Sussex). Azure three bars ermine in chief as many fleur-de-lis or." (Sir Bernard Burke: The General Armory, London 1884, page 278) Slater describes the crest as being. "on a chapeau vert, turned up ermine a demi Peacock, wings expanded and elevated pp." "This crest was also granted in 1589 but has not been used from time immemorial." ============================================================================== Denne of Lydd The Arms of Denne of Lydd pictured here taken from Frederick Slater's manuscript (1880) and are described by him as follows: "Quarterly 1st and 4th Three bars ermine in chief, as many fleur de lis, or. Coat granted to Thomas Denne Esq 1580. 2nd and 3rd Azure three leopards heads, couped, or." The Denne of Lydd branch is descended from Thomas Denne of Addisham. =============================================================================== DENNE, Thomas (1577-1656), of St Alphege, Canterbury, Kent and the Inner Temple, London; later of Denne Hill, Kingston, Kent Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010 Available from Cambridge University Press Family and Education bap. 1 Sept. 1577, 1st s. of Robert Denne, yeoman of Denne Hill and Thomasine, da. of Thomas Dane of St. John’s, Thanet, Kent. educ. King’s sch. Canterbury 1589; I. Temple 1598, called 1607. m. by Oct. 1611, Dorothy (bur. 21 Aug. 1637), da. of John Tanfield of Copfold Hall, Margaretting, Essex, 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 5da. 1 other ch. d.v.p. suc. fa. 1594. bur. 1 Aug. 1656.1 Offices Held Dep. reader, Clifford’s Inn 1609, reader, Lyon’s Inn 1614, Clifford’s Inn 1616,[ I]. Temple 1628;[2] fee’d counsel, Canterbury 1617-at least 1636, recorder 1643-55;[3] steward, reader’s dinner, I. Temple 1623, bencher 1626-d., reader’s attendant 1627, auditor 1628-9, 1631-2, 1638-9.[4] Freeman, Canterbury 1617,[5] common councilman to 11 Mar. 1656;[6] commr. oyer and terminer, Canterbury 1622,[7] subsidy 1624;[8] j.p. Kent 1630-d.;[9] commr. repair of highways, Kent 1631,[10] charitable uses 1633,[11] assessment (chairman), Canterbury 1643-5, 1647-53.[12] Biography Denne’s earliest known ancestor held lands in east Kent under John, and his son, Sir Alured, was seneschal of Christchurch Priory, Canterbury and escheator for Kent in 1234.[13] Denne himself was born to a prosperous yeoman at Denne Hill in the parish of Kingston, five miles south-east of Canterbury. In the family’s possession from at least the mid-thirteenth century, Denne Hill lay at the heart of a modest estate that was expanded under Elizabeth to include purchases in neighbouring Barham and the Isle of Thanet. Following his father’s death in 1594, Denne, the eldest of five sons, should have inherited the Kingston-Barham estate, but it was conferred on his brother John instead. Moreover, the bulk of the Thanet property was divided between two other brothers, Vincent and Edward. The few lands specifically allocated to Denne were expressly withheld during the lifetime of his mother, who used them to amass more than £2,000 in rents in just 12 years. However, some property, unmentioned in the will, must have passed automatically to Denne, for in about 1606 he conferred lands on John worth £200 a year, plus £400 in cash. The condition of this gift was that John would leave Denne his entire estate if he died childless.[14] Shortly after attaining his majority, Denne underwent a legal training at the Inner Temple, culminating in his admission to the bar in June 1607. He may have received encouragement from another Thomas Denne, New Romney’s standing counsel and perhaps a kinsman.[15] By 1612 he was living in Canterbury,[16] where from 1617 he was retained as counsel by the corporation following John Finch II’s* elevation to the recordership. For much of the 1620s Denne helped defend Canterbury’s charter at Westminster.[17] However, his election to Parliament for the city in 1624 was contrary to the wishes of his employers. He and his fellow Canterbury resident, the self-styled puritan Thomas Scott, persuaded each other to stand to prevent the return of the duke of Lennox’s secretary John Latham, whom Scott ‘much suspected for his religion’ and whose candidacy was supported by the city’s aldermen.[18] On the strength of this evidence, Denne has been described by one historian as ‘a puritan lawyer’.[19] Denne played little recorded part in the 1624 Parliament. On 25 Mar. he was nominated to the bill committee for the repeal and continuance of expiring statutes, and on 22 Apr. he reported a naturalization bill for the Norwich grain merchant Peter Verbeake.[20] While at Westminster, Denne’s brother John secretly drafted his will. Instead of settling his entire estate on Denne, as agreed, John divided up the property he had bought with Denne’s money between his brother Vincent, Denne’s youngest son Thomas, and a clerk named James Benchkin. For some while after John’s death in February 1625, Denne remained ignorant of the will’s existence, so that on taking action against the Benchkins in 1626 he assumed that John had died intestate.[21] On discovering the truth, Denne decided not to pursue Vincent, for as Vincent was unmarried it was possible he would inherit his entire estate anyway. However, he seized control of John’s lands and obtained permission to administer his goods and cash, for which he was hounded by the administrators of John’s widow, Elizabeth, who had died within hours of her husband. Indeed, over the next 16 years he fought a fierce rearguard action in several ecclesiastical courts as well as King’s Bench, Common Pleas, the Privy Council (where Denne was severely criticized) and, in 1641, the House of Lords.[22] Denne’s decision not to pursue Vincent through the courts may have been misguided. Shortly before their mother died in February 1634, Vincent allegedly persuaded her to leave most of her property to him, including the share of the Thanet estate reserved for Denne in their father’s will. In this way Vincent compensated himself for his impending loss of Denne Hill, which at long last passed to Denne. Vincent’s final act of spite was to settle most of his estate on Denne’s youngest son, Thomas, two months before his death in June 1642, leaving Denne only a single cottage and plot of land in Kingston, worth just £35.[23] Vincent’s will consequently set Denne and his eldest son John against Thomas, who was banished from his father’s presence.[24] Thomas and Henry Oxinden of Barham (Vincent’s executor) were prosecuted, first in the Court of Wards and, after that court’s abolition in 1646, in Chancery. The quarrel proved so bitter that Denne even attempted to recover the cost of his son’s education, while Thomas accused John of having secretly poisoned Denne against him.[25] Denne argued that he needed Vincent’s estate, having five daughters and ‘not means sufficient to raise convenient portions for them’, whereupon Thomas retorted that his father was ‘esteemed a man of £800 per annum or thereabouts and to have divers thousand pounds in his purse, besides his yearly gainings by his p[ro]fession as a counsellor at law’. Denne never forgave Thomas, even after John’s death in 1648, for in 1655 he settled his whole estate on his daughter Mary and her husband, Vincent Denne† of Gray’s Inn.[26] During the First Civil War, Denne became recorder of Canterbury and chairman of the city’s ‘county’ committee. The assertion that he was a republican seems to be unfounded.[27] Increasing infirmity probably explains his replacement as recorder in 1655 and why, early in 1656, he sought and was granted permission to resign from Canterbury’s Common Council.[28] ‘Weak of body’, he drew up a short will on 7 July 1656, in which he asked to be buried at Kingston, ‘where my late wife and ancestors were interred’, and appointing his daughter Mary and her husband as his executors.[29] He died a few weeks later at his house in Canterbury, and was buried at Kingston on 1 August. His son-in-law Vincent represented Canterbury in Parliament that same year, and again in 1681. Ref Volumes: 1604-1629 Author: Andrew Thrush Notes 1. W. Berry, Kentish Genealogies, 194-6; Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. xlii), 99-100; Vis. Essex (Harl. Soc. xiii), 295-6; Lists of Scholars of King’s Sch. Canterbury comp. W. Urry et al.; I. Temple Admiss.; Regs. St. Giles in Kingston, Kent ed. C. Hales Wilkie, 9, 130, 131; Regs. St. Alphaege, Canterbury ed. J.M. Cowper, 15-18, 20, 208. 2.Readings and Moots at the Inns of Ct. II ed. S.L. Thorne and J.H. Baker (Selden Soc. cv), cvi; J.H. Baker and J.S. Ringrose, Cat. of English Legal Mss in CUL, 424; CITR, 164. 3. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/FA/22(1), f. 344; FA/24, f. 293; FA/25, f. 195v; FA/26, ff. 244, 301. 4.CITR, 139, 155, 161, 170, 191, 231, 244. 5.Roll of Freemen of City of Canterbury comp. J.M. Cowper, 315. 6. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/AC/4, f. 399v. 7. C181/3, f. 70. 8. C212/22/23. 9. C231/5, f. 38; Cent. Kent. Stud. Q/JC/6, 7. 10. C181/4, f. 88v. 11. C192/1, unfol. 12.A. and O. i. 336, 451, 541, 620, 640, 968; ii. 36, 301, 469, 666; SP28/252, items ‘B’ and ‘C’, passim; A.M. Everitt, Community of Kent and Gt. Rebellion, 177. 13. Berry, 194. 14. C2/Chas.I/D18/65; Cent. Kent. Stud. PRC 17/49, ff. 59v-62v. 15. For this man, see LI Black Bks. i. 457; Cent. Kent. Stud. NR/AC1, ff. 68, 81v-2, 166, 192, 201v; Cal. of White and Black Bks. of Cinque Ports ed. F. Hull (Kent Recs. xix), 309, 343; C181/1, f. 28v. 16.Regs. St. Alphaege, 15. 17. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/FA/23, ff. 150r-v, 200v, 203v, 247v, 337v, 387v. 18. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, U66, f. 25v. 19. P. Clark, ‘Thomas Scott and the growth of urban opposition to the early Stuart regime’, HJ, xxi. 12. 20.CJ, i. 750b, name spelt ‘Deane’; ‘Hawarde 1624’, p. 251. 21. C2/Chas.I/D50/61; 2/Chas.I/B124/62. 22. For the details, see CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 101; 1640-1, pp. 281-2; PC2/44, pp. 203-4; 45, p. 214; HMC 4th Rep. 36, 83, 86. 23. C2/Chas.I/D18/65; Cent. Kent. Stud. PRC 17/69, ff. 467-8. 24. Add. 28000, f. 343. 25. Ibid. ff. 225v, 342r-v; C2/Chas.I/D18/65; D14/51. 26. Cent. Kent. Stud. U36/T678. 27. Everitt, 226n. 28. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/AC/4, f. 399r-v. 29. PROB 11/261, f. 94r-v. ============================================================================= Denne Hill, Kent Description Denne Hill, a seat adjacent to the Dover railway, 7 1/2 miles SE of Canterbury, in Kent. It belonged for about six centuries to the Dennes, and passed to the Montresors. Traces of very extensive entrenchments are on the grounds, and were long supposed by antiquaries to be indications of the line of Caesar's march from Deal. It is now a modern residence belonging to the Dyson family. Transcribed from The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5 ============================================================================== 5 bedroom detached house for sale Denne Manor Lane, Shottenden, Canterbury, Kent GB1,500,000. Hall \| Drawing room \| Sitting room \| Kitchen/breakfast room/family room \| Utility room \| Cloakroom \| Cellar \| Master bedroom with en suite bathroom \| 5 Further bedroom (1 with en suite shower room) \| Family bathroom\|Outbuildings & garaging A wide panelled front door leads into a welcoming hall, with oak flooring and superb custom-built oak staircase leading to the first floor - both the main reception rooms lead from here. To the left is an elegant, formal, double aspect drawing room, with a wide stone fireplace, excellent ceiling heights and exposed ceiling timbers. The sitting room to the right has equally high ceilings, double aspect, a brick inglenook fireplace with fitted wood burner and shelved cupboard to one side. In the hall a trap door leads to the ample cellar. From the sitting room and the hall there is access into the wonderful kitchen/breakfast room cum living area. It has York stone flooring, hand-built kitchen by Throughly Wood, tiled inglenook fireplace housing a three-oven AGA and a fitted Neff hob and cooker, and double doors open onto the terrace. Adjacent is the utility room, which has plenty of storage space, and a door opens to a downstairs WC. Stairs rise to the first floor. The master bedroom is to the left - a wonderful double aspect room with oak floors, and en suite bathroom with French style bathtub, large overhead shower and wash basin. A passageway leads to a family bathroom and bedroom 3, which has an exposed chimneybreast dividing the sitting room/bedroom 4. Bedroom 2 sits to the front and has an en suite shower room. A winding oak staircase leads to the second floor where there two further bedrooms, one with an en suite cloakroom - both are full height and have exposed ceiling timbers. Denne Manor is located in a delightful rural location approximately 2½ miles from the village of Chilham, which provides local amenities including a post office, primary school and public houses. The Cathedral City of Canterbury (about 9 miles) offers a comprehensive range of educational, leisure and shopping facilities. Schooling is well catered for in both the state and private sectors. There are excellent road and rail communications in the area with the A2/M2 (4 miles) and the M20 can be joined at Ashford. Trains from Faversham to London Victoria take approximately 70 minutes. Ashford International station (9 miles) offers regular services to the continent via the Eurostar, and in December 2009 the new High Speed Rail Link will take approximately 37 minutes to St Pancras. The Channel Tunnel terminal at Folkestone (24 miles) offers shuttle services to the continent The main garden has been beautifully planted and sympathetically landscaped to provide a wonderful setting for the house. Immediately adjoining the house is a gravel and brick terrace with steps leading through the shrubbery to the swimming pool garden, which is fully enclosed with fence and surrounded by a variety of roses, shrubs and other ornamental climbers. The planting scheme is created in lovely pastel colours of creams, blues and whites and a central rose arbour. Opposite the house is a garage block with an office at one end. ======================================================================================= Denne references in KAS journals arms 4, 258; 10, 330; Alice 9, 289; 20, 26; Amfrid de (1200) 2, 252 Sir Anered de (1252) 2, 311 Nicholas de (1254) 3, 243 Ralph de (1198) 1, 268; 22, 255; 21, 221 Robert 21, 320, 321; 25, 269, 271 Thomas de (1196) 1, 233-4; 10th May 1196, 7 Ric. I. Thomas de Dene and Harlewin his brother (in a plea under a writ of right) quitclaim to Thomas de Godwinestone [i.e. Goodnestone, or Gunston[ one soling and a half of land in East Ratling, for which he gives them six marks, and eighteen acres and a quarter in a field called Uikham (to be hald of said Thomas de Godwinestone by fourpence per annum) and six marks sterling. Cordia facta, in Curia domini Regis apud Westmonasterium 1 Solinga, a Solin, a measure of land peculiar to Kent. In Doomsday we have, "In communi terra Sancti Martini sunt cccc acre et dim., quae fiunt duos solinos et dimid." Agard considers that dim. refers to "hundred," and not to "acre," which makes the passage tantamount to "450 acres being equal to two and a-half Solins;" thus the Solin would be 180 acres, but he considers it to be, "after English account," 216 acres, and "after Norman tale," 180 acres. 2 Uikham? We have represented the three minims with which the word commences, by Ui. die Jovis proxima post Inventionem Sancte Crucis, anno regni Regis Ricardi vij°. Coram H. Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, . . . . et G. Roffensi, Episcopis, H. Cantuariensi, et R. Herefordensi, et E. Elyensi Archidiaconis, Comite Rogero Bigot, G. filio Petri, Osberto filio Hervei, Willelmo . . . . . . Heriet, Simoiie de Patishull, Thoma de Huseboume, et aliis Baronibus et fidelibus domini Regis ibidem tune presentibus. Inter THOMAM DE DENE et HARLEWINUM . . . . petentes, et THOMAM DE GODWINESTONE, tenentem. De una sollinga1 terre et dimidia, cum pertinenciis, m ESTRETLING. Unde placitum fait inter eos . . . . domini Regis., per breve de recto, quod predicti THOMAS et HERLEWINUS quietum clamaverunt in perpetuum, de se et heredibus suis, totum jus, et clamium suum quod clamaverunt, in predicta terra, cum pertinentiis, in ESTRETLING, predicto Thome et heredibus suis. Et pro hac quieta clamancia, fine, et concordia, dedit predictus THOMAS DE GODWINESTONE predictis . . . . fratri ejns, xviij acras terre, et unam virgatam, cum pertinenciis, in campo qui appellatur UIKHAM,2 tenendas in perpetuum ipsis et heredibus suis de . . . . THOMA DE GODWINESTON, et heredibus suis, solvendo per annum iiijd, pro . . . . servicio, in festo Sancti Michaelis. Et preterea, idem THOMAS DE GODWINESTONE . . . . predictis THOME et HAELEWINO fratri ejus, vi marcas sterlingorum. 20, 18; 25, 207, 263, 264, 272, 275, 278, 281, 282, 287 Sir Thomas 30, 68 (1220) 2, 227 (1252) 2, 310; Thomas de 10, 137, 142, 159; 15, 29 Walter de 12, 230; @m de 2, 307; 3, 100; 4, 208 Michael (1465) 10, 255 Thomas (1465) 10, 255 received pay by john Boteller for Michael and Thomas in part of payment the 13 day of Feb the 5th year of King Edward 37 li, 6s 8d Item of Michell and Thomas Denne be a Bocher of London 4s 4d Thomas 12, 415; 14, 177; 18, 417 --------------------------------------------- Denne, Christopher of Staplehurst, yeoman and Margaret Burden of Boughton Monchelsea, widow. At Staplehurst. July 2, 1614. Denne, David of Littlebourne and Margery Parker of Ickham widow. At Ickham, Littlebourne or Wickham. Sep 30 1568 Denne, John, of Littlebourne, yeoman and Martha Vidian of St. Mildred's Canterbury, widow. At St. Mildred's Feb 5, 1613. Denn, Michael of Littlebourne, yeoman and Alice Nethersole of Ickham, virgin. At Littlebourne, Jan. 28, 1614 Bankes, William of Littlebourne, and Margery Den, sp virgin. At St. Margaret's Canterbury. Dec 31, 1606 ================================================================================ Hi Matt, Likewise, a quick reply from me. We’ve just come off of the long civic holiday ( equivalent of August Bank Holiday) weekend during which I was hoping to have the emails transferred over the laptop to the new PC. No such luck thanks to various disruptions! So, I am not entirely certain to which Austen Wills you are referring. The LDS is making great strides in uploading the Wills from the Archdeaconry Court and the Consistory Court. So, I, too, have been able to grab a few more Wills over the past month or so. But, again, I have to sort out what’s what and where I’ve got it all stored. However, there is one major research goal that I have managed to accomplish and that is the reason I am writing to you at this moment in time. I have unequivocal proof that Thomas DENNE who married Margaret NAISSHE is NOT the Thomas DENNE who married Alice ESHEHURST! I now have that Thomas DENNE’s Will and it is and does contain all the proof that is required to forever disassociate our Thomas DENNE as being the one and the same as that Thomas DENNE. I will send more later. I will try for tonight but it may be tomorrow. I wanted to let you know this “breaking news” as I will be publishing the details on RootsChat as well as on my own professional research website AncestrySolutions.com in the “Errors Identified in Published Genealogies” section (http://ancestrysolutions.com/referencecentre/planning/Overturned.htm ). So, even though now I know that our Thomas DENNE was NOT the fellow who married Alice ESCHEHURST, it follows that he was NOT THE SON OF Michael A‘DENNE and Christianna COOMBE. Also, he was NOT THE GRANDSON of John A’DENNE and Alice ARDERNE. The Will of this last mentioned John A’DENNE mentions only his two sons, Michael and Thomas and Thomas’ daughters. Visitations further confirm that this last mentioned Thomas (son of John) had only one daughter, Avis. This takes the lineage back to Thomas A’DENNE who married Isabel DE EARDE. He, too, can be ruled out as being a direct ancestor our Thomas DENNE who married Margaret NAISSHE. The College of Arms mentions only two sons 1. John whom we’ve just visited; and another Thomas. However, this last mentioned died without issue. This takes the potential lineage for our Thomas A’DENNE (2nd husband of Margaret NAISSHE) back to Richard A’DENNE and Agnes De APULDREFELD. It is at this level that we have a real chance of making a solid connection. Richard and Agnes had four sons: Thomas (whom we’ve already ruled out); Michael, of whom nothing is known; John; and, Richard also of whom nothing is known. I believe John, immediately above, married a woman named Eleanor SHAKEWEY. Even if it is not this John, then it is a John that is much more closely related to our Thomas than the Coombe-Arderne-deEarde female line is. The younger children of Richard A’DENNE and Agnes De APULDREFELD appear to have settled in Barham (the place where our Thomas A’DENNE resided) (College of Arms information). I have also found a quadripartite Indenture dated 21 Henry VI. [1442/3] whereby Michael Shakewey of Berham enfeoffees his lands in Berham, Kyngeston, Stellyng, Orgoryswyke and Seintemaricherche for the benefit of his wife, Parnel and his two daughters Isabel Cherche and Eleanor DENNE wife of John DENNE and their son Richard DENNE. Specifically, the DENNES were to receive “in the parish of Berham in places called "Southberham" and "Southderyngeston,"”. So, what we would have is a lineage that would like something like this: Thomas DENNE and [wife unknown] who marries 2nd Margaret Naisshe widow -To Unknown Male DENNE [A’DENNE born circa 1445 and most likely a son of Richard] and [wife unknown][marr circa 1475] -To Richard A’DENNE(born circa 1420) and [wife unknown] -To John A’DENNE and Eleanor SHAKEWEY -To Richard A’DENNE and Agnes DE APULDREFELD -To Sir William A’DENNE and Elizabeth DE GATTON -And following the lineage backwards as already known That’s all for now. I’m sure you’ll have lots of questions and I have quite a few answers.	A’DENNE, Thomas the elder, Esq (I12094)
2572	http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL2.htm#_Toc127590546	MORTIMER, Hugh DE (I15168)
2573	http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm A note on the deaths of Edward II Introduction There is no doubt that Edward II was a controversial monarch. In character and deed he was a disappointment to many of his contemporaries, not just his father. He ‘loved’ Piers Gaveston more dearly than most kings were expected to 'love' their subjects, and even adopted him as his brother. He was accused of sodomy by his political enemies in 1326 and has been portrayed as a homosexual by some modern writers and even as a gay icon. He was forced to accept a series of ordinances limiting royal authority, was forced to accept reform of his household, and eventually reacted by taking military action and legal proceedings against many members of the nobility and gentry. He was probably cuckolded by his wife, lost the confidence of his people, and wrote threatening letters to his son and heir. As is well known, his reign ended in ignominy, with parliament being cajoled into an agreement to depose him. Subsequently he was forced to abdicate the throne. However, despite all these points of discussion and debate, one aspect of his life stands out as being historically more contentious than any other. His death. Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edward’s death – and, indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject – requires a great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers. We cannot say that it was ‘more likely’ that Edward was murdered or not on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderers’ motives. A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary. You would have thought this would not be problematic, it is so obvious. But a number of people still have difficulty understanding both the methods and the implications of my work into the fake death of Edward II, and his real death. A glance at some of the customers' reviews of The Perfect King written on amazon.co.uk show that, even having read a synopsis of my peer-refereed research in this area, some readers still think my work is based on speculation. Others prefer to work along the lines of the traditional narrative because they feel it is 'more probable'. I am the first to admit that the survival of Edward II is an improbable story; when beginning The Greatest Traitor I had no doubt that Roger Mortimer had both killed the king and slept with the queen: 'the Freudian double' as I described it to my agent and publisher. But the traditional narrative is simply not tenable on information grounds, and that is the only test which counts. This essay is an attempt to explain why, in as straightforward a way as possible. Methodology All contentious history – academic and scholarly research as well as amateur sleuthing and popular writing – is built on shaky foundations. This is because all the evidence underpinning it is open to question. Very often one piece of evidence conflicts with another. For example, there is evidence that Edward died in Berkeley Castle and there is evidence that he was still alive in 1330. Nor can one prefer one version of events as ‘more plausible’ without bringing one’s own prejudices regarding plausibility to bear on the debate. Even though every single extant chronicle of the period states that Edward II died in 1327, that does not prove anything. Three hundred of those chronicles are varying copies of a single continuation of the chronicle called The Brut, and the copyists had no more information than the original compiler. In determining the certainty of political events one cannot depend on the weight of evidence, for weight alone proves nothing about quality. What we really need to study, in order to determine what actually happened, is not so much the evidence but the information underlying it, the links between evidence and reality. This point about information is absolutely crucial to any approach to a difficult historical question. All written evidence was written down by someone on the basis of something they had seen or heard – it does not directly relate to the event in question. Very simply, events can't write. Everything we read about the past – all the information we have about it except the archaeological record – has been filtered through scribes. In the medieval period, most of the scribes were not witnesses to the events in question. They received information from intermediaries. A witness told someone, who told someone, who told a scribe – with perhaps many more intermediaries. Thus there are a number of stages preceding the creation of any piece of evidence. The process is like a stream of information flowing from the event itself to the record of the event: an information stream altering with every retelling of the facts. Academics do not normally teach this in universities. In theoretical terms it is so obvious it does not need to be said. In practical terms it rarely matters; one does not normally gain anything by differentiating between the event itself and the evidence. If Henry IV’s accounts show that he bought a recorder in 1387, then there is no advantage in working out how the information about the payment was passed to his treasurer’s clerk; to do this in every case would make history a tedious and pedantic exercise. Nor is there any good reason to doubt that he really made the purchase. But in contentious matters we have no option but to be tedious and pedantic – if we wish to arrive at a position of certainty rather than prejudice. The use of the word ‘certainty’ brings us to the question of proof. Often one reads that there is 'no proof' that Edward II survived the Berkeley Castle plot of 1327. To this one may respond that there is 'no proof' that he died in 1327 either. The very statement shows that the speaker has misunderstand the nature of proof in history. On the whole it is safest to presume that a specific historical question (e.g. did Edward II die in Berkeley Castle? Did Harold get an arrow in the eye at Hastings? Was I born in 1967? etc) is like a scientific theory in that it is ‘always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory' (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes (Bantam edition, 1989), p. 11). In history it is possible to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, and thus arrive at a position of certainty, but that is not the same thing as proving something absolutely, for it is a question of personal opinion what ‘reasonable doubt’ is in each case. Before the discovery of the Fieschi letter in the 1870s, no one doubted that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle and thus it was a fact 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'. Nevertheless the matter could not have been considered proven absolutely as it was always possible that some evidence would come to light to show that he did not die there. To illustrate this important point further, consider the death of Queen Victoria. One cannot prove that she died on 22 January 1901. One may consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt – for one may prove absolutely that news of her death had been received by such people as the editor of The Times by the following day. But the news is not the same thing as the event ('events can't write'). In this case, it is technically possible that a false report about the death was circulated. Eye-witness accounts could also have been falsified. So one cannot prove an event absolutely. However that does not mean our knowledge is weak. There are degrees of reliability which are universally acceptable as forms of ‘proof’ or certainty. In the case of Queen Victoria, the eye-witness accounts, the dissemination of the news, and the well-reported condition of the elderly queen's health all mean that the likelihood that she died on that day tends to one hundred per cent, for it is so difficult to see how such reports could have been created without leaving a secondary information trail relating to a false report. Hence we may be certain she died on that day even if logic imposes on us the obligation to admit the death itself cannot be proven absolutely. If even the death of Queen Victoria cannot be proved absolutely, is it possible to prove what happened to Edward II? To this there are two answers. With regard to absolute proof, one has to say ‘no’, on the same theoretical grounds as for Victoria's death: a historical conclusion is always provisional, like a scientific theory. But with regard to proving the matter beyond reasonable doubt, or certainty, we can be much more positive. One can arrive at a position of certainty by demonstrating that the alternative narrative is false. In the specific case of Edward II’s death, one may prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was alive by showing that the evidence for his death is based on an unreliable source while that for his survival is based on a reliable one. Or - even better - more than one. To recapitulate, before proceeding with the arguments about Edward II’s death, it is important to be clear on two points. We are not studying evidence at the usual, superficial level. We are studying it at a deeper level - looking at the information which was used to make that evidence, which existed before the evidence was written. We are looking at the connectedness of the evidence with reality, if you like, having cut away all superfluous and circumstantial evidence liable to lead to speculation. We are not trying to 'prove' something did happen but testing two alternative theories: a survival theory and a death theory. Each of these is a different side of the same coin - one cannot be partly dead. So we may be certain that only one of these theories is true. Either Edward II = dead in 1327, or Edward II = alive at end of 1327. Both of these are supported by contemporary evidence, and thus our task has to be more thorough than simply quoting evidence. To arrive at a position of certainty we must do two things. We must show that the evidence for one theory is questionable, being based on unreliable information or information flowing from an unreliable source. In addition we need to show how the information underpinning the evidence for the other theory is reliable. Only in this way can we eliminate personal opinions, all our preconceived ideas about what is likely or not likely, and all contemporary propaganda. We are testing for falsehood, not likelihood. The first death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle The theory that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle rests on a large body of evidence created by a number of writers. Basically one can divide them into two sorts: those who wrote as a result of a private initiative, and those who wrote as a result of a duty to the royal family. The former include all the chroniclers and creators of unofficial documents which mention the death. The latter include the clerks of the royal household and other households concerned with the safe-keeping of the ex-king, from keepers of accounts for his maintenance at Berkeley to royal clerks noting the death in letters. It also includes later official accounts, such as payments made by royal clerks on the anniversary of the ex-king’s death. There is a great deal of this information - too much for it all to be listed here. As stated above, evidence is never ‘written by the event’ (except in the metaphorical sense of events 'writing' or resulting in archaeological evidence). Information about the death circulated in a large number of ways, via many different people, and for a wide range of purposes. For this reason there is a great range of descriptions of the death in the contemporary and near-contemporary chronicles. Details are listed in full in Medieval Intrigue but, in short, the earliest chronicles state that Edward II died of a grief-induced illness. Those written after 1330 state that he was murdered, strangled or suffocated. Between 1332 and 1337 the chroniclers start to state that the murderers were Thomas Gurney and John Maltravers (even though John Maltravers had never been accused officially of the crime but was tried for a different one in 1330). Around 1340 chronicles start to repeat the story of a piece of metal being inserted through his anus; at first this is described as a copper rod, then an iron one, and finally an iron poker. The chronicles are inconsistent on whether it was hot or not (most that relate the story say that it was). Some express doubt about the mode of killing, some later ones insist the death was natural, and one interesting lay writer refuses to accept what is rumoured. A variety of dates for the death are given too: from 20th to 22nd September, with most settling on the official date, the 21st. Obviously a wide variety of intermediaries were at work in supplying information to all these writers. Many simply copied each other. One of the originals, the chronicle continuation written by Adam Murimuth first issued in 1337, openly states that his story about the murder, in which Maltravers and Gurney suffocated the ex-king, was merely 'common rumour'. Given the time at which he wrote this, the 'common rumour' was no doubt influenced by the proceedings against Maltravers and Gurney in the parliament of November 1330 (both of them having fled the country). Other chroniclers followed Murimuth in repeating the guilt of these men as a matter of fact (although Edward III was quietly in correspondence with Maltravers from 1334, and employed him at a salary of £100 per year from 1339). Another original, the shorter continuation of The Brut – the earliest chronicle to mention the death – states that it was officially announced at Lincoln, and that the ex-king had died of a ‘grief-induced illness’. As so many chronicles were based on these two originals, we have clear signals as to where their information originally came from. Only one writer, Geoffrey le Baker, in his second chronicle (his Chronicon), written in the 1350s, claims to have spoken to an eye-witness, William Bishop. But Bishop was not a witness to the supposed murder, as le Baker makes clear; he only witnessed the lamentable treatment of Edward II when being taken back to Berkeley after one of his ‘escapes’ earlier in 1327. For his account of the murder, le Baker relied on the longer continuation of The Brut. Turning to the official records, we have a huge mass of evidence that Edward II died in 1327. There are the accounts of Edward II’s keepers, published in the nineteenth century, which tally with the ex-king's death on 21 September (Stuart Moore, ‘ Documents relating to the Death and Burial of King Edward II’, Archaeologia, L (1887 ), p. 217). There are the accounts of Edward II’s funeral. There are many wardrobe accounts from the 1330s and 1340s which show that the royal family commemorated Edward II’s death by giving out pittances to paupers on 21 or 22 September (e.g. National Archives: E 101/388/5, mem. 14, dated 1337; E 36/204 fol. 76r, dated 1341-4; and E 101/392/12, fol. 35v, dated 1353). However, although these are all regarded traditionally as ‘primary sources’ the information they contain is not ‘primary’ at all. They are all evidence of the earlier acceptance within the household of 21 September 1327 as the date of Edward II’s death. Thus we must turn to how this date was reported, and how both official and unofficial sources came to be informed. Almost all the chronicles state that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle. The few that do not either fail to mention an alternative or give Corfe Castle as the place – a result of a lined missed out in a copy of a longer continuation of The Brut, which was itself copied widely in the late fourteenth century. Official sources leave no doubt that the king was maintained and supposedly died at Berkeley Castle. The account of Lord Berkeley’s expenses for 1327 (Berkeley Castle Select Roll 39) shows that he sent Thomas Gurney with letters about the death of Edward II to Edward III and Queen Isabella ‘at Nottingham’ (although they were actually at Lincoln at the time). Another official source indicates precisely when he delivered those letters. This is an original letter from Edward III to the earl of Hereford, his cousin, dated at Lincoln on 24 September 1327 (National Archives: DL 10/253): it states that the king had heard of his father’s death the previous night. This supports the shorter Brut continuation's claim that it was at Lincoln that the news of the death was announced. On this basis we can reconstruct the first stages in the dissemination of the news of the death. On 21 September Lord Berkeley sent the news via Gurney to the king and his mother at Lincoln. Gurney arrived in the night of the 23rd/24th, and the fourteen-year-old Edward started spreading the information the very next day. A few days later (before the 29th) the king had left Lincoln, by which time he had announced to the departing members of parliament (which finished sitting on the 23rd) that Edward II was dead. From there the news spread across the country, carried by messengers, merchants, servants and members of parliament returning to their boroughs, counties, monasteries and dioceses. The important thing here is that there was just one information source for all this evidence. All the chronicles and royal accounts – all the official sources and unofficial ones – were dependent on Lord Berkeley’s announcement of the death. It could not have been independently verified before the king started circulating the news. That Edward III and his officials started telling people the very next day proves this – Berkeley Castle is considerably more than a hundred miles from Lincoln, so Edward III’s letter to his cousin of 24 September is proof that he accepted the news at face value and started repeating it straightaway. Thus all the evidence that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle in 1327 – even the evidence for his funeral trappings – is ultimately dependent on one message, from Thomas Berkeley, Lord Mortimer’s son-in-law, to Edward III and his mother, Lord Mortimer's mistress. Three years later, on 26 November 1330, the parliament rolls record that Lord Berkeley ‘came before the lord king in his full aforesaid parliament, and spoke of this, that since the Lord Edward late king of England, the father of the present lord king, was lately delivered into the safekeeping of Thomas and of a certain John Maltravers to be kept in the castle of Thomas at Berkeley in the county of Gloucester, and was murdered and killed in the same castle in the keeping of Thomas and John, he wishes to acquit himself of the death of the same king, and says that he was never an accomplice, a helper or a procurer in his death, nor did he ever know of his death until this present parliament.’ (National Archives C 65/2 (Parliament Roll, Nov. 1330), item 16). There has been much discussion about what was meant by ‘nor did he ever know of his death until this present parliament’ (‘nec unquam scivit de morte sua usque in presenti parliamento isto’). A few traditionalists have insisted that it means he did not know the cause of the death (i.e. he had not heard of the accusation of murder). That can hardly be the case, as the possibility of murder had been discussed by Henry of Lancaster since 1328, but even if it is, such commentators are missing the point. Lord Berkeley was Edward III’s sole informant – the letters telling the king and his mother about Edward II’s death had come from Lord Berkeley himself, as Lord Berkeley’s own accounts show. For him to say he did not know about the manner of the death when he himself announced it is an admission of ignorance, whether or not the ex-king was actually dead. And the possibility that he meant that he had not yet heard of the king's death - the literal meaning of these words - is certainly a line of enquiry which only a prejudiced commentator would fail to follow. To recapitulate: there was one sole information source for the death, Lord Berkeley, and the information contained in his letters was not sent in good faith. He himself denied knowledge of this same information three years later. If anyone should have known about it, it was him. His denial undermines the entire concept that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle in 1327. It doesn't disprove it (bearing in mind the nature of historical proof stated above), but it does prove that those who believe Edward II died in Berkeley Castle are doing so on the basis of an unsubstantiated message sent in bad faith. The survival of Edward II to 1330 The poor-quality of the information underpinning the evidence for the death is only half the story. It undermines the theory that "Edward II = dead in 1327". It does not automatically mean that we can justify the alternative theory, that "Edward II = alive at the end of 1327". For a belt-and-braces approach, we have to examine the evidence for his survival beyond 1327 separately. Before discussing the evidence, it is necessary to say something about how the ex-king's 'survival' was possible, considering that a royal funeral took place in December 1327. Edward II’s face was not exhibited to the public in any way, and there is no evidence that anyone sought to confirm his identity after the announcement of his death. A corpse was covered entirely in cerecloth and taken to Gloucester in a lead coffin, and buried three months later after much show but no exposure of the face. Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only ‘superficially’ by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire. Obviously the royal hearse, covered in painted carvings, armour and candles, confirmed to people that Edward II was dead, and a wooden effigy of the king was clothed in royal garments and displayed above the coffin. But no one actually saw the corpse. Some of those present at the funeral later believed he was still alive in 1330. (This aspect is fully discussed on pages 1182-3 of my article in the English Historical Review, reprinted in Medieval Intrigue). The evidence that Edward II was still alive in 1330 consists of nine documents, which may be specifically listed: The accusation, trial and judgment of the earl of Kent in the parliament of March 1330, overseen by the coroner of the king’s household. The earl was told he was guilty of being ‘about to have delivered the person of that worshipful knight Sir Edward, sometime king of England, your brother, and to help him that he should have been king again and govern his people as he was wont [to do] before’ (F. W. D. Brie (ed.), The Brut (2 vols, 1906-8), i, page 267. He was executed for this crime on 19 March 1330. This judgement no longer exists in the original (official) version – the roll for that parliament is no longer extant – but it appears in a number of the contemporary chronicles, most notably the many copies of the longer continuations of the Brut and Murimuth's chronicle (p. 60). The letter from the earl of Kent to his brother, Edward II, the beginning of which was cited by the continuator of the longer Brut (see Brie (ed.), The Brut, i, page 265. The chronicler appears to have based his account on a newsletter from an eyewitness at the parliament, as shown by the references to observable details such as the revealing of this letter in parliament, the judgment, and the execution. The confession of the earl of Kent (British Library, Cotton MS Claudius E viii fol 224r-v, published in Edward Maunde Thompson (ed), Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, Rolls Series (1889), page 253, pages 254-5, pages 256-7). The order for the arrest, and confiscation of the lands, of Sir John Pecche, previously constable of Corfe Castle, as an adherent of the earl of Kent in 1330 (published in Calendar of Patent Rolls 1327-30, p. 565; Calendar of Close Rolls 1330-33, p. p.52; Calendar of Fine Fine Rolls, iv, p. 169). This is important in conjunction with the confession, as explained below. The testimony of Lord Berkeley, who declared in the parliament of November 1330 that he had not heard about the death of Edward II until entering that parliament (mentioned above). The inconsistent accusations against the ex-king's keepers for failing to keep him safely, made in that same parliament. 'The Melton Letter': Archbishop William Melton’s letter to Simon Swanland, c.1330, in which he declared he had received ‘certain news’ that Edward II was still alive, and asking him to assist William de Clif in supplying materials for the king’s rescue (Warwickshire County Record Office: CR 136/C/2027). The official royal wardrobe account of William Norwell, which notes that one ‘William le Galeys’ who claimed to be the king’s father, was brought at royal expense to Edward III at Cologne in October 1338 and maintained for three weeks at royal expense in December that year (National Archives: E36/203, 178-9. This has been published in Bryce Lyon et al. (eds), The Wardrobe Book of William Norwell, 1338-1340 (Brussels, 1983), pp. 212, 214). 'The Fieschi Letter' (Archives départementales d’Hérault, G 1123, fol. 86r). Transcribed below. The first thing to observe is that this body of information was not recorded by a bunch of politically unimportant malcontents. The above list represents the views of, respectively: The coroner of the royal household, acting in accordance with the government in March 1330 (led by Lord Mortimer). The earl of Kent The earl of Kent The government in March 1330 (led by Lord Mortimer) Lord Berkeley, custodian of the ex-king The government in November 1330 (led by Edward III) The archbishop of York, shortly to be made treasurer of England by Edward III The keeper of the royal wardrobe in 1338 A notary acting on behalf of a recently deceased cardinal (Luca Fieschi) and/or Pope Benedict XII The people named above represent the main political players of the period, on both sides of the political divide. Therefore we have multiple sources for Edward's survival to set against one demonstrably bad source for thinking he died in Berkeley Castle. Of course, we need to observe that Lord Mortimer has been accused of deliberately falsifying the news of the ex-king's survival, in order to lure Lord Kent to his death. Such a narrative - which arises with the longer continuation of The Brut in the 1330s - was speculative, being an attempt to reconcile apprently irreconcilable problems of evidence. What is indisputable about the earl of Kent's involvement is that he was found guilty and executed for the 'crime' of trying to release a supposedly dead man from prison, to make him king again. Historians gloss over this, saying Kent was ‘stupid’ to believe his half-brother was still alive. How stupid do you have to be to try and remove your nephew from the throne and replace him with a dead man? Mentally subnormal. You would not put a man like that in charge of the royal army, or appoint him to head a diplomatic delegation, would you? Kent was given both of these responsibilities in the 1320s. His contemporaries certainly did not see him as 'stupid'. This explanation for his belief in Edward II's survival is simply facile - a case of scissors-and-paste history - the selection of a contemporary chronicler's explanation and treating it as good evidence. The argument that Kent was 'stupid' to believe that his half-brother was alive in 1330 does not wash for a secnod reason. His confession (see pages 254-5, pages 256-7 for a translation) shows that he was not acting alone in trying to rescue Edward II from Corfe Castle. It names the archbishop of York, the bishop of London, William de Clif, William de la Zouche, Hugh Despenser, Ingelram Berengar, John Gymmynges, John Pecche and several others. As Kathryn Warner has recently shown in an article in The English Historical Review he had the support of dozens of other individuals. All this is supported by the Melton Letter, which shows from Archbishop Melton’s own point of view that he believed Edward II still to be alive, and was actively trying to procure his release with the help of William de Clif and Simon Swanland, mayor of London. Clearly, if Kent was 'stupid' so were many of the leading clergy and aristocracy - including men trusted by Edward III. No. The whole 'stupidity' argument is an unevidenced piece of contemporary speculation or disinformation designed to defuse a dangerous situation. There is one name in that above list which needs to be singled out for special notice - that of John Pecche. According to Kent, Pecche told Ingelram de Berengar about the ex-king’s survival. The reason why this is so important is because John Pecche was the official constable of Corfe Castle until 1329 - the very period when Kent believed his brother to be 'in prison' there. If news that Edward II was still alive and at Corfe in 1328 was known to both Kent and Pecche, then either Kent told Pecche or Pecche told Kent or there were two completely separate information streams. As Kent believed his brother to be alive before October 1328, this means Kent was circulating information about the ex-king's survival when Pecche was still constable of Corfe. Quite simply, John Pecche could have checked to see whether it was true. Although not continually in residence at Corfe, he was not replaced as constable until the autumn of 1329, by which time the Kent plot was well underway (as revealed by Kent’s visit to the pope that summer). So Pecche had every opportunity to check to see whether the plot was a wild goose chase. That he joined Kent proves that he believed that Edward II was genuinely at Corfe. He was arrested and lost his lands along with Ingleram de Berengar, John Gymmynges and various other Kent adherents in the area. Finally we come to the original argument as to why we can be certain that Edward III believed in November 1330 that his father might still be alive. As I put it in Greatest Traitor (p. 250), ‘The records of the trials in the Parliamentary Rolls show that Maltravers and Berkeley were acknowledged to have been jointly and equally liable for the safe-keeping of the ex-king... Maltravers was not charged with murder or with failing in his responsibility to keep the ex-king safely, whereas Berkeley was, on both accounts. As only one of the two men equally liable was charged, either the charges which ought to have been brought against both of them lacked substance or the king was protecting one man, Maltravers. That Edward III was not protecting him is clear in the full traitor’s death sentence passed on him for the lesser crime of being an accessory in the plot against Kent. It follows that the charges of murder and of failing to prevent Edward II's death, brought successively against Berkeley, were groundless.’ What I should have made clearer in this analysis is that the groundlessness of Edward III’s accusations do not just tie-in with Berkeley’s own protest of ignorance in November 1330 (that he did not know of the death); they also were made after Edward III had met the woman who had embalmed the corpse that was buried as that of his father. In other words, in November 1330 Edward III was in a very good position to know the truth of the matter. In addition, I should have pointed out that the excuse Lord Berkeley gave to get himself off this false accusation of murder - that he was not at Berkeley at the time - was a lie, and that Edward III knew it was a lie (as Lord Berkeley's letters about the death had been sent from Berkeley), and yet he accepted that lie. So, not only was the accusation false, so too was the response. And Edward III was fully aware of what was going on. The whole trial was a piece of propaganda designed to make people believe that Edward II really was dead and that he would not be a threat to the legitimacy of Edward III. Summing up Putting all this together, the following are historical certainties – matters of information, not opinion, speculation or mere likelihood. Furthermore, as historical certainties, they cannot be ignored or set aside in any discussion of the death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle. An explanation which fails to take them into account can only be a partial one. With respect to the theory 'Edward = dead in September 1327', there is only one information stream with a first-hand source suggesting that Edward II was dead in 1327. This flows from Lord Berkeley's letters of 21 September 1327. Although he was the sole source of the news of the death of the ex-king in his custody, he later told parliament three years later that he had not known of the death until then. All the later evidence for the death is a consequence of those misleading letters. With respect to the opposite theory, 'Edward = alive at the end of 1327', there are several information streams that support this: The first originates with the woman who embalmed the body buried as that of Edward II in 1327. We do not know what she said to Edward III when she was taken to him after the funeral of his supposed father in December 1327 but we can establish what he concluded afterwards. His failure in November 1330 to bring charges of not keeping the ex-king safely against one of the official keepers, and his conscious acceptance of a demonstrably false alibi from the other in respect of this specific charge, indicate twice-over that she said nothing to make him think that his father had been murdered in their care. She may have suggested a natural death or she may have told him that the corpse was not his father's at all. However, had the death been natural, there would have been no need for the whole charade of the charges against Berkeley. A process of elimination leaves us no option but to conclude she told him that the corpse she had embalmed was not that of Edward II. The second originates with John Pecche. The fact that the erstwhile custodian of Corfe Castle took part in disseminating information that Edward II was at Corfe Castle is first-hand testimony that the king was indeed alive there. The only alternative is that Pecche was an agent provocateur, and his information was deliberately false. His arrest in 1330 along with Kent's adherents, together with the confiscation of this lands, show he was not acting in this capacity. The third originates with Lord Berkeley. He was in a position to know the truth, even if he did not issue a truthful letter in September 1327, and so his statement that he had not heard about the death in 1330 is a first-hand account that Edward II did not die in Berkeley Castle. On top of these there are at least two other information streams which follow from news that Edward II was alive after 21 September 1327. Although their first-hand sources cannot be positively identified, they are also important, for either they support the integrity of the three known first-hand sources above or they originate in first-hand sources of their own. The information circulated to Kent and Melton and their adherents, which may have been based on Pecche’s information or may have been based on information provided by the Dominican friar mentioned in Kent’s confession (in which case Pecche’s first-hand information was merely confirmation). Mortimer’s accusations against Kent in March 1330, which may have been based on information supplied to him by Lord Berkeley, or may have been from a different first-hand source (such as his own initiative in ordering the ex-king’s death to be faked). Either way, the condemnation of Kent in parliament reveals that the prosecuting authority (led by Mortimer) had access to a source indicating that the idea of Edward II’s survival and rescue was not a joke or the act of an idiot, it was a very real threat, necessitating Kent's death - even though he had been close to Mortimer prior to September 1327. Conclusion It is still possible to believe that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle. It is still possible to believe that Father Christmas exists, based on the weight of 'evidence' delivered in the post every December. But belief does not equate with correctness, even when that belief is based on evidence. In this case, the conflict of the 'evidence' lies between a single, unreliable first-hand source for the death on the one hand, and three first-hand sources for the survival, plus the two further supporting information streams, on the other. The only way to reconcile these is if the unreliable source for the death is taken to mean that Lord Berkeley had not yet heard about Edward II's death in November 1330 for the simple reason it had not happened. Berkeley lied in announcing the death in September 1327, probably on instructions from Roger Mortimer. It remains common practice to write history which accords with the tradition of the death. To do so is to prioritise Lord Berkeley's unreliable message over the multiple information streams concerning the survival. To do so is not just unprofessional, it is a blinkered approach to the whole question. If Edward II was dead, why did John Pecche try to rescue a dead man from a castle to which he had until recently had access? If Edward II had been killed as a precuation, to stop people trying to support him against the government acting in his son's name, why did Roger Mortimer and Isabella choose to pretend he was still alive? They were asking for trouble. If Edward II really was dead, it is impossible to explain why Edward III did not bring charges of murder and failing to keep Edward II safely against John Maltravers, in the same way as he did against Berkeley. It is even harder to understand why he later rewarded both men for their loyal service to him. If you wish to argue that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle, without resorting to assumptions, speculation and guesswork about motives and likelihood (which prove nothing), you have to prioritise a single, unreliable first-hand account of his death over at least three first-hand accounts of his survival, and a collosal mass of circumstanial evidence. Such a prioritisation is illogical, bad practice, and thus nothing more than a prejudice. Edward II after 1330 In this light, the famour Fieschi letter must be mentioned. It directly supports the above conclusion - the Edward II was kept secretly alive - and was written by Manuel Fieschi in about 1336, notary and co-executor of Cardinal Luca Fieschi (who died in January 1336), a distant cousin of Edward II, who had met him personally on several occasions. In the letter Manuel addresses himself to Edward III and explains all the above with regard to Edward II’s capture, deposition and imprisonment, and gives details of his time at Corfe Castle. It was written after December 1335 and survives in a near-contemporary copy in a cartulary of a bishop of Maguelonne (Archives départementales d’Hérault, G 1123, fol. 86r). It has been published several times in both Latin and English, the most easily available copies being in my own book, The Greatest Traitor (2003), pp. 251-2, Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003), pp. 186-8, and Alison Weir's Isabella: She-wolf of France, Queen of England (2005), pp. 282-4. In translation it reads as follows: In the name of the Lord, Amen. Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand and afterwards I have taken care to be made known to your highness. First he says that feeling England in subversion against him, afterwards on the admonition of your mother, he withdrew from his family in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Afterwards, driven by fear, he took a barque with lords Hugh Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others and made his way by sea to Glamorgan, and there he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock; and they were captured by Lord Henry of Lancaster, and they led him to the castle of Kenilworth, and others were [held] elsewhere at various places; and there he lost the crown at the insistence of many. Afterwards you were subsequently crowned on the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards the servant who was keeping him, after some little time, said to your father: Lord, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Bereford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases, I shall give you my clothes, that you may better be able to escape. Then with the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison; and when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed; and having got the keys of the door, he opened the door and went out, with his keeper who was keeping him. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, fearing the indignation of the queen, even the danger to their persons, thought to put that aforesaid porter, his heart having been extracted, in a box, and maliciously presented to the queen the heart and body of the aforesaid porter as the body of your father, and as the body of the said king the said porter was buried in Gloucester. And after he had gone out of the prisons of the aforesaid castle, he was received in the castle of Corfe with his companion who was keeping him in the prisons by Lord Thomas, castellan of the said castle, the lord being ignorant, Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he was secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, having heard that the Earl of Kent, because he said he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he was for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys. Afterwards he turned his steps in Normandy and from Normandy, as many do, going across through Languedoc, came to Avignon, where, having given a florin to the servant of the pope, sent by the said servant a document to pope John, which Pope had him called to him, and held him secretly and honourably more than fifteen days. Finally, after various discussions, all things having been considered, permission having been received, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, from Brabant to Cologne so that out of devotion he might see The Three Kings, and leaving Cologne he crossed over Germany, that is to say, he headed for Milan in Lombardy, and from Milan he entered a certain hermitage of the castle of Melazzo, in which hermitage he stayed for two years and a half; and because war overran the said castle, he changed himself to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy, and he was in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance and praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness. Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the lord pope, your devoted servant. As Fieschi does not say anything about the death of ex-king, and as the internal evidence shows this letter must have been written after the end of 1335, it is clear that men at Avignon believed that the ex-king might still be alive in the later 1330s, even though the pope had been challenged on this point in 1330 and issued a statement that he did not believe the man was alive. That the pope had believed this, as made clear by the challenge, was probably due to Kent's visit to him in 1328 or 1329. Manuel Fieschi's evidence is of a later date and much fuller in detail. If it was indeed based on the ex-king's confession, as stated, then it constitutes a fourth first-hand account of the survival. If the Dominicans and Lord Mortimer had independent sources for their information, it amounts to a sixth source. William Norwell, who had known Edward II until 1325, described William le Galeys’s claim to be Edward II in neutral terms. He did not say whether he did or did not believe him. But he did not label him as an impostor. Nor did the king treat him as an impostor, paying for his expenses and not trying to expose him (as was normally done with impostors). This official source indicates that the idea that Edward II might still be alive was still current among senior members of the royal household in the later 1330s, at the same time as the belief was curent at Avignon, according to Fieschi. It is interesting that both Norwell and the Fieschi letter connect the supposed Edward II with Italy, homeland of the Fieschi themselves. Further Reading The background to the Edward II-death debate is very interesting in its own right. Pride of place really belongs to Joseph Hunter, 'Measures taken for the apprehension of Sir Thomas de Gurney, one of the murderers of Edward II', Archaeologia, 27 (1838), pp.274-297. Hunter put this article forward to show people how the consensus of chroniclers is not necessarily good evidence for what actually happened in the past. By demonstrating what the official record evidence has to say on the matter, he argued, one may approach a more accurate view of historical events than is ever going to be possible through chronicle sources. He was a man ahead of his time - way ahead - and sadly the intensely conservative nature of the historical profession meant that his contribution was not properly recognised until the twentieth century. Readers interested in Edward II's captivity should look at S.A. Moore (ed.), 'Documents relating to the death and burial of King Edward II', Archaeologia, 50 (1887), pp.215-226, and Thomas Frederick Tout, 'The Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol 6 (1921), 69-113. Although the person who found the Fieschi letter, Alexandre Germain, published it in the 1870s, the debate proper only took off in Italy. William Stubbs included it in his Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (2 vols, 1882-83) but apart from T. F. Tout (mentioned above), no one seemed to care. Professor Tout was just confused by it - convinced it had to be a forgery on the grounds that he could not doubt the mass of evidence that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle. The first scholar who did care, and had the courage and wit to suggest that Edward II may have survived Berkeley Castle, was Professor George Peddy Cuttino. For his contribution see G. P. Cuttino & T.W. Lyman, 'Where is Edward II?', Speculum, 53, 3 (1978), pp.522-543. This concludes that Edward II may well not be buried in Gloucester Abbey (a view with which I do not concur); nevertheless, despite a few assumptions and mistakes, this is an inspiring piece of historical scholarship. Written from a preconception that Edward II did die in Berkeley but interesting nevertheless is R.M. Haines, 'Edwardus Redivivus: the afterlife of Edward of Carnarvon', Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society, 114 (1996), pp.65-86. This was the basis for the account of the death in the same author's book, King Edward II: his life, his reign and its aftermath, 1284-1330 (Montreal, 2003). The latter is an excellent guide to the sources of the reign. Professor Haines's Death of a king, privately published in 2002, is partly an assortment of other people's writings on the subject and partly a redaction of Haines's own views. The latter are marred by a conviction that Edward II did die at Berkeley, with a commensurate failure to consider the possibility that he survived. Two radical new views were put forward almost simultaneously in early 2003 by Dr Paul Doherty, in his Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (Constable and Robinson, 2003), and by me in my The Greatest Traitor: the life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, Ruler of England 1327-1330 (Cape, 2003). Doherty boldly suggested a plethora of alternative readings of the evidence but failed to come to a certain conclusion, or to prove anything new. He thinks that Edward II did escape from Berkeley but that the Fieschi letter itself was a clever forgery. As for my own book, although the argument I put forward was not fully worked out, it had at its core an information-based argument. Having a scholarly background, I would not have chosen to go with such a radical piece of revisionist thinking if it depended only on a possibility or a plausibility. This marked the beginning of my attempt to make the discussion more rigorous. 2005 saw several publications on the death appear. Alison Weir published an account of the faked death in her Isabella: She-wolf of France, Queen of England (2005), drawing heavily on my work and Paul Doherty's Isabella. And J. R. S. Phillips published his 2003 essay ‘Edward II in Italy: English and Welsh Political Exiles and Fugitives in Continental Europe, 1322 – 1365’, in Michael Prestwich, Richard Hugh Britnell and Robin Frame (eds), Thirteenth century England 10: proceedings of the Durham conference 2003 (2005), pp. 209-226. Phillips did not engage with my argument that Edward II survived; he simply presumed I was wrong. However, his article is very interesting for the reason he gives much more detail about the Fieschi letter, and in particular notes that the same register in which it appears contains a second Fieschi-related document, relating to Niccolinus Fieschi, whom I suggested might have brought the original Fieschi letter to England in April 1336. Also published in 2005, in December, was my article, ‘The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle’, English Historical Review 120 (2005), pp. 1175-1214. Readers seriously interested in this subject should refer to this: it remains the most detailed and methodologically thorough piece on the subject published to date. An abstract is available here: you need a subscription to E.H.R. to see the whole piece. Alternatively, the text is reproduced verbatim in Medieval Intrigue, which is now available in paperback. This also contains several other essays that examine aspects of the fake death narrative, from the plot of the earl of Kent to the evidence for the ex-king's later life in Italy. Ian Mortimer April 2008, amended for typos and clarity Dec. 2014.	Edward II, King of England (I1975)
2574	http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/gunnor.htm Robert de Torigny and the family of Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy by Todd A. Farmerie [Modified from an article which appeared in Dec 1996 on soc.genealogy.medieval] There have been many requests for information on the various Norman relationships compiled by Robert de Torigny. This is an attempt to summarize and harmonize several recent works on some of the lines: Elisabeth M C van Houts. Robert of Torigni as Genealogist. in Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, p.215-33. Kathleen Thompson. The Norman Aristocracy before 1066: the Example of the Montgomerys. in Historical Research 60:251-63. K S B Keats-Rohan. Aspects of Torigny's Genealogy Revisited. in Nottingham Medieval Studies 37:21-7. Robert de Torigny, writing after the Norman Conquest, recorded the genealogical traditions which tied many of the Norman nobility to the family of Gunnor, first mistress of Richard I, then Duchess of Normandy. He reported the tradition that Richard had become infatuated with the wife of one of his foresters, but being the pious wife, she substituted her sister Gunnor, much to everyone's satisfaction. He proceded to name the siblings of Gunnor, and also indicated the she had numerous nieces, who are left unnamed, but whose marriages and descendants are provided. The genealogical information contained in his account has at various times been praised and condemned, but recent opinion seems to favor the view that, while minor errors abound, the genealogies accurately represent a tradition of shared descent that may account for the rapid rise of these nobles. The parentage of Gunnor and her siblings is unknown. While some sources call her father Herfastus, this was in fact the name of her brother. She has also been claimed as daughter of the Danish royal family, but there is no evidence for this, and the context of her coming to the attention of Richard I and the family's subsequent rise to power militates against her being a royal daughter. Douglas argued (in a 1944 English Historical Review article on the family of William Fitz Osbern), based on the donations of brother Arfast to the monastery of St. Pere, that the root of the family was in the Cotetin region of Normandy, but van Houts has suggested that the Cotetin land was granted to Arfast, rather than inherited by him. Thus we are left with the more ambiguous statements of Torigny and others that she was a member of a Norman family of Danish origins. The only known brother of Gunnor was Arfast/Herfast, of whom we gain what little insight we have from a trial of heretics conducted by King Robert II of France. Arfast testified that he had pretended to join the sect, all the better to denounce them when the time arose. He later donated lands to the monastery of St. Pere, to which he retired. He had at least two sons: Osbern, who was steward to the later Dukes, and was murdered by William de Montgomery while defending the young Duke William; and Ranulf, known from charters. Osbern maried a niece of Richard I (the daughter of his half-brother) and by her was the father of the Conquest baron William Fitz Osbern. Gunnor had at least three sisters, of which the oldest appears to have been Senfria (Seinfreda), who was wife of the (unnamed) forester from the area of St. Vaast d'Equiqueville, and it was her charms which are said first to have attracted the attentions Duke Richard I. She appears to have had at least one daughter, Joscelina, wife of Hugh de Montgomery. (Torigny makes Joscelina daughter of another sister, Wevia, but a contemporary of Torigny, in demonstrating the genealogical impediment to a marriage of a bastard of Henry I to a Montgomery descendant specifically calls Joscelina's mother Senfria, and the inheritance by the Montgomerys of large holdings suggests that Joscelina was a significant coheiress to her parents, which does not match Wevia's family where the two sons would be expected to acquire most of the family land.) Hugh de Montgomery and Joscelina had a son Roger, but contrary to Torigny's statements, he was not the Conquest baron of that name, but instead his father. By a wife possibly named Emma, Roger had: Hugh; Roger (who married Mabel of Belleme and played a significant role in pre-Conquest Normandy); William (who murdered cousin Osbern); Robert, and Gilbert. Duvelina, a second sister of Gunnor, married Turulf de Pont Audemer, son of a Norman founder Torf, and uncle of the first of the Harcourts. They had at least one son, Humphrey de Vielles, who in turn was father of Roger de Beaumont, another Conquest-era baron. Wevia, the only other sister of Gunnor named by Torigny, married Osbern de Bolbec (who is otherwise unknown to history). They had at least two sons: Walter Giffard, ancestor of the English Giffard/Gifford families, and also, through a daughter, of the Clare family; and Godfrey, whose son William de Arques had two daughters and co-heiresses. Torigny indicates that Gunnor had numerous nieces, naming the descendants of several of them, but usually not naming the nieces themselves or their parents. As has already been seen with niece Joscelina, the accounts of these families are more difficult to harmonize with other available sources. One niece is said to have married Nicholas de Bracqueville, and to have had William Martel and Walter de St. Martin. As to Martel, there seems to have been a connection to Bracqueville, since Hawise, daughter of Nicholas married Hugh de Wareham, son of a Grippo. Hugh had a brother Geoffrey Martel, but beyond this no recent analysis provides any insight as to the descent of the later Martels. Walter de St. Martin is even more of a problem, since elsewhere Torigny incorrectly makes him brother of William de Warenne, but the ancestry given there is clearly false. Thus it is not clear that Torigny knew the exact connection of Walter, and there is no evidence to help clarify his true origins. A second niece is said to have married Richard, vicomte of Rouen (who was son of Tesselin). He had a son Lambert of St. Saens, whose son Helias married a bastard daughter of Robert II of Normandy. (If the connection here given is correct, then these two were within the prohibited degree, which may throw doubt on the relationship, or simply suggest that the relationship did not come to light at the time.) Based on later interactions between Montgomery and Warenne (thought to be related to this branch) it has been speculated that this niece was sister of Joscelina, which is possible but unsupported. It appears to be through this family that the relationship of two more Norman barons come into play, but not exactly as Torigny presents it. He shows yet another niece marrying Ranulph de Warenne, and by him having William de Warenne and Roger de Mortimer. This is clearly untrue, because Roger appears to have been a generation older than William. The solution appears to be that Torigny (as he had done with the Montgomerys) compressed two people, a father and son of the same name, into one individual. Ranulph de Warenne (I) appears to have married Beatrice, sister of Richard, vicomte of Rouen, and thus sister-in-law of one of Gunnor's nieces (thus it would appear that this family actually does not descend from a relative of Gunnor's, but is genealogically linked to some of her descendants) and had sons: Roger (de Mortimer) and Ranulph de Warenne (II), who in turn was father of another Ranulf (III) and of William de Warenne. Finally, Torigny states that a niece married Osmund de Centumvillis, vicomte of Vernon, and had a son Fulk de Alnou, and a daughter whose son was Baldwin de Reviers. Much debate has focussed on the attempt to identify these men, but in the latter case, clearly a connection to the Reviers/Vernon Earls of Devon is intended. The precise nature of the relationship is more difficult to pin down. It would seem that the first Earl Richard de Reviers and his brother Hugh were sons of a Baldwin, who had brothers Richard de Vernon (app. d.s.p.) and William Fitz Hugh de Vernon. (William, who was perhaps a uterine half-brother, had by wife Emma a son Hugh, often confused with the brother of Earl Richard. It is this error that has led to the statement that Emma was the relative of Gunnor, which derives from a set of relationships hypothesized in Complete Peerage (CP, under Devon) and predicated on her being mother of Hugh, brother of Earl Richard, an untrue relationship, and on Richard being nephew of William Fitz Osbern, which is discussed below.) If Baldwin, father of Earl Richard, was the same as the grandson of Osmund de Centumvillis this would complete the picture, but one more relationship invites comment. Earl Richard is said by an early source, cited by CP, to be nephew of William Fitz Osbern. If the stated connection with vicomte Osmund is correct, then Baldwin de Reviers would have been too closely related to William Fitz Osbern to have married his sister. (An alternative solution, that the wife of vicomte Osmund was sister of William Fitz Osbern, and hence grandniece of Gunnor, is chronologically impossible.) I suspect that this tradition records the memory that William Fitz Osbern was an older male relative of Richard, rather than a precise genealogical relationship. The work of Robert de Torigny thus provides a valuable source for the genealogical origins of the immediate pre-Conquest Norman aristocracy. When it has been possible to compare the information with other sources, some inconsistancies are found, but it is unclear whether these represent errors of Robert, or inaccuracies in the genealogical traditions he was recording. In most cases, an in-depth study of the available material has enabled modern historians to satisfactorilly reconstruct the descents from Gunnor's family and provide a representation of the true relationships among these early Norman families. Todd A. Farmerie	DE CREPON, Gunnora (I15159)
2575	https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FCANT%2F005265410%2F00381&parentid=GBPRS%2FCANT%2FM%2F97036330%2F1	Family (F6193)
2576	https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/109133479/person/170169135763/facts - Neil Alridge Marriage 11 Nov 1839 • Holy Trinity, Bristol, Gloucester, England Spouse & Children Edward Royall 1818–1906 Edward Royall 1841– Hester Royall 1845– Eliza Matilda Royall 1847– George Robert Royall 1850– Albert James Royall 1854– Mary Ann Royall 1859–	PARKER, Charlotte (I11877)
2577	https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/6814011/person/-947452140/facts Amy Teresa married View Source England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915 View Source England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1916-2005 View Source England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1916-2005 Search on Ancestry Skip to Facts Family Parents Henry George Broadbridge 1876–1958 Florence Mary Boseley 1877–1959 Siblings Spouse & Children Charles Clements Florence Anne Clements 1928–1992 Sidney William Clements 1930–2003 Winnie K Clements 1933–1933 Private Private Private ---------------------------------------------------- Nellie married Spouse & Children William H Waterman 1894–1927 Private Private Spouse & Children Frank Claringbold 1902–1978 Donald Claringbold 1929–1992 Leslie G Claringbold 1937–1954 Private Private -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- william james married Spouse & Children Amy Harrington Savedra 1904–1989 Private went to india as a civil servant ---------------------------------------------------------- douglas frnk married Spouse & Children Ida Lilian Wood 1908–1993 Private Private Private ---------------------------------------- BROADBRIDGE, Sto. 1st Cl. Thomas George, C/KX. 83568. R.N. H.M. Submarine Simoom. 19th November, 1943. Age 31. Son of Hendry George and Florence Broadbridge; husband of Elisabeth Broadbridge, of Dunoon, Argyllshire. 72, 1. --------------------------------------------- Bert married Spouse & Children Mabel Maria Higgins 1917–1973 Private Private Private Private Private ------------------------------------------------ Violet married Spouse Raymond Brower Mapes 1908–1986 Violet M. Mapes age 26 ppno 7458, nationality British, UK address 8 Harnage Road, Brentford, Middlesex Dependent of: Pfc. Raymond B. Mapes, ASN. 353320456, US Army, 417 Hichave? S? Canton, Ohio, form 230 Piedmont S. E., Canton, Ohio UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 for Violet M Mapes Southampton 1946 February NameViolet M MapesAge83Birth DateAbt 1918Birth PlaceFaversham ENGDeath Dateabt 2001Death PlaceOrrville OHPublication Date12 Apr 2001Publication PlaceUSATombstone0URLhttp://sites.rootsweb.com/~obituary/using_db.htmlHousehold Members NameAge Name Violet M Mapes ----------------------------------------	BOSELY, Florence Mary (I7588)
2578	https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/24047/images/dvm_GenMono005854-00016-0?pId=26 pedigree of Robert Horne Bishop of Winchester	HORNE, Robert Bishop of Winchester (I20119)
2579	https://www.bayanne.info/Shetland/getperson.php?personID=I5500&tree=ID1 Child 1 \| Male + Thomas THOMASON Born 9 Jan 1794 Queyon, East Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Died UNKNOWN Buried Spouse Margaret ANDERSON \| F22996 Married 16 Sep 1816 Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Child 2 \| Male + Peter JOHNSON Born 25 Oct 1795 Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Died Aft 1851 Buried Spouse Christian MANSON \| F9862 Married 31 Jan 1822 Child 3 \| Female + Helen JOHNSON Born 23 Aug 1798 Queyon, East Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Died 10 Jan 1872 Upper Sound, Lerwick, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Buried Spouse Magnus JEROMSON \| F2400 Married 2 Nov 1819 Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Child 4 \| Female + Christina JOHNSON Born 24 Mar 1806 Queyon, East Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Died UNKNOWN Buried Spouse David PETRIE \| F2432 Married 9 Feb 1830 Mid & South Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Spouse John David POLE \| F50118 Married Child 5 \| Male + Basil Robert THOMASON Born 1809 Queyon, East Yell, SHI, SCT Find all individuals with events at this location Died Aft 1851 Buried Spouse Andrina BAIN \| F540 Married 22 Feb 1831 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparing Kit PV4445865 (Susan Young) [FTDNA V1] and M899331 (Bev Randall) [Migration - V4 - M] GEDCOM ID#: 1687228 : I3281 Donor Name: Beverly Ann SCHOLEFIELD Email: bev@randall.co.nz Kit Number: M899331 Name: Bev Randall Email: bev@randall.co.nz Segment threshold size will be adjusted dynamically between 200 and 400 SNPs Minimum segment cM to be included in total = 3.0 cM Mismatch-bunching Limit will be adjusted dynamically to 60 percent of the segment threshold size for any given segment. Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 5 90,479,429 95,767,920 4.2 359 Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 7 144,828,398 147,313,809 3.0 211 7 147,607,585 150,074,994 4.5 288 Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 15 65,104,826 67,414,425 3.9 239 Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 18 10,132,916 11,096,618 3.1 212 Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs 19 8,925,400 13,431,565 7.0 418 Largest segment = 7.0 cM Total Half-Match segments (HIR) = 25.7 cM (0.716 Pct) 6 shared segments found for this comparison. 292373 SNPs used for this comparison. 54.056 Pct SNPs are full identical Descendants Outline Chart 1 Catherine PETRIE (b. Bef 1773, Shetland Islands, Scotland) . + John THOMASON (b. Abt 1768, d. 17 Jul 1832) . . 2 Peter JOHNSTON (b. 25 Oct 1795, Yell, Shetland Isles, Scotland, d. POSS 7 Jul 1864, South Leith, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland) . . . + Christian MANSON (b. Abt 1797, Lerwick, Shetland Isles, Scotland, d. 17 Apr 1856, Leith North, Midlothian, Scotland) . . . . 3 Elizabeth JOHNSTON (b. Abt 1830, Lerwick, Shetland Isles, Scotland) . . . . . + Alexander MORRISON (b. Abt 1823, Cuminestown, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, d. 12 Mar 1869, Hotham, Victoria, Australia) . . . . . . 4 Theodore Johnston MORRISON (b. 25 Nov 1853, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, d. 10 Jan 1918, Waikouaiti, Otago, New Zealand) . . . . . . . + Martha TIBBET (b. 15 Nov 1859, Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, Scotland, d. 24 Sep 1951, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . 5 Theodore MORRISON (b. 12 Dec 1886, Waikouaiti, Otago, New Zealand, d. 31 Dec 1958, Nelson, Nelson, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . + Letty Harriet MORRISON (b. 13 Jan 1887, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand, d. 6 Sep 1962, Stoke, Nelson, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . . 6 Ivy Theodora May MORRISON (b. 26 Jul 1908, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand, d. 30 Mar 2000, Wakefield, Nelson, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . . . + Roy Vincent HAYTHORNE (b. 9 Oct 1909, Nelson, Nelson, New Zealand, d. 10 Jul 1992, Suva, Fiji) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Norma Letty HAYTHORNE (b. 28 Nov 1934, Richmond, Nelson, New Zealand, d. 27 Jun 2015, Nelson, Nelson, New Zealand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . + HIDDEN HIDDEN (b. HIDDEN, HIDDEN) . . . . .DNA . . . . . . . . . 8 (M899331)HIDDEN HIDDEN (b. HIDDEN, HIDDEN)	PETRIE, Catherine (I6269)
2580	https://www.facebook.com/james.salako	SALAKO, James David (I18429)
2581	https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/patriots-and-royalty/about/results B273628 M. Davis has given permission for the following to be posted in this project permpath AT gmail.com 1. Hugh Capet 941-986 2. Robert 2nd of France Capet 972-1031 & Constance of Aries 986-1032 3. Henry 1 of France Capet 1008-1060 & Anne of Kiev 1030-1075 4. Hugh 1 of Vermandois Capet 1067-1101 & Adelaide, Countess of Vermandios d 1124 5. Robert Beaumont & Isabel Capet 1080-1131 6. Gilbert Clare 1100-1148 & Isabel Beaumont 1101-1172 7. Richard Clare 1130-1176 & Aoife of Leinster 1145-1188 8. William 1st Earl of Pembroke Marshal 1146-1219 & Isabel Clare d 1220 9. William Braose 1197-1230 & Eve Marshal 1194-1246 10. William Cantilupe 3 1216-1254 & Eve Braose d 1255 11. Hywel Fychan Hywel & Agnes Cantilupe 1260-1298 12. Hopkin Ap Hywel Fychan (aka Vaughn) unk dates & Gwenllian ferch Rhys Foel unk dates 13. Thomas Barry c 1325 & Denise ferch Hopkin c 1325-1402 14. John Morley unk & Matilda Barry 1344 15. Thomas Ap Gwilym 1356-1438 & Maud Moreley d 1438 16. John Herbert 1404-1469 & Margred verch Lewys unk 17. Thomas AP Morgan 1443 & Jane Herbert 1457-1478 19. Thomas Fraeme 1470-? & Margred verch Morgan 1477-1531 20. Henry Fraeme 1498-1560 21. John Fraeme 1 1520-1590 22. John Fraeme 2 1550-1634 23. John Fraeme 3 1586-1659 & Joan 24. Capt. John Frame 1600-1655 & Ann Clay 1600-1638 25. Lawrence Frame unk & Mary 1620-1676 26. Thomas Frame 1645-1708 & Mary Rowell 1649-1707 27. James Frame 1687-1754 & Jane Rennick 1702-1760 28. John Frame 1723-1750 & Margaret Hoghead 1725-1797 29. John Frame JR 1748-1837 & Ann Gibson 1750-Unk 30. William Frame 1774-1838 & Susanna Davis 1785-1865 31. James W Frame 1811-1867 & JaiLa Switzer 1815-1886 32. James B Frame 1834-1900 & Mary Lovica Baker 1844-1918 33. Joseph B Frame 1885-1952 & Rhoda May Lyon 1885-? 34. Errol L Campbell 1902-1986 & Mary Lou Frame 1909-1985	CAPET, King of France Hugh (I2110)
2582	https://www.genealogy.com/forum/regional/countries/topics/canada/97911/ Seeking information for Robert Field b. 1832 England Came to Victoria British Columbia about 1885 from Oregon.Children that came with him are Effie, Thomas, and Henry. Children married in British Columbia then came back to USA about 1910.Henry married Anna Tait one Child known is Gordon.Thomas married Emily Brownone Child Chester. Hope to find more on these names. Don't know uch about when they Came or why? Did Robert married again? Thank You Shaun Carson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Robert Field fFamily British Columbia Canada By Carolyn La Porte June 11, 2012 at 12:22:47 In reply to: Robert Field fFamily British Columbia Canada Shaun Carson 6/11/12 Hi Shaun, 1891 VICTORIA CITY JOHNSON STREET WARD, B.C. CANADA FIELD Robert, age 59, widower,teamster, born England both parents born England E. Florence, age 17, daughter, born US father born England mother born US Henry, age 12, son, born US father born England mother born US ******************** 1880 SOUTH SALEM, MARION, OREGON FIELD Robert, age 49, laborer, born England both parents born England N.E., age 37, wife, born OH father born OH mother born IN E.F., age 12,born IA father born England mother born OH A.M. age 9,born IA father born England mother born OH T.J., age 9,born IA father born England mother born OH E.F., age 6,born IA father born England mother born OH Ida M.,age 4,born IA father born England mother born OH Henry, age 1,born OR father born England mother born OH ******************* 1860 DES MOINES, JASPER, IA - MONROE POST OFFICE FIELD Henry, age 70, farmer, born England Robert, age 28, farmer, born England IOWA STATE CENSUS 1856 - DES MOINES, JASPER, IA FIELD Henry, age 65, farmer, born England Robert, age 24, laborer, born England Fanny, age 22, born England ********** so far have not found him in 1870 which is too bad as it should give wife and eldest children's names. 1911 VICTORIA, B.C. 943 MacEs Street FIELD Henry, age 32,manager, transfer Co. born March 1879 USA immigrated 1883 Annie, age 30, wife, born July 1880 Quebec Gordon Henry, age 9, son, born March 1902 B.C. I tried to find Henry in 1901 but have not yet, nor his father but here is Annie 1901 VICTORIA, B.C. TAIT Annie M., age 20, head, housekeeper, born July 12, 1880 Quebec McAllie, age 19, sister, domestic, born Sept. 17, 1881 Manitoba Mary J., age 17, sister, born July9, 1883 Manitoba Normanda, age 14, sister, born June 14, 1886 Manitoba Beatrice M., age 8, sister, born Oct. 19, 1892 B.C. so I guess Annie was looking after her sisters. Have not found them in 1891 1881 WINNIPEG, SELKIRK, MANITOBA TAIT Thomas,a ge 28, farmer, married, born Quebec Jeanette, age 21, married, born Quebec Jessie, age 1, born Quebec James, age 30, farmer, married, born Quebec Normanda, age 23, married, born Ontario Annie, age 8/12, born Quebec *************** British Columbia, Canada, Death Index, 1872-1990 about Normanda Tait Name: Normanda Tait Gender: Female Birth Year: abt 1858 Death Age: 39 Death Date: 16 Sep 1897 Death Location: Victoria Registration number: 1897-09-010151 BCA Number: B13078 GSU Number: 1927288 *********** Normanda Tait British Columbia Death Registrations, 1872-1986 death: 16 Sep 1897 spouse: James Tait death date: 16 Sep 1897 death place: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada name: Normanda Tait gender: Female age: 39y birthplace: Glengary, Ontario spouse: James Tait digital folder number: 4437589 british columbia archives film number: B13078 registration number: 9709610151 *********** so with her mother's death it explains Annie looking after her sisters Here is a death of her sister Normanda also Normanda Tate British Columbia Death Registrations, 1872-1986 spouse: James Tate child: Normanda Mckenzie Tate Todd death date: 04 Jan 1914 death place: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada name: Normanda Mckenzie Tate Todd gender: Female age: 26y birthplace: , Manitoba marital status: Married father: James Tate mother: Normanda Tate digital folder number: 4437647 british columbia archives film number: B13083 registration number:14-09-029408 ********************* I will post more for you as I find it. Carolyn L https://www.genealogy.com/forum/regional/countries/topics/canada/97912/ ========================================================================== https://www.genealogy.com/forum/regional/countries/topics/canada/97916/ Re:Thomas Field By Kathleen Burgar June 11, 2012 at 05:38:07 In reply to: Robert Field fFamily British Columbia Canada Shaun Carson 6/11/12 Vital Event Marriage Registration Groom Name:Thomas J Field Bride Name:Emily Brown Event Date:1895 8 28 (Yr/Mo/Day) Event Place:Victoria Reg. Number:1895-09-007671 B.C. Archives Microfilm Number:B11368 GSU Microfilm Number: 1983525 1901 Census of Canada Page Information District: BC VANCOUVER ISLAND (#3) Subdistrict: Nanaimo (City/Cité) Middle Ward E-2 Page 9 Images are from National Archives Web Site Details: Schedule 1 Microfilm T-6429 Field Thomas J. MHead M Apr 6 1871 30 b USimmigrated 1881, brewery teamster Field Emily FWife M Aug 15 1879 21 b BC ******** California Passenger and Crew Lists, 1882-1957 about Chester Field Name: Chester Field Arrival Date: 1 Apr 1904 Age: 3 Birth Date: abt 1901 Gender: Male Ship Name: Umatilla Port of Arrival: San Francisco, California Port of Departure: Victoria, British Columbia Archive information (series:roll number): m1412:1 father Thomas, mother Emily all born USA Thomas a butcher a possilbe for Chester, no birth in BC Vital Event Death Registration Name:Chester Thomas Field Event Date:1976 2 2 (Yr/Mo/Day) Age:75 Gender:male Event Place:Vancouver Reg. Number:1976-09-002543 B.C. Archives Microfilm Number:B13349 GSU Microfilm Number: 2050531	FIELD, Robert (I11285)
2583	https://www.linkedin.com/in/imogen-thomas-b58a1154/ Senior Live Booking Agent at Avalon Promotions Ltd London, Greater London, United Kingdom She has a public tree on Ancestry that includes my family, found on a search of Edith Catherine Hill. https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/tree/59763187/family?cfpid=44048904156&fpid=44050759787&usePUBJs=true Imogen THOMAS and Susan Dara YOUNG are 3rd cousins 1 time removed. Their common ancestors are Tristram HILL and Maria HARRIS.	THOMAS, Imogen (I13362)
2584	Hugh C. Penfold, "Sussex Pedigrees", a MS in Reference Library, Brighton, England, IV: fol. 27. Cites Harleian MSS 1076 and 6164. Visit. of Sussex, 1530, p. 195. Visit of Kent. 1619, Harl. Soc. 53, citing Harl. MS 1432, fol. 245. in the British Chancery Records, 1386-1558 Name: John Arderne Place: Northampton Date: 1431-1443, 1467-1473 Volume: 1 Page: 80 Bundle: 10 Name: John Arderne Date: 1452-1454, 1494-1501 Volume: 1 Page: 221 Bundle: 22 Name: John Arderne Place: Ches Date: 1486-1493 Volume: 3 Page: 32 Bundle: 83 Name: Rauff Arderne Place: Ches Date: 1486-1493 Volume: 3 Page: 32 Bundle: 83 Name: Thomas Arderne Place: Ches Date: 1486-1493 Volume: 3 Page: 32 Bundle: 83 Name: Richard Arderne Place: Surrey Date: 1502-1503 Volume: 4 Page: 85 Bundle: 264 Name: Richard Arderne Place: Surrey Date: 1504-1515 Volume: 4 Page: 419 Bundle: 366 ___________________________________________________________________________ [Source: Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, Chancery, preserved in the public Record Office by Great Britain. Public Record Office. p 39] Richard Arderne of Sussex holds, and has held for 10 years before Michaelmas last, of the king the alien priory of Ellingham with all rights and appurtenances in Hampshire for a term of years by rent of 9 marks yearly, it being worth 10 marks net yearly in addition. [C 145/305, no. 15] [Source: Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, Chancery, preserved in the public Record Office by Great Britain. Public Record Office.] Richard Arderne of Sussex holds, and has held for 10 years before Michaelmas last, of the king the alien priory of Ellingham with all rights and appurtenances in Hampshire for a term of years by rent of 9 marks yearly, it being worth 12 marks net yearly in addition. He made sale and waste of the priory buildings by allowing a grange worth 100s....worth 100s.......worth 50s to stand unroofed so that the timber decayed [12 Henry VI, 1434] p36, Entry No. 61. _____________________________________________________________________________ [Source: Surrey Archaeological Collections, Relating to the History and... Vol. 11, Some account of Leigh Place, Surrey, and of its Owners. pp. 143-149] The next family in possession of Leigh Place, so far as can be traced, was that of Arderne, in the 15th century, but it does not appear in what manner they acquired it. This family had been connected with the county long previously to this date Thomas Arderne, of Horndon-on-the-Hill in Essex, and Thomas, his son, gave the Church of St. George, in Southwark, and certain tithes in Horndon to the priory of Bermondsey in 1122. (3) About 1286, William de Arderne was rector of Merros; (4) in 12th Edward II, 1319, John de Arderne and Agnes, his wife, made a grant of lands in Basselagh, a member of the manor of Byfleet; (5) in 1324, John de Arderne was instituted vicar of Dorking; (6) and in 10th Edward III, 1336, Roger Arderne was M.P for the borough of Southwark. (7) In the patent roll, 21st Edward III, (8) 1347, there is a grant to Reginald de Cobham, of all the lands in tenements of Sir Thomas de Arderne, Knight, which had escheated to the Crown by reason of the rape of Margery, formerly wife of Nicholas de la Beche, and the murder of Nicholas de Poynings, and other felonies of which the said Thomas was convicted. It is said, in Sir William Burrell's Sussex Collections (1) that Arderne pacified the widow by marrying her, and that his lands were restored; the murder seems to have been forgotten. There is a tradition that the crimes were committed in Leigh, and that the Lady died of a broken heart; and it is said that the white Lady still haunts the house, but it is very doubtful whether an Arderne held Leigh Place at such an early date The first of the Ardernes who is recorded to have held land in Leigh was John Arderne, probably one of the family of that name seated at Cudworth in Warwickshire. There is no evidence to connect the Ardernes of Leigh with the Warwickshire family, except the statement bove, but the similarity in the arms born by the two families makes it probable tht they were related. (2) John Arderne was buried in the chancel of Leigh Church and had two wives, Margaret and Elizabeth, both of whom died in his lifetime, and six children - Thomas, John, Henry, Anna, Bregitta or Bridget, and Susanna. On a small slab in the middle of the chancel of Leigh Church is a brass, nine inches in length, of Susanna, one of his daughters, with the following inscription: Hic iacet Susanna filia Johis Arderne Armig'i & Elizabeth ur'is Sue Tui aie ppicietur deus. Amen And on a label over the head of the figure - Mercy Ihu & graunt m'cy John Arderne was high sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in 132, 11th Henry VI. He made his Will on the 1st February, 1446, in which he describes himself as "armiger" and after bequeathing his soul to God, his Saviour and Creator, to the blessed Mary His Mother, to St. Michael the Archangel, and all the holy angels, and to St. Kaherine and all the holy virgins, desired, if he should die in or near London, that he should be buried in the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Carmelite Brothers, in London, or Westminster, or near London, under the marble slab where his late wife Margaret lay buried, but, if he should die at Leygh or near that parish, that he should be buried in the chancel of the church of Leygh, under the marble slb where his late wife Elizabeth lay buried. He bequeathed, for the relief of the poor on the day of his burial, 20s, and appointed as executors John Somerset, William Fallan, John Elmerugge and Robert Thorp, and desired that they should carry out his last wishes contained in a schedule under his seal; and further, that john Arderne, his son and heir, and William Selman, shoud counsel and assist his executors in carrying out his Will. He appointed John Stafford, Archbishop of Canterbury, supervisor, and gave all the residue of his goods, etc after payment of his legacies and debts, to his said son and heir John Arderne and his daughter Bridget, to be disposed according to the discretion of his executors towards their marriages. The Will was proved at lambeth on the 12th May, 1449, by William Fallan, John Elmerugge, and Robert Thorp. (1) John Arderne appears to have died at Leigh; he was buried in the chancel of Leigh Church. On a slab on the northern side of the communion table are two whole length brasses, measuring three feet four inches in length, of John Arderne and Elizabeth his wife, the male figure being habited as a merchant, and the female wearing a horned headdress and a long cloak, on which is a talbot dog. There are smaller figures below them of their six children. The inscription is as follows: Thomas, Johnes Henricus, filii Johni Arderne Armigi' & Eliabeth ux'is sue. Anna, Birgitta & Susanna, filie Johis Arderne, Armig'i & Elizabeth ux'is sue There is no date to the inscription. On a sheild in the corner of the stone above the woman's effigy, is the coat of Arderne, arg., a fess chequy or and az. between three crescents gu, and on a shield below the same coat, impaling 1st and th,...2nd and 3rd, paly of six As two only of the children of John Arderne, John and Bridget, are mentioned in his Will, it is probablyl that the others died in his lifetime. John, his second son who became his heir, succeeded to his estate in Leigh In 1453, Flauncheford in Reigate, with certain other lands, was conveyed by feoffment to John Ardern, of the county of Warwick, nd Alice his wife, John Gaynesford, Esquire, John Elmerugge, of Albury in Merstham, and John Skynner, in trust for the said John and Alice, for their lives, and the heirs of John Arderne forever. The letter of attorney for delivering seisin was dated the 12th February, 32nd Henry VI, 1453-4, and on the 20th of the same month and on the 18th October following, Thomas Hornyngescerthe of London released all his right etc in the same lands to the said John Arderne and Alice his wife the last-mentioned John Arderne is said to have been seised of the manors of Purching, Adberton, (1) La Wick, Hangleton, Fulking, Nutknolle, Bolney, Alburne, Woodmancourt, and Hurst in Sussex, and probably was the same person who had a grant from the crown, temp Henry VI, of the manor of Tooting Bec for ten years, and who was lord of the manor of Imworth in Thames Ditton. (2) John Arderne married Alice Grene, and had three children by her, Richard, his heir, Walter, parson of the Church of Cheyham (Cheam) in Surrey, and Elizabeth. I cannot find the date of his death and cannot trace his Will. He is said to have been esquire of the body to King Henry VII, but this seems to be an error, as he must have died before that king's accession. His widow, Alice, afterwards married John Holgrave, appointed Baron of the exchequer in 1484 (1), by whom she had four children, Thomas, John, Kateryne, who married... Colyns, and Elizabeth. Holgrave died in 1487, and his widow survived him a very short time. (2) Leigh Place descended to the eldest son of the second John Arderne, Richard, who made his Will at Boseham, nar Chichester in Sussex, on the 18th November 1499, and there calls himself Richard Ardyn. After bequeathing his soul to Almighty God and our lady of St. Mary, and all the holy company of heaven, he directed his body to be buried in the chancel before the image of St. Kateryn in the parish church of "the Lee" and gave to the said pairsh church 40s and to the rood of rest for a "cote" 13s 4d. He also gave to his brother Thomas Holgrave a gilt cup, and to his brother John Holgrave his chain of gold, and appointed Johen his wife his sole executrix, and gave to her all his goods and chattels, moveable and unmoveable, wheresoever they might be He further willed that John of Lee, (3) of Addynton, Richard Culpex of Ardyng Lee, and John Chaloner, his feoffes, should suffer Johen, his wife, peaceably to enjoy and occupy all his lands without impeachment of waste during her lie, and that they should see that his said wife found an honest priet, to pray for him and all his friends and all christian souls, during her life. After her death he gave all his lands unto John Holgrave, his brother, and to his heirs wheresoever they were, and directed his feoffees to see that the said John Holgrave and his heirs found an honest priest for evermore, and to give him GB6:13s.d. by the year to pray for him, for Johen his wife, his father and mother and other friends, and all christian souls. He further gave to Walter Dabernon his house at Craley (Crawley) for evermore, and to richard Stylar, after the death of his wife, all his houses and lands in the parish of rowsper; the said Richard, his heirs and assigns, to make an obit once a year to the value of 6s 8d for him and Johen his wife and all christian souls, the said obit to be continued for evermore. Richard Arderne died on the 22nd November 1499, and his Will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on the 2nd February, 1499-1500 (1) Thomas Grene, vicar of Boseham, was one of the witnesses. Richard Arderne was buried on the south side of the chancel of Leigh church, where are indents for a man and woman the brasses themselves hving been lost for many years), with supplicatory labels issuing from the mouths of the figures with the following inscriptions: (Man) ut videntes Ihum semper colletemur (Woman) ffili redemptor mudi deus miscrere nobis Underneath is the following inscription: Orate pro animabus Ricardi Ardern Gentilman et Johanne xoris eius qui quidem richrdus obiit xxij di Mensis Novembris Anno Dni llmo CCCClxxxxix Quoru animabus Propiciet' deus. Amen. There are also four shields with the arms of Arderne as above, and the same coat impaling (sable) a chevron between three stags trippant [argent] There is also a small brass on the top of the stone with a representation of the Trinity; God the Father holding the Saviour on the cross, on which the Dove is sitting. All these brasses are engraved in Drummond's Noble Families, and are shown in the annexed plate. There is no record of the foundation of the chantry mentioned in Richard Ardern's Will, and it is uncertain whether he intended it should be founded in Leigh or some other church; neither is there any record on the death of Joan Ardern, nor the succession of John Holgrave, his step-brother, to the estate. Not long after Arderne's deth, however, Leigh Place appears to have been purchased or acquired in some way by Edmund Dudley, the minister of King Henry VII. There would appear to have been some connection between the families of arderne and Dudley, for in the act 3rd Henry VIII, c. xix, for the restitution of John Dudley, mentioned below, it was provided that the act should not affect the title of Thomas Stydolphe to the reversion of a messuage in Cheapsidein London, which Margaret, then the wife of John Theccher and late wife of Richard Arderne, of the parish of Lee, in the county of Surrey, gentleman, then held for the term of her life. It is possible that Margaret was the same person as Joan, widow of Richard Arderne, mentioned above, and that a mistake was made in her christian name in the act. 3 Dugdales' Monasticon, Vol. I, p 640. 4 Manning and Bray, Vol. III, pp 60, 63 5 Ibid, p. 188. Close roll, 1st Edward III, p 2, m 67 6 Reg Stratford, 90a. 7 Manning and Bray, Vol. III, p 649 8 P 3, memb. 34. 1 No. 5680, Vol. III, p 93 2. See Drummond's Noble Families, Vol. I, p. 8. 1 Lambeth Library, Archbishop Stafford's Register, fol 172 1 In 1327, a charter of free warren was granted to Robert de Arderne as to his manor of Edbarton (Tower Records, I Edward III, No 45), of which, with Perching, he died seised in 1331. (Dugdale's Warwickshire, p 297) 2 Manning and Bray, Vol. I, p 455* 1 Foss's Lives of the Judges, Vol. V, p. 54 2 Wills of John Holgrave, dated 6th August, 1486, Prerogative Register, Milles, fol. 4; of Alice Holgrave, dated 17th September, 1487, register Milles, fol 4; and of Walter Arderne, parson of Cheyham, dated 13th September, 1492, Dogett, fol. 9 3 Blank in Will 1 Prerogative Calendar, Moone, fol. 5	ARDERNE, Richard (I13118)
2585	Hugh de Audley, 1st Earl of Gloucester, 1st Baron Audley (c. 1291 – 10 November 1347) of Stratton Audley in Oxfordshire, and of Gratton in Staffordshire, served as Sheriff of Rutland and was the English Ambassador to France in 1341.[2][5] He was buried in Tonbridge Priory.[3][4][6] Contents 1 Origins 2 Marriage 3 Career 4 See also 5 External links 6 References 7 External links Origins He was born at Stratton Audley, the second son of Sir Hugh de Audley (c. 1267 – c. 1326) of Stratton Audley[5][3] by his wife Isolde (Iseult) le Rous (c. 1260 – 1338[5]), daughter of Sir Roger le Rous and Eleanor de Avenbury[3] and the widow of Sir Walter de Balun.[5][3] The 1st Earl had siblings including John de Audley (born c.1293) and Alice de Audley (born c.1304) who married firstly Ralph de Greystoke, 1st Baron Greystoke and later Ralph Neville, 2nd Baron Neville de Raby.[3] Marriage He married Margaret de Clare, widow of Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall, who was the favourite (and possibly lover) of King Edward II of England.[3][4] As Margaret was a sister of Gilbert de Clare, 8th Earl of Gloucester, who was killed at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, she brought the Gloucester estates to her husband.[7] By Margaret he had a daughter, Margaret de Audley (born c. 1318 in Stafford), who was abducted as his wife by Ralph Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford.[3][4] Career Following his marriage he was created Earl of Gloucester by King Edward III. He served as Sheriff of Rutland from 1316 to 1322 and again from 1327 to 1347.[6] See also Audley-Stanley family External links Inquisition Post Mortem[8] References Page, W. (1927) Parishes: Chilton. A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 4. Ed. London, England: Victoria County History. Harrison, B.H. (2009). The Family Forest Descendants of Milesius of Spain for 84 Generations. The Family Forest National Treasure Edition. Kamuela, HI: Millicent Publishing Company, Inc. Hammond, P. W. (1998). The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords and All its Members From the Earliest Times, Volume XIV: Addenda & Corrigenda. Weis, F. L., Sheppard, W. L., & Beall, W. R. (1999). The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215: The Barons Named in the Magna Charta, 1215, and Some of Their Descendants who Settled in America During the Early Colonial Years. Genealogical Publishing Com. J. R. Maddicott, 'Audley, Hugh, earl of Gloucester (c. 1291–1347)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004. Fuller, T. (2013). The history of the worthies of England, Volume 3. Hardpress. ISBN 9781313240130. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Gloucester, Earls and Dukes of" . Encyclopædia Britannica. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 128. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem - Edward III External links de Audley family genealogy de Audley family genealogy at OurFolkGen.com Heighley Castle, Madeley Staffordshire - home of the Audley family Madeley village website with history of Audley family	DE AUDLEY, Hugh 1st Earl of Gloucester (I19728)
2586	Hugh de Stafford, 2nd Earl of Stafford, KG (c. 1342 – 16 October 1386) was an English nobleman. Early life Hugh de Stafford was born around 1342,[1] the second and youngest son of Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford and Margaret de Audley. His elder brother, Ralph, was intended to inherit the title and had been married to Maud Grosmont, daughter of Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster, and Isabel de Beaumont in 1344, with the expectation that he would expand the Stafford estates by inheriting the Lancastrian duchy. However, Ralph died early in 1347 and Hugh became heir.[2] Around 1358, Hugh became the 3rd Lord Audley. Hugh joined his father in the French campaigns in 1359, being part of the retinue of Edward, Prince of Wales, spending time in Gascony and northern Spain. Political career He spent many years in military service, before returning to England and being summoned to Parliament in 1371 as Lord Stafford and later as Earl Stafford. On 31 August 1372, he inherited the title of 2nd Earl of Stafford. He was a member of a number of royal commissions, such as ones on Scottish affairs and on coastal defence. He was on the committee of nobles who conferred regularly with the Commons, being deemed suitable by that House to be part of the new 'continual council' of state. He did not always make the best decisions though and was admonished by his peers for censuring John Philipot, the London MP and merchant who had mobilised a fleet to defend merchant shipping.[2] Marriage and children On or before 1 March 1350, Hugh de Stafford married Philippa de Beauchamp daughter of Thomas de Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick and Katherine Mortimer. They had at least eight children.[3][4] Sir Ralph Stafford (c. 1367 – 1385). Ralph was killed by King Richard II's half-brother, John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter in a feud during an expedition against the Scots in July 1385, over a retainer's death by one of Ralph's archers.[2] Margaret de Stafford, (c. 1364 – 9 June 1396). Married Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland as his first wife. Thomas de Stafford, 3rd Earl of Stafford (c. 1368 – 4 July 1392). Inherited at age of 18. Married Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester and Eleanor de Bohun. No issue, the marriage was reportedly never consummated. William Stafford, 4th Earl of Stafford (21 September 1375 – 6 April 1395). Inherited from his brother at the age of 14. He was a ward of the Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester. He died at 19, no issue. Katherine de Stafford (c. 1376 – 8 April 1419). Married Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl of Suffolk. Edmund Stafford, 5th Earl of Stafford (2 March 1377 – 22 July 1403). Inherited the earldom from his brother at the age of 17. He married Anne of Gloucester, the widow of his elder brother Thomas. Edmund and Anne were the parents of Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Joan de Stafford (1378 – 1 October 1442), married Thomas Holland, 1st Duke of Surrey. No issue. Hugh Stafford, 1st Baron Stafford (c. 1382 - 25 October 1420). Married Elizabeth Bourchier, 4th Baroness Bourchier and thus 4th Baron Bourchier jure uxoris, later created 1st Baron Stafford (1411 creation), Knight of the Garter. No issue. Later life and death Hugh's wife Phillippa died on 6 April 1386, and it was probably this combined with the death of his son that pushed him to undertake a series of pilgrimages. He went first to Walsingham and then sailed for Jerusalem. He only got to Rhodes, where he died in the hospital the knights of St John in October of that year. His bones were returned to Stone Priory, Staffs, for burial next to his wife. Ancestry Ancestors of Hugh Stafford, 2nd Earl of Stafford References "Hugh Stafford". oxforddnb.com. Retrieved 27 July 2017. Ralph Stafford, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "Stafford, Ralph de" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. "Stafford, Earl of". cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Retrieved 25 January 2019. External links Stafford' s Inquisition post mortem, 1386. Sources Richard Glanville-Brown, correspondence, Richard Glanville-Brown (RR 2, Milton, Ontario, Canada), August 17, 2005. G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant. new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910–1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume XII/2, page 547. Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage. 106th edition, 2 vols., Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Stafford,_2nd_Earl_of_Stafford	STAFFORD, Hugh 2nd Earl of Stafford (I15205)
2587	Hugh IX the Brown of Lusignan (1163 or 1168 – 5 November 1219)[1] was the grandson of Hugh VIII. His father, also Hugh (b. c. 1141), was the co-seigneur of Lusignan from 1164, marrying a woman named Orengarde before 1162 or about 1167 and dying in 1169. Hugh IX became seigneur of Lusignan in 1172, seigneur of Couhe and Chateau-Larcher in the 1190s, and Count of La Marche (as Hugh IV) by marriage in 1203. Hugh IX died on the Fifth Crusade at Damietta on 5 November 1219. Hugh IX is mentioned under the pseudonym Maracdes ("Emerald") in two poems by the troubadour Gaucelm Faidit, according to the Occitan razós to these poems. Marriage and issue His first wife was Agathe de Preuilly, daughter of Peter (Pierre) II de Preuilly and Aenor de Mauleon. Their marriage was annulled in 1189. His second wife, married c. 1189, was Mathilde of Angoulême (1181 – 1233), daughter of Wulgrim III, Count of Angoulême and Count of La Marche (brother of count Aymer/Adhemar Taillifer). He had two known children: 1. Hugh X of Lusignan. Although traditionally given as son of Matilde, he married Isabella of Angoulême, her first cousin. Since such a marriage would have been within prohibited degrees, it has been deduced that he may have been the son of Agathe. 2. Agathe of Lusignan, married c. 1220 Geoffroi V Seigneur de Pons. Fictional portrayals Hugh was portrayed by actor James Cossins in the 1978 BBC TV drama series The Devil's Crown.	LUSGINAN, Hugh IX de (I10654)
2588	Hugh of Cyfeiliog, 5th Earl of Chester From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester) Jump to navigationJump to search Hugh of Cyfeiliog Arms of Hugh of Cyfeiliog, 5th Earl of Chester.svg The coat of arms of Hugh of Cyfeiliog, 5th Earl of Chester Born 1147 possibly Cyfeiliog (a region in the county of Montgomeryshire, Powys) Died 30 June 1181 Leek, Staffordshire Resting place Chester Cathedral Title Earl of Chester Term 1153–1181 Predecessor Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester Successor Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester Spouse(s) Bertrade of Évreux Children Ranulf III of Chester Maud of Chester Mabel of Chester Agnes of Chester Hawise of Chester Parent(s) Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester Maud of Gloucester Hugh of Cyfeiliog, 5th Earl of Chester (1147 – 1181), also written Hugh de Kevilioc, was an Anglo-Norman magnate who was active in England, Wales, Ireland and France during the reign of King Henry II of England.[1] Contents 1 Origins 2 Career 3 Benefactions 4 Family 5 References Origins Born in 1147, he was the son of Ranulf II, 4th Earl of Chester, and his wife Maud, daughter of Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester, who was an illegitimate son of King Henry I of England. A later tradition claims he was born in the Cyfeiliog district of Wales.[1] Career On his father's death in 1153, he became heir to extensive estates. In France, these included the hereditary viscountcies of Avranches, Bessin, and Val de Vire, as well as the honours of St Sever and Briquessart. In England and Wales, there was the earldom of Chester with its associated honours. Together, they made him one of the most important Anglo-Norman landholders when he was declared of age in 1162 and took possession. He quickly took his place among King Henry II's magnates, being present at Dover in 1163 for the renewal of the Anglo-Flemish alliance and in 1164 at the Council of Clarendon.[1] In 1173, however, he joined the revolt of the king's sons and led the rebels in Brittany. After sending an army of Brabantines, who forced the rebels to retreat into the castle of Dol, in August 1174 Henry arrived in person to lead the siege. Hugh and his companions, with no food left, surrendered after being promised no executions or mutilations. Held prisoner in various castles, he made his peace with Henry and was one of the witnesses of the Treaty of Falaise in October 1174 that ended hostilities.[1] At the Council of Northampton in January 1177 his lands were restored, but not his castles, and in March he was a witness to Henry's arbitration between the kings of Castile and Navarre. Then in May, at the Council of Windsor, Henry restored his castles and ordered him to Ireland. There is no record of him gaining any military successes or grants of land there.[1] He died on 30 June 1181 at Leek in Staffordshire and was buried beside his father on the south side of the chapter house of St Werburgh's Abbey in Chester, now Chester Cathedral. His successor was his only legitimate son.[1] Chapter house of Chester Cathedral Benefactions During his life he made grants to St Werburgh's Abbey at Chester, to Stanlow Abbey, to St Mary's Priory at Coventry, to Bullington Priory, to Greenfield Priory, to Trentham Priory, and to Bordesley Abbey. He also confirmed grants of his parents to Calke Abbey, to St Mary-on-the-Hill, Chester, and to the Abbey of Saint-Étienne, Caen, in Normandy.[1] Family In 1169 he married Bertrade, daughter of Simon III de Montfort, Count of Évreux, who in turn was the son of Amaury III of Montfort.[1] Their children were: Ranulf III, who became 6th Earl of Chester but died childless in 1232, when his four legitimate sisters became his heirs.[1] Maud, who married David of Scotland, 8th Earl of Huntingdon.[1] Mabel, who married William d'Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel.[1] Agnes, who married William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby.[1] Hawise, who married Robert II de Quincy.[1] Known illegitimate children were: Pagan; Roger; Amice, who married Ranulf Mainwaring, justice of Chester;[2] and an unknown daughter who married Richard Bacon, founder of Rocester Abbey.[1] Other illegitimate daughters have been claimed: one called Beatrix was alleged to have married a William Belward,[3][4] while another unnamed daughter was said to have married Llywelyn Fawr.[5] Peerage of England Preceded by Ranulf II, de Gernon Earl of Chester 1153 – 1181 Succeeded by Ranulf III, de Blondeville References Tout, T. F.; Keefe, Thomas K. (23 September 2004), "Hugh [Hugh of Cyfeiliog], fifth earl of Chester (1147–1181)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Subscription or UK public library membership required), retrieved 14 April 2018 Leycester, Sir Peter, Tracts written in the controversy respecting the legitimacy of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester, A.D. 1673-1679, volume 78. Mosley, Charles, ed. (2003). Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knighthood (107 ed.). Burke's Peerage & Gentry. p. 784. ISBN 0-9711966-2-1. Ormerod's History of Cheshire, Vol. 1, p. 47, Vol. 2, p. 333 Lloyd, John. E. A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest. Longmans, Green & Co. (1911) pp. 616-7 Annales Cestrienses; or, Chronicle of the Abbey of S. Werburg, at Chester, Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, 1879.	DE KEVELIOC, Hugh 5th Earl of Chester (I1818)
2589	Hugh the Great or Hugues le Grand (898 – 16 June 956) was duke of the Franks and count of Paris, son of King Robert I of France and nephew of King Odo. He was born in Paris, Île-de-France, France. His eldest son was Hugh Capet who became King of France in 987. His family is known as the Robertians. Hugh's first wife was Judith, daughter of Roger Comte du Maine & his wife Rothilde. Hugh's second wife was Eadhild, daughter of Edward the Elder, king of England, and sister of King Athelstan. At the death of Rudolph, duke of Burgundy, in 936, Hugh was in possession of nearly all the region between the Loire and the Seine, corresponding to the ancient Neustria, with the exception of the territory ceded to the Normans in 911. He took a very active part in bringing Louis IV (d'Outremer) from the Kingdom of England in 936, but in the same year Hugh married Hedwige of Saxony , a daughter of Henry the Fowler of Germany and Matilda of Ringelheim, and soon quarrelled with Louis. Hugh even paid homage to the Emperor Otto the Great, and supported him in his struggle against Louis. When Louis fell into the hands of the Normans in 945, he was handed over to Hugh, who released him in 946 only on condition that he should surrender the fortress of Laon. At the council of Ingelheim (948) Hugh was condemned, under pain of excommunication, to make reparation to Louis. It was not, however, until 950 that the powerful vassal became reconciled with his suzerain and restored Laon. But new difficulties arose, and peace was not finally concluded until 953. On the death of Louis IV, Hugh was one of the first to recognize Lothair as his successor, and, at the intervention of Queen Gerberga, was instrumental in having him crowned. In recognition of this service Hugh was invested by the new king with the duchies of Burgundy (his suzerainty over which had already been nominally recognized by Louis IV) and Aquitaine. But his expedition in 955 to take possession of Aquitaine was unsuccessful. In the same year, however, Giselbert, duke of Burgundy , acknowledged himself his vassal and betrothed his daughter to Hugh's son Otto. At Giselbert's death (8 April 956) Hugh became effective master of the duchy, but died soon afterwards, on the 16 or 17 June 956, in Dourdan. Hugh's daughter Beatrice married Frederick I, Duke of Upper Lorraine, thus making Hugh an ancestor of the Habsburg family. From their son Hugh Capet sprung forth the lineage of many kings of France and England, and descendants including King George III, Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. In the Divine Comedy Dante meets the soul of Duke Hugh in Purgatory, lamenting the avarice of his descendants. Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica(11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Information now in the public domain.]	CAPET,, Hugh the Great, (I2111)
2590	Hugh X of Lusignan, Hugh V of La Marche or Hugh I of Angoulême or Hugues X & V & I de Lusignan (c. 1183[1] or c. 1195 – c. 5 June 1249, Angoulême succeeded his father Hugh IX as Seigneur de Lusignan and Count of La Marche in November, 1219 and was Count of Angoulême by marriage. Hugh X was betrothed to 12 year-old Isabella of Angoulême when, in 1200, King John of England took her for his Queen, an action which resulted in the entire de Lusignan family rebelling against the English king. Following John's death, Isabella returned to France. By his marriage to Isabelle d'Angoulême (1188 – Fontrevault Abbey, France, 31 May 1246 and buried there) in 10 March - 22 May 1220, Hugh X also became Count of Angoulême, until her death in 1246. Together they founded the abbey of Valence. They had nine children: Hugues XI & III & II de Lusignan, Seigneur de Lusignan, Count of La Marche and Count of Angoulême (1221–1250) Aymer de Lusignan, Bishop of Winchester c. 1250 (c. 1222 – Paris, 5 December 1260 and buried there) Agnés/Agathe de Lusignan (c. 1223 – aft. 7 April 1269), married Guillaume II de Chauvigny, Seigneur de Chateauroux (1224 – Palermo , 3 January 1271) Alice le Brun de Lusignan (1224 – at childbirth 9 February 1256), married 1247 John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey Guy de Lusignan (d. 1264), Seigneur de Couhe, de Cognac et d'Archiac in 1249, killed at the Battle of Lewes. (Tufton Beamish maintains that he escaped to France after the Battle of Lewes and died there in 1269) Geoffroi de Lusignan (d. 1274), Seigneur de Jarnac, married secondly in 1259 Jeanne de Châtellerault, Viscountess of Châtellerault (d. 16 May 1315) and had issue: Eustachie de Lusignan (d. Carthage, Tunisia, 1270), married 1257 Dreux III de Mello (d. 1310) William de Valence, 1st Earl of Pembroke (d. 1296) Marguerite de Lusignan (c. 1226/1228 – 1288), married firstly 1240/1241 Raymond VII of Toulouse (1197 – 1249), married secondly c. 1246 Aimery IX de Thouars, Viscount of Thouars (d. 1256), and married thirdly Geoffrey V de Chateaubriant, Seigneur de Chateubriant Isabelle de Lusignan (1234 – 14 January 1299), Dame de Beauvoir-sur-Mer et de Mercillac, married firstly Geoffrey de Rancon, Seigneur de Taillebourg, and married secondly c. 1255 Maurice IV de Craon (1224/1239 – soon before 27 May 1250/1277) Hugh X was succeeded by his eldest son, Hugh XI of Lusignan. According to explanations in the manuscripts of Gaucelm Faidit's poems, this troubadour was a rival of Hugh X of Lusignan for the love of Marguerite d'Aubusson. He was buried at Angoulême. Source: Biographies des troubadours ed. J. Boutière, A.-H. Schutz (Paris: Nizet, 1964) pp. 180-184.	LUSGINAN, Hugh X de Comte de La Marche (I10057)
2591	HUMBERT de Savoie, son of AMEDEE III Comte de Maurienne et de Savoie & his second wife Mathilde d'Albon [Viennois] (Avigliana 4 Aug 1136-Chambéry 4 Mar 1189, bur Abbaye de Hautecombe). Robert of Torigny names "Humbertus comes Moriennæ" as "filius Amati comitis". "A. comes et marchio cum uxore sua M." donated property to the monastery of Ripalta, with the support of "eorum filio Umberto", by charter dated 9 Jan 1137. "Amedeus comes et marchio et Maies comitissa uxor eius et Umbertus eorum filius" donated property to the monastery of Saint-Maurice by charter dated 30 Mar 1143. "Amedeus comes et marchio et Majes comitissa uxor eius et Umbertus eorum filius" confirmed the rights of the monastery of Saint-Maurice d´Agaune by charter dated 30 Mar 1148. He succeeded in 1150 as HUMBERT III Comte de Maurienne et de Savoie. "Humbertus Mauriacensis comes et marchio" donated "locum de Tyneres" {Tinières} to the abbey of Hautcrêt by charter dated 1150. He established close relations with Henry II King of England, negotiating for the marriage of one of his daughters with the king's son John. He attempted to regain control over Turin and the surrounding lands, but came into conflict with Emperor Friedrich I "Barbarossa" who was also extending his power in northern Italy. Although the emperor was obliged to withdraw in 1168, he returned in 1174, burned the town of Susa in revenge for its opposition during his first Italian expedition, and deprived Comte Humbert of supremacy over the bishoprics of Turin, Belley and Tarentaise, placing them under the direct control of the empire. Comte Humbert continued to fight and, after refusing a summons to attend an imperial tribunal, was condemned in his absence to banishment from the empire and confiscation of his lands. Heinrich VI King of Germany was attempting to enforce the sentence on behalf of his father the emperor, when Comte Humbert died. "Umbertus comes de Morienna" granted privileges to the monastery of Santa Maria di Staffarda by charter dated 28 Jun 1172, witnessed by "Rodulfus Alaman, Poncius de Confluent…". The dating clause of a charter dated 20 Oct 1188, which records an agreement between the bishop of Maurienne and the canons of his cathedral, names "Humberto comite presidente". The necrology of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne records the death "IV Non Mar" in 1189 of "dognus Humbertus…comes Maur. et marchio Italie". He was beatified in 1836. m firstly (before 3 Jan 1151) FAYDIVE, daughter of --- (-[1154]). "Umbertus comes, Amedei comitis filius…cum uxore sua…Faidiva" donated property by charter dated 3 Jan 1151. The origins of Faydive are not known. However, her unusual name suggests that she was Faydive de Toulouse, daughter of Alphonse I Jourdain Comte de Toulouse & his wife Faydive [Faydide] d'Uzès (-[1154]). However, she was not the only noble recorded with this name in south-western during the early 12th century so the co-identity is not without doubt. m secondly ([1155], divorced before 1162) as her first husband, GERTRUDE de Flandre, daughter of THIERRY I Count of Flanders & his second wife Sibylle d'Anjou (-3 Mar after 1186). The Genealogica Comitum Flandriæ Bertiniana names (in order) "Philippum, Matheum, Petrum et tres filias" as the children of "Theodericus filius ducis Alsatie [et] Sibillam", not naming the daughters but specifying that "quarum primogenita nupsit Amico comiti Intermontano". The Flandria Generosa names (in order) "Gertrudem et Margaretam" as the two daughters of Count Thierry & his second wife. The Flandria Generosa, in a later manuscript, names "Gertrudis primogenita" and her first husband "comiti de Moriana", from whom she was separated, and her second husband "Hugoni de Oisi", specifying that she later became a nun at "Mencinis". She married secondly (after 1158) as his first wife, Hugues [III] d'Oisy Châtelain de Cambrai, and became a nun at Messines in [1177]. Philippe Count of Flanders, on the point of leaving on crusade, declared that "sororis mee Gertrudis quondam Morianensis comitisse" had renounced her inheritance before becoming a nun, by charter dated [24 Apr/12 Jun] 1177. m thirdly (1164) as her second husband, KLEMENTIA von Zähringen, divorced wife of HEINRICH “der Löwe” Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, daughter of KONRAD Herzog von Zähringen & his wife Clémence de Namur (-[1173/75]). The Chronicon Sancti Michaelis Luneburgensis names "filiam ducis Zaringie, Clementiam" as wife of "Heinricus dux". The Chronicon Hanoniense refers to "filiam [uxorem]…dux Saxonum Henricus" as the daughter of "ducissam…Ciringiorum [filiam Godefridi comitis Namurcensi]". Heiress of Badenweiler, although her first husband sold these Swabian estates to Friedrich I "Barbarossa" King of Germany in 1158, receiving in exchange Herzberg, Scharzfels and Pöhlde south of the Harz. Her first marriage was arranged to confirm her father's alliance with the Welf party in southern Germany. The Annales Palidenses record the repudiation by "Heinricus dux" of his first wife "Bertoldi ducis Zaringe sorore". Her first husband repudiated Klementia because of the growing difficulties between her brother Duke Berthold IV and Emperor Friedrich I "Barbarossa", with whom Duke Heinrich was by then in close alliance. The primary source which confirms her second marriage has not yet been identified. m fourthly ([1175]) BEATRIX de Vienne, daughter of GERARD Comte de Mâcon et de Vienne [Bourgogne-Comté] & his wife Guyonne de Salins (-8 Apr 1230). The Chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines refers to one of the unnamed sisters of "comitem Guilelmum Matisconensem sive Viennensem et Galterum de Salins et quemdam Gerardum et Stephanum Bisuntinensem electum" as mother of "comes Thomas de Sabaudia". "Thomas…Mauriannensis comes et marchio Italiæ" confirmed the donations made by "pater meus…[et] domini comitis Humberti…abavi mei" to the canons of Saint-Jean de Maurienne, with the advice of "B. matris mee et…tutore meo Bonifacio marchione Montisferrati", by charter dated 12 Jun 1189. The necrology of Hautecombe records the death of "Beatrix comitissa" 8 Apr 1230. Comte Humbert III & his third wife had two children: 1. ALIX de Maurienne (1166-1174). Her parentage is specified by Matthew of Paris when he records this betrothal. Although he does not name her, he calls her "filia primogenita". Benedict of Peterborough records the betrothal of "Humbertus comes de Mauriana…Aalis filiam suam majoram" and "rex…Johannis filii sui iunioris" at "Alvernium…Montem Ferratum" in 1173 before 2 Feb, and the agreement whereby John would inherit the county of Maurienne if Humbert had no sons by his wife. The marriage contract between "Johanni filio Henrici…regis Angliæ" and "Humbertus comes Mauriensis et marchio Italiæ…filia…primogenita…Aalis" is dated 1173. Betrothed (Auvergne 1173 before 2 Feb) to JOHN Prince of England, son of HENRY II King of England & his wife Eléonore Ctss d’Aquitaine (Beaumont Palace, Oxford 24 Dec 166 or 1167-Newark Castle, Lincolnshire 18/19 Oct 1216, bur Worcester Cathedral). He succeeded his brother King Richard I in 1199 as JOHN King of England. 2. SOPHIE [Eléonore] de Maurienne ([1167/72]-3 Dec 1202). An epitaph records the death of (her daughter) "Virgo Beatrix" daughter of "Estensis…Azo" and his "coniuge patre…Sabaudia cui comitatus". The primary source which confirms her name has not yet been identified. m (before 1192) as his second wife, AZZO VI "Azzolino" d'Este, son of AZZO V d'Este & his wife --- ([1170]-Nov 1212, bur Vangadizza monastery). Podestà of Ferrara 1196, of Padua 1199, of Verona 1206/07 and of Mantua 1207/08. Created Marchese di Ancona e Conte di Loreto in 1210. Comte Humbert III & his fourth wife had two children: 3. THOMAS de Maurienne (Château de Carbonara 1178 after 26 Jun-Moncalieri 1 Mar 1233, bur Saint-Michel de la Cluse). An undated charter records a donation to Saint-Maurice by "felicis memorie Humbertus…Savoie comes" and the confirmation by "Thomas filius eiusdem comitis". He succeeded his father in 1189 as THOMAS I Comte de Maurienne et de Savoie. 4. daughter (-aged 7 years). The primary source which confirms her parentage has not yet been identified.	SAVOIE, Humbert III de Comte de Maurienne et de Savoie (I10671)
2592	Humphrey (VII) de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford (1276 – 16 March 1322) was a member of a powerful Anglo-Norman family of the Welsh Marches and was one of the Ordainers who opposed Edward II's excesses. Contents [hide] 1 Family background 2 Scotland 3 Battle of Bannockburn 4 Ordainer 5 Death at Boroughbridge 6 Marriage and children 7 Notes 8 References 9 Further reading 9.1 Secondary sources 9.2 Primary sources 10 External links Family background[edit] Arms of Bohun: Azure, a bend argent cotised or between six lions rampant or Counter seal of Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford, showing the so-called "Bohun swan" above the escutcheon Humphrey de Bohun's birth year is uncertain although several contemporary sources indicate that it was 1276. His father was Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford and his mother was Maud de Fiennes, daughter of Enguerrand II de Fiennes, chevalier, seigneur of Fiennes. He was born at Pleshey Castle, Essex. Humphrey (VII) de Bohun succeeded his father as Earl of Hereford and Earl of Essex, and Constable of England (later called Lord High Constable). Humphrey held the title of Bearer of the Swan Badge, a heraldic device passed down in the Bohun family. This device did not appear on their coat of arms, (az, a bend ar cotised or, between 6 lioncels or) nor their crest (gu, doubled erm, a lion gardant crowned), but it does appear on Humphrey's personal seal (illustration). Scotland[edit] Humphrey was one of several earls and barons under Edward I who laid siege to Caerlaverock Castle in Scotland in 1300 and later took part in many campaigns in Scotland. He also loved tourneying and gained a reputation as an "elegant" fop. In one of the campaigns in Scotland Humphrey evidently grew bored and departed for England to take part in a tournament along with Piers Gaveston and other young barons and knights. On return all of them fell under Edward I's wrath for desertion, but were forgiven. It is probable that Gaveston's friend, Edward (the future Edward II) had given them permission to depart. Later Humphrey became one of Gaveston's and Edward II's bitterest opponents. He would also have been associating with young Robert Bruce during the early campaigns in Scotland, since Bruce, like many other Scots and Border men, moved back and forth from English allegiance to Scottish. Robert Bruce, King Robert I of Scotland, is closely connected to the Bohuns. Between the time that he swore his last fealty to Edward I in 1302 and his defection four years later, Bruce stayed for the most part in Annandale, rebuilding his castle of Lochmaben in stone, making use of its natural moat. Rebelling and taking the crown of Scotland in February 1306, Bruce was forced to fight a war against England which went poorly for him at first, while Edward I still lived. After nearly all his family were killed or captured he had to flee to the isle of Rathlin, Ireland. His properties in England and Scotland were confiscated. Humphrey de Bohun received many of Robert Bruce's forfeited properties. It is unknown whether Humphrey was a long-time friend or enemy of Robert Bruce, but they were nearly the same age and the lands of the two families in Essex and Middlesex lay very close to each other. After Bruce's self-exile, Humphrey took Lochmaben, and Edward I awarded him Annandale and the castle. During this period of chaos, when Bruce's queen, Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the Earl of Ulster, was captured by Edward I and taken prisoner, Hereford and his wife Elizabeth became her custodians. She was exchanged for Humphrey after Bannockburn in 1314. Lochmaben was from time to time retaken by the Scots but remained in the Bohun family for many years, in the hands of Humphrey's son William, Earl of Northampton, who held and defended it until his death in 1360. Some Bohuns remained in Scotland, where they became known as the Bounds. Battle of Bannockburn[edit] At the Battle of Bannockburn (23–24 June 1314), Humphrey de Bohun should have been given command of the army because that was his responsibility as Constable of England. However, since the execution of Piers Gaveston in 1312 Humphrey had been out of favour with Edward II, who gave the Constableship for the 1314 campaign to the youthful and inexperienced Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare. Nevertheless, on the first day, de Bohun insisted on being one of the first to lead the cavalry charge. In the melee and cavalry rout between the Bannock Burn and the Scots' camp he was not injured although his rash young cousin Henry de Bohun, who could have been no older than about 22, charged alone at Robert Bruce and was killed by Bruce's axe. On the second day Gloucester was killed at the start of battle. Hereford fought throughout the day, leading a large company of Welsh and English knights and archers. The archers might have had success at breaking up the Scots schiltrons until they were overrun by the Scots cavalry. When the battle was lost Bohun retreated with the Earl of Angus and several other barons, knights and men to Bothwell Castle, seeking a safe haven. However, all the refugees who entered the castle were taken prisoner by its formerly pro-English governor Walter fitz Gilbert who, like many Lowland knights, declared for Bruce as soon as word came of the Scottish King's victory. Humphrey de Bohun was ransomed by Edward II, his brother-in-law, on the pleading of his wife Isabella. This was one of the most interesting ransoms in English history. The Earl was traded for Bruce's queen, Elizabeth de Burgh and daughter, Marjorie Bruce, two bishops amongst other important Scots captives in England. Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan, who had crowned Robert Bruce in 1306 and for years had been locked in a cage outside Berwick, was not included; presumably she had died in captivity.[1] Ordainer[edit] Like his father, grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, this Humphrey de Bohun was careful to insist that the king obey Magna Carta and other baronially-established safeguards against monarchic tyranny. He was a leader of the reform movements that promulgated the Ordinances of 1311 and fought to insure their execution. The subsequent revival of royal authority and the growing ascendancy of the Despensers (Hugh the elder and younger) led de Bohun and other barons to rebel against the king again in 1322. De Bohun had special reason for opposing the Despensers, for he had lost some of his estates in the Welsh Marches to their rapacity and he felt they had besmirched his honour. In 1316 De Bohun had been ordered to lead the suppression of the revolt of Llywelyn Bren in Glamorgan which he did successfully. When Llewelyn surrendered to him the Earl promised to intercede for him and fought to have him pardoned. Instead Hugh the younger Despenser had Llewelyn executed without a proper trial. Hereford and the other marcher lords used Llywelyn Bren's death as a symbol of Despenser tyranny. Death at Boroughbridge[edit] Main article: Battle of Boroughbridge The rebel forces were halted by loyalist troops at the wooden bridge at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, where Humphrey de Bohun, leading an attempt to storm the bridge, met his death on 16 March 1322. Although the details have been called into question by a few historians, his death may have been particularly gory. As recounted by Ian Mortimer:[2] "[The 4th Earl of] Hereford led the fight on the bridge, but he and his men were caught in the arrow fire. Then one of de Harclay's pikemen, concealed beneath the bridge, thrust upwards between the planks and skewered the Earl of Hereford through the anus, twisting the head of the iron pike into his intestines. His dying screams turned the advance into a panic."' Humphrey de Bohun may have contributed to the failure of the reformers' aims. There is evidence that he suffered for some years, especially after his countess's death in 1316, from clinical depression.[3] Marriage and children[edit] His marriage to Elizabeth of Rhuddlan (Elizabeth Plantagenet), daughter of King Edward I of England and his first wife, Eleanor of Castile, on 14 November 1302, at Westminster gained him the lands of Berkshire. Elizabeth had an unknown number of children, probably ten, by Humphrey de Bohun. Until the earl's death the boys of the family, and possibly the girls, were given a classical education under the tutelage of a Sicilian Greek, Master "Digines" (Diogenes), who may have been Humphrey de Bohun's boyhood tutor.[citation needed] He was evidently well-educated, a book collector and scholar, interests his son Humphrey and daughter Margaret (Courtenay) inherited. Mary or Margaret (the first-born Margaret) and the first-born Humphrey were lost in infancy and are buried in the same sarcophagus in Westminster Abbey. Since fraternal twins were known in the Castilian royal family of Elizabeth Bohun, who gave birth to a pair who lived to manhood, Mary (Margaret?) and Humphrey, see next names, may have been twins, but that is uncertain. The name of a possible lost third child, if any, is unknown—and unlikely. Hugh de Bohun? This name appears only in one medieval source, which gives Bohun names (see Flores Historiarum) and was a probably a copyist's error for "Humphrey". Hugh was never used by the main branch of the Bohuns in England.[4] Date unknown, but after 1302, since she and Humphrey did not marry until late in 1302. Eleanor de Bohun (17 October 1304 – 1363),[5] married James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormonde and Thomas Dagworth, 1st Baron Dagworth. Humphrey de Bohun (birth and death dates unknown. Buried in Westminster Abbey with Mary or Margaret) Infant. Mary or Margaret de Bohun (birth and death dates unknown. Buried in Westminster Abbey with Humphrey) Infant. John de Bohun, 5th Earl of Hereford (About 1307 – 1336) Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford (About 1309 to 1311 – 1361). Margaret de Bohun (3 April 1311 – 16 December 1391), married Hugh Courtenay, 2nd Earl of Devon. Gave birth to about 16 to 18 children (including an Archbishop, a sea commander and pirate, and more than one Knight of the Garter) and died at the age of eighty. William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton (About 1310-1312 –1360). Twin of Edward. Married Elizabeth de Badlesmere, daughter of Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 1st Baron Badlesmere and Margaret de Clare, by whom he had issue. Edward de Bohun (About 1310-1312 –1334). Twin of William. Married Margaret, daughter of William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, but they had no children. He served in his ailing elder brother's stead as Constable of England. He was a close friend of young Edward III, and died a heroic death attempting to rescue a drowning man-at-arms from a Scottish river while on campaign. Eneas de Bohun, (Birth date unknown, died after 1322, when he's mentioned in his father's will). Nothing known of him. Isabel de Bohun (b. ? May 1316). Elizabeth died in childbirth, and this child died on that day or very soon after. Buried with her mother in Waltham Abbey, Essex. Notes[edit] This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Jump up ^ Ronald McNair Scott, Robert the Bruce - King of Scots, Canongate, 1988; pp. 75-76 and 164. Jump up ^ Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor, page 124. Jump up ^ See Conway-Davies, 115, footnote 2, from a contemporary chronicler's account of Humphrey de Bohun, Cotton MS. Nero C. iii, f. 181, "De ce qe vous auez entendu qe le counte de Hereford est moreis pensifs qil ne soleit." "There were some. . . [fine] qualities about the earl of Hereford, and he was certainly a bold and able warrior, though gloomy and thoughtful." Jump up ^ Le Melletier, 16-17, 38-45, 138, in his comprehensive research into this family, cites no one named Hugh Bohun. Jump up ^ See Cokayne, Complete Peerage, s.v. "Dagworth" p. 28, footnote j.: "She was younger than her sister, Margaret, Countess of Devon (Parl. Rolls. vol. iv., p. 268), not older, as stated by genealogists." References[edit] Cokayne, G. (ed. by V. Gibbs). Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (Vols II, IV, V, VI, IX: Bohun, Dagworth, Essex, Hereford, Earls of, Montague), London: 1887–1896. Conway-Davies, J. C. The Baronial Opposition to Edward II: Its Character and Policy. (Many references, esp. 42 footnote 1, 114, 115 & footnote 2, 355-367, 426–9, 435–9, 473–525) Cambridge(UK): 1918. Le Melletier, Jean, Les Seigneurs de Bohun, 1978, p. 16, 39–40. Mortimer, Ian. The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England 1327–1330 (100–9, 114, 122–6), London: 2003 Scott, Ronald McNair. Robert the Bruce: King of Scots (144–164) NY: 1989 Further reading[edit] Wikisource has the text of the 1885–1900 Dictionary of National Biography's article about Bohun, Humphrey VIII de. Secondary sources[edit] Altschul, Michael. A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares 1217–1314. (132–3, ) Baltimore:1965. Barron, Evan MacLeod. The Scottish War of Independence. (443, 455) Edinburgh, London:1914, NY:1997 (reprint). Barrow, G. W. S. Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland. (222, 290, 295–6, 343–4) Berkeley, Los Angeles:1965. Beltz, George Frederick. Memorials of the Order of the Garter. (148–150) London:1841. Bigelow, M[elville] M. "The Bohun Wills" I. American Historical Review (v.I, 1896). 415–41. Dictionary of National Biography. [Vol II: Bohun; Vol. VI: Edward I, Edward II; Vol. XI: Lancaster]. London and Westminster. Various dates. Eales, Richard and Shaun Tyas, eds., Family and Dynasty in Late Medieval England, Shaun Tyas, Donington:2003, p. 152. Fryde, E. B. and Edward Miller. Historical Studies of the English Parliament vol. 1, Origins to 1399, (10–13, 186, 285–90, 296) Cambridge (Eng.): 1970. Hamilton, J. S. Piers Gaveston Earl of Cornwall 1307-1312: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of Edward II (69, 72, 95–98, 104–5) Detroit: 1988 Hutchison, Harold F. Edward II. (64–86, 104–5, 112–3) London: 1971. Jenkins, Dafydd. "Law and Government in Wales Before the Act of Union". Celtic Law Papers (37–38) Aberystwyth:1971. McNamee, Colin. The Wars of the Bruces. (51, 62–66) East Linton (Scotland):1997. Tout, T. F. and Hilda Johnstone. The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History. (86, 105–6, 125 & footnote 3, 128–34) Manchester: 1936. Primary sources[edit] Flores historiarum. H. R. Luard, ed. (vol. iii, 121) London: 1890. Vita Edwardi Secundi. (117–119) N. Denholm-Young, Ed. and Tr.	DE BOHUN, Humphrey , 4th Earl of Hereford (I15213)
2593	Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford, 6th Earl of Essex, 2nd Earl of Northampton, KG (25 March 1341 – 16 January 1373) was the son of William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton and Elizabeth de Badlesmere, and grandson of Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford by Elizabeth of Rhuddlan, daughter of King Edward I. He became heir to the Earldom of Hereford after the death of his childless uncle Humphrey de Bohun, 6th Earl of Hereford. Following King Peter I's visit to England, Humphrey participated in the sack of Alexandria in 1365.[1] On his death, because he had no son, the estates of the Earls of Hereford should have passed to his cousin Gilbert de Bohun. Due to the power of the Crown, his great estates were divided between his two surviving daughters: Eleanor de Bohun, who married Thomas of Woodstock. Mary de Bohun, who married Henry Bolingbroke, the future King Henry IV of England . Elizabeth, died young. His wife and the mother of his daughters was Joan Fitzalan, daughter of Richard Fitzalan, 10th Earl of Arundel and Eleanor of Lancaster, whom he married after 9 September 1359. Ancestry[edit] [hide]Ancestors of Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford 16. Humphrey de Bohun 8. Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford 17. Eleanor de Braose 4. Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford 18. Enguerrand Ingelram de Fiennes 9. Maud de Fiennes 19. Isabel de Conde 2. William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton 20. Henry III of England 10. Edward I of England 21. Eleanor of Provence 5. Elizabeth of Rhuddlan 22. Ferdinand III of Castile 11. Eleanor of Castile 23. Joan, Countess of Ponthieu 1. Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford 12. Guncelin de Badlesmere 6. Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 1st Lord Badlesmere 13. Joan FitzBernard 3. Elizabeth de Badlesmere 28. Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Gloucester 14. Thomas de Clare, Lord of Thomond 29. Maud de Lacy 7. Margaret de Clare 30. Maurice FitzGerald, 3rd Lord of Offaly 15. Juliane FitzGerald of Offaly 31. Maud de Prendergast Notes[edit] Jump up ^ Anthony Goodman, The Loyal Conspiracy:The Lords Appellant under Richard II, (The University of Miami Press, 1971), 12. References[edit] Hazlitt, William Carew, and Thomas Blount. Tenures of Land & Customs of Manors. 4th. London: Ballentine and Company, 1874. ad Medieval Lands Project on Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford	DE BOHUN, Humphrey 7th Earl of Hereford (I15209)
2594	Humphrey Stafford (c. 1425 – c. 22 May 1458), generally known by his courtesy title of Earl of Stafford, was the eldest son of Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Lady Anne Neville (d. 1480).[1] Biography[edit] His maternal grandparents were Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland and Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland.[2] His maternal uncles included (among others) Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury (father of Warwick, the Kingmaker), Robert Neville who was first Bishop of Salisbury and then Bishop of Durham, William Neville, 1st Earl of Kent and Edward Nevill, 3rd Baron Bergavenny. His most prominent maternal aunt was Cecily Neville, wife of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and mother to among others Edward IV of England, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and Richard III of England.[3] Lord Stafford fought under his father-in-law in support of the House of Lancaster during the First Battle of St Albans. He appears to have been badly wounded at this battle, but either eventually died of his wounds or from the plague, predeceasing his own father in 1458.[1][3] Stafford married Lady Margaret Beaufort, daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset and Lady Eleanor Beauchamp.[1] Lady Margaret was the sister of Henry Beaufort, the 3rd Duke of Somerset (executed 15 May 1464 after Battle of Hexham) and Edmund Beaufort, the 4th Duke of Somerset (executed 6 May 1471 after the Battle of Tewkesbury. Her maternal grandparents were Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warmwick and his first wife Elizabeth Berkeley. By her father, she was a niece of Joan Beaufort, Queen of Scots and a cousin to Lady Margaret Beaufort (mother of King Henry VII). By her mother, Lady Margaret was a niece of Anne de Beauchamp, 16th Countess of Warwick and as such, a cousin to Isabel, Duchess of Clarence and queen consort Anne Neville. Lord and Lady Stafford had a single son, Henry (4 September 1455 – 2 November 1483). Henry was styled Earl of Stafford on his father's death, and succeeded his paternal grandfather as Duke of Buckingham in June 1473, following the latter's death at the Battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460. [show]Ancestors of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c Ronald H. Fritze; William Baxter Robison (2002). Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England, 1272-1485. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-313-29124-1. Jump up ^ Gregory, Philippa (2014). The King's Curse. Touchstone. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-4516-2611-7. ^ Jump up to: a b Corbet, Anthony (2015). Edward IV, England's Forgotten Warrior King. iUniverse. p. 349. ISBN 978-1-4917-4633-2. Bibliography[edit] Call, Michel L. The Royal Ancestry Bible Royal ancestors of 300 American Families. ISBN 1-933194-22-7.	STAFFORD, Humphrey Earl of Stafford (I15199)
2595	Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, 6th Earl of Stafford, KG (15 August 1402 – 10 July 1460) was an English nobleman and a military commander in both the Hundred Years' War and in the the Wars of the Roses. A great-grandson of King Edward III on his mother's side, he inherited his father's earldom of Stafford at an early age. Through his marriage to a daughter of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, Humphrey was not only related to the powerful Neville family, but many of the leading aristocratic houses of the time. Like his father, he joined the English campaign in France and fought for King Henry V; on the King's death he became a leading councillor for the new King, the six-month old Henry VI. He acted in a peace-making role in the partisan politics of the 1430s, when Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester vied with Cardinal Beaufort for political supremacy, and he was also involved in the arrest of the duke in 1445. Stafford returned to the French campaign during the 1430s, and, as a result of his loyalty and years of service, he was elevated from being earl of Stafford to Duke of Buckingham. Around the same time, his mother died. As much of his estate had been in her hands for life, Humphrey went from having a reduced income in his early years, to being one of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in England of his generation. His lands stretched across much of the country, ranging from East Anglia to the Welsh border. Being such an important figure in the localities was not without its dangers, and for some time he feuded with, and was being attacked by, Sir Thomas Malory. Buckingham remained in England for the rest of his life, serving King Henry VI. He acted as a bodyguard to the King during Jack Cade's Rebellion, and both negotiated with the rebels for the government and, when the rebellion was over, helped investigate the causes of the revolt. He acted in a similar capacity when the King's cousin, Richard, Duke of York, rebelled in 1452. As the King became ill, and sank into a coma, the country slid towards civil war. Buckingham fought for the King in the first battle of the Wars of the Roses, at St Albans, where they were both captured by the Yorkists. He spent the last few years of his life attempting to mediate between the Yorkists and the Crown, but partly due to a personal feud with one of the leading Yorkists, Richard, Earl of Warwick, eventually threw in his lot firmly behind King Henry. Buckingham was responsible for Richard, Duke of York's defeat in 1459, which drove the latter into exile; but on the rebels' return the next year, the King was attacked at Northampton. Acting as the King's personal guard, he was cut down and killed, and the King was taken prisoner again. His eldest son had predeceased him, so Humphrey's dukedom descended to his four-year-old grandson, Henry Stafford. Contents [hide] 1 Background and youth 2 Early career 2.1 Estates 2.2 Affinity and problems in the localities 3 Later career 4 Wars of the Roses 4.1 The Battle of St Albans 4.2 Last years 4.3 Death 5 Character 6 Aftermath 7 Family 8 Cultural references and portrayals 9 References 9.1 Bibliography 10 Further reading Background and youth[edit] Humphrey was born at Stafford, Staffordshire, England, the only son of Edmund Stafford, 5th Earl of Stafford, and Anne of Gloucester, daughter of Edward III's youngest son Thomas of Woodstock.[1] This gave Humphrey royal blood, and made him cousin to King Henry.[2] When Humphrey was less than a year old, his father was killed fighting for the King, Henry IV, against the rebellion of Henry Hotspur, at the Battle of Shrewsbury.[1] Humphrey thus became 6th Earl of Stafford on 21 July 1403.[3] He immediately inherited a large estate with lands in more than a dozen counties. He immediately inherited a large estate with lands in more than a dozen counties. Before his mother Anne had married Edmund, however, she had previously been married to his older brother, Thomas. As a result, she had accumulated two dowries, each comprising a third of the Stafford estates, and she continued to occupy these lands for the next twenty years.[4] Humphrey, therefore, received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. Since his mother could not, by law, be his guardian[5] Humphrey was made a royal ward on his father's death, and was placed under the control of Henry IV's queen, Joan of Navarre.[1] His minority was to be a long one, lasting the next twenty years.[6] Early career[edit] Although Stafford received a reduced inheritance, as historian Carol Rawcliffe has put it, "fortunes were still to be made in the French wars; and, like generations of Staffords before him, he assumed the profession of arms."[1] He fought with Henry V in the 1420 campaign, and was knighted by the King on 22 April the following year;[1] however the King died, still on campaign, on 31 August 1422.[7] When later asked in council if the King had made any last words regarding the government of Normandy, Stafford claimed that he was too upset at the occasion to be able to remember.[8] Stafford was a member of the entourage that returned to England with the body,[9] and was strictly still a minor himself at this time.[8] Stafford was later granted livery of his father's estate by parliament, in acknowledgement of the dead King's verbal promise, and did not impose a fee to be paid into the Exchequer for doing so, as was usual.[10] Stafford Castle, the Stafford family seat, as it remains in 2017. Following the accession of Henry VI, the Lords in parliament decided that the dead King's brothers- John, Duke of Bedford and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester- would have positions of importance in the government of England as the new King, Henry VI, was a baby on his accession. Bedford would rule as regent in France, whilst Gloucester would be chief councillor (not quite a full protector) in England. Stafford became a member of this regency royal council on its formation.[11] The first representative meeting of the council was held, with Stafford attending, in November 1422;[12] he attended assiduously for the next three years.[13] By 1424, the rivalry between Gloucester, as Protector, and the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Beaufort,[14] as the de facto head of council had become outright, frequent conflict. Although Stafford probably favoured the interests of Gloucester in the duke's struggle for supremacy over Beaufort in council[8] the young earl may also have been a moderating influence between them.[1] For example, in October 1425 Stafford, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Portuguese Duke of Coimbra, helped to negotiate an end to a burst of violence that had erupted in London between the followers of Gloucester and the Cardinal.[15] However, in 1428, when Gloucester demanded an extension of his authority, Stafford was one of the councillors who personally signed an 'outspoken statement' to the effect that Gloucester's position had been formulated six years earlier, and that, in any case the King would attain his majority in the not-too-distant future.[8] Stafford was also one of the lords who was chosen by the council to inform Beaufort (who had now been appointed a Cardinal) to absent himself from Windsor until it was decided if he could carry out his traditional duty of Prelate to the Order of the Garter now he had been promoted.[8] Stafford himself was made a knight of the Order of the Garter in April 1429,[16] and travelled to France with the King for his 1430 French coronation, occasionally escorting him through the war-torn countryside.[17] He was appointed Lieutenant-General of Normandy,[18] Governor of Paris, and Constable of France over the course of his next two years of service there.[1] Apart from one occasion in November 1430 when he and Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter took the English army to support Philip, Duke of Burgundy (in which the English army was never brought into battle), Stafford's primary military role at this time was carrying out defensive duties in the vicinity of Paris.[19] On 11 October 1431, the King created him count of Perche, a province in English-occupied Normandy. Stafford held this title until the English finally withdrew from Normandy in 1450.[20][21] This was valued at 800 marks per annum;[22] although, Michael Jones has suggested that, as this was an area of almost constant warfare, in real terms "the amount of revenue that could be extracted ... must have been considerably lower."[20] Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced of the conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested into the defence of the region.[24] In England, on the ending of the King's minority in 1436, the council reorganised the King's Lancastrian estates under the control of local magnates. This gave Stafford control of vast swathes of the north midlands and Derbyshire, which was the largest chunk of the duchy that was delegated amongst the nobility.[25] As a result, the earl had the royal affinity- those men retained directly by the Crown in order to provide a direct link between the King and the localities[26]- to use as his own.[27] Estates[edit] Arms of Sir Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, KG English historian K.B. McFarlane estimated Stafford's total potential income to have been £6,300 gross annually, at its peak between 1447 and 1448.[28][29] although the centrepiece of Buckingham's estates, and his own caput, was Stafford Castle. This had a staff of at least forty, and a large stable, and was perfectly placed for recruiting his retainers in the Welsh marches, Staffordshire, and Cheshire.[30] He also had manor houses at Writtle and Maxstoke; the latter, which he had purchased along with most of the estates of John, Lord Clinton,[31] was useful when the court was in Coventry.[32] Likewise he would use his castle at Tonbridge when he was acting in his capacity of Warden of the Cinque ports or on commission in Kent.[33] His marcher castles – Caus, Hay, Huntingdon, and Bronllys – had, by the 1450s, generally fallen into disrepair; other border castles of his, such as those of Brecon and Newport were rarely used by the him.[33] Stafford's manor of Thornbury was convenient for Bristol, and as a stopping point to and from London.[33] His mother Anne's death in 1438 transformed his fiscal position. His inheritance included the remainder of his father's estates, which were worth about £1,500, and his mother's half of the Bohun inheritance of around £1,200. The latter also included the title of earldom of Buckingham, which bringing a further £1,000, and made him one of the greatest landowners in England;[1] and in fact only the King and the duke of York were wealthier.[34] "His landed resources matched his titles" explained Albert Compton-Reves; as his lands were distributed throughout England, Wales and Ireland.[35] One estimation of his estates suggests that, by the late 1440s, his income was over £5,000 per annum.[36] On the other hand, it is also possible that the actual income yielded from them could have been as low as £3,700,[37] and that on average he annually overspent by approximately £300.[38] Exacerbating this, for Stafford, was that rents owed to him were not always paid: even a lord of the status of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, for example, owed Buckingham over £100 in unpaid rent for the manor of Drayton Bassett in 1458.[39] In the 1440s and 1450s, Buckingham's Welsh estates were particularly notable for both their rent arrears and public disorder.[40] Affinity and problems in the localities[edit] Maxstoke Castle, purchased by Stafford from Lord Clinton All great lords created an affinity between themselves and groups of supporters, travelling with them, for purposes of mutual benefit and defence,[41] and Humphrey Stafford was no exception. These men – often tenants for soldiering, but not exclusively so –[42] were often retained by indenture; in the 1450s, Stafford retained men "to sojourn and ride" with him.[43] His affinity was probably composed along the lines laid out by royal ordinance, viz up to, but not above, 240 men, including 'forty gentlemen, eighty yeomen and a variety of lesser individuals', although drawn in much smaller numbers in times of peace from the localities, rather than a standing body of men. In the late 1440s it was at least ten knights and twenty-seven esquires, mainly from Cheshire.[29] Probably due to the political climate, this increased after 1457.[44] His household has been estimated at around 150 people by about 1450.[45] It has been estimated that maintaining both his affinity and household cost the duke over £900 a year.[29] Along with Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, Buckingham was the major magnatial influence in Warwickshire;[46] and when Warwick left for his lengthy tour of duty in France, in 1437, Stafford became the sole regional magnate, controlling a massive area stretching from Warwickshire to Derbyshire.[31] However, so involved was he with affairs of the court and government, that he was often unable to attend to the needs of his 'country'.[1] Stafford also had major estates on the Welsh Marches which occupied his time, as they particularly required order kept within them. He also acted as a royal justice in the region.[1] One of the most well-known disputes Buckingham had with his local gentry was that he had with Thomas Malory. On 4 January 1450, Malory with twenty-six other armed men, waited for Buckingham in Coombe Abbey woods, near the duke's Newbold estate with intent to ambush him.[47] Malory appears to have been repelled by sixty of Buckingham's yeomen tenants.[48] At some point Malory also stole deer from the duke's park at Caludon,[49] and the duke personally arrested Malory on 25 July the following year.[50] Buckingham also ended up in a dispute with William Ferrers of Staffordshire, even though it was the centre of his estates, after Ferrers was appointed to the county King's Bench and attempted to assert political control over the county.[51] On 5 May 1430 a Leicestershire manor of Stafford's was attacked,[52] and following Cade's rebellion, his park at Penshurst was attacked by men "concealing their faces with long beards and Charcoal-blackened faces, calling themselves servants of the queen of the fairies".[53] There was trouble in Derbyshire in the 1440s, where, it has been said, Buckingham "made no attempt to restore peace, nor made any attempt to intervene at all."[54] By the 1450s, not only was Buckingham unable to prevent feuding amongst the Derbyshire gentry, but his own affinity was in discord.[55] This may in part be due to the fact that at this time Buckingham was not spending much of his time in the midlands; rather, he was staying close to London, either at Tonbridge (Kent) or Writtle (Essex).[56] Later career[edit] The Stafford knot, the cognizance of the earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham, worn by their retainers to indicate their allegiance. In mid-1436 Stafford, accompanied by Gloucester, the duke of Norfolk, and the earls of Huntingdon, Warwick, Devon, and Ormond, returned to France again with an army of nearly 8,000 men.[57] Although the expedition's purpose was to end the siege of Calais, by the time the English arrived, the French besiegers had withdrawn,[58] leaving behind a quantity of cannon for the English to seize.[59] Peace talks in France occupied Stafford throughout 1439, and in 1442 he was appointed Captain of Calais[1] and of the tower of Risbanke, and was indented to serve for the next decade.[60] Before he arrived in Calais – in September 1442 – the garrison had revolted, seizing the Staple's wool in lieu of their unpaid wages. Stafford received a pledge from the council that if such a situation arose again during his tenure, he would not be held responsible.[61] In light of the secrecy that cloaked Stafford's appointment in 1442, says one modern historian, it is even possible that the revolt had actually been staged by his servants to ensure that Stafford "had entry on favourable terms" to Calais;[62] since Stafford emphasised the need to restore order there in his original application for the position.[63] He also received permission to export gold and jewels (up to £5,000-worth every time he returned there) for his use in France, even though the export of bullion was illegal at the time.[64] Buckingham was granted the Honour of Tutbury around 1435; he held it until 1443, when, as Professor Griffiths put it, he "hand[ed] it over to the son of one of his own councillors."[65] Other offices he held included Seneschal of Halton (from 1439) and Lieutenant of the Marches from 1442 – 1451. At the same time, he became less active on the council.[66] Buckingham became Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle, also Constable of Queensborough, on the Isle of Sheppey, in 1450. He represented the Crown during peace talks with the French in 1445 and 1446.[1] Buckingham, as a Constable of England, and by now firmly in the Beaufort camp,[38] was one of the lords who arrested Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, at Bury St Edmunds on 18 February 1447.[1] Five years previously, Stafford had been on the committee that investigated and convicted Gloucester's wife, Eleanor Cobham, of witchcraft.[38] Buckingham, like many others, profited substantially from Gloucester's fall: when the latter's estates were divided up, the 'major prizes' went to the court nobility.[67] In September 1444, as reward for "many years' loyal and continuous service" to the Crown, he was created Duke of Buckingham.[68] He was already describing himself as 'the Right Mighty Prince Humphrey Earl of Buckingham, Hereford, Stafford, Northampton and Perche, Lord of Brecknock and Holdernesse'.[69] In May 1447 he was further granted precedence over all English dukes not of royal blood.[70] Despite his income, during his time in office as the Captain of the Calais garrison, he was heavily out of pocket. He was responsible for ensuring the garrison was paid, and it has been estimated that when he resigned and returned from the post in 1450, he was owed over £19,000 in back wages,[71] an amount so large he was granted the wool trade tax from the port of Sandwich, Kent, until it was paid off.[64] Public office continued to push him to spend over his annual income, with household costs of over £2,000, as well as all the public requirements he needed to fund,[1] effectively making him a substantial creditor to the government.[72] From May to July 1450, even before Jack Cade's rebellion had broken out, Buckingham had cause to summon about seventy of his tenants from Staffordshire to accompany him whilst he was in London.[73] When the rebellion occurred, Buckingham was one of the lords commissioned to arrest the rebels with a forceful response on 6 June 1450, and who acted as the King's negotiator to the insurgents at Blackheath ten days later.[74] However the promises Buckingham made to the rebels on behalf of the government were not kept by King Henry, and Cade's army invaded London.[75] After the defeat of the rebellion, Buckingham headed an investigatory commission which was designed to "placate" rebellious Kent,[76] and in November that year he rode noisily through London with the King and other peers, with a retinue of around 1,500 armed men, in an armed "demonstration of official power" intended to deter potential troublemakers in the future.[77] Following the rebellion, Buckingham's retinue often acted as a bodyguard to the King.[78] Wars of the Roses[edit] Main article: Wars of the Roses Brecon Castle today, was the Stafford's main marcher base. From around 1451 the King's Privy Council was controlled by Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, who had effectively replaced the duke of Suffolk as the King's chief councillor on the latter's death in 1450.[79] Buckingham supported Somerset's government,[80] while trying to maintain peace between him and the duke of York. He also acted as a Commissioner of the Peace on 14 February 1452 in Devon, suppressing Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon who was preparing to join and support York.[81] When York rebelled later that month and confronted the King with a large army at Dartford, Buckingham was again a voice of compromise, and, since he had contributed heavily towards the size of the King's army, was heeded.[82] A year later, in August 1453, King Henry became ill, and slipped into a catatonic state. Government broke down. The situation remained through Christmas 1453, when Buckingham personally presented the King's son – the newly-born Edward, Prince of Wales – to Henry. But Henry "gave no manner answer."[83] Buckingham was as also present at the council meeting which resulted in the arrest and subsequent year-long imprisonment of the duke of Somerset, who by now was York's bitter enemy.[84] In the parliament of February 1454 Buckingham was appointed Steward of England – although Griffiths has called this position "largely honorific."[85] Buckingham also attended the parliament of February 1454 in which it was decided to nominate the duke of York as Protector of the Realm on 27 March 1454[86] and Buckingham supported him, attending the Protectorate council more frequently than many of his fellow councillors.[87] King Henry recovered his health in January 1455; soon after Somerset was released or escaped from the Tower. A contemporary commented how Buckingham "straungely conveied" Somerset from prison,[87] but it is less certain whether this was as a result of the King ordering his release or whether in fact Somerset escaped with Buckingham's connivance.[88] Buckingham may well have been expecting war to break out, because in 1454, he ordered 2,000 of his cognizances- the 'Stafford knot'[89] – even though strictly this (the distribution of livery) was against the law.[90] The Battle of St Albans[edit] Map of the first Battle of St Albans, 22 May 1455 With the King's recovery, York was either dismissed or resigned from his office of protector, and, with his Neville allies, withdrew from London to their lands in the north. The government meanwhile summoned a Great Council to meet in Leicester on 22 May 1455, at which, the Yorkists believed, they would be attainted, or worse. The Yorkists gathered their forces and marched south. The King, with a small force, was likewise marching north to Leicester. The King was made aware of the Yorkists' approach in the early morning of 22 May, and Buckingham urged that the royal army push on to St Albans; it has been suggested that this is because he assumed correctly that York would want to parley before any confrontation, just as he had in 1452. The decision to head for the town and not make a stand straight away may have been a tactical error, however.[91] The two parties met, then, at St Albans, with the King lodged in the town and York, with the earls of Salisbury and Warwick, encamped outside.[92] Negotiations commenced on 22 May with York demanding Somerset be released into his custody. Possibly because of this, the King replaced Somerset as Lord High Constable with Buckingham the same day,[93] and in that capacity Buckingham acted as the King's personal negotiator, receiving and responding to the Yorkists' messengers before the battle[94] and playing for time.[95] Buckingham received at least three embassies, but the King refused to give in to the main Yorkist demand – that Somerset was surrendered to them.[96] Buckingham may have hoped that the repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' energy for a battle, and likewise hold off long enough for reinforcements to arrive.[97] To which end, says John Gillingham, Buckingham made an "insidiously tempting suggestion" that the Yorkists mull over the King's responses in Hatfield or Barnet overnight.[98] The battle of St Albans began whilst negotiations were still taking place, as the earl of Warwick launched a surprise attack at around ten o'clock in the morning.[99][97] Buckingham commanded the King's army of 2,500, although his co-ordination of the defence of the town has been said to have had 'serious defects', while he himself gave the initiative to the Yorkists, both of which enabled their assault.[98] Although only about 50 people died in the battle itself, this included the very senior noblemen the duke of Somerset, the earl of Northumberland, and the Lord Clifford. Buckingham himself was wounded,[94] sought sanctuary in the abbey,[100] and was possibly taken prisoner with the King.[101] Following the battle, Buckingham rewarded ninety of his retainers from Kent, Sussex[75] and Surrey alone.[102] Last years[edit] York now had the political upper hand, made himself Constable of England and kept the King as a prisoner, returning to the role of Protector when the King became ill again.[86] Buckingham appears to have supported this second protectorate too, and probably as a result of this, he lost favour with Queen Margaret. A contemporary wrote that in April 1456, the duke returned to his Writtle manor, not looking 'well plesid'.[87] Buckingham played a fundamental role at the October 1456 Great Council in Leicester,[103] where, with other lords, he pleaded with the King to impose a settlement whilst declaring that anyone who resorted to violence would receive "ther deserte"[104] – and this included any who attacked York.[1] In 1459, with other lords, he renewed his oath of loyalty to the King and Prince of Wales.[105] Until this point he may have been a voice of restraint amongst the court party – possibly even on the queen herself.[106] But his political realignment with the queen that year was decisive enough that it ultimately "hastened" the outbreak of hostilities again, although he may have partially motivated by financial needs,[107] and encouraged to do so by those retainers reliant on him.[108] He had a bigger retinue than almost any other noble in England[107] – he was probably the only noble who could match York in power and income.[109] This was demonstrated at the Battle of Ludford Bridge in October 1459, where his army played a decisive part in the defeat of the Yorkist forces.[110][107] The duke of York and the Neville earls fled Ludlow and went into exile; York to Ireland, the earls to Calais. They were attainted at the 1459 Coventry parliament, and their estates distributed amongst the Crown's supporters. Buckingham was rewarded by the King with extensive grants from the estates of Sir William Oldhall,[1] probably worth over £800 per annum.[111] With York in exile, Buckingham was granted custody of York's wife, Cecily, Duchess of York, whom, a chronicler reports, he treated harshly in captivity.[111] Death[edit] Main article: Battle of Northampton (1460) The Battle of Northampton, 10 July 1460. From the moment the duke of York and the Neville earls left England it was obvious to those in government that they would return. In June 1460 they did so, landing at Sandwich, Kent.[112] They immediately marched on, and entered, London, while the King, with Buckingham and other lords, moved the court from Coventry to Northampton.[113] In the lead up to the Battle of Northampton, the earls of Warwick and March sent envoys to negotiate, but Buckingham, backed in his position by his son-in-law, the earl of Shrewsbury and Lords Beaumont and Egremont,[113] was no longer conciliatory.[113] Buckingham, once again acting as representative of the King[114] and did not allow the Yorkists' envoys to meet Henry.[115] The duke informed them '"the Earl of Warwick shall not come to the King's presence and if he comes he shall die," and told a group of Yorkist bishops that they were not men of peace, but men of war, and there could be no peace with Warwick.[116] It is likely that a personal animosity pre-existed between the two men by this time – possibly as a result of Warwick's previous rent evasion,[110] and that Buckingham's influential voice was used a vote for action in the King's camp.[117] The duke may also have misinterpreted the Yorkists' requests to negotiate as a sign of weakness.[118] It is possible that Buckingham saw the coming battle as an opportunity to settle scores with Warwick (rather than with the duke of York); if this was so, says Rawcliffe, then these plans "ended abruptly" on the battlefield.[110] Not only this, but Buckingham may also have misjudged the size of the Yorkist army as well the royal soldiers' loyalty.[118] The royal army was outnumbered by that of Warwick and March.[113] Buckingham's men dug in outside Northampton, and fortified behind a bend in the River Nene, close to Delapré Abbey.[119] Battle was joined on 10 July 1460, but was considerably shortened when Edmund Grey, later Earl of Kent, turned traitor to the King.[118] Grey "welcomed the Yorkists over the barricades" on the Lancastrian left wing[114] and ordered his men to lay down arms, allowing the Yorkists access to the camp. Within half an hour of starting, the battle was over.[118] By 2:00 pm, Buckingham, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Egremont and Viscount Beaumont, were killed, possibly by a force of Kentishmen.[118] Buckingham was buried shortly after at Grey Friars, Northampton.[1] Buckingham had named his wife Anne sole executrix of his will. She was to give 200 marks to any clergy who attended his funeral, with the remainder being distributed as poor relief. She was also to organise the establishment of two chantries in his memory, and he left 'exceedingly elaborate' instructions for the foundation of a college in Pleshy.[120] Character[edit] In his youth, Humphrey Stafford has been described as something of a hothead,[121] and later in life he was a staunch anti-Lollard. It was probably as a consequence of this that Sir Thomas Malory attempted his assassination[122] around 1450 – if indeed he did, as the charge was never proved. Likewise, he did not lack the traditional noble traits of the time, particularly that of resorting to armed force before anything else; for instance, in September 1429, following an altercation with his brother-in-law the earl of Huntingdon, he arrived at parliament "armed to the teeth."[123] He was also a literary patron: Scrope presented him with a copy of Christine de Pizan's Epistle of Othea – in what has been described as "an elaborate act of homage to a powerful and potentially powerful patron,"[124] particularly due to its "dedicatory verses."[125] On his estates – especially on the Welsh marches – he has been described as a "harsh and exacting landlord," in his pursuit of maximising his income,[126] but also competent in his land deals, and who never – unlike contemporaries – had to sell land to stay solvent.[127] It has been noted that, although he died a staunch Lancastrian, he never showed any personal dislike of York or the Nevilles in the 1450s, and that his personal motivation throughout the decade was loyalty to the Crown and keeping the peace between his peers.[128] Rawcliffe has suggested that although he was inevitably going to be involved in the high politics of the day, Buckingham "lacked the necessary qualities ever to become a great statesman or leader... [he] was in many ways an unimaginative and unlikeable man." On his latter quality, Rawcliffe points to his reputation as a harsh taskmaster on his estates and his "offensive behaviour" towards Jeanne d'Arc at her trial, and, she says, his political judgement was "clouded" by this attitude.[129] His temper, she says, was "ungovernable."[1] Aftermath[edit] Michael Hicks has noted that Buckingham was one of the few Lancastrian loyalists was never accused by the Yorkists of being an "evil councillor", and further, that the duke was "the substance and perhaps the steel within the ruling regime."[130] Buckingham's eldest son and heir Humphrey had predeceased his father, dying of plague in 1458. As such, the Stafford dukedom and lands descended to his son- Buckingham's grandson- Henry Stafford.[110] Although Buckingham was not attainted when the duke of York's son, Edward took the throne as Edward IV in 1461, Henry became a royal ward, which gave the King control of the Stafford estates during the young duke's minority.[131] Family[edit] Humphrey Stafford married Lady Anne Neville, daughter of Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland and Westmorland's second wife Lady Joan Beaufort, at some point prior to 18 October 1424.[1] Anne Neville was a literary patron in her own right, also receiving a dedication in a copy of Scrope's translated Othea,[124] who left many books in her will.[132] They had 10 children: The marriages Buckingham arranged for his children were focussed on strengthening his ties with the royal family, particularly those of two of his sons, into the Beaufort family, and his daughters to the heir of the earl of Oxford, to William Beaumont, 2nd Viscount Beaumont[133] (which marriage cost him 2,300 marks 'and took a long even time to pay that')[134] and to John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury.[133] Buckingham had seven sons, only three of whom survived to adulthood.[1] His eldest son, Humphrey, who had predeceased him, had married Margaret Beaufort. She was the daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, and Eleanor Beauchamp, They were parents of Henry Stafford, the first duke of Buckingham's eventual heir.[1] The second link to the Beauforts was between Buckingham's second son, Sir Henry Stafford (c. 1425–1471). Third husband of Lady Margaret Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, and Margaret Beauchamp. Margaret Beaufort had previously been married to Edmund Tudor, the eldest half-brother of Henry VI, and had given birth to the future King Henry VII two months after Edmund's death. She and Henry were childless.[135] Buckingham's third son, John (d. 8 May 1473) married Constance Green of Drayton,[135] who had been his ward.[136] Humphrey Stafford assigned them the manor of Newton Blossomville at the time of their marriage.[137] John was later created Earl of Wiltshire.[138] Buckingham's daughters made good (but for their father, expensive) marriages.[1] Anne (1446–1472), was proposed as the future consort to Louis XI of France,[1] which would have linked the French Crown again with the Lancastrian regime.[139] In the event, she married Aubrey de Vere, son of John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford.[140] In 1452, Joan (1442–1484) married Beaumont; Margaret (1437–1476), married the earl of Shrewsbury. Buckingham had apparently promised to give them £1,000, but he was killed in battle before acting on the promise.[1] Cultural references and portrayals[edit] Buckingham was depicted, during his son's lifetime, as 'mounted in battle array' (during the 1436 campaign against Burgundy), in the pictorial Beauchamp Pageant, which was probably compiled by Anne, Countess of Warwick, the Kingmaker's widow, in 1480.[57] T.L. Lustig has suggested that Thomas Malory, in his Morte d'Arthur, based the character of his Gawaine on Buckingham, as Malory may have perceived the duke as being 'peacemaker and warlord, warrior and judge' – qualities which the writer later ascribed to his Arthurian character.[121] Buckingham appears in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2 (c. 1591), in which his character conspires in the downfall and disgrace of Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester.[141] It is possible that he was the subject and title-character of the early-seventeenth century play, Duke Humphrey, which is now lost.[142] References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Rawcliffe, Carol. "Humphrey Stafford". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/26207. Retrieved 25 February 2017. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) Jump up ^ Griffiths 1979, p. 20. Jump up ^ Cokayne 1912, p. 389. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 12. Jump up ^ Walker, S., 'Widow and Ward: The Feudal Law of Child Custody in Medieval England', Feminist Studies 3(1976),104. Jump up ^ Harriss 2006, p. 524. Jump up ^ Matusiak 2012, p. 234. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Jacob 1993, pp. 328–29. Jump up ^ Allmand 2014, p. 177. Jump up ^ Harriss 1988, p. 123. Jump up ^ Jacob 1993, pp. 210–11. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, pp. 11–12. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, pp. 37–38. Jump up ^ "Henry Beaufort". www.oxforddnb.com. Retrieved 2017-04-07. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 76. Jump up ^ Beltz 1841, p. 419. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 40. Jump up ^ Jones 1983, p. 76. Jump up ^ Jones 1983, p. 80. ^ Jump up to: a b Jones 1983, p. 285. Jump up ^ Anne Curry (29 May 2003). The Hundred Years War. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 154–. ISBN 978-0-230-62969-1. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1980, p. 35. Jump up ^ Allmand 1983, p. 71. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, pp. 114–15. Jump up ^ Castor 2000, p. 46. Jump up ^ Gundy, A. K., 'The Earl of Warwick and the Royal Affinity', in M.A. Hicks (ed.) Revolution and Consumption in Later Medieval England (Woodbridge, 2002), 57–8. Jump up ^ Carpenter 1997, p. 109. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1980, p. 178. ^ Jump up to: a b c Pugh 1972, p. 105. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 66. ^ Jump up to: a b Castor 2000, p. 254. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, pp. 66–67. ^ Jump up to: a b c Rawcliffe 1978, p. 67. Jump up ^ Hicks 2014, p. 84. Jump up ^ Reeves 1972, p. 80. Jump up ^ Bernard 1992, p. 83. Jump up ^ Britnell 1995, p. 55. ^ Jump up to: a b c Harris 1986, p. 15. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1980, p. 223. Jump up ^ Britnell 1995, p. 53. Jump up ^ Hicks 2013, pp. 104–09. Jump up ^ Crouch & Carpenter 1991, p. 178. Crouch gives the example of John of Gaunt indenting with his surgeons, chaplains, clerk, falconer, cook, minstrels, heralds, and legal counsels. Jump up ^ Hicks 2013, pp. 139–40. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 68. Jump up ^ Harriss 2006, p. 112. Jump up ^ Lustig 2014, p. 73. Jump up ^ Baugh 1933, p. 4. Jump up ^ Hicks 2014, p. 29. Jump up ^ Ross 1986, p. 165. Jump up ^ Baugh 1933, p. 6. Jump up ^ Castor 2000, pp. 261–63. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 142. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 643. Jump up ^ Castor 2000, p. 264. Jump up ^ Carpenter 1997, p. 126. Jump up ^ Castor 2000, p. 277. ^ Jump up to: a b Grummitt 2008, p. 29. Jump up ^ Jones 1983, pp. 95–96. Jump up ^ Grummitt 2008, p. 30. Jump up ^ Harris 1986, p. 14. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, pp. 470–71. Jump up ^ Grummitt 2008, p. 68. Jump up ^ Grummitt 2008, p. 98. ^ Jump up to: a b Grummitt 2008, p. 65. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 343. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 281. Jump up ^ Harriss 2006, p. 614. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 11. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1980, p. 153. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 358. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, pp. 20–21. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 527. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1981, p. 234. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, pp. 610–11. ^ Jump up to: a b Harris 1986, p. 18. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 641. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 648. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 24. Jump up ^ Carpenter 1997, pp. 119–20. Jump up ^ Hicks 2014, p. 86. Jump up ^ Gillingham 2001, pp. 111–12. Jump up ^ Storey 1999, p. 100. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 716. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 721. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 723. ^ Jump up to: a b Johnson 1991, p. 134. ^ Jump up to: a b c Rawcliffe 1978, p. 25. Jump up ^ Lander 1981, p. 194. Jump up ^ Hicks 2014, p. 30. Jump up ^ Bean 1989, p. 202. Jump up ^ Goodman 1990, p. 23. Jump up ^ Carpenter 1997, pp. 133–35. Jump up ^ Grummitt 2014, p. 45. ^ Jump up to: a b Hicks 2014, p. 110. Jump up ^ Harriss 2006, p. 632. Jump up ^ Lander 1981, p. 195. ^ Jump up to: a b Goodman 1990, p. 24. ^ Jump up to: a b Goodman 1990, p. 25. Jump up ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 88. Jump up ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 89. Jump up ^ Harris 1986, p. 19. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1981, p. 235. Jump up ^ Hicks 2014, p. 128. Jump up ^ Grummitt 2014, p. 5. Jump up ^ Lander 1981, p. 218. Jump up ^ Pollard 1995, p. 22. ^ Jump up to: a b c Pugh 1972, p. 106. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, pp. 120–21. Jump up ^ Ross 1986, p. 32. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Rawcliffe 1978, p. 27. ^ Jump up to: a b Rawcliffe 1978, p. 26. Jump up ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 110. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Goodman 1990, p. 37. ^ Jump up to: a b Hicks 2014, p. 153. Jump up ^ Gillingham 2001, p. 124. Jump up ^ Lewis 2015, p. 80. Jump up ^ Ross 1986, p. 47. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Goodman 1990, p. 38. Jump up ^ Harriss 2006, p. 642. Jump up ^ Harris 2002, p. 154. ^ Jump up to: a b Lustig 2014, p. 98. Jump up ^ Lustig 2014, p. 8. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1981, p. 135. ^ Jump up to: a b Gertsman & Stevenson 2012, p. 105. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1981, p. 218. Jump up ^ Harris 1986, p. 1. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 121. Jump up ^ Harris 1986, p. 17. Jump up ^ Rawcliffe 1978, p. 19. Jump up ^ Hicks 2014, p. 154. Jump up ^ Ross 1972, p. 55. Jump up ^ Charlton 2002, p. 185. ^ Jump up to: a b Rawcliffe 1978, p. 23. Jump up ^ McFarlane 1980, p. 87. ^ Jump up to: a b McFarlane 1980, p. 206. Jump up ^ Harris 2002, p. 63. Jump up ^ Biancalana 2001, p. 436. Jump up ^ Cokayne 1959, p. 735. Jump up ^ Griffiths 1979, p. 23. Jump up ^ Cokayne 1913, p. 355. Jump up ^ Dobson, Wells & Sullivan 2015, p. 47. Jump up ^ Wiggins & Richardson 2015, p. 203. Bibliography[edit] Allmand, C. T. (1983). Lancastrian Normandy, 1415–1450: The History of Medieval Occupation. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822642-0. Allmand, Christopher (2014). Henry V. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21293-8. Baugh, Albert C. (1933). "Documenting Sir Thomas Malory". Speculum. 8 (1): 3–29. Bean, John Malcolm William (1989). From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-2855-7. Beltz, George Frederick (1841). Memorials of the Order of the Garter, from Its Foundation to the Present Time: Including the History of the Order; Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns of Edward III. and Richard II., the Chronological Succession of the Members ... W. Pickering. Bernard, G. W. (1992). The Tudor Nobility. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-3625-5. Biancalana, Joseph (2001). The Fee Tail and the Common Recovery in Medieval England: 1176–1502. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-43082-1. Britnell, R.H. (1995). "The Economic Context". In Pollard, A. J. The Wars of the Roses. St. Martin's Press. pp. 41–64. ISBN 978-0-312-12699-5. Carpenter, Christine (1997). The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, C.1437–1509. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31874-7. Castor, Helen (2000). The King, the Crown, and the Duchy of Lancaster: Public Authority and Private Power, 1399–1461. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-154248-0. Charlton, Kenneth (2002). Women, Religion and Education in Early Modern England. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-67659-0. Cokayne, George E. (1912). The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom: Extant, Extinct, or Dormant. 2. St Catherine Press. OCLC 926878974. Cokayne, George E. (1913). The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom: Extant, Extinct, or Dormant. 3. St Catherine Press. OCLC 312790481. Cokayne, George E. (1959). The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom: Extant, Extinct, or Dormant. 12. St Catherine Press. OCLC 312826326. Crouch, David; Carpenter, David A. (1991). "Bastard feudalism Revised". Past & Present. 131: 165–189. Dobson, Michael; Wells, Stanley; Sullivan, Erin (2015). The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-870873-5. Gertsman, Elina; Stevenson, Jill (2012). Thresholds of Medieval Visual Culture: Liminal Spaces. Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-84383-697-1. Gillingham, John (2001). The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in 15th Century England. Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-84212-274-7. Goodman, Anthony (1990). The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452–97. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-05264-1. Griffiths, Ralph Alan (1979). "The Sense of Dynasty in the Reign of Henry VI". In Ross, Charles Derek. Patronage, Pedigree, and Power in Later Medieval England. A Sutton. pp. 13–31. ISBN 978-0-8476-6205-0. Griffiths, Ralph Alan (1981). The Reign of King Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority, 1422–1461. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-04372-5. Grummitt, David (2008). The Calais Garrison: War and Military Service in England, 1436–1558. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84383-398-7. Grummitt, David (2014). A Short History of the Wars of the Roses. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0-85773-303-0. Harris, Barbara Jean (1986). Edward Stafford, Third Duke of Buckingham, 1478–1521. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1316-0. Harris, Barbara Jean (2002). English Aristocratic Women, 1450–1550: Marriage and Family, Property and Careers. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515128-2. Harriss, G. L. (1988). Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820135-9. Harriss, Gerald (2006). Shaping the Nation: England 1360–1461. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-921119-7. Hicks, M.A. (2013). Bastard Feudalism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-89896-2. Hicks, Michael (2014). The Wars of the Roses: 1455–1485. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-1018-2. Jacob, Ernest Fraser (1993). The Fifteenth Century, 1399–1485. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285286-1. Johnson, P. A. (1991). Duke Richard of York 1411–1460. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820268-4. Jones, Michael K. (1983). The Beaufort Family and the War in France 1421–1450 (Doctoral thesis). University of Bristol. Lander, J. R. (1981). Government and Community: England, 1450–1509. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-35794-5. Lewis, Matthew (2015). The Wars of the Roses: The Key Players in the Struggle for Supremacy. Amberley Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-4456-4636-7. Lustig, T. L. (2014). Knight Prisoner: Thomas Malory Then and Now. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 73–. ISBN 978-1-78284-118-0. Matusiak, John (2012). Henry V. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-16251-0. McFarlane, Kenneth Bruce (1980). The nobility of later medieval England: the Ford lectures for 1953 and related studies. Clarendon Press. McFarlane, Kenneth Bruce (1981). England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8264-4191-1. Pollard, A. J. (1995). The Wars of the Roses. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-12699-5. Pugh, Thomas B. (1972). "The Magnates, Knights and Gentry". In Chrimes, Stanley Bertram; Ross, Charles Derek; Griffiths, Ralph Alan. Fifteenth-century England, 1399–1509: Studies in Politics and Society. pp. 86–128. ISBN 978-0-0649-1126-9. Rawcliffe, Carole (1978). The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham: 1394–1521. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21663-0. Reeves, A. Compton (1972). "Some of Humphrey Stafford's Military Indentures". Nottingham Medieval Studies. 16: 80–91. Ross, Charles (1972). "The reign of Edward IV". In Chrimes, Stanley Bertram; Ross, Charles Derek; Griffiths, Ralph Alan. Fifteenth-century England, 1399–1509: Studies in Politics and Society. Manchester University Press. pp. 49–66. ISBN 978-0-06-491126-9. Ross, Charles Derek (1986). The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-27407-1. Storey, R. L. (1999). The End of the House of Lancaster. Sutton Pub. ISBN 978-0-7509-2007-0. Wiggins, Martin; Richardson, Catherine (2015). British Drama 1533–1642: A Catalogue: Volume VI: 1609–1616. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-873911-1. Further reading[edit] Haigh, Philip A. (1995). Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses. Stroud. ISBN 9780750909044.	STAFFORD, Humphrey 1st Duke of Buckingham, 6th Earl of Stafford (I15201)
2596	Humphrey to get land in London subject to the entail made in his grandfather's Thomas Gay's will. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1532 RX203 13 Mar 1532. Release by David Borham of Maydeston, co. Kent., to Humfrey Gay of Elmested of his right in a tenemnent with gardens annexed etc. in Elmested, as appears by a writing of release made by Edward Wotton, knight, Sampson Baker and Sampson Cloke to the grantor dated 24 July, 22 Henry VIII. Broken seal. 25/— [Source: H. R. Moulton Catalogue, 1930. http://www.durtnall.org.uk/DEEDS/Moulton/Kent%201-100.htm] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First Previous12 of 23Last Next CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae B - Chartae Antiquae B Title Agreement Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/B/361 PreviousNumbers B 331 (late 19th c) Date 19 Apr 1512 Description 6Party: Thomas Goldstone, IV, prior of Canterbury Cathedral Priory Party: William Dannyell, yeoman, of Pagham, Sussex; John Frye, yeoman, of Pagham, Sussex; John Hyghwod, yeoman, of Birstead, Sussex Agreement made before Robert [Sherborne], bishop of Chichester, concerning payments owed by William for the rectories of [South] Bersted and Pagham, Sussex. They are bound to the priory by a bond of the same date. Priory's part of indenture. Humphrey Gay, priory auditor, has sealed the other part. Extent 1 doc Physical Description Paper, 1p, indented at top, watermark, 3 seals Language English AccessStatus Open Open Related Material Related bond: CCA-DCc-BB/82/77 First Previous13 of 23Last Next CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae C - Chartae Antiquae C Title Quitclaim Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/C/748 PreviousNumbers Q 137 (Norris); C 733 (late 19th c) Date 26 Nov 1513 Description From: Humphrey Gay; Simon Hoyges; Paul Richemond; Edmund Wilcok; Thomas Frenshe; Thomas vynetre; Christopher Tayllour To: John Hale; John Auger For a messuage in St Alphege parish in the city of Canterbury, concerning which a fine was receenlty levied in the king's court in the Guildhall of Canterbury between the quitclaimers and John Hale and John Auger, plaintiffs, and John Aworde and Joan his wife, deforciants. Signatures of Humphrey, Simon and William on seal tags. Extent 1 doc Physical Description Parchment, 1m, 7 seals, slightly dirty Language Latin AccessStatus Open First Previous14 of 23Last Next CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae C - Chartae Antiquae C Title Demise Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/C/747 PreviousNumbers Q 135 (Norris); C 732 (late 19th c) Date 28 Nov 1513 Description From: John Hale (signs 'Hales'); John Auger (signs 'Awcher'') To: Humphrey Gay; Simon Hoyges; Paul Richemond; Robert Henxsell'; William Courthope; William Fowle; Nicholas Paver; Nicholas Webbe; John Covyngton'; John Note; Thomas Frenshe; Richard mokette; Alan Frognale; Thomas Breche A messuage in St Alphege parish, Canterbury, lying with the land of Thomas Colsell' to east, the lands of Robert Henxsell' and Geoffrey Breche to south and the king's highway to west and north. There was a fine levied concerning this messuage in the king's court of the city of Canterbury in the Guildhall of the same city between John Hale, John Auger, Humphrey, Simon, Paul, Thomas Frenshe, Thomas vynetre and Christopher Taillour', plaintiffs, and John Aworde and Joan his wife, deforciants, and Humphrey, Simon, Paul, Thomas Frenshe, Thomas vynetre and Christopher released their right in the lands to John Hale and John Auger. John Hale's signature on plica; John Auger's signature on seal tag. Witnesses to livery of seisin: William Halk, gent; Thomas Sprot; John Marsall; Edmund Aylcok; John Bredekyrk; Thomas vyvell'; John Smyth; John Gybbes Endorsed with livery of seisin in early 16th cent hand. Extent 1 doc Physical Description Parchment, 1m, 2 seals, slightly dirty Language Latin AccessStatus Open First Previous15 of 23Last Next CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae W - Chartae Antiquae W Title Receipt Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/W/253 Date 19 Jul 1516 Description From: Humphrey Gay, servant of the prior of Canterbury Cathedral Priory To: the prior of Lewes Priory [Sussex] For account rolls for the manor of Wootton [Sussex], as specified, dating from 26 Jul 1437 to 8 Apr 1515. Humphrey's signature at end of document. Extent 1 doc Physical Description Paper, 1p, indented at top, small tears in centre and left and right edges, slightly dirty, slightly stained, slightly creased Language English AccessStatus Open ConservationPublic Unfit for production First Previous16 of 23Last Next CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae C - Chartae Antiquae C Title Valuation Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/C/223A PreviousNumbers 37 (early modern); 10 (19th c) Date [1537x1539] Description Valuation of the possessions of the cathedral priory. Listed by county. With list of priory expenses to be deducted from total. Includes payment to Humphrey Gay, priory auditor. No date. [Date: The document refers to Prince Edward. Humphrey Gay was auditor in 1538, but had been replaced by Oct 1539 (DCc/Register/T, ff102r and 167v).] Manors etc numbered in late 17th cent hand. At front, place-name index in same hand using number scheme. Extent 1 volume Physical Description Parchment quire, 16ff, bound between 2 paper quires of 8ff; bound in cream vellum with gold tooling Language Latin AccessStatus Open Open Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary. Chancery pleadings addressed to John, Archbishop of Canterbury as Lord Chancellor.... Short title: Gay v Daly. Plaintiffs: Humphrey Gay and Alice, his wife, daughter and heir of Nicholas Smethe, of Elmested, executor of Margaret Trocher. Defendants: Thomas Daly, feoffee to uses, and William Horn. Held by: The National Archives - Chancery, the Wardrobe, Royal Household, Exchequer and various commissions Date: 1486 - 1493 Reference: C 1/95/33 Subjects: Litigation Reference: C 1/95/33 Description: Short title: Gay v Daly. . Subject: A messuage and land in Elmested sold to the said Nicholas under the will of the said Margaret. Kent. 3 documents Date: 1486-1493	GAY, Humphrey (I16140)
2597	Humphry Toser of St. Mary Magdelen Taunton & Joan Fry of this parish by licence 22 Jun 1717	Family (F5714)
2598	Hurlestone, Andrew, of St. Clement's in Sandwich, mariner, and Margaret French, of the same place, widow. At Woodnesborough. John Collard of St. Martin's, Canterbury, yeoman, bondsman. Sept 18, 1617. Willis Marr Lic.	HURLESTON, Mr. (I13789)
2599	Husband: John Dalgarno Wife: Margaret Helen Youngson Marriage: April 9, 1915 Aberdeen Notes: 1915 Register 168/1 St Nicholas Aberdeen Entry 251 Location: Richmond Cafe, Correction Wynd After Banns according to the forms of the Established Church of Scotland John Dalgarno, bachelor, aged 24, Blacksmith journeyman, resident Old Mill, New Byth, King Edward Margaret Helen Youngson, spinster, aged 20, Domestic servant, resident Ann Street, Stonehaven His father: John Dalgarno, Farmer His mother: Elizabet Dalgarno, Maiden Surname Fraser Her father: Robert Youngson, Baker's van driver Her mother: Helen youngson, Maiden Surname Barclay signed: Douglas Gordon Barron, Minister, Dunnottar Witnesses James Dalgarno, Marjory B Youngson	Family (F2210)
2600	Husbandman and weaver. QUARTER SESSIONS RECORDS FOR THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET Sessions rolls Sessions roll for 1681-1682 Bastardy examinations. 9 Jan 1682 Repository Somerset Heritage Centre Reference number Q/SR/150/11 Description (1) Evidence given by Joane Northcott of Norton Fitzwarren, Singlewoman, that she is with child by Lawrence White of Bradford, Husbandman also Weaver, who had carnal knowledge of her body in a pasture close belonging to Thomas Shattock of Norton Fitzwarren. Date 9 Jan 1682 Extent 1 Format document Access status Open -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Norton Fitzwarren Notcot Ellesabeth c 6 May 1658 d/o Richard Notcot Joane c 21 Dec 1655 Joane d/o Richard Nottcott Thomas c 30 Apr 1654 s/o Richard Nottcott Ann c 15 Feb 1653/4 d/o William Nottcott Marie c 16 Mar 1651/2 d/o William Nottcott Agnis c 1 Jul 1652 d/o Richard/Elizabeth Nottcott William c 9 Jan 1647/8 s/o William/Joane Nottcott Joane c 24 Jul 1649 d/o Willilam/Joane Nottcott Marie c 14 Jun 1650 d/o Richard/Elizabeth Nottcott Elias c 1 Jul 1650 s/o William/Joane [entry marked with an asterisk] Norcott Jane c 21 Dec 1670 d/o Elias Norcott Elias c 2 Mar 1677 s/o Elias Norcott Jane c 28 Oct 1679 d/o Elias Nottcott William Stokes Joane m 22 Mar 1646/7 Nottcott Richard c 16 Jul 1626 s/o Elias Nottcott Marie c 26 Dec 1628 d/o Elias Norcoort Alice c 20 Jan 1621/2 d/o Elias Nottcott William c 27 Jun 1624 s/o Elias Nortcot Johan c 10 Feb 1619/20 d/o Elias	WHITE, Laurence (I14331)

Maintained by Susan Young. | Data Protection Policy.

Copyright 2009-2024 Ancestry Solutions. The research information and family data with its attendant media found in Ancestry Solution's Family Collectives is the sole and exclusive copyright of the respective owners of the individual family databases. All rights are reserved. No authorization or permission is given to distribute any of the information found here to any parties in any format at any time whatsoever. Information and data posted here is for the sole and personal use of the individual researching any of the individuals or families found here. Commercial use or distribution is strictly forbidden.