Discussion:
St. John
(too old to reply)
Hans Vogels
2021-03-06 16:41:44 UTC
Permalink
A publication on the family St. John has come to my attention. See:
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942

It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.

It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.

Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
2021-03-07 15:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.

A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard

As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc. shows a flaw.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2021-03-08 00:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc. shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.

Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in the
mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted in
Apulia at this time.

Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was probably
a grandson of Rodolfo I. Her great-grandson Ugo II (the first count of
Molise in this family) was married to a daughter of Robert Guiscard's
nephew King Roger in the 1130s.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-08 03:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter  present under the
known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in the
mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted in
Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was probably
a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.

Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.

The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-08 05:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter  present under the
known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in
the mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted
in Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was
probably a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.
Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.
The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")
There is a problem with the chronology and relationships of Rodolfo I of
Boiano in the work of Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles
normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie'
(1975), that is deservedly a standard reference for its subject.

Ménager accepted without question the authenticity of two charters that
led to his identifying Rodolfo I, who first appears in Italy in May
1053, as occurring in 1088 (although with inconsistent dating elements
that he overlooked) and 1092. The person named in the 1088 document is
represented as husband of Emma, father of Hugo and paternal uncle of
Roger and Robert (sons of his brother Robert). In 1092 he is represented
with 5 sons and 2 daughters, a deceased grandson, parents named Guimond
and Emma, 6 brothers (one of them rejoicing in the name Strostraynus)
and a deceased wife Alferada (NB the name of Rodolfo II's wife).

Ménager relied for the 1088 document on a summary by Giovanni Mongelli
published in 1956 (*Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle pergamene*,
vol I pp. 42-43 no. 82), and for the 1092 document on an edition by
Erasmo Gattola published in 1734 as well as a summary by Mongelli (op.
cit. p. 44 no. 86).

However, a few years after Ménager's work a massive edition of the
charters of Montevergine was begun by Placido Mario Tropeano, including
both of these charters in *Codice diplomatico verginiano* vol. I (1977).

Tropeano described the first, his no. 83 of 1088, as a pseudo-original
and the second, his no. 87 of March 1092, as a pseudo-authentic copy. It
certainly makes for an easier time in compiling a genealogy of the
Moulins-la-Marche/Boiano/Molise family to set aside the misleading
relationships in these forgeries.

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2021-03-08 15:41:55 UTC
Permalink
I also note that Orderic Vitalis names the wife of Guillaume Grantmesnil as Mabilia
wjhonson
2021-03-08 17:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
I also note that Orderic Vitalis names the wife of Guillaume Grantmesnil as Mabilia
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMAN%20NOBILITY.htm#HuguesGrantmesnildied1098
wjhonson
2021-03-08 17:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
I also note that Orderic Vitalis names the wife of Guillaume Grantmesnil as Mabilia
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SICILY.htm#MabileMGuillaumeGrandmesnil

for Guillaume
and

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SICILY.htm#MabileMGuillaumeGrandmesnil

for Mabilia (Mabel)
Peter Stewart
2021-03-09 22:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by wjhonson
I also note that Orderic Vitalis names the wife of Guillaume Grantmesnil as Mabilia
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SICILY.htm#MabileMGuillaumeGrandmesnil
for Guillaume
and
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SICILY.htm#MabileMGuillaumeGrandmesnil
for Mabilia (Mabel)
I'm not sure why this couple has been brought into the discussion, but
it's worth noting that we have more direct evidence than given in the
links posted for Mabilia's being the daughter of Robert Guiscard and
wife of Guillaume of Grandmesnil.

In the charter for Cava abbey dated 1117 both by year and indiction but
perhaps written in September 1113 (the original is now missing, so we
have to rely on a transcription that has been doubted on this) she
described her self as widow of the protosebastos Guillaume de
Grandmesnil. The Italian version quoted in Medlands without comment on
the date is of course not primary evidence, that is ostensibly the main
purpose of the website. For those who want to get as close to the
immediate record as possible, the Greek text is:

† σίγνον χειρὸς μαβήλιας κομητίσσης συμυίου τοῦ ἁπηχωμένου γουλλιἔλμου
γραντεμανὴλ τοῦ πρωτοσεβαστοῦ ... μηνὶ σεπτεμυρίω. ινδικτιώνος ιαʹ ...
ὑπερ λύτρου καὶ ἀφέσεως τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀμαρτιῶν. καὶ τοῦ μακαριωτάτου
κύρου γουλιέλμου τοῦ γραντεμανήλ τοῦ ἑμοῦ σύνευνου ... μηνὶ καὶ
ινδικτιώνι τοῖς προγεγραμμένοις ... ἕτει .ϛχκϛʹ.

In a charter for Pathirion abbey dated February 1128 in indiction 10
(correctly 1132, the year 1128 given in the text may have been a
misprint since the editor glossed it as 1132) she described herself as
daughter of Robert Guiscard, duke of Calabria.

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2021-03-09 14:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the
known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in
the mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted
in Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was
probably a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.
Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.
The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")
There is a problem with the chronology and relationships of Rodolfo I of
Boiano in the work of Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles
normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie'
(1975), that is deservedly a standard reference for its subject.
Ménager accepted without question the authenticity of two charters that
led to his identifying Rodolfo I, who first appears in Italy in May
1053, as occurring in 1088 (although with inconsistent dating elements
that he overlooked) and 1092. The person named in the 1088 document is
represented as husband of Emma, father of Hugo and paternal uncle of
Roger and Robert (sons of his brother Robert). In 1092 he is represented
with 5 sons and 2 daughters, a deceased grandson, parents named Guimond
and Emma, 6 brothers (one of them rejoicing in the name Strostraynus)
and a deceased wife Alferada (NB the name of Rodolfo II's wife).
Ménager relied for the 1088 document on a summary by Giovanni Mongelli
published in 1956 (*Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle pergamene*,
vol I pp. 42-43 no. 82), and for the 1092 document on an edition by
Erasmo Gattola published in 1734 as well as a summary by Mongelli (op.
cit. p. 44 no. 86).
However, a few years after Ménager's work a massive edition of the
charters of Montevergine was begun by Placido Mario Tropeano, including
both of these charters in *Codice diplomatico verginiano* vol. I (1977).
Tropeano described the first, his no. 83 of 1088, as a pseudo-original
and the second, his no. 87 of March 1092, as a pseudo-authentic copy. It
certainly makes for an easier time in compiling a genealogy of the
Moulins-la-Marche/Boiano/Molise family to set aside the misleading
relationships in these forgeries.
Peter Stewart
The more I read on the subject of presented genealogy of St. John, the more I become convinced that the author has to go back to the sketching board. After Peter's input it becomes clear that the whole Italian episode becomes very questionable and has to be deleted.

Looking anew on the St. John genealogy it looks to me that Ralph St. John, father of the three brothers (supposed to be born around 1090/92) must be a generation younger then the Ralph who was already active in early fifties.

https://www.academia.edu/43756912/DISCUSSION_DRAFT_The_Identity_and_Origin_of_Ralph_of_St_John

Hans Vogels
St. John Genealogy
2021-03-10 00:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the
known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in
the mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted
in Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was
probably a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.
Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.
The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")
There is a problem with the chronology and relationships of Rodolfo I of
Boiano in the work of Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles
normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie'
(1975), that is deservedly a standard reference for its subject.
Ménager accepted without question the authenticity of two charters that
led to his identifying Rodolfo I, who first appears in Italy in May
1053, as occurring in 1088 (although with inconsistent dating elements
that he overlooked) and 1092. The person named in the 1088 document is
represented as husband of Emma, father of Hugo and paternal uncle of
Roger and Robert (sons of his brother Robert). In 1092 he is represented
with 5 sons and 2 daughters, a deceased grandson, parents named Guimond
and Emma, 6 brothers (one of them rejoicing in the name Strostraynus)
and a deceased wife Alferada (NB the name of Rodolfo II's wife).
Ménager relied for the 1088 document on a summary by Giovanni Mongelli
published in 1956 (*Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle pergamene*,
vol I pp. 42-43 no. 82), and for the 1092 document on an edition by
Erasmo Gattola published in 1734 as well as a summary by Mongelli (op.
cit. p. 44 no. 86).
However, a few years after Ménager's work a massive edition of the
charters of Montevergine was begun by Placido Mario Tropeano, including
both of these charters in *Codice diplomatico verginiano* vol. I (1977).
Tropeano described the first, his no. 83 of 1088, as a pseudo-original
and the second, his no. 87 of March 1092, as a pseudo-authentic copy. It
certainly makes for an easier time in compiling a genealogy of the
Moulins-la-Marche/Boiano/Molise family to set aside the misleading
relationships in these forgeries.
Peter Stewart
I'd like to be clear, I have no desire for "wishful thinking" on any of these topics. I'm simply following what I believe to be primary record sources. If the primary records are unreliable, then that's "wishful thinking" on the record creator and not me. I have no desire to document fiction.

The digital copies of the original charters I have were sent to me by Oreste Gentile who maintains the Molise2000 Blog. I then found them published:

83: http://www.alim.dfll.univr.it/Notarili/alimnot.nsf/(cerca)/636BC755E1046112C1257F45004FF477?opendocument
87: http://www.alim.dfll.univr.it/Notarili/alimnot.nsf/(TestiPID)/65D22EAFE6059477C1257F45005242F3!opendocument

My conclusions are based not solely on the Italian charters but with the records of Normandy too. While I appreciate the conclusions of these authors you mention, if they were unable to identify them in the Normandy records (Mont St-Michel & St. Pere, Chartres), and match them up, then in my opinion, their conclusions are the ones that are suspect. Here is a summary of the family structure:

Wimund d'Avranches (Wimund I) m. [Jeanne _______] (Du Motey gives Wimund (I) a wife named Jeanne; but he cites no source) was at Moulins-le-Marche and he probably died before 1040 because he was in Mont-St. Michel charters as Wimund vicecomes. He first appears at Mont-St.-Michel in Gunnor's charter circa 1015 and then as Vicecomes in Richard II's charter there circa 1025. Moulins was named in entries among fine records that show the castle was within the jurisdiction of Exmes (his father Ansfrid II was count of Exmes and his mother was Wymarche de Normandy]. The Wimund in 1040 had no such title. (Cartul. du Mont-Saint-Michel, f. 20. Conf. Mem. de la Societe des antiq. de Normandie, 2* serie, II, 109) Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte suivie de ... By Léopold Delisle. pg. 6-7. https://archive.org/details/histoireduchate00deligoog/page/n333/mode/2up/search/guimundus
In a charter of Saint-Pere de Chartres, he is Guimundus parvus (1033 AD). This is the last record I could find for him.

Wimund Felix de la Haye-Paynel (Wimund II) m. Emma was at Moulins-le-Marche when William the Conqueror was betrayed during William of Talou's (Arques) rebellion 1052-1054. Some allege he was banished to Italy because of this but I find this doubtful.
."Guidmundus et mea uxor Emma cum nostre prole" donated property "in Rislo et in Moira et in Itone" and "de Molinis…meo castro, decimam" to Chartres Saint-Père by charter dated to before 1067 signed by "…Rodulfi. filii eius, Rodberti filii eius, Antonii filii eius, Guimundi filii eius [Wimund III], Hugonis filii eius, Alanni filii eius, Guillelmi filii eius, Toresgaudi filii eius…" . This charter for Saint-Pere names the children of this Wimund and his wife Emma [probably the daughter of Alan, Duke of Brittany] and this family structure is nearly identical to Ralph's 1088 charter with the exception of 1 brother. Here we find Ralph 1 as the son of Wimund 2. This Ralph de Moulins/di Molise is Ralph of St. John and Ralph Paynel. This Ralph was at the Battle of Civatate in 1053. In a charter for William de Falaise names his wife as Alberada (daughter of Wimund Felix) who is the son of an earlier Wimund with a brother named William de Fay. William de Falaise and his wife take over Moulins Castle and he becomes then known as William de Moulins.

During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive). After the Battle of Hastings, Wimund II built La Haye-Paynel 'castle'/'manor' and the family began adopting the la Haye and Paynel surnames. In 1087, Ralph of St. John took 4 saltworks and land belonging to Serlon (his son in law) from Mont. St. Michel. Then, in 1088, Ralph of St. John was known as Ralph Paynel following the 1087 death of his brother William Paynel and this is how he appeared in Domesday. We can confirm this by following Domesday's West Rasen property: Tenant in chief, Odo Bishop of Bayeux and lord in 1086 Wimund (II) --> Ralph St. John/Paynel --> William Paynel --> Hugh Paynel. Farer and Clay document the property of West Rasen well except make Ralph Paynel the son of his brother William instead of son of Wimund. They also incorrectly merge Ralph St. John-Paynel with his son Ralph Paynel (II) that married Maud de Sourdeval.

The confusion I believe with the Italian charter evaluations is that there are two Wimunds (Wimund II and Wimund III) with wives named Emma (Emma [de Brittany] and Emma fitz Geoffrey d'Hauteville. And to make it worse, Ralph's 2nd wife was also an Emma. Emily Zack Tabuteau's 1992 paper "The Family of Moulins-la-Marche in the Eleventh Century," does a good job of explaining this. Unfortunately she doesn't match them up to their Norman counterparts and family beyond Moulins-la-Marche.

And while I understand consanguinity was not formally allowed, I believe it happened frequently, regardless.

Suzanne St. John
taf
2021-03-10 00:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. John Genealogy
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive).
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific here - The National Archives hosts millions of records, so simply naming the repository doesn't really help that much in evaluating the source.

taf
St. John Genealogy
2021-03-10 00:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by St. John Genealogy
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive).
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific here - The National Archives hosts millions of records, so simply naming the repository doesn't really help that much in evaluating the source.
taf
Sorry, my internet went down while in the middle of writing the comment and I was afraid I'd lose it if I didn't post it before I was really finished.

1086 Kingsthorpe Find all individuals with events at this location
Reference: E 31/2/2/10688
Description:
Place name: Kingthorpe, Lincolnshire
Folio: 351r Great Domesday Book
Domesday place name: Chinetorp
People mentioned within entire folio: Alwine; Baerghthor; Gamal; Lambi; Odo, man of Ivo Taillebois; Siward; Stori; Thor; Thorgot; Walter, man of Ivo Taillebois; William de Saint-Calais, Bishop of Durham; Wimund, man of Ivo Taillebois
Date: 1086
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7334150

1086 Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire, England, UK Find all individuals with events at this location
Reference: E 31/2/2/7008
Description:
Place name: Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire
Folio: 342v Great Domesday Book
Domesday place name: Rasa/Rase
People mentioned within entire folio: Algar; Alwine; Azur; Broklauss; Church of Middle Rasen; Church of Ranby; Edward; Godwine; Grimkel; Ilbert, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Leofric; Leofsige; Losoard, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Priest of Church of Ranby; Ralph, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Rolf; Sigar; Thorfridh; Ulf; Ulfgrimr; Ulfkil; Wadard, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Wimund, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Wulfnoth
Date: 1086
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7313975
taf
2021-03-10 01:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. John Genealogy
Post by taf
Post by St. John Genealogy
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive).
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific here - The National Archives hosts millions of records, so simply naming the repository doesn't really help that much in evaluating the source.
taf
Sorry, my internet went down while in the middle of writing the comment and I was afraid I'd lose it if I didn't post it before I was really finished.
1086 Kingsthorpe Find all individuals with events at this location
Reference: E 31/2/2/10688
Place name: Kingthorpe, Lincolnshire
Folio: 351r Great Domesday Book
Domesday place name: Chinetorp
People mentioned within entire folio: Alwine; Baerghthor; Gamal; Lambi; Odo, man of Ivo Taillebois; Siward; Stori; Thor; Thorgot; Walter, man of Ivo Taillebois; William de Saint-Calais, Bishop of Durham; Wimund, man of Ivo Taillebois
Date: 1086
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7334150
1086 Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire, England, UK Find all individuals with events at this location
Reference: E 31/2/2/7008
Place name: Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire
Folio: 342v Great Domesday Book
Domesday place name: Rasa/Rase
People mentioned within entire folio: Algar; Alwine; Azur; Broklauss; Church of Middle Rasen; Church of Ranby; Edward; Godwine; Grimkel; Ilbert, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Leofric; Leofsige; Losoard, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Priest of Church of Ranby; Ralph, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Rolf; Sigar; Thorfridh; Ulf; Ulfgrimr; Ulfkil; Wadard, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Wimund, man of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; Wulfnoth
Date: 1086
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7313975
OK, so in the Domesday Survey (1086), not the Battle of Hastings (1066). Are you sure that the Wimund who was Ivo's man is the same Wimund who was Odo's?

taf
taf
2021-03-10 00:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. John Genealogy
Emily Zack Tabuteau's 1992 paper "The Family of Moulins-la-Marche in the Eleventh Century," does a good job of explaining this.
For those interested, this article (along with the whole run of Medieval Prosopography through 2018) is available on JSTOR and they have expanded free online reading during the pandemic (with a login).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44947045

taf
St. John Genealogy
2021-03-10 00:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. John Genealogy
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the
known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in
the mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted
in Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was
probably a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.
Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.
The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")
There is a problem with the chronology and relationships of Rodolfo I of
Boiano in the work of Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles
normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie'
(1975), that is deservedly a standard reference for its subject.
Ménager accepted without question the authenticity of two charters that
led to his identifying Rodolfo I, who first appears in Italy in May
1053, as occurring in 1088 (although with inconsistent dating elements
that he overlooked) and 1092. The person named in the 1088 document is
represented as husband of Emma, father of Hugo and paternal uncle of
Roger and Robert (sons of his brother Robert). In 1092 he is represented
with 5 sons and 2 daughters, a deceased grandson, parents named Guimond
and Emma, 6 brothers (one of them rejoicing in the name Strostraynus)
and a deceased wife Alferada (NB the name of Rodolfo II's wife).
Ménager relied for the 1088 document on a summary by Giovanni Mongelli
published in 1956 (*Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle pergamene*,
vol I pp. 42-43 no. 82), and for the 1092 document on an edition by
Erasmo Gattola published in 1734 as well as a summary by Mongelli (op.
cit. p. 44 no. 86).
However, a few years after Ménager's work a massive edition of the
charters of Montevergine was begun by Placido Mario Tropeano, including
both of these charters in *Codice diplomatico verginiano* vol. I (1977).
Tropeano described the first, his no. 83 of 1088, as a pseudo-original
and the second, his no. 87 of March 1092, as a pseudo-authentic copy. It
certainly makes for an easier time in compiling a genealogy of the
Moulins-la-Marche/Boiano/Molise family to set aside the misleading
relationships in these forgeries.
Peter Stewart
I'd like to be clear, I have no desire for "wishful thinking" on any of these topics. I'm simply following what I believe to be primary record sources. If the primary records are unreliable, then that's "wishful thinking" on the record creator and not me. I have no desire to document fiction.
83: http://www.alim.dfll.univr.it/Notarili/alimnot.nsf/(cerca)/636BC755E1046112C1257F45004FF477?opendocument
87: http://www.alim.dfll.univr.it/Notarili/alimnot.nsf/(TestiPID)/65D22EAFE6059477C1257F45005242F3!opendocument
Wimund d'Avranches (Wimund I) m. [Jeanne _______] (Du Motey gives Wimund (I) a wife named Jeanne; but he cites no source) was at Moulins-le-Marche and he probably died before 1040 because he was in Mont-St. Michel charters as Wimund vicecomes. He first appears at Mont-St.-Michel in Gunnor's charter circa 1015 and then as Vicecomes in Richard II's charter there circa 1025. Moulins was named in entries among fine records that show the castle was within the jurisdiction of Exmes (his father Ansfrid II was count of Exmes and his mother was Wymarche de Normandy]. The Wimund in 1040 had no such title. (Cartul. du Mont-Saint-Michel, f. 20. Conf. Mem. de la Societe des antiq. de Normandie, 2* serie, II, 109) Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte suivie de ... By Léopold Delisle. pg. 6-7. https://archive.org/details/histoireduchate00deligoog/page/n333/mode/2up/search/guimundus
In a charter of Saint-Pere de Chartres, he is Guimundus parvus (1033 AD). This is the last record I could find for him.
Wimund Felix de la Haye-Paynel (Wimund II) m. Emma was at Moulins-le-Marche when William the Conqueror was betrayed during William of Talou's (Arques) rebellion 1052-1054. Some allege he was banished to Italy because of this but I find this doubtful.
."Guidmundus et mea uxor Emma cum nostre prole" donated property "in Rislo et in Moira et in Itone" and "de Molinis…meo castro, decimam" to Chartres Saint-Père by charter dated to before 1067 signed by "…Rodulfi. filii eius, Rodberti filii eius, Antonii filii eius, Guimundi filii eius [Wimund III], Hugonis filii eius, Alanni filii eius, Guillelmi filii eius, Toresgaudi filii eius…" . This charter for Saint-Pere names the children of this Wimund and his wife Emma [probably the daughter of Alan, Duke of Brittany] and this family structure is nearly identical to Ralph's 1088 charter with the exception of 1 brother. Here we find Ralph 1 as the son of Wimund 2. This Ralph de Moulins/di Molise is Ralph of St. John and Ralph Paynel. This Ralph was at the Battle of Civatate in 1053. In a charter for William de Falaise names his wife as Alberada (daughter of Wimund Felix) who is the son of an earlier Wimund with a brother named William de Fay. William de Falaise and his wife take over Moulins Castle and he becomes then known as William de Moulins.
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive). After the Battle of Hastings, Wimund II built La Haye-Paynel 'castle'/'manor' and the family began adopting the la Haye and Paynel surnames. In 1087, Ralph of St. John took 4 saltworks and land belonging to Serlon (his son in law) from Mont. St. Michel. Then, in 1088, Ralph of St. John was known as Ralph Paynel following the 1087 death of his brother William Paynel and this is how he appeared in Domesday. We can confirm this by following Domesday's West Rasen property: Tenant in chief, Odo Bishop of Bayeux and lord in 1086 Wimund (II) --> Ralph St. John/Paynel --> William Paynel --> Hugh Paynel. Farer and Clay document the property of West Rasen well except make Ralph Paynel the son of his brother William instead of son of Wimund. They also incorrectly merge Ralph St. John-Paynel with his son Ralph Paynel (II) that married Maud de Sourdeval.
The confusion I believe with the Italian charter evaluations is that there are two Wimunds (Wimund II and Wimund III) with wives named Emma (Emma [de Brittany] and Emma fitz Geoffrey d'Hauteville. And to make it worse, Ralph's 2nd wife was also an Emma. Emily Zack Tabuteau's 1992 paper "The Family of Moulins-la-Marche in the Eleventh Century," does a good job of explaining this. Unfortunately she doesn't match them up to their Norman counterparts and family beyond Moulins-la-Marche.
And while I understand consanguinity was not formally allowed, I believe it happened frequently, regardless.
Suzanne St. John
David X Carpenter in his paper, "Wimund, Fossard Tenant in Yorkshire," identified a 'Thomas son of Ralph son of Wimund' in a lost charter granted land by Henry I. This lost charter was confirmed at two later dates where one person who confirmed it was William St. John. The 'Paynels' were of Yorkshire. I believe this Thomas son of Ralph, son of Wimund is Thomas St. John d. 1130. Thus Thomas St. John, son of Ralph St. John-Paynel son of Wimund II. And this Thomas St. John married the daughter of William Fossard, son of Nigel Fossard. Gilbert de Mont, son of Thomas St. John's sister, Alice/Alix/Adelisa, is said to be the nepos (nephew/descendant) of Thomas St. John m. ___ Fossard), John St. John (m. Hawise de Plugenet) and Hugh Plugenet and William Fossard.

Unfortunately, Carpenter does not match the individuals to people in Normandy or recognize when a second and third generation appear. That's what my efforts are trying to establish.

https://actswilliam2henry1.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/h1-wimund-2014-1.pdf

SuzanneSt. John
Peter Stewart
2021-03-10 01:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by St. John Genealogy
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the
known children of Robert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Guiscard
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in
the mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted
in Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was
probably a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.
Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.
The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")
There is a problem with the chronology and relationships of Rodolfo I of
Boiano in the work of Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles
normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie'
(1975), that is deservedly a standard reference for its subject.
Ménager accepted without question the authenticity of two charters that
led to his identifying Rodolfo I, who first appears in Italy in May
1053, as occurring in 1088 (although with inconsistent dating elements
that he overlooked) and 1092. The person named in the 1088 document is
represented as husband of Emma, father of Hugo and paternal uncle of
Roger and Robert (sons of his brother Robert). In 1092 he is represented
with 5 sons and 2 daughters, a deceased grandson, parents named Guimond
and Emma, 6 brothers (one of them rejoicing in the name Strostraynus)
and a deceased wife Alferada (NB the name of Rodolfo II's wife).
Ménager relied for the 1088 document on a summary by Giovanni Mongelli
published in 1956 (*Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle pergamene*,
vol I pp. 42-43 no. 82), and for the 1092 document on an edition by
Erasmo Gattola published in 1734 as well as a summary by Mongelli (op.
cit. p. 44 no. 86).
However, a few years after Ménager's work a massive edition of the
charters of Montevergine was begun by Placido Mario Tropeano, including
both of these charters in *Codice diplomatico verginiano* vol. I (1977).
Tropeano described the first, his no. 83 of 1088, as a pseudo-original
and the second, his no. 87 of March 1092, as a pseudo-authentic copy. It
certainly makes for an easier time in compiling a genealogy of the
Moulins-la-Marche/Boiano/Molise family to set aside the misleading
relationships in these forgeries.
Peter Stewart
I'd like to be clear, I have no desire for "wishful thinking" on any of these topics. I'm simply following what I believe to be primary record sources. If the primary records are unreliable, then that's "wishful thinking" on the record creator and not me. I have no desire to document fiction.
83: http://www.alim.dfll.univr.it/Notarili/alimnot.nsf/(cerca)/636BC755E1046112C1257F45004FF477?opendocument
87: http://www.alim.dfll.univr.it/Notarili/alimnot.nsf/(TestiPID)/65D22EAFE6059477C1257F45005242F3!opendocument
Neither of these links will open for me, but anyway it's not clear what
you are proposing to make of them. As I explained, Tropeano described
them both as forgeries ("falso" in each case). It is indeed wishful
thinking to accept confused details from forgeries made after Hugo II of
Boiano became count of Molise, one of which projects this title
anachronistically backwards.
Post by St. John Genealogy
My conclusions are based not solely on the Italian charters but with the records of Normandy too. While I appreciate the conclusions of these authors you mention, if they were unable to identify them in the Normandy records (Mont St-Michel & St. Pere, Chartres), and match them up, then in my opinion, their conclusions are the ones that are suspect.
But your conclusion that Rodolfo of Boiano occurring in 1053 was the
same as Ralph of St John who was identical to Ralph Paynel is apparently
arbitrary in the first place - so far you have given no substantial
evidence at all for this departure from countless historians who reached
no such conclusions or made such suggestions.
Post by St. John Genealogy
Wimund d'Avranches (Wimund I) m. [Jeanne _______] (Du Motey gives Wimund (I) a wife named Jeanne; but he cites no source) was at Moulins-le-Marche and he probably died before 1040 because he was in Mont-St. Michel charters as Wimund vicecomes. He first appears at Mont-St.-Michel in Gunnor's charter circa 1015 and then as Vicecomes in Richard II's charter there circa 1025. Moulins was named in entries among fine records that show the castle was within the jurisdiction of Exmes (his father Ansfrid II was count of Exmes and his mother was Wymarche de Normandy]. The Wimund in 1040 had no such title. (Cartul. du Mont-Saint-Michel, f. 20. Conf. Mem. de la Societe des antiq. de Normandie, 2* serie, II, 109) Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte suivie de ... By Léopold Delisle. pg. 6-7. https://archive.org/details/histoireduchate00deligoog/page/n333/mode/2up/search/guimundus
In a charter of Saint-Pere de Chartres, he is Guimundus parvus (1033 AD). This is the last record I could find for him.
Wimund Felix de la Haye-Paynel (Wimund II) m. Emma was at Moulins-le-Marche when William the Conqueror was betrayed during William of Talou's (Arques) rebellion 1052-1054. Some allege he was banished to Italy because of this but I find this doubtful.
."Guidmundus et mea uxor Emma cum nostre prole" donated property "in Rislo et in Moira et in Itone" and "de Molinis…meo castro, decimam" to Chartres Saint-Père by charter dated to before 1067 signed by "…Rodulfi. filii eius, Rodberti filii eius, Antonii filii eius, Guimundi filii eius [Wimund III], Hugonis filii eius, Alanni filii eius, Guillelmi filii eius, Toresgaudi filii eius…" . This charter for Saint-Pere names the children of this Wimund and his wife Emma [probably the daughter of Alan, Duke of Brittany] and this family structure is nearly identical to Ralph's 1088 charter with the exception of 1 brother. Here we find Ralph 1 as the son of Wimund 2. This Ralph de Moulins/di Molise is Ralph of St. John and Ralph Paynel. This Ralph was at the Battle of Civatate in 1053. In a charter for William de Falaise names his wife as Alberada (daughter of Wimund Felix) who is the son of an earlier Wimund with a brother named William de Fay. William de Falaise and his wife take over Moulins Castle and he becomes then known as William de Moulins.
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive). After the Battle of Hastings, Wimund II built La Haye-Paynel 'castle'/'manor' and the family began adopting the la Haye and Paynel surnames. In 1087, Ralph of St. John took 4 saltworks and land belonging to Serlon (his son in law) from Mont. St. Michel. Then, in 1088, Ralph of St. John was known as Ralph Paynel following the 1087 death of his brother William Paynel and this is how he appeared in Domesday. We can confirm this by following Domesday's West Rasen property: Tenant in chief, Odo Bishop of Bayeux and lord in 1086 Wimund (II) --> Ralph St. John/Paynel --> William Paynel --> Hugh Paynel. Farer and Clay document the property of West Rasen well except make Ralph Paynel the son of his brother William instead of son of Wimund. They also incorrectly merge Ralph St. John-Paynel with his son Ralph Paynel (II) that married Maud de Sourdeval.
The confusion I believe with the Italian charter evaluations is that there are two Wimunds (Wimund II and Wimund III) with wives named Emma (Emma [de Brittany] and Emma fitz Geoffrey d'Hauteville. And to make it worse, Ralph's 2nd wife was also an Emma. Emily Zack Tabuteau's 1992 paper "The Family of Moulins-la-Marche in the Eleventh Century," does a good job of explaining this. Unfortunately she doesn't match them up to their Norman counterparts and family beyond Moulins-la-Marche.
And while I understand consanguinity was not formally allowed, I believe it happened frequently, regardless.
This is a welter of inaccuracies and assumed identifications that would
be a waste of time to untangle. I have already posted that the
father-in-law of Rodolfo of Boiano in 1053 was Roffredo of Guardia.
"Emma [de Brittany] and Emma fitz Geoffrey d'Hauteville" are weird
concoctions as names and with no historical basis that you have
provided. The French for Brittany is Bretagne, and I don't believe that
any Geoffrey of Hauteville had a son (the meaning of the Anglo-Norman
"fitz" usage) named Emma. Consanguineous marriages were forbidden: if
you want to propose one, the evidence required is more than just wishful
supposition and crediting of
Peter Stewart
2021-03-10 05:51:04 UTC
Permalink
On 10-Mar-21 11:00 AM, St. John Genealogy wrote:

<snip>
Post by St. John Genealogy
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive). After the Battle of Hastings, Wimund II built La Haye-Paynel 'castle'/'manor' and the family began adopting the la Haye and Paynel surnames. In 1087, Ralph of St. John took 4 saltworks and land belonging to Serlon (his son in law) from Mont. St. Michel.
In 1087 Serlo the son-in-law of Rodolfo 'de Mulisio', count of Boiano,
had been dead for no less than 15 years. He was killed in an ambush near
Cerami in Sicily in 1072. His head was sent to Africa and paraded
through the streets of al-Mahdiyya. Perhaps John Schmeeckle could tell
us if he managed to reconvene his body parts and hold saltworks in
Normandy long after that contretemps.
Post by St. John Genealogy
Then, in 1088, Ralph of St. John was known as Ralph Paynel following the 1087 death of his brother William Paynel and this is how he appeared in Domesday.
And in 1088 Ralph Paynel was sheriff of Yorkshire. He married first a
daughter or sister of Ilbert de Lacy and secondly a daughter of Richard
de Surdeval. Not bad going for someone who had the chore of ruling
Boiano in Italy, a wife in 1053 whose father was Roffredo of Guardia and
according to your work that started this thread another wife who was an
unrecorded daughter of Robert Guiscard.

Could you take your hurdles one at a time and explain the documents or
circumstantial evidence for:

1. Identifying Ralph of St John with both Rodolfo of Boiano and Ralph Paynel

2. Attributing a daughter named Alferada to Robert Guiscard, and then
making her wife of Rodolfo (presumably after the Guardia wife of 1053
had died).


Peter Stewart

mk
2021-03-07 17:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
I can't seem to get to this without allowing the source access to all my email contacts (no facebook). Do you know if it covers the St. Johns of Sussex circa 14th century? The identity of Sir Edward St. John father of Elizabeth St. John de Braose Slyfield (d. 1433) is not (so far as I know) yet pinned down.

best, Monica
Hans Vogels
2021-03-07 17:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mk
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Hans Vogels
I can't seem to get to this without allowing the source access to all my email contacts (no facebook). Do you know if it covers the St. Johns of Sussex circa 14th century? The identity of Sir Edward St. John father of Elizabeth St. John de Braose Slyfield (d. 1433) is not (so far as I know) yet pinned down.
best, Monica
Hello Monica,

That's strange. I have no trouble finding and downloading the publication without snatch. What is shown is an excerpt of the eldest generations. The periode of their first appearance in England (early 12 th century) and the previous 11 th century Norman period.

https://www.academia.edu/ is a safe website according to the lock shown before the https:
In the searchbalk you can note the name of the author Suzanne St. John and then you see all what she has uploaded on the subject St. John.

Those publications can be freely viewed and or downloaded. The one I was commenting on was:
The St. John Genealogy Origin and Ancestry (2021) Genesis Excerpt

Academia.edu can be usefull if you are interested in other publications on the same period or subject.
The only snatch I know of is that once you have downloaded something Academia knows you are interested and brings on other new publications to your attention.

With regards,
Hans Vogels
Denis Beauregard
2021-03-07 22:51:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 09:24:14 -0800 (PST), Hans Vogels
No. The lock only means that the data exchanged with the web site is
encrypted. That is, if you enter your credit card number, the message
is encrypted so someone seeing your message won't see your number.

"Others" can read requests sent by web browser because those requests
are sent through a long list of intermediate servers.

In genealogy, this is important with recent information or if you make
purchases. Also, when using a web site, your personal information
can't be read by others, so your list of contacts for example is only
available to that site and not seen by others.

I think this kind of sites (this is now quite common) is using that
means to avoid cloning of the content. If you are afraid of using a
Facebook account, create a gmail account !


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2021-03-07 22:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by mk
Post by Hans Vogels
https://www.academia.edu/s/9f20811e84#comment_759942
I can't seem to get to this without allowing the source access to all my email contacts (no facebook). Do you know if it covers the St. Johns of Sussex circa 14th century? The identity of Sir Edward St. John father of Elizabeth St. John de Braose Slyfield (d. 1433) is not (so far as I know) yet pinned down.
That's strange. I have no trouble finding and downloading the publication without snatch. What is shown is an excerpt of the eldest generations. The periode of their first appearance in England (early 12 th century) and the previous 11 th century Norman period.
I am experiencing the same with the URL given, but by going back in from the author's page I get a URL that does not require logging in to view on-screen:

https://www.academia.edu/45361748/The_St_John_Genealogy_Origin_and_Ancestry_2021_Genesis_Excerpt

The same author has a second contribution on the same family here:

https://www.academia.edu/45385013/The_St_John_Genealogy_Origin_and_Ancestry_2021_Generation_One_Draft_Excerpt

taf
Loading...