Discussion:
Anne Mainwaring
(too old to reply)
b***@mail.com
2010-10-21 13:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Hello:

I was looking at ancestors of Peter Bulkeley in the line that goes back to Henry II by Ida and came across Anne Mainwaring who married a Charleton. Does anyone have a documented pedigree for her. On an archived posting I saw a reference to her mother as Margaret Warren who possibly married a William Mainwaring. I saw other archived postings discussing if this Warren line was somehow connected to Hamelin Plantagenet-but that seemed to be incorrect.

Thanks,

Beth Mansfield
A***@aol.com
2010-10-21 16:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Beth,

I had a quick look at the derivation of the name Mainwaring, from a place
named Mesnilwarin that is 'the manor of Warin'

Don't know where Mesnilwarin was. Warren is quite a common name here in
Surrey (c.f. Earl of Surrey) - I always though it was a name connected with
rabbit warrens, supposedly quite a delicacy to the Norman's, but other refs
say rabbits were introduced by the Romans, - but now I see that Warren
comes from La Varenne, Seine-Inferieure, France.

Adrian
In a message dated 21/10/2010 14:37:26 GMT Daylight Time, ***@mail.com
writes:
Hello:

I was looking at ancestors of Peter Bulkeley in the line that goes back to
Henry II by Ida and came across Anne Mainwaring who married a Charleton.
Does anyone have a documented pedigree for her. On an archived posting I
saw a reference to her mother as Margaret Warren who possibly married a
William Mainwaring. I saw other archived postings discussing if this Warren
line was somehow connected to Hamelin Plantagenet-but that seemed to be
incorrect.

Thanks,

Beth Mansfield
<<<<<
Kay Allen
2010-10-21 17:09:35 UTC
Permalink
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Kay Allen <***@pacbell.net>
To: ***@mail.com
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 10:08:48 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mainwaring


This pedigree can be found in Ormerod's History of Chester. Her father, William,
who is the first Mainwaring of
Ightfield, is from the Mainwarings of Over Peover. If the Warrens do connect
with the Warennes, it is quite early on.

Ightfield is in Shropshire and Over Peover is in Cheshire.

Kay Allen AG



________________________________
From: "***@mail.com" <***@mail.com>
To: GEN-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 6:37:06 AM
Subject: Anne Mainwaring


Hello:

I was looking at ancestors of Peter Bulkeley in the line that goes back to Henry
II by Ida and came across Anne Mainwaring who married a Charleton. Does anyone
have a documented pedigree for her. On an archived posting I saw a reference to
her mother as Margaret Warren who possibly married a William Mainwaring. I saw
other archived postings discussing if this Warren line was somehow connected to
Hamelin Plantagenet-but that seemed to be incorrect.


Thanks,

Beth Mansfield

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
gryphon801
2010-10-21 20:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kay Allen
----- Forwarded Message ----
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 10:08:48 AM
Subject: Re: Anne Mainwaring
This pedigree can be found in Ormerod's History of Chester. Her father, William,
who is the first Mainwaring of
Ightfield, is from the Mainwarings of Over Peover.  If the Warrens do connect
with the Warennes, it is quite early on.
Ightfield is in Shropshire and Over Peover is in Cheshire.
Kay Allen AG
________________________________
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 6:37:06 AM
Subject: Anne Mainwaring
I was looking at ancestors of Peter Bulkeley in the line that goes back to Henry
II by Ida and came across Anne Mainwaring who married a Charleton.  Does anyone
have a documented pedigree for her.  On an archived posting I saw a reference to
her mother as Margaret Warren who possibly married a William Mainwaring.  I saw
other archived postings discussing if this Warren line was somehow connected to
Hamelin Plantagenet-but that seemed to be incorrect.  
Thanks,
Beth Mansfield
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Warrens of Poynton were descended from an illegitimate son of the
Earl of Warren and Surrey who in turn was descended in the male line
from Hamelin Plantagenet [see the Complete Peerage and Ormerod's
account of this Warren family]. Male descendants of this family still
live in the United States.
Michael o Hearn
2010-10-21 17:57:34 UTC
Permalink
One of the Waverly Novels of Sir Walter Scott available on Google Books is
entitled "Guy Mannering", and I believe that the central character was intended
to refer to this Normal lineage in Northumbria. There ware also other Norman
families including Bertram and Heron in the same location.


Michael O'Hearn
Tony Hoskins
2010-10-21 21:34:16 UTC
Permalink
A Y-DNA comparison between one such Warren and a male of the Somerset (dukes of Beaufort) family would be fascinating. Branches of the same male line separted by almost 900 years.
Peter Stewart
2010-10-22 00:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Hoskins
A Y-DNA comparison between one such Warren and a
male of the Somerset (dukes of Beaufort) family would
be fascinating. Branches of the same male line separted
by almost 900 years.
Indeed it would - and considering the great fuss that the Somerset family
(and some of their relatives, especially the Sitwells) have been making for
centuries about their supposedly unique Plantagent bloodline, it would be
interesting to know the sources linking the Warrens of Poynton to Hamelin.

Peter Stewart
taf
2010-10-22 01:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Tony Hoskins
A Y-DNA comparison between one such Warren and a
male of the Somerset (dukes of Beaufort)  family would
be fascinating. Branches of the same male line separted
by almost 900 years.
Indeed it would - and considering the great fuss that the Somerset family
(and some of their relatives, especially the Sitwells) have been making for
centuries about their supposedly unique Plantagent bloodline, it would be
interesting to know the sources linking the Warrens of Poynton to Hamelin.
There are two separate solutions to this problem. One makes them
descended from an illegitimate son of the last Warenne Earl (and hence
from Hamelin), the other from, if I recall correctly, the Warenne's of
Whitchurch (don't quote me on this). Evidence has been posted here in
the past that the Earl did have illegitimate children, including one
of the appropriate name, yet some of the arguments made in the other
reconstruction likewise seem persuasive, at least in isolation and I
don't recall anything that explicitly refuted them. I have never
looked closely enough to determine whether one, the other, or neither
is well enough supported that the identity can be taken for granted.

More in the FWIW category, there could also be male-line descent from
the Cornwall family, descended in the illegitimate line from earl
Richard, but this is more along the lines of a possibility in a family
where the younger branches disappear into obscurity, not a delineated
descent.

taf
Peter Stewart
2010-10-22 02:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Tony Hoskins
A Y-DNA comparison between one such Warren and a
male of the Somerset (dukes of Beaufort) family would
be fascinating. Branches of the same male line separted
by almost 900 years.
Indeed it would - and considering the great fuss that the Somerset family
(and some of their relatives, especially the Sitwells) have been making for
centuries about their supposedly unique Plantagent bloodline, it would be
interesting to know the sources linking the Warrens of Poynton to Hamelin.
There are two separate solutions to this problem. One makes them
descended from an illegitimate son of the last Warenne Earl (and
hence from Hamelin), the other from, if I recall correctly, the
Warenne's of Whitchurch (don't quote me on this). Evidence has
been posted here in the past that the Earl did have illegitimate
children, including one of the appropriate name, yet some of the
arguments made in the other reconstruction likewise seem persuasive,
at least in isolation and I don't recall anything that explicitly refuted
them. I have never looked closely enough to determine whether one,
the other, or neither is well enough supported that the identity can be
taken for granted.
Thanks, I han't noticed this question before.

According to CP 12 part 1, p. 511f note (k):

"The Earl, who had formed an association with Maud de Nerford, wife of S. de
Diriba, made many attempts to obtain a dissolution of his marriage; first on
the ground of consanguinity, later on the ground that he had previously been
contracted to Maud, and thirdly that before his marriage he had had carnal
knowledge of Mary, sister of Eleanor, Joan's mother. He actually produced a
Papal bull declaring the marriage to be invalid, but the English bishops
ignored it; and in 1344 and 1345 the Vatican directed that he should be
warned and compelled to treat with marital affection his wife, whom he
married by dispensation of Clement V, and issued a declaration of the
validity of the marriage, absolving him in respect of his offence with his
wife's aunt (*Cal. Papal Registers*, vol. iii, pp. 116, 173, 169; and for
full details, see *Yorkshire Arch. Journal*, vol. xix, p. 193 et seq.).
Watson's attempt, in *The House of Warren*, vol. ii, pp. 75-82, to prove
that the Warrens of Poynton, Cheshire, were legitimately descended from an
Earl of Surrey, was disposed of by Ormerod, *Hist. Cheshire*, vol. iii, p.
680, and by J. G. Nichols, *Her. and Geneal.*, vol. vii, pp. 193-219.
Edward, the founder of the Poynton Warrens, was a bastard son of the last
Warenne Earl of Surrey by Maud de Nerford, as is established by the fact
that Maud's inheritance in Skeyton, Norf., remained in the family of the
Warrens of Poynton for some generations (Ormerod, op. cit., p. 682). Edward
is mentioned in the Earl's will. After Maud's death the Earl bestowed his
affections on Isabel de Holand."

Is there a definite line from Edward, apparently the first of the Warrens of
Poynton, to living descendants in the USA?

Peter Stewart
taf
2010-10-22 04:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Tony Hoskins
A Y-DNA comparison between one such Warren and a
male of the Somerset (dukes of Beaufort) family would
be fascinating. Branches of the same male line separted
by almost 900 years.
Indeed it would - and considering the great fuss that the Somerset family
(and some of their relatives, especially the Sitwells) have been making for
centuries about their supposedly unique Plantagent bloodline, it would be
interesting to know the sources linking the Warrens of Poynton to Hamelin.
There are two separate solutions to this problem.  One makes them
descended from an illegitimate son of the last Warenne Earl (and
hence from Hamelin), the other from, if I recall correctly, the
Warenne's of Whitchurch (don't quote me on this).  Evidence has
been posted here in the past that the Earl did have illegitimate
children, including one of the appropriate name, yet some of the
arguments made in the other reconstruction likewise seem persuasive,
at least in isolation and I don't recall anything that explicitly refuted
them.  I have never looked closely enough to determine whether one,
the other, or neither is well enough supported that the identity can be
taken for granted.
Thanks, I han't noticed this question before.
"The Earl, who had formed an association with Maud de Nerford, wife of S. de
Diriba, made many attempts to obtain a dissolution of his marriage; first on
the ground of consanguinity, later on the ground that he had previously been
contracted to Maud, and thirdly that before his marriage he had had carnal
knowledge of Mary, sister of Eleanor, Joan's mother. He actually produced a
Papal bull declaring the marriage to be invalid, but the English bishops
ignored it; and in 1344 and 1345 the Vatican directed that he should be
warned and compelled to treat with marital affection his wife, whom he
married by dispensation of Clement V, and issued a declaration of the
validity of the marriage, absolving him in respect of his offence with his
wife's aunt (*Cal. Papal Registers*, vol. iii, pp. 116, 173, 169; and for
full details, see *Yorkshire Arch. Journal*, vol. xix, p. 193 et seq.).
Watson's attempt, in *The House of Warren*, vol. ii, pp. 75-82, to prove
that the Warrens of Poynton, Cheshire, were legitimately descended from an
Earl of Surrey, was disposed of by Ormerod, *Hist. Cheshire*, vol. iii, p.
680, and by J. G. Nichols, *Her. and Geneal.*, vol. vii, pp. 193-219.
Edward, the founder of the Poynton Warrens, was a bastard son of the last
Warenne Earl of Surrey by Maud de Nerford, as is established by the fact
that Maud's inheritance in Skeyton, Norf., remained in the family of the
Warrens of Poynton for some generations (Ormerod, op. cit., p. 682). Edward
is mentioned in the Earl's will. After Maud's death the Earl bestowed his
affections on Isabel de Holand."
Would an illegitimate child of Maud have inherited? The alternative
solution posits a transfer (sale or enfeofment - I don't recall which)
from Maud to a member of a younger branch.
Post by Peter Stewart
Is there a definite line from Edward, apparently the first of the Warrens of
Poynton, to living descendants in the USA?
I was not aware that this was the case, nor do I know that it's not.

taf
Peter Stewart
2010-10-22 04:25:33 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by taf
Would an illegitimate child of Maud have inherited? The alternative
solution posits a transfer (sale or enfeofment - I don't recall which)
from Maud to a member of a younger branch.
But as I understand it Edward, if he was Maud's son, was ostensibly
legitimate - she was said to be "wife of S. de Diriba", who would have been
legally the boy's father unless he took steps to disown the connection.

Peter Stewart
taf
2010-10-22 12:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Would an illegitimate child of Maud have inherited? The alternative
solution posits a transfer (sale or enfeofment - I don't recall which)
from Maud to a member of a younger branch.
But as I understand it Edward, if he was Maud's son, was ostensibly
legitimate - she was said to be "wife of S. de Diriba", who would have been
legally the boy's father unless he took steps to disown the connection.
Ah, yes. Never looked into it enough to know whether she was married
to someone else at the time.

taf
John P. Ravilious
2010-10-22 13:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by taf
Would an illegitimate child of Maud have inherited? The alternative
solution posits a transfer (sale or enfeofment - I don't recall which)
from Maud to a member of a younger branch.
But as I understand it Edward, if he was Maud's son, was ostensibly
legitimate - she was said to be "wife of S. de Diriba", who would have been
legally the boy's father unless he took steps to disown the connection.
Peter Stewart
-----------------------


[2nd attempt]

Dear Peter,

According to my notes, 'S de Diriba' was Simon de Driby, elder
son of Sir Robert de Driby and Joan de Tateshal. He died before 2
August 1322 [date of an order to the executors of his will: CFR 16 Edw
II, p. 176, mem.19].

There was a subsequent order dated 16 June 1323 to the escheator
beyond Trent, "to deliver to Robert de Driby, brother an dheir of
Simon de Driby, tenant in chief" the lands of his late brother.
Robert was then of age, as he had rendered homage on or before that
date [CFR 16 Edw II, p. 214, mem. 3]. So we can determine that if
Simon's wife had any issue, they were not considered the legitimate
issue of Simon.

Another matter that merits review - the last order in the
Calendar of Fine Rolls names Simon's widow as Margery_. Was this the
correct name of "Maud" de Nerford, or had she died (or been
divorced ?) prior to 1322?

Cheers,

John
Peter Stewart
2010-10-22 21:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John P. Ravilious
According to my notes, 'S de Diriba' was Simon de Driby, elder
son of Sir Robert de Driby and Joan de Tateshal. He died before 2
August 1322 [date of an order to the executors of his will: CFR 16
Edw II, p. 176, mem.19].
There was a subsequent order dated 16 June 1323 to the escheator
beyond Trent, "to deliver to Robert de Driby, brother an dheir of
Simon de Driby, tenant in chief" the lands of his late brother.
Robert was then of age, as he had rendered homage on or before that
date [CFR 16 Edw II, p. 214, mem. 3]. So we can determine that if
Simon's wife had any issue, they were not considered the legitimate
issue of Simon.
Another matter that merits review - the last order in the
Calendar of Fine Rolls names Simon's widow as Margery_. Was this
the correct name of "Maud" de Nerford, or had she died (or been
divorced ?) prior to 1322?
We can conclude from the order that Edward de Warenne was not the son of
Simon de Driby who died before 2 August 1322 leaving a widow named Margery,
but rather than making assumptions about a similar name for the man and then
questioning a different one for the woman how can we determine that this
same man had been married to Maud who was evidently named by John de Warenne
("The Earl, who had formed an association with Maud de Nerford, wife of S.
de Diriba, made many attempts to obtain a dissolution of his marriage; first
on the ground of consanguinity, later on the ground that he had previously
been contracted to Maud")?

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-22 15:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 511, footnote k states in error that
Skeyton, Norfolk was Maud de Nerford's "inheritance." Elsewhere,
Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 352–359
(sub Boton) indicates that Maud de Nerford and her sons, Ralph and
Edward, acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in 1323
by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt. On Maud de Nerford's death
in or after 1345, these properties both passed to Maud's illegitimate
son, Edward de Warenne, and his heirs. Edward de Warenne was Maud's
heir by settlement, not by blood inheritance. An illegitimate child
was barred from inheriting anything from their parents. But parents
could and did buy property and give it to their illegitimate
children. A property settlement could and did have the same effect.

The material in Blomefield may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=78264&strquery=Boton

Edward de Warenne's paternity is attested by two records. First, in
1346, Edward then being ready to attend the king abroad, his father
the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the
demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk [see Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907) 248:, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EEhMbAEi-aIC&pg=PA248&dq=1346+Surrey+Edward+Earl+Chancellor+discharged+demand+man-at-arms+lands+in+Norfolk&hl=en&ei=7KTBTPT9O8icnweSrKXSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=1346%20Surrey%20Edward%20Earl%20Chancellor%20discharged%20demand%20man-at-arms%20lands%20in%20Norfolk&f=false

This record is also published in Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating
to Scotland Preserved in Her Majesty's Public Record Office, London 3
(1887): 265, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KpfRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA265&dq=1346+Surrey+Edward+Earl+Chancellor+discharged+demand+man-at-arms+lands+in+Norfolk&hl=en&ei=7KTBTPT9O8icnweSrKXSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=1346%20Surrey%20Edward%20Earl%20Chancellor%20discharged%20demand%20man-at-arms%20lands%20in%20Norfolk&f=false

Second, Edward de Warenne was likewise named in the 1347 will of his
father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey [see Testamenta Eboracensia 1
(Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47].

Evidence of Edward de Warenne's maternity is further supplied by the
arms employed by his later descendants: Chequy or and azure [Warenne],
on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine [Nerford]
[see Eedes, Cheshire Pedigrees (1882): 499; Cooke & St. George, Vis.
of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137].
Blomefield Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 359–364
(sub Skeyton) states: "The arms of Warrens, lord here, with the canton
of Nerford."

I might further point out that Maud de Nerford was not an heiress, as
implied by Complete Peerage. She had several brothers, one of whom,
Thomas de Nerford, left issue a son and heir, John (see C.P. 9 (1936):
469–470 (sub Nerford); VCH Sussex 7 (1940): 207–208)].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2010-10-22 17:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Just to keep clear what is said . . .
Post by Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 511, footnote k states in error that
Skeyton, Norfolk was Maud de Nerford's "inheritance."  Elsewhere,
Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 352–359
(sub Boton) indicates that Maud de Nerford and her sons, Ralph and
Edward, acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in 1323
by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt.  On Maud de Nerford's death
in or after 1345, these properties both passed to Maud's illegitimate
son, Edward de Warenne, and his heirs.  Edward de Warenne was Maud's
heir by settlement, not by blood inheritance.  An illegitimate child
was barred from inheriting anything from their parents.   But parents
could and did buy property and give it to their illegitimate
children.  A property settlement could and did have the same effect.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=78264&strquery=Boton
Blomefield summarizes a grant to a Maud de Nerford and her sons Edward
de Warenne and Ralph de Warenne - no William.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Edward de Warenne's paternity is attested by two records.  First, in
1346, Edward then being ready to attend the king abroad, his father
the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the
demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk [see Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907) 248:, which may be viewed at the
http://books.google.com/books?id=EEhMbAEi-aIC&pg=PA248&dq=1346+Surrey...
The Earl had sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Second, Edward de Warenne was likewise named in the 1347 will of his
father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey [see Testamenta Eboracensia 1
(Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47].
Names sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Evidence of Edward de Warenne's maternity is further supplied by the
arms employed by his later descendants: Chequy or and azure [Warenne],
on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine [Nerford]
[see Eedes, Cheshire Pedigrees (1882): 499; Cooke & St. George, Vis.
of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137].
Blomefield Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 359–364
(sub Skeyton) states: "The arms of Warrens, lord here, with the canton
of Nerford."
Watson argues this was Mowbray, not Nerford. That being said, what is
the earliest this canton is documented?

The alternative reconstruction argues that there were two Maud de
Nerfords (or Mauds de Nerford). One was the mistress of Earl John.
The other was daughter and coheiress of Richard de Skegton (Skeyton)
and widow of a Nerford, wife of an Edward de Warenne who had sons
Edward and Ralph, and the account of this argument I see suggests
documents that indicate Edward the younger inherited from his father -
again, problematic were he not legitimate.

If this all hangs on a conflict between a Blomefield reference vs a
Watson reference, both over 200 years old, and a coat of arms from 200
years after the fact and of dubious interpretation, then my comfort
level with a definitive conclusion would not be very high.

I note that there are references to Edward de Warenne 'of Skegton' in
Rye's The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, (search Google Books for
Warrenna and Skegton).

taf
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-22 19:19:46 UTC
Permalink
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Post by taf
Just to keep clear what is said . . .
Post by Douglas Richardson
Edward de Warenne's paternity is attested by two records.  First, in
1346, Edward then being ready to attend the king abroad, his father
the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the
demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk [see Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907) 248:, which may be viewed at the
http://books.google.com/books?id=EEhMbAEi-aIC&pg=PA248&dq=1346+Surrey...
The Earl had sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
The 1346 record I cited names only two illegitimate sons of the Earl,
both of whom were knights. But this is not all of his children. The
Earl actually had a large tribe of illegitimate children, including
six sons, John (clerk), Thomas (clerk), Ralph (living 1334), Edward,
Knt., William, Knt., William [Prior of Horton, Kent], and three
daughters, Joan (wife of _____ de Basing), Katherine (allegedly wife
of Robert de Heveningham), and Isabel (nun).
Post by taf
Post by Douglas Richardson
Evidence of Edward de Warenne's maternity is further supplied by the
arms employed by his later descendants: Chequy or and azure [Warenne],
on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine [Nerford]
[see Eedes, Cheshire Pedigrees (1882): 499; Cooke & St. George, Vis.
of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137].
Blomefield Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 359–364
(sub Skeyton) states: "The arms of Warrens, lord here, with the canton
of Nerford."
Watson argues this was Mowbray, not Nerford.  That being said, what is
the earliest this canton is documented?
Just when did Watson became an expert of heraldry? Answer: Never.

The book, A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, by Woodward and
Burnett, 2 (1892): 554, says the arms in the canton borne by the
descendants of Edward Warenne stand for Nerford, not Mowbray. This
source may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Hm1FAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=Nerford+gules+a+lion+rampant+within+a+bordure+ermine&source=bl&ots=tEZaprBy6A&sig=aI4gDtZSZfJihY6xqwR0xv5xOGE&hl=en&ei=ReDBTMieCoe2sAOktZHpCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Post by taf
I note that there are references to Edward de Warenne 'of Skegton' in
Rye's The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, (search Google Books for
Warrenna and Skegton).
The 1346 record I cited clearly states that Edward de Warenne, son of
Earl John, had lands in Norfolk. Skegton [Skeyton] is in Norfolk.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2010-10-22 23:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by taf
Just to keep clear what is said . . .
Post by Douglas Richardson
Edward de Warenne's paternity is attested by two records.  First, in
1346, Edward then being ready to attend the king abroad, his father
the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the
demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk [see Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907) 248:, which may be viewed at the
http://books.google.com/books?id=EEhMbAEi-aIC&pg=PA248&dq=1346+Surrey...
The Earl had sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
The 1346 record I cited names only two illegitimate sons of the Earl,
both of whom were knights.  But this is not all of his children.  The
Earl actually had a large tribe of illegitimate children, including
six sons, John (clerk), Thomas (clerk), Ralph (living 1334), Edward,
Knt., William, Knt., William [Prior of Horton, Kent], and three
daughters, Joan (wife of _____ de Basing), Katherine (allegedly wife
of Robert de Heveningham), and Isabel (nun).
So you tell us.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by taf
Post by Douglas Richardson
Evidence of Edward de Warenne's maternity is further supplied by the
arms employed by his later descendants: Chequy or and azure [Warenne],
on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine [Nerford]
[see Eedes, Cheshire Pedigrees (1882): 499; Cooke & St. George, Vis.
of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137].
Blomefield Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 359–364
(sub Skeyton) states: "The arms of Warrens, lord here, with the canton
of Nerford."
Watson argues this was Mowbray, not Nerford.  That being said, what is
the earliest this canton is documented?
Just when did Watson became an expert of heraldry?  Answer:  Never.
Oh, in that case it can't possibly be Mowbray, because Watson said it
was, and he is not an expert, he must then be wrong. It has nothing
to do with the actual arms Edward used, but who characterized them.

This is not a question of expertise. It is a question of whether the
lion had spots.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The book, A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign, by Woodward and
Burnett, 2 (1892): 554, says the arms in the canton borne by the
descendants of Edward Warenne stand for Nerford, not Mowbray.  This
Don't make me laugh. An 1892 generic book on heraldry to prove what
arms Edward Warenne used?
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by taf
I note that there are references to Edward de Warenne 'of Skegton' in
Rye's The Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany, (search Google Books for
Warrenna and Skegton).
The 1346 record I cited clearly states that Edward de Warenne, son of
Earl John, had lands in Norfolk.  Skegton [Skeyton] is in Norfolk.
That proves it, because there couldn't possibly be two people named
Edward de Warenne in Norfolk.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-23 00:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
That proves it, because there couldn't possibly be two people named
Edward de Warenne in Norfolk.
taf
Exactly.

Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
2010-10-25 00:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
The 1346 record I cited names only two illegitimate sons of the Earl,
both of whom were knights. But this is not all of his children. The
Earl actually had a large tribe of illegitimate children, including
six sons, John (clerk), Thomas (clerk), Ralph (living 1334), Edward,
Knt., William, Knt., William [Prior of Horton, Kent], and three
daughters, Joan (wife of _____ de Basing), Katherine (allegedly wife
of Robert de Heveningham), and Isabel (nun).
What is the evidence that John and Thomas were clerks?

At least two of these children were born before 30 April 1313, when John de
Monmouth, bishop of Llandaff, mentioned them in writing to Robert
Winchelsey, archibishop of Canterbury, and other prelates in the provincial
council of 1313 in London - here's a new reference for your list, _Records
of Convocation_ edited by Gerald Bray, vol. 3, Canterbury, 1313-1377
(Woodbridge, 2005), p. 8 [NB the editor misdates this 30 April 1314, but
Robert Winchelsey died on 11 May 1313]:

"Scelus nefandum adulterii notorii quod nobilis vir Iohannes de Warenne,
comes Surriae damnabiliter perpetrare non metuit et notorie committere non
desistit ... (nobili muliere domina Iohanna, excellentissimi principis
Edwardi, Dei gratia regis Angliae nepote, uxore sua legitima, cui se olim in
facie ecclesiae solemniter compulavit, sine iudicio ecclesiae temere
dimissa), diabolus instigavit quandam Matildam de Narford, quae Domino
Simoni de Dribi nuptiis ex more celebratis matrimonialiter adhuc fuisse
coniuncta, in adulteriis detinuit amplexibus ... sicut in adulterio per
multa iam tempora notorie detenuit et adhuc detinet et soboles praestitit
sui testes adhuc superstites ex ipsa suscitavit ..."

This text is from the register of the succeeding archbishop, Walter
Reynolds, folios 52v-53r in case you want to add the microfilm version to
your list as well.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 04:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Just to keep clear what is said . . .

Yes, taf, Earl John de Warenne had a bastard son named Ralph, just as
I stated. See Strachey, Rotuli Parliamentorum 2 (1777): 88, which
record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=45321

This record dated 1334 names "Ravlyn fitz al Counte de Garrein," that
is, Raulyn son of the Earl of Warenne. Raulyn is the medieval
nickname for Ralph, much as Robin was the nickname for Robert, Colin
for Nicholas, Janin for John, etc.

You're often long on opinion, taf, and short on research.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Oct 22, 11:07 am, taf <***@clearwire.net> wrote:
< Just to keep clear what is said . . .
< > Edward de Warenne's paternity is attested by two records.  First,
in
< > 1346, Edward then being ready to attend the king abroad, his
father
< > the Earl requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the
< > demand to find a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk [see
Yorkshire
< > Archaeological Journal, 19 (1907) 248:, which may be viewed at the
< > following weblink:
<
< >http://books.google.com/books?id=EEhMbAEi-
aIC&pg=PA248&dq=1346+Surrey...
<
< The Earl had sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
<
< > Second, Edward de Warenne was likewise named in the 1347 will of
his
< > father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey [see Testamenta
Eboracensia 1
< > (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47].
<
< Names sons Edward and William - no Ralph.
<
< taf
Peter Stewart
2010-10-24 05:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Just to keep clear what is said . . .
Yes, taf, Earl John de Warenne had a bastard son named Ralph, just
as I stated. See Strachey, Rotuli Parliamentorum 2 (1777): 88, which
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval&CISOPTR=45321
This record dated 1334 names "Ravlyn fitz al Counte de Garrein,"
that is, Raulyn son of the Earl of Warenne. Raulyn is the medieval
nickname for Ralph, much as Robin was the nickname for Robert,
Colin for Nicholas, Janin for John, etc.
You're often long on opinion, taf, and short on research.
Um, someone else is even shorter on comprehension - in this case Todd wasn't
putting forward his own opinion, but rather summarising what was stated in
various secondary works that had been cited.

Following context in sources and representing others accurately in
discussions are very basic skills for professionals, in every field.

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 05:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 508–509 refers to a
settlement of part of the barony of Wich-Malbank made by John de
Warenne, Earl of Surrey, in favor of Ralph de Warenne and Joan his
wife. The record itself is undated, but was apparently recorded in 10
and 11 Edward III [i.e., 1336-1338]. This record may be found at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h_sUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=%22John+de+Warenne%22&hl=en&ei=WL7DTI65MNP9nAf6qJXSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Browe&f=false

Ralph de Warenne is surely the same person as the Earl's bastard son
by Maud de Nerford, which Ralph de Warenne was living in 1334 as
proven in my last post.

Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 62 further cites a
record which indicates that the said Ralph de Warenne died without
issue. This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h_sUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=%22John+de+Warenne%22&hl=en&ei=WL7DTI65MNP9nAf6qJXSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Browning&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 06:25:28 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 23, 11:43 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

< Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 508–509 refers to a
< settlement of part of the barony of Wich-Malbank made by John de
< Warenne, Earl of Surrey, in favor of Ralph de Warenne and Joan his
< wife.  The record itself is undated, but was apparently recorded in
10
< and 11 Edward III [i.e., 1336-1338].  This record may be found at
the
< following weblink:
<
< http://books.google.com/books?id=h_sUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA263&dq=%22John+de+...

As a followup to my earlier post, I see that Paul MacKenzie has
identified Joan, wife of Ralph de Warenne, named in the record above
as Joan de Percy, who "married Ralph Warrene around 1338 who [Ralph]
latter died sometime prior to 1342." Joan de Percy subsequently
married (2nd) Peter de Brewes and (3rd) Alan Cheyne.

I concur with Paul that Ralph de Warenne, husband of Joan de Percy, is
the illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, by his
mistress, Maud de Nerford. He would be the same person as "Raulyn son
of the Earl of Warenne" named in the Rolls of Parliament for 1334. I
concur with Paul that Ralph de Warenne's death without issue before
1342 would explain why he was not mentioned in the 1347 will of his
father, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey.

The only minor point on which I might disagree with Paul is the date
of the marriage of Ralph and Joan, which the above record indicates
took place in or before 1336-1338, rather than "about 1338." In
short, Paul has done a fine job of research. Thanks again to Paul for
sharing his findings with the newsgroup.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2010-10-24 13:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Just to keep clear what is said . . .
Yes, taf, Earl John de Warenne had a bastard son named Ralph, just as
I stated.
And you have finally shown evidence of that fact. Your habit of
making ex cathedra proclamations that blur the distinction between
direct attestation, deduction, and outright guesswork makes such an
exercise necessary.

In this case, your best evidence was that the Earl Warenne had a son
named Edward in the same county as well as a son William, and that
Edward de Warenne of Poynton (or at least an Edward holding lands
later held by Warenne of Poynton) was son of a Maud de Nerford and had
a brother Ralph. All these records had in common was that they both
related to Norfolk. You also showed that several hundred years later
the Warennes of Poynton used a canton that in some renditions might
match Nerford (of dubious probative value even if true, since the
alternative hypothesis also posits a descent from a Maud de Nerford).
Both of these are consistent with the hypothesis, but hardly evidence
proving the hypothesis.
Post by taf
You're often long on opinion, taf, and short on research.
Given that I was not presenting an opinion, you were, and the research
you presented was short - laughably short, in demonstrating what it
was claimed to demonstrate, the irony here is rather thick. This is
just another of the all too predictable self-righteous personal
attacks that you deploy in response to anyone holding you to your own
supposed standards rather than accepting your hypocritical
pontifications as manna from God.

Now that you have Googled far and wide and actually stumbled across
stronger evidence, rather than taking pleasure in how having a
strengthened argument, you act like this validates your earlier
overstatements: that presenting unsupported material as proof is
justified if you later turn up support, as if making actual clothes
for the Emperor later on means that he wasn't really naked at the
start.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 15:42:32 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 24, 7:48 am, taf <***@clearwire.net> wrote:

< Given that I was not presenting an opinion, you were, and the
research
< you presented was short - laughably short, in demonstrating what it
< was claimed to demonstrate, the irony here is rather thick.  This is
< just another of the all too predictable self-righteous personal
< attacks that you deploy in response to anyone holding you to your
own
< supposed standards rather than accepting your hypocritical
< pontifications as manna from God.
<
< taf

My point was to encourage you to post your research and supply
weblinks if you have them. That's all.

DR
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 17:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is my file account of Sir Edward de Warenne (died c.1349), the
illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and his mistress,
Maud de Nerford. I've cited all my sources.

I try to be thorough. If I've missed something, please advise me.
Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

I. EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt., of Booton, Skeyton, Crostweyth, Fransham,
and Rougham, Norfolk, illegitimate son by his father’s mistress, Maud
de Nerford, born c.1316–23. He married before 1344 CECILY DE ETON,
formerly contracted wife of John de Arderne, the younger (divorced
while underage in 1332), and daughter of Nicholas de Eton, Knt., of
Ratley, Warwickshire, Woodplumpton, Lancashire, etc., by Joan,
daughter and heiress of Robert de Stockport. They had three sons,
John, Knt., William, and Edward. In 1346 he was serving in France in
the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl
requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find
a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk. He was a legatee in the 1347
will of his father. SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE died before 20 Oct. 1349.
His widow, Cecily, was living in 1352, and died before 1369.

References:

Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 3 (1769): 604, 607,
609–610 (arms of Warren of Poynton quartering Eton and Stockport were
formerly in a window in Booton church); 6 (1807): 230, 352–359 (sub
Boton), 359–364 (sub Skeyton) (“[In the church of Skeyton] … The arms
of Warren, lords here, with the canton of Nerford, and Warren
quartering on a chevron three swans [?ETON]). Ormerod, Hist. of
Chester 3 (1819, 1st ed.): 340–343; 3 (1882, 2nd ed.): 680–687.
Hunter, South Yorkshire 1 (1828): 105 (Warenne ped.). Testamenta
Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47 (will of John de Warenne,
Earl of Surrey). Stapleton, De Antiquis Legibus Liber: Cronica
Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum (Camden Soc. 34) (1846): clxxix–
clxxx. Ormerod, Parentalia, Gen. Mems. (1851): 19, 85–88. Herald &
Genealogist 7 (1873): 213–219. Papworth, Alphabetical Dict. of Coats
of Arms Belonging to Fams. in Great Britain & Ireland 1 (1874): 397
(arms of Sir Nicholas de Eton, co. Warwick, temp. Edward I: Gules a
chevron between three eagles displayed argent). Earwaker, East
Cheshire 1 (1877): 339, 342, 343; 2 (1880): 274–275, 286.
Heginbotham, Stockport Ancient & Modern 1 (1882): 144–145. Glover et
al., Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18) (1882): 241–
243 (Warren ped.: “Edward Warren. = Ciceley Elton [recte Eton].”).
Eedes Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MS 1424: fo.143; Harleian
MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a
canton gules a lion rampant argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of
Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren
arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a
bordure ermine). Rye, Short Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2
(1886): 267–268. Bain, Cal. of Docs. rel. to Scotland 3 (1887): 265.
Fishwick, Hist. of the Parish of St. Michaels-on-Wyre (Chetham Soc.
n.s. 25) (1891): 22–25. Woodward & Burnett, Treatise on Heraldry,
British & Foreign 2 (1892): 554. Wrottesley, Crécy & Calais (1898):
83, 123. Genealogist n.s. 18 (1902): 241. C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905):
451–452. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 396–397.
Feudal Aids 4 (1906): 483, 485, 539. Yorkshire Arch. Jour. 19 (1907):
193–264. VCH Lancaster 7 (1912): 285–286. Reg. of Edward the Black
Prince 3 (1932): 64. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 144–145. C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 511, footnote k [incorrectly states that Skeyton, Norfolk was
his mother, Maud de Nerford’s “inheritance.” Blomefield indicates
that Maud acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in
1323 by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt., not by inheritance.
Maud had several brothers, one of whom, Thomas de Nerford, left issue
a son and heir, John (see C.P. 9 (1936): 469–470 (sub Nerford); VCH
Sussex 7 (1940): 207–208)].
taf
2010-10-24 18:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is my file account of Sir Edward de Warenne (died c.1349), the
illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and his mistress,
Maud de Nerford.  I've cited all my sources.
As has been pointed out before, an entire biography followed by a long
list of sources consulted is the level of scholarly documentation
typically expected of an undergraduate underclassman/woman. About it's
only use is to show what all you have (perhaps) consulted, but does
little to document your conclusions. In fact, the longer it gets, the
worse it is - all such a long list accomplishes is to bludgeon the
reader into submission. Some of those are clearly redundant, some
point to a single datum (like when Cicely last appears) but are
unrelated to the issue at hand, some are there to support a deduction
but by themselves document nothing, and who knows how many might have
been cited simply because another source cited them, or because a
Google Books search turned them up but they don't really add anything?
What is certain is that nobody is going to track down two score
sources, most of them irrelevant, just to figure it all out, so you
end up being able to lay claim to supporting your conclusions without
really having to do so.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 19:23:35 UTC
Permalink
< As has been pointed out before, an entire biography followed by a
long
< list of sources consulted is the level of scholarly documentation
< typically expected of an undergraduate underclassman/woman.
< taf

Actually the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) which is
the industry standard follows the same format as I do. The
professional historians and editors who prepare those accounts are
hardly undergraduates. Some of them are the best in the business.
I've corresponded with many of them and they're on top of their game.

If you have trouble finding any of the sources I've cited, please
contact me offlist and I'll be glad to help you find them.

I believe the wealth of evidence speaks for itself. Edward de
Warenne was the illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey,
and his mistress, Maud de Nerford. All for now.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2010-10-24 19:38:11 UTC
Permalink
I believe the wealth of evidence speaks for itself.   Edward de
Warenne was the illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey,
and his mistress, Maud de Nerford.  All for now.
You have given us a wealth of citations, not a wealth of evidence.

taf
Peter Stewart
2010-10-24 20:17:52 UTC
Permalink
[interesting that the cross-posting has been removed already - I wonder
why?]
Post by Douglas Richardson
< As has been pointed out before, an entire biography followed by a
long
< list of sources consulted is the level of scholarly documentation
< typically expected of an undergraduate underclassman/woman.
< taf
Actually the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) which is
the industry standard follows the same format as I do. The
professional historians and editors who prepare those accounts are
hardly undergraduates. Some of them are the best in the business.
I've corresponded with many of them and they're on top of their game.
Where in the ODNB do you find lists of references three times or so as long
as the relevant biographies?

And have you ever taken the trouble to check the references for an ODNB
article? In kind and degree of probative value they are altogether different
from the welter of mere stuff that is used to fill out mediocre
undergraduate work, and to puff up your own.

Peter Stewart
John
2010-10-25 00:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
If you have trouble finding any of the sources I've cited, please
contact me offlist and I'll be glad to help you find them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Note that he's not offering to specify what source[s] will (in hsi
mind) support a particular question about his conclusions, but only to
indicate where cited sources might be found. And why "offlist"? Not
exactly very helpful....or collegial.

"Best always"? Hmmmm....
Peter Stewart
2010-10-24 21:44:43 UTC
Permalink
[cross-post removed]
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is my file account of Sir Edward de Warenne (died c.1349),
the illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and his
mistress, Maud de Nerford. I've cited all my sources.
I try to be thorough. If I've missed something, please advise me.
Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
I. EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt., of Booton, Skeyton, Crostweyth,
Fransham, and Rougham, Norfolk, illegitimate son by his father’s
mistress, Maud de Nerford, born c.1316–23.
It seems that when you accused Todd of not doing any research you had
actually failed to note the directly relevant evidence he posted.

Remember this?

"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his
men given to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John
le Claver at the suit of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be
repealed, as these justices are of the fees and robes of Lady de
Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can to his
people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his
company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at
common law if it seems good to him."

The date was 1320 - so how could Edward have been born as late as 1323 when
his mother had been "expelled" from his father's heart (and presumably his
hearth) around three years before?

Peter Stewart
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-22 21:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is my file account of Sir Edward de Warenne (died c.1349), the
illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and his mistress,
Maud de Nerford. I've cited all my sources.
I try to be thorough. If I've missed something, please advise me.
Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
I. EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt., of Booton, Skeyton, Crostweyth, Fransham,
and Rougham, Norfolk, illegitimate son by his father’s mistress, Maud
de Nerford, born c.1316–23. He married before 1344 CECILY DE ETON,
formerly contracted wife of John de Arderne, the younger (divorced
while underage in 1332), and daughter of Nicholas de Eton, Knt., of
Ratley, Warwickshire, Woodplumpton, Lancashire, etc., by Joan,
daughter and heiress of Robert de Stockport. They had three sons,
John, Knt., William, and Edward. In 1346 he was serving in France in
the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl
requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find
a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk. He was a legatee in the 1347
will of his father. SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE died before 20 Oct. 1349.
His widow, Cecily, was living in 1352, and died before 1369.
Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 3 (1769): 604, 607,
609–610 (arms of Warren of Poynton quartering Eton and Stockport were
formerly in a window in Booton church); 6 (1807): 230, 352–359 (sub
Boton), 359–364 (sub Skeyton) (“[In the church of Skeyton] … The arms
of Warren, lords here, with the canton of Nerford, and Warren
quartering on a chevron three swans [?ETON]). Ormerod, Hist. of
Chester 3 (1819, 1st ed.): 340–343; 3 (1882, 2nd ed.): 680–687.
Hunter, South Yorkshire 1 (1828): 105 (Warenne ped.). Testamenta
Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47 (will of John de Warenne,
Earl of Surrey). Stapleton, De Antiquis Legibus Liber: Cronica
Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum (Camden Soc. 34) (1846): clxxix–
clxxx. Ormerod, Parentalia, Gen. Mems. (1851): 19, 85–88. Herald &
Genealogist 7 (1873): 213–219. Papworth, Alphabetical Dict. of Coats
of Arms Belonging to Fams. in Great Britain & Ireland 1 (1874): 397
(arms of Sir Nicholas de Eton, co. Warwick, temp. Edward I: Gules a
chevron between three eagles displayed argent). Earwaker, East
Cheshire 1 (1877): 339, 342, 343; 2 (1880): 274–275, 286.
Heginbotham, Stockport Ancient & Modern 1 (1882): 144–145. Glover et
al., Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18) (1882): 241–
243 (Warren ped.: “Edward Warren. = Ciceley Elton [recte Eton].”).
Eedes Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MS 1424: fo.143; Harleian
MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a
canton gules a lion rampant argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of
Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren
arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a
bordure ermine). Rye, Short Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2
(1886): 267–268. Bain, Cal. of Docs. rel. to Scotland 3 (1887): 265.
Fishwick, Hist. of the Parish of St. Michaels-on-Wyre (Chetham Soc.
n.s. 25) (1891): 22–25. Woodward & Burnett, Treatise on Heraldry,
451–452. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 396–397.
193–264. VCH Lancaster 7 (1912): 285–286. Reg. of Edward the Black
Prince 3 (1932): 64. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 144–145. C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 511, footnote k [incorrectly states that Skeyton, Norfolk was
his mother, Maud de Nerford’s “inheritance.” Blomefield indicates
that Maud acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in
1323 by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt., not by inheritance.
Maud had several brothers, one of whom, Thomas de Nerford, left issue
a son and heir, John (see C.P. 9 (1936): 469–470 (sub Nerford); VCH
Sussex 7 (1940): 207–208)].
Hello there,

I've been trying to track down where the evidence comes from written by Bloomfield in his notes that this Edward was alive in 1365.
Note (9) from "Boton" on British History online:

"9. Sir Edward was alive in 1365, and Cecily, daughter and coheir of Nicholas de Eton, Knt. relict of John, son and heir of John Ardern, Knt. was his wife." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359

But not having too much success so far.

Thank you.
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-23 11:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is my file account of Sir Edward de Warenne (died c.1349), the
illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and his mistress,
Maud de Nerford. I've cited all my sources.
I try to be thorough. If I've missed something, please advise me.
Thanks!
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
I. EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt., of Booton, Skeyton, Crostweyth, Fransham,
and Rougham, Norfolk, illegitimate son by his father’s mistress, Maud
de Nerford, born c.1316–23. He married before 1344 CECILY DE ETON,
formerly contracted wife of John de Arderne, the younger (divorced
while underage in 1332), and daughter of Nicholas de Eton, Knt., of
Ratley, Warwickshire, Woodplumpton, Lancashire, etc., by Joan,
daughter and heiress of Robert de Stockport. They had three sons,
John, Knt., William, and Edward. In 1346 he was serving in France in
the retinue of his brother, William de Warenne; his father the Earl
requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find
a man-at-arms for his lands in Norfolk. He was a legatee in the 1347
will of his father. SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE died before 20 Oct. 1349.
His widow, Cecily, was living in 1352, and died before 1369.
Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 3 (1769): 604, 607,
609–610 (arms of Warren of Poynton quartering Eton and Stockport were
formerly in a window in Booton church); 6 (1807): 230, 352–359 (sub
Boton), 359–364 (sub Skeyton) (“[In the church of Skeyton] … The arms
of Warren, lords here, with the canton of Nerford, and Warren
quartering on a chevron three swans [?ETON]). Ormerod, Hist. of
Chester 3 (1819, 1st ed.): 340–343; 3 (1882, 2nd ed.): 680–687.
Hunter, South Yorkshire 1 (1828): 105 (Warenne ped.). Testamenta
Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47 (will of John de Warenne,
Earl of Surrey). Stapleton, De Antiquis Legibus Liber: Cronica
Maiorum et Vicecomitum Londoniarum (Camden Soc. 34) (1846): clxxix–
clxxx. Ormerod, Parentalia, Gen. Mems. (1851): 19, 85–88. Herald &
Genealogist 7 (1873): 213–219. Papworth, Alphabetical Dict. of Coats
of Arms Belonging to Fams. in Great Britain & Ireland 1 (1874): 397
(arms of Sir Nicholas de Eton, co. Warwick, temp. Edward I: Gules a
chevron between three eagles displayed argent). Earwaker, East
Cheshire 1 (1877): 339, 342, 343; 2 (1880): 274–275, 286.
Heginbotham, Stockport Ancient & Modern 1 (1882): 144–145. Glover et
al., Vis. of Cheshire 1580, 1566, 1533 & 1591 (H.S.P. 18) (1882): 241–
243 (Warren ped.: “Edward Warren. = Ciceley Elton [recte Eton].”).
Eedes Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 (Harleian MS 1424: fo.143; Harleian
MS 1505: fo.147) (arms of Warren of Poynton: Checky or and azure, on a
canton gules a lion rampant argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of
Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137 (Warren
arms: Chequy or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a
bordure ermine). Rye, Short Cal. of the Feet of Fines for Norfolk 2
(1886): 267–268. Bain, Cal. of Docs. rel. to Scotland 3 (1887): 265.
Fishwick, Hist. of the Parish of St. Michaels-on-Wyre (Chetham Soc.
n.s. 25) (1891): 22–25. Woodward & Burnett, Treatise on Heraldry,
451–452. Wrottesley, Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 396–397.
193–264. VCH Lancaster 7 (1912): 285–286. Reg. of Edward the Black
Prince 3 (1932): 64. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 144–145. C.P. 12(1)
(1953): 511, footnote k [incorrectly states that Skeyton, Norfolk was
his mother, Maud de Nerford’s “inheritance.” Blomefield indicates
that Maud acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in
1323 by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt., not by inheritance.
Maud had several brothers, one of whom, Thomas de Nerford, left issue
a son and heir, John (see C.P. 9 (1936): 469–470 (sub Nerford); VCH
Sussex 7 (1940): 207–208)].
"(1349. October 20. Westminster). Commission of oyer and terminer to Richard de Kelleshull, Ralph de Bokkyngg, Robert Clere and John de Berneye, touching a complaint by
Peter de Brewes containing that, whereas he, in his manor of Skeyton,
co. Norfolk, which by a writing of Edward de Garrenne, late lord of that
manor, is bound to him in a rent of 10 marks for which he can distrain when in arrear, had taken certain cattle of Cecily late the wife of the said Edward by John Bryd and Richard de Chinham, his servants, for 5 marks of the rent in arrear, and the same John and Richard would have impounded these, some evildoers rescued them and assaulted John and Richard and other of his men and servants, whereby he lost their service for a great time. By p.s" -

C.P.R. 1348–1350 (1905):451–452. -

https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr06offigoog/page/n462/mode/2up

To me, the wording is ambiguous as to wether or not Edward had deceased by this time.But I'm guessing from this that he had not:
If it said "Edward de Garrenne deceased" and regarding his wife Cecily "relict/ widow of Edward de Garrenne deceased" this would have made it more clear to me that he had deceased. But it does not, it just says "Cecily late the wife of Edward."
"Edward de Garrenne, late lord of that manor," - to me I read this that he was lord of Skeyton, but by this date in 1349 was no longer (because Peter de Brewes held the manor), "is bound to him (Peter de Brewes) in a rent of 10 marks for which he can distrain (seize the property of (someone) in order to obtain payment of money owed), when in arrear" - so Edward owed Peter de Brewes 10 marks. If Edward was dead, he wouldn't be listed as being bound to Peter for anything. And his wife Cecily may have been listed as a widow.

There is also this note from Bloomfield that Edward was alive in 1365:

Note (9) from "Boton" on British History online:

"9. Sir Edward was alive in 1365, and Cecily, daughter and coheir of Nicholas de Eton, Knt. relict of John, son and heir of John Ardern, Knt. was his wife." -

Francis Blomefield, 'Hundred of South Erpingham: Boton', in An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk: Volume 6 (London, 1807), pp. 352-359.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-hist-norfolk/vol6/pp352-359
Will Johnson
2021-07-23 21:21:01 UTC
Permalink
You might think, in this case, that the "cattle" would not belong to Cecily and so could not be taken from her at all. The manor is bound to *him*, he is not bound to Edward.

Edward was the lord who created this (in the past) and that agreement still lives even though Edward is now dead, and now he has taken cattle from Cecily (not Edward) in her capacity as the overseer of this contract, etc.

It's clear Edward is dead by the meaning of this issue.
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-24 11:19:08 UTC
Permalink
You might think, in this case, that the "cattle" would not belong to Cecily and so could not be taken from her at all. The manor is bound to *him*, he is not bound to Edward.
Edward was the lord who created this (in the past) and that agreement still lives even though Edward is now dead, and now he has taken cattle from Cecily (not Edward) in her capacity as the overseer of this contract, etc.
It's clear Edward is dead by the meaning of this issue.
Thank you,

I was just wandering in relation to this where Bloomfield got his information from in the note that Edward was alive in 1365 -

"9. Sir Edward was alive in 1365, and Cecily, daughter and coheir of Nicholas de Eton, Knt. relict of John, son and heir of John Ardern, Knt. was his wife."

We have this which shows at least that "Cecily was alive in 1352." It does also again mention Edward. But again would this just be because he was the person who created this following debt in the past? -

"May 23. 1352. London. Order by advice of the prince's council to Sir Thomas de Ferrers, justice of Cestre, (obviously Chester) or his lieutenant to put in respite until the arrival in those parts of the prince or one of his council between now and St. Peter's Chains next the distress taken on the doomsmen of the hundred of Macclesfield for the sum due to the prince on account of the reversal in the Common Bench of the judgement given by them in an eyre at Macclesfield on divers bills of debt and covenant given on Sir John Darden (probably Ardern/ de Ardern) by Edward de Garren (de Warren) and Cecily his wife." -

Reg. of Edward the Black Prince 3 (1932): 64.

Can be viewed here on image p.72:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.32000000339988&view=2up&seq=72&skin=2021&size=125&q1=Cecily

Thank you.

Richard.

taf
2010-10-24 18:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
< Given that I was not presenting an opinion, you were, and the
research
< you presented was short - laughably short, in demonstrating what it
< was claimed to demonstrate, the irony here is rather thick.  This is
< just another of the all too predictable self-righteous personal
< attacks that you deploy in response to anyone holding you to your
own
< supposed standards rather than accepting your hypocritical
< pontifications as manna from God.
<
< taf
My point was to encourage you to post your research and supply
weblinks if you have them.  That's all.
No, your point was to feel better about yourself by taking a shot at a
critic.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-22 20:00:27 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 9:30 am, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

< Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 511, footnote k states in error that
< Skeyton, Norfolk was Maud de Nerford's "inheritance."  Elsewhere,
< Blomefield, Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 352–359
< (sub Boton) indicates that Maud de Nerford and her sons, Ralph and
< Edward, acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in
1323
< by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt.

The settlement of the manors of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk by Ralph
de Skeyton in 1323 which is mentioned by Blomefield appears to be the
fine involving "Rad. de Skegeton" dated 17 Edward II [1323-1324] which
is listed in Walter Rye, Short Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Norfolk 2 (1886): 267-268. This record may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pFYCAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Feet+Fines+norfolk&hl=en&ei=FObBTLiKLof_nQfGzImACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Skeyton&f=false

Unfortunately Rye does not include references to the reversions stated
in these fines. I assume, however, that Blomefield saw the fine and
correctly stated the names given in the reversionary clause.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
2010-10-22 23:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Unfortunately Rye does not include references to the reversions stated
in these fines.  I assume, however, that Blomefield saw the fine and
correctly stated the names given in the reversionary clause.
I remember a similar circumstance where you rejected that such an
author saw the document and correctly stated its contents. The
critical difference seems to be that an author whose summary you can
use to support your opinion is trustworthy, and an author whose
description is antithetical to your belief must be rejected as
untrustworthy.

taf
taf
2010-10-23 03:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Fromm TNA, date 1320 and speculated to be related to two CPR entries:

"Earl Warenne asks that the commission of oyer et terminer against his
men given to John de Mutforde, John Bakun, John de Redenhale, and John
le Claver at the suit of John de Nerforde in Norfolk might be
repealed, as these justices are of the fees and robes of Lady de
Nerforde, John's mother, and are doing all the harm they can to his
people because he has expelled Maud de Nerforde from his heart and his
company. He suggests that John de Nerforde might sue against him at
common law if it seems good to him."

taf
taf
2010-10-23 03:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Another fro TNA, 1326:

"The Earl Warenne requests that the King and council review the
descent of his lands in Surrey, Sussex, Yorkshire and Wales so that
his heirs not be disinherited. The petitioner enfeoffed the King in
all his castles, manors, lands and tenements in Surrey, Sussex
Yorkshire and Wales, and the King then re-enfeoffed Warenne in the
same in Surrey, Sussex and Wales for life, descending after his death
to John, son of Maud and his male heirs, and in default of a male heir
to his brother Thomas and his male heirs, and in default of a male
heir to the male heirs of the petitioner, and in default of a male
heir to the King and his heirs, and also re-enfeoffed Warenne in the
same in Yorkshire for life, descending after his death to Maud, and
after her death to her son John and his male heirs, and in default of
a male heir to his brother Thomas and his male heirs, and in default
of a male heir to the male heirs of the petitioner, and in default of
a male heir to the King and his heirs."

taf
Philip Cheyney
2010-10-23 11:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Evidence of Edward de Warenne's maternity is further supplied by the
arms employed by his later descendants: Chequy or and azure [Warenne],
on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure ermine [Nerford]
[see Eedes, Cheshire Pedigrees (1882): 499; Cooke & St. George, Vis.
of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546 (H.S.P. 22) (1886): 134–137].
Blomefield Essay towards a Top. Hist. of Norfolk 6 (1807): 359–364
(sub Skeyton) states: "The arms of Warrens, lord here, with the canton
of Nerford."
The following may be helpful:

1 The arms of Narford/Nerford are given in 13 different rolls of arms
c.1280 to c.1410 as 'gules, a lion rampant ermine' [i.e. no border].

2 The arms 'checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant
ermine' [i.e. no border] appear in the Dictionary of British Arms only
twice (ii. p 233) [1], (a) 'Sir Joh' Warrenne' in Powell's Roll (c.
1350) PO 128, and (b) 'Warryn of Stockport' in College of Arms MS L1
(early 16th c.) 683,6. There is no entry in DBA for the same arms
with a border round the canton, although there are several entries for
the same arms but with a silver lion (ibid.), most of them as
quarterings, but including as single arms (c) 'Sir John Waren' in
Writhe's Book of Knights (temp Hen VII) WK 116, and (d) 'Warren' in
Wriothesley's Chevrons (c.1525) XV 78.

3 I have not found any entry for an Edward Warenne (or variations) in
DBA for any similar arms.

4 Mowbray of Thirsk (and Axholme) was the best known English family
to use 'gules, a lion rampant argent', but the arms were also used by
Geoffrey de Mareys, justiciar of Ireland, and before c.1279 by the
earls of Dunbar.

5 From the middle of the 15th century onwards, and particularly in
Tudor times, there are many examples where families indulged in
'wishful thinking' by adding to their ancestral arms quarters to which
they were not really entitled (see for example the arms that Edward IV
concocted for his wife to make her background look less gentry and
more nobility). Also, arms were ‘attributed’ to those in the past,
including even some who lived before heraldry started in England.
These arms could then be added as additional quarters to their
achievements to make them look more important.

Philip

[1] The Dictionary of British Arms (3 vols published so far out of 4)
(DBA) is an ordinary of medieval arms (i.e. before the first of the
Visitations) and includes as a principal charge all examples of lions
(under 'beasts') and cantons. It covers, amongst other sources, all
the rolls of arms mentioned in Sir Anthony Wagner's Catalogue of
English Mediaeval Rolls of Arms, all the early manuscripts in the
College of Arms library, the standard catalogues of seals, and the
card index of Public Record Office seals by Sir W H St John Hope. But
it does not include seals from other uncatalogued collections.
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-23 17:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Philip ~

The arms of Warenne fmaily of Poynton, Cheshire descended from Sir
Edward de Warenne are given in Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 as:
Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent.

The canton here doesn't quite match the Nerford arms which you give as
Gules, a lion rampant ermine.

The Hertfordshire branch of the Warenne family, however, bore: Chequy
or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure
ermine

So the ermine from the Nerford arms reappears but only as a bordure.

I believe there are other examples of the Warenne of Poynton arms with
the canton which are available in other sources.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-23 17:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear Philip ~

Than you for your good post.

The arms of Warenne family of Poynton, Cheshire descended from Sir
Edward de Warenne are given in Eedes, Cheshire Peds. (1882): 499 as:
Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent.

The canton here doesn't quite match the Nerford arms which you give as
Gules, a lion rampant ermine.

The Hertfordshire branch of the Warenne family, however, bore: Chequy
or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant within a bordure
ermine

So the ermine from the Nerford arms reappears but only as a bordure.

Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials (1874): 356-357 gives several
references to the Warenne family with a canton bearing the lion
rampant. One of them is attributed to a Sir William Warren and it
includes a canton with the exact Nerford arms, Gules a lion rampant
ermine.

Papworth may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&dq=arms+Warren+Poynton&hl=en&ei=DhfDTO6CLtLhnQfk78noCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Paul Mackenzie
2010-11-05 13:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials (1874): 356-357 gives several
references to the Warenne family with a canton bearing the lion
rampant. One of them is attributed to a Sir William Warren and it
includes a canton with the exact Nerford arms, Gules a lion rampant
ermine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&dq=arms+Warren+Poynton&hl=en&ei=DhfDTO6CLtLhnQfk78noCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hi All:

I am having difficulty referencing citations on google books. See for
example, the above example.



These rare books seem to be reprinted, and as consequence the original
publication is taken off the list. Is this truely happening? Is Google
aware of what is going on. If this is the case google books seems to
have gone commercial.

There seems to be an inference that the publishers of the reprint have
re-established the copyright. This is surely an abuse of the copyright
system.



Any comments welcomed

Regards

Paul.
John
2010-11-05 16:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials (1874): 356-357 gives several
references to the Warenne family with a canton bearing the lion
rampant.  One of them is attributed to a Sir William Warren and it
includes a canton with the exact Nerford arms, Gules a lion rampant
ermine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&dq=arms+Warren...
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I am having difficulty referencing citations on google books.  See for
example, the above example.
These rare books seem to be reprinted, and as consequence the original
publication is taken off the list.  Is this truely happening?  Is Google
aware of what is going on. If this is the case google books seems to
have gone commercial.
There seems to be an inference that the publishers of the reprint have
re-established the copyright.  This is surely an abuse of the copyright
system.
Any comments welcomed
Regards
Paul.
I wonder if this is perhaps an issue of the country from which access
is being attempted. The URL above seems to be accessible without
problem here in the U.S. I recall that there have been issues of
access, both for reading and for downloading, in countries such as
Australia before.

As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain. If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.
John Dobson
2010-11-05 16:35:16 UTC
Permalink
I can report that I can access the full text for this particular item in Canada.

Users of Google Books outside the U.S. may not be aware that regardless of the address which displays in their brower's address-bar, they are really connecting to various national sites with much less fulltext content than the U.S. one (for example, in Canada it is books.google.ca).

The only way I've succeeded in accessing the U.S. site in its entirety from outside the country is to use a proxy server, and everything I've tested has broken the functionality of the site to varying degrees, so it is a very awkward experience best used as a last resort. I have not tried IP-anonymizing software, and am not sure whether the U.S. site would even accept such a request.

Best wishes,
John Blythe Dobson
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Post by Douglas Richardson
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials (1874): 356-357 gives several
references to the Warenne family with a canton bearing the lion
rampant. One of them is attributed to a Sir William Warren and it
includes a canton with the exact Nerford arms, Gules a lion rampant
ermine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&dq=arms+Warren...
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I am having difficulty referencing citations on google books. See for
example, the above example.
These rare books seem to be reprinted, and as consequence the original
publication is taken off the list. Is this truely happening? Is Google
aware of what is going on. If this is the case google books seems to
have gone commercial.
There seems to be an inference that the publishers of the reprint have
re-established the copyright. This is surely an abuse of the copyright
system.
Any comments welcomed
Regards
Paul.
I wonder if this is perhaps an issue of the country from which access
is being attempted. The URL above seems to be accessible without
problem here in the U.S. I recall that there have been issues of
access, both for reading and for downloading, in countries such as
Australia before.

As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain. If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Paul Mackenzie
2010-11-06 00:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dobson
I can report that I can access the full text for this particular item in Canada.
Users of Google Books outside the U.S. may not be aware that regardless of the address which displays in their brower's address-bar, they are really connecting to various national sites with much less fulltext content than the U.S. one (for example, in Canada it is books.google.ca).
The only way I've succeeded in accessing the U.S. site in its entirety from outside the country is to use a proxy server, and everything I've tested has broken the functionality of the site to varying degrees, so it is a very awkward experience best used as a last resort. I have not tried IP-anonymizing software, and am not sure whether the U.S. site would even accept such a request.
Best wishes,
John Blythe Dobson
Hi All:

I tried again accessing this book from Australia with no luck. You may
note the publication date is 1872. That makes nearly 140 years.

I tried accessing from a proxy server but it refused accessing the
google books website. I will have to try another one.


Regards

Paul
Denis Beauregard
2010-11-08 22:16:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:35:16 -0500, "John Dobson"
Post by John Dobson
I can report that I can access the full text for this particular item in Canada.
Users of Google Books outside the U.S. may not be aware that regardless of the address which displays in their brower's address-bar, they are really connecting to various national sites with much less fulltext content than the U.S. one (for example, in Canada it is books.google.ca).
books.google.com is the same server as books.google.ca or .fr
or probably any other one. The domain name is different but
all will be on the same computer. So, you can't say
"they are really connecting to various national sites"!

They connect to the same site and take a decision according to
the ISP (through the IP). It would be too easy to bypass the
computer and to use books.google.com instead of books.google.ca !
Post by John Dobson
The only way I've succeeded in accessing the U.S. site in its entirety from outside the country is to use a proxy server, and everything I've tested has broken the functionality of the site to varying degrees, so it is a very awkward experience best used as a last resort. I have not tried IP-anonymizing software, and am not sure whether the U.S. site would even accept such a request.
As for the proxy server, you may have to find a new one from time
to time or to pay to subscribe to one of them. I found one last
year and it is no more active. I found one recently but can't say
how long it will last (or be free). The best thing is to learn how
to find one :-)


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
Denis Beauregard
2010-11-16 04:39:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:16:01 -0400, Denis Beauregard
Post by Denis Beauregard
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:35:16 -0500, "John Dobson"
Post by John Dobson
I can report that I can access the full text for this particular item in Canada.
Users of Google Books outside the U.S. may not be aware that regardless of the address which displays in their brower's address-bar, they are really connecting to various national sites with much less fulltext content than the U.S. one (for example, in Canada it is books.google.ca).
books.google.com is the same server as books.google.ca or .fr
or probably any other one. The domain name is different but
all will be on the same computer. So, you can't say
"they are really connecting to various national sites"!
They connect to the same site and take a decision according to
the ISP (through the IP). It would be too easy to bypass the
computer and to use books.google.com instead of books.google.ca !
Post by John Dobson
The only way I've succeeded in accessing the U.S. site in its entirety from outside the country is to use a proxy server, and everything I've tested has broken the functionality of the site to varying degrees, so it is a very awkward experience best used as a last resort. I have not tried IP-anonymizing software, and am not sure whether the U.S. site would even accept such a request.
As for the proxy server, you may have to find a new one from time
to time or to pay to subscribe to one of them. I found one last
year and it is no more active. I found one recently but can't say
how long it will last (or be free). The best thing is to learn how
to find one :-)
I don't know if I made some mistakes while writing my answer, but
someone wrote me by email saying I was wrong. So, I made some tests.

My browser is set to prefer French, my native language.

I repeated the same search I made previously because I know one of the
results was different if not made from USA.


I made the search from http://books.google.co.nz

"peronne du mesnil" -canada -québec

4th entry with the direct address, no proxy

Dictionnaire des familles françaises anciennes ou notables à la ...:
Volume 3

Gustave Chaix d'Est-Ange - 1904 - Aucun aperçu (i.e. no view)
books.google.co.nz - Autres éditions


2nd entry from the proxy is

Dictionnaire des familles françaises anciennes ou notables à la ...:
Volume 3 - Page 106

Gustave Chaix d'Est-Ange - 1904 - Full view
... écuyer, demeurant à Troyes, qui épousa par contrat du 23 octobre
1509 Péronne du Mesnil ...
books.google.co.nz - More editions


See 2 differences.

1- Vol. 3 is "no view" from the site, but full view from the proxy
2- Language is French from the site (i.e. it detects my browser which
is set to prefer French, my native language), but English from the
proxy (i.e. the proxy is using its own identification, browser name,
etc.).

If I replace the .co.nz by .ca, then the display is different, i.e.
limit search to Canada. It is using a default display depending on the
language so that it will react to your browser, and if the language of
the browser is that of the country, then it will use the specific
display for that country.

To summarize :

direct request -

- language depends on your browser settings
- results depends on your IP (i.e. ISP)
- some links may be national if the language of the browser matches
one national language of the google domain. Otherwise, it is a
default view.

US proxy request -

- language is always English
- results depends on the IP of the proxy (like in USA)
- links may depend on the google domain if English is not a national
language of that country

Example of national display : limiting results to a country (left
menu). English is too common to limit results to only English pages.


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
Ian Goddard
2010-11-16 11:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
direct request -
- language depends on your browser settings
- results depends on your IP (i.e. ISP)
Is it on the IP or on the reverse DNS lookup of the IP? If one were to
buy a .com domain and use a server with that domain address to relay
requests would it be treated as coming from the US irrespective of the
geographical location of the server? Or if the relay were hosted on a
temporary virtual machine on a cloud server?
--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Denis Beauregard
2010-11-16 14:05:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:24:18 +0000, Ian Goddard
Post by Ian Goddard
Post by Denis Beauregard
direct request -
- language depends on your browser settings
- results depends on your IP (i.e. ISP)
Is it on the IP or on the reverse DNS lookup of the IP? If one were to
buy a .com domain and use a server with that domain address to relay
requests would it be treated as coming from the US irrespective of the
geographical location of the server? Or if the relay were hosted on a
temporary virtual machine on a cloud server?
No idea. But since you can buy a .com domain name from a US host,
then the question could be somewhat irrelevant. But you will have
to find a web host with a shell access or at least to write yourself
an application to interface with the site you want to view. Anyway,
I would suggest to use a US located server ... whatever it means (my
server is owned by an Australian company, using previously a rented
server in US and now another in Europe).

However, the reverse DNS can lead to 2 different domain names so it is
more likely the IP itself. Also, a .com is not necessaily located in
US. My previous ISP was CAM.ORG and a local ISP is owning
videotron.com so .com doesn't mean US.


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
David Friedman
2010-11-05 16:58:20 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by John
As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain. If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.
As best I recall the terms of the Google settlement, they are proposing
to make money from webbing books, but not by charging for downloads.

Also, and more relevant to the original question, part of the terms of
the settlement let them web books that are in copyright but out of
print, I believe without explicit authorization by the copyright holder,
although the copyright holder can act to prevent it. But I don't
remember the fine details, and have doubts the settlement will
ultimately hold up in court anyway.

In principle, a book that is out of copyright but in print should be
fair game, but if they are doing their selection in an automated fashion
on a mass scale, they might pull something that has come back into print
without checking on whether it is in copyright.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Ian Goddard
2010-11-05 18:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article
Post by John
As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain. If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.
As best I recall the terms of the Google settlement, they are proposing
to make money from webbing books, but not by charging for downloads.
Also, and more relevant to the original question, part of the terms of
the settlement let them web books that are in copyright but out of
print, I believe without explicit authorization by the copyright holder,
although the copyright holder can act to prevent it. But I don't
remember the fine details, and have doubts the settlement will
ultimately hold up in court anyway.
In principle, a book that is out of copyright but in print should be
fair game, but if they are doing their selection in an automated fashion
on a mass scale, they might pull something that has come back into print
without checking on whether it is in copyright.
It's always worth checking if www.archive.org has the book you're
looking for. If they have they don't, AFAIK, impose geographical
restrictions.
--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
John
2010-11-05 18:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article
Post by John
As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain.  If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.
As best I recall the terms of the Google settlement, they are proposing
to make money from webbing books, but not by charging for downloads.
Also, and more relevant to the original question, part of the terms of
the settlement let them web books that are in copyright but out of
print, I believe without explicit authorization by the copyright holder,
although the copyright holder can act to prevent it. But I don't
remember the fine details, and have doubts the settlement will
ultimately hold up in court anyway.
In principle, a book that is out of copyright but in print should be
fair game, but if they are doing their selection in an automated fashion
on a mass scale, they might pull something that has come back into print
without checking on whether it is in copyright.
It's always worth checking ifwww.archive.orghas the book you're
looking for.  If they have they don't, AFAIK, impose geographical
restrictions.
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin.  Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
This is an excellent point regarding archive.org. Although their
offerings are in some cases just copies of the Google versions, they
often have books that Google hasn't made available, and their scanning
is often of better quality than Google's - especially with respect to
folded charts like pedigrees.
Peter Stewart
2010-11-05 21:23:35 UTC
Permalink
[cross-posting removed]
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article
Post by John
As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain. If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.
As best I recall the terms of the Google settlement, they are proposing
to make money from webbing books, but not by charging for downloads.
Also, and more relevant to the original question, part of the terms of
the settlement let them web books that are in copyright but out of
print, I believe without explicit authorization by the copyright holder,
although the copyright holder can act to prevent it. But I don't
remember the fine details, and have doubts the settlement will
ultimately hold up in court anyway.
In principle, a book that is out of copyright but in print should be
fair game, but if they are doing their selection in an automated fashion
on a mass scale, they might pull something that has come back into print
without checking on whether it is in copyright.
Google Books quite absurdly bills itself as "a project to make the world's
books discoverable online".

To be more honest and accurate this should read "a project to make the world's
books discoverable online for users in the USA, or those using proxy servers
from elsewhere, provided that no-one anywhere in the world has exercised a
nonsensical veto over a particular ex-copyright title by reprinting it".

Peter Stewart
Peter Jason
2010-11-05 21:33:50 UTC
Permalink
"John" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8abec319-c99f-40c6-8b74-***@u19g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 6:14 am, Paul Mackenzie
Post by Paul Mackenzie
Post by Douglas Richardson
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials (1874): 356-357
gives several
references to the Warenne family with a canton bearing
the lion
rampant. One of them is attributed to a Sir William
Warren and it
includes a canton with the exact Nerford arms, Gules a
lion rampant
ermine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&dq=arms+Warren...
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I am having difficulty referencing citations on google
books. See for
example, the above example.
These rare books seem to be reprinted, and as consequence
the original
publication is taken off the list. Is this truely
happening? Is Google
aware of what is going on. If this is the case google
books seems to
have gone commercial.
There seems to be an inference that the publishers of the
reprint have
re-established the copyright. This is surely an abuse of
the copyright
system.
Any comments welcomed
Regards
Paul.
I wonder if this is perhaps an issue of the country from
which access
is being attempted. The URL above seems to be accessible
without
problem here in the U.S. I recall that there have been
issues of
access, both for reading and for downloading, in countries
such as
Australia before.

As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all
along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all
access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain.
If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the
inevitable
paywall goes up.

Not only books. There are a few sites offering historical
photos in Hi-Res, the old ones taken with 8 x 9" plate
cameras, hope in and download before they're commercialized
too.
Denis Beauregard
2010-11-08 22:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
As to Google Books "going commercial", I've assumed all along that
sooner or later Google will start charging for any and all access to
the books it's digitized - even those in the public domain. If an
item is important for me, I'll download it now before the inevitable
paywall goes up.
Microsoft is preparing an equivalent. Perhaps this will be like the
research sites, i.e. many people predicting the larger ones will
require to pay for them but no big site will do that.


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
j***@iquest.net
2010-10-23 17:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Assuming that the information posted, somewhere along the line, in the
on-going discussion of the various de Warenne families, is true (i.e.
that John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey had an illegitimate daughter Joan
who married a de Basing), I'm curious if anyone is aware of any
research having been done on identifying just which de Basing this
Joan married? My reason for asking is that a few years ago I
discovered that the wife of Sir Thomas de Basing (d. 1349), son of Sir
William de Basing and Margaret de Normanville, was named Joan,
according to his IPM. I don't have the particulars on hand, but can
track them down without too much difficulty at home. I'm not
suggesting that the two women are the same person -- it's not like
Joan was an uncommon name -- but if there's some research out there
already it would be nice to see it.

Thanks.

Jeff Duvall


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-23 18:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Dear Jeff ~

Yes, Earl John de Warenne had an illegitimate daughter named Joan de
Basing. She is specifically named in his will published in Testamenta
Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4) (1836): 41–47.

The will may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=c_TCZG2oqdkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Testamenta+Eboracensia&hl=en&ei=nSbDTOTWBI-nnQet4N3tCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I've had my eye out looking for possible candidates for husbands of
Joan de Basing. Whoever Joan married, it presumably would have been a
man of knightly rank. Your candidate, Sir Thomas de Basinge (died
1349), would definitely fit the bill.

I note that Joan, widow of Thomas de Basynges, was living 3 July 1350,
as indicated by Calendar of Close Rolls, 1349-1354 (1906), pg. 190.
This record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHMedieval2&CISOPTR=52359&REC=5

What else do you know of Sir Thomas de Basinge and his wife, Joan?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Assuming that the information posted, somewhere along the line, in the  
on-going discussion of the various de Warenne families, is true (i.e.  
that John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey had an illegitimate daughter Joan  
who married a de Basing), I'm curious if anyone is aware of any  
research having been done on identifying just which de Basing this  
Joan married?  My reason for asking is that a few years ago I  
discovered that the wife of Sir Thomas de Basing (d. 1349), son of Sir  
William de Basing and Margaret de Normanville, was named Joan,  
according to his IPM.  I don't have the particulars on hand, but can  
track them down without too much difficulty at home. I'm not  
suggesting that the two women are the same person -- it's not like  
Joan was an uncommon name -- but if there's some research out there  
already it would be nice to see it.
Thanks.
Jeff Duvall
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-23 18:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Dear Jeff ~

Here is another snippet view reference to Joan, widow of Thomas de
Basinges, of Empingham, Rutland:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DTEMAQAAIAAJ&q=Thomas+de+basinges+Empingham&dq=Thomas+de+basinges+Empingham&hl=en&ei=LinDTKDBLYGq8Ab56tz4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-23 21:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

For those interested in the Basinge-Mackworth families of Rutland,
below is a weblink to a brief account of this family in Archaeologia
Cantiana, Volume 14 (1882): 200.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hBgaAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=Sir+Thomas+de+Basinge%22&hl=en&ei=MEvDTKfUGYKdnAfJqP2ICg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sir%20Thomas%20de%20Basinge%22&f=false

Jeff Duvall has suggested that Joan de Warenne is the wife of Sir
Thomas de Basinge (died 1349), of Empingham, Rutland. The above
source indicate that Thomas de Basinge had a son and heir, John, aged
8 in 1349 (or born about 1341).

The chronology certainly looks good. Earl John de Warenne had at
least two sons, William and Edward, both knights, who were grown adult
men in 1346.

Sir Thomas de Basinge and his wife, Joan, are ancestral to the 17th
Century New World immigrant, Frances (Baldwin) (Townshend) (Jones)
Williams, of Virginia.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 03:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Jeff ~

Gomme Top. Hist. of Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire & Rutlandshire
(1897): 252 gives a list of the arms which were formerly placed in the
windows of the church of Empingham, Rutland. The arms include
Normanville, Basynges, Zouche, Ros, etc., but not Warenne or Nerford.
This information may be viewed at the following weblink:

pg. 252:
http://books.google.com/books?id=TvtaAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA252&dq=Basynges+Warenne&hl=en&ei=7U_DTIvvJYWenwfPgpHzBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The presence of the Zouche arms certainly supports your identification
of Elizabeth, wife of John de Basinges, being a Zouche. I assume the
Ros arms would be for her mother's family. That's all good.

The failure of the Warenne arms to be included here would tend to
suggest that Joan, wife of Thomas de Basinges, was not a Warenne.

On page 247 I see that the Warren arms with the Nerford canton are
found in the Casterton Magna church. They are associate with the
Browe family arms. Presumably a Browe man married a female descendant
of the Warren family of Poynton, Cheshire.

DR
Paul Mackenzie
2010-10-24 00:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi All:

The following information may be of some assistance to others. This is
from an article "THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES"
by P.W. Mackenzie posted on the de braose website by Doug Thompson.

"Again in the same year 1349, we have a Commission [59] of oyer and
terminer touching a complaint by Peter de Brewese alleging that, whereas
he, in his manor of Skeyton, co. Norfolk, which by writing of Edward de
Garrenne, late lord of that manor, is bound to him in a rent of 10 marks
for which he can distrain when in arrear, had taken certain cattle of
Cecily late the wife of the said Edward by John Bryd and Richard
Chinham, his servants, for 5 marks of the rent in arrear, and the same
John and Richard would have impounded these, some evildoers rescued them
and assaulted John and Richard and other of his men and servants,
whereby he lost their service for a great time. At first sight this
reference appears to have no relevance to the present
subject. However, the surname de Garrenne is a common variant of the
surname Warrenne. It is also well known [60] that John de Warenne, 8th
Earl of Surrey had a mistress, Maud de Nerford, by whom he had several
illegitimate children. In his will [61] dated 24 June 1447 and proved 26
July 1347, the earl specifically names a son, Edward. According to
Omerod [62] this Edward is the illegitimate son of John, the 8th
Earl and Maud de Nerford, and held the manors of Skeyton and Booton.
Omerod further states that this Edward was the ancestor of the Warren
family of Poynton. Blomefield [63] reports that in 1323 Oliver de Redham
and Ralf, Rector of Skeyton, acting as Trustees, settled a moiety of the
manor of Booton, together with the manor of Skeyton, on Sir Ralf de
Skeyton for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two
sons, Ralf and Edward, who took the name of Warren. Watson64 refers it
seems to this same settlement, but states one Rither vicar of Aylesham,
had released his right, as a trustee in the said manors to said Maud and
heirs of her body. Blomefield [65] also reports that subsequent to the
settlement, Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then widow of Hauteyn
her second husband, released all her moiety of said manors to
Maud de Nerford. Watson66 dates this release as 1326, and states Alice
settled this moiety on Maud de Nerford, and heirs of her body, with
remainder to Ralph son of said Maud and heirs of his body, remainder to
his brother Edward and his heirs of his body, remainder to Alice and her
heirs. Watson67 also refers to an indenture dated 1326, concerning the
manors of Skeyton, Booton, and lands and rent in Booton,Skeyton,
Canston, Bradiston, Tybenham, and Briston to be settled as above.
Maud died sometime prior to 22nd November 134568. At this point, the
manor of Skeyton, Norfolk fell to her son, Edward de Warenne, for we
have Feudal Aids [69] stating that Edward de Warrenne knight, in 1346,
held lands in Skegton in the hundred of South Erpyngham, Norfolk
together with lands in Crostweyt, Berton and Tybenham outside of said
hundred, which was formerly held by John de Skegton. In the same year,
Edward Warrene was mesne lord of lands in Rougham, Fransham in the
hundred of Laundich, Norfolk. Also, in the same year, Edward Warrene and
William Whitewell were joint mesne lords of certain lands and tenements
in Crostweyt in the hundred of Tunstede, Norfolk, which mesne lordship
was formerly held by the heirs of John de Skegton. From this we can
conclude that his brother Ralph Warrenne was dead by 1346."


and


"The only remaining viable solution to this apparent contradiction is
that Joan Foliot had only one daughter named Joan. Specifically, Joan
Foliot had by Nicholas Percy a daughter named Joan who married Ralph
Warrene around 1338 who latter died sometime prior to 1342, whence she
married Peter de Brewes who divorced her sometime between 27th January
1352 and 24th October 1352, after which she had married Alan Cheney.
This is supported by the fact that Peter de Brewes in 1349 temporarily
held the manor of Skeyton of Norfolk, presumably on behalf of his wife
Joan as her dower from her first husband Ralph Warrene. As mentioned
earlier the aforementioned references indicate that Ralph Warrene was
the illegitimate son of John Warrene, Earl of Surrey, and his mistress
Maud Nerford. Whilst we do not have any specific evidence as to the date
of death of this Ralph, he appears to have died sometime before 1346 for
at this time his brother Edward was in sole possession of
Skeyton. Furthermore, he is not mentioned in his father’s will of 1347
whereas his brother Edward is mentioned. In further support, there is
evidence of disputes between Alan Cheney and Peter de Brewes around the
period 1352. In one dispute, Peter de Brewese complained that Alan
Cheney and others broke into his houses at Chesham Boys, co, Buckingham
and carried away his goods. It may be speculated that the goods in
question were those of Joan, the former wife of Peter and now the
wife of Alan Cheney. Another dispute resulted in Peter de Brewes losing
the properties in Cheshire to Alan Cheney and Joan his wife. Peter de
Brewes did retain Whiteford, but he did so through a series of complex
transactions with the king. Peter de Brewes was finally holding
Whiteford on his own with a trustee sometime prior to July 1355, after
which he divested himself of it in 1356. Thus from this date Peter de
Brewes and his subsequent heirs held no interest in the properties of
his former wife Joan Percy."


Paul.
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-24 03:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Dear Paul ~

Thanks for sharing this information on Sir Edward de Warenne. Much
appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Richard Ebdon
2021-07-23 10:17:56 UTC
Permalink
The following information may be of some assistance to others. This is
from an article "THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES"
by P.W. Mackenzie posted on the de braose website by Doug Thompson.
"Again in the same year 1349, we have a Commission [59] of oyer and
terminer touching a complaint by Peter de Brewese alleging that, whereas
he, in his manor of Skeyton, co. Norfolk, which by writing of Edward de
Garrenne, late lord of that manor, is bound to him in a rent of 10 marks
for which he can distrain when in arrear, had taken certain cattle of
Cecily late the wife of the said Edward by John Bryd and Richard
Chinham, his servants, for 5 marks of the rent in arrear, and the same
John and Richard would have impounded these, some evildoers rescued them
and assaulted John and Richard and other of his men and servants,
whereby he lost their service for a great time. At first sight this
reference appears to have no relevance to the present
subject. However, the surname de Garrenne is a common variant of the
surname Warrenne. It is also well known [60] that John de Warenne, 8th
Earl of Surrey had a mistress, Maud de Nerford, by whom he had several
illegitimate children. In his will [61] dated 24 June 1447 and proved 26
July 1347, the earl specifically names a son, Edward. According to
Omerod [62] this Edward is the illegitimate son of John, the 8th
Earl and Maud de Nerford, and held the manors of Skeyton and Booton.
Omerod further states that this Edward was the ancestor of the Warren
family of Poynton. Blomefield [63] reports that in 1323 Oliver de Redham
and Ralf, Rector of Skeyton, acting as Trustees, settled a moiety of the
manor of Booton, together with the manor of Skeyton, on Sir Ralf de
Skeyton for life, and then on Maud de Nerford and her two
sons, Ralf and Edward, who took the name of Warren. Watson64 refers it
seems to this same settlement, but states one Rither vicar of Aylesham,
had released his right, as a trustee in the said manors to said Maud and
heirs of her body. Blomefield [65] also reports that subsequent to the
settlement, Alice, sister and heiress of Sir Ralf, then widow of Hauteyn
her second husband, released all her moiety of said manors to
Maud de Nerford. Watson66 dates this release as 1326, and states Alice
settled this moiety on Maud de Nerford, and heirs of her body, with
remainder to Ralph son of said Maud and heirs of his body, remainder to
his brother Edward and his heirs of his body, remainder to Alice and her
heirs. Watson67 also refers to an indenture dated 1326, concerning the
manors of Skeyton, Booton, and lands and rent in Booton,Skeyton,
Canston, Bradiston, Tybenham, and Briston to be settled as above.
Maud died sometime prior to 22nd November 134568. At this point, the
manor of Skeyton, Norfolk fell to her son, Edward de Warenne, for we
have Feudal Aids [69] stating that Edward de Warrenne knight, in 1346,
held lands in Skegton in the hundred of South Erpyngham, Norfolk
together with lands in Crostweyt, Berton and Tybenham outside of said
hundred, which was formerly held by John de Skegton. In the same year,
Edward Warrene was mesne lord of lands in Rougham, Fransham in the
hundred of Laundich, Norfolk. Also, in the same year, Edward Warrene and
William Whitewell were joint mesne lords of certain lands and tenements
in Crostweyt in the hundred of Tunstede, Norfolk, which mesne lordship
was formerly held by the heirs of John de Skegton. From this we can
conclude that his brother Ralph Warrenne was dead by 1346."
and
"The only remaining viable solution to this apparent contradiction is
that Joan Foliot had only one daughter named Joan. Specifically, Joan
Foliot had by Nicholas Percy a daughter named Joan who married Ralph
Warrene around 1338 who latter died sometime prior to 1342, whence she
married Peter de Brewes who divorced her sometime between 27th January
1352 and 24th October 1352, after which she had married Alan Cheney.
This is supported by the fact that Peter de Brewes in 1349 temporarily
held the manor of Skeyton of Norfolk, presumably on behalf of his wife
Joan as her dower from her first husband Ralph Warrene. As mentioned
earlier the aforementioned references indicate that Ralph Warrene was
the illegitimate son of John Warrene, Earl of Surrey, and his mistress
Maud Nerford. Whilst we do not have any specific evidence as to the date
of death of this Ralph, he appears to have died sometime before 1346 for
at this time his brother Edward was in sole possession of
Skeyton. Furthermore, he is not mentioned in his father�s will of 1347
whereas his brother Edward is mentioned. In further support, there is
evidence of disputes between Alan Cheney and Peter de Brewes around the
period 1352. In one dispute, Peter de Brewese complained that Alan
Cheney and others broke into his houses at Chesham Boys, co, Buckingham
and carried away his goods. It may be speculated that the goods in
question were those of Joan, the former wife of Peter and now the
wife of Alan Cheney. Another dispute resulted in Peter de Brewes losing
the properties in Cheshire to Alan Cheney and Joan his wife. Peter de
Brewes did retain Whiteford, but he did so through a series of complex
transactions with the e. Peter de Brewes was finally holding
Whiteford on his own with a trustee sometime prior to July 1355, after
which he divested himself of it in 1356. Thus from this date Peter de
Brewes and his subsequent heirs held no interest in the properties of
his former wife Joan Percy."
Paul.
Mentioning that Ralph de Warenne died without issue and his wife was Joan. And stating that this Joan later became the wife of Alan Cheney written as Chany here:

"Browning. 1385. John, and Alice his wife, sureties for the issues of a 6th part of the barony of Nantwich, lately held by Alan Chany, should the same be adjudged to the King ; see Fraers, William de.
Browning — cont. 1385-6, Feb.19. John, and Alice his wife, writ for livery to, of a 6th part of the barony of Nantwich, descended to them as follows, viz., Joan daughter and heiress of Lawrence de Saundford, Kt., being seized of the said 6th part, married John Mautravers, Kt., and by a fine 12 Edw. 3., enfeoffed Master John de Geydon and William de Blorton of the same, who re-enfeoffed the said John and Joan of it for their lives, with remainder to Ralph de Warenne, and Joan his wife, and the heirs of their bodies, and them failing, to the right heirs of Joan wife of John Mautravers ; John and Joan died, seized of the said 6th part, whereupon the afore- said Ralph and Joan entered upon the same, the said Ralph dying without issue, Joan continued her estate in the said 6th part, and married Alan Cheyne, Kt., and by a fine, 27 Edw. 3., passed the said 6th part to John de Brunham, parson of the church of Hanmer, and John de Newenham, parson of the church of Chedle, who by fine, 27 Edw. 3., re-enfeoffed of the same, the said Alan and Joan and their heirs, with remainder to the right heirs of the same Joan ; Joan dyinig without issue, about the Feast of the Assumption of St. Mary, 44 Edw. 3., Alan enjoyed the said 6th part till the morrow of the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, when he died, viz., for 14 years, when it descended to Alice wife of John Browning, as daughter and heir of Joan wife of John Mautravers, and sister and heir of Joan wife of Alan. [9 & 10 Ric. 2 m. 2d, (I).]" -

36th Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records By Great Britain Public Record
Office No. 1--Welsh Records : Recognizance Rolls of Chester, p61 - 62 -- citing [9& 10 Ric. II m. 2 d.(1).] :

https://archive.org/details/annualreportdep02offigoog/page/n348/mode/2up?q=Ralph+de+Warenne

THE MATERNITY of JOHN and BEATRIX de BREWES
by P.W. Mackenzie:

Can be viewed here. -

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/family/Joan%20Brewes.pdf

There is a lot of key information in there, especially from p6 onwards. On p12 it mentions a Margery Nerford, daughter of John who is presumed by some genealogists to be the grand niece of Maud:

"We next have a whole series of references(106) in 1378, concerning a suit brought by
Margery, the daughter of John Nerford to annul her contract of marriage with John
Brewes, the son of Peter de Brewes knight of Sussex. John Brewes and others
forcibly abducted Margery, and took her to the Bishop’s of Norwich lodging where
Robert Howard received and hid her, with the intention of resisting an appeal pending
in the papal court. Peter de Brewes had been previously granted(107 )in 1364 the
wardship and marriage of the heir and daughter of John Nerford, to wit Margery
Nerford who was 5 years old at the time of the grant. "

Thank you.
W***@aol.com
2010-10-24 20:36:51 UTC
Permalink
What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?






In a message dated 10/24/2010 12:25:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
***@msn.com writes:

< As has been pointed out before, an entire biography followed by a
long
< list of sources consulted is the level of scholarly documentation
< typically expected of an undergraduate underclassman/woman.
< taf

Actually the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) which is
the industry standard follows the same format as I do. The
professional historians and editors who prepare those accounts are
hardly undergraduates. Some of them are the best in the business.
I've corresponded with many of them and they're on top of their game.

If you have trouble finding any of the sources I've cited, please
contact me offlist and I'll be glad to help you find them.

I believe the wealth of evidence speaks for itself. Edward de
Warenne was the illegitimate son of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey,
and his mistress, Maud de Nerford. All for now.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
Peter Stewart
2010-10-24 22:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
See CP vol. 9 p. 469 note (k):

"Besides his 2 elder sons [John (died 5 Feb 1328/29) and Thomas (died 14 May
1344)], who suc. him in turn, he [William de Nerford (died 12 June/9 July
1302)] left issue Piers, Edmund, Felicie, and Maud (Parl. Writs; Rye,
Norfolk Fines, p. 172; Cal. Inq. p. m., vol. vii, no. 350 ; Cal. Patent
Rolls, 1313-17, pp. 5, 401; Her. and Gen., vol. vii, pp. 215-218)."

Interstingly, on p. 471 note (b) regarding the IPM of Thomas (14 May 1344),
is the following:

"A Sir Thomas de Nerford, probably younger son of this Sir Thomas (his
seal - Anc. Deed A 6895 - bears the lion rampant), m. Elizabeth (d. 7 Nov.
1376), da. of John Perers, and by her had a da. Elizabeth, who d. 3 Nov.
1384, aged 13 years (Ch. Inq. p. m., 17 Ric. II, no. 40; Cal. Fine Rolls,
vol. viii, p. 349)".

Could this be John de Warenne's second son by Maud de Nerford, who
apparently took his mother's surname and is otherwise (I think, though I
haven't checked on this) not recorded after February 1326?

Peter Stewart
Paul Mackenzie
2010-10-24 22:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they were?
Hi All:

Many genealogists list Maud as the daughter of Ralf de Skegeton, which
is incorrect.


I am going on my own knowledge, and I do not have any references to
hand, but I do believe there is a reference which specifically states
that Maud was the daughter of William de Nerford. I remember trying to
establish without much success who this William was. There is a family
of some substance called Nerford in Norfolk [see CP vol 9 p 469]. This
William de Nerford died June July 1302. He had sons John and Thomas.

Does anyone else have anything on this matter?

Regards

Paul
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-25 03:12:58 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 24, 2:36 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:

< What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they
 were?

Before that question is answered, perhaps we should start with the
contemporary evidence which proves Maud de Nerford's parentage. The
source below involves a lawsuit dated 1315 in which Maud de Nerford
herself was the plaintiff. The lawsuit specifically names Maud as
"daughter of the former William of Neyford, knight, deceased, of the
diocese of Norwich."

Leadam, Select Cases Before the King’s Council 1243–1482 (Selden
Soc. 35) (1918): lxvi–lxix, 27–32.

The above source can be found in most law libraries, but it is also
available online at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR177&dq=Select+Cases+Maud+Neyrford&hl=en&ei=KqPETJ_2MoHmsQO6zMSRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-25 15:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

We've already seen in this thread that there is a certain degree of
misinformation in published secondary sources regarding the family of
John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (died 1347) which can easily mislead
the unwary genealogist or historian.

Here is a good example. In the book, History of an East Anglian Soke,
by Christobel M. Hood, published 1918, page 27, footnote 35, the
author states that "William de Warren, who was Prior there [i.e., of
Castleacre] after 1337 was earl John's illegitimate brother."

This item may be viewed at the following weblink:

pg. 27:
http://books.google.com/books?id=H9NCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA26&dq=Matilda+Nerford&hl=en&ei=W37FTNy3KMjMnge05dCECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Matilda%20Nerford&f=false

That seems straightforward enough. However, no source is provided to
support the statement. Right there a red flag should go up.

When one examines Earl John de Warenne's will dated 1347, one
discovers that Earl John had two illegitimate sons named William, one
of whom was a prior. The actual bequest in question reads as follows:

"Jeo devys a Daunz William de Warenne mon filz ma bible que j'ai fait
faire en Fraunceys et qele demoerge en la meson ou il serrra priour
apres son decesse en perpetuel memoire de moy."

The will may be viewed at Testamenta Eboracensia 1 (Surtees Soc. 4)
(1836): 41–47, and may be viewed at the following weblink:

pg. 43:
http://books.google.com/books?id=c_TCZG2oqdkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=testamenta+eboracensia&hl=en&ei=x4rFTN-KMcaMnQfW0K3wCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So was William de Warenne the Prior the Earl's son or his brother? Or
both? Fortunately there is a new resource available in print which
addresses this matter. This reference work is entitled Heads of
Religious Houses, England & Wales, by Smith & London. In Volume 2,
published in 2001, pages 224–225, 237 pertinent information is
provided regarding William de Warenne, Earl John's son, who served
first as Prior of Monks Horton, Kent, 1335–42, and second as Prior of
Castleacre, Norfolk, 1342/3–8, and later as papal chaplain. He was
living as late as 1361.

The Smith and London book may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tb-a-E1oCOkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:7YLPG1-HlfgC&hl=en&ei=mojFTIXkKMyRnwfE6dz1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Warenne&f=false

It would appear that there was only one William de Warenne who was a
prior in this time period and he was definitely the Earl John's son.
Thus, Christobel Hood had it wrong that William de Warenne, Prior of
Castleacre, was Earl John's brother.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-27 19:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Those following the ongoing discussion regarding John de Warenne, Earl
of Surrey (died 1347) may enjoy reading two works in French which
concern his lawful wife, Joan of Bar, granddaughter of King Edward I
of England. These two works are cited below, along with the
appropriate weblinks:

1. "Jeanne de Bar, Comtesse de Warren, 1295-1361," in Bulletin Soc.
Philomatique Vosgienne 11th Année: 1885–6 (1885), pp. 47–59.

pg. 47:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ULAYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=Bulletin+de+la+Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9+Philologique+Vosgienne+1885&hl=en&ei=cGnITKe7L4qcnwfblpGoAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

2. Michelle Bubenicek, Quand les femmes gouvernent: droit et
politique au XIVe siècle (Méms. et Docs. de l’École des Chartes 64)
(2001), pp. 110-117.

pg. 110:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fkEwgHw4t74C&pg=PA110&dq=Jeanne+Bar+1361&hl=en&ei=umXITNnZBdDsngfU0cGoAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Jeanne%20Bar%201361&f=false

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
W***@aol.com
2010-10-25 12:46:16 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:15:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Post by Douglas Richardson
< What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they
were?
Before that question is answered, perhaps we should start with the
contemporary evidence which proves Maud de Nerford's parentage. The
source below involves a lawsuit dated 1315 in which Maud de Nerford
herself was the plaintiff. The lawsuit specifically names Maud as
"daughter of the former William of Neyford, knight, deceased, of the
diocese of Norwich."
Leadam, Select Cases Before the King’s Council 1243–1482 (Selden
Soc. 35) (1918): lxvi–lxix, 27–32.
The above source can be found in most law libraries, but it is also
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR177&
dq=Select+Cases+Maud+Neyrford&hl=en&ei=KqPETJ_2MoHmsQO6zMSRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Your source however states that the words daughter of William de Nerford
were interpolated
see footnote 19

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR175#v=onepage&q&f=false
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-25 14:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Will ~

Good to see you're on your toes.

I assume the editor felt the Plac. Abb, source was reliable, as he
included the interpolated identification of Maud de Nerford's father
in his transcript of the lawsuit.

Do you know when the Plac. Abb, was created? I believe I've seen
references to it in other publications by the Selden Society.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:15:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Post by Douglas Richardson
< What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they
 were?
Before that question is answered, perhaps we should start with the
contemporary evidence which proves Maud de Nerford's parentage.  The
source below involves a lawsuit dated 1315 in which Maud de Nerford
herself was the plaintiff.  The lawsuit specifically names Maud as
"daughter of the former William of Neyford, knight, deceased, of the
diocese of Norwich."
   Leadam, Select Cases Before the King’s Council 1243–1482 (Selden
Soc. 35) (1918): lxvi–lxix, 27–32.
The above source can be found in most law libraries, but it is also
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR177&
dq=Select+Cases+Maud+Neyrford&hl=en&ei=KqPETJ_2MoHmsQO6zMSRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Your source however states that the words daughter of William de Nerford
were interpolated
see footnote 19
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR175#v=onepage&q&f=...
Peter Stewart
2010-10-25 20:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Will ~
Good to see you're on your toes.
I assume the editor felt the Plac. Abb, source was reliable, as he
included the interpolated identification of Maud de Nerford's father
in his transcript of the lawsuit.
Do you know when the Plac. Abb, was created? I believe I've seen
references to it in other publications by the Selden Society.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:15:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
< What source tells us directly that Maud had brothers and who they
were?
Before that question is answered, perhaps we should start with the
contemporary evidence which proves Maud de Nerford's parentage. The
source below involves a lawsuit dated 1315 in which Maud de Nerford
herself was the plaintiff. The lawsuit specifically names Maud as
"daughter of the former William of Neyford, knight, deceased, of the
diocese of Norwich."
Leadam, Select Cases Before the King’s Council 1243–1482 (Selden
Soc. 35) (1918): lxvi–lxix, 27–32.
The above source can be found in most law libraries, but it is also
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR177&
dq=Select+Cases+Maud+Neyrford&hl=en&ei=KqPETJ_2MoHmsQO6zMSRDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Your source however states that the words daughter of William de Nerford
were interpolated
see footnote 19
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCwuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR175#v=onepage&q&f=...
Neither of you can have read the source at all carefully.

First, the interpolation of "filie Willelmi de Neirford" on p. 28 is
simply carrying forward information occurring further down in the
original roll - see pp. 29-30 "ad instanciam Matillidis de Neyrford
filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford Militis defuncti Norwycensis diocesis".

If you had ventured to read p. 27 note 1 you would have gleaned that the
edition was collated with the original in the Coram Rege roll, and in
note 3 that 'an abridgement of the first part of the case is printed in
*Placitorum Abbreviatio* (Record Commission, 1811), p. 321. It is
believed, according to he preface, to have been "made by Mr. Arthur
Agard and other keepers of such Records during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth" (ib. p. ix)'.

What is the point of Googling for sources if you don't actually bother
to read them?

Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-25 21:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Neither of you can have read the source at all carefully.
First, the interpolation of "filie Willelmi de Neirford" on p. 28 is
simply carrying forward information occurring further down in the
original roll - see pp. 29-30 "ad instanciam Matillidis de Neyrford
filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford Militis defuncti Norwycensis diocesis".
As you know, I quoted the material from pages 29-30 in my original
post. It was Will who mentioned that the other item on page 28 was
interpolated. Will was certainly right to question the interpolation
relative to the other page.

DR
Peter Stewart
2010-10-25 21:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
Neither of you can have read the source at all carefully.
First, the interpolation of "filie Willelmi de Neirford" on p. 28 is
simply carrying forward information occurring further down in the
original roll - see pp. 29-30 "ad instanciam Matillidis de Neyrford
filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford Militis defuncti Norwycensis diocesis".
As you know, I quoted the material from pages 29-30 in my original
post.
And you promptly forgot what it said at that point, losing confidence in it
when questioned and failing to come up with an answer already provided,
because you had merely skimmed it with no due evaluation of the source.
Post by Douglas Richardson
It was Will who mentioned that the other item on page 28 was
interpolated.
Rubbish - and you still haven't bothered to read it. There was nothing
"interpolated" in the text on p. 28, this information was only given in the
footnote.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Will was certainly right to question the interpolation relative
to the other page.
Will could have taken the trouble to read it, and his question would have
been answered as in my post. How is it "certainly right" to wait for other
people to do your research for you, and then expect them to do your reading
too?

As Todd asked elsewhere, do you and your "professional" hankerings really
want to go (and keep on going) there?

Peter Stewart
gryphon801
2010-10-26 21:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
Neither of you can have read the source at all carefully.
First, the interpolation of "filie Willelmi de Neirford" on p. 28 is
simply carrying forward information occurring further down in the
original roll - see pp. 29-30 "ad instanciam Matillidis de Neyrford
filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford Militis defuncti Norwycensis diocesis".
As you know, I quoted the material from pages 29-30 in my original
post.
And you promptly forgot what it said at that point, losing confidence in it
when questioned and failing to come up with an answer already provided,
because you had merely skimmed it with no due evaluation of the source.
Post by Douglas Richardson
 It was Will who mentioned that the other item on page 28 was
interpolated.
Rubbish - and you still haven't bothered to read it. There was nothing
"interpolated" in the text on p. 28, this information was only given in the
footnote.
Post by Douglas Richardson
 Will was certainly right to question the interpolation relative
to the other page.
Will could have taken the trouble to read it, and his question would have
been answered as in my post. How is it "certainly right" to wait for other
people to do your research for you, and then expect them to do your reading
too?
As Todd asked elsewhere, do you and your "professional" hankerings really
want to go (and keep on going) there?
Peter Stewart
There is an interesting pamphlet by James Ronald Warren of Birmingham,
Alabama [born 8 December 1943] in the Family History Library which
sketches, probably correctly, his male line descent from the emigrant
Humphrey warren. From this and other sources it seems clear that male
line descendants of Humphrey Warren live in the United States today
and thus continue the blood line of the Counts of Anjou a thousand
years later, albeit courtesy of two illegitimacies.
Peter Stewart
2010-10-26 23:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by gryphon801
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
Neither of you can have read the source at all carefully.
First, the interpolation of "filie Willelmi de Neirford" on p. 28 is
simply carrying forward information occurring further down in the
original roll - see pp. 29-30 "ad instanciam Matillidis de Neyrford
filie quondam Willelmi de Neyrford Militis defuncti Norwycensis diocesis".
As you know, I quoted the material from pages 29-30 in my original
post.
And you promptly forgot what it said at that point, losing confidence in it
when questioned and failing to come up with an answer already provided,
because you had merely skimmed it with no due evaluation of the source.
Post by Douglas Richardson
 It was Will who mentioned that the other item on page 28 was
interpolated.
Rubbish - and you still haven't bothered to read it. There was nothing
"interpolated" in the text on p. 28, this information was only given in the
footnote.
Post by Douglas Richardson
 Will was certainly right to question the interpolation relative
to the other page.
Will could have taken the trouble to read it, and his question would have
been answered as in my post. How is it "certainly right" to wait for other
people to do your research for you, and then expect them to do your reading
too?
As Todd asked elsewhere, do you and your "professional" hankerings really
want to go (and keep on going) there?
Peter Stewart
There is an interesting pamphlet by James Ronald Warren of Birmingham,
Alabama [born 8 December 1943] in the Family History Library which
sketches, probably correctly, his male line descent from the emigrant
Humphrey warren.  From this and other sources it seems clear that male
line descendants of Humphrey Warren live in the United States today
and thus continue the blood line of the Counts of Anjou a thousand
years later, albeit courtesy of two illegitimacies.- Hide quoted text -
Thanks - although the Somersets' line to these counts via the royal
family through John of Gaunt is undoubtedly more glamorous, it's
intersting to learn that this is apparently not unique.

The Sitwells liked to pretend that their unusual looks were due to
Plantagenet blood, but if these ancestors had been like Osbert and
Edith in other ways they would have become extinct long ago.

Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor
2010-10-27 01:56:43 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by gryphon801
There is an interesting pamphlet by James Ronald Warren of Birmingham,
Alabama [born 8 December 1943] in the Family History Library which
sketches, probably correctly, his male line descent from the emigrant
Humphrey warren. From this and other sources it seems clear that male
line descendants of Humphrey Warren live in the United States today
and thus continue the blood line of the Counts of Anjou a thousand
years later, albeit courtesy of two illegitimacies.
Within the Warren-surname group at familytreedna.com, there is a cluster
of about a dozen people assigned to the 'Ponyton-Warren' group, based on
the fact that at least one of them has a documentable agnate descent
from the immigrant Humphrey Warren. See them here:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults

scroll down to the blue group, subjects 15-27.

It would be fascinating if this could be found to match other test
subjects with documentable agnate biological 'Plantagenet' descent but
not through the Poynton Warrens. For the first time, it is no longer
overly difficult or expensive to test such claims biologically.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
taf
2010-10-27 03:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Within the Warren-surname group at familytreedna.com, there is a cluster
of about a dozen people assigned to the 'Ponyton-Warren' group, based on
the fact that at least one of them has a documentable agnate descent
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults
scroll down to the blue group, subjects 15-27.
I don't suppose there is a Cornwall surname project to which we could
compare? (Again, where this is coming from, Earl Richard of C had
illegitimates that appear as de Cornwall and they gave rise to a
Cornwall line that just sort of disappears into obscurity. I would
expect there to be numerous unrelated Cornwall families, but if a
Cornwall line were found to match Warenne of Poynton, even without the
precise lineage, that would certainly give weight to the probability
that this is the Plantagenet Y-DNA.)((And as long as we are dreaming
about the big enchilada, are there any male line descendants of
Richard Warren of the Mayflower?))

taf
Nathaniel Taylor
2010-10-27 04:30:27 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by taf
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Within the Warren-surname group at familytreedna.com, there is a cluster
of about a dozen people assigned to the 'Ponyton-Warren' group, based on
the fact that at least one of them has a documentable agnate descent
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults
scroll down to the blue group, subjects 15-27.
I don't suppose there is a Cornwall surname project to which we could
compare? (Again, where this is coming from, Earl Richard of C had
illegitimates that appear as de Cornwall and they gave rise to a
Cornwall line that just sort of disappears into obscurity. I would
expect there to be numerous unrelated Cornwall families, but if a
Cornwall line were found to match Warenne of Poynton, even without the
precise lineage, that would certainly give weight to the probability
that this is the Plantagenet Y-DNA.)((And as long as we are dreaming
about the big enchilada, are there any male line descendants of
Richard Warren of the Mayflower?))
Have at it:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/cornwellandvariations/default.aspx?se
ction=yresults

Unfortunately there's no engine for taking two data batches and
comparing them, or for selecting any subject in the database and showing
all near matches to that subject. There is an automated system that
alerts the subject himself to any close matches found, but no one who is
not the subject can query the data in this way.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-27 05:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Unfortunately there's no engine for taking two data batches and
comparing them, or for selecting any subject in the database and showing
all near matches to that subject.  
Try www.ysearch.org. This database has a search engine and you can
set your own parameters. You can search either by surname or by near
DNA matches.

DR
Douglas Richardson
2010-10-27 06:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

The home page at www.ysearch.org reads as follows:

"Much has happened since Y-DNA testing first became available
commercially through Family Tree DNA in February of 2000. Many
thousands of people have tested to find family connections as well as
family origins. Since then, other labs have entered this market, and
the number of tested individuals is growing as the use of DNA is
becoming more and more accepted as an important tool for family
research, enhancing traditional genealogy research methods.

In order to allow people that have tested with the different companies
to make their results available for comparison, Family Tree DNA is
offering Ysearch as a free public service. We have added several tools
that allow you to compare side-by-side different users - the
YsearchCompare - as well as generate a Genetic Distance™ Report, and
many other features, including the upload of GEDCOM files." END OF
QUOTE.

As stated above, this is a free public service. The search engine is
easy to use. I just checked and there are numerous Warren entries in
the database and at least Cornwall entries.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Nathaniel Taylor
2010-10-27 14:29:25 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Douglas Richardson
As stated above, this is a free public service. The search engine is
easy to use. I just checked and there are numerous Warren entries in
the database and at least Cornwall entries.
Thanks for mentioning ysearch. I had forgotten that one could
essentially enter any profile on Y-search (not necessarily just one's
own), then search for matches that way. Someone could do that for the
modal values of the ftdna.com 'Poynton Warren' group.

Ysearch.org is a start, but ultimately leaves a bit to be desired as a
DNA profile aggregator. Everyone, including customers of the parent
company (ftdna.com), have to consciously opt-in by creating a profile
then manually typing in their STR values for each locus, which at 30+
markers becomes a bit tedious.

A successor to ysearch should be an automated aggregator for data
collected by all the commercial testing outfits. Such a thing ought to
be in the best interests of each genealogical DNA business, not just the
industry leader, since they're all essentially selling the hope of a
match.

We've already heard about Y-DNA used to triangulate the MacDonald /
'Somerled' profile, some years ago. How many other iconic medieval
agnatic families have been or might be identifiable with a
well-triangulated Y-DNA profile at this time? Capetians would be nice.

For many we will come up with a psychological data-collection problem:
those with paper trails connecting to a known medieval agnatic family,
especially those who are currently members of an hereditary aristocracy,
might perceive that they would have rather more to lose and little to
gain by engaging in curiosity-based DNA testing!

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
steven perkins
2010-10-27 20:03:52 UTC
Permalink
You also can compare haplotypes and pedigrees at http://smgf.org/ You
will need to get a free account, but you can then search by haplotype
or by surname in the pedigrees. They have over 100,000 test results.

Steven C. Perkins


On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Nathaniel Taylor
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article
As stated above, this is a free public service.  The search engine is
easy to use.  I just checked and there are numerous Warren entries in
the database and at least Cornwall entries.
Thanks for mentioning ysearch.  I had forgotten that one could
essentially enter any profile on Y-search (not necessarily just one's
own), then search for matches that way. Someone could do that for the
modal values of the ftdna.com 'Poynton Warren' group.
Ysearch.org is a start, but ultimately leaves a bit to be desired as a
DNA profile aggregator.  Everyone, including customers of the parent
company (ftdna.com), have to consciously opt-in by creating a profile
then manually typing in their STR values for each locus, which at 30+
markers becomes a bit tedious.
A successor to ysearch should be an automated aggregator for data
collected by all the commercial testing outfits.  Such a thing ought to
be in the best interests of each genealogical DNA business, not just the
industry leader, since they're all essentially selling the hope of a
match.
We've already heard about Y-DNA used to triangulate the MacDonald /
'Somerled' profile, some years ago.  How many other iconic medieval
agnatic families have been or might be identifiable with a
well-triangulated Y-DNA profile at this time?  Capetians would be nice.
those with paper trails connecting to a known medieval agnatic family,
especially those who are currently members of an hereditary aristocracy,
might perceive that they would have rather more to lose and little to
gain by engaging in curiosity-based DNA testing!
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
-------------------------------
--
Steven C. Perkins       ***@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
Steven C. Perkins' Genealogy Page
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
Steven C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog
http://scpgen.blogspot.com/
taf
2010-10-27 05:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article
Post by taf
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Within the Warren-surname group at familytreedna.com, there is a cluster
of about a dozen people assigned to the 'Ponyton-Warren' group, based on
the fact that at least one of them has a documentable agnate descent
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults
scroll down to the blue group, subjects 15-27.
I don't suppose there is a Cornwall surname project to which we could
compare?  (Again, where this is coming from, Earl Richard of C had
illegitimates that appear as de Cornwall and they gave rise to a
Cornwall line that just sort of disappears into obscurity. I would
expect there to be numerous unrelated Cornwall families, but if a
Cornwall line were found to match Warenne of Poynton, even without the
precise lineage, that would certainly give weight to the probability
that this is the Plantagenet Y-DNA.)((And as long as we are dreaming
about the big enchilada, are there any male line descendants of
Richard Warren of the Mayflower?))
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/cornwellandvariations/default.asp...
ction=yresults
Unfortunately there's no engine for taking two data batches and
comparing them, or for selecting any subject in the database and showing
all near matches to that subject.  There is an automated system that
alerts the subject himself to any close matches found, but no one who is
not the subject can query the data in this way.
No need for high-falutin' search engines. None of the Cornwalls
listed even fall within the same I1 haplogroup.

taf
Nathaniel Taylor
2010-10-28 00:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
In article
Post by gryphon801
There is an interesting pamphlet by James Ronald Warren of Birmingham,
Alabama [born 8 December 1943] in the Family History Library which
sketches, probably correctly, his male line descent from the emigrant
Humphrey warren. From this and other sources it seems clear that male
line descendants of Humphrey Warren live in the United States today
and thus continue the blood line of the Counts of Anjou a thousand
years later, albeit courtesy of two illegitimacies.
Within the Warren-surname group at familytreedna.com, there is a cluster
of about a dozen people assigned to the 'Ponyton-Warren' group, based on
the fact that at least one of them has a documentable agnate descent
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults
scroll down to the blue group, subjects 15-27.
It would be fascinating if this could be found to match other test
subjects with documentable agnate biological 'Plantagenet' descent but
not through the Poynton Warrens. For the first time, it is no longer
overly difficult or expensive to test such claims biologically.
Well, Dave Kelley has just pointed out to me that the Humphery Warren of
MD / VA who has traceable American male descendants was shown some years
ago NOT to be a member of the Warren of Poynton family, or at least not
to be the Humphrey Warren of Poynton he had been believed to be. I
cannot offer citations to published material on this, but Dave said
there is work on this which has been in print for some time. On the
other hand, it is quite possible that some other Warrens in the UK, US
etc. do represent the Poynton family and (therefore) the Plantagenets.
But which ones?

Why not just sequence everyone at birth and put together a biological
pedigree of the species? Part of the new world order. Subdermal
microchips too while we're at it.

Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Peter Stewart
2010-10-28 01:19:12 UTC
Permalink
"Nathaniel Taylor" <***@nltaylor.net> wrote in message news:nltaylor-***@earthlink.us.supernews.com...

<snip>
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Why not just sequence everyone at birth and put together a biological
pedigree of the species? Part of the new world order. Subdermal
microchips too while we're at it.
Useless, because we are the species that would know how to remove, replace
or falsify them. People are intractable, Nat - even Harvard alumni.

Peter Stewart
taf
2010-10-28 01:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Why not just sequence everyone at birth and put together a biological
pedigree of the species?  Part of the new world order.
While they didn't sequence, they basically DNA typed everyone in
Iceland, and combined those data with the extensive genealogical
records to do essentially what you are talking about. (No chip,
though, and the data were kept confidential.)

taf
n***@gmail.com
2016-10-04 04:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Well, Dave Kelley has just pointed out to me that the Humphery Warren of
MD / VA who has traceable American male descendants was shown some years
ago NOT to be a member of the Warren of Poynton family, or at least not
to be the Humphrey Warren of Poynton he had been believed to be. I
cannot offer citations to published material on this, but Dave said
there is work on this which has been in print for some time. On the
other hand, it is quite possible that some other Warrens in the UK, US
etc. do represent the Poynton family and (therefore) the Plantagenets.
But which ones?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Humphrey Warren of Charles County, Maryland was previously considered a valid American gateway, see for example: Browning's Americans of Royal Descent (which has it's problems, I'm aware): https://books.google.com/books?id=eyik0rO0HlsC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316

The problem with his lineage, as best I can tell, is that Humphrey Warren, baptized at Poynton, Cheshire in 1632, the son of Edward Warren, Esq., by Mary Arderne, is said to have died without issue in Watson's Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey and Their Descendants (1782; Vol. 2, p. 147), quote: "3d [son], Humphry, born June 7, 1632, brought up a merchant, went into the West Indies, where he married and died s. p. about 1680." Repeated in Ormerod.

The line was also considered valid by known fraud Harry Wright Newman in A Genealogical Hsitory of Six Emigrants (Baltimore, 1971), further tainting it: http://www.warrenfamilyhistory.com/Download/CHARLES%20COUNTY%20GENTRY.doc

Consequently, Humphrey Warren does not appear in RD600 or RA.

I would submit there is circumstantial evidence, however, that Humphrey Warren of Maryland was the boy christened at Poynton in 1632:
1. He is called a merchant of London in the 1663 Visitation of Cheshire. In Maryland sources, Humphrey Warren is often referred to as a merchant of London, as early as 1661[/2].
2. Humphrey Warren of Maryland had frequent associations in Maryland records with the Governor William Stone family, which family has known origins in Poynton, Cheshire. The Stones named their estate "Poynton Manor" in Maryland. In fact, in a Charles Co., MD land record dated 1664[/5], discussing transatlantic trade, Warren is called "Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton." (For a recent account of the Stones, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jacmac/stonefamily.pdf).
3. Humphrey Warren purchased Hatton's Point in Maryland [formerly misread Halton's Point] from the Hattons, who we now know were from Lymme, Cheshire (For the Hattons, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wrag44/Opinion_Pieces/The_Origins_of_Thomas_Hatton.pdf). Another close association with a Cheshire family.

Why was Humphrey Warren called "of Poynton" in the 1664[/5] deed? The two options I see are (1) he was called "of Poynton" in reference to Poynton, Cheshire, or (2) he lived with the Stone family at Poynton Manor in Charles County, Maryland. Either interpretation points towards a strong connection to Poynton, Cheshire.

Here is a transcript of the record:

10 Jan 1664[/5]: William Hollingsworth, Plt. by his atty. William Calvert, Esq.; William and Hanna Price, as relict of Hugh Lee, dec’d, Def.; plaintiff petitions the court that this case for debt of 1532 pounds of tobacco has been delayed and payment has not been satisfied; defendants claim they are not liable for the debts of Hugh Lee, dec’d; Esq. Calvert alleges that the plaintiff had at his going home for England last year given all his bills to be recorded to the clerk of the Provincial Records and that some of his, the said Calvert’s, had been lost; request Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton be sworn before a jury; granted; Warren swore in open court to deliver the truth of his knowledge in this business to the way which he to them did as they affirmed; jury impaneled as follows Mr. Humphery Warren, foreman; John Cage, Francis Wine, Thomas Baker, Richard Dod, John Duglas, Ignatius Causeene, George Harris, John Lambert, Thomas Allonson, Nicholaus Emerson, Thomas Allcoke [Charles County, Maryland, Liber B no. 1 (1662-65), pp. 399-400; FHL film #13746 item 2.]

I note Hollingsworth is also a Cheshire name, but I haven't studied their origin.

There is some type of restriction on this digitized land record; here is the link: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89XW-N57V?i=371&cc=2523377&cat=427744

Notice how "of Poynton" is written into the margins in apparently the same handwriting. Is this a forgery made by some unscrupulous American descendant? I am doubtful, as Warren is neither the grantee nor grantor, and it was not until this deed book was abstracted in recent years, that this reference has been noticed.

Brief timeline of Mr Humphrey Warren in Maryland court, land, and probate records:

1660 - Humphry Warren witnessed Brumale will in MD
1661 - Humpherey Warring witnessed letter of attorney
1661 - Mr. Humphery Warrin sold two indentured servants
1661 - Mr. Humphery Warren swore that in the year 1661 before December that he had a hogshead of tobacco received of Mr. Arthur Turner; Mr. Richard Stone involved in 1663 case
1661/2 - Mr. Humphery Warrin of London, merchant, appoints attorney to handle affairs in Maryland
1662 - Mr. Humphery Warren appointed attorney to Mr. Edward Walker, Merchant, of Stepney, Middlesex [London]
1662 - Mr. Humphrey Warren demands warrant against George Newman
1662/3 - Mr. James Walker, age ca 44, demanded debt George Newman due to Mr. Humphery Warren
1662/3 - William Heard on behalf of Humphery Warren presents servant maid
1663 - Mr. Humphery Warren enters hog and cattle mark
1663 - Henry Addames subpoenas Richard Stone, Mary Warren, John Waltom and Humphery Warren
1663 - Humphery Warrin witnessed land transaction
1663/4 - Mr. Humphery Warren for Mr. John Piles presents servants
1664 - Mr. Humphrey Warren reports runaway servant
1664 - Mr. Humphery Warren demands warrant against James Fox; action of debt
1664/5 - Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton, foreman [more]
1664/5 - Mr. Humphery Warrent foreman in court case
1665 - Humfry Warren (Wiccocomico River) appointed executor to will of Bridget Heard; Humphrey Waring (merchant) relinquished administration
1665 - Mr. Henry Mees by his atty. Mr. Samuell Cressey demands warrant against Humphery Warren and John Duglas, admns. To Brigit Heard; debt
1666 - Hump[h]rey Warren owed debt; inventory of William Hall, St. Mary’s County
1674 - Inventory of estate of Humphrey Warren, Sr.
1674 - 9 Mar 1674[/5?] Indenture from William Barrett, the younger, atty. Of William Barrett, the elder, of the city of London, merchant, to Humphrey Warren, planter; by letter of atty. Dated 13 Jul 1674; a judgment against Humphrey Warren, the elder, for 125,000 pounds of tobacco; a parcel called Hatton’s Point of 250 acres, value 4,000 pounds tobacco; /s/ William Barrett, Jr.; wit. Benjamin Rozer, John Jones

At least three American Warrens claiming descent from Humphrey Warren have Y-DNA tested (Haplogroup I-M253; kits 204580, 40085, 1795): https://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults . There are many matches to other American Warren families. The project administrator has dubbed them the "Poynton Warrens."

Rebecca Boothe "one of the dawghters of Humphry Boothe of Salforde in the county of lancaster decessed gentleman," left 20s. for a remembrance ring to her "Brother Humphrey Warren," in her will dated 17 June 1661. Transcript: https://books.google.com/books?id=P6REAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74.

C. H. B. A. [Charles Henry Browning, I presume] published detailed sources about Humphrey Warren in the Boston Evening Transcript (7 Mar 1910): https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2249&dat=19100307&id=UaY-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1kMAAAAIBAJ&pg=735,974213&hl=es . He includes an argument against Watson's statement, which I am not qualified to evaluate.

References to the Stones and Hattons interacting in Maryland:
1. (1653) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-052.html
2. (1653) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-059.html
3. (1653/4) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-065.html
4. (1654) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-069.html
5. (1655) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-075.html
6. (1655) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-076.html
7. (1658) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-089.html
8. (1658) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-090.html

These very strong ties Humphrey Warren had to Cheshire immigrants in Maryland lead me to believe he was also a Cheshire man. He fits the known description of Edward's of Poynton's son.

Nathan
Nathan Murphy
2016-10-04 14:52:10 UTC
Permalink
I'd say that was the same hand. It would take a lot of practice to forge
those words so close to the original hand. If someone wanted to forge
something to bolster a claimed connection to Poynton, Cheshire, would they
have not added something more explicit, like Cheshire or England, to the
margin as well? I notice also that there is a partial P in the margin a
line above 'Poynton' where the writer started to insert the word on the
wrong line. This is unlikely for a forger who was otherwise being so
careful to make the words fit the original.
Best wishes
Andrew
That's very interesting Andrew. I hadn't noticed how the clerk started to
make the letter "P" in the line above. You would think a forger would have
been more careful.

100 years ago, no one would have been able to find this entry, because
these deed books were only indexed by grantee and grantor. I think that's
why none of the genealogists who have previously analyzed Humphrey Warren
had found this.
--
Nathan
Nathan Murphy
2016-10-04 15:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathan Murphy
That's very interesting Andrew. I hadn't noticed how the clerk started to
make the letter "P" in the line above. You would think a forger would have
been more careful.
100 years ago, no one would have been able to find this entry, because
these deed books were only indexed by grantee and grantor. I think that's
why none of the genealogists who have previously analyzed Humphrey Warren
had found this.
--
Nathan
The digitized image comes from a photograph of the deed book made by the Genealogical Society of Utah in 1948. So "of Poynton" was there in 1948.
Nathan Murphy
2016-10-04 16:32:36 UTC
Permalink
I'm bringing this over, I accidentally split the conversation into two threads:

Re: Reappraisal of Humphrey Warren, potential American gateway (was ... Plantagenet Y-DNA)
I'd say that was the same hand. It would take a lot of practice to forge
those words so close to the original hand. If someone wanted to forge
something to bolster a claimed connection to Poynton, Cheshire, would they
have not added something more explicit, like Cheshire or England, to the
margin as well? I notice also that there is a partial P in the margin a
line above 'Poynton' where the writer started to insert the word on the
wrong line. This is unlikely for a forger who was otherwise being so
careful to make the words fit the original.
Best wishes
Andrew
That's very interesting Andrew. I hadn't noticed how the clerk started to
make the letter "P" in the line above. You would think a forger would have
been more careful.

100 years ago, no one would have been able to find this entry, because
these deed books were only indexed by grantee and grantor. I think that's
why none of the genealogists who have previously analyzed Humphrey Warren
had found this.
--
Nathan
100 years ago, no one would have been able to find this entry, because
these deed books were only indexed by grantee and grantor. I think that's
why none of the genealogists who have previously analyzed Humphrey Warren
had found this.
--
Nathan
The digitized image comes from a photograph of the deed book made by the Genealogical Society of Utah in 1948. So "of Poynton" was there in 1948.
Tony Hoskins
2010-10-27 16:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I don't imagine King Juan Carlos of Spain will rush out to test his "Capet" Y-DNA!
W***@aol.com
2010-10-28 01:58:16 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 10/27/2010 5:55:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
Why not just sequence everyone at birth and put together a biological
pedigree of the species? Part of the new world order. Subdermal
microchips too while we're at it. >>
You know what would be really neat, is if they put these chips in your
hand, and you could use them as credit cards.
At the supermarket you just swipe your hand over the scanner, or even just
near it, and your account is charged automatically.
For those who don't have hands, they could it in your forehead.

I even have a name for the computer system that would co-ordinate all of
this "Master Center Charge"
I like that name because each word has six letters.

W
P***@aol.com
2010-10-28 07:26:48 UTC
Permalink
...and the first letter of each word spells out M.C.C. - Marylebone Cricket
Club, arguably the most famous Cricket Club in the World!

Pg
W***@aol.com
2010-11-05 13:35:25 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/5/2010 6:15:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Post by Douglas Richardson
http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356&
dq=arms+Warren+Poynton&hl=en&ei=DhfDTO6CLtLhnQfk78noCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&
ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Paul exactly what occurs when you try to reference the book?
Note that Douglas has not quite gotten the hang of Google Books, adding
this long URL when this short one is exactly identical

http://books.google.com/books?id=rjEGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356

The only thing which matters in the URL is the id and the pg, the rest is
part of the search string and the user session, which you dont' need to read
the page in question, in full view mode.



Will
W***@aol.com
2010-11-05 22:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Speaking of making books accessible, that is why I started creating my
indexes.

I find it sometimes hard to navigate in Google Books when I *know* the
source for which I'm looking. It's even hard to navigate sometimes when you
know the exact page or name section. Sometimes the googly books are not
indexed under what you think they would be, but I find them by accident at times.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...