Discussion:
Hugh de Corona and Amabilla de Bamville
(too old to reply)
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-14 17:58:57 UTC
Permalink
I found information about the family of Hugh de Corona and Amabilla de Bamville in the following books:

"Adlington, and Legh of Adlington," in Frank Renaud, Contributions Towards a History of the Ancient Parish of Prestbury, in Cheshire (Manchester, England: Printed for The Chetham Society, 1876), pp. 77-79; in Remains Historical & Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. XCVII (Published by The Chetham Society, 1876).

James Croston, Nooks and Corners of Lancashire and Cheshire, A Wayfarer's Notes In the Palatine Counties, Historical, Legendary, Genealogical, and Descriptive (London: 1882), pp. 290-292.

Are these books considered to be reliable sources?
WJhonson
2007-09-15 00:22:32 UTC
Permalink
<<In a message dated 09/14/07 11:01:34 Pacific Standard Time, ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
I found information about the family of Hugh de Corona and Amabilla de Bamville in the following books:

"Adlington, and Legh of Adlington," in Frank Renaud, Contributions Towards a History of the Ancient Parish of Prestbury, in Cheshire (Manchester, England: Printed for The Chetham Society, 1876), pp. 77-79; in Remains Historical & Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. XCVII (Published by The Chetham Society, 1876).

James Croston, Nooks and Corners of Lancashire and Cheshire, A Wayfarer's Notes In the Palatine Counties, Historical, Legendary, Genealogical, and Descriptive (London: 1882), pp. 290-292.

Are these books considered to be reliable sources? >>

-------------------------
Nancy please post the details from the books (using quotation marks for what you're quoting). There are additional sources speaking about a Corona/Legh connection is relation to Adlington, but we need to see exactly what your books are saying.

Will
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-15 04:16:56 UTC
Permalink
"Adlington, and Legh of Adlington," in Frank Renaud, Contributions Towards a History of the Ancient Parish of Prestbury, in Cheshire (Manchester, England: Printed for The Chetham Society, 1876), pp. 78-79; in Remains Historical & Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. XCVII (Published by The Chetham Society, 1876).

"Hugh de Corona married Amabilla the daughter of Sir Thomas de Barnville, and left issue one son, Hugh, and two daughters, Lucy and Sarah.

Hugh de Corona, the second of Adlington, married, and left a son, John, who was lord of the manor of Adlington in the reign of Edward II. 'John de Corona held the manor of Adlington and the manor of little Neston. Thomas de Corona is his son and heir' (Tower records, 22 Edward II). The Christian name of John's wife was Margaret.


Thomas de Corona died unmarried about the middle of the reign of Edward III, and so the male line failed. During his lifetime, by a deed without date, he gave to John de Lasseils all the land which Lucy de Corona held of his inheritance in the ville of Newton-in-Wirrall, and which came to him by the gift of his grandfather, Hugh de Corona, and all the land which Margaret, who was wife of John de Corona, held of his inheritance in Newton-in-Wirrall, by gift of his father, John de Corona. (MS. penes R. Wood.)


Lucy, daughter of the first Hugh de Corona, married for second husband Sir William Baggiley, and had issue by him one son, who died without issue, and two daughters named Ellen and Isabel, which last married Sir John de Hyde.

Nothing is known of Sarah, the sister of Lucy, and it seems likely that she either died single, or, if married, left no offspring.

Ellen, daughter of Lucy de Corona, married Sir John Legh, son of Sir William Venables of Bradwell, and called 'de Legh' from having been left to the care of his mother, whose maiden name was Legh, and which was also the name of the place where he was born, and where he lived till his marriage. From this marriage the Leghs of Adlington descend.

Sir John de Legh and Ellen his wife purchased Norbury Booths (28 Edward I), and there fixed their residence. Sir John died in 1323, and his wife in 1350."

Starting about page 82, it discusses the Legh family more thoroughly:

"William de Venables of Bradwell married, for his first wife, Catherine daughter of Sir Piers Thornton, knight, by whom he had issue one son, William de Venables, afterwards of Bradwell. He next married Agnes, daughter and heiress of Richard de Legh of the West Hall (then widow of Richard de Lymme, or Limm), by whom he had issue John, who, as already said, was called de Legh, and who became the first of Norbury Booths. Agnes was entitled to a moiety of the manor of High Legh, by descent from her father, Richard de Legh, and to several other estates, all of which, with the exception of a farm in High Legh, she either gave or suffered to descend to Thomas, her son by the first marriage, from whom the Leghs of High Legh are descended, as well as those of West Hall. John de Legh (or Venables) and Ellen (de Corona) his wife had four sons, viz.: John de Legh of Booths; Robert de Legh of Adlington; William de Legh of Isall in Cumberland, from whom descended Sir William Legh, bart, lord chief justice of England, and the Leghs of Rowcliffe and Eggington; and Peter de Legh of Bechton, jure uxoris, Agnes daughter and heiress of Philip de Bechton."

Note that the wife of John de Legh (or Venables) is given as Ellen de Corona instead of Ellen de Baggiley and contradicts what is given previously.

Nancy

----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <***@aol.com>
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Hugh de Corona and Amabilla de Bamville


> <<In a message dated 09/14/07 11:01:34 Pacific Standard Time, ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
> I found information about the family of Hugh de Corona and Amabilla de Bamville in the following books:
>
> "Adlington, and Legh of Adlington," in Frank Renaud, Contributions Towards a History of the Ancient Parish of Prestbury, in Cheshire (Manchester, England: Printed for The Chetham Society, 1876), pp. 77-79; in Remains Historical & Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester, Vol. XCVII (Published by The Chetham Society, 1876).
>
> James Croston, Nooks and Corners of Lancashire and Cheshire, A Wayfarer's Notes In the Palatine Counties, Historical, Legendary, Genealogical, and Descriptive (London: 1882), pp. 290-292.
>
> Are these books considered to be reliable sources? >>
>
> -------------------------
> Nancy please post the details from the books (using quotation marks for what you're quoting). There are additional sources speaking about a Corona/Legh connection is relation to Adlington, but we need to see exactly what your books are saying.
>
> Will
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
WJhonson
2007-09-15 07:21:05 UTC
Permalink
It seems to be a fairly good source, but they make some unwarranted assumptions.

You can use it as a guideline for where to look for their sources.

You might for example look at the Patent Rolls to see if any of these families show up, or possibly the property names. And the A2A documents and Procat.

The family is given in Vis Cheshire here
http://books.google.com/books?id=hlYN_LmEu8YC&printsec=titlepage#PPA145,M1
Vis Cheshire 1580

but that's not a proof text, as it is several *centuries* after the fact.

The family is confused enough to be represented in all manner of ways on various internet pages, so I think you have your hands full. You might want to start a little closer to home first to make sure the more recent lines are even correct. They probably could use some work.

Will Johnson
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-15 15:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Will, for your reply. The Visitation of Cheshire of 1580 agrees with what is stated in Frank Renaud's chapter on Adlington for Baguley and Leigh/Legh, but not for Corona. On page 150 it gives Anabell de Bamvill and Lucia as wives of the second Hugh de Corona who was father of Thomas instead of Amabilla de Bamville as the wife of the first Hugh who was father of Hugh father of John father of Thomas. I have less confidence in the Visitation since it has the wrong mother for Roger de Chedle's daughters Clemence and Agnes (see your post dated 27 Aug 2007 Re: Daughters of Roger de Cheadle and Matilda Massey).

I know what you mean about the family being confused enough to be represented in all manner of ways on various internet pages. One problem is that Ormerod incorrectly stated that John de Legh's wife was Isabel de Baggiley instead of her sister Ellen de Baggiley. I had already researched Sir William Baggiley, the father of Ellen and Isabel who married John de Hyde, because I am interested in the Hyde family.

I will check the other sources you mentioned.

Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: WJhonson
To: Nancy L. Allen ; gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Hugh de Corona and Amabilla de Bamville


It seems to be a fairly good source, but they make some unwarranted assumptions.

You can use it as a guideline for where to look for their sources.

You might for example look at the Patent Rolls to see if any of these families show up, or possibly the property names. And the A2A documents and Procat.

The family is given in Vis Cheshire here
http://books.google.com/books?id=hlYN_LmEu8YC&printsec=titlepage#PPA145,M1

Vis Cheshire 1580



but that's not a proof text, as it is several *centuries* after the fact.



The family is confused enough to be represented in all manner of ways on various internet pages, so I think you have your hands full. You might want to start a little closer to home first to make sure the more recent lines are even correct. They probably could use some work.



Will Johnson
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-16 15:44:29 UTC
Permalink
I think I've figured out why some pedigrees incorrectly show Ellen Corona as the wife of John Legh, the son of William Venables and Agnes Legh daughter of Richard - instead of - Ellen Baggiley, the daughter of William Baggiley and Lucy Corona.

It all started with the Visitation of 1533 which states under "Pyers Leyghe of Bradley" that John de Legh married "Ellen, the heiress of the family de Corona." It doesn't say that she was a Corona, but that she was an heiress of the family.

The Visitation of Cheshire in 1580 has the correct name for the wife of John Legh. It states under "Leigh of High Leigh, of the Westhall," that the wife of John Leigh of Bouthes, the son of William Venables and Agnes Legh, was "Ellin, d. & heire to Sr Wm Baguley."

Burke's Peerage and Barontage Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary p. 666 states that John Leigh of Booths, the son of William Venables and Agnes Leigh, married second Ellen daughter of Thomas Corona of Adlington. According to Frank Renaud's "Adlington, and Legh of Adlington," quoted in my earlier post, Thomas Corona never married. He gave his lands in Adlington to John Legh and his wife Ellen. Ellen was the heir of William Baggiley and Lucy Corona since Ellen's brothers died without issue. Lucy Corona was the sister of Thomas Corona's grandfather, Hugh II.

Magna Carta Sureties, line 129-6, probably using the incorrect information from Burke, states that Matilda de Arderne married John de Legh of Booths, the son of John de Legh and Ellen Corona.

Nancy
b***@gmail.com
2019-07-08 03:04:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, September 16, 2007 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Nancy wrote:
> I think I've figured out why some pedigrees incorrectly show Ellen Corona as the wife of John Legh, the son of William Venables and Agnes Legh daughter of Richard - instead of - Ellen Baggiley, the daughter of William Baggiley and Lucy Corona.
>
> It all started with the Visitation of 1533 which states under "Pyers Leyghe of Bradley" that John de Legh married "Ellen, the heiress of the family de Corona." It doesn't say that she was a Corona, but that she was an heiress of the family.
>
> The Visitation of Cheshire in 1580 has the correct name for the wife of John Legh. It states under "Leigh of High Leigh, of the Westhall," that the wife of John Leigh of Bouthes, the son of William Venables and Agnes Legh, was "Ellin, d. & heire to Sr Wm Baguley."
>
> Burke's Peerage and Barontage Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary p. 666 states that John Leigh of Booths, the son of William Venables and Agnes Leigh, married second Ellen daughter of Thomas Corona of Adlington. According to Frank Renaud's "Adlington, and Legh of Adlington," quoted in my earlier post, Thomas Corona never married. He gave his lands in Adlington to John Legh and his wife Ellen. Ellen was the heir of William Baggiley and Lucy Corona since Ellen's brothers died without issue. Lucy Corona was the sister of Thomas Corona's grandfather, Hugh II.
>
> Magna Carta Sureties, line 129-6, probably using the incorrect information from Burke, states that Matilda de Arderne married John de Legh of Booths, the son of John de Legh and Ellen Corona.
>
> Nancy

It has been years, but I am taking a chance that people are still interested. I have been puzzling over the de Corona family and their use of the ducal crown. Who in that family was first entitled to it by being related to royalty? Did Anilia de Corona (1200-1249) have children by an English or Welsh king?

LM Lynch
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-18 02:55:58 UTC
Permalink
In researching the Sylvester/Silvester family of Cheshire, I found the following.

Edward W. Cox, "The Antiquities of Storeton in Wirral," Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, For the Year 1897 - Volume XLIX, New Series - Volume XIII (Liverpool: printed for the Society, 1898), p. 62:
The Sylvester family "held the office of Foresters of the Royal Forest of Wirral under the Earls of Chester, and from their office most likely derived their family name." On-line dictionaries define sylvan, the noun, as "one that frequents groves or woods" and silva as "forest." The French word for sylvan, the adjective, is sylvestre.

That seems to explain the origin of the family name. But the following two sources mention an alias for Alan Sylvester/Silvester.

William Williams Mortimer, The History of the Hundred of Wirral, With a Sketch of the City and County of Chester, Compiled from the Earliest Authentic Records, (London : Whittaker & Co., 1847), p. 192:
About the year 1120 Storeton "was presented, together with Puddington and the bailiwick of the Forest of Wirral, by Randal de Meschines, Earl of Chester, to his steward, Alan Sylvester, or Savage, whom in the deed of gift he describes as meo homini et ministro."

Edward Wilson, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Stanley Family of Stanley, Storeton, and Hooton," The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 119 (Aug., 1979), p. 308:
Annabella was the "sole surviving descendant of Alan Silvester, alias Savage (Salvagius), who, probably in the 1130s, had been created hereditary master-forester of Wirral."

I haven't found any additional information about Alan being a Savage. I did find the name Salvagius associated with Robert le Sauvage of Normandy and county Sussex who was one of William de Braose's men. Does anyone know the name of Alan's father?

Nancy
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-20 14:32:01 UTC
Permalink
In searching for information about the Stokeport/Stockport family, I found
the following in a post dated 20 Dec 2005 which states that three of the
daughters of Richard FitzRoger were not known to have been married:

< ***@aol.com> wrote in message news: ***@aol.com...
> Tuesday, 20 December, 2005
.
.
> Richard fitz Roger of Woodplumpton is a bit late to be a good
> candidate. He was alive in 1191, and died sometime before 26
> Feb 1201; further, of his five daughters, three (Margaret, Quenild,
> and Amuria) are not known to have been married, and the husbands for
> the other two (Avice m. William de Millom, and Maud m. Robert de
> Stockport) do not obviously include Jordan de Thornhill
.
.
The following source gives the names of all five daughters of Richard
FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre:

George Ormerod, compiler, "The Early Connexion of the Anglo-Norman Families
of Stokeport, Fitz-Roger, Banastre, and Gernet," pp. 1-9, Parentalia,
Genealogical Memoirs of Lathom of Bradwall (Printed by Thomas Richards,
1851; not published, given to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England by the
author in 1856); at books.google.com.

1. MATILDA, eldest, married SIR ROBERT DE STOKEPORT before 1201.
2. MARGARET, unmarried in 1201, and eldest unmarried co-heir in 1205, when
her marriage was purchased by HUGH DE MORET?N.
3. AVICIA, married WILLIAM DE ?ULHUM before 1201.
4. QUENILDA, unmarried in 1201, second wife of SIR ROGER GERNET.
5. AMURIA, unmarried in 1201, wife of THOMAS DE BETHUM in 1206.

Nancy
Nancy L. Allen
2007-09-20 15:25:01 UTC
Permalink
It looks like the first husband of Quenilda, the daughter of Richard
FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre, was Jordan de Thornhill. I wasn't looking
for Jordan, but I found the following while researching Roger son of
Ravenkil.

"Townships: Formby," A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3 (1907),
pp. 45-52; at www.british-history.ac.uk.

"Richard, son of Roger, son of Ravenkil, died in 1200, when his lands were
divided between his four daughters. One of these, Quenilda, wife of Jordan
de Thornhill, was tenant in 1212."

Footnote 18 states "Jordan de Thornhill died without issue, and his widow
Quenilda was by Randle, earl of Chester, married about 1222 to Roger Gernet,
chief forester. She died in 1252 seised of two plough-lands held in chief of
William, Earl Ferrers, by the yearly service of 8s. 4d.; Robert de Stockport
and Ralph de Beetham were her heirs; Inq. and Extents, 116, 191."

Nancy


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: Daughters of Richard FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre


> In searching for information about the Stokeport/Stockport family, I found
> the following in a post dated 20 Dec 2005 which states that three of the
> daughters of Richard FitzRoger were not known to have been married:
>
> < ***@aol.com> wrote in message news: ***@aol.com...
>> Tuesday, 20 December, 2005
> .
> .
>> Richard fitz Roger of Woodplumpton is a bit late to be a good
>> candidate. He was alive in 1191, and died sometime before 26
>> Feb 1201; further, of his five daughters, three (Margaret, Quenild,
>> and Amuria) are not known to have been married, and the husbands for
>> the other two (Avice m. William de Millom, and Maud m. Robert de
>> Stockport) do not obviously include Jordan de Thornhill
> .
> .
> The following source gives the names of all five daughters of Richard
> FitzRoger and Margaret Banastre:
>
> George Ormerod, compiler, "The Early Connexion of the Anglo-Norman
> Families
> of Stokeport, Fitz-Roger, Banastre, and Gernet," pp. 1-9, Parentalia,
> Genealogical Memoirs of Lathom of Bradwall (Printed by Thomas Richards,
> 1851; not published, given to the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England by the
> author in 1856); at books.google.com.
>
> 1. MATILDA, eldest, married SIR ROBERT DE STOKEPORT before 1201.
> 2. MARGARET, unmarried in 1201, and eldest unmarried co-heir in 1205, when
> her marriage was purchased by HUGH DE MORET?N.
> 3. AVICIA, married WILLIAM DE ?ULHUM before 1201.
> 4. QUENILDA, unmarried in 1201, second wife of SIR ROGER GERNET.
> 5. AMURIA, unmarried in 1201, wife of THOMAS DE BETHUM in 1206.
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-14 18:20:15 UTC
Permalink
"Bushley - Butterworth," A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp. 460-462; at www.british-history.ac.uk, states "In Edward I's reign, Sir Baldwin Teutonicus or de Tyas, a knight of St. John of Jerusalem, . granted all his lands in the township to Sir Robert de Holland in free marriage with his daughter Joan, who, surviving her husband, married, secondly, Sir John de Byron."

Collins's Peerage of England, Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical, Vol. VII (London: 1812), p. 93; at books.google.com, refers to Baldwin as "Sir Baldwin (Teutonick, or) Thies."

William Farrer, transcriber and editor, The Cartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensian Order, Vol. II, Part II (Printed for The Chetham Society, 1900), p. 728; at books.google.com, states:

Roger de Notton "having released his estates in Farnley and Woodsome, co. York, and in Rochdale, co. Lanc., to Baldwin le Tyas or Tyes (Teutonicus), who had married his mother, he died in 1241 (Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol. vii., pp. 131, 132 n); Black Book of Clayton, (Towneley's MS.); Fine Roll, 25 Hen. III. m. 14). Joan, daughter of the said Baldwin le Tyas, married, firstly, Sir Robert de Hoyland, Knt., of High Hoyland, in the Wapentake of Staincross, co. York (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, Vol. II . p. 263), to whom her father conveyed in frank marriage with his said daughter Joan, all his lands in Rochdale, viz., in Butterworth, Clegg, Gartside, Ogden, Hollingworth, and Haugh (Black Book of Clayton, No. 71) ; and, secondly, Sir John de Byron, Knt., of Clayton, in Salfordshire.

Teutonicus in this last extract is in italics. The dictionary says that it means "from the ancient German language." Does this mean that the name Tyas/Tyes is from the ancient German language and Baldwin's surname is not Teutonicus or Teutonick? If so, that leaves Tyas/Tyes and Thies for his surname. How do you pronounce Thies?
Nancy
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-15 14:59:40 UTC
Permalink
I found the following in The Countess of Cleveland, The Battle Abbey Roll
with Some Account of The Norman Lineages, In Three Volumes, Vol. III
(London: John Murray, 1889), pp. 177-178; at books.google.com:

"Traies, for Thays, according to Leland's version. He gives us "Thays et
Tony" : and again, further on, "Tay." This was a baronial name. The family
of Teutonicus, or Tyes, is frequently mentioned both in Normandy and
England"

"some time between 1195 and 1211, Roger de Laci granted the manor of
Slaithwaithe, which passed to his brother Baldwin Teutonicus vel Ties, Lord
of Lede, and in right of his wife Margery, also of Woodsome and Farnley,
named from him Farnley-Tyas."

I don't see how the name Teutonicus became
Tyas/Tyes/Ties/Traies/Thays/Thies.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net>
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)


> "Bushley - Butterworth," A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp.
> 460-462; at www.british-history.ac.uk, states "In Edward I's reign, Sir
> Baldwin Teutonicus or de Tyas, a knight of St. John of Jerusalem, .
> granted all his lands in the township to Sir Robert de Holland in free
> marriage with his daughter Joan, who, surviving her husband, married,
> secondly, Sir John de Byron."
>
> Collins's Peerage of England, Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical,
> Vol. VII (London: 1812), p. 93; at books.google.com, refers to Baldwin as
> "Sir Baldwin (Teutonick, or) Thies."
>
> William Farrer, transcriber and editor, The Cartulary of Cockersand Abbey
> of the Premonstratensian Order, Vol. II, Part II (Printed for The Chetham
> Society, 1900), p. 728; at books.google.com, states:
>
> Roger de Notton "having released his estates in Farnley and Woodsome, co.
> York, and in Rochdale, co. Lanc., to Baldwin le Tyas or Tyes (Teutonicus),
> who had married his mother, he died in 1241 (Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol.
> vii., pp. 131, 132 n); Black Book of Clayton, (Towneley's MS.); Fine Roll,
> 25 Hen. III. m. 14). Joan, daughter of the said Baldwin le Tyas, married,
> firstly, Sir Robert de Hoyland, Knt., of High Hoyland, in the Wapentake of
> Staincross, co. York (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, Vol. II . p. 263), to
> whom her father conveyed in frank marriage with his said daughter Joan,
> all his lands in Rochdale, viz., in Butterworth, Clegg, Gartside, Ogden,
> Hollingworth, and Haugh (Black Book of Clayton, No. 71) ; and, secondly,
> Sir John de Byron, Knt., of Clayton, in Salfordshire.
>
> Teutonicus in this last extract is in italics. The dictionary says that it
> means "from the ancient German language." Does this mean that the name
> Tyas/Tyes is from the ancient German language and Baldwin's surname is not
> Teutonicus or Teutonick? If so, that leaves Tyas/Tyes and Thies for his
> surname. How do you pronounce Thies?
> Nancy
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
John P. Ravilious
2007-10-15 17:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Dear Nancy,

Certainly the cognomen 'Teutonicus' points to Baldwin le Tyes (or
at least a parent) having come from a German-speaking land. The name
Baldwin would tend to point to Flanders or nearby in the Lowlands area
of the Holy Roman Empire.

'Tyes' sounds like a rendering by someone hearing 'Deitsch' or
'Deutsch'. My guess would be, Baldwin or his father having come from
western Flanders or elsewhere not too far off, explained their family
or tongue being 'Deutsche' or 'Deitsch', which was then taken up by
Norman-French speaking neighbors as 'le Deitsch', or 'le
Tyes' (without the hard ending). This probably needs a knowledgeable
linguist to properly handle, but at least would explain why Baldwin
could be both 'le Tyes' (Norman French) and 'Teutonicus' (Latin).

Perhaps Leo, or another of the list who speaks Nederlans or
Vlaams, would chime in on this.....?

Cheers,

John



On Oct 15, 10:59 am, "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I found the following in The Countess of Cleveland, The Battle Abbey Roll
> with Some Account of The Norman Lineages, In Three Volumes, Vol. III
> (London: John Murray, 1889), pp. 177-178; at books.google.com:
>
> "Traies, for Thays, according to Leland's version. He gives us "Thays et
> Tony" : and again, further on, "Tay." This was a baronial name. The family
> of Teutonicus, or Tyes, is frequently mentioned both in Normandy and
> England"
>
> "some time between 1195 and 1211, Roger de Laci granted the manor of
> Slaithwaithe, which passed to his brother Baldwin Teutonicus vel Ties, Lord
> of Lede, and in right of his wife Margery, also of Woodsome and Farnley,
> named from him Farnley-Tyas."
>
> I don't see how the name Teutonicus became
> Tyas/Tyes/Ties/Traies/Thays/Thies.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 2:20 PM
> Subject: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)
>
> > "Bushley - Butterworth," A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp.
> > 460-462; atwww.british-history.ac.uk, states "In Edward I's reign, Sir
> > Baldwin Teutonicus or de Tyas, a knight of St. John of Jerusalem, .
> > granted all his lands in the township to Sir Robert de Holland in free
> > marriage with his daughter Joan, who, surviving her husband, married,
> > secondly, Sir John de Byron."
>
> > Collins's Peerage of England, Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical,
> > Vol. VII (London: 1812), p. 93; at books.google.com, refers to Baldwin as
> > "Sir Baldwin (Teutonick, or) Thies."
>
> > William Farrer, transcriber and editor, The Cartulary of Cockersand Abbey
> > of the Premonstratensian Order, Vol. II, Part II (Printed for The Chetham
> > Society, 1900), p. 728; at books.google.com, states:
>
> > Roger de Notton "having released his estates in Farnley and Woodsome, co.
> > York, and in Rochdale, co. Lanc., to Baldwin le Tyas or Tyes (Teutonicus),
> > who had married his mother, he died in 1241 (Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol.
> > vii., pp. 131, 132 n); Black Book of Clayton, (Towneley's MS.); Fine Roll,
> > 25 Hen. III. m. 14). Joan, daughter of the said Baldwin le Tyas, married,
> > firstly, Sir Robert de Hoyland, Knt., of High Hoyland, in the Wapentake of
> > Staincross, co. York (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, Vol. II . p. 263), to
> > whom her father conveyed in frank marriage with his said daughter Joan,
> > all his lands in Rochdale, viz., in Butterworth, Clegg, Gartside, Ogden,
> > Hollingworth, and Haugh (Black Book of Clayton, No. 71) ; and, secondly,
> > Sir John de Byron, Knt., of Clayton, in Salfordshire.
>
> > Teutonicus in this last extract is in italics. The dictionary says that it
> > means "from the ancient German language." Does this mean that the name
> > Tyas/Tyes is from the ancient German language and Baldwin's surname is not
> > Teutonicus or Teutonick? If so, that leaves Tyas/Tyes and Thies for his
> > surname. How do you pronounce Thies?
> > Nancy
>
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
WJhonson
2007-10-15 20:06:19 UTC
Permalink
This is apropos of this thread (you may see why if you look at the book or wait for my next extract.)
Will Johnson

http://books.google.com/books?id=HMgCAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA727
"The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensian Order", by Cockersand Abbey, William Farrer"
pg 727 fn2 : "According to the Survey of co Lancaster made in 1212, Gilbert de Notton held one carucate of land [in Crompton] in thanage, of Roger de Montbegon and William de Nevill jointly, by the service of 6s 4d yearly. The Nevill moiety was in the King's hands at the date of the Survey, because the heirs of the said William, then deceased, had neglected to do homage and render their relief.....In the time of Stephen and Henry II, this estate was held by Adam fitz Swain, whose father, Swain fitz Alric, died shortly before the 31 Henry I (Pipe Roll, p 142)....He died about 1160, leaving two daughters his heirs -- Amabel, the elder, who married firstly, Alexander de Crevequeur, and secondly, William de Neville above named; and Matilda, the younger, married to Adam de Montbegon, father of Roger above named."
- transcribed courtesy of Will Johnson, ***@aol.com, Professional Genealogist, from the original image in Google Books
WJhonson
2007-10-15 20:31:17 UTC
Permalink
http://books.google.com/books?id=HMgCAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA727
"The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensian Order", by Cockersand Abbey, William Farrer"
pg 727 fn2 : "...The earliest mention that I have found of Gilbert de Notton occurs in the Sheriff's account of co Lancaster, at Michaelmas, 1185, when the latter rendered account at the Treasury of one mark from Gilbert de Noton and Richard de Heland for license to make an agreement touching some suit which they had been litigating in the King's Court (Lancashire Pipe Rolls, p 55). He was Seneschal to John de Lacy, Constable of Chester sometime between 1213 and 1220. By his first wife, who died before 1203, he appears to have had issue at least two sons, viz, Gilbert and William. By his second wife Edith, lady of Barton, in her own right, daughter of Matthew de Barton, whom he married shortly before 1203, he had no issue; but the said Edith by her first husband, whose name has not been preserved, had issue a son, John, who died young and unmarried, and a daughter, Cecily, her heir..."
- transcribed courtesy of Will Johnson, ***@aol.com, Professional Genealogist, from the original image in Google Books
WJhonson
2007-10-15 20:44:51 UTC
Permalink
http://books.google.com/books?id=HMgCAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA728
"The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensian Order", by Cockersand Abbey, William Farrer"
pg 728 footnote : "Gilbert de Notton (2), eldest son of Gilbert, the Seneschal, married Margery, daughter of Hugh de Eland of Eland and Rochdale, who gave the said Gilbert in frank marriage with his daughter, certain lands in Naden in Spotland (Whalley Coucher, p 640). The said Gilbert also purchased from Robert de Mitton certain lands which had been bestowed upon Jordan de Mitton (the said Robert's grandfather), early in the reign of Henry II, by Hugh de Eland, in frank marriage with his daughter Wymark, viz, two oxgangs of land in Wardleworth, and two oxgangs in Heley (Whalley Coucher, pp 623, 627). This land afterwards became the nucleus of the Byron estates in the lordship of Rochdale. Gilbert de Notton, jun, by his said wife had issue a son, Roger, who succeeded to his father's Yorkshire estate in Silkstone, Farnley Tias, and Woodsome, of which the former estate passed by the marriage of his daughter and heir, Christiana, to William Heron, and so to the family of John, !
Lord Darcy (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, passim). The said Roger was the grantor in Charter No 2. Having released his estates in Farnley and Woodsome, co York and in Rochdale, co Lanc. to Baldwin le Tyas or Tyes (Teutonicus), who had married his mother, he died in 1241 (Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol vii, pp 131, 132 n; Black Book of Clayton, (Towneley's MS.); Fine Roll, 25 Hen III m 14). Joan, daughter of the said Baldwin le Tyas, married firstly, Sir Robert de Hoyland, Knt of High Hoyland, in the Wapentake of Staincross, co York (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, Vol II, p 263), to whom her father conveyed in frank marriage with his said daughter Joan, all his lands in Rochdale, viz, in Butterworth, Clegg, Gartside, Ogden, Hollingworth, and Haugh (Black Book of Clayton, no 71); and, secondly , Sir John de Byron, Knt, of Clayton in Salfordshire."
- transcribed courtesy of Will Johnson, ***@aol.com, Professional Genealogist, from the original image in Google Books
John P. Ravilious
2007-10-16 00:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will, Nancy, et al.,

Sir Baldwin le Tyes (or Tyas, &c.) was in fact living
in 1235, as evidenced by the following record of a fine
dated 20 Hen. III (1235):

' Between Roger de Notton compl't & Baldwin le Teys &
Margery his wife deforc of 2 carucates of land with the
appurtenances in Wodehuse, & of 2 bovates of land in
Farlegh which tenem'ts the said Baldwin & Margery his
wife held in dower of the said Margery of the guift of
Gilbert de Notton, the late husband of the said Margery,
father of this Roger, whose heire he is, the right of
Roger for ever.' [ Ellis, Wapentake of Agbrigg (YAJ
VII:131-2]

This, together with other evidence in hand, gives us
the following relationships, incl. the Mitton connection
you noted earlier:


Hugh de Eland
d. bef 1193
___________I__________
I I
Richard de Eland Wymarca = Jordan
I de Mitton
I
I
Hugh de Eland = NN Gilbert de = 1) NN
d. ca. 1230 I Notton I d. bef
I I 1203
_____________________I____ ____I
I I I I
Richard John Margery = 1) Gilbert = 2) Sir
(dvp) = Alice ________I de Notton I Baldwin
I I d. ca. I le Tyas
I I 1220 I d. aft
I I I 1234
V I ___________I______
I I I
Roger Sir Francis Joan
de Notton (Franco) = 1) Sir
d. 1241 le Tyas Robert de
I d. aft 1265 Hoyland
I I = 2) Sir
I I John de Byron
I I I
Christiana Richard I
= William = Ellen V
Heron de Nevill
I I
V V


Among the descendants of Hugh de Eland (d. ca. 1230)
we find the Wentworths (Elmsall et al.), Rockleys of
Rockley, Longford of Longford (Derbyshire), not to mention
Savile of Eland, etc. etc. Leo and Ian can probably tell
us how many descents Prince William has from Hugh,
assuming the computer doesn't burn out in the process...

Cheers,

John







On Oct 15, 4:44?pm, WJhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=HMgCAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA728
> "The Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey of the Premonstratensian Order", by Cockersand Abbey, William Farrer"
> pg 728 footnote : "Gilbert de Notton (2), eldest son of Gilbert, the Seneschal, married Margery, daughter of Hugh de Eland of Eland and Rochdale, who gave the said Gilbert in frank marriage with his daughter, certain lands in Naden in Spotland (Whalley Coucher, p 640). The said Gilbert also purchased from Robert de Mitton certain lands which had been bestowed upon Jordan de Mitton (the said Robert's grandfather), early in the reign of Henry II, by Hugh de Eland, in frank marriage with his daughter Wymark, viz, two oxgangs of land in Wardleworth, and two oxgangs in Heley (Whalley Coucher, pp 623, 627). This land afterwards became the nucleus of the Byron estates in the lordship of Rochdale. Gilbert de Notton, jun, by his said wife had issue a son, Roger, who succeeded to his father's Yorkshire estate in Silkstone, Farnley Tias, and Woodsome, of which the former estate passed by the marriage of his daughter and heir, Christiana, to William Heron, and so to the family of John, !
> Lord Darcy (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, passim). The said Roger was the grantor in Charter No 2. Having released his estates in Farnley and Woodsome, co York and in Rochdale, co Lanc. to Baldwin le Tyas or Tyes (Teutonicus), who had married his mother, he died in 1241 (Yorks. Arch. Journal, vol vii, pp 131, 132 n; Black Book of Clayton, (Towneley's MS.); Fine Roll, 25 Hen III m 14). Joan, daughter of the said Baldwin le Tyas, married firstly, Sir Robert de Hoyland, Knt of High Hoyland, in the Wapentake of Staincross, co York (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, Vol II, p 263), to whom her father conveyed in frank marriage with his said daughter Joan, all his lands in Rochdale, viz, in Butterworth, Clegg, Gartside, Ogden, Hollingworth, and Haugh (Black Book of Clayton, no 71); and, secondly , Sir John de Byron, Knt, of Clayton in Salfordshire."
> - transcribed courtesy of Will Johnson, ***@aol.com, Professional Genealogist, from the original image in Google Books
WJhonson
2007-10-15 20:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Will thank you for your excellent post(s).

There is a slight discrepancy in this account.

To wit: it states that Gilbert de Notton was a son by his father's first (or prior) wife who had died in 1203 and who is not named, that that father, also named Gilbert married secondly by 1202 to Edith de Barton.

But then it states that Gilbert de Notton, the son, who died in 1241, released his lands to Baldwin le Tyes "who had married his mother".

Unless Gilbert Sr and his first wife were divorced, Baldwin could not have married his mother and yet be living into Gilbert Jr's time period. So perhaps they mean that Baldwin married Edith de Barton ?

Will Johnson
John P. Ravilious
2007-10-16 00:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will, Nancy, et al.,

Sir Baldwin le Tyes (or Tyas, &c.) was in fact living
in 1235, as evidenced by the following record of a fine
dated 20 Hen. III (1235):

' Between Roger de Notton compl't & Baldwin le Teys &
Margery his wife deforc of 2 carucates of land with the
appurtenances in Wodehuse, & of 2 bovates of land in
Farlegh which tenem'ts the said Baldwin & Margery his
wife held in dower of the said Margery of the guift of
Gilbert de Notton, the late husband of the said Margery,
father of this Roger, whose heire he is, the right of
Roger for ever.' [ Ellis, Wapentake of Agbrigg (YAJ
VII:131-2]

This, together with other evidence in hand, gives us
the following relationships, incl. the Mitton connection
you noted earlier:


Hugh de Eland
d. bef 1193
___________I__________
I I
Richard de Eland Wymarca = Jordan
I de Mitton
I
I
Hugh de Eland = NN Gilbert de = 1) NN
d. ca. 1230 I Notton I d. bef
I I 1203
_____________________I____ ____I
I I I I
Richard John Margery = 1) Gilbert = 2) Sir
(dvp) = Alice ________I de Notton I Baldwin
I I d. ca. I le Tyas
I I 1220 I d. aft
I I I 1234
V I ___________I______
I I I
Roger Sir Francis Joan
de Notton (Franco) = 1) Sir
d. 1241 le Tyas Robert de
I d. aft 1265 Hoyland
I I = 2) Sir
I I John de Byron
I I I
Christiana Richard I
= William = Ellen V
Heron de Nevill
I I
V V


Among the descendants of Hugh de Eland (d. ca. 1230)
we find the Wentworths (Elmsall et al.), Rockleys of
Rockley, Longford of Longford (Derbyshire), not to mention
Savile of Eland, etc. etc. Leo and Ian can probably tell
us how many descents Prince William has from Hugh,
assuming the computer doesn't burn out in the process...

Cheers,

John





On Oct 15, 4:58?pm, WJhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Will thank you for your excellent post(s).
>
> There is a slight discrepancy in this account.
>
> To wit: it states that Gilbert de Notton was a son by his father's first (or prior) wife who had died in 1203 and who is not named, that that father, also named Gilbert married secondly by 1202 to Edith de Barton.
>
> But then it states that Gilbert de Notton, the son, who died in 1241, released his lands to Baldwin le Tyes "who had married his mother".
>
> Unless Gilbert Sr and his first wife were divorced, Baldwin could not have married his mother and yet be living into Gilbert Jr's time period. So perhaps they mean that Baldwin married Edith de Barton ?
>
> Will Johnson
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-16 04:52:51 UTC
Permalink
John, I couldn't follow your chart very well because it lost its spacing so I'm trying a different format. Please let me know if you see any errors.
Nancy

1 Gilbert de Notton I
+ 1st Juliana
2 Reginald de Notton
2 Gilbert de Notton II
+ Margery, dau. of Hugh de Eland
3 Roger de Notton d. 1241
4 Christiana de Notton
+ William Heron
2 William de Notton
+ Cecily, dau. of Augustine de Barton & Edith
3 Gilbert, assumed the name Barton
1 Gilbert de Notton I
+ 2nd Edith, widow of Augustine de Barton


1 Baldwin de Tyes
+ Margery dau. of Hugh de Eland, widow of Gilbert de Notton II
2 Sir Francis Tyes
2 Sir John Tyes
2 Sir Everard Tyes
2 Joan/Joanna Tyes
+ 1st Sir Robert Holland of High Holland
+ 2nd Sir John de Byron, Lord of Clayton
3 Sir John de Byron, Lord of Clayton, d. 1318
+ Alice, cousin & heir of Robert Banastre of Hyndeley
4 Sir Richard de Byron, Knight, of Cadenay, & lord of Clayton
+ Agnes
3 Margery Byron
+ 1st Sir John de Assheton
+ 2nd Sir Edmund Talbot de Bashall


----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)


> Dear Will, Nancy, et al.,
>
> Sir Baldwin le Tyes (or Tyas, &c.) was in fact living
> in 1235, as evidenced by the following record of a fine
> dated 20 Hen. III (1235):
>
> ' Between Roger de Notton compl't & Baldwin le Teys &
> Margery his wife deforc of 2 carucates of land with the
> appurtenances in Wodehuse, & of 2 bovates of land in
> Farlegh which tenem'ts the said Baldwin & Margery his
> wife held in dower of the said Margery of the guift of
> Gilbert de Notton, the late husband of the said Margery,
> father of this Roger, whose heire he is, the right of
> Roger for ever.' [ Ellis, Wapentake of Agbrigg (YAJ
> VII:131-2]
>
> This, together with other evidence in hand, gives us
> the following relationships, incl. the Mitton connection
> you noted earlier:
>
>
> Hugh de Eland
> d. bef 1193
> ___________I__________
> I I
> Richard de Eland Wymarca = Jordan
> I de Mitton
> I
> I
> Hugh de Eland = NN Gilbert de = 1) NN
> d. ca. 1230 I Notton I d. bef
> I I 1203
> _____________________I____ ____I
> I I I I
> Richard John Margery = 1) Gilbert = 2) Sir
> (dvp) = Alice ________I de Notton I Baldwin
> I I d. ca. I le Tyas
> I I 1220 I d. aft
> I I I 1234
> V I ___________I______
> I I I
> Roger Sir Francis Joan
> de Notton (Franco) = 1) Sir
> d. 1241 le Tyas Robert de
> I d. aft 1265 Hoyland
> I I = 2) Sir
> I I John de Byron
> I I I
> Christiana Richard I
> = William = Ellen V
> Heron de Nevill
> I I
> V V
>
>
> Among the descendants of Hugh de Eland (d. ca. 1230)
> we find the Wentworths (Elmsall et al.), Rockleys of
> Rockley, Longford of Longford (Derbyshire), not to mention
> Savile of Eland, etc. etc. Leo and Ian can probably tell
> us how many descents Prince William has from Hugh,
> assuming the computer doesn't burn out in the process...
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 15, 4:58?pm, WJhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
>> Will thank you for your excellent post(s).
>>
>> There is a slight discrepancy in this account.
>>
>> To wit: it states that Gilbert de Notton was a son by his father's first (or prior) wife who had died in 1203 and who is not named, that that father, also named Gilbert married secondly by 1202 to Edith de Barton.
>>
>> But then it states that Gilbert de Notton, the son, who died in 1241, released his lands to Baldwin le Tyes "who had married his mother".
>>
>> Unless Gilbert Sr and his first wife were divorced, Baldwin could not have married his mother and yet be living into Gilbert Jr's time period. So perhaps they mean that Baldwin married Edith de Barton ?
>>
>> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
WJhonson
2007-10-16 05:31:36 UTC
Permalink
<<In a message dated 10/15/07 21:53:31 Pacific Daylight Time, ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
2 William de Notton
+ Cecily, dau. of Augustine de Barton & Edith
>> -----------------------

William died exactly between 1212 and 1220.
He is named as the Lord of Breightment in the Inquest of co Lancaster in 1212
But he was dead by 16 Oct 1220 when his heir is granted.

Will Johnson
WJhonson
2007-10-16 05:33:14 UTC
Permalink
<<In a message dated 10/15/07 21:53:31 Pacific Daylight Time, ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
2 William de Notton
+ Cecily, dau. of Augustine de Barton & Edith
3 Gilbert, assumed the name Barton >>
------------------
We know that Gilbert was born exactly from 1198 to 1201
He is under age in 1220 when he is granted as the heir, and yet he had livery in 1222.

Will Johnson
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-26 21:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a space or
hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many variations and
would like to be at least consistent with my own use.

Richard fitz Roger
Richard fitz-Roger
Richard fitzRoger
Richard Fitz Roger
Richard Fitz-Roger
Richard FitzRoger

Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?

Nancy
Nathaniel Taylor
2007-10-26 21:34:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-***@rootsweb.com>,
"Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a space or
> hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many variations and
> would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
>
> Richard fitz Roger
> Richard fitz-Roger
> Richard fitzRoger
> Richard Fitz Roger
> Richard Fitz-Roger
> Richard FitzRoger
>
> Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?

Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right' one,
and everyone should follow it. Others recognize that standardizing
modern renderings of such names are less important. In this case, one
might draw a distinction based on who this person is, and how the name
is used. If 'Fitz Roger' is in this case an inherited surname, rather
than simply a patronymic, I would suggest capalizing the 'Fitz' element
(though I am indifferent to the space, hyphen, or no-space issue). If
it's a simple patronymic, I would be inclined to leave 'fitz' in the
lower case and keep the words separate.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Douglas Richardson
2007-11-09 23:23:56 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
< In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-***@rootsweb.com>,
< "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<
< > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
space or
< > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
variations and
< > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
<
< > Richard fitz Roger
< > Richard fitz-Roger
< > Richard fitzRoger
< > Richard Fitz Roger
< > Richard Fitz-Roger
< > Richard FitzRoger
<
< > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
<
< Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
one,
< and everyone should follow it.

Dear Nancy ~

Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
they employ modern English forms of given names. So today we have
Robert, William, Peter, etc. in our historical accounts, instead of
Roberte, Wyllyam, and Piers. Consistency and standardization have
much to be said for them.

For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
or wong. Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin. Worse
yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
being lazy.

On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
equally. Either form is fine. Some historians take it one step
further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."
For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
at all? It seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
then he has failed to grasp what you are saying. When Average Joe (or
Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
in my opinion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Nathaniel Taylor
2007-11-10 01:00:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

> For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
> or wong. Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
> name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
> be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
> and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
> forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin. Worse
> yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
> the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
> Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
> being lazy.

Perhaps Douglas might wish to refresh his memory by glancing at the
google archive for this group, searching simultaneously on the terms
"correct," "name," "form," and "Richardson."

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 00:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Intelligent Post...

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
> me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
> modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
> moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
> they employ modern English forms of given names. So today we have
> Robert, William, Peter, etc. in our historical accounts, instead of
> Roberte, Wyllyam, and Piers. Consistency and standardization have
> much to be said for them.
>
> For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
> or wong. Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
> name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
> be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
> and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
> forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin. Worse
> yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
> the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
> Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
> being lazy.
>
> On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
> question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
> equally. Either form is fine. Some historians take it one step
> further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
> a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
> idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
> patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
> This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
> Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."
> For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
> patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
> fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
> consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
> and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
> consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
> at all? It seems like a waste of time and energy to me.
>
> Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
> a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
> then he has failed to grasp what you are saying. When Average Joe (or
> Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
> word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
> are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
> in my opinion.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
2007-11-10 03:06:06 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 9, 5:25 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Intelligent Post...
>
> DSH

Thanks for the complement, Spencer. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 03:27:33 UTC
Permalink
You're quite welcome, Douglas.

Your post hit the bullseye.

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 9, 5:25 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:

>> Intelligent Post...
>>
>> DSH
>
> Thanks for the compliment, Spencer. Much appreciated.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
t***@clearwire.net
2007-11-10 00:55:03 UTC
Permalink
[inappropriate crosspost removed]

On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <***@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> < In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-***@rootsweb.com>,
> < "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <
> < > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
> space or
> < > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
> variations and
> < > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
> <
> < > Richard fitz Roger
> < > Richard fitz-Roger
> < > Richard fitzRoger
> < > Richard Fitz Roger
> < > Richard Fitz-Roger
> < > Richard FitzRoger
> <
> < > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
> <
> < Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
> one,
> < and everyone should follow it.
>
> Dear Nancy ~
>
> Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
> me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
> modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
> moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
> they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

> Consistency and standardization have
> much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


> For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
> or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

> Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
> name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
> be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
> and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
> forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

> Worse
> yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
> the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
> Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
> being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


> On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
> question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
> equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


> Some historians take it one step
> further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
> a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
> idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
> patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
> This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
> Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

> For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
> patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
> fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
> consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
> and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
> consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
> at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


> Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
> a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
> then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

> When Average Joe (or
> Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
> word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
> are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
> in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

taf
t***@clearwire.net
2007-11-10 00:54:56 UTC
Permalink
[inappropriate crosspost removed]

On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <***@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> < In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-***@rootsweb.com>,
> < "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <
> < > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
> space or
> < > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
> variations and
> < > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
> <
> < > Richard fitz Roger
> < > Richard fitz-Roger
> < > Richard fitzRoger
> < > Richard Fitz Roger
> < > Richard Fitz-Roger
> < > Richard FitzRoger
> <
> < > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
> <
> < Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
> one,
> < and everyone should follow it.
>
> Dear Nancy ~
>
> Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
> me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
> modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
> moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
> they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

> Consistency and standardization have
> much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


> For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
> or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

> Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
> name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
> be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
> and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
> forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

> Worse
> yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
> the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
> Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
> being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


> On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
> question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
> equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


> Some historians take it one step
> further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
> a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
> idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
> patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
> This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
> Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

> For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
> patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
> fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
> consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
> and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
> consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
> at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


> Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
> a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
> then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

> When Average Joe (or
> Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
> word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
> are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
> in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

taf
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 03:41:33 UTC
Permalink
taf is indeed in a very LARGE snit.

DSH

<***@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:***@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <***@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> < In article <mailman.537.1193433618.19317.gen-***@rootsweb.com>,
>> < "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> <
>> < > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
>> space or
>> < > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
>> variations and
>> < > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
>> <
>> < > Richard fitz Roger
>> < > Richard fitz-Roger
>> < > Richard fitzRoger
>> < > Richard Fitz Roger
>> < > Richard Fitz-Roger
>> < > Richard FitzRoger
>> <
>> < > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
>> <
>> < Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
>> one,
>> < and everyone should follow it.
>>
>> Dear Nancy ~
>>
>> Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
>> me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
>> modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
>> moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
>> they employ modern English forms of given names.
>
>
> Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
> the case. He is relating his preference.
>
>> Consistency and standardization have
>> much to be said for them.
>
>
> I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
> to do with small minds.
>
>
>> For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
>> or wong.
>
> No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
> is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
> more equal than others.
>
>> Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
>> name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
>> be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
>> and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
>> forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.
>
> Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
> broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
> to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
> forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
> that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
> form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
> should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.
>
> To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
> 11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
> will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
> defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
> other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
> I shall not put".
>
>> Worse
>> yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
>> the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
>> Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
>> being lazy.
>
> 'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
> not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
> while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.
>
>
>> On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
>> question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
>> equally. Either form is fine.
>
> The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.
>
>
>> Some historians take it one step
>> further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
>> a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
>> idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
>> patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
>> This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
>> Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."
>
> And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
> You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
> considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
> what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
> one pretends otherwise.
>
>> For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
>> patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
>> fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
>> consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
>> and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
>> consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
>> at all?
>
>
> Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.
>
>
>> Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
>> a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
>> then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.
>
> So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
> you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
> way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
> difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.
>
>> When Average Joe (or
>> Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
>> word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
>> are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
>> in my opinion.
>
> Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
> never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
> or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
> distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
> communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
> communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
> nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
> unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
> distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
> information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
> unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
> everyone is left in the unaware category.
>
> taf
WJhonson
2007-10-26 21:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Richard son of Roger, doesn't make it very easy to do surname searches however.
Doesn't fit well into a book index.

So most authors use something like FitzRoger, fitzRoger, or Fitz Roger.

Since it means "son of" some people include a space to indicate that it is a *modern* invention expressing the Latin form (filius Rogeri). What did they call themselves to each other? "Hi I'm Richard the son of Roger from the town of Beccles..."

I have no idea. You can use whatever form you fill looks best. I find that PAF for example, puts them in order with or without a space, and with or without captialization, so evidently, at least in PAF, it doesn't matter what form you use as long as you use Fitz in front somewhere.
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-27 03:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Nat and Will, for your replies.

In this case, Richard fitz Roger is a patronymic. Roger was the son of
Ravenkil who was the son of Raghanald.

"Richard son of Roger" is used in most records I've found. The exception is
Ormerod's Parentalia in which he uses Richard Fitz-Roger. When I first saw
"Richard son of Roger" in a book, I immediately thought "Roger who?" and
wondered if I missed his surname in the previous text! Therefore, I prefer
the use of "fitz" in some form.

Nancy
Nancy L. Allen
2007-11-09 13:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Some researchers say that Albreda Espec, the wife of Geoffrey de Trailly I, was the daughter of Walter Espec and they give only Geoffrey II as their son. Wasn't she Walter's sister instead?

Walter Espec's charter of foundation, granting land in Helmesley and Bilsdale to the Abbey of Rievaulx, in Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle, Ordinis Cisterciensus (London: Published for the Surtees Society, 1889), pp. 16-21 states:

"Testimonio etiam et concessu nepotum meorum -scil: Willelmi de Bussei, et Jordani et Rogeri, qui sunt filii sororis meae Haawis, primogenitae patris et matris meae; et nepotum meorum, Gaufridi de Traili et Willelmi et Gilleberti et Nicholai, filiorurn mediae sororis meae Albreae; et nepotum meorum, Everardi et Roberti, filiorum sororis meae Odelinae postgenitae."

I haven't translated Latin for over 45 years, but doesn't this say that Gaufridi [Geoffrey?], Willelmi [William], Gilleberti [Gilbert], and Nicholai [Nicholas] were the sons of his [Walter Espec's] SISTER Albreae [Albreda?].

Nancy
Gordon and Jane Kirkemo
2007-11-09 20:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Nancy,

Someone may have responded to your post by now, but just in case I will
offer the following from Domesday Descendants (p.841) under the heading of
"Espec, Walter":

"Son of William Espec, of Old Wardon, Bedfordshire. He was granted the
barony of Helmsley, Yorkshire, on the Mortain fee, by Henry I, who also gave
him Wark in Northumberland (Sanders, 149). His wife was named Adelina.
Founder of Kirham priory c.1122 (Mon. Ang. vi, p.208). At the end of his
life, c.1153, he became a monk of Rievaulx and died there in 1155, when his
heirs were the issue of his three sisters, Hawise de Buissy, Albreda de
Trailly (Sanders, 133, Old Wardon) and Adeline, wife of Peter de Ros
(Sanders, 52-53, Helmsley)."

It would seem from this that Albreda was indeed the sister of Walter and the
daughter of William.

I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,
Gordon Kirkemo

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy L. Allen [mailto:***@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 5:16 AM
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Sons of Geoffrey de Trailly and Albreda Espec

Some researchers say that Albreda Espec, the wife of Geoffrey de Trailly I,
was the daughter of Walter Espec and they give only Geoffrey II as their
son. Wasn't she Walter's sister instead?

Walter Espec's charter of foundation, granting land in Helmesley and
Bilsdale to the Abbey of Rievaulx, in Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle,
Ordinis Cisterciensus (London: Published for the Surtees Society, 1889), pp.
16-21 states:

"Testimonio etiam et concessu nepotum meorum -scil: Willelmi de Bussei, et
Jordani et Rogeri, qui sunt filii sororis meae Haawis, primogenitae patris
et matris meae; et nepotum meorum, Gaufridi de Traili et Willelmi et
Gilleberti et Nicholai, filiorurn mediae sororis meae Albreae; et nepotum
meorum, Everardi et Roberti, filiorum sororis meae Odelinae postgenitae."

I haven't translated Latin for over 45 years, but doesn't this say that
Gaufridi [Geoffrey?], Willelmi [William], Gilleberti [Gilbert], and Nicholai
[Nicholas] were the sons of his [Walter Espec's] SISTER Albreae [Albreda?].

Nancy
Ken Ozanne
2007-10-16 08:11:40 UTC
Permalink
On 16/10/07 17:00, "gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com> wrote:

> From: WJhonson <***@aol.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:33:14 -0700
> To: "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net>, gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Cc: "John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)
>
> <<In a message dated 10/15/07 21:53:31 Pacific Daylight Time,
> ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
> 2 William de Notton
> + Cecily, dau. of Augustine de Barton & Edith
> 3 Gilbert, assumed the name Barton >>
> ------------------
> We know that Gilbert was born exactly from 1198 to 1201
> He is under age in 1220 when he is granted as the heir, and yet he had livery
> in 1222.
>
> Will Johnson

I've come into this late and have no idea whether the following extract from
Lancashire Feet of Fines vol 1 footnote 33 p 93 has been introduced into the
evidence as yet. Apologies if it has.

Some account of Edith de Barton, who possessed Barton cum membris in her own
right, has been given in a note to the concord No. 41 (antea, p. 26). The
printed pedigrees of "de Notton" or Barton contain a serious mistake in
giving Edith de Barton three sons by her husband, Gilbert de Notton. The
correct descent is as follows: Edith de Barton had issue by a first husband,
whose name has not been preserved, a son, John de Barton, and one daughter.
Her second husband‹by whom she had no issue‹was Gilbert de Notton, probably
a Lincolnshire man. By a former wife, however, Gilbert had three sons,
William, Roger, and John called "de Bromyhurst." The eldest son, William de
Notton married the daughter and heiress of Edith de Barton, by her first
husband, and had issue Gilbert and Matthew, possibly also another son. The
last-named Gilbert, was found to be heir to his grandmother Edith, and had
livery of thirty-two oxgangs of land in Barton cum membris, and Worsley, by
writ dated 26th January, 1222 (Fine Roll, 6 Henry III. m. 7). In the
original entry he is styled "Gilbertus nepos et hæres Edithæ de Barton."
That nepos here means grandson is proved by the following entry in the Close
Roll,‹"The King to the Sheriff of Lancaster, greeting. Our beloved and
faithful Robert Gresle has shewn unto us, that whereas Edith, formerly wife
of Gilebert de Noctun held of him the fee of one Knight and a half in
Bartun, whereof the ancestors of Robert always used and ought to have
wardship with the heirs being under age after the death of their ancestors,
and whereas he who is now heir, being under age, to wit son of the daughter
of the said Edith, ought to be in ward to him with his inheritance, and for
that reason he (Robert) had seised that inheritance into his hands, as that
which ought to be held of him in chief by military service, now you without
authority of our precept have disseised Robert of the said fee of one Knight
and a half, causing him loss to the amount of forty marks of the chattels
which you have there seised." The Sheriff was accordingly ordered to
immediately put him in seisin and to restore his chattels. If he did not do
so, he was to come to Westminster on the morrow of St. Martin to show cause
why he did not execute this precept. This writ bears date at Westminster,
16th October, 1220 (Close Roll, 4 Henry III., m. 1, in dorso). Additional
proof of this corrected descent is found in a charter, by which Edith de
Barton, with the approval of her husband Sir Gilbert de Notton, and for the
health of their souls, and of the soul of her son, John de Barton, and of
her daughter, to wit the wife of William de Notton, gave to the monks of the
blessed place of Stanlaw in frankalmoign, the land of Cadewalisset
[Cadishead, in the township of Barton]. The date lies before 5th July, 1213,
when Henry de Longchamps was dead. Jordan, Dean of Manchester, under the
style of "Jordanus de sancta Maria" was also a witness (Whalley Coucher, p.
521). Sir Gilbert de Notton assumed the name of Barton upon inheriting his
grandmother's estates. His first wife is said to have been Margery, daughter
of Hugh de Eland, of Eland, county York. If so, the Henry, son of Margery,
who put in his claim according to the endorsement on this concord, was
probably her son. His second wife was Cecilia, possibly daughter of Jorwerth
de Hulton, to whom Paulinus de West-Houghton gave the third part of that
vill in fee, an estate afterwards found in the possession of Gilbert's son,
John de Barton (Whalley Coucher, pp. 59, 881).
It is not easy to interpret the meaning of this concord. I can only suggest
that Christiana was in some way connected by blood with Edith de Barton. She
married . . . de Allerton, and had a son, Richard, who in 1246, together
with John de Blackburn and Henry de Whalley, obtained licence to concord
with Thomas Grelley, and make acknowledgment that they had no right of chase
in Thomas' forest [of Horwich] (Assize Roll, No. 404, m. 8). The early
references to Allerton, near Liverpool, are somewhat scarce, and do not
assist in the identification of this family. (See No. 59, temp. John, and
No. 98 postea, also Mamcestre, p. 353).

Best,
Ken
wjhonson
2007-10-17 00:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Ken thank you for typing all of that out. I assume the entire extract
should be quoted, that is, none is it is *your* writing, its all one
large extract?

Can you tell us who the editor was?

I don't find it compelling that your editor claims that Gilbert de
Notton, by his first wife had three sons William, Roger and John,
while Farrar claims that the two sons were Gilbert and William.

It sounds like neither editor had hard facts in front of them, and is
merely trying to create a family by sticking the pieces where they
might fit. In addition to which one puts Margaret de Eland a
generation higher than the other one.

Sounds like we need some primary quotes to back up those claims, since
these two secondary footsnotes, conflict.

Will Johnson
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-16 14:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Will, thanks for adding the dates.

Ken, I haven't studied the Notton family much. I got to them because I was researching the ancestry of Margery Byron who married Sir John de Assheton. I will review the information you sent. It doesn't seem to agree with the following source.

I found the name Augustine de Barton in William Farrer, ed., Early Yorkshire Charters, Volume III (Edinburgh: Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., 1916), pp. 351-353; at books.google.com. I placed his footnotes in parentheses:
"Gilbert de Notton was twice married. By Juliana his first wife he had issue: Reginald, Gilbert II and William. His second wife, by whom he had no issue, was Edith, lady of Barton-by-Eccles, co. Lanc., who had issue by her first husband, Augustine de Barton, a son John, who died in his mother's lifetime, and a daughter, Cecily, heir to her mother, who married William son of Gilbert de Notton, named above. (V.C. H. Lans., vols. iv and v, passim) This William was sometime constable to John de Lascy, constable of Chester, (Chartul. Of Pontefract, 146) and his son Gilbert III, upon succeeding to the Lancashire estate of his mother's mother upon her death in 1220 took the name of Barton. (R. Litt. Claus., i, 438b; Excerpt. e R. Fin., I, 78.) Gilbert I, the elder, was seneschal to John de Lascy about 1220-1230. His Lancashire estates are described in the Inquest of Service taken in 1212. (Inquests and Extents, Lancs. And Chesh. Rec. Soc., pt. i, passim.)"

"Gilbert de Notion II, eldest surviving son of Gilbert the elder, married Margery, daughter of Hugh de Eland, by whom he had issue Roger de Notton; but he died in his father's lifetime."

Nancy


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ozanne" <***@bordernet.com.au>
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)


On 16/10/07 17:00, "gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com> wrote:

> From: WJhonson <***@aol.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:33:14 -0700
> To: "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net>, gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Cc: "John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)
>
> <<In a message dated 10/15/07 21:53:31 Pacific Daylight Time,
> ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
> 2 William de Notton
> + Cecily, dau. of Augustine de Barton & Edith
> 3 Gilbert, assumed the name Barton >>
> ------------------
> We know that Gilbert was born exactly from 1198 to 1201
> He is under age in 1220 when he is granted as the heir, and yet he had livery
> in 1222.
>
> Will Johnson

I've come into this late and have no idea whether the following extract from
Lancashire Feet of Fines vol 1 footnote 33 p 93 has been introduced into the
evidence as yet. Apologies if it has.

Some account of Edith de Barton, who possessed Barton cum membris in her own
right, has been given in a note to the concord No. 41 (antea, p. 26). The
printed pedigrees of "de Notton" or Barton contain a serious mistake in
giving Edith de Barton three sons by her husband, Gilbert de Notton. The
correct descent is as follows: Edith de Barton had issue by a first husband,
whose name has not been preserved, a son, John de Barton, and one daughter.
Her second husband a Lincolnshire man. By a former wife, however, Gilbert had three sons,
William, Roger, and John called "de Bromyhurst." The eldest son, William de
Notton married the daughter and heiress of Edith de Barton, by her first
husband, and had issue Gilbert and Matthew, possibly also another son. The
last-named Gilbert, was found to be heir to his grandmother Edith, and had
livery of thirty-two oxgangs of land in Barton cum membris, and Worsley, by
writ dated 26th January, 1222 (Fine Roll, 6 Henry III. m. 7). In the
original entry he is styled "Gilbertus nepos et hæres Edithæ de Barton."
That nepos here means grandson is proved by the following entry in the Close
Roll,<"The King to the Sheriff of Lancaster, greeting. Our beloved and
faithful Robert Gresle has shewn unto us, that whereas Edith, formerly wife
of Gilebert de Noctun held of him the fee of one Knight and a half in
Bartun, whereof the ancestors of Robert always used and ought to have
wardship with the heirs being under age after the death of their ancestors,
and whereas he who is now heir, being under age, to wit son of the daughter
of the said Edith, ought to be in ward to him with his inheritance, and for
that reason he (Robert) had seised that inheritance into his hands, as that
which ought to be held of him in chief by military service, now you without
authority of our precept have disseised Robert of the said fee of one Knight
and a half, causing him loss to the amount of forty marks of the chattels
which you have there seised." The Sheriff was accordingly ordered to
immediately put him in seisin and to restore his chattels. If he did not do
so, he was to come to Westminster on the morrow of St. Martin to show cause
why he did not execute this precept. This writ bears date at Westminster,
16th October, 1220 (Close Roll, 4 Henry III., m. 1, in dorso). Additional
proof of this corrected descent is found in a charter, by which Edith de
Barton, with the approval of her husband Sir Gilbert de Notton, and for the
health of their souls, and of the soul of her son, John de Barton, and of
her daughter, to wit the wife of William de Notton, gave to the monks of the
blessed place of Stanlaw in frankalmoign, the land of Cadewalisset
[Cadishead, in the township of Barton]. The date lies before 5th July, 1213,
when Henry de Longchamps was dead. Jordan, Dean of Manchester, under the
style of "Jordanus de sancta Maria" was also a witness (Whalley Coucher, p.
521). Sir Gilbert de Notton assumed the name of Barton upon inheriting his
grandmother's estates. His first wife is said to have been Margery, daughter
of Hugh de Eland, of Eland, county York. If so, the Henry, son of Margery,
who put in his claim according to the endorsement on this concord, was
probably her son. His second wife was Cecilia, possibly daughter of Jorwerth
de Hulton, to whom Paulinus de West-Houghton gave the third part of that
vill in fee, an estate afterwards found in the possession of Gilbert's son,
John de Barton (Whalley Coucher, pp. 59, 881).
It is not easy to interpret the meaning of this concord. I can only suggest
that Christiana was in some way connected by blood with Edith de Barton. She
married . . . de Allerton, and had a son, Richard, who in 1246, together
with John de Blackburn and Henry de Whalley, obtained licence to concord
with Thomas Grelley, and make acknowledgment that they had no right of chase
in Thomas' forest [of Horwich] (Assize Roll, No. 404, m. 8). The early
references to Allerton, near Liverpool, are somewhat scarce, and do not
assist in the identification of this family. (See No. 59, temp. John, and
No. 98 postea, also Mamcestre, p. 353).

Best,
Ken



-------------------------------
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
Nancy L. Allen
2007-10-16 18:17:14 UTC
Permalink
I summarized the information which Ken sent from Lancashire Feet of Fines,
Vol 1, p. 93, footnote 33:

1 --- Barton
2 Edith de Barton
+ 1st ---
3 John de Barton
3 daughter
2 Edith de Barton
+ 2nd --- a Lincolnshire man

1 Gilbert de Notton
+ 1st ---
2 William de Notton
+ dau. of Edith de Barton & 1st husband
3 Gilbert de Notton/de Barton
+ 1st Margery, dau. of Hugh de Eland
4 Henry
3 Gilbert de Notton/de Barton
+ 2nd Cecilia, possibly dau. of Jorwerth de Hulton
3 Matthew de Notton
2 Roger de Notton
2 John de Notton/de Bromyhurst


Then I found the following in Volumes I and II of the Chartulary of Whalley
Abbey. It agrees with what is stated in Feet of Fines above.

The Coucher Book, or Chartulary, of Whalley Abbey, Vol. I (Printed for the
Chetham Society, 1847), pp. 45-46, footnote; at books.google.com.
"I. William de Notton, the first on record of this family. His son,
II. Gilbert de Notton, married Editha, "domina de Barton," circa 1190, and
assumed the name of Barton. He had three sons,
1. William de Notton.
2. Roger de Notton.
3. John de Bromyhurst.
He was succeeded by his son,
III. William de Notton, who had two sons,
1. Gilbert
2. Matthew, who had a daughter, Matilda.
William de Notton was succeeded by his son,
IV. Gilbert, who assumed the name of Barton, and was seneschal to John de
Lascy, eighth baron of Halton. he married twice; first, Margery, daughter of
John de Elond; and secondly, Cecilia, living 1277, the mother of
1. John de Barton.
2. Agnes.

>From Cuerden's Abttracts of Deeds, it appears that he sold the wardship of
his daughter Agnes to John de Blackburne, who sold it to Thomas de Grelley.
Gilbert de Barton died ante 1277.

This family becoming extinct in the direct male line, the inheritance passed
to the Booths of Barton, the heiress having married John del Bothe.

The Coucher Book, or Chartulary, of Whalley Abbey, Vol. II (Printed for the
Chetham Society, 1847), pp. 623 and 626, footnotes; at books.google.com:

"Gilbert de Barton settled lands in Barton, by deed s.d., to take effect
from the feast of St. Martin in winter, 16 Edward II., on his son Robert,
for the term of his life, paying two marks of silver annually to the said
Gilbert during his life, and after his death, one rose on the feast of St.
John the Baptist to his heirs. - Lanc. MSS. vol. xxiv. p. 2. This son is not
named in the Barton pedigree, pp. 45-6.

Sir John de Byron died in 1309.
Sic - Gilberto de Notton et heredibus suis, omitted.
In the Eland pedigree, Wymark, daughter of Sir Hugh de Eland and his wife
Joan, daughter and coheiress of Sir Richard de Tankersley, is stated to have
married Jordan de Mitton. See deed xlvi., p. 623."



As stated above, Gilbert de Notton, the son of William, married first
Margery de Eland and second Cecilia. I don't understand how Margery, the
former wife of Gilbert de Notton, could have married second BALDWIN LE TYES
if Gilbert had a second wife. The extract below states that the second
husband of Roger de Notton's mother, Margery de Eland, was Baldwin le Tyes
and says that Gilbert was the son of Gilbert instead of William. It also
says that Edith was the daughter of Matthew de Barton!

William Farrer, transcriber and editor, The Cartulary of Cockersand Abbey of
the Premonstratensian Order, Vol.. II. Part II (Printed for The Chetham
Society, 1900), pp. 727-728, footnote; at books.google.com:

"GILBERT DE NOTTON (I) held this estate, and the not far distant estate of
Chadderton, by the feoffment of Adam fitz Swain to his ancestor, and not as
in the case of Barton cum membris in right of his wife, Lady Edith de
Barton. The earliest mention that I have found of Gilbert de Notton occurs
in the Sheriff's account of co. Lancaster at Michaelmas, 1185, when the
latter rendered account at the Treasury of one mark from Gilbert de Noton
and Richard de Heland for licence to make an agreement touching some suit
which they had been litigating in the King's Court (Lancashire Pipe Rolls,
p. 55). He was Seneschal to John de Lacy, Constable of Chester sometime
between 1213 and 1220. By his first wife, who died before 1203, he appears
to have had issue at least two sons, viz., Gilbert and William. By his
second wife, Edith, lady of Barton in her own right, daughter of Matthew de
Barton, whom he married shortly before 1203, he had no issue; but the said
Edith by her first husband, whose name has not been preserved, had issue a
son, John, who died young and unmarried, and a daughter, Cecily, her heir,
of whom presently.

GILBERT DE NOTTON (2), eldest son of Gilbert, the Seneschal, married
Margery, daughter of Hugh de Eland of Eland and Rochdale, who gave the said
Gilbert in frank marriage with his daughter, certain lands in Naden in
Spotland Whalley Coucher, p. 640). The said Gilbert also purchased from
Robert de Mitton certain lands which had been bestowed upon Jordan de Mitton
(the said Robert's grandfather), early in the reign of Henry II., by Hugh de
Eland, in frank marriage with his daughter Wymark, viz., two oxgangs of land
in Wardleworth, and two oxgangs in Heley (Whalley Coucher, pp. 623, 627).
This land afterwards became the nucleus of the Byron estates in the lordship
of Rochdale. Gilbert de Notton, jun., by his said wife had issue a son,
Roger, who succeeded to his father's Yorkshire estates in Silkstone, Farnley
Tias, and Woodsome, of which the former estate passed by the marriage of his
daughter and heir, Christiana, to William Heron, and so to the family of
John, Lord Darcy (Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster, passim). The said Roger was
the grantor in Charter No. 2. Having released his estates in Farnley and
Woodsome, co. York, and in Rochdale, co. Lanc., to Baldwin le Tyas or Tyes
(Teutonicus), who had married his mother, he died in 1241 (Yorks. Arch.
Journal, vol. vii., pp. 131, 132 n; Black Book of Clayton, (Towneley's MS.);
Fine Roll, 25 Hen. III. m. 14)."



That Roger was the son of Gilbert de Notton and Margery de Eland is further
supported by the following from Dodsworth's Yorkshire Notes, The Wapentake
of Agbrigg, p. 40, footnote, reprinted from The Yorkshire Archaeological
Journal, Vol. VII, p. 132; at books.google.com:

Between 1232 and 1251, John de Lacy, Constable and Earl of Lincoln,
witnessed the charter of Roger de Notton, who "granted all his lands of
Farnley and Woodsome to Balwinus Teutonicus, who had married Margery his
mother, relict of Gilbert de Notton, doing the forinsic service which
belonged to 2 carucates where twelve made a Knight's fee, and the homage and
service of Wm. de Ruelay and his heirs, receiving a rent of three
shillings." For this grant, Baldwin and Margery released "the lands of
Silkstone which she held in dower, she was to enjoy for life and at her
death Farnley and Woodhus were to go to the heirs of Baldwin."

Nancy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Ozanne" <***@bordernet.com.au>
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)


On 16/10/07 17:00, "gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com> wrote:

> From: WJhonson <***@aol.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:33:14 -0700
> To: "Nancy L. Allen" <***@sbcglobal.net>, gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Cc: "John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)
>
> <<In a message dated 10/15/07 21:53:31 Pacific Daylight Time,
> ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
> 2 William de Notton
> + Cecily, dau. of Augustine de Barton & Edith
> 3 Gilbert, assumed the name Barton >>
> ------------------
> We know that Gilbert was born exactly from 1198 to 1201
> He is under age in 1220 when he is granted as the heir, and yet he had
> livery
> in 1222.
>
> Will Johnson

I've come into this late and have no idea whether the following extract from
Lancashire Feet of Fines vol 1 footnote 33 p 93 has been introduced into the
evidence as yet. Apologies if it has.

Some account of Edith de Barton, who possessed Barton cum membris in her own
right, has been given in a note to the concord No. 41 (antea, p. 26). The
printed pedigrees of "de Notton" or Barton contain a serious mistake in
giving Edith de Barton three sons by her husband, Gilbert de Notton. The
correct descent is as follows: Edith de Barton had issue by a first husband,
whose name has not been preserved, a son, John de Barton, and one daughter.
Her second husband a Lincolnshire man. By a former wife, however, Gilbert
had three sons,
William, Roger, and John called "de Bromyhurst." The eldest son, William de
Notton married the daughter and heiress of Edith de Barton, by her first
husband, and had issue Gilbert and Matthew, possibly also another son. The
last-named Gilbert, was found to be heir to his grandmother Edith, and had
livery of thirty-two oxgangs of land in Barton cum membris, and Worsley, by
writ dated 26th January, 1222 (Fine Roll, 6 Henry III. m. 7). In the
original entry he is styled "Gilbertus nepos et hæres Edithæ de Barton."
That nepos here means grandson is proved by the following entry in the Close
Roll,<"The King to the Sheriff of Lancaster, greeting. Our beloved and
faithful Robert Gresle has shewn unto us, that whereas Edith, formerly wife
of Gilebert de Noctun held of him the fee of one Knight and a half in
Bartun, whereof the ancestors of Robert always used and ought to have
wardship with the heirs being under age after the death of their ancestors,
and whereas he who is now heir, being under age, to wit son of the daughter
of the said Edith, ought to be in ward to him with his inheritance, and for
that reason he (Robert) had seised that inheritance into his hands, as that
which ought to be held of him in chief by military service, now you without
authority of our precept have disseised Robert of the said fee of one Knight
and a half, causing him loss to the amount of forty marks of the chattels
which you have there seised." The Sheriff was accordingly ordered to
immediately put him in seisin and to restore his chattels. If he did not do
so, he was to come to Westminster on the morrow of St. Martin to show cause
why he did not execute this precept. This writ bears date at Westminster,
16th October, 1220 (Close Roll, 4 Henry III., m. 1, in dorso). Additional
proof of this corrected descent is found in a charter, by which Edith de
Barton, with the approval of her husband Sir Gilbert de Notton, and for the
health of their souls, and of the soul of her son, John de Barton, and of
her daughter, to wit the wife of William de Notton, gave to the monks of the
blessed place of Stanlaw in frankalmoign, the land of Cadewalisset
[Cadishead, in the township of Barton]. The date lies before 5th July, 1213,
when Henry de Longchamps was dead. Jordan, Dean of Manchester, under the
style of "Jordanus de sancta Maria" was also a witness (Whalley Coucher, p.
521). Sir Gilbert de Notton assumed the name of Barton upon inheriting his
grandmother's estates. His first wife is said to have been Margery, daughter
of Hugh de Eland, of Eland, county York. If so, the Henry, son of Margery,
who put in his claim according to the endorsement on this concord, was
probably her son. His second wife was Cecilia, possibly daughter of Jorwerth
de Hulton, to whom Paulinus de West-Houghton gave the third part of that
vill in fee, an estate afterwards found in the possession of Gilbert's son,
John de Barton (Whalley Coucher, pp. 59, 881).
It is not easy to interpret the meaning of this concord. I can only suggest
that Christiana was in some way connected by blood with Edith de Barton. She
married . . . de Allerton, and had a son, Richard, who in 1246, together
with John de Blackburn and Henry de Whalley, obtained licence to concord
with Thomas Grelley, and make acknowledgment that they had no right of chase
in Thomas' forest [of Horwich] (Assize Roll, No. 404, m. 8). The early
references to Allerton, near Liverpool, are somewhat scarce, and do not
assist in the identification of this family. (See No. 59, temp. John, and
No. 98 postea, also Mamcestre, p. 353).

Best,
Ken



-------------------------------
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
Ken Ozanne
2007-10-17 09:15:20 UTC
Permalink
On 17/10/07 14:33, "gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-***@rootsweb.com> wrote:

> From: wjhonson <***@aol.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:19:38 -0700
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Baldwin le Tyas orTyes (Teutonicus)
>
> Ken thank you for typing all of that out. I assume the entire extract
> should be quoted, that is, none is it is *your* writing, its all one
> large extract?
>
> Can you tell us who the editor was?
>
> I don't find it compelling that your editor claims that Gilbert de
> Notton, by his first wife had three sons William, Roger and John,
> while Farrar claims that the two sons were Gilbert and William.
>
> It sounds like neither editor had hard facts in front of them, and is
> merely trying to create a family by sticking the pieces where they
> might fit. In addition to which one puts Margaret de Eland a
> generation higher than the other one.
>
> Sounds like we need some primary quotes to back up those claims, since
> these two secondary footsnotes, conflict.
>
> Will Johnson
>

Will, Kay, others,
I didn't think it likely that I would have typed all that
out if there were an alternative. The source is at British History Online,
Final Concords for Lancashire, Part 1: 1189-1307 (1899), pp. 74-93. URL:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52534.

The editor was one William Farrer.

I don't think any of the words were mine, but you can
obviously check. I usually put my interpolations in square brackets as is
evident in the following:

From the same volume:

No. 41.‹At Lancaster, on the Octave of St. John, ante portam Latinam, 19
Henry III. [13th May, 1235].
Between Richard de Bracebrigh, (fn. 14) plaintiff, and Gilbert de Barton,
(fn. 15) tenant, respecting the fee of one knight and a half, with the
appurtenances in Barton. A jury of grand assize had been summoned between
them.
Richard quit-claimed to Gilbert and his heirs, in perpetuity, all his right
in that fee. For this quit-claim Gilbert granted to him three oxgangs of
land with the appurtenances in Bruneshop [Boysnope], to wit, whatever he
(Gilbert) had in the town of Bruneshop on the day that this concord was
made, except the town mill, which shall quietly remain to Gilbert and his
heirs; to hold to Richard and his heirs, of Gilbert and his heirs, rendering
yearly four barbed arrows, or one penny, at the feast of St. Michael, for
all service, saving forinsec service. And be it known that Richard de
Bruneshop (sic) shall be quit of multure [at Boysnope Mill] for ever.

14 [footnote]
Richard de Bracebridge (circa 1242) appears to have been a tenant of Thomas
Grelley, in Lincolnshire. "Richard, son of William, holds half a Knight's
fee in Bracebridge and Canwick, of the fee of Thomas Grelley, who holds of
the King in chief, as of the Honour of Lancaster de veteri feoffamento."
(Testa ii., f. 464). Robert de Bracebridge, who had been enfeoffed of two
oxgangs of land in the demesne lands in Manchester, by Albert Grelley
(1160­1188), was probably the ancestor of Richard, as the heirs of Robert
were said to be in possession of that land in 1212, (Testa ii., f. 823).
There is no evidence as to the grounds of Richard's claim against Gilbert,
but it is probable that there was a relationship by marriage between Barton
and Bracebridge. A similar claim against Gilbert de Barton was made in the
year 1241. See No. 98, postea. [I believe this is a misprint for 93 which is
below.]

No. 93.‹At Lancaster, on the Octave of St. Martin, 26 Henry III. [18th
November, 1241].
Between Richard, son of Christiana de Alreton, plaintiff, and Gilbert de
Barton, (fn. 32) tenant of one knight's fee and half a knight's fee in
Barton, except four oxgangs of land in Hetun.
Richard quit-claimed all right in the said knight's fees, except as above,
to Gilbert and his heirs in perpetuity. For this quitclaim Gilbert gave him
fifteen marks of silver.
[Endorsed]. Henry, son of Margery, put in his claim.


Best,
Ken
WJhonson
2007-10-17 22:59:30 UTC
Permalink
<<In a message dated 10/16/07 07:48:05 Pacific Daylight Time, ***@sbcglobal.net writes:
William son of Gilbert de Notton, named above. (V.C. H. Lans., vols. iv and v, passim) This William was sometime constable to John de Lascy, constable of Chester, (Chartul. Of Pontefract, 146) and his son Gilbert III, upon succeeding to the Lancashire estate of his mother's mother upon her death in 1220 took the name of Barton. (R. Litt. Claus., i, 438b; Excerpt. e R. Fin., I, 78.) >>

--------------------
This is probably a case of reading too much into something.
We know that Gilbert had livery of the lands in 1222, and we know he was under-age in 1220 because the custody of his body was granted as heir. I don't think we know that his mother died IN 1220, or his father, or his grandmother. What we know is that *something* happened in 1220 that caused him and his lands to be granted.

You'd think it might be that his grandmother Edith died. It could also be that his father, holding lands for his life jure uxoris had just died. Or that Cecily Barton his mother had just died.

What we know is all three, Cecily, Edith and William were dead *by* 16 Oct 1220.

Unless you have a quote from the underlying primary source that clarifies which of them actually had just died.

Will Johnson
WJhonson
2007-10-17 23:10:09 UTC
Permalink
There are a couple more errors in Farrar's statements evidently.

That William de Notton, living in 1212, but dead by 1220 had a wife Cecily Barton "heir to her mother" is probably false on the point of "heir", since apparently Cecily never took possession of any inheritence from her own mother.

I think it would be more proper to say "heir presumptive" or something of that sort. Assuming that Cecily d.v.m. and then Edith died which is why Gilbert is in 1220 named "now heir", etc.

On another point, I doubt that Gilbert I was "seneschal 1220-30". I think it's much more likely that he also was dead by 1220 when the heir of his son William was then under-age.

Will Johnson
terrence White
2007-11-10 02:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Ah, that would be Emerson--

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..." from his "Essays"
. I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough obtained online.

T.J. White

***@clearwire.net wrote:
[inappropriate crosspost removed]

On Nov 9, 3:23 pm, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Nathaniel Taylor
> wrote:
> < In article ,
> < "Nancy L. Allen" wrote:
> <
> < > Are there rules regarding the use of Fitz? Should there be a
> space or
> < > hyphen after it? Should it be capitalized? I've seen many
> variations and
> < > would like to be at least consistent with my own use.
> <
> < > Richard fitz Roger
> < > Richard fitz-Roger
> < > Richard fitzRoger
> < > Richard Fitz Roger
> < > Richard Fitz-Roger
> < > Richard FitzRoger
> <
> < > Which? Or is "Richard son of Roger" preferred?
> <
> < Some people might propose a solution and insist it is the 'right'
> one,
> < and everyone should follow it.
>
> Dear Nancy ~
>
> Mr. Taylor seems to be speaking of me, and, if he is, he is misquoting
> me. What I have said from time to time is that historians have
> modernized and standardized the renderings of given names. They have
> moved away from Latin and variant vernacular forms and where possible
> they employ modern English forms of given names.


Mr. Richardson seems to be speaking of all historians, but this is not
the case. He is relating his preference.

> Consistency and standardization have
> much to be said for them.


I believe someone has said something for consistency, something having
to do with small minds.


> For what it is worth, I've never insisted that any spelling is right
> or wong.

No, but you have insisted that the failure to use your preferred form
is grounds for "correction". All versions are equal, but some are
more equal than others.

> Pernel or Parnel are both equally good forms for the Latin
> name, Petronilla. What I have said is that it is important that you
> be consistent, and not wobble back and forth between the ancient Latin
> and the modern forms, or only render the men's names in the modern
> forms and leave the women's names such as Matilda in Latin.

Quite right. That is what I was telling my Australian friend as he
broke into strains of Waltzing Maud. Again, what Mr. Richardson means
to say is that he thinks it is important to consistently use modern
forms. This is his opinion, not fact. Alternative viewpoints include
that one should use the form most convenient, that one should use the
form most likely used by the individual in question, or that one
should use the form most likely to be understood by the reader.

To be blunt, it is patently ridiculous to use the name Elmer for the
11th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman who they called AEthelmaer. No one
will have the slightest clue who you are talking about, which sort of
defeats the purpose. 'Rules' should serve communication, not the
other way around. Inarticulate consistency is something "up with which
I shall not put".

> Worse
> yet, I find it odd that people leave a name like Bogo in Latin, when
> the vernacular form can easily be found. When a historian uses
> Robert, William, and Peter, and throws in a Bogo, I know he's just
> being lazy.

'Lazy' implies a goal left unachieved through want of effort. It is
not entirely accurate in describing someone who fulfilled their goals,
while being blissfully unaware that they have not met your whim.


> On the issue of the specific convention about which you asked your
> question, historians employ either Fitz Roger or son of Roger
> equally. Either form is fine.

The formal ex cathedra approval. Can't get much better than that.


> Some historians take it one step
> further and leave the word "fitz" uncapitalized if the name is purely
> a patronymic and not a fixed surname. I personally think this is an
> idiotic distinction, as it requires you to know if a fitz name is a
> patronymic or a surname in any given record that you are viewing.
> This is impossible to know most of the time. As such, when I use
> Fitz, I capitalize it and don't worry about it, or I use "son of."

And someone else might think you are just being lazy in doing this.
You see, Mr. Richardson is being just as arbitrary in terms of what he
considers important and worthy of disapprobation if not obeyed, and
what is 'idiotic'. it is all personal preference, no matter how much
one pretends otherwise.

> For those who do wish to draw the distinction between surnames and
> patronymics by alternatively capitalizing or uncapitalizing the word
> fitz, please be my guest. However, you will NEVER be entirely
> consistent if you are using both Fitz when capitalized as a surname
> and fitz uncapitalized for a patronymic. And, if you can't be
> consistent, then I ask the obvious question: Why draw the distinction
> at all?


Perhaps because the usages are, in fact, distinct.


> Furthermore, if an uninformed person hasn't a clue that you are making
> a distinction between "fitz" as a patronymic and "Fitz" as a surname,
> then he has failed to grasp what you are saying.

So what? The same uninformed person will not see the distinction when
you represent both the same way, so he is no less uninformed either
way. At least if you draw the distinction, then those who know the
difference will know, as opposed to pretending there is no difference.

> When Average Joe (or
> Average Josephine) reads the word, "fitz," he thinks it is the same
> word as "Fitz." And it is! Pretending that others hear you when you
> are saying nothing to them is little more than intellectual snobbery
> in my opinion.

Ah, yes. The champion of the common man. To ensure this, one must
never use any words that the most basic reader might not understand,
or refer to any concepts that they may not be know of, or draw any
distinctions of which they are unaware. Sorry. Dumbing down
communication to the lowest common denominator defeats the purpose of
communication. If someone doesn't note the distinction, they lose
nothing in you drawing it. If they note the distinction but are
unaware of its significance, they can ask. If they are aware of the
distinction, then they have been provided with more precise
information. Basically, they can keep up, catch up, or be blissfully
unaware, but if you lower all communication to their level, then
everyone is left in the unaware category.

taf


-------------------------------
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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Douglas Richardson
2007-11-10 03:07:41 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
< Ah, that would be Emerson--
<
< "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
from his "Essays"
< . I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
obtained online.
<
< T.J. White

Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
t***@clearwire.net
2007-11-10 03:12:38 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> < Ah, that would be Emerson--
> <
> < "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
> from his "Essays"
> < . I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
> obtained online.
> <
> < T.J. White
>
> Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
> the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.


I see, so if you wish to use them, they are sensible. If you choose
not to, they are foolish and pedantic. At least you are consistent in
your inconsistency. As always, you invent the rules to justify your
personal choices, then pretend there is method (even consensus) to the
madness.

taf

taf
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 03:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear, Dear...

taf is in a snit again.

DSH

<***@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:***@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com> wrote:

>> On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> < Ah, that would be Emerson--
>> <
>> < "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
>> from his "Essays"
>> < . I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
>> obtained online.
>> <
>> < T.J. White
>>
>> Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
>> the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.
>
>
> I see, so if you wish to use them, they are sensible. If you choose
> not to, they are foolish and pedantic. At least you are consistent in
> your inconsistency. As always, you invent the rules to justify your
> personal choices, then pretend there is method (even consensus) to the
> madness.
>
> taf
>
> taf
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 03:21:31 UTC
Permalink
<G>

DSH

"Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:***@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 9, 7:13 pm, terrence White <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> < Ah, that would be Emerson--
> <
> < "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ..."
> from his "Essays"

> < . I don't have the exact reference, but surely it is easily enough
> obtained online.
> <
> < T.J. White
>
> Um, ... I was speaking only of SENSIBLE consistencies. I leave all
> the pedantic and foolish ones to Mr. Farmerie.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Nancy L. Allen
2007-11-12 18:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Robert Kelham, Domesday Book (London: Printed by John Nichols For Edward Brooke, 1788), Vol. I, pp. 20-22, 23, 47, 77, 99, 108, 116, and 117 and Vol. II, p. 137; at books.google.com has the following holdings for William Peverel:

Berrochescire (Berkshire) 61 a.
Bochinghascire (Buckinghamshire) 148 a.
Oxenfordscire (Oxfordshire) 157 b.
Bedefordscire (Bedfordshire) 212 b.
Ledecestrescire (Leicestershire) 235 a.
Derbyscire (Derbyshire) 276 a.
Snotinghscire (Nottinghamshire) 287 a.
Exsessa (Essex) 90 b.

Does "a." and "b." above mean acres and bovates, respectively?

Nancy
Loading...