Discussion:
Elizabeth Middleton Roos (b. say 1350), wife of Robert Roos of Laxton, Notts
(too old to reply)
Michael Rochester
2021-03-05 17:36:43 UTC
Permalink
I have discovered a glaring discrepancy in the Middleton pedigree, and other corresponding sources, which claim Elizabeth Middleton, wife of Robert Roos Esq of Laxton, was the daughter of Sir John Middleton (of Middleton Hall or Stockeld) and his wife Matilda Thwaites.

I will be accused of misidentifying "my" Robert Roos from another Robert Roos in this lineage, but these various source amplify my lineage chronology, and the lineage at least on the Roos side is on tract (thank to all the people here who assisted me):
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Whitmore_tracts_a_collection_of_essays_o/nysBAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Middleton%20roos%20
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Thoroton_s_History_of_Nottinghamshire/l-icpHJW2OQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA207&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Herald_and_Genealogist/nDpUAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA536&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/DzhFDqIJXD8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA113&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Register_of_the_Guild_of_Corpus_Chri/8P8UAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA89&printsec=frontcover

The problem is that Robert Roos was born sometime in the mid-1350s, yet his father in law (according to the various noted sources including here
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00696959&tree=LEO suggests an early 1400s birth date. Chronology does not add up...were the pedigree creators accidentally attaching Elizabeth Middleton Roos to a later Sir John Middleton instead of the one who was son of Peter and Eustachia Plumpton Middleton?

To further muddy the waters, here is a marriage settlement: a
deed, dated 14 February 1443, and possibly a marriage settlement:

From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton.
lancast...@gmail.com
2021-03-05 18:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rochester
I have discovered a glaring discrepancy in the Middleton pedigree, and other corresponding sources, which claim Elizabeth Middleton, wife of Robert Roos Esq of Laxton, was the daughter of Sir John Middleton (of Middleton Hall or Stockeld) and his wife Matilda Thwaites.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Whitmore_tracts_a_collection_of_essays_o/nysBAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Middleton%20roos%20
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Thoroton_s_History_of_Nottinghamshire/l-icpHJW2OQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA207&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Herald_and_Genealogist/nDpUAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA536&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/DzhFDqIJXD8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA113&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Register_of_the_Guild_of_Corpus_Chri/8P8UAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA89&printsec=frontcover
The problem is that Robert Roos was born sometime in the mid-1350s, yet his father in law (according to the various noted sources including here
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00696959&tree=LEO suggests an early 1400s birth date. Chronology does not add up...were the pedigree creators accidentally attaching Elizabeth Middleton Roos to a later Sir John Middleton instead of the one who was son of Peter and Eustachia Plumpton Middleton?
To further muddy the waters, here is a marriage settlement: a
From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton.
Please cite the source for the marriage settlement.
Michael Rochester
2021-03-05 18:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Please cite the source for the marriage settlement.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/6f0a3bc1-24df-4257-9ff8-cc5d7c7c3445
Michael Rochester
2021-03-05 18:38:19 UTC
Permalink
The full source for all to see:
Feoffment
This record is held by West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds

See contact details

Reference: WYL230/120
Title: Feoffment
Description:

From John Roos of Laxton, Esq., to Robert Roos, his eldest son, and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld, esquire, of a messuage, a croft and 100 acres in North Deighton now in the tenure of William Chapman and a close called Moreclose in North Deighton between Crimple on the west and the highway from Walshford Bridge to Kirk Deighton on the east, to hold to Robert and Elizabeth and the heirs male of Robert.


Witnesses: William Plompton, Robert Roos, knights, Henry Chaumbyr, Brian Dayvell, Richard Banke.


Given at North Deighton 16 Dec. 25 Henry VI


Seal: missing, tag.
Date: 16 Dec 1446
Held by: West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds, not available at The National Archives
Language: English
Physical condition: Indenture form
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/6f0a3bc1-24df-4257-9ff8-cc5d7c7c3445
Mark Jennings
2021-03-05 18:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rochester
I have discovered a glaring discrepancy in the Middleton pedigree, and other corresponding sources, which claim Elizabeth Middleton, wife of Robert Roos Esq of Laxton, was the daughter of Sir John Middleton (of Middleton Hall or Stockeld) and his wife Matilda Thwaites.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Whitmore_tracts_a_collection_of_essays_o/nysBAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Middleton%20roos%20
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Thoroton_s_History_of_Nottinghamshire/l-icpHJW2OQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA207&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Herald_and_Genealogist/nDpUAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA536&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/DzhFDqIJXD8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA113&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Register_of_the_Guild_of_Corpus_Chri/8P8UAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Middleton+roos+laxton&pg=PA89&printsec=frontcover
The problem is that Robert Roos was born sometime in the mid-1350s, yet his father in law (according to the various noted sources including here
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00696959&tree=LEO suggests an early 1400s birth date. Chronology does not add up...were the pedigree creators accidentally attaching Elizabeth Middleton Roos to a later Sir John Middleton instead of the one who was son of Peter and Eustachia Plumpton Middleton?
To further muddy the waters, here is a marriage settlement: a
From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton.
I've already covered this in my Roos of Laxton thread - see the post of 27 February 2021 et seq. It is clear that Elizabeth was the daughter of William Middleton (d 1474) and his wife Margaret nee Hamerton.
Michael Rochester
2021-03-05 22:46:17 UTC
Permalink
I will re-read and then figure out where I went wrong in constructing the Roos/de Ros pedigree and correct whatever went array.
I've already covered this in my Roos of Laxton thread - see the post of 27 February 2021 et seq. It is clear that Elizabeth was the daughter of William Middleton (d 1474) and his wife Margaret nee Hamerton.
Mark Jennings
2021-03-05 23:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rochester
I will re-read and then figure out where I went wrong in constructing the Roos/de Ros pedigree and correct whatever went array.
You clearly had read my posts. Maybe next time you could do what you require of others, and cite me when you blatantly plagiarise my work:

"On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 1:36:38 PM UTC, Mark Jennings wrote:
[Robert Roos, of Laxton, esquire, and his wife Elizabeth made a settlement of the manor of Steeton... . Chronologically, his wife can hardly be the daughter of Sir John Middleton] Proof of this can be found in the following deed, dated 14 February 1443, and possibly a marriage settlement:

From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton"

cf
From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton."

And FWIW the citation for this, as detailed in my posts of 27 February 2021, is West Yorkshire Archives, WYL230/117 (not /120, which is a subsequent deed from 1446, and apparently all that you could find when asked for the reference for the material you copied and claimed as your own research).
Michael Rochester
2021-03-06 03:38:23 UTC
Permalink
I spent a good portion of the evening, when I should have been relaxing with my friends, thinking of how to respond to this obnoxious, incendiary post which is not only accusatory, but betrays your knowledge and understanding of the word "plagiarism."
I have been doing genealogy since my teens. Let me get this through your melon: It is now over 30 years doing this, and I have NEVER been accused of PLAGIARISM, until now. I have always acknowledged sources. In a haste, from my "notes" in ancestry, I located a record I have cut and pasted into notes to evaluate with other evidence at a later date. I found the record within the jumble and posted it without ONE person assuming I found the goddamned settlement. You have got some brass balls to accuse me of plagiarism. I had been embroiled in controversies involving Megan Smolneyak who indeed used my research for a HuffPost story on Martin Luther King, Jr's 3rd great grandfather is some research in the 1870 and 1880 US censuses. I called her out because I had initially found the family surname may have been "Brannum", but she was quoting my RESEARCH and not a public RECORD: know the difference. I am not publishing a single thing, I have no intentions of doing anything in a topic of which my knowledge is limited. HOW DARE YOU, you weird, eccentric boob. I don't care what your response is. We are, as far as I am concerned, done. The genealogical community has produced sociopaths of which I am saddened, have not improved over the past 30 plus years. People who place more importance in long dead people than real breathing people because of your own personal failings. You really need to get a grip, and NO, I don't accept your apology. Have a miserable day, "you bloody fool."
Michael Rochester
2021-03-06 03:40:13 UTC
Permalink
"To further muddy the waters, here is a marriage settlement: a
deed, dated 14 February 1443, and possibly a marriage settlement:

From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton."

NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I CLAIM THIS MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT was via my own research you weird, eccentric twit!
wjhonson
2021-03-06 05:51:13 UTC
Permalink
There were two different Robert Roos here. Grandfather and grandson. Grandfather married Elizabeth Middleton they lived in the 14th century. Their son John, himself had a son named Robert Roos who was the heir, and married another Elizabeth Middleton as is pointed out above, possibly in or about 1443
wjhonson
2021-03-06 05:56:32 UTC
Permalink
There were two different Robert Roos here. Grandfather and grandson. Grandfather married Elizabeth Middleton they lived in the 14th century. Their son John, himself had a son named Robert Roos who was the heir, and married another Elizabeth Middleton as is pointed out above, possibly in or about 1443
It is actually a curious thing that Laxton was given to the Archbishop, however, at or near his death, he suggested that his *niece* Anna Restwold would marry or was married already to Humphrey Roos and *this* is how Humphrey got Laxton back. Not by direct inheritence.
Mark Jennings
2021-03-06 08:02:01 UTC
Permalink
There were two different Robert Roos here. Grandfather and grandson. Grandfather married Elizabeth Middleton they lived in the 14th century. Their son John, himself had a son named Robert Roos who was the heir, and married another Elizabeth Middleton as is pointed out above, possibly in or about 1443
There were two different men named Robert Roos, one probably the father of John Roos (husband of Isabel de Etton), the other the son of John Roos - but there is no good reason to believe that the first Robert also had a wife named Elizabeth Middleton - the Visitation record is simply in error with two transposed generations here.
Michael Rochester
2021-03-06 23:11:47 UTC
Permalink
There were two different Robert Roos here. Grandfather and grandson. Grandfather married Elizabeth Middleton they lived in the 14th century. Their son John, himself had a son named Robert Roos who was the heir, and married another Elizabeth Middleton as is pointed out above, possibly in or about 1443
I finally realized that, appreciated; I was sad to get rid of the Middletons, but now I fully understand the pedigree clearly attributed Elizabeth to the wrong Robert Roos
Mark Jennings
2021-03-07 07:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rochester
There were two different Robert Roos here. Grandfather and grandson. Grandfather married Elizabeth Middleton they lived in the 14th century. Their son John, himself had a son named Robert Roos who was the heir, and married another Elizabeth Middleton as is pointed out above, possibly in or about 1443
I finally realized that, appreciated; I was sad to get rid of the Middletons, but now I fully understand the pedigree clearly attributed Elizabeth to the wrong Robert Roos
Nope, remarkably you still don't get it, although it has now been spelled out several times. You clearly have severe comprehension issues. The line is thus:

1. Sir Robert Roos of Ingmanthorpe died 1393 - father of:
2. Robert Roos of North Deighton ff 1408 - probably father of:
3. John Roos of Laxton died circa 1461, married Isabel de Etton - father of:
4. Robert Roos of Laxton ff 1496, married Elizabeth Middleton (daughter of William Middleton and Margaret Hamerton) - father of:
5. William Roos married Eleanor Wandesford - father of:
6. Humphrey Roos died 1521

Mark Jennings
2021-03-06 08:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rochester
"To further muddy the waters, here is a marriage settlement: a
From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton."
NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I CLAIM THIS MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT was via my own research you weird, eccentric twit!
Aha, another idiotic, mendacious response - how surprising. You have cunningly or stupidly cut off from your quote the introductory words from your original post: "I have discovered..." More to the point, nowhere in your post did you acknowledge that this was not your own research, but lifted verbatim from my post of 27 February. As well as regularly displaying a poor grasp of genealogical and social skills, your language skills are also lacking if you genuinely do not know that plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own. This is exactly what you did when you failed to acknowledge this. Indeed, you were so lazy and stupid that you even used cut-and-paste with my own wording, not for the text but for the introduction: "a deed dated 14 February 1443, and possibly a marriage settlement". And your inability to comprehend facts led you to post all this despite the original post from which you stole this material having answered the very question you were struggling to answer. This is how you treat people who have turned the other cheek and try to help you...
Mark Jennings
2021-03-06 08:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rochester
"To further muddy the waters, here is a marriage settlement: a
From John Roos of Laxton esq., to Robert Roos his son and heir and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of William Medilton of Stockeld Esq., of a toft and croft and 22 acres now in the tenure of John Wright, a toft and 4 acres now in the tenure of Richard Dighton, a toft and croft and 4 acres now in the tenure of John Malynson, a cottage now in the tenure of Thomas Cawse, 6 acres now in the tenure of Robert Milner, a croft and 3 acres now in the tenure of Margaret Haward, a croft and 36 acres now in the tenure of John Barnbow, a tenement now in the tenure of John Hwton(?), 31 acres now in the tenure of William Wike, a tenement with 40 acres now in the tenure of Robert Genekyr all in North Deighton."
NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I CLAIM THIS MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT was via my own research you weird, eccentric twit!
Aha, another idiotic, mendacious response - how surprising. You have cunningly or stupidly cut off from your quote the introductory words from your original post: "I have discovered..." More to the point, nowhere in your post did you acknowledge that this was not your own research, but lifted verbatim from my post of 27 February. As well as regularly displaying a poor grasp of genealogical and social skills, your language skills are also lacking if you genuinely do not know that plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own. This is exactly what you did when you failed to acknowledge this. Indeed, you were so lazy and stupid that you even used cut-and-paste with my own wording, not for the text but for the introduction: "a deed dated 14 February 1443, and possibly a marriage settlement". And your inability to comprehend facts led you to post all this despite the original post from which you stole this material having answered the very question you were struggling to answer. This is how you treat people who have turned the other cheek and try to help you...
not *just* for the text...
Michael Rochester
2021-03-06 23:10:19 UTC
Permalink
I showed this to several people I know in genealogy; they think YOU are NUTS.

Really, you are splitting hairs because your own mental instability is creeping up in your personal interactions. This is not a piece of YOUR published work, you twit, it is an old record that can be found easily on the net. And it was used in the context of a question, not in a piece of public journalist work. You need help.
Loading...