C.P. Addition: Eleanor Welles, wife of Hugh Poynings (or Saint John) , Knt., and Godfrey Hilton, Knt.

[c***@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 329–330 (sub Saint John) has an account of Sir Hugh Poynings (or Saint John) [died 1426], son and heir apparent of Sir Thomas Poynings, 5th Lord Saint John. Regarding his 2nd marriage, the following information is provided:

"He married, 2ndly, in or before 1408, Eleanor, said to be daughter of John (de Welles), Lord Welles, by Eleanor, daughter of John (de Mowbray), Lord Mowbray. He died v.p. 26 Dec. 1426. His widow married (as his 2nd wife) Sir Godfrey (or Geoffrey) Hilton (died 1459), of Irnham, Lincolnshire, and (presumably in right of her dower) of Chawton, Hants." END OF QUOTE.

In footnote c on page 330, the following evidence is cited in support of Eleanor Welles' parentage:

"B.M. Harl. MS. 1499, f. 237 - a volume of heraldic collections of (?) Thomas Tong, Norroy (1522-26)." END OF QUOTE.

Insofar as to the date of the marriage of Sir Hugh Poynings and Eleanor Welles is concerned, it appears that Hugh and Eleanor were actually married in or before Michaelmas 1406, as indicated by the following Common Pleas lawsuit cited below:

In 1406 Hugh Saint John and Eleanor his wife sued Thomas Fitz Nicholl, Knt., in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] of the goods and chattels of the said Eleanor to the worth of £50 at Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/583, image 191f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H4/CP40no583/aCP40no583fronts/IMG_0191.htm).

Although Complete Peerage questions Eleanor Welles' parentage, Misceallanea Genealogica et Heraldica 5th Ser. 9 (1935–37): 84–90 cites heraldic evidence in support of Eleanor Welles’ parentage.

As for other support of Eleanor Welles' parentage, I find that Rymer, Fœdera 9 (1729): 272–280 includes a transcript of the will of Henry le Scrope, 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham dated 1415. The transcript indicates that Lord Scrope left a bequest to various relations, including Alianoræ Seint John who he styled his “kinswoman” [consanguinæ]. The two parties were first cousins as charted below:

1. John de Welle (or Welles), 4th Lord Welles, married Maud de Roos.
2. John Welles, 5th Lord Welles, by his 1st wife, Eleanor, daughter of John Mowbray, Knt., 4th Lord Mowbray
3. Eleanor Welles, married (1st) Hugh Poynings (or Saint John), Knt.; (2nd) Godfrey Hilton, Knt.

1. John de Welle (or Welles), 4th Lord Welles, married Maud de Roos.
2. Margery Welles, married Stephen le Scrope, Knt., 2nd Lord Scrope of Masham.
3. Henry le Scrope, K.G., 3rd Lord Scrope of Masham [died 1415].

Complete Peerage does not provide any date for the 2nd marriage of Eleanor Welles and Sir Godfrey Hilton. Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 3 (1992): 377–379 (biog. of Sir Godfrey Hilton) indicates this couple were married before June 1433. See the following weblink for this biography:

https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/hilton-sir-godfrey-1459

The author appears to have derived the date June 1433 from the following Chancery lawsuit:

Date: 1432–33. Godfrey Hilton sued John Alderwas, skinner, and Thomas Saunescombe, goldsmith, of London, in Chancery regarding goods and jewels pledged by Dame Eleanor the petitioner’s wife. Reference: National Archives, C 1/10/1 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Eleanor Welles and her 1st husband, Sir Hugh Poynings, had two daughters, Constance (wife of John Paulet, Knt., and Henry Greene, Esq.) and Alice (or Alese/Alesie) [died 1439] (wife of John Orell/Orrell, Esq., and Thomas Kyngeston, Knt.).

The younger daughter is typically called Alice in secondary sources. See, for example, See Nicolas, Historic Peerage of England (1857): 412–413 (sub St. John); Leigh and Knight, Chawton Manors and its Owners (1911): 12. However, she is called Alese and Alesie in contemporary records as indicated below:

West Sussex Rec. Office: Goodwood Estate Archives [Estate Papers 1], GOODWOOD/E274 (grant dated 2 March 1432/3 from Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, Robert Ponynggys, Knt., Robert Skerne, and others to Maud, widow of Thomas Ponynggys [Poynings], Knt. the manors of Halfnakede [Halnaker]and Walberton; the foundation or patronage of Boxgrove priory; the manor of Newbury, Kent, and the advowson of the church there with remainder to John Bonevyle [Bonville], one of the heirs of the said Thomas Ponynggys, John Paulet and Constance his wife, another of the heirs of the said Thomas, and Thomas Kyngeston, Knt. and Alesie his wife, the third heir of the said Thomas, to hold to them and the heirs of the bodies of the said John Bonevyle, Constance and Alesie, and in default of such issues to the right heirs of Thomas Ponynggys) (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk), GOODWOOD/E275 (Articles of agreement for the partition of lands late of Thomas Ponynges, kt., late lord of St. John, and of Hugh St. John, kt. dated 15 July 1458; Description: (a) John Bonevile, esq., one of the cousins and heirs of the said Thomas and Hugh, that is to say, son of Jane, eldest dau. of Hugh, son to Thomas; (b) John Poulet, esq., another of the cousins and heirs, that is to say, son of Constance, second dau. of the said Hugh; (c) Thomas Kyngeston, esq., another of the cousins and heirs, that is to say, son of Alese, youngest dau. of the said Hugh (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[t***@talktalk.net]

Dear Douglas,

Further evidence to the Mowbray descent of Eleanor Welles comes through the daughters of John Orell and his wife Alice Poynings. John was an Esquire to Henry V, and Master of the Armories in the Tower of London. He led 40 men-at-arms and 120 archers at the battle of Vernieul in 1424 and was at the siege of Orleans a few years later where French sources name him as Sieur de Beaurepaire (Normandy). He was the fourth son of Nicholas Orell of Orell Hall in Lancashire (Esquire to Richard II and Henry IV) and his wife Ellen Stanley.
John died in 1431 leaving two daughters, Elizabeth and Eleanor who are both named as kinswomen in the will of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (d.1449). Such kinship would seem to arise from their common descent from Henry earl of Lancaster (d.1345).
Regards
Terry

[c***@gmail.com]

Dear Terry ~

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.

In your message, you mention the will of Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, who died in 1447.

Vickers, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (1907): 442-443 includes a good discussion in his book regarding the question of whether or not Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, left a will. He says the following:

"Wheathampsted tells us that the Duke died intestate (Whethamstede, i. 74), and on March 24, 1427 [recte 1447], a commission was issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Say de Sele, Sir Thomas Stanley, John Somerset, and Richard Chester, empowering them to dispose of the good and chattels of the late Duke of Gloucester, since he had died intestate (Rot. Pat., 25 Henry VI., Part ii. m. 35; Rymer, v. i. 171)." END OF QUOTE.

Vickers can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=olALAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA439

Indeed Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1446–1452 (1909): 45 supports Vickers' statement:

Date: 24 March 1447.
"Appointment, during pleasure, of James Fenys, knight, lord of Say, Thomas Stanley, knight, controller of the household, Master John Somerset and Master Richard Chestre to hold and dispose of the goods late of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, who died intestate, committed to the king by John, archbishop of Canterbury." END OF QUOTE

The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009711549&view=1up&seq=57

Given this evidence, do you have a source for your claim that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, left a will?

I should note that Vickers notes that Duke Humphrey's widow, Duchess Eleanor, was not assigned dower following her husband's death. She is now the third widow we have encountered that was not assigned dower following their husband's death. The other two are Jane Hugford, Countess of Devon, widow of Sir John Courtenay, and Joan de Roddam, widow of Sir Thomas de Umfreville.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Post by t***@talktalk.net
Dear Douglas,
Further evidence to the Mowbray descent of Eleanor Welles comes through the daughters of John Orell and his wife Alice Poynings. John was an Esquire to Henry V, and Master of the Armories in the Tower of London. He led 40 men-at-arms and 120 archers at the battle of Vernieul in 1424 and was at the siege of Orleans a few years later where French sources name him as Sieur de Beaurepaire (Normandy). He was the fourth son of Nicholas Orell of Orell Hall in Lancashire (Esquire to Richard II and Henry IV) and his wife Ellen Stanley.
John died in 1431 leaving two daughters, Elizabeth and Eleanor who are both named as kinswomen in the will of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (d.1449). Such kinship would seem to arise from their common descent from Henry earl of Lancaster (d.1345).
Regards
Terry

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Terry ~
Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.
In your message, you mention the will of Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, who died in 1447.
"Wheathampsted tells us that the Duke died intestate (Whethamstede, i. 74), and on March 24, 1427 [recte 1447], a commission was issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Say de Sele, Sir Thomas Stanley, John Somerset, and Richard Chester, empowering them to dispose of the good and chattels of the late Duke of Gloucester, since he had died intestate (Rot. Pat., 25 Henry VI., Part ii. m. 35; Rymer, v. i. 171)." END OF QUOTE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=olALAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA439
Date: 24 March 1447.
"Appointment, during pleasure, of James Fenys, knight, lord of Say, Thomas Stanley, knight, controller of the household, Master John Somerset and Master Richard Chestre to hold and dispose of the goods late of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, who died intestate, committed to the king by John, archbishop of Canterbury." END OF QUOTE
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009711549&view=1up&seq=57
Given this evidence, do you have a source for your claim that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, left a will?
I should note that Vickers notes that Duke Humphrey's widow, Duchess Eleanor, was not assigned dower following her husband's death. She is now the third widow we have encountered that was not assigned dower following their husband's death.

Do you ever think of looking further into such matters before - or even
instead of - revealing your ignorance here?

Eleanor had been convicted of treasonable necromancy in 1441 and was
imprisoned for life before Humphrey died. What do you suppose she might
have done with her dower in those circumstances?

As for Humphrey's supposedly dying intestate (NB when he was under
arrest for treason), you might have bothered to check ODNB: "Gloucester
was stated to have died intestate and his goods were dispersed, but
there is evidence that his will was being administered by 1449, though
its terms remain unknown".

Peter Stewart

[Vance Mead]

Here is evidence that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester died intestate.

Hilary 1448, Common Pleas, fourth entry
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no748/aCP40no748fronts/IMG_0188.htm

Hants. James Fenys, knight; Thomas Stanley, knight; John Somerset; Richard Chester, clerk, administrators of the goods and chattels of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who died intestate, versus Richard Whynge, of Fordyngbrigge, husbandman. Debt of 20 marks.

Post by Peter Stewart
As for Humphrey's supposedly dying intestate (NB when he was under
arrest for treason), you might have bothered to check ODNB: "Gloucester
was stated to have died intestate and his goods were dispersed, but
there is evidence that his will was being administered by 1449, though
its terms remain unknown".

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Vance Mead
Here is evidence that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester died intestate.
Hilary 1448, Common Pleas, fourth entry
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no748/aCP40no748fronts/IMG_0188.htm
Hants. James Fenys, knight; Thomas Stanley, knight; John Somerset; Richard Chester, clerk, administrators of the goods and chattels of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who died intestate, versus Richard Whynge, of Fordyngbrigge, husbandman. Debt of 20 marks.

Post by Peter Stewart
As for Humphrey's supposedly dying intestate (NB when he was under
arrest for treason), you might have bothered to check ODNB: "Gloucester
was stated to have died intestate and his goods were dispersed, but
there is evidence that his will was being administered by 1449, though
its terms remain unknown".

That is evidence only that he was stated to have died intestate, not
that he necessarily did so - wills could be suppressed, and the
circumstances of Humphrey's fall and death made him a prime candidate
for that. Gerald Harriss who wrote the ODNB article I mentioned was a
careful historian, and of course he didn't make stuff up.

Peter Stewart

[c***@gmail.com]

Thanks Vance for posting this information. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Post by Vance Mead
Here is evidence that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester died intestate.
Hilary 1448, Common Pleas, fourth entry
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no748/aCP40no748fronts/IMG_0188.htm
Hants. James Fenys, knight; Thomas Stanley, knight; John Somerset; Richard Chester, clerk, administrators of the goods and chattels of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who died intestate, versus Richard Whynge, of Fordyngbrigge, husbandman. Debt of 20 marks.

Post by Peter Stewart
As for Humphrey's supposedly dying intestate (NB when he was under
arrest for treason), you might have bothered to check ODNB: "Gloucester
was stated to have died intestate and his goods were dispersed, but
there is evidence that his will was being administered by 1449, though
its terms remain unknown".

[t***@talktalk.net]

Mea Culpa!

Oh dear, I seem to have inadvertently started a disputed thread! Originally I did a Google Book search and entered the search: Humphrey + Duke + Gloucester + Orell and due to Google restrictions in the UK got the following snippet view from a book entitled 'Education in the West of England'

'Gloucester dealt faithfully with the affairs entrusted to him and when he made his own will in 1447 he ordered that all the goods belonging to his cousins Elizabeth and Eleanor Orell which were in his keeping should be delivered to them according to their mother's wishes "so that the said two children lack no pennyworth of goods that ever came to my hands" He also bequeathed to them from his own resources an unspecified but competent sum of money and flock of 700 sheep which he had in Warnford to help make up their marriage portions.'

Due to the comments on here of the lack of a will of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, I did some further research and find that in 1439 Alice Poynings widow of John Orell and Sir Thomas Kingston, made one Thomas Gloucestre her trustee for the perfomance of her will. And it is this Gloucester to whom the above snippet must relate and not Humphrey. Sorry for the confusion, but as Alice was distantly related to the house of Lancaster and her husband John Orell had been in the service of both Henry V and John Duke of Bedford it was perhaps an understandable mistake. Just shows you should never trust a Google Booksearch without reference to the original book!

Regards
Terry

[c***@gmail.com]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 2:33:44 AM UTC-6, ***@talktalk.net wrote:
< Mea Culpa!

< Oh dear, I seem to have inadvertently started a disputed thread!

Thank you for your quick response. Much appreciated.

Actually there is no dispute. Contemporary evidence proves conclusively that Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, did not leave a will. It's that simple. This fact is attested by two contemporary records, one of which was certified by no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury who had purview over the admininistration of his estate.

< Originally I did a Google Book search and entered the search: Humphrey +
< Duke + Gloucester + Orell and due to Google restrictions in the UK got the < following snippet view from a book entitled 'Education in the West of
< England'

'Gloucester dealt faithfully with the affairs entrusted to him and when he < made his own will in 1447 he ordered that all the goods belonging to his

< cousins Elizabeth and Eleanor Orell which were in his keeping should be
< delivered to them according to their mother's wishes "so that the said two < children lack no pennyworth of goods that ever came to my hands" He also
< bequeathed to them from his own resources an unspecified but competent sum < of money and flock of 700 sheep which he had in Warnford to help make up
< their marriage portions.'

The specific reference for the information you have quoted is Nicholas Orme, Education in the West of England, 1066–1548 (1976): 135, which can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6e4cAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Education+in+the+West+of+England%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Gloucester+dealt+faithfully%22

I see there is additional information on Thomas Gloucester given by the author on pages 133, 134, 135, and 136:

pg. 133: "The first attempt to endow a free grammar school in Gloucester was made by Thomas Gloucester, cofferer of the king's household, in the middle of the fifteenth century. Nothing is known of his origins and his career was largely passed away from Gloucester. Only his name and the regard he showed for the town in his will, especially for the parish of St Nicholas, suggest that he was born or brought up there or ..." END OF QUOTE.

Page 134: "By 1433 Gloucester was holding courts at Baas although the manor was not formally conveyed to him alone until 1438. He was 'of Broxbourne' by 1428 and remembered the parish church in his will by ordering his executors to pay 40 for a new bell. As a landowner in the county he naturally sat on commissions of the peace, twice in 1435 and 1437 and once in in 1439. Either through his local or his official status he sat on five commissions to keep the River Lea near London free from weirs ..." END OF QUOTE.

pg. 135: "Gloucester's will was made on 31 January 1447 a little before his death. He asked to be buried beside his wife in the church of the Greyfriars within Newgate, London, and to have a tomb erected there before the altar of Our Lady. He bequeathed all his lands and tenements to his 'brother,' John Edward, who was to endow therewith a perpetual chantry of one priest singing in the Greyfriars for the souls of Thomas and his wife and taking an annual stipend of ten marks. More important from our point of view was the second chantry which Edward was ordered to establish in the church of St. Nicholas in Gloucester. A suitable ..." END OF QUOTE.

pg. 136: "Gloucester himself was dead by the middle of February 1447 and his will was proved on 15 April. Difficulties soon arose because, when Gloucester died, money which he was holding as cofferer of the household and as receiver-general had not yet been paid to the proper recipients. Sir John Popham, the treasurer of the household, and John Parke, one of the clerks of the greencloth, having apparently approached the executors and friends of the deceased without effect complained to the court of Chancery that before his death Gloucester had held the large sum of £858 5s. 9-1/2d. owing to the king's creditors. Although some had been paid out, a great part was still unpaid, and these officials were aware that he had ordered the king's debts to be settled first, which the executors could not deny. On 19 April 1448 Parke brought into the court of Chancery the book of the names of the king's creditors and John Edward promised to make the outstanding payments which amounted to £585 145s. 9d. This promised for formally repeated by both executors on 7 May. But not ... ..." END OF QUOTE.

As noted by Mr. Orme the author, Thomas Gloucester owned the manor of Baas (in Broxbourne), Hertfordshire, which fact is mentioned in VCH Hertford 3 (1912): 430-440 copied below. The VCH account also indicates that Thomas Gloucester's heir was his sister, Joan, wife of John Edward.

"The manor seems to have remained in the hands of trustees for some time. In 1426–7 one William Rotse surrendered his right in the manor to William Lochard and others, (fn. 64) and in 1430–1 Edmund Chertsey, son and heir of John Chertsey, released his right to Nicholas Dixon and others. (fn. 65) Probably these transactions were for the purpose of a mortgage to Thomas Gloucester, for the latter held courts at Baas from 1433 onwards, (fn. 66) although it does not seem to have been formally conveyed to him until 1438. It was then surrendered by William Chertsey and Lettice his wife. (fn. 67) Ten years later it was conveyed to John Say by John Edward and Joan his wife, (fn. 68) brother and sister-in-law of Thomas Gloucester. Sir John Say died seised of Baas in 1478 and was succeeded by his son William, (fn. 69) after whose death in 1529 it passed to his daughter Mary and her husband Henry Earl of Essex, (fn. 70) and thence to their daughter Anne, the wife of William Lord Parr, created Marquess of Northampton in 1547." END OF QUOTE.

At the moment, I'm unable to explain how Thomas Gloucester was related to Elizabeth and Eleanor Orell, the daughters of Alice (or Alese, Alesie) Poynings. You have any ideas?

Due to the comments on here of the lack of a will of Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester, I did some further research and find that in 1439 Alice

< Poynings widow of John Orell and Sir Thomas Kingston, made one Thomas
< Gloucestre her trustee for the perfomance of her will.

Terry ~ Can you provide the reference for the above statement regarding Alice Poynings' will? Also what is your interest in the Poynings family?

Interested parties may wish to consult the Poynings-St. John pedigree published in Elwes, History of the Castles, Mansions & Manors of Western Sussex (1876): 42, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=EG0JAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA42

The above pedigree includes Alice Poynings [died 1439], wife of John Orell/Orrell, Esq., and Thomas Kyngeston, Knt., and her four known children.

There is a similar Poynings pedigree published in Sussex Arch. Collections, 15 (1863): 17, which can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=jDcGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA17

< And it is this Gloucester to whom the above snippet must relate and not
< Humphrey. Sorry for the confusion, but as Alice was distantly related to
< the house of Lancaster and her husband John Orell had been in the service
< of both Henry V and John Duke of Bedford it was perhaps an understandable
< mistake. Just shows you should never trust a Google Booksearch without
< reference to the original book!

You just have to be careful. That's all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Higgins]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by t***@talktalk.net
Due to the comments on here of the lack of a will of Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester, I did some further research and find that in 1439 Alice

< Poynings widow of John Orell and Sir Thomas Kingston, made one Thomas
< Gloucestre her trustee for the perfomance of her will.
Terry ~ Can you provide the reference for the above statement regarding Alice Poynings' will? Also what is your interest in the Poynings family?
https://books.google.com/books?id=EG0JAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA42
The above pedigree includes Alice Poynings [died 1439], wife of John Orell/Orrell, Esq., and Thomas Kyngeston, Knt., and her four known children.
https://books.google.com/books?id=jDcGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA17
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

There is some discussion of the 1439 transaction involving Alice Poynings in VCH Hampshire vol. 3 pp. 268-273 (parish of Warnford) here:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp268-273

And the transaction is also noted in the Calendar of the Patent Rolls, vol. 3 1436-1441, p 248 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=NPw1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA248#v=onepage&q&f=false

Neither of these sources specifically mentions Alice Poynings' will in relation to this transaction. But the VCH account cites her IPM for this discussion, and the Poynings pedigree in vol. 15 of Sussex AC noted that she died 19 April 1439, also citing her IPM. So the transaction was certainly in anticipation of her death, whether it was in her will or not.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com
My comments are interspersed below. DR
< Mea Culpa!
< Oh dear, I seem to have inadvertently started a disputed thread!
Thank you for your quick response. Much appreciated.
Actually there is no dispute. Contemporary evidence proves conclusively that Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, did not leave a will. It's that simple. This fact is attested by two contemporary records, one of which was certified by no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury who had purview over the admininistration of his estate.

I always hold my breath when a second-rate genealogist imagines that he
can match it on his mere say-so with a highly reputable historian such
as Gerald Harriss, especially when he clearly hasn't found the evidence
that Harriss referred to indicating that Humphrey's will was being
administered by 1449.

And of course whenever anyone is fool enough to imagine that an
archbishop of Canterbury's say-so is absolute, and that no primate of
all England ever fibbed about a ruined man's will for the sake of
political convenience.

<snip>

Post by c***@gmail.com
You just have to be careful. That's all.

Not quite all: you also have to be diligent, and competent in the first
place.

Peter Stewart

[c***@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:56:32 PM UTC-6, Peter Stewart wrote:

< I always hold my breath when a second-rate genealogist imagines that he
< can match it on his mere say-so with a highly reputable historian such
< as Gerald Harriss.

If you have the evidence Mr. Harriss claims to have regarding Duke Humphrey's will, by all means, post it here on the newsgroup. If you don't have the evidence, simply admit you were wrong.

DR

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com
< I always hold my breath when a second-rate genealogist imagines that he
< can match it on his mere say-so with a highly reputable historian such
< as Gerald Harriss.
If you have the evidence Mr. Harriss claims to have regarding Duke Humphrey's will, by all means, post it here on the newsgroup. If you don't have the evidence, simply admit you were wrong.

The evidence for all that I have said about this was posted on 2 July,
quoting from Gerald Harriss' ODNB article - "Gloucester was stated to
have died intestate and his goods were dispersed, but there is evidence
that his will was being administered by 1449, though its terms remain
unknown".

Gerald Harriss died a few years ago, and the ODNB does not provide
specific citations for each point, so you will have to ask John
Schmeekle to check with him about this.

I am certainly not going to provide free research assistance to you, and
if you choose to disregard the indication from such a renowned expert as
Harriss that is your own look-out.

Peter Stewart

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Peter Stewart
I always hold my breath when a second-rate genealogist imagines that he
can match it on his mere say-so with a highly reputable historian such
as Gerald Harriss, especially when he clearly hasn't found the evidence
that Harriss referred to indicating that Humphrey's will was being
administered by 1449.
Peter Stewart

Second-rate genealogist? More like borderline second/third-rate genealogist! John Schmeeckle didn't even have to conjure up some evil spirits to legitimately discredit several of his "certified lineages".

[Peter Stewart]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by Peter Stewart
I always hold my breath when a second-rate genealogist imagines that he
can match it on his mere say-so with a highly reputable historian such
as Gerald Harriss, especially when he clearly hasn't found the evidence
that Harriss referred to indicating that Humphrey's will was being
administered by 1449.
Peter Stewart

Second-rate genealogist? More like borderline second/third-rate genealogist! John Schmeeckle didn't even have to conjure up some evil spirits to legitimately discredit several of his "certified lineages".

Happily I don't come across Richardson's work on American "gateway"
ancestors of the 17th-19th centuries, and for all I know he may be less
incompetent in that period than he is in the medieval era.

But I don't doubt that he is still just as foolish, whatever the timeframe.

Peter Stewart

[c***@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In an earlier post, I noted that "Alice" daughter of Sir Hugh Poynings (or Saint John) is called Alese and Alesie in two contemporary documents. This is not a mistake. This tells me that she was not an Alice at all. And, if I found her name in Latin, I would expect to find it to be given as Alesia, not Alicia.

Fortunately some historians and archivists are careful not to translate the Latin form Alesia into Alice. The document below is a good example. Here we see the historian has left this same woman's name in the Latin form Alesia. It is not translated as Alice, although many modern archivists invariably jump the Latin form Alesia straight into Alice:

Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1436–1441 (1907): 248:

Date: 1439. March 24. License, for 10l. paid in the hanaper, for Alesia, late the wife of Thomas Kyngeston, knight, to grant Thomas Glouestre, esquire, and Thomas Batell, for life, the manor of Warneford, co. Southampton, .... with successive remainders to Thomas Kyngeston, her son, in fee-tail, to Elizabeth, Eleanor and Margaret, her daughters, in fee-tail, and to the right heirs of the said Alesia." END OF QUOTE.

So what is the correct vernacular form for the Latin form Alesia? I usually see it in vernacular records as Aleise or Aleyse, even Alayse. In this case, we find the Poynings woman in vernacular records as Alese and Alesie.

Whatever the case, I have evidence that Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse, which was long time a separate name from Alice, eventually morphed into Alice.

What tells me that the two names were separate? Easy. Women who occur in the vernacular records as Alice/Alys always show up in Latin records as Alicia. And women who occur in vernacular records as Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse show up in Latin records as Alesia. Clearly a distinction was being made by medieval clerks to render the two names differently in Latin.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:36:29 PM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:

< The younger daughter is typically called Alice in secondary sources. See, < for example, See Nicolas, Historic Peerage of England (1857): 412–413 (sub < St. John); Leigh and Knight, Chawton Manors and its Owners (1911): 12.
< However, she is called Alese and Alesie in contemporary records as
< indicated below:
<
< West Sussex Rec. Office: Goodwood Estate Archives [Estate Papers 1],
< <GOODWOOD/E274 (grant dated 2 March 1432/3 from Henry Percy, Earl of
< Northumberland, Robert Ponynggys, Knt., Robert Skerne, and others to Maud, < widow of Thomas Ponynggys [Poynings], Knt. the manors of Halfnakede
< [Halnaker]and Walberton; the foundation or patronage of Boxgrove priory;
< the manor of Newbury, Kent, and the advowson of the church there with
< remainder to John Bonevyle [Bonville], one of the heirs of the said Thomas < Ponynggys, John Paulet and Constance his wife, another of the heirs of the < said Thomas, and Thomas Kyngeston, Knt. and Alesie his wife, the third heir < of the said Thomas, to hold to them and the heirs of the bodies of the said < John Bonevyle, Constance and Alesie, and in default of such issues to the
< right heirs of Thomas Ponynggys) (available at
< http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk), GOODWOOD/E275 (Articles of
< agreement for the partition of lands late of Thomas Ponynges, kt., late
< lord of St. John, and of Hugh St. John, kt. dated 15 July 1458;
< Description: (a) John Bonevile, esq., one of the cousins and heirs of the
< said Thomas and Hugh, that is to say, son of Jane, eldest dau. of Hugh, son < to Thomas; (b) John Poulet, esq., another of the cousins and heirs, that is < to say, son of Constance, second dau. of the said Hugh; (c) Thomas
< Kyngeston, esq., another of the cousins and heirs, that is to say, son of
< Alese, youngest dau. of the said Hugh (available at
< http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com
Dear Newsgroup ~
In an earlier post, I noted that "Alice" daughter of Sir Hugh Poynings (or Saint John) is called Alese and Alesie in two contemporary documents. This is not a mistake. This tells me that she was not an Alice at all. And, if I found her name in Latin, I would expect to find it to be given as Alesia, not Alicia.
Date: 1439. March 24. License, for 10l. paid in the hanaper, for Alesia, late the wife of Thomas Kyngeston, knight, to grant Thomas Glouestre, esquire, and Thomas Batell, for life, the manor of Warneford, co. Southampton, .... with successive remainders to Thomas Kyngeston, her son, in fee-tail, to Elizabeth, Eleanor and Margaret, her daughters, in fee-tail, and to the right heirs of the said Alesia." END OF QUOTE.
So what is the correct vernacular form for the Latin form Alesia? I usually see it in vernacular records as Aleise or Aleyse, even Alayse. In this case, we find the Poynings woman in vernacular records as Alese and Alesie.
Whatever the case, I have evidence that Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse, which was long time a separate name from Alice, eventually morphed into Alice.
What tells me that the two names were separate? Easy. Women who occur in the vernacular records as Alice/Alys always show up in Latin records as Alicia. And women who occur in vernacular records as Aleise/Aleyse/Alayse show up in Latin records as Alesia. Clearly a distinction was being made by medieval clerks to render the two names differently in Latin.

Hold the press - history needs to be rewritten, and books on Plantagenet
ancestry in particular will need to be pulped:

It turns out that Louis VII's daughter betrothed to Richard I was named
Aleise after all and not Alice, Alix, Adela, Adelais or any other
variant ever used for her.

We have this on the authority of Ralph Niger, who referred to her
several times as Alesia.

And obviously every example proves beyond doubt whatever silly point
enters the head of a numbskull who can't admit he is wrong.

Peter Stewart

[c***@gmail.com]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Post by Peter Stewart
It turns out that Louis VII's daughter betrothed to Richard I was named
Aleise after all and not Alice, Alix, Adela, Adelais or any other
variant ever used for her.
We have this on the authority of Ralph Niger, who referred to her
several times as Alesia.

Your research here is sloppy and incomplete, Peter.

This woman also occurs in contemporary records as Aalez, Aaliz, Aelois, Aalis, and Aalaidis. See my book Royal Ancestry (5 volume set) published in 2013 for my extensive sources.

You have to look at the totality of the records, not just one author.

I would consider this woman to be Alix, not Aleise.

DR

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com
My comments are interspersed below. DR

Post by Peter Stewart
It turns out that Louis VII's daughter betrothed to Richard I was named
Aleise after all and not Alice, Alix, Adela, Adelais or any other
variant ever used for her.
We have this on the authority of Ralph Niger, who referred to her
several times as Alesia.

Your research here is sloppy and incomplete, Peter.
This woman also occurs in contemporary records as Aalez, Aaliz, Aelois, Aalis, and Aalaidis. See my book Royal Ancestry (5 volume set) published in 2013 for my extensive sources.
You have to look at the totality of the records, not just one author.
I would consider this woman to be Alix, not Aleise.

So it is entirely arbitrary, depending on your whim for each individual?

Your sadly lacking comprehension skills are showing again, as you quote
me as writing "or any other variant" and yet then try to criticise me
for not spelling out every one of these.

The point is that you rely on haphazard sampling for the idiotic notion
that Aleise and Alice were two distinct names. Ralph Niger - for one -
didn't get your memo. Bubble pricked.

Peter Stewart

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Stewart
The point is that you rely on haphazard sampling for the idiotic notion
that Aleise and Alice were two distinct names. Ralph Niger - for one -
didn't get your memo.
Peter Stewart

You failed to list all of the name forms by which this woman was known.

This is sloppy research, Peter.

DR

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Stewart
The point is that you rely on haphazard sampling for the idiotic notion
that Aleise and Alice were two distinct names. Ralph Niger - for one -
didn't get your memo.
Peter Stewart

You failed to list all of the name forms by which this woman was known.
This is sloppy research, Peter.

This feeble attempt at criticism is so lame that it must embarrass even
your remaining fans (if there are any).

Like Trump trying to discredit the British ambassador, it doesn't cut
any mustard.

Perhaps you could start Narcissists Anonymous and invite him to join you
in trying to break the self-addiction.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Stewart
The point is that you rely on haphazard sampling for the idiotic notion
that Aleise and Alice were two distinct names. Ralph Niger - for one -
didn't get your memo.
Peter Stewart

You failed to list all of the name forms by which this woman was known.
This is sloppy research, Peter.
DR

Note the deliberate interference by Richardson with the text of my post
that he represented as an auto-quotation - I had written as follows:

On 09-Jul-19 9:13 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:> On 09-Jul-19 3:34 AM,

Post by c***@gmail.com
The point is that you rely on haphazard sampling for the idiotic notion
that Aleise and Alice were two distinct names. Ralph Niger - for one -
didn't get your memo. Bubble pricked.
Peter Stewart

He fiddled with this in order to remove "Bubble pricked". Evidently he
is hare-brained but not quite as insensate as some might suppose ...

Peter Stewart

[c***@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Here again we find "Alice" Poynings as Alesia in a contemporary record. The original record was presumably in Latin.

Date: 19 Nov. 1433
[from Scope and Content] Robert, Lord Ponyngges, William Cheyne, kt., Richard
Wakehurst, Richard Fust and Richard Pikot, to Matilda, widow of Thomas
Ponyngges, kt., Lord of St. John, John Bonevyle, Thomas Kyngeston, kt. and Alesia
his wife, John Paulet and Constance his wife.

Reference: West Sussex Rec. Office: Goodwood Estate Archives [Estate Papers 1], GOODWOOD/E676 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Four records so far. And Alice Poynings is not Alice or Alicia is any of them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

If the original record was "presumably in Latin" would not *all* the names in the document be a Latinized version of the names? Are we so sure that John was actually called John ? Maybe his name was Ioannes

I find it odd when people quibble so extensively over the first name of someone in this time period. We have copious records, showing people being called all sorts of variants. The best we can do is settle on a common form and move on.