Parentage of Philippe Bonville (living 1464), wife of William Grenville, Esq., and John Almescombe, Esq.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There has been considerable discussion here on the newsgroup in recent time regarding Philippe Bonville, the alleged sister or daughter of William Bonville, Knt., Lord Bonville. Most of the discussion has sidestepped facts in favor of quoting whatever secondary source or website gives the poster the desired answer.

The assumption has been made repeatedly that Philippe Bonville must have been born say 1415, in order to make her a legitimate daughter of Lord Bonville and his 1st wife, Margaret Grey, which couple married in 1414. This is in spite of the fact that Lord Bonville had at least one acknowledged illegitimate child. No mention is ever made that Philippe might have been an illegitimate daughter of Lord Bonville. I assume that making Philippe Bonville be born c.1415 is done to give the poster the desired descent from King Edward I of England by way of Margaret Grey. However, I must say that that is approaching medieval genealogy from the wrong direction.

While medieval genealogy is heavily dependant on chronology, it is also relies on the comparison of all facts which pertain to any question in hand. In this case, reviewing the chronology, we have three possible indications as to when Philippe Bonville might have been born. The 1st indication is when Philippe gave birth to her children. The second and third indications are the possible birth dates of her two known husbands, William Grenville, Esq., and John Almescombe, Esq.

In this case, we know that Philippe Bonville married William Grenville as his 2nd wife sometime in or after 1427, and that five children were born to this marriage which ended in 1447. While we don't know exactly when Philippe and William were married, but it seems to be rather close to 1427. 1428 would certainly be a good date for the marriage. Five children later, and that would place Philippe as age about 40-45 about the year 1438, or born c.1393-1398. Such a birth date would place her as a sister of William Bonville, Lord Bonville, whose father died in late 1396. Such chronology makes it impossible for Philippe to be a legitimate daughter of Lord Bonville by his wife, Margaret Grey, much less an illegitimate daughter of Lord Bonville.

Next consideration. It is virtually certain that William Grenville was born no later than c.1385, as he was heir to his older brother, Sir John Grenville, who we know was Sheriff of Cornwall for the first time in 1404. As a general rule, men were age about 40 when they first became Sheriff. If so, that would place Sir John Grenville's birth somewhere between 1364 and perhaps no later than 1370. We know that Sir John Grenville was married before 1391, his wife being Margaret Burghersh, who was born about 1376 (aged 15 in 1391). If correct, even assuming there was a wide disparity in the respective births of John and William Grenville, William Grenville's birth would presumably be no later than 1390. This would make William Grenville approximately 3 to 8 years older than Philippe Bonville. That seems quite suitable for a typical medieval marriage. Even placing William Grenville's birth at c.1385, it would still make him only 8 to 13 years older than Philippe who was a second wife. This seems quite reasonable to me.

Now we come to John Almescombe, Esq. We know that he was definitely an adult by 1450-1, when he occurs as the husband of Philippe Bonville. We have no information as to when he was born. However, it appears he was living as late as 1468, and definitely died testate before 1475. If we give him a long life of say 65-70 years in 1468, that would make him born c. 1398-c.1403, which would makes him a bit younger than Philippe Bonville. Such May-December weddings often occurred between medieval men and younger women, but I have seen the reverse, namely older women marrying younger men. A famous example is Katherine Neville and John Wydeville. In this case, the age discrepancy between Philippe Bonville and John Almescombe would not be so great, and perhaps even nonexistent.

Is there other evidence which points the way to Philippe Bonville's correct parentage? Yes, there is. The published Visitation of Cornwall (H.S.P. 9) (1874): 84–86 (Grenville ped.) makes her the sister of Lord Bonville:

“Willm Grenvile Brother and hey. to Sr John temp. H. IV. - Philip sist’ to the Lo. Bondvile.” END OF QUOTE.

We also know that William Grenville granted lands in 1447, to various feoffees, among them Hugh Stucle, Esquire. Hugh Stucle, Esq. can be readily identified as the younger half-brother of Lord Bonville.

These two pieces of evidence would tend to support the idea that Philippe Bonville was the sister of Lord Bonville and the half-sister of Hugh Stucle, Esq. Certainly the chronology supports that notion.

In contrast, we have the Grenville pedigree in Pole, Collections towards a Description of Devon (1791): 387–388, which reads:

“Willam Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Willam Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas ...”). END OF QUOTE.

While I certainly respect Pole, he is not infallible. He makes Philippe the daughter of Lord Bonville. I should note that Pole was writing in a later period than the published visitation. In this case, I would give the visitation greater weight than Pole.

While I'd certainly like to see better evidence, I think the evidence tilts towards Philippe Bonville being the sister of William Bonville, Lord Bonville. Thus she loses the descent from King Edward I of England by way of Margaret Grey. Having said that, I still have an open mind about this matter. Should additional evidence turn up, I'm more than willing to consider other possibilities. As a descendant of Hugh Stucle, Esq., I have a personal interest in Philippe Bonville.

For interest's sake, I've copied below my current file account regarding Philippe Bonville based on my original research.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

PHILIPPE BONVILLE, married (1st) after 12 May 1427 (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM GRENVILLE (or GREYNVILLE, GREYNEVYLE, GRAYNVILLE, GRAYNEFILD), Esq., of Bideford, Devon and Kilkhampton, Cornwall, younger son of Thebaud Grenville, Knt., of Bideford, Devon and Kilkhampton, Cornwall, by his wife, Margaret. Her maritagium included the manors of Week St. Mary and Swannacote, and other tenements in the hundred of Stratton, Cornwall. They had three sons, Thomas, Knt., John, Gent., and William, and two daughters, Margaret (wife of John Thorne) and Ellen (wife of William Yeo). He was heir in 1412 to his brother, John Grenville, Knt., of Bideford, Devon and Kilkhampton, Cornwall, Sheriff of Cornwall, 1404–6, 1410–11. WILLIAM GRENVILLE, Esq., was living 7 Nov. 1447, on which date he granted lands to James Chuddeligh, William Chuddeleigh, and Hugh Stucle, Esquires. His widow, Philippe, married (2nd) before 1450–1 (date of deed) JOHN ALMESCOMBE (or ALMYSCOMBE), Esq. In 29 Henry VI [1450–1] John de Copleston and others granted John and his wife, Philippe, lands in Wildhays and Guakmore. In 1455 Thomas Bodrugan, Esq., of Bodrugan, Cornwall, was pardoned for not appearing before the justices of the Bench to answer John and his wife, Philippe, late the wife of William Greynevyle, Esq. touching a trespass. In 1458 he and his wife, Philippe, presented to the church of Bideford, Devon. In 1461 he and his wife, Philippe, settled 23 messuages, 1 mill, and various lands in Kilkhampton, Cornwall, together with the advowson of the church of Kilkhampton, Cornwall, on themselves and the heirs of their bodies, with successive remainders to John Grenville and William Grenville. In 1464 he sued William Pyke, of Clayhidon, Devon, husbandman and five others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Clayhidon, Devon. In 1464 he and his wife, Philippe, settled the manor and advowson of the church of Kilkhampton, Cornwall and the manor and advowson of the church of Bideford, Devon on themselves and the heirs of their bodies, with reversion to the right heirs of Philippe. In 1468 John Bele, of Shildon, Devon, butcher, was pardoned for not appearing to answer John Almyscombe, Esq., administrator of the good and chattels of John Ferlard, chaplain, touching a debt of 62s. 8d. JOHN ALMESCOMBE, Esq., died testate before Hilary term 1475. In Hilary term 1475 William Yeo and John Barnehowes, executors of John Almyscombe sued Peter Benet, Gent., of Eltham, Kent, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the abduction of a minor ward, John Benet son and heir of Thomas Benet.

References:

Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 387–388 (Grenville ped.: “Willam Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Willam Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas ...”). Oliver, Ecclesiastical Antiqs. in Devon 3 (1842): 41. Vivian, Vis. of Cornwall (H.S.P. 9) (1874): 84–86 (Grenville ped.: “Willm Grenvile Brother and hey. to Sr John temp. H. IV. - Philip sist’ to the Lo. Bondvile.”). Granville, Hist. of Bideford (1883): 109. Rpt. & Trans. Devonshire Assoc. 16 (1884): 684–685 (author identifies Philippe, wife of William Grenville, as “sister to Wm. Lord Bonville.”). Rogers, Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): 47–48 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, Lord Bonville). Granville, Hist. of the Granville Fam. (1895): 56–57 (“The arms of William Graynefeld, impaled with those of his second wife [Philippe Bonville], were in Kilkhampton Church, in a hatchment of stucco.”). Vivian Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): 101–103 (Bonville ped.). List of Sheriffs for England & Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 21–22. C.P.R. 1467–1477 (1900): 75–76. C.P.R. 1452–1461 (1910): 189. Dalton, Collegiate Church of Ottery St Mary (1917): 31 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, Lord Bonville). NGSQ 59 (1971): 254–262 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, Lord Bonville). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/811, image 107f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no811/aCP40no811fronts/IMG_0107.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/811, image 113f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no811/aCP40no811fronts/IMG_0113.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/853, image 373f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no853/aCP40no853fronts/IMG_0373.htm). Devon Archives & Local Studies Service (South West Heritage Trust): Hankford, 47/5/1 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). National Archives, CP 25/1/34/44, #2; CP 25/1/294/74, #20 [see abstract of fines at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html].

[d***@aol.com]

Here are my references for Philippa Bonville, daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville!

References:

(1) Lake & Hotton. A Complete Parochial History of the County of Cornwall, Compiled from the Best Authorities & Corrected and Improved from Actual Survey. v. 2 (1868): p. 372 (author identifies Sir William Grenville’s second wife, Philippa, as “daughter of William, Lord Bonville de Chuton.”). (2) Burke. A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry; or, Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland v. 3 (1838): p. 4 (author states, “William Granville, of Stow, who died about the year 1450, leaving by Philippa, his second wife, daughter of William, Lord Bonville.”). (3) Dudley. A Supplement to the Peerage of England (1716): p. 243 (author states, “William, his Brother and Heir, to succeed, who died about the 29th of Henry VI. , leaving issue, by Philippa, his second wife, Daughter of William Lord Bonville, Thomas, his Son and Heir.”). (4) Gilbert. An Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall: To Which is Added a Complete Heraldry of the Same, with Numerous Engravings v. 2 (1820): p. 507 (author states, “William, his brother and heir, to succeed him, who died about the twenty-ninth of Henry VI, leaving issue by Philippa, his second wife, daughter of William Lord Bonville, Thomas his son and heir.”). (5) Roskell. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386-1421 v. 2 (1992): pp. 284-288 (biog. of Sir William Bonville II) “These ties were to be strengthened by the marriage of Bonville’s son and heir, William, to Lord Harrington’s only child, and of two of his daughters, *Philippa* and Margaret, respectively to William Grenville … and William Courtenay … ”). (6) Fox. Chronicles of Tonedale: Two Centuries of Family History (1879): pp. 46-47a (Appendix V ped.) (author states in generation 5, “Philippa, daughter of William Lord Bonville, of Chuton, 2nd wife.”). (7) Rockwell. Eleven Centuries of the Remote Ancestry of the Rockwell Family (1914): pp. 31-39 (author states in the 18th generation of the Rockwell Genealogy, “Sir William Grenville, son of Margaret de Courtenay and Sir Theobald Greenville, married, Philippa, daughter of William Bonville.”). (8) Burke. Royal Descents and Pedigrees of Founders’ Kin (1864): (Royal Descent of Kingston, ped. XVIII) (author states, “Philippa, dau. of William, Lord Bonville.”). (9) The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record v. 27 (1896): (author states under Ancestry of John Drake of Windsor, CT., “… and had Sir William, m. Philippa, dau. of Lord Wm. Bonville; …”). (10) Vivian. Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): pp. 101-103 (Bonville ped.) (author states, “Phillipa, mar. 1 William Grenville of Bideford,” and places her as the dau. of Sir William Bonville of Chewton and Margaret, da. of … Meriet.) (Margaret, da. of Meriet was correctly identified as Margaret dau. of Reynold Grey, Knt., 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthin) (identification of William Bonville’s 1st wife, Margaret Grey, made by Robert Behra based on Calendar Close Rolls, 1413-1419, p. 199). (11) Rogers. Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): pp. 47–48 (author identifies Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville). (12) Granville. History of the Granville Family (1895): pp. 56–57 (author states, “In the 24th year of the same reign he is mentioned in a deed with Philippa, his second wife, a daughter (sister?) of William, Lord Bonvill of Chuton, dated at Stowe 20th July.”) (Note: even though the query (sister?) appears in the text, Roger Granville identifies Philippa as the daughter of William, Lord Bonville in the pedigree chart found in his “Pedigree of the Granville family” at the end of the “History of the Granville Family" (1895) book). (13) Dalton. The Collegiate Church of Ottery St. Mary (1917): p. 31 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville). (14) National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ) v. 59 (1971): pp. 254–262 (author identifies Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville). (15) Pole. Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon (1791) pp. 387-388 (Grenville descent of the Manor of Bideford) (author states, “Wilm Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Wilm Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas, . . .”). (16) Faris Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century Colonists 1st Ed. (1996) p. 28 [see BONVILLE 9].

[Douglas Richardson]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 1:29:30 PM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:
< Here are my references for Philippa Bonville, daughter of Sir William <Bonville, <K.G., 1st Lord Bonville!

You can post a zillion secondary sources which claim that Philippe Bonvile was the daughter of Lord Bonville, but alas, that doesn't make it so. The earliest and presumably the best source as to Philippe's parentage is the Visitation of Cornwall which places her as Lord Bonville's sister. I believe the visitation is correct.

Should you have new hard core evidence which relates to this matter, by all means, please post it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[d***@aol.com]

Since you believe the Visitation of Cornwall is correct, is it still the best and most reliable source for the generation that says:

"Sr. Theobald Grenvile Kt. temp Ric. II. = Margaret, Da. of Hugh Courtney"

Are you also willing to say that William Grenville's mother was Margaret Courtenay, daughter of Hugh Courtenay [either Sir Hugh de Courtenay (12 July 1303 – 2 May 1377), 10th Earl of Devon OR Sir Hugh Courtenay of Haccombe (aft. 1358 - 1425)]? With these two Hugh Courtenay's being the leading candidates for father of Margaret Courtenay, wife of Theobald Grenville II.

Getting back to the Visitation of Cornwall. What about in the generation that says:

"Thos. Grenvile fil. et haeres = Elizab. Sist' to Sr Theobald de Gorges Kt."

According to Weis. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11] (author states, "Thomas Grenville, Esq. m. (2) by 21 Jan 1453, Elizabeth, **dau.** of Sir Theobald Gorges, K.B., lord of Wraxell, Somerset, and Braunton Gorges, co. Devon, by (1) wife Joan (or Jane) Hankeford.").

This would be in direct contradiction with the Visitation of Cornwall in 1620 which says that Elizabeth was **"Sist'"** to Sir Theobald Gorges, K.B. It appears the belief is that Elizabeth was the daughter (not the sister) of Sir Theobald Gorges, K.B.

Therefore, why wouldn't a careful researcher be skeptical of the William Grenville and Philippa Bonville generation found in the Visitation of Cornwall which states, "Phillip sist' to the Lo. Bondvile," and not the daughter of Lord Bonville? That is because the Visitation of Cornwall is problematic in this generation as with the other two previously cited.

Just as much weight can be given to Sir William Pole's Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon work which was published in 1791 by his descendant Sir John de la Pole, 6th Baronet (1757-1799), of Shute, MP. Sir William Pole died in 1635 and did much of his work and writing before 1620, when Sir Bernard Grenville constructed the Grenville pedigree that was used for the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall (Sir Bernard Grenville was the informant to the Heralds' for the 1620 Visitation of Cornwall pedigree). To support this notion, it is well known that a large folio volume of deeds, charters, and grants were compiled by Sir William Pole in 1616.

While no antiquarian is infallible, I would weigh Pole's Grenville pedigree with as much if not more weight than Sir Bernard Grenville's pedigree given to the Heralds' for the Visitation of Cornwall in 1620. This would be especially true when it came to forming a belief concerning the identity of the correct parentage of Philippa Bonville. What hard evidence do you need other than Sir William Pole and Professor J.S. Roskell?

[taf]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 4:16:08 PM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:

> What hard evidence do you need other than Sir William Pole and Professor J.S. Roskell?

I wouldn't put too much faith in Roskell. For Devon and Cornwall families, he tended to go right to Vivian and simply repeat whatever he found. In this case, though, he did have to make a decision. In Vivian's Grenville pedigree he makes Philippa sister of Lord William, while in his Bonville pedigree he makes her daughter.

A chronology point that was missed in the earlier point - Lord WIlliam Grenville was aged 5 at his father's death in 1396. When he died in 1460/1, his brother Thomas was aged 60 and more.

When Philippa's grandson son Thomas died in 1513, his heir as aged 36, placing the latter's birth ca. 1477, This would put the birth of the grandson, say, 1450, which means Philippa's son was probably born shortly after her marriage. While it is possible, it is indeed a tight fit to make Philippa daughter Lord William.

That being said, the role of Hugh Stucle provides no such support for this placement. If you look at these types of transactions, you see the names of cousins, in-laws, allies, lawyers, etc., and even uncles. There is no reason to declare that the appearance of Hugh in the group favors him being a half-brother and not a half-uncle - it is just confirmation bias to conclude this was the case.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear deca....

I typically use 85 years for three generations as a general rule of thumb. If you take 1477 (approximate birthdate of Roger Grenville) and subtract 85 years, you get c.1392, which should be the approximate date of birth for Roger Grenville's great-grandparents, William Grenville, Esq., and Philippe Bonville.

The chronology can move ten years either way from 1382 to 1402, but much beyond that, you're in deep trouble with the chronology.

My estimated birthdate for William Grenville, Esq., at c.1385 falls within this range. My estimated birthdate for Philippe Bonville at c.1393-c.1398 falls within this range.

If you fall outside the 85 year rule of thumb, it is a big red flag. A birthdate of Philippe Bonville at c.1415 does not even come close to the 85 years rule of thumb, plus or minus 10 range. In fact, it is way outside the 85 year rule of thumb.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[d***@aol.com]

If we suggest that Philippa’s grandson Sir Thomas Grenville II, K.B. was born say 1450, this would mean that Philippa’s son, Thomas Grenville I was born anywhere from 1429 – 1432, making Thomas Grenville I at an age between 15 to 18 when he married Anne Courtenay by contract dated 7 Sept. 1447. Thomas Grenville I marrying firstly, Anne Courtenay, between the ages of 15 and 18 in the mid 15th century is very chronologically possible.

While this may pose a somewhat tight chronology for Philippa to be been after 1414 and before 1417, it is still not as tight as the chronology of making Philippa a daughter of Sir John Bonville & Elizabeth FitzRoger. Sir John Bonville died 21 Oct. 1396. It is impossible for Philippa to have been born any later than July 1397, which would make a date of birth as late as 1398 totally impossible. You also have to fit Philippa Bonville within the tight chronology in between the years of 1393 and 1396, when all three of John Bonville's and Elizabeth FitzRoger's known children were arguably born; William, 1st Lord Bonville (born c. 1393), Thomas Bonville (born c.1395), and Isabel Bonville (born c.1396/1397).

If Philippa were born in July 1397, she would still be 30 plus years old at the time of her first marriage to William Grenville, Esq., which occurred after 12 May 1427 and most likely before 1433 given the date that her son Thomas Grenville I married his first wife, Anne Courtenay, by contract dated 7 Sept. 1447 and the fact that Philippa mothered four other children after Thomas Grenville I. If she were born within the time range of 1393 – 1397, this would be pushing Philippa’s age close to or even into her 40’s while having children. It would be highly unusual for a woman of Philippa’s social rank and position to marry at such a late age in the early 15th century and have children in her late 30s or even into her early 40s without proof or mention in history of her having a previous marriage or children before William Grenville, Esq.

As stated above, the role of Hugh Stucle in this transaction could have been a myriad of different relationships; cousin, in-law, lawyer, and even UNCLE! The appearance of Hugh in this group doesn’t confirm kinship; however, since we can confirm Philippa was a Bonville, it does suggest that Hugh Stucle was of a possible kinship to Philippa. We don’t know and can’t confirm the exact relationship between Philippa Bonville and Hugh Stucle, as it can used to support the bias of whatever parentage someone favors to subscribe to for Philippa.

[d***@aol.com]

If we suggest that Philippa’s grandson Sir Thomas Grenville II, K.B. was born say 1450, this would mean that Philippa’s son, Thomas Grenville I was born anywhere from 1429 – 1432, making Thomas Grenville I at an age between 15 to 18 when he married Anne Courtenay by contract dated 7 Sept. 1447. Thomas Grenville I marrying firstly, Anne Courtenay, between the ages of 15 and 18 in the mid 15th century is very chronologically possible.

While this may pose a somewhat tight chronology for Philippa to be been after 1414 and before 1417, it is still not as tight as the chronology of making Philippa a daughter of Sir John Bonville & Elizabeth FitzRoger. Sir John Bonville died 21 Oct. 1396. It is impossible for Philippa to have been born any later than July 1397, which would make a date of birth as late as 1398 totally impossible. You also have to fit Philippa Bonville within the tight chronology in between the years of 1393 and 1396, when all three of John Bonville's and Elizabeth FitzRoger's known children were arguably born; William,1st Lord Bonville (born c. 1393), Thomas Bonville (born c.1395), and Isabel Bonville (born c.1396/1397).

If Philippa were born in July 1397, she would still be 30 plus years old at the time of her first marriage to William Grenville, Esq., which occurred after 12 May 1427 and most likely before 1433 given the date that her son Thomas Grenville I married his first wife, Anne Courtenay, by contract dated 7 Sept. 1447 and the fact that Philippa mothered four other children after Thomas Grenville I. If she were born within the time range of 1393 – 1397, this would be pushing Philippa’s age close to or even into her 40’s while having children. It would be highly unusual for a woman of Philippa’s social rank and position to marry at such a late age in the early 15th century and have children in her late 30s or even into her early 40s without proof or mention in history of her having a previous marriage or children before William Grenville, Esq.

As stated above, the role of Hugh Stucle in this transaction could have been a myriad of different relationships; cousin, in-law, lawyer, and even UNCLE! The appearance of Hugh in this group doesn’t confirm kinship; however, since we can confirm Philippa was a Bonville, it does suggest that Hugh Stucle was of a possible kinship to Philippa. We don’t know and can’t confirm the exact relationship between Philippa Bonville and Hugh Stucle, as it can be used to support the bias of whatever parentage someone favors to subscribe to for Philippa.

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 5:58:47 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
> If we suggest that Philippa’s grandson Sir Thomas Grenville
> II, K.B. was born say 1450, this would mean that Philippa’s
> son, Thomas Grenville I was born anywhere from 1429 – 1432,
> making Thomas Grenville I at an age between 15 to 18 when
> he married Anne Courtenay by contract dated 7 Sept. 1447.
> Thomas Grenville I marrying firstly, Anne Courtenay,
> between the ages of 15 and 18 in the mid 15th century is
> very chronologically possible.

Possible, but not typical. Yes, instances can be cited with generations this short, but they were the exception, by far. That being said, the alternative, of making Philippa 30 when she married, would also be decidedly atypical. Neither of these solutions, taken in isolation, would be considered likely, but it seemingly has to be one or the other.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 6:58:47 AM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:

< While this may pose a somewhat tight chronology for Philippa to be been after <1414 and before 1417...

It is almost an impossible chronology. Red flag!

<, it is still not as tight as the chronology of making Philippa a daughter of <Sir John Bonville & Elizabeth FitzRoger.

Not at all.

<Sir John Bonville died 21 Oct. 1396. It is impossible for Philippa to have <been born any later than July 1397, which would make a date of birth as late as <1398 totally impossible. You also have to fit Philippa Bonville within the <tight chronology in between the years of 1393 and 1396, when all three of John <Bonville's and Elizabeth FitzRoger's known children were arguably born; <William,1st Lord Bonville (born c. 1393), Thomas Bonville (born c.1395), and <Isabel Bonville (born c.1396/1397).

I'm not sure why you assume all of Elizabeth Fitz Roger's Bonville children were born in the period, 1393-1396. Elizabeth Fitz Roger was born in 1370 and married as a child by 1377. As such, her four known Bonville children could conceivably be born anytime between 1384 and 1397 (year following her husband's death).

Dates of birth differ regarding Elizabeth's eldest son, William Bonville, later Lord Bonville. My file account shows he was born 12 August 1391, 30 Sept. 1391, or 31 August 1392 (aged 4 in 1397, 16 in 1407, 21 in 1414, 30 and more in 1426). Not sure why there are so many discepancies regarding his age but this is why you have to be careful relying on any one particular record for a person's age. I think a fair statement would be that William Bonville was born in 1391 or 1392.

As far as Isabel Bonville is concerned, she could have been born before William. I know Isabel Bonville's husband's parents were married by 1394, and probably much earlier. A rough estimate would put Isabel's husband's birth at c.1385-c.1390. As such, I don't see the need to squeeze Isabel's own birth into the period between 1393-1396.

If so, there is ample time to fit Thomas Bonville and Philippe Bonville as younger children of Elizabeth Fitz Roger sometime between 1393 and 1398.

< If she were born within the time range of 1393 – 1397, this would be pushing <Philippa’s age close to or even into her 40’s while having children. It would <be highly unusual for a woman of Philippa’s social rank and position to marry <at such a late age in the early 15th century and have children in her late 30s <or even into her early 40s without proof or mention in history of her having a <previous marriage or children before William Grenville, Esq.

The only reason we know of many marriages in this time period is because of visitation records. Without visitations, many female marriages would go unnoticed. If Philippe Bonville had a brief first marriage which was childless, it would almost certainly go unnoticed in contemporary records. In this case, I assume that Philippe had an unknown first marriage before her known marriage to William Grenville. Is there evidence of such a marriage? No. Does that mean that such a marriage didn't happen? No.

< As stated above, the role of Hugh Stucle in this transaction could have been a <myriad of different relationships; cousin, in-law, lawyer, and even UNCLE! The <appearance of Hugh in this group doesn’t confirm kinship; however, since we can <confirm Philippa was a Bonville, it does suggest that Hugh Stucle was of a <possible kinship to Philippa. We don’t know and can’t confirm the exact <relationship between Philippa Bonville and Hugh Stucle, as it can be used to <support the bias of whatever parentage someone favors to subscribe to for <Philippa.

Many things are possible. But the most likely explanation is that Hugh Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville's half-brother.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:14:28 AM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 6:58:47 AM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:
>
> < While this may pose a somewhat tight chronology for Philippa to be been after <1414 and before 1417...
>
> It is almost an impossible chronology. Red flag!

Short and long chronologies are both red flags.

> If so, there is ample time to fit Thomas Bonville and
> Philippe Bonville as younger children of Elizabeth Fitz
> Roger sometime between 1393 and 1398.

Vivian places the death of her father on 21 Oct. 1396. He appears to be in error in this, but not enough to make 1398 a possibility. An ipm of John Bonevyll has been published:
https://books.google.com/books?id=c70xAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA236

and was carried out 2 April 1397. It reports John's death as the Sunday after the prior feast of St Martin. The latter is 11 Nov, which if the universal calendar I consulted is correct would place John's death on 12 November. I don't know if other ipms give a different date that Vivian was following, or if he just made an error (the more recent ipm volume that covers this period is only available in snippets). Either way, it makes 1398 too late.

> Many things are possible. But the most likely explanation is that Hugh
> Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville's half-brother.

Nonsense. Look at the list of feofees. How many of them are siblings of the people involved? On what basis, other than wanting it to be so, is it more likely that a feofee was the wife's brother than that he was her uncle? This conclusion is completely unsupportable.

And by the way, the 85-year benchmark is extremely misleading, averaging as it does all kinds of different scenarios. Male generations tend to be closer to 30 years, or even more, yet here we know that we have two generations in no less than 50 years, so we are already deviating from the norm. That means based on your 85 year benchmark, Philippa would represent a female generation of no less than 35 years, and we both know that is not the average. As with all statistics, they define trends across populations rather than being rules to be applied to specific cases.

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:49:50 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:14:28 AM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > My comments are interspersed below. DR
> >
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 6:58:47 AM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > < While this may pose a somewhat tight chronology for Philippa to be been after <1414 and before 1417...
> >
> > It is almost an impossible chronology. Red flag!
>
> Short and long chronologies are both red flags.
>
> > If so, there is ample time to fit Thomas Bonville and
> > Philippe Bonville as younger children of Elizabeth Fitz
> > Roger sometime between 1393 and 1398.
>
> Vivian places the death of her father on 21 Oct. 1396. He appears
> to be in error in this, but not enough to make 1398 a possibility.
> An ipm of John Bonevyll has been published:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=c70xAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA236
>
> and was carried out 2 April 1397. It reports John's death as the
> Sunday after the prior feast of St Martin. The latter is 11 Nov,
> which if the universal calendar I consulted is correct would place
> John's death on 12 November. I don't know if other ipms give a
> different date that Vivian was following, or if he just made an
> error (the more recent ipm volume that covers this period is only
> available in snippets). Either way, it makes 1398 too late.

I managed to hit on an informative snippet - one of the other ipms does indeed show John's death on 21 October. This falls on a Saturday, so they don't even agree as to day of the week. Still, both are in 1396.

I note that Elizabeth Fitz Roger was reported as age 16+ ((and married) in her uncle's 10 Richard II ipm, and aged 26+ in her husband's, 20 Richard II. The consistency between the two suggests that they were precise, and not just approximations.

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:08:52 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:49:50 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> > Vivian places the death of her father on 21 Oct. 1396. He appears
> > to be in error in this, but not enough to make 1398 a possibility.
> > An ipm of John Bonevyll has been published:
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=c70xAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA236
> >
> > and was carried out 2 April 1397. It reports John's death as the
> > Sunday after the prior feast of St Martin. The latter is 11 Nov,
> > which if the universal calendar I consulted is correct would place
> > John's death on 12 November. I don't know if other ipms give a
> > different date that Vivian was following, or if he just made an
> > error (the more recent ipm volume that covers this period is only
> > available in snippets). Either way, it makes 1398 too late.
>
> I managed to hit on an informative snippet - one of the other ipms
> does indeed show John's death on 21 October. This falls on a
> Saturday, so they don't even agree as to day of the week. Still,
> both are in 1396.
>
> I note that Elizabeth Fitz Roger was reported as age 16+ ((and
> married) in her uncle's 10 Richard II ipm, and aged 26+ in her
> husband's, 20 Richard II. The consistency between the two suggests
> that they were precise, and not just approximations.

I note that Elizabeth's 1414 ipm gives her eldest Stucle son the age of 16. This would put his birth in 1398, and probably force that of a possible daughter even earlier. Adding to the squeeze, a proof of age survives for William, that puts his birth 31 Aug. 1392, and we know THomas had to be younger.

taf

[d***@aol.com]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 2:21:48 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> I note that Elizabeth's 1414 ipm gives her eldest Stucle son the age of 16. This >would put his birth in 1398, and probably force that of a possible daughter even >earlier. Adding to the squeeze, a proof of age survives for William, that puts his >birth 31 Aug. 1392, and we know THomas had to be younger.
>
> taf

This would seem to confirm that the youngest daughter of Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger could not have been born any later than July 1397, considering that Elizabeth FitzRoger conceived your last Bonville child in October 1396 before Sir John Bonville died!

[d***@aol.com]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 2:21:48 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> I note that Elizabeth's 1414 ipm gives her eldest Stucle son the age of 16. This >would put his birth in 1398, and probably force that of a possible daughter even >earlier. Adding to the squeeze, a proof of age survives for William, that puts his >birth 31 Aug. 1392, and we know THomas had to be younger.
>
> taf


This would seem to confirm that the youngest daughter of Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger could not have been born any later than July 1397, considering that Elizabeth FitzRoger conceived her last Bonville child in October 1396 before Sir John Bonville died!

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:08:52 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:


> I managed to hit on an informative snippet - one of the other ipms
> does indeed show John's death on 21 October. This falls on a
> Saturday, so they don't even agree as to day of the week. Still,
> both are in 1396.

The full ipms can be found here:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol17/pp278-299

taf

[Brad Verity]

Dear Whomever [***@aol.com],

Would you mind sharing with SocGenMed your first name, or a nickname, or whatever name you'd like to be addressed by while we engage in this discussion?

My comments are interspersed.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:29:30 PM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
> Here are my references for Philippa Bonville, daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville!
> References:
> (1) Lake & Hotton. A Complete Parochial History of the County of Cornwall, Compiled from the Best Authorities & Corrected and Improved from Actual Survey. v. 2 (1868): p. 372 (author identifies Sir William Grenville’s second wife, Philippa, as “daughter of William, Lord Bonville de Chuton.”).

A 1868 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, unless it cites to an earlier source for it's statement.

> (2) Burke. A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry; or, Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland v. 3 (1838): p. 4 (author states, “William Granville, of Stow, who died about the year 1450, leaving by Philippa, his second wife, daughter of William, Lord Bonville.”).

Ditto. Burke's doesn't cite sources for its pedigrees. That said, Burke's is an incredible 19th-century genealogical compilation, and it's a wonderful first source to go to when compiling a pedigree of the nobility or gentry. Many genealogists are perfectly happy to take it at its word, and research no further, which is of course their choice. Serious genealogists and enthusiasts of British medieval history (most longtime SocGenMed participants) know that the further back in time the pedigree extends, the less reliable Burke's becomes.

> (3) Dudley. A Supplement to the Peerage of England (1716): p. 243 (author states, “William, his Brother and Heir, to succeed, who died about the 29th of Henry VI. , leaving issue, by Philippa, his second wife, Daughter of William Lord Bonville, Thomas, his Son and Heir.”).

A 1716 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (4) Gilbert. An Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall: To Which is Added a Complete Heraldry of the Same, with Numerous Engravings v. 2 (1820): p. 507 (author states, “William, his brother and heir, to succeed him, who died about the twenty-ninth of Henry VI, leaving issue by Philippa, his second wife, daughter of William Lord Bonville, Thomas his son and heir.”).

A 1820 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (5) Roskell. The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386-1421 v. 2 (1992): pp. 284-288 (biog. of Sir William Bonville II) “These ties were to be strengthened by the marriage of Bonville’s son and heir, William, to Lord Harrington’s only child, and of two of his daughters, *Philippa* and Margaret, respectively to William Grenville … and William Courtenay … ”).

Todd has already explained that HOP relied on 19th-century genealogist John Lambrick Vivian for family details of the West Country 15th-century MPs. If Vivian made an error, then HOP carried it over. HOP's bio on John Grenville makes him the grandson of the 2nd Earl of Devon, which 14th-century primary documentation has subsequently shown to be incorrect. Nevertheless, HOP is a fantastic source to use for MPs of every century. In addition to providing biographical and political context to the MPs, HOP thoroughly cites to sources which can be followed up.

> (6) Fox. Chronicles of Tonedale: Two Centuries of Family History (1879): pp. 46-47a (Appendix V ped.) (author states in generation 5, “Philippa, daughter of William Lord Bonville, of Chuton, 2nd wife.”).

A 1879 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (7) Rockwell. Eleven Centuries of the Remote Ancestry of the Rockwell Family (1914): pp. 31-39 (author states in the 18th generation of the Rockwell Genealogy, “Sir William Grenville, son of Margaret de Courtenay and Sir Theobald Greenville, married, Philippa, daughter of William Bonville.”).

A 1914 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (8) Burke. Royal Descents and Pedigrees of Founders’ Kin (1864): (Royal Descent of Kingston, ped. XVIII) (author states, “Philippa, dau. of William, Lord Bonville.”).

The author of (8) is Sir Bernard Burke, the same as the author of (2), so see my comment above.

> (9) The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record v. 27 (1896): (author states under Ancestry of John Drake of Windsor, CT., “… and had Sir William, m. Philippa, dau. of Lord Wm. Bonville; …”).

A 1896 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (10) Vivian. Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): pp. 101-103 (Bonville ped.) (author states, “Phillipa, mar. 1 William Grenville of Bideford,” and places her as the dau. of Sir William Bonville of Chewton and Margaret, da. of … Meriet.) (Margaret, da. of Meriet was correctly identified as Margaret dau. of Reynold Grey, Knt., 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthin) (identification of William Bonville’s 1st wife, Margaret Grey, made by Robert Behra based on Calendar Close Rolls, 1413-1419, p. 199).

Why would you cite to a source (Vivian) for the paternity of Philippa Bonville when you already know it's incorrect as to the paternity of Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville? And as Todd has already pointed out, Vivian makes Philippa the sister of William Lord Bonville in his Grenville pedigree. Either he didn't realize his own contradiction, or he presented both alternatives to allow his subscribers to make up their own minds. In either case, it doesn't seem he researched these 15th-century Bonvilles and Grenvilles any further than the Visitation pedigrees.

That said, Vivian's works on the Devon and Cornwall Visitations contain much vital information once you get to the era of parish registers, and are weightier sources than Burke's.

> (11) Rogers. Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): pp. 47–48 (author identifies Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville).

A 1890 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (12) Granville. History of the Granville Family (1895): pp. 56–57 (author states, “In the 24th year of the same reign he is mentioned in a deed with Philippa, his second wife, a daughter (sister?) of William, Lord Bonvill of Chuton, dated at Stowe 20th July.”) (Note: even though the query (sister?) appears in the text, Roger Granville identifies Philippa as the daughter of William, Lord Bonville in the pedigree chart found in his “Pedigree of the Granville family” at the end of the “History of the Granville Family" (1895) book).

That doesn't mean that Roger Granville had resolved the issue - there was no need for him to repeat the uncertainty he had already indicated within the text. A 1895 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, but at least it points to a 15th-century document which is very useful.

> (13) Dalton. The Collegiate Church of Ottery St. Mary (1917): p. 31 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville).

A 1917 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (14) National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ) v. 59 (1971): pp. 254–262 (author identifies Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville).

A 1971 article cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.

> (15) Pole. Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon (1791) pp. 387-388 (Grenville descent of the Manor of Bideford) (author states, “Wilm Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Wilm Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas, . . .”).

Sir William Pole's work is a very useful source but no more so than a Visitation pedigree - it can be viewed as accurate, even authoritative, for the 17th-century generations contemporary to Pole, but only suggestive when it comes to earlier and medieval generations.

> (16) Faris Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century Colonists 1st Ed. (1996) p. 28 [see BONVILLE 9].

All the various editions of Plantagenet Ancestry are useful as starting off points in compiling a medieval pedigree, and many genealogists are happy to never research beyond it. Serious genealogists and enthusiasts of medieval history know that the pedigrees presented within it are only as the cited sources.

So of your sixteen sources above, only two are of any use: 1) Granville's 1895 work (which indicates uncertainty as to Philippa's parentage), because of the 15th-century deed it cites (the next step for you would be to obtain a full transcription of that deed), and 2) Pole, your earliest cited source, though it's already been pointed out that Sir William contradicts an earlier Grenville pedigree, from a Visitation some fifty years previous, which makes Philippa the sister, not the daughter, of William Lord Bonville. Pole makes no indication in his work as to why he contradicts Philippa's parentage, or even if he was aware that he was doing so.

Some weeks back when you first brought the topic to SocGenMed, I wrote: "The Close Roll entry cited by HOP confirms that Bonville and Margaret Grey of Ruthin were not yet married when the contract was drawn up in December 1414, and that Bonville had until Midsummer to make the marriage settlement. But even if the marriage followed immediately at Yuletide, the earliest a child could be born to the couple is late 1415, and Thomas Grenville was apparently born by 1428."

This would make Philippa a mother at no older than age thirteen. Thomas Grenville was born by 1428 because “In 27th Henry VI (1449) he is styled Thomas Greynvile, son and heir to William Greynvile, Esquire, and with Anne his wife, grants to Richard Ashrigge a tenement in Bideford" [Roger Granville, The History of the Granville Family (1895), p. 58]. Thomas could not have granted land unless he was of full age (21).

You replied: "It is also very likely that Philippa Bonville married when she was between 12 and 16 years of age (which is historically possible), especially given the time period and her social standing, no matter if she were the daughter of John Bonville, Thomas Bonville, or William Bonville, 1st Lord Bonville. Saying that she gave birth to her first known child between the ages of 13 and 16 is both biologically possible and not uncommon for the 15th century." You then cited Lady Margaret Beaufort as an example of a lady married at age 12 and a mother at age 13.

Lady Margaret Beaufort was a great heiress and important dynastically to King Henry VI. She most definitely is an exception. Indeed, Tudor impregnating her at such a young age is believed by many historians today to be the reason that she had no further children after Henry VII, despite a very long second marriage. Philippa Grenville we know went on to have further children after her son Thomas.

I'm sorry, but the chronology doesn't hold for Philippa to have been the daughter of Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville. This of course doesn't prove that she was the sister of Lord Bonville, but there are several examples of medieval ladies not marrying until they were in their thirties. As a younger sister, there was no pressing need for Philippa to marry at all, and her mother (and later her eldest brother William Bonville) may have left it up to her to choose a husband. Whether the widower William Grenville was her own choice or that of her brother, Philippa was provided with a proper marriage portion.

Cheers, ------Brad

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-8, Brad Verity wrote:

> And as Todd has already pointed out, Vivian makes Philippa the sister
> of William Lord Bonville in his Grenville pedigree. Either he didn't
> realize his own contradiction, or he presented both alternatives to
> allow his subscribers to make up their own minds.

There is a third possibility - that he changed his mind. There are cases where he clearly did so between the early pages and late pages in the same volume.


We may all be reinventing the wheel here. A Google search turns of snippets of an article in Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries, vol. 34, 158-9 (and perhaps surrounding pages) that is specifically asking the question of whether Philippa was sister or daughter. Perhaps the author has identified something useful.

taf

[Joe]

> We may all be reinventing the wheel here. A Google search turns of snippets of an article in Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries, vol. 34, 158-9 (and perhaps surrounding pages) that is specifically asking the question of whether Philippa was sister or daughter. Perhaps the author has identified something useful.
>
> taf

Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries vol. XXXIV no. 4 (Autumn 1979):154-161. A Revision of the Grenville Pedigree, by Charles Fitch-Northen.

Fitch-Northen made the same chronological arguments as here to decide that Phillipa could not have been the daughter of William Bonville. He states “that the mother of William’s son Sir Thomas Grenville I was either Thomazine (a Cole?), or the daughter of John Bonville and Elizabeth Fitz Roger, and sister of Lord Bonville.”

[d***@aol.com]

My comments are interspersed:

> So of your sixteen sources above, only two are of any use: 1) Granville's 1895 work (which indicates uncertainty as to Philippa's parentage), because of the 15th-century deed it cites (the next step for you would be to obtain a full transcription of that deed), and 2) Pole, your earliest cited source, though it's already been pointed out that Sir William contradicts an earlier Grenville pedigree, from a Visitation some fifty years previous, which makes Philippa the sister, not the daughter, of William Lord Bonville. Pole makes no indication in his work as to why he contradicts Philippa's parentage, or even if he was aware that he was doing so.
>

First off, those are not my sources, but the sources used by professional genealogists throughout the last three centuries. If you care to check Douglas Richardson’s sources, you might find some overlap with the ones I listed. Second, I did not bring up the topic of Philippa’s parentage to SocGenMed, it was a poster named Joe. So, let's be clear about that. If you so prefer, you can simply refer to me as Deca.

> Some weeks back when you first brought the topic to SocGenMed, I wrote: "The Close Roll entry cited by HOP confirms that Bonville and Margaret Grey of Ruthin were not yet married when the contract was drawn up in December 1414, and that Bonville had until Midsummer to make the marriage settlement. But even if the marriage followed immediately at Yuletide, the earliest a child could be born to the couple is late 1415, and Thomas Grenville was apparently born by 1428."
>

Some weeks back you stated, “It would have been a discussion with Sheila and Louise that changed my mind from Philippa as daughter of the 1st Lord Bonville in April 2001 to Philippa as daughter of his brother Thomas Bonville in June 2001 when Louise posted, and the first names that William and Philippa Grenville gave their children is the key evidence in favour of this suggestion. But chronology is still against it, as it leaves Philippa a wife and mother in 1428 at an age no older than 17-16.”

Do you still believe that Philippa was the daughter of Thomas Bonville? Please provide your sources for this.

> This would make Philippa a mother at no older than age thirteen. Thomas Grenville was born by 1428 because “In 27th Henry VI (1449) he is styled Thomas Greynvile, son and heir to William Greynvile, Esquire, and with Anne his wife, grants to Richard Ashrigge a tenement in Bideford" [Roger Granville, The History of the Granville Family (1895), p. 58]. Thomas could not have granted land unless he was of full age (21).
>

From the Journal of Family History, Coming of Age and the Family in Medieval England, it states: “Medieval England similarly had a range of legal age restrictions, but in the lay courts, these were usually much more narrowly restricted to land tenure. The highest age—twenty-one—was required of males to inherit land held in military tenure (i.e., knight’s fees); for women inheriting the same type of land, it was fourteen if married, and sixteen if single. For land held in socage, more agricultural in nature, the age of majority for males was fifteen.”

Thomas Grenville did not have to be 21 to inherit or grant land for the Manor of Bideford, as it was not land held in military tenure.

Again, Thomas Grenville I could have been born anytime from 1429 – 1433.

According to Weis, The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11] (a line revised by Douglas Richardson!) (author states, “Thomas Grenville, Esq., b. say 1430!”). It is apparent here that if Thomas was born in 1430, he was not 21 in 1449 when granting a tenement in Bideford!

> You replied: "It is also very likely that Philippa Bonville married when she was between 12 and 16 years of age (which is historically possible), especially given the time period and her social standing, no matter if she were the daughter of John Bonville, Thomas Bonville, or William Bonville, 1st Lord Bonville. Saying that she gave birth to her first known child between the ages of 13 and 16 is both biologically possible and not uncommon for the 15th century." You then cited Lady Margaret Beaufort as an example of a lady married at age 12 and a mother at age 13.
>

If you actually read what I wrote, I gave numerous examples of medieval teenage women who married and gave birth in their early or mid-teenage years.

The following are other examples of women who married and bore children in their early teenage years from medieval history:

- Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married at 13 years of age (1350), and was 14 years old when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).

- St Elizabeth of Portugal was 12 years old when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.

- Caterina Sforza was betrothed at 9 years old and married at 14 years old, and then gave birth at 15 years of age.

- Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband at 13 years old and bore a son within a few years.

and

- Beatrice d'Este was betrothed at 5 years old and was married at 15 years of age.

> Lady Margaret Beaufort was a great heiress and important dynastically to King Henry VI. She most definitely is an exception. Indeed, Tudor impregnating her at such a young age is believed by many historians today to be the reason that she had no further children after Henry VII, despite a very long second marriage. Philippa Grenville we know went on to have further children after her son Thomas.
>
> I'm sorry, but the chronology doesn't hold for Philippa to have been the daughter of Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville. This of course doesn't prove that she was the sister of Lord Bonville, but there are several examples of medieval ladies not marrying until they were in their thirties. As a younger sister, there was no pressing need for Philippa to marry at all, and her mother (and later her eldest brother William Bonville) may have left it up to her to choose a husband. Whether the widower William Grenville was her own choice or that of her brother, Philippa was provided with a proper marriage portion.
>

As stated in a previous thread. You must have forgotten this post you made back on 23 April 2001. Or do you claim that you lost all of your notes? Part of the post is below:

{"brad verity" wrote in message news:
Magna Charta Sureties is incorrect on Philippa Bonville's birth date. According to Roskell, her father William, 1st Lord Bonville, was born and baptised at Shute 12 or 31 Aug 1392. Roskell's source for this is 'C138/5/58,' and he corrects Complete Peerage, so it seems pretty authoritative. Accordingly, there is no way his daughter Philippa can have been born before 1396. Roskell places the date of Lord Bonville's marriage to his 1st wife Margaret Grey (Philippa's mother) as about 1414, so Philippa would've been born sometime after then.”}

I’m sorry, but there has been no new evidence from then until now which would sway someone so much in their position. You were very adamant about supporting Roskell’s position regarding the parentage of Philippa Bonville, which said that Philippa was the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville. We’d be very interested to hear your arguments as to why you believe Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville’s brother, Thomas Bonville!

Again, the chronology holds for Thomas Bonville as the father of Philippa Bonville, but doesn't hold for Lord William as the father of Philippa Bonville?

> Cheers, ------Brad

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 8:14:25 PM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
> If you so prefer, you can simply refer to me as Deca.

Thank you, Deca.

> First off, those are not my sources, but the sources used by professional genealogists throughout the last three centuries.

Well, you presented those sixteen sources/references in a list with the leading sentence, "Here are my references for Philippa Bonville, daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville!" That list of sixteen is yours, no matter how many previous genealogists used some, or all, of them.

> If you care to check Douglas Richardson’s sources, you might find some overlap with the ones I listed.

The fact that Douglas also listed some of those sixteen sources/references has no bearing on whether or not they can be used to establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady.

> Second, I did not bring up the topic of Philippa’s parentage to SocGenMed, it was a poster named Joe. So, let's be clear about that.

You are absolutely right - I stand corrected. The fact that -Margaret Courtenay/Philippa Bonville as Grenville spouses- is the only topic you have discussed here on SocGenMed made me mistakenly think back that you had originated the new discussions on the topic. But, it was indeed Joe who brought it up.

> Some weeks back you stated, “It would have been a discussion with Sheila and Louise that changed my mind from Philippa as daughter of the 1st Lord Bonville in April 2001 to Philippa as daughter of his brother Thomas Bonville in June 2001 when Louise posted, and the first names that William and Philippa Grenville gave their children is the key evidence in favour of this suggestion. But chronology is still against it, as it leaves Philippa a wife and mother in 1428 at an age no older than 17-16.”
> Do you still believe that Philippa was the daughter of Thomas Bonville?

The only "belief" I have on this is that Philippa didn't marry at age 12 and bear a son at age 13, so she was not the daughter of Margaret (Grey) Bonville. Beyond that, I'm open to any male Bonville of suitable age as her father.

> Please provide your sources for this.

I already did: Louise Staley suggested the possibility that Thomas Bonville was Philippa's father because Philippa named her son 'Thomas' (not 'William') Grenville.

> From the Journal of Family History, Coming of Age and the Family in Medieval England, it states: “Medieval England similarly had a range of legal age restrictions, but in the lay courts, these were usually much more narrowly restricted to land tenure. The highest age—twenty-one—was required of males to inherit land held in military tenure (i.e., knight’s fees); for women inheriting the same type of land, it was fourteen if married, and sixteen if single. For land held in socage, more agricultural in nature, the age of majority for males was fifteen.”
> Thomas Grenville did not have to be 21 to inherit or grant land for the Manor of Bideford, as it was not land held in military tenure.

Bideford, a port town in north Devon, was "certainly one of the constituent manors of the Honour of Gloucester" (Wikipedia), which in turn "was one of the largest of the mediaeval English feudal baronies, in 1166 comprising 279 knight's fees, or manors" (Ibid).

The fact that both Thomas Grenville and his wife Anne granted a tenement in Bideford in 1449 indicates that his father William Grenville had settled the manor on the couple jointly at their marriage. So both had to be of full age (he 21, she 14) in 1449.

> Again, Thomas Grenville I could have been born anytime from 1429 – 1433.

I don't understand how you determined that year range.

> According to Weis, The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11] (a line revised by Douglas Richardson!) (author states, “Thomas Grenville, Esq., b. say 1430!”). It is apparent here that if Thomas was born in 1430, he was not 21 in 1449 when granting a tenement in Bideford!

It's also apparent that 1430 for Thomas's birth was an estimate made by Douglas and Magna Carta Sureties. What's not apparent is whether anyone involved with that 1999 work was aware of the 1449 grant of a tenement in Bideford made by Thomas Grenville and his wife Anne.

> If you actually read what I wrote, I gave numerous examples of medieval teenage women who married and gave birth in their early or mid-teenage years.

None of whom, save for Margaret Beaufort, were English ladies in the 15th-century. Margaret Beaufort was the only daughter of a royal duke. Philippa Bonville was *a* (not only) daughter of a Devon gentryman (the Bonvilles were not elevated to a barony until well after her marriage).

> The following are other examples of women who married and bore children in their early teenage years from medieval history:
> - Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married at 13 years of age (1350), and was 14 years old when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).

An Italian nobleman's daughter in the 14th-century who was older than age 13 when she became a mother.

> - St Elizabeth of Portugal was 12 years old when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.

A Spanish royal daughter of the 13th-century older than age 13 when she became a mother.

> - Caterina Sforza was betrothed at 9 years old and married at 14 years old, and then gave birth at 15 years of age.

An Italian nobleman's daughter from the 15th-century older than age 13 when she became a mother.

> - Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband at 13 years old and bore a son within a few years.

A Pope's daughter from the late 15th-century who was older than age 13 when she became a mother.

> and
> - Beatrice d'Este was betrothed at 5 years old and was married at 15 years of age.

An Italian nobleman's daughter from the late 15th-century who was older than age 13 when she became a mother.

> As stated in a previous thread. You must have forgotten this post you made back on 23 April 2001. Or do you claim that you lost all of your notes?

Both.

> Part of the post is below:
> {"brad verity" wrote in message news:
> Magna Charta Sureties is incorrect on Philippa Bonville's birth date. According to Roskell, her father William, 1st Lord Bonville, was born and baptised at Shute 12 or 31 Aug 1392. Roskell's source for this is 'C138/5/58,' and he corrects Complete Peerage, so it seems pretty authoritative. Accordingly, there is no way his daughter Philippa can have been born before 1396. Roskell places the date of Lord Bonville's marriage to his 1st wife Margaret Grey (Philippa's mother) as about 1414, so Philippa would've been born sometime after then.”}

My 2001 post above boils down to: HOP is a far more reliable and accurate source than Magna Carta Sureties. I stand by that.

> I’m sorry, but there has been no new evidence from then until now which would sway someone so much in their position.

Yes, there was to me. Charles Fitch-Northen's article and the 1449 grant of a tenement in Bideford, neither of which I'd processed in April 2001.

> You were very adamant about supporting Roskell’s position regarding the parentage of Philippa Bonville, which said that Philippa was the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville. We’d be very interested to hear your arguments as to why you believe Philippa was the daughter of Lord Bonville’s brother, Thomas Bonville!

Once again, because she named her son Thomas, not William.

> Again, the chronology holds for Thomas Bonville as the father of Philippa Bonville, but doesn't hold for Lord William as the father of Philippa Bonville?

The chronology holds for either one of those brothers as her father. The chronology does not hold for Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as her mother.

On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 10:34:16 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
> Charles Fitch-Northen's arguments are based off of inaccurate assumptions of dates, which flaws his entire argument into the identity of Philippa Bonville. He argues that Thomas Grenville I was born in 1426 and that his mother was Thomazine Cole. There are neither any direct nor indirect evidence nor any secondary sources which state that Thomazine Cole had children, much less that she was the mother of Thomas Grenville I. This was solely the wild supposition exposited by Charles Fitch-Northen in his "A Revision of the Grenville Pedigree" found in Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries vol. XXXIV no. 4 (Autumn 1979).

Fitch-Northen's supposition was not "wild". He based it on the presumption that Thomas Grenville was of full age (21) when he made a grant of a tenement in 1449, and apparently was of full age when he married in 1447. He prioritized 15th-century evidence over a pedigree written almost two hundred years later. That's exactly what a good genealogist should do.

> It should also be noted that after 1979, every genealogical researcher who has commented on the Grenville pedigree has not used Fitch-Northen because of his unsupported statements and assumptions (these genealogical heavyweights include Frederick Lewis Weis, Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., and Douglas Richardson).

The three heavyweights you list there didn't comment on Fitch-Northen's 1979 article because they weren't aware of it - I doubt Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries was on any of their radars in 1999. I only stumbled upon that journal and article at the UCLA Library because I was specifically researching the Courtenays and Grenvilles. IIRC, it hadn't yet been digitized and available snippet view through Google Books in 2001.

> We know this to be false because William Grenville and Philippa Bonville were the parents of Thomas Grenville I.

We don't know that Philippa Bonville was Thomas Grenville's mother. We only know that in 1620, Grenville descendants believed she was.

> and were married after May 1427, in which case, Thomas Grenville I would have been born no earlier than 1428.

Yes, if Philippa Bonville was his mother and not his stepmother who raised him.

> Thomas Grenville I could have also been born in 1429, 1430, or 1431.

And now you are saying the range 1429-1433. So what in the past few weeks has made you drop 1428 and extend from 1431 to 1433?

> Any of those dates of birth would still support Thomas Grenville I being at an age to marry Anne Courtenay on 7 September 1447

Yes.

> and still at an age of majority when he was granted land in Bideford on 24 August 1449.

No.

Cheers, --------Brad

[taf]

[There seem to be some posting issues, as I am not seeing posts others are s

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:01:54 AM UTC-8, Brad Verity wrote:

> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 10:34:16 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:

> > It should also be noted that after 1979, every genealogical researcher
> > who has commented on the Grenville pedigree has not used Fitch-Northen
> > because of his unsupported statements and assumptions (these genealogical
> > heavyweights include Frederick Lewis Weis, Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr.,
> > and Douglas Richardson).
>
> The three heavyweights you list there didn't comment on Fitch-Northen's
> 1979 article because they weren't aware of it - I doubt Devon & Cornwall
> Notes & Queries was on any of their radars in 1999.

Weis died in 1966, so it would be very surprising had he cited a 1979 article. Sheppard inherited the compilation from Weis, and though he made corrections as they came to his attention, and many additions, he did not systematically reevaluate the lines. I know for a fact that 20 years on, just before his death, Sheppard still retained errors that had been corrected in the pages of D&CN&Q back in the early 1900s, so he clearly did not make a systematic survey of this publication. As to Richardson, well, let's just say that it is an odd argument to appeal to his authority when it comes to not citing this article, while rejecting his authority with regard to his overall conclusion. I don't think any useful deduction can be drawn from the fact that alleged authorities fail to cite an article.


> > We know this to be false because William Grenville and Philippa Bonville
> > were the parents of Thomas Grenville I.
>
> We don't know that Philippa Bonville was Thomas Grenville's mother. We only
> know that in 1620, Grenville descendants believed she was.

Certainly were Philippa not mother of Thomas, it would resolve the rather tight Grenville chronology.

taf

[d***@aol.com]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 3:01:54 AM UTC-5, Brad Verity wrote:
> Once again, because she named her son Thomas, not William.

Philippa Bonville also named a daughter Margaret and a daughter Ellen (which by the way doesn't come to Leva in legal documents). Who were they named after? Elizabeth FitzRoger?

> The chronology holds for either one of those brothers as her father. The chronology >does not hold for Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as her mother.

It doesn't hold for Margaret (Grey) Bonville based on what grounds? Chronology? If Margaret Grey and Lord William married by contract dated 12 December 1414, then when do you propose she was born?

> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 10:34:16 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
> > Charles Fitch-Northen's arguments are based off of inaccurate assumptions of dates, which flaws his entire argument into the identity of Philippa Bonville. He argues that Thomas Grenville I was born in 1426 and that his mother was Thomazine Cole. There are neither any direct nor indirect evidence nor any secondary sources which state that Thomazine Cole had children, much less that she was the mother of Thomas Grenville I. This was solely the wild supposition exposited by Charles Fitch-Northen in his "A Revision of the Grenville Pedigree" found in Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries vol. XXXIV no. 4 (Autumn 1979).

>
> We don't know that Philippa Bonville was Thomas Grenville's mother. We only know that in 1620, Grenville descendants believed she was.

Do you have any sources or evidence other than Louise Staley and Brad Verity which state that Thomas Grenville's I mother was not Philippa Bonville?

> And now you are saying the range 1429-1433. So what in the past few weeks has made you drop 1428 and extend from 1431 to 1433?
>

Do you know the exact date when Thomas Grenville I was born? Wait, according to you, everyone must be 21 years old when they inherit land, grant tenements, and even perhaps get married. Charles Fitz-Northen used the magic number of 22 years of age, when he postulated the dates of birth for the Bonville children.

Just below is the actual Grenville-Bonville pedigree developed by Louise Staley back in 2001 after much of the research was completed for the Grenville-Courtenay research project. We know Brad Verity participated in this project (which he'll kindly confirm). Please share with the class how you and Ms. Staley came to your conclusion that Thomas Bonville was a good candidate for father of Philippa Bonville, when your other researcher in the project, Sheila Yeo, seems to still disagree?

Constructed Descendants of Theobald Grenville II

Gen 1: Theobald Grenville II d: by July 1381 = Margaret Courtenay
|
|
Gen 2: Sir John Grenville b: Bef. 1351 d: Bef. Feb 1412

Gen 2: William Grenville b: Bef. 1368 = spouse unknown
|
|
Gen 3: Unknown Grenville = Margaret Courtenay b: Aft. 1417 (dau. of Hugh of Haccombe)
|
|
Gen 4: William Grenville, Esq., b: ? d: Abt. 1448 = (2) Philippa Bonville b: Aft. 1414, d: Aft. 1450, m: Aft. 12 May 1427
|
|
Gen 5: Thomas Grenville, Esq., b: say 1430, d: Abt. 1483 = (1) Anne Courtenay, m: Aft. 7 Sep 1447, d.s.p. (2) Elizabeth Gorges b: ? Stowe, Cornwall, Eng, m: Bef. 21 Jan 1453
|
|
Gen 6: by (2) Ellin Grenville b: Abt. 1455, d: 1485
Gen 6: by (2) Sir Thomas Grenville, K.B., b: say 1455 (adult by 1480), d:
18 Mar 1514
Gen 6: by (2) John Grenville d: 1509
Gen 6: by (2) Richard Grenville

[Matt Tompkins]

On Friday, 24 February 2017 04:14:25 UTC, ***@aol.com wrote:

> From the Journal of Family History, Coming of Age and the Family in Medieval England, it states: “Medieval England similarly had a range of legal age restrictions, but in the lay courts, these were usually much more narrowly restricted to land tenure. The highest age—twenty-one—was required of males to inherit land held in military tenure (i.e., knight’s fees); for women inheriting the same type of land, it was fourteen if married, and sixteen if single. For land held in socage, more agricultural in nature, the age of majority for males was fifteen.”
>
> Thomas Grenville did not have to be 21 to inherit or grant land for the Manor of Bideford, as it was not land held in military tenure.
>

But the Grenvilles' manor of Bideford *was* held by military tenure - several IPMs say so.

Matt Tompkins

[d***@aol.com]

The manor of Bideford was not in and of itself a feudal barony.

[d***@aol.com]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 4:52:01 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> But the Grenvilles' manor of Bideford *was* held by military tenure - several IPMs say so.
>
> Matt Tompkins

Here is short history of the manor of Bideford, which states it was founded as a borough not a feudal barony.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Bideford’s Early History*

Historical accounts surrounding the ‘Little White Town’ pre-date even the Doomsday book. Bideford was recorded as a ‘Manor’ in the book itself circa 1086 - in it there is a statement that ‘Brictric’ son of ‘Algar’ was lord of the manor of Bideford in 1066.

William the Conqueror (1066-1087) is said to have given the manor of Bideford to, Sir ‘Richard de Grenville’, who was a descendant of a Norman Nobleman. His descendant, another Sir Richard Grenville, fought in the Norman conquests of Glamorgan, as a member of the Twelve Knights of Glamorgan. He was awarded the lordship of Neath in Glamorgan, where he founded Neath Abbey in 1129.

It is stated that, "having finished and settled this foundation he returned to his patrimony at Bideford where he lived in great honour and reputation the rest of his days"

A charter was granted in 1272 to a descendant of ‘Richard de Grenville’, another also called Richard de Grenville by King Henry III, which created the town's first council. In ancient records, Bideford was recorded as a *borough* but has only returned members to parliament during the reigns of Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II (1307-1327).

The Grenville family were for many centuries lords of the manor of Bideford and played a major role in the town's development. The monument, with an effigy of Sir Thomas Grenville (d.1513) exists in St Mary's Church to this day.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Matt Tompkins]

> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 4:52:01 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> > But the Grenvilles' manor of Bideford *was* held by military tenure - several IPMs say so.
> >
> > Matt Tompkins
>
On Friday, 24 February 2017 14:30:13 UTC, ***@aol.com wrote:
> Here is short history of the manor of Bideford, which states it was founded as a borough not a feudal barony.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> *Bideford’s Early History*
>
> Historical accounts surrounding the ‘Little White Town’ pre-date even the Doomsday book. Bideford was recorded as a ‘Manor’ in the book itself circa 1086 - in it there is a statement that ‘Brictric’ son of ‘Algar’ was lord of the manor of Bideford in 1066.
>
> William the Conqueror (1066-1087) is said to have given the manor of Bideford to, Sir ‘Richard de Grenville’, who was a descendant of a Norman Nobleman. His descendant, another Sir Richard Grenville, fought in the Norman conquests of Glamorgan, as a member of the Twelve Knights of Glamorgan. He was awarded the lordship of Neath in Glamorgan, where he founded Neath Abbey in 1129.
>
> It is stated that, "having finished and settled this foundation he returned to his patrimony at Bideford where he lived in great honour and reputation the rest of his days"
>
> A charter was granted in 1272 to a descendant of ‘Richard de Grenville’, another also called Richard de Grenville by King Henry III, which created the town's first council. In ancient records, Bideford was recorded as a *borough* but has only returned members to parliament during the reigns of Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II (1307-1327).
>
> The Grenville family were for many centuries lords of the manor of Bideford and played a major role in the town's development. The monument, with an effigy of Sir Thomas Grenville (d.1513) exists in St Mary's Church to this day.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Deca,

a barony, a manor and a borough were different things and could all co-exist in the same place simultaneously. The Grenvilles owned the manor of Bideford. They held the manor from the honour of Gloucester - a barony. Within the Grenvilles' manor was the borough of Bideford, which had been established by them and whose residents were all tenants of their manor. (Your source is not a reliable one - Bideford was granted to the Grenvilles by William Rufus, not the Conqueror, and its borough charter was granted by the Grenvilles, not Henry III.)

The point is that the Grenvilles held the manor of Bideford of the honour of Gloucester by knight service (military tenure), for which the age of majority was 21.

Matt Tompkins

[d***@aol.com]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:02:51 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 4:52:01 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> > > But the Grenvilles' manor of Bideford *was* held by military tenure - several IPMs say so.
> > >
> > > Matt Tompkins
> >
> On Friday, 24 February 2017 14:30:13 UTC, ***@aol.com wrote:
> > Here is short history of the manor of Bideford, which states it was founded as a borough not a feudal barony.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > *Bideford’s Early History*
> >
> > Historical accounts surrounding the ‘Little White Town’ pre-date even the Doomsday book. Bideford was recorded as a ‘Manor’ in the book itself circa 1086 - in it there is a statement that ‘Brictric’ son of ‘Algar’ was lord of the manor of Bideford in 1066.
> >
> > William the Conqueror (1066-1087) is said to have given the manor of Bideford to, Sir ‘Richard de Grenville’, who was a descendant of a Norman Nobleman. His descendant, another Sir Richard Grenville, fought in the Norman conquests of Glamorgan, as a member of the Twelve Knights of Glamorgan. He was awarded the lordship of Neath in Glamorgan, where he founded Neath Abbey in 1129.
> >
> > It is stated that, "having finished and settled this foundation he returned to his patrimony at Bideford where he lived in great honour and reputation the rest of his days"
> >
> > A charter was granted in 1272 to a descendant of ‘Richard de Grenville’, another also called Richard de Grenville by King Henry III, which created the town's first council. In ancient records, Bideford was recorded as a *borough* but has only returned members to parliament during the reigns of Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II (1307-1327).
> >
> > The Grenville family were for many centuries lords of the manor of Bideford and played a major role in the town's development. The monument, with an effigy of Sir Thomas Grenville (d.1513) exists in St Mary's Church to this day.
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Dear Deca,
>
> a barony, a manor and a borough were different things and could all co-exist in the same place simultaneously. The Grenvilles owned the manor of Bideford. They held the manor from the honour of Gloucester - a barony. Within the Grenvilles' manor was the borough of Bideford, which had been established by them and whose residents were all tenants of their manor. (Your source is not a reliable one - Bideford was granted to the Grenvilles by William Rufus, not the Conqueror, and its borough charter was granted by the Grenvilles, not Henry III.)
>
> The point is that the Grenvilles held the manor of Bideford of the honour of Gloucester by knight service (military tenure), for which the age of majority was 21.
>
> Matt Tompkins

The honour of Gloucester was held by knight service (military tenure). The Grenville's did not own/hold the honour of Gloucester, which would have been inherited by the Grenville Descendants. The Grenville's held the manor of Bideford, whose tenants were not knights.

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

>>> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 4:52:01 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>>>> But the Grenvilles' manor of Bideford *was* held by military tenure - several IPMs say so.
>>>>
>>>> Matt Tompkins
>>>
> On Friday, 24 February 2017 14:30:13 UTC, ***@aol.com wrote:
>>> Here is short history of the manor of Bideford, which states it was founded as a borough not a feudal barony.
>>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> *Bideford’s Early History*
>>>
>>> Historical accounts surrounding the ‘Little White Town’ pre-date even the Doomsday book. Bideford was recorded as a ‘Manor’ in the book itself circa 1086 - in it there is a statement that ‘Brictric’ son of ‘Algar’ was lord of the manor of Bideford in 1066.
>>>
>>> William the Conqueror (1066-1087) is said to have given the manor of Bideford to, Sir ‘Richard de Grenville’, who was a descendant of a Norman Nobleman. His descendant, another Sir Richard Grenville, fought in the Norman conquests of Glamorgan, as a member of the Twelve Knights of Glamorgan. He was awarded the lordship of Neath in Glamorgan, where he founded Neath Abbey in 1129.
>>>
>>> It is stated that, "having finished and settled this foundation he returned to his patrimony at Bideford where he lived in great honour and reputation the rest of his days"
>>>
>>> A charter was granted in 1272 to a descendant of ‘Richard de Grenville’, another also called Richard de Grenville by King Henry III, which created the town's first council. In ancient records, Bideford was recorded as a *borough* but has only returned members to parliament during the reigns of Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II (1307-1327).
>>>
>>> The Grenville family were for many centuries lords of the manor of Bideford and played a major role in the town's development. The monument, with an effigy of Sir Thomas Grenville (d.1513) exists in St Mary's Church to this day.
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:02:51 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>> Dear Deca,
>>
>> a barony, a manor and a borough were different things and could all co-exist in the same place simultaneously. The Grenvilles owned the manor of Bideford. They held the manor from the honour of Gloucester - a barony. Within the Grenvilles' manor was the borough of Bideford, which had been established by them and whose residents were all tenants of their manor. (Your source is not a reliable one - Bideford was granted to the Grenvilles by William Rufus, not the Conqueror, and its borough charter was granted by the Grenvilles, not Henry III.)
>>
>> The point is that the Grenvilles held the manor of Bideford of the honour of Gloucester by knight service (military tenure), for which the age of majority was 21.
>>
>> Matt Tompkins

From: ***@aol.com [***@aol.com]
Sent: 24 February 2017 15:52
> The honour of Gloucester was held by knight service (military tenure). The Grenville's did not own/hold the honour of Gloucester, which would have been inherited by the Grenville Descendants. The Grenville's held the manor of Bideford, whose tenants were not knights.
>
-------------------------------
Yes, the honour of Gloucester was held by military tenure (though earlier generations would have termed it tenure per baroniam) but so also was the manor of Bideford. Most manors were held by military tenure.

A 1375 IPM which listed the knight's fees held of Edward le Despenser (CIPM 14.209, on p. 223), included:
'Bydeforde. A moiety of a knight's fee, held by Theobald Greneville.'

Another IPM which collected more information on Edward le Despenser's fees, held in 1388 (CIPM 16.538, on p. 206), listed:
'Bydeforde and Kilkhampton. 1 1/2 knight's fees, held by Theobald de Grenevylle.'

The 1440 IPM of Isabel, countess of Warwick (CIPM 25.327, on p. 275) said:
'She was seised in demesne as of fee tail of the following manors, knights’ fees and advowsons, by authority of the letters patent of Edward I. The manors etc. are, and were, parcel of the castle, lands, tenements, and knights’ fees and advowsons that were of Gilbert de Clare, lately earl of Gloucester and Hertford, and granted and entailed by Edward I to Gilbert and Joan his wife, daughter of Edward I, ancestors of Isabel, and to the heirs of the bodies of Gilbert and Joan. Continues as 319+[4]. The manors, members, courts, views, knights’ fees, part knights’ fees, and advowsons are held of the king as parcel of his county of Gloucester by knight service.
...
Bideford and Kilkhampton, 11/2 knights’ fees, £30.' [The tenant is not named, but it would have been one of the Grenvilles]

THe 1446 IPM of Henry Beauchamp, duke of Warwick (CIPM 26.447, on p. 273) says:
'He held the following to him and the heirs of his body. The premises were parcel of the castles, lands, tenements, fees, and advowsons which were granted by Edward I to Gilbert
de Clare, late earl of Gloucester and Hertford, and Joan his wife – the daughter of Edward I – and the heirs of their bodies, as in 440, and descended as in 440.
...
Bideford and Kilkhampton, 1½ fees, at £30.'

The 1592 IPM of Richard Grenville, TNA: C 142/223/119 (transcribed and translated here: http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Bideford/RichardGrenvileIPM1592.html ) says:
'his manor of Bideford and advowson of the church of Bideford in the county of Devon are held of the said beloved queen as of her manor of Winkleigh in Devon, parcel of her duchy of Gloucester, by knight service.'

As you'll have seen from the above, the honour of Gloucester was never held by any descendants of the Grenvilles, but by a series of magnates and then the crown.

Matt Tompkins

[d***@aol.com]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:02:51 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> Dear Deca,
>
> a barony, a manor and a borough were different things and could all co-exist in the same place simultaneously. The Grenvilles owned the manor of Bideford. They held the manor from the honour of Gloucester - a barony. Within the Grenvilles' manor was the borough of Bideford, which had been established by them and whose residents were all tenants of their manor. (Your source is not a reliable one - Bideford was granted to the Grenvilles by William Rufus, not the Conqueror, and its borough charter was granted by the Grenvilles, not Henry III.)
>
> The point is that the Grenvilles held the manor of Bideford of the honour of Gloucester by knight service (military tenure), for which the age of majority was 21.
>
> Matt Tompkins

The individual in question who inherited the manor of Bideford was Thomas Grenville, Esq. (see Weis, The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11] (author states, “Thomas Grenville, Esq., b. say *1430*!”). He was not a knight and when he inherited Bideford, he did not provide any military service to the honour of Gloucester.

[Matt Tompkins]

> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:02:51 AM UTC-5, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> > Dear Deca,
> >
> > a barony, a manor and a borough were different things and could all co-exist in the same place simultaneously. The Grenvilles owned the manor of Bideford. They held the manor from the honour of Gloucester - a barony. Within the Grenvilles' manor was the borough of Bideford, which had been established by them and whose residents were all tenants of their manor. (Your source is not a reliable one - Bideford was granted to the Grenvilles by William Rufus, not the Conqueror, and its borough charter was granted by the Grenvilles, not Henry III.)
> >
> > The point is that the Grenvilles held the manor of Bideford of the honour of Gloucester by knight service (military tenure), for which the age of majority was 21.
> >
> > Matt Tompkins
>
On Friday, 24 February 2017 16:15:14 UTC, ***@aol.com wrote:
> The individual in question who inherited the manor of Bideford was Thomas Grenville, Esq. (see Weis, The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11] (author states, “Thomas Grenville, Esq., b. say *1430*!”). He was not a knight and when he inherited Bideford, he did not provide any military service to the honour of Gloucester.
>

Ah, I begin to see the problem - you think only knights could hold by knight service. This was not the case - tenure by knight service did not require you to be a knight, merely to provide a knight (or, more often, to pay the taxes due from a knight). A knight's fee did not cease to be a knight's fee just because it passed into the hands of someone who wasn't or couldn't be a knight.

Matt Tompkins

[Joe]

> Would you mind sharing with SocGenMed your first name, or a nickname, or whatever name you'd like to be addressed by while we engage in this discussion?

He calls himself “Lord Ellerton” on wikitree, you can call him that.

> Second, I did not bring up the topic of Philippa’s parentage to SocGenMed, it was a poster named Joe. So, let's be clear about that.

Yes, I did ask the question last year. But just to be clear, this discussion actually started on wikitree (believe it or not) in November as an unfair and unwarranted attack on Douglas Richardson – Lord Ellerton was upset that Douglas had changed the parentage of Philippa found in the early Weis’ editions of MCS, to John Bonville found in his more recent editions of PA, MCS, and RA. http://tinyurl.com/zr68g66 On wikitree, I read and evaluated every source Lord Ellerton posted (and repeated here), plus a few more, plus the Fitch-Northen article and came to the same conclusion as Douglas and Brad. I even wrote up my understanding of the problem on wikitree. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Cochoit_Working2

Lord Ellerton’s response was that Douglas Richardson had changed his mind and now agreed with him that Lord Bonville was Philippa’s mother. He also said that since Brad Verity and Louise Staley had posted on the matter in 2002, it was definitively settled and I must be wrong. In other words, Doug had gone from an awful, untrustworthy source to being (along with Brad) to being the definitive word on the subject. Not finding Doug’s change of heart, or finding the 2002 discussion conclusive, I decided to ask the question here. I was hoping to get Doug’s and Brad’s opinions directly, have a reasoned discussion, and find out if there was any new information regarding Philippa’s parentage. Thank you Doug, Brad, Matt and Todd for taking the time to look into the question.

I have no stake in the matter; I am not descended from Philippa. I just want to get it right. I was annoyed at the way Lord Ellerton picks and chooses his sources, berates those who disagree with him, and fails to acknowledge any of the arguments which disagree with him.

[Brad Verity]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 1:38:23 PM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> In contrast, we have the Grenville pedigree in Pole, Collections towards a Description of Devon (1791): 387–388, which reads:
> “Willam Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Willam Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas ...”). END OF QUOTE.

Just a quick note here: Pole's phrasing above doesn't specifically state that Thomas Grenville was the son of Philippa Bonville. He's saying William Grenville married Thomasine, and secondly, Philippa, and had issue Thomas. Had he stated, "& unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Willam Lord Bonvill, & **by her**[my insertion] had issue Sr Thomas ...” then we could be certain that's what Pole meant. Otherwise, Pole's phrasing seems to leave open that William's issue could have been from either wife.

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 9:28:53 AM UTC-8, Joe wrote:
> Yes, I did ask the question last year. But just to be clear, this discussion actually started on wikitree (believe it or not) in November as an unfair and unwarranted attack on Douglas Richardson – Lord Ellerton was upset that Douglas had changed the parentage of Philippa found in the early Weis’ editions of MCS, to John Bonville found in his more recent editions of PA, MCS, and RA. http://tinyurl.com/zr68g66 On wikitree, I read and evaluated every source Lord Ellerton posted (and repeated here), plus a few more, plus the Fitch-Northen article and came to the same conclusion as Douglas and Brad. I even wrote up my understanding of the problem on wikitree. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Cochoit_Working2

Thank you for the explanation, Joe. The renewed interest in an old topic now makes perfect sense. I read your Wikitree write-up you linked to, and it's a very good summary.

The 1979 Charles Fitch-Northen article needs to be considered the most definitive examination of the medieval Grenvilles to date. Nothing that Louise Staley and I (neither of us an expert genealogist like Fitch-Northen and Sheila Yeo) posted to SocGenMed back in 2001 in our learn-as-you-go fashion, should be considered as supplanting Fitch-Northen. I can assure you that all three of us (Sheila, Louise, and myself) read the Fitch-Northen article and found nothing further to contradict (or, sadly, add) to his conclusions.

I may still have a hard copy I made of the Fitch-Northen article among papers in storage (I hope so - I very much need to re-read it), as well as a handful of other items from the collaborative research the three of us did in 2001. I'll dig through when I get home, see what I can find, and let you know.

Where I stand today on these Grenvilles, for whatever it's worth, is that chronology can eliminate Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as the grandmother of Thomas Grenville. Beyond that, I fall back to Fitch-Northen's conclusions.

Cheers, ----Brad

[taf]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:09:25 PM UTC-8, Brad Verity wrote:

> Where I stand today on these Grenvilles, for whatever it's worth, is that
> chronology can eliminate Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as the grandmother
> of Thomas Grenville. Beyond that, I fall back to Fitch-Northen's
> conclusions.

I am coming at this fresh, not having followed the previous discussion and having no Grenville descent, but I agree. Thomas was either son of Philippa, who was then sister-in-law of Margaret, or else Thomas was son of Thomasine and has no Bonville blood at all. Were Philippa step-mother of Thomas, most of the downstream chronology becomes irrelevant and she could go either place.

taf

[d***@aol.com]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> In this case, we know that Philippe Bonville married William Grenville as his 2nd wife sometime in or after 1427, and that five children were born to this marriage which ended in 1447. While we don't know exactly when Philippe and William were married, but it seems to be rather close to 1427. 1428 would certainly be a good date for the marriage. Five children later, and that would place Philippe as age about 40-45 about the year 1438, or born c.1393-1398. Such a birth date would place her as a sister of William Bonville, Lord Bonville, whose father died in late 1396. Such chronology makes it impossible for Philippe to be a legitimate daughter of Lord Bonville by his wife, Margaret Grey, much less an illegitimate daughter of Lord Bonville.
>

taf brings up a good point in his most recent post.

Let's say that Thomas Grenville I was the son of Thomasine Cole and William Grenville, Esq. and born by 1426. If this is true, were there still four or five children born to Philippa Bonville and William Grenville, Esq. after 12 May 1427 or just two daughters (Margaret and Ellen)?

[Joe]

>
> Where I stand today on these Grenvilles, for whatever it's worth, is that chronology can eliminate Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as the grandmother of Thomas Grenville. Beyond that, I fall back to Fitch-Northen's conclusions.
>
> Cheers, ----Brad

In an email, Brad pointed out that Philippa in the Visitation does not name her father as would be typical, but states that she is the sister the Lord Bonville. And that this at least opened up the possibility that Philippa could have been a Stukeley (daughter of Elizabeth Fitz Roger by her 2nd husband Richard Stukekley), and therefore a half-sister of William Bonville.

I found it interesting to note today that the IPM of Elizabeth Fitz Roger mentions "issue Roger Stucle, knight, and other sons and daughters." I believe none of these 'other daughters' have been identified. Are there any other known connections between the Stukeleys and the Grenvilles?

I know this is a pretty tenuous theory without much supporting evidence. But at least it makes more sense from a chronological standpoint than all the other theories mentioned so far.

[d***@aol.com]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:01:44 PM UTC-5, Joe wrote:
> >
> > Where I stand today on these Grenvilles, for whatever it's worth, is that chronology can eliminate Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as the grandmother of Thomas Grenville. Beyond that, I fall back to Fitch-Northen's conclusions.
> >
> > Cheers, ----Brad
>
> In an email, Brad pointed out that Philippa in the Visitation does not name her father as would be typical, but states that she is the sister the Lord Bonville. And that this at least opened up the possibility that Philippa could have been a Stukeley (daughter of Elizabeth Fitz Roger by her 2nd husband Richard Stukekley), and therefore a half-sister of William Bonville.
>
> I found it interesting to note today that the IPM of Elizabeth Fitz Roger mentions "issue Roger Stucle, knight, and other sons and daughters." I believe none of these 'other daughters' have been identified. Are there any other known connections between the Stukeleys and the Grenvilles?
>
> I know this is a pretty tenuous theory without much supporting evidence. But at least it makes more sense from a chronological standpoint than all the other theories mentioned so far.


Maybe someone who is descended from the Stukeleys would have knowledge of any heraldic evidence. Which might provide credence to this interesting theory!

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:

> Maybe someone who is descended from the Stukeleys would have knowledge
> of any heraldic evidence. Which might provide credence to this
> interesting theory!

Unlikely - Philippa wasn't an heiress, meaning the Grenvilles would not have quartered her arms. That means unless we have church glass or an inscription from this precise generation, heraldry is unlikely to help (and if we did, one would think someone would have noticed it by now).

That being said, it is probably worth pointing out here that Vivian mis-blazons the Stucley arms, assigning them Arg., three pears pendant or. This puts metal on metal (gold pears on a silver background) which is a no-no. The 1564 visitation gives the fully acceptable and clearly more accurate Azure, three pears pendant or - gold on blue, as does a supplemental pedigree accompanying the 1620 visitation.

taf

[Carole S]

we have church glass or an inscription from this precise generation, heraldry is unlikely to help (and if we did, one would think someone would have noticed it by now).

There is a relevant stained glass window in the vestry of Petrockstowe church-see photographs and description etc by Sheila Yeo on the Yeo Society website homepage

I am a UK descendant of these families but have no knowledge of heraldry etc etc ---which is why I am here hoping to learn more ! please keep this topic under investigation !

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:38:03 PM UTC-8, Carole S wrote:

> There is a relevant stained glass window in the vestry of Petrockstowe
> church-see photographs and description etc by Sheila Yeo on the Yeo
> Society website homepage

Well, that is definitive. Here is the glass:

http://www.yeosociety.com/heraldry/yeo%20evidence.htm

The Grenville arms are gules, three clarions or (three gold clarions on red background).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarion_(heraldry)#/media/File:GrenvilleEarlOfBathArms.JPG

This is seen impaling (side by side within the same arms) two other coats in the arms at the top of each of the two windows. One of them shows this coat impaling one that is sable (black) with six mullets (stars) argent (silver), arranged 3,2,1. This is Bonville.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BonvilleArms.JPG
(note that the Bonville stars are actually 'pierced gules' - with a red center, which is not visible in the glass, but given the quality of the image and the faded nature of some of the glass, we might not see this detail)

Unfortunately, the panels of the glass have been moved/rearranged. The arms at the top have been 'mixed and matched'. If you number the top panels, each with half a shield, as 1-2-3-4, then the original arrangement would seem to have been 2 (reversed) paired with 4, and 1 paired with 3 (reversed) - this is based on knowing that it was a Grenville male who married a Bonville female, that the clarion in the two Grenville arms have the 'tail' on the wrong side, and that the lettering in the circle would have appeared once on each window. It does not change the overall conclusion - this shows that the Grenville wife was a Bonville, not a Stucley.

Some notes - the Yeo page is in error in describing the arms in the rectangular panels as those of Bonville, which had no bend (diagonal bar) between the stars. It also seems to be in error in describing that the remaining one at the top, blue with a chevron between three charges, as Gorges, which was lozengy. Unfortunately the charges, and even the tincture, are unclear in the photograph so it can't be identified but if I have the rearrangement correct above, it should represent a Grenville daughter marrying someone. The only one Vivian shows at this period married Thorne, but this is not theirs.

taf

[Matt Tompkins]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 9:59:26 PM UTC, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:38:03 PM UTC-8, Carole S wrote:
>
> > There is a relevant stained glass window in the vestry of Petrockstowe
> > church-see photographs and description etc by Sheila Yeo on the Yeo
> > Society website homepage
>
> Well, that is definitive. Here is the glass:
>
> http://www.yeosociety.com/heraldry/yeo%20evidence.htm
>
> The Grenville arms are gules, three clarions or (three gold clarions on red background).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarion_(heraldry)#/media/File:GrenvilleEarlOfBathArms.JPG
>
> This is seen impaling (side by side within the same arms) two other coats in the arms at the top of each of the two windows. One of them shows this coat impaling one that is sable (black) with six mullets (stars) argent (silver), arranged 3,2,1. This is Bonville.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BonvilleArms.JPG
> (note that the Bonville stars are actually 'pierced gules' - with a red center, which is not visible in the glass, but given the quality of the image and the faded nature of some of the glass, we might not see this detail)
>
> Unfortunately, the panels of the glass have been moved/rearranged. The arms at the top have been 'mixed and matched'. If you number the top panels, each with half a shield, as 1-2-3-4, then the original arrangement would seem to have been 2 (reversed) paired with 4, and 1 paired with 3 (reversed) - this is based on knowing that it was a Grenville male who married a Bonville female, that the clarion in the two Grenville arms have the 'tail' on the wrong side, and that the lettering in the circle would have appeared once on each window. It does not change the overall conclusion - this shows that the Grenville wife was a Bonville, not a Stucley.
>
> Some notes - the Yeo page is in error in describing the arms in the rectangular panels as those of Bonville, which had no bend (diagonal bar) between the stars. It also seems to be in error in describing that the remaining one at the top, blue with a chevron between three charges, as Gorges, which was lozengy. Unfortunately the charges, and even the tincture, are unclear in the photograph so it can't be identified but if I have the rearrangement correct above, it should represent a Grenville daughter marrying someone. The only one Vivian shows at this period married Thorne, but this is not theirs.
>
> taf

I'm not convinced the panels have been re-arranged. First, I notice that all the arms which have non-reversible elements appear back-to-front (theose with clarions, a lion, bends, hawks), from which it seems clear that they were placed in the vestry window in order to be viewed from outside, not inside.

The two 'ihc' christograms are the same - they are both the right way round only when viewed from the outside. This means the four impaled coats in the top panels are most probably in the correct assemblage, as the only other way of re-assembling them *with the IHCs the right way round* would be to have Grenville impaling Grenville.

I also think it must be a possibility that the two 'bend between mullets' arms do represent Bonville. Junior branches of families often reversed the tinctures or added an ordinary for difference. The Boroughbridge Roll records that 'Sire Nich' Boneuille' bore 'dor oue un bende de sable et iij molets dargent' - 'or, 3 mullets arg. on a bend sa.' (Foster, Some Feudal Coats of Arms, 29, with a facsimile of a section of the original roll which includes the Bonville entry at p. xviii). That departs further from the principal Bonville arms than do the 'bend betw. 6 mullets' arms in the Petrockstowe window.

The only recorded use of 'arg. a bend betw. 6 mullets sa.' I can find is by the Ardres family of Turvey in Beds and Sherington in Bucks (Dictionary of British Arms, i, 390). Something can be discovered of the family in VCH Beds iii, sub Turvey, and in Chibnall's Sherington: Fiefs and Fields of a Buckinghamshire Village - they seem to have been distinctly minor gentry with rather local marriage horizons.

In one of the panels the bend has a rather reddish hue. The DBA records only one occurrence of 'Arg. a bend gu. between 6 mullets sa.' (again on p. 390 of vol. 1), but unfortunately the family associated with it seems to be unknown. It does record two occurrences of 'arg. a bend betw. 6 mullets gu.', though - born by a Piers Breton and a John Moyne, both from Thomas Jenyn's Book, from c. 1410.

Matt Tompkins

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-8, Matt Tompkins wrote:

> I'm not convinced the panels have been re-arranged. First, I notice
> that all the arms which have non-reversible elements appear back-to-front
> (theose with clarions, a lion, bends, hawks), from which it seems clear
> that they were placed in the vestry window in order to be viewed from
> outside, not inside.

But not the birds of the Yeo arms, which are facing the wrong way when viewed from outside. Clearly there has been some rearrangement, it is just a question of how much.

> The two 'ihc' christograms are the same - they are both the right way
> round only when viewed from the outside.

Yes, but again, if they were rearranged, then these circles could have been put in place facing either way.

> This means the four impaled
> coats in the top panels are most probably in the correct assemblage, as
> the only other way of re-assembling them *with the IHCs the right way
> round* would be to have Grenville impaling Grenville.

But would you then suggest that a Bonville male married a Grenville female, or that they went against convention and put the wife on the right? I am not very familiar with the process of moving glass, but clearly the Yeo panels were disassembled, as the whole chevron has been lost. If there was a degree of disassembly with the top panels, then an 'ihc' circle itself could have been reversed. Otherwise we are left with one panel that seems 'backwards' with regard to the direction of the 'known' marriage (a Grenville man marrying a Bonville woman), and the other that matches no known marriage in the Grenville line (a Grenville man marrying a Calmady woman, if that's what the arms are), whereas were we to arrange the Grenville/Bonville coats to match the 'sidedness' of the marriage, then it would be a Grenville daughter marrying a Calmady male, and given the incomplete nature of the Calmady pedigree in this period, this possibility seems more likely to have been overlooked than a Grenville marrying a Calmady bride.

{And I say this knowing full well that the more panels I move or reverse, the more it looks like I am changing the data to match the hypothesis, which is never a good thing.}

> I also think it must be a possibility that the two 'bend between mullets'
> arms do represent Bonville. Junior branches of families often reversed
> the tinctures or added an ordinary for difference.

OK, but why would Yeo, who (at least according to the accepted narrative) married the daughter of Philippa, not just once but twice commemorate a junior branch of the Bonville family here even though they supposedly married a granddaughter of the senior branch, whose arms they already had as an exemplar? I just don't see a rationale for this. They don't even commemorate Grenville in these panels.

Other than Yeo itself, the only arms among these lower panels that can be identified and also fits with the pedigree is Jewe, the lion. The eagle seems to be Bigbury, but I don't see any Bigbury/Yeo connection and their heirs married Champernowne and Durnford, neither of which match other arms here. Like on Hockey Night in Canada, mullets are not exactly rare, so I don't see the need to make this unidentified coat a junior line of Bonville when as far as I know (which isn't all that much) there is no association with such a junior line.

taf

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: taf [***@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 March 2017 16:25

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-8, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>> I'm not convinced the panels have been re-arranged. First, I notice
>> that all the arms which have non-reversible elements appear back-to-front
>> (theose with clarions, a lion, bends, hawks), from which it seems clear
>> that they were placed in the vestry window in order to be viewed from
>> outside, not inside.

> But not the birds of the Yeo arms, which are facing the wrong way when viewed from outside. Clearly there has been some rearrangement, it is just a question of how much.

>> The two 'ihc' christograms are the same - they are both the right way
>> round only when viewed from the outside.

> Yes, but again, if they were rearranged, then these circles could have been put in place facing either way.

>> This means the four impaled
>> coats in the top panels are most probably in the correct assemblage, as
>> the only other way of re-assembling them *with the IHCs the right way
>> round* would be to have Grenville impaling Grenville.

> But would you then suggest that a Bonville male married a Grenville female, or that they went against convention and put the wife on the right? I am not very familiar with the process of moving glass, but clearly the Yeo panels were disassembled, as the whole chevron has been lost. If there was a degree of disassembly with the top panels, then an 'ihc' circle itself could have been reversed. Otherwise we are left with one panel that seems 'backwards' with regard to the direction of the 'known' marriage (a Grenville man marrying a Bonville woman), and the other that matches no known marriage in the Grenville line (a Grenville man marrying a Calmady woman, if that's what the arms are), whereas were we to arrange the Grenville/Bonville coats to match the 'sidedness' of the marriage, then it would be a Grenville daughter marrying a Calmady male, and given the incomplete nature of the Calmady pedigree in this period, this possibility seems more likely to have been overlooked than a Grenville marrying a Calmady bride.
>
> {And I say this knowing full well that the more panels I move or reverse, the more it looks like I am changing the data to match the hypothesis, which is never a good thing.}

>> I also think it must be a possibility that the two 'bend between mullets'
>> arms do represent Bonville. Junior branches of families often reversed
>> the tinctures or added an ordinary for difference.

> OK, but why would Yeo, who (at least according to the accepted narrative) married the daughter of Philippa, not just once but twice commemorate a junior branch of the Bonville family here even though they supposedly married a granddaughter of the senior branch, whose arms they already had as an exemplar? I just don't see a rationale for this. They don't even commemorate Grenville in these panels.
>
> Other than Yeo itself, the only arms among these lower panels that can be identified and also fits with the pedigree is Jewe, the lion. The eagle seems to be Bigbury, but I don't see any Bigbury/Yeo connection and their heirs married Champernowne and Durnford, neither of which match other arms here. Like on Hockey Night in Canada, mullets are not exactly rare, so I don't see the need to make this unidentified coat a junior line of Bonville when as far as I know (which isn't all that much) there is no association with such a junior line.
>

-------------------------------
Sorry for the delay in answering - it's been a busy few days.

Yes, I see it now - if the two christograms are left in place and just the Bonville and Calmady coats are reversed and then swapped it does seem to produce a more sensible arrangement.

As to the apparently inexplicable assemblage of coats in the rest of the window, we should perhaps remember that dynastic connections were not the only reasons for displays of heraldry in churches. Sometimes the rationale was more personal - they were the arms of the originator's friends or neighbours or associates. Or they may just be the random survivors of larger assemblages in several windows, or even in different churches, which were brought together at the time of the relocation to the vestry because the remainder had been damaged beyond redemption.

I suspect the reason for them being assembled facing outwards may be that the vestry was a private area not normally accessible to the parishioners or public.

Matt Tompkins

[taf]

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:04:37 AM UTC-8, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

> As to the apparently inexplicable assemblage of coats in the rest of
> the window, we should perhaps remember that dynastic connections were
> not the only reasons for displays of heraldry in churches. Sometimes
> the rationale was more personal - they were the arms of the originator's
> friends or neighbours or associates. Or they may just be the random
> survivors of larger assemblages in several windows, or even in different
> churches, which were brought together at the time of the relocation to
> the vestry because the remainder had been damaged beyond redemption.

Sure, but if we look at it this way, I don't really see any reason to hypothesize the coat in question is an unattested twice-differenced coat of a Bonville junior line, vs an otherwise unattested coat of a friend or neighbor or associate. As I said, mullets aren't that rare, so is it really meaningful that we have a six black mullets on a white background and a bend on the rearranged window that includes a panel with six white mullets on black, particularly when we have right here an apparent example of such a coincidence involving perfect identity, number, orientation and tinctures of a much less common charge (one that gave me a double-take): three gold pears pendant on a blue background, with a chevron (apparently Calmady) on a panel associated with a family (Stucle, Philippa's half-siblings) that had three gold pears pendant on a blue background, without the chevron?

taf

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: taf
Sent: 03 March 2017 14:54
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Parentage of Philippe Bonville (living 1464), wife of William Grenville, Esq., and John Almescombe, Esq.

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:04:37 AM UTC-8, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

>> As to the apparently inexplicable assemblage of coats in the rest of
>> the window, we should perhaps remember that dynastic connections were
>> not the only reasons for displays of heraldry in churches. Sometimes
>> the rationale was more personal - they were the arms of the
>> originator's friends or neighbours or associates. Or they may just be
>> the random survivors of larger assemblages in several windows, or even
>> in different churches, which were brought together at the time of the
>> relocation to the vestry because the remainder had been damaged beyond redemption.

> Sure, but if we look at it this way, I don't really see any reason to hypothesize the coat in question is an unattested twice-differenced coat of a Bonville junior line, vs an otherwise unattested coat of a friend or neighbor or associate. As I said, mullets aren't that rare, so is it really meaningful that we have a six black mullets on a white background and a bend on the rearranged window that includes a panel with six white mullets on black, particularly when we have right here an apparent example of such a coincidence involving perfect identity, number, orientation and tinctures of a much less common charge (one that gave me a double-take): three gold pears pendant on a blue background, with a chevron (apparently Calmady) on a panel associated with a family (Stucle, Philippa's half-siblings) that had three gold pears pendant on a blue background, without the chevron?
>
-------------------------------
I'm not hypothesizing that they are differenced Bonville arms - I'm just saying it must be one of the possibilities that they are.

Matt Tompkins

[d***@aol.com]

Below is a description of the stained glass window found in Petrockstowe Church as per the Yeo Society:

"Phillipa had seen her brother and nephew killed at the Battle of Wakefield and her father beheaded and around 1465 she placed a stained glass window in Petrockstowe Church, (which can now be viewed in the vestry of Petrockstowe Church), celebrating the marriage of her daughter to William Yeo, which includes the Yeo, Grenville, Bonville & Jeue coat of arms.

Phillipa who lived at Shute & Alice Jeue at Cotleigh Manor, just five miles away, were neighbours and friends and it could well be that it was this association that brought William Yeo & Ellen Grenville together. There is another pane in the window which looks like a bleeding heart and certainly Phillipa had much to mourn, but the inclusion in the window of the this emblem, representing, the bendiction, "In the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost', suggests a commemoration rather than a celebration of marriage and that the heart bleeding was that of poor Phillipa and the marriage was a new beginning."

[D. Spencer Hines]

So, what does this have to do with proving her parentage?

DSH
--------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strength to Love - Jan 1963
-----------------------------------------------
"DECA0317" wrote in message
news:cfee219c-519c-460f-9258-***@googlegroups.com...

Below is a description of the stained glass window found in Petrockstowe
Church as per the Yeo Society:

"Phillipa had seen her brother and nephew killed at the Battle of Wakefield
and her father beheaded and around 1465 she placed a stained glass window in
Petrockstowe Church, (which can now be viewed in the vestry of Petrockstowe
Church), celebrating the marriage of her daughter to William Yeo, which
includes the Yeo, Grenville, Bonville & Jeue coat of arms.

Phillipa who lived at Shute & Alice Jeue at Cotleigh Manor, just five miles
away, were neighbours and friends and it could well be that it was this
association that brought William Yeo & Ellen Grenville together. There is
another pane in the window which looks like a bleeding heart and certainly
Phillipa had much to mourn, but the inclusion in the window of the this
emblem, representing, the bendiction, "In the name of the Father, the Son
and Holy Ghost', suggests a commemoration rather than a celebration of
marriage and that the heart bleeding was that of poor Phillipa and the
marriage was a new beginning."

[Joe]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:47:05 PM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
> Below is a description of the stained glass window found in Petrockstowe Church as per the Yeo Society:
>
> "Phillipa had seen her brother and nephew killed at the Battle of Wakefield and her father beheaded and around 1465 she placed a stained glass window in Petrockstowe Church, (which can now be viewed in the vestry of Petrockstowe Church), celebrating the marriage of her daughter to William Yeo, which includes the Yeo, Grenville, Bonville & Jeue coat of arms.
>
> Phillipa who lived at Shute & Alice Jeue at Cotleigh Manor, just five miles away, were neighbours and friends and it could well be that it was this association that brought William Yeo & Ellen Grenville together. There is another pane in the window which looks like a bleeding heart and certainly Phillipa had much to mourn, but the inclusion in the window of the this emblem, representing, the bendiction, "In the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost', suggests a commemoration rather than a celebration of marriage and that the heart bleeding was that of poor Phillipa and the marriage was a new beginning."

I have read these descriptions of the windows on the Yeo Society website before, and I am never 100% sure what weight to give to them as evidence. They include statements like “placed in St Petrocks Church, Petrockstowe, Devon, around 1450 BY Phillipa Bonville, who was the wife of William Grenville,” and everyone assumes the windows are contemporary to the marriage. (http://www.yeosociety.com/heraldry/yeo%20evidence.htm ) This always reads to me more like a modern writer’s assumption than actual contemporary evidence.

Do we actually know this is 560-year-old glass? Do we actually know they were placed BY Philippa Bonville? Do we have any evidence as to when the windows were placed? In my (probably limited) experience, these sort of church windows are often placed up to hundreds of years after the marriage by descendants.

St. Petrockstowe church has undergone many major renovations over the centuries. It has been rebuilt and enlarged several times, and these windows could have been installed during any of the re-builds. If the windows were installed in say the 17th century, perhaps they are only evidence that descendants 200 years after the fact believed in the Bonville-Grenville marriage – but we already knew that from the 17th century writings of Pole and the Visitation.

[d***@aol.com]

It might be helpful to go back to this thread on ancestry.com from 2011 which raised some valid points about Philippa (or Philippe) Bonville.

https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=655&p=topics.medieval.general

[d***@aol.com]

Douglas Richardson initiated this thread back on 20 February 2017 and presents his current file on Philippa Bonville. Richardson also provided a short reasoning behind why he placed Philippa Bonville as the sister of Lord William Bonville. He also laid
out his three major assumptions for this conclusion.

First, he assumes that William Grenville, Esq., and Philippa Bonville were married in 1428 (any later date would push the chronology a little too much for Philippa to be borne by 1396 and to have five children after her marriage). Additionally, all we know is that William Grenville and Philippa Bonville married after 12 May 1427. Did William and Philippa marry within a few years after this? Probably yes, but that could have been in 1429, 1430, or 1431. There isn’t any evidence to confirm they married in 1428. We know that their first born son, Thomas Grenville I, married Anne Courtenay in 1447 and they had to sue in the courts to grant a tenement to Richard Ashrigge in 1449. In this same tenement, William Grenville is mentioned as still being alive. Most estimates place William Grenville’s date of death in the year 1450, which includes Charles Fitch-Northen. This would suggest that Thomas was not of age (21 years old) in 1449 because the courts were involved, thus making Thomas Grenville 20 years of age or younger in 1449. We can then conclude that Thomas Grenville was born no earlier than 1429 and assuredly could have been born in 1430 or 1431 (which would follow along with the same reasoning and original date of birth estimate for Thomas Grenville being 1430 as found in Weis’ The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11]). We also have a land grant from Thomas Grenville and his second wife to Richard Rede in the 31st Henry VI [21 Jan. 1453]. Since the courts were not involved, we can be quite sure that Thomas Grenville was of age (21 years old) in 1452, thus placing his date of birth around 1431.

Secondly, Douglas Richardson assumes that Philippa Bonville had an unnoticed first marriage to explain why she was of such a late age (32 years old / assuming a date of birth of 1396 and a marriage date of 1428) upon her marriage to William Grenville, Esq., in the early 15th century. This is way too convenient to say in order to help fit her into the window of being Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger’s daughter, born between May 1393 and July 1397. Once again, since there is neither any primary nor secondary evidence to suggest a first marriage of Philippa before William Grenville, this makes it quite easy to concoct such a marriage for Philippa Bonville. We can estimate this date range (May 1393 – July 1397) given the proof of age for Lord William Bonville, which puts his date of birth at 31 Aug. 1392. We know through ipms that Sir John Bonville’s death occurred on 21 Oct. 1396. So following along the lines of this theory, if Philippa was born in 1397, Elizabeth FitzRoger would had to of conceived Philippa in the months just prior to John Bonville’s death (with John Bonville most likely being in ill-health for most of 1396 before his death in Oct. 1396). This is an unlikely scenario and thus would reduce the date range of Philippa’s birth to occur before 1397. We also know that Thomas Bonville and Isabel Bonville were also born between May 1393 and July 1397. Again, suggesting that Isabel was born before Lord William Bonville is an easy convention in order to allow more time for Philippa to be born within the time period after May 1393 and before 1397. It should also be noted that Elizabeth FitzRoger’s marriage agreement with her 2nd husband, Richard Stukeley, Gent., occurred on 6 Dec. 1396. Elizabeth FitzRoger’s ipm in 1414 gives her eldest son with Richard Stukeley a date of birth of 1398. Again, the evidence that Philippa had a marriage prior to William Grenville is as unnoticed as the invention that she did. There is zero evidence to suggest that Philippa had a prior marriage to William Grenville. Richardson’s own file account of Philippa states, “PHILIPPE BONVILLE, married (1st) after 12 May 1427 (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM GRENVILLE!”

Finally, Douglas Richardson’s third assumption is that Hugh Stukeley was the half-brother of Philippa Bonville because Hugh served as a feoffee for Philippa Bonville’s husband, William Grenville. Richardson states, “But the most likely explanation is that Hugh Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville’s half-brother.” Any student of history would know by looking at the lists of feoffees for the 15th century, just how many were the sibling-in-laws of the people involved! Was it more than likely that Hugh Stukeley was the brother-in-law or the uncle-in-law of William Grenville? It is unsupportable to use Hugh Stukeley’s feoffee status to conclude either relationship (brother-in-law or uncle-in-law) to William Grenville, other than just wanting it to be so.

In Roger Granville’s book, The History of the Granville family, he states:

“In the 26th Henry VI. [7 Nov 1447], being styled William Graynefild, he grants lands to James (William ?) Chuddeleigh and Hugh Stucles, Esquires. The deed is dated 7th November, and thereto is appended two seals.”

There is no mention in the History of the Granville family, or in the deed itself of the exact relationship between William Grenville and Hugh Stukeley. It doesn’t say that William granted lands to his brother-in-law nor does it mention any other kind of kinship. But since we know that Elizabeth FitzRoger married Richard Stukeley after 6 Dec. 1396, we can presume there was a kinship between Hugh Stukeley and Philippa Bonville. There is nothing to say that Hugh Stukeley was not the uncle of Philippa Bonville, as we know it is fact that Hugh Stuckeley was the half-brother of Lord William Bonville. Again, Richardson wants Philippa to be the sister of Lord William Bonville, so it is more than convenient to say that Hugh Stukeley was Philippa’s half-brother.

These three assumptions make it convenient for Richardson to place Philippa Bonville as the sister of Lord William Bonville and the daughter of Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger. What Richardson fails to achieve is to provide any concrete evidence to support or confirm his assumptions. This would make his conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the sister of Lord William Bonville very suspect. Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent. He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.”

We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence has ever supported.

Those interested should also see:

{Weis, Frederick Lewis "The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215" third ed. (1985): p. 16, [Line 22-10] (author states, "Sir William Grenville, of Biddeford, d. c. 1451; m. Philippa, dau. of Sir William Bonville, K.G., Lord Bonville, of Chewton-Mendip, near Wells Somerset.")}

[taf]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:32:05 AM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:
> Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa
> Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey
> inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His
> insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound
> distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his
> Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent.
> He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of
> Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.”
>
> We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the
> parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence
> has ever supported.

This appeal to authority is unconvincing. Yes, you can show us a quote in which Roskell is praised for his distrust of speculation and his common sense, but I can show you a case in which he repeated information from Vivian that was chronologically untenable on its face, and known to be false since the start of the 20th century. This doesn't mean he is wrong in any partcular case, but it does show that Roskell does not merit the benefit of the doubt (partiularly when he appears simply to be copying Vivian).

taf

[d***@aol.com]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:34:28 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:32:05 AM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:
> > Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa
> > Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey
> > inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His
> > insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound
> > distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his
> > Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent.
> > He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of
> > Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.”
> >
> > We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the
> > parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence
> > has ever supported.
>
> This appeal to authority is unconvincing. Yes, you can show us a quote in which Roskell is praised for his distrust of speculation and his common sense, but I can show you a case in which he repeated information from Vivian that was chronologically untenable on its face, and known to be false since the start of the 20th century. This doesn't mean he is wrong in any partcular case, but it does show that Roskell does not merit the benefit of the doubt (partiularly when he appears simply to be copying Vivian).
>
> taf


Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding Vivian and Roskell. There are no claims that Roskell is 100% nor that Vivian is 100% correct all of the time. But in some cases, as I can point out, Roskell gets the benefit of the doubt over Richardson.

[j***@gmail.com]

I disagree, there is no reason it cause to give one right over the other. You've shown no reason to came one of their I'll opinions over the other based on "reputation as a bonville expert". Their reasoning and sources are both well known in a complete way, and the is no reason to judge this matter on anything beyond the sources

[D. Spencer Hines]

Gibberish.

DSH
------------------------------

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strength to Love - Jan 1963

wrote in message
news:4ab98905-b357-45a7-8208-***@googlegroups.com...

I disagree, there is no reason it cause to give one right over the other.
You've shown no reason to came one of their I'll opinions over the other
based on "reputation as a bonville expert". Their reasoning and sources are
both well known in a complete way, and the is no reason to judge this matter
on anything beyond the sources

[d***@aol.com]

Revision of the Grenville Pedigree:

Sir Theobald Grenville II (born c. 1345 - died before 1381) = m. Margaret Courtenay (born c. 1348 – died aft. 1380) (sister to Sir Hugh Courtenay of Haccombe)
|
|
William Grenville I (born btw. 1375 and 1380) = m. Unknown
|
|
m. (1st) Thomasine Cole = William Grenville II, Esq. (born btw. 1398 and 1402 – died c. 1450) = m. (2nd) Philippa Bonville (born c. 1415/1416 – died aft. 1464)
|
|
m. (1st) Anne Courtenay = Sir Thomas Grenville I (born c. 1430/1431 – died c. 1483) = m. (2) Elizabeth Gorges (daughter of Sir Theobald Gorges, K.B.)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Deca ~

In your newly "revised" pedigree of the Grenville family, you have made one cardinal error. You have created an extra generation in the Grenville family for which absolutely no evidence exists. That is simply put "fake genealogy."

I assume you have done this to make it appear that your William Grenville was born later than he was, in order to justify your belief that his wife, Philippe Bonville, was born later than she was. This "de nova" pedigree achieves you the royal descent from King Edward I that you so badly desire, but it has no basis in reality.

I recommend that you stick to the known facts. One known fact is that there was only one William Grenville. He was born surely no later than 1385, and perhaps as early as c.1370, as his older brother, John Grenville, was a Knight of the Shire in 1388 and Sheriff in 1392. Men usually became Sheriff when they were about 40. Even assuming a younger age for John de Grenville as Sheriff, the earliest I think he was born would be c.1355. While it's possible the two men were half-brothers, we have no evidence to suggest that is the case. Assuming the two brothers had the same mother, the latest I would peg William Grenville's birth would be c.1385, assuming the mother gave birth to children over a 30 year time span (a la Queen Eleanor of Castile). A more realistic date for William Grenville's birth, however, would be c.1375-80.

You have yet another problem in your "revised" pedigree in placing the birth of William and John Grenville's father, Sir Thebaud de Grenville, at c.1345. Once again you are ignoring simple facts. It is certain that Thebaud (or if you prefer Tebaud) de Grenville was an adult in 1353, when he petitioned the king. For a record of this petition, see the abstract below taken from the online Discovery catalogue. The original petition can be accessed through the Discovery catalogue. Given that Thebaud was an adult in 1353, and given that his son, John, was an adult by 1388, Thebaud can hardly have been born c.1343. A more realistic birth date for Thebaud de Grenville might be c.1325.

Indeed the following source places Thebaud de Grenville's birth as c.1323, which is very much in line with the chronology discussed above.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xt05AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA265

For your interest, below is an abstract to a Common Pleas lawsuit involving Sir Thebaud de Grenville, which shows that he was a knight in 1355:

In Easter term 1355 Thebaud de Grenevill, Knt. sued Walter de Merton the younger in the Court of Common Pleas in a Devon plea regarding a reasonable account of the time he was receiver of money for the said Thebaud.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/381, image 8548f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no381/aCP40no381fronts/IMG_8548.htm).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +
Source: Online Discovery catalogue
Weblink: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9439882

Reference: SC 8/246/12276
Description:
Petitioners: Theobald de Grenevylle (Grenville).
Name(s): de Grenevylle (Grenville), Theobald
Addressees: King.
Nature of request: Grenevylle requests that the chancellor be commanded to seal his charter of pardon granted to him at the request of the earl of Salisbury for a trespass and an oyer and terminer.
Nature of endorsement: [None].
Places mentioned: Devon.
People mentioned: [William de Montague], Earl of Salisbury; John [Grandisson], Bishop of Exeter; [Hugh de Courtenay], Earl of Devon; John de Stonford (Stanford), justice.
Note: The petition dates to 1352 as the privy seal warrant with which it was formerly enclosed dates to 28 October 1352 [26 Edw. III] (C 81/352/21688). The pardon was granted on 8 October 1353 (CPR 1350-4, p.496).
Date: [1353]
Related material:
For the privy seal warrant with which this petition was formerly enclosed, see no. 21688 in C 81/352
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Language: French

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-6, ***@aol.com wrote:
< Revision of the Grenville Pedigree:
<
< Sir Theobald Grenville II (born c. 1345 - died before 1381) = m. Margaret Courtenay (born c. 1348 – died aft. 1380) (sister to Sir Hugh Courtenay of Haccombe)
< |
< |
< William Grenville I (born btw. 1375 and 1380) = m. Unknown
< |
< |
< m. (1st) Thomasine Cole = William Grenville II, Esq. (born btw. 1398 and 1402 – died c. 1450) = m. (2nd) Philippa Bonville (born c. 1415/1416 – died aft. 1464)
< |
< |
< m. (1st) Anne Courtenay = Sir Thomas Grenville I (born c. 1430/1431 – died c. 1483) = m. (2) Elizabeth Gorges (daughter of Sir Theobald Gorges, K.B.)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Deca ~

I re-checked various sources just now regarding the Grenville family. I note that standard sources for this family claim that there were two successive men named Sir Thebaud de Grenville, father and son. The elder Sir Thebaud de Grenville was born about 1323 (aged 4 in 1347) and allegedly died c.1362. He allegedly married Joyce de Beaumont. The younger Sir Thebaud de Grenville was born allegedly c.1350 and died c.1381. He allegedly married Margaret de Courtenay.

As far as I can tell, the records I have seen do not support the view that there were two successive men named Sir Thebaud de Grenville. Rather reviewing the records in print, I think there was just one Sir Thebaud de Grenville, born c.1323, who died c.1381. And, given the rather apparent difference in ages between Sir Thebaud's known sons, Sir John and William, Esq., I propose that Sir Thebaud married both Joyce de Beaumont and Margaret de Courtenay. I also propose that the son John was by Joyce de Beaumont and that the son William was by Margaret de Courtenay.

If so, we might see the following pedigree:

1. Sir Thebaud de Grenville, born c.1323, died c.1381. He married (1st) Joyce de Beaumont; (2nd) Margaret de Courtenay.

2 (by 1st wife). Sir John Grenville, born c.1350-5, died 1412. He married Margaret Burghersh.

2. (by 2nd wife). William Grenville, Esq., born say 1385, living 1447. He married (1st) Thomasine Cole; (2nd) Philippe Bonville.

The above arrangement makes two changes to the standard Grenville pedigree. It assumes that there was only one Sir Thebaud de Grenville. It assumes that his two sons were half-brothers.

If evidence exists that there were two successive Sir Thebaud de Grenville, it would nullify the above pedigree. But if not, the above pedigree addresses the issue of the apparent difference in age between Sir Thebaud de Grenville's two sons.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

In my post just now, I said Sir Thebaud de Grenville was born about 1323 (aged 4 in 1347).

I meant to say he was born about 1323 (aged 4 in 1327).

DR

[Hans Vogels]

What is the basis for the assumption that you had to be around 40 years of age before you could be appointed as sheriff?

I find that strange as the official minimum age for a Bishop was 30 years. It looks to me that a Bishop then had more responsibility than a sheriff.

Hans Vogels



Op maandag 31 juli 2017 20:14:47 UTC+2 schreef Douglas Richardson:
> Dear Deca ~
>
> In your newly "revised" pedigree of the Grenville family, you have made one cardinal error. You have created an extra generation in the Grenville family for which absolutely no evidence exists. That is simply put "fake genealogy."
>
> I assume you have done this to make it appear that your William Grenville was born later than he was, in order to justify your belief that his wife, Philippe Bonville, was born later than she was. This "de nova" pedigree achieves you the royal descent from King Edward I that you so badly desire, but it has no basis in reality.
>
> I recommend that you stick to the known facts. One known fact is that there was only one William Grenville. He was born surely no later than 1385, and perhaps as early as c.1370, as his older brother, John Grenville, was a Knight of the Shire in 1388 and Sheriff in 1392. Men usually became Sheriff when they were about 40. Even assuming a younger age for John de Grenville as Sheriff, the earliest I think he was born would be c.1355. While it's possible the two men were half-brothers, we have no evidence to suggest that is the case. Assuming the two brothers had the same mother, the latest I would peg William Grenville's birth would be c.1385, assuming the mother gave birth to children over a 30 year time span (a la Queen Eleanor of Castile). A more realistic date for William Grenville's birth, however, would be c.1375-80.
>
> You have yet another problem in your "revised" pedigree in placing the birth of William and John Grenville's father, Sir Thebaud de Grenville, at c.1345. Once again you are ignoring simple facts. It is certain that Thebaud (or if you prefer Tebaud) de Grenville was an adult in 1353, when he petitioned the king. For a record of this petition, see the abstract below taken from the online Discovery catalogue. The original petition can be accessed through the Discovery catalogue. Given that Thebaud was an adult in 1353, and given that his son, John, was an adult by 1388, Thebaud can hardly have been born c.1343. A more realistic birth date for Thebaud de Grenville might be c.1325.
>
> Indeed the following source places Thebaud de Grenville's birth as c.1323, which is very much in line with the chronology discussed above.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Xt05AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA265
>
> For your interest, below is an abstract to a Common Pleas lawsuit involving Sir Thebaud de Grenville, which shows that he was a knight in 1355:
>
> In Easter term 1355 Thebaud de Grenevill, Knt. sued Walter de Merton the younger in the Court of Common Pleas in a Devon plea regarding a reasonable account of the time he was receiver of money for the said Thebaud.
>
> Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/381, image 8548f (available at
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E3/CP40no381/aCP40no381fronts/IMG_8548.htm).
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> + + + + + + + +
> Source: Online Discovery catalogue
> Weblink: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9439882
>
> Reference: SC 8/246/12276
> Description:
> Petitioners: Theobald de Grenevylle (Grenville).
> Name(s): de Grenevylle (Grenville), Theobald
> Addressees: King.
> Nature of request: Grenevylle requests that the chancellor be commanded to seal his charter of pardon granted to him at the request of the earl of Salisbury for a trespass and an oyer and terminer.
> Nature of endorsement: [None].
> Places mentioned: Devon.
> People mentioned: [William de Montague], Earl of Salisbury; John [Grandisson], Bishop of Exeter; [Hugh de Courtenay], Earl of Devon; John de Stonford (Stanford), justice.
> Note: The petition dates to 1352 as the privy seal warrant with which it was formerly enclosed dates to 28 October 1352 [26 Edw. III] (C 81/352/21688). The pardon was granted on 8 October 1353 (CPR 1350-4, p.496).
> Date: [1353]
> Related material:
> For the privy seal warrant with which this petition was formerly enclosed, see no. 21688 in C 81/352
> Held by: The National Archives, Kew
> Legal status: Public Record(s)
> Language: French
>
> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-6, ***@aol.com wrote:
> < Revision of the Grenville Pedigree:
> <
> < Sir Theobald Grenville II (born c. 1345 - died before 1381) = m. Margaret Courtenay (born c. 1348 – died aft. 1380) (sister to Sir Hugh Courtenay of Haccombe)
> < |
> < |
> < William Grenville I (born btw. 1375 and 1380) = m. Unknown
> < |
> < |
> < m. (1st) Thomasine Cole = William Grenville II, Esq. (born btw. 1398 and 1402 – died c. 1450) = m. (2nd) Philippa Bonville (born c. 1415/1416 – died aft. 1464)
> < |
> < |
> < m. (1st) Anne Courtenay = Sir Thomas Grenville I (born c. 1430/1431 – died c. 1483) = m. (2) Elizabeth Gorges (daughter of Sir Theobald Gorges, K.B.)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Hans ~

I just pulled the records for 20 random men who were Sheriffs in England about 1400. The average age for the first or only time they became Sheriffs was 37.85. I also pulled the records for 5 men who were Escheators in the same period. The average age for the first or only time they became Escheator was 40.6. If you apply the average age for Sheriff to John Greenville who first became Sheriff in 1392, you get an estimated birth date for him of 1354. In my reconstructed pedigree, I estimated he was born c.1350-55, which is right on the money. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Howarth]

On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 11:34:49 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
<snip>
> I just pulled the records for 20 random men who were Sheriffs in England about 1400. The average age for the first or only time they became Sheriffs was 37.85. I also pulled the records for 5 men who were Escheators in the same period. The average age for the first or only time they became Escheator was 40.6.
<snip>

The problem with these figures is that averages don't apply to individuals, only to groups. If the mean age was 37.85 years, then there must have been those who were less than that age. Therefore it would be quite possible for someone to become sheriff well below the age of 40.

What would be more helpful would be the age of the youngest sheriff around this period.

Peter Howarth

[d***@aol.com]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:32:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Howarth wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 11:34:49 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> <snip>
> > I just pulled the records for 20 random men who were Sheriffs in England about 1400. The average age for the first or only time they became Sheriffs was 37.85. I also pulled the records for 5 men who were Escheators in the same period. The average age for the first or only time they became Escheator was 40.6.
> <snip>
>
> The problem with these figures is that averages don't apply to individuals, only to groups. If the mean age was 37.85 years, then there must have been those who were less than that age. Therefore it would be quite possible for someone to become sheriff well below the age of 40.
>
> What would be more helpful would be the age of the youngest sheriff around this period.
>
> Peter Howarth


Hans/Peter,

What would be helpful is for everyone to have some history on Douglas Richardson’s use of ‘Rules of Thumb’ and how it applies to his genealogical analysis. I offer the following SGM post where Richardson applied a supposed ‘Rule of Thumb/General Rule’ to women of an aristocratic rank marrying for the first time before they were 20 years of age. Interestingly in this thread, Philippa Bonville comes up where Richardson has consistently pegged her as being born by 1396 (see Weis, The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 29, Line 22-10). We only know that Philippa Bonville married for a first time, William Grenville, Esq. after 12 May 1427. The premise that she had an unnoticed first marriage to explain why she was over 30 years of age upon her marriage to William Grenville, Esq. is a clever creation and ‘fake chronological fine tuning’. This was done in order to justify her being born before 1397 and marrying William Grenville, Esq. in her early 30s.

As far as the statistical analysis done on the premise that ‘men were usually 40 years of age before they could be appointed Sheriff’ is just a broad assumption. Taking just 20 men and coming to an average might apply to a group as was mentioned, but it certainly doesn’t account for men who were a lot younger than 40 when they became Sheriff, or perhaps those men who were older than 40 when they became Sheriff. The possibility of men becoming Sheriff a lot younger than 40 is very real and I would be suspicious of the sample used for this statistical measure.

An example of Richardson’s 'Rules of Thumb/General Rules' are in the SGM thread below, which includes a question regarding Philippa Bonville.

Cheers~
LE (aka. Deca)

{
From: ***@hotmail.com (Brad Verity)
Subject: Re: Rethinking Amy de Gavaston
Date: 11 Sep 2002 19:52:10 0700
References: <***@aol.com> <alj0m7$j4r$***@nntpm01.news.aol.com>
<***@posting.google.com>

***@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:

> I seriously doubt that Amy de Gavaston was in her 20's at the time of
> her marriage. As a general rule, women of this rank married before
> they were 20.

Can you please provide some examples, Doug? Vickie recently posted
the list of Queen Isabelle's damsels in 1311‐12:

1)Alice de Legrave and her daughter Cecily
2)Joan de Villers
3)Joan Launge (wife of John Launge also in service in the
Queen'shousehold)
4)Mary de Sancto Martino
5)Margaret de Villers
6)Joan de Falaise (wife of the Queen's tailor?)
7)Juliana Nauntel

Do you know how old the married ones were when they married? Do you
know how old any of them were at all in 1311‐12? If you don't have
age information on these damsels are there any other damsels to
medieval queens that you do have age‐at‐marriage information on?

> If so, then I should expect that Amy, who married in
> 1334, was born no earlier than 1314.

Applying an estimated age to an individual leads to error much more
frequently than to accuracy. Not just in this situation, but in the
canonical age formulas you often use (at least age 7 at betrothal, at
least age 12 for bride and age 14 for groom at marriage). Here's an
example.

Dugdale's Monasticon gives a date of 1434 for the marriage of Henry
Beauchamp, Duke of Warwick, to Cecily Nevill, sister of the future
Warwick the Kingmaker. Using your canonical formula that Henry had to
be at least age 14 when he married, this would give him a birth year
of about 1420 or earlier. But according to CP, we know Henry was born
22 Mar. 1424/5. So the canonical formula would have us in error by
five years.

> If so, that would place her
> birth after the death of Peter de Gavaston.

I'm sure that's why age 20 or younger was chosen by you, as I'm aware
of no canonical law giving that specific age.

> This situation obviously
> creates an interesting puzzle for us to solve. Those who want to make
> Amy older than 20 at marriage appear to be trying to make the evidence
> fit their theory.

And you arbitrarily choosing age 20 has nothing to do with your
theory?

> Good scholarly methodology tells us that we should
> let our theories follow the evidence, not the other way around. If
> the evidence doesn't fit our theories, we should revise the theory or
> rethink our approach.

OK. Here's another example.

Last year I participated in research on the Grenvilles of Cornwall and
Devon. Philippa Bonville married as his second wife William Grenville
after 12 May 1427. HOP states Philippa was the daughter of William,
Lord Bonville, which would make her born after 1414 (when the contract
for Lord Bonville to marry Margaret Grey was finalized). This would
make her a young teen at her marriage to William Grenville, which fits
your theory that women of her rank were married before age 20.

But Magna Charta Sureties and you yourself stated that Philippa was
the sister, not the daughter, of Lord Bonville. As Lord Bonville's
father died in 1396, this would make Philippa at least age 30 on her
marriage to William Grenville.

Would a woman of Philippa Bonville's rank not marry until age 30?

> If Amy was born after Peter de Gavaston's death, we need to consider
> other possibilities. Two that come to mind are: (1) Amy may have
> been the daughter of another Peter de Gavaston;
}

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Deca ~

Once again I challenge your assertion. You've created an extra William Grenville out of thin air in what appears to be a blazen attempt to retain your descent from King Edward I. We've seen this done many times here on the newsgroup and I can tell you that it never ends well.

At your convenience, post your evidence for the second William Grenville or withdraw your claim. You either have the evidence or you don't. It's that simple. There's no need for drama or personal attacks. All we need to see is the hard cold evidence.

Go for it!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[d***@aol.com]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Deca ~
>
> Once again I challenge your assertion. You've created an extra William Grenville out of thin air in what appears to be a blazen attempt to retain your descent from King Edward I. We've seen this done many times here on the newsgroup and I can tell you that it never ends well.
>
> At your convenience, post your evidence for the second William Grenville or withdraw your claim. You either have the evidence or you don't. It's that simple. There's no need for drama or personal attacks. All we need to see is the hard cold evidence.
>
> Go for it!
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Dear Douglas,

I can make the same charge that you deleted a Theobald Grenville out of thin air, when every published source of the Grenville family has asserted there being two successive Theobald Grenvilles, father and son.

To set the record straight, I have never stated that I have any relationship to Philippa Bonville nor have I professed or claimed any descent from King Edward I. So let's be clear about that. False claims and charges will not get you anywhere in advancing your agenda.

In the interest of genealogical scholarship and disclosure, I'm not the first to postulate the possibility of two successive William Grenvilles, father and son. With the son being born around the turn of the 14th century and marrying Philippa Bonville.

Where is your evidence proving that William Grenville, Esq. and Philippa Bonville had two other sons besides Sir Thomas Grenville I, named John, Gent. and William? All published sources of the Grenville family credit William Grenville, Esq. and Philippa Bonville with just one son and two daughters. Those are the only children who have ever been known to be born to William and Philippa. Is there a secret source at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah you haven't shared with the SGM community?

The following pedigree was developed by very competent British genealogists with inside knowledge of the Grenville family back in 2009. I’m not privy to their research documents, but will gladly submit them to you offline if I happen to come into possession of them.

Behold their findings here:

http://www.yeosociety.com/images/clip_image018_0000.gif

Cheers ~
LE (aka. Deca)

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-6, ***@aol.com wrote:

< Dear Douglas,
<
< I can make the same charge that you deleted a Theobald Grenville out of thin
< air, when every published source of the Grenville family has asserted there
< being two successive Theobald Grenvilles, father and son.

Deca ~ I'm still waiting to see your evidence for two William Grenville's. Hint: You don't have any evidence. Go ahead and just admit it.

< To set the record straight, I have never stated that I have any relationship
< to Philippa Bonville nor have I professed or claimed any descent from King
< Edward I. So let's be clear about that. False claims and charges will not
< get you anywhere in advancing your agenda.

Your goal to retain a descent from King Edward I is clear. Otherwise why would you keep trying to shoehorn Philippe Bonville into King Edward I's progeny? Hint: I don't have an agenda. But you clearly do.

< In the interest of genealogical scholarship and disclosure, I'm not the first < to postulate the possibility of two successive William Grenvilles, father and < son. With the son being born around the turn of the 14th century and marrying < Philippa Bonville.

Nor am I the first to postulate that there was only one Sir Thebaud de Grenville. Hint: You haven't heard of J.J. Alexander have you?

< Where is your evidence proving that William Grenville, Esq. and Philippa
< Bonville had two other sons besides Sir Thomas Grenville I, named John, Gent. < and William? All published sources of the Grenville family credit William
< Grenville, Esq. and Philippa Bonville with just one son and two daughters.
< Those are the only children who have ever been known to be born to William and < Philippa. Is there a secret source at the Family History Library in Salt Lake < City, Utah you haven't shared with the SGM community?

Do I have a secret source in Salt Lake City? LOL. Not hardly Deca. I've already posted all of my documentation for you and anyone else to see. Have you checked out all my sources? Hint: No, you haven't, otherwise you would have the answer to your question.

Deca shock: Douglas Richardson has information than no one else has! Dude, I've been making major discoveries all my life. Deal with it.

Here's some advise. Keep an open mind. When you have a difficult problem like the Grenvilles, keep all your options on the table.

And, by all means, learn to read French and Latin and the medieval script.

And keep a sense of humor. You're being way too serious.

< Cheers ~
< LE (aka. Deca)

[John Higgins]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:51:35 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Deca ~
>
> Once again I challenge your assertion. You've created an extra William Grenville out of thin air in what appears to be a blazen attempt to retain your descent from King Edward I. We've seen this done many times here on the newsgroup and I can tell you that it never ends well.
>
> At your convenience, post your evidence for the second William Grenville or withdraw your claim. You either have the evidence or you don't. It's that simple. There's no need for drama or personal attacks. All we need to see is the hard cold evidence.
>
> Go for it!
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

I doubt that we've ever seen a "blazen" attempt in this group, although perhaps a "blazon" attempt would be on topic for the group. :-)

OTOH characterizing this as a "brazen" attempt comes close to being a personal attack, for which (as DR says) there is no need here.

[Joe]

Douglas is suggesting that there was only 1 Theobald de Grenville, born in 1323 and died by 1381. The reason for supposing that there were two Theobalds, father and son, is the difference in their seals. The first was a seal circumscribed “Sigillum Theob de Grenville Mil.” in 1377, and the second in January 1379 bearing “Sigil Theobaldi de Grenvile militis.” Perhaps someone here can comment on whether or not this change in seal should be interpreted as two separate men or if old Theo just had a new seal made. I am also bothered by the idea that William Grenville was born “say 1385” if we are supposing his father was born in 1323 – I suppose 62 year old can have children but it is not the most likely solution (though I think William Grenville was born much earlier than 1385).

Regardless, the real question here revolves around the dates of his sons, John and William Grenville. We know Theobald was dead by 26 July 1381, for on this date John Grenvile presented at Bideford, and he was described as “son and heir of Sir Theobald de Grenvile, deceased”. This record also tells us that John Grenville was of age, born by 1360, in 1381. Other records show he was licensed to have a private chapel at Stowe in 1386, he was a knight of the shire in 1389, 1394, 1397 and 1402 and he served as sheriff in 1391-1392. I don’t think these records are incompatible with someone born in 1360, though I also agree with Douglas that he was likely a few years older than this.
We have fewer records to pin down the birthdate of John’s brother William Grenville. Though as a second son do we really expect to find the same documentation? I am not sure we need to suppose that he was much younger than his brother or that he must be a half-brother. In 1402, his brother William styling himself William Greynvill, son of Sir Theobald, sets forth " that whereas his brother, Sir John Greynvill, Kt., and Margaret his wife, held the manor and borough of Bideford in the County of Devon, with the advowson of the same church, and other lands and tenements in the parish of Bydeforde, called Fordeland, Eggeften, and Thorne, etc., and also held lands in Werdon and Stowe, in the manor of Kilkhampton, he, the said William Greynvill, ratifies and confirms them to the said Sir John de Greynvill." This record confirms his identity as a brother (full brother?) of John Grenville, and places his birth as by 1380, though again, there is no reason to think that he was not born significantly earlier. We also know that William Grenville was married to Thomasine Cole by 1403 and that she was still living and his wife in May 1427.

This brings us back to the question of could this William Grenville have married Philippa Bonville, daughter of William Bonville, Knt., Lord Bonville and 1st wife, Margaret Grey (married in 1414). What Deca is saying is that William Grenville at least age 47 (and probably significantly older) married Philippa Bonville in 1427 when she was at most 12 years old. And that, they had a son Thomas Grenville who would have had to of been born in 1428 (of age in 1449) when she was 13 years old.

Taken together with the constraints on the Bonville pedigree, the theory that Phillipa Grenville was a daughter of William Bonville is impossible. If anything, she is a daughter John Bonville, and a sister of William Bonville, just as stated in the Visitations.

[d***@aol.com]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 1:20:43 AM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
> Douglas is suggesting that there was only 1 Theobald de Grenville, born in 1323 and died by 1381. The reason for supposing that there were two Theobalds, father and son, is the difference in their seals. The first was a seal circumscribed “Sigillum Theob de Grenville Mil.” in 1377, and the second in January 1379 bearing “Sigil Theobaldi de Grenvile militis.” Perhaps someone here can comment on whether or not this change in seal should be interpreted as two separate men or if old Theo just had a new seal made. I am also bothered by the idea that William Grenville was born “say 1385” if we are supposing his father was born in 1323 – I suppose 62 year old can have children but it is not the most likely solution (though I think William Grenville was born much earlier than 1385).
>
> Regardless, the real question here revolves around the dates of his sons, John and William Grenville. We know Theobald was dead by 26 July 1381, for on this date John Grenvile presented at Bideford, and he was described as “son and heir of Sir Theobald de Grenvile, deceased”. This record also tells us that John Grenville was of age, born by 1360, in 1381. Other records show he was licensed to have a private chapel at Stowe in 1386, he was a knight of the shire in 1389, 1394, 1397 and 1402 and he served as sheriff in 1391-1392. I don’t think these records are incompatible with someone born in 1360, though I also agree with Douglas that he was likely a few years older than this.
> We have fewer records to pin down the birthdate of John’s brother William Grenville. Though as a second son do we really expect to find the same documentation? I am not sure we need to suppose that he was much younger than his brother or that he must be a half-brother. In 1402, his brother William styling himself William Greynvill, son of Sir Theobald, sets forth " that whereas his brother, Sir John Greynvill, Kt., and Margaret his wife, held the manor and borough of Bideford in the County of Devon, with the advowson of the same church, and other lands and tenements in the parish of Bydeforde, called Fordeland, Eggeften, and Thorne, etc., and also held lands in Werdon and Stowe, in the manor of Kilkhampton, he, the said William Greynvill, ratifies and confirms them to the said Sir John de Greynvill." This record confirms his identity as a brother (full brother?) of John Grenville, and places his birth as by 1380, though again, there is no reason to think that he was not born significantly earlier. We also know that William Grenville was married to Thomasine Cole by 1403 and that she was still living and his wife in May 1427.
>
> This brings us back to the question of could this William Grenville have married Philippa Bonville, daughter of William Bonville, Knt., Lord Bonville and 1st wife, Margaret Grey (married in 1414). What Deca is saying is that William Grenville at least age 47 (and probably significantly older) married Philippa Bonville in 1427 when she was at most 12 years old. And that, they had a son Thomas Grenville who would have had to of been born in 1428 (of age in 1449) when she was 13 years old.
>
> Taken together with the constraints on the Bonville pedigree, the theory that Phillipa Grenville was a daughter of William Bonville is impossible. If anything, she is a daughter John Bonville, and a sister of William Bonville, just as stated in the Visitations.

Joe of California,

For those of you who don’t know, Joe has taken snippets out of Charles Fitch-Northen’s article and Roger Granville’s, ‘History of the Granville Family’ book above. Both sources claim that there were two successive Theobald Grenvilles, father and son. The date of Theobald Grenville the younger’s death has been determined to be c. 1381.

What Joe fails to inform SGM members is that Charles Fitch-Northen, who he is quoting above, believed that Sir Thomas Grenville I was the son of William Grenville and Thomasine Cole. Fitch-Northen stated, ‘was she the mother of William’s children? Unless we accept that Thomasine died in 1426, and that William immediately remarried a Bonville, we cannot make a Bonville mother of William’s heir.’

What Fitch-Northen believed was that Sir Thomas Grenville I was born no later than 1426 and thus was the son of William Grenville and Thomasine Cole.

The question still remains. We know that Thomasine Cole was living in May 1427, but we don’t know when she died. She could have been still alive in 1428 and 1429. We also don’t know when William Grenville remarried. Did he marry in the late 1420s or the early 1430s? The simply answer is, we don’t really know. A marriage license or deed has never surfaced for William Grenville and Philippa Bonville.

Joe of California said, ‘What Deca is saying is that William Grenville at least age 47 (and probably significantly older) married Philippa Bonville in 1427 when she was at most 12 years old. And that, they had a son Thomas Grenville who would have had to of been born in 1428 (of age in 1449) when she was 13 years old.’

I never stated that William Grenville was 47 years of age upon his marriage to Philippa Bonville. I also never said that William Grenville and Philippa Bonville married in 1427. We don’t know when they married. They could have married in the 1430s. Such exact dates by Joe must mean he has found a deed or marriage license which proves a date of marriage for William Grenville and Philippa Bonville. We can also discern from Joe’s statement that he believes there were never any marriages at all in the medieval time period of men who were at least a generation or more older than the women they married, especially as a second wife.

We also can’t say that Sir Thomas Grenville I ‘would have to of been born in 1428’. There are no baptismal records, proofs of age, or ipms concerning Sir Thomas Grenville I. All we know is that Sir Thomas Grenville I married Anne Courtenay by license dated 7 Sept. 1447. So we can be certain that Sir Thomas Grenville I was at least 14 years of age upon his marriage to Anne Courtenay. This was the legal age to marry for males in England during the 15th century.

To fix exact dates to the marriage of William Grenville and Philippa Bonville and to the birth of Sir Thomas Grenville I without any concrete proof doesn’t make it so.

If Joe does have any evidence to confirm his assertions, other than quoting Fitch-Northen and Granville, we would all like to see it.

[Joe]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 4:26:10 AM UTC-7, ***@aol.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 1:20:43 AM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
> > Douglas is suggesting that there was only 1 Theobald de Grenville, born in 1323 and died by 1381. The reason for supposing that there were two Theobalds, father and son, is the difference in their seals. The first was a seal circumscribed “Sigillum Theob de Grenville Mil.” in 1377, and the second in January 1379 bearing “Sigil Theobaldi de Grenvile militis.” Perhaps someone here can comment on whether or not this change in seal should be interpreted as two separate men or if old Theo just had a new seal made. I am also bothered by the idea that William Grenville was born “say 1385” if we are supposing his father was born in 1323 – I suppose 62 year old can have children but it is not the most likely solution (though I think William Grenville was born much earlier than 1385).
> >
> > Regardless, the real question here revolves around the dates of his sons, John and William Grenville. We know Theobald was dead by 26 July 1381, for on this date John Grenvile presented at Bideford, and he was described as “son and heir of Sir Theobald de Grenvile, deceased”. This record also tells us that John Grenville was of age, born by 1360, in 1381. Other records show he was licensed to have a private chapel at Stowe in 1386, he was a knight of the shire in 1389, 1394, 1397 and 1402 and he served as sheriff in 1391-1392. I don’t think these records are incompatible with someone born in 1360, though I also agree with Douglas that he was likely a few years older than this.
> > We have fewer records to pin down the birthdate of John’s brother William Grenville. Though as a second son do we really expect to find the same documentation? I am not sure we need to suppose that he was much younger than his brother or that he must be a half-brother. In 1402, his brother William styling himself William Greynvill, son of Sir Theobald, sets forth " that whereas his brother, Sir John Greynvill, Kt., and Margaret his wife, held the manor and borough of Bideford in the County of Devon, with the advowson of the same church, and other lands and tenements in the parish of Bydeforde, called Fordeland, Eggeften, and Thorne, etc., and also held lands in Werdon and Stowe, in the manor of Kilkhampton, he, the said William Greynvill, ratifies and confirms them to the said Sir John de Greynvill." This record confirms his identity as a brother (full brother?) of John Grenville, and places his birth as by 1380, though again, there is no reason to think that he was not born significantly earlier. We also know that William Grenville was married to Thomasine Cole by 1403 and that she was still living and his wife in May 1427.
> >
> > This brings us back to the question of could this William Grenville have married Philippa Bonville, daughter of William Bonville, Knt., Lord Bonville and 1st wife, Margaret Grey (married in 1414). What Deca is saying is that William Grenville at least age 47 (and probably significantly older) married Philippa Bonville in 1427 when she was at most 12 years old. And that, they had a son Thomas Grenville who would have had to of been born in 1428 (of age in 1449) when she was 13 years old.
> >
> > Taken together with the constraints on the Bonville pedigree, the theory that Phillipa Grenville was a daughter of William Bonville is impossible. If anything, she is a daughter John Bonville, and a sister of William Bonville, just as stated in the Visitations.
>
> Joe of California,
>
> For those of you who don’t know, Joe has taken snippets out of Charles Fitch-Northen’s article and Roger Granville’s, ‘History of the Granville Family’ book above. Both sources claim that there were two successive Theobald Grenvilles, father and son. The date of Theobald Grenville the younger’s death has been determined to be c. 1381.
>
> What Joe fails to inform SGM members is that Charles Fitch-Northen, who he is quoting above, believed that Sir Thomas Grenville I was the son of William Grenville and Thomasine Cole. Fitch-Northen stated, ‘was she the mother of William’s children? Unless we accept that Thomasine died in 1426, and that William immediately remarried a Bonville, we cannot make a Bonville mother of William’s heir.’
>
> What Fitch-Northen believed was that Sir Thomas Grenville I was born no later than 1426 and thus was the son of William Grenville and Thomasine Cole.
>
> The question still remains. We know that Thomasine Cole was living in May 1427, but we don’t know when she died. She could have been still alive in 1428 and 1429. We also don’t know when William Grenville remarried. Did he marry in the late 1420s or the early 1430s? The simply answer is, we don’t really know. A marriage license or deed has never surfaced for William Grenville and Philippa Bonville.
>
> Joe of California said, ‘What Deca is saying is that William Grenville at least age 47 (and probably significantly older) married Philippa Bonville in 1427 when she was at most 12 years old. And that, they had a son Thomas Grenville who would have had to of been born in 1428 (of age in 1449) when she was 13 years old.’
>
> I never stated that William Grenville was 47 years of age upon his marriage to Philippa Bonville. I also never said that William Grenville and Philippa Bonville married in 1427. We don’t know when they married. They could have married in the 1430s. Such exact dates by Joe must mean he has found a deed or marriage license which proves a date of marriage for William Grenville and Philippa Bonville. We can also discern from Joe’s statement that he believes there were never any marriages at all in the medieval time period of men who were at least a generation or more older than the women they married, especially as a second wife.
>
> We also can’t say that Sir Thomas Grenville I ‘would have to of been born in 1428’. There are no baptismal records, proofs of age, or ipms concerning Sir Thomas Grenville I. All we know is that Sir Thomas Grenville I married Anne Courtenay by license dated 7 Sept. 1447. So we can be certain that Sir Thomas Grenville I was at least 14 years of age upon his marriage to Anne Courtenay. This was the legal age to marry for males in England during the 15th century.
>
> To fix exact dates to the marriage of William Grenville and Philippa Bonville and to the birth of Sir Thomas Grenville I without any concrete proof doesn’t make it so.
>
> If Joe does have any evidence to confirm his assertions, other than quoting Fitch-Northen and Granville, we would all like to see it.


I’ll try again,
William Grenville’s first wife Thomasine Cole was living May 1427, so the earliest he could have married Philippa Bonville is 1427 and the earliest their son could have been born is 1428.

The son Thomas Grenville would have been of age in 1449 when he granted land in Bideford to Richard Ashrigge “doing suit in our court.”

The only way to squeeze this together is to assume Thomasine died in 1427, William remarried in 1427, and their son Thomas was born in 1428.

But again, this is an untenable argument requiring Philippa Bonville to be at most 12 years old at marriage, and giving birth at 13 years old.

> What Fitch-Northen believed was that Sir Thomas Grenville I was born no later than 1426 and thus was the son of William Grenville and Thomasine Cole.

I agree with Fitch-Northen that the most likely solution is that William Grenville's son and heir Thomas was by his first wife Thomasine Cole to whom we know he was married by 1403 until at least 1427. This relieves all of the chronological difficulties.

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:20:43 PM UTC-6, Joe wrote:

< Douglas is suggesting that there was only 1 Theobald de Grenville, born in
< 1323 and died by 1381. The reason for supposing that there were two
< Theobalds, father and son, is the difference in their seals.

Actually I suggested that there was only one Thebaud de Grenville based on the available records of his life. If there had been two Thebaud's, one would expect to see the death of the elder Thebaud recorded followed by the appearance of the younger Thebaud. Or, you would look to see that one of the Thebaud's was called "the elder" or "the younger" in contemporary records. We find none of that. There appears to be one seamless stream of records which pertain to one man. That's your first clue that there was only one Thebaud.

The other reason I suggested that there was only one Thebaud de Grenville is basic chronology. I'm apparently not the first person to notice the obvious problem in chronology in this family.

In 1913 the Devon antiquarian J.J. Alexander published an article entitled "Devon County Members of Parliament" which appeared in Report & Transactions of Devonshire Association, 3rd Series, Volume 5. On page 249, Mr. Alexander made the following comments:

"John Grenville of Stow, member in 1388, is said by Prince to have been the grandson of Sir Theobald, a leading promoter of Bideford's famous bridge. Theobald was born about 1323, and it is rather unlikely that within sixty-six years he had a grandson of full parliamentary age. There is surely one generation too many here." END OF QUOTE

The above may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xt05AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA265

Mr. Alexander observed that it was unlikely that John Grenville was a member of Parliament in 1388 if he was the grandson of a man born about 1323. And I made a similar point. I said it was unlikely that John Grenville was a Sheriff in 1392 if he was the grandson of a man born about 1323.

Both points are valid. The simplest explanation is that Sir John Grenville was the son (not grandson) of the Sir Thebaud de Grenville, who was born about 1323. That in turn means that there was only one Sir Thebaud de Grenville.

That leads us to the next chronological problem which is the apparent difference in ages between Sir John Grenville and his younger brother, William Grenville, Esq. As best I can tell, there was a significant difference in ages. One indication of this is the wide difference in their death dates. The difference in their ages can be explained by their mother having children of a wide span of time. Or it can be explained if they were half-siblings born to two different mothers. Without better records, either explanation is certainly acceptable. However, I presently lean toward the latter solution.

<The first was a seal circumscribed “Sigillum Theob de Grenville Mil.” in 1377, <and the second in January 1379 bearing “Sigil Theobaldi de Grenvile militis.” <Perhaps someone here can comment on whether or not this change in seal should <be interpreted as two separate men or if old Theo just had a new seal made.

People often used more than one seal in their lifetime. The use of two different seals does not mean that there were two different men using the seals.

<I am also bothered by the idea that William Grenville was born “say 1385” if we < are supposing his father was born in 1323 – I suppose 62 year old can have
< children but it is not the most likely solution (though I think William
< Grenville was born much earlier than 1385).

Sir Thebaud de Grenville was apparently living in 1379 and dead before 1381. As such, if William Grenville was his son, he would necessarily have been born before 1381. As such I erred in an earlier post when I said William Grenville was born say 1385. Given that we know that William Grenville was married before 1403, a birth date for him by 1381 is surely acceptable. It is also acceptable for a 58 year old man to father a son.

As for Philippe Bonville, I think it would be good to use the 85 year rule of thumb I often use for cross checking chronology. We should get a pretty good indication of Philippe's birthdate by finding the birthdate for her great-grandson and then subtracting 85 years.

In this case, Philippe's great-grandson was Sir Roger Grenville and he was born in 1477. If we substract 85 years from 1477, we should get pretty close to Philippe's birthdate. 1477 less 85 gives your 1392. This indicator suggests to me that Philippe Bonville was the daughter of Sir John Bonville, died 1396, not his son, Sir William Bonville, Lord Bonville.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Joe]

> <The first was a seal circumscribed “Sigillum Theob de Grenville Mil.” in 1377, <and the second in January 1379 bearing “Sigil Theobaldi de Grenvile militis.” <Perhaps someone here can comment on whether or not this change in seal should <be interpreted as two separate men or if old Theo just had a new seal made.
>
> People often used more than one seal in their lifetime. The use of two different seals does not mean that there were two different men using the seals.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

I was just pointing that the evidence (the ONLY evidence) for two Theobald Grenvilles is the difference in seals used in 1377 and in 1379. If this is discounted as not meaningful, I know of nothing else suggesting there were two separate men.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Peter ~

You apply averages to individuals to see if they fit normal ranges. In this case, using an average age for Sheriff highlights the obvious difference in age between Sir John Grenville and his brother William Grenville, Esq. How you explain such differences from normal ranges is another matter completely. Among other things, averages can tell you if your chronology is workable. If you are too different from the norms, it should raise a red flag.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Howarth]

On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 16:11:06 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Peter ~
>
> You apply averages to individuals to see if they fit normal ranges. In this case, using an average age for Sheriff highlights the obvious difference in age between Sir John Grenville and his brother William Grenville, Esq. How you explain such differences from normal ranges is another matter completely. Among other things, averages can tell you if your chronology is workable. If you are too different from the norms, it should raise a red flag.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Your claim was this:
'I recommend that you stick to the known facts. One known fact is that there was only one William Grenville. He was born surely no later than 1385, and perhaps as early as c.1370, as his older brother, John Grenville, was a Knight of the Shire in 1388 and Sheriff in 1392. Men usually became Sheriff when they were about 40. Even assuming a younger age for John de Grenville as Sheriff, the earliest I think he was born would be c.1355.'

You are therefore not looking at a 'normal range' but at an extreme, namely the earliest date he could be born. For that, an average is not particularly helpful. What we need is the earliest age at which he might have become a sheriff. For example, what was the youngest age out of your 20 sheriffs? It would also be interesting to see the ages of the other 19.

Peter Howarth

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, Peter Howarth wrote:
> > Dear Peter ~

< You are therefore not looking at a 'normal range' but at an extreme, namely
< the earliest date he could be born.

In this instance, I used an average. By definition, an average is not an extreme.

You seem to be talking about ranges which is an entirely different measurement. Ranges show the extremes.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Peter Howarth]

On Thursday, 3 August 2017 16:53:26 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, Peter Howarth wrote:
> > > Dear Peter ~
>
> < You are therefore not looking at a 'normal range' but at an extreme, namely
> < the earliest date he could be born.
>
> In this instance, I used an average. By definition, an average is not an extreme.
>
> You seem to be talking about ranges which is an entirely different measurement. Ranges show the extremes.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

I can only quote again what you wrote:
'I recommend that you stick to the known facts. One known fact is that there was only one William Grenville. He was born surely no later than 1385, and perhaps as early as c.1370, as his older brother, John Grenville, was a Knight of the Shire in 1388 and Sheriff in 1392. Men usually became Sheriff when they were about 40. Even assuming a younger age for John de Grenville as Sheriff, the earliest I think he was born would be c.1355.'

What you are trying to work out is the earliest date that John de Grenville could be born, given that he was sheriff in 1392. You say that using the average age of twenty men who became sheriff will do. I say that if he had been sheriff at thirty he could have been born in c.1362; or if he had been sheriff at sixty he could have been born c.1332. Your average of forty does not rule either of those possibilities out, because an average applies only to the group as a whole and not to the individuals who make up the group. The average of {38, 39, 40, 41, 42} is 40, and the average of {30,32,36,42,60} is also 40.

Peter Howarth

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Peter ~

You're asking intelligent thoughtful questions which I appreciate.

I pulled my list of 20 different men totally at random from different parts of England. Such a pool should give you a fairly accurate idea of the average age that any given man would become Sheriff in England in the period, 1386 to 1421. I did the same for the Escheators. Totally random, different parts of England. Just fewer men in my sample of Escheators.

If you want, you're welcome add more men to the mix. I'm reasonably sure, however, that you would come within a year of the average age for Sheriff that I derived from the 20 men I used. I didn't exclude anyone. I took the total aggregate of ages and divided by 20.

By any chance, were you surprised by the average age I found?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

<On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 10:48:15 AM UTC-6, Peter Howarth wrote:
<
< I can only quote again what you wrote:
< 'I recommend that you stick to the known facts. One known fact is that there < was only one William Grenville. He was born surely no later than 1385, and
< perhaps as early as c.1370, as his older brother, John Grenville, was a Knight < of the Shire in 1388 and Sheriff in 1392. Men usually became Sheriff when
< they were about 40. Even assuming a younger age for John de Grenville as
< Sheriff, the earliest I think he was born would be c.1355.'
<
< What you are trying to work out is the earliest date that John de Grenville
< could be born, given that he was sheriff in 1392. You say that using the
< average age of twenty men who became sheriff will do. I say that if he had
< been sheriff at thirty he could have been born in c.1362; or if he had been
< sheriff at sixty he could have been born c.1332. Your average of forty does
< not rule either of those possibilities out, because an average applies only to < the group as a whole and not to the individuals who make up the group. The
< average of {38, 39, 40, 41, 42} is 40, and the average of {30,32,36,42,60} is < also 40.

> Peter Howarth

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 3:34:49 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Hans ~
>
> I just pulled the records for 20 random men who were Sheriffs in England about 1400. The average age for the first or only time they became Sheriffs was 37.85. I also pulled the records for 5 men who were Escheators in the same period. The average age for the first or only time they became Escheator was 40.6. If you apply the average age for Sheriff to John Greenville who first became Sheriff in 1392, you get an estimated birth date for him of 1354. In my reconstructed pedigree, I estimated he was born c.1350-55, which is right on the money. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas please.
Making such a clearly incorrect claim doesn't advance your agenda at all.

Show the actual names of these supposed 20 random men, and I will pick apart the majority of your claimed age specifications.

[Peter Stewart]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 4:14:47 AM UTC+10, Douglas Richardson wrote:

<snip>

> I recommend that you stick to the known facts.

<snip>

> Assuming the two brothers had the same mother, the latest I would peg William
> Grenville's birth would be c.1385, assuming the mother gave birth to children
> over a 30 year time span (a la Queen Eleanor of Castile).

The known facts of Queen Eleanor's childbearing, if you care to stick to them, are that she first gave birth in 1180 (to Berengaria) and last in 1204 (to Enrique).

Sticking to the sub-lunar facts of arithmetic, a 24 year time span does not cover 30 years.

Peter Stewart

[d***@aol.com]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:19:40 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> I disagree, there is no reason it cause to give one right over the other. You've >shown no reason to came one of their I'll opinions over the other based on "reputation >as a bonville expert". Their reasoning and sources are both well known in a complete >way, and the is no reason to judge this matter on anything beyond the sources

As DSH has previously commented, complete and utter gibberish!

[P J Evans]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 6:54:30 AM UTC-8, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 9:59:26 PM UTC, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:38:03 PM UTC-8, Carole S wrote:
> >
> > > There is a relevant stained glass window in the vestry of Petrockstowe
> > > church-see photographs and description etc by Sheila Yeo on the Yeo
> > > Society website homepage
> >
> > Well, that is definitive. Here is the glass:
> >
> > http://www.yeosociety.com/heraldry/yeo%20evidence.htm
> >
> > The Grenville arms are gules, three clarions or (three gold clarions on red background).
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarion_(heraldry)#/media/File:GrenvilleEarlOfBathArms.JPG
> >
> > This is seen impaling (side by side within the same arms) two other coats in the arms at the top of each of the two windows. One of them shows this coat impaling one that is sable (black) with six mullets (stars) argent (silver), arranged 3,2,1. This is Bonville.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BonvilleArms.JPG
> > (note that the Bonville stars are actually 'pierced gules' - with a red center, which is not visible in the glass, but given the quality of the image and the faded nature of some of the glass, we might not see this detail)
> >
> > Unfortunately, the panels of the glass have been moved/rearranged. The arms at the top have been 'mixed and matched'. If you number the top panels, each with half a shield, as 1-2-3-4, then the original arrangement would seem to have been 2 (reversed) paired with 4, and 1 paired with 3 (reversed) - this is based on knowing that it was a Grenville male who married a Bonville female, that the clarion in the two Grenville arms have the 'tail' on the wrong side, and that the lettering in the circle would have appeared once on each window. It does not change the overall conclusion - this shows that the Grenville wife was a Bonville, not a Stucley.
> >
> > Some notes - the Yeo page is in error in describing the arms in the rectangular panels as those of Bonville, which had no bend (diagonal bar) between the stars. It also seems to be in error in describing that the remaining one at the top, blue with a chevron between three charges, as Gorges, which was lozengy. Unfortunately the charges, and even the tincture, are unclear in the photograph so it can't be identified but if I have the rearrangement correct above, it should represent a Grenville daughter marrying someone. The only one Vivian shows at this period married Thorne, but this is not theirs.
> >
> > taf
>
> I'm not convinced the panels have been re-arranged. First, I notice that all the arms which have non-reversible elements appear back-to-front (theose with clarions, a lion, bends, hawks), from which it seems clear that they were placed in the vestry window in order to be viewed from outside, not inside.
>
[snip]
> Matt Tompkins

I would be surprised if the windows were intended to be seen from outside - most of the glass I've seen is intended to be seen from inside.

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-8, P J Evans wrote:

> I would be surprised if the windows were intended to be seen from
> outside - most of the glass I've seen is intended to be seen from inside.

Mat is right, though that of the asymmetrical coats, only the Yeo ones have been arranged to be viewed from inside, and the same is true of the text. However, we know they were all moved, so this says nothing about their original mounting.

The glass master lays it all out and then leaves it to his apprentices to mount while he works on new glass for the damaged Yeo panels. They don't know their right from their left and would rather be playing cricket anyhow, so he comes back with the final two to find the whole window done facing the wrong way, and rather than tearing it all back out . . .

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Mat is right,

Sorry Matt - I do know how to spell it, I just mistyped it and failed to notice.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:01:44 AM UTC-8, Joe wrote:
> >
> > Where I stand today on these Grenvilles, for whatever it's worth, is that chronology can eliminate Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville as the grandmother of Thomas Grenville. Beyond that, I fall back to Fitch-Northen's conclusions.
> >
> > Cheers, ----Brad
>
> In an email, Brad pointed out that Philippa in the Visitation does not
> name her father as would be typical, but states that she is the sister
> the Lord Bonville. And that this at least opened up the possibility
> that Philippa could have been a Stukeley (daughter of Elizabeth Fitz
> Roger by her 2nd husband Richard Stukekley), and therefore a half-
> sister of William Bonville.
>
> I found it interesting to note today that the IPM of Elizabeth Fitz
> Roger mentions "issue Roger Stucle, knight, and other sons and
> daughters." I believe none of these 'other daughters' have been
> identified.

Vivian gives them just two sons, Roger and Hugh. Richards HOP entry says he had "at least 2s, 1d", presumably based on the ipm.

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/styuecle-richard-14401

taf

[d***@aol.com]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 5:38:40 PM UTC-5, Brad Verity wrote:
> (10) Vivian. Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): pp. 101-103 (Bonville ped.) (author states, “Phillipa, mar. 1 William Grenville of Bideford,” and places her as the dau. of Sir William Bonville of Chewton and Margaret, da. of … Meriet.) (Margaret, da. of Meriet was correctly identified as Margaret dau. of Reynold Grey, Knt., 3rd Lord Grey of Ruthin) (identification of William Bonville’s 1st wife, Margaret Grey, made by Robert Behra based on Calendar Close Rolls, 1413-1419, p. 199).
>
> Why would you cite to a source (Vivian) for the paternity of Philippa Bonville when you already know it's incorrect as to the paternity of Lady Margaret (Grey) Bonville? And as Todd has already pointed out, Vivian makes Philippa the sister of William Lord Bonville in his Grenville pedigree. Either he didn't realize his own contradiction, or he presented both alternatives to allow his subscribers to make up their own minds. In either case, it doesn't seem he researched these 15th-century Bonvilles and Grenvilles any further than the Visitation pedigrees.
>
> That said, Vivian's works on the Devon and Cornwall Visitations contain much vital information once you get to the era of parish registers, and are weightier sources than Burke's.
>
> > (11) Rogers. Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): pp. 47–48 (author identifies Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville).
>
> A 1890 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.
>
> > (13) Dalton. The Collegiate Church of Ottery St. Mary (1917): p. 31 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville).
>
> A 1917 source cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.
>
> > (14) National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ) v. 59 (1971): pp. 254–262 (author identifies Philippa Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville).
>
> A 1971 article cannot establish the paternity of a 15th-century lady, and is only helpful if it quotes or cites an earlier source that can be followed up.
>
> > (15) Pole. Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon (1791) pp. 387-388 (Grenville descent of the Manor of Bideford) (author states, “Wilm Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Wilm Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas, . . .”).
>
> Sir William Pole's work is a very useful source but no more so than a Visitation pedigree - it can be viewed as accurate, even authoritative, for the 17th-century generations contemporary to Pole, but only suggestive when it comes to earlier and medieval generations.
>
> So of your sixteen sources above, only two are of any use: 1) Granville's 1895 work (which indicates uncertainty as to Philippa's parentage), because of the 15th-century deed it cites (the next step for you would be to obtain a full transcription of that deed), and 2) Pole, your earliest cited source, though it's already been pointed out that Sir William contradicts an earlier Grenville pedigree, from a Visitation some fifty years previous, which makes Philippa the sister, not the daughter, of William Lord Bonville. Pole makes no indication in his work as to why he contradicts Philippa's parentage, or even if he was aware that he was doing so.
>

The above named sources are more than half of the same sources that Mr. Douglas Richardson is using in his Philippa Bonville source file. Yet, I did not see you comment on his sources? I see no reason to discount any of them, although most are secondary, just as I'm sure Mr. Douglas Richardson knows. With regard to Pole's pedigree, why are you saying that Pole is wrong and not the Visitation pedigree that contradicts Pole's Grenville pedigree? These are both the earliest sources within the same time period? They are not fifty years apart as Pole died in 1635 and compiled his works well before he died while the Visitation was conducted in 1620.

Also, there is no proof of age to help us discern when Thomas Grenville I was born. He could have been born as early as 1426 (with Thomasine Cole as his mother) or as late as 1433 (with Philippa Bonville as his mother).

The point being that there is no definite proof as to the date when Thomas Grenville was born. The same is true to the question of who really was his mother.

[John Higgins]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 3:23:20 PM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:

> The above named sources are more than half of the same sources that Mr. Douglas Richardson is using in his Philippa Bonville source file. Yet, I did not see you comment on his sources? I see no reason to discount any of them, although most are secondary, just as I'm sure Mr. Douglas Richardson knows. With regard to Pole's pedigree, why are you saying that Pole is wrong and not the Visitation pedigree that contradicts Pole's Grenville pedigree? These are both the earliest sources within the same time period? They are not fifty years apart as Pole died in 1635 and compiled his works well before he died while the Visitation was conducted in 1620.
>

I don't think that you should presume any support for your position on Philippa Bonville from the fact that DR happens to cite many of the same sources that you cite above - or thus for Brad Verity not commenting on DR's use of these same sources. For better or worse, DR in his books tends to cite as many sources as possible for his subject - even sources which disagree with the conclusion that he reaches in his narrative. IMO one of the weaknesses in DR's writing methodology in all of his books has been that he generally does not explain WHY he has chosen a particular conclusion even though some (or many) of the sources disagree with that conclusion. In this case, in his initial post to this thread - not included in his books - he has shown how he reached his conclusion. I don't necessarily agree with all of his arguments, but I do agree with his conclusion - at least to the extent that Philippa Bonville cannot be the daughter of William, Lord Bonville, and certainly not by Margaret Grey.

I do think it's interesting that DR chose not to cite the 1979 Fitch-Northen article on this matter. It's hard to believe that he could - even by now in his current post - be unfamiliar with this article and its conclusions. I suspect that there may be other factors - extraneous to this particular matter - which led him to not cite Fitch-Northen. :-)

[d***@aol.com]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:37:13 PM UTC-5, John Higgins wrote:
> I don't think that you should presume any support for your position on Philippa >Bonville from the fact that DR happens to cite many of the same sources that you >cite above - or thus for Brad Verity not commenting on DR's use of these same >sources. For better or worse, DR in his books tends to cite as many sources as >possible for his subject - even sources which disagree with the conclusion that he >reaches in his narrative. IMO one of the weaknesses in DR's writing methodology in >all of his books has been that he generally does not explain WHY he has chosen a >particular conclusion even though some (or many) of the sources disagree with that >conclusion. In this case, in his initial post to this thread - not included in his >books - he has shown how he reached his conclusion. I don't necessarily agree with >all of his arguments, but I do agree with his conclusion - at least to the extent >that Philippa Bonville cannot be the daughter of William, Lord Bonville, and >certainly not by Margaret Grey.
>
> I do think it's interesting that DR chose not to cite the 1979 Fitch-Northen >article on this matter. It's >hard to believe that he could - even by now in his >current post - be unfamiliar with this article and its >conclusions. I suspect that >there may be other factors - extraneous to this particular matter - which led >him >to not cite Fitch-Northen. :-)

I'm not looking for support for any one particular position, as I have no stake one way or the other in the matter, as I do not descend from either the Grenville or Bonville families. The fact that the parentage of Philippa Bonville will go unsolved until hard primary source evidence is presented is the real matter here. There will always be assumptions made on both sides of the argument to support whatever methodology was used to support one's conclusion (chronological fine tuning, unnoticed marriages, family relationships, etc).

The fact that Mr. Douglas Richardson's position regarding the parentage of Philippa has shifted from early editions of his work to his new position found in MCS 5th edition is a testament to the fact that there are arguments on both sides which will move the proverbial tilt meter. Mr. Brad Verity uses a quotation from the often unreliable History of the Granville Family book (1895) by Roger Granville that he says is new evidence to him, while back in 2001-2002, both he and Louise Staley both knew about the book and were commenting on this book, including the same passages he was citing just in this thread. While all along, his position on the parentage of Philippa Bonville continually shifts (from William Bonville to John Bonville to Thomas Bonville, and etc). At least he is consistent in supporting the notion that she was at least a Bonville. As a side note, it is always refreshing to know that Mr. Douglas Richardson lists every supporting and opposing source evidence to his conclusions, just as he maintains an open mind on some controversial issues.

I think we all know that Mr. Douglas Richardson was well aware of Charles-Fitch Northen's article (Revision of the Grenville pedigree) back in 1979 as Gary Boyd Roberts uses it as a source in one of his works. The issue of claiming credit for correctly identifying Henry II's mistress, Ida de Tony, I believe is what you specifically have in mind.

Why Fitch-Northen's article is now the Holy Grail concerning the parentage of Philippa Bonville is quite intriguing. Some may believe that Charles Fitch-Northen was infallible, while Sir William Pole was not infallible.

There still remain many amateur and professional genealogists who support the argument of Philippa being the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville, and just as many who support Philippa being the sister of William, 1st Lord Bonville. Unfortunately, these individuals who support the argument of Philippa being the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville, whether they are in America, Canada, the U.K., or Australia, choose not to post to SGM or may not know this thread exists. It would have been very welcomed by some to hear those arguments. I’m sure it would have added great substance and more depth to this thread. New research is always being conducted by professionals in Devon County, England, U.K. into these medieval families. Perhaps the primary source evidence concerning the Courtenay, Bonville, and Grenville family connections will finally surface to put to rest some of these genealogical issues.

[taf]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:26:55 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:

> The fact that Mr. Douglas Richardson's position regarding the
> parentage of Philippa has shifted from early editions of his
> work to his new position found in MCS 5th edition is a
> testament to the fact that there are arguments on both sides
> which will move the proverbial tilt meter.

Not necessarily. Mr. Richardson did not generate his first editions de novo, but rather inherited a body or work from predecessors. A change may indicate that he only then carried out his own study of the question, rather than that he shifted positions.

> As a side note, it is always refreshing to know that Mr.
> Douglas Richardson lists every supporting and opposing
> source evidence to his conclusions, just as he maintains
> an open mind on some controversial issues.

Citing contrary sources is a good thing, in showing that not all agree. Basically it is a form of full disclosure. However, citing contrary sources while giving no indication that they disagree can easily give a false impression.

> I think we all know that Mr. Douglas Richardson was well
> aware of Charles-Fitch Northen's article (Revision of the
> Grenville pedigree) back in 1979 as Gary Boyd Roberts uses
> it as a source in one of his works.

One cannot assume that a researcher who has seen a book has also seen all of the references cited by that book.

> Why Fitch-Northen's article is now the Holy Grail concerning
> the parentage of Philippa Bonville is quite intriguing. Some
> may believe that Charles Fitch-Northen was infallible, while
> Sir William Pole was not infallible.

This is a straw man. Fitch-Northen was not infallible, and nobody is claiming that was the case. Indeed, specific errors and omissions can be identified within his paper (which I just received from Brad, via Joe - thanks to both of you).

Still, he is a scholar who specifically studied the question and presented his reasoning and documentary support, and as far as I am aware is the only one to have done so in print. One doesn't have to agree with the conclusions, but anyone who ignores such a exposition of the question does so at their peril.

> There still remain many amateur and professional genealogists
> who support the argument of Philippa being the daughter of
> William, 1st Lord Bonville, and just as many who support Philippa being the sister of William, 1st Lord Bonville.

I is unclear how we can know that this is the case, particularly that the two camps are of equal size. Further, history is not democracy, where the number of the masses who support a given position is all that is relevant. There are a genealogical reconstructions that are demonstrably wrong, yet maintain a high level of support from many uninformed or biased 'amateurs and professionals'.

> Unfortunately, these individuals who support the argument of
> Philippa being the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville,
> whether they are in America, Canada, the U.K., or Australia,
> choose not to post to SGM or may not know this thread exists.
> It would have been very welcomed by some to hear those
> arguments. I’m sure it would have added great substance and
> more depth to this thread.

This appeal to the silent supporters harkens back to the old USENET song, 'The Lurkers Support Me in Email', sung to the tune of 'My Bonny Lies Over the Ocean'.

> New research is always being conducted by professionals in
> Devon County, England, U.K. into these medieval families.

The benefit of the information age is that such pursuits are no longer limited to to those in one English county, or to professionals (indeed, the study of Devonshire families has never really been limited to the latter).

> Perhaps the primary source evidence concerning the Courtenay,
> Bonville, and Grenville family connections will finally surface
> to put to rest some of these genealogical issues.

We can all hope.

taf

[mk]

Also, it's absurd to criticize "shifting positions" in genealogy. New
evidence surfaces all the time. It's the person who does *not* reassess and
change where necessary who lacks credibility.

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:20 AM, taf <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 6:26:55 AM UTC-8, ***@aol.com wrote:
>
> > The fact that Mr. Douglas Richardson's position regarding the
> > parentage of Philippa has shifted from early editions of his
> > work to his new position found in MCS 5th edition is a
> > testament to the fact that there are arguments on both sides
> > which will move the proverbial tilt meter.
>
> Not necessarily. Mr. Richardson did not generate his first editions de
> novo, but rather inherited a body or work from predecessors. A change may
> indicate that he only then carried out his own study of the question,
> rather than that he shifted positions.
>
> > As a side note, it is always refreshing to know that Mr.
> > Douglas Richardson lists every supporting and opposing
> > source evidence to his conclusions, just as he maintains
> > an open mind on some controversial issues.
>
> Citing contrary sources is a good thing, in showing that not all agree.
> Basically it is a form of full disclosure. However, citing contrary
> sources while giving no indication that they disagree can easily give a
> false impression.
>
> > I think we all know that Mr. Douglas Richardson was well
> > aware of Charles-Fitch Northen's article (Revision of the
> > Grenville pedigree) back in 1979 as Gary Boyd Roberts uses
> > it as a source in one of his works.
>
> One cannot assume that a researcher who has seen a book has also seen all
> of the references cited by that book.
>
> > Why Fitch-Northen's article is now the Holy Grail concerning
> > the parentage of Philippa Bonville is quite intriguing. Some
> > may believe that Charles Fitch-Northen was infallible, while
> > Sir William Pole was not infallible.
>
> This is a straw man. Fitch-Northen was not infallible, and nobody is
> claiming that was the case. Indeed, specific errors and omissions can be
> identified within his paper (which I just received from Brad, via Joe -
> thanks to both of you).
>
> Still, he is a scholar who specifically studied the question and presented
> his reasoning and documentary support, and as far as I am aware is the only
> one to have done so in print. One doesn't have to agree with the
> conclusions, but anyone who ignores such a exposition of the question does
> so at their peril.
>
> > There still remain many amateur and professional genealogists
> > who support the argument of Philippa being the daughter of
> > William, 1st Lord Bonville, and just as many who support Philippa being
> the sister of William, 1st Lord Bonville.
>
> I is unclear how we can know that this is the case, particularly that the
> two camps are of equal size. Further, history is not democracy, where the
> number of the masses who support a given position is all that is relevant.
> There are a genealogical reconstructions that are demonstrably wrong, yet
> maintain a high level of support from many uninformed or biased 'amateurs
> and professionals'.
>
> > Unfortunately, these individuals who support the argument of
> > Philippa being the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville,
> > whether they are in America, Canada, the U.K., or Australia,
> > choose not to post to SGM or may not know this thread exists.
> > It would have been very welcomed by some to hear those
> > arguments. I’m sure it would have added great substance and
> > more depth to this thread.
>
> This appeal to the silent supporters harkens back to the old USENET song,
> 'The Lurkers Support Me in Email', sung to the tune of 'My Bonny Lies Over
> the Ocean'.
>
> > New research is always being conducted by professionals in
> > Devon County, England, U.K. into these medieval families.
>
> The benefit of the information age is that such pursuits are no longer
> limited to to those in one English county, or to professionals (indeed, the
> study of Devonshire families has never really been limited to the latter).
>
> > Perhaps the primary source evidence concerning the Courtenay,
> > Bonville, and Grenville family connections will finally surface
> > to put to rest some of these genealogical issues.
>
> We can all hope.
>
> 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
>

[taf]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 8:19:43 AM UTC-8, mk wrote:
> Also, it's absurd to criticize "shifting positions" in genealogy.
> New evidence surfaces all the time. It's the person who does
> *not* reassess and change where necessary who lacks
> credibility.

Yes, quite. It is all too common to see a researcher build ever more convoluted ad hoc hypotheses to explain away a growing body of contrary evidence. It is one of the hallmarks of scholarly research that, at least in theory, all conclusions are provisional and subject to reevaluation with each bolus of new evidence.

taf

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

On 2017-02-25 15:20:34 +0000, taf said:

> This appeal to the silent supporters harkens back to the old USENET
> song, 'The Lurkers Support Me in Email', sung to the tune of 'My Bonny
> Lies Over the Ocean'.

Seeing this from taf was a startling crossing-the-streams moment, since
the song he refers to was written in 1998 by Jo Walton, just about a
year before I began publishing her extraordinary SF and fantasy novels
at Tor. Jo has observed that despite all her subsequent awards and
acclaim, this but of Usenet folklore has probably been read by more
people than all her books combined.

http://www.jowaltonbooks.com/poetry/whimsy/the-lurkers-support-me-in-email/


--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
***@panix.com
http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng

[Paulo Canedo]

Mr.Verity I don't agree with one of your comments sjnce as far as I know the Burke Peerages are some of the most reliable sources in the world.

[taf]

On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 AM UTC-8, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Mr.Verity I don't agree with one of your comments sjnce as far as I know
> the Burke Peerages are some of the most reliable sources in the world.

No. Particularly the 19th century edition have been roundly condemned for their flights of fancy. As with many genealogical sources, they are reliable for the material immediately prior to their publication date, but the farther back they trace, the more likely a given line is to leave reality behind, and any line they present tracing to 'the time of the Conquest' or before is almost always more fable than reality.

taf

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my earlier post regarding Philippe Bonville, I noted that her half-brother, Hugh Stucley, Esq., had served as a feoffee for her lst husband, William Grenville, Esq., in 1447.

Checking my notes, I've noticed other instances where Hugh Stucley, Esq. acted on behalf of the family of one of his Bonville half-sisters. My files notes show that Hugh Stucley, Esq., and Peter Stucle, clerk, presented to the church of Dodbrooke, Devon in 1449 and 1450. Reference: Hingeston-Randolph, Register of Edmund Lacy Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1420–1455) 1 (1909): 339, 354, available at the following weblinks:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066950257;view=1up;seq=365

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015066950257;view=1up;seq=380

The advowson of the church of Dodbrooke was presumbly held in 1449 and 1450 by the heir of Hugh Stucley's half-sister, Isabel Bonville, namely her grandson, William Champernoun, who was a minor in 1449. The manor of Dodbrooke, Devon was a long time possession of the Champernoun family. Ownership of the advowson of the church often went with the manor. Hugh Stucle and Peter Stucle were presumably presented to the church as guardians of young William Champernoun.

It may be further noted that Hugh Stucle and William Champernoun, both styled esquires, together witnessed a quitclaim by Nicholas Cornu, Esq., to William Hyndeston, serjeant at law dated in 1456. Reference: Calendar of Close Rolls, C.C.R. 1454–1461 (1947): 174, available at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924111042150;view=1up;seq=190

This pattern of association by Hugh Stucle, Esq. with members of his sisters' families is what one would expect in this time period.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Carole S]

Louise Staley wrote in a message some time ago that ""Hugh Stukeley
was Philippe Bonville's half-brother, he being the son of
Philippa's mother's 2nd marriage to Richard Stukeley.""

Would any further clues be found in a re-examination of the stained glass window in Petrockstowe which was given by Phillipa to that church

[taf]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-8, Carole S wrote:
> Louise Staley wrote in a message some time ago that ""Hugh Stukeley
> was Philippe Bonville's half-brother, he being the son of
> Philippa's mother's 2nd marriage to Richard Stukeley.""

I looked briefly at this thread this morning, and it didn't look like there was any more evidence being brought to bear then than now.

> Would any further clues be found in a re-examination of the stained glass
> window in Petrockstowe which was given by Phillipa to that church

If it includes a Meriet coat and not a Courtenay one, that would be a hint, but the absence fo both these coats would not necessarily mean anything.

taf

[d***@aol.com]

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:40:12 PM UTC-5, Carole S wrote:
> Louise Staley wrote in a message some time ago that ""Hugh Stukeley
> was Philippe Bonville's half-brother, he being the son of
> Philippa's mother's 2nd marriage to Richard Stukeley.""
>
> Would any further clues be found in a re-examination of the stained glass window in >Petrockstowe which was given by Phillipa to that church


I don't think Louise Staley ever stated that her belief was that "Hugh Stukeley was Philippe Bonville's half-brother, he being the son of Philippa's mother's 2nd marriage to Richard Stukeley."

On the contrary, below is the actual Grenville-Bonville pedigree developed by Louise Staley back in 2001 after much of the research was completed for the Grenville-Courtenay research project. Of course she had her own dialogue with Douglas Richardson, but her own belief was supported by this pedigree she had developed.

Constructed Descendants of Theobald Grenville II

Gen 1: Theobald Grenville II d: by July 1381 = Margaret Courtenay
|
|
Gen 2: Sir John Grenville b: Bef. 1351 d: Bef. Feb 1412

Gen 2: William Grenville b: Bef. 1368 = spouse unknown
|
|
Gen 3: Unknown Grenville = Margaret Courtenay b: Aft. 1417 (dau. of Hugh of Haccombe)
|
|
Gen 4: William Grenville, Esq., b: ? d: Abt. 1448 = (2) Philippa Bonville b: Aft. 1414, d: Aft. 1450, m: Aft. 12 May 1427
|
|
Gen 5: Thomas Grenville, Esq., b: say 1430, d: Abt. 1483 = (1) Anne Courtenay, m: Aft. 7 Sep 1447, d.s.p. (2) Elizabeth Gorges b: ? Stowe, Cornwall, Eng, m: Bef. 21 Jan 1453
|
|
Gen 6: by (2) Ellin Grenville b: Abt. 1455, d: 1485
Gen 6: by (2) Sir Thomas Grenville, K.B., b: say 1455 (adult by 1480), d:
18 Mar 1514
Gen 6: by (2) John Grenville d: 1509
Gen 6: by (2) Richard Grenville

[wjhonson]

The problem with "rules of thumb" is that ... they are utterly unreliable and should not be used.

What should be used, are actual contemporary sources.

All else, is so much green material that floats on ponds.

[d***@aol.com]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> In this case, we know that Philippe Bonville married William Grenville as his 2nd wife sometime in or after 1427, and that five children were born to this marriage which ended in 1447. While we don't know exactly when Philippe and William were married, but it seems to be rather close to 1427. 1428 would certainly be a good date for the marriage. Five children later, and that would place Philippe as age about 40-45 about the year 1438, or born c.1393-1398. Such a birth date would place her as a sister of William Bonville, Lord Bonville, whose father died in late 1396. Such chronology makes it impossible for Philippe to be a legitimate daughter of Lord Bonville by his wife, Margaret Grey, much less an illegitimate daughter of Lord Bonville.
>

taf brings up a good point in his most recent post.

Let's say that Thomas Grenville I was the son of Thomasine Cole and born by 1426. If this is true, then who were the other four/five children born to Philippa Bonville and William Grenville, Esq. after 12 May 1427?

[Carole S]

Hello everyone
the page on the Yeo Society website which shows this image of the glass actually shows 2 images-in one of which Sheila Yeo tried to rearrange the panels back to how they should have been --there is also more explanation as to what happened to the window and why it ended up disarrayed !
http://www.yeosociety.com/heraldry/yeo%20evidence.htm

Sheila wrote
""This stained glass window was placed in St Petrocks Church, Petrockstowe, Devon, around 1450 by Phillipa Bonville, who was the wife of William Grenville, parents of Ellen Grenville who married William Yeo. (see relationship to Prince William) Unfortunately the window was moved some years ago, into the church vestry and when it was moved the panes of glass were placed in the wrong order and sometimes reversed, In fact the only shields which are correctly shown are the two Yeo ones, all the rest are reversed. However, these two shields are in the wrong order, and have been damaged, losing their chevrons. On the left hand one, if you look carefully you can see the leopard's face that indicates William was the younger son of John Yeo & Alice Jewe

It is impossible to photograph the window from outside the church as it has been protected with a metal mesh, and has to be seen from within the vestry. This means, also that it has been impossible to clean away the hundreds of years of grime as the outside of the window is inaccessible and many of the colours, such as the green background on the Jewe shield and the red Bend on the Bonville ? arms are barely visible In the second photograph, I have flipped the coats of arms to their correct orientation, (except for the Yeo one..) but not order....... .Starting from the top

Left hand window Bonville/Grenville Right hand window Grenville/Gorges (Ellen's brother, Thomas married Elizabeth Gorges)

1st Row Left Hand Bonville? Bigbury Right Hand Bonville? Jewe

2nd Row Yeo, Yeo(younger branch- see the tiny leopard's face set in the chevron) Right Hand.... Bigbury and some kind of symbolism
"""

However I do not know of any Bigbury connections ? and the Yeo pages have not been updated for some time so is anyone in touch with Sheila Yeo who may have more information if she could be contacted ??

Best wishes to you all

[taf]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 10:38:32 AM UTC-8, Carole S wrote:
> Hello everyone
> the page on the Yeo Society website which shows this image of the glass
> actually shows 2 images-in one of which Sheila Yeo tried to rearrange
> the panels back to how they should have been

Well, not exactly. She simply inverted the photograph in its entirety, but this does not resolve the rearrangement. For example, one would expect the Yeo panes to be top right on the two panes, or at least one of them top right on one of the panes.

> On the left hand one, if you look carefully you can see the leopard's face
> that indicates William was the younger son of John Yeo & Alice Jewe

I don't buy this - I don't see the leopard, just a slightly discolored yellow/clear piece where the top of the chevron would be. Given the degree to which glass must have been replaced to lose the chevrons almost entirely, I am unwilling to accept that this shard was originally part of the window, let alone that it portrays a leopard.

> Left hand window Bonville/Grenville Right hand window Grenville/Gorges
> (Ellen's brother, Thomas married Elizabeth Gorges)

Except it's not Gorges. This is Gorges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorges_family#/media/File:GorgesModernArms.jpg

and it looks nothing like the coat depicted.

taf