Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - horselydown86

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
The parentage of Margery de Bohun, the wife of Theobald de Verdun the Elder of Alton (died 1309), has been the subject of some discussion in circles devoted to the Complete Peerage.

For example:

Dozens of online trees have settled on Humphrey de Bohun VI, Earl of Hereford and Essex (died 1265) as Margery's father.

This derives entirely from interpretation of a confused and confusing entry in A. J. Horwood, ed., Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the First, Michaelmas Term Year XXXIII and Years XXXIV-XXXV, p. 170 (with a French text on p.171).


The entry relates to a dispute in the Court of Common Pleas in Easter Term of 1306 over a part of the manor of Bisley in the county of Gloucester.  Humphrey de Bohun VII, the then current Earl of Hereford and Essex, is a party to the suit.

As far as I can discover, nobody has hitherto searched the Court Roll for the original pleading; a pity because it is as lucid as the Year Book is confused and provides a definitive statement identifying Margery's father.


The key section begins on line 9:

Et Theobaldus dicit q(uo)d quidam Humfr(id)us de Bohun p(ro)avus p(re)d(i)c(t)i Com(itis) cui(us) [h(er)os? / h(er)es?]
ipse est dedit & concessit eidem Theobaldo p(re)d(i)c(t)a ten(ementa) cu(m) p(er)tin(entiis) in lib(eru)m maritagiu(m)
[t(a)li?] quadam marg(er)ia filia sua &c...

And Theobald says that a certain Humphey de Bohun the great-grandfather of the aforesaid Earl whose [lord? / heir?]
himself is did give & grant to the same Theobald the aforesaid tenements with the appurtenances in frank-marriage
[tail?] with a certain Margery his daughter &c...

As I calculate the de Bohun lineage:

Humphrey VII (4th Earl of Hereford) - succeeded 1298 as Earl of Hereford & Essex.  Current Earl as of CP40/159.

Humphrey VI (3rd Earl of Hereford) - succeeded 1275 as Earl of Hereford & Essex.  Father of current Earl.

Humphrey V - did not become Earl as he predeceased his father in 1265. Grandfather of current Earl.

Humphrey IV (2nd Earl of Hereford) - succeeded 1220 as Earl of Hereford and died in 1275.  The great-grandfather of the current Earl and father of Margery de Bohun/Verdun.

Furthermore, Margery made no prior marriage with a Robert de W. He is a phantom, presumably a corruption of John de Worlemond.

I'm posting this here because I don't have a subscription to soc.genealogy.medieval and would prefer not to create a Google account to join.


Dozens of online trees have settled on Humphrey de Bohun VI, Earl of Hereford and Essex (died 1265) as Margery's father.

I have realised that this contradicts the de Bohun lineage which follows.  I was thrown out by inconsistent numbering for the succession of Humphreys found in online trees.

I should have said:

Dozens of online trees have settled on Humphrey de Bohun V (died 1265) as Margery's father.

Some years ago I found a record on a list of families who were using arms to which they weren't entitled.

The arms were issued by Christopher Barker to Thomas Knight of Hoo in the county of Southampton on 8 April 1546 and subsequently - upon Thomas Knight's death and failure of issue - granted by William Harvey to Thomas Knight's brother William Knight of Abthorpe in the county of Northampton on 24 March 1565.

Sometime in the C17th or C18th the family of Knight in Slapton, Northamptonshire were ticked off for using these arms without a right to do so.  (This family descends from Thomas and William Knight's probable half-brother John Knight, who died in 1616.)

Stupidly, I didn't save the record at the time but as my research has evolved it became clear that it has nearly as much significance to John Knight of Slapton's origins as if he had been entitled to bear the arms.

Unfortunately I can't find it again.  Can anyone tell me where the lists of families not entitled to bear arms were published or otherwise help me to find it?

Thank you for your help.

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / CCR 1229 - Help with Translation Please
« on: Saturday 26 June 21 16:06 BST (UK)  »
I would like to ask for help please in completing this translation of an entry in the CCR on 8 November 1229.

Three areas are unclear:

First, the chronology; in that the grant was made on 8 November of 14 Henry III (8 November 1229) but specifies it should extend to Michaelmas in 13 Henry III (29 September 1229).

Initially I thought the first grant was retrospective (although I couldn't see anything in the wording to support that propostion) but the second grant being from the aforesaid Feast contradicts the proposition anyway.

Secondly, there seems to be a non sequitur in the use of quamdiu, in that it doesn't specify, as long as what?

Thirdly (and most important), am I correct in translating the words cognate, sue and suam (lines 11 & 12) as referring to the unnamed daughter rather than to Lewellin?

Thank you for your help.  There is absolutely no hurry for this - whenever convenient will be fine.

My translation:

For Stephen de Sedgrave - The King grants to Stephen de Sedgrave

for keeping of the castle of Northampton and the counties of Northampton, Bedford and Buckingham, the whole

profit of the same counties from such time he did hold the keeping of the aforesaid castle

and the aforesaid counties by order of the King, continuously to the feast

of St Michael in the year etc the thirteenth.  The King granted likewise to the same Stephen

that from the aforesaid Feast of St Michael [as long?] the aforesaid counties of Northampton,

Bedford and Buckingham with the castle of Northampton and the counties of Warwick and Leicester with

the castle of Kenilworth, he should watch over by order of the King, should hold, besides [those things?]

pertaining to the custody of the aforesaid castles, the whole profit of the aforesaid

counties for keeping the aforesaid counties and aforesaid castles

and for support of the daughter of Lewellin [kinswoman?] of the King and [her?] household whom he

holds in safe keeping according to the King’s order, and for sustaining [her?] in service of the King

as long as it gives pleasure to the King.  And order is to the Barons of the Exchequer that it so

be enrolled and made happen.  Witness the King at Westminster the eighth day of November.

I would like please to confirm a reading from the Fine Rolls of Henry III in 1240.

The attached entry for Buckinghamshire has been officially translated as:

Buckinghamshire. The king, upon the death of William de Fiennes, has taken homage from Enguerrand, son and heir of the same William , for the lands that he held of the king in chief. Order to the sheriff of Buckinghamshire to take security for his relief.

However, surely the key word is cessione(m), and William (still living) has merely surrendered his lands to his son?

Thank you for your help.

London and Middlesex / 1752 Marriage - Supposedly St Gabriel's Pimlico
« on: Tuesday 15 September 20 18:47 BST (UK)  »
I have found a potential marriage for an ancestor in a volume in the Westminster, London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1558-1812 collection on Ancestry.

The marriage took place in October 1752 and appears in a volume labelled by Ancestry as St Gabriel, Warwick Square, Pimlico 1710 - 1754.

Online research on St Gabriel's Pimlico has produced nothing to suggest that it existed - even as an administrative entity - before 1830.

I have checked the beginning and end papers of the volume but there's no title information.  Other than a (probably later) note about tax stamps, it launches into marriages in March 1710 without preamble.  The last marriage is on 24 March 1754 - presumably the result of Hardwicke's Act.

This is the only volume for St Gabriel's Pimlico in this collection.  With the Westminster, London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1935 collection in browse mode, the only volumes listed for St Gabriel's are from the C20th.

I can only conclude that the 1710 - 1754 volume is mis-labelled and belongs to another church.  Does anyone have further thoughts?

Thank you for your help.

Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition / Phrase from Writ of Entry - Latin 1280
« on: Tuesday 19 May 20 14:44 BST (UK)  »
I would like some help please with the transcription and translation of a phrase from a Writ of Entry in the Per from 1280.

The record is about half-way down the page here:

I need help with the second half of line 4, from iudicio onwards.  Some of it seems to be a (regnal?) year but I'm in the dark otherwise.

In addition I have questions about these matters:

1.  The two references to the manor in line 2 appear to have a superscipt rider - va in the first case and cat in the second.  What does this mean, if anything?

2.  I presume the quond is quond(am), even though there's no mark to indicate contraction? 

3.  In line 4, I can conclude from context that it must have been Theobald who disseised Henry of the manor, rather than the reverse.  However, can that be worked out from the available grammar?  In other words, does anything signify that the qui references Theobald?

My transcript and translation are here:

Henr(icus) de Bohun petit v(ersus) Theobaldu(m) de Verdon & Marg(er)iam ux(orem) eius man(er)ium de Castelwaledene cu(m) p(er)tin(entiis) ex(cep)tis

decem libr(as) t(er)re & advo(ca)c(i)o(n)e ecc(lesi)e eiusd(e)m man(er)ii ^[va?]^  Et v(ersus) Joh(anna)m ^de^ Boun decem libr(as) terre cu(m) p(er)tin(entiis) in p(re)d(i)c(t)o man(er)io ^[cat?]^

ut Ius &c  In que ijd(e)m Theobaldus & Marg(er)ia & Johanna no(n) h(abe)nt ing(re)ssum nisi p(er) Humfr(idu)m de Boun [quond(am)?] Com(item)

Hereford qui p(re)d(i)c(tu)m Henr(icum) inde iniuste et sine iudicio [disseyss?] [p(os)(t)?] [p(ra)?m?] [t(ra)?] Ann(o) H [R?] [p?us] [R?] no(n) in [Br?]

Henry de Bohun demands against Theobald de Verdon & Margery the wife of the same the manor of Castlewalden with the appurtenances excepting
ten pounds of land & the advowson of the church of the same manor  And against Joan de Boun ten pounds of land with the appurtenances in the aforesaid manor
as right &c  In regard to which the same Theobald Margery & Joan do not have entry unless by means of Humphey de Boun formerly the Earl
of Hereford [who?] did wrongfully and without jurisdiction disseise the aforesaid Henry therefrom…

Thank you for your help.  I am in no hurry, so whenever is convenient will be fine.

I would like a little help please with one word and one phrase of Latin from this grant in 1341.

The problem is the word in line 4 which is apparently h(ab)em(us).  This is singular but should be plural (as is what I think is h(abu)im(us) in line 5).

Also, how should que quid be translated (near the end of line 4)?

The context is as follows:

Om(n)ibus xpi fidelibus ad quos hoc p(re)sens Scriptum p(er)ven(er)it Will(elmu)m Sapurton capell(am) & Joh(ann)em Roger Sal(u)t(e)m in

d(omi)no Semp(i)t(ernam) Nov(er)itis nos p(re)fat(us) Will(el)m(u)s & Joh(an)nes Rog(er) dedim(us) concessim(us) & hac p(re)senti carta n(ost)ra confirmavimus

Walt(ero) Monnt gom(er)y man(eriu)m n(ost)r(u)m de Cubbeley cu(m) p(er)tin(entijs) nec non man(er)ia n(ost)ra de Sudbure [&?] Aston cu(m) p(er)tin(entijs) ac eciam om(n)ia

mesu(a)g’ n(ost)ra terr’ & tene(men)t’ cu(m) om(n)ib(us) suis p(er)tin(entijs) que [h(ab)em(us)?] in Hill Som(er)sall & Potter Som(er)sall que [quid?] man(er)ia et cet(era) p(re)no(m)i(n)at’

Nos p(re)fat’ Will’ & Joh’ Roger nup(er) h(abu)im(us) ex dono & feoffament(o) p(re)dict(i) Walt(eri) Monnte gom(er)y H(ab)end(um) & Tenend(um)...

Thank you for your help.

I would like a little help please to properly translate the plea wording of an otherwise standard entry in the Common Plea Rolls from Hilary Term in 1444.

The Latin is: pl(ac)ito q(uo)d claudat Cur(iam) suam in Mirkaston que ap(er)ta est ad nocumentu(m) lib(er)i [ten?] ip(s)or(um) Joh(ann)is et Joh(ann)is  ^in eadem villa^ quam

claudere debet et solet...

Which I have translated as:

...concerning a plea that he [William Atkynse] will close his Court in Mirkaston, which is open, to the nuisance of [the freehold? / the free tenements?] of them the same John and John in the same village....

My questions are:

First, can we infer with certainty from the Latin lib(er)i ten' that John Curson and John Sacheverell jointly held a single freehold in Mercaston; does it represent some other situation; or can no definite conclusion be drawn?

Secondly I can't figure out the sub-clause ...quam claudere debet et solet....  I know what the individual words mean (more or less) but can't arrive at their combined meaning.

The original entry is third down on Image 535 from this AALT index:

Thank you for your help.

I would like to ask for some help please to identify the word between Concessim(us) and p(re)d(i)c(t)is in the attached image.

I am assuming it is a separate word rather than a further ending upon Concessim(us)?

The full context to this point is:

Sciant p(re)sentes & fut(ur)i q(uo)d nos Ph(illip)a que fuit [ux(or)?] Will(elm)i  de Mungom(er)y chivaler hugo de Mungom(er)y P(ar)sona eccl(es)ie de Cubbeley & Will(elmu)s de Mungom(er)y:  dedim(us) concessim(us) & hac p(re)senti carta n(ost)ra confirma

m(avi)m(us) Walt(er)o de Mungom(er)y chivaler & Matill ux(or)i eius & he(re)dib(us) de corpore ip(s)ius Walt(er)i l(egit)ime exeunt(e) man(er)ia n(ost)ra de Sudbury & de Cubbeley & cu(m) advocac(i)o(n)ib(us) eccl(es)iar(um) de Sudbury & de

Cubbeley & cu(m) om(n)ib(us) p(er)tin(entijs) suis Concessim(us) [?] p(re)d(i)c(t)is Walt(er)o & Matill...

Thank you for your help.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5