Search
First Name:
Last Name:
   

Home Search Login  
Print Bookmark

Notes


Tree:  

Matches 1,751 to 1,800 of 3,417

      «Prev «1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 69» Next»

 #   Notes   Linked to 
1751 He was a Jurat of Saint Clement Sandwich, Kent.


HELMES, or Holmes, now vulgarly called Soames, is a manor which lies partly in this parish, and partly in Milton; the house of it being commonly called the Moated House, from a large moat having been formerly made round it.

This manor was antiently part of the possessions of the family of Savage, seated at Bobbing, one of which, Arnold, son of Sir Thomas Savage, died possessed of it in the 49th year of king Edward III. After which it continued in his descendants of the names of Savage and Clifford, in like manner as Bobbing, down to Alexander Clifford, esq. who resided at this manor of Holmes, during his father's life-time, at whose death he removed to Bobbing; at length his descendant Henry Clifford, esq. of Bobbing, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, alienated it to Thomas Thomson, of Sandwich, whose descendant, of the same name, leaving two sons, Thomas, of Kenfield in Petham, and Henry of Royton-chapel, in Lenham, the latter of them became by his father's will possessed of this manor. After which it passed in the same tract of ownership as Royton, (fn. 1) till it was sold with that estate to Thomas Best, esq. of Chilston, who by will in 1795, gave it with his other estates in this county to his nephew George Best, esq. of Chilston, and he has lately sold it to Mr. Joseph Rond Davies, the present owner of it.

Footnote:
1See vol. v. of this history, p. 425.

From: 'Parishes: Iwade', The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 6 (1798), pp. 203-206. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62959&strquery=thomson. Date accessed: 17 January 2008.

From: 'Parishes: Iwade', The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 6 (1798), pp. 203-206. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62959&strquery=thomson. Date accessed: 17 January 2008.

Their son Edmund Hoggeshaw, succeeded to the possession of it, which had now, from their continuing owners of it, acquired the name of Milsted, alias Hoggeshaws, by which it has been known ever since. He died in the 12th year of king Richard II. s. p. upon which Joane, one of his sisters and coheirs, entitled her husband, Thomas Lovel, esq. to it, whose son Thomas, in the 12th year of king Henry IV. held a court for this manor; one of his decendants sold it to Robert Greaves, who died in the 9th year of king Henry VII. holding it in manner as above mentioned, Katherine, wife of George Sole, being his daughter and next heir. Soon after which, it became the property of Roger Wake, who died in the 19th year of king Henry VII. when this manor, with the advowson of the church of Milsted passed by his will to Margaret his daughter, whose husband, John Barnard, esq. entered into the possession of it. At length his grandson of the same name, dying an insant in the 14th year of king Henry VIII. it became vested, by the limitations in the will of Roger Wake above-mentioned, in his right heirs, who conveyed their interest in it to Sir Thomas Nevyle, and he passed it away by sale to Sir Robert Southwell, who in the 4th year of Edward VI. passed away, by fine then levied, the manor of Hoggeshaws, alias Milsted, and the advowson of the church of Milsted, then held of the king in capite, to Thomas Henman, senior, and his heirs. His son, Alan Henman, of Lenham, in the 12th year of that reign, sold it to Thomas Thomson, of Sandwich, jurat, for the use of Agnes, his daughter, who entitled her husband, John Toke, gent. of Goddington, to the possession of it. She survived her husband, and by her will in 1629, devised it to her eldest son Nicholas Toke, esq. of Great Chart, who in 1631, anno 7 Charles I. passed away both manor and advowson to Edward Chute, esq. of Bethersden, whose son George had married Eleanor Toke, his eldest daughter, and he anno 9 Charles I. conveyed it by fine then levied to Richard Tylden, gent. of Great Chart, and William Tylden, then an insant, his son. The family of Tylden had antiently possessions in the parishes of Brenchley, Otterden, Kennington, and Tilmanstone, in this county; one of them William Tylden, paid aid for lands in this county, in the 20th year of king Edward III. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, a branch of them was settled in the parish of Wormsell, one of whom, William Tylden, died there in 1613. His direct descendant, Richard Tylden, esq. of Great Chart, who bore for his arms, Azure, a saltier, ermine, between four phoens, or, purchased this manor and advowson as above-mentioned, whose eldest son William Tylden, gent. was of Hoggeshaws, as was his son Richard, who dying in 1763, was buried with his ancestors in the Tylden chancel, in this church. By Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Thomas Osborne, esq. of Hartlip, he left one son RichardOsborne, and three daughters, Hannah married to Edward Belcher, of Ulcomb; Mary to Thomas Bland, clerk, and Philippa, who died unmarried. Richard Osborne Tylden, esq. succeeded his father in this estate, and left his widow surviving (who re-married the Rev. Edward Smith, rector of Milsted, and died in 1776) and by her four sons, Richard, of whom hereafter; Osborne, of Torry-hill, esq. in this parish, who married the only daughter of John Withins, esq. of Surry; the Rev. Richard Cooke, rector of Milsted and Frinsted, and Manby May; and one daughter Elizabeth married to Mr. Valyer Baker, Surgeon, of Sittingborne. Richard Tylden, esq. succeeded on his mother's death to the possession of this manor, and now resides here; he married Miss Catherine Rolse, of Ashford, who died in 1783.

From: 'Parishes: Milsted', The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 6 (1798), pp. 107-112. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62950&strquery=thomson. Date accessed: 17 January 2008. 		THOMSON, Thomas (I1532)
 
1752 He was a Major, R.A. BRIDGES, Thomas Walker (I8393)
 
1753 He was a Member of Parliament for Somerset in 1442,[3] the same year he succeeded to his mother's title.[4] An ardent supporter of Richard Duke of York, he fought on the Yorkist side at the First Battle of St Albans on 23 May 1455[5][6] and at the Battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460.[7]

G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 346.
L. G. Pine, The New Extinct Peerage 1884-1971: Containing Extinct, Abeyant, Dormant and Suspended Peerages With Genealogies and Arms (London, U.K.: Heraldry Today, 1972), page 78.
L. G. Pine, The New Extinct Peerage 1884-1971: Containing Extinct, Abeyant, Dormant and Suspended Peerages With Genealogies and Arms (London, U.K.: Heraldry Today, 1972), page 78.
G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 346.
G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 346. 		BROOKE, Edward 6th Baron Cobham (I19709)
 
1754 He was a photographer working on his own account. HARGRAVES OR HARGREAVE, William (I6568)
 
1755 He was a relative of Elinor of Acquitaine, the wife of Henry III, King of England. DE GENEVILLE, Geoffrey (I9398)
 
1756 He was a relative of Elinor of Acquitaine, wife of Henry III, King of England. DE GENEVA, Peter (I9400)
 
1757 He was a weaver.. HODGE, William (I11984)
 
1758 He was also known as Roger de Bellomont, Earl of Mellent.

Sources:
[S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume VII, page 521. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
[S22] Sir Bernard Burke, C.B. LL.D., A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire, new edition (1883; reprint, Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1978), page 399. Hereinafter cited as Burkes Extinct Peerage. 		DE BEAUMONT, Roger Seigneur de Portaudemer (I15817)
 
1759 He was an ardent Royalist. He was invested as a Knight on 4 July 1641 at Whitehall, London, England . In 1643 he was imprisoned for nine months, in Winchester House, in connection with the Kentish petition. He held the office of Member of Parliament (M.P.) for Canterbury in 1660. He was created 1st Baronet Aucher, of Bishopsbourne, co. Kent [England] on 4 July 1666.

Source: Cokayne, George Edward, editor. The Complete Baronetage. 5 volumes. no date (c. 1900). Reprint, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1983. 		AUCHER, Sir, 1st Bt. Anthony (I9745)
 
1760 He was an English knight who fought in several campaigns against the Scots in the northern border and against the French during the Hundred Years' War. The nickname "Hotspur" was given to him by the Scots as a tribute to his speed in advance and readiness to attack. The heir to a leading noble family in northern England, Hotspur was one of the earliest and prime movers behind the deposition of King Richard II in favour of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399. He later fell out with the new regime and rebelled, being slain at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 at the height of his career.

Career

Arms of Hotspur
Henry Percy was born 20 May 1364 at either Alnwick Castle or Warkworth Castle in Northumberland, the eldest son of Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, and Margaret Neville, daughter of Ralph de Neville, 2nd Lord Neville of Raby, and Alice de Audley.[1] He was knighted by King Edward III in April 1377, together with the future Kings Richard II and Henry IV.[2] In 1380, he was in Ireland with the Earl of March,[3] and in 1383, he travelled in Prussia.[4] He was appointed warden of the east march either on 30 July 1384 or in May 1385,[4] and in 1385 accompanied Richard II on an expedition into Scotland.[1] "As a tribute to his speed in advance and readiness to attack" on the Scottish borders, the Scots bestowed on him the name 'Haatspore'.[2] In April 1386, he was sent to France to reinforce the garrison at Calais and led raids into Picardy. Between August and October 1387, he was in command of a naval force in an attempt to relieve the siege of Brest.[4] In appreciation of these military endeavours he was made a Knight of the Garter in 1388.[4] Reappointed as warden of the east march, he commanded the English forces against James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas, at the Battle of Otterburn on 10 August 1388, where he was captured, but soon ransomed for a fee of 7000 marks.[2]

During the next few years Percy's reputation continued to grow. He was sent on a diplomatic mission to Cyprus in June 1393 and appointed Lieutenant of the Duchy of Aquitaine (1394–98) on behalf of John of Gaunt, Duke of Aquitaine.[2] He returned to England in January 1395, taking part in Richard II's expedition to Ireland, and was back in Aquitaine the following autumn. In the summer of 1396, he was again in Calais.[3]

Percy's military and diplomatic service brought him substantial marks of royal favour in the form of grants and appointments,[4] but despite this, the Percy family decided to support Henry Bolingbroke, the future Henry IV, in his rebellion against Richard II. On Henry's return from exile in June 1399, Percy and his father joined his forces at Doncaster and marched south with them. After King Richard's deposition, Percy and his father were 'lavishly rewarded' with lands and offices.[3]

Under the new king, Percy had extensive civil and military responsibility in both the east march towards Scotland and in north Wales, where he was appointed High Sheriff of Flintshire in 1399. In north Wales, he was under increasing pressure as a result of the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr. In March 1402, Henry IV appointed Percy royal lieutenant in north Wales, and on 14 September 1402, Percy, his father, and the Earl of Dunbar and March were victorious against a Scottish force at the Battle of Homildon Hill. Among others, they made a prisoner of Archibald Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas.[1]

Rebellion, death and exhumation
In spite of the favour that Henry IV showed the Percys in many respects, they became increasingly discontented with him. Among their grievances were:

The king's failure to pay the wages due to them for defending the Scottish border
The king's favour towards Dunbar
The king's demand that the Percys hand over their Scottish prisoners
The king's failure to put an end to Owain Glyndŵr's rebellion through a negotiated settlement
The king's increasing promotion of his son's (Prince Henry) military authority in Wales
The king's failure to ransom Henry Percy's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Mortimer, whom the Welsh had captured in June 1402[5]
Spurred on by these grievances, the Percys rebelled in the summer of 1403 and took up arms against the king. According to J. M. W. Bean, it is clear that the Percys were in collusion with Glyndŵr. On his return to England shortly after the victory at Homildon Hill, Henry Percy issued proclamations in Cheshire accusing the king of 'tyrannical government'.[3]

Joined by his uncle, Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, Percy marched to Shrewsbury, where he intended to do battle against a force there under the command of the Prince of Wales. The army of his father, however, was slow to move south and it was without the assistance of his father that Henry Percy and Worcester arrived at Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403, where they encountered the king with a large army. The ensuing Battle of Shrewsbury was fierce, with heavy casualties on both sides but, when Henry Percy himself was struck down and killed, his own forces fled.[3]

The circumstances of Percy's death differ in accounts. The chronicler Thomas Walsingham stated, in his Historia Anglicana that "while he led his men in the fight rashly penetrating the enemy host, [Hotspur] was unexpectedly cut down, by whose hand is not known". Another account states that Percy was struck in the face by an arrow when he opened his vizor for a better view.[6] The legend that he was killed by the Prince of Wales seems to have been given currency by William Shakespeare, writing at the end of the following century.


Shortly after Henry died in battle, his uncle was executed. An attainder was issued and the family's property, including Wressle Castle in Yorkshire, was confiscated by the Crown.[7]
The Earl of Worcester was executed two days later.[8]

King Henry, upon being brought Percy's body after the battle, is said to have wept. The body was taken by Thomas Neville, 5th Baron Furnivall to Whitchurch, Shropshire for burial. However, when rumours circulated that Percy was still alive, the king "had the corpse exhumed and displayed it, propped upright between two millstones, in the market place at Shrewsbury".[3] That done, the king dispatched Percy's head to York, where it was impaled on the Micklegate Bar (one of the city's gates). His four-quarters were sent to London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Bristol, and Chester before they were finally delivered to his widow. She had the body buried in York Minster in November of that year.[9] In January 1404, Percy was posthumously declared a traitor, and his lands were forfeited to the Crown.[citation needed]

Marriage and issue
Henry Percy married Elizabeth Mortimer, the eldest daughter of Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March, and his wife, Philippa, the only child of Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence, and Elizabeth de Burgh, Countess of Ulster.[10] By her he had two children:

Name Lifespan Notes
Henry 3 February 1393 – 22 May 1455 2nd Earl of Northumberland; married Eleanor Neville, by whom he had issue. He was slain at the First Battle of St Albans during the Wars of the Roses.[11]
Elizabeth c.1395 – 26 October 1436 Married firstly John Clifford, 7th Baron de Clifford, slain at the Siege of Meaux on 13 March 1422, by whom she had issue, and secondly Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (d. 3 November 1484), by whom she had a son, Sir John Neville.[12]
Sometime after 3 June 1406, Elizabeth Mortimer married, as her second husband, Thomas de Camoys, 1st Baron Camoys, by whom she had a son, Sir Roger Camoys.[13] Thomas Camoys distinguished himself as a soldier in command of the rearguard of the English army at the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415.[14]

Legacy

Warkworth Castle, the home of Henry Percy
Henry Percy, 'Hotspur', is one of Shakespeare's best-known characters. In Henry IV, Part 1, Percy is portrayed as the same age as his rival, Prince Hal, by whom he is slain in single combat. In fact, he was 23 years older than Prince Hal, the future King Henry V, who was a youth of 16 at the date of the Battle of Shrewsbury.

The name of one of England's football clubs, Tottenham Hotspur F.C., acknowledges Henry Percy, whose descendants owned land in the neighbourhood of the club's first ground in the Tottenham Marshes.[15][16][17]

A 14-foot (4.3 m) statue of Henry Percy was unveiled in Alnwick by the Duke of Northumberland in 2010.[18]

Footnotes
Richardson III 2011, p. 341; Walker 2004.
Richardson III 2011, p. 341; Cokayne 1936, p. 713; Walker 2004.
Walker 2004.
Cokayne 1936, p. 713; Walker 2004.
Walker 2004; Pugh 1988, pp. 14, 37; Richardson III 2011, pp. 193–195; Holmes 2004; Tout 2004; Bean 2004.
Barratt, John (2010). War for the Throne, the Battle of Shrewsbury. Pen and Sword Books. p. 97. ISBN 978-1-84884-028-7.Campaign Chronicles series.
Brown 2004
Bean 2004.
Cokayne 1936, p. 714.
Richardson III 2011, p. 341.
Richardson III 2011, pp. 343–344.
Richardson I 2011, p. 507; Richardson III 2011, p. 250.
Cokayne 1912, p. 508; Richardson I 2011, pp. 398–399.
Leland 2004.
"Harry Hotspur – Home grown hero of Alnwick", bbc.com, 18 June 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
"Harry Hotspur Exhibition Archived 25 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine", Alnwick Castle website. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
"Alnwick 1 Tottenham Hotspur 0", itv.com, 8 November 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
Daniel, B. "Duke of Northumberland unveils Harry Hotspur statue", The Journal, 21 August 2010. Retrieved 24 September 2015.
References
Bean, J.M.W. (2004). Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland (1341–1408). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 3 October 2012.(subscription required)
Brown, A. L. (2004). Percy, Thomas, earl of Worcester (c.1343–1403). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 24 February 2016.(subscription required)
Cokayne, George Edward (1912). The Complete Peerage, edited by H.A. Doubleday. II. London: St. Catherine Press. pp. 506–510.
Cokayne, George Edward (1936). The Complete Peerage, edited by H.A. Doubleday. IX. London: St. Catherine Press. pp. 713–714.
Holmes, George (2004). Mortimer, Edmund (III), third earl of March and earl of Ulster (1352–1381). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
Lee, Sidney, ed. (1895). "Percy, Henry (1364-1403)" . Dictionary of National Biography. 44. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
Leland, John L. (2004). Camoys, Thomas, Baron Camoys (c.1350–1420/21). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 26 September 2012. (subscription required)
Pugh, T.B. (1988). Henry V and the Southampton Plot of 1415. Alan Sutton. ISBN 0-86299-541-8
Richardson, Douglas (2011). Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, ed. Kimball G. Everingham. I (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City. ISBN 1-4499-6637-3
Richardson, Douglas (2011). Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, ed. Kimball G. Everingham. III (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City. ISBN 1-4499-6639-X
Tout, T.F., rev. R.R. Davies (2004). Mortimer, Sir Edmund (IV) (1376–1408/9). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
Walker, Simon (2004). "Percy, Sir Henry (1364–1403), soldier". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21931. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
External links
Percy, Charles. "The Ancient House of Percy".
For an account of the Battle of Shrewsbury and Henry Percy's death see "Plantagenet of Lancaster". English Monarchs.
Statue of Henry Percy, 'Hotspur':
"Alnwick". fickr.
"Harry reborn in bronze". Northumberland Gazette. 22 July 2010. Archived from the original on 26 July 2010. Retrieved 20 August 2010.
For fictional treatments see:
Rose, Alexander. "Kings in the North". alexrose.com.
Donsbach, Margaret. "A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury by Edith Pargeter". historicalnovels.info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy_(Hotspur) 		PERCY, Henry "Hotspur" (I18653)
 
1761 He was archdeacon of Huntingdon. JENNER, Rev.d Charles Jr. (I3792)
 
1762 He was Crown Prince (infante) of Castile, eldest son of King Alfonso X of Castile and Violant of Aragon. His nickname, de la Cerda, means "of the bristle" in Spanish, a reference to being born with a line of hair running down his back from the neck. However, as Ferdinand predeceased his father in 1275 at Ciudad Real, his own sons did not inherit the throne of their grandfather, since their uncle, the second son, Sancho, enforced his claim by rebellion. DE LA CERDA, Infante of Castile, Don, Ferdinand (I12607)
 
1763 He was first cousin to (among others) Edward IV of England, Anne, Duchess of Exeter, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, Margaret of York, George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard III of England.

He was an English magnate.

The Earldom of Northumberland was then one of the greatest landholdings in northern England; Percy also became Lord Poynings on his marriage. This title would bring him into direct conflict with the Poynings family themselves, and indeed, feuds with neighbouring nobles, both lay and ecclesiastical, would be a key occupancy of his youth.

Percy married Eleanor Poynings, who outlived him; together they had four children. He was a leading Lancastrian during the Wars of the Roses, from which he managed to personally benefit, although his father died early in the war. He was not, however, to live to enjoy these gains, being killed at the Battle of Towton in 1461 on the defeated Lancastrian side.

Percy was knighted in 1426 together with Henry VI.[4] He was appointed Warden of the Eastern March on the Scottish border on 1 April 1440, originally for four years, and subsequent extensions in 1444, and 1445, for the next seven years.[5] This came as well with the custody of Berwick Castle and responsibility for its defence[6] He was to hold this post until March 1461.[7] In May 1448, Percy, with his father and Sir Robert Ogle, invaded Scotland and burnt Dunbar and Dumfries, for which, in revenge, the Scots attacked his father's castles of Alnwick and Warkworth.[8] King Henry made his way north, and whilst at Durham sent Percy – now Lord Poynings – to raid Dumfrieshire; the sortie – "only to return with some 500 cattle" – of around 5,000 men failed, and he was captured whilst caught in a marsh following his father's defeat at the River Sark on 23 October.[9] Sir Robert Ogle was now outlawed and the king used half of his estates to compensate Poynings for the ransom he had expended arranging his release from captivity.[citation needed]

Tensions with Scotland remained, to the extent that Poynings, his father, and other nobles were requested to stay and guard the border rather than attend Parliament, for which they were excused.[9] In summer 1451, with an Anglo-Scottish truce pending, Poynings was commissioned to treat with Scottish embassies.[4] In July 1455, he successfully prevented an assault on Berwick by the Scottish King, James II, and was congratulated by the English King as a result.[10]


The remains of Berwick Castle today
Feud with the Poynings
In the late 1440s, the Yorkshire tenants of his father, the Earl of Northumberland, were in almost constant conflict with their neighbours, those of the Archbishop of York, involving armed skirmishes which Percy's brothers led.[11] These events were deemed so severe that in 1448 they led to the only progress north for the King during his reign.[8] The same year, because of a dispute over the inheritance his family received as a result of Henry Percy's marriage, the Earl of Northumberland's retainers had ejected the earl's relative, Robert Poynings, from his Sussex manors. A year later, Henry Percy – now Lord Poynings by right of his wife – took direct part, with his father, in raiding the manor of Newington Bertram in Kent, which was also enfeoffed by Robert. This attack also apparently involved cattle rustling and theft, and Robert later claimed it to be so brutal that he was "deterred from seeking a remedy at law for three years".[12]

Feud with Nevilles
Main article: Percy-Neville feud
By the early 1450s, relations with a powerful neighbouring family, the Nevilles, became increasingly tense, and Poyning's brother Thomas, Lord Egremont, had finally ambushed a Neville force, returning from a wedding, near Sheriff Hutton,[13] with a force of between 1,000[14] and 5,000 men.[15] Although this was a bloodless confrontation, a precedent for the use of force in this particular dispute had already been laid in the previous violence in the region.[16] By October 1453, Poynings was directly involved, with his father, brothers Egremont and Richard, and joined by Lord Clifford, in forcing a battle with John and Richard Neville at Topcliffe.[17] The feud continued into the next year, when Poyning reportedly planned on attending parliament accompanied by a large force of men in February, and three months later both he and the earl were summoned by the king to attend council in attempt to impose a peace;[4] a second letter was "written but not despatched".[18] Neither, along with John Neville or Salisbury, did as requested.[19]

Wars of the Roses
Main article: Wars of the Roses

John Quartley's 19th-century depiction of the Battle of Towton
During the Wars of the Roses, Percy followed his father in siding with the Lancastrians against the Yorkists.[20] The Earl himself died at what is generally considered to be the first battle of the wars, at St Alban's on 22 May 1455, and Poynings was elevated as third Earl of Northumberland, without having to pay relief to the Crown, due the fact that his father had died in the King's service. He in his turn "swore to uphold the Lancastrian dynasty".[4] Although a reconciliation of the leading magnates of the realm was attempted in October 1458 in London, he arrived with such a large body of men (thought to be around 1,500)[21] that the city denied him entry. The new earl and his brother Egremont were bound over £4,000 each to keep the peace.[22]

When conflict broke out again, he attended the so-called Parliament of Devils in October 1459, which condemned as traitors those Yorkists accused of, among other offences, causing the death of his father four years before.[4] On 30 December 1460, Percy led the central "battle" or section of the victorious Lancastrian army at the Battle of Wakefield,[23] following which, the army marched south, pillaging on the road to London.[24] He fought against Warwick at the second Battle of St. Albans on 17 February 1461, and he commanded the Lancastrian van at the Battle of Towton on 29 March 1461,[25] however, "his archers were blinded by snowstorms", and he was either slain in close fighting, or died of his wounds soon after.[26] He was buried at St Denys's Church, York. He was posthumously attainted by the first parliament of the victorious Edward IV in November 1461, and his son and namesake was committed to the Tower.[4][27]

Estates, offices and finances
The estates of the Earls of Northumberland had traditionally been in constant use as a source of manpower and wages in defence of the border since the Percy family first gained the office the previous century.[28] The wages assigned to the third Earl were substantial: £2,500 yearly in time of peace, and £5,000 during war, as well as an annual payment for the maintenance of Berwick's upkeep (£66 in peacetime and £120 in wartime). Percy often had to provide from his own resources, however, as "securing payment was not easy" from the Exchequer,[4] (for example, in 1454 he received no payments at all).[29] In July 1452 he gained a twenty-year fee-farm (£80 yearly, from Carlisle), although he subsequently lost it in favour of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, in July 1454.[4] Throughout the 1450s, the Crown continually made efforts at paying Percy his Warden's wages and fees promptly (paying him full wartime rates for the whole of the year 1456-7, for example),[30] and since he was a loyal Lancastrian he achieved this more often than his counterpart on the west march, Salisbury, who by now had publicly aligned himself with York. The fee farm of Carlisle was returned to Percy in November 1459, following Salisbury's attainder in Coventry. He also benefited from the attainder of York, being granted an annuity of £66 from the latter's forfeited Wakefield Lordship in Yorkshire; he also received £200 from the profits of Penrith.[31]

As a reward for his role in the Lancastrian victory at Ludford Bridge, he was made Chief Forester north of the River Trent and the Constable of Scarborough Castle on 22 December 1459 for life. He was nominated to a wide-ranging commission of oyer and terminer (from the old French, literally a commission "to hear and determine")[32] on 30 May 1460, his new rank was a tactic to deal with the treasons and insurrections in Northumberland. On 3 July, he was granted Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Cambridgeshire, all belonging to Salisbury, on a twelve-year lease.[33] After the Yorkists captured Henry VI at the Battle of Northampton in 1460, they accused Percy of having looted York's northern estates during his exile in Ireland. This charge was likely to have had some truth in it, as it was his continued pillaging of those estates, with the Lords Clifford and Dacre, that led to York marching north to Wakefield in December 1460. These incomes, however collected, would have been vital to the Earl both personally and militarily as his northern estates especially had been a victim of feudal decline for most of the first half of the fifteenth century: even on the forfeit of the earldom to the Crown in 1461, his arrears have been calculated as still standing at approximately £12,000.[4]

Family

Arms of Poynings: Barry of six or and vert a bend gules. Subsequently quartered by Percy
On or before 25 June 1435, by the arrangement in 1434 of his father and Cardinal Beaufort,[4] he married Eleanor Poynings (c.1422-11 February 1484), suo jure Baroness Poynings, daughter and heiress of Sir Richard Poynings of Poynings in Sussex, by his second wife Eleanor Berkeley, a daughter of Sir John Berkeley of Beverston Castle in Gloucestershire.[34] In 1446 she became heir general to her grandfather Robert Poynings, 4th Baron Poynings (1380–1446),[35] inherited his title of Baron Poynings (which having been created by writ was able to descend to females) and his large estates across the south of England.[4] He was summoned to Parliament from 14 December 1446 to 26 May 1455, by writs directed Henrico de Percy, chivaler, domino de Ponynges ("Henry de Percy, Knight, lord of the manor of Poynings"). His wife was a legatee in the 1455 will of her mother, Eleanor, Countess of Arundel (widow of John FitzAlan, 13th Earl of Arundel). They had at least one son and four daughters:[35]

Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland (c. 1449 – 28 April 1489), who married Maud Herbert, daughter of the first Earl of Pembroke.[36]
Margaret Percy (b. c. 1447), who married Sir William Gascoigne[37]
Elizabeth Percy (1460–1512), who married Henry Scrope, 6th Baron Scrope of Bolton.[35]
Anne Percy (1444–1522), who married Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1460.[38]
Eleanor Percy (1455-c. 1477), who married Thomas West, 8th Baron De La Warr; they had no children.
Ancestry
Ancestors of Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland
Notes
The ancient arms of Percy were: Azure, five fusils in fess or, both versions still quartered by the Percy Duke of Northumberland today
Percy's maternal uncles included Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury. His maternal aunts included Cecily Neville, through whom he was closely related to the House of York: Edward IV of England, Margaret of York, George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard III of England were all first cousins.[3]
Burke's Landed Gentry, 1937, p.1792[full citation needed]
Debrett's Peerage, 1968, p.849[full citation needed]
Pollard 2007, pp. viii–ix.
Griffiths 2008.
Griffiths 1981, pp. 404–5.
Storey 1957, pp. 600, 604 note 2.
Storey 1957, p. [page needed].
Griffiths 1981, p. 409.
Griffiths 1981, p. 410.
Griffiths 1981, pp. 770, n. 203.
Wilcock 2004, p. 56.
Jeffs 1961, pp. 155–6.
Griffiths 1968, p. 597.
Gillingham 1981, p. 76.
Storey 1999, p. 130.
Sadler & Speirs 2007, p. 74.
Griffiths 1968, p. 605.
Nicolas 1837, p. 179.
Griffiths 1981, p. 737.
Pollard 2007, p. 108.
Griffiths 1981, p. 805.
Griffiths 1981, p. 806.
Haigh 1996, p. 41.
Griffiths 1981, p. 882.
Griffiths 1981, p. 874.
Weiss 1976, p. 504.
Ellis 2006.
Griffiths 1981, p. 845 n. 244.
Griffiths 1981, p. 764, n. 114.
Griffiths 1981, p. 840 n. 162.
Booth 1997.
"Oyer And Terminer". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
Griffiths 1981, p. p. 851 n. 330.
"BERKELEY, Sir John I (1352-1428), of Beverstone castle, Glos". History of Parliament Online.
Richardson III 2011, p. 345.
Richardson III 2011, pp. 345–7.
Richardson I 2011, p. 246.
Lee 1891, Volume 28, p. 257
References
Bean, J. M. W. (2004). "Percy, Henry, first earl of Northumberland (1341–1408)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21932. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.), older version available at "Percy, Henry (1342-1408)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
Booth, Peter W. N. (1997). Landed society in Cumberland and Westmorland, c. 1440–1485: The politics of the Wars of the Roses (PhD). Department of History, University of Leicester. hdl:2381/9677.
Ellis, Steven G. (May 2006) [2004]. "Percy, Henry, fourth earl of Northumberland (c.1449–1489)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21935. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Gillingham, J. (1981). The Wars of the Roses. London: Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-0-297-77630-7.
Griffiths, R.A. (1968). "Local Rivalries and National Politics: The Percies, the Nevilles, and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–55". Speculum. 43 (4): 589–632. doi:10.2307/2855323. JSTOR 2855323.
Griffiths, R.A. (1981). The Reign of King Henry VI. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-04372-5.
Griffiths, R.A. (May 2010) [2004]. "Percy, Henry, second earl of Northumberland (1394–1455)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21933. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.). The first edition of this text is available at Wikisource: Hunt, W. (1895). "Percy, Henry, second Earl of Northumberland (1394–1455)" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 44. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
Griffiths, R.A. (January 2008) [2004]. "Percy, Henry, third earl of Northumberland (1421–1461)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21934. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Haigh, P.A. (1996). The Battle of Wakefield. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN 978-0-7509-1342-3.
Jeffs, R. (1961). "The Poynings-Percy Dispute: an example of the interplay of open strife and legal action in the fifteenth century". BIHR. 34 (90): 148–164. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2281.1961.tb02091.x.
Ormrod, W. M. (January 2008) [2004]. "Lionel, duke of Clarence (1338–1368)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/16750. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Lee, Sidney (1891). "Hungerford, Robert" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 28. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 257–258.
Nicolas, H., ed. (1837). Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England. VI. London.
Pollard, A.J. (1 October 2007). Warwick the Kingmaker: Politics, Power and Fame. London: Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1-84725-182-4.
Richardson, D. (2011). Kimball G. Everingham (ed.). Magna Carta Ancestry. I (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City. ISBN 978-1-4499-6637-9.
Richardson, D. (2011). Kimball G. Everingham (ed.). Magna Carta Ancestry. III (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City. ISBN 978-1-4499-6639-3.
Sadler, J. & Speirs, S. (2007). Battle of Hexham in its Place. Hexham. ISBN 978-0-9552758-7-6.
Storey, R.L. (1 October 1957). "The Wardens of the Marches of England towards Scotland, 1377–1489". The English Historical Review. 72 (285): 593–615. doi:10.1093/ehr/LXXII.CCLXXXV.593. JSTOR 557957.
Storey, R.L. (1999). The End of the House of Lancaster (repr. ed.). Stroud: Sutton. ISBN 978-0-7509-2007-0.
Tate, G. (1866). The History of the Borough, Castle, and Barony of Alnwick. 1. Alnwick: Henry Hunter Blair.
Tout, T. F. (1894). "Mortimer, Edmund de (1351-1381)" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 39. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 119–121.
Tuck, Anthony (2004). "Neville, Ralph, first earl of Westmorland (c.1364–1425)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/19951. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Walker, Simon (January 2008a) [2004]. "Katherine , duchess of Lancaster (1350?–1403)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/26858. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Walker, Simon (May 2008b) [2004]. "John, duke of Aquitaine and duke of Lancaster, styled king of Castile and León (1340–1399)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/14843. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Weiss, M. (1976). "A Power in the North? The Percies in the Fifteenth Century". The Historical Journal. 19 (2): 501–509. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00010268. JSTOR 2638574.
Wilcock, R. (2004). "Local Disorder in the Honour of Knaresborough, c. 1438–1461 and The National Context". Northern History. 41 (1): 39–80. doi:10.1179/nhi.2004.41.1.39.
Further reading
Bean, J.M.W. (1958), The Estates of the Percy Family, 1416–1537, Oxford Historical Series, London: Oxford University Press
Hunt, William (1895). "Percy, Henry (1394-1455)" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. 44. London: Smith, Elder & Co. p. 407. — a section of the last page of the 2nd earl's biography.
Rose, Alexander (2002). Kings in the North – The House of Percy in British History. Phoenix/Orion Books. ISBN 1-84212-485-4. 		PERCY, Henry 3rd Earl of Northumberland (I18644)
 
1764 He was King of Arms of Hainault. One of Sir Payne Roet's daughters married Geoffrey Chaucer.

Paon de Roet (c. 1310–1380), also called Paon de Roët,[1] Sir Payn Roelt,[2] Payne Roet and sometimes Gilles Roet, was a herald and knight from Hainaut (in present day Belgium) who was involved in the early stages of the Hundred Years War. He became attached to the court of King Edward III of England through the king's marriage to Philippa of Hainaut.

He is most notable for the fact that he became the ancestor of the monarchs of England and of Scotland. The children of his daughter Katherine, mistress and later wife of the king's son John of Gaunt, were given the surname Beaufort and her great-granddaughter Margaret Beaufort gave rise to the Tudor dynasty while her granddaughter Joan Beaufort married into the Stuart dynasty. Another of his daughters, Philippa, also made a notable marriage to the poet Geoffrey Chaucer.


Contents
1 Career
1.1 Early life
1.2 In England
1.3 France and Hainaut
2 Family
3 Tomb
4 Notes
Career
Early life
Born about 1310 in Hainaut, he was "probably christened as Gilles,"[3] in English 'Giles' and in Latin 'Egidius', a name used in each generation of the knightly family who were feudal lords of the town of Le Roeulx.[4] However he became known as Paon or Payne, written in Latin as Paganus.

He may have been inspired to seek his fortune in England by the example of Fastre de Roet, who accompanied John of Beaumont in 1326, when, with three hundred followers, he went to fight for the English against the Scots. Fastre was a younger brother of Eustace VI, last lord of Le Roeulx and a descendant of the Counts of Hainault. He and his brother Eustace fell into pecuniary straits, and were obliged to alienate their landed possessions. Fastre died in 1331, and was buried in the abbey church of Le Roeulx, while his brother Eustace survived till 1336. Paon was, like Fastre, a younger brother, if not of Eustace VI then of a collateral line.[4]

In England
Paon de Roet may have come to England as part of the retinue of Philippa of Hainaut, accompanying the young queen in her departure from Valenciennes to join her youthful husband Edward III in England at the close of 1327. His name does not appear in the official list of knights who accompanied the queen from Hainaut. However, Froissart says he was one of a number of additional young knights and squires who added to the queen's retinue, referred to as 'pluissier jone esquier', i.e. "plusieurs jeunes escuyers" ('other young squires'); Speght (1598)[5]

Froissart's account of the history of English monarchs includes a genealogical tree, the relevant part of which begins with Paon's name. He is described as "Paganus de Rouet Hannoniensis, aliter dictus Guien Rex Armorum" ("Paon de Rouet of Hainaut, also called Guyenne King of Arms"). The latter part refers to the title of King of Arms granted by Edward III to Roet for the territory of Guyenne (Aquitaine) which was controlled by Edward.

France and Hainaut
In 1347, Roet was sent to the Siege of Calais, and was one of two knights deputed by Queen Philippa to conduct out of town the citizens whom she had saved (the so-called Burghers of Calais).[6]

He had returned to the lands of Hainaut, probably by 1349. He went to serve the queen’s sister, Marguerite, who was the empress of Germany, and his three younger children—Walter, Philippa and Katherine—were left in the care of Queen Philippa.[7] He died in Ghent, County of Flanders in 1380.

Family
Paon had three daughters, Katherine, Philippa and Isabel (also called Elizabeth) de Roet, and a son, Walter. Isabel was to become Canoness of the convent of St. Waudru at Mons in Hainaut, c. 1366. Philippa married the poet Geoffrey Chaucer in 1366. They met while still children when they were attached to the household of Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster.[8]

Katherine became governess to the daughters of John of Gaunt. After the death of John's wife Blanche in 1369, Katherine and John began a love affair which would bring forth four children born out of wedlock and would endure as a lifelong relationship. However, John made a dynastic marriage to Constance of Castille, a claimant to the throne of Castile, after which he called himself "King of Castille". When Constance died he married Katherine and legitimised their children.

Tomb

Roet's name listed amongst early graves lost noted on the memorial in St Paul's Cathedral
Paon de Roet's tomb was in Old St Paul's Cathedral, near Sir John Beauchamp's tomb (commonly called "Duke Humphrey's"). In 1631 the antiquary John Weever reported that "upon a faire marble stone, inlaid all over with brasse, (of all which, nothing but the heads of a few brazen nailes are at this day visible) and engraven with the representation and cote-Armes of the party defunct. Thus much of a mangled funerall Inscription was of late time perspicuous to be read".[9]

By 1658, still without its brass plate and effigies, the tomb was again described by William Dugdale. It was destroyed, along with many others (including that of John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster) in 1666 in the Great Fire of London. A modern monument in the crypt lists De Roet amongst the important graves lost.

The inscription (as recorded by Weever, although lost by his day) began:

Hic Jacet Paganus Roet miles Guyenne Rex Armorum Pater Catherine Ducisse Lancastrie ...
(Here lies Paon de Roet, knight, Guyenne King of Arms, father of Katherine Duchess of Lancaster ...)
Alison Weir argues that Katherine herself likely had the tomb made for her father during her lifetime, which would place its construction between 1396 and 1403.[10]

Notes
Amin, Nathen (2017). The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown, p. 16. Amberley Publishing, Stroud. ISBN 978-1-4456-8473-4.
Walker, Simon. "Katherine [née Katherine Roelt; married name Katherine Swynford], duchess of Lancaster", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 3 January 2008. Accessed 8 January 2019.
Weir, Alison (2007). Katherine Swynford: The story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Duchess. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-06321-0.
Perry, Judy, Fall of the House of Roeulx, retrieved 24 March 2017
Speght, Thomas (1598). The Life of Chaucer.
Froissart, 5.215 : "Et au matin elle fist donner a casqun sys nobles [six nobles, about $150], et les fist conduire hors de l'oost par messire Sanse d'Aubrecicourt et messire Paon de Ruet, si avent que il vorrent, et que il fu avis as deus chevaliers que il estoient hors dou peril, et au departir il les commanderent a Dieu, et retournerent li chevalier en l'oost."
Davis, Craig R. “A Perfect Marriage on the Rocks: Geoffrey and Philippa Chaucer, and The Franklin’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 37.2 (2002). 130.
Braddy, Haldeen. “Chaucer’s Philippa, Daughter of Panneto.” Modern Language Notes 64.5 (1949). 342.
Weever, John (1631). Ancient Funerall Monuments within the United Monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the Islands Adjacent. London. p. 661. (p. 413 in W. Tooke's edition of 1767).
Mistress of the Monarchy: The Life of Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster. New York: Ballantine Books, 2009, 13. 		DE ROET, Sir Payne (I1743)
 
1765 He was one of the nine godfathers of Prince Edward, later to be Edward I of England . He served as High Sheriff of Kent for 1239–1240 and as Constable for England.
After returning from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land , he was one of the writers of the Provisions of Oxford in 1258. 		DE BOHUN, 2nd Earl of Hereford, 1st Earl of Essex Humphrey (I12962)
 
1766 He was recorded as being a widower on this marriage. He was a farmer at Bell Farm, father John Shrubsole a hoyman. Family (F6248)
 
1767 He was referred to as being of Willesborough in 1705 when his brother Edmund Sheafe made his Will at Ashford.

Will Kent 1709 22 June of Thomas Sheafe of Willesborough 		SHEAFE, Thomas (I13596)
 
1768 He was Sheriff of Worcestershire (1618), a member of Parliment (1615, 1620) and a member of the Virginia Company. He held manors at Worcestershire, Essex, and Yorkshire. A monument to him and his wife, Mercy Culpepper, can be found at the Wickhamford church, Worcestershire. They had 11 children including daughter Margaret who married Sir. Francis Wyatt, Governor of Virginia. SANDYS, Samuel (I10692)
 
1769 He was surgeon and chamberlain of the City of Canterbury. SCUDAMORE, Edward (I7327)
 
1770 He was the politician and business leader Sir Toby Low, 1st Baron Aldington.

December 19, 2000
LORD ALDINGTON: DEAD, BUT NO R.I.P.
by Srdja Trifkovic
Lord Aldington, 86, a former British trade minister and Conservative Party vice chairman who filed one of Britain's most famous libel cases against a man who labeled him a war criminal, died of cancer Dec. 8 at his home in Kent, southern England. In 1989, Lord Aldington was awarded $2.2 million in damages after winning a libel suit against historian Count Nikolai Tolstoy, a distant relative of Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, who had written a pamphlet accusing Lord Aldington of war crimes. As a British army officer in Austria at the end of World War II, Lord Aldington — then known by his given name, Toby Low — oversaw the repatriation of thousands of Cossack and Yugoslav refugees. Many were subsequently killed or interned in prison camps. At the libel trial, Lord Aldington agreed that the refugees' fate was "ghastly" but said he had not known that many faced execution if returned to their homelands. (The Washington Post, December 9, 2000)
An obituary sometimes begs a thousand words. Well worth doing in this case, especially since it's been over a decade since we wrote about Aldington, Tolstoy, and one of the greatest untold tragedies of World War II (cf. "Writing in the Tolstoy Tradition" by Sally Wright, Chronicles, April 1989). This is a story of heinous crimes that went unpunished and establishmentarian conspiracies to cover them up, of miscarriage of justice, of one man's quixotic efforts to tell the truth and another's quiet campaign to keep it suppressed.
The story starts at Yalta in February 1945, when the return of all Soviet citizens that may find themselves in the Allied zone was demanded by Stalin — and was duly agreed to by Churchill and FDR. Accordingly, hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs liberated by the Allies were sent back home, regardless of their wishes, and regardless of what Stalin had in store for them. In addition, in May and June 1945 tens of thousands of refugees from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union — unarmed civilians escaping communism, as well as anticommunist resistance fighters and assorted collaborationists — were rounded up by the British in Austria, and forcibly delivered to Stalin and Tito. Most of them were summarily executed, sometimes within earshot of the British. Forced repatriations were known as Operation Keelhaul — the "last secret" of World War II, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it. Men, women, and children were forced into boxcars headed for the Soviet zone in the east, or for Slovenia in the south.
Non-Soviet and non-Yugoslav citizens and Serbian royalists were supposedly exempt from the deportation order, but key military officials in the British chain of command surreptitiously included them, too. As a result émigré Russians waving French passports and British medals from the World War I were all rounded up and delivered to Stalin.
There was panic in the camps when the inmates realized what was going on. The British lied to some that they were to be taken to Italy, or some other safe haven; if the subterfuge didn't work they used rifle butts and bayonets as prods. Some refugees committed suicide by sawing their throats with barbed wire. Mothers threw their babies from trains into the river. To its credit one British regiment, the London Irish, refused: they went to war to fight German soldiers, they said, not to club refugee women and children. (Americans proved willing to open the gates of refugee camps and look the other way as the desperate inmates fled.)
In late June 1945 the original policy of screening the would-be deportees was reinstated, but it was too late: most of them were already dead, or in the depths of the Gulag. The tragedy would have remained little known outside obscure émigré circles were it not for British historian Count Nikolai Tolstoy, who has dedicated his life to exposing the truth and identifying those responsible. This great-grand-nephew of Russia's famous novelist — and heir to the senior line of the family — has written three books on forced repatriations, each more revealing than the previous one, as more suppressed information came to light. In 1977 his Victims of Yalta was published, followed by Stalin's Secret War in 1981, and then his most controversial book, The Minister and the Massacres (1986).
In his books Tolstoy argued that refugees not covered by the Yalta agreement — émigré Russians and royalist Yugoslavs — were forcibly repatriated because Harold Macmillan, "minister resident" in the Mediterranean and later prime minister, wanted to advance his political career by appeasing Stalin. He persuaded a British general whose 5th Army Corps occupied southern and eastern Austria to ignore a Foreign Office telegram ordering that "any person who is not (repeat not) a Soviet citizen under British law must not (repeat not) be sent back to the Soviet Union unless he expressly desires."
Enter Lord Aldington, then a politically well-connected 30-year-old brigadier called Toby Low, who was the Fifth Corps chief of staff. He was also an aspiring Tory politician, hopeful of being nominated as a candidate at the forthcoming general election in Britain. Low had no qualms about acting upon Macmillan's suggestions. On May 21, 1945 he issued an order to 5th Corps officers as to how to define Soviet citizenship: "Individual cases will NOT be considered unless particularly pressed ... In all cases of doubt, the individual will be treated as a SOVIET NATIONAL." The émigrés' fate was thus sealed. Tolstoy named Aldington in his last book as the chief executor of the policy of forced repatriation on the ground, the man who went way beyond the call of duty in carrying out Macmillan's instructions, and who did so in contravention of orders.
The charges were serious, by British standards quite scandalous in fact, but Aldington was reluctant to sue Tolstoy over the book. He did sue one Nigel Watts instead, however, an obscure property developer who distributed a pamphlet — written by Tolstoy — in which Aldington was called a war criminal. The pamphlet included the following statements:
As was anticipated by virtually everyone concerned, the overwhelming majority of these defenceless people, who reposed implicit trust in British honour, were either massacred in circumstances of unbelievable horror immediately following their handover, or condemned to a lingering death in Communist gaols and forced labour camps. These operations were achieved by a combination of duplicity and brutality without parallel in British history since the Massacre of Glencoe ... The man who issued every order and arranged every detail of the lying and brutality which resulted in these massacres was Brigadier Toby Low, Chief of Staff to General Keightley's 5 Corps, subsequently ennobled by Harold Macmillan as the 1st Baron Aldington ... The evidence is overwhelming that he arranged the perpetration of a major war crime in the full knowledge that the most barbarous and dishonourable aspects of his operations were throughout disapproved and unauthorised by the higher command, and in the full knowledge that a savage fate awaited those he was repatriating ... a major war criminal, whose activities merit comparison with those of the worst butchers of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
As the author of the text Tolstoy felt honor-bound to include himself as Watts' co-defendant. At the trial Aldington freely acknowledged signing the repatriation orders, but claimed that there was "no way" he could have known the refugees would be killed: "We were told that international law would be obeyed."
His mission in Austria accomplished, Brigadier Low returned to England on some unknown date in May 1945 to be selected as the Conservative MP for Blackpool — the beginning of the slow rise that would see him ennobled (by Macmillan!) and ushered into the boardrooms and elite gentlemen's clubs of Britain. The exact date of his return is highly significant: Tolstoy argued that Low did not leave Austria until after the key order on indiscriminate deportations was issued, and therefore it was he who — contrary to the orders issuing from Yalta — was personally responsible for the crime.
When the trial came it should have been possible, easy even, to prove the order of events and name the man who had issued the orders. The British are efficient administrators, and the Public Record Office should have contained the answer. Some of the relevant documents Tolstoy had copied when he researched his books, but when he went back he found that the old boy network had done its work. All key documents related to the case had been sent to various government ministries — notably to the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence — and duly "misplaced." When Tolstoy's researcher asked for these documents, including reports and signals relating to Aldington, she was told they were "not available." Only after the trial had started was Tolstoy given a photocopy of the most important of the files, but four-fifths of the contents were missing.
Lord Aldington had no such problem: the files were not only readily available to him, but delivered to his office by government couriers. "Dear George," he wrote to George Younger, the (then) Defence Secretary, on March 8, 1987, "you are a friend who will understand my distress ... if the files can be brought to the Westminster area in a series of bundles, that would be very helpful." "Dear George" duly obliged. Aldington's mind eventually clarified as to the date on which he had finally left Austria — he gave three dates in three interviews — but there were no records by which these could be confirmed.
Heavily influenced by the trial judge, the jury found against Tolstoy and awarded Lord Aldington astronomic damages — a million and a half pounds sterling — in November 1990. Tolstoy, who declared bankruptcy, was denied the right to appeal. Aware that Tolstoy was penniless after the libel verdict, Britain's High Court ruled that he had no right to appeal unless he came up with almost $200,000 in advance to cover Aldington's legal expenses. The court further denied Tolstoy access to a $1m defense fund that had been set up in his name, and to which Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the late Graham Greene had contributed. The British establishment, and in particular the grandees who were friends of Aldinton — the man on first-name terms with ministers in every Tory government since the war — got the desired verdict. As far as they were concerned, a crank — and a foreign crank at that — had received his well-deserved comeuppance.
L'affaire Tolstoy proved yet again that British libel laws are flawed. The machinery of the British government seemed to tilt the scales of justice, and the state apparently interfered in a private court case. The Human Rights Court at Strasbourg ruled in a unanimous judgment that the failure to permit an appeal was "unfitting for a democratic society" and "constituted a violation of the applicant's right ... to freedom of expression."
A recent reminder of the travesty of justice perpetrated under British libel laws concerned two ITN journalists who successfully sued the LM Magazine (see "News & Views," April 20). Free speech was damaged both times, and — in the absence of the First Amendment equivalent — free speech is not so strong in Britain that it can take such damage. But, as Cambridge historian Michael Stenton points out, for as long as the rich have all the legal advantages, the chance of constitutional reform is poor indeed: "When historical truth becomes intensely politicized it is possible to get trapped on the wrong side of the factual fence by sympathies and first impressions. All we can do, and must do, is promise to climb over the fence if the evidence demands it."
Lord Aldington's remarkable claim that he had had absolutely no idea what the fate of these people would be was a lie. Everyone knew, and Aldington's awareness of the draconic nature of his orders was reflected in the official name of the operation — "Keelhaul." Keelhauling was a disciplinary measure on English ships in the old days: a seaman guilty of some grave offence would have a loop of a rope attached under his arms, to be thrown into the water and dragged all the way from the stern to the bow of the ship before being hauled out again. (This had the advantage that some of the barnacles would be scraped from the ship's bottom, but few survived such treatment.)
After Tolstoy's trial his Minister and the Massacres was banned from British libraries and universities. Although the British government would like to silence Tolstoy and any reference to forced repatriation, the issue will never go away. Ever the idealist, Tolstoy hopes that sooner or later it will have to come clean and apologize for the crimes of its agents in occupied Central Europe in that awful spring of 1945. He recalls that Prime Minister Tony Blair recently issued an apology on behalf of Britain for the 19th century potato blight in Ireland, "though many historians and members of the public found it hard to envisage in what way that tragedy could be regarded as a direct responsibility of the government of the day, let alone its late 20th century successor." He also points out that the British government "pressed consistently and successfully" for German and Japanese governments to compensate British victims of their wartime atrocities.
Lord Aldington won his court case thanks to the twisted British libel laws and thanks to the Kafkaesque nature of Britain's power structure, but wherever he is now he may be wondering if it was a victory worth having. That flawed man, disdainful of the suffering of such lesser breeds as Slavs, cynically manipulative and devoid of any capacity for moral distinctions, is beyond human judgment now; but one hopes that a much higher court will take a dim view of his life and times. May his name live in infamy. 		LOW, Rt. Hon. Sir, 1st Baron Aldington Toby Austin Richard William (I10175)
 
1771 he widower, 43, labourer residing at Chilham father William Warden, labourer
she spinster, 30, no occupation, residing at Chilham, father Stephen Friar, labourer
witnesses: George Solley, James Coleman. 		Family (F4793)
 
1772 Headline Miller, Mr. & Mrs. Albert (Bert) / 50th wedding anniversary Page 03 Date Tuesday, September 12, 1961 Type Marriage Announcement Newspaper Review Subject(s) Biography Notes Includes photo. Family (F3138)
 
1773 Headline Souder, Mary L /d SecB Page 6 Date Tuesday, July 28, 1998 Newspaper Review Type Death Announcement Subject(s) Biography  MILLER, Mary Lucy (I11115)
 
1774 Hearth Tax 1664 at Barham
William Vittell with 1 hearth 		VITTLE, Anne (I12776)
 
1775 Hedwige of Saxony (c. 910 – May 10, 965) was a daughter of Henry I the Fowler, and his wife Matilda of Ringelheim.

She was a sister of Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor; Henry I, Duke of Bavaria; Gerberga of Saxony; and Bruno I, Archbishop of Cologne.

After her brother Otto I came to power, an alliance and marriage was arranged with Hugh the Great in 936. Her son, Hugh Capet, was crowned King of France in 987. 		Hedwige of Saxony (I11737)
 
1776 Heir to his cousin Sir Arthur Harris Bt. HARRIS, Christopher (I19605)
 
1777 Heiress of Beechworth Castle ARUNDEL, Eleanor FitzAlan als (I1592)
 
1778 heiress of Esgair Lleferin, from whom Mrs. Ruck has inherited property there MORRIS, Ann (I10506)
 
1779 Held Cateshill Manor given in grand serjeantry by Henry I to him by virtue of being Usher to the King's Chamber. PORCELLUS, Dinus aka Oyn (I13554)
 
1780 held land at Henton, Buckinghamshire; probably Lord of Clotton and Farneburgh, Somerset; Southwick, Wiltshire and Burmington, Warwickshire, of which he had the grant 28 Jan 1330 GREYVILLE, Wlliam de (I16328)
 
1781 held land Southwick, Wiltshire (see Warwick Papers) GREYVILLE, John de (I16330)
 
1782 Held Otterply in dower. Joan (I12585)
 
1783 Held Ottreply in dower, living 55 Hen III 1270-1. Joan (I13184)
 
1784 Held the office of Constable of Bamborough Castle. DE WARENNE, John 7th Earl of Surrey (I1719)
 
1785 Helen Louise Warde
Died in 2008
Lived:
Baltimore, MD
Baton Rouge, LA
Walnut Creek, CA
El Sobrante, CA
Oakland, CA
Richmond, CA
Also lived with: V Warde

Julie V Warde
Died in 2011
Lived:
Grants Pass, OR
Oakland, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Healdsburg, CA
Merlin, OR
Tahoe City, CA
Also lived with: V Warde
Helen L Warde 		WARDE, Julie V. (I13765)
 
1786 HENRY CLARKE, FREDERICK GIBBS, ROBERT RANDS, JOHN TRUMBETTA TRUMBETTA, CLARKE, GIBBS, RANDS or (I18967)
 
1787 Henry de Apeltrefield 31 Henry III 1246-7 = Beatrix - successful in pleading fine at court against David de Eatonbridge (de Ponte Edulmi) and Savings his wife for 10 acres of land called Werland with apppurtenances in Apeltrefeld - also obtain grant of market on Tuesday of every week and a fair on the eve and day of the Assumption of the Virgin (14 and 15 Aug) in his manor of Apuldrefield, grant dated 20 Dec 38 Henry III 1253. 39 Hen III 1254-5 again as plaintiff in a fine with Henry de Appeltrefeld and Letitia his wife of the third part of the manor of Sundrish DE APULDREFIELD, Henry (I13436)
 
1788 Henry died as a child. RALPH, Henry (I5156)
 
1789 Henry DODD, born 1822 in Godmersham (Kent), baptized 21 Jul 1822 at St Laurence, Godmersham (Kent), census 1851 at The Green, Wye (Kent), census 1861 at Withersdane Green, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1901 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), occupation 1851 Labourer, occupation 1861 - 1881 Agricultural Labourer, occupation 1891 General Labourer, occupation 1901 Agricultural Labourer, died 1st qtr 1915 in East Ashford RD (Kent) - Aged 92. He married (1) Lucy JORDAN, 7 Nov 1846 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), born 1824 in Wye (Kent), baptized 13 Jun 1824 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1851 at The Green, Wye (Kent), died Aug 1855 Age given as 32, buried 20 Aug 1855 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent). He married (2) Martha WOOLMORE or ATHERS, 4th qtr 1859 at Register Office, East Ashford RD (Kent), born 1834 in Canterbury St Georges (Kent), census 1861 at Withersdane Green, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1901 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), died 3rd qtr 1928 in East Ashford RD (Kent) - Age given as 94.
Children by Lucy JORDAN:
i George DODD, born 4th qtr 1852 in Wye (Kent), baptized 7 Nov 1852 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1861 at Withersdane Green, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Spelder's Hill, Brook (Kent), occupation 1891 Grazier / Hay Trusser. He married Jane Smith THORNBY, 8 Dec 1877 at St Mary, Hinxhill (Kent).
ii Charles DODD, born 1855 in Wye (Kent), baptized 5 Aug 1855 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1861 at Withersdane Green, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), occupation 1871 Agricultural Labourer.
Children by Martha WOOLMORE or ATHERS:
iii Emma WOOLMORE, also known as Emma DODD, born 1859 in Wye (Kent), baptized 2 Oct 1859 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1861 at Withersdane Green, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent).
3. iv Phoebe Ann Hetty DODD, born 1861 in Wye (Kent), baptized 1 Sep 1861 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Dog Kennels, Marriage Farm, Wye (Kent), census 1901 at Rock Cottage, Hinxhill (Kent), census 1911 at Bilting, Wye (Kent), died 26 Dec 1938 Aged 77, buried at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent). She married Henry George THORNBY, usually known as "George", 13 Oct 1883 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent).
v Henry William DODD, born 1863 in Wye (Kent), baptized 6 Dec 1863 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), occupation 1881 - 1891 Agricultural Labourer.
vi Frank DODD, born 1866 in Wye (Kent), baptized 5 Aug 1866 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), occupation 1881 Agricultural Labourer.
vii Fanny DODD, born 1870 in Wye (Kent), baptized 30 Oct 1870 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1871 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent).
viii William DODD, born 1873 in Wye (Kent), baptized 25 May 1873 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1901 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), occupation 1891 - 1901 Agricultural Labourer. He married Catherine O'RIORDAN, 4th qtr 1896 in West Ashford RD (Kent).
ix Albert Edward DODD, born 1876 in Wye (Kent), baptized 24 Jun 1876 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent).
x Annie Constance Mary DODD, born 1880 in Wye (Kent), baptized 30 May 1880 at Ss Gregory & Martin, Wye (Kent), census 1881 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent), census 1891 at Withersdane, Wye (Kent). 		WOOLMORE OR ATHERS, Martha (I13469)
 
1790 Henry George Jemmett was born on November 3, 1837 in Preston, Kent, England to William Lewington Jemmett and Mary Ann Browning Jemmett He was the second child born to the second marriage of his mother.
Henry George Jemmett was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on May 4, 1850.
On March 10, 1861 Henry George Jemmett married Eliza Elliott at Faversham, Kent, England.
On the 23 of May 1863 Henry George Jemmett’s wife, Eliza,who was pregnant, their daughter Emma and Eliza’s parents, William and Eliza Nicholls Elliott left England for America. Henry hated to see them go but knew his family was in good hands with Eliza’s parents. There was not enough money for the whole family to go so Henry had to stay and earn his fare.
In May of 1863 Henry began his journey to America. In a journal written by a fellow voyager the following can be learned of Henrys voyage.
“By the 30th of May 1864, the sailing vessel “Hudson” was ready to carry a group or company of converts to America. On June 2, 1864 anchor was weighed, a pilot boat towed them down the Thames shore line of their native land, England, which gradually faded from view. It was an interesting sight to view an emigrant vessel. On the “Hudson” were 900 Latter Day Saints consisting of English, Scotch, Welsh, Danish, Scandinavian, Swiss and others. There were also 200 Irish emigrants whom were partitioned off from the saints. In all the ship carried 100 British subjects.
The saints went to steerage which meant they descended through a trap door to quarters below deck. Their berths were large shelves securely fastened to the ship’s sides. Their trunks and belongings must be fastened firmly down to overcome the ships motion when at sea. Also in the hold were great long tables where all the emigrants sat to eat their meals; that is those who were able to eat. The fare consisted mainly of salt beef, salt pork, rice and hard tack of ship’s biscuits. None of the fare was enticing. It was necessary to break the biscuits open with a hammer. Each person was given a linen bag to hold these articles, and at a specified time be at the commissary to receive the allotment of fresh water, etc. Under such conditions strict discipline was necessary.
John M. Kay was president of the company of saints on the “Hudson”. He was assisted by George Holliday, John Smith and Mathew Mc Cune. Prayers were maintained night and morning, meetings held on deck every night and all lights were out by nine o’clock P.M. The voyage was made without incident except the occasional sighting of an ocean liner or some other sailing vessel. Then, perhaps, the blurting of a whale would break the monotony. Once during the forty odd days at sea they were battered down during a storm, which caused the boat to pitch and roll considerable. As they neared the shores of the United States a confederate gunboat hailed them for inspection as the Civil War was then on.
The emigrants cramped and huddled down like animals, had their sorrows along with their happier moments. Measles broke out among them. Nine little children succumbed. Each corpse was wrapped in a blanket and sadly lowered to a watery grave. And three babies, two boys and one girl, was born at sea.
It was early in the morning of July 16, that the shore line of America was sighted. It was one experience never to be forgotten. In a few short hours a pilot had then towed safely into the harbor of New York. Here there were interview by the Custom Officers and placed in the Castle Gardens. Ellis Islands, used by Federal Government, was a landing place for immigrants. At the entrance to East River were the old Dutch fortifications. The round fort was the assembly hall where the immigrants were herded to await admittance into the United States. This was known as Castle Gardens, but during the years when thousands of immigrants were arriving yearly, it belied its name. The place was not only rat ingested but the immigrants themselves were covered with body lice and stinking from the odor of the overcrowded ship’s hold.
As soon as a company with freight could be located the immigrants were loaded on railcars. The cars were neither clean nor comfortable. Most of them torn out by Confederate armies. Finally at Saint Joseph, Missouri, they were placed on a Missouri River boat which carried them to Winter Quarters, Nebraska, on August 6, 1864. For two more weeks they lived in a little brush shelter awaiting preparations for the journey over the plains. Two companies were made up with Captain Rawlings in charge of one and Warren S. Snow the other. Due to scarcity of food for their oxen and cattle, Captain Snow took a different route than the other company. Some days latter they traveled only two hours and the journey was wearisome and hard. Finally President Brigham Young sent supplies of food and clothing out to this company and assisted them to reach Salt Lake. All had suffered from cold and exposure as they had encountered early snow. From Winter Quarters to their arrival at the 8th Ward Square where the city and county buildings now stands, on November 2, 1864, their journey had required three months.
The beloved president of the company on the ship “Hudson” John M. Kay died on the plains. They made a rough box and dug a hole for burial beside the trail. Brother Kay with George Careless had cheered and comforted the saints throughout the voyage and the journey over the plains with their sweet music. It was while on the voyage over that Professor Careless wrote the hymn “ The Morning Breaks, the Shadow Flees” to cheer the weary saints. He would have all of them singing as soon as they arose in the morning and the same before retiring at night. It was a cold reception they had upon their arrival at the 8th Ward Square. They had no relatives or friends to greet them. The company remained together for two days and nights during which time most of them found places of employment.
Had Henry not left for America in May of 1864, he would probably have been with his father William Lewington Jemmett, when his fathers ship was blown up on October 1, 1864 on the Thames River.
When Henry arrived in Utah he and Eliza were overjoyed when they were reunited. It had been over one year and about five months since they had last seen one another.
He died December 27, 1904 at Shelly, Bingham, Idaho.

Henry George Jemmett:
Baptism: Oct 23, 1842
Emigration: 1864, from London, England aboard the Hudson, London to New York Jun 3 - July 19
Misc: Aft. 1895, suffered severe back and head injuries; unable to work again except around homestead
Occupation 1: Bet. 1865 - 1895, At Collinston, Utah: railroad worker, operated a livery stable and saloon
Occupation 2: 1890, Elected Constable in Collinston precinct
Occupaton: Bet. 1863 - 1865, farmer at Beaver Dam, Utah
Ordination: Abt. 1856, deacon, Mormon Church 		JEMMETT, Henry George (I7554)
 
1791 Henry I (4 May 1008 – 4 August 1060) was King of the Franks from 1031 to 1060. The royal demesne of France reached its smallest size during his reign, and for this reason he is often seen as emblematic of the weakness of the early Capetians. This is not entirely agreed upon, however, as other historians regard him as a strong but realistic king, who was forced to conduct a policy mindful of the limitations of the French monarchy.


Contents
1 Reign
2 Marriages
3 References
4 Sources
Reign
A member of the House of Capet, Henry was born in Reims, the son of King Robert II (972–1031) and Constance of Arles (986–1034).[1] In the early-Capetian tradition, he was crowned King of France at the Cathedral of Reims on 14 May 1027,[2] while his father still lived. He had little influence and power until he became sole ruler on his father's death 4 years later.

The reign of Henry I, like those of his predecessors, was marked by territorial struggles. Initially, he joined his younger brother Robert, with the support of their mother, in a revolt against his father (1025). His mother, however, supported Robert as heir to the old king, on whose death Henry was left to deal with his rebel sibling.[3] In 1032, he placated his brother by giving him the duchy of Burgundy[3] which his father had given him in 1016.[4]

In an early strategic move, Henry came to the rescue of his very young nephew-in-law, the newly appointed Duke William of Normandy (who would go on to become William the Conqueror), to suppress a revolt by William's vassals. In 1047, Henry secured the dukedom for William in their decisive victory over the vassals at the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes near Caen;[5] however, Henry would later support the barons against William until the former's death in 1060.[6]

In 1034, William married Matilda, the daughter of the count of Flanders, which Henry saw as a threat to his throne.[7] In 1054, and again in August 1057, Henry invaded Normandy, but lost twice at the battles of Mortemer and Varaville.[7]

Henry had three meetings with Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor—all at Ivois. In early 1043, he met him to discuss the marriage of the emperor with Agnes of Poitou, the daughter of Henry's vassal.[8] In October 1048, the two Henries met again and signed a treaty of friendship.[9] The final meeting took place in May 1056 and concerned disputes over Theobald III and the County of Blois.[9] The debate over the duchy became so heated that Henry accused the emperor of breach of contract and subsequently left.[9] In 1058, Henry was selling bishoprics and abbacies, ignoring the accusations of simony and tyranny by the Papal legate Cardinal Humbert.[10] In 1060, Henry rebuilt the Saint-Martin-des-Champs Priory just outside Paris. Despite the royal acquisition of a part of the County of Sens in 1055, the loss of Burgundy in 1032 meant that Henry I's twenty-nine-year reign saw feudal power in France reach its pinnacle.

King Henry I died on 4 August 1060 in Vitry-en-Brie, France, and was interred in the Basilica of St Denis. He was succeeded by his son, Philip I of France, and Henry's queen Anne of Kiev ruled as regent. At the time of his death, he was besieging Thimert, which had been occupied by the Normans since 1058.[11]

Marriages
Henry I was betrothed to Matilda, the daughter of Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor, but she died prematurely in 1034.[12] Henry then married Matilda of Frisia, but she died in 1044.[13] Casting further afield in search of a third wife, Henry married Anne of Kiev on 19 May 1051.[13] They had:

Philip I (c. 1052 – 30 July 1108).[14]
Emma (1054 – 1109?).[citation needed]
Robert (d. 1060).[15]
Hugh "the Great" of Vermandois (1057–1102).[16]
References
Bradbury 2007, p. 93.
Clark 2006, p. 87.
Hallam & Everard 2013, p. 95.
Bradbury 2007, p. 100.
Douglas 1999, p. 1026.
Brown 1969, p. 49.
Bradbury 2007, pp. 106–108.
Zey 2008, p. 62.
Weinfurter 1999, p. 107.
Hallam 1980, p. 104.
Douglas 1964, pp. 74–75.
Wolfram 2000, p. 38.
Bradbury 2007, pp. 108–109.
Bradbury 2007, p. 111.
Raffensperger 2012, p. 95.
Gilbert of Mons 2005, p. 28.
Sources
Bradbury, Jim (2007). The Capetians: The History of a Dynasty. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Brown, R. Allen (1969). The Normans and the Norman Conquest. Boydell Press.
Clark, William W. (2006). Medieval Cathedrals. Greenwood Publishing.
Douglas, David Charles (1964). William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England. University of California Press.
Douglas, David C (1999). William the Conqueror. Yale University Press.
Gilbert of Mons (2005). Chronicle of Hainaut. Translated by Napran, Laura. The Boydell Press.
Hallam, Elizabeth (1980). The Capetians 987–1328. Longman Group Ltd.
Hallam, Elizabeth; Everard, Judith (2013). Capetian France 987–1328. Routledge.
Raffensperger, Christian (2012). Reimagining Europe. Harvard University Press.
Weinfurter, Stefan (1999). The Salian Century: Main Currents in an Age of Transition. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wolfram, Herwig (2000). Conrad II, 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms. Translated by Kaiser, Denise A. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Zey, Claudia (2008). "Frauen und Tochter der salischen Herrsher, Zum Wandel salischer Hieratspolitik in der Krise". In Struve, Tilman (ed.). Die Salier, das Reich und der Niederrhein (in German). Bohlau Verlag GmbH & Cie. 		CAPET, Henry I King of the Franks (I19106)
 
1792 HENRY II OF ENGLAND: THE CONTROLLING KING
POSTED ON JANUARY 17, 2020BY ANDY TREE
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
Henry II of England
c. 1133 – July 6, 1189
Early Life
His desire for control would cause his downfall. Henry II was born during 1133 in Le Mans, France. His father, Geoffrey Plantagenet, was the count of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine. His mother, Matilda, was the daughter of King Henry I of England. Matilda instilled in her son the belief that he was destined to inherit the English throne.

Matilda
During Henry’s childhood, his mother focused on securing the English throne. As the only surviving legitimate child of Henry I, Matilda was his heir. However, the idea of an English queen proved unpopular. After King Henry’s death, Matilda’s cousin, Stephen, capitalized on this sentiment. He quickly arrived in England and seized the crown in December 1135. Matilda could only watch on from France as her birthright was stolen from her.

As the years went by, Matilda made attempts to overthrow King Stephen. Although most of her efforts ended in stalemates, Matilda’s most effective attempt occurred in 1141. Matilda’s half-brother, Robert, led an army against Stephen’s forces and won. As a result, Stephen’s capture allowed Matilda to return to England for her coronation. However, her arrogance caused her expulsion from London, and Stephen got reinstated.

Gaining Power
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Eleanor of Aquitaine
In September 1150, Geoffrey died. Upon his father’s death, Henry inherited his titles and lands. On May 18, 1152, the 19-year-old increased his standing by marrying the 28-year-old Eleanor of Aquitaine. Eleanor was the former wife of King Louis VII. After their divorce, she resumed her title of duchess of Aquitaine.

Henry now had control over Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and Aquitaine. His land holdings encompassed western France and nearly half of the country. Because of this, the duke’s power rivaled a king’s. With his affairs in order, Henry and his army departed to England.

Invasion of England
In January 1153, Henry’s forces landed in Malmesbury. As both men’s armies clashed, Stephen gradually lost support. His troops were demoralized and began to mutiny. Henry also started making alliances with alienated nobles, further eroding Stephen’s support.

August 1153 proved to be a turning point in the war. In early August, King Stephen’s heir, Eustace, died. He had succumbed to illness. Devastated by his son’s death, Stephen finally relented. He agreed to meet with Henry and discuss peace terms.

In November 1153, King Stephen and Henry signed a treaty. As part of the agreement, Stephen would remain as king until he died. After his death, Henry would succeed him as his adopted heir. The truce effectively ended the civil war that had been ongoing since 1135. Peace had finally been restored in England.

Duke to King
In late October 1154, King Stephen died. Henry was in Normandy and would return to England in December. When he arrived to be crowned, he brought his pregnant wife Eleanor and heir William. On December 19, Duke Henry was crowned King Henry II. His ascension established the Plantagenets as England’s new royal family.

Thomas Becket
Thomas Becket
Thomas Becket
In 1155, Henry II met Thomas Becket. This meeting proved to be a pivotal one for both men. Thomas had served as Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury’s protege. At Theobald’s suggestion, Henry considered Thomas for the chancellorship. The intelligent, hard-working Thomas impressed the king, and he was subsequently appointed chancellor.

Initially, both men had a strong friendship. Thomas Becket proved to be a capable administrator and quickly gained Henry II’s trust. He led troops and met with emissaries on the king’s behalf. Henry viewed Thomas as a good friend, a loyal servant, and a link between the monarchy and the church. The king knew that if his plans for reforming the justice system were to succeed, Thomas’s expertise would be required.

Archbishop of Canterbury
In 1161, Theobald died. Seeing an opportunity, Henry II decided to make Thomas Becket the new archbishop. Despite the resistance of Canterbury’s monks, Thomas was appointed. As the king celebrated, he failed to realize the impact that the appointment had on Thomas. Feeling unworthy, Thomas decided to change his life radically.

Thomas Becket rapidly transformed from a secular administrator to a devoutly religious leader. He resigned from being chancellor and devoted himself to church affairs. Although both men were initially still friends, their relationship soured. Henry II quickly realized that Thomas would prevent any reform attempts that came at the church’s expense. Since the king wanted the power to prosecute church officials, Thomas adamantly opposed him.

King vs. Archbishop
For years, the English justice system was divided into two parts: canon law and secular law. Canon law prosecuted clerical crimes, while secular law prosecuted non-clerical crimes. The king and his government only had authority in secular law. They were restricted from canon law as that was the church’s right. Because of this, anyone affiliated with the church couldn’t be prosecuted by the king.

Henry II saw the flaws in this type of system. Instead, the king sought to create a unified legal system that dispensed justice impartially. Since this new system would take power away from the church, Thomas Becket opposed it. Feeling betrayed by his friend, Henry ordered the clergy to submit to his authority. When Thomas refused, the king became infuriated.

After a heated exchange between both men in October 1163, Henry II threatened Thomas Becket. If Thomas didn’t proclaim the supremacy of the monarchy over the church, there would be violence. After making his proclamation, the archbishop fled to France for safety. In retaliation, the king seized Thomas’s properties, persecuted his supporters, and exiled his relatives.

Thomas Returns
Henry II and Thomas Becket eventually made peace in 1170. Thomas returned to England, but his time in exile hadn’t changed his views. He once more agitated the king. Enraged by his former friend’s actions, Henry asked at court who would get rid of Thomas for him.

Despite Henry II asking a rhetorical question, four of his knights took the king’s words literally. On December 29, the knights broke into Canterbury Cathedral. When they attempted to arrest Thomas Becket, he resisted. In return, the knights killed him. Due to the knight’s actions, Thomas’s death stained Henry’s reign.

Aftermath
Henry II faced significant backlash in both England and Europe over Thomas’s asassination. The king retreated to Ireland to escape Pope Alexander III’s wrath. After six months in exile, the pope and king reconciled. Henry returned to England, but the price was steep. The king had to submit to the pope’s authority for forgiveness.

Family Rebellion
Pope Alexander III had somewhat humbled Henry II. However, he remained a strong and feared king. After the controversy over Thomas Becket’s death had ended, Henry began to have another issue: his family. In 1173, Queen Eleanor and their sons started a rebellion against the king.

The rebellion itself wasn’t a spontaneous act. It was the result of Henry’s desire to have absolute control over his kingdom. The king had prevented his heir, Prince Henry, from exercising any political power. He also denied giving Richard and Geoffrey authority over their French territories. Finally, Henry refused to return control of Aquitaine to Eleanor.

Richard I of England
Prince Richard of England
In 1173, the family’s pent up resentment and frustration finally erupted. The rebellion initially surprised Henry II. His wife and son’s uprising quickly gained many supporters across England. Even France and Scotland sided with the rebels. As a result, the king had to fight on multiple fronts. However, Henry’s forces ultimately persevered and won against the rebel armies.

Rise in Prominence
After the rebellion had ended, Henry II forgave his sons and rewarded them. The king did this to avoid another uprising. However, Henry’s forgiveness didn’t extend to his wife. For her betrayal, he imprisoned Eleanor. Due to overcoming multiple adversaries, Henry’s victory over the rebellion established him as Europe’s most prominent ruler.

Second Rebellion
For eight years, Henry II’s sons remained loyal to their father. However, in 1181, Prince Henry became enraged after being denied control of Normandy. The prince then set off a chain of events that culminated in him allying himself with his brother Geoffrey against Richard. Prince Henry had not only wanted to gain Normandy but secretly Richard’s Aquitaine too. By March 1183, King Henry attempted to prevent his son’s conflict from escalating.

Despite Henry II’s efforts, a short war ensured. The conflict only de-escalated after Prince Henry’s death in June 1183. With his succession plans ruined, Henry decided to re-arrange his remaining son’s inheritances. The king wanted his youngest son, John, to inherit Aquitaine instead of Richard. However, Richard felt offended by his father’s plan. The prince always felt that Aquitaine belonged to him and refused to accept Henry’s decision.

Philip II of France
Philip II of France
Philip II of France
As Henry II and his sons fought amongst themselves, a new king of France emerged. After the death of Louis VII in September 1180, the 15-year-old Philip II took the throne. Initially, Henry didn’t view Philip as a threat. The French king was young and his small country surrounded by English held lands. However, the young king gradually proved to be a bigger threat than Henry had anticipated.

Philip II possessed a cunning mind and desired to break English control over France’s lands. To this end, the king made alliances with Henry II’s sons against the king. Whenever a Plantagenet conflict occurred, Philip always offered his aid to the princes. After the death of Geoffrey in 1186, Richard became Philip’s primary ally against Henry. By 1187, both men invaded English controlled Berry.

Final Years
By the mid 1180s, Henry II was in his early 50s and had begun to show his age. Despite slowing down, the king still led his army. Unfortunetly for Henry, he wouldn’t be victorious against Richard and Philip II. On July 3, 1189, the sickly king finally admitted defeat. After reluctantly agreeing to their terms, Henry departed.

On July 6, 1189, the old king succumbed to his illness. Henry II’s death was allegedly hastened after learning that his favorite son John had joined Richard. The once prestigious king’s life had ended in failure. His wife and four sons had all conspired against him. Henry had even been humiliated by the much younger Philip II.

Conclusion
Henry II overcame many obstacles throughout his life. As a young man, he earned the English throne. After Thomas Becket’s death, Henry gained the pope’s forgiveness. When his family rebelled, Henry defeated them and their allies. However, his controlling nature led to his eventual downfall. Despite this, the king successfully established the Plantagenets as England’s rulers for the next 330 years.

Sources
Cawthorne, N. (2012). Kings & Queens of England: From the Saxon Kings to the House of Windsor. London: Arcturus.

Jones, D. (2014). The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England. New York: Penguin Books.

Knowles, M. D. (2020, January 1). Henry II. Retrieved January 5, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-II-king-of-England. 		Henry II. 'Curtmantle' King of England (I1982)
 
1793 Henry III Fine Rolls Project

You are here: Commentary February 2011
Fine of the Month: February 2011
(Stephen Church)
1. The Excommunication of Beatrice de Faye
The role, or agency, of aristocratic women in the thirteenth century is an issue often explored in Fines of the Month. Here, Stephen Church, Professor of Medieval History at the University of East Anglia, gives a fascinating account of the attempts by one such woman to assert herself against a husband determined to use every tactic in the book to discredit and ultimately divorce her, including bringing the stigma of excommunication upon her.

⁋1The heroine of this Fine of the Month was born Beatrice of Turnham sometime around the year 1200. She was the youngest of five daughters of the long-serving royal household retainer, Stephen of Turnham, and his wife, Edeline (or Odelina), herself the daughter and granddaughter of royal servants. When we meet her in the fine rolls in 1241, Beatrice was deep in a struggle to save herself from the ignominy of being divorced at the instigation of her third husband, Hugh de Plessetis. Although we cannot be certain how the case ended, it is clear that Beatrice was not a passive victim of Hugh’s determination to rid himself of his unwanted wife. On the contrary, she refused to take easily the affront of Hugh’s petition for a divorce. Hugh was forced to pay dearly for his ambitions and Beatrice actively fought her husband in the struggle for the marriage.

⁋2But before I delve more deeply into the events that marred the end of Beatrice’s life, I first want to sketch out what is known of Beatrice up to 1241. Beatrice’s story is one of a much-married heiress, whose life, in microcosm, represents the lives of many women in the upper stratum of English society in the years that spanned the first half of the thirteenth century. 1 Beatrice’s maternal grandfather, Ranulf de Broc, and great-grandfather, Oin Purcell, had held in succession the serjeanty of usher of the king’s chamber, with special responsibility for the prostitutes of the court; and Ranulf had also held the royal marshalsea. 2 When Beatrice’s mother had married Stephen of Turnham, sometime late in the reign of King Henry II, she brought to him this serjeanty along with the majority of the landed wealth that Stephen would enjoy. 3 Stephen served successively in the households of Henry II, Richard I, and John, and under John, he regularly had care of the king’s young wife, Isabella, and their elder son, the future Henry III, when they stayed at Winchester, as well as of Eleanor of Brittany, King John’s niece. 4 Presumably, therefore, it was at Winchester that Beatrice and her four sisters spent their early years in the company of members of the royal family. It must have been an extraordinarily privileged childhood.

⁋3The five Turnham girls were all of marriageable age by the time of their father’s death, sometime between 1213 and 1214. Each had a husband when they petitioned the king for a share in their inheritances. 5 Their statuses as heiresses made them very desirable in the marriage market. 6 The girls married well. Beatrice herself, who was perhaps the youngest of the five daughters, 7 married Ralph II de Faye, the son of Ralph I de Faye lord of Faye-la-Vineuse in Poitou, 8 sometime before 6 March 1214 (when Peter des Roches was ordered to allow Ralph seisin of certain escheats which belonged to land which he held in right of his wife). 9 Ralph, like his late father-in-law, seems to have been a household official, 10 who had, in 1212, held key roles in Angoulême with, amongst others, Geoffrey de Neville the king’s chamberlain. 11 His father, Ralph I, sometime in the mid 1150s, had been promoted in England by Henry II and given the manor of Bramley, Surrey. 12 His lands were confiscated in 1173, according to an entry in the Book of Fees, as a result of his actions in the war between Henry II and the Young King; by the early 1190s, he was dead. 13 Beatrice’s Ralph (who had recovered the manor by the grant of King John in 1199), therefore, must have been considerably older than his young wife at the time that they were married. 14 Ralph II de Faye was dead by the end of April 1223 having remained steadfastly loyal to the royalist cause throughout his life. 15

⁋4Beatrice’s second marriage was to another aged widower and royal servant, Hugh de Neville, chief justice of the forest under Richard and John and, between 1224 and 1229, for Henry III, too. 16 Hugh’s first wife, Joan, was dead by 1224, though the earliest reference to Hugh’s marriage to Beatrice is in April 1230 17 . Beatrice was still acting in her own capacity in September 1226 when she put in her place Richard of Frobury (Frobury, Hampshire, was where her mother had held land) 18 in a suit against her brother-in-law, Thomas de Bavelingham, for a debt of 25 shillings that he owed to her. 19 She was pursuing another case in February 1227 through the same attorney against a certain William de Capella for services withheld in her holdings in Turnham, Kent. Four of the five sisters seem to have held an interest in this manor, which suggests that their father’s toponym reflected his place of origin. 20 And by September 1227, she was still being associated with her late husband’s brother, John, in a suit for rental arrears in Chiddingfold, Surrey. 21 The marriage to Hugh de Neville presumably took place, therefore, between September 1227 and April 1230. Beatrice continued to litigate after her marriage to Hugh right up until the time of Hugh’s death in 1234, when she received £20 of dower land in South Stoke, Sussex. 22

⁋5Having been widowed for a second time – in what must have been her mid-thirties – Beatrice agreed to contract a third marriage to yet another royal servant, Hugh de Plessetis. He is an enigmatic man in the sources. Someone of that name was associated with John de Plessetis (the future earl of Warwick) in the 1220s. 23 But this Hugh de Plessetis was dead by 6 August 1231, when his executors were given authority to use his chattels and crops on his shared manor of Chalgrave in Oxfordshire for the execution of his testament. 24 Beatrice’s Hugh, it seems likely, was the justice in eyre in Surrey, Kent, Hampshire, and Sussex in 1235, where he was associated with William of York, William de Insula, and Ralph of Norwich; 25 he also seems to have been a major tenant of Earl William de Warenne and was perhaps related to John de Plessetis, the earl’s steward. 26 Quite when Hugh and Beatrice married is unclear, for the first we hear of them occupying the married state is when we are informed that the divorce between the two was under way. 27

⁋6The documents that were produced as a result of the divorce proceedings make it plain that Beatrice did not take her dismissal by Hugh either lightly or easily. Beatrice mustered her forces to make the divorce extremely difficult indeed, despite the fact that the odds were stacked against her. Beatrice’s husband, for example, would have expected to have control over all aspects of his wife’s life, including the use of physical correction, such as tying down and the withholding of food, should he have deemed it necessary. He also had rights over his wife’s property, including the dower lands that she had brought with her to the marriage, which she had received as a result of outliving her two previous husbands. 28 It was these lands that Hugh sought to use against his wife, evidently attempting to force Beatrice into accepting the inevitable by starving her of the funds she needed to live out her existence and to fight her case. The first notice we have of Beatrice and Hugh’s marriage and divorce comes on 18 May 1240 when a writ was raised by the king’s officers to the sheriff of Sussex and another to the sheriff of Surrey ordering them to allow Beatrice the dower lands of her late husbands Hugh de Neville and Ralph de Faye in Sussex and in Surrey while the divorce case continued ‘lest in the meantime Beatrice be reduced to beggary’. 29 Hugh de Plessetis was playing dirty. But the fact that Beatrice had managed to have this writ issued shows that she must have been using her contacts at court to plead her cause with the king. Beatrice was not simply supine in this affair. Her track record of litigation, which I outlined earlier on in this essay, makes it clear that Beatrice was a practiced litigator who needed no husband to guide her through the ways of the court. She was certainly litigating in her own right, as any widow might, during her first period of widowhood after the death of Ralph de Faye, and her family connections meant that she could get the royal court onside, even though the ecclesiastical court would turn out to be a harder nut to crack. 30

⁋7The grounds that Hugh had for divorce are unclear. Marriage might only be annulled for certain specific reasons, and it appears that divorce (effectively the judgment that the marriage had never been valid and had therefore never existed) was extremely rare. 31 Since Hugh was the driving force behind this divorce, it seems likely that it was granted on the grounds of consanguinity: one is certainly struck by the ways in which royal servants firstly had family traditions of service in the king’s court and secondly married into other families with similar traditions of royal service, so it is not impossible that Beatrice and Hugh were related in some way within the prohibited four degrees; 32 though of course we cannot rule out the chance that Hugh had accused his wife of a heinous crime, such as adultery. Whatever its cause, the case was long running. On 11 February 1241, the king was forced to reiterate his earlier order of nine months before insisting that the sheriffs of Sussex and of Surrey hand over to Beatrice her dower lands. 33 Beatrice might have the king on her side, but Hugh de Plessetis must have been counting on his own connections to keep the king’s officers at bay and had evidently refused to give up his control of Beatrice’s dower lands. The next April, however, it had become clear that the sheriffs had managed to extract at least some of the lands from Hugh, as the sheriff of Sussex was commanded to find further lands to make up the amount of dower land that was due to Beatrice. 34 Beatrice, for the moment, had at least won the battle to get hold of lands that had come to her as dower. She was not going to be forced to beg.

⁋8At a point after the April writ of 1241, Beatrice and Hugh’s case came up before court Christian (the ecclesiastical court which had jurisdiction over the case), which, it seems, was presided over by the bishops of London and of Ely. 35 One of two things happened at this session, either Beatrice refused to appear before the court or she appeared and the court adjudicated against her and she refused to accept its decision. In either circumstance, the next step taken by the court is clear: it issued a sentence of excommunication for contumacy (a rare occurrence, according to Helmholz’s findings, indicating something of the nature of the divorce case and perhaps the determination of Hugh to make it happen). 36 Beatrice may well have had good cause for refusing to accept the legitimacy of that particular ecclesiastical court presided over by the bishops of London and of Ely. The ordinary for Surrey was the bishop of Winchester while that for Sussex was the bishop of Chichester, 37 while her Turnham lands lay in the diocese of Canterbury. 38 London and Ely, Beatrice might have argued, ought not to have had jurisdiction over her. 39 Hugh de Plessetis, however, was not going to let a technical point like that get in the way of his ambitions. At this juncture in this essay, it is worth citing the fine in full:

⁋9‘To the sheriff of Surrey. The king has ordered him at other times to do justice to Beatrice de Faye by her body according to the custom of England, who has been excommunicated on account of her manifest contumacy by the bishops of London and Ely. Because, as the king has truly heard, he has not yet executed the king’s command in any way, order to execute this order without delay, so that the king might impute nothing to his negligence. Order to cause Hugh de Plessetis to have full seisin of the lands that he had of the dower of the same Beatrice in his bailiwick. Order to take security from Hugh for 20 m. to the king’s use for this writ. Order to the sheriff of Sussex to cause the same Hugh to have seisin of the lands of the dower of the same Beatrice in his bailiwick’. 40

⁋10This is an extraordinary fine, unique in the fine rolls so far published (in print down to 1242 at the time of writing, but to the end of the reign online). What it demonstrates is that Hugh de Plessetis was taking an active role in not simply divorcing his wife but in aiding the court in the process of bringing his wife to ecclesiastical judgment. It is possible to reconstruct something of the events that must have occurred leading up to the moment that this fine was raised because we know quite a bit about the process of excommunication and the role of the secular arm in implementing such sentences. In a remarkable piece of work published in the 1960s, Donald F. Logan exhaustively explored the process of excommunication in England. 41 He showed that by the time that Beatrice had received her sentence, the role of the secular arm in the execution of sentences of excommunication had become fully established, and that the process was clear-cut. First a sentence of excommunication could only have been issued for contumacy, which means that Beatrice must have been resisting the ecclesiastical court in order to be excommunicated in the first place, either by refusing to attend or by refusing to accept its decision. Second, that by 1241 the process by which the secular arm became involved in coercing the recusant had become bureaucratically very straightforward. If, after 40 days, the person excommunicated refused to seek absolution and to accept the medicine designed to heal his or her soul, then the ordinary (that is the bishop of the diocese in which the wayward parishioner resided) might send a letter to Chancery (a ‘signification’ from its opening word signficavit) requesting a writ to be issued to the sheriff or sheriffs in whose territories the excommunicate resided ordering them to capture and to detain the named person and hold him or her until he or she had come to terms with the court that had issued the sentence. By 1241, this writ – called the writ capiendum after the phrase de excommmunicato capiendo that is found in its form – was issued de cursu, providing the forms were correct, and so was issued by the junior clerks in Chancery without reference to higher authority. Beatrice must, therefore, have been excommunicated 40 days before such a writ had been issued – one had to be incorrigible to have a writ capiendum raised against one – and it is further clear that the sheriffs to whom that writ had been issued had not proceeded against Beatrice by taking her captive. One is therefore led to wonder if this is a further example of how Beatrice’s contacts in the higher reaches of the royal household were paying dividends. I could not find a connection between Beatrice and the then sheriff of Surrey, Gregory of Oxted, 42 but it would be unwise to rule one out. In any event, Gregory, who was sheriff throughout the period of the divorce case, as we have seen, had helped Beatrice to secure her dower lands which her husband Hugh had been withholding from her. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he deliberately failed to implement the writ de capiendo because Beatrice had connections that made him unwilling (or even unable) to carry out its terms.

⁋11The fine that Hugh de Plessetis made with the king was for the not inconsiderable sum of 20 marks. Hugh was determined to have his divorce, and if the bishops of London and of Ely were unwilling to press the matter, Hugh would press it for them. The fine under discussion was enrolled under the date of 11 October 1241. The following February (1242), the sheriff of Surrey was again ordered to disseise Beatrice from her lands while she was under sentence of excommunication. 43 Evidently Beatrice was still trying to hang onto the marriage in a titanic struggle of wills. After this point, something happened to stop the continued persecution of Beatrice, a point that is evident because entries in the royal records on this matter cease: either Beatrice was dead or the determination of the court Christian to agree to Hugh’s petition for divorce had been executed. The next time we hear of Beatrice de Faye, she is not the central character. The year is 1246, and her dower lands in Surrey have long been in the king’s hands and are only just being released to the Neville family. 44 Hugh de Plessetis did not enjoy his unmarried state for long. On 17 November 1244, a fine was enrolled on the fine rolls for an order to be raised instructing the sheriff of Norfolk that there had been a determination in the king’s court that Hugh’s unnamed heir should pay his relief to the dowager countess rather than to the king and that the lands should be released to the countess. 45 Evidently now Hugh de Plessetis was dead.

⁋12Beatrice de Faye was not a passive victim of her third husband’s determination to rid himself of his wife. She was prepared and able to litigate in court at her own instigation. She was prepared and able actively to seek out royal support for her cause. She was capable of manipulating the family connections that she had enjoyed throughout her life, and she knew how to be stubborn in the face of the law, whether ecclesiastical or secular. It maybe that she did lose her struggle to hang onto her marriage – we do not know – but we do know that her actions delayed Hugh’s plans for at the very least a year and a half, and possibly for as long as Beatrice drew breath. This descendant of a long line of royal servants was not going to be easily discarded: she did her lineage proud. And although we cannot argue from silence in the sources, it would be a suitable end to this story to imagine that whatever plans Hugh might have had were thwarted by Beatrice de Faye.

⁋13I hope that what I have achieved in exploring this particular Fine of the Month is to show that in Beatrice de Faye we have a thirteenth-century woman who, like others whose lives have recently been explored by scholars, had agency in her own right. She was not simply the appendage of her father or her husbands, and neither was she independently active only when she was widowed. Beatrice de Faye had freedom to act in a world dominated by men but by men who could not and did not ignore a woman of Beatrice’s connections and steeliness of character. 46

Footnotes
1.
Most of this story can be pieced together from the notes that David Crook made to accompany his and Meekings’ edition of The 1235 Surrey Eyre, 2 vols, ed. C.A.F. Meekings and D. Crook, (Surrey Record Society, 31, 1979), i, pp. 140, 192–93, 229–30.
2.
Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees Commonly Called Testa de Neville, 3 vols. (London, 1920–31), p. 1377. The word used is ‘meretrices’. Ranulf played a role as one of the main protagonists in the persecution of Thomas Becket (cf The Acta of Henry II, ed. N. Vincent et al (forthcoming) no. 328).
3.
Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus in Turri Londinensi Asservati, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission (London, 1835), p. 339; Book of Fees, p. 67 and see also pp. 66, 67, 74, 108, 341; Edelina’s mother, Dametta, was dead by 7 August 1204 when the couple inherited Dametta’s manors in Hampshire and Shropshire (Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati, 2 vols. ed. T. Duffus Hardy, Record Commission (London, 1833, 1844), i, p. 4b (2)).
4.
Henry Summerson, ‘Thornham , Stephen of (d. 1213/14)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27885, accessed 19 Oct 2010].
5.
CFR 1218–19, no. 119: Mabel de Gatton (mistakenly transcribed as Sebilla in Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 32) married Thomas of Bavelingham; Alice married Adam de Bendenges; Eleanor married Roger of Leybourne (who had been in Stephen’s custody as a minor, and was a neighbour in Kent. Stephen had fined in 300 marks to enjoy the custody and maritagium over the heir – Pipe Roll 10 Richard I, p. 210; Pipe Roll 10 John, p. 100); another Eleanor (her alternative name seems to have been Clementia – Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 32; Pipe Roll 2 Henry III, p. 63) married first Henry de Braiboef (Pipe Roll 2 Henry III, p. 63) and second Ralph son of Bernard de Tang’ (Pipe Roll 3 Henry III, p. 145); and Beatrice married Ralph de Faye. They fined in 5 palfreys for their inheritances and for the debts that their father owed at the Exchequer (cf. Pipe Roll 5 Henry III, p. 202; Pipe Roll 6 Henry III, p. 64). Margaret de Layburn, mother of Roger de Layburn (Pipe Roll 7 Henry III, p. 95), who had fined in £100 and two palfreys in order to be free to marry whomsoever she wished (Pipe Roll 9 John, p. 37), became initially responsible for Roger’s share of the debt he owed to enter into the shared inheritance (Pipe Roll 4 Henry III, p. 157).
6.
Their mother, Edelina, fined in 40 marks and a palfrey to have freedom to marry whomever she pleased so long as he was not one of the king’s enemies (Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 36).
7.
Mabel was certainly the eldest, being described as such in July 1214 when she acted on behalf of the sisters (RLC, i, p. 168), and the order in which the sisters appear consistently has Mabel as appearing first and Beatrice last. The order may have some significance, therefore.
8.
Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati, ed. T. Duffus Hardy , Record Commission (London,1837), p. 160b; N. Vincent, ‘King Henry II and the Poitevins’, in La cour Plantagenet (1154–1204), ed. M. Aurell (Poitiers, 2000), pp. 103–36 (at 122–24).
9.
RLC, i, p 141b.
10.
RLC, i, pp. 117, 117b, 233, 236, 242b; Rot. Chart., p. 62b.
11.
Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et cuiuscunque generis Acta Publica, ed. T. Rymer, new edn. vol. I, part i, ed. A. Clark and F. Holbrooke, Record Commission (London,1816) I, i, p. 159.
12.
Book of Fees, p. 65.
13.
Vincent, ‘King Henry II and the Poitevins’, pp. 122–24.
14.
Rot. Chart., p. 62b. The marriage produced no children, though Ralph II appears to have had a son by a previous marriage. This son, John de Faye, was holding 2 knights’ fees of the Bramley manor in 1237 and in 1242 his mother (more likely) or grandmother, Philippa, was holding another knight’s fee and a half (Book of Fees, pp. 617, 686).
15.
As was Beatrice’s sister, Alice (CFR 1222–23, nos. 106, 187). Their mother, Edelina, seems to have been dead by 29 April 1221 (CFR 1220–21, nos. 138).
16.
David Crook, ‘Neville, Hugh de (d. 1234)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19942, accessed 25 Nov 2010].
17.
Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1227–31, (London, 1902), pp. 349, 593.
18.
Book of Fees, p. 257.
19.
RLC, ii, p. 155.
20.
RLC, ii, p. 207b; this was 100 shillings worth of land which John of Waltham admitted he held in 1258/9, probably amounting to 12 acres, which was the amount the late Roger Leybourne, Beatrice’s brother-in-law (he had married Eleanor), held in the estate according to the same testimony. Beatrice’s sister Alice, had 20 shillings worth of land in the estate (Calendar of Kent Feet of Fines to the end of Henry III’s Reign, ed. Irene J. Churchill, R. Griffin, F.W. Hardman, and F.W. Jessop (Kent Records, 15, 1956), p. 298); their sister Mabel also held in the manor, agreeing with a certain Robert de Manekeseya that he owed her 6d p.a. or a pair of gilt spurs for the free tenement he held of Mabel (Kent Feet of Fines, p. 122). Clemency/Eleanor appears not to have held an interest in the manor, which raises the question whether or not she was a legitimate daughter of Stephen of Thornham.
21.
RLC, ii, p. 214b.
22.
Close Rolls 1231–34, pp. 489 (2), 490. Beatrice came to an agreement about her dower lands in South Stoke, Sussex, in Trinity Term 1235 (Curia Regis Rolls of the Reign of Henry III (1233–37), no. 1109; W. Farrer, Honors and Knights’ Fees, 3 vols (London 1923–25), iii, p. 48).
23.
Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1216–25, (London, 1901), p. 497; Calendar of Charter Rolls of the Reign of Henry III Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1226–1257 (London, 1908), p. 108; Book of Fees, pp. 446, 555, 613, 1395.
24.
Close Rolls 1227–31, p. 540. The difficulties involved in untangling the Hugh de Plessetises has led Crook, following Farrer, to see Beatrice’s Hugh de Plessetis as the widower of Philippa de Montfichet. (The 1235 Surrey Eyre, i, pp. 239–30; Honors and Knights’ Fees, iii, p. 336).
25.
Calendar of Patent Rolls 1232–47, p. 128.
26.
Calendar of Patent Rolls 1232–47, p, 267; Nicholas Vincent, ‘Warenne, William (IV) de, fifth earl of Surrey (d. 1240)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28739, accessed 12 January 2011]; Hugh was a family name (Early Yorkshire Charters volume viii: The Honour of Warenne, ed. C.T. Clay, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Extra Series, vol vi, 1949, pp. 245–46 (vide Plaiz). He held 7 knights’ fees of the earl (Book of Fees, pp. 690–91; see also Honors and Knights’ Fees, iii, pp. 305, 332, 334–36); though whether he was the Hugh de Plessetis who had married Philippa de Plessetis is less clear (Honors and Knights’ Fees, iii, p. 335).
27.
Close Rolls, 1237–42, p. 190.
28.
D. Elliott, ‘Marriage’, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Women’s Writing, ed. C. Dinshaw and D. Wallace (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 40–57.
29.
Close Rolls, 1237–42, p. 190.
30.
B.A. Hanawalt, ‘Widows’, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Women’s Writing, pp. 58–69 (at p. 59).
31.
R.H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 74–75. His chapter 3 explores the reasons used by litigants for divorce.
32.
Sam Worby, Law and Kinship in Thirteenth-Century England (Woodbridge, 2010).
33.
Close Rolls, 1237–42, p. 272 (2).
34.
Close Rolls, 1237–42, p. 290.
35.
B.L. Woodcock, Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952).
36.
Helmholz, Marriage Litigation, pp. 115–17; Woodcock, Courts… Canterbury, pp. 93–97 also thought excommunication was rare as a first step, the Canterbury court preferring suspension first only resorting to excommunication when the ‘culprit’s offence was manifest, that is, in his refusing to obey the court outright or hindering the apparitor in his duty’, with signification (see below) an ‘extreme weapon’. Beatrice had seriously annoyed the bishops of London and Ely.
37.
C. Podmore, ‘Dioceses and episcopal sees in England: a background report for the Dioceses Commission’, Church of England, July 2008, pp. 22–23.
38.
M. Morgan, ‘Early Canterbury jurisdiction’, EHR 60 (1945), 392–99 (at p. 398). It may well have been because Canterbury was vacant that London sought jurisdiction over Beatrice and Hugh’s case. London sat is special relationship to Canterbury by the agreement of 1278, an agreement which looks like it solidified earlier practice (Woodcock, Courts… Canterbury, pp. 15–16).
39.
Woodcock, Courts… Canterbury, p. 13 argues that the diocesan jurisdiction was a later thirteenth-century development in Canterbury, and it may well have been that during Beatrice’s time, the diocesan jurisdictional boundaries were yet to be firmly established.
40.
CFR 1240–41, no. 715.
41.
F.D. Logan, Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England: A Study in Legal Procedure from the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries, Studies and Texts 15, (Toronto, 1968). This supersedes R.M.T. Hill, ‘The theory and practice of excommunication in medieval England’, History 42 (1957), 1–11.
42.
List of Sheriffs for England and Wales from the Earliest Times to AD 1831, List and Indexes, no. 9, (London, 1898), p. 135.
43.
Close Rolls, 1237–42, p. 389.
44.
Close Rolls, 1242–47, p. 392.
45.
CFR 1244–45, no. 42.
46.
N. Vincent, ‘Isabella of Angouleme: John’s Jezebel’, in King John: New Interpretations (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 165–216; M. Prestwich, ‘An everyday story of knightly folk’, Thirteenth Century England 9 (2001), 151–62; L.J. Wilkinson, Women in Thirteenth Century Lincolnshire (London, 2008). 		DE THURNHAM, Beatrix (I13556)
 
1794 Henry Jennings had two daughters by a previous marriage: Maude Annie Jennings and Esther. Maude Annie was mentioned in her father's Will but Esther was not. Maude Annie was born in Kensington circa 1879. In 1881 she was staying with George, brother of haridresser John and his family in Cobham. When her father died she was living in Australia and married to Thomas Arthur Staddow. JENNINGS, Henry Wilmot (I4771)
 
1795 Henry of Schweinfurt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Henry of Schweinfurt
Born c. 970
Died 18 September 1017
Noble family House of Schweinfurt
Spouse(s) Gerberga of Gleiberg
Father Berthold of Schweinfurt
Mother Eilika of Walbeck
Henry of Schweinfurt (de Suinvorde; c. 970 – 18 September 1017) was the Margrave of the Nordgau from 994 until 1004. He was called the "glory of eastern Franconia" by his own cousin, the chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg.

Henry was the son of Berthold and Eilika (Eiliswintha or Eila) of Walbeck. His father's parentage is not known with certainty, but he may have been a son of Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria. Henry was Bavarian, whoever his grandfather.

Henry held a succession of countships after his father's death in 980. He was appointed marchio, like his father, of the Bavarian Nordgau in 994. In 1003, he revolted against Henry II of Germany claiming that he had been promised the Duchy of Bavaria in return for his support. The king said that the Bavarians had a right to elect their own duke. Henry allied with Boleslaus I of Poland and Boleslaus III of Bohemia. Nevertheless, his rebellion was quashed and he himself was briefly captive. The king established the Diocese of Bamberg to prevent any further uprisings in the region. The new diocese took over the secular authority of the margrave in the region of the Bavarian Nordgau.

Finally, it was only the joint persuasion of both his saecular and ecclesiastical overlords, Bernard I, Duke of Saxony, and Tagino, Archbishop of Magdeburg, that reconciled him to Henry in 1004. Henry of Schweinfurt did subsequently gain new and old countships before his death in 1017. He was buried at Schweinfurt.

Family
Henry married Gerberga of Gleiberg, daughter of Herbert of Wetterau. They had three sons and two daughters:

Otto, who later became Duke of Swabia
Eilika or Eilica, married Bernard II, Duke of Saxony
Judith of Schweinfurt (died 2 August 1058), married Bretislaus I of Bohemia
Burchard I, Bishop of Halberstadt, chancellor of the Emperor Conrad II
Henry, a count in the Nordgau
Ancestry
Ancestors of Henry of Schweinfurt
Sources
Reuter, Timothy. Germany in the Early Middle Ages 800–1056. New York: Longman, 1991. 		SCHWEINFURT, Henry of (I19117)
 
1796 Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster also married Alice de Joinville, daughter of Jean de Joinville, Seneschal de Champagne and Alice de Risnal , after 1322.
Henry Plantagenet, 3rd Earl of Lancaster gained the title of Earl of Leicester on 29 March 1324. He gained the title of 3rd Earl of Lancaster on 26 October 1326. He gained the title of Lord of Beaufort and Nogent circa 1336.

Citations:

Royal Genealogies Website (ROYAL92.GED), online (ftp://ftp.cac.psu.edu/genealogy/public_html/royal/index.html).

Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), pp 75-79. 		PLANTAGANET, Henry 3rd Earl of Lancaster, Earl of Derby, Duke of Lancaster (I9350)
 
1797 Henry Sadler was originally from Warwickshire, but later settled in Hackney. He was a minor official in the service of the Marquess of Dorset and Sir Edward Belknap and was, for a time, employed at the manor of Cilney, near Great Hadham, Essex. SADLEIR, Henry Esq. (I10301)
 
1798 Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, KG (4 September 1454 – 2 November 1483) was an English nobleman known as the namesake of Buckingham's rebellion, a failed but significant collection of uprisings in England and parts of Wales against Richard III of England in October 1483. He is also one of the primary suspects in the disappearance (and presumed murder) of the Princes in the Tower.

Contents [hide]
1 Life
2 In fiction
3 References
4 External links
Life[edit]
The son of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford, Buckingham became Earl of Stafford in 1458 at age 4 upon his father's death, and was made a ward of King Edward IV of England. He became the Duke of Buckingham in 1460 following the death of his grandfather, Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. In February 1466 he was married to Catherine Woodville, sister of Edward IV's queen, Elizabeth Woodville, and daughter to Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers.[1] Buckingham and his wife had four children:

Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (3 February 1478 – 17 May 1521)
Elizabeth Stafford, Countess of Sussex (ca. 1479 – 11 May 1532)
Henry Stafford, 3rd Earl of Wiltshire (c. 1479 – 6 April 1523)
Anne Stafford, Countess of Huntingdon (c. 1483–1544)
Upon the death of Edward IV in 1483, Buckingham allied himself to the king's younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, helping him succeed to the throne as Richard III in lieu of Edward's living sons. Becoming disaffected with Richard, Buckingham then joined with Henry Tudor and Tudor's mother, Margaret Beaufort, leading an unsuccessful rebellion in his name. Buckingham was executed for treason by Richard on 2 November 1483: he was beheaded in Salisbury market-place. He is believed to have been buried in St Peter's Church in Britford in Wiltshire.[1]

Buckingham's precise motivation has been called "obscure"; he had been treated well by Richard.[2] The traditional naming of the rebellion after him has been labelled a misnomer, with John Morton and Reginald Bray more plausible leaders.[3]

Buckingham is also one of the primary suspects in the disappearance (and presumed murder) of the Princes in the Tower, Edward IV's young sons Edward V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.[citation needed]

In fiction[edit]
Buckingham is among the major characters featured in William Shakespeare's play Richard III, which portrays him as a man openly allying with Richard III in his schemes—until he is ordered to kill the Princes in the Tower.

Buckingham is depicted as a supporting character in Philippa Gregory's 2009 historical novel The White Queen (2009). He is depicted as the murderer of the Princes in the Tower in Sharon Penman's 1982 debut novel The Sunne in Splendour.

References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b "Stafford, Henry (1454?-1483)". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
Jump up ^ Carpenter, Christine (13 November 1997). The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, C.1437-1509. Cambridge University Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-521-31874-7. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Fritze, Ronald H.; Baxter Robison, William (2002). Historical dictionary of late medieval England, 1272-1485. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-313-29124-1. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
External links[edit]
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Buckingham, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of.
Listed among other members of the Stafford family, with their genealogies clarified 		STAFFORD, Henry 2nd Duke of Buckingham, (I15194)
 
1799 Henry Thomas Kennett worked as an insurance Clerk or Life Insurance Agent. He married Agnes Jane Browning who was born in Deal, at the parish church of St. Mary, Newington on 13 Jan 1853. Agnes' father was a Tea dealer. Gilbert William Kennett was recorded as being a Gent.. Henry gave his own address as Beresford Street, and Agnes said she lived at St. Peter, Cornhill.

In 1861 the family were living at Riverside Cottages, Long Ditton, Esher, Surrey. They had two servants in the house.

Henry died young, aged 33, on 16 Aug 1861 at home. He had been ill for 6 weeks with "nervous" fever. He left under GB600 according to the Letters of Administration.

In 1881 Agnes was on the census as a widow living with her daughter and family at 67 Stoney Lane, Lewisham, Kent. 		KENNETT, Henry Thomas (I2751)
 
1800 Henry was a butcher, in Bagshaws directory of Kent, 1847, he is listed as a butcher living in High Street, Milton next Sittingbourne. In the 1851 census he was described as a family butcher. WEBB, Henry Prior (I10986)
 

      «Prev «1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 69» Next»

  

This site powered by The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding v. 13.1.1, written by Darrin Lythgoe © 2001-2026.

Maintained by County Administrator. | Data Protection Policy.

Copyright 2009-2022. The research information and family data found in the Kent Online Parish Clerks, Kent's Family Garden, is the sole and exclusive copyright of the respective owners of the individual family databases. All rights are reserved. No authorization or permission is given to distribute any of the information found here to any parties in any format at any time whatsoever. Information and data posted here is for the sole and personal use of the individual researching any of the individuals or families found here. Commercial use or distribution is strictly forbidden.