| |
|
 |
|
Matches 1,801 to 1,850 of 3,417
| # |
Notes |
Linked to |
| 1801 |
Henry was the only surviving child of Emmery Milsted and Amy Savil. His first appearance occurs during the 1871 census when he was found working as a journeyman tailor. His employer was a William Cruickshanks, a tailor for Perth, Scotland, who had a shop on Pernes Place in the town.
By 1881, Henry was doing rather well for himself. He had obtained his victualler's licence and was operating the Abbey Tavern at 27-28 Abbey Street. He had also married and had four of his own children. Ellen Calvenery, age 20, was working as a general servant for the family and in the tavern.
By 1891 Henry was still operating as a licenced victualler, this time as proprietor of the Swan Inn at 6 Market Street. Staying with them was a niece, an Ada Blackbara, aged 13, from New Brompton. Henry was licensee of the Swan Inn in Faversham from 1885 to an undetermined date, likely close to 1898 when he took over the licence for the Park Tavern also in Faversham. Henry maintained the Park Tavern until 1905 and also acted as the Chairman of the local Licensed Victualler's Association. He reputedly left Faversham during 1906.
An interesting aside appeared in the local newspaper on 31 October 1975 in the "From our files" column, thusly:
"75 year ago the wind prevented illumination on carnival night, but in order that their trouble should not go all for nothing a few of those who had made the preparations lit up on Friday night. The principal display was that of Mr. Harry Milstead [sic] at the Park Tavern, the exterior of which as on previous occasions was really a picture."
Another article appeared in the same column in the paper of 12 April 1881:
"75 years ago...Members of the Faversham and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, at their fifth annual dinner, made a presentation to Mr. Harry Milsted, who had recently left the town, in appreciation of his services as chairman."
So it would seem that Henry had managed to rise a well-liked and respected stature in the Town. | MILSTED, Henry (I2694)
|
| 1802 |
Henry, born circa 1813 at Ospringe, first appears on the 1851 census with his wife, Elizabeth and one son, Henry, Jr., born 1850. Henry was working as a baker and the family lived on Fountain Yard in Faversham.
By 1861 Henry had died or otherwise abandoned the family. His wife and children had fallen on very difficult times and were described as paupers living in the union workhouse. As with his brother, Matthew, Henry appears to have roamed the land looking for work as witnessed by the diverse locations of birth places of his children: Eleanor in 1851 at Hythe; Gary in 1852 at Preston; Mary Ann, 1853 at Hastings, Sussex.
The 1871 census saw little change in the family's circumstances: Elizabeth and the other two of Henry's daughters were still living at the workhouse. Elizabeth and Mary Ann, however, were both working as domestic servants, no doubt at the behest of the Union guardians. Henry's wife was also living at the workhouse but working as a dressmaker.
As of 1881 daughter, Elizabeth, still unmarried, was visiting with her aunts, Elizabeth Berry and Maria Chambers. Henry's wife and daughter, Mary Ann, could be found on the census. | MILSTED, Henry (I2593)
|
| 1803 |
Her children:
Lizzie Burr Chambers
1858–1862
Amelia Chambers
1859–1945
John Henry Chambers
1860–1890
Charles Thomas Chambers
1862–1929
William John Chambers
1865–1948
Henry George Chambers
1867–1955
Edward Arthur Chambers
1868–1927
Ernest A Chambers
1869–
Frederick Chambers
1870–1885
Harriett Eliza Chambers
1871–1959 | RUCK, Harriett Eliza (I7071)
|
| 1804 |
Her first marriage:
Greenstreete, Matthew, of Eastling, gent, bachelor, 22, whose father, Thomas Greenstreete, consents, and Ann Greenstreete of Preston n. Faversham, virgin, 29 and upwards, daughter of John Greenstreete, who also consents. At Murston. William Sanders of Canterbury, innholder bondsman. June 22, 1661. CBL Marr. Lic.
Buried as a widow. | GREENSTREET, Ann (I19530)
|
| 1805 |
Her post on Facebook 20 Jan. 2020.
Jessica Corley is with Jan Corley and 5 others.
13 hrs ·
This has been a rough couple of days and I would just like to thank everyone for the support! I really like to thank David Arsenault for being there and really taking the time and being so concerned and helping me through this! And also the rest of my family who has been by my side through all this! I still can’t believe this has happened and I’m having a hard time coming to realize it’s not just a bad dream!! I love you daddy you are always in my heart I will forever miss and love you please watch over everyone!! I love all of my family and thanks again to everyone who has been there and continues to be I love you all!! ❤️❤️ Gone but NEVER forgotten always on my mind and in my heart | CORLEY, Jessica (I18159)
|
| 1806 |
Her sister married Geoffrey Chaucer
Family
Swynford is generally held to have been the youngest child of Paon de Roet, a herald, and later knight, who was "probably christened as Gilles"[4][page needed] She had several siblings, including Isabel (also called Elizabeth) de Roet, and a brother, Walter. Isabel later became Noble canoness of Saint Waltrude Collegiate Church, Mons, c. 1366. Philippa Chaucer, wife of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, is known to have been a sister of Swynford's.[5] It is known that Philippa was in the service of John of Gaunt's second wife Constance of Castile, before John's marriage to Katherine Swynford.[6]
Life
She was probably born in Hainaut in 1349 or 1350, however these are at best educated guesses. Her birth date may have been 25 November, as that is the feast day of her patron, St Catherine of Alexandria.[citation needed] [there is no contemporary information as to the year of Katherine's birth, or where she was born.]
In about 1366, at St Clement Danes Church, Westminster, Swynford, aged sixteen or seventeen, contracted an advantageous marriage with "Hugh" Ottes Swynford, a knight from the manor of Kettlethorpe in Lincolnshire, the son of Thomas Swynford by his marriage to Nicole Druel. Katherine had the following children by him: Blanche (born 1 May 1367), Thomas (21 September 1368 – 1432), and possibly Margaret Swynford (born about 1369), later recorded as a nun of the prestigious Barking Abbey nominated by command of King Richard II.
Swynford became attached to the household of John of Gaunt as governess to his daughters Philippa of Lancaster and Elizabeth of Lancaster.[7] The ailing duchess Blanche had Swynford's daughter Blanche (her namesake) placed within her own daughters' chambers and afforded the same luxuries as her daughters; additionally, John of Gaunt stood as godfather to the child.
Some time after Blanche of Lancaster's death in 1368 (most likely in 1371–1372),[8] Swynford and John of Gaunt embarked upon a love affair that would produce four children out of wedlock, but who were subsequently legitimised by the Pope at the time of their parents' marriage; the adulterous relationship endured until 1381, when it was truncated out of political necessity[4][page needed] and ruined Swynford's reputation. On 13 January 1396, two years after the death of the Duke's second wife, Infanta Constance of Castile, Swynford and John of Gaunt were married at Lincoln Cathedral. Records of their marriage kept in the Tower and elsewhere list: 'John of Ghaunt, Duke of Lancaster, married Katharine daughter of Guyon King of Armes in the time of K. Edward the 3, and Geffrey Chaucer her sister'. On John of Gaunt's death, Swynford became known as dowager Duchess of Lancaster. She outlived him by four years, dying on 10 May 1403 in her early fifties.
Tomb
Katherine Swynford's tomb in 1809
Swynford's tomb and that of her daughter Joan Beaufort are under a carved-stone canopy in the sanctuary of Lincoln Cathedral. Joan's is the smaller of the two tombs; both were decorated with monumental brasses – full-length representations of them on the tops, and small shields bearing coats of arms around the sides and on the top – but those were damaged or destroyed in 1644 during the English Civil War. A hurried drawing by William Dugdale records their appearance.
Children and descendants
Swynford's children by Hugh Swynford were:
Margaret Swynford (born c. 1369), became a nun at the prestigious Barking Abbey in 1377 with help from her future stepfather John of Gaunt, where she lived the religious life with her cousin Elizabeth Chaucer, daughter of the famous Geoffrey Chaucer and Katherine's sister Philippa de Roet.[4][page needed]
Sir Thomas Swynford (1367–1432), born in Lincoln while his father Sir Hugh Swynford was away on a campaign with John of Gaunt in Castile fighting for Peter of Castile.[4][page needed][9]
Blanche Swynford, named after the Duchess of Lancaster and a godchild of John of Gaunt. (If, as suggested, she was born after 1375, this date is too late for her to have been fathered by Hugh Swynford, who died in 1371/2. However, since John of Gaunt obtained a dispensation for his marriage to Katherine for being Blanche Swynford's godfather, this theory can be discarded).[4][page needed]
In 1846 Thomas Stapleton suggested that there was a further daughter named Dorothy Swynford, born c. 1366, who married Thomas Thimelby of Poolham near Horncastle, Lincolnshire, Sheriff of Lincolnshire in 1380, but there is no current evidence to support this claim.[10]
Swynford's children by John of Gaunt were:
Coat of arms of Katherine Swynford as Duchess of Lancaster, after her marriage to John of Gaunt : three gold Catherine wheels ("roet" means "little wheel" in Old French) on a red field. The wheel emblem shows Katherine's devotion to her patron saint, Catherine of Alexandria, also known as Saint Catherine of the Wheel.[4][page needed]
John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset (1373–1410)
Henry, Cardinal Beaufort (1375–1447)
Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter (1377–1426)
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (1379–1440)
The descendants of Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt are significant in English and Scottish history. Their four children had been given the surname "Beaufort" and with the approval of King Richard II and the Pope were legitimated as adults by their parents' marriage in 1396.[11] Despite this, the Beauforts were barred from inheriting the throne of England by a clause ('excepta dignitate regali') in the legitimation act inserted by their half-brother, Henry IV, although modern scholarship disputes the authority of a monarch to alter an existing parliamentary statute on his own authority, without the further approval of Parliament. This provision was later revoked by Edward VI,[citation needed] placing Swynford's descendants (including himself) back within the legitimate line of inheritance; the Tudor dynasty was directly descended from John Beaufort, great-grandfather of Henry VII, who based his claim to the throne on his mother's descent from John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III. John Beaufort also had a daughter named Joan, who married James I of Scotland and thus was an ancestress of the House of Stuart.[12] Swynford's daughter, Joan Beaufort, was grandmother of the English kings Edward IV and Richard III, the latter of whom Henry Tudor (thus becoming by conquest Henry VII) defeated at the Battle of Bosworth Field; Henry's claim was strengthened by marrying Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter of Edward IV. It was also through Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmoreland that the sixth queen of Henry VIII, Catherine Parr, descended.[13] John of Gaunt's son—Swynford's stepson Henry of Bolingbroke—became Henry IV after deposing Richard II (who was imprisoned and died in Pontefract Castle, where Swynford's son Thomas was constable and is said to have starved Richard to death for his step-brother[citation needed]). John of Gaunt's daughter by his first marriage to Blanche of Lancaster, Philippa of Lancaster, was great-great-grandmother to Catherine of Aragon, first wife of Henry VIII and mother of Mary I of England. John of Gaunt's child by his second wife Constance, Catherine (or Catalina), was great-grandmother of Catherine of Aragon as well.[14]
In literature
Katherine Swynford is the subject of numerous novels, including Anya Seton's Katherine, published in 1954. Swynford is also the subject of non-fiction work, such as Alison Weir's 2008 biography Katherine Swynford: The Story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Duchess (ISBN 0-224-06321-9) and Jeannette Lucraft's historical biography Katherine Swynford: The History of a Medieval Mistress. Lucraft's book seeks to establish Swynford as a powerful figure in the politics of 14th-century England and an example of a woman's ability to manipulate contemporary social mores for her own interests. A journal “The Katherine Wheel” is also available from “The Medieval World of Katherine Swynford Society”. This covers many aspects of both her, other prominent figures, and events of the time period.
References
1640 drawing of the tombs of Katherine Swynford and her daughter Joan Beaufort in Lincoln Cathedral before the tombs were despoiled in 1644 by the Roundheads
Churchill, Winston S. 'The Houses of York and Lancaster', The Birth of Britain, p 435. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1956. Print.
Chrimes, S. B. (1972). Henry VII. The English Monarchs Series. University of California Press. p. 50. ISBN 9780520022669.
Weir, Alison (2007). Katherine Swynford: The story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Duchess. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 0-224-06321-9.
Gray, Douglas (2005). "Chaucer, Philippa - Oxford Reference". The Oxford Companion to Chaucer. ISBN 978-0-19-811765-0. Retrieved 8 June 2017.
Hudson, Anne (2005). "John of Gaunt - Oxford Reference". In Douglas Gray (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Chaucer. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-811765-0. Retrieved 8 June 2017.
Armitage-Smith, Sydney (1905). John of Gaunt: King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, Lincoln, and Leicester, Seneschal of England. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 390–391.
Armitage-Smith, Sydney (1905). John of Gaunt: King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, Lincoln, and Leicester, Seneschal of England. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 462.
Plea rolls of the Court of Common Pleas: National Archives; CP 40/629; http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no629/bCP40no629dorses/IMG_1228.htm; first entry, Thomas Swynford, knight, appearing with his wife, Margaret
Alison Weir, Katherine Swynford: The Story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Duchess (Random House Limited, Jonathan Cape, 2007), pp. 68–69
Armitage-Smith, Sydney (1905). John of Gaunt: King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, Lincoln, and Leicester, Seneschal of England. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 391–392.
"About Katherine Swynford in Brief". Katherine Swynford Society. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
James, Susan. 'Catherine Parr: Henry VIII's Last Love.' 2009. pg 15.
Armitage-Smith, Sydney (1905). John of Gaunt: King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, Lincoln, and Leicester, Seneschal of England. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 77.
Further reading
Armitage-Smith, Sydney (1905). John of Gaunt: King of Castile and Leon, Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster, Earl of Derby, Lincoln, and Leicester, Seneschal of England. Charles Scribner's Sons. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
Kelley, David H; Stone; Don C; & Dearborn, David C, "Among the Royal Servants: Welby, Browne, Quarles and Related Families", Foundations (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), Vol. 3, No. 4
Lucraft, Jeannette (2006). Katherine Swynford: The History of a Medieval Mistress. Sutton Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7509-3261-9.
Perry, Judy, "Katherine Roet's Swynfords: a re-examination of interfamily relationships and descent", Foundations (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), Vol. 1, No. 1 & 2 2003–2004.
Sargeant, Carol (2009). Love, Honour and Royal Blood Book One: Katharine Swynford. Dog Ear Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60844-162-4.
Walker, Simon (2004). "Katherine, duchess of Lancaster (1350?–1403)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online). doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/26858. Archived from the original on 16 February 2019.
Weir, Alison, Mistress of the Monarchy: The Life of Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster (U.S. title). | DE ROET, Katharine (I1742)
|
| 1807 |
Herbert of Wetterau (c. 930 – 992) was the son of Odo of Wetterau and a daughter (presumably named Cunigunde) of Herbert I, Count of Vermandois and Bertha de Morvis. Herbert was an important nobleman in central Germany and leader of the Conradines.
After the death of his father Odo of Wetterau in 949, Herbert became count of Kinziggau, Engersgau, and Wetterau. He also inherited the castle of Gleiberg, perched on basalt in the modern-day Giessen. In 976 Herbert got the count's rights for Gleiberg and vicinity: the county Gleiberg. Herbert also acquired the title of count palatine. In 981 he followed Emperor Otto II to Italy, and in 982, he took part in the disastrous Battle of Stilo against the Saracens.
Marriage and children
He married Irmtrud of Avalgau (957 – 1020), daughter of Megingoz and Gerberga (daughter of Godfrey, Count Palatine of Lotharingia and Ermentrude, daughter of Charles the Simple and granddaughter of Otto I of Saxony). They had the following children:
Otto of Hammerstein
Gebhard (d. 8 Nov 1016)
Gerberga of Gleiberg (c. 970 – aft. 1036), married Henry of Schweinfurt
Irmtrud (c. 978 – c. 1020), married Frederick of Luxembourg
Ancestors of Herbert of Wetterau
16. Gebhard of the Lahngau
8. Udo of Neustria
4. Gebhard of Lorraine
18. Conrad I of Auxerre
9. Judith of Auxerre
19. Adelaide of Tours
2. Odo of Wetterau
5. Ida
1. Herbert of Wetterau
24. Bernard of Italy
12. Pepin of Vermandois
25. Cunigunde of Laon
6. Herbert I of Vermandois
3. Cunigunda of Vermandois
7. Bertha of Morvois | Herbert of Wetterau (I19119)
|
| 1808 |
Hereditary advocate of the Abbey of Saint Bertin at Saint-Omer, Flanders.
Gerbod of Oosterzele was the son of another Gerbod, hereditary advocate of the abbey of Saint-Bertin. Among the fourteen tenants-in-chief from Flanders, Gerbod the Fleming was one of the most prominent. His family held the lordships of Oosterzele and Sheldewindeke, the overlordship of Arques and territorial rights in Saint-Omer. In 1066 he was in the service of William the Conqueror, most probably at the battle of Hastings, and between 1067 and 1070 was created Earl of Chester, holding a large portion of that county along with the city of Chester forming the county palatine of Chester. His brother Frederic was a tenant-in-chief in East Anglia and his sister Gundred married William I de Warenne, later 1st Earl of Surrey, whose caput was Castle Acre in Norfolk.
Gerbod was mentioned as being a part of the reduction of Cheshire in 1070 by the Conqueror, at which time Gerbod was given the Earldom of Chester. Orderic reports that Gerbod was harassed by both English and Welsh in his new position and he may have been glad to return to Flanders later that same year. This may also have been due to concerns having to do with the death of the Count of Flanders, Baldwin VI, and the subsequent civil war.
He fought in the Battle of Cassel in February 1071 in Flanders. According to Orderic Vitalis he fell into the hands of his enemies and was held captive while king William I, seeing the earldom vacant, gave the earldom of Chester to Hugh 'Lupus' d'Avranches. The Hyde Chronicle reported Gerbod died a prisoner. Both sources, one English and one Norman, did not seem to be aware of the details of the battle in Flanders; that Gerbod had not been imprisoned, but after killing Arnulf III, Count of Flanders in that battle, possibly by accident, he fled to Rome to seek forgiveness for the sin of killing his liege lord. The Pope, Gregory VII sent him to Hugh Abbot of Cluny who permitted him to become a monk at Cluny. Gerbod remained at Cluny becoming a distinguished member of that ecclesiastical community.
Prior to his taking the habit of a monk, Gerbod had married Ada (last name unknown) and had at least three children. | 1st Earl of Chester Gerbod the Fleming of Oosterzele (I13017)
|
| 1809 |
Hereditary Constable of England from 1199 to 1220.
The male line of Miles of Gloucester having failed, on the accession of King John of England, Bohun was created Earl of Hereford and Constable of England (1199).
Henry de Bohun was one of the 25 sureties of the Magna Carta in 1215, and was subsequently excommunicated by the Pope.
He was also a supporter of King Louis VIII of France and was captured at the Battle of Lincoln in 1217. He died while on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. | DE BOHUN, 1st Earl of Hereford Henry (I13009)
|
| 1810 |
At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. | Living (I10947)
|
| 1811 |
Hermann Billung (900 or 912 – 27 March 973) was the Margrave of the Billung March from 936 until his death. The first of the Saxon House of Billung, Hermann was a trusted lieutenant of Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor.
Though never Duke of Saxony himself, while Otto (who was the enthroned Duke of Saxony) was in Italy from 961 until 972, Hermann served as Otto's personal representative in governing Saxony. Towards the end of his life, Hermann was the effective Duke in all but name.
Hermann died in 973, just two months before Otto's own death. Hermann's son Bernard I was named as the new Duke of Saxony by Otto I's son Otto II, the new Holy Roman Emperor.
Life
Hermann was probably the son of Billung. He was the younger brother of the Saxon count Wichmann the Elder. Hermann is generally counted as the first Billung duke (Herzog) of Saxony, but his exact position is unclear. The ducal Ottonian dynasty had risen to German royalty with the accession of Henry the Fowler in 919 and had to concentrate on countrywide affairs. At least in 961, when King Otto I of Germany marched against the Kingdom of Italy for the second time, he made Hermann the administrator (procurator regis) in his Saxon lands.
When in 936 King Otto I had ascended the throne, he appointed Hermann a margrave (princeps militiae), granting him the Saxon march north of the Elbe river. His Billung March stretched from the Limes Saxoniae in the west along the Baltic coast to the Peene River in the east, roughly corresponding with the later Mecklenburg region. Otto thereby disregarded the claims of Hermann's elder brother Count Wichmann, a brother-in-law of Queen Dowager Matilda. Wichmann in turn joined the unsuccessful rebellion of King Otto's half-brother Thankmar and Duke Eberhard of Franconia in 938. Having more autonomy than the contemporary margrave Gero ruling over the adjacent Marca Geronis in the south, Hermann exacted tribute from the local Polabian Slavs of the Obotrite tribal federation.
Upon his brother's death in 944, he also became count in the Saxon Bardengau around the town of Lüneburg, where he founded the monastery of St Michael in that city. He again disregarded the inheritance claims raised by his nephews Wichmann the Younger and Egbert the One-Eyed. In 953 both joined the countrywide rebellion started by King Otto's younger brother Duke Liudolf of Swabia, which only collapsed due to the massive invasion of Hungarian forces. During this grave crisis, the king, who was also Duke of Saxony, began entrusting more and more of his authority in the Saxon lands to Hermann during his absences. However, Hermann was never named dux in royal documents. Instead, he is named as a military leader, count, and margrave.
His position was solidified, when on 2 February 962 King Otto was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in Rome by Pope John XII. Hermann was received like a king by Archbishop Adalbert of Magdeburg in 972, which even annoyed the emperor. He may have been the founder of the Hermannsburg locality in the Lüneburg Heath, first mentioned in 1059.
Hermann died in Quedlinburg. His son Bernard inherited and strengthened his father's position and managed to be recognized as duke.
Descendants
Hermann Billung perhaps was married twice: According to the chronicles of St Michael's Abbey in Lüneburg, a Countess Oda died on 15 March in an unknown year after 973, the Xanten annals noted the death of one Ode, spouse of Duke Hermann, on the same day. She probably was related to the royal Ottonian dynasty; Henry the Fowler's grandmother was named Oda (herself a member of the Billung dynasty), which was also the name of his sister. A second wife Hildesuith or Hildegard of Westerburg is mentioned in the chronicles, but her relation to Oda remains unclear. Hildegard was also the name of the spouse of Hermann's son Bernard. The name of Hermann's granddaughter Oda of Meissen suggests that Oda was the mother of his children.
He had five children:
Bernhard I (died 1011), Duke of Saxony
Liutger (died 26 February 1011), attested in 991, buried in St. Michaels in Lüneburg, married Emma of Lesum (died 3 December 1038), buried in the Bremen Cathedral.
Suanhilde (born between 945 and 955, died 26 November 1014,[2] buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Church of St. George in Naumburg, married:
in 970 Thietmar I (died after 979) Margrave of Meissen,
before 1000 Ekkehard I (murdered 30 April 1002 in Pöhlde); became in 992 Margrave of Meissen, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Church of St. George in Naumburg
Mathilde (born between 935 and 945, died 25 May 1008 in Ghent, buried in St. Peter's church), married:
"shortly before 961" to Balduin III, Count of Flanders (died 1 January 962),
Gottfried der Gefangene (died on 3/4 April after 995) in 963/982, Count of Verdun (Wigeriche), buried in St. Peter's church in Ghent
Imma, in 995 Abbess of Herford
References
http://www.theroyfamily.com/getperson.php?personID=I3291&tree=RoyFamily Roy Family Genealogy, Hermann Billung, Duke of Saxony and Margrave of the Billungermark
http://www.theroyfamily.com/getperson.php?personID=I5076&tree=RoyFamily Roy Family Genealogy, Swanhilde of Saxony | BILLUNG, Hermann (I19114)
|
| 1812 |
At least one living or private individual is linked to this note - Details withheld. | Living (I18103)
|
| 1813 |
Hider Household (6 People)
4 Arundel Street , Maidstone M.B., Kent, England
Start free family tree View original image Print
FIRST NAME(S) LAST NAME(S) DOB SEX OCCUPATION MARITAL STATUS SCHEDULE SCHEDULE SUB NUMBER
Eliza G Hyland 30 Aug 1865 Female Tin Worker Cleaner & Polisher Single 101 6
James Hider 01 Dec 1881 Male Paper Mill Worker Rag Boiler Married 101 1
Gertrude Hider 23 Dec 1886 Female Paper Mill Worker Production Process Married 101 2
Morris J W Hider 23 Mar 1910 Male Paper Maker Finisher Single 101 3
Sorry, this record is officially closed. Check if you can open a closed record.
Norman C Hider 24 Nov 1930 Male At School Single 101 5 | HYLAND, Eliza Gertrude (I10773)
|
| 1814 |
Higham Ferrers is a market town in the Nene Valley in East Northamptonshire, England , close to the Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire borders. | CHICHELE, Thomas (I8568)
|
| 1815 |
Hildegard (c. 754[2] – 30 April 783), was a Frankish queen consort who was the second[3] wife of Charlemagne and mother of Louis the Pious. Little is known about her life, because, like all women related to Charlemagne, she became notable only from a political background, recording her parentage, wedding, death, and her role as a mother.[4]
Origins
She was the daughter of the Germanic Count Gerold of Kraichgau (founder of the Udalriching family) and his wife Emma, in turn daughter of Duke Nebe (Hnabi) of Alemannia and Hereswintha vom Bodensee (of Lake Constance).[5] Hildegard's father had extensive possessions in the dominion of Charlemagne's younger brother Carloman, so this union was of significant importance for Charlemagne, because he could strengthen its position in the east of the Rhine and also could bind the Alemannian nobility to his side.[6]
Life
It is unknown if Charlemagne planned his marriage before the sudden death of Carloman or was just a part of the purposeful incorporation of his younger brother's Kingdom, in detriment of the claims of his nephews.[7] In any event, the wedding between Charlemagne and Hildegard took place at Aix-la-Chapelle certainly before 30 April 771, after the repudiation of the Lombardian princess Desiderata, Charlemagne's previous wife.
It is generally accepted that she was either 12 or 13 upon her marriage to Charlemagne.[8][9] Girls could be married at any time after puberty, and in Roman law, which the Church upheld, the age of 12 was well established as being adequate.[10] An intense physical relationship between the spouses was demonstrated by the fact that, during her 12 years of marriage, Hildegard had 8 pregnancies (including one set of twins). Quite remarkably, the chronicles never mention either miscarriages or stillbirths, indicating that she was of sturdy health despite her young age at the time of the wedding.
Hildegard accompanied Charlemagne on many of his military campaigns. She gave birth to her second child and first daughter, Adelaide, during the siege of Pavia, capital of the Kingdom of the Lombards (September 773/June 774), but the child died during the return journey to France. In 778, Hildegard accompanied her husband as far as Aquitaine, where she gave birth to twin boys Louis and Lothair.[11] In 780/781, she traveled with Charlemagne and four of their children to Rome, where the sons Louis and Carloman (the latter renamed Pepin after his baptism by Pope Adrian I) were appointed sub-kings of Aquitaine and Italy respectively. This contributed to the strengthening of the alliance between the Carolingians and the Papacy.[12] Because of her frequent pregnancies, it can be presumed that Hildegard accompanied her husband on further campaigns, at least temporarily.
Hildegard died on 30 April 783, according to Paul the Deacon, from the after effects of her last childbirth.[13] She was buried the following day (1 May 783) in the Abbey of Saint-Arnould in Metz. Following the wishes of Charlemagne, near her grave were burning candles and daily prayers were said for her soul.[14]
Interaction with the Church and Donations
Hildegard made several donations to the monasteries of St. Denis and St. Martin of Tours.[15] She was a friend of Saint Leoba, who reportedly lived some time with her at court. She intervened in Hildegard's religious education and also offered her spiritual advice.[16] Together with her husband she commissioned the Godescalc Evangelistary,[17] where for the first time she was explicitly mentioned as Queen -also of the Lombards- through the joint signature of documents with her husband.[18]
Hildegard enjoyed in her own lifetime from a high reputation, as was demonstrated in her obituary written by Paul the Deacon.[19] However, these compliments are to be regarded with some skepticism. In her Epitaph were included phrases that may have been introduced to flatter Charlemagne: for example, the reference to the fact that Hildegard was the epitome of beauty, wisdom and virtue. This were common words used by medieval writers to their rulers.[20] Pope Adrian I, in a letter to Charlemagne, expressed his condolences over the untimely death of Hildegard.
Hildegard used her position as Queen consort to obtain for her siblings several territorial and monetary benefits; as far was known, she was the only of Charlemagne's wives or concubines who managed to obtain for a relative an office after her marriage.[16] In addition, was also assumed that she, like other medieval queens, held several roles, such as ruling the court or being the representative (or regent) of the sovereign during his absence. This could mean that she was in close contact with all the government decision of her husband.[21]
Together with her husband, she was the main benefactress of the Monastery of Kempten (founded in 752), who received financial and political support. From Italy they brought after the conquest of the Kingdom of the Lombards in 773/774 the relics of the Roman martyrs Saints Gordianus and Epimachus to Kempten, whom, along with the Virgin Mary, are the patrons of the monastery.
Hildegard was extensively mentioned in Kempten as one of the founders; her bust graced the pin crest and some coins of the later Imperial Abbey. In the late Middle Ages it was alleged that Hildegard was buried in Kempten, as well as her son Louis the Pious; there was built the so-called Hildegard Chapel (Hildegardkapelle), which quickly became a place of pilgrimage and where several miracles are reported. This explains why the Queen was revered as a saint in the Allgäu and always presented with an aureola. In the 17th century the building of another Hildegard Chapel at the Fürstäbtliche of Kempten was projected, but this was abandoned after the secularization.
Even in modern times, the memory of Hildegard and her importance in the urban development at Kempten is still very noticeable: The central square in front of St. Lorenz Basilica was named the Hildegard Square (Hildegardplatz) in her honor. In 1862 a Neo-Gothic Hildegard fountain (Hildegardsbrunnen) was erected in the square, which was closed in the 1950s. An idealized portrait painted by Franz Weiß was part of the facade of the local Landhaus. Also, in 1874 was founded the Hildegardis-Gymnasium Kempten Lyceum, originally exclusively for girls. At the Lindau Road, close to the school, was also located another Hildegard Fountain. On the facades of some houses were shown the image of the Queen, and on the edge of the Kempten forest there was the Hildegard Oak (Hildegardseiche) for several years until it was replaced by a new plantation. Until the 1950s, many girls born in Kempten were named after Hildegard.
Children
Although Charlemagne already had an older son (Pepin the Hunchback) from his first union with Himiltrude, he was not considered an heir after the rebellion in which he participated in 792. In his will of 806 (the called Divisio Regnorum), he divided his domains between the three surviving sons of Hildegard. Because her son Louis the Pious succeeded Charlemagne as Emperor, Hildegard is often called "mother of Kings and Emperors".
Charles (772/73 – 4 December 811 in Bavaria[22]), the eldest son according to Paul the Deacon, who recorded his parentage.[23] His father associated him in the government of Francia and Saxony in 790, and crowned joint King of the Franks at Rome on 25 December 800, but died before his father.[18]
Rotrude (775 – 6 June 810[24]), named after her paternal great-grandmother. "Hruodrudem et Bertham et Gislam" are named daughters of King Charles and Hildegard by Einhard.[25] Angilbert's poem Ad Pippinum Italiæ regum names (in order) "Chrodthrudis...Berta...Gisla et Theodrada" as daughters of King Charles.[26] She was betrothed in 781 with Constantine VI, Emperor of Byzantium, and received the name Erythro in preparation for her future wedding. The betrothal was broken in 787,[27] and she, like all her sisters, remained unmarried. From a liaison with Rorgo of Rennes she had one son, the latter Louis, Abbot of Saint-Denis.
Carloman (777 – 8 July 810 in Milan, buried Verona, San Zeno Maggiore), renamed Pepin in Rome on 15 April 781 by Pope Adrian I, and crowned King of Italy that day. He also predeceased his father.
Louis (Chasseneuil-du-Poitou, Vienne, 16 April/September 778 – 20 June 840 in Ingelheim, buried Metz, Abbey of Saint-Arnould). He is named, and his parentage recorded, by Paul the Deacon, which specifies that he was his parents' third son, born a twin with Lothair.[23] Crowned King of Aquitaine in Rome on 15 April 781 by Pope Adrian I, his father named him as his successor at Aix-la-Chapelle, crowning him as joint Holy Roman Emperor on 11 September 813.
Bertha (779/80 – after 11 March 824), named after her paternal grandmother. An offer by Offa of Mercia to arrange a marriage between her and his son, Ecgfrith, led to Charlemagne breaking off diplomatic relations with Britain in 790, and banning British ships from his ports.[28] Like her sisters, she never married, but from her liaison with Angilbert, a court official, she had two sons: Hartnid (about whom little is known) and the historian Nithard, Abbott of St. Riquier.
Gisela (before May 781 – after 800, maybe after 814). Named after her surviving paternal aunt, she was baptized in Milan in May 781.[29]
Sources
Einhard: Vita Karoli Magni (Chapter 18).
Notker the Stammerer: Gesta Karoli Magni (Book I, Chapter 4)
Paul the Deacon: Epitaphium Hildegardis reginae
Royal Frankish Annals (years 780, 781 and 783)
Thegan of Trier: Vita Hludowici (Chapter 2)
Annales Mettenses priores (years 780 and 783)
Annales mosellani
Epitaphium Hildegardis reginae
Latin English
[1] Aurea quae fulvis rutilant elementa figuris,
Quam clara extiterint membra sepulta docent.
Hic regina iacet regi praecelsa potenti
Hildegard Karolo quae bene nupta fuit.
[5] Quae tantum clarae transcendit stirpis alumnos,
Quantum, quo genita est, Indica gemma solum.
Huic tam clara fuit florentis gratia formae,
Qua nec in occiduo pulchrior ulla foret.
Cuius haut tenerum possint aequare decorem
[10] Sardonix Pario, lilia mixta rosis.
Attamen hanc speciem superabant lumina cordis,
Simplicitasque animae interiorque decor.
Tu mitis, sapiens, solers, iocunda fuisti,
Dapsilis et cunctis condecorata bonis.
[15] Sed quid plura feram cum non sit grandior ulla
Laus tibi, quain tanto complacuisse viro?
Cumque vir armipotens sceptris iunxisset avitis
Cigniferumque Padum Romuleumque Tybrim,
Tu sola inventa es, fueris quae digna tenere
[20] Multiplicis regni aurea sceptra manu.
Alter ab undecimo iam te susceperat annus,
Cum vos mellifluus consotiavit amor
Alter ab undecimo rursum te sustulit annus,
Heu genitrix regum, heu decus atque dolor!
[25] Te Francus, Suevus, Germanus et ipse Britannus.
Cumque Getis duris plangit Hibera cohors.
Accola te Ligeris, te deflet et Itala tellus,
Ipsaque morte tua anxia Roma gemit.
Movisti ad fletus et fortia corda virorum,
[30] Et lacrimae clipeos inter et arma cadunt.
Heu, quantis sapiens et firmum robore semper
Ussisti flammis pectus herile viri.
Solatur cunctos spes haec sed certa dolentes,
Pro dignis factis quod sacra regna tenes.
[35] Iesum nunc precibus, Arnulfe, exores eorum
Participem fieri hanc, pater alme, tuis
These simple golden figures glow in red and yellow,
to clearly explain whose body lies herein.
Here lies the Queen of that King of most high power,
Hildegard that to Charles was happily wed.
[5] That her renown surpasses the lineage which reared her
where she was born, merely proves what a gem she was .
Hers was a figure of such flowering bright beauty,
that none more beautiful was to be found in the West.
Whose tender beauty could never be matched
[10] by Parian marble, lilies and roses mixed.
Yet such beauty was surpassed by the simplicity
of that shining heart which adorned the soul within.
Thou mild, wise, clever, and cheerful wert,
bounteous and with goodness all adorned.
[15] But whose words could bring thee greater praise
than he whose affections you did capture?
When this warrior-man united the ancestral kingdoms
or the savage Po and the Tiber of Romulus,
thou alone wert found worthy of his tenderness.
[20] He held the golden scepters of many kingdoms in his hand.
With the other he lifted his admiration up to thee, from thy eleventh year until now,
and during which time you shared honey-sweet love.
From the other wert thou taken away again after eleven years,
Alas, Mother of Kings, alas, virtue and sorrow!
[25] Thou Franks, Swabians, the Germans as the Britons,
if ever the hardened Getae weep with their Spanish cohorts.
Thy neighbors in the Loire, and all the lands of Italy lament.
Rome itself weeps in anguish at thy death.
The hearts of the brave too are moved to weeping,
[30] and tears fall in the midst of their arms and shields.
Oh, how wisdom and steadfast strength are ever
consumed by the flames of ardor within the hero's breast.
But all grief be consoled by this certain hope:
That worthy is she held within this sacred vessel.
[35] Pray now unto Jesus, Arnulf, and entreat him
that she be made to share, kind father, in thy home.
Note: translated with help from the footnotes recorded in Karl Neff: Critical and explanatory edition of the poems of Paul the Deacon in: Sources and Studies on Latin Philology of the Middle Ages, Ludwig Traube, 3rd volume, 4th book, Munich 1908 (ed.)
References
Reinhard Barth: Karl der Große, Munich 2000, p. 97.
The exact date of her birth is unknown, as the queen's consorts were only considered notable when they became part of the ruling family. Historically, they were barely mentioned in the chronicles. See Achim Thomas Hack: Alter, Krankheit, Tod und Herrschaft im frühen Mittelalter, (= Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 56), Stuttgart 2009, p. 42.
As described by historians such as Pierre Riché (The Carolingians, p.86.), Lewis Thorpe (Two Lives of Charlemagne, p.216) and others. Other historians list Himiltrude, described by Einhard as a concubine, as Charlemagne's first wife, and reorder his subsequent wives; accordingly Hildegard is sometimes numbered as his third wife. See Dieter Hägemann (Karl der Große. Herrscher des Abendlands, Ullstein 2003, p. 82f.), Collins (Charlemagne, p. 40.).
Ingrid Heidrich: Von Plectrud zu Hildegard. Beobachtungen zum Besitzrecht adliger Frauen im Frankenreich des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts und zur politischen Rolle der Frauen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter 52 (1988), p. 10.
Reinhard Barth: Karl der Große, Munich 2000, pp. 97-98.
Matthias Becher: Karl der Große, München 1999, p. 108.
Martina Hartmann: Die Königin im frühen Mittelalter, Stuttgart 2009, p. 97.
Johannes Fried: "Charlemagne", Harvard University Press 2016, p. 96
Rosamond McKitterick: "Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity", Cambridge University Press 2008, p. 90
Achim Thomas Hack: Alter, Krankheit, Tod und Herrschaft im frühen Mittelalter, (= Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 56), Stuttgart 2009, p. 51.
Martina Hartmann: Die Königin im frühen Mittelalter, Stuttgart 2009, p. 100.
Wilfried Hartmann: Karl der Große, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 50-51.
Pauli Gesta Episcop. Mettensium, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica Scriptorum II, p. 267.
Klaus Schreiner: "Hildegardis regina". Wirklichkeit und Legende einer karolingischen Herrscherin, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), p. 10.
Klaus Schreiner: "Hildegardis regina". Wirklichkeit und Legende einer karolingischen Herrscherin, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), p. 8.
Rosamond McKitterick: Karl der Grosse, Darmstadt 2008, p. 91.
Klaus Schreiner: "Hildegardis regina". Wirklichkeit und Legende einer karolingischen Herrscherin, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), pp. 9-10.
Silvia Konecny: Die Frauen des karolingischen Königshauses. Die politische Bedeutung der Ehe und die Stellung der Frau in der fränkischen Herrscherfamilie vom 7. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert, Vienna 1976, p. 65.
Klaus Schreiner: "Hildegardis regina". Wirklichkeit und Legende einer karolingischen Herrscherin, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), pp. 4-5. The "Epitaphium Hildegardis reginae" is printed in MGH poat. lat. aevi Carolini I, pp. 58-59. Cf. Franz Bittner: Studien zum Herrscherlob in der mittelalterlichen Dichtung, Dissertation Würzburg 1962, pp. 43-44.
Klaus Schreiner: "Hildegardis regina". Wirklichkeit und Legende einer karolingischen Herrscherin, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), pp. 4-5.
Matthias Becher: Karl der Große, Munich 1999, p. 111.
Scholz, B. W. with Rogers, B. (2000) Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard's Histories (University of Michigan Press) (RFA) 811, p. 94.
Pauli Gesta Episcop. Mettensium, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica Scriptorum II, p. 265.
RFA 810, p. 91.
Einhardi Vita Karoli Imperator 18, 'Monumenta Germaniæ Historica Scriptorum II, p. 453.
Angilberti (Homeri) Carmina, I, MGH Poetæ Latini ævi Carolini I, pp. 359-60.
RFA 787, p. 64.
Wilfried Hartmann: Karl der Große, p. 50.
RFA 781, p. 59.
Bibliography
Reinhard Barth: Karl der Große, Munich 2000.
Matthias Becher: Karl der Große, Munich 1999.
Hans-Werner Goetz: Frauen im frühen Mittelalter. Frauenbild und Frauenleben im Frankenreich, Weimar (u.a.) 1995.
Achim Thomas Hack: Alter, Krankheit, Tod und Herrschaft im frühen Mittelalter, (= Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 56), Stuttgart 2009.
Martina Hartmann: Die Königin im frühen Mittelalter, Stuttgart 2009.
Wilfried Hartmannd [de]: Karl der Große, Stuttgart 2010.
Ingrid Heidrich: Von Plectrud zu Hildegard. Beobachtungen zum Besitzrecht adliger Frauen im Frankenreich des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts und zur politischen Rolle der Frauen, in: Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter 52 (1988), pp. 1–15.
Silvia Konecny: Die Frauen des karolingischen Königshauses. Die politische Bedeutung der Ehe und die Stellung der Frau in der fränkischen Herrscherfamilie vom 7. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert, Vienna 1976.
Rosamond McKitterick: Karl der Grosse, Darmstadt 2008.
Michael Richter: Karl der Große und seine Ehefrauen. Zu einigen dunkleren Seiten Karls des Großen anhand von Quellen des ausgehenden achten und beginnenden neunten Jahrhunderts. pp 17–24, in: Franz-Reiner Erkens (ed.): Karl der Große und das Erbe der Kulturen, Berlin 2001.
Rudolf Schieffer: Die Karolinger, 3rd revised Edition, Stuttgart 2000.
Klaus Schreiner: „Hildegardis regina“. Wirklichkeit und Legende einer karolingischen Herrscherin, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57 (1975), pp. 1–70. | Hildegard of the Vinzgau (I19135)
|
| 1816 |
HILLS Ada of 56 Old Tovil-road Maidstone, spinster, died 27 January 1936. Probate London 4 March to Emma Stone (wife of Charles Stone). Effects GB698 7s. | HILLS, Ada (I10810)
|
| 1817 |
HILLS, ELEANOR EMMA BOULDEN
GRO Reference: 1879 M Quarter in MARYLEBONE Volume 01A Page 599 | HILLS, Eleanor Emma (I17834)
|
| 1818 |
HILLS, EMMA RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1841 J Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 293
Death
HILLS, EMMA 7 Order
GRO Reference: 1848 S Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 272 | HILLS, Emma ^ (I16561)
|
| 1819 |
HILLS, FRANK RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1845 M Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 348
Death
HILLS, FRANK 0 Order
GRO Reference: 1845 S Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 204 | HILLS, Frank ^ (I16566)
|
| 1820 |
HILLS, GEORGE RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1849 S Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 338
Death
HILLS, GEORGE 0 Order
GRO Reference: 1849 S Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 389 | HILLS, George ^ (I16567)
|
| 1821 |
HILLS, HARRIET RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1840 M Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 29
death
HILLS, HARRIET 0 Order
GRO Reference: 1840 J Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 231 | HILLS, Harriet ^ (I16569)
|
| 1822 |
HILLS, HENRY RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1848 M Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 35
Possible marriage:
Marriages Sep 1869 (>99%)
Barnes Alice Maidstone 2a 854 Scan available - click to view
Hills Henry Maidstone 2a 854
Henry Hills
England and Wales Census, 1891
Name: Henry Hills
Event Type: Census
Event Date: 1891
County: Kent
Parish: Maidstone
Ecclesiastical Parish: ST PAUL
Registration District: Maidstone
Residence Note: Stacys Passage
Gender: Male
Age: 45
Marital Status: Married
Occupation: General Labourer
Relationship to Head of Household: Head
Birth Year (Estimated): 1846
Birthplace: Kent, England
Page Number: 28
Registration Number: RG12
Piece/Folio: 690/ 76
Household Role Sex Age Birthplace
Henry Hills Head Male 45 Kent, England
Alice Hills Wife Female 38 Trotterscliffe, Kent, England
Maidstone, Kent, England, RG12/690, ED 14, fol. 77, pp. 28-29
Household Sch. #188, 17 Stacys Passage
Alice J. Hills, daughter, single, 20, paper cutter, employed, born Maidstone, Kent
Elizabeth A. Hills, daughter, single, 18, general servant domestic, employed, born Maidstone, Kent
Olive A. Hills, daughter, single, 13, scholar, born Maidstone, Kent
Henry R. Hills, son, 11, scholar, born Maidstone, Kent
Frederick C. Hills, son, 9, scholar, born Maidstone, Kent
Rose Hills, daughter, single, 6, scholar, born Maidstone, Kent
George Hills, son, 4, born Maidstone, Kent
William Hills, son, 3, born Maidstone, Kent
Lillie M. Hills, daughter, 1, born Maidstone, Kent | HILLS, Henry (I16564)
|
| 1823 |
HILLS, JANE RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1846 S Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 328 | HILLS, Jane (I16563)
|
| 1824 |
HILLS, LYDIA 48 Order
GRO Reference: 1837 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 236
Possible death:
HILLS, LYDIA 48 Order
GRO Reference: 1837 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 236 | HILLS, Lydia (I10706)
|
| 1825 |
HILLS, RICHARD RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1837 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 234
Death
HILLS, RICHARD 0 Order
GRO Reference: 1837 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 240 | HILLS, Richard ^ (I16568)
|
| 1826 |
HILLS, RICHARD RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1842 S Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 292
Death
HILLS, RICHARD 0 Order
GRO Reference: 1842 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 235 | HILLS, Richard ^ (I16562)
|
| 1827 |
HILLS, RICHARD RUSSELL Order
GRO Reference: 1843 D Quarter in MAIDSTONE Volume 05 Page 309 | HILLS, Richard (I16565)
|
| 1828 |
His arrival at Windsor during May, 1930 describes Frank as being single, born in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 1882 and in Manitoba until 1896. He is described as being a farmer and headed for his brother Harry Hill in Longbank, Saskatchewan. | HILL, Frank (I20231)
|
| 1829 |
His cousin. | SANDYS, Mary (I10684)
|
| 1830 |
His father, Thomas L. Carlin, had been born in New Orleans, U.S.A. and his mother Rosella nee James in Kentucky, U.S.A.. Cause of death was due to hypostatic pneumonia resuting from a fracture of the left humerus when he slipped and fell in the bathroom at the City Infirmary on June 9, 1941. | CARLIN, Thomas J. (I8015)
|
| 1831 |
His mother's name on this baptism is recorded as Marie. | SPILLETT, Edward (I4435)
|
| 1832 |
His title derived from a feudal barony.
Source:
[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 XII/1, page 610. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage. | MAUDUIT, William Baron of Hanslape (I8283)
|
| 1833 |
His will dated 26 Oct 1487 is in Latin and very difficult to read owing to the type of scribe tool used to write it. He wishes to be buried at the church of Wickhambreaux and leaves the usual bequests to the church. He names his wife Isabelle and two sons, Robert and John. He also names a daughter, Agnes whom he later refers to as Anna. He also names his "sister Beatrice Harryson". It is impossible to determine with just this one document whether she is a biological sister to Robert Austen who married a Mr. Harryson, or if she is the sister-in-law either married or a spinster and being the biological sister of his wife, Isabelle. | AUSTEN, Robert (I17730)
|
| 1834 |
Historical Manuscripts Commission in the National Register of Archives Families and Estates Index lists the following:
Ruck family of Pennal, Merionethshire
18th-19th century: deeds, correspondence and papers relating to family and antecedents. Deposited at the National Library of Wales, Department of Manuscripts and Records. Reference: Esgair and Pantperthog: NRA 34883 Esgair & Pantperthog.
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/69091
Title Lease and counterpart
Date 1846
Description Lessee: Ruck, Lawrence. Rectory and land in the parish of Halstow. The Manor of Barksore. 9 Dec.
Extent 2 docs
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/69092
Title Lease and counterpart
Date 1853
Description Lessee: Ruck, Lawrence. Rectory and land in the parish of Halstow. The Manor of Barksore. 9 Dec.
Extent 2 docs
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/69093
Title Counterpart lease
Date 1853
Description Lessee: Ruck, Lawrence. Rectory and land in the parish of Halstow. The Manor of Barksore. 8 Dec.
Extent 1 doc
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/96720
Title Release from Thomas Dodd and others to Lawrence Ruck
Date 25 Nov 1841
Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish.
Extent 1 doc
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/96721
Title Release from Henry Hudson and others to Lawrence Ruck
Date 8 Feb 1842
Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish.
Extent 1 doc
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/96722
Title Mortgage from Lawrence Ruck to William Day
Date 17 Dec 1860
Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish.
Extent 1 doc
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/96723
Title Abstract of title, lawrence Ruck
Date 20 Jul 1864
Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish.
Extent 1 doc
fonds CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 1966 DEPOSIT
Repository Canterbury Cathedral Archives
Level file
RefNo CCA-U63/96724
Title Lease to Lawrence Ruck for 21 years
Date 8 Dec 1860
Description For land in Barksore Manor, Halstow Parish.
Extent 1 doc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1860, Jan. 12
1 Mary Matthews of Esgair Lleverin, co. Mon., widow
2 Lawrence Ruck of Newington next Sittingbourne, Kent, esq.
GRANT of the m. and lands called Nantycittir, otherwise Tynewydd, in Eskeireth, p. Trefeglwys.
1879, April 14
1 Laurence Ruck of Pantlludw, p. Pennal, co. Mer., esq.
2 Edward Bennett of Rhydycarw, p. Trefeglwys, co. Mont., esq.
GRANT of the m. and lands called Nantycittir, otherwise Tynewydd, in Eskeireth, p. Trefeglwys.
(Plan in margin and schedule appended.)
Both grants found among the collections at the National Library of Wales. Research papers of Cecil E. Vaughan Owen, esq., Glasgoed, Llanidloes (1901-81), local historian, deposited by him, relating mainly to the history of co. Mont., especially Arwystli and Llanidloes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3886
[no date]
From: ROBERT PARRY, Clynnog
Mr Ruck is to hold an auction on Friday. Perhaps David Lloyd George can come by the 8 o'clock train.
Found among the collections at the National Library of Wales. Papers of WILLIAM GEORGE (SOLICITOR) (11)
Part 11 of Schedule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found among the pre-1999 collections at the National Library of Wales. ESGAIR AND PANTPERTHOG, deposited by Mr A. D. Ruck, Chislehurst, 1950, 1950134.
403.
1848, Nov. 2
LETTER from John G. W. Bonsall, Machynlleth, to Laurence Ruck, Esq., Pantllydw, concerning the watercourse through Sir John Edward's land.
404.
1848, Nov. 14
LETTER from Sir John Edwards, Greenfields, to Mr Morgan, requesting him to apply to Mr Ruck, the writer's tenant, for permission to make an embankment.
405.
1849, Nov. 24
LETTER from David Howell, 'At Llugwy', to Laurence Ruck, Pantlludw, intimating that he is autherised by Mr Anwyl to offer the addressee the whole of the property included in the advertisement for £3000, including the timber and timber-land.
278.
1849, Nov. 27
1. Jonathan Anwyl of Llugwy, co. Merioneth, esq.;
2. Lawrence Ruck of Pantlludw, esq.
AGREEMENT, with Conditions of Sale, for the purchase of the properties specified in No. 274.
279.
1849, Nov. 27
1. Jonathan Anwyl, esq.;
2. Lawrence Ruck, esq.
AGREEMENT pursuant to No. 278.
282.
(a) 1850, Feb. 4
1. Jonathan Anwyl of Llugwy, co. Merioneth, esq.;
2. Laurence Ruck of Pantlludw, esq.
MORTGAGE for £2500 of the properties specified in No. 278; with COVENANT for the production of title deeds.
(b) 1852, June 29
1. Evan Anwyl of Hendreseivion in the parish of Llanwrin, co. Montgomery, gent., devisee of trust and mortgage estates, and also sole executor named in the will of the within-named Jonathan Anwyl;
2. The within-named Laurence Ruck.
RECONVEYANCE of the properties mortgaged in (a).
Endorsement.
283.
1850, Feb. 4
RECIEPT from Jonathan Anwyl to Laurence Ruck for No. 282; and MEMORANDUM of agreement concerning the same.
406.
1852, April 6
LETTER from D. Howell, Machynlleth, to L. Ruck, Esq., concerning the latter's proposal to pay up the mortgage at once.
285.
No date
ABSTRACT OF TITLE (1792-1852) of Lawrence Ruck, esq., to the farm of Gelligreen in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth
419-424.
1856, Aug. - 1857, Jan.
LETTERS (6) from the Rev. D. Twopeny, Stockbury, Sittingbourne, to L. Ruck, Esq., concerning the 'Larkins Charity', a payment to the poor of £1 annually, which had been lost to the parish for 13 years or more.
425.
[1856, Aug.5]
PARTICULARS of the 'Larkins Charity', sent with No. 419.
318-363
1856-1857
LETTERS and PAPERS relating to the Newtown and Machynlleth Railway project. The correspondence consists almost entirely of letters from David Howell, Machynlleth, to Laurence Ruck.
1860, April 19
1. Mary Matthews of Esgair leverin in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth, widow;
2. Mary Ann Ruck, wife of Laurence Ruck of Pantlludw in the said parish of Pennal, esq.;
3. The Reverend Foulk Evans of Machynlleth, co. Montgomery, Minister of the Gospel.
MORTGAGE for £250 of the properties devised by the will (15 Jan. 1849) of Richard Matthews late of Esgair Lleverin, co. Merioneth, esq., deceased.
434.
1861, March 8
BILL of John Happenden, Maidstone Nursery, St.Paul's County Road, Newington, to M.Laurence Ruck for fruit-trees.
287.
1862.
ABSTRACT OF TITLE (1798-1849) of Lawrence Ruck, esq., to a certain farm and lands called Maeswerngoch and Bryneithinog appertaining thereto in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth.
89.
1863, June 18
1. Mary Matthews of Esgir in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth, widow, and Mary Ann Ruck of N. 18 Elgin Crescent, Notting Hill, London;
2. Caroline Ford, widow, and John Randle Minshull Ford, a Lieutenant in H.M. 8th Regiment of Infantry, both of Llwyngwern in the parish of Llanwrin, co. Montgomery;
3. Henry John Standly of Pinner, co. Middlesex, esq.
LEASE for 21 years of right of tramroad through a field part of Lliwdy Farm in the parish of Pennal, co. Merioneth.
Counterpart.
296.
1866, Nov. 15
LETTER from John Seager, Cryalls Lodge, Borden, Nr. Sittingbourne, to -- - --, stating that he has no interest in L.Ruck's property after his lease.
436.
1867, July 13
JURY SUMMONS from William Watkin Edward Wynne, esq., sheriff of Merionethshire to Laurence Ruck, Pant llydw, Penal, esq.
437.
1879, Oct. 30
LETTER from Messrs. Combe & Wainwright, 6 Staple Inn, London, to J.L.Ruck, Esq., enclosing cheque on account of rent; Mr Wood's account for repairs and Mr Seager's rent.
438.
1880, Aug. 6
'REPORT as to Crops growing upon Cranbrook Farm Newington and Cowstead Farm Stockbury.'
439.
1880, Aug. 6
LETTER from Messrs. Jackson & Sons, Sittingbourne, to Lawrence Ruck, Esq., accompanying No. 438; with copy of reply, dated 13 Aug. 1880.
457.
-, Dec.2
LETTER from M.J., Glan Mor, to Mrs M.A. Ruck. The writer scarcely expects now to let the house before the Spring.
299.
1875, Oct. 24
NOTICE from Messrs. Wainwright & Co., 9 Staple Inn, solicitors for Richard Cox and John Harold Milton, to Lawrence Ruck, esq., of Pantllydwn, co. Merioneth, that by an indenture dated 22 Oct. 1895 the principal sum of £4000 secured by a previous indenture dated 4 Aug. 1886 was assigned by the said Richard Cox to the said Richard Cox and John Harold Milton.
300.
1898, June 4
1. Richard Cox of Theale near Reading, co. Berks, M.D., and John Harold Milton of 9 Staple Inn, co. Middlesex, solicitor;
2. Arthur John Bodvel-Roberts of Cefnycoed, near Ca[e]rnarvon, co. Caernarvon, gent.
TRANSFER of mortgage of a messuage and lands called Nettlestead farm and other properties in the parishes of Stockbury and Newington, co. Kent.
Draft.
302.
1898, Aug. 16
1. Richard Matthews Ruck, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Royal Engineers;
2. Oliver Edwal Ruck, a Major in the Royal Engineers;
3. Arthur Ashley Ruck of Llwynybrain, co. Ca[e]rnarvon, a Colonel in H.M.Army;
4. Arthur John Bodvel-Roberts of CefnyCoed near Ca[e]rnarvon, co. Ca[e]rnarvon, gent.
CONVEYANCE of undivided shares of the properties specified in No. 300.
Draft
462.
No date
A PEDIGREE of the descendants of Baron Lewis Owen, Dolgelley, including the Ruck family.
Torn. | RUCK, Lawrence (I3490)
|
| 1835 |
Hodges Johan c 1 Sep 1610 d/o Robert/Barbara West Farleigh PR
Hodges Robert c 12 Mar 1611/2 S/O Robert
Hodges Elizabeth c 13 Dec 1607 d/o Robert
Hodges Mary c 26 Mar 1609 d/o Robert
Hodges Catherine c 12 Dec 1613 d/o Robert
Hodges Ellen c 6 Aug 1615 do Robert
Hodges Barbara c 20 Jul 1617 d/o Robert
Hodges Grisegon c 22 Nov 1618 d/o Robert
Hodges Robert c 13 Aug 1620 s/o Robert
Hodges Frances c 10 Feb 1621/2 d/o Robert
Hodges Augustine c 13 Nov 1625 s/o Robert
Hodges Robert Catlett Barbarye m 18 Jul 1603
Basden Thomas Hodges Catherine m 2 Dec 1632 | HODGES, John (I19599)
|
| 1836 |
Hodges Robert Bigg Mary m 26 Feb 1654/5 he of Teston, she of Hunton, according to a late Act for marriages were in the presence of Samuel Bendy, Richard Walker, Robert Smith as witnesses, married before me Augustine Skynner at West Farleigh PR
Hodges Robert Bigg Mary m 27 Feb 1654 he son of John Hodges, she do Thomas Bigg Hunton PR
This marriage also appears at West Farleigh and Teston. | Family (F6090)
|
| 1837 |
Honywood Evidences is a compilation of information from various sections of The Topographer and Genealogist, Vol. 2 | Source (S175)
|
| 1838 |
Horace Buckland Austin (Brown)
1866–1944
BIRTH 25 APR 1866 • Reading, Berkshire, England
DEATH DEC 1944 • Maidstone, Kent, England
Children of marriage
James Brown
1888–
Harry Austin
1889–
Horace G Brown
1890–
Martha Jane Brown
1893–
Amelia Brown
1898–
Nellie Austin
1899–
James Edward Austin | AUSTIN (BROWN), Horace Buckland (I19031)
|
| 1839 |
Householder | SEARLES, David (I63)
|
| 1840 |
householder on burial | TITHERDEN, Timothy (I6540)
|
| 1841 |
Householder on burial. | PORDAGE, Thomas (I18878)
|
| 1842 |
Householder on burial. | PORDAGE, Francis (I18882)
|
| 1843 |
Householder on burial. | BULFINCH, William (I19360)
|
| 1844 |
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/2fe46375-6d16-4dc4-9da5-7db5627d26f6
Lease
This record is held by Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library
See contact details
Reference: CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/394A
Title: Lease
Description:
From: William Sellyng, I, prior of Canterbury Cathedral Priory; the convent of Canterbury Cathedral Priory To: John Graunt of Sandwich; Thomas A Denne of Barham; John Assherst of Chart The manor of Lydcourt [alias Lydden, in Worth, Kent], with livestock as specified. Reserving certain rights and dues. For a term of 15 years. For an annual payment of £36 13s 4d, payable as specified. Conditions on repairs, including repairs to the sea walls, and other conditions. Details of livery. Right of distraint and re-entry if payment in arrears. The lessees have made a bond in £80to observe the terms of the lease. Priory's part of indenture. Endorsed 'Lydcourt' in 16th cent hand.
Date: 7 Dec 1486
Held by: Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library, not available at The National Archives
Former reference in its original department: CCA-DCc-ChAnt/L/394A
Language: English
Physical description: 1 document
Physical condition: Parchment, 1m, indented at top, 3 seal tags, all with traces of red wax, dirty, creased
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1484
CP 25/1/117/342, number 26.
Link: Image of document at AALT
County: Kent.
Place: Westminster.
Date: The day after St Martin, 2 Richard III [12 November 1484].
Parties: Thomas Denne and Michael Denne, querents, and William Clitherowe, citizen and grocer of London', and Margaret, his wife, deforciants.
Property: 54 acres of land in the parish of Westhithe in the marsh of Romeney.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: William and Margaret have acknowledged the land to be the right of Thomas, and have remised and quitclaimed it from themselves and the heirs of Margaret to Thomas and Michael and the heirs of Thomas for ever.
Warranty: Warranty.
For this: Thomas and Michael have given them 40 marks of silver.
Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.)
Persons: Thomas Denn, Michael Denn, William Clitheroe, Margaret Clitheroe
Places: London, West Hythe, Romney
1486
First Previous6 of 30Last Next
CCA-DCc - DEAN AND CHAPTER
ChAnt - Chartae Antiquae
L - Chartae Antiquae L
Title Lease
Order Number CCA-DCc/ChAnt/L/394A
Date 7 Dec 1486
Description From: William Sellyng, I, prior of Canterbury Cathedral Priory; the convent of Canterbury Cathedral Priory
To: John Graunt of Sandwich; Thomas A Denne of Barham; John Assherst of Chart
The manor of Lydcourt [alias Lydden, in Worth, Kent], with livestock as specified. Reserving certain rights and dues. For a term of 15 years. For an annual payment of £36 13s 4d, payable as specified. Conditions on repairs, including repairs to the sea walls, and other conditions. Details of livery. Right of distraint and re-entry if payment in arrears. The lessees have made a bond in £80to observe the terms of the lease. Priory's part of indenture.
Endorsed 'Lydcourt' in 16th cent hand.
Extent 1 doc
Physical Description Parchment, 1m, indented at top, 3 seal tags, all with traces of red wax, dirty, creased
Language Latin
AccessStatus Open
Open
1489
CP 25/1/117A/344, number 71.
Link: Image of document at AALT
County: Kent.
Place: Westminster.
Date: Two weeks from St Martin, 5 Henry VII [25 November 1489]. And afterwards one week from St Hilary in the same year [20 January 1490].
Parties: John Fyneux', William Boys, Michael Denne, Thomas Denne and Thomas Nethersole, querents, and Robert Austyn' and Joan, his wife, deforciants.
Property: 2 messuages, 120 acres of land and 3 acres of wood in Nunnyngton'.
Action: Plea of covenant.
Agreement: Robert and Joan have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of Thomas Nethersole, as those which the same Thomas, John, William, Michael and Thomas Denne have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Joan to John, William, Michael, Thomas and Thomas and the heirs of Thomas Nethersole for ever.
Warranty: Warranty.
For this: John, William, Michael, Thomas and Thomas have given them 30 pounds sterling.
Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.)
Persons: John Fineux, William Boys, Michael Denn, Thomas Denn, Thomas Nethersole, Robert Austin, Joan Austin
Places: Nonington
1508
Archaeologia Cantiana, v25-p263-264
DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO...... op cit. 17. [4.] 125B.—1508. Grant by William Lauraunce of the
parish of Berham to William Cullyng of the same parish, Thomas
Denne, John Gate, and Thomas Rolf of seven acres of land lying at
Southberham at Colysse between the lands of Robert Marsh towards
the east, of William Cullyng south and west, and the common road
towards the north, etc., which Richard Laurence his father, Thomas
Petite, and William Audele conjointly held by ffeoffment of William
Browne of Berham, deceased. Dated at Berham 23 September,
24 Henry VII. [Seal attached.]
Witnesses : John Neve, Senr
', Thomas ffirner, Nicholas Vytell,
John Weste, John Neve, Junr
#18. [5.] 125c.— 1508. Letter of attorney from William
Laurence to Thomas Weldiche, to deliver the said seven acres of
land at Southbarham, at Colysse, etc., to William Culling, etc. (as
in the preceding Grant). Dated 23 September, 24 Henry VII.
[Seal attached.]
1527
Archaeologia Cantiana, 1902, vol. p. 264
#20 [6] 154B-1527 Grant by Thomas Beolo [Beale], gentleman, to Thomas Culling of the parish of Barham, Thomas a Denne, Thomas Ladde, William Nasshe of Berham and William a Denne of Kingston, of one croft and two acres of land in Barham, the said croft containing by estimation seven acres and a half lying next the lands of John Brooke east and south, Thomas Beole west, and James Mershe north; the said two acres of Thomas Beole south, William Cullyng west and north, and the King's highway east. 5 October 19 Henry VIII [1527] [seal attached]
this document establishes my Thomas at Barham as early as 1527. The reference to William a Denne of Kingston would lead me to think that that William was a brother, uncle or father of my Thomas. It might be worth investigating any Wills left of Thomas Ladde, William Nasshe both of Barham and William a Denne of Kingston. It might also be worth looking into a Will for Thomas Beale. Other feets of fines place Thomas and William a Denne in Barham as early as 1509.
===================================================================
Possible William Nashe
Will Nasshe William Barham 1547 1547 PRC/17/25/177 1547
In his Will, this Thomas a'Den is described as being "the elder of the parish of Barham".
From his Will, I would suggest that Margaret Naishe is not his first wife and may not be the mother of the children Christopher, Michael and David. No mention is made of Agnes in his Will but there is mention of Richard Austen and Edith Austen but no relationship is stated to the Testator.
===================================================================
Feet of Fines 1509 - no harnett
1 Hen VIII CP25(2) 19/102
Michaelmas Term
#23 Thomas Frode and wife Alice, John Godyn and wife Joan, William Moket and wife Margaret
to Thomas a Denne, John Bone and Ingram Jenkyn Messuage 60 aces land, 60 acres pastue and 2 acres wood in Folkestone, Barham and Capel le Ferne. 40 marcs.
2 Hen VIII CP25(2) 19/103 [1510]
Michaelmas Term
#55 John Crips and wife Avice
to Thomas Denne, James Dyggys, esq. Thomas Roulfe and William Denne.
Moiety of messuage, 100 acres land, 4 acres mead, 40 aces pastue and 40 acres wood in Kingston, Upper Hardres, Barham, Selling and Bourn = Bishopsbourne? GB40 (21)
7 Hen VIII CP25(2) 19/108 [1515]
Michaelmas Term
#257 John Cryps and wife Avice to Thomas a Denne, Vincent Broke, John a Denne and Thomas a Gate. Moiety of messuage, 100 acres land, 4 acres mead, 40 acres past and 40 acres wood in Kingston, Barham, Upper Hardres, Selling and Bishopsboune GB40 (27)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denne (Denne Hill, Kingston, Elbridge, Bishopsbourne, and Lydd, co. Kent, and Winchilsea, co. Sussex). Azure three bars ermine in chief as many fleur-de-lis or." (Sir Bernard Burke: The General Armory, London 1884, page 278)
Slater describes the crest as being. "on a chapeau vert, turned up ermine a demi Peacock, wings expanded and elevated pp."
"This crest was also granted in 1589 but has not been used from time immemorial."
==============================================================================
Denne of Lydd
The Arms of Denne of Lydd pictured here taken from Frederick Slater's manuscript (1880) and are described by him as follows:
"Quarterly 1st and 4th Three bars ermine in chief, as many fleur de lis, or. Coat granted to Thomas Denne Esq 1580. 2nd and 3rd Azure three leopards heads, couped, or."
The Denne of Lydd branch
is descended from
Thomas Denne of Addisham.
===============================================================================
DENNE, Thomas (1577-1656), of St Alphege, Canterbury, Kent and the Inner Temple, London; later of Denne Hill, Kingston, Kent
Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Education
bap. 1 Sept. 1577, 1st s. of Robert Denne, yeoman of Denne Hill and Thomasine, da. of Thomas Dane of St. John’s, Thanet, Kent. educ. King’s sch. Canterbury 1589; I. Temple 1598, called 1607. m. by Oct. 1611, Dorothy (bur. 21 Aug. 1637), da. of John Tanfield of Copfold Hall, Margaretting, Essex, 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 5da. 1 other ch. d.v.p. suc. fa. 1594. bur. 1 Aug. 1656.1
Offices Held
Dep. reader, Clifford’s Inn 1609, reader, Lyon’s Inn 1614, Clifford’s Inn 1616,[ I]. Temple 1628;[2] fee’d counsel, Canterbury 1617-at least 1636, recorder 1643-55;[3] steward, reader’s dinner, I. Temple 1623, bencher 1626-d., reader’s attendant 1627, auditor 1628-9, 1631-2, 1638-9.[4]
Freeman, Canterbury 1617,[5] common councilman to 11 Mar. 1656;[6] commr. oyer and terminer, Canterbury 1622,[7] subsidy 1624;[8] j.p. Kent 1630-d.;[9] commr. repair of highways, Kent 1631,[10] charitable uses 1633,[11] assessment (chairman), Canterbury 1643-5, 1647-53.[12]
Biography
Denne’s earliest known ancestor held lands in east Kent under John, and his son, Sir Alured, was seneschal of Christchurch Priory, Canterbury and escheator for Kent in 1234.[13] Denne himself was born to a prosperous yeoman at Denne Hill in the parish of Kingston, five miles south-east of Canterbury. In the family’s possession from at least the mid-thirteenth century, Denne Hill lay at the heart of a modest estate that was expanded under Elizabeth to include purchases in neighbouring Barham and the Isle of Thanet. Following his father’s death in 1594, Denne, the eldest of five sons, should have inherited the Kingston-Barham estate, but it was conferred on his brother John instead. Moreover, the bulk of the Thanet property was divided between two other brothers, Vincent and Edward. The few lands specifically allocated to Denne were expressly withheld during the lifetime of his mother, who used them to amass more than £2,000 in rents in just 12 years. However, some property, unmentioned in the will, must have passed automatically to Denne, for in about 1606 he conferred lands on John worth £200 a year, plus £400 in cash. The condition of this gift was that John would leave Denne his entire estate if he died childless.[14]
Shortly after attaining his majority, Denne underwent a legal training at the Inner Temple, culminating in his admission to the bar in June 1607. He may have received encouragement from another Thomas Denne, New Romney’s standing counsel and perhaps a kinsman.[15] By 1612 he was living in Canterbury,[16] where from 1617 he was retained as counsel by the corporation following John Finch II’s* elevation to the recordership. For much of the 1620s Denne helped defend Canterbury’s charter at Westminster.[17] However, his election to Parliament for the city in 1624 was contrary to the wishes of his employers. He and his fellow Canterbury resident, the self-styled puritan Thomas Scott*, persuaded each other to stand to prevent the return of the duke of Lennox’s secretary John Latham, whom Scott ‘much suspected for his religion’ and whose candidacy was supported by the city’s aldermen.[18] On the strength of this evidence, Denne has been described by one historian as ‘a puritan lawyer’.[19]
Denne played little recorded part in the 1624 Parliament. On 25 Mar. he was nominated to the bill committee for the repeal and continuance of expiring statutes, and on 22 Apr. he reported a naturalization bill for the Norwich grain merchant Peter Verbeake.[20] While at Westminster, Denne’s brother John secretly drafted his will. Instead of settling his entire estate on Denne, as agreed, John divided up the property he had bought with Denne’s money between his brother Vincent, Denne’s youngest son Thomas, and a clerk named James Benchkin. For some while after John’s death in February 1625, Denne remained ignorant of the will’s existence, so that on taking action against the Benchkins in 1626 he assumed that John had died intestate.[21] On discovering the truth, Denne decided not to pursue Vincent, for as Vincent was unmarried it was possible he would inherit his entire estate anyway. However, he seized control of John’s lands and obtained permission to administer his goods and cash, for which he was hounded by the administrators of John’s widow, Elizabeth, who had died within hours of her husband. Indeed, over the next 16 years he fought a fierce rearguard action in several ecclesiastical courts as well as King’s Bench, Common Pleas, the Privy Council (where Denne was severely criticized) and, in 1641, the House of Lords.[22]
Denne’s decision not to pursue Vincent through the courts may have been misguided. Shortly before their mother died in February 1634, Vincent allegedly persuaded her to leave most of her property to him, including the share of the Thanet estate reserved for Denne in their father’s will. In this way Vincent compensated himself for his impending loss of Denne Hill, which at long last passed to Denne. Vincent’s final act of spite was to settle most of his estate on Denne’s youngest son, Thomas, two months before his death in June 1642, leaving Denne only a single cottage and plot of land in Kingston, worth just £35.[23] Vincent’s will consequently set Denne and his eldest son John against Thomas, who was banished from his father’s presence.[24] Thomas and Henry Oxinden of Barham (Vincent’s executor) were prosecuted, first in the Court of Wards and, after that court’s abolition in 1646, in Chancery. The quarrel proved so bitter that Denne even attempted to recover the cost of his son’s education, while Thomas accused John of having secretly poisoned Denne against him.[25] Denne argued that he needed Vincent’s estate, having five daughters and ‘not means sufficient to raise convenient portions for them’, whereupon Thomas retorted that his father was ‘esteemed a man of £800 per annum or thereabouts and to have divers thousand pounds in his purse, besides his yearly gainings by his p[ro]fession as a counsellor at law’. Denne never forgave Thomas, even after John’s death in 1648, for in 1655 he settled his whole estate on his daughter Mary and her husband, Vincent Denne† of Gray’s Inn.[26]
During the First Civil War, Denne became recorder of Canterbury and chairman of the city’s ‘county’ committee. The assertion that he was a republican seems to be unfounded.[27] Increasing infirmity probably explains his replacement as recorder in 1655 and why, early in 1656, he sought and was granted permission to resign from Canterbury’s Common Council.[28] ‘Weak of body’, he drew up a short will on 7 July 1656, in which he asked to be buried at Kingston, ‘where my late wife and ancestors were interred’, and appointing his daughter Mary and her husband as his executors.[29] He died a few weeks later at his house in Canterbury, and was buried at Kingston on 1 August. His son-in-law Vincent represented Canterbury in Parliament that same year, and again in 1681.
Ref Volumes: 1604-1629
Author: Andrew Thrush
Notes
1. W. Berry, Kentish Genealogies, 194-6; Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. xlii), 99-100; Vis. Essex (Harl. Soc. xiii), 295-6; Lists of Scholars of King’s Sch. Canterbury comp. W. Urry et al.; I. Temple Admiss.; Regs. St. Giles in Kingston, Kent ed. C. Hales Wilkie, 9, 130, 131; Regs. St. Alphaege, Canterbury ed. J.M. Cowper, 15-18, 20, 208.
2.Readings and Moots at the Inns of Ct. II ed. S.L. Thorne and J.H. Baker (Selden Soc. cv), cvi; J.H. Baker and J.S. Ringrose, Cat. of English Legal Mss in CUL, 424; CITR, 164.
3. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/FA/22(1), f. 344; FA/24, f. 293; FA/25, f. 195v; FA/26, ff. 244, 301.
4.CITR, 139, 155, 161, 170, 191, 231, 244.
5.Roll of Freemen of City of Canterbury comp. J.M. Cowper, 315.
6. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/AC/4, f. 399v.
7. C181/3, f. 70.
8. C212/22/23.
9. C231/5, f. 38; Cent. Kent. Stud. Q/JC/6, 7.
10. C181/4, f. 88v.
11. C192/1, unfol.
12.A. and O. i. 336, 451, 541, 620, 640, 968; ii. 36, 301, 469, 666; SP28/252, items ‘B’ and ‘C’, passim; A.M. Everitt, Community of Kent and Gt. Rebellion, 177.
13. Berry, 194.
14. C2/Chas.I/D18/65; Cent. Kent. Stud. PRC 17/49, ff. 59v-62v.
15. For this man, see LI Black Bks. i. 457; Cent. Kent. Stud. NR/AC1, ff. 68, 81v-2, 166, 192, 201v; Cal. of White and Black Bks. of Cinque Ports ed. F. Hull (Kent Recs. xix), 309, 343; C181/1, f. 28v.
16.Regs. St. Alphaege, 15.
17. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/FA/23, ff. 150r-v, 200v, 203v, 247v, 337v, 387v.
18. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, U66, f. 25v.
19. P. Clark, ‘Thomas Scott and the growth of urban opposition to the early Stuart regime’, HJ, xxi. 12.
20.CJ, i. 750b, name spelt ‘Deane’; ‘Hawarde 1624’, p. 251.
21. C2/Chas.I/D50/61; 2/Chas.I/B124/62.
22. For the details, see CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 101; 1640-1, pp. 281-2; PC2/44, pp. 203-4; 45, p. 214; HMC 4th Rep. 36, 83, 86.
23. C2/Chas.I/D18/65; Cent. Kent. Stud. PRC 17/69, ff. 467-8.
24. Add. 28000, f. 343.
25. Ibid. ff. 225v, 342r-v; C2/Chas.I/D18/65; D14/51.
26. Cent. Kent. Stud. U36/T678.
27. Everitt, 226n.
28. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/AC/4, f. 399r-v.
29. PROB 11/261, f. 94r-v.
=============================================================================
Denne Hill, Kent
Description
Denne Hill, a seat adjacent to the Dover railway, 7 1/2 miles SE of Canterbury, in Kent. It belonged for about six centuries to the Dennes, and passed to the Montresors. Traces of very extensive entrenchments are on the grounds, and were long supposed by antiquaries to be indications of the line of Caesar's march from Deal. It is now a modern residence belonging to the Dyson family.
Transcribed from The Comprehensive Gazetteer of England and Wales, 1894-5
==============================================================================
5 bedroom detached house for sale
Denne Manor Lane, Shottenden, Canterbury, Kent
GB1,500,000.
Hall | Drawing room | Sitting room | Kitchen/breakfast room/family room | Utility room | Cloakroom | Cellar | Master bedroom with en suite bathroom | 5 Further bedroom (1 with en suite shower room) | Family bathroom|Outbuildings & garaging
A wide panelled front door leads into a welcoming hall, with oak flooring and superb custom-built oak staircase leading to the first floor - both the main reception rooms lead from here. To the left is an elegant, formal, double aspect drawing room, with a wide stone fireplace, excellent ceiling heights and exposed ceiling timbers. The sitting room to the right has equally high ceilings, double aspect, a brick inglenook fireplace with fitted wood burner and shelved cupboard to one side. In the hall a trap door leads to the ample cellar. From the sitting room and the hall there is access into the wonderful kitchen/breakfast room cum living area. It has York stone flooring, hand-built kitchen by Throughly Wood, tiled inglenook fireplace housing a three-oven AGA and a fitted Neff hob and cooker, and double doors open onto the terrace. Adjacent is the utility room, which has plenty of storage space, and a door opens to a downstairs WC.
Stairs rise to the first floor. The master bedroom is to the left - a wonderful double aspect room with oak floors, and en suite bathroom with French style bathtub, large overhead shower and wash basin. A passageway leads to a family bathroom and bedroom 3, which has an exposed chimneybreast dividing the sitting room/bedroom 4. Bedroom 2 sits to the front and has an en suite shower room. A winding oak staircase leads to the second floor where there two further bedrooms, one with an en suite cloakroom - both are full height and have exposed ceiling timbers.
Denne Manor is located in a delightful rural location approximately 2½ miles from the village of Chilham, which provides local amenities including a post office, primary school and public houses. The Cathedral City of Canterbury (about 9 miles) offers a comprehensive range of educational, leisure and shopping facilities. Schooling is well catered for in both the state and private sectors.
There are excellent road and rail communications in the area with the A2/M2 (4 miles) and the M20 can be joined at Ashford.
Trains from Faversham to London Victoria take approximately 70 minutes. Ashford International station (9 miles) offers regular services to the continent via the Eurostar, and in December 2009 the new High Speed Rail Link will take approximately 37 minutes to St Pancras. The Channel Tunnel terminal at Folkestone (24 miles) offers shuttle services to the continent
The main garden has been beautifully planted and sympathetically landscaped to provide a wonderful setting for the house. Immediately adjoining the house is a gravel and brick terrace with steps leading through the shrubbery to the swimming pool garden, which is fully enclosed with fence and surrounded by a variety of roses, shrubs and other ornamental climbers. The planting scheme is created in lovely pastel colours of creams, blues and whites and a central rose arbour. Opposite the house is a garage block with an office at one end.
=======================================================================================
Denne references in KAS journals
arms 4, 258; 10, 330;
Alice 9, 289; 20, 26;
Amfrid de (1200) 2, 252
Sir Anered de (1252) 2, 311
Nicholas de (1254) 3, 243
Ralph de (1198) 1, 268; 22, 255; 21, 221
Robert 21, 320, 321; 25, 269, 271
Thomas de (1196) 1, 233-4;
10th May 1196, 7 Ric. I. Thomas de Dene and Harlewin his brother (in a plea under a writ of right) quitclaim to Thomas de Godwinestone [i.e. Goodnestone, or Gunston[ one soling and a half of land in East Ratling, for which he gives them six marks, and eighteen acres and a quarter in a field called Uikham *(to be hald of said Thomas de Godwinestone by fourpence per annum) and six marks sterling.
Cordia facta, in Curia domini Regis apud Westmonasterium
1 Solinga, a Solin, a measure of land peculiar to Kent. In Doomsday we have, "In communi terra Sancti Martini sunt cccc acre et dim., quae fiunt duos solinos et dimid." Agard considers that dim. refers to "hundred," and not to "acre," which makes the passage tantamount to "450 acres being equal to two and a-half Solins;" thus the Solin would be 180 acres, but he considers it to be, "after English account," 216 acres, and "after Norman tale," 180 acres.
2 Uikham? We have represented the three minims with which the word commences, by Ui.
die Jovis proxima post Inventionem Sancte Crucis, anno regni Regis Ricardi vij°.
Coram H. Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, . . . . et G. Roffensi, Episcopis, H. Cantuariensi, et R. Herefordensi, et E. Elyensi Archidiaconis, Comite Rogero Bigot, G. filio Petri, Osberto filio Hervei, Willelmo . . . . . . Heriet, Simoiie de Patishull, Thoma de Huseboume, et aliis Baronibus et fidelibus domini Regis ibidem tune presentibus.
Inter THOMAM DE DENE et HARLEWINUM . . . . petentes, et THOMAM DE GODWINESTONE, tenentem.
De una sollinga1 terre et dimidia, cum pertinenciis, m ESTRETLING.
Unde placitum fait inter eos . . . . domini Regis., per breve de recto, quod predicti THOMAS et HERLEWINUS quietum clamaverunt in perpetuum, de se et heredibus suis, totum jus, et clamium suum quod clamaverunt, in predicta terra, cum pertinentiis, in ESTRETLING, predicto Thome et heredibus suis.
Et pro hac quieta clamancia, fine, et concordia, dedit predictus THOMAS DE GODWINESTONE predictis . . . . fratri ejns, xviij acras terre, et unam virgatam, cum pertinenciis, in campo qui appellatur UIKHAM,2 tenendas in perpetuum ipsis et
heredibus suis de . . . . THOMA DE GODWINESTON, et heredibus suis, solvendo per annum iiijd, pro . . . . servicio, in festo Sancti Michaelis. Et preterea, idem THOMAS DE GODWINESTONE . . . . predictis THOME et HAELEWINO fratri ejus, vi marcas sterlingorum.
20, 18; 25, 207, 263, 264, 272, 275, 278, 281, 282, 287
Sir Thomas 30, 68
(1220) 2, 227
(1252) 2, 310;
Thomas de 10, 137, 142, 159; 15, 29
Walter de 12, 230;
@m de 2, 307; 3, 100; 4, 208
Michael (1465) 10, 255
Thomas (1465) 10, 255 received pay by john Boteller for Michael and Thomas in part of payment the 13 day of Feb the 5th year of King Edward 37 li, 6s 8d
Item of Michell and Thomas Denne be a Bocher of London 4s 4d
Thomas 12, 415; 14, 177; 18, 417
---------------------------------------------
Denne, Christopher of Staplehurst, yeoman and Margaret Burden of Boughton Monchelsea, widow. At Staplehurst. July 2, 1614.
Denne, David of Littlebourne and Margery Parker of Ickham widow. At Ickham, Littlebourne or Wickham. Sep 30 1568
Denne, John, of Littlebourne, yeoman and Martha Vidian of St. Mildred's Canterbury, widow. At St. Mildred's Feb 5, 1613.
Denn, Michael of Littlebourne, yeoman and Alice Nethersole of Ickham, virgin. At Littlebourne, Jan. 28, 1614
Bankes, William of Littlebourne, and Margery Den, sp virgin. At St. Margaret's Canterbury. Dec 31, 1606
================================================================================
Hi Matt,
Likewise, a quick reply from me. We’ve just come off of the long civic holiday ( equivalent of August Bank Holiday) weekend during which I was hoping to have the emails transferred over the laptop to the new PC. No such luck thanks to various disruptions!
So, I am not entirely certain to which Austen Wills you are referring.
The LDS is making great strides in uploading the Wills from the Archdeaconry Court and the Consistory Court. So, I, too, have been able to grab a few more Wills over the past month or so. But, again, I have to sort out what’s what and where I’ve got it all stored.
However, there is one major research goal that I have managed to accomplish and that is the reason I am writing to you at this moment in time.
I have unequivocal proof that Thomas DENNE who married Margaret NAISSHE is NOT the Thomas DENNE who married Alice ESHEHURST!
I now have that Thomas DENNE’s Will and it is and does contain all the proof that is required to forever disassociate our Thomas DENNE as being the one and the same as that Thomas DENNE.
I will send more later. I will try for tonight but it may be tomorrow.
I wanted to let you know this “breaking news” as I will be publishing the details on RootsChat as well as on my own professional research website AncestrySolutions.com in the “Errors Identified in Published Genealogies” section (http://ancestrysolutions.com/referencecentre/planning/Overturned.htm ).
So, even though now I know that our Thomas DENNE was NOT the fellow who married Alice ESCHEHURST, it follows that he was NOT THE SON OF Michael A‘DENNE and Christianna COOMBE. Also, he was NOT THE GRANDSON of John A’DENNE and Alice ARDERNE. The Will of this last mentioned John A’DENNE mentions only his two sons, Michael and Thomas and Thomas’ daughters. Visitations further confirm that this last mentioned Thomas (son of John) had only one daughter, Avis. This takes the lineage back to Thomas A’DENNE who married Isabel DE EARDE. He, too, can be ruled out as being a direct ancestor our Thomas DENNE who married Margaret NAISSHE. The College of Arms mentions only two sons 1. John whom we’ve just visited; and another Thomas. However, this last mentioned died without issue.
This takes the potential lineage for our Thomas A’DENNE (2nd husband of Margaret NAISSHE) back to Richard A’DENNE and Agnes De APULDREFELD. It is at this level that we have a real chance of making a solid connection. Richard and Agnes had four sons: Thomas (whom we’ve already ruled out); Michael, of whom nothing is known; John; and, Richard also of whom nothing is known.
I believe John, immediately above, married a woman named Eleanor SHAKEWEY. Even if it is not this John, then it is a John that is much more closely related to our Thomas than the Coombe-Arderne-deEarde female line is. The younger children of Richard A’DENNE and Agnes De APULDREFELD appear to have settled in Barham (the place where our Thomas A’DENNE resided) (College of Arms information).
I have also found a quadripartite Indenture dated 21 Henry VI. [1442/3] whereby Michael Shakewey of Berham enfeoffees his lands in Berham, Kyngeston, Stellyng, Orgoryswyke and Seintemaricherche for the benefit of his wife, Parnel and his two daughters Isabel Cherche and Eleanor DENNE wife of John DENNE and their son Richard DENNE. Specifically, the DENNES were to receive “in the parish of Berham in places called "Southberham" and "Southderyngeston,"”.
So, what we would have is a lineage that would like something like this:
Thomas DENNE and [wife unknown] who marries 2nd Margaret Naisshe widow
-To Unknown Male DENNE [A’DENNE born circa 1445 and most likely a son of Richard] and [wife unknown][marr circa 1475]
-To Richard A’DENNE(born circa 1420) and [wife unknown]
-To John A’DENNE and Eleanor SHAKEWEY
-To Richard A’DENNE and Agnes DE APULDREFELD
-To Sir William A’DENNE and Elizabeth DE GATTON
-And following the lineage backwards as already known
That’s all for now. I’m sure you’ll have lots of questions and I have quite a few answers. | A’DENNE, Thomas the elder, Esq (I12094)
|
| 1845 |
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL2.htm#_Toc127590546 | MORTIMER, Hugh DE (I15168)
|
| 1846 |
http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
A note on the deaths of Edward II
Introduction
There is no doubt that Edward II was a controversial monarch. In character and deed he was a disappointment to many of his contemporaries, not just his father. He ‘loved’ Piers Gaveston more dearly than most kings were expected to 'love' their subjects, and even adopted him as his brother. He was accused of sodomy by his political enemies in 1326 and has been portrayed as a homosexual by some modern writers and even as a gay icon. He was forced to accept a series of ordinances limiting royal authority, was forced to accept reform of his household, and eventually reacted by taking military action and legal proceedings against many members of the nobility and gentry. He was probably cuckolded by his wife, lost the confidence of his people, and wrote threatening letters to his son and heir. As is well known, his reign ended in ignominy, with parliament being cajoled into an agreement to depose him. Subsequently he was forced to abdicate the throne. However, despite all these points of discussion and debate, one aspect of his life stands out as being historically more contentious than any other. His death.
Understanding the questions raised by accounts of Edward’s death – and, indeed, understanding any contentious historical subject – requires a great deal of care and attention to detail. There are no simple answers. We cannot say that it was ‘more likely’ that Edward was murdered or not on the strength of our perceptions of his suspected murderers’ motives. A historical fact cannot be determined on the basis of motive any more than a modern suspect may be found guilty of murder by a policeman's hunch. And this applies no matter who you are. The educated guess of a professor of history may be more educated than that of the man in the street but it is still a guess. A more rigorous approach is necessary.
You would have thought this would not be problematic, it is so obvious. But a number of people still have difficulty understanding both the methods and the implications of my work into the fake death of Edward II, and his real death. A glance at some of the customers' reviews of The Perfect King written on amazon.co.uk show that, even having read a synopsis of my peer-refereed research in this area, some readers still think my work is based on speculation. Others prefer to work along the lines of the traditional narrative because they feel it is 'more probable'. I am the first to admit that the survival of Edward II is an improbable story; when beginning The Greatest Traitor I had no doubt that Roger Mortimer had both killed the king and slept with the queen: 'the Freudian double' as I described it to my agent and publisher. But the traditional narrative is simply not tenable on information grounds, and that is the only test which counts. This essay is an attempt to explain why, in as straightforward a way as possible.
Methodology
All contentious history – academic and scholarly research as well as amateur sleuthing and popular writing – is built on shaky foundations. This is because all the evidence underpinning it is open to question. Very often one piece of evidence conflicts with another. For example, there is evidence that Edward died in Berkeley Castle and there is evidence that he was still alive in 1330. Nor can one prefer one version of events as ‘more plausible’ without bringing one’s own prejudices regarding plausibility to bear on the debate. Even though every single extant chronicle of the period states that Edward II died in 1327, that does not prove anything. Three hundred of those chronicles are varying copies of a single continuation of the chronicle called The Brut, and the copyists had no more information than the original compiler. In determining the certainty of political events one cannot depend on the weight of evidence, for weight alone proves nothing about quality. What we really need to study, in order to determine what actually happened, is not so much the evidence but the information underlying it, the links between evidence and reality.
This point about information is absolutely crucial to any approach to a difficult historical question. All written evidence was written down by someone on the basis of something they had seen or heard – it does not directly relate to the event in question. Very simply, events can't write. Everything we read about the past – all the information we have about it except the archaeological record – has been filtered through scribes. In the medieval period, most of the scribes were not witnesses to the events in question. They received information from intermediaries. A witness told someone, who told someone, who told a scribe – with perhaps many more intermediaries. Thus there are a number of stages preceding the creation of any piece of evidence. The process is like a stream of information flowing from the event itself to the record of the event: an information stream altering with every retelling of the facts.
Academics do not normally teach this in universities. In theoretical terms it is so obvious it does not need to be said. In practical terms it rarely matters; one does not normally gain anything by differentiating between the event itself and the evidence. If Henry IV’s accounts show that he bought a recorder in 1387, then there is no advantage in working out how the information about the payment was passed to his treasurer’s clerk; to do this in every case would make history a tedious and pedantic exercise. Nor is there any good reason to doubt that he really made the purchase. But in contentious matters we have no option but to be tedious and pedantic – if we wish to arrive at a position of certainty rather than prejudice.
The use of the word ‘certainty’ brings us to the question of proof. Often one reads that there is 'no proof' that Edward II survived the Berkeley Castle plot of 1327. To this one may respond that there is 'no proof' that he died in 1327 either. The very statement shows that the speaker has misunderstand the nature of proof in history. On the whole it is safest to presume that a specific historical question (e.g. did Edward II die in Berkeley Castle? Did Harold get an arrow in the eye at Hastings? Was I born in 1967? etc) is like a scientific theory in that it is ‘always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory' (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes (Bantam edition, 1989), p. 11). In history it is possible to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, and thus arrive at a position of certainty, but that is not the same thing as proving something absolutely, for it is a question of personal opinion what ‘reasonable doubt’ is in each case. Before the discovery of the Fieschi letter in the 1870s, no one doubted that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle and thus it was a fact 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'. Nevertheless the matter could not have been considered proven absolutely as it was always possible that some evidence would come to light to show that he did not die there.
To illustrate this important point further, consider the death of Queen Victoria. One cannot prove that she died on 22 January 1901. One may consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt – for one may prove absolutely that news of her death had been received by such people as the editor of The Times by the following day. But the news is not the same thing as the event ('events can't write'). In this case, it is technically possible that a false report about the death was circulated. Eye-witness accounts could also have been falsified. So one cannot prove an event absolutely. However that does not mean our knowledge is weak. There are degrees of reliability which are universally acceptable as forms of ‘proof’ or certainty. In the case of Queen Victoria, the eye-witness accounts, the dissemination of the news, and the well-reported condition of the elderly queen's health all mean that the likelihood that she died on that day tends to one hundred per cent, for it is so difficult to see how such reports could have been created without leaving a secondary information trail relating to a false report. Hence we may be certain she died on that day even if logic imposes on us the obligation to admit the death itself cannot be proven absolutely.
If even the death of Queen Victoria cannot be proved absolutely, is it possible to prove what happened to Edward II? To this there are two answers. With regard to absolute proof, one has to say ‘no’, on the same theoretical grounds as for Victoria's death: a historical conclusion is always provisional, like a scientific theory. But with regard to proving the matter beyond reasonable doubt, or certainty, we can be much more positive. One can arrive at a position of certainty by demonstrating that the alternative narrative is false. In the specific case of Edward II’s death, one may prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was alive by showing that the evidence for his death is based on an unreliable source while that for his survival is based on a reliable one. Or - even better - more than one.
To recapitulate, before proceeding with the arguments about Edward II’s death, it is important to be clear on two points.
We are not studying evidence at the usual, superficial level. We are studying it at a deeper level - looking at the information which was used to make that evidence, which existed before the evidence was written. We are looking at the connectedness of the evidence with reality, if you like, having cut away all superfluous and circumstantial evidence liable to lead to speculation.
We are not trying to 'prove' something did happen but testing two alternative theories: a survival theory and a death theory. Each of these is a different side of the same coin - one cannot be partly dead. So we may be certain that only one of these theories is true. Either
Edward II = dead in 1327, or
Edward II = alive at end of 1327.
Both of these are supported by contemporary evidence, and thus our task has to be more thorough than simply quoting evidence. To arrive at a position of certainty we must do two things. We must show that the evidence for one theory is questionable, being based on unreliable information or information flowing from an unreliable source. In addition we need to show how the information underpinning the evidence for the other theory is reliable. Only in this way can we eliminate personal opinions, all our preconceived ideas about what is likely or not likely, and all contemporary propaganda. We are testing for falsehood, not likelihood.
The first death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle
The theory that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle rests on a large body of evidence created by a number of writers. Basically one can divide them into two sorts: those who wrote as a result of a private initiative, and those who wrote as a result of a duty to the royal family. The former include all the chroniclers and creators of unofficial documents which mention the death. The latter include the clerks of the royal household and other households concerned with the safe-keeping of the ex-king, from keepers of accounts for his maintenance at Berkeley to royal clerks noting the death in letters. It also includes later official accounts, such as payments made by royal clerks on the anniversary of the ex-king’s death. There is a great deal of this information - too much for it all to be listed here.
As stated above, evidence is never ‘written by the event’ (except in the metaphorical sense of events 'writing' or resulting in archaeological evidence). Information about the death circulated in a large number of ways, via many different people, and for a wide range of purposes. For this reason there is a great range of descriptions of the death in the contemporary and near-contemporary chronicles. Details are listed in full in Medieval Intrigue but, in short, the earliest chronicles state that Edward II died of a grief-induced illness. Those written after 1330 state that he was murdered, strangled or suffocated. Between 1332 and 1337 the chroniclers start to state that the murderers were Thomas Gurney and John Maltravers (even though John Maltravers had never been accused officially of the crime but was tried for a different one in 1330). Around 1340 chronicles start to repeat the story of a piece of metal being inserted through his anus; at first this is described as a copper rod, then an iron one, and finally an iron poker. The chronicles are inconsistent on whether it was hot or not (most that relate the story say that it was). Some express doubt about the mode of killing, some later ones insist the death was natural, and one interesting lay writer refuses to accept what is rumoured. A variety of dates for the death are given too: from 20th to 22nd September, with most settling on the official date, the 21st.
Obviously a wide variety of intermediaries were at work in supplying information to all these writers. Many simply copied each other. One of the originals, the chronicle continuation written by Adam Murimuth first issued in 1337, openly states that his story about the murder, in which Maltravers and Gurney suffocated the ex-king, was merely 'common rumour'. Given the time at which he wrote this, the 'common rumour' was no doubt influenced by the proceedings against Maltravers and Gurney in the parliament of November 1330 (both of them having fled the country). Other chroniclers followed Murimuth in repeating the guilt of these men as a matter of fact (although Edward III was quietly in correspondence with Maltravers from 1334, and employed him at a salary of £100 per year from 1339). Another original, the shorter continuation of The Brut – the earliest chronicle to mention the death – states that it was officially announced at Lincoln, and that the ex-king had died of a ‘grief-induced illness’. As so many chronicles were based on these two originals, we have clear signals as to where their information originally came from. Only one writer, Geoffrey le Baker, in his second chronicle (his Chronicon), written in the 1350s, claims to have spoken to an eye-witness, William Bishop. But Bishop was not a witness to the supposed murder, as le Baker makes clear; he only witnessed the lamentable treatment of Edward II when being taken back to Berkeley after one of his ‘escapes’ earlier in 1327. For his account of the murder, le Baker relied on the longer continuation of The Brut.
Turning to the official records, we have a huge mass of evidence that Edward II died in 1327. There are the accounts of Edward II’s keepers, published in the nineteenth century, which tally with the ex-king's death on 21 September (Stuart Moore, ‘ Documents relating to the Death and Burial of King Edward II’, Archaeologia, L (1887 ), p. 217). There are the accounts of Edward II’s funeral. There are many wardrobe accounts from the 1330s and 1340s which show that the royal family commemorated Edward II’s death by giving out pittances to paupers on 21 or 22 September (e.g. National Archives: E 101/388/5, mem. 14, dated 1337; E 36/204 fol. 76r, dated 1341-4; and E 101/392/12, fol. 35v, dated 1353). However, although these are all regarded traditionally as ‘primary sources’ the information they contain is not ‘primary’ at all. They are all evidence of the earlier acceptance within the household of 21 September 1327 as the date of Edward II’s death. Thus we must turn to how this date was reported, and how both official and unofficial sources came to be informed.
Almost all the chronicles state that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle. The few that do not either fail to mention an alternative or give Corfe Castle as the place – a result of a lined missed out in a copy of a longer continuation of The Brut, which was itself copied widely in the late fourteenth century. Official sources leave no doubt that the king was maintained and supposedly died at Berkeley Castle. The account of Lord Berkeley’s expenses for 1327 (Berkeley Castle Select Roll 39) shows that he sent Thomas Gurney with letters about the death of Edward II to Edward III and Queen Isabella ‘at Nottingham’ (although they were actually at Lincoln at the time). Another official source indicates precisely when he delivered those letters. This is an original letter from Edward III to the earl of Hereford, his cousin, dated at Lincoln on 24 September 1327 (National Archives: DL 10/253): it states that the king had heard of his father’s death the previous night. This supports the shorter Brut continuation's claim that it was at Lincoln that the news of the death was announced.
On this basis we can reconstruct the first stages in the dissemination of the news of the death. On 21 September Lord Berkeley sent the news via Gurney to the king and his mother at Lincoln. Gurney arrived in the night of the 23rd/24th, and the fourteen-year-old Edward started spreading the information the very next day. A few days later (before the 29th) the king had left Lincoln, by which time he had announced to the departing members of parliament (which finished sitting on the 23rd) that Edward II was dead. From there the news spread across the country, carried by messengers, merchants, servants and members of parliament returning to their boroughs, counties, monasteries and dioceses.
The important thing here is that there was just one information source for all this evidence. All the chronicles and royal accounts – all the official sources and unofficial ones – were dependent on Lord Berkeley’s announcement of the death. It could not have been independently verified before the king started circulating the news. That Edward III and his officials started telling people the very next day proves this – Berkeley Castle is considerably more than a hundred miles from Lincoln, so Edward III’s letter to his cousin of 24 September is proof that he accepted the news at face value and started repeating it straightaway. Thus all the evidence that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle in 1327 – even the evidence for his funeral trappings – is ultimately dependent on one message, from Thomas Berkeley, Lord Mortimer’s son-in-law, to Edward III and his mother, Lord Mortimer's mistress.
Three years later, on 26 November 1330, the parliament rolls record that Lord Berkeley ‘came before the lord king in his full aforesaid parliament, and spoke of this, that since the Lord Edward late king of England, the father of the present lord king, was lately delivered into the safekeeping of Thomas and of a certain John Maltravers to be kept in the castle of Thomas at Berkeley in the county of Gloucester, and was murdered and killed in the same castle in the keeping of Thomas and John, he wishes to acquit himself of the death of the same king, and says that he was never an accomplice, a helper or a procurer in his death, nor did he ever know of his death until this present parliament.’ (National Archives C 65/2 (Parliament Roll, Nov. 1330), item 16).
There has been much discussion about what was meant by ‘nor did he ever know of his death until this present parliament’ (‘nec unquam scivit de morte sua usque in presenti parliamento isto’). A few traditionalists have insisted that it means he did not know the cause of the death (i.e. he had not heard of the accusation of murder). That can hardly be the case, as the possibility of murder had been discussed by Henry of Lancaster since 1328, but even if it is, such commentators are missing the point. Lord Berkeley was Edward III’s sole informant – the letters telling the king and his mother about Edward II’s death had come from Lord Berkeley himself, as Lord Berkeley’s own accounts show. For him to say he did not know about the manner of the death when he himself announced it is an admission of ignorance, whether or not the ex-king was actually dead. And the possibility that he meant that he had not yet heard of the king's death - the literal meaning of these words - is certainly a line of enquiry which only a prejudiced commentator would fail to follow.
To recapitulate: there was one sole information source for the death, Lord Berkeley, and the information contained in his letters was not sent in good faith. He himself denied knowledge of this same information three years later. If anyone should have known about it, it was him. His denial undermines the entire concept that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle in 1327. It doesn't disprove it (bearing in mind the nature of historical proof stated above), but it does prove that those who believe Edward II died in Berkeley Castle are doing so on the basis of an unsubstantiated message sent in bad faith.
The survival of Edward II to 1330
The poor-quality of the information underpinning the evidence for the death is only half the story. It undermines the theory that "Edward II = dead in 1327". It does not automatically mean that we can justify the alternative theory, that "Edward II = alive at the end of 1327". For a belt-and-braces approach, we have to examine the evidence for his survival beyond 1327 separately.
Before discussing the evidence, it is necessary to say something about how the ex-king's 'survival' was possible, considering that a royal funeral took place in December 1327. Edward II’s face was not exhibited to the public in any way, and there is no evidence that anyone sought to confirm his identity after the announcement of his death. A corpse was covered entirely in cerecloth and taken to Gloucester in a lead coffin, and buried three months later after much show but no exposure of the face. Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only ‘superficially’ by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire. Obviously the royal hearse, covered in painted carvings, armour and candles, confirmed to people that Edward II was dead, and a wooden effigy of the king was clothed in royal garments and displayed above the coffin. But no one actually saw the corpse. Some of those present at the funeral later believed he was still alive in 1330. (This aspect is fully discussed on pages 1182-3 of my article in the English Historical Review, reprinted in Medieval Intrigue).
The evidence that Edward II was still alive in 1330 consists of nine documents, which may be specifically listed:
The accusation, trial and judgment of the earl of Kent in the parliament of March 1330, overseen by the coroner of the king’s household. The earl was told he was guilty of being ‘about to have delivered the person of that worshipful knight Sir Edward, sometime king of England, your brother, and to help him that he should have been king again and govern his people as he was wont [to do] before’ (F. W. D. Brie (ed.), The Brut (2 vols, 1906-8), i, page 267. He was executed for this crime on 19 March 1330. This judgement no longer exists in the original (official) version – the roll for that parliament is no longer extant – but it appears in a number of the contemporary chronicles, most notably the many copies of the longer continuations of the Brut and Murimuth's chronicle (p. 60).
The letter from the earl of Kent to his brother, Edward II, the beginning of which was cited by the continuator of the longer Brut (see Brie (ed.), The Brut, i, page 265. The chronicler appears to have based his account on a newsletter from an eyewitness at the parliament, as shown by the references to observable details such as the revealing of this letter in parliament, the judgment, and the execution.
The confession of the earl of Kent (British Library, Cotton MS Claudius E viii fol 224r-v, published in Edward Maunde Thompson (ed), Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, Rolls Series (1889), page 253, pages 254-5, pages 256-7).
The order for the arrest, and confiscation of the lands, of Sir John Pecche, previously constable of Corfe Castle, as an adherent of the earl of Kent in 1330 (published in Calendar of Patent Rolls 1327-30, p. 565; Calendar of Close Rolls 1330-33, p. p.52; Calendar of Fine Fine Rolls, iv, p. 169). This is important in conjunction with the confession, as explained below.
The testimony of Lord Berkeley, who declared in the parliament of November 1330 that he had not heard about the death of Edward II until entering that parliament (mentioned above).
The inconsistent accusations against the ex-king's keepers for failing to keep him safely, made in that same parliament.
'The Melton Letter': Archbishop William Melton’s letter to Simon Swanland, c.1330, in which he declared he had received ‘certain news’ that Edward II was still alive, and asking him to assist William de Clif in supplying materials for the king’s rescue (Warwickshire County Record Office: CR 136/C/2027).
The official royal wardrobe account of William Norwell, which notes that one ‘William le Galeys’ who claimed to be the king’s father, was brought at royal expense to Edward III at Cologne in October 1338 and maintained for three weeks at royal expense in December that year (National Archives: E36/203, 178-9. This has been published in Bryce Lyon et al. (eds), The Wardrobe Book of William Norwell, 1338-1340 (Brussels, 1983), pp. 212, 214).
'The Fieschi Letter' (Archives départementales d’Hérault, G 1123, fol. 86r). Transcribed below.
The first thing to observe is that this body of information was not recorded by a bunch of politically unimportant malcontents. The above list represents the views of, respectively:
The coroner of the royal household, acting in accordance with the government in March 1330 (led by Lord Mortimer).
The earl of Kent
The earl of Kent
The government in March 1330 (led by Lord Mortimer)
Lord Berkeley, custodian of the ex-king
The government in November 1330 (led by Edward III)
The archbishop of York, shortly to be made treasurer of England by Edward III
The keeper of the royal wardrobe in 1338
A notary acting on behalf of a recently deceased cardinal (Luca Fieschi) and/or Pope Benedict XII
The people named above represent the main political players of the period, on both sides of the political divide. Therefore we have multiple sources for Edward's survival to set against one demonstrably bad source for thinking he died in Berkeley Castle.
Of course, we need to observe that Lord Mortimer has been accused of deliberately falsifying the news of the ex-king's survival, in order to lure Lord Kent to his death. Such a narrative - which arises with the longer continuation of The Brut in the 1330s - was speculative, being an attempt to reconcile apprently irreconcilable problems of evidence. What is indisputable about the earl of Kent's involvement is that he was found guilty and executed for the 'crime' of trying to release a supposedly dead man from prison, to make him king again. Historians gloss over this, saying Kent was ‘stupid’ to believe his half-brother was still alive. How stupid do you have to be to try and remove your nephew from the throne and replace him with a dead man? Mentally subnormal. You would not put a man like that in charge of the royal army, or appoint him to head a diplomatic delegation, would you? Kent was given both of these responsibilities in the 1320s. His contemporaries certainly did not see him as 'stupid'. This explanation for his belief in Edward II's survival is simply facile - a case of scissors-and-paste history - the selection of a contemporary chronicler's explanation and treating it as good evidence.
The argument that Kent was 'stupid' to believe that his half-brother was alive in 1330 does not wash for a secnod reason. His confession (see pages 254-5, pages 256-7 for a translation) shows that he was not acting alone in trying to rescue Edward II from Corfe Castle. It names the archbishop of York, the bishop of London, William de Clif, William de la Zouche, Hugh Despenser, Ingelram Berengar, John Gymmynges, John Pecche and several others. As Kathryn Warner has recently shown in an article in The English Historical Review he had the support of dozens of other individuals. All this is supported by the Melton Letter, which shows from Archbishop Melton’s own point of view that he believed Edward II still to be alive, and was actively trying to procure his release with the help of William de Clif and Simon Swanland, mayor of London. Clearly, if Kent was 'stupid' so were many of the leading clergy and aristocracy - including men trusted by Edward III. No. The whole 'stupidity' argument is an unevidenced piece of contemporary speculation or disinformation designed to defuse a dangerous situation.
There is one name in that above list which needs to be singled out for special notice - that of John Pecche. According to Kent, Pecche told Ingelram de Berengar about the ex-king’s survival. The reason why this is so important is because John Pecche was the official constable of Corfe Castle until 1329 - the very period when Kent believed his brother to be 'in prison' there. If news that Edward II was still alive and at Corfe in 1328 was known to both Kent and Pecche, then either Kent told Pecche or Pecche told Kent or there were two completely separate information streams. As Kent believed his brother to be alive before October 1328, this means Kent was circulating information about the ex-king's survival when Pecche was still constable of Corfe. Quite simply, John Pecche could have checked to see whether it was true. Although not continually in residence at Corfe, he was not replaced as constable until the autumn of 1329, by which time the Kent plot was well underway (as revealed by Kent’s visit to the pope that summer). So Pecche had every opportunity to check to see whether the plot was a wild goose chase. That he joined Kent proves that he believed that Edward II was genuinely at Corfe. He was arrested and lost his lands along with Ingleram de Berengar, John Gymmynges and various other Kent adherents in the area.
Finally we come to the original argument as to why we can be certain that Edward III believed in November 1330 that his father might still be alive. As I put it in Greatest Traitor (p. 250), ‘The records of the trials in the Parliamentary Rolls show that Maltravers and Berkeley were acknowledged to have been jointly and equally liable for the safe-keeping of the ex-king... Maltravers was not charged with murder or with failing in his responsibility to keep the ex-king safely, whereas Berkeley was, on both accounts. As only one of the two men equally liable was charged, either the charges which ought to have been brought against both of them lacked substance or the king was protecting one man, Maltravers. That Edward III was not protecting him is clear in the full traitor’s death sentence passed on him for the lesser crime of being an accessory in the plot against Kent. It follows that the charges of murder and of failing to prevent Edward II's death, brought successively against Berkeley, were groundless.’ What I should have made clearer in this analysis is that the groundlessness of Edward III’s accusations do not just tie-in with Berkeley’s own protest of ignorance in November 1330 (that he did not know of the death); they also were made after Edward III had met the woman who had embalmed the corpse that was buried as that of his father. In other words, in November 1330 Edward III was in a very good position to know the truth of the matter. In addition, I should have pointed out that the excuse Lord Berkeley gave to get himself off this false accusation of murder - that he was not at Berkeley at the time - was a lie, and that Edward III knew it was a lie (as Lord Berkeley's letters about the death had been sent from Berkeley), and yet he accepted that lie. So, not only was the accusation false, so too was the response. And Edward III was fully aware of what was going on. The whole trial was a piece of propaganda designed to make people believe that Edward II really was dead and that he would not be a threat to the legitimacy of Edward III.
Summing up
Putting all this together, the following are historical certainties – matters of information, not opinion, speculation or mere likelihood. Furthermore, as historical certainties, they cannot be ignored or set aside in any discussion of the death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle. An explanation which fails to take them into account can only be a partial one.
With respect to the theory 'Edward = dead in September 1327', there is only one information stream with a first-hand source suggesting that Edward II was dead in 1327. This flows from Lord Berkeley's letters of 21 September 1327. Although he was the sole source of the news of the death of the ex-king in his custody, he later told parliament three years later that he had not known of the death until then. All the later evidence for the death is a consequence of those misleading letters.
With respect to the opposite theory, 'Edward = alive at the end of 1327', there are several information streams that support this:
The first originates with the woman who embalmed the body buried as that of Edward II in 1327. We do not know what she said to Edward III when she was taken to him after the funeral of his supposed father in December 1327 but we can establish what he concluded afterwards. His failure in November 1330 to bring charges of not keeping the ex-king safely against one of the official keepers, and his conscious acceptance of a demonstrably false alibi from the other in respect of this specific charge, indicate twice-over that she said nothing to make him think that his father had been murdered in their care. She may have suggested a natural death or she may have told him that the corpse was not his father's at all. However, had the death been natural, there would have been no need for the whole charade of the charges against Berkeley. A process of elimination leaves us no option but to conclude she told him that the corpse she had embalmed was not that of Edward II.
The second originates with John Pecche. The fact that the erstwhile custodian of Corfe Castle took part in disseminating information that Edward II was at Corfe Castle is first-hand testimony that the king was indeed alive there. The only alternative is that Pecche was an agent provocateur, and his information was deliberately false. His arrest in 1330 along with Kent's adherents, together with the confiscation of this lands, show he was not acting in this capacity.
The third originates with Lord Berkeley. He was in a position to know the truth, even if he did not issue a truthful letter in September 1327, and so his statement that he had not heard about the death in 1330 is a first-hand account that Edward II did not die in Berkeley Castle.
On top of these there are at least two other information streams which follow from news that Edward II was alive after 21 September 1327. Although their first-hand sources cannot be positively identified, they are also important, for either they support the integrity of the three known first-hand sources above or they originate in first-hand sources of their own.
The information circulated to Kent and Melton and their adherents, which may have been based on Pecche’s information or may have been based on information provided by the Dominican friar mentioned in Kent’s confession (in which case Pecche’s first-hand information was merely confirmation).
Mortimer’s accusations against Kent in March 1330, which may have been based on information supplied to him by Lord Berkeley, or may have been from a different first-hand source (such as his own initiative in ordering the ex-king’s death to be faked). Either way, the condemnation of Kent in parliament reveals that the prosecuting authority (led by Mortimer) had access to a source indicating that the idea of Edward II’s survival and rescue was not a joke or the act of an idiot, it was a very real threat, necessitating Kent's death - even though he had been close to Mortimer prior to September 1327.
Conclusion
It is still possible to believe that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle. It is still possible to believe that Father Christmas exists, based on the weight of 'evidence' delivered in the post every December. But belief does not equate with correctness, even when that belief is based on evidence. In this case, the conflict of the 'evidence' lies between a single, unreliable first-hand source for the death on the one hand, and three first-hand sources for the survival, plus the two further supporting information streams, on the other. The only way to reconcile these is if the unreliable source for the death is taken to mean that Lord Berkeley had not yet heard about Edward II's death in November 1330 for the simple reason it had not happened. Berkeley lied in announcing the death in September 1327, probably on instructions from Roger Mortimer.
It remains common practice to write history which accords with the tradition of the death. To do so is to prioritise Lord Berkeley's unreliable message over the multiple information streams concerning the survival. To do so is not just unprofessional, it is a blinkered approach to the whole question. If Edward II was dead, why did John Pecche try to rescue a dead man from a castle to which he had until recently had access? If Edward II had been killed as a precuation, to stop people trying to support him against the government acting in his son's name, why did Roger Mortimer and Isabella choose to pretend he was still alive? They were asking for trouble. If Edward II really was dead, it is impossible to explain why Edward III did not bring charges of murder and failing to keep Edward II safely against John Maltravers, in the same way as he did against Berkeley. It is even harder to understand why he later rewarded both men for their loyal service to him. If you wish to argue that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle, without resorting to assumptions, speculation and guesswork about motives and likelihood (which prove nothing), you have to prioritise a single, unreliable first-hand account of his death over at least three first-hand accounts of his survival, and a collosal mass of circumstanial evidence. Such a prioritisation is illogical, bad practice, and thus nothing more than a prejudice.
Edward II after 1330
In this light, the famour Fieschi letter must be mentioned. It directly supports the above conclusion - the Edward II was kept secretly alive - and was written by Manuel Fieschi in about 1336, notary and co-executor of Cardinal Luca Fieschi (who died in January 1336), a distant cousin of Edward II, who had met him personally on several occasions. In the letter Manuel addresses himself to Edward III and explains all the above with regard to Edward II’s capture, deposition and imprisonment, and gives details of his time at Corfe Castle. It was written after December 1335 and survives in a near-contemporary copy in a cartulary of a bishop of Maguelonne (Archives départementales d’Hérault, G 1123, fol. 86r). It has been published several times in both Latin and English, the most easily available copies being in my own book, The Greatest Traitor (2003), pp. 251-2, Paul Doherty, Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003), pp. 186-8, and Alison Weir's Isabella: She-wolf of France, Queen of England (2005), pp. 282-4. In translation it reads as follows:
In the name of the Lord, Amen. Those things that I have heard from the confession of your father I have written with my own hand and afterwards I have taken care to be made known to your highness. First he says that feeling England in subversion against him, afterwards on the admonition of your mother, he withdrew from his family in the castle of the Earl Marshal by the sea, which is called Chepstow. Afterwards, driven by fear, he took a barque with lords Hugh Despenser and the Earl of Arundel and several others and made his way by sea to Glamorgan, and there he was captured, together with the said Lord Hugh and Master Robert Baldock; and they were captured by Lord Henry of Lancaster, and they led him to the castle of Kenilworth, and others were [held] elsewhere at various places; and there he lost the crown at the insistence of many. Afterwards you were subsequently crowned on the feast of Candlemas next following. Finally they sent him to the castle of Berkeley. Afterwards the servant who was keeping him, after some little time, said to your father: Lord, Lord Thomas Gurney and Lord Simon Bereford, knights, have come with the purpose of killing you. If it pleases, I shall give you my clothes, that you may better be able to escape. Then with the said clothes, at twilight, he went out of the prison; and when he had reached the last door without resistance, because he was not recognised, he found the porter sleeping, whom he quickly killed; and having got the keys of the door, he opened the door and went out, with his keeper who was keeping him. The said knights who had come to kill him, seeing that he had thus fled, fearing the indignation of the queen, even the danger to their persons, thought to put that aforesaid porter, his heart having been extracted, in a box, and maliciously presented to the queen the heart and body of the aforesaid porter as the body of your father, and as the body of the said king the said porter was buried in Gloucester. And after he had gone out of the prisons of the aforesaid castle, he was received in the castle of Corfe with his companion who was keeping him in the prisons by Lord Thomas, castellan of the said castle, the lord being ignorant, Lord John Maltravers, lord of the said Thomas, in which castle he was secretly for a year and a half. Afterwards, having heard that the Earl of Kent, because he said he was alive, had been beheaded, he took a ship with his said keeper and with the consent and counsel of the said Thomas, who had received him, crossed into Ireland, where he was for nine months. Afterwards, fearing lest he be recognised there, having taken the habit of a hermit, he came back to England and proceeded to the port of Sandwich, and in the same habit crossed the sea to Sluys. Afterwards he turned his steps in Normandy and from Normandy, as many do, going across through Languedoc, came to Avignon, where, having given a florin to the servant of the pope, sent by the said servant a document to pope John, which Pope had him called to him, and held him secretly and honourably more than fifteen days. Finally, after various discussions, all things having been considered, permission having been received, he went to Paris, and from Paris to Brabant, from Brabant to Cologne so that out of devotion he might see The Three Kings, and leaving Cologne he crossed over Germany, that is to say, he headed for Milan in Lombardy, and from Milan he entered a certain hermitage of the castle of Melazzo, in which hermitage he stayed for two years and a half; and because war overran the said castle, he changed himself to the castle of Cecima in another hermitage of the diocese of Pavia in Lombardy, and he was in this last hermitage for two years or thereabouts, always the recluse, doing penance and praying God for you and other sinners. In testimony of which I have caused my seal to be affixed for the consideration of Your Highness. Your Manuele de Fieschi, notary of the lord pope, your devoted servant.
As Fieschi does not say anything about the death of ex-king, and as the internal evidence shows this letter must have been written after the end of 1335, it is clear that men at Avignon believed that the ex-king might still be alive in the later 1330s, even though the pope had been challenged on this point in 1330 and issued a statement that he did not believe the man was alive. That the pope had believed this, as made clear by the challenge, was probably due to Kent's visit to him in 1328 or 1329. Manuel Fieschi's evidence is of a later date and much fuller in detail. If it was indeed based on the ex-king's confession, as stated, then it constitutes a fourth first-hand account of the survival. If the Dominicans and Lord Mortimer had independent sources for their information, it amounts to a sixth source.
William Norwell, who had known Edward II until 1325, described William le Galeys’s claim to be Edward II in neutral terms. He did not say whether he did or did not believe him. But he did not label him as an impostor. Nor did the king treat him as an impostor, paying for his expenses and not trying to expose him (as was normally done with impostors). This official source indicates that the idea that Edward II might still be alive was still current among senior members of the royal household in the later 1330s, at the same time as the belief was curent at Avignon, according to Fieschi. It is interesting that both Norwell and the Fieschi letter connect the supposed Edward II with Italy, homeland of the Fieschi themselves.
Further Reading
The background to the Edward II-death debate is very interesting in its own right. Pride of place really belongs to Joseph Hunter, 'Measures taken for the apprehension of Sir Thomas de Gurney, one of the murderers of Edward II', Archaeologia, 27 (1838), pp.274-297. Hunter put this article forward to show people how the consensus of chroniclers is not necessarily good evidence for what actually happened in the past. By demonstrating what the official record evidence has to say on the matter, he argued, one may approach a more accurate view of historical events than is ever going to be possible through chronicle sources. He was a man ahead of his time - way ahead - and sadly the intensely conservative nature of the historical profession meant that his contribution was not properly recognised until the twentieth century.
Readers interested in Edward II's captivity should look at S.A. Moore (ed.), 'Documents relating to the death and burial of King Edward II', Archaeologia, 50 (1887), pp.215-226, and Thomas Frederick Tout, 'The Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol 6 (1921), 69-113.
Although the person who found the Fieschi letter, Alexandre Germain, published it in the 1870s, the debate proper only took off in Italy. William Stubbs included it in his Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (2 vols, 1882-83) but apart from T. F. Tout (mentioned above), no one seemed to care. Professor Tout was just confused by it - convinced it had to be a forgery on the grounds that he could not doubt the mass of evidence that Edward II died in Berkeley Castle. The first scholar who did care, and had the courage and wit to suggest that Edward II may have survived Berkeley Castle, was Professor George Peddy Cuttino. For his contribution see G. P. Cuttino & T.W. Lyman, 'Where is Edward II?', Speculum, 53, 3 (1978), pp.522-543. This concludes that Edward II may well not be buried in Gloucester Abbey (a view with which I do not concur); nevertheless, despite a few assumptions and mistakes, this is an inspiring piece of historical scholarship.
Written from a preconception that Edward II did die in Berkeley but interesting nevertheless is R.M. Haines, 'Edwardus Redivivus: the afterlife of Edward of Carnarvon', Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society, 114 (1996), pp.65-86. This was the basis for the account of the death in the same author's book, King Edward II: his life, his reign and its aftermath, 1284-1330 (Montreal, 2003). The latter is an excellent guide to the sources of the reign. Professor Haines's Death of a king, privately published in 2002, is partly an assortment of other people's writings on the subject and partly a redaction of Haines's own views. The latter are marred by a conviction that Edward II did die at Berkeley, with a commensurate failure to consider the possibility that he survived.
Two radical new views were put forward almost simultaneously in early 2003 by Dr Paul Doherty, in his Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (Constable and Robinson, 2003), and by me in my The Greatest Traitor: the life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, Ruler of England 1327-1330 (Cape, 2003). Doherty boldly suggested a plethora of alternative readings of the evidence but failed to come to a certain conclusion, or to prove anything new. He thinks that Edward II did escape from Berkeley but that the Fieschi letter itself was a clever forgery. As for my own book, although the argument I put forward was not fully worked out, it had at its core an information-based argument. Having a scholarly background, I would not have chosen to go with such a radical piece of revisionist thinking if it depended only on a possibility or a plausibility. This marked the beginning of my attempt to make the discussion more rigorous.
2005 saw several publications on the death appear. Alison Weir published an account of the faked death in her Isabella: She-wolf of France, Queen of England (2005), drawing heavily on my work and Paul Doherty's Isabella. And J. R. S. Phillips published his 2003 essay ‘Edward II in Italy: English and Welsh Political Exiles and Fugitives in Continental Europe, 1322 – 1365’, in Michael Prestwich, Richard Hugh Britnell and Robin Frame (eds), Thirteenth century England 10: proceedings of the Durham conference 2003 (2005), pp. 209-226. Phillips did not engage with my argument that Edward II survived; he simply presumed I was wrong. However, his article is very interesting for the reason he gives much more detail about the Fieschi letter, and in particular notes that the same register in which it appears contains a second Fieschi-related document, relating to Niccolinus Fieschi, whom I suggested might have brought the original Fieschi letter to England in April 1336.
Also published in 2005, in December, was my article, ‘The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle’, English Historical Review 120 (2005), pp. 1175-1214. Readers seriously interested in this subject should refer to this: it remains the most detailed and methodologically thorough piece on the subject published to date. An abstract is available here: you need a subscription to E.H.R. to see the whole piece. Alternatively, the text is reproduced verbatim in Medieval Intrigue, which is now available in paperback. This also contains several other essays that examine aspects of the fake death narrative, from the plot of the earl of Kent to the evidence for the ex-king's later life in Italy.
Ian Mortimer
April 2008, amended for typos and clarity Dec. 2014. | Edward II, King of England (I1975)
|
| 1847 |
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/gunnor.htm
Robert de Torigny and the family of Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy
by
Todd A. Farmerie
[Modified from an article which appeared in Dec 1996 on soc.genealogy.medieval]
There have been many requests for information on the various Norman relationships compiled by Robert de Torigny. This is an attempt to summarize and harmonize several recent works on some of the lines:
Elisabeth M C van Houts. Robert of Torigni as Genealogist. in Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, p.215-33.
Kathleen Thompson. The Norman Aristocracy before 1066: the Example of the Montgomerys. in Historical Research 60:251-63.
K S B Keats-Rohan. Aspects of Torigny's Genealogy Revisited. in Nottingham Medieval Studies 37:21-7.
Robert de Torigny, writing after the Norman Conquest, recorded the genealogical traditions which tied many of the Norman nobility to the family of Gunnor, first mistress of Richard I, then Duchess of Normandy. He reported the tradition that Richard had become infatuated with the wife of one of his foresters, but being the pious wife, she substituted her sister Gunnor, much to everyone's satisfaction. He proceded to name the siblings of Gunnor, and also indicated the she had numerous nieces, who are left unnamed, but whose marriages and descendants are provided.
The genealogical information contained in his account has at various times been praised and condemned, but recent opinion seems to favor the view that, while minor errors abound, the genealogies accurately represent a tradition of shared descent that may account for the rapid rise of these nobles.
The parentage of Gunnor and her siblings is unknown. While some sources call her father Herfastus, this was in fact the name of her brother. She has also been claimed as daughter of the Danish royal family, but there is no evidence for this, and the context of her coming to the attention of Richard I and the family's subsequent rise to power militates against her being a royal daughter. Douglas argued (in a 1944 English Historical Review article on the family of William Fitz Osbern), based on the donations of brother Arfast to the monastery of St. Pere, that the root of the family was in the Cotetin region of Normandy, but van Houts has suggested that the Cotetin land was granted to Arfast, rather than inherited by him. Thus we are left with the more ambiguous statements of Torigny and others that she was a member of a Norman family of Danish origins.
The only known brother of Gunnor was Arfast/Herfast, of whom we gain what little insight we have from a trial of heretics conducted by King Robert II of France. Arfast testified that he had pretended to join the sect, all the better to denounce them when the time arose. He later donated lands to the monastery of St. Pere, to which he retired. He had at least two sons: Osbern, who was steward to the later Dukes, and was murdered by William de Montgomery while defending the young Duke William; and Ranulf, known from charters. Osbern maried a niece of Richard I (the daughter of his half-brother) and by her was the father of the Conquest baron William Fitz Osbern.
Gunnor had at least three sisters, of which the oldest appears to have been Senfria (Seinfreda), who was wife of the (unnamed) forester from the area of St. Vaast d'Equiqueville, and it was her charms which are said first to have attracted the attentions Duke Richard I. She appears to have had at least one daughter, Joscelina, wife of Hugh de Montgomery. (Torigny makes Joscelina daughter of another sister, Wevia, but a contemporary of Torigny, in demonstrating the genealogical impediment to a marriage of a bastard of Henry I to a Montgomery descendant specifically calls Joscelina's mother Senfria, and the inheritance by the Montgomerys of large holdings suggests that Joscelina was a significant coheiress to her parents, which does not match Wevia's family where the two sons would be expected to acquire most of the family land.) Hugh de Montgomery and Joscelina had a son Roger, but contrary to Torigny's statements, he was not the Conquest baron of that name, but instead his father. By a wife possibly named Emma, Roger had: Hugh; Roger (who married Mabel of Belleme and played a significant role in pre-Conquest Normandy); William (who murdered cousin Osbern); Robert, and Gilbert.
Duvelina, a second sister of Gunnor, married Turulf de Pont Audemer, son of a Norman founder Torf, and uncle of the first of the Harcourts. They had at least one son, Humphrey de Vielles, who in turn was father of Roger de Beaumont, another Conquest-era baron.
Wevia, the only other sister of Gunnor named by Torigny, married Osbern de Bolbec (who is otherwise unknown to history). They had at least two sons: Walter Giffard, ancestor of the English Giffard/Gifford families, and also, through a daughter, of the Clare family; and Godfrey, whose son William de Arques had two daughters and co-heiresses.
Torigny indicates that Gunnor had numerous nieces, naming the descendants of several of them, but usually not naming the nieces themselves or their parents. As has already been seen with niece Joscelina, the accounts of these families are more difficult to harmonize with other available sources.
One niece is said to have married Nicholas de Bracqueville, and to have had William Martel and Walter de St. Martin. As to Martel, there seems to have been a connection to Bracqueville, since Hawise, daughter of Nicholas married Hugh de Wareham, son of a Grippo. Hugh had a brother Geoffrey Martel, but beyond this no recent analysis provides any insight as to the descent of the later Martels. Walter de St. Martin is even more of a problem, since elsewhere Torigny incorrectly makes him brother of William de Warenne, but the ancestry given there is clearly false. Thus it is not clear that Torigny knew the exact connection of Walter, and there is no evidence to help clarify his true origins.
A second niece is said to have married Richard, vicomte of Rouen (who was son of Tesselin). He had a son Lambert of St. Saens, whose son Helias married a bastard daughter of Robert II of Normandy. (If the connection here given is correct, then these two were within the prohibited degree, which may throw doubt on the relationship, or simply suggest that the relationship did not come to light at the time.) Based on later interactions between Montgomery and Warenne (thought to be related to this branch) it has been speculated that this niece was sister of Joscelina, which is possible but unsupported.
It appears to be through this family that the relationship of two more Norman barons come into play, but not exactly as Torigny presents it. He shows yet another niece marrying Ranulph de Warenne, and by him having William de Warenne and Roger de Mortimer. This is clearly untrue, because Roger appears to have been a generation older than William. The solution appears to be that Torigny (as he had done with the Montgomerys) compressed two people, a father and son of the same name, into one individual. Ranulph de Warenne (I) appears to have married Beatrice, sister of Richard, vicomte of Rouen, and thus sister-in-law of one of Gunnor's nieces (thus it would appear that this family actually does not descend from a relative of Gunnor's, but is genealogically linked to some of her descendants) and had sons: Roger (de Mortimer) and Ranulph de Warenne (II), who in turn was father of another Ranulf (III) and of William de Warenne.
Finally, Torigny states that a niece married Osmund de Centumvillis, vicomte of Vernon, and had a son Fulk de Alnou, and a daughter whose son was Baldwin de Reviers. Much debate has focussed on the attempt to identify these men, but in the latter case, clearly a connection to the Reviers/Vernon Earls of Devon is intended. The precise nature of the relationship is more difficult to pin down. It would seem that the first Earl Richard de Reviers and his brother Hugh were sons of a Baldwin, who had brothers Richard de Vernon (app. d.s.p.) and William Fitz Hugh de Vernon. (William, who was perhaps a uterine half-brother, had by wife Emma a son Hugh, often confused with the brother of Earl Richard. It is this error that has led to the statement that Emma was the relative of Gunnor, which derives from a set of relationships hypothesized in Complete Peerage (CP, under Devon) and predicated on her being mother of Hugh, brother of Earl Richard, an untrue relationship, and on Richard being nephew of William Fitz Osbern, which is discussed below.) If Baldwin, father of Earl Richard, was the same as the grandson of Osmund de Centumvillis this would complete the picture, but one more relationship invites comment. Earl Richard is said by an early source, cited by CP, to be nephew of William Fitz Osbern. If the stated connection with vicomte Osmund is correct, then Baldwin de Reviers would have been too closely related to William Fitz Osbern to have married his sister. (An alternative solution, that the wife of vicomte Osmund was sister of William Fitz Osbern, and hence grandniece of Gunnor, is chronologically impossible.) I suspect that this tradition records the memory that William Fitz Osbern was an older male relative of Richard, rather than a precise genealogical relationship.
The work of Robert de Torigny thus provides a valuable source for the genealogical origins of the immediate pre-Conquest Norman aristocracy. When it has been possible to compare the information with other sources, some inconsistancies are found, but it is unclear whether these represent errors of Robert, or inaccuracies in the genealogical traditions he was recording. In most cases, an in-depth study of the available material has enabled modern historians to satisfactorilly reconstruct the descents from Gunnor's family and provide a representation of the true relationships among these early Norman families.
Todd A. Farmerie | DE CREPON, Gunnora (I15159)
|
| 1848 |
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS%2FCANT%2F005265410%2F00381&parentid=GBPRS%2FCANT%2FM%2F97036330%2F1 | Family (F6193)
|
| 1849 |
https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/6814011/person/-947452140/facts
Amy Teresa married
View Source
England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915
View Source
England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1916-2005
View Source
England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1916-2005
Search on Ancestry
Skip to Facts
Family
Parents
Henry George Broadbridge
1876–1958
Florence Mary Boseley
1877–1959
Siblings
Spouse & Children
Charles Clements
Florence Anne Clements
1928–1992
Sidney William Clements
1930–2003
Winnie K Clements
1933–1933
Private
Private
Private
----------------------------------------------------
Nellie married
Spouse & Children
William H Waterman
1894–1927
Private
Private
Spouse & Children
Frank Claringbold
1902–1978
Donald Claringbold
1929–1992
Leslie G Claringbold
1937–1954
Private
Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
william james married
Spouse & Children
Amy Harrington Savedra
1904–1989
Private
went to india as a civil servant
----------------------------------------------------------
douglas frnk married
Spouse & Children
Ida Lilian Wood
1908–1993
Private
Private
Private
----------------------------------------
BROADBRIDGE, Sto. 1st Cl. Thomas George, C/KX. 83568. R.N. H.M. Submarine Simoom. 19th November, 1943. Age 31. Son of Hendry George and Florence Broadbridge; husband of Elisabeth Broadbridge, of Dunoon, Argyllshire. 72, 1.
---------------------------------------------
Bert married
Spouse & Children
Mabel Maria Higgins
1917–1973
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
------------------------------------------------
Violet married
Spouse
Raymond Brower Mapes
1908–1986
Violet M. Mapes age 26 ppno 7458, nationality British, UK address 8 Harnage Road, Brentford, Middlesex
Dependent of: Pfc. Raymond B. Mapes, ASN. 353320456, US Army, 417 Hichave? S? Canton, Ohio, form 230 Piedmont S. E., Canton, Ohio
UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 for Violet M Mapes
Southampton 1946 February
NameViolet M MapesAge83Birth DateAbt 1918Birth PlaceFaversham ENGDeath Dateabt 2001Death PlaceOrrville OHPublication Date12 Apr 2001Publication PlaceUSATombstone0URLhttp://sites.rootsweb.com/~obituary/using_db.htmlHousehold Members
NameAge
Name
Violet M Mapes
---------------------------------------- | BOSELY, Florence Mary (I7588)
|
| 1850 |
https://www.facebook.com/james.salako | SALAKO, James David (I18429)
|
|
|
|
