more latin translations

[Gjest]

I tried one of the online Latin to English translation sites, and it cant
handle much latin at all (Inter-tran). Next step was to simply google bits and
pieces of a latin paragraph, and that works much better. What I could use now
if confirmation of the translation of the following, from CPR Henry III, vol
2, page 389:

Pro Roycro de Clifford.—Rex omnibus ad quos presentes litere
pervenerint, salutem. Sciatis quod concessimus Rogero de Clifford
maritagium Hawisie que fuit uxor Johannis de Boterellis, ad opus
Rogeri de Clifford, filii ipsius Rogeri primogeniti. In cujus etc. Teste
rege, apud Myrebel, xxx die Julii, anno xiiij.

I did not try to translate the first line, but I believe the next line
reads: Know that we have granted Roger de Clifford, the dowry of Hawise that was
(aka widow) of John de Botterel, to the use of Roger de Clifford, for his
first born son Roger. The rest I did not try to translate. It sounds as if Hawise
was to marry Roger, son of Roger de Clifford. However, from a discussion in
this list, Hawise is listed as marry Nicholas de Moels, after the above John
died.
1 James de Newmarch
- --------------------------------------
Death: bef 1218[1]
Father: William de Newmarch (-<1189)

of Cadbury, Somerset[2]
succeeded his brother Henry, paying 200 marks for livery of his
lands, 1206 (additional £137 13s for his relief, 1213)[1]

'In 1208/9 James de Novo Mercato held half a fee of the bishop [of
Worcester] in Aust and half in Gotherington, Gloucestershire (Fees,
38-39).' DD, p. 616[3]

Spouse: Maud[1]

Children: Isabel
Hawise


1.1 Isabel de Newmarch
- --------------------------------------

(elder) daughter and coheiress[2],[3]

Spouse: Ralph Russel
Death: ca 1250[4]


1.2 Hawise de Newmarch[2]
- --------------------------------------

younger daughter and coheiress[2]

she m. 1stly John de Boterel (elsewhere Botreaux),
2ndly Nicholas de Moels[4]

this is from:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) [mailto: [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected]) ]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 8:13 PM
To: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
Subject: Re: James, son of Henry Newmarch

Sunday, 28 September, 2003
from the Peerage.com site (using Roger de clifford in Google), I find
Roger de Clifford was born circa 1231 at _Tenbury, Worcestershire,
England_ (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd202.htm#i12095) .1 He was the son of _Roger de
Clifford_ (http://www.thepeerage.com/p15844.htm#i158437) and _Sybil de
Ewyas_ (http://www.thepeerage.com/p15844.htm#i158438) .1 He married _Hawise
Botterell_ (http://www.thepeerage.com/p15844.htm#i158436) at _Herefordshire,
England_ (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd93.htm#i6178) .1 He died in 1285 at _France_
(http://www.thepeerage.com/pd211.htm#i12882) .1 He was buried at _Dore
Abbey, Herefordshire, England_ (http://www.thepeerage.com/pd93.htm#i6178) .1
I checked on Stirnet website, and they have the Roger Clifford (the father)
dying in 1286 (his father Walter, who married Agnes de Condi, was born about
1140, and died about 1223. Roger would have been born about 1170..and died
1286?...They must have skipped a generation) to put things simply, I have
Roger Clifford(1170-1231) md Sibyl Ewyas who had
Roger Clifford(1220-1286) md Hawise Boterel who had
Roger Clifford(1248-1282) md Isabel Vipont
How far of am I?? any help on dates would be appreciated, but that is not
important at this time
Ken




**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)

[Gjest]

On Feb 15, 9:01 am, [email protected] wrote:

I tried one of the online Latin to English translation sites, and it cant
handle much latin at all (Inter-tran). Next step was to simply google bits and
pieces of a latin paragraph, and that works much better. What I could use now
if confirmation of the translation of the following, from CPR Henry III, vol
2, page 389:

Pro Roycro de Clifford.--Rex omnibus ad quos presentes litere
pervenerint, salutem. Sciatis quod concessimus Rogero de Clifford
maritagium Hawisie que fuit uxor Johannis de Boterellis, ad opus
Rogeri de Clifford, filii ipsius Rogeri primogeniti. In cujus etc. Teste
rege, apud Myrebel, xxx die Julii, anno xiiij.

Ken

The above text should commence:

"Pro *Rogero* de Clifford".

"For Roger de Clifford - The King greets all those to whom these
present letters shall come. Know that I give to Roger Clifford the
marriage of Hawise who was the wife of John de Boterel, for the
benefit of Roger de Clifford the eldest son of the said Roger , given
by the King at [the castle of] Mirabel, the 30th of July in the 14
year [of his reign]."

Thus, it's not the grant of a dower or other real property, but the
grant of a 'marriage' - ie when a man who held land directly of the
King died, leaving a widow, the King had the right to 'dispose' of the
widow, by in effect selling her remarriage to someone. In this case,
Roger de Clifford has acquired the right to marry Hawise, widow of
John de Boterel, to his son and heir, also named Roger de Clifford.

MA-R

[wjhonson]

Should this be Roger de Clifford of Mapledurham ?

Sir Roger de Clifford was yet living in 14H3, he died Dec 1231 per Leo

But who the heck is Hawise widow of John Boterel?
And who for that matter is John Boterel who was dead by 1231?

I have Roger (the son's) first marriage as Matilda de Gournay.
So either Hawise whoever was his first marriage, or she died or
something.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

Let's just exercise caution here.
The Peerage link
http://www.thepeerage.com/p15844.htm#i158436

showing that Hawise de Botterel was the mother of Roger's heir Roger
de Clifford "born about 1243" as they have it.

Have as ITS source
[S125] Richard Glanville-Brown, online <e-mail address>, Richard
Glanville-Brown (RR 2, Milton, Ontario, Canada), downloaded 17 August
2005.


Which inspires, or should inspire zero confidence in it's veracity.

Will Johnson

[Merilyn Pedrick]

Could we please clarify the various Roger de Cliffords please?

I have Walter II de Clifford 1140-1221 whose wife was Agnes de Condet whose
son was Roger de Clifford, died Dec 1231.

This Roger I have married to Sybilla de Ewyas.

Their son Roger II de Clifford I have married to Matilda de Courtenay, and
their son Roger III de Clifford I have married to Isabel de Vipont.

Am I missing a Roger? Or a wife?

Merilyn Pedrick







-------Original Message-------



From: wjhonson

Date: 15/02/2008 9:15:22 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: more Latin translations



Should this be Roger de Clifford of Mapledurham ?



Sir Roger de Clifford was yet living in 14H3, he died Dec 1231 per Leo



But who the heck is Hawise widow of John Boterel?

And who for that matter is John Boterel who was dead by 1231?



I have Roger (the son's) first marriage as Matilda de Gournay.

So either Hawise whoever was his first marriage, or she died or

Something.



Will Johnson





-------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the

Quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[wjhonson]

On Feb 14, 5:46 pm, "Merilyn Pedrick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Could we please clarify the various Roger de Cliffords please?

I have Walter II de Clifford 1140-1221 whose wife was Agnes de Condet whose
son was Roger de Clifford, died Dec 1231.

This Roger I have married to Sybilla de Ewyas.
Their son Roger II de Clifford I have married to Matilda de Courtenay, and
their son Roger III de Clifford I have married to Isabel de Vipont.

Merilyn here is what I'm suggesting.
Sir Roger de Clifford + Sybil de Ewyas
had a son Roger

Leo here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 2&tree=LEO
shows that this son Roger was born *in* 1221
but I don't know if this exact year is definitely known

Leo cites as his sources for this page
1. [S00104] The Plantagenet Ancestry, Baltimore, 1975 , Turton,
Lt.Col. W. H., Reference: 137
2. [S01610] The Mapledurham Connedtion, tracing the first wife of
Roger Clifford 1221-1285 The Genealogists Magazine September 1990,
Clifford, David J. H.


Now obviously if we are to believe the CPR entry, on 30 July 14H3,
Roger is granted Hawise "who was the wife of John Boterel for the
benefit of Roger de Clifford the eldest son of the said Roger"

So it would seem like this *must* refer to
the father being that Sir Roger de Clifford who m Sibyl bef 13 Feb
1217 and then was buried Dec 1231 at Abbey Dore

and the "eldest son" Roger must be that same Roger who also married
Maud de Gourney and lastly married the Countess of Loretto (a place in
Italy).

It *must* be, unless someone knows another Roger son of Roger at this
time, that either he married Hawise firstly, or it was at least being
contemplated 14H3, which then of course would imply that he wasn't
already married to Maud de Gourney.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

I should have added Marilyn, that whether Maud (Matilda) was a
"Courtenay" is a supposition, or assumption.

Others think she was a Gournay. And I've propositioned a possible
parentage for her as a Gournay, that would put her not only in the
proper family circle, but explain why Roger is later "of Mapledurham",
towit, that he was jure uxoris of it.

Will

[Peter Stewart]

"Merilyn Pedrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Could we please clarify the various Roger de Cliffords please?

I have Walter II de Clifford 1140-1221 whose wife was Agnes de Condet
whose
son was Roger de Clifford, died Dec 1231.

This Roger I have married to Sybilla de Ewyas.

Their son Roger II de Clifford I have married to Matilda de Courtenay, and
their son Roger III de Clifford I have married to Isabel de Vipont.

Am I missing a Roger? Or a wife?

A wife, I think - I know nothing about this family from my own research, but
there is no Matilda de Courtenay in _The House of Clifford from Before the
Conquest_ by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. Roger II of Tenbury was reportedly
married first to Hawise, the widow of John Boterell, and secondly to the
mysterious "countess of Loret" discussed here before. The archive should
provide details if he had a third wife who has escaped me, whether a Matilda
and/or a Courtenay or not.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Merilyn Pedrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Could we please clarify the various Roger de Cliffords please?

I have Walter II de Clifford 1140-1221 whose wife was Agnes de Condet
whose
son was Roger de Clifford, died Dec 1231.

This Roger I have married to Sybilla de Ewyas.

Their son Roger II de Clifford I have married to Matilda de Courtenay,
and
their son Roger III de Clifford I have married to Isabel de Vipont.

Am I missing a Roger? Or a wife?

A wife, I think - I know nothing about this family from my own research,
but there is no Matilda de Courtenay in _The House of Clifford from Before
the Conquest_ by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. Roger II of Tenbury was
reportedly married first to Hawise, the widow of John Boterell, and
secondly to the mysterious "countess of Loret" discussed here before. The
archive should provide details if he had a third wife who has escaped me,
whether a Matilda and/or a Courtenay or not.

My memory has just ticked over - this Matilda de Courtenay is just a guess
at identifying the "countess of Loret", and not a good one at that.

The problem has been discussed before. Matilda was the daughter & heiress of
Raoul de Courtenay, seigneur of Lorant & count of Chieti (hence the attempt
to force her into being "countess of Loret") by Alix de Montfort, countess
of Bigorre. However, this Matilda de Courtenay's life is well known - she
died in Naples in or after May 1303 and was buried there, not at all the
same woman as the "countess of Loret" who died in 1301 and was buried in
Worcester.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

That makes sense. And maybe this "Maud de Gournay" was actually
created at some time in the past to explain the passage of
Mapledurham.

I checked my notes on this possibly fictitious "Maud", her potential
parents, husband, etc, and didn't find any trace that she existed. So
my bad.

I do find the *name* Matilda (Maud) de Gournay here and there but
can't quite make it stick right.

The "House of Clifford" states that that Roger de Clifford was "made
Lord of Mapledurham in 1255". Seems odd. Why was he made lord of
Mapledurham? There was an existing heiress, at least one, if not the
two I supposed.

Will Johnson

[Volucris]

Will,

On 15 feb, 03:48, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

The "House of Clifford" states that that Roger de Clifford was "made
Lord of Mapledurham in 1255".  Seems odd.  Why was he made lord of
Mapledurham?  

Through marriage in 1255 with the heiress?

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
- sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x < 13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
- Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow of
John Boterel)
- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels

[Volucris]

On second thoughts - having Googled on the subject - I have to change
my
opinion. I oversaw the next generation (Roger) in the considerations.
All
dates/years are from previous contributions on this newsgroup.

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet

- sir Roger I de Clifford, + dec 1231 x < 13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas

- Roger II de Clifford (eldest son) x (1) c 1230 Hawise de Newmarch
..+ aft. 26-10-1284....................................(widow of John
Boterel)
..lord of Mapledurham 1255........x (2) aft. 1238 Maud N., born
1238/39
.................................................................
(widow of Hugh de Gourney)
....................................................or c 1255 Maud dr.
of Hugh de Gourney)
...............................................x (3) < 1278 N.
countess of Loret, + 1301

- Roger III de Clifford x c 1269 Isabel de Vipont, lady of Appleby,
dr. of
.............................................Robert II de Vipont &
Isabel Fitz John
..+ 6-11-1282 drowned.............c 1254 - + 14-5-1292

- Robert de Clifford x 1295 Maud de Clare, dr. of Thomas
..born c 1-4-1274..............born c 1279
..died 24-6-1314...............died 1324/25
..lord Appleby

The date of Roger II's second marriage seems to be the crucial point
to
determine the mother of Roger III.

Hans Vogels

- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels

On 15 feb, 08:53, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

Will,

On 15 feb, 03:48, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

The "House of Clifford" states that that Roger de Clifford was "made
Lord of Mapledurham in 1255".  Seems odd.  Why was he made lord of
Mapledurham?  

Through marriage in 1255 with the heiress?

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
- sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x <  13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
- Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow of
John Boterel)
- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
  Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels

[Volucris]

This scheme looks better.

On 15 feb, 21:36, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:
On second thoughts - having Googled on the subject - I have to change
my opinion. I oversaw the next generation (Roger) in the
considerations.
All dates/years are from previous contributions on this newsgroup.

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet

- sir Roger I de Clifford, + dec 1231 x <  13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas

- Roger II de Clifford (eldest son) x (1) c 1230 Hawise de Newmarch
..+ aft. 26-10-1284....................................(widow of John
Boterel)
..lord of Mapledurham 1255........x (2) aft. 1238 Maud N.
.........................................................(widow of
Hugh de Gourney)
....................................................or c 1255 Maud dr.
of Hugh de
..................................................................Gourney),
b 1238/39
...............................................x (3) < 1278 N.
............................................................ countess
of Loret, + 1301

- Roger III de Clifford x  c 1269 Isabel de Vipont, lady of Appleby,
......................................... dr. of Robert II de
Vipont &
.............................................Isabel Fitz John
..+ 6-11-1282 drowned.............c 1254 - + 14-5-1292

- Robert de Clifford x 1295 Maud de Clare, dr. of Thomas
..born c 1-4-1274..............born c 1279
..died 24-6-1314...............died 1324/25
..lord Appleby

The date of Roger II's second marriage seems to be the crucial point
to determine the mother of Roger III.

Hans Vogels

- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
  Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels

On 15 feb, 08:53, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:



Will,

On 15 feb, 03:48, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

The "House of Clifford" states that that Roger de Clifford was "made
Lord of Mapledurham in 1255".  Seems odd.  Why was he made lord of
Mapledurham?  

Through marriage in 1255 with the heiress?

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
- sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x <  13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
- Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow of
John Boterel)
- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
  Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

[wjhonson]

On Feb 14, 11:53 pm, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

On 15 feb, 03:48, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:
The "House of Clifford" states that that Roger de Clifford was "made
Lord of Mapledurham in 1255".  Seems odd.  Why was he made lord of
Mapledurham?  

Through marriage in 1255 with the heiress?

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
- sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x <  13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
- Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow of

Yes well that is certainly possible.
Let's say Hawise de Newmarch either never marries anybody, or marries
someone else, or dies. The child by which Maud (unknown) de Gournay
is pregnant is born 1238/9 and then this child, as heiress of
Mapledurham marries Robert de Clifford in or slightly before 1255,
whereupon he is made "Lord" of Mapledurham (jure uxoris) and together
they have his son and heir also named Roger de Clifford who then
marries Isabella de Vipont.

It's chronologically just possible for this to work.

By the way Hans, I am quite suspicious of the dates 1140-1221 which
you've assigned to Walter II. I don't think either year can be
supported from the documents.

Will Johnson

[wjhonson]

On Feb 15, 12:46 pm, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

This scheme looks better.

On 15 feb, 21:36, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:
On second thoughts - having Googled on the subject - I have to change
my opinion. I oversaw the next generation (Roger) in the
considerations.
All dates/years are from previous contributions on this newsgroup.

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet

- sir Roger I de Clifford, + dec 1231 x <  13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas

- Roger II de Clifford (eldest son) x (1) c 1230 Hawise de Newmarch
..+ aft. 26-10-1284....................................(widow of John
Boterel)
..lord of Mapledurham 1255........x (2) aft. 1238 Maud N.
.........................................................(widow of
Hugh de Gourney)
....................................................or c 1255 Maud dr.
of Hugh de
..................................................................Gourney),
b 1238/39
...............................................x (3) < 1278 N.
............................................................ countess
of Loret, + 1301
------------------

I think Hans the problem here is that you are using the same document
to prove that he was both married to a Countess of "Loretto" (not
Lorraine) and also that Hawise de Newmarch survived to 1284. I don't
think we can do that.

The document only refers to her as "Comtessa" the widow of Roger
Clifford.

All other additions are interpolations which the document itself does
not support.

We simply do not know who she was, except that she was the last wife
of some Roger Clifford who we are assuming must be the one who died
14E1 (ish). There are guesses, but we have nothing firm.

Will Johnson

[Volucris]

On 15 feb, 21:46, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

Yes well that is certainly possible.
Let's say Hawise de Newmarch either never marries anybody, or marries
someone else, or dies. The child by which Maud (unknown) de Gournay
is pregnant is born 1238/9 and then this child, as heiress of
Mapledurham marries Robert de Clifford in or slightly before 1255,
whereupon he is made "Lord" of Mapledurham (jure uxoris) and together
they have his son and heir also named Roger de Clifford who then
marries Isabella de Vipont.

Question: when did Roger III marry Isabela de Vipont? A Google search
on this newsgroup came up with a birth date of son Robert (c)
1-4-1274.
with or without the circa between the brackets. Given the fact that
Robert
seems to have married 1295 Maud the Clare, and his younger son Robert
(1305-1344) himself had a son Robert born 1329, the Clifford's seem to
marry as early twenty'ers (all dates are borrowed from previous
posts).
From that, one might assume that Roger III Clifford was perhaps born
1243-1248. That is if we can place faith in the assumption that Roger
III
married c 1269. It is beyond me to question or put faith on this date.
Like so many things I read, it looks like an assumption that is
repeated
over and over.

By the way Hans, I am quite suspicious of the dates 1140-1221 which
you've assigned to Walter II.  I don't think either year can be
supported from the documents.

Will Johnson

I'm not into the Clifford's. The dates were borrowed from previous
contributions
in this string. I just collected and rearranged the provided info that
was not (yet)
questioned. I take it on good faith that the 1140 stands for a born c
1140.
I completely agree with you that the used dates are more than not
based on wet
finger assumptions. One should indeed stick as much as possible to
known
documents.

Hans Vogels

[Volucris]

On 15 feb, 22:11, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 15, 12:46 pm, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
I think Hans the problem here is that you are using the same document
to prove that he was both married to a Countess of "Loretto" (not
Lorraine) and also that Hawise de Newmarch survived to 1284.  I don't
think we can do that.

Will,

I'm not making assumptions on the subject Loretto-Lorraine.
Peter Stewart was quite clear in his contributions.
I noticed an item in a contribution of DR (!!!! I know) from
16-12-2004:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 5f2366eee2

Cal. Close Rolls, 1272-1279 (pub. 1900):
pg. 450: Date: 12 Apr. 1278
To Ralph de Sandwyco, the king's steward. Order to cause Contissa,
countess of Lorett[o], wife of Roger de Cliff[ord], to have twelve
oaks
for timber, of the king's gift."

pg. 518: Date: 8 Jan. 1279
To John son of Philip, keeper of the forest of Kynefar. Order
to cause Contesse Loretti, wife of Roger de Clifford, to have in that
forest for ten oak-trunks for fuel, of the king's gift.

Therefore I concluded that Roger II was married before 12-4-1278 to
the unknown
countess. This N. complained in 1290 and went abroad in 1293. Everyone
seems
in agreement that she died in 1301 and was burried in England.

Hans Vogels

The document only refers to her as "Comtessa" the widow of Roger
Clifford.

All other additions are interpolations which the document itself does
not support.

We simply do not know who she was, except that she was the last wife
of some Roger Clifford who we are assuming must be the one who died
14E1 (ish).  There are guesses, but we have nothing firm.

Will Johnson- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

[wjhonson]

I'm saying that in your re-construction you have Hawise de Newmarch
living until 1284. I don't think that's a well-founded statement. It
might be an assumption, but I'd like to see her name writen out as
"Hawise" or some variant in an original document sometime after this
CPR entry.

[Merilyn Pedrick]

Peter Stewart wrote:

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Merilyn Pedrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Could we please clarify the various Roger de Cliffords please?

I have Walter II de Clifford 1140-1221 whose wife was Agnes de Condet
whose
son was Roger de Clifford, died Dec 1231.

This Roger I have married to Sybilla de Ewyas.

Their son Roger II de Clifford I have married to Matilda de Courtenay,
and
their son Roger III de Clifford I have married to Isabel de Vipont.

Am I missing a Roger? Or a wife?

A wife, I think - I know nothing about this family from my own research,
but there is no Matilda de Courtenay in _The House of Clifford from Before
the Conquest_ by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. Roger II of Tenbury was
reportedly married first to Hawise, the widow of John Boterell, and
secondly to the mysterious "countess of Loret" discussed here before. The
archive should provide details if he had a third wife who has escaped me,
whether a Matilda and/or a Courtenay or not.


My memory has just ticked over - this Matilda de Courtenay is just a guess
at identifying the "countess of Loret", and not a good one at that.

The problem has been discussed before. Matilda was the daughter & heiress of
Raoul de Courtenay, seigneur of Lorant & count of Chieti (hence the attempt
to force her into being "countess of Loret") by Alix de Montfort, countess
of Bigorre. However, this Matilda de Courtenay's life is well known - she
died in Naples in or after May 1303 and was buried there, not at all the
same woman as the "countess of Loret" who died in 1301 and was buried in
Worcester.

Peter Stewart

Thankyou Peter Stewart and Will Johnson. I've been trying to reply to you both but my e-mail programme keeps crashing, so I've just changed to another programme, and hopefully this will work without crashing.
I can now see where my mistake lies.
Peter, you pointed out in August last year, a conversation in Google Groups http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... f5f1bc70be between you and DR, where he asserted that Matilda de Courtenay was the Matilda who had married Roger II de Clifford.
I then found I had a separate Maud (Matilda)died 1238,who had married Hughes VI de Gournay. And then in Genealogics I see that it was this Matilda who had also married Roger II de Clifford.
It would now be nice to find out who Matilda was.
Best wishes
Merilyn

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Volucris]

On 15 feb, 23:32, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm saying that in your re-construction you have Hawise de Newmarch
living until 1284.  I don't think that's a well-founded statement.  It
might be an assumption, but I'd like to see her name writen out as
"Hawise" or some variant in an original document sometime after this
CPR entry.

Will,

I have been reading en rereading my contibution but only now I see
were you got that idea from.
Not on an assumption of mine but on the limitations of the format of
the genealogical scheme.

I'll present my overview in a different way:

Roger II de Clifford (in c 1230 eldest son of sir Roger I)
+ after 26-10-1284 (testament)
Lord of Mapledurham 1255
x (1) c 1230
Hawise de Newmarch (in c 1230 widow of John Boterel)
x (2) aft. 1238
Maud N. (in 1238 widow of Hugh de Gourney)
or c 1255
Maud dr. of Hugh de Gourney), born 1238/39
x (3) < 1278
N. countess of Loret, + 1301

Roger III de Clifford
+ 6-11-1282 drowned
x c 1269
Isabel de Vipont, lady of Appleby,
dr. of Robert II de Vipont & Isabel Fitz John,
c 1254 - + 14-5-1292

Robert de Clifford
born c 1-4-1274
died 24-6-1314
Lord Appleby
x 1295
Maud de Clare, dr. of Thomas
born c 1279
died 1324/25

Note:
Is there factual evidence - besides the narrative from the Clifford
book - that Roger II Clifford was married to a Maud?
I don't have the book at my disposal, only the posts of past and
recent contributors on the Clifford-subject.
That people mention a Maud as a wive, and others repeat and repeat,
does not need to mean that the primary mentioning was not mere than a
assumption.

Hans Vogels

[Volucris]

Small adjustment

On 16 feb, 09:35, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

Roger II de Clifford (in c 1230 eldest son of sir Roger I)
+ after 26-10-1284 (testament)
Lord of Mapledurham 1255
[snip

x (3) < 1278
N. countess of Loret, + 1301

It seems that < 1278 becomes 1272/3.

Hans Vogels

Nieuwsgroepen: soc.genealogy.medieval
Van: WJhonson <[email protected]>
Datum: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:52:45 -0700
Lokaal: ma 6 aug 2007 21:52
Onderwerp: Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Thank you Spencer for the reference to CP III, pg 290 "Clifford"
The part relevant to the querent's original query appears there in
footnote c, part of which I quote:

"...This last named Roger's wife is described on the Fine Rolls as
"Comitissa de Lerett", and as "Countess of Lauretania" by Dugdale, who
quote's Glover's Collections to the effect that he had married her at
"St George in France in 1 Edw 1" VG


Now 1E1 would be 1272/3
[snip]
Will Johnson

[Volucris]

On 16 feb, 09:35, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

On 15 feb, 23:32, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm saying that in your re-construction you have Hawise de Newmarch
living until 1284.  I don't think that's a well-founded statement.  It
might be an assumption, but I'd like to see her name writen out as
"Hawise" or some variant in an original document sometime after this
Viva Google

It seems that we may question the marriage between Roger II Clifford
and Hawise de Newmarch.
I notice a post of John P. Ravilious from Sunday, 28 September, 2003

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... d5d602d1ff

Hawise de Newmarch married:
1. John Boterel (+ before 1230)
2. Nicholas de Moels of Cadbury (+ after 1263)

She had children by Nicholas de Moels.
The proposed marriage in c 1230 with Roger II, the eldest son of sir
Roger I Clifford must have been cancelled.

Hans Vogels

[snip]

I'll present my overview in a different way:

Roger II de Clifford (in c 1230 eldest son of sir Roger I)
+ after 26-10-1284 (testament)
Lord of Mapledurham 1255
x (1) c 1230
Hawise de Newmarch (in c 1230 widow of John Boterel)
x (2) aft. 1238
Maud N. (in 1238 widow of Hugh de Gourney)
or c 1255
Maud dr. of Hugh de Gourney), born 1238/39
x (3) < 1278
N. countess of Loret, + 1301
[snip]

[Volucris]

Viva Google (reprise).

Another post from John P. Ravilious from Friday, 28 February, 2003.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 223b56cee8

1.1a.2.1.1.1.1b.1 Roger de Clifford
----------------------------------------
Death: 1285
baron of Clifford, co. Hereford,
Justice of the Forest south of Trent, 1265 [3]

Spouse: Matilda [8]
Marr: bef 1243 [7]

Children: Roger (-1282)

7. Douglas Richardson, " Further evidence re. Maud, lst wife of Roger
de
Clifford," March 22, 2002, cites
David J.H. Clifford, "The Mapledurham Connection", The
Genealogists'
Magazine, Sept 1990 (vol 23, no. 7), also Curia Regis Rolls, vol.
18
(1999), pp. 79, 217.
8. "The Early History of Mapledurham," Alfred Hands Cooke, M.A.,
Sc.D.,
Oxfordshire Record Society, Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society,
1925,
*orig. cite by Timothy Powys-Lybbe, [email protected]
[[email protected]], p. 11 cited by T. Powys-Lybbe (re:
Hugh V
de Gournay).

As the proposed marriage of Roger II Clifford and Hawise de Newmarket
in c 1230 was cancelled, and Rogers first marriage must have been
before 1243 with a Mathilda, this Mathilda can not be a 1238/39 born
daughter of Hugh de Gournay (+ 1238) by his wife/widow Maud.

Hans Vogels



On 16 feb, 09:35, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]

Roger II de Clifford (in c 1230 eldest son of sir Roger I)
+ after 26-10-1284 (testament)
Lord of Mapledurham 1255
x (1) c 1230
Hawise de Newmarch (in c 1230 widow of John Boterel)
x (2) aft. 1238
Maud N. (in 1238 widow of Hugh de Gourney)
or c 1255
Maud dr. of Hugh de Gourney), born 1238/39
x (3) < 1278
N. countess of Loret, + 1301

Roger III de Clifford
+ 6-11-1282 drowned
x  c 1269
Isabel de Vipont, lady of Appleby,
dr. of  Robert II de Vipont & Isabel Fitz John,
c 1254 - + 14-5-1292

Is there factual evidence - besides the narrative from the Clifford
book - that Roger II Clifford was married to a Maud?
I don't have the book at my disposal, only the posts of past and
recent contributors on the Clifford-subject.
That people mention a Maud as a wive, and others repeat and repeat,
does not need to mean that the primary mentioning was not mere than a
assumption.

Hans Vogels

[Douglas Richardson]

Although it is true that the younger Roger de Clifford had the
marriage of Hawise de Newmarch, then a widow, granted to him in 1230,
he never married her.

Rather, contemporary primary records show that Hawise de Newmarch
married (1st) John de Botreaux, and (2nd) Nicholas de Moels. By her
second marriage, Hawise de Newmarch was the mother of several Moels
chldren, incuding James, Roger, Knt., Agnes (wife of William de
Brewes), and apparently Maud (wife of Richard de Lorty). The second
son, Sir Roger de Moels, of Cadbury, Somerset, was the father of John
de Moels, 1st Lord Moels.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants that descend from Hawise de Newmarch and
her 2nd husband, Nicholas de Moels. The list excludes any possible
Lorty descendants.

William Asfordby, John Baynard, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen,
George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert
Brent, Charles Calvert, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, William Farrer, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Percival Lowell,
Anne, Elizabeth, & John Mansfield, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley, Herbert
Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Edward Raynsford, William Skepper,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, John
West, Thomas Wingfield, Thomas Yale, George Yate.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Volucris]

So?

Nothing new.
For interest's sake this was brought to our attention by John P.
Ravilious from Sunday, 28 September, 2003; KRothi Thursday 14
Februari; me today Saturday 16 February, to name a few. There are
undoubtly more contributers who have mentioned it before in another
context.

Best today,
Hans Vogels



On 16 feb, 17:04, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

Although it is true that the younger Roger de Clifford had the
marriage of Hawise de Newmarch, then a widow, granted to him in 1230,
he never married her.

Rather, contemporary primary records show that Hawise de Newmarch
married (1st) John de Botreaux, and (2nd) Nicholas de Moels.  By her
second marriage, Hawise de Newmarch was the mother of several Moels
chldren, incuding James, Roger, Knt., Agnes (wife of William de
Brewes), and apparently Maud (wife of Richard de Lorty).   The second
son, Sir Roger de Moels, of Cadbury, Somerset, was the father of John
de Moels, 1st Lord Moels.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants that descend from Hawise de Newmarch and
her 2nd husband, Nicholas de Moels.  The list excludes any possible
Lorty descendants.

William Asfordby, John Baynard, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen,
George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert
Brent, Charles Calvert, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine
Deighton, William Farrer, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Percival Lowell,
Anne, Elizabeth, & John Mansfield, John Nelson, Thomas Owsley, Herbert
Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Edward Raynsford, William Skepper,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, John
West, Thomas Wingfield, Thomas Yale, George Yate.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 15, 12:53 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

< I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
< generations might be as follows:
<
< - Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
< - sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x < 13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
< - Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow
of
< John Boterel)
< - Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
< countess of Loret + 1301
< Lord of Mapledurham
<
< Hans Vogels

The false marriage of Roger de Clifford and Hawise de Newmarch (as
shown in Hans' post above) is an old error which keeps cropping up. I
don't blame Hans for getting it wrong.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Volucris]

So?

See my post of 10:21 'Viva Google', were I corrected an earlier
assumption of mine based on the info presented in this string
and those of
John P. Ravilious from Sunday, 28 September, 2003 and
KRothi Thursday 14 Februari (first contribution in this string).

Here in Europe it is getting dark but you seem to have problems waking
up.

Best today
Hans Vogels

On 16 feb, 18:54, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 15, 12:53 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
- sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x <  13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
- Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow
of
John Boterel)
- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
  Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels

The false marriage of Roger de Clifford and Hawise de Newmarch (as
shown in Hans' post above) is an old error which keeps cropping up.  I
don't blame Hans for getting it wrong.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 15, 12:53 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:

- Walter II de Clifford (1140-1221) x Agnes de Condet
- sir Roger de Clifford, + dec 1231 x < 13 Feb 1217 Sibyl de Ewyas
- Roger de Clifford (eldest son) x (1230) Hawise de Newmarch (widow
of
John Boterel)
- Roger de Clifford x 1255 Maud de Gourney (1238/9 ->), x (2) N.
countess of Loret + 1301
Lord of Mapledurham

Hans Vogels

It's o.k., Hans. We all make mkstakes.

DR

On Feb 16, 11:33 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

So?

See my post of 10:21 'Viva Google', were I corrected an earlier
assumption of mine based on the info presented in this string
and those of
John P. Ravilious from Sunday, 28 September, 2003 and
KRothi Thursday 14 Februari (first contribution in this string).

Here in Europe it is getting dark but you seem to have problems waking
up.

Best today
Hans Vogels

On 16 feb, 18:54, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

[Volucris]

On 16 feb, 20:20, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 15, 12:53 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:
[snip]
HansVogels

It's o.k.,Hans.  We all make mkstakes.

DR

This is
a. not funny if my mastership of the English Language translates this
as a patronising way of trying to have the last word and implying that
I made a mistake. If you read the posts of this string chronologically
you will notice that I made a summary of the known and previously
presented facts. This diagram was followed up with an addition and
with a self found correction. So where is the mistake?
Misinterpretation is a terminology that is often associated with you.
b. actually quite funny coming from your mouth. Sorry I was to hasty,
or sorry I made a mistake are not found in your contributions. That's
one of the reasons why hardly anyone on this newsgroup takes you
serious anymore.

I see that you dropped the 'Best always'. A quite sensible thing to do
if you ask me.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

On Feb 16, 11:33 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:



So?

See my post of 10:21 'Viva Google', were I corrected an earlier
assumption of mine based on the info presented in this string
and those of
John P. Ravilious from Sunday, 28 September, 2003 and
KRothi Thursday 14 Februari (first contribution in this string).

Here in Europe it is getting dark but you seem to have problems waking
up.

Best today
HansVogels

On 16 feb, 18:54, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

[Gjest]

On Feb 18, 7:04 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

On 16 feb, 20:20, Douglas Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Feb 15, 12:53 am, Volucris <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not into the Clifford's but from this string of info, the
generations might be as follows:
[snip]
HansVogels

It's o.k.,Hans.  We all make mkstakes.

DR

This is
a. not funny if my mastership of the English Language translates this
as a patronising way of trying to have the last word and implying that
I made a mistake. If you read the posts of this string chronologically
you will notice that I made a summary of the known and previously
presented facts. This diagram was followed up with an addition and
with a self found correction. So where is the mistake?
Misinterpretation is a terminology that is often associated with you.
b. actually quite funny coming from your mouth. Sorry I was to hasty,
or sorry I made a mistake are not found in your contributions. That's
one of the reasons why hardly anyone on this newsgroup takes you
serious anymore.

Hans

God only knows why it persists in doing this. The rest of this can
follow the thread and see what happened. Its determination to lie and
to irritate just confirm that it has become a troll. Probably the
best thing for it.

Regards, Michael